Non omnia grandior setas
Quae fugiannis habet.



Conodovre Hundred.

IN treating of the Domesday Hundred of Conodovre I must take one exception to the letter of the Record. Two Manors, Cantelop and Lege, held by Normannus under Earl Roger, are mentioned consecutively, and both are apparently assigned to Conodovre Hundred. [1] As regards Cantlop there can be no doubt that this arrangement was correct; but it is probable that the Domesday Scribe omitted to give in the margin the proper Hundred of Lege. I have pointed out under Albrighton that the ordinary succession to Normannus Venator was in the family of Pichford. [2] This consideration suggests that Norman's Manor of Lege was the Manor now known as Lee-Brockhurst. Lee-Brockhurst certainly descended to the Pichfords, and unless it be identical with the Lege held by Normannus, it has no Domesday representative at all. When I come to Lee-Brockhurst I shall strengthen my argument by showing that Norman Venator's interest in that quarter is established by evidence independent of Domesday. At present it is sufficient to have determined that his Manor of Lege must not be looked for in Condover Hundred. With this exception, the annexed Table adheres to the letter of Domesday. One or two questions of identity I leave to be discussed under the Manors themselves.

When the Hundreds of Shropshire were re-arranged in the time of Henry I, that of Conodovre remained intact, except that one Manor, Ratlinghope, and with it perhaps Overs, were annexed to Purslow Hundred. Thus things continued till nearly the close of the twelfth centtuy. Further changes took place both then and in the thirteenth century; and all changes, of whatever date, have been in the way of diminution. The general result is that the modern Hundred of Condover contains nothing which was not contained in the Domesday Hundred, but, at the same time, it is

[1] Domesday, fo. 269, a, 1.
[2] Supra, Vol. II, pp. 149, 150.


[For table, see Conodovre]


eleven Manors short of its ancient complement. These losses I now enumerate.

1. Buildwas became extra-hundredal in the twelfth century by reason of the state and privileges of the Cistercian Abbey there founded. When such mmunities were swept away by the Dissolution, the Manor was restored to its primitive Hundred, but annexed to Bradford South.

2. Litlega (now Lydley Heys) was made extra-hundredal by the Franchise of the Knights Templars, its possessors. When re-subjected to a Hundredal status, it was annexed to Munslow,- an arrangement probably suggested by its historical affinity with Cardington.

3. 4. Hughley and Wigwig were detached from Condover Hundred in conformity with the privileges granted by Richard I to Wenlock Priory. They still remain in the Franchise of Wenlock.

5. Ratlinghope was annexed in the time of Henry I to Purslow Hundred. It was afterwards made extra-hundredal by the Charter


which Henry III granted to Wigmore Abbey. It has, since the Dissolution, been re-annexed to Purslow Hundred.

6. Overs, being in the parish of Ratlinghope, has apparently followed it into Purslow Hundred.

7. Edbaldinesham (now Edgebold) was detached from Condover Hundred under the construction put by Roger de Mortimer on the Charter which he obtained from Henry III after the Battle of Evesham. This place has since been annexed to the Liberties of Shrewsbury.

8. Sheinton, another of Mortimer's Manors, was similarly separated from Condover Hundred in the time of Henry III. When Mortimer's Franchise was abolished, Sheinton seems to have been disposed of according to to a most fantastic rule of official routine. Because forsooth it had been a reputed member of Cleobury Mortimer, it was, like Cleobury Mortimer, annexed to the distant Hundred of Stottesden. I understand that this anomaly has lately been rectified, and that Sheinton, in conformity with


common sense and with Domesday, again stands in its ancient Hundred of Condover.

9. Polelie (now Pulley) was a divided Manor at Domesday. It is easy to see how Mortimer's share thereof, having first been extra-hundredal, fell afterwards, like Edgebold, to the growing Liberties of Shrewsbury. It is not so easy to determine why the other share (Teodulf's) should have been severed from Condover Hundred. It became a Serjeantry, and so a Tenure-in-capite; but which of our Kings permitted its annexation to the Borough Liberties I cannot discover.

10. Welbatch by some unknown but very imaginable process has been annexed to the Liberties of Shrewsbury.

11. Womerton, probably as having been sometime an Escheat of the Crown, was annexed to the Royal Manor of Church Stretton. It is now, like Church Stretton, in Munslow Hundred.

Enough has now been said on Condover Hundred as a territory. I proceed to add a few notices of the Hundred Court or Jurisdiction,- its Proprietors, its Officers, and its value. In Edward the Confessor's time two-thirds of the profits of this Hundred-Court belonged to the King, as Lord of the Manor of Condover: the third penny, as it was called, probably belonged to the cotemporary Earl of Mercia; but this fact, not recorded in Domesday, rests on the analogy of Morville and such other Royal Manors as were Heads of Hundreds. At Domesday Earl Roger de Montgomery had the whole profits of Condover Hundred, a circumstance illustrative of his Palatine dignity,- his combination of the prerogatives both of King and Earl. Earl Roger was moreover Seigneural Lord of every Manor within the Hundred, except five at most. Of these two were Ralph de Mortimer's, two the Bishop of Chester's, and one belonged to the Shrewsbury Church of St. Chad, but under whom it was held is not quite clear. [3]

It is worth a passing notice, how nearly the 96 hides which Domesday assigns to this Hundred, approximate to the hundred hides which some authorities deem to have been the original essence of the district called a Hundred. When we consider that Domesday does not record the hidage of a part of the Manor of Lege (now Longnor), this approximation is still nearer.

On the forfeiture of the Norman Earls, Condover Hundred was retained by the Crown. Its revenues from the reign of Henry II

[3] This was Little Eaton, near Pitchford,- a Manor now lost. The question of its tenure I reserve till we come to the place itself.


to that of Edward I constituted some unknown part of that annual ferm of 265. 15s., for which the Sheriff was responsible at the Exchequer. The Sheriff in turn underlet this and other Hundreds to certain Fermors or Bailiffs at as high a rent as he could obtain, while the efforts of these Officers to realize a profit, produced all those cruelties and extortions which we hear of in the Hundred-Rolls of 1255 and 1274.

At the Assizes of 1203, five cases of murder and two breaches of the King's Peace were alleged by the jurors of this Hundred. In no instance do the charges appear to have been groundless, and the outlawry of the accused had resulted in the majority of cases. At the Assizes of 1221 I count no less than twelve murders or homicides recorded for this district. Two of the victims had perhaps fallen in some foray, for the murderers were Welshmen unknown.

In the Inquisition of 1255 it is stated that the Sheriff of Shropshire received 12 marks from the Hundred of Condover, that is, the Fermor of that period paid him so much. [4] At the Assizes of 1256 the Hundred appeared as usual by its twelve Jurors, but the name of the Fermor or Chief-Bailiff is not given. At the Assizes of 1272 William de Munslow appears in that capacity. The Jurors reported the then value of the Hundred to be 7 merks. This decrease was probably in consequence of the number of Manors which had withdrawn their Suit from the Sheriff's Tourn. Besides certain legal withdrawals, already enumerated, the Vills of Acton Burnell, Acton Pigot, Langley, Belswardine, Church Preen, and Holt Preen are mentioned as arrogating this immunity.

In 1274, the value of this Hundred to the Crown is put at 6 merks. The Inquest charges the withdrawal of the Suits of Belswardine, Sheinton, Great Preen, and Little Preen on Richard King of Almagne;- the accuracy of which statement I shall discuss hereafter. The successive Officers of the Hundred are charged with acts of extortion and wrong, being in each instance called Beadles or Sub-beadles, that is, I think, Deputies of the cotemporary Bailiff. Roger Howe, John le Rotur, and Henry de Astone seem to have been in office together as Beadles of this Hundred, but at what period previous to 1274 does not appear. John de la Hull and William de Baschurch, the Beadles of 1272-3, were recent and notorious oppressors. William de Munslow is noticed as a venal officer, but his actual position as Bailiff of the Hundred is not specified. [5]

[4] Rot. Hundred. II, 63.
[5] Rot. Hundred. II, 91, 92.


At the Assizes of 1292, Roger de Frodesley appeared as Chief-Bailiff of Condover Hundred, which was again valued at 6 merks per annum. Among the Vills which no longer did suit to the Sheriff's Tourn, we have not only Belswardine, Acton Burnel, and Acton Pigot, but Betton, Strange, Alvithele, and Alvythemere. It is singular that we should thus hear of the two last-named places, for where they were, or what was their status, I shall find it difficult to show with any certainty.


AMONG the Shropshire tributaries of the Severn, the stream which traverses the Manor of Condover is not the least. The stream and river unite indeed more than four miles to the East of this Village; but, though their confluence is thus distant, it furnishes us with the etymological origin of the name Condover. The village of Cound, which stands much nearer to the point of junction, is probably a very ancient settlement, for it is nothing else than the Celtic word Cond, signifying an embouchure. [1] The meaning of these primitive names was unknown to the Saxons, who consequently designated some later foundations by titles altogether inept. We have already had a probable instance of this in the case of Ludford. [2] Another is now before us. The Saxons, on their arrival, found a place called Cound, or Conede. They established another place higher up the same stream, and called it Conedovre, that is, Over-Conede, or Upper Cound. This they did, not knowing, or forgetting, that the word Conede, or Cound, was proper only to a place situated at the disemboguement of some stream.

Condover was in Saxon times a Manor of Royal demesne, and Caput of the Hundred to which it gave a name. The first Norman Earl of Shrewsbury retained more than half the Manor in demesne, and was also sole Lord of the Hundred,- as we learn from the following passage in Domesday:-

"The Earl himself holds Conendovre. King Edward held it. To this Manor appertain ten Berewicks. Here XIII hides are subject

[1] See Hartshorne's Salopia Antiqua, pp. 91, 92.
[2] Supra, Vol. V, p. 238.


to Geld. In demesne there are seven hides, and thereon are IIII ox-teams; and XII Villains, and a Priest, with VII ox-teams; and still there might be III additional teams thereon. Here are VIII Neat-herds, and a Mill of 8s. 6d. (annual value)".

"Two (out of every three) pence (arising) from the Hundred of Conendoure used to belong to this Manor. In King Edward's time the Manor yielded 10. (per annum). Now, together with the Hundred, it yields 10".

"Of the land of this Manor Roger Venator holds I hide, Osbern I hide, and Eluuard IIII hides. Thereon is one team; and IIII Villains, II Boors, III Radmans, and II Neat-herds have, among them all, III ox-teams; and still there might be VIII teams more (on this portion). The whole (of this portion) is worth 41s. (per annum)". [3]

Earl Roger then, it seems, had given three feoffments in his Manor of Condover. Only one of these, viz. that of Roger Venator, had any permanence. I shall show, under Great-Lyth, that the Barons of Pulverbatch (Roger Venator's descendants) retained an interest in Condover Manor till the thirteenth century. Osbern, the Domesday-Tenant of one hide in Condover, was probably identical with Osbern fitz Richard, Baron of Richard's Castle. We have seen that in respect of other tenures under the Earl, Domesday designates this great Feudatory by his simple name Osbern; we have also seen that in two instances (Brockton and Ryton) his interests descended not to his successors. [4] Analogy justifies us in assuming that his share of Condover was similarly re-annexed to the Palatine demesne. As to Elward's greater share of the Manor, that, with Elward's other Domesday estates, undoubtedly reverted to the Crown, and probably by forfeiture. King Henry I, when he constituted the Honour of Montgomery, annexed most of Elward's lands thereto, but it seems that the King retained the four Condover hides in his own demesne.

On the whole, then, it is probable that, whether by forfeiture of the Norman Earls, or by other acts of resumption, Henry I. was seized in demesne of the whole Manor of Condover, except the Tenement of Roger Venator. We know little comparatively of this great King's daily movements or local predilections. That little must therefore be taken as the more largely significant. If from scanty Records we find that the King visited Condover thrice, or,

[3] Domesday, fo. 253, a, 2.
[4] Supra, Vol. II, p. 62.


at least, twice in his reign, we may well imagine that it was a favourite residence. In the year 1121-2, or else in 1126-7, the King is known to have been at Norton. A Precept which issued on that occasion has been already set forth in these pages. [5] It was attested singly by Bernard, Bishop of St. David's. I have identified the place at which this Precept passed with Norton, near Condover, not from any mistaken idea that the latter Norton was a member of Condover, and so a part of the Royal demesne, but because of another and very similar precept, which passed either in 1115-6, or else between 1121 and 1123, and which I now proceed to quote:-

"Henry King of England, to Richard Bishop of London, and to all Sheriffs in whose Bailiwicks the Abbot of Shrewsbury holdeth lands etc.,- greeting. I enjoin that Godefrid Abbot of Shrewsbury hold his lands and all his effects in peace and quietude, and that he do not plead concerning any land, or Church, or Prebend, or any other thing which Abbot Fulchered, his antecessor, may have held on the day of his death, nor give answer to any one touching the same, except in my presence (coram me). Witnesses,- Richard Bishop of London, Bernard Bishop of St. Davids, Robert Bishop of Chester, and Hamo Peverel, at Conedover". [6]

The materials from which I infer that Henry I was at Condover, once, if not twice, at a much later period of his reign, have already been given, [7] and the Charter which then passed the Great Seal shall be more fully set forth under Brompton.

The question whether Henry I granted any feoffment in Condover, is one for future consideration. The Manor reached the hands of Henry II as one of ancient demesne, whose proportionate value in the Firma Comitatus was 12. 13s. per annum. A small grant of land made by Henry II in Condover did not affect this arrangement. The Sheriffs' accounts during his reign and the reigns of his two sons, Richard and John, imply that the fiscal value of the Manor remained unabated by any grant, small or great. Before I proceed with other details, it will be better that I should speak on the subject of-

TALLAGES,- as levied upon Condover and other Manors of Royal Demesne, for the use of Henry II and his three successors.

I have already given the Tallages of Shrewsbury and Bridgnorth, [8] as well as those of Claverley, Worfield, and Nordley Regis

[5] Supra, Vol. I, p. 34.
[6] Salop Chartulary, No. 43, c.
[7] Supra, Vol. I, p. 247.
[8] Supra, Vol. I, pp. 295-297.


during the period in question. [9] I here add, in a tabular form, the Tallages of seven other Royal Manors and one Royal Borough, leaving all account of the irregularities with which the impost was levied till I come to the places specially concerned.


[For table, see pdf.]

The mode in which Royal Manors were managed by the successive Sheriffs or Fermors, the wasted state in which they were occasionally found, and the process of restocking them,- these are matters in which Condover was affected, like other Manors of the same class. Enough has been said on this subject under Claverley. [10]

[9] Supra, Vol. III, pp. 65,66.
[10] This Levy is entitled a Donum Burgorum.
[11] This was the Auxilium ad maritandam filiam Regis.
[12] This Levy is entitled an Assisa per Dominica Regis.
[13] This is called an Auxilium Burgorum et Villarum.
[14] This is called a Tallagium Dominacorum Regis.
[15] This was probably assessed for King Richard's Redemption.
[16] This was to maintain 500 common soldiers.
[17] This Tallage appears to have been assessed ouly on Shrewsbury, Brug, and Claverley.
[18] Probably an arrear of some previous Tallage.
[19] Supra, Vol. III, pp. 67-69.


Early in the reign of Henry III the history of Condover, becomes associated with more important events. That Prince, from the day of his succession till the eighth year of his reign, had found in his Brother-in-law, Lewellyn, little else than an open enemy or a troublesome neighbour. I refer elsewhere for a general account of the grievances, suffered or alleged by either party, and the diplomacy which perpetuated rather than settled the contest. [20] Some further particulars I supply from original Records. On the 19th of September, 1224, King Henry was at Worcester. He was there visited by the Welsh Princess Joan, the wife of Lewellyn, and his own half sister. What transpired we know not. The King passed on to Kidderminster, Bridgnorth, and Shrewsbury. From the latter place, on September 24th, he issued a Writ to the Barons of the Exchequer, ordering them to give credit in the accounts of the Sheriffs of Shropshire for a sum of 8. 7s. 4d., which the said Sheriff had expended by the King's command in the accommodation of the Welsh Princess when journeying from Wales to Worcester. [21] The Pipe-Roll of the following Michaelmas shows that the Sheriff charged this exact sum against the Crown, and that it was allowed. The following year (1225) passed away in vain negotiations between Henry and Lewellyn, but a Patent, dated at Worcester on July 28, 1226, ensures safe conduct for the King's "beloved Brother Lewellyn, Prince of North Wales", who with his Wife and Son were appointed to meet the King in conference at Shrewsbury. The parties met and the result was a peaceful one. On the 29th of August, the King, being at Shrewsbury, informs the Sheriff of Shropshire that "he has committed to his beloved sister Joan, wife of his faithful and beloved Lewellyn, the Royal Manor of Cunedour, to be held by the said Joan so long as the King shall please". The existing Autumnal crops and the rents due at the coming Michaelmas the King reserves. [21] It will be seen by the foregoing Table that Condover was exempted from the Tallage of 1227. The King relinquished his right, and in lieu thereof the Sheriffs of Shropshire and Leicestershire were ordered to assess a reasonable and moderate Aid on the Manors of Condover and Ralegh, which Aid the King had conceded for the uses of his Sister the wife of Lewellyn. [22] In October of the same year the King's Justices visited Shrewsbury and amerced Lewellyn, Prince of North Wales, in the heavy sum of 50 merks. This was for some unspecified act of disseizin. Such penalties, whether

[20] History of Shrewsbury, Vol. I, p. 96, et seq.
[21] Claus. I, 647, b. Claus. II, 135.
[22] Claus. II, 176. Patent. 11 Hen. III.


imposed on a Welsh Prince or an English Baron, were seldom paid; but the infliction of this one shows how Henry's officers affected to treat Lewellyn as an ordinary subject. On May 16, 1228, Condover was again in the King's hands. A Writ-Close to the Sheriff of Shropshire, adverts to the fact of this resumption, but orders that Joan, wife of Lewellyn, shall be allowed to remove all cattle (averia) which she had on the premises. [23] Other writs, dated at Hereford, on the 13th and 15th of August following, assure a safe-conduct for the Princess, who was proposing to come and confer with the King at Shrewsbury. [24] The King was at Shrewsbury on the 29th and 30th, but I find no indication that his Sister met him. The following month (September) presents Lewellyn in open rebellion. He had laid siege to Montgomery Castle, then held by Hubert de Burgh, the King's Justiciar. Henry raised the siege in person. The campaign of Keri, which followed, was a balance of petty successes on either side, and ended ostensibly in a pacification. A Patent of September 3, 1229, introduces a new person on the stage. David, son of Lewellyn, is coming to do homage to the English King at Windsor, and he and his Sister, who accompanies him, are ensured a safe-conduct. Another Patent of October 3rd, certifies that the act of homage had been rendered. The King, in return, presents his beloved Nephew with an annuity of 40., soon to be commuted for a feoffment of 40 Librates of land, in case the King gave up his then proposed transfretation; otherwise the lands should be conveyed as soon as the King returned to England. Condover had at this time been restored to the Princess Joan: in fact, the Pipe-Rolls take no notice of the temporary forfeiture of 1228. At Michaelmas 1229, the Sheriff acquits himself of two sums of 12. 13s. each, being the fiscal or reputed revenue of the Manor of Condover for the years ending Michaelmas 1228 and Michaelmas 1229. This fiscal value had been, as usual, determined by Inquest, but why the Sheriff did not take a similar credit for the year ending Michaelmas 1227, I cannot discover. Joan's tenure of the Manor is carefully noted on the Pipe-Roll as being limited by the Royal pleasure and as being De baillivo Regis, a term which I shall have to notice hereafter. To continue;- the Tallage of 1230 is seen, by the foregoing Table, not to have been assessed upon Condover. The Manor was still in the hands of the Princess Joan, and the Sheriff, as usual, discharges his Michaelmas

[23] [24] Rot. Claus. and Rot. Patent. 12 Hen. III.


account of 12. 13s. thus appropriated. This arrangement apparently continued up to Easter 1231; for, at Michaelmas of that year, the Sheriff speaks of Joan's Tenure of Condover in the preterite tense, and assigns her only 6. 6s. 6d. or one-half of the current year's revenue. Another entry on the same Roll implies that the Sheriff himself was responsible for certain issues of the Manors of Condover and Ellesmere since they had been seized into the King's hand. Ellesmere, I should observe, had been held by Lewellyn up to a recent period, under the English Crown. The year of which I am speaking (1231) was undoubtedly one of open hostility between England and Wales. It was the year in which Lewellyn devastated the Marches from Brecknockshire to Montgomery, and in which King Henry prosecuted the campaign of Elvein with circumstances of no ordinary ferocity. The connection between Condover and the history of Wales ends here, but I have been careful to mark the period of the Princess Joan's Tenure of the Manor for a particular reason. She held it till Easter 1231, that is, for a year after the time (April 1280) when Lewellyn is said to have detected her in an adulterous intercourse with William de Braose, an English Noble. That Lewellyn put Braose to death, is on all hands confessed; but that the act led to no immediate rupture between Henry III and his Sister Joan, is now apparent. Why the King of England thus temporized, is a question not easy to answer. Had he any secret understanding with his Sister? Was her unfaithfulness to Lewellyn of a political character, and not that frightful episode of domestic crime which I have already questioned as so improbable? [25] The statement of the Welsh Chronicler, that the Princess Joan survived till the year 1237, and was buried by Lewellyn with circumstances of honourable distinction, is as yet uncontradicted, and should have its weight in clearing her name of all suspicion.

Condover continued in the King's hands for seven years after the resumption of 1231. During that period, viz. in October 1235, the King ordered that Survey of the Shropshire Forests which has been already quoted more than once. The Visors reported, inter alia, on the state of the Bosc of Buriwude, which was appurtenant to the Manor of Condover. They found it "much wasted from the time at which the Manor was in the hands of the wife of Lewellyn.

[25] Supra, Vol. IV, p. 215, note 84; where I quoted M. Paris as stating that the Princess Joan (as well as Braose) was executed by Lewellyn. This was a mere error, a misinterpretation of the passage in question.


That Lady's Bailiffs had sold on one occasion 500 oak-trees from the wood, besides making other wastes. Moreover the trees had been stript of their branches on occasion of the war". Here the Record which I am quoting becomes defaced, but enough is legible to show that a scarcity of forage had necessitated this destruction of the oak-trees of Buriwude. This allusion I have no hesitation in ascribing to the war of 1234, commonly known as the war of Richard Marescall. Matthew Paris describes how the Earl Marshall leagued with Lewellyn devastated Shropshire to the very gates of Shrewsbury, and actually asserts that they burnt the town itself. [26] The incursion was in January, and so does not immediately account for the devastation of the summer foliage of Buriwude; but the scarcity which resulted in Shropshire throughout the year is matter of record, and this Forest-Survey perhaps supplies us with one instance of that consequent desolation.

In 1235 Condover was assessed to a King's Tallage, but on June 11, 1238, the King gave Condover and five other Manors to Henry de Hastings and Ada his wife, in lieu of the said Ada's share of the inheritance of John Scot, late Earl of Chester, of whom she was Sister and coheir. [27] I have related under Worfield how this grant took effect from March 1238. [28] At Michaelmas 1242 the Sheriff deducts 56. 18s. 6d. from his own liabilities at the Exchequer, in respect of Cunedour, four and a half years' revenue of which Manor had now accrued to Henry de Hastings. From this period the history of the Seigneural Lords of Condover is as that of Worfield, except in the few particulars which I proceed to note. The King's Tallages were suspended; but a Writ of 1246 allows Henry de Hastings to appropriate the Tallage of that year wising from Condover. After the death of Henry de Hastings in 1250, and during the minority of his Son, Condover fell into the King's custody. About Easter 1252 it was entrusted to Guy de Rochfort (Rupe-forti) as Fermor thereof. The annual rent payable by him to the Crown was 20. 13s. 9d. At Michaelmas 1254 he accounts through the Sheriff for 51. 14s. 5d., or 2 years' arrears of this Ferm. The Inquisitions of 1255 found the Manor of Condover still in the same state. "Gwido de Rocheford", says one Inquest, "holds the Manor of Coned' by reason of the custody of Henry, heir of Sir Henry de Hastinges, which (custody) he (Rocheford) has by authority of the King. The Manor indeed was once the King's, and

[26] See History of Shrewsbury, I, 111, for the probable meaning of this assertion.
[27] Patent. 22 Hen. III, m. 4. [28} Supra, Vol. III, pp. 107, 108.


was afterwards given to Sir Henry de Hastinges in exchange for lands in the parts of Cheshire". [29] So far said the Jurors of the Hundred. The Jurors of the Manor itself said that the Manor was extended or valued at 21. per annum, by which they meant, not its reputed fiscal value (which was still 12. 13s.), but its actual income as ascertained more recently. Guy de Rochford's ferm of 20. 13s. 9d. added to the valuation of two small tenements (3s. 4d. and 4s. per annum) give a result rather higher than the alleged Extent. These Jurors mentioned a local feature of some interest. The Extent or gross value of 21. was inclusive of a sum of 2a., the reputed value of the Vivary of Bulemar'; [30] now known as Bomer Pool. I have alluded under Worfield to the Escheator's receipts from the forfeited Manors of Henry de Hastings. The issues of Condover from Feb. 2, 1266 to Feb. 4, 1268 were 34. 4s. Meanwhile Roger le Strange was entitled to the Fine payable by Henry de Hastings for the redemption of his lands under the Dictum de Kenilworth. A Patent of July 13, 1267 (which I have quoted under Worfield) was followed by another of September 23rd, to the same effect, viz. that Henry de Hastings should have no seizin of Condover, Worfield, and Wolverhampton till he had satisfied Roger le Strange in the matter of redemption. On the death of Henry de Hastings (about 1268), Condover, like Worfield, was for a time in the hands of Edmund Plantagenet, Earl of Cornwall. The Inquisition of the Manor, taken in November 1274, alludes to this circumstance quite incidentally. [31] Meantime, that is in 1269, we find Condover to have been once more assessed to a King's Tallage, an intimation that the rights of any Fermor or Custos of an escheated Manor did not exclude this recurrent interference of the Crown.

In October 1283 an Extent or Valuation of the Manor of Condover was taken, by order of King Edward I, for some unspecified purpose. The Jurors who officiated were Nicholas de Felton, Roger de Chilton, John de Byrinton, Thomas Marscot, William Selimon, Adam fitz Margaret, Henry de Wesselegh, John de Pulilegh, William de Fulewode, William de Lak, John Champneys, and William de Preston. They said that Condover was held de dominico Regis. Seventy-eight acres of arable and 4 acres of meadow land were in demesne. The capital messuage was estimated to be worth 6d. per annum (net value). All the Tenants of the central Manor (that is, of Condover itself as distinct from its members) were Sokemen.

[29] [30] Rot. Hundred. II, 63, 64.
[31] Rot. Hundred. II, 93.


They held six virgates in Soccage, and paid rents amounting to 2. 9s. 6d. Four Tenants of assailed lands paid 1s. 11d. rent. The Fishery of Bolemere was valued at 2s. per annum. The Pleas of Court were worth 1. 6s. 8d. The net value of the Manor and its Members (hereafter to be noticed) was 15. 1a. 6d. The Jurors remembered how King Henry III had had the Manor in hand under the Dictum de Kenilworth, and, according to their statement, it was Homo le Strange who primarily had custody thereof by grant of that King. [32] The next feature in the history of this Manor is its transfer by John de Hastings to Robert Burnell, Bishop of Bath and Wells. The Deed of Conveyance exists only in an abridged form. Thereby "John de Hastings grants to the said Bishop his Manors of Condover and Wolverhampton, the Bishop giving in exchange the Manor and Advowson of Woton near Northampton". The Deed is dated in 12 Edward I (1283-4), and is attested by William de Stapleton, Adam de Lacy, Robert de Stapleton, and John de Lee, Knights;- also by William Burnell, Richard Burnell, Engelard de Poliley, and Randulph de Harpcote. [33]

An Inquest taken in Condover Wood on May 7, 1292, found that the Crown would not suffer material injury by a project of Bishop Burnell's;- viz. to enclose and cultivate 200 acres of his own Bosc of Condover. There were oak-trees only growing there, and no underwood. The King would lose any fines which might be inflicted for vert, and any profits of impounding goats and swine in the fence-month. Other parties having common-rights would be left with a sufficiency in the rest of the Bosc. [34]

The Inquisition taken in December 1292, on the death of Bishop Burnell, says that he had held Conedovere in capite, but by what services the Jurors knew not. The Assized Rents of the Manor were 14. 5s. 11d. The Pleas and Perquisites of Court were 1. A Bosc, which was common to the whole Manor, both during the Mast season and at other times, only yielded 1s. to the Lord of the Manor. [35]

The Inquisition taken in July 1294, on the death of Philip Burnel, states him to have held the Manor of Conedovre in capite, by service of finding 12 foot-soldiers for the Army of Wales. [36]

Another Inquisition as to the Tenures of Philip Burnel was taken under Writ of Certiorari, on Feb. 10, 1301. The Jurors

[32] Inquisitions, 11 Edw. I, No. 57.
[33] Harleian MSS. 1982, fo. 51, b.
[34] Inquisitions, 20 Edw. I, No. 55. [35]Inquisitions, 21 Edw. I, No. 60.
[36] Inquisitions, 22 Edw. I, No. 45, c.


said of Condover, that it was held in Socage of the King, and that its annual value was 19. Gunceline de Badlesmere was now in possession, pending the minority of Philip Burnel's heir. [37] I have alluded, under Rushbury, to an Inquisition ordered 10th July, 1302, as to the waste alleged to have been committed in certain estates of the Burnels by Gunceline de Badlesmere, then deceased. [38] The inquiry extended to Condover, Langley, and Corfton, but with the same result as at Rushbury.

In 1 Edw. II (1307-8) Edward Burnell, son and heir of Philip Burnell, grants to Richard the Clerk, son of Master Ranulph de Hoghton, all the land of his waste of Byriwode in his Manor of Condover, to make assart of. And if Cottars were admitted, or Cottages built, on that land, each Cottar should pay the Grantor 2d. per annum and do suit to his Court of Condover. The Grantee was to pay a rent of 25s., and the Grantor retained the usual rights of wardship and marriage, when such should arise. Witnesses,- Sir Fulco le Strange, Richard de Harley, Roger Corbet Lord of Hadley, John le Strange of Ercall, John du Lee, Knights; Thomas de Withinton, Roger de Smethcote, Philip de Polyleye, John de Byriton, William de Acton. [39]

An Inquisition, taken Oct. 25, 1315, said that Edward Burnell, deceased, had held the Manor of Condover of the King, and of the Honour of Montgomery, without render of any service. The gross income of the Manor was estimated as 21. 14s. 10d. [40] The Return of March 1316, known as the Nomina Villarum, gives Alina Burnel (she was Edward Burnel's widow) as Lady of Conedovere. [41]

Having thus far treated of the Seignoral Lords of Condover, I now turn to speak of the Manor as an Independent Liberty, that is, as governed by its own community, though it happened also to be the Caput of a Hundred. Herein I shall include whatever has to be said of-

UNDER-TENANTS in the general Manor, leaving those, whose Tenures are associated with any distinct Member of the Manor, for a more appropriate notice under the places of their presumed residence.

In 1167 Alan de Nevill inflicted an amercement of one merk upon Condover, that is, I suppose, upon the community thereof.

[37] Inquisitions, 28 Edw. I, No. 24.
[38] Supra, Vol. IV, p. 97.
[39] Blakeway's MSS. The Deed had a seal of arms;- five spread-eagles, three and two.
[40] Inquisitions, 9 Edw. II, No. 67.
[41] Parliamentary Writs, IV, 398.


In 1202 the Tithing (Thedinga) [42] of Cunedour was amerced one merk for some withdrawal (quia retraxit). By the word Tithing I here understand the Manor as distinct from the Hundred. At the Assizes of October 1203 the Manor of Condover was represented as an independent jurisdiction, but a space left on the Roll for a statement of its concerns was not filled up, either because they occurred incidentally in other parts of the Roll, or because they were entered on some other Schedule, now lost. At the Forest Assizes of March 1209, Robert, Provost of Cunedour; was assessed for an imbladement. At the General Assizes of November 1221, the Villata of Cunedour appeared by its Provost and six Jurors, but no presentments specially affecting the Manor, as distinct from the Hundred, were made. In 1231 Samson de Cunedour, as Surety for some one unnamed, was fined 3s. by Justices of the Forest. Next year Richard fitz Eldith of Cunedour appears on a similar list.

In 1250 Geoffrey de Langley fixed arrentations on several persons in respect of parcels of Forest-land occupied by them in Condover and Ryton. A rood was thus assessed in the name of Nicholas Clerk, two acres in the name of William de Batton (Ryton), three acres in the name of * * * de Cunedovere, and three-quarters of an acre in that of Geoffrey Mal.

In 1255 separate Inquests were made as to the Manor and Hundred of Condover. Among the seven Jurors who reported on the Manor, I here notice Walter Pik, Nicholas de la Stiwele, and Elyas de Cunedovere. To a question as to whether the Free Tenants and other men of the Manor gave due attendance to Summonses in general, or to the Summons now in force, the Jurors answered affirmatively, explaining that the community never put in an appearance, or an answer, save through six men and a Provost. To most of the questions propounded, their answers were still more laconic, and so convey little information beyond a general notion of the independence of the Manor. [43] The Jurors of the Hundred, on the same occasion, reported how the men of Condover Manor and the men of Chattefort had rescued things taken in distress by the Bailiffs of Robert de Grendon, then Sheriff. [43]

At the Assizes of January 1256 the Manor appeared by its six Jurors, among whom were Richard Champiun, Geoffrey de Buton,

[42] A Tithing, in Saxon times, was a section of a Hundred.
[43] Rot. Hundred. II, 63, 64.


Walter Pack, and Elias de Cunedovere. At the Forest Assizes of February 1262, on the List entitled Essonia Mortis, appear the names of William de Burton, Roger Bolemer, Walter Champiun, and William fitz Simon of Condover. Elias de Cunedoure was Essoignor of the first.

At the Assizes of September 1272, John de Prestcote, Bailiff of the Abbey Foregate, was also Bailiff for the Manor of Condover, whilst Roger the Provost and Elias de Conedovere are named as Electors of ten other Jurors, who appeared with them for this Manor. Among the ten are Adam Faber, William Bulloc, William fitz Hugh, William Binte, Nicholas Chese, Adam Hare, Roger Bulloc, Roger Gamel, and Nicholas Pyk. In November 1274, eleven Jurors reported on the state of this Manor. Nicholas de Botiton, Richard Colvox, Nicholas Pick of Ryton, John Methe of Ryton, William Bulloc, Richard Botte of Condover, Nicholas Young (Juvenis), Adam Faber, and William fitz Reginald of Chatteford were of the number. They complained of the unjust and arbitrary distraints levied on the men of Condover by John de la Hulle and William de Bassechirch, who "were Bailiffs of Condover with William Francis". [44] By this they meant the Hundred of Condover, of which the said Officers are elsewhere spoken of as Bailiffs or Beadles.

At the Assizes of 1292, Thomas de Walecote appeared as Chief Bailiff for this Manor: Roger and William Bullok chose ten other Jurors, among whom were Richard de Haldenelde, William Clerk, and Richard de Chatteforde.


I will name twelve places, ten of which I think may have been the Berewicks of Condover alluded to in Domesday. They are Dorrington, Chatford, Great Lyth, Little Lyth, Great Ryton, Little Ryton, Westley, Wheathall, Gonsall, The Sytch, Allfield, and Burwood. Of some of these I now propose to take distinct notice.

DORRINGTON.- The Chief Forestership of Shropshire was an Office which I believe to have been founded and endowed by Henry I. He gave it, too, as I suppose, to Ulger the Hunter, of whom I have spoken under Bridgnorth, [45] and whose descendants for many generations held the Office and were resident at Great Bolas. Among other estates given to this family was half a virgate in Dorrington. In the thirteenth century it was stated by Inquest that the ancestors of the then Chief Forester had this half-virgate

[44] Rot. Hundred. II, 92, 93.
[45] Supra, Vol. I, p. 866.


by gift of the old King Henry (Regis Henrici veteris), from which I infer that Henry I was the Grantor and Ulger Venator the Grantee. Robert fitz William, Ulger Venator's grandson, was Forester of Bolas at the commencement of the thirteenth century. A list of Shropshire Serjeantries, drawn up about that period, intimates that Reginald de Dodinton was his Tenant of half a virgate in Dodinton, the value of which was 40d. per annum. [46] In succession to Reginald de Dodinton came Robert Champneys, whose son and heir, William, was usually called William Champneys of Dorrington, to distinguish him from a cotemporary of the same name who was resident at Wilderley. William Champneys of Dorrington acquired a small estate at Cothercote by marrying Alice, daughter of Baldwin de Cothercote. This estate he afterwards sold to his brother-in-law, Roger de Cothercote. [47] At the Inquests of 1255 the Jurors of both Condover Hundred and Condover Manor reported the particulars of William Champeneys' tenure of half a virgate of land under John fitz Hugh, then Chief Forester of Shropshire. The Tenant's obligation was to take charge of the Cover of Stepelwood, a part of the Royal Forests. He seems also to have paid a rent to John fitz Hugh, viz, twenty discos and four ciphos, by which I understand dishes and cups. His duty is otherwise stated to have been the custody of Vert and Venison from The Quake - Wendebruge to Egeforde. His land was stated to be valued at 40d. per annum. [48] William Champeneys himself was one of the Jurors for the hundred. An Inquest taken in March 1262 was attended by William Champeneis as a Forester-of-the fee. In April 1264 I find him Juror in an Inquest taken at Langley, and from that time till 1285 he is a frequent witness of local Deeds. In December of the latter year he appears, as a Forester of Shropshire, investigating a matter connected with the Haye of Shirlot, [49] and in May 1292 as a Forester on a Condover Inquest. Nothing later can I find referable to this family or Tenure.

Other notices of this Vill or its inhabitants are as follows.- At the Assizes of 1203, it is entered under Condover Hundred that Jagow de Tang was a fugitive, for the murder of Richard de Dunninton. At the Forest Assizes of March 1209 the Vills

[46] Testa de Nevill, p. 61, b.
[47] Powys Ledger, (in possession of W.W. How, Esq.), pp. 97, 100.
[48] Rot. Hundred. II, 63. Heury le Palmer and Samme are also stated to hold a half-virgate in Condover in the same way as William Champeneys, aud by gift of Henry I. I cannot identify this tenement.
[49] Inquisitions, 13 Edw. I, No. 104.


of Dodinton, Ruiton (Ryton), Wethale (Wheathall), and Weseleg (Westley) were assessed for imbladements, as being within Regard of the Long Forest. In 1250, Geoffrey de Langley set an arrentation on three-quarters of an acre, tilled by Nicholas, son of Nicholas de Dodington. This or another Nicholas de Dodinton sat as a Juror for Condover Manor at the Assizes of 1256, 1272, and 1292. At the Forest Assizes of 1262 William de la Hull of Doditon was assessed under Regard of the Long Forest. At the Inquest of Condover Manor in 1274 Adam de Dodinton was a Juror. By Fine levied at Salop, in November 1277, William Dun of Eton, and Margaret his wife (Impedients), for themselves and the heirs of Margaret, acknowledge their gift of a messuage and Bovate in Derigton, to Hugh, son of Hugh del Hulle (Plaintiff); the latter to pay a rose-rent, and to discharge all capital services. Twelve merks were given for this. According to the Extent of 1283, nine virgates in Dodinton yielded 61s. rent to the Lords of Condover. At the Assizes of 1292 Richard de Doditon was a Juror for Condover Manor.

There are many indistinctive notices of other persons named from, or connected with, some Dorrington, Ditton, or Donington in Shropshire. These I must omit altogether, for where nine or ten places are concerned, the chances against a conjectural allocation are formidable.

GREAT LYTH.- When we see Earl Hugh de Montgomery granting two-thirds of the Tithes of his Demesne of Lia to Shrewsbury Abbey, it is possible that a part of his Condover Demesnes was intended. [50] It is further remarkable that a Confirmation by Richard Peche, Bishop of Lichfield (1161-1182) to the said Abbey, speaks of the Monks being entitled to two-thirds of the Demesne-tithes of Lithe. [51] I know of no Lithe in Lichfield Diocese, which can be here intended, unless it be the locality before us. However, it is clear that the whole of Great Lyth can never have been in Earl Hugh's Demesne, for here or hereabouts was that hide of land which Domesday tells us to have been held by Roger Venator in Condover Manor. This Tenement, as I have already said, would in the ordinary course of succession be found to have gone from Roger Venator to the Barons of Pulverbatch. [52] We shall presently find sure indications of such a result. In the twelfth

[50] Salop Chartulary, No. 3. The alternative that Lye, near Morville, was the locality concerned has been already suggested (Vol. I, p. 70).
[51] Salop Chartulary, No. 329.
[52] Supra, p. 9.


century the Lords of Pulverbatch seem to have had as their Tenant here, one Walter fitz John, who, being also Lord of Waters Upton, is occasionally called Walter de Upton. All that I shall say here of Walter fitz John is, that he attests a Charter of the first William fitz Alan which probably passed between 1155 and 1158, that he was living in October 1200, but dead in April 1201. His son, usually called William fitz Walter, was perhaps identical with one William de Lia, who in May 1200 occurs as a Recognizor in a Lawsuit concerning Harnage. I have shown in a former Volume how William fitz Walter, in the year 1203, quit-claimed one moiety of Great Lyth, viz. half a hide there, held of the Barony of Pulverbatch, to Robert de Gatacre. [53] I think that this Tenure may account for John de Gatacre appearing as a Juror for Condover Hundred at the Assizes of 1256. At all events we are sure from what I have said under Gatacre that an estate at Great Lyth remained with the Gatacres in the fourteenth century. [54]

I have now to show that, notwithstanding his surrender to Robert de Gatacre, William fitz Walter retained an interest in Great Lyth (probably the other moiety thereof), and transmitted the same to his Son, Walter fitz William. The first dated notice that I have of Walter fitz William is his appearance as Walter de Upton on a great Inquest taken in August 1226 concerning the Stiperstones Forest. In November 1227 we find Walter fitz William not only a declared Tenant in the Manor of Pulverbatch, but joining with others in a claim upon the whole Manor against Hugh de Kilpec, its hereditary Lord. The Fine which conveys this information I will give at length under Pulverbatch. At or about this very time, I find that Walter de Upton gave to Shrewsbury Abbey two-thirds of the tithes of all meadows of his demesne in the Vill of Lya. [55] I look upon this grant as supplementary, that is, as intended to increase or to complete the Abbey's previous right of tithes in Great Lyth. This matter of Tithes introduces another family to our notice, Tenants, I think, of Walter de Upton and his Father in Great Lyth, and probably having other relations to the Lords of Pulverbatch. A Deed of Emma de Pulverbatch (the last possessor of that Barony before it went to collateral heirs), has the attestation of Martin fitz William. The Deed passed between 1189 and 1193, as I shall show under Pulverbatch. Martin fitz William was Father of several sons, one of whom,

[53] [54] Supra, Vol. III, pp. 88, 90.
[55] Salop Chartulary, No. 123.- Attested by Robert de Stepelton, Henry Bozard, and Master Stephen de Franketon.


William fitz Martin, had property in the Abbey-Foregate of Shrewsbury, and occurs in several transactions with the Abbey. Among other things, he executes a Deed which I look upon as a sort of pendant to Walter de Upton's Deed above quoted. "With consent of his wife Joniana he gives to Shrewsbury Abbey two parts of the tithe of his meadow in Fulcheye, which meadow was of the demesne of Walter de Hupton in the vill of Lya". [56] Next in order of time comes a Fine dated at Shrewsbury, Nov. 23, 1236. Thereby Johanna, widow of William fitz Martin (Plaintiff) quit-claims to Odo de Hodenet (Tenant), five nokes of land and one acre of meadow in Magna Lya, whereof had been Suit-at-Law. Odo de Hodenet gave 100s. for this Quit-claim. I shall in due course show that Odo de Hodnet was a Tenant elsewhere of the Barons of Pulverbatch.

The following Fine, levied in January 1278, relates to another tenure here. Thereby William le Clerk of Acton and Isabella his wife (Impedients) surrender to William de Lake and Isolda his wife (Plaintiffs) a messuage and half-virgate in Magna Lythe as the right of Isolda by their own gift; to hold to William and the heirs of Isolda at a rent of one Rose payable to the Grantors and the heirs of Isabella, and by performing all capital services. For this a Sore Sparrow-hawk is said to be given.

William de Lake as well as William Clerk of Acton frequently occur in the cotemporary affairs of this neighbourhood. The former is found on local Juries in 1283, 1284, 1286, 1290, and 1292.

LITTLE LYTH.- Under this head I will give some extracts, one or two of which possibly refer to Undertenants in Great Lyth, for the two places are not always distinguished.

In 1200 Hugh de Nevill, Justice of the Forest, amerced Nicholas de Lya half a merk for Vert. In 1228, Philip de Leie was amerced for some default as a Surety. In 1231, John de Parva Lya was amerced half a merk for trespass. In 1250, Geoffrey de Langley set an arrentation of 2s. 3d. on John de la Lithe for 2 acres of forest-land stated to be in La Lithe. He also set an arrentation of 2s. 10d. on John Balle for 3 acres and a third of an acre stated to be in Pulverbatch. Three years' arrears of each of these rents are charged on the Pipe-Roll of 1254. These entries are connected with a tale of injury characteristic of the times. The

[56] Salop Chartulary, No. 119.- Attested by Robert de Stepelton, Henry Boscard, and Walter de Hupton himself.


Pipe-Roll of 1259 states that John de la Lythe owed 72s. for arrears of assart-rents and for an additional amercement with which he had been visited. His Sureties were Robert de Gateford and Roger le Champyun. The Pipe-Roll of 1261 shows that John de la Lithe and John Balle were one person, and that the Barons of the Exchequer had, by order of the King, directed an Inquisition to be held as to the sums with which he was charged. It turned out that the lands described above, as 3 acres and a third of an acre in Pulverbatch, were altogether imaginary and non-existent, that the man's real tenure was 1 and a third acres, being that which had been increased to 2 acres in the Roll of 1254. The reason of all this injustice was that John Balle, alias De la Lithe, had had a quarrel with Richard de Middelhope, a person much employed in Forest matters at the time (1250) when Geoffrey de Langley visited Shropshire: and so the said Richard had used his official intercourse with Geoffrey de Langley for the purpose of procuring John Balle's land to be assessed with a plurality of arrentations. [57]

In 1267 I find William Underhul and John Barel of La Lye amerced 6s. 8d. for not producing one for whom they were Sureties. At the Assizes of 1272 William Balle of La Lye appears on the Jury for Condover Hundred. The Inquest of 1274 shows that in one instance a provincial officer had seized on a horse worth 20s., belonging to William Balle of Le Lithe. In another instance he had been fined 4s. 7d. on some unintelligible pretext, and had been imprisoned. [58]

GREAT AND LITTLE RYTON.- William de Rutton and Geoffrey Mal, already named as Condover Tenants in 1250, had their holdings in one of these Vills. At the Inquisition of 1255 Geoffrey de Ritton and John Mal of Ritton appeared as Jurors for Condover Manor. Those Tenants of Condover, whose names are variously written as Pik, Pach, or Pyk, appear to have been of Ryton. The Extent of 1283 gives 4 virgates in Great Ryton and 4 virgates in Little Ryton as yielding rents of 28s. and 27s. 4d. to the Lords of Condover. At the Assizes of 1292 Nicholas, John, and Henry de Ruton were all Jurors for Condover Manor, and William de Ruton appears as a Juror at Sheinton in June 1294, and at Little Buildwas in December 1302.

WESTLEY.- Alric Sprencheaux, living in the time of Henry II, is

[57] "Et propter contentionem inter Ricardum de Middelhop et dictum Johannem, Ricardus procuravit versus Galfridum de Langel' quad terra Johannis fuit pluries arentata".
[58] Rot. Hundred. II, 92.


in one instance called Alric de Longenalra. This was because he was Lord of Longnor, a Manor adjoining to Condover, and which was held by the male line of Sprencheaux for several generations. Our present concern with this family is to state in limine that Alric Sprencheaux as well as his son and heir Roger Sprencheaux (I) occur more than once as Eylric and Roger de Wesseleg, i.e. Westley. This was because of some interest which they had at Westley, and I cannot but associate that interest with a grant recorded to have been "made by a King of England to Eylric Sprenghose". The said grant was a Mill and half a virgate of land in the Manor of Condover. The King who made it was doubtless Henry II, and a chief-rent of 20s. per annum was reserved to the Crown. Of this land and Mill, Eylric Sprenghose was seized at his death, which seems to have taken place about 1170-5. His son Roger Sprenghose (I) succeeded, and held both land and Mill for life. [59] He died, as I know from good authority, in or shortly before the year 1221. His son, Roger Sprenghose (II) entered upon both land and Mill. He was however disseized of the Mill by Lewellyn, to whom Henry III had granted the Manor of Condover. This then was between the years 1226 and 1231. When in the latter year Henry III reseized the Manor, Roger Sprenghose did not therefore recover the Mill. Henry de Hastings became Lord of Condover. He died in 1250 leaving his son, a Minor in ward to the Crown. Still Sprenghose's Mill was unrestored, but the Inquest of Condover Hundred in 1255 distinctly notes how Roger Sprenthose was holding half a virgate of land within the once Royal Manor of Condover, though the Jurors were ignorant of his Title. [59] On the death of Henry de Hastings (II), in or about 1268, Condover was again in the King's hand as before explained. Then at last Sir Roger Sprenghose (III) procured a King's Writ and an Inquest and so recovered the Mill. He was holding both the Mill and half-virgate in November 1274, and paying the King a rent of 20s. for the same. [59]

At this time Sir Roger Sprenghose (III) had made a further acquisition in Condover Manor at a place called The Hoo. Thomas Hancoc (in one instance called Subescheator of the King, in another called Seneschal of Condover) had set out 2 acres of land which Sir Roger had assarted, and for which he was in 1274 "paying a rent of 1s. to the Lord Edmund", [59] that is, as I have already explained, to Edmund Plantagenet, Earl of Cornwall. The

[59] Rot. Hundred. II, 63, 91, 93.


Extent of Condover Manor, taken in 1283, values Roger Sprenghose's Water-Mill at 4. per annum, though he paid a rent of only 1. for the same. The Jurors remembered how he had recovered the said Mill after long disseizin, by a Writ of King Henry III, and by an Inquest, taken while Hamo le Strange was Custos of the Manor. The assorted lands, which Roger Sprenghose had, are said in this Extent to have been leased to him by the Bailiffs of the Lord Henry of Almagne, a mistake, I presume, for Edmund Plantagenet, son of Richard, King of Almagne. Of this family of Sprencheaux I shall speak more fully in their greater position as Lords of Longnor. I now add one or two further particulars about Westley.

In 1231 Henry de Wesseleg accounts half a merk to the Sheriff of Shropshire, due from him as a surety in some Forest-Plea. In April 1264 John de Wesley occurs on a local Jury. Henry de Wesseleye was on a local Inquest in 1283, and a Juror for Condover Hundred at the Assizes of 1272 and 1292, as also on the Inquest taken, in December of the last named year, as to the estates of Bishop Burnell deceased.

Other Inquests of the same year give us Roger de Wesseleye, John de Wesseleye, and John son of Robert de Wesseleye, as Jurors.

WHEATHALL.- Roger de Whethal was a Juror for Condover Manor at the Inquest of 1255; so were William and Nicholas de Wetal at the Assizes of 1292. The Extent of 1283 gives two virgates in Wethale as yielding 13s. 4d. rent to the Lords of Condover.

GONSAL, formerly GOOSE-HILL.- Geoffrey de Gosenhul was a Juror for Condover Manor at the Inquest of 1255 and the Assizes of 1256. At the Forest Assizes of 1262, Geoffrey Gret is on the list entitled Essonia Mortis, Rener de Gosenhull being Essoignor. Roger de Gesenhul was a Juror for Condover Manor at the Inquest of 1274.

CHATFORD.- According to the Extent of 1283, this member of Condover yielded 16s. 4d. rent to the Lords of the Manor, viz. for 2 virgates of land and an assart.

ALLFIELD.- The same Survey names Aldefeld as a member of Condover. The Lords of the Manor had 16s. 11d. rent from 2 virgates there.


This was one of those great Parish-Churches whose once Collegiate character bespoke its Saxon origin, but the extent of whose


Parish can only be determined partially and incidentally. The establishment was known in Saxon times as the "Church of Saint Andrew". It is strange that the Domesday notice of the Manor of Condover indicates nothing more of this Foundation than is implied by the mention of one resident Priest. Another passage of Domesday is however more instructive. We are told, under Berrington, that "Thoret, the Saxon Lord of that Manor, held half a hide therein of the Church of Saint Andrew by (a certain) service". Part then of the Glebe of Condover Church lay in another Manor and Parish; for Berrington, no less than Condover, seems to have had a Saxon Church.

Within eight years after Domesday we have an authentic statement as to the Church of Chonedoura, as it is called. Earl Roger de Montgomery, gave it to Shrewsbury Abbey with all things appertaining to it. [60] The Confirmations of King William (probably William Rufus) and King Henry I, recite and allow Earl Roger's grant of Condover Church, but neither of them specify the implied addition of half a hide in Berrington. This omission is corrected in the Charters of Stephen, Henry II, and Henry III, which all three mention the said appurtenance of Condover Church.

Among the Episcopal Confirmations to Shrewsbury Abbey we have that of Roger de Clinton, Bishop of Chester, confirming the Church of Conedovere, with its Chapels, and with a pension of 18s.; that of Bishop Walter Durent, confirming the same Church with its Tithes and Chapels; and that of Bishop Richard Peche, confirming the Pension of 18s. During the time of Bishop Peche (1161-1182), and probably in the last ten years of his Episcopacy, the two Chapels (or the united Chapelry) of Lee Botwood and Bechcote were appropriated to Haughmond Abbey. It appears that these Chapels were affiliations of Condover Church, for the consent of all the Portioners of Condover is alleged by the Bishop as concurrent with his license of appropriation. The Portioners were apparently three in number. Their Christian names, Bartholomew, John, and Thomas, appear in the testing-clause of the Bishop's Charter. [61]

It is observable that Archbishop Peckham's Confirmation to Shrewsbury Abbey, which passed in August 1280, mentions the Pension receivable from Condover Church as 18s. [62] In 1291 however, Pope Nicholas's Taxation, after valuing the Church of Conedovere, in the Deanery of Salop, at 23. 6s. 8d., adds that the Abbot

[60] Salop Chartulary, No. 2.
[61] Haughmond Chartulary: Tit. Leebotwode.
[62] Harl. MSS. 3868, fo. 8.


of Shrewsbury received 1. therefrom. [63] At this time there were, I think, only two Portionists or Rectors of Condover, and both were presented by Shrewsbury Abbey. These Rectories were, according to the nefarious system of the period, destined soon to become the divided spoil of the Bishop of Lichfield and the Abbot of Shrewsbury. The Monks obtained a Charter of Appropriation from Bishop Walter de Langton. The Deed was dated July 9, 1315. It recited a previous Deed, dated June 15, 1315, whereby William, Abbot of Shrewsbury, and his convent, had submitted Condover Church to the Ordination of the Bishop. It commended the alms-giving and hospitality of the Abbey, and alluded to a requisition in its favour which the Bishop had received from King Edward II. Then, with consent of his Chapter of Lichfield, the Bishop concedes and appropriates the Church of Condover to the Abbey, saving however the life-interests of the existing Portioners (Henry de Lichfield and Thomas de Charnes); that is, the Appropriation was not to take effect till they were deceased. Meantime each of the said Portioners consented to pay 2s. per annum to the Abbey nomine personatus. The Deed reserved to whoever should be Bishop of Lichfield when these Prebends became vacant, a power of fixing the Taxation of Condover Vicarage, that is, of allotting a competent provision for the future Vicar, who was to be presented by Shrewsbury Abbey. Lastly the Abbot was, out of the appropriate funds, to pay an annual pension of eleven merks to the Cathedral Church of Lichfield. Five merks of this sum were to increase the emoluments of the Canons of Lichfield, and six merks. were to go to the support of a Chaplain or Chantry Priest, who should say masses in Lichfield Cathedral for the souls of Edward I, of Bishop Langton, and his Predecessors and Successors. [64] July 19, 1324, the last Portioner of Condover was dead, and Bishop Roger de Northburgh proceeded in due Canonical form to give effect to the unrighteous scheme of his Predecessor. His Charter, entitled Ordinacio Vicaria de Conedovere, recites much of Langton's Deed of Appropriation as I have above set it forth. It then announces the decease of the last Rectors of Condover; and states that it has been found by Inquest that the fruits and profits of the Church in question amount to 53. 14s. 8d. [65] per annum, that is to say;- the tithes of corn and hay, with the annual rents receivable by one Portioner, were, together with his Manse, worth 33. 14s. 8d., while the small tithes, oblations, and

[63] Pope Nich. Taxation, p. 247, b.
[64] Dukes's Transcripts (in Bibl. Bodl.).
[65] The total is 6s. 8d. less than its constituents. I cannot explain this.


other profits, receivable by the other Portioner, were, together with his Manse, worth 20. 6s. 8d. The Bishop now ordains,- that the future Vicar shall have the Houses (domos) late inhabited by Thomas de Charnes, a Portioner, together with the Manse, Close, Curtilages, and other appendages thereof, and with free ingress and egress; that the Monks shall make good all deficiencies of the said buildings at their own expense, rendering them complete with a hall, two chambers, a cellar, a kitchen, a stable, a brew-house, and other buildings proportionate to the estate of a Vicarage. The Vicar was to receive the lesser tithes, the oblations, the mortuaries, the tithes of curtilages, whatever they were, and all other obventions of every kind belonging to the Church, it being defined that lesser tithes were all tithes except the tithes of corn and hay. These last, together with the annual rent, the suits of Court, and all other receipts from the Tenants of the Church, were appropriated to the Abbey of Shrewsbury. However, the Vicar was to have the hay-tithes of Dodyngton (Dorrington), and the grass in Condover Churchyard. The Vicar was to bear all ordinary burdens lying on the Church, except the Pension of eleven merks due to Lichfield Cathedral, which was to be discharged by the Abbey. When the time came for so doing, the Monks were to build [66] the Chancel of the Church, and always repair and maintain the same at their own cost. As to extraordinary and prospective burdens, such, when they arose, were to be borne, two-thirds by the Monks, and one-third by the Vicar. Lastly the Bishop reserves a power to himself and his Successors of altering or interpreting the premises in any way which might thereafter appear expedient. [67]

In 1341 the Assessors of the Ninth, quoting the Church Taxation of Condover as 23. 6s. 8d. (which was 1. less than the actual Taxation), rated the Parish at 16. 13s. 4d. The reasons for the decrease were because the Glebe, the rents, small tithes, oblations, and hay-tithes were worth 7. per annum, and so the Ninth of wheat, wool, and lamb was unequal to a Church-Taxation comprehending those receipts; also the corn-crops were deficient in the current year. [68]

At this time a Chantry, called the Condover Chantry, had been founded in Lichfield Cathedral and endowed with that Pension of 11 merks which the Impropriators of Condover Church were bound

[66] I suppose the Chancel was much dilapidated. However, the Chancel now existing contains work older than Bishop Northburgh's era.
[67] Regist. Northburgh, fo. 201, b.
[68] Inquisitiones Nonaram, p. 183.


[For engraving, see pdf.]


to pay to the Bishop. It was founded "for the souls of King Henry III and King Edward I, and the souls of Bishops Langton and Northburg, their predecessors and successors". On July 30, 1342, Bishop Northburg, this Chantry being vacant, collates William de Eccleshale, Clerk, to the same; but, on August 16 following, Eccleshale exchanges this preferment for the Church of Craunford (London Diocese), and Bishop Northburg collates John de Bolemere, Priest, to the Condover Chantry. [69]

In 1534 the Preferment of William Baton, Vicar of Condover, was put at 5. 13s. 4d., out of which he paid 13s. 4d. yearly for Procurations, and 6d. for Synodals. [70] The Abbot of Shrewsbury's Receipts from temporalities in Condover and Bourton were 7. 10s. 11d., which probably included the ancient Glebe of Condover Church. The Rectorial tithes of Condover, as fermed under the Abbot, realized 27. 6s. 8d. [70] A Portion, as it is called, of some other tithes in Condover Parish was receivable by the Abbot, and valued at 6s. Among his outgoings was the Pension of 11 merks (7. 6s. 8d.) payable to the Dean and Chapter of Lichfield out of Condover Church. [70] On September 29, 1536, Thomas, Abbot of Shrewsbury, and his Convent, leased the Parsonage and Tithes of Condover to one Thomas Glover, which Lease was renewed on May 4, 1542, for a term of 41 years, to commence on Feb. 2, 1543, the reserved rent being 27. 6s. 8d. [71] The Ministers' Accounts of the Estates of Shrewsbury Abbey vary very slightly from the Valor. Under the head of Condover alone, we have assized rents, rents of customary tenants and tenants-at-will, and Diverse Ferms, amounting to 7. 11s. 1d., while the Ferm of the Rectory is put at 27. 12s. 8d.


WILLIAM DE WESENHAM, Rector of one Portion in this Church, was deceased on Feb. 28, 1299, when Bishop Langton, addressing his Official, orders him to admit and induct-

THOMAS DE CHARNES, Subdeacon, to this Portion, if the said Official should find the counter-claim of one John de Shelton thereto not to have any weight. Charnes, it appears, had been

[69] Regist. Northburg, fos. 170, b, and 171.
[70] Valor Ecclesiasticus, III, 184, 189, 190.
[71] Blakeway's MSS. The date (1642) is probably erroneous, for Shrewsbury Abbey was dissolved early in 1540.


presented by the Abbot and Convent of Shrewsbury, but Shelton claimed the Preferment under pretext of a Papal provision, which made it the duty of Bishop Langton, or of the Abbot of Shrewsbury, to find him some preferment. In the Summer of the same year (1299) Bishop Langton writes to Thomas de Charneles (as he is here called) and tells him to meet the Bishop at York to confer about his still disputed Title. The Bishop seems to have held that his obligation to Shelton would be discharged if he obliged the Abbot of Shrewsbury to provide the said Shelton with an annual pension of 40s. or at least 20s. However, by a subsequent Precept, Bishop Langton orders Thomas de Charneles to provide for his opponent (Shelton) an annual pension of 10. I find that Charnes was instituted at York, but not before January 31, 1300. In December 1300 and February 1310 he has licenses for two years' study, being at the latter period in Priest's Orders. [72] He was the last Rector of his Portion, and was deceased, as I have said, in 1324.

HENRY DE LICHFIELD, the last Incumbent of the other Portion, is the only one I can name. He was also a Canon of Tamworth, and in July 1322 has a license to reside on the latter preferment and to receive at the same time the emoluments of his Condover Portion. He was to provide for the services at Condover being performed and the poor duly attended to. [73] He was deceased in July 1324.

JOHN HUSEE, first Vicar of Condover, was admitted July 17, 1324, on presentation of the Abbot and Convent of Shrewsbury. [73]

JOHN DE MINETON resigned this Vicarage in May 1375, having exchanged preferments with-

WILLIAM AMYAS, Priest, late Vicar of Aldelym (Lichfield Diocese), who was presented accordingly to Condover by the Abbot and Convent of Shrewsbury. On November 16, 1381, Amyas again exchanges preferments with-

ADAM DE BROMPTON, Priest, late Vicar of Wroxeter.

SIR BARTHOLOMEW POWER, Priest, was instituted to Condover October 4, 1391, on presentation of the Abbot and Convent of Shrewsbury. On August 22, 1392, he exchanges preferments with-

JOHN ADDERBURY, alias TANKERVILLE, Priest, late Incumbent of Northbury (Lichfield Diocese).

[72] Regist. Langton, fos. 3,b, 4, 18, 22,b, 65.
[73] Regist. Northburg, fos. 203,b, 205.


SIR NICHOLAS DE BYRYTON, Vicar of Condover, resigns, August 13, 1406, having exchanged with-

JOHN BARBOUR, late Vicar of Clun, who was instituted here on presentation of the Abbot and Convent of Shrewsbury. Barbour resigned Condover in 1412. [74]


THE name Byrine or Biurine was probably derived into the Saxon language from Birinus, who in the seventh century was the Missionary deputed by Pope Honorius I for the conversion of the West Saxons, and who became the first Bishop of that Province. Berrington, anciently written Berintone or Biritone, is etymologically the town of some Saxon Byrine.

At Domesday the prominent Tenure in Condover Hundred was that of Rainald the Sheriff under Earl Roger. I will now proceed with the seven Manors which composed this Tenure. And first of Berrington, described in Domesday as follows:-

"The same Rainald holds Beritune, and Azo holds it of him. Thoret held (in Saxon times) half a hide in this Vill under (the Church of) St. Andrew, by (certain) services. Besides this half-hide, he (Thoret) held two geldable hides (here). In demesne there are II ox-teams; and (there are) VII Serfs and VI Villains with I team; and yet there might be II teams more here. St. Peter in Shrewsbury holds the Church and Priest of this Vill. In King Edward's time (the Manor) was worth 30s., afterwards it was worth 14s., now it is worth 40s. (per annum)". [1]

Of Toret the Saxon I have spoken already under Willey. [2] Berrington was one of the Manors which he lost wholly or partly at the Conquest. Berrington was at Domesday a Manor of 2 hides. Two of these hides were held by Azo under Rainald the Sheriff. What was the then tenure of the remaining half-hide, Domesday does not specifically declare; but I presume it to have been still held under, or subsequently restored to, the Church of St. Andrew at Condover, and Toret may possibly have been still Tenant thereof.

[74] Blakeway's MSS.
[1] Domesday, fo. 254, b. 1.
[2] Supra, Vol. II, p. 49.


Of Azo I have spoken at some length under Glazeley and Abdon, and I have intimated as a general rule that whatever was held under Rainald by Azo at Domesday is found to be held subsequently by the elder House of Le Strange under Fitz Alan. [3] Berrington is no exception to this rule, but there seems to have been some variation as to the time when each Manor of Azo's Fief was transferred to Le Strange. Glazeley and Abdon, for instance, had passed to Le Strange before 1165 when John le Strange appears as holding 2 fees of new-feoffment under Fitz Alan. But with Berrington I think it was otherwise, and that this Manor constituted the whole or a part of that one fee of old-feoffment which in 1165 was held by Hamo de Sancto Remigio under Fitz Alan. [4] That the Mesne-tenure of Berrington did at length accrue to the Fee of Le Strange, is however certain; and this will partly account for the fact that in 1240 the Fief of John le Strange under Fitz Alan was not merely 2 fees, but, if I mistake not, at least 3 fees.

I shall now show by documentary evidence that within seven years of the year 1165, John le Strange had obtained an interest in Berrington, and also that, at a subsequent period to his exercising such interest, Helewisa, the daughter of Hamo de Sancto Remigio, retained a right in the Manor and exercised that right in subjection to John le Strange as Mesne-Lord.

Pope Alexander III, confirming the grants of all previous Benefactors to Haughmond Abbey, on May 14, 1172, includes two grants of John le Strange, viz. one virgate in Beriton, and half a virgate in Webblescowe (Webscott near Middle). [5] But Pope Alexander's Bull does not include, and therefore preceded, a Charter whereby "Helewisa, daughter of Hamo de Sancto Remigio, gave and confirmed to Haughmon half a virgate in Beriton, viz. that held by one Gilbert", by which she also gave "Odo her Vassal, with all his children, to hold the said land of the Canons". This Deed was witnessed by William fitz Alan (the second of his name)

[3] Supra, Vol. I, p. 211. Vol. IV, pp. 127-8.
[4] Liber Niger, I, 143.
[5] Harleian MSS. 3868, fo. 11. We have also in the Haughmond Chartulary (Tit. Webbescowe) the very Charter which ensured John le Strange's grants in Berrington and Webscott; but the Charter must not deceive us as to the date of the Grants, than which it was some years later. It is attested by William, son of William fitz Alan, by Wido, the grantor's brother, and by Ralph, Wido's son. Now William fitz Alan II did not come of age till 1175 and Ralph le Strange not till 1182. I take it therefore that this Deed was sealed in the last year of John le Strange's life, viz. in 1177-8, and was confirmatory.


and Hugh Panton (i.e. Pantulf). It was also confirmed by John le Strange, Hugh Panton again attesting the Confirmation. [6] It is this confirmation by John le Strange, whether the first or second of his name, which proves that his Tenure of Berrington was an inserted one, that is mediate between Fitz Alan and the heirs of Hamo de Sancto Remigio.

A few years later, and we have good reason to suppose that Hugh le Strange, whose relation to John le Strange I cannot certify, occupied the place of Helewisa de Sancto Remigio in the Tenure of Berrington. Possibly he was the husband of Helewisa herself. He, I take it, was that Hugh le Strange who, next to John le Strange, attests a Charter of Guy le Strange which passed about 1174 and which I have already recited under Badger. [7] We learn from the same Charter that Hugh had a Brother, another John. There were possibly two persons named Hugh le Strange holding Berrington in succession under the elder house of Le Strange. At all events I have several notices which connect a Hugh le Strange with this neighbourhood at the very commencement of the thirteenth century. I will here mention only, that, at the Assizes of 1208, Hugh le Strange appears as Surety for a Fine of 5 merks proffered by Hamo Marescote, then Lord of Eaton Mascott.

Eighteen years later, and we have clear evidence of Hugh le Strange's Tenure of Byrinton. At the Assizes of October 1221, he was found to have disseized the Abbot of Haughmond, the Prioress of Brewood, and Sibil, widow of Wydo Wallensis, of their right of common in the pasture called The Clude, in that Manor. [8]

In or about the year 1240 Hugh le Strange was dead, and his inheritance divided among females. This I gather from a Record which, however inaccurate in itself, I will endeavour to explain. [9] Among certain Knights'-fees erroneously classed as belonging to the Barony of Hugh de Kilpek we have the following entry.- Roger Sprinchose et heredes Hugonis Extranei 1 f. in Biriton Logenhoke, or (as a cotemporary Roll has it) in Binton, Longelorn. The fact really was, that Roger Sprencheaux held Longnor, and the Coheirs of Hugh le Strange held Berrington, under John le Strange (III), who in turn held under Fitz Alan. The Hundred Roll of 1255, though it omits Fitz-Alan's Seigneury, is explicit on other points. It says that "Richard de Dryton, William fitz Alan, John

[6] Haughmond Chartulary: Tit. Biritton.
[7] Supra, Vol. II, p. 66, note 5.
[8] Assizes, 6 Hen. III, m. 4.
[9] Testa de Nevill, pp. 50, 48.


fitz Philip and Philip de Hungefort hold Biriton for two hides (the lay fee indicated by Domesday), and they pay 16d. stretward and motfee per annum, and they do suit (to Condover Hundred) and they hold of the Fee of John le Strange". At the Assizes of 1292 there was a dispute between Gilbert Abbot of Haughmond and Sir John de la Lee (then Lord of Berrington) as to lands, tenements, meadows, Suits of Court, and Commons, pertaining to the Vill of Biriton. It was arranged, out of Court, that Sir John de la Lee should allow the Abbot and his men of Biriton common-pasture for all their animals throughout the whole of his (Sir John's) fee of Biriton, except in Staplemore, La Cloude, Depemere and Longebache. I introduce this matter here because the composition was effected by mediation of Richard Earl of Arundel and other friends, and was attested by that Nobleman, by Sir John le Strange and by Sir Thomas de Rossall. [10] Now two of these witnesses were the Seigneurs' and Mesne Lords over Sir John de la Lee. I shall here dismiss the question of Fitz Alan's Seigneury and Le Strange's Mesne-tenure at Berrington, merely remarking that a Feodary of Fitz-Alan estates, taken in 1397-8, gives a recurrent proof of the former, when it inserts Robert de Lee as Tenant of Byriton by service of half a knight's-fee. [11]

I now turn to the four Coparceners of Berrington, mentioned in the Hundred-Roll of 1255. Whether they were the sons or the husbands of four Coheiresses of Hugh le Strange I cannot say, indeed I know little positively about any of them except William fitz Alan.-

RICHARD DE DRYTON may be the same person with Richard de Drayton, who appears on the Pipe-Roll of 1230 as owing half a merk for non-production of one for whom he was Surety. I find Richard de Dreyton to have been Juror on an Inquest concerning Langley, in March 1253, and Juror for Condover Hundred at the Inquest of 1255 and the Assizes of 1256. Within ten years of this time, one Richard de Dreyton appears attesting Deeds which concerned Aston near Oswestry. His fellow-witness, in two instances, was Sir John fitz Philip, whom I know to have been Lord of Aston, and whom I think to have been the third Coparcener in Berrington. At the Assizes of 1272 Richard de Drayton appeared as one of the Coroners of Shropshire, and as Recognizor in a great suit about the Manor of Albrightlee. That this was Richard

[10] Haughmond Chartulary: Tit. Biritton.
[11] Calendar of Inquisition., Vol. III, p. 223.


de Drayton of Berrington, I cannot doubt, for in this very year I find Richard de Draiton attesting a Charter of the fourth John le Strange, i.e. of the Mesne Lord of Berrington. [12] But another and nearly cotemporary Charter of the same John le Strange, though it concerned a place distant from Berrington, has a testing-clause well worth our notice here. The first, third, and fourth witnesses thereof are Sir John de la Lee, Richard de Drayton, and Hugh fitz Philip. [13] These three persons represented three of the Coparceners of Berrington in 1255; that is, John de la Lee was Brother-in-law of William fitz Alan, Richard de Drayton was identical with, or the son of, Richard de Drayton, and Hugh fitz Philip was son of John fitz Philip of Aston. To proceed with Richard de Drayton;- the Jurors of the Manor of Ford complained at the Inquest of 1274, that he had taken undue rewards for the exercise of his office as Coroner. [14] Before the Assizes of October 1292 he was dead, and Thomas de Felton, as his heir, appeared to answer for his conduct whilst in office. I think Thomas de Felton was son of Nicholas de Felton, who occurs on Juries in this neighbourhood in 1283-4.

We shall hereafter see how Stephen, son and heir of Thomas de Felton, disposed of his share of Berrington. This Stephen I happen to know was born in 1281. He married a daughter of Walter de Burton and made proof of his age before John de la Lee (under whom he held lands) in 1302-3.

I find nothing as to any interest in Berrington remaining to-

HUGH FITZ PHILIP. The same may be said of-

PHILIP DE HUNGEFORT (the fourth Coparcener of 1255) and his representatives. His name will recur to us again under the date 1255, when he was Coparcener in another but distant Manor, viz. Stanwardine-in-the-Fields. I now turn to the other Coparcener of 1255, viz.-

WILLIAM FITZ ALAN, better known as William son of Alan de Drayton. This person has already occurred to us as Lord of Chatwall in 1255, and I have shown how that, he dying without issue, John de la Lee, as husband of his (William's) Sister Petronilla, acquired his estate at Chatwall for life. [15] The same thing will have happened in respect of Berrington, but I think that Sir John de la Lee, who was a noted person in his day, instead of retaining a mere fourth of this Manor, acquired a further share therein by lapse or by purchase.

[12] [13] Haughmond Ohartulary: Tit. Ruyton, and Tit. Heth-mulle.
[14] Rot. Hundred. II, 87.
[15] Supra, Vol. V, p. 125.


John de la Lee was eldest son and heir of Sir Thomas de la Lee, who had estates in Hadnall, Hunkington, Alderton, and Lee near Pimhill. Thomas has occurred to us also as a Coparcener in Aldon, and under the dates of 1221 and 1255. [16] I know that he was living in April 1258, and that he had been generally succeeded by his son, Sir John, before February 1270. I have a notice of John de la Lee much earlier than this, but it probably indicates an interest in his wife's inheritance rather than his father's. In March 1262 he was one of those who were prosecuted and also pardoned, at the Forest Assizes, for keeping hounds within jurisdiction of the Forest, without license. John de la Lee was, as we have seen, a Coparcener in Aldon in 1284, [17] and it was probably in the year 1283 or 1284 that his estate at Berrington was increased by a grant of John le Strange, the Mesne-Lord of that Manor. Le Strange, I presume, was empowered to make this grant by the lapse or surrender of one of the four shares above mentioned. The Charter itself purports to be merely a gift by John le Strange to Sir John du Lee, Knight, of a messuage and carucate of land in Byntone. It was attested by Sir John de Kirkeby (who became Bishop of Ely in 1286), Sir Robert Corbet, Sir Reyner de Acton, Sir Peter de Eyton, and Sir John de Arundell. [18] The Composition of 1292, already recited, shows Sir John de la Lee dealing with Berrington affairs as if he were sole Lord of the Manor, [19] or, at least, something much more than a mere Feoffee in one-fourth thereof.

I have alluded, under Aston Botterell, to a grant of John son of Sir Thomas de la Lee, to Richard Botterell. The grant passed on May 1, 1297, at Aston Botterell. [20]

The next note which I have of Barrington is involved in a very curious Fine levied at Westminster in October 1314. It is "between John du Lee and Alice his wife (Plaintiffs) and John son of Alice Boterel (Deforciant), of 7 messuages, 1 garden, 3 virgates and 40 acres of land, and two acres of meadow in Biriton, Haukyton, and Shetton (Berrington, that is, and Haston and Shotton, near Hadnall), whereof was Plea, etc". John son of Alice Boterel now concedes and renders up the premises, to have and to hold, to John du Lee and Alice his wife, and to the heirs which John may have begotten of the body of Alice, of the Chief Lords of the Fee. If John du Lee should die without such heirs, then, on decease of himself and his wife Alice, the premises should remain to

[16] [17] Supra, Vol. V, pp. 27, 28.
[18] Harleian MSS. 1396, fo. 253.
[19] Supra, p. 36.
[20] Supra, Vol. I, p. 227.


Thomas son of Alice Boterel and the heirs of his body; in default of such heirs, to Oliver brother of Thomas, and his bodily heirs; in default, to Petronilla, Oliver's sister, and her bodily heirs; in default, to Isabella, Petronilla's sister, and her bodily heirs; in default, to the right heirs of Alice (wife of John du Lee).

I reserve for a future occasion the question whether the John du Lee of this Fine was identical with, or the son and heir of, Sir John de la Lee, living in 1297. That he was at some time a Knight, there can be no question. The Return called the Nomina Villarum, made in pursuance of a Royal Order of March 1316, returns him as John du Lee and as Lord of Birinton. [21] As John de Lee, Knight, he made a Quitclaim to Haughmond Abbey of a parcel of land in Hadnall, his deed being dated at Biriton on September 24, 1317. [22] We are fortunate in having a memorandum of an Assize held at Ludlow in December 1317, wherein most of the names concerned in the Fine of 1314 recur, and whereby we learn more of the actual relations of the parties to that Fine than its technical phraseology could have taught us. In the said Assize Hugh de Byriton, Clerk, is opposed to John de Lee and Alice his wife; to Thomas, son of Alice; to Isabella, daughter of John du Lee, and Petronilla her sister; and to Oliver, son of Alice du Lee, and Alice, Oliver's wife. [23] So then, John du Lee Senior and Alice Boterel were man and wife;- and their children were John, Thomas, Oliver, Petronilla, and Isabella; but why the said children should be thus variously described, onewhile by their father's, onewhile by their mother's name, I cannot understand, nor do I see why the Fine of 1314 should have named Alice Boterel and Alice wife of John du Lee as if they were two persons, when in fact they were identical. To continue;- in 13 Edw. II (1819-20) John du Lee Senior was deceased, and I have a note of an agreement which was then arrived at between "Thomas son of Thomas du Lee and Alice widow of John du Lee, late Lord of Biriton", in which agreement "John de la Lee, Thomas, Oliver, Petronilla, and Ysabella are named as sons and daughters of the said Alice". [24] We know not what lands were affected by this agreement, but it is evident that at this time there

[21] Parliamentary Writs, IV, 398.
[22] Haughmond Chartulary: Tit. Hadenhall.
[23] For this and most of the following extracts relating to the Lees of Shropshire, and also for many valuable hints in elucidating a subject of the most complex difficulty, I am indebted to William Hardy, Esq. (Supra, Vol. III, p. 102, note 74.) [24] Harleian MSS. 1396, fo. 253.


was much negotiation between the Lees of Berrington and Harinall on the one part, and their relations the Lees of Stanton-Hyne-heath and Roden on the other. Thomas, son of Thomas du Lee (party to this agreement), was of the latter House. He was, in fact, younger brother of Sir John de la Lee of Roden, and was nephew of John de la Lee, late Lord of Berrington.

There is a Deed quoted as having passed in 16 Edw. II, that is, between July 1322 and July 1323, whereby "John du Lee, Lord of Byriton, gave to Thomas his son that land in the Manor of Stanton which was called Okehurst, and which Oliver the Grantor's Brother had held". [24] The question is, Who was this Grantor ? Was it John son and heir of John du Lee of Berrington (deceased in 1319-20), or John son and heir of Thomas du Lee of Roden and Stanton (deceased in 1318)? It is as difficult to account for the former granting in Stanton as for the latter styling himself Lord of Benington. To increase the difficulty, it is positively certain that each John had a brother Oliver; but it is not known which of them had a son Thomas. My own belief is, that John du Lee of Roden had at this time acquired from his Cousin, or otherwise, the prominent interest in Berrington. I back this belief by a Fine, dated Nov. 18, 1323, which shows John du Lee of Roden intent on making an acquisition in Berrington, in fact, buying up one of the four shares. The Fine was levied at York between John son of Thomas de la Lee, Chivaler, (Plaintiff, through his Attorney, Thomas de Buryton), and Stephen, son of Thomas de Felton and Sibil his wife (Deforciants), of one messuage, one carucate of land, six acres of meadow, and the moiety of a Mill in Buryton, whereof was Plea, etc. Stephen and Sibil acknowledged the Plaintiff's right as arising by their own grant,- to hold to the Plaintiffs, of the Lords of the Fee, with warranty from the Deforciants and the Heirs of Stephen. For this the Plaintiff gave 20 merks. By a Charter, dated at Roden in 1 Edw. III, 1327-8, John du Lee, Chivaler, gives to Maud his daughter, for the term of her life, all the lands and tenements which he had bought from Stephen de Felton.

A Subsidy-Roll of the year 1332 gives the following as assessed under Berrington, viz. John de Lee, 2s.; Thomas de Lee, 1s.; Oliver de Lee, 8d. This John de Lee I take to have been not the Lord of Roden and Berrington, but the once heir of the latter Manor, reduced to the position of a common Freeholder. In short, in these three persons we have, I doubt not, the three sons of John

[24] Harleian MSS. 1396, fo. 253.


de Lee and Alice Botterel, mentioned in the Fine of 1314 and the agreement of 1319-20. In January 1333, Thomas son of John de la Lee, Thomas son of Thomas de la Lee, and Isabella daughter of John de Baskerville, are collectively sued by John de Baskerville for disseizing him of a tenement in Eaton Mascott. During the progress of this cause, Oliver de Lee appears as Surety for Thomas son of John de Lee, that is, I presume, for his own brother, whose son (Thomas son of Thomas) seems to have been the real Defendant in the cause. I shall recur to this subject under Eaton Mascott. Of the three brothers, John, Thomas, and Oliver, as Tenants at Berrington, I find nothing more, unless it were John de la Lee, the elder of them, whose widow Johanna was impleaded in March 1346, by Thomas de Lee of Berrington, for disseizin in Berrington. If so, I am doubtful whether the Prosecutor in this case was the still surviving Brother of John de Lee or the son of that Brother. This branch of the Lees, though undoubtedly the eldest, seems gradually to have fallen into obscurity.

I now return to Maud de la Lee, whose Father John de la Lee (Lord of Stanton, Roden, and Berrington) had given her a life estate at Berrington in 1327-8. She was surviving in 1378-9, and then, as Matilda widow of John Lyle, released to Robert de Lee, Lord of Roden, the residue of her interest in such estate. This Robert de Lee was her Great-Nephew, that is, son of John, son of John, son of John, father of Matilda. Robert de Lee of Roden married Petronilla daughter and sole heir of Roger de Lee of Langley, which Roger was Cousin in the fourth degree to his daughter's husband. In 1397-8 a Fitz-Alan Feodary records Robert de Lee as holding Stanton by two knights'-fees and Berrington by half a fee of that Barony. He married Petronilla before 1401, and they had a son, Ralph, born in 1404. In 7 Henry VI (1428-9) Robert de Lee was probably deceased, for then William Beistan (I think a Feoffee-in-trust) empowers an Attorney to give seizin, to Ralph Lee son of Robert Lee, of a messuage and 3 virgates in Biriton. But Petronilla, Ralph's Mother, was still Lady of the Manor of Berrington, having it, I suppose, in dower. In 17 Henry VI (1438-9) she leases to her son Ralph the Manor of Byritone with its appurtenances for the term of her life. Petronilla died on March 12, 1442, seized of one-third of Langley, which of course descended to her son Ralph. On March 25, 1445, we find Ralph Lee, Esq., taking an eighty years' lease under Richard, Abbot of Haughmond, of part of the Abbot's Berrington estate, viz. "of a messuage and


garden,- parcel of the half-virgate which Helewisa daughter of Hamo de Sancto Remigio gave to the Abbey, and of a croft,- parcel of the virgate which John le Strange gave to the Abbey". The reserved rent was 20d. Ralph Lee died on Dec. 5, 1479, but at some time previous to his decease he seems to have made a disposition of his estates by the usual method of granting them to Feoffees-in-trust. I can only find an abstract of the Counter-Deed of these presumed Feoffees, and which does not declare any further uses or remainders than that "Richard Welde, Chaplain, and James Rydley granted to Ralph Lee of Langley, Esq., and Isabella his wife, daughter of the said James Rydley, all messuages, lands, etc., which the said Richard and Ralph had in the Vills of Hatalles, Ruckley, Haughton (Haughton, near Hadnall), Roden, Acton Burnell, and Buryton". This Deed, if such it is, purports to be dated in 19 Edward IV (1479-80), which I find hard to reconcile with the statements given in the Inquest on Ralph Lee's death. The Jurors said that the said Ralph died seized of the Manor of Muche Longley (Langley is meant), held in capite, by one-fourth of a knight's-fee; also, that William Mitton, Esq., and John Bromlowe, having been lately seized (in trust, I presume) of the Manor of Buryton, had entailed the same on Ralph and Isabella and the heirs of their bodies, with remainder to the right heirs of Ralph;- also, that Isabella predeceased Ralph, and that Ralph died seized of the Manor in fee-tail, it being held of John, Earl of Arundel, by unknown services; lastly, that Petronilla, Ralph's Mother, being seized in her lifetime of the Minors of Roden and Stanton, had given them (in trust, I presume) to John Massy and others, and that Richard Lee, Esq., now forty years of age, was son and heir of both Ralph and Isabella.

If I am to reconcile these statements, it must be in this way;- that the messuages and lands in Berrington spoken of in the Deed were distinct from the Manor of Berrington spoken of in the Inquest;- that Ralph had two wives, both named Isabella, the first being mother of his son Richard, the second, Isabella Rydley, she who was provided for in the Deed of 19 Edward IV. This appears more probable from a further note which asserts Isabella, Widow of Ralph Lee, to occur in 20 Edward IV (1480-1).

Of UNDERTENANTS in Berrington I have little more to add, except as regards a family which took its name from the place. In 1203 Robert and Roger de Biritone were Sureties in a suit against Roger Sprenghose of Longnor. In 1253 Hugh and Nicholas de Byriton


were Jurors in a Smethcott Inquest. At the Inquest of 1255 Nicholas de Biritone was a Juror for Condover Hundred, and Hugh de Biritone occupied a similar position at the Assizes of 1256. Hugh de Byriton occurs in an Essoign of 1262, and also as being amerced half a merk by Justices-of-the-Forest for non-production of one whose appearance he had guaranteed. He was father of John de Byrinton, presently to be mentioned. In 1267 Richard de Berington is amerced half a merk for unjust detention. Thomas de Byriton was Juror in an important cause in 1272. Nicholas de Byriton was Juror for the Hundred in 1274, and appears as a Regarder of the King's Forests, in 1285. He it was, I think, who has occurred to us as a Grantee in Northwood (near Stottesden) at the close of the Century, and who, in 1310-1, disposed of his lands there. John de Byrinton occurs on a local Jury in 1283, and at the Assizes of 1292 John de Briton chose the Jury for Condover Hundred. [25] He occurs again in 1307-8. Hugh de Byriton, Clerk, occurs in 1317, William de Biritone is named in a Wilderhope entail of 1321, [26] and Thomas de Burytone as an Attorney in 1323. The latter was apparently son of John de Byriton, living in 1292 and 1307, for on May 23, 1333, Nicholas, Abbot of Haughmond, leases to Thomas son of John de Bireton a messuage and half-virgate in Bireton, and a messuage, half-virgate, and Mill in Eton Mascott, all which had been held by the Lessee's Father, to hold to the Lessee for life, to Mary his wife for life, and to Thomas their eldest son for life, at a rent of 2. 6s. 8d. Witnesses,- Richard de Eton; Nicholas de Harley, Clerk; William de Smethcote, etc. [27]

HAUGHMOND FEE.- Of this estate, consisting of a virgate and half of land, I have few other direct notices than have been already recited. Richard Burnell, Abbot of Haughmond, by an Ordinance dated Sept. 29, 1459, annexes all rents, receivable by his House from Biriton, to the Salary of the Claustral Prior. [28] Ralph Lee's lease of a part of this estate will have expired in 1525, that is some years before the Dissolution. Nevertheless none of the Great Registers of Monastic property, which I am so frequently quoting, allude to this estate. Its profits are probably sunk in some other item of account, or omitted, as being appropriated to the Prior.

WHITE-LADIES' FEE.- By whose grant an estate at Berrington devolved to the White Nuns of Brewood I cannot say. They were in possession as early as 1221, and in 1535-6 they retained 8s.

[25] [26] Supra, Vol. IV. pp. 175, 102.
[27] Haughmond Chartulary (at Sundorn Castle); Tit. Eton-Marscote.
[28] Monasticon, VI, 112, No. xi.


annual rent in Beryton. [29] The Ministers' Accounts of 1536-7 repeat this asset as ferm of land in Bereton. [30]


This was I think a Saxon Foundation. At all events it existed before Domesday, when we are told that both the Church and Priest of Beritune were in the tenure of St. Peter's Abbey at Shrewsbury. Within eight years after Domesday we have Earl Roger's Charter to that Abbey in wonderful consistency with the nobler Record. It confirms as a grant of Guarin, Sheriff, "the Church of Beriton with the tithe of the same Vill". The Charters of William I, Henry I, Stephen, Henry II and Henry III, all confirm the grant. Among Episcopal confirmations, Roger de Clinton's Charter names the Church of Brugton and a pension of 24s., Walter Durdent's names the Church and the tithe of the Vill of Biriton, and Richard Peche's names the pension of 24s. Archbishop Peckham's Confirmation, in 1280, ratifies the same pension.

In Hilary Term 1226 Roger la Zouche was suing the Abbot of Shrewsbury for the Advowson of Berington, as well as the Manor of Betton. [31] The Pleadings as to the Advowson are not extant. I suppose Roger la Zouche's claim was similar to his claim of the Advowson of Tong a few years previous, [32] and that he failed in both cases. Whatever right of presentation to Berrington may have been asserted by Roger la Zouche's ancestors, I presume that the original ground thereof was in some of the many transactions which had taken place between the Abbot of Shrewsbury, on the one hand, and Richard de Belmeis, Bishop of London, or his Nephew Philip, on the other. These transactions belonged to the reign of Henry I, and we shall see, under Betton, that of a part of them there was no Record in the time of Henry III, in fact that they were totally misrepresented in the Law-Courts of that reign.

In 1274 the Jurors of Condover Hundred reported how Berrington Church had been broken open and the clothes of Richard de Bath stolen therefrom by Alice de Haumon. The culprit had been lodged in Shrewsbury Gaol, but had escaped without trial by presenting a Cow to William de Munslow (he was an Officer under Robert Trillek, Under-Sheriff to Ralph de Mortimer). Alice and

[29] Valor Ecclesiasticus, III, 193.
[30] Monasticon, V, 731.
[31] Placita, Hil. Term, 10 Hen. III, m.1.
[32] Vide supra, Vol. II, pp. 247-250.


[For engraving, see pdf.]


her husband, Nicholas, further menaced Richard de Bath in life and limb, and with arson. [33]

The Taxation of 1291 informs us that the Church of Byryhton in Salop Deanery was worth 5. 9s. 4d. per annum, over and above the Pensions payable out of the same. These Pensions were that of 24s. to Shrewsbury Abbey, and one of great magnitude and undoubted antiquity, but of which we now hear for the first time, viz. 6. 13s. 4d. (the full half of the gross Revenue), to the Cathedral Church of Lichfield. [34] Now this Pension was not a bribe given by the Monks of Shrewsbury to any Bishop of Lichfield in return for a License to appropriate; for Berrington Church was not then, and has never been since, appropriated. It is a Rectory to this day. My belief is that this pension was part of a very early but unrecorded exchange between the Abbey of Shrewsbury and the Church of Lichfield, and that another result of this exchange was that the Manor of Betton, which at Domesday belonged to the See of Lichfield, belonged ever afterwards to the Monks of Shrewsbury. Now Great Betton was in the Parish of Berrington.

In 1341 the Assessors of the Ninth quoted the Church-Taxation of Byriton at 20 merks (13. 6s. 8d.), which was quite correct. They assessed the Parish only at 8. 13s. 4d. to the Ninth, because the following items not computable in the Ninth formed part of the Church-Taxation, viz. Glebe, 40s.; Oblations, Small-Tithes and Hay-Tithes, 3. 6s. 8d.; Tithes of three Mills, 10s. In the Ninth thus ascertained, the Assessors certified that the Abbot of Shrewsbury's Temporalities in the Parish were included. [35] By this they meant the land which had at a previous period constituted the Glebe of Condover Church, and also whatever the Abbot may have held in demesne at Betton, Brompton, or Cantlop.

The Valor of 1534-5 names Richard Bromhall as Rector of Byrrynton, and values the Church in gross at 20. 12s. per annum. The Pensions to Lichfield Cathedral and Shrewsbury Abbey were still chargeable on this Income. The Procurations were 6s. 8d. and the Synodals 6s. But besides, a Pension of 30s. was payable to the Abbot of Haughmond, all which charges reduced the Rectory to a net value of 10. 12s. [36]

The Pension to Haughmond Abbey here mentioned may, I believe, be thus accounted for. The Abbot had, by a very ancient grant, the tithes of the demesne of Eaton Mascott, which was in

[33] Rot. Hundred. II, 92.
[34] Pope Nich. Taxation, p. 247.
[35] Inquis. Nonarum, p. 183.
[36] Valor Ecclesiasticus, III, 184, 189.


Berrington Parish. This right, or the greater part of it, the Abbot seems to have surrendered to the Rector of Berrington, in exchange for a Pension of 30s. chargeable on Berrington Rectory. This arrangement was probably made in or before the fifteenth Century. Abbot Burnell's Ordinance of Sept. 29, 1459, alludes to this pension, but not in very distinct terms. It seems to me that the Abbot then allotted 20s. thereof to the Salary of the Claustral Prior and 10s. to the Salary of the Sub-Prior of Haughmond, reserving the balance of the tithes of Eaton Mascott (that is, whatever part thereof was not commuted into a Pension) to himself. [37] Thomas, Abbot of Haughmond, in his declaration for the Valor of 1535-6, makes no mention of the Tithes of Eaton Mascott nor of the Pension which mainly represented the same. This omission is usual where a particular item of Revenue was specifically allotted to the Officers of a Convent. However, the Ministers' Accounts of 1541-2 give among the Assets of the Dissolved Abbey the following item,-

Eyton Market, Firma decimarum, 2. [38]

Here we have, I doubt not, the Tithes of Eaton Mascott, though 30s. of the sum should rather have been described as a Pension than a Ferm.


ANDREW, Priest of Biriton, who attests a Pitchford Grant before 1172, [39] may possibly have been Rector of this Church.

HUGH DE HOTOT, Rector of Byrington, has the Episcopal License, dated June 30, 1301, to attend the Schools for five years. He was ordained Subdeacon on Dec. 23 following. [40]

EDMUND DE PORTLAUNDE, Clerk, was instituted to this Rectory March 30, 1305, on presentation of the Abbot and Convent of Salop. The Bishop's Letters reserve the pensions of 10 merks and 24s. payable respectively to the Chapter of Lichfield and the Abbey of Shrewsbury. [40]

SIMON DE COTENHAM, Priest, was instituted August 14, 1306, on a similar presentation and upon like conditions. [41] On Dec. 17, 1309, this Rector has license to set his Church to ferm to Hugh de Byriton for one year, [41] and on March 3, 1314, he has a two years' license to study. [41]

[37] Monasticon, VI, 112, Num. xi.
[38] Ibidem, p. 114.
[39] Supra, Vol. I, p. 358.
[40] Regist. Langton, fos. 23-b, 95-b.
[41] Ibidem, fos. 19, 19-b, 64-b, 67.


RICHARD, Rector of Byryton, for whom, on July 7, 1326, the Bishop of Worcester obtains a similar license, [42] was probably identical with-

SIR RICHARD DE STAFFORD, who died July 29, 1349. On January 5, 1350, the Bishop admitted-

HENRY DE HARLEY, Priest. This was on the usual presentation of the Abbot and Convent of Shrewsbury; but Harley covenants to resign if the Bishop should be put to trouble by any one in consequence of admitting him. [42] Harley exchanged preferments with-

STEPHEN DE CHELASTON, late Incumbent of the Chantry of St. Andrew in Lichfield Cathedral. Chelaston was instituted to Berrington, Nov. 9, 1352, the aforesaid pensions being again specifically reserved. [42] On May 14, 1358, the Abbey of Shrewsbury being vacant, King Edward III presented-

WILLIAM DE DRAYTON to Berrington. [43] Again on Nov. 22, 1361, the King, on a similar ground, presented-

ADAM DE EYTON, Priest, to this Rectory. [43]

WILLIAM AMYAS, Priest, on March 7, 1374, resigns this Rectory, having exchanged preferments with-

RICHARD DE ERCALWE, Priest, Vicar of Aldelym (Lichf. Dioc.). Patrons- the Abbot and Convent of Shrewsbury. On Oct. 25, 1374, Ercalwe again exchanges with-

ROGER DE ASTON, late Rector of Little Ercall.

RICHARD DE LYNDESEYE, Rector of Berrington, had his Title confirmed by the King, May 9, 1376.

SIR JOHN CHIRCH, Rector of Berrington, died in 1379, when on Dec. 21-

WILLIAM DE DRAYTON, Priest, was instituted at presentation of King Richard II, who also issued a Writ of prohibition against the counter-claim of one-

WILLIAM DE HOPTON. The latter, whose title seems to have been founded on Apostolick, that is Papal, authority, sued Drayton in Court Christian for depriving him of this Church. A King's Writ of March 20, 1382, revokes the prohibition against Hopton and issues in lieu thereof a Writ of Consultation; but how the rival claims were adjusted I cannot say. One-

ADAM DE EYTON is again mentioned as Rector of Berrington in 1386. [44]

[42] Regist. Northburg, fos. 5-b, 226, 227-b.
[43] Patent, 32, 35 Edw. III.
[44] Blakeway's MSS.


Lege, now Longnor.

The Domesday notice of Berrington (held by Azo under Rainald the Sheriff) is followed by this remarkable entry.- "The sheriff Rainald holds Lege, and Azo (holds it) of him. Eldred held it (in Saxon times) and could go whither he would. [1] Here are II hides geldable. In demesne there is I ox-team; and (there are) II serfs and V Villains, with II teams; and still there might be II additional teams here.

"Roger Venator holds the Caput of this Manor under Earl Roger and the two hides which Azo holds exonerate his (Roger Venator's) land, which is Inland, [2] from Geld. In Roger Venator's demesne are II ox-teams; and (there are) III Serfs, II Neat-herds, III Boors with I team; and yet there might be III additional thereon.

"Here is a wood capable of fattening 600 Swine; and h three Firm Hayes [3] and a Mill. The whole, in King Edward's time was worth 8. (per anumm); afterwards it was worth 20s.; now it is worth 64s". [4]

[1] Potuit ire quo voluit;- a common phrase in Domesday, indicating a particular franchise of certain Saxon Freeholders, via. that they could subject themselves (se commendare), with or without their lands, to any Patron or Suzerain they pleased. In endeavouring to understand Domesday, I have always found that a collection of parallel passages illustrates a particular phrase far better than any existing commentary. Thus in the present case we may cite the passage where certain Sochemen are described,- qui habent terras suas in dominio et qui petunt dominos ubi volunt; or where a Freeholder is described, qui tenebat dimidiam hidam et poterat abire sine licensia mansionis.

The disqualification opposed to such a franchise is represented in such passages as the following.- recedere cum terra;- non potuit recederes ecclesia (vide supra, Vol. III, p. 306) Radehnistres non poterant de hoc seperari.
[2] The Saxon Inland is supposed to have been equivalent to the Non-demense, and the Saxon Outland a tenementary land of the Normans. See the introduction to Domesday, p. lxxiij. The word Inland seems to be occasionally used in Domesday for the more part of the demesne, such as it was in Saxon times (ibidem). This explanation by no means satisfies the above but I can offer no better.
[3] The Hale was a part of the demesne closed by fences, into cattle were driven. A Firm Haye was nothing more than such an enclosure in good repair.
[4] Domesday, fo. 254, b, 1,


Leaving to the notes an explanation of one or two expressions in the above passage, I will here attend to its more important significancies.-

All that I have said under Berrington, relative to Manors held by Azo, as Rainald's Tenant at Domesday, holds good with respect to Azo's Manor of Lege, if we identify that Manor with the Longenoire of the thirteenth century and the Longnor of a later date. Under any other hypothesis than that these Manors are identical, we cannot instance any modern Manor which will aptly represent the Domesday Lege, nor can we fix upon any probable Domesday type for the modern Manor of Longnor. By analogy, therefore, and by the Proof negative, we are entitled to assume that the Lege of Domesday is now represented by Longnor. But what was it, then, that Domesday alludes to as the Caput of this Manor? Where was that Inland and ungeldable estate which Roger Venator held, not under Rainald the Sheriff, but under the Norman Earl? Analogy again directs us to look for some estate in this quarter held in later times by the Barons of Pulverbatch (Roger Venator's representatives), and so held, not under Fitz Alan, but in capite of the Crown. This research I leave to the sequel. As regards Longnor itself, the first notice which I have thereof subsequent to Domesday, is in Azo Bigot's grant of half a hide there to Shrewsbury Abbey. In this instance the place is variously written as Langanara or Longanalra. Azo Bigot, as I have already explained, was identical with the Azo of Domesday. Other particulars of him and his descendants I have given under Abdon. [5] As to the estate at Longnor thus acquired by Shrewsbury Abbey, that must form the subject of a future and distinct notice.

I think it very possible that, like Berrington, Longnor was involved in the Knight's Fee which, in 1165, was held by Hamo de Sancto Remigio, under Fitz Alan. At all subsequent periods, however, of which I treat, Fitz Alan's immediate Tenant here was the elder House of Le Strange; and the Stranges were Mesne Lords over the Family of Sprencheaux, who were the tenants-in-fee. Of this Family I now proceed to speak.

