Non omnia grandior setas
Quae fugiannis habet.




1. To precede page 1. MAP OF PART OF SHROPSHIRE (triplicate).
2. To face page 28. WROCKWARDINE CHURCH. Rev. J. Brooke, del.
3. To face page 50. WELLINGTON CHURCH (taken down in 1789). Rev. J. Brooke, del.
4. To face page 112. MONUMENT, High Ercall. Rev. J. Brooke, del.
5. To face page 112. PILLARS IN THE NORTH AISLE, High Ercall. Rev. J. Brooke, del.
6. To face page 126. EDGMOND CHURCH. Rev. J. Brooke, del.
7. To face page 126. FONT, Edgmond. Rev. J. Brooke, del.
8. To precede page 157. MAP OF PART OF SHROPSHIRE.
9. To face page 177. WEM CHURCH (taken down in 1811) David Parkes, del.
10. To face page 179. EDSTASTON CHAPEL. Rev. J. Brooke, del.
11. To face page 179. DOORWAY, Edstaston. Rev. J. Brooke, del.
12. To face page 340. HODNET CHURCH, from the North East; A.D. 1816. David Parkes, del.
13. To face page 340. FONT, Hodnet. Rev. J. Brooke, del.


THE Manor, known in later times as Poynton, seems to have contained two Vills at Domesday. It is thus described in that Record.- "Uluiet holds Peventone and Tunestan of the Earl. He also held it (in Saxon times) for two Manors. Here is a hide and half. There is arable land for III ox-teams. In demesne are I team and II Serfs. The Manor was worth 11s. (in Saxon times). Now it is worth 12s". [1] As to the vill of Tunestan, named in this passage, I cannot identify it with any modern locality. It seems indeed to have been lost in the 13th century, when Poynton maintained its Domesday hidage without any declared adjunct.

Of Uluiet, the Saxon, I should observe, that this is now the eighth Manor in which such a person has appeared to have had an interest in the Confessor's time; and yet that it is the first in which he retained any interest at Domesday. As I have often observed, the process of Saxon degradation continued after Domesday. No descendant of Uluiet can be supposed to have held Poynton; and it is exceedingly probable that the Manor was annexed to the Honour of Montgomery as early as the reign of Henry I. Under the Lords of Montgomery, Poynton was held by a race of Feoffees, who took their name from the place. The earliest whom I can mention of this family was-

ROGER DE PENNITON, who attests a Deed of the Lord of High Ercall at the very close of the twelfth century.

PHILIP DE PENINTON is found attesting several local Deeds between the years 1200 and 1212. In two instances Hamo de Peninton (probably his brother) is his fellow-witness. Matilda widow of Roger de Peninton is found suing Philip de Peninton, for her dower, after an interval of at least fifteen years from what I take to have been the period of her husband's decease. She sued him at the Assizes of November 1221, for thirds of one carucate and 1 virgates,

[1] Domesday, fo. 259, b, 2.


2 gardens, and a Fishery, in Peninton. To this Philip pleaded that the Plaintiff already held two half-virgates in Peninton, and a messuage and something else in Ercall, as the dower wherein she had been endowed at the Monastery-Gate (when married). He offered proof of this, but she, not denying it, was nonsuited. [1] From his attestation of Deeds we may suppose Philip de Peninton (I.) to have been living in 1240.

STEPHEN DE PENINTON, probably his successor, occurs a witness in August 1245, and again about 1250. He was apparently deceased in 1255, leaving a son or brother, or nephew, named Philip, in minority. The Bradford Hundred-Roll of that date states as follows.-

"Pevinton is a hide and half, and pays 6d. motfee and 6d. stretward. Philip de Pevinton is Lord of Pevinton, and is in the custody of his mother, by purchase from William de Cantilupe (the late Lord of the Honour of Montgomery). And it is of William de Cantilupe's fee, and is held by an annual rent of a pair of gilt spurs, payable at Easter, to William de Cantilupe. It does no suit to County or Hundred". [2]

I cannot determine whether-

PHILIP DE PEVINTON, who sat as a Juror for Bradford Hundred at the Assizes of 1272, was identical with the aforesaid Minor, or was his son. The latter seems improbable, because a Minor in 1255 will hardly have had a son of full age in 1272. Assuming then that the two were identical, we learn further that this second Philip de Penington was son of a former Philip; for at the Assizes of 1272, it was found that Philip de Penynton had died seized of a messuage in Ercall, now held by John de Ercalu, and that Philip, son and heir of the said Philip, was now entitled to hold the same under the said John. [3] I find this second Philip de Peninton as Juror or witness on very many occasions, viz. in 1274, 1276, 1277, 1292, and 1298. He occurs also as one of the Verderers of the Shropshire Forests in 1292 and 1296. Cotemporary with him was one Robert de Peninton (perhaps his brother) whom we have seen attesting a Deed about 1270-80. [4]

In Easter Term 1284 Milisent, sister and coheir of George de Cantilupe, was suing the various tenants of her purparty in her late Brother's Barony, for their services. Among others she sued Philip

[1] Assize Roll, 6 Hen. III., m. 5, dorso.
[2] Rot. Hundred. II. 56.
[3] Assizes, 56 Hen. III., m. 3 dorso. Damages of 6s. 8d. were given against John de Ercalu.
[4] Supra, Vol. VII. p. 281.


de Peninton for half a knight's-fee in Peninton. At length in Hilary Term 1288 Philip de Penynton acknowledged his obligation to Milisent de Montalt,- so called with reference to her first husband. [1]

Meantime the Feodaries of 1284-5 specify Philip de Penynton's tenure to be under Milisent la Zuche, and state her to hold it of the Fee of Montgomery, but the service due thereon is not mentioned.

Between the years 1272 and 1284 Philip, Lord of Penynton, gave to Haghmon Abbey two meadows (Overmedewe and Nethermedewe) and five seylions in Penynton. Witnesses,- John de Ercalwe, John fitz Aer, Robert Corbet, knights. [2]

On July 3, 1319, we have a Deed attested by three brothers,- Geoffrey, John, and Philip, de Peninton. [3] Of these, probably the sons of Philip de Peninton (II.),-

GEOFFREY DE PENINTON was undoubtedly the eldest, and Lord of Poynton. As Geoffrey de Penynton he stands first witness to an Ercall Deed of February 14, 1323. Before the year 1328 Geoffrey had been succeeded by his son and heir,-

PHILIP DE PENINTON (III.). On May 25, 1334, Philip de Peninton releases to Nicholas, Abbot of Haghmon, a parcel of land in Haghmon Wood. Witnesses,- Sir William de Erkalewe, Sir Robert Corbet of Moreton, knights; and Master Robert de Preston. [4]

By a Deed variously dated on June 12 and June 24, 1334, Nicholas, Abbot of Haghmon, demises to Philip fitz Geoffrey, Lord of Penynton, a parcel of waste land, for a rent of 2d. in perpetuity.

On March 26, 1340, Philip, son of Geoffrey de Penynton, releases to the same Abbot his right in 4 acres of land at Upton. Witnesses,- Roger Trumwin, John de Withiforde, John Malveysin, and Stephen de Lee. Nicholas de Harley, Clerk, and John Grabbe are the Attorneys, deputed to give the Abbot seizin. [5]

All I shall say further of this succession is that Philip de Peninton (III.) was living in 1349. [6]

POYNTON CHAPEL. Poynton is in the Parish of High Ercall.

[1] Ahbreviatio Placitorum, pp. 198, 214. An earlier Plea-Roll (of Hilary Term, 1283) makes John de Pennington to be Tenant of half a fee assigned to Milisen la Zouohe. The Christian name is probably erroneous.
[2] Haughmond Chartulary, Tit. Peynton. In June 1327, the Abbot demises these meadows "on the River Roden" to John and Richard, sons of William Brid, for their lives, at a rent of 6. 8d.
[3] Supra, Vol. VII. p. 282.
[4] [5] Haughmond Chartulary, fo. 79.
[6] Vide supra, Vol. VIII. p. 288.


Its ancient Chapel must be taken therefore as an affiliation of Ercall Church, founded by the Lords of the Manor, and remaining in their presentation. It has been disused for ages, but its west end is still visible as part of a stable.

The early history of Poynton Chapel is confined to the names of a few Incumbents and Patrons.-

JOHN, Rector of Penynton, died March 7, 1328; and on April 22, following-

RICHARD DE BREWOD, Chaplain, was instituted to this Chapel. Patron,- Philip Lord of Penynton. Richard, Rector of Pevynton, died about August 10, 1349 (probably of the Pestilence). On January 16, 1350-

JOHN DE UPTON, Priest, was admitted. Patron, Philip de Penynton.

ROGER, Rector of Pevynton, resigned in 1370; and on May 29 of that year-

HAMUND DE LA MORE was instituted at presentation of Dame Isolda Lady of Pevynton. He resigned in 1388. On May 25 of that year-

JOHN DE BYRITON, Priest, was instituted to this Free Chapel, at presentation of Philip de Williley.


SOME Saxon Uffa will have established this settlement. The name Uffington is in full, the town of the children of Uffa. In Edward the Confessor's time the Manor was held in severalty by two Saxons, Genut and Elveva. [1] At the Conquest of Mercia Earl Roger bestowed it on his follower, Helgot. Hence Domesday says,- "The same Helgot holds Ofitone. Genut and Elveva held it, for two Manors, and were free. Here are V hides, geldable. There is arable land for XII ox-teams. In demesne there is a team and half, with III male and IIII female Serfs; and (there are) III Villains, II Boors, and II Frenchmen, with II teams. Here is half a league

[1] It is singular that the same Genust and Elveva appear to have had shares in the distant Manor of Stantune, and there also to have made way for Helgot, and for the Castle, to which he gave a name (supra, Vol. IV. p. 51).


of wood. The value of the Manor in King Edward's time was 30s. (per annum). Now it is of the same value". [1]

Helgot's further connection with Uffington is shown in his grant of Moor, and of a Fishery in the Severn, to Shrewsbury Abbey. This was probably soon after Domesday and in the time of Earl Roger. The Charters of Henry I. and Stephen both particularize the grant, explaining that Mora was near the River Severn, and that it was called Mora with reference to a small wood adjacent thereto. This etymology shows perhaps that the Charter which embodied it was drawn up by a Norman Monk: for the primitive meaning of the Saxon word, Mor, is waste-land, either mountain or fen, but not wood. Stephen's Confirmation specifies Helgot's gift to have been a hide of land. We shall see that, though Monkmoor was detached from Uffington, both physically by the River Severn, and manorially by Helgot's grant, yet Uffington putatively retained its Domesday hidage in the 13th century.

I have spoken of Richard de la Mare, himself or his wife a descendant of Helgot, and living in the reign of Stephen or of Henry II. [2] This Richard, though Ancestor of the late Lords of Holgate, was only a Feoffee and Relation of the earlier Barons. In fact he held Uffington under them.

The Confirmation of Pope Alexander III. to Haghmon Abbey bears date May 14, 1172. It enumerates the following grants of Richard de la Mare and Robert his son, viz. (1) the mill of Punelege, (2) half a virgate and one noke in Uffinton, and (3) Ledelacre, which was between the boundaries of Sundre (Sundorn) and Uffington.

One of Henry II.'s earliest Confirmations to Haghmon alludes incidentally to the Abbot's Tenants at Offinton. This adds a much higher antiquity to Richard de la Mare's grant than I could otherwise establish. The Charter shall be more fully described under Astley. Another Confirmation of the same King recites that "Robert de la Mara had given to the Abbey one mansure in the vill of Offinton, with the Mill of Pimbeleg, which land and Mill his father had previously given to the Canons". [3] Pimley Mill was, I should observe, in Uffington Manor. I have shown elsewhere how the Haughmond Canons improved Richard de la Mare's gift by obtaining the Pimley side of the stream. [4]

I need not repeat the circumstances of Robert de la Mare's death

[1] Domesday. fo. 258, b, 1.
[2] Supra, Vol. IV. p. 57.
[3] Haughmond Chartulary, fo. 165, b.
[4] Supra, Vol. VII. pp. 304, 305.


at Benevento in 1192. [1] I will now give the curious and authentic document wherein the dying Crusader tells his own story and bequeaths the whole of Uffington to Haughmond Abbey.- Reverendis in Christo patribus et dominis A., [2] Dei gratia Sancti Johanna Agomanni Abbati, totique ejusdem ecclesiae Conventui, Robertus de Mara salutem in Domino. Universitati vestrae notum facio quod rediens a partibus Iherosolimitanis veni Beneventum, ibique gravi infirmitate detentus, dum adhuc sanam et claram haberem memoriam, pro remedio animae meae et ancessorum meorum, legitimo testamento, vobis et ecclesiae legavi, dedi, et concessi, in presentia plurimorum hominum, villam Offitonam, cum omnibus pertinenciis suis, videlicet terris, aquis, pratis, et nemoribus, inperpetuum pacifice possidendam, et de ea, nomine ecclesiae vestrae, Alanum de Mara, consanguineum meum investivi. Ut autem haec mea donacio rata habeatur in posterum et firma, presentem cartam inde factam sigillo meo et subscripcione testium roboravi. + Ego Martinus frater et Praeceptor domus Hospitalis sitae et (read in) Benevento (supply subscripsi) + Ego Adam Confrater predictae domus (supply subscripsi).

"Agnes de la Mare daughter and heir of Robert de la Mare, with consent of her heirs, Thomas and Robert, and for the souls of her father, her mother, and her husband, Robert Mauduth, confirmed the above gift of her Father to Haghmon, quit of all services, and as freely as her said Father had held it. Witnesses,- William fitz Alan, William des Botereus, John le Strange".

The significancies of the last Deed have been already stated, [3] as well as the fact that Agnes de la Mare, when, in 1194, she became the wife of a second husband, Ralph de Ardern, wished to nullify her previous grant. This led to a lawsuit, indicated by the following entries on the Plea-Rolls.-

October 27, 1194, Aunies de la Mare appoints Ralph de Hardern, her husband, to be her Attorney in a suit of land against the Canons of Hagemont. Richard Abbot of Hagemon essoigns his attendance in his suit against Ralph de Ardern, by Norman de Hageman. [4]

November 16, 1194. The Abbot again essoigns his attendance on the ground of illness at Hageman. The suit is described as

[1] Supra, Vol. IV. p. 58.
[2] The letter A. must not be taken as the initial letter of the existing Abbot's name; but as a general term, indicating any Abbot who might be in office; just as we now use colloquially the letters A. and B. It is probable that the then Abbot's name was Richard. Alured had been dead at least ten years (vide Vol. VII. p. 299).
[3] Supra, Vol. IV. p. 59.
[4] Rot. Cur. Regis, I. 18, 103.


against Ralph de Arden and Agnes his wife. Walter Hageman and Richard Godacre are the Abbot's Essoignors. [1]

A Fine, levied on February 14, 1195, purports to be "between the Abbot of Haghmon and Thomas de la Mare [2] (Tenants), and Ralph de Ardern and Agnes his wife (Plaintiffs), of the vill of Uffitone which the Canons of Haghmon had by gift of Robert, father of the said Agnes, and which gift had been confirmed by Agnes when a Widow. Ralph and Agnes now quitclaim the premises, receiving 40 merks from the Abbot"

Hubert Archbishop of Canterbury (he was now Chief-Justice of England) recites in a formal document Robert de la Mare's bequest to "Abbot A".;- Agnes's confirmation thereof, when a widow;- her remarriage to Ardern, the strifes which ensued with the Abbey, and the above Fine. The Archbishop now "perpetuates the said settlement by his own authority and reduces it to writing. Witnesses,- Geoffrey de Bocland", etc.

I have shown a probability that Thomas, eldest son of Robert Mauduit and Agnes de la Mare, came of age about 1203-4. [3] That may well be the date of a Deed whereby "Thomas Maudut son of Robert Maudut confirmed the donation which Robert de la Mare his grandfather, and Agnes his mother, made to Hagmon Abbey of all their land in Offitone".

The Abbot and Canons allowed that the "Grantor and his heirs should always have one Canon in the Abbey for the souls' health of the Grantor, his Ancestors, and his heirs: so that on the decease of every such Canon another should continuously be substituted in his room. Witnesses,- William fitz Alan, John le Strange".

Subsequently Thomas Mauduit, in the presence of William and Robert his brothers, released the Abbey from the above obligation to maintain a Canon of his selection. In future he would require nothing but the masses and prayers of the Convent.

We may now follow the history of Uffington as an estate of Haughmond Abbey, but still held under the Barons of Holgate. The Bradford Hundred-Roll of 1255, says as follows.- "The Abbot of Haweman holds the vill of Offinton, by gift of Robert de la Mare, and in frank almoign, of William Mauduit's Barony of Castle Holegod. The Manor does no suit to County or lesser Hundred-Court, but only to the Great Hundred-Court, twice yearly

[1] Rot. Cur. Regis, Vol. I. page 121.
[2] Thomas de la Mare had probably been Tenent or Feoffee of Robert de la Mare, and now stood in the same relation to the Abbot of Haughmond.
[3] Supra, Vol. IV. p. 62.


at the Sheriff's-Tourn. It is five hides. It pays 3s. for motfee; nothing for stretward. Half an acre of assart is in the Forest of Haweman and the Manor pays therefore 1d. yearly to the King". [1]

When the Knights-Templars were seized of the Barony of Holgate it seems that they withdrew all such suit as Uffington had owed to Bradford Hundred. This fact was stated in an Inquest, which I have before quoted. [2] The Bradford Tenure-Roll (about 1285) says that "the Abbot of Haughmond holds the vill of Uffynton in free alms", and that "the vill was of the fee of Castle Holegod and used to be geldable; but the Templars changed its status, by attracting it to their Liberty of Castle Holegod, which Liberty Robert Burnell Bishop of Bath now holds".

The Taxation of 1291 values the Abbot of Haghmon's temporalities at Uffeton as follows.-

Two carucates of land, worth yearly: 1 10 0
Assized rents, producing yearly: 0 18 0
A certain meadow, worth yearly: 0 1 0
2 9 0 [3]

At the Assizes of 1292, the Bradford Jurors represented how King Henry III. had been seized of 3s. per annum for the stretward and motfee of Offynton, and how the said due had been withdrawn by the Abbot of Hawemon. The Abbot appeared and stated that on entering office he found no such burden on the vill. The King however recovered the due and its arrears.

The Abbot was further questioned for having withdrawn the Hundred-suits of Walcot and Uffinton, 12 years back. The Crown recovered the Suit of the Sheriff's-Tourn, worth 2s. per annum, and 24s. for arrears thereof: but the Abbot proved that the Crown had never been seized of the lesser suit; viz. that due every third week to the Hundred-Court. [4]

This, or a similar, prosecution about the Suits of Bradford Hundred is somewhat garbled in the Haughmond Chartulary. There it would appear that the Abbot got a dismissal sine die on both points, viz. his liability to attend the greater, as well as the lesser, Hundred Courts.

Another document in the same Chartulary is perhaps rather an explanation than a falsification of the Plea-Roll. It states that at the Assizes of 1292 "Gilbert, Abbot of Haghmon, procured that

[1] Rot. Hundred. II. 57.
[2] Supra, Vol. VI. p. 217, note 12.
[3] Pope Nich. Taxation, p. 260.
[4] Placita Coronae, 20 Edw. I., m. 15.


two appearances, which he had been used to make yearly at Castle Holgot for the vill of Offinton, should be adjudicated to Bradford Hundred".

The Valor of 1534-5, gives the Abbot of Haghmond no less than 37. 9s. 6d. of assized rents in Uffyngton. He still paid stretward and motfee to the Crown for the vill, but the charge was now 3s. 9d. per annum. To Richard Colfox, Bailiff of Uffyngton and Muryden, he paid a salary of 40s. per annum. [1]

As UNDERTENANTS in Uffington, I may name Richard fitz Ranulf of Huffiton and his wife Edith, who, in February 1256, enfeoff one Simon fitz Gervase of Cotes in 3 acres at Cotes (Coton Hill). Also there was a Walter Cresset of Uffington, living in 1339 and 1349, but who, as well as some other Tenants here, has been mentioned elsewhere.


Uffington Manor was originally in the Shrewsbury Parish of St. Alkmund, which, as I have before observed, [2] included Sundorn also. I should attribute the foundation of a Chapel here to the De la Mares or to the ancient Chapter of St. Alkmund, rather than to the later representatives of either party. That is neither the Canons of Haughmond, as Lords of the Manor, nor the Canons of Lilleshall, as Impropriators of St. Alkmund's Church, were likely to have founded this district-chapel.

Whenever founded, this Chapel remained for centuries with all the features of an affiliation of St. Alkmund's.

The Abbot of Lilleshall had the Great-Tithes of Uffington; and the Chapel was of his Advowson, as Rector of St. Alkmund's.

Much disputation seems to have existed between the Abbeys of Lilleshall and Haughmond with respect to certain tithes of Uffington. [3] Haughmond, it will be remembered, was exempted by Papal Privileges from paying tithes on its novalia, and its working cattle. Between the years 1220 and 1250, Lilleshall quitclaims to Haughmond the small-tithes of all animals which Haughmond had in the vill of Uffinton, also the tithes of Assarts, Vivaries, and Mills, [4] then existing. This settlement was made in the presence of the Abbot

[1] Valor Ecclesiasticus, III. 192, 193.
[2] Supra, Vol. VII. p. 280.
[3] Haughmond Chartulary, fos. 217-b, and 218.
[4] This alludes to Pimley Mill and the farm which had been added thereto by the Canons of Haughmond. The Mill itself was originally in Uffington Manor (supra, Vol. VII. p. 304), and I suppose its precinct had come to be so reputed. Hence the Abbot of Lilleshall's title to deal with the tithes.


and Prior of Shrewsbury, the Prior of Wombridge, and Geoffrey Griffin.

Another, and, I think, later arrangement between the two Houses, divides the tithes of nearly thirty tenements and gardens, which all went under the name of assarts. In some cases Haughmond takes two-thirds, and Lilleshall one-third, of the said tithes. In other cases, Haughmond and Lilleshall respectively take the whole tithes.

On September 9, 1478, Robert, Abbot of Lilleshull, and John, Abbot of Haghmon, came to another kind of agreement on this subject. The former now gave to the latter a 99 years' lease of all tithes, oblations, fruits, and profits, which belonged to the Parochial Chapel of Abbot John's vill of Uffinton, and also of all tithes, etc., of the same Abbot's ferm or Grange of Pimley, except the tithes of such meadows and assarts as already belonged rightfully to Haughmond. The rent reserved to Lilleshall was 40s. per annum, and the Abbot bound his Convent to renew the lease, under a penalty of 9. Besides paying this rent, the Abbot of Haughmond was to provide a Chaplain, secular or regular, to serve Uffington Chapel, and to administer the sacraments to the Parishioners as heretofore. Also he was to be responsible for all other dues belonging to the said Chapel except a portion or pension, "if there was one", due to the Parish Church of Holgate. [1]

The Valor of 1534-5 does not recognize the existence of Uffington Chapel; neither do the Abbots of Lilleshall and Haughmond include, in their returns of income and expenditure, any notice of the above transaction.

As to EARLY INCUMBENTS of Uffington, we need not, after what has been said above, look to the Diocesan Registers for any evidence of their succession. In the present instance, however, we have the means of showing how such Cures were provided for, when the Diocesan Bishop did not, or could not, exercise any supervision. The Abbot of Lilleshall, as Rector of St. Alkmund, appointed whom he would to be Chaplain of Uffington, or what was worse, sold the

[1] This looks as if Uffington Chapel had been founded by some ancient Lord of Holgate, who had charged it with a pension to the once Collegiate Church of Holgate. The pension was apparently obsolete, or nearly so, at the date of the above Lease; and I find no other mention of it.

I think little of the possibility that Bishop Burnell, while Lord of Holgate, may have charged Uffington with this pension. The case of Leighton (Vol. VII. p. 338) is not analogous; for the Bishop was not Patron of Uffington, as he was of Leighton.


appointment to any Fermor or Middleman who might be willing to trade in such matters.

One document will prove this. We have seen a certain Herbert de Etingham, Chaplain, attesting certain grants to Wombridge Priory about the year 1235. [1]

A Deed in the Lilleshall Chartulary acknowledges the terms on which "Herbert de Ettingeham, Chaplain, had received from the Abbot and Convent of Lilleshull their Chapel of Uffinton, to farm for the whole term of his life. He will pay the Abbot an annual rent of 2 merks for the same. Any right pertaining to the Mother-Church of St. Alkmund is to be preserved. If the Lessee neglect to pay his rent at stated terms, the penalty is to be one merk. He will sustain all burdens of the Chapel, temporal and spiritual, and will provide for its services".

How the latter duty was performed we need not inquire.


THIS was one of the Manors which Domesday records to have been held by Robert fitz Tetbald under the Norman Earl.-

"The same Robert holds Udecote, and Tochi holds it of him. Aluric held it (in Saxon times). Here are III hides. In demesne there is one ox-team; and there are II Neatherds, I Villain, III Boors, and III Freemen, with two teams amongst them all; and still there is room for three additional teams. The Manor was worth (in Saxon times) 20s. (per annum). Now it is worth 10s". [2]

Of the Saxon Tochi I shall have more to say hereafter.

A reperusal of what I have said under Kembertons will show how Robert fitz Tetbald's Seigneury at Woodcote passed, with his Sussex Honour of Petworth, to Josceline de Lovain, and so to the House of Percy. It was an extraordinary transition for a Shropshire Manor; but it enables us to enter on the list of Shropshire Feudatories one of the greatest of England's historic names.

In the twelfth century Percy's Tenant at Woodcote was-

[1] Supra, pp. 163, 168, 169.
[2] Domesday, fo. 256, b, 2.
[3] Supra, Vol. III. pp. 1, 2.
[4] Supra, Vol. II. p. 169.


RICHARD DE WOODCOTE. As Richard Wudecote he stands witness to a Deed of uncertain but ancient date, which I have quoted under Hatton. [1] The Pipe-Roll of 1176 tells how Richard de Wudecote had been amerced 2 for not producing his brother Roger to undergo trial.

All that I can say further of Richard de Woodcote is, that he had a daughter, Avelina, to whom, on her marriage with Adam de Doditon, he gave certain field-land in the Abbey Forgate of Shrewsbury. [2] The said Avelina had also a daughter Hawise, who became wife of Adam son of Adam de Chetwynd.

ROBERT DE WOODCOTE (I.) was probably son and heir of Richard. Had he not been so, he would not have succeeded to Woodcote in preference to Richard's other descendants. Robert de Woodcote's earliest appearance is about the year 1191, when we have seen that he had disseized another of a tenement at Cheswell, near Longford. [3] On November 24, 1194, Robert de Wodecot was one of three Knights who appeared at Westminster as Visor in a Shropshire Suit already described. [4] The suit whereby, in 1200-1203, he endeavoured to obtain Aston Boterell has been also alluded to. [5] It convinces me that Robert de Woodcote was descended from Tochi or Tochil, the Domesday Lord of both Woodcote and Aston; and perhaps we may further conclude that Tochi was akin to Aluric or Elric, the previous Saxon Lord of both Manors.

At the Assizes of 1203 Robert de Wodecot was one of the Knights empanelled in causes of Grand-Assize. At this time Avelina de Dutdinton, his presumed sister, was a widow, for she essoigned her attendance at these Assizes.

Within fifteen years, as I think, of this time, Robert de Wodecote stands first witness of a Deed whereby Avelina, formerly wife of Adam de Doditun, gives to Adam, son of Adam de Chetwinde, in frank marriage with Hawise her daughter, a rent of 12d. receivable yearly from land held by Stephen de Hawemag, together with a full half of that field-land in Monks-Foriete (Shrewsbury), which Richard de Wodecote, Avelina's father, had given to herself, on her marriage with the aforesaid Adam (de Doditun). The other witnesses of this Deed are Adam de Brunton (of Longford) and Alan fitz Jordan (of Shrewsbury). [6]

About the year 1215 Thomas de Costantyn grants to Robert de

[1] Supra, Vol. II. p. 169.
[2] Salop Chartulary, No. 177.
[3] Supra, p. 106.
[4] Supra, Vol. I. p. 47.
[5] Supra, Vol. I. 224.
[6] Salop Chartulary, No. 177.


Wodecote, for 17 merks paid down, and for a rent of 12d., certain land and wood, which (from the very garbled transcript of the Deed supplied by the Wombridge Chartulary) I infer to have lain between Rushton and Eaton Constantine. This Deed has the attestations of Robert de Terroys (perhaps Teneraye), Hugh de Upinton, and Robert de Stanton. [1]

About the same time, Robert de Wodecotte stands first witness of a Deed which I have quoted under Tibberton.

Robert de Woodcote (I.) probably died about the year 1220; at least we have had mention in November 1221 of his widow Milisent and his successor Robert. [3] His grant to Lilleshall Abbey must be taken as a closing act of his life, seeing that it was accompanied by a bequest of his body, in burial. It was of certain land in Sakerlawe (Shakerley) which the Grantor seems to have inherited from his Uncle (avunculo) Robert, who had had it by the feoffment of Sir Richard de Beaumeys. The services due to the Lord of the Fee are reserved. [4]

MILISANT, wife and widow of Robert de Wodecote (I.), was probably an heiress. In her widowhood and liege power, for the souls' health of herself, her ancestors, and successors, she gave to Lilleshull Abbey, together with her body (in burial), a virgate of land in Horselawe, one noke of which was held by Adam White.

ROBERT DE WODECOTE (II.), calling himself "son and heir of Robert de Wudechot", confirmed this grant of a virgate in Horselawe, reserving the scutage assessable thereon, unless it should appear that the land had been freed of scutage under the franchises of Lilleshull Abbey. This Confirmation, the said Robert handed over to the Canons in the full County-Court of Stafford in the time of that "noble personage, Henry de Audley, then Sheriff". [5] This notification serves to date the deed as having passed either between 1218 and 1220 or else between 1227 and 1232. I prefer the last limits, because it seems probable that the Confirmation passed after Milisant de Woodcote's death, and she was living in 1221.

Orslow, I should observe, was a member of Church-Eaton (Staffordshire). Hence we hear also of a Charter by Sir Adam de Brimton, Knight, Lord of Eyton, confirming Milisant de Woodcote's grant.

Between the years 1220 and 1224, Robert, son of Robert de

[1] Chartulary, Tit. Upinton, No. CXIV.
[2] Supra, Vol. VIII. p. 47.
[3] Supra, Vol. VII. p. 335.
[4] Monasticon, VI. 264, Num. XIII. (Vide supra, Vol. II. p. 176.) [5] Lilleshall Chartulary, fo. 64.


Wodecote, for the souls' health of his Father, Robert, his Mother, Milisant, himself, his wife, his ancestors, and successors, gave to Wombridge Priory the land (near Rushton) which his Father had purchased from Sir Thomas de Constantine, the Canons being bound to pay the reserved rent of 12d. to the said Sir Thomas. Witnesses,- Richard de Leyghton, Robert de Brocton, Adam de Cherleton, etc. [1]

Also between 1220 and 1224, Thomas de Constantyn gave to Wombridge the whole wood with its appurtenances, which he had sold to Sir Robert de Wodecotte, so that the Canons pay the Grantor and his heirs 12d. yearly. Witnesses,- Baldwin de Hodnet, Hugh Forester (of Bolas, I presume), William de Hedley. [2]

About the year 1241, Robert de Wodecote was second of the Jurors who decided the lands of Lilleshull Abbey not to be liable to the custom of canine expeditation. Again in 1249 we have Robert de Wodecot as Foreman of a Leegomery Inquest, and about 1250 we have him attesting Geoffrey Griffin's grant of Howle to the Abbeys of Lilleshull and Haughmond. I am nearly sure that about this time there was a step in the succession of the Lords of Woodcote. [3] At all events, I venture to state that it was-

ROBERT DE WOODCOTE (III.), who, in his grant to Buildwas Abbey about 1253, styles himself, "Robert, son of Robert de Wodecote".

The Bradford Hundred-Roll of 1255 describes Wodecot as a Manor of three hides, and as paying 12d. (yearly) for motfee, and 12d. for stretward. "Robert (de Wodecot) was Lord of the Vill, holding it of the fee of Henry de Persy, and doing due suit to County, and Hundred. The Manor was geldable". [4]

Robert de Woodcote (III.) seems to have had a sister married to Michael de Morton. To Michael, son of the said Michael, and therefore his own Nephew, Robert de Woodcote sold the fee-simple of Eye, but, as we shall see, without barring the dower of his wife, Isabella.

All that I shall say further of the third Robert de Woodcote, is, that, being deceased on May 26, 1278, a Writ of Diem clausit

[1] [2] Wombridge Chartulary, Tit. Upinton, Nos. CXV. CXIIJ.
[3] This idea is confirmed by the Forest-Roll of 1262. Robert de Woodcote and another were Agistators of the Hayes of Wellington and More and so responsible for the Autumnal pannage of the years 1249-1253, inclusive. But in February 1262, they being dead, their heirs had to answer for their receipts. I infer that Robert de Woodcote (II.) died about 1253. Robert de Woodcote of 1262 is expressly named as his son and heir.
[4] Rot. Hundred. II. 55.


issued on the occasion. The Inquest which followed reported that he had held nothing in capite, but had held all his lands of Henry de Perci, by an annual rent of 10s. The said lands were valued at 30s. 8d. per annum. Thomas, son and heir of the deceased, was found to be 23 years of age and more. [1]

It is probable that Thomas de Woodcote alienated the mesne-interest of all his estates to William Rondulf, a thriving Burgess of Newport. John and Philip de Wodecote, who appear on an Edgmond Inquest in January 1283, were probably Cadets or Undertenants.

WILLIAM RONDULF of Newport, with whom I now proceed, occurs on general and local Juries in 1283, 1290, 1292, 1296, 1300, and 1302. The Feodary of 1284 says that "William Randulfe holds the vills of Wodecote and Eye of Henry de Percy, who holds of the King in capite". The nearly cotemporary Tenure-Roll of Bradford Hundred repeats this information, adding, that Michael de Morton was William Rondulf's Feoffee as regarded the vill of Eye. Of this vill I shall speak elsewhere.

William Rondulf had several sons, of whom I shall here mention Geoffrey and Simon. Geoffrey, the eldest, had even in his Father's lifetime attained a high position as a Burgess of Shrewsbury. He occurs from 1288 to 1323 in various capacities. He was in office as Bailiff of Shrewsbury six times in and between the years 1290 and 1323. He was returned as a Burgess of Parliament for the same town no less than nine times in and between the years 1295 and 1318. On the last occasion Simon Rondulf (his brother) was one of his Manucaptors.

It appears that the third Robert de Woodcote had another sister, Helen, whom he had enfeoffed in a parcel of land at Woodcote. About the year 1290 "Helena, daughter of Robert, formerly Lord of Wodecote, gives to Simon, son of William Rondulf of Newport a parcel of land in the field of Wodecote, the Grantee performing such homage and service as were stipulated for in the Charter which she (Helena) had from her brother Robert. Witnesses,- William Rondulf of Neuport, William, son of Michael de Morton, and John, his brother". [2]

William de Morton, the second witness of the above Deed, had a son Edmund, between whom and Geoffrey Rondulf there arose much litigation about Woodcote. I can tell little about the proceedings; but it was probably before the year 1316 that Edmund, son of

[1] Inquisitions, 6 Edw. I., No. 12.
[2] Newport Evidences.


William de Morton, recovered, by process of law, two-thirds of the Manor of Woodcote against Geoffrey Rondulf. [1] Hence it came, I presume, that in the Nomina Villarum of 1316 Edmund de Morton is set down as Lord of Woodcote.

It further appears that, relying on the above sentence in his favour, Edmund de Morton disseized Geoffrey Rondulf of certain parcels of Woodcote which proved to be not included in the above two-thirds.

Rondulf hereupon brought a second action, and in Hilary Term 1322 recovered the following parcels in the Manor of Wodecote juxta Hethull, viz. 2 messuages, 1 Water-Mill, 1 virgate, and 30 acres of land, and a piece of ground measuring 300 perches by 200 perches, which were no parcel of those two-thirds of the Manor to which Morton was entitled. [2]

WOODCOTE CHAPEL. This Chapel has architectural features, which prove it to have been founded at least as early as the 12th century. Its subjection to the Mother-Church of Sheriff Hales, a status which it still retains, naturally obscures its early history. Its Incumbents were the Vicars of Sheriff Hales, who probably served it by Deputy. The said Vicars were themselves presented by the Prior of Ware, or by some other Proctor of the Abbot of St. Evroult of Uticum, [3] who was Impropriator of Sheriff Hales.

Parochially Woodcote was in the Archdeaconry of Stafford, and the Deanery of Lapley and Trysull.

The Eye.

THE Domesday notice of Woodcote is immediately succeeded by the following supplementary entry, in paler ink than the body of the Record.-

"The same Robert (fitz Tetbald) holds a Manor of one virgate of land, and Tochi holds it of him. It is in the same Hundred (Recordin). The arable land is that of one ox-team. Here are one Villain and II Serfs, and they have nothing (i.e. no team-power). The Manor used to be worth 5s. yearly".

[1] [2] Abbrev. Placitorem, p. 339.
[3] Vide supra, Vol. VII. p. 207.


There is little difficulty in identifying this Manor. West of Leighton and South of Eaton Constantine the River Severn forms three sides of a square. The land thus enclosed is now known as the Eye Farm. This was Robert fitz Tetbald's anonymous Manor, and from him the Seigneury, like that of Woodcote, passed to Percy. So also Tochi's tenancy passed to the Woodcotes; and it was their tenure of Eye which brought the Woodcotes into this neighbourhood, and induced them to make those purchases in Leighton and Eaton Constantine which have already been described.

Robert de Woodcote (III.) sold Eye (that is the fee-simple) to his Nephew Michael,- son of Michael de Moreton, by * * * de Woodcote: but on the said Robert's death (in 1278), his widow, Ysabel, seems to have claimed dower in Eye. So I interpret a Deed whereby it was agreed between "Michael, son of Michael de Morton and Dame Ysabella, late wife of Robert, Lord of Wodecote", as follows, viz. that Michael conceded and demised to Ysabella, one-third of his land of E, which land he (Michael) formerly bought of Robert, Lord of Wodecote, his Uncle (avunculo);- to hold to Ysabella for life at a rent of one pair of white gloves. Witnesses,- Bertram de Burgo, Michael de Morton, Hugh de Weston, Richard de Leycton. [1]

We have seen that the mesne tenure of Eye, like that of Woodcote, passed between the years 1278 and 1284 from Thomas de Woodcote to William Rondulf of Newport, and that in or about the year 1285 Michael de Morton was holding Eye under William Rondulf. The following Deed, which perhaps passed fifteen years later, I take to be by Richard de Leighton (V). It shows conclusively that the Manor, so continuously mentioned in connection with Woodcote in other records, and now held by Michael de Morton, was in fact the Manor of Eye. I give an abstract of the Deed itself.-

Recardus dominus de Leghton concessi Michaeli de Morton et heredibus quod si averia Michaelis pro defectu custodiae evaserint infra clausuram meam de Rudon (videlicet de Spedehelde usque ad Caldewelle et de Caldewelle juxta sepem usque ad corneram de Middelfeld quae est proxima semitae quae ducit de Eye versus le Lode ad inferius capud de Baxtonebeche de Eye), sine aliqua redempcione refugentur, quousque predicta placia claudatur. In cujus rei, etc. Hiis testibus, Magistro Payn de Preston, Johanne de Hauckestan, Philippo de

[1] Newport Evidences.


Leghton, Capellano, Henrico de Garmeston, Willielmo Payn de Leghton, etc. [1]

This grant associates itself with a former Deed already noticed, and which was drawn up in 1300, when Sir Richard de Leighton was contemplating the formation of a Park at Leighton. Several of the localities named in the present Deed will be found to correspond with the proposed boundaries of Leighton Park. [2]


THE Cambro-British word Wrch signifies, "that which is high or round". The town of Wrexham in North Wales was probably so called with reference to the mountainous range adjacent. So too in Shropshire, Wroxeter and Wrockwardine got their names, one as being a City or Station (castrum) near the Wrekin, the other as being a worthinq, or village, under the same mountain.

In Saxon times, Wrockwardine was a royal Manor, and Caput of the Hundred to which it gave a name. Such Manors are usually if not uniformly found in Domesday to be classified as demesnes of the Palatine Earl.-

"Earl Roger holds Recordine. King Edward held it. To this Manor belong seven and a half Berewichs. Here are five hides, geldable. In demesne are IIII ox-teams; and XIII Villains, IIII Boors, a Priest and a Radman have, among them all, XII teams. Here are VII Neatherds, a Mill of 12s. (annual value), and a Wood, one league long and half a league wide".

"The Church of St. Peter holds the Church of this Manor, with one hide, and thereon it has one ox-team, and another team might be added. It (this hide) is worth 5s. (per annum)".

"Two denarii of the Hundred of Recordin used in King Edward's time to belong to this Manor. The Earl (of Mercia) had the tercium denarium".

"In King Edward's time the Manor used to yield (yearly) 6. 13s. 8d. Now it pays a ferm of 12. 10s". [3]

[1] Charter in possession of Mr. George Morris of Shrewsbury.
[2] Vide supra, Vol. VII. p. 337, note 34.
[3] Domesday, fo. 253, a, 2.


Wrockwardine, with the exception perhaps of one of its Berewicks (Cherlton), reached the hands of Henry II., in the usual course, as a Manor of Royal Demesne. Of the severance of Cherlton from the central Manor I will speak elsewhere. The reputed fiscal value of Wrockwardine in 1156 was 14 per annum. So then, from the year 1156 to the year 1171 inclusive, Wrockwardine may be taken to have annually contributed 14 to that sum of 265. 15s. for which the Sheriff was accountable as the Firma Comitatus.

In the year 1172, and while Wrockwardine was thus reputed to be a Manor of 14 fiscal value, King Henry II. assigned 7 librates, or one-half thereof, to Roger de Powis, and his brother Jonas. [1] This continued till the year 1174 inclusive. In 1175, however, 14 librates, being the whole value of the Manor, were similarly assigned to the two brethren. We may therefore set down these favoured Servants of Henry II. as, after Kings and Earls, the first Lords of Wrockwardine. However, their interest here was temporary, and so I shall postpone a fuller account of their career to a future occasion.

In 1176 and 1177 the Sheriff seems to have made good the payment of Roger de Powis's share, viz. 7 in each year: but he retained Jonas de Powis's share in hand, "because the said Jonas had not as yet brought to the Sheriff the King's Writ", authorizing the payment. In 1178 the King acquitted the Sheriff of this arrear of 14, that is, made him a present of it; but another 14, being the whole fiscal value of Wrockwardine for the current year, was made over to Roger de Powis singly. This annnal payment of 14 yearly to Roger de Powis continued till the year 1186 inclusive; but at Michaelmas 1187 both he and his son, Meredyth, were dead, the latter having been paid 10. 10s. 9d. of the current year's value of the Manor, and the balance (3. 6s. 3d.) being accounted for by the Sheriff as due to the Crown. We may conclude that Meredyth, son of Roger de Powis, died in July 1187.

In 1188 the Sheriff paid to the Crown 6. 8s. 8d. for the year's issues of Wrockwardine, instead of the ordinary 14: but the reason of this is not stated. In 1189 the Sheriff similarly paid only 7. 13s. 5d.; in 1190, 1191, and 1192, he paid 7 yearly, while 20. 13s. 4d. had been spent in stocking the Manor. In 1193 and 1194 Wrockwardine may be presumed to have yielded 12 yearly to the Exchequer and 2 to the Canons of Haughmond.

[1] In terris datis.- Et Rogero de Powis et Jone fratri ejus VII lib. in Wrochewurdin.


The latter was the proportionate value of Allscot Mill, long before granted to the Canons, but now first alleged in Exchequer accounts as diminishing the ferm of Wrockwardine by 2. In 1195, besides the charge in favour of the Canons, Archbishop Hubert had authorized the Sheriff to bestow 10 librates in Wrockwardine on Meurich, another son of Roger de Powis. This continued in 1196, 1197, 1198, and 1199; but in 1200, only half the said income went to Mewrich de Powis, whilst 6 librates or half a year's value of the whole Manor (exclusive of Allscote Mill) had been bestowed on Hamo le Strange. The fact is, that Meurich de Powis died about May 1200, and nothing in Wrockwardine went to his son Wrenoc. The latter, as I have shown under Worfield, received substantial marks of Royal favour in another quarter. [1]

HAMO LE STRANGE, who was now for a time Lord of Wrockwardine, was a younger brother of John le Strange (II.) of Ness and Cheswardine. He had been enfeoffed by King John, whilst Earl of Moreton, in the Leicestershire Manor of Foston. Foston was one of the estates which William Peverel of Nottingham had forfeited to King Henry II., but the Record, which implies that Henry II. enfeoffed Hamo le Strange therein, is erroneous in more than one particular. [2] On the accession of King John, his previous grant of Foston to Hamo le Strange did not hold good. Hence in 1199 we find Hamo le Strange fining 40 merks for a reasonable equivalent in lieu of Foston, [3] but he not at length obtaining such exchange, the debt of 40 merks was cancelled on the Pipe-Roll of 1200 by order of the Barons of the Exchequer. In the latter year the above Fine was replaced by one of 60 merks, and which was more specific. It was that the said "Hamo might have the Manor of Wrocwrthin, late held by Meuric de Powis, with all its stock and implements, until the King should furnish forth, out of his escheats, a fair exchange either for Wrocwrthin or for the land which he had, as Earl, given to Hamo. And when such exchange should have been completed, Wrocwrthin, with its stock, etc., was to revert to the King". [4]

In 1201 and 1202 Hamo le Strange pays instalments on his Fine of 60 merks. In the former year he is entered as entitled to 12, or the full fiscal value of the Manor; in the latter year he had only had 9. The inference is, that his arrangement about Wrockwardine expired about June 1202. As Hamo was still alive, we may

[1] Supra, Vol. III. pp. 106, 107.
[2] Testa de Nevill, p. 88.
[3] [4] Oblata, pp. 14, 60, John le Strange was security for the last fine.


presume that King John had provided for him an equivalent elsewhere. In the fiscal year which ended at Michaelmas 1203-

JOHN LE STRANGE (II.) fined 60 merks "to have custody of Wrockwardine Manor, formerly held by his brother Hamo, till the King should return into England [1] and dispose otherwise thereof". Accordingly, in the Pipe-Roll of 1203, the Sheriff discharges Wrockwardine from the Firma Comitatus in the manner following. In terris datis. Et Johanni Extraneo xii lib. in terra de Wrocwurdin quam ipse custodit per breve Regis, de quibus debet respondere. And below is John le Strange's private account of his trust.- Johannes Extraneus r. c. de xii lib. de terra de Wrochwurdin quam custodit. In thesauro nichil. Et in perdonis per breve Regis ipsi Johanni xii lib. Et Quietus est. So then the King had made this, his trusty servant, a present of his year's rent. The same thing followed in the years 1204 and 1205. [2] In 1209 John le Strange owed 48 or four years' arrears, but was excused 24 by Writ Royal. Subsequent accounts are not very regular, and for half the year 1215 and the whole of the years 1216 and 1217 there were no accounts at all. At Michaelmas 1226 John le Strange owed 12 for the current year's ferm of Wrockwardine, and 163 for arrears. King Henry III. had excused the whole debt, the 12 being expressly bestowed on Le Strange "to support him in the King's service". [3] Wrockwardine was still however held, subject to the King's pleasure.

We are now in a condition to understand what is meant in a Roll of the year 1211, where it is said that "John le Strange holds the Manor of Wrocwrth'in at ferm, of the Bailiwick (de ballivo) of King John, and is accustomed to pay 12, with the stock"; [4]- that is, for the Manor and the stock thereon.

In 1227 John le Strange's account of 12 for the year's ferm of Wrockwardine is duly entered. The King returns it in consideration of the Accountant's "good and faithful services to King John and to himself". [5] Moreover by Writ, the King pardons all future

[1] The King was absent from May 1201 to December 1203.
[2] A Writ preserved on the Liberate Rolls (page 101) and of date about May 1204, is express as to acquitting John le Strange of all demands made against him for the issues of the Manor of Wrocwurthin.
[3] Rot. Pip. 11 Henry III., Salop. These favours were conferred by Writs-Close dated at Salop on August 29, 1226 (Maus. II. p. 135). The remittance of arrears was in consideration of "great services rendered to King John and Henry III., and of Le Strange's large outlay and losses".
[4] Testa de Nevill, p. 56.
[5] Rot. Pip. 10 Hen. III., Salop.


payment so long as the Accountant should live. [1] From 1228 to 1233 inclusive the year's ferm of Wrockwardine is continuously accounted of as returned to John le Strange, "to sustain him in the King's service while he lives". But in 1234 John le Strange is represented as paying 4 out of 12, for the. current year's ferm of Wrockwardine. Such is the evidence of the Pipe-Rolls, but the Charter-Rolls exhibit the affair in quite another aspect.- John le Strange (II.) had been a public character for more than the 50 years which had transpired since his father's death in 1178. His life-lease of Wrockwardine was therefore of small value when, on May 25, 1231, he obtained the King's Charter granting the Manor to his son, "John le Estrange, Junior", to hold in fee and inheritance, for a rent of 8, payable at the Exchequer, in lieu of all other services. The Manor was further to be quit of all Tallages. [2] This Charter bears date at Wenloc and was attested by Hubert de Burgh, John fitz Alan, Ralph de Mortimer, and others.

It was not till October 10, 1234, that the Barons of the Exchequer were informed of this grant; but then at length they are ordered to enrol it. [4] Consequently the Pipe-Rolls take no notice of the arrangement till the year ending Michaelmas 1235. Then the Record is accurate in every particular. John le Strange pays 4 as the arrears of last year, and 8 for the ferm of the current year, and is quit. Thereafter the title of John le Strange to hold the Manor in fee, at a rent of 8, is distinctly recognized. The Accountant discharges his liabilities, and is styled Johannes Extraneus without the addition of Junior. It is nevertheless certain that his father was still living, a matter of which I shall speak elsewhere.

In the year 1236 the Sheriff discharges his liabilities in respect of Wrockwardine, setting off 2 as bestowed on the Canons of Haughmond and 12 as bestowed on John le Strange "ad se sustentandum". The latter entry was mere routine, but correct for all fiscal purposes, for doubtless the Sheriff got nothing from the Manor and was entitled to obliterate its fiscal value in the Corpus Comitatus. In a separate schedule, John le Strange accounts 8 for the ferm of Wrockwardine. As the Pipe-Rolls now cease to instruct us

[1] Rot. Pip. 11 Henry III., Salop. I do not find any previous Writ, authorising the implied change from a tenure during pleasure to a tenure for life. However a Writ-Close of May 18, 1228, is to that effect. It gives the Manor to Le Strange for life, and quitclaims all arrears of the farm thereof since he first held it (Claus. 12 Henry III.).
[2] From the Table (given Vol. VI. p. 11) it appears that Wrockwardine had not been assessed to any Tallage since 1194-5.
[3] Rot. Cart. 15 Hen. III., m. 8.
[4] Rot. Finium, 18 Hen. III., m. 2.


as to any change or succession in Le Strange's tenure of Wrockwardine, I will merely say that the King's rent continued to be paid, nominally by some John le Strange. The chronological history of the family of Le Strange must be gathered from other sources.

A grant by John le Strange (II.) to Wombridge Priory, I consider to be nearly cotemporary with a similar grant by Thomas Tuschet, already described. [1] The locality alluded to is distant from Wrockwardine, but was associated with that Manor. It is still known as Wrockwardine Wood. If the grant passed, as I suppose, about the year 1220, it was while John le Strange was only Fermor of Wrockwardine.-

As "John Extraneus, Lord of Knokyn, for the souls' health of himself and King John, he concedes to the Priory all the right he had by reason of his Manor of Wrockwardine, in that land, wood, and pasture, which the illustrious King Henry (Henry II. is meant) did concede to the Priory". The land lay, lengthways between Watlingstreet and Hethegrene, and was bounded, on one side, by the Grantor's bosc contiguous, on the other, by a watercourse running between Stamforde in Watlingstreet and Hethegrene aforesaid. William de Ercalew, Hugh fitz Robert, Robert fitz Aher, John de Andelawe, and Robert de Brokton attested the Deed. [2]

JOHN LE STRANGE (III.) undoubtedly became Lord of Wrockwardine in 1231 and in the lifetime of his father. The date of his said father's death may perhaps be deduced from the Originalia-Roll of 1237-8, where the son stipulates "in the King's presence to satisfy the King touching his Relief, according to the judgment of the King's Court".

About the year 1231, as I think, "John le Strange tercius, son of John le Strange, concedes to Wombridge Priory the donation which his Father had made in the bosc of Wombridge. Witnesses,- Hugh fitz Robert, William de Hedlege, John de Ondeslawe, Robert de Brokton, and Philip de Peninton". [3]

A nearly cotemporary Deed exhibits the same grant in another form.-"John le Strange tercius, for the souls' health of himself, his wife Lucia, and his father, gives to the Priory all such assarts and boscs as it possessed by concession of his Father. Witnesses,- Hugh fitz Robert; William de Hedleg; Nicholas de Wileleye; Geoffrey Griffin, Clerk; Bertram, his brother; Peter de Eyton; Thomas Corbet of Hedleg; Walter de Upton; Leonard de Lega; and Walter his son". [4]

[1] Supra, Vol. VII. p. 343.
[2] [3] [4] Chartulary, Tit. Lega Prioris, Nos. 8, 9,10.


The following feoffment is by John le Strange (III.) and belongs to Wrockwardine. [1] Its date is about 1235. Thereby- "John le Strange gives to Hamund son of Robert de Hadleg, for his homage and for 5 merks (paid down), all that land which Henry Cocus the Grantee's Father-in-law had held of the Grantor.- Rent 4s. Witnesses,- Sir William de Ercalue, Sir Hugh fitz Robert, Sir Peter de Eyton, Sir Thomas Corbet of Hedley, Wydo de Perpund, Robert de Brocton, Roger de Eppeleg, Thomas de Erleton, Robert de Clotleg, Adam de Cherlton, Radulf Provost".

A younger son of John le Strange (III.) was that HAMO LE STRANGE, who has been so often mentioned in these pages, as one in whom all the energy and loyalty of his house ever shone conspicuous. To this Hamo his Father consigned the Manor of Wrockwardine sometime before the year 1255. This was apparently with full license of the Crown, for, though John le Strange continues nominally to account on the Pipe-Roll for the yearly ferm of 8, it is clear that Hamo was the actual Tenant-in-capite and the real Accountant.

Hence the Bradford Hundred-Roll of 1255, declares that "Hamo Extraneus holds the Manor of Wrecwrthin, in-capite of the King, and pays 8 to the Exchequer at London. He does no suit to County or Hundred, and has the King's Charter". [3]

Hamo le Strange's contest with the Abbot of Lilleshull in 1256, has been already recited. [4] I need only observe that he stated his title to Wrockwardine to be by feoffment of his Father. I can show no other evidence of Hamo le Strange's seizin than a grant to Wombridge Priory which passed between 1247 and 1259, probably about 1252.- "Hamo Extraneus with consent of Sir John, his father, grants all his part of the wood of Wombridge which was common to him and Sir Walter de Dunstanville". The boundaries of this grant are "Stamford in Watelyngstret, the Red Sichet, Witestoc, the Thassichos, and so along Watlingstret back to Stamford" "Whatever within these limits pertained to Wrockwardine Manor was to pass to the Priory". Of course the locality was Wrockwardine-Wood. The Charter was attested by Sir Walter de Dunstanville, Sir Madoc de Sutton, Sir Walter de Kembricton Rector of the Church of Ydeshall, Roger Corbet (of Hadley), Philip de Pres, and Ralph Brito, Clerk. [5]

[1] Ibidem, Tit. Lopinton, No. IX.
[2] Probably Le Strange's Bailiff at Wrockwardine. He occurs elsewhere as holding land near Allscote Mill.
[3] Rot. Hundred. II. 56.
[4] Supra, Vol. VIII. pp. 235, 236.
[5] Wombridge Chartulary, Tit. Le Prioris, No. XI.


It is certain that Hamo le Strange accompanied Prince Edward on the Crusade of 1270. I can fix on no more probable period than this for the ascertained fact that the said Hamo gave Wrockwardine to his younger brother,-

ROBERT LE STRANGE, who like himself went to Palestine. The elder brother perished in the expedition; the younger barely survived it. The transfer from the former to the latter was apparently impugned as unlawful, for, in the year 1278, the Sheriff is ordered to seize Stretton, Ellesmere, and Wrockwardine, into the King's-hand; and of Stretton it is particularly stated that the reason of the seizure was because Hamo le Strange, being Tenant-in-capite thereof, had alienated it without license. [1] In 1275, Wrockwardine, Stratton, and Ellesmere, were committed to the custody of Bogo de Knovill, [2] but in the same year the King accepted the homage of Robert le Strange for Wrockwardine, "as that which Hamo le Strange had formerly given to the said Robert by Charter". Robert is henceforth to hold the Manor, in-capite, by service of one-twentieth of a Knight's-fee. [3] Concurrently with this, Robert le Strange obtained the following Quitclaim from John le Strange (IV.), the elder brother of himself and Hamo.-

John le Strange Lord of Knokyn gives by spontaneous will, concedes, licenses, and quitclaims, for himself and heirs, all right in Wrocwardin Manor, to Robert le Strange his brother, who is to do homage to the King therefore. Given at Knokyn on Ascension Day (May 28) 3 Edw. I. (1275)". [4]

On September 10, 1276, Robert le Strange was dead, as we know from a Writ of that date concerning the dower of his widow. [5] We also have a Writ of the same year consigning Wrockwardine to the custody of the Bishop of St. Asaph during the nonage of Robert le Strange's heir: the King reserving his fee-farm rent of 8. [6]

The Wombridge Chartulary preserves one Deed by Robert le Strange. It probably passed during his short seizin of 1275-6.-

As "Robert le Strange Lord of Wrokwardyn", he gives to Henry son of Hamund de Wodehus, [7] for 2. 6s. 8d. paid down, and a rent of 2s., all that land which Isota relict of Payn Carpenter held near Watlyngstrete. Witnesses,- John de Apley, Peter de Eyton, and Sir Hugh Burnell.

The heir of Robert le Strange was his eldest son, viz.-

[1] [2] [3] Origitialia, Vol. I. pp. 19, 20, 22, 23.
[4] Claus. 3 Edw. I., m. 15 dorso.
[5] Claus. 4 Edw. I., m. 4.
[6] Originalia, I. p. 27.
[7] Vide supra, Vol. II. p. 319.


JOHN LE STRANGE, usually styled Lord of Whitchurch. The Feodary of 1284 gives the said John as holding Wrocwarthin and its members in-capite, by a rent of 8. A nearly cotemporary Tenure-Roll repeats this statement, and gives the members of Wrockwardine as Admaston, Aldescote (Allscot), Leyton (Leaton), Burcote, Nesse, Clotley, and Walcott. This statement is inaccurate as regards Walcott, which was a member both of the Manor and Parish of Wellington. "With these exceptions", says the Record, "John le Strange holds the whole Manor in demesne, maintaining there his free-Court, with its pleas of bloodshed, and hue and cry, and gallows;- all which franchises he uses".

On June 18, 1289, the King's writ of Diem clausit announced the death of John, son of Robert le Strange.
[1] His heir was found to be his next brother, viz.,-

FULK LE STRANGE, who, according to one Inquest, was 21, according to another, 22 years of age at the time of his brother's death.

Of this Fulk I have said much already as Lord of Sutton Maddock, Corfham, and Longnor. [2] At the Assizes of 1292, the Bradford Jurors presented him as of full age and yet not a Knight, also as claiming Free-Warren, Free-Court, gallows, and the Assize of bread and beer in Wrocwrthyn. They also remembered Hamo le Strange's tenure of the Manor by a Fee-farm rent of 8, and stated its full value to be 18. Fulco le Strange was, as a matter of course, prosecuted under a Writ of Quo Waranto for the exercise of his Franchises in Wrockwardine. He claimed them all, as appurtenant to the Manor, and as having been exercised by Henry III. and his predecessors. He recited how Henry III. had granted the Manor with all its franchises and free customs to his Ancestor, John le Strange, and his heirs. He stated himself to be heir of the said John le Strange. The Crown Lawyer might have shown the falsity of this last assertion, but he adopted the routine argument, viz. that Infangethef and two free-Courts were not expressly conveyed in Henry III.'s Charter, and that Wayf and Warren were distinct things of themselves, and no appurtenances of any Manor, and not separable from the Crown without special grant. [3] The cause was adjourned, and I lose the result; but I think that the decision, as to Free-Warren at least, must have been in favour of the Crown.

[1] Inquisitions, 17 Edw. I., No. 17.
[2] Supra, Vol. II. pp. 121-2; Vol. V. p. 163; Vol. VI. p. 64.
[3] Quo Waranto, pp. 684, 687.


In the Nomina Villarum of 1316, Fulco Extraneus is duly entered as Lord of Wrockwardine. The Writ of Diem clausit on his death is dated January 23, 1324. An Inquest held at Shrewsbury on July 12, found him to have held Wrocworthin in-capite, for one-twentieth of a knight's-fee, and by payment of 8 rent through the Sheriff. John his son and heir was found to have attained the age of 18 years on January 25, 1324. [1] I may here add that in 1383 this John le Strange obtained a Charter of Free-Warren in his demesnes at Wrockwardine.

The Wombridge Chartulary supplies two Deeds illustrative of Fulk le Strange's connection with Wrockwardine,-

Between the years 1289 and 1296, as Lord thereof, he enfeoffs Henry son of Hamund de Wodhouse in a parcel of land in his wood of Russhemore, for 40s. paid, and 2s. rent. Witnesses,- Master John de Cherleton, Rector of the Church of Wrocwardyn, John de Appley, William de Erleton, John fitz Ralph of Wrocwardyn, and John de Leyton.

On January 25, 1305, he enfeoffs the same Henry and his wife Amice, for 60s. paid and 2s. rent, in a parcel of land in his Wood of Wrocwardyn, extending from the Wood of Lyleshul to the watercourse of Russhemere. He further concedes 2 acres in the Wood of Wrockwardyn, between Hauckehurstbrok and the Hundeshoc, at a further rent of 2s., and reserving suit to his two great Courts, half-yearly. Witnesses,- Master John de Chorleton, Peter de Eyton, Pagan de Preston, * * * * * de Erleton, Richard de Mokeleston, etc. It is evident that Wrockwardine-Wood was the locality of both these grants.


This was a Saxon Foundation, and the Mother-Church of a district. Earl Roger in his Charter to Shrewsbury Abbey grants thereto the Church of Worgordina, and confirms one hide in Chorleton which Oilerius the Priest had given to the Abbey. These gifts I take to be the Church and Hide mentioned in Domesday as held by St. Peter, that is by Shrewsbury Abbey. The Confirmation of William Rufus to that House includes the Church of Werecordin. The Confirmations of Henry I., Stephen, and Henry II., include both the Church and the Hide of land.

Earl Hugh's suspected Charter to Shrewsbury Abbey conveys the tithes of his demesne of Worocordin; but his less suspected

[1] Inquisitions, 17 Edw. II., No. 78.


Charter is more credible in this very particular, viz. that it gives but two-thirds of the said tithes.

Roger (de Clinton), Bishop of Coventry, inspected and confirmed some Charter of Earl Hugh, conveying two-thirds of the tithes of his demesnes of Wrockwardine to Shrewsbury Abbey. [1] The same Roger, calling himself Bishop of Chester, confirmed the Abbey in its possession of the Church of Wrockwardine "with its Chapels", and an annual pension of 20s. receivable therefrom. [2]

Bishop Walter Durdent similarly confirmed "the Church of Worocwordin with the tithe of the vill, and with the chapels pertaining thereto". Bishop Richard Peche similarly confirmed two-thirds of the demesne tithes of Wrockwardine, and a pension of 20s. from the Church. Other Confirmations, Archiepiscopal and Diocesan, are in consonance with the above.

The Taxation of 1291 values the Church of Wrocworthin, in the Deanery of Salop, at 10 per annum; but says nothing about a Pension. [3]

In 1341 the Assessors of the Ninth quoted the above Taxation, but reduced the current tax to 10 merks. The reasons were,- because the Rector of Wrocwarthin had a carucate of land, and rents in the Parish, which were not assessable to the Ninth (though they served to swell the Taxation). Also there were few sheep in the Parish because of an insufficiency of sheep-pasture. [4]

Meanwhile, a Patent of Edward III., dated July 26, 1329, had given license for the Abbot of Shrewsbury to appropriate this Church. [5] I find no Record as to how this was done, either in the Lichfield Registers or the Salop Chartulary; but the first Vicar of Wrockwardine was instituted in 1341.

A Rent-Roll of Salop Abbey (about 1490) values the Rectorial tithes of Wrokewardyn at 17. 6s. 8d. The Valor of 1534-5 reduces this to 14; [6] and values the Vicarage of Wrockwardyn, then held by William Butler, at 8 per annum, less 7s. 6d. for procuration and 4s. for synodals. [7] The Abbot of Shrewsbury, it appears, paid out of his Rectorial receipts an annuity of 33s. 4d. to Thomas Freer, Dean of the Church of Rocordyn. [8] This was by ordinance of the Bishop who first allowed the appropriation. The Annuitant, alluded to, was probably the Rural Dean of the Deanery of Salop.

[1] Salop Chartulary, No. 325.
[2] Harl. MS. 3868, fo. 7, b.
[3] Pope Nich. Taxation, p. 247.
[4] Inquis. Nonarum, p. 182.
[5] Rot. Patent. 8 Edw. III., m. 6.
[6] [7] [8] Valor Eccles. III. 189, 184, 191


[For engraving,s ee pdf.]



OILERIUS, the Priest, who gave a hide in Cherlton to Shrewsbury Abbey, was, I take it, Rector of Wrockwardine. We may further identify him with "Odelirius of Orleans, son of Constantius;- one of the three wise Clerks, whose society was much affected by Earl Roger, and by whose counsels he was advantageously guided". Odelirius was also Incumbent of that Wooden Chapel in the East-Foregate of Shrewsbury, which made way, by his cession, for the magnificent Abbey of St. Peter; a foundation to which Odelirius contributed not a little. He gave thereto not only his estate at Cherlton and his living at Shrewsbury; but he lent all the efficacy of his oratory to persuade the Earl to the undertaking; he paid 15 sterling when the buildings were commenced; and he covenanted to consign half his fortune with his son Benedict, when the latter should become a Monk of the House. [1] He had two other sons, viz. Ebrard, for whom he purposed the other half of his fortune, and Ordericus, the Historian.- So much for the clerical celibacy of the period.

Odelirius, after his Patron's death (an event which according to this passage of Ordericus must have taken place as early as July 27, 1092), [2] became himself a Monk of Shrewsbury. In this capacity he lived seven years, and, if his Son's account be verbally correct, died on Friday, June 8, 1099.

MASTER JOHN DE CHERLETON is a very frequent witness of local Deeds, the earliest of which I should date about 1260. Before 1296 he styles himself Rector of the Church of Wrockwardine, and occurs as such in February 1309 and in May 1320. He had a daughter, as we have seen, espoused about 1275 to Richard le Bere of Muxton. [3]

JOHN was the name of the Rector of Wrockwardine on June 8, 1332, when the Bishop makes him Penitentiary for the Archdeaconry of Salop. He is said to have been still here in 16 Edward III., 1342-3, [4] but this hardly seems consistent with what follows.

ADAM DE HETHEYE, Deacon, first Vicar of Wrockwardine, was instituted May 21, 1341, [5] at the presentation of the Abbot and Convent of Salop. On Sept. 22, 1349, he exchanged preferment with-

[1] The covenant was fulfilled apparently by a gift of 200 sterling;- an enormous sum at that period.
[2] Ordericus, Tom. II. p. 422 (Augustus le Prevost, 1840). In this matter of date I reluctantly differ from the note of the learned Editor.
[3] Supra, Vol. VIII. p. 232.
[4] Blakeway's MSS.
[5] Regist. Northburg, fo. 217, b.


GEOFFREY BERFORD, late Chaplain of Esnebrugge (Isombridge). [1] The same Patrons presented. On Dec. 18, 1359-

SIR RICHARD DE MORTON was instituted, the same Patrons presenting. He occurs in December 1378, [2] and was still here in 11 Rich. II. (1387-8).

SIR THOMAS GRILLESHIILL resigned this Vicarage and went to Wellington in 1408, when, on August 9,-

SIR JOHN WATRYS, Chaplain, was instituted here on the usual presentation. He occurs as John de Water and John atte Water in 8 Henry IV. (1406-7) and 2 Henry V. (1414-15). He died in 1422.


I suppose that the following places nearly corresponded with the seven-and-a-half Berewicks which are assigned in Domesday to Wrockwardine.- Charlton, Admaston, Allscot, Burcot, Leaton, Clotley, and a place called Nesse, were at a later period members of Wrockwardine.

As to Charlton, the hide there, which Oilerius gave to Shrewsbury Abbey, must not be taken for the whole township. The Shrewsbury Churches of St. Mary and St. Julian had at a later period a distinct estate at Charlton; and I think it very probable that it was bestowed on those Churches by the same Oilerius, within thirteen years after Domesday. I will first speak distinctively of the two estates into which Charlton was thus divided, and afterwards say something on the early history of that great family which drew its name and origin from this locality.

SHREWSBURY ABBEY FEE. Between the years 1175 and 1190 Radulf de Cherl' (Cherlton I presume) attests an agreement between Ralph Abbot of Shrewsbury and Walter de Dunstanvill. Between the years 1227 and 1241, Richard, son of Philip de Cherlton, attests an Uppington Deed, and in 1246 Walter de Cherlton sat on an Uppington Jury. These two persons, I think, occur again in the following transactions. In November 1248 Richard de Cherlton sued Walter le Peleter of Cherlton, under writ of mort d'ancestre for two-thirds of a half-virgate in Cherlton. Walter surrendered the premises. Soon afterwards Richard de Cherlton disseized the same Walter of 6 acres in Cherlton, alleging that they were part (de corpore) of the said half-virgate. For this Walter prosecuted him at the Assizes of 1256, proving that his own Mother

[1] Supra, Vol. VIII. p. 264.
[2] Supra, Vol. VI. p. 220.


had held the said 6 acres at the time of the Trial of 1248 and for long after, till they came to himself by hereditary right, so that he held them peacefully for a whole year. The Jury found for Walter. [1]

About the year 1274 Richard de Cherleton grants to Richard de Soggedon, Clerk, all his land of Cherleton, with houses, curtilages, rents, homages, etc. for service of one rose-blossom payable yearly, on the Nativity of St. John Baptist, at the Grantor's House of Cherleton. Witnesses,- Sir John de Erkelewe, Robert de Stanton, Philip de Pevinton, Henry de Rodinton. [2]

It would seem that this deed was contemplative of a surrender to Shrewsbury Abbey; for in a subsequent Deed Richard de Suggedon, Clerk, grants the identical premises to the Abbey, with the addition of certain land near his garden "which he had of William Skinner's land". [3] The witnesses of this Deed are not given; and perhaps it was inoperative.

About the year 1280, Richard de Soggedon for the souls'-health of himself and Alia his wife gave, for the sustenance of two wax candles before the Altar of the Virgin, in Hagmon Abbey, a messuage and 4 acres in Cherleton. Witnesses,- Master John de Cherleton, Ralph de Cherleton, Richard de Bury, John de Appele, Henry de Rodinton. [4]

We have seen one Robert de Cherlton attesting Uppington Deeds from about 1220 to 1265. He further appears on Juries of 1243, 1246, 1249, 1258, 1259, 1260, and 1262.
[5] It is doubtful whether he was not the same person with one who in several instances is called "Robert son of William de Cherlton". [6] He left as it seems two sons.-

About the year 1280 Richard son of Robert de Cherleton gives to Robert his brother, certain rents in Aston (under Wrekin) which were clearly held of Shrewsbury Abbey. He also gives him a certain meadow (called Radulph's meadow) in the field of Cherleton, towards Ukiton. [7] This too I conceive to have been held of Shrewsbury Abbey, but I infer that the Grantor was a different person from the Richard de Cherlton of 1248-1274, whose Deed above-quoted, must have divested him of all interest in Charlton.

[1] Assizes, 40 Hen. III., m. 7.
[2] [3] Salop Chartulary, Nos. 126, 127.
[4] Haughmond Chartulary, fo. 48. The Deed mentions Master John de Cherleton, Richard Withinde, and Richard de Bury, as adjoining Landholders, and Walcote, Hokynton, Moneslowe, Le Lee, and Caldewalhul, as near localities.
[5] Supra, Vol. VII. pp. 187-190, passim.
[6] Ibidem, p. 168 bis.
[7] Wombridge Chartulary, Tit. Upinton, No. cli.


In 1294 Alicia de Charleton, daughter of Richard son of Robert (de Charlton) demises for four years to Gilian, daughter of Richard le Knave and to Margery, Alicia's own sister, a parcel of land near the said Gilian's house. Witnesses,- Robert de Charleton, John de Pirhull, Robert de Forton, Adam Bernehoud, Robert Yve. [1]

ROBERT DE CHERLTON, whom I take to have been son of Robert, and Grandson of William, and Grantee of his brother Richard, as above stated, occurs on Juries of 1288, 1285, and 1293, and as a witness of Deeds about 7 years later.

This Robert was probably the father of John de Cherlton of Powis, of Alan de Cherlton of Apley, and of Thomas de Cherlton, Bishop of Hereford. Certain at least it is that John de Cherlton succeeded to the tenancy under Shrewsbury Abbey and built Charlton Castle thereon.

In what I shall now say of this illustrious personage I shall be specially careful to trace his history as a Tenant of Shrewsbury Abbey. One document of the year 1306 names him, while as yet he was not a knight, and before his future Patron, King Edward II., had ascended the throne.

"William Fraunceys of Cherleton concedes to Richard Bernehoud of Cherleton an acre in the fields towards Walcote, upon Sundornehull, to hold from Michaelmas 1306, till six crops should have been taken therefrom". The premises were bounded by lands of John de Cherleton and Michael de Laueley. "The Grantor also concedes another acre towards La Lee, for three crops, at a rent of one Rose. Witnesses,- Adam Bernehoud, Alan le Pokere, John de Pyrhull, Robert fitz Roger, and Adam Pyrum". [2]

The next deed, dated at Cherleton on Wednesday, Sept. 18, 1308, marks well the growing importance of John de Cherleton.-

"William Fraunceis of Cherleton gives to Roger le Monck of Salop and Juliana his wife, for a sum of money, one messuage, together with all his land of Cherleton, to hold of the Lords of the Fee". The messuage is described as lying between the land of Sir John de Cherleton, Knight, and the tenement which belonged to the Church of St. Mary, Salop. The Deed was attested by John de la Leye, Adam Bernehoud, Richard Bernehoud, Alan le Pokere, Thomas le Fox, William de la Baillie of Salop, John de Rodinton, and Thomas de Wythinton. [3] Parallel with this local evidence of John de Cherlton's advancement we have the evidence of national Records.-

I have noticed in a former Volume how Edward II., not yet

[1] Newport Evidences.
[2] [3] Deeds in possession of Mr. George Morris.


three months on the throne, speaks of one John de Cherlton as dilectus valettus noster and gives him a Charter of Free Warren in all his demesne lands at Cherlton and Pontesbury, in the County of Salop. [1] This was on September 18, 1307. On June 25, 1309, Griffin ap Owen, Prince of Powis, was deceased, without issue; and on Aug. 26, John de Cherlton, having by license and gift of the King, married Hawyse, sister and heir of the said Griffin, had livery of the Barony of Pole, saving the dower of Ela, widow of the deceased Griffin. [2] In February 1309, that is before his greater elevation, we find John de Cherlton, though resident at Dublin, purchasing land at Haughton near Shiffnal. In August of the same year his estate at Haughton is increased or secured by a second Deed; and on September 15 following, being at Shrewsbury, he entails his Haughton purchase on his brother Alan and his bodily heirs, with remainder to himself and his heirs. [3] On November 17, 1316, John de Cherlton is empowered by Patent to crenellate, or embattle, and to surround with a stone wall, his mansion at Cherlton. On Sept. 14, 1325, another Patent enables him to fortify his house at Shrewsbury [4] with battlements and a wall of stone. In 1337, being appointed Justice of Ireland, he landed there on Tuesday, October 14, accompanied by his brother Thomas. The latter having been previously a Canon of York, Archdeacon of Wells and Northumberland, and King's Treasurer, had been consecrated Bishop of Hereford on Oct. 18, 1327, and was now Chancellor of Ireland. He died on January 11, 1344, and was buried in Hereford Cathedral.

The Inquest on the death of John de Cherleton himself was ordered by Writ of December 24, 1353, and was held at Welsh Pool on January 3, 1354. By a Fine, previously levied, the lands and tenements which he had held at Cherleton, under the Abbot of Shrewsbury by service of 6s. 8d. per annum, were his for life only; that is, he had entailed them. They consisted of a carucate of poor land, and of a messuage which was worth nothing beyond its expenses. [5] Such was the description of Charlton Castle, before it had stood forty years.

John de Cherleton (II), son and heir of the above, was deceased on August 30, 1360. An Inquest, held at Welsh Pool, on Sept. 7

[1] Supra, Vol. VII. p. 134.
[2] Rot. Finium, 9 Edw. II., m. 14.
[3] Supra, Vol. 31. p. 324.
[4] Charlton Hall, the hostel or town-house of the Lords of Powis, was on the site now occupied by Shrewsbury Theatre. (See Blakeway's Sheriff's, p. 48).
[5] Inquis. 27 Edw., III. No. 70.


following, found him to have held certain lands and tenements at Cherleton under the Abbot of Shrewsbury, by a rent of 6s. 8d. They had been settled by Fine on the heirs of his body. They consisted of a messuage, worth nothing beyond its cost;- a garden, the fruits of which were worth 1s., and the summer herbage whereof was worth 6d. per annum;- of a carucate of poor land worth 20s., and of 2 acres of meadow worth 4s. per annum. John, son and heir of the deceased, was 26 years of age at Easter (April 5) 1360. [1]

"John de Cherleton de Powys", as the third John de Cherleton was styled, died on July 13, 1374. [2]- I shall here say no more of him than that he transmitted Charlton Castle to many generations of his heirs, and that John de Cherleton (IV.), his eldest son, [3] was born on April 25, 1362, and was consequently in minority at his father's death.

I now follow to its conclusion the history of the Abbot of Shrewsbury's seigneury over the Barons of Powis, in respect of Charlton.-

A Rent-Roll of Shrewsbury Abbey, about 1490, gives only two items of receipt from Charlton, amounting to 2s. It also gives 13s. 4d. as received from one Dycher "for the ferme at Recarden", but I doubt what Abbatial estate was thus alluded to.

The Valor of 1534 declares the Abbot's receipts from Chorleton to be 2. 4s. 4d. However an Account of the Assets of the Dissolved Abbey names only 19s. receipts, viz. 17s. from lands in Chorleton, and 2s. for the "free rent of the Lord Powis for lands in Chorleton". So then the Baron Grey de Powis was Tenant of the Abbot of Shrewsbury's land, just as his Ancestors the Barons Cherlton of Powis had been two centuries before, though the services were altered from 6s. 8d. to 2s.

ST. MARY'S AND ST. JULIAN'S FEE. We have seen that William de Cherlton, alias William de la Curt, alias William de Buri, alias William de Uppington, who died in 1243, held one virgate in Cherlton of the Church of St. Mary, and at a rent of 1s. [4] I have traced both his Ancestors and Descendants under Uppington. It does not appear that the latter retained their estate in Charlton, but how they parted with it, I know not. I think however that it was far less than the whole of St. Mary's and St. Julian's Fee.

[1] Inquis. 34 Edw. III., No. 79.
[2] Inquis. 48 Edw. III., No. 19.
[3] The accounts which give only three John de Cherletons in succession are, so far, inaccurate. The error consists in making but one person of the second and third Barons. I have not seen it corrected in any genealogical work as yet published.
[4] Supra, Vol. VIII. p. 178.


Two cotemporaries of the name of Cherlton here deserve a brief notice, viz.-

(1) Alan son of Yvo de Cherlton who occurs as a witness from about 1241 to about 1253, and as a Juror in 1243 and 1246. About the year 1245, Alan son of Yvo de Cherlton gives to Hamo de Alderiscot (late Servant of Master John Bacon), for his homage and service and for 18s. paid, 4 acres of his land in that field of Cherlton towards Uppington, which is called Hauckershull, of which the first acre lies between Uppington Chapel and Charlton, and the fourth lies near to Watling street, to the North thereof and extends towards Uckington. Rent one penny. Witnesses,- Sir Hugh fitz Robert, Knight, William de Erkalewe, knight, Robert de Cherleton. [1]

(2) John Clerk, or John Clerk of Cherlton, attests Deeds in and shortly before the year 1241, and in 1248 is called John de Cherlton. [2] It is this person, I presume, who occurs on the Assize-Roll of 1272 as John son of Adam de Cherlton and as Replevyer on behalf of one Stephen de Rushton. This would make him of the Uppington branch. One of the above two persons, as I should suppose, was father of that Master John de Cherlton, whom I have put down in my list of Rectors of Wrockwardine as living from 1260 to 1320. I have something now to add about Master John de Cherlton in his lay capacity.

In Michaelmas Term 1266 and Hilary Term 1267, Matilda, widow of Madoc de Milnehethe was suing John de Cherlton for half a virgate in Cherlton, which she claimed as her right. The result does not appear.

At the Assizes of 1272, Petronilla, widow of Robert de Day, neglected to prosecute a suit de ingressu against John the Clerk (John de Cherlton, I presume), and Robert de Horsleg, concerning a tenement in Cherlton. Her Surety was Thomas le Hore of Aston.

The Feodary of 1284, says that Master John de Cherlton holds the vill of Cherleton under the Churches of St. Mary and St. Julian at Shrewsbury, Chapels of the King, and pays 16s. per annum in lieu of all services. The nearly cotemporary Tenure-Roll of Bradford Hundreds repeats the statement, almost verbatim.

In 1309, we have Master John de Cherlton acting as Attorney for Sir John de Cherlton (of Powys), in respect of a purchase at Haughton

In November 1316, Master John de Cherlton appears with

[1] Wombridge Chart., Upinton, No. x.
[2] Supra, Vol. VII. pp. 164, 169, 176.
[3] In possession of the Author.
[4] Supra, Vol. II. p. 324.


Master Thomas de Cherlton (afterward Bishop of Hereford) in King Edward II's Court at York. Both were officially concerned in expediting certain Patents of that date. Their joint appearance perhaps points to some affinity between the two families, beyond that of mere neighbourhood or acquaintance.

On December 21, 1319, Master John de Cherleton stands first witness of a Deed whereby "Richard Bernehout of Cherleton gives to Henry de Adbaston (Admaston) a seilion of his land in that field of Cherleton which is called the Lefield, [1] and which lies above Wehthull, [2] and extends above the furrow (foruram) of John Rossell;- to hold of the Lords of the Fee". The other witnesses are Roger de Mokeleye, Wyoth, Alan le Poer, and Richard del Buri of Uppington. The Deed is dated at Cherleton. [3]

CHARLTON CHAPEL. This probably was a private Chapel, sometime attached to Charlton Castle. On October 29, 1341, Sir John de Cherlton obtained an Episcopal license, empowering him "to cause divine services to be celebrated in the Chapel of his Manor of Cherlton, from December 23, 1341, for one year following". [4]


Henry II. granted Allscot Mill to Haughmond Abbey in a Deed which probably passed late in the year 1176.- Henricus Del gratia Rex Angliae, Dux Normanniae et Aquitanie, Comes Andegaviae, Archiepiscopis, Episcopis, etc. salutem. Sciatis me concessisse et confirmasse Abbatiae de Haghmon, pro salute mea et successorum, molendinum de Worochewurthin, quod est apud Aldedriscotam, cum multura et omnibus pertinentiis, sicut illud habebam in domino meo. Quare volo, etc. sicut illud eis concessi et dedi et sicut haec carta mea testatur. Testibus, Ricardo de Luci; Willielmo filio Adelini dapifero; Hugone de Laci; Roberto Marmion; Willielmo Malveisin; Sechero de Quinci; Waltero de Dunstanville; Gerardo de Camvill; Willielmo filio Radulfi; Widone Extraneo. Apud Salopesbir'. [5]

It is singular that the Pipe-Rolls take no cotemporary notice of the diminished value which the severance of Allscot Mill must have caused to the Manor of Wrockwardine. The deduction was never made till the fifth year of Richard I. (1193), when the following item appears as a set-off to the Sheriff's liabilities.- Et Canonicis de Hageman 40 sol. in molendino de Wrochwurdin.

[1] [2] The localities are still marked by the Lea-Book, and by Wheathill.
[3] Wombr. Chart. Upinton, No. ccxix.
[4] Regist. Northburgh, fo. 10, b.
[5] Cartae Antiq. P. 11. Compare supra, Vol. VII. pp. 292-3.


This abatement was allowed at the Exchequer without comment, then or afterwards. So Wrockwardine remained as a Manor of 12 reputed fiscal value, instead of 14 as before. It will be observed that below Allscot-Mill the Manor of Isombridge abuts on the Western bank of the River Tern. The Haghmon Canons had, previous to obtaining Allscot Mill, got the Fishery of Isombridge from William fitz Ulger. [1] Hugh fitz Robert (William fitz Ulger's grandson) quitclaimed the gift of his said Grandfather, calling it the "Fishery of Retheresford".

The said Hugh, for a sum of 8 merks, further empowered the Canons of Haghmon to make good all breaches or fractures then or afterwards existing, in his land along his bank of Tirne, as the said bank extended from the "old fishery of Retheresforde to Aldredscote Mill". [2]

About the year 1235, the Abbot of Haghmon gives to the Church of Wrockwardine 4 acres pertaining to Allscot-Mill held by Radulf the Provost. The Rector of Wrockwardine in return empowers the Abbot to "take turves and soil from Gretholers Moor, to repair the stank of Allscot-Mill". [3]

The Taxation of 1291, values the Abbot of Haghmon's Mill of Alderescote at 4s. per annum. In subsequent Valuations, this item is probably included in the Abbot's receipts from Walcot.

It would seem that Master John Bacon was at one time a Feoffee in Allscot. A Wombridge Charter, already set forth, speaks of one Hamo as being then a "Client of Master John Bacon at Aldrescote". [4] This was about 1238. The same Hamo is in other Deeds, earlier than, or passing in, 1241, called merely Serviens or Cliens of Master John Bacon. I know nothing more of John Bacon than what belongs to a period long antecedent. In July 1221, being called "Clerk of the Lord Legate" (some Papal Legate, I presume), he was Custos of the lands of Shrewsbury Abbey during a vacancy. [5]

His servant or Client at Allscot was perhaps a sort of Steward. He was a frequent Grantee of lands in Uppington, but such grants as seem to be later than 1241, speak of him either as "formerly servant of John Bacon", or else as Hamo de Aldrescote. In 1249, as "Hamo de Aldreschot", he officiated on a local Jury. About the year 1262, as Hamund de Alderescote he conveyed all his acquisitions in Uppington to Wombridge Priory, viz. three nokes, which he

[1] Supra, Vol. VIII. pp. 265-6.
[2] [3] Haughmond Chartulary, fo. 5, b.
[4] Supra, Vol. VIII. p. 169.
[5] Rot. Claus. 5 Hen. III., m. 6.


had purchased from William Dod of Alvytheleg; 3 acres purchased from Alianore Mussun; 3 acres from Reginald Corbrond, one acre from Richard de Bruges, one acre from William Sybern, etc. Witnesses,- Sir Walter de Dunstanvill, Madoc de Sutton, John de Ercalew. [1]


I cannot limit the antiquity of date at which the Burnells may have had a feoffment in Admaston. Whether William fitz Alan's recognition of Wombridge Priory be as early as 1138 or as late as 1160, it is attested by William Burnel, [2] whose connection with the matter I cannot account for, unless he had some local interest. Any feoffment in Wrockwardine previous to 1155, would not appear on the Pipe-Rolls. Again, I cannot account for a later William Burnel being assessed in 1209, under "Regard of the Forest of Mount Gilbert", [3] unless he had land at Admaston.

We see Sir Hugh Burnel attesting a Deed of Robert le Strange's at least as early as 1275-6. [4]

In the Bradford Tenure-Roll (about 1285) Hugh Burnell is said to hold certain rents (the amount left blank) in Admaston, a member of Wrockwardine. Sir Hugh Burnell, brother of the Chancellor, and father of the Chancellor's heir, Philip, died in 1286, and the Escheator-citra-Trent was duly ordered to seize his lands. [5] I do not find any Inquest taken on his death. At the Assizes of 1292, the Bradford Jurors presented Sibil Burnel (his widow) for non-attendance. [6] They also presented how Sibil Burnel held 100s. rent in Ademonston, which was a member of the once Royal Manor of Wrocwardyn. To this Sibil appeared, and stated that she held nothing, save by will of Philip Burnel (her son), whose free tenement was thus in question. Philip (thus called to warranty) further called Nicholas de Gamages of Gloucestershire. He was to produce the said Nicholas at Lichfield in January 1298; but the Sheriff of Gloucestershire neglected his duty, and the cause was again adjourned. [7] I neither know the result nor can I divine what Nicholas de Gamages can have had to do with the matter, except perhaps as a Trustee.

[1] Wombridge Chartulary, Tit. Uppinton, No. lxxvi.
[2] [3] Supra, Vol. VII. p. 363; Vol. VI. p. 123.
[4] Supra, page 25.
[5] Originalia, Vol. I. p. 51.
[6] [7] Plac. Comm, 20 Edw. I., m. 14 dorso; Quo Waranto, pp. 676, 720. In the last entry, Ademoneston is most erroneously stated to be in Herefordshire.


I can say nothing further of the Burnel interest in Admaston. [1]


The first tenant of this member of Wrockwardine was perhaps Walter de Clotley, who has been seen to attest a Tibberton Deed between 1175 and 1180.

At the Assizes of 1203, Richard fitz Ralph and Alan de Clotley accorded a previous dispute. Alan was to take down a fence which he had erected to the injury of Richard fitz Ralph's tenement in Clotley. He was also to become Richard's tenant (homo) in respect of half a virgate of land and to pay him 10s. For leave to make this agreement Alan fined half a merk, his Surety being Walter de Witefeld. [2] From this we may venture to put down Richard fitz Ralph as second known Lord of Clotley.