ALRIC SPRENCHEAUX, otherwise known as ALRIC DE LONGENALRA or EYLRIC DE WESSELEG (i.e. Westley), has already been named as a Grantee of King Henry II in the Manor of Condover. [6] I find Eilric and Gilbert de Wesseleg attesting a grant to Haughmond Abbey, which probably passed between 1158 and 1172, and

[5] Supra, Vol. IV, pp. 127, 128.
[6] Supra, pp. 25, 26.


which concerned a Mill on the Condover Brook, near Allfield. Between the years 1169 and 1176, Alric de Longenalra, with Ralph, his son, and Robert, his nephew, attest a Charter of Peter, Prior of Wenlock, which shall be given under Hughley. Before 1183 Alric Sprencheaux seems to have been succeeded by his son and heir,-

ROGER SPRENCHEAUX (I), far it must be the latter who, as R. Sprenshose, attests Bishop Peche's appropriation of Lee Botwood Chapel to Haughmond Abbey. On March 12th, 1185, one of the earliest Fines on Record was levied at Woodstock, before Ranulph de Glanvill and other Barons and Justiciars of Henry II. This Fine was between the Abbot and Convent of Hagemon on the one hand, and Roger Sprengehose on the other, concerning certain land and Bosc lying between Lega (Lee Botwood) and Langenore, whereof there had been Plea in the Curia Regis. The agreement was, that Sprengehose should hold the premises in dispute, under the Abbot and Convent, for his life, and at a rent of 6s. per annum, payable at Michaelmas. After his death his heirs should hold the premises under the Abbot and Convent, in fee and inheritance, and should be quit of the said rent of 6s. But the Abbot was to have, together with the body of the said Roger (when deceased), all the Mill of Langenore, wholly and for ever, and as fully as Roger had himself held it;- was also to have a third part of the live-stock of the said Roger. But the Wood aforesaid was to be so far in common as that either contracting party should take therefrom things necessary to his own use. They were also to divide the profits and pannage thereof equally. The future boundary of the land and bosc dispute was lastly settled to be this.- From Bottestret to the stank of Langenore Mill, and from Fulefen to Ravenesac, and so on to Noteleg (Netley), and so along the Sichet to the boundaries of Smedicot (Smethcott), and to High Ruding. [7]

About this time I find Roger Sprengehose attesting a Charter of his seigneural Lord, John le Strange II. [8] I also find that he was a Tenant in the Fee of Pulverbatch. It will have been before the year 1189 (because apparently in her husband's lifetime), that "Emma de Pulverbatch, wife of Sir Herbert de Castello, gave to Haughmond Abbey 3 shillings rent which Roger de Wesseleg was used to pay yearly out of his land. Witnesses, William de Botereaux, Robert

[7] Harleian MSS., 446. Quartern, 12, fo. 3.
[8] Haughmond Chartulary: Tit. Balderton.


de Girros. Emma de Pulverbatch, apparently when a Widow, and if so, between 1189 and 1198, further increased this grant. She gave the land which Roger de Wesseleg held in Pulverbatch, together with all his services, for maintenance of the lights before the High Altar of the Church of Haughmond. Witnesses, Bartholomew de Girros, Martin fitz William. [9]

So then, Roger de Wesseleg, alias Roger Spencheaux, was Tenant not only of Lognor under Le Strange, but also of something now (1189-93) reputed to be in Pulverbatch. We have, I doubt not, in these combined tenures a reflex of that mixed status which, a century before, Domesday had described when treating of the Manor of Lege. The Seigneury of each tenure remained distinct, just as analogy would have led us to expect, but the two were held by a Feoffee in common. Something then in the direction of Pulverbatch must be taken to have been the Inland Caput of the Domesday Manor of Lege. The only difficulty is, that the Deed last quoted states Roger Wesseleg's tenure to be in Pulverbatch itself. This is soon explained. The Domesday Manor of Pulverbatch was only two hides. In 1255 it had grown to be five hides. This was clearly owing to the intermediate annexation of a considerable territory which Domesday had treated as distinct from Pulverbatch. I shall say more of this transfer under Pulverbatch. Here it is sufficient to have accounted for part of the increase, and to have shown what probably became of Roger Venator's Inland tenement in the Manor of Lege.

At the Assizes of 1203 we have Roger Sprenghose as a Knight and as a Juror in causes of Grand Assize. At the Forest-Iter of March 1209 he is named, apparently as having had to do with the assessment of some former imbladements within Regard of the Long Forest. He himself was among the assessed. It was probably at a late period of his life that Roger Sprenghose came to an agreement with Haughmond Abbey which materially altered the terms of the Fine of 1185. This agreement, "made in the full County-Court of Salop", but not attested by witnesses, describes the Wood as "the Bosc of Lega (i.e. Lee Botwood) and Longenolre, which is called Mutlewood". [10] The Abbot and Sprenghose now divide it equally between them. Each party was to do what he liked with his share, but if Sprenghose should assart the whole of his, then neither he nor his men were to have any right of common in the

[9] Haughmond Chartulary: Tit. Pulverebeche.
[10] This name is still extant in Micklewood Lodge.


Abbot's part. The Wood thus divided was bounded as follows:- from Muttehesel down along a trench to a great alder-tree which stood at the extremity of John Brito's Assart; thence through the field of Longenholre and of Dodinton (Dorrington) to the Sichet of Neteleg, and thence up along the Sichet to Rudingenord, thence along Rudingway to Muttehesel aforesaid. The subdivisions agreed upon here follow, but are not worth transcribing, except that they mention the Assart of Richard de Seinton. The part towards Rudingeway was to remain to the Abbot; that towards the field of Logenholre to Sprenghose. Reservation is made of an independent grant which Sprenghose had given to the Abbey, viz. a strip of Sprenghose's own wood, three perches in width, and, in length, as far as the said wood abutted on the field of Lega (Lee Botwood). Both parties sealed the agreement. [11]

At the Assizes of November 1221 it was recorded that Roger Sprenghos, having served the office of Coroner for the County, was deceased. His son and heir was amerced 20s. by the Justices, for not appearing to answer for the term of his Father's office. Thomas de Lege was surety for this Fine; Robert de Wudecot was surety for another Fine which-

ROGER SPRENGHOSE (II) incurred at the same Assizes for withdrawing a suit of novel disseizin which he had against William Hunffaund, concerning a tenement in Lowenalre.

There is nothing in the style or the testing clause of the following agreement which does not tally with the idea that it was a composition made out of Court, soon after the Assizes of 1221, and which in fact put a stop to the litigation just alluded to. The names Hunffaund and Hunald are similar enough to be identical.- Sciant presentes et futuri quod haec est finalis concordia facta inter Rogerum Sprehinghose tenentem et Willelmum Hunald petentem, scilicet quod Rogerus tenens et Willelmus petens in tali forma convenerunt, quod Rogero remanebit dimidia pars nemoris de cooperto, scilicet illa pars apud Harlyd et Lallelyd per istas divisas, scilicet de volatu quod fuit Roberti filii Alwredi antravers Sullakemor per trancheum usque ad Kusibroc ad vadum de Benetleya et deinde Kusybroc acontrewale usque ad trancheum desuper locum qui dicitur Thuaheth et deinde trancheum usque ad grossam quercum quae stat ad Acysvey, et deinde Acyswey ascendendo usque ad Hewehtsty et deinde Hewehtsty usque ad Lude, et post de Lude-Sparkeheswey usque a la fose quae est opposita exteriori cornelae assarti Walteri Luctoris,

[11] Harleian MSS. ut supra.


et de cornera Walteri Luctoris contrewal La Haie de Frodesley usque ad predictum volatum quod fuit Roberti filii Alvredi; et volatum illud remanebit Rogero Sprehinghose cum predicto bosco, tenendum et habendum quiete et libere in omnibus libertatibus, Rogero et heredibus suis, sine aliqua reclamacione Willelmi vel heredum suorum in posterum. Et predicto R. et heredibus suis remanebunt duo assarta et unum pratum scilicet Sweheleya et Bereleye et Keupmedue, quae continentur infra boscum Willelmi Hunald. Et quarta pars de toto campo unde fuit contencio remanebit Rogero et heredibus per divisas et habundas quae factae sunt inter eos, salvo predicto W. Hunald bruello desuper Togthesleye, qui ei remanebit in perpetuum sine reclamacione Rogeri. Et predictus Rogerus et heredes sui voluntatem suam facient de bosco suo, libere sicut placuerit eis et melius sedit, ita quod Willelmus nec heredes sui aliquam habebunt communam in predicto bosco, nec de pessone nec de vivo bosco nec de mortuo, nisi tantum pasturam herbagii in cooperto; et extra boscum, nullam habebunt communam de herbagio. Et sciendum est quod predicta assarta, Swetheley et Berreley et pratum quod vocatur Chepmedue continentur infra quartam partem campi quae remanet Rogero et heredibus sub. Ut haec autem finalis concordia majoris firmitatis robur optineat, Willelmus confirmavit scriptum quod habet Rogerus impressione sigilli sui, et R. confirmavit scriptum quod habet Willelmus impressione sigilli sui. Hiis testibus,- Domino Johanne filio Alani; Domino Johanne Extraneo, et Domino Johanne filio suo; Hamundo Extraneo; Willelmo de Hetleya; Ricardo de Middelhope; Hugone Anglico; Eustacio de Wytteneh; Rogero de Furcis; Reginaldo de Leya; Hugone de Leya; et multis aliis. [12]

On February 9, 1222, a Fine was levied at Westminster between Alan Martell, Master of the Templars (Brother Hugh de Stocton being his Attorney) and Roger Springehos;- concerning common rights in the Bosc of Litlegh (Lydley). The Master complained that Roger required the same right of common in the Bosc aforesaid as he (the Master) had in Roger's land, whilst Roger performed no such service to the Master as would entitle him to such a right. The Fine was, that the Master gave up to Roger one-third (saving 12 acres) of the said Bosc, viz. that part which reached from the "dyke of Kemeshall to Wisebroc, and thence to Hevedsti, and onwards to the dyke which was under the alder marked with a cross";- to hold to Roger and his heirs, in demesne, under the Master and Brethren for ever, at a rent of 12d. Roger, in return,

[12] Charter in possession of Edward Corbett, Esq., of Longnor.


renounced all right in the remaining two-thirds and in the aforementioned 12 acres of the Master's Bosc.

In August 1226 Roger Sprenghose was one of the Jurers who made Inquest as to the Forest of Stiperstones, and in or about same year he attests a grant of Peter de Eyton to Shrewsbu ry Abbey. [13] Very little, if at all, later must we date the Charter whereby "Roger Sprenghose, Lord of Longenolre" gave the manor of Longenolre to Haughmond Abbey in pure and perpetual almoign. He gave it apparently as an original gift, and without auy any reference to his Father's previous negotiation on the subject. He dispensed with the Suit and Mullure and Toll of the whole Vill of Longenolre, as well as of his own Household. He also gave an Alder-copse which lay near the Mill, and allowed all means of appliances necessary to maintain the Mill-stank; also a place near the Mill-door for winnowing. He gave the whole water rights and covenanted that neither he nor his heirs should ever divide same from the place called Ancre Parrok to the place where the brok falls into the Conede, and thence to Edrichesleg, and past Hardemedewe, and so past Birchul and past Weysebroc thence past the Mulnefurloug, and so down to the Mill itself. He also gave and allowed the pathway which led from Frodesley on the road which led from Lydeley, to the said Mill, and all right of teams, horses, or foot-passengers, which led to the said Mill to the Vill of Longenolre, or elsewhere, and which had ever been in the time of any of his ancestors. He covenanted further that neither he nor his heirs would ever construct any other Mill in the territory of Longenlore to the injury of the said Mill. Witnesses,- Sir John le Strange, Sir Thomas Corbet, Sir Finan de Roshale, Sir Philip de Stepleton, Sir Richard de Legton (Leighton), and William de Drayton, Chaplain. [14] Such were the precautions taken in those days to guard and fence about the treasure, much coveted by Monks,- a Manor-Mill.

In April 1230, Roger Sprenghose accompanied King Henry in his first expedition into Brittany. A patent of Protection dated June 15, at Nonetas, names him among those who were thus deployed. The Shropshire Pipe-Roll of 1232 indicates his safe-passge for he is debited half a merk as Surety for some Litigant. A charter of Nov. 2, 1234, names him as Justice to deliver Shrewsbury on the 24th of the same month. About the same time, as "Roger

[13] Salop Chartulary, No. 280.
[14] Charter in possession of Edward Corbett, Esq., of Longnor.


Sprenghose, Lord of Longenholre", he confirmed to the Abbot of Haughmond his Father's agreement as to the division of the Bosc of Mittelwode, quit-claiming in addition, for himself and heirs, all right of any kind within Lega in Botwode, or within the Abbot's boundaries towards Lega. His Charter specifically releases all right of common. (Such a right, it will be remembered, his Father's Agreement had retained in the Abbot's share of the divided Bosc.) In return, the Abbot and Convent allowed him, whenever he chose, to assart his own share of the said Bosc, saving to them and to their Chapel of Lega (Lee Botwood) all tithes arising from such assarted places, "because that previously to the said Partition (by his Father) the Abbot and Convent had the whole ground in their possession". The Charter further allows to the Abbot and his men of Lega common pasture for all their animals throughout Roger's whole Manor of Longenholre; also Roger quit-claims all right to the Moor near the Abbot's Mill of Longenholre, all which moor, together with the Alder-copse and all rights of road, the Abbot and Convent were henceforth to enjoy unreservedly. Witnesses,- John fitz Alan, John le Strange, Vivian de Roshale, John Honald, William de Draiton, Thomas de Stratton, and Roger de Smethcot. [15]

The Forest Perambulation of 1235 has two allusions to Longnor.

"The Bosc of Wimbrinton (Womerton) had been much wasted of old time, and trees had been fallen there and given for repairs at Shrewsbury and Stretton Castles, and to Roger Sprengehos to fortify his House at Langenalre, and this was by Precept of Hugh de Nevill, then Justice of the Forests".

Again, the Commissioners had "taken View of the two Boscs of Langenalre. These were well kept, but, in the Bosc of * * *, Roger Sprengoles had in the time of liberty [16] cut two trenches, and since the time of liberty he had assarted them", that is, I presume, the land which they encompassed.

In 1240 we have the inaccurate but easily amended Record, which I have already quoted under Berrington, viz. that of the fees of Hugh de Kilpec, Roger Sprinchose and the heirs of Hugh le Strange held one fee in Biriton and Longelorn. The fact probably was, that Roger Sprenghose held half a fee in Longnor, and the heirs of Hugh le Strange half a fee in Berrington, under John le Strange (III), who held under john fitz Alan (II). That the

[15] Harleian MSS. 446. Quatern XII, fos. 8 and 4.
[16] Vide supra, Vol. III, p. 215, note 6.


name of Kelpec, Baron of Pulverbateh, should become linked with this tenure is not very surprising after what has been seen above.

The next notice which I have of Longnor, or its Longelorn tenant introduces, as I believe, a new personage, viz.:-

ROGER SPRENCHEAUX III, but I have no evidence to the exact period at which this succession took place. A Roll of May 15, 1251, orders that "Roger Sprenghose and Richard Stretton shall not be put on any Assize, etc., so long as they adhere to their fealty to the Crown and be in the service of following (obsequio) of Griffin ap Wenunewen". Here, then we have the first hint of that connection which seems to have associated the House of Sprenghose with the Princes of England for more than half a century. The Hundred-Roll of 1255 records that "Roger Sprenchose holds Long', for one hide, under le Strange. He pays 8d. for Stretward and Motfee, and does homage for both County and Hundred". [17] The decrease on the hidage is here to be observed, also that the Seigneury of Long is altogether omitted.

The third Roger Sprencheaux lived at an eventful period following his Seigneur, the third John le Strange, in the Loyalty, he attained to a position of great eminence. At the Battle of Evesham and the restoration of Monarchy, the first which I find of Roger Sproneheths (as his name is written) in the Forest Assize-Roll of 1267, where he stands surety for an amercement inflicted on Robert Corbet for trespass against ?. About this time he appears to have had a grant of the estates of Sir Hugh Wrottesley of Wrottesley. The Charter in which Roger Sprenghose Lord of Longenolre (as his name continues to be written) quit-claimed and restored these lands is in fact a composition under the Dictum de Kennilworth. Sprenghose got 60 merks for the surrender. About the same time he obtained the restoration of a Mill in Condover Manor, of which his Family had been deprived for forty years. At the Jury in October 1272 he appears as a Knight and a Juror in cases tried by Grand Assize. He also had himself a suit of mort d'ancestre with Haughmond Abbey for a meadow in Longenore. However, styling himself "Roger Sprenchose III", quit-claimed right by a subsequent Deed, attested hy Richard de Eton,

[17] Rot. Hundred. II, 62.
[18] Shaw's Staffordshire, II.


Marscote, Richard Burnel of Langeley, William de Stepleton, and Philip de Smethcote. [19]

I should assign the same date to another Charter of "Roger Sprenghose tertius" (as he styles himself), whereby he concedes and confirms the Mill of Longanolre to Haughmond Abbey. Witnesses,- Sir John le Strange, Sir Odo de Hodenet, Sir John de Ercalewe, Sir John Fitz-Aer, Robert Corbet of Morton, William Marscot, Richard de Eton, and William Champeneys of Doditon. [20]

Early in the year 1273 I find R. Sperughose (as his name is printed) in the important post of Constable of Montgomery. He writes to Walter de Merton, then Chancellor of England, to say that he had duly directed certain of his people to attend the Abbots of Haughmond and Dore on January 20th last, when those Commissioners were appointed to go to the Ford beyond Montgomery, and there receive the oath of Fealty, due from Lewellyn ap Gruffyth, Prince of Wales, to Edward I, who had recently succeeded to the throne of England. "The Commissioners", says the Constable, "waited at that Ford till long past noon, but Lewellyn neither came nor sent any message". [21] Roger Sprenghose had custody of the Royal Manor of Stratton-dale (Church Stretton) from 21st October, 1273, till December 10, 1274; but he had the King's Order to give all the issues thereof to Hawise wife of Griffin ap Wenhunwin. [22] In 1275 Roger Sprenghose and Reginald de Leye were commissioned to assess the tax of the Fifteenth in the Counties of Salop and Stafford. [23]

In March 1276, Sir Roger Sprenghose was Foreman of the Jury which made Inquest on the estates of John le Strange deceased. From the year 1279 till May 1286 Sir Roger Sprengehose served

[19] The original Deed at Longnor has the Grantor's seal remaining, viz. a shield, charged with two Lions passant and a Label of three points. The Legend is S' ROGERI SPRENGHOSE, proving, by the difference of a letter, that this seal was not the one used at a later period by the same person. This Seal is the one given among the Illustrations.

This Deed gives A. as the initial letter of the cotemporary Abbot of Haghemon's name. It calls the meadow Herberdesmedewe, and the Grantor styles himself Rogerus le Esprenghose tertius.
[20] Harleian MS. 446, Quatern xii. fos. 1, 2. This Charter (except that it omits the word dedi before concessi) has all the appearance of au original Grant. It is in fact nearly a verbal transcript of that Grant of the second Roger Sprenghose, which passed about 1226. Later in life (as we shall see) Roger Sprenghose III adopted the much more intelligible course of inspecting, reciting, and confirming his Predecessor's Charter.
[21] Foedera, I, 499.
[22] Rot. Pip. 4 Edw. I, Salop.
[23] Rot. Forinsecus.


the important office of Sheriff of Shropshire and Staffordshire. During the same period he occurs as interested in the estates of Henry de Hastings, for in January 1285 I find Hastings, the heir, impleading Roger Sprenghose, and ends to obtain redemption of his lands in virtue of the Dictum of Kenilworth. [24]

Sir Roger Sprenghose is said to have served the office again in 18 Edward 1 (1289-90). If so, William de (who appears on the Pipe-Roll as Sheriff of that year) as Sprenghose's Deputy, though afterwards he was Sheriff. At the Assizes of October 1292, Bogo de Knovill, Roger Sprenhose and Robert Corbet are ennumerated in that order, as Sir was no longer in office, but who were still living and ready to give of their respective periods of office. Similarly Walter (it was William) de Tytnelegh is entered as the existent Sheriff.

To the period when Sir Roger Sprenghose and William de were associated in office, I assign the Charter whereby the (styling himself "Roger Sprenghose tercius Dominus de Longonalre) inspects, recites, and confirms that Charter of Longnor Manor I have assigned to the year 1226. The Inspeximus speaks of Sprenghose, who made the original grant, as the present Antecessor, while there is every reason to think that he was his father. I have elsewhere stated that the meaning of Antecessor in these Charters is Predecessor in estate or office. The witnesses of Roger Sprenghose III's Inspeximus are William Titneleg and Robert de Stepleton, Knights; Richard Longenholre, Roger de Smethcote, William fitz Adam of V, John Champeneys of Wilderley, and William Beadle of Longonolre". Sir Roger Sprenghose was one of the Knighs of the Shire returned for Shropshire, in November, 1295, to the Parliament then held at Westminster.

Of the five Knights who in June 1300 joined in making the great Perambulation of the Forests of Shropshire, Sir Roger Sprenghose was one.

The latest that I hear of Sir Roger Sprenghose is his award of a lease granted by Gilbert, Abbot of Haughmond, on 21, 1304. This Lease will appear under Lee Botwood. In 1311 we hear of one Emma Sprenghose, who then devotes herself to the Life of an Anchoret in St. George's Cemetary Shrewsbury. I cannot fix her place in the family Pedigree

[24] Placita apud Bristol, 13 Edw. I.
[25] Harleian MS. Quatern.


elsewhere for some account of the state of life which these Devotees affected. [26]

I should here say a word about Sir Ralph Sprenghose, brother of Sir Roger. He has already occurred to us under various dates from 1286 to 1316. [27] In a Deed which I shall have to refer to hereafter, his relationship to Sir Roger is expressly declared. Before I proceed to speak of Sir Roger Sprenghose's Successors at Longnor, I should notice a series of six Manorial Deeds in which he appears as Grantor.

1. As Roger Sprenghose, Lord of Longenolre, he gives to Richard Clerk, son of Osbert de Dudelburi, for two merks, two acres of his land in Longenolre, to hold in fee, at a rent of one rose. Kelmeshale and the field of Linleye are mentioned as localities of the grant, and William le Budel and Richard Clerk himself, as holders of adjoining lands. The Deed is attested by Roger de Smethecote, John Champeneys, John de Biriton, William fitz Enge, and William le Budel. Only a fragment of the seal remains. The date of this Deed is probably between 1291 and 1298, which are aLso the limits of the three following.

2. The same Roger Sprenghose grants to the same Richard Clerk, and to Emma his wife, a certain footpath, leading from their house into the Vill of Longenolre. The path is described as traversing the field of Longerhull and the garden of Peter fitz Peter, and passing thence between the house and the grange of the said Peter into the high-road. Sprenghose further allows the Grantees to enlarge the moat (fossatum) around their house (curiam), making it 12 feet wider than the old moat. Witnesses,- Roger de Smethcote, John Champeneys, John de Binton, Walter de Burton, Henry de Wesseleg, William de Haywode, John Belimon, William Beadle, of Longenolre. The seal of this Deed is charged with Arms;- two lions passant, and a label of three points. Whether the family of Sprenghose bore this Coat as Cadets or as Vassals of the House of Le Strange is a question of much doubt.

3. Roger Sprenghose, Lord of Longenolre, gives to William, called Le Budel, of Longenolre, for 44. and for 6d. rent, all the land which William Twychelone and Agnes, widow of Adam de Bottefeld, sometime held; also allows that the Grantee may have 30 hogs and 1 boar quit of pannage in the woods of the Manor. The Milnemore, Powelbrok, Wysebrok, Kelmeshall, The Street of Bottestret, and The Russileye are boundaries mentioned in this

[26] History of Shrewsbury, I, 314, note 3.
[27] Supra, Vol. IV, pp. 101, 103.


the marriage of this Hawyse and John, in 1309-10, [34] Griffin Pole's custody of his nicee's lands had ceased. However his interest in Powrys-land continued very great, for a Writ of Edward II's, dated June 18, 1310, not only makes him a Commissioner to levy forces in Wales for the then proposed invasion of Sce but definitely names him and John de Cherlton as the persons who, it was expected, would allow a contingent of 400 men to be entered in "their land of Powys". [35] It is at this juncture that Griffin Pole appears in succession to Roger Sprenghose of Longnor, as the following Deeds will prove.

1. On December 13, 1310, Griffin de la Pole, Lord of Longenorle, grants to William de Acton Bernel, Clerk, and his body, a messuage and half-virgate in the vill of Longenorle which William de Breustere had previously held of the Grantee. He grants also the assart called the Neustokkynge and 6 acres to be assarted, and a place in Hethei whereon to build, and bote, heybote, firewood, and pannage for swine, free of all charges. The reserved rent is a pair of gilt spurs, and the Deed is dated at Longenorle and attested by Roger de Smethcote, Richard de, John de Biriton, Walter de Borton, Richard Clerk, and W Beadle of Longenorle. The seal is a Lion rampant, the well bearing of the Princes of Powys, and it has this legend: S' GRIFFIN' FIL' GRIFFINI DE POWY8. [35]

2. On December 19, 1310, the same Grantor expedites a Deed quit-claiming the same premises to the Grantee, but reserving the rent of gilt spurs. This quit-claim is sealed and attested a the last Deed.

3. On February 20, 1311, the same Grantor again quit-claims the premises, but in this Deed, which has the same testing clause, he further remits and quit-claims the previously reserved rent.

It would seem that Griffin de la Pole's title to Longenrle has not as yet been formally acknowledged by the Seigneural Lord but-

4. On March 3, 1312, Edmund, Earl of Arundel, certifies a Writ dated at Clun, that he has received the homage of Griffin de la Pole for his (Griffin's) Manor of Longenolre which is held of the Earl in capite, [36] for which homage the Earl and his heirs

[34] Claus. 5 Edward II, m. 2.
[35] Parliamentary Writs, IV, 1304.
[35] This Seal will be found among the Illustrations. I presume that the mark of cadency is the King, at the top and outside, the shield.
[36] An expression which seems to mean any tenure of Le Strange.


[For engraving, see pdf.]


warrant the said Manor to Griffin and his heirs. Witnesses,- Fulk le Strange, Peter Corbet, Roger Corbet, Fulk fitz Warin, William de Lodelowe, Knights, and others. To this Deed is attached a small seal of the Earl's arms, viz. a Lion rampant.

5. Ten days after this, viz. on March 11, 1312, Griffin de la Pole grants and concedes to Sir Fulk, son of Robert le Strange, all his Manor of Longenolre with all its appurtenances, as in homages, rents, services both of free-men and Villains, houses, gardens, meadows, boscs, feedings, pastures, moors, marshes, stanks, vivaries, waters, mills, escheats, and reversions. He also grants all his lands and tenements, which he had in Conedoure, Lidleie, and Leie (perhaps Lee Botwood),- to have and to hold to the said Fulk, his heirs and assigns, of the Chief Lords of the fee, by performance of all services due. Witnesses,- Sir William le Botiler, Sir Roger Corbet, Sir Richard de Harleie, Sir William de Lodelowe, Sir Robert de Stepleton, Sir Richard de Lechton, Roger de Smethcote and Richard de Eton. This Deed passed at Salop, evidently in a full County-Court. It has the Grantor's seal attached, viz. a Lion rampant within a Border engrailed. [37]

6. By a second deed of the same day, similarly sealed, but dated at Longnor, Griffin de la Pole gives to Sir Fulk le Strange, for a sum of money now paid, all his goods and chattels found in the Manor of Longenolre, both moveable and immoveable.

This transfer of his Shropshire lands and effects by Griffin de la Pole was I think a mere Sale, suggested or necessitated by his circumstances at the moment. I would point out by the way that the Purchaser of Longnor etc. was the Vendor's first Cousin, that is son of Robert le Strange, brother of Hawise le Strange, Griffin's mother. Griffin de la Pole had children of his own and was living long after this transaction. I will briefly state what is further known of him. In the very year in which he disposed of Longnor he asserted a claim to Pole Castle, and raising a great power of the Welsh, actually laid siege to that fortress. It was defended by his Niece who, with her husband John de Cherlton, happened to be residing there. Though Hawyse obtained the sobriquet of Gadarn or The Hardy for her conduct on this occasion, her Uncle's schemes were only defeated by the energy of Roger de Mortimer of Wigmore, whom Edward II instructed to support Hawyse and her husband. [38] But although humbled for a season, Griffin de la Pole

[37] This Seal I give among the Illustrations. The change in the mark of cadency is observable, a border instead of a ring.
[38] Monasticon, VI, pp. 351-2.


is recorded in the end of the year to have been in wrongful occupation of the territory of Mercheyn Iscoit. It will be remembered that this very land had once been in the hands of Roger Sprenghose. It does not appear however that Griffin de la Pole's title thereto arose in the same way as his title to Longnor. A Writ-Close of King Edward II assumes Mecheyn Iscoit to belong to the Lady of Powys, and orders the Sheriff of Shropshire to summon the said Griffin before the King, on February 3, 1313. [39] On the 16th of October in that same year, Griffyth de la Pole is included in the pardon granted to the adherents of the Earl of Lancaster who had participated in the death of Piers Gaveston. And again, a Writ of November 1, 1318, names Griffin de la Pole as one of the adherents of Thomas, Earl of Lancaster, who were pardoned for all felonies and trespasses up to the 7th of August preceding. [40] The Welsh Chronicles inform us of a final settlement between Hawyse Gadarn and her Uncles, whereby the Principality of Powys was settled upon Hawyse and her heirs general, whilst the portions of the said Uncles were limited to them and their heirs male, with remainder to Hawyse and her heirs. [41] This is not the place to discuss how such an entail may have affected the succession of Griffin de la Pole, who, as far as I have seen, had none but female children. I find incidental mention of his two Sons-in-law, viz. Sir Roger Chamber and Hugh Montgomery; but as neither they nor any other of Griffin's heirs were concerned in Longnor, I now return to-

SIR FULK LE STRANGE, his successor there.-

Of him, as first Baron of Blackmere, as husband of Eleanor Giffard, and as Lord of Sutton Maddock and Corfham, I have already spoken at some length. [42] In the Nomina Villarum of March 1316, he appears as Lord of the Vill of Longenolre. [43] On July 16, 1316,

39] Claus. 6 Edw. II, m. 18. This Writ is misrepresented by Dugdale, who makes it an order for Griffin's arrest. It bears date Dec. 30, 1312. It recites that on May 17, 1290, Owen ap Griffin ap Wenhunwin had agreed with his brother Griffin, that the latter should hold the whole land of Mercheyn Iscoit under the former, during their Mother Hawyse's life, but that on her death the said land should revert to Owen and his heirs, and that Griffin should have, instead, the land of Dendor (then held by his mother in dower, but the reversion whereof was Owen's);- to hold to Griffin and his heirs, under Owen and his heirs for ever.

The cause of Edward II's present Writ was a complaint by John and Hawyse de Cherleton, viz. that, though Griffin had had Dendor on his mother's death, he still detained Mercheyn Iscoit.

[40] Parliamentary Writs, IV, 1304.
[41] Powel, p. 157.
[42] Supra, Vol. II, pp. 120-123; Vol. V, pp. 147, 163.
[43] Parliametstary Writs, IV, 399.


as Fulco Extraneus, Lord of Corfham, he grants to William de Acton Burnell and the heirs of his body a messuage and half-virgate in Longenolre which William de Allecote had previously held. The reserved rent was 8s. Witnesses,- William Burnel de Longeleye, Richard Clerk of Longenolre, William Budell of the same, Richard de Eton, Walter de Burton. This Deed is dated at Longenolre and sealed with the Grantor's Arms,- two Lions passant. [44]

On February 5, 1321, Griffin de la Pole styling himself son of Griffin ap Guenonwen, and being then at Whitchurch (Album Monasterium), releases and quit-claims to Sir Fulk le Straunge, Lord of Whitchurch, his heirs and assigns, all right in the Manor of Longenolre. Witnesses,- Sir Roger Corbet, John de Leyborne, Thomas de Roshale, William de Sanford, Knights; John de Guarenne, Richard Ford, and John de Lee. This deed is sealed with the Arms of Griffin de la Pole as in 1310. [45] It does not appear why such a security was given or required.

Fulk le Strange of Blackmere, or of Whitchurch, as he was more usually called, had three sons whom it is necessary now to notice. These were John (his eventual heir and successor), Fulk, and Hamo. It becomes more probable than ever that Fulk le Strange acquired Longnor by purchase, when we find him settling it on his younger sons. There are two Deeds dated at Shrewsbury on April 25, 1322, and attested by the same witnesses, viz. by Sir William le Botiler, Sir Roger Corbet, Sir Fulk de Penebrugge, Sir William de Ercall, Sir Walter de Huggeford, Sir William de Sanford, and Sir John de Chetewynde. Both Deeds are or have been sealed with the Arms of Sir Fulk le Strange, viz. two Lions passant, with the Legend S' FULCONIS LE STRAUNGE. By one of these Deeds Fulco Lestrange, Lord of Whiteminster, gives to Fulco Lestrange his son, his Manor of Longenolre, with its appurtenances;- to hold of the Grantor and his heirs, to Fulco and the heirs of his body lawfully begotten, paying a rent of one rose to the Grantor and his heirs, and performing for the Grantor and his heirs all services due to the chief Lords of the Fee. If Fulco should die without heirs as aforesaid, the premises should remain to Hamo the Grantor's son and his heirs,- to hold immediately of

[44] Charter at Longnor.
[45] Charter at Longnor. This resumption of a Seal, older than the one used by the same person in 1312, is very curious. The incident happens, too, at a period when the Engraver's Art was making a rapid progress, both in execution and in taste.


the chief Lords of the Fee. [46] The second Deed is precisely the same as the above, except that the tenure of the Grantee (Fulk Junior) is to be immediate under the Lords of the Fee, and consequently the Grantor's mesne interest and the payment of a rose rent are altogether omitted. [46] The King's Writ of Diem clausit, on the death of Fulk le Strange (Senior), bears date Janutuy 23, 1324. The consequent Inquest mentions his tenures at Whitchurch, Wrockwardine, Sutton, etc., but makes no mention of Longnor. [47] Obviously, then, his fuller grant to his son Fulk was the one which had taken effect. I must now conclude summarily this branch of a subject which has already extended beyond my usual limits. Fulk le Strange of Longnor was deceased in 1375. He seems to have left only daughters to share his inheritance. One of the daughters, Margaret, released her share of Longnor, in 1375, to John Careles and Edward de Acton, whom I know to have been the husbands of Joan and Elianor,- Margaret's sisters. The line of Careles ended in a female married to John Corbett of Habberley, who thus obtained a moiety of Longnor as well as other Careles estates at Albrighton, Boningale, and Ryton. [48] From these two persons descended the line of Corbett of Longnor, one of whom, Thomas Corbett, reconsolidated the Manor in the reign of James I by purchasing that moiety which, more than two centuries before, had been apportioned to Edward de Acton and his wife Elianor le Strange, but which during the interval had been sold and resold to several indifferent parties.

[46] Charters at Longnor.
[47] inquintion, 17 Edw. II, No. 73.
[48] A statement is given by Mr. Dukes (Antiquities, p. 296) from which we should infer that as early as the eleventh year of Edward I (1282-3) Roger Carlis was Lord of Longnor. This is a complex error. The Charter of Free Warren alluded to, is by Edward II, not Edward I. The original is in possession of Edward Corbett, Esq., of Longnor. The Great Seal attached, and the witnesses' names, prove it to be Edward II's, and in fact it is enrolled on the Charter Roll of his eleventh year. This makes the date of the Charter to have been January 8, 1318. But at that period (as I have shown in the above narrative) Longnor was in possession of Fulk le Strange of Blackmere, whose granddaughter it was that first took a share of the Manor to a Careles. The explanation of this incongruity is obvious after one glance at Roger Careles's Charter of Free Warren. It has been falsified. The word Bolinghale, which (as I know from the enrolment at the Tower) stood in the original grant, has disappeared, and the word Longnorole (or something like it) has been inserted instead. It is difficult to suppose that this falsification was intentional. It appears to me to be the work of some Scribe, attempting to restore certain faded parts of the original document, by guess. Other words in the document have been retraced by the same hand with better success.


OF UNDERTENANTS in Longnor I have several further notices. At the Assizes of 1203, Matilda, widow of one William, is suing Roger Sprenghose for dower. In 1250 an arrentation of 3d. was set upon Richard Picot for a quarter of an acre of Forest land in Longenholre. In 1262 William de Eton and Alan Gamage, both of Longenolre, were assessed for imbladements within regard of the Long Forest. At the Assizes of 1292 William fitz Engelard of Longenolre was a Juror for Condover Hundred, and appears with William Beadle of Longnenoure on another Inquest of that year.

William fitz Enge has occurred above as a witness of Roger Sprenghose's Deeds, towards the close of the thirteenth century. On January 7, 1319, Roger son of William Enge of Longenolre leases for 33 years to Henry de Bosco a meadow between Bradleyespolle and the meadow of Richard fitz Roger, also certain cursones of land, when the tenure of Richard son of William Enge should cease therein. Witnesses,- Richard fitz Roger, Nicholas Pyk, Roger Thurlewynd. [49]

On July 4, 1319, the same Grantor gives the premises to the Lessee for a sum of money, and to hold of the chief Lords of the fee. Witnesses, Richard Clerk of Longenolre, William Bedell and others. [49]

On March 6, 1323, the same Grantor, as Roger son of William Engesone of Longenolre, grants for a sum of money to William de Acton and John his eldest son, their heirs and assigns, three acres of land and a meadow in Longenolre; to hold of the Lords of the fee. Mittewode, Kelmeshal, The Lowe, The Hoo, and Aldetonesmedwe, are localities named as landmarks in this Deed; also Richard Clerk and Richard Adies are adjoining tenants. The witnesses are John de Lee, Richard Clerk, William le Budel, Richard de Hoghton, Walter de Burton, Alexander de Waterdene, and Robert Inge. [49]

On March 27, 1323, the same Grantor quit-claims to William de Acton Burnel and John his eldest son, their heirs and assigns, his right in all lands which Simon Permentar of Wenlock and Agnes his wife formerly held as Agnes' dower in the inheritance of the Grantor in Longenholre, in which lands the said Simon and Agnes had previously enfeoffed the present Grantees for the term of Agnes' life. Witnesses,- John de Lee, Richard Clerk of Longenholre, William le Budel, Richard de Hoghton, Walter de Burton, Alexander de Waterdene and Robert Inge. [49]

[49] Charters at Longnor.


Previous to this, viz. on Nov. 15, 1322, Roger Thurlewynt of Longenolre grants for a sum of money, to the same William de Acton Burnel and his son John, all the lands and tenements within and without the vill of Longenolre which he (the Grantor) had by feoffment of Sir Roger Sprenghose, Richard Clerk, or any other Feoffor;- to hold of the Lords of the Fee. Witnesses, William Burnel of Longeleye, Walter de Bolton, Richard de Eton, Richard Clerk of Longenolre, William Budell. [49]

HAUGHMOND ABBEY FEE.- I can trace nothing further of this Tenement than is implied above. Longnor Mill is not entered in Pope Nicholas's Taxation as a possession of Haughmond Abbey. The Valor of 1534-5 is similarly silent, but perhaps the income from Lee Botwood included this item.

SHREWSBURY ABBEY FEE.- We have heard of half a hide in Longnor given by Azo Bigot (the Domesday Tenant) to Shrewsbury Abbey. [50] There seem to have been Charters by some of the earlier Lords of Longnor whereby they granted 5s. rent, arising from their Demesne of Longenolre, to the same Abbey. This was probably in lieu of the land granted by Azo, which certainly the monks did not retain. Between the years 1270 and 1280 I am inclined to date a Deed whereby Robert (it should be Roger) Sprenghose, Lord of Longenolre, inspects the Charters of his Predecessors granting the said rent-charge of 5s. This Inspeximus is attested by Sir Thomas Boterel, Hugh de Ley, William de Stepleton, Richard de Eton, Hugh de Wlonkeslo (i.e. Longslow), and Engelard de Pulile. [51] The following Deeds which seem to be parts of the same transaction and to have passed in or about the year 1279, show this rent-charge again commuted for land. By the first Deed Roger Sprenghose Lord of Longenolre gives in the name of exchange a place of land yielding 4s. rent, viz. half a virgate in Burton. Witnesses,- John de Lee, William Mascot, Richard de Eton, Engelard de Polileye, John de Prestcote, Adam le Bole, Henry Meyler, William de Prestecote, and Adam le Pestur. [51] The second is an agreement between John, Abbot of Shrewsbury (who became so in February 1279)

[49] Charters at Longnor.
[50] The Historians of Shrewsbury (Vol. II, p. 27) have made a mistake about this matter. Seeing that Azo Bigot who granted to Shrewsbury Abbey in Languenare and Abdon, was clearly that Azo who held the latter Manor at Domesday, they immediately and erroneously identified him further with that Wygot who held Longner (upon Severn) under the Bishop of Chester at Domesday. Accordingly they fixed in the latter Manor Azo Bigot's grant;- but Shrewsbury Abbey is not known ever to have possessed anything in Longner upon Severn.
[51] Salop Chartulary, Nos. 297-b, 298.


and Sir Roger Sprenghose, concerning a certain annual rent of 5s. Sir Roger concedes to the Abbey all services from half a virgate in Burton which Geoffrey son of William Russel held of the Abbey. The Abbot in turn quit-claims to Sir Roger 4s. out of the 5s. annual rent aforesaid, but the remaining 1s. was to continue payable to the Abbot till Sir Roger provided an equivalent elsewhere. [52] I should observe that Sir Roger Sprenghose's right to a rent of 4s. in Burton (that is Bourton) must have been a mesne right, for the Abbot was already Seigneural Lord of Bourton.


This was probably one of those affiliations of Condover Church which Bishop Clinton confirmed to Shrewsbury Abbey in the reign of Stephen. This state of subjection continued for the whole period to which my inquiries extend; for the Valor of Henry VIII makes no distinct mention of a Church or Chapel at Longnor, neither do the earlier Registers of Lichfield name any Incumbent thereof.


HAVING, under Condover, given the etymology of this name, I proceed to state what Domesday says of the Manor:-

"The same Rainald (Vicecomes) holds Cuneet, Earl Morcar held it (in Saxon times). Here are 4 hides geldable. In demesne there are II ox-teams, and there VI male and IIII female Serfs and VI Villains and VI Boors with IIII teams. Here are II Mills of 20s. (annual value), and a wood which will fatten 50 Swine. In King Edward's time the Manor was worth 4. 7s. (per annum). Now it is worth 10". [1]

Cound, or the greater part thereof, is usually found to have been

[52] Ibidem, No. 408. This Deed was an Indenture. Sprenghose's Counterpart is still at Longnor. It is attested by Sir John de Lee, William Mascot, Richard de Eton, Engelard de Polily, John de Prestecote, Adam le Bole, Henry Meyler, etc. The two seals are gone.
[1] Domesday, fo. 254, b, 1.


held in demesne by thc Fitz Alms (Rainsld's Successors). We consequently learn but little from Records beyond the broad overtures of its history.

The Chartulary of Shrewsbury Abbey contains a curious item evidently of the first William fitz Alan; but at what period of his career it passed, there is nothing to determine. He gives the Monks an annuity of one merk "for the special purpose of brewing wine wherewith masses were to be sung, to the intent that, by means of that sacrifice and by the merits of St. Peter and St. Paul the Grantor's soul might be delivere.d from the torment of everlasting thirst". The annuity was for the present to be chargeable on the rent of the Grantor's Mill of Coneta, till he should decide on some land of his demesne, equal in value, and convey the same to the Church. The witnesses hereof were, Richard, the Grantor's Chaplain, and two Priests, named Heming and Ebrard. [2]

A matter which I have next to name is of exceeding interest but it is only problematically connected with Cound. In 1165 Walter fitz Alan is enrolled as having two fees of new feoffment in the Barony of William fitz Alan. [3] The latter was Nephew of William and was in minority at the time. The Feoffor of Walter will therefore have been his deceased Brother William, and the feoffment must have taken place between 1135 and 1160. There is no evidence proving where Walter fitz Alan's lands, thus acquired lay. He, as I shall show hereafter, was Seneschal of Scotland and an Ancestor of the Royal House of Stuart. Obviously therefore his English Feoffments will have been surrendered by himself, or one of his Successors, for no such illustrious Tenants as the Seneschal and Kings of Scotland appear among the later Feudatories of Alan. I think it probable that Cound was one of the Manors temporarily held by Walter fitz Alan, or his immediate Successors. I can instance no other Shropshire Manor with equal probability as having been Walter fitz Alan's, and this general impression is strengthened by a circumstance.- A Survey of the Knights Templars' possessions in England, taken A.D. 1185, states, under the head Shropshire, that the Knights had a virgate of land at Coneton by gift of Walter fitz Alan. One Robert and his son Hamo tenants thereof, paid the Knights a rent of 5s. [4] I think that by Coneton is meant Cound, but no estate in the latter place remained with either Templars or Hospitallers.

[2] Salop Chartulary, No. 83.
[3] Liber Niger, I, 144.
[4] MS. ut supra, Vol. I, p. 36, 479.


I now pass over the greater part of a century, to state that on June 16, 1240, Cunette was one of the Manors assigned for the dower of Hawise de Blaneminster, widow of the first John fitz Alan. A Charter of King Henry III, dated at Vasat (Bazats) on January 28, 1254, allows to John fitz Alan (II) the privilege of Free-Warren in his demesnes at Upton (Upton Magna), Wroxeter, Cuned, Harrenege, (Harnage), Acton (Acton Round), and other places. [5] The Hundred Roll of 1255 says that "Sir John fitz Alan holds the Manor of Conet, for 3 hides of land, and of the King (in capite). It pays neither Stretward nor Motfee, nor does it any Suit, either to County or Hundred". [6] This estimate of the extent of Cound is one hide less than that of Domesday. The difference was made up by a hide of land which formed the then distinct Manor of Harnage, which, as I shall presently show, was no longer in Fitz Alan's demesne.

Cound, like Acton Round, already noticed, was part of the dower of Matilda de Verdon, widow of the second John fitz Alan. [7] She remarried to Richard de Amundeville, and died Nov. 27, 1283. The Inquest which followed values the gross income of the Manor of Conede at 19. 7s. 9d. The capital messuage, or Manor-house, was apparently ruinous or fallen (messuagium non edificatum). Among the receipts, mention is made of a certain custom called Wrmtak, which, with the Bosc and Pannage, yielded 6s. 8d. yearly. [8]

Cound now reverted to the estate of Richard fitz Alan, Earl of Arundel, who was Grandson of Matilda de Verdon, and who, having been born on Feb. 3, 1267, was now (1283) in minority. Cound was soon, however, redisposed of, being given in frank-marriage with Matilda fitz Alan to Philip Burnel, Nephew and then Heir-expectant of Robert Burnell, Bishop of Bath and Wells. This Matilda fitz Alan has been set down by Dugdale, and I believe all the Genealogists, as daughter of the said Richard, Earl of Arundel;- an astonishing error, which the slightest attention to possibilities and dates would have prevented. Her son, Edward Burnell, was born July 22, 1287, that is, at a time when his alleged Grandfather, Richard fitz Alan, had not reached the age of twenty-one. Doubtless Matilda fitz Alan was the Sister of Richard, Earl of Arundel.

In October 1292 Philip Burnel was questioned, under Writ of Quo Waranto, for holding pleas-of-the-Crown and exercising rights of free-warren and wayf in his Manors of Rushbury, Millichope,

[5] Rot. Vascon. 38 Hen. III.
[6] Rot. Hundred. II, 63.
[7] Supra, Vol. IV, pp. 122, 123.
[8] Inquisition, 12 Edw. I, No. 29.


Wodeton (Wootton), Hondelershope (read Boudelers Hope, or Hope Bowdler), Longdon, and Conede. As to Pleas-of-the-Court and Wayf, he denied his claim thereto, or exercise thereof. He exhibited Charters authorizing him to hold fairs and markets at Rushbury, Wootton, Hope Bowdler, and Longdon. As to Cound he claimed a right to assize bread and beer there; [9] and this was apparently over and above what he was questioned for; indeed a prosecution, as regards Cound, seems not to have been pressed by the Crown.

Philip Burnell died June 26, 1294, seized, inter alia, of Conede which he had held in frank-marriage conjointly with his wife Matilda. His service, due thereon to the Earl of Arundel, is seen to have been the finding of one horseman to serve in the war with Wales. [10]

I find nothing further of Cound as held by any descendants of Philip Burnel. The precise time at which it reverted to the fitz Alans I cannot determine. However, in the Nomina Villarum of March 1316 Edmund, Earl of Arundel, is set down as Domini de Conede, [11]- a hint that the Manor was again held in demesne to its Seignoral Lord. With the Fitz Alans it certainly remained so for ages.

UNDERTENANTS in Cound I notice the following-, At the Assizes of November 1221, Robert de Bray was impleaded for deseizing Isolda, daughter of Martin Kempe, of a free tenement in Shrewsbury and in Cunede. Robert de Bray's defence was, Isolda's husband (unnamed), having slain a man, had taken sanctuary in one of the Shrewsbury Churches, and in due form absented the realm. His land, as an Escheat, had been given by the Crown to the Defendant. Isolda replied that the tenement for which she now sued was her dower, by gift of her said husband, whose outlawry she did not deny. The Court decided that no woman could hold a free tenement by virtue of the grant of a Felon. So the case was adjourned sine die, and the Defendant declared to be therein (inde quietus). [12]

[9] Quo Warranto, p. 685, a.
[10] Inquisition, 22 Edw. I, No. 45, c.
[11] Parliamentary Writs, IV, 398. Mr. Dukes (p.287) cites a proof that Sir John Lovel quit-claimed the Manor and Avowson of Cound to Richard Earl of Arundel. This is said to have been in 52 Edward III;- an impossible date but perhaps meaning the year 1378-9. John Lovel's right, whatever it was may have been derived from Burnel, but there is no reason to suppose that his right ever amounted to possession.

[12] Assizes, 6 Hen. III, m. 2 dorso.


On November 12, 1242, John de Hauckeston was summoned in Court at Westminster to answer Walter de Cunede, seeing that the said John had against the King's prohibition prosecuted the said Walter in Court-Christian for a lay-fee in Cunede; to wit, for a rent of 10s. there. The said Walter had been impleaded in Chapter before the Dean of Morton, and had been excommunicated by the said Dean; so he laid his damages at 100s. John de Hawkston now pleaded that he had not followed up his suit in Court-Christian since he was served with the said prohibition. He was bound over to take his trial on that issue, in the Quinzaine of Easter following. Meantime, Robert de Haleghton and Roger de Merston became Sureties for his reappearance, and undertook that he should obtain absolution for the Plaintiff. [13] In November 1272, we have another or the same Walter de Conede employed in certain purchases of Bishop Burnell, at Belswardine.

At the Assizes of 1292 the Jurors of Condover Hundred told how two men had fought on Cound Bridge, one with a sword, the other with a knife, and how both had been slain.


This Manor, though constituting one of the hides involved in Cound at Domesday, has subsequently a history of its own.

When William fitz Alan (I) was restored to his Shropshire estates in 1155, he, being then at Brug, received the homage of his Vassals. This was on July 25, on which day he also granted Wroxeter Church to Haughmond Abbey. His Charter has only three witnesses, and the last of the three is Hugh de Lacy of Colemere, that is, of Coolmere near Ellesmere. Now there is some probability that this Hugh de Lacy was identical with him who afterwards became Lord of Ludlow and Ewyas. If so, we account for his being called De Colemere in 1155 thus.- His Father Gilbert was living, but was up to this period under forfeiture like Fitz Alan. The son therefore may have been provided for by political friends or others, in a way which could not but be acceptable at the time, though his subsequent greatness ill accords with such poor antecedents. Without, however, prematurely settling this question of identity between Hugh de Lacy of Colemere, and Hugh, son of Gilbert de Lacy, I here shall only insist on the probability that Hugh de Lacy of Colemere

[13] Placita apud Westminster, Mich. Term, 26 and 27, Hen. III, m. 25.


was in 1155 a Vassal of William fitz Alan. Possibly he became so in that very year, but in any case we may certainly look upon Harnage as at least a part of the estate in respect of who was Fitz Alan's Vassal. In 1167, when Hugh de Lacy of Cound had suceeeded to the Honours of his House, we have sight of Harnage - Hugh de Lacy's Manor of Harnage (Hugonis de Laci) had been amerced one merk in the Forest by Alan de Nevill: but Hugh himself had obtained the King's writ excusing the penalty, and he was quit. What we know of Hugh Lacy of Ewyas makes it strongly probable that he was the one thus favoured by King Henry II. At this period, or a little later we hear first of one Almaric de Lacy. He was Lord of the neighbouring Manor of Cressage, and held it certainly under Hugh Lacy of Ewyas. I think Almaric was Hugh's brother. We hear too that Hugh transferred to Almaric his tenancy of Harnage though he did not and could not alienate the Seigneury of Cound which was his in a totally different way.

In 1178, among persons liable to a payment to the Crown for wastes and assarts in Shropshire, Almaric de Lacy had been pardoned 10s. 6d. by Writ Royal. I shall defer many things I have to say about Almaric de Lacy and his son Gilbert till their move to Cressage. Meanwhile the following notes are strictly applicable only to Harnage. On May 7, 1200, we have Warner de Wililey appearing in the Courts at Westminster as Attorney of William fitz Alan who, it seems, was suing Gilbert de Laci in a plea of assize (or so called) for 60 acres of land in Harnage. The Defendant appeared not, nor sent any essoign; so the Court decided to proceed the case, because of such default; but the Recognizors were forthcoming, so the case was adjourned till the Justices should visit Shropshire. The non-attendant Recognizors were William Pigot, William de Lia, Hugh Burnel, Philip de Linton, William de Bikedon. Their future appearance was ordered to be secured by attachment. The attendant Recognizors, as well as those who had sent Essoignors, were also to appear. [14] This adjournement to the next Eyre of the King's Justices was not final. On Oct. 1200, the cause came before the Courts of Westminster as a mort d'ancestre, the question being "whether William, Fitz William" (that is of William fitz Alan II) "died seized of a manor in Harnege now held by Gilbert de Lasci, and if so, whether William Junior was his heir". The Jury decided in the affirmative

[14] Rot. Curiae Regis, II, 251.


William recovered his seizin; and Lacy was in misericordia pro injusta detencione. The Assize was taken by default of the Defendant, that is, in his non-attendance without essoign. [15]

Fitz Alan thus recovered a part of Harnage, forty years after his Father's death, and from a person whom I believe to have been first cousin of his (Fitz Alan's) wife. The Charter is printed elsewhere, whereby this same Gilbert de Lacy, calling himself son of Aumeric de Lacy, granted "the whole of Hernege to Buildwas Abbey, together with the land which Maurice sometime held, to wit, whatever he (Gilbert) had in that vill, whether in demesne or in service". The boundaries of the grant are given, viz. from the Sichet called Sciremoresiche, etc., to the road going to Keneley, including the whole Riflei (probably Riflet), etc., to the rivulet beyond the vill of Keneley, and along the said rivulet down to the boundaries between Herenege and the land of William Burnel, etc.,- along Kenildebroc down to the boundaries of Mortone and onwards to the boundaries between the field of Cristeseche (Cressage) and of Hernege, and to the ditch near the top of Wilardsmedwe, and thence along the ditch near the high grove of the Haye, through Raynald's assart and through Sciremore, including all Sciremore up to Sciremoresiche before mentioned. Gilbert further grants a right of common in the Manor of Cristeseche (both in the wood called Haye and elsewhere, wherever the free men and other tenants of Cristeseche had common) for 50 oxen and cows and for other animals, under view of his (Gilbert's) Servant. The Charter also secures wood for fencing and fire, and rights of road through Cressage, to the Severn, so that the Abbot's men might avail themselves of that River, both for washing their sheep and for the purpose of water-carriage. [16] The Charter implies that the Monks of Buildwas had barges (naves) on the Severn. It was attested by Sir Ymbert, Prior of Wenlock, Sir John fitz Alan, William Priest of Draytone, (i.e. William de Draytone, Priest), also by Richard de Lecton (Leighton), Richard de Middelhope, Roger Sprenghose, Robert Parson of Cristeshethe and John Tece. [17]

This Charter is the more valuable from our being able to date it with precision. It doubtless passed in 1232, for King Henry III, being at Wenlock on November 30th in that year, confirmed it. [18] Next year, Gilbert son of Almarick de Lacy was deceased, and Eva

[15] Placita, Mich. Term, 2 John.
[16] Monasticon, V, 856. Num. II.
[17] Cart. 20, Edw. I, No. 41.
[18] Transcript of Buildwas Charters in W. Mytton's Collection.


de Bailiol, his widow, was suing the Abbot of Buildwas for deseizin Harnage; whilst Gilbert, son and heir of the deceased, was to warrant the Abbot's Title and to provide his mother's dower elsewhere. All this I learn from a series of extracts from the Plea-Rolls, curiously supplemented by the still existent Charter of young Gilbert de Lacy himself. Thus in-

July 1233, Simon, Abbot of Buildwas, essoigns himself by de Brident against Eva, widow of Gilbert de Lacy, in a plea of dower. Eva makes William de Diche her attorney. Hearing is fixed for Nov. 12. [19]

October 1233, the Abbot appoints Nicholas de Prene, Master of his House, or William Cementarius, his attorney against William de Lacy's widow.

November 12, 1233, Eva, widow of Gilbert de Lacy, sues the Abbot at Westminster for one-third of Ernegge. The Abbot requests View of the premises. The Court grants it, and adjourns the case to one month of Easter.

May 1234, Nicholas de Pyame, the Abbot's attorney Eva against Eva de Lascy, (the name Bataille stood originally for Eva's name, but has been cancelled), essoigns himself by Richard Madeleh. A day in one month of Michaelmas was given.

May 4, 1236. The case is still undecided. Eva moves the case at Westminster for a certain third, "which she claims as tenant to the free tenement which she holds in dower in Frome (i.e. Frome Castle, Herefordshire, another estate of this branch of the Lacies). The Abbot still asks for view. A day (the Quinzaine of St. John Baptist) is given. But the matter was settled by accord, for the Pipe-Roll of 1236 relates how Eva, widow of Walter (read Gilbert) de Lacy, had fined half a merk pro licentia redandi, William de Tycho (previously written Diche) being her attorney. The Fine actually levied is not extant.

Pending this lawsuit, that is, between the years 1232 and 1232, Gilbert, son of Gilbert de Lacy, expedited a Charter whereby he binds himself to the Abbot and Convent of Buildwas under penalty of 40., to appear at whatever time or place they may decide necessary, before the King's Justices, and to answer Eva de Lacy his mother concerning the land which she asserts to per

[19 In October 1233, I find mention of a Shropshire Suit wherein John fitz Adam (then on foreign service), and Richard fitz Gervase, Attorney of Eva de Baillol, were concerned. Nothing can be discovered from the Record; but we know that Eva was identical with Gilbert's widow.


her in Hernege, in the way of dower". " He (Gilbert) will thus appear, all essoign being out of the question, to give warranty against his mother, according to his father's Charter concerning Hernege", and to satisfy her claim of dower so as to exonerate the Abbot. Witnesses,- Sir Imbert, Prior of Wenloc; William, Priest of Drayton; Master Ranulf de Coleham; Master John Gernun, Rector of the Church of Alvitheleg (Alveley); Richard de Lecthon (Leighton); Roger Sprenchose; and John Tece. [20]

The Hundred Roll of 1255 tells us that the "Abbot of Buldewas holds Arneg for I hide of land, of the Fee which had belonged to Gilbert de Lacy of Cristesache". He paid neither Stretward nor motfee, nor rendered any Suit to County or Hundred. [21]

In 1291 we find the Abbot of Buildwas in possession of, apparently, the whole of Harnage. Four carucates of land there realized (at 15s. per carucate) an income of 3. per annum. The profits of stock were 6. 5s., and he had 2s. of assized rents, making a total of 9. 7s. [22] The Valor of 1535-6 states the assized rents of Harnege to be 13. 6s. 8d. The Abbot paid a Pension of 20s. per annum to the Rector of Cound for administering the Sacraments to the inhabitants of Harnage Grange. [23] The Ministers' Accounts of 1536-7 give the same rents with the Valor, viz. 13. 6s. 8d., as the Ferm of Harnage Grange; but the "profits of the Tithes" of Harnage, also an asset of the late Abbey, were 2. 13s. 4d. more. [24]


THAT this was a Saxon Foundation I cannot doubt, seeing that it once had certain subject Chapels, though I can positively instance only two, viz. Cressage and Acton Pigot. [25] The Pensions which the Rector of Cound received at different times from the Churches of Chetton, Easthope, and Acton Round, I have already alluded to. [25] They do not seem to have originated in any parochial subjection, but were probably compositions in lieu of certain tithes, granted by Warin Vicecomes or some other layman having an interest in all three Parishes, to the favoured Church which adorned his own Demesne.

[20] Charter in the possession of John Cotes, Esq., of Pitchford.
[21] Rot. Hundred. Vol. II, p. 62.
[22] Pope Nich. Taxation, p. 260, b.
[23] Valor Ecclesiacticus, III, 191, 192.
[24] Monasticon, V, 361. Num. xxv.
[25] The Churches of Sheinton, Harley, Buckley, Acton Burnell, Kenley, and Pitchford were probably affiliations of Cound at their first foundation.
[26] Supra, Vol. I, pp. 183-184. Vol. IV, pp. 120, 126.


The first express mention which I have of Cound Church to presently appear in a Presentation thereto in 1216. In the Church of Conede, in the Deanery of Salop, was, together with its Chapels, valued at 20. per annum, [27] but the Inquisition in 1295, on the death of Philip Burnel, values the Church at 26. 13s. 4d., saying that it appertained to the Manor of Cound which Matilda, Philip's Widow, was holding in frank-marriage. [28]

The Assessors of the Ninth in 1341 first quote the abatement, and then proceed to rate the Parish at 16. 18s. 6d. 2. 9s. 4d. was the proportion chargeable on the Abbot of Cound for his Temporalities within the Parish. The reasons for the reduction in general were;- because the hay-tithes (worth 1), the tithes of Mills (worth 10s.), and the glebe-land, rental relations (worth 7. 10s.), were included in the Church-value but were not computable in assessing the Ninth of wheat, or lamb. [29]

A Patent of June 26, 1354, announces that the Fine (Edward III), notwithstanding the Statutes adverse to succeeding, has, for a Fine of 20s., to be paid by the Abbey and Convent of Buildwas, given license to Richard Earl of Arundel that he may grant the Advowson of the Church of Conede (beholden of the King) [30] to the Abbot, in exchange for the tithes of Kynnerton, Ruton, and Stirchesle [31] (also not holden of the King) and that the Abbot may appropriate the said Chureh. [32] It does not seem to me that either this exchange or appropriation took place. Each Party was holding his own, in the specialities specified, at a much later period. [33]

The Valor of 1534-5 names David Egerley as Rector of Cound. His gross income was 33. 13s. 4d., which sum was charged with 13s. 4d. for Procurations and Synodals. [34]

[27] Pope Nich. Taxation, p. 247.
[28] Inquisitions, 22 Edw. I, No. 45, d.
[29] Inquis. Nonarum, p. 183.
[30] This, I presume, was technical language, meaning that the Manor and Advowson of Cound were held of the Escheat of Earl Robert de Belesme, i.e. held of the King, as Earl of Shrewsbury, not as King.
[31] That is Kinnerton and Ritton near Wentnor (not Kemberton and Ryton near Shiffnal, as has been stated) at Stirchley, near Shiffnal.
[32] Patent. 28 Edw. III, p.
[33] Mr. Blakeway mentions a Charter between the Abbot of Buildwas and Rector of Cound about tithes originated in some claim of this Advowson. I presume it merely concerned the Tithe rage.
[34] Valor Ecclesiasticus, 1


[For engraving, see pdf.]



ROBERT DE GAHAM was presented by letters-patent of King John, dated Oct. 3, 1216, to the Church of Cunet. The King exercised the right of Patronage because John fitz Alan was in rebellion, and his lands were in the King's hand. [35]

SILVESTER DE EVERDON was presented to the Church of Conet on Jan. 14, 1243, King Henry III exercising the right of patronage because John fitz Alan's heir was in his custody. [36]

ROGER FITZ ALAN, Parson of Cunede, was amerced, at the Forest Assizes of February 1262, for keeping greyhounds within Jurisdiction of the Forest, without license. He was however pardoned.

SIR THOMAS DE ACTON REYNERS, Priest, was instituted to this Rectory, at presentation of Dame Matilda Burnel, on May 19, 1298. On Oct. 18, 1299, he has licensed for a year's non-residence in order that he may devote himself to the service of the said Lady. [37]

MASTER JOHN DE STANTON, Priest, had this Church commended to his care on March 30, 1312, in order that he might watch its interests during the spring seed-time (semestre tempus); but this title was exchanged for one of full institution on April 1 following, Dame Matilda Burnel presenting. [37] Stanton resigned on Feb. 14, 1318, and on March 10 following-

JOHN DE CHEYNE was admitted at the presentation of Edmund Earl of Arundel. Cheyne has a license of non-residence in November 1318, and he resigned Feb. 9, 1321. [37] On the next day-

NICHOLAS DE CHEYNE, Clerk, was admitted at presentation of the same Earl. He resigned May 15, 1321, when-

JOHN DE CHEYNE, Subdeacon, was (apparently a second time) instituted, the Earl again presenting. He has licenses of non-residence for sake of study, in August 1321 [37] and January 1323. [38] Whether by error or not, the Rector of Cound who died in 1373, is called-

NICHOLAS CHEYNE. [39] On August 6 of that year-

WILLIAM DE HERDEWYK, Priest, was instituted at presentation of Richard Earl of Arundel and Surrey.

SIR JOHN PRAT, Priest, was instituted Nov. 24, 1391, at nomination of the same Nobleman. Prat was here in 1399, when he

[35] Rot. Patent. p. 198.
[36] Patent. 27 Hen. III, m. 4.
[37] Regist. Langton.
[38] Regist. Northburgh.
[39] Blakeway's MSS.


had a license for five years' non-residence, on condition that he passed the time in locis honestis, and maintained ordinary hospitality to the parochial poor. [39]

Before I quit this subject I should state that there is no presentation, by Buildwas Abbey, to this Church, on Record, and that the Advowson remained with the Earls of Arundel till the extinction of the male line of Fitz Alan. As late as the year 1553 I find the Assignee of Henry Earl of Arundel (the last Fitz Alan), presenting to Cound. [39]


THIS place is noticed in Domesday as follows:-

The same Rainald (Sheriff) holds Chenelie, and Odo holds it of him. Edric held it (in Saxon times) and was a free man. Here is one hide geldable. In demesne there is I ox-team, and there might be IIII additional teams here. Here is a wood which will fatten 400 swine. In King Edward's time the Manor was worth 30s. (per annum), and afterwards it was waste. Now it is worth 4s. [1]

The Seigneural interest of Rainald at Kenley descended in the usual course, viz. to the Fitz Alans. So also the Tenancy of Odo de Bernires went down regularly to the elder representatives of the House of Fitz Odo, as I have described their succession under Broadstone and Rushbury. [2] From Fitz Odo it passed to De Wililey, with Petronilla, sister and heir, or more probably coheir, of Herbert fitz Odo; and with Burga, the heiress of De Wililey, it went to the Harleys. Kenley then formed a part of the Fief which in 1165 was held by Roger fitz Odo in the Barony of Fitz Alan. The whole of the said Fief was held by service of one Knight and three Muntators, equivalent to 2 knights'-fees. [3] The proportion due from Kenley was, I think, half a fee.

Now it is clear to me that in the reign of Henry II Kenley was not being retained in the demesne of the elder House of Fitz Odo, but that a younger branch was subinfeuded therein. These Cadets

[39] Blakeway's MSS.
[1] Domesday, fo. 254, b, 1.
[2] Vol. IV, pp. 89, 90, 94.
[3] Subsequent Records would rather make Fitz Odo's Fief as 2 3/8 fees, viz. Stanway 1 fee, Henley fee, Half Gretton fee, Acton Pigot fee, Golding 1/8 fee.


eventually surrendered or lost their interest here, and the fee-simple reverted to the elder line. The circumstances which warrant this conclusion I now proceed to give or to recapitulate.

Philip fitz Odo, the presumed son and heir of Odo de Bernires, was living in Stephen's reign, and, as I have intimated under Broadstone, was succeeded by Roger fitz Odo, probably his Son. It seems however that the latter (living in 1165) had a Brother, who coincided with him and their Mother in a confirmation to Shrewsbury Abbey. [4] When I find that, cotemporary with Roger fitz Odo, there was a person of much weight, named William fitz Odo, I cannot doubt that he was the Brother in question.

William fitz Odo seems to me to have had both Kenley and the whole of Gretton;- of course as a Tenant of his elder brother, if such Roger was. This tenure would naturally associate William fitz Odo with the Fief of William fitz Alan. Accordingly I find him attesting no less than five Charters of that Baron, all of which passed between 1155 and 1160, and one of them about Easter in the latter year. Of course William fitz Odo does not appear as a Tenant of Fitz Alan's Barony in 1165, for the simple reason that Roger fitz Odo was the immediate Tenant, William holding under him. Between 1169 and 1176 we have the name of William fitz Odo attesting a Charter of Peter Prior of Wenlock about Hughley, [5] a circumstance which strongly favours our assumption of the witness's connection with Kenley.

Within the same period I think it probable that William fitz Odo died, leaving at least three sons, viz. Thomas, Roger, and William, of each of whom I have something to say.

William fitz Odo, though not the eldest, had an interest in Kenley, for in 1180 he was fined 3s. by Justices of the Forest for waste there. He was long afterwards alleged to have held something in Tong (under Belmeis of course), and we know from the very facts of this case that he died without issue. [6]

[4] Vol. IV, p. 90, note 6.
[5] Register at Willey, fo. 7.
[6] I have alluded to this case before (Vol. II, p. 217), but not being satisfied as to its relevancy to Tong, did not give the particulars.-

At the Assizes of November, 1221, Thomas de Chabbenour sued Roger de la Zouche under Writ of mort d'ancestre for a hide of land, said to be in Twenge. Thomas de Chabbenour claimed as heir of William fitz Odo his Uncle (avunculus), who (as he stated) had died seized thereof. Presently Thomas de Chabbenour withdrew the Suit, so he and his Sureties (Peter Pak, Henry de Prene, and Robert de Wudeton) were in misericordia (Assizes, 6 Hen. III, m. 5, dorso). I have only to observe on this that the word avuncular must here be taken as equivalent to patruus, i.e. paternal Uncle: also that, if the hide of land sued for had been stated to have been in Gretton rather than Tong, the whole matter would have been much more intelligible. That a Fitz-Odo should claim a tenure in Gretton under La Zouche, is easily at accounted for (compare Vol. IV, pp. 107, 108).


Of Roger fitz Odo I shall speak presently in conjunction with his elder brother Thomas. He occurs however independently in a matter which I shall state under Acton Pigot, viz. as Guardian of three Coheiresses in part of that Manor.

But I return to Thomas fitz Odo, otherwise called Thomas William, Thomas de Chabbenore, [7] and Thomas de T; he was doubtless the eldest son of his Father, and whose interests were as various as his names. He was a Feoffee in Hereford, and Grantee of Henry II, a Tenant by Serjeantry, and the husband of a Shropshire Coheiress.

One notice which I have of him, is about 1175, when known as Thomas fitz Odo, a Charter of Henry II at Shrewsbury. It must be remembered that even prior to that he had, by grant of the King, the custody of the lands of young Roger Corbet. The Shropshire Pipe-Roll of 1177 gives us "Richard the Thomas fitz Odo" as amerced 1 merk by the King for trespass.

How Thomas fitz Odo's line acquired the name of Chabbenor is no easy matter to determine. His wife Margery was a Coheir (through her Mother) of Helias de Higley,- a Vassal of Mortimer of Wigmore. [10] Who Margery's Fahther was does not appear, but possibly his name was De Chabbenor. The Village and Manor of Chabnor (or Chadnor) in Herefordshire is about two miles eastward of Weobley, once the Caput of the Barony. Chabnor was however a member of the Barony and held for many generations by persons who took name from the place. That this family of Chabnores was identical to the Shropshire family I cannot prove or disprove. Here is a piece of circumstantial evidence, showing that Thomas was concerned in that part of Herefordshire, and in the Todeni.-

About seven miles south-westward of Weobley, and

[7] There may be a doubt whether Thomas fitz Odo himself was ever called De Chabbenore. The question is one of date, viz. whether he was deceased in 1211 or not. He certainly was dead but if in 1211, then it was his son who was called Thomas de Chabenor and again, he was living in Kenley. He was doubtless called De Chabbenor because of property acquired with his father.
[8] Wormbridge Chartulary, Tit: Orpington, No. ccxvi.
[9] Supra, Vol. I, pp. 86-90.
[10] Vide supra, Vol. IV, p.


[For pedigree, see pdf.]


to each other, are the two Manors of Eardisley and Wililey, the former held in Henry II's time by Ralph de Baskerville, tenant of Laci, the latter farmed by the same Ralph de Baskerville for Thomas fitz Odo, and held by Thomas fitz Odo of the Todeni. In 1188 the lands late Ralph de Baskerville has custody of the Crown, as was also the Fief of his deceased lord Hugh de Laci. The King's Fermor had in hand both Eardisley and Willamislea, but he paid out of his receipts a sum of 8 to Thomas fitz Odo by order of the King, viz. for "two years' ferm of Willamislea, which Ralph de Baskerville had held before Thomas fitz Odo at ferm". [11]

To return to Shropshire,- I have given under Willey whereby, about the year 1185, Thomas fitz Odo conveyed Kenley and half Gretton to Petronilla wife of Wililey. [12] This Petronilla I believe to have been Coheir of the said Thomas, and I know to have been Sister of Herbert Representative of the House of Fitz Odo.

I have further given under Willey the Fine whereby in 1194, Thomas fitz Odo and Roger his Brother concede and half Gretton to Warner and Petronilla de Wililey. In November of the same year they or their representative is again suing the said Warner for Kenley, alleging that he deseized them thereof. [13] In this renewed quarrel I record that Thomas fitz Odo is described as Thomas fitz William, of Roger fitz Odo (or fitz William) we have the name Roger. This is either an error of the law-clerk, or else (there is no other reason to think) Roger fitz Odo had in the intervening time been succeded by a son William. Warner de Wililey appeared to the charge of desseizin. He pleaded the Fine previously in the Curia Regis, and produced the document itself, so that, since that Fine was levied, the present Plaintiffs installed themselves in the premises. This they did not deny, and were therefore pronounced to be in misericordia, and Warner granted seizin. Some later reminiscences of this litigation will feature in a Sequel.

In or about the year 1211, among the Shropshire Serjeantry, is the name of Thomas de Chabenore, Chibnhour, or Chabenhovre. [14] His service was, to find

[11] Rot. Pip. 34 Hen. II, Herefordshire.
[12] Supra, Vol. II, p. 53.
[13] Rot. Curiae Regis, 1, 30.
[14] Red Book of Exchequer, cxxxvii. Testa de Nevill,


one sore falcon annually, but where the lands were, which he thus held, we are not told. This silence of the Records has induced a corresponding omission in a former Volume of this Work. There can be little doubt that his Serjeantry lay at The Hay, near Eardington, and in the Parish of Quatford. [15] This Serjeantry became obsolete, though an interest in the land remained with De Chabenour some years longer. The Tenure in short escaped all the Scrutinies which were instituted as to Serjeantries by King Henry III.

Leaving this digression, I return to Warner de Wililey and his wife Petronilla, whom I shall show in full possession of Kenley within ten years after the litigation of 1194, though it is probable that at this period they held the Manor under Petronilla's brother, Herbert de Rushbury.

In Hilary Term 1203 a day (in one month of Easter) was given to Warner de Wilileg, Plaintiff, and to Hugh de Lega (i.e. Hughley) in a plea of pasture. [16] A Fine levied at Westminster, on June 8 following, informs us what this plea was about, and how it was settled. The fine was between Warner de Wililee and Petronilla his wife (Plaintiffs) and Hugh de Lega (Tenant) of a common-right in the Bosc of Kenelee. Warner and Petronilla now concede to Hugh and his heirs 60 cart-loads of dead wood in the said bosc, to be taken annually, under view and delivery of Warner's Foresters. Also the said Hugh and his heirs should have 60 of their own swine in the said wood, free of pannage; but if they had more, pannage they should pay. Hugh's men were also to pay pannage if they had swine in the bosc. Hugh, his heirs, and his men of Lega, were to have pasture of the herbage of the said bosc. For all this, Hugh and his heirs were to pay 2s. yearly, on St. Martin's Day, to Warner and Petronilla, and the heirs of Petronilla; also every house in Lega, belonging to Hugh, his heirs, or men, and from which a head of cattle went forth (into the bosc), was to pay two hens at Christmas. Hugh, moreover, and his men, were to mow, at their own cost and at a reasonable

[15] Vide supra, Vol. I, p. 124, for a part of the evidence which leads to this identification. Some hints derived from Charters at Pitchford, confirm the idea. The Serjeantry of The Hay may therefore be looked upon as cognate with that of The More in the same district (Vide Vol. I, pp.126-128); and both The Hay and The More may have been constituents of that Domesday Manor of Bolebec, whose extent we have actually ascertained to have been double the subsequent extent of The More taken alone (Ibidem, p. 130).
[16] Placita, Hil. Term, 4 John, m. 8.


notice, Warner's meadow called Kingsmead. If Warner and Petronilla, or the heirs of Petronilla, should at any time increase their wainage at Kenelee by assarting, they should enter in that part of the bosc next to Kenelee, without hindrance to Hugh or his heirs; and if Warner and Petronilla should allow corn to be ground at Hugh de Lega's mill, that corn shoild be ground next after such corn as might happen to he in the mill (treumia).

At the Assizes of October 1203, the Jurors of Condover Hundred had a presentment touching a matter of the King's rights in which Warner de Wililey was Appellant and Hugh de Lega Appellee. Both parties now came into Court and put the case in misericordia, Hugh's surety being Walter de Munlete (probably Muneton), and Warner's, Maucoline de Harley. Hugh Scotot or Esketot, thus occurring, was Lord of Bitterley, his descendants, if not himself, had a share of Rushbury. I have before alluded to certain indications that these Lords of Kenley were coparceners in the inheritance of Fitz Odo. [17] I think it probable that Hugh de Scotot's wife was a Fitz Odo, and that she was a sister of Petronilia de Wililey. If so, the quarrel was a family affair; but the heirship or coheirship of the Ladies in question had not as yet arisen.

A presentment of the Condover Jurors at these Assizes brings William fitz Roger into notice. He and another had been accused of some breach of the King's peace and had been outlawed. When we find that the Appellant or Prosecutor in the case was Warner de Wililey, we identify William fitz Roger the Litigant of 1194, and may well suppose that conflicting terests were the cause of this prosecution.

At these same Assizes the Condover Jurors presented Mary Kenley's appeal against Brun, a servant of Warner de Williley, who she said, had taken her oxen and horse in robbery. It proved however that the seizure had been made for some debt to the Crown and that the Chattels had been returned to the Owner under before she made her charge of mbbery. So she was in misericordia and Gosceline de Kenley stood Surety for her amercement.

At the Forest Assizes of 1209 the whole Vill of Keneley was amerced corporately for telling a lie (quia negavit quod prius) and Warin de Wilegh also was in misericordia for some affair of bosc law, apparently because some unlawful engine or instrument

[17] Supra, Vol. IV, pp 96, 368-9.


found in one of his fences. The passage is illegible or unintelligible in any other way, but it appears that he was not personally suspected. His assessment for an imbladement within Regard of the Long Forest, was perhaps an incident of his tenure at Kenley rather than at Rushbury, where I have noticed it.

I have related, under Gretton, the Suit which lasted from 1213 to 1218, touching Margery de Chabbenore's claim against Warner de Wililey for dower in Kenley. I have also explained its bearings on the genealogical history of the family of Fitz Odo. [18]

There was still one of that House living in 1221 and holding a small estate under Warner de Wililey at Kenley. This person is called William fitz Odo, and I think he must have been a son of that Roger fitz Odo or fitz William who was brother of Thomas and son of William fitz Odo (I). If so, we recognize in William fitz Odo of 1221, that William fitz Roger who apparently succeeded his father in 1194, and who was outlawed in 1208, as already related. Be this as it may, William fitz Odo (III) was the person whose cruel wrongs I have briefly described under Willey. [19] He, with Henry son of Roger le Hare, had been arrested because the carcase of a stolen cow had been found in an out-house of his. He now pleaded that the said carcase was placed there, out of animosity to him, by Warin de Wililey, his Lord, who coveted the freehold which the said William held under him. The Jury found that William fitz Odo of Kenley was an honest man (legalis honor) and no way blamable in the matter; that the carcase was placed in his outhouse maliciously and for his disinheritance, in respect of certain land which he held of Warin de Wililey;- that Petronilla, Warin's wife, was the person who had sent for the King's Serjeant when the latter took the Prisoner into custody, that she not only told the said Serjeant when and where to find him, but where he might find the cow's carcase;- to wit "in the Grange of Leytton, far away from William's own residence (curia)". Both of the accused were hereupon acquitted; Maurice de Alrigg, a Serjeant, who, presuming the Prisoner William's felony, had seized and sold his working cattle, was first ordered to prison, but afterwards committed to the custody of his Sureties, viz. William de Bassecherch, William Burnel, and * * * * de Eton. Warin de Wililey's punishment I have already detailed. [19]

At the Assizes of Angust 1226, Warin de Wylileg was sued in vain for disseizing Robert de Lubecote of a tenement in Kenley. The

[18] Supra, Vol. IV, p. 106.
[19] Supra, Vol. II, pp. 54, 55.


Plaintiff proved to be a Tenant in Villeinage. Within just five years Warner de Wililey was deceased, having settled his and his wife's other estates in the manner which I have recorded against Willey. [20]

The Forest Survey of 1235 includes a report on the vill of Kenleg, it being, as I suppose, within Regard of the Lord of the Forest though its soil was the property of the Lord of Kenley. The Surveyors found it "well kept of late, as regarded oak and underwood, but of old much oak timber had been fallen "at the time of war and of liberty given". In 1240 we find it in the hands of Warner de Wililey's widow, now called Petronilla Kenley. The collective evidence of three nearly cotemporary events is, that she was holding Kenley, with its appurtenance of forest and Acton Pigot, with its appurtenance of Allcot, all by one Knight's-fee in Fitz Alan's Barony. [21] Petronilla fitz Odo we have shown under Willey, was succeeded by her son Nicholas de Wililey, who died before 1255, leaving a widow, Burga (Basford), and an Infant son, Andrew. Hence the Hundred 1255 reports, though with some inaccuracy, that "Dame Wilileg holds Kenleg in custody, for one hide of land, and of the guardianship of Ranulph, son of Nicholas de Wililey. The Manor was of the "Fee of Sir John fitz Alan". It paid annum for stretward and motfee, and did suit to Condovre Hundred. [22] The mistake in this entry is calling the son of Nicholas Wililey, Ralph. The same mistake has been noticed under as having been made in another Hundred. [23] The original error will be more apparent under Golding, where we shall see there was a Ralph fitz Nicholas, indirectly concerned in Fitz Odo at this very period.

The Assize Roll of 1256 presents us with a very puzzling entry: "Henry Fitz Roger, as son and heir of Roger le Hore, has a suit of mort d'ancestre for four acres in Kenleth, whereof Robert has one acre, and William Trenger, of Bromcroft, and others" the residue. All the Tenants called Robert Aleyn to warrant who in turn called Thomas fitz William to warranty; but the Thomas was a Minor in the Queen's custody, the cause was necessarily adjourned. [24] Here we have doubtless a second appearance of a son of Roger le Hare,- accused and acquitted of felony.

[20] Supra, Vol. II, pp. 55, 56.
[21] Testa de Nevill, pp. 44, 48, 49.
[22] Rot. Hundred, II, 62.
[23] Supra, Vol IV, p. 10.
[24] Assizes, 40 Hen. III, mm. 8 dorso, 1 recto.


But surely the Minor, Thomas fitz William, cannot be a mistake for Andrew fitz Nicholas de Willey. I rather suppose the name to be given correctly, and that in Thomas fitz William we have the Infant son of that William fitz Odo, who has also appeared in 1221, under the same circumstances, with Henry le Hare. But how the presumed representative of a younger branch of the House of Fitz Odo should have fallen into the Queen's custody I cannot surmise. Evidently such a Guardianship resulted from some other Tenure than this mesne interest in a few acres at Kenley.

Probably Henry le Hare was identical with Henry de Kenley, who brought a suit of mort d'ancestre at these same Assizes against Juliana de Kenleg. [25] The Lady, whom we have heard of before as daughter of Warner de Wililey, [25] appoints Hugh de Wlonkeslawe (Longslow) her Attorney, but the result does not appear.

A reference to my account of Willey will show that in the year 1272 the forfeited estates of Andrew de Wililey were in the hands of Robert le Strange, then absent on the Crusade, while Burga, the daughter and heir of the said Andrew, was probably in minority and as yet unmarried. This will explain part of an entry on the Assize Roll of September 1272: "Petronilla, the Recluse (Inclusa) of the Church of St. Mary of Shrewsbury, asks license to recede from a Suit which she had against Robert le Estrange, Walter de Pedwardin, and Burga daughter of Andrew de Wylileg, for disseizing her of a free tenement in Kenleye, viz. a rent of 20s. and 13 quarters of Corn". [26]

I may here observe that the South Porch of St. Mary's Church at Shrewsbury is furnished with one of those curious upper stories or chambers, known among Ecclesiologiste as Parvises. There are perhaps the remains of another such chamber in the North Transept of the same Church.

These Chambers were anciently tenanted by a single inmate, usually a female, self-devoted to perpetual seclusion. The offices of the Church were audible in these Cells. The Recluse or Anchoret, once immured, never left her abode while living. Her wants are usually supposed to have been supplied by contributions of the Parishioners. In the case before us it is clear that one at least of the Parvises of St. Mary's had or was assumed to have a regular endowment,- a rent-charge probably granted by some Lord

[24] Assizes, 40 Hen. III, mm. 8 dorso, 1 recto.
[25] Supra, Vol. V, p. 99. A Deed at Pitchford supplies yet another notice of Juliana de Kenley, by which it would appear that she was interested in the estate of her Cousins, the Chabbenores, at The Hay, near Bridgnorth. As "Juliana, daughter of Warner de Wylileg", she gives to Fromund de Erditone for 16 merks all her land of Haye which Thomas held of her;- the rent to be a pair of white gloves, value one halfpenny, in lieu of all Suit of Court and Halimot. Witnesses,- Sir Thomas de Costentin, William Rod (i.e. Rud), Nicholas de Mora, William de Hempton, Roger Hobald, Symon de Sabrina, Henry de Arnleg.
[26] Assizes, 56 Hen. III, m. 4.


of Kenley, with a daughter of his House thus consenting to be immured already had an instance where the Devotee was a Lady or the knightly family of Sprencheaux. [27]

Walter de Pedwardyne, it would appear, was the person of whom the above Defendants who had the temporary and actual tenancy of Kenley. Probably he had received it from Robert le Estrange by grant or purchase. At these same Assizes "Walter de Pedwardyne" came into Court and "acknowledged that he owed to Petronella Anchoret (Anacorite) of St. Mary's, a sum of 4., payable in four years. Also the said Walter conceded that if he should fail to hold the lands, late Andrew de Wililey's, to wit the Manor of Kenleye, for more than four years, he would pay 20s. to the Anchoret for each such additional year". [28]

The further descent of the Fee of Kenley is implied in the Lordship of Willey, and it will he continued yet later under Hare where it is said that the Manor of Kenley, like that of Cound was given in frank-marriage with Matilda fitz Alan to Philip. Seigneury only must be understood. Thus, on the death of Burnel in 1294, it was found that Richard de Harleye had the Manor of Kenleye by half a knight's-fee under the decent. The gross value was estimated at 10. per annum. [29] In fact the knights'-service due on Kenley was, with all its comitants, due to Philip Burnel, but the alleged was Richard de Harley's. The Nomina Villarum, a return rightly gives Robert de Harlegh as Lord of Kenlegh. [30] In a Charter dated in 11 Edw. III (1337-8), Burga, Lady of Wylle and Kenlegh, grants to Reginald, Lord of Legh (Hughley), and a parcel of land in Kenlegh, as they were assarted of Sir Richard de Harlegh, formerly her husband.
[31] If this Deed be rightly dated it appears that the great heads De Odo and De Wililey had not, even in extreme old-age, given whole interest in Kenley to her son Robert.

AS TO UNDERTENANTS in Kenley, the names of so many have been incorporated in the above account, that little remains to be said under this head. On October 29, 1227, we have whereby Robert fitz Reginald, claimant, under Writ of mort d'ancestre, of half a carucate in Keneleg, allows the same to the right of Agnes, wife of William Coeus. William Cocus

[27] Supra, p. 58.
[28] Assizes, 56 Hen. IIIm. 14.
[29] Inquisitions, 22 Edw. I, No. 45, d.
[30] Parliamentary Writs.
[31] Lacon Evidences (8c note 18).


said Agnes, in return, concede to the Plaintiff that messnage which his father once held, to hold to him and his heirs, of the Lords of the fee, by proportionate services. They also gave him one merk.

In 1262 William, son of Susanna de Kenley, was assessed for an imbladement within Regard of the Long Forest. In 1267 Lovekine de Longenolre and Thomas le Petit of Kenley were amerced 6s. 8d. for making charcoal. [32] Their Sureties were Thomas de la Mare and William Champeneys (both Officials connected with the Forest).

BROMCROFT.- At the Assizes of 1203 the Pleas of the Crown in Condover Hundred show that Gerard de Bromcroft had been outlawed for the murder of Richard de Kenel' at the suit of Adam and Roger, brothers of the deceased. Richard de Ambersleg, Sheriff, answered for 20s., the value of the Outlaw's Chattels, but sentence was to be passed on three Coroners who had endeavoured to embezzle 5s. of this sum. They were William de Middelhope, Walter Haket, and William Picot.

A Suit commenced at these Assizes and ended at Westminster in Easter Term 1205, wherein Warner de Wililey and Petronilla, his wife, were Defendants, the Attorney of Petronilla being variously called Bernard de Posenhal and Bernard de Boslei (i.e. Broseley). The suit was for a virgate and quarter in Bromcroft, claimed, as her right and inheritance, by Felicia de Wadeleg, or Wedeleg, daughter of Reginald de Wadeleg, alias Reginald Marshall. The Plaintiff was nonsuited after making repeated defaults. Warner de Wililey's defence refers to a matter already noticed. He said, apparently (for the Record is defaced), that he had had a Plea concerning this and other land on a former occasion in the Curia Regis, that the then Plaintiffs were Thomas and Roger fitz Odo, and that Felicia, the present Plaintiff, never apposed any claim. A note alludes to the Fine levied at Westminster in 5 Ric. I (1193-4). Other persons named in this Suit are John Bocointe, apparently a Civilian, and of whom we hear in other causes;- also, Ralph fitz Robert, an Essoignor of Warner de Wililey on one occasion, when he was stated to be ill at Kenley;- also, Roger Sprenghose, Philip de Stapleton, William Burnel, and William de Middlehope, four Visors appointed to see the Essoignee and certify his state of health.

GIPPOLES.- In or about January 1250, Geoffrey de Langley set an arrentation of 10s. 9d. on Thomas fitz Adam and William fitz Erin of Gippoles for 3 perches and 11 acres of Forest-land in

[32] Quia carbonaverunt.- To make a charcoal-hearth within the Forest, unless by license, was a pourpresture on the King.


Gippoles. In 1267 William de Gippol is amerced for. In 1274 it was complained that William de Gippolis five days' imprisonment in Salop Castle. Robert de Beadle (of Condover Hundred) during the Shrievalty of Cavereswelle (1267-8), was the agent of this injustice, Plaintiff was damaged 13s. Richard, the Plaintiff's plevied him till the next County Court sat. There he had but no one had any charge to bring against him. [33] Adam of Bromcroft occurs again in 1278, and also Arnald of Presthope, both as Tenants in Kenley Manor as holding forest-land in Gipholes. The particulars have under Presthope. [34]

KENLEY CHURCH.- This was originally a Chapel, affiliation of some ancient parochial Church in the neighbourhood. I am unable positively to assign the mother Church, but on Cound rather than Harley or Acton Burnell, which were themselves probable Chapels in the first instance. I can find no record of Kenley Church before the reign of Henry VIII, nor was it mentioned in the Valor of 1531-5. No wonder then that instances of its original dependence are unknown.

Acton Pigot.

This Manor precedes Kenley in Domesday, and is thus described:- "The same Rainald (Sheriff) holds AEctune, and Odo of him. Gheri held it (in Saxon times) and could sell it. [1] Here are III hides geldable. In demesne there is I team, and (there are) III Serfs and IIII Villains, with wood here will fatten XX swine. In King Edward's time its was worth 20s. (per annum); afterwards (it was worth); it is worth 13s. 4d". [2] The status of Acton Pigot in the twelfth century will be precisely as that of Kenley, that is, Fitz-Alan was the Lord and Fitz Odo the Mesne Lord. In the same century must

[32] Rot. Hundred. II, 92.
[33] Supra, Vol. III, p. 293.
[1] Et dare et vendere potuit.- A similar franchise of the Saxons has been seen above (p. 48, note 1).
[2] Domesday, fo. 254, b,


one William fitz Pagan, holding the Manor under Fits-Odo. William fitz Pagan was perhaps successor of Rainald fitz Pagan whom we have seen attesting a Charter of Roger fitz Odo to Shrewsbury Abbey. [3] William at his decease left a sister (in her issue his sole heir), and a widow, Mabel, who remarried. Her second husband, William Picot or Fitz Picot, had half this Manor with his wife in dower, and, though his estate was only for life, it was he who left to the place that distinctive name by which it is known to this day.

Some time towards the close of the twelfth century the Chapel of Acton Pigot was vacant, and from the list of persons who concurred in presenting one Silvester thereto we learn the partition of the estate. William Picot was one of the Patrons in the right of his wife. The Sister of William fitz Pagan was dead, so were the three daughters and Coheirs who had represented her, so were the husbands of two of the said daughters. Roger de Harpcote, the surviving husband of one (probably the eldest) of the three daughters, concurred in presenting Silvester, in right of Roger de Harpcote his son, who was heir to his Mother. William de Belswardine, son and heir of another of the said three coheiresses, also concurred. But the third Coheiress, whose husband is not named, had at her death left three daughters and coheiresses, Matilda, Mabel, and Sibil. The fourth joint patron of Kenley Chapel was Roger fitz Odo, then guardian of these three Infants.

Some, years will have elapsed after this presentation when the Records begin to afford other notices of William Picot. On May 7, 1200, we have him as Recognizor in the Suit already mentioned under Harnage. In the same year he and one William fitz Walter appear as charged 4s. by Justices of the Forest for some matter within their jurisdiction. [4] At the Assizes of October 1203, William Picot was amerced one merk for trespass (pro transgressione). This may have been that act of dishonesty which we have noticed under Bromcroft as detected in him and his Fellow-Coroners.

But at these same Assizes the Advowson of Acton Chapel was in dispute among the Coparceners. William Picot at first essoigned himself, one Benedict Chat being his Essoignor. Nevertheless the cause was heard and decided. It appeared that Silvester, the last Incumbent, was dead, and the question, as usual in such causes, was, who had presented him. The verdict of the Jury I have

[3] Supra, Vol. IV, p. 90, note 8.
[4] Wills fil. Picot et Wills fil. Walteri debent 4 sol. de quodam flota buscis; that is, I presume, they had fined so much for a raft-load of billet-wood taken out of the Forest.


given already, but since the presentation of Silvester had occurred in the families of the Coparceners. Roger cote, Junior, was no longer represented by his Father acting for himself. It was in fact he who claimed the against all the others. William Picot, Mabel his wife William de Belswardine, still held their former position, but daughters of the third Coheiress were all married, viz. Philip de Allescot, Mabel to Richard de Moneford, and Robert de Allecot. There were therefore ten persons who or in pairs, claimed the right of presentation in 1203, and dealt with and allowed this mixed right, just as if lands had had to be divided.

I must now trace these various interests in Acton Picot as a few notes can illustrate so complex a subject.-

WILLIAM FITZ PICHOT is found attesting a Pitchford I supposed to have passed from four to eight years later than the above Suit. This is the last I hear of him, and it is after the decease of him and his wife, their share of Acton Pigot have been distributable among the Coparceners by inheritance.

ROGER DE HARPCOTE (II) seems to have been succeeded by Walter de Harpcote. The latter has already occurred in 1226 as a Surety for Hugh de Beckbury, [6] whom I shall show to have had an interest in Golding. Walter de Harpcote was succeeded by his son Ranulph, who was a Coparcener in 1255, and who in 1256 was, as we have seen, conceding the distant Manor of Diddlebury. [7] At the Assizes of 1272 de Harpeote is entered as a Juror for Condover Hundred and all that I need to say here of a family which I shall have elsewhere.

WILLIAM DE BELSWARDINE was, as his name suggest in the neighbouring Manor of Belswardine. He is assessed in the Forest-Roll of 1209 for an imbladement within Regard of the Forest of Mount Gilbert, which I do not think relevant to his residence in the neighourhood before us. As at Belswardine, so at Acton Pigot he was followed by one William de Bascherch, his relative whom I cannot further determine than by saying that at issue in 1204 about land at Belswardine. When that Manor I shall show this William de Bascherch to have been living in 1221. In 1255 his Representatives at Acton

[5] Assizes, 6 John, m. 5.
[6] Supra, Vol. II, p. 126.
[7] Vol. V. pp. 150, 181.


to have been Richard de Bascherch and Roger de Bascherch;- one or both of them. Richard de Bascherch also occurs in 1249 on two local Juries concerning estates at Pulley and Langley. In 1256 we have Richard, son of Richard de Bascherch, concerned in this neighbourhood. Again Richard and Roger de Bascherch appear on an Inquest at Langley in April 1264.

PHILIP AND MATILDA DE ALLSCOTT, whose name was derived from a vill once appurtenant to Acton Pigot, had a Representative in 1255;- probably Philip de Allecott, then a Coparcener in the Manor. The Representative, at the same period, of-

ROBERT AND SIBIL DE ALLCOTT, was probably Gilian de Allcot.

MABEL, the sister of Sibil and Matilda, seems to have left no permanent representative.

The Hundred-Roll of 1255 combines these scattered facts as follows.- "Ranulf de Arpecott, Richard de Bascherch, Philip de Allecot, and Giliana de Allecot, and Roger de Bascherch hold Acton Pigot for III hides, of the Fee of Kenleg. It pays 2s. for stretward and motfee, and does suit to Condover Hundred". [8] The full meaning of "holding of the Fee of Kenleg" is, that the above Coparceners held under Andrew de Wililey, now in custody of his Mother, Burga, the said Andrew holding of John fitz Alan.

In Easter Term 1283 a Fine was levied whereby Richard de Bouthlers and Matilda his wife (Deforciants) acknowledge themselves to have given to Robert Burnell, Bishop of Bath and Wells, a messuage and half-virgate in Allecote; to hold of the Grantors and the heirs of Matilda at a clove-rent. For this, which seems to have been a purchase, the Bishop paid 20 merks.

A Fine was levied on July 8, 1292, between Robert and Philip Burnel, Plaintiffs, and Richard de Harley and Bulgia (Burga) his wife, Impedients, of 6s. 8d. rent in Acton Pycot and Allycote. The Impedients acknowledged that the rent, and whatever they had in Acton Pycot and Allycote, belonged to the Plaintiffs. In return the latter conceded to Harley and his wife 11s. rent in Wilderhope, together with the homage of Richard, son of Robert de Wilderhope. [9] The Inquest taken in December 1292, as to the estates of Bishop Robert Burnell, then deceased, names Acton Pigot in a sequence which would lead one to consider it as a member of Acton Burnel. Such a view would be quite erroneous. The late

[8] Rot. Hundred. II, 62.
[9] This Fine should be compared with the cotemporary Deed, somewhat fuller in its terms, which I have recited under Wilderhope (Vol. IV, 101).


Bishop had had a Manorial Court of Acton Pigot, whose Perquisites were worth 10s. per annum. His rents, received from Free Tenants there, amounted to 1. 18s. 1d. [10]

The Inquest taken in July 1294, on the death of Philip Burnel says that he had held certain lands in Acton Pigott of the Kenley (that is, of Richard de Harley) by doing suit at the Manor-Court. [11] This was a curious complication, for Philip Burnel was, in right of his wife, himself Seigneural Lord of Kenley he held over Richard de Harley. The Advowson of the Acton Pigot was also Philip Burnel's, but its value was beyond services, [11] that is, I presume, beyond the sum needed to provide for the performance of divine services. Acton Pigot is among those estates of Philip Burnel which were dealt with in a mode described under Abdon, [12] that is, seized in satisfaction of debts to certain Merchants of Lucca.


This structure, long disused, still exists as a Ruin. It has been looked upon as a dependency of the Church of Acton Burnell which at the present day is the Parish Church of the two. It may, however, be doubted whether Acton Burnell was originally more than a Chapel. If conjecture be, in such a case, allowable, I should suggest that Cound was probably the Church of Acton Burnell, as it was unquestionably of Acton Pigot.

I have given the early history of Acton Pigot Chapel (as it can be ascertained) with that of the Manor. Its date is certified as at least as early as Henry II's reign.

The Taxation of 1291 does not mention this Chapel, so we must understand it as being one of the Chapels valued in gross with the Mother Church. In 1341 the Taxation of the Ninth rated the Parish of Acton Pygot only at one third of the corn-tithes of the Chapel belonged to the "Church of Conede", and the small-tithes, worth one annum, were not to be reckoned of, in settling the current.

I subjoin the names of one or two-


SIR WILLIAM MYNCH, Chaplain, was admitted February

[10] Inquisition, 21 Edw. I, No. 50.
[11] Inquisition, 22 Edw. 1, Nos. 45. c, 45, d.
[12] Supra, Vol. IV, pp. 130 [13] Inquis. Nonarum, p. 19


to the Chapel of Acton Pygot, at presentation of Sir John de Handlo, Knight. [14] It is probably the Sir William who is styled Rector of Acton Pygot, at his death on July 22, 1349.

IVO DE ACTON, Chaplain, was admitted August 19, 1349, at presentation of Sir Nicholas Burnel, Knight. [15] He occurs in 28 Edw. III (1354-5), and is then styled Rector of this Chapel.

WILLIAM SOMNOR, Chaplain, was instituted to this Free Chapel on October 27, 1379;- Patron, Sir Nicholas Burnel. He died in 1394.

ROGER DE KENLEY, Priest, was instituted April 13, 1395, at presentation of Hugh (Burnel), Lord of Holgate. He resigned in 1400, when, on October 14,-

RICHARD NEWMAN was instituted at presentation of Hugh Burnel, Knight. Newman resigned in 1409. [16]

I cannot leave this subject without quoting a few memoranda from the Diary of the late Very Rev. John Chappel Woodhouse, Dean of Lichfield and Archdeacon of Salop, who was visiting the Churches of this District in September 1799. Speaking of the Chapel of Acton Pigot, the Dean remarks that "no duty had been done there for 70 years"; that "there was only one inhabitant in the District on whom the repairs would fall"; and that the Chapel being "within less than a mile from the mother Church" (Acton Burnell is meant), "and being therefore of little use, had been suffered to go to ruin".

Archbishop Cornwallis had, it seems, when Bishop of Lichfield (1749-68), been asked by the then Rector of Acton Burnell, whether this Chapel should be taken down, but had ordered it "to be permitted to sink of itself" In 1799, Dean Woodhouse, at the earnest request of the same Rector, ordered the door and windows to be bricked up, that the place "might not be profaned".

Who can be blind to, and who will censure the feeling of these Churchmen of the last century? They surely held it grievous that a place once consecrated to God's Worship should come to profanation. Yet, hand-tied and tongue-tied, they did and said little or nothing. Are we to criticize their conduct as a weak compromise, or respect it as the result of a forced and involuntary resignation? If the latter, then their example may be of use in an age when Churchmen are ready to rush into polemical utterance and action about principles far less venerable than that of the abiding sanctity of Churches.


THIS Manor, now a mere member of Pitchford, belonged to a different Fief at Domesday. "The same Rainald (the Sheriff) held

[14] Register Langton, fo. 68.
[15] Register Northburgh, fo. 224.
[16] Blakeway's MSS.


Goldene (under Earl Roger) and Odo held it under Suen, a free man, had held it (in Saxon times). Here was I hide geldable. In demesne was one ox-team and III Serfs, I Boor, and there was capability for a second team. The manor was then worth 5s. (per annum) having been previously worth". [1]

As at Kenley and Acton Pigot, the Seigneury of Golding descended from Rainald Vicecomes to Fitz Alan; and the tenancy of Odo de Bernieres to Roger fitz Odo (living in 1165), to de Rushbury (living in the time of Richard I), and to Petronilla his Sister the wife of Warner de Wililey. The succeeding ments of the estate, small as it was, were rather complicated. The Pitchfords of the twelfth century must have held the Manor under Fitz Odo. Also we find that Engelard de Stretton, a Cadet of the family of Pitchford, had an interest in Golding. This was apparently acquired through his wife Ermeburga who she was I know not. Towards the close of the twelfth century "Ermeburga, formerly wife of Engelard de Stretton, gave Haughmond Abbey half a virgate in Goldene, which was her estate in frank marriage. She gave it together with fitz Ralph the Tenant, his house, and his children. Witness: William son of William fitz Alan, John le Strange, Ha his brother, Hugh Pantulf, and Stephen de Staunton". [2] I gather, from a Wombridge Charter (inaccurately transcribed) that Felicia daughter of Engelard de Stretun gave to that Prior another half-virgate in Goldene. [3]

These incidents must not distract our attention from a prominent fact, viz. that Herbert de Rushbury at the close of the twelfth or beginning of the thirteenth century retained an estate at Golding, held under Fitz Alan by service of one sixth part of a Knight's-fee. In this estate Herbert de Rushbury enfeoffed Hugh de Beckbury (the first of his name) whom I have spotted under Harrington and Beckbury. I shall presently quote even more to show that this feoffment by Herbert de Rushbury had the agreement and the cotemporary sanction of William fitz Alan (II), as the neural Lord of Golding. Hugh de Beckbury, having thus aaquired a footing in Golding, seems to have set himself to buy up more interests. He had certain assarts at Sundorn which he gave to Haughmond Abbey, receiving in exchange that half-virgate

[1] Domesday, fo. 254, b, 1.
[2] Haughmond Chartulary: Tit. Goldene.
[3] Chartulary: Tit. Upington: The name Engelard is written


the Abbey had acquired in Goldene. Of this transaction, John le Strange and Reiner de Lee were witnesses. [4] With the Canons of Wombridge, Hugh de Beckbury had a similar arrangement. He obtained their half-virgate in Goldene, by giving them an equal quantity of land at Uppington, which was part of the estate brought to him by his wife Alina, daughter and coheiress of Roger Mussun. This exchange with Wombridge was attested by Baldwin de Hodnet, Hugh fitz Robert, and William de Hedelee. Probably the year 1220 will be the proximate date for both these transactions.

About this time Hugh de Beckbury was impleaded by Warner de Wililey and his wife Petronilla for his estate here. A Fine levied at Shrewsbury on November 12, 1221, contains genealogical evidence of the highest value. It was between the said "Warner and Petronilla (Plaintiffs) and Hugh de Bechebury (Tenant) of one-sixth of a Knight's-fee in Golden, to wit of the whole land which had belonged to Herbert de Rushbury in the said vill, whereof was suit-at-law between the parties. Now Warner and Petronilla acknowledge the premises to be the right of Hugh as those which the said Hugh has by gift of the aforesaid Herbert, brother of Petronilla, whose heir she affirms herself to be. Hugh and his heirs are to hold the premises under Warner and Petronilla and the heirs of Petronilla, paying a rent of 1 lb. of pepper at Christmas, in lieu of all other services to them. Moreover Hugh was to satisfy the Chief-Lords of the Fee (the Fitz Alans of course) for all services due on the said land. For this recognition of Herbert de Rushbury's feoffment, Hugh de Bechebury paid the Plaintiffs two merks of silver". The Fine is indorsed with a memorandum that "Roger de Buterleg apposes his claim", which squares with my surmises, already expressed, [5] that Roger de Scottot or De Bitterley, being son of Hugh de Scotot, was son also of a sister of Petronilla de Wililey, and so of a sister and coheiress of Herbert de Rushbury.

At this period (1221) Hugh de Beckbury had his own Under-Tenants at Golding, for at the Assizes of that year I find that John de Golden, tenant of half a virgate in Golden, being dead, his widow Richolda sues Hugh de Becheberwe for her dower or thirds thereof. The result was a Fine levied between Richolda and her second husband, Seisoc fitz Alured, on the one part, and Hugh de

[4] Haughmond Chartulary: Tit. Sondron.
[5] Supra, Vol. IV, pp. 368-9.


Bechebue on the other. The Plaintiffs relinquished. Hugh paying them one merk.

A Fine of November 18, 1236, shows that John son and heir of Hugh, had in turn to defend or to for ment in Golden. In this instance the estate is carucate of land in Caldone (that is, Golding) and in member I think of Golding, now lost). John de Beck plaintiff and John fitz Alan Impedient, and the Fine purpose issue of a suit of charter-warranty. John fitz Alan leges the right of the Plaintiff as arising by gift of Alan, father of the Recognizor (to Hugh de Beckbury the Plaintiff). John de Beckbury and his heirs are premises under John fitz Alan and his heirs, paying the of cumin at Michaelmas, in lieu of all services; and to Petronilla de Kenleg (now widow of Warner) and her heirs, 1 lb. of pepper at Christmas. For this John de Beckbury is said to give a sore sparrow-hawk specially noted that the Fine waa levied in the concession of Petronilla de Kenleg.

I have noticed under Beckbury those Feodaries of Barony which would seem to imply that about the yes de Beckbury was holding one-eighth of a fee under Beckbury. [6] Doubtless, I think, the tenure in which ment originated, was his tenure in Golding.

In May 1249 I find William de Golden (probably Beckbury's tenant here) sitting as Juror on an Inquest.

The status of Golding is very imperfectly recorded in the Hundred-Roll of 1255. The Manor was reputed to be half its Domesday measurement; it paid the proportionate sums for stretward and motfee, but did suit neither to County. Fitz-Alan's Seigneury here is totally ignored, so is the tenure of young Andrew de Wililey. except that the stated to be held of the Fee of Rushbury. [7] The on tained in this expression is that the Mesne-Lord of happened to be also Mesne-Lord of a part of Rushbury, remember that Rushbury was a fee of Lacy's, not of Barony. As to the Undertenants of Golding, the mentions two, viz. the heir of Ralph de Pichford and William de Golden. Here again a mesne-tenure is ignored, viz.

[6] Supra, Vol. IV, p. 137.
[7] Rot. Hundred, II, 6


de Beckbury, who certainly held over William de Golden. John de Pichford, the Minor above alluded to, can have had but a trifling interest in Golding. Whatever he had, it was now (1255) in custody of Master Walter de Peshal and Ralph fitz Nicholas, to whom the King had given the wardship of this heir, he being, as I have elsewhere explained, a Tenant-in-capite at Albrighton, and Little-Brug.

The Assize-Roll of January 1256 confirms what I have said of Philip de Beckbury's continued interest here, by showing him to be seized of 20s. rent and one pectoralis of land in Neubolde, and of 16s. rent in Caldeton (Golden). For thirds of these hereditaments, as well as for a third of 10s. rent in Beckbury, he was now impleaded by his step-mother, viz. by Alice, widow of his father John de Beckbury, and now wife of Thomas de Beckbury. Philip's defence was that the marriage between his Father and Alice was unlawful. At first Thomas and Alice fined one merk to have an Inquest hereon, but afterwards Philip gave another merk pro licentia concordandi. [8] By the Fine thus initiated, Thomas and Alice remit their claims to thirds of 6s. rent in Golden, 10s. rent in Bechebir', and 20s. rent and one pectoralis in Neubold. For this, Philip conceded a meadow in Bechebur' called Holdemor, with 6s. 8d. rent, to be received by Alice for life, from two-thirds of Philip's Mill at Bechebur', also one-third of the profits of common pasture in the wood of Bechebur', and one of every two oak-trees there fallen, and certain liberties to depasture sheep therein.

In 1294 Ralph de Picheford, Lord of Albricton, grants to Walter son of Reginald de Goldene, that half-virgate in Goldene which Reginald his said father had held for life, also a nocate and garden held by the said Reginald. The Tenant is to pay a rent of 1s. to Margaret, the Grantor's Mother, for her life. The Deed reserves suit of Court every three weeks, and a heriot, viz, the Tenant's best Ox. Witnesses,- Thomas de Peshale, Richard de Eton, Thurstan de Picheford, Richard son of Thurstan, Robert de Cressage. It is sealed with these Arms,- A cinquefoil within an orle of martlets. [9]

Thomas de Golden, who in June 1294 was Juror on a local Inquest, was probably Philip de Beckbury's Tenant here. On the death of Edward Burnell in 1315 it appears that he had held a

[8] Assizes, 40 Hen. III, m. 8 dorso.
[9] Otley Deeds at Pitchford.- The Arms are precisely those which stood formerly on the windows and tombs at Albrighton (vide Vol. II, pp. 163, 164, 165).


messuage and 30 acres of land in Goldene under John de Beckbury (Philip's successor). Burnell paid 4s. rent for this feoffment net value of which to him was 1s. 6d. [10]

Eaton Mascott.

THIS also was a Manor held at Domesday by Rainald Vicecomtes under the Norman Earl.- "The same Rainald holds Eton and Fulcher (holds it) of him. Toret held it (in Saxon times), a free-man. Here are III hides, geldable. In demesne one ox-team and (there are) IIII Serfs, III Villains and III Boors with one team; and there might be two other teams (employed) here. Here is a Mill of 4s. (annual value). In King Edward's time (the Manor) was worth 20s. (per annum); afterwards worth 24s. Now it is worth 20s". [1]

I have intimated under Easthope that Fulcher, Rainald's tenant in that Manor as well as this, was not succeeded by heirs of his blood. [2] Eaton certainly reverted to Fitz Alan as Seigneural Lord and was granted between the years 1135 and 1160, by him to William fitz Alan, to one Marescot, who accordingly appears in the Feodary of 1165 as holding half a fee of new feoffment in the Barony of Fitz Alan. [3]

During the war of succession waged by the Empress Matilda against Stephen, the Partisans of the former will have been in constant communication with her Uncle and Cousin, the Prince of Scotland. William fitz Alan's own brother, became Seneschal of Scotland at this period, a country from which there is much probability that their Ancestors had sprung. Marescot then to have been what his name suggests, a birth, and to have become associated with the House of Fi during the civil war. Besides his estate at Eaton, Marescot had some feoffment at Downton, near Upton Magna. This he have surrendered in favour of Haughmond Abbey. A Charter of the first William fitz Alan, ratifying the transfer, must have

[10] Inquisitions, 9 Edw. II, No. 67.
[1] Domesday, fo. 254, b, 1.
[2] Supra, Vol. IV, p. 117.
[3] Liber Niger, I, 144.


between the years 1155 and 1158. It is attested by Marescote himself and by Adam his Esquire (Adam armigero ejus), which satisfies me of the knightly rank of the former witness. Before the year 1172, Marescot made a more independent grant to Haughmond Abbey, viz. two-thirds of all tithes of his demesne of Eatune. This was attested by Henry, the Grantor's son; by Adam de Arundell; Wido le Strange; Robert de la Mare; Robert fitz Herbert; and by one whose name is written as Robert fitz Chaleuric, but of whose identity I must speak elsewhere. This grant of Marscot's is recorded in a Bull which Pope Alexander III issued to Haughmond Abbey in May, 1172.

The second William fitz Alan came of age about the year 1175. Several of his Charters have the attestation of Marscot; but two which he expedited to Buildwas Abbey, probably about 1175-6, are attested not only by Marscote, but by his two sons Henry and Hamo. Again, a Charter of the first John le Strange, which must be of date about 1177-8, is attested by Marescote and Henry his son. Parallel in time with these Charter evidences we have some notes of Marscot's political career. The Shropshire Pipe-Roll of 1177 tells us how he had been amerced by the King himself for trespass of the Forest. One hundred merks and two horses was an enormous fine for a man of mere knightly degree. Marscot had however paid 35 merks, and had delivered two horses to the King himself. The King had excused him 50 merks. The balance (15 merks) he paid in the year following. In 1180 Marescot's name is the first of twelve, apparently constituting a Jury, which had pronounced a false judgment against Fulk fitz Warin. [4] His amercement on this occasion was 10 merks, five of which he paid on the instant, and the balance in subsequent years. From his attestation of Charters, I think it probable that Marscot was still living about the middle of Richard I's reign, viz. about 1194. It would seem that Henry, evidently his eldest son, died in Marscot's lifetime, or else survived him but a short time, and was succeeded by his next Brother, Hamo. The Assize-Roll of 1203 exhibits Hamo Marscot as a Knight, and as a Juror in the greater class of causes. He himself fines 5 merks that he may have some Inquisition, his Sureties being Walter de Muneton, Walter Haket, William de Lotwich, Philip de Stapelton, and Hugh le Strange. Again, a son of his, whose name is not expressed, is mentioned as a Surety or a

[4] Marescot, r. c. de X marcis quia interfuit falso judicio facto Fulkoni filio Warini.


Witness in a case of Wager of Battle which I shall cover under Shawbury. In 1207 I find Hamo Marcot and his I suppose) amerced one merk for a foolish verdict (pro. At the Forest Assizes of 1209 Hamo fitz Marescot, Hugh (of Berrington, I presume), and the men of William fitz Alan were questioned for taking hares in the Warren of Bulrewas. At the Assizes of 1221, and on an important Inquest about Stiperstones in 1226, Hamo Marscot appears as a Feodary of 1240 introduces William Marescott in the sane way, viz. as holding half a knight's-fee in Eton, of the B Alan. [5] The same person was Juror on a Pulley Inquisition and the Hundred-Roll of 1255 tells us that (the same) William Marscot, himself a Juror for Condover Hundred Eton Marscot of Sir John fitz Alan, for three hides. He paid annually for stretward and motfee, and did suit to the Hundred. At the Assizes of 1266, Margery wife of William and Richard Marscot, William de Brombon with Margery Edneweyn with Isota his wife, name their Attorney lands against Saer Mauveysin. I think it was only tenancies in this Manor that were thus disputed, for at this time William Marscot (Lord of the Manor) had been succeeded by a son William, which last William was in Saer Mauveysin at these same Assizes, and apparently Manor. William son of William Marscot, called viz. John son of John fitz Alan, to warranty. The Fine, wherein the said John fitz Alan appears as Mauveysin twenty merks, in return for a Quit-claim messuages, 1 mill, 1 carucate, 6 virgates, and 11 acres of land, and 2 acres of meadow in Eton Marscot. William was a Juror for Condover Hundred at these Assizes and also on a local Inquest in April 1264. At the Assizes he was one of the Electors of the Jury for this Hundred, announced to be in misericordia for some previous non. Again he occurs on a local Jury in December 1273. An Inquest of November 1274 his name stands first on Condover Hundred. I think that soon after this, the line of Marscot must have failed. Probably it vanished among female coheirs, but my evidence on the subject is sparse. Among the Jurors who in October, 1283, made an ex Condover Manor, we notice the names of Thomas Marscot

[5] Testa de Nevill, p. 44.
[6] Rot. Hundred. II, 62.


de Preston. [7] I do not know that the former, if his name was really Marscot, can have been anything more than a Cadet of his House. The latter was more certainly a Coparcener in the Manor of Eaton Mascott. The other Coparcener was Thomas de Baskerville, usually styled "of Newton", of whom I have already spoken as occurring from 1272 to 1294, in connection with Pickthorn, Newton, and other Baskerville estates in South Shropshire. [8] In March, 1276, Thomas de Baskerville was one of the Jurors who made Inquest on the estates of John le Strange, then deceased. This I think must have been a result of interests already acquired in Eaton Mascott. The next notice of this Manor is that, like Cound and Kenley, the Seigneury thereof formed part of the estate in frank-marriage which Matilda fitz Alan brought to her husband Philip Burnel. Hence, after the said Philip's decease, an Inquest taken in May 1295 states that Thomas de Baskervile and William de Preston held one carucate of land and 38s. rent in Eton Markcote under Philip and his wife. Thomas de Baskerville was succeeded at Eaton by his son John, whom I have already named under Northwood and Lawton as occurring in 1316-7 and 1325-6. [9] I have little to add to particulars already given, but that little belongs to Eaton Mascott. A Deed of his is quoted which bears date at Eaton Mascott on July 25, 1326, and whereby he is said to have quit-claimed, to Richard Waters of Betton, 10 acres in Eaton Mascott. Among the witnesses of this alleged Deed are Walter and Roger de Burton, and William de Preston. Besides Margaret wife of William Parsons of Middleton, John de Baskervill seems to have had another daughter, Isabella, to whom he gave, or was said to have given, lands in Eaton Mascott. Isabella was again said to have transferred these lands or part of them to Thomas son of Thomas atte Lee. However, we have notices of a suit, lasting from January 1333 to December 1335, whereby it appears that John de Baskervill denied all his alleged grants in Eaton Mascott, and sued Thomas son of Thomas atte Lee, Thomas son of John atte Lee, and Isabella, his own daughter, for disseizing him of one messuage, 60 acres of land, and 6 acres of meadow, in Eton Mascot. Thomas son of Thomas atte Lee (the real Tenant) produced John de Baskervill's Charter of 1326 as to part of the premises, and further alleged certain feoffments made to himself by Isabella de Beskervill

[7] Supra, p. 16.
[8] Supra, Vol. I, p. 241; Vol. IV, p. 172; Vol. V, pp. 102, 110.
[9] Supra, Vol. IV, pp. 175-6; Vol. V, pp. 102, 110.


and by Richard Waters aforesaid. It seems that this was good, for John de Baskerville at last withdrew the case and was in misericordia. [10] I should observe that Roger de Mascott named as his Surety during its progress (viz. in January) was probably John de Baskerville's Grandson, the son of his Margaret. For indications of the eventual failure of the case refer to a former Volume. [11]

EATON-MASCOTT MILL has a history of its own, commencing as we have seen, with Domesday, and offering several illustrations of the more general history of the Manor. Towards the close of the twelfth century there were apparently two places called New Mill. The Beche, occupying that bank of the Cound-brook opposite to Eaton Mascott, and being themselves in the Little Eaton, or in the Manor of Pitchford.

We have seen Geoffrey de la Beche attesting a Pitchford Charter about 1192-4. [11] About ten years later, Hamo fitz Marescot wanting, I presume, to improve or reconstruct Eaton Mill, obtains from William de la Beche, son of Richard de la Beche, a feoffment of the whole of that bank of the Cunethe which belonged to the Feoffor's land of Neuthon and La Beche. A rent of 2d is reserved by the Feoffor, whose Deed was attested by Richard of Haghmon, Ralph Husey, Vivian de Roshal, Guy de, William Husei, Nicholas son of Marescot, and Wiltiara down. [12]

It was, I think, at least twenty years later than this, that fitz Marescot sold the Mill of Eaton to Haughmond Abbey and there are several Records of the transaction. One of these con half a virgate in Eton, held by one Thoke, and a seilion of the Mill, and reserves a quit-rent of 2d. to William Beche. It is attested by John fitz Alan, John le Strange, William de, Hugh le Strange, Roger Sprenghose, and Henry Boscart. The Deed has the additional attestation of Ralph Marescall. It mentions Petronilla, the wife of Hamo fitz Marscote, and apparently a confirmation. It adds a noke in Eaton, held by one and ensures the suit of the vill of Eaton to the Mill in question.

Between the years 1234 and 1236 the Abbot of Haughmond secured a direct grant to himself, from William son of Richard de Beche, of the land previously granted to Hamo fitz Marscot. The old rent of 2d. was again reserved, and the transaction was

[10] Extracts from Plea-Rolls, communicated by W. Hardy, Esq.
[11] Supra, Fol. V, p. 110; Vol [12] Harleian MSS. 2188, fo.


by Robert de la Hay, then Sheriff, Richard de Middelhope, Richard de Leghton, Hugh de Lega, Wido de Hadenhale, Thomas de Haleton, Thomas de Withinton, and Richard de la Beche.

Another confirmation of the same land passed between the same parties in the time of John le Strange, who succeeded to the Shrievalty in November 1236, and who (together with William de Hedley, William Hunald, Ralph de Pichford, Richard de Middelhope, Richard de Lecton, and Hugh de Lega) attests the transaction. I cannot tell whether a third Charter by William de la Beche to Haughmond Abbey was explanatory of, or in augmentation of, the former. It conveys all the Grantor's land called La Tunge and La Helde, on the bank of Cunede, as bounded by Cusibroke, by the land of Richard de Ballecote, and by other landmarks. Witnesses,- Sir Ralph de Pitchford, Sir William Hunalde, Roger Sprenghose, Walter de Harpecote, William Marscot, Nicholas de Conedour, Clerk of Biriton, Richard de Eton, and Richard de Bascherche. [13]

I have spoken, under Berrington, of a Hugh de Byriton, occurring in 1262, and of John his son, occurring from 1292 to 1307. The latter occurs at Eaton Mascott as early, I think, as 1270. The Abbot of Haughmond leases to John son of Hugh de Biriton, and Carsiandra his wife, for their lives, his Mill of Eton Marscote and half a virgate of land, at a rent of 30s. Witnesses,- Richard de Eton, Hugh de Wlonkeslawe, William Marscot of Eton, and Robert Marscot of Eton. Subsequently, John son of Hugh de Biriton grants to Haughmond Abbey, for the souls of himself and Carsiandra his wife, that seilion of land which was nearest to the water called The Ree, near also to the Abbot's Mill of Eton-Marscote. Witnesses,- Hugh de Wlonkeslawe, Richard de Eton, William Marscot of Eton, Thomas Marscot of Eton, and William de Preston, Clerk. [13]

In November 1293 a fine was levied between John son of Hugh de Byriton (Plaintiff), and Thomas de Lyndeseye of Eton and Emma his wife (Impedients), of 14 acres in Eton Mascott, whereof was plea of warranty. John first acknowledges the right of Emma thereto. Thomas and Emma in turn concede the premises to John and Cassandra his wife, and to the heirs of John by Cassandra, to be held of the Lords of the Fee;- with remainder, after Cassandra's death without issue, to the heirs of John.

A Lease of Eaton-Mascott Mill to Thomas son of the above-

[13] Haughmond Chartulary: Tit. Eton Marscote.


named John de Byryton, dated in 1333, has been already seen under Berrington. [14] The Valor of 1535-6 gives the Abbey 30s. rent from Eaton Mascott, [15] whilst the Minister six years later, mention only the Mill of Eyton Marscott 13s. 4d. per annum, [16] and the tithes, already spoken of under Berrington.

Hundeslit, now Stapleton.

WHATEVER the word Lyth may import, it was common in localities in the district now under notice. We have Little Lyth, and Lythwood; nor can I offer any other explantion for the name Hundeslit than by supposing it to be equivalent to Lyth. We have seen that Neen Savage, knovrn to one Huni in Saxon times, was hence called Huni or Hunes Nene. [1] That a Saxon named Huni or Hunit was at one period Lord of Hundeslit, rests on a still further probability in King Edward's time part of the Manor was held by. Now the name Hutting is a patronymic, signifying the descendant of Huni.

The incidental evidences that Hundeslit, a divide Domesday, is identical with the Manor of Stapleton, sequel. The negative and general proof (often named best in such cases) I once more recapitulate in this case. If Hundleslit be not Stapleton, then Hundeslit is not all in the modern Hundred of Condover; and, vice versa if Stapleton be not the Hundeslit of Domesday, then Stapleton has no Domesday antecedent. As to the time when, and as to why these names were changed, those questions need little argument. Hundeslit was called Stepel-tun, when a to be added to the Manor; and that the change took as the reign of Stephen I have good proof;- for the Manor during that reign was called "De Stepleton". I proceed to quote from Domesday the particulars of this Manor.- "Roger fitz Corbet holds (under Earl Roger) a Manor of one virgate and a half; and Ranulf (holds)

[14] Supra, p. 43.
[15] Valor Ecclesiasticus, III, 192.
[16] Monasticon, VI, 11.
[1] Supra, Vol. IV, p


him. Huning held it (in Saxon times) and was free. The (arable) land is sufficient for one ox-team. Here is one Villain. The former value of the Manor was 16d. (per annum). Now it is worth 12d". [2] And again:- "Alward holds Hundeslit of the Earl. Ulric held it (in Saxon times). Here is one hide, and half a virgate. The (arable) land is sufficient for two ox-teams and a half. In demesne there is half a team and (there are) one Redman and one Villain with one team. The former value of the Manor was 3s. (per annum). Now it is worth 4s". [3]

Most of the names mentioned in these two entries seem to have been otherwise associated with the vicinity. Huning, Huninc, or Hunic, had in Saxon times enjoyed the neighbouring Manors of Cothercot and Welbatch, and had shared in that of Pulverbatch. lric was perhaps identical with Elric the Saxon Lord of Hawksley (near Acton Burnell). Rannulf, Roger Corbet's Tenant in a small portion of Hundeslit, was also his Tenant in the whole of Welbatch. Among some minor changes which befell Roger Corbet's Domesday Barony, he and his Tenant Rannulf lost all interest in Stapleton. Their share thereof was annexed, probably by Henry I, to the Honour of Montgomery. I should not be inclined to attribute such a trifling dismemberment of Roger Corbet's Barony to his participation in the rebellion of Earl Robert de Belesme, for it appears that where Corbet lost one Domesday Manor he gained another. Such changes then were probably the result of some pacific re-arrangement between him and his Suzerains.

As to Alward, or Elward, he was doubtless a Saxon, and the same person with him who is elsewhere described as "son of Elmund". The latter too was living at the time of Domesday, and shared in one of the many Manors which his son then held under the Norman Earl. As I have hinted under Condover, the ultimate forfeiture of Elward is more than probable, and his share of Hundeslit was, like Roger Corbet's, annexed to the Honour of Montgomery.

Stapleton then, from the time of Henry I, was held of the successive Lords of Montgomery, and by a race of Feoffees, the first of whom, living in the reign of Stephen, I have already alluded to. This was Baldwin de Stapleton, Lord of Stapleton and Wistanstow. He was in all probability a Norman, and his real name De Meisy. A vill, so called, stood at the Western extremity of the Norman Diocese of Seez. Baldwin de Stapleton was succeeded by his son Philip after the year 1165. Philip seems to have increased his

[2] [3] Domesday, fos. 255, b, 1, and 259, b, 1.


paternal inheritance by marriage with an heiress. He is described as lying at Dormiton (Dormington) and East Herefordshire, and at Boicot, apparently in Shropshire thereto was disputed by Herbert fitz Herbert, who was the Seigneural or Mesne Lord of the Manors in question. Term 1200, I find Emma wife of Philip de Stapleton husband as her Attorney in the suit of novel disseizin against Herbert fitz Herbert, concerning land in D Brictwastre, and in the suit of mort d'ancestre which was concerning land in Boicot. The Court decided to hear the case at London on the Quinzaine of Easter, but the suit of mort d'ancestre was left to be heard by the Justices in Eyre.
[4] of the same Term, Herbert fitz Herbert was found to have disseized the Plaintiff and her husband of their tenement in minton and Bricwarestr'. He had to pay half a merk Baronial rank is noted in the margin of the Roll.

The adjourned cause of mort d'ancestre seems to have the Justices-in-Eyre at Salop, in October 1203. It ever called a suit of "novel disseizin concerning land whereof Herbert fitz Herbert had deprived Philip Stapleton. The Seneschal of Herbert fitz Herbert Court and objected to the cause proceeding, because all the lands were in the King's hands. The Sheriff was heard and examined. He deposed to the fact that Herbert had been so seized because he had neglected to make fine with for his passage (i.e. to compound for his non-attendant service), but, said the Sheriff, this seizure was such as the Seneschal nor the Serjeant (Serviens) nor the Bailiff of the said Herbert had been removed. So the Trial and the Jury found Herbert to have disseized the Plaintiff ever, the Justiciars adjourned any order for reseizing till they could consult Sir Geoffrey fitz Piers (then Ch England). [5] It seems clear that the place written Boi was Boycot near Pontesbury; for at these same Assizes had a second suit against Herbert fitz Herbert for disseizin of a tenement in Pantesb' (Pontesbury). The same repeated and the same verdict followed, but in this case 2s. were awarded to the Plaintiffs.

A third suit, tried at these Assizes, is more to our purpose. William de Botterell was found to have disseized

[4] Rot. Curiae Regis, II, 166, 187.
[5] Assizes, 5 John, me


de Stapleton of a free tenement in Stapleton. The damages were half a merk, and the Defendant in misericordia, but what concern William Botterell can have had in Stapleton is matter of mere conjecture. [6]

At this period (1203) Philip de Stapleton was a Knight, if I may judge from his position as a Recognizor or Visor on more than one occasion. At the Forest Assizes of March 1209, the Vill of Stapelton was assessed as within Regard of the Long Forest. In one instance it is described by the name of its owner, viz. as Stapelton Philippi, to distinguish it, I suppose, from the Vill of Stepleton-in-Legharnesse.

At the Assizes of November 1221, Philip de Stapleton again appears as a Knight and Juror. As a Suitor also he obtained judgment against Roger, Serjeant of Meole, William Provost, Warin de Pole, and John fitz Edith, who had disseized him of a tenement in Stapleton. He recovered possession and 10s. damages. The Sureties of the Defendants were Warin de Pulileg, Walter de Neubold, Robert de Pulrebech, Henry de Wesseleg, Richard le Messer, and Richard fitz Edwin. [7] In August 1226 Philip de Stapleton appears on a great Inquest concerning the Forest of Stiperstones. In a fine levied November 12, 1227, he surrenders a claim which he and others seem to have had to a tenancy in the Manor of Pulverbatch. In this instance his Attorney was Robert de Stapleton,- I think, his Son.

The following Deeds probably passed between 1225 and 1230.-

"Philip de Stapleton, with consent of his son Robert, releases to the Canons of Haghmon all claim in the wood of Wilderley. Witnesses,- Sir John le Strange, Thomas Maudut". [8]

"Robert de Stapleton, son of Philip, confirms. Witnesses,- Sir John le Strange, Thomas Mauduit, Vivian de Rossall".

"William, Abbot of Haghmon, and his Convent, concede to Philip de Stapelton and his heirs, that their Convent shall never maintain or assert any claim in the wood between Stapelton and Wilderley beyond the boundaries which are set forth in the Charters of the said Philip, and of Robert his Son, which Charters the Convent had already in their possession. Witnesses,- Sir John le

[6] Perhaps this was a question of boundary,- between Stapleton and Longden. The latter was Boterell's Manor.
[7] Assizes, 6 Hen. HI, memb. 1. The names of two other Sureties, viz. Brunn de Pulileg, and Gilbert de Meles, are cancelled in the Record.
[8] Haughmond Chartulary: Tit. Wildurley.


Strange, Thomas Maudut, Vivian de Rowan, Roger Sprenghose, Hugh de Lega, William de Beche, Baldwin de Smethcote, Richard de Linleg". [9]

There can be little doubt I think that Philip de Stapleton died before 1231, for though the Shropshire Pipe-Roll of 1234 a praestitum of 5 merks against his name, that is no proof he was living. The debt had, it seems, been first put in charge in Lincolnshire, but what concern Philip de Stapleton had in that county I know not. He left two sons, Robert and William. The Robert appears on the Pipe-Roll of 1230-1 as Surety for a Wintanstow Tenant. In 1233 he was Surety for other Litigant. On November 2, 1234, he was one of the Justices to deliver to Gaol. On July 12, 1235, he was in a similar Commission to the Gaols of Salop, Stafford, and Brug. On September 15, was put on a Special Commission to try a civil suit, and the same month he appears as one of the Receivers of a King's fine payable at Brug. In or about 1240 William de Cantilupe was disseized of several estates as representative of the ancient Montgomery. Robert de Stapleton's tenure of Stapelton is described as one-fifth of a knight's-fee, held by "Robert de Stepeltun" under that Baron. [10] Soon after this, Robert de Stapleton or Meisy died: for a Herefordshire Feodary drawn up on Jan 1243, records that John son and heir of Robert de Stapelton was then holding two hides in Dorminton under Herbert fitz Herbert and by Serjeantry. This John had, I think, a younger brother Robert, usually called Robert de Meisy, but of him and the Cadets of the family I shall speak elsewhere. The Condover Hundred-Roll of 1255 records John de Stepelton as holding Stapleton of the Fief of Sir William de Canteloy, for a hide and half (the Domesday measurement of the aggregate Manor of Huneton). He paid 12d. yearly for stretward and motfee, and did suit to both County and Hundred. [11] In 1256 we find John de Stapleton on the list of those, who, holding 15 Librates of land in Shropshire, were not as yet Knights. A Patent of September 125? gave him the privilege of hunting in the Royal Forests of the county. The Pipe-Roll of 1259 refers to the Originalia-Roll of particulars of a fine or fines, of 1 merk, and half a merk proffered by John de Stepelton for a charter of market, for free-warren; but I can learn nothing further of this trai

[9] Dukes's Transcripts (in Bibl. Bodl.).
[10] Testa de Nevill, p. 46.
[11] Rot. Hundred. II, 62.


the Roll referred to being lost. Before the year 1272 John de Stapleton was deceased. At the Assizes of September in that year the Condover Jurors reported Robert, Lord of Stepleton, as not in due attendance. Moreover, though holder of a Knight's-fee, and of full age, he was not as yet a Knight.

The Inquest on the death of George de Cantilupe, ordered in November 1273, seems to have noticed the Manor of Stepleton as held of his Barony, [12] but the document itself is lost.

In November 1274 the Jurors of Chirbury Hundred, returning the names of certain persons as holding of the Honour of Montgomery though not in the said Hundred, reported that "Robert de Stepulston held the Vill of Stepelston without any service, which Vill had used to be held of the Honour aforesaid, by service of one Knight's-fee, and that the said service was withdrawn, and the Vill was answerable for nothing". [13] In August 1282, when the King's army was summoned to muster at Rhuddlan, Sir Robert de Stapleton was one of the Knights named by Sir Theobald de Verdon, in the contingent due from himself, as owing the services of 34 knights'-fees. This same year a Robert de Stapleton, perhaps the person under notice, had a grant of Crown lands in Ireland. [14] In Easter Term 1280 I find Milisent widow of Eudo la Zouche asserting her claims as a coheiress of Cantilupe, and impleading (among others) Robert de Stepleton, as Tenant of half a knight's-fee in Stapleton. In Hilary and Easter Terms 1283 we have evidence on the Plea-Rolls that this suit was still pending. However the Feodary of 1284 recognizes Robert de Stapleton as Tenant of half a knight's-fee under Milisent la Suche, who held the same in capite.

An Inquest was taken April 3,1284, pursuant to a Writ of King Edward I, and with reference to Robert de Stapelton's design of enclosing and making a Park of the Bosc of Alsemore. The Jurors found that the change would not be injurious to the Crown; that only a corner of the said Bosc abutted on the Long Forest; the said Bosc had ever been divided from the main Forest (bassa haia), and no Regard was accustomed to be made therein; that Robert de Stepelton used the said Bosc as an enclosure for his own cattle; that it contained five acres of land, and was not frequented by beasts of chace. A memorandum attached to this Inquest intimates that in consequence of the large concession sought by De Stepelton, the King would require fuller information when the Justices of the Forest visited Shropshire. [15]

[12] Calendar of Inquests, I, 49.
[13] Rot. Hundred. II, 89.
[14] Calendar of Patent-Rolls, p. 50.
[15] Inquisitions, 12 Edw. I, No. 76.


A Charter of Free-Warren, obtained by Robert de Stepelton in 1290, informs us of his estates in four several Countis: Wistanstow and Stepelton in Shropshire, the Charter of Dormington in Herefordshire, Waleton in Derbyshire, and ton in Leicestershire.

In October 1292 Robert de Stepleton was impleaded by the Crown for this Manor, as having sometime been the S of King Henry II. He appealed to a Jury, naming S Stepleton his Attorney. The question seems to have been one of tenure, and was decided for the Defendant, viz. that he had a better right to hold the Manor as he held it, than the King had to recover it in the way sought. [16] Robert de Stapelton was returned as holding lands or rents in Derbyshire and to the yearly value of 20. and upwards. He was the leader of those who were summoned with horse and arms to Nottingham, on July 7, for service in Scotland. In 1301 a summons, returnable on June 24, at Berwick-upon-Tweed was served on Robert de Stepelton, as a Landholder in Leicestershire. A Writ of King Edward I, dated at Berwick-upon-Tweed on 15 following, commissions Robert de Stapelton to inquire into the conduct of certain Officers or Bailiffs in Shropshire who had taken bribes from the foot-soldiers impressed for the Scottish War and allowed them to remain at home.
[17] We shall see that a Robert de Stapleton presented to Stapleton Church. S grees suggest that there were two Sir Roberts in succession and that the change took place about this time.

A Patent, apparently of Edward II, and which, if correct, August 22, 1311, declares that the King, at request of Somery, has pardoned Robert de Stepelton the trespass he had done by enclosing his Bosc c of Alissemor and of S (which was within the bounds of the King's Forest), and a Park thereof, the Royal license not having been first obtained. The Patent proceeds to secure the said enclosure and Pardons Stepelton and his heirs for ever. [18]

A Roll of the "names and arms of the Bannerets of England" which belongs to this period, enters Sire Robert de Stepeltone under Shropshire, his shield being- Azure, a Lion rampant double-qu.

On October 16, 1313, Robert de Stepelton is pardoned

[16] Placita de Quo Warranto, p. 674.
[17] Parliamentary Writs, I, 845.
[18] The original Patent, in possession of W. W. How, Esq.
[19] Parliamentary Writs,


adherence to the Earl of Lancaster, and his participation in the death of Gaveston. [20] The Nomina-Villarum, returned in March 1316, has him as Lord of the Vill of Stepleton. He had several Military Summonses against the Scots during the reign of Edward II, viz. on August 20, 1316, and on March 20 and May 22, 1319. He was also summoned to attend a Great Council, pursuant to a Writ attested at Westminster, May 9, 1324. [20] Sir Robert de Stapleton was living in 1329, [21] but deceased in 1333.

It appears to me that Sir Robert de Stapleton had no issue by his second wife, Isabella de Bermingham. His heir was apparently Robert, son of Philip de Stapleton, whom I take to have been his grandson by his first wife, rather than his Nephew, or Great-Nephew.

By Indenture, made at Birmingham on July 20, 1333, it is recited that Isabella, widow of Sir Robert de Stepeltone, having been impleaded by Robert son of Philip de Stepeltone, for certain lands and tenements, had now surrendered the same, whereupon the said Robert son of Philip concedes to the said Isabella all her goods, chattels, and live and dead stock found on the premises, with free power to remove the same. Witnesses,- John de Wyrleye, John de Barre, Senior, William de Alrewych, etc. [22]

This Robert, son of Philip de Stapleton, was probably the same with Robert Stappellton, who, in 18 Edw. III (1344-5), was party to a Fine concerning the Advowson of Aldridge and the Manor of Great Barr in Staffordshire. [23]

Robert, son of the last Robert by Cecily his wife, is alleged as Grantor in an Aldridge Deed of 20 Edw. III (1346-7), [23] and was

[20] Parliamentary Writs, IV, 1456.
[21] Shaw's Staffordshire, II, 98, where also it is intimated that this Sir Robert de Stapleton was twice married. His first wife being a daughter of Roger de Morteyn of Walsall, Staffordshire, brought him estates at Great Barr and Aldridge. His second wife was Isabella de Bermingham. On her and on her heirs by him, we are told that he entailed the property acquired with his first wife, with remainder to the right heirs of the said Isabella. We are further assured that this monstrous settlement resulted in carrying these estates at Aldridge and Great Barr to Sir Fulk Bermingham; who was clearly seized, wholly or partly, thereof in 1368 and 1872.
[22] Charter in possession of W.W. How, Esq. This Deed is the Counterpart given by Isabella de Stepelton to Robert son of Philip. It has her Seal attached;- a neat specimen of the heraldic taste of the period. Three shields of arms have their base-points meeting in the centre of the Seal. The Upper Shield is charged with a Lion Rampant (Stapleton); the second Shield is Quarterly, per fesse indented (Bermingham); the third is charged with a Bendlozengy (Bermingham). The Legend is imperfect, but thus much remains:- S....ELL....STE....TONE.
[23] Shaw's Staffordshire, II, 99.


probably identical with Robert de Stapleton who presented to Stapleton Church in 1349. John de Stapleton, Patron of the Church in 1381, was probably son and heir of the last Robert. He served the office of Sheriff of Shropshire in 1383 and 1391.

In the fifteenth century the Stapleton estates were divided among coheiresses, but I forbear to extend my remarks to a matter which presents many difficulties, and on which my present information is fragmentary. The subject will recur under Wistanstow.

OF UNDERTENANTS in Stapleton, I should first notice William the younger son of that Philip de Stapleton who was deceased in 1231. At the Assizes of 1256 there was a suit concerning half a virgate in Stapelton, between William son of Philip de Stapelton on the one hand, and Geoffrey fitz Henry of Ruthon, and Emma his wife, on the other. Stapleton gave half a merk for licensia accord. The Fine, hereupon levied, places the half-virgate in Little Hanwood. William de Stapleton, the Tenant, acknowledges the right of Emma thereto, and she, with her husband, concedes it to William, to hold in fee, of themselves and the heirs of Emma, for a penny rent. Later in the century there was a Sir William de Stapleton interested in this neighbourhood, but I will not assume him to have been the same person with the above. He attests a Long Deed in 1272, and was one of two Knights who presided over an important Inquest concerning Lythwood in 1280. [24] A testing-clause of 1284, already given under Condover, [24] contains the names of William and Sir Robert de Stapleton. Here the Head of House seems to be placed second in order, probably because William was a much older man. This Sir William was unquestionably Father of that Philip de Stapleton whom I have named under Willey as living in 1277-8 and deceased in 1283, and appears to have left no issue by his wife Burga de Wililey. Robert, perhaps a Brother of the said Philip, has occurred to us in 1292, where joint mention is also made of his Mother, viz. Isa widow of William de Stapleton. [26] Another Cadet of this House was Robert de Meisy, younger son, I think, of that Robert de Stapleton who was deceased in 1243. At the Assizes of January this Robert and Eva his wife (by their Attorney, Absolon Upham), sued Philip Marmyun and Johanna his wife, John Neweton, and Roger de Weslegh, for disseizing them of a tenement in Stepelton. Marmyun evaded the issue by pleading that his wife

[24] Inquisitions, 8 Edw. I, No. 46, b, and supra, p. 17.
[25] Supra, Vol. II, pp. 51, 58.
[26] Supra, Vol. IV, pp. 353-4.


was only a Coparcener in the inheritance of Hugh de Kilpec, and so could not be thus sued individually. The Court gave the Plaintiffs leave to amend the form of their procedure. [27] In April following, I find Robert de Meysy taking out a new Writ for disseizin in Stapleton, but the Defendant named is Eva widow of Philip Marmion,- a complex but intelligible error. The Pipe-Roll of the year records a debt of 20s., due from Robert de Meysi and Eva his wife, pro habenda assisa. On October 20, 1259, Robert de Meysi and his wife take out another Writ against Philip Marmion. At the Forest Assizes of 1262 one Robert de Stapleton is mentioned, apparently as deceased. Richard de Bradele is named as his Essoignor. He was perhaps the same with Robert de Meysy.


This Church was probably founded in the first half of the twelfth century, as I have already suggested. Such a date of Foundation necessarily implies that it was originally a Chapel,- an affiliation of some greater Church. It is indeed often called a Chapel in early Records. I cannot hesitate to assign Condover as the Mother Church of Stapleton.

The Taxation of 1291 values the Church of Stepelton, in the Deanery of Salop, at 4. per annum. [28] The Assessors of the Ninth, in 1341, call the Church a Chapel, and rate the Parish at 1. 16s. 8d. to the current tax. The cultivation of the land was in a low state, and the Glebe-land, Small-tithes, and Rents, belonging to the Chapel, constituted 2. 13s. 4d. of the Church Taxation. [29] The Valor of 1534-5 gives Stepulton as a Rectory, held by Richard Webbe, and worth 7. per annum. The Procurations were 1s., the Synodals 1s. 8d. per annum. A Pension of 10s. was payable by the Rector to Shrewsbury Abbey. [30] This charge, though mentioned in no earlier Record, was beyond all doubt a vestige of the original dependence of Stapleton Chapel on Condover Church.


RICHARD DE ADBASTON, Priest, was admitted to the "Rectory of the Chapel of Stepelton" on October 25, 1307, at the presentation of Sir Robert de Stepelton, Knights. [31] He resigned July 1, 1322.

[27] Assizes, 40 Hen. III, mm. 12 and 14.
[28] Pope Nich. Taxation, p. 244, b.
[29] Inquis. Nonarum, p. 192.
[30] Valor Ecclesiasticus, III, 184.
[31] Regist. Langton, fo. 27.


ROGER DE ROWARTHYN, Priest, was instituted August in a like presentation. [32] He died August 9, 1323, and following-

NICHOLAS DE ALREWICH, Clerk, was admitted on a presentation. [32] He resigned in 1324, when, on October 7,-

WILLIAM BONJOUR or DEMOUR, Priest, was admitted on presentation. [32] He died about Michaelmas 1349 (pr prevailing pestilence).

WILLIAM DE SMETHCOTE, Priest, was admitted De at the presentation of Robert de Stepelton. [32]

JOHN DE PULLALEGH, Rector of this Chapel, died on January 10, 1381-

WILLIAM DE BROMPTON was instituted at presentation by de Stepulton.

WILLIAM DE STEPULTON (perhaps the same Rector) 1391,-

JOHN AT LAKE, Priest, was instituted to this Free Chapel March 13, John de Stepulton being Patron. He occurs in 1402-3, and died in 1408. On November 17, 1408-

REGINALD DE STEPLETON was instituted to the Free Chapel of St. John the Baptist at Stepleton, on the presentation of Stepulton, Lord of Stepulton.

ROGER SHELE dying in 1455 was succeeded on Ju that year by-

SIR JOHN MASON. The Patrons were John Leigh Mounford and Maria his wife, Robert Cresset and wife, Thomas Hord and Jocosa his wife, Thomas Wal hanna his wife, and Thomas Acton (Tenant by custom being coheirs and participators in the lands and tenements) Stepulton, Esq.

SIR REGINALD BLAKEWEY was presented by the devoluto, on Jan. 8, 1473, and died in 1495, when, on-

SIR RICHARD WEBBE was presented by John Leigh Ferrour and Catherine his wife, Thomas Cresset, Fu Thomas Acton, Thomas Hord and Jocosa his wife,- Webbe, whom we have seen to be here in 1534 and in 1536. [33]

[32] Regist. Northburgh, fos.202, 203, b, 205, 224, b.
[33] Blakeway's MSS.


Huelbec, now Welbatch.

THE letters or letter represented by the Domesday hu, are merely the hw, or aspirated w, of the Saxon language. In modern English we place the aspirate in these forms after the w, as in when, where, etc., so that the Domesday Huelbec is tantamount to the modern word Whelbec. The further change which has obtained in the name of this place is paralleled in a second instance, for the Polrebec of Domesday is now written Pulverbatch.

Domesday describes Welbatch as follows.-

"Roger fitz Corbet holds, of Earl Roger, Huelbec, and Rannulf holds it of him. Huninc held it (in Saxon times) and was free together with this land. Here is one hide geldable. In demesne there is I ox-team, and II Serfs, and II Boors. Here is a Mill which will grind in winter but not in summer. [1] In King Edward's time the Manor was worth 20s. (yearly); now it is worth 5s". [2]

The non-continuance of Rannulf's interests in Welbatch has already been paralleled in the analogous case of Stapleton. However, I cannot make out that Welbatch was, like Stapleton, lost to Corbet's Seigneury or annexed to the Honour of Montgomery. The only direct evidence I have on the point would indicate the Barons of Pulverbatch as the Seigneural Lords of Welbatch in the thirteenth century, but that evidence is of a doubtful character, as we shall see in the sequel. On the other hand, a piece of indirect evidence favours the opinion that Corbet's Seigneury over Welbatch continued. We have seen in a former Volume that, about the year 1203-4, William fitz Walter conveyed to Robert de Gatacre half a hide in Great Lyth, held under the Barony of Pulverbatch; also that he added to the concession certain nokes of land, held of the Fee of Alberbury. [3] My conviction is that these nokes were in Welbatch, a Manor which adjoined Great Lyth. If so, Welbatch was probably of the Fee of Alberbury;- an expression which can have but one meaning, viz. that Welbatch, like Alberbury, was held by Fitz Warin under Corbet of Caus. Baldwin de Hodnet, I should add, the first witness of William fitz Walter's concession, was

[1] "Molinnm hiemale non aestivum".
[2] Domesday, fo. 255, b. 1.
[3] Supra, Vol. III, p. 88.


probably Fitz Warin's immediate tenant at Welbatch. If Corbet was Seignenral Lord of Welbatch or not, it is clear there is evidence that Fitz Warin of Whittington was Mesne-Lord and that under Fitz Warin the family of De Hodnet had the manorial fee. Now these De Hodnets were Seneschals of Montgomery and so, on the death of Baldwin de Hodnet, early in estates, as well those which he held of the Crown by that of Seneschalcy, as those which he held of other Lords, were taken into the King's hand by Godescall de Maghelin, then keeper of Montgomery Castle. But a precept of Henry III, dated 1225, draws a distinction between these two classes of estate and commands the said Custos "to give Fulk fitz Warin Hwelbech and Muston (Moston), which Baldwin de Hodnet held of the said Fulk in capite, but to retain whatever Baldwin held of the King's fee of Montgomery". [4] The next notice we have of this place is in or about 1240, when Odo de Hodnet (son of Baldwin) had attained his full age, and was registered as Tenant of half a knight's-fee in Welbach. [4] This Tenure is under the Barony or Fief of Hugh de Kilpec, then Baron of Culverbatch, but the list of Kilpec's Fees is so manifestly incorrect in other respects, that I do not trust it in this. Moreover the tenure of Fitz-Warin is altogether ignored. The Hundred Roll of 1255 is more accurate in this respect. It says that Sir Hodenet holds Wulbech of Fulk fitz Warin for a hide of land (the Domesday estimate). He paid 8d. per annum for stretward and motfee, but had withdrawn himself from suit (of Covendre Hundred) twelve years before, whereby the King was charged 24s., or at the rate of 2s. per annum. [6] The Inquest taken in 1284, on the death of Sir Odo de Hodenet, states that hide of Whelbeche under Fulk fitz Warin was by service of a twentieth part of a knight's-fee. The value of the estate per annum. [7]

Welbatch passed with the heir-general of the Hodnet Ludlows. Hence on the death of William de Ludlow in. The Inquest, taken on November 11th at Shrewsbury, states he and his wife Matilda (she was the Hodnet heiress) had joined the Vills of Welbache and Moston by feoffment of William Hodnet. The Tenure of both Vills was clearly under one and inferentially (for I quote an obliterated Record) un

[4] Rot. Claus. Vol. II, p. 16.
[5] Testa de Nevill, pp. 48, b, 50, a.
[6] Rot. Hundred. II, 62.
[7] Inquisitions, 12 Edw. I,


fitz Warin. They were held, I think it is stated, by service of a tenth part of a knight's-fee. [8] An abstract of this Inquest, taken when the Document was more legible, gives the constituents of the estate at Welbache as a Messuage, 80 acres of land, a water-mill, and 58s. 6d. in rents. [9] In 1326 the Canons of St. Chads, Shrewsbury, seem to have had property at Whelebeche. [10]

Acton Burnell.

THIS was another of Roger fitz Corbet's Domesday Manors, and the Seigneury remained with his Descendants, the Barons of Caus. Domesday describes it thus.-

"The same Roger (fitz Corbet) holds Actune (of the Earl) and one Roger (holds it) of him. Godric held it (in Saxon times) and was a free man. Here are three and a half hides geldable. In demesne there is one ox-team, and (there are) II Serfs, I Villain, IIII Boors, and I Radman, with a Team and half. In King Edward's time (the Manor) was worth 30s. per annum; afterwards it was worth 15s.; now it is worth 20s. There might be one team more here". [1]

I cannot affirm, nor will I deny, that Roger, the Domesday Tenant of Actune, was Ancestor of those Burnels who afterwards gave the Manor its distinctive name. Such a descent rests on the average probability that the Tenant of any given Manor in the twelfth century was lineal heir of the Tenant in the eleventh century. Dugdale has given us a genealogy, or rather List, of the Burnels which would make the name of the Domesday Representatives of the family to have been Robert. [2] However this evidence is very questionable. Dugdale's list of Burnels was copied from an old Martyrology belonging to Buildwas Abbey. It was either then the result of a Record kept by, or a Genealogy extemporized by, the Monks of Buildwas. As Buildwas was not founded till fifty years after Domesday, the evidence of its Monks in this matter is so far doubtful as it was less than cotemporary. But we may judge this Martyrology by another standard. It gives the names and obits of seven successive Burnels. To the last three of these names we can apply

[8] Inquisitions, 10 Edw. II, No.
[9] Calendar, Vol. I, p. 283.
[10] Hist. Shrewsbury, II, 184.
[1] Domesday, fo. 255, b, 1.
[2] Dugdale's Baronage, II, 60.


the test of cotemporary and authentic Records. Not a single date, or fact is found to tally with ascertained or probable facts. The later half of this Martyrology being thus discovered to be audacious, the earlier half is still less to be trusted. We, in short, reject the whole as fabulous. It was evidently a trick devised by obsequious Monks to gratify the pride of the Burnels in the days of their prosperity. I shall now have to give a less dramatic but a very different account of the rise and fortunes of the family.

The first Burnel of whom I find authentic mention, is Burnell. He attests a Charter of Peter, Prior of Wenlock, which I shall set forth under Hughley, and show to have passed between 1169 and 1176. Soon after this we have evidence of two branches of this family, each holding or claiming to hold at Acton Burnell and other estates. The representative of the (supposed) elder branch was Thomas Burnel, and he had a brother William. The representative of the (supposed) younger branch was Gerin, or Warin, Burnel. It is probable that Thomas and Warin were more distantly related than as brethren. It is also likely that Thomas and William were sons of that William who attested the Wenlock Deed above mentioned.

Among the Oblata entered in the Shropshire Pipe-Roll is this one.- "Gerin Burnell accounts for 5 merks to have (recto) in the Curia Regis, concerning one knight's-fee in Aston Burnell. He had paid 22s. already. The balance of 44s. 8d. he discharged in the year following. This suit was probably against Thomas Burnel, who was, I think, holding the whole of Acton Burnell in the period, and who seems to have been Lord of Langley and ley, an estate which was held in capite by Serjeantry. The suit between Thomas and Gerin Burnel was seemingly of long duration. It was settled by a Fine levied after the year 1189 (because it was in the time of Richard I), and before 1195, when, as I shall show, Thomas Burnell was dead. The particulars of this fine are not recorded further than that it dealt with a knight's-fee, and half a hide or 12 acres of land, in Akerton (Acton), Langley, and Ruckley. The result, gathered from later evidences, was that Gerin Burnell obtained a share of Acton. In 1195 Thomas Burnel died without issue. His tenure by Serjeantry necessitated a fine with the King by his heir. Hence the Pipe-Roll of 1195 exhibits William as "accounting 40s. for having the land of his Brother Thomas for next heir he is". He paid 20s. now, and 20s. in the year following


On January 14, 11913, a Fine was levied at Shrewsbury which shows William Burnill buying off for 16 merks the claim of Simon Burnill to a hide and half-virgate of land in Akton Burnill. Simon, who gives an absolute surrender, was probably a Cadet of the family, but more nearly related to William than to Gerin Burnell, who still held his share of the Manor, and was about this time succeeded by a son and heir, Hugh. Continuing my account of William Burnel (II), as he may fitly be called, I observe his name as a Knight sitting on the Grand Assize, which I have mentioned under Nordley Regis, as taken in Easter Term 1200. [3] In the same Term Hugh Burnel was one of the absent Recognizors empanelled to try the cause mentioned under Harnage. [4] At the Assizes of October 1203, William Burnell again appears as a Knight and Juror of Grand-Assize. In November 1204 he was Visor of the alleged illness of Warner de Wililey, who was essoigning himself at Kenley. In March 1209 the Forest Assize-Roll gives one imbladement in the Long Forest, and two in the Forest of Mount Gilbert, as chargeable on William Burnell. In 1211 he is duly recorded as Tenant in capite of Langley, a matter which at present I postpone. I gather from evidence given at a trial in the year 1272, that William Burnel (II) died in the year 1220. This date was perhaps not intended as quite exact, but it is certain that William Burnel (II) was succeeded by a son and heir, William. I conclude it was William Burnel (III), who, at the Assizes of November 1221, appears not only as a Knight and Juror, but as one of the four Coroners of Shropshire. At these Assizes a presentment of much interest occurs among the Pleas of the Crown for Condover Hundred. The transaction alluded to seems to have taken place some years before, that is, during the Shrievalty of Thomas de Erdinton,- which expired in April 1216. Gerin Burnell, implicated therein, I take to have been son of Hugh, but Hugh (as we shall see) was alive long after. This Gerin Burnell, with William Corbet and others, had, it was alleged, robbed a Monk of Buildwas, at the instigation of Thomas Corbet, whose Aunt had a House in the Abbey Foregate, at Shrewsbury, in which House the robbery was said to have taken place. Since the robbery, Gerin Burnell and William Corbet, to avoid arrest, had come forward and given 5 merks to be allowed to find Sureties for their future appearance to take their trial. Robert Corbet (evidently the Baron of Caus, and father of Thomas) had stood security for the fine. The Sureties for the reappearance of the accused were chiefly

[3] Supra, Vol. III, p. 167.
[4] Supra, p.74.


Corbet Tenants, viz. William de Arundell, William Burnel de Ree, Roger de Eston, Richant de Legton, William Thomas Hager, Pagan Carbonell, Richard Corbet, Phden, Henry de Lega, and Robert de Wudeton. [5] A further of this affair is that in 1221 the heir of Thomas was called upon in the first instance to account for in respect of the Fine of 5 merks;- that the said heir sh responsibility on Gerin Burnell and William Corbet, to account, but who still owed one merk of the said Fine.

In Hilary Term 1229 William Burnet is impleading at Westminster, for non-observance of the "Fine made by King Richard, between Gerin Burnel, Father of Hugh Burnel, Uncle (avunculum) of William, Tenant of one half a hide, and 12 acres, in Akerton and Langelle and whereof there was a Chyrograph". The present Litigants expressly stated to be heirs of the parties to the Fine. adjourned, because of Hugh Burnel's non-appearance no more of it. His future appearance was ensured by la Beche and Philip Burnel. [6] What place this Philip in the genealogy of the Burnels I cannot say.

In 1231 William Burnel fines one merk, that he peace an assart which he had made across the bosc of F. In 1238 we have recurrent mention of Warin (i.e. Gerin). He is amerced one merk for some disseizin. I presume ere this succeeded his supposed Father, Hugh. In Thomas Corbet's Barony gives William and Geryn Burnel owning one knight's-fee thereof in Acton. Two cotemporary the tenure half a fee, and erroneously class it under the Hugh de Kilpec. [8] About March 1247, when Robert visited Shropshire, for the purposes detailed under William Burnel compounded with him for certain alien Serjeantry at Langley. In the course of that year he October 20th King Henry III received the homage of William Burnel, his son and heir, whom I shall call William Burnel (IV).

It was probably in the year 1248 that William brought disgrace on his name, such disgrace as may for the Buildwas Monks having excluded this notorious

[5] Assizes, 6 Hen. III, m. 8, dorso.
[6] Placita, Hil. Term, 13 Hen. III, memb. 13 dorso.
[7] Pro essarto suo in pace habendo quod fecerat in transitu bosci [8] Testa de Nevill, pp.
[9] Supra, Vol. V, p. 91.


from a place in the Burnel Martyrology. A Plea-Roll of 33 Henry III (1248-9) notices a pending Suit between William, son of William, and Grandson of William Burnel, and the Abbot of Shrewsbury. It related to a Fine levied in 1197 by William Burnel, the Grandfather, and Hugh, a former Abbot. What I here have to notice most, is that the suit was adjourned sine die, because William Burnel, the present Litigant, "had committed felony by slaying a man". The Inquests taken on this matter are more particular as to the crime. One, ordered by Writ Royal of April 17, 1249, says that William Burnel had slain two men, and that he was already outlawed. [10] A later Inquest, ordered by Writ of March 16, 1253, gives the names of his two victims. One was * * * * Curteis, the other was a Priest, named Gilbert. The outlawry had been pronounced after due process in the County Court. [11]

It is obvious that, after the sentence of outlawry had issued in 1249, the King must have had William Burnel's share of Acton Burnell for a year and a day. In the ordinary course, the said share would then revert to the Suzerain, that is, to Thomas Corbet of Caus. That Baron appears to me to have introduced Hugh de Beckbury therein, but not, I think, as a regular Feoffee. Meantime the name of Burnel was by no means obliterated in the disgrace of its Chief. Roger Burnel actually sat on the Inquests of 1249 and 1253, which I just now was quoting; and Philip Burnel sat on the Inquest of 1253, and occurs in October of the same year as Juror in a great Inquest concerning the right of Patronage over Haughmond Abbey. Now, of these two persons, it is evident that Roger was the representative of Gerin Burnel, living in 1240. The Hundred-Roll of 1255 says accordingly that "Roger Burnel and Hugh de Becbur' hold Acton Burnel, for three hides, of the Fief of Sir Thomas Corbet, and they pay 2s. per annum for stretward and motfee, and do suit to Condover Hundred". [12] The Pipe-Roll of 1257 contains a reminiscence of William Burnel the Outlaw. His Chattels, valued at 1. 10s. 8d., had been sold by the Sheriff, and the proceeds handed over to William de Gardinis (he was now Lord of

[10] [11] Inquisitions, 33 Hen. III, No. 37, and 37 Hen. III, No. 73.
[12] Rot. Hundred. II, 62. Hugh de Beckbury's interest in Acton Burnel was probably little or nothing more than as Bailiff to Thomas Corbet. That he held that office we have already had some evidence (supra, Vol. II, p. 136). We have, on the other hand, had evidence that Beckbury gave Corbet a lease of Harrington, commencing in 1266. This may have been part of some greater transaction whereof the other part was perhaps a like temporary interest, granted by Corbet to Beckbury in Acton Burnell


Langley) by order of the King. The Pipe-Roll of recurrent mention of Roger Burnel. He had been for unjust detention. The Assize-Roll of 1262 supp several hints that Thomas Corbet of Caus had been a resident or occasional resident, at Acton Burnet. He is styled Corbet in Acton, a usual proof of residence, and was liable to amercement for some default. The words are added to the entry, instead of (as we should have expected) the amount of his amercement. The words indicate that, being a Baron, he could only be amerced by the King. The next entry is that of an amercement of half a merk by Robert de Acton-Burnel, Clerk, for default. These were further involved in a more serious matter. It was said that "Sir Thomas Corbrt had taken, on Thursday before Epiphany, in the King's 42nd year (that is, on Thursday 1258), a two-year old deer (unum brokettum certi), and the carcase to the house of Robert de Acton, Clerk". He hereupon issued an order to the Bishop of Chester to call de Acton to appear. Thomas Corbet they destined to appear before the King. Corbet must have had a long Chac judge by the Vills which were pronounced to be in Acton for not duly investigating this trespass. They were Ha (Morville), Morville itself, Aldenham, Aston (Aston Eyre), Willey, Bold, Longdon, Pyklescot, and Woolstaston.

These appearances of Thomas Corbet at Acton Burnel have been the result of his having in hand a share of viz. as the Escheat of William Burnet. I will give further of this immediate interference of the Seigneural Lord. In 1267, among Pleas heard at Shrewsbury was one by W who charged Thomas Corbet with disseizing him of a f in Acton Burnel. On Crone's withdrawal of the Plea restored to him a messuage and half a virgate, and C gave Corbet 40s. to purchase his goodwill (pro bono pace).

I have thus far paved the way for a subject of more Antiquarian interest.- The disgrace and ruin of one major house of Burnel was to be shortly eclipsed by the exaltation of another. At the time of which I am speaking Burnell, the future Chancellor of England, was a Clerk in the service of Prince Edward. [14] Acton Burnell was in all in all

[13] Placita apud Salop, 51 Hen. III, m.4.
[14] At one time I supposed Robert Burnel to have been identical Robert Acton, Clerk, above and pp. 118, 119) spoken of. Lord Campbell's statement (Lives of the Chancellors) that Robert Burnel's father was named Robert, strengthened this idea, for Robert de Acton was son of one Robert de Lega.

A fortuitous piece of evidence, which I will mark in a future note, has convinced me that this identity is imaginary.


native place, and he obtained, by purchase rather than by inheritance, the fee-simple of the whole Manor;- both that portion which had belonged to the Outlaw, and that which we last saw in the hands of Roger Burnell. What was Robert Burnell's relationship to any of the Burnells already mentioned, is a question on which I will throw the little light I am able, in the course of the narrative. The first mention I have found of Robert Burnell is in company with other Clerks of Prince Edward, who were apparently about to accompany the Prince on a visit to France. A Patent of protection, usual to such occasions, issued in behalf of the said Clerks, and bears date November 8, 1260. Robert Burnell's acquisitions at Acton Burnell probably commenced before the year 1263, for a Patent bearing date in June of that year mentions him in company with Thomas Corbet of Caus,, Peter his son, and seventeen other persons, of whom I know that at least fifteen were Vassals of the said Thomas Corbet. The whole of this company had the King's letters of protection till November 1 following, in case the War with Wales should last so long. It is certain that during the campaign of this year Robert Burnell was employed by Prince Edward, whom we know to have been at Shrewsbury in April, caring for the state of the Marches. [15] The next occurrence of his name is still more significant. It is in a Patent of March 1265, one of those Pseudo-Patents which issued while King Henry and Prince Edward were captives of Montfort.- Robert Burnell and others have Letters of Safe-Conduct into South Wales, whither they are going "on the affairs of Edward the King's son".

I have a note of a Charter of Henry III to Robert Burnell "concerning 15s. rent in Langele, Rokele, Hocales, and Acton Burnell, within the Forest of Salop". This Charter was dated October, 1266, when the King was before Kenilworth. [16] It is explained by a cotemporary Patent, wherein the King remits to Robert Burnell, in fee, an annual rent of 15s. paid for assarts made in the Boscs of the Manors of Langeley, Rockley, Howhales, and Acton Burnell, within the Forest of Salop, so that he and his heirs were to hold the said assarts, quit of waste and regard for ever. A second Patent allows the said Robert Burnell to impark his bosc

[15] Foedera, I, 425.
[16] Harleian MSS. 1982, fo. 52.


which was within the King's Forest of Salop. [17] By Ch at Westminster November 30, 1269, King Henry III called Robert Burnell, "his beloved Clerk", the privilege of weekly Market on Tuesdays at Acton Burnell, also of annual Fairs there, one on the vigil, the day, and the the Annunciation, the other on the vigil, day, and Michaelmas. He is further allowed a right of free-warren in his demesnes at Acton Burnell, Langley, Alecote (Allcott), B (Belswardine) and Euthon (Eudon Burnell).
[18] A Patent of 1270, allows Robert Burnell to enclose the Bosc of Cun within the Royal Forest, and to make a Park; and, when taken (for that purpose) 40 acres of his own ground in Acton Burnell and Acton Pygod, without license, he is hereby par.

I now come to a curious question. Robert Burnell is hands to have accompanied Prince Edward on the Crusades. That he intended to do so is clear from the following document. A Patent of July 13, 1270, is a protection for those volunteered in this cause, were termed Crucesignati, and Burnell is among them. These Letters of protection granted the Patentees, their Vassals, lands, and effects, and persons exempt them from Law-suits in general for four years after Easter 1274; but the Patent was to be inoperative, if the Crucisgnatus for whom it was drawn either failed to set out within that period. [19] At this time Henry himself intended to join the Crusade;- a design which was soon abandoned. On Augnst 2, 1270, concedes to Robert Burnell, as a Crusignatus seeing "he is about to set out to the Holy Land with the King's son", that William de Middelhope and Malcolm ley, ahould be admitted to act as his (Burnell's) Attorneys things, he having so appointed them in presence of the permission was to extend to June 24, 1274, unless Robert returned home in the interval. I should, by the way, note the Patent of August 4, 1270, which, at the instance of Robert "Clerk to the King and to Prince Edward", allows that William, brothers of the said Robert Burnell, should not be empanelled (as Jurors) in any Assize, and should not be assigned any Shrievalty, Coronership, or Escheatorship, so long as they should live.

[17] Patent, 50 Hen. III, mm 2, 3.
[18] Rot. Chart. 54 Hon. III, m. 14. The printed Calendar (p. 101) erroneously enters this as a Charter to [19] Foedera, Vol I, pp. 4.


Among the great events of English History the departure of Prince Edward for Palestine is one to which the most discordant dates have been assigned by various Authors. Without pretending to a very minute investigation of the matter, I select, as most consistent with the Patent-Rolls, the date given in the Annals of Waverley, viz. August 19, 1270, when it would seem that the Prince and his companions embarked from Dover. If Robert Burnell ever embarked with the Prince, there is abundant evidence that he returned home long before Edward, and probably before the latter reached Palestine.

A Patent of January 24, 1272, mentions Robert Burnell as Archdeacon of York; another of February 20th shows him holding that dignity, and in actual attendance in King Henry's Court at Westminster.

On June 18, 1272, Prince Edward, then at Acre, in Palestine, made a Will, wherein he appointed Robert Burnell one of his Executors, but in terms which do not indicate where Burnel was at the time. [20] At the County Assizes of September 1272, the Jurors for Condover Hundred reported Robert Burnel's establishment of a Market at Acton Burnel. They also stated that the Vills of Acton Burnel and Langley, having been used to do suit to the Hundred every three weeks, had been withdrawn six years previously, and that two-thirds of the Vill of Acton Pigot having owed suit to the Sheriffs' tourn had been withdrawn two years previously, all by Robert Burnell. Moreover Robert Burnel, and Robert, Clerk of Acton, [21] were not in due attendance at these Assizes. One of the Jurors who made these presentments was William Burnel, no doubt the brother of Robert already mentioned, whilst Hugh Burnel, the other brother, was apparently a Knight, and sat as a Juror in causes tried by Grand Assize.

A Patent of the 19th of this same month of September aptly shows why Robert Burnell was not in Shropshire. With the Archbishop of York and Roger de Mortimer, he is named as a locum tenens of the King's absent son Edward. Another Patent of September 24 gives protection to Archdeacon Burnel's men, and to any traders who might attend the Market and Fairs recently chartered at Acton Burnell.

Though Burnel was not in Palestine, it appears that Malcolumb

[20] Foedera, Vol. I, p. 492, 495.
[21] It is this mention of Robert de Acton, Clerk, in the same document with Robert Burnel, that shows them to have been two persons (vide supra, pp. 126-7, note 14).


de Harley was acting as his Attorney at this period. of the above Assizes the said Malcolumb acknowledged 10 merks due from Robert Burnell his lord, to Walter The ground of this debt will appear under Belswardine levied at the same Assizes was between Robert Burnel through his Attorney Malcolumb de Harley) and Burchton and Elina his wife (Impedients), of a messuage in Burnell, and 60 acres of land in Pychford, called Martin and Elina acknowledged a gift thereof to Robert to hold in fee, of themselves and the heirs of Elina rent, and by performance of all services due to the the fees. For this, Burnel is said to give a sore sparrow.

King Henry III died on November 16, 1272, and that the Archbishop of York, Roger de Mortimer, Burnell assumed the Regency, pending the continueing absence of Prince Edward. In or about January 1273 we are Trio convened a Parliament or rather a Council of Westminster, and took oaths of fealty from all the Liege of King Edward. [22] The same authority intimates that Merton was appointed to the vacant Chancellorship of the Council. That, however, is an error, for Merton attests immediately after King Henry's death, that is, on 1272. He was doubtless appointed thus early, by his colleagues, and it is a proof of the large discretion allowed Commissioners, that Edward confirmed the appointment as soon as he heard of it. On September 21, 1274, he, now on his father's throne, bestowed the Great Seal on Burnel himself. On January 23, 1275, the new Chancellor was elected to the See of Bath and Wells, and was consecrated on April 7 following.

Burnell as a Jurist and Statesman is no fit subject for a provincial pen. His public career has been criticized and recorded on a nobler page. As a Bishop he was Shropshire, and, I may add, far from well-known in the diocese. I am to speak of him here chiefly in respect of territorial acquisitions which entitled his successors to become the Barons of the realm.

In November 12741 the Condover Jurors spoke promising plainness of the newly created Chancellor "Robert Burnel", said they, "is holding Acton Burnel

[22] Annals of Waverley, p. 227.


since the 52nd year of Henry III, the Jurors know not by what warranty". [23] And again, "Robert Burnel did make a Park at Acton Burnel in the 53rd year of King Henry, the Jurors know not by what warranty". [23] Again I notice that William Burnel probably the Chancellor's own brother, was one of the Jurors who made these observations.

Dugdale, whose account of the Burnels of the thirteenth century is extremely inaccurate, speaks of two brothers of the family, "Robert and William", who were drowned at Nevyn in 1282. He also identifies Robert Burnell, thus said to be drowned, with Robert Burnell who had had the grant of Market, etc., in 1269. [24] The conclusion due on these premises would be the very preposterous one that Lord Chancellor Burnel was drowned in 1282! However, this drowning story was probably founded on a fact, and we search for the true particulars elsewhere.-

The Chroniclers give various accounts of a great mischance which befell the English arms near the Menai Straits, on St. Leonard's Day (November 6) 1282. The King's forces were, it seems, encamped in Anglesey, but the Straits had been spanned by a bridge of vessels. A large party of the English, commanded by Sir William Latimer, and seconded by a troop of Gascon Mercenaries, crossed this bridge to plunder or to explore. They were surprised by the Welsh, overpowered, and put to flight. A high tide prevented them from regaining their bridge, and nearly the whole party were slaughtered or drowned in the endeavour. From thirteen to fifteen knights, from seventeen to thirty-two Esquires of name, from two hundred to a thousand foot-soldiers, are variously stated to have fallen in this manner. One Chronicle enumerates among the slain, two Gentlemen of good accompt, that were brethren to Robert Burnell then Bishop of Bath. [25]

I can show the probability of this statement from other Records. Sir William Burnel, Knight (we know that the Bishop had a brother William), performing military service due from the Bishop of Bath and Wells, is on the Roll of those who were summoned to muster at Rhuddlan on August 2, 1282, against Lewellyn. [26] His compliance and his fate are obvious.

Again, King Edward I, being at this very Rhuddlan on November 10, 1282, issued writs of Diem clausit extremum, announcing

[23] Rot. Hundred. II, 91, 92.
[24] Baronage, Vol. II, p. 60.
[25] Powel (p. 272), apparently quoting the Chronicles of Dunstaple.
[26] Parliamentary Write, I, pp. 228, 235.


the death of Philip Burnet to the Sheriffs of Northamptonshire and Buckinghamshire. The Inquests, hereupon returned, mentioned certain estates held by the deceased under Sir Robert Burnell, who also was next heir to the deceased, as regarded these particular estates. Here then we have the name of a third brother of the Chancellor, though the Inquest does not declare the relationship. We have also proof that Philip Burnel died without issue. Later we see that the statement, which makes Sir Hugh Burnel to have been elder brother of the Chancellor, [27] is probably erroneous, because had it been so, Sir Hugh, who was still living, would have been next heir to Philip.

I refer elsewhere for indications that the King himself was a Guest of his Chancellor at Acton Burnell in October 1283, also some particulars of the Parliament which was assembled at Acton Burnell at this period. [28] The Statute De Mercatoribus, other known as the "Statute of Acton Burnell", was enacted in Parliament. Its object was to facilitate the recovery of debts. It has been highly commended for its wisdom and justice. It was probably devised by the Chancellor himself; and it is very remarkable that the first person of mark who is known to have experienced its stringency was Philip Burnel, the Chancellor's Nephew and spendthrift heir.

A Patent of January 28, 1284, allows that "Robert, Bishop of Bath and Wells, our Chancellor, may, he or his heirs, strengthen with a wall of stone and lime, and also embattle their mansion at Acton Burnell". [29]

A Patent of Edward I, tested at Caernarvon, July 15, 1284, is an interesting document. The King professes himself to have been "long observant, as in gratitude bound, of the affection which Venerable Father, Robert, Bishop of Bath and Wells, entertains and was still entertaining towards his native place (natale solum) Acton Burnel, whence he derived his origin, and towards the people of those parts". The King recites a previous license which he had given to the Bishop to take building-timber from the demesnes, hayes and boscs of Salop for the purpose of constructing his Mansion House there. The King now admonishes his Justices and other Officers of the Forest not to annoy the Bishop, his heirs, or men, in respect of the said license. Another Patent of the same date [29] shows that the Bosc of Frodesley and Burnell's own

[27] Lord Campbell's Lives of the Chancellors, Vol. I, p. 163.
[28] History of Shrewsbury, I, 149- [29] Patent, 12 Edw. I, mm. 17, an


[For pedigree, see pdf.]


[For pedigree, see pdf.]


of Condover had been seized into the King's hands for some waste alleged against the Chancellor and his men. The King now pardons the said waste, and restores the said Boscs to the Chancellor. This great man died at Berwick-upon-Tweed on October 25, 1292, whilst attending his Sovereign on his Scottish affairs. [30] His body was sent to Wells for burial, and he was interred in the nave of that Cathedral on November 28rd. At the time of Bishop Burnell's death, the Justices in Eyre were holding Assizes at Shrewsbury, where they had commenced business on October 6th. Their proceedings show, not only that Burnell's decease was fully known, but that his heir was already recognized in the person of Philip Burnel his Nephew. The latter was actually questioned at these Assizes, as Lord of Acton Burnell, Acton Pigot, and Allecot, for the withdrawal of those Vills from their suit of Condover Hundred, a withdrawal here alleged to have taken place seventeen years before. He was also questioned for exercising free warren in Acton Burnell, Acton Pigot, and Cound, also for holding two Great annual Courts at Cound, and assizing bread and beer in Acton Burnell and Cound; also for weyf in Cound, and for tumberell, and pillory, and a Market on Sundays, at Acton Burnell. His general plea to these questions was that the estates were in the King's hand by reason of Bishop Burnell's death, a plea which, as regarded Cound, seems to me to have been unfounded in fact.

The Inquisition taken December 10, 1292, as to the estates of Robert Burnell deceased, notifies his Tenure of Acton Burnell under Sir Peter Corbet by service of half a knight's-fee. The Capital messuage there, with its garden, curtilage, moat, barns, etc., was valued at the unusual sum of 40s. per annum over and above the cost of its maintenance. Four carucates of land, held in demesne, were worth 8.; two acres of meadow were worth 4s.; three Vivaries were worth 20s.; a Water-Mill was worth 2. 13s. 4d.; the Park was valued at 1. 6s. 8d.; two dove-cotes at 5s.; and the assized rents of free-tenants and Burgesses realized 5. 2s. 2d. per annum. [31]

Besides the great estates which this Inquest shows Burnel to have acquired, there is one entry which proves that the minutest gains of Shropshire territory had not been above his notice. He had bought up a number of rents, due to the Crown from assarted lands, scattered about the County. These Rents amounted to

[30] Foedera, I, 762.
[31] Inquisitions, 21 Edward I, No. 50.


included in a Charter granted by his Lord William Burnel (the present Grantor). Witnesses,- Thomas de Lega, Hugh his brother, Richard de Lega, Roger Malveisin, Roger Sprenghose and others". [39]

Richard de Fulwood was a Juror for Condover Hundred at the Assizes of 1256. He also sat on local Juries in April 1264 and December 1273. In November 1274 William de Folewode was one of the Jurors who made Inquest for the Hundred. He occurred on a local Jury in 1283.


I have already hinted my conviction that this Church was originally a Chapel. Condover and Cound were the Mother Churches of the district. I should suppose Acton Burnell to have been in affiliation of Cound.

In 1291 this Church was valued at only 2. per annum.
[40] In 1341 the Assessors of the Ninth describe the Parish of Acton Burnel (most correctly, as I believe,) as a Chapelry. They assess it at 24s. to the current tax, which sum was exclusive of other than the value of the small tithes, oblata, and profits of the Church. The previous Taxation of 2. is not alluded to in this assessment, but it would seem that the non-cultivation of a great part of the Parish was considered. [41]

The Valor of 1534-5 places the Rectory of Acton Burnell in the Deanery and Archdeaconry of Salop. The gross income of Edward Lymney, as Rector, was 7., which sum was chargeable with 10s for procurations and synodals. [42]


ROBERT DE ACTON, Clerk, as I have already suggested, may have been Incumbent here. He occurs from 1227 to 1272.

THOMAS, Parson of Acton Burnell, the next Incumbent who we can name, was deceased between 1286 and 1288. The Condover Jurors of 1292 remembered how he had fought with William P a Chaplain, and been killed. The Chaplain had since died in Shrewsbury Castle, having been imprisoned there during the Shrievalty of Leonius de Romesley. [43]

[39] Harleian MSS. 1396, fo. 253.
[40] Pope Nich. Taxation, p. 244.
[41] Inquis. Nonarum, p. 192.
[42] Valor Ecclesiasticus, III, 185.
[43] Placita Coronae, 20 Edw. I, m


[For engraving, see pdf.]


GEOFFREY DE WALLEFORD was presented by Patent of August 26, 1294, the King being Patron, pending the minority of Philip Burnel's heir. [44] He resigned in 1299, when, on February 18th, the King presented-

WILLIAM DE CLYF. [44] The Bishop granted Custody of the Church to this Presentee on April 21, and Letters dimissory for Sub-deacon's Orders. [45] He was not instituted till June 30. [45] He resigned in 1306, when, on March 3, the King presented-

JOHN DE TORRYNG, Clerk. [45] He was instituted on the 31st, as John de Torrynton. He was removed to the Living of Torryngs (Chichester Dioc.) on February 24, 1319, and, on October 31 following,-

SIR STEPHEN DE GODWYNESTON was instituted to Acton Burnell on presentation of John de Handlow, Knight. [47] He had license for three years' non-residence, commencing July 30, 1323, but resigned on November 30, 1325, when-

WILLIAM DE GRAVELEYE, Priest, was instituted, John de Handloo presenting. [48]

RICHARD DE ALDFELD was instituted, March 16, 1360, and died in 1369, when, on September 15,-

WILLIAM DE IDESHALE, Priest, was instituted, Sir Nicholas Burnel, Knight, being Patron. He resigned in 1375, and, on August 17,-

WILLIAM SOMNOR was instituted on a like Presentation. He being dead on March 30, 1395,-

NICOLAS DOWBRUGGE succeeded, Sir Hugh Burnell presenting. He resigned in 1399, and on September 17,-

JOHN STRETTON, Priest, was instituted, at the joint presentation of John Hyde, Clerk, Brian de Harley, and William Corley, Clerk:- Feoffees (in trust, I presume,) of Sir Hugh Burnell. [49]

[44] Patent, 22 Edw. I, m. 11. 27 Edw. I, m. 36.
[45] Register Langton, fos. 2-b, 18.
[46] Patent, 34 Edw. m. 34.
[47] Register Langton, fo. 69.
[48] Register Northburgh, fo. 205, b.
[49] Blakeway's MSS.



MY reason for noticing this Manor here, is because its history affords some further evidence on the Genealogy of the Burnels. I must, however, first discuss its Domesday status.- "Toret holds Languelege of the Earl. Suain held it (in Saxon times), and was free. Here is half a hide, geldable. The arable land is sufficient for one ox-team. Here that team is, together with IIII Serfs. The former and present value of the Manor was and is 5s. (per annum)". [1]

Of Toret the Saxon I have spoken under Willey, Norton, [2] Berrington, and Eaton Mascott. In Saxon times he had held six Shropshire Manors. Three of these he retained at Domesday; three he had wholly lost, unless a part of Berrington was still his, a matter which Domesday does not settle. In Langley we have a Manor in which Toret had no antecedent interest, but which had perhaps been given him by the Earl in qualification of his losses. Toret had therefore four Manors at Domesday, but it is probable that, soon after Domesday, he was removed from these, and had other estates in lieu thereof. Nothing, at all events, in these four Manors can be traced to his descendants, the Corbets of Wattlesborough. Langley, under such circumstances, will have reverted to the Suzerain, whether Earl-Palatine, or King. In turn, it was made a Tenure by Serjeantry, and bestowed, probably by Henry I or Henry II, on an ancestor of the Burnels. The Serjeantry, by which the Burnels held Langley, was apparently as follows:- "Every year the Lord of Langley was to convey a Goshawk from the gate of Shrewsbury Castle to Stepney in Essex". Who provided the bird we are not told, but it was evidently to go to Stepney for the King's use whilst sojourning at the Royal Palace of Havering. The first [3] statement of this service is in a Roll of Shropshire Serjeantries drawn up about the year 1211, and therefore in the time of William Burnel (II). Willielmus Burnel, says the Record, tenet per serjantiam et debet de servicio ferre unum austrucum apud Stubbinges in Essex ad custum Domini

[1] Domesday, fo. 269, b, 1.
[2] Supra, Vol. II. pp. 48, 305.
[3] William Burnel waa assessed half a merk in 1204 to the fifth Scutage of King John. The assessment was doubtless on his Serjeantry, though the Pipe-Roll (6 John, Salop) doom not enter on such particulars.


Regis. [4] A Record of the year 1227, when William Burnel (III) was living, adds the locality and value of the tenure:- Willielmus Burnel tenet villam de Langeleg de Domino Rege per servicium portandi unum aucipitem ad custum Domini Regis, et valet per annum II marcas.

Robert Passelewe's arrentation of Serjeantries (made about March 1247) describes this one as Serjantia Willielmi Burnel in Langele, pro qua debuit deferre unum austurcum a porta Castri de Salobir' usque Stebbing in Essex quolibet anno ad custum proprium; [5] where the expense of the journey is not, as previously, charged on the King, but on the Tenant. Passelewe found that many alienations had been made of this Serjeantry. There were fourteen different feoffments therein, the collective values of which amounted to 66s. per annum; the quantity of land alienated was summed as 2 virgates, 7 bovates, and 36 acres, besides a Mill. [6] Burnel compounded for these illegal transactions, in the same way as has already been described under Little Sutton. [7] The Tenants agreed, each to pay Burnel an annual sum equal to one- third of the annual value of his tenement. The sum of 22s. thus annually arising was to be handed over to the Crown, in composition of the illegal alienations. As to the residue, not alienated, the Service due thereon was commuted from a Serjeantry to a simple Military tenure-in-capite by service of one-third of a Knight's-fee.

I have noticed the succession of William Burnel (IV) in October 1247, and his outlawry in 1248. Nevertheless, the Pipe-Roll of 1250 recites the Fine or arrentation set on Langley, with a little variation from Passelewe's Roll, and charges 3 years' arrears of the annual rent against the name of William Burnel. [8] With still greater inaccuracy, the Pipe-Rolls of 1254 and 1260 charge one merk to the Aid for knighting Prince Edward, and one merk for the Scutage of Wales, as due on one-third of a fee held by William Burnel. Meantime the actual history of this escheated estate was as follows:- An Inquest, ordered by writ of April 17, 1249, found that the Outlaw had held two-thirds of a carucate at Langley in demesne; that the remaining third was still held by Rose his Mother; that the gross value of the Manor was 8. 0s. 12d. per annum, besides an auxilium of 6s. 8d., receivable every third year by the Lord. [9] After the outlawry of William Burnel, the King

[4] [5] Testa de Nevill, pp. 55, 54.
[6] Ibidem, pp. 57, 59.
[7] Supra, Vol. V, p. 91.
[8] The annual rent is here put it 20s., not 22s. The quantity of alienated land is stated to be 2 virgates, 7 bovates, and 33 acres.
[9] Inquisitions, 33 Henry III, No. 37.


held Langley, Buckley, and Hothal in hand for a year and a day,- probably then till the close of the year 1249, or later. The King then gave them to Elyas de Etingeham, for the term of his life; but on December 28, 1250, Elyas de Ekyngham (as he is in this instance called) was deceased. Accordingly, the King issued an order to his Escheators to seize the land which the deceased had held de ballio Regis in Langley, and to cultivate the same, answering for the proceeds at the Exchequer. [10] On October 16, 1251, the King had granted (concesserat) the land of William Burnel the Outlaw to William de Gardinis. The King now further excused William de Gardinis all that pertained to the King, of all manner of debts of the said William Burnel. [10] Hence it was, I suppose, that, as I have before related, the present Grantee had the very chattels of the Outlaw. The King's first grant to William de Gardinis seems to have been less than absolute, for I find a Writ of March 16, 1253, ordering inquiry to be made by Inquest, as to whether William Burnel's land was an Escheat in such sort as that the King might give it (dare). The Jury returned an answer in the affirmative, estimating William Burnel's estate as one carucate in Langelee, one bosc, three parcels (particlas) of land, assized rents of 4. 19s. 8d. in Langley and Hothalles, and the Advowson of the Chapel of Rock (Ruckley), which Chapel was worth 5 merks yearly. All this the said William was said to have held of the King at a rent of 22s., and by service of one foot-soldier. [11]

In this same year (1253) I find the King presenting 10. to William de Gardinis through the Sheriff of Shropshire, whilst a Patent intimates that he was serving the King in Gascony, and gives him the protection usual on such occasions.

In 1255 the tenure of William de Gardinis seems to have been absolute. "William de Bardinis", said the Jurors of Condover Hundred, "holds Longeley, for half a hide, of the King, rendering to the King 20s. per annum. And it was a Serjeantry in ancient time. And the Abbot of Buldewas holds 2 acres of the same Serjeantry, alienated by William Burnel, former Lord of the Serjeantry. Also Sir Hugh de Lega holds Scales (perhaps Hothales was meant) of the same Serjeantry, and pays 8s. per annum to the aforesaid William (de Gardinis)". [12] These two grants to the Abbot of Buildwas and to Sir Hugh de Lega were not enumerated in the arrentation of 1247. I assume therefore that they were made

[10 Fines, Vol. II, pp. 94, 118.
[11] Inquisitions, 37 Hen. III, No. 73.
[12] Rot. Hundred. II, 62.


by William Burnel (IV) in the short interval between that arrentation and his own outlawry. On August 3, 1256, King Henry III, being at Ledbury, grants five years' respite of knighthood to William de Gardinis. On July 30, 1259, William, son of William de Legh, has a Writ of mort d'ancestre against William de Gardinis concerning a tenement in Langley. On April 10th and 22nd, 1264, a Writ of Diem clausit issued, and an Inquest was held, on the death of William de Gardinis. His tenure-in-capite of a carucate, ete., in Langeleg is stated, as we should have expected. His son and heir, William, was now 30 years of age and upwards. [13] Before October 1266 William de Gardinis (II) sold Langley to Robert Burnell. The Patent of that date, quoted under Acton Burnell, presupposes such a sale, for it goes on specifically to remit the 20s. payable to the Crown by the said Robert for the Serjeantry of Langel'. In 1269 a Charter, which I shall quote under Hawksley, styles Robert Burnell "Lord of Langley". Within the next two years, Robert Burnell granted Langley to Richard Burnel whom one Record calls his Nephew (nepos). Hence in Easter Term 1271 we have several notices of a Suit then pending.- First, "Richard le Bryth essoigns himself in a plea of land against Richard Burnell". Then we have evidence that Richard le Brythe was also called Richard de Eton, and was a Feoffee of William de Gardinis; for, "a day, in one month of Easter, is given to Richard Burnel (Plaintiff) and to William de Gardino, whom Richard, son of Richard de Eton and Laurencia his wife, had called to warranty in a plea of land". A further adjournment of this cause merely specifies the land in dispute to be 20 acres in Stokeleye. In 1272 we have Richard Burnel "of Langley" attesting a Longnor Deed, and, as we have seen, Robert Burnel had withdrawn the Suit of Langley from Condover Hundred six years before.

Among the Inquisitions of 1 Edward I, is a representation or petition by Robert Burnell, stating how he himself, having held Langley, had given it for life to Richard Burnel his kinsman (cognato suo), and how the Escheator finding that the wood of Harlithe, though held by the Templars, belonged to Langley, had given the said Richard seizin thereof: further, how the Templars had now ejected Richard. Robert Burnel therefore prays that the wood may be seized in manu Regis, till Inquisition should be had on the matter. [14] A Writ of January 26, 1273, orders the Sheriff to inquire if the Bosc of Thuleshey, which the Escheator had first

[13] Inquisitions, 48 Hen. III, No. 12.
[14] Inquisitions, 1 Edw. I, No. 45.


seized and then delivered to Richard Burnel, were a member of Langley. If it was, the Sheriff was to deliver it to the said Richard. Another Writ of December 16, 1273, recites a complaint, made by Richard Burnel himself (viz. that the Preceptor of Lydley had ejected him from the said Bosc) and orders an Inquest to be held on the matter. The said Inquest sat on Feb. 1, 1274, and found that the Bosc of Tywleshay belonged to Langley Manor, but that the Preceptor of Lydley had had seizin thereof from old time, by what title the Jurors knew not. [15] The Condover Hundred-Roll of 1274 [16] recites how Langley had escheated from the Outlaw Burnel to Henry III, how the King had given it to William de Gardinis, how it had been sold to Robert Burnel, and given by him to Richard Burnel his nephew (nepoti suo). [17] This grant, as we have seen, was only for life; but on January 27, 1276, a Fine, purporting to be the result of a suit of warranty, shows Robert Burnell, now Bishop of Bath and Wells, granting the Manor of Langley and the Chapel of Rokleye to Richard Burnel and the heirs of his body, to hold under the Bishop and his heirs, by one fourth of a knight's-fee. In default of Richard's heirs aforesaid, the premises were to revert to the Bishop and his heirs. A sore sparrow-hawk, the usual fiction of the great Chancellor's Fines, was said to have been the consideration. A memorandum on the Pipe-Roll of 1277 states that Robert Burnell had held the lands of William Burnel, and that the King had pardoned the alienation. Another memorandum, appearing upon this same Roll, intimates that no Scutages were hereafter to be assessed on Langley, for that the Knight's service (one third of a fee) due thereon was included in Robert Burnel's Ferms of Serjeantries and Assart-Rents.

At the Assizes of 1292 Richard Burnel's tenure of 50 solidates of land in Longeleye, was returned by the Condover Jurors as a Serjeantry, and the old service duly recited. Richard Burnel was compelled

[15] Inquisitions, 1 Edw. I, No. 53.
[16] Rot. Hundred. II, 91.
[17] This expression must not deceive us. It is certain that Richard Burnel of Langley was brother of the Outlaw. So if Robert Burnel had been really the Uncle of these two brothers, he would have been brother of that William Burnel who died in 1247. But we know, on the contrary, that Robert Burnel was brother of a William Burnel who was living in 1270, if not in 1282. Again, we know that Robert Burnel himself described Richard Burnel of Langley only as his cousin.

On the whole, I believe that the precise relationship between the Bishop and the Outlaw was studiously concealed in co-eval documents; and I doubt whether any Antiquary of the nineteenth century will be able to discover what Chancellor Burnell chose to hush up in the thirteenth.


to fine half a merk that he might retain the estate till the next Parliament. Hugh de Louther however sued him under Quo Waranto for the Manor. Hereupon Richard Burnel recited his unexceptionable title, as already set forth, and was dismissed sine die. [18]

A Patent of July 10, 1297, shows how soon the plans, if not the rights of Robert Burnell, deceased, were put in question. It recites how "Langley Manor and Buckley Advowson had recently been seized into the King's hands, because Robert Burnel, who had held them in capite of Henry III, had alienated them to Richard Burnel, and changed the Serjeantry into a Tenure by Knight's service, without license" (which was not the fact). It allows however, seeing that Richard Burnel was about to cross the seas with the King, that he should have the Manor, etc., to hold to him and his heirs, in capite, of the King, by service of a fourth part of a Knight's fee; saving the rights of any other person. There can be little doubt that this transaction was a violation of the rights of young Edward Burnel, the Mesne-Lord of Langley, perpetrated by his guardian, the King of England. Nevertheless Gunceline de Badlesmere, among other lands of Edward Burnell committed to his custody, is stated to have had something in Langelee, to which the inquiry of 1302, already mentioned, [19] extended. Subsequent to this, the interest of the Baronial line of Burnels vanishes altogether.

An Inquest ordered on September 24, and taken October 5, 1313, on the death of Richard Burnel of Langley, states him to have held the hamlet of Langley in capite by service of one-fourth part of a knight's fee. William, his son and heir, was now thirty-two years of age. [20] Hence, in the Nomina Villarum of 1316, we find William Burnel enrolled as Lord of Longeleye. [21] I will not follow this subject further than to the death of William Burnel, which is announced by a Writ of Diem clausit, dated January 20, 1331, and the return to which, dated February 12, stated that his son and heir, William, was sixteen years of age on August 15, 1330. [22]

OF UNDERTENANTS in Langley, I shall first mention two who were assessed for imbladements in the Forest-Iter of 1180. These were Edenoin, charged 6d. for an acre of oats, and a certain Hermit, charged 1s. for 2 acres of oats. In 1191 Robert de Langeleg appears on the Pipe-Roll as amerced half a merk for disseizin. I should next enumerate those Tenants of Langley who occur in the

[18] Quo Waranto, p. 680.
[19] Supra, Vol. IV, p. 97.
[20] Inquisitions, 7 Edw. II, No. 9.
[21] Parliamentary Writs, IV, 398.
[22] Inquisitions, 5 Edw. III, No. 35


arrentation of 1247, [23] with their tenures and the annual value thereof.-

John fitz Margery held 21 acres worth 4s. 0d. William de Langeleye held a virgate worth 5s. 0d. Adam fitz Hugh held a virgate worth 8s. 0d. William fitz Adam held a virgate worth 5s. 0d. Avice, Edith, and Juliana (sisters) [24] held 1 bovate worth 2s. 6d. Richard de Leye held 1 bovate worth 2s. 6d. Sibil Bossard held a virgate worth 6s. 0d. Philip de Rutton held 1 bovate worth 2s. 6d. Richard, his son, [25] held a virgate worth 5s. 0d. Roger de Hethesle [26] held 1 bovate 4 acres worth 4s. 0d. Peter fitz Peter held 1 bovate 4 acres worth 4s. 0d. Alured de Hathale held 1 bovate 4 acres worth 4s. 0d. Adam fitz Gervase held 1 bovate 3 acres worth 4s. 0d. John Miller held a Mill worth 14s. 0d. [27]

In January 1250, Geoffrey de Langley assessed Geoffrey de Bromcroft and other Langley Tenants for small parcels of Forest-land. In Trinity Term 1253, I find Philip Burnel suing Adam fitz Hugh, alias Adam de Langley, for the half-virgate shown to have been held by the same Adam in 1247. Philip recovered the same, after repeated defaults made by the Defendant. [28] In 1262 Robert, Miller of Langley, was assessed under Regard of the Long Forest. I should here notice one William Selimon of Langley, who occurs on a local Jury in April 1249, on a Jury of the Hundred in November 1274, and on other Juries in July 1280 and October 1283. His successor seems to have been that John Telimon, or Relimon, whom we have seen attesting Lougnor deeds later in the Century.

HOTHALLES.- This member of Langley, written sometimes as Hathale, or Hethesle, or Hethalles, cannot, I believe, be traced in any modern locality. Besides several Tenants, already mentioned incidentally, William de Hothalles occurs as a Juror for Condover Hundred at the Assizes of 1272.

[23] Testa de Nevill, pp. 57, 59.
[24] Called, in one instance, sisters of Richard de Leye.
[25] Called, in one instance, Richard fitz Reynant.
[26] Alias Roger de Hothale.
[27] The sum of these tenures is actually 1 Mill, 2 virgates, 7 bovates, and 36 acres, worth 70s. 6d., though the Record gives a total, less by half a virgate in extent, and by 4s. 6d. in value.
[28] Placita, Trin. Term, 37 Hen. III, mm. 1, 17. This Philip Burnel was the brother, already mentioned, of Robert Burnel. His interests in Shropshire were never great. I may here state that a Patent of February 7, 1271, gives him the Redemption of the lands of one Geoffrey de Marrys, "according to the Dictum de Kenilworth".


RUCKLEY.- On May 5, 1262, Roese, widow of William Burnel (III), has a Writ of novel disseizin against Richard son of Richard de Eton, concerning a tenement in Rocleg. On May 28, 1295, William de Rokeleye was a Juror on the Inquest held at Holgate on the death of Philip Burnel.


This, like Acton Burnell, was, I presume, an affiliation of the Church of Cound. The Taxation of 1291 takes no notice of Ruckley Chapel, but in 1341 the Parish of Rokeley was assessed to the Ninth at 16s. This was exclusive of 24s., the value of the small tithes, Oblata, and other profits of the Church. The non-cultivation of a great part of the Parish was also taken into consideration by the assessors. [29] The Valor of Henry VIII is silent about this Chapelry. It is probable that the Chapel now existent at Langley was a mere transfer of that which was formerly at Ruckley.

I find the following names of a few early Incumbents of Ruckley:-

JOHN, Chaplain of Ruckley, who occurs in 1272, was perhaps only a Deputy. On October 31, 1311-

IVO, Rector of this Chapel, died, and on November 23 following-

ROBERT DE LONGELEY, Clerk, was instituted at presentation of Richard Burnel, Lord of Longeley. [30] He died Aug. 5, 1349, [31] and on September 14 following-

ROGER WYTTINGESLOWE, Chaplain, was admitted at presentation of Edward Burnell. [32]

ROGER, Rector of this Chapel in 1382, may be identical with the last, or with-

ROGER LE KNITH, who occurs as Rector in 1384-5. [33]

[29] Inquis. Nonarum, p. 192.
[30] Register Langton, fo. 66.
[31] "Probably of the pestilence", says Mr. Blakeway-

Of the three Pestilences which devastated Europe during the reign of Edward III, the First, or Great, Pestilence raged in England from May 31 to September 29, 1349. Mr. Blakeway adverts to the number of Parochial Incumbents, who appear to have died in that interval. I offer a statistical illustration of his remark. Of 27 Lists of Incumbents given in my Fourth Volume, one or two contain no evidence as to the year 1349, but it may be safely asserted that out of the 27 Benefices, 13, at least, became vacant during this fatal year.
[32] Register Northburgh, fo. 224, b.
[33] Blakeway, quoting a Deed of Sir E. Smythe, Bart.