Of Henry de Clotley, occurring about 1237, of his probable identity with Henry de Burton, and of his daughter Felicia I have spoken under Uppington. [3] His tenure in Clotley was not, I think, the principal one, for cotemporary with him was one Robert de Clotley.

This Robert attests a Charter of John le Strange about 1235, and occurs as a Juror or a witness from thence till about 1250, but specifically in 1243 and 1249. After Robert, one Ralph de Clotley occurs, viz. on Juries of 1256 and 1260. John de Clotley was Juror on a Rodington Inquest in January 1274.

The Tenure-Roll of 1285 brings up another Ralph de Clotley, fully stated to be holding Clotley, a member of Wrockwardine, under John le Strange. Ralph was living in 1300.

The tenement which the Erletons held in Clotley has been noticed elsewhere. [4] It was under the Church of Wroxeter, not under the Lords of Wrockwardine. On this exceptional matter I have no further evidence. Nor yet can I tell how Shrewsbury Abbey obtained any footing in Clotley; but in the Rent-Roll of 1490, a rent of 6d. was receivable by the Abbey from Mayster Clode (Mr. Chidde) for something in Clotleyn. [5]

[1] The Inquisition of 22 Edw. I. on Philip Burnel's death (according to the Calendar, Vol. I. p. 120) contained this item.- Wrockwardiae Cur' sect'. It is very possible that the deceased had owed suit to Wrockwardine for Admaston; but the original Inquest speaks only of suit due to Shrawardine for Sugdon.
[2] Assizes, 5 John, m. 6.
[3] Supra, Vol. VIII. p. 173.
[4] Supra, Vol. VIII. pp. 277, 278.
[5] Hist. Shrewsbury, IL 508.



WHILE Earl Roger seized upon Wrockwardine as a demesne-manor of the Saxon Kings, he also appropriated Wellington and High Ercall as demesne-manors of the Saxon Earls. Domesday says- "The Earl himself holds Walitone. Earl Eduin held it with five Berewicks. Here are XIIII hides, geldable. In demesne are VI ox-teams; and XII Neat-herds, XII Villains, and VIII Boors, with a Priest, have IX Teams; and there might be other IX Teams Here is a Mill of 12s. (annual value) and two Fisheries of 8s. In King Edward's time the Manor was worth 20 (per annum). Now it is worth 18". [1]

The earliest severance of any member of Wellington was that of Dawley, presumed to have been one of its Saxon Berewicks, but given by Earl Roger himself to William Pantulf. This took place before Domesday, and is certified in that Record, as we have already seen, when treating of Dawley as a distinct Manor. [2]

The next alienation was that of three carucates of land at Walcot and of Walcot Mill to Haughmond Abbey. This was in or before 1141, the Rival Donors being the Empress Maud and King Stephen.

The next, or rather a cotemporary, alienation, was also by the Empress, who about 1141 gave Aston, a member of Wellington, to Shrewsbury Abbey. Henry II., while yet only a claimant of the Crown, gave 7 librates of land in "his Manor of Wellington" to Hamo le Strange, but, as we shall see under Cheswardine, the grant was commuted at the Restoration.

Hence Wellington came to the hands of Henry II. as a Manor of Royal Demesne whose gross fiscal value was 18. 11s. 4d. per annum, but whose net value was 6. 11s. 4d. in consequence of his instant recognition of the Abbot of Haughmond's claim to Walcot (valued at 8. 11s. 4d.), and of the Abbot of Shrewsbury's claim to Aston (valued at 3. 8s. 8d.).

In the year 1167, Henry II., after eleven years' acquiescence, seems to have disallowed the alienation of Aston, but in 1190 in consequence of a different view taken by Richard I., the Abbot of Shrewsbury regained the vill; but its fiscal value was thenceforth put at 3 only. The relative changes in the value of the Manor of Wellington will

[1] Domesday, fo. 253, b, 2.
[2] Supra, Vol VII. p. 287.


be apparent without further remark. It remained a Manor of 7 net annual value. Meanwhile, for the quarter ending Michaelmas 1177, the Sheriff was ordered by Writ Royal to assign lands, lessening by a sum of 4 the revenues of Wellington and Edgmond, to Simon fitz Simon, who was Custos of Stretton Castle. The full allowance of 16 per annum was made out to the same person from 1178 to 1189 inclusive. Then his tenure ceased.

During the twelve years in which he was thus interested in Wellington, Symon fitz Symon appears to have had the power of granting sub-feoffments. One such is preserved in the Shrewsbury Chartulary. He gives to Thomas fitz Geoffrey and his heirs, for their service and for a rent of 6s., a virgate in the vill of Beitune sub Wreken. [1] Witnesses,- Robert, Monk; John fitz Symon; Walter de Meintone; Walter de Appel'; Walter fitz Hugh; William Wyard; Hemming de Dotrel (probably Dothill); Heyluiet de Eston; William de Herdulveston (Arleston); John de Appel'; Richard, Priest; Philip de Welintone; and Master Ralph de Malling, "who wrote this Charter". [2]

On the Forest-Roll of 1180, Simon fitz Simon stands assessed at 13s. for imbladements, viz. 10 acres of wheat and 6 acres of oats (in the Forest of Mount Gilbert probably).

Simon fitz Simon, Castellon of Stretton, seems to have left Wellington and Edgmond somewhat impoverished in respect of manorial stock. In the years ending Michaelmas 1190 and 1191, and in the half-year ending Easter 1192, the Sheriff accounted for the ferm of those Manors in a way which shows that they realized 50s. per annum less than they ought. This was from the default of their stock, as left by Simon fitz Simon. [3]

But about Easter 1192, 20 librates of land in Stretton, Edgmond, and Wellington were assigned to William fitz Simon and James his brother, by Writ Royal. They were, I suppose, sons of Simon fitz Simon. They received a reputed income of 40 in this way, for the King's order was suspended after Easter 1194.-

Then Wian son of Jonas de Powis had the King's mandate for 7 librates of land, in Wellington only. He thus received 3. 10s. in 1194, 7 in each of the years 1195, 1196, and 1197, and 3. 10s. for the half-year ending Easter 1198. At Michaelmas 1198, the Sheriff again claims a deduction of 50s. for default of stock at Wellington and Edgmond. The accounts of 1198 are repeated in

[1] This vill is now lost. It was probably contiguous to Aston-under-Wrekin.
[2] Shrewsbury Chartulary, No. 301, b.
[3] Compare Vol. III. (supra), pp. 67-69.


1199; but, in 1200, Wian fitz Jonas again received his full yearly income of 7 from Wellington, though 50s. were expended on default of stock in Wellington and Edgmond. This continued till 1209 inclusive; but in 1210 only eight months' proportion of such revenue (viz. 4. 13s. 4d.) is assigned to Wion fitz Jonas, whose interest therefore ceased in May 1210.

Meantime, that is in 1204, I find Wianus Walensis (as he is called) assessed 6 merks to the fifth Scutage of King John. His liability doubtless arose from his tenure-in-capite at Wellington. Of him, as sometime Lord of Overton (Flintshire), I shall have to say more when I come to the history of the Borders.

About Midsummer 1210 Thomas de Erdington appears to have obtained a fee-farm grant of Wellington from King John. About Midsummer 1211 the fee-farm grant was changed into a more absolute one, viz. to support the Grantee in the King's service. Hence at Michaelmas 1212 the Sheriff holds Thomas de Erdington responsible for that 7 which was the year's fiscal value of the Manor whilst the said Thomas held it in fee-farm (de ballivo Regis); but as to the 8. 15s., or fifteen months' revenue which had still to be accounted for, he writes off that sum as absolutely given to Erdington and no longer chargeable on himself. He certifies further that the whole fiscal value of Wellington (7) was henceforth to be similarly made over to Erdington, according to a gift and charter of the King.

This is minutely consistent with a Roll of Shropshire Tenures which I have always quoted as having been returnable on June 25, 1211. The entry now pertinent is-

Thomas de Erdinton tenet manerium de Welinton de Ballivo domini Regis Johannis et solet reddere ad scaccarium 7.
[1] In other words, the entry was made just before that period when the Pipe-Rolls teach us that Erdington's responsibility to the Exchequer was waived by the King.

Another point of comparative dates is not so satisfactory. King John's second Charter to Erdington is extant, but it bears date, not before Michaelmas 1212 (as the Pipe-Roll would lead us to expect), but on November 3, 1212. The inference is either that the Pipe-Rolls, though they contain monetary accounts down to Michaelmas, were sometimes made up at a later date, or else that King John expedited two Charters to Erdington, the latest of which only is enrolled. The Charter, such as we have it, gives Welinton to

[1] Testa de Nevill, p. 56.


Erdinton and his heirs, to hold in capite by service of a knight's fee; also Saghebiry (Shawbury),- to hold by a like service; with all franchises and free customs. [1]

After this we ordinarily find Wellington discharged from the Corpus Comitatus, as seven librates of land, for which the Sheriff was no longer accountable; but I think Egidius de Erdinton (son and heir of Thomas) is first written as the recipient in 1229.

It is further observable that Wellington was assessed to no King's-tallage after 1199. [2] This may be partly explained by what has been said above; but I cannot explain why Erdinton and his successors, as Tenants in capite of Wellington and Shawbury, were never assessed to scutages proportionate to two knights'-fees. [3]

At the Assizes of 1221 a curious cause was heard. Elena, daughter of Lewellyn, Prince of Wales, had obtained possession of Wellington, alleging a gift of the Manor by a certain Wyandus (Wian fitz Jonas is meant), to whom the King (Henry III.) and his Council had committed it. Now Giles de Erdinton, though a Minor, sued Elena for the Manor under Writ of mort d'ancestre, viz. as heir of his father, Thomas. Ostricius, Lewellyn's Clerk, defended Elena's title as above, and called the King's Council to warranty. To this Giles de Erdinton rejoined, that Wyandus had never had seizin of the Manor since Thomas de Erdinton's death (in 1218). The case was adjourned, till the Justiciars should confer with the King and his Council, in Hilary Term at Westminster. [4]

I have further notices of this Suit in Trinity Term 1222 when Peter de Eyton was the only Recognizor in attendance;- in Michaelmas Term 1224, when Elen ap Lewellyn and her husband (John de Stok) are associated as Defendants;- in Hilary, Trinity, and Michaelmas Terms 1225, when the cause was again adjourned;- and in Easter Term 1226, when it was sent back to the Country for the adjudication of Justices Itinerant, who were to determine it, whether Elena appeared or not, she having made repeated defaults. On this last occasion Thomas de Constantine and Peter de Eyton were the only Recognizors who appeared at Westminster. There can be no doubt that Giles de Erdinton obtained recognition of his rights before 1229, and probably on the true ground, viz. that Wian de Powis's seizin was an old affair, long since obliterated by the feoffment of Thomas de Erdinton, who had undoubtedly died in possession of the Manor.

[1] Rot. Chartarum, p. 189.
[2] Supra, Vol. VI. p. 11.
[3] Vide supra, Vol. VIII. p. 241.
[4] Assize-Roll, 6 Hen. III., m. 3 dorso.


In 1244 (as we have seen under Shawbury [1]) Giles de Erdinton obtained a Charter for a Fair and Market at Wellington.

The Bradford Hundred-Roll of 1255 speaks as follows of Wellington.- "Egidius de Herdinton holds Wellinton with its appurtenances;- a free Manor, which King John gave to Thomas de Herdinton, father of the said Egidius, to hold as freely as the King held it, and by the aforesaid service (alluding to the Knight's-fee by which Shawbury and Wellington had in the previous sentence been stated to be held). And the said Egidius is wont to have husbote and haybote de husseto (Query, de foresta ?), by delivery of the Seneschal, but the Jurors knew not by what warranty. And his (Egidius's) Seneschal comes twice a year, at the Sheriff's Tourn, to the Hundred Court, and (there) demands (to hold) his own free Court. And the same Egidius has Market and Fair at Welinton by Royal Charter". [2]

How Sir Hugh Burnel acquired Wellington from Giles de Erdinton, I have never been able to discover. On June 1, 1283, the said Sir Hugh obtained a Charter, enabling him to hold a market here on Thursdays, and two annual Fairs on the vigil, day, and morrow of St. Barnabas (June 10, 11, and 12), and the vigil, day, and morrow of the Decollation of John Baptist (August 28, 29, and 30). [3] It will be observed that this Charter was partly in renewal, partly in augmentation, of that previously obtained by Erdinton. I infer that an Assignee or Purchaser, such as I take Burnel to have been, was not legally entitled to avail himself of privileges granted merely to Erdinton and his heirs. However, in some later cases of Quo Waranto, the Crown Lawyers did not succeed in establishing such a distinction.

On April 8 and May 12, 1284, an Inquest was ordered and held, as to Hugh Burnell's right to take oak-timber, and as to the right of his Tenants at Wellington and Ardelfeston (Arleston) to take estovers and common pasture, from and in the Haye of Wellington. [4] The Jurors found that Thomas de Erdinton, King John's Grantee, as well as his men, had enjoyed the privileges in question. They added a piece of history not elsewhere, as I think, related, viz. that John gave Wellington to Erdinton in reward for the services rendered by the latter in the Court of Rome at the time of the Interdict. The Jurors further pointed out that Roger de Clifford, Justice of the Forest, was the first who had abridged these franchises,

[1] Supra, Vol. VIII. p. 142.
[2] Rot. Hundred. II. 56.
[3] Rot. Chart. 11 Edw. I., m. 4.
[4] Inquisitions, 12 Edw. I., No. 88.


viz. by a precept issued to John fitz Hugh (of Bolas), who, acting thereon, had restrained Hugh Burnel, now Lord of Wellington, from exercising the said franchises. Finally the Jurors notified that, at the time of King John's gift, there were only 14 hearths in Wellington and 24 hearths in Ardelfeston.

So then in John's reign Arleston, the member, was a more populous place than Wellington, the caput. The increase in one of the two, or both places, but probably in Wellington, within a century, is implied by the very nature of the Jurors' remark.

It is singular that the Feodaries of 1284-5 take no notice of Wellington. On Hugh Burnell's death in 1286 Wellington and Eudon Burnell were assigned as the dower of his widow, Sibil. In the year 1305-6 I find both Manors in the Escheator's hands, because Sibil Burnel was dead, and Edward, her grandson and heir, was in ward to the Crown. The year's revenue of the two Manors was 30. [1]

I suppose that Philip Burnel's Widow had in turn her dower in Wellington; for Edward Burnel at his death in 1315 was seized of only two parts of the Manor. He further was in receipt of 25s. 0d. rent, from 12 free tenants, and of 59s. rent, from eight customary tenants in the vill of Ardeleston. [2]

In the Nomina Villarum of March 1316, John de Hanlowe (as husband of Maud Burnel) is entered as Lord of Welinton, [3] but an Escheator's Roll, which just preceded Hanlowe's livery, shows that only two parts of Welynton and Ardelfeston had as yet fallen to Edward Burners heir. [4]

SOME UNDERTENANTS of Wellington Will appear in connection with the members of the Manor. Others were as follows.-

Philip de Wellington occurs before 1189 and after 1215; but possibly there were two cotemporaries, one a Clerk, the other a Layman. Philip de Wellington, if a single person, was a Clerk, and Rector of the Church; but he had a son Thomas. In the year 1200 Philip de Welinton fines one merk for license to make assart of some forest-land. By a Fine levied on November 19, 1286, Egidius de Erdinton, Plaintiff, in a suit of mort d'ancestre against Thomas fitz Philip, Tenant, of a virgate in Welinton, concedes the same for a sum of 100s. to be held in fee, by Thomas and his heirs, under Egidius and his heirs at a rent of 6s. The Feoffee here is doubtless identical with that Thomas de Welintun who has been

[1] Rot. Forinsec. 33-4, Edw. I.
[2] Inquis. 9 Edw. II,, No. 67.
[3] Parliamentary Writs, IV. 397.
[4] Transcript, in Kirby's Quest.


seen to attest an Orleton Deed in 1248, and who occurs on local Inquests in 1248, 1258, and 1260.

In 1262 I should suppose him to have been deceased, for, on the Forest-Roll of that date, his name appears under the heading Essonia Mortis, the Essoignor being Roger fitz William.

About the year 1280, Henry Prior of Wombridge grants to Richard son of Hugh de Loskesford (Losford) that virgate in the vill of Valeton which Seeburga mother of Alan de Hadley had given to the Priory. Rent, a pound of cummin or 6d. In exchange, Richard gives to the Priory his Mill in the Manor of Chelwordin (Cheswardine) at a rent of 10s. The Priory is also to pay a further rent of 8s. which Richard would hand over to the Abbot of Haughmond, under whom the said Mill was held. Besides it was agreed that if Richard had swine in the wood of Ercalew he should give one hog annually to the Priory. Witnesses,- Hugh fitz Robert, William de Hadley, Walter de Optun (Waters Upton), Philip de Peninton, Thomas de Hadley, Roger de Eppelee. [1]

At the Forest-Iter of 1262, the Justices assessed the men of the Manor of Wellington 20s. for license to get marl in the King's Haye there.

FORESTER'S FEE. This consisted of half a virgate of land in Wellington, held by serjeantry. The Tenant's duty was to take custody of Wellington-Haye, or that portion of the Wrekin Forest which is still marked by the locality called the Hay-Gate. This Serjeantry was probably established by one of the Norman Earls, or by Henry I.; for, if it had been endowed so late as the reign of Henry II., it would have worked a diminution of the manorial revenue of Wellington, which diminution the Sheriff must have noticed on the Pipe-Rolls. As to Stephen's dealings with Royal Manors they are out of the question, as having been annulled by his successor.

The first whom I can name as probable Tenant of this Serjeantry was-

Hugh Forester, whom we have seen attesting a Leegomery Deed, about 1187-97. [2] In or about the year 1200, the Tenant of the same Serjeantry was called-

Robert de Wellington. In the Caruage assessed at that time (as I have described it under Bolas [3]) Robert de Wolint' is enrolled as "holding a Serjeantry of the King, viz. half a virgate by custody

[1] Wombridge Chartulary, Tit. Wellington, No. iiij.
[2] Supra, Vol. VII, p. 341.
[3] Supra, Vol. VIII. p. 266.


and preserving of the King's Haye". Its value was 4s. per annum; and the Tenant proffered to compound for the current tax by payment of half a merk. [1]

At the Forest Assizes of 1209, Robert the Forester is one of those who was assessed for cultivation of land within the Forest of Mount Gilbert.

A Fragment of an Assize-Roll, belonging to the year 1227, calls the Wellington-Haye the Haye of Eyton, and enters Robert de Welinton as Custos thereof by Serjeantry. I think it must have been a second "Robert Forester of Wellington", who stands sixth Recognizor in that great technical question which was tried about the year 1242, by the Sheriff, Chief Forester, and Verderers of Shropshire, viz. the espeditation of dogs on the estates of Lilleshall Abbey.-

His seal is one of those which still remains appended to the Jurors' return. [2] It exhibits a rude cruciform device, and the Legend,- S' ROBERTI DE WELINTON.

In 1249, Robert Forester was a Juror on the Inquest which followed the death of his chief,- Hugh fitz Robert of Bolas.

In Geoffrey de Langley's arrentation of assarts (about January 1250) it appears that 4 acres of the King's demesne at Welinton had been assigned to Robert de Welinton, for which he was to pay an annual Crown-rent of 6s. 9d. Three years' arrears of this rent are charged in the Pipe-Roll of 1252.

The Hundred-Roll of 1255 describes the above acquisition of Robert Forester as "a pourpresture of 4 acres and 1 rood (read 2 roods), made since the eyre of John Bulet, and for which 18d. per acre, or a sum of 6s. 9d., was annually payable to the King".

As to the Serjeantry of Robert Forester of Welinton the same Record describes it as "half a virgate, held freely of the King, towards the custody of Wellington Haye". The customs of the said Haye are fully, but not very intelligibly, enumerated. The cattle (averia) of the men of Wellington were admitted throughout the year except in St. John Baptist's month (June) and between Michaelmas and Martinmas The charges for pannage were 2d. for yearling swine, 1d. for swine six months old, but nothing for lesser swine (nichil pro porcellis). These exceptions and charges seem to be justified by the Record, as arising from the "imparkment of the said haye, both in grass-time and pesson-time". The following perquisites were Robert Forester's, viz. the retropannage (by which

[1] Testa de Nevill, p. 57.
[2] The Original, at Trentham.


I understand what was left after the pesson season), the dead wood, and all windfalls (boughs or whole oak-trees), unless more than five oaks were blown down at a time. In that case the surplus went to the King. Two burnings of lime are further mentioned as having recently taken place in Wellington Haye. The lime was for use of the Crown; and the quantity may be imagined from the number of oak trees (500), stated to have been consumed in the operation. Recent Sales of 52 oak-trees and of eight shillings' worth of sand (sablicii) from Wellington Haye, by the proper Officers, are likewise enumerated. [1]

In 1258 I find Robert de Welinton attending a Leegomery Inquest. At the Forest-Assizes of February 1262, Robert de Welinton, Forester, answered for the agistment of the Hayes of Welinton and Morf for eight preceding years. In 1255, 1256, 1258, 1259, 1260, and 1262, the pesson of the preceding Autumn had failed. The two remaining years (1257 and 1261) only yielded 19s. 3d.

Robert de Welinton, one of the five Foresters-of-the-fee for Shropshire, is so entitled, when attending an Inquest at Bridgnorth in 1262.

It is very remarkable that a Writ issued on June 28, 1278, announcing the death of Roger le Forester of Wellyngton, and that a Jury sat in consequence and took no notice of the error of the Writ as regarded the Christian name of the deceased. The Jurors found the said Roger to have held a messuage, a nokate, and an assart in capite, by service of keeping the haye of Wellington, which was within the Forest of the Wrekene. Roger his son and heir was 25 years of age on July 25, 1278. [2]

In consequence I presume of more than one error in this Inquest another Writ of Diem clausit issued on August 24, 1279. Here the deceased is called Robert le Forester. An Inquest taken at Wellington on Sept. 29, 1279, found him to have held a half-virgate in Wellington, worth 8s. per annum, "by service of assisting to keep the bailiwick of the Forest of Mount Gilbert", also to have held one assart, for which he paid a rent of 8s. 4d. to the Sheriff. Roger his son and heir was again found to be of full age. [3]

Roger fitz Robert de Welinton was deceased on December 12, 1288, and John fitz Hugh of Bolas was claiming custody of his heirs, as also of the heirs of any other Bailiff of a Shropshire Forest. Roger le Strange, then Justice of the Forest, was desired by Writ Royal to inquire into this claim. He assembled a Jury

[1] Rot. Hundred, II. 56.
[2] Inquisitions, 6 Edw. I., No. 108; 7 Edw. I., No. 78.


on April 8, 1284, which found that "Wardship of the Bailiwick, late Roger fitz Robert's, in La Wrekene, did not pertain to the King, but to John fitz Hugh, till the heir should be of age; that John fitz Hugh's ancestors had always had such wardship; and that it was worth 10s. per annum". [1]

It is curious here to mark the sequence of events. John fitz Hugh died in July following. On August 5, 1284, the King accepted the homage of Hugh fitz John, his heir; and yet on May 14, 1285, the King issued a Writ of Diem clausit announcing the (long previous) decease of Roger le Forester of Welinton. A Jury, which met July 4, 1285, found that the deceased had held a half-virgate and seven small assarts in capite. He had been Custos of the bailiwick of Wellington Haye and had paid a Crown-rent of 6s. 8d. His whole estate was valued at 18s. 4d. per annum. His son and heir, Roger, was found to have attained his majority on May 8, 1285. [2]

At the Assizes of 1292 the Bradford Jurors presented the state of Robert le Forester's Serjeantry; how it was worth 10s. per annum. Jacob de Morton now held a messuage in Wellington, worth 3s. per annum, and which had been alienated from this Serjeantry. The Court Ordered the seizure of this tenement in consequence of Jacob de Morton not appearing to give account of his possession thereof.

Of six Royal Foresters-of-the-fee who met on June 6, 1300, to assist at the Great Perambulation of Shropshire Forests, Roger de Welinton was one. This Roger, whom we may call Roger le Forester (II.), appears to have been admitted a Burgess of Shrewsbury in 1319. When he died I know not, but it was while his son and heir was in minority; for an Inquest was held at Wellington on October 17, 1335, to prove the age of-

"John, son and heir of Roger le Forester of Welynton". The Jurors found the said John to have been born and baptized at Wellington on the Feast of St. Margaret the Virgin, 8 Edward II. (July 20, 1314); consequently that he had attained his full age on Thursday, July 20, 1335.

[1] Inquisitions, 12 Edw. I., No. 39.
[2] Inquis. 18 Edw. I., No. 2. This Inquest, when collated with a former one, would show Roger Forester (II.) to have been born when his father was not yet eleven years old. The error is doubtless in the former Inquest, which must have considerably understated the Father's age in 1278.
[3] Inquis. 9 Edw. III., No. 64. One of the witnesses who proved the date of John Forester's birth remembered it because it was on the same day that the Abbot of Shrewsbury presented his Sacristan, William, to Rodington Church.


For a further account of this family I refer elsewhere. [1]

There can be little doubt that the now ennobled House of Forester is descended from these ancient Tenants of the Crown, and that property near Wellington, which is or was in the possession of the present Lord Forester, included the very half-virgate of which I have said so much. This topographical fact will become more apparent when we shall have to trace the boundaries of Wellington Haye.


The Domesday mention of a Priest, resident at Wellington, indicates the coexistence of a Church. Earl Roger's Charter to Shrewsbury Abbey proves that within eight, perhaps within six, years after Domesday, he gave the said Church (called the Church of Woolkington) to Shrewsbury Abbey. The Grant was specifically confirmed by William Rufus, Henry I., Stephen, Henry II., and Henry III.

Earl Hugh's spurious Charter to Shrewsbury Abbey gives thereto the tithes of his demesne of Welinton. His less suspected Charter gives the whole tithes of his demesnes of Ardulveston (Arleston), and of Eston (Aston-under-Wrekin); and two-thirds of the tithes of his demesnes of Walington (Wellington), Hetleg (Hadley), and Walecote (Walcot).

Bishop Clinton inspects and confirms a Charter of Earl Hugh, conveying two-thirds of the demesne-tithes of Welinton, Hedley, and Walecote, and the whole demesne-tithes of one virgate in Erdulfeston, and of Eston. The same Prelate confirms to the Abbey the Church of Welintun with its Chapels, and its pension of 2 merks. Bishop Durdent's Confirmation specifies "the Church of Welinton with the tithe of the Manor and the tithe of Walecote, and the Chapels pertaining" (to Wellington Church). Bishop Peche's Confirmation specifies the tithes of Estone as tithes of the Shrewsbury Monks' own demesne (a matter very consistent with what we shall see in the history of Aston). As "tithes of others" the same Confirmation specifies two-thirds of the demesne-tithes of Wolinton and Wallecote. It also recognizes the pension of 2 merks, payable to the Abbey from Wellington Church.

Later Confirmations, Episcopal and Archiepiscopal, are but repetitions of one or other of the above. Wellington remained a Rectory, in the gift of Shrewsbury Abbey, and endowed with all great

[1] Sheriff's of Shropshire, p. 126.


[For engraving, see pdf.]


and small tithes of its Parish, except the demesne-tithes above specified, till the year 1232. Then did Alexander de Stavenby, Bishop of Lichfield, unite with Henry Abbot of Shrewsbury, in an unholy conspiracy. A parochial Church was to be looted, and the plunderers were to share the spoil: that is, half the gain was to increase the revenues of Shrewsbury Abbey, and half was to furnish forth a new Stall in the distant Cathedral of Lichfield.

Read by this light Bishop Stavenby's Charter, appropriating the Abbot's share of this Rectory, is a piece of consummate hypocrisy, and something worse. He premises how the Almighty had given him a place in his Church, to the end that he should pity and assist the indigent. He goes on to explain whom he means by the indigent. They are the Abbot and Monks of Shrewsbury, whose hospitality and penury (however inconsistent the two attributes appear to us) had attracted the Bishop's notice and claimed his aid. He gives them then half of all the garbs (i.e. corn-tithes) of the Church of Welynton under Mount Gilbert, and of the Chapels annexed to that Church, and of all its hamlets (villularum);- to hold for their proper uses. He also reserves to the Abbey its previous receipts in the said Parish, as already confirmed by his Predecessors. He reserves too for the uses of those perpetual Vicars who were henceforth to minister in the said Church, these things, viz. the small tithes, the altarage receipts, the arable glebe, the rents of those who held lands of the Church, the tithes of Mills, and all pensions of Chapels. The future Vicars were to be presented by the Abbey, and being instituted were to bear all Archidiaconal burdens. This Charter was expedited by hand of Philip, the Bishop's Chaplain, on July 1, 1232, and was attested by Master R. de Longedon his Official, Alexander Archdeacon of Salop, Master Ralph de Lacok, Master Alexander Blund, and others. [1]

William Prior of Coventry (in office 1249 and 1257) afterwards joined with his Convent, in sanctioning the above Appropriation. [2] William Dean of Lichfield, and his Chapter, concurred in sanctioning the same, in a Charter which passed on September 18, 1246. [3]

Nothing is here said about the Bishop's other motives, or how, obtaining the other moiety of the Great Tithes of Wellington as a reward of his complicity, he was enabled to found therewith the Prebend of Wellington in Lichfield Cathedral. Such however was the unwritten or unrecorded part of the original bargain.

On Feb. 23, 1248, Roger de Weseham, then Bishop of Lichfield,

[1] [2] Lichfield Register, A. fo. 14, b.
[3] Salop Chartulary, No. 69.


settled a dispute which had arisen between Adam (II.) Abbot of Salop and Roger de Corthover, Canon of Lichfield, about their shares of the tithes of Wellington. The Bishop first decrees that "Roger de Corthover be restored to his Prebend of Welintone", which is to comprise the following items, viz. half the tithes of 13 bovates of arable land in Aston, which were held in villainage under Shrewsbury Abbey; the hay-tithes to the same land belonging; the common-right to the said Prebend belonging; half the tithes of novalia brought into cultivation since Bishop Stavensby's Ordination, and of all novalia hereafter to be brought into cultivation in Wellington Parish. To the Abbey are reserved the following,- viz. the hay-tithes of Wellington Parish (generally);- the tithes of the Abbatial demesnes at Aston;- and two-thirds of all tithes of Hadley, Welinton, Erdleveston (Arleston), and Walcote. This settlement was made at Wombridge, in the presence of Richard Archdeacon of Chester, Henry de Wysawe the Bishop's Official, and several Clerks. [1]

The Taxation of 1291 values the Church of Welinton (in Salop Deanery) at 6 for the part of Shrewsbury Abbey, and at 2. 13s. 4d. for the Vicarage. [2] The Prebend of Welinton was valued at 10. [3]

The assessment of Wellington Parish to the ninth, in 1341, involves a complex blunder. The Assessors first quote the Church-Taxation as 9 merks (or 6. 13s. 4d.), a sum which tallies with nothing in Pope Nicholas's Valor. They then assess the Parish at 16 merks (10. 13s. 4d.) to the current tax, adding that such assessment was 7. 13s. 4d. in excess of the Taxation.
[4] I must leave this matter as it stands. It is only evident that when the Assessors quote the Church-Taxation as 9 merks, they were deceived in particulars, but knew well enough that such data did not afford a proper criterion for their assessment.

Among the receipts of Shrewsbury Abbey, given in the Valor of 1534-5, are the following.-

Income from a moiety of the tithes of Wellington 10.
Portion of tithes in Welyngton, Ardston, and Hadley 1. [5]

At the same time Nicholas Stokysby, Prebendary of Wellington, received 10 per annum in tithes and other emoluments. [6] As to the Vicarage, Alan Charleton, Incumbent thereof, received on an average 10 per annum, out of which he paid 5s. for synodals and 10s. for Procuration. [7]

[1] Salop Chartulary, No. 66.
[2] [3] Pope Nich. Taxation, 247, 246, 243.
[4] Inquis. Nonarum, p. 182.
[5] [6] [7] Valor Eccles. III. 189, 132, 185.



PHILIP DE WELINTON, Parson or Rector of this Church, occurs before 1189 and after 1215, unless there were a Layman, his co-temporary, from whom I cannot distinguish him.

SIR THOMAS LYART occurs between 1275 and 1285 as Perpetual Vicar of Wellington. He was perhaps also Rector of Preston. [1]

ALEXANDER, Vicar of Wellington, had letters of Protection in 25 Edw. I. (1296-7). [2]

PHILIP DE BYRITON, Priest, was instituted to this Vicarage July 25, 1302;- the Abbot and Convent of Salop presenting. On March 28, 1329, Philip, Vicar of Welynton, being worn out with age and infirmity, the Bishop appoints Sir Benedict de Frodesley, Chaplain, to be his Coadjutor. An Inventory was to be taken of the Vicar's goods, of which the Coadjutor would have to give account.

SIR JOHN, Vicar of Wellington, died July 28, 1349,- probably of the pestilence. His successor was,-

JOHN DE UMFRESTON, Chaplain, instituted August 5, 1349, at the presentation of Shrewsbury Abbey.

HUGH, Vicar of Wellington, is named in a Deed which must have passed very shortly after 1349. [3]

JOHN HYCHCOK, Vicar of Wellington, has a year's license of non-residence, dated Oct. 28, 1366.

WILLIAM DE SONTPORD is named as Vicar in 50 Edw. III. (1376-7), but in 1385-

JOHN HYCHCOK occurs again, and it was on his death that-

SIR THOMAS GRILLESHULL, Chaplain, was instituted. This was on July 24, 1403, the Abbot and Convent of Salop presenting. Grilleshull resigned in 1419.


The following list will be found to add a few particulars to one already printed. [4]-

ROGER DE CORTHOVER held the Prebend in 1248.

THOMAS DE ALBERBURY held it in 1298-9.

SIR PHILIP DE EVERDON was collated Feb. 15, 1299, vice Alberbury.

WILLIAM DE AYREMYNNE held it in 1325, when he was consecrated Bishop of Norwich.

[1] Supra, Vol. VIII. p. 260, note 1.
[2] Prynne, III. 713.
[3] Supra, Vol. VII. p. 358.
[4] Le Neve's Fasti, Vol. I. p. 636.


MASTER ROBERT DE NORBURGH was collated Oct. 28, 1325.

SIR SYMON DE CLOPTON, Clerk, was collated Sept. 26, 1339.

SIR JOHN DE BREDON was ordered to be installed by Bishop Northburgh in a letter of Aug. 22, 1349. He had been nominated by Pope Clement VI.

NIGEL DE WEAVER is said to have had the Prebend in the same year (1349). [1]

JOHN DE PIPE was collated Aug. 2, 1351, and died in 1361, being then Archdeacon of Coventry.

FIVE BEREWICKS are mentioned in Domesday as appurtenances of the Manor of Wellington. It is probable that the Record did not intend to make Dawley one of the five, for it had been separated, as to tenure, from Wellington, as early as Edward the Confessor's reign. In other words it was no part of Earl Edwin's Demesne-Manor of Wellington, for Grim held it in Saxon times.

Excluding then Dawley, we may identify with wonderful certainty the five Berewicks, to which Domesday alludes. They were Apley, Arleston, Aston, Dothill, and Walcot.


John de Appeley attests Ivo Pantulf's Confirmation of Buttery to Shrewsbury Abbey. [2] This was about 1170-1175. Between 1177 and 1189 a Charter of Symon fitz Symon (then Lord of Wellington) is attested first by Walter de Appel', and then by John de Appel'. Again between 1187 and 1197 we have Walter de Eppelle attesting John de Cumbray's grant to Wombridge Priory, and this I doubt not was the person whose name is written as Walter de Elpole, and who having been Recognizor in a Longford Suit about 1191 was living to certify the particulars thereof in 1200. [3] At the Assizes of October 1203 Walter de Eppele was amerced half a merk. Cotemporary with the latter part of Walter de Apley's career, Roger de Apley occurs, viz. as witness of a Wombridge Charter which must have passed as early as 1202-3. [4] This Roger occurs on Jury Lists of all but certain date, viz. in 1220 and 1242, and in the latter instance he sat as one of the Verderers of the Forest. His attestations of Charters range a few years later. It was perhaps he who married Clarice, Coheiress of Rodington. Meanwhile William de Apley occurs twice as a witness between 1236 and 1241, so that I cannot but think that there were two families, both

[1] Le Neve's Fasti, Vol. L p. 636.
[2] [3] [4] Supra, Vol. VIII, pp. 28, 106, 183.


originally of Apley, but one of Rodington also. In 1258 Walter and John de Apley sat on a Leegomery Jury. The latter was of Rodington. [1] After this I hear of a John de Apley only. As the male line of Apley of Rodington was now extinct, I think this John must have been of Apley. He occurs as a Juryman in Inquests of 1264, 1279, 1280, 1281, 1284, 1285, 1292, 1293, 1294, and 1295. In one instance (that of 1285) be sat as a Regarder of the Forest.

How Alan de Cherlton became possessed of Apley I have not been able to discover. We have seen [2] that in 1309 he obtained an estate at Haughton, near Shiffnal, by favour of John de Cherlton, his elder [3] brother. The Feodary of 1316 makes him to have been Lord of Walton in Stottesden Hundred, [4] but I find no evidence as to the origin or continuance of such a feoffment. In 1322 several Writs are addressed to him as Custos of the Castle and Land of Wigmore. This was in consequence of the forfeiture which then lay on the house of Mortimer. In May 1324 Sir Alan de Cherlton was summoned in two Counties, Somersetshire and Hertfordshire (probably Herefordshire was meant), to attend a Great Council at Westminster. In 1324 and 1325 several Writs are addressed to him in connection with military levies in Shropshire and Staffordshire, but on April 18, 1325, he was superseded in these commissions, being employed on active duty under the King. In January 1326 he occurs again as a Chief Inspector of array in Herefordshire and Worcestershire. [5]

One of the first acts of King Edward III. was granting a license to Alan de Cherleton, enabling him to embattle his Mansions of Apley and Withforde (Withyforde). [6] Here, as regards Withyford, we light on a chronological difficulty which has probably been the root of all the errors with which the genealogy of Charlton of Apley is encumbered.

It is not known and can only be guessed what interest Alan de Cherlton had at Withyford in 1327. It was his son, a second Alan, who afterwards married Margery fitz Aer, the heiress of Withyford.

[1] Vide supra, Vol. VII. p. 380.
[2] Supra, Vol. II. p. 324.
[3] The statement (Blakeway's Sheriff's, p. 76) that Alan de Charlton of Apley was elder brother of John de Charlton of Powis, and father of Alan de Cherlton (of Apley in 1327) seems to me quite inaccurate. Alan (of Apley in 1327) was clearly younger brother, not nephew, of John de Cherlton (I.) of Powis. If both Alan and John were sons of some previous Alan (which I doubt), that Alan was certainly not of Apley.
[4] [5] Parliamentary Writs, IV. 398, 665.
[6] Rot. Patent. 1 Edward III., pars. 2, membrane 2.


Possibly Alan de Cherlton Senior was her Guardian in 1327, and thus took care of her interests as the affianced wife of his son, but I know of no second Licentia crenellandi granted under such circumstances.

The wife of Alan de Cherlton (I.) was Elena la Zouch, eldest daughter and Coheir of Alan, last Baron Zouche of Ashby, who died in 1314. [1] From various Inquests [2] I gather the following dates.-

Elena la Zouche was born about June 1287. In August 1314, she was found to be 27 years of age, and was then the wife of Nicholas de St. Maur. By him she had two sons, viz. Thomas, variously stated to have been born in 1304, 1306, and 1307, and Nicholas who must have been born in or before 1317, seeing that in December 1316, his father died. Of these two, Thomas died without issue, and Nicholas, the eventual heir of his Mother, and Continuator of the line, died in 1361.

On her first husband's death, and about 1317-8, Elena la Zouch, now 30 years of age, remarried with Alan de Cherlton of Apley. [3] To him she bore a son, Alan, of whom I shall speak presently. She died long before her husband, but he, as Tenant by Courtesy of England, held her Devonshire estates till his own death, which took place on December 3, 1360.-

Then they reverted to his late wife's son and heir, viz. to Nicholas de St. Maur (II.).

Alan de Cherlton (II.) may possibly have been born as early as 1318. His wife Margery fitz Aer was born April 14, 1314. The date of their marriage may be surmised from the fact that their eldest son John de Cherlton was born on February 2, 1340.

Alan de Cherlton (II.), probably as a precaution, demised his wife's estates at Aston Eyre, and Withyford, to his own father, to hold for life, at a rent of 20 payable to the son or his heirs. His Father survived him long; for Alan Junior fell a victim to that Great Pestilence which desolated England in 1349. He died on or about the third of May in that year, leaving his eldest son, John, an infant of nine years. On this occasion the King, as Custos of the Infant Tenant-in-capite of Harcott, seized on the 20 rent

[1] Vide supra, Vol. II. p. 209.
[2] Inquis. 7 Edw. II., No. 36; 10 Edw. II., No. 59; 34 Edw. III., No. 52; 28 Edw. III., No. 14; 30 Edw. III., No. 46.
[3] The Lilleshall Chartulary contains an interesting fact in connection with Alan de Cherlton (I.) and his wife Elena. In 7 Edw. III. (1339-4) they gave the Advowson of Northmolton (Devonshire) and an acre of land there, to the said Abbey.


which constituted his other estate, but afterwards entrusted Harcott to Alan de Cherlton Senior till his Grandson should be of age. In 1356, Richard Earl of Arundel complained of the above seizure, asserting his own claim to the above rent and to the custody of the heir, because the said Earl was Seigneurs' Lord of Aston-Eyre and Withyford.

The curious evidence, which was elicited by this question of law and usage, I will give under Great-Withyford, as it does not relate to Apley. Suffice it here to say that it was all in favour of the Earl, who proved by Inquest that Harcott was held of the King, not De Corona, but De Eschaeta; and that such tenure did not entitle the King to wardship over the person or the other estates of the heir of Harcott. The Earl further adduced a precedent, viz. that, when Margery fitz Aer was in minority, Edward II. had indeed custody of Harcott, but Edmund, then Earl of Arundel, had custody of Aston-Eyre, and Withiford.

Probably Richard Earl of Arundel became entitled to the wardship of John de Cherlton in 1356, and received 20 rent from Alan de Cherlton Senior, till the death of the latter in December 1360. Within half a year of that event John de Cherlton will have attained his majority.


I have told how Henry II. granted a part of Arleston to Seburga de Hadley. [1] The story of the King's making Arleston his abode, whilst on a hunting expedition, is corroborated by a topographical observation, viz. that Arleston formed one boundary of that well-preserved part of the Wrekin Forest which was known as Wellington Haye.

In the Forest-Roll of 1180, the men of Erdelveston are assessed 3s. 6d. for imbladements of 3 acres, sown with corn. Between 1178 and 1189, we have seen William de Herdulveston attesting a Deed of Simon fitz Simon, then Lord of Wellington. In the Forest-Roll of 1209, the Vill of Erdulveston is collectively assessed by the Regarders of Mount Gilbert; and Richard Siward, a Freeholder there, is separately charged for imbladements. At this period, as we have seen, Arleston was a more populous place than Wellington.

In October 1288, a Fine was levied, whereby John de Aure and Eve his wife, for themselves and the heirs of Eve, quitclaimed 5

[1] Supra, Vol. VII. pp. 353, 354.


messuages, 2 acres of meadow, and 1 virgates of land in Ardulston, to Hugh Burnell (who was then Lord of Wellington, and probably held over the Quitclaimants). A sore sparrow-hawk is the alleged consideration of this surrender.

Hugh Burnell's Seigneury over Arleston has been further illustrated by an Inquest of the year 1284, as I have set it forth under Wellington. Here the place is called Ardelfeston, which suggests its real etymology, viz. Ardulf's-town.


This member of Wellington was given by the Empress Maude to Shrewsbury Abbey. Her Charter is dated at Devizes, and probably passed in 1141, when she first obtained possession of that town, and held Stephen as her Prisoner.

Styling herself "Matilda the Empress, daughter of King Henry", and addressing William fitz Alan and all her lieges, French and English, in Shropshire, she certifies her said gift of the vill of Eston. The Deed is attested by Rainaldo Vicecomite (it should surely be Comite) de Cornwall'; William fitz Alan; Robert de Dunestavill and Goc' (Joceas) de Dinan. [1]

This grant was confirmed by Theobald Archbishop of Canterbury, and also by Henry II., when before Bridgnorth in 1155. It is recognized in all the Pipe-Rolls, from 1156 to 1166, the Sheriff deducting the assumed value of Aston from the Firma Comitatus, in the following or some similar words.- In terris datis:- Monachis de Salopesbia 68s. 8d. in Eston.

In 1167, this entry is discontinued, and it is clear that the Monks lost the estate. All that I can offer in explanation of this is that the date coincides with the year of Abbot Robert's death, and that his successor, Adam, was deposed in 1175. Between the years 1178 and 1189, we have Hayluiet de Eston attesting a Charter of Simon fitz Simon, Lord of Wellington, and it is probable that the said Hayluiet held under the said Simon, and not under the Abbey.

Now again we shall have occasion to observe the consonance of a Monastic Record with the Pipe-Rolls. If Henry II. took Aston from the Abbey, Richard I. restored it. By a Charter dated at Poitiers on February 18, 1190, that King informs William fitz Alan (he was Sheriff at the time) that he has conceded the vill

[1] Chartulary, No. 60. In her more general Charter to the Abbey (No. 40) the Empress mentions her own grant of Eston last of any. This Charter is attested like the one in the text, except that Rainald is called Comes.


called Eston to Salop Abbey. This Deed was attested by William Bishop of Poiutou, Peter Bertin Seneschal of Poitou, Osbert de Roveray and Stephen de Longchamp, Sewers (Dapiferis). It was also expedited by hand of John de Alencun, Archdeacon of Liseux. [1]

The Pipe-Roll for the year ending Michaelmas 1190, gives apparent effect to this Writ by according the Abbot of Shrewsbury "60 solidates of land in Eston, a member of Welinton according to Charter of the King". [2] This entry was repeated at Michaelmas 1191; but at Easter 1192, only 30s. (or half a year's fruition of the land itself) are assigned to the Monks. It is obvious that the King's Writ of that year (which included Aston among the Royal estates which were to furnish a half-year's income of 10 to William and James fitz Simon) operated, whether by accident or not, to disseize the Monks of the land. Accordingly we find the Sheriff giving the Monks 2 in money pro terra quam Rex dedit eis in Eston donec eadem terra eis delibetur. So too in 1193, he gave them 2 in money; but in 1194 (the very year of King Richard's return) the land was restored to the Monks; its fiscal value being computed as 20s. for the first half of the current year, and as 30s. for the last half. In 1195, the Sheriff returned to the old formula- Et Monachis de Salop 60s. in terra de Eston; and this continued as long as the Pipe-Rolls are evidence on such matters.

Thomas de Eston was a notable person in the affairs of Shrewsbury Abbey, and doubtless held lands here. Among his numerous attestations of Abbatial Deeds some are at least as early as 1210, others at least as late as 1226. In two instances he is called Seneschal, and I have no doubt that he held that office in the Abbot's Manorial Court in the Abbey-Foregate of Shrewsbury.

Thomas de Eston was succeeded in estate, and perhaps in Office, by his son Benedict, who attests Deeds in 1231, 1232, and 1234, and perhaps later; but, as we shall see, he was dead in 1240. The following Deed is in the nature of a surrender from Tenant to Lord.- "Benedict de Aston, son late of Thomas de Aston, gives to Salop Abbey two moors in the fields of Aston (one called Aylwyesmor and the other called Bradelemor), together with a stank for the Vivary above Bradewey and with the overflow (refullacione aquae) of the said Vivary. For this he received 40s. Witnesses,- William de Draiton Chaplain, Alan his son". [3]

On November 12, 1240, a Fine was levied, whereby Isolda widow

[1] Salop Chartulary, No. 44.
[2] The change from the former fiscal value of Aston (68s. 8d.) to 60s. is observable.
[3] Salop Chartulary, No. 126.


of Benedict de Aston (Plaintiff) quitclaims to Stephen de Aston and his heirs, for 10 merks, a carucate of land in Subegh, whereof had been Suit-at-law. I cannot tell where Subegh was, nor do I know anything further of Stephen de Aston, as connected with Aston.

Thomas le Hore of Aston occurs as a Surety in 1272.

About the year 1280 Richard son of Robert de Cherleton gives to Robert his brother for 5s. paid, annual rents of 3s. 8d. arising from land which Alan son of William de Eyton held of the Grantor in the vill of Aston under Wreken. He also gives a certain meadow in the field of Cherleton (as before described). For the aforesaid rent, the Grantee is to pay two pounds of wax yearly, for the lights of St. Nicholas in Uppington Church, and 7d. at Michaelmas to Salop Abbey. To the Grantor he must pay a rent of one rose. Witnesses,- Peter de Eyton, knight; John de Prers (Praers); Master John de Cherleton and John de Appeley. [1]

By Deed dated at Salop on Wednesday in the feast of Calixtus the Martyr 1283 (probably a mistake for 1282 [2]). J. (John de Drayton) Abbot of Shrewsbury, with his Chapter's consent, assigns all the Abbatial rents of Aston-subtus-Mount-Gilbert, to the Kitchen of his Convent. He bequeaths curses and maledictions to any succeeding Abbot who should intromit with the said rent. [3]

We have seen, under Eyton-upon-Severn, that in 1285 Aston was accounted a member of that Manor. I have accordingly under Eyton, given some account of its value, as stated in the later Rent-Rolls of the Abbey.


We have seen Hemming de Dotrel attesting a Deed of Simon fitz Simon, Lord of Wellington, between 1178 and 1189.

A Fine of November 15, 1248, is practically a feoffment of John de Preers in Dothill by Giles de Erdinton, then Lord of Wellington. The Fine purports to be between John de Preers, Plaintiff, and Egidius de Erdinton, Impedient, of one carucate in Dothull, whereof was Plea of Charter Warranty between them. Now Erdinton acknowledges himself to have given the premises (viz. all the lands which he had in the said vill) to Preers. Moreover he concedes all lands which William Godeshore and William Tranaunt held under him in villeinage in Wellinton;- the whole,

[1] Womb. Chart. Upinton, No. cli.
[2] The only year during John de Drayton's Abbacy, in which Calixtus's Day fell on Wednesday, was 1282.
[3] In possession of Mr. George Morris of Shrewsbury.


to hold to John de Preers and the heirs of his body, by service of one-sixth part of a knight's-fee;- with remainder to William de Preers, brother of John, and the heirs of his body;- with remainder to Erdinton himself. I find John de Praers on local Juries of 1279 and 1298, and frequently attesting Deeds of the period. In Easter Term 1282, a Fine was levied whereby Adam Buche and his wife Sibil, Matthew le Serjaunt of Dunchirche and his wife Isabel, for themselves and the heirs of Sibil and Isabel, quitclaim to John le Preyer (Tenant), a messuage and six bovates in Appeley, whereof was Suit-at-law. For this John le Preyer gave 60s.


This member of Wellington, comprising three carucates of land and a Mill, was given by the Empress Maude to the Monastery of Haughmond. The Charters and Confirmations which treat of this gift have already been recited. [1] The fiscal value of Walcot was 3. 11s. 4d.; and we find from the Pipe-Rolls that Henry II., immediately on his accession, recognized his mother's grant.-

The Sheriff of 1156 discharges his own liabilities of a sum of 3. 11s. 4d. for land given to the Abbot of Hageman. This item of account never varies, but some later Pipe-Rolls express the locality of the grant, viz. in Walecota.

In 1255 the Bradford Hundred-Roll says that "the Abbot of Haemon holds Walcot, (taken) out of the Manor of Welinton, by gift of King Henry. It is one hide, and does no suit to County or Hundred". [2]

The Feodary of 1284 erroneously makes Walcote a member of Wrockwardine, and states that the Abbot of Hamond held it in free alms of John le Strange;- a second error the consequence of the first.

Surely the Bradford Jurors of 1292 had the evidence of this Feodary, in sight or in mind, when they presented that the "Abbot of Haghmon held Walcote, which the Ancestors of Fulk le Strange used to hold in-capite, of the King", and that they (the Jurors) knew not the Abbot's warrant. The Abbot soon appeared in Court and produced his warrant. It was the Empress's Charter. He was dismissed sine die. [3]

All that the Taxation of 1291 gives to the said Abbot in Wallecote, is a Mill, worth 5s., and a meadow, worth 2s., per annum. [4]

On Oct. 31, 1331, Richard Pigot released to Abbot Nicholas his

[1] Supra, Vol VII. pp. 287, 291, 292.
[2] Rot. Hundred. II. 57.
[3] Placita Coronae, 20 Edw. I., m. 16.
[4] Pope Nich. Taxation, p. 260.


right in the Fulling-mill of Walcot, which he had lately received from the Abbot at ferm.

On Sept. 16, 1470, the Abbot demises Walcot Mill to John Trevenant and John Gogh for their lives. Rent 33s.

On March 31, 1477, William Onnyslowe of Rodington gives to the Abbey a Weir called Ekynnes-were, situated between the Abbey's meadow, called Rondeleshey, and the Great meadow of Walcote. Witness, Sir Richard Corbet, Knight.

On March 81, 1482, the same gives to the same, land in Walcote called Lye, near Lye Mills. Same witness. [1]

The Valor of 1535-6 reckons the Abbot of Haughmond's estate at Walcote to yield 13. 6s. 8d. yearly; [2] but this probably included whatever was arising from Allscot.

In 1541, the Ministers' Accounts include among the assets of the late Monastery only 4. 19s. 4d. as arising from Walcote, viz.- From pasturage 1. 18s.; from assized rents 18s. 6d.; and from rents of Tenants-at-will 2. 2s. 10d. [3]

High Ercall.

With the Manor of High Ercall are associated some of the greatest names in Shropshire history. Here the Coheirs of Hamo Peverel retained their last hold on the County which had nursed his fortunes. Here the Chancellor Burnell, never sated with acquisition, reconsolidated in himself a Seigneury which had been severed for more than a century. In later times Ercall was the Caput of those vast estates which formed the heritage of the Newports; a heritage than which none greater has accrued to any single Shropshire family, since the advent of the Normans.

As regards its Saxon and Domesday status, High Ercall corresponds with Wellington. "The Earl himself holds Archelou. Earl Eduin held it with five Berewicks. Here are VII hides. In demesne there are VI ox-teams and XII Neat-herds. [4] Here XXIX Villains

[1] Haughmond Chartulary, fos. 221, 222, 223.
[2] Valor Ecclesiasticus, III. p. 192.
[3] Monasticon, Vol. VI. p. 114.
[4] This direct association of ox-teams and Neat-herds, however natural it may appear, is very unusual in the text of Doomsday.


and XII Boors have XV teams. Here two Mills render (or pay) XII measures of corn (yearly); and there is a Fishery of (i.e. annually productive of) 1502 great eels. Here is one league of wood. In King Edward's time the Manor was worth 20 per annum. Now it is worth the same. According to a custom, when the Countess visited the Manor, eighteen sums of 20d. [1] (each) used to be brought to her". [2]

The five Berewicks of Ercall I take to have been Tern, Sleap, Crudgington, and two places called Wilsithland and Scurlow in ancient documents. It had other members of less prominent note, and perhaps of later origin, or involved in some of the Berewicks. As to proportionate hidage, Tern was 1 hide, Sleap and Crudgington were 1 hides, and Ercall, with its other members, was 4 hides.

Now if we were to believe Earl Hugh's spurious Charter to Shrewsbury Abbey, we should infer that within twelve years after Domesday, be or his Father had enfeoffed Hamo Peverel in Ercall. In the said Charter the Earl is made to state that one of his Barons, Hamo Peverel, standing with him before Earl Roger's tomb, and moved by his (Earl Hugh's) example and request, granted the tithes of his demesnes to the said Abbey. Among the said demesnes, Arkalona, Wilsitheland, Cleya (read Sclepa), and Brugeltona (read Crugeltona) are specified. All that we can conclude from this statement is that the Monk, who forged this Charter (long after its ostensible era), found his Abbey seized of the said tithes, or parts thereof, and knew that Hamo Peverel had some time been Lord of Ercall and its members. The Monk thought it no wrong to associate the two facts according to a theory of his own.

Turning to that Charter of Earl Hugh, which I have always upheld as somewhat less auspicious than the above, I find that he himself gave two-thirds of the tithes of his demesne of Ercalou to Shrewsbury Abbey. I also find that Bishop Clinton, having inspected this last or some other Charter of Earl Hugh, to the Abbey, within 50 years of the Earl's decease, corroborated the fact of the Earl's having himself given the said two-thirds of the demesne-tithes of Archalou.

That Hamo Peverel attended the Court of Hugh Earl of Shrewsbury is certain. He was truly too one of his Barons, for he had married Sibil, daughter and heir (or coheir) of Gerard de Tornay. But it was evidently King Henry I. who originally invested Hamo Peverel in High Ercall.

[1] Octodecim orae denariorum, i.e. 30s.
[2] Domesday, fo. 253, b, 2.


I have already dwelt at some length on the origin and succession of the Shropshire Peverels. [1] Many of the difficulties which then beset the subject have now vanished. One clear rule of succession is established by the case of High Ercall, viz. that this Manor, as being given to Hamo Peverel himself, was allowed to descend to his collateral heirs. Other Manors however, which he acquired with the heiress of Tornay, though he endeavoured to settle tlem on his own collateral heirs, were ultimately reseized by King Henry II. as Escheats, either because Gerard de Tornay's forfeiture had only been qualified by a life-grant to Hamo Peverel and his wife, or because Gerard de Tornay's heirs were extinct.

A Tabular Pedigree will best show the succession of Hamo Peverel's collateral heirs, but we have an extraordinary number of documents, which must needs be quoted to illustrate the mode of their descent.

I have shown under Kinnerley that Hamo Peverel, immediately after Henry I's death, and so probably in 1136, gave the two vills of Sleap and Crudgington to Shrewsbury Abbey, and how the grant was independent of his wife. [2]

I have shown under Uppington how Walcheline Maminoht, one of Hamo Peverel's presumed heirs, endeavoured, between the years 1138 and 1141, to get Crugelton back from the Monks, by giving Uppington instead; and I have shown how and why the bargain ultimately failed, though the Empress confirmed it in her Charter of 1141. [3] In the same Charter the Empress speaks of Slepe in another way, viz. as an estate given to the Abbey since her father's death by Hamo Peverel. Crugelton and Sleap were thus severed from High Ercall, and continued the property of Shrewsbury Abbey till its Dissolution.

As to Ercall and its other members, at Hamo Peverel's death, in or about 1138, they went to William Peverel (II.) of Dover, and to Walcheline Maminoht. Now it is certain that William Peverel (II.) was brother's son to Hamo Peverel: and in one of his deeds the Nephew expresses the exact relationship by speaking of Hamo as patruus meus.

But it is far from certain how Walcheline Maminoht was related to Hamo Peverel. In one of his Deeds the said Walcheline describes William Peverel (I.) as his maternal Uncle, avunculus meus. Consequently he would have described Hamo Peverel, who was the said William's brother, by the same term. Omitting for the

[1] Supra, Vol. II. pp. 104-107.
[2] [3] Supra, Vol. VIII. pp. 127-8, 152-3.


moment to contend for the stricter meaning of the word avunculus, and taking it to mean either paternal or maternal Uncle, it is impossible to imagine that Walcheline Maminoht can have stood in the former relation to Hamo Peverel. His Mother then must have been a Peverel, and the word avunculus advisedly used by him. But how then could Walcheline Maminoht, the sister's son, have stood pari passu, as a Coheir, with William Peverel (II.), the brother's son? That he did so, for a time, is clear, and the impropriety of his doing so is perhaps proved by the simple fact, that neither he nor his heirs continued to do so.

But, for the present, I am to speak of the period when William Peverel (II.) and Walcheline Maminoht stood in amity with each other as Coheirs of Ercall.-

As we have seen, William Peverel of Dover confirmed the grant of Crudginton which Hamo his Uncle (patruus) had made to Shrewsbury Abbey, and Walcheline Maminot stood first witness of the confirmation. Again we have seen that Maminot's proposed bargain with the Abbey was with William Peverel's sanction (concedente Willielmo Peverel) and attestation.

But the history of Ercall shows these Coheirs in yet another combination. To Ercall belonged two Mills, as Domesday has shown us. One of these was Bradford Mill, and the locality is the more interesting as that which afterwards gave a name to a Hundred and a title to an Earldom.-

This Mill Walcheline Maminoht and William Peverel agreed to bestow on the infant Monastery of Haughmond. Their Charters are preserved, one in substance, the other in reality.

These monuments of an age of terror belong to the interval between 1141 and 1148. I give them verbatim.-

Walkelinus Maminot omnibus hominibus Francis et Anglis et omnibus amicis suis, salutem. Notum sit vobis, tam futuris quam illis qui sunt, me dedisse pro Deo in elemosinam Ecclesiae Sancti Johannis de Haghmon, pro anima mea, et patris mei, et meorum ancessorum, molendinum de Bradeforde, et quicquid ad molendinum pertinet, in aqua et infra, et prato, et de bosco ad molendinum parandum si frangat. Testibus istis, Rogero filio Warini, et Fulcone fratre suo; Stephan de Haia, et Michaele fratre suo. [1]

Willielmus Peverel de Dovera omnibus hominibus suis de Scropescira et amicis, necnon et omnibus Sanctae Dei Ecclesiae filiis, salutes in Christo. Notum vobis facio quod ego ex mea parte do et concedo

[1] Haughmond Chartulary, fo. 39, collated with Harl. MS. 2188, fo. 123.


molendinum Bradefordiae, quod pertinet Harchalouae, Sancto Johanni et Canonicis de Haiman, sicut Dominus Walchelinus Maminot eis dedit pro amore Dei et pro anima Rogeri de Haia. Similiter ego volo et concedo ut habeant illud molendinum in pace et libere et ut melius eis poterimus tensare et custodire pro amore Dei et redemptione animarum nostrorum antecessorum, et amici nostri Rogeri de Haia. Testibus his, Hugone de Lisoris; Waltero filio Hugonis; Anselmo de Hwichintona; Stefano de Haia; Michaele de Haia; Matilla mea conjuge; et Matilla de Dovera mea sorore; et Acelina mea sorore; et Jordano de Hedleia; et Willielmo Clerico. Valete omnes in Deo. [1]

Besides being associates in works of piety, Walcheline Maminoht and William Peverel (II.) stood side by side in the cause of the Empress. They joined the first outbreak against Stephen in 1138. William Peverel raised his Vassals in Shropshire and Cambridgeshire, where he inherited, from his Father or Uncle, the great Honour of Brunne. Walcheline Maminoht took the field as Castellan of Dover. William Peverel's operations belong to a future Chapter of our History, for it was at Whittington and Ellesmere that his chief influence lay. On July 25, 1241, when the Empress, then at Oxford, gave to Milo de Gloucester the Earldom of Hereford, William de Dovra (as William Peverel is called) and Walcheline Maminot were attesting witnesses.

After this, and in 1144 (as I suppose) William de Dovre appears in Wiltshire. The Author of the Gesta Stephani, a partisan of the Usurper, describes William de Dovre as a "man of military genius, crafty and fierce". In the year supposed, he built a Castle at Cricklade, subdued the Country, north and south of the Thames, harassed Stephen's partisans in every direction, especially those who occupied Oxford and Malmesbury. [2] Similar was William de Dovre's work in the year 1145, when he caught the Castellan of Malmesbury, one of Stephen's ablest Lieutenants, in an ambuscade, and handed him over a prisoner to the Countess of Anjou, [3] as the Stephanite Chronicler calls the Empress.

At last, says the same Author, "repenting of the evils and miseries which he had ruthlessly worked upon folk, he sought the sacred precincts of Jerusalem, to expiate his sins, and there, performing many glorious deeds against the obstinate foes of Christianity, he was gloriously slain". [4]

[1] The original Deed, late( in possession of Mr. George Morris of Shrewsbury.

[2] [3] [4] Gesta Stephani Regis (Edition 1846), pp. 106, 107, 111.


Here the crusade, which left England and France in 1147, must be alluded to. We may date the death of William Peverel (II.) of Dover as having taken place in 1148, the same year in which Roger de Clinton, Bishop of Lichfield, fought and died in the same enterprise.

Of Walcheline Maminoht, as claiming or holding anything in Shropshire, we shall hear no more. William Peverel died childless, and his Manor of Ercall, no less than his Barony of Brunne was now divided. He left four Sisters, his Coheirs. They were, (1) Matilda, wife of Hugh de Dover of Chilham, Kent; (2) Alice, wife of Hamo Peche; (3) Roisia, wife of Rollo de Harcourt; and (4) Ascelina, wife of Geoffrey de Walterville.

Of the third sister, Roisia, I need say but little, as nothing was given to her in Shropshire. Ercall and Tern were divided in equal shares among the other three sisters;- of all and each of whom I proceed to give some account.-

It seems that the three Coheirs of Peverel were unwilling to make good the Abbot of Shrewsbury's title to Crugelton. Hence the following precept [1] of King Henry II. issued between the years 1155 and 1158, that is before he had been three years on the throne.-

Henricus Rex Anglice etc., Hamoni Peech, et Gaufrido de Waltervill et Hugoni de Doura, salutem. Praecipio quod juste et sine dilacione reddatis Abbatiae Salop' etc., terram suam de Crugeltona quam Hamo Peverellus, cujus heredes vos estis eis dedit etc. Teste Cancellario apud Brantonam. [2]

HUGH DE DOVER and MATILDA his wife complied sooner or later with this order, and in its fullest sense. By their Deed (which must have passed between 1161 and 1172) they concede to the said Abbey a third part of Crugelton and of Slepe, as Hamo Peverel had given and confirmed it. Witnesses,- Geoffrey Peeche; Jordan, Clerk; Droco de Waltervill; Matilda, daughter of Geoffrey de Waltervill; Ralph de Lindesey; Hodo; Walter fitz Harduin; Alan and William de Hetley; Ralph son of Theold de Tirne; William fitz Warin of Burewasley (Broseley); Robert fitz Nigel of Schawbery; William de Bans; and Richard de Linley. [3]

Two of these witnesses require special notice.- Radulf de Tirne had attested Charters of Hamo Peverel both before and after the death of Henry I. He was in fact Hamo Peverel's Feoffee at Tern,

[1] Salop Chartulary, No. 43-b.
[2] Bramton, in Huntingdonshire, is probably the place here intended.
[3] Salop Chartulary, No. 30.


[For pedigree, see pdf.]


which he held for a fourth of a knight's-fee, accounted to be of old feoffment. William de Hetley or Hadley, was second son of William de Hadley (I.) by Seburga, natural daughter of Hamo Peverel, which Seburga was Matilda de Dover's Cousin. After the death of Henry I., either Hamo Peverel, or William Peverel (II.), or his three Sisters in conjunction, enfeoffed William de Hadley in Ercall, by service of one knight's-fee.

Hence in 1165 when Hugh de Dover made a return of his Cambridgeshire Fees, he added these items to his account.- "Radulfus de Tirna (tenet) XIIam partem (unius feodi) in Salopescire", and-

"De novo fefamento; Willelmus de Helleia (tenet) tertiam partem militis in Salopescire post mortem H. (Henrici) Regis". [1]

I cannot stop to rectify many erroneous statements which have been made about Hugh de Dover, his Barony, and his successors. Suffice it to say that he was a great Baron of Kent and Sheriff of that County from 1161 to 1167; and that he did not get his name "De Dover" from his wife: moreover that in the year 1172 he was deceased, without issue; when his Nephew, John de Dover, succeeded to his Kentish Barony and was in turn succeeded by his son Fulbert.

Matilda Peverel, or de Dover, survived her husband, holding of course her share of the Barony of Brunne and of the Seigneury of Ercall and Tern. She was deceased in 1185, when all her inheritances were or ought to have been divided into three parts and distributed between the representatives of her three sisters. There was some litigation as to the partition, and we shall see, with regard to Ercall and Tern, that two only of her sisters came to be represented there.

HAMO PECHE and ALICE PEVEREL, his wife, must have been married as early as 1134, for they had a daughter aged 50 in 1185.

Between the years 1161 and 1172 "Hamo Peeche, and his wife, and their son, Geoffrey, conceded to Shrewsbury Abbey a third part of Crugelton and of Slepe", mentioning how Hamo Peverel had made, and how William Peverel, his nephew, had heretofore conceded and confirmed the grant. Witnesses,- Richard (Peche) Bishop of Chester; the Abbot of Haemon; John and Wido le Strange; Alan and William de Hethley (Hadley); Robert fitz Nichel (of Shawbury); and Radulf de Tirne. [2]

[1] These entries are given by Hearne (Liber Niger, I. 254), in a way which would lead to the erroneous idea that Tern was of new feoffment. The original Record (fo. 55) is more authoritative, making Tern of old and Ercall of new feoffment.
[2] Salop Chartulary, No. 29.


Hamo Peche was in his own right seized of a Barony in Suffolk, consisting of 12 old fees, which he duly returned in 1165. But there is a long supplement to this return, stating what Hamo Peche held in Cambridgeshire and Shropshire, "of the Honour of William Peverel, and of the inheritance of his (Hamo's) wife". Hamo Peche speaks of two Cambridgeshire fees "which William Peverel had given him in frank marriage with his sister", and part of which he himself had since bestowed on Baldwin de Roucestre with his own daughter in marriage. This is quite consistent with the idea that Hamo Peche was married as early as 1134, for William Peverel (II.) probably succeeded to the honour of Brunne, before he succeeded his Uncle, Hamo.

But to continue;- Hamo Peche's return has these further items. "Et in Salopescire: Radulfus de Tirene (tenet) XIIam partem I militis. Et de novo fefamento, Willelmus de Hetlega tertiam partem I militis in Arcalun". [1]

Hamo Peche was Sheriff of Cambridgeshire from 1164 till Easter 1166. He was living in 1168 and paid scutage on 19 knights'-fees in that year. He died before 1185, leaving Alice Peverel his wife surviving, and leaving two sons, Geoffrey and Gilbert, of whom Geoffrey was the eldest. [2]

GEOFFREY PECHE is named on the Shropshire Pipe-Roll long before his Father's death. In 1159 the Sheriff had paid 20s. to Geoffrey Peccatum, by order of the King.

In 1185 Alice Peverel and Geoffrey, her son, fined 100 merks to have their reasonable part of Brunne, as that which had been Matilda de Dover's. The opposing claimant was Albreda Trussebut who fined 50 merks for a like settlement. [3] Of course each of the two parties was claiming a third of Matilda de Dover's inheritance, generally; or, in other words, a ninth of the Barony and estates of Peverel of Dover: for Albreda Trussebut, ne Harcourt, was daughter and sole heir of Roisia Peverel.

At this time (1185) Geoffrey Peche had married the widow of one Richard de Coleham. He was living in 1188-9, when he paid an instalment of some amercement set on him in Lincolnshire. He was deceased without issue in 1190; when-

GILBERT PECHE (his brother and heir) was charged scutage on

[1] Liber Niger (Hearne), I. 251, 252. Tern was of old, Ercall of old feoffment, if we take the Record as a guide. The distinction is accurately in keeping with other evidences.
[2] A Monastic Stemma (Monasticon, VI. p. 86, Num. II.) wrongly makes Gilbert the elder brother.
[3] Rot. Pipe, 31 Hen. IL, Cambridgeshire and Huntingdonshire.


19 and one twelth knights'-fees in Cambridgeshire and Huntingdonshire and on 4 fees in Norfolk and Suffolk.

In 1194 Gilbert Peche paid scutage on an item of 1 and two-thirds knights'-fees, which was distinct from either of the above. It was clearly, I think, for his third share of the estates of Matilda de Dover, his Aunt. That these assessments included something in Shropshire, we are assured by the Pipe-Roll of 1204; for, though the Coheirs of Peverel were never assessed in Shropshire, Gilbert Peche's acquittal of King John's fifth Scutage is entered under that County in the year specified.

In 1210 Gilbert Peche fined for permission to send two knights with King John to Ireland in lieu of himself. On July 9, 1212, he was dead; and his lands were in custody of the King, [1] who, on January 1, 1218, gave the said custody, and the marriage of Gilbert Peche's heir, to Hugh de Boues. [2] Another entry on this subject speaks of Gilbert Peche's tenure as a "Barony". [3]

It will be remembered that William de Hadley (II.) held one-third of Ercall under Matilda de Dover and one-third under Peche. William de Hadley (II.) seems to have died subsequently to the time when Matilda de Dover's third of the Seigneury went to her Coheirs, and when consequently a ninth of such Seigneury devolved on Gilbert Peche. Hence the following Charter or renewal, respecting this specific Ninth, from Gilbert Peche to William de Hadley (III).-

Gillebertus Peccatum omnibus hominibus suis et amicis, Francis et Anglis, salutem. Sciant presentes et futuri me dedisse et concesse et hac carta mea confirmasse Willielmo filio Willielmi de Hetleia totam terciam partem illius terae quam Matildis de Dovre, amita mea habuit in Harcalua, in omnibus rebus et libertatibus ad predictam terram pertinentibus, ipsi et heredibus suis, tenendam de me et heredibus meis, libere et quiete et honorifice per servitium nonae partis unius militis. Hiis testibus; Fulcone filio Warini; Willielmo de Rideware; Rogero de Cramavilla; Petro Giffard; Willielmo Giffard, fratre ejus; Hugone de Craudene; Willielmo filio Aerii; Willielmo de Calna; Gaufrido clerico de Oddewelle; Jordano Bacun; Henrico et Adam fratribus ejus; Reginaldo Capellano, et multis aliis. [4]

The wife and widow of Gilbert Peche was Alice fitz Walter, sister of that famous Robert fitz Walter who led the Barons' party in the time of King John. On Fitz Walter's banishment his said

[1] [2] [3] Rot. Patent. pp. 93, 94, 96.
[4] Newport Evidences.


Sister had to find hostages for her loyalty. One of these hostages was her own daughter Alice. Accordingly, on July 21, 1213, Fitz Walter having returned from exile, the King orders Alice Peche's daughter, Alice, and her other hostages to be restored. [1]

HAMO PECHE (II.) was son and heir of Gilbert Peche. A minor in 1213, I find no assurance of his having obtained his majority till 1218, when he paid scutage on 17 and a twelth knights'-fees of his own Barony and on 5 knights'-fees of the Barony of Brunne.

He is named in a Plea-Roll of Michaelmas Term 1232 as Hamo Pechie, and as suing one William de Henl' in a Plea of Customs and Service, alleged to be due on some land in Shropshire. I cannot show that this affair related to Ercall or Tern.

For some further particulars of Hamo Peche (II.) I refer elsewhere. [2] He married an Alien, by name Eve, and died in 1241 either in going on, or returning from, a pilgrimage to Jerusalem. Hamo Peche left six sons, Gilbert, Hamo, Hugh, Robert, Thomas, and William. The eldest, whom we may call-

GILBERT PECHE (II.), translated the remains of his grandfather and grandmother, Gilbert and Alice, to a marble tomb in the Church of Barnwell Priory, [3] of which House he was Patron, as being the eldest Coheir of Pagan Peverel its founder. His homage was accepted on December 11, 1241, the King's Writ noticing the circumstances of his Father's journey to Palestine, and death. [4]

The Bradford Hundred-Roll of 1255, as touching the Seigneury of High Ercall only says that the Tenant held it "of the fee of Hamo Peverel"; but in respect of Tern, the late Tenant-in-fee is expressly said to have held it under Gilbert Peche. These are but incomplete statements, as statements respecting divided Seigneuries usually are. I take it that Gilbert Peche had four-ninths, or perhaps a full half, of the Seigneury of Ercall and Tern. Whatever his share, it is clear that between the years 1271 and 1274, he made Robert Burnell (then Archdeacon of York) Mesne-Lord, between himself and John de Ercall, the Tenant-in-fee of Ercall.

This is shown in a Deed whereby "Gilbert Pecche grants to Sir R. Burnell, Archdeacon of York, for his homage and service, the homage of Sir John de Erkalewe and his heirs, and the service of the same Sir John, which he or his ancestors had at any time rendered to the Grantor or his Ancestors". He further gives "the homage of Thomas Corbet, Lord of Hedle (Hadley), and the service

[1] Rot. Patent. p. 101.
[2] Dugd. Baronage, I. 677.
[3] Leland's Collectanea, Vol. I. p. 283.
[4] Rot. Finium, I. 363.


of the said Thomas". Of this clause in the Deed I shall speak elsewhere. The Deed goes on to provide that Sir Robert Burnell, his heirs and assigns, shall hold the premises under the Grantor and his heirs at the annual rent of one Chaplet of Roses.

Another Deed or Writ is a Certificate from Gilbert Pecche to "his beloved friend, Sir John de Erkalewe", whom he informs of the above transaction with Archdeacon Burnell, and on whom he enjoins all attention, obedience, and responsibility, henceforth due to the said Archdeacon.

There are some difficulties about the further descent of Peche's Barony with which I deal briefly in a note. [1] Suffice it here to say that in 1285 the (then nominal) seigneury of Peche at High Ercall had passed to Robert Peche, whom I suspect to have been one of Gilbert Peche's younger brothers. Under Robert Peche, Robert Burnell, now Bishop of Bath and Wells, held the Manor, freely and without doing any service to the Crown; and under Robert Burnell held William de Ercall, the Tenant-in-fee.-

Again this account is incomplete, the part being put for the whole, as we shall hereafter see.

On the death of Philip Burnell (nephew and heir of the Bishop) in 1294, William de Erkalewe was found to have been holding the Manor of Erkalewe, under the said Philip, by service of a knight's-fee, and it was valued at 20 per annum. [2]

[1] Dugdale has confused Gilbert Peche (II.) with a subsequent Gilbert,- probably his younger son. Gilbert Peche (II.), by his first wife Matilda de Hastings, had two sons, viz. John and Edmund. The said Matilda died apparently about 1264-5, or during the period of Montfort's usurpation. Gilbert Peche (II.) remarried with Joan, daughter of Sir Simon de Grey, on whose children he contrived to settle the bulk of his estates. The residue of his Barony he gave to King Edward I., probably about the year 1284. He died in 19 Edward I. (1290-1).

Thus much I gather from Leland, and from the Monastic Stemma already cited: but a more authentic Record partly confirms the story of Gilbert Peche's disheritance of his eldest son, though the latter would seem to have been a voluntary sufferer. In January 1274 Gilbert Peche enfeoffed John, his son and heir, in the Essex Manor of Plecheden. John was seized thereof five months, but then settled it on his father, Gilbert, and on Gilbert's wife, Joan, conjointly;- with remainder to the heirs of Gilbert by the said Joan. In December 1291 Joan widow of Gilbert Peche complained that the Eschetor had seized Plecheden and Magna Trillawe (Suffolk) for the Crown, though she and her late husband were Joint-Feoffees thereof. The Inquest which followed found the above facts as regards Plecheden (Inquis. 20 Edw. I., No. 43). I take it, then, that the Gilbert Peche who had military summons as a Baron in 1299, and who was Lord of Great Thurlow (Suffolk) in 1316, was eldest son of Gilbert Peche (II.) by Joan de Grey, and the Founder of a new Barony. What became of the right heirs of Gilbert Peche (II.) is matter of conjecture.
[2] Inquisitions, 22 Edw. I., No. 45, d.


After this, I hear nothing more of the Tenure of Ercall, except as held, by the Tenant-in-fee, under the Burnells, and, by the Burnells, in capite. Such mesne rights as had been retained by Peche were merely nominal, and, in accordance with the spirit of the age, were likely to become obsolete.

I must now return to speak of-

ROLLO DE HARCOURT and his wife ROISIA, third sister and Coheir of William Peverel (II.). In the first partition of William Peverel's estates, Roisia took nothing in Ercall and Tern. Her share was made up to her elsewhere, principally at Braunston in Northamptonshire. But on Matilda de Dover's death, about 1185, a third of the Seigneury of Ercall and Tern must have stood for division between three coheirs. Roisia's representative was now her daughter Albreda, wife of William de Trussebut of Wartre (Co. York). The said Albreda should, in the ordinary course, have had a ninth of the said Seigneury, but I do not find that she or her heirs (of whom I shall have to speak elsewhere) obtained or held such a share. Probably it became merged in the two greater divisions of four-ninths each which accrued to the heirs respectively of Matilda and Ascelina Peverel. This brings us to-

GEOFFREY DE WALTERVILLE and his wife ASCELINA, fourth sister and coheir of William Peverel (II.).-

About 1141, we have Geoffrey de Waterville attesting a Charter of the Empress Maud. [1] Somewhat later we have seen Ascelina (Peverel) attesting her brother's grant to Haughmond Abbey. Between 1155 and 1158, we have seen Henry II. addressing Geoffrey de Walterville as one of Hamo Peverel's Coheirs, concerned in Ercall.

But better than all this we have a Deed which speaks plainly of Geoffrey de Waltervill's tenure of one-third of Ercall. It is his actual grant thereof to that same William de Hadley whom we have seen obtaining the other two-thirds of the Manor. The Deed passed between 1155 and 1162, probably about 1160.

G. de Waltervilla omnibus amicis suis Francigenis et Anglis. Dedi Willielmo de Hetlehe pro suo servicio totam meam partem de Herchalun, et consensu Acelinae uxoris meae et Radulfi filii mei. In feodo et hereditate sibi et heredibus suis, de me et heredibus meis, et cum hoc meam partem de feodo Hugonis de Laci; [2] et hanc terram

[1] Monasticon, V. 409.
[2] It is probable, from this expression, that during Lacy's forfeiture, and towards the end of Henry I.'s reign, something in his Shropshire Fief had been bestowed on Hamo Peverel, and had descended to Hamo Peverel's coheirs. The restoration of the Lacies by Henry II. possibly obliterated the specific alienation, by reinvesting them with the estate in question.


quam hic nominavi dedi illi pro servicio terciae partis unius militis faciendo; et ideo volo et firmiter precipio quod per hoc servicium quod hic nominavi eam teneat i [1] bene et in pace cum omnibus libertatibus et cum omnibus pertinenciis, sicut Hamo Piperellus avunculus uxoris meae usque [2] illam melius et quietius uno die et una nocte tenuerit. Testibus, Hugone de Luisures; H. Picart; Drugone de Watervill; Widone de Watervill; Roberto Malet; Willielmo de Seto Georgio; G. fratre ejus; Toroldo de Suton; Rogero de Millinton; Roberto filio Willielmi; Simone de Sumeri; Willielmo Bastart; Hamelino; Uioc Capellano; Willielmo filio Petri; Petro de Scto Martino. [3]

Geoffrey de Walterville was deceased in 1162. Consequently it is his widow who, as Ascelin' de Waltervill, was assessed to the scutage of that year, as Tenant of five knights'-fees in Cambridgeshire and Huntingdonshire;- obviously her share of the Barony of Brune.

The Liber Niger of 1165 contains no return by Ascelina de Waltervill; but I suspect it to have been her who is written as Ascelinus de Waltervill, and who held half a fee in Lincolnshire under Simon Earl of Northampton. [4] Probably too it was her son who in one place is called Ralph de Waltervilla, [5] and in another, Ralph fitz Asceline, [6] in the same Record, but who does not yet appear as a Tenant-in-capite.

Between the years 1161 and 1172, I date the Deed whereby Ascelina de Waltervill (evidently a widow) and Radulf her son, concede to Shrewsbury Abbey, a third of Crugelton and Slepe, as given previously by Hamo Peverel, etc. Witnesses,- Nicholas, Canon; Bartholomew d'Andevill; Droco de Waltervill; Radulf de Lindesey; Hodo; Walter fitz Harduin; Acelina daughter of Geoffrey de Waltervill; Alan de Haleie (read Hadley); Radulf son of Teold de Terne; William fitz Warin of Burewardesley (Broseley); William de Bans; Richard de Linley. [7]

RADULF DE WALTERVILLE probably survived, and succeeded his Mother. He granted to Barnwell Priory the Church of Bertone in Ketstevene, but was deceased without issue before 1185. At his death his sisters became his heirs. These were Matilda, wife of William de Diva, and Ascelina, wife of * * * * de Torpel.

MATILDA, widow of William de Diva and daughter of Walter de Geoffreyvill (as the Record by a curious transposition of names calls

[1] [2] Read ita and unquam.
[3] The late Mr. George Morris's Deeds.
[4] [5] [6] Liber Niger, I. 271, 269, 198.
[7] Salop Chartulary, No. 31.


her Father), was 35 years of age in 1185. She was then in the King's gift. The land of Corebi, held under the See of Lincoln, was her marriage portion (surely it was part of her inheritance). She had in 1185 two sons and two daughters, of whom the heir was aged ten years. [1] In her charter to Barnwell she, as Matildis de Diva, confirms her brother's gift of Bertone Church. [2] In her grant of a third of Corby Church to Stanford Nunnery she names her father, Geoffrey de Waltervill, her maternal aunt (matertera) Matildis de Dovere, and her husband, William. [3] She was living in 1202 or later. Her eldest son was named Hugh, but her second son, Ralph de Diva, continued the line. She had also a daughter, Matildis, wife of William fitz Otho.

More of this descent I cannot here discuss.

ASCELINA, sister and coheir of Radulf de Waltervill, was wife of * * * de Torpel. As Ascelina de Waltervill, she confirmed her brother Radulf's grant to Barnwell Priory.
[4] In her grants to Stamford Nunnery, about Corby Church, she names two of her sons, Geoffrey and Thomas: and one of the said Charters is attested by Roger de Torpell and Radulph de Diva,- her eldest son and her nephew, as I take it. In 1 Richard I. (1189-90) Ascelina de Watervil (with assent of her son and heir Roger de Thorpel) and Matilda de Diva (with assent of her son and heir Hugh de Diva) made a grant in Eyleswrthe to Hugh de Longchamp, Nephew of William Bishop of Ely, the King's Chancellor. [5] A Scutage-Roll of King John's reign calls this Lady Ascelinus de Waltervile, but couples her and her sister, Matilda de Diva, as together responsible on 9 fees in Cambridgeshire and Huntingdonshire. She must have lived to a great age, for her son Roger de Torpel had not livery of his inheritance as her heir till April 1220. [6] That inheritance is well defined as the sixth part of a Barony; for it was exactly that proportion of the Barony of Brunne. Its Caput was Hinton in Cambridgeshire. Roger de Torpel (I.) died in 1225, when he was succeeded by his son and heir another Roger, who though under age was already married. [7]

It is time to show the bearing of these discursive notes on our present subject. The above Matilda and Ascelina, as daughters and eventual coheirs of Ascelina Peverel, and as nieces and coheirs of Matilda Peverel, should have had, and perhaps did have, four-ninths

[1] Rot. de Dominabus (Grimaldi), p. 7.
[2] Monasticon, VI. 87, Num. VI.
[3] Monasticon, IV. 262, Num. XII.
[4] Monasticon, VI. 87, Num. V.
[5] Glover's Collections, B. p. 91.
[6] [7] Rot. Finium, I. pp. 46, 133.


of the Seigneury of Ercall and Tern. The said four-ninths, or rather, a reputed half of the Seigneury of Ercall, is found after a silence of about a century (1170 to 1270) to have been in Geoffrey de Gresley. There is no genealogy of the Gresleys, known to me, which will account for this; nevertheless I cannot but think that this feudal right came to the said Geoffrey by inheritance. That Geoffrey de Gresley had it, the sole but sufficient proof is the following Deed, which must have passed between 1271 and 1274, that is, at the precise period when Robert Burnell acquired another moiety of this Seigneury from Gilbert Peche.-

"Geoffrey de Gresseleg, son and heir of Sir William de Gresseleg, grants to Sir Robert Burnell, Archdeacon of York, the homage and service of Sir John de Erkalewe, in which homage and service he (the said John) was bound to the Grantor, for one moiety of the Manor of Erkalewe". [1]

Geoffrey de Gresley's cotemporary certificate to the Tenant-in-fee may be given in brief as follows.-

Dilecto amico suo, Domino Johanni de Erkalwe, Galfridus de Gresseleg, salutem, etc. Scias me dedisse homagium et servicium vestrum et heredum vestrorum, in quibus nobis tenebamini, pro medietate Manerii de Erkalwe, venerabili viro, Domino Roberto Burnel. [2]

It may serve as a starting-point for some future inquiry if I indicate precisely who the above Geoffrey de Gresley was, besides being son of Sir William. He was Lord of Drakelow (Derbyshire) and of Morton and Kingston (Staffordshire). He had been accused of disloyalty in the rebellion of 1264-5, and Thomas Corbet (of Hadley) had apparently obtained a grant of his estates, thus forfeited. In 1273 Corbet was endeavouring to force Geoffrey de Gresley to the usual composition (under the Dictum de Kenilworth), for lands in the aforesaid Manors. Gresley resisted, asserting that in the time of disturbance his loyalty had not been shaken. It was very possibly the expense, likely to be incurred at such a juncture, which prompted Gresley to sell his seigneury at High Ercall to Archdeacon Burnel.

I have now done with the Mesne-Lords of High Ercall, and shall proceed to speak of the Feoffee whom they, by common consent, invested with the Manor,- of him, his parentage, and descendants.

WILLIAM DE HADLEY (II.) otherwise WILLIAM DE ERCALL (I.) was second son of William de Hadley (I.) by Seburga, natural daughter of Hamo Peverel.

[1] [2] Newport Evidences.


We have seen William de Hadley (II.), perhaps then a mere child, following his father (William) and elder brother (Alan) in attesting Charters of his grandfather (Hamo Peverel), which passed about 1134. [1] His feoffment in Ercall, by service of one knight's-fee, was certainly later than 1135. It may have been the act of William Peverel (II.) his kinsman, but I much prefer to consider it as the joint act of the said William Peverel's coheirs, and to have taken place between 1155 and 1165. The Charters or Records which prove William de Hadley (II.) to have been enfeoffed in three-thirds, that is in the whole, of the Manor, before 1165, have been already given.

We have seen him, as William brother of Alan de Hadley, attesting William fitz Alan's so called Foundation-Charter of Wombridge Priory. We have seen him as William de Ercalew, granting a ninth of all his tithable possessions to the same House. [2] This was before 1181. His further grants to Wombridge (not being specified in the general Confirmations of King Henry II. and Pope Urban III. in 1181 and 1187) I take to have been later than 1187. They are partly combined in the following Deed.-

William de Hedlega grants for the health (of the souls) of himself, his ancestors, his father and mother, and his wife Sibil, that land of Schurlawe, which was then held by Turstan de Schurlawe, William his son, and Reiner nephew of Odo de Ercalewe, and bounded by an old ditch which separated the grant from the land of his men of Ercalwe. He also gives the Canons common pasture in all the Manor of Ercalwe; also, by assent of his heir, a ninth part of all his effects which were renewed yearly (innovantur per annum), whereof tithe was wont and ought to be given. Witnesses,- Master Robert of Salopesbury, Pagan de Hedleg, Peter de Eyton, Ralph Panton, Alan de Hedleg, Richard his brother, Walter Chaplain of Ercalewe, Baldwin Wischart, and twenty others. [2]

The same William de Hedley is further said to have given to Wombridge the whole land of Podeford with all its appurtenances. [4]

Of the above witnesses I suspect that Pagan de Hadley was the

[1] [2] Supra, Vol. VII. p. 352, 364.
[3] Abstract of Newport Evidences.-

The original Deed seems to have included a grant of pesson, in Ercall Wood, for the swine of the Canons, and their men;- the former to be quit of pannage but the pannage of the latter to be received by the Canons, as "the Grantor and his Antecessors had been used to receive it" (Monasticon, VI. 390). I quote the above to show how loosely the word Antecessores was used in early Charters.
[4] Monasticon, VI. 390, a.- Polford was a member of Cold Hatton, not of Ercall. William de Ercall's alleged interest there will form matter of future comment.


Grantor's brother, and that Alan and Richard de Hadley were the Grantor's younger sons. The grant if it probably passed after 1187 certainly passed before 1197, when the first witness became Bishop of Bangor.

The latest attestations which I can suppose to belong to William de Hadley (II.) alias William de Ercall (I.) are involved in the following combinations.-

Between 1175 and 1180, Alan de Hadley, William de Ercalew, and Pagan de Hadley (three brothers I think) attest a Charter already given under Tibberton. [1]

In the same interval Alan de Hadley's grant to Wombridge is attested by William de Ercalew and Payn his brother.

About 1186-7, William de Ercalew, and Pagan de Hadley, with * * * * and Richard his nephews, attest a Charter given under Sutton Maddock. [3]

About 1188, William de Hedlega attests a Charter of Walter de Dunstanvill (I.) [4]; and about the same time Alan de Hadley is followed by William de Ercalou in a Pimley Deed. [5]

That William de Hadley (II.) was living after these attestations would indicate, I infer from the fact that his son and heir, William, was called in one instance juvenis, and in another, minor, between the years 1191 and 1197. Perhaps the latest notice we have of William de Hadley (II.) is his suit with Richard de Leighton in December 1194, [6] for no limit of age would preclude his name thus appearing. When he died I know not, for it is clear that at the close of his life his public functions devolved upon his heir, so entirely as that the acting son is only distinguished from the superannuated father in the two exceptional instances above alluded to.

WILLIAM DE HADLEY (III.) otherwise WILLIAM DE ERCALL (II.) must be taken to be that heir who consented to his Father's grant to Wombridge, but we have perhaps earlier notices of him than that. It is he who about 1189 (certainly between 1187 and 1191), as William de Hedley, and with his brothers Alan, Hamund, and Richard, attests Roger Mussun's two Grants to Wombridge. It was he who as William de Hadley acted as Deputy-Sheriff for William fitz Alan in the year ending Michaelmas 1191. It was he who as William de Hedlehe attested Bishop Novant's charter at, and to, Buildwas Abbey on November 22, 1192.
[7] Lastly, between

[1] [2] Supra, Vol. VIII. p. 47; Vol. VII. p. 355.
[3] Supra, Vol. II. p. 112, note 14.
[4] Supra, Vol. II. p. 279, note 51.
[5] [6] Supra, Vol. VII. p. 305, 327.
[7] Supra, Vol. VI. p. 329.


the years 1190 and 1194, we have him as William Juvenis de Hedleia, and followed by Alan de Hedleia, who must therefore be taken as his brother: we have him twice as William de Hadley, and followed by Hamo his brother: and we have him as William de Hedley minor. [1]

Before the year 1201, "William son of William de Hedlega concedes and confirms to Haughmond Abbey, the Mill of Bradeforde and all the right therein which pertained to him or his heirs. Witnesses,- The Prior of Wombridge, John le Strange, Hamo le Strange, Roger de Peninton, Wido de Shawbury, Baldwin Wiscard, and Hugh le Strange".

In return probably for this, Richard Abbot of Haghmon concedes the same Mill to William son of William de Hedley, to hold hereditarily to him and his heirs at an annual rent of 2 merks; but if at any time this rent should be unpaid, the Abbot retained a power of reseizin. Witness, John le Strange".

At the Assizes of 1208, William de Edleg essoigned his attendance; Baldwin the Provost being his Essoignor. About this time three cotemporary Wombridge Charters are attested, two of them by "William de Hadley and William his son", one of them by "William de Hadley and William his brother". The last attestation probably involves a scribal error, to be corrected by the two others. On the whole we at least have an early appearance of the son and heir of William de Hadley (III.).

It appears that, besides being Tenant of Bradford Mill, William de Hadley (III.) obtained from Griffin son of Gervas Gohc (then Lord of Rowton and Ellerdine) such concessions as enabled him to make a Vivary and Mill on the little stream which divided Ercall from Rowton and Ellerdine, and which was called Pendelat. The Mill and Vivary, when made, were called The Lake. This will explain the following Deed which passed between 1201 and 1216, probably about 1208.-

Willielmus de Herkelawe dedi, etc. Baldwin Wischart [2] et heredibus libertatem molendi bladum in omnibus molendinis meis, primo post bladum quod invenitur in tremna, excepto meo et blado Stephani de Stanton in molendino de Bradeford et blado Griffini filii Gervasii Goh in molendino de la Lake. His testibus, Stephan de Stantona, Willielmo filio Walteri, Philippo de Penintona, Johanne de Hoptona, Daumaro de Suggedona, Hamone de Penintona. [3]

[1] Supra, Vol. II. pp. 112, 133, 282; Vol. VII. p. 341.
[2] He was Lord of Cold Hatton.
[3] The late Mr. George Morris's Deeds.


We have William de Ercall attesting a Deed of Reiner, Bishop of St. Asaph, in 1217 or 1218; and we have William de Hedley attesting a Deed already given, and supposed to have passed about 1223. I take the witness in both cases to have been William de Hadley (III.), but possibly his son may have ere this succeeded him. However it is singular that the very interval which I should fix upon as distinguishing the public aeras of William de Hadley (III.) and William de Hadley (IV.) is occupied by one HUGH DE HADLEY, who (as we have seen I) attests a Deed between 1225 and 1227, and occupies a high position therein. I cannot account for any Hugh de Hadley in the succession of the Lords of Ercall. It is clear that the eventual, and probable that the long presumptive, heir of William de Hadley (III.) was-

WILLIAM DE HADLEY (IV.) alias WILLIAM DE ERCALL (III.). Touching him and his career of 28 years we have an almost unbroken chain of evidences.-

In October 1227, Reginald de Thirne quitclaims to William de Hedleg and his heirs, as their right, whatever he had had, both in heath and in land, tilled or to be tilled, according to certain boundaries, agreed upon between the said William and Radulf, Reginald's brother, as a Charter of Radulf which William held, did testify. Witnesses,- Sir Thomas de Muleton, Sir Robert de Lexinton, Sir Maurice de Gant, and Sir Ralph Musard, then Justices itinerant at Shrewsbury; Sir John le Strange; Sir Roger la Zuche; Sir Henry then Abbot of Shrewsbury; Sir John le Strange son of John le Strange; Sir Hamo brother of the same (Sir John); Sir Roger Sprenghose; Sir William de Stanton; and Sir Richard de Middlehope. [2]

The following curious Deed of 1229, [3] I must give more in its original form.-

Haec est convencio facta anno 1229 inter Dominum Madocum filium Griffini Gohg ex una parte et Dominum Willielmum de Hetleya ex alia parte. Madoc quiet' clamavit Willielmo totam piscariam suam et batellum in vivario de La Lake quam Griffinus pater Madoci retinuit sibi in carta quam Willielmus habet. [4] Willielmus relaxat Madoco (potestatem) sumendi terram secundum formam cartae predictae ubi commodius illi fuerit, ut dictus Willielmus capiat

[1] Supra, Vol. VIII. p. 80.
[2] [3] Charters late in posseenion of Mr. George Morris of Shrewsbury.
[4] Madoc's Father, in the former agreement (circa 1201), had reserved a right of fishing in Hadley's Vivary and using Hadley's boat, and had given Hadley an indefinite right to take soil on his estate.


terram in certo loco scilicet inter molendinum de la Lake et terminos positos coram militibus, scilicet, Bartholomeo Toret, Galfrido de Folevile, Gerardo Toret, Hamone Extraneo, Hugone de Becheburi, Hugone Forsterio, [1] Thoma Corbet, Odone de Hodnet, Alexandro Vicario de Hercalewe & m. a.

On May 13, 1284, William de Ercalew and the Abbot of Shrewsbury came to an agreement about the stank of a new Mill and Fishery which the Abbot had made under Crugelton. It was settled that the stank should be raised no higher than it was already. In return Ercalew quitclaimed to the Abbey 4 acres of land, which had been given in exchange by his Ancestors, and pasture for 200 sheep at Osberneston (Osbaston). Witnesses,- Hugh fitz Robert, Peter de Eyton, Madoc de Sutton, Baldwin Wischart, William de Eyton, Ranulf de Rodinton, Reginald de Tirne, Robert de Brocton, Benedict de Eston, William de Weston, Clerk. [2]

At Michaelmas 1285 and Easter 1286, William de Ercalue appears as Collector in Shropshire of the Aid on marriage of the King's Sister. [3]

A Roll of about the year 1240, has "William de Hedleg as holding one knight's-fee in Ercalew of the Fees of Peverel"; [4]- an accurate and intelligible expression which needs no further comment.

On November 21, 1240, William de Edlegh is the first-named of four provincial Knights who were to try a Suit between the Abbots of Haghmon and Buildwas. His attestations at this period are very numerous. Sometimes he is called De Ercall and sometimes De Hadley, sometimes styled Dominus, sometimes not.

I give an abstract of an agreement made on August 16, 1245, between Sir William de Hadley and Sir Madoc de Sutton, Lord of Rowton and Ellerdine.-

Ita convenit inter Dominum Madocum de Suttone et Dominum Willielmum de Hedleg in crastino Assumpcionis B. M. anno regni Regis Henrici filii Regis Johannis XXIXo. Dominus Madocus concessit Willielmo et heredibus ut faciat molendinum suum de La Lake cum Choysello [5] vel alio modo ad voluntatem suam,- stagnum non exaltabit ultra formam convencionis quondam initae inter ipsos, scilicet coram B. Toret et aliis militibus in dicta convencione nominatis. Concessit Willielmus quod Madocus et heredes possint herbam falcare extra aquam vivarii sui (ita quod falcatores in aquam non intrent), et animalia sua et hominum suorum pascere per totum vivarium

[1] Sir Hugh fitza Robert of Bolas.
[2] Salop Chartulary, Nos. 284, 395.
[3] [4] Testa de Nevill, pp. 61, 46.
[5] That is, with a Reservoir.


suum. In hujus rei testimonium utraque pars, etc. H. T. Domino Odone de Hodenet, Alano Corbelt Stephano de Peninton, Johanne de Pres. [1]

On October 6, 1245, a Fine was levied at Westminster between William de Hedleg, Plaintiff, and Baldwin Prior of Wombridge, "inasmuch as the Prior required from the Plaintiff a ninth of all things which were renewed to him yearly within the Manor of Erkalewe". The Plaintiff's grievance was that the Prior had dragged him into a Court-Christian concerning chattels which were not the subject of any Will or Marriage-Contract (quae non fuerunt de testimonio vel matrimonio). Now the Plaintiff concedes that the Priory shall have a ninth of all garbs and hay, arising from 3 carucates which he held in demesne at Erkalewe, and also a similar ninth from all lands in the said Manor which should be assarted by him or his heirs. The Prior renounced all right to his previous exactions of a ninth of the garbs and hay of the vill of Mora (now Moor-town), and of a ninth of the Plaintiff's movables.

On November 15, 1248, a Fine was levied between Baldwin Prior of Wombridge, Plaintiff, and William de Ercalewe, Deforciant, concerning a right of common asserted by the Prior in the Manor of Ercalwe. William now allows such right, for the Prior's own cattle at Shirlawe, and for the cattle of any of the Prior's men of Ercalewe, except in Heltesmore, which was only to be common between Martinmas (November 11) and the Purification (February 2). In return the Prior renounced all right of common in William's Park, save for 3 oxen.

In February 1249, the ninth Juror in a Bolas Inquest is written as Will. de Ercalowe Morvan. The individual was not the person I am treating of, but some one distinguished from him in this unintelligible way. In fact William de Hedleye himself presided over the Inquest as Escheator for Shropshire.

In March 1258, the Abbot of Shrewsbury was suing William de Ercalew for disseizin in Ercalew.

In 1255, the Jurors of Bradford Hundred reported the state of this Manor as follows.-

"William de Hercalue holds Hercalue with its appurtenances by (service of) a third part [2] of a knight's-fee, of the Fee of Hamo Peverel. He does no suit to County or Hundred, but we know not

[1] Charter, late in possession of Mr. George Morris of Shrewsbury.
[2] This was probably an error of the Jurors. The collective service due to the Coheirs of Peverel was previously that of a whole knight's-fee.


his warranty (for the exemption). He pays 18d. for stretward and 18d. to the Provost's Aid". [1]

"The Prior of Womburg has one carucate of land of the fee of Hercalue in pure almoign, by gift of William de Hercalue's grandfather, and by gift of Ysonda de Wilfichelond. The aforesaid William has free-warren, but we know not by what warranty". [2]

I should here observe that the 18d. payable for stretward indicates a Manor of 4 hides. Ercall had therefore lost 2 hides of its Domesday area. The loss may be computed as Sleap and Crudgington (1 hides) and Tern (1 hide).

At the Assizes of January 1256 William de Erkalue had four Lawsuits, real or fictitious, in hand. He was sued by Anora de Erkalewe and Cecilia her Sister in a Plea of Charter-Warranty, which was compounded by license, and for a Fine of 6s. 8d. The Cyrograph (which followed as a matter of course) is not preserved.

Further, William de Erkalue had suits of novel disseizin with Henry Mauvesin, and with William le Fraunceys (probably of Meeson), and a suit of Charter-Warranty with the Prioress of Brewood. In these three Suits he names his son John as his Attorney, but I only find the result of the last. This is in the shape of a Fine levied at Shrewsbury on Feb. 3, 1256, between Agnes, Prioress of St. Leonard of Brewood, Plaintiff, and William de Ercalew, Impedient (by Hamo fitz William de Sholton, his Attorney) concerning a ninth of the garb. produced by two carucates of William's land in La More, and by one carucate in Erkalue, and a ninth of William's hay in Thyme except the hay of Wrennesmore meadow, [3] concerning all which ninths, there was Plea of warranty, etc. Now William concedes the same as his gift to the Prioress. He further concedes a place at La More, where the Prioress's grange was built. The Prioress in return vouchsafed the prayers and good offices of her House to the Grantor and his heirs. The Fine is indorsed with a memorandum that- "The Prior of Wombridge apposes his claim".

The above Fine is fully explained by a preceding or a concurrent Charter, which gives the name of William de Ercall's wife.-

"William de Ercal, for the souls of himself and his wife, Emma, gives to St. Leonard and to the White Nuns of Brewode a ninth of

[1] Ad auxilium Praepositi, xviiid;- another term for Motto, (vide supra, Vol. I. p. 98, note 336).
[2] Rot. Hundred. II. 55.
[3] Wrennemore meadow was apparently very extensive. Part of it, as we have seen, was in Rodington Manor (vide supra, Vol. VII. p. 375).


the sheaves, of two carucates, and one carucate, in his demesnes of La More and Ercal respectively, he not being bound to pay the said ninths to the House of Wombrugg according to a Cyrograph made between himself and the said House. He further gives to Brewode a ninth of his hay near Tyrne except that of Wennemor-meadow. As security he gives a power of distress on Ercal Mill, to the extent of 20 measures of best corn. He further gives the Nuns 40 feet of land near his Court of La More to make a Weir. Witnesses,- Robert Corbet, Lord of Morton, Roger Corbet of Hedleg, John fitz Hugh, Sir Hamund le Strange, Odo de Hodnet, Roger de Pyvelsdon, and Jurdan de Pyvelesdon". [1]

JOHN DE ERCALL, with whom I now proceed, was son and heir of William de Ercall (III.), to whom he succeeded within the seven months which followed the Fine of February 1256. Neither he nor any of his descendants were called De Hadley. In the very year of his father's death John de Ercalew was presented as a Tenant of 15 Librates of land and not yet a knight. In the same year he fines one merk for some writ. On Sept. 14, 1256, John fitz Aser and Margery his wife are set down as having a suit of novel disseizin against John de Ercalew for a tenement in Suthleg. [2] As far as I can judge from his attestation of Deeds, John de Ercall remained unknighted till 1266-7. However in August 1267 he appears with that dignity, but not in an otherwise creditable position. King Henry III. was in that month presiding in his Curia at Shrewsbury, when Cecily, daughter of Sir William de Ercalue, came before the King and complained of Sir John de Ercalue her brother, who had threatened herself in life and limb, and her house with burning. She asked the King's peace and the King gave it. So also did Robert de Blechel', William le Forester, and Hugh Clerk, obtain the King's peace in respect of the same Sir John. [3]

On May 12, 1267, John de Ercalewe had a grant of a weekly market (on Mondays) at Ercalewe, and also of an annual fair, to be held on the eve, day, and morrow of the nativity of the Virgin (Sept. 7, 8 and 9). [4]

On November 8, 1268, John de Ercalew is appointed to deliver Bridgnorth Gaol. A Patent of July 1269 puts him on a similar commission for the Gaols of Stafford and Shrewsbury. At this period his attestations of Charters are very numerous, and he is always entitled Dominus.

[1] Newport Evidences.
[2] Sudeley, a member of Cheswardine.
[3] Coram Rege, 51 Hen. III., m. 3.
[4] Rot. Cartarum, 51 Hen. III.


About March 1271, "Richard de Loskeford concedes to John de Erkal, Lord of Erkal, for his service and for 4 merks paid, a messuage, croft, and curtilage, bounded by certain Gades [1] which had been placed by view of the vicinage, also a noke of land in Waleton. Reyner le Wyne, William Pygun, and Elyas, the Grantor's son, are Tenants named in the Deed, which was a lease for 24 years, commencing Lady Day 1271, at an annual rent of one rose-blossom. Witnesses,- Sir Odo de Hodenet, Robert Corbet, Lord of Morton, John fitz Aery, Philip de Peninton, Henry Mauveysin, Reginald and Richard de Tyrne".

At the Assizes of 1272 John de Erkelewe was Elisor (Chooser of the Jury) for Bradford Hundred.

John de Ercall, sometimes called Escheator, and sometimes Subescheator, occurs in that office from November 1273 to February 1275. I presume that Shropshire only was his province.

John, Lord of Ercalewe granted that the Wombridge Canons should take a ninth of all his corn and hay in all his lands at Ercalewe, except in the land of La Mora, which he had bought from Hamo Pichard. [2]

As John, Lord of Erkelewe, he confirmed his Ancestors' Charters, concerning 2 merks rent, payable to Haughmond Abbey for Bradford Mill. Witnesses,- Sir John fitz Hugh and John fitz Aer, knights; Robert de Stanton. [3]

It seems that Sir John de Ercall's wife was named Alice. To the said Sir John and Alice did Sir Hugh de Crofte give the vill of Southlehe with an entail on the heirs of their bodies. [4]

On March 27, 1278, Sir John de Ercalewe, knight, officiated on a Perambulation made between the lands of the Bishop of Hereford and Peter Corbet of Caus.-

This is the latest notice which I have of Sir John de Ercall. He had succeeded to his inheritance as a Vassal of the coheirs of Peverel. He died a Vassal of Bishop Burnel. There is some probability that, at his death, his son and heir was in minority or at least unmarried, for he married a Burnel, viz. Petronilla a niece of the Bishop's, and their eldest son was born in December 1284. In that very year-

WILLIAM DE ERCALL (IV.), son of John de Ercall, and husband of Petronilla Burnel, appears in possession of his estate. [5]

[1] Gades, i.e. limites, metae, termini (Du Cange).
[2] Monasticon, VI. 390.
[3] Haughmond Chartulary, fo. 39.
[4] Newport Evidences.
[5] Mr. Blakeway (Sheriff's, pages 8 and 47) gives "Henry de Ercalwe, Lord of High Ercall", as Sheriff for three-quarters of the year ending Michaelmas 1291. Mr. Blakeway suggests that the Christian name of the individual in question should be either William or John. But the error is not merely in a Christian name. It is certain from the Pipe-Roll of 1291 that William de Titteley was Sheriff for the whole of the year in question. I suspect that William de Hadley (the Sheriff of 1191) has been converted into Henry, and his aera put a century too late in some list which Mr. Blakeway followed.


The Feodary of 1284 merely says that "William de Ercalewe holds the Manor of Ercalewe, with its members, of Robert Burnell, who holds of the King, but without doing any service to the King". The Bradford Tenure-Roll (about 1285) is much fuller. It says that "William de Arcall holds the Manor of Arcall with its members (viz. Walton, Cotwall, Osbaston, More, Wildislond, and Scurlow), of Robert Burnell, and he holds of Robert Peche, freely, doing no service to the King, but by what title of exemption it is not known. Of the said members the Prior of Wombridge holds the vill of Scurlow in frank almoign under the aforesaid William; and Thomas de Berewicke holds Wildislow of the aforesaid William".

The Assize-Roll of October 1292 contains various entries about William de Ercall (IV.). Under the heading De valettis he is presented as holding a knight's-fee and being of full age, but not a knight. As William, son of John de Erkalewe, he acknowledges a debt of 8 merks to John de in Mare. As William de Erkalewe he was presented as exercising free-warren in Erkalewe. Also it was presented how 3s. which had used to be received by the King, for stretward and motfee of the vill of Magna Ercalwe, till 30 years since, had been withdrawn: but William de Ercalwe, the present Tenant of the Vill, could not appear, he being in the Bishop's Prison as one convicted of felony: so the case was adjourned for the present. This brings us to another presentment among the Bradford Crown-Pleas.-

It appears that Alice, Lady of Ercall, [1] had had 15 swine in her keeping, for the purpose of fattening them. When fat, her Swineherd (porcarius) had driven them to Crugelton Bridge, where two men of William de Ercalwe came and seized them. To prove his complicity it was stated that the swine were afterwards slain by his order and put into his Larder. To this charge ha appeared, and claimed his privilege as a Clerk. The Dean of Salop also demanded to have custody of him for the like reason. The Jurors in the Crown Court valued his lay-chattels at 56. 5s.

I have already given the sequel of this story, [2] ending apparently

[1] Widow, I presume, of John de Ercall.
[2] Supra, Vol. VI. pp. 187, 188.


in the restoration of William de Ercall's liberty and estate. William de Ercall's anomalous status is more than I can explain. A wealthy landholder, a married man, and pronounced to be in misericordia for not taking knighthood, he is also a Clerk, and had been designated, years before, as Dominus, by his wife's Uncle. I am much mistaken however if William de Ercall (IV.) did not actually become a Knight before his death. [1]

In 1297, as holding lands or rents of 20 yearly value, William de Ercalwe was summoned to be at London on July 7, prepared with horse and arms for foreign service. In 1301 he was similarly summoned to attend Muster at Berwick upon Tweed, on June 24, for military service against the Scots.

On August 25, 1300, William Burnel, Provost of Wells (Prepositus Wellensis) appoints two Attorneys to take seizin of a carucate in Erkalwe and of the rents, etc., issuing therefrom, in the vill of Walton, which he had by feoffment of Sir William de Erkalwe, knight. [2] This Deed is dated at Eudon (Eudon Burnell). William Burnel is evidently a Feoffee-in-trust, and the nature of his trust will presently be apparent.

Whereas William de Ercalewe held under Philip Burnel's heir, and that heir was in ward to the Crown, a Writ of Diem clausit, dated at St. Andrew's on February 20, 1304, announces these facts, and the death of William de Ercalewe. A Jury, which met at Wellington on March 15 following, found that the deceased had held the Manor of Ercal under Philip Burnel's heir, by service of 6d. rent. The Jury valued the Capital Messuage at nothing, four carucates of land (containing 60 acres each) at 40s., ten acres of meadow at 10s., 10 acres of bosc at 10d., a Dovecot at 6d., a Water Mill at 6s. 8d., and the assized rents of free tenants at 7s. 6d. per annum. Besides this he and his wife Petronilla had held conjointly, by feoffment of Master William Burnel, a carucate of land and 6. 5s. rent in Ercall. [3]

Further the deceased had held 60s. rent at Parva Soutley under John, son of Roger le Strange, by service of 1s. William, son and heir of the deceased, was 19 years of age on December 29, 1303. This Return being unsatisfactory, a second Writ of the King recites it in part, and inquires whether the deceased had held anything in capite, elsewhere than at Ercall, and whether the joint feoffment of

[1] See Vol. II. p. 55, note 25.
[2] Abstract of Newport Evidences. The same is the authority for all the Deeds which are quoted under High Ercall, without a specific reference.
[3] Inquisitions, 32 Edw. I., No. 21.


himself and wife existed on the day of his death? A Jury sitting at Ercall on April 16,1304, answered the first question in the negative, the second in the affirmative. [1]

In the same year (1304) William, son of William de Ercalew (though still a Minor), did fealty to the King for lands held at Ercall under Philip Burnel's heir by service of 6d. [2]

One or two Deeds of William de Ercall (IV.) and his wife Petronilla should be mentioned here.-

Between' the years 1284 and 1300 William de Ercal, for the souls' health of himself and his wife Petronilla, reiterates that grant of tithes, etc., to Brewood Nunnery, which we know to have originated with his Grandfather. Witnesses,- Sir Robert Corbet, Sir William de Hodnet, Sir Thomas Corbet.

Within the same period (1284-1300) William, Lord of Erkalue Magna, for the souls' health of himself, his wife Petronilla, and their children, gives to Sir Geoffrey de Wayinton, Chaplain, for life, and to his Successors after him, in free alms, half a virgate of land with a garden, croft, and other appurtenances, which William Henry formerly held of the Grantor, in the vill of Erkalewe. The object of this endowment was "the celebration of certain Masses of the Virgin in the Church of St. Edward of Erkalue". The Grantee and his Successors were to have common-pasture throughout the Manor, save in the Grantor's enclosures, and certain allowances of wood, under view of the Grantor's Forester, and were to feed four swine in the forinsec bosc, without paying pannage. If the Grantee or his successors committed any crime, they were to be expelled, and another fit Priest appointed. Witnesses,- Sir William de Hodenet, Sir Thomas Corbet, Sir Peter de Eyton, Sir Nicholas, Vicar of Erkalewe.

PETRONILLA BURNEL, widow of William de Ercall (IV.), had, it seems, full benefit of the conjoint feoffment above mentioned.- As "Dame Petronilla, Lady of Erkaluwe", she grants to John, son of Roger Bareson of Salop, and others, certain land in her waste of Ercaluwe, in the heath of Cottewalle. By another Deed she grants to John le Mercer of La More certain land of her waste above Brondecroft. This Deed had a lozenge-shaped seal, bearing the impress of a Buck's-head, caboshed, and a motto on the margin.

WILLIAM DE ERCALL (V.) had livery, as I have intimated, in 1304, not being yet 20 years of age. The Inquisition, taken October 28, 1315, on the death of Edward Burnell, represents him as

[1] Inquisitions, 32 Edw. I., No. 21.
[2] Originalia, I. p. 134.


having been seized of half the Manor of Great Ercall, conjointly with Alina his wife. They had the said half by feoffment and gift of their own Tenant, William de Ercalewe; to whom and to whose heirs it would revert on Alina's death. The value of the estate was 8. 10s. per annum; and it was now held under Edward Burnel's heirs by service of a sore sparrow-hawk. [1] It is evident from this, that William de Ercall (V.) had had some transaction with his Suzerain which deprived him for a time of the fee-simple of half his estate. The Inquest is well supported by a French Deed which passed at Buildwas on October 15, 1315. Thereby Alyne, widow of Sir Edward Burnel, sells for a sum of money, to Sir Wylliam de Ercaluwe, Chyvaler, all her goods and chattels in the manor of Grant Ercaluwe. [2]

In the Nomina Villarum of 1316, William de Ercalwe stands as sole Lord of the Vills of Ercalwe, Acton Reynald, and Grinshill, and as joint Lord of Millichope (a matter which has already been noticed). [3] In 1322 the Arms of Sire William Arcalou are on the Roll of the Battle of Boroughbridge, viz. D'argent ove iii gemels de sable.

In 1323 he was a Commissioner to levy Archers in the Counties of Salop and Stafford. In 1324 and 1325 he was twice returned to Parliament, as a Knight of the Shire, for Salop. In August 1325 he was named as one of the Conservators of the Peace, for the same County. To the Parliament summoned to meet at Westminster on December 14, 1326, but prorogued to January 7, 1327, William de Ercalwe was again returned for Shropshire. He himself makes the return of the elections for Shropshire and Staffordshire, viz. as Sheriff of the two Counties. [4] His tenure of the latter office is not supported by any other authority that I am aware of. [5] The political confusion of the period possibly had something to do with this anomaly of a double Shrievalty.

On October 3, 1331, King Edward III. orders an Inquest to be held as to a proposal by William de Ercalwe, viz. that he should bestow 20 of annual rent in Ercalwe on six Chaplains, who were to perform services, etc., in the Chapel of All Saints in the Cemetery

[1] Inquisitions, 9 Edw. IL, No. 67.
[2] Deed late in possession of Mr. George Morris of Shrewsbury.
[3] Supra, Vol. IV. p. 4.
[4] Parliamentary Writs, IV. 815, 816.
[5] The Pipe-Roll for the year ending Michaelmas 1327 does not include any account of Shropshire, but the Roll of 1328 shows that Henry de Bushbury was Sheriff for three-quarters of the year ending Michaelmas 1327, and that John de Hynkele held the office for the fourth quarter of that year, and the whole of the following year.


of Ercall Church, for the souls of his father, William, and his Mother, for ever? The Return to this inquiry states that the project was not injurious to the Crown;- that the premises, being one-fourth of the Manor of Ercall, were held of John and Matilda de Handlo by service of a fourth part of 6d. rent or of a sparrow-hawk. [1]

The above scheme was not carried out, and a second Inquest was ordered by Writ of August 2, 1334, as to the propriety of William de Ercalwe's endowing the same six Chaplains with a messuage, 6 acres of land, two acres of meadow, and certain rights of pasture and pannage. The return dated at Wellington, on September 1, 1334, was again favourable to the project. The Jurors now stated that William de Ercalwe's rent to "John de Hawlowe, Lord of Acton Burnell", was a sore sparrow-hawk or 2s., and that 30 librates of land would remain to William de Ercalwe after the proposed endowment. [2]

The aera of William de Ercall (V.) was exactly that when the custom of dating Deeds first began to prevail. Consequently we find some of his Deeds undated and others dated.- As "William, Lord of Magna Ercaluwe", he leases to Philip de Moclyton and his wife Alina, for the longest of their two lives, a parcel of land and pasture, taken out of his waste of Ercaluwe, at Smalthorns. A rent of 18d. and a heriot of 2s. on lapse of the shorter life, are reserved to the Lessor. Witnesses,- William Cresset, William fitz Baldwin of Walton, Thomas Fraunceis of Rowelton, Roger fitz John of Rowelton, John fitz Godith of Rowelton, Richard del Hulle of Mocliton, Richard Wercoks of Egebaldenham. [3]

Sir William de Ercaluwe leases to Roger fitz Ralph of Hatton and his son Roger for their lives, a parcel of meadow and pasture in the waste of Ercaluwe. A rent of 8s. and a heriot of 40d. are reserved to the Lessor. Witnesses,- William, son of Richard del Hul of Mocliton, Richard his brother, John Worcoks of Egebaldenham, William son of Robert Henry, and Thomas de Meston. [4]

[1] Inquis. 6 Edw. III., 2nd Nos., No. 55.
[2] Ad Quod Damnum, 8 Edw. III., No. 26. The Jurors further made a great mistake in stating that "John de Leybourne, Lord of Caus", was mesne-lord between Hawlowe and the Crown in respect of Ercall. Such a status was true only in respect of Acton Burnell.
[3] The late Mr.George Morris's Deeds.- Pons Isabellae, Campiunnesdich, Brodelakedich, the terra dominae, and the road from Mocliton to Osebarston, are the boundaries named for this grant.
[4] The late Mr. George Morris's Deeds.- Le Smalthornes, Le Campiunedich, Le Brokelakdich, the land of the Lord of Roulton and Ellewardin, the bridge of Isabella Forst', Le Rushihurste, and Le Smethebruche, are boundaries named in this Deed.


William de Erkalewe, knight, grants to John, son of Roger Baresone of Salop and others, land in Cottewall-Heath, between the Grantor's waste and the waste of Dame Petronilla his Mother. Witnesses,- John de Styvynton, John le Taylur of Rodinton, etc.

The same grants to Robert de Fraunce and others, land in Ercall waste, between the land of Dame Petronilla, Lady of Ercalewe, and the lands of John de Ercaluwe, Robert his son, and Agnes his daughter. Witnesses,- John de Styvinton, Geoffrey, Lord of Peninton, etc.

In 3 Edw. II. (1309-10) Richard, son and heir of Sir Richard, late of Caveresalle, sells to William, Lord of Great Ercalwe, for 60, all his goods movable and immovable, live and dead, in his Manor of Cavereswalle.

On December 25, 1312, William, Lord of Great Ercalwe, concedes to John his brother, Robert, John's son, and Agnes, John's daughter, for their lives, six acres in Ercall-waste, lying above Broncrofte, between the wood of Dame Petronilla the Grantor's mother, etc. Witnesses,- Sir Hugh le fitz Aer, knight; John, son of Thomas du Lee; John de Styvinton, Geoffrey, Lord of Penynton, Philip de Moclyton, etc.

On January 20, 1312, John, son of Alan Ffeysaunt of Ercall, sells to Sir William de Ercall, his Lord, all his vessels, utensils, and goods. Witnesses,- Thomas du Lee, John his son, John de Styvinton, and Thomas de Wythinton.

On March 9, 1316, Sir William de Ercalewe, knight, leases to Sir Hamund de la More, Rector of the Chapel of Esnebrugg, and to Petronilla daughter of Robert de Drayton, for their lives, 8 acres in Ercall-waste, for 4s. rent and a heriot. Witnesses,- John du Lee, Lord of Roden, Alan de Roden, John le Taylour of Rodington, Geoffrey de Penington, and others.

I know not why Dame Alyne Burnel should repeat her Deed of 1315, but being at Ercall on Monday, December 13, 1322, she gives all her goods in her Manor of Erkalewe to Sir William de Ercalewe.

On Monday, February 14, 1323, William de Ercaluwe gives to Richard, son of Huwe de Mokulleston, and to John his brother, for their lives, four acres in Cottewall-waste. Witnesses,- Geoffrey de Peninton, John de Wythiford, and Philip, Clerk of Moclinton.

In 7 Edward III. (1333-4) John de Westbury of Salop and Sibil his wife sell to Sir William de Ercalue, knight, all their goods, etc., in Astleye.


On May 9, 1334, William de Cavereswell, by Deed, dated at Lutywode (Staffordshire), sells to Sir William de Ercalewe all his goods in his Manors of Lutywode and Haymes. This Deed had a Seal of Arms,- Fretty with a fesse.

On the same day William de Ercalwe, by Deed dated at Ercalewe, sells to Robert de Ercalewe and Richard de Adbaston all his goods in his Manors of Ercalewe, Alvethemere, Brocton, Hopton-Wafre, and Southlye, in the County of Salop.

By Fine levied at York on July 1, 1334, William de Ercalwe (Plaintiff) acknowledges himself to have granted, to the same two Trustees, the Manors of Alvithemere, Brocton, Hopton Wafre, Soule, and Ercalewe (except a messuage, 3 acres of land, and 20 librates of rent, in Ercalwe). The Trustees restore the premises to the Grantor, to hold for life under the Lords of the Fee; with remainder to William de Careswell and his heirs, to hold in like manner. To this Fine "Petronilla daughter of William de Ercalwe apposed her claim". There can be little doubt that it was intended to, and did, work her disheritance.

On February 14, 1339, William de Ercalewe, Chivaler, releases to Sir Nicholas, Abbot of Haghmon, all actions, etc., from the beginning of the world. This is dated at London, but a similar release bears date at Haghmon on February 28, 1339.

After this I hear no more of William de Ercall (V.), unless the year 1344 were indeed the date of a Commission which empowers him, with other chief men of Shropshire, to raise levies in that County for foreign service. [1] At his death, which must have taken place within the next two years, the Fine of 1334 came into operation, and-

WILLIAM DE CAVERSWELL took possession of Ercall.

I know that this William de Caverswell was son and heir of that Richard de Caverswell who in 1309-10 had some negotiation with William de Ercall (V.). My full belief is, that the said Richard's wife, Joan, was another daughter of William de Ercall (V.), and that she became, in her issue, his heir, to the exclusion of her sister Petronilla. On Richard de Caverswell's death, Joan seems to have become the second wife of Sir John de Chetwynd. She appears to have left issue by both husbands, but William de Caverswell was her immediate heir. [2]

[1] Kennett's Parochial Antiq. p. 459.
[2] This will satisfactorily account for what puzzled Erdeswick so much, viz. that Sir William de Caverewell's tomb was embe1ishe with the arms of Ercall (Vide Erdeswick's Survey, Edn. 1844, p. 251).


In 19 Edward III. (1345-6), William de Caverswall, Lord of Ercalwe, demises waste in Brondecroft to Adam Scot.

On September 26, 1346, Dame Scolastica, widow of Sir William de Ercalewe, knight, acknowledges the receipt of 10. 13s. 4d. from Sir William de Caverswall, knight. This Deed is dated at Ercall, and sealed with Arms,- a Lion rampant.

A Patent of April 6, 1347, recites Henry III's Charter of Market and Fair, to John de Erkelowe, and allows, although those privileges had not been exercised by the heirs of the said John, that William de Careswell, his Cousin (consanguineus) and heir, should now use them.

Sir William de Cavereswell died on February 27, 1349. Great estates in Warwickshire which he had held for life, and ever since the decease of his wife, Mary, went to Joan de Langley, daughter of Geoffrey, son of Geoffrey de Langley, the first husband of the said Mary; which Joan was now 17 years of age and wife of John, son of Alan, son of Sir Alan de Cherlton. [2] But as to High Ercall, that went to-

PETER DE CAVERSWELL, as son and heir of William de Caverswell.

In 4 Richard II. (1380-1) Peter de Kareswall, knight, demises to Richard Bridde of Halghton, a messuage in Walton, to hold for life, at a rent of 10s., and the Grantee doing suit to the Grantor's Court at Ercaloe.

By Deed dated at Brompton in 10 Richard II. (1386-7), Thomas Cotes and Elianor his wife acknowledge to have received from Sir Peter de Carswall two and a half merks, which he was bound to pay them as their rent of Ercalwe.

In the same year (1386-7) Sir Peter and Mary de Caryswall, "Lord and Lady of Ercalowe Magna", demise Bradford Mill for 12 years to William Kytewylde of Ercall.

On October 6, 1350, a Fine was levied at Westminster, between Thomas Neuport, Parson of the Church of Eyton, and Thomas Corbet, Chaplain (Plaintiffs), and Peter de Caverswall and Mary his wife (deforciants), of the Manor of Ercalwe, whereof was Plea of Convention. The Deforciants first acknowledge the Plaintiffs' right. The latter then settle the Manor on the Deforciants;- to hold for their lives, of the King by the usual services; with remainder to Thomas Gech and Isabel his wife, and Thomas, son of

[1] Patent. 21 Edw. III., p. 1, m. 14.
[2] Inquisitions, 33 Edw. III., No. 21.


Thomas Gech, and his heirs,- to hold of the King, "by whose precept this Fine was levied". [1]

On April 16, 1391, Peter de Cavereswall, knight, acknowledges himself to be bound to Thomas Gech in a sum of 100 merks, received on loan, and to be repaid at Newport on Michaelmas Day following.

On June 12, 1391, an Inquest was held at Shrewsbury, which found that it would be no injury to the Crown, if the King should allow Peter de Careswell and Mary his wife to enfeoff Thomas Newport, Parson of the Church of Eyton, and Thomas Corbet, Chaplain in the Manor of Ercalwe, so that the said Feoffees, being seized, should grant the same to the said Peter and Mary for their lives, with remainder to Thomas Gech and Isabel his wife and Thomas, son of the said Thomas Gech, and the heirs of the said Thomas Gech,- to hold of the King in capite. The Manor, said the Jurors, was held of the King for half a knight's-fee, and was worth 10 per annum. Peter and Mary would still have 3 messuages and 3 carucates of land at Aldemere, held under the Lord Burnell, and worth 5 merks per annum. [2] It seems strange that this Inquest should follow the Fine above quoted. I suppose that in fact it preceded it, and that the original documents involve some error of date.

In 15 Richard II. (June 1391-June 1392), Thomas Gech, Isabel his wife, and Thomas his son, demise to Peter de Cavereswall, knight, and Mary his wife, for their lives, a meadow called Wrennesmore, with a right of road thereto.

In 20 Richard II. (1396-7), the same demise to the same, certain lands which John Boyd and Alice his wife formerly held, by demise of the said Peter, in Cotwall and Great Ercalwe. This was for a term of 40 years, and at a rent of 8 merks payable to the Lessors.

On October 6, 1398, a Fine was levied at Westminster whereby Peter de Cavereswall, Knight, and Mary his wife, surrender their life-interest in the Manor of Ercalwe, to Thomas Gech, Isabel his wife, and Thomas his son, to hold of the King by usual services. A rent of 50 per annum is reserved by the Grantors, with powers of distress. A sum of 200 is also stated to be paid for the grant.

Thus it was that the Newports became Lords of High Ercall. Thomas Newport, it appears, with Isabel his wife, procured a license from the Bishop of Lichfield (dated January 6, 1398) to cause divine service to be performed before them in any of their oratories

[1] Pedes Finium, 14 Rich. II., No. 46.
[2] Inquis. 14 Rich. II., No. 84.

TERN. 97

within the said Diocese. [1] This Thomas Newport was identical with Thomas Gech the elder, who figures in the above Fines. He was deceased in 1401, and Thomas Newport, Esq., then of Ercall, was identical with Thomas Gech the younger. On June 27,. 1402, with Margaret his wife, he obtained an Episcopal license, similar to that previously granted to his Father: [2] and in 1403-4 he served as Sheriff of Shropshire.

I have far overstepped my usual limits in order to introduce a name which continued preeminent in Shropshire History for more than three centuries. The estates of the Newports have constituted the largest tenure-in-fee which the County has known since Domesday. One word in conclusion as to their acquisition of Ercall. They obtained it by purchase, says Leland; and the documents which I have quoted bear out the assertion. However, the Newports were a family of consequence before they acquired Ercall, and I am much mistaken if they had not some hereditary claims to the estate, independent of the money which passed. There are three grounds for this theory;- first, because tradition asserts it, though with much inaccuracy as to the mode of the relationship; secondly, because the Newports uniformly quartered the arms of Ercall; and thirdly, because the muniments of the Ercalls, whether they related to Ercall or other estates, were afterwards held by the Newports.

As to the Caverswells who came between the Ercalls and the Newports, it is probable that they were related to both families, but I have never been able to discover any absolute proof as to how Caverswell was so descended from Ercall as to be entitled his heir, as he undoubtedly was entitled, and that in an authentic document. [3]


This must be taken as one of the Domesday-Berewicks of Ercall. Among the witnesses of Hamo Peverel's Charters, as early as 1134, and of the Charters of his heirs, as late as 1165, is Radulf de Tirna, or Radulf fitz Theald, or Radulf fitz Theold de Tirna.

In his attestations of 1134-1136, this Radulf is usually accompanied by his brother, called Alan fitz Thebald or Alan fitz Theald. With the latter person I have nothing more to do. It is clear from the Liber Niger of 1165 that Radulf de Tern was then living, that his feoffment was old, that is of earlier date than 1185, and that it was a feoffment by service of one-fourth of a knight's-fee. In

[1] [2] Sheriff's of Shropshire, p. 58.
[3] Vide supra, p. 96.


other words, he had been enfeoffed by Hamo Peverel in Tern, a member of Ercall; and in 1165 he held Tern under three of Hamo Peverel's coheirs by service of one-twelfth of a fee to each of his Suzerains.

Reginald de Tern, successor to Radulf, was amerced 20s. for unjust disseizin, in 1180. In 1194 he occurs as Surety, in a sum of three merks, for his neighbour Guy de Shawbury.

The Pipe-Roll of 1202 names Reginald de Tirne and Wiomarus (probably Guomar de Rodinton) as Agistators of the Shropshire Forests, and as accountable for the proceeds of the pannage during several preceding years.

At Assizes held in November 1208, and recorded in the Pipe-Roll of 1209, Reginald de Turne was found responsible for the sum of 31s. for the chattels of a Felon. He would therefore appear to have held some Bailiwick or provincial office under the Crown. The aera of Reginald de Tirne (I.) is thus marked as from 1180 to 1208. I refer to his attestations of several Deeds during that interval. [1] Reginald de Tern had two sons, Radulf and Reginald. Radulf de Tern (II.) occurs on an Inquest of 1220, and with his brother Reginald attests a Charter already given under Eaton. [2] In 1227 (as we have seen [3]) Radulf de Tern had come to some agreement with William de Hedley which necessitated a quitclaim on the part of Reginald, his (Radulf's) brother, who had probably some tenant interest in the matter. I shall say more of this Reginald presently. Radulf de Tern (II.) was succeeded by his son and heir, William de Tern, whose aera, and position are ascertained by the following documents.-

In the year 1237, William de Tyrne for a sum of 14s. leases for a term of 25 years his meadow called Le Pleches, near the meadow called Wulfwyeseie. The Lessees are William Culbel of Osbaston, and Hamo Dulthac of Walton, his brother. The Deed is attested by William de Hedleg, Richard Dean, and Philip de Penintone. [4] In 1246 William de Tyrne delivers to Shrewsbury Abbey a meadow called Le Plac which Alice his mother held. This is for a term of 15 years, commencing April 15, 1246, and in consideration of 40s. paid by the Abbey. Witnesses,- Richard de Tyrne and William Wischard. [5]

About 1247-9 William, son of Radulf de Tyrne, gives to Salop

[1] Supra, Vol. II. pp. 124, 133, 170; Vol. VI. p. 259; Vol. VII. p. 341; Vol. VIII. p. 54.
[2] Supra, Vol. VIII. p. 65.
[3] Supra, p. 82.
[4] [5] Salop Chartulary, Nos. 112, 406.

TERN. 99

Abbey, for 8 merks, the meadow called Le Plokkes,- to hold for ever. Witnesses,- Master Reginald Pynzun, Richard de Momerfeld, Thomas de Weston. [1] By another Deed, which I should ascribe to the same period, William, son of Radulf de Tyrne gives to the Abbey half a virgate in the vill of Tyrne (lately held by Richard, son of Alan le Bonde), with the meadows appurtenant;- also three acres of his demesne, and a certain meadow in the same vill, sometime held by his mother Alice, and called Le Ploc. Witnesses,- Sir William de Hedleg; Sir Gregory de Ercalwe, Vicar; Roger de Pivelesdon. [2]

I suppose that William de Tyrne, who follows Reginald de Tyrne on a Jury-List of September 1249, was son of the last William. We may therefore call him- William de Tern (II.). His grants to Shrewsbury Abbey about 1250, have been noticed under Waters Upton, where he seems to have had some interest. In 1251 we first hear of the Abbot of Lilleshall having acquired a footing in Tern, for it seems that he had levelled a stank there, to the injury of the Abbot of Buildwas. [3] These conflicting interests are explained by the Hundred-Roll of 1255, which states that- "William, Lord of Tirne, used to hold (tenuit) Tirne, of Gilbert Peche [4] by service of one-fourth of a knight's-fee; and the same William gave in free alms to the Abbot of Lilleshull the whole vill of Tirne, with all homages, rents, and appurtenances belonging to the said vill, except a virgate of land which Cecilia de Kent is holding of the Abbot of Buildwas, at a rent of 4d. And the villate of Tirne is one hide; and pays 8d. for motfee, and does suit to County and Hundred". [5]

This Record presumes transactions which were not as yet complete: for the Assize-Roll of January 1256 exhibits William de Tirne as fining half a merk, for leave to compound a plea of Charter-warranty with the Abbot of Lilleshull. [6] The Fine, which followed on February 9th, is preserved. Thereby William de Tirne (Impedient) acknowledges himself to have given to Ralph, Abbot of Lilleshull (Plaintiff), a virgate in Tyrne (whereof was plea of charter-warranty). The Abbot is to pay 6d. rent, to William and his heirs, and to perform all forinsec services. He also undertakes

[1] Salop Chartulary, No. 113.
[2] Ibidem, No. 114.
[3] Supra, Vol. VIII. p. 235.
[4] Gilbert Peche was one of the Coheirs of Peverel (vide supra, p. 73); but how or whether he had acquired the whole mesne-lordship of Tern, I am ignorant or doubtful.
[5] Rot. Hundred. II. 58.
[6] Assize-Roll, 40 Hen. III., m. 4.


to provide two daily corrodies for William and his wife Agnes, during their lives, and one daily corrody for the Survivor.

At these same Assizes of 1256, a quarrel between the Abbots of Shrewsbury and Lilleshull came to an issue. The Abbot of Lilleshull was complained of, as having erected a stank in Tirne, thereby injuring the Abbot of Shrewsbury's tenement. The Defendant got a quietus on the ground that if any such injury had been done, it was in the time of Abbot Richard his predecessor. The latter we know died in 1253.

We have seen that William, son of William de Tern, was, as early as 1250, a Coparcener in Waters Upton. I think he acquired this with his wife Agnes. Notwithstanding his grant to Lilleshall Abbey, he seems to have maintained the position of a landowner long after. It was perhaps he who as William de Tyrne appears as a Regarder of the Forest in 1262, and who, as William de Tyerne, was responsible for a fine of half a merk, for contempt. Afterwards, in 1274 and 1288, it is perhaps he who is called William de Upton; and in 1288, we have seen a William de Tyrne of Opton occurring with a coheiress for his wife, but she is called Agatha. [1] Lastly we have seen that William de Upton with a wife Agnes had a share of Waters Upton in 1292

I now return to say something more of Reginald, second son of Reginald de Tern. It is he who attests in or about 1223, and occurs in 1227. It is probably he who attests in 1284 and who occurs on a Leegomery Inquest in 1249. There was also a Reginald de Tern living in or after the year 1256. But meantime, that is in 1250, Reginald's son, called Reginald de Upton, had acquired a share of Waters Upton, probably by marriage. The appearance that his son, whom I will call Reginald (III.), was deceased in 1255, and had been succeeded by a son (called William fitz Reginald in the Hundred-Roll of that year) is, I think, delusive. For William fitz Reginald of the Record, I should read Reginald fitz Reginald; which would make Reginald (III.) to be the person meant.

In proof of the error of the Hundred-Roll I would observe that no other document mentions any William fitz Reginald, but that an Ercall Deed of 1271 is attested by Reginald de Terne, who would therefore seem to be living sixteen years after the date of the Hundred-Roll.

The difficulties of this descent have been already stated under

[1] [2] Supra, Vol. VIII. pp. 56, 57.

TERN. 101

Waters Upton. There were other members of this family, of whom I can give no satisfactory account, for instance,- a Bolas Inquest of 1249 was attended by one Radulf de Tirne, and Richard de Tirne is a witness of an Ercall Deed in 1271. [1]

I proceed to give a few notes of Tern as divided between the three Abbeys of Lilleshull, Shrewsbury, and Buildwas.

LILLESHALL FEE. On November 29, 1265, King Henry III., confirming the acquisitions of Lilleshull Abbey, includes "the donation and concession which William de Tyrne did make thereto, of the vill of Tyrne with its appurtenances". The Feodary of 1284-5 says that "the Abbot of Lilleshill holds the vill of Tierne in free alms and by confirmatory Charter of King Henry III". The Taxation of 1291 gives the Abbot of Lilleshull as having 1 assized rent in Tirne. [2] At the Assizes of 1292, the Abbot acknowledged his obligation to pay 8d. for the stretward and motfee of Tern. He had further to pay 1. 1s. 4d., or 32 years' arrears of the same. A List of Crown-dues in the Abbey Chartulary includes this item, adding that the Vill itself was to discharge the same.

The Valor of 1535-6 masses the Abbot of Lilleshall's receipts from Tern with those from Longdon and Coldhatton. The whole amounted to 16 per annum; but inasmuch as Lilleshall now leased the Buildwas estates at Longdon and Tern, at a fee-farm rent of 4. 8s. 4d., the net receipts of Lilleshall must be put at 11. 16s. 8d. [3]

BUILDWAS ABBEY FEE. There is apparently no Record as to how Buildwas acquired its virgate at Tern. It was possessed thereof before the year 1251, when, as we have seen, it had a quarrel with Lilleshull about a stank, destroyed by the latter. Nor was this their only quarrel, for on January 80, 1251, Sir Robert de Grendon, then Sheriff, held an Inquest, pursuant to a King's Writ, which set forth a complaint by the Abbot of Buildwas, viz. that the Abbot of Lilleshull had erected a Mill in Suggedon, injuriously to the Abbot of Buildwas's tenement in Tyrne. The Jury found that the Abbot of Lilleshull's Mill had not been erected in Suggedon, but in his own tenement of Longedon. [4]

In 1255, Buildwas only received 4d. rent for its virgate at Tern; [5] but in 1291, its receipts had increased to 2. 13s. 4d. [6] Afterwards,

[1] I have suggested something about this Richard under Waters Upton (Vol. VIII. p. 57).
[2] Pope Nich. Taxation, p. 261.
[3] Valor Eccles. III. pp. 191, 197.
[4] Lilleshall Chartulary, fo. 125.
[5] Vide supra, p. 99.
[6] Pope Nich. Taxation, p. 261.


as we have seen above, it leased its estate or estates in this quarter to Lilleshall at a fee-farm rent of 4. 3s. 4d.

SHREWSBURY ABBEY FEE. The valuations of this Abbey's estates must be taken usually to include its receipts from Tern with those from Sleap and Crudgington. However one Rent-Roll (that drawn up about 1490) has these items, viz. "The rent of Tyron 6s. The Hall-orchard 6s.": [1] while Sleap and Crudgington are separately valued.


The mode in which these two members of Ercall came into the possession of Shrewsbury Abbey has been already described.

On January 7, 1228, the King appoints William Pantun (of Hales) and others to try an Assize of novel-disseizin between the Abbot of Salop and Hugh fitz Robert concerning common-pasture in Crugeleston and Merston (Meeson).

The Franktons of Welch Frankton seem to have been Tenants of Shrewsbury Abbey at Crudgington. Hence the following Deeds in the Salop Chartulary.-

About 1236-40, "Agnes, Relict of Reyner de Francheton concedes to the Abbey, for 10s., all that share of the land which her husband had held under the Abbey at Crugelton, that share namely which belonged to her in the name of dower. Witnesses,- Nicholas, then Provost of the Foriete, Benedict de Estone, William de Stanwordine". [2]

Within the same interval, "Margaret, Relict of Reyner, son of Reyner de Franketon, concedes to the Abbey, for 10s., her dower in the land which her said husband had sold to the Abbey at Crugeltun. Witnesses,- Nicholas, then Provost of the Foriete, Benedict de Eston, James fitz Martin, Adam fitz Thomas". [3]

About 1240-1250, "Eynon ap Owen (whom I know to have been Lord of Frankton at the time) concedes to Kenewrec de Salefeld, for 5s., half a virgate in Crugelton. Witnesses,- Sir Griffin de Albo Monasterio, William de Calverhall". [4]

The Hundred-Roll of 1255 says that "the Abbot of Salop holds Slepe in pure alms, by gift of Hamo Peverel, viz. 2 hides. It does no suit to County or Hundred". [5] This description must be taken to include Crudgington and Kinnersley.

Another series of Deeds now occur in the Abbey Chartulary.-

[1] Hist. Shrewsbury, II. 508.
[2] Salop Chartulary, No. 110-b.
[3] Ibidem, Nos. 114-b.; 236-b.
[4] Rot. Hundred. II. 57.


About 1260, "Richard son of Reginald de Franketon gave half a virgate in Crugelton to the Altar of the Virgin in Shrewsbury Abbey. Witnesses,- John Lord of Ercalewe, John Lord of Aston Aer. [1]

"Margery widow of Reginald de Franketon recites and confirms the last Deed. Witnesses,- as the last, with William le Palerin of Draytone, and William de Drayton". [2]

"On June 24, 1263, Richard son of Reginald de Franketon acknowledges 40s., as received from Brother Lucas, Monk, and Custos of the aforesaid Altar, for half a virgate in the vill of Sleppe, which Alan Rotarius used to hold of the said Richard". Witnesses,- Thomas, then Abbot of Shrewsbury; Stephen, then Kitchener of Wenlock; Philip, then Prior of Shrewsbury; Alan Bond, Monk of the same House; and Master Robert de Stokes.- "And the said Richard, not having a seal of his own used that of Master Richard (Query Robert) de Stokes". [3]

About this time, "Sibil, daughter of Robert, son of Stephen de Crugelton, gave to the Abbey a noke with a meadow in Crugelton, which were of her inheritance". Witnesses,- John Lord of Ercalewe, Richard de Franketon, Reginald de Tirne. [4]

Between the years 1266 and 1271, "William Abbot of Salop demises to Philip de Podford and Isabel his wife, and the heirs of their bodies, half a virgate in Crugelton, which belonged to the Altar of the Virgin; and for which the Grantees were to pay a rent of 8s. to the Custos of the said Altar". Witnesses,- Sir John de Ercalewe, Knight; Sir John Schory, Chaplain. [5]

The Bradford Tenure-Roll (about 1285) makes Crugelton, Kynnersley, and Butterly (i.e. Buttery), to be members of the Abbot's Manor of Slepe. The Taxation of 1291, probably includes those places when it gives 10. 17s. 6d. as the annual value of Slepe. [6] The items of receipt were- Two Carucates of land 1; Assized rents 7. 7s. 6d.; a Mill 1; Aids, Pleas, and Perquisites 1. 10s.

At the Assizes of 1292, the Abbot of Shrewsbury's exercise of Free-Warren, in Eyton (near Wroxeter) and Slepe, was noted by the Bradford Jurors.

About 1490, the following valuation extends to Sleap and Crudgington only.- Eight items of receipt from Slepe realized 7. 15s. 4d. per annum; and eleven items from Crogelton realized 6. 9s. 10d.

The same Rent-Roll, when it says that the bulk of assized rents from Slepe was 30. 8s. 11d., means to include not only these particular receipts from Slepe and Crudgington, but those from

[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] Nos. 238-a, c, and d; 111; 237.
[6] Pope Nich. Taxation, p. 260.


Kinnersley, Tibberton, Osbaston, Buttery, Tern, and other places, including perhaps Charlton near Wrockwardine. It is in fact a summary of what had gone before.

The Valor of 1534 gives 30. 17s. 4d. as the Abbot's annual receipts from Slepe and Crogington. [1] This must include Kinnersley, Tibberton, Osbaston, Buttery, and Tern. Richard Charleton, Bailiff of Slepe, had a salary of 1 from the Abbey.

In 33 Henry VIII. (1541-2) the same estates are probably comprised under the following title, viz. "The Lordship (dominium) of Slepe, Crogelton, and Kemsey" (i.e. Kinnersley). Their value was 32. 18s. 5d. per annum, viz. Assized rents 12s.; rents of customary tenants 13. 0s. 4d.; rents of Tenants-at-will 4. 3s. 5d.; diverse ferms 11. 17s. 4d.; ferm of tithes 3; Perquisites of Court 5s. 4d. [2]

SLEAP CHAPEL. Tradition speaks of such a foundation. Of course it was a mere Dependency of Ercall Church.


This member of Ercall is now lost. I have described the mode in which it passed to Wombridge Priory, [3] but the Deeds which should relate to the locality are missing in the Chartulary of that House.

In 1251, the Prior of Wombridge was suing the Abbot of Salop for disseizing him of a tenement in Cruggelton. [4] I presume that Crudgington and Shurlow were adjoining vills.

John Lord of Ercall (1256-1278) gave to Wombridge Priory a piece of cultivated land lying between the White stone and the green way which led towards Ercall. [5] Between the years 1284 and 1304, "William, Lord of Ercalwe, son and heir of Sir John de Ercalwe, allowed that the Canons of Wombridge might 'improve their waste' at Shirlowe, in the Manor of Ercalwe". [5]

The Taxation of 1291 values a carucate at Surlowe, among the estates of Wombridge Priory, at 12s. per annum. The Valor of 1534-5 gives 15. 17s. 10d. as the gross rental of 11 messuages in Cherrington, Tibberton, Shorlo, and Podforde, of 2 tenements in Hatton (Hineheath), and 3 cottages in Broughton (Brockton). [6]

The Ministers' Accounts, two years later, distinguish these estates,

[1] Valor Ecclesiasticus, III. 189.
[2] See Monasticon, III. 527.
[3] Supra, p. 79.
[4] Rot. Patent. 36 Hen. III., dorso.
[5] Monasticon, VI. 390.
[6] Valor Ecclesiasticus, III. 194.


showing that a messuage at Padforde yielded 13s. 4d., and Sherlowe Grange 2. [1]


This member of High Ercall is also lost. So too is that part of the Wombridge Chartulary which should aid us in making out its history. Edward II.'s Confirmation to Wombridge, speaks of "William de Hedleg having conceded to the Priory all his moor under the Vivary of Wilsithelond as it was bounded by a ditch". The Grantor was probably either William de Hadley (III.) or William de Hadley (IV.).

From the same authority we learn how "William Wiscart, son of Baldwin Wiscart, gave to Wombridge a virgate of land in Wilsidelond, with its appurtenances and meadows, and with common pasture for all the Prior's live stock at Shurlowe in the whole tenement of Wilsidelond, and with free pasture, for all the Prior's oxen at Shurlowe, throughout the Grantor's fenced lands, in his whole tenement of Wilsidelond, both in meadows and in any other pastures".

Another grant by "William Wiscart" to the Priory was of 3 acres in Wilsidelond. [2] This William Wiscart was Lord of Cold Hatton in the middle of the 13th century. He doubtless held the whole or part of Wilsithland under the Ercalls.

We have seen that in 1255 Ysonda de Wilfichelond was spoken of as having granted something in Ercall Manor to Wombridge Priory. [3] She too, I suppose, was a Tenant here.

An entry on the Assize-Roll of 1256 will indicate the situation of Wilsithland as South-west of Ercall. A Plaintiff (whom the Record omits to name) sued William de Arkelewe and five others for levelling a stank in Rodenhurst, to the injury of the Plaintiff's tenement in Wylsithelond. The Plaintiff when the stank existed, had been able, from the flow of water over the said stank, to have a free fishery there, and to take luces (pike), bream, and other fishes at pleasure. William de Arkelewe was ordered to restore the stank at his own cost and to pay 2s. damages.

It would seem that Henry Malvoisin of Ashfield and Berwick, living from 1231 to 1256, had held Wilsithland under the Ercalls. At his death he left, besides his two sons already [4] mentioned (viz. Thomas and Philip), an elder son, Henry. This son, Henry, become

[1] Monasticon, Vol. VI. p. 391.
[2] Monasticon, Vol. VI. 390.
[3] Supra, page 85.
[4] Supra, Vol. VII. p. 397.


seized of Wilsithland, but fell from a tree when only 15 years of age. Wishing on his deathbed to advance his younger brother, Philip, he enfeoffed him in Wilsithland. Soon afterwards Henry Mauveisin (II.) died, by the said fall and left no issue. On his death, John de Ercalew, as Seigneural Lord, seized on Wilsithlond, and then rendered it up to Thomas Malvoisin, as brother and next heir to Henry.

In June 1272 Philip Mauveisin takes out a writ of dieseizin, against Thomas Mauveisin, for a tenement in Wilselond, but in July the Writ is amended by one against Thomas Mauveisin, and others. The cause was tried at the Assizes of October 1272, when Thomas Mauveysin, John de Erkelewe and three others appeared to defend their having disseized Philip Mauveysin of two-thirds of a messuage and carucate in Wilsidelond.-

The facts of the case I have given above, as the Jury found them. It was true that Henry Mauveysin had enfeoffed Philip, and so had not died seized of the premises. It was also true that Philip had begun to plough the land when John de Ercalewe disseized him; but Philip took nothing, "because he had had no esplees from the land, and because he had been enfeoffed by a Minor". [1] We have seen that Thomas de Berwick continued to hold Wilsithland in 1285. [2]

OSBASTON. Hamund Pichard, who probably held this vill and Moor-town under the Ercalls, gave, as we have seen, a forndell in Hosberton to Wombridge Priory. [3] This was before 1181. In 1187 Pope Urban's Bull confirms it as a virgate in Osberneston, given by Hamund Pichart.

In 1256 William le Franceys (probably the Prior of Wombridge's Tenant in Osbaston) was at issue with William de Ercalewe.

Between 1256 and 1278 the above virgate in Osbaston was held under Wombridge Priory by Richard de Loskesford and John de Espeley, but the Priory gave it to Sir John de Ercall in exchange for something elsewhere. We have seen that Shrewsbury Abbey had 4 acres of land in Ercall and a right of common at Osberneston. [4] Between 1272 and 1278, Luke Abbot of Shrewsbury gave to Sir John de Ercalewe, knight, all the land which the Abbey had in Ercalewe, viz. 4 nokes, exclusive of one noke held by William Suter. In return the said Knight gave to the Abbey that virgate in Osberneston which he bad acquired from Wombridge Priory. He also

[1] Assizes, 56 Hen. III., m. 2, dorso.
[2] Supra, page 86.
[3] Supra, Vol VII. p. 364.
[4] Supra, page 83.


conceded that the Abbot might have 200 sheep (counted by the long-hundred), and not more, in virtue of a certain Charter of his Ancestors, and two milking cows, anywhere in his pastures of Ercall, where his men had common. He allowed also free-passage through his land, for the Abbot's men to carry grain and hay to Osberneston. [1]

Soon after this, Abbot Luke concedes, to the same Sir John, William Sutor's noke in Ercall, and also gave Sir John a license and faculty to petition the Convent of Shrewsbury concerning the admission of a certain Chaplain to the office of Sacristan in their Church of Ercall. Witnesses,- Sir Odo de Hodnet, Sir John fitz Aer, Sir John fitz Hugh, knights. [2]

The only Rent-Roll which gives the Abbot of Shrewsbury's receipts from Osbaston as distinct from Sleap and Crudgington is that of 1490. Three items of receipt at Osbaston realized 1. 14s. [3]

MOORTOWN. The Pichards also held this member of Ercall, but I suspect that they had surrendered their tenancy, and that the vill was in the demesne of William de Ercall (III.), in 1245, when the Prior of Wombridge claimed a right of tithing it. When John de Ercall's Deed (later than 1256) exempts the land from this tithe he states himself to have bought it From Hamo Pichard; [4] but I suspect that it was one of his ancestors who had so bought it. In 1269 William de Hales and Cecilia his wife were suing John de Erkalewe for disseizing them of a tenement in La More. Cecilia was probably that Sister of John de Erkalewe who had complained to the King of his violent conduct in 1267.

The Valor of 1535-6 gives the Prioress of White Ladies 6s. 8d. rent in Ercall, [4] probably a composition for all her interests in Moortown.

WALTON and COTWALL, though mentioned as members of Ercalll, seem to have been held in demesne by the Lords of the Manor. They have, at all events, no distinct history, unless I may instance a Deed of July 21, 1309, whereby William de Ercalewe gives to William le Ku of Ideshale, and Johanna his daughter, 3 acres of waste in Coctewall. [5]


Ercall Church was dedicated to St. Edward;- a proof in itself that it was not an ancient Saxon Foundation; for the original parochial divisions of the Province must have been assigned long before

[1] [2] Salop Chartulary, Nos. 394, 396.
[3] Hist. Shrewsbury, Vol. II. 508.
[4] Valor Ecclesiasticus, III. 193.
[5] The late Mr. George Morris's Deeds.


the death or canonization of the Martyr-King. St. Michael is now assigned as the Patron Saint of Ercall Church, on what authority I know not, save that it is not on the authority of ancient Records.

Domesday gives no indication of the existence of any Church at Ercall. I have explained this under Rodington, where the Mother Church of the district probably stood in 1086. However the supremacy was transferred to Ercall within eight years of that date; for Earl Roger himself gave the "Church of Archeloua with all things pertaining thereto", to Shrewsbury Abbey, and the Earl died in 1093-4. The Charter of William Rufus confirmed this grant as that of the Church of Ercalow, and it had the uniform sanction of his Royal Successors. Earl Hugh, as I have explained, granted two-thirds of the tithes of his demesne of Ercalou to Shrewsbury Abbey. He added the same proportion of the tithes of Heitona. Now Heitona is identical with Cold Hatton, which had been Gerard de Tornai's at Domesday. I infer that the Earl granted these tithes while Gerard de Tornai's estates were an Escheat, and not yet granted to Hamo Peverel. The latter Baron is however said to have granted the tithes of his demesnes of Arkalou, Heiton, Wilsitheland, Sleap, and Crugelton to the Abbey. As usual I test these discordant statements by the express words of Bishop Clinton's Charter, which passed within 50 years of Earl Hugh's death.- An extract will suffice.

Omnibus etc. Rogerus D. G. Coventr' Episcopus salutem. Universati vestrae significamus nos dilectis filiis nostris Abbati et Monachis Salopiae concessisse et confirmasse omnes decimas quas Hugo Comes Salopiae, de dominiis suis, eisdem ad constructionem ecclesiae suae dedit et per cartam suam, quam inspeximus, confirmavit, viz. de dominio de Archalou et de terra Wischardi duas partes decimarum. [1] That Wischard's land is the same as Cold Hatton we shall see when we come to that Manor.

Another Charter of Bishop Clinton's to Shrewsbury Abbey confirms the "Church of Archalou, with its Chapels, and a pension of 20s". [2] Bishop Durdent's Confirmation is still more exact. It ensures the Church of Archalou, with the tithe of that Manor, and with the tithe of Wiscard's land, and the tithe of Rodintone, and with the Chapels pertaining to the same Church. [3] Bishop Peche's Confirmation enumerates two-thirds of the demesne-tithes of Erkalou, Hetton, and Wilsithelond, as granted by others to Shrewsbury

[1] [2] [3] Salop Chartulary, Nos. 325, 328, 327.


Abbey, but the whole tithes of Slepe as tithes of the Abbot's demesne. The Bishop also confirms a pension of 20s. from the Church of Erkalou, and of 16s. from the Chapel of Rodinton, in lieu of two-thirds of the demesne-tithes of that vill. [1] It was Bishop Alexander de Staveneby who first allowed the Monks of Shrewsbury to appropriate Ercall Church. Up to his time the constitution of the Church was almost Collegiate, for it had a resident Rector and Vicar, whose incomes were portionary. Bishop Stavensby's Charter of Appropriation begins with the hypocritical pleas usual to such occasions. He finds that the Church-patronage of the Abbey has hitherto been rather a burden than an advantage to itself. He reserves the rights of Nicholas, then Rector of Ercall, till he should die, or resign. The Vicarage, endowed with 15 merks per annum, was so to remain, and Alexander, the present Vicar, was to hold it for his life. The Vicar was to bear all Church burdens, as at present, except the Abbot's Procuration, which henceforth the Abbot was to provide himself. Witnesses,- Master Richard de Gloucester, Chancellor of Lichfield and Official of the Bishop; Sir Richard de Stavenesbi, the Bishop's brother (germano). Dated at Canterbury, 11 kal. Nov., and in the 5th year of the Bishop's pontificate (i.e. Oct. 22, 1228). [2]

G. (Geoffrey), Prior of Coventry, and his Convent, confirmed the above appropriation. Their Deed is dated 7 kal. June, in the 5th year of Bishop Alexander's pontificate. This date is equivalent to May 26, 1228, and is therefore erroneous. [3] The real date of the Deed was probably May 26, 1229, and so in the 6th year of Bishop Alexander. W. (William), Dean of Lichfield and his Chapter, confirmed the above appropriation on Sept. 18, 1246. Witnesses,- Master Thomas de Wymundham, Praecentor of Lichfield; Master R. de Gloucester, Treasurer of Lichfield; Master W. de Luceby, Archdeacon of Derby. [4] In this same year (1246), the Abbot of Shrewsbury had a dispute with the Prior of Wombridge as to the small tithes of the Prior's demesne at Schurlawe, valued at 3s., and claimed by the Abbot. A rescript of Pope Innocent IV. dated May 25, 1246, bore on the matter. At length on May 9, 1247, the Prior quitclaimed two-thirds of the said small-tithes, and agreed

[1] Salop Chartulary, No. 329.
[2] Lichfield Register, A. fo. 7, b.
[3] The Writer of the Confirmation probably had the Bishop's Charter before him, and followed it too closely, not adverting to the fact that the 6th year of the Bishop's pontificate had set in on April 14th, 1229, the date of his consecration being April 14, 1224.
[3] Salop Chartulary, No. 69.


to pay the Abbot 18d. yearly in lieu thereof. [1] Ten years after this period the tithes of Ercall Parish must have been divisible in a most complex way. The great and small tithes of the whole Parish (except demesnes) went to the Abbot of Shrewsbury, as Rector, after the Vicar's Portion of 15 merks had been satisfied. As to demesnes they were doubly tithable; that is liable to pay two-tenths of their whole produce. One of these tenths was subdivided as follows. The Abbot of Shrewsbury took two-thirds thereof, in virtue of the arbitrary consecration by Earl Hugh. The remaining third he took also, as Impropriate Rector of Ercall Church. The other tenth of demesne-tithes was of course a ninth of the residuary produce. That, as we have seen, was subdivided between the Prior of Wombridge and the Prioress of Brewood, the title of each arising by arbitrary consecration of the Lords of Ercall. Such will have been the general rule of division, but, in the case of Shurlow, it is not easy to see why Shrewsbury Abbey claimed only two-thirds of the small-tithes of its demesne. Perhaps the remaining third, originally belonging to the Parish Church, was now annexed to the Vicarage. On August 17, 1280, Archbishop Peckham, having visited this Diocese as Metropolitan, and examined the Charters of Shrewsbury Abbey, found, and approved of, Earl Roger's original grant of Ercall Church, Bishop Stavensby's appropriation thereof, the confirmations of the Chapters of Lichfield and Coventry, and lastly of a Bull of Pope Gregory IX. (1227-1241) sanctioning the same appropriation. [2] The Abbot's title to a pension of 20s. from Ercall Church, though formally sanctioned in the Archbishop's Charter, was probably represented by a different sum payable by the Vicar.

In the Taxation of 1291 the Church of Ercalwe (in the Deanery of Salop) is valued at 20. This was I suppose the Rectory. The Vicarage was apparently untaxed, as not liable to Tenths, except that a sum of 1. 4s., receivable therefrom by the Abbot of Shrewsbury, is stated to be thus liable. [3]

On April 19, 1324, Johanna and Matildis, daughters of Roger le Archer of Slope (Sleep), grant to Sir Richard de Adbaston, Chaplain, and his successors, for celebration of the Mass of the blessed Mary in the Church of Ercalewe, for the souls' health of Roger and Cecilia, father and mother of the Grantresses, an acre in the field of Crugelton. Witnesses,- William de Ercalewe, Knight; Sir John

[1] Salop Chartulary, No. 390.
[2] Harl. MS. 3868, fo. 8; and Salop Chartulary, Number 62.
[3] Pope Nich. Taxation, p. 247.


de Morton, Perpetual Vicar of Ercalwe; William Baudewyn of Walton; Alan de Rodene; William Fraunceys of Roulton, etc. Dated at Crugelton. [1]

In 1341 the Taxation of Great Ercall Church is quoted, rightly or wrongly, as 20. This sum the Assessors reduced to a tax of 13. 6s. 8d., for the Ninth of wheat, wool, and lamb, now to be levied in the Parish. Their reasons for the reduction were because the Chapels of Rodington and Upton Parva (Waters Upton), were now separated from the Mother Church, and assessed as distinct Parishes to the current tax;- also because the small tithes and other income of Ercall Church were worth 10 per annum, that is, constituted 10 of the Church Taxation, but were not to be computed as an index of the value of the Ninth. The temporalities of Shrewsbury Abbey in Ercall Parish are certified to have been included in the above assessment of 13. 6s. 8d.

In a Rental of Shrewsbury Abbey (about 1490) the following items of receipt relate to Ercall Rectory.-

Tithes of the Church of Ercall: 15 0 0
Rodynton: 0 13 4
Tithes of Pevynton (farmed apparently by one Collay): 0 13 4 John Newport, for his own proper tithes: 1 6 8

Passing now to the Valor of 1534-5, we find the preferment of Nicholas Cartwright, Vicar of Miche-Ercall, valued at 18. 19s. 4d. per annum, less 32s. 8d.

The said deductions were a pension of 20s. still payable to Shrewsbury Abbey; 10s. for Archdeacons' Procurations; and 2s. 8d. for Synodals. [3]

Among the Abbot of Shrewsbury's Spiritualities the same Record gives the following receipts, viz.

Tithes of Ercall Church: 13 0 0
Ferm of the tithes of Slepe and Crogington: 3 0 0
Annual pension from Ercall Church: 1 0 0
Portion of the tithes of Shirloue, receivable from the Abbot (read Prior) of Wombridge: 0 1 6
Portion of the Demesne-tithes of Rodynton: 0 1 4 [4]

Among the prior of Wombridge's receipts the same Record gives a free rent of 13s. 4d. payable by Thomas Newport for Ercall. [5] It was probably a composition in lieu of tithes.

[1] The late Mr. George Morris's Deeds.
[2] Inquis. Nonarum, p. 184.
[3] [4] [5] Valor Ecclesiasticus, Vol. III. pp. 184, 189, 190, 194.


CHURCH NOTES. In connection with the fabric of Ercall Church, three objects of various interest require a passing notice.-

1. The Monumental Effigy (of which a drawing is annexed) is of Free-stone, and stands in the East end of the North Aisle. The Tradition of the last Century assigned it to one of the Ercalls.

2. A sepulchral slab, to the memory of Dame Eleanor Le Strange, will be more fully noticed under Whitchurch, the seat of that Lady's Ancestors and Descendants. I can assign no reason for her having been buried at Ercall.

3. An ancient Font, of rude Norman design, which belonged to Ercall Church, is now in Shrewsbury Abbey. At what precise period, or for what reason, it was removed, I cannot determine.


NICHOLAS, last Rector of Ercall, occurs in 1228.

ALEXANDER, the Cotemporary Vicar, occurs again in 1229, and between 1232 and 1238.

GREGORY, Vicar of Ercall, occurs about 1248 and 1250.

NICHOLAS occurs as Vicar about the close of the century, and is spoken of as former Vicar in 1307.

JOHN DE MORTON, Priest, was instituted September 16, 1305, the Abbot and Convent of Salop presenting. He was here in 1324.

RICHARD MARCHALL exchanges this Vicarage on May 20, 1345, for the preferment of-

JOHN DE MERE, "Sacristan of the Sacristy" of Lichfield, and Incumbent of Kyngton (Wygorn. Dioc.). In June 1358, Meere being superannuated, John de Greyby, a Canon of St. Chad's (Shrewsbury), was appointed his Coadjutor.

RICHARD DE LA MORE, Priest, instituted April 21, 1362, on the usual presentation, resigned the same year, when, on November 16,-

SIR ROGER DE ASTON, Priest, was instituted. Same Patrons. On October 16, 1378, Aston exchanges with-

RICHARD DE PRESTON, late Rector of Edgmond.

JOHN DE ROULTON occurs October 29, 1384, as holding the Church of Ercall Magna and the Chapel of Roulton (Rowton). On April 30, 1394-

WILLIAM HAMYNET, Vicar of Ercall, exchanges with-

THOMAS CORBET, late Rector of Stoke-upon-Tern. Corbet was here in 1408-9.



[For engravings, see pdf.]



This Chantry, dedicated to All Saints, and situated in the Cemetery of Ercall Church, was in contemplation, as we have seen, in 1331. On December 22, 1334, its building was completed, and the Bishop instituted-

BENEDICT DE FRODDESLEY, Priest, to be Custos thereof, he having been presented by Sir William de Ercall, knight, "the true Patron". At the same time,

RICHARD DE ADBASTON, Priest, is instituted, as Subcustos. On Benedict de Frodsley's resignation (July 8, 1348), and on August 12 following,-

JOHN DE NEUTON, Chaplain, was admitted as Custos, Sir William de Careswall, knight, presenting.


The Chapels belonging to the Parish, which owned Ercall as its Mother Church, were numerous. Of these Rodington and Waters Upton are now distinct Churches; but there were Chapels also at Isombridge, Sleap, [1] Poynton, Roden, and Rowton, which were affiliations of Ercall, but are now destroyed.

Most of these have been or shall be noticed in their proper places, but I have omitted thus to speak of-

RODEN CHAPEL, and will therefore supply the deficiency here. Its Incumbents were presented by the Lords of the Manor and so appear on the Diocesan Registers. They were-

ADAM DE NEWEPORT, Priest, instituted July 11, 1306. Patron, Thomas de Lee.

JOHN DE RODENE, Priest, collated June 30, 1350. Patron- The Bishop, by lapse.

SIR JOHN LE HEYR, who died in 1369.

JOHN DE TONG, Subdeacon, instituted March 11, 1370, at presentation of Catherine de Lee, Lady of Roden.

SIR JOHN BEYMOND resigned in 1378.

PHILIP DE CHETWYND, "having the first tonsure";- instituted July 12, 1378. Patron, William de Chetewynd, Lord of Calvynton.

THOMAS ALKOC of Hemyngburgh, "having his first tonsure", instituted August 12, 1379. Patron, Robert de Lee, Lord of Roden.

[1] Tradition is the only authority for the existence of a Chapel at Sleep.


THOMAS DE BADDEBY, late Rector of Newport, who came here by exchange with Alkoc on August 15, 1379, but resigned in six days.

PHILIP DE CHETEWYND, instituted August 21, 1379. Same Patron.

SIR JOHN DE MORETON, Priest, instituted May 23, 1381. Same Patron.

MASTER ROBERT MUNDEVILL, late Canon of St. Chad's, who came here by exchange with Moreton on May 25, 1381.

PHILIP DE CHETWYND, still "having his first tonsure", was a third time instituted to Roden Chapel on June 7, 1381.

ROBERT DE CHETWYND was instituted October 23, 1382, Robert de Lee again presenting.

ROGER SAUNDRE, Priest, instituted July 1, 1392 (the same Patron presenting), resigned in 1406.


THIS extensive Manor is noticed in Domesday as follows.-

"The Earl himself holds Edmendune. Leuinus Cilt held it (in Saxon times) with VI Berewicks. Here are XIIII hides, geldable. In demesne are VI ox-teams and XII Neat-herds; and one Female Serf; XXXIII Villains, and VIII Boors, with two Frenchmen, have XI teams; and yet there might be XI more teams here. Here a Mill with a fishery, pays 10s. (yearly). In King Edward's time, the Manor used to pay 14 (per annum). Now it pays 15". [1]

I cannot give a decided opinion as to the personage above described as Leuinus Cilt. As a usual resource of ignorance I venture on a guess, viz. that it was Leofwine, one of the sons of Earl Godwin. The said Leofwine fell by the side of King Harold his brother, at the, so-called, Battle of Hastings.

As to the six Berewicks of Edgmond, I take five of them to have been Adeney; Field Aston, Church Aston, Pickstock, and Little Hales.

Earl Roger's only known dealings with this Manor of his demesne

[1] Domesday, fo. 253, b, 2.


consisted in the foundation of a Church, not ten years after Domesday,- a subject of which I shall speak hereafter. So also shall I have to discourse on the origin of the Town of Newport;- a Norman foundation in this same Manor of Edgmond.

Edgmond with all its appurtenances, Saxon and Norman, came to the hands of King Henry II. as a Manor of Royal-demesne, whose fiscal value was in the proportion of 12. 2s. 8d. to 265. 15s.;- the latter being the gross value of that Firma Comitatus for which the Sheriff was annually responsible at the Exchequer.

About Midsummer 1165, Whittington Castle was surrendered to the Crown by Geoffrey de Vere, its previous Lord. The King in lieu thereof granted a charge of 12 per annum on Edgmond to Geoffrey de Vere. The Sheriff paid 3 of this charge at Michaelmas 1165, 12 at Michaelmas 1166, 12 at Michaelmas 1167, and so every year till 1170 inclusive. Then, in consequence I presume of Geoffrey de Vere's death, the payment was discontinued.

No further charge on the reputed revenue of Edgmond appears on the Pipe-Rolls till the year 1177. Then began those joint charges on the Manors of Edgmond and Wellington which lasted till 1194, the amount and recipients of which have been set forth under Wellington. Meanwhile the Pipe-Roll of 1193 shows a charge on Edgmond to have been renewed by a Writ of King Richard in favour of Henry de Vere: and at the same time an annuity of 14 had been similarly ordered for a second Geoffrey de Vere, ad se sustentandum in servitio Regis. Nothing was said about Whittington in either case. Of Henry de Vere's annuity or charge on Edgmond, he only received 3, or one quarter's instalment.

At Easter 1194, Edgmond was again farmed by the Sheriff and its revenues paid into the Exchequer. This continued till 1209, except that in 1198, 1199, and 1200, certain charges, already specified, [1] were made by the Sheriff for the deficient stock which he found on the Manors of Wellington and Edgmond, and except that from 1202 to 1209, Edgmond was one of the Manors which exhibited a similar deficiency. [2] Meantime, that is, on February 2, 1206, King John, being at Nottingham, granted all Edwyney (Adeney), a member of his Manor of Egemenden in pure alms, to the Abbot and Convent of Croxden (Staffordshire). The grant was in lieu of an annuity of 100s. which the Monks had previously received as Royal Alms at the Exchequer. The King's Charter was witnessed, among others, by Hugh Pantulf. [3] The fiscal value of Adeney was

[1] Supra, page 41.
[2] Supra, Vol. III. p. 68.
[3] Rot. Chartarum, p. 162.


2. 2s. 8d. The King's grant therefore reduced the fiscal value of Edgmond to 10. This change is not noticed on the Pipe-Rolls till 1209. Then the Sheriff discharges his liabilities of a sum of 8. 10s. 8d., or four years' reputed revenue of "Edwiney, given to the Monks of Crokesden, by Writ Royal".

Edgmond itself continued virtually to contribute its annual 10 to the Firma Comitatus till 1217 inclusive. In that or the next year King Henry III. assigned this revenue to Henry de Audley, "wherewith to support him in the Royal service, and during the Royal pleasure". Hence, at Michaelmas 1220, the Sheriff discharges his liabilities of 30, or three previous years of the revenue of Egmendon. [1] From 1221 to 1225, Henry de Audley enjoyed the full annual income of 10 from Edgmond. [2] He also had 50s. for a quarter of the next fiscal year; but three quarters' revenue due Michaelmas 1226, was accounted for by the Sheriff at the Exchequer, Edgmond having been for that period in manu Regis. On January 1, 1227, the King commits the Manor of New Borough, cum pertinentiis, to Henry de Audley ad se sustentandum in servitio Regis, and pending the King's pleasure; [3] but on July 22, 1227, the King, by Charter, dated at Westminster, grants the Manor of Egmundon cum Novo Burgo to Henry de Audley and his heirs, to hold of the Crown, by the service of one sore sparrow-hawk, payable yearly at the Exchequer. [4] A Writ-Close of February 17, 1228, informs the Barons of the Exchequer of this grant. Meanwhile the full effect of the above Charter is seen on the Pipe-Roll of 1227.- First, the Sheriff assigns 10 in Egmendon to Henry de Audley ad se sustentandum, as before, but the entry is interlined and corrected, by a statement that Audley had the Manor by Royal gift, to him and his heirs, and would answer for the ferm thereof himself. Below, on the same Roll, "Henry de Aldithele accounts one mewed sparrow-hawk for the ferm of Egmendon cum Novo Burgo, according as the King had given the Manor to him at such a ferm. The hawk had been paid to the King himself; and Audley was Quit".

Thus did the Audleys become Lords of Edgmond and Newport. The Sheriffs continued for ages to discharge their own account of

[1] The reason why Henry de Audley's tenure of Edgmond had not been annually entered was that he himself was Sheriff and had a large current account with the Crown.
[2] It appears that Edgmond and Newport were seized into the King's hand for a short period in 1224; but a Writ of April 30 in that year restored them to Audley (Claus. I. 596).
[3] Rot. Claus. Vol. II. p. 164.
[4] Rot. Cart. 11 Hen. III., p. 1, m. 7.


the proportionate liability of 10, and Audley, in lieu of 10, answered, more or less regularly, for the mewed sparrow-hawk.

Having given the succession of the Barons Audley, under Ford, I need not repeat it here. Their dealings with Edgmond and Newport will appear in due course. As to the King's Tallages assessable on Edgmond and Newport, I may refer to a former Table, which will show that they ceased in 1223; [1]- that is, while Henry de Audley's tenure of the Manor was only conditional.

I now turn to other details in the history of Edgmond. On October 13, 1200, a cause pending at Westminster between King John and the Abbot of Lilleshull was adjourned to the hearing of Justices-in-Eyre. The Abbot had made pourpresture on land and wood in Egemendon; and the Recognizors who had been empanelled were unfit to try a cause to which the King was a party. [2] The Sheriff was ordered to empanel knights and gentlemen (probos homines) to try the cause. [3] A renewal of this suit has perhaps appeared already, [4] though different terms are employed, as was usual in questions of boundary. Perhaps the Sequel is embodied in the following extract from the Assize-Roll of 1203.-

I should first observe that Edgmond and Newport were represented at the Assizes, each by its own community. This was because they were extra-hundredal, and "kept their own Pleas of the Crown", as the term was. At these Assizes then, the Jurors of Egmendun said that the Abbot of Lillishul had made pourpresture in a spot where the King's men of Egmendun were wont to have pasture and easements. It was decided that there was no pourpresture, and the Jurors were in misericordia. On the Amercement-Roll of the same Assizes I find several persons fined 6s. 8d. each pro falso dicto. William de Hales, Nicholas de Eston, Reginald de Egemund, Garnegoc, Robert de Hales, and Henry de Ponte, follow each other in this predicament. [5] They were, I think, the Edgmond Jurors.