Avochelie, afterwards Hawksley.

HAWKSLEY, long a mere member of Acton Burnell, but now destroyed, would be of doubtful identity with the Domesday Manor of Avochelie, could it not be shown that in its earliest history it was quite independent of Acton Burnell, except that its Tenants happened to be the Burnels.

At Domesday, Teodulf held Avochelie of the Earl. Elric had held it (in Saxon times), and was a free man. Here was half a hide, geldable. "It was and is waste (says the Record). Here is a wood which will fatten 40 Swine. This Manor is at ferm for 6d. per annum". [1]

The woodland character of this estate is consistent with our subsequent information about Hawksley. Teodulf was probably a Saxon, and soon displaced. He held a part of Pulley in this Hundred, which part became a tenure in capite by Serjeantry. Hawksley seems to have been granted to Shrewsbury Abbey, but whether by Earl or King we know not, for the Chartulary of that House does not recite or even allege the original grant. The Burnels occur in the first instance as Custodes, under Shrewsbury Abbey, of Hawksley. The following acknowledgment by Thomas Burnel of such a trust must date about the year 1194. "Thomas Burnel restores to St. Peter a certain wood (nemus) of sthe Monks of Salop, viz. Hauekelega, which he had held under the Monks as Custos, with all its assarts and appurtenances". And concerning an assart in the field of Robert (a tenant I suppose), it was thus settled, viz. that he (Robert) should hold it for his life, without right hereditary, under the aforesaid Monks, rendering therefore to the Monks the same service annually as he had been used to render to the Declarant. After Robert's death, the Assart should remain to the Abbey. Witnesses,- Master Robert (probably Master Robert de Shrewsbury, consecrated Bishop of Bangor in 1197), Herbert fitz Adam, Hamo fitz Marscot. [2]

I should suppose this Deed to have been an act of restitution shortly before the Declarant's death. It is manifest that his brother and heir, William Burnel (II), disputed the surrender. In November 1194,

[1] Domesday, fo. 259, a, 2.
[2] Salop Chartulary, No. 300.


I find William Burnel essoigning his attendance at Westminster in a suit against Henry de Ribeford. His Essoignor was Oliver Cocus or Costard. [3] I do not know that this suit related to Hawksley, but it probably indicates the exact year when William Burnel succeeded his Brother.

The following Fine, levied at Westminster on May 7, 1197, is a curious piece of evidence. It purports to be between Hugh, Abbot of Salopesburi, and his Convent (Plaintiffs), and William Burnel (Tenant), of all that land, with its appurtenances in Hauchelee, whereof was Plea between the parties in the Curia Regis. The Abbot and Convent now conceded the aforesaid land to William Burnel,- to hold to him and his heirs, under the Abbot and his Successors, by the free service of 6s. per annum, payable at Lady Day and Michaelmas. And the aforesaid William quit-claimed to the Abbot all those demands which his Ancestors used to make upon the Abbey. These demands were, two measures (summae) of corn (bladi),- one wheat (frumenti), the other fine wheat (siliginis); and one boce (?), and two cheeses. Moreover, William and his heirs conceded to the Abbot reasonable easements for his demesne houses at Branton (Brompton), Emistre (Emstrey), and Berton (probably Betton), under view of William's Forester, in the wood of Hauchelee.

Between the years 1213 and 1218 Hugh, Abbot of Shrewsbury, assigns to the Brethren of his Convent certain annual rents for their fuller refection on the day of his anniversary. Among the rents so assigned was that one of 6s. from Hauechelega which we just now saw secured by Abbot Hugh himself. [4]

The following Charter I am inclined to attribute to William Burnel IV (the Outlaw). If so, its date is unquestionably the year 1248, when the Shrievalty of Shropshire passed from the first to the second witness.- "William Burnel, son of William Burnel, concedes to Shrewsbury Abbey in his wood of Longeleg the same easements as the Abbey was entitled to have in the wood of Hauecheleg, according as they (the easements) were contained in a Cyrograph of the Lord King (i.e. a Fine levied in the King's Court), made between the Abbot and the ancestors of the present Grantor, concerning the said wood of Hauecheleg. The Monks were to enjoy these easements, without any impediment connected with right of road, for their three demesne houses of Drayton (probably a mistake for Brompton), Eiministr' (Emstrey), and Bethton (Betton), under

[3] Rot. Curiae Regis, I, 123-4.
[4] History of Shrewsbury, II, 109.


view of the Grantor's Forester. Witnesses,- Sir John le Strange, Sir Thomas Corbet, Hugh de Beecheburi, William, Canon of Wroccestre. [5] In 33 Hen. III (1248-9) a Suit, before alluded to, was pending between the Abbot of Shrewsbury and William Burnell, but was stopped by the Outlawry of the latter. The Abbot was suing Burnel, not about easements, but to oblige him generally "to observe the Fine made between Abbot Hugh and the present Defendant's Grandfather (avum) concerning 6 solidates in Hawell". [6]

Seven years after this, viz. at the Assizes of January 1256, it was ascertained by Jury that William Burnel, at the time of his Outlawry, was holding 50 acres in Rocle (Hawksley was meant) under the Abbot of Shrewsbury;- that the King had then held the premises for a year and a day, but that, on the expiration of that term, the Abbot failed to obtain his reversionary right from the King (non perquisivit sibi versus Dominum Regem). The reason of this was, that, at the moment, "there was no certain Abbot of Shrewsbury"; for there was a contention between the Abbot who eventually sat, and was in office in 1256, and a certain other person whom the Bishop of Chester had appointed Abbot. [7] When therefore, after the expiration of the King's year and day, the King gave the lands of the Outlaw in Langley, Buckley, and Hothal, to Elyas de Etingeham for life, this land of the Abbot's was included in the grant, because still the Abbot was not asserting his right. But after the death of Elyas de Etingeham (which we know to have taken place about December 1250), all these lands reverted to the Crown. Then at last the Abbot petitioned the King for restitution. He obtained it, and held this

[5] Salop Chartulary, No. 156.
[6] Placita, tem. Hen. III, No. 75, m. 1.
[7] This part of the Verdict shows, then, that in the year 1250 there was a contest about the Abbacy of Shrewsbury. The fact is probable on other evidence. The name of the Pseudo-Abbot, nominated by the Bishop of Chester, does not appear. The succession of the Abbots at this period, as given by the Historians of Shrewsbury (Vol. II, p. 112), is very inaccurate. Adam II being Prior, had the Royal assent to his election as Abbot on August 7, 1244. Adam III was another person, and had been Sacristan of the House. The Patent, containing the King's assent to his election as Abbot, bears date May 21, 1260, and is addressed to the Diocesan Bishop. Adam (III) sat but a short time, if at all, for on August 19, 1250, another Patent, similarly addressed, assents to the election of William, Sub-Prior of Coventry, as Abbot of Shrewsbury. It may be doubted whether this William sat at all; and I think it probable that the Bishop of Chester was resisting the exigency of both these writs addressed to him, and was favouring a third Claimant. His Nominee I take to be that unnamed Abbot whom the Armals of Tewkesbury tell us to have been deposed in 1261 by concurrent sentences of the King and the Pope. The "Monk of Evesham", appointed in the same year, was undoubtedly Henry, whom I find in office in October 1253 and July 1257.


estate for half a year. But when (in October 1251) the King granted the Outlaw's lands to William de Gardinis, the latter, presuming that this monastic estate was included in the Grant, ejected the Abbot. Thus things continued till the Assizes of January 1256, when the Abbot brought his action of disseizin against William de Gardinis for 50 acres in Rock; Sibil, the Defendant's wife, appeared on his behalf and showed the Outlawry of Burnel, the escheat to the Crown, and the feoffment of William de Gardinis by the King in Langel', Roclegh, and Hothal. The Abbot rejoined, and showed how the 50 acres in question were held under himself, how the King had had the land for a year and a day, and how he (the Abbot) subsequently obtained the King's order to R. de Grendon, then Sheriff (he was in office from Easter 1250 to Michaelmas 1255), to restore the said 50 acres to the Abbey. The Abbot further showed his own seizin for half a year, and the King's feoffment of William de Gardinis, the present defendant.

The Jury's finding, I have already detailed. Its accuracy, as tested by other evidences, is very remarkable; and, in accordance therewith, the Abbot recovered his estate. [8]

We next see Robert Burnell obtaining a grant in fee-farm of this third estate of his family. In the year 1269 William, Abbot of Shrewsbury, demises for ever to Robert Burnel, Lord of Longeleye, the culture called Hauckeleye, situate between the said Robert's vill of Rokeleye, and his Manor of Longeleye;- to hold in fee-farm, at an annual rent of 6s. 8d. Witnesses,- Roger Sprenchose; Hugh de Leye, Clerk; Robert de Acton; Ranulf Payn and Thomas le Port, Chaplains; Adam Cox; and Simon Crau. [9]

As late as the year 1534, the Abbot of Shrewsbury was receiving the above rent of 6s. 8d., purporting to be the rent of a "parcel of pasture enclosed within the Park of, and leased to, Thomas Lee, Esq., of Langley, and called Hawksley". [10]


ROBERT FITZ COBBET is represented in Domesday as holding five Manors in Condover Hundred under the Norman Earl. Woolstaston,

[8] Assizes, 40 Hen. III, m. 10, dorso.
[9] Salop Chartulary, No. 273.
[10] Valor Ecclesiasticus, III, 189.


originally Wulfstan's-ton, is thus described in that Record.- "Robert son of Corbet holds Ulestanestune under Earl Roger. Chetel and Aluric held it (in Saxon times) for two Manors, and those men were free. Here are II hides. In demesne there is one ox-team, and (there are) VII Villains with a team and half, and there might be III teams more here. Here is a wood which will fatten XII Swine. In King Edward's time the Manor was worth 40s. (per annum); now it is worth 12s". [1]

Robert fitz Corbet's Barony is reputed to have been divided, during the reign of Henry I, between his two daughters, one of whom became ancestress of the Baronial House of Fitz Herbert, the other of the Baronial House of Boterell or Botreaux. In this partition, whenever made, Woolstaston went to the share of Boterell. The second William Boterell, being grandson, as I suppose, of Robert fitz Corbet, became, about the year 1170, the third husband of Isabel de Say, Lady of Clun, whose former husbands, William fitz Alan and Geoffrey de Vere, died in 1160 and 1170. I have before alluded to two Charters which at the close of the twelfth century were expedited to Wenlock Priory by Isabel de Say, and by her third husband, William Boterell. [2] The second witness of each Charter was Roger Anglicus, and he was no other than William Boterell's Feoffee at Woolstaston.

It is quite clear that William Boterell married, in 1203-4, Albreda, daughter and coheir of Walter Waleran and widow of John de Ingeham; but whether this William Boterell were the surviving husband of Isabel de Say, or the son of that husband, by Isabel de Say, I will not here discuss. Sure it is that William Boterell, the husband of Albreda Waleran, was deceased in June 1211, and that he left, apparently by Albreda, a son and heir, William, who was an infant, and who did not obtain livery till December 1220, at which period, if son of Albreda, he must have been still in minority. Albreda Waleran survived her second husband nearly sixty years, and had for a long time the Seigneury of Woolstaston as part of her dower.

Meanwhile, that is before the year 1209, Roger Anglicus (I) died, leaving a son John, and a widow Amilia. I think it clear from subsequent evidence that Amilia had the tenancy of Woolstaston in dower. The Forest-Roll of March 1209 records a fine of 1 merk proffered by Amilia de Wolstaneston "for a new assart, not made clandestinely", and for license to build a house thereon.

[1] Domesday, fo. 256, a, 1.
[2] Supra, Vol. II, p. 6.


About this time "Amilia, Lady of Wolstaneston, widow", grants to Haughmond Abbey certain land in Lega (Lee Botwood) which she had claimed against the Abbey in the Curia Regis. She also gives common-pasture in Wolstanton Wood, and pannage for 20 swine. A rent of 3s. is reserved to the Grantress, and the Abbot pays down 6 merks. Witnesses,- William Fitz Alan, Ralph, Abbot of Lilleshull, John le Strange, Hugh Pantulfe, Reiner de Lee. [3] In 1216 Amilia de Willaveston and Albreda de Boterell appear to have been on the Barons' side against King John. Albreda's lands in general were in the custody of John de Monemue, a still loyal subject, who had married Cecilia Waleran, sister to, and coheir with, Albreda. A precept of King John, dated at Oswestry (Album Monasterium) on August 7, 1216, orders the Sheriff of Shropshire to give "John de Monemue seizin of the land in Wlstoneston which had lately belonged to Amilla widow of Roger Anglicus. She (Amilla) was with the King's enemies, and her land belonged to the fief of Albreda de Boterell, which fief was already in John de Monenine's custody". [4] A Writ of King Henry III, dated November 3, 1217, certifies the Sheriff of Shropshire that John Anglicus and Amilia his Mother have returned to their allegiance, and are to have their lands restored. [4] Subsequently to this I find reason to suppose that Amilia (whether as a dowager or the wife of a second husband) endeavoured to obliterate the title of her son John, and his only daughter Johanna, to Woolstaston. Amilia favoured a person who in this instance is called Roger Anglicus, though I think that we shall hear of him elsewhere under a different name. His relationship to Amilia, or to her former husband, I will not here speculate upon. Suffice it to say that he was not their son.

In 1240, owing to these causes, we find that, under the "Land of Aubreda de Botereus", Wlstaneston is entered as one-fifth of a knight's-fee held by Roger Anglicus. [5]

In Michaelmas Term 1251 I find Johanna, daughter and heir of John le Engleis and now wife of Robert de Grendon, moving the Courts of Westminster for recovery of her inheritance. She and her husband made use of the process termed De Ingressu;- and the case is one which very pertinently shows the distinction

[3] Haughmond Chartulary: Tit. Lee Botwood.
[4] Claus. I, 280, 373.
[5] Testa de Nevill, p. 46. Two Cotemporary Rolls (pp. 48, 50) give Wlstaneston as fee held by Roger Anglicus, but it is erroneously placed under the Barony of Hugh de Kilpec.


between this form of procedure and that under a Writ of novel disseizin or of mort d'ancestre. In fact, no disseizin had taken place, because the Plaintiff had never been seized, and the writ of mort d'ancestre was probably a hazardous expedient, seeing that the last of Johanna's ancestors who had held Woolstaston was her Grandfather, who had died more than 40 years before. After this explanation I proceed to show the Writ De ingressu in operation.- "Robert de Grendon and Johanna his wife seek against Roger le Engleys, the Manor of Wullaveston (except two virgates), and against Richard le Engleys they seek one virgate in the same, as the right of Johanna, into which premises Roger and Richard have no ingress save through Amilia widow of Roger le Engleys (I), which Amilia held the same in dower by grant of John le Engleys (her son I presume), the father of Johanna the present Plaintiff, and whose heir she (the Plaintiff) is". In reply, Roger le Engleys (II) admitted that he had had ingress through the said Amilia, but he denied that Amilia had the premises in dower as aforesaid, for that they were a gift in frank-marriage from William de Wytenton (probably Amilia's father), given with the said Amilia to Roger le Engleys (I) sometime her husband. Richard le Engleys, the other Defendant, denied that he had ingress by Amilia at all. In fact, he was the Feoffee of Roger le Engleys (II). Both Defendants appealed to a Jury, and the cause was adjourned to the Quinzaine of Hilary 1252.

But there was still another virgate in Woolstaston not included in the above Suit. This was held, half by Richard le Engleys and half by William de Willaveston, whom the Plaintiffs sued as having no ingress save by Roger le Engleys (II), grantee of Amilia, who had the virgate in dower, etc. (as before). Here Richard le Engleys adroitly or vexatiously shifted his defence, declaring in this instance that he had had ingress immediately from Amilia, and not from Roger (II). William de Willaveston admitted that Roger le Engleys (II) was his Feoffor, and called him to warranty. The cause was adjourned like the last. [6]

I again catch a glimpse of this suit on the Plea-Roll of Michaelmas Term 1253, when, on October 6, the Plaintiff Johanna, here called Johanna de Berkele, names an Attorney in her suits against Roger and Richard le Engleys and William de Wulstaneston. [7] The result may be learnt from a Fine, dated a week later in the same Term. Thereby Roger le Engleys (Tenant) allows the right of

[6] Placita, 35 Hen. III, m. 1, dorso.
[7] Placita, 37 Hen. III, m. 6.


Johanna de Berkele (Plaintiff) to the Manor and Advowson of Wustaneston, whereof was Suit at Law. In return, Johanna conceded a third of the said Manor, viz. that towards the East, to Roger and Cecilia his wife, for the life of Cecilia, they performing all services due thereon. Johanna also covenanted to give Roger a life annuity of 10. She also allowed common-pasture and other privileges. The premises, on the death of Cecilia, were to revert to Johanna.

In 1254 the Pipe-Roll shows Roger Engleis as fining one merk to have some assize, and as amerced half a merk for a false plaint.

In the year 1255 Roger le Engleys (II) was dead, and his widow, under the name of Cecilia de Wolverslawe, was guardian of his infant son, called Roger Waldin. However, Cecilia's share in Woolstaston is not reckoned of in the Condover Hundred-Roll of the same year. Johanna de Berkeley, here called Dame Johanna le Engles, is said to hold Wolstaston, for II hides, of Sir William (it should be Reginald) de Botereus. The Manor paid 16d. for stretward and motfee, and did suit to both County and Hundred. [8]

In Hilary Term 1272 we have notice of a suit, which shows that Johanna de Berkeley had married a second, or more probably a third, husband, viz. Simon de Keringewyk, and had since been succeeded at Woolstaston by Egidius de Berkeley, probably her son by her first husband. Also Richard le Engleys, above mentioned, and whom I know to have been a Brother of Roger le Engleys (II), had died and been succeeded by a son John, still under age. However, the said John sued Egidius de Berkele for the Manor of Wulstaneston, alleging that the said Egidius had no ingress therein, save through Simon de Keryngewyk, Johanna his wife, and Cecilia, Widow of Roger le Engleys, who had concurred in disseizing Richard le Engleys, John's father. The suit was adjourned on Egidius de Berkeley showing the Plaintiff's nonage. [9] In October following, the Justices-in-Eyre at Shrewsbury gave a day (the Quinzaine of St. Martin) to John, son of Richard le Engleis, Plaintiff in this suit, but the result does not appear.

Within the next ten years the fee-simple of this Manor was acquired, probably purchased, by Robert Burnell, Bishop of Bath and Wells. The Charter of Free-Warren granted to Robert Burnell in 1281 extends to his demesnes in Belswardine, Meole, and Wolfestanstone. [10] The Inquest, taken in December 1292, on his death, states that Robert Burnell had held the Vill of Wolstaneston of

[8] Rot. Hundred. II, 62.
[9] Placita, Hil. Term, 56 Hen. III, m. 2 dorso.
[10] Rot. Cart. 9 Edw. I, No. 80.


Egidius de Berkeleye for a fourth of a knight's fee. The capital messuage (out of repair) and garden were valued at 2s. per annum, half a carucate of poor land (terrae debilis) at 6s. 8d., 4 acres of meadow at 6s. 8d., the assized rents were 5. 6s., a water-mill yielded 12s, a common wood 18d., and the Pleas of Court were worth 1s. Total, 6. 15s. 10d. [11]

The Seigneury of Botterell, though unnoticed in the above Inquest, still remained. On the death of Philip Burnel, in 1294, the Inquest recognizes this Seigneury, when it states that the deceased had held Wolstanton of the Lord of Longdon. Here, however, the mesne tenure of Berkeley is suppressed. [12] Again, an Inquest of February 10, 1301, states Wolstaneston to be held of the "Lords of Longedon", and values the Manor at 6. 16s. 2d. Gunceline de Badlesmere was now Custos thereof, pending the minority of Edward Burnell. [13]

The Inquisition taken on the death of Edward Burnell in October 1315, is nearly illegible; but I think it states him to have held Wolstanton of the King, and by service of one tenth of a knight's-fee. [14] In March following, his Widow, Alina, is set down as Lady of Wolstanton, she having it, I presume, in dower. [15]

AS TO UNDERTENANTS in Woolstaston, I forbear to name some who possibly belonged to this Manor, but who, with equal likelihood, were resident in places of similar name. By a Fine of November 1272, John de Means and Evyda his wife allow their grant of half a virgate in Welstanyston to Peter de Parva Strattone, to hold to him and his heirs, at 2d. rent. Peter paid 8 merks for this. There is a Deed of Edward Burnel's, dated at Acton Burnell on October 16, 1311, whereby he grants to William le Boudler of Wolstantone, and the heirs of his body, 6 acres in his wood of Wolstanstone, at a rent of 16d. Witnesses,- John Bissop, Roger de Smethcote, Roger Davies, Alexander de Waterdene, William le Escirmessour. [15]


This was probably an affiliation of Church Stretton.

[11] Inquisitions, 21 Edw. I, No. 50.
[12] [13] Inquisitions, 22 Edw. I, No. 45, c. 28 Edw. I, No. 24.
[14] Inquisitions, 9 Edw. II, No. 67. An Escheator's Roll of the same year confirms this reading, adding that Wolstanton was held of the King as of the Honour of Montgomery.
[15] Parliamentary Writs, IV, 398.
[16] In possession of Sidney Steadman Smith, Esq.-

Edward Burners seal, charged with a Lion rampant, remains attached to this Deed. We have seen (supra, p. 18, note 39) that on a previous occasion Edward Burnel used a different seal.


The first notice I have of this Church is on the Assize-Roll of 1272, when the Jurors of Condover Hundred mentioned its having afforded sanctuary to certain Felons. The Taxation of 1291 mentions the Church of Wonstanestowe, or Wolstanestone, in Wenlock Deanery and Hereford Diocese, as being of less than 4. annual value. [17] The Inquisition of 1294, on the death of Philip Burnel, values this Church at 40s.

In 1341 the Parish of Wolstanton was assessed to the Ninth, only at 13s. 4d. The greater part of the Church income consisted of small tithes and offerings, so that that was no measure of the Ninth. A murrain among cattle, and other agricultural losses, are alleged to show the impoverished state of the Vill. [18] The Valor of Henry VIII does not mention this Church.


EDMUND DE LODELOWE, Priest, was instituted August 12, 1316. Patron, Sir John de Handlo, Knight.

SIR GEOFFREY SHARDEBURY, a Rector of this Church, has an undated license of non-residence, that he may devote himself to the services of Sir John de Handlo.

THOMAS ASSELOTE occurs as Rector in 1340. In 1349 we have seen that he was presented to Onibury. [20] Accordingly, on June 6, 1349,-

SIR WILLIAM DE CARDYNGTON, Priest, was presented to Woolstaston by Sir Nicholas Burnel, Knight. On Feb. 7, 1401,-

JOHN DE BASSELOWE was instituted. Patron, Sir Hugh Burnel, Lord of Holgate and Weolegh.


This stands in Domesday as another of Robert fitz Corbet's Manors. "The same Robert holds Umbruntune (of the Earl). Anti, Einulf, Aregri, and Archetel held it (in Saxon times) for four Manors. Those Thanes were free. Here are 2 hides, geldable; and here are II Villains, with half an ox-team. Most part of this

[17] Pope Nich. Taxation, pp. 167, 176.
[18] Inquis. Nonarum, p. 193.
[19] From Blakeway's MSS.
[20] Supra, Vol. V, p. 58.


Manor is waste. In King Edward's time it was worth altogether 68s. (per annum). Now it is worth 10s. The (arable) land would employ 5 teams". [1]

The history of Womerton, meagre as it is, suggests the idea that the whole of Robert Corbet's Barony was not divided among his Coheirs. In fact I doubt whether any partition was attempted till after the death of his illegitimate grandson, Reginald, Earl of Cornwall. If this were so, and if his estates were for more than half a century at the arbitrary disposal of the Crown, it is not to be wondered at that a Manor like Womerton should have been annexed to the adjacent and Royal demesnes of Church Stretton. At all events we never hear of Womerton after Domesday, except as a mere appendage of Stretton, and even in that relation it appears rather as an afforested district, than an inhabited Vill. Thus, in 1232, we find Andrew de Wulstanestun (Woolstaston) assessed at 6d. for an imbladement of an acre of oats in Wymbritton. [2] Again, in 1235, the Surveyors of the Shropshire Forests found that the Bosc of Wimbrinton had furnished timber for the repairs of the Castles of Shrewsbury and Stretton, and for the strengthening of Roger Sprenghose's mansion of Longnor. [3] Lastly, in 1255, Henry de Helewynton (a Commissioner for the sale of timber in the Shropshire Forests) got 6s. 8d. for windfalls in the bosc of Wimbriston. [4]

In the Perambulation of 1300, Womerton must be taken to have been one of those adjuncts of Church Stretton which were declared not to be disforested. Thus its distinctive state as a Manor was finally obliterated; and the case is worth noting, because it is a rare thing, in Shropshire History, that a Domesday Manor can be thus shown to have vanished in the Forest. [5] The scheme of wide depopulation which formed the New Forest in Hampshire, is an historical fact, parallel in kind, though far greater in degree.


"ROTEL" is the Saxon proper name from which the County of

[1] Domesday, fo. 266, a, 1.
[2] Rot. Pip. 16 Hen. III, Salop.
[3] Supra, p. 55.
[4] Rot. Hundred. II, 84.
[5] Netley is perhaps another instance.


Rutland was called. Roteling-hope means the hope, or valley, of the children of Rotel.

This Manor of Robert fitz Corbet is very briefly described in Domesday.- "The same Robert holds Rotelingehope (of the Earl). Seuuard held it (in Saxon times). Here are II Hides. They are and were waste". [1]

A connected history is not to be expected of the wild, and at times unapproachable, district of which we are now to treat. Nevertheless the few facts which remain are not wanting in interest.

In the reign of King Henry II we find Stitt, a member of Ratlinghope, disposed of by the Crown in terms which I shall consider presently. Here I merely remark that the King does not notice any voice or interest, concurrent or otherwise, which the Coheirs of Robert fitz Corbet might have been expected to assert in the matter. Later evidences however show that the title of the said Coheirs was not wholly obliterated.

As regards Ratlinghope itself, and Coates, another of its members, we have no such early evidence. We know, or may reasonably infer, that before the year 1209 Ratlinghope and Coates had been acquired by Walter Corbet, an Augustine Canon, but, whether from the King or from the Coheirs of Robert fitz Corbet, we cannot tell. Walter Corbet's object was clearly a religious one, and it would seem that he was either the Agent of Wigmore Abbey in this transaction, or else that, finding himself unable to maintain an independent position, he placed himself and his acquisition under the patronage of that House. Hence Ratlinghope became a Priory or Cell of Wigmore Abbey. I have placed these events before the year 1209, because, at the Forest-Assize held in March of that year, the Abbot of Wigmore came before the Justices at Shrewsbury and fined 3 merks, that he might be unmolested in respect of certain assarts and purprestures which he had made at Rodelingehop and Cotes. This indicates a previous settlement of some duration, and that the district was within Regard of that wide-spread territory known as the Long Forest. From an almost unknown Charter, and in connection with this obscure locality, I now proceed to deduce facts not merely of genealogical importance, but of some political and personal interest.

Lewellyn ap Jorwerth recovered the throne of North Wales in 1194 from his uncle David, the ally of the English. From that period till the death of Richard I, there was nothing but open war

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


between England and North Wales. But King John in the very first year of his reign began a series of treaties with the Welsh Prince, who became his Son-in-law in 1204. In short, the whole period from 1199 to May 1211 was unmarked by any open rupture between the King and the Prince, though the frequent notices which we have of conferences, complaints, trespasses, and truces, indicate no very cordial state of feeling. During this interval (1199-1211) we have an address or precept of Lewellyn which, as an official document, is undoubtedly genuine, and which, as far as it indicates his personal views and feelings, does him no small honour. In a few lines we find expressions which show the paternal solicitude of a Prince for his people, the social affection which he could not withhold even from his English kindred, and above all a strong sense of the responsibility which he owed to a Higher Power. It had been told to the Prince, that Ratlincope and Cotes, places consecrated to God and to pious uses, were so near to the land of Keri as to be exposed to the occasional raids and forays which agitated the Border. Now "Brother Walter Corbet", who had acquired this estate with a pious design, was the Prince's relation and most familiar friend. The Prince loved him much for his religious and virtuous qualities, as well as because he was the brother of William Corbet, the Prince's own Uncle. [2] In the cause, then, of kindred, friendship, and religion, the Prince addresses the Chieftains of North Wales, and all others resident there, whether personally known or strangers to himself. He promises them the best of his aid and counsel in all their wants and just requests. He shows them that it is their interest not less than his own, to foster and protect religion, its professors, and its shrines. He commands all whom his command can bind, that, as they love his person and his honour, they will protect and assist Walter Corbet in his designs. He threatens, on the other hand, the loss of his friendship to any one who is disobedient to his wishes. Lastly, he addresses Madoc son of Mailgwn in particular, reminds him how he had brought him up and promoted him. He conjures him not to return evil for good, but to respect the Prince's Honour, as he, the Prince,

[2] Frater Willielmi Corbet avunculi mei. So then, in all probability, the wife of Jorwerth Drwyn-dwn, and the mother of Lewellyn, was a Corbet, and not that "Marred, daughter of Madoc ap Meredyth, Prince of Powis", of whom we hear elsewhere. I observe that whenever their native Princes married Englishwomen, the Welsh Genealogists were not only careful to suppress the fact, but have usually supplied its place by a fiction. I shall hereafter exhibit other instances of this.


would thereafter consult for and succour the said Madoc. [3] The persons to whom this letter was addressed should be enumerated, for one or two of them occur in far different relations. Besides Madoc ap Mailgwn and his brothers, there is Hoel ap Cadewathlon. Now this Madoc and this Hoel were two of the hostages given by Lewellyn to King John, probably when he submitted to his Father-in-law in 1211; they were two also of those twenty-eight whom John so mercilessly executed, when he found himself unable to obtain other revenge for Lewellyn's renewed outbreak in 1212. So far, then, as the Chroniclers have represented the victims of John's cruelty to have been mere striplings, [4] they hereby stand convicted of exaggeration.

We have yet another notice of Madoc ap Maylgon and Howel ap Cadwathlon.- They claimed to hold the land of Melenyth under Roger de Mortimer of Wigmore. They fined heavily with King John to be allowed a trial thereupon. This trial took place at Shrewsbury, and the right of holding the district in his demesne was adjudged to Mortimer. [5]

Another person addressed by Lewellyn is Meredith, son of Robert. This was Meredyth ap Rotpert of Cydewen, one of the Chieftains famous for having seconded Lewellyn in his campaign of 1212.

Again, Gervase and Meredith, sons of Heinoun Clut, Gervase, son of Meirioun, and Gervase Goch, with his son Meuric, and his other sons, are addressed by Lewellyn. Of a Gervase Goch, father of two sons, Madoc and Griffin, we have heard before. [6] We may now ask whether Gervase was living in Wales long after his connection with England had ceased, and after Madoc and Griffin had succeeded him in his English office and estate? In Meuric, his other son, we possibly have the Welsh successor of his Father; but some further inquiries on this obscure subject I reserve for a more fitting occasion. [7]

I hear nothing more of the Manor of Ratlinghope till the year 1255, when the Jurors of Purslow Hundred represented one of Robert Corbet's Coheirs as still the Seigneural Lord. They knew not, however, the service by which the "Abbot of Wigmore held half a hide in Rotelinghop under Reginald fitz Peter. The Manor did

[3] Monasticon, VI. 496.
[4] Powel, p. 193.
[5] Monasticon, VI, pp. 349, 350.
[6] Supra, Vol. II, pp. 110-112.
[7] It should be observed that Meredyth ap Blethyn, Prince of Powis, whom I have accepted as Father of Gervase Goch, died in 1133, that is, about seventy years before his son is thus addressed by Lewellyn. This argues either an extraordinary longevity for Gervase Goch, or some error in evidences which I have hitherto regarded as unimpeachable.


suit to Purslow Hundred, and was geldable". [8] The Condover Jurors, at the same period, reported how the Prior of Rotchehop had made pourpresture on the Long Mynd, in the King's Forest. At the Forest Assize of 1262 it was shown how Roger, Prior of Ratlinghop, had taken one of the King's deer on December 7, 1256, and how he was since dead. In September 1267, King Henry III, being at Shrewsbury, orders that the Canons of St. Mary of Rotelingehop shall have the chattels of one John de Cotes, who had been beheaded for a felony committed on the Long Mynd, which Chattels certain men of Rotelingehop had in keeping. The Taxation of 1291, though it takes no notice of a Church at Rothelinghop, speaks of the place as a Cell of Wigmore, and particularizes the estate of its Prior. He had a carucate of land worth 10s. per annum; assized rents, 1. 6s. 8d.; meadow and pasture land worth 6s. 8d. He received from Fines and perquisites, 8s. 8d.; from a Water-Mill, 10s. His profits on live stock were, 6s. on four Cows, and 4s. on ten sheep. Total, 3. 12s. [9] The Valor of 1534-5 gives the rents and terms receivable by Wigmore Abbey from Rollynghope as 4.; but the Ministers' Accounts of 1539-40 gives the rents and perquisites as 4. 9s. 3d., and a Crown-grant of the confiscated Manor, dated 16 May, 1546, values it at 5. 11s. 1d. per annum. [10]


Ratlinghope must have belonged originally and parochially to Worthen or some other Saxon Parish of the district. The Church or Chapel was probably founded by Wigmore Abbey in connection with the Priory. No such Church is noticed in the Taxation of 1291. In 1341, however, the Parish of Rotlynghope was assessed as a distinct Parish, but the Assessors did not quote any previous Taxation of the Church. They rated the Parish at 20s. to the Ninth, and gave the poverty of the Tenants as the only reason for so low a charge. [11] This Inquisition places Ratlinghope Church in the Deanery of Clun, and I take that to have been no arbitrary arrangement of the Commissioners. The Church is not mentioned in Henry VIII's Valor; but at the present day it is reputed to be one of the Churches of Pontesbury Deanery. This is, I believe, a false allocation, though it is most rare to meet with an instance where an ecclesiastical boundary has been thus obliterated. I account thus for the anomaly.-

[8] Rot. Hundred. II, 77, 63.
[9] Pope Nich. Taxation, p. 165.
[10] Monasticon, VI, pp. 365, 496.
[11] Inquis. Nonarum, p. 194.


From the time when a Church was built here by Wigmore Abbey to the time when Wigmore Abbey was dissolved, this district was in some sort extra-parochial and extra-diocesan. Its Mother-Church, and consequently its Deanery, were forgotten. Consistently with this idea we find the Bishops of Hereford never to have interfered at Ratlinghope, and never to have instituted an Incumbent till February 15, 1555, when-

LAURENCE JOHNSON, a Canon of the dissolved Abbey of Wigmore, and already pensioned for life, was presented to this Rectory by Philip and Mary.


This was undoubtedly a member of the Domesday Manor of Ratlinghope. The Canons of Haughmond preserved in their Chartulary a fragment of a Deed (or rather perhaps a memorandum) whereby King Henry is said to have granted to the sustentation of their Church all Stutt. Henry II, in whose reign the Canons acquired Stitt, is probably the King alluded to, but I cannot think his Grant to have been anything more than a confirmation of some cotemporary gift, originated by the Coheirs of Robert fitz Corbet. This transfer evidently took place during the Episcopacy of Robert Foliot, Bishop of Hereford (consecrated October 6, 1174, died May 9, 1186), for to him we must attribute a Deed which recognizes the Canons as settled at Stutte.- "Robert, Bishop of Hereford, gives to the augmentation of their sustenance all the tithes of the Vill of Stutte: and because by his Visitation it appeared that there was no Church there, he gave the Canons license to build a Church in the place where they already had an Oratory, in which Church there was to be a Baptistery, and Sepulture, and service performed once in every week. Witnesses,- William Stokel; Ralph, Archdeacon", [12] - that is, I presume, Ralph Foliot, Archdeacon of Hereford, from 1175, or earlier, to 1195.

We have here good evidence that, as early as the reign of Henry II, it was unknown what was the Parish or Mother-Church of this wild district. Had it been known, the grant of Sepulture would have been in a less absolute form. I have seen the facsimile of a very curious Confirmation to Haughmond, which must needs belong

[12] The Powys Ledger (in possession of W. W. How, Esq.) notices this or a similar Deed as that of Richard, Bishop of Hereford, who, "finding the Vill of Stitt not to be within the limits of any neighbouring Parish Church, gives the same license to the Canons, and empowers them to remove their Chaplain at will".


to the same interval (1174 and 1186) as Bishop Foliot's Deed. The name of the Dean, indicated only by the initial letter G, was undoubtedly Geoffrey. This instrument confirms, inter alia, the little Church of Stutt (ecclesiam exilem de Stutta) with all its liberties and appurtenances. The Canons then had probably availed themselves of Bishop Foliot's license, and built a Church.

There is a Deed of William de Boterell to Haughmond Abbey about Stitt, which must have passed between 1204 and 1210, and should therefore be taken as confirmatory of some previous grant or grants by the Coheirs of Robert fitz Corbet. He gives to the Canons, for the souls of his Father, Mother, and Ancestors, all the moiety of Stutt, with its appurtenances, and with all such integrity as they had it in the time of Herbert fitz Herbert. [13] Witnesses,- William fitz Alan, John le Strange, and Hugh Pantulf. [14]

In Hilary Term 1226, Peter fitz Herbert and the Abbot of Haughmond had a Plea of land pending. In Easter Term following, this Plea was heard at Westminster. Peter fitz Herbert sued the Abbot for a Carucate in Stute, alleging that Herbert, his father, had been seized thereof in Henry II's reign, and that the Abbot's Predecessor had only had the land of the bailiwick of the said Herbert. The Abbot appealed to a trial by Grand Assize, and offered the King one merk that the Writ, ordering such trial, should make mention of this particular issue, viz. "Whether the said Herbert was ever seized of the said land in fee, or not". The case was thus adjourned for further hearing before the Justices-in-Eyre".

Before I give any further account of this Abbatial estate, I must return to take notice of some other acquisitions of Haughmond Abbey, which, though not in Ratlinghope Manor, became indissolubly connected with Stitt.

As early, I think, as the year 1175-6, King Henry II, being at Feckenham, addresses his Foresters and Bailiffs of Shropshire, and tells them that he has given to the Abbot of Haughmond the pasture of Longamenede (The Long Mynd) which is up above Stretton, to the end that the Abbot may there depasture his herds

[13] Herbert fitz Herbert was the other Coheir of Robert fitz Corbet. He died about April 1204.
[14] This Deed favours the idea that the William Boterell, who granted it, had lately succeeded. If so, he was the third of his name: his Mother, alluded to in the Charter, was Isabel de Bay: William fitz Alan, the first witness, was his half-brother, and Hugh Pantulf was the husband of his half-sister.
[15] Placita, Pasch. Term, 10 Hen. III, m. 3.- This suit explains a Fine which often occurs on the Rolls in an abridged form, e.g. Abbas de Haemon r c de 1 marc' pro habenda mencione in brevi.

STITT. 165

of horses (haracia sua). [16] Such a grant can have been relevant to no other acquisition of the Abbey than that of Stitt.

Again, "Robert Corbet gave the Canons his culture of Gateden (Gatten), for which he had received from the said Canons 6s. 8d. yearly. Witness,- Hugh Pantulf". Also, "Robert Corbet gave them an assart, held by William fitz Maie, and situate near their culture of Gatteden;- this at a rent of 4d. Witnesses,- Robert de Girros, Vivian de Rossall".

The Grantor in these two Deeds was Robert Corbet of Caus. He was the descendant of Roger, not of Robert, fitz Corbet, and he died in 1224. He had nothing in Ratlinghope proper, but his grants in Gatten were in fact parcels of his great Manor of Wentnor. [17]

The Taxation of 1291 values the income from the Abbot of Haughmond's estate in this neighbourhood as follows:-

(. s. d.) A carucate of land at La Stinte, netting: 0 6 8 Assized rents there: 0 16 0 Meadows and pastures there, yielding: 0 10 0 Demesne and pasture at Bomer (apud Bomeram) [18] yielding 0 6 8 1 19 4 [19]

In 16 Edward III (1342) the Abbot demises to John Partrich of Bechcote, for life, his pasture of Marx, at Stutte.

On February 14, 1463, Richard, Abbot of Haughmond, demises to John Leche, alias Lardine, of Salop, Esquire, "all his vill of Stutte, within the domain of Boveria on the Longmynde", together with the Rectory of the Vill of Stutte. All the Tenants are to do suit at the Manor-Court of Boveria. The lease is for 40 years, at a rent of 2. 6s. 8d. for the Vill, and 5s. for a croft called Walsheyate. In the Valor of 1535-6 Abbot Thomas declared the assized rents of

[16] Chartulary, Tit. Longmunde. Witnesses,- William fitz Adeline Sewer, Hugh de Lacy, Hugh de Longchamp, William fitz Ralph, and William Basset.
[17] A peculiarity in the status of Gatten, by no means an obvious effect of these grants, is seen at the present day. The Grants associated Gatten parochially and manorially with Stitt and Ratlinghope. We should expect therefore to find Gatten, whether as connected with Stitt and Ratlinghope, or as originally a member of Wentnor, in Purslow Hundred. Most anomalously, however, it has been annexed to Ford Hundred.
[18] The Abbot's Farm on the Long Mynd had got this name, or rather the name Boveria. The whole estate, Stitt included, was afterwards called Boveria.
[19] Pope Nich. Taxation, p. 163, b.

166 OAKS.

the Manor of Boveria to be 16. 9s. 2d., [20] but this probably included receipts from some of the following places, viz. Wilderley, Cothercote, Linley, Betchcott, Picklescote, or Medlicott.

The Minister's Accounts of 1541-2 are more distinctive. They give these items of receipt. Stutte:- the ferm of diverse messnages and lands, 3; the ferm of the Rectory, 13s. 4d.

AS TO THE CHURCH here, it must be taken merely as a Chapel to the Abbatial estate, a great part of which was, as we have seen, extra-parochial, though not extra-diocesan, in the reign of Henry II. The Incumbents were little more than Chaplains, removable at the Abbot's pleasure. No presentations therefore appear on the Diocesan Registers. Since the Dissolution, nothing has been heard of this Church, and its district has been, with Gatten, annexed to the Parish of Ratlinghope.


THIS Manor, if rightly identified, is thus described in Domesday:-

"The same Robert (fitz Corbet) holds Hach (of the Earl). Ernuit held it (in Saxon times), and was a free man. Here are II hides, geldable. In demesne there is half an ox-team, and (there are) II Serfs and I Radman and I Villain and I Boor with a team, and still there might be IIII Teams more here. In King Edward's time the Manor was worth 40s., afterwards it was worth 10s., now it is worth 8s. (per annum)". [1]

Ernuit was perhaps the same with Ernui the Saxon, Lord of a part of Wrentnall, a place contiguous to Oaks. On this ground our identification of Hach with Oaks becomes more probable. Again, we find Ernui, or Ernuin, to have been Saxon Lord of Pontesbury, Fairley, and Westbury, three Manors of Ruesset Hundred, but all contiguous to Oaks. Lastly, there is something in the present status of Oaks which very strongly supports the probability that it

[20] Valor Ecclesiasticus, III, 192. The Abbot's estates in this part of Shropshire are massed in the Valor under the two Manors of Boveria aud Lee Botwood. It is difficult to identify the members of each, but the members of both jointly are suggested in the text.
[1] Domesday, fo. 266, a. 1.

OAKS. 167

was once an independent Manor. It is the only township in the extensive Parish of Pontesbury, which is not in Ford Hundred. It continues to be in its presumed Domesday Hundred, viz. Condover.

That the Seigneury of Oaks remained with one or other of Robert fitz Corbet's Coheirs, I cannot doubt, but I have no direct proof of the fact. The Feoffee of such Coheir was more surely that Robert de Girros, whom we have seen holding so largely under the Barons of Holgate in the time of Henry II, besides being a Tenant in capite at Claverley. I have quoted, under Longnor, a Deed of Henry II's time, where William de Botereaux is the first, and Robert de Girros the second witness. [2] This induces me to think that Girros held Oaks under Boterell rather than under Fitz Herbert.

I have noticed, under Claverley and elsewhere, the Escheat which in 1191 befell the estates of Robert de Girros (I), and supposed that it was owing to his death and the minority of his heir. [3] This Escheat extended to Oaks. At Michaelmas, 1194, the King's Escheator accounts for 7s., the half-year's ferm of Robert de Girros' Manor of Akes. In 1195 the same Officer accounts for 7s. more, received from the same source. We conclude that Robert de Girros (I) had not held Oaks in demesne, but had enfeoffed some Tenant or Tenants there, who paid the above ferm. In September 1199, we hear of such a Feoffee, viz. William de Bikedon, who, being Tenant of one hide in Olkes, was impleaded for the same under writ of mort d'ancestre by William fitz Geoffrey. The Fine which resulted left William de Bikedon's tenure unquestioned, but he conceded a virgate and messuage to the Plaintiff (viz. that which his Father Geoffrey had held),- to hold in fee, rendering therefore one Sore Falcon yearly, in lieu of all, except forinsec, services. In 1255 the lines both of Robert de Girros and William de Bikedon had terminated in Coheiresses. Hence the Condover Hundred-Roll states that Isabella de Bikedon, daughter of William (de Bikedon), and her Sister, held Akes, for II hides of land (the Domesday hidage of Hach), under the heir of Sir Robert Girros; and (these sisters) paid 16d. per annum for stretward and motfee, and did suit to the Hundred. [4]

At the Assizes of August 1267, Robert Corbet and Ida his wife withdrew a suit of novel disseizin which they had had against William Hager concerning a tenement in Okes. Their Sureties were John fitz Henry and Roger Tuder, both of Okes.

[2] [3] Supra, p. 50, and Vol. III, p. 78.
[4] Rot. Hundred. II, 62.

168 OAKS.

From an entry on the Assize-Roll of 1272, it appears that the daughters of William de Bikedon, deceased, were named Isabella and Margery. Isabella, then wife of Thomas son of Richard Gourdin, as heir of her father, sued Thomas son of (another) William de Bikedon for half a toft, etc. in Bikedon, but reduced her claim by one-half, because Margery her Sister would not join in the suit. In fact the latter, as "Margery fitz William", was called to warranty by the Defendant, and deposed that the whole of the premises belonged to her pourparty, and that Isabella her sister had an equivalent in Okes. The result does not appear.

In Trinity Term 1293 I find Record of a purchase, made by Richard Burnel of Langley, of a tenancy in Oaks, and possibly the Vendors represented one or other of the Coheiresses of 1255. By Fine levied in the said Term, Roger son of Roger de Froddesleye and Agnes his wife (Deforciants) quit-daim to the said Richard Burnel (Plaintiff) for 20 merks, a messuage and virgate in Okes juxta Wallingsburn; [5]- to hold of the chief Lords of the Fee. From this and probably some other such purchases, it came to pass that the Nomina-Villarum-Roll of 1316 enters William Burnel (son of the aforesaid Richard) as Lord of Oke in Condover Hundred. Whether the Heirs or Assignees of Botterell retained any Seigneural interest here, or whether the Heirs of Girros or of Bikedon had still any mediate rights in the Manor, are questions which analogy alone cannot determine, and on which no written Record is likely to give information.

THE FOLLOWING UNDERTENANTS in Oaks were probably of a lower class than any of the above.- In April 1253 Thomas de Okes and Henry fitz Baldwin of Okes occur on a Smethcote Jury. Thomas de Hokes occurs on a Langley Jury in April 1264. At the Assizes of August 1267, William Hager was found to have disseized Angaret wife of Henry fitz Baldwin of 6 acres in Okes, which the said William alleged himself to have purchased. [6] In October 1272 it was found, after trial by Grand Assize, that John fitz Henry, Plaintiff, had a better right to 20 acres in Okes than William Hagher, the Tenant. [7] Thomas de Hakes, a Juror for Condover Hundred at these Assizes, is called Thomas de Okes in a Langley Inquest of 1274, and in a Longdon Inquest of 1283. Meantime, that is in January 1278, as "Thomas de Akes", he acknowledges himself by Fine to have given a messuage and halt-virgate

[5] Walleybonrn,- a hamlet near Oaks.
[6] Assizes, 51 Hen. III, m. 6, dorso.
[7] Assizes, 56 Henry III, m. 2.


in Akes to Richard son of Thomas de Akes,- to hold at a glove-rent, and for which a Sore Sparrow-hawk is said to be paid.

Between the years 1292 and 1295 Johanna, widow of Sir William de Mortayn (she was Lady of Pulverbatch), grants to Roger Chaumpeneys of Hokes and Nesta his wife a messuage and half-virgate in Churche-Pulrebache. Witnesses,- Sir David Parson of Pontesburie, John and Thomas Chaumpeneys. [8]


A PORTION of this Manor is ascribed in Domesday to the

Fief of Robert fitz Corbet.- "Robert holds, of the Earl, Brantune. Seunard held it (in Saxon times). Here is half a hide. It was and is waste". [1]

Not a trace can I find of any later interest retained by Robert fitz Corbet or his heirs in Brompton. Probably this wasted half hide became absorbed in the greater interest of Picot de Say, whose son, we know, dealt with the Manor of Brompton as if exclusively his own.

This greater interest of Picot de Say is thus registered in Domesday.- "Picot holds, of Earl Roger, Brantune. Ernui and Elmer held it (in Saxon times) for two Manors, and were free. Here are III hides, geldable. The arable land is sufficient to employ VI ox-teams. In demesne there is a team and half, and (there are) III Neat-herds, and VII Villains, and II Boors, with two teams and a half. In King Edward's time the Manor was worth 25s. (per annum); afterwards it was worth 20s. Now it is worth 40s". [2]

The Confirmations of Henry I and Stephen both record a grant by Picot de Sai to Salop Abbey, viz. of the tithes of Branton and Fitesso, or Phutesho, i.e. Fitz. This Grant will have been very soon after Domesday, though the Charter of Earl Hugh (1093-1098), which enumerates the tithes granted by his Barons, does not mention it. The probable reason of this omission is, that during the

[8] Quoted by Blakeway as among the Mumiments of E.W.S. Owen, Esq.
[1] Domesday, fo. 256, a, 1.
[2] Domesday, fo. 258, a, 1.


time of Earl Hugh, Picot granted not merely the tithes, but the Vill of Brompton to Shrewsbury Abbey, besides two-thirds of the tithes of Fitz, Sibton, and Gulledon, for the purpose of building or repairing the conventual Church. These were witnesses of Picot de Say's Charter,- Hugh, Earl of Salop, Hamo Peverel, Gyrard de Tornaco, Robert Corbet, Robert Pincerna, and Richard de Curcell. [3] This Charter of Picot de Say, though there is no reason to doubt its genuineness, was so far ineffectual, as that his son and heir, Henry de Say, obtained Longfield (Cheney Longville) from the Abbey in the time of Henry I, and ostensibly in exchange for Brompton. This exchange was confirmed by Henry I in a Charter dated at Condover, addressed to the Bishop of Chester and to Pagan fitz John, Sheriff of Shropshire, and attested by Milo de Gloucester and William de Albini Brito. I have already given reasons for supposing this Confirmation to have passed in 1129 or 1130. [4] The Confirmation of the Empress Maude, which probably passed about 1141, mentions and ratifies this exchange as one made in the time of her Father. [5] Richard (Peche), Bishop of Coventry, confirming the possessions of the Shrewsbury Monks between 1161 and 1182, mentions the tithes of Bromptone as tithes of their own demesne! [6] The Demesne lands of their Manor of Brompton were also included in the Charter of Free Warren obtained by the Monks on May 21, 1256. [7] In the Taxation of 1291 the Abbey estate of Bromptone was valued at 4. 3s. 0d. per annum; viz. from 2 carucates of land,; from assized rents, 1. 3s. Od.; from Pleas and perquisites (of Court), 1. [8] Among later Valuations of the Abbey Estates, I find none which speaks separately of Brompton. It was perhaps combined with Eyton-upon-Severn, or with Emstrey, in these Surveys.


This extensive and valuable Manor was in Saxon times the heritage of the Earls of Mercia. Its boundary to the south-east was the Severn at Atcham. It extended along the western bank of

[3] Salop Chartulary, No. 296.
[4] Vol. I, p. 247, note 17.
[5] Salop Chartulary, No. 40.
[6] [7] Salop Chartulary, Nos. 62, 53.
[8] Pope Nich. Taxation, p. 260.


that River for a distance of nearly three miles, and ran right up to that suburb of Shrewsbury which has since been known as the Abbey Foregate. Earl Roger de Montgomery, seeing the importance of such an estate to his own Foundation, the Abbey of Shrewsbury, gave it at once thereto.- Dedi etiam eidem loco Maneria Ettonam (Eyton on Severn) et Eministram cum omnibus suis appenditiis, et Burtonam (Bourton); [1] these are the words of the Earl's own Charter. And the Charter, which I take to be that of William Rufus, confirms these grants as those of the Earl and his Countess Adeliza;- Dederunt Comes et Comitissa eidem Coenobio tres villas, cum omnibus appenditiis earum, Eitonam videlicet, Eiminstriam et Burtonam. [2]

With these statements Domesday is in strict accordance, when it registers Emstrey as already a possession of the Church of St. Peter. "The same Church holds Eiminstre. Earl Edwin held it (in Saxon times). Here are IX hides, geldable. In demesne there are IIII ox-teams, and (there are) XXII Villains, V Boors, and one Frenchman, with XII ox-teams among them all. Here are XX Serfs, and a wood which will fatten XL swine. In the City (of Shrewsbury) one masure [3] of land (of the annual value) of 2s. (belongs to this Manor). In King Edward's time the Manor was worth 100s. (per annum): afterwards it was worth 4., now it is worth 11". [4]

A supplementary entry, in the same Record, relates to a tenth hide in this Manor, the Saxon tenure of which had been different.- " Inthis Vill Alurie held one hide, geldable, in King Edward's time, and he could go whither he would. [5] This land was worth 5s. (per annum). Now St. Peter holds it, and it is waste". [6]

The next notice which I have of this Manor concerns its parochial relations. Emstrey, with its members, Cronkhill and Chilton, was in the Saxon Parish of Effingham, now Atcham. In the reign of Stephen there seems to have been some question about the tithes of Emstrey, and it appears that Ranulph, Abbot of Shrewsbury, gave up two-thirds of the tithes of Emstrey demesne to the Church of Ettingham. This was without the consent of his Convent;- and between the years 1148 and 1159, Abbot Ranulph being dead, Abbot Robert, his successor, persuaded Archbishop Theobald to annul the concession. This the Archbishop did in a letter addressed

[2] Monasticon, Vol. III, p. 619, No. iii, and p. 521, No. x.
[3] Masura terre,- a house in the town, with its cartilage, or plot of land appertaining.
[4] Domesday, fo. 252, b, 1.
[5] Vide supra, p. 48, note 1.
[6] Domesday (ut supra).


to Walter, Bishop of Coventry, and his Archdeacons. [7] Accordingly we find that Richard Peche, Bishop Walter's successor, in his confirmation to the Monks of Shrewsbury, includes the tithes of their own demesne of Eiministre. [8]

The Condover Hundred-Roll of 1255 does not enumerate the Abbot of Shrewsbury's estates within that Franchise, but masses them together as "twelve hides which paid neither stretward nor motfee, nor owed any Suit to County or Hundred". This immunity it probably was, which led to so careless an estimate of the extent of these Manors. If we take the Domesday estimate, Emstrey, Bourton, and Betton alone realized 16 hides, and the Abbot had other lands within the Hundred.

King Henry III's Charter of Free-Warren to the Shrewsbury Monks bears date May 21, 1256, and extends to their demesnes at Emnistre.

The Taxation of 1291 values the temporalities of Shrewsbury Abbey at Emestre as low as 6. 4s. 9d., viz. a Carucate of land, 10s.; assized rents 4. 14s. 9d.; Pleas and Perquisites (of Court), &1. [9] This statement is perhaps a little less dishonest than at first sight it would appear, for 3 carucates of land, worth 3. per annum, are attributed to the Abbot's Manor of the Foregate (printed Foyton), and a part of these three carucates may possibly have been in Emstrey.

In the Nomina Villarum of 1316 the Abbot of Shrewsbury duly stands as Lord of the Vill of Emystre.

A Rent-Roll drawn up about the year 1490 exhibits a new and not very intelligible classification of some estates of Shrewsbury Abbey. The general estate, which extended south-eastwards from the Abbey-Foregate to Atcham, was called Hernesse, [10] or The Lordship; but certain rents are more specifically stated to arise from tenements in Emstrey, Cronkhill, etc. I will set forth such parts of this Rent-Roll as I conceive to belong to the original Manor of Emstrey, including perhaps Brompton. [11]

Hernesse;- ten items of receipt, amounting to 15. 8s. 8d.
Cronkhyll;- three items of receipt, amounting to 4. 16s. 0d.
Chylton;- four items of receipt, amounting to 4. 4s. 8d.
Emstre;- five items of receipt, amounting to 7. 6s. 8d.

[7] History of Shrewsbury, II, 108, note 3.
[8] Salop Chartulary, No. 62.
[9] Pope Nich. Taxation, p. 260.
[10] For an explanation of this word, see Vol. V, p. 212, note 17. See also the valuable note (3) in the History of Shrewsbury, Vol. II, p. 130.
[11] Hist. Shrewsbury, II, 508.


John Jonys' ferm (probably at Chilton) 4. 16s. 8d.
Le Coton 3. 0s. 0d.
Le Home (probably The Hams, near Emstrey) 5. 0s. 0d.

These items, and their total of 44. 12s. 8d., are probably represented in the Valor of 1534 by a total of 43. 6s. 8d., of which 42. 10s. 4d. is stated to arise from Hernys, and 16s. 4d. from Cronkehill and Chilton.

The Ministers' Accounts of 1541-2 give the kinds of income, but not the localities, which contributed to make a total of 64. 5s. 1d. arising from "The Domain of Hernes in the Parish of Atcham". [12] The items are- Rents of Tenants at Will, 9. 7s. 6d.; Divers Ferms, 50. 3s. 0d.; Ferm of tithe, 2. 11s. 8d.; a Pension, 1. 4s. 0d.; Perquisites of Court, 18s. 11d.

This statement includes three items (the three last) which are not included in the total of 43. 6s. 8d. supplied by the Valor. Still a difference of more than 16. will remain between the two calculations, supposing them to have had a common basis. Such a difference is too great for explanation, and I am obliged to conclude that the Fiscal Officers of Henry VIII discovered some ferms and rents which had been suppressed in the Valor.

Of UNDERTENANTS in Emstrey or its members, I shall only name one, Roger de Chylton, a Juror on several Inquests between 1283 and 1293, and, inter alia, on the inquest of Condover Hundred at the Assizes of 1292.

Bourton, or Boreton.

EARL ROGER'S gift of Bourton to Shrewsbury Abbey has been set forth under Emstrey, and one would imagine from the terms used in his Charter that the two Manors were given in the same way, that is, were original gifts of the Earl. Domesday however supplies us with some qualification of such an idea. The Earl's gift of Bourton was an act of restitution. The Manor had belonged to that Saxon Church of St. Peter which was thenceforth to be represented by the Norman Abbey of St. Peter and St. Paul. "The same Church", says Domesday, "holds Burtune, and held it in the time of King Edward. Here is one hide geldable. In demesne

[12] Monasticon, III, 528.


there is one ox-team, and (there are) VI Boors with one Team and also II Neat-herds here. Its former value was 5s. (per annum) now it is worth 8s". [1]

The Monks of Shrewsbury seem to have dealt with this estate very differently from Emstrey. Instead of retaining it in demesne, they had a Feoffee here whose services were, if I may judge from later evidences, merely nominal. A Chapter in the Haughmond Chartulary accidentally furnishes some very early particulars about two of these Feoffees, viz. Gilbert Bochart (or Boschart), and his son Ralph. It would appear that Hamo le Strange of Cheswardine was a Tenant of the Abbot of Shrewsbury in respect of a part of the Manor of Betton. This Hamo, as I have said under Alveley, died about the year 1160, and without issue. A portion of his tenement in Betton was a strip of land dividing Berrington on its East from Condover on its West, and bounded by the Condover Brook on its South. Over against this strip of land, which was called Bulerugge, and on the other side of the Condover Brook, was the Manor of Bourton, held, at the time of Hamo le Strange's death, by Gilbert Bocharte under Shrewsbury Abbey. It is very remarkable, but not the less certain, that these two Tenants of Shrewsbury Abbey concurred in introducing a rival interest on these monastic estates. Hamo le Strange, making a final disposition of his property, gave "the land of Bulerugge" to Haughmond Abbey. The object of this gift was clearly that the Canons might found a Mill on Condover Brook, for Hamo's grant included a Mill-stank. This Grant would however have been inoperative without the concurrence of Gilbert Bocharte, the proprietor of the opposite bank. Him the Abbot of Haughmond brought to terms by a present of one merk, and Gilbert Bocharte executed a Charter wherein he "concedes the donation made by Hamo le Strange at the close of his life" both of Bulerugge and of a Mill-stank, and adds, apparently on his own account, a grant of half the water (dimidiam partem aquae). This Charter was attested by John le Strange and Guido his brother; and Engelard de Stratun stood Surety for Gilbert Bocharte's fulfilment of the agreement, after receiving Gilbert's fealty (or solemn promise) on the subject. It would seem that Radulf Bocharte, son of Gilbert, gave a cotemporary security, in the form of a Charter which confirms to the Canons "the land of Bulrugge, and the stank of a Mill " (here called the Mill of Bettone), "and half the water, which (half) his Father

[1] Domesday, fo. 262, b, 1.


Gilbert gave". Witnesses,- Eilric de Wesseleyga; Gamel de la Lithe; Erni fitz Godbert; Gilbert de Wesselega. [2]

Pope Alexander III, in his confirmation of 1172 to Haughmond Abbey, sums the foregoing grants very perspicuously, viz. as, "by disposition (ex divisa) of Hamo le Strange, the land of Bolerugge and the Mill of Betton;- the last by assent of Gilbert Bochard and his heir Radulf". Later than this, but still in the lifetime of Gilbert his father, who is sole witness of his Charter, Radulf Bocharte enlarged his grant to Haughmond by giving the Canons a Grange, apparently on the Bourton side of the stream, and eight acres of land which lay between the said Grange and the "Water of Coner'", as the stream is called. This Grange, as well as the land, is called Underhelde in the Deed, which recapitulates former grants in a very intelligible way, specifying "the whole water of Coner' down to the boundaries of Biriton" and "the stank of the Mill of Betton which is at Aldefelde (Allfield), with the moor", etc., and "liberty to erect a Mill for the uses of the Canons".

Ralph Bozard seems to have been succeeded by Roger Bozard. Roger Bozard died about Easter 1194, and, having been a Tenant-in-capite at Pulley, his two infant daughters became Wards of the Crown. With regard to his lands, we have evidence that Bourton was in the hands of the Escheator in 1194-5, but no evidence that Pulley, which was his actual tenure-in-capite, was thus seized. His widow, viz. Dionisia, one of the numerous daughters and coheirs of Roger Mussun of Uppington, seems to have had her dower in Pulley, which may account for this omission. Be that as it may, the Escheator, at Michaelmas 1194, accounts at the Exchequer for 17s., as half a year's ferm of Burton;- and also for 13s., the value of corn sold off the said vill, in the same period. In this instance, Burton is described as the estate of Roger Bozard, but the Escheator's account for the half-year ending Easter 1195 gives the late Proprietor's name as Radulf, and accounts 25s. for the half-year's ferm of Burton. This mistake as to names is rectified on the Pipe-Roll of 1195, which records a Fine of 15 merks proffered by Henry Bochard and Elias de Echingeham, "that they might have custody of the land of Roger Bochard and the bestowal of his daughters in marriage, with due regard to their rank and interests (ubi non disparagantur)". Of this Fine, 50s. had been paid at once, but 150s. remained due. Henry Bochard's interest in the matter afterwards passed to Hugh le Strange (of Berrington, I think), probably owing

[2] Haughmond Chartulary: Tit. Bulerugge.


to some misconduct of Henry Boscard. The result was, that Alice, one of the Coheiresses, married Thomas, son of her guardian (Elias de Echingeham), and Isabella, the other Coheiress, married Ralph Manschall. Bourton now became a divided estate, and I must needs follow the interest of each Coheiress in turn.-

ECHINGHAM FEE.- At the Salop Assizes of October 1203 I find Thomas de Ethingeham and Alice his wife moving a suit of mort d'ancestre against Petronilla, widow of William Ketel. The latter essoigned herself by Robert the Miller, and the hearing was adjourned to Worcester, whither the Justices were proceeding, Alice naming her husband, Thomas, as her Attorney. At Worcester the Tenant, or Defendant, appears as Petronilla de la Hee. The dispute concerned half a carucate of land and half a Mill in Burton; but the Defendant objected to the form of procedure, saying, that the Writ made no mention of Alice's sister, that is, that Alice, as a Coheiress, could not sue legally without her sister Isabella. The Court ordered a remanet, and gave leave to the Plaintiffs to amend their Writ and use the necessary form, making mention of two sisters. In this case, of which I hear no more, Alice's husband is called Thomas filius Elyae. [3] He occurs as late as 1211, under the name of Thomas de Bureton; but within the next ten years it is evident that he died, and that his Widow Alice remarried to a person whose Christian name was Elyas, and who was henceforth called Helias de Burton. About the year 1220, Henry Bossard appears again on the stage. He was doubtless related to the Coheiresses of Bourton, and perhaps held something there under them. I think, however, that his agreement with Ralph Marescall and Helyas de Borton about Borton Mill must have originated in his having been placed there as Tenant of the Abbot of Haughmond's acquisitions. I actually find that, at some unspecified and unascertainable period, the Abbot of Haughmond "demised the Mill of Aldefelde to Henry Bossard for life, and to one heir after him, at a rent of 10s. 4d". I imagine this to have been opposed by the joint Lords of Bourton, who appear to have intended to build a Mill themselves on the same site, and who, at all events, about the year 1220, came to an agreement with Henry Bossard, of which the following is the substance:-

"Henry Bossard concedes to Ralph Marescall and Helyas de Borton that they may make the stank of their Mill of Boston on whatever part they chose of Henry's land. Ralph and Helyas in return give Henry 20s. on entry, and covenant to pay him and his

[3] Assizes, 6 John, mm. 1, 6.


heirs an annual rent of 6d. Henry should also pay no toll for grinding any corn at the said Mill, and should be entitled to grind first after such corn as might happen to be in the Mill. This agreement was tested by William de Norfolk and James fitz Martin, Bailiffs of the Lord Abbot of Salop; [4]- an indication, I think, that the Monks of Shrewsbury were watching the proceedings of the Haughmond Canons with jealous care.

At the Assizes of November 1221 the Jurors of Condover Hundred reported, under the heading De Dominabus, how "Isabella and Alice, daughters of Roger Boscard, were of the King's gift" (as regarded their marriages); how "Isabella had been married to Ralph Marescall, by permission of King John"; how "Alice had been married also to Elias de Burton, but the Jurors knew not by whose authority". Their lands in Condover Hundred were estimated to be worth 12s. per annum. The Court ordered Elias de Burton's share to be seized into the King's hand.

A Record which belongs to the Autumn of 1227 proves that Elyas de Borton was then dead, and his wife Alice again a Widow. [5] It was about this time that the said Alice, calling herself "Alice de Burton, daughter of Roger Bossart", gave to Shrewsbury Abbey a rent of 6d. arising from the tenement which William de Hagemon and Dionisia his wife held in the vill of Burton. Witnesses,- Master G. de Weston, Master Alan, Hugh de Kyneseleg. This grant was obviously the surrender of a Mesne interest, and, so far as it went, it made William de Hagemon the immediate Tenant of Shrewsbury Abbey in a part of Bourton.

The only child of Alice Bossart was Henry de Burton, her son by her second husband. He had succeeded her before 1255, as will appear under Uppington. Meantime, The Helde, a member of Bourton, was tenanted by Ralph, son of that Henry Boschard whom I have so often mentioned. In the year 1261, William son of Ralph de la Re impleaded Henry de Burton for The Helde, before the Justices in banco at Westminster; but making default, the land remained with Henry de Burton. Within two years, this land, with all his right therein, was given to Shrewsbury Abbey by Henry de Burton, styling himself "Henry son of Elyas, and of Alice, daughter of Roger Bossard of Burton". The same Henry also gave to Shrewsbury 8d. rent of the Mill of Burton, which had used to be paid annually by Henry Panton and his wife Alice, daughter of Ralph

[4] Salop Chartulary, No. 117.
[5] Testa de Nevill, pp. 53, 54.


Marescall of Burton. [6] This grant, which I take to have been a surrender of all Henry de Burton's remaining interest in Bourton, was made with consent of his wife Edelina, and his heirs. It was attested by John de Prestecote, then Provost of the Foriete (Abbey-Foregate), by Richard de Preston, Clerk, and by Ralph Marescall of Poliley (who died in 1263).

As I do not know that this family had any fiuther concern in Bourton, I reserve what I have further to say of them till I come to Pulley and Uppington. I now turn to the other moiety of Bourton which we may call the-

MARSHALL FEE, as having been conveyed by Isabella daughter and Coheir of Roger Boscart to her husband Ralph Marshall. This marriage took place before the year 1211, and the connection which thus sprang up with Shrewsbury Abbey is illustrated by Ralph Marescall attesting more than one Charter of that House. In one instance he is called Ralph de Burtone. In November 1236 a Fine was levied between Henry Bozcard, Plaintiff, and Ralph Marescall, Tenant, of three bovates in Bureton, whereof was Suit at Law. Henry Bozcard quit-claimed the whole, receiving, as the Fine expresses it, a sore sparrow-hawk. Probably Henry Boz-card's claim was founded in his relations with Haughmond Abbey. Ralph Marshall (I) must have died within four years of this Fine. He left his wife Isabella surviving, and two children, Ralph and Alice. Isabella, the widow, of course continued to hold her share of Bourton for life. The King's writ of Diem clausit, on the death of Isabella Burton, as a Tenant-in-capite at Pulley, bears date April 28, 1249. The consequent Inquest states the deceased to have held Burton under the Abbot of Shrewsbury, by the annual service of one salmon. She had at Burton half a carucate in demesne, worth 10s. yearly. She was in receipt of three rents there, anaounting to 1. 2s. 8d., viz. 14s. 10d., 7s. 4d., and 6d. She was entitled to a yearly tallage of 6s. 8d. Ralph, her son and next heir, was now 40 years of age. [7]

On May 14, 1249, Ralph Marshall (II) had livery of his mother's inheritance. [8] He was deceased on September 14, 1263, when his son Engelard, called Engelard le Marescal, had livery as Bailiff of the King's Forest of Lythwood. [9] On March 26, 1271, Engelard, son of Ralph le Marschal of Pulley, was appointed Forester of that part of the Wrekin which belonged to the appointment of the

[6] Salop Chartulary, No. 116.
[7] Inquisitions, 33 Hen. III, No. 22.
[8] Rot. Finium, II, 53.
[9] Rot. Finium, II, 404.


Abbot of Shrewsbury, for which office Engelard paid the Abbot two merks. [10] Engelard de Pulley, as he was afterwards called, died in January 1290, leaving a son and heir, Philip, then of full age; but I do not find that any interest in Burton remained with Engelard at the time of his death. I think that he had an exchange with William Pride, of Shrewsbury, by which he gained something at Pulley and lost something at Bourton. The following fact was alleged at a trial in 1292, viz. that Ingelard de Poliley, during his lifetime, had disseized Ralph de Ree of a messuage and 20 acres in Burton-juxta-Betton. I suppose this Ralph de Ree to have been son of William de Ree, who just now occurred to us in 1261. He (Ralph) had two daughters, Emma and Eva, of whom presently. Whether Ingelard de Poliley obtained ingress into the messuage and 20 acres by disseizin or otherwise, it appears that he conveyed the same to William Pride, of Shrewsbury. William Pride, again, was deceased in 1292, leaving a son and heir, John, and a widow, Sibil, who remarried to Walter de la Barre. Thus things stood when, at the Assizes of 1292, Robert son of Henry de Muneton, with his wife Emma, and Adam son of John de Wyluriston, with his wife Eva, sued Walter de la Barre and his wife Sibil for a messuage and 20 acres in Burton-juxta-Betton, as the right of Emma and Eva, whose father, Ralph de la Ree, had been disseized thereof as aforesaid. Walter and Sibil replied, showing that they only held one-third of the premises as Sibil's dower, and that John son of William Pryde held the other two-thirds. This defence, being found true by the Jury, silenced the prosecution. [11]

On August 12, 1343, it was found by Inquest that Stephen de Salop, Parson of Oldbury, and Richard de Dodyton, Chaplain (probably Trustees), were holding the Manor of Burton-juxta-Condover under Shrewsbury Abbey, at a rent of 32s., and by suit, twice a year, to the Great Court of Monkforyate. It was also found that no injury would be done to the Crown, if the said Tenants granted the said Manor, together with a messuage in Shrewsbury, and 2 acres in Cantlop, to the said Abbot and Convent, who were to provide a Chaplain to perform services in the Church of St. Peter for the health of Ralph (de Shrewsbury), Bishop of Bath and Wells, while living, for his soul when dead, and for the souls of his parents. [12]

Of UNDERTENANTS in Bourton I have made much incidental

[10] Salop Chartulary, No. 114, c.
[11] Assizes, 20 Edw. I, m. 14 dorso.
[12] Inquis. 17 Edw. III (2nd Nos.), No. 85.


mention already. In 1198 William de Stanwardine, as Surety for one Engelard Bogard, was amerced half a merk; and the next entry on the Amercement-Roll is one of 10s. assessed on the Vill of Burton for some concealment. We have had notice of Hugh Boschard, Knight, living in 1206; [13] but Henry Boschard, who fined in 1195 for custody of Roger Boschard's daughters, was also a Knight. This Henry was amerced half a merk in 1198 for some disseizin. The same thing happened again in 1199. In 1200 the Justice of the Forest amerced him half a merk for waste, which probably was coincident with his loss of the wardship above mentioned. At the Assizes of 1203, being a Knight, he sat as a Juror in certain causes tried in Grand Assize. In 1207 he was amerced one merk, probably for some offence against the forest-laws. In 1226 he was on a Great Jury which had to investigate certain questions relating to the Stiperstones Forest. The last that I hear of him is his fine of 1236 with Ralph Marshal. Ralph Bossard, whom we have seen to have had an interest in Pickthorn about 1241-2, [14] we have also seen to have been son of Henry, and a Tenant in Bourton. In 1249 we have Ralph Boscart and Alan de Bureton on a local Jury. The same Ralph sat as a Juror for Condover Hundred at the Inquest of 1255 and the Assizes of 1256.

Perhaps William de Burton, who essoigned his attendance, at the Forest-Assizes of 1262, through Elias de Conedovre, was identical with William de la Ree already mentioned. Walter de Burton appears as a Juror for Condover Hundred at the Assizes of 1292, and as Witness of a Condover Deed in 1320-1. I find something further about this Walter de Burton. He was born about 1253, as he himself stated in 1303. His daughter was married to Stephen de Felton before the latter came of age, that is, before 1302-3. [15] Of Stephen de Felton I have already spoken under Berrington. [16]

The Abbot of Shrewsbury continued Lord of Bourton till the Dissolution, but his receipts therefrom are always classified with his receipts from Condover. I have stated these accounts under the latter Manor. [17]

As to the Abbot of Haughmond's acquisitions in Bourton, I should have concluded them to have vanished in the thirteenth century, judging from the tenor of the evidences above cited. However, I find that, in December 1419, Roger, Abbot of Haughmond,

[13] Supra, Vol. IV, p. 21.
[14] Supra, Vol. p. 240.
[15] Inquisitions, 31 Edw. I, No. 178.
[16] [17] Supra, pp. 37, 40, 31.


granted a life-lease to Richard Gosenhull of Condover, of the Mill of Aldefelde, with a Moor, at a rent of 10s. The Valor, and other accounts of Henry VIII's time, make no mention of such an asset of Haughmond Abbey.


THE History of this Manor, now divided into Abbot's Betton and Betton Strange, is disjointed and perplexing. Some interesting documents bear upon the case, but a great deal is still left to conjecture. At Domesday, the whole Manor belonged to the Bishop of Chester, a circumstance which possibly is associated with the fact of Betton Strange being at this day an isolated part of St. Chad's Parish. In Saxon times, St. Chad's Church at Shrewsbury was a Collegiate Church, and, if I mistake not, might be called the Shropshire Cathedral of the Bishops of Mercia with more propriety than modern notions are likely to recognize. I shall show in many instances that the relations between this Church and the Diocesan Bishops did not end at the Conquest.

Domesday describes the Manor of Betton as follows.- "The same Bishop (of Chester) holds Betune, and held it in King Edward's time. Here are II hides, geldable. In demesne there is one ox-team and a half, and (there are) IIII Villains with two ox-teams and a half. Here are III Serfs. The Manor used to be worth 15s. (per annum). Now it is worth 16s". [1]

After Domesday we have not a particle of direct, and but very little indirect, evidence of Betton belonging, or ever having belonged to the Bishop of Chester. The Manor passed wholly or chiefly to Shrewsbury Abbey, but in what way, the Chartulary of that House does not anywhere declare. The Charter of William II mentions the license of Peter, Bishop of Chester, as having been adhibited in the foundation of Shrewsbury Abbey, which was within his Diocese. [2] Earl Roger's foundation-charter speaks of his having had the counsel

[1] Domesday, fo. 252, a, 2.
[2] Salop Chartulary, No. 34.- The express words of the Charter indicate that Earl Roger, relying on such a license, assembled the Monks of his Abbey in the year 1087. I do not see that Bishop Peter's death in 1085 is inconsistent with such a statement.


of Bishop Robert (de Limesey) in his appointment of the first Abbot of Shrewsbury; and the foundation-charter itself is attested by that Prelate as "Robert, Bishop of Chester". [3]

It is however more than probable that the Diocesan Bishops of that day, no less than this, aided substantially any work of which they approved theoretically. I myself believe that Betton was Bishop Robert de Limesey's contribution to Earl Roger's Abbey. That Shrewsbury Abbey was possessed of Betton in the reign of Henry I, that the Monks gave a life-lease thereof to Richard de Belmeis, Viceroy of Shropshire, and that that Prelate on his death-bed (in January, 1127) took order with his Confessors that the Manor might revert to its Owners,- all these are certain facts to which I have alluded already under Tong. [4] I will here transcribe the very ancient and undoubtedly genuine documents which authorized my former statements.- First there is the Letter of Falk, Prior of St. Osyth (one of the Bishop's Confessors), addressed to G. (Geoffrey) Abbot of Shrewsbury.-

G. Abbati, patri reverentissimo, et fratribus universis Monasterii Beati Petri Salopiae, Fulce, Sanctae Osidae Minister in Domino, salutem. Ego et Decanus Sancti Pauli Willielmus medicinam salutis Episcopo R. (Ricardo) propinantes, et verae confessionis puritatem de corde et ore ipsius monitis et exemplis exprimentes, inter caetera, de Beitona, vills Sancti Petri mentionem et inquisitionem fecimus. Qui viva voce, animi vigore, et memoria integra, villam illam se nunquam in hereditatem habuisse respondet, et nolle animam suam culpa et poena apud Dominum obligari, sed monasterio et fratribus terram suam restitui, [5] si Philippus, nepos ejus, libera concessione et bona voluntate Monachorum, adquivere nequiret. Hoc testificor et audivi, et Decanus mecum. Istius rei veritatem et Episcopi recognitionem ipsi Philippo (vivente adhuc Episcopo) et tam militibus quam servientibus, [6] necnon Episcopo Sancti David Bernardo, [7] et Archiepiscopo Cantuariensi Willielmo, et Domino nostro Regi Henrico per litteras intimavi. Valete. [8]

Then follows Archbishop Corbois's letter to the Sheriff of Shropshire.- Willielmus D. G. Cantuariensis Archiepiscopus Pagano filio Johannis et omnibus Baronibus de Salopesbir',salutem. Sciatis quod Fulco, Prior Sanctae Osidae, mihi testificatus est quod Ricardus Epicopus

[3] Chartulary, No. 2.
[4] Supra, Vol. II, pp. 200, 201.
[5] The word velle must be understood.
[6] Philippi, scilicet.
[7] There are many indications of this Prelate having been extensively employed as a Justiciar, in the West of England.
[8] Salop Chartulary, No. 22.


Londoniae, in confessione sua, sibi recognovit quod manerium de Beitona non erat suum hereditarie nisi in vita sua, et liberum et quietum clamavit illum [9] Monachis de Salopia, in vita sua, quorum erat manerium illud et a quibus ipse tenuit eum. [10] Valete. [11]

It next appears that Philip de Belmeis, the Bishop's Nephew and Heir, did not acquiesce in his deceased Uncle's wishes, but was sued in the Curia Regis by the Monks of Shrewsbury, and, failing to appear, suffered judgment to go against him by default.

Archbishop Corbois's certificate of this transaction should also be given.- Willielmus D. G. Cantuariensis Archiepiscopus, Sedis Apostolicae Legatus, omnibus Sanctae Dei Ecclesia fidelibus per Angliam salutem. Noscant presentes et postfuturi quod Monachis de Salopesb' judicata est quieta et libera terra sua de Beitona, quia Philippus de Belmesio in Curia Regis Henrici apud Woodestoke defecit justicia in presentia Regis et nostra. Valete. [12]

I have given under Tong specific evidence that between the years 1154 and 1167 Ranulf de Belmeis (son of Philip aforesaid), being seized of Betton, surrendered the same to Shrewsbury Abbey, acknowledging the unsound title of himself and ancestors thereto. [13] I believe that we may now date this surrender still more nearly, viz. as between 1154 and 1160, and that we may do so with reference to the next circumstance which comes to our notice, and which has transpired under Bourton, viz. that Hamo le Strange, about the year 1160, made a grant in the Manor of Betton to Haughmond Abbey. My belief is that Hamo le Strange was enabled to make this grant as Lord of Betton Strange, and that he was Lord of Betton Strange by feoffment of the Monks of Shrewsbury, who had alienated to him that part of the Manor, which was thenceforth called Betton Strange, in distinction from Abbots Betton,- the part which the Monks retained.

The Heir of Hamo le Strange was his elder Brother John le Strange (I) of Nesse and Cheswardine. This John died in 1178, and was succeeded by his son, John le Strange (II). It is remarkable that the latter, expediting, between the years 1203 and 1210, a Charter of Confirmation to Haughmond, sanctions his Uncle's grant in the following words. Dedi et iisdem Canonicis

[9] [10] Sic pro illud et id.
[11] Chartulary, No. 23.
[12] Chartulary, No. 66, b.- Philip de Belmeis was in 1130 at issue with Roger de Clinton, Bishop of Lichfield. I have supposed this to have concerned land in the neighbourhood of Tong (Vol. II, p. 201). It may however have been Betton that was in dispute, the Bishop perhaps appearing as Warrantor of the Monks of Shrewsbury.
[13] Supra, Vol. p. 207.


assensu Radulfi Bochart molendinum quod est Under-Helde apud Aldefeld cum omnibus pertinentiis suis.

The language of original gift, here used instead of the language of confirmation, is so common in these Charters that it need not deceive us. All I wish to deduce from the paragraph is, that it implies John le Strange (II) to have been Lord of Betton Strange between 1203 and 1210. [14]

In Michaelmas Term 1220 Roger la Zouche was suing the Abbot of Shrewsbury at Westminster for the Manor of Beyton. The cause was adjourned to Hilary Term following, the Abbot naming John, Prior of Morville, as his Attorney therein. [15] The first hearing took place at the Shrewsbury Assizes of November 1221. Roger la Zouche, as I have shown under Tong, [16] deduced his pedigree and right from his Uncle, Philip de Belmeis (II), who, as Roger alleged, having been seized de feodo et jure of the Manor of Beyton, had mortgaged the same to Salop Abbey for a term which had now expired. The prosecution, which was under the form De Ingressu, further insisted that this mortgage constituted the only ground on which the Abbot had obtained entry at Beyton. This monstrous averment was met by a mere technical objection on the part of the Abbot, viz. that La Zouche had first sued out his Writ for this trial in the time of a former Abbot, and so that the Writ was not good against the present Defendant. It was explained however that the Abbot alluded to was not dead, but was only deposed, and so the Court ordered the present Abbot to proceed with his defence, his plea being disallowed. He then petitioned the Court to grant View, i.e. a local Inquest, on the matter. This La Zouche resisted on the ground that the said View had already been had, viz. by the former Abbot. The Court however granted the Abbot's prayer, and adjourned the case to the Morrow of St. Hilary (January 14, 1222), at Warwick. [17] The Warwick Roll shows the cause adjourned to the Quinzaine of Easter, at Westminster. A Westminster Roll of Hilary Term 1223, calls the Suit one about half a knight's-fee in Becton, and adjourns it to Easter Term 1223. In Hilary Term 1225 the Suit is still pending, and the Abbot names one John, a Monk of Shrewsbury, his Attorney therein. The Suit, again adjourned to

[14] Harleian MS. 446. Quatern. xi, fo. 4. The Confirmation is attested by Ralph, Abbot of Lileshull (who succeeded in or after 1208) and by William fitz Alan (who died in 1210); also by Hugh le Strange and Roger Sprenghose, i.e., by the Grantor's Feoffees at Berrington and Longnor.
[15] Placita, 4 Hen. III, m. 15 dorso.
[16] Supra, Vol. II, p. 217.
[17] Assizes, 6 Hen. III, m. 6.


Easter Term, is now called a Grand Assize about Betton and Tong. I know not the result of this Suit from any evidence of the Plea-Rolls, [18] but I cannot hesitate to say that La Zouche was wholly unsuccessful.

I should here observe that Bishop Richard Peche's Charter to Shrewsbury Abbey (between 1161 and 1182) confirms to the Monks the tithes of their proper demesnes in Parva Bettone. [19] So Henry III's Charter of Free-Warren, dated May 21, 1256, extends that privilege to the Monks' demesnes in Parva Betton. [20] The name thus given to Abbots-Betton must not confuse us. It was called Little Betton in the twelfth and thirteenth centuries to distinguish it from Great-Betton-in-Hales, a Manor also belonging to Salop Abbey. By an extraordinary accident, the Manor which was then called Little or Abbot's Betton is now called Great or Abbot's Betton; but this is to distinguish it from the adjacent and less extensive Manor of Little Betton or Betton Strange. The Tenure-Roll of 1284, commonly known as Kirby's Quest, says that "Bogo de Knovill and Alianore his wife, hold Becton Extraneum of John le Strange, and John (holds it) of the King". John le Strange (V) of Nesse and Cheswardine, was the person here alluded to. His tenure of Betton, sine medio of the Crown, I greatly doubt. Bogo de Knovill held Betton Strange in right of his wife, she having it in dower as Widow of Robert, brother of John le Strange (IV) of Nesse and Cheswardine. [21]

I now come to a curious puzzle arising out of the variations of local nomenclature. At the Assizes of 1292 the Jurors of Condover Hundred represented that the Vill of Betton Strange and Alvithele, then held by Bogo de Knovill and Alianore his wife, had been used, in the reign of Henry III, to be geldable, in common with the rest of the Hundred, and to appear twice yearly at the Sheriffs' Tourn by four men and a Provost. Bogo de Knovill appeared before the Justices and stated that his interest was merely in respect of his wife's dower, and that the Vill was of the inheritance of Fulk le Strange (her son by her former husband), without whom he declined

[18] In 1228 Roger la Zuche is entered on the Shropshire Pipe-Roll as fining 40s. pro habenda mentione in brevi de tempore. This may have referred to the Suit about Betton. I have explained the technical nature of such a Fine under Ratlinghope (supra, p. 164, note 15).
[19] [20] Salop Chartulary, Nos. 329, 53.
[21] We learn this from Bogo de Knovill's own account, rendered Michaelmas 1277, when he was Sheriff and also Escheater. He renders account of 12s. 6d., the assized rents of Baktone, late Robert le Strange's, which rents had accrued between September 2 and October 22, 1276, when the estate was delivered up to Alianore, widow of the deceased, in dower (Rot. Pipe, 5 Edw. I, Salop).


answering the presentment. Fulk le Strange then appeared and denied that Henry III ever had the Suits aforesaid, or that the Vill was ever geldable. The Jury found to the contrary, and that Betton and Alvythere had done the said Suits, and been geldable till 40 years since, when these dues had been withdrawn by John le Strange Senex (John le Strange (III) was meant). The Crown accordingly recovered the said dues. [22]

This use of a second name, Alvithele, or Alvythere, for the whole or a part of the Manor of Betton Strange, is connected with another decision, in a case of Quo Waranto, tried just after these Assizes. The Crown-Attorney (Hugh de Louther) sued John le Strange for the whole Manor of Avythelegh (except 3 virgates) as the King's right, and by a Writ-de-recto. John le Strange appeared and said that there was no such Vill as Avythelegh in the County, and on that point he appealed to a Jury. Hugh de Louther at first agreed, but afterwards petitioned the Court not to proceed to an Inquest. So Le Strange was dismissed sine die. [23]

I should suppose that in this way we may account for the Township, in which Betton-Strange stands, being at the present moment called the township of Betton and Alkmere. It is however certain that the name Alvithele, or some very similar name, was anciently common to other places in this neighbourhood besides Betton-Strange.

I should now observe that the Taxation of 1291 is quite silent as to any estate, retained in demesne by Shrewsbury Abbey, which we can identify with Great Betton. The Rent-Roll, drawn up about 1490, gives however seven items of income as receivable by the Abbey from Batton, amounting to 8. 4s. 8d. [24] The Valor of 1534 gives among the Abbey's receipts 2. 17s. 4d. from Abbots Betton, and 6. 11s. 5d. from Alveley. [25] Lastly, the Ministers' Accounts of 1541-2 enumerate receipts of 7. 9s. 0d. arising from Alveley, and do not mention Abbots Betton at all. These receipts were, Assized Rents 5. 10s., Rents of custommy Tenants 19s. 6d., Rents of Tenants-at-will 13s. 2d., and Perquisites of Court 6s. 4d. [26]

It is impossible to say what could be the distinction, or identity, between Abbots Betton, Betton Strange, and Alveley, which would account for all these apparent discrepancies.

ALVITHEMERE.- A place thus named was recognized as a distinct

[22] Placita Coronae, 20 Edw. I, memb. 30.
[23] Quo Waranto, p. 685.
[24] Hist. Shrewsbury, II, 508. One rent of 1. 18s. 4d. was from Thomas Calcott.
[25] [26] Monasticon, III, 526-6, 528.


Manor in the thirteenth century, but must, I conceive, have been originally a member of the Manor of Betton. The name of Alvithemere indeed is rather identical with Alkmere than Alvithele is, and we have seen how Alkmere and Betton Strange are still associated. As to the precise situation of Alvithemere, that may be almost determined by its occurrence as a limit to the King's Haye of Lythwood. The boundary of the said Haye, after "running down an ancient foss which divided the Manors of Bayston and Pulley, came to Bayston Hill. Thence it went down to Bolemeressiche, that is, the watercourse which feeds Bomer Pool. Thence it went up along an ancient foss under Bolerugh [27] to the field of Alvithmere, and so on to the Score above Boletug, and thence down to the field of Sutton". It is clear then that Alvithmere must have lain to the north-east of Bomer Pool, and so between Bomer Pool and Betton Strange. [28]

It was perhaps by feoffment of the Monks of Shrewsbury, perhaps by sub-feoffment of the Stranges, that Hugh de Turburvile and Johanna his wife were seized in 1277 of the Manor of Alvedesmore. By a Fine of November 5 in that year, the said Hugh and Johanna (Impedients) grant the said Manor to Robert Burnel, Bishop of Bath and Wells (represented by his Attorney, John de Berewyk). The Bishop, who gave 100 for the grant, was, with his heirs, to hold the Manor immediately of the Lords of the Fee, and by customary services.

Robert Burnell, probably within the next six years, gives his Manor of Alvedemar to Sir William de Ercalewe, in Frank-Marriage with Petronilla, the Grantor's Cousin. The Deed, which is without date or witness, limits the estate to the heirs of the bodies of the Grantees, quit of the Grantor; but in default of such heirs, it reserves a remainder to the Grantor and his heirs. [29]

Petronilla Burnel, thus married to Sir William de Ercalewe, was a daughter of Sir Hugh Burnel, and so a niece of the Bishop's. All I shall say of her here is, that her eldest son, William de Ercalewe, was born December 29, 1284. At the Assizes of 1292 the Jurors for Condover Hundred represented that the Vill of Alvythemere, held by William de Ercalewe, had withdrawn its Suits, etc., from the Hundred, in the same way as has been set forth of Alvithele. It was stated in reply that William de Ercalewe, the Tenant, had

[27] Bolerugh is, I conceive, identical with Bulregg or Bulerugge, already mentioned (supra, pp. 104, 174).
[28] Salop Chartulary, No. 279.
[29] Charter in possession of Mr. George Morris of Shrewsbury.


been convicted of felony, and was now in custody of the Bishop of the Diocese.

It would thus appear that William de Ercalewe, though a married man, was entitled to the full privileges of a Clerk. A Writ of King Edward I, dated June 10, 1293, informs the Sheriff and Coroners of Shropshire that R. (Roger de Molend), Bishop of Coventry and Lichfield, had petitioned the King to restore to William de Ercalwe, Clerk, his lands and chattels. The Writ recites how the said Clerk, having been indicted for larceny of 15 swine before the Justices, last in Eyre at Salop, had been delivered up to the Bishop on account of his clerical privilege, and how the Bishop now testified that the accused had lawfully proved his innocence of the said crime. The King now desires further information as to the common reputation and conversation of William de Ercalwe, and whether he was a notorious Malefactor. The answer returned to this Writ, after an Inquisition held, is explicit as to the good repute of De Ercalwe. "He is not and never was a Malefactor against the Peace, but was always of good fame and of faithful condition". [30]

All I shall say further about this reputed Manor of Alvithemere is, that the Inquest taken in 1304 on William de Ercalwe's death, says nothing about his tenure here;- but estates held of the Church, as I presume this to have been, frequently escaped the notice of these Inquisitions.


As the modern Welbatch figures in Domesday as Huelbec, so Pulverbatch was spelt Polrebec by the Norman Scribes who registered that Survey. About this termination, bec or batch, there are two opinions. Mr. Blakeway cannot forget that Bec, in the North of England, is a little brook, nor that the German form, Bach, is found in other Teutonic dialects. In Shropshire, the situation of Beckbury and other places on or near streams, suggests the same etymology. However, Mr. Blakeway acknowledges that it can hardly be said that there is a brook at Pulverbatch; and I cannot find in the Saxon Glossaries any word like bec or bach significant of a stream. Mr. Hartshorne, on the other hand, asserts the existence

[30] Inquisitions, 21 Edw. I, No. 191.


of a Mercio-Saxon word, bach, signifying a bottom or valley. I cannot doubt that, in Shropshire and Staffordshire names, the word batch has the latter signification. [1]

I must join Mr. Blakeway in hazarding a somewhat bold opinion as to the etymology of the other part of the name Pulverbatch. It is clear that this district was well known to the Romans, and I cannot but see that Roman and Saxon words are compounded in such names as Pontesbury, Pontesford, and Pitchford. Why, then, should not the Latin noun, Pulvis, pulveris, be accepted as the component of Pulverbatch? Mr. Blakeway says that the district in summer is literally "a bed of dust". It is moreover easy to see that a Norman Scribe, well knowing, as every Domesday scribe did, the meaning of the Latin part of the word Pulver-batch, should write it as Polre-bec; for Polre is, within a letter, the same as poldre, and that is the old French word for dust,- the original, in short, of our word powder. Lastly, one fact is known to all dwellers in the neighbourhood of Pulverbatch, viz. that in the local dialect the place is pronounced Powderbatch to this day.

Domesday classes this Manor among those which were held by Roger Venator under the Norman Earl of Shrewsbury.- "The same Roger holds Polrebec. Hunnic and Uluiet held it (in Saxon times) for three Manors. Here are II hides geldable. There is (arable) land (enough) for V ox-teams. In demesne there are II (teams) and (there are) IIII Serfs and VII Villains with III teams. Here is a wood which will fatten 100 swine. Here are II Radmans. In King Edward's time the Manor was worth 6. (per annum). Now it is worth 30s. When he (Roger Venator) received it, it was worth 20s". [2]

Of Hunnit and Uluiet, the Saxon Brothers, who were living and not wholly dispossessed at Domesday, I have spoken already. [3] Pulverbatch they had not only lost, but the change of ownership had resulted in an unusual diminution of value.

Of Roger Venator I have said something under Beckbury, but, as Pulverbatch became the head of his Barony, and as the Norman Castle, which once stood there, was probably of his foundation, I should here dwell more fully on him and his descent. He was brother, and probably younger brother, to Norman Venator, the

[1] Salopiae Antiqua; p. 240. Mr. Hartshorne very aptly quotes the two versions (English and Latin) of the famous Legend of King Kenelm. By comparing the two versions, it will appear that the English words, "In Clent, in cowbach", were anciently Latinized by the words, "In Clent, in convalle bovina".
[2] Domesday, fo. 259, a, 2.
[3] Supra, Vol. II, pp. 48-9, 304-5.


ancestor of the Pichfords; and the two brothers attested Earl Roger's foundation-charter of Quatford Church, probably in the very year when Domesday was compiled. [4] After this I hear nothing more of Roger Venator. The supposition that Ulger Venator (who distinguished himself at Henry I's siege of Brug) was Roger's son and heir, [5] is unquestionably erroneous. Probably however they were less nearly related. The Representative of Roger Venator in 1135 (the year of Henry I's death) is stated on good evidence to have borne the name of Roger, and to have been Ancestor, through females, of several Shropshire families. Among these the Constantines of Eaton Constantine and Oldbury; the Uptons of Waters Upton; the Stapletons of Stapleton and Wistanstow are expressly mentioned, and we are also told that there were others beside.

It would seem clear that Roger Venator had a Representative in the male line as late as the reign of Henry II. This was Reginald de Pulverbatch, who left a daughter and sole heir, Emma. She carried the Barony of Pulverbatch to her husband Herbert de Castello. But this junction of two Baronies was transient. Herbert died about 1189, Emma about 1193. Neither of them left any issue, and the heirs of each had to be sought among their collateral relations.

I have quoted, under Beobridge and Longnor, certain Charters of Emma de Pulverbatch, expedited both in her husband's lifetime and during her widowhood. The following, which belongs to the latter class and will therefore have passed between the years 1189 and 1193, I insert here, though it principally relates to land in Westley.

"Emma de Polrebech, daughter of Reginald de Polrebech, grants to Henry son of Eylric de Wesseleg, half a virgate in Wesseleg, and the whole of a certain Moor called Hunbermor. She also grants easements in the wood of Polrebeche, and pannage throughout her whole fee of Polrebeche, as well in Huggelith as elsewhere. Witnesses,- William de Botereus, Richard de Girrous, Henry de Girrous, Peter de Upton, Henry Christian". [6]

The Grantee in this Deed was evidently a Cadet of the house of Sprencheaux, of whose relations to the old Lords of Pulverbatch we have had so many indications already.

I do not perceive that, on the decease of Emma de Pulverbatch,

[4] Supra, Vol. I, p. 112.
[5] This was Mr. Blakeway's opinion.
[6] Blakeway's transcript from the Charters of E.W. Smythe Owen, Esq.


there was any question as to who was her heir. In the year 1193 the Herefordshire Pipe-Roll records a Fine negotiated between the Chancellor (Longchamp) and John de Kilpech, whereby the latter proffers 100 for his relief of the Barony of Purbech, and pays instalments amounting to 7. 10s. The whole fine seems to have been liquidated by subsequent instalments; at least, on the Roll of 1197, I find a balance of only 50s. standing against John de Kilpech. Meanwhile, an Escheator's-Roll, which I will quote presently, shows that the livery given to Kilpec cannot have been complete, and that Pulverbatch remained in the King's hand till Easter 1196.

Before I proceed with a further account of the Shropshire Barony of Pulverbatch, I must turn to another County, and recall the names and events of a previous century. My object is to supply the omissions of former Writers, and to record for the House of Kilpec that rarest of genealogical attributes,- a pure Norman pedigree, as old as Domesday and as unquestionable as Truth.

Turning over the folios of the Herefordshire Domesday, I find one William fitz Norman holding immediately of the King in several instances. [7] Besides the four Manors of Muleslage, Hopetune, Fenne, and Ferne, he had Bradeford, a member of the Royal Manor of Leominster; he had a section of the Royal Manor of Maurdine, and he received certain issues, in money and in kind, from the Royal Manor of Lintune. But, besides all these, William fitz Norman held three Manors of the King, which were situated in the Province of Arcene-felde, and one of these Manors was Chipeete, that is, Kilpec.

From William fitz Norman we pass to Hugh, his son and heir, whom we find to have been Fermor, or Custos, of the Royal Forest of Dean and of the King's Hayes in Herefordshire. The Gloucestershire Pipe-Roll of 1130 exhibits Hugh, son of William fitz Norman, as accounting 13. for the census or revenue of the said Forest and Hayes, and as having due acquittance thereof. [8] In 1134 we are told that Hugh, son of William Norman, gave to Gloucester Abbey the Church of St. David of Kylpec, with the Chapel of St. Mary in the Castle (of Kylpec), and all his Churches and Chapels, with the lands thereto pertaining; also, all tithes of his lands, both of wheat, hay, etc., and of all things of which Christian men ought to give tithe. He also gave pannage and common-rights in his wood, the terms of the Grant implying, I think, his expectation that the Monks of Gloucester would have a Priory or Cell at Kylpec. [9]

[7] Domesday, sub Tit. Herefordscire, fos. 179-185, passim.
[8] Rot. Pip. 31 Hen. I, p. 77.
[9] Monasticon, I, 548.


In July 1141, when the Empress Matilda exalted Milo de Gloucester to the Earldom of Hereford, she gave him, inter alia, the Hayes of Hereford, and the services of Hugh fitz William, and all his fees wherever he had any; [10- that is, she transferred the fealty of Hugh, son of William fitz Norman, to the new Earl, and made his Tenure-in-capite a mediate tenure. It is evident that King Henry II at one time confirmed, to Roger Earl of Hereford, the whole of his Mother's grants to Milo, and specifically that very part of the said grants which related to the tenure of Hugh fitz William; [11] but Roger Earl of Hereford died issueless before Henry II had reigned two years, and his Brother, though he became his heir in some respects, was neither allowed the Earldom nor the Seigneury over Hugh fitz William. Accordingly we find, from the Pipe-Rolls, that Hugh the Forester, as he is called, was held accountable to the Crown, at the rate of 3. per annum, for the first four years of Henry II's reign, and that this due was for the Hayes of Herefordshire. [12]

A Return of 1165, entered in the Liber Niger, was filled up by "Hugh fitz William, Forester of Herefordshire", himself. He acknowledged a whole fee, held in his own demesne, and two quarter-fees, held under him apparently, by Eutrop fitz Hingan and Hugh fitz Walding. [13] These were held in capite, and were of old feoffment. As Hugh Forester he appears on another page of the same Record as holding a Knight's-fee under Baderon de Monemue. [14]

Hugh the Forester died in 1170, for the Herefordshire Pipe-Roll of that year records the Fine recently proffered by his son and heir, Henry, on succession. It was 60 merks, and was expressed to be for the land and office (ministerio) of his Father. The Herefordshire Pipe-Roll of 1175 shows Henry fitz Hugh as charged 10s. for the Scutage of Ireland, in lieu of personal service. The Pipe-Roll of 1176 makes double mention of him. As Henry fitz Hugh, the Forester, he accounts for a balance of 8. 13s. 4d., his fine for the land and office (servitio) of his Father; as Henry de Kilpedet he appears on the list of those whom the King had recently amerced for forest-trespass. The enormous fine of 100 merks, thus inflicted on a man of less than baronial estate, probably indicates that the trespass in his case was looked upon as a breach of trust.