At the Assizes of 1221 the Vill of Egemundun was represented by twelve Jurors. Their only presentment was a case of murder. At the Inquisitions of Hundreds, in 1255, twelve Jurors gave account of the joint Manor of Edgmond and Newport. [6] They were Stephen de Pessal, Rayner le Taylur, Nicholas le Pulleyn, Nicholas

[1] Supra, Vol. VI. p. 11.
[2] "Recognitores tales sunt qui non possunt vel debent esse in assiza versus dominum Regem".
[3] Placita, 2 John, m. 1, dorso.
[4] Supra, Vol. VIII. p. 230.
[5] Assize-Roll, 6 John, m. 6 dorso.
[6] Rot. Hundred. II. 65.


Ase, Henry de Bedeford, Hugh le Palmer, Walter Provost, Richard Siward, Robert de Pickstoke, John de Aston, Philip de Aston, and Robert de Hales. They recalled the former Royal status of the Manors of Egmundon and Novus Burgus, the grant thereof to Henry de Audley (for a rent of a mewed sparrow-hawk), and the existing tenure of James de Audley. They valued the Vill and Mill of Newport at 20 merks, and the Manor of Edgmond at 7. 19s. 6d. per annum. Both communities paid tallage (to the Lord), whenever there was a Tallage on the King's Boroughs and Manors. The Tallage of Newport was 36 merks, that of Edgmond 50 merks. Henry de Audley had made a Mill at Brademore, in Edgmond Manor, and broken up 4 acres of waste there. The Mill paid 2 merks per annum. [1]

At the Assizes of January 1256 the Manor of Egemundon appeared by its Bailiff, John de Hauckeston, and the following Jurors, viz. Stephen de Pessehal, Ranulf Cissor, Nicholas Pullus, Nicholas fitz Alexander, William de la Venel, Richard Syward, Robert de Pickstock, Robert de Hales, Richard Strut, Adam le Paumer, Philip and John de Eston. At these Assizes James de Audley undertook to restore to John de Chetwynd and his heirs certain heathland in Chetwynd, and common-pasture in Edgmond. There was also a Perambulation between Audley's land in Aston, and Chetwynd's land in Slatton. Brian de Brompton conducted it. The ditch of Geoffrey de Thorp and the Cross of Robert de Stockton were among the landmarks.

At the Assizes of October 1272 the Manor of Edgmond and Borough of Newburgh appeared by a Chief Bailiff, Nicholas Randolf, and twelve Jurors, viz. Ranulf Tynctor, Robert de Pykestock, Alexander de Aula, Adam Marescall, Robert de Aula, Richard fitz Walter, William fitz Ranulph, Philip Jarnegod, Richard Hancok, John de Hales, Adam le Provost, and Benedict de Adeney. In November 1274 twelve Jurors made Inquest as to the state of the same Liberty. [2] Their names were, Alexander de Aula, Nicholas Roundulf, John le Porcher, William Day, Saunder de Mere, William Noblet, Walter del Hale, Richard Seward, Robert and Roger de Pykestock (written Sykeslock), Robert fitz Walter, and Richard de Hoston (probably Haston). These Jurors told the history of their Manor and Borough, substantively as I have given it, but

[1] The Bradford Jurors also presented this Mill, apparently as a pourpresture on the Forest, and combined with an assart of 3 acres of Forest land (Rot. Hundred. Vol. II. p. 58).
[2] Rot. Hundred. II. 95, 96.


with a few verbal inaccuracies, which need not mislead us. They particularized King John's grant of Adeney to Croxden Abbey, and Henry III.'s feoffment of the Audleys, of whom four had now held the Manor, viz. Henry, James (I.), James (II.), and Henry (II.) (the existing Owner). The latter had franchises, allowed by the King, and he used them in a fitting and good manner. Newport was held under Audley by the free service of its Burgesses, Edgmond by the service of its Bonds. [1] The Jurors complained of various extortions in their Liberty by Hugh de Mortimer, when Sheriff, by John Baril (Undersheriff), by William le Child, Bailiff of Bradford Hundred, by Elyas de Stoke, by Brian (read Urian) de St. Pierre, when Sheriff, by Elyas de Birkewey, his Receiver, and by William Snel, Under-Bailiff of Bradford Hundred. On the death of Sir James de Audley (I.), Peter Melysaunt, Clerk to Sir John fitz Aer, then Subescheator, seized Edgmond and Newport in manu Regis, and on that pretext took 4s. from Edgmond and 6s. 8d. from Newport for his own uses. [2] Again, on the death of James de Audley (II.), that is, on November 11, 1272, John de Ercalue, Subescheator, seized the lands of the deceased, and held them till April 29, 1278, receiving all the issues. From the vill of Newburgh he took 20s. for his own uses.

My former account of the Audleys will explain the following extracts from the Inquests taken at their deaths.- Henry de Audley (II.) dying in 1276, was seized of two-thirds of Newburgh, and was responsible for two-thirds only of the Crown rent (the Sparrow-Hawk). The value of these two-thirds was 11, according to one Inquest, and 18 according to another. [3] Matilda, widow of James de Audley (II.), dying soon after Henry de Audley, had one-third of Ford and two-thirds of Edgmond;- together valued at 6. 2s. 9d. William de Audley, deceased in December 1282, had all Edgmond, except his Mother's dower. His receipts were 5. 18s. d., and a pair of white gloves. His interest in Newport I reserve for its proper place.

The Tenure-Roll of Bradford Hundred, taken about 1285, is very lucid on the subject of this Manor.- "Nicholas de Audeley holds the Manor of Egemond with its members, viz. Adeney, Great Aston, Little Aston, Little Halis, Pickestoke, with the vill of Newporte, of the King in capite, by Charter;- rendering yearly a mewed sparrow-hawk in lieu of all services. The said Manor was

[1] Bonds, i.e. Tenants-in-Villeinage.
[2] Compare Vol. VII. p. 188.
[3] Inquisitiones post mortem, 4 Edw. I., No. 50; and 6 Edw. I., No. 46.


a demesne-manor of the King. Of the said members William Eysseby holds Great Aston of the said Nicholas; the Abbot of Crokesden holds Adeney; John de Halis holds Little Halis; and the Burgesses of Neuport hold Neuport, as a free borough, of the said Nicholas. And here the said Nicholas has his Free Court, and Pleas of bloodshed, and hue-and-cry, and gallows, warren, Market, and Fair; and these he has used".

At the Assizes of October 1292 the borough of Neuport and the Manor of Edgmond were for the first time represented by distinct Jurors, though William Noblet was Chief Bailiff for both. The Edgmond Jurors were John de Halis, Richard de Holeweye, William de la Grene, Roger de Pycstoke, William fitz Edyth, and Richard Bryd. The presentments of these two Juries seem to be combined. They stated that Nicholas de Audley's rent to the Crown was one Hawk, and 4s. 4d. de incremento. Audley had to show that he had paid such rent, and he called the Pipe-Rolls to warranty. The truth of this was to be tested ad proximum Parliamentum. At these same Assizes, the Jurors of Bradford Hundred presented Nicholas de Audley for exercising the following franchises in Neuport, viz. holding a free-court, twice yearly; having a gallows; and holding emendals of bread and beer. This presentment was, as usual, followed up by a Writ of Quo Waranto, calling on Audley to prove his right to hold Pleas of the Crown, and to have wayf, market, fair, and the said emendals, and free warren, in Egemundon and Newburgh. Audley defended his rights on the ground that Henry III.'s Charter to his Ancestor included franchises and free-customs, and on the ground of prescriptive usage. The Crown Lawyer insisted that such Franchises, as inherent in the Crown, could not be conveyed to a subject without being categorically included in a Charter. The cause was adjourned. [1]

On Nicholas de Audley's death in 1299 his tenure of Egemandon and Novus Burgus seems to have been recorded, [2] but the Inquest is illegible. Thomas de Audley, deceased in 1308, had been seized of one-third only of Egemundon and its members. The net revenue from this was 7. 6s. 11d. [3] John de Bruyntone is set down as Lord of Egmindon in the Novum Villarum of March 1316. He was perhaps the second husband of some Widow of an Audley.

Nicholas de Audley (II.) dying in December 1316 had enjoyed a revenue of 39. 16s. 6d. from Egemond, Novus Burgus, and Ford. [4]

[1] Quo Waranto, p. 678.
[2] Calend. Inquis. Vol. I. p. 150.
[3] Inquis. 1 Edw. II., No. 63.
[4] Inquis. 10 Edw. II., No. 73.


ADENEY. I have already shown how this member of Edgmond was granted to Croxden Abbey by King John in 1206. Its reputed fiscal value was 2. 2s. 8d. per annum; and the subsequent Pipe-Rolls usually deduct that sum from the Firma Comitatus as so much land given to the "Monks of Crokesdene in Edwineie". A Tenure-Roll of the year 1211 seems to contradict the fiscal language of the Pipe-Rolls. It says that "the Abbot of Crokesden holds, by gift of King John, Edimey, a member of Egnuden, in perpetual alms"; that "the estate usually pays 40s. per annum, but will be (read was) given to them (the Monks) for 60s". [1] The truth is that fiscal, or reputed, value is not here alluded to. The entry means to say that the actual income from Adeney was only 40s., while King John meant to give the monks 60 solidates of land. If we look at King John's Charters, the last idea will prove to have been erroneous. It was 100 solidates of land which King John was morally bound to provide for the said Monks. [2]

In 1255 Croxden Abbey was receiving 4. 16s. from its estate at Audoney. Clement de Audoney, perhaps an Undertenant of the Abbey, had given his land to the Knights Templars of Keel, and had become their Vassal, paying them 2s. per annum for their advowry. [3] The Assize-Roll of January 1256 shows the Abbot of Crokesden fining half a merk for license to accord with James de Audley in a placitum cheminii. Their Fine is preserved. Thereby Geoffrey de Thorp (Audley's Attorney) allows Walter, Abbot of Crokesden, to have a road through Audley's land of Egemendun. For this the Abbot paid 5 merks.

In 1287 the Monks of Croxden gave Edwineye to Buildwas Abbey, receiving in exchange, from the Monks of Buildwas, the Grange of Caldon in Staffordshire. [4] This transaction was ratified by a Charter of Henry de Lacy, Earl of Lincoln, dated June 10, 1287. [5] (The Earl was Seigneural Lord of Caldon.) Hence in the Taxation of 1291 we find the Abbot of Buildwas deriving from Edewyneye 3 of rents, and 6s. 8d. for Pleas and Perquisites. [6] In 1292-3 the Abbot of Buildwas was prosecuted by the Crown for the Manor of Adoney juxta Egemundon. [7] Of course he called the Abbot of Croxden to warranty, and of course that Abbot appeared

[1] Testa de Nevill, p. 56.
[2] Vide supra, p. 115, and Rot. Chartarum, p. 61, b.
[3] Rot. Hundred. II. 65.
[4] Collectanea Topographica et Genealogica, Vol. II. p. 300.
[5] Monasticon, V. 360, Num. XXIII.
[6] Pope Nich. Taxation, p. 260.
[7] Placita de Quo Waranto, pages 678 and 719.


with a ready warranty, and with King John's Charter in his hand. This settled the question, and enables us to judge of the vexatious spirit in which these Crown prosecutions were instituted. While the Justices, who tried them, were in Staffordshire, the Abbot of Croxden expended no less a sum than 30. 9s. 8d. in law. [1]

The Valor of 1534-5 gives the Abbot of Buildwas 4 rents in Adney. Two years later the Ministers' Accounts afford fuller particulars, as follows.-

Rents of customary Tenants 1:- rent of certain land 8s. 4d.; rent of one measuage 8s. 4d.; ferm of a messuage and land 15s.; ferm of a messuage or cottage 14s. 8d.; ferm of a messuage and arable land 19s. Total 4. 5s. 4d. [2]


The history of this member of Edgmond is very curious.-

In July 1155 Henry II. granted part of it to one Robert Pinzun, whose service was to be a Sergeantry, viz. to provide two trusses of hay for the King's chamber whenever he visited Edgmond. The King's Charter runs as follows.-

Henricus Rex Angliae et Dux Normanniae et Aquitaniae et Comes Andegaviae, Willielmo filio Alani et omnibus fidelibus suis Francis et Anglis de Salop' salutem. Sciatis me dedisse Roberto Pinzun et suis heredibus tres virgatas terrae in Estona, liberas et quietas ab omni consuetudine et exactione, pro duabus trussis feni, quas mihi dare debet, quando apud Egmundon jacuero, pro omni servicio. Quare volo et firmiter praecipio ut ipsas tres virgatas terrae bene et in pace habeat et teneat, et a nullo homine molestiam vel gravamen inde sustineat. Testibus, Comite Reginaldo de Cornubia, Ricardo de Humez, Hugone de Mortemer. Apud Brug. [3]

I have already pointed out one historical significance of this Charter, viz. its constructive allusion to Hugh de Mortimer's submission. [4] It tells yet another story,- a piece of Exchequer-history. The deduction which this grant must have made on the net value of Edgmond, was never brought into the Exchequer accounts or Pipe-Rolls, as any similar and later grant of Henry II.'s would have been. Consequently we know that the Firma Comitatus of Shropshire was not settled till after the date of this Charter, that is, till after Mortimer's submission. The Chroniclers tell us of Henry II.'s early reorganization of his Exchequer. The above

[1] Collectanea (ut supra).
[2] Monasticon. V. 361.
[3] Salop Chartulary, No. 162.
[4] Supra, Vol. I. pp. 250, 251.


Deed, coupled with the fragmentary and all but lost Pipe-Roll of 1155, and the full and extant Pipe-Roll of 1156, shows us the process of that reorganization.

Robert Pinzun was succeeded by Nicholas Pinzun, living in 1211. A Tenure-Roll of that year has this passage.-

Nicholas Pithun (sic) tenet in eodem Manerio (scilicet Egnuden) iii virgatas terrae per servicium quod debet invenire ij trusses feni ad cameram Regis cum venit apud Egumdon. [1]

Nicholas Pinzun had property in Shrewsbury. He makes two grants in Frankwell, one to William Russel, the other to William, Son of Symon Sproht, whom he calls his brother. [2] Early in Henry III.'s reign, Isabella, widow of Nicholas Pinzun, sells to Reginald her son all her dower within the borough of Shrewsbury. [3]

The above Reginald afterwards appears as Master Reginald Pinzun, son of Nicholas Pinzun of Salop. Under that name, and probably in the year 1241, he gives to Shrewsbury Abbey two virgates of land in Aston juxta Novum Burgum, and binds himself and his heirs to discharge the rent, due on the said two virgates and on his other land in Aston, viz. "two trusses of hay when the King shall lie at Eychmundune". Witnesses,- Sir John le Strange, then Sheriff of Salop, Nicholas de Weleleth (Wililey), Undersheriff; and Robert de Geros. [4]

After this, Master Reginald Pinzun seems to have given or sold a very large property in Shrewsbury to the same Abbey, reserving in one instance considerable rents for his own life. Finally he releases the said rents for the souls of himself and Aena his late wife. [5]

The Hundred-Roll of 1255 says that "the Abbot of Salop holds two virgates of land in the vill of Aston Magna by an ancient grant, and takes thence one merk".

The interest acquired by Shrewsbury Abbey in Aston remained till the Dissolution. The Valor of 1534 gives the Abbot 6s. 8d. rent from Monke Aston juxta Newporte, [6] so that it would seem that this part of Aston had acquired a distinctive name indicative of its owners.

LILLESHULL FEE. It is clear that there was still a virgate in Aston, included in Henry II.'s grant to Robert Pinzun, but not transferred by Reginald Pinzun to Shrewsbury Abbey.

Perhaps this was the virgate which Roger, son of Philip de Badger, held in the beginning of the 13th century. If so, he must

[1] Testa de Nevill, p. 56, a.
[2] [3] Salop Chartulary, No. 175.
[4] [5] Salop Chartulary, Nos. 161, 168.
[6] Valor Ecclesiasticus, III. 189.


have held it under Pinzun. His Under-tenant was Gernegod de Aston, otherwise called Gernegod, son of Drogo the Chaplain, and perhaps the very person whom we have seen in the apparent position of an Edgmond Juror in 1203, when he is called Garnegoc. [1]

Between the years 1200 and 1225 (as I infer), Roger de Bajesor, son of Philip de Bajesor, [2] gives to Lilleshall Abbey, for the souls' health of himself and Amice his wife, the homage, service, and rent of Gernegod, son of Drwy the Chaplain, arising out of one virgate which the said Gernegod held in Eston, by a rent of 5s., payable to the Grantor. The Grant further stipulates that Gernegod himself shall discharge all forinsec services thereon. [3]

There are two Confirmations of Henry III. to Lilleshull Abbey, both dated 29th Nov. 1265. One confirms "the donation and concession which Roger de Bagesovere made of a rent of 5s. in La Lya". The other confirms "the donation and concession which Roger de Baggeshovere made of 5s. rent in Magna Aston, and of the homage and service of Gernegod, son of Drogo the Chaplain, arising from one virgate in the same vill". It is clear that in the first of these confirmations there is a large omission, and that the person who really granted 5s. rent in La Lya was Ralph de Hodnet, as the second Confirmation proceeds to say. La Lya and Aston were therefore unconnected; and Roger de Badger had nothing to do with the former. This will correct a mistake, which I made when previously alluding to this subject. [4]

An old Rent-Roll of Lilleshull Abbey includes a half-yearly rent of 2s. 6d. receivable from Gernegod de Eston. [5]

The Hundred-Roll of 1255 puts the Abbot of Lilleshull's rent, from one virgate in Aston Magna, at 5s. 4d. The estate must have been improved, for at the Dissolution 2. 11s. 4d. of rents from Magna Ashton were among the assets of the late Abbey. [6]

THORPE FEE. The residue or rather bulk of Great Aston seems to have remained in the demesne of the Manorial Lords, till James de Audley (I.) enfeoffed Geoffrey de Thorp therein, except one virgate which in 1255 was held by Edith, a Widow of Newport, who had 4s. rent therefrom. At the same date Geoffrey de Thorp had broken up two carucates of the waste of the said Vill, and was now taking a fourth crop therefrom. [7]

[1] Supra, p. 117.
[2] Vide supra, Vol. II. p. 65.
[3] Lilleshall Chartulary, fo. 60.
[4] Supra, Vol. II. p. 68.
[5] Chartulary, fo. 93. Doubtless Philip Jarnegod, the Juror of 1272 (supra, p. 118), was descended from this stock.
[6] Monasticon, VI. 265.
[7] Rot. Hundred. II. 65. The Bradford Jurors also presented Geoffrey de Thorpe's proceedings in the vill of Aston (Ibidem, p. 58, where for Willo we should read Villa). The grievance was the destruction of common-rights, and here stated to have been of two years' standing. Each carucate was worth 40s. per annum.


It appears from a later Record, in 1274, that Geoffrey de Thorp's service for the hamlet of Aston Major was a pair of white gloves, value 1d., at Christmas. [1]

In 1285, as we have seen, William Eysseby was Audley's Tenant at Great Aston. I cannot account for this interruption in the otherwise direct descent of the Thorps. On October 10, 1296, Basilia, daughter of William Stevensone of New Borough, being a widow, gives to Adam, younger son of William Randoulf of the same, an acre in the waste of Magna Aston. This Deed, which is attested by William Rondulf, John Rondulf, John de Hales, and Nicholas le Colt, mentions lands of "John Rondulf, Lord of Aston". [2]

By a Fine levied on January 27, 1304, Edmund, son of Geoffrey de Thorp (Impedient), gives a messuage and 17 acres in Magna-Aston-juxta-Newport, to John Randolf (Plaintiff), for 20 merks.

By another Fine of May 31, 1304, the same John Randolf (Plaintiff) recognizes the right of Edmund de Thorp to 14 acres in Magna Aston, and, paying 10 merks, is allowed to hold them for life at a rose-rent.


Of this place, as distinct from Great Aston, I have only one early notice.- On January 20, 1271, Adam de Brimton (of Longford) took out a Writ against James de Audley, for disseizing him of common-pasture in Parva Aston.

ASTON CHAPEL. I cannot tell when this was founded, but Little Aston was also called Church Aston at least as early as the reign of Henry VIII. We may presume that it got this distinctive name from its Chapel. The said Chapel was probably of much earlier foundation than this, but at any rate it was a mere affiliation of Edgmond Church, and entirely subject thereto, so that its Incumbents or Ministers are not noticed in the early Diocesan Registers.

PICKSTOCK, or rather that part of the township which is in Edgmond Parish, was also a member of Edgmond Manor. I know nothing of the Tenants of this part of Pickstock except from seeing their names on Edgmond Jury Lists, or in other documents. Thus we have Thomas de Pickstock occuring in 1249 and 1250, Robert de Pickstock in 1255, 1256, 1272, and 1274, and Roger de Pickstock in 1274 and 1292.

[1] Rot. Hundred. II. 94.
[2] Harl. MS. 2063, fo. 6.


LITTLE HALES. This outlying member of the Manor and Parish of Edgmond seems to me to have sometime constituted a Serjeantry. I can offer nothing but surmises on the matter, for it is only at one period that we hear of such a Serjeantry as existing.- In the year 1211 there were four persons who held lands in Shropshire by service of accompanying the Sheriff when he conveyed the half-yearly ferm of the County to the Exchequer. Two of these Serjeants resided near Stottesden, and one near Worfield. The fourth was William de Hales, [1] whose tenure and abode I venture to place at Little-Hales. Previously and subsequently to 1211 the owners of Little-Hales occur frequently on Edgmond Juries. We have had William and Robert de Hales thus occurring in 1203. At the Assizes of 1221 William de Parva Hales pays half a merk for license to accord with William de Stokes, his Surety being William Pantulf. The Fine thus contemplated is preserved.- Hugh Long and Emma his wife, William de Stokes and Matilda his wife, Plaintiffs, in a suit of mort d'ancestre against William de Parva Hales, for half a Mill in Parva Hales, quitclaim their right for 20s.

In 1255 and 1256 Robert de Hales occurs. In 1272, 1274, 1281, 1284, 1285, 1296, and 1306, John de Hales, or de Parva Hales occurs on various Juries, and we know that in 1285 he held Little Hales under Audley. In 1292 he was Foreman of an Edgmond Jury. In May 1284, William de Hales occurs on the same Jury with John; and in April 1298, William de Parva Hales and William Wyan, of the same, are on a local Jury. [2]

I presume that, when Edgmond was granted to the Audleys, the Serjeantry of Little Hales naturally became obsolete.


There is no proof that this was a Saxon foundation; for it is not mentioned in Domesday. Still it had its Chapels, and, if not existent at Domesday, must have been founded, within eight years after that survey was taken, by Earl Roger de Montgomery. It was in short one of the Churches which he gave, with all its appurtenances, to Shrewsbury Abbey. In these respects its origin would be very similar to that of such Churches as Tong and Donington. Within 60 years after Domesday the Church of Newport had been

[1] Testa de Nevill, p. 56, a. Liber Ruber Scaccarii, fo. cxxxvii.
[2] Under Tibberton (Vol. VIII. pp. 48, 49, 50), we have also had a John de Hales (occurring 1242-1255), a Reginald de Parva Hales (occurring about 1242-5), and a William de Hales, son of the said Reginald.



[For engravings, see pdf.]


founded within the Parish of Edgmond. Hence Bishop Clinton's Confirmation to Shrewsbury Abbey includes "the Church of Edgmund with its Chapels [1] and a pension of 40s., and the Church of New Borough, with its pension of 10s". [2] Bishop Durdent's Charter confirms "the Church of Egmundon with the tithe of that vill and with the Chapels pertaining to the said Church;- also the Church of New Borough". Bishop Peche's Charter confirms the aforesaid Pensions, viz. 3 merks from the Church of Egnudune, and 10s. from the Church of New-Borough. It is remarkable that Henry II's great Charter to Shrewsbury Abbey speaks of the Churches of Egmendon and New-Borough as Earl Roger's gifts. The anachronism was unperceived when the Charter was framed, and destroys neither the credit of the Deed nor its Draughtsman, for the earlier gift virtually involved its consequents. Bishop Novant conceded to Shrewsbury Abbey, its receipt, of 3 merks per annum, from the Church of Egemendon. Archbishop Peckham confirmed the above pensions of 40s. from Edgmond and 10s. from Newborough.

The Taxation of 1291 values the Church of Egemindon (in Newport Deanery) at 12 per annum, over and above its decimable pension. The latter is entered as 1. 10s. receivable by Salop Abbey and liable to Tenths. [3] In 1341 the Church-Taxation of Egemudon was quoted as 20, but the Parish was only assessed 11 for the Ninth of its wheat, wool, and lamb. The reasons of the reduction were because the Church-Taxation was high, and because 1 thereof was alien to the present assessment. [4] The Valor of 1534-5 gives (in one place) to the Abbot of Shrewsbury, a pension of 1. 10s. from Egmonde. [5] The Church itself, still a Rectory, was held by Thomas Brerewood, whose gross income was the goodly sum of 48. His net income was 46. 8s.; the Procurations being 8s., the Synodals 4s., and the Abbot of Shrewsbury's pension being here put at 20s. [6]

The Chancel-Windows of Edgmond Church were formerly adorned with the following armorial insignia.- In the North Windows were

[1] The original Chapelries of Edgmond were probably Tibberton, Longford, and Newport.
[2] Harl. MS. 3868, fo. 7, b.
[3] Pope Nich. Taxation, p. 248.
[4] Inquis. Nonarum, p. 184.
[5] [6] Valor Ecclesiasticus, III. 189, 187.-

Mr. Dukes (p. 167) says that the Advowson of Edgmond was appropriated to Shrewsbury Abbey by Patent of 34 Hen. III., and given to the Carthusians at Shortley, near Coventry, by Patent of 10 Henry III. The Patent first quoted is it presentation to the Church, as will appear below. The Church was never appropriated. The second Patent (that of 10 Henry VII.) 1 cannot find on the original Roll.


the Coats of Mortimer, Earl of March, and of Warren, Earl of Surrey. In the South Windows were the Coats of Verdon (or, fretty gules), and of Fitz Alan, Earl of Arundel (Gu. a Lion rampant, or). [1]


GEOFFREY GRIFFIN, Clerk (of whom I have spoken under Howle and Cherrington [2]), is said to have been Rector of Edgmond. He died in 1253, says my authority, leaving 20 merks for subsidy of the Holy Land, and appointing the Abbot of Haughmond and the Priors of Trentham and Wombridge his Executors. [3] I presume that Geoffrey Griffin did not hold the Rectory of Edgmond till his death; for on July 9, 1250, the King, by Letters Patent addressed to R. Bishop of Lichfield and Coventry, presents-

ARTALD DE SANCTO ROMANO to the Church of Egemendon. The King thus presented because the Abbacy of Shrewsbury was vacant. [4] For the same reason, a Patent of May 29, 1266, presents-

ROBERT DE KNITHTON to the Church of Egemondon.

RALPH DE LA BOLDE, Clerk, was instituted to this Church on July 25, 1305. (Patrons, The Abbot and Convent of Shrewsbury.)

He has licenses of non-residence, studendi gratia, in 1308, and in 1311, being at length styled Rector and Priest.

JOHN DE SCHEYNTON was instituted May 14, 1319. (Same Patrons.) He had dispensations in 1320, 1321, and 1322, being ordained Deacon and Priest in the latter year. In 1323, 1324, and 1325, he had similar licenses, the first and last, at the desire of Sir John de Cherlton, on whose following (obsequiis) he was to be intendant;- the second for the sake of literary study. He had continuous licenses for non-residence from 1348 to 1355, and on Sept. 6, 1356, he exchanged preferments with-

[1] Harl. MS. 2129, fo. 170, b.
[2] Supra, Vol. VIII. pp. 91, 199.
[3] Loxdale's Staffordshire Collections.-

A note to this extract says that "the date, 1253, should be read, 1236, because the death took place in the time of William Bishop of Worcester" (1218-1236) "and Robert Bishop of Lincoln "(1234-53). This argument would indeed go to establish the interval between 1284 and 1286 as the date of Geofiey Griffin's death; but it is certain, on other evidence, that he must have died about 1258. The note further quotes a receipt for Geoffrey Griffin's bequest from R., Archdeacon of Middlesex, Conservator of the Crucigeri in England and Wales. This again would establish 1253 as the proximate date of the bequest;- for R., Archdeacon of Middlesex, entered on his office after 1244 and held it in 1251 and 1259.
[4] This alleged vacancy of the Abbacy of Shrewsbury is an element in a question already raised (supra, Vol. VI. p. 150, note 7). The recent election of Adam III. would seem to have been nugatory.


MASTER WILLIAM DE CHERLTON, late Prebendary or Portioner of Pontesbury. [1]

SIR HUGH CARLES, Rector of Edgmond, retracts on October 1, 1369, his previous desire to exchange. [2]

JOHN DE BOULAND was appointed by a Patent of Feb. 8, 1376; but the Patent was cancelled on May 25 following. On Nov. 16, 1378-

RICHARD DE PRESTON exchanges this Rectory for the preferment of-

JOHN KNODE, late Vicar of Ercall. Knode again, in 1379, exchanges with

WILLIAM DE SHREWESBURY, Archdeacon of Salop (Lichf. Dioc.).

SIR RICHARD ELMEBAN exchanges this Rectory, on Feb. 5, 1384, for the preferment of-

MASTER NICHOLAS DE PESHALE, late Rector of Kyngeslyne (Linc. Dioc.). Peshale has the Bishop's License to hear confessions, dated March 2, 1402. He resigned this Rectory in September 1425.

Newport, formerly Novus Burgus.

How much history is involved in names!- When the Norman Scribes of Domesday are ascertained to have called a place Aldeberie (Oldbury) we learn that that place was in their time reputed to be of ancient foundation. [3] So too when a place, unmentioned in Domesday, is found to have been called Novus Burgus in Henry I.'s reign, we know at once that it must have been recently founded.

I have spoken already of the three classes of Boroughs.
[4] Newport belongs to the first class, for it was founded by a King, though it eventually became an appendage of the Barony of Audley. This was because it was founded within the Royal Manor of Edgmond, which Manor, with its appurtenances, was afterwards granted by Henry III. to Henry de Audley.

[1] Vide supra, Vol. VII. p. 140.
[2] Mr. Blakeway says that on "Sept. 27, 1386", Hugh Carles certified himself to be holding the Rectory of Edgmond and a Prebend in Gnowsall Church. The date seems improbable.
[3] Supra, Vol. I. p. 132.
[4] Supra, Vol. III. p. 253.


The Burgesses of Newport enjoyed Franchises and had Customs in the time of Henry I. Newport was therefore a Borough, or Corporate town, in that King's reign, and was doubtless founded by the King himself. Nay more, we are assured that Newport had a Church in the same reign, for immediately after the King's death Richard Priest of New-borough, and Pagan de Novoburgo, are found attesting a Grant by Hamo Peverel to Shrewsbury Abbey: and Bishop Clinton, who died in 1148, confirmed the Church of New-Borough to the same Abbey.

The next evidence which I have of the existence of this Royal Borough is Henry II.'s Charter thereto, dated at Brewood. It undoubtedly passed between the years 1163 and 1166. It runs as follows.-

Henricus, Rex Angliae et Dux Normanniae et Aquitaniae et Comes Andegaviae omnibus, etc. Sciatis me concessisse Burgensibus meis de Novo Burgo omnes libertates et rectas consuetudines suas, sicut eas melius et liberius habuerunt tempore Regis Henrici avi mei; et ideo prohibeo ne quis super hoc eis injuriam faciat, seu contumeliam. Et si quis, de libertatibus et consuetudinibus suis, vel in alio, eis forisfecerit, plenariam eis sine dilacione inde (justitiam) faciatis. Testibus, Galfrido Archidiacono Cantuar.; Johann Cumin, etc. Apud Breuwood. [1]

Under Bridgnorth, I have described an annual increment on the ferm of that Borough, which arose to the Crown in 1167, i.e. after the ordinary ferm had been settled. [2] It was probably for some recently discovered pourpresture on the Royal demesnes. The same thing occurred in the case of Newport, in the year 1176. The Pipe-Roll of that year has the following entry.- Idem Vicecomes r. c. de III sol. de III domibus in Novo Burgo noviter recognitis per Justiciarios errantes. In thesauro liberavit. Et quietus est. In other words the Justices-in-eyre had discovered three houses in Newport, built in such a place or manner, as that they were in the nature of a pourpresture, and were not protected by the general ferm (12. 2s. 8d.) for which the Liberty of Edgmond and Newport was responsible. The Justices therefore set an extra ferm; of 3s. on these houses.

Under the head of "Pourprestures and Escheats", the above sum was paid by the Sheriff till the year 1184 inclusive. In 1185 the Sheriff's receipt, de quibusdam domibus in Novo Burgo, was raised to 6s. This continued till 1189, when this item of account

[1] Harl. MS. 1985, fo. 240.
[2] Supra, Vol. I. p. 359.


vanishes from the Pipe-Rolls, having been probably transferred to the Escheator's Roll, now lost. Where the Escheators' Rolls are incidentally preserved (as in 1194, 1195, and 1196) the receipt of 6s. per annum, de redditu quorundam domorum in Novo Burgo, is duly acknowledged. In 1197, the item appears on the Pipe-Roll, that is the Sheriff receives 6s. as before; he pays 4s. 4d. into the Exchequer, but 1s. 8d. he pays to Hugh Pantulf as part of 40 solidates of land, which the said Hugh was to have by gift of the King. This was repeated in 1198, but in 1199 the Sheriff accounts only 4s. 4d., and says nothing about Hugh Pantulf whose grant of 20 denariates in Newport must henceforth be considered as absolute. In fact he had so much in land or houses which he managed himself, and the Sheriff was no longer accountable for what he did not receive. The Sheriff continued to be annually charged with 4s. 4d. de cremento de Novo Burgo till 1234 or thereabouts. In 1285, this debt or liability is charged against Henry de Audley, as I should have expected it to have been charged long before, and as it was charged for long after. I need say no more on this subject, but that it is probable that there was some doubt about Audley's liability. At least in 1273, James de Audley (though his Sparrow-hawk-rent for Edgmond was eleven years in arrears), owed 4. 15s. 4d., or 23 years' arrears of this other rent of 4s. 4d.

I now return to the year 1176, when Shropshire had been visited by Bertram de Verdon and his companions, as Justiciars. They had amerced William de Novo Burgo 40s., Adwin Telarius 40s., the Vill of Novus Burgus 2 merks, and Nicholas Pulcer 2 merks;- all for entertaining some excommunicated person.

At the Assizes of 1203, it was alleged against the community of New Borough that the Assize of Bread was not kept in their town.

A Tenure-Roll of the year 1211, enters Hugh Pantulf among those who held de dominicis Regis. "He held 20 denariates of land in New Borough, which King Richard did give him in complement of 7 librates of land, which the King had granted him in Herefordshire, [1] per servicium unius moleschi". [2]

At the Assizes of 1221, as previously at those of 1203, [3] the

[1] Hugh Pantulfs grant was in Stanford, Herefordshire. There he had 5 librates. It was towards making up the remaining 40 solidates that King Richard gave him 20 denariates in Newport.
[2] Testa de Nevill, p. 56. For moleschi we may perhaps read molossi, and suppose the annual rent to have been a hound of some choice breed.
[3] Supra, page 117.


Borough of Newport was represented by its 12 Jurors.- Matilda de Stafford was named as complainant against William de Picksdock, Nicholas de Neuport, and Reginald fitz Alexander in a matter of the King's peace. This is the earliest instance I know of, in which the name Neuport is substituted for Newborough (Novas Burgus).

The history of the Town now becomes involved with that of the Manor of Edgmond, under which many particulars have already transpired. A Writ of January 1, 1226, aptly illustrates a former remark. King Henry III. concedes to Henry de Audley, 19 days' seizin of the Manor of New-Borough, so that in the meantime he may more easily remove his effects therefrom. [1] A second Writ of January 21, prolongs this privilege to February 7. [2] A third extends it three weeks more. [3]

Thus for two months of the fiscal year ending Michaelmas 1226, Henry de Audley was seized of the Manor. The Pipe-Roll virtually computes the period of his seizin as three months.

Henry de Audley became, as we have seen, Lord of Edgmond and Newport in July 1227. In October 1228, William Rufus, Attorney of Henry de Audley, who prosecuted for the King, was suing various persons by Quo Waranto, as to their right of holding messuages or Burgages in the King's demesne of Newport. The Prior of Ware, Hugh fitz Robert, Thomas de Bagesour, and Reginald de Appeleg were impleaded, each for a messuage, the Prior of Wombridge, for a burgage, and Robert de Wodecote, for two messuages. Alexander le Peschur, William Beret, Robert de Aspel, Adam de Brinton, James de Morton, and Robert de Offeleg were similarly impleaded. The result does not appear. The last Defendant said that his son Ralph was the actual Tenant. [4] Of course Audley was the real Prosecutor, though he was entitled to use the King's name.

On November 14, 1286, Nicholas fitz Richard, Tenant of two messuages in Novo Burgo, quitclaims his right to Alan de Burgo and Amice his wife, who in turn allow him to hold one croft in fee, at a rent of 1s., and capital services.

There was a famous Vivary at Newport, of which I shall have to say more hereafter. One of the services of the Burgesses was to convey the fish, taken in this Vivary, to the King's Court. This custom continued as a right due to the Audleys. Hence between the years 1247 and 1253 we have the following curious release.- "James, son of Henry de Audley, quitclaims to the Burgesses of

[1] [2] [3] Claus. II. 92, 94, 96.
[4] Placita Mich. Tm. 12 and 13 Hen. III., mm. 4, 5.


New Borough the following, viz. that they shall not carry the fish of the Vivary of New Borough anywhither except within the boundaries of Shropshire". The Burgesses paid 5 for the release, and it was attested by William de Audley, William de Henlinger, Adam de Brinton, John de Chetewind, Geoffrey Griffin, Roger de Pyvelesdon, and Philip de Prees. [1]

A presentment in the Inquest of 1255 is curious.- A Burgess of Chester had constrained a Burgess of New Borough to travel to Birkenhead, "which was 16 leagues from Chester", in defence of some suit. Hervey de Esseburne is also mentioned in this Inquest as a litigious Burgess of New Borough.

On February 22, 1259, four Justices are appointed by Patent to hear certain matters of variance between James de Audley and Roger de Somery. Somery's men had trespassed on the Vivary of Neuport. This place is again called Neuport in the Assize-Roll of 1267.- One John ate Pole had died, leaving a daughter, Agnes, now wife of Nicholas ate Pole. He had also apparently left a Widow now wife of Alexander at Pole. The question was whether Agnes was heir to a messuage in Neuport, or whether Alexander ate Pole, who held the whole, was entitled to a third thereof. The Jury found that Agnes' mother had no dower therein, and that her father, whose heir she was, had died seized thereof. So Nicholas and Agnes recovered. [2] At these or some other Assizes of 1267, the Men of the Liberty of Novus Burgus were amerced 2 merks for non-attendance. William de Audley, who died in 1282, had only a partial interest in Neuport, his Mother, Ela, holding the greater portion in dower. He had 6s. 2d. in rent: his sixth of the Mill and Vivary was worth 5 merks (3. 6s. 8d.); his tolls from the Market were 10s.; and his receipts from local Pleas were 10s. The Burgesses' obligation to carry his fish anywhither in Shropshire was mentioned, but not valued as an asset. Between the years 1285 and 1292, Nicholas de Audley grants to his Burgesses of Novus Burgus a right of common in Brodemerss. The vill of Novus Burgus, the ditch of Longe Meduwe, the fields of Magna Aston and Northbrom (now Norbrom), are mentioned as boundaries of the grant. It is attested by Sir Robert Corbet, Sir Adam de Bruynton (Brimton), Sir William de Hodnet, and Sir Peter de Eyton, Knights; also by Reginald de Chetwynd; Roger de Pyvelesdon; John de Weston, then Seneschal; and John de Parva Hales. Between the same limits of date, Nicholas de Audley

[1] Harl. MS. 1985, fo. 245.
[2] Assizes, 51 Hen. III., m. 3.


grants to the Burgesses a parcel of land in the Vill of Novus Burgus, at a rent of 8s., and for 20s. paid. Witnesses,- Adam de Brinton, Peter de Eyton, Roger de Pyvelesdon, Knights; Reginald de Chetwynd; Michael de Morton; John de Weston, Seneschall; and William de Caynton. [1]

On January 23, 1287, King Edward I., being at Salop, inspected and confirmed Henry II.'s Charter to the Burgesses of Novus Burgus. Further, out of special favour to Nicholas Levere, a Burgess of the town, whom the King calls hospitem nostrum, he exempts the Burgesses from murage throughout the realm. [2] At the Assizes of 1292 the "Vill of Neuport" was represented by its Chief Bailiff,- William Noblet, and by William Rondulf, Richard Alemond, Robert de Morton, Richard de la Lone, John Rondulf, and Roger Priest,- Jurors. Under the head, De Libertibus, it was presented at these Assizes that the Burgesses of Novus Burgus claimed to have a Court, to assize bread and beer, and to have a Merchant-Guild. The Burgesses appeared, and said that they had exercised these franchises from time whereof memory was not: they adduced Henry II.'s Charter (as before recited) and said that, both before and after that Charter, they had exercised these franchises. It does not appear that the Burgesses were molested by any ulterior process of Quo Waranto.

Another presentment seems to have been a complaint of their own, viz. that the Lords of Wem had been accustomed to provide Sergeants of the Peace to guard the pass (transitum) of Shakel * *, [3] on account of robbers, for 15 days, before and after the Feasts of St. Michael and St. John Baptist, and to take from the men of other Counties, who might pass, a passage-fee (passagium), viz. 2d. for every cart. Now they took this fee from men of the County (of Salop), to the grievance of the neighbourhood. This matter could not be entered into by the Justices, because William le Botyler (of Wem) was under age.

By Deed dated at New Borough on April 5, 1293, Nicholas Peye of New Borough gives to Peter, son of Peter Fuller, a messuage and curtilage in that vill, bounded by land of William de Kynardsley,

[1] One of the landmarks of this grant is "The Cross set up for the soul of Roger de Pynelesdon". I suppose this must have been that Roger who was deceased in 1272 (supra, Vol. VIII. p. 96). The witness, Sir Roger, was probably he who perished in the Welsh Rebellion of 1294 (supra, Vol. VIII. p. 97).
[2] Harl. MS. 1985, fo. 244 b.
[3] I.E. Shakelford.- It is curious that in 1255 the Bradford Jurors had presented Ralph de Botyler for exacting cheminage at Wem and at Shakelford (Rot. Hundred. II. 58).


and land late Nicholas Colt's (Nicholai Pulli). Witnesses,- John de Weston, Seneschal of Sir Nicholas de Audley; Roger de Pyvelesdon; William Rondulf of Neuport.
[1] By Deed, dated at New Borough, August 17, 1302, William, surnamed Le Knythes-knave, of New Borough and Alice his wife give to Master Richard de Geydon, Rector of the Church of New Borough, a messuage, curtilage, and croft, in the vill of Neuport, between the messuage of William le Turnur, etc. Rent, a rose to the Grantors, and 8s. to Agnes de Verdon. Witnesses,- William Rondulf, then King's Coroner; William fitz Yvo; Nicholas le Colt; Peter Fullour; Nicholas le Turnur; Richard Mansquant; William le Hendemon. [2] About this time, Henry de Ledebury gives to William de Onne (Cissori), for 2s. paid, a penny rent receivable from that burgage in Neuport which William Capci formerly had. Witnesses,- William Rondulf, Nicholas le Colt, Nicholas le Tournour, Adam and Robert Bront. [3] On March 15, 1305-6, the Executors of the Will of Christiana, wife of Adam Cadel of Neuport, appeared before William de Norton, Sub-Sequestrator in the Archdeaconry of Salop, and rendered account of their executorship, proclamation having been first made in the Church of Neuport, where the Testatrix had lived, as the Dean of Novus-Burgus had certified to the Sub-Sequestrator, who now discharges the Executors from their trust. [4] On November 18, 1306, a Fine was levied whereby Nicholas Cam of Neuport (Plaintiff), acknowledges himself to have given a messuage in Neuport juxta Egemundon to John Gamel, who restores it to Nicholas for life, at a rose-rent. On June 30, 1309, a Newport Deed is attested by Richard de Heydon (Query, Geydon), Rector of Neuport, John de Chetwynd, and John Rondulf. [5] On May 2nd, 1311, King Edward II. inspects and confirms his Father's Charter of 1287 to the Burgesses of Novus Burgus. In 8 Edw. II. (1314-5), Richard de Heydon (read Geydon), Rector of Newport, makes a grant to the Community of Newport. Witnesses,- William de Caynton, Roger, son of Jordan de Pivelesdon, etc. [6]

The half of Novus Burgus of which Nicholas de Audley (II.) died seized (as valued in the Inquest of January 1317) comprised a Water-Mill, a Vivary, 25s. of assized rents, and 60s. for the tolls of Market and Fairs. [7]

On May 13, 1322, Alice, widow of William Hurre of Mere, gives to Peter le Walkere of Neuport, half a burgage in Neuport.

[1] Newport Evidences.
[2] [3] [4] [5] [6] Harl. MS. 1985, fos. 235-b, 246, 240-b, 244-b.
[7] Inquisitions, 10 Edw. II., No. 73.


Witnesses,- Geoffrey Rondulf, William Rondulf, William in le Stones, John le Tornour, and William le Hendemon.

I will close these desultory notes with one more extract, showing how the Borough of Newport was farmed under the Audleys.- On July 9, 1358, James de Audley, Seigneur de Ruge-Chastiel (Red Castle) et de Helegh, acknowledges himself to have received from Roger Rondulf and William Longe a sum of 4. 3s. 4d. for the Ferm of the Vill of Newport, for the Term of St. John Baptist last past.- "Given at our Castle of Helegh, le Lundi proschein apres la feste de la translation de St. Thomas", 32 Edw. III.". [2]

LILLESHULL ABBEY FEE. This tenure in Newport deserves a distinct notice.- In November 1228, the Abbot of Lilleshull names Brother Walter de Peshal his Attorney, in a suit of land in Novus Burgos, wherein Henry de Audley was Plaintiff and the Abbot was Tenant. Between the years 1235 and 1240, S. Abbot of Lilleshull quitclaims to Amelia de Hal and her heirs his right in half a messuage in Novo Burgo held by Joeta, widow of Adam fitz Reyner. Amelia covenants to pay 6d. rent to the Abbey, and to sell the premises to no one, save to Nicholas le Turnur, or to Lilleshull Abbey. [3]

A Rent-Roll of Lilleshull Abbey, which I conceive to be at least as old as the above Deed, speaks of a much larger interest in New-borough than I can trace in Charters. Rents amounting to 50s. 10d. per annum are enumerated, among which one of 6s. was payable by Alexander de Pickstock.

About 1252-3, Edelina, daughter of Durandus the Priest, Widow, gives to the Abbey two messuages in Novo Burgo, viz. those which Durandus bought and gave to her. The Abbot was to pay Edelina a life annuity of 4s. and provide her with a daily Corrody of bread and beer. If Roger, son of Stephen, son of the said Edelina, survived her, he was to receive the life-annuity of 4s. but not the Corrody. Edelina gave the Abbot seizin in the Full Hundred-Court of Novus Burgus, before Sir Geoffrey Griffin; Robert de Wudecote; Roger de Pivelesdon; Alexander Piscator; Dionisius de Fortelest; Philip de Mortun; Robert de Waletun, and the whole Hundred of Novus Burgus. [4]

In 1274 the Jurors of Edgmond and Newport complained that the Abbot of Lilleshull having 40s. rent in the Vill of Newport, had withdrawn his suit, due thrice a year to the local Court. At

[1] The late Mr. George Morris's Deeds.
[2] Harl. MS. 1985, fo. 245.
[3] Lilleshall Chartulary, fo. 85.
[4] Monasticon, VI. 264, xii.


some unknown period, "Randulf Dubbelday, by consent of Germanus his son and heir, gave to the Abbey land in Novo Burgo, to which he had established a right in the King's Court against Osbert Changun. The land adjoined the house of Nicholas fitz Robert, Chaplain". [1] At the Assizes of 1292 the Crown prosecuted the Abbot of Lilleshull, under Writ of Quo Waranto for 40s. rent in Novo Burgo, on the pretence that the said tenements had been the seizin of Henry III. A provincial Jury decided that the Abbot had the better right. [2]

The Valor of 1534-5 gives the Abbot of Lilleshull only 16s. rent in Newport. The Ministers' Accounts, six years later, put the same item at 1. 6s. 9d.

WOMBRIDGE PRIOR FEE. Rainald, a Monk of Wombridge, gave two menses and 4 acres in Novo Burgo, to his Priory. This was before 1187, but I find no evidence of the Monks retaining such a property.

The Abbot of Buildwas had also a burgage in Newport; how acquired I know not. In 1534-5 it yielded 4s. 2d. rent.
[3] The Prior of Ware (in Hertfordshire) had sometime a burgage in Newport. It was obtained doubtless with relation to those Staffordshire interests which the Prior overlooked, on the part of the Norman Abbey of St. Evroult at Uticum.


The arms of the Town of Newport (three fishes in pale) are allusive to the famous Vivary which adjoined the town, and to a certain service, by which the Burgesses seem to have held their Liberties.- They had to convey to the King's Court, wherever it might be, the fish taken in this Vivary. The Custos of Newport Vivary was also a Tenant-in-capite by Serjeantry, as will presently appear.

REINER DE NOVO BURGO, the first of these Keepers whom I can name, was succeeded at the close of the 12th century by his son-

ALEXANDER DE NOVO BURGO, of whom we have had some account under Uppington. [4] A Record of about 1200 says that "Alexander

[1] Lilleshall Chartulary, fo. 75. In the beginning of the 14th century, Ranulf, son of German Dubeldai of Chester, gives to Adam Balle of Novas Burgus, a messuage in that vill, between the house of Hugh de Donintun and the messuage late Richard le Kochebol's. Rent 1d. Witnesses, Walter Long of Novus Burgus, Roger Piscator, Nicholas Pullus, Richard Almund, Peter Fullo, Richard le Furnur. (Harl. MS. 1985, fo. 246.) [2] Quo Waranto, pp. 680-1.
[3] Valor Ecclesiasticus, III. 191.
[4] Supra, Vol. VIII. pp. 161, 162.


de Haneburgo (read Novo Burgo) holds in Serjeantry one Mill, worth 2 merks (per annum), and one bovate of land, worth 2s. and a pound of cummin (the rents thereof), in Novo Burgo. The same Alexander holds in Shrewsbury 6s. 10d. of assized rents, and other rents consisting of a pair of spurs, value 2d., and four horseshoes". [1] Again, a Record of June 1211 says that "Alexander de Novo Burgo ought of his service to keep the King's Vivary of Novus Burgus"; [2] and (in another place) that "Alexander Fisher (Piscator) of Novus Burgus holds five Burgages in Salop with two cultures, all involved in his service, viz. that he must keep the King's Vivary at Novus Burgus as aforesaid". [3] Alexander le Peschur, whom we have seen to have been living in 1228, was probably the person in question. Of course, when Newport and its Vivary passed to the Audleys, this Serjeantry ceased; but Alexander's descendants continued to hold their property in Newport and Shrewsbury by some other tenure. Having traced this descent already, what I have now to say is merely supplementary.-

ROGER DE NOVO BURGO, son of Alexander, is called Roger de Neuport, when sitting as Foreman of a Leegomery Inquest in 1249. This is an early instance of the name Neuport occurring as a substitute for Novus Burgus.

ALEXANDER FITZ ROGER, who succeeded his Father in December 1252, [4] is I presume the Alexander Piscator who attests about that time a grant to Lilleshall Abbey. In Trinity Term 1269 Philip de Mamillon (read Marmion) was suing Roger de Brumtone, Ralph de Loskessford, and Alexander de Neuport, for a violent raid on his property at Norbury (Staffordshire). Alexander de Aula, the Newport Juror of 1272 and 1274, was identical with the last of the three Defendants. The Inquest taken on his death in 1275 has been given under Uppington.

WILLIAM DE AULA or DE LA SALE, son and heir of Alexander, sat on a Chetwynd Jury in 1281, [5] and died in 1283, leaving a son

[1] [2] [3] Testa de Nevill, pp. 61, 55, 56. [4] The Inquest on the death of Roger de Novo Burgo is arranged among the Records of 37 Henry III. (1252-3); and there is good, but not internal, evidence that such was its date. The following Trial of January 1266 relates therefore to a different person.-

"Roger fitz Alexander sues Nicholas Colt for a messuage in Newport as his right, seeing that he had demised it when under age. Nicholas pleads that Roger had, since he came of age, accepted his service, viz. 1s. per annum, and up to Michaelmas last, when 6d. had been so accepted. The parties accorded, Nicholas surrendering the premises, and Roger conceding him a life-tenure of half thereof, at d. rent, with remainder to himself and his heirs". (Assizes, 40 Hen. III., m. 2.) [5] Nicholas de Aula was on the same Jury.


Roger, only 3 years of age. From the Assize-Roll of 1292, it appears that Nicholas le Colt of Neuport had commenced a suit against Nicholas de Audley for custody of the land and heir of William atte Halle of Neuport, a suit which he now declined to prosecute.

ROGER DE LA SALE, arriving at full age in October 1301, is probably identical with Roger Piscator, whom we have seen attesting a Deed about that time. [1] When this family ceased to hold in-capite at Uppington the Inquests cease to mark the succession of its representatives.

Two other families, resident in Newport, deserve a brief notice.-

NICHOLAS COLT, who was at issue in 1256 with Roger fitz Alexander, [2] seems to be the person called Nicholas fitz Alexander in a Jury-List of the same year. He occurs, as Nicholas le Colt, on a Chetwynd Jury in 1281, and appears as a witness 20 years later. I have some idea that he was the person who has been mentioned under Brockton, as living from 1261 to 1292, and as being called Nicholas le Waleys or le Messenger. [3] His Tenant at Brockton, called Alexander le Cold in 1284, was probably a relation.

THE FAMILY OF RANDOLF, originally traders of Newport, became of importance there and elsewhere. Of William Randolf and his three sons, Geoffrey, Simon, and Adam, we have spoken under Woodcote, and Church Aston. [4] Geoffrey will recur to our notice under Bicton. There was also a John Randolf, who occurs in local affairs from 1292 to 1304, and who, in one instance, was called "Lord of Magna Aston". He was probably another son, or a brother, of William Randolf.


This Church, probably founded by Henry I., and coeval with the Borough, was necessarily an affiliation of Edgmond and in the patronage of Shrewsbury Abbey.

Its earlier history I have given with that of Edgmond Church.

Bishop Clinton's (1129-1148) Confirmation to Shrewsbury Abbey treats of the Churches of Edgmond and Novas Burgus as distinct properties, not of the latter as being among the Chapelries of the former. The inference is, that Newport Church had been founded before Bishop Clinton's time, and so, early rather than

[1] Supra, page 137, note 1.
[2] Supra, page 138, note 4.
[3] Supra, Vol. II. pp. 95, 96.
[4] Supra, pp. 15, 125.


late in Henry I.'s reign. Be that as it may, the Bishop's Charter entitles the Monks of Shrewsbury to the Advowson of Novas Burgus, and to an annual pension of 10s., receivable from the Incumbent thereof. [1] Bishop Peche's Confirmation uses precisely the same terms. [2]

That a Church and Borough founded as late as Henry I's reign should have given name to a Rural-Deanery is an important fact. It shows that the Rural Deaneries, as they appear arranged in the Taxation of 1291, had been so constituted less than two centuries before. A similar possibility has been spoken of in respect of the Rural Deanery of Ludlow, viz. that it may have got its name after the Conquest. [3] Further, when we find, as in the cases of Eyton, Waters Upton, and Preston, [4] that the Saxon distinction of Parishes was forgotten or ignored, when our Rural Deaneries were constituted, that is, that the Mother Church was placed in one Deanery, the Daughter in another, we may presume that Rural Deaneries originated no earlier than the 12th century.

The Church of Newport was, as might be expected, most slenderly endowed. The Taxation of 1291 puts its Revenues at: 2. 13s. 4d. [5]

By Inquisition, taken at Newport on May 24, 1313, it was found to be noninjurious to the Crown, if the King should allow Nicholas de Audeleye to give, in pure almoign, to Master Richard de Geydon, Parson of the Church of Newport, one acre of land in Newport, whereon to build houses and dwelling for the said Parson and his Successors. The value of the proposed grant was 3d. per annum. [6]

In 1341 the Parish of Newport was assessed to the Ninth at 40s., and not more, because the small tithes and oblations of the Parish went to make up the greater sum (at which the Church was taxed), and were not relevant to the current assessment. [7]

On March 29, 1442, King Henry VI. empowers the Abbot of Salop, Patron of Newport Church (valued at 17 merks per annum), to alienate the same with its tithes and oblations, and the tithes of Littel and Muchel Astone, in Edgmond Parish, to Thomas Draper and his heirs, so that the said Thomas might found a College in the said Church, to the praise of God and the Virgin Mary, and also a Chantry of two Chaplains, who were to perform divine service in a

[1] [2] Harl. MS. 3868, fos. 7-b, 8.
[3] Supra, Vol. V. pp. 293-4.
[4] Supra, Vol. VIII. p. 260, note 2.
[5] Pope Nich. Taxation, p. 246.
[6] A.Q. Damnum, 6 Edw. II., No. 47.
[7] Inquis. Nonarum, p. 193.


Chapel of the said Church daily. The College was to consist of a Warden, in Priest's orders, and four Chaplains or Fellows, who were to pray for the King and Royal family, for the soul of Humphrey, Duke of Gloucester, and for the brethren and sisters of the fraternity of St. Mary's Guild in the said Church of Newport, as the said Thomas Draper should order. The Fellows were to elect their Warden, and present him to the Abbot of Salop. The said Warden was to have the Cure of souls among the Parishioners of Newport, and a sufficient sum was to be annually distributed among the poor Parishioners according to the Statute De appropriationibus. [1]-

Such were the resources adopted by good and honest men to remedy the spiritual destitution of the period. The working Church was in fact to be reorganized and re-endowed by the Laity, while the Monks either sold or held fast the revenues arising from local tithes.

In the Valor of 1534-5, the "Church of the Guild of Newporte" appears with far less than its contemplated Revenues, viz. as receiving a salary or pension of 6. 13s. 4d. (10 merks), payable by the Seneschal) of the said Guild. [2]

The following COATS OF ARMS formerly adorned the Windows of Newport Church.

(1) France and England quarterly.

(2) France and England, quarterly, within a Border Arg.

(3) Arg, a Fesse between three Mullets, Or.

(4) Arg, a Chevron Sa, between three Pellets.


The Abbot and Convent of Shrewsbury were Patrons in all the under-mentioned presentations, except where the contrary is expressed.

JOHN, Parson of Newport, is mentioned in the Assize-Rolls of August 1267, when Adam de Castro, Alice, his wife, and Juliana, Alice's sister, failed to prosecute a suit of disseizin against him. [3]

MASTER RICHARD DE BERNARD, [4] Clerk, occurs as Rector in 18 Edw. I. (1289-90).

RICHARD DE GERDON or GEYDON, already mentioned as Rector in 1302 and 1313, died Jan. 1, 1315.

[1] Patent. 20 Hen. VI. pars 4, m. 2.
[2] Valor Ecclesiasticus, III. p. 188.
[3] Assizes, 51 Hen. III., m. 5.
[4] He was probably identical with a person already mentioned (vide supra, Vol. VIII. p. 226, n. 2.)


WILLIAM DE LA RODE, Acolyte, admitted Feb. 7, 1315, resigned in the same year.

SIR THOMAS DE COVENTRY, Chaplain, admitted Oct. 6, 1315, resigned May 2, 1320. [1]

THOMAS DE NEUVILL admitted May 9, 1320, resigned Sep. 12, 1322.

JOHN DE LONDON, Subdeacon, admitted Oct. 20, 1322, and having dispensations studendi gratia in 1323 and 1325, exchanges on July 26, 1331, with-

SIR ROGER DE RODERHAM, late Vicar of Orreby (Linc. Dioc.). This Rector has dispensations in 1331, 1333, and 1339, the last quod possit stare in obsequiis Willielmi de Birmyngham. On June 17, 1345,-

JOHN DE WALTON, Rector of this Church, exchanges with-

JOHN DE HONTON, or HENTON, late Rector of a moiety of Southwyme (Linc. Dioc.). Again, on Oct. 25, 1346, Henton or Howton exchanges with-

SIMON DE RYHAL, late Rector of Wywell (Linc. Dioc.), [2] who is presented to Newport by Adam, Abbot of Salop. On Oct. 20, 1349, Riggeley had resigned; and-

WILLIAM LE COK, of Newport, Chaplain, was admitted here. On May 13, 1354, William Cook, exchanges with-

JOHN DE ASCHEBY, Priest, late Rector of Addirley. On Dec. 6, 1355-

JOHN DE BAYSBY, Rector of Newport, exchanges with-

WILLIAM DE WOLATON, Vicar of Westhaddon (Linc. Dioc.).

SIR WILLIAM DE NEWENHAM exchanges this Rectory on May 21, 1379, for the preferment of-

THOMAS DE BADDEBY, late Rector of Solihull (Warwickshire); who on Aug. 15, 1379, again exchanges with-

THOMAS ALCOK, late Rector of Roden Chapel. Again, on April 22, 1380. Thomas Alcok, of Hemingburgh, exchanges with-

MASTER WILLIAM HARLYNG, late Perpetual Chaplain of the Chantry founded in Lichfield Cathedral for the soul of John de Kynardesey, sometime Canon of Lichfield.

WALTER, Rector of Newport, occurs in 1395. On Nov. 5, 1396-

WILLIAM CACHEPOLL exchanges this Rectory for that of Munslow, lately held by-

[1]Apparently going to Donington (supra, Vol. II. p. 184).
[2] Patent. 20 Edw. III., p. 8, m. 25.- Wywell was in the King's gift.


WILLIAM RYCHARDYNG, [1] who, on Sept. 6, 1399, exchanges preferments with-

MASTER THOMAS DE STRETTON, Dean of Lichfield and Vicar of Ruggeley, the latter of which he resigns for Newport. Dean Stretton resigned Newport in 1404.

The Forest of Mount Gilbert, or the Wrekin.

How the Wrekin acquired the name of Mount Gilbert is a question which probably will never be answered. The fact is too old for investigation.

In the time of Henry III. we find the Jurisdiction of this Forest subdivided into two principal districts, viz. the Bailiwick of Haghmon, and the Bailiwick of Wombridge. Now those two Monastic Houses did not grow into any repute till the reign of Henry II.; and there can be no doubt that the rights of the Crown, in respect of Forests, were strictly renewed, if not largely increased by that Monarch. The new names, which obtained in the Wrekin Forest, certainly indicate aggrandizement rather than revival. I know of nothing in the character of Henry II. to defend him from any charge of selfish injustice or extortionate wrong.

The Wrekin Hill was the principal feature of this Forest, but it was far from central. The Forest-Jurisdiction lay wholly on the Eastern or Wrekin side of the Severn.

The Domesday Hundred of Recordine was almost pervaded by the said Jurisdiction, but it also extended partially into the Hundreds of Alnodestreu, Patinton, and Bascherch; and into the very Liberties of Shrewsbury. At Sheriff-Hales it included a part of Staffordshire. The scope and exercise of this Jurisdiction will appear best from the successive documents which allude to it. The Forest-Roll of 1180 points to a few concessions or rather sales of Forest-land, made by Henry II. to his lieges near the Wrekin.- Pourprestures or Wastes were compounded for at Ruckley, Haughton

[1] Supra, Vol. V. p. 144.


(near Shiflnal), Lilleshall, Donington, Tibberton, (Little) Buildwas, Leighton, Hales (probably Sheriff Hales), Chetwynd, Lawley, Astley (near Shrewsbury), and Albrighton (ncar Shrewsbury). Imbladements or assarts were assessed in Lilleshall, Priors Lee, Ketley, Idsall, Goldestan (Goldstone), Cipenol (Chipnall), Lawley, Arleston, Hencott (near Shrewsbury), Leegomery, and Leighton.

On the Forest-Roll of 1209 there are two Regards of Mount Gilbert, that is, assessments or fines set on persons or places within the Jurisdiction. The places which seem to be indicated are Eyton Abbots, Kemberton, Ketley, Dawley, Priors Lee, Wombridge, Drayton (near Idsall), Tibberton, Haughton (near Idsall), Calvington, Lee Gomery, Arleston, Lawley, Hales (probably Sheriff Hales), Horton, Preston (on the Wealdmoors), Idshall, Leighton, and Pimley, with some others not so easy to identify. At these Assizes one criminal prosecution is worth notice. It was stated how four County Serjeants (Servientes Comitatus), viz. Richard de Holton, Wilikine de Estlegh, Hulle de Hineton, and Hulle Robucke, had found venison in the house of Hugh le Scot; and how the said Hugh took asylum in a Church. Then came the Verderers and Foresters to that Church and questioned Hugh as to whence he got the venison; and he and one Roger de Welinton confessed that they had killed a doe (bissam) which furnished the venison. Hugh declined to quit the Church, and lived a month there; but afterwards escaped in woman's clothes (in specie mulieris). Both he and Roger de Welinton were now Fugitives. The Sheriff was ordered to summon them in form (quod exigantur [1]), and, on their appearance, to have them outlawed. In reference probably to this matter the next clause on the Roll states that the vills of Wellington, Arleston, Lawley, and Ketley, were "in misericordia, because they denied what they had before acknowledged".

The Survey of Shropshire Forests, taken in 1235, speaks as follows, on the state of those woods, which I presume to have been subject to the Jurisdiction of Mount- Gilbert.- Item, visi fuerunt bosci de Pimel' et de Horlavescot, [2] multum vastati tempore ultimae guerrae dum Comes Lincoln' et Milites apud Saloppiam, ad villam custodiendam, moram faciebant. [3]

[1] The process of exigatur was performed in the County Court. Thus a memorandum on the same Roll says, Rog' de Welinton et Hugo le Scot exigendi sunt ad proximium Comitatum, i.e. at the next sitting of the Court.
[2] Pimley and Harlescott.
[3] A fact of County History, already alluded to (Vol. VII. p. 185), viz. that John de Lacy, Earl of Lincoln, was specially deputed as Custos of Shrewsbury in 1233. It was doubtless the rebellion of Richard, Earl Marshal, which suggested so unusual a provision (compare Vol. VI. p. 15).


Item visus fuit boscus de O * * * * cot, Abbatis de Lilleshull, vastatus ut supra; et predictus Abbas capit inde ad placitum suum per libertatem quam habet, ut dicit.

Item visi fuerunt Bosci de Edbricton, * * * *, [1] Hadenhal, et de Estleg, [2] parum vastati tempore libertatis, et de novo rationabiliter custoditi ut de Werekwud. [3]

Item, visi fuerunt Bosci de Hageman, Haleton, Rodon, et de Upton, [4] bene custoditi de quercu et subbosco, sed aliquantulum vastati tempore libertatis. De Bestiis nihil fuit visum.

The above maybe taken as belonging to the Bailiwick of Haughmond. The following, appertained mostly to the Bailwick of Wombridge.--

Item visi fuerunt Bosci de Lee-Cumbray, et de Lee Leonardi, [5] bene custoditi de quercu et subbosco.

Item visus fuit Boscus pertinens ad Manerium de Ideshal, multum tenuis per loca, et vastatus de veteri et aliquantulum de novo.

Item visi fuerunt Bosci de Wrocwurthin, de Eyton, de Lilleshull, de Hales, de Lusyard, de Ideshal, de Stirchleg, et de Dalileg-Pantulf, [6] bene custoditi de quercu et subbosco.

Item visus fait Boscus de Parva Dalileg, vastatus de quercu, tam de veteri quam de novo.

Item visi fuerunt bosci de Maddeleg et de Parva-Wenlak Prioris de Wenlak, qui sunt extra vastum et regardum, ut idem Prior dicit, per Cartam domini Regis, sufficienter custoditi.

Item visus fuit Boscus de Kembricton, [7] bene custoditus de quercu et subbosco.

Item, visus fuit Boscus de Sutton, [8] multum vastatus tam de veteri quam de novo.

Item visa fuit Haya domini Regis de Welinton ad Montem Gilberti, et omnes alii bosci pertinentes ad forestam Montis Gilberti;- bene custoditi de quercu et subbosco, excepto parvulo bosco de Upinton, pertinente ad eandem forestam, qui ex antiquo tempore fuit vastatus. In hiis predictis boscis rara frequentacio bestiarum.

[1] Probably the name of some wood near Hencot and Albrightlee is here obliterated.
[2] Albrighton (near Shrewsbury), Hadnall, and Astley.
[3] Vide supra, Vol. VI. p. 339, note 23.
[4] Haughmond, Haughton, Roden, and Upton Magna.
[5] Leegomery and Leonard's Lee. Vide supra, Vol. VII. p. 339, and Vol. II. p. 314.
[6] Wrockwardine Wood, Eyton-on-the-Wealdmoors, Lilleshall, Sheriff-Hales, the Lizard (near Shiffnal), Ideshal (now Shiffnal), Stirchley, and Great Dawley.
[7] [8] Kemberton and Sutton Maddock.


So then, the Haye of Wellington was the only Royal-Preserve maintained in the Jurisdiction of Mount Gilbert.

We now pass to the Iter of Geoffrey de Langley in 1250.- His arrentations exempted from waste and regard, numerous parcels of land, previously within this Jurisdiction. Among the localities thus benefited were Wellington, Pimley, Sundorn, Coalbrookdale, Harlescott, Albrighton, and Astley (near Shrewsbury), Idshal, Haughton, Eyton (on the Wealdmoors), Hadley, Horton, Wombridge, Sheriff-Hales, Burlaughton, Heathull, [1] and Woodcote, Sutton Maddock, Dawley, and Upton (near Shiffnal).

In 1255, the Bradford Jurors reported how John fitz Hugh (of Bolas) was Chief Forester of Haymon (the Bailiwick is meant), and had under him two Valets, each of whom paid him 20s. per annum, the Jurors knew not by what warrant. For cheminage [2] too, a sum of 2s. per annum seems to have been levied, and paid over to the King's Exchequer. The freemen who had boscs in Haughmond, (Bailiwick) demanded, apparently, that all attachments for Forest-law should be made before the Seneschal of the King's Forests. The men of Haughton paid 4s. per annum to John fitz Alan for half an acre of assert in the Forest. Of this the Jurors knew not the warranty .

Some particulars about Wellington-Haye supplied by these Jurors have already been given. [4] Robert de Halton and Thomas de Roshall had sold 52 oak-trees therein since Easter 1255, but the Jurors knew not the price obtained. Also Hugh de Lee and Ralph de la Lowe had sold 8s. worth of sand (sablicium) in the same Haye.

The same Jurors presented that John de Beulewas (identical with John fitz Hugh) was Capital Forester of Mount Gilbert and of Wombrug, and had in the Forest of Wombrug two Under-foresters, who paid him 12s. per annum each, the Jurors knew not by what warranty. He had also one Under-Forester in Mount Gilbert, but he paid nothing. [5] The Jurors of Pimhill, again, complained of John fitz Hugh's exaction of cheminage, viz. from d. to 2d. per annum on different kinds of carts plying in Haumon-Forest. [6] The

[1] Heath-Hill I take to be the high ridge which separates Woodcote and Lilleshall.
[2] Cheminage was a toll levied by Foresters on teams and pack-horses plying in their jurisdiction. King John's Charter of the Forest forbid it to be levied except by such Foresters-of-the-Fee as paid a rent to the Crown for their Bailiwicks. This was not the case, I think, with John fitz Hugh.
[3] Rot. Hundred. II. 56.
[4] Supra, pp. 47, 48.
[5] [6] Rot. Hundred. II. 58, 76.


Foresters of this Bailiwick had further exacted contributions of oats, wheat, [1] and poultry, from Harlescott and Hadnall, as their due. At the Forest Assizes of 1262, the Regard of the Jurisdiction, now under notice, is called the Regard of Wombrig, of Mount Gilbert and of Hawemon. An assart of 17 acres by the Abbot of Haughmon at Sundorn, was of long standing and justified by Royal Charter. The Bosc of William Banastre (of Hadnall, I presume) was wasted of old time and recently, by the said William. He was put in misericordia, and the wood was seized in manu Regis. At the Forest Assizes of 1271, Michael de Burgo and other Staffordshire people were presented as habitual malefactors with respect to venison, in the Forest of Mount Gilbert and Wombrugge.

The First Perambulation of the Forests, in Edward I.'s time, next demands our notice. The following Vills, Boscs, and lands, which had pertained to the Forestership of Wellington were now disforested, viz. the Vill of Clotleye with two plains; half the vill of Astone with half its plains and with the Bosc of Mount Gilbert; the bosc of Rugston (probably Rushton) with one plain; half the vill of Garmeston with one plain; half the vill of Leygchton with a bosc and two plains; the boscs of Opiton, Buildwas and Little Caldebroc (Coalbrookdale); half Sutton (Maddock) with a bosc and two plains; half Brocton, with one plain; the vill of Madeleye, with its bosc and two plains; the vill of Great Dalileye with its bosc and plain; Little Dalileye;- a messuage at La Holte; [2] the Vill of Laueleye with two plains; Little-Wenloke with its plain and woods; the vill of Untidone (Huntington) with its plains; and the Vill of Ardelestone (Arleston) with two plains.

These details relate but to a part of the Wrekin Forest, viz. that part which lay more immediately round the Wrekin. The Great and final Perambulation of 1300 is much fuller as to the Jurisdiction abandoned, and also gives a minute description of that which was retained.- "The Jurors say that the Lord King hath in Shropshire a certain Haye, which is called the Haye of Welinton; and it is Forest according to these bounds, viz. from Clerkenebrugge in Watlingestrete, going up, along the Stonibrok, [3] to the top of Radulf de Clotlegh's garden; thence up along Stonybrok to the Quyksond; thence up along a certain road to the Merok; thence up to

[1] Viz. "XVI windellos avenae et XXXII garbas wernagii", from each vill.
[2] Near Buildwas, I think (supra, Vol. VII. pp. 323, 324).
[3] The Stony-brook was probably the Rivulet which crosses the Watling Street a little to the West of the Hay-Gate, and flows thence Northwards.


the Salyn; and thence up to the Fountain called The Sprungwall in the field of Huntiton. Then along the hedge of the said field to the Mapelene-hacche, and still along the same hedge to Huntitoneshacche; and thence up to the Stanidelf (stone-quarry) and thence down to Huntitonestile; and so down to a certain oak, standing in Maysemore; and so up to Boynhale-Burne; and thence along a certain hedge to Boynhale-Lydeyat; and then, down along the highway, to the Dede Queneok (dead Queen-oak); thence down along the said way to the Overe Smethe (Upper Smithy) and down by the Nethersmethe to the Horestone in Ardlestones-grene (Ardeston Green); thence straight to Wothuinesford, to the corner of the field of Ardleston; and so by Radewey stile down to Bayleybrok; and then up along Bayleybrok to Watlingstrete, and down along Watlingstrete to the Wodewardes-Shute; and thence along the aforesaid road to Clerkenebrugge where the first boundary begins".

The localities now to be exempt from this Jurisdiction seem to be the following, the Jurors declaring that they had becn occupied and afforested by the King's Ancestors or their Ministers, since the Coronation of King Henry fitz Empress, and ought to be disforested according to the Great Charter of the Forest,- that of King John, I presume. The list begins with the Capital messuage of Shirvehales (Sheriff Hales), and half Little Hales with its boscs and plains. Then we have the boscs of Wodecote, the Abbey of Lilleshull, the vill of Lilleshull, Muccleston (Muxton), Doniton (Donnington Wood), the Grange of Cherishale (Cheswell), [1] the Grange of Wildemore [2] and the Grange of Watlingestrete, with all their boscs, wastes, plains, and moors: the vills of Longford, Brocton, and Chersale (Cheswell) [3] with boscs, moors, and plains; the vill of Egemundone, half of Novus Burgus, Little Aston, Little Hales, and Adoney, with boscs, moors, and plains; the boscs of Henelqueneacre, with the fields and heaths adjacent; the vill of Howle, Dotingcote-Grange, Calvinton, Caynton, the vill of Tibrihton, the vills of Cherynton, Meston (Meeson), half Great Boulwas, Upton (Waters), Slepe and Crugelton, with fields, wastes, moors, and plains; the vill of Eiton (on the Wealdmoors), Kynardsey (Kinnersley), Botereye, Preston, Horton, and Hadlegh, with their hosts, etc.; Wombrugge Priory, with its boscs and plains, the Bosc of Wrokwardyn, the vills of LeghCombreys (Leegomery), Quatmundeshale (Wappenshall), Kettelegh, Little Dawley, Lauelegh, Appelegh juxta Welinton, four Burgages in the North quarter of Welinton, the Vills of Ardeston

[1] [2] Belonging to Lilleshall Abbey.
[3] The Vill, as distinct from the Grange.


(Arleston), Great Dalilegh, Stirchlegh, Oulemore, [1] Maleyneslegh, Priores Legh, Wodehous, half Dreyton (near Shiffnal), Haghton, La Cnolle, Trillewardyn, [2] Wyk, and half of Hemme, with their boscs, moors, and plains; the Bosc of Kembrithton, a third of the vill of Sutton (Maddock), half the vill of Brocton, with boscs, etc.; the vills of Madelegh, Capsi, [3] Caldebrok, Little Wenlok, Huntiton and Little Buldewas, with boscs, etc.; the Abbot of Buildwas's boscs; two-thirds of the vill of Leghton and the Overe Garmundeston (Upper Garmeston); the Abbot of Salop's bosc in Mount Gilbert; [4] the bosc of Opinton (Uppington), half the vill of Aston, the vill of Clothlegh, with boscs, wastes, etc.; the Abbey of Hagwemon, with its boscs, roads, and plains, the Earl of Arundel's bosc of Upton (Magna), the boscs of Rodene and Rodintone, the vills of Halghton, Astlegh, with boscs, etc., the bosc of Hadenhale; Half Monkes Albrithton, [5] with boscs and plains, the vills of Adbrithton-Hese (Albright Hussey), Herlascote, Pimbelegh, and Adbrithelegh, with boscs, etc.; the Grange of Sundorn, and half the vill of Offinton (Uffington), with its boscs and plains.

THE WREKIN HERMITAGE. I cannot pass away from the Wrekin Forest without noticing this feature of the wilderness, though I cannot identify its situation. That there was a Hermitage on the Wrekin, in Henry III.'s reign, is proved by the simple fact that there was a "Hermit of Mount Gilbert", who benefited by that Monarch's alms. Nicholas de Denton was this hermit's name. By a Patent of September 17, 1267, the King grants to "Nicholas de Denton, Heremite of Mount Gilbert, six quarters of corn to be paid him by the Sheriff of Shropshire, out of the issues of Pendleston Mill". [6] The object announced, is "to give the Hermit greater leisure for holy exercises (ut possit liberius vacare divinis), and to support him during his life, so long as he shall be a Heremite on the aforesaid Mountain". From the Pipe-Rolls I learn that the Sheriffs of 1268 and 1269 paid the Hermit 24s. per annum in lieu of the above corn; for the fact was that the Sheriff did not receive the rents of Pendleston Mill at all; and the Burgesses of Bridgnorth who paid the said rents, paid them, not in kind, but in money. [7] A second Patent of King Henry III., dated March 29, 1270, orders

[1] Probably Coalmore.
[2] Vide supra, Vol. II. pp. 311, 312.
[3] This place, apparently a member of Madeley, is now lost. Its derivative, in the shape of a surname, "Capsey", is still to be met with in Shropshire.
[4] Already alluded to, Vol. VI. p. 178.
[5] Albrighton, near Shrewsbury. It belonged to Shrewsbury Abbey, and so got the distinctive name here given.
[6] Vide supra, Vol. I. p. 304 [7] Supra, Vol. I. p. 310.


an annuity of 2 merks, out of Pendleston Mill, to be paid to "Nicholas de Denton, Eremite of Mount Gilbert".

The payment of half-a-year's proportion of this annuity, by the Burgesses of Bridgnorth (who farmed Pendleston Mill under the Crown), has already been noticed. The said payment was first certified in 1273, when, if the Hermit had been living and resident, it should have been eightfold.

We may conclude that he had vacated his stormy post, but whether by necessity or choice, let the Idealist or the Utilitarian decide.

Odenet Hundred.

THE general representative of the Domesday Hundred of Odenet is the present Hundred of Bradford-North. The annexed Table will show four exceptions to that Rule. So also a Table, already given, [1] will show how Bradford-North contains eleven Manors which were not in the Domesday Hundred of Odenet, but in the Domesday Hundred of Recordine.

Again, the Hundred of Odenet contained one Manor (Tirley) which is now reputed to be in Staffordshire; and, vice versa, North-Bradford Hundred now contains two Manors (Cheswardine and Chipnall) which Domesday had place in Staffordshire. Also North-Bradford Hundred contains three Manors or parts of Manors, two of which (Moreton Corbet and part of Preston-Brockhurst) Domesday had placed in Bascherch Hundred, and one of which (Sleap Magna), the Domesday Scribes had, by some inadvertency fixed in Culvestan Hundred.-

And now as to the exact letter of Domesday;- the annexed Table places four [2] Manors in Odenet Hundred which Domesday does not declare to have been so situated. There are also two [3] cases of doubtful identity, in which the letter of the Record is preserved, though the interpretation thereof may be problematical or hopeless. Such cases I leave to be discussed under the Manors themselves.

[1] Supra, Vol. VII. pp. 198-201.
[2] Viz. Lee Brockhurst, Ludecote, Soulton, and Moston.
[3] Viz. Lai and Ludecote.


I may now turn to the history of Bradford-Hundred already promised; [1]- a Hundred, which, in its Northern and Southern divisions combined, very nearly represents the Domesday Hundred of Recordine and Odenet united.

Before Odenet Hundred was thus absorbed in Bradford, its caput was Hodnet. It was, as a Hundred, held in demesne, first, by the Palatine Earls of Shrewsbury, and then by King Henry I. From the Hundred and Manor of Odenet Earl Roger derived a revenue of 8; [2] the greater part of that sum probably arising from the Hundred. Though it was King Henry I. who undoubtedly reorganized the Shropshire Hundreds, I find no mention of Bradford Hundred till the year 1203, when it was duly represented at the County Assizes. On this occasion five murders and one case of accidental death were reported by the Jurors; and the Justices made orders apposite to each case.-

The sixth Plea of the Crown, given under Bradford Hundred, is connected with an interesting event in County-History,- the rebellion and outlawry of Fulk fitz Warin. This outbreak, it will be remembered had commenced in 1201, and the Outlaw was not pardoned till November 1203, a month after the Assizes. At the Assizes "William Wigun challenged William Provost of Ercalew (High Ercall) for having entertained the King's Outlaws in his House, to wit, Fulk fitz Warin and his associates". The Provost now appeared, denied the charge, and offered a fine of one mark to have an Inquest on the subject. The Fine was accepted, Hugh Pantulf being Security for its payment. The Jurors (of the Inquest) and the whole County Court found that the Provost was not guilty, that he was a liege man, and that the Appellant had accused him in malice, and with the view of getting some land which was in dispute between them. So the Provost had his quietus and his Accuser was pronounced in misericordia. It was explained at the Inquest that though the alleged reception of the Outlaws purported to date three years back, according to the Appellant's evidence, yet he, the Appellant, had never mentioned it till June last. One inference due to the above premises is that Fitz Warin's rebellion commenced in 1200, not as I have elsewhere stated, in 1201. [3]

At the Assizes of 1221 the presentments for Bradford Hundred included seven cases of murder, one of accidental death, one of arson and robbery, and two of assault, actual or threatened. One of the murdered persons was Thomas de Erkalewe, and his two murderers had been outlawed at the suit of William, Provost of Erkalewe, brother to the deceased.

Another murderer was Robert de Rode, a Chaplain, who had killed his own servant. He had been in the Bishop's prison, and had been transferred by the Bishop to the custody of the Dean of Newport, who now failed to produce him before the King's Justices. This, as regarded the Bishop, was a matter reserved for the King's cognizance. The Chattels of the murderer consisted of 5 oxen, besides 20s. which the Bishop had had. [4]

About the middle of the 13th century Geoffrey de Cure was Bailiff of Bradford Hundred. He paid the Sheriff 26 merks per annum for his office, but could not realize more than 11 merks, so the Sheriff obtained the residue by distraint on the Bailiff's Sureties.

In 1255 Hugh de Beckbury was Fermor or Bailiff of Bradford Hundred. He paid the Sheriff 23 merks per annum for the office. At the Assizes of January 1256, Thomas de Schepele appeared as Chief-Bailiff. His rent to the Sheriff seems to have been 20 merks, but his Sureties had to make it good. The next Bailiff (about 1263), was Elyas de Stoke. He paid the Sheriff 15 merks; but could realize only 8 merks. The rest was supplied out of his own chattels. On May 20, 1264, a Jury sat at Wellington to ascertain the real value of this Hundred. They narrated many of the above particulars, and returned the present value of the Hundred as 5. The whole country, they said, was well-nigh consumed

[1] Supra, Vol. VII. p. 202.
[2] Domesday, fo. 253, a, 2.
[3] Supra, Vol. VII. p. 72.
[4] The Pipe-Roll of 1221 charges W., Bi sshop of Coventry, as a debtor of 20s. de catallis Roberti de Rodes fugitivi quos ipse recepit.


[For table, see Odenet]


(tota patria fere combusta est). [1] They alluded to the civil-war then raging.

Walter de Pedwardine's appointment to this Bailiwick on June 24, 1267, at a rent of 8 merks, has been already noticed. [2]

The Patent-Roll of 1271 contains a memorandum which shows the heavy responsibilities which attached to a Hundred, in virtue of its jurisdiction, or rather its "keeping of Crown-Pleas", as the phrase was. On November 4th in that year the men of Bradford Hundred paid the King 100s., because a Felon had escaped from their custody.

At the Assizes of 1272, William le Enfaunt (a well-known dealer in Ferms of this kind) was Chief Bailiff of Bradford Hundred. I suppose that he rented the office under Pedwardine. One of the statements of the Jury was, that the Hundred was worth 28 merks, and that it was a Demesne-Hundred of the King, and that Sir Walter de Pedwardyne held it for life, at a rent of 8 merks. His Charter to that effect was produced in Court. John Coly was the next Bailiff of this Hundred who has occurred to my notice. Sometime previous to the year 1291, Bradford Hundred was found to bear a proportionate value of 20 merks in the aggregate ferms which went under the name of the Corpus Comitatus. William de Tittele, Sheriff in that year, claims the said reduction from his liabilities; and Walter de Pedwardine, as Fermor of the Hundred, renders a separate account of his lighter liabilities, under the Royal grant.

At the Assizes of October 1292 William Cresset stands on the Jury List as Chief Bailiff of Bradford Hundred. The strict accuracy of this may be doubted if we look at the presentments of the Jury. "Walter de Pedwardin", they said, "holds the Hundred for 8 merks; and he had made it over to William Crasset for 36 merks (per annum), to the injury of all the Freeholders". The Justices, on its being further stated that William Crasset now lay under an indictment for murder and other evil deeds, ordered Pedwardin's Bailiwick to be seized in manu Regis; but allowed him to replevy it. Several of William Crasset's evil deeds are narrated in this Assize-Roll, for instance, he had embezzled 6s. (the value of the Chattels of a Robber) at a Sheriff's Tourn. His trial for murder escapes my search.

[1] Inquisitions, 48 Hon. III., No. 7.
[2] Supra, Vol. VIII. p. 32.

WEM. 157


The possession of eleven Manors in Odenet Hundred gave to the name of Pantulf a clear precedence in the North-east of Shropshire. Wem, always reputed to have been the Caput of William Pantulf's Barony, is described in Domesday as follows.-

"The same William holds Weme (under the Earl Roger): Wighe, Leuuinus, Alveva, and AElveva held it (in Saxon times) for four Manors, and were free. Here are IIII hides, geldable. There is (arable) land for VIII ox-teams. In demesne is one team; and there are II Serfs, IIII Villains, and VIII Boors with one team. Here is a Hawks-aerie, a Wood which will fatten 100 swine, and a Haye. In King Edward's time the Manor was worth 27s. (per annum). Now it is worth 40s. He (William Pantulf) found it waste". [1]

Among the great Feudatories who followed Earl Roger and shared in the spoils of Mercia, we know more of the personal history of William Pantulf of Wem than of any other. This is because his benefactions to the Abbey of St. Evroul of Uticum bespoke the gratitude of a certain cotemporary Monk of that House, and because that Monk happened to be the greatest Historian of his day. From the pages of Ordericus we gather a biography of-

WILLIAM PANTULF, first Baron of Wem.-

For reasons, often before stated, we cannot date the investiture of Roger de Montgomery with the Earldom of Shrewsbury before the year 1071, when the Earls Morcar and Edwin suffered forfeiture. Six persons are prominently named as having been entrusted by the new Earl with the prefecture or government of his Western province. Warin, his Sheriff, naturally heads the list, and William, surnamed Pantulf, comes second. In Normandy, William Pantulf's principal possessions lay at Noron, a town situated a little to the West of Falaise, while Falaise was a Bailiwick, or department, of Roger de Montgomery's great Vicomte of the Oximin. In the year 1073, William Pantulf, "by concession of Earl Roger, his Lord", gave to the Abbey of St. Evroul the two Churches of Noron, one dedicated to St. Peter, the other to St. Cyr. He also gave the

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

158 WEM.

whole tithe of Noron. Many other and later gifts, both in land and money, did William Pantulf confer on St. Evroul. Among them I may specify the tithes of half the Mill of Noron; the Church of Esmiville [1] with tithes and land there; two-thirds of the tithes of Maisnil Bachelar, [2] whether arising from his own demesne or from the lands of his men; the whole land which Beatrix his Mother was holding in demesne at Fossae; [3] and the tithes of certain Tenants of his at Alberi-Vicus, [4] where also his Sister, Heloise, by his concession, had already given her marriage portion. It is immaterial that the later of these gifts were specified to be benefactions to St. Peter of Noron. That Church had become a cell of St. Evroul. Thereto William Pantulf at length granted all the Churches, and the tithes of all places, whether in England, or Normandy, or in any other locality, where his Honour should happen to increase; also the tithes of all his personal possessions, such as mares, kine, cheeses, and all things which ought to be tithed. He also gave one whole part of his substance;- to be divided at his decease between the Monks of St. Evroul and the Monks of Noron.