About this time I find Henry de Kilpec, followed by his brother Walter in the testing-clause of a Charter of Robert (Foliot) Bishop

[10] Selden's Titles of Honour, p. 537.
[11] Rot. Chart. Regis Johannis, p. 61.
[12] Rot. Pip. Hen. II, pp. 52, 93, 144.
[13] [14] Liber Niger, pp. 155-6, 152.


of Hereford. [15[ The Pipe-Roll of 1189 shows Henry fitz Hugh, the Forester, as owing an arrear of thirteen hawks, which he ought to have furnished from the Herefordshire Forest of Trivel. [16] Henry fitz Hugh was probably succeeded by his Son, John de Kilpec, between 1189 and 1193, for in the latter year (as we have seen) John de Kilpech fined for the Barony of Pulverbatch.

I have said that the Escheat-Rolls supply a hint that this fine did not secure John de Kilpec immediate possession of this Barony. At Michaelmas 1195 the Escheator accounts for years' ferm of Pulrebec, viz. 7. 10s., accruing since Easter 1194 at the rate of 5. per annum. Again, at Michaelmas 1197, the Escheater accounts for 20s., being the ferm of Pulrebech for the half-year ending Easter 1196.

The Scutage-Roll of 1194, viz. that for King Richard's Redemption, supplies like evidence. The Barony of Pulverbatch was not assessed thereto at all; but John de Kilpec paid 30s. [17] on this account in Herefordshire; that is, he paid the exact sum proportioned to those fees of old feoffment which had constituted the Honour of his paternal Grandfather. The same non-assessment in Shropshire and the same assessment in Herefordshire are apparent in the Scutages of 1195 and 1196, which were assessed for the army of Normandy.

In 1199, the first Scutage of King John was levied at the rate of 2 merks per fee. Accordingly John de Kilpec was assessed 40s. in Herefordshire on 1 fees; but his Shropshire assessment was mixed up with that of Hugh de Bosco, who was at the time accountable for the Barony of Holgate. I have noticed the errors of this assessment in a former Volume. [18] Suffice it here to state that John de Kilpec paid only two merks, implying an opinion on his part that the Honour of Pulverbatch was only ratable to Scutages as a single Knight's-fee.

I have before alluded to suits which John de Kilpec had about Norbury (Staffordshire) in 1198, and about Beobridge (near Claverley) in 1200-3. [19] Both suits were probably contingents of his succession to the Barony of Pulverbatch.

In the year 1200 John de Kilpeak gave the King 40 merks and a Palfrey, to have the King's guarantee that the King would grant no powers of assarting or falling timber in the Forests of the said

[15] Carte's MSS. LLLL, 1769, fo. 261.
[16] Rot. Pip. 1 Ric. I, p. 142.
[17] Not 30., as stated by Dugdale.
[18] Supra, Vol. IV, pp. 61, 62.
[19] Supra, Vol. V, p. 16; Vol. III, pp. 82, 83. Nortberie (Staffordshire) appears in Domesday (fo. 248, a, 1), as held by one Roger, under Roger, Earl of Shrewsbury. The Seigneury was afterwards Lacy's, so that it would seem doubtful whether the Domesday Tenant were Roger de Lacy or Roger Venator.


John's Bailiwick to any one else, unless the King should fall timber for himself. [20] Such seems to be the object of a Fine which secured a Charter, dated November 7, 1200, whereby the King covenants not to diminish aught of John de Kilpeak's Bailiwick of the Forests of Herefordshire, the King however reserving a right to fall and sell timber himself, without committing waste. [21] In the year 1201 John de Kilpec renders account of more than half of this Fine. He also accounts 40s., and, in lieu of a hawk, one merk,- a fine or acknowledgment due from the preceding year on the Hayes of Herefordshire. He also fined 10 merks to be excused crossing the seas. [22] This was in lieu of the second Scutage of King John, and Kilpec's service is stated at 2 fees, evidently 1 fees for his Herefordshire Honour, and 1 fee for the Barony of Pulverbatch. In 1202 no Scutage was assessed on John de Kilpec in Shropshire, but to the fourth Scutage of King John, assessed in 1203, he was charged 5 merks on his Shropshire fee singly. In 1204 and 1205 his name is omitted from the Shropshire Scutage Rolls, and on January 7 of the latter year we find that he was deceased. The King then informs the Sheriff of Staffordshire that he has given the custody of John de Kilpec's land to William de Cantilupe. [23] On February 8 following, the King informs the Sheriff of Shropshire that he has entrusted his (the King's) Castle of Purrebech to William de Cantilupe. The Sheriff is to give it up with all arms and chattels found therein. [24] Another Writ, of April 26 following, gives information as to Cantilupe's trust to Geoffrey fitz Piers (Chief Justice of England), and it appears that John de Kilpec's heir was also to be in ward to Cantilupe; but the King reserved his marriage. [25]

Meanwhile Juliana (as she is in this instance called), the widow of John de Kilpec, gave the King 50 merks and a palfrey for the following privileges; viz. that she might have her dower in Rokesley and Ferne, where her late husband had assigned it, but out of his Serjeantry she was to have no thirds; that she might remarry any one save an enemy of the King, giving the King due notice of her intention; and that the Will of her husband might be executed, saving his debts to the Crown. [26] William de Cantilupe was informed of the King's acceptance of this Fine. In the year 1207 William fitz Warin fined a destrier and a good palfrey, that he might have this lady to wife. [27] She is here called Dame Gila de

[20] Rot. Finium, p. 78.
[21] Rot. Chartarum, p. 79.
[22] Rot. Canc. pp. 108, 109, 110.
[23] [24] Claus. I, 17. Patent. p. 50.
[25] Claus. I. 28.
[26] [27] Rot. Finium, pp. 233, 375. The last Fine is misrepresented by Dugdale (Baronage, p. 446), who calls the Lady Sibilla de Kilpec. Her real name was clearly AEgidia or Gila. This mistake led Dugdale into another (Baronage, p. 597), where he assumes that AEgidia de Kilpec was widow, not of John de Kilpec, but of his infant son Hugh.


Kilpec, and the King sent letters urging her without excuse or delay to accept Fitz Warin as her husband. A Writ dated Feb. 12, 1208, shows that this marriage took place, the King acknowledging the receipt of the Destrier aforesaid. [28] In 1209 William fitz Warin was dead, and AEgidia or Gila was a second time a widow. William de Cantilupe now gave the King 40 merks for the wardship of the person and lands of AEgidia, Lady of Kilpec, widow of William fitz Warin. [29]

The infant son of John de Kilpec was named Hugh. He had a long minority, of which the following Records are proof. A Roll of Herefordshire Serjeantries, drawn up in 1205, says that William de Cantilupe holds in Bredeford by forest-serjeantry. [30] This statement is repeated with respect to a moiety of Bradeford in a Roll of 1211, [30] when also the same William de Cantilupe holds knights'-fees in Herefordshire, as Guardian of John de Kylpec's heir. [30] A Shropshire Roll of 1211 confuses the Baronies of Holgate and Pulrebeche, but states the collective tenure of the two as five knights'-fees, held by Thomas Mauduit, Baron, and William de Cantilupe. [31]

I find nothing indicating that Hugh de Kilpec (II) had attained his majority before July 31, 1216, when a Writ of King John addresses him in his official capacity, as Custos of the Royal Forests of Herefordshire. [32] From this time till his death he is constantly addressed by Henry III on matters connected with his Serjeantry. A Writ of April 4, 1222, gives him facilities for rebuilding his House at Rokel, apparently in Wiltshire. [32] In August 1223 he had Letters entitling him to collect the Scutage of Montgomery from his Tenants in five counties, viz. Salop, Staffordshire, Herefordshire, Wiltshire, and Gloucestershire. [32]

In Michaelmas Term 1225 we first hear of that lawsuit from which it would appear that there were persons jointly claiming the whole of Hugh de Kilpec's Shropshire estates. In the present instance, the Defendant merely names an Attorney in a Plea of

[28] Claus. I, 102.
[29] Rot. Pip. 11 John, Heref. Dugdale (p. 446) has again mistaken these circumstances. He identifies the William fitz Warin who was dead in 11 John, with one who was living in 12 John, and who, in 1218, married Agnes de Wahull.
[30] Testa de Nevill, pp. 73, 70.
[31] Ibidem, p. 54.
[32] Claus. I, pp. 279, 491, 572.


Land against Philip de Stapilton, Thomas de Costentin, Walter fitz William, and John fitz William. [33] In Hilary Term 1226, Robert Parvus, Kilpec's Attorney, essoigns himself by William le Gras. Henry de Ecton stood surety for his appearance in Easter Term. As John fotz William, one of the Plaintiffs, was not moving in the suit, the Court ordered that the other three should sue for their respective shares. This they did in Easter Term 1226, claiming three-fourths of a knight's-fee in Phurebek, against Hugh de Kilpec. [34] They alleged that a certain ancestor of theirs, named Roger, was seized thereof on the day when King Henry I was alive and dead (Dec. 1st, 1135). Kilpec at first took exception, on the grounds that there were Sons descended from other Sisters and Coheiresses, besides those Sisters from whom the Plaintiffs derived their claim; but this Plea he after-wards abandoned, and demanded View. The Court acceded, and adjourned the case till the Justices-in-Eyre should visit Shropshire. This suit ended in a Fine, levied at Lichfield on Nov. 12, 1227, and which shows that the Plaintiffs' claim was no frivolous matter. Robert de Stapleton acted as Attorney for Philip de Stapleton and Walter fitz William. The three Plaintiffs quit-claimed all their right to three-fourths of a Knight's-fee in Pulrebech, held by Hugh de Kilpec, but reserving to Thomas de Constantine and Walter fitz William the tenement already held by them in that Manor. In return Kilpec gave the three Plaintiffs 50 solidates of land in Lastes, Herefordshire, to hold to themselves and their heirs for ever, at a rent of 6d. He also gave them 40 merks of silver on the instant. His Tenants in Lastes were present, and allowed that they collectively owed the services of 50s. now transferred.

On April 20, 1230, Hugh de Kilpec, being about to accompany the King to Brittany, has a Patent of protection during his absence in foreign parts. About this time Hugh de Kilpec appears on a Staffordshire Scutage-Roll as paying 2 merks for a fee of old feoffment at Northbury. [35] At Michaelmas 1235 and Easter 1236, he pays 2 merks to the Aid on marriage of the King's Sister; he pays it by hand of John Walsh (Wallensis). [36] This was for the Honour of Pulverbatch. The Shropshire Feodaries of 1240 are very confused about this Barony. So far as Hugh de Kilpec is said to hold a Knight's-fee in "Polpebeche and its appurtenances" the statement is intelligible enough. [37] But when the Record says that "Odo de Hodenet, John de Beckbury, and their other Co-parceners

[33] Placita, Mich. Tm, 9 Hen. III, m, 10.
[34] Placita, Pasch. Tm, 10 Hen. III, m, 5.
[35] [36] Testa de Nevill, pp. 52, 61.
[37] Ibidem, pp. 46, 48, 50.


hold a knight's-fee" of the same Barony, and the said fee is placed in Pulrebach, we are assured of some mistake. The Tenures of John de Beckbury and Odo de Hodenet under the Barons of Pulverbatch, were probably at Beckbury and Moston. Lastly, I should notice that these Feodaries of 1240 class Belswardine, Acton Burnell, Berrington, Longnor, Woolstaston, and Welbatch under the Barony of Hugh de Kilpec without the slightest probability of truth.

At or about this period we find Hugh de Kilpec holding the following fees in other Counties.- In Staffordshire, 1 fee in Northbury, under Walter de Lacy; [38] in Gloucestershire, one third of a fee in Weston, over Richard le Bret; [38] in Wiltshire, 1 fee in Winterburn, under Robert de Tregoz; [38] and in Herefordshire, fee in Eaton, over William de Eaton, [39] fee in Park, over Alianore de Parco, [39] fee in Lastres or Lastes, under the Earl of Hereford, [39] besides 1 fees in Kilpec and its members, held of the King in capite. [39]

On February 7, 1244, it appears that Hugh de Kilpec was deceased, leaving two daughters to share his inheritance. The King on that day received the homage of Philip Marmion, who had married Johanna, the youngest of these Coheirs, and ordered the Sheriff of Herefordshire to allot to the said Philip and Johanna their share of Kilpec's estates. Meanwhile the esnecy of Isabella the elder daughter was reserved, and her said share was committed to the custody of William de Cantilupe till the said Isabella should come to the King and do whatever she was bound to do on thus succeeding. [40]

In this same year Isabella de Kilpec became the wife of William Waleraund.

On February 20, 1254, King Henry III granted to Philip Marmion the privilege of holding a weekly Market on Mondays at Pulverbatch, and an annual Fair of three days, viz. the eve, the day, and the morrow of St. Edith the Virgin (September 16). The following status of this Manor appears on the Condover Hundred-Roll of 1255:- "Sir Philip Marmion and William Walraund hold Pulrebech, for five hides, of the King in capite, and they pay 40d. for stretward and motfee. They do suit to County and Hundred, and pay Scutage in proportion to one knight's-fee". [41] This unusual increase of three hides on the Domesday measurement of the Manor may be nearly accounted for. Pulverbatch now included Wrentnall,

[37] Testa de Nevill, pp. 46, 82, 153.
[38] Ibidem, pp. 62, 65, 67, 66.
[40] Rot. Finium, I, 412.
[41] Rot. Hundred. II, 62.


a Manor of two hides: perhaps also the Lords of Pulverbatch had somewhat intruded on the neighbouring Manors of Wilderley and Cothercote. More probably still, Pulverbatch now included that estate of Roger Venator which Domesday had described as being then Inland and ungeldable, but had treated as a part of Lege, or Longnor.

At the Assizes of January 1256, William Waleraund and Isabella his wife were suing Philip Marmion and Joan his wife for a messuage in Pullerebach. [42] Joan Marmion also named Robert Cocus as her Attorney in this or some other suit against the same Plaintiffs. [42] Also Richard fitz Robert, a Condover Tenant, suing Philip Marmion for disseizing him of common pasture in Stepelwood, failed, because he had not impleaded the Defendant's wife as well as himself. [42] On August 18, 1256, William Walerond has a suit of novel disseizin against Thomas Corbet for a tenement in Pulverbach. Philip Marmion was in the next year engaged in the King's service in Wales, as I judge from a Patent of Protection in his favour, dated July 18, 1257.

Partition of Hugh de Kilpec's estates was ultimately settled by a Fine of July 8, 1258. The Manors of Kilpec and Rokele, a carucate in Tolunton, and the Advowson of Norbury went to William and Isabella Waleraund; the Manors of Sernte, Bradeford, Lastres, Norbury, and Pulverbach, with the Advowson of Pulverbach, went to Philip and Joanna Marmion, who were also to have a rent of 2. 2s. 6d. from Rokele, or, in case the Waleraunds lost that Manor, from Kilpec. [43]

On the Shropshire Pipe-Roll of 1259 an amercement of 100s. is charged against Philip Marmion for seizing some one's chattels illegally. At the Forest Assizes of 1262 he was accused of having taken a Stag on September 14, 1260. In 1267 he fines half a merk for some Writ connected with his Shropshire affairs.

At the Assizes of 1272 Philip Marmion's non-attendance was reported by the Jurors of Condover Hundred, as also his exercise of a right to hold a weekly Market at Pulverbatch.

On February 14, 1283, King Edward I. orders the Sheriff of Shropshire to adjust the boundary between the lands of the Bishop of Bath and Wells in Longden, and the lands of Philip Marmyun in Pulrebache. The Bishop (Robert Burnell) had complained of an encroachment by Marmyun. The Knights and Jurors, who assembled

[42] Assizes, 40 Hen. III, mm. 1 & 7 dorso, 12 & 14 recto. In the first instance, William Waleraund's wife is called Isolda.
[43] Fines Divers, Comitat. tem. Hen. III, Bund. V, No. 28. Heref. Glouc. Salop. Staff. and Wiltshire.


for this purpose on August 16 following, decided that the Haye of Longedon belonged to Longedon Manor. It was bounded by the high-road between Longedon and Pulrebache, which highroad was the boundary between the said Haye and the King's Forest as far as to Idekinebrok; thence the boundary passed to the field of Okes. The same Jurors decided that the forinsec bosc which was in Stepelwode was common, as between the Manors of Pulverbatch and Longdon. A second Writ, dated September 6, orders the Sheriff to cause these boundaries to be respected. [44]

The Feodary of 1284 has a duplicate entry of Philip Marmion's tenure-in-capite of Pulverbatch, or Castell Poleredech, by service of one knight's-fee. The Officer who drew up the Survey evidently thought that there were two Manors in question.

The King's Writ of Diem clausit, on the death of Philip Marmion, bears date December 5, 1291. An Inquest, held at Shrewsbury on January 14, 1292, found the deceased to have held Pulrebeche in capite by service of one knight's-fee. In demesne there were, a capital messuage, a carucate of arable land, and two acres of meadow. A Mill realized 30s., the rents of free-tenants were 9. 0s. 2d. The deceased had also had the bailiwick of the Forestership of Hocklyth, worth 2 merks per annum. [45] From this Inquest and those of other Counties I collect the following particulars of Philip Marmion's heirs.- Mazera, apparently his eldest daughter, having been wife of Ralph de Crombewelle, was already deceased, but had left issue a daughter Joan, now twenty-four years of age, [46] and the wife of Alexander de Freville. Joan, apparently the second daughter of Philip Marmion, had been wife of William de Morteyn. She was now a Widow, and 36 years of age. Matilda, third daughter of Philip Marmion, was 30 years of age, and now wife of Ralph le Botiler. [47] A fourth daughter, another Joan, having been born March 25, 1283, was, as yet, only 8 years of age. [48]

It seems that, on partition of the various estates of Marmion of Tamworth, Pulverbatch fell in the first instance to Joan de Morteyn. At the Assizes of October 1292 she was said, by the

[44] Inquisitions, 11 Edw. I, No. 65, b.
[45] Inquisitions, 20 Edw. I, No. 36.
[46] One Inquest (with less apparent attention to details) states Joan, the wife of Alexander de Frevile, to be upwards of thirty.
[47] Mr. Blakeway says that "Ralph le Boteler, husband of Maud Marmion, was a younger son of William le Boteler of Wem, and was seated at Norbury, Staffordshire". Of course, we are not to forget that he got Norbury with his wife.
[48] This Joan must have been Marmion's daughter by a second wife. Consequently she never appears as interested in the estates of Joan de Kilpec, his first wife.


Condover Jurors, to be holding the whole Manor, and her marriage to be in the King's gift. The Manor was valued at 10. per annum. She, Joan de Morteyn, was questioned for exercising free-chace in Huggelith, but this she evaded, on the ground that she was a Coparcener. [49] At these same Assizes Johanna le Morteyn, Ralph le Botiler, and Matilda his wife, together with Alexander de Freville and Johanna his wife, are put down as Plaintiffs against Peter Corbet, concerning 20 acres of Bosc in Castel-Pulverbeche, in which the said Peter was said to have no ingress, save by an act of disseizin, committed by Thomas Corbet, Peter's father, against Joanne Marmion, mother of Johanna le Morteyn and Matilda le Botiler, and Grandmother of Johanna de Freville. [50] The same matter was subsequently brought forward at Lichfield as a suit of mort d'ancestre, the female Plaintiffs claiming as heirs of Joanna Marmion, whom they asserted to have died seized of the said 20 acres. Corbet evaded a direct issue in both cases, by showing that Freville and his wife were not really taking part in the suit. [50]

A Plea of Quo Waranto on this occasion questioned Johanna de Mortayn for holding pleas of the Crown, and having Free-warren, Market, Fair, and wayf, in her Manor of Pulverbach. She acknowledged her tenure of the Manor, but pleaded that she could not bring the question to legal issue without her Coparceners. The latter were summoned to attend at Lichfield on January 20, 1293. They did so. Joanna de Mortayn then stated that, as to holding Market and Fair, she was justified by the Charter of King Henry III to Philip Marmion, which Charter she produced, and so far her plea was allowed. As to holding Pleas-of-the-Crown, she stated that she only claimed view of frank pledge twice a year, and then to hold such pleas as a Sheriff held in his Tourns. And generally as to her warrant to hold such View of Frank pledge, and to have Warren and wayf, she alleged her Coparcenery as above. Hereupon Ralph le Botiler and Matilda his wife, Alexander de Frevill and Joan his wife, came into Court and joined with Joanna de Mortayn in a refusal to plead further; because John, son of Isabella Waleraund, being another Coparcener in the inheritance of Hugh de Kilpee, was not included in the summons. The said John was in fact an idiot, and in ward to the Crown. This plea produced an adjournment of the case;- probably till such time as the whole of Hugh de Kilpec's Coheirs could be called upon to plead jointly. [51]

[49] Placita Coronae, 20 Edw. I, m. 30.
[50] Assizes, 20 Edw. I, m, 11 dorso.
[51] Placita de Quo Waranto, pages 680, 706, and 707.


These legal evasions must not allow us to imagine that during the life of Joanna de Mortayn any other Coparcener had a substantive interest in Pulverbatch. On August 13, 1295, the said Joanna was deceased without issue. An Inquest, held at Pulverbatch on August 31, found her to have held the Manor in capite as a knight's fee. The next heirs of the deceased were Joanna de Frevill, her Sister, and Ralph, son of Ralph Botiler, her Sister's son. Both were of full age. The Warwickshire Inquest, taken on this occasion, represented how Philip Marmion had left, by a second wife, a fourth daughter, Joan, who was still in ward to the Crown. The Jurors knew not how far this Joan had a right to participate in the inheritance of Joan de Mortayn. [52] The state of the case is however clear. Joan, the infant, had a right to a share in whatever Joanna de Morteyn had inherited from Philip Marmion, but to no share in anything which Joanna de Morteyn had inherited from her Mother, Joanna de Kilpec, consequently no right in Shropshire.

I find a note of the Relief paid by Ralph Botiler for Pulverbatch, being acknowledged in 30 Edward I (1301-2). [53] The sum paid was 11. 2s. 2d. (probably a balance). Pulverbatch is stated to be held "by the third part of the moiety of the barony of Kilpec", which is intelligible enough according to what has been said above;- but it should be remembered that of Marmion's moiety of the Barony of Kilpec there were now only two Coparceners. Pulverbatch is duly entered in the Nomina Villarum of 1316, as held by Ralph le Botiler. It continued with his descendants in the male line, till the reign of Elizabeth.

AMONG UNDERTENANTS in this Manor those of the name of Walsh are of most frequent occurrence. Reginald Walsh was John de Kilpec's Attorney in a Lawsuit of the year 1200. [54] In 1255 John Wallensis was one of the Jurors who made Inquest of Condover Hundred. The same person, as John le Waleis, was Foreman of a Langley Jury in 1264, and as John Wallensis of Purebech was reported as non-attendant at the Assizes of 1272. In April 1284 John le Waleys occurs on a Stapleton Jury.

Other Tenants here were Roger de Pulrebech and Richard de Linleg,- the latter Surety for an amercement of half a merk set on the former in 1203. At the Assizes of 1221 one Petronilla, as heir of her Mother Alice, sued Richard de Linlegh for half a virgate in Pulrebech. The Defendant proved the Plaintiff to be the daughter of

[52] Inquisitions, 23 Edw. I, No. 55.
[53] Duke's Antiquities of Shropshire, p. 286.
[54] Supra, Vol. III, p. 82.


a Priest and so illegitimate. She was nonsuited and in misericordia, her Surety being Philip de Stapelton. [55]

At these same Assizes Richard de Linleg surrendered a third part of half a virgate in Pulvebech, for which he was impleaded by Juliana, widow of Reginald Chamberlain, who claimed it as dower. [55]

The person here concerned may be that Richard de Linlega, who being brother and heir of Nicholas de Linlega, confirmed a grant which the latter made to Haughmond Abbey, viz. of all that assart which Richard fitz David held under him in the Chircheton (Church-Town) of Pulrebache. Nicholas de Linlega's Deed had reserved a rent of 2d. to Richard his Brother. Roger Sprenghose and Reginald Parson of Pontsbury, attested the Deeds of both brothers. [56]

I have a note of a grant by Hugh de Kilpec to Robert Red, of land in Pulverbatch, at a rent of 2s., but the witnesses are not given. [57] The Deed probably passed between 1220 and 1243.

In 1249 John, son of Richard de Pulverbatch, occurs on a local Jury. In 1250 Hugh le Lene of Pulrebech was amerced 10s. for vert. At the Assizes of 1272, Isabel, widow of William le Whyte, withdrew her prosecution against Philip Marmion, whom she had called to warranty concerning a noke of land in Chyrchepullebatch. [58] At the same Assizes Hugh Gratesige, and Joan his wife, Thomas le Mareschal and Avice his wife, with Dionisia and Margery, sisters of Joan, sued Philip Marmion for a debt of 54. 6s., but the cause was adjourned. [59]

Also John Russel, as Grandson and heir of Roger Russel, sued Philip Marmion and Joan his wife, for half a virgate in Pulverbech.

Roger de Pulverbach, a Juror on a local Inquest in April 1290, and Simon de Pulverbatch, a Juror in January and May 1292, were probably Undertenants here.


Whenever it was that the Vills of Castle Pulverbatch and Church Pulverbatch were so distinguished, it was evidently subsequent to the foundation of the Church. This consideration would induce me to date the Church at least as early as the twelfth century. It was dedicated to St. Edith the Virgin, whose Feast-day, as we have seen, was fixed upon in 1254 as the period for an annual Fair at Pulverbatch.

[55] Assizes, 6 Henry III, mm. 4, 5.
[56] Haughmond Chartulary, Tit. Pulrebeche.
[57] Duke's MSS. (Bodleian Library).
[58] [59] Assizes, 56 Hen. III, mm. 1 recto, 13 dorso.


I always supposed this Church to have been originally an affiliation of Pontesbury, and have found evidence of the fact, which I will state presently. The Taxation of 1291 values the Church of Pulverbache, in the Deanery of Pontesbury, at 6. per annum, but says that the Church, that is (I presume), the Rector, was beneficed elsewhere. [60]

In 1341 the Assessors of the Ninth rated the Parish of Pulrebach only at 4. The reason was that the Church-Taxation of 6. was inclusive of 2. 11s.,- the value of the glebe, rents, oblations, hay and other small-tithes;- income arising from sources not contemplated by the present assessment on wheat, wool and lamb. [61]

On March 30, 1446, it was ascertained by Inquest that Pulrebache was a Chapel without Cure of Souls, and that the spiritual cure of all persons resorting thither belonged to the Priests or Portioners of Pontesbury, and the Hebdomadary (the Portioner doing duty at Pontesbury) for the time being ought to see thereto. [62]

The Valor of 1534-5 gives the preferment of John Butler, Rector of Powdurbach, as 10. 0s. 8d. in glebe and tithes, less 7s. 2d. per annum for Synodals. [63]


RICHARD DE SMETHCOTE, presented in the time of Henry III, died in the time of Edward I. He was presented by "Robert Walron, Lord of Polvebache", probably, therefore, towards the close of Henry III's reign. [64]

SIR AUDOEN DE MONTGOMERI Is said to have been presented by King Edward I, but in what right of prerogative or when, it does not appear. Montgomeri was Rector in January 1292, when Thomas de Pontesburi, Rector of Craunfield, releases to him all actions, etc. On Montgomeri's death, and in the reign of Edward III, there was

[60] Pope Nich. Taxation, p. 167.
[61] Inquis. Nonarum, p. 185.
[62] Blakeway, from Hereford Registers.
[63] Valor Ecclesiasticus, III, 213.
[64] Blakeway's MSS.- It is not apparent from other evidences how any Robert Walerand can have been entitled "Lord of Pulverbatch" in Henry III's time. It is true that William Walerand, Isabella de Kilpec's husband, had a temporary interest in Pulverbatch, and that he left two sons, Robert and John: but then William Walerand resigned all right to Pulverbatch in 1268. His son Robert was under age in 1272 (the year of Henry III's death), and his next son John was his heir in 1292, but an idiot. Dugdale'e confused and inaccurate account of the Walerands suffices to point out another and more noted Robert Walerand, brother of William, and Uncle of Robert and John named above. This person may have had Pulverbatch in custody for a time.


a contest between the King and Ralph le Botiller concerning this Advowson.

ROGER DE ACTON, Clerk, was presented by a Patent of April 6, 1339, the King presenting, as Custos of the heir of John, son of Ralph le Botteler. [65] On the other hand-

THOMAS LE BOTILLER is said to have been presented March 23, 1339, by Sir William le Botiller, but this (says Mr. Blakeway) must be a mistake for Sir Ralph le Botiller. [66] However Thomas le Botiller died in this Incumbency in 1858, when on April 6-

SIR WILLIAM DE TIRYNGTON, Chaplain, was instituted at presentation of Edward III, who exercised the right by reason of the minority of the heir of Ralph le Botiler, of Northbury. [67] In this instance the Church or Chapel of Pulverbatch is called free and non-curative (non curata).

JOHN DE POKELYNGTON was presented by Edward III, in the course of the same year,- 1358.

In July 1394 Thomas Gache and Edward Buttiller, Knight, contested the right of patronage. The latter presented-

SIR JOHN STACY, but the former presented-

SIR THOMAS NEWPORT, and Newport's title was confirmed by Writ of King Richard II, dated July 12, 1395. This person had been Rector of Great Bolas from 1366 to 1377. I conclude him to be identical with-

MASTER THOMAS BOWLAS, Rector of Pulverbatch, who died in 1413. On July 19 of that year-

THOMAS COKAYN was instituted to Pulverbatch on the presentation of Philip Boteller. The Inquisition of 1446, already quoted, names-

THOMAS JANYNELLE, a youth of eighteen, having the first tonsure, as then presented to this Living by Philip Boteler, Esq., son of Sir Philip Boteler.

[65] Patent, 13 Edw. III, p. 1, m. 23.
[66] Though John le Botiller was dead in 1339, his Father Ralph did not die till March 1342 (Inquis. 16 Edw. III. No. 28). That Ralph, son of John, and Grandson of Ralph, was 14 years of age. It is probable therefore that Mr. Blakeway's emendation is right, and that the King presented unduly in 1339, since Ralph le Botiller senior was then living.
[67] This was Ralph le Botiler, son of John. He died s. p. in 1348. His Brother and heir, Edward, was found to be of full age in 1360 (Inquis. 34 Edw. III. No. 39).



Domesday describes this Manor at some length, [1] owing to a question of title which seems to have been pending at the time.- "The same Roger (Venator) holds Warentenehale (of the Earl). Ernui and Chetel held it (in Saxon times) for two Manors. Here are II hides. The arable land is sufficient for V ox-teams. In demesne there are III teams, and V Serfs, and III Villains, and I Radman, with I team. Here is a wood which will fatten 100 swine, and there is one haye. In King Edward's time (the Manor) was worth 60s. (per annum). Now it is worth 30s. When he (Roger Venator) received it, it was worth 5s".

"Of this land the Church of St. Chad lays claim to (calumniator) a hide and a half; and the County [2] bears witness that (the said hide and half) had been in the Church before the time of King Edward, but the County is ignorant as to the mode in which (the said hide and half) left (the Church)". [3]

It is quite clear that the Church of St. Chad, at Shrewsbury, never recovered any part of Wrentnall. On the contrary, the Manor was annexed integrally by Roger Venator or one of his Successors to the adjoining Manor of Pulverbatch. Hence the Hundred-Roll of 1255 makes no mention of such a Manor as Wrentnall, but calls Pulverbatch a Manor of five hides, that is, a Manor which included the two Domesday hides of Pulverbatch, the two Domesday hides of Wrentnall, and a hide besides, with which we have nothing here to do. From that day to this, Wrentnall has been involved both parochially and manorially with Pulverbatch, and I find only a few Deeds entitling it to any further distinctive notice.

It was perhaps about 1250-60 that Philip Marmyon grants to William Goch of Castel Pulrebache a moiety of a half-virgate and assart, and a messuage in Wrotenhale, which William, son of William the Priest, had surrendered, and which he had by gift of Hugh de Kilpec. Marmyon reserves a rent of 2s. 2d., Suit of Court, and Forinsec services. Witnesses,- Sir John de Arundell, John le Waleis, and John fitz Richard of Pulrebache. This Deed had a Seal of Arms:- Vair and a fesse.

[1] Domesday, fo. 259, a, 2.
[2] That is the Curia Comitatus.
[3] De hac terra hidam et dimidiam calumniatur AEclesia Sancti Cedde, et testatur Comitatus quod in a aecclesia fuerunt ante regem E. sed ignoratur quomodo exierunt.


In 34 Edward I (1305-6) William, son of William Gouch of Wrontenal, releases the above premises, "which he had by gift of Philip Marmion", to Sir Ralph le Botiler, Lord of Pulrebach.

About the year 1290 Ralph le Botiler, Lord of Polrebech, grants to John, son of Roger de Haywode, half a virgate in Wrotenhale, with housbote and heybote in Werkwode, under view of the Grantor's Foresters. Witnesses,- Roger de Smethcote, Henry de Wesseley, John de Champeneys. This Deed had a Seal of arms:- A fesse chequy with two mullets in chief. [4]


This Manor, though in Saxon times it was held integrally by Edith, Queen of Edward the Confessor, was divided at the time of Domesday. One part was held in capite by Ralph de Mortimer; the other part was held under Earl Roger de Montgomery by the same Teodulf, of whom we have already spoken as holding Hawksley. It is of Teodulf's share of Pulley that I propose first to speak.- "The same Teodulf", says Domesday, "holds Polelie. Eddid held it (in Saxon times). Here are III virgates of land, geldable. There is (arable) land (sufficient) for I ox-team. It (the oxteam) is here, together with one Serf and II Boors. The value of the Manor was and is 6s. (per annum)". [1]

Teodulf's probable forfeiture, or displacement, have been conjectured under Hawksley. His tenure at Pulley, being an Escheat in the hands of the Earl, or King, was constituted a Serjeantry, but whether by Earl Hugh, Earl Robert, King Henry I, or King Henry II, I cannot say. The first Tenants of this Serjeantry, whom I can name with any show of probability, were Gilbert, Ralph, and Roger Bocharte, of whom I have said so much, under Bourton, as successive Lords of that Manor in the reigns of Henry II and Richard I. Without recapitulating particulars there given as to the death of Roger Bocharte in 1194, and the division of his estates between two Infant daughters, I will proceed to quote and explain such documents as bear exclusively upon their lands and Serjeantry at Pulley.

[4] Blakeway's extracts from the Muniments and Charters of E.W. Smythe Owen, Esq., of Condover.
[1] Domesday, fo. 259, a, 2.


Roger Bocharte's Office, by which he had held Pulley, was to be Custos of the Royal Haye, then known as The Lye, but now called Lythwood. The Pipe-Roll of 1199 records the following Fine:- "William fitz Geoffrey renders account of 40s. for having custody of the third part of Lia, which pertains to the dower of Dionisia his wife. He paid 29s. 4d., and owed 10s. 8d". William fitz Geoffrey, thus mentioned, was Lord of Longner-upon-Severn, a Manor which he held under the Bishop of Lichfield, or Chester. He had married Dionisia Mussun, widow of Roger Bocharte, and his claim to hold, with her in dower, a third part of her late husband's Serjeantry, was, it seems, allowed. In 1200 I find William fitz Geoffrey charged only 6s. 8d. for his arrears of the last Fine. Also, among Fines made more recently with Hugh de Nevill, Justice of the Forest, one of 6s. 8d. is charged against William de Longenalre for "ill custody of his Bailiwick". [2] This he had paid, and the mis-stated arrear of 6s. 8d. was paid in 1201. I have said (under Bourton) that Hensy Boscharte, who originally had custody of one of Roger Boscharte's daughters, probably lost that privilege for some misconduct, and that it was bestowed on Hugh le Strange. In the year 1200 Hugh le Strange fines 20s. with the King "for having custody of La Lye", that is, I presume, for such part of the Bailiwick as pertained to his infant Ward. The debt was paid before Michaelmas 1201. A Roll of Shropshire Serjeantries which belongs to this very period (1200-1202) has the following fall and clear statement:- "Hugh le Strange and Elias de Hatincham have in custody, with the heirs (thereof), two virgates of land in Pulileg, (held) by Serjeantry, which (two virgates) are worth 8s. (per annum); and Dionisia, late the daughter of Roger Mussun, holds one virgate there in dower, which (virgate) is worth 4s". [3] It is worth noting how Teodulf's-Pulley had thus maintained the exact measurement recorded in Domesday, while its reputed value had been exactly doubled.

I have shown, under Bourton, how Alice Bocharte, one of the Coheiresses of Pulley, was in 1203 the wife of Thomas, son of Elyas de Echingham; and how Isabella, the other Coheiress, was in 1209 the wife of Ralph Mareschall. This will explain the following Records, it being first understood that the Serjeantry in question

[2] The next entry on the Roll is of 1 merk, charged against William de Pulileia for "ill custody of his Bailiwick". It had been paid, but who William de Puliley was, or how concerned as a Custos of the Forest, I cannot imagine. Probably there is some mistake in the Record.
[3] Testa de Nevill, p. 61.


involved the custody of Biriwood, a forest, or rather haye, which was distinct as regards boundary from Lythwood, but usually associated therewith. In 1209 Thomas fitz Elyas fines 2 merks for having custody of the Forestership of Berawude. In June 1211 a Roll of Shropshire Serjeantries tells us how "Ralph Mareschall ought of his service to keep custody of Biriwode, a forest of the King, and of Lye, a haye of the King". [4] Another but cotemporary Roll is more particular in the matter of Coparcenery. It says that "Ralph Marescall and Thomas de Bureton (identical with Thomas de Echingham) hold (their land) by serjeantry of the custody of La Lye and Buriwude, hayes of the Lord King". [5] It would seem that Marshall had only recently obtained his share of this Serjeantry, for his fine of "four merks for having a bailiwick of the Forest" is not recorded earlier than the Pipe-Roll of 1211-1212. I have said that Elyas de Bourton, second husband of Alice Bocharte, was deceased in the Autumn of 1227. It would appear that his death was a violent one, and that Ralph Marshall obtained both shares of the Bailiwick of Lythwood. A Fine on the Pipe-Roll of 1228 exhibits Ralph Marescall as "accounting one merk for having that moiety of the Bailiwick of Lye and Buriwude which Elyas, who had been slain, had had". It seems to me that from this time Ralph Marshall continued to be sole Custos of Lythwood, nor do I find Alice Bocharte or her son Henry de Burton exercising any subsequent interest in Pulley; Alice de Bourton however, as she is in this instance called, is said at some time or other to have alienated half a virgate in Pulley, of which matter I will speak hereafter. In 1231 Ralph Marescall had been amerced 20s. for "ill custody of his bailiwick". He is also said to account with Elyas his fellow (though the latter had been dead some years) for 14s., the produce of windfalls in the Haye of Lye. In 1249 his widow Isabella de Burton being dead, her tenure in Polilegh was estimated by Inquest to have been 3 virgates, worth 6s. per annum, and held by the deceased by service of keeping the Forest of Lye. [6] It is singular that the alienations of this Serjeantry were not taken account of by Robert Passelewe when he visited the County for such purposes in 1247. After Isabella de Burton's death, and immediately after the succession of her son, Ralph Marshall (II), that is about January 1250, Geoffrey de Langley and Roger de Somery took cognizance of these alienations, though their specific commission was to assess

[4] Testa de Nerill, p. 55.
[5] Liber Ruber, fo. cxxxvii. De hiis qui tenent per Serjanciam.
[6] Inquisitions, 33 Henry III, No. 22.


assarts in the Royal Forests. According to the Pipe-Roll of 1252, they had set Crown-rents amounting to 10s. per annum on four tenants, holding 3 virgates of Ralph le Mareschal's Serjeantry, and three years' arrears of the said rents were now said to be due. The statement on the Hundred-Roll of 1255 varies considerably from this. [7] It gives to Ralph Marescall, Forester of the Haye of Lye, only 1 virgates in Hoverpolile, for which three tenants paid rents of 6s. to him, and of 5s. to the Crown. It adds that his mother and his ancestors had sold the said land to these Tenants. Another part of the Roll indicates three Tenants in Poliley as paying rents of 20d. each, or 5s. in all, to the Crown; but one of the three was Tenant, not by feoffment of Ralph Marescall or his predecessors, but by feoffment of Alice de Burton. I will endeavour to reconcile these, at least imperfect, statements when I come to speak of the Undertenants in Pulley. It appears that Ralph, the Forester of Lye, claimed the winter-pannage as his perquisite. [7]

At the Forest Assize of February 1262, Ralph Marscall, Forester of La Lye, was amerced one merk for trespass. His Sureties were William Burnel and William Champion. He further owed 8s. for the agistment of the Lye Forest in the current year. As one of the Foresters of the Fee, Ralph Mareschall attended an important Inquest at Brug in March 1262. Though he died in this or the following year, a debt of half a merk for trespass is recorded against him on the Pipe-Roll of 1267.

In December 1273, Engelard, son and heir of Ralph Marshall, appears on an Inquest at Brace-Meole as "Engelard, Forester of Pulileg", a common metathesis, which is equivalent to Engelard de Pulileg, Forester. The Hundred-Roll of 1274 states that the tenure of Ralph Marshal under Henry III had been 2 virgates, held by Serjeantry of keeping Lithwode Forest; that he had sold the said lands to five men of Poliley, viz. half a virgate to each; that these five tenants now paid 6s. per annum to Engelard, son of Ralph le Marchal, under whom they held, and that, since the Iter of Geoffrey de Langley, Justice of the Forest, they had paid 10s. per annum to the King. [8] These statements will require further remark in the Sequel. In 1284 Engelard de Pulley attests a Charter already given under Condover. In December 1285, as a Forester, he sat on a Jury at Salop. On January 28, 1290, he was deceased, and the King's Writ of Diem clausit resulted in an Inquest on

[7] Rot. Hundred. II, 63. The Autumn pannage ended, and the Winter pannage began, at Martinmas (November 11th).
[8] Rot. Hundred. II, 91.


April 7 following. The deceased, said the Jurors, had held is capite 6s. rent in Polilegh, which he received from three free tenants there, his service to the Crown being to keep the Haye of Lythewode. He had also held, under John Pride of Salop, 1 virgates in Polilegh and Great Lithe, at a penny rent, the net value of the tenure being 13s. 4d. [9]

With respect to this second tenure in Pulley I know nothing further. It is possible that John Pride may have been the Representative or Successor of Alice Bocharte's heirs, and that Marshall had obtained a feoffment of the other moiety of Over-Pulley. I think it however more probable that Engelard Marshall's tenure under Pride was not in Over-Pulley, but in that part of Pulley which was of Mortimer's fee. Philip, son and heir of Engelard de Polilegh, was of full age on November 1, 1289. He therefore succeeded at once to his father. He appears as a Forester-of-the-Fee in the great Perambulation of Shropshire Forests, made in the year 1300. In 1308 we have seen him attesting a Condover Deed.

THE UNDERTENANTS in Theoduif's-Pulley cannot always be distinguished from those in Mortimer's-Pulley. I suppose that the whole of Theodulf's-Pulley was alienated by Roger Bocharte's Coheirs, and that the six half-virgates of which the Manor was composed were held in the thirteenth century by as many Undertenants. Out of the discordant evidences which bear upon this question, I can only gather particulars about five of the six half-virgates.

In or about the year 1222 Maurice de Pulilega gave to the Infirmary of Haughmond Abbey an acre of land in Pulleley, with the houses thereon. The land was bounded by the lands of one Osbern and of Isabel, wife of Engelard. [10] We have here the names of three early Tenants of the Lords of Pulley.

Isabel, wife of Engelard, was probably the mother of Engelard de Polilegh, a Juror on a local Inquest in 1249, and who, according to Langley's arrentation of 1250, held a whole virgate in Pulileg, paying the King a rent of 3s. 4d. per annum. The same Engelard, by the Record of 1255, appears to have been a Feoffee in Marshall's moiety. His tenure is put at half a virgate, his rent to the King at 20d., and his rent to Marshall (if the rents were proportionate to

[9] Inquisitions,18 Edw. I, No. 12.
[10] Haughmond Chartulary, Tit. Pulleley.- The Grant is attested by Robert l'Enfant and Andrew fitz Hubert, Provosts of Shrewsbury. I know them to have been in Office about the year 1222. That the Abbey retained this Tenement is proved by a Lease of the year 1321 whereby the Abbot demises to Richard, son of Richard de Cobeley, Notary of Pulleley, a messuage and Salion in Pulleley,- to hold for life, at a rent of 2s.


each other) was 2s. He was one of the Jurors who made this Report. At the Assizes of 1256 this Engelard, written as Engelard de Possileg, was on the Jury for Condover Hundred. In 1274 he is represented by Richard de Polileg, a Juror for the Hundred, but who is called Richard fitz Engelard in the enumeration of the five Pulley Tenants, who are said to have jointly paid a rent of 6s. to Engelard Marshall, and a rent of 10s. to the Crown. In May 1292, a second Engelard de Poliley appears on a local Jury, and in such a position as to indicate that he was of this family, even if we did not know that his Suzerain, also called Engelard de Poliley, had died two years before. He was father, I conclude, of William fitz Engelard de Puliley, who appears on a local Jury in August 1295.

Osbern, the Pulley landholder of 1222, is represented in the arrentation of 1250 by two sons, viz. by John fitz Osbern, holding a virgate, and paying a Crown-rent of 3s. 4d.; and by Henry fitz Osbern, holding half a virgate, and paying a Crown-rent of 1s. 8d. In 1255 these two sons appear as John de Polileg and Henry Doyl; but as holding only two half-virgates in Marshall's moiety, for which they seem to have paid a rent of 4s. to Marshall, whilst John's half-virgate only is mentioned as paying a Crown-rent, and that 1s. 8d. It is clear that this is an omission, and that Henry Doyl must have contributed 1s. 8d. of that 5s. which was paid to the Crown by Marshall's three Tenants collectively. In 1274 John de Poliley and Henry Doyl recur as Tenants of half a virgate each, and contributing their proportions (whatever they were) of Marshall's rent of 6s. and the King's rent of 10s. In October 1283, and in January and May 1292, John de Polilegh occurs on local Juries; and, on the last occasion, a second Juror, called John fitz Henry de Polilegh, will have been the son of Henry Doyl.

Maurice de Pulilega, the remaining Landholder of 1222, must, I take it, have been a Feoffee in the moiety of Alice Bocharte. In Michaelmas Term 1232, Richard fitz Auty sues Juliana, widow of Maurice Bedell, for 1 virgates in Pulileg. Juliana pleaded that her sole interest in the premises was as Guardian of her infant son, William. The Court ordered the Plaintiff to proceed against the said William, when of age. [11] Neither the Record of 1250, nor that of 1255, notice this tenure, but it is clear that it existed. In 1274 we have probably the above son and heir of Maurice in William Morice, now Tenant of half a virgate in Pulley. He is stated to contribute to the King's rent of 10s., and to Marshall's rent of 6s.;

[11] Placita, Mich. Term, 17 Hen. III, m. 16.


but the latter is probably a mistake. The same person appears as William de Polilegh on a Jury of 1292.

Robert fitz Robert, [12] tenant of half a virgate in 1250, and subjected to a Crown-arrentation of 1s. 8d., was clearly a Feoffee on Alice Bocharte's side; indeed he is the same person with, or the father of, that Roger fitz Robert who, in 1255, is distinctly stated to have held half a virgate, alienated by Alice de Burton, and to be paying a Crown-rent of 1s. 8d. This Roger fitz Robert appears as Roger fitz Broun on the Roll of 1274, again as holding half a virgate and contributing to the Crown-rent of 10s. But the same Roll is clearly in error where it states him to be a Feoffee of Marshall, and a Contributor to Marshall's rent of 6s.

MORTIMER FEE. This part of Pulley may perhaps be distinguished from the part already treated of, by a circumstance which exists at this very day. I think Mortimer's Manor must have been that part of Pulley which is now in the Parish of Brace Meole, while Teodulf's Manor was that part which is now in St. Julian's Parish. Domesday describes Mortimer's Manor as follows:- [13]

"The same Radulf (de Mortimer) holds Polelie (of the King); Eddid held it (in Saxon times). Here is I hide and I virgate, geldable. The (arable) land is (sufficient) for V ox-teams. Here are III Radmans, and IIII Villains, and V Boors, with VII [14] ox-teams. In King Edward's time the Manor was worth 30s. (per annum). Its value afterwards and now was and is 40s".

It is clear that the proximity of Mortimer's share of Pulley to his greater Manor of Meole, as well as the parochial connection which existed between the two, effaced their manorial distinction. Hence too it has come to pass that Meole has attracted this part of Pulley from Condover Hundred to within the Liberties of Shrewsbury. Except in Domesday we never hear of this part of Pulley as a distinct Manor, nor as anything more than a member of Brace Meole. Consequently, Mortimer's Feoffees in Brace Meole, that is De Cantilupe and De Bracy, must be taken to have been Mesne Lords of this part of Pulley. We shall find evidence that they were so. I do not now purpose to speak of these great families, but only of their Undertenants in that part of Brace Meole which I take to be identical with Mortimer's-Pulley.

[12] Braun de Pulileg, who has been mentioned under Stapleton (supra, p. 111, note 7), as occurring in 1221, was father pobabiy of this Robert fitz Robert.
[13] Domesday, fo. 260, b, 1.
[14] The letters or written over the figures VII, make it probable that four (quatuor) ox-teams was the number intended.


Warin de Pulileg, who has occurred to us in 1221, seems, from his associates, to have been a tenant in Mortimer's-Fee. Perhaps Ralph de Pulie, who occurs at the same date, was another. He was impleaded for dower by Agnes, widow of Henry de Barewe, but, when the case was called on at the Assizes, the Plaintiff was found to be deceased. [15] At the same Assizes William, claiming to be son and heir of Stephen de Purileg, sued Audulf de Bracy for a virgate in Purileg. De Bracy pleaded that the Plaintiff was illegitimate, having been born before the marriage of his parents, which had only been solemnized when his Father was in his last illness. De Bracy objected therefore to the trial proceeding. The Court, finding that the Plaintiff's mother was dead, as well as his father, and that he, being an Infant, could not answer De Bracy, would not allow the trial to be stopped. Presently De Bracy gave way, and conceded William's demand and accepted his homage. [15] In January 1222 a Fine was levied at Warwick between Audulf de Brascy, Plaintiff, and Walter le Poer, Tenant, of 2 virgates in Pulile, whereof was Assize of mort d'ancestre. Audulf acknowledged the right of Walter;- to have and to hold to him and his heirs for ever. One virgate, viz. that which Roger fitz Henry held, was to be held by Walter, under Audulf de Brascy, at a rent of half a pound of cumin, or 1d.; the other virgate, viz. that which Peter held, was to be held by Walter at a similar rent under William de Cantilupe, who, being present, conceded the arrangement. In 1232 I find one William fitz Edeline of Pulileg amerced for some breach of the Forest-laws. At the Assizes of 1256 John de Bracy was found to have disseized William de Rodene and Alice his wife of half-a-virgate in Pulilegh. [16] It appears that, during Montfort's rebellion in 1265-6, John son of John le Waleys incurred the forfeiture of certain lands in Walsburn (Walleybourn, near Pulverbatch) and Pulileye. Thomas Corbet had a grant from the Crown of the redemption to be paid by Le Waleys, under the Dictum de Kenilworth; and, in Hilary Term 1272, a precept issued to the Sheriff to bring Le Waleys before the King in Easter Term following, but for what specific purpose we are not told. [17]

[15] Assizes, 6 Hen. III, mm. 3 dorso, 7 recto.
[16] Assizes, 40 Hen. Ill, m. 7 dorso.
[17] Placita, Hil. Tm. 56 Hen. III, m. 9.



THIS was another of Ralph de Mortimer's Domesday Manors:-

"The same Radulf holds Edbaldinesham (of the King). Eddid held it (in Saxon times). Here is one hide, geldable. The (arable) land is (sufficient) for II ox-teams. Here is one Free-man, who pays a ferm of 8s. (annually). There is a wood which will fatten XX Swine. In King Edward's time the Manor was worth 40s. Since then it was waste". [1]

It is clear from this that the existing value of the Manor was 8s., that is, the fee-farm rent at which the unnamed Tenant held it. I will not surmise who this unnamed Tenant was, but it is evident that Edgebold was, like Mortimer's part of Pulley, afterwards annexed to Meole, and that so Cantilupe, or De Bracy, became its mesne-lord. We shall now observe a singular coincidence, viz. that, nearly two centuries after Domesday, the Lord of Edgebold's rent to Cantilupe still stood at 8s.-

An Inquisition taken at Brace Meole, December 13, 1278, on the death of George de Cantilupe, found him to have been seized of a moiety of the Manor of Melesbracy, which he held under Roger de Mortimer. [2] Among his rents, one of 8s., receivable from the Lord of Egbaldenham, is specified, and the said Lord of Egbaldenham did suit at the Manor Court of Melesbracy. [3]


Domesday has two entries relating to this Manor, the second of which is supplementary to, and in paler ink than, the body of the Record. It must therefore be taken as corrective of the first, which states that "Radulf de Mortemer holds Schentune under Earl Roger, and Helgod holds it under Mortemer. Azor, AElgar, and Saulf held it (in Saxon times) for three Manors, and were free men

[1] Domesday, fo. 260, b, 1.
[2] Inquisitions, 1 Edward I, No. 16.
[3] Who this Lord of Edgebold was, I cannot say.


together with their lands. Here are II hides, geldable. In demesne there is one ox-team and a half; and II Serfs and I Frenchman, with IX Boors, have II ox-teams, and there might be a third team here. Here is a Mill of 10s. (annual value), and a wood which will fatten 100 swine. The former value of the Manor was 17s. Now it is worth 20s. (per annum)". [1]

The other, or supplementary entry, classes Sheinton, by a marginal mark, after Egbaldinesham, and so among the Manors which Mortemer held in capite of the King.-

"The same Radulf holds Scentune; and Helgot (holds it) of him. Azor and Elgar and Saul held it for three Manors. Here are II hides, geldable. Here is a wood which will fatten 100 swine, and a Mill of 10s. (annual value). The whole is worth 20s". [1]

There is a great analogy between the histories of the two Manors of Sheinton and Burwarton. The Saxon Azor had an interest in both. Both were held at Domesday by Helgot under Ralph de Mortemer. Both were involved in that large section of Helgot's Barony, which, by feoffment, or otherwise, passed to De Girros. [2]

In two respects these Manors differed. The mesne-interest of Helgot's Successors at Sheinton was not so completely obliterated in the 13th century as at Burwarton. Sheinton again was not held by De Girros in demesne. His Feoffees therein were a succession of knights, taking their family-name from the place. So then in the 13th century the status of Sheinton was as follows. De Sheinton held it of De Girros, or his heirs; De Girros held it of the Lords of Holgate; the Lords of Holgate held it under Mortimer of Wigmore, who held it of the Crown. I must now follow the succession of De Sheinton; but, whereas the Representatives of the family uniformly bore the name of Hugh, I shall be unable to mark each generation with any certainty.

The earliest Hugh de Sheinton of whom I have any notice occurs about the year 1150, as witness of a very ancient Charter already quoted under Posenhall. [3] Again the Pipe-Roll of 1197 tells of a Hugh de Seinton, who had fined 2 merks with Geoffrey fitz Piers (then a Justiciar of the Forest) for license to cultivate an assart. The next or the same Hugh de Shineton occurs in 1207 as being amerced half a merk. He died between the years 1217 and 1221, after serving the then important office of a Coroner for Shropshire. This Hugh de Shineton, during the Barons' Wars of

[1] Domesday, fos. 256, b, 2 and 260, b, 1.
[2] [3] Supra, Vol. III, pp. 31, 285.


1215-6, adhered to the Royalist side, with his Suzerain, Hugh de Mortimer of Wigmore, while his Mesne-Suzerain, Robert de Girros, suffered forfeiture for espousing the opposite cause. Robert de Girros was however included in the Letters of Reseizin, issued by Henry III on November 4, 1217. Hugh de Shineton died soon after, and was succeeded by his son and heir, whom I will call Hugh de Shineton (III). The latter, it appears, notwithstanding De Girros's re-investiture in all his rights, continued to render the services due on Sheinton to Hugh de Mortimer. At the Assizes of November 1221 Robert de Girros sued Mortimer "for disseizing him of his tenement in Sheinton", by which was meant his right to the aforesaid services. Mortimer pleaded Robert de Girros's disaffection, and showed how the late Hugh de Shineton, through De Girros's default, rendered all services to himself (Mortimer) till the day of his (Hugh de Shineton's) death; how also Hugh de Shineton his son had done the same, so that De Girros had, in fact, never been seized of the services on Sheinton since his rebellion. De Girros denied this and affirmed that he had, since his restoration, received the services of Hugh de Shineton, both father and son, in turn, and that the disseizin which he alleged against Mortimer was since. The Jury gave a verdict for De Girros, who recovered his mediate rights and 5 merks damages.

At these same Assizes, Hugh de Sheinton was amerced 20s. for not coming forward to answer for his deceased father's discharge of his duties as Coroner. The Feodary of 1240 gives Hugh de Shinton as holding two-thirds of a Knight's-fee under Ralph de Mortimer, [4] as if there was no mediate interest in the matter. This usual omission need not deceive us. We have had a Charter on a former page which about this very period associates the three names of Mortimer, De Girros, and De Shineton, in a way quite consistent with their mutual relations. [5] In Easter Term 1243, Alice, widow of William le Gos, recovered a third of nine acres in Scheynton from Hugh de Scheynton and Roese his wife. [6] In 1247, 1249, and 1253, I find Hugh de Shineton a Juror on three several Inquisitions. From his attestation of Charters I judge him to have been at this period a Knight. [7] The Hundred-Roll of 1255 entitles him Sir Hugh de Seynton, and declares how "he holds Seynton, for two hides, under Sir Roger de Mortimer, and pays 16d. per annum for stretward and motfee, and does suit to both

[4] Testa de Nevill, p. 45.
[5] Supra, Vol. III, p. 52.
[6] Placita, 27 Hen. III, m. 14.
[7] Supra, Vol. II, p. 22; Vol. V, p. 119.


County and Hundred". The Jurors who made this return represented how the Abbot of Buildwas had entered on the fee of Scheynton to the extent of a carucate of land, and how the Prior of Wenlock was possessed of 4 acres there. The Jurors knew nothing of the title to these acquisitions in either case. [8] No extant Charter of either Monastery enables me to say anything more on the subject. At the Assizes of 1266 Hugh de Scheynton with eight others, all apparently Knights, were declared in misericordia, for refusing to make some perambulation ordered by the Justices. At these Assizes, John, as son and heir of John Tece, claimed 1 acres in Cristeheth (Cressage) against William son of Hugh de Sheynton, but failed to prove that his Father had died seized thereof. [9] In 1258 we have a notice of Hugh de Shineton's interest in Much Wenlock, as before stated. [10] In 1259 he is amerced half a merk for some disseizin. In June 1260 he attends a great Forest Inquest, at Sheriff Hales, as one of the Verderers of Shropshire. A notice which we have had of him under Wenlock in 1267 makes mention of his heir, and perhaps indicates his advanced age. [11] The next Hugh de Shineton who occurs was, I take it, a different person.

At the Assizes of 1272 the Jurors for Condover Hundred represented that the Vills of Sutton (near Salop), Sheynton, and Stapleton would not allow the King's Bailiffs to levy distresses therein. Also the Vills of Belswardine, Sheynton, Church Prene, and Holt Prene, having been accustomed to do certain suits to the Hundred, had withdrawn them. One would imagine, from Sheinton being mentioned in this sequence, that the Lords of Castle Holgate had still a seigneural interest there. I doubt however whether these immunities were not claimed for Sheinton by stress of the franchises of Roger Mortimer of Wigmore. An Inquisition on the subject of such withdrawals, taken about this time, expressly charges the withdrawal of Sheinton on Mortimer, [12] but the Hundred-Roll of 1274 attributes it to the "Lord Earl Richard", [13] evidently meaning Richard Earl of Cornwall and King of Almagne, sometime Lord of Holgate.

On August 14, 1283, Hugh de Sheinton (IV), as I will call him, was empanelled for the Perambulation between Pulverbatch and Longden. He is named first after the Knights who acted on the Jury. The Feodary of 1284 says that "Hugh de Schenton holds

[8] Rot. Hundred. II, 62.
[9] Assizes, 40 Hen. HI, m. 6 dorso.
[10] [11] Supra, Vol. III, pp. 257, 258.
[12] Inquis., temp. incert., Hen. III, No. 25, b.
[13] Rot. Hundred. II, p. 91.


Schenton under William de Hopton, and William holds under Edmund de Mortimer, and Edmund de Mortimer under the King". I believe that for William de Hopton we should here read Walter de Hopton. He was one of the Coheirs of De Girros. I have before quoted a passage in this same Record which gives De Hopton's name first as Walter and then as William. [14] At this period the mesne interest of the Lords of Holgate in Sheinton seems to have entirely vanished, otherwise it would have been Bishop Burnel's. Edmund de Mortimer's exercise of exclusive Franchises in Sheinton was questioned in 1292, as I have before shown. [15] An Inquest, held pursuant to a Writ of May 27, 1294, states that a messuage and virgate in Seynton, lately held by Adam de Seynton, a felon, under Hugh, Lord of Seynton, had been in manu Regis for a year and a day, and that the Vill of Seynton was answerable for the proceeds. Again, pursuant to Writs of Edward I, dated at Dunfermlin, on November 6, 1303, two Inquests were taken as to a messuage and half-virgate in Shineton, lately held by Bernard de Shineton, an outlaw for felony, and a messuage and virgate held by Adam de Shineton, another outlaw. The returns are in the usual form, viz. that the King had had both tenements a-year-and-a-day; that they were held under Hugh, Lord of Shineton, who now had them in hand, except Adam de Shineton's messuage, which was now held by William de Rugge and Petronilla his wife. [16] For some cause or other two new Writs on the subject of these forfeited estates issued on September 1305. The returns were in substance the same as before. [17]

A Feodary, drawn up on February 10, 1305, gives Hugh de Scheynton as holding a Knight's-fee in Scheynton under Edmund de Mortimer, deceased. [17] On February 9, 1306, this Manor was settled by a Fine levied at Westminster. Hugh de Sheyntone and Isabella his wife, Plaintiffs, give the Manor to Master John de Cherleton, Deforciant, who in turn surrenders and settles the same on Hugh and Isabella, and the heirs of Hugh by Isabella, and, in default, on the right heirs of Hugh,- to be held of the chief lords of the fee. The Nomina Villarum of 1316 gives Hugh de Shenton as Lord of Shenton. [18]

THE UNDERTENANTS in this Manor seem usually to have been of the same name and perhaps family with the Lords. We have Henry,

[14] Supra, Vol. IV, p. 46.
[15] Supra, Vol. IV. p. 224.
[16] Inquisitions, 31 Edw. I, No. 43 and 33 Edw. I, No. 93.
[17] Inquisitions, 32 Edw. I, No.63, b.
[18] Parliamentary Writs, IV, 398.


Clerk of Seinton, owing 6s. 8d. for a pourpresture in 1200. We have Adam de Sheinton as Juror on a local Inquest in March 1253, and Peter de Sheinton as a Juror for Condover Hundred at the Assizes of 1256. In 1262 Richard de in Haye of Shynewod (a member of Shineton) was amerced 12d. for vert. On November 12, 1299, a Fine was levied between William, son of Walter de Scheynton, Plaintiff, and Walter de Scheynton, Impedient, of a messuage and half-virgate in Scheynton, which Walter acknowledges himself to have given to William. The latter concedes the premises to Walter for life, at a rent of one rose, with reversion to William and his heirs.


This was in all probability one of the Chapels originally subject to the Church of Cound. Though its dependence in the thirteenth century was perhaps nominal or obsolete, the Taxation of 1291 does not notice this Rectory. Neither was Sheinton, as a distinct Parish, assessed to the Ninth in 1341, unless indeed the place called Shevyn, which was assessed at 13s. 4d., was Sheinton. [19] If so, the error of placing it in Stottesden Deanery is an extraordinary one. In 1534-5 the Valor correctly places the Rectory of Shaynton in the Deanery of Salop, and the Diocese of Lichfield and Coventry. The preferment of John Smythyman, the Rector, was put at 6. 13s. 4d., out of which he paid 3s. 4d. yearly for Procurations, and 11d, for Synodals. [20]


ROGER, PARSON OF SHEYNTON, occurs as a landholder in Cressage on the Assize-Roll of 1272.

JOHN DE SHEYNTON, Clerk, had been presented before August 18, 1301, when the Bishop of Lichfield, in consequence of the youth of the Presentee, gives the Archdeacon of Salop custody of the Church, as a Sequestration. The Archdeacon is enjoined to allow the Presentee fitting exhibition in the Schools. John de Sheynton, Sub-deacon, was instituted September 22, 1303, at presentation of Hugh de Sheynton. He died August 24, 1335.

THOMAS DE WITHIFORD, Clerk, was admitted October 3, 1335, at presentation of Hugh de Sheynton. On December 31, 1336,

[19] Vide supra, Vol. I, p. 221, note 11.
[20] Valor Ecclesiasticus, III, 183.


Thomas, Rector of Shaynton, has four-years' license of non-residence, studendi gratia; but the fourth year was allowed at instance of the Earl of Arundel. This Rector died October 13, 1345, and on October 19 following,-

REGINALD, SON OF WALTER LE SCRYVEYN OP SALOP, Clerk, was admitted at presentation of Hugh de Sheynton. He resigned in 1349, when, on October 17,-

WILLIAM DE GRAFTON, Chaplain, was admitted at presentation of John, Lord of Sheynton and Rector of Egemundon (Edgmond). [21]

MASTER JOHN JUDAS, Rector of Sheinton, died in 1378, when, on December 22nd,-

WILLIAM HINES, Priest, was instituted on the joint presentation of the following Coparceners in the Lordship of Scheynton: viz. Edward Burnell; Richard de Harnage; Richard de Morton, perpetual Vicar of Wrockwardine; and Richard de Berwyk.

SIR WILLIAM HUNTE, Rector of Sheinton, died in 1401, when, on April 30,-

SIR JOHN WYLE was instituted. Patrons,- Hugh Harnage; Roger Partrich; Thomas de Lee; William de Lee; John de Eynton; Sir William Nicholls, Chaplain; and William Boterell. [22]


BESIDES Sheinton, Helgot was Domesday possessor of a tolerably compact estate in Condover Hundred, consisting of the adjacent Manors of Preen, Belswardine, and Harley. These three he held under the Norman Earl.-

"The same Helgot holds Prene, and Richard holds it of him. Eduin held it (in Saxon times), and was a free man. Here are III hides, geldable. The arable land is (sufficient) for III ox-teams. In demesne there is one ox-team and IIII Serfs. Of this land Godebold

[21] Lichfield Registers, A, fos. 18, b and 23, b. B, fos. 10, 213, 220, 225.
[22] Blakeway's MSS.- As nothing is more interesting to a Genealogist than to trace the ramifications which so often resulted from a Coheirship, I may add in a note, that on February 27, 1431, John Wynnesbury, George Haukeston, Hugh Cresset, Thomas Fate, and Thomas Hopton of Rochull, appear as joint Patrons of Sheinton;- and that in January 1466, Margery Homage of Scheynton, Relict of Hugh Harnage, Esq., presented solely to the Living.

PREEN. 221

holds I hide, and thereon he has one ox-team, one Serf, one Villain, and one Boor, with a team. The wood here (will fatten) 100 Swine. In King Edward's time the Manor was worth 20s. (per annum). Now it is worth 10s. He (Helgot) found it waste". [1]

We must understand by this that Richard held two hides and Godebold one hide in Preen. The two hides were afterwards known as Great Preen, or Church Preen, the one hide as Preen Girros, Holt Preen, or Little Preen.

GREAT PREEN.- I have hinted, under Meadowley, a possibility that Helgot's Tenant, Richard, was no other than Richard de Belmeis, afterwards Viceroy of Shropshire. [2] In proportion to that probability is the probability that Belmeis, or his heirs, granted his or their interest in Great Preen to Wenlock Priory. The Viceroy himself is known to have had a special favour for that House.

The distance of this Manor from Wenlock seems to have occasioned the foundation of a Cell here, but of the date of that foundation we are as ignorant as of the period when the Monks obtained the estate. The Lords of Holgate maintained a Seigneurs' interest here in the thirteenth century, a circumstance which probably accounts for the seeming inability of the Monks of Wenlock to withdraw the Manor from Condover Hundred and to annex it to the Liberty of Wenlock. It would seem too that the Lord of Holt Preen had a concurrent right, with the Prior of Wenlock, in the Patronage of this Cell or Priory. Robert de Girros's quit-claim of a moiety of the Advowson of the Cell of Prene to Wenlock Priory took place in 1244, as before recited. [3] It was within a year of that date that the Prior, probably in virtue of a title thus strengthened, withdrew Great Preen from suit of Condover Hundred. In 1250 we have had notice of the Prior's assarts in Preen. [4] In 1255 the Condover Hundred-Roll reports that "the Prior of Wenloc holds Prune Magna of the Fief of Sir William Mauduit, for II hides. He paid neither stretward nor motfee, and had ten years since withdrawn the suit which he had used to render to the Hundred;- whereby the Crown had lost 20s., or 2s. per annum". [5] At the Assizes of 1256 Walter, son of John de Prene, claimed, as his father's, a messuage and half virgate in Prene against the Prior of Wenlock; but the prosecution failed, because the Prior, having demised the premises to one Dionisia, was not actual Tenant thereof. [6]

[1] Domesday, fo. 258, b, 1.
[2] Supra, Vol. I, p. 149.
[3] Supra, Vol. IV, p. 22.
[4] Supra, Vol. III, p. 241.
[5] Rot. Hundred. II, 62.
[6] Assizes, 40 Hen. III, m. 11.

222 PREEN.

William fitz John, as son and heir of John fitz Walter, sued the Prior for a virgate in Prene, but with no better success, for the Prior showed that the Father had only had a demise of the premises from the Prior, [7]- a life-lease, I presume. A third Suitor, Walter, son and heir of Alexander fitz Walter, recovered a messuage and half virgate in Prene from the Prior, according to the Assize-Roll; [8] but a cotemporary Fine shows the said Walter quit-claiming a messuage, half-virgate, and six acres to the Prior, whereof was Suit of mort d'ancestre, and receiving in return a life-lease of the premises at a rent of 4s. At the Assizes of 1272, the Suits of Church Prene and Holt-Prene were reported by the Jurors of Condover Hundred as having been withdrawn from the Sheriff's-Tourn, seventeen years previously. The Hundred-Roll of 1274 repeats the substance of this statement, alleging the withdrawal of Great and Little Preen, from the Greater Hundred-Court to Castle Holgate, as the act of Earl Richard, King of Almagne. [9] It seems too that the Knights Templars, the existing Lords of Holgate, still withheld the said suit from Condover Hundred.

In 1291, Pope Nicholas's Taxation gives the Prior of Wenlock's Temporalities at Preone as 8. 3s. 4d.: viz., from two carucatea of land, 2; from annual rents and from a Mill, 5; from labour-dues, 5s.; perquisites of Court, 5s.; from hay, 10s.; and from a Dove-cote, 8s. 4d. The profits on moveable Stock (viz. two Cows and three Sows) are further set down as 6s. 9d. [10] It would seem, from one expression in this statement, that the Cell was presided over by an Officer called the Prior of Preone. The same Officer is called merely Custos in an Inquisition which I shall now set forth, and which shows more of the real state of this Cell of Wenlock than any other document. A Writ of King Edward I, dated April 6, 1301, informs the Escheator-citra-Trent that "Henry Prior of Wenlock has presented his fellow-monk, Brother Roger of Little Hereford, to the custody of the Cell of Prene, vacant by the resignation of Brother Richard de Wystanstowe, late Custos thereof:- that such presentment had been made to the King, as Guardian of the Infant heir of Philip Burnel, inasmuch as the Prior's Predecessors had always been wont to present the Custodes of Preen to the Lords of Holgate". The King, before he admits the Presentee, or restores to him the temporalities of Preen, wishes for further information as to the estate possessed in the aforesaid

[7] Assizes, 40 Hen. III, m. 11.
[8] Assizes, ibidem.
[9] Rot. Hundred. II, 91.
[10] Pope Nich. Taxation, p. 164.

PREEN. 223

Cell by the ancestors of the heir of Holgate. An Inquest held at Preen on April 23, 1801, found that the Cell was held of the Lord of Holgate;- that, in cases of vacancy, the said Lord had custody thereof, till the Prior, whose right it was to provide a Custos, had presented such Custos to the said Lord; that then the Presentee was accustomed to receive the temporalities at the hands of the said Lord;- that the Lords of Holgate had no further estate in the said Cell than this custody, seeing that the Cell was held of them in free, pure, and perpetual almoign. [11]

In 1316, the Record called Nomina Villarum gives the Prior of Wenlock as Lord of Pieone. [12]

I must here close my account of the Wenlock Cell at Church Preen, for those later Monastic Records, which I usually refer to, when speaking of the possessions of Wenlock Priory, do not make any distinct mention of Preen. It was involved, I presume, among those forinsec, or outlying, estates, whose revenues are usually given in gross on these Rent-Rolls.

OF UNDERTENANTS here, the following probably belonged to the Wenlock Fee. At the Assizes of 1256, Henry son of Thomas fitz Hamon failed to prove his claim to a messuage and half virgate in Prene against the Prior of Wenlock, for the Prior had only demised the premises to his Father for life. [13]

In 1270-1 Hugh de Wlonkeslowe has a Writ of novel disseizin, against John le Dispenser of Prene and his wife Edith, concerning a tenement in Prene. [14] In Trinity Term 1283 a Fine was levied whereby Hugh de Leye and Alice his wife (Deforciants) surrender to Henry fitz Philip of Chircheprene, a third part of half a virgate in Chircheprene, which was of the dower of Alice, but of the inheritance of Henry. A sore sparrow-hawk stands as the consideration in this Fine.

On June 11, 1296, Richard le Scot of Chirprene grants to Reginald de Wystanstowe and Johanna his wife 14 acres in the fields of Chirprene for 20s. paid, and reserving a penny rent to the Lord of the Fee. Witnesses,- William de Brome, Hugh his son, Henry fitz Philip of Prene, William Pentarne and Henry de Prene, Clerk. [14]

PREEN CHURCH.- There cannot be a doubt that the Parish of Church Preen was originally involved in that of Cardington, in which Holt Preen still remains. The severance of this district

[11] Inquisitions, 29 Edward I, No.103.
[12] Parliamentary Writs, IV, 398.
[13] Assizes, 40 Hen. III, m. 11.
[14] Charter at Apley Park.

224 PREEN.

from Cardington Parish, and the foundation of a Church or Chapel, in conjunction with their Cell, are of course to be attributed to the Monks of Wenlock. The Hereford Registers mention no Incumbents of Preen, but the Visitation-Book of Bishop Westfaling in 1587 names a Curate here, and speaks of the Church as "annexed to that of Cardington". This was no doubt a faithful restoration of its original state. The Living, though now independent of Cardington, is only a Perpetual Curacy.


Godebald, the Domesday Tenant, under Helgot, of a hide in Preen, was a Priest. I have already adverted to some particulars of his position, [15] and shown that his successor in ecclesiastical preferment was, after his son Robert, that very Richard de Belmeis of whom I was just now speaking. [16] Who Godebald's temporal heir may have been is another question, and one quite proper to the present occasion. However I must be content with stating that his successors at Preen were the representatives of that family of Girros which we have seen to be so largely enfeoffed in the Barony of Holgate. I have no other reason for thinking that De Girros was Godebald's temporal heir. A rent-charge which was set upon Holt Preen for the benefit of St. Michael's Chapel in Shrewsbury Castle we shall hear more of presently. It is an extraordinary circumstance. Perhaps Godebald, Earl Roger's friend and adviser, was Incumbent of St. Michael's, and thus charged his temporal estate for the benefit of his successors in that Chaplaincy.

In 1194, the Escheat-Roll, which I have so often quoted as furnishing the income of Robert de Girros's estates, includes a sum of 16s., being half a year's ferm of his estate at Prene. A second half-year's ferm of 16s. is acknowledged by the Escheator in the Roll of 1195.

Robert de Girros "the second", as I have usually called him, made a grant in Preen to Haughmond Abbey, a grant which I will not venture to date more nearly than between 1215 and 1235. It was of all the land which Adam de Gyros held of the Grantor in Prune, with the services of the said Adam and his heirs, viz. 17s. per annum. The Grant reserves to Adam all his rights as Tenant, and reserves to the Grantor all those easements in the Bosc

[15] Vol. I, pp. 109, 111; II, p. 201.
[16] Supra, p. 221.


of Prune, which he retained when he enfeoffed the said Adam. The Canons are also to pay out of the said rent 5s. yearly at Michaelmas to the Chapel of St. Michael in Shrewsbury Castle, in lieu of all services falling on the Grantor or his heirs. For this concession, the Canons gave Robert de Gyros 13. Witnesses,- John le Strange, Roger de Say, Vivian de Roshale, William fitz Alan, [17] William Chaplain, Robert de Staunton, Robert Palmer, William Palmer, and Roger de Gyros. [18] I will presently speak more particularly of the interest thus acquired by Haughmond Abbey in Holt-Preen.

In a Fine of Easter Term 1232 we have the first indication of the Knights Templars getting a footing in Holt Preen.- Peter Cementarius and Matilda his wife (Impedients) acknowledge and warrant their gift of a carucate in Holprene to Brother Robert, Master of the Templars in England (Plaintiff by his Attorney Ralph fitz William). The Master and his successors were to hold the premises of the chief lords of the fee for ever. For this Fine the Master gave 5 merks.

The Survey of Shropshire Forests, taken in 1235, draws a clear distinction between Great and Little Preen. "Item, the Bosc of Prene was viewed;- well-kept in respect of underwood; but there is little oak timber therein, and it pertains to the Prior of Wenlock's Liberty. Item,- the Bosc of Prene Girros was viewed;- much fallen of old, by reason of the liberties (of the forest), [19] but reasonably well kept (now) in respect of oak-trees and underwood. In the aforesaid Boscs there be few Beasts, except such as pass backwards and forwards".

Another Tenant of Robert de Girros in Holt Preen was Henry de Girros. The first I find of him is in 1247, when he appears as a Juror in a Wenlock Inquest. The Hundred-Roll of 1255 makes Little Prune to be one hide (its Domesday measurement); but it seems that the Wenlock Monks, here called "the Monks of Prune", had added a third of Little Prune to their other estate at Great Preen. The remaining two thirds are said to be held by Henry Girrhos (one of the Jurors who made the Report). The Manor paid neither stretward nor motfee, nor did it any suit (to County or Hundred). [20] Here we must understand the Seigneury of William Mauduit to have been still existent, if not some mesne interest also of Robert

[17] Of Drayton, I presume. Vide supra, pp. 35, 36, 37.
[18] Harleian MSS. Number 446. Quatern. xii, fo. 6.
[19] Vide supra, Vol III, p. 215, note 6.
[20] Rot. Hundred. II, 62, 63.

226 PREEN.

de Girros's Coheirs. The Tenant interest of the Templars is alluded to in another part of the same Hundred-Roll, where it is said that "the Templars of Lidley hold 20 acres (of forest) at Parva Prona and have destroyed the whole covert, which is in the Forest". [21]

At the Assizes of 1256 we have Alice de Prene giving half a merk for leave to compound her suit of dower with the Master of the Templars. [22]

At the Forest Assizes of 1262 Henry de Girros was amerced 5.. for vert. Soon after this, as "Henry le Gyros", he sells and confirms to Roger Sprenghose of Longenolre all the tenements which he had in Holt-prene, with all homages, services, and appurtenances. Witnesses,- Sir John le Strange, Sir Griffin son of Wenonewin, Sir John le Strange Junior, Hamo his brother. [23] At the Assizes of 1267, Petronilla, widow of Martin de Plesse (Plaish), sued Reginald de Plesse and Juliana de Prene for diaseizing her of a messuage and 7 acres in Holtprene; but it was proved that Martin de Plesse, in his lifetime, had sold the Premises to William, brother of Juliana, and that the said William had given them to Juliana. On the forfeiture of the Templars in 1308 the Seigneury of Holt Preen seems to have remained with the estate of Edward Burnell, as Lord of Holgate. At all events the Feodary drawn up on Edward Burnell's death in 1316 gives Holt Prene as a member of Holgate. [24] It is clear however that the principal tenant-interest went, like other estates of the Templars, to the Knights Hospitallers. [25] The latter Order was in 1338 receiving the following income from Prene:- From a messuage and garden, 3s.; 100 acres of land, 50s. , common pasture, 20s.; 6 acres of meadow, 6s.; assized rents, 47s. 11d.; pleas and perquisites of Courts (including probably a Court at Long Stanton), 20s. [26] The Total of 7. 6s. 11d. was chargeable with

[21] Rot. Hundred. II, 62, 63.
[22] Assizes, 40 Henry III, m. 14 dorso.
[23] Haughmond Chartulary: Tit. Preene. The testing clause of this Deed has its historical and genealogical bearings. Griffin ap Wenhunwin, Prince of Powis, was Son-in-law of the elder John le Strange. The probable relationship of the Grantee to all the Witnesses I have already suggested. These three Stranges and Griffin ap Wenhunwin occur in a cotemporary document, viz. as summoned to Ludlow, to oppose Lewellyn, by a Writ of January 13, 1263 (Hist. Shrewsbury, I, 126). In the subsequent convulsions of the Realm, the elder John le Strange, his son Hamo, and Roger Sprenghose held fast by the Crown, Griffin and the younger John le Strange sided with Montfort.
[24] Inquisitiona, 9 Edw. II, No. 67. See also Vol. IV, p. 36, for another cotemporary mention of Holt Preen as connected with Castle Holgate.
[25] Vide supra, Vol. V, p. 124.
[26] The Hospitallers is England (Camden Society), p. 199.


stipends paid to a Bailiff and other officers, and also with a pension to Haughmond Abbey, which I will now account for.-

HAUGHMOND FEE.- Adam de Girros, or his heirs, seem to have conveyed their estate at Holt Preen to the Templars of Lydley, who accordingly remained liable for the 17s. rent, due from the said Adam to Haughmond Abbey. On the forfeiture of the Templars in 1308, the Abbot was prevented from receiving his rent. He complained to the King,- Edward II, I think. A Writ of the King, addressed to the Barons of the Exchequer, recites the above particulars as to 17s. rent, due from the Templars to the Abbot, and orders that justice be done to the latter. Another Writ, which, if Edward II's, was expedited on June 18, 1309, orders John le Strange, as Custos of the Templars' lands in Shropshire, to pay the Abbot 17s. annual rent out of the escheated tenements in Holt-prene, with a year's arrears thereof. In 1338 a Pension was still paid to Haughmond Abbey by the Knights Hospitallers for the Templar estate at Prene; but it had been reduced, by composition, to 16s.


"THE same Helgot holds Belleurdine. Edmund held it (in Saxon times) and was a free man. Here is half a hide, geldable. The (arable) land is (enough) for 2 ox-teams. In demesne there is half a team, and (there are) one Serf and two Boors with half a team. The Manor (in King Edward's time) was worth 10s. (per annum). Now it is worth 4s". [1]

The Lords of Castle Holgate retained the Seigneury of Belswardine during most of the period with which I am concerned. De Girros had apparently a mesne interest here, as in many other Holgate Manors. The first whom I can name, as probably Tenant-in-Fee here, was Roger Welcume. The years 1160 and 1180 are proximately the limits of certain Deeds of Humbald Prior of Wenlock, Gervase Paganell of Dudley, and Robert Prior of Wenlock, which I have already set forth, and which are attested by Roger Welcome. [2] My reason for thinking that he was of Belswardine is that

[1] Domesday, fo. 268, b, 1.
[2] Vo1s. III, pp. 235, 296; IV, p. 42.


in the Forest-Roll of 1180 he is called "Roger Welcome in Bodleswurth". He was then assessed 12d. for an imbladement of one acre of forest land.

The next Lord of Belswardine was that William de Belswardine whom I have shown to have been a Coparcener in Acton Pigott at the close of the twelfth, and the beginning of the thirteenth, century. As William de Beddlesworth' he appears as a Recognizor or Juror on the Assize-Roll of 1201. In 1204 William de Belleswrde fines one merk "to have a Praecipe at Westminster, concerning 4 virgates of land, with their appurtenances in Belleswrth, against William de Bassecherche". [3] This suit probably concerned the whole Manor; and, as I have said under Acton Pigot, William de Belswardine's successor both there and at Belswardine was William de Baschurch. At the Assizes of 1221, Walter fitz Roheis, in right of his wife Matilda, alleged to be heir of her Mother, Christiana fitz Ralph, claimed three-quarters of a virgate in Blidewurthin against William de Baschirche. The Jury found that Christiana died in the time of Henry II, and not of Richard I, as the Plaintiffs asserted. The Plaintiffs were therefore nonsuited, but they were excused any amercement, on account of poverty. [4] Somewhat later than this, as I think, William de Bassechirche is found attesting a grant to Buildwas Abbey, which I shall give under Leighton. On October 28, 1227, I find that Robert de Clifton was Lord of this Manor, in right of his wife Amelina; but how she inherited it I cannot say. A Fine of that date gives Thomas fitz William as claiming the Manor of Bedleswurth against the said Robert and Amelina under an assize of mort d'ancestre. For a sum of 10s. he renounces his claim, in favour of the said Tenants and the heirs of Amelina.

On the day following, another fine was levied between Robert de Clifton and Amilia his wife, Plaintiffs, and Swanilda de Becleswrth, Deforciant, concerning the customs and service which the Plaintiffs required from the Deforciant for a tenement held by her under them in Becleswrth. The suit thus terminated was one of Grand Assize. The Plaintiffs had required the Defendant to provide one horseman in the King's Army-of-Wales at her own cost, whilst she asserted that the Plaintiffs were bound to find the horse, and she only to find the rider. The Plaintiffs, for themselves and the heirs of Amilia, now renounce their claim, whilst the Defendant agrees to pay an annual rent of 6d. for the half virgate which she held under

[3] Rot. Pip. 6 John, Salop.
[4] Assizes, 6 Hen. III, m. 6.


the Plaintiffs on the day when this Fine was levied. In Easter Term 1234, Robert de Clifton was one of the Jurors (and I think Knights) who appeared at Westminster in the Suit of Fitz Warin versus De Burwardsley, already noticed. In 1235 the Surveyors of the Shropshire Forests reported "the Boscs of Belleswurthin and Sheinton to be well kept as regarded oak-trees and underwood". Both Manors, it will be remembered, were within the jurisdiction of Shirlot Forest. The Feodaries of 1240 are at variance about the tenure of Bedlesworth. Two Rolls give it as half a fee or a whole fee, held by Robert de Clifton under Hugh de Kilpec; a third is more correct in calling it half a fee held under Thomas Mauduit. [5] I find Robert Clifton sitting on a Wenlock Jury in 1247, on a Ludlow Inquest in 1252, and on an undated Inquest at Worfield, which probably came between the two. In 1256 he had been succeeded by his son Richard, who is set down on the Condover Hundred-Roll as holding Beclesworthin, of the fee of Sir Robert de Girros, for half a hide of land (the Domesday estimate). The Manor paid 4d. per annum for stretward and motfee, and did suit to both County and Hundred. [6] The Seigneury of Mauduit is here omitted; but of course it existed.

At the Assizes of January 1256, Richard de Harley was attached to answer Richard son of Robert de Clyfton, for a trespass. He had entered the wood of the Plaintiff in Beldeswrth, had beaten his men, and carried off timber, contrary to the peace. Harley denied the injury and violence, and alleged that the wood in question was his own. The Sheriff was ordered to make a perambulation between the estates of the Litigants, which was done. The boundaries determined upon are not given; but four knights who were present are named. They were Odo de Hodnet, Stephen de Buterlegh, Peter de Muneton, and William de Leighton. [7] The withdrawal of Bedleswrthyn from the Great Hundred-Court of Condover, as alleged at the Assizes of 1272, has been noticed under Sheinton. The Hundred-Roll of 1274 alleges a withdrawal from both County and Hundred, and charges it against Earl Richard, that is, the King of Almagne, late Lord of Holgate. The Knights Templars, who succeeded Earl Richard in that Lordship, still arrogated the suit of Belswardine to Castle Holgate. [8]

Meantime Robert Burnell, anticipating, no doubt, his future acquisition of the Barony of Holgate, was buying up some tenements

[5] Testa de Nevill, pp. 48, 50, 46.
[6] Rot. Hundred. II, 62.
[7] Assizes, 40 Hen. III, m. 7.
[8] Rot. Hundred. II, 91.


in Belswardine. The Fines by which he effected his purchases passed on November 18, 1272, at Salop. They are curious, as showing the technical forms adopted by this great Lawyer.

1. Walter de Conede, Plaintiff, quit-claims to William le Fraunceys, Tenant, a messuage and bovate in Bedeleswurth, which had been subject of a suit of Grand Assize. William now, at instance of Walter, concedes the premises to Robert Burnell and his heirs, for a sum of six merks;- to be held of the Lords of the Fee.

2. William le Fraunceys of Badeleswurthyn, Impedient, acknowledges himself to have given a moiety of 1 virgates in Badeleswurthyn to Robert Burnell, Plaintiff, represented by Malculine de Harley;- to hold to Burnell and his heirs, paying a rent of one rose to the Grantor, and performing all capital services. This Fine purports to be the conclusion of a suit of charter-warranty, and Burnel gives a Sore Sparrow-hawk.

3. Walter de Conede, Plaintiff, quit-claims to Richard de Clyfton, Tenant, a half-virgate in Bedeleswurth, whereof was Suit-at-law. Richard, at the instance of Walter, concedes the same to Robert Burnell and his heirs, to hold of the chief lords of the fee. For this Burnell paid 4 merks to Walter de Conede.

At the Assizes of 1292 the Jurors for Condover Hundred presented that John de Le and Eva his wife held the Vill of Bedlesworthyn; that it had been used to attend the Sheriff's-Tourn twice in a year, by its Provost and four men, till twenty years past. The said Suit was valued at 12d. per annum; and, the said John and Eva not appearing, the Suit of Bedlesworthyn was declared to be in manu Regis, as a thing taken in distress (nomine districionis). [9]

I must here discontinue this subject for want of further evidences. I neither know who the above John de Le was, nor how he succeeded to Belswardine, nor under whom he held the Manor. The Burnel Inquisitions of the period immediately subsequent take no notice of any Seigneural or Tenant-right possessed by that family in this Manor.


"THE same Helgot holds Harlege. [1] Edric, Ulmar, Elmund, and

[9] Placita Coronae, 20 Edw. I, m. 30.
[1] Domesday Jo. 268, b, 1.


Edric held it (in Saxon times), for four Manors, and were free men. Here are IIII hides, geldable. There is (arable) land for 4 ox-teams. In demesne are 1 teams; and III Serfs, I Villain, and I Boor. Here is a Mill, and a Wood which will fatten 100 swine. In King Edward's time the Manor was worth 21s. (per annum). Now it is worth 40s. He (Helgot) found it waste".

That the heirs and successors of Helgot did not retain the Seigneury of all his Domesday estates, is a fact suggested by the history of Broseley, [2] but made quite certain by that of Harley. In short, we never hear of the Lord of Holgate as concerned at Harley, except in Domesday. The Manor was annexed, and probably by Henry I, to the Honour of Montgomery. As to the Feoffees of this Manor, they were members of a family which took its name from the place, and which was seated here at least as early as the reign of Henry II. Much have Heralds and Genealogists laboured to prove the antiquity of a name which good fortune and high desert have conspired to render illustrious; but the ordinary antiquity of a knightly family is all that belongs to the race of Harley. The Coronets of De Vere and of Mortimer, borne in later times by the representatives of this House, were achieved rather than inherited. Its origin, comparatively humble, and as yet unexplored, shall now be our subject.

The Register of Wenlock Priory contains a memorandum of certain transactions between the Monks and two successive Lords of Harley. This document I quote as I find it, [3] its grammatical inaccuracies not being detrimental to its meaning.

Libertates pro tenentibus Sancte Milburge in Harley.

Sciant presentes et futuri quod Edwardus qui tunc temporis dominus fuit de Harleia concessit et in perpetuam elemosynam dedit Deo et Ste Milburge de Wenloke et monachis ibidem Deo servientibus pro anima patris sui et matris sue necnon uxoris sue et omnium parentum suorum assiamentum nemoris sui de Herleia sine vasto, et pascua nemoris sui pecoribus suis, ita tamen quod, pro hac autem concession et libertate habenda supradicti Loci monachi dederunt eidem Edwardo unam mansuram in Wenloke, liberam et quietam. Sed, postquam Hernulfus, qui eidem Edwardo in hereditate successit, recepit honorem illum, orta est quedam dissensio inter illum et monachos, unde monachi dederunt sexdecim solidos, tali pacto ut ipse in pace concederet eandem

[2] Supra, Vol. II, p. 2.
[3] Wenlock Register (at Willey), fo. 6.


donacionem et eandem pactionem;- quod et ipse fecit, nam concessit prefatam donacionem et helemosynam sicut diffinitum eat, consensu uxoris sue et heredum suorum.

It is evident that the Monk who wrote this memorandum had before him two Deeds, in one of which Edward, Lord of Harley, granted easements and pasture in Harley Wood to the Monks of Wenlock, in exchange for a House in Wenlock. The other Deed was a concession of his predecessor's gift, by Hernulf, Lord of Harley, for an additional sum of 16s. paid by the Monks.

Now the Sequel will show that this Edward and Hernulf, however related to each other, were Lords of Harley at a period antecedent to any other Record. Probably the first half of the twelfth century was their era, and they, one or both of them, were ancestors of the Harleys.

The next Lord of Harley whom I can name was Malcoline de Harley. We have seen him attesting a Deed of Henry Prior of Wenlock, between 1176 and 1190. [4] In 1180 the Justices of the Forest, visiting Shropshire, entered the following assessment on their Schedule of Imbladements:- In Herleia, de Malcolum pro 30 acris frumenti et 20 acris avene- 40 sol.

Again, in the year ending Michaelmas 1185, one Malculun had fined 100s. with Justices of the Forest for a new assart. The money had been paid at once. On November 22, 1192, we have Malcolumb de Harlehe attesting a famous Charter of Bishop Novant to Buildwas Abbey. In 1198 one Malculum accounted at the Exchequer as Deputy-Sheriff of Shropshire under William Fitz Alan. In Easter Term 1200, we have Maucolum de Herleia as a Juror (and clearly a Knight), sitting on the Grand Assize which I have mentioned under Nordley Regis. At the Assizes of 1203 Maukolum de Harleg was a Juror in similar causes and was also a Surety for the amercement inflicted on Warner de Wililey, his neighbour at Kenley. At the Forest Assizes of March 1209, Maucoline de Harlegh was assessed 3s. 6d. for an imbladement of 15 acres of oats, within Regard of the Long Forest.

WILLIAM DE HARLEY, the next who occurs of this name, was, I imagine, Lord of Harley; but it is clear that he was not the son of Malcolumb. At the Assizes of 1221, Thomas de Lega withdrew a suit of novel disseizin which he had moved against William de Harleg for a tenement in Harleg. His Sureties were Osbert and Hugh de Blakeway, and Roger Sprenghose. [5] William de Harley's success

[4] Supra, Vol. III, p. 294.
[5] Assizes, 6 Hen. III, m. 1 dorso.


against John de Harley in another suit has been told under Acton Burnell. [6] Also his occurrence as Surety for Gerin Burnell and William Corbet has been already noticed. [6] At these same Assizes William de Harley occurs in another and more curious relation. As son and heir of Robert Malherve he was called upon, to warrant his Father's grant of a messuage in Wenlock, by one John fitz * * *, the Grantee, claiming to be his Tenant. He did so willingly (libenter) and was dismissed sine die. It appears that his previous neglect to back his Tenant had enabled the Prior of Wenlock, as Seigneural Lord, to interfere with the Tenant's design of building on the said messuage, and to distrain the said Tenant's goods; therefore the said Tenant sued him, to the end that "he should acquit the said Tenant as regarded the Prior, since the said Tenant had rendered whatever was due to the said William de Harley". [7] Doubtless this messuage in Wenlock was the same with the mansura which a former Prior had given to Edward, Lord of Harley. Probably the latest occurrence of William de Harley belongs to the interval between 1226 and 1231, when he was one of the Feoffees-in-trust to whom Warner and Petronilla de Wililey conveyed their estates, as mentioned in a former Volume. [8]

The Genealogists make William de Harley to have been succeeded by a son Nicholas. Such a person has been mentioned already as having married Alice, daughter of Roger, son of Ralph de Presthope. [9] I cannot question this statement on the ground of any apparent inconsistency of date; but, as I hear nothing else of Nicholas de Harley, I am inclined to think that he was only a Cadet of his House. Certainly in 1240 the name of the Lord of Harley was Richard. Richard de Harle held a knight's-fee in Harle of the Fief of William de Cantilupe, who then had the Honour of Montgomery. [10] In May 1247 Richard de Harley and Adam de Harley were Jurors in an Inquest at Wenlock. [11] The same year Richard de Harley and Hugh de Beckbury were amerced half a merk for not producing one whose sureties they were. In 1250 Richard de Harley appears as claimant of a great part, if not the whole, of the Manor of Neen Sollars. [12] His title, grounded probably on the marriage of some ancestor, does not appear to have been recognized. In Michaelmas Term 1253, he sat as Juror on an important Inquest touching the

[6] Supra, pp. 136, 124.
[7] Assizes, 6 Hen. III, m. 7.
[8] Supra, Vol. II, pp. 55, 56.
[9] Supra, Vol. III, p. 292.
[10] Testa de Nevill, p. 46.
[11] Supra, Vol. III, p. 256.
[12] Supra, Vol. IV, pp. 293, 295-6.


right of Patronage of Haughmond Abbey. In 1255 the Condover Hundred-Roll registers Sir Richard de Harleg as holding Harleg for III hides, of the Fief late Sir William de Canteloy's. He paid the proportionate sum of 2s. for stretward and motfee, a proof that the Domesday hidage of the Manor had been reduced one-fourth. He also did suit to the Hundred. [13] One would suppose, from Richard de Harley's style of Dominus in this entry, that he was a Knight. The next year however he was enrolled among those who held six Librates of land and were not Knights. At the Assizes of 1256 he sat as a Juror for Condover Hundred. Within the next six years he died, being in office at the time as one of the Coroners of Shropshire. [14] He was succeeded by Robert his son and heir, whose marriage with Alice, daughter of Roger de Pynelesdone, has been already set forth. [15] Its date will have been about the time of Richard de Harley's death. At the Forest Assizes in February 1262, Robert, son of Richard de Harley, stands among those who were assessed under Regard of the Long Forest. We have had Robert, Lord of Harley, as well as his Father-in-law Roger de Pevelesdone, attesting a Brockton deed of this period. [16] In Michaelmas Term, 1269, I find evidence on the Plea-Rolls, showing that Robert de Harley was dead, and that his son, being a Minor, had been committed to to the guardianship of Robert Burnell by Prince Edward. The latter, I presume, had an interest in the matter as being Custos of the infant heir of Cantilupe, who was Seigneural Lord of Harley. The evidence in question is as follows.- In the Term above stated Robert Burnell names an Attorney in a plea which he had coram Rege against William de Corf. [17] Later in the Term the suit was adjourned to Hilary Term 1270. It is expressed to be a suit against William de Corve, Henry de Pres of Wenlok, and William his brother, "who had entered upon the bosc of Robert Burnell, in Harleye (which bosc he had in custody by commission of the Lord Edward) and who had cut down trees therein to the extent of 40 damages. [18] I catch another glimpse of this suit on the Roll of Easter Term, 1270. The Sheriff, Uryel de St. Pierre, [19] had been ordered to have the bodies of William Corve and Henry Preest in

[13] Rot. Hundred. II, 62. Richard de Hasleg is written as Foreman of the jurors who took this Inquest. It is obvious that this is a mere error of the Scribe.
[14] Placita Coronae, 66 Hen. III, in. 22.
[15] Supra, Vol. IV, p. 192.
[16] Supra, Vol. IV, p. 111, note 10.
[17] [18] Placita, No. 148, memb. 2. No. 149, mm. 26, 28. No. 166, m. 3 dorso.
[19] We thus ascertain the era of a Sheriff of Shropshire, whose name does not appear on the Pipe-Rolls. Urian de St. Pierre seems to have been in office from Michaelmas 1269 to March 10, 1271.


Court on the Quinzaine of Easter. He had neglected to do so, and had further orders to produce them on the octaves of the Holy Trinity. He was also amerced 10 (or two sums of 10 each) for his previous default. [20] The Inquest taken in December 1278, on the death of George de Cantilupe, is in part missing. It seems to have mentioned Harley among the Manors pertaining to the Barony of Montgomery. [21] Accordingly, in Easter Term 1280 I find Milisent, widow of Eudo is Zuche (one of George de Cantilupe's sisters and heirs), impleading Richard, son of Robert de Harley, for the service of a knight's-fee in Harley. [22] I conclude that the said Richard was now of age; indeed we know that within the next three years he married Burga de Wililey, that great heiress whose estates thereafter contributed so much to the importance of this family.

The Feodary of 1284 gives Richard de Hale as holding Hale for half a knight's-fee under Milisent la Zouche.

For the last ten years of Edward I's reign the public offices and employments of Richard de Harley were numerous. As holding lands or rents of 20. yearly value and upwards, he was summoned for military service in foreign parts, and to be at the Muster in London on July 7, 1297. In the same year he appears as an Assessor and Collector of Taxes in Shropshire and Gloucestershire. In 1299, 1300, 1301, 1306 he occurs as a Commissioner of array, a purveyor of provisions, or in other matters connected with the King's forces. In 1300 he was a Justice of Oyer and Terminer. In the same year and also in 1305, 1306, and 1307 he sat in several Parliaments as Knight of the Shire of Salop. [23] As a Commissioner of array, a Conservator of the peace, a Justice for special purposes, or a Knight of the Shire, his name occurs in eighteen Writs of Edward II, between the years 1307 and 1316. He attended the Parliament of Lincoln which sat from January 27 to February 20, 1316, and apparently died within the next month; for the Return to a King's Writ, of March 5 following, certifies Robert de Harley to be Lord of the Vills of Kenley and Harley in the County of Salop. He was in like manner returned as one of the Lords of Aston, Herefordshire, and of Idbury and Foxcotefield in Oxfordshire; [24] but these estates were not inherited like Harley. They came to Robert de Harley in right of his wife Margaret de Brampton. Of this marriage I have already given the particulars. [25] Suffice it to observe

[20] Placita, No. 156, m. 3 dorso.
[21] Calendar, Vol. I, p. 49.
[22] Abbreviatio Placitorum, p. 198.
[23] Parliamentary Writs, I, 657.
[24] Ibid., IV, 977.
[25] Supra, Vol. IV, pp. 253-4.


that the importance of the family of Harley was so increased thereby, as that its history and descent from that day to this are less matters of curious research than of large notoriety. The Record which I have already quoted gives evidence of the continued influence possessed by Robert de Harley till the close of Edward II's reign. For subsequent events, I may safely refer to those Genealogical Collections which cease to be untrustworthy as soon as they appeal to public Records and discard family traditions.

OF UNDERTENANTS in Harley, I have but few to notice. We find Roger de Blakewey assessed at 20d. per annum in January 1250, in respect of 2 acres of forest-land; and Robert de Blakeway amerced in 1259 for some trespass. Richard son of Sibil de Harleye occurs as a Juror for Condover Hundred at the Assizes of 1292. The Prior of Wenlock seems to have had some small landed interest in Harley besides a right of pasture. A portion too of the tithes was apparently his. Some allusions to these matters will recur under Wigwig.


This was, of course, originally a Chapel, subject perhaps to Cound. The Taxation of 1291 gives the Church of Harleye (in the Archdeaconry and Deanery of Salop, and the Diocese of Lichfield) as worth 3. 6s. 8d. per annum. [26] This is the earliest notice which we have of a Church which was probably founded more than a century before. In 1341 the Assessors of the Ninth rated the Parish of Harleye at 30s. Great storms had destroyed the corn crops, a murrain had prevailed among the sheep, the inhabitants were so poor as to be scarce able to till the ground; also the glebe land and other income of the Church went to make up the Church-Taxation, but were not to be estimated in assessing the present tax. [27] In 1534-5 the preferment of William Dyeson, Rector of Harley, was valued at 6. per annum, which sum was chargeable with 6s. 8d. for procurations, and 1s. 3d. for Synodals. [28]


RICHARD DE KYNSEDELEYE, Clerk, instituted March 24, 1301. Patron,- Sir Richard de Harley, Knight.

[26] Pope Nich. Taxation, p. 244.
[27] Inquis. Nonarum, p. 191.
[28] Valor Ecclesisasticus, III, 184.
[29] Blakeway's MSS.


THOMAS DE LANGETON, Clerk, instituted July 10, 1805. Same Patron. He resigned in October 1312.

JOHN DE LEICESTRE, acolyte, instituted August 28, 1313. Same Patron. This Rector died August 24, 1381.

HENRY SON OF RICHARD DE HARLEY, acolyte, admitted September 8, 1331. Patron,- Sir Robert de Harley, Knight. This Rector has a license of non-residence, studendi gratia, on October 31 following. On June 13, 1352, the Bishop issued a commission to inquire why Henry de Harley had held, for more than a year past, the two benefices of Berrington and Harley, and whether he had a dispensation. [30] Henry de Harley died May 29, 1358.

SIR JOHN LE PANNER, Priest, admitted June 9, 1353 (Patron,- Robert de Harley), died in 1368.

WILLIAM DE STAPELFORD, Priest, admitted March 15, 1368 (Patron,- Robert de Harley), resigned in 1403.

SIR WILLIAM DE CONYNGTON, Chaplain, was instituted July 10, 1403, on presentation of John Daras and Johanna his wife.

Lydley Heys.

DOMESDAY notices this Manor as follows.- "Anti holds of the Earl, Litlega. He himself held it (in Saxon times), and was a free man. Here is one hide, geldable. The arable land is (sufficient) for II ox-teams. Here (those teams) are, with II Radmans. Here is a wood which will fatten 30 Swine. The former value (of the Manor) was 10s. (per annum). Now it is worth 8s". [1] A remarkable concurrence of circumstances assures us that in the Saxon Auti, Domesday Lord of Lydley and Lee Botwood, we have only a recurrent mention of Outi, that Saxon who, having been Lord of Quat in the Confessor's days, continued to hold it under Earl Roger in 1086. His forfeiture and the redistribution of his estates by King Henry I, are facts which I have ventured to assume in the case of Quat. [2] I may now seal that assumption by exhibiting cognate features in the history of Lydley.

Lydley I suppose to have included the two townships of Botvyle

[30] Lichfield Registers, A, fos. 18-b,19, 66-b; B, foe. 6-b, 209-b, 228.
[1] Domesday, fo. 259, b.
[2] Supra, Vol. III, pp. 173-4.


and Comley, as well as a third township called Botley, now lost; and there can be little doubt that the whole, or a great part, of this Manor was granted by Henry I, either to the cotemporary Lord of Pulverbatch or the cotemporary Lord of Holgate. In the latter case the Grantee will have been Herbert fitz Helgot, the very person to whom, with his brothers, King Henry I. has been supposed to have granted Outi's forfeited Manor of Quat.

I have fixed the approximate period (1127-1138) during which Herbert de Castello, the son of Herbert fitz Helgot, must have succeeded to the Barony of Holgate. [3] He married Emma, Lady of Pulverbatch; and sometime before the year 1185, Herbert de Castello, either singly or with his wife Emma, granted Lydley to the Order of the Templars.

I must now revert to a former question, [4] and fix more nearly, if I can, the precise period at which the Knights of the Temple obtained a footing in Shropshire.-

The earliest extant Pipe-Roll of Henry II, viz. that which belongs to the year ending Michaelmas 1156, has the following entry, implying a charge of 18s. 4d. per annum on the Crown revenues of Shropshire, recently authorized by the King, and made payable, through the Sheriff, to the Knights Templars.- Et in Elemosynis noviter constitutis.- Militibus de Templo 1 marc' argenti. [5]

Now, this entry does not imply an actual settlement of the Templars in Shropshire, though it did sometimes happen that a payment of "constituted alms" was charged on a particular estate of the Crown, and was in substance a transfer of such estate, or the King's interest therein, to a Religious body. [6] Henry II. seems to have made a cotemporary and similar grant to the Templars, chargeable on the revenue of nearly every County or Shrievalty in the Kingdom. [7] This annual entry on the Shropshire Pipe-Rolls continues as long as the Order of Templars held estates in England; but we must resort to other evidence, if we wish to fix the period of their first settlement in the County. The Pipe-Roll of 4 Henry II. (1158) contains a list of those, whose quota of a Donum, assessed upon the landholders of Shropshire, had been excused by the King. The Knights of the Temple stand excused 2s. 7d. [8] In 1160 another Donum was levied in Shropshire, and the Knights were excused

[3] Supra, Vol. IV, p. 54.
[4] Supra, Vol IV, p. 122.
[5] Rot. Pip. 2 Hen. II, p. 43.
[6] As at Quat (Vol. III, pp. 174-5).
[7] Rot. Pip. 2 Hen. II, passim.
[8] Rot. Pip. 4 Hen. II, p. 170.


2s. 6d. In 1162 they were excused their quota of the Danegeld then assessed in Shropshire; but the sum excused (though apparently 5s. or upwards) is obliterated in the Record, and we are thus deprived of important evidence as to the extent of their Shropshire estates. However, the year 1158, the earliest in which the Templars are thus proved to have had lands in Shropshire, is involved in that interval of 1155-1160 which I have already fixed upon as the period when they got Cardington, Enchmarsh, and half Chatwall, from the first William fitz Alan. Now, as the Templars fixed their Shropshire House at Lydley, and not at Cardington, it is reasonable to suppose that they acquired Lydley at least as early as Cardington. Probably, then, the years 1155 and 1160 will mark the period of all their Shropshire acquisitions.

In 1185, Pleas of the Forest were held in Shropshire; and Botefeld and Lidlega (entered as Vills of the Templars) were amerced 6s. 8d. for a Mill, and for neglecting the expeditation of dogs. This amercement was paid in 1188; for the Templars had not as yet obtained those franchises which, at a later period, exempted their estates from such matters of forest jurisdiction.

The Record of the Templars' possessions drawn up in the year 1185 has been already quoted under Cardington. [9] It says that the Knights had "a carucate of land at Lidlegee by gift of Sir Herbert de Castle-Holegot and confirmation of the Lord King (Henry II.). This estate was held by the Brethren in demesne, except 16 acres, thirteen of which were held by Richard de Lidlegee at a rent of 26d., and the remainder by his brother William, at a rent of 13d". At Botlegee (a place now lost) the Knights had 2 virgates of land, "by gift of the aforesaid Herbert, and by confirmation of the aforesaid King". This estate was divided into half-virgates, and leased at 5s. each half-virgate. John, Herbert, and William held half a virgate each; Edric and Herbert half a virgate between them; an odd acre and half was rented by Edric Porcher for 3d. Another part of this Record certifies that the Mill of Lidlegee was held by the Knights in demesne; another, that they held the land of Botefeld (now Botvyle) in demesne. Certain customs were common to the Templars' Tenants at Cardington, Enchmarsh, Chatwall, Botley, Linlegee (read Lidley), and other vills unnamed. They held their lands at the specified rents, quit of all customs, saving to the Knights such rights as their other Vassals rendered in case of a death, which rights however did not extend

[9] Supra, Vol. IV, p. 123.


to any charitable bequests of the dying person. The Seigneural rights in question were then a third part of the chattels of the deceased, after his debts had been paid, another third remaining to his widow, and another to his children. [10]

The sum total of the Templars' money-receipts in Shropshire was 10. 8s. 4d.

In 1190 I find the Justices of the Forest setting an amercement of half a merk on the Knights Templars' vill of Botfeld, in respect of a new mill erected there, which was held to be a pourpresture; but the amercement was cancelled, and the Knights are entered on the Roll as quit, because of the franchises secured to them by Royal Charter.

Under Gatacre, and under Great Lyth and Pulverbatch, I have spoken of Walter de Upton or Walter fitz John, also of his son variously called William fitz Walter, William de Lyth, and William de Upton. This William fitz Walter appears as claiming half a hide in Botesfeld against the Master of the Templars and under writ of mort d'ancestre.
[11] He so appears on April 23, 1200, a period at which we know that his father, Walter fitz John, was living. It is therefore clear that he claimed in right of a deceased mother, or of some ancestor of a deceased mother. I shall have other occasion for showing that Richildis, the mother of William, was an heiress, and was actually deceased at this period, also that, as her heir, and in another instance, William fitz Walter disputed his own Father's title to certain estates elsewhere. I must now quote from the Rolls the steps taken in the Suit between William fitz Walter and the Templars.

April 23, 1200. "The Assize of mort d'ancestre between William fitz Walter, Plaintiff, and the Master of the Knights of the Temple, concerning half a hide of land in Botesfeld, is put in respite till the morrow of the Holy Trinity (June 5, 1200); because the Master in person exhibits (to the Court) a Charter concerning that land, which Charter testifies that Herbert de Castellis and Emma his wife gave that land to the Temple; because also (as the Master explained) the Grantors and their heirs were bound to warrant the said land, but the said land was now in the King's hand, together with other lands of the said Herbert and Emma, and there was litigation among the heirs (of the said Herbert and Emma), and

[10] Salvo jure quod alii homines faciunt ad obitum suum, nisi illa quae caritative facere voluerist. Jus illud in obitu est tercia pars de catellis in omnibus, post debitis redditis; secunda pars uxori, et tercia pueris.
[11] Rot. Cur., Reg., II, 206.


so the Master was at present ignorant as to whom he could call to warranty of the Charter aforesaid". [11]

June 5, 1200. "A day (in one month of Michaelmas) is given to William fitz Walter and the Master of the Templars, to hear sentence concerning half a hide in Bradeford" (read Botfeld). [12]

Here the Rolls fail to give succeeding steps; but on October 13, 1201, the Quinzaine of St. Martin (Nov. 25) is given to the same parties, concerning half a hide in Botesfeld. [13] Again on-

November 25, 1201, a day in three weeks of Hilary (i.e. Feb. 8, 1202) is given to the same parties, and meanwhile an Inquisition was to ascertain whether John de Kilpec held his lands hereditarily, or in the way of custody, and as intrusted to him by the King. [14]

Here we lose all sight of this interesting Suit, which, had it been more fully preserved, might have told us how the Kilpecs were heirs of Emma de Pulverbatch, and how Mauduit was the heir of Herbert de Castello.

The fragments which I have quoted leave another material point in doubt. Did Herbert de Castello grant Lydley and Botvyle to the Templars out of his own Barony, or out of that of his wife? The latter appears most probable; for Emma de Pulverbatch's consent to any grant of her husband in his own Barony can only have been necessary to bar her own dower, a matter which in the year 1200 would have been irrelevant, seeing that she was dead. Again, John de Kilpec's status could hardly have been a point in the above suit, unless Botvyle had been of the Fief of Pulverbatch. And again, analogy leads us to expect that a claim by William fitz Walter would be rather in the Barony of Pulverbatch than in that of Holgate. All these considerations compel me to recur to a former doubt, and to repeat that they materially affect the question whether Auti's Manor of Lydley, etc., was not rather granted by Henry I. to the cotemporary Lord of Pulverbatch than to the cotemporary Lord of Holgate.

To continue our main subject. The Templars clearly remained in undisturbed possession of Botvyle. In Hilary Term 1243, Gregory de Botefeud [15] essoigns himself in a Suit concerning customs and service due from him to the Master of the Templars. [16]

[11] Rot. Curiae Regis, II. 205.
[12] Placita, Trinity Term, 2 John, m. 18 dorso.
[13] Placita, Mich. 3 John, m. 6 dorso.
[14] Ibidem, m. 15 dorso.
[15] Vide supra, Vol. V. p. 124, for another notice of Gregory de Botfield.
[16] Essoigns, Hil. Tm. 27 Hen. III., m. 6. 242 LYDLEY HEYS.

In 1255 the Condover Hundred-Roll tells us how the Templars of Lidley were holding Lidleg, Gumble (Comley), and Bottefelt; how they paid neither stretward nor motfee, nor did any suit (to County or Hundred). [17]

In 1267 we have William de Bottefeld amerced for some trespass. [18] At the Assizes of 1272 we hear how certain malefactors, not yet identified, had burglariously entered the house of William son of Robert de Bottefeld, had wounded the said William, murdered his son Henry, and plundered his house. The Vills of Bottefeld, Lydeley, Le Botwood, and Prene were in misericordia for not making due Inquest in the matter. [19]

Meantime, that is about the year 1263, the Praeceptor of Lidley had obtained from Richard Plantagenet, King of the Romans, a demise of the Honour of Castle Holgate with all its rights and appurtenances. [20] This tenure, as I have before explained, expired before 1284, and the Praeceptory of Lydley is seldom mentioned in public Records of a later date. In 1308 it was of course abolished, together with all other English Houses of the Order. The Knights Hospitallers, succeeding to the Templars, seem to have held the Manor of Lydley for a season. The lands and tenements in Lidleie and Leie, which we have seen [21] Griffin de la Pole surrendering to Fulk le Strange in 1312, were certain portions of Lydley and Lee Botwood which had been held by the Lords of Longnor, first under the Templars, and then under the Hospitallers. The Feodary of March 1316 gives the Earl of Arundel as Lord of Lidleye, [22] and it is probable that he had obtained the Seigneury together with that of Cardington. [23] However, the principle on which the Earl obtained the two must have been different, for he was the heir of the original Donor of Cardington; but, whether it were the Baron of Holgate or of Pulverbatch who first gave Lydley to the Templars, the Earl was the heir of neither. I suppose the matter was one of arrangement with the Hospitallers; in fact a Deed, some years later, though it does not give us the terms of the original transaction between the Hospitallers and the Earl, ratifies the surrender of both Lydley and Cardington. The Deed bears date at London

[17] Rot. Hundred. II. 63.
[18] Rot. Pipe, 51 Hen. III., Salop.
[19] Assizes, 56 Hen. III., m. 29.
[20] Rot. Hundred. II. 108. Another statement already given (Vol. IV, p. 67) would imply that the Templars had Castle Holgate as early as 1266; but that rather was the date when the King of the Romans got it from William Mauduit.
[21] Supra, p. 63.
[22] Parliamentary Writs, IV. 398.
[23] Compare Vol. V. pp. 124, 125.


on October 29, 18 Edward II. (1324). Thereby Brother Thomas Larchier, English Prior of the Hospitallers of St. John of Jerusalem, and the other Brethren of that Order remit and quit-claim to the Noble Sir Edmund, Earl of Arundel, and his heirs, all their right and claim in the Manors of Lydelee and Cardyngton, which formerly belonged to the Templars, saving however to the Order the Church of Cardington, with the site of the Rectory and all other appurtenances thereof, of which Church the Templars had had impropriate possession. The Deed further remits to the Earl the Manors of Weston and Beteby in the Isle of Axiholm (Lincolnshire), saving however the Advowson of Asthorp, in the same Isle, to the Order. The Deed was sealed in duplicate, and inter-changed. The copy from which I quote bears the seal of the Prior of the Hospitallers. [24]

Another Deed by the same Earl Edmund bears date at Clun, and passed in Edward II.'s reign, though the precise year is illegible. It is a Lease by the Earl, to four Lessees, of all his demesnes, meadows, and pastures in the Manor of Lidley, at a rent of 6., and at a further rent per head for certain live-stock which the Earl had on the premises. [25]

The Survey of the Hospitallers' Estates in England, drawn up in 1338, includes Lydleye cum membris among those Manors of the Templars which "the Hospitallers had not recovered". [26] It was occupied by the Earl of Arundel, and its annual value of 100 merks indicates that the item was inclusive of Cardington and its members.


THIS place figures in Domesday as a distinct but small Manor, three-fourths of which were held in demesne by the Palatine Earl.- "Earl Roger holds Brame. Turstin and Austin held it (in Saxon times). Here is half a hide, geldable. The (arable) land is (sufficient) for II ox-teams. Of this land Rainald has half a virgate". [1]

[24] Charter at Longnor. An Engraving of this Seal is among the Illustrations.
[25] Charter at Longnor.
[26] The Hospitallers in England (Camden Society, 1857), p. 213.
[1] Domesday, fo. 259, b.


I fortify my identification of this Manor with Broome by observing that two Saxons named Austin had been Lords of Cardington. [2]

Broome is still a township in the Parish of Cardington, and preserves one feature of its Domesday status. It still remains in Condover Hundred, in which Cardington itself neither is nor ever was. I suppose that Rainald, above mentioned, was Rainald the Sheriff; but his Successors, the Fitz Alans, do not seem to have retained any interest in Broome. Possibly their half-virgate here was too insignificant a tenement to be kept distinct from Cardington, and went to the Templars together with that Manor. But of the residue of Broome we never hear as a distinct Manor, whereas we should expect to find an estate of Royal demesne to correspond with Earl Roger's Domesday tenement. I can only conjecture that the land in question became absorbed by the Forest, or was annexed to some adjacent Manor by one of those antient but unrecorded transfers which we have a right to assume when we find that a Domesday Manor has ceased to exist independently.

In July 1280 we have William de Brome attending a Lythwood Inquest, and in 1295 attending the Inquest on Philip Burnel's death. In 1296 the same William, with Hugh, his son, attests a Deed already given under Church Preen. Whose Tenants these persons were does not transpire. If we knew that, we should probably know by what Manor Broome had been absorbed in the twelfth or thirteenth century.

Lee Botwood.

THIS Manor, like Lydley, was held by Auti at Domesday under the Norman Earl.- "The same Auti holds Botewde. He himself also held it (in Saxon times), and was free. Here is half a hide, geldable. The (arable) land is (enough) for one ox-team. Here that team is, with II radmans. The Manor was and is worth 5s. (per annum)". [1]

It would appear that, on Auti's forfeiture or removal, Lee Botwood was not, like Lydley and Quat, granted to other Feoffees, but

[2] Vide supra, Vol. V. p. 122.
[1] Domesday, fo. 259, b, 1.


was annexed to the Palatine or Royal Manor of Condover. Condover reached the hands of Henry II. with this appendage. The following Deed passed either between the years 1163 and 1166, or else in 1170. [2]

Henricus Rex Anglie et Dux Normannie et Aquitanie et Comes Audegavie Episcopo Cestrie et omnibus fidelibus suis de Salopesbir, etc. Sciatis me concessisse et dedisse Canonicis de Haghmon duas landas in Bottewode et terram in eadem foresta que vocatur Becchecota cum pasturis que ad eas pertinent quas Bletherus monachus tenuit. Testibus Gaufrido Archidiacono Cantuar', Ricardo de Camvill. [3]

We learn from this, that Botwood, while it had been in the demesne of the Crown, had been depopulated and reduced to the condition of a Forest, but that Bletherus, a hermit, had been allowed to dwell there. Two lands, or barren tracts in this district, together with some pasture, were now bestowed by Henry II. on Haughmond Abbey. Bechcote, which was added to the gift, must not be considered as a part of Botwood, but as another tract of Forest-land which had never been manorially settled.

Pope Alexander III., confirming the acquisitions of Haughmond Abbey on May 14, 1172, includes the following.- Ex dono Regis Henrici Secundi, Legam in foresta de Bottewde et Bechecote. [4] Here we have the origin of the modern name Lee Botwood, which, written at length, should be Lee in Botwood.

Henry II. was at Nottingham at Christmas 1179, and, being there, expedited another Charter to Haughmond Abbey, which was attested by Geoffrey, Bishop Elect of Lincoln, [5] and Geoffrey de Luci. This Charter gives and confirms half a hide of land in Lega apud Bottewde (that is, I presume, the whole Domesday Manor), and also 15 acres of assart towards Alwardeshed, for convenience of transit, or ad passagium, as the Deed expresses it.

At this time there was at Lee Botwood either an Oratory (a vestige of the previous hermitage) or else a Chapel, founded by the Canons of Haughmond as soon as they entered on the estate. At Bechcote too there was an Oratory or Chapel; and it would seem that some third Charter of Henry II. insured these ecclesiastical

[2] For proof of this date see Archaeological Journal, Vol. XIII. p. 152.
[3] Haughmond Chartulary, Tit. Lee Botwode.
[4] Harleian MS. 3868, fo. 11.
[5] Geoffrey Plantagenet, usually accounted as the King's second son by Rosamond Clifford. The said Geoffrey was elected Bishop of Lincoln in 1173, and renounced his election in January 1182.


foundations to Haughmond Abbey. There are two Charters of Bishop Richard Peche which bear upon this subject, and both must have passed before 1182-3, when that Prelate resigned his See. One of these Charters confirms to Haughmond the "Chapels of Lega and Bechecote", as given by King Henry II., and allows the Canons to place Chaplains in these and other Churches of their patronage, and to appropriate any residuary endowment. [6] But it appears that both Bechcote and Lee Botwood were parochially within the jurisdiction of the Church of St. Andrew of Condover. Bishop Peche's second Charter on the subject alleges therefore the consents of the Archdeacon of Salop and of all the Portioners of the Church of Conddovre, and then appropriates to Haughmond the Chapel of Lega in Bottewode, and (the Chapel) of Bechecote, with all tithes to them pertaining. "And let the said Chapels", continues the Bishop, "be served as (they are served) now, by one Canon of Haghmon, or by one Secular Chaplain, removable at the will of the Abbot, and who shall receive the Cure from the Abbot's hand so long as he shall there remain. And in the said Chapel of Lega let there be for ever a Baptistery and a right of Sepulture. [7] And let the same Abbot pay annual procuration thereon to the cotemporary Archdeacon of Salop. Witnesses,- Roger, Archdeacon of Salop; William Dean; [8] Bartholomew, John, and Thomas, Portioners of Conethere; R. Sprenshose".

I shall now quote a Record of another sort, viz a Roll of Shropshire Tenures, drawn up about the year 1211, and which purports to be a list of such persons as were then holding lands of Royal demesne. "The Abbot of Hageman", says the Record, "holds half a hide of land in Lega de Bottewud, which was a member of the King's Manor of Oundour (read Cundovre), by gift of King Henry father of King John, in perpetual almoign, and it (the estate) is of assart" (that is, it had been taken out of the Forest). "The same Abbot", continues the Record, "holds Bachecot by gift of the same King, which also was an assart taken from the same Manor (of Condover)". [9]

Henry III'a confirmation to Haughmond Abbey bears date,

[6] Harleian MSS. 3868, fo. 9.
[7] These were the great tokens of parochial independence,- the things of which the Mother Churches of that age were most tenacious. Once allowed, as in the present instance, and all claim of subjection vanished.
[8] Probably of the Rural Deanery of Shrewsbury. The Dean of Lichfield, during part of Bishop Peche's Episcopacy, was named William; but he, I presume, would have taken precedence of any Archdeacon.
[9] Testa de Nevill, p. 56.


at Portsmouth, August 1, 1258. It confirms the Vill of Lega in Bottewode with all its appurtenances, as far as the bridge called "The Quakinggebrugge", with the Chapel and Tithe of the said Vill; also all Bechecote, from the road called Havedwey to the place called Goseford, with the tithes and Oratory of the same Vill; also pasture on Long Munede (The Long Mynd), for all the Canons' cattle, and the cattle of their men and Tenants. The Condover Hundred-Roll of 1255 says that "The Lord Abbot of Haghmon holds (land) in Leybotwood, estimated at half a hide, and held in capite of the King. The Abbot paid neither stretward nor motfee for this Manor; but he attended the two great Hundred-Courts, or Sheriff's-Tourns. The Jurors knew not his Warranty for doing no other Suit. [10] The same Abbot held Becheot in capite of the King. It was not hidaged (probably as having been Forest-land); nor did it pay stretward or motfee, nor did it render any suit (to County or Hundred)".

In the year 1273 the Canons of Haughmend and the Templars of Lydley were at issue about their respective rights of common in the Woods adjacent to Lee Botwood; but, before I set forth their agreement, I must premise that the Forest of Botwood, as distinct from the Vill or Manor of Lee Botwood, was still in the Royal Demesne, except so far as it had been allotted or leased to any Grantees of the Crown. As early as the year 1199 the Templars of Lydley had assarted 40 acres in this Forest. Hence King John's Charter of July 16, 1199, gives the Order a full quittance in respect of this and other assarts. [11] The Knights were, in short, exempted from all questions of waste and regard in respect of these encroachments on the Forest. A Charter of King Henry III., dated February 10, 1227, renews these Franchises of the Templars, in respect of 40 acres of assart at Botewd, and other assarts in England and Wales. [12]

The composition before alluded to, between Guy de Foresta, Master of the English Templars, and Alan, Abbot of Haghmon, bears date December 11, 1273, and agrees, with respect to their disputes concerning common pasture in the Woods of Bottewode, as follows:- The Abbot concedes to the Master and the Brethren at Lidley common pasture in the aforesaid Wood for the swine and cattle of themselves and their men of Lidley; but in the pesson season, that is between Michaelmas and Martinmas, the beasts of neither party were to enter the Bosc of the other. Also the Abbot allows that the Master, etc., may fish in the Abbot's rivulet of

[10] Rot. Hundred. II. 62.
[11] [12] Rot. Chart. 1 John and 11 Hen. III.


Ree. In return the Master and Brethren concede to the Abbot similar rights of pasture in the Templars' Wood of Bottwode, and they remit to the Abbot all obligation to do suit at Long Stanton for three nokes which he held in that Vill; but the Abbot's Tenants there were still to do Suit. This agreement was tested by Roger Sprenghose, John de Esthope, Richard de Eton, William Marscote, and William Champneis; also by Brother Richard Lovel, then Praeceptor of Lidley; John Large, Brother Serjeant-at-Arms to the Master; [13] and Brother Geoffrey de Bocles.

In 1291 the Abbot of Haghmon's receipts from the estates now mainly under notice were as follows:- At Legh in Bottewode,- from a carucate of land, 10s.; from assized rents, 10s. 4d.; from a mill, 3s.; from one meadow, 2s. 6d. At Bechcote,- from a carucate of land, 10s.; from assized rents there and at Pykelescote, 6s. 5d.; from profits of stock on all three estates, 1. 8s. 8d. Total 3. 10s. 11d. [14]

The Roll of 1316, called the Nomina Villarum, enters the Abbot of Haghmon as Lord of Bechecote and of Leye, in Condover Hundred. On April 27, 1320, King Edward II. granted to the Abbot of Haghemon a Charter for a weekly market on Thursdays at Lega in Botewode; also of Free-Warren there and at several other places, of which I may here mention Becheeote, Wilderley, and the Long Mynde. [15]

On September 21, 1340, the Abbot of Haghmon demises to John de Wettenhull, Rector of Stretton, a parcel of waste in the fields of Le Botwood, at a rent of 3s.

On May 3, 1372, the Abbot of Haughmond demises to Edward de Acton and Elianore his wife, for their lives, and at a rent of 20s., the Grange of Crees in his Fee of Lebotwode, and a parcel of wood called Crees Park. [16]

On January 11, 1400, the Abbot demises the Manor of Lebotwood to Thomas son of Thomas de Lee, for life, at a rent of 5 merks. [17]

On November 25, 1458, the Abbot demises land in Le Botwood to John Sonkey. [18]

The Valor of 1535-6 gives the Abbot of Haghmond's assized rents in Lye Botwode as 18. 18s. 8d. [19] Out of this income the

[12] Johanne Large tunc fratre serviente Magistri.

The grade of Serviens or Esquire was common to the three great Military Orders of that period. It is fully explained in the Introduction to The Hospitallers in England, pp. lxiii, lxiv.

[14] Pope Nich. Taxation, p. 260.
[15] Rot. Chart. 13 Edw. II., No. 5.
[16] Chartulary, Tit. Cresse. Elianor, wife of Edward de Acton, was one of the Coheiresses of Longnor.
[17] [18] Chartulary, Tit. Leebotwode.
[19] Valor _Ecclesiasticus, III. 192-3.


Abbot is said to pay 2s. yearly to the Lord of Stratton (Church Stretton) for the Manor of Lye Botwood. This chief-rent I take to have been rather chargeable on Lands added to the Manor than on the Manor itself.

The Ministers' Accounts of 1541-2 contain the following Assets of the dissolved Monastery of Haughmond, [20] which I will endeavour to classify, with a view to future reference.

. s. d.

Libottwood. Rent of a messuage: 0 10 0 Rents of Tenants at will: 5 19 8 Diverse Ferms: 12 10 0 Total: 18 19 8

Bechcote. Rents of Tenants at will: 0 0 6 Ferm of a messuage and land: 2 19 4 Ferm of the Chapel: 1 0 0 Total: 3 19 10

Pikelescote and Wilderley.- Assized Rents: 0 7 8 Pikelescote. Rents of Tenants at will 0 14 4 A messuage and land: 1 0 0 Wilderley. Rents of Tenants at will: 1 0 8 Ferm of a messuage and land: 3 3 4 Appruamentum (other profits): 0 10 0 Total: 6 16 0

Cothercote. Rents of Tenants at will: 0 18 11 Land: 0 6 8 Ferm of a messuage: 0 15 8 Ferm of three capital messuages: 0 13 4 Ferm of cottages, etc: 1 8 8 Total: 4 3 3

LEE BOTWOOD CHAPEL.- That which I have already said, as to the complete appropriation and subjection of this Chapel to Haughmond Abbey, forbids us to expect further Records of its existence. Alexander, Bishop of Coventry, between 1224 and 1238, confirmed the appropriation of his Predecessor. Pope Nicholas's Taxation in 1291 does not name the Chapel; but in 1341 the Chapelry was assessed to the Ninth as a distinct Parish. The Assessors rated it at 1. 6s. 8d., adding that the small-tithes, hay-tithes, and oblations were worth one merk, and that many Tenants had thrown up their holdings under stress of poverty. [21] The Chapel is not mentioned in the Valor of Henry VIII., nor in the previous Diocesan Registers.

BEATCHCOTT CHAPEL.- Of this Chapel not a vestige remains, nor have I any further notice thereof than what has been already stated.

[20] Monasticon, VI, pp. 113, 114.
[21] Inquis. Nonarum, p. 191.



DOMESDAY notices this Manor as follows.- "Edmund holds Smerecote of the Earl, and Eldred holds it of him (Edmund). He himself (Edmund, I presume) held it (in Saxon times). Here is one hide, geldable. There is (arable) land for III ox-teams. Here are II Radmans and I Boor with one team. The wood will fatten 50 swine. The Manor was and is worth 4s. (per annum)". [1]

Eldred, Edmund's Tenant at Smethcott, was perhaps the same with Eldred recorded in Domesday as Earl Roger's immediate tenant at Actune (now Acton Scott). [2] As to Edmund, I cannot help considering him as identical with Elmund, a Saxon who is mentioned elsewhere in Domesday as the father of Alward, and as living at the time of the Survey. Of Alward, or Elward, I have spoken under Condover and Stapleton, and said that, while all his Domesday Manors were probably forfeited, most of them were annexed by Henry I. to the Honour of Montgomery. Smethcott, forfeited by what Saxon or Saxons soever, was undoubtedly thus bestowed; and in the following account we must uniformly understand that the cotemporary Lord of Montgomery was the Lord Paramount of Smethcott.

Towards the close of the twelfth century the Lords of Montgomery had a Feoffee at Smethcott, whose Christian name, William, is alone preserved. This William left three daughters and coheirs, Christiana, Matilda, and Margery. In October 1203 these Co-heiresses, being the wives respectively of John le Poer, Richard de Linley, and Baldwin fitz Robert, were claiming the Manor of Ragdon, as I have already stated. [3] Their suit does not appear to have been successful. At the same time two of them seem to have been at issue with one another about Smethcott; for the Assize-Roll of the year in question notices how Richard de Linleg and Matilda his wife, having a suit of disseizin against John le Poer and Christiana his wife, for a tenement in Smethcot, had withdrawn the same, and were in misericordia together with their Sureties. [4]

[1] Domesday, fo. 269, b, 1.
[2] Ibid., fo. 269, b, 2.
[3] Supra, Vol. V, p. 118.
[4] Assizes, 5 John, m. 4 dorso. The Sureties were Thomas de Etingeham and Roger de Pulrebech. Compare p. 201 (supra), where Roger de Pulrebech and Richard de Linley occur in a converse position. It was probably Richard de Linley's tenancy at Pulverbatch that introduced him to this neighbourhood.


Picklescott was a member of Smethcott, of which I must hereafter take distinct notice. The Haughmond Chartulary preserves a Deed which passed somewhat later than the above transactions, seeing that Christiana appears therein with a second husband, Philip de Hulega. The said Philip and Christiana join with Richard de Linleg and his wife Matilda, and with Baldwin fitz Robert and his wife Margery, in granting half Pykelescote to Robert fitz Madoc, for his homage, and for 60s. paid, and for some other consideration, not to me intelligible. [5] The same Chartulary supplies us with a still later Deed, which we may safely date as between 1217 and 1227, and which exhibits the Coheiress, Christiana, with a third husband, and the coheiress, Matilda, as deceased. Thereby Baldwin de Smethcote, son of Robert, with his (Baldwin's) wife Margaret, Sir Richard de Linleg, late husband of Matildis de Smethcote, and Sir Stephen de Patinton with Christiana his wife quit-claim to Haughmon Abbey all disputed wood between Lega (Lee Botwood) and Smethcote. Witnesses,- John fitz Alan, John le Strange, Vivian de Rossale, Philip de Stapelton, and Robert de Girros. [6]

I will now follow the lines of the three Coheiresses of Smethcott separately, till I arrive at such documents as will again exhibit them jointly. Their interests in other places, such as Aldon and Acton Scott, will give some occasional help in this investigation.

1. CHRISTIANA's successor I take to have been Roger le Poer, who occurs as a Coparcener at Aldon in 1240. [7] If so, he was, with equal probability, the son of her first husband, John le Poer. Subsequent representatives of this branch are called Pichard, but I cannot fix their affinity with Le Poer. Roger Pichard, living in 1253 and 1255, had an alleged interest in Acton Scott, but not in Aldon.

2. MATILDA, wife of Richard de Linley, had, apparently by him, a son Richard; and the said son had a daughter and sole heir. Richard son of Richard de Linley, with Alice his daughter, quit-claimed their right to a part of Pykelescote, as I shall show hereafter. I think that this Alice became the wife of Thomas Purcel, who occurs on a Smethcott Inquest in April 1253, and who in 1255 was a Coparcener in Aldon, Acton Scott, and Smethcott.

3. MARGERY was the wife of Baldwin fitz Robert; and the said Baldwin succeeded his father in a tenure-in-capite at Chirbury. His descent is therefore easily made out. He took the name of Smethcott from his wife's inheritance, and, as Baldwin de Smethcott,

[5] Chartulary, Tit. Pykelescote.
[6] Ibid., Tit. Lee Botwode.
[7] Supra, Vol. V. p. 27.


occurs once or twice as a Witness of local Deeds. Dying about September 1233, he was succeeded at Chirbury by his son Roger; but Margery his wife, surviving him, continued to hold her share of Smethcott. The years 1245 and 1255 will probably be the limits of a Deed, whereby Margery widow of Baldwin de Smethcote granted to the Abbot of Haghmon and his men of Le Botwood a right of common in all her lands at Smethcote. Witnesses,- Sir Roger Sprenchehose, John de Stepulton, Richard Anglicus, Philip Burnel. In October 1252 we have Margery de Smethcott claiming the Advowson of Acton (Acton Scott) against Roger Pichard, and other persons, unnamed in the Patent which I quote. Besides her son Roger, Margery seems to have had a son Stephen, who succeeded her at Aldon and Acton Scott, and was a Coparcener there in 1255. A Patent of January 7, 1256, pardons Stephen son of Baldwin de Smethcott for his entertainment of William de Ragdon, an outlaw. Roger de Smethcott died about April 1253, leaving a son and heir, Philip, aged 23 years, and who succeeded at once to his Father's estates on the Border. Before the year 1255 the said Philip had apparently succeeded his Grandmother at Smethcott.

The above three statements will now explain the following return on the Condover Hundred-Roll of 1255.-

"Roger Pichard, Thomas Porcel, and Philip de Smethecot hold Smethecot for half a hide of land, of the Lord Edward, the King's Son, (whose tenure is) in the name of custody of Sir William de Canteloy's heir". The Manor paid 4d. per annum for stretward and motfee, and did suit to both County and Hundred. [8]

Here we should explain that the Infant heir of William de Cantilupe, late Lord of Montgomery, was in ward to Prince Edward. The Domesday hidage of Smethcott was made up by Piclescote, reputed to be also half a hide; but the tenure of the two was now totally distinct, as will appear in the sequel. I will now resume a distinctive account of each share in Smethcott.

1. Roger Pichard of Smethcot was assessed in 1262 for an imbladement within Regard of the Long Forest. He still owed 18d. on this account in 1267. Roger Pychard was reported by the Jurors of Condover Hundred as failing in attendance at the Assizes of 1272. Smethcote was one of the Manors which were enrolled as having been held of George de Cantilupe's Honour of Montgomery in the Inquest taken after his decease. I have an extract of a Deed, said to have passed in the time of Henry III., and which clearly

[8] Rot. Hundred. II. 62.


belongs either to the very close of his reign, or the beginning of Edward I.'s. Thereby Roger Prichord of Staundon, Knight, grants to Sir Hugh Burnel, Knight, his land in Smytycot, together with his share of the Advowson of the Church. [9] The Feodary of 1284 names only two Coparceners in Smethcott, viz. Reginald le Escot and Hugh Burnell, holding the Manor of Matilda (read Milisent) la Zouch. On the death of Philip Burnel, son and heir of Sir Hugh, an Inquest, taken in July 1294, states that he held certain rents in Smethecote under Milisent la Zouch. [10] Also half Philip Burnel's Manor or estate of Smethcott was at the time of his death, as found by another Inquest, in the hands of those Luccan Merchants who had such a large lien on his property. [11] Again, on Edward Burnell's death in 1315, the Inquest states him to have held a third part of the Vill of Smethcote (including 48s. 3d. rent) under William la Zouche by one-twelfth part of a Knight's-fee. [12] This share of Smethcott was annexed to the dower of Edward Burnel's widow, Alina, who accordingly appears in the Feodary of 1316 as Lady of Smethcot, [13] the names of the other Coparceners being omitted.

2. After Thomas Purcel in 1255, I find no instance of a Purcel holding in Smethcott, though John Purcel was in 1284 a Coparcener both in Acton Scott and Aldon. After 1255, where we should expect a Purcel holding in Smethcott, we find a Scot; and yet it is clear that Scot was not Purcel's heir, for Reginald le Escot was in 1284 not only a Coparcener in Smethcott, without a Purcel, but was, with Purcel, a Coparcener in Acton Scott. Also, in 1292, Reginald le Scot and his wife Isabel stood side by side with John Purcel as Coparceners in Aldon. [14]

To explain this I am unable. I can only therefore add what I know of the Scots as successors, but not heirs, of Purcel in a third share of Smethcott.

On December 28, 1820, Walter, son of Reginald de Scottes-Acton, remits and quit-claims, to William son of Walter le Budel of Longenolre, all his right in a moiety of the Vivary called Froggepol in Smethecote, which Vivary lies below the Marshe and (below) the wood of the said vill. Witnesses,- Roger de Smethcote, Richard

[9] Harl. MSS. 1982, fo. 61, b. Stanton was a large Manor in Grimsworth Hundred, Herefordshire, about 10 miles North-West of Hereford. The Pichards were tenants there and elsewhere in the Barony of Weobley, during a great part at least of the thirteenth century.
[10] [11] Inquisitions, 22 Edw. I., Nos. 45, c, and 159.
[12] Inquisitions, 9 Edw. II., No. 67.
[13] Parliamentary Writs, IV., 398.
[14] Supra, Vol. V., pp. 28, 29.


de Heghton, Roger de Burton, Philip Godbold, William le Chyd (Chyld) of Dudlebury. [15]

Walter le Scot, of Acton Scott and Smethcott, was succeeded in both places by John le Scot, whose name will appear presently among the Co-Patrons of Smethcott Church.

3. Philip de Smethcott, the third Coparcener of 1255, was a Juror for Condover Hundred at the Assizes of 1272, and is found attesting a Longnor Deed of the same year. In Easter Term 1280 he appears as that Lord of Smetecote whom Milisent, widow of Endo la Zouche, seems to have singled out for prosecution when she claimed the service of half a knight's-fee in Smethcott as a Coheiress of Cantilupe. [16] This Suit was still unsettled in February 1288, when the Sheriff was ordered to compel the presence of Philip de Smethcott and other Cantilupe Tenants by distraint. In April 1288 Philip de Smethcot appears on a local Jury. He was succeeded by a son Roger; for I find Roger, son of Philip de Smethcote, quit-claiming to Haughmon Abbey a messuage and 11 acres in Cothercote. Witnesses,- Roger Sprencheose and Ranulph his brother, knights, Philip de Penniton and Reyner de Lee. [17] In April 1290, January 1292, and at the Assizes of the latter year, I find Roger de Smethcott on local or Hundredal Juries. As a witness of numerous Deeds he occurs from 1292 till December 1820. He left two sons, Philip and William, as appears by the testing-clause of the following Deed, which I take to be an arrangement between two Undertenants in Smethcott.

On December 15, 1823, it was thus agreed between Richard fitz Walter and Thomas fitz William, both of Smethcote. Richard delivers to Thomas for life a messuage and land in Smethcote which he, Richard, bought of Roger, son of Philip de Asthampton: Thomas to pay 4s. 5d. rent to Richard, and to liquidate all dues to the King and to the Lords of the Fee. Witnesses,- Philip, son of Roger de Smethcote, William, his brother, Richard Tristram, Richard Faber of Smethcote, William de Bottefeld.

It will further appear, under the Incumbents of Smethcott Church, that Roger de Smethcott left another son, Roger, a Clerk, also that a William de Smethcott was a joint Lord of Smethcott in 1354 and

[15] Charter in possession of Sidney Steadman Smith, Esq. The Seal of this Deed has a rude impression of a Spread-Eagle.
[16] Abbreviatio Placitorum, p. 198.
[17] Haughmond Chartnlary, Tit. Codarcote.- The Powys Leger has a Deed whereby the same Roger quit-claims, for 2 merks, to Haghmon Abbey, a messuage and a moor in Cothercote, formerly held under the Canons by Richard Meylor.


1398, also that Richard Tristram, just now named as a witness, had some share in the Manor.

PICKLESCOTT.- I have spoken of Robert fitz Madoc as having been enfeoffed early in the 13th century in half Picklescott, his Feoffors being the-Coparceners of Smethcott. Robert fitz Madoc granted this moiety of Picklescott to the "White Monks of Pole", as the Haughmond Chartulary expresses it, meaning the Cistercian Convent of Ystrat Marchel. The second Richard de Linley, with his daughter Alice, quit-claimed "to God and St. Mary and to all the Saints, and to the Abbot and Monks of Pole, all their right in that part of the whole vill of Pikelescote which Robert Madoc had given, and which was of the fee of Alice's ancestors".

The Abbot and Convent of Strattmarkel gave this land to Thomas Corbet of Caus, in exchange for certain land in the Haye of Thomas Corbet above Caus. Thomas Corbet, in turn, styling himself son of Robert Corbet, gave all his land of Pykelescot above mentioned to the Abbot and Convent of Haghmon in exchange for land at Eddestan, [18] belonging to Haghmon Abbey. The Abbot gave 8 oxen and 4 cows in addition, for cultivation of the land of Eddestan. This exchange, whereby the Abbot of Haughmond obtained half Picklescott, was attested by John fitz Alan, Vivian de Rossall, and Robert de Girros. From these names, and from other circumstances, I know it to have been made between 1227 and 1235.

About the same time, or at all events before the year 1231, Hoel de Pikelescote (probably an Undertenant in the other moiety of this Vill) gave a noke therein to Haughmond. Witnesses,- John le Strange, Roger Sprenchose, and Philip de Stepulton.

In 1255 Madoc de Piclescote was the Tenant-in-fee of that moiety or residue of this Vill which had not previously been obtained by Haghmon Abbey. The Condover Hundred-Roll says that "the Abbot of Haghmon and Madoc de Piclescote hold Piclescote for half a hide, and pay 4d. per annum for stretward and motfee, and do suit to the Hundred". The Record adds that "they held of the Fee of Roger Sprenchose". [19] Probably therefore the joint Lords of Smethcott had conveyed their mesne interest in Picklescott to Sprenchose of Longnor; or if such a complete conveyance was at that period technically improbable, they had granted the services of Haghmon Abbey and of Madoc de Piclescote to Sprenghose, to hold of themselves at some nominal rent. Madoc de

[18] By Eddestan I understand the place now called Edderton, near Wentnor.
[19] Rot. Hundred. II, 62.


Piclescot, I should observe, occurs on a local Jury in April 1253. At the Inquest of 1255 and at the Assizes of 1256, he was a Juror for Condover Hundred. Again in April 1264 he was empanelled on a Langley Inquest.

At the Assizes of 1272 the Condover Jury reported one Roger fitz Baldwin of Piclescote as failing in due attendance. He was possibly Madoc's successor.

From this point I confine myself exclusively to the Abbot of Haughmond's interests here. Between 1264 and 1281, Walter Says quit-claims to Abbot Alan all right in that half-virgate in Piclescote which Gunilda his Grandmother sometime held. Witnesses,- Roger Sprenghose, William de Stepultone, William Champneys of Dodintone. Also, in the same interval, Abbot Alan demises to Mabel, widow of Nicholas de Fredesleg, a noke in Piclescote, for which she had sued him under writ of right. She is to pay 20d. rent, and to do suit of Court. Witnesses,- Richard Burnell, Lord of Langley, and William Marscote. [20] The Taxation of 1291 notices the Abbot of Haghmon's estate at Picklescote in conjunction with Lee Botwood. The particulars I have already given. [21] On March 28, 1395, Ralph, Abbot of Highmon, leases to Roger Heighwey, his wife Joan, and their son William, two messuages and two nokes in Piclescote, reserving a rent of 6s. 6d. and suit of the Abbot's Court of Boveria. In 23 Hen. VI. (1444-5) Abbot Richard demises the same premises to Roger Highway, Katherine his wife, and William their son, at a rent of 6s. 8d. The Valor of Henry VIII., in giving the estates of Haughmon Abbey, must be taken to include Picklescote either under Lee Botwood or Boveria. The Ministers' Accounts of 1541-2 are more distinctive, but in some degree confuse the estates of Picklescott and Wilderley. Their estimate has been already given. [22]


THIS Church must be taken to have been founded in the Parish of St. Andrew of Condover, and to have been originally a Chapel thereof. The Taxation of 1291 mentions neither Church nor Chapel here, and yet it is clear that then, or soon after, some distinct

[20] All the Deeds quoted under Picklescott are from the Haughmond Chartulary. That Record has two undated Deeds of less significance.-

In one, John de Ruyton quit-claims to the Abbey 3 acres in Piclescote, Robert de Preston attesting.

The other Deed names William Wilcoks as holding 2 messuages and 2 nokes under the Abbey, and one messuage under the Lords of Piclescote.

[21] [22] Supra, pp. 248, 249.


Valuation was recognized for Smethcott Church; for in 1341 the Assessors of the Ninth rated the Parish in terms following.- "The Assessors account 1. 13s. 4d. for the Ninth of wheat, wool, and lamb, in Smethecot Parish, and not more, because many tenants there have thrown up their lands by reason of poverty, and because the Spiritualities, Oblations, Hay-tithes, and Small-tithes go to make up the higher amount of the Taxation of the said Chapel, and are not contemplated in the aforesaid Levy of the Ninth". [23]

The Valor of 1534-5 places Smethcote in the Deanery of Salop, and the Diocese of Coventry and Lichfield. The income of William Yoppe, Rector thereof, was found to be 4. 18s. 4d., out of which he paid 3s. 4d. for Procurations, and 1s. for Synodals. [24]


SIR RICHARD, Rector of Smythecote, died December 7, 1311.

ROGER, SON OF ROGER DE SMYTHECOTE, Acolyte, was admitted January 2, 1312, Sir Edward Burnell presenting. This Rector has licenses for non-residence dated January 1, 1314, and July 13, 1319, the first studendi gratia. He died August 5, 1338; and on September 4 following-

ROGER DE CHELMONDESWYK, Clerk, was admitted, Richard Tristrem and John de Scottes-Acton being Patrons, pro hac vice.

WILLIAM DE CHELMEDEWYCH [25] is stated to have resigned this Rectory in 1355; and on March 21, 1355,-

REGINALD DE TYCULWARDYN, Priest, was admitted, William de Smethecote being Patron pro hac vice. [26] On May 1, 1381, this Rector exchanges preferments with-

JAMES ATTE VENNE, late Vicar of Bishop's Castle, but a re-exchange of June 15, 1392, replaces-

SIR REGINALD DE TICLEWARDYN at Smethcott. The Patrons of Smethcott in this instance were William Bronyngton, Lord of La Hurst, Isabella his wife, and Roger son of John de Scottes-acton. This Rector again resigned on January 8, 1398, and-

WALTER SMYTH, Priest, was presented by William Smethcote, in his turn, as Patron. [27]

[23] Inquis. Nonarum, p. 191.
[24] Valor Ecclesiasticus. III, 183.
[25] The Christian name is probably mistaken, and Roger de Chelmedwyke, instituted to Hope Bowdler (vide Vol. V. p. 121), on March 14 1355, was the Rector who resigned Smethcott.
[26] Lichfield Registers, A, foe, 32, 66, 69; B, fos. 215-b, 229-b.
[27] Blakeway's MSS.



THIS place is noticed in Domesday as follows.-

"Hugh (fitz Turgis) holds Wildredelega of the Earl. Chetel held it (in Saxon times) and was free. Here are II hides geldable. There is (arable) land for IIII ox-teams. In demesne there is one team, and there are IIII Serfs and III Villains, with one team. The wood here will fatten 100 Swine. In King Edward's time the Manor was worth 30s. Now it is worth 20s. When he (Hugh fitz Turgis) received it, it was worth 10s". [1]

Of Hugh fitz Turgis I have spoken under Hope Bowdler, and said that his three Shropshire Manors were annexed to the Honour of Montgomery, as founded by Henry I. [2] In the following narrative therefore, the Cotemporary Lords of Montgomery must uniformly be taken as Lords Paramount of Wilderley.

I have omitted to notice under Hope Bowdler that in 1195 Ivetta de Widerleg fined 5 merks that she might have judicial recognition concerning the vill of Hope with its appurtenances. Of this fine she paid all but I merk in the year ending Michaelmas 1203. Her suit therefore was a different one to that of Richard de Wilderly already traced to its conclusion under Hope Bowdler. Of Ivetta's suit I hear no more, nor yet of a suit of mort d'ancestre, which Alan de Boulers had in October 1203 against Richard de Wildredeleg, and in which the latter had essoign. [3] The said Richard was undoubtedly in that year Lord, under the Barons of Montgomery, of Wilderley, Hope Bowdler, and, I may add, Cothercote. The enormous outlay of 160 merks, by which he obtained this position, seems to have thrown him on his resources. In the year 1204 apparently, he sold Wilderley and Cothercote, for 126 merks, to Haughmond Abbey. By his Deed "Richard de Wildredelega gives the whole land of Wildurley and of Codercote, with all liberties and appurtenances, to the Canons, who are to pay a rent of half a merk for the same after a term of 27 years complete, from the year of the Incarnation 1204. For this grant the Canons gave 121 merks and a palfrey worth 5 merks. The transaction, which evidently passed in the Curia Comitatus, was attested by William fitz Alan, John le

[1] Domesday, fo. 258, b, 2.
[2] Supra, Vol. V. p. 114.
[3] Assizes, 6 John, m. 1.


Strange, Hugh Pantulf, Robert Corbeth, Fouk fitz Warine, and Philip his brother, William de Ercall, Reginald de Tyrne, and Richard de Scaeburie. [4]

Between the years 1207 and 1214 Richard de Wilderley's grant was not only allowed but increased by William de Courtenay, then Lord of Montgomery, who released the Canons from all services due from Richard de Wildurley in respect of Wildurley and Codercote, except Scutage and reasonable relief. Witnesses,- Baldwin de Hodnet, Roger de Say.

It was probably soon after the acquisition of this estate, that "Richard, Abbot of Haghmon, at request of Reyner Bishop of St. Asaph, demised in fee-farm to Ithel, son of the said Bishop's Aunt (materterae), for his homage, a virgate in Wildurley", the said Bishop attesting the Deed. In 1226 Philip de Stapelton was found to have disseized the Abbot of Hageman of a tenement in Wyldridesle, viz. of 2 acres, bounded lengthways by the bosc of Wyldredesle "and on each side by Hormoc and Kniormiok, and from thence to the Abbot's Haye". [5]

The Quit-claims of Philip de Stapleton and his son Robert, already recited under Stapleton, probably followed this decision and were in lieu of damages.

I see no reason for questioning the apparent date (1231-5) for the Charter or Charters whereby Stephen de Hope, and the other heirs of Richard de Wilderley confirmed their Father's grant to Haghmon, Stephen de Hope further quit-claiming the rent of half a merk which the Canons paid him for holding the said lands. Witnesses,- John fitz Alan, Robert de Girros, and Vivian de Rossall. [6]

In 1255 the Condover Hundred-Roll states that the Abbot of Hagmon holds Wildridleg, for two hides of land, of the fee of Hope Bothelers. The Manor paid 16d. for stretward and motfee, and did suit (to County and Hundred). [7]

This holding of the Fee of Hope Bowdler is a significant expression, which on a former occasion I explained rather loosely. [8] It means that the service of one-fifth of a knight's-fee by which the Abbot of Haughmond held Wilderley was due immediately to the Lord of Hope Bowdler, and constituted so much of the whole fee by which the Lord of Hope Bowdler held under the Lord of Montgomery.

[4] Powys Ledger, fo. 102. Haughmond Chartulary, Tit. Wildurley.
[5] Abbreviatio Placitorum, p. 103.
[6] Ledger and Chartulary (ut supra).
[7] Rot. Hundred. II. 62.
[8] Vol. V. pp. 116-7. 260 WILDERLEY.

The passage which I quoted from the Haughmond Chartulary was to show that the Canons were not immediate Tenants of Cantilupe, and therefore that the Escheat of 1278, on the death of George de Cantilupe, gave the Crown no advantage over them.

The Taxation of 1291 values the Abbot of Haghmon's income from Wyldrichleye at 1. 7s. 10d., viz. assized rents, 1. 7s. 2d., and from a small meadow, 8d. [9] In the Nomina Villarum of 1316 the same Abbot is entered as Lord of Bilderdeleye. [10] The Valor of Henry VIII. probably classifies the Haughmond receipts from Wilderley under Boveria or Le Botwood. The more distinct valuation of 1541-2 gives a total of 6. 16s. 0d. as receivable by the late Monastery from Wilderley and Pikelescote. [11]

OF UNDERTENANTS in Wilderley I should first take notice of the family of Champneys. The earliest dated notice which I have of "William de Champneis in Wylderle" (as he is styled) is as a Juror on a Smethcott Inquest in April 1253. He had also a tenement in Cothercote which he gave to Haughmond Abbey. In one instance he attests a Haughmond Charter with Richard his son. In 1262, he was assessed for an imbladement within Regard of the Long Forest. In October 1274, he and his son Roger were fellow jurors on a Caus Inquest. On November 3, 1281, a Fine was levied, whereby William Champeneys (Impedient) acknowledges that he has given to John Champeneys (Plaintiff) 2 messuages, 1 virgates of land, and 5 acres of meadow in Wilderdeleye, to hold at a rent of 5 merks, payable to the said William for his life, the Grantee performing all capital services. After the Grantor's death, John Champeneys, who pays 12 merks for the grant, is to hold the premises, quit of the aforesaid rent, and paying instead a rent of one Rose to the Grantor's heirs.

This Fine will have had the effect of disinheriting the Grantor's heir, whom I take to have been that Richard le Champeneys who, in Hilary Term 1283, was sued by Odo de Hodnet for some trespass. [12] Meantime I find the Grantee in the above Fine styled John Champeneys of Wilderley, and sitting on a Lythwood Inquest in July 1280. He occupies a similar position in a Pulverbatch Inquest of August 1283, a Condover Inquest of October 1283, a Pontesbury Inquest of August 1286, a Pulley Inquest of April 1290 (in which he is accompanied by Thomas Champeneys), a Pulverbatch

[9] Pope Nich. Taxation, p. 163, b.
[10] Parliamentary Writs, IV. 398.
[11] Supra, p. 249.
[12] Placita, 11 Edw. I. m. 25 dorso.


Inquest of August 1295, and a Little-Buildwas Inquest of December 1802.

Adam fitz Margaret, another Tenant in Wilderley, was assessed with Roger Provost of Wilderley for imbladements within the Long Forest in 1262. He sat on a Caus Inquest in October 1274. As Adam de Wildredeleg he was Juror on a Lythwood Inquest in July 1280, and as Adam fitz Margaret he sat on Inquests at Pulverbatch and Condover in August and October 1283. In succession to him we have William fitz Adam of Wilderley, a Juror in a Pontesbury Inquest of August 1286. The same person is called William Adams in a Pulley Inquest of April 1290, and as William fitz Adam of Wyndedele he was a Juror for Condover Hundred at the Assizes of 1292.

A Patent of July 1272 appoints Justices to try an action which Roger son of Roger Walweyn had against Roger Walweyn, Roger le Harpur, and Alice his wife, concerning a Tenement in Wylderdeleg; but it is doubtful whether the place concerned was Wilderley. [13]

By a Deed without date, Henry de Broke gave all lands to Haughmond Abbey which he held under the said Abbey in Wilderley. Witness,- Thomas de Smethcote of Wrentnall

On May 15, 1324, Richard, Abbot of Haghmon, and John fitz William, exchange lands in Wilderly. On September 10, 1470, the Abbot of Haghmon demises to William Tornur, Margery his wife, and William their son, four messuages and a virgate in Wilderley. At Michaelmas 1477, John, Abbot of Haghmon, leases for 61 years at a rent 16s. 8d. to John Daires, Senior, of Wrentnall, the lands which John Bowdler of Wilderly held for life. On October 28,1478, the Abbot demises to Richard Baily of Wilderly, after the death of Roger Perkyns, two messuages and some land, at a rent of 12s. 6d., for sixty years.


AT Domesday "Avenel held Cotardicote. Hunnic had been its Saxon owner. Here was half a hide. The (arable) land was enough

[12] A previous Patent of May 1272 describes the Suit as one instituted by Roger fitz Roger against Roger Walweyn and others, concerning a Tenement in Wildrecope, which, if correct, would indicate Wilderhope.


for one ox-team. Here that team was, with II Serfs, The Manor had been waste, but was then worth 3s. per annum". [1]

Of Huning and his interest in Condover Hundred I have said enough under Stapleton and elsewhere. Avenel, the Domesday Lord of Cothercote, held no other Shropshire Manor. His interest seems to have lapsed to the Crown, and the Manor to have been annexed by Henry I. to the Honour of Montgomery. I have shown, under Wilderley, how Richard de Wilderly, holding Cothercote under the then Lord of Montgomery, granted the Manor in 1204 to Haughmond Abbey. It is probable that, at the time of this grant, Richard de Wilderly had a Feoffee at Cothercote, who became of course a Tenant of the Abbey. The said Feoffee or Tenant, early in the thirteenth century, was represented by one John de Cothercote, who was deceased in January 1243. This limits the date of a Deed whereby John de Cudardecote, with consent of Baldwyn his son and heir, grants to Thomas son of Roger de Byriton with Alice his daughter in frank marriage, all that land in the town and fields of Cudardecote which Roger the Smith held; to hold to Thomas and his heirs under the Grantor and his heirs at a rent of 1d., the Grantee to be responsible for forinsec services, but quit of pannage and toll. [2]

In January 1243 a suit of dower, which Roger fitz Warin had against Wentlian, widow of John de Codardecot, is cancelled on the Plea-Roll, because the action would not lie; that being, I conceive, the meaning of the words non facet affixed to this entry. [3]

Baldwin de Cothercote, succeeding to his father John, seems to have been involved in pecuniary difficulties. I give extracts from seven Charters of his, importing as much.-

1.Baldwin de Kodardescote, son of John de Kodardescot, grants to William Champeneys of Wylderley all those lands and meadows which the said William already held, for a term of 40 years,;- with pasture, housbote, etc., in Kodardescote;- to hold at 1d. rent. For this the Grantor, "in great necessity", received 10 merks.

2. Baldwin de Cothercote, with consent of his wife and heirs, grants to William son of Robert Champneis of Dodinton, with Alice his daughter in frank marriage, a messuage and 9 acres in Cothercote, at a penny rent.

3. Baldwin de Cothercote grants to his son Roger, for 40s. paid

[1] Domesday, fo. 259, b, 1.
[2] The Powys Ledger (fos. 97-100) and the Haughmond Chartulary (Rit. Codercote) are my authorities for the various Deeds quoted in this Chapter.
[3] Placita, Hil. Tm. 27 Hen. III., m.4.


him in great necessity, a place of land and a garden in Cothercote, 17 acres in Cothercote field, and one-third of Broadmedow;- at a rent of 14d.

4. The same grants to the same, all that land which Gilbert Dean of Pontsbury then leased, with a garden and messuage.- Rent, a pair of white gloves, value one halfpenny.

5. The same grants to the same, the whole half of his land, and a messuage which the Grantee already had from him, in mortgage for 100s.- Rent, 2s.

6. The same grants to Haghmon Abbey two parcels of Brodmedewe,- between Gatelee and the Longe forlonge in the fields of Cothercote. Witnesses,- John Wallensis, William Champneiss, Richard his son.

7. Baldwin Lord of Codarcote gives to Haghmon Abbey the whole Vill and Lordship (dominium) of Codarcote, with all its appurtenances, homages, rents, wardships, reliefs, etc. Witnesses,- P. de Smethcote, John surnamed Long of Pulrebeche, John Wallensis, Madoc de Pikelescot, Adam fitz Margaret.

This Deed, which I account the latest of the series, probably passed about the year 1265; at least all the witnesses were living at that period. I now proceed to give a series of three Deeds, which may be said to have emanated from the two first of the above seven.-

1. William son of Robert Champneis of Dodinton grants, for 43s., to Roger son of Baldwin de Cothercote a messuage and twelve acres in Cothercote, which the Grantor had with his wife.

2. Roger son of Baldwin de Cothercote grants to William Champneys of Wilderley, for 43s., the same premises, those namely which he had bought of William son of Robert de Dodinton.- The Rent to be 1d.

3. William Champneys of Wildretheleg gives to Haghmon Abbey all the lands he had in Cothercote, as held by Mabel de Pole, by Wendlyan, and by Molod, with all houses, curtilages, and appurtenances, and with three meadows, one under Renegeteshut, one up to the highway towards Clonne, and the third called Hardehesel Medow. Witnesses,- Roger Sprenghose, William Champneys of Dodinton.

The above three Deeds probably passed between 1260 and 1281. I will now give a series of five Deeds, in which the children and the nephew of Baldwin de Cothercote appear surrendering their lands to Haghmon Abbey.-


1. Roger son of Baldwin de Cothercote gives to the Abbey one-third of Brodmedewe, two-thirds of which his Father had before given to the said Abbey. Witnesses,- Roger Sprengehose, William de Stepulton, Philip de Smethcote.

2. John son of Baldwin de Cothercote quit-claims to the Abbey certain lands in Cothercote, bounded as follows:- From the House of Baldwin up by Midelhurstesbroc, Craumersiche, and Craumerswall; thence along the road to Boveria, and so to Stanlawesbroc and Saltares-thorn; thence along the road to Overlidehet, and so to Witenarlesich and Midelhurat;- and all land within and without the said boundaries, except one virgate, which the Grantor already held under the Abbey in the Vill of Cothercote. Witness,- Robert de Stepulton.

3. Roger son of Thomas de Byriton gives to the Abbey all his land in the Vill and fields of Cothercote, which land John Lord of Cothercote gave to Thomas the Grantor's Father in frank marriage with his (John's) daughter Alice. Witnesses,- Sir Thomas de Roshalle, Sir Vivian his son, P. de Smethcote. [4]

4. Margery de Codardecote quit-claims to Haghmon Abbey in pure-alms all her right in a tenement in Codardecote, which had been her brother Roger's.

5. Sibil de Codardecote does the same in like terms. The above Deeds will be more intelligible as a whole, with the aid of the following Table.-

[For pedigree, see pdf.]

Before I conclude my account of Cothercote, I must revert to a Deed, whereby, before the middle of the thirteenth century, the Lord of Pulverbatch accommodated the growing interests of the Canons of Haughmond in this quarter.

"Hugh de Kylpeck quit-claims to the said Canons two roads, on either side of the vill of Cothercote, leading towards Longmynde,

[4] This Deed passed between 1363 and 12666.


so that neither he, nor his heirs, nor his men of Pulrebeche and Wilderley, should come or go by those roads, but by a road under Achovre and under Gathovres-helde to the Ford of Westcote, which road partly reached on his own land and partly on the said Canons' land, outside Cothercote-field hedge. He also gave the Canons common pasture in Pulrebech except in the Bosc of Huglith. Witnesses,- John le Strange, Sir William de Hedleg, Sir Hugh fitz Robert".

I cannot help suggesting here, that this Deed favours an idea that the Lords of Pulverbatch had not been very scrupulous on questions of boundary in this quarter, and had encroached on the Fee of the Lords of Montgomery at Wilderley and Cothercote. [5] In 1255 Pulverbatch had increased its Domesday hidage in a way which we cannot wholly account for on any other supposition. At the same period, though it is true that Wilderley maintained its Domesday hidage, Cothercote and its half hide are wholly suppressed in the Survey of Condover Hundred. In fact Cothercote was no longer a distinct Manor. My belief is that the Domesday hidage of Wilderley, as held in 1255 by Haughmond Abbey, was made up by the undeclared addition of Cothercote, and that an equivalent out of Wilderley-proper had been long before annexed to Pulverbatch.

In 1291 the Abbot of Haghmon is registered as receiving 19s. 3d. assized rents in Crodecot. [6] His Assets from the same Vill at the Dissolution were 4. 3s. 3d., as already stated under Lee Botwood. [7]


OF this Manor Domesday gives the following account:- "Turold holds Wigewic (of the Earl). Elmar held it (in Saxon times) and was free. Here is one hide, geldable. The (arable) land is (enough) for II ox-teams. Here it (that is, I presume, one ox-team) [1] is in demesne, and there are IIII Serfs, II Villains and

[5] Wilderley and Cothercote were and are, parochially, members of Pulverbatch. So was Wrentnall, a vill which, after being manorially distinct, was wholly annexed to Pulverbatch.
[6] Pope Nich. Taxation, p. 163, b.
[7] Supra, p. 249. [1]There is evidently an error in the Record. We should either read sunt for est, or else supply the word una after est.


I Boor with half a team. The wood will fatten 50 swine. In King Edward's time the Manor was worth 15s. (per annum); afterwards (it was worth) 3s.; now it is worth 10s". [2]

Of Turold, the presumed Ancestor of the Chetwynds, and of his son Robert, living at the time of Stephen's accession, and how the latter gave Wigwig to Shrewsbury Abbey, I have given account under Willey. [3]

The proximity of Wigwig to the estates of Wenlock Priory rendered it a more desirable possession for that house than for Shrewsbury; and the Cluniac Monks obtained a grant thereof from the Benedictines at an annual rent of 20s. All we know of the date of this transaction is that it was previous to the reign of Richard I., for then did the Monks of Wenlock withdraw the Vill from Condover Hundred to their own Franchise. Such Freeholders as I shall name in the sequel were, I presume, Feoffees of Wenlock Priory.

In 1177, Alured de Wiggewich had been amerced 2 merks for Forest-trespass by King Henry II. In 1185, Osbert fitz Richard of Widewic paid 2s. for a pourpresture in the Forest.

At the Assizes of 1226 Warin de Wyggewych sued Imbert, Prior of Wenlock, for disseizing him of a free tenement in Wyggewych, but in vain, for the Plaintiff proved to be a Tenant-in-Villainage. [4] William de Wigwig was a Juror on the Inquest which in 1247 reported as to the tenures of the Prior's Burgesses at Wenlock.

The Wenlock Hundred-Roll of 1255 accounts Wigwig as a member of Wenlock Manor. "The Prior of Wenlock paid to the Abbot of Shrewsbury 20s. for the Vill and its appurtenances. William de Wigwig (himself a Juror on this Inquest) held half a carucate of land in the Vill of the Prior, and paid an annual rent of 16s., and did Suit to the Prior's Court by afforciament. He (or, I presume, his ancestors) used to do Suit to Condover Hundred before the reign of Richard I". The same change of suits is reported in the case of Henry de Wigwig, who held a noke under the Prior at a rent of 29d. [5]

This Henry de Wigwig was probably the same with Henry fitz Adam, who in August 1257 was impleaded by Richolda de Wiggewyk for disseizing her of a tenement in Wiggewyk.

[2] Domesday, fo. 258, a, 1.
[3] Supra, Vol. II. pp. 46-48.
[4] Abbrev. Placitorum, p. 104.
[5] Rot. Hundred. II. 84. William de Wyggewik was also a Juror for Wenlock Franchise at the Assizes of 1256.


In 1262 Henry fitz Adam of Wyggewich was amerced 12d. for vert in Wyggewych. At the Assizes of 1272 Herbert Coly of Wenlock, withdrawing his prosecution of Henry fitz William of Wyggewyg and Roger his brother for disseizin in Wyggewyg, was in misericordia with his Sureties, viz. John Coly and Walter Parmenter; but he was excused amercement at the instance of Roger le Strange. [6] The Condover Hundred-Roll of 1255 hints, while the Roll of 1274 fully records, how Wigewike "had once owed suit to the Greater Court of that Hundred, and how the Prior of Wenlock had withdrawn it to his Franchise". [7] In December 1277 Henry de Wyggewig and Roger his brother occur as Jurors on a Benthall inquest.

The Taxation of 1291 gives the Prior of Wenlock's receipts from Wygenewyk as follows:- From two carucates of land, 13s. 4d.; from assized rents and a Mill, 13s. 4d.; from 1 acres of meadow, 3s. Total, 1. 9s. 8d. [8]

The Nomina Villarum of 1316 has the Prior as Lord of Wygelwyk. [9]

In 1379 the Assized rents receivable by the Prior of Wenlock from Wyggewyk and Harley are given, in combination with other receipts from Bradeley Grange and its then reputed members. This I have before alluded to.
[10] But in this valuation a carucate of fallow-land at Wyggewyk is valued separately as worth 3s. 4d. per annum. [11] At other times we find the income from Wigwig and Harley valued in conjunction with the Marsh Manor. [12]

At the Dissolution the Prior of Wenlock was receiving 1. 16s. 8d. for the ferm of a messuage and lands at Wigwyk and Harley, and 18s. for the ferm of tithes at Wigwyk and Harley. [13]


THE Saxon word pic, though combined in this name with a more genuine Saxon word ford, was borrowed from the Latin pix. A bituminous well, which still exists at Pitchford, and which gave

[6] Assizes, 56 Hen. III., m. 2.
[7] Rot. Hundred. II. pp. 63, 91.
[8] Pope Nich. Taxation, p. 164.
[9] Parliamentary Writs, IV. 398.
[10] Vol. III. p. 284.
[11] Monasticon, V. p. 77.
[12] Supra, Vol III. p. 282.
[13] Monasticon, V. p. 81. 268 PITCHFORD.

name to the place, may therefore have attracted notice in the aera of of the Romans. This is the more probable, as a branch of the great Roman road (the Watling Street) passed through the upper part of the Vill.

Domesday describes the Manor as follows.- "The same Turold holds Piceforde (of the Earl). Edric, and Leuric, and Uluric held it (in Saxon times) for three Manors, and were free. Here are III hides, geldable. The (arable) land is (enough) for five ox-teams. In demesne are III teams, and (there are) III Serfs, III Neatherds, i I Villain, III Boors, I Smith, and I Radman, with II teams. Here is a Wood capable of fattening 100 Swine. In King Edward's time the Manor was worth 8s. (per annum); afterwards it was worth 16s.; now it is worth 40s".

It was probably Turold de Verley himself, rather than his son Robert, or one of their successors the Chetwynds, who first enfeoffed a Tenant in Pitchford. That Tenant's descendants, though they were also the descendants and heirs of Normannus Venator (Turold's equal in the scale of feudal tenures), yet took a name from Pitchford in preference to Albrighton, or any other of those Manors which they held in capite of the Crown. This may, I think, be accounted for.- Ralph de Pichford (I.), who, be it remembered, distinguished himself at the siege of Bridgnorth, sixteen years after Domesday, [1] is nowhere mentioned under any other name. It is probable, then, that he was called De Pichford at the time of the siege, and that his feoffment by Turold preceded that event. Now, as Norman Venator was living in 1093 and later, it is further probable that Ralph de Pichford was enfeoffed in Pitchford before he or his descendants became Norman Venator's heirs. This would account for their retaining the name of De Pichford, and not assuming a name more relevant to their greater feudal pretensions.

Of Ralph de Pichford and his descendants I have already given account under Bridgnorth, Albrighton, and Ryton. Some circumstances of their history, in connection with Pitchford itself, remain to be told. We have it on credible authority that Pitchford Church was founded by a Ralph de Pichford. [2] If so, we are bound to attribute

[1] Supra, Vol. I. pp. 354-5.
[2] See History of Shrewsbury, II. pp. 183, 184.

The document quoted by the Historians of Shrewsbury states that Ralph de Pycheford presented his brother Engelard to the recently-founded Church. In a note (p. 183, note 5), it is shown satisfactorily that Richard de Pichford, living in Henry II.'s time, had a brother Engelard. Hence it is most unwarrantably assumed that this Engelard was the Incumbent in question, and that Richard was the real founder of Pitchford Church. The truth is, that Engelard brother of Richard de Pichford was no Clerk, but a Knight,- was, in fact, that famous Engelard de Stretton whose history I have given under Ryton. The same note of the Historians of Shrewsbury presents another phase of this question. It is assumed that the original document, in giving Ralph as the name of the Founder of Pitchford Church, must have alluded to Ralph (II.), whose aera we know to have been from 1212 to 1252. But I do not see why the original document should be thus construed to indicate Ralph (II.) rather than Ralph (I.). There are bits of masonry in the walls of Pitchford Church which are much more likely to belong to the reign of Henry I., or of Stephen, than to that of John, or of Henry III.


the credit of this work to Ralph de Pichford (I.), and to fix its date in the time of Henry I., or Stephen. The arguments which would assign it to Richard de Pichford (I.), and to the reign of Henry II., needlessly assume that an erroneous name has been given in an original document, and are otherwise fallacious.

Ralph de Pichford (I.) was succeeded, as I have elsewhere shown, by a Son, and Grandson, both named Richard. The grant of Pitchford Mill to Haughmond Abbey by Richard de Pichford (II.) has been fully set forth. [3] A Fine of 1199 by Hugh de Pichford relates partly to Pitchford, and has also been given. [4] Hugh de Pichford married Burga daughter and heir of Ralph de Baskerville, by his wife Isabel, [5] which Isabel was, I find from a Record of 1203-4, called Isabel de Say; but it does not appear whether Say was her maiden name, or the name of a second husband. By this match it would seem that Hugh de Pichford acquired mesne interests in a number of estates. I may instance Herberbury and Chesterton in Warwickshire, Sutton-on-the-Hill in Derbyshire, and Snareston and Swannington in Leicestershire. [6] All these were held of the Fief of the Earl Ferrars, and we can trace a subsequent interest of the Pichfords, their Feoffees, or their connections, in all of them.

At the Salop Assizes of October 1203, Hugh de Piceford essoigned his attendance under the general summons. In March 1209 he was assessed under two several Regards of the Long Forest. He died, as I have said, in 1211 or 1212. Besides his son and heir Ralph (II.), he left a son William, and, I think, a daughter Isabella, who had Snareston in Leicestershire. Who was the husband of Isabella, I

[3] Supra, Vol. I. p. 358.
[4] [5] Supra, Vol. II. pp. 151, 152.
[6] Testa de Nevill, pp. 4, 9, 95. Dugdale's Warwickshire (Thomas), p. 354. Lysons's Derbyshire, p. 272. Nichols's Leicestershire, IV.* p. 980.

Mr. Blakeway associates the Leicestershire tenures of the Pichfords with their arms (a cinquefoil), which he justly remarks was the bearing of the old Earls of Leicester. I look upon the coincidence as a mere accident. The Pichfords had probably borne the Cinquefoil before their connection with Leicestershire; and that connection would have rather resulted in their bearing Baskervill or Ferrars arms, than those of De Bellomont.


[For predigree, see pdf.]


cannot say. Her son called himself Richard de Picheford, and sometime between 1230 and 1252 he enfeoffed one Simon de Bereford in all that land of Snarkeston which came to him of the inheritance of Isabel de Picheford his Mother. This feoffment was for a penny rent and for 15 merks paid down. Ysabella de Picheford was living at the time; for she in a separate charter confirmed her son's grant. [7]

I have already alluded to a contest in 1226, between Warner de Wililey and Ralph de Pichford (II.), about this Manor. [8] The latter appointed his brother William his Attorney in the matter. [9] This was a contest between two Feoffees of the House of Chetwynd, and between two families which afterwards intermarried; but there must be a deeper significancy in the incident, and I can hardly doubt that the families of Wililey and Pichford were previously and otherwise related.

By Fine of November 3, 1236, Agnes daughter of Ulger de Picheford (Plaintiff) quits, for one merk, to Ralph de Picheford (Tenant) a claim to a carucate and messuage in Picheford, which she had sued for under writ of mort d'ancestre.

Ralph de Pichford made a grant to Lilleshall Abbey, viz. of a rent of 8s. which was his right, arising from the Fishery of Brug (Bridgnorth), and from the lands pertaining thereto. [10]

The Inquest ordered April 20, 1253, on the death of Ralph de Picheford, states him to have held the Manor of Picheford by service of half a knight's-fee, under John de Chetwynd. The deceased had 4 carucates in demesne,- value 4. per annum. His assized rents were 6. 2s. 7d. What with a Mill, two gardens, some meadow land, a Wood, a Vivary, income from Tallages, and the rent of a virgate of land (which was not strictly a part of Pitchford Manor), the whole estate was valued at 16. 12s. 7d. The Condover Hundred-Roll of 1255 reports that "Ralph fitz Nicolas holds Pichford, for three hides, in virtue of the guardianship of John son and heir of Ralph de Pichford, which guardianship Ralph fitz Nicholas had from the King". Pichford was of the Fee of Sir John de Chetewind.

[7] A Record (Testa de Nevill, p. 95), which Dugdale assigns to the year 1251-2, but which was probably earlier, enrols Snarkeston as held by Simon de Bereford under Robert de Tatshall, who held it of the Earl Ferrars. De Pichford's mesne interest is here ignored. It is worth noting that these Berefords bore for arms- Arg. crusily fitchee, 3 fleur de lis Sa. (Burton's Leicestershire, p. 262). These arms appear in a simpler form and differently blazoned on the tombs and windows at Abrighton (Vol. II. pp. 162-164).
[8] Supra, Vol. II. p. 55.
[9] Rot. Claus. II. 154.
[10] Lilleshall Chartulary, fo. 74.


It paid 2s. per annum for stretward and motfee, and did Suit to the Hundred. [11] Another statement in the same Report values John de Pichford's estate here at 10. per annum; but the Widow of Ralph de Pichford had remarried with Sir Adam Talbot of Leybn, and her interest in Pichford (her dower, of course) was 3. 6s. 8d. per annum. [12]

Ralph fitz Nicholas thus appears to have been interested in the affairs of this family at two distant periods, viz. 1230 [13] and 1255. I have an impression that he and the Pichfords were related. I must, however, dismiss that question in a note, [14] and state who Ralph fitz Nicholas was. His real name was Pipard. [15] He was Seneschal in 1218 to the Earl Ferrars, and afterwards to King Henry III. He enjoyed a goodly proportion of Crown patronage. He died in 1257, and was succeeded by his son Robert in various estates in Derbyshire, Warwickshire, Leicestershire, Wiltshire, Suffolk, and Sussex.

A word now as to Adam Talbot, who married the Widow, and, as I think, the second wife, of Ralph de Pichford. Whoever he was, we are told that he had a son William, and that the latter was in 1278 Lord of Swannington (Leicestershire). [16] Now Swannington was a Pichford Manor; at least, earlier in the century, one William de Pichford (probably a cadet of the Shropshire House) was put down as Mesne Lord (under the Earls Ferrars) of Swannington and Overton Sawcey. [17] Such coincidences are worth noting, though always to explain them is neither within my power nor my province.

[11] [12] Rot. Hundred. II. 62, 63.
[13] Supra, Vol. II. p. 152.
[14] Both Ralph fitz Nicolas and the Pichfords were descended through females from Baskerville. Both too inherited Baskerville estates (Dugdale's Warwickshire, p. 50). Both held under the Earls Ferrers. The son of Ralph fitz Nicholas named a Pichford as his Surety in 1268. Again, the Arms of Pipard (Ralph fitz Nicholas's family) are given as Arg. two bars gu., on a canton az., a cinquefoil or,- and such arms occur, mixed with Pichford arms, in the way already alluded to under Albrighton (Vol. II. p. 165, note 60). I may add to these heraldic evidences, that Dugdale gives the following Coat from the Chancel-Window of Long Compton, Warwickshire, where the Pipards had an interest. The coat is Arg. two bars az., and a canton with a rose (Hist. of Warwicksh., Thomas's Edition, p. 582). This was precisely the blazonry of one of the coats in an Albrighton window.
[15] Burton (Antiquities of Leicestershire, pp. 210, 211) gives Ralph fitz Nicholas's name as Wichard, and his Arms as Az., a chevron Arg. between four (or three) martlets or. It is quite certain (from the Charter of 14 Henry III., No. 4) that Ralph fitz Nicholas of Osbaston (Leicestershire), was identical with Ralph fitz Nicholas of Stretton-Baskervfil (Warwickshire): and Dugdale's descent is so entirely different from Burton's that I must suspect the accuracy of the latter.
[16] Burton (ut supra), p. 276. The Arms which Burton gives for Talbot are those which he had before assigned to Hereford (supra, note 7), except that Talbot's fleurs-de-lis are Gules.
[17] Testa de Nevill, p. 95.


I believe that the first wife of Ralph de Pichford was Margery, a daughter of John le Strange (II.) of Nesse and Cheswardine, and further that they had a daughter, Burgia, who became the wife of Nicholas de Wililey. Except on these suppositions, I cannot explain a deed whereby Nicholas de Willilegh, with the assent and will of Burgia his wife, sells to Sir John le Strange all that land in the Vill of Lucam (Lytcham, Norfolk) which the Father of the said John gave for the frank marriage of Ralph de Pichford with Margery his daughter. [18] This deed is without date, and the witnesses are not given, so that I may only state it to have passed between 1238 and 1255.

John de Pichford, son and successor of Ralph, was, I think, his son by a second wife. Coming of age in 1258, he seems to have espoused the same political cause as his ill-fated nephew, Andrew de Wililey, and his no less unfortunate father-in-law, William Devereux. However, a patent dated at Kenilworth on July 11, 1266, spared him the consequences of rebellion. The King remitted all his wrath at John de Pichford's conduct during the late disturbances, and ordered that he should not be molested in respect of his possessions. On Sunday, April 30, 1273, John de Pychford was one of the witnesses who appeared before the King's Council at Westminster to give evidence as to the age of George de Cantilupe, then claiming his livery. Pychford's statement accorded with that of previous witnesses. His knowledge on the subject arose thus;- he had married a daughter of William Devereux, and, his wife being a cousin of George de Cantilupe's, [19] he (Pychford) had been led to make inquiries about the age of the latter. Sir Adam de Gurdin and Sir Robert de Tregoz, and others who had been in the household of William de Cantilupe, George's Father, had given the Deponent the information which he now retailed. [20] Walter Giffard, Archbishop of York, is stated to have had a mortgage on Pitchford in 1273 for the scutage of Wales. [21] The entry on the Close-Rolls says nothing about the Scutage of Wales. [22] On August 14, 1273, John, son of Ralph de Pichford, mortgaged the Manor for 200 merks to Archbishop Giffard. If the mortgage was

[18] Glover's Collection, A, fo. 111, b.
[19] John de Pychford's wife was cousin in the second degree to George de Cantilupe; that is, her grandmother (Isabella de Cantilupe) was Sister to George de Cantilupe's Grandfather (William de Cantilupe II.).
[20] Inquisitions, 1 Edw. I., No. 16.
[21] [22] Dukes, p. 288, and Rot. Claus. 1 Edw. I., m.5 dorso.- Mr. Blakeway speaks of this mortgage as held by Walter de Langton, Archdeacon of York,- a strange confusion of the real Mortgagee with the subsequent Purchaser of Pitchford, and with Robert Burnell, who was Archdeacon of York at the time.


not redeemed at Michaelmas following, the Mortgagee was to pay 200 merks more, or at the rate of 100 merks for each 10 merkates of land over and above the 20 merkates already covered by the advance of 200 merks. It is more than probable that this mortgage was redeemed or cancelled. Archbishop Giffard was maternal Uncle of John de Pichford's wife. On August 16, 1283, Sir John de Pychford was one of the Knights selected to make a perambulation between Longden and Pulverbatch. The Inquest taken April 25, l 285, after his death, states him to have held the Vill of Pycheford, by a fourth-part of a Knight's-fee, under the Heirs of John de Chetewynde. The service personally due on Pycheford was that of one man doing Castle-guard at Oswestry for 10 days, a coincidence of Chetwynd's tenure being, not, like his Ancestor Turold's, a tenure in-capite, but under Fitz Alan. Pycheford was on this occasion valued at 12. 14s. 4d. per annum. [23] In the hands of Margaret the Widow, and Ralph the son and heir of John de Pychford, the Shropshire estates of the elder line of this family were utterly alienated. If Ralph de Pychford (III.) left any Descendants, I think it probable that they settled in Ireland.

At the Assizes of October 1292, Roger Careles, of whom we have heard under Albrighton, was admitted as Attorney for Ralph de Pycheford, the latter having gone to Ireland by license of the Crown. [24] At the same time Margaret widow of John de Pycheford was sued for disseizing Richard de Eton of estovers in 300 acres of bosc. It was found however that no hindrance had been suffered by the Plaintiff. [25]

In 1298, as we have already seen, Walter de Langton, Bishop of Lichfield and Coventry, commenced a series of acquisitions in Shropshire with the purchase of Tasley from the Corbets. [26] On January 27, 1301, a Fine was levied between the said Bishop (Plaintiff) and Ralph de Pychford (Deforciant) of the Manor of Pychford, whereof was a Plea of Convention. Ralph de Pychford'a quit-claim was purchased for 100. The Bishop, by a second Fine, bought up the life-interest of Ralph de Pychford's mother. The Fine itself purports to be between the Bishop and Margery, widow of John de Pychford, of the Manor of Pychford, whereof was plea of charter-warranty. Margery acknowledges that the Manor is the Bishop's by her gift, to hold to him and his heirs under the chief lords of the fee. In return the Bishop covenanted to pay

[23] Inquisitions, 13 Edw. I., No. 14.
[24] [25] Assizes, 20 Edw. T., mm. 1 dorso, 5 recto.
[26] Supra, Vol. I. p. 97.


Margery a life annuity of 28., and gave, in case of his failing so to do, a power of distress on the Manor. [27] This Fine has an indorsement intimating that William Grandison, Sibil his wife, and John la Ware apposed (that is, sunk) their claim. It is difficult to account for this indorsement in the case of Pitchford, though it is intelligible enough in the cotemporary Fine already given, where the Bishop purchases the Advowson of Albrighton, the Manor, and some land there, having been already sold to John de Tregoz, whose heirs indorse the Fine [28] Possibly Ralph de Pychford's sale to Sir John de Tregoz had been carelessly defined, and the transaction needed a full and legal adjustment. It is also possible that the parties concerned in the purchase of Pychford's Shropshire inheritance were not all aliens in blood to the Vendors. Still these sales or transfers excluded the elder representatives of Norman Venator from their position in Shropshire, and thus closed the history of a Domesday Fief, if not a Domesday Barony.

In the Nomina Villarum of 1316 the Bishop of Chester stands enrolled as Lord of Pycheford. [29] On July 4, 1317, the date of a letter informs us of his being resident here. Bishop Langton died in November 1321. An Inquisition held December 17, 1321, found him to have held the Manor of Pichford under Sir John de Chetewynde for half a knight's-fee. The following extent thereof is given:- A capital messuage, worth 3s. 4d. (per annum); two carucates of land, worth 4.; six acres of meadow, worth 12s.; a water-mill and vivary, worth 2 merks; assized rents, 4. 6s.; pleas and perquisites of Court, 2s. Edmund son of Robert Peverel was found to be Bishop Langton's cousin (consanguineus) and next heir. He was fifteen years of age on September 29, 1321. [30] In 15 Ed- ward II. (1321-2) the Escheator accounts for the issues of this Manor, the Heir being a Minor.

The Inquisition on the death of Edmund Peverel was held at

[27] This, my last mention of Margery Deereuz, wife of John de Pitchford, requires an heraldic note very pertinent to a former subject, viz. the arms which adorned the tombs and windows at Albrighton. The Ordinaries (a fesse and three roundels) of the Arms of Devereux are found twice on one of those tombs (Vol. II. p. 163), and once on the other (Vol. II. p. 164). In the windows at Albrighton (Vol. II. p. 165) the Devereux Arms appear, but with the tinctures reversed, that is, we have Gu. a fesse arg. in chief 3 plates, instead of, Arg. a fesse gu. in chief 3 torteaux.
[28] Supra, Vol. II. p. 158. In this case I have indistinctly translated the words so often indorsed on Fines, viz. Apponunt clemeum suum. They most usually mean, I believe, an acquiescence in the Fine, a renunciation of any third claim, real or supposed.
[29] Parliamentary Writs, IV. 398.
[30] Inquisitions, 15 Edw. II., No. 41.


Brug on June 6, 1331. His tenures of the Manors of Oldbury, Tasley, and Pychford, are severally reported. The last was under Sir John de Chetwynd by service of one-fourth of a knight's-fee. John Peverel, son and heir of the deceased, was aged one year on May 19, previous.
[31] This John died apparently without issue, for Margaret sister and heir of John Peverel of Castle Ashby (Northants) married William de la Pole. [32] From them, through females, descended the Lords Cobham; but whereas William de la Pole sold his interest at Pitchford in 1358 to Sir Nicholas Burnel, I shall no further pursue my account of the Lords of this Manor.

OF UNDERTENANTS in Pitchford some have been incidentally mentioned already. Between 1176 and 1206 Richard, Abbot of Haghmon concedes to Hugh, the son-in-law of Osbert, and to Juliana his wife, that half-virgate which they already held in Picheford, to hold at a fee-farm rent of 2s. Witnesses,- Hugh, Lord of Pychefort, and William fitz Pichot. [33] Pitchford Mill, as we have seen elsewhere, was first granted to, and then surrendered by, the same Abbey, in exchange for land at Bridgnorth. [34]

We have had mention of Adam de Pichford, in 1235, [35] and in 1249 one Henry de Pichford fines one merk for license to accord in some lawsuit. Ulger de Pichford, whose daughter Agnes has been mentioned above, in a Quit-claim of 1236, had, it seems, five other daughters, viz. Emma, Juliana, Isabella, Alice and Margery. Of these Emma fitz Wolger, as she is called, married Robert Scot, to whom Ulger, Emma's father, gave, or is said to have given, half a messuage and 50 acres in Pitchford in frank-marriage. Emma dying issueless, Robert Scot remarried one Juliana, but enfeoffed Ralph de Pichford (II.) in the premises. Robert Scot then died, and in 1272 Juliana his widow and John de Picheford were holding the premises in such sort as that the latter was Juliana's Warrantor in the Suit which then came on. The said suit was instituted by Juliana fitz Wolger and Richard son of Isabella (fitz Wolger), claiming to be heirs (jointly with the representatives of a third and fourth daughter of Wolger) of Emma fitz Wolger. They sued only for half the premises, because William son of Alice (fitz Wolger) and Alice daughter of Margery (fitz Wolger) refused to join in the

[31] Inquisitions, 5 Edw. III., No. 46.
[32] Dugdale's Baronage, II. 182.
[33] Otley Deeds. The Haughmond Chartulary has a transcript of this Deed, and attributes it, with small probability, to Nicholas, Abbot of Haughmond. If this were indeed the case, it passed between 1206 and 1211.
[34] Supra, Vol. I. p. 359.
[35] Supra, Vol. II. p. 152.


prosecution. John de Pichford's defence was, that Emma fitz Wolger did not die seized of the premises, for that her husband, to whom Wolger had given them, survived her, and enfeoffed his (John's) father Ralph therein. [36] The result of the Trial does not appear. Robert Burnell's purchase of 60 acres in Pichford from Martin and Elina de Burchton has been given under the year 1272, and in my account of Acton Burnell. [37] We have Thurstan de Pichford sitting on a local Jury in July 1280, and the same person (with Richard his son) attesting a Golding Deed in 1294.

This Thurstan de Pichford, by Deed, gave to God and St. Mary and St. Michael, of the Church of Pichford, a messuage and three acres of land in pure and perpetual almoign,- the messuage, namely, which Robert le Moot formerly held. [38]

BECHE AND NEWTON.- These Vills, whether members of Pitchford or of Little Eaton, cannot now be traced, but they probably lay on the bank of the Condover Brook, opposite Eaton Mascott. Of the Tenants of Beche I have given some account in speaking of Eaton Mascott Mill. A Fine of November 8, 1248, relates to Beche, and enables us to show to what John de Pichford alluded in 1272, when he stated that Robert Scot had enfeoffed Ralph de Pichford in 50 acres at Pichford. The Fine is between Ralph de Pichesford, Plaintiff, and Robert le Scot, Tenant of a virgate in Pichesford. Robert surrenders it to Ralph, and the latter concedes 35 acres in La Beche to Robert;- to hold for life only, at a rent of 8s., and by performance of forinsec services. The terms of this fine render it probable that Robert le Scot was hurrying to smother the question of title by involving his Suzerain in the matter, and accepting a very inadequate consideration.

By another Fine of the same date, Robert son of Henry de Preston, with Isabella his wife, suing for 35 acres in La Beche, under Writ of mort d'anceatre, quit-claim the same to Ralph de Pichesford for half a merk. These Fines I have given in an order inverse of that in which they were levied; for it is clear that the 35 acres, thus acquired by Ralph de Pichford, were those which he forthwith conveyed to Robert le Scot.

NEWBOLD.- I cannot tell whether this Vill, now lost, was a member

[36] Assizes, 56 Henry III., m. 14. I have never found a statement of the exact Law in such a case as this, viz. What was the power of the surviving husband of a childless wife over estates given in frank marriage with that wife? The question is one of great genealogical importance in other cases to which I shall have to refer.
[37] Supra, p. 130.
[38] Blakeway's MSS.


of Pitchford or of Golding. I have little to add to what I have said of it under Golding.- At the Forest Assizes of 1232, one Stephen de Neubald was amerced; but he possibly had his name from Nobold, near Brace Meole.


With regard to the Foundation of this Church I cannot do better than translate the ancient and authoritative document already alluded to. [39]-

"Memorandum:-That, before the Foundation of the Church of Pycheford, and before the Constitutions of Lyons, certain men, who were then of the Lordship of Pycheford, went to different Churches in the neighbourhood, to hear divine service and to receive the Sacraments, and bestowed their tithes where they chose, as it was lawful for them to do before the aforesaid Constitutions. Hence, at that period the men of Little Eton, Newton, and Beche gave their tithes to the Dean and Chapter of the Collegiate Church of St. Chad, Salop, on condition that they should provide for the said men a Chaplain and Clerk, a Chalice and vestments, and all things necessary towards celebrating divine services three days a week at Eton, in a certain Oratory set apart by them for that purpose, and that the said Chaplain should undertake the duties of hearing confessions, visiting the sick, baptizing infants, and administering all other Sacraments to the said people. At length there arose a certain Lord of Pycheford, Radulf by name, who, on account of the many (spiritual) dangers which were constantly arising in respect of an insufficient visitation of the sick and the distance of infants from baptism, moved with pious charity and holy zeal, built a Church at Pycheford, procured it to be consecrated, and presented Engelard his own brother thereto, which Engelard was instituted and inducted therein at the said presentation. And whilst the institution of Engelard was yet in force, contentions and suits arose, and daily increased, between him and the aforesaid Dean and Chapter concerning tithes and other obventions. At length they came to the following agreement, viz. that the Dean and Chapter should receive the great predial tithes and a heriot, and that all other tithes and obventions whatever should remain with the said Engelard and his successors for ever, on condition of their discharging the aforesaid duties".

It seems, from the comments passed by the Historians of Shrewsbury on this Document, that the Council held at Lyons in 1274

[39] Supra, pp. 268, 269, note. See Hist. Shrewsbury, II. p. 184, note.


passed a formal, but now lost, enactment against the arbitrary consecration of tithes, that is, denying the right of any person or persons to bestow their tithes elsewhere than on the Mother Church of the Parish wherein such tithes arose. It seems to me that such a right of alienation has never been universally acknowledged in England since the words tithes and parishes were first heard of. Many instances of arbitrary consecration of tithes may perhaps be cited from the history of the half-century following the Conquest; but if so, these were Norman innovations, and the general rule was, that the great tithes of a parish belonged to the Mother Church of that Parish, or to those who obtained an appropriation of the Mother Church.

On these grounds, and with the aid of analogous cases, I put a very different interpretation on the above document to that which the Historians of Shrewsbury suggest. The Vill of Little Eaton, near Pitchford, is now destroyed; but in Saxon times and at the date of Domesday it belonged, as a distinct Manor, to the Church of St. Chad. Now, we remember that Dictum of the Monks of Wenlock which received the sanction of the Viceroy Belmeis in the reign of Henry I. [40] The Dictum was, that "all St. Milburg's land constituted but one Parish"; and we have seen that "St. Milburg's land" involved many more localities than those which the Church of St. Milburg held by the secular tenure recorded in Domesday. I conceive, then, that the Saxon Church of St. Chad asserted a spiritual jurisdiction analogous to that of the Church of St. Milburg, that St. Chad's Manor of Little Eaton was in fact held by the Canons to be a part of St. Chad's Parish, and that the Parish included Newton and Beche. Legally therefore, and not, as the above document would suggest, at their own discretion, did the inhabitants of these three Vills pay their tithes to the Canons of St. Chad, and very properly did the Canons in return maintain, first an Oratory, and then a Chapel at Little Eaton. But when (as I conceive, in the time of Henry I., or of Stephen) Ralph de Pichford founded a Church at Pitchford, it became the interest of the men of Little Eaton, Newton, and Beche to second his design; for, as I shall show, he was secularly their Suzerain, holding mediately between them, on the one hand, and the Church of St. Chad, or the Lord of Chetwynd, on the other. The disputes which ensued were natural, the settlement still more so. The Rector of Pitchford got the small tithes and Oblata of Little Eaton, Newton, and Beche;

[40] Supra, Vol. III. p. 232.


and the Canons of St. Chad got rid of their spiritual responsibilities in the district.

Nothing above-said touches, or is intended to touch, the question as to what Parish Pitchford itself was in, before it had a Church. On this point I can only suggest Cound; and it is probable that Ralph de Pichford had to make an agreement with the Rector of Cound in composition of a second claim to spiritual subjection. In this, as in hundreds of other cases, all evidence of the agreement is lost. Pensions of a few shillings, the usual tokens of original affiliation, are, from their very nature and the changed value of money, more likely to become obsolete than to be perpetuated.

The Taxation of 1291 gives the Church of Picheford (in the Diocese of Lichfield and Coventry, and the Deanery of Salop) as annually worth 5. [41] On July 4, 1326, we have good evidence that the Canons of St. Chad were in receipt of the great tithes of Little Eton, Neuton, and Beche. [42]

In 1341 the Assessors of the Ninth taxed the Parish of Pychford at 2. They stated that, when the Church-Taxation of 5. had been calculated, there were more sheep in the Parish, and that now there were only 60 sheep. Moreover, the glebe, oblations, and small tithes of the Church amounted to 2.; and three carucates of the demesne of Pychford were lying untilled. [43]

The Valor of 1534-5 gives Roger Otteley as Rector of Pychefforde; and his preferment as 6. 13s. 4d. per annum, less 6s. 8d. for procuration, and 1s. 4d. for synodals. [44]


ENGELARD DE PICHFORD, the first Rector of this Church, lived probably in the reign of Stephen.

RICHARD CLERK OF PICHEFOR, is hypothetically placed by Mr. Blakeway on the list of Incumbents. It is added that he became a Burgess of Shrewsbury in 11 John (1209-10), a fact which should in my opinion exclude him from this list.

MASTER ROBERT DE PICHFORD, Canon Of St. Edith's, Tamworth, and Parson of Hoginton and Picheford, occurs in September 1294. [45] On Dec. 18, 1311, Bishop Langton commits custody of this benefice, then sequestered, to-

[41] Pope Nich. Taxation, p. 247.
[42] History of Shrewsbury, II. 185.
[43] Inquis. Nonarum, p. 183.
[44] Valor Ecclesiasticus, III. p. 185.
[45] Prynne's Records, Vol. III. p. 598.


JOHN GIYFARD, Clerk. On Feb. 26, 1312, the same Bishop admits-

MASTER JOHN DE SAINT WALERY, Priest. Patron-the Bishop himself, "by reason of a feoffment made to him of the Manor and Advowson by Sir Ralph de Pycheford, Knight".
[46] A note to this entry states that this Rector "was not instituted, and did not swear canonical obedience". However, on Oct. 26, 1313, the Bishop grants a license for one year's non-residence, studendi gratia, to Master John de St. Walery, Rector of Pychford.