"All these things", says Ordericus, "did William (Pantulf) and Leclina, his wife, concede and confirm in the Chapter of St. Evroul and before the assembled Monks. Then also did the same William give 40 merks into the hands of those Monks, who were about to go and build a Cell at Noron, and who begged his assistance".

It was after all this, says Ordericus, that Earl Roger being at Belesme, was visited by many Bishops, Abbots, and Laymen, on the day of St. Leonard the Confessor. [5] Among others came Manier Abbot of Uticum and William Pantulf, and obtained from the Earl a full confirmation of Pantulf's grants above-mentioned. Ordericus's list of the persons who witnessed this ceremony includes one Bishop, who was not consecrated till after November 1080, [6] otherwise we should date Earl Roger's visit as between 1074 and 1077. I still prefer the latter interval for reasons too long to state, and notwithstanding the apparent objection.

Meantime William Pantulf had been on a Pilgrimage to St. Giles,

[1] "Emieville,between Caen and Troarn", says M. Le Provost, in the notes to his invaluable edition of Ordericus. Troarn was one of Earl Roger's Norman estates.
[2] "Mesnil Baclai, near Livarot", says the same authority. Livarot is on the River Vie, a little north of Montgommeri.
[3] "La Fosse, between Livarot and Moutiers Hubert", suggests M. Le Provost.
[4] Afterwards "Aubri-le-Pantou, and situated between the Rivers Touque and Vie".
[5] "June 26", says M. Le Provost.
[6] I owe this observation to M. Le Provost's note on the passage.

WEM. 159

a matter which I will not enlarge upon, as I think it very doubtful to what Shrine Ordericus alludes. That it was a distant one is probable from the circumstance that the Monks of St. Evroul gave the Pilgrim 16 towards his undertaking.

In the year 1077 the dedication of the famous Abbey of Bec was attended by King William and a host of illustrious Visitors. Among others came Robert de Grentemaisnil, a former Abbot of St. Evroul, but now domiciled in Italy. The dedication took place on October 23rd, and then Robert de Grentemaisnil returned to Italy, taking with him William Pantulf and Robert de Cordai his nephew.

At this period the Norman genius for conquest and dominion was being exemplified in Southern Italy no less than in England. Robert the Guiscard, already illustrious by the conquest of Calabria, added Salerno to his dominions in this very year. He received William Pantulf with much honour, and being greatly desirous of retaining the services of so brave a soldier, placed Pantulf next him at table at an Easter Feast, and offered him three cities as an inducement to remain in Italy. Pantulf however returned to Normandy, and had soon to stand on his defence, not only in respect of land and heritage, but of life and honour.-

In December 1082 the Countess Mable, the Jezebel of Ordericus's history, was assassinated at Bures-sur-Dive, by one Hugh de Jalgey, whom she had deprived of his Ancestral Castle of Roche-Jalgey. [1] William Pantulf, already returned from Apulia, was suspected of being an accessory to this daring deed. He had been a friend and associate of the assassin: he had also suffered, like him, from Mable's tyranny, for the Countess had deprived him of his Castle of Piretum. [2] Pantulf, with his wife and children, sheltered themselves from the coming storm in the Cloisters of St. Evroul, while Earl Roger and his sons, fully convinced of Pantulf's treason, confiscated his estates, and sought his life. At length it was settled that he should purge himself by the ordeal of Iron. In the King's Court at Rouen, he underwent the question scatheless;- carrying in his naked hand a mass of iron, heated to a white heat, and yet remaining unharmed. Had he failed, there were persons present, ready to execute him on the spot. On his release Pantulf rewarded the Monks of St. Evroul, whose prayers to heaven, and intercessions with man, in his behalf, had been unceasing, with a present of four altar-cloths, the produce of the silk-looms of Apulia.

[1] Thenceforward called La Roche Mabile, after the Countess herself.
[2] "Perai en Saonnais, between Mamers and Bonnetable", says M. Le Provost.

160 WEM.

Domesday, the Record of 1085-6, exhibits William Pantulf as if fully restored in estate and honour. Twenty nine Manors in Shropshire, and several in Staffordshire and Warwickshire now owned his sway, and were held by him under Earl Roger de Montgomery.

Soon after William the Conqueror's death (Sept. 9, 1087), Pantulf again visited Apulia. On this occasion he brought back, for the Monks of St. Peter at Noron, certain relics of St. Nicholas the Confessor, [1] which were greatly prized by those Monks, and were indeed found to be of more than theoretical value. This gift took place in June 1092. Besides this, William Pantulf still continued to assist the Monks of Noron, with money for their buildings. His grant of the Manor and Church of Drayton in Shropshire to the same Norman Monastery will be a subject of future argument, inasmuch as Ordericus calls the place Traditon. [2]

There is no evidence as to what trcatment William Pantulf reccived at the hands of Earl Hugh de Montgomery, while the latter bore sway in Shropshire: but when Robert de Belesme succeeded to the Earldom, Pantulf suffered an absolute forfeiture. Probably they had already been in collision in Normandy, for Belesme, as his Mother's heir, will have held the castle of which Pantulf had been deprived. Perhaps also Belesme's suspicions in respect of his mother's death had not been obliterated by Pantulf s compurgation. The son too much resembled the Mother to forget either her or her private animosities.

When in the Autumn of 1102 the Rebel, Belesme, was threatened by the preparations of King Henry, the disinherited Pantulf is said by Ordericus to have proffered his services, in the first instance, to the Earl. The Earl spurned the offer with contempt, and Pantulf resorted to the King. Henry, well knowing the value of such aid, instantly appointed Pantulf to the command of 200 soldiers and to the custody of Stafford Castle. Belesme, till the day of his fall, found in Pantulf a steady and successful enemy.- "None, whether by contrivances or by arms, did him greater injury". At length it was by Pantulf's negotiations with his own relatives, the Defenders of Bridgnorth, that that stronghold was surrendered to King Henry.

In a general way it may be stated that William Pantulf by his allegiance to King Henry regained his Domesday possessions. That

[1] Two fragments of the Saint's tomb, and the whole of one of his teeth. In the Monks' hands these relics turned out to be specifics for fever.
[2] And inasmuch as M. Le Provost identifies Traditon with Trotton in Sussex.

WEM. 161

he got some further reward, I have already suggested; [1] but, as a general rule, Henry I. did not favour the aristocracy of Domesday. His policy was to depress it. All that I can learn further of the career of William Pantulf is from a passage of Ordericus, written with remarkable consistency as to date and probability.- "In the year from our Lord's Incarnation 1112, Indiction 5, 12 Henry I., and 4 Louis of France, the said William, in the fortieth year since that in which he had commenced a monastic Cell at Noron, came to Uticum, and mindful of ancient friendliness and gifts (above recorded) reviewed them all, and in a general assembly of the Monks confirmed them, with Leclina, his wife".-

"Then also Philip, and Ivo, and Arnulf, his sons, conceded whatever their Father had given to St. Evroul, and, simultaneously with their father and mother, placed the gifts upon the altar".-

I cannot imagine that William Pantulf lived long after this recognition. Ordericus gives April 16 as the day of his obit, and September 21st as the day of his wife's obit, but does not state the year in either case. They were both buried in the Cloisters of Noron. They left four sons, Philip, Robert, Ivo, and Arnulf, "none of them", says Ordericus, "emulative of their parents' virtues in respect of the Church". Philip succeeded to his father's Norman possessions, Robert to his English Fief.

ROBERT PANTULF, heir to the English possessions of his house, had, it seems, acquired some notoriety previous to his father's decease. Soon after the death of King William I., a Nunnery at Caen was pillaged, and Robert Pantulf's name figures among the Marauders. [2] This fact, which could not but be known to Ordericus, perhaps induced the contrast which he makes between the first and second generation of Pantulfs.

There is a very ancient grant to Shrewsbury Abbey by William, Constable of Chester. All that I need say of it here is that it passed before 1130, that the first witness is Robert Pantulf, and the last witness is Ivo Pantulf. Robert Pantulf had a brother and a son, both named Ivo. It was his son, I imagine, who thus attested.

The Bedfordshire Pipe-Roll of 1130 contains the following notice of a recent Fine.-

Hugo Malbaeng reddit compotum de vij marcis argenti pro placito Duelli inter eum et Robertum Pantulf. In thesauro 4. Et debet unam marcam argenti. [3]-

[1] Supra, Vol. VIII. p. 46.
[2] Ordericus, III. 221. Note by M. Le Provost, the Editor.
[3] Rot. Pipe, 31 Hen. I., p. 104.

162 WEM.

The Cheshire and Shropshire estates of Hugh Malbanc were in many cases contiguous to estates of Robert Pantulf. Wly the above Fine should be entered under Bedfordshire I cannot say, nor can I state the precise meaning of the Fine;- whether it was to secure a trial by wager-of-battle, or to compound for the nonfulfilment of such an engagement. That Hugh Malbanc and Robert Pantulf had been or were personal foes is at any rate clear.

Ivo PANTULF, probably the son, and clearly the successor of Robert, comes into notice before the death of Henry I. He attests, between 1130 and 1135, a confirmation of the Church of Stone (Staffordshire) and of land at Walton, to Kenilworth Priory. The person confirming is Nicholas, second Baron Stafford, under whom I have reason to think that Ivo Pantulf held more than one estate. For instance he will have held Cublesdon (near Stone) under the Barons Stafford, and, as we shall see, transmitted it to a younger son. Also, as we have seen already, [1] Ivo Pantulf was, in the reign of Stephen, Mesne-Lord of Stallington (near Stone), and this I conceive must have been a Tenure under the same Barons. Thirdly, Ivo Pantulf was Mesne-Lord of Bagnal (near Newcastle, Staffordshire), and there again I doubt not that the Lord Stafford was his Suzerain.

Ivo Pantulf's grant to Shrewsbury Abbey, between 1141 and 1155, has been discussed already: [2] so has his Confirmation of Robert de Eyton's grant to the same House.

Between 1155 and 1160 two Charters of the first William fitz Alan have the attestation of Ivo Pantulf. Though a Baron himself, he was Fitz Alan's Feoffee at Sheriff Hales, a fact alluded to in the Feodary of 1165, where Iwo Pantoy is entered as holding half a new fee in Fitz Alan's Barony. [8]

In 1167 Sheriff Hales had been amerced half a merk by Alan de Nevill. It is described by its owner's name, viz. as Hales Ivonis Pantul. The Staffordshire Pipe-Roll of the same year gives the same Justiciar as inflicting a Fine of 60s. on Ivo de Panton himself. In 1176 the Staffordshire Pipe-Roll mentions Geoffrey de Codewalton and William Purcel, "two men of Yvo Pantulf" who had been amerced 2 merks by the King for Forest-Trespass.
[4] This is the latest mention I have of Ivo Pantulf as living, if indeed he was yet alive; for, about this time, his son Hugh appears upon the public stage.

[1] Supra, Vol. VII. p. 388.
[2] Supra, Vol. VI. p. 363.
[3] Liber Niger, I. 144.
[4] Rot. Pip. 22 Henry II.

WEM. 163

I shall close my account of Ivo Pantulf with a notice of one or two grants which verify what has been said above of his feudal relations. As Ivo de Pantune, he is described as enfeoffing Adam de Audley in that land of Baggenhall (Bagnal, Staffordshire) which was of his tenure. Witnesses,- Alexander Pantune, William Purcell, Roger fitz Liulf, Sar' de Chella, [1] and the Grantor's whole Court;- also Hugh de Clivenhall and Matthew and Alan de Bagenhall. [2]

Ivo Pantulf, with Brice his son, is stated to have given Bromhale, Shipford, and Clive to Combermere Abbey. These places are now known as Shifford's Grange, Broom-Hall Grange, and Cliff Grange. The two first were probably members of Pantulf's Staffordshire Manor of Almington, the third was probably a part of his Shropshire Manor of Sutton. [3]

Ivo Pantulf s grant to Haughmond Abbey must be taken as a closing act of his life, and to have passed in 1175-6, then William fitz Alan who assented thereto was first of age. It was of Hide, a member of Sheriff Hales; but I give it in the original Latin.

Omnibus Sanctae Ecclesi filiis tam futuris quam modo vivis, tam Francis quam Anglis, Ivo Pantul satutem. Notum sit vobis me dedisse Deo et Sancto Johanni et Canonicis de Haemannia, ibidem Deo servientibus, quandam terram quae Hida vocatur quae pertinet ad manerium Hales, et hoc, assensu Willielmi filii Alani;- liberam et ex omni exactione seculari solutam et quietam, in bosco et in plano, in viis et in semitis, in pratis et in aquis et in omnibus pertinentiis ejus. Hanc prefatam terram dono eis pro salute animae meae et filiorum et filiarum meorum, et omnium parentum meorum in stabilem et perpetuam elemosynam. Hiis testibus, Ivone Capellano, Alexandro fratre meo, Waltero Meverello, Radulpho Diablo. [4]

Ivo Pantulf had, I think, at least five sons, viz. Hugh, Hameline, Brice, William, and Norman. Of these, William and Norman seem to have been his sons by Alice de Verdon, probably a daughter of Norman de Verdon. These two had, apparently from their Mother, some property at Rudyard in Staffordshire. [5] Each of them also obtained from their father an estate at Sheriff Hales. Moreover William had an estate at Cublesdon, so that he is sometimes styled of Cublesdon, sometimes of Hales. Both William and Norman

[1] Probably the person called Cadiou de Chelda in 1165 (Liber Niger, I. p. 137).
[2] Erdeswick's Staffordshire (Ed. 1844), p. 14.
[3] Vide supra, Vol. VIII. p. 52.
[4] Haughmond Chartulary, Tit. Cutteston juxta Hales.
[5] Erdeswick (ut supra), pp. 493-4.

164 WEM.

seem to have been living in 1226, but I must consign some further particulars of these two Cadets to a note.

HUGH PANTULF, eldest son and heir of Ivo, succeeded him as fourth Baron of Wem. He had been married at least five years before his Father's death, to Christiana fitz Alan, daughter of that William fitz Alan who died in 1160, leaving his son in minority. The proof of this marriage is a very complex one, but of exceeding interest.- From March 3 to June 24, 1170, King Henry II. was in England. About that time he issued a Writ to Guy le Strange, then Custos of the Fitz-Alan estates, authorizing the said Guy to deduct from the annual ferm of those estates a sum of 10, viz. the issues of the Manor of Badminton (Gloucestershire), "which the King had assigned as the marriage portion of William fitz Alan's daughter". In the current year (1170) the Custos discharges his liabilities of 5 on this account;- that is the said grant took effect about Easter 1170, and only absorbed half a year's proportion of the revenue assigned. In other years, and till 1175, when Guy le Strange's custody ceased, he deducts at the full rate of 10 per annum, for the ferm of Badminton, no longer received by him.

That Fitz Alan's daughter was married in 1170, we gather from another charge by Guy le Strange.- In obedience to the King's order he charges 7 on the Fitz-Alan receipts; which sum he had advanced for the Lady's wardrobe (pro pannis). That it was Hugh Pantulf who married Fitz-Alan's daughter there can be no doubt; for between the years 1215 and 1218 the said Hugh, with the assent of his heirs, gave to Lilleshull Abbey all his right in the Church of Badminton. [2]

But to return.- In 1175-6, we have seen Hugh Pantulf attesting a Charter of King Henry II. at Shrewsbury.
[3] In 1178, as

[1] William Pantulf of Cublesdon and Hales, deceased in 1253, was probably son and heir of the above William. He left a widow, Alice, called "Lady of Halys", in 1255, and an only daughter, Roisia. The latter married that Richard Trussell who was slain at Evesham in 1265. Their son and heir, William Trussell, having been born in December 1261, was of full age at the death of his mother Roisia, in 1294, and succeeded to her estates at Cublesdon and Sheriff Hales.

Norman Pantulf took to wife one Petronilla. He seems to have left an only daughter, Alice. She married Roger le Poer, and, apparently being childless and a widow, gave her land in Cuttesdon (a member of Hales) to Lilleshall Abbey.- Lilleshall Chartulary, fo. 76.
[2] Lilleshall Chartulary, fo. 54.

The Charter was attested by William, Bishop of Coventry (consecrated January 25, 1215), and confirmed by Silvester, Bishop of Worcester, who died june 16, 1218.
[3] Supra, Vol. VIII. p. 154.

WEM. 165

Dugdale informs us, [1] he was amerced for tresspass on the King's Forests in Northamptonshire. At Michaelmas 1179, or soon after, and probably on the death of Guy le Strange, Hugh Pantulf was appointed to the Shrievalty of Shropshire.

This, I doubt not, was with reference to his connection with the Fitz Alans, for the office was quasi-hereditary, though the Fitz Alan of that day was hardly old enough to undertake it. Pantulf held it for ten years, viz. till Michaelmas 1189, when his latest account was rendered, and his Brother-in-law (William fitz Alan II.) obtained it.

In his attestations of Charters, which passed during the period of his Shrievalty, Hugh Pantulf is seldom styled Vicecomes. In one instance, perhaps as early as 1180, he attests a transaction with Hameline and Brice his brothers. [2]

In January 1190, Hugh Pantulf appears in the Court of King Richard at Westminster. [3] It is not, I think, improbable, that he was one of those, who, soon afterwards, accompanied the King to Palestine. We have heard how King Richard bestowed seven Librates of Crown-land on Hugh Pantulf. [4] In the Herefordshire Pipe-Roll of 1197, five Librates of the seven are assigned, by mistake, in Stottesdune, a Manor which could only appear, as thus charged, in a Shropshire Pipe-Roll. The Herefordshire Pipe-Roll of 1198, is more correct in assigning 100 solidates of land to Hugh Pantulf, in Stanford. We have seen how King Richard's full grant of seven librates was afterwards made up elsewhere. [4]

The successive Shrievalties of Hugh Pantulf and William fitz Alan (II.) resulted in an enormous deficiency of stores and stock, in the King's Castles and Manors. We have seen how the question of liability was eventually decided between the brothers-in-law and the Crown, and the favour with which Hugh Pantulf's delinquencies were regarded by King John. [5] On August 1204, Robert Corbet and Hugh Pantulf were King John's messengers to Gwenwynwyn, Prince of Powis, for whom they were to ensure a safe-conduct to the English Court. [6] In 1206, we find Hugh Pantulf in the King's Court at Nottingham. At this time his younger sons, Ivo and Hugh, were Grantees of the King, in the way pointed out under Stottesden.

Hugh Pantulf's grant to Shrewsbury Abbey, in which he makes

[1] Baronage, I. 434.
[2] Hist. Shrewsbury, II. 418.
[3] Supra, Vol. VII. p. 12. [4] Supra, page 131.
[5] Supra, Vol. III. pp. 68, 69.
[6] Patent. p. 45. Dated at Badby (in Northamptonshire).
[7] Supra, Vol. IV. p. 145.

166 WEM.

mention of his wife Christiana, has the attestation of Ivo Pantulf. I have noticed it more fully under Sutton.

I now turn to the various Scutages, assessed upon Hugh Pantulf, and to the question of his tenure being per baroniam. His Fief (that which he held in capite) was fiscally reputed to consist of five knights'-fees, three in Shropshire and two in Staffordshire. Hence, in 1194, he paid 3 in Shropshire, and 2 in Staffordshire, to the Scutage for King Richard's Redemption. The same thing followed in 1195-7 with respect to the two scutages of Normandy. I find no variation of this assessment, in the first scutage of King John (levied in 1199, at 2 merks per fee), in the second scutage of King John (levied in 1201, at the same rate), or in the third scutage (levied in 1202, at the same rate). To the fourth scutage, that of 1203, Hugh Pantulf was assessed 10 merks in Shropshire alone, that is, his whole Barony was brought into one account.

To the fifth scutage, levied in 1204, at the rate of 2 merks, Hugh Pantulf is not assessed at all. A Writ-Close of July 24, 1205, addressed to the Sheriff of Shropshire, empowers William Pantulf to receive his Father's scutage; [2] consequently we find Hugh Pantulf entered on the Pipe-Roll as having had quittance per breve of the sixth scutage. Of the seventh Scutage, levied in 1206, he was also acquitted. So also in 1214, were the five fees of Hugh Pantulf released by Writ from the scutage of Poitou.

To the first scutage of Henry III. (assessed at 2 merks per fee in 1218) Hugh Pantulf stands liable on the Pipe-Roll; but a Writ-Close (about October 1217) makes it apparent that he had been entitled to gather his own scutage. [3]

A Writ of February 1221, again empowers Hugh Pantulf to collect his own Scutage; [4] and his name does not appear in the Scutage of Biham, levied in the same year. In 1224, he is entered as exempt from the two scutages of Montgomery and Bedford. Meanwhile a Tenure-Roll, of the year 1211, speaks of Hugh Pantulf as follows.- Under Staffordshire he is put down as holding two fees in capite by knight's service. Under Shropshire these two fees must be included in the clause which states that "Hugh Pantulf, Baron, is a Tenant-in-capite of the King, and owes the service of five knights". [5]

On December 28, 1224, Hugh Pantulf was dead, and the King had received the homage of William, his son and heir. [6] The Sheriff

[1] Supra, Vol. VII. p. 364.
[2] [3] [4] Claus. I. pp. 42, 372, 475.
[5] Testa de Nevill, pp. 54, 55.
[6] Rot. Finium, Vol. I. p. 123.

WEM. 167

of Salop and Staffordshire (as soon as he had obtained security for William Pantulf's Relief of 100) was to apprise the Sheriffs of Worcestershire and Herefordshire.

I cannot quit Hugh Pantulf's name without attempting to enumerate his children, and saying something more about his wife. I take it that she was the daughter of William fitz Alan (I.), not by Isabel de Say, but by his first wife, Christiana, niece of Robert the Consul. That Pantulf's wife was named Christiana, is a strong argument in favour of the above supposition. We hear of no less than five sons of Hugh Pantulf, viz. William, Ivo, Alan, Hugh, [1] and one, the initial letter of whose name was R., and who was a Prebendary of Bridgnorth. [2] As to Hugh Pantulf's daughters, I cannot but think that Emma, wife of Robert Corbet of Caus, was one of them.

WILLIAM PANTULF (II.), with whom we now proceed, had come into notice long before his father's death.- As early as the year 1194, there is an entry on the Staffordshire Pipe-Roll, to the effect that William fitz Alan owed 10 merks as Surety for his Nephew, and that payment of the debt was to be sought in Shropshire. Accordingly in later Rolls we find the charge renewed under Shropshire. I cannot explain the entry further, but I may say that I know of no nephew of Fitz Alan's who can have been old enough thus to appear, unless it were William Pantulf. In 1205, we see William Pantulf receiving his father's scutage, doubtless in respect of personal services to King John, while his brothers, Ivo and Hugh, have grants of land at Stottesden. I conclude it to have been William Pantulf of Wem, who served as a Knight in King John's Irish Campaign of 1210. Thus, in June and July, we find him favoured with various Praestita at Kilkenny, at Cells, at Carrickfergus, Fowre, and Dublin. [3] Nineteen years afterwards, that is in 1229, these Praestita, amounting to 8. 11s. 4d., were charged against William Pantulf in the Shropshire Pipe-Ro11. [4] He was

[1] [2] Supra, Vol. VII. p. 18; Vol. I. p. 118.
[3] Praestita-Roll, 12 John, passim.-

There was another William Pantulf, one of the defenders of Carrikfergus, and who, on being taken prisoner by King John, fined 15 merks for his release. Half of the sum was paid to Thomas de Erdinton, then Sheriff, and half was charged as an arrear against William Pantulf in the Shropshire Pipe-Roll of 1218. I doubt whether this was the same William Pantulf, who in 1215 was one of the Insurgents who held Belvoir Castle against King John, but who was pardoned in December of that year (Rot. Patent. p. 162).

The first of these persons was perhaps William Pantulf of Cublesdon and Hales, the second was perhaps a member of the family seated in Warwickshire and Leicestershire (Dugdale's Warwickshire, I. pp. 32, 90, 95).
[4] Rot. Pip. 13 Hen. III., Salop.

168 WEM.

excused 6. 12s., but owed the balance. In January 1215, we read of 10 merks being paid to Henry fitz Count, Hugh Pantulf, and William his brother, by a trusted agent of King John. There is not a symptom, that the sons of Hugh Pantulf halted in their allegiance to the Crown at this critical period. On December 14, 1225, William Pantulf is named first of the Commissioners who were in February following to render account at Westminster of the tax of the fifteenth as levied in Salop and Staffordshire. [1] On May 14, 1226, King Henry III. reduced William Pantulf's Relief from 100 to 25, "because it had been declared before the King that Pantulf only held five fees in capite, of the King's Escheats, which were once Robert de Belesme's". [2]

On December 26, 1226, a Writ-Close orders that the variances, which subsisted between William Pantulf and Madoc ap Griffin (of Bromfield), should be settled at Oswestry, on a fixed day, and by arbitration of John fitz Alan, John le Strange, Bartholomew Turet, Robert de Girros and the Sheriff of Shropshire. [3]

A Writ of July 21, 1228, orders the Sheriff to give effect to a Perambulation which had been made between the Manors of Prees and Wem, under Royal Precept. [4]

William Pantulf's name appears on the Scutage-rolls of his time as follows. In 1229, he was assessed at 10 merks, on 5 fees, to the scutage of Keri, but had subsequent acquittance by Writ Royal. On levy of the scutage of Brittany, at 3 merks per fee, in 1230, William Pantulf fined 25 merks as a composition pro passagio et scutagio de v militibus ne fiat miles hac vice. I infer from this that the composition covered his scutage and exempted him from personal service. I cannot further conclude that one who had long occupied so prominent a position as William Pantulf was not yet a Knight.

In 1231, William Pantulf was assessed at 10 to 5 fees for the scutage of Poitou, and in 1232, was acquitted by Writ of the Scutage of Elvein.

On February 4, 1233, William Pantulf was dead, for then did Fulk fitz Warin givc the King 600 merks for custody of his lands and heirs. [5] The said heirs were, as I find from later evidence, two daughters, Matilda and Elizabeth; but as we have no coeval mention of Elizabeth we may presume that she died unmarried, and soon after her father.

[1] [2] Rot. Claus. II. pp. 147, 111.
[3] Rot. Claus. II. 206.
[4] Rot. Claus. 12 Hen. III., m. 5.
[5] Rot. Finium, I. 237.

WEM. 169

Of Fulk Fitz Warin as Guardian, and indeed as Grandfather, of Matilda Pantulf I have said much under Alberbury. [1] In September 1235 and Easter 1236, when the Baxony of Wem was assessed at 10 merks to the Aid on marriage of the King's Sister, Roger de Wyke, Seneschal of Wem, paid the first instalment, and Fulk fitz Warin the second. [2]

The Feodaries of 1240, notice the Barony of Wem without specifying who was seized thereof. It contained 4 fees in Shropshire, and 3 fees in Staffordshire.- There is some discrepancy between the several lists, [3] but whereas Ralph Pincernator or Le Botiler is set down as holding one fee in Wem and Hinstock (Shropshire), and one fee in Alcminton (Staffordshire), we may conclude that he was already seized of the demesne-estates of the Barony and had married Matilda Pantulf. Certainly, as I have proved under Alberbury, such a marriage had taken place before 1243. On April 24, 1245,-

RALPH LE BOTYLER and MATILDA his wife fine half a merk for a Prcipe (to remove some suit at law) from the County of Salop to Westminster. [4] In the same year they fine one merk pro habenda jurata. Both these fines were probably incidental to the suit noticed under Corselle. [5] In this same year, 100s., due on 5 fees to the Aid on marriage of the Princess Royal, are charged to the name of William Pantulf; but an interlineation (viz. Rad. le Butiler habet filiam et heredem) shows that there was a cotemporary sense of the error.

And in 1246, when the 5 fees of Wem are marked as quit of the scutage of Gannok, the person acquitted is "Ralph le Buteiler who has William Pantulf's heir to wife". In 1252, we have Ralph le Butiler and Margaret (read Matilda) his wife fining one merk for a writ of Pone. This probably related to a suit, which, on November 3, 1253, was heard at Westminster. [6]- "Ralph le Butiler and Matilda his wife sued William del Atre for 7 acres of bosc in Wemme, as the right of Matilda, whereof Hugh de Pantun, Matilda's grandfather, [7] was once seized. "From Hugh", says this weighty Record, "the right descended to William, and from William to Elizabeth and Matilda. Elizabeth died without an heir". The

[1] Supra, Vol. VII. pp. 75-77.
[2] Testa de Nevill, pp. 61, 60.
[3] Ibidem, pp. 45, 48, 49, 50, 51.
[4] Rot. Finium, I. 416.
[5] Supra, Vol. VIII. p. 25.
[6] Placita Michaelmas Term, 37 Hen. III., m. 32 dorso.
[7] And yet Mr. Blakeway (Sheriff's, p. 33) reckons Maud Pantulf as fourth in descent from Hugh, the Sheriff of 1180-1189. This addition of two generations to the Pedigree is quite unauthorized.

170 WEM.

Defendant William here procured an adjournment of the case by appealing to a trial by Grand Assize.

In 1254, Ralph le Butiler was assessed 10 on 5 fees to the Aid for knighting Prince Edward; but, in 1250, he had quittance from a like assessment to the scutage of Wales.

The Hundred-Roll of 1255 supplies the following information.- "Ralph le Botiler is Lord of Weme, and holds the whole Manor in capite of the King, viz. as a Baron: and he does due suit by his Seneschal to County and Hundred, for his whole Barony, except that for Upton (Waters Upton) and Eiton (Eyton) he does no suit: and he has a Park and Warren, the Jurors know not by what title. The Manor (of Wem) is XIIII hides". "Ralph le Butiler also took advowries and emends of warren, by a title unknown".

At the Assizes of 1256, the Grand Assize between Ralph and Maud Botyler and William del Ake, concerning 7 acres of bosc, was compounded by license, the Defendant paying a fine of 1 merk pro licentia concordandi.

By a Fine levied at these same Assizes, Ralph and Matilda le Butyller grant a carucate in Wemme to Richard le Butyller, to hold, with other privileges in the Manor (excepting the bosc and park of Brochurst), to him and his lawful issue, by a rent of gilt spurs;- with remainder to Ralph and Matilda and the heirs of Matilda.

On October 2, 1261, the King allows by Patent the proposed marriage of Ankaret, niece of James de Audley, to William, son of Ralph le Butiller.

At the Assizes of 1272, Radulf le Botiller and his wife had a placitum nativitatis against Robert, son of Elias Cullehare, or Pullehare. The Fine, by which they allowed his freedom and manumission,

[1] Rot. Hundred. II. 58. When the Manor of Wem is computed at 14 hides it must be taken to involve several Domesday Manors, for Wem proper was only 4 hides in Domesday. However, when we proceed to enumerate the several Manors which are known to have been involved with Wem in 1255, and are either unmentioned or unhidaged in the Hundred-Roll, we get a complement far in excess of the 14 hides which we should expect.- For instance, Wem proper (4 hides), Horton (2 hides), Edstaston (2 hides), Aston (1 hide), Cotton (2 hides), Harpcote ( hide), Wolverley (3 hides), and Alkington (1 hides), contain in Domesday an aggregate measurement of 15 hides. Besides these, there were the Domesday Manors of Tirley (1 hide), Edgeley (1 hide), and Steel (1 hide), which, not being mentioned in the Hundred-Roll of 1255, were perhaps also accounted members of Wem.-

The inference is, what I have often before pointed out, viz. that where the Domesday arrangement was allowed to be tampered with, the result was always a diminution of aggregate hidage, and so a loss to the Crown and a gain to the Tenant.

WEM. 171

cost the Vassal half a merk, for license to levy it, and a sore-hawk, given to the Recognizors.

I might say much more of Ralph le Botyler and his Ancestors, the Lords of Oversley in Warwickshire; but the subject belongs to the history of another county.

The Writ of Diem clausit on his death, bears date July 3, 1281. He was found to have held the Manor of Wem, of the inheritance of Matilda his wife, still surviving. A Fortalice, gardens, and two Parks, were among the adjuncts of the Manor. [1] The fenced Park only contained 10 beasts of chase; the other, unfenced, contained none. Here were two Water Mills and one Windmill. The Tenants in villeinage were bound to execute all Castle-works at the will of the Lord. The Pleas and Perquisites of the Manor-Court realized the unusual sum of 100s. per annum. The deceased had held Wem, Hinstock, and Tirley, by service of three knights in the army of Wales, for 40 days at his own cost. He had held, says the Record, nothing else in Shropshire or Staffordshire save the above, neither in capite nor otherwise. His gross income was computed at 57. 5s. 2d. per annum. [2]

Matilda Pantulf, Baroness of Wem, now remarried with-

WALTER DE HOPTON, a person of some eminence in the Law, and already associated with Shropshire. It will suffice here to state that on August 4, 1258, a Patent of Henry III.'s appoints Thomas de Roshall, Walter de Hopton, Richard Tyrel, and Robert de Lacy Justiciars to inquire concerning disturbances (excessibus) in Shropshire, according to an ordinance of the Parliament of Oxford. For the year ending Michaelmas 1268, Walter de Hopton had served the office of Sheriff of Shropshire and Staffordshire, [3] though his account was not rendered till Michaelmas 1269, and then in conjunction with that of William de Caverswell his Successor. In Lent 1277, I find Walter de Hopton sitting as a Justiciar at Ludlow with Ralph de Hengham.

In Easter Term 1283, a Fine was levied whereby Walter de Hopton and his wife Matilda give the Manors of Wemme and Tyrle to one

[1] One item of manorial receipt is expressed as follows:- Passagium cum potura Satellitum valet 40s.- I suppose that Traders and Travellers who passed through Wem had to pay a toll (passagium), as well as to contribute something towards the maintenance of the Toll-keepers. We shall hear more on a cognate subject when we come to Montgomery.
[2] Inquisitions, 9 Edw. I., No. 10.
[3] A Writ of Henry III., dated at Montgomery, Sept. 29, 1267, addresses Roger de Hopton as Sheriff of Salop and Stafford (Foedera, I. 473). It is a mere error as regards the Christian name.

172 WEM.

Roger le Rus. He in turn settles them on the Grantors;- to hold of the King, for Matilda's life. If Hopton survived his wife, Wemme was nevertheless to pass to her right heirs;- to hold of the King, by accustomed services, and the holder paying an annuity of 15 to Hopton, viz. for Horton, Tilnleye (Tilley), and Aston, members of Wemme. Hopton was to hold Tirleye (Staffordshire) for his life, and immediately of the King. At his death Tirleye and the aforesaid annuity were to revert to the right heirs of Matilda. This Fine was levied by consent and will of the King: and Le Rus quit-claimed all right in Wem and Tirleye, to Walter and Matilda and the heirs of Matilda. [1] Such was the mode in which Matilda le Botyler contived to make a settlement on her second husband.

The Bradford Tenure-Roll (about 1286) says that "Walter de Hopton, through his wife Matilda, holds the Manor of Wem with its members, viz. Aston, Stiell, Tilley, Dichelowe, [2] Horton, Wolverley, Edistoston (Edstaston), Coton, Harpecote, Beslow, Dodyngton, Alkynton, and Edisley. He also holds the Manors of Hinstocke, Upton (Waters Upton), Tibrighton, Dawley (Magna), Eton (Eyton), Brocketon (Bratton), and half the vill of Dawley (read Lawley), and half the vill of Parva Drayton of the King, in capite sine medio, freely, as a Barony, by service of three knights'-fees in lieu of all services: and he has at Wem, a Market and Fair, by Charter of King Henry III. He also holds there his free court, twice yearly, and has pleas of bloodshed and hue-and-cry; and gallows: and these franchises he has used for long time".

At the Assizes of 1292 it was presented that Walter de Hopton, still living, was one of the Sheriffs who had been in office since the last Eyre (that of 1272). The Pipe-Rolls do not allow such a mode of dating Hopton's Shrievalty.

Before these Assizes, Matilda Pantulf seems to have died. Though her second husband still retained Hinstock, he was not apparently seized thereof at the time of his death in 1305. He left a son Walter, two years of age at the father's decease, [3] and of course the child of a later wife than Maud Pantulf, who cannot have been less than fifty when she married Hopton. I may now return to-

WILLIAM LE BOTYLER, eldest son of Matilda Pantulf and Ralph le Botyler. We have seen that about 1261 he married Ankaret, niece of James de Audley. [4] They had a son John, born on July 17, 1266 or 1267, for the Inquests vary as to the year of his birth.

[1] Flines divers. Comitat. 11 Edw. I.
[2] Now Lowe and Ditches.
[3] Inquisitions, 33 Edw. I., No. 77.
[4] Supra, page 170.

WEM. 173

William le Botiler was one of three Knights, who were to perform the military service due from Ralph le Botiler (his father), when the army against Lewellyn lay under summons to meet at Worcester, on July 1, 1277. It should be noted that Ralph le Botiler himself was another of the three knights, and John de Brumpton the third. In the Welsh campaign of 1282, William le Boteler was ordered to serve under Roger de Mortimer, as Commander-in-chief. In the same year, in consequence of his tenures, he is noticed as liable to provide certain ward for Shrewsbury Castle, and he served personally on behalf of "Matilda de Pantolf, Lady of Wem", his mother. Again in 1283 he was ordered to be at Montgomery on May 3, prepared for service in Wales, and on September 30th of that year he was to attend a Parliament at Shrewsbury, being addressed as "William le Botiller de Wemme". [1]

King Edward's Writ, annotmcing the death of William le Botiler of Weme, bears date at Leominster on Dec. 11, 1283. Besides his paternal estates at Oversley, he had enjoyed lands etc. at Dudinton (Dodington), which yielded an annual revenue of 12. 6s. 10d., and a messuage etc. at Lopington which yielded 2. 19s. 8d. John, his eldest son and heir, was 17 years of age,- more or less, according as the several Inquests differ.

At the Assizes of 1292 the Bradford Jurors presented that Ageharet, widow of William le Botiller, held 10 rents in Dodynton, and being a widow in the King's gift had remarried with Robert de Nevyle. Robert de Nevyle appeared and proved the King's grant of the said marriage to himself.

JOHN LE BOTILER OF WEMME, to whom I now return, seems really to have been born on July 17, 1266, for at his death in July 1287 he was seized of his paternal estates in Warwickshire. The King's Writ of Diem clausit on John le Botiler's death is dated Oct. 20, 1287, and the Warwickshire Inquest, which followed, found that Gawan, brother and heir of the deceased, was 17 years of age on February 2nd, 1287. [3]

But a previous Writ had issued on July 23, 1287, ordering the age of Alienore, widow of John le Botiller, to be ascertained. This child, whom I take to have been a daughter of Walter, Lord Beauchamp of Powyke, seems to have completed her twelfth year on November 11th, next after her husband's death. [4]

GAWAN LE BOTILER had livery of the Barony of Wem before he

[1] Parliamentary Writs, I. 485.
[2] Inquisitions, 12 Edw. I., No. 21.
[3] Inquisitions, 15 Edw. I., No. 31.
[4] Inquisitions, 15 Edw. I., No. 31-b.

174 WEM.

came of age, and probably on the death of Matilda Pantulf, his Grandmother. But death was ever busy in the house of Botiler, and Gawan died at the age of twenty. A Writ of March 21, 1290, announces this event, and an Inquest was held at Shrewsbury, on April 7th following, as to his estate. [1] Some new particulars now transpired as to the tenure and other circumstances of the Manor of Wem. The Lord was to furnish one Setter (brachetum) yearly to the King, to do suit to both the Hundreds of Bradford and Pymhill, every three weeks, and to the County, monthly. Wem Castle was in a ruined state. A rent called Kylh was worth 70s. per annum to the deceased Lord. Four Boscs pertained to the Manor, viz. Brochhurst, Le Holde Park, Northwode, and Newe Park. Certain adjacent vills paid the following dues, viz. Tilnelegh (Tilley) for pasture in the Olde Park, 2s. 6d.; Legh, for pasture in Brochirste, 3s. 6d.; and Clive, for ingress into the boscs, paid 8 quarters of oats and 29 plough-shares yearly. A passage (i.e. a toll upon traders who passed Wem) realized 6s. 8d. per annum. The gross income of the Manor was 54. 19s. 10d.: out of which Sir Walter de Hopton was henceforth to receive 15 yearly, for services rendered in the Curia Regis. The Advowson of Wem Church, worth 40 merks per annum, and two-thirds of a messuage and estate at Loppington, worth 1. 19s. 8d. yearly, were also parcels of the estate of which Gawen le Botiler had died seized. William le Botiler, his brother and heir, would be 16 years of age on June 11, 1290. Gawan le Botiler left a widow, Alice, who in October 1292, was holding 30 librates of revenue in Wem, of the inheritance of William, son of William, and brother of Gawan, le Botiler, and was at the King's disposal as regarded any second marriage.

WILLIAM LE BOTILER (II.), the heir in question, was a Minor in October 1292, and, the Bradford Jurors said, was heir to 30 librates in Wem which his Father, William, had held in capite. (His Father had obviously never been seized of such an estate.) The Minor was now in custody of Walter de Beauchamp (of Powyk I presume), who had the wardship from John de Bretagne, who had it from the King. The Bradford Jurors further presented that William le Botiler claimed free-warren in Wem.

On May 8, 1293, William, "brother and heir of Gawan le Botiler", being as yet in minority, complained in the Curia Regis of the wastes and sales made by Walter de Hopton in respect of houses and woods, which he only held for life. One thousand oak-trees

[1] Inquisitions, 18 Edw. I., No. 30.

WEM. 175

and a house at Alkementon [1] had been sold. The oaks were worth 3s. each, but the damage altogether was only laid at 60. Hopton's defence was that he did not hold the wasted estates, as alleged, for a term of years. The Guardian of William le Botiler afterwards withdrew his action by license of the Court. [2]

William le Botiller of Wem was among those summoned to perform military service in Flanders, the muster being at London on Feb. 2, 1298. A similar summons to serve against the Scots directed him to be at York on May 25, of the same year. In 1301 there were two musters against the Scots returnable on June 24, one at Berwick-upon-Tweed, to serve under the King, the other at Carlisle, to serve under Prince Edward. William le Butiller of Wemme was directed to attend the second in lieu of the first. [3]

On June 24, 1302, William le Botiler of Wemme (Plaintiff in a Fine), receives a carucate in Wemme from Richard le Botiler (Deforciant), to whom he concedes the same for life, at a rose-rent. Between March 10, 1308, and January 24, 1326, I find more than eighty Writs of Edward II. addressed to William le Botiller of Wem as a Parliamentary Baron, a Tenant by military service, a Justice of Assize, a Conservator of the Peace, or a Commander of levies. [4] He served probably both in Scotland and France. In the Nomina Villarum of 1316, he is set down as Lord of Wemme, Wycheshale (Whixall), snd Hinstock (in Bradford Hundred), and of Almington (in Staffordshire), all being, I presume, held by him in demesne.

An Inquest held pursuant to a Writ of April 24, 1327, found that it would not injure the Crown if William le Botyler of Wemme was to enfeoff one William Hereward, Parson of Weston Turvill, in the Manor of Dodyton, so that the said Trustee should forthwith settle it on William le Botyler for life, with remainder to John le Strange of Blancminster and Ankeret his wife, and their bodily heirs, or, in default of such heirs, with remainder to the right heirs of William le Botyler. Dodyton was held in capite by one-third of a knight's-fee, and was worth 4 merks per annum. Two-thirds of the Manors of Wemme and Hynestock, worth 60 per annum, would remain to William le Botyler after the proposed settlement. [5] Ankeret, here mentioned, was daughter of William le Botyler by his second wife, Ela, daughter and coheir of Roger de Hardeburgh.

[1] Amington, Staffordshire.
[2] Placita coram Rege, 21 Edw. I.; Pasch. Tm. m. 34 dorso.
[3] Parliamentary Writs, I. 485.
[4] Ibidem, Vol. IV. pp. 570-572.
[5] Inquis. 1 Edw. III., 2md Nos, No. 31.

176 WEM.

Ankeret became a coheiress by decease of two brothers without issue.

William le Botiler (II.) died, as I have said under Hinstock, [1] in 1334. The Inquest taken on his death is much defaced; but an ancient notice thereof enumerated the Warwickshire Manors of Oversleye and Marshton Boteler, the Staffordshire Manor of Tyrley, and the Shropshire Manors of Wem, Hinstock, and Dodyngton. [2]

WILLIAM LE BOTILER (III.) was son and heir of the last William, by a former wife, and was aged 36 at his Father's death.

On July 5th, 1343, it was found by Inquest to be no injury to the Crown if William le Botiller of Wemme were to enfeoff William, son of William le Botiller (i.e. his own son) and his wife Elizabeth, in the Manor of Lopynton, entailing it on them and their male heirs, with remainder to himself and his heirs. Lopington, Wemme, Hinstock, Dudynton (which was in the hand of John le Strange by grant of William le Butiler, deceased), and Tirley were all held in capite by service of 3 knights'-fees. The Jurors added that, after such settlement, no lands would remain to the proposed Grantor. [3] The expression refers to this and another settlement (which has been given under Hinstock [4]), when taken conjunctively. The same two Inquests, when collated, will show how rightly it was said on the death of William le Botyler III. (which took place Dec. 18, 1361) that he had died seized of nothing in demesne. As to Wem, Tyrley, and Hinstock, he held them in fee-tail; and of course his son and heir, William, already seized of Loppington, took possession of those three manors, under the said entail. On this occasion the knight's service, due distinctively on Wem and the Advowson thereof, was stated to be two-thirds of a fee. [5]

WILLIAM LE BOTILER (IV), aged 30 at his Father's death, died as I have before said on August 14, 1369. [6] Besides the Writ of Diem clausit which followed on August 20th, another Writ of August 25 directs the Escheator to make special inquiry about entails on the heirs male of the deceased. The Inquests are very full and accurate on the point.- "Lopyngton was entailed on the deceased and Elizabeth his late wife and their heirs male"; but as there was a remainder to the heirs of the father of the deceased, it is obvious that this entail on heirs male cannot have barred the claim of Elizabeth, only daughter of the deceased. There was no other entail on

[1] Supra, Vol. VIII. p. 21.
[2] Calend. Inquis. Vol. II. p. 69.
[3] Inquisitions, 17 Edw. III., No. 39.
[4] Supra, Vol. VIII. pp. 21, 22.
[5] Inquisitions, 35 Edw. III., No. 38.
[6] Supra, Vol. VIII. page 22.


[For engraving, see pdf.]


heirs male. Tyrley (held in capite by one Knight's-fee) was entailed on the bodily heirs of the deceased: so were Wem and Hinstock. Quicksale (Whixall near Prees), which was held under James d'Audley by rent of a pair of spurs, was settled on the heirs of the deceased. The deceased had further held 8s. rent in Parva Drayton, of the Abbot of Shrewsbury, by suit and service to the Abbot's Court at Betton. [1]

Some further account of the descent of this Barony has been given under Hinstock.


There is no symptom of a Church existing here at the time of Domesday, but neither, if we suppose Wem Church to have been at its foundation a Chapel, is it easy to assign its Mother Church. The Manorial Lords were probably its Founders, and they continued to be its Patrons.

The Taxation of 1291 values the Church of Wemme (in the Deanery of Salop) at 13. 6s. 8d. per annum. [2] In 1341 the Assessors of the Ninth, quoting this Taxation of 20 merks, rated the Parish at 11 only. They said that 3. 6s. 8d. of the Church-Taxation consisted of income, not computable in ascertaining the value of the Ninth. [3]

The Valor of 1534-5 gives the income of John Dacre, Rector of Wemme, as 26. 13s. 4d. per annum, less 9s. for Synodals and Procurations. [4]


Ivo PANTULF is the earliest Rector of Wem, whom I can name. His aera was probably the beginning of the 13th century. He left descendants, of whom I give some particulars in a note. [5]

WALTER ESTHAM was presented to the Chapel of Wem by Patent

[1] Inquisitions, 43 Edw. III. No. 17.
[2] Pope Nich. Taxation, p. 247.
[3] Inquis. Nonarum, p. 183.
[4] Valor Ecclesiasticus, III. 187.

[5] By Deed (sans date), "Ivo de Paunton, son of Ivo de Paunton, formerly Rector of the Church of Weme, enfeoffs his son, Robert, in the land which he held in the Vill of Great Sugnall and in Little Sugnall" (Registrum Chartarum opal Lichfield, p. 119).-

Ivo Pantulf, the Grantor in the above Deed, may well have been the same with Sir Ivo Paunton, to whom Prince Edward, being at Chester, on August 14, 1265, granted the tenancy of lands at Ashley (near Market Drayton), late held by Hugh Bedell, a Rebel (Hist. Shrewsbury, I. 128).-

The lands in Great and Little Sugnall, above mentioned, were held under the See of Lichfield. About 1265-95 the above Grantee, as "Robert, son of Ivo, son of Ivo de Paunton, Rector of Weme", quitclaims the said tenements to "Father Roger de Menelaunde", that is, I suppose, to Roger, more commonly called "de Molend", then Bishop of Lichfield.


of December 3, 1295, [1] when William le Botiler (II.) was stated to be still in the King's Custody, but I doubt whether he really was so. On December 18, 1309,-

MASTER JOHN DE ST. AMAND had been presented to this Church, but the Bishop, by letters of that date, and of November 14, 1313, treats the Living as sequestered, and provides for the administration of its income and duties. The Bishop's last letter does not allude to the resignation of John de St. Amand on October 18, 1313; but on December 24, 1313, the vacancy, thus caused, is fully set forth in a letter, admitting-

ALMARIC LE BOTILLER, Acolyte. He was presented by Sir William le Botiller, Knight. This Rector has licenses of non-residence (studendi gratia), as an Acolyte in 1314, as a Subdeacon in 1315, and as a Priest in 1329.

MASTER EDMUND LE BOTILER, was instituted May 1, 1362, on presentation of Sir William le Botiler. He resigned on May 28th, but was re-instituted on June 27, having taken Priest's Orders in the interval. He ultimately resigned in 1372, when, on December 4th,-

GILBERT NEELE, Priest, was instituted at presentation of Sir Robert Ferrars, knight. Neele resigned in 1404, when, on May 22,-

MASTER THOMAS DE STRETTON, Chaplain, was instituted on presentation of Thomas Molynton, Domicell. [2] On August 5, 1426, Stretton being dead,-

THOMAS AUKELAND was instituted to this Church on the presentation of "John, Baron of Graystok and Baron of Wem". Aukeland resigned in 1135.


Domesday treats this township of Wem as a distinct Manor.- "The same William Pantulf holds Hortune. Elveva held it (in

[1] Patent. 24 Edw. I., m. 24.
[2] He was third husband of Elizabeth le Botyler, Baroness of Wem (vide supra, Vol. VIII. page 22).



[For engravings, see pdf.]


Saxon times) and was a free woman. Here are II hides, geldable. There is (arable) land for IIII ox-teams. In demesne there is half a team; and II serfs and III Boors, with half a team. Here is a wood which will fatten LX swine. The value of the Manor was and is 10s. (per annum)". [1]

Horton seems, after Domesday, to have been completely annexed to Wcm. The Tenure-Roll of 1286 names Horton, Tilley, and Dichelowe as members of Wem. Dichelowe is now represented by Ditches and Lowe-Hill, places adjacent to Horton. A Greystock Inquest of 14th Henry VI. (1435-6) seems to have treated Horton as a separate estate. [2]


I take the original name of this place to have been Edstane's-ton. In Domesday it is called Stanestune, a syllable being apparently omitted.- "The same William Pantulf holds Stanestune. Ordui and Alveva held it (in Saxon times), and were free. Here are II hides, geldable. There is (arable) land for II ox-teams. Here III Villains have one team. The wood will fatten 60 swine. In King Edward's time the Manor was worth 7s. (per annum): now it is worth 20s. He (Pantulf ) found it waste". [3]

Edstaston, like Horton, became manorially identified with Wem. The Tenure-Roll of 1286 names Edistoston as only a member of Wem; but the Greystock Inquest of 14 Henry VI. makes a distinct valuation of the township of Eddestanton.

EDSTASTON CHAPEL is a very interesting and mysterious foundation. Its architecture bespeaks a high antiquity, but tells us nothing of its history. Not a word do I find in other Records to fill up the hiatus.

[1] Domesday, fo. 257, a, 2.
[2] Calend. Inquis. Vol. IV. p. 165.
[3] Domesday, fo. 257, a, 2. Alveva is probably identical with Elveva, who held Horton, and with Alveva or AElveva, who were Coparceners of Wem.

180 ASTON.


THIS place got its name probably as lying East of Wem. Domesday describes it as follows.- "The same William Pantulf holds Estune and Walter holds it of him. Ulniet and Elmer held it (in Saxon times) for two Manors, and were free. Here is one hide, geldable. There is (arable) land for III ox-teams. In demesne is one team and one Serf, one Neatherd, and II Boors. A Wood here will fatten XL swine. The manor was worth 20s. (in Saxon times). Now it is worth 10s". [1]

Aston, like Horton and Edstaston, was accounted a mere member of Wem in 1286; and, except at Domesday, seems uniformly to have been held in demesne by the Pantulfs and Botilers.

Cote, now Cotton.

THAT places anciently called Cote should now be called Cotes or Cotton is no matter of surprise. The change is only from singular to plural; for Coten is the Saxon plural of Cote.

Domesday says of this Manor.- "The same William Pantulf holds Cote. Wighe and Grichetel held it (in Saxon times) for two Manors, and were free men. Here are II hides, geldable. There is arable land for III ox-teams. Here II Radmans with one Villain have one team. In King Edward's time the Manor was worth 20s. (per annum). Now it is worth 12s. There is a wood here which will fatten LX swine, and there is one Haye". [2]

Cotton was afterwards reputed a mere member of Wem, as in the Tenure-Roll of 1286, and I find no early instance of any estate here being treated as a free tenement. The Greystock Inquest of 14 Henry VI., before alluded to, treats Coton as a distinct member of Wem, containing 60 parcels of land, etc.

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


Harpcote, now Harcourt.

THIS place was a separate Manor in the 11th century, but was accounted a member of Wem in the 13th century. Parochially it has always been annexed to Stanton Hineheath. Domesday says that,- "The same William Pantulf holds Harpecote. Turtin held it (in Saxon times) and was a free man. Here is half a hide, geldable. There is (arable) land for an ox-team and half. Here one Radman has half a team. The Manor was worth (in Saxon times) 8s.: now it is worth 2s. (per annum)". [1]

The silence of the Hundred-Roll of 1255 about Harpcote, shows that the Suits which the Seneschal of Wem did to County and Hundred, covered any obligation from Harpcote individually. In short it was involved in the reputed 14 hides of Wem.-

However it does not appear that Harpcote was held by the Barons of Wem so exclusively in demesne as some of the Manors I have lately noticed.- There was a family of freeholders which probably held the vill under those Barons during the whole of the 13th century.- At the close of the 12th century we have seen a Roger de Harpcote with his son Roger, interested in Acton Pigot.

Then there was a Walter de Harpcote, occurring in 1226, but who before 1255 had been succeeded by his son, Ranulph, at Acton Pigot. And this Ranulph de Harpcote, who occurs in various relations in 1256, 1272, and 1284, [3] was, I think, Lord of Harpcote; for the Tenure-Roll of 1286, says of Harpecote and Stiell, members of Wem, that Ranulf de Harpecote held them for half a knight's-fee under Walter and Matilda de Hopton.

Besides the above four persons who seem to have been in direct descent, there was a third Roger de Harpcote, living in 1231 and 1237, and so cotemporary with Walter de Harpcote. This third Roger was amerced half a merk in 1231, for not producing one for whom he was Surety. In 1236-7 we have seen that he was in receipt of certain rents arising from Preston Brockhurst. [4] He was perhaps a younger brothcr of Walter.

[1] Domesday, fo. 257, a, 2.
[2] Supra, Vol. VI. pp. 93, 94.
[3] Supra, Vol. V. p. 181; Vol. VI. p. 17.
[4] Supra, Vol. VIII. p. 142.


I have one more, but that a very indistinct, notice of some member of this family. A much defaced Roll of Grants to Buildwas Abbey includes a gift of the land of Oilemor, by * * * * de Harpcote. [1]-

I think that Coalmore (near Stirchley) was the place meant, and I connect the grant with the occurrence of Walter de Harpecote in that neighbourhood about 1220-30.


Domesday describes this Manor as follows.-

"William Pantulf holds Ulwardelege of Earl Roger. Wigha and Elmer held it (in Saxon times) for two Manors, and were free men. Here are III hides, geldable. There is (arable) land for IIII oxteams. Here are III Villains, with one team, and a Radman. In King Edward's time the Manor was worth 17s. (per annum) . Now it is worth 8s. He (Pantulf) found it waste". [3]

Wolverley became more exclusively a member of Wem than Harpcote. The Hundred-Roll of 1255, does not name it; the Tenure-Roll of 1286, only names it as a member of Wem. I cannot find mention of any Free-Tenant here. On the contrary I find evidence of the second William Pantulf holding the place in demesne.- Between the years 1225 and 1233, William Pantulf, son of Hugh Pantulf, gives to Lilleshall Abbey the Mill of Wulfardeleg with the Vivary and all the fish thereof, and the messuage held by William the Miller, and the suit and service which the men of Wuwardeleg were wont to render to the Mill. The Deed reserves a rent of 2s. to the Grantor, and is attested by Alexander Bishop of Coventry and Lichfield. [4]

On October 14, 1254, the Abbot of Lilleshall has a Writ against Ralph le Butiller for disseizing him of his tenement in Wolvardele.

[1] Blakeway's Parochial Notice, I. 76.
[2] Supra, Vol. II. p. 315.
[3] Domesday, fo. 257, a. 2.
[4] Lilleshall Cbartulary, fo. 61. The Grant is included in Henry III.'s Confirmation of 1265 to the Abbey.



"THE same William Pantulf holds Alchetune. Elmer held it (in Saxon times) and was a free man. Here are one hide and one virgate, geldable. There is (arable) land for V ox-teams. In demesne there is half a team; and (there are) onw Serf, two Villains, and one Boor, with half a team. There is a Wood capable of fattening 100 Swine. In King Edward's time the Manor was worth 4. 3s. (per annum); and afterwards (it was worth) the same: now it is worth 10s. only". [1]

The Manor thus described in Domesday, differs from some which fell into implicit subjection to Wem, in the respect that it was very distant from Wem and in the Parish of Whitchurch.

However the subjection became complete, and, in the Hundred-Roll of 1255, Alkington, not being mentioned as a distinct Manor, must be taken as involved in the 14 alleged hides of Wem, and as held in demesne or villeinage by or under the Barons of Wem. The Tenure-Roll of 1286 merely names Alkynton as a member of Wem, being held by Walter and Matilda de Hopton, and not, under them, by any free Tenant. However on October 18, 1299, we have John, son of Madoc de Alkinton, fining half a merk for a writ of trespass against some person unnamed. [2] Also on April 19, 1304, a Fine was levied, whereby William le Knyght of Hethe (Deforciant) recognizes the right of Richard, son of William le Knyght (Plaintiff) to one messuage, 19 acres of (arable) land, 6 acres of meadow, 4 acres of moor, and half an acre of bosc, in Alghynton, whereof was Plea of convention. In return Richard cedes the premises to William for life, at a rose-rent, the lessee to perform all capital services.

[1] Domesday, fo. 257, a, 2.
[2] Rot. Finium, 27 Edw. I.


Great Withyford.

Domesday speaks of one out of three portions of this Manor as follows.- "The same William (Pantulf) holds Wicford. Carle held it (in Saxon times). Here is half a hide, geldable. There is (arable) land for two ox-teams. Here one Villain and one Boor have one team. In King Edward's time the Manor was worth 10s. (per annum). Afterwards it was worth 8s. Now it is worth 8s". [1]

Nothing stamps the accuracy of Domesday, as a Record of feudal usage, so much as any verification of its statements after a long interval of silence.-

For 170 years after Domesday we hear nothing of Pantulf's in-terest in Great Withyford, but in the Hundred-Roll of 1255 we again learn that "a virgate and half in Wythyford was held by John fitz Aer of the Barony of Weme, and that for the said land, he rendered the service of two foot-soldiers with bows and arrows, for 15 days, in time of war, at Weme". [2] The rest of Great Withyford was held by John fitz Aer of a different Lord, and by a different tenure; of which matter and its Domesday antecedents I shall speak elsewhere. On the death of John fitz Aer in 1293, the Inquest makes a statement, slightly differing from the above, but by so much nearer to Domesday. It says that "he had held 1 virgates and 1 noke in Wythyford of the Fee of Wemme, by serjeantry, viz. to provide one man with bow and arrows, at Wemme, in time of war".

The Inquest on the death of Hugh fitz Aer in December 1313, again varies the extent of his tenure and nature of his service.- "He had held half Withyford under Sir William le Botyler, by service of one man with a lance, at Wemme, for 20 days, in time of war with Wales; and if the garrison (garnistura) should go out of the Castle (of Wem), the aforesaid lancer was still to abide therein, to keep watch over the fire (ad custodiendum ignem)". [3] I know nothing further of the tenure of this part of Withyford. It was one of a kind which would naturally become obsolete after the subjugation of Wales, if not by force of a changing law, which was ever facilitating the abolition of feudal tenures by making them saleable.

[1] Domesday, fo. 257, a, 2.
[2] Rot. Hundred. II. 57.
[3] Inquis. 7 Edw. II., No. 46.


Drayton Magna, or Market Drayton.

"The same William (Pantulf) holds one Berewick, viz. Draitune. Goduin held it (in Saxon times) and was a free man. Here are II hides, geldable. There is (arable) land, enough for VIII ox-teams. In demesne there is one team; and there are II Neat-herds, a Priest, and II Boors, with one team. The former value of the estate was 20s. Now it is worth 10s". [1]

There were two Draytons in Odenet Hundred. I cannot explain why Domesday calls the larger a Berewick, especially when the mention of a Priest indicates that there was a Church there. Ordericus calls Drayton Traditon, and relates how William Pantulf, returning from his third visit to Apulia, bestowed the Manor, the Mill, the Church, and the tithes of six vills, which pertained to the said Church of Traditon, on the Monks of Noron. [2] The date of this gift is not quite clear; but I take it to have passed in the first twelve years of the twelfth century. Now the House of St. Peter at Norun, had been founded by William Pantulf himself, as a Cell of the great Norman Abbey of St. Evroul, and his gift of Drayton became in effect a gift to the Parent Abbey. The Proctor or Manager of the English estates of St. Evroul was the Prior of Ware, a Cell of St. Evroul situated in Hertfordshire. Combermere Abbey was founded about 1133; and it became the interest of the Combermere Monks to accept a perpetual lease of the Manor of Drayton, from the Prior of Ware, or from his Principal, the Abbot of St. Evroul. The date of this arrangement must have been early in the 13th century. Subsequent Records uniformly speak of the Monks of Combermere as Lords of Drayton, and it is evident that under their auspices the place increased in trading importance and became a town rather than an agricultural estate. On November 8, 1245, King Henry III. being at Worcester grants to Simon Abbot of Combermere, the privilege of holding a weekly Market, on Tuesdays, at his Manor of Draiton;- also of holding an annual Fair on the eve, the day, and the morrow of the Nativity of the Virgin (Sept. 7, 8, 9);- also Blodwite and Infangthef;- also quittance

[1] Domesday, fo. 257, a, 2.
[2] Ordericus (ed. 1340), Vol. II. p, 433. The Editor has mistakenly identified Traditon with Trotton in Sussex.


of suits to County and Hundred, of wapentak, and of toll throughout the kingdom;- and such other franchises as were usually sought for a projected borough. [1] This Charter, in which originated the distinctive name of Market Drayton, was attested (inter alios) by Henry and James de Audley, successive Lords of the neighbouring town of Newport.

After these statements an entry on the Bradford Hundred-Roll of 1255 becomes very intelligible.- "The Abbot of Cumbermere holds Draiton, of the Prior of Ware, with the Church of Draiton, of the Fee of Hugh Pounton. [2] And the Abbot renders 20 merks per annum to the Prior of Ware, and has here a Market by Royal Charter". [3]

In January 1256, Alexander Bosse failed to prosecute his suit concerning a stank unjustly raised by the Abbot of Cumbermere in Drayton. The Sureties of the Defaulter were Henry le Lunr' and William de Cachepol. [4]

A Confirmation of Henry III. to Combermere Abbey bears date April 4, 1266. It confirms the "Manor of Magna-Drayton-in-Hales, by concession of the Abbot and Convent of St. Ebrulf, with all its franchises and appurtenances". [5] On July 2, 1270, Robert de Stoks had a Writ against the Abbot of Cumbermere for disseizin in Drayton. The Bradford Tenure-Roll (about 1285) says that "the Abbot of Cumbermere holds the vill of Drayton, in pure alms, of the Barony of Wem, and has a Market and Fair by Charter of Henry III". The mesne interest of St. Evroul was perhaps unknown to the Jurors who furnished this report.

The Taxation of 1291 states that the Abbot of Combermere had 10 annual rent in the vill of Drayton. [6] At the Assizes of 1292 the Abbot was questioned by Writ of Quo Waranto for his Franchises at Drayton. [7] He defended his right of Market and Fair by Henry III.'s Charter. As to holding two great Courts, equal in jurisdiction to the Sheriffs' Tourns, he defended that by immemorial usage of the Abbots of St. Ebrulph, from whom one of his Predecessors purchased Drayton. As to weyf he denied the exercise thereof. Hugh de Louther, the King's Attorney, having replied, the case went to a Jury, which found that no Abbot of St.

[1] Rot. Chart. 4 Edw. III., m. 3. Inspeximus.
[2] The reference is to Hugh Pantulf, who had been dead 30 years, but whose benefactions to Combermere probably suggested the use of his name when speaking of the Barony of Wem.
[3] Rot. Hundred. II. 56.
[4] Assizes, 40 Hen. III., m. 2.
[5] Monasticon, V. 324, Num. III.
[6] Pope Nich. Taxation, p. 261.
[7] Quo Waranto, pp. 675-6.


Ebrulph had ever held a great court at Drayton; for that Drayton so long as it was held by those Abbots contained only six cottages, that neither Thomas de Gillyng, that Abbot of Cumbermere to whom the Abbot of St. Ebrulph first demised these cottages, nor Abbot Robert, Gillyng's successor, had held any such Court; but that Abbot Simon, Robert's Successor, ten years [1] after he had obtained the Charter of Market, etc., had first usurped the said Courts, and the franchises accruing therewith, which were worth 2s. per annum. The arrears of this damage, rated at 62s., were now recovered by the Crown, but the Abbot was allowed the franchises for the future, on payment of a Fine of one merk.

In the Nomina Villarum of 1316, this Vill is called Drayton in le Hales, and the Abbot of Combermere entered as Lord. He remained so till the Dissolution, his rent to St. Evroul having probably been bought up to avoid its confiscation as an asset of an Alien Monastery. In the Valor of 1534-5, the Abbot of Combermere's rents and receipts from Drayton are set down at 24. 18s. 4d. per annum, and those from Shipforde Grange (which his House had by direct grant from Hugh Pantulf) at 16s. 8d. Out of these receipts the Abbot paid one merk to the Crown for exercise of franchises at Drayton, and 1. 6s. 8d. to a local Bailiff. [2]

AS TO UNDERTENANTS in Drayton I can only speak of them and the nature of their tenures by setting forth a few local Deeds.-

About 1260-80 "Ralph le Counte gives to Master Robert de Stokes, 9 seylions in the field of Drayton, which he held of Combermere Abbey, whereof three lay beyond the sichet towards Sponleg, three lay towards Alredele (Adderley), and three in the fields towards Betton. The Grantee is to pay the usual rent to the Abbey, at the same periods as the men of Drayton were accustomed to pay the ferm due from them to the Abbey. For this the Grantee gave one merk. Witnesses,- Roger de Coleshasel, Hugh de Bosco, Henry de Pechesey, Elyas de Stokes, and John de Cotes". [3]

The following Deeds are apparently later.-

"R. Abbot of Cumbremare concedes to Alan, son of Adam Smith of Magna-Drayton-in-Hales, and to his heirs, one burgage, one half-burgage, one market-stall (seudam), one strip of ground (landam terrae) in the field towards Betton, and one acre in Gosemer, all which had been held by the Grantee's father;- also half an acre in

[1] This would make Abbot Simon to have been in office as late as 1265. We know however that an Abbot, William, had succeeded him in 1262.
[2] Monasticon, V. 327, Num. XII.
[3] Charter at Adderley.


the Brodemor, between the lands of William Cobert and William le Bowiere. The Grantee is held by the same fealty and other services as his father had rendered, and not to assign the premises to any Religious body. Witnesses,- Roger de Ethelarton, William de Piclesleye, Adam le Hore of Norton, Reginald le Hore of Norton, and William de Hulle". [1]

The same "Abbot R. gives to William de Lake a burgage in Drayton (between the burgages of William Suetecot and William Hert) and 9 seylions in the field of Drayton, viz. three towards Wlonkeslowe, between the lands of Walter Hodi and Rondulf fitz Richard, three in the field towards Schifford, and three in the field towards Betton; also gives one seylion in Longeforlong, and half an acre in Gosemere. The Grantee is to do fealty and other accustomed services, and to transmit the premises to his heirs or assigns, save religious persons and persons of rank (magnatibus). Witnesses,- Stephen de Okeley, Richard de Weston, Hugh de Wlonkeslowe, Adam le Hore, and Adam Clerk". [1]

The following Deed is practically a surrender, but I have nothing to guide me as regards its date. William Dulbeyn of Drayton gives in pure alms to the Church of the Blessed Mary and St. Michael of Cumbermare a messuage in Magna Drayton, and all the lands, arable or not, which he held within or without the said vill;- to hold to the Abbey under the Grantor and his heirs, free of all services except the benefit of the Conventual prayers in his behalf. Witnesses,- Alan Cocus of Drayton; Philip de Tunstal, Clerk; William le Cachepol; William le Carter; Adam le Fever; Richard Knarrich, and Richard de Buntenesdal". [1]


Drayton was probably one of the Saxon Parishes of Shropshire, [2] and the Priest, resident here at the time of Domesday, was probably Rector of the Church.

When William Pantulf gave this Church to St. Peters of Norun, the gift, according to Ordericus, involved the tithes of six Vills. It is difficult to say what vills were here alluded to; but Magna Drayton, Sutton, Woodseaves, Buntingsdale, Tyrley, and Almington, will sufficiently correspond with the, perhaps general, expression used by Ordericus.

[1] Charters at Adderley.
[2] Tradition speaks of Chapels sometime existent at Betton-in-Hales and at Hales-Green, in this Parish. These were probably not the only affiliations of Drayton Church.


The Hundred-Roll of 1255 assigns the Church, as well as the Manor, of Drayton, to Combermere Abbey. However, the Advowson was afterwards recovered by the Abbey of St. Evroul.

The Taxation of 1291 gives a great idea of the revenues of this Church. The Church of "Drayton in Hales" in the Deanery of Newport (that is, the Rectory) was worth 12 per annum, over and above the Pension chargeable thereon. [1] The said Pension was 1. 10s. payable to the Abbot of Shrewsbury, and was probably a composition in lieu of certain tithes, abandoned by the Abbot, as Lord of Betton-in-Hales and Richwardine. Besides this, the Vicarage of Drayton in Hales had a separate valuation of 6. 13s. 4d. [2]

At the Assizes of 1292 the Abbot of St. Ebrulph was sued for the Advowson of Magna Drayton as having descended to Edward I. from Henry II., who was now alleged to have presented one John fitz Thomas, his Clerk, thereto. The Abbot appealed to a Jury, which decided his right to be better than that of the King. [3]

In 1341, the Assessors of the Ninth quoted the Taxation of the Church of Drayton in le Halys as one of 12. This they further reduced to 10 for the current assessment, saying that the glebe-land, rents, oblations, mortuaries, and other income of the Church, went to make up the assessment of 12, and had nothing to do with the present tax. To the Ninth, thus computed at 10, the Temporalities of Shrewsbury Abbey (at Little Drayton and Betton, I presume) furnished a quota. [4]

The Advowson of Market Drayton eventually escheated to the Crown as an Asset of an Alien Monastery King Henry V. granted to the Carthusians of Sheen (in Surrey), who had it at the Dissolution. The Valor of 1534-5 gives the Vicarage, then held by Radulph Tytteley, as worth 13. 6s. 8d. per annum. The charges on this income were 4s. for Synodals, 8s. for Procurations, 2s. 4d. for an annual pension payable to Tyrley Chapel, and 1s. 9d. for another pension payable to the Diocesan Bishop. [5]


ROBERT, Priest of Dreiton, and his son Ivo, occur in 1136-7.

JOHN FITZ THOMAS has occurred above as the alleged Presentee of King Henry II. (between 1154 and 1189).

PHILIP, Vicar of Drayton, occurs in 1256.

ROBERT was the name of the Vicar between 1279 and 1281,

[1] [2] Pope Nich. Taxation, pp. 243, 245.
[3] Quo Waranto, p. 682.
[4] Inquis. Nonarumn, p. 185.
[5] Valor Ecclesiasticus, III. 187.


when the following affair took place, as I learn from the presentments of the Bradford Jurors at the Assizes of 1292.-

"It had been enjoined by Writ Royal on Roger Sprengehoes, Sheriff, that, taking with him the Posse Comitatus, he should go to the Church of Drayton, for the purpose of removing a layman who had been placed therein by the Abbot of Combermere. [1] And the said Roger went, and, with him, William Tuder of Upton, Ralph le Botiller, Thomas his brother, Robert de Rossale, Parson of Rossale, Henry le Macoun, John Traynel, Richard del Bury of Cheriton, and others, and removed the aforesaid Abbot's Layman. The Sheriff went away (rediit), and William Tuder, Ralph le Botiller, and all the rest, betook themselves to the House of the Vicar of Drayton, and departing thence towards Tyrley they came to the steps of the Cemetery of Drayton Church. [2] There they met Brother Richard de Overton, Thomas, Seneschal of the Prior of Ware, Robert, Vicar of Drayton, Henry, a Vassal of the Prior of Ware, and sixteen others of the Abbot of Combermere's party. A quarrel ensued. One Alan, son of Walter Hody, who had come with William Tuder, on the part of the Prior of Ware, shot Robert Brun, one of the Abbot's men. The latter went home to Dodicote, and died on the fourth day after. His Widow, Alice, brought his body to the place where he had received his death-wound, and the Vicar of Drayton buried it without View of the Coroner".

Here were at least three matters pertaining to those Placita Coronae for which the Hundred was responsible, viz. the breach of the peace, the manslaughter, and the burial sine visu Coronatoris. But a fourth matter remained, discovered, it appears, by scrutiny of the Coroner's Rolls (his memoranda). During the fight a Lay-monk [3] of Combermere struck Ralph le Botiller's horse. The Baron went to Tyrley and armed himself. Thence, still accompanied by the Posse Comitatus, he proceeded to the Abbot's Grange of Dodicote, [4] and beat, wounded, and plundered the Abbot's men.

Various arrests and other steps had since been made in these

[1] "Ad removendum unum laicalem in eadem ecclesia per Abbatem de Cumbermere existentem".- I suppose that the Advowson of Drayton being in dispute, some layman had been put in corporal possession of the Church by the Abbot of Combermere, in contravention of the right of Patronage asserted by the Prior of Ware, as Proctor of St. Evroul. I refer to the Registrum Brevium (pp. 69-61) for examples of the King's Writ, de vi laica amovenda, and of the powers which it conferred on the Sheriff to enforce it, by aid of the Posse Comitatus.
[2] Ad scalariam cimiterii predietae Ecclesiae.
[3] Frater conversus.
[4] Vide supra, Vol. VIII. p. 16.


matters. Inter alia, a Jury of the Hundred had pronounced, or now pronounced, Alan Hody blameless in the affair. As to Robert, Vicar of Drayton, he too was found to have been blameless, but whereas he had fled somewhither, his lay chattels, worth 25s., were confiscated. Henry, the Vassal of the Prior of Ware, had been also challenged as an accessory to Robert Brun's death, by the widow. The said widow was now deceased. The said Henry appeared in Court, but refused to put himself on trial by Jury. So the Court recommitted him to prison and adjudged him to suffer the statutory penalty (poenam statuti). The Jury of the Hundred, which tried Alan Hody, found John Traynel to have been guilty of the murder. He could not be found, and so was outlawed. From an interlineation in the Record it would seem that he was dead. It is certain from other authority that Ralph le Botiller also had been now dead eleven years, but of that fact the Record takes no notice. There are several other points in the narrative which I do not understand, for instance, the Prior of Ware having representatives on each side of the quarrel. However we have a picture of the times, and of the predicaments of a Baron, a Sheriff, and a Priest, when an ordinary matter of official routine ended in a bloody riot.

WALTER DE PETLINGS, Priest, was instituted to the Vicarage of Drayton-in-Hales on February 24, 1300, at the presentation of Ralph, Prior of Ware, and Proctor of the Abbot and Convent of St. Ebrulf.

The Vicarage is said to have been vacant on June 4, 1328, in consequence of the death of-

JOHN DE PYLARTON, and on that day-

GILBERT DE ONNE is said to have been instituted on the presentation of the Prior of Ware, etc. However-

WALTER PETLINGS, "last Vicar", is also said to have died on February 10, 1334, and to have made way for-

THOMAS LE FOULEN, Deacon, instituted April 7, 1334, on the presentation of Brother John Guerard, Prior of Ware. This Vicar, or some successor, died July 31, 1354, and, on August 8 following,-

THOMAS FITZ PETER OF MELBORN, Priest, was instituted, the King presenting, because the Priory of Ware was in his hand, pending the war with France. On September 30, 1356, Thomas de Melborn exchanged preferments with-

SIR JOHN DE WYCHARDELEY, late Rector of Langeton (Linc.


Dioc.), who was admitted to Drayton at presentation of the King. On January 4, 1370,-

WILLIAM DE MONTGOMERY, Vicar of Drayton, exchanges with-

WILLIAM COOKES, late Rector of Adderley, presented to Drayton by the Crown. Cookes died in 1375, when on January 10,-

THOMAS DE WYNTERTON, Deacon, was instituted on a Crown presentation. On October 15, 1379, Wynterton exchanged with-

HUGH DE KYNGELEE, Priest, late Incumbent of Chedall.

HUGH TITTELYNG (perhaps the same person), died 1382, when on December 2,-

JOHN BOLTBY, Priest, was instituted, the King again presenting in right of his Escheat of Alien Monasteries.

SIR THOMAS SOGENHULL, Vicar of Drayton, died in 1408.

Tirley Castle.

Domesday notices the Manor of Tirley in these words.- "The same William Pantulf holds Tirelire (of Earl Roger). Uluric and Rauesuard held it (in Saxon times) for two Manors, and were free. Here is one hide, geldable. There is (arable) land for II ox-teams. Here are IIII Villains and one Serf, with one team. The former value of the Manor was 17s. (per annum): now it is worth 20s". [1]

The River Tern, from which Tirley, or Ternley, took its name, presented a better boundary for the Counties of Shropshire and Staffordshire than that which existed at Domesday. Tirley, being East of the Tern, was annexed to Staffordshire, probably in the time of Henry I. There may have been another reason for the change. William Pantulf had parted with Drayton, the nearest Shropshire Manor to Tirley, but retained Alminton, the nearest Staffordshire Manor. To throw the two latter into the same jurisdiction was obviously convenient. In May 1247 I find notice of a Suit concerning estovers in the bosc of Tyrle, in which the Abbot of Cumbermere was opposed to Ralph le Butiller and his wife Matilda. At the Assizes of 1256, William de Goldstan withdrew his prosecution against the same Ralph and Matilda, who had disseized him of common-pasture in Tyrlegh. His Sureties de prosequendo

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


were William fitz Hugh and Thomas le Franceis, both of Seworthyn. At the Assizes of 1267 Alice B * * *, having a suit of mort d'ancestre against Agnes de Tireleye, was allowed to amend her form of procedure. The above three Pleas, I should observe, are all entered on the Rolls as belonging to Shropshire, a circumstance which suggests a doubt as to whether the annexation of Tirley to Staffordshire was as yet recognized in the Courts of Law.

We have seen how, about the year 1280, Ralph le Botiller, incensed by a collision with the Abbot of Combermere's men, in the streets of Drayton, and meditating an onslaught at Dodicote Grange, first retired to Tirley to arm himself. The circumstance is curious, for we happen to know that this very Baron was the Founder of Tirley Castle, and that dying in 1281, he left it incomplete. The Inquest on his death makes Tirley a Shropshire Manor, and part of the inheritance of his wife Matilda. The Manor contained an unfinished Fortalice (fortelettum inceptum), a messuage, a garden, an ill-fenced Park, and a great wood, which was a Free Chace. [1]

From a Staffordshire Feodary of 1284, I find that the Manor of Cublesdon, near Stone, was held by Roese Trussel (she was heiress of Pantulf of Cublesdon and Sheriff Hales), of the Barony of Wem, and that the service due from Cublesdon was that of one foot-soldier, to serve eight days at Trileg with bow and arrows. The Inquest on the death of William le Botiler (II.) in 1334, places his Manor of Tyrley in Staffordshire. So does the Inquest Ad quod damnum of 1343, already quoted under Hinstock. Subsequent Inquests make the same assignment of Tirley, which was uniformly retained as a demesne Manor by the Barons of Wem: but I need not here repeat particulars about Tirley which have already transpired.

BROOM HALL and SHIFFORD. I am not quite clear that one or both of these places may not be considered as originally appurtenant to Tirley rather than to Alminton. Hugh Pantulf's grant of both to Combermere Abbey has already been treated of. [2] They both became Granges of that House and are still called Granges.

In November 1271 William Shine' of Whiston had a suit of mort d'ancestre against William de Drayton and Margery his wife for 3 acres and one rood in Bromhale. This Writ places Bromhale in Shropshire.

TIRLEY CHAPEL. The earliest notice which I have of this

[1] Inquisitions, 9 Edw. I., No. 10.
[2] Supra, p. 163.


foundation is in the Valor of 1534-5, when it would appear to have been endowed with a charge of 2s. 4d. on the Vicarage of Market Drayton.


HAVING now disposed of William Pantulf's Domesday Manors in Odenet Hundred, I proceed with the three Manors of Roger de Curcelle, because, as I have remarked under Tibberton and Sutton, all Roger de Curcelle's Manors were eventually annexed to the Barony of Pantulf.-

"The same Roger de Curcelle holds Dodetune of Earl Roger. Earl Eduin held it (in Saxon times). Here is one hide, geldable. Here are IIII Villains and one Radman, with two ox-teams; and other two teams might be employed. The wood will fatten LX swine. The Manor used to be worth 16s. (per annum). Now it is worth 9s". [1]

At the present day, the vill of Dodington forms the southern portion of the town of Whitchurch. The name Dodington still exists, and the township, so called, contains 1626 acres; a very large area in proportion to the single hide of Domesday. The first notice which I have of Dodington, as annexed to the Barony of Wem, is in the Hundred-Roll of 1255. There, Duthinton, computed to contain 1 hides, is said to be of the Fee of Wem. "Ralph le Botiler, Lord of the Vill, did suit to County and Hundred through his Seneschal"; [2] that is, the suit of the Seneschal of Wem covered any distinct liability of Dodington. The increase of half a hide on the Domesday hidage, which we observe here, is unusual; but if Edgeley and Steel (not mentioned in the Hundred-Roll) were taken into account, three Domesday hides were represented by the alleged 1 hides.

We have heard of the marriage, proposed in 1261, between Ralph le Botiler's son William, and Ankaret, niece of James de Audley. [3] Here is a deed fixing their marriage portion.-

Sciant presentes et futuri quod ego Radulphus le Boteleer Dominus de Wemme et Matildis uxor mea dedimus Willielmo filio nostro et

[1] Domesday, fo. 256, a, 2.
[2] Rot. Hundred. II. 56.
[3] Supra, page 170.


Ankarete filiae Griffini uxori su, in liberum maritagium, duo Maneria scilicet Northborough in Com. Leyc. et Dodinton in Com. Salop. Teste, Domino Jacobo de Audelegh. [1]

This settlement, so far as it relates to Dodington, was confirmed by a Fine of June 23, 1280. Thereby William Bel-Enfaunt (Fairchild), attorney of Ralph le Butyler and Maud his wife (Impedients), acknowledges their gift of the Manor of Dodinton to William le Butyler and Ingaretta his wife;- to hold to them and the heirs of William, immediately of the King, by accustomed services. For this Fine William is said to have paid a sore goshawk (asturcum sorum). It was levied by assent and will of the King.

I have quoted the Inquest of January 1284, which shows William le Botiler to have died seized of Dudinton and Lopington, and I may here add of Norborough. The Bradford Tenure-Roll (about 1286) reckons Dodington, Alkynton, and Edisley (Edgeley) to be members of Wem, but adds that Ankaret, widow of William Butteler, held all three, under Walter and Matilda de Hopton. Then follows this ungrammatical and otherwise inaccurate sentence;- "sed homagium facit Willielmus Domino Rege et servicium apud Wem"- It means, I suppose, that the deceased, though the King had accepted his direct homage for Dodington, etc., had been bound to the usual and proportionate service at Wem Castle, and had so far held of the Baron of Wem.

We have seen how Ankaret ap Griffin, then the wife of Robert de Nevyle, was holding Dodington in 1292. A Leicestershire Feodary of 1296 gives Ankaret, widow of William le Botiler, as holding Norborough of Ralph le Botiler, while Ralph held of the Earl of Warwick. [2] A mistake as to the date (1296) or the name (Ralph) is here apparent. The rest of the quotation is explained by what I have said about Norborough in a former Volume.

A settlement of Dodyton, as proposed by William he Botyler (II.) in 1327, has been already given under Wem: [4] where also I have shown how he died seized of Dodyngton in 1334, and how in 1343 it was held by John le Strange of Whitchurch, in pursuance of the settlement of 1327. Its proximity to Whitchurch, as compared with its distance from Wem, doubtless suggested the said transfer.

OF UNDERTENANTS in Dodington I must speak suggestively, for I am far from sure that all the persons now to be mentioned belonged to the locality now under notice.-

[1] [2] Nichol's Leicestershire, Vol. IV. Part II. page 813.
[3] Supra, Vol VII. p. 76, note 52.
[4] Supra, page 175.


In 1177, Adam de Dunniton was amerced one merk by King Henry II., holding pleas of the Forest. In 1188, William de Dorinton was amerced 2s. for default, by Justices of the Forest. In 1203, and afterwards, we have had mention under Woodcote of Avelina, daughter of Richard de Woodcote, and widow of Adam de Dodington. After this, from 1226 to 1251, we have repeated notices of another Adam de Dodinton, but only as concerned in South Shropshire. [1]

We may be sure that Adam de Dorinton, who sat on a Whitchurch Jury in March 1281, was of the place now under notice.


"THE same Roger de Curcelle holds Edeslai. Aluric held it (in Saxon times) and was a free man. Here is one hide, geldable. Here are I Radman, I Villain, and V Boors, with one ox-team, and there might be five more teams here. Here is one Serf. In King Edward's time the Manor was worth 40s. (per annum). Now it is worth 12s. He (De Curcelle) found it waste". [2] This place is never spoken of, after Domesday, except as a member of Wem. It was held in 1286 by Ankaret widow of William le Boteler, probably in dower.

THE UNDERTENANTS here, were probably those Meverels of whom we have frequent mention in connection with the Barons of Wem. For instance, we have seen Walter Meverel attesting, about 1175-6, Ivo Pantulf's Charters to Shrewsbury and Haughmond Abbeys. [3] Among Pleas standing for trial at Shrewsbury in August 1226, Ivo Meverel neglected to prosecute his suits of mort d'ancestre against Roger Meverel for half a virgate in Edesl', and against William Pantulf for half a virgate in the same.

In November 1236, the Justices in eyre amerced Thomas Meverel half a merk, for false claim; and in 1261, Luke Meverel fined one merk for a Writ of Pone, but I cannot say that either of these persons was of Edgeley. A Sandford Inquest of 1308, was attended by Roger Meverel.

[1] Supra, Vol. I. pp. 191, 226; Vol. II. p. 99; Vol. IV. p. 282.
[2] Domesday, fo. 256, a, 2.
[3] Vol. VIII. p. 27-8; Vol. IX. p. 163.



"THE same Roger de Curcelle holds Stile. Algar, Collinc, Brictric, and Turgar held it (in Saxon times) for four Manors and were free men. Here is one hide. Here are four villains and one Boor with one team, and there might be two more teams. A wood here will fatten XXX swine. In King Edward's time the Manor was worth 13s. (per annum); now it is worth 6s". [1]

Steele is in the Parish of Prees, but it followed a uniform rule, in passing from Roger de Curcelle to the Barony of Wem. It was also manorially considered a member of Wem. Thus in 1286, Steill and Harpecote were both held by Ranulph de Harpecote, for half a knight's-fee, under Walter and Matilda de Hopton. The Greystock Inquest of 14 Henry VI., gives a distinct valuation of the Vill of Stile. It contained 34 messuages.

THE ONLY UNDERTENANTS I can name here, were Adam de Stichele, who attests a Sandford Deed about 1230, and William de Stywele, associated in 1253, with William de Blancminster in a raid on the estates of Combermere Abbey. About 1260-80, Hugh de Stiele, in one instance styled Lord of Stiele, is a witness of local Deeds. Of him we shall hear more under Whixall. Later in the Century one Thomas de Styele occurs in connection with Whixall.

Betton in Hales.

NEXT to William Pantulf's, the largest interest in the Domesday Hundred of Odenet was that of Gerard de Tornai. Out of the seven Manors which he held, I commence with Betton, because it is associated with the earlier history of Tornai's Fief.- "The same Gerard holds Baitune (of Earl Roger). Ulchete held it (in Saxon times) and was a free man. Here are III hides, geldable. There is (arable) land for VI ox-teams. In demesne are two teams; and

[1] Domesday, fo. 256, a, 2.


(there are) II Serfs, II Neatherds, and III Boors, with one team Here is a Mill, and a wood which will fatten LX swine; and here are two Hayes. In King Edward's time the Manor was worth 40s. (per annum) . Now it is worth 30s".