RICHARD DE WENLOK, Clerk, was presented by Patent of May 16, 1322, King Edward II. being Patron as Custos of the estates and heir of Bishop Langton. [47] This Patent reached Master Geoffrey de Blaston (then acting as Vicar of Roger de Northburgh, Bishop Elect of Lichfield) on May 21, 1322; but the said Vicar directed the Archdeacon of Salop to inquire by Inquest as to the vacancy of Pitchford. The Archdeacon's return reached the Vicar on May 25, and on May 26 the Vicar instituted the above Presentee. Richard de Wenlok died May 17, 1347, and on June 3-

RICHARD DE LA HULLE, Clerk, of Bruggenorth, was admitted, Sir John de Chetwynde, Knight, being Patron hac vice. [48] On March 80, 1366, this Rector exchanges Benefices with-

RICHARD DE ASTON, late Rector of Rollondryght (Linc. Dioc.). He died in 1380, when, on April 22,-

HENRY DE MILTON, Priest, was instituted. Patron- Sir Nicholas Burnel, Lord of Holgate.

SIR THOMAS COUNDE was instituted Sept. 13, 1416. Patron- Sir Hugh Burnell. He died in 1424, when, on August 17,-

SIR JOHN ADY, Chaplain, was instituted. Patrons,- Sir Philip Morgan, Bishop of Worcester; Joan de Beauchamp, Lady of Bergavenny; Bartholomew Brookesby, Esq., and John Bache, Clerk.

JOHN HOOYE, Priest, was instituted Dec. 22, 1449. Patron- James, Earl of Wiltshire.

[46] It is probable that Bishop Langton presented this Incumbent with no good will. He was, in fact, a nominee of the Crown. By a Writ dated November 22, 1311, King Edward II. had presented St. Walery to the Living on the ground that the lands of Bishop Langton had lately been in the King's hand (Patent, 6 Edw. II., p. 1, m. 10). The only forfeiture of Langton that I know of lasted from Sept. 20, 1307, to Oct. 3, 1308. Probably Pitchford Church had fallen vacant in that interval. I have before alluded to Langton's quarrel with Edward II. (Vol. II. p. 160, note 48.) [47] Patent, 16 Edw. II., p. 2, m. 15.
[48] The above Institutions, etc., are taken from Lichfield Registers, A. fos. 66, 66-b; B. fos. 3, 3-b, 221-b. The rest are from Blakeway's MSS.


SYR RICHARD BROKE was Rector here in 8 and 12 Hen. VII. (1492-7). He died in 1497, when, on March 14,-

SIR THOMAS BERD, Priest, was instituted. He died in 1609, when, on December 9,-

SIR RICHARD OTTELEY, Chaplain, was instituted. Patron- William Otteley, Esq. He died in 1520, when, on February 23,-

SIR JOHN MENLOVE, Priest, was instituted. Patron- William Otteley, Esq.

ROGER OTTELEY was Rector here in 1534-5. He died in 1563, when on October 20,-

RICHARD SUTTON was presented by Adam Otley.


The Monument, of which an engraving is annexed, belongs to a class not very numerous, and of that class it is one of the finest specimens to be found in England. [49]

The figure (full seven feet in stature) and the slab on which it reclines are formed from one solid trunk of dark oak.

In contemplating this august memento of a past aera, the spectator first and most naturally inquires whom it is supposed to represent. Seldom can a concise and positive answer be given to such inquiries. The study of uninscribed Monuments, though it may afford pleasure to the literary wrangler or the careless speculator, brings small satisfaction to a responsible author.

With a full certainty that I can prove nothing about the Pitchford monument, I cannot consistently suppress my ideas on the subject, however open they may be to contradiction.

In the present instance we have three evidences to guide or to perplex us, as the case may be. These are (1) the Tradition of the neighbourhood, (2) the Costume of the Effigy, and (3) the Armorial bearings on the side of the monument.

As to Tradition, though I have somewhere heard it said or suggested that this was the Monument of Sir Hugh de Pichford, I refer with more confidence to the tradition of the last Century, as certified

[49] Berrington Church contains the monumental effigy of a Knight, wrought in wood like that at Pitchford, but differing in many respects, and especially in not having been nearly so well preserved. Tradition (very improbably, I think) assigns this monument to a Berrington. It has neither armorial insignia nor inscription. To date it or appropriate it, on the mere evidence of costume, I will not attempt.


[For engraving, see pdf.]


by a scrupulous and most able Inquirer. [50] In 1793 the Monument was deemed to represent Sir Ralph de Pichford.

Now there were three Ralphs of this family; and if one of them be really represented in this Effigy, I should judge from the costume of the figure that it was he who died in 1252.

The Shields which adorn the side of this Monument are these.

1. Semee of crosses, a cinquefoil pierced (Pichford).

2. A fesse and in chief three Roundels (Devereux).

3. Semee of mullets and a cinquefoil, all pierced (Pichford). [51]

4. A chevron between three Roundels (Baskervill).

5. Fretty.

6. A Lion rampant.

7. Five barrulets.

Now the first and third of these Coats are undoubtedly those of Pichford, and should be blazoned thus, (1) Az., a cinquefoil or., pierced gu., between 8 crosses of the second, (3) Az., a cinquefoil or., pierced gu. between 7 mullets of the second, pierced of the field.

The second shield is unquestionably that of Devereux, and should be blazoned- Arg. a fesse gu., and in chief 3 torteaux. The fourth shield, that of Baskervill, should be blazoned,- Arg., a chevron gu. between 3 heurts. On the fifth, sixth, and seventh coats I offer neither comment nor conjecture here.

The coats (1) and (2), from their position at the head of the figure, are the leading features of the series. They are allusive to the marriage of John de Pichford with Margaret Devereux. According to their evidence, then, the monument is that of Sir John de Pichford, who died in 1285; and I see nothing in the costume of the knight's figure subversive of such an idea. The coats (3) and (4) must be taken for those of John de Pichford's Grandfather and Grandmother, viz. of Hugh de Pichford and Burga de Baskerville, who was an heiress. Consequently there are no coats left which we can reasonably assign to Ralph de Pichford and to his wife Margery le Strange, whose shield would have been charged with Two Lions passant. Now, though we often find a person's monument ornamented with the armorial achievements of his children, I cannot conceive that this was done to the exclusion of the arms of himself and his wife.

On the whole, then, we may say that Tradition (uncontradicted

[50] The Reverend Edward Williams (see MS. 21, 236, p. 6, Brit. Museum).
[51] The Coat of Pichford is found elsewhere with a Semee of Martlets and of Cross-crosslets. These heraldic caprices indicate no distinction of Houses.


by the costume of the Effigy) asserts this monument to be that of Sir Ralph de Pichford who died in 1252; but Heraldry (equally uncontradicted in respect of costume) tells us that the monument is Sir John de Pichford's. Of these two alternatives I cannot hesitate to prefer the latter. [52]

Leaving this interesting but perplexing subject, I have one or two miscellaneous matters to notice in conclusion.

At the close of the last Century the three following Shields were decypherable on Quarries in the floor of Pitchford Church. (1) Quarterly, per fesse indented. (2) Quarterly, per fesse indented, a bend over all. (3) Fretty. [53] The second of these Coats will claim particular attention in a future Chapter.

Pitchford contains one more monument of the remote aera to which my researches are confined. Tradition says that the ancient and gigantic Lime Tree which adorns the precinct of Pitchford Hall has been known for centuries as The Tree with a house in it. [54] The House has been carefully maintained, [55] though, in the annexed Illustration, the Engraver omits that feature.

Perhaps it was well to preserve the venerable simplicity of an object which, had it memory and utterance, could bear witness on all those questions in the early history of Pitchford and its Lords, which I regretfully leave unsolved.

Little Eaton.

Domesday mentions this Manor very briefly.- "The Church of

[52] I have not thought it necessary in the above remarks to advert to the very exceptional case, where a monument may be supposed to have been erected to some famous personage long after his decease, and so may be expected to exhibit details of costume and ornament which were appropriate only to the aera of such erection. The best, perhaps the only well ascertained, instance of this is the oaken effigy of Robert Courteheuse in Gloucester Cathedral. This, though undoubtedly an ancient monument, and erected to the memory of the unfortunate Duke, is full of anachronisms, if referred to the aera of the Duke's death.

61 Church Notes by the Rev. E. Williams (ut supra).

[53] The Pitchford Lime, though by no means in a state of decay, has lost some of its finest boughs. One, which fell in 1823, was ascertained to contain 149 cubic feet of timber; another, which fell in 1856, contained 93 cubic feet.

[55] The summer-hone, which rests on the bole of the tree, is 9 feet 2 inches square, and 7 feet in height, from the door-sill to the spring of the roof.


[For engraving, see pdf.]


St. Chad holds and held (in Saxon times) Etone; and Turold (holds it) of her. Here is half a hide, geldable. It used to pay 8s. (yearly). Now it pays 4s". [1] I have already explained that Little Eaton, after being reputed for a time to be merely a member of Pitchford, has now wholly vanished. Its site is unknown, much more the site of its Oratory or Chapel, which was probably disused seven hundred years ago. The Canons of St. Chad probably took Turold for their Tenant of Etone, as being Lord of Pitchford. To him the tenure must have been an object. When the Pichfords were enfeoffed in Pitchford, the tenure of Chetwynd under St. Chad vanishes, and the Pichfords held Little Eaton immediately of the Church. So I interpret a statement in the Inquisition taken in 1253 on the death of Ralph de Pichford (II.). "He held", says the Record, "one virgate under the Chapter of St. Chad, Salop. The rents he received from this virgate were 1. 9s. 6d.", but his chief-rent to St. Chad is not stated, and was perhaps merely nominal.

A family, which took its name from the place, seems to have held Little Eaton, or a great part thereof, under the Pichfords, for several generations; but the names Eton, Eaton, and Eyton, being synonymous, are often interchanged in ancient documents, and were common in Shropshire. I shall only notice here such persons as I am assured belonged to the locality before us. We have Uger de Eton and Oliver his brother attesting a Deed of Hugh de Pichford's about 1192-4. [2] Again we have Richard de Etun as Juror on a Pulley Inquest in 1249; and the same person, printed as Richard de Ston, was on the Inquest of Condover Hundred in 1255. At the Assizes of 1256 Richard de Eton again appears on the Jury of that Hundred. I find him also on a local Inquest in May 1259.

In 1262 and 1271 we have had mention, under Ruckley and Langley, of Richard son of Richard de Eton. [3] This second Richard de Eton was probably he who was amerced 20s. at the Assizes of 1272 for not joining in some recognition or view when empanelled. Yet he was one of the two Electors of the Condover Jury on this occasion. He sat on neighbouring Inquests in December 1273 and

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

I have, in the Table of Condover Hundred (supra, p. 2), put down St. Chad's Church as holding Etone under Earl Roger. The Record itself does not state as much; but wherever a Shropshire Tenure is not certified to be held de Rege, the usual inference is that it was hold de Comite. However, I cannot help thinking that, in Saxon times, St Chad's had held all its lands under the Bishop of Chester, and I question whether such a Seigneury was likely to be interfered with by the Norman Earl.
[2] Supra, Vol. I. p. 359.
[3] Supra, pp. 143, 147.


February 1274, and in November 1274 was on the Inquest for Condover Hundred. We have further had Richard de Eton attesting a Golding Deed in 1294, [4] which is perhaps the most pertinent mention of the name which I could offer, seeing that the Deed is by Ralph de Pichford (III.), whose Vassal Richard de Eton probably was. Lastly, we have had frequent mention of another Richard de Eton, occurring from 1310 to 1333, and whom I conceive to have been of this place.

Of NEWTON and BECHE, possibly members of Little Eaton, but now lost like itself, I have said enough under Eaton Mascott and Pitchford. [5]


IT will serve much to perspicuity if, after noticing the two Manors in which De Pichford was a Tenant of De Chetwynd, or of St. Chad, we proceed with one of the Manors which he held of the Crown and as Heir of Normannus Venator. But before I proceed I should say a word about the natural but false idea which has associated this Vill with the illustrious name of Cantilupe. The Cantilupes, as Lords of the Honour of Montgomery, had many estates in Shropshire, and even in the neigbourhood before us. They had also a Tenant-interest in Brace Meole, acquired by another title, and such a title as might perhaps, per se, comport with the notion that they drew their origin from some Shropshire locality. But the race of Cantilupe was famous before it was known in Shropshire. They were Normans undoubtedly, taking their name from one of those Vills of Cantilupe of which the Duchy contained several. These Norman Vills were called Cantilupe, I suppose, by the original settlers, whose labours of clearance or occupation had been inordinately 'disturbed by the "wolf's long howl" resounding from adjacent forests. The Shropshire Vill of Cantlop must not be associated with any such etymology. The Norman Scribes who wrote Domesday, prone as they were to Norman forms of speech, registered Cantlop with Saxon simplicity and in the following terms.-

"Normannus holds Cantelop of Earl Roger. Edric held it (in

[4] [5] Supra pp. 101, 106, 277.


Saxon times), and was a free man. Here is one hide, geldable. The (arable) land is enough for IIII ox-teams. In demesne there are II teams, and (there are) VI Serfs and IIII Villains, with one team. Here is a Mill of 10s. (annual value). In King Edward's time the Manor was worth 20s.; afterwards it was worth 4. 10s. (per annum): now it is worth 110s". [1]

Before I enter on a succession of details as to the Tenure of this Manor in the thirteenth century, it will be better to give a summary statement. It was divided at some unrecorded period by Normannus, or by one of his successors. The Feoffee of one moiety was some ancestor of the hereditary Foresters of Bolas, the Feoffee of the other moiety was some Ancestor of the Arundels of Tetneshull and Merebrook. In the thirteenth century the share of the Foresters of Bolas went in marriage with a daughter of their House to Longslow of Longslow, and Arundel's share was sold to the Burnels.

Now, the earliest known ancestor of the Foresters of Bolas was Ulger Venator, one of the three persons entrusted by Robert de Belesme with the defence of Bridgnorth in 1102. The first Ralph de Pichford was cotemporarily distinguished in the siege of that Castle and on the side of the King. That the Castle was surrendered in consequence of friendly communications between the Chiefs on either side, we know full well. The Defendants were further bribed by a promise of lands, to be given by the King. We know that Ulger Venator obtained such lands from the Crown. I have already given most of these facts. I have suggested, from the history of Little Brug and of Lee Brockhirst, that Ulger Venator was related both to Norman Venator and to the first Ralph de Pichford. [2] Here, under Cantlope, we find a fact strongly supporting such a theory. Ulger's descendants were the Feoffees of Norman's heirs. Surely Ulger himself got half Cantlope in the time of Henry I. by feoffment of Norman Venator, or of Ralph de Pichford.

The son and heir of Ulger Venator was William fitz Ulger, living in 1156; the son and heir of William fitz Ulger was the author of the following Deed, which passed about 1177-1187.

"I, Robert fitz William, have given to the Abbey of Shrewsbury half the Mill of Cantelhope which William my Father in my presence bequeathed to the said Abbey. Witnesses,- William de Kacginton (Caynton), Adam de Orlenton (Orleton), William Clerk of the Foriet (Abbey Foregate), Richard fitz Siward, Martin fitz Becc,

[1] Domesday, fo. 259, a, 1.
[2] Supra, Vol. I. p. 856.


William fitz Symeon, Robert Clerk of Etdinis (perhaps Ewdness), Vivien Clerk.

Another Deed includes in the grant the Suit of all the Grantor's land of Cantelhope, to the said moiety of the Mill, and is tested by William de Kaginton, Adam de Orlinton, William de Sancta Cruce, Richard fitz Siward. [3]

Robert fitz William was succeeded in the Chief Forestership of Shropshire by his son, Hugh fitz Robert. This was in 1203, and Hugh fitz Robert was married in 1213 or 1214, and died in 1249. Hugh fitz Robert seems to have given his share of Cantlop in frank marriage with one Alice (probably his daughter) to Hugh de Wlankeslaue (i. e. Longslow). I think this was before the year 1228, and that Hugh de Longslow is the person called Hugh de Wittokeslawe in the following Fine. On May 31, 1228, one Walter fitz Walter, having impleaded Hugh de Wittokeslawe and Alice his wife, under writ of mort d'ancestre, for half a virgate in Cantelop, obtained a recognition of his right, viz. to hold it, he and his heirs, under Hugh and Alice and their heirs, at a rent of 2s. For this Walter paid half a merk. A comparison of dates leads me to suppose that, if this Alice was Hugh fitz Robert's daughter, she must have been daughter of a previous wife to the one whom he married in 1213-4. In 1253 we have Hugh de Wlonkeslow as Foreman of a Langley Inquest. In 1255 the Condover Hundred-Roll says that "Hugh de Wlonkesloy and John de Arundel hold Cantolop for one hide of the fee of Pichford, and pay 8d. per annum for stretward and motfee, and do suit to the Hundred". [4] The expression here used, the fee of Pichford, is calculated to mislead. Cantlop as a Manor had no connection with Pitchford except that the Seignoral Lord of Cantlop was Tenant Lord of Pitchford. The Fee of Albrighton or the Fief of De Pichford would have been correct expressions, when classifying any member of Norman Venator's Barony. At the Assizes of 1256 Hugh de Wlonkeslow officiated as Chief-Bailiff of Condover Hundred. A Patent of May 11, 1270, appoints Justices to try a cause of disseizin alleged by John de Baskervyle against John de Arundel for a tenement in Cantilup. A second Patent of July 2 substitutes Robert Corbet as Defendant. The connection between Robert Corbet of Moreton and the Arundels has already had our notice, [5] and will perhaps account for this change. On the other hand John de Baskervyle was probably father of Thomas de Baskervyle, the

[3] Salop Chartulary, Nos. 302, 177.
[4] Rot. Hundred. II.
[5] Vide supra, Vol. V. p. 102.


latter known to have had subsequently, and the former perhaps having already, an interest in Eaton Mascott.

At the Assizes of 1272 we have the two Coparceners of Cantlop at issue; and the statement of their case is of much genealogical interest. Hugh de Longslow of 1256 had been succeeded by his son, another Hugh. The Suit was as follows.- "John de Arundel seeks against Hugh de Wlankeslaue a moiety of 200 acres of bosc in Cantelop, of which the Defendant disseized Petronilla, widow of John de Arundel, and mother of the present Plaintiff". Hugh de Wlankeslaue states in reply, that "Hugh fitz Robert gave the premises to Hugh, the Defendant's Father, in marriage with Alice, the Defendant's Mother", that "Hugh, his father, had died seized thereof, and, since then, Alice, his mother, had died seized thereof". So said the Jurors also, and the Defendant was dismissed sine die. [6] The Condover Hundred-Roll of 1274 alleges a pourpresture against Hugh de Wlonkeslawe, but in terms not intelligible. Apparently the pourpresture, which was of seven years' standing, and consisted in an appropriation of pannage, affected that part of the King's Bosc of Buriwode which lay between the Manors of Condover and Cantlop. John de Pichford's name is associated with Hugh de Wlonkeslawe's, but with what meaning it is impossible to say. [7]

The Inquisition taken May 24, 1285, on the death of John de Pichford, mentions his Seigneury over only one moiety of Cantelop, which, said the Jurors, had been held by Hugh fitz John under the deceased by service of a fourth part of a knight's fee. [8] Here then is recurrent evidence of the mesne-tenure of the Foresters of Bolas still existing; for Hugh fitz John was Son of John fitz Hugh, and Grandson of Hugh fitz Robert above mentioned. Why the subtenure of Hugh de Longslow under Hugh fitz John was not noticed is evident. He owed nothing immediately to John de Pichford. It is not so easy to see why John de Pichford's seigneury over the other moiety of Cantlop is suppressed in this Inquest. He can hardly have alienated it, for the Statute of Quia Emptores had not yet passed. [9]

On June 17 of this same year, 1285, a Fine was levied, whereby John de Arundel, Impedient, acknowledged himself to have given this other moiety of the Manor of Cantilupe to Robert Burnell, Bishop of Bath and Wells, for one Sore Sparrow-hawk. A rent of one Rose to Arundel and all the services due to the Lords of the fee are charged on the Grantee and his heirs. Before I proceed with

[6] Assizes, 56 Hen. III., m. 10.
[7] Rot. Hundred. II. 93.
[8] Inquisitions, 13 Edw. I., No 14.
[9] Vide supra, Vol. V. p. 289.


an account of Burnel's moiety, I will conclude all I have to say about Longslow's. A Writ of Diem clausit, dated January 23, 1290, announces the death of Hugh de Wlonkeslowe. An Inquest, held at Shrewsbury on February 9, found that the deceased had held under Hugh fitz John a messuage and virgate in Cantelope, by service of one pound of cumin, which service was valued at 1d. The said messuage and land were worth 10s. per annum. He had also held 10 acres of bosc in the King's forest, of which the last year's profits were only 1s. for pannage. Hugh, son and heir of the deceased, was now 40 years of age. [10] At the Assizes of 1292, Hugh de Wlonkeslow was one of the two who chose the other Jurors for Condover Hundred. He was also a Juror on an Inquest of the same year on Bishop Burnel's death. At his death however, in 1314, the Inquest says nothing of any estate held by him at Cantlop. This may be explained by the Nomina Villarum of 1316, where Nycholas de Pycheford appears as Lord of half Cantelhop. [11] As the elder branch of the Pichfords had ere this vanished from Shropshire history, this Nicholas was probably a Cadet. Under whom he held half Cantlop I cannot tell. [12]

As to Burnell's moiety, the Inquest taken in December 1292, on the Bishop's death, says with some inaccuracy that he had held 48s. 8d. rent in Cantelop, under the heirs of John de Arundel, by service of a fourth part of a knight's-fee. Such service we know was not due to those heirs, but if due to any one, then to some one holding over the said heirs.

The Inquest taken in June 1294, on the death of Philip Burnel, says that he held a rent in Cantelhope under the Lord of Pychford, thus ignoring any mesne tenure of Arundel's heir. Lastly, the Inquest taken in October 1315, on the death of Edward Burnell, values his interest in Cantelhope at 32s. per annum, and says that he held half the Manor under the Lord of Chetwynd. This I conceive to have been a mere mistake, arising in the false idea, before noticed, that Cantlop was of the Fee of Pitchford.

Of UNDERTENANTS here, I have only one to mention, viz. Thurstan de Cantelhop, a Juror on a neighbouring Inquest in June 1294.

[10] Inquisitions, 18 Edw. I., No. 15.
[11] Parliamentary Writs, IV. 398.
[12] In 1343 Nicholas de Pichford is named as Tenant in capita of part of Cantlop, that is, Mesne-Lord of 2 acres, proposed to be conveyed by the Undertenants thereof to Shrewsbury Abbey (Isquis. 17 Edw. III., 2nd nos. No. 85.)



Domesday describes this Manor as follows:- "Siward holds Frodeslege of the Earl. He also held it (in Saxon times) and was free. Here is one hide, geldable. Here is a wood which will fatten 100 swine, and here are III hayes. The old value (of the Manor) was 10s. (per annum); now it is worth 8s". [1]

This was not the only Manor which Siward was allowed to retain by the Norman Earl. He also had Longville (now Cheney Longville) and Ovres at the date of Domesday. Whether he was identical with that Siward who was dispossessed of so many Manors in South Shropshire, and of whom I have attempted to give some account under Cleobury North, I cannot determine. [2] I think however that he was not. Siward of Frodesley was more probably the same with Siward, surnamed Grossus, who has already occurred to us at a period later than Domesday, and in the company of Earl Roger. [3] If Siward le Gros was, as Ordericus tells us, a kinsman of the Earl, there is no wonder that he should retain his Saxon estates. The only wonder is that they were not increased. This is not intended to throw doubt on Ordericus's statement, which is strengthened by another consideration,- the name Siward is Danish rather than Saxon, and Earl Roger's Great-grandmother was a Dane. [4]

Siward was probably succeeded in his estates by his son Aldred, of whom we shall hear more under Cheney Longville. I cannot trace the succession any further. Frodesley became subjected to the Fief of Fitz Alan, and though one Roger fitz Siward appears in company with the first William fitz Alan in Stephen's reign, and though a Richard fitz Siward appears in the same position soon after the accession of Henry II., I doubt if these persons were descended from Siward le Gros or had any concern in Frodesley. In fact, I question whether Frodesley was annexed to Fitz Alan's Fief so early; for the Liber Niger of 1165 gives neither a Fitz Siward, nor any other Tenant of Fitz Alan whom I can associate

[1] Domesday, fo. 259, b.
[2] Supra, Vol. III. pp. 22, 23.
[3] Supra, Vol. I. p. 112.
[4] Compare Hist. Shrewsbury, II. pp. 2, 4, where the Writer's designation of Siward as a "Saxon Gentleman" need not be taken as the result of mature consideration as to his origin. 292 FRODESLEY.

with Frodesley. In 1167 the Vill of Frodeslega was amerced half a merk for some offence against the Forest-Laws.

The first Lord of Frodesley after this period, whom I can name with any probability, was Robert Hunald or Hunaud. At the Assizes of 1203, Augnes, widow of one Robert, sued him for dower; but he declined to plead, saying that the tenement out of which she claimed dower was held in Villainage. She called, I think (for the Record is defaced), her infant son to warranty, but was directed by the Court to sue the Defendant under Writ of mort d'ancestre; that is, I presume, her son was to establish his heirship before she could sue for dower. [5] At the same Assizes Robert Hunont essoigned his appearance against Robert Burdin and Agnes fitz Osbert in a plea of dower, his Essoignor being Richard Boscard: also Robert Hunald essoigned his attendance at the common summons, his Essoignor being Nicholas, his man. In March 1209 I find Robert Hunald assessed for imbladements within Regard of the Long Forest. His name stands between the assessments on Roger Sprenghose (of Longnor) and on the Vill of Dorrington, which consists well with his supposed concern in Frodesley.

William Hunald, who appears in 1221, was certainly of Frodesley. He also held Marton under the Lords of Montgomery. At the Assizes of 1221 he excused his appearance in a plea against Engelard de Acton and Laurina his wife. His essoign was that which the Jurists called de malo veniendi, a term which is well explained in his case by the accompanying statement that he was beyond sea at St. James's. He had gone to visit the Shrine of St. James of Compostella, which we happen to know had been visited by John fitz Alan, his Suzerain, in the previous year. William Hunald's Suit and agreement with Roger Sprenghose of Longnor, dating in or about 1221, have already been recited. [6] So also has the issue of his suit with Engelard and Laurina de Acton. [7] In 1231, William Hunald was amerced three merks because his hounds had been coursing without license. About 1234 we have John Honald attesting a Charter of Roger Sprenghose, already given. His position would well comport with the idea that he was Lord of Frodesley, but I find almost continuous mention of William Hunald at this period; that is, William Hunald occurs in 1231 and William Hunald again in 1235 without any proof that they were two persons, or that a John Hunald intervened, further than is afforded by this testing clause.

[5] Assizes, 5 John, m. 5 dorso.
[6] [7] Supra, p. 62, and Vol. IV. p. 124.


The Forest Survey of 1235 includes a View of the Bosc of Frodesle. Certain dwellings, held by the Villains of William Hunaud, had been erected therein, and these Villains had, both recently and for some time past, wasted the underwood of one part of the Bosc. The other part was well kept. Oak-trees did not grow therein.

In 1237, William Hunaut appears as a Surety for a fine of 100 merks then inflicted on Robert de Wudeton for some trespass. In 1244 we have William Honaud registered as holding a fourth part of a knight's-fee in Fredesleg under John fitz Alan. [8] In November of the same year he was one of the special Justices appointed to try an assize between the Abbots of Buildwas and Haughmond. In 1246 he appears on a great Inquest touching the Forest-rights of Thomas Corbet of Caus: he occurs also in that year as Escheator for Shropshire. [9] Early in 1248 I find a King's Writ ordering the Sheriff to discharge a certain duty, which belonged properly to the Escheator, because William Honald was dead, and his successor not yet appointed. [10] In Easter Term 1248, his widow Laurencia sues John fitz Alan for a ninth part of the Manor of Frodleg as her dower. The Baron allowed the claim, and the lady gave up her damages. [11] Another suit, which this lady (called Loretta) had about her dower in Marton, shows that her son and heir, Thomas, was an infant; that both William de Cantilupe (as Seigneural Lord of Marton) and John fitz Alan claimed his wardship; and that, pending the dispute, Loretta concealed or removed (elongavit) her Son.

The Condover Hundred-Roll of 1255 says that Thomas Unald holds Fredesleg for one hide under John fitz Alan. He paid 8d. for stretward and motfee, and did suit to both County and Hundred. [12] Another passage in the Record leaves it doubtful whether Thomas Hunald was yet of age. However, in 1256 he is on the list of those who, holding 15 librates of land, were not as yet Knights. In May 1259 Thomas Hunald was a Juror on a neighbouring Inquest. In 1262 it was reported to the Justices of the Forest, then in eyre, how that Richard fitz Hamon of Frodsley, being Woodwarden of Frodsley, had shot a stag on May 3, 1258. He appeared not in answer to the charge, and the Justices ordered him

[8] Testa de Nevill, p. 44.
[9] Supra, Vol. IV. p. 266. It was probably while Sir William Hunald was Escheator that the undated Inquest given under Worfield (Vol. III. pp. 111, 112) was taken.
[10] Inquisitions, 32 Hen. III., No. 9.
[11] Placita apud Gloucester, 32 Hen. III., m. 10 dorso.
[12] Rot. Hundred. II. 62, 61.


to be outlawed, but it was deposed that he was dead. In consequence of this trespass the Bosc of Thomas Hunald of Frodesley, which he had previously had in his own keeping, had been seized in manu Regis. The said Thomas now appeared, and, for a fine of 6s. 8d., obtained repossession of his Bosc, Thomas Botterel and William, son of William de Drayton, being his Sureties. [13]

In 1270, Richard le Harpur and Sibil his wife sue Thomas Hunaud of Frodesleye for disseizing them of a tenement in Ramneshurst. I suppose that Thomas Hunald was succeeded by William Hunald, and that the latter died in 1277-8; for an Inquest of 6 Edward I., which spoke of William Hunold, and his estates at Frodesley and Marton, was probably an Inquest on his death. [14] It is, however, lost.

The next whom I can take as Lord of Frodesley is John Hunald or Honaud, whom we have seen attesting a Wilderhope Deed about 1292. [15] Frodesley, that is, the Seigneury, was one of the Manors given to Philip Burnel in marriage with Matilda Fitz Alan. Hence the Inquest taken May 28, 1295, after the said Philip's death, says that John Hunaud held Frodesley under him for half a knight's- fee. The Manor was extended at 12. [16] This John Honaud, being returned as a holder of 20 librates of land in Shropshire, was summoned in 1297 to be in London on July 7, with horse and arms, for service beyond the seas. [17] In the Nomina Villarum of 1316, John Honaud was duly enrolled as Lord of Frodesley. [17]

Of UNDERTENANTS in this Manor I may instance Benedict de Frodesley and Richard Hunaud, Jurors on a local Inquest in May 1249. The same Benedict occurs on Jury Lists of April and October 1253, on the Jury for Condover Hundred in 1255, and as amerced half a merk for some failure in Suretyship in 1262. Richard Hunaud above-named was perhaps the same with Richard de Frodeslegh, amerced 20s. in 1250 for keeping hounds within the Forest without license, and whose Surety, Robert, son of Robert de Drayton, was amerced 6s. 8d. in 1252. Meantime I find that in 1250 Geoffrey de Langley set arrentations on several parcels of forest-land occupied by Benedict de Frodesley, William Forester of Frodesley, and Roger, son of Roger de Frodesley.

On November 25, 1277, a fine was levied whereby Roger, son of Benedict de Frodesley (Impedient) acknowledges his grant of

[13] Plac. Forestae, 46 Hen. III., m. 4 dorso.
[14] Calend. Inquis. Vol. I. p. 63.
[15] Supra, Vol. IV. p. 101.
[16] Inquisitions, 22 Edw. I., No. 46, d.
[17] Parl. Writs, I. 671; IV. 398. THE CHURCH. 295

one messuage, 32 acres of land, and 3 acres of meadow, to Roger, son of Roger de Frodesley, and the heirs of his body, paying a rose-rent to the Donor, and discharging all capital services. In default of such heirs, remainders are covenanted to William, the Grantee's brother, and the heirs of his body, failing which, to Amice and Margery, the Grantee's sisters, and the heirs of Margery. A Sore sparrow-hawk purports to be the consideration for this grant. At the Assizes of 1292 Roger de Frodesley appeared as Chief Bailiff of Condover Hundred. A Fine of 1293, to which Roger, son of Roger de Frodesley, was a party, has been given under Oaks.


This was, perhaps, originally one of the numerous daughters of St. Andrew's of Condover. The Assize-Roll of 1272 mentions it as a Church then existing. The Taxation of 1291 includes it in the Churches of Salop Deanery and Lichfield Diocese, and values it at 2. per annum. [18] In 1341 the Assessors of the Ninth call it a Chapel, and consider 15s. as a fair assessment on the Parish, seeing that the Glebe-land, hay-tithes, and small-tithes constituted 25s. of the Church-Taxation. [19] The Valor of 1534-5 puts the preferment of Henry Ince, Rector of Froddesley, at 5., less 1s. for synodals, and 5s. for procurations. [20]


HUGH DE ALDENHAM having been presented to the Chapel of Frodeslegh, the Bishop, on November 29, 1806, entrusts him and his Chapel to the custody of Sir Thomas, Rector of Cound, which custody is to be revoked at the Bishop's discretion, if Dame Matilda Burnel, Patroness of the Chapel, and Hugh le Despenser request by letter that it may be revoked. Hugh de Haldenham resigned this Rectory on April 26, 1320, by his Proctor, John de Haldenham, and, on August 1 following,-

THOMAS HONOLD, Clerk, was admitted. Patron, John Honold, Lord of Frodesley. This Rector has a license for one year's study, dated March 29, 1329.

ROBERT DE LONGEDON was instituted to this Free Chapel on October 31, 1358. Patron, John Honold, Lord of Frodesley. [21]

JOHN DE LONGENORLE, presented December 4, 1861, by the same Patron, died in 1369, when, on September 20,-

[18] Pope Nicha. Taxation, p. 244.
[20] Valor Ecclesiasticus, III. 183.
[19] Inquis. Nonarum, p. 192.
[21] Lichfield Registers, A. fos. 19-b, 69-b; B. fo. 6.

296 OVERS.

RICHARD DE MONTEGOMERY was presented by the same Patron. On June 18, 1375, this Rector exchanges preferments with-

HUGH DE CAUS, Priest, late Rector of Tong, who was presented here by John Hunald. He died in 1877, when, on July 25,-

ROGER DE LONGGEDON was instituted, on presentation of John Honaud. He died in 1406, when, on September 20,-

REGINALD SCRIVEN was presented, by John Scryven of Salop and Johanna his wife, daughter of John Honald. [22]

Overs. OVRE is inadvertently inserted in one part of Domesday as a Manor of Earl Roger's demesne, [1] and is described thus.- "In Ovre there is half a hide, geldable. It is worth 3s. (per annum). Senuard held it in time of King Edward". [2] Another part of the Record assigns Condover as the Hundred in which this Manor stood, and says that "Seward holds Ovre of the Earl. He had also held it (in Saxon times). Here is half a hide, geldable. Here are II Villains, with half an ox-team. Its former and present value was and is 3s". [3]

I have noticed in a former Volume an instance where an omission in Domesday was instructive. Here we have a case where the very redundancies of the Record attest its substantive accuracy.

Overs, as a Manor, or even as a Township, has never been heard of since Domesday. The place exists, being situated about a mile south-west of Ratlinghope, to which, parochially, it belongs. In Saxon times it was associated with Ratlinghope in another way; for Siward was Lord of both Manors.

The evidence which has been given under Frodesley implies the forfeiture or failure of the line of Siward. We should consequently expect to find Overs as an Escheat of the Crown in the twelfth or thirteenth century, or else annexed by the Crown to some contiguous Barony or Manor. We find, however, no direct evidences of either circumstance. The history of Ratlinghope and Stitt, already

[22] Blakeway's MSS.
[1] Vide Vol. I. pp. 128, 129.
[2] [3] Domesday, fos. 254, a, 1; 259, b, 1.


given, is full of anomalies. Ecclesiastical boundaries in this district were either undefined or actually changed. We have King Henry II. granting Stitt as if it were Royal Demesne, but we know not how it became so. If the King had thus dealt with Overs, the process would have been intelligible, but of Overs we hear nothing. We know that as a Manor it was annihilated; we may presume that it was annexed to some adjacent Manor,- perhaps to the Abbot of Wigmore's estate at Ratlinghope, perhaps to one of the Abbot of Haughmond's estates at Stitt, at Linley, or at Boveria, on the Long Mynd.

But though we fail to point out the Seigneural Lord of Overs in the thirteenth century, we know something of the Tenants; for they took a name from the place, and had possessions elsewhere, which brought them into notice. This family of De Overs had an estate at Mucklewick, in Chirbury Hundred. They also held under the Mores in the "Fee of La More", as it was then called. We shall therefore hear of them again when we come to the history of the Borders. Of their dealings in Overs I cannot certify a single fact; for their grant of Little Radley Wood to Haughmond Abbey was, I take it, an incident of their tenure elsewhere.

Here I shall give no more than the names of these presumed Tenants of Overs.- Madoc de Overes was succeeded by his son Robert before 1221. He had six other sons, viz. Eynun, Griffin, Lewellyn, Tudor, Wronon, and Madoc. Robert, his eldest son, was living in 1248, but was dead in 1255.


Domesday gives Netley in a sort of appendix, with five others of the smaller Manors of Earl Roger's demesne.- "The Earl himself holds Netelie. Elmar held it (in Saxon times) and was free. Here is one hide, geldable. The (arable) land would employ II ox-teams. It is and has been waste. Its value (in Saxon times) was 12s. (per annum)". [1]

The manorial status of Netley was destroyed, probably by Earl Roger himself, and in pursuance of a design which would seem to

[1] Domesday, fo. 269, b, 2.


have been entertained at the time of Domesday. The land was evidently annexed to the Forest; and though in the thirteenth century the Vill was partially repopulated, no Tenant-in-fee of the Manor ever occurs.

In 1209 Richard and William de Netelegh and the men of Netelegh are charged with imbladements within Regard of the Long Forest. [2] In Langley's Forest-arrentation of 1250, Ralph le Lung and other settlers at Netley are assessed in small sums. The period when its Manorial status was restored to Netley does not come within my present scope. Nethelegh was, however, one of the places which were disforested by the Great Perambulation of 1300-1. [3]


THIS was one of the Manors which the Domesday Commissioners found William Pantulf to be holding under Earl Roger. Their remarks, which are evidently intended to question the propriety of such a tenure, must be given in the original Latin; for I will not offer more than an opinion on their precise meaning.- "Isdem Willelmus tenet Begestan. Edric tenuit de Episcopo de Hereford, et non poterat ab eo divertere, quia de victu suo erat et ei prestiterat tantum in vita sua. Ibi est I hida geldabilis. Terra est III carrucis. In domino est una (carruca) et IIII Servi et II Bordarii. Valebat X solidos. Modo XXV solidos". [1]

I presume that Edric Sylvaticus had been the Bishop of Hereford's Tenant of Bayston, and had paid him some unspecified rent in kind, so that the Bishop's Household was thus far maintained by Bayston. Hence, argued the Commissioners, the Manor could not divert (or be diverted) from the Bishop. The clause, et ei praestiterat tantum in vita sua, is ambiguous. It may mean that Edric had rendered during his life certain produce in kind, or that the Manor had rendered certain produce during the life of the last Bishop of Hereford. In the former case, the allusion would be to the death

[2] Placita Forestae 10 John, m. 1 dorso. It is worth observing that the term used is De hominibus de Netelegh, whilst in all other cases where a community is assessed the word villata is used, e. g. De villata de Weseleg. The inference is, that Netley, though inhabited, was not recognised as a Vill.
[3] Salop Chartulary, No. 279.
[1] Domesday, fo. 257, a, 2.


of Edric Sylvaticus in prison, a matter which we have before discussed; [2] in the latter case, allusion would be to Walter, Bishop of Hereford, who died six or seven years before Domesday. The position of the Domesday Commissioners, that the Seigneury of Bayston could not lawfully be changed, seems to have been deferred to most implicitly. At no subsequent period have we the slightest appearance of a Pantulf interest in the Manor; but whenever the Seigneurs' Lord is named, it is the Bishop of Hereford. A branch of the House of Sprenghose held Bayston under the said Bishop in the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries. The same branch also held Plaish, but under different Lords. A Writ of King Henry III., dated at Ludlow, October 2, 1224, names Richard Sprengehose as one of the Verderers of Shropshire, and as exempt from all future liability to serve on Assizes, Juries, or Recognitions. [3] This Richard I take to have been of Bayston. In 1255 the Condover Hundred-Roll says that Richard Sprenchose (probably a second of the name) holds the roll of Beyston under the Bishop of Hereford. He paid the Bishop 20s. per annum, but did no suit either to County or Hundred, nor did he pay either stretward or motfee. [4] Thus the immunities of this Manor were greater since it had been restored to the Church, for Domesday had registered it as geldable.

In 1257 Richard Sprengehose and Robert Corbet appear as Sureties for an amercement set on Thomas and Philip Hord. Richard Sprenghose's attestation of a Wilderhope Deed about 1260 is the last occurrence of his name that I have to mention. [5]

William and Walter Sprenghose appear as Jurors on an Inquest of April 1283. The latter, according to the Feodary of 1284, was Lord of Baystan, holding it of the Bishop of Hereford, who held it of the King; but of the services due thereon the Inquest makes no mention.

A Pulley Inquest of April 1290 was attended by Alan Sprenghose; but Walter Sprenghose of Plash (and of Bayston) occurs again in 1297. [6] Lastly, we have Walter Sprenghose on a Preen Inquest in April 1301. In the Nomina Villarum of 1316, Richard Sprenghose appears as Lord of Plaish and of Beystan. [7] His attestation of a Wilderhope Deed in this or the preceding year shows that he was styled of Plash. [8] By a Deed, dated at Beyston on June 25, 1364, Sir William Sprenchoes, Lord of Beyston, demises to Richard Barker

[2] Supra, Vol III. p. 50.
[3] Claus. II. p. 623.
[4] Rot. Hundred. II. 63.
[5] [6] Supra, Vol. IV. p. 101.
[7] Parliamentary Writs, IV. 398.
[8] Supra, Vol. IV. p. 101.


a cottage for life, reserving a rent of 2s., and suit, every three weeks, to the Grantor's Court of Beyston. Witnesses,- Richard de Beyston, Roger Champeneys, and others. [9]

As to UNDERTENANTS here, I shall only quote a cause which stood for trial at the Assizes of 1256, viz. whether Robert, son of Robert Penbroch, and Adam his son had disseized Roger le Charpenter of a noke in Beyeston.

Great Norton.

THIS was another of William Pantulf a Domesday Manors.- "The same William holds Nortone (of the Earl). Uluric held it (in Saxon times) and was a free man. Here is one hide, geldable. There is arable land (enough) for II ox-teams. Here III Villains and I Boor have one team. In King Edward's time the Manor was worth 30s. (per annum); afterwards it was worth 9s.; now it is worth 25s". [1]

The Seigneury of Norton, near Condover, remained long with the Barons of Wem. The probability that this place was visited by Henry I. has been already glanced at. [2] The King, having his headquarters at Condover, might easily be at Norton accidentally, and being found there by the Abbot of Shrewsbury, might think the expediting of a Writ no interruption to the pleasures of the table or the chase. Such matters, I suspect, were as often transacted in the field as at the Council-board, for in those days the Chancellor's place was ever at the King's right-hand.

At the close of the twelfth and the beginning of the thirteenth centuries, Dawley, Tibberton, and Norton were held, under the Pantulfs of Wem, by a younger branch of their house. In 1240 this younger branch was extinct in the male line, and was represented by Coheirs. In 1255 two of these Coheirs, viz. Michael de Morton and Richard Irish (Hibernensis), were holding Norton, for one hide, of the Fee of Wem. The Manor owed neither stretward, motfee, nor suit of Court. [3]

At the Assizes of 1256 a very remarkable and probably an erroneous

[9] In possession of W.W. How, Esq.
[1] Domesday, fo. 257, a, 2.
[2] Supra, Vol. I. p. 86.
[3] Rot. Hundred. II. 62. A slight inaccuracy in the Record is presumed and corrected. GREAT NORTON. 301

decision was come to in a suit concerning land in Norton. One William fitz Thomas sued Michael de Morton for disseizing him of a messuage and half-virgate in Norton. Michael de Morton declined to plead, alleging "that Northon was a member of Conedoure, and that Conedoure was ancient demesne of the Crown, wherein no Writ was current except the Parvum breve de recto clausum". The Jury affirmed this proposition, and Michael was dismissed sine die. [4]

I have often explained how Writs of novel disseizin and some other Writs were excluded from operation in Manors of ancient demesne. It is possible, nay it is certain, that the jurisdiction of Norton had at this time been abstracted from Condover Hundred and attracted to the Court of Condover Manor. [5] Prescription therefore may have settled the franchises of Norton as identical with those of Condover; but the above suit was not determined on that ground; it was determined on the ground that Norton was a member of Condover and so ancient demesne, the fact being that, in so far as it was not ancient demesne, it was not a member of Condover.

It seems that Bishop Burnell obtained a feoffment of at least Michael de Morton's share of Norton. The Inquest taken in December 1292 on the Bishop's death, says that he had held 27s. 9d. annual rent in Norton under Michael de Morton by service of one rose. The Inquest, taken in July 1294, on Philip Burnel's death, is quite consistent in stating that certain rents held by the deceased in Norton involved a suit to the Manorial Court of Conedoure. [6] But an Inquisition of Burnell Tenures, taken at Cound in 1301, gives this Estate of Norton as realizing 1. 16s. 5d. per annum, and as having been held in socage, by Philip Burnell, deceased, under Thomas Corbet. [7] I cannot explain this, and suspect some error of the Jurors. The Inquisition taken in October 1315, on Edward Burnell's death, is much more intelligible. The Jurors valued the Vill of Norton juxta Condover at 2. 6d. per annum, and said that Edward Burnell had held it, free of all service, under the heirs of Michael de Moreton and of Reginald de Charnes.
[8] Reginald de Charnes, be it observed, was another of the Coheirs of Pantulf of Tibberton and Dawley. The previous non-mention of his name as a Coparcener in Norton is no more a proof that he had no interest there than this Inquest is a proof that the heirs of Irish and Caverswell

[4] Assizes, 40 Hen. III., m. 3.
[5] A parallel case was the attraction of Bobbington, Rudge and Shipley to Claverley Manor-Court, as already noticed. Vide supra, Vol. III. pp. 166, 206, and 211.
[6] Inquisitions, 22 Edw. I., No. 46, c.
[7] Inquisitions, 28 Edw. I., No. 24.
[8] Inquisitions, 9 Edw. II., No 67.


(the third and fourth coheirs of Pantulf) were extinct. I shall recur to the subject of these Coheirs again, and may dismiss my account of Norton with stating that in 1316 it was part of the dower of Alina Burnell, Edward Burnell's Widow.


Domesday classifies the possessions of Wenlock Priory under the following title, viz. Quod tenet AEcclesia Sanctae Milburgae. At the end of the list is this notice of a Manor, unnamed, but placed in Conodovre Hundred.-

"Sancta Witburga holds half a hide, geldable; and the Son of Aluric holds it of him (de eo). Here is one Villain with one ox-team, and there might be another (ox-team) here. It (the Manor) is worth 8s. (annually)". [1]

It is obvious that in this passage we should read Milburga for Witburga, and ed for eo. It is apparent, too, from what has been said under Burton, that Aluric, a Saxon Tenant of St. Milburg, in the time of the Confessor, was represented at the time of Domesday by his son Edric. [2] This Edric was, in short, the only Feoffee of Wenlock Priory, alluded to in Domesday;- and he held Burton and the unnamed Manor now under notice.

That this Manor was Hughley there cannot be a question, for Hughley was the only Manor in Condover Hundred which will fulfil certain conditions of identity. It was held after Domesday by Wenlock Priory. So (it may be said) were Church Preen and Wigwig, both in Condover Hundred; but then we know that Church Preen and Wigwig were acquired by the Priory after Domesday, and that in Domesday they appear by name, and in other hands. In fact the negative proof is in this case, as in many others, unassailable. If the unnamed half-hide of St. Witburg be not Hughley, then the Manor so described in Domesday had no subsequent representative, and, if the Manor of Hughley be not the said half-hide, Hughley has no Domesday antecedent.

[1] Domesday, fo. 252, b, 2.
[2] Supra, Vol. III. p. 300.


Edric fitz Aluric, though untouched in estate at Domesday, was, I imagine, eventually dispossessed. Had the later Lords of Hughley been his lineal heirs, they would probably have inherited Burton also; but that Manor never appears after Domesday, except as a Manor held in demesne by Wenlock Priory.

On the other hand, Hughley was held from the twelfth to the sixteenth century by Feoffees of the Priory, at one uniform chief-rent of 5s. The Estate in the twelfth and thirteenth centuries is always written as Lega or Lee, a word which I have elsewhere explained to be nearly equivalent to Manor. [3] This was one step in advance of the indistinctiveness of Domesday; but there were many Lees in Shropshire, and the second step (that by which this Manor was at length definitely known) was not taken till the end of the thirteenth century. It was then called Hughley, the prefix being the Christian name of a former Lord of the Manor. This was a curious result; for while the family had taken its name from the Lee or Manor, the Manor in turn took its distinctive name from one of the family.

It is now my business to mark the succession of those Lees who held the Manor under Wenlock Priory,- a work which I cannot hope to accomplish with any certainty, seeing that my chief evidences are of the most indefinite character, viz. the testing clauses of undated Charters.

In 1120 we have seen Ranulf de Leges attesting a Charter of Wenlock Priory; [4] and him I take to have been Ancestor of Thomas de Lega, to whom, between the years 1169 and 1176, Peter, then Prior of Wenlock, made the following conditional grant of the Advowson of the Chapel of Lega:- Sciant presentes et futuri quod ego Petrus Prior de Wenloke concessu totius conventus concessi Thome de Lega et heredibus suis in perpetuum liberam donacionem Capelle de Lega et presentacionem Clerici ad eandem Capellam, ita quod Clericus, per presentacionem Thome sive heredum suorum ab ipso institutus, antequam mittatur in corporalem possessionem, vel aliquod beneficium de eadem Capella percipiat, veniet ad Cenobium de Wenloke, tam ipse quam Successores sui, et coram Priore et Conventu jurabit, tam ipse quam Successores sui, fidelitatem matrici Ecclesie de Wenlok, et quod fideliter servabit legata et cetera que ad matricem Ecclesiam prestantur, et quod annuatim nomine pensionis duos solidus matrici Ecclesie de Wenloke in octabis Pentecostes in manu Sacriste persolvet. Thomas

[3] Supra, Vol. I. p. 148.
[4] Supra, Vol. IV. p. 134.


autem juravit quod si Clericus predictam convencionem non observaverit ipse eum ad observandam compellet. Preterea Capellanus ejusdem Clerici jurabit in Capitulo Decanatus illius, se fideliter servaturum legata et cetera que ad matricem ecclesiam pertinent. Predictus vero Thomas juravit se observaturum racionabiles consuetudines et sectas veniendi ad matricem Ecclesiam de Wenlok diebus festis, scilicet in die Nativitatis Domini, in transitu Sancte Milburge, [5] in die Pasche, in die Pentecostes, in die Sancti Johanna Baptiste, et in die Invencionis Sancte Milburge. [6] Hanc autem convencionem, quam Thomas se observaturum juravit, heredes aui post eum se observaturos jurabunt. Et ut hec convencio in posterum rata habeatur, presenti chyrographo confirmata est, ita quod in parte chyrographi quam Thomas habet appositum est sigillum Ecclesie de Wenlok, et in illa parte quam habet Ecclesia de Wenlok appositum est sigillum Hugonis filii et heredis ipsius Thome qui hanc convencionem fideliter observandam juravit; et heredes sui post eum jurabunt. Et quia predictus Thomas nunquam sigillum habuit, dictus Hugo filius et heres suus sigillum suum presenti scripto apposuit. Testes, Ernaldus Capellanus de Wenlok, Osbertus Capellanus de Lega, Warinus de Burwardesle, Philippus frater ejus, Alricus de Longenalra, Radulfus filius ejus, Robertus nepos suus, Willelmus Burnell, Willelmus filius Odonis, Robertus Walensis, Walterus de Upton, Hugo frater ejus, Thomas de Millinghopa. [7]

Thomas de Lee, besides his son and heir Hugh, had, it seems, a brother William. Thomas and William are joint witnesses of that Corve Charter which I have ventured to date about 1180. [8]

I think that Hugh de Lee succeeded his father, Thomas, before the end of the twelfth century. His attestation of a Charter which has been given under Presthope points to such a conclusion. [9] In 1203, we have him agreeing with his neighbour, the Lord of Kenley, in terms already set forth. At the Assizes of October 1203 he appears as a Knight, empanelled to try causes of Grand Assize. Again, in 1206 we have had Sir Hugh de Lega as a Juror in an Oxenbold Suit. [10] On the Forest Assize-Roll of 1209 two separate

[5] [6] The Translation of St. Milberg is placed on May 26 (Butler's Lives of the Saints, Vol. II. p. 209). The Invention of St. Milberg (that is, the discovery of her dead body, as described above, Vol III, p. 231) is a day which I cannot discover in any Calendar. It would seem from the above to have been later in the year than June 24 (St. John the Baptist's Day). The day of her Obit was February 28.
[7] Wenlock Register at Willey, fo. 7. Instrumentum presentacionis Ecclesie de Hugh Lye.
[8] [9] [10] Supra, Vol. IV. pp. 111, 112; Vol. III. p. 290; Vol. IV. p. 21.


Regards (or Assessments of persons living within Regard) of the Long Forest are entered. The first exhibits the name of Reginald de Leges, followed by that of Matilda, a Widow, among the assessed. Lower down comes the name of Hugh de Lega as assessed for one acre in Easthope. The second Regard has the names of Hugh de Lega and Matilda, a widow, consecutively; but no Reginald is mentioned. Now I cannot think that either this Reginald or this Hugh was Lord of Lee, much less can I say how they were related. They re-appear in 1221-2, at which date there was also a Thomas de Lega, more likely to have been Lord of this Vill than either Reginald or Hugh. At the Assizes of 1221, Reginald de Legh appears in a matter stated under Benthall; and possibly he was the person whom I have noticed under Claverley. [11] If so, his profession would seem to have been the Law. In or about 1222 Reginald de Leya and Hugh de Leya follow each other as witnesses of a Deed of partition between Longnor and Frodesley; [12] and later in the century Reginald de Lega has been seen attesting a Larden Deed.
[13] Thomas de Lega was, as I have said, cotemporary with Reginald and Hugh. His Suit with William de Harley in 1221 has been noticed under Harley. [14] At the same time he appears as Surety for the amercement of Roger Sprenghose (II.) of Longnor. The following Deed has already appeared under Acton Burnell, of which Manor, Fulwood was a member; but I here repeat it, because it exhibits these three persons, Reginald, Thomas, and Hugh, again in conjunction, a circumstance which will sufficiently indicate its date. In part, also, it shows their relations and positions.-

"Know all men that I Reginald de Lega have given to Peter fitz Warin a noke of land in the Trench (trenchea) of Fulewode, which (noke) is contained in a Charter of my Lord, William Burnell. Witnesses, Thomas de Lega, Hugh his brother, Richard de Lega, Roger Malveisin, Roger Sprengehos, and others". [15]

So then Reginald de Lee was a Feoffee of William Burnell, and calls William Burnell his Lord, which does not look as if he himself was Lord of Lega. Also we see that Thomas and Hugh de Legs were brothers, and that Thomas, as being evidently the eldest, was probably Lord of Lega.

Placing this deed between the years 1220 and 1225, I think that, about the latter year, Thomas de Lega was succeeded by Hugh de

[11] Supra, Vol. III. pp. 274, 93, 101.
[12] Supra, p. 58.
[13] Supra, Vol III. p. 307.
[14] Supra, p. 232.
[15] Harleian MSS. 1396. fo. 253.


Lega; but I think also that this Hugh was more probably the son than the above-named brother of Thomas. We have had Hugh de Lega attesting a Badger Deed at about the period of this supposed succession, [16] and a Middleton-Prior's Deed of March 12, 1227. [17] Between 1234 and 1256 we have Hugh de Lega attesting various Deeds already cited under Broseley, Hatton, and Arlscot. In the same interval he is named under circumstances which show that he was a Knight, [18] and his position on an important Inquest of 1253 is not less than knightly. [19] At the Inquest of 1255 he was Foreman of the Jurors for Wenlock Liberty, which Jurors declared that "Hugh de Lega was Lord of the Vill of Lega, and held it of the Prior of Wenlock, and paid 5s. annual rent to the Prior". He did suit to the Prior's Court by afforciament, as his Ancestors had done suit to Condover Hundred till the reign of Richard I. The Vill was stated to contain half a hide,- exactly its Domesday measurement, and its only Domesday name. [20] The Jurors of Condover Hundred also adverted to the withdrawal of Hug'-Leg' from their Franchise.

Various documents of June 1259, February 1262, and November 1271, exhibit Hugh de Lega as a Verderer of the Shropshire Forests. Various Charters passing during the same or a little wider period have him as a witness. These have been given under Farlow, Wilderhope, Brockton, and Longnor. In two instances out of the four he is styled Lord of Lega. Before October 1282 he was deceased. His wife was Elena, a daughter, if not the heiress, of the Lees of Calvington, which Lees were, I think, themselves Cadets of the Lees of Lega. Hugh de Lega and Elena his wife concurred in enfeoffing Edmund (evidently their younger son) in whatever they had at Calvington.

Their Deeds in this matter, belong to a future Chapter, but I may state here that Edmund de Lee's quit-rent for Calvington was made payable to the heirs of Hugh and Elena, at Lega.

The eldest son of Hugh de Lega was named Reginald. In 1275 Reginald de Leye appears as one of the Assessors of the tax called the fifteenth, in the Counties of Salop and Stafford. In October 1282 he occurs as a Knight. He presented to the Church of Hughley in that month, and in December 1313. As Reginald de Leye he appears as Lord of Leye in the Nomina Villarum of 1316. [21] A charter dated 11 Edward III. (1337-8) belongs either to him or

[16] [17] Supra, Vole. II. p. 71; III. p. 341, n.
[18] Supra, Vol. III. p. 112, n.
[19] Abbreviatio Placitorum, p. 129.
[20] Rot. Hwrdred. II. 85, 63.
[21] Parliamentory Writs, IV. 397.


a successor of the same name. Thereby "Burga, Lady of Wyllelegh and of Kenlegh, in her widowhood, grants to Reginald, Lord of Legh, two assarts and one parcel of land in Kenlegh as they were assarted in the time of her late husband Sir Richard de Harley". [22]

One or two UNDERTENANTS or CADETS of this family have yet to be named. In 1221 we have Henry de Lega as Surety for Gerin Burnell. In 1269 Hugh de Leye, Clerk, attests a Hawksley Deed. A Hugh de Lee of 1283 has appeared with his wife Alice, apparently widow of Philip of Church Preen.

A word now as to the continuous Seigneury of Wenlock Priory over this Manor. We have seen it represented by a Chief-rent of 5s. in 1255. The Ecclesiastical Taxation of 1291 gives among the Temporalities of Wenlock Priory a rent of 5s. from Leye. [23]

The Foreign Rent-Roll of the Priory drawn up in 1514-5 includes an item of 5s. receivable from William Gataker for Hugh Lye. [24] The printed Valor of 1584-5 does not give the items which went to make up the Foreign Rental of the Priory. The Ministers' Accounts of 1541-2 are more specific and include this one of 5s. from Hughley. [25]


Hughley was within the bounds of that spiritual jurisdiction so often mentioned in former Volumes,- the Fief of St. Milburg. Its Chapel therefore, founded, as we have seen, before the year 1176, was an affiliation of the Church of Wenlock. The Lords of the Manor then obtained the Advowson from the Priory; but the Presentee of the said Lords was at all times to pay over to the Mother Church all Legacies and things belonging thereto, and was also to pay an annual pension of 2s. in token of subjection.

In the Taxation of 1291 the Church of Huley, or Heweleye, in the Deanery of Wenlock and Diocese of Hereford, is registered as of less than 4. annual value. [26]

Bishop Charlton's Confirmation to Wenlock Priory, dated May 23, 1331, does not include Leye among the Dependent Chapels of Wenlock Church, but sanctions the pension receivable from the Church or Chapel of Leye. [27] The reason of this distinction is obvious, if we compare the history of Hughley Church with that of

[22] Dugdale's MSS. Vol. XXXIX. fo 78.
[23] Pope Nich. Taxation, p. 164.
[24] Register of Wenlock, fo. 39.
[25] Monasticon, V. 81.
[26] Pope Nich. Taxation, pp. 167, 176.
[27] Patent, 22 Edw. III., p. 3, m. 34.


the Churches of Benthall, Burton, Shipton, etc., whose dependence was complete.

The Assessors of the Ninth in 1341 do not seem to have considered Hughley as a distinct Parish. The Valor of 1534-5 gives the preferment of Roger Strenger, Rector of Hughlye, as 4. 13s. 8d., less a pension of 2s., still payable to the Prior of Wenlock, and less 6d., payable to the Archdeacon for Synodals. [28] The same Record gives a Portion of 3s., receivable by the Priory of Wenlock from the Vill of Huglye. This I take to be the same thing as the Pension, but inaccurately expressed as to amount. The Minister's Accounts of 1541-2 confirm this view, for one asset of the late Priory is a Pension of 2s. from the Vill of Hughley. [29]


OSBERN, the Chaplain named in the Deed of 1169-76, was probably only a Deputy of the real Incumbent of Hughley. On October 8, 1282,-

SIR ADAM DE MORLESTON was instituted to the Chapel of Leye. Patron, Sir Reginald de Leye. On December 14, 1289-

SIR JOHN DE LYTH, Chaplain, was instituted. Same Patron.

HUGH DE LEYE, Clerk, was instituted December 26, 1313. Same Patron.

THOMAS DE HOPPELEYE, on August 31, 1370, exchanged the Free Chapel of Huglegh for the preferment of-

WILLIAM DE HERDAVYKE, late Rector of St. Andrew's, Worcester, who continued here till 1390.

SIR REGINALD DE HUGHLEYE, Chaplain, was admitted to this Free Chapel January 6, 1391. Patron, Roger de Hughleye.

WILLIAM DE WHITYNGESLOWE, Rector of the Chapel of Huggley, occurs in 1398. He resigned in 1415, and had a pension of 6 merks assigned to him out of the benefice.


IT is seldom that Domesday preserves a Saxon orthography so nearly as in this case. The Cristesache of Domesday is the

[28] Valor Ecclesiasticus, III. 209, 216.
[29] Monasticon, V. 81.


[For engraving, see pdf.]


Cruster-ac, or Christ's-oak of the Saxon aera. The name probably originated at the period when Christian Missionaries first taught the Gospel to heathen Saxons. The wide-spread oak-tree gave appropriate and natural shelter to the Votaries of a simple but as yet unorganized Religion. In primitive states of society, or where institutions have been fluctuating and unsettled, trees have often served as places of dwelling or resort. A tree on the plain of Mamre was the guest-chamber of the Patriarch Abraham. Abraham's Oratory at Beersheba was a tree (or grove) planted by himself. Deborah's Hall of Judgment was a Palm-tree in Mount Ephraim. A tree in Ramah was one of the hypaethral Palaces of King Saul.

We are told that the spot where Christ's-oak grew at Cressage was afterwards occupied by a Stone Cross; [1] but whether this is said as a matter of tradition, or only of opinion, I cannot ascertain. The thing is probable enough in itself. It is also probable that the original Christ's-oak suggested to a later but long bygone generation the idea of naming a second tree in this Parish. The Lady-Oak (so called in honour of the Virgin Mother) was a monument of ages, and existent in our time; [2] nay, in some sort, it may be said to exist still.

Domesday describes Cressage in the following terms.- "Rannulf Peurel holds Cristesache of Earl Roger. Edric held it (in Saxon times), and was a free man. Here are one hide and a half, geldable. In demesne there are III ox-teams; and VIII Serfs, VII Villains, XI Boors, and IIII Cottars have IIII teams, and yet there might be two more teams here. Here is a Fishery of 8s. (annual value), and a Wood which will fatten 200 Swine. In King Edward's time the Manor was worth 110s. (per annum). Now it is worth 10. When he (Rannulf) received it, it was worth 6". [3]

We may presume that the Fishery of Domesday was a Weir in the River Severn, and that the Domesday wood is that which is now known as Cressage Park. It is more difficult to trace in modern Cressage any such extraordinary agricultural capabilities as will account for the Domesday estimate of 6 ox-teams, and 6. 13s. 4d.,

[1] In support of this, Mr. Blakeway quotes a Shrewsbury Burgess-Roll of 12 Edw. II. (1318-9). Among the admitted is John, son of Roger atte Cros, of Cressich, butcher. Mr. Blakeway adds that the Stone Cross gave way in turn to a Market-Cross, which latter was removed in his time.
[2] The Lady-Oak was nearly destroyed by fire about the year 1816. Ite present remains form one of my Illustrations.
[3] Domesday, fo. 256, b, 2.


as the proper stock, and the actual value, proportioned to a hide of land. I cannot help thinking that Cressage was allowed to stand in Domesday as a Manor of 1 hides by special favour then shown, or under some unrecorded immunity of Saxon origin. The area of the modern Parish is 1900 acres, or 1266 acres to the Domesday hide. This is an unusual proportion. I have not, at present, found any other hide of the Shropshire Domesday, which I can calculate to be represented by so much as 1000 acres of modern measurement.

Of Ranulf Peverel, and his traditional relations to William the Conqueror, I have spoken at some length already. [4] I have denied all probability that he was the father of those Peverels who figured in Shropshire during the reign of Henry I. I have suggested that William Peverel, called of Essex or of London, was the successor and only son of Ranulf Peverel. Now all that we know surely about William Peverel of London or Essex is that the Barony of himself and his Sister Maud escheated to the Crown in the reign of King Henry I. and before the year 1130. [5] In perfect consistency with this, I shall presently show a probability that Cressage was in the Crown at or about the time of Henry II.'s accession. But a difficulty here besets me. I cannot show that Cressage was in the Crown continuously from the forfeiture of William Peverel of London till the accession of Henry II. The only evidence I have on the point implies that it was not; for a Document of the year 1203 declares Cressage to have been of the Fee of Peverel of Nottingham. This means that it was a member of the Barony forfeited by the last William Peverel of Nottingham in 1154-5, for the crime of poisoning the Earl of Chester. The only solution of this difficulty is by supposing that Peverel of Nottingham succeeded to part at least of the escheated estates of Peverel of London. [6] To deduce inferences from suppositions is a most unscientific procedure, especially in a matter which promises much to further inquiry into facts. Suffice it to say that there is much more probability that Peverel of Nottingham was nearly related to Peverel of London than to those other Peverels of Henry I.'s time, whom Dugdale has represented as sons of Ranulf Peverel, and as half brethren of the first William Peverel of Nottingham.

[4] Supra, Vol. II. pp. 104, 105.
[5] Rot. Pip. 81 Hen. I., p. 135, and Testa de Nevill, p. 194, b.
[6] I am informed by a very competent authority, that in other Counties than Shropshire the Escheats of Peverel of Nottingham and Peverel of London are combined or confused in an inexplicable way.


Cressage, whether as an Escheat of William Peverel of London, of William Peverel of Nottingham, or of both in turn, reached the hands of Henry II.; for that King it must have been who annexed it to the Fief of De Lacy. I think too that such annexation was later than 1165; for Hugh de Lacy's return of that year, enrolled in the Liber Niger, contains no evidence that he was then Seigneural Lord of Cressage. It was however annexed to his Barony before the year 1180, and he had enfeoffed Almaric de Lacy, perhaps his brother, therein. I know this from the Forest-Roll of 1180, in which Amauri de Laci is assessed 7s. for an imbladement of 7 acres of wheat in Cristesech. It does not appear that Almaric de Lacy was involved in the disgrace which befell his Suzerain in 1181. [7] In 1186, the year after Hugh de Lacy's death, the Justices of the Forest set a fine of 100s. on "Almaric de Laci's Vill of Cristesech", for some default. A Writ of the King cancelled the whole amercement, and in favour of Almaric de Laci himself. I conclude that he died in 1185-6, for, in the latter year, the Sheriff accounts to the Crown for a sum of 4. 1s. 6d., beng the ferm of Cristesech, the land of Amalric de Laci. Also the Sheriff of Herefordshire accounted 37s. for the issues of the land of Froma, the land of Amalric de Laci. Castle-Frome, I should observe, had been held by Almaric under Hugh de Lacy. The reason, I presume, why these Escheatures fell to the Crown was because the Barony of Hugh de Lacy was in manu Regis. In 1187 I find the Sheriff of Herefordshire rendering account at the Exchequer, of 100s. for issues of the land, late Almaric de Lacy's. I conclude that soon after this, Almaric de Lacy's heir obtained livery of his estates by composition with the Crown.

Of GILBERT, SON OF ALMARIC DE LACY, I have given some account, under Harnage, a manor which he held of Fitz Alan. At the Assizes of October 1203, the Jurors of Condover Hundred made the following presentment.- "Gilebert de Lasci holds Cristesac, which is of the Fee of Peverel of Nottingham, under Walter de Lasci. It is worth 10. (per annum). The Jurors know not what service he (Gilbert) owes to Walter de Lasci. Walter de Lasci holds it (the Manor) of the Lord King". [8] A Writ of Henry III.'s, dated May 2, 1222, is in favour of Gilbert de Lacy, Lord apparently of the Wiltshire Manor of Bretword. [9] Some Forest Pleas, recorded on the Shropshire Pipe-Roll of 1231, contain an amercement of one merk against Gilbert de Lascy of Cristesech. Gilbert de Lacy died about

[7] Vide supra, Vol. V. pp. 255-6.
[8] Assizes, 5 John, m. 2.
[9] Rot. Claus. Vol. I. p. 495.


1283, leaving a Widow, Eva de Baillol, and a son and heir, Gilbert, already noticed under Harnage.

This second Gilbert de Lacy is he whom a Herefordshire Feodary of 1243 registers as holding Castle Frome, a Manor of four hides, under the heir of Walter de Lacy, for one knight's-fee. [10]

On September 21, 1249, Gilbert de Lacy (II.), called in this instance Gilbert de Frome, was dead. His son and heir, Adam, was under age and in ward to Matilda de Lacy, then widow of Peter de Geneva, but afterwards wife of Geoffrey de Genevill. [11] Gilbert having died in debt to a certain Jew of Hereford, a King's Writ now allows to the said Matilda that neither the principal nor interest of such debts shall be demanded till Adam should come of of age. [12] In Michaelmas Term of this same year, 1249, I find that Agnes, widow of Gilbert de Lacy, impleaded Matilda de Lacy for her dower, viz. for a third of the Manor of Cristesich and a third of the Manor of Castel-fromme. The Defendant not appearing, the lands were ordered to be seized for the Crown, and the case to be reheard on the Quinzaine of Easter (1250). [13] It is evident that, in Cressage at least, Agnes eventually recovered her dower.

In Michaelmas Term 1253, the Abbot of Buildwas appears with a claim upon Cressage, probably in the nature of a mortgage. His suit lay against Geoffrey de Genvill and Matilda (de Lacy) his wife; but they came to this agreement:- Geoffrey and Matilda demised the Manor of Cristeseche (except the dower of Agnes, mother of Adam de Lacy) to the Abbot, for a term of nineteen years, as specified in a certain Chyrograph. The Abbot paid for this the large sum of 200 merks, [14] which may be taken as an indication of what the value of a wardship was in those days.

The Hundred Roll of 1255 says, with great accuracy, that "the Abbot of Buildewas holds Cristeseche of Dame Matilda Lacy for a term". It was now set down as half a hide, a still further diminution of its low Domesday hidage. But its immunities were such as to leave any question about its hidage immaterial. It paid neither stretward nor motfee: it did suit neither to County nor Hundred. [15]

The Abbot of Buildwass occupation of Cressage during the minority of Adam de Lacy will be illustrated by what I shall have to say of the Undertenants in the Manor. At the Forest Assizes

[10] Testa de Nevill, pp. 65, 68.
[11] Compare Vol. V. p. 240.
[12] Rot. Finium, II. 61.
[13] Supra, Vol. V. p. 273, note 62.
[14] Placita, 37, 38 Hen. III. mm. 2, 5.
[15] Rot. Hundred II. 62. CRESSAGE. 313

of 1262 Dame Agnes de Cristesech, as she is styled; was amerced. 2s. for vert. Cressage was curiously involved in another matter at these Assizes. A Hind (bissa) had been struck by an arrow from some unknown hand in the Chase of Sir Ralph le Butiller of Wem. The King's Foresters had tracked the animal, apparently through a long and circuitous flight; for the hind had fallen dead in the Haughmond Bailiwick of the Forest, and the Vill of Crestesech was one of those which were amerced on the occasion.

In October 1268, it would seem that Adam de Lacy was in possession of Castle-Frame, for Walter de Neget was then impleading him for disseizin there.

A Writ of February 1271 indicates that Adam de Lacy was in possession of Cristesach. A fence, erected by Adam de Lacy of Castlefrome and others in Cristesach, was objected to by the Abbot of Buildwas, and the matter was ordered for trial at law. It will be observed that at this time Adam de Lacy must have been of more than full age (for he was born before September 1249), and yet that the term of 19 years guaranteed to the Abbot of Buildwas in 1253 could not have expired. This puzzle is solved by a fortuitous piece of evidence. "At Easter (April 5) 1271, A. (that is Adam), Abbot of Buildewas, acknowledges himself to have received from Adam de Lacy, Lord of Frome-Castle and of Cristesech, the sum of 15 merks, he being bound to the Abbot in the sum of 25 merks, for two thirds of the Manor of Cristesech which (two thirds) the Abbot lately had at ferm from Sir Geoffrey de Genevill and Matilda his wife, and into which Manor the said Adam de Lacy entered and ejected the Abbot, the term granted by the said Geoffrey and Matilda being as yet unexpired. The Abbot further quit-claims all remaining right in the said two thirds of Cristesech". [16] So then, Geneville's lease was longer than he was entitled to grant, and yet the wronged heir thought it best to compound for his Suzerain's injustice.

We have had Adam de Lacy attesting a Condover Deed in 1284, and the Feodary of that year notes him as holding Cristerdech of Geoffrey de Genevill and Matilda his wife, who held it in capite. In 1292, Emeric (i.e. Almaric), son and heir of Adam de Lacy, was represented by the Jurors of Condover Hundred as claiming to hold a free court twice a year in Cristesech, as also to assize bread and beer. Nothing followed from this presentment, for the said Emeric proved to be under age. He was still under age in 1297, for the

[16] Blakeway,- from the Newport Evidences.


Return to a Writ of May 24 says that the heirs of Adam de Lacy, being holders of 20 Librates of lands in Herefordshire, were under age, and in ward to Geoffrey de Genevyll. [17] I do not find that Almaric de Lacy ever came into possession. John de Lacy, who succeeded, was more probably his brother than his son. In 1311 and 1313 this John de Lacy was a Knight of the Shire, returned for Herefordshire, and on August 15, 1314, he was to appear at Newcastle-upon-Tyne for military service against the Scots. [18] In the Nomina Villarum of 1316 he appears as Lord both of Castle-Froome and Crissage,- a proof that he survived the great carnage of Bannockburn.

My evidence as to how this line of Lacy of Cressage ended in a female (Elizabeth, wife of Walter de Baskervill) is very imperfect, and I must be content to state one prominent difficulty in a note, [19] and to suppose that the said Elizabeth was daughter or granddaughter of John de Lacy above-named. Her Descendants have been already given in a Tabular Pedigree. [20] Their successive interests in Cressage, and the ultimate failure of her line, I have also traced. [21] In addition to what I have said under Lawton, it is worth stating that on March 10, 1401, the King gave the custody of Thomas Foulshurst's lands, and the marriage of his heir (Thomas Foulshurst, Junior), to William Venables of Kinderton, a near relative of the Ward. A Mortimer Feodary of 1414 gives John de Senes as holding a fee in Crassach of that Barony. John de Senes, be it noted, was then Thomas

[17] Parliamentary Writs, I. 286.
[18] Parliamentary Writs, IV. 1063.

It Mr. Blakeway quotes a Deed of "1 Edw. III". (1327-8) whereby "Juliana de Lacy, Lady of Cryssagh, grants to Edward Burnell, Lord of Langley, oertain rights of road in Cryssagh". This Deed was sealed with a Coat of Arms; viz. Two bends (on the dexter aide), empaling some obliterated coat, which we may assume to have been that of Lacy of Cressage. Mr. Blakeway conjectures that this Juliana was "wife of Richard, son of Roger de Baskervill".

Now a reference to the Pedigree already given (Vol. V. p. 102) will show that Juliana, wife of Richard de Baskervill, cannot have been identical with Juliana de Lacy who in the above Deed of 1827-8 is clearly a Widow: for Richard de Baskervill was living in 1339.

But Mr. Blakeway'e Deed is probably misdated, for enough has been said under Langley to show that Edward Burnell was not Lord of that Manor so early as 1327-8. Still the name Juliana, being common to the Lady of Cressage and to the wife of Richard de Baskervill, is small proof of their identity. In disproof thereof we have authentic assurance that the Lady of Cressage who married a Baskervill was named Elizabeth, and that her husband was not Richard, but Walter, Richard's son. Also the arms on the dexter side of the above shield are not Baskervill arms. I think Juliana, Lady of Cressage, came between John de Lacy and Elizabeth de Lacy, but in what way it is vain to conjecture.

[20] [21] Supra, Vol. V. pp. 102, 107-109.


Foulshurst's Guardian. William Foulshurst, the last of Elizabeth de Lacy's descendants, died in 1439; and it is curious to observe the various false claims which were made upon Cressage before it escheated to Richard, Duke of York, as Lord of the Fee. [22]-

1. Sir John Baskervill claimed Cressage as being descended from Richard, Brother of Walter de Baskervill. A glance at the pedigree will show how this was a valid title to Baskervill's estates, and not to Elizabeth de Lacy's.

2. John Baskervill of Bristol claimed it as being descended from Roger, brother of Walter de Baskervill. This was invalid on the same grounds, and moreover-

3. Elen, wife of John Bruyn, affirmed that the said Roger de Baskervill died without issue. She, as third claimant, derived from Johanna, daughter of Sir Roger de Baskervill. Of course this Johanna, being Aunt of Elizabeth de Lacy's husband, had none of Elizabeth de Lacy's blood.

4. Isabella Spencer derived from Sir Hugh Spencer, whom she affirmed to have been second husband of Agnes, heiress of Cressage. The heiress Agnes does not appear to have been believed in. If Elizabeth was meant, the claim was plausible; but I suppose the Claimant's pedigree did not hold good.

5. Margaret, daughter of Sir William Devereux, and wife of Miles Waters, Senior, of Clifford, derived from Joan, sister of some Gilbert de Lacy, who married Maud de Kingly. This Joan, Margaret said, married * * * * Glodeshull, and had a daughter, Elizabeth, wife of Sir William Devereux, and mother of the Claimant, who made her two nieces parties to her suit. I cannot discover how this Gilbert de Lacy was related to Lacy of Cressage, but this Claimant's pedigree is in one respect backed by a piece of secondary evidence. A Writ of King Richard II., dated in 1386-7, grants to Sir Simon de Burley the Manor of Castle-frome, which had belonged to Elizabeth Clodeshall, relict of Sir William Devereux, and had been forfeited by her because she was assenting to the murder of Thomas Tidwyne, Esq.

6. Richard, Duke of York, claimed as heir of Mortimer, Earl of March, heir of Genevile, heir of Lacy of Ludlow; and this claim prevailed. [23] I presume it was allowed to the Duke, as Lord of the

[22] I have inadvertently given William as the name of the Duke of York in a former page (Vol. V. p. 109). It was Richard; he who opposed Henry VI.'s title to the Crown.
[23] This account of the Claimants of Cressage is taken from Blakewsy's MSS. Mr. Blakeway's authority is not given.


Fee, and as an Escheat, in default of any other claimant proving a descent from Lacy of Cressage. I cannot suppose that the Duke proved positively the extinction of all the descendants of that Almaric de Lacy who lived in Henry II.'s time, or that he proved Hugh de Lacy of Ludlow to be, in his issue, next heir to the said Almaric.

Of UNDERTENANTS in Cressage I enumerate the following.- William de Cristeseche was amerced half a merk in 1230, quia non habuit quem plegiavit.

At the Assizes of January 1256 William Pyneleys, a Minor, sued the Abbot of Buildwas for a virgate in Cristesech as his inheritance. The Abbot pleaded (untruly I think) that he was only Tenant of the premises from year to year, at will of Geoffrey and Matilda de Genevill. The Plaintiff was ordered to sue the said Geoffrey and Matilda, and his amercement was excused because of his nonage. [24]

The Abbot of Buildwas had other suits pending at this time, one of which at least related to Cressage. They were against William, son of William de Kistesbech, and against Thomas de Sambrok and Alice his wife. Robert de Duddelegh and Brother Nicholas le Waleys were the Abbot's Attorneys. Thomas, son of Alice, was the Attorney of Thomas and Alice de Sambrok. [25]

Again, at these Assizes, John Tece recovered an acre in Cristesich, the Tenant, William de Stevinton, failing to appear. [26] Also Roger le Fraunceys makes Christiana, his wife, his Attorney in two suits of land, one against William le Clatere, the other against Gilbert de Frome and Margery his wife. [26]

John de Crisesech is mentioned as deceased in the Forest-Roll of 1262. At the Assizes of 1272 a Plea was heard involving the following statements:- William Morel, deceased, son of Herbert Morel, had had by his wife Matilda, five daughters, Alice, Sibil, Amice, Eve, and Leuka. Eve and Leuka were already deceased without issue, Amice was married to Henry le Cowarde, Sibil to Roger Walewayn, and Alice was single. These last five persons claimed against William de Penles a messuage and half a toft, and against Roger Parson of Sheynton half a toft in Cristesich. Their claim was as heirs of Matilda aforesaid, but the Defendants asserted themselves to have been enfeoffed by William Morel (Matilda's husband). The Litigants were allowed to accord. [27]

The story of William Wolfrich of Cressage, and how, on September 24, 1278, he shot William de Somersete, an insolent page,

[24] Assizes, 40 Hen. III., m. 4 dorso.
[25] Ibidem, m. 4 recto.
[26] Ibidem, mm. 14 dorso, 9 recto.
[27] Assizes, 56 Hen. III., m. 11.


has been told elsewhere. [28] The Assize-Roll of 1292 gives us a supplement of this story, showing that the Pleas of the Crown, then exhibited, covered the whole period of twenty years which intervened between the great Eyres of 1272 and 1292. The Jurors of Condover Hundred presented how William Wolfrych had slain with an arrow William, a page of Walter, the Sheriff's Clerk; how William Wolfrych had fled, and being malcredited had been, after due summons, outlawed. The sympathy which the homicide had met with was, however, very apparent. The Sheriff was accountable to the Crown for 3s., the value of his Chattels; but the Condover Jurors were liable to sentence for having concealed, or allowed the concealment of, these Chattels. Nay, William Wolfrich was still living in Cressage, and the Vill was declared to be in misericordia for not now bringing him forward for trial or sentence. [29]

John Franceys (who was of Cressage) occurs as a Juror for Condover Hundred at the Assizes of 1272, the Inquest of 1274, and the Assizes of 1292. He sat also on an Inquest at Little Buildwas in December 1302.

In Trinity Term 1306 a Fine was levied, whereby William de Rugge and Petronilla his wife, for themselves and the heirs of Petronilla, acknowledge a grant, of a messuage and half-virgate in Cristeseche, to Hugh de Sheynton, who pays 10. for the same.


This Church was originally and for many centuries a Chapel, implicitly dependent upon Cound. Even the Valor of Henry VIII. does not recognize its self-existence, and the Diocesan Registers down to that period never notice an Incumbent. Yet we know that the Church existed in 1232, for we have a Deed of that year attested by Robert, Parson of Cristeshethe;- an unusual style for one whose condition was unquestionably that of a Chaplain, removable at the will of the Rector of Cound.


BEELD, BIELD, or BELDE, a word signifying shelter, or a place of

[28] Sheriffs of Shropshire, pp. 168-9.
[29] Placita Coronae, 20 Edw. I., m. 30.


shelter, is probably of Anglo-Saxon origin, and cognate with the Saxon verb Bylban (to build). [1]

The termination was is nothing else than the Saxon word paer (water), whence came the Saxon verb paercan (to wash). [2] Buildwas, surrounded on three sides by an amphitheatre of hills, and bounded on a fourth by the River Severn, has therefore a name, which unchanging nature still stamps as appropriate.

The Shropshire Domesday describes the Manor of "Beldewes" as lying in Conodovre (Condover) Hundred, and says that the Bishop of Chester had held it in Saxon times, and still retained it at the period of the Survey.-

It was estimated at I hide, was held partly in demesne, and partly cultivated by Villains and Serfs, whose dependent condition may further be gathered from mention of a resident Provost. The Manor contained a Mill and some wood-land. [3]

Second in succession to Robert de Limesey (the Domesday Bishop of Chester) came Roger de Clinton, who, from the Archdeaconry of Buckingham (then in Lincoln Diocese), was elevated to this See, receiving Consecration from the hands of Archbishop William Corbois, at Canterbury, on Sunday, December 22, 1129. [4]

Roger de Clinton was Nephew of the elder Geoffrey de Clinton, who, at the time of which we speak, was holding high office in the Court and Kingdom of Henry I. He was a Royal Treasurer and Chamberlain, a Justiciar commissioned to every part of the Realm; he also had the Shrievalty of Warwickshire in this very year, besides other Ferms for which he was accountable to the Crown. The Nephew, who, although Archdeacon of Buckingham, was not ordained Priest till the day previous to his Consecration, was enthroned at Coventry shortly afterwards, by Simon, Bishop of Worcester. He is said to have purchased his Bishoprick by a present of 3000 merks to the King. [5] The extant Pipe-Roll of 1130 exhibits many

[1] The word is still used in the North of England for a hovel. There also a cattle-shed is called a beelding. I have also seen the word significantly embodied in a proverb- "The fox will not worry near his beeld".
[2] I find a good illustration of this etymology in Herefordshire. The River Wye, in its passage through that county, skirts the three Vills of Moccas, Sugwas, and Rotherwas.
[3] Domesday, fo. 262, a, 2.-


Isdem Episcopus tenet Beldewas, et tenuit tempore Regis Edwardi. Ibi I hida, geldabilis. Ibi dominio sunt II carucatae, et III Villani cum Praeposito habent III carucas. Ibi V Servi et Molinum et Sylva CC porcis. T.R.E. valebat XLV solidos, et post XL solidos: modo XLV solidos.

[4] Florence of Worcester, II. 91.
[5] Simeon Dunelm: col. 256.


tokens of Royal favour to Geoffrey de Clinton, and more than one to this new Bishop, but it in no way confirms this Simoniacal story.

Roger de Clinton is said to have founded Buildwas Abbey in 1135, [6] a date which becomes extremely probable from evidence presently to be cited. He is also said to have been Founder of Fairwell, a Benedictine Nunnery in Staffordshire. His evident interest in the prosperity of Kenilworth Priory may be attributed to his relationship with Geoffrey de Clinton, its Founder. A Charter, which Roger de Clinton expedited to Shrewsbury Abbey, indicates a deep concern in the Parochial condition of his Diocese, and is in sympathy and verbal concert with similar Charters of the Cotemporary Bishop of Hereford, perhaps the most exemplary Prelate of his day.

Roger de Clinton has had various degrees of credit in regard of his contributions to the fabric of his Cathedral at Lichfield. The question between large improvement and entire reconstruction cannot be settled by existing evidence, for the present Church contains little or nothing that can be assigned to his aera. He increased the dignity of the Collegiate body by the addition of eight Prebendaries, endowed apparently out of the revenues of the See.

In 1139, Roger de Clinton was one of the five Dignitaries elected to represent the English Church at the tenth General Council, which, under the auspices of Pope Innocent II., assembled in the Basilica of the Lateran on April 20 in that year.

Not one authentic instance can I find of this Bishop's having attended the Courts of Henry I., Stephen, or the Empress. He joined the Crusade of 1147, and died at Antioch on April 16, 1148.

The Writer of the Gesta Regis Stephani supplies us with a very different estimate of the character and conduct of Roger de Clinton. Detailing the wretched state of England in the autumn (as I infer) of 1143, he makes severe remarks on the conduct of the Bishops;- the cowardice and fickleness of some; the violence and rapacity of others. The latter he describes as girt with the sword, clad in splendid armour, fortifying and manning their castles, oppressing and spoiling their neighbours, riding forth in the same ranks with the fiercest agitators of the period;- the prime movers of enormities which they never attempted to palliate except by charging them on their subordinates. "And", continues this Chronicler,

[6] Tanner, quoting the Annals of Parcolude.


"that I may at present keep silence about others, for it is indecent to stigmatize all equally, public rumour hath denounced the Bishops of Winchester, Lincoln, and Chester as more eagerly bent upon such unholy pursuits than any others".

The individuals thus held up to infamy appear to be selected by this cotemporary writer, without the usual leaning which he exhibits to the cause of King Stephen. Henry of Winchester was the King's brother, and, though once his opponent, had been at a more recent period the main instrument of his restoration to the throne. There is some slight ground for supposing that Roger de Clinton was in turn associated with each of the political parties of his day; but a temporizing spirit, which were venial in him, if a man of peace, was only servile treachery if combined with that love of cruelty and violence with which he is charged.

Summarily the character of Roger de Clinton, Founder of Buildwas Abbey, is presented to us under contrasts which no ingenuity can reconcile. On the one hand we have the Simoniacal occupant of a Bishoprick, busy in fortifying the Castle of Lichfield, in surrounding the town with a rampart, in converting the peaceful Tenants of a Spiritual Fief into Tenants by military service; we have, in short, the picture of a ruffianly marauder and persecutor. On the other hand, we find him improving his Cathedral by a costly outlay, increasing the number and dignity of its collegiate members, originating or stimulating other Religious Foundations: we read his Charters warm with pious zeal and full of holy considerations; we see him representing Catholic England in the Councils of Christendom; lastly, we behold the Crusader devoting his energies and his life to a cause as hazardous as it was accounted holy.

We may gather from all this, not the specific truth which regards an individual, but a more general fact, viz. that the internecine war, which deluged this kingdom with crime and bloodshed, blotted also the records of the age with impenetrable falsehood.

From the man and his ambiguous character, we now pass to the date and circumstances of one of his undoubted works.

Among the various branches of the Benedictine Order, the Cistercian arose in A.D. 1098, when its first House was founded at Citeaux, in Burgundy. It adopted a white habit, in contradistinction to the black dress of the original Benedictines. It affected other reforms of usage, chiefly revivals of a more ancient rule. Its presumptive purity soon increased its influence, and other Monasteries


were founded on the pattern of Citeaux. Amongst these was the Norman House of Savigny, originally a Hermitage situate in the woods which terminated the Southern frontier of the Diocese of Avrancbes. The probable date at which Savigny became a Cistercian Abbey was A.D. 1112, but it soon established itself as the leader of a separate Order, called Savigniac or Tironensian, during the period of its independence, but which in 1147 was, with most of its affiliations, reunited to the Cistercian Body. Meantime Savigny had two such affiliations in England, viz. Furness in Lancashire and Buildwas. [7] Furness, which for a time resisted all reunion with Citeaux, had been founded in 1126 or 1127, or rather transferred to Furness in one of those years, after a previous sojourn at Tulket in Amunderness.

Its Founder was Stephen de Blois, then Earl of Boulogne, and afterwards King of England, whose Norman Fief of Moretain adjoined, if it did not comprise, the district in which Savigny was built.

Buildwas, said to have been founded in 1135, was the second or third Savigniac House in England, [8] but when it became simply Cistercian it lost this relative precedency.

We have a transcript of Roger de Clinton's foundation- charter of Buildwas. Its inaccuracies, verbal and grammatical, are probably due to its Transcribers. In other respects it has every appearance of being derived from some genuine original. I give the Charter substantively as it stands in Dodsworth's MSS. [9]

Ego Rogerius Dei Gratia Cestrensis Episcopus, universis Sanctae Matris Ecclesia filius, prelatis et subditis, clericis et laicis, salutem. Jesu Xti Creatoris nostri monitis obsecundare cupientes, qui dixit, 'Thesaurizate vobis thesaurum in coelo, ubi neque erigo neque tinea demolitur et fures non effodiunt odiunt neque furantur':- hoc igitur intuitu, fratres carissimi, donamus, concedimus et in fundamentum Abbatiae confirmamus Deo et charissimo fratri nostro Abbati Ingenulfo et fratribus ejus, villam nostram de Buldewas cum omnibus pertinenciis, etc. Testes,- Laurentius Prior, et Conventus Coventrensis Ecclesiae; Willielmus Decanus; [10] Ricardus Coventrensis, Radulfus Staffordensis, Rogerius Scropesburiensis, Rogerius Derbiensis; [11] Odo Thesaurarius, et Conventus Lichfeldensis; [12] Rodbertus Comes de * * *; [13] Rodbertus de

[7] Furness had also colonized Abbeys at Byland, in Yorkshire, and Calder, in Cumberland.
[8] Combermere was Savigniac, and is said to have been founded in 1133.
[9] Vol. CX. (Bodl. Lib. Oxon.).
[10] Viz. Lichfeldensis.
[11] Supply "Archidiaconi" here.
[12] That is, Capitulum Lichfeldense.
[13] The word written here is "Rokess".-

There were only two English Earls during the aera of Roger de Clinton who bore the name of Robert. They were of Leicester and Gloucester, two words which bear about an equal resembladce to the misnomer of the Transcript. All other associations would make the Earl of Gloucester the most probable witness of this deed.


Stafford; Gaufridus de Clintonia; Willielmus filius Alani; Philippus de Belmeis; Gulielmus de Clintonia; Guliemus filius Nigelli; Brionisia; Rodbertus de Thorpe, et Helias, et Gaufridus fratres ejus.

Ego Rogerius Dei Gratia Cestrensis Episcppus-

Ego Laurentius Prior Coventrensis Ecclesiae-

Ego Willielmus Decanus Ecclesiae Lichfeldensis-

Ego Willielmus Cestrensis Archidiaconus-

Ego Rogerius Derbiensis Archidiaconus-

Ego Rogerius Scrobesburiensis Archidiaconus-

Ego Odo Thesaurarius Ecclesiae.-

This Charter, appearing at first sight to be coeval with the actual gift which it implies, will, if 1135 were the date of the foundation of Buildwas, be construed to have been written in that year. Some internal evidence supports such a conclusion,- e.g. the first lay attestation, if rightly attributed to the Earl of Gloucester, indicates the presence of a person who can have attended no peaceful meeting, in company with the Bishop of Chester, after Easter 1137. Nearly the same may be said of the Earl's Son-in-law William fitz Alan, who early in 1138 was in arms for the Empress, and before the close of the year an exile,- never restored to his Shropshire estates till seven years after the death of Bishop Clinton. It is also quite certain from external evidence that the gift implied by this Charter took place before August 1138, when King Stephen, occupied in the siege of Shrewsbury, confirmed it.

However, a diligent examination of the testing-clause of this Charter convinces me that it was not written at the time when the Bishop's grant was made, but some years later, and that the names which it embodies are of two classes, viz.,- lst, some who were afterwards remembered by the Bishop to have been present when he gave Abbot Ingenulf formal seizin of Buildwas Manor, and 2ndly, some who, not having been then present, were afterwards witnesses and approvers of a Charter, written to record the conveyance and assure the Abbot's Title.

Of the first class, as I take it, were the Earl of Gloucester, William fitz Alan, Philip de Belmeis, and perhaps other lay witnesses. Of the last class were Ralph Archdeacon of Stafford, Roger Archdeacon of Derby (neither of whom were in office till after 1139), and


perhaps Laurence Prior of Coventry, and the other ecclesiastical witnesses. [14]

The gift of Buildwas Manor and the Foundation of Buildwas Abbey belong, I doubt not, to the year 1135 or 1136, the written Record or Charter to a period perhaps ten years later. [15]

The next subject of notice shall be King Stephen's Charter to Buildwas, which, though already printed, I must needs repeat here: [16]- Stephanus Rex Anglorum, archiepiscopis, episcopis, abbatibus, comitibus, baronibus, justicariis, vicecomitibus, et omnibus fidelibus suis totius Angliae, salutem. Sciatis me concessisse et confirmasse in perpetuam elemosinam Deo et ecclesiae Sancti Ceaddae et abbati et monachis de ordine Saviniacensi in ea Deo servientibus de Billewas, totum manerium ipsum in bosco et piano, et hominibus et omnibus ad illud pertinentibus, sicut Rogerus Episcopus Cestrice locum ilium eis dedit et coram me concessit. Ego quoque pro animabus patrum et parentum meorum, et nominatim pro anima Regis Henrici et pro salute mea et uxoris meae Reginae, et fratrum et filiorum meorum clamo eis quietum inperpetuum manerium illud quod se pro una hida defendebat, quietum dico et liberum de scotto et lotto, et geldo, et danegeldo, et auxiliis et operationibus castellorum, et pontium, et exercitu, et omni terreno servitio quod mihi pertinebat de illa hida terra. Quare volo et firmiter praecipio quod bene, et in pace, et libere et quiete teneant a modo usque in sempiternum. Et, ut ista mea concessio et Episcopi donatio firma et inconcussa permaneat, praesentis sigilli mei eam confirmatione corroboro, et subsequentium attestatione communio. Testibus R. episcopo Hereford. et R. comite Legr. et comite Symone de Silvanect. et Roberto de Ferrariis, et M. Gloccestriae, Willielmo de Albinei Pincerna, et Hugone de Gurniaco et Philippo de Belmieo. I have one or two remarks to offer on this Charter. It confirms Bishop Roger's grant of the Manor as a grant made in

[14] Laurence, Prior of Coventry, has not yet been heard of earlier than 1144; and that gives him 86 years of office, for he lived till 1179.
[15] I have been very particular on this matter of date. Monastic Charters constitute something like half of the historical evidences of that period. It is therefore of the greatest importance that we should ascertain how these Charters passed, instead of seizing on their superficial inconsistencies and presumptuously rejecting them as forgeries.

My estimate of Roger de Clinton's Charter to Buildwas is grounded on some general remarks of the late Mr. Stapleton in his notes to the Rotuli Normanniae (Vol. I. p. lxxiv.). Mr. Stapleton seems to me to have understood and valued this class of evidence better than any other Antiquary, dead or living.
[16] New Monasticon, Vol. V. p. 356.


the King's presence,- another proof that verbal and public concession was a mode of conveyance quite distinct from the written Charter, for the Bishop's Charter has no appearance of having passed before the King.

The King's Charter also quotes the estimated hidage of Buildwas, and exempts the Manor from all dues and obligations appertaining to the Crown. The hidage given is that of Domesday, and the privileges allowed by the Usurper were afterwards respected by his lawful Successors on the Throne.

Again, the King speaks of the Abbey as Savigniac, and as dedicated to St. Chad. The latter was the Patron-Saint of Bishop Clinton's Cathedral at Lichfield, as well as of his Collegiate Church at Shrewsbury. When Buildwas became Cistercian, we of course expect to find it following the unvarying rule of that Order by associating the tutelage of the Virgin with that of its previous Patron; but I shall presently show that this addition was made earlier, i.e. while Buildwas was simply Savigniac. Earl Symon de Silvanecta, who attests Stephen's Charter, should perhaps be noticed as identical with Simon de St. Liz, Earl of Northampton.

The King's Charter is dated "apud Salopesberiam in obsidione, anno Incarnationis Dominicae MCXXXIX, regni vero mei tertio". Here the Dominical year given is inconsistent with the regnal year, as well as with the historical fact; for no part of the third year of Stephen fell later than Christmas 1138, and the Siege of Shrewsbury, which lasted a month, ended in a surrender between Aug. 21 and Aug. 28, 1138. This has been pointed out and commented upon before; [17] but the Charter involves another matter very pertinent to chronology and history. It is tested by Robert de Ferrars, whose services to Stephen are said to have procured him an Earldom in this very year. [18] This Charter helps to prove his activity. He must have quitted the siege of Shrewsbury immediately, for he commanded the men of Derbyshire at the Battle of the Standard which was fought on Monday, August 22, 1138, and in that very week Shrewsbury surrendered to Stephen.

Milo de Gloucester, another witness of Stephen's Charter, was at the siege of Shrewsbury, but probably by no will of his own. Little more than a year after, he was apprised by the Earl of Gloucester of the Empress having landed at Arundel. Milo, obviously

[17] History of Shrewsbury (Owen and Blakeway), I. 78, n. In all cases of inconsistent dating clauses which I have examined, I have found the Dominical year to be the least trustworthy element.
[18] J. Hagustald, p. 262.


known to the Earl as a secret friend to her cause, at once became an open one.

Philip de Belmeis, the last witness of Stephen's Charter, should be noticed more particularly in connection with Buildwas Abbey, to which, after the King and Bishop, he was probably the next benefactor.

His Grant of Ruckley to "Saint Mary and Saint Chad" of Bildewas, I have printed, from the original, elsewhere.
[19] The Grantor acknowledges the reception of himself, his wife, and heirs into the fraternity of Buildwas, and of the Mother-Church of Savigny,- a proof that Buildwas, while simply Savigniac, adhered to so much of original Cistercian Rule as to acknowledge the tutelage of the Virgin.

Belmeis's Charter passed about 1139, as I think, but more certainly before 1145, when he was enlisted in favour of another and very different Foundation.

Another very early Benefactor to Buildwas was the first William fitz Alan, who is known to have died about Easter 1160. He gave Little Buildwas, an outlying member of his great Manor of Wroxeter, but only separated from the Bishop's land by the River Severn. The Charter conveying this grant is not known to be in existence, but it is expressly alluded to, and its contents distinctly enumerated and confirmed, by his Son, in a Deed which seems to have passed about 1175. [20]

Other early grants, by the Founder himself, we only hear of in subsequent confirmations, and these shall be cited in their place.

To enumerate here all territorial Benefactions would interfere with my usual plan of giving such details under the localities concerned. Suffice it then to say, that although no collective Chartulary of Buildwas is known to exist, the deficiency may be almost supplied from the Inspeximus of Edward I., and from other public and private documents. [21]

[19] Supra, Vol. II. p. 203. The original is in possession of George Pritchard, Esq. of Broseley.
[20] Printed Monasticon, V. p. 359, Num. xviii.
[21] I should particularly notice a series of Charters edited by Mr. Hunter for the Camden Society, and printed in the Volume entitled Ecclesiastical Documents (pp. 51-54). These Charters not only show that Buildwas, when it became subject to Citeaux, remained still Saviguiac, i.e. mediately subject to Savigny also; but they exhibit the whole ratio and working of this system of graduated dependence, and how the Welsh Abbey of Basingwerk and the Irish Abbey of Saint Mary, Dublin, were amenable to the control of Buildwas, as Buildwas was to Savigny, and Savigny to Citeaux.


There is another story about the Foundation of Buildwas Abbey, which, as it was adopted by Leland and indirectly strengthened by Dugdale, deserves some attention. Leland tells us that- "Matild de Bohan, Wife to Ser Robert Burnelle, Founder of Bildevois Abbey (thowghe some for the only Gifte of the Site of the Howse, toke the Bysshope of Chester for Founder), was buried in the Presbitery at Dour". [22]

I am not aware who Matilda de Bohan, buried at Dore-Abbey, may have been; but I presume that Leland's somewhat ambiguous sentence means to indicate Sir Robert Burnell as the Founder of Buildwas, not his Wife, as the Editors of the Monasticon have concluded.