Between the year 1085 (the date of Domesday) and 1093-4 (the date of Earl Roger's death), Gerard de Tornai gave the vill of Betton to Shrewsbury Abbey. Gerardus de Tornaco (dedit) Beitonam, says the Earl himself in his Confirmation to the Abbey. The fact is repeated in the various Confirmations of William II., Henry I., Stephen, Henry II., and Henry III.; but, more than that, it is recited in a Charter of Hamo Peverel and his wife Sibil, which passed about 1134, and of which the following is an abstract.-

Notum sit, etc. quod Gyrardus de Tournay dedit villam appellatam Beitonam cum molendino, etc. libere et quiete ab omni servicio et ab omni calumpnia successorum suorum, coram Rogero Comite, Domino suo, qui hanc donacionem concessit et confirmavit. Et nos Hamo Peverel et Sibilla conjux mea, jure hereditario predicti Gyrardi successores, hanc donacionem firmam et stabilem inperpetuum Deo et Sancto Petro concessimus et presenti carta confirmavimus. Testibus, Willielmo Peverel; Walchelino Maminot; Willielmo de Hedlega, et filiis suis, Alana et Willielmo; Nigello de Sauberia, et Roberto filio suo; Ricardo de Linlega; Radulfo de Tirna; Willielmo de Tornay; Alano filio Thebaldi; Henrico de Feolgeres; Roberto de Meleborna; Gerardo Pincerna; Osmundo de Tunstal; et multis aliis. [2]

It must not be supposed, from the above, that the gift of the vill of Betton implied the whole of the Domesday Manor. That it did not, I have good proof, without relying on Earl Hugh's spurious Charter to Shrewsbury Abbey, which represents Hamo Peverel as standing in the Earl's presence and giving the tithes of his demesne of Buton subtus Lima. It is probable that Hamo Peverel had no such demesne to charge. What he had, was the Seigneury of Tunstal, a member of Betton, and this he conveyed to the Abbey about 40 years afterwards, that is, after the death of Henry I., and probably in 1136-7. I again give an abstract of his Charter.-

Notum sit, etc. quod Hamo Peverel dedit Ecclesiae Sancti Petri de Salopesbia villam quae vocatur Dunstal et servicium militis qui eam tenebat, ita ut ipse miles, Osmundus nomine, habeat eam in feudo, sibi et heredibus suis, et dabit Monachis quocunque anno II solidos de recognicione ad festum Sti Michaelis; et ipse Miles hoc libenter concessit. His testibus, Radulfo filio Thealdi; Radulfo filio Gaufridi;

[1] Domesday, fo. 259, a, 1.
[2] Salop Chartulary, No. 19.


Radulfo filio Clarel'; Roberto Presbitro de Dreitona; Ivone filio ejus; Turstano fratre ejusdem Osmundi; Ricardo Presbitro de Novo Burgo; Pagano de Novo Burgo et m. a. [1]

The Empress's Charter to Shrewsbury Abbey confirms Hamo Peverel's grant of Tunstall, apparently as one made since her Father's death. [2] This confirmation passed about 1141. Between 1161 and 1182, Richard Peche, Bishop of Coventry, confirmed to the Abbey the tithes of Betton under Lime as tithes of its own demesnes. [3] Between 1175 and 1190, Ralph, Abbot of Shrewsbury, came to an agreement with Walter de Dunstanvill (as Lord of Adderley). It was that Walter and his heirs, without any power of revocation by the Abbey, should hold a certain parcel of the wood of Beiton, which he, by the Abbot's permission, had enclosed in his Park. The Abbot on the other hand was similarly to hold a parcel of the wood of Ethdredesh' (probably Adderley is meant) which stood apart of itself, on one side of the road at Rugwardine (Richwardine). Witnesses,- William and Thecelline, Clerks of Walter; Robert de Lintot; William de C * *; Stephen de Acleth (Oakley); Ivo de Tunstall; Radulf de Cherl'; Robert de Longeford. [4]

The Bradford Hundred-Roll of 1255, says that "the Abbot of Salop holds the Manor of Betton by gift of Gerard de Torney, in free alms; and it is VI hides and not geldable; nor does it any suit to County or Hundred". [5] When Betton is thus spoken of, as a Manor of six hides, it must be taken to include Norton in Hales, a Manor acquired by Shrewsbury Abbey in quite a different way from Betton, but which consisted of three Domesday hides and is not mentioned in the Hundred-Roll of 1255.

On May 13, 1256, King Henry III. being at Reading, granted the Abbot of Salop license to hold a weekly Market, on Thursdays, at his Manor of Becton subtus Lime, and a yearly Fair of 4 days, viz. the vigil, the day of, and the two days following, the feast of St. Matthew the Apostle (Septcmber 20-23). [6] King Henry III.'s Charter of Free Warren, passing at Windsor on May 21, 1256, allows the same Abbot that privilege in his demesnes of Betton subtus Lime, etc. [7]

In September 1276, certain disputes were settled between the Abbot of Combermere, as Impropriator of the Rectory of Market Drayton, and the Abbot of Shrewsbury about tithes of newly cultivated land in Betton-subtus-Lime, which was within the Parish of

[1] Salop Chartulary, No. 20.
[2] [3] [4] Salop Chart. Nos. 40, 329, 21.
[5] Rot. Hundred. II. 58.
[6] [7] Salop Chartulary, Nos. 52, 53.


Drayton. It was agreed that the Abbot of Shrewsbury should receive all tithes of lands within the territory of Betton, Rugworthin (Richwardine), and Tunstall, as he was accustomed to do, and that he should pay to the Abbot of Combermere two merks yearly at the Church of Drayton. [1] I do not find that this arrangement had any permanence, for (as we have seen), in 1291, the Abbot of Shrewsbury, instead of paying anything to, received a pension of 30s. from, Drayton Church. It is at the same time clear that he never abandoned his tithes in the Parish.

The Tenure-Roll of Bradford Hundred (about 1286) makes Norton, Tunstall, Rigwardine, Lees (now "The Lees "), and half Little Drayton, to be members of the Abbot of Shrewsbury's Manor of Betton. This was with a view to conciseness rather than topographical accuracy, as we shall see in the sequel.

The Taxation of 1291 gives the Abbot of Shrewsbury the following annual income from Burton sub Lima, viz. 2 from 2 carucates of land; 12. 5s. 5d. from assized rents; 1. 10s. from a Mill; and 10s. from Pleas and Perquisites of Court. [2] The total of 16. 5s. 5d. must be taken to include the Abbot's receipts from Batton, Tunstall, Richwardine, Norton, Lees, and Little Drayton.

In May 1294, there was an agreement between the Abbot of Shrewsbury and Stephen, son of Stephen de Ocleg, with respect to the Mill of Betton subtus Lime. It was attested by Sir William de Tyteleg, then Sheriff of Salop; William de Hodnet; Thomas Corbet; Robert Bromleg; and Henry de Creswell, Knights; Reginald de Shavinton, William de Norton, William de Calverhall, and Philip de Dunstale. [3]

A Rent-Roll of Shrewsbury Abbey, drawn up about 1490, gives 23. 18s. 7d. as the gross receipts from Betton under Lyne. This includes 25 items, among which are the Chief-rent of Norton- 1; the Chief-rent of Ryghtwarden- 12s.; from Thomas Egerton of Leys- 2. 3s. 10d.; from Richard Egerton, for Betton wood, 5 nobles (i.e. 3. 6s. 8d.). [4]

The Valor of 1534 gives 26. 11s. 3d. as the Abbot of Shrewsbury's temporal receipts from Betton subtus Lyne. His portion of the tithes thereof made a further asset of 4. [5] In 1541-2 the Ministers' Accounts reduce the late Abbey's receipts from Betton subtus Line to 21. 13a. 5d. [6]

[1] Salop Chartulary, No. 391.
[2] Pope Nich. Taxation, p. 260.
[3] Salop Chartulary, No. 278.
[4] Hist. Shrewsbury, II. 509.
[5] Valor Eccles. III. pp. 189, 190.
[6] Monasticon, Vol. III. page 529.


In all these valuations Betton must be taken to have included not only its own members of Tunstall, Richwardine, and The Lees, but the otherwise distinct Manors of Norton and Little Drayton.

BETTON CHAPEL. Tradition is the only autliority I have for the former existence of this Chapel. The district belongs parochially to Market Drayton.


We have seen that Osmund de Tunstall, living about 1134-7, held Tunstall by 2s. rent, first under Hamo Peverel, and then under Shrewsbury Abbey. [1] Ivo de Tunstall, who occurs about forty or fifty years later, was probably Osmund's successor in this tenure.

We next hear of this Ivo's son, Richard. He, much I imagine to the annoyance of his Suzerains, the Monks of Salop, alienated part of Tunstall to the rival Abbey of Combermere. His deed, which passed about 1240, runs as follows.-

Notum sit omnibus hoc scriptum visuris etc. quod ego Ricardus filius Yvonis, dominus de Tunstall, pro salute animae me et ancessorum et successorum dedi Deo et Beatae Mariae et Sancto Michaeli et Abbati et Conventui de Cumbermar in liberam, puram, et perpetuam elemosynam, una cum presenti corpore meo, duo prata de dominico meo de Tunstall, viz. pratum vocatum Brademedwe et pratum quod facet inter Heldam subtus Tunstal et aquam de Tyrne. Concessi etiam * * * * ad domum quandam longam construendam extra divisas predicti prati supra terram meam, viz. subtus predictam Heldam, ubicunque sibi magis expedire indicaverint, et communiam pasturae ad Tunstal pertinentis, preter sata et prata, ad alenda averia sua, de Bromhale, etc.;- tenenda et habenda de me et heredibus, libere, absque omni servicio, sicut puram decet elemosynam. Hiis testibus;- Domino Odone de Hodeneth; Domino Willielmo de Hedleye; Domino Ricardo de Sandford; Domino Waltero de Say; Rogero de Pivlesdun, Edwino de Wilauston, Henrico de Savinton et aliis. [2]

Among several Deeds of the same Grantor, I have quoted the above first, not as earliest in time, but as showing his parentage. Here follows the substance of several Deeds showing how he and his son gradually surrendered the rest of their estate to their own Suzerain, the Abbot of Shrewsbury.-

In 1232, as Richard de Tunstal, he concedes to Salop Abbey for 3 merks, a virgate in Tunstal sometime held by William de Offeleg,

[1] Supra, page 198.
[2] Charter at Adderley.


to hold to the Abbey for 24 years commencing March 25, 1232. Witnesses,- Stephen de Hocle, Adam de Nortun, and Benedict de Estun. [1]

About the same time, and as "Richard, Lord of Tunstal, he gives to Thomas de Mosselowe, for his homage, etc., one parcel of the land called Hethilee, and one meadow which lay between Hethilee and the water called Tyrne. Rent d. Witnesses,- William Cadugan of Wrugworthin (Richwardine); Hova, his brother; Adam de Norton.". [2]

Soon afterwards, the same gives to the same, a stone-quarry and all the area of land which commenced at a certain siche called Londeresmessiche. Rent 6d. Witnesses,- Hugh de Rugworthin, Robert de Drayton, Thomas Rabaz, Robert de Forde, Stephen, son of Stephen de Acle. [3]

The following Deed probably passed in 1241-2. Richard, Lord of Tunstal, gives to Thomas de Munselaw for his homage, etc., a certain particle of land which lay around the stone-quarry in the fields of Tunstall. He further concedes a certain fence (hegam) near the water called Hithsleye. Rent 6d. Witnesses,- Sir Walter de Dunstanvill; Sir John, his brother; Adam de Norton. [4]

Another Deed is an absolute surrender of the land previously leased for 24 years, but the surrender dates, I think, within 5 years of the lease, that is, between 1232 and 1237.-

"Richard de Tonstal gives to Salop Abbey a virgate in Tonstall, sometime held by William de Offeleg, and also a small parcel of land near Schipford which the said William did assart. For this the Abbot paid 6 merks. Witnesses;- James, Provost of the Forgate; Gilbert Sadoc; Hugh fitz Hamon; Nicholas, his brother". [5]

On Sept. 16, 1242 (and evidently after his grant to Combermere), Richard de Tunstal binds himself to his Lord, the Abbot of Salop, not to sell, give, or in any way mortgage anything of his land of Tunstal, except to Salop Abbey. And if he did so alienate (elongare) any of the said land, except to the said Abbey, he covenanted that all his land of Tunstall, with all rents and profits thereof, should remain to the Abbey. Witnesses,- Nicholas, then provost of the Foriet; Hugh, his brother, Richard Cruch. [6]

In the interval between 1242 and 1256 (when Richard de Tunstall was dead), he surrendered the following to the Abbey.- As Richard de Tunstall, he gave La Helde with its appurtenances, in the field towards Bettone-sub-Lima, which lay near to Tyrne.

[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] Salop Chartulary, Nos. 90; 87-b; 91-b; 94-b; 88; 89.


Witnesses,- William, son of Adam de Norton, Stephen de Ocle, William fitz Richard, William de Wrugwrthin, Hugh de Wrugwrthin. [1] As Richard de Tunstal he remits to the Abbey all that land which Thomas de Mosselowe held of him in the Manor of Betton subtus Lime, near the Quarry of Tunstall, and all the land called Hetheleg with the meadow near Hetheleg and near the bank of Tyrne. Witnesses,- William, son of Adam de Norton, Stephen de Acley, William fitz Richard. [2] Lastly, as Richard de Tunstal, he gives to the Abbey 6d. rent which Thomas de Monselowe used to pay him. Witnesses,- as the last (William fitz Richard being called "of Norton"). [3] In January 1256, Richard de Tunstal was dead. Richard de Tunstal, who, at the Assizes then held, failed to prosecute a suit of disseizin against Henry Abbot of Shrewsbury, was his Eldest son. The Sureties of the said Richard (II.) were Henry, son of Richard de Tunstal (that is, his own brother), and Reginald de Shavinton. [4]

Richard de Tunstal (I.) had also left a widow, Juliana, who at these same assizes was opposed in a suit of dower by Hugh de Wlonkeslaue (Longslow), as attorney for Philip, Vicar of Drayton, and for Philip le Clerk. [5] Another suit of dower the same Juliana, widow of Richard de Dunstal, had preferred against the Abbot of Shrewsbury, but she did not prosecute it. Her Sureties were Richard and Henry, sons of Richard de Dunstal. [6] The reason why her and her son's suits against the Abbot were not urged, was doubtless that the disputes had been arranged out of Court.

As to the Abbot of Shrewsbury's composition with Richard de Tunstall (II.), that appears in the two following Deeds which we may safely date about 1256.- "Richard de Tunestal, son of Richard de Tunestal, gives to Salop Abbey all his land of Tunestal and all his right in the said vill. Witnesses,- William, son of Adam de Northone, Stephen de Ocley, John de Prestecote". [7] Also- "Brother H., Abbot of Salop, gives to Richard, son of Richard de Tunstal, in fee, a burgage, with 6 seylions of land, in the vill of Betton sub Lime;- the grantee to pay a rent of 6d. for life, and his heirs to pay a rent of 1s. The Abbot further gives to the Grantee for life the forestership and whole custody of Betton Bosc, for which he was to take a livery of one quarter of corn every six weeks, like other servants of the Abbot at Betton. Witnesses,- William, son

[1] [2] [3] Ibidem, Nos. 92, 91, 94.- William fitz Richard of Norton occurs on a Hodnet Inquest in 1257.
[4] [5] [6] Salop Assizes, 40 Hen. III., mm. 4, 9, 14.
[7] Salop Chartulary, No. 93, a.


of Adam de Norton, Stephen de Ocley, William fitz Richard of Norton". [1]

"Richard, son of Richard de Tunstal", seems very soon to have sold his Burgage and 6 seylions at Betton to Master Robert de Stokes, for 4 merks. The purchaser was held bound to pay 12d. rent to Salop Abbey. This Deed was attested as the last, except that the third witness was Alan Cocus of Drayton. [2]

Philip de Dunstal, a witness of Deeds from 1260 to 1294, was probably an Undertenant of Shrewsbury Abbey, and a Clerk.


In 1188 we hear of one Osbert de Ruggewurd' as amerced half a merk for default. About 1202-3 the Abbot of Shrewsbury had a Tenant here, one Nicholas de Rugwrthin. He, with the Abbot's consent, and for a sum of 2. 3s. paid, enfeoffed Alured, son of Gerard de Norton, in all his land at Rugwrthin. Rent 6s. 8d. at Martinmas and 12d. on St. Giles's day. Witnesses,- Adam de Chetwynt, John his son, and Richard fitz Siward. [3] Somewhat later in the 13th century, but before the year 1226, Alured de Norton conceded to the Abbey all his land and right in Rugwrthin. Witnesses,- Thomas de Halecton, then Constable of Shrewsbury, William de Bascherch. [4] Perhaps a similar quitclaim, of all right in Rugworthin, to the Abbey, by Thomas fitz Nicholas, was by the son of Alured de Norton's Feoffor. If so, it released the Abbey from an annual rent of 7s. 8d. and restored Richwardine to the Abbatial demesnes. [5] One merk was paid by the Abbot for the surrender, and it was attested by Warin de Wililey, Stephen de Ocley and Ranulf de Warewic. [6]

We have seen William Cadugan of Richwardine and Hova, his brother, attesting a Deed about 1232. In Deeds of the next twenty years the former is called William de Rugwardine, and the latter is represented by a son, Hugh. In a Charter, which must have passed after 1236, the Abbot of Salop demises to Hugh, son of Hova de Rugworthin, the land in Rugworthin which his father had held;- to hold in fee and inheritance paying 6s. rent for land, and 8d. for assart. Witnesses,- Griffin, son of Madoc, Sir Howel, his brother, and Robert de Stokes.

Hugh de Rugworthin died leaving a son, Hugh, under age, but

[1] Salop Chartulary, No. 93-b.
[2] Ibidem, No. 95.
[3] [4] [5] Ibidem, Nos. 94-c; 96; 97.
[6] Other attestations of Ranulf de Warwick, Clerk, date about 1205-1210.
[7] Salop Chartulary, No. 271.


who at the Assizes of 1256 was seized of a virgate in Rugworthin. For this virgate the then Abbot of Shrewsbury sued Hugh, son of Hugh, alleging it to have been the seizin of a former Abbot (Hugh), in the reign of King John. On like ground the Abbot of 1256 sued William Cadygan (whom I take to have been a cousin rather than Great Uncle, of Hugh, Junior) for half a virgate in Rugworthin. Hugh, son of Hugh, alleged on his part that his father having died in his infancy, he, the son, had been in ward to the Abbot as a tenant by military service, and that the Abbot had accepted his homage for the said virgate. The Abbot however recovered the virgate;- on what ground, after looking at the Deed last above quoted, I cannot imagine. As to William Cadygan he got judgment of dismissal, sine die, on a technical point, viz. that Thomas, his brother, held the half-virgate for which he was sued. [1] The Abbot had in fact sued the wrong man. Another action brought at these Assizes was by Hugh, son of Hugh de Rugwrthin against the Abbot for disseizing him of 2 acres in Rugwrthin. Here the Abbot proved that Hugh, the father, had only held the premises from year to year. [2]


"THE same Gerard (de Tornai) holds Ulvreton. Oschetel held it (in Saxon times) and was a free man. Here is one hide, geldable. There is (arable) land for IIII ox- teams. In demesne are II teams; and there are VII Serfs, III Villains, II Boors, and I Radman, with one team. Here is a Mill of 10s. (annual value), and a wood which will fatten four-score swine. In King Edward's time the Manor was worth 15s. (per annum): now it is worth 25s. He (Gerard) found it waste". [3]

The next thing after Domesday that occurs about Woolerton is the grant of the demesne-tithes thereof to Shrewsbury Abbey. Earl Hugh's spurious Charter says that Hamo Peverel in the Earl's own presence so granted the tithes of his demesnes of Wulrunton. [4] And it is possible that in this instance the spurious Charter contains

[1] [2] Salop Assizes, 40 Hen. III., mm. 13 recto, 14 dorso.
[3] Domesday, fo. 259.
[4] Salop Chartulary, No. 5.


more truth than any other. The less doubtful Charter of the Earl says nothing about these tithes, but Bishop Clinton saw a Charter of Earl Hugh, which as the Bishop's Confirmation says, conveyed the tithes of Wluruton, as tithes of the Earl's demesne. [1] We must conclude that either the Earl granted these tithes while Gerard de Tornai's Fief was in his hands as an Escheat, or else that Hamo Peverel was the real Grantor and the Earl only a Confirmant. Somewhat similar difficulties have been mentioned in the cases of Shawbury and Cold Hatton. [2] In Bishop Peche's time, as indeed in Bishop Clinton's, not only the tithes but the Manor of Woolerton belonged to the Abbey. Bishop Peche's Charter accordingly recognizes the change and confirms the said tithes of Wlverton as tithes of the Abbot's demesnes.

There is a further difficulty about the date of an undoubted fact, viz. that Hamo Peverel gave the vill of Woolerton to Shrewsbury Abbey. King Henry I., in his Confirmation of 1121, sets forth at full how "Hamo Peverel, successor of Gerard de Tornai, and who obtained the said Gerard's honour with his daughter, at the request of his said well-disposed wife, gave a vill named Wlvreton; Richard, Bishop of London attesting the grant". This would fix the grant as between 1108 and 1121. If so, the actual Charter of Hamo Peverel, as preserved in the Salop Chartulary, must be taken as recordatory of the previous grant, for it belongs to a later period;about 1130-5. It runs, in brief, as follows.-

Sciant, etc. quod Hamo Peverel et Sibilla uxor, assensu Regis Henrici, dedimus villam, que dicitur Wluruntona, cum molendino, etc. sicut Gerardus de Tornay antecessor noster et nos postmodum eam melius et quietius tenuimus. Testibus, Willielmo Peverel; Walchelino Maminoht; Willielmo de Hedlega et filiis suis, Alano et Willielmo; Nigello de Sanburia, et Roberto filio suo; Ricardo de Linlega; Radulfo de Tirna; Willielmo de Tornay; Alano filio Thealdi; Roberto filio de Beche (sic); Rogero de Haia; Henrico de Feolgeres; Briano de Valle de Riul; [3] Hugone de Leha; Gerardo Pincerna; et m. a. [4]

My List of the Abbots of Combermere hardly enables me to date a Charter, [5] whereby T., [6] Abbot of that House, binds himself to pay an annual rent of 20d. for a meadow and moor in Wollerton which

[1] Salop Chartulary, No. 325.
[2] Supra, Vol. VIII. p. 132; and Vol. IX. p. 108.
[3] Elsewhere called Brientius de Valle Rodolli (supra, Vol. VIII. p. 129).
[4] [5] Salop Chartulary, Nos. 24, 157.
[6] Thomas was Abbot of Combermere in 1200. He was deposed in 1201. Thomas de Gillyng, his successor, sat from 1201 till about 1220.


had been conceded to him and his Convent by the monks of Shrewsbury.

In the year 1242, the Abbot of Shrewsbury quitclaimed the above rent of 20d., on condition that the Abbot of Combermere would allow him to erect a stank for his mill of Wollerton on the other side of the River, [1] that is, on the Abbot of Combermere's land of Chesthull. This agreement was tested by John le Strange, then Justice of Chester and Sheriff of Shropshire and Staffordshire, and by Sir William de Ercalewe. [2]

In the previous year, that is, on April 10, 1241, it was thus agreed between "Odo de Hodenet, Knight, son of Sir Baldwin, Knight", and the Abbot of Shrewsbury. Odo, for 4 merks, quitclaims all assarts made by himself or in his name, in the bosc of Wlfreton. The Abbot covenants to make no assarts for the future, in the bosc where Odo had a right of common, except with the consent of the said Odo or his heirs. Witnesses,- Sir John le Strange, then Sheriff of Salop; Nicholas de Wililey, Under-Sheriff; Robert de Geros; Adulf de Brasi; Roger de Pivelesdon, then Clerk of the County; Hugh fitz Robert; William de Hercalewe; Richard de Sontford; Thomas de Rossall; Hugh de Hauckestan; Hugh de Lega; and Master G. de Weston, Parson of Hodeneth. [3]

The Hundred-Roll of 1255, says that "the Abbot of Salop holds the vill of Wulverton by gift of Hamo Peverel, in free alms", and that the vill "is not geldable, nor doing suit to County or Hundred", and that "it is one hide". [4] The Charter of Free-Warren granted to Shrewsbury Abbey on May 21, 1256, includes the Abbot's demesnes of Wlfreton. [5] In 1269, the Abbot of Shrewsbury had a Writ against Odo de Hodnet for levelling a stank in Wolureton. Between the years 1272 and 1278, Odo de Hodenet allows that Luke, Abbot of Salop, may lawfully make the most of those assarts in the Manor of Wluretone, a right of common wherein had been recovered by the said Odo, under Writ of novel disseizin, tried by John le Bretun and his Fellow-Justices at Alford. Witnesses,- Sirs John de Ercalowe, and John fitz Aer, knights; William de Titteleg; Henry de Schavinton; Robert de Say of Morton; William de Norton; and Stephen de Edeg (probably Ocleg). [6]

The Taxation of 1291, values the Abbot of Shrewsbury's estate of Wolverton at 12. 2s. 8d. per annum, viz. from one carucate of

[1] The Bailey-Brook, I presume, is here meant, not the Tern.
[2] Salop Chartulary, No. 391.
[3] Ibidem, Nos. 26 and 406, collated.
[4] Rot. Hundred. II. 58.
[5] [6] Salop Chartulary, Nos. 53, 27.


land 13s.; assized rents 6. 3s. 0d.; a Mill 2; Pleas and Perquisites of Court 1; Profits of live-stock 2. 6s. 8d. [1]

An Abbey Rent-Roll, drawn up about 1490, gives eleven items of receipt from Wollerton, amounting to 14. 4s. 8d. per annum. [2]

The Valor of 1534, values the Abbatial estate of Wollerton at 14. 5s. per annum. [3] The Abbot of Combermere had a charge of 3s. 4d. thereon. [4] It proves to have been a charge on the Mill of Ulverton.

In the Ministers' Accounts of 1541-2, the receipts of the dissolved Abbey of Shrewsbury from Wallerton, alias Ollarton, are put at 21. 13s. 5d. [6]


"The same Gerard holds Istefelt. Uluiet held it (in Saxon times) and was a free man. Here are II hides, geldable. There is arable land for IIII ox-teams. Here are a Priest and two Boors with one team; a wood, which will fatten 60 swine; and II hayes. The value of the Manor was 15s. (per annum), and is now 10s". [7]

Ightfield, like many others of Gerard de Tornay's Manors, became a tenure-in-capite by Serjeantry. The following Fine, proffered in 1176, and paid in 1177, seems to relate to some litigation about Ightfield, and the representatives of the two Litigants afterwards appear as joint Lords of the Manor. The said Fine was one of 5 merks proffered by Robert de Hichtefeld, to have his rights expedited against Ralph Hose (pro festinando jure suo versus Radulfum Hose). The Surety of Robert de Hichtefeld was William fitz Randulf, Lord, I think, of Whitehurch.

At the Forest Assizes recorded on the Pipe-Roll of 1188, Roger de Hictefeld was amerced half a merk for some default. In the year 1200, Robert de Hictefeld appears as Surety for one of the parties to a Longslow Lawsuit.

Several Lists of Shropshire Serjeantries, drawn up about 1211, concur in representing Walter Hose (or Hosatus) and Roger de

[1] Pope Nich. Taxation, p. 260.
[2] Hist. Shrewsbury, II. 509.
[3] [4] Valor Eccles. III. pp. 189, 190.
[5] Valor Eccles. V. p. 216.
[6] Monasticon, V. 529.
[7] Domesday, 259, a, 1.


Ychtefeld (or Yatefeld) as holding their tenement by service of providing one foot-soldier for ward of the (then Royal) Castle of Shrawardine. [1] Walter Hose was son and heir of Ralph Hose above mentioned, and had succeeded him at Albright Hussey and apparently at Ightfield; but after this I find no proof of a Hussey retaining any interest in Ightfield.

Looking to the Scutage-Rolls, already given, we find Ightfield usually assessed at half a fee, and may further observe that though Ralph Hose was the person assessed in 1204, Roger de Ightfield became responsible in 1214, and that his name is uniformly the one entered from thence till 1260. [2] We shall presently see that this use of Roger de Ightfield's name, so late as 1260, was merely formal, and not accurate.-

Among the Tornay Fees, recorded in the Feodary of 1240, Roger de Icheford stands as Tenant of half a knight's-fee in Icheford. [3] Within the next 15 years Roger de Ightfield seems to have given Ightfield, in exchange, to Griffin de Warren, who seems to have been son of William de Warren of Whitchurch. This is what the Hundred-Roll of 1255 alludes to, when it states that "Griffin de Warran' holds the vill of Ihttefeud, having exchanged the said land with Roger de Ihttefeud, who held the same of the King in capite, by service of one Muntor, for 40 days, at his own cost, at Shewurthyn, in time of war". The vill was still reputed to contain II hides, as at Domesday. It paid 8d. yearly for stretward, and 8d. for motfee, and did due suit to County and Hundred. [4]

In Trinity Term 1263 Sibil, widow of Philip de Kant, having impleaded Amicia fitz Gwydo for a messuage and bovate in Ihefeud, and Amicia having called Thomas fitz Thomas to warranty, the latter appeared, and further called Griffin, son of William de Blancmunster, to warranty. But Griffin did not appear, and so an equivalent was ordered to be taken out of his lands and assigned to Thomas fitz Thomas. [5]

Griffin de Warren, alias de Blancminster, alias de Ightfield, was living in 1272, but was afterwards succeeded by his son John. The Feodaries of 1284-5 state that John, son of Griffin de Ithefeld, was then holding the vill of Ithefeld of the King in capite for half a knight's-fee. It appears however from the Assize-Rolls of 1292 that this John was even then in minority. The land which he

[1] Testa de Nevill, p. 55. Liber Ruber Scaccarii, fos. cxxiii. cxxxvii.
[2] Supra, Vol. VIII. p. 197.
[3] Testa de Nevill, p. 45.
[4] Rot. Hundred. II. 57.
[5] Placita, Trin. Tm. 47 Hen. III., m. 20 dorso.
[6] Placita Coronae, 20 Edw. I. m. 7.


had inherited from Griffin de Ithfel was valued at 40s. per annum. Ralph Sprenghose had custody thereof together with the heir, for to him had Otho de Grandison transferred the said custody; and Otho de Grandison had it from the King. At these same Assizes Isabella de Ithfeld (widow, I presume, of Griffin) was presented as holding 13 solidates of land in Ithfeld, and as being married to Warin de Grantvalour. The said Warin appeared and justified his position by exhibiting Letters Patent whereby the King, for a Fine of 100s., had allowed the said Isabella to marry at her own discretion.

I think that it must have been John de Ightfield who in September 1310 was returned under the name of John de Warenne as one of the Servientes prepared to be at Tweedmouth and to discharge the military service due from Fulk le Strange, then Lord of Whitchurch. [1] Consistently with this we find John de Garenne entered on the Nomina Villarum of 1316 as Lord of the Vill of Ythefeld. [2]

In 1356 Griffin, Lord of Ightfield, is found seeking to entail Ightfield on his Grandson Griffin, son of his son John. An Inquest held on July 5th in that year stated that it would not injure the King, if Griffin le Warenne were to enfeoff William de Botefeld, Clerk, and William de Ightefeld in the estate, provided that those Trustees should forthwith settle it on Griffin for life, with remainder to Griffin, son of John, son of Griffin, and on Elizabeth his wife, and the bodily heirs of Griffin, Junior, and Elizabeth, with ultimate remainder to the right heirs of Griffin le Warenne (Senior). The estate, said the Jurors, was held of the Crown by Grand Serjeantry, and was worth 8 yearly, net value. It was Griffin le Warenne's only property. [3]

OF UNDERTENANTS in Ightfield, I may name Richard, son of William de Ichtefeud, who, in February 1271, was moving a suit of mort d'ancestre against Alice, widow of John le Clerk, Hugh Calle, and others, for a tenement in Ichtefeud.

At the Assizes of 1272 Richard le Ostesvevn of Ittefeld failed to prosecute a suit of novel disseizin against John, Parson of Ittefeld. At the same Assizes, William de Icthefeld sued James de Audley for a messuage and half-carucate in Icthefeld, alleging that Gilbert fitz Robert, his (the Plaintiff's) grandfather, had died seized thereof. Audley affirmed that his father, James, had died seized thereof, but the Suit was adjourned till the Defendant should

[1] [2] Parl. Writs, IV. 1588, 397.
[3] Inquis. 30 Edw. III., 2nd Numbers, No. 20.


be of age. The Inquest taken in January 1317, on the death of Nicholas de Audley, mentions his having had 16s. 6d. rent from Ightefeld; but improperly treats the tenure as an appurtenance of Red Castle, when it was really nothing more than a sub-feoffment in Ightfield.

COMBERMERE FEE. From a Deed, printed in the Monasticon, we find that Roger, Lord of Ictefeld, having claimed a part of the Abbot of Combermere's wood of Wivelesde, which part was called Threpwode, as an appurtenance of Ightfield, was induced to renounce his claim for a sum of two merks. The boundaries of the wood of Wivelesde, as settled by this quitclaim, were to be,- from Oxefotemor to the top of Grenehul, thence to Spritlewithimle, and thence to Risewithbroc. The Deed is attested by Norman de Verdoun, Reinald de Wilvastone, Hugh de Draicote, Maltheus de Scavintone, and Osbert de Esshe (now Ash). [2]

By another Deed the same Roger de Ichtefeld gave in pure alms to the same Abbey a moiety of the Church of Ichtefeld and half a feorwendel (virgate) of his own demesne there, and half a feorwendel held by one Auger. This grant was for the souls of himself, his wife, and all his relatives and friends. It was attested by Owen and William, Deacons; Adam and Peter, Clerks; Radulf fitz Anion; Reinald de Wiavestone; Matthew de Scavintone; Aldred de Dottecote; Osbert de Esshe; and Roger de Elfstanefeld. [3]

Assuming the above Deeds to be nearly cotemporary, their date must remain uncertain. All I can say on this point is that the Grantor seems to have been that Roger de Ightfield who, between the years 1240 and 1255, and probably late in his life, gave Ightfield to Griffin de Warren. His grants to Combermere seem to have been but partially effectual, for the Hundred-Roll of 1255 speaks of only one half-virgate in Ightfield as having been given by the said Roger de Ightfield to Combermere. Thomas fitz Robert now held it under the Abbot, doing no suit to County or Hundred. Henry III.'s Confirmation to the said Abbey bears date April 4, 1266, and speaks of Roger de Ythfeld's grant indefinitely, as "all that land with the bosc called Trepwode. and with all appurtenances". [4]

At the Assizes of 1292 King Edward I. sued the Abbot of Combermere for 400 acres of bosc in Yghtefeld as the sometime seizin of King Henry II. The Abbot proved himself to have only

[1] Inquisitions, 10 Edw. II., No. 73.
[2] Monasticon, Vol. V. p. 326, No. X.
[3] Monasticon (ibidem). No. IX.
[4] Monasticon, V. 324, Num. III.


forty acres of bosc, and that his right thereto was better than the King's. [1]


The mention of a Priest, resident here at Domesday, probably indicates the co-existence of a Church. There is no evidence of any other cotemporary Church in this district. Even the spacious Manor of Westune (afterwards called Whitchurch) was as yet Churchless. When Roger de Ightfield granted a moiety of the Advowson of Ightfield to Combermere Abbey we may question his title so to do, for the grant was inoperative. Neither are we told who claimed the other moiety. Later Records uniformly treat this Advowson as belonging to the Lords of Whitchurch. I can only account for this by supposing that Whitchurch had come to be reputed the Mother-Church of the district, and Ightfield a Dependency.

The Taxation of 1291, placing the Church of Ithefeld in the Deanery of Newport and Archdeaconry of Salop, values it at 2. 13s. 4d. per annum, besides a pension of 2s. which the Abbot of Combermere received therefrom. [2] This Pension may have been in composition of the Abbot's claim to a share in the Advowson. In 1341 the Assessors of the Ninth taxed the Parish of Ightefeld at 46s. They said that the Church was taxed at its true value, and, as I understand their statement, that the difference between such true value and the present assessment consisted of glebe and such small tithes as were not to be reckoned in computing the Ninth. [3] The Valor of 1534-5 places Ightfelde in the Deanery of Salop. The income of Robert Maynwaryng, Rector thereof, was 8. per annum, out of which he paid 3s. 4d. for Procurations and 2s. for Synodals. A Chantry in this Church was further endowed with 100s. per annum. [4]


JOHN, Parson of Ightfield, has occurred above as living in 1272. At the Assizes of 1292 this John was questioned for having, eight years before, withdrawn the suit of his Tenants from the Sheriff's Tourn and annexed their land (one virgate) to the privileged domain (sanctuarium) of his Church. The Rector appeared and stated that the said land was always de sanctuario, that it had never been let, except to annual tenants-at-will, that he had now resumed it,

[1] Quo Waranto, p. 683.
[2] Pope Nich. Taxation, p. 245.
[3] Inquis. Nonarum, p. 192.
[4] Valor Ecclesiasticus, III. 185, 186.


and that the Crown had never been seized of the Suit aforesaid. This was contradicted by a Jury, and the Rector was adjudged to pay 16d. damages to the Crown, or 2d. per annum, for the value of thc suit withdrawn. [1] This favours the idea that the Glebe of Ightfield was no endowment of the original Church, but a later benefaction.

PETER DE FOMYTHON or FUTHUN, Rector of Hythefeld, has a license of non-residence dated November 16, 1309, to enable him to manage successfully certain business affecting his benefice. He died November 19, 1313, and, on December 26 following,-

WALTER DE WROCWARDYN, Priest, had been presented by Sir Fulk le Strange, Knight.

FULK CORBET, claiming to be Rector of Ightfield, resigned Nov. 22, 1323; and, on December 20 following,-

BARTHOLOMEW DE BERDEFELD, Acolyte, was admitted at the presentation of Sir Fulk le Strange, Lord of White-Minster. Berdefeld resigned April 5, 1337; and, on April 16,-

ROGER LE SPENCER, Priest, was admitted, at the presentation of Sir John le Strange, Lord of Whitchirche. Spencer died August 30, 1349 (probably of the Pestilence); and, on the next day,-

JOHN CLONE, Chaplain, was admitted at presentation of Dame Angaret le Strange, Lady of White-Minster.

On June 13, 1363, this Rector exchanged preferments with-

WILLIAM DE BLAKELOW, Chaplain, late Vicar of Aldelym (Audlem), who was presented to Ightfield by the King, as Guardian of the infant heir of John le Strange of Blakmere. On July 20,1376, Blakelow exchanged preferments with -

JOHN DE SHEVYNDON, Priest, late Rector of Bidulf, the King presenting to Ightfield as before. On December 20, 1379, Shevyndon exchanged with-

STEPHEN DE PREES, Chaplain, late Rector of Donynton, the King again presenting to Ightfield.

STEPHEN DE LA HEZTH, probably the same person, died in 1385, when on June 21,-

WILLIAM DE NEUTON Was admitted at the presentation of Sir Richard Talbot, Lord of Blakmere. However, on December 10, 1390, Ightfield is stated to have been vacant by resignation of Stephen de Prees, last Vicar, and-

JOHN PULFORD is admitted, at presentation of Sir Richard Talbot, Lord of Irchenfeld and Blakmere. Pulford resigned in 1905.

[1] Placita Coronae, 20 Edw. I., m. 16 dorso.



"The same Gerard holds Walanceslau. Uluiet held it (in Saxon times) and was a free man. Here are III hides geldable. The (arable) land is (enough) for V ox-teams. In demesne there is one team, and II Serfs; and there is one Tenant (homo) here, paying a rent of 40d. In King Edward's time the Manor was worth 10s. (per annum); now it is worth 12s". [1]

This Manor became a Serjeantry, the Tenant thereof being bound to perform certain services either at the Castle of Shrawardine, or of Shrewsbury. The earliest Tenant, of whom I find mention after Domesday, was-

HUGH DE MUNTEIN, living in the time of Henry II. (1154-1189). He mortgaged, and eventually lost the fee of, 30 acres of the Manor. If we are to interpret the word atavus in its stricter sense, this Hugh was Great-great-grandfather of Hugh de Longslow, living in 1255.

EMMA, mother of HUGH DE LONGSLOW (I.) was a Widow in the year 1200. Her husband's Christian name does not transpire. Possibly it was Richard; for Richard de Wolncheslawe stands second witness of a Styche Deed about 1196-1200. This Emma seems to have been an heiress, and was possibly Representative of Hugh de Muntein. On May 3, 1200, a Fine was levied between Hugh de Wlenkeslawe and his Mother, Emma (Plaintiffs), and Walter fitz Robert (Tenant) of 4 virgates in Wlenkeslawe. The Tenant quitclaimed the premises, and in return received one virgate thereof (viz. that which his father, Robert, had held), to hold of the Plaintiffs and their heirs at a rent of a pair of spurs, value 2d., and by discharge of all forinsec services. Moreover the Plaintiffs gave him 10 merks. In October 1200, I find Hugh de Wlenkelaw impleading Walter fitz Robert for non-observance of the above Fine. The Defendant and his Sureties, Richard de Ake and Robert de Hictefeld (Ightfield), were not forthcoming, and the Court took certain measures to secure their attendances. [2] A Roll, drawn up about the year 1212, enumerates Hugh de Wlonkeslawe among those who were Tenants in capite of the escheated estates of Gerard de

[1] Domesday, fo. 259, a, 1.
[2] Placita Mich. Term, 2 John.


Tornay. [1] His service is stated to be that of half a knight's-fee. His first assessment to any Scutage was in 1214, when, according to a Table already given, he was charged 20s. on half a knight's-fee. [2]

HUGH DE LONGSLOW (II.) succeeded his father at some unknown period, and it is quite by guess that I arrange the following notes under his name.-

In June 1220, Hugh de Wlonkeslowe was Foreman of a Bradford Jury which determined a question as to the Abbot of Combermere's proposed assarts in the King's Forest. At the Assizes of 1221, Hugh de Wlonkeslawe was found never to have been seized of certain common-pasture which he claimed as an appurtenance of Wlonkeslawe, and of which he accused the Prior of Ware, Hugh le Nonnan, Alexander le Deble, and Adam de Hales, of having disseized him. Hugh de Say was Surety for Hugh de Wlonkeslawe in this matter. Adam Osmund, Adam Silkenside, and his sons, Gilbert and Robert, are mentioned as Sureties of the Defendants. [3] The common-pasture claimed, was probably in Market Drayton.

From what has been said elsewhere it would seem that Hugh de Longalow, living in 1228, and then married to Alice, a daughter or other relation of Hugh fitz Robert of Bolas, was identical with Hugh de Longslow, living in 1256. [4] I will call this person-

HUGH DE LONGSLOW (III.), though I think that the word atavus, above referred to, suggests a greater number of generations in this descent than is consistent with average probability.

A Tenure-Roll of 1290 has Hugh de Wlonkeslawe as holding half a knight's-fee in the Fief of Tornay. [5] The Bradford Hundred-Roll of 1255 puts down Wlonkislow as a vill of three geldable hides, thus preserving the Domesday estimate.- "Hugh de Wlonkislow, Lord of the Vill, held it in capite, by service of 40 days in time of war, at the Castle of Shrawardine, or of Shrewsbury, at his own cost. He was to be provided with a horse (runcino), a breastplate, a chapel-de-fer, and a lance. The Vill paid 12d. yearly for motfee and 12d. for stretward, and did suit every three weeks to the Hundred-Court". [6] Of the mortgage of 30 acres by Hugh de Longslow's ancestor (atavus), Hugh de Muntein, in Henry II.'s time, the same Record states that "Ysabella de Dunton now holds three-fourths thereof and Robert de Furde one-fourth". The Jurors apparently put the value of the whole tenement at 4d. per acre, or 2s.

[1] Testa de Nevill, p. 56.
[2] Supra, Vol. VIII. p. 197.
[3] Assizes, 6 Hen. III., m. 2 dorso.
[4] Supra, Vol. VI. pp. 288, 289.
[5] Testa de Nevill, p. 46.
[6] Rot. Hundred. II. 55.


in gross;- where, I presume, we must read 10s. in gross. In 1256 we have seen Hugh de Wlonkeslaue engaged as an Attorney in a Drayton Lawsuit. In Hilary Term 1259 Hugh de Wlongeslawe was suing John de Verdon for permission to take estovers in the Bosc of Morton (Moreton Say). I assume that Hugh de Langeslawe, who in 1267 was amerced 2 merks for trespass, was son and heir of the above. Calling him-

HUGH DE LONGSLOW (IV.), I find that in 1270 he had a Writ against William, son of John Hertte, for disseizing him of common pasture in Wlonkeslowe. At the Assizes of 1272 the name of Hugh de Wlonkeslowe as a Juror for Bradford Hundred is cancelled on the Roll. At these Assizes he recovered 20 acres in Wlonkeslowe, of which the Abbot of Combermere had disseized him. His cotemporary success in a Cantlop suit I have related elsewhere. [1] I find him employed on various Inquests in 1276, 1277, 1281, and 1284. The Feodaries of 1284-5 both specify his tenure-in-capite of Wlenkeshale or Longislow, by service of half a knight's-fee, which service, being now, I suppose, returnable at Montgomery Castle, Longislow is called, in one Feodary, a member of the Manor of Montgomery. At his death, in January 1290, Wlonkeslowe was valued at 6. 2s. 4d. per annum. It comprised a messuage, two carucates of demesne land, and an inefficient Mill (molendinum debile) worth 6s. 8d. yearly. It was held by the deceased in capite for half a knight's- fee, his service being to supply one horseman, with hauberk and chapel-de-fer, at Montgomery Castle, in time of war.

HUGH DE LONGSLOW (V.) was questioned, at the Assizes of 1292, for having withdrawn 2s. 8d., such sum having been payable by the Vill of Wlonkeslowe, till 30 years since, for stretward and motfee. His defence, viz. that the King was still seized of the same due, was corroborated by the Sheriff. He was further questioned as to his discharge of the services due on his Serjeantry: to which he replied that nothing was in arrear, as he had only been three years in possession. His homage to the King had been rendered. Another Presentment, by the Bradford Jurors, recalled the original tenure-in-capite of Hugh de Mounteny, and valued Wlonkeslowe at 100s. per annum. The Jurors proceeded to allege several alienations in this Serjeantry, viz. 23 acres held by William de Hodynet, 5 acres by Richard de la Forde, 2 acres by Thomas Rabaz, and a Mill by the Abbot of Combermere. These four parties were summoned. William de Hodynet vainly protested that all his land,

[1] Supra, Vol. VI. p. 289.


thus brought in question, was in Longford, a member of Hodnet. A Jury found the said 23 acres to be in Longslow and the King recovered them, but William de Hodynet negotiated a Fine whereby he was henceforth to hold the premises in capite, at 10s. rent. It was further shown, in respect of Richard de Forde and Thomas Rabaz, that they were tenants in villeinage under William de Hodynet. As to the Abbot, he fined for leave to retain his Mill ad proximum parliamentum.

I find Hugh de Longslow on a local Jury in 1292, and as a Juror on the Forest perambulation of 1300.

The King's Writ of Diem clausit announces his death on March 8, 1314, when he must have been at least 64 years of age. An Inquest held at Drayton on April 2nd following, stated the tenure in capite of Longslow in the usual terms, but only valued the estate at 2. 2s. 2d. per annum. The Coheirs of the deceased were his daughters, Isabel, aged 14 years on Dec. 25, 1313, and Eleanora, aged 10 years on November 1, 1313. Both these Infants were already married, Isabel to Thomas, son of William de Stuch (Styche), and Eleanore to Hugh, son of William de la Hull. [1] From these two Coheiresses the ennobled families of Clive and Hill are on good authority said to be descended. I refer elsewhere for some details of a later date than my limits will allow.

In the Nomina Villarum of March 1316, William de Stuche is alone entered as Lord of Wlonkeslowe. Here I conceive that not only the name of one Coparcener is suppressed, but that the other is erroneously given, that is, the Father's name substituted for the Son's.

The only Undertenants in Longslow whose names I need add to the above account, are Peter de la Ford and Hugh his son, witnesses of a Styche Deed about 1230; William de Longslow, Juror on a Wem Inquest in 1284; and Hugh de Furde, Juror on a Longslow Inquest in 1314.

[1] Inquisitions, 7 Edw. II., No. 22.- William de la Hullo, father of Hugh, was of Hulle, near Burford. I have given account of his ancestors elsewhere (Vol. IV. p. 345).
[2] Blakeway's Sheriffs, pp. 140, 142.


Cold Hatton.

"The same Gerard holds Hatune. Godric held it (in Saxon times), and was free. Here are half a hide and two parts of a virgate, geldable. The arable land in these two Manors (meaning Ellardine and Hatton) is enough for III ox-teams. In demesne there are II teams; and III Serfs, II Neatherds, and VI Boors, with one team. In King Edward's time, the two Manors were worth 38s. yearly. Now they are worth 20s. He (Gerard de Tornai) found them waste". [1]

The reason why Domesday associates the two Manors of Ellardine and Hatton is because they were contiguous, and both held in demesne by Gerard de Tornai, and because their hidage, being fractional when taken separately, amounted exactly to 2 hides when taken together. In other words Hatton was two-thirds of a hide and Ellardine was 1 and a third hides. In all later aspects the histories of Cold Hatton and Ellardine will be found very distinct.

I have discussed under Ercall Church the probability that Earl Hugh gave two parts of the tithes of Ercall and Cold Hatton to Shrewsbury Abbey before Hamo Peverel was seized of either estate. [2] Bishop Clinton's Charter making mention of the said grants calls Cold Hatton by another name, viz. the land of Wiscard. This introduces us to the first known Feoffee of Cold Hatton, viz. that WISCARD whose descendants held both Hatton and Wilsithland under the superior Lords of each estate.

It is worth observing that in 1165 the Kentish Fief of Walcheline Maminot included two feoffments which, I think, must have been held by members of this family of Wiscard. Alan Wisc held one fee, and Baldwin Wisc was a Coparcener in two fees of the said Barony. [4]

Probably Baldwin Wisc was a relation of, but not identical with,-

BALDWIN, SON OF GILBERT WISCARD, who was certainly Lord of Cold Hatton in succession to the said Gilbert. We know this from a Charter to Shrewsbury Abbey which passed between 1182 and

[1] Domesday, fo. 258. b, 2.
[2] Supra, page 108.
[3] Salop Chartulary, No. 325.
[4] Liber Niger, I. pp. 57, 58.


1197, whereby Baldwin Wischard concedes to the Abbey that land of Podeleford which Gilbert his Father gave thereto. [1] Now Polford was a member of Cold Hatton. It is true that William de Hedley (II.) is also said to have given the land of Podeford to Wombridge Priory, [2] but this does not invalidate the genuineness of Baldwin Wischard's Deed, whatever doubt it may create as to his title to Polford.

The period when Baldwin Wischard succeeded his father, Gilbert, can be nearly ascertained.- The Pipe-Roll of 1182, records Baldwin Wischart as accounting 20s. to the King for his Relief of a fifth part of a Knight's-fee. It will presently appear that this must refer to his tenure in capite of Cold Hatton as a Tornai Escheat.

A Feodary, drawn up about the year 1212, registers Baldwin Wischart as holding Hatton in capite, by ancient tenure. He is here said to owe the service of one-fourth of a knight's-fee. [3] The Scutage-Rolls, already given, [4] correct this, and show that Baldwin Wischard's service was one-fifth of a fee. His first contribution of this kind was in 1203, his last in 1235-6 (to the Aid on marriage of the King's Sister), when he paid 5s. 3d. or nearly one-fifth of 2 merks. Subsequent Scutages, though nominally charged on Baldwin Wischard, were really paid by-

WILLIAM WISCHARD, his son and heir. A Feodary of about 1240, enters William Wyschard as holding one-fifth of a fee in Hatton, of the fees of William de Cantilupe. [5] I take this to be a mere mistake as to tenure, for I cannot find that Cold Hatton was one of those Tornai Fees which owed ward to Montgomery Castle, otherwise the error might have been accounted for. William Wischard's name appears on Jury-Lists or Testing-clauses of the years 1246, 1249, 1256, and 1259. In 1246 we have had mention of his brother, Robert. [6]

The Bradford Hundred-Roll of 1255 notices Colde-hatton as a geldable Manor of half a hide (something less than its Domesday hidage), and as being held for one-fifth of a fee. William (Wischard), Lord of the Vill, held it in capite of the King, and did 20 days' ward in time of war at the Castle of Slobir' (read Salopesbury) at his own cost, with horse, hauberk, lance, and chapel de fer. The Vill paid 2d. yearly for motfee, and 2d. for stretward, and did suit

[1] Salop Chartulary, No. 283, attested by Robert de Salop, Richard (?) Griffin, Wido de Sagheberie, Guimar de Rodinton, Richard fitz Siward, Robert de Leicestre, William do Humma, etc.
[2] Supra, page 79, note 4.
[3] Testa de Nevill, p. 56.
[4] Supra, Vol. VIII. p. 197.
[5] Testa de Nevill, p. 46.
[6] Supra, Vol. VII. p. 381.


every three weeks to the Hundred. Thomas le Milkar held half a virgate in the said vill by gift of the Lord thereof, and Thomas fitz Thomas held a whole virgate by purchase from Baldwin, the present Lord's father. [1]

In September 1257, William Wischard of Hatton appears on a Hodnet Inquest.

Between the years 1260 and 1265, William Wischard gave Cold Hatton to Lilleshall Abbey, and the grant was specified and sanctioned in Henry III.'s Confirmation to Lilleshall, dated Nov. 29, 1265, as "the donation and concession which William Wyschard had made of the vill of Goldehaton".

In the respective grants of Polford by a Hadley and a Wischard to two different Monasteries, we have had a hint that the Lords of High Ercall asserted some claim on Cold Hatton. This idea is backed by a quitclaim which must have passed about the year 1270. Thereby John de Erkalewe releases to Lilleshull Abbey his claim in the vill of Colde-Hatton, saving only to himself and his heirs the suit which the Abbot's Tenants in Coldehatton owed to the Quit-claimant's Mill of La Lake. Witnesses,- Sirs Odo de Hodnet, John fitz Hugh, and John fitz Aer, Knights; Robert Corbet of Morton, Peter de Eyton, Robert de Stanton, and Philip de Peninton. [2]

The following Fine, levied in Easter Term 1283, is, I presume, of a subtenure in Cold Hatton. Richard de Preston and Isolda, his wife (Impedients), acknowledge their grant of a messuage and half-virgate in Hacton to Robert, son of Henry Chardemere of Rowelton (Plaintiff), who pays 10 merks for the grant, and is to hold the premises under the Grantors and the heirs of Isolda, at a rose-rent.

A Tenure-Roll, about 1285, states that "the Abbot of Lilleshull holds the vill of Cold Hatton of the gift of William Wechard, in pure alms, and by confirmation of King Henry III". At the Assizes of 1292 the Bradford Jurors presented the Abbot for exercising rights of warren in Hattone and Langedone. The process of Quo Waranto, which included this and other questions, has been already set forth, [3] as also the Charter which justified the usage of Free Warren in Cold Hatton. [4] Another question raised at these Assizes admitted that William Wyschard's grant of Cold Hatton to Lilleshull had received Royal sanction, but Hugh de Lowther (the Crown Prosecutor) insisted that the services due from the Vill had never been cancelled. Vainly, and I think falsely, did the Abbot

[1] Rot. Hundred. II. 55.
[2] The late Mr. George Morris's Deeds.
[3] Supra, Vol. VIII. p. 222.
[4] Ibidem, page 239.


assert that Henry III. had never been seized of any such services. The King recovered both the services and the arrears thereof, viz. 10s. for arrears of stretward, [1] and at the rate of 2s. per annum for suit. The last expression is explained by a list of Crown-dues acknowledged in the Chartulary of Lilleshall Abbey. [2] It there appears that the Abbot was bound to pay the King 2s. per annum at Michaelmas, in lieu of the ward due to Shrewsbury Castle, and the suit due to Bradford Hundred, from the Vill of Colde Hatton. The Vill itself is further entered as liable for 4d. per annum,- the stretward and motfegh due at the same term.

The Taxation of 1291 gives the Abbot of Lylleshull 1. 7s. of assized rents at Coldehatton. [3] In 30 Edward I. (1301-2), Richard de Mora, a Tenant of the Abbey at Cold Hatton, died. His heir remained in ward to the Abbot for one fortnight. Then Ayota, wife of Roger de Hatton, purchased the wardship for 5s. and married the ward to her daughter Agnes. [4]

In the Valor of 1534-5 the Abbot of Lilleshull's receipts from Cold Hatton, Longdon, and Tern, are massed together; but the Ministers' Accounts, six years later, give a Free Rent, of 5s. 4d. only, as arising from Coldhalton. [5]


THIS was another of those Manors which Gerard de Tornai held wholly in demesne at Domesday.-

"The same Gerard holds Sanford (of the Earl). Uluiet held it (in Saxon times) and was free. Here are III hides, geldable. There is (arable) land (enough) for III ox-teams. In demesne there are a team and a half-team; and there are II Serfs and IIII Villains with one team. Here is a Wood which will fatten 30 swine; and a Haye. In King Edward's time the manor was worth 15s. (per annum): now it is worth 10s. He (Gerard) found it waste". [6]

[1] The calculation probably included motfee. The two were 4d. per annum and 10s. would be 30 years' arrears, which would lead us to date the Abbot's liability as commencing in 1262.
[2] Folio 134.
[3] Pope Nich. Taxation, p. 261.
[4] Lilleshall Chartulary, fo. 153.
[5] Monasticon, Vol. VI. p. 265.
[6] Domesday, fo. 258, b, 2.


The Seigneury of Sandford must be taken to have passed in the usual course, viz. from Gerard de Tornai to his daughter Sibil and her husband Hamo Peverel, and subsequently to have escheated to the Crown by failure of all lineal descendants of Gerard de Tornai. Like other Tornai Escheats, Sandford became a Tenure-in-capite de eschaeta, a thing which was distinguished from a Tenure-in-capite de Corona in this way.- The King, as Suzerain of Sandford, merely represented Gerard de Tornai, and was not entitled to custody or wardship of such lands as his Tenant at Sandford may have held under other Suzerains. The history of Sandford Manor is however more interesting in respect of its Feoffees than in respect of any abstract question of feudal usage. It is one of those very few Shropshire estates which can be said to be held by the lineal descendant, in the male line, of its earliest known Feoffee. Whether the Sandfords of Sandford were first enfeoffed by Gerard de Tornai, by Hamo Peverel, or by Henry II., is matter of conjecture. I incline to date their feoffment from the aera of Henry I., and if so must attribute it to Hamo Peverel. I think too that the Arms born by the Sandfords indicate an alliance with, or a descent from, that great House of Fitz Warin, which first came into notice during the reign of Henry I.

Whether the Sandfords succeeded to Ruthall (another Tornai Escheat) as heirs of Gerelmus, its Domesday Tenant, is a question already stated to be incapable of solution. [1] We may safely declare the Sandfords to have been Tenants-in-capite of both Manors, as early as the reign of Henry II.

I now proceed to give such particulars of this family as have not already transpired under Ruthall, or under Sutton Maddock.-

RICHARD DE SANFORD, the first known representative of his line, occurs in 1167, when he was amerced half a merk by Alan de Nevill, a Justice of the Forest. He renders account of the debt on the Pipe-Roll of 1169.

THOMAS DE SANDFORD, the next in this succession, was living in 8 Richard I. (1196-7), and was, with his wife Amabil, daughter and coheir of Richard Cardiff, party to a fine then levied with Thomas de Bavis and Hadwiss his wife, the other coheir of Richard Cardiff. Sandford and his wife, as Tenants, concede to the other party, as Plaintiff's, a moiety of the following estates, viz. three-fourths of a knight's-fee in Toppesfeld, one-fourth of a knight's-fee in Grantendon, one knight's-fee in Hameledeun, one-fourth of a knight's-fee

[1] Supra, Vol. IV. p. 48.


in the New vill of Glamorgan, one knight's-fee in Glamorgan-de-St. Hilary, and 3 hides and 1 virgate of land in Haiston, all which had been held by Richard Cardiff, father of Amabil and Hadwiss. [1] I cannot trace any share in the above estates to any later member of the family of Sandford, but the subject is one on which extant evidence is hardly to be expected.

It would seem that this Thomas de Sandford was a Knight, and that he lodged a complaint with the Court of Rome as to the spoliation of Sandford Chapel by the Co-Rectors of Prees, who had stripped it of certain land and rents, wherewith it had been endowed by the Complainant's Ancestors. It is both perplexing and remarkable that in a Rescript of Pope Innocent III., dated at St. Peter's on March 8, in the 17th year of the said Pope's Pontificate (i.e. March 3, 1214), this complaint is treated as a recent one, while it is certain that Thomas de Sandford had been dead at least 10 years.-

The Papal Letter is only half preserved, but enough remains to show that all Abbots of the Cistercian Order, within the Diocese of Coventry, and the Prior of Ranton are appointed Judges-delegate to remedy any injustice which may have been done to the "Knight, Thomas", the complainant. [2] The well known delays, which attended suits in the Court of Rome, and the possible loss of some previous documents, may perhaps account for the anachronism which separates this Papal Rescript from the aera of him who sought it.

RALPH DE SANDFORD, the successor, and either the son or brother, of Thomas, occurs almost continuously from 1203 to 1231. Of this we have had much evidence under Sutton Maddock and Ruthall, to which I have something now to add. In Michaelmas Term 1207, Thomas Basset was impleading Ralph de Sanford for damages done by the Defendant's Cattle in breaking into the Plaintiff's Park. Sanford not appearing, his Securities for appearance in Hilary Term following, were ordered to be increased. I find nothing more of this suit and cannot indicate the precise locality in which Basset and

[1] Dugdale's Visitation of Shropshire, 1663-4 (In Collegio Armorum), fo. 105.

[2] Ibidem, fo. 104, b.- I give the transcript of the Papal Letter, marking some presumed omissions hy parentheses.- Innocentius Episcopus, etc., Abbatibus Cisterciencis Ordinis et Priori de Ranton, Coventr. Dioc. (salutem). Querelam Thomae Militis accepimus continentem quod Thomas et N. (Rectores) ecclesiae (de Pres) Coventr. Dioc. Capellam de Sanfort quibusdam radditibus, terris, et aliis rebus, quas ancessores ipsius militis eidem concessere Capella ad usum proborum deserviestium in eadem, contra judiciam spoliarunt. Cum igitur spoliatis injuste succurrendum (decernimus), audiatis, etc. Testes autem (qui se odio, gratia, etc. as in the usual form). Quod si non omnes, etc. (interesse poteritis, etc. as in the usual form). Dat' Rome apud S. Petrum, 5 non. Mart., Pontificatus (nostri) anno xvii.


Sanford were likely thus to come into collision. However I may observe that Thomas Basset of Colinton had estates, both in Cheshire and North Shropshire, with his wife Philippa, daughter and coheir of William Malbanc.

About 1212, we have a list of Tenants who "held in capite of the Escheats of Gerard de Thurnay". Ralph de Sandford thus held Sanford by service of half a knight's-fee. [1] A letter written by the Sheriff of Salop and Staffordshire to King John contains internal evidence of its date, viz. the "Close of Easter" 1215. It is an able digest of the political state of the two Counties at that period of commotion. [2] It certifies, among other things, that Ralph de Sinfort was one of those Salopians who had been, and still continued, opposed to the Crown in the existing war. The effect of this intelligence on the vengeful King does not appear till March 8, 1216, when the Sheriff of Shropshire is ordered by a Writ-Close to give all the land in his Bailiwick which had been Ralph de Samford's to David de Malpas. [3] In November 1217, another Writ of King Henry III. certifies the Sheriff of Shropshire that Ralph de Samford had returned to his allegiance, and orders a reversal of the disseizin, which he had suffered on his rebellion against King John. [4] The following Fine, levied at Westminster on October 19, 1224, probably relates to a disputed marriage-portion, the portion, I think, of a sister of Ralph de Sanford. Henry de Dorlaveston (now Darliston), and Agnes his wife, tenants of 3 bovates in Samford, whereof was Suit at law, [5] quitclaim the same to Ralph de Samford, Plaintiff. In return Ralph concedes the premises, to Henry and Agnes, and the heirs of Agnes' body, to hold under himself, at a rent of 2d., payable annually at Christmas. If Agnes should die without issue, then, on the further decease of her husband, the premises were to revert to Samford, who now paid 3 merks to Henry and Agnes. The said Henry and Agnes further renounced all claim to two virgates in Dorlaveston which had been in dispute between Samford and themselves.

I have already given a synopsis of the Scutages to which Ralph de Sandford was assessed, from 1204 to 1232. [6]

The subsequent use of his name in Scutage-Rolls is no proof that

[1] Testa de Nevill, p. 56.
[2] Vincent, Vol. III. p. 98 (In Colleg. Armorum).
[3] [4] Claus. I. p. 252, 375.
[5] The Plea-Roll of Michaelmas Term 1224 notes the suit (alluded to) in these words:- Rad' de Saunford petit versus Henr' de Dorlaveston et Agnetem uxorum, tres bovatas terrae in Saunford. Corcordati sunt. Also the Pipe-Roll of 1225 shows Ralph de Sanford as accounting half a merk, pro licentia concordandi cum Henrico de Orlaveston.
[6] Supra, Vol. VIII. p. 197.


he was living. In short, we know that he was deceased at Michaelmas 1236. All that I have further to say on this subject is that the Pipe-Roll of 1229 enters him as still owing half a merk for the Scutage of Montgomery, which had been put in charge five years previously.

Ralph de Sandford (I.) purchased Styche from Robert, son of Robert Belle. Of that matter I shall speak elsewhere. The following Deed is more apposite to our present subject.-

Between 1224 and 1234, "Radulf, Lord of Sanford", gives to William, son of Richard de Lake, for his homage and service and for half a merk, paid on entry, an assart in Bromlege, containing 29 seylions, near Berndehurste;- also an assart called Evichesleg (Aychley), reaching from the old king's-highway to Stockenebrigge, and extending beyond Stockenebrigg to Hurst, on that side which was nearest Bromlege, and so on, close by the margin (costeram) of Hurst, to the Moor between Berdehurste and Evichesleg, and so going down from the said Hurst through the moor, according to the bounds made between the parties, and past a certain meadow, held by R. fitz Eda of the Grantor, and past a certain other meadow, from Ermittelegesford up to the boundary of Loskesford (Losford);- the whole to be held by the Grantee under the Grantor and his heirs, in fee, etc., with all easements pertaining to the Grantor's vill of Sanford. The Grantee is to pay an annual rent of 2s. and one hog, when any swine of his, above seven in number, shall have been fattened on the Grantor's pesson. Witnesses,- William de Stanton, Hugh de Evechestan (probably Hawkstone), John de Leeton, Edwin de Wilaston, William de Culleshasel, Alan de Nakinton, Adam de Stichele (Steel), Yvo de Suletone, and many others. [1]

Before I quit this notice of Ralph de Sandford (I.) I should set forth a certain Document in which the initial letter of his name occurs. It is an abstract of a Rescript by Pope Honorius III. and is of date September 18, 1218. [2] Honorius Episcopus, etc. dilectis filiis de Bildewas, de Hagemon (et) de Wanbruge Prioribus, [3] Coventr. Dioc. (salutem). R. Laicus suam obtulit questionem quod cum T. et N., Rectores ecclesie de Prees, in Capella sua de Sanford divina celebrare officia teneantur, certis sibi propter hoc terris et decimis assignatis, iidem id efficere renuunt. Ideoque, partibus convocatis,

[1] Charter in possession of T.H. Sandford, Esq., of Sandford. This Charter is indorsed as Carta de Acheley, showing that Aychley, near Mickley, was the place concerned.
[2] Dugdale's Visitation (ut supra).
[3] It was probably the Abbots of Buildwas and Haughmond, whom the Pope intended to address:- or perhaps the transcript is inaccurate.


audiatis et terminetis (litem). Lateran'. 14 kal Oct., Pontificatus anno 3is.- The significances of this Document are, I presume, that the previous appeal by Thomas de Sandford to Pope Innocent III. had resulted in assigning both the duties and the emoluments of Sandford Chapelry to the Co-Rectors of Prees;- that they had accepted the benefice without any regard to its obligations,- and that a second appeal, by the Representative of Thomas de Sandford to the Representative of St. Peter, was now put in course of arbitration. It is difficult, at this distance of time, to decide whether the ascendency acquired in England by Pope Innocent III., or the venality and sloth of the superior Clergy, did most to undermine that ramified parochial system, which owed its most liberal support, if not its prime organization, to the terror and remorse which prevailed in King Stephen's time.- If it be true that great evil may and does sometimes result in great good, it is hardly to be expected that the good, thus engendered, will be permanent.

RICHARD DE SANDFORD (II.), son and heir of Ralph, succeeded him between the years 1231 and 1335. At Michaelmas in the latter year, and at Easter 1236, Richard de Sonford is enrolled as paying, in two instalments, the sum of one merk (the proportion due on half a Tornai Fee) to the Aid on marriage of the King's Sister. [1] In July 1241, I find Richard de Sanford named as a Justiciar to try a local cause. He died, as I have said under Sutton, in or about the year 1249, leaving a son and heir, Ralph, then 14 years of age, and a widow, Eleanor, who remarried to Richard Burnell. The Inquest on his death makes Sanford and Ruthall to have been held in capite, collectively for half a knight's-fee. Richard de Sanford had also held 7s. 4d. assized rent in Derlawston (i.e. Darliston), of the Bishop of Coventry. His whole estate (including 4. 4s. 8d. from Brockton and Caughley [2]) was computed at 13. 3s. 7d. per annum, an income which in those days was far above the average of knightly estates. Having now determined the aera of Sir Richard de Sandford, I proceed to notice a variety of documents, dated and undated, in which his name occurs.- The abstracted Deed which I first give, passed between 1232 and 1242, and is a grant by a Tenant of Sir Richard de Sandford to that Tenant's Nephew.-

Adam Venator, filius Wulrici de Wichishalle, in legia potestate dedi Willielmo filio Alicie sororis mee, pro homagio et pro sex marcis et dimid', unam dimidiam virgatam in villa de Sanford. H.T. Domino Ricardo domino de Sanford, Adam de Stieleg, Edwino de

[1] Testa de Nevill, p. 61.
[2] Supra, Vol. II. pp. 43, 127.


Wilaviston, Ricardo filio Roberti Sanfort, Johanne de Darlaviston. [1]

A Fine, levied at Shrewsbury on November 18, 1240, shows the above Adam Venator under the name of Adam le Veiner. He, as Tenant of 1 virgates in Saunford, and William fitz William, as Tenant of half a virgate and 8 acres in the same vill, had been impleaded by Adam fitz Richard (whom I know to have been Adam Venator's nephew), for the said tenements. Both Defendants had called Richard de Saunford to warranty. The latter now appeared, as vouching the required warranty, and so becoming a party to the Fine. The said Fine was that Adam fitz Richard quitclaimed all his right in the premises to Richard de Saunford and his heirs, and also conceded to the said Richard de Saunford 3 nokes, viz. the whole land which the Quit-claimant held in the vill of Saunford,to hold to Richard de Saunford and his heirs, under the Lords of the Fee. In return Richard de Saunford gave to the Quit-claimant one-fourth part of the Manor of Whitekeshal, to hold to the said Quit-claimant and his heirs, under the Lords of the Fee.

A Suit, tried at Westminster in October 1242, shows that the above Adam Venator was then dead, and that his widow, under the name of "Edith, widow of Adam le Hunter", was seeking dower in her husband's former estate at Sandford. She so sued Richard de Sanford for thirds of 2 bovates of land in Sandford, and she sued William de Sanford for a moiety of 12 denariates of rent there. The parties accorded, Richard de Sanford buying off the claim against him for 2 merks, and William de Sanford allowing a third of the 12 denariates of rent held by him. [2]

A Deed, which must needs be dated between 1242 and 1249, shows Adam fitz Richard (the nephew of Adam Venator) re-exchanging his estate at Whixall for a tenement in Sandford. [3]- Adam filius

[1] Dugdale's Visitation (ut supra), fo. 107. The Seal of this Deed is allusive to the Grantor's profession. In the background is a tree, or fleury device: in the foreground a Greyhound courant. The Legend (SIGILLUM ADE VENATORIS) is very distinct.-

The Deed, I suppose, suggested the Heraldic statement that "Ralph de Sandford married Alice, daughter of Wolfric of Quixhull, and sister of Adam Venator". The Heralds have however altogether erred in making Alice's husband to be that Ralph de Sandford who died in 1308.

I think it a question whether Alice's husband was not William, a younger brother of Ralph de Sanford (I.), by whom she had a son, a second William, the Grantee in the above Deed. If William, son of Alice, had been brother or half-brother to Richard de Sanford (II.), the latter would surely have so described him, and not called him "William son of Alice de Sanford", as he does in a subsequent Deed.
[2] Placita, Mich. Tm. 26 Hen. III.,m. 16.
[3] Charter in possession of T. H. Sandford, Esq.- This Deed has a Seal with the device of a Fleur de lys, and the Legend- SIGILL. ADE FILII RICARDI.


Ricardi filii Wulfrici de Witekeshale dedi et concessi et quiet' clamavi Ricardo Domino de Sanford et heredibus suis totam quartam partem ville de Witekeshale cum pertinenciis, scilicet totem jus et clameum que ego et heredes mei in tota villa de Witekeshale habuimus, etc. in excambium dimidie virgate terre et unius noke et cujusdam prati in villa de Sanford, quam dimidiam virgatam tenuit Editha vidua, et quam nokam tenuit Willielmus filius Rogeri, et quod pratum Willielmus filium Willielmi, et Ricardus Spere assartaverunt;- Reddendo de dicta parte de Wytekeshal Ricardo de Lache et heredibus, in festo Sancti Martini, 21 den. pro omnibus, salvo forinseco servicio. H.T. Domino Willielmo de Albo-Monasterio, Domino Odone de Hodenhet, Odone de Wilauston, Thoma de Prees, Grifino filio Willielmi, [1] Adam Clerico, Adam de Scalera, et multis aliis.

A deed or fragment of a Deed, which I date about 1240, represents "Richard, Lord of Sandford", as granting something to "William, son of Alice de Sanford, for his homage and for 20s". This Deed was sealed with the Sandford Arms,- Quarterly, per fesse indented ermine and azure, and was attested by Sir Radulf de Hodnet, Thomas de Prees, Edwin de Willaveston, William de Calverhall, Roger de Itefeld, Adam de Stiele, John de Leton, Philip, Clerk of Prees, John his brother, John de Hawekiston, John de Dorlawston, Richard, son of Robert de Sandford, Richard, son of Alexander de Wilaveston, and others. [2] In another Deed, still more briefly given, I find Walter de Say (he was Lord of Moreton Say) granting to Sir Richard de Sontford, for his homage, a moor, called Wallmore, near Blechley. [3]

The following Deed, which I date about 1245, induces me to think that Gilian, wife of Richard de Lake (ancestor of the Lacons) was a Sandford. If so, a probability arises that the Lacons assumed the Sandford Arms with reference to this match.-

Ricardus filius Ricardi de Laka, propria potestate existens, dedi Ricardo filio Roberti de Sonfort pro homagio et servicio suo et pro xx solidis, duas virgatas terre in villa de Sonfort, scilicet illas quas Dominus Ricardus de Sonfort [4] dedit cum Giliana matre mea Ricardo de Lake patri meo in libero maritagio, etc.;- tenend' et habend' de

[1] Now or afterwards of Ightfield (supra, p. 209) [2] Dugdale's Visitation, fo. 106-b collated with Hari. MS. 1396, fo. 358-b.
[3] Dugdale (ut supra), fo. 105.
[4] The Richard de Sandford, who thus portioned Gilian, must have been Richard de Sandford (I.); for Richard de Sandford (II.), succeeding after 1231, cannot have so sanctioned a marriage, the issue of which was of disposing power before 1249.-

A fragment of a Deed (quoted in Dugdale's Visitation) alludes to Richard, son of Robert de Sanford, as Grantee of lands in Sanford from Ralph de Sanford. The Deed was sealed with the effigy of a knight on horseback. I conclude that the Grantor was Ralph de Sandford (I.), who, we know, used such a Seal (supra, Vol. II. p. 126, note 75).


me et heredibus meis, libere, etc.;- Reddendo 6 solidos, etc., et salvo forinseco servicio. Ego vero Ricardus de Laka, etc. H.T. Domino Ricardo de Sonfort, Hugone de Say, Willielmo de Calverhale, Rogerio de Ittefeld, Radig de Hinet, Adam de Stieleg, Ivone de Suleton, Johanne de Letton et aliis. [1]

Another Charter is the surrender of a claim of tenancy to the Lord of the Fee.- Henricus clericus de Ictefeld filius Willielmi filii Gutlie concessi et dimisi et quiet' clamavi Domino Ricardo de Sonford et heredibus totum jus in dimidia virgata terre in villa de Sonford et in le Wynais quam de eo tenere clamavi. Pro hac Ricardus dedit mihi tres marcas. H.T. Edwin de Wilaviston, Willielmo de Caverhale, Rogero de Ictefeld, Ada de Stiele, Johann de Letun, Ricardo filio Alexandri, Ricardo filio Roberti de Sonford et aliis. [2]

RALPH DE SANDFORD (II.), son and heir of Richard, has already been spoken of as a Minor in September 1299 and January 1256, and as in ward to Odo de Hodnet. [3] A Patent of 1251 shows Richard Burnell and Alianore his wife (she was Richard de Sandford's widow) impleading Odo de Hodenet for having disseized them of common pasture in Samford. By an entry on the Plea-Roll of November 1253, it appears that Odo de Hodnet, having been sued for seizing the Cattle of Richard Burnel, had repeatedly failed to appear. William de Devenays was Burnel's Attorney in the Suit, now again adjourned.

The Hundred-Roll of 1255 uses a strange but quite intelligible expression when it says that "Odo de Hodnet, as Guardian, holds Ralph de Santford of the King in capite, by service of one Muntor at Shewarthyn (Shrawardine), for forty days in time of war, at his own cost. The Vill was III hides (its Domesday measure) and paid 12d. yearly for stretward and 12d. for motfee. It did due suit to County and Hundred, and was geldable. Alienora, Lady of Sanford, had been in the King's custody and was now married to Richard Burnell, the Jurors knew not by what authority. The land of the said Lady was worth 100s. per annum. The King had given the (above) wardship to Germanus Cissor, and Odo de Hodnet had obtained it from the said Germanus". [4] The Pipe-Roll of this same year (1255) shows that "Richard Burnel was amerced 10 merks, because of his marriage with Alienora de Saunford being

[1] [2] Charters at Sandford.
[3] Supra, Vol. II. pp. 127, 128.
[4] Rot. Hundred. II. 57.


without Royal license". His Securities were Robert de Staunton, Geoffrey de Thorp, Henry de Shavinton, and Hugh de Beckbury.

Notwithstanding the continued minority of Ralph de Sanford in January 1256, it was found at the Assizes, then held, that Richard de Wardhull and five others had disseized him of half an acre in Saunford. At the Assizes of 1272 Ralph de Sondeford was Foreman of the Jurors of Bradford Hundred. The Feodary of 1284 merely states that "Ralph de Sanford holds Sanford in capite for half a knight's-fee". That of 1285-6 says that "Ralph Sondford, holds the vill of Sondford, and also the vill of Rowthall, in the Hundred of Monslow, of the King, in capite sine medio, by service of finding one horseman at Montgomery in war-time, for 40 days, at his own cost"

A Jury-List of February 1290 exhibits Sir Ralph de Sanford as a knight. At the Assizes of October 1292 he was one of the Elizors for Bradford Hundred. Among the Placita Coronae, his tenure of Saundford is properly classed as a Serjeantry, and the integrity of the Serjeantry was asserted, but I question with what accuracy, if by integrity it was meant that nothing in Sandford had been alienated by feoffment. The Manor was calculated to be worth 10 per annum. As to the service due on his Serjeantry, Ralph de Sanford declared that he had discharged it in the late wars; and he cited the Records of Bogo de Knovill, Custos of Montgomery Castle, in proof of his assertion. He was dismissed sine die.

I must here set forth another document in proof that Ralph de Sandford's services had been duly discharged. The campaign technically known as "the war of Lewellyn and David" ended in the death of Lewellyn on Dec. 11, 1282. Ralph de Sandford was then about 47 years of age, and it would seem that he compounded by a pecuniary Fine for his personal services.-

It is probable that the date expressed in the following receipt is inaccurate, for it is unlikely that such a composition should have remained due for a space of 24 years.-

Universis etc. Bogo de Cnovill, salutem. Sciatis me recepisse 40 sol. pro bono et laudabili servicio Domini Radulfi de Sanford, tempore guerre Lewelini et David per Willielmum filium dicti Radulfi fideliter impensum (read impensos). Dat' apud Senitone 8 kal. Mai' 34 Regis Edwardi (i.e. April 24, 1306). [1] I suppose that Sir Bevis

[1] Dugdale's Visitation, fo. 105, b.- The Historians of Shrewsbury (Vol. I. p. 142, note 2) seem to have misunder- stood the meaning of this document. For impensum they supplied impenso, making the word to agree with servicio. But it is clear that William son of Ralph de Sanford cannot have been 10 years of age in 1282. (My acknowledgments are due to the Rev. F. Le Griz White for this sound piece of criticism.)


de Cnovill acknowledged the above payment, as Custos of Montgomery Castle.

King Edward II.'s Writ of Diem clausit on the death of Ralph de Sanford bears date on January 4, 1308. An Inquest followed on January 14th at Sandford. It found that the deceased had held the hamlet of Sandford in capite, by service of one armed man, with a horse, not barbed, at Montgomery, for 40 days in war-time. Two shillings per annum were due on Sandford to the King's Bailiffs, for stretward (and motfee, I presume). The Vill owed monthly suit to the County, and suit every three weeks to the Hundred of Bradford. The deceased had held 10s. rent in Derlaston and Mitteneley (Mickley) under the Bishop of Chester, for which he was bound to do suit at the Manorial Court of Prees. Richard, son and heir of the deceased, was said to be 30 years of age. [1] It is probable that he was somewhat older.

The public aera of Ralph de Sandford (II.) being now ascertained, as from 1256 to 1307, when he was 72 years of age, the following documents refer to the private affairs of himself and his family.-

Between the years 1256 and 1272, Richard de Esche and his wife Agnes release and quitclaim to Ralph de Sanford, their Lord, 3 bovates in the vill of Sanford, which were the right and inheritance of Agnes, and which she and her husband held under Ralph de Sanford by a rent of 2d. It is further stipulated that Ralph and his heirs should pay the said rent of 2d. to his Mother, Dame Elyanore, for her life, and in the name of dower. Witnesses,- Sir O. de Hodenet, Robert Corbet of Morton, Robert de Morton Say, Thomas de Wilaston, Robert son of Adam de Wilaston, Robert de Blecheleg, Robert de Heselchaue, and others. [2] About the same time, William Pimot of Sontford gives and quitclaims to Ralph, son of Richard, Lord of Sontford, and his heirs, five acres in the fields of Sontford, viz. those which the Grantor had given to his son Thomas, one whereof lay in the field towards Willaston, in Le Pull, between the Lord's land and William Faber's land, etc. Witnesses,- Thomas, Lord of Willaston; Robert fitz Adam of Willaston; Richard fitz Godith of Willaston; Hugh, Lord of Stiele; and Reginald Modi of Prees. [3]

[1] Inquisitions, 1 Edw. II., No. 5.
[2] Charter at Sandford. It is evident that Agnes de Esche was heiress of Agnes wife of Henry de Darliston, who obtained these 3 bovatee by the Fine of 1224, already recited (supra, p. 224).
[3] Charter ibidem.- Other localities named in this Deed are Le Middelfeld, Dunshursteforlond, Le Pulhurne, Hesforlong, and the field towards Durlaston. Intermixed lands were held hy Philip Medicos, Richard fitz William, John Forester, and William Letoke.


The same William Pimot of Sontford (at a later period, I think) gives and quitclaims to Sir Ralph his Lord, a seylion which he held of him, bounded by Robert Alemare's garden, by the watercourse which led to the Lord's garden, by William fitz William's garden, and by John Sissor's land. For this Sir Ralph paid 4s. Witnesses,- Thomas, Lord of Willaston; Robert fitz Adam de Willaston; Hugh de Stiele; Reginald Modi; and Richard, Clerk of Mitneleg. [1]

About 1274-1284, Alina, daughter of William Pymot of Sonford, quitclaims to Sir Ralph de Sonford and his heirs, for 6 merks, all right in a virgate which her father gave her, and in a messuage which he formerly held in the vill of Sonford. Witnesses,- Sir Odo de Hodnet; Robert de Say, Lord of Moreton; John de Hauckestan; Ivo de Soleton; Hugh de Stiele, and others.

About the year 1284, Hugh, Lord of Stiele, sold to William, son of Ralph de Sanford, one-fourth of Wilkeshal, the Grantee covenanting to discharge all services due to the Lord of the Fee, and ostensibly paying 20 merks to the Grantor. The Deed was attested by Sir Hodo de Hodenet, Sir Robert Corbet, William de Titneley, Ivo de Suleton and John de Hauckestan; [3] but, as we shall see, the purchase was afterwards completed for other considerations.

About 1285-90, Yvo fitz Adam of Wickeshale gave to Sir Ralph de Sontford all the Seigneury (dominium) which he had over John, son of John, son of Yovan Campion of Wickeshale, and over the land which the said John held under the Grantor in that vill, with all rents which he used to pay the Grantor, viz. 17d. per annum, and a pair of white gloves, and with all escheats, heriots, pannages, homages, wards, reliefs, incidentals (casibus), and with all outgoings (exitibus) and services;- to hold to Sir Ralph and his heirs, under the Grantor and his heirs, in fee and inheritance, by a rent of one pair of white gloves, payable at Sontford on Michaelmas-day. For this grant Sir Ralph paid 2 merks and 40d. (i.e. 80s.). Witnesses,- Sir Robert Corbet, Lord of Morton; Sir William, Lord of Hodenet; Robert de Say of Morton; Hugh de Stiele; Reginald Modi; Philip de Montagu; William de Hadleg; Madoc de Wickeshale; and others. [4]

In or about the year 1290, "Hugh, Lord of Stiele, in his liege power and full health, gives and quitclaims to William, son of Ralph Lord of Sonford, and to the heirs of the said William, a whole fourth

[1] [2] [3] [4] Charters in possession of T.H. Sandford, Esq., of Sandford.


of the vill of Wilkeshal, with tac, tol, Haneth, and With, and other possible issues of the said land;- to hold in fee under the Grantor and his heirs, they retaining no demand thereon; but the Grantee rendering the service due to the Chief-Lord, viz. 15d. in lieu of all services. For this grant, Ralph, father of the Grantee, gave the Grantor half a virgate in the vill of Sonford, to hold for life, with all victuals and clothing becomingly (honorabiliter) necessary for him. Witnesses,- Sir Robert Corbet; Sir John fitz Aer; Sir William de Hodenet; Sir William de Titneleg, then Sheriff; Yvo de Suleton; Robert de Say; William de Hauckeston; Philip de Montacute; and many others". [1]

By Writ dated at Moundford on Wednesday before the feast of St. James, 18 Edward (i.e. on July 19, 1290), "Hugh, Lord of Stiele, names his brother Richard's son, Philip, his attorney, to give William, son of Sir Ralph de Sanford, seizin of the tenement which the said Hugh had in the vill of Quickeshalle". [2]

From the same authority I learn, but without any means of dating or allocating the document, that there was sometime a dispute about fosses and bounds, between Sir Ralph de Sandford and Richard, son of William de Sanford.

Before I proceed with any account of Richard de Sandford, eldest son and heir of Ralph de Sandford (II.), I will say something of the younger sons of the said Ralph.

WILLIAM DE SANDFORD, one of the said younger sons, became enfeoffed, in a fourth part of Whixall, as we have seen by various documents of about 1284 and 1290.

About 1305, Alice, wife (widow, I presume) of Madoc fitz William of Wyekesal surrenders to William de Sontford and his heirs all right, whether in the way of dower or otherwise, in a croft, grange and dovecote, which Robert de Radewey, formerly Vicar of Pres, bought from her husband. Witnesses,- Philip de Montacute, William de Haddeleye, John fitz Yevan, John fitz William, William Young (Juvene), and others. [3]

About 1310, John, son of Richard de Wyekeshall gives to William, son of Sir Ralph de Sontford all his lands and tenements within and without the vill of Wyckeshall (except a capital messuage, etc. between the lands of Hugh fitz Alan and John de Montacute, which Wronou fitz Huninc formerly held, and except a croft called Blakecroft, between lands of Hugh fitz Alan and Richard fitz William);- to hold of the Lord of the Fee, by accustomed services.

[1] Charter ibidem.
[2] Dugdale's Visitation, fo. 106.
[3] Charters at Sandford.


Witnesses,- William de Weston, Lord of Hauckestane; Andrew de Kendal, Lord of Soulton; William de Haddelee; John de Montacute; Thomas de Calverhall; Thomas fitz Heylin; John fitz William. [1]

The indorsement of a Sandford Deed quotes a Darliston Court-Roll of 5 Edw. II. (1311-2) to prove that William de Sanford, of that date, was younger brother of Richard and that his (Richard's) wife's name was Agnes. [2]

In October 1320, Sir William de Sontford, as Knight of the Shire, returned for Salop, attended the Parliament then held at Westminster. On January 2, 1322, he was appointed a Commissioner to raise levies in Shropshire, and forthwith to join the King in an effort to repress the existing disturbances. The unfortunate Edward was himself at Shrewsbury towards the close of the same month. [3] On March 16, following, Sir William de Saunford fought on the Royalist side at Boroughbridge. His arms were enrolled on the occasion, as Quartile endente d'azure et d'ermine; [4]- showing that his cadency, as a younger brother, was marked, by interchanging the quarters of his paternal coat.

NICHOLAS DE SANDFORD, another son of Ralph de Sandford (II.) occurs in the reign of Edward II. As "Nicholas, son of Ralph, Lord of Sanford", he grants something unexpressed to Richard de Prees, Clerk, and his wife Milicent. Witnesses,- Richard, Lord of Sanford; William de * * *; William de Wottenhull; and Hugh fitz Alan. [5]

By another Deed, "William le Botiler of Wem gives to Nicholas de Sanford, Alice his wife, and the bodily heirs of Nicholas, estovers in his wood of Cotton. Witnesses,- William de Weston, Randulf Hord, Henry de Hexton, John de Lakyn, William de Wottenhull, and others". [6]

In 1324, Nicholas de Sandford was returned by the Sheriff of Shropshire, pursuant to a Writ-Royal of May 9, as a Man-at-Arms, and as summoned to attend the Great Council, forthwith to be held at Westminster. [7]

RICHARD DE SANDFORD (III.), son and heir of Ralph de Sandford (II.) succeeded his father, as we have seen, in 1308. In the Nomina Villarum of 1316, Richard de Sontford is enrolled as Lord of the Vill of Sontford. [8]

[1] [2] Charters at Sandford.
[3] [4] Parl. Writs, IV. pp. 1444, 1397.
[5] Dugdale's Visitation, fo. 106-b.
[6] Ibidem, fo. 107.
[7] Parliamentary Writs, IV. p. 1396.
[8] Ibidem, page 397.


From his attestation of a Brockton Deed, in July 1318, I should suppose Richard de Sandford to have been then a Knight, [1] but I do not find him so styled in any other document.

On July 19, 1320, Richard, Lord of Sontford leaves to Hugh and Robin, sons of Robert de Achesleye, for their lives, a parcel of land called Hethihalst in Sontford Manor, for 9 merks paid, and at a rent of 5s. 4d. Witnesses,- Sir William de Sontford, Knight; William de Weston; Nicholas de Sontford; Roger, son of Richard de Wylaston; and Richard de Prez, Clerk. [2]

The Writ of Diem clausit on the death of Richard de Sandford is dated February 10, 1327. He was found to have held the Villate of Sondford, and the hamlet of Rothale, in capite, by service of one man-at-arms with an unbarbed horse, in guard of Montgomery Castle, for 40 days, in case of war, at his own cost. The Capital Messuage at Sandford was then in a ruinous condition and valued at 40d. per annum; two carucates, held in demesne, were valued only at 2. 14s. 4d., because the land was sandy (hence the name of the place). The Tenure of the deceased at Brocton was by a rent of 2s. 1d., payable now to the King, as having custody of John, the infant heir of Fulk le Strange. Richard, son and heir of the deceased, had attained his full age on January 26, 1327. [3]

The Heraldic Pedigrees make Agnes, wife of that Richard de Sanford who died in 1327, to have been Sister of Robert de Say of Moreton. Such a match is quite consistent with chronology.

RICHARD DE SANDFORD (IV.) was charged with a Relief of 50s. on succession. The last instalment (13s. 4d.) is acknowledged by a Writ of the Sheriff of Shropshire, dated April 1340.

An Inquest, ordered by Writ of December 6, 1330, and held at Sandford on Sept 4, 1335, found that it would not injure the Crown if Richard de Sanford were to enlarge a stank at Sandford, by turning the King's highway from Chester to Newport into another, and equally direct, course, through the vill of Sandford. [4]

On June 25, 1332, Richard de Pres, Clerk, and his wife Alice, give to Richard, Lord of Sontford, 2 messuages and one carucate in Sontford, and the reversion of such land as Petronilla, widow of William, son of Richard de Sontford, still held in dower of the

[1] Wombridge Chartulary, Tit. Brocton, No. xx.
[2] Charter at Sandford.- The seal has the device of a Pelican on its nest. As the Deed is bipartite, the said seal may be that of the Lessees.
[3] Inquisitions, 1 Edw. III., No. 76.
[4] Transcript at Sandford.


[For pedigree, see pdf.]


said William's inheritance. Witnesses,- John de Waranne, Laurence de Calverhalle, Nicholas de Sontford. [1]

On June 24, 1385, Richard, Lord of Sontford, grants the premises, thus acquired, to Stephen, Rector of Weston, who, on June 26 (as Feoffee in trust) re-grants the same to Richard de Sontford, and his wife Isabella, with remainder to the heirs of Richard. Witnesses,- Sir Thomas de Hauckeston, Robert de Say, John de Wilaston, and John de Warenne. [2]

On May 7, 1389, Richard, son of Richard, Clerk of Pres, quitclaims to Richard, Lord of Sandford, all right in one acre of the land above granted by his father. Witnesses,- Robert de Say, Nicholas de Sontford. [3]

In 1340 and 1344, Isabella and Edith, daughters of Richard de Sandford, acknowledge the respective receipts of 6 merks and 30s., paid by their brother Richard on account of certain debts, the first of which was 20 merks. [4]

On March 2, 1341, Richard, Lord of Sontford, grants to Adam Purdieu a year's lease of his Mills at Sontford, Astford, Acheley, and Bleccheley. [5]

By Patent, dated "near Calais", on September 4, 1346 (nine days after the Battle of Cressy), King Edward III., in consideration of Richard de Sanford's previous services in the French war, and on condition that he quit not the King's following, without special leave, so long as the King should remain abroad, pardons the said Richard all homicides, felonies, ontlawries, etc. by him committed in the realm of England, so far as the King's peace was involved. [6]

On December 6, 1346, Griffin son of John le Wareyne acknowledges the receipt of 61 odd, in part payment of a debt of 100 due to him from Richard, Lord of Sontford.

The Writ of Diem clausit, on the death of Richard de Sondford, bears date October 17, 1347. By Inquest, taken at Newport on November 10 following, it was found that the deceased had held the hamlet of Sondford, in capite, for half a knight's-fee. Of three Mills which appertained to his estate, he had only enjoyed two- thirds, the remaining third constituting the dower of his mother, Agnes, who was still alive. The deceased had died in foreign parts (obviously in the service above alluded to), on Wednesday, September 26, previous. [7] His son and heir, Nicholas, was 18 years of age on September 29, 1347. [8]

[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] Sandford Muniments.
[7] Two days before the truce which followed the famous capitulation of Calais.
[8] Inquisitions, 21 Edw. III., No. 36.


The advantage which the perusal of original evidences has afforded me in compiling the above history of the Sandfords, has also tempted me beyond my usual limits. I have embodied some further particulars of the family in the concise form of a Tabular Genealogy.

SANDFORD CHAPEL. The evidence of the existence of this Chapel, and of its spoliation by the Rectors of the Mother Church of Prees, early in the 18th century, has been already given. I am unable to identify the parties to, or the date of, a Deed whereby "Richard, Lord of Sandford, grants to Ralph de Sandford, and his son John, for their lives, an acre and five perches in the field, near the Chapel, towards Cotton. Witnesses,- Thomas de Bolton, William fitz John".

The Deed was sealed with the Sandford Arms. It suggests that the site of Sandford Chapel was west of the vill, and towards Whixall.

Ellardine and Rowton.

As Domesday associates Ellardine with Cold Hatton, so in the succeeding aera is it usually found in connection with Rowton. All three Manors are now townships or hamlets of the Parish of High Ercall. Domesday speaks of Ellardine as a Manor of Gerard de Tornai.- "The same Gerard holds Elleurdine (of the Earl). Dodo held it (in Saxon times), and was a free man. Here are one hide, and a third part of another hide, geldable". [1] The stock and valuation of the manor have been already given in conjunction with Cold Hatton.

As to Rowton it had a Domesday status as follows.- "Eddiet holds Routone of the Earl. Morcar and Dot held it (in Saxon times) and were free men. Here are II hides, geldable. There is (arable) land for III ox-teams. In demesne there is one team; and (there are) III Serfs, a Priest, and IIII Boors, with one team. The Manor was worth 25s. (in Saxon times); now it is worth 15s. (per annum)". [2]

Eddiet, here mentioned, was, I suppose, a woman. She occurs nowhere else in the Shropshire Domesday.

I have described, under Sutton Maddock, how Sutton, Ellardine,

[1] [2] Domesday, fos. 258; 259, b, 1.


and Rowton, being Escheats in the hands of Henry II., or being otherwise at that King's disposal, passed to Gervase Goch, and thenceforth constituted a Serjeantry.
[1] I have further traced the said Serjeantry from Gervase Goch to his son, Griffin, and to Griffin's son, Madoc. [2]

It was about the year 1200, and while Rowton and Ellardine were in the hands of Griffin ap Gervase, that the following curious Deed passed.-

Sciant presentes et futuri quod ego Griffinus filius Gervasii Choh dedi Willielmo de Hadleia et heredibus suis totam partem meam rivi de Pendelat, et ripam meam a loco ubi fuit piscaria Warini, sursum versus terram de Muclituna [2] quantum oportuerit ad Gistam aquae unius vivarii, quantumcunque profundum et latum ipse Willielmus voluerit, et ad faciendum stagnum et molendinum ad pectus et bacias et de terra mea quantum oportuerit, etc. Dedi quoque et concessi predicto Willielmo sectam et molturam de Rueltuna et de Hellewrth, [3] ita quod si aliquis hominum meorum de predictis villis inventus fuerit ad aliud molendinum molere et a moltura alterius molendini redire, farina predicto Willielmo et heredibus suis remaneat et mihi et heredibus meis misericordia. Si vero aliquo casu evenerit, quod predictum molendinum molere non possit, sine calumnia per idem tempus alibi molant, quousque predictum molendinum molere possit. Hoc autem solum mihi retineo, quod cum in partes illas ego et heredes mei venerimus, cum propriis retibus nostris in supradicto vivario, ad opus nostrum, possimus piscari, et in batello suo, et ipsi batellum invenient. Volo igitur, etc. Reddendo duo calcaria deaurata, etc. Et ut haec, etc. Testibus hiis;- Johanne Extraneo, et Hamundo fratre suo; Bartholomeo de Morton, et Stephano de Stanton; Widone de Shaeburi; Baldwino Wischard, et Gwimaro de Rodinton et m. a. [4]

An Inquest of 1227 records of Madoc ap Griffin, that he "Maddoc, son of Matilda le Strange, was a Tenant of the King's in Bradford Hundred, and that his land was worth 8 merks per annum". [5] The allusion is to Rowton and Ellardine.

I have elsewhere given the Convention which took place in 1229 between Madoc ap Griffin and the Lord of High Ercall respecting the vivary of La Lake, [6] which had been established in the river Pendelat, on the strength of Griffin's Charter, just now recited.

[1] Supra, Vol. II. pp. 108, 109.
[2] Ibidem, pp. 109-114.
[3] Muckleton; Ellardine.
[4] The late Mr. George Morris's Deeds.
[5] Testa de Nevill, p. 53.
[6] Supra, pages 82, 83.


Madoc ap Griffin had a Tenant, Madoc de Ellardine. In May 1253, Madoc de Elwardyn is entered as taking out a Writ of novel-disseizin against Madoc, son of Griffin Goch and others, for a tenement in Ellewardyn. [1] In October 1253, Madoc de Sutton is in turn a Plaintiff against William de Ercalew and Madoc de Elwardyn, for disseizing him of a tenement in Ruwelton and Elwardyn.

The Hundred-Roll of 1255 says that "Madoc de Sutton holds the Manor of Rowelton, by Serjeantry of conducting the King in Wales, in time of war. The Manor was accounted to be III hides, and paid 12d. motfee and 12d. stretward, and did due suit to County and Hundred". [2] By Rowelton we must here understand Rowton and Ellardine, though the three hides given, fall short of the Domesday complement by one-third of a hide.

At the Assizes of January 1256, John de Erkalewe appeared as Bailiff of his father William, then sick, and vainly defended an action, brought against the said William de Erkalewe, by William le Franceys and John de Rewelton, for having injuriously set up a stank in Rewelton and Osberdiston (Osbaston), and thereby injuring the Plaintiffs' tenements.

Between 1262 and 1265 (for that must be the date of the transaction), Madoc de Sutton alienated Sutton, Rowton, and Ellardine to John le Strange (III.), of Nesse and Cheswardine. [3]-

This fact I learn from the presentment De Serjanciis of the Bradford Jurors in 1292. They said that Madoc de Sutton's interest in "Sutton and its members, viz. Rowelton and Elworthyn, was worth 50s. per annum; and that he had held them by Serjeantry of providing 4 foot soldiers in ward of Montgomery Castle, for 15 days, at his own cost". [4] So then the Serjeantry had been altogether changed from the original one of serving the King, as Latimer, in his Welsh wars. But to continue;- it must have been between 1262 and 1267 that John le Strange (III.) "enfeoffed John, his eldest son and heir, in Rowelton and Elleworthyn, reserving a rent of one penny only thereon". [4] Again within the same interval the said John (the younger) gave the said tenements to his brother, Robert. [4] This transfer partly explains a Patent of September 1267, whereby Egidius de Erdinton is empowered to try a

[1] The Pipe-Roll of 1254 gives Madoc de Ellewardin as paying half a merk, and Madoc de Sutton as owing one merk, for these respective Writs.
[2] Rot. Hundred. II. p. 57.
[3] Vide supra, Vol. II. p. 118.
[4] Placita Coronae, 20 Edw. I., m. 16 dorso.


suit of novel disseizin which John de Erkalewe had against Robert le Straunge and Richard Burnel, who had dispossessed the said John of a right of common in Rowelton. [1]

Again referring to the Presentment of 1292, I find that Robert le Strange gave Rowton and Ellardine to that very Egidius de Erdinton, who was to try the above suit, and that he so gave them in exchange for Mereburi (Marbury) in the County of Chester, reserving however to himself and his heirs a rent of 73s. per annum. This exchange must have been between September 1267 and March 1269, when Giles de Erdinton was dead. [2] However there must have been some doubt about the validity of the exchange; for in November 1269, Henry de Erdinton (he was son and heir of Giles), was suing Robert le Strange under Writ of mort d'ancestre for a messuage and carucate in Rouleton and Eleworthin. Again in July 1270, John de Erkalewe sues Henry de Erdinton for disseizing him of common-pasture in Ruylton, and Robert le Strange sues John de Erkalewe for a like act of disseizin (in Rowelton).

We are sure by inferential evidence that the interest of Henry de Erdinton, was at length established in Rowton and Ellerdine. He died in 1282, and the Feodaries of 1284-5 say plainly that "Walter de Eyllesbur' (Aylesbury) holds the vills of Rowelton and Ellewurthin of Henry de Erdinton's heir, who holds of the King in capite".

The Presentment of 1292 has one more statement as to these vills of Rowton and Ellardine, viz. that "Walter de Eylesbury now holds them, the Jurors know not by what warranty". The Court summoned the said Walter to appear, and he was forced to fine half a merk to keep possession of the estate usque proximum parliamentum. Walter de Eyllesbury, it elsewhere appears, was at this time exercising a right of free-warren in Rowelton and Elwurthin.

Of Walter de Aylesbury I have already said much under another Rowton, and under Amaston. [3] Of Rowton and Ellardine he soon divested himself; by a sale to Laurence de Ludlow, or his son William, for the Record leaves it uncertain whether the Father or Son made this important purchase.- A Fine was levied at Westminster on Nov. 25, 1293, and recorded on May 28, 1294, between Laurence de Ludelawe (Plaintiff), and Walter de Aylesbury (Deforciant) of the Manors of Rowlton and Ellardine, whereof was Plea of Convention. Walter now recognized the right of William to the

[1] A Patent of October 23, 1269, makes John de Erkalewe's suit to be against different Defendants, viz. Walter le Clerk of Ruuelton and others.
[2] Supra, Vol. VIII. p. 143.
[3] Supra, Vol. VII. pp. 176, 177.


same, to hold to William and his heirs of the chief lords of the Fee. For this William paid 100 merks to Walter.

From the Inquest taken on the death of William de Ludlow in November 1316, it would seem that a mesne right in Rowton and Ellardine had been always retained by the heirs of Robert le Strange.- "William de Ludlow (deceased) had held the said vills under Fulk le Strange by service of one-sixth part of a knight's-fee, and by payment of 73s. rent". The gross value of the estates, to the deceased, was 6. 16s. per annum. [1]

Roniton and Elwardyn were two of the estates which Lawrence de Ludlow, son and heir of William, conveyed about the year 1338 to certain Feoffees-in-trust, as before noticed. [2] The estates remained with the Ludlows for some generations.

OF UNDERTENANTS in Rowton and Ellardine, I may name-

Madoc de Ellardine, who occurs on Juries or otherwise in 1249, 1253, 1256, 1274, and 1278; William le Franceys and John de Rowelton, who occur in 1256; Hamo de Ellewordyn, a Juror in 1293; Thomas Fraunceis of Rowton, who occurs about 1310; and William Fraunceys of Rowton, who occurs in April 1324.

PAROCHIALLY, Rowton and Ellardine were subject to High Ercall. It would be difficult to overstate the antiquity of a grant whereby Wenlock Priory obtained the tithes of Rowton and Ellardine. Hamo Peverel was perhaps the Benefactor. Of course this intrusion into their Parish was offensive to the Patrons of Ercall Church,- the Monks of Shrewsbury. On July 5, 1234, Henry, Abbot of Shrewsbury, agreed to pay to Humbert, Prior of Wenlock, a perpetual ferm of 2 merks for these tithes. Witnesses,- Alexander, Bishop of Coventry and Lichfield; Sir Robert de Haye, Sheriff of Salop and Staffordshire; Master Richard de Langedon, Archdeacon of Stafford; Reginald de Cleedon, the above Bishop's Official; Alexander Blund; and John Gernun. [3]

The Monks of Shrewsbury, in the first instance, bestowed the tithes thus acquired on "Master Gilbert, their Clerk"; but subsequently Abbot H. (probably Henry who died in or before 1244), annexed them to the building-fund of his Monastery

ROWTON CHAPEL. The Domesday mention of a Priest at Rowton indicates the coexistence of a Church or Chapel. Of course such a foundation did not remain, if ever it had been, independent. It became subject to Ercall Church. Rowton Chapel was existing in

[1] Inquisitions, 10 Edw. II., No. 69.
[2] Supra, Vol. VII. p. 59.
[3] [4] Salop Chartulary, Nos. 388, 382. Compare Hist. Shrswsbsry, II. 92.

244 PREES.

1384 and was then held by the Vicar of Ercall. [1] Its remains are still visible, or were so at the beginning of the present century. [4]


THIS important Manor, held from a period, too early for written Records, by the Bishops of Chester, and still retaining some vestiges of its ancient status, is thus described in Domesday.-

"The same Bishop holds Pres, and held it in the time of King Edward. Here are VIII hides, geldable. In demesne are III ox-teams; and (there are) ten Villeins, a Priest, and three Boors with V teams. Here are VI Neatherds, and a wood for (i.e. capable of fattening) 60 swine. Of this Manor, Anschitil holds half a hide, and Fulcher two hides, under the Bishop. In demesne they have two ox-teams, and two Villains with a team: and three other men, who till ploughland here (i.e. in this portion of the Manor), pay 10s. rent; and there are two Neatherds here. The whole Manor was worth 50s. (per annum) in King Edward's time; and was afterwards waste. Now, that which the Bishop has, is worth 40s.; that which his men (Anschitil and Fulcher) have, is worth 28s. (per annum). There might be six ox-teams more here". [3]

The great and exclusive privileges, which attached to a purely Episcopal Manor, tend to exclude its history from public Records. My account of Prees must mainly therefore consist of mere scraps, or be derived from local Charters, of which we have a series more numerous than important.

The next mention, after Domesday, which I find of Prees, is in 1196, when Bishop Novant was under forfeiture and exile. King Richard's Escheator, then accounting for the confiscated revenues of the See of Coventry, had received 5 merks for the ferm of Prees, arising in the first half of the current fiscal year. [4]

Several entries on the Plea-Roll of Michaelmas Term 1228 relate to suits which Bishop Stavensby (by Thomas de Caburn, his Attorney) was urging against John de Leotun (Leeton), John fitz

[1] Supra, page 112.
[2] A sketch of the remains of Ruton Chapel, made about 1810-1815, is in MS, 21,018, p. 17, at the British Museum.
[3] Domesday, fo. 252, a, 2.
[4] Rot. Pip. 8 Ric. I. Eschaete.

PREES. 245

William, Adam de Stiel, and John de Dorlaveston, for five or more bovates of land in Prees and Darliston. We have the result of part of these Suits in two Fines of February 3 and May 6, 1229. By the first Fine Adam de Styele (Tenant) surrenders one acre in Prese to the Bishop and the Church of Coventry. In return the Bishop enfeoffs him therein at a rent of 6d. By the second Fine, John fitz William (Tenant) similarly surrenders two bovates in Pres, for which the Bishop pays him 40s.

The Bradford Hundred-Roll of 1255 says briefly that- "the Bishop of Chester holds the Manor of Pres of the King, the Jurors know not by what service; and it is 6 hides geldable, and does no suit to County or Hundred." [1] Of this subtraction of 1 hides from the Domesday Manor I can give no account whatever.

By Charter dated at Woodstock, June 2, 1259, King Henry III. grants to his Kinsman, Roger, Bishop of Lichfield and Coventry, the privilege of Free Warren in Prees, and the right of holding, in the same Manor, a weekly Market on Tuesdays, and an annual Fair on the eve, the day, and the morrow, of St. Chad the Bishop (March 1, 2, 3). [2]

The Tenure-Roll of 1285 is explicit as to what were then considered members of Prees.-

"The Bishop of Chester holds the Manor of Prece with its members, viz. Darlaston, Leeton, Wotenhull (now lost), Mitteley (Mickley), Willaston (Wooliston), and Milheyth (Millen-heath), of the King in capite, sine medio, freely, as a member of his Barony of Eccleshall; and here the Bishop has, from ancient time, his free court and gallows. Also he has here a Market and Fair, by Charter of King Henry III".

The Taxation of 1291 calls Prees a member of Eccleshall, and values the Episcopal Revenue therefrom at 10. 3s. 4d. per annum; viz. 2 carucates of land with some meadow- 3; profits of stock- 1; assized rents- 3. 6s. 8d.; aid of tenants-in-villeinage- 1; a Mill- 1;. and perquisites of Court- 16s. 8d. [3]

The Bishop of Lichfield being questioned at the Assizes of 1292 as to the above Free-Court and Gallows, it was deposed that "he found his Church seized of those privileges", that is, he had not originated them. Moreover at these Assizes the Bradford Jurors

[1] Rot. Hundred. II. 57.
[2] Rot. Cartarum, 43 Hen. III., m. 4. Roger de Longespee, or de Meuland, the Grantee in this Charter, was first Cousin to the King, being third son of William Longespee, Earl of Salisbury, the King's Uncle.
[3] Pope Nich. Taxation, p. 250.

246 PREES.

reported the Bishop (Roger de Meuland), as a Defaulter in respect of attendance. Next on the same list of Defaulters, stand Richard, Earl of Arundel, and Roger le Strange. As a sequel to these Assizes came the King's Suit of Quo Waranto against the Bishop as to his having gallows, holding assize of bread and beer, and holding pleas of forbidden distress, and pleas of the Crown, in Pres. In reply the Bishop's Attorney denied the holding of Pleas of forbidden distress, and justified the other usages by immemorial precedent of former Bishops. To this the King's Attorney objected that whereas no Bishop of Lichfield and Coventry shared in the Conquest of England by William I., so the subsequent Bishops and their Church were to be considered as enfeoffed by others, and their Successor was bound to show some special document entitling him to the aforesaid liberties. Moreover the very lenity of the Episcopal rule at Pres was made an argument against its validity.- The Bishop had no pillory, nor tumberell, nor judgment, nor did he proceed to execution of judgment against trespassers in the assize of bread and beer, but let them go unpunished, after exacting some pecuniary fine.
[1] The cause, thus originated and argued, was adjourned to Lichfield, where the Justiciars proposed to be on January 27, 1293; but I do not find it resumed at the said adjournment. I take the prosecution to have been arbitrary and vexatious, both as to the general principle and the specific details.

By Charter, dated at Lanercost, on January 28, 1307, King Edward I. empowers Bishop Langton to have a weekly market, on Wednesdays, at Pres, and to exercise Free-warren in the said Manor. [2]

In an Inquest of September 1310 it is incidentally stated that Reginald de Charnes held a virgate of land and 10 merks of rent within the Manor of Pres, under the Bishop of Chester, by services of two annual appearances at the Manorial Court of Pres, and of 2s. rent. The said Reginald also held the vill of Charnes, in Staffordshire, under the same Bishop. [3]

In the Nomina Villarum of 1316, the Bishop of Chester is duly enrolled as "Lord of the Vill of Prees".

The Valor of 1534-5 estimates the Episcopal Manor of Prece as yielding 47. 10s. 10d. per annum; 10s. of which were perquisites of the Manorial Court. [4]

To trace the Manorial interest of the Bishops of Lichfield and

[1] Quo Waranto, p. 677.
[2] Rot. Cartarum, 35 Edw. I., m. 20.
[3] Ad quod Damnum, 4 Edw. II., No. 52.
[4] Valor Ecclesiasticus, III. 128.

PREES. 247

Coventry through a later phrase, we must now pass over another century. An Act of Parliament (of 9 October 1646) abolished all Archbishopricks and Bishopricks, and vested their lands in Trustees. In the following year, the Surveyors thereunto deputed, valued the rents and profits of the Manor of Prees at 46, and the improvements thereof at 133. 10s. 8d. per annum. [1] As a sequel to this, the Manor of Prees was sold, on December 18, 1647, for 1122. 6s. 2d. to one Henock Smith, and the "Scite of the Manor of Prees" was sold on April 21, 1648, to one Thomas Harpar, for 147. 13s. 5d.

How far these proceedings were reversed at the Restoration, I have no documentary proof. The Commissioners then appointed to inquire into these "pretended sales" are said to have "greatly satisfied" the several parties concerned. [2] I cannot discover that the See of Lichfield retains any land, or other Manorial right whatever, in Prees.

OF UNDERTENANTS, or residents, at Prees I may name Thomas de Prees, who attests about 1240-50, certain Deeds already given, and Philip de Prees, Clerk, and John his brother, who attest one of the same Deeds. [3] This Philip de Prees was a noted man in his day. From his frequent appearances as an Attorney I take him to have been of the Legal profession. The Charters attested by, and some of them perhaps penned by, him, are very numerous. The earliest which I can quote, passed about 1231. It has been given under Sutton Maddock, [4] where Philip de Prees was probably attending on behalf of Sir Ralph de Sandford (I.). The latest of Philip de Prees's attestations are those of a Wrottesley Deed, between 1260 and 1280, [5] and of a Bishton Deed between 1272 and 1277. Of the last Deed, John de Prees is also a witness. [6]

But Philip de Prees had a more important office than that of a Conveyancer. He was Clerk or Receiver to Robert de Grendon, during the first Shrievalty of the said Robert, a period which may be estimated as commencing in March 1250 and ending in October 1255. He again acted as Receiver, subsequent to the year 1259, and perhaps during Robert de Grendon's second Shrievalty, that is in 1265-6. His conduct in this capacity does not appear to have been free from question. [7]

[1] [2] Vide Collectanea Topographica et Genealogica, Vol. I. pp. 2, 4, 8; and Vol. III. p. 42.
[3] Supra, page 228.
[4] Supra, Vol, II. p. 125, note 71.
[5] Shaw's Staffordshire, II. 288.
[6] Supra, Vol. III. p. 19, note 38.
[7] Rot. Hundred. Vol. II. p. 111.

248 PREES.

As to John de Prees, his attestations of Charters are nearly as numerous as his brother's. The earliest and latest ascertained dates at which he occurs, as a Witness or Juror, are 1245 and 1273.


DARLISTON. By a Fine of October 28, 1199, Richard fitz William, Plaintiff in a suit of mort d'ancestre, against Sibil fitz Eynon and John her son, quitclaims a virgate and four acres in Derlaveston to them and their heirs. In return the said Sibil and John enfeoff the said Richard at 12d. rent in one-third of the premises, viz. in 6 acres towards Hethe, 6 acres towards Pres, 6 acres towards Sanford, and 6 acres of assart, under Northwude.

I think that the above John, son of Sibil, was the person afterwards called John de Darliston.- At the Assizes of November 1221, Henry de Dervlaweston withdrew his suit against John de Dervlaweston, whom he had charged with disseizing him of a tenement in Tuddeley. Henry's Sureties de prosequendo were Ralph de Sanford and Richard de Chesthull. We have seen that in 1224 Henry de Dorlaveston surrendered 2 virgates in Dorlaveston to Ralph de Sandford, [1] a fact which accounts for the subsequent tenure of the Sandfords in Darliston. We have also seen John de Dorlaveston at issue with his Episcopal Suzerain in 1228 concerning lands in Dorlaveston. [2] Lastly, we have seen the same or another John figuring as a Witness of Sandford Deeds at least as late as 1235, [3] and it is clearly a second John, whom we shall find occurring about 20 years later.
[4] After him, there is scant mention of any Tenants of Darliston except the Sandfords. In 1327 Adam fitz William of Derlaston was Juror on a Sandford Inquest.

MICKLEY. The Sandfords held a part of Mickley under the Bishops of Lichfield early in the 13th century. About 1241-1249 John fitz Yerverth was Sir Richard de Sandford's tenant here.

Peter de Mitneleg, who occurs on an Uppington Jury in 1259, was possibly of this place. Later in the century we have local mention of Richard fitz William of Mitneleye and of Richard, Clerk of Mitneleye. [5] In 1308, as we have already seen, the Sandfords were Mesne Lords of a part of Mitteneley. [6]

WOOLISTON. At the Assizes of October 1203, Thomas fitz Walter, a Minor, having preferred a suit of mort d'ancestre against

[1] [2] Supra, pp. 224, 345.
[3] Supra, pp. 227, 228.
[4] [5] Infra, pp. 252, 253, 254.
[6] Supra, page 231.


Odo fitz Eniow for 2 virgates in Willaveston, was unwilling to prosecute it, but put himself in misericordia, Ralph de Sanford being one of his Sureties. It is just possible that Odo de Wilauston, occurring in 1236 and between 1242 and 1249, was identical with the above Odo fitz Eniow.

Be that as it may, a certain Eudo (or Odo) de Willaveston had been succeeded by his son Thomas before January 1256, when Richard de Willaveston impleaded the said Thomas for a toft in Willaveston, which Richard claimed as heir of his father, Robert. Thomas, on the other hand, asserted that his father, Eudo, had had a grant thereof from the said Robert. The Jury found that Robert had died seized of the land. So his son, Richard, recovered the same. In another suit Richard fitz Robert, as heir of his father, claimed 6 acres in Wylaston against Thomas fitz Odo, but here the Plaintiff was unsuccessful. In a third suit, Thomas de Wyllaston failed to convict Odo de Hodnet of having disseized him of some right of common in Morton, alleged to belong to Wyllaston. There can be no doubt that Thomas fitz Odo was identical with Thomas de Wylaston, who attests so many Prees and Sandford Deeds between 1256 and 1280. [1] In two instances he is called Lord of Willaston, and at the Assizes of 1272 as Thomas de Wylardeston he sat as a Juror for Bradford Hundred. I suppose that the successor of Thomas de Willaston was Richard de Wylarston, a Juror for Bradford Hundred at the Assizes of 1292, and Juror on a Sandford Inquest in 1308. The latter Inquest was also attended by one Henry de Wylaston. In 1320 we have had mention of Roger, son of Richard de Wylaston; but I take it, that John de Wylaston, who occurs in 1315, 1327, and 1335, was the successor of Richard. A Sandford Inquest of 1327 was attended by John, Roger, and Richard de Wylaston. In 1356, Thomas de Wylaston was a Juror on an Ightfield Inquest.

The succession of a second family of Willastons seems to have been as follows.- About the year 1224 Richard de Wilauston and Adam his son attest a Wottenhul Deed. I also find the latter, as "Adam de Wylasston", attesting a Styche Deed about 1230. In a third generation we have "Robert, son of Adam de Wylaston", attesting Sandford Deeds between 1256 and 1280. [2] This Robert was Lord of the vill of Wottenhull, which he granted, about 1260, to his son Richard. Under Wottenhull, another member of Prees, I shall give some further account of this family.

[1] Supra, pp. 231 bis, 232.
[2] Supra, pp. 231 bis, 232.

250 PREES.

Another family of Willastons was preceded by Edwin de Willaveston, who at the Assizes of 1203 withdrew a suit of mort d'ancestre which he had against Thomas fitz Walter. This Edwin occurs also in 1227 in conjunction with the same Thomas fitz Walter, as we shall see under Shavington. It was he whom we have seen attesting Sandford Deeds between 1232 and 1245. In one attestation (about 1232-42) this Edwin is followed by his son Reginald. This Reginald may or may not have been the person who, as Reinald de Wilvastone, or Wlvestone, attests two Deeds which have been given under Ightfield.

Yet another family of Willastons was preceded by Robert de Willaston, whom we have seen to have been succeeded by his son Richard shortly before 1256. At the Assizes then held, Richard fitz Robert failed to prosecute his Writ of disseizin against Richard fitz Alexander for a tenement in Wylaston. His Sureties de prosequendo were William, son of Richard de Bechesleg, and Robert le Fevre of Bechesleg (probably Bletchley).

We have heard of Richard fitz Alexander of Willaston before; viz. as attesting Sandford Deeds, about 1240-49. Either he or Richard fitz Robert may have been identical with Richard fitz Godith of Willaston, who attests a Deed between 1256 and 1272; but more probably Richard fitz Alexander was the father of two brothers, William and Thomas fitz Richard, against whom jointly two Writs of novel disseizin issued in August 1257, the Plaintiff being Petronilla fitz Richard in one instance, and Emma, daughter of Walter de Harpcote, in the other. Tenements at Wylaveston were in each case the subject of dispute.

A second Alexander de Willaston, probably of this family, occurs in 1315.

WOTTENHULL. This member of Prees is now lost. I suppose it to have lain North-East of the town, in the direction of Millen Heath or Wooliston. [2]

At the Assizes of November 1221, Edith de Wottenhull failed to prosecute some suit against Robert de Wottenhull. The subsequent history of this member of Prees happens to be illustrated by a curious series of Deeds, the oldest of which, dating at least as early as 1224, I give in extenso.-

1. Sciant presentes et futuri quod ego Rodbertus de Wottenhul, juvenis, dedi et concessi et hac presenti carta mea confirmavi Thome

[1] Supra, page 211.
[2] Perhaps a part of the name Wottenhill is preserved in the locality now called "Wathens Rough".


filio Willielmi Capellani de Pres dimidietatem unius virgate terre in Wottenhul, scilicet totam dimidietatem illius virgate terre quam pater meus tenuit in domino suo, et illud messuagium quod predictus Willielmus Capellanus de Pres edificavit et tenuit, cum orto et gardino ad illud messuagium pertinente, et unum messuagium in villa de Pres, in orto meo, scilicet de mensura quadraginta pedum in longitudine et viginti pedum in latitudine, et liberum ingressum et egressum in apto loco illi messuagio;- pro homagio et pro servicio suo, et pro viginti quatuor solidis argenti, quos prefatus Tomas mihi dedit;- tenendum et habendum, ipse et heredes sui de me et de heredibus meis in feudo et hereditate, libere et quiete, pacifice et honorifice et integre, in bosco et plano, in pascuis et pratis, in viis, in semitis, in aquis, in molendinis, et in omnibus heysiamentis et libertatibus ad predictam dimidietatem virgate terre et ad prefata messuagia pertinentibus; reddendo inde annuatim, ipse et heredes sui, mihi et heredibus meis duos solidos argenti, scilicet duodecim denarios ad festum Sti Michaelis et duodecim denarios ad annunciacionem beate Marie Marcialis, pro omnibus serviciis et pro omnibus secularibus exactionibus et demandis que ad me et ad heredes meos pertinent, salvis forinsecis serviciis. Et si forte prefatus Tomas a sponsa sua heredem non habeat, vel vitam suam mutare voluerit, quemcunque sibi placuerit sibi faciat heredem. Et ego Rodbertus de Wotenhul, juvenis, et heredes mei prefato Tome et heredibus suis predictam dimidietatem virgate terre et nominata messuagia cum omnibus pertinenciis eorum contra omnes homines et omnes feminas warantizabimus. Et ut hec mea donacio et confirmacio firma et stabilis permaneat, sigilli mei inpressione illam confirmavi. Hiis testibus: Hugone Pantulfo; Hugone de Say; Roberto de Say; Reginaldo de Burctun; Johannes (sic) et Rodbertus (sic) et Gilebertus (sic) filiis ejus; Toma persona de Pres; Adama et Willielmo fratribus ejus; Nicholao clerico; Philippo fratre suo; Radulfo de Sontford; Ricardo filio ejus; Willielmo de Tildestoke, et Adama filio ejus; Ricardo de Wilauston et Adama filio ejus; et aliis.

The next Deed, which I shall quote, passed about 1256-60, the last witness of the above Deed being father of the Grantee in this.-

2. "William Meyler, son of Alditha de Wettenhul, concedes to Robert, son of Adam de Wilaston, for 5 merks, a bovate, a croft, and a messuage, in Wettenhul, viz. that which the Grantor's' mother Alditha formerly held under Robert de Wettenhul;- to hold in fee, with tacfe and tofre in all the Bishop's woods of Pres, wherein the free men of Pres had common;- at a rent of one half-penny,

252 PREES.

payable to the Grantor and his heirs. Witnesses,- Ralph de Sanford, Thomas de Wilaston, William de Calverhale, Hanry de Savinton, John de Derlaveston, Thomas de Wettenhul, William Mody, William de Albo Monasterio, Clerk, and others"

The next Deed appears to be little later than the last, and shows the Grantee of the last, transferring the same and other lands to his own son.-

3. "Robert, son of Adam de Wilaston, in liege power and full health gives to Richard his son all his land in the vill and fields of Wottenhull, with messuages, gardens, etc., and with one messuage and one garden in the vill of Pres, near the Chercheiord (Churchyard), with all wardships, reliefs, etc., of all his tenants in Wottenhull and in Mulnehethe (Millen-heath); to hold under the Grantor and his heirs, freely, quietly, etc., paying only the customary services due to the Lords of the Fee. Witnesses,- Reginald de Schavinton, William de Calverhale, Thomas de Wilaston, Ivo de Solton, William de Lakene, Hugh de Stewele (Steel), and Reginald Modi of Hethe".

4. The same gives and quitclaims to the same and his heirs, the whole vill of Wottenhul, and all that land in Pres [1] which, with its messuage, Adam le Blake formerly held under himself. Witnesses,- Ralph de Sandford, Thomas de Wylaston, William fitz Richard of Wylaston, Hugh de Styele, Reginald Modi, and Philip Clerk.

The Charters which now follow exhibit the same Grantee as married, and as obtaining further feoffments in Wottenhull. This may be dated about 1280.-

5. "William, son of Philip, Clerk of Wotunhul, gives, concedes, and confirms to Richard, son of Robert de Willauston, son of Adam in Wotunhul, and to Godith his (Richard's) wife, all the land which the Grantor had in the fields of Wotunhul, with his croft, and with all appurtenances, saving the Capital messuage, and that third of the said land which Margery the Grantor's Mother held in dower, and saving the curtilage of the Curia to the Grantor and his heirs. The premises are further settled on Richard and Godith conjointly, and separately to the survivor, with remainder to their joint heirs, and, in default, to the heirs of Richard. A rent of 2d. is further reserved; and the Grantees pay down 12 merks. Witnesses,- Sir Ralph de Sauntford, William, Lord of Calverhale, Hugh de Stiele, Reginald Modi, Nicholas de Hethe, Richard fitz William of Mitneleye, and Richard, Clerk of Mitneleye".

[1] The premises conveyed aro "6 lands in the field towards Hethe, 7 lands in the Middlefield, and 7 lands in a third field near the field of Pres".


6. The same gives, concedes, and confirms, to the same, all his land, etc., within and without the vill of Wotenhul, together with the dower still held by his mother Margery, and the 1d. rent which she paid for the same, and together with a rent of oue half-penny which Adam fitz Roger paid for a parcel of land in Wotecroft. The Grantees pay 22 merks for this. The premises are entailed as before, except that the last remainder is explained to be to the heirs of Richard, begotten previous to his marriage with Godith. The rent, now reserved, is a Rose on John Baptist's day, if the Grantor could be at Wottenhul to receive it; if not, it was to be cancelled for that year. Witnesses,- Henry, Lord of Scavinton, Thomas, Lord of Willauston, Hugh, Lord of Stiele, Reginald Modi, Nicholas de Hethe, John Gageyn, and Richard Clerk.

7. The same William quitclaims to Richard de Wettenhull and his heirs the 2d. rent reserved in the former Deed (No. 5). Witnesses,- Reginald de Charnes, Thomas de Wilaston, Hugh de Stiwele, Reginald Modi, and William de Colton.

8. The same gives, concedes, confirms, and quitclaims, to Richard de Wotenhul, son of Robert de Willauston, and to Godith his wife, their heirs, grantees, or assigns, all his right in Wotenhul, and in his house, croft, and garden, and in his mother's dower, and in the house and curtilage which she still held. For this full release the Grantor received 12s. Witnesses,- Sir Ralph de Sontford, Henry de Scavinton, Hugh de Stiele, Reginald Modi, Richard, Clerk of Mitneleg, Nicholas de Hethe, and William, Chaplain of Whitchurch (Albi Monasterii).

9. Reginald de Wottenhul gives, concedes, and quitclaims, to Richard de Wottenhul, son of Robert de Willaston, and his heirs, all his right in that land in Wottenhul, which Robert, son of Adam de Willaston the Grantee's father bought from the Grantor, from his mother Isabel, and from Agnes de Lanedi, Isabel's sister. For this the Grantee paid 2s. Witnesses,- Sir Ralph de Sanford, Thomas de Willaston, William de Calverhale, Stephen de Lee, Reginald Modi, Nicholas de Hethe, and Richard de Scavinton, Clerk.

10. "Roger Poutrell of Waterfal and Alena his wife, give, concede, and quitclaim, to the same, and to Godith his wife, their heirs, and assigns, all the Grantors' right in a messuage, toft, and croft, which they had in Wottenhul, and which they sometime bought from William, son of Philip, Clerk of Wottenhul, whose charter thereof they now give up to the present Grantees. For this, Richard and Godith gave 4 merks. Witnesses,- Sir Ralph de Sontford, knight;

254 PREES.

Sir Robert de Radewey, Vicar of Pres, Reginald Modi, William de Colton, and Richard, Clerk of Mitneley".

11. "Roger (de Molend), Bishop of Coventry and Lichfield, enfeoffs Richard de Wetenhul-juxta-Pres, in those six seylions in the field of Wetenhul called the Oldefeld (which Philip de Leeton had previously held for a term), in exchange for a parcel of meadow in Doggemor, near the Bishop's meadow;- the Grantee paying to the Bishop the same rent of 4d. as he had previously paid for the meadow. Witnesses,- Ralph de Sauntford, knight; Reginald de Chavernes; Thomas de Wylaxton; Hugh de Stywle; Reginald Modi; and Roger, then serviens of Pres". [1]

The latest of the foregoing eleven Deeds passed before the year 1292. Richard de Wottenhul, the Grantee in the nine last, occurs as a Juror or a witness in 1308, 1311, 1315, and again in 1320. I take the Grantee of the following Deed to be his son.-

12. On April 14, 1320, Walter (de Langton), Bishop of Coventry and Lichfield, enfeoffs William de Wottenhull and his wife Agnes, in 20 acres in the fields of Falles (Fauls) and Le Hey. Witnesses,- William de Weston, Richard de Wottenhull, Alexander de Shavintone, Richard de Sontford, and Andrew de Kendall. Dated at Prees. [2]

Within the next ten years, William de Wottenhull had, I think, succeeded his father, Richard. The following seems to me to be a release of a younger, or perhaps elder brother's portion.-

13. Henry de Wottenhull, son of Richard de Wottenhull, remits, releases, and quitclaims, to William de Wottenhull his brother, all right in lands which he had by feoffment of his father, Richard. Witnesses,- Nicholas de Sontford, Richard de Wistaneswik, and Thomas de Wottenhull.

John de Wottenhull occurs on a local Inquest in 1327. A Subsidy-Roll of 1332, assesses William de Wottenhull at 5s. 4d., and Thomas de Wottehull at 4s.; both under Prees. I have evidence of William de Wottenhull as living in 1350, and of his posterity being still at Prees a century later. John de Wetunhull, occurs on an Ightfield Jury in 1356.

HEATH. This member of Prees is now known as The Heath, or Higher Heath. By Fine, levied January 20, 1256, William de Wottenhill [3] and Isabel his wife, allow their grant of one virgate and a

[1] The above eleven deeds and No. 13 are in possession of the Author.
[2] Registrum Chartaram (apud Lichfield), folio 109.
[3] I take this William de Wottenhill to have been father of Reginald de Wottonhul, the Grantor in Deed No. 9 of the foregoing series.


fourth part of a Mill in Hethe to Adam de Buz, who pays 8s. down, and whose rent of 1d. shall be payable to the Grantors and the heirs of Isabella. Here, rather than in Millen-Heath, were the feoffments of William Mody and his son Reginald, already noticed as witnesses. About 1270-80, "Roger (de Molend), Bishop of Coventry and Lichfield, gives to Reginald Modi a parcel of heath and moor near the vill of Heth, in exchange for a messuage in Prees, bounded by the garden of William Modi, Reginald's father, by land of William Drury, and by the Vivary of Prees called Batticote. Witnesses,- Ralph, Lord of Sauntford, Griffin de Albo Monasterio, John de Haukestane, William de Titneleg, Robert de Say, Ivo de Soleton, and William de Lak". [1]

On March 24, 1311, Bishop Walter (de Langton) granted to John de Heth and Isabella his wife, 15 acres of waste, lying under Le Lee, in the territory of Prees, 8 acres of which had previously been held by William de Thorp-Watervill (a former Vicar of Prees);- to hold to the present Grantees and the heirs of their bodies at a rent of 7s. 6d;- with remainder, in default of such heirs, to the Bishop and his successors. Witnesses,- Richard, Lord of Sandford, Reginald de Charnes, William, son of Sir Ralph de Sandford, Sir William Herward, Richard de Wottenhull, William Gamel, William de Colton. The Fine to be paid pro ingressu for this grant was 28s.
[2] John de Hethe occurs as witness of a Sandford Deed in 1315, and on a Sandford Jury in 1327.

FAULS. On April 14, 1320, Walter Bishop of Coventry enfeoffs Richard de Pikelesleye in 10 acres (measured by the perch of 16 feet) of his demesnes in Fallisheye and Todileye, with all liberties pertaining to the vill of Prees. Rent 11s. 8d. Witnesses,- William de Weston, etc. (as in No. 12 of the former series). [3]

LEETON. We have had John de Leotun, named as a Prees tenant in 1228; and attesting several Deeds within the next 20 years. We have also seen that one of the members of Prees was in 1285 called Leeton. The Vill of Leeton is now lost, but the name is curiously preserved. The Road running nearly due East from Prees Church is, for about the first 300 yards from the Church, called the Layton-Street. Doubtless it once led to the vill of Leeton.


The tutelage of St. Chad, himself a Bishop of Lichfield, and the

[1] Registram Chartarum (ut supra).
[2] Regist. Langton, fo. 51 b.
[3] Registrum Chartarum (apud Lichfield), folio 109.

258 PREES.

Patron-Saint of the Diocesan Cathedral, was proper to a Church which has for eight Centuries, and perhaps more, been in the gift of St. Chad's Successors.

The Priest, mentioned in Domesday as a denizen of Prees, was probably a Co-Rector of the Church; I say a Co-Rector, for I cannot doubt that this Saxon Foundation was Collegiate. Indeed it seems to have remained so till the 13th century; for the Rescripts of Pope Innocent and Pope Honorius (already quoted under Sandford) speak of two cotemporary Rectors of Prees.

I cannot refer to any mention of a Rector or Parson of Prees as surely later than 1235; nor can I refer to any mention of a Vicar of Prees as surely earlier than 1280.-

The interval will adumbrate the date when some Bishop of Lichfield, whose proceedings are unrecorded, demolished the Parochial foundation and appropriated the bulk of its revenues to furnish forth a Prebendal Stall in Lichfield Cathedral. Henceforth we hear of a Prebendary of Prees; of course non-resident and richly paid, and of a Vicar of Prees who did all the work of this extensive Parish, and whose primary endowment is quite problematical. The Taxation of 1291 mentions an Episcopal estate at Prees, and a Prebend of Prees, but no Vicarage. In 1341 the Parish of Prees was taxed at 20 merks for the ninth of its wheat, wool, and lamb. The reason given for so low an assessment was that "two portions of Prees Church constituted a Prebend in a remote part of Staffordshire, and were there taxed by the Abbot of Burton, as Collector for that County". [2]

The Valor of 1534-5 gives 10 as the clear value of the Vicarage of Prees, in the Deanery of Salop. [3]


THOMAS and NICHOLAS, Co-Rectors of Prees, are probably indicated by the initial letters T. and N. in the Papal rescripts of 1214 and 1218 (as already given under Sandford).

THOMAS, Parson of Prees, occurs also about 1224 and about 1280.

ROBERT DE RADEWEY, was Vicar of Prees about 1280-90; and is spoken of as "former Vicar" about 1305.

WILLIAM DE THORP-WATERVILL, was collated by the Bishop of Lichfield to this Vicarage on March 28, 1304.

[1] The allusion is to the Prebend of Pipe Minor (alias Prees).
[2] Inquis. Nonarum, page 191.
[3] Valor Ecclesiasticus,II. 185.


SIR THOMAS CROK, collated by the Bishop's Vicar on Dec. 30, 1307, did not attend to receive institution within the term prescribed (Feb. 2, 1308). So the said Commissioner, on July 1, 1308, collated and instituted-

SIR JOHN DE PRITTEWELL, Priest. Prittewell exchanged this Vicarage, for the "Church of St. Dunstan, near the Tower of London", with-

SIR PETER DE WARE, Priest, who was collated to Prees on March 24, 1311. He being dead, on December 7, 1314,-

RICHARD DE NORTON, Priest, was appointed Custos of this Vicarage, then sequestered; but was collated thereto on June 5, 1315. He was here in 2 Edw. III. (1328-9).

SIR JOHN DE GREIBY, Priest, was collated June 27, 1338. On August 11, 1349, he exchanges with-

HUGH DE GREYBY, Priest, late Prebendary of St. Chad's, Shrewsbury. Again on April 15, 1355, Hugh de Greyby exchanges this Vicarage for the preferment of-

STEPHEN DEL HETH, Priest, late Canon and Prebendary of Whytgrave, in the Free Chapel of St. Mary, Stafford.

JOHN DE COKESLONE was inducted to Prees Dec. 5, 1375;- the King presenting, because a vacancy of the Vicarage had occurred while the Temporalities of the See of Lichfield were in his hand. [1]

JOHN, "Perpetual Vicar of the Prebendal Church of Prees", was summoned on July 18, 1393, to appear before the Dean of Lichfield and answer the appeal of Thomas de la Legh, whom he was vexatiously citing before some Court for undeclared offences, and whom he had falsely denounced as excommunicate. [2]

SIR JOHN ERDESTON exchanged this Vicarage on Feb. 25, 1402, for the preferment of-

SIR NICHOLAS BAXTER, Chaplain, late Incumbent of St. Trinity, Chester.

SIR WILLIAM CORELEY resigning Prees, on July 18, 1422,-

SIR NICHOLAS SYLIAN, Priest, late Rector of Middle, was collated. On his resignation, March 28, 1438,-

SIR WILLIAM PARKER, Priest, was collated.

MASTER NICHOLAS BLAKBORNE, Vicar, being deceased;- on August 16, 1480,-

SIR STEPHEN BECHE was collated.

[1] This is singular. The most recent vacancy of the See was that which expired in Septemher 1380, on the Consecration of Bishop Stretton.
[2] From the Muniments of T.H. Sandford, Esq., of Sandford.

258 PREES.

SIB HUGH REDYCHE was collated June 11, 1486.

JACOB MORE was Vicar in 26 Henry VIII. (1534-5).

JOHN HOLBROOKE, Priest, subscribed the Parochial Register in 1598.

RICHARD MAINWARING, Vicar of Prees, was buried at Prees, 31 July, 1601.

JOHN MORGAN occurs as Vicar in 1606, 1630, and on May 13, 1635. He was buried at Prees 13 May, 1635.

JAMES FLEETWOOD, subscribed the Parochial Registers from May 15, 1638, to Jan. 21, 1642-3. He is said to have been ejected for his loyalty. [1]

AYLMER HAUGHTON, Vicar of Prees, was appointed by Parliamentary Ordinance, in April 1647, one of a Presbytery of "Ordaining Ministers". He was ejected from Prees in 1660-1. He afterwards conformed.

ROBERT HILL is said to have been Vicar of Prees in 1660, and to have so died in 1663; but the accuracy of both statements is very doubtful. [2]

CHRISTOPHER COMYN Occurs as Vicar Of Prees in 1661. He was buried Sept. 17, 1698. [3] On Sept. 19, following,-

EDWARD CHANDLER [4] was collated to Prees.

THOMAS HODGETTS, M.A., was collated to Prees July 9, 1706, and occurs as Vicar in 1714.

RICHARD JACKSON, D.D., was Vicar in 1771. He died Nov. 12, 1796, and was buried in Sandbach Church.

FRANCIS MEEKE, Vicar of Prees, died March 22, 1301. His Monument is in Eccleshall Church.

EDWARD NEVILE was collated to Press 4 Sept. 1301, and died 13 May, 1346.

JOHN ALLEN, collated to this Vicarage on June 6, 1346, was further collated to the archdeaconry of Salop (Lichfield Diocese) on 15 Dec. 1347. [5]

[1] He was Prebendary of Eocleshall, in Lichfield Cathedral;- collated July 12, 1636. He was appointed Provost of King's College, Cambridge, in 1660, and consecrated Bishop of Worcester 29th July 1676. He died 17th July 1683, aged 81, and was buried in Worcester Cathedral.
[2] Robert Hill was admitted Prebendary of Prees on Septemher 6, 1660, and was succeeded therein, by another, on October 8, 1662. This may partially account for the supposed error of the text.
[3] He also held the Prebend of Bishops-hill in Lichfield Cathedral from January 26, 1664, till his death.
[4] He was already Prebendary of Prees (collated 21st April, 1697). He was consecrated Bishop of Coventry and Lichfield 17th November 1717, and translated to Durham in 1730.

The later portion of the above list is from Blakeway's MSS.;- collated with the Parochial Registers, and enlarged from other sources by the Ven. John Allen, the present Vicar.



The origin of this Stall in Lichfield Cathedral has already been pointed out. In the Taxation of 1291 it is called the Prebend of Prees and valued at 26. 13s. 4d. per annum. [1] In 1292,-

SIR RALPH DE HENGHAM, a noted Justiciar of that period, had this Prebend. He sold the current year's tithe of the corn and hay of Sandford for 5. Sir Ralph de Sandford, the purchaser, paid an instalment of 2 on this account in June 1293, and a receipt for the same, dated at Prees, was given by William de Leycester, Hengham's Chaplain. [2] In 2 Edw. II. (1308-9), Richard de Sandford farmed the tithes of Sandford, Darliston, and Wooliston for 25 merks, 4 merks of which are acknowledged by Ralph de Hengham himself, in a receipt dated at Shustok on 19 Sept. 1309. [2] Ralph de Hengham died in 1311, and in June 1315 we have a receipt of 10 due to him, his heirs, or executors, from Richard, Lord of Sandford, acknowledged by John de Hengham. [2]

JOHN CLAREL, Prebendary of Prees and Archdeacon of Stafford, died possessed of this Stall in June 1337.

I refer elsewhere for a continued list of these Dignitaries. [3] Nicholas Hethe, who had had the Prebend for one year (1360-1), being in 1388 a Canon of Hereford, still held a penal bond of Nicholas de Sandford, Senior, for 35, doubtless on account of some unpaid ferm of tithes. The real consideration seems to have been 17. 10s. 4d. and to have been paid in subsequent instalments. Similarly in August 1373, Nicholas de Sandford and Richard le Clerk of Derlaston acknowledge a debt of 6. 13s. 4d. to Master Richard de Bermingham, Canon of Lichfield and Prebendary of Prees. [4]

The Valor of 1534-5 gives the Income of Richard Strete, Prebendary of Pipa Minor, alias Preez, as 19 per annum, viz. 3. 16s. from glebe land in Typton and Lichfield (Staffordshire);- 4s. from perquisites of Court there;- and 15 from tithes and other emoluments at Preez. [5]

[1] Pope Nich. Taxation, p. 244.
[2] Muniments at Sandford.
[3] Le Neve's Fasti (Hardy), Vol. I. pp. 618, 619.
[4] Muniments at Sandford.
[5] Valor Ecclesiasticus, III. 132.


Moreton Say.

AT Domesday, "Roger de Laci held Mortune under Earl Roger, and William held it under De Laci. Elmund, a free man, had held it (in Saxon times). Here were III hides, geldable. In demesne was one ox-team, and VIII Serfs, III Villains, and IIII Boors, with two teams; and there was work for VI additional teams. The wood would fatten 100 swine. In King Edward's time the Manor had been worth 40s. (per annum). Since that it had been waste. Now it was worth 30s". [1]

There is no probability that Lacy's Tenant, William, continued to be represented at Moreton. The Says, who held Stokesay, Stoke upon Tern, and Wheathill, under Lacy in Henry I.'s time, also held Moreton. My idea is that, between the years 1195 and 1222, Helias de Say (II.) enfeoffed his next brother, Robert, in Moreton, for I find Robert de Say acting as Mesne-Lord of Stych and Audley (members of Moreton) in a Deed which must have preceded the date of Helias de Say's death (c. 1222). I further think that when Robert de Say became (by death of Helias without issue) representative of his family, he enfeoffed his younger brother, Hugh, in Moreton. A Lacon Deed which probably passed about 1200-1210 would make it appear that Robert de Say had a son, Hugh. If so, the said son died young and without issue; but I doubt the accuracy of the transcript of this Lacon Deed. We find Hugh de Say and Robert de Say attesting a Wottenhull Deed about 1224. [2] These witnesses I take to be Hugh de Say, of Moreton, and Robert de Say, the Priest, third and fourth brothers of Helias de Say, then deceased, and younger brothers of Robert de Say and Walter de Say, still living. I have yet another evidence that Hugh de Say was Lord of Moreton during the lifetime of his elder brother Robert. The very chief-rent which is reserved to Robert, as Lord of Styche, before 1222, is reserved to Hugh in a Deed which certainly passed before 1232, and yet Robert de Say was living in 1232 and was then amerced half a merk for some disseizin. [3]

As to Robert de Say, delegated to try a local Suit, as a Justiciar,

[1] Domesday, fo. 256, a, 2.
[2] Supra, page 251.
[3] Rot. Pip. 16 Hen. III., Salop. Nova oblata.


about January 1241, I take him to have been the Churchman, the younger brother of both Robert and Hugh. All in the way of date that I can further state about Hugh de Say of Moreton is that in 1243 he withdrew the suit of Moreton Say from County and Hundred, and that he must have died about 1248-9, if it were true (as alleged) that a lease granted by him, and cancelled by his son "immediately after his death", had been seven years dormant before January 1256. Again, when I see Hugh de Say and Robert de Say sitting on a Sandford Inquest in 1249 I feel assured that these are two sons of Hugh de Say of Moreton. Hugh, the elder, in 1250 procured, as we have seen, an entail of Stokesay and Stoke upon Tern, from his Uncle, Walter, and between 1250 and 1255, having succeeded the said Walter, transferred his interest in those two Manors to John de Verdon. [1] But as to Moreton Say, that would again appear to have been the appanage of Hugh's younger brother, Robert, though the mesne tenure of Hugh went to John de Verdon.

In accordance with the above facts, inferences, and surmises, the Hundred-Roll of 1255 says as follows.- "Robert de Say is Lord of the Vill of Morton-de-Say in the Manor of Stoke, and he holds it of John de Verdon, and it is 1 hides. It pays 1d. (Query 6d.) motfee and 6d. stretward. Hugh, father of the said Robert, withdrew Morton from suit of County and Hundred 12 years since, thus damaging the Crown at the rate of 2s. per annum".

At the Assizes of January 1256 the Bradford Jurors reported that Robert de Say de Aldel' was not in due attendance. They meant Robert de Say of Moreton, I think, for Audley was then a member of Morton. And, at these same Assizes, the following cause was tried.- Eline, or Elyas, son of Richard Cadigan, sought to hold Robert de Say to the terms of an agreement made between Richard, father of Elyas, and Hugh de Say, father of Robert, whereby Hugh had demised to Richard a messuage and half-virgate in Morton for 10 years. The Plaintiff alleged that when only 3 years of the term had run, Hugh de Say died, and forthwith Robert de Say disseized the Plaintiff, so that 7 years of the said term, equal to damages of 100s., were now in arrear to the Plaintiff. It appears that the Plaintiff held neither Script nor Charter of the Lease, and could only allege a verbal demise by Hugh de Say: but he offered a Fine of one merk, that the truth of such verbal demise might be ascertained by Jury. Robert de Say, in absence of any

[1] Supra, Vol. V. p. 38.
[2] Rot. Hundred. II. 57.


written Deed, asked judgment in his own favour, not thinking that an action could lie, or an Inquisition be ordered, as to the fact of the alleged verbal agreement. The result does not appear on the Rolls, but the daughters of the Plaintiff were afterwards tenants of the Defendant at Audley.

I find Robert de Say sitting on local Juries in 1257 and 1259. In the former instance he is described as "of Audetleye". At the Assizes of September 1272 his name was on the panel for Bradford-Hundred, as Robert de Say of Morton, but was cancelled. He appears on other Juries of 1274, 1278, 1280, 1281, and 1284.

The Feodaries of 1284-5 merely name Moreton Say and its members as so many members of Stoke upon Tern, and as held under Theobald de Verdon. It appears from the Assize-Roll of 1292, that Robert de Say had served as a Coroner since the previous Iter (of 1272) and was still in office. Some irregularities were alleged against him.

I find Hugh de Say sitting on a Wem Inquest in April 1290, that is I think in his Father's lifetime, for it is evident that he eventually succeeded to Moreton. He occurs as Lord of Moreton in January 1308, and March 1310. In March 1317 he was found to be Tenant of one-fourth of a knight's-fee in Morton, held of the estate of Theobald de Verdon, deceased, and worth 20s. per annum. [1] He occurs again in 1318.

Pursuant to a Writ of May 9, 1324, Robert de Say and William de Say, Men-at-arms, were returned by the Sheriff of Shropshire as summoned to attend a Great Council, to be held at Westminster. [2] Robert de Say was, I think, of Moreton. He occurs as a witness or Juror in 1332 and 1339.

THE CHURCH of Moreton Say was originally a Chapel of Hodnet. It is not mentioned in the early Diocesan Registers, nor in Henry VIII.'s Valor.


This was originally a member of Moreton Say, and contributed 1 hides of the 3 hides which Domesday assigns to that Manor. Persons who took their name from the place were enfeoffed in Bletchley by the elder branch of the Says, but so as to exclude any mesne interest of the younger branch, viz. the Says of Moreton Say. Hence Bletchley, though much nearer to Moreton Say than to Stoke upon Tern, is more usually considered a member of the latter.

[1] Inquisitions, 10 Edw. II., No. 71.
[2] Parliamentary Writs, IV. 1403, 1404.


I have a few particulars of the descent of the Bletchleys. Very early in the 13th century "Nicholas de Bleggeleg, for the souls' health of himself and his wife Sabina, gave, together with his body, to Lilleshull Abbey, the Mill of Blecheley, with the suit due thereto from his estate". [1] A very early Rent-Roll of Lilleshull Abbey contains an item, of 9s. 4d. receivable yearly at Lady Day for Bleggeleg Mill. Henry III.'s confirmation to Lilleshall speaks of the above gift as donacionem et concessionem quas Nicholas de Blecchel' fecit eisdem Abbati et Conventui de quodam molendino et quodam vivario cum pertinenciis in Blecchel'.

Nicholas de Bletchley was succeeded by his son William. We have seen that about the year 1222 Helias de Say of Stoke granted to Haughmond Abbey, that rent of 12s. 4d. which was arising from the land of Blecheslee, then held by William, son of Nicholas de Blecheslee. About the same time William, son of Nicholas de Blechley, "concedes and allows" his Father's grant of Blechley Mill to Lilleshall Abbey. He further gives the Canons power to raise the stank thereof as high as they pleased; he gives the Vivary and all Le Mulnehul (The Mill-hill), and a house and curtilage outside his own doors, and two acres of assart towards Bromley which Walter the Miller held. He covenants that none of his heirs shall make a Mill at Blechley. For this the Canons gave him one merk. [2]

The Mill, thus conveyed, must have stood on the Bailey Brook, below Aychley and opposite Mickley. Sir Richard de Sandford, as Lord of the land on the western bank of the said brook, came to the following agreement with R. (Richard), Abbot of Lilleshull, between the years 1241 and 1249. Sir Richard allowed that the stank of Blecheley Mill should abut and lean upon his land of Mitteleg which John fitz Yerverth held. He also allowed the raising of the stank and the consequent agistment of water towards the land of Mitteleg, notwithstanding that arable land might be thus inundated, and notwithstanding that this back-pounding of water might cause impediment to the downward flow of water from Sir Richard's Mill of Avicheleg (Aychley). On the other hand the Abbot undertook to move no suit against Sir Richard, neither in a Court spiritual nor secular, concerning the Mill which Sir Richard had constructed at Avicheleg. [3]

About this time (1240-50), "Robert, son of William de Bleggeleg, gives to Lilleshull Abbey all his wood called Overe". The said wood commenced at Bleggeleg Mill, and reached along the rivulet

[1] [2] [3] Lilleshall Chartulary, fo. 62.


to Armitdeleford: then it was bounded, by the Abbot of Combermere's land (probably Chesthill Grange): then it reached to Longefordegate; [1] and passed thence along a hedge, which divided the arable land of Bleggeleg from the wood of Overe itself, and so back to Bleggeleg Mill. This Deed further conveys half the Grantor's meadow, near the King's highway between Bleggeleg and Acheleg, and husbote and common pasture through all the Grantor's lands. [2]

The same Grantor, styling himself, "Sir Robert de Bleggelg", gives to Lilleshall a half-virgate, held by Geoffrey Cort, in the vill of Bleggelg, and also that half of his meadow which Richard, son of Robert de Sanford, held. [2]

Lastly, the same Sir Robert gave to the same Abbey a certain meadow near Bleggeleg Mill, viz. that which lay below the Mill-pound, between the two rivulets. He also conceded his father's grant of the said Mill with suit of his tenants, etc. [2]

In a short time we find this small estate of Lilleshall Abbey called "the land of Overe". In 1253-4 Robert, Abbot of Lilleshull, concedes to P. C. W. and T. (four of his Tenants at Overe thus designated), and to their heirs, one-tenth of Overe, to be assarted. They are to pay a yearly rent of 16d., and at each Tenant's death his best ox or cow, or 5s. in money, is to go to the Abbey. The Deed provides for free egress from Overe to Bleecheleg, and gives the Grantees a right of common in Walter de Say's Wood. [3] The Grantor reserves a road from Bletchley past the Abbey-Mill to Armitelgeford. [4]

At the same period (1253-4) "Robert, Abbot of Lilleshall concedes to Jordan de Bleccheleg and his wife Aldith, daughter of Thomas le Luttele, one-fourth of the land which the said Thomas had held in Overe, reserving a rent of 4d. and a heriot of 2s. The Abbot further gives common pasture in the bosc of Walter de Say". [5]

But, to return to Bletchley itself, the Hundred-Roll of 1255 tells us that "Robert de Blecheleg holds Blecheleg of Robert Corbet of Morton at an annual rent of 12s., and it is 1 hides, and pays 6d. for stretward and 6d. for motfee. Robert, Lord of Blecheleg, does suit to County and Hundred for the whole vill". [6]

[1] A Gate, that is, in the Roman Road called "The Longford". Vide supra, Vol. VIII. p. 202, n.
[2] Lilleshall Chartulary, fo. 68.
[3] Probably part of Moreton Wood, still retained by the Chief of the Says, who is thus proved to have been living in 1253.
[4] Called Ermittelegesford in a former Deed (p. 225);- which also refers to Bromley, and Aychley.
[5] Lilleshall Chartulary, fos. 86, 125.
[6] Rot. Hundred. II. 56.


Here the Seigneury of John de Verdon, then Lord of Stoke upon Tern, is ignored; but it appears clear that Corbet of Moreton Corbet had purchased or otherwise acquired the mesne interest of Haughmond Abbey at Bletchley, such interest being previously represented by a rent of 12s. 4d., but now of 12s.

As to Robert de Bletchley of 1265, we have seen that he was son of William fitz Nicholas. He sat as a Juror for Bradford Hundred at the Assizes of 1256 and 1272, and he occurs on local Juries of 1259 and 1274.

In the Feodary of 1285 Bletchley is put down as a member of Stoke upon Tern, and Robert Corbet is said to hold the vill of Theobald de Verdon. This was undoubtedly correct, for the sub-tenure of Robert de Bletchley had ere this been bought up by Robert Corbet. Hence by the Inquest taken in 1301 after Robert Corbet's death, it was found that "he and his wife Matilda had been conjointly enfeoffed in the vill of Blechelee by Robert de Blechelee; and that it was held under Theobald de Verdon, by a rent of 12s". [1]

Again, Matilda Corbet, dying in 1309, was found to have held the vill of Blecheley under Theobald de Verdon, but without paying any rent (nil reddendo). [2] I suppose she had redeemed the chief-rent, or commuted it for knight's service;- for in the Inquest taken in 1317, on the death of Theobald de Verdon, it appears that the heirs of Thomas Corbet had held one-fourth of a knight's-fee in Blecchele under the deceased, and that the estate was worth 40s. per annum. [3]

Hugh de Blechley, who occurs on a Drayton Jury in 1314, was perhaps a descendant of the earlier Lords of Bletchley, rather than an Undertenant there.

LILLESHALL ABBEY FEE. An estate in Bletchley remained with the Abbey till the Dissolution. The Valor of 1534-5 gives 7 as the joint income of the Abbey estates at Halls (Qy, Hales), Howle, Blecheley, and Wyrmyngham. [4]


This member of Moreton contained two estates. Of one the Says of Moreton were Mesne-Lords, holding it like Moreton under the Lords of Stoke-upon-Tern, but having their own Feoffee here. The other was held immediately of the Lords of Stoke. This

[1] Inquisitions, 29 Edw. I., No. 45.
[2] Inquisitions, 2 Edw. IL, No. 34.
[3] Inquisitions, 10 Edw. II., No. 71.
[4] Valor Ecclesiasticus, III. 197.


feoffment, the earliest and greatest of the two, was that of Hugh de Buchenhulle, who held it about the year 1200, that is at a time when Robert de Say held Moreton itself under his elder Brother, Helias. In 1203 this Hugh de Buchenhulle appears, I think, under the name of Hugh de Stuche, when he was amerced half a merk pro falso dicto. In or about the year 1222, the chief-rent of 12d. due from Hugh de Stuche's land was given to Haughmond Abbey by Helias de Say. [1] The subsequent Tenants of this part of Styche occur as follows, but nothing transpires to show that they held under Haughmond Abbey.-

William de Stuche occurs as a witness before 1240. He was a Juror for Bradford Hundred at the Inquests of 1255 and at the Assizes of 1256. He occurs on another Jury in 1259.

John de Stuche and William Mangul of Stuche occur on a local Jury in 1274. Thomas de Stuche occurs on similar Juries in 1281 and 1284. His non-attendance at the Assizes of 1292 was reported by the Bradford Jurors. He occurs on a Market Drayton Inquest in 1319. In 1318 William de Stuch attests a Moreton Deed; and, a few years later, William Stuch occurs as a tenant in Audley. [2]

As to the other part of Styche it was held together with Moreton Say (about 1196-1200) by Robert de Say. He enfeoffed Robert fitz Leisinc therein, by the following curious and ancient Deed.-

Notum sit tam futuris quam presentibus quod ego Robertus de Sai dedi Roberto filio Leisinc terram de Stucha que est inter meam sepem et inter sepem meorum hominum de Aldeleia (Audley) et inter divisam Hugonis de Buchenhulle, et quoddam pratum infra sepem meam per divisas ductum;- in feudo et hereditate, sibi et suis heredibus, ex me et meis heredibus, libere at quiete tenendam, in bosco, in plano, in viis, in semitis, in aquis, pratis, in pascuis, et in omnibus liberis consuetudinibus, pro suo homagine et pro IIII solidis modo in ingressu;- III solidos inde annuatim ad festum Sti Michaelis mihi reddendo pro omni servicio, excepto quod, si porcos habuerit plusquam quatuor, dabit mihi unum ex omnibus tantum, scilicet tercium meliorem; [3] et si ipse habuerit homines ibi, eandem habeant libertatem quam ipse de porcis suis. Teste, Hugone de Buccheull, et Ricardo de Wolncheslawe (Longslow), et Roberto de Longefordia, et Turstano filio ejus, et Petro de La-fordia (now Ford Hall), et Hugone filio eius, et Herefrei et Henneo filio ejus, et multis allis. [4]

[1] Supra, Vol. VIII. p. 61.
[2] Infra, page 270.
[3] The third best, as we should say.
[4] Charter at Sandford. The Seal, of white wax, has the Effigy of a knight on horseback, with a drawn sword, a square helmet, and a triangular shield. Of the Legend only the letters RODBE remain.


The Grantor in the following abstract of a Deed, I take to be the son or grandson of Robert fitz Leisinc, sub-enfeoffing Sir Ralph de Sandford. It probably passed after the year 1222, when Robert de Say having succeeded his elder Brother, Helias, at Stoke, may be supposed to have surrendered Moreton as the appanage of his younger brother. Sir Ralph de Sandford's death, in or before 1285, gives the later limit of the Deed.-

Robertus filius Roberti Belle deli Radufo de Sanfort et heredibus totam terram meam de Stuche, propter V marcas quas dedit;- tenendam et habendam de me et heredibus meis, sibi et heredibus suis in feudo, etc., in boscho, etc., sicut ego et ancessores mei melius et liberius habuimus et tenuimus; reddendo mihi et heredibus meis III solidos in die Michaelis pro omni servicio mihi pertinente, quos (solidos) ego et heredes mei eodem die pro eadem terra domino meo H. de Sai et heredibus suis pro firma persolvemus. [1] Concessi itaque quod si predicta firma in predicto termino soluta non fuerit, ut (sic) ego et heredes mei sepedicto Radulfo et heredibus, dimidiam marcam infra primos XV dies post terminum prenominatum, sub nomine penae persolvamus. Hiis testibus, Toma Persona de Pres, Willielmo filio Eynon, Edwyno de Wylaston, Reginaldo filio suo, Ricardo de Lacke, Henrico de Scevinton, Adama de Wylaston, Ricardo filio Alexandri et multis aliis.

I cannot tell what the Sandfords did with their share of Styche. The Feodary of 1285 merely mentions Stuche as a member of Stoke-upon-Tern, and says nothing of the tenure.


This place is now lost. I take it to have been originally a member of Moreton rather than of Stoke-upon-Tern, though the Lords of Stoke seem to have retained the immediate Seigneury, or rather to have disallowed any mediate right of the Lords of Moreton.

In August 1268, I find Richard de Pywelesdon arraigning John de Verdon for having disseized him of his free tenement in Warenhall and Oldefeld. The Writ is thrice repeated, in January, July, and November 1269, against John de Verdon and others. Also in August 1270, Master Richard de Pyvelesdon has a Writ against Hugh de Wlankeslowe (Longslow) concerning the destruction of a fence in Wernhale. Lastly, in June 1272, John de Verdon and others are

[1] This shows the difficulty at that period of setting aside a mesne-tenure. The Lord's chief-rent must go through the hands of the mesne-tenant. The service, if rendered directly by a Subfeofee, was insufficient, unless the Seigneur chose to approve of a complete transfer, which process would entitle him to a Fine.


Plaintiffs against Richard de Peulisdon in a suit where Warteshale is written as the place concerned. I know of no result to this litigation. I have spoken of Master Richard de Pulesdon befare. [1] In 1285, he held the vill of Warranshall, a member of Stoke-upon-Tern, under the heir of Radulf de Albo-Monasterio, which heir held it under Theobald de Vernon. I presume that Radulf de Albo-Monasterio, thus mentioned, was some Cadet of the Warrens of Whitchurch, whose elder line was now represented by females; but I can say no more about this Radulf, or his heir, or their mesne-tenure in Waranshall.

OF OLDFIELD, a member of Moreton Say, and coupled with Waranshall, as above, I can quote but little. The Feodary of 1285 classes it as a member of Stoke. We have William-of-then-Oldefeld on a Wem Jury in 1284, Richard de Oldfeld on a Hinstock Jury in 1306, and Thomas de Oldfield on a Drayton Jury in 1314.

OF HULLE, another member of Moreton Say, I may only state that James (Jacopus) de Hulle attests an Audley Deed (hereafter to be set forth) about 1254-5. At the Assizes of 1272, Adam de Hull, who had brought an action de ingressu against James de Hull and his son Hugh, concerning a messuage and half-virgate in Hull, "in the parish of Hodnet", did not prosecute the suit. Hugo filius Jacobi sat on the Inquest taken at Stoke in November 1274, on John de Verdon's death.

At the Assizes of 1292, Hugh de Hulle (the above son of James, I think) was a Juror for Bradford Hundred.

In March 1317, William de la Hulle was a Juror on the Inquest taken after the death of Theobald de Verdon; but he perhaps belonged to another family. [2]


Domesday mentions this Manor next after Moreton and as held by Roger de Lacy of the Norman Earl.-

"The same Roger holds Lai, and William holds it of him. Here is one hide, geldable. Eluui held it (in Saxon times) and was a free man. Here one free man has half an ox-team, and there might be

[1] Supra, Vol. VIII. pp. 97, 98.
[2] Vide supra, p. 217, note 1.


one additional team (employed). The value (in Saxon times) was 6s. (per annum). The present value is 2s. He (Roger de Lad) found it waste". [1]

There is some difficulty in identifying this Manor of Lai. Its Domesday tenure was precisely that of Moreton, and the fluctuations of its value since the Saxon aera were in the same ratio as those of Moreton. Its Saxon owner, Eluni, was Lord also of part of Calverhall, and Calverhall is the next Manor to Moreton on the North-West. It being certain that Lai has been absorbed by some other Manor, I should suppose it likely to have been absorbed by Moreton, and, though the reputed hidage of Moreton does not appear to have been increased, that is no conclusive argument against my hypothesis. Indeed, taking the analogy of Stoke-upon-Tern, another of Lacy's Manors, we should expect Moreton to have decreased in hidage; and so, if its hidage remained the same, we may suppose that its real area was enlarged.

I will, without quite insisting on the identity of the two, say under Lai what has to be said about-


This either was originally, or became a member of Moreton. The word Audley (Saxon AEld-leag or AEld-lah) signifies Old-Lee, and so may be taken etymologically to represent the Lai of Domesday.

We have seen that about the year 1200, Robert de Say of Moreton spoke of the men of Aldeleia as his Tenants. [2] The following Deed passed about 1254-5, and therefore while the Grantee was hardly yet of age. I give it in brief.-

Ricardus Cadegan dedi Radulfo domino de Sonford totam illam terram quam tenui in villa de Aldelewe;- habendam et tenendam de me et heredibus meis sibi et heredibus suis in feodo et hereditate;- reddendo capitali domino 12d. die Sti Petri ad Vincla. Hiis testibus;- Henrico de Schavinton, Roberto de Say de Morton, Thoma de Wylastan, Willielmo de Stuche, Jacopo de Hulk, et aliis. [3]

We have seen Eline, or Elyas, son of Richard Cadigan, claiming other property at Moreton-Say in January 1256. He left two daughters, Alyna and Margery, who, styling themselves "daughters of Elkyn Cadugan", concede and quitclaim to Ralph de Sandford all right in the land which Richard Cadugan, their Grandfather, formerly held in Aldeleg. Both the Sisters' Deeds are attested by

[1] Domesday, fo. 256, a, 2.
[2] Supra, page 266.
[3] Chador in possession of T. H. Sandford, Esq., of Sandford.


Sir Odo de Hodenet, Robert Corbet, Roger de Preston, Hugh de Stile (Steel), and Robert, son of Adam de Wylaston. [1] These names suggest 1270-5, as the proximate date of these Quitclaims. I bear nothing more of a Sandford estate in Audley.

Meantime, though Robert de Say of Moreton is styled (as we have seen) "of Audley" in 1256 and 1257, it is clear that certain land in Audley was retained by his elder brother, Hugh, and had been conveyed by the said Hugh (about 1254) to John de Verdon, as part of the great exchange which then took place.

Hence, on the death of John de Verdun in 1274, the Inquest states that he had held half a carucate of land in Aldeleg, which land he had obtained by exchange for land in Ireland. It was worth 2. 14s. 11d. per annum. [2] The further statement that this land was held by Verdon of the heirs of Lacy of Ludlow, and necessitated suit of Court to Ludlow, cannot have any very pregnant meaning, seeing that Verdon himself was one of Lacy's Coheirs.

On March 24, 1317, William de Aldele was foreman of the Jurors who made Inquest as to the estate of Theobald de Verdon (II.), then deceased. These Jurors said nothing about his receipts from Audley; but an Escheator's-Roll, drawn up within the next 10 years, accounts for an annual rent of 1. 8s. 8d. from "Aldeleye within the Manor of Stoke super Tirne", and which was payable on 3 tenements, held for life, by William Stuche, of the inheritance of Theobald de Verdon, and which rent was an escheat in manu Regis, because Theobald's heirs had not as yet established their right thereto.

The following Deed, or rather transcript, which purports to be dated at Aldeleg on Nov. 1, 12 Edward I., belongs, I think, to the 12th year of Edward II., viz. 1318.-

"Richard de le Het (Heath) gives to Hugh Clerk of Huls, his wife Edith, and his heirs by her, all his land in the fields of Overe. [3] Witnesses,- Hugh de Say of Morton, William de Stuche, Richard de Sumervile of Aderdeleg, William de Alderley (Qy. Aldeleg?)". [4]

[1] Charter in possession of T. H. Sandford, Esq., of Sandford.
[2] Inquisitions, 2 Edw. I., No. 34.
[3] Over, near Bletchley, I presume (vide supra, page 264).
[4] Harleian MS. 2063, fo. 5-b.



I HAVE already alluded to, and endeavoured to explain, the terms in which Hopton, near Hodnet, is described in Domesday. [1] It is better in a case of much obscurity to give the exact text of the Record. After surveying Roger de Lacy's Manors of Moreton and Lai, Domesday continues thus.-

"In hoc Hundredo (scilicet Odenet) tenuit Edric unam berewicham, Hotune, de dimidia hida, et geldabilem; et non poterat haec terra separari a Manerio Stoches quem tenet Rogerius Laci. Haec terra est appreciata in ipso Manerio, in Recordin Hundredo". [2]

There is some ground for a conjecture (but I do not trust it), that, in the time of Henry I. or Stephen, when Lacy's Fief was under forfeiture, the seigneury over Hopton may have been given to the then Baron of Pulverbatch. Of this matter I will speak presently. Meantime we have direct evidence that Lacy's tenant at Stoke-upon-Tern continued to be tenant of the berewick of Hopton; for the said Tenant gave the very estate now under consideration to Haughmond Abbey. In 1172 (as we know from Pope Alexander's Confirmation) the Canons of Haughmond possessed "half a hide in Hoppton, by gift of Elyas de Say, and with assent of Hugh his son". Other gifts which the Canons had, now and afterwards, in Hopton and Espley must be treated of elsewhere. They were in a different Manor than that of which Domesday speaks, as Hotune, and were not in Lacy's Fief. The Hundred-Roll of 1255, treating of Hopton generally and distinctively, marks well this difference.- "The Abbot of Hagemon holds 2 virgates in the said vill, of the fee of Stoke, and answers in Scutages, when Scutage is being levied, for his relative proportion". [3]

The Feodaries of 1284-5 call the Abbot of Haughmond's tenement in Hopton "half the vill", and declare that the "Abbot held it of Philip Marmion, who held it in capite". This was tantamount to saying that the estate was reputed to be of the Fee of Pulverbatch: but there is not the smallest probability that such was really the condition of Hopton.

The Inquest taken in 1317 states distinctly that the Tenant of

[1] Supra, Vol. VIII. pp. 68, 69.
[2] Domesday, fo. 256, b, 1.
[3] Rot. Hundred. II. 58.


Hopton (i.e. the Abbot of Haughmond) held by knight's-service under Theobald de Verdon (deceased).
[1] It is obvious therefore that this part of Hopton was still held of the Fief of Lacy and not of Pulverbatch; and that while the estate had been given by De Say to the Abbey, the services due thereon had never been abandoned by Lacy's heirs.

I will speak of the estate, thus and otherwise acquired by Haughmond Abbey, at Hopton and Espley, in the next Chapter.-


"RAYNALD the Sheriff holds Marcemeslei of the Earl. Seuuar and Aluric held it in King Edward's time for two Manors, and were free. Here are 5 hides, geldable. In demesne are II ox-teams; and (there are) IIII Serfs, VI Villains, VII Boors, and II Radmans, having three teams among them all; and 10 more teams might yet be (employed) here. Here is a Mill of 5s. (annual value); a Wood which will fatten 100 swine; and one Haye".

"Of the above land Walter holds (under Raynald) 1 hides, and has thereon one ox-team and one Serf; and there are a Villain and a Boor with half a team. The whole in King Edward's time was worth 100s. (per annum). Afterwards it was waste. Now it is worth 46s. 4d". [2]

It will be better to identify at once those 1 hides in Marchamley which Domesday indicates as the feoffment of Rainald's tenant, Walter. The land lay in Espley, in Hopley, and in Hopton,- in that part of Hopton which was not of Lacy's Fief. At present I will speak chiefly of those four other hides which constituted Marchamley proper. They were bestowed on some Feoffee before the year 1135, and-

RICHARD DE MERCHOMLEY, probably the very Feoffee in question, stands first witness to a Deed of his Suzerain, William fitz Alan (I.), which must have passed before 1166. In that year William fitz Alan died, and it is evident that Richard de Marchomley was dead also.- A votive offering which Hugh Hose had made to

[1] Vide supra, Vol. VIII. pp. 68, 69.
[2] Domesday, fo. 254, a, 2.


Haughmond Abbey "for the soul of Richard de Marchemley" is recorded in another Deed of the same William fitz Alan.

RICHARD DE MARCHOMLEY (II.) occurs in 1165. As Richard de Marthemedlee he was then enrolled as Tenant of a whole knight's-fee in the Barony of Fitz Alan. [1]

JOHN DE MARCHOMLEY was the next in this succession. He seems to have held something under his neighbour, the Lord of Hawkstone. In the Pipe-Roll of 1185, John de Marchemesleg is recorded as paying an oblatum of one merk, which he had proffered "for having a trial-at-law concerning the customs and service which Roger de Hauckestan required from him".

I think it was as a Coparcener, or Claimant, or adjoining Proprietor, rather than as having any larger right in Hopley, that "John de Marchemesleg gave and confirmed, to Haughmond Abbey, Hoppeley with its appurtenances, wishing that his body might be buried at Haughmond unless he happened to die in Essex". This Deed probably passed about 1190, being attested by William fitz Alan, Hugh Pantun, Hugh de Say, Peter de Mortun, Odo de Hodenet, Robert de Say, Jordan de Hespelee, Hugh de Loscefort, Roger de Hefkeston (Hawkstone), and Walter de Hopton. [2]

By another Deed (about 1190-4) John de Merchemesley concedes and gives to the same Abbey a certain part of his wood, viz. from the path which led from Kentenesdene (Kinston), between his own wood and the Abbot's wood, towards Hodnet, according to the boundary of certain ditches, up to the rivulet where his Vivary was situated; which Vivary the Grantor retained, with power to make it as large as he liked, saving all easements for the Abbot's live-stock at Hoppeley. This grant was in augmentation of that land of Hoppeley which he had previously given to the Abbey. He adds to the gift a right of common in the whole land of Kentenesdene, like that which the men of Kentenesdene enjoyed in Hoppeleg. If it happened that the Abbot's cattle should break out and cross the rivulet into the "part of Marchemesley", it was not to be matter of prosecution (non incausentur Canonici). Witnesses,- Hugh de Sal; Helias his son; Odo de Hodenet; Baldwyn his son; Richard de Stretton; Hugh de Loskesford; Robert de Sai; Henry Chaplain of Hodenet, and Amfred his brother, and Paulinus; Alan, brother of Odo, and many others. [3]

John de Marchomley, dying within the next ten years, was succeeded

[1] Hearse's Liber Niger, Vol. I. p. 143.
[2] Haughmond Chartulary (at Sundorn), fo. 114, dorso.
[3] Harl. MS. 446, Quatern. xii. fo. 12.


needed by his two daughters, Johanna, wife of Richard de Essex, and Cecily, wife of Ernulf de Hesding. These parties agreed to a partition of their inheritance by a Fine levied at Westminster on June 11, 1206. It was agreed that 3 carucates in Merchemelee (Shropshire) and one carucate in Mereton (Warwickshire) [1] should remain to Richard de Essex and his wife Johanna, and two carucates in Berslede and Clakinton (Essex) should remain to Ernulf, son of Reginald de Hesdin, and his wife Cecily.

Henry de Audley seems to have obtained some ingress, rightfully or not, into the estates of Richard de Essex. At the Assizes of November 1221, a Suit of mort d'ancestre which Richard de Essex and Matilda (sic) his wife had against Henry de Audley, concerning lands in Shropshire and Warwickshire, was adjourned to Hilary Term, at Westminster. At the Warwick Assizes of January 1222 it was further adjourned to Easter Term, Richard de Essex and his wife Matilda being again named as Plaintiffs. Nor is a Fine levied at Westminster on January 20, 1223, much more accurate as to names, for it represents Robert de Essex and his wife Johanna (Plaintiffs) quitting their claim of mort d'ancestre on the Manor of Marchemeleg, in favour of Henry de Auditheleg for the great sum of 220 merks.

Henry de Audley, thus becoming Lord of Marchamley, had next a negotiation with his Suzerain, John fitz Alan, who reduced the Knight's-service, due on the Manor, from one fee, to a fourth part of a fee. Hence Henry III.'s Charter to Audley (passing in May 1227) ratifies, inter alia, the following release.-

Ex relaxacione et quieta clamacione Johannis filii Willielmi filii Alani servicium unius militis quod de Manerio de Marchemeleg fieri fuit consuetum, usque ad quartam partem servicii unius militis.