Dugdale, in his account of the Barony of Burnell, tells us of "an old Martyrologe (sometime belonging to the Abby of Buldewas) which plainly demonstrated the great antiquity" of that family. [23] At the head of the succession, thus authenticated, stands Sir Robert Burnell, Knight, alleged to have died November 15, 1087, 20 Will. Conq. (where, by the way, we must read either 1086 or 1 Will. 2).

This Sir Robert Burnell must be the same as he whom Glover reveals to us as "a Knight in the army which Earl Roger de Belesme brought over to this kingdom with William the Conqueror", and as dying in 1087, and being "buried at Buildwas in Salop".

We need not stop to identify that never existent personage, Earl Roger de Belesme, or to talk of the man buried at Buildwas nearly 50 years before it was founded, nor yet to criticize the two schemes of succession, by which Glover and Dugdale pass through a series of else unheard-of Burnells till they arrive at a genuine Philip Burnell, who died in 10 Edw. I. (1282), and about whom they both record something inaccurate.

The truth I have already tated under Acton Burnell, and now repeat it.- The Burnells were a family of moderate estate in Shropshire, heard of first in the reign of Henry II., and thenceforward, till, in the time of Henry III., the head of the house was outlawed for murder.

His confiscated estates were in time repurchased by a relation, Robert Burnell, who, after various minor accessions of wealth and honour, came to be Bishop of Bath and Wells, Lord Chancellor of England, and the Founder of a splendid Barony. The aera of Burnell's Chancellorship corresponded with the time when the first Statute of Mortmain dealt a heavy blow on Monastic interests. Alive to their prospective needs, the Monks of Buildwas bethought themselves of an ingenious plan for propitiating their powerful neighbour at Acton Burnell. Under the shape of a Martyrology they concocted a genealogy of the Burnells, which (whether we take Glover's or Dugdale's version thereof) omits all accurate mention of every known progenitor of the race, and is specially silent about the Outlaw.

The list commences with Sir Robert Burnell, who, as aforesaid, is made to die in 1087. Him the Monks further adopted as their Founder.

It is mortifying to find Leland, Glover, and Dugdale dupes of such an imposture; but the combination of credulity and self-deception which will have brought the Monks of Buildwas to be commemorating the deeds, praying for the souls, and perhaps pointing out the tombs, of men who never lived, never died, and never were buried, is simply ludicrous.

I now resume my account of the fortunes of Buildwas Abbey with the accession of Henry II.

On November 26, 1156, Richard, Abbot of Savigni, committed to

[22] Itinerary, Vol. VIII. fo. 84 b.
[23] Baronage, Vol. II. p. 60.


Ranulf, Abbot of Billewas, the cure and disposition of the Savigniac house of St. Mary's, Dublin. [24] In the next year the Flintshire House of Basingwerk was subjected to the same Abbot and his Convent of Billewas, by a second ordinance of the Abbot and Convent of Savigni. [25]

The Staffordshire Pipe-Roll of 1157 excuses the Monks of Buildwas their quota of the Danegeld, and of the Donum, then assessed on that County. This refers to a previous acquisition of the Monks. Gerold de Brelectun, a knight of the first William fitz Alan, had given them "the land of Broctun". This estate was in the Parish of Sheriff-Hales, and is still known as Brockton Grange.

In 1158 the Monks of Buildwas are excused two sums of 2s. 4d. and 4s. 2d.,- their respective quota of the donum then collected in Staffordshire and Shropshire. In 1162 they are excused 2s. of the Danegeld of Staffordshire.

Between the years 1163 and 1166 King Henry II., being at Lichfield, issued a Writ in favour of the Monks of Buildwas, which requires some explanation, independently of its being inaccurately printed elsewhere. [26] A charge, called cherchambre, had in the time of Henry I. been payable by a certain district of Shropshire to the Bishops of Coventry and Lichfield. This due Bishop Peche (consecrated in April 1161) had recently made over to the Monks of Buildwas, but the latter it seems were resisted in levying it. The King's Writ orders the Sheriff of Shropshire to enforce the Monks' right, by judicial process against the men of his Bailiwick. The Writ is tested by Geoffrey, Archdeacon of Canterbury.

In 1174 King Henry II. is said to have subjected St. Mary's, Dublin, to Ranulf, Abbot of Buildwas. [27] The date and circumstance are supported by a Charter. The King's act was in effect a ratification of the previous arrangement of the Chapter of Savigni.

In or about the year 1175 the second William fitz Alan expedited two Charters to Buildwas Abbey, confirming two former acts of his Father relative to Little Buildwas and Brockton.

About the year 1177 Matthew, Abbot of Basingwerk, endeavoured to free both his own House and that of Dublin from subjection to Buildwas. He had appealed to Citeaux in the matter, but William, Abbot of Savigni, summoned both Abbots (Matthew

[24] [25] Eccles. Documents, pp. 51, 52.
[26] Monasticon, V. 358, No. XV. The original is in the British Museum (Campbell, XXIX. 6).
[27] Monast. Hibern. (Archdall). If Archdall's authority be the Deed printed, Monasticon, V. p. 363, No. II., the date is perhaps 1176.


of Basingwerk and Ranulf of Buildwas) to appear before the Chapter of Savigni and plead the cause. They obeyed. The Charters of Richard de Curci, Abbot of Savigni in 1156 and 1157, were produced, and settled the question. Abbot William of Savigni, in full Chapter, ratified the ascendency of Buildwas, and issued injunctions of obedience accordingly to Matthew, Abbot of Basingwerk, and to A., Abbot of Dublin. [28]

In 1182 we hear that Robert, Abbot of Buildwas, transferred the Seigneury over the Irish Abbey of Dunbrothy from Buildwas Abbey to St. Mary's, Dublin.
[29] Harvey de Montemarisco had, it seems, given Dunbrothy to Buildwas; but Brother Alan, a Monk of Buildwas, having been over to inspect Dunbrothy, had found it waste and desolate. Hence this prudent transfer.

On October 21, 1189, King Richard I., being at Winchester, granted a Charter to Buildwas, acquitting the Abbot and his men of all obligation to pay toll (theloneum) and other dues, anywhere in his dominions. [30] The next day (October 22) the King expedited a general Charter of Confirmation to Buildwas, which may be taken to recite all the previous acquisitions of the Abbey. It ascribes to Bishop Roger (de Clinton) the grants of the Manor of Bildewas, of Meola (Monk Meole), and of the Chirchomber assessable on the two Hundreds of Wrockwardine and Condover; [31] also, the grant of one man, named Edric, in the territory of Lichfield. It ascribes to Bishop Richard (Peche) the grants of a messuage in the Forgate of Chester, and of 4s., receivable yearly out of the Mill of Burne, near Lichfield. Then follow the grants of (Little) Buildwas, Brockton, Ruckley, Cosford, and Hatton, as described elsewhere in these pages. Walter fitz Heremann had also given a moiety of Walton (in Staffordshire); Henry fitz Fulcher had given the land of Ivenbroc (in Derbyshire); William de Caldone, the land of Caldone (in Staffordshire); and Robert fitz Thomas, a house in some place, printed He...gfeld. [32]

A much more interesting piece of evidence is the Confirmation of Bishop Hugh de Novant to Buildwas Abbey. It is dated at Bildewas

[28] Ecclesiastical Documents, pp. 52, 53.
[29] Archdall (ut supra). I suspect either that the date 1182 is a mistake, or that the Abbot's name was Ranulph.
[30] Rot. Cart. 20 Edw. I. No. 39.
[31] This does not, I think, prove that the Domesday Hundred of Reoordine remained in Bishop Clinton's time (1129-1148). An ancient ecclesiastical due, like Cherchombre, would naturally be unchangeable as to the district on which it was assessable. It would not be influenced by secular changes of boundary.
[32] Monasticon, V. 359, No. XVI.


itself, in the fifth year of the Grantor's Pontificate, and on Sunday in the feast of St. Cecilia, in the year 1192;- summarily then on November 22, 1192. The witnesses are Hugh Abbot of Shrewsbury, Robert Abbot of Basingwerk, Richard Abbot of Hagemon, Robert Prior of Wenloc, William fitz Alan, Rodbert Corbet, Henry Archdeacon of Stafford, Richard Archdeacon of Salop, Master Robert of Salop, Master Richard de Gnowsale, Master William Duredent, Master Henry de Bredeshale, Roger Corbet, William de Hedlehe, Stephen de Stanton, Richard de Lehton, Malcolumb de Harlehe, and Alan de Bildewes. [33]

The Charter professes the Grantor's deference to the institutes of his predecessors, Bishops Roger, Walter, and Richard. It concedes to the Monks the place in which they are militant under the rule of St. Benedict, and under the Cistercian order. It also confirms the Vill of Meole and those Burgesses of Salop which belonged to the Bishops of Lichfield, and the tenure near Lichfield which Edric formerly held, and 4 solidates in the Mill of Burne, and half a mansure in the Foriate of Chester, which had been Herbert the Scrivener's, and the right to collect the corn called Chirchomber, "which right the Bishop's predecessors were known to have enjoyed themselves, and to have conferred on the Monks, as appurtenant to the Manor of Bildewas and Meoles." [34] The Charter was corroborated by the Seals and authority of the Bishop himself, his Chapter of Coventry, [35] and his Chapter of Lichfield.

In this same year (1192) we hear of another quarrel between the Houses of Buildwas and Basingwerk. The latter House had renewed an attempt to withdraw itself and Dublin from the jurisdiction of Buildwas, and to subject both to the immediate control of Savigni. William, Abbot of Savigni, and the cotemporary Abbot of Clairvaux, sitting at Clairvaux in judgment, again decided that Basingwerk and Dublin were subject to Buildwas, as Daughters. [36] This decision was recited and confirmed in the same year by William, Abbot of Citeaux, as head of all Cistercian houses, Savigniac or not. [37]

Within six years of this time A. (probably Arnold), a succeeding

[33] Blakeway's MSS.,- from the Bridgewater Muniments.
[34] Et collectionem bladi quae appellatur Chirchcomber, quam predecessores nostri habuisse et contulisse noscuntur, pertinentem ad Manerium de Bildewas et Meoles.
[35] A curious illustration of a well-known story, viz. Bishop Novant's expulsion of the Monks of Coventry, and substitution of Secular Canons in their room.
[36] Blakeway's MSS.
[37] Ecclesiastical Documents, pp. 53, 54.


Abbot of Citeaux, confirms Buildwas in this superiority, citing the former acts of Richard de Curci and William de Tolosa when Abbots of Savigni. The testing-clause of this manifesto shows the enormous influence of the Cistercian Order, congregating, as it did, to its General Chapter the Heads of its various Houses, whether situated in France, Normandy, Scotland, Wales, or Yorkshire.

On October 24, 1198, King Richard I., then at Roche Andeley, expedited a Charter whereby the Monks of Buildwas were entitled to hold all their lands, whether already obtained or thereafter to be obtained, free and quit of all waste and regard of the King's Forest. [38]

Soon after this, I think, "H". (perhaps Huctred) "Abbot of Buildwas" caused transcripts to be made of the Charters which proved the subjection of Basingwerk and Dublin to his House. These transcripts, verified by W., Abbot of Cumbe, W., Abbot of Miraval, and W., Abbot of Stanle (Stoneleigh), were forwarded over sea to W., Abbot of Citeaux, presiding over a Chapter of his Order. [39]

In Hilary Term 1221, an unusual but curious subject occupied the attention of the Courts at Westminster. It was the expediency of altering a certain pass in the Royal Forest near to Buldewas, the spot having become notorious as a haunt of Malefactors, and for the constant commission of crimes.

The History of Buildwas Abbey during the thirteenth Century involves little more than will be found classified under its various Dependencies. The Hundred-Rolls of 1255 do not so much as mention the Manor, obviously because it was extra-hundredal. The Abbot seems to have obtained a Charter from Edward I., dated September 14, 1290. This Charter does not remain on the Rolls, but we gather from another Record that it was, in part at least, an Inspeximus of one of Richard I.'s Charters. The Charter inspected was recited most fully in this instance, as far as privileges were con- cerned, and it seems doubtful whether it was not different to either of the three Charters of Richard I. already quoted. It allowed to the Church of St. Mary of Buldewas all the lands and tenements previously granted thereto, and that the Monks should hold both those lands and all lands thereafter acquired, free and quit of geld, danegeld, scutage, fines for murder and larceny, also of hidage, of shires and hundreds (that is the suit thereof), of military services

[38] Forest Roll, Salop, No. VI.
[39] Ecclesiastical Documents, p. 64.

A very similar certificate and transmission of certain Charters of Tintern Abbey appears in a Document, printed in The Monasticon (Vol. V. 426, No. II.). It was evidently a form usual among the Dependencies of Citeaux.


(exercitibus), of Summonses, Sheriffs' Aids, and all other Aids; also free of any amercement set upon the County or Hundred, of toll, of passage, and of pontage belonging to the King, of all work at Castles, Bridges, Vivaries, Walls, or Parks, of fencings (clausuris), of pleas, plaints, and all other customs, of all secular service, exaction, and servile work. [40] Such were the privileges coveted by, and congenial to, the peaceful and even indolent genius of the Cistercians. The Charter explains the comparative obscurity in which the internal affairs of Buildwas Abbey are buried.

The Taxation of 1291 gives us the first general statement of the possessions of this House. In Hereford Diocese it derived from Kynnerton, Wentnor, Ragdon, and Hope Bowdler an income of 6. 7s. 10d. from lands and rents, and 9. 10d. from live-stock. [41] In Lichfield Diocese, and Stafford Archdeaconry, it had, from Walton, Brockton, and Cuddesdon, an income of 21. 18s. 6d. [42] Its gross income from places in the Archdeaconry of Salop was 76. 12s. 3d. [43] Its total temporalities, that is, excluding Churches, Tithes, etc., may therefore be put at 113. 19s. 5d. per annum. Of this sum Buildwas Grange, that is the Abbey Manor (not including Little Buildwas), yielded l5.; or 4. 10s. on six carucates of land and 10. l0s. on live-stock. [43]

On February 6, 1292, Edward I.'s ample Inspeximus of Buildwas Charters passed the Great Seal. [44] Its chief contents are already printed, and will be or have been cited elsewhere in these pages.

In 1301 the old disputes about the supremacy over Dublin were revived. The Abbot of Savigni now claimed the honour against Buildwas; but a General Chapter, presided over by John, Abbot of Citaux, and sitting at Citeaux, decided once more for Buildwas. William de Ashburne, who on this occasion acted as Proctor for Buildwas, was a Monk of the House, but afterwards became Abbot of Dublin.-

The existing Abbot of Dublin was Roger de Brugor, who also had been a Monk of Buildwas, and who died in 1309. [45]

I should here observe that the Diocesan Registers of Lichfield do not afford the slightest evidence that the Bishops of that See retained any right of Patronage over Buildwas Abbey. A Letter of Bishop Roger de Northburgh to the Abbot of Buildwas, dated at Eccleshall on January 14, 1324-5, not only precludes all idea of friendly

[40] Placita de Quo Waranto, p. 115.
[41] [42] [43] Pope Nich. Taxation, pp. 163, 253, 260.
[44] Rot. Cart. 20 Edw. 1., Nos. 39, 40, 41.
[45] Blakeway's MSS.


intercourse, but is a Philippic of no ordinary violence. The Bishop had been commissioned by the Pope to collect the biennial tenth, last accruing to the Apostolick See. The Abbot had pertinaciously, the Bishop says insolently, neglected to pay his quota. After plentiful abuse the Bishop threatens to proceed to the publication of censures (meaning excommunication) against the Abbot, in such Churches and places as shall seem expedient, unless the Abbot pays before the 2nd of February. [46]

In 1342, John, Abbot of Buildwas, attending a general Chapter at Citeaux, confirmed to St. Mary's Dublin a supremacy over the Abbey of Dunbrothy. [47]

I now pass to the Valor of Henry VIII., in whose seventh year (1585-6), Stephen, then Abbot of Byldwas, declared the Revenues of his House to be as follows.-

Byldwas itself, that is the Abbey Manor, yielded 20. 9s. 8d.;- the land being partly in hand and partly let to tenants. Little-Byldwas yielded 18. 11s. 8d. Other Shropshire Manors and estates yielded 64. 13s. 10d. From Derbyshire came 6., from Staffordshire 9. 8s. 4d. The tithes receivable from Leighton and Hatton were 6. The Abbot of Lilleshall paid a fee-farm rent of 4. 3s. 4d. for certain land at Longdon upon Tern. The Manor-Court (of Buildwas I presume) yielded 5s. The total temporalities and spiritualities of Buildwas Abbey were therefore 129. 6s. 10d. The outgoings on this income were put at 18. 7s. 6d., leaving a net balance of 110. 19s. 3d. [48]

The Ministers' Accounts of 1536-7 estimate the gross income of the then dissolved Abbey of Byldewas, at about 30. more than the Valor. The excess was chiefly in the valuation put upon the receipts from Great and Little Buildwas, which, instead of 39. 1s. 4d. per annum, were increased to 61. 16s. 1d.; but the Site of the Monastery was an item in the later calculation. Also, the Rectory or Rectorial tithes of Buildwas were now reckoned as 5. 13s. 4d., an item which does not appear in the Valor. [49] In the year after that in which this account was taken, the King granted the Site of the Abbey, with all its possessions in Shropshire, Staffordshire, and Derbyshire, to Edward Grey, Lord Powis.


INGENULF or ENGENULF was undoubtedly the first Abbot of

[46] Register Northburgh, C. fo. 16, b.
[47] Archdall (ut supra).
[48] Valor Ecclesiasticus, III. 191, 192.
[49] Monasticon, V. 361.


Buildwas. He is named in Bishop Clinton's Charter already quoted, and which we know to have passed between 1139 and 1148. I also find this Abbot attesting three other Charters of the same Prelate, and within the same limits of date. In one instance he attests as Ingenulf, Abbot, without any specification of his Convent. [50]

RANULPH first occurs as Abbot of Buildwas in the testing-clause of Bishop Walter Durdent's Confirmation to Lilleahall Abbey. [51] This Charter probably passed between 1149 and 1152. Abbot Ranulph has already been mentioned in these pages, under the ascertained dates of 1156, 1157, 1174, 1177, [52] and 1186-7. [53] The appearance of an Abbot, Robert, in 1182 is, I think, illusory. [54] Abbot Ranulph's death took place in 1187 whilst journeying to attend a General Chapter at Savigni or Citeaux. [55]

WILLIAM, Abbot of Beldwas, attests a Charter of Bishop Geoffrey de Muschamp, [56] which must have passed between 1198 and 1208.

HUCTRAD, Abbot of Bildewas, attests a Charter of the second William fitz Alan, [57] which probably passed just before that Baron's decease, and so in the year 1210. H., Abbot of Billewas (whether Huctrad or some other), attests a Charter of Reyner, Bishop of St. Asaph, which must have passed between 1216 and 1222. [58]

STEPHEN, Abbot of Buildwas, occurs in October, 1227. [59]

SIMON, Abbot of Buildwas, was in office in July 1233. [60] This is the Abbot who is said to have lived "in the time of Clementia de Fulgeriis, Countess of Chester". [61]

NICHOLAS, Abbot of Buildwas, was in office as early as November 18, 1236, and as late as January 20, 1256. [62] I cannot say whether it was he or his Successor to whom a Patent of Sept. 29, 1256, gives a protection from all Suits, etc., to last for one year.

WILLIAM I take to have been Nicholas's Successor. He occurs in or before the year 1263. A Patent of January 8, 1262, gives a protection of one year to the Abbot of Buildwas, he being about to go into Ireland.

[50] Monasticon, VIII. 1248, No. xx. Cotton MSS. Vespas. E. xxiv. fos. 16,16 b.
[51] Monasticon, VI. 266, No. 4.
[52] Supra, pp. 326, 328, etc.
[53] Supra, Vol. V. p. 42. He also appears in two Charters of less certain date (Harl. MS. 3868. fo. 6, b. and Monasticon, V. 410, No. 4).
[54] Supra, p. 328.
[55] Annals of Waverley (Gale's Scriptores, Vol. II. p. 163).
[56] Wombridge Chartulary: Tit. Upinton, No. 43.
[57] Haughmond Chartulary: Tit. Dounton.
[58] Salop Chartulary, No. 357. The Abbot "H". (mentioned p. 330), was perhaps Huctred.
[59] Supra, Vol. II. p. 39.
[60] Supra, p. 76.
[61] Monasticon, V. 355.
[62] Pedes Finium, Salop.


ADAM occurs, under the initial letter of his name, in April 1271, and, with his name written at length, in November 1272. [63]

WILLIAM [67] was Abbot of Buildwas on November 12, 1292.
[68] He has also occurred to us about 1296. [66]

HENRY BURNEL [67] was Predecessor of-

JOHN, Abbot of Buildwas, and John was in Office on August 6, 1317, [68] and in 1342. [69]

NICHOLAS or NATHANIEL is stated to occur in 21 Edw. III. (1347-8); [70]

JOHN LEGH, in 8 Henry IV. (1406-7); [70]

HENRY DERBY, on September 3, 32 Henry VI. (1453). [70]

WILLIAM was Abbot between 1474 and 1521, having been Grantor of a Lease of Stirchley, which was yet unexpired in the year 1534. [71]

STEPHEN, Abbot of Buildwas, grants a lease of Ruckley on April 14, 1521. [72] He was in office in 1535-6, and till the Dissolution.

THE RUINS OF BUILDWAS ABBEY are extensive, and have, of late years at least, been well preserved. The date of the older work corresponds with the presumed aera of foundation. It may be worth noting, as a matter for architectural investigation, that a Deed, already stated to have passed about the year 1220, indicates that the Monks were then engaged in, or contemplating, considerable additions to their buildings; and that the stone which they proposed to use was to be procured from Quarries, which lay within the Manor of Broseley and adjacent to the River Severn. [73]

One word, in conclusion, as to the SITE of Buildwas,- a matter rather for the historian than the Architect. It is eminently Cistercian, for it is vain to consider this foundation as anything else than Cistercian, notwithstanding its temporary affiliation on Savigny, which was itself originally and eventually Cistercian also. The solitary and wild valleys, selected not without regard to beautiful scenery and other local and more substantial advantages,- these

[63] Supra, p. 313; and Vol. V. p. 117.
[64] Mr. Dukes's List (Appendix, p. lxii) has GILBERT DE LACY as Abbot of Buildwas in 20 Edw. I. (1291-2). If so, he preceded William, but I cannot verify this entry.
[65] Pedes Finium, Salop.
[66] Supra, Vol. I. p. 363.
[67] A note of Mr. Blakeway's mentions him as occurring in 27 Edw. I. (1298-9).
[68] Supra, Vol. III. p. 277.
[69] Supra, p. 332.
[70] These are from Mr. Dukes's List.
[71] Charter in possession of B.H. Cheney, Esq., of Badger.
[72] Charter in possession of W. Cope, Esq., of Shiffnal.
[73] Supra, Vol. II. p.14.


[For engravings, see pdf.]

RUINS. 335

were the spots most congenial to Cistercian tastes, as contrasted with the neighbourhood of a Town, a Feudal Castle, or a great thoroughfare. Hence also comes it to pass that in the present day Cistercian Ruins are preserved in a greater proportion than the Ruins of other Monasteries. Their materials have not stood objectively available for utilitarian or ignoble purposes. Now at length the time has come when a changed state of feeling again views such Ruins as sacred;- sacred to departed genius and taste, sacred to the ever-living beauty of grandeur and repose, sacred indeed to yet higher and holier associations, of which nothing but a too narrow Sectarianism would forbid the indulgence.

The Long Forest.

THE Royal Forests of Shropshire originated in one or other of two natural conditions of the soil. The spontaneous and undisturbed growth of timber over a large area suggested the afforestation of the Forests of Morf and Wyre. The existence of large districts, so mountainous or sterile as to be unavailable for agriculture, formed a nucleus for such Forests as Shirlot, The Clee, The Stiperstones, The Wrekin, and the Long Forest.

The framework, as it may be termed, of the Long Forest, has its readiest exponent in a modern Map. Its chief constituents were several series of mountains or hills.-

From Halford on the south-west, to Much Wenlock on the north-east, there extends a continuous Ridge or Terrace, now known, throughout its length of fifteen miles, as Wenlock Edge. This was the primary feature of the Forest so aptly termed Long. The Valley or Basin which flanks this Terrace on the north-west is again bounded by a parallel but more broken and unequal chain of hills. The Stretton, Caradoc, Lawley, Frodesley, and Acton-Burnell Hills form this series. Again, crossing an interval of country to the north-west of this series, we have the range of the Long Mynd, five miles in extent, on the one hand, and the isolated Lyth Hill on the other. Another step to the north-west of the Long Mynd, and we reach the high grounds about Linley. Here we pause,


for we are on the confines of the Stiperstones Forest, a Chase and Jurisdiction annexed from time immemorial to the Barony of Caus. Such are the great physical features of the district once involved in the Long Forest; and we obtain nearly the same idea of its extent and area if we consider the Manors, Vills, and Woods which were subject to its jurisdiction.-

The whole of the Domesday Hundred of Condover was within the Jurisdiction of the Long Forest, except the three Manors of Buildwas, Sheinton, and Belswardine, which belonged to the Bailiwick of Shirlot. In Patinton Hundred, the Jurisdiction of the Long Forest involved the Manors of Burton, Eaton under Heywood, Easthope, Gretton, Lutwych, Millichope, Patton, Rushbury, Shipton, and Stanway, with all their members. Perhaps it involved the Manor of Acton Round, and at Presthope at least it trenched on the Manor of Much Wenlock.

In Culvestan Hundred the Jurisdiction of the Long Forest extended to the whole or parts of the Manors of Corfham, Diddlebury, Culmington, Siefton, Aston-Munslow, Bouldon, Cardington, Corfton, Hope Bowdler, Great and Little Sutton, and Middlehope. At Wetlington too it touched on the Manor of Stokesay, and at Dinchope and Halford it involved perhaps a part of Bromfield.

In Lenteurde Hundred this Jurisdiction involved Acton Scott, Chelmick, Alcaston, Myndtown, Plaish, Wittingslow, Wistanstow, Strefford, and Church Stretton with all its members.

In Rinlau Hundred,- this Jurisdiction involved Munede, Edgton, and perhaps Sibdon. At Medlicott it trenched on the Manor of Wentnor. At Asterton and Aston Wood it was invading the Bishop of Hereford's vast Manor or rather Province of Lydbury North.

In Ruesset Hundred, the Regard of the Long Forest involved the Manor of Longden; and Sutton and Brace Meole, though within the very Liberties of Shrewsbury, were not exempt from this extraordinary Jurisdiction.

The maintenance or relaxation of the Jurisdiction of the Long Forest will best be traced by quoting the successive documents which bear upon the matter. The Forest-Roll of 1180 suggests that very few concessions in the way of assart or imbladement had been allowed to the inhabitants of the district. Rushbury, Harley, Cressage, Langley, and Westhope were the favoured Vills. In Kenley, Longeville, [1] and Hope (Bowdler), amercements were inflicted for waste or pourpresture.

[1] This is Longville in the Dale,- now Cheney-Longville,- noticed Vol III. p. 318.


In 1209 the Regard of the Long Forest shows that indulgences had been extended to the Lords or the Inhabitants of a far greater number of Vills. Kenley, Harley, Hughley, Cressage, Preen, Acton Burnell, Longnor, Frodesley, Pitchford, Netley, Stapleton, Woolstaston, Condover, with its members of Dorrington, Ryton, Westley, Wheatall, and Allfield; also Rushbury and Easthope, Wilston, Ragdon and Chatwall, Westhope, Chelmick, Acton Scott, Wittingslow, Myndtown, Edgton, and Albot, had all been suffered to increase their area of cultivation, or had compounded for so doing.

A Forest Jurisdiction, as I have before observed, limited the right of ownership in all the Woods of the district.

The Survey of Shropshire Forests in 1235 reports on the state of a great number of Woods and Boscs which appear to have been subject to the Jurisdiction of the Long Forest. I have stated elsewhere what the Surveyors said about the Boscs of Kenley, Great Preen, Little Preen, Stanwey, Frodesley, Burywood (which belonged to Condover), and Longnor. The rest of the Survey, as far as the Long Forest seems to be concerned, I will give in the original Latin.-

Item visus fuit Boscus de Westwud qui est Prioris de Wenlak,- bene custoditus de subbosco et spineto, quia nihil aliud ibi crescit aut crescere consuevit. [2]

(Here follow the Surveys relating to Kenley and the two Preens.)

Item visus fuit Boscus de Esthope,- bene custoditus de subbosco, quia parum habetur de quercu, quia parum crescit aut crescere consuevit.

Item visus fuit Boscus de Langsetewud [3] Prioris de Wenlak,- bene custoditus de quercu et subbosco.

Item visus fuit Boscus de Plese, [4] qui parvus est,- tenuis de quercu, quia sic de antiquo esse consuevit, et tamen sufficit de subbosco.

Item visus fuit Boscus de Ocwud, [5]- de veteri vastatus de quercu et subbosco, et etiam tempore libertatis.

Item visus fuit Boscus de Mullesgreve, [6]- vastatus de veteri vasto,

[2] I have named Westwood (Vol. III. p. 297) as subject to Shirlot. This seems doubtful, whether we consult the Record or the Map. It was at the North-Eastern extremity of Wenlock Edge, and so at the point where the two jurisdictions (of Shirlot and the Long Forest) met.
[3] I cannot trace this Wood in any modern name. It was probably near Longville and Lushcott.
[4] This is Plaish or Plash, near Cardington,- a Manor which will be noticed under Lenteurde Hundred.
[5] Oakwood, near Cardington. The name still exists.
[6] I cannot trace this name, but the line taken by the Survey suggests the situation of Mullesgreve Wood.


et etiam tempore libertatis; de subbosco nihil crescit nec crescere consuevit.

(Here the Bosc of Stanwey is surveyed.)

Item visus fuit Boscus de Middelhope,- bene custoditus de quercu et subbosco.

Item visus fuit Boscus de Westhope,- bene custoditus de quercu et subbosco.

Item visus fuit Boscus de Gorfton, [7]- bene custoditus de quercu et subbosco.

Item visus fuit Boscus de Syetan, [8] qui est Walteri de Clifford;- fere totum vastatus de veteri et de novo. De Bestiis nulla frequentacio in predictis boscis, nisi in redeundo de aliis forestis.

Item thus fuit Boscus de Eywud, [9] Stephani de Scotot;- bene custoditus de quercu et subbosco; et visus fuit ibidem Boscus Prioris de Wenlak,- bene custoditus de quercu et corulo; sed nihil crescit de subbosco.

Item ibidem visus fuit Boscus de Hope, [10]- rationabiliter custoditus de quercu et corulo, sed nihil crescit de subbosco.

Item visi fuerunt Bosci de Alechamstan et de Streford, [11]- bene custoditi de quercu, sed nihil crescit de subbosco.

Item visus fuit Boscus de Okwud, [12]- bene custoditus de quercu, excepta liberata facta hominibus de Acton ad Husbote et Heybot, quam habere debent per visum Forestarii ut dicunt;- nihil crescit de subbosco. De bestiis nulla frequentacio,- ut supra.

Item visus fuit Haya Domini Regis de Bishmore, [13]- bene custoditus de quercu et subbosco, in qua est frequentacio beatiarum.

Item visus (fuit) Boscus de Wolfreston (et) de Wistanestowe, [14]- multum vastatus de veteri et de novo.

[7] Evidently Corfton, where was a Haye, for taking kids, at the time of Domesday. (Vide supra, Vol. V. p. 44.) [8] This was Siefton-Wood, before noticed as within Regard of the Long Forest (Vol. V. p. 183).
[9] Now Highwood, a part of Wenlock Edge, between Rushbury and Eaton. Hence the last Manor got its distinctive name of Eaton under Haywood, and the Vill of Wall its name of Wall under Haywood. Stephen de Scotot, alias de Bitterley, had his share of Eywood as appurtenant to his moiety of Rushbury. (See Vol. IV. p. 96.) The Prior of Wenlock's share was appurtenant to Eaton.
[10] Hope Bowdler, I presume, wherethere were two leagues of wood at Domesday.
[11] Alceston and Strefford,- at the South-western end of Wenlock Edge.
[12] Oakwood, near Acton Scott, still retains its name.
[13] The King's haye of Bishopmore was still preserved with all the exclusiveness of a Royal Forest. Its situation may be traced in a place now called Bushmoor, lying on the Watling Street, South-west of Acton Scott.
[14] Woolston and Wistanstow.


Item visa fuit Haya Domini Regis de Hauekhurst, [16]- bene custodita exceptis quibusdam liberates factes Priori de Wenlak et aliis de Bono Domini Regis.

Item visus fuit Boscus de Langemunede, [16]- bene custoditus de quercu et subbosco.

Item visus fuit Boscus de Netebech, [17]- qui ex parte australi rationabiliter custoditur et a parte boreali multum prostratur de quercu, de veteri et de novo propter metum Walensium, qui ibidem solebant transire et quandoque morari ad destructionem patriae.

Item visus fuit Boscus de Ragelith, [18]- bene custoditus de quercu et subbosco.

Item visus fuit Boscus de Wimbrinton [19]- de novo bene custoditus et de veteri multum prostratus per liberatas factas ad Castra de Stratton et Salop, et Rogero Sprenghos ad domum suum firmandum apud Langenalre, per preceptum Hugonis de Nevill tunc Justiciarii Forestae.

(Here the Boscs of Sheinton and Belswardine are surveyed; but, as I have said elsewhere, they belonged to the jurisdiction of Shirlot.)

Item visus fuit Boscus de Cristesith, [20]- nimium vastatus de novo et de veteri. In predictis Boscis parum de Bestiis.

Item vise fuerunt Bosci de Hareleg, Harnege, et de Acton, [21] bene custodi de quercu et subbosco.

(Here the Bosc of Frodesley is surveyed, as elsewhere stated.)

Item visus fuit Boscus de Picheford, rationabiliter custoditus de novo, sed (de) veteri aliquantulum vastatus tempore libertatis.

Item visus fuit Boscus de Kontelop, [22]- multum vastatus de veteri, tum tempore guerrae, tum tempore libertatis, et de novo aliquantulum vastatus ut de Werekwude. [23]

(Here Burywood, appurtenant to Condover, is surveyed, and the two Boscs of Longnor, as elsewhere stated.)

[15] Haycrust, west of Bushmoor, and similarly preserved as a Royal Chase. It does not appear why the Prior of Wenlock should come so far south for timber, unless it were for the repair of the Clun Churches, which were of his Advowson.
[16] The Long-Mynd.
[17] I cannot trace the name Netebech, unless Batch, a little North-west of Church Stretton, is the locality.
[18] Ragleth Hill, South of Church Stretton;- the largest of the Stretton range.
[19] Womerton at the North-eastern end of the Long Mynd.
[20] Cressage.
[21] Harley, Harnage, and Acton Burnell.
[22] Cantlop.
[23] Werekroude.- A word which I cannot explain. I have never met with it elsewhere. A wood adjoining to Wrentnall seems to have been called Werkwode (supra, p. 206).


Item visus fuerunt Bosci de Lee Botwud et * * *, [24]- bene custoditi de quercu et subbosco.

Item visus fuit Boscus de Smethecot,- bene custoditus de quercu et subbosco, sed ad caput ipsius villae versus * * *, parum vastatur tempori guerrae ad logas [25] faciendas et ad averia pascenda.

Item visi fuerunt Bosci de Wildredeleg et de Stepelton,- bene custoditi de quercu at subbosco, sed de novo sunt aliquantulum vastati tempore libertatis.

Item visi fuerunt Bosci de Pulrebech at de Langedon,- multum vastati de veteri et aliquantulum de novo. Nulla est frequentacio bestiarum in predictis boscis, nisi in transeundo.

Item visa fuit Haya Domini Regis de Lya, [26]- bene custodita de quercu et subbosco, exceptis liberatis factis de dono Domini Regis, scilicet Johanni Blunde, [27] Abbati Salop, [27] Fratribus Predicatoribus, [28] Priori de Wenlak, et aliis ut Forestarius dicit,- in qua Haya paucae sunt bestiae.

So then the only three Hayes, or Royal Preserves, which were still kept intact within this vast jurisdiction, were those of Lythwood, Bushmoor, and Haycrust.

In 1250 Geoffrey de Langley, Justice of the Forest, set arrentations on quantities of land, hitherto within Jurisdiction of the Long Forest, but which now became exempt from waste and Regard. The lands thus released lay in the following Manors, Vills, or Woods: viz. Condover, Ryton, The Lithe, Staplewood, Langley, Wilderhope, Stanwey, Millichope, Corfton, Sibton, Simington, Doddinghop (Dinchope), Woolston, Rushbury, Gippoles, Frodesley, Wistanstow, The Marsh, Hope Bowdler, Ragdon, Longnor, Dorrington, Netley, Pulverbatch, and Gretton.

On this occasion Geoffrey de Langley's proceedings were not all concessions. He seized into the King's hand Walter de Clifford's Wood in the Long Forest,- evidently Siefton Wood. It still remained in the King's hand in 1255, and was, it seems, better taken care of than when Clifford had it. [29]

In 1255 the Jurors of Munslow Hundred were questioned as to

[24] Perhaps Steplewood was the word obliterated.
[25] Logae are huts, I presume.
[26] Lythwood.
[27] These names are not punctuated in the original, and we might be thus induced to enter John Blunde's name on a List of Abbots of Shrewsbury. John Blunde was however nothing more than a King's Messenger.
[28] For further proof of the early establishment of Preaching Friars at Shrewsbury, see Hist. Shrewsbury, II. 444.
[29] Rot. Hundred. II. 64.


whether the Forester of the Long Forest kept, or suffered others to keep, goats in the Forest. They answered that the Forester himself kept no goats, but he allowed others to keep them in their own Boscs in the Forest, as they had always been used to do, except in the fence-month (mense vetito). [30]

The Jurors of Church Stretton and Condover Manors further reported several sales, made by Royal Commissioners, of the windfalls and oak-trees of this district; for instance, Sir Hugh de Lega and Ralph de la Lowe had on one occasion received 2 merks, on another 9s., for windfalls; Thomas de Roshal and Robert de Halton had in this very year (1255) received 22s. 0d. for oak-timber at Stretton, and 42s. 10d. for oak-trees and underwood in The Lye. [31] Also in this same year Henry de Halewyton had sold windfalls in Wimbreston Bosc and in Haschurste for 6s. 8d. and 1s. 3d. These receipts had been handed over to Peter de Muneton (Forester of that district), and transmitted by him to the Sheriff. [32]

At the Forest Assizes of 1262, Ralph de la Lowe and Hugh de Kynsedele (or his successor, Hamo de Middleton) accounted for twelve years' agistment (from 1251 to 1262 inclusive) received from The Lye, Bissemore, and Havechurste, as the three Royal Hayes are called. For one year (1251) the Pesson of the Lye had wholly failed. In another (1252) it had yielded 4. In the same year Bissemore and Havechurste together had only yielded 16s.

At these same Assizes the Regard of the Jurisdiction now under notice is appropriately entered as the Regard of Long-Forest, Stratton Dale, and Longemunede. Imbladements were assessed in Little Sutton, Medlicott, Ratlinghope, Langley, Kenley, Harley, Wilderley, Smethcott, Dorrington, and Longnor. The Boscs of Siefton and Munslow, "within the aforesaid Regard", were stated to be wasted, as I have elsewhere particularized. Some other Boscs in this jurisdiction now also come into notice for the first time.- The King's Bosc of Stretton had been wasted, formerly and recently, by the men of Stretton. The Boscs of Roger de Sibeton and Peter de Bois * * * in Wulfreton [33] had been also wasted of old time. The last, being without a Wood-warden, was ordered to be seized into the King's hand, and each case of waste was punished with a fine of half a merk.

The Forest Assize-Roll of November 1271 contains some curious entries as to trespasses within this Jurisdiction.-

It was presented by Geoffrey de Pychford, Seneschal of all the

[30] [31] [32] Rot. Hundred. II. 73, 84, 63.
[33] Woolston, near Wistanstow.


Forests of Shropshire; by John fitz Hugh, Capital Forester; by their Sub-foresters, and by John fitz Aer, John de Ercall, Hugh de Leghe, John de Astelegh, and Herbert de Wyke, Verderers; how that Peter de Vaux, and other dependants (manupasti) of John le Strange, Junior, captured a Stag near Middlehope-Mill in the Long Forest. The Vill of Middlehope and about seventy other Vills, which did not attend in good force (plenarie) to investigate this matter, were put down for amercement, or some other censure, for their default. The same Officers presented Hugh de Turberville, for taking four hinds and two kids in the Haye of La Lye; and John fitz Alan for taking a kid near the Haye of Bissemore. Also, John fitz Alan, Junior, and John Gifford of Brimesfield were presented as Offenders. Also one Nicholas, appointed to be a Forester by Roger de Clifford, then Justice of the Forest, had hunted a hind in Hokwode, near Muneton. Also Henry de Lacy had committed some offence in Stanwey.

After the above details, the first Perambulation of the Forests, taken in Edward I.'s time, becomes very intelligible. I give all the extracts which relate to the abandoned Jurisdiction, and to the still reserved portions, of the Long-Forest. Three departments are spoken of.-

1. These Vills and Boscs, which had pertained to the Forestership of STEPELWODE, were now disforested: viz. the Vills of Stepelton; Netley, with its fields; half Longedon, with two plains and a bosc; Chirche-Pulrebache, with two plains and a bosc; Wyldrede-leye, with a plain and bosc; Smethecote, with a plain and boss; Pikelescote, with one plain; Wolstanstone, with two plains and a bosc; Lega-in-Bottewode, with a plain and bosc; and Dodyton (Dorrington), with a plain. "So that" (adds the Record) "of the aforesaid Bailiwick (custodia) nothing remains in the Forest, according to the Perambulation there made".

2. These Vills and Boscs, which had pertained to the Haye of LITHEWODE, were now disforested: viz. Conedovere, with its plain and bosc, which bosc (Burywood is meant) had sometime been a demesne-bosc of the King's; the Vills of Rittone (Great Ryton ?); Wethale(Wheathill); Rutone (Little Ryton?); Pychford; Cantelope; Byriton (Berrington); Bromton; Kronghul (Cronkhill); Chylton; Betton Magna; Alvithemere; Strange Betton; Sutton; Etone-Massecote; Northton (Great Norton); Beystan; part of the vill of Polileye, containing 12 virgates; a house in Welbache with half a virgate; the Vills of Magna Lya, Wesseleye, Parva Lya, and Longenovere (Longnor);


the Boscs of Voxakemere, Fredelegfrowe, Protmonegrene, and Harleye, and the Vill of Burton (Bourton), with its plains.

What remained appurtenant to the Haye of Lithewode, and was not disforested, was- Five houses in the Vill of Polyleye (Pulley), with 2 virgates of land.

3. These Vills and Boscs, which had pertained to the Forestership of MUNETON,were now disforested: viz. the Vill of Tykelewordyn with its plains and bosc; the villate of Wygewyke with its plains; the Vill of Ragedon with its plains; Acton Schottes with its plains and boats; Aleyghamatone (Alceston) with its plains; La Merche (now Marshbrook) with its plains; the Vill of Asthampton (now Asterton) with its plains; the Bishop of Hereford's Bosc, called Aston; the Vill of La Munede with its plain and bosc; and Ratelynghope with its plains

That which remained appurtenant to the Forestership of Muneton, and was not disforested, was- the Haye of Byschemore and Hakehurste; a certain mountain called Ragelyt; the Bosc called Evenwoode; and the Manor of Stretton with its plains and all its appurtenances.

The great and final Perambulation of the Forest of Shropshire was made on June 6, 1300, and ratified by Edward I., on Feb. 14, 1301. A great portion of its statements and decisions relate to the jurisdiction of the Long Forest, though the name of the Long Forest is not once mentioned therein.

THE HAYE called Ls LITHEWODE was to continue a Forest according to these boundaries:- From the highway at the Bosc of Audulph de Bracy near Pogwenhale, going up by Weelbacheseueae, [34] through the cover of Lithewode, to the field of Great Lyth, along Welbacheseuesewey to Wernardslegh, and so, going up thence along the hedge of the field of Great-Lythe, to the green-way which leads under Egesfordesknolle, [35] and so along the said way to the hedge of the field of Wesseleye, and so along the said hedge to the hedge of the field of Little Lithe, and so along the said hedge to the watercourse which descends between the field of Little Lythe and the field of Beystan, and going up thence along the said watercourse to the Trench [36] between the Forest of Lythewode and the bosc of

[34] That is, Welbatch-house,- the house before disforested.
[35] Now Exford's Green.
[36] Mr. George Morris considers this threnchia to be the ancient encampment now called Bury's Camp. If so, I should translate the word entrenchment.


Beystan, and so straight along the said trench to the Braciesok, [37] and so going down to the bounds between Beystan and Polilegh (Pulley), and so along the said bounds, to wit a certain old foss, to Beystaneshull, [37] and from Beystaneshull going down to Bolemeressiche, [38] and so, going up along a certain old foss under Bolerugh, to the field of Alvithmere, and so along the said field to the Score above Boletug, and going down thence to the field of Sutton, and going up thence to Wolmereshaystowe, and so straight to the Horestone, in Twichenilde Greuen, and so thence to the vill of Polileye, going up to the head of the vill, along a certain watercourse to a certain old foss at the Stoekyngesheued, and thence up through the middle of Polileye-moor. [39] to the Hokesheued, and thence along the Hauedwei to Lullayeswey, and so from Lullayeswai to Butteshute near Pormonesgreuen, [40] and thence straight to the corner of Hanlegh, and so along a certain road to Morsich near Audulph-shutte, and so down along the Mersich' to the highway near Poghwenhale, where the first boundary begins.

THE KING'S HAYE called HAUEHURST was to continue a Forest according to these boundaries:- From Cherleyesford up along Clueyesigh to the Merbrook; thence down along the Merbrook to the river (ripariam) called Oneye; thence down along the bank (ripam) of Onye to the Hauedbrok; and so going up along the Hauedbrok to Cherleghford, where the first boundary begins.

THE KING'S HAYE called BISHEPMORE was to continue a Forest according to these boundaries:- From the Hauedweieshelde down along Winewesbrok' to Bottestret, [41] and so along the road of Bottestret up to Bottelowe; and still along the aforesaid road of Bottestret to the Oldehale; thence along the Cover to Haselwalle; and so from Haselwalle along a certain foss to Whittingeswall'; and so up along the cover to the Hauedweyeshelde, where the first boundary begins.

The Vill of Muneton with its appurtenances was also Forest; and the heir of Peter Mauveisin held it of the King in respect of his keeping custody of the said hayes of Hauekhurst and Bishepmore. So too the Manor of Stretton in Strettonesdale was Forest, with its boscs and wastes and all its appurtenances; and Hawise de la Pole held it of the King for the term of her life. [42]

[37] Bracy's-oak.
[38] The rivulet which feeds Bomer Pool.
[39] Now Pulley Common.
[40] Perhaps the Protmonegrene of the former Perambulation.
[41] Part of the Watling Street so called vide supra) pp. 50, 59).
[42] Hawise, widow of Gruflyth ap Gwenwynwyn, Prince of Powis, and daughter of John le Strange (III.), of Nesse.


The list of Vills and Boscs declared to be disforested by this Perambulation varies much from the former. I select those only which had pertained to the Long Forest Jurisdiction. These I conceive were:- Half the vill of Dodinghope (Dinchope), the bosc of Syneton (Siefton), a certain field of Wetleton (Wetlington near Stokesay); a certain field of Norton (near Culmington), on the north side, called the Sponne; the bosc of Corfton; the bosc of Diddlebury; the vill of Aston and half the vill of Munslow; Little Millichope; Higher Millichope; two messuages in Hungerford; half the vill of Shipton; two fields of Bradenton (Broadstone near Stanway); Upper and Lower Larden; half Brockton; two fields of Patton; two messuages and two fields of Bourton (Burton near Wenlock); Harley; half of Cressage; Harnage Grange; Kenley; Bromycroftelegh (near Kenley); Blakewey, with its boscs and plains; Esthope; Langley; Ruckley; Hothales; Lushcote; Longville; Plessh (Plaish); Brome, with its boscs and plains; Chatewalle; Frodesley; Gretton; Romeshurst; [43] Longnor; Lydley; Coumbelegh (Comley); Bottefeud (Botvyle); Willaston; Enchemersh; Cardington; Stone Acton, with its boscs and plains; Acton Burnel; Little Preen; Church Preen; Lutwych; Wilderhope; Over and Nether Stanwey; Presthope; Astwall (Eastwall) and Laken; [44] Rushbury; Cotes; Westwall; Eton (under Heywood); Horton; Ticlewardyn (Ticklerton); Hope Bowdler; Chelmick; Ragdon, with its boscs and plains; the vills of Acton, [45] Middlehope, Westhope, Wolfrerton (Wollerton), Algameston (Alceston), Affecote, Acton Scot, and Hennelegh (near Acton Scott); Whyttingeslowe, with its boscs and plains; Streford; Mersh; Wistanestowe; Feldhampton; Wolferton (Woolston); Rotelinghope, with its boscs and plains; all the Longemenede (Long Mynd), except the demesnes of the Manor of Stretton, which Manor the King had by Escheat; [46] Modelicote (Medlicott); Stucte (Stitt); Wolstaneston (Woolstaston); Smethecote; Pycklescote; Wyldridelegh (Wilderley); Beccheton (now Beatchcott); Codardecote (Cothercote); Shupene, [47] with its

[43] ROMESHURSTE.- I have not been able to discover the exact situation of this vill, nor the Manor of which it was a member. The little I have to say about it may pass in a note.-

In 1260 Geoffrey de Langley set arrentations of 15s. 3d. on the Vill of Romenehurst for 20 acres and 7 perches of assarted lands. At Michaelmas, 1306, the King's Escheator accounts for 25s. as the year's produce of certain assarts in Romenhurst and Pulley, part of the estates of Philip Burnell, deceased.

[44] Lake House, near Rushbury (vide III. 308).
[45] Acton,- perhaps intended for Hatton, near Eaton-under-Heywood.
[46] Escheat, that is, of the Norman Earls of Shrewsbury.
[47] Shupene. I cannot trace this Vill.


boscs and plains; Stepelton, Nethelegh (Netley); half Castelpolrebache; the Vill of Chirchpolrebache; half the vill of Longedon; Great Lyth; Little Lyth; Wesselegh (Westley); Beystan, with its boscs and plains; three parts of the vill of Polilegh (Pulley), with its boscs and plains; the bosc of Melebracy (Brace Meole); one messuage in Welbache; half the vill of Pichford; the vills of Cantelope; Byriton (Berrington); Eton Massecot, with its boscs and plains; Abbots Betton; Chylton; Bromton; Cronkhill; Burton (Bourton), with its wastes, boscs, and plains; the Vills of Conedovre, Aldefeud (Allfield); Great Ryton; Little Ryton, with its boscs and plains; and the Vill of Wygwyk, with its moors and wastes.


There are some particulars, proper to the King's Haye of Lith wood, which would only have interrupted the above general account of the Long Forest, and which I therefore add here.

On August 29, 1226, King Henry III., then at Shrewsbury, orders the Chief Forester of Shropshire to allow the Canons of St. Chad four oak-trees in the Bosc of Lye, towards the building of their Church. [48]

In the Pipe-Roll of 1228 the following Fine is recorded. The men (freeholders) of Westley, Great Lye, Welbatch, Newbold, Beyston, Pulley, Little Lye, and Norton, render account of ten merks, that they may have pasture for the cattle of their demesnes, in The Lye, except in the Fence-Month: they pay 5. 13s. 4d. down, and owe 1. They further pay one merk for the year's rent of such pasture; which sum they are to pay yearly as long as they shall enjoy the same by the King's pleasure.

This annual rent of one merk is charged more or less regularly on the Pipe-Rolls of succeeding years; but it appears that about the year 1232 John de Monemue, then Justice of the Forest, ejected the said Freeholders from their pasturage. It was not till the year 1280 that the matter was properly settled. On June 25, of that year, Edward I. directs the Sheriff of Shropshire to inquire how the matter stood, and, if he found that the said Freeholders were not enjoying the said pasturage, he was to acquit them of the said annual rent of one merk, with all arrears, and to restore any cattle of theirs which might have been taken in distress. The Sheriff returned an Inquest, taken in full County

[48] Claus. II. 135.


Court, before himself and the Coroners. The Jury described the original Fine with Henry III., the disseizure of the Freeholders 3 years after, and their consequent want of all benefit of the Fine for 48 years past. "Nevertheless", said the Jurors, "they have paid and still pay the said merk annually to the Sheriffs of Salop, for the King's use". [49]


Shrewsbury Hundred.

Domesday designates this Hundred sometimes as that of Sciropesberie, sometimes as the Hundredum Civitatis. [1]

Circumstances oblige me to deal with the Hundred of Shrewsbury in an exceptional way. Domesday points it out as involving, or paying geld upon, 100 hides. [2] Of those hundred hides, we are not able to distinguish the precise locality of more than 6 from the evidence of Domesday. The locality of 2 hides more, though uncertified in Domesday, may be fixed with the aid of subsequent Records. Half a hide more, though it has distinct mention in Domesday, is unallocated in that Record, and must remain so, for want of later evidences to show its position.

[49] Inquisitions, 8 Edward I., No. 45, b.
[1] It seems that Domesday does not here recognize the usual distinction, which applies the title of Civitas or City only to Cathedral towns. In a great majority of instances Domesday observes the distinction, and applies the terms Burgus or Villa to such towns as were not Episcopal Sees. I think it possible that the existence of such a Church as St. Chad's at Shrewsbury may have been deemed sufficient to entitle the town to the rank of a Civitas. However, the town of Leicester is also called Civitas in Domesday, and though the Bishop of Lincoln had two Churches in Leicester, they can hardly be reckoned as equal in collegiate dignity with St. Chad's.
[2] Domesday, fo. 252, a, 1. This is a signal proof that the Hide was not an invariable measure of extent, but a measure of comparative value. It would be absurd to suppose that the City Liberties contained an area equal to that of Condover Hundred; yet such would be the result of assuming the hide to have consisted of a definite number of measured acres. Thus the Domesday Hundreds of Alnodestreu and Condetret were perhaps originally Half-Hundreds, and Overs perhaps a Quarter-Hundred; but Patintun, Culvestan, and Conodovre Hundreds appear in Domesday, each with such a hidage as leaves it supposable that they were originally Hundreds in the strict some of the term.



[For table, see Sciropesbirie]


My rule shall be that, where Domesday asserts a distinct tenure within the City Liberties, I will give a separate account of that tenure, carrying it on to later times, where materials for doing so exist. This plan will leave a large surplus, viz. 90 hides, under the indefinite title of Shrewsbury and its Suburbs. With that item I do not propose to deal. The general History of Shrewsbury has been already written, and so written as that any reproduction thereof must needs be either a plagiarism or a failure. That the said History might be improved by an appendix is possible,- an appendix dealing especially with territorial, or rather civic, boundaries and with the early changes of property within the Borough. But this task is beside my present scope, and beyond my present power. It is a thing of itself, and I may neither promise to my Readers or to myself that distant future which would alone suffice for so large an undertaking.

The annexed Table of the Civic Hundred of Shrewsbury requires one or two remarks. The description of Earl Roger's Sub-tenants in the 90 unallocated hides of Shrewsbury is necessarily a general one. These Sub-tenants were, of course, the community of Burgesses, French and English, except those who held their Burgages under Ralph de Mortimer, or the Bishop of Chester, and except those who held their Burgages not immediately under the Earl, but mediately, under one or other of the Shrewsbury Churches. In the latter category we should place 39 Burgesses whom the Earl had made over to his recent foundation,- the Abbey of St. Peter.

The present Liberties of Shrewsbury contain all that was involved in the Domesday Hundred, and much more besides. The annexation to Shrewsbury of several Manors out of Condover Hundred has already been shown. We shall hereafter see how the Borough extended its boundaries into every other Hundred which bordered it at Domesday.

Lastly, I should point out that, whereas Shrewsbury consisted in Saxon times of the exact number of 100 hides, we may infer that that was the primary idea and condition of all Hundreds. Where any variation occurs, we may presume that the original estimate had been tampered with in its details, or perhaps authoritatively changed. In cases where Districts, consisting of 50 hides or thereabouts, have got the name of Hundreds, it is easy to see that the original District was a Half-Hundred, and that the arithmetical distinction of name had become obsolete.


Meole Brace.

THIS Manor was one of those which Domesday classifies as held by Ralph de Mortimer of the King, without any mesne right or interest of the Norman Earl.-

"The same Radulf (de Mortemer) holds Melam. Eddid held it (in Saxon times). Here are III hides, geldable. In demesne there are III ox-teams, and (there are) VI Serfs, IIII Female Serfs, VI Villains, and III Boors, with III teams, and one Radman with half a team. To this Manor belong IX Burgesses within the City (of Shrewsbury), and a Mill of 20s. (annual value). In King Edward's time, and afterwards, the Manor was worth 7. (per annum). Now it is worth 13. 5s. 6d". [1]

I have pointed out, under Cleobury Mortimer, that Edith, the Queen of Edward the Confessor, is the person described in the above and other passages of Domesday under the name Eddid. [2] Queen Edith's estate near Shrewsbury, consisting of Meole, Edgebold, and a great part of Pulley, had probably passed from her hands to those of William fitz Osborn, Earl of Hereford, had been forfeited by his Son, Earl Roger de Bretolio, in 1074, and had then been granted by King William to Ralph de Mortimer. That such grants were in diminution of the Palatinate of the Norman Earl of Shrewsbury is obvious; not less obvious is that policy of the King which suggested these checks on provincial absolutism.

It is probable that, in the hands of Mortimer, Edgebold and a great part of Pulley became so involved in Meole, that all three Manors are occasionally described as Meole. The two first were also withdrawn from Condover Hundred, and were eventually annexed, like Meole, to the Liberties of Shrewsbury. Of this collective Manor of Meole we are told that Hugh de Mortimer (of Wigmore) was seized in demesne at the time of Henry II's accession, but that he subsequently enfeoffed William Martel, a Knight, therein. William Martel, we are also told, gave Meole in turn to Audulf de Braci. Something of this kind probably took place; but we know that Roger de Mortimer, son and heir of Hugh, denied both the above feoffment and gift, and that, after the death of the

[1] Domesday, fo. 260, b, 1.
[2] Supra, Vol. IV. pp. 193, 194.


first Audulf de Braci, of whom we have record, Roger de Mortimer seized upon Meole as his own demesne. Hence arose a series of litigation, perhaps the most protracted of any which I shall have to record, but so interesting in many particulars, that I will not materially abridge its successive stages.-

At Westminster, April 27, 1203.- An Assize came on for hearing, under the form of mort d'ancestre, viz. "whether Adolph, father of Adolph de Bracy (the present Plaintiff), was seized in demesne as of fee, on the day he died, of the Manor of Mole, which Manor Roger de Mortimer was now holding". Mortimer put in no reason for postponing the Trial. However, the Bench adjourned it till the Justices-in-Eyre should visit Shropshire. The reason was that the Recognizors, most of them, had essoigned their attendance at Westminster. Other Recognizors, who were unessoigned, and whose future attendance was to be enforced by attachment, were William Pantolf, Hugh de Upton, Griffin Galet, Daumer de Rodinton, and Simon Falconer. [3]

The Justices-in-Eyre were sitting at Shrewsbury on October 1st, 1203. On that day they accepted the essoign of Roger de Mortimer, in a plea of mort d'ancestre against Audulf de Brascy, and adjourned the hearing till October 16th at Worcester. Mortimer's Essoignors were Oliver Costard and Robert de la Cote; his Sureties were William de Spineto and Adam le Sauvage. [4]

The case was heard at Gloucester, and not at Worcester, but in the same Eyre. The Jury found that Audulf, the Father, had died seized of the Manor of Moles; so judgment went for Audulf, the Son, who was to have seizin thereof, while Mortimer was left in misericordia. [5]

Before I proceed with this litigation, I should introduce a cotemporary notice which we have of Audulf de Braci. Fulk fitz Warin's outlawry probably took place about May 1201, and continued till November 1203. The Fitz Warin Chronicle calls Aldulf de Bracy his Cousin, and implies that he shared his exile in Little-Brittany in 1201. [6] The outlawed companions of Fulk fitz Warin are enumerated with apparent fulness on the Rolls of the period, but Audulf de Bracy is never mentioned as one of them. If then we are to accept the statement of the Chronicle, we must further understand that

[3] Placita, Pasch. Tm. 4 John, m. 5. The account of this trial, given in the Abbreviatio Placitorum (page 38), seems to have been taken from a duplicate Roll of the same Term.
[4] [5] Salop Assizes, 6 John, mm. 1 and 3 dorso.
[6] Page 71 (Warton Club Edition).


Audulf de Bracy did not persist in his allegiance to Fitz-Warin, or incur outlawry. Such a disability would at the moment have been fatal to his claim against Mortimer.

To proceed with the litigation.- Mortimer was not to be baffled by the decision against him. He now turned Plaintiff, and sued Audulph de Braci in a general form for the land of Moles. An undated Assize-Roll, but which I think belongs to February 1204, states this suit to have come before Geoffrey fitz Piers and his associates at York. Strange to say, De Braci appeared in Court and pleaded that he was under age. This Mortimer denied. The issue then, to be first tried, was this one of age, which was adjourned to the morrow of the Close of Easter,- i.e. to May 3 (if the year was 1204). [7]

A second undated Roll, probably of that Term, further adjourns the Placitum term and the Placitum de aetate facienda which Mortimer had against Braci, to the hearing of the King on the morrow of the Holy Trinity (June 21, if in 1204). [8] Then the Placitum de aetate was further adjourned to October 6, because the Recognizors were not all in attendance. Herbert Mauveisin, Richard de Lecton (Leighton), and Thomas de Costentin, are named as Defaulters on this and several previous occasions, and the Sheriff was ordered to have their persons in Court.

I hear nothing further of this suit for more than a year; but in Easter Term 1206, Audulf de Braci receded from the Placitum de aetate, probably because time had made it no longer a question. The Court ordered the issue of a fresh writ (breve originale), committing Braci to the Suit de terra de Moles; and Mortimer named Baldwin de Gusering or John de * * *, his Attorney therein. [9] In Trinity Term, 1206, the case was called on. John de Bacoinot, Mortimer's Attorney, appeared, but Audulf de Braci made default. The land was, as usual, seized by the Crown, and the Litigants stood summoned for June 25. [10] On that very day Audulf de Braci appeared in Court and replevied his land; [10] the Suit was adjourned to October 20. [10] On January 27, 1207, the case appears in Baldwin de Cuserigg's care, as Mortimer's Attorney, but could not be heard because the Sheriff had neglected the return of some Writ connected therewith. [11] On January 27, 1208, I get another glimpse

[7] Placita tempore Regis Jonannis, No. 59, m. 4 dorso.
[8] Placita, Roll No. 7, mm. 3 and 5.
[9] Placita, Pasch. Tm. 7 John, m. 5.
[10] Placita, 7, 8 John, mm. 9 dorso, 15 recto, 16 recto.
[11] Placita, Hil. Tm. 8 John, m. 4 dorso. Hil. Tm. 9 John, m. 11 dorso.


of the Suit.- A day (April 20, 1208) was given to the Litigants at their own request; Mortimer foregoing any advantage from a previous default which he said that the Defendant had made at the Tower of London, and the Defendant naming as his Attorney a famous personage of the period, viz. William de Kantelupe, who, as we know, was a near connection of De Bracy. It was not till Sunday, May 18, 1208, that the pleadings were fully heard. The process was as follows.- "Roger de Mortimer seeks against Audulf de Bracy the Manor of Moles with its appurtenances, as his right, and as a Manor whereof his (Mortimer's) Ancestors, from the Conquest of England, were seized, as of their right, both in the time of King Henry, the King's Grandfather (meaning Henry I.), and afterwards, even to the time of King Henry, the King's Father;- in whose time, Hugh, the Plaintiffs Father, was seized, of fee and of right, to wit by taking esplees thereof to the value of 10s., and more;- and of this the Plaintiff has sufficient evidence (sectam sufficientem)". "And Audulf appears and denies (defendit) the Plaintiff's right to hold the Manor in demesne, but he well acknowledges that the aforesaid Hugh (de Mortimer) was once seized thereof in demesne, and that he (Hugh) gave the Manor to a certain Knight, William Martel, to wit for his homage and service, which William took esplees thereof, as in his own right, for many years; and he (William Martel) afterwards gave it to Audulf de Bracy, the Defendant's Father, for his homage and service; which Audulf took esplees thereof and died seized thereof; and from him the Manor descended to the Defendant as his heir. And this the Defendant offers to try (dirationare) against the Plaintiff, as he ought to try it, viz. that the land was so given". [12]

The technical language which follows should be explained rather than translated. As an alternative the Defendant offers to decide the matter by duel. He names one Wigan, a free man of his own, as his champion; or if any accident should happen to Wigan (before he entered the lists), another should be named, competent to the business. Mortimer accepts the challenge, and names his free man Robert de Brocton as his champion. The Court does not seem to have adopted the proposal of a duel, but named June 15 as a day for the parties to appear before the King and hear sentence. A marginal note intimates that De Braci proposed the

[12] Placita, Pasch. Tm. 9 John (incipiente 10 John), m. 4 dorso.

The Martels were perhaps ancestors of De Braci. The history of the Bedfordshire Manor of Eaton, which I shall presently trace, suggests such an idea.


Wager of Battle, in case another plea, which he had, were unavailing, viz. "that the person who ought to warrant the Manor to himself was beyond sea". [13] The Absentee was, I conclude, the heir of William Martel.

On June 15, 1208, sentence in this cause was deferred till July 22, [13] Meantime, Audulf de Bracy cancelled his appointment of William de Kantilupe as his Attorney, and named William de St. Edward instead. [13]

A Patent of July 26, 1208, now comes in, not explaining, but very materially complicating this story. Wigan de Mara, Servant (Serviens) of William de Cantilupe, the King's Seneschal, has Letters of Protection freeing him from all Suits of County and Hundred, etc., "so long as he shall be in the service of the said Seneschal, for the purpose of making trial (pro disracione facienda) on behalf of the said Seneschal, between him and Roger de Mortimer concerning the land of Moles". It is evident from this that Wigan, probably a professed duellist, was really Cantilupe's servant, and had been engaged while Cantilupe was yet Bracy's Attorney. The question is, why Cantilupe, though dismissed by Bracy, retained the Bravo in his employ, and how Cantilupe comes to figure as principal in a suit against Mortimer about Meole. My only suggestion is that there was a cross-suit instituted by Cantilupe, of which the Assize-Rolls fail to inform us, but of which we shall have other evidence in the sequel.

In October 1208 William de St. Edward essoigned his appearance before the King at Gloucester, as Attorney in the Suit between Mortimer and Braci. The hearing was adjourned to April 6, 1209. [14] I hear no more of this Suit or Suits; but I can quote the Fine which ended them, and which was levied before the King himself at Westminster, in January 1211. The fine purports. to be between "Roger de Mortimer, Plaintiff, and Audulf de Brascy, Tenant, of the Manor of Moles with its appurtenances, whereof there was Plea between them". Roger now recognizes Audulf's right to the premises, "so, however, as that William de Cantlup and his heirs shall hold the whole Manor aforesaid under Roger and his heirs for ever, doing therefore the service of one knight in lieu of all other services. And the same Audulf and his heirs shall hold a moiety of the aforesaid Manor under the same William and his heirs for ever, doing therefore the service of half a knight's fee in lieu of all services. This moiety was not to include any part of

[13] Ibidem, mm. 9 recto, 14 dorso.
[14] Placita, No. 68, m. 5.


the Capital Messuage, which was to remain to Cantlup and his heirs quietly and for ever. For the above recognition, fine, and concord, the aforesaid William de Cantlup gave to the said Roger 300 merks of silver".

I cannot explain this transaction further than by saying that it held good for ages. Cantilupe's conduct and concern in the matter are from first to last inexplicable. Some trading or treachery on his part had probably to be concealed, and that which does not transpire in the Records of that shameless period is in no danger of minute exposure now.

I have said that William de Cantilupe and Audulf de Bracy were connected. Though at the expense of a considerable digression, I will make that point good at once; for everything that bears on the origin and rise of the great House of Cantilupe is of importance, and, as regards one section of my future history, is essential. The first wife of William de Cantilupe was Mascelina, daughter of the first Audulf de Braci and sister or half-sister of Audulf de Braci, party to the above fine. This is proved, or rather illustrated, as follows.-

I believe, and can partly verify, a statement that King John gave the Manor of Eaton (Bedfordshire) to Ardulf de Braci. [15] If so, the Grantee was the first Ardulf, and the grant must have taken place in the first four years of King John's reign, for the said Ardulf (as we have seen) was deceased in April 1203.

Certain it is that Audulf de Brascy, father of Mascelina, wife of the first William de Cantilupe, gave or confirmed land in Eaton (Bedfordshire) to Dunstaple Priory, and certain it is also that, after the said first Audulf 's death, William de Cantilupe got possession of Eaton, not as heir, but by grant of King John. On March 28, 1204, that King, being at Windsor, orders the Constable

[15] Lysons's Bedfordshire, p. 78.-

It appears from the Register of Dunstaple (Harl. MSS. 1885, fo. 24), that in the reign of Henry I., Osbert Martel was Lord of Eyton,including one third of Sortegrave,where he made a grant to Dunstaple Priory. It further appears that Ingeram, Butler to Queen Eleanor, living in the reigns of Henry II. and Richard I., and surviving the secession of John, confirmed Osbert Martel's grants in Sortegrave, and made other grants in Sortegrave and Elthon to Dunstaple and to Fontevrauld (vide Patent, 2 John, m. 28). The Dunstaple Register further contains a Deed of which the following is an extract:- Ego Adulfus de Braci confirmavi terram de Sortegrave, quae est de feodo meo de Eytone, ut inveni Conventum (de Dunstaple) seisitum, quando Rex mihi dedit Manerium de Eytone.

These facts, together with what is said in the text, prove that Audulf de Braci's seizin of Eaton was between Ingeram Pincerna's and William de Cantilupe's, and so between 1199 and 1204.


of Berkhampstead to give William de Kantilupe full seizin of the Manor of Eton. [16] A Charter of April 4, 1205, explains this Order. The King had previously given to William de Cantilupe the Berkshire Manor of Cockeswell. He now gives him in exchange for Cockeswell the Bedfordshire Manor of Eyton, in fee and inheritance, [17] for one knight's-fee; but Cantilupe pays the King 300 merks for the exchange. [18]

On June 20, 1209, William de Cantilupe settles, by fine, a dispute which he had with the Prior of Dunstaple about 50 acres in Sorcegrave (Shortgrave), a member of Eiton. Cantilupe quit-claims not only the said 50 acres, but also 20 acres in Eiton, being part of 40 acres which the Prior claimed in virtue of a grant made to his House by Audulf de Brascy, father of Mascelina, wife of the aforesaid William. [19]

I shall recur to these details on a future occasion, and will now proceed with my account of Meole, as held by Cantilupe under Mortimer of Wigmore, Cantilupe's Under-Tenant in a moiety thereof, being that Audulf de Braci, in whose tenure the distinctive name of Brace Meole originated.-

At the Assizes of 1221, Audulf de Bracy appears as a Knight and as Surety for his neighbour, Hugh le Strange of Berrington. At these Assizes we also have had mention of Gilbert de Meles, of Roger Sergeant of Meola, and of William Provost of Meles. [20] The last at least was an Officer of Cantilupe's, for William de Cantilupe, paying his proportion of an Aid in 1235, as Lord of the Honour of Montgomery, pays it by the hand of William, Provost of Mole. [21] A Feodary of 1240 duly records William de Cantilupe (he was son of the last William) as holding Meeles under Ralph de Mortimer, by one knight's fee. [22]

On August 27, 1254, King Henry III., being then at Bordeaux, grants Free-Warren to Robert de Cantilupe in all his demesnes at Brugel (Yorkshire) and Meules (Salop). [23] Robert de Cantilupe, be it observed, was a Cadet of his House, and must have held whatever he had at Meole under William de Cantilupe (III.), who, at the time of the above Grant, had little more than a month to live.

[16] Rot. Liberate, p. 86.
[17] King John seems to have wanted Cockeswell back again, in order that he might bestow it on Beaulieu Abbey.
[18] Rot. Chartarum, p. 147.
[19] Fines, Bedfordshire, Vol. I. p. 78.- The Chronicler of Dunstaple alludes to this Fine with great accuracy. Under the year 1209, he says, "Composuimus cum Willielmo de Cantilnpe de terra, de Sceortegrav". (Hearne's Edition, p. 53.) [20] Supra, p. 111.
[21] [22] Testa de Nevill, pp. 61, 45.
[22] Rot. Vascon. 38 Hen. III. p. 2, m. 8.


At the Forest Assizes of 1262 the name of John de Bracy of Mele appears on the list entitled Essonia mortis, a proof that such a person was then deceased. [24] At the Assizes of August 1267, William de Horton was found to have disseized Audulf de Bracy of 6 acres in Moles.

An Inquest held at Melesbracy, December 13, 1273, on the death of George, fourth and last Baron Cantilupe of Bergavenny, found him to have held half the Manor of Melesbracy under Roger de Mortimer for half a knight's fee. There was a fortified dwelling, called a tower, there, and other buildings, very poor, but extended at 2s. per annum, independently of the tower. The demesne-lands realized 1. 9s. 4d. per annum. The Boscs of Hanleg and Haywode, though within the Manor, were also within the Forest. The rent of the Lord of Edgebold was 8s., and certain free-tenants within the Borough of Salop, viz. Hugh Colle, Roger le Paumer, Philip Pikenel, Alan fitz Gamel, and Peter Corde paid rents amounting to 5s. 4d. [25]

George de Cantilupe's interest in Meole went to his Sister, Milisent, who at the time of his decease was wife of Endo la Zouche. In Easter Term, 1280, I find the said Milisent, then a Widow, impleading Audulf de Bracy for half a knight's fee in Melesbracy, [26] that is, as I suppose, for the service due on Bracy's moiety of the Manor. A Feodary, taken February 10, 1305, on the death of Edmund de Mortimer, found William de la Souche to be holding a whole knight's-fee in Meoles of the deceased. [27]

Of UNDERTENANTS here, I may mention Walter de Chapel, who in 1261 sues William le Kent for disseizing him of a tenement in Mulesbracy.

Of NFWTON and NOBOLD, members of Brace Meole, we have occasional mention. In 1249, William de Neuton was Juror on a Pulley Inquest; and in 1292, Thomas de Neuton sat on a Pulverbatch Inquest.


It was during the first twenty years of Henry II.'s reign (1155-1174) that (a Rector of Meole Bracy dying) Sir Hugh de Mortimer gave the Advowson of the Church to Wigmore Abbey, [28] The Taxation of 1291 says that the Church of Molebracy (in the Deanery of Pontesbury and the Diocese of Hereford) is the Abbot

[24] Assizes, 46 Hen. III., m. 6 dorso.
[25] Inquisitions, 1 Edw. I., No. 16.
[26] Abbrev. Placitorum, p. 198.
[27] Inquisitions, 32 Edw. I., No. 63, b.
[28] History of Ludlow (Thomas Wright, Esq., 1852), p. 119.


of Wigmore's, and is worth (that is, the Rectory) 12. per annum. The Vicar's portion therein is put down as 5. [29] In 1341 the Assessors of the Ninth rightly quote the Taxation of Moely-Bracy-Church as 17. They rated the Parish only at 5. 6s. 8d., because the glebe, worth 7. 0s. 8d. per annum, and the tithes of two Mills, and of hay, and other small tithes, went to make up the Church-Taxation, but were not computable in estimating the wheat, wool, and lamb produced in the Parish. [30]

The Valor of 1534-5 gives the preferment of Robert Sherer, Vicar of Milbrace, as 4. 13s. 4d. per annum, less 7s. 4d. for procurations and synodals, payable to the Archdeacon of Salop. [31] At the same time, among the revenues of Wigmore Abbey, we find the tithes receivable from the Vill of Mylbrace valued at 3. 6s. 8d. [31] The Ministers' Accounts (five years later) state the dissolved Abbey to have had 5. for the tithes of Mylbrace, besides a rent of 3s. 4d. thence arising. [32]


The last Rector of Meole Brace was probably he who died in Henry II.'s time. The following Vicars were all presented by the Abbot and Convent of Wigmore.-

SIR ADAM DE BERECROFT, Chaplain, instituted in 1277.

ADAM DE SUTTON, Chaplain, instituted June 9, 1284.

SIR GILBERT DE HUMBR', Priest, instituted Feb. 16, 1301.

WALTER DE BOKENHULL, Priest, instituted Sept. 6, 1320.

JOHN DE KYNTON, instituted Jan. 22, 1321.

RALPH BRACI occurs as Vicar in 7 Edw. III. (1333-4).

SIR JOHN DE ELLESMERE, Priest, instituted Aug. 7, 1349.

SIR WILLIAM DE EMYNCHOPE, Vicar, died in 1359-60.

SIR JOHN PORTZ, alias PURS, instituted March 2, 1360; resigned 1361-2.

THOMAS EVERARD, Priest, instituted March 11, 1362. [33]


Domesday, describing the possessions of the Collegiate Church of St. Mary, Shrewsbury, inserts the following.- "The said Church

[29] Pope Nich. Taxation, p. 167.
[30] Inquis. Nonarum, p. 184.
[31] Valor Ecclesiasticus, III. 213, 203.
[32] Monasticon, VI. p. 356.-

A small temporal estate in Meole seems to have been an early acquisition of Wigmore Abbey. "Five shillings rent in Moeles" was among its receipts in 1291. (Pope Nich. Taxation, p. 166.)
[33] Blakeway's MSS. MONK MEOLE AND CROW MEOLE. 359

held (in Saxon times) and now holds one virgate of land in Melam,- the Manor of Ralph de Mortimer. The (annual) value (thereof ) was and is 4s". [34] It is consistently said, on another page of Domesday, that St. Mary had one virgate out of the hundred hides which composed the Hundred of Shrewsbury. [34]

St. Mary's virgate then was situated in, but quite independent of, Mortimer's Manor of Meole. In no Record subsequent to Domesday can I trace such a possession of St. Mary's. It is very seldom that the means of identifying an ecclesiastical estate are thus lost. It is quite supposable that the Church may have surrendered or exchanged the land; but, as a general rule, we find that the suburban estates which belonged to St. Mary's in the eleventh century, are in the Parish of St. Mary's at this day. In the present instance, we should expect to find an isolated part of St. Mary's Parish in or near Brace Meole. Nothing however of the kind exists. Necessarily, therefore, our account of this lost estate of St. Mary's is confined to the description given thereof in Domesday.

Monk Meole and Crow Meole.

THE two places known in later times by these distinctive names formed a Domesday estate of the Bishop of Chester. "Isdem Episcopus habet unum Manerium,- MELAM. Non est neque fuit hospitatus. [1] Reddebat XX solidos tempore Regis Edwardi- modo (reddit) XVII solidos et IIII denarios". [2]

We know from Richard I.'s confirmation to Buildwas Abbey, that the "land which was called Meola" formed part of Bishop Clinton's endowment of that House. The Bishop had granted it "with the greffegh and with the Burgesses, and with all things pertaining to the said land". Hence Monk-Meole, as a possession of the Monks of Buildwas, acquired its distinctive name.

We have seen that the impost called cherchombre, assessable by

[34] Domesday, fos. 252, b, 2, & 252, a, 1.
[1] Here we must read hospitatum, a word equivalent to colonatum. In another passage of Domesday a domus hospitata is opposed to mansio vasta. The Bishop's Manor, in fact, though within the Borough, was not occupied by any Burgesses or other Free Tenants. Neither does it seem to have been geldable.
[2] Domesday, fo. 252, a, 2.


the Bishops of Chester on the two Hundreds of Recordine and Conodovre, was in one instance reckoned among the appurtenances of Monk Meole and Buildwas. Some other due, the nature of which I cannot determine, is probably implied by the term greffegh. It does not appear whether the Burgesses who were made over to Buildwas by Bishop Clinton were actually resident on the land of Meole, as Richard I.'s Confirmation would imply, or were resident within the Walls of Shrewsbury, as Bishop Novant's Confirmation would suggest. Sixteen Burgesses of Shrewsbury, not connected with Meole, had belonged to the Domesday Bishop of Chester; and if we suppose that some of these were occupying the land of Meole in the time of Bishop Clinton, his conveyance of both land and Burgesses will become very intelligible.

In 1267, a Patent shows the Abbot of Buldewas suing Henry Charite for disseizing him of a tenement in Melam.

In 1291, the Abbot of Buildwas had four carucates of land in Mode, worth 2. 16s. per annum. His live stock there yielded an annual profit of 5. 15s. 3d., and a Mill yielded 1. Total, 9. 11s. 3d. [3]

The Valor of 1535-6 describes the Buildwas Estate of Crow-Meole and Monk Meole as that of Cronyet and Monkemeyt. It then realized 13. 6s. 8d. per annum. [4] Also, from a place called Monkehayles, which I think was part of this estate, a revenue of 13s. 4d. was arising.

In 1536-7, the Ministers' Accounts give the same amount, as arising from Monke-meyle and Monke-eye, viz. Ferm of tenants-at-will, 13s. 4d., and Ferm of lands and Tenements, 13. 6s. 8d.


THIS was another of the Bishop of Chester's Manors, but held under him by his own Collegiate Church of St. Chad, Shrewsbury. Domesday describes Shelton as follows.- "The same Bishop holds Saltone, and the Church of St. Chad (holds it) of him. Here is a hide and half. In demesne there is half an ox-team, and there might be two more teams. Here four Villains have one ox-team

[3] Pope Nich. Taxation, p. 260.
[4] Valor Ecclesiasticus, III. 191.


and a half. The value of the Manor was (in Saxon times) and is 12s. (per annum). This land pays geld". [1]

This passage is of importance, as showing the ancient connection between the Bishops of Chester and the Church of St. Chad. Edward III., we are assured, asserted St. Chad's Church to have been founded by his Royal Progenitors, and affected to treat it as a Royal Free Chapel, or Peculiar; [2] but such a status was never actually established for St. Chad's, and, as to its foundation, that was probably the work of some Bishop of Lichfield, not long after the aera of St. Ceadda himself. There is another passage of Domesday, bearing upon this question, which, as it has not been cited by the Historians of Shrewsbury when treating of this Foundation, I will notice here.- The Record is either speaking of Peter, Bishop of Chester, who died the year before Domesday was compiled, or else of a Bishop (Wulsius or Leofwine) who held the See of Chester (or rather Lichfield) in Edward the Confessor's reign, when it states as follows.-

"The same Bishop had in the said City (Shrewsbury) sixteen Canons. They paid no geld (to the Crown), nor is it known how much rent they paid to the Bishop". [3]

These sixteen Canons, resident in Shrewsbury itself, were clearly, all or most of them, Canons of St. Chad's. There is nothing to show that their number or condition was altered at the time when Domesday was compiled; and their being described at any time as the Bishop of Chester's Canons precludes all idea of St. Chad's being a Royal Foundation.

In after-times the Collegiate body of St. Chad's consisted of a Dean and ten Canons; and we know from the Registers of Lichfield that the Diocesan Bishop was the Patron of every Stall in the Church.

There is a circumstance showing to this day the connection which existed between the Bishops of Lichfield and St. Chad's College, and showing moreover how very ancient that connection was, for it would seem to have existed before our parochial boundaries were settled, and in some measure to have determined them.

At the time of Domesday it is certain that the following scattered localities were possessions of St. Chad's College, viz. Little Rossal, Bicton, part of Onslow, Little Eaton, Broughton, and Yorton. All of these are in the modern parish of St. Chad, except the three last, and even those three have perhaps been in the said parish at a period since Domesday. This proves only the antiquity of St. Chad's Church, viz. that it existed when the parochial boundaries of the district were first determined. But we also know that Shelton (or a great part thereof), Betton and Alkmere, Monk Meole and Crowmeole, and lastly Longner,- all belonged to the Bishop of Chester's Domesday Fief; and these again, scattered as they were, are in the modern parish of St. Chad. Thus we are assured not merely of the antiquity of St. Chad's College, but of the antiquity of its connection with the See of Lichfield.

This digression, which relates rather to St. Chad's Church than to its estate at Shelton, should now give way to some account of the latter Manor. Unfortunately no materials for such an account are likely to be in existence. The ancient muniments of St. Chad's College are utterly lost. No portion of them is incorporated in the Diocesan Registers. [4] Other Records are little likely to treat of an estate held under an Episcopal See, by a Collegiate body. Shelton

[1] Domesday, fo. 252, a, 2.
[2] Hist. of Shrewsbury, II. 185, 186.
[3] Domesday, fo. 252, a, 2.
[4] In Bishop Langton's Register (fo. 4) there is a certificate dated April 7th, 1299, and stating that the Bishop had received, by the hands of William de Eston, his Clerk, from John de Gaddesdene, seven merks "de custodia terrae de Selton";- also that the Bishop had previously received twenty shillings "de eadem custodia", for which no acquittance had hitherto been given.

If Shelton were the place here concerned, I know of nothing in the history of St. Chad's Church to account for that prebendal estate being in Bishop Langton's custody.


too was within the Liberties of Shrewsbury, a circumstance which of itself would tend to efface many particulars of its manorial history. A series of unknown changes can only be argued from their results: viz. that, at the Dissolution of St. Chad's College, the Bishops of Lichfield had lost every vestige of their title to the Seigneury of Shelton, and the Chapter of St. Chad's, neither retained an acre of land there, nor received more than one small rent therefrom.

The said Dissolution took place, I should observe, under the Act of 1 Edward VI. (1547). One of the ejected Canons (William Marshall) had the title of Prebendary of Shelton, apparently because part of his standing income of 5s. 6d. arose from a messuage in Shelton. He had also a portion of the corn and hay-tithes of Shelton, but the bulk of the said tithes was shared between four other Prebendaries. [5]

Of UNDERTENANTS in Shelton I have a few early notices, but quite inconclusive as to the mode of their tenure.

In the Pipe-Roll of 1176 the Chattels of Robert de Schelton, value 12d., and of Tosti de Chelton, value 7s., are accounted for by the Sheriff, those persons having perished by the Ordeal of Water, under the Statutes of Northampton. [6]

At the Assizes of 1221, Stephen de Shelfton, as heir of his father, Peter de Shelfton, sued Adam de Kemton for a virgate in Shelfton, but the Defendant took a technical objection to the process (mort d'ancestre), showing that, since Peter's death, Alan, eldest son of Peter had been seized of the premises. This the Plaintiff acknowledged; but here the Bailiffs of Shrewsbury interposed, stating that they had a Charter of King John enacting that no assize of mort d'ancestre, concerning any tenement within the Borough or Hundred of Shrewsbury, could be taken or held. So the Plaintiff was in misericordia. [7]

At the Assizes of 1267, John Williams (Johannes Willielmi), of Schelton, failed in a charge of novel disseizin against Petronilla Neles, concerning a messuage and half-virgate in Schelton. [8]

At the Assizes of 1272, Alice, widow of Thomas Boyrey, sued

[5] Hist. of Shrewsbury, II. 203, 204.
[6] Vide supra, Vol. III. p. 87.
[7] Assizes, 6 Hen. III., m. 4.
[8] Assizes, 51 Hen. III., in. 4 dorso.


Hugh, son of Ralph de Stafford, Philip de Mungomery, and Sibil his wife, for a third part of a messuage in St. Mary's Parish, Shrewsbury; also sued Geoffrey Snech for a third part of 9 acres in Shulton and Cotes. Hugh de Stafford called Geoffrey Snetch and Mabel his wife to warranty, and produced a Charter, whereby Thomas Borrey, Mabel's Father, had granted to the said Hugh whatever of the premises was held by him. Geoffrey Snetch and Mabel his wife pleaded that they had nothing of Thomas Borrey's inheritance. The matter ended in Hugh de Stafford's giving up her dower to Alice. [9]


THE Church of St. Milburg is registered in Domesday as holding a Manor in Sciropesberie Hundred.- "The said Church held (in Saxon times) and (still) holds Sudtone. Here is one hide. What with Freemen and Villains, there are eight men here, with four ox-teams. The old value of the Manor was 12s. (per annum). Now it is worth 16s". [1]

Sutton was obviously so called as standing nearly south of Shrewsbury. The first transaction after Domesday in which Sutton is mentioned, rather concerns the Monks of Shrewsbury than the Monks of St. Milburg, unless indeed it was an aggression on the rights of the latter. Between the years 1141 and 1155, "Ivo Pantulf gave to Shrewsbury Abbey the site of a Mill, under Sudton, on either side of the water"; and this grant was confirmed by Henry II. in 1155. [2]

It is probable that all the Baronial Houses of Shropshire, as well as all the Religious Houses, either possessed, or made it an object to acquire, some tenement in the County-town. Thus the Barons of Wem will have had an estate in the fields of the Borough, lying south of Coleham, and extending up to or beyond the Meole Brook in the direction of Sutton. Hence Ivo Pautulf's grant to Shrewsbury Abbey. [3]

Hugh Pantulf renewed his Father's grant in a distinct Charter,

[9] Assizes, 56 Hen. III., m. 15.
[1] Domesday, fo. 252, b, 2.
[2] Salop Ohartulary, No. 36.
[3] Ivo Pantulf's interest in Great Norton cannot have empowered him to make this grant, as that Manor did not approach either of the two Mills, which are contiguous to Sutton. The same may be said of any possible interest possessed by Ivo Pantulf in Bayston. 364 SUTTON.

which bears all the appearance of an original grant, but must not be so accounted. In this Charter, which must have passed early in the 13th century, Hugh Pantulf makes mention of his wife Christiana. The Deed is witnessed by Robert Corbet and his son Robert, by Ivo Pantulf (probably a son of Hugh), by Master Stephen de Francheton and Stephen de Hocley. [4]

On August 3, 1234, Henry, Abbot of Shrewsbury, and Humbert, Prior of Wenlock, came to an agreement about several matters of dispute, but chiefly about the Mill under Sutton, and five acres in the field of Coleham, of which the Abbey of Shrewsbury was in possession. The Wenlock Monks complained of the site and disposition of the mill-stank, and the waste caused by inundation. The Shrewsbury Monks alleged similar wastes against the Wenlock Monks, in the direction of Chongede-Mulne. Again, the Wenlock Monks said that the Shrewsbury Monks made waste in the bosc of Mount Gilbert, which was common to both Monasteries. It was agreed that the site of the said Mill, the said five acres of land, the attachiaments of the mill-stank, the trench towards Chongede-Mulne, the island lying between the said trench and the bank of Meole-brook, together with the ancient watercourse, should remain to Shrewsbury Abbey for ever; but the said Abbey was to make good all damages occasioned by the water, banks, or stank, to the lands of the Priory. Also the Prior gave up to the Abbot his (the Prior's) share of the Bosc of Mount Gilbert, concerning which a Cyrograph or agreement had previously been made between the two Houses in the Curia of King Richard I. In return for all this, the Abbot conceded to the Prior ten acres of the Abbot's demesne in the field of the Foriete (the Abbey Foregate), viz. such ten acres as were nearest to the Prior's demesne of Suttune. Witnesses, Sir John le Strange and "Robert de Haye, then Sheriff of Salop and Stafford". [5]

I much doubt whether the ten acres above-named were ever conveyed to Wenlock Priory. A second agreement, dated May 10, 1240, would imply that the Prior accepted another equivalent. By this Deed the Prior of Wenlock concedes to Shrewsbury Abbey the Mill of Sutton with the Island in which it was situated, and the trenches there made, at an annual rent of 8 merks. Witnesses, John Archdeacon of Salop, Nicholas de Withebroc, William de Poyswik. [6]

[4] Salop Chartulary, No. 297.
[5] [6] Ibidem, Nos. 389, 387. I do not find any proof that this rent of 5. 6s. 8d. was over paid by Shrewsbury Abbey. In the sixteenth century the Abbot paid the Prior a pension of 5s. 8d., which belonged to the Sacristan of Wenlock (Register at Willey, fo. 30, b); but what this pension was for, I cannot say.


The Wenlock Hundred-Roll of 1255 notices Sutton prope Salop as a Manor of the Prior, and specifies its contents as one hide. [7] This Record says nothing of Sutton having been actually attached (like St. Milburg's Manors in general) to the Liberty of Wenlock though it is enumerated under that Franchise. The fact is, I suppose, that Sutton was for all ordinary purposes extra-hundredal and extra-parochial; but its distance from Wenlock, or its situation within the Liberties of Shrewsbury, seems to have made it an exception to the ordinary rule; for I have found no indication of the Tenants of Sutton having owed any suit to Wenlock Hundred-Court.

The Taxation of 1291 values the Prior of Wenlock's Temporalities in Sutton at 2. 10s. 8d. per annum, viz.: from 3 carucates of land, 1.; from two acres of meadow, 4s.; from assized rents and a Mill, 1.; and from tillage, 6s. 8d. [8]

A Valuation of the possessions of Wenlock Priory, taken in 1379, estimates the receipts from Sutton at 1. 11s., viz. a messuage, value-nothing, besides the expenses thereof; 2 carucates of land, yielding 10s.; an acre of meadow, 1s.; a water-mill, 13s. 4d.; assized rents of free tenants, 6s. 8d. [9]

The Valor of 1535-6 gives the Prior of Wenlock as in receipt of 11. 7s. for the rents and ferms of Sutton. [10] In the Ministers' Accounts of 1541-2 the Ferm of the Manor of Sutton-juxta-Salop is put at 7. 13s. 4d., and the ferm of a water-mill there at 2. [11]


The Taxation of 1291 places the Chapel of Sutton in the Deanery of Pontesbury and Diocese of Hereford. It was of less than 4. annual value. [12]

At Bishop Charlton's Visitation of 1331 the Prior of Wenlock was confirmed in the receipt of a pension from the Church of Sutton-juxta-Salop, but the amount is not stated. [13] I gather from a Roll of later date (1516), that it was payable to an Officer styled the

[7] Rot. Hundred. II. 85.
[8] Pope Nich. Taxation, p. 164.
[9] Monasticon, V. p. 78.
[10] Valor Ecclesiasticus, III. p. 215.
[11] Monasticon, V. p. 81.
[12] Pope Nich. Taxation, p. 167.
[13] Patent, 22 Edw. III., p. 3, m. 34. 366 SUTTON.

Cominarius of the Priory, and that it, or 10s. in lieu thereof, was so paid by the then Prior. [14]

In 1341 a Taxation of 4. being quoted as that of Sutton Church, the Assessors of the Ninth rated the Parish at 6s. 8d. only. The Prior of Wenlock, whose temporalities were exempted from the current levy, had two carucates of land at Sutton, on which he paid no tithes. There were no sheep in the Parish. The tithes of hay and of two Mills were 1. 3s. 4d.; the small tithes, oblata, and glebe-land were worth 13s. 4d. per annum; and all these items, though they had formed a part of the Church-Taxation, were not computable in assessing the Ninth. [15] In 1379 the Church of Sutton-juxta-Salop, of 4 annual value, is stated to belong to the Prior of Wenlock's presentation. [16] In 1534-5, 3. of the tithes of Sutton were, as we have seen, annexed to the Vicarage of Wenlock. [17] The Chapel itself was probably disused, or served only by some Chaplain, removable at the will of the Prior of Wenlock. The Valor does not mention it.


JOHN DE HODENET, Priest, instituted February 19, 1276, at presentation of Brother John, Sub-prior of Wenlock, and Brother Roger de Parva Hereford,- Proctors of John, Prior of Wenlock. On March 12, 1312, this Church is commended to William de Penebrigg, Priest, saving the right of-

HUGH DE LA BAREWE, already presented thereto; but on Jan. 11, 1316, and in 1319, 1321, and 1322 several Episcopal licenses of non-residence (studendi gratia) are in favour of-

WILLIAM DE BAREWE, Incumbent of Sutton.

JOHN ALGHINTON was presented to this Church by a Patent of June 8, 1349, Edward III. having the patronage, because Wenlock Priory was in manu Regis, by reason of the war with France. [18] A second Patent of July 8 following presents-

HENRY DE WERLEYE, Chaplain, to this Church. [19]

ROGER DE LUTTELEY, Clerk, was instituted November 10, 1349, on a similar presentation.

ROGER DE ASTON resigning this Living on November 29, 1362-

WILLIAM MARTYN, Clerk, was instituted, at the presentation of the Prior and Convent of Wenlock.

[14] Register at Willey, fo. 31, b.
[15] Inquis. Nonarum, p.185.
[16] Monasticon, V. p. 78.
[17] Supra, Vol. III. p. 270.
[18] Patent, 23 Edw. III., p. 1, m. 4.
[19] Patent, 23 Edw. III., p. 2, m. 24.


RICHARD ASTOUN, Chaplain, instituted December 5, 1381, was confirmed herein by Richard II. on July 17, 1392. On September 1, 1394, the Bishop of Hereford issues a commission to inquire as to the presentation of-

SIR JOHN FEKENHAM to this Living, the King having presented him as having Wenlock Priory in his hand. On December 21, 1396-

SIR JOHN WYTHYNGTON was instituted at the King's presentation. On July 3, 1431, the Prior and Convent of Wenlock having presented-

SIR JOHN CALOWTON to Sutton, a Commission issued, to ascertain whether his tenure of this Living would be compatible with his holding the Rectory of Cleobury North.

SIR THOMAS BUTLER, Sacerdos, was instituted October 20, 1520, on the presentation of the Prior and Convent of Wenlock.

St. Julian's Manor.

UNDER the Title, Quod tenet Sancta Juliana, Domesday says that "the Church of St. Juliana holds half a hide, and has thereon one ox-team; and two Burgesses, labouring on this land, pay 3s. rent (to the Church). The Manor was worth 8s. (in Saxon times), and still maintained the same (annual) value". [1] Another page of the Record shows us that St. Julian's half-hide was part of the hundred hides which constituted the Liberties of Shrewsbury. St. Julian's Church was a Royal Free Chapel, and its history is inextricably involved with that of St. Michael's Church. For an account of all that is known of both Foundations I refer elsewhere. [2] That account does not give us a single instance of the Incumbents of St. Julian's having been so concerned with any lands in or near Shrewsbury, as to indicate that they retained their Domesday estate. Tithes they had, and a Parish; but they retained no Fee, or territory. It is obvious, however, that the Domesday estate of St. Julian's will have been a part of its present Parish. Now that Parish involves part of the Castle Foregate, the whole of the Wyle Cop, and nearly the whole of Coleham,- all within the Town. In the Country it extends to

[1] Domesday, fos. 253, a, 1, and 252, a. 1.
[2] Hist. of Shrewsbury, II. pp. 415-430.


part of Pulley on the South, to parts of Shelton and Oxon on the West, and to Coton Hill, Green-fields, and the Old Heath, on the North. It is probable that the Domesday half-hide of St. Julian's lay in the last direction; but I forbear to attempt any further account of an estate which I cannot with any certainty identify.

St. Alkmund's Manor.

UNDER the Title, Quod tenet Sanctus Almundus, Domesday says as follows.- "The Church of St. Almund holds in Sciropesberie XXI Burgesses besides the twelve Houses of its Canons. These Burgesses pay rents of 8s. 8d. The same Church has two of the hundred hides which are computed in the geld of the City. These two hides are held by two Canons, who have thereon one ox-team and a half, and (who have) four Villains possessing two ox-teams and a half. The (annual) value (of this estate) is 15s". [1]

The Burgages, or Town property, of St. Alkmund's, lay undoubtedly in the Castle Ward and Castle Foregate. The suburban estate of two hides probably comprehended a part of Coton Hill, but was mainly identical with Hencot. It is of Hencot alone that I propose to speak, because its history as a distinct Manor or estate is not obliterated. Like all the possessions of St. Alkmund's, Hencot passed in the Reign of Stephen to Lilleshall Abbey. Of the foundation of Lilleshall, on the basis of St Alkmund's, I shall speak fully elsewhere. My present subject is a matter of detail.

HENCOT, though within the Liberties of Shrewsbury, was not exempt from the Jurisdiction of the Forest of the Wrekin. We have an early proof of this in the Forest-Roll of 1180, where "the Miller of Hennecote" stands assessed 1s. for an imbladement of 2 acres of oats. The Lilleshall Chartulary preserves some of those early Fines which are invaluable as being lost from the proper repository. On Wednesday, February 8, 1189, Ralph de Ardern, Maurice de Berkele, William Fitz Alan, Thomas Noel, Hugh Pantulf, Master Robert of Salop, Robert de Haselee, and Nicholas Britton, were sitting as Justiciars of King Henry II. at Salop. A Fine was then levied between Stephen de Pimbelg (Pimley) and the Abbot of

[1] Domesday, fo. 253, a, 1.


Lilleshull concerning a Bosc in Hennechot and Pimbelg, whereof there had been a suit of novel disseizin. It was agreed that "the bosc should remain (the easements therein being common to both parties) under view of the Foresters; but neither party was to sell or give anything therein. If any waste should be made, each party was bound to repair it. The boundaries of the Bosc were to be from Scotebrug, through Sumergeld, to Holeford; thence, past certain oak-trees, previously marked, to Deorefald, and so to Cho-liers-wai, and back to Scotbrugg. And the Bosc contained within these limits was the Bosc concerning which there was dispute (clamium) between the Abbot and Stephen". [2]

King John's general Charter of Confirmation to Lilleshall Abbey bears date at the Castle of Roche-Andely, August 31, 1199. Like other Royal Charters, which it is needless to enumerate here, it makes mention of Hennecote as one of the estates of St. Alkmund's Church, which now belonged to the Abbey. [3]

In Michalmas Term 1200, a Suit was pending at Westminster, as to a right of common between Shrewsbury and Hewecot, claimed by the Burgesses of Shrewsbury. The Defendant is not named, but was probably the Abbot of Lilleshall. It was ordered that twelve Knights should be empanelled to make recognition of the case, before the Justices next in Eyre. [4]

At the Assizes of 1203, the Jurors of Pimhill Hundred reported a case where William, Provost of Hencot, had seized and beaten some Officer in discharge of his duty, and further detained the said Officer, till he was liberated by the Sheriff's Clerk. The Provost appeared, and denied the imputed felony; but his further defence is illegible. [5]

On Wednesday, November 5, 1208, Ralph de Ardern, William de Albeny, Robert de Berkelay, Humphrey Archdeacon of Sarum, John de Gestling, Henry de Pont-Audemer, Richard de Mucegros, and William fitz Richard, Justices of King John, were sitting at Shrewsbury. By a Fine then levied, Roger fitz William (Plaintiff in a Suit of mort d'ancestre) quit-claimed to Ralph, Abbot of Lilleshull (Tenant), a virgate in Ennecote. He also quit-claimed a bovate in the same vill, which he had held under the Abbot. In return the Abbot paid him eleven merks. [6]

At the Assizes of 1221, Robert White (Albus) withdrew the suit

[2] Lilleshall Chartulary, fo. 82.
[3] Cart. Antiq. EE. 16.
[4] Placita, Mich. Tm. 2 John, m. 1.
[5] Assizes, 6 John, m. 2 dorso.
[6] Pedes Finium and Lilleshall Chartulary, fo. 81.

Return to top of page

URL of this page: http://www.melocki.org.uk/eyton/Vol06.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.