The three Feodaries, drawn up about 1240, give Henry de Audithleg as Fitz Alan's Tenant at Marchomleg, two of them stating his service to be half a fee, and one correctly giving it as a quarter fee. [2]

The Hundred-Roll of 1255 says of Sir James de Audley's Manor of Marchimley that he held it of John fitz Alan by service of one-fourth part of a fee, returnable at White-Minster (Oswestry). There were four hides therein. It did suit neither to County nor Hundred. Marchimeleg and Weston were held with free-warren,

[1] Probably Marton, which was held in Henry III.'s time by one Ralph de Marchameleg, perhaps a son of Richard de Essex (See Dugdale's Warwickshire, I. 326 a.) [2] Testa de Nevill, pp. 44, 47, 49.


by Charter of the King, and at Weston Sir James had a Park, the Jurors knew not by what warranty. [1]

In 1256-7 James de Audley conceded and quitclaimed to Alexander, Abbot of Haughmond, that parcel of land in the heath of Hopley which lay under Yestercoumbe, outside the Abbot's ancient foss;- along the road which led towards Mostone, up to the green way which went towards Kentenesdene (Kinstone), and along that way to an old ditch which led towards Yestercoumbe. The Abbot had sued the Plaintiff for the premises, under Writ of novel-disseizin, and before Master Symon de Wanton and his associates, Justices Itinerant at Salop; and the Grantor had allowed the Abbot's right as an appurtenance of his Grange of Hopley. The present Deed further allows the Abbot to enclose and cultivate the premises; but retains the Grantor's right of common therein, after harvest. The Abbot is also to grind toll-free in the Grantor's Mill called La Bechemulne, in return for the Abbot's having conceded an abuttment for the mill-stank, and back-poundage of water up to a certain oak on the paths between Hodenet and Kentenesdene and between Hopley and Marchimeley. Witnesses,- Sir Odo de Hodenet, Sir Henry de Audley, Geoffrey de Thorp, Robert de Espele, John de Hauekiston, William de Lake, Henry de Pechchiseye, Henry de Schavinton, and Robert de Heysawe.

The Inquest, taken in November 1273, on the second James de Audley's death, shows him to have held 1 carucates in demesne at Marchumle. The personal service due thereon, viz. a fourth of a knight's-fee, in time of war, was due to John fitz Alan (he was dead at the time), but was now made returnable by the Lord of Loskesford, though at the charges of the Lord of Marchumle. [3]

Henry de Audley II. dying in 1276, had two-thirds of Marchumleg and Kettensden; value 8. 16s. 9d. per annum.
[4] His service to Fitz Alan is put at half a fee. In 1283, the estates of William de Audley (deceased), at Marchumley, Red-Castle, and Weston, are surveyed together. [5] At the Assizes of 1292, Nicholas de Audley's exercise of Free-warren in Marchumleye, and his holding of a free-court twice yearly for Marchamley and Weston, were subjects of presentment by the Bradford Jurors. The Suit of Quo Waranto which followed has been already recited in part a Audley defended his exercise of the above privileges in Marchumlegh and Weston, by

[1] Rot. Hundred. II. 58.
[2] Harl. MS. (ut supra).
[3] Inquisitions, 1 Edw. I., No. 30, [4] Inquisitions, 4 Edw. I., No. 50.
[5] Inquisitions, 11 Edw. I., No. 34.
[6] Supra, page 120.


the immemorial usage of his ancestors, and of the ancestors of those from whom his ancestors purchased the said Manors. Hugh de Louther, the King's Attorney, objected that Audley could show no specific grant of the above franchises, nor could he show that continuous usage since the reign of Richard I., which a recent act of Royal grace would have made a sufficient defence. He ought not therefore to be admitted to any proof of the usage of his Ancestors' Feoffors, before the alleged purchase. The Suit was adjourned to Lichfield, but the result does not appear.

I gather from an abstract of the Inquest, taken in 1299, on Nicholas de Audley's death, that his estate in Marchumleye and Kentensdon was surveyed. [1] On Thomas de Audley's death in 1308, Marchumleie was valued at 22. 6s. 1d. per annum, and his tenements in Kentenesden (Kinstone) at 3. 4s. 6d. The latter included a rabbit-warren (Cunicularium), yielding 6d. per annum. The Advowson of Marchomley Chapel, the only Advowson which Audley had in Shropshire, was valued at 40s. per annum.

In the Nomina Villaram of 1316, Nicholas de Audley (II.) duly appears as Lord of Marchumleye. The Inquest on his death, in the same year, makes the Hamlet of Marchumley, as well as Ightfield and Gravenhunger, to be members of Red-Castle. [3]

MARCHAMLEY CHAPEL. This was originally subject to Hodnet, but founded by the Lords of the Manor with the probable view of making it independent. Indeed we have seen that in 1308, the Advowson, worth 40s. per annum, was in the Audleys.

Bishop Langton, dying in November 1321, left a cause pending between Philip de Say, Rector of Hodnet, and Geoffrey de Wolselegh who, assuming himself to be Rector of the Chapel of Marchumle, contested Philip de Say's right to the great tithes arising from all assarts in Marchumle. On October 19, 1322, Bishop Northburgh directs his Commissaries to proceed with, and decide, this cause.

The Valor of 1534-5, shows that the Rectory of Hodnet was charged with an annual pension of 3, payable to the Free Chapel at Marchomley. [4] Probably this was the sole endowment of the Chapel, and represented some surrender of tithes to the Rectors of Hodnet.

The sometime existence of this Chapel was known to Tradition at the beginning of the present century.

[1] Calend. Inquis. Vol. I. p. 150.
[2] Inquisitions, 1 Edw. II., No. 63.
[3] Inquisitions, 10 Edw. II., No. 73.
[4] Valor Ecclesiasticus, III. 184.



Losford and Hawkstone were undoubtedly among the original members of Marchamley. They constituted, I think, a part of four hides in which, according to Domesday, Raynald Vicecomes had as yet no Feoffee. However, within ten years after Domesday Losford was held by one Hunald, as we shall presently see. This Hunald proves also to have had a Feoffment at Preston Boats, [1] a member of Upton Magna, where Raynald Vicecomes must have been again his Feoffor. Earl Hugh's spurious Charter to Shrewsbury Abbey confirms the tithes of Opton (Upton Magna), Prestona Supra (Preston on Severn) and Locesford as if they were his own demesnes;- a fallacy which I have already exposed in the two first cases. [2] The same Earl's less suspicious Charter assigns the grant of two-thirds of the tithes of Opton to Warin Vicecomes, and the grant of two-thirds of the tithes of the demesnes of Loskesfort and of Prestone to Hunaldus.
[3] Henry I.'s Charter to the Abbey says how "Hunaldus gave thereto the tithes of Preston and of Loscafort and the tithes of his own wild mares (decimam equarum suarum agrestium)", including the grant among those which had been sanctioned by Earl Roger or one of his sons, Hugh or Robert. [4] The Charters of Stephen, Henry II., and Henry III. describe the grant in a similar way; but Bishop Clinton's Charter, confirming some Charter of Earl Hugh, not now in existence, limits the grants of tithes in Preston and Loschesford to two-thirds of the demesne-tithes of each place. [5] Bishop Durdent's Charter, in mentioning these tithes, places Locheford in the same clause with Hodnet, and Preston in the same clause with Opton. [6]

Enough of these Charters has now been quoted to show the undoubted state of the case, viz. that before the death of Earl Hugh (July, 1098) Hunald had been enfeoffed in Losford and in Preston, by Rainald, the Lord Paramount of Marchamley and Upton Magna, and that Hunald, thus enfeoffed, had granted two-thirds of his demesne-tithes as a direct aid to the Monks of Shrewsbury. The remaining third, in each case, probably went to the respective Rectors of Hodnet and Upton Magna.

The next question is, "Who was this Hunald"? That he was father of that Roger fitz Hunald who gave Rea (another member

[1] Not Preston Brockhurst, as suggested in the History of Shrewsbury (Vol. II. p. 26); where also Hunald is wrongly identified with the Saxon, Hunnit.
[2] Supra, Vol. VII. p. 208.
[3] Salop Chartulary, No. 3.
[4] [5] Ibidem, Nos. 35, 325.
[6] Ibidem, No. 61.


of Upton) to Haghmon Abbey, [1] there cannot be a doubt. But Roger fitz Hunald had two brothers, viz. Robert fitz Halufri, who was his Suzerain at Rea, and therefore his elder brother, and another brother, the initial letter of whose name was R., but whom we may at once call Richard fitz Halufri, for so he is named in a document which I shall have to quote hereafter. My further ideas on this subject are at present unfortified by adequate proof, but, as they square with all known facts, I will here state them. I think that Rainald's Domesday Tenant at Stanton Hineheath and other places, though his Christian name alone is given, might properly be called Richard fitz Halufri. I think that Hunald, of Earl Hugh's time, was Richard's son and heir, and that it was Hunald who augmented the Fee of Stanton by acquisitions at Rea, Preston Boats, Roden, Rodenhurst, and, I may now add, Losford. It is clear that Roger fitz Hunald, his younger son, had Rea. It is clear too, that Robert fitz Halufri, probably Hunald's eldest son, continued the line of Stanton.

As to Richard fitz Halufri, be was probably the second brother, and it will appear hereafter that he was Mesne Lord of Hopton, a place which, like Losford, was one of the original members of Marchamley. After the aera of Richard fitz Halufri, I find nothing to connect either Hopton or Losford with the Fee or family of Stanton. There must have been some change, which reunited both places under the Fee of Marchamley. The persons now to be mentioned must be considered as holding Losford or parts thereof under the Lords of Marchamley.-

We have seen Hugh de Loskesford attesting a grant of John de Marchomley about 1190-4. In 1199 Hugh de Lokesford was sued by Ralph de la Cleie and Sibil, his wife, for a hide in Lokesford which the Plaintiffs claimed under Writ of mort d'ancestre. Hugh, by a Fine, levied October 29, 1199, acknowledged the premises to be the right and inheritance of Ralph and Sibil, who, in turn, allowed him to hold the premises for life, paying a pair of spurs or 2d., as a rent to themselves. After Hugh's decease the land was to revert to the Plaintiffs and their heirs.

The Pipe-Roll of 1202 exhibits Robert de Lokeswrd as having been amerced half a merk by Geoffrey fitz Piers, pro falso clamore. The debt is renewed, and discharged, in 1204 as that of Hugh de Lokeswrde. On the death of Hugh de Losford, of course Ralph de la Cleie and his wife entered on possession. At the Assizes of

[1] Supra, Vol. VII. pp. 271, 272.


1221 they appear at issue with William, Bishop of Chester, about 10 acres of bosc in Lokesford which they claimed under Writ of mort d'ancestre. The case was adjourned to Warwick, Ralph and Sibil committing their interests to their son, Robert. [1] Probably the dispute was really one of boundary between Prees and Losford. At these same Assizes, the aforesaid Ralph and Sibil claimed, under another Writ of mort d'ancestre, half a virgate in Loskesford then held by Werric de Loskesford. It was proved that Sibil's mother, Swanilda fitz Werric, had died seized thereof, and that Sibil was her heir. The misericordia of Werric, the Tenant, was insured by Helias Cocus. [2]

In September 1224, the Justices sitting at Salop amerced Ralph de Cley and Sibil his wife half a merk for some disseizin. [3] We have seen that about the year 1230, Richard, son of Hugh de Losford above mentioned, was exchanging Cheswardine-Mill for land in Wellington. [4] But in 1240 we find him suing the son of Ralph de Cleia, under Writ of mort d'ancestre, for a carucate in Loskesford, that very estate, I presume, of which his Father had disinherited him by the Fine of 1199. Hugh fitz Ralph, as Ralph de Clay's son is called, had enfeoffed Roger le Conestable and Alice his wife in one-third of a carucate in Loskesford. The other two-thirds he held himself. As Warrantor or Owner of the whole he was sued by Richard fitz Hugh; but obtained a quitclaim and Fine from the latter, by payment of 40s. [5] Had the Defendant in this Action known of the Fine of 1199 he might have stopped the suit of mort d'ancestre in a cheaper way, viz. by showing that the Plaintiff's Father could not have died, seized in dominico ut de feodo.

I should, before I descend later, mention one Bertram de Lochesforde, who, about the year 1220, gave to Haughmond Abbey his whole fourth part of a meadow in Lochesford called the Mill-meadow. Witnesses,- Baldwin de Hodenet; Richard de Chesthull; Nycholas, Chaplain; Master William de Hodenet; Walter fitz Osanna, and others. [6]

At the Assizes of 1256 Roger de Loskesford [7] was reported by the Bradford Jurors as wanting in punctuality of attendance. At these same Assizes Roger Hasting compelled Robert de Say (of

[1] [2] Assizes, 6 Hen. III., mm. 6 dorso, 6 recto. Helias Cocus was of Brockton. (See Vol. II. p. 129.) [3] Rot. Finium, Vol. I. p. 122.
[4] Supra, page 46.
[5] It would seem that Richard de Losford afterwards settled at High Ercall. His son Elyas also occurs (supra, p. 87).
[6] Harl. MS. 446, Quatern. xii. fo. 10.
[7] He was Lord of Gravenhanger.


Moreton) to observe an agreement about a moiety of a Mill in Losford. Hugh de Say, Robert's father, had given the Plaintiff a written Lease of the said moiety for 32 years. Eighteen years had run while Hugh de Say was living, and fourteen years had to run when Robert de Say disseized the Plaintiff. Judgment went for the Plaintiff, viz, that he do recover his full term.

In February and June 1263 Hugh de Albo Monasterio has Writs against James de Audley and others, for disseizing him of a tenement in Loskesford.

In 1272 we find that Hugh de Cley had been succeeded by a son, Roger, probably the Roger de Loskesford of 1256. This Roger, son of Hugh le Cley, as his name is written on the Assize-Roll of 1272, had seized a messuage and 32 acres in Loskesford, on the ground that Alan de Loskesford (the tenant thereof) had been executed for felony. He was sued for the same by William, son and heir of the said Alan, whose right he at length allowed, William paying a sore hawk, for the recognition. [1]

At these same Assizes, three daughters and coheirs of William de Albo Monasterio were suing James de Audley (II.) for three parts of a messuage and carucate in Loskesford, saying that James de Audley (I.) had disseized Hugh de Albo Monasterio, their Uncle, of the same. The three Ladies who prosecuted this suit were Alianore wife of Robert le Strange, Joan wife of William de Barentyn, and Matilda wife of Robert de Brascy. A fourth Sister, Berta, and a fourth share of the estate were excluded from the suit because Berta did not join in the prosecution. The reason for her not doing so will appear elsewhere. The cause was adjourned till James de Audley (II.) should be of age. [2]

That Losford was now a mere member of Marchomley is proved by the Inquest, taken in November 1273, on the death of James de Audley (II.). He had held Marchomley of Fitz Alan; but the service due thereon, viz. one-fourth of a knight's service, in war time, was returnable by the Lord of Loskesford, as Audley's deputy. The deputy's charges were provided out of Marchomley. [3]

In June 1276 Adam de Loskesford occurs on a Jury-list; and in 1281 Robert de Loskesford sat on an Inquest at Wem. In 1285 one Richard de Loskesford was a Coparcener in Gravenhanger. In 1308 the Tenements of Thomas de Audley, deceased, in Loskesford, were valued at 4. 10s. 6d. per annum, and Kinstone and Loscasford are treated as if members of Marchamley. In 1316, the Inquest

[1] [2] Assizes, 56 Hen. III., mm. 8 and 10 dorso.
[3] Inquis. 1 Edw. I., No. 30.


on Nicholas de Audley's death treats Ightfield, Whixall, Lolkeswode, and Kentesden, all as members of Red-Castle. The meaning of this is apparent, though the accuracy is doubtful, for Red-Castle belonged to a different Fief from Marchomley. However on this occasion the income from Lolkeswode alone is put at 5. 12s. 6d. per annum, viz. 18s. for the rent of a free tenant, and 4. 14s. 6d. from the rents of Nativi. [1] Subsequent Inquisitions on the deaths of the Audleys or their Heirs usually name Losford as a member of Red-Castle.


I have said that Hawkstone must have been originally a member of Marchamley. Nevertheless it is clear, from the entry given under Marchamley, [2] that in the year 1185 Hawkstone and Marchamley were independent of each other, or at all events, that, if there was any dependence, it was that of the Lord of Marchomley on the Lord of Hawkstone. Perhaps John de Marchomley, besides his tenure in Marchomley which was immediate under Fitz Alan, also held something mediately under Roger de Hawkston.

A few years later and we have Roger de Hefkeston attesting a Deed of John de Marchamley.

Next after Roger de Hawkston, we come to-

HUGH DE HAUCKESTON, who, with John his son, attests a Hopton Deed about 1230, [3] and who is called Hugh de Evecheston in a Sandford Deed of nearly the same date. This Hugh attests several undated Charters, and also a Woolerton Deed which passed on April 10, 1241.

JOHN DE HAUCKESTON succeeded his father, Hugh, and occurs in 1242, as we have seen under Cound. [4] He is also a witness of various local Deeds ranging between the years 1253 and 1281. In Hilary Term 1254 the Abbot of Shrewsbury was suing John de Haucheston and Adam de Kent, for some trespass. In 1256 John de Hawkstone was Audley's Bailiff at Edgmond. In a testing-clause, about the year 1280, John de Hafketon is followed by John his son. [5] Perhaps therefore John de Haukeston, who occurs as a Juror and witness in and about the year 1284, should be called-

JOHN DE HAUKESTON (II.). Of him however I can say nothing further, unless it be he who attests a Leighton Deed about 1300. [6] Meanwhile one-

[1] Inquisitions, 10 Edw. II., No. 73.
[2] Supra, Page 273.
[3] Infra, page 284.
[4] Supra, Vol. VI. p. 73.
[5] Infra, page 285.
[6] Supra, Vol. IX. p. 17.


WILLIAM DE HAUKESTON sat on a Longslow Inquest in February 1290, and about the same time attests a Whixall Deed. [1] I think it probable that this William was identical with-

WILLIAM DE WESTON, "Lord of Hauckestone", whom we have seen attesting a Whixall Deed about 1310. [2] The same William de Weston occurs in a dated Deed of 1320. [3]

SIR THOMAS DE HAUCKESTON, who attests a Sandford Deed in 1335, [4] was probably Lord of Hawkstone and a Knight.

In an Inquest of 8 Henry V. (1420) Haukeston is included among the members of Red-Castle. [5]


Half of Hopton, and the whole of Espley and Hopley, seem to have formed those 1 hides, which Domesday treats as the tenement of one Walter under Rainald Vicecomes, Lord of Marchamley.

When William fitz Alan (I.) recovered his inheritance in 1155, his tenant, in at least a part of this estate, was one Osbert, variously called "de Hopton", "de Espley", and "de Hopley". Richard, Lord of Marchamley, and Richard fitz Halufri (probably a brother of Robert fitz Halufri, Lord of Stanton Hyneheath), had or assumed to have some claim on this estate, but whether as Coparceners, or as Mesne-Lords, or as Owners of adjoining estates of doubtful boundary, I cannot say. Helias de Say's interest in this part of Hopton is equally difficult to estimate or to account for. However, by the concurrence, necessary or only formal, of all these parties, the whole of Hopley, and half a virgate in Hopton, passed to Haughmond; and William fitz Alan, as Seigneural Lord, sanctioned the transfer, by the following Charter, which we must date between 1155 and 1160.-

Willielmus filius Alani omnibus filiis matris Ecclesie salutem. Notum sit vobis Osbertum de Hopton concessisse et dedisse quod sui juris erat in Hoppeleia fratribus Hamonensis Ecclesie in perpetuam elmosynam; et Hugonem Hose pro anima Ricardi de Merchomleia, et Helie (read Heliam), de Stoke pro animabus patris et matris sue, calupniam, quam habebant in predicta terra, dimisisse in sempiternum, ut libere et quiete ab omni seclari servicio, in bosco et in plano, in viis et in semitis et in aquis et in omnibus locis, quantum ad istos et ad predictam terram pertinet, prenominati fratres possideant. Et scitote Osbertum de Hopton etiam de terra sua de Hopton dimidium ferdellum dedisse in elemosynam tam libere et quiete sicut ipse liberius

[1] [2] [3] [4] Supra, pp. 233, 234, 235, 238.
[5] Inquisitions, 8 Hen. V., No. 106.


in elemosynam dare potuit. R. Ricardo (sic) filio Haluri concedente et testificante cum hiis aliis, scilicet, Johanne Extraneo, et Hemingo Sacerdote, et Waltero Hose, et R. filio Siwar', et Alano filio Oliveri et Huone (sic pro Hugone) filio Alberti cum aliis pluribus. Valete. [1]

In 1172, Pope Alexander's Bull distinguishes the above two grants as follows.- Ex dono Elye de Say et Osberti de Espeleye, et heredum, Hoppeleyam; and, Ex dono prefati Osberti de Hoppeleie dimidiam virgatam in Hopptona.

The heir of Osbert de Hopton, de Espley, or de Hopley, was Walter de Hopton, perhaps that Walter, who, in 1165, is said to hold a Muntator's fee in Fitz Alan's Barony.

About the year 1200, "Walter de Hopton concedes and gives to the Canons of Haghmon all his right and claim to a third of Hopley; also with consent of Thomas, his heir, he concedes, gives, and confirms, that half-virgate in Hopton which Osbert de Hopton held. Witnesses,- Robert de Hongeforde (probably Longford), John de Hopton, Paulinus de Hodnet, Stephen de Pimley, William Swiste, Reiner fitz Reiner, Roger Powis". [3]

About this time I find Walter de Hopton attesting other grants to Haughmond Abbey. [4] Of Thomas, his heir, I find no independent mention; but in 1255 the Bradford Jurors presented that Roger, son of Thomas de Hopton, having been captured in James de Audley's Warren, had been imprisoned at Red Castle. The same Roger, son of Thomas, attests a Deed, about 15 years later; [5] but his family, which at no time held more than a share of the estate under notice, seems gradually to have sunk into obscurity.

Reverting now to the close of the twelfth century we find one Jordan de Hespelee attesting in a position which would suggest his having a share in this estate. And from 1200 to 1259, a person or persons, called Robert de Espley, had not merely an interest but the chief apparent interest in the same. The following dated notices of this person, or these persons, I offer first. In 1203 Robert de Espeley was amerced half a merk pro falso dicto. At the Assizes of August 1226, Robert de Espeleg was found to have unjustly disseized William, Abbot of Haghmon, of common pasture in Haghmon. Damages of 12d. were given. [6] The Feodaries of 1240 give Robert de Esple as holding one-fourth of a knight's-fee in Hopton,

[1] Haughmond Chartulary, fo. 114, b.
[2] Liber Niger, Vol. I. p. 144.
[3] Chartulary (ut supra), fo. 114-b.
[4] Ibidem, fo. 117-b.
[5] Infra, page 285.
[6] Abbreviatio Placitorum, p. 103.


under Fitz Alan. [1] Robert de Espeleg occurs as Juror on an Inquest of 1249. The Hundred-Roll of 1255 says that "Robert de Espele holds one-fourth of a knight's-fee in Hopton and in Espele of John fitz Alan, by service of one Montarius for three weeks, in war-time, at Fitz Alan's Castle of Oswestry. And Robert de Espele was to perform the said Castle-guard at his own cost. And the aforesaid vill of Hopton was 1 hides. Robert de Espele did suit to County and Hundred and (paid) 6d. for stretward, and 6d. for motfee" [2] (the sums proportionate to 1 hides). Robert de Espley occurs in Juries or testing-clauses of 1256, 1256-7, and 1259. At the Assizes of 1256 he failed in two prosecutions against Odo de Hodnet, one for erecting a hedge in Espele, the other for making a foss in Hopton, to the injury of the complainant's tenements there. The Haughmond Chartulary supplies further but undated notices of at least two persons, called Robert de Espeley.-

I presume it to have been about 1230, and with reference to his dispute with the Abbot, that "Robert de Espeleg granted to the Abbey, for 3 merks paid down, and at a rent of 4d., pasturage for 50 sheep, 24 oxen, and 30 other animals (averia), in his land of Hopton. Witnesses,- Sir William de Stanton; Philip, Chaplain; Alexander, his son; Hugh de Haukeston; and John, his son". [3] About 1235-40 (as I think) "Robert de Espeleg concedes and quitclaims to William, son of Philip de Hopton, and his heirs all right in two acres of land which the said William had of Haghmon Abbey. Witnesses,- Sir Hodo de Hodenet, Hugh de Hauckeston, and Roger de Marchimeleg". [3]

Between the years 1268 and 1272 "Robert Espeleg" gave and confirmed to Haghmond Abbey, 2 solidates of rent in the vill of Hopton, issuing out of a messuage, croft, and 4 acres of land which Michael de Hopton sometime held. In return the Grantor was to have participation in the prayers of the Abbey. Witnesses,- Sir Odo de Hodenet, Robert Corbet of Morton, Thomas Corbet of Tasseleg". [3]

About the same time "Robert, Lord of Hespele, gave and confirmed to the same Abbey, all that agreement which he had made with Thomas Bosse, son of Thomas Bosse, concerning that wardship of land in Hopton which Alexander, son of Helias, held by

[1] Testa de Nevill, pp. 44, 47, 49.
[2] Rot. Hundred. II. 58.- A notice of the Haughmond estate of 2 virgates is inserted between the two parts of this statement. I take it to be parenthetical, and have removed it from a situation where it only creates confusion (supra, p. 271).
[3] Chartulary (ut supra), fo. 117.


right hereditary, as was contained in an instrument which the said Thomas had of the Grantor. Witnesses,- Henry de Pechesey, John de Cotes, Roger, son of Thomas de Hopton, Robert de Winekeshul (Whixall near Prees), John de Clive". [1]

About the year 1280 John, son of Robert de Espeley, Lord of Espeley, gave to the Infirmary of Haghmon Abbey 4 solidates of rent issuing out of half a virgate which Robert, son of Adam de Preston, held in Hopton. Witnesses,- Sir John (read Odo) de Hodnet, William his son, John de Hafketon, and John his son. [1]

The same Grantor as "Master John, Lord of Espleg", made a grant of lands in Hopton to one William Tudor", but the Deed is not preserved.

About 1280-4, Master John de Espley will have conveyed his whole estate, either to Sir Odo de Hodnet or his son William. Hence the Feodaries of 1284-5 say that William de Hodnet holds half the vill of Hopton under Richard fitz Alan for one-fourth of a knight's-fee; and that the same William holds the vill of Espley under the same Richard, who held in capite in both instances.

Between the years 1284 and 1292 Sir William de Hodnet grants to Richard Cocus of Hopton and his heirs half a tract of waste (dimidium ruralem vasti) in Espley, bounded by the new foss of Sir William de Hodnet Lord of Espley. [2] The Grantee pays 2s. down and furnishes a great knife (cultellum) for the Grantor's kitchen. He is to pay a rent of one halfpenny, and not to assign the premises to Jews or Great Lords. [3] Witnesses,- Adam de Purton, Henry de Savinton, William de Calverhall.

In the Nomina Villarum of 1316, the Earl of Arundel is entered as Lord of the vill of Horton, in Bradford Hundred. I conceive that Hopton is meant.

William de Hodnet's tenure of Hopton, under Fitz Alan, remained with his heirs general, the Ludlows, for several generations.

HAUGHMOND ABBEY FEE. The interest acquired and fostered by Haughmond Abbey, in Hopley, Hopton, and Espley, is illustrated by a number of documents, which would only have interrupted my attempt to trace the descent of the fee-simple.-

About 1253-63, Alexander, Abbot of Haghmon, grants to William, son of William Smith (Fabri) of Kentenesdene and to his

[1] Chartulary (ut supra), fo. 117.
[2] Nova fossa Domini Willielmi de Hodnet et Domini de Espeleye;- where I take the word et to be strictly conjunctive and not disjunctive;- that is, one person is described by two titles.
[3] Magnis dominis injustificialibus,- i.e. Suzerains, too great to be subject to the Grantor's jurisdiction. The single word, magnatibus, is oftener used in Charters.


heirs by the daughter of Thomas Wedircoke of Hopton, a noke of land in Hopton at a rent of 18d.;- the Grantee to be amenable to the Grantor's Court at Hardwick. Witnesses,- John de Hauckeston, Robert de Espeley, Henry de Pechesey.

About the same time Richard Smere, son of Thomas Wedircoke of Hopton, quitclaims to Haghmon his right in a half-virgate and capital messuage which he held of the Abbey in the vill of Hopton, also in a noke, messuage, and croft, which Ralph, Vicar of Hodnet, held under the Grantor in Hopton; also he quitclaims all his seigneury, service, and rent, in half a virgate which Roger, his brother, held of him, and in a noke, with a messuage and croft, which Michael fitz Edric held of him, and in 3 acres which Sibbota, daughter of the said Michael, held of him. Witnesses;- as in the last Deed.

About the year 1290, Sibil de Penington, widow of Master John de Espley, releases a rent of 16d. which she received in the way of dower, from the Abbot of Haghmon, out of that half-virgate [1] which the Canons bought from her late husband. Witnesses,- William Tuder of Hopton, [2] Richard Smethe of Hopton, William Horde, Richard Robert of Astley.

The Taxation of 1291 gives the Abbot of Haghmon a carucate of land in Hoppley, worth 12s. per annum, and 4s. assized rents in Hopton. [3]

We have seen Robert, son of Adam de Preston, named as Tenant of half a virgate in Hopton about 1280. He had since held it under the Abbey by 4s. rent. But about the year 1310, he sold it, with a messuage, for 4 merks (paid him in great necessity) to Richard Cocus of Hopton, retaining a rose-rent to himself. Witnesses,- Richard Tuder of Hopton, Roger de Wekineshall, and Richard de Lakyn.

On July 15, 1307, Abbot Richard of Haghmon demises to Richard, son of William de Kentenesdene, a parcel of land in Hopley, towards Marchomley, near the road which led from Kentenesdene (Kenstone) to Hodnet. On February 20, 1325, Roger, son of Ralph de Hopton, with Alice his wife, had a life-lease from the Abbey of a messuage and half-virgate in Hopton. In April 1388 Roger, son of Richard Cocus of Hopton, sold to John le

[1] What the Canons bought was 4s. rent, issuing out of half a virgate (supra, p. 285). The Vendor's Widow however was entitled to her thirds (viz. 16d.).
[2] Perhaps identical with William de Hopton, Juror on a High Hatton Inquest in 1300.
[3] Pope Nich. Taxation, p. 260.


Walische of Salop, all his lands in Hopton and Hespley, and an assart which he had in Hatton super Hineheath. Witnesses,- Roger de Webbeley, Thomas de Hodnet. On March 12, 1338, John le Walsche of Salop released to Nicholas, Abbot of Haghmon, all his claims to lands, then held by the Canons, in Hopton and Espley, and lately held by Roger de Hopton. Witnesses,- Sir William de Ercalwe, Sir Robert Corbet, Knights, Richard Husee, William de Smethcote. On the same day Margaret, widow of Roger (son of Richard) de Hopton, released all right in her late husband's lands in Hopton and Espley. Witnesses- as the last, and Philip de Peynton. On April 28, 1338, Abbot Nicholas grants a life-lease, at a rent of 16s., to Henry, Clerk of Hodnet, his wife Eleanor, and their daughter Elizabeth, of a house in Hopton in which Roger, son of Richard le Coke, late resided, and of a virgate adjoining. About the year 1350 (as I suppose), Thomas, son of Thomas Tuder of Hopton, gives to Haghmon Abbey all his lands in Hopton, with an acre of pasture, and with all escheats, etc., in Hopton and Espley, as enumerated in a Grant from Master John, late Lord of Espley, to William Tuder, the present Grantor's Grandfather. [1] Witnesses,- Sir William le Botiler, Lord of Weme; Sir Robert Corbet; Sir Laurence de Ludlow; Sir John his son, knights; John de Leghton; Philip de Peynton; and Walter Cresset. On October 20, 1473, John, Abbot of Haghmon, demises the Grange of Hopley-juxta-Hodnet, except a piece of Hopley Heath, to Thomas Chorleton, Gentleman, for 98 years, at 20s. rent.

In the Valor Ecclesiasticus and in the Ministers' Accounts of Henry VIII.'s time, the Abbey rents of Hopton, etc., are mixed up with those of Cheswardine, or some other place.

High Hatton.

THE same Rainald (Vicecomes) holds Hetune of the Earl, and Richard holds it of Rainald. AElric, Ulfac, Uluiet, and Leuric, held it for IIII Manors in King Edward's time. Here are II hides,

[1] Supra, page 285.


geldable. In demesne are one ox-team and IIII Serfs; and II Villains and II Cottars, with II teams: and yet there might be V additional teams (employed). Those who held these lands (in Saxon times, I presume) were free. In King Edward's time the Manor was worth 60s. (per annum): afterwards it was waste: now it is worth 10s". [1]

I have spoken more than one of Richard, the Domesday Tenant of Rainald, and the presumed Ancestor of the Stantons. [2] Now the Stantons did not succeed to High Hatton, but we shall see that at one time they claimed it; so that here, as oftentimes, the exception rather fortifies than invalidates the rule.

I cannot divest myself of the idea that Hamo Peverel established himself in Richard's position, as Lord of High Hatton. This would be in the generation after Domesday, and in the time of Henry I. My reasons for this suggestion are, first, because I find symptoms of a Seigneury having been asserted over High Hatton by one at least of Hamo Peverel's heirs, [3] and, secondly, because the fee-simple of High Hatton eventually went to Alan de Hadley, eldest son of Seburga, Hamo Peverel's natural daughter. Now I have suggested that the Muntator's-fee which Alan de Hadley held under Fitz Alan in 1165, was not inclusive of High Hatton, but was relative to Hadley only. [4] The inquiry therefore arises as to who held High Hatton at that period: and I presume that Richard de Hidesland, also a tenant of a Muntator's fee under Fitz-Alan, was the person in question. [5] It is all but certain that a place, called Hidesland, constituted a part of the Manor of High Hatton, and that the person, called Richard de Hidesland in the Liber Niger, was the person elsewhere called Richard de Linley.

I refer to previous notices of a Richard de Linley, living in the time of Henry I. and Stephen, and attesting Charters of Hamo Peverel, [6] also to previous notices of a Richard de Linley, living in the time of Henry II., and attesting Charters of Hamo Peverel's Coheirs, and having estates at Linley and Brockton. [7] The last Richard, if there were two in succession, was living in 1180, and was succeeded

[1] Domssday, fo. 254, a, 2.
[2] Supra, Vol. VII. pp. 268, 351.

[3] Vide supra, page 73, where Gilbert Peche conveys to Robert Burnel "the homage and service of Thomas Corbet of Hadley". I cannot suppose that the thing conveyed was of a substantive nature, but still it was perhaps an alleged due, and had respect to Corbet's tenure at High Hatton.

[4] Supra, Vol. VII. p. 354.
[5] Liber Niger, I. 143.
[6] Supra, Vol. II. pp. 39, 40; Vol. III. p. 285; Vol. VIII. p. 128, bis.
[7] Supra, Vol. I. p. 360; Vol. II. pp. 40, 97; Vol. IV. p. 112; Vol. IX. pp. 67, 76.


at Linley and Brockton by Philip de Linley. It remains that I should give proof that this Richard de Linley was the Richard de Hidesland of the Liber Niger. The following Charter, which must needs have passed about the year 1179, is such a proof.-

Ricardus de Linleya omnibus Sanct Dei Ecclesi filiis, tam presentibus quam futuris, salutem. Notum sit vobis omnibus, me concessisse et dedisse in perpetuam elemosynam Deo et Ecclesiae Scti Johannis Evangeliste de Haghmon et Canonicis in predicta Ecclesia Deo servientibus, pro salute anime mee omniumque parentum et amicorum meorum, terram de Hydesland, scilicet unam virgatam cum omnibus pertinenciis suis et libertatibus et liberis consuetudinibus, liberam et quietam ab omni servicio et exactione seculari. Valete. Hugus donacionis testes sunt Wydo Extraneus; Marscotus; Petrus de Morton, et Philippus filius ejus; Walterus de Huggeford; Wydo filius Roberti de Saesburia. [1]

The question which next occurs is the only difficult one in the case before us. If Richard de Linley's heir at Linley and Brockton was Philip de Linley, how is it that he was succeeded at High Hatton and Hidesland by Alan de Hadley? There are several ways in which this might have supposably happened, [2] but, having no evidence as to the mode, I will proceed to show the fact.-

Alan de Hadley was certainly in his time Lord of High Hatton. He married Alice Pantulf, who (being mother of his daughter and sole heir Cecilia) survived him, and had her dower in High Hatton. This proves Alan de Hadley's sometime seizin.

When Alice Pantulf died, her daughter Cecilia succeeded to High Hatton. It was in Cecilia's right that her second husband, Baldwin de Hodnet, was seized of High Hatton, when he suffered his second forfeiture for rebellion against King John. This forfeiture commenced in 1215 and lasted till November 1217. [3] During the interval, William de Stanton had possessed himself of High Hatton, but was ejected by Baldwin de Hodnet, as soon as the latter obtained his pardon. At the Assizes of 1221, William de Staundon sued Baldwin de Hodnet and Cecilia his wife, for novel disseizin, "they having ejected him from his tenement in Hatton". Baldwin appeared and produced the King's Writ ordering his restoration to

[1] Harl. MS. 446, Quatern. xii. fo. 11.
[2] Suppose, for instance, that Richard de Linley (I.) was second husband of Seburga Peverel, and father by her of an only son, Richard de Linley (II.). Then suppose that Richard de Linley (II.) died without issue. In that case, any estate derived from his mother would pass to his mother's heir, while his paternal inheritance would go to his own collateral heir.
[3] Supra, Vol. VII. p. 55.


all his lands, and in particular, "to the dower, late Alice Pantulf's, whose daughter and heir, Cecily, was Baldwin's wife". Under this Writ he had seizin of Hatton.

William de Staundon denied nothing of this statement, but said that Baldwin's reseizin was unjust, for he (the Plaintiff) was in seizin during the time of war. The sentence given was full against the Plaintiff. His Surety was Richard de Lecton. [1]

On the death of Baldwin de Hodnet, in January 1225, his stepson, Thomas Corbet, already Lord of Tasley, succeeded to his late Mother's estates at Hadley, High Hatton, and Bromley Regis. Of Thomas Corbet and his descendants I have said much under Tasley and Hadley.
[2] In 1230, Thomas Corbet sued Bishop Stavensby at Westminster for impleading him in Court-Christian about some question of common in Bromley Regis, and for excommunicating him. The Justices could give him no redress, but told him to get absolution; for the Bishop came forward and proved that the alleged prosecution in Court-Christian was a figment of Corbet's, and that the real ground of his excommunication was a violent assault committed by him on a Clerk.

A Writ-Close of September 25, 1238, when the King was at Shrewsbury, orders the election of a Coroner, in room of Thomas Corbet of Hethleg (Hadley), who had apparently resigned.

In 1240, the tenures of Thomas Corbet of Tasley are put at one knight's-fee in Hatton and Hadley, and half a fee in Tasley, [3] but I doubt whether his collective tenure was more than a whole knight's-fee. [4]

On November 18, 1240, that Fine was levied at Salop, which proves that the claim of the Stanton, to Hatton was recurrent and not wholly groundless. It cost "Thomas Corbet of Tasseley" 35 merks to compound the Suit of Grand Assize, under which Stephen de Stanton impleaded him for the Manor of Hatton.

The Hundred-roll of 1255 gives Hatton as a Manor of one hide, and subject to the proportionable payment of 4d. for motfee, and 4d. for stretward. Roger Corbet, Lord of the Vill, held it of the Fief of John fitz Alan, and provided a horseman, with horse, hauberk, lance, and chapel-de-fer, to serve at Fitz Alan's Castle of Oswestry, for 40 days, and at Corbet's cost.

The Manor did suit to the Hundred, twice yearly, at the Sheriff's Tourns, but not to the lesser Hundred-Courts. [5]

[1] Assizes, 6 Hen. III., m. 2.
[2] Supra, Vol. I. pp. 90-100; Vol. VII. pp. 356-360.
[3] Testa de Nevill, pp. 44, 47, 49.
[4] Supra, Vol. VII. p. 357.
[5] Rot. Hundred. II. 55.


In 1268, Hatton super Hineheath (printed Hatton et Chuhinhethe) was the one place for which Thomas Corbet (II.) obtained a Charter of Free Warren. [1]

The Feodaries of 1284-5, call this place Heye Hatton and He Hatton. Thomas Corbet held it of Fitz Alan's Barony.

One of the Inquests, taken in June 1300, on Thomas Corbet's death, sat at Hatton super Hyneheth. For some reason or other Hadley was not valued, but the extent of Hatton was 4. 9s. 8d. per annum, viz. a capital messuage and garden 1s.; 80 acres of arable land 13s. 4d.; half an acre of meadow 6d.; 10 acres of bosc 1s. 8d.; one Mill 6s. 8d.; 4 virgates held, by 8 bonds, at will, 3. 4s.; two cottars'-rents 2s.; and Pleas of Court 6d. [2]

It is probable from this that the actual contents of the Manor, notwithstanding the separation of Hidesland, were much nearer the two hides of Domesday than the Hundred-Roll of 1255 would lead us to suppose.

HIDESLAND. We have traced one virgate here to Haughmond Abbey, by gift of Richard de Linley about 1179. This was but a moiety of the vill. In the next century the other moiety was held by Elyas, son of Richard Cadugan of Audley, whom I have mentioned, under Moreton Say and Audley, as occurring in 1256. [3] Elyas probably held under Corbet of Hadley, but sold his tenancy to Sir Odo de Hodnet. Between the years 1260 and 1270, "Odo, Lord of Hodenet", gave to Haghmon Abbey, in frank almoign, "that whole moiety of Hideslont, which he had bought from Elyas fitz Kadogan of Aldeleg", to hold to the Abbey under the Grantor, free of all services to him pertaining. Witnesses,- Sir John fitz Aer; Robert Corbet of Moreton Thoret; John, Lord of Great Ercall; and Robert de Espeleg. [4]

About the same time Symon, son of David Chaplain of Weston, quitclaimed to the Abbey all his right in the land of Hydeslont juxta Hatton. Witnesses,- John, Lord of Great Ercall; Robert de Espeleg; John de Hauekystan; Reyner de Acton; William Banastre; Thomas Dod; and William fitz David. [5]

Also William, son of Walter de Hideslonde, gave a similar quitclaim to the Abbey, attested by Adam, Vicar of Shawbury, Henry de Pechesey, and John de Bogelton.

The Taxation of 1291, gives the Abbot of Haghmon 6s. 8d. assized rents in Parva Ydeslonde. [6]

[1] Calend. Rot. Cartarum, p. 96.
[2] Inquisitions, 28 Edw. I., No. 17.
[3] Supra, pp. 261, 269.
[4] Harl. MS. 446. Quatern, xii. fo. 11.
[5] Haughmond Chartulary, fo. 111-b.
[6] Pope Nich. Taxation, p. 260.


We now come to a document, which will nearly determine the situation of Hidesland; viz. that it must have stood somewhat South-west of High Hatton, on that rivulet which, after leaving Hidesland, passed South of High Hatton, and the Express Wood, and flowing on to Polford is there called the Polford Brook.- On April 5, 1333, Sir Roger Corbet of Hadley, and Nicholas, Abbot of Haghmond, by the mediation of mutual friends adjusted the following grievance. Sir Roger had so raised the stank of his Vivary near Espris (the Express-wood marks the spot) in the vill of Heghehatton-sur-Hyneheth, as that the water of the said vivary inundated a good part of the Abbot's land at Hideslond Grange. [1]

In September 1456, Abbot Richard of Haghmon gives a 60 years' lease of his land at Hudesland-juxta-Coldehatton, to John Mille of Hatton, Joan his wife, William Felton of Hatton, and Alice his wife, at a rent of 25s. [2]- This description of Hidesland, as near Cold Hatton, is at first sight puzzling, but a glance at the Map will show that the spot in which our former argument would place the vill, would be not very far from Cold Hatton.

The Valor of 1534-5, gives 2. 9s. 4d. as the Abbot of Haghmond's receipts from Hiddislande juxta Colde Hatton. [3]

HIGH HATTON CHAPEL. Tradition, unseconded by other evidence, speaks of such a structure. It will have been a dependency of the Church of Stanton Hineheath.

Stanton upon Hineheath.

"THE same Rainald (Vicecomes) holds Stantune of the Earl, and Ricardus (holds it) of Rainald. Sauuard held it (in Saxon times) and was free together with this land. In demesne is one ox-team and four Serfs. The Church, a Priest, six Boors, and a Smith, have, among them all, II ox-teams; and there might be a third team. Here is a Mill of 10s. 8d. (annual value). In King Edward's time the Manor was worth 35s. (per annum). Afterwards it was waste. Now it is worth 22s". [4]

[1] Le awe del dit vyver sirounda graun partie de la terre lez dits Abbe et Covent a lor graunge de Hideslond.
[2] Haughmond Chartulary, fo. 111-b.
[3] Valor Ecclesiasticus, III. 192.
[4] Domesday, fo. 254 a, 2.


I refer to former pages for an estimate of the probability that the Ricardus of Domesday was Ancestor of the Stantons. [1] If so, I think that Ricardus's real name was Richard fitz Halufri, for certainly there was an ancestor of the Stantons whose name is variously written as Halufer, Halwred, Hellunric, Chaleuric, and Alured. Then there is a probability that one Hunald was father of the three brothers of Henry II.'s time, two of whom, Robert and Richard, were called by the generic name, Fitz Halufri, while the third, Roger, was called by the patronymic, Fitz Hunald.

Of Richard fitz Halufri, the presumed second brother, I have a word more to say here. As Richard fitz Haluri, we have seen him with apparently a mesne interest in Hopton, about 1155-60. [2] Perhaps it was he who was living in 1191, and who as Richard fitz Aluric was debited with one merk as Surety for one Richard Saddoch junior and his brothers. Perhaps too it was he who as Richard de Stanton, was remembered in the next century to have given some land in Stanton to the Knights Templars, domiciled at Keel (in Staffordshire).

Of Robert fitz Halufri, the elder brother of Richard, I have given particulars elsewhere, and also of his presumed son and heir, Stephen, as occurring in 1177, 1192, and 1199. [3] The following notes further relate to the latter person, whom we may call-

STEPHEN DE STANTON (I.). At the Assizes of 1203, Stephen de Stanton appears as Security for a Litigant and as himself amerced 20s. for some trespass. In 1212, he seems to have been in the following of John le Strange, for a Writ-Close of May 31, 1213, acknowledges that John le Strange, junior, and Stephen de Stanton, had on June 10, 1212, paid 60 to the King, then at Kingshaugh, for John le Strange, Senior. [4]

But the most extraordinary feature in the history of this Stephen and his family, is that he contested a right to the Honour of Montgomery with Thomas de Erdinton. This opens up a great genealogical problem of which I shall have more to say elsewhere. Suffice it here to state that Stephen de Stanton, with Robert his son and heir, allowed the superiority of Erdinton's claim, and that King John, in January 1215, ratified the said agreement, and bestowed the said Honour on Erdinton, saving the right of any third claimant. [5]

[1] Supra, Vol. VII. pp. 268, 351.
[2] Supra, Page 288.
[3] Supra, Vol. VII. pp. 269, 272; and Vol. VIII. pp. 285-6.
[4] [5] Rot. Claus. Vol. I. pp. 134, 184; and Rot. Chart. p. 208.


[For pedigree, see pdf.]


I think that both Stephen de Stanton and his eldest son, Robert, were deceased before the Assizes of November 1221. Robert died without issue, so that his next brother,-

WILLIAM DE STANTON, succeeded to his inheritance. I have noticed under Haughton the circumstances which probably accompanied Robert de Stanton's decease. [1] I have further shown under High Hatton, that William de Stanton was a Royalist, and a man of note, in the lifetime of his elder brother, if not of their father.

At the Assizes of 1221, William de Stanton, though defeated in respect of his claim on High Hatton, sat as one of those knightly Jurors who tried causes of Grand Assize. He was doubtless at this time Lord of Stanton. In 1228, I find him attesting Henry de Audley's foundation-charter of Hilton Abbey, [2] and, in other Charters of that and subsequent years, his name as a witness is conspicuous. In 1281, he stood Surety for an amercement set upon Peter de Eyton. His grants to Haughmond Abbey relative to Stanton Church will appear elsewhere, but it is clear that one, if not both, of them passed between the years 1232 and 1235. The latest proved period of William de Stanton's life, is April 1286.

STEPHEN DE STANTON (II.), his heir, and probably his son, appears in the Feodaries of 1240-1, as Lord of the Fee of Stanton, that is, as holding two knights'-fees under Fitz Alan in Stanton, Roden, Preston Boats, [3] and I may add Rodenhurst and Acton Reynald.

Before the year 1255 Stephen de Stanton (II.) was dead. His son and heir,-

STEPHEN DE STANTON (III.) was then a Minor, and his wardship had been given or sold by Fitz Alan to that Thomas de Lee of whom I have spoken so often. Hence the Hundred-Roll of 1255, putting Stanton as a Manor of half a hide, says that it was held of the Fee of John Fitz Alan, that Stephen fitz Stephen, a minor, was Lord of the Vill, and that the wardship of the said minor had been given to Thomas de Le. The Manor paid 2d. stretward and 2d. motfee yearly, and did suit every three weeks to the Hundred. Richard de Stanton gave half a virgate to the Templars of Kil, but the Jurors knew not the manner of the gift. The Lord of Stanton did the ward of one knight for 40 days at Fitz Alan's Castle of Oswestry, at his own cost. [4]

[1] Supra, Vol. VIII. p. 286.
[2] Monasticon, Vol. V. p. 716.
[3] Testa de Nevill, pp. 44, 47, 49.
[4] Rot. Hundred. II. 55.


At this point the succession of the Stantons becomes rather obscure. I have only one indication that Stephen de Stanton, the minor of 1255, attained to the enjoyment of his estates. He made a grant of a messuage and carucate in Stanton to one Eva de Soubatch (now Sowbatch), a grant which, in 1318, was contested by Petronilla, daughter and heir of the Grantor. The next Lord of Stanton, after Stephen de Stanton (III.), was-

JOHN DE ERKALEWE, of whom the Feodaries of 1284-5 speak as follows.- "John de Erkalewe holds the vills of Preston, Stanton, Roden, and Rodenhurst, of Richard fitz Alan for two knights'-fees, and he (Fitz Alan) holds of the King in capite".

It is difficult to say who this John de Erkalowe was. He certainly was not Lord of Child's Ercall, and John, Lord of High Ercall, was recently deceased. I take him to have been a younger son of the said John, and to have obtained Stanton, etc., by marrying Petronilla, the daughter and heiress of Stephen de Stanton (III.). The probability of this is increased by observing that thus John de Erkalowe's marriage would be nearly cotemporary with that of his elder brother. [1] Again, if Petronilla de Stanton's father was a Minor in 1255, it is probable that she herself was little more than an infant in 1284. We are not therefore surprised to find that her supposed marriage with John de Erkalowe was unproductive of issue. It is certain that in 1288 Petronilla was the wife of-

THOMAS DE LEE, and that her eventual heirs were her children by the said Thomas. I have alluded to this marriage before; and supposed Thomas de Lee to have been a younger son of Thomas de Lee above mentioned. [2] From this time the genealogy of the Lees of Stanton, Roden, etc., becomes very clear, as will be seen by the foregoing pedigree. The following illustrative particulars are not capable of such compression.-

By a Deed, without date, Thomas du Lee, Lord of Staunton, gives, to Richard de Boley, land in Staunton. By another undated Deed, Thomas du Lee, Lord of Stanton, and his wife Petronilla, give to Thomas du Lee, their son, a messuage in the vill of Stanton, with remainder, on Thomas's death without heirs, to Stephen his brother, with remainder, on Stephen's death without heirs, to Philip du Lee and his heirs. [3]

This provision for a younger son was followed in 1310-11 by a settlement of the Manors of Stanton and Preston, on John, the

[1] Vide supra, p. 87.
[2] Supra, Vol. VII. p. 270.
[3] Harl. MS. 1396, fo. 253.


eldest son of the same Thomas and Petronilla but this, as I have stated under Preston, [1] did not hold good.

"In 5 Edw. II. (1311-12) Thomas de Lee and Petronilla his wife give to John de Lee and to Matilda, daughter of Henry de Erdinton, all their land, whether sown or unsown, in Roden". A Fine of April 16, 1312, further explains this Deed.- Thomas de Lee and Petronilla his wife, Deforciants of the Manor of Rodene, the right of Petronilla, settle the same on John de Lee, and his wife, Matilda, daughter of Henry de Erdinton, etc. (as in the entail stated under Roden). [1] I take it that John de Lee, thus married, came of age about this period.

We have Thomas de Lee attesting a Rodington Deed on March 25, 1313. In August of the same year I find Thomas de Lee and his sons, John and Stephen, concerned in a suit which I will give under Shavington. In the Nomina Villarum of March 1316, Thomas de Leye is duly returned as Lord of Staunton. [2] I do not find him in any instance named as a Knight. He died in 1316 or 1317; for in January 1318, "Petronilla, widow of Thomas de la Lee, and daughter and heir of Stephen de Stanton, was found to have disseized John, son of Reyner de Lee, of a messuage and carucate in Stanton". [3] By a Fine, levied April 22, 1319, it would almost seem that Petronilla's son, John, having obtained Stanton under the Deed of 1310-11, had alienated it to John Corbet of Preston, and that Petronilla was now obliged to repurchase it for 100 merks. The Fine is between Robert de Acton, Attorney of Petronilla, widow of Thomas de Lee (Plaintiff), and the said John Corbet, Deforciant, of the Manor of Staunton super Hyneheth, whereof was Suit-at-law. John Corbet surrendered it to Petronilla, to hold for life of the Lords of the fee, with remainder to her son John and his bodily

[1] Supra, Vol. VII. pp. 270, 387.
[2] Parliamentary Writs, IV. 397.
[3] Assize-Roll, 11 Edw. II.- This was the very messuage and carucate in Sowbatch, which Stephen de Stanton, Petronilla's father, had given to Eva de Sowbatch, about 1260-80. (Supra, p. 297.) Petronilla now maintained the grant to have been for Eva's life only. The way the estate had come to John son of Reyner de Lee appears to have been this.-

About 1270-90, Eva widow of Stephen le Engleys (evidently Eva de Sowbatch) gives to Reyner de Lee all her right in Soudbache. Witnesses,- Sir Thomas Botterell and Sir John de Lee, knights (Harl. MS. ut supra).-

From Reyner de Lee, whom I believe to have been a younger brother of Sir John (of Berrington) and of Thomas (of Stanton) the estate descended to John son of Reyner. But Sir John, his Uncle, seems to have had some claim thereto, for in 4 Edw. II. (1310-11) "John du Lee, Knight, releases to John son of Reyner de Lee all right in Southbache. Witnesses,- John Huse of Albrighton and others". (Harl. MS. ut supra.)


heirs, with remainder to the right heirs of the same John. For this Petronilla paid John Corbet 100 merks.

Petronilla de Lee was still living in 6 Edw. III. (1332); for, in a Subsidy-Roll of that year, she is one of those assessed under Staunton. Her quota was 3s.; that of Robert Fraunce, 3s. 4d.

JOHN DE LEE, son and heir of Thomas and Petronilla, was married, as we have seen, in 1312, and thereupon had Roden.

In December 1311 he had attested an Ercall Deed as John, son of Thomas du Lee. In January 1312 he attests after his Father. [1] In March 1316 and October 1318 he attests other Deeds as John de la Lee of Roden. Other attestations of his in December 1318 and March 1320 show that he was not as yet a knight. In 15 Edw. II. (1321-2) we have him still styling himself John, son of Thomas de Lee. Two Writs of March and May 1322 address him as John de la Lee, and as a Commissioner of Array for Shropshire. He was returned as a Knight of the Shire, for the same County, to the Parliament which met at York in November 1322; [2] and in May 1324 he was summoned to attend a Great Council at Westminster. [3]

In 19 Edw. II. (1325-6) John de Lee, knight, son and heir of Thomas de Lee, gives to Stephen his brother, and to Thomas de Lee, brother of the said Stephen, for their lives, a parcel of arable land in the field of Southbache.

In 1 Edw. III. (1327-8) I still find this Sir John styled "Lord of Roden". His grant in the same year to his daughter Maud has been already given under Berrington. [4]

A Subsidy, levied in Roden during the same year, charges 15d. on John de Lee, 15d. on Alan de Roden, and 14d. on Thomas fitz John.

The descendants of John de Lee continued to be styled rather "of Roden" than "of Stanton", till the marriage of his Great-grandson, Robert, with the heiress of Lee of Langley. After that, they were rather styled "of Langley". Further particulars of this, the greatest, though not the eldest, branch of the Lees, have been given under Berrington. [5]

I have something to say now about those other members of this family who acquired tenements in Stanton or in Sowbatch. And first I will speak of-

[1] Supra, page 93.
[2] It is noticeable that this return to Parliament exactly marks the period at which John de Lee first assumed the style of a Knight. In a Fine of November 1323 (supra, Vol. VII. p. 40) he is styled Chivaler.
[3] Parliamentary Writs, IV. 1086.
[4] Supra, Vol. VI. p. 40.
[5] Supra, Vol. VI. pp. 41 et seqq.


REYNER DE LEE, younger son of that Sir Thomas de Lee who had custody of the Fee of Stanton, in 1255.

By Deed, without date, Thomas de Lee, knight, gave to his son Reyner the whole vill of La Lee subtus Pebenhul.
[1] The Lee, near Pimhill, probably the oldest estate of the Lees, thus passed to a younger son. Sir Thomas de Lee, knight, is also said to have given to his son Reiner and his heirs, 6 messuages, one carucate, and three virgates in Hadnall. This gift was erroneously attributed to, the aera of Edward I., instead of Henry III., in whose reign alone can such a grant have been made. The premises passed by some means or other to Haughmond Abbey, but in 1408 Petronilla, Great-great-great-granddaughter of Reyner, joined with her husband, Robert de Lee of Roden, in an attempt to recover them. They failed, on the ground that Sir Thomas de Lee's grant to Reyner was not such an entail as they wished to make out. [2]

The mode in which Reyner de Lee acquired (about 1270-90) an estate in Sowbatch has been already pointed out in a note. [3] I shall show, under Lea-near-Pimhill, that Reyner de Lee was living in 1292 and 1294. At his death he left an infant son, John, and a widow Johanna. The son's Guardian assigned for the widow's dower, a messuage, a carucate, and 4 acres of meadow, and other land, in Stanton (i.e. in Sowbatch).

JOHN, SON OF REYNER DE LEE, appears to have been of age before June 1307, when he had a suit with Haughmond Abbey and William Banastre concerning property in Hadnall. In 1310-11 he obtained a quitclaim from Sir John (his Uncle) as to his estate in Sowbatch. On Sept. 24, 1317, he attests a Charter of the same Sir John, dated at Berrington, and relating to lands claimed by Haughmond Abbey in Hadnall. In January 1318, he regained his estate in Stanton (i.e. in Sowbatch) against Petronilla, Lady of Stanton, who had disseized him thereof. A Charter of his, bearing date 11 Edw. II. (1317-8) and attested by John, [4] son of Stephen de Lee, is quoted among the Lee Muniments.

In 9 Edward III. (1335) he as "John, son of Reyner de Lee", adjusted some disputes with Sir John le Strange of Middle.

Some time before this, viz. in 11 Edward II. (1317-8), he seems to have taken the usual method of a feoffment-in-trust to settle Sowbatch

[1] Harl. MS. 1396, fo. 253.
[2] Abstract of pleadings;- preserved in the Haughmond Chartulary, fo. 72.
[3] Supra, page 298, note 3.
[4] Stephen de Lee, father of this witness, has occurred above (p. 253). I cannot certify his relationship to John son of Rayner. Perhaps he was John's Uncle.


on his son John. The Deed of the presumed Trustee is alone preserved. Thereby "Philip de Wistanestowe gives to John, son of John, son of Reyner de la Lee, and to the heirs of his body, all his lands in Stanton, which were called Southbache. Witnesses,- Richard Husse, Richard Hord, John de la Lee, John de Warene". [1] But John de Lee, the father, afterwards repented of this settlement; for on March 12, 1331, John, the son, was found to have been unjustly disseized of a messuage, carucate, and 28 acres of meadow and pasture, in Stanton, by William de Titteleye, Petronilla his daughter, and John, son of Reyner de Lee. [2]

JOHN, SON OF JOHN DE LEE, was succeeded by a son and heir, a third John, whose son and heir, Roger, married Joan, daughter and coheir of Edward Burnell of Langley. Petronilla, daughter and sole heir of the said Roger and Joanna, married her distant Cousin Robert Lee of Roden, and thus reunited two branches of this family, as before alluded to.

STEPHEN DE LEE, a younger son of Thomas and Petronilla, has already been mentioned under dates of 1310-11, 1313, and 1325-6. His interests in Stanton and Sowbatch were contingent, or only for life. His name will recur under Astley in 1337 and 1357.

Of his daughter, Catherine, I have spoken under Preston Boats. [3]

THOMAS DE LEE, another of the younger sons of Thomas and Petronilla, has also occurred above, in 1310-11 and in 1325-6.

In 1340 John de Clynton and Alice his wife failed to prosecute their suit against Thomas de Lee of Roden, Kenewric ap David, Robert de Byriton, and Oliver de Lee, for disseizing them of a tenement in Burton juxta Pychford. The suit was renewed in 1342 against the same parties, together with Walter, son of Walter de Burton.

In March 1345, Thomas, son of Thomas de Lee of Stanton-super-Hyneheth, having been enfeoffed by Richard, son of Thomas Dod of Hyghe-Hatton-super-Hyneheth, in a messuage and carucate in Hatton, the two were sued by John, Parson of Walters Upton, for disseizing him of the premises. In the next year (1346), the Plaintiff did not appear in this suit, and was pronounced in misericordia.

In 28 Edw. III. (1349) John, son of William de Tittenleye, releases his right in all lands, etc. to Thomas, son of Thomas de Lee. [4]

From a Fine of the year 1353, recorded in 1359, it appears that Agnes, then wife of "Thomas, son of Thomas de Lee of Stanton", was heiress in reversion of the Manor of Hadnall. At present it

[1] Harl. MS. 5848, fo. 20, b.
[2] Rot. Assize, 5 Edw. III.
[3] Supra, Vol. VII. p. 271.
[4] Harl. MS. (ut supra).


was held by John Corbet and his wife Matilda, and three others, for life of the said Matilda. Thomas de Lee and Agnes now settle the whole of Agnes' reversionary interest on William Banastre of Yorton, Alianore his wife, and their bodily heirs, with remainder to the right heirs of the said William Banastre.

Thomas de Lee is party, as trustee, to two Moreton-Corbet Fines in 1363 and 1371. In the last instance he is styled "of Soubatch".

Thomas de Lee must have lived to a great age, but died without issue, before the year 1384 as we have seen under Preston. [1] From his ubiquitous appearances I think it possible that he may have been that "Thomas, son of Thomas de la Lee", whom I have noticed under Berrington and Eaton Mascott, as occurring in 1333 and 1335. [2]

OLIVER DE LEE, another son of Thomas and Petronilla, had Preston-Boats by gift of his mother. He occurs in 1318, and if what I have surmised under Berrington as to his elder brother John, be correct, he had Okehurst, a member of Stanton, and was deceased in 1322-3. [3] We know that he died without issue.

OF OTHER UNDERTENANTS, I must name one Robert de Stanton, whose first appearance is in 1255. In 1260 he fined half a merk ut amittatur per ballivam;- that he might be released from prison on finding Sureties for his reappearance. His crime was probably that of taking a deer in company with Alan de Parva Buildwas. He duly appeared to take his trial at the Forest Assizes of 1262. From 1270 to 1281 this Robert de Stanton occurs constantly as a Witness of Deeds. At the Assizes of 1272 he was one of the Jurors for Bradford Hundred, and he appears on other Juries of 1277, 1278, and 1281. John de Stanton, is so called in 1298, but occurs as John, son of Robert de Staunton, when attesting a Rodington Deed in 1313. [4] He was perhaps son of the above Robert.


The mention of a Church and a Priest in the Domesday Manor of Stanton, indicates the pre-existence of one of those Saxon Foundations whose Parishes appear so vast to modern ideas.

Of the extent of Stanton Parish I can only say that it included High Hatton and Lee Brockhurst, at each of which places Churches or Chapels have since been founded.

[1] Supra, Vol. VII. p. 271.
[2] Supra, Vol. VI. pp. 41, 105, 106.
[3] Supra, Vol. VI. p. 40.
[4] Supra, Vol. VII. p. 379.


The history of the Mother Church, with which I now proceed, is very full and curious, explaining many points of ancient usage, by supplying the ratio, as well as the mere facts, of procedure, in the conveyance and appropriation of a great Rectory.

The Advowson was in the Stantons, the Lords of the Fee, till the aera of William de Stanton, who held the Manor from 1221 to 1236. During his tenure "the See of Chester was vacant", and we know that the only vacancy, which can be thus alluded to, was that which commenced August 20, 1223, on the death of Bishop Cornhull, and lasted till April 14, 1224, when Bishop Stavensby was consecrated.- During the said vacancy Richard de Chirbiri (Chirbury), Parson of Stanton, attended an Archidiaconal Synod or assembly; and tendered the resignation of his benefice to "Master Alexander" (the famous Alexander de Swereford), "then Archdeacon of Salop". On the nomination of William de Stanton, the Archdeacon forthwith "admitted and instituted" one Hugh de Stanton to the Living, such being the Archdeacon's duty under the circumstances of the vacancy of the See.

It would seem that Richard de Chirbury afterwards repented of his resignation, and, taking advantage of its having been only made to an Archdeacon, held the Church, or assumed to hold it, till his death, which took place in Midlent 1236. [1]

Meanwhile (that is, certainly between the years 1224 and 1235, and probably about the year 1230 [2]) "William de Staunton gave to Haughmond Abbey the Advowson (jus pratronatus) of the Church of Staunton, adding to the gift a messuage and three acres of land in his lay-fee, which were held by Hugh Dod". Bartholomew Thoret (who was deceased in 1235), and Hugh Forester, attested this grant. [3]

In Midlent 1236, Richard de Chirbury died, and the Abbot of Haughmond assuming himself to be Patron of the Living, was resisted by William de Stanton. The Abbot sued the Knight in the Courts of Westminster, in April following, to compel him to permit the Abbot to present "a fit Parson". William de Staunton (apparently repentant of his grant of the Advowson, and mindful only of

[1] Placita, Pasch. Tm. 20 Hen. III., m. 5.
[2] Gilbert, Abbot of Haughmond, stated in return to a Writ of Edward I. that John de Morton was Abbot of his House when William de Stanton "enfeoffed the Abbey in this Advowson".-

This evidence is not quite conclusive, but, coupled with other facts, it would suggest an improvement in the List of Abbots (Vol. VII. p. 300), and place John de Morton's Abbacy, as well as William de Stanton's grant, between 1227 and 1235.
[3] Haughmond Chart. Tit. Staunton.


his having presented Hugh de Stanton in 1223-4) pleaded that "the Church was not vacant", and that "Hugh was Parson thereof". Master Alexander, still Archdeacon of Salop, appeared in Court, [1] and corroborated William de Staunton's evidence by relating what had taken place at the Synod of 1223-4. The Abbot rejoined by stating that "Richard, the latest Parson, had died at Midlent 1236, and that the Living was as yet a Sequestration in the hand of the Bishop (Stavensby)". The Court made a reference to the said Bishop, and adjourned the Cause till July 1, when his evidence was to be forthcoming. Nicholas de London, a Canon of Haughmond, was named as the Abbot's Attorney, but the Rolls which are wanted to complete the secular treatment of the Cause, are lost.

I have good reason to think that Bishop Stavensby compromised this dispute by allowing Hugh de Stanton to remain Rector of Stanton, but at the same time by obliging him and his Patron, Sir William, to give a formal security to the Abbey for the future exercise of its right of Patronage. At all events we have a Deed, whereby "Alexander, Bishop of Coventry, at the donation and concession of Sir William de Stanton, gives and concedes to Haghmon Abbey 4 shillings out of the Church of Stanton, in the name of a perpetual benefice. Witnesses,- Master Reginald de Cleidon, then Official (of the Bishop), Master Symon Perduz; Thomas de L'Ewe; A., Vicar of Ercalwe; R., Vicar of Lilleshull; Heco de Atyngham, and others". [2]

This Deed probably passed in 1236, but certainly between 1236 and 1238, when Bishop Alexander died.

I next find a triplicate copy of a Deed dated at Stanton on the day of St. Bricius, Bishop and Confessor (i.e. November 13), and in the year 1247, according to one Copy, but in the year 1267, according to two Copies. [3] The earlier date is probably correct, but the discrepancy does not affect the current of our narrative. The Deed, whatever its date, proves that "Hugh" was still "Rector of Staunton", that he disputed the Abbot of Haghmon's right to a pension of 4s. out of Stanton Church, that the question was settled before the "Dean of Christianity (the Rural Dean) of Salop", and that the Abbot's right thereto was established in "full Chapter" and acknowledged by the said Hugh.

[1] This corrects the list of the Archdeacons of Salop, whioh should make Swereford continuously Archdeacon from 1222 to 1236 (Hardy's Le Neve, Vol. I. 573).
[2] Harl. MS. 3868, fo. 9.- Cleidon became Stavenby's Official after July 1232. He occurs as such in July 1234.
[3] Harl. MS. 3868, fo. 9; and Haughmond Chartulary (ut supra).


It next appears that "a Rector of Stanton died while Alan was Abbot of Haghmon, and that the said Alan presented his successor". This death and presentation must have occurred between 1258 and 1277, taking the widest intervals for Abbot Alan's tenure of office. Probably the Rector who died was Hugh de Stanton. Abbot Alan's Presentee, whatever his name, was deceased in 1288, for then Thomas de Lee and his wife Petronilla, on the one hand, and the Abbot of Haghmon on the other, were again contesting the right of presentation to the vacancy.

A Writ of King Edward I., dated October 18, 1288, orders the Sheriff of Shropshire to take security from the Abbot for the prosecution of his claim, and then to empanel twelve free and lawful men, of the Vicinage of Stanton-in-Hyneheth, to appear before the Justices at Westminster, on November 18 following, and try the question in the usual form, viz. Quis advocatus, tempore pacis, presentavit ultimam personam, etc.

The result of this Trial, threatened or held, may be inferred from two memoranda, the first of which shows that Thomas and Petronilla de Lee, in the presence of John de Drayton, Abbot of Shrewsbury, recognized the Abbot of Haghmon's right to the Advowson, and agreed to levy a Fine in the King's Court before May 19, 1289, securing the said Advowson to the Abbot, who paid 20 for the concession.

The second memorandum is Thomas de Lee's own letter to R., Bishop of Coventry, dated January 15, 1289, and withdrawing a presentation which he had already made to the vacant benefice. Lee seals his letter with the Abbot of Shrewsbury's seal, as well as his own, "which was perhaps unknown to the Bishop (forte vobis incognito)".

Now follows another Writ-Royal, dated January 28, 1289, and which orders the Sheriff to enjoin Thomas and Petronilla de Lee to give warranty to the Abbot, of a messuage, 3 acres of land, and the Advowson of Stanton Church, which the Abbot held under them, as he averred, and whereof he had their Charter. If the said Thomas and Petronilla refused to obey, the Sheriff was to cite them to Westminster. Next we have a piece of official routine.- The King's Justices at Westminster would not allow the covenanted Fine to be levied "because of the statute which forbade Advowsons of Churches to be placed in mortmain". Gilbert, Abbot of Haughmond, hereupon memorialized the King as to the Justices' refusal; and obtained a Writ ordering them to allow the Fine to be levied, and setting forth


how "William de Stanton had enfeoffed John de Morton, a former Abbot, in the Advowson", and how "the Parson, last deceased, had been presented by Abbot Alan". These considerations, I presume, were given, to show that the case did not fall under the Statute of Mortmain, which was not retrospective.-

The Justices complied at once, and we have the consequent Fine, levied at Westminster on June 12, 1289. Thomas de Lee and Petronilla his wife (Impedients) acknowledge the perpetual right of Gilbert, Abbot of Haghmon (Plaintiff ) to a messuage, 3 acres of land, and the Advowson of the Church of Staunton-super-Hyneheth, whereof was Plea of Charter-warranty. The Abbot in return received the Recognizors to the benefit of the prayers, etc. of his House, for ever. "And", adds the Record, "this Concord was made by precept of the King".

An entry in the Haughmond Chartulary announces that on the 13th of July, Mcclxixix (sic), William de Hopton, Subdeacon, was instituted Rector of Stanton by Roger Bishop of Coventry, at the presentation of the Abbot and Convent of Haghmon. The 32nd year of the Bishop's Consecration (also assigned as the date of this act) would place it in 1288, while the dominical year intended to be given was probably Mcclxxxix. Neither date is consistent with a Writ of King Edward I., dated January 24, 1290, and addressed to the same Bishop, which orders him to admit the Abbot of Haghmon's Presentee. We may however safely conclude that William de Hopton was admitted as Rector within a year of the Fine of 1289.

The Taxation of 1291, values the Church of Staunton (in the Deanery of Salop) at 12 per annum; besides a pension of 4s. which the Abbot of Haumon derived therefrom. [1]

The next step for the Canons of Haughmond was to get an appropriation of this Rectory. By a Patent of March 6, 1327, King Edward III., as far as in him lay, allowed this Appropriation, as well as that of a third part of the Church of Wroxeter, notwithstanding the Statute of Mortmain. [2] A Bull of Pope John (XXII.) dated at Avignon, September 16, 1329, allows the Appropriation of "the Church of St. Andrew of Stanton-super-Hynehet (whose fruits, according to the Taxation, did not exceed 12), on the death of the existing Rector". On March 30, 1330, the Archdeacon of Salop, as Commissary for the Bishop, settled other preliminaries of the proposed annexation at a meeting held in the Collegiate Church of

[1] Pope Nich. Taxation; p. 247.
[2] Patent. 1 Edw. III., p. 1, m. 21.


St. Chad, Shrewsbury. William, Rector of Stanton, was still Incumbent.

But the consent of the Dean and Chapter of Lichfield had yet to be obtained.- On July 16, 1330, the Abbot binds himself in a bond of 20, payable to the Dean and Chapter in 1333, or else to secure to the Dean and Chapter an annual pension of one merk from Stanton Church, payable from and after the death of Rector William. On the next day (July 17, 1330) the Dean and Chapter demand and agree to receive the said pension. Their manifesto describes the nature of their right to such compensation. It arose by their insisting on what may be called the fraction of a contingency. If Stanton remained a Rectory, and if, on any vacancy thereof, the Patron neglected to present, two-thirds of the fruits of the Living would devolve to the Bishop during the period of vacancy. This was an ancient right of the See of Lichfield, both with respect to Stanton and other Churches in that district. Further, any continued neglect of the Patron to present, would entitle the Bishop to collate. Again, if the Bishop neglected so to collate within the statutory period, the presentation would devolve on the Dean and Chapter of Lichfield. "All these possibilities", continues the manifesto, "would be extinguished by appropriation"; but the Chapter agreed thereto, for the stipulated pension.

On April 1, 1331, Bishop Northburgh recites and confirms his Commissary's proceedings at the meeting held March 30, 1330, in St. Chad's Church. On April 3, 1331, it was agreed at Haughmond Abbey, that the Abbot should pay the Bishop a pension of 2 merks yearly, for his consent to the appropriation of the Churches of Ruyton and Stanton. This was the estimated value of the Bishop's contingent rights in cases of vacancy, as already set forth in the manifesto of the Dean and Chapter. On October 16, 1331, Bishop Northburgh recites the previous acts of appropriation, and announces the resignation of Sir William de Hopton, late Rector of Stanton. The Bishop also approves of a plan propounded by the Abbot, on October 1st previous, for the future Vicarage. The chief provisions were that the Abbot should retain the New-Hall with its granges and other buildings, and a messuage and barn, and all corn-tithes, except of gardens, and one grange at Lee Brockhurst, and all wool-tithes, except those of Lee Brockhurst, and the hay-tithes of Stanton. The Vicar was to have the old Rectorial manse with its garden and dove-cot, a meadow, a virgate in Stanton, a messuage and half-virgate in Lee Brockhurst, the tithes of Mills, gardens,


milk, ducks, calves, lambs, flax, hemp, and honey (basiae apium), mortuaries, and all hay-tithes, except of Stanton. The Vicar was to pay a pension of 6s. 8d. to the Archdeacon of Salop, and 2s. for synodals; and to serve Stanton Church and Lee-Brockhurst Chapel.

On November 3, 1331, Bishop Northburgh instituted the first Vicar of Stanton, at presentation of the "Abbot and Convent of Haghmon, Impropriators of the said Church by Papal authority, and Patrons thereof". It was not till February 6, 1357, that William the Dean (read Prior) and the Chapter of Coventry, discovering that they had similar rights with the Chapter of Lichfield, allowed the appropriation of the Churches of Stanton and Ruyton, for a pension of one merk, payable to themselves yearly.

In 1341, the Assessors of the Ninth quoting a Taxation of 12 on the Church of Staunton, assessed the Parish at 8 only; because a great part of the arable land in the Parish was Glebe; and, though it increased the Church-Taxation, could not be taken to prove any such capabilities of the Parish in general, as were now to be taxed: indeed the Vicar, in whose hands the Glebe was, paid his tenths for the same, to the King, under another assessment. [1]

The Valor of 1534-5 gives the preferment of William Carbes', Vicar of Staunton, as worth 6 per annum, less 9s. 2d., for Procurations and Synodals. [2]

The Abbot of Haughmond's Rectorial ferm was put at 7. 10s. 2d. The Churches of Staunton, Hanmer (Flintshire), and Ruyton, were however charged with a collective pension of 1. 16s. 8d. to the Bishop of Lichfield; and the Churches of Stanton and Ruyton with two pensions, of a merk each, to the Dean of Lichfield and the Prior of Coventry. [2] Also the Abbot paid the Bishop 1. 8s. 10d. (or at the rate of 9s. 7d. per annum), at his triennial Visitations for the Procurations of Shawbury, Staunton, Wroxeter, Hanmer, etc. [2]


The Rectors of Stanton, all who occur, have been noticed in the foregoing narrative. The following Vicars were uniformly presented by the Abbot and Convent of Haughmond.-

JOHN FAYRCHILD, Chaplain, was admitted Nov. 3, 1331.

SIR JOHN DE BRUGH died August 11, 1349 (probably of the Pestilence).

WILLIAM GODMON, Chaplain, was admitted Jan. 27, 1350.

SIR JOHN KNITTE, Priest, was admitted Aug. 20, 1359.

[1] Nonarum, page 183.
[2] Valor Ecclesiasticus, III. 185, 192, 193.


WILLIAM HETH, occurs as Vicar in 2 Henry V. (1314-5).

SIR HENRY FALK, resigned in 1419.

SIR JOHN DON, Chaplain, was admitted May 4, 1419.

Great Withyford.

Domesday notices this as a threefold Manor, in which William Pantulf had one share (already spoken of [1]) while Rainald Vicecomes was Mesne Lord of two shares.-

"The same Rainald holds Wieford (of the Earl), and Alcher holds it of Rainald. Sten and Wilegrip held it (in Saxon times) and were free together with this land. Here are 2 hides, geldable. In demesne are II ox-teams and VIII Serfs; and (there are) V Villains, and one Radman, and one Frenchman with 3 teams".

"Here is a Mill of 8s. (annual value). In King Edward's time the Manor was worth 28s. (per annum). Afterwards it was waste. Now it is worth 40s".

"The same Rainald holds, in the same Vill, one hide, geldable, and Albert holds it of him. Uluric and Carlo held it (in Saxon times) for a Manor".

"Here are one ox-team, two Serfs, and two Boors, and another team there might be. The value of this (in Saxon times) was 7s. (per annum). Afterwards it was waste. Now it is worth 7s". [2]

This is the second Domesday Manor in which Alcher and Albert appear as Co-tenants of Rainald the Sheriff. At Middleton the Cotenancy of the Fitz-Aers and the Rossalls, the descendants of Alcher and of Albert, endured for ages. At Withyford the endurance of Rossall's tenure was not so long nor so clear, but still we have sufficient evidence of its existence to teach us that the smallest sentence of Domesday has a significance.


I have nothing to add to what I have said, under Middleton Scriven, Aston Eyre, and Harcott, relative to the descent of Alcher's representatives, till we come to the year 1165. Then Robert fitz Aer held the fees of one knight and 1 muntators in the Barony of

[1] Vide supra, page 184.
[2] Domesday, fo. 254, a, 2.


Fitz Alan. [1] The Knight's-fee was Aston Eyre, the semi-muntator's fee was Middleton, the whole muntator's fee was Withyford Magna. We next come to the suit about Withyford, which-

ROBERT FITZ AER (II.) maintained against John le Strange during the earlier years of Richard I.'s reign. The preliminaries of this suit have already been shown. [2] I now proceed with the details.-

A Plea-Roll which I know from its internal evidence to belong to Trinity Term, 1194, [3] has the following entry. The allusions thereof having been already explained, I here give the original in extenso.- Robertus filius Aeri petit versus Johannem Extraneum terram de Widiford ut jus suum et hereditatem suam, in quam Johannes intrusit se dum terra illa et aliae terrae suae fuerunt in manu Domini Regis, et dum ipse fuit in prisona Domini Regis pro morte cujusdam hominis, unde rettatus fuit; et (supply dicit quod) sponte suit posuit se in prisona quousque liberatus fuit per Justiciarios, et promisit Domino Regi X marcas pro recto habendo et seisina tali qualem habuit die qua terrae suae saisitae fuerunt in manu Regis pro predicto. Johannes, summonitus per breve Domini Regis, ostensurus qualiter intravit in terram illam, venit et dicit quod terram illam recuperavit versus ipsum Robertum ut jus suum coram Cancellario et Willielmo Briwer et Simone de Patishull et aliis Justiciariis, apud Hereford, et inde vocat Curiam (ad Warantiam). Vicecomes Salopie, similiter summonitus ostensurus quo waranto posuit Johannem in seisinam illius terrae, desicut erat in manu Regis, misit litteras Cancellarii, in qua (sic pro quibus) continetur quod eum inde saisire debet.

Dies datus est in adventu Justiciariorum in partibus illis et tunc veniat Recordum per IV milites de hac loquela;- utrum terra seisita foret in manu Regis antequam Robertus deficeret versus Johannem de placito, an non.- The question then was one of date, viz. whether Fitz Aer's Fine (which placed him in the same position as that in which he stood on the day of his indictment for murder) preceded the date of Le Strange's successful suit at Hereford. The point was never decided by judgment at Westminster or elsewhere; and it would be difficult to decide it now. The result was eventually attained by Final Concord, which, as we shall see, made Le Strange Mesne-Lord of Withyford, and made Fitz Aer, not Fitz Alan's tenant there, but Le Strange's.

On May 12, 1295 (if I rightly date another Plea-Roll), the

[1] [2] Supra, Vol. pp. 200, 201.
[3] It is not a Roll of King John's reign, as stated in the Abbreviatio Placitorum (page 96).


following step occurred in this suit.- Archiepiscopus warantizavit Johanni Extraneo diem Lunae post Ascensionem, quod (read quia) fuit in servicio Domini Regis loco Radulfi Extranei qui infirmatur. Et dies datus est ei per hominem suum in octabis Sancti Johannis versus Robertum filium Raheri (read Aheri).

The Archbishop, here mentioned, was the Viceroy, Hubert Walter. I understand him, in his double capacity of Viceroy and Justiciar, to have respited John le Strange's appearance in the above suit till July 1, 1195, because the said John now occupied the military position of his dying cousin, Ralph le Strange of Alveley, who had been engaged in the Welsh wars. [1]

It is further clear that Robert Fitz Aer (II.) died while this Suit was pending. I have elsewhere given the Fine, proffered by Emma de Sai his widow in 1198. [2] This was merely to have custody of his land and heir, and freedom in respect of her own marriage. Having attained this object, the suit with John le Strange naturally devolved on the said Emma. Between Michaelmas 1198 and January 1199, Emma de Say proffered and paid to King Richard 30 merks, "to have such seizin of the land of Wiford as Robert fitz Aier, her former husband, had on the day when that land was seized into the King's hand for the death of a certain man, whereof he (the said Robert) was accused". [3]

A Plea-Roll (which I think belongs to Hilary Term 1199) shows John le Strange resisting Emma de Say's claim.- "By precept of Geoffrey fitz Piers (then Chief Justice) a day, in five weeks of Easter, is given to John le Strange and Emma de Sai, in a Plea of land". [4]

The Final Concord which closed this Suit, on Sept. 25, 1199, has been given in substance under Aston Eyre. Here is the original.- Hec est finalis concordia facta apud Salopebir' die Sabbati proxima ante festum Sti Michaelis, anno regni Regis Johannis primo, coram Alano Abbate Teokesbirie, Henrico Archidiacono Stafford', Simone de Pateshill, etc.; inter Emmam que fuit uxor Roberti filii Aer et Robertum filium ejus, petentes, et Johannem Extraneum et Willielmum de Hedleg tenentes de feudo dimidii militis cum pertinenciis in Wiford, unde placitum fuit inter eos in prefata Curia;- scilicet quod Johannes et Willielmus recognoverunt predictum

[1] Vide supra, Vol. III. p. 130.
[2] Supra, Vol. I. p. 202.
[3] Rot. Pipe, 1 John, Salop. This Fine was renewed on the Pipe-Roll of 1201, but was found to have been liquidated already. The mistake arose from confusing it with another Fine then proffered.
[4] The Roll is indorsed as of "10 John". I have made it of 10 Richard I., from its internal evidence.


feudum dimid' militis esse jus Roberti; tenendum de eodem Johanne et heredibus, sibi et heredibus inperpetuum, per servicium dimidii militis pro omni servicio. Et pro hac fine et concessione et recognicione predictus Robertus dedit predicto Johanni XX marcas argenti.

Thus did Robert fitz Aer (III.) repurchase a part of his inheritance, viz. the actual possession of Withyford; and thus did John le Strange (II.) obtain the mesne-lordship. William de Hadley's concern in the matter was probably by some Feoffment of Le Strange, during the period when the latter was in possession.

About November 1200 I find another oblatum by Emma de Say, relative to a portion of Withyford, which she conceived to have been wrongfully occupied during the period of her late husband's and her own difficulties.- "Emma de Say gives the King 40s. to have an Inquest as to whether Robert fitz Aer was seized of 40 acres in Wiford (now held by Vivian de Roshal and Hugh de Upton), on the day when he was disseized of his other lands by reason of his indictment for manslaughter, and as to whether the said Vivian and Hugh occupied the said land while the lands of Robert fitz Aer were in custody of John le Strange. The Sheriff was to report the result of this Inquest through two of the Jurors before January 20" (1201). [1] The Pipe Rolls show this fine liquidated in 1202 and 1203, but I hear no more of the Inquest. Vivian de Roshall's appearance in Fitz Aer's estate at Withyford is pertinent to a future subject.

I have indicated, under Aston Eyre, that Robert fitz Aer (III.) died between 1221 and 1231. William, his successor, who occurs in 1231 and died in 1245, was Robert's brother. The following details are derived from an Inquest of 1248. [2]- Robert fitz Aer bequeathed (legavit) theMill of Withyford to Haughmond Abbey: but, after Robert's death, his brother and heir, William, made entry on all his lands, and disallowing his bequest to Haughmond, assigned both the town and mill of Withyford as the dower of Amice, Robert's widow. The Abbot hereupon sued William for the Mill, but agreed to accept an annuity of 20s. in lieu thereof.

(It should here be observed that when Philip le Bret fined in 1245 for custody of the infant heir of William fitz Aer he accepted the Abbot of Haughmond's annuity as a recognized charge thereon, [3] though William fitz Aer died seized of nothing in Withyford.)

To continue with the Inquest,- Amice, widow of Robert fitz Aer, seems to have died in 1247, seized of Withyford and its Mill. The

[1] Oblata, p. 80.
[2] Inquisitions, 32 Hen. III., No. 9.
[3] Supra, Vol. I. p. 204.


Abbot of Haughmond apparently thought this a good opportunity of entering on the Mill, but the Sheriff ousted him at once, and seized the Mill into the King's hand. The Abbot complained to the King. Hence a Writ of January 13, 1248, inquires of the Sheriff why he had made this seizure of the Mill, "held by the Abbot", and orders him to ascertain by Inquest what right the Abbot had thereto, and whether he was enfeoffed therein, and if enfeoffed, then by whom and how long ago? The return to this Writ has appeared above. The Jurors added that the Abbot had never been enfeoffed. The Sheriff, for his part, explained, that he had seized the Mill in manu Regis, because William Honald the Escheator was dead, and there was no other Escheator, and because other lands of the heir of Withyford were in the King's hand.

The Hundred-Roll of 1255, confuses Pantulf's and Fitz Alan's shares of Great Withyford, because Fitz Aer happened to be Tenant of both shares. Restoring a distinction, which is necessary to perspicuity, I here quote only that part of the entry which relates to the subject now in hand.- "John fitz Cleri (read Aeri) is Lord of the Vill of Wythyford, and holds of the Fee of Knokyn; and it is II hides, and pays 8d. stretward and 8d. motfee yearly; and does due suit to County and Hundred, and is geldable. And he (John fitz Aer) does the service of one Muntor at his own cost, for 15 days at Knokyn". [1]

The two hides, thus supposed to constitute the whole hidage of Great Withyford, was short of the complement of the three Domesday Manors, by 2 hides. Part of this diminution is attributable to the alienation of the Rossall Manor (1 hide) to Haughmond Abbey. The rest of the decrease can only be attributed to the usual causes; the favour of the Crown or the neglect of its fiscal Officers to insist on a perpetual maintenance of the Domesday measurements. Again, John Fitz Aer was a Minor in 1255;- a fact omitted in the above Record. And lastly, though he is well said to hold of the Fee of Knokyn, that is of Le Strange of Knokyn, it should also have been stated that Le Strange held under Fitz Alan.

In July 1260, John de Erkelaw (of High Ercall) sues John fitz Aer for disseizing him of common-pasture in Witheford.

In July 1268 and July 1269, John fitz Aer was one of four Justices deputed to the delivery of Bridgnorth Gaol. In September 1272, being placed on a similar commission for the Gaols of Shrewsbury and Bridgnorth, he is styled a knight, a dignity which I think

[1] Rot. Hundred. II. 57.


he must have really attained some years before. In February 1283, he was appointed Assessor and Collector, in Shropshire, of the Tax of the thirtieth recently granted to the Crown.

The Feodaries of 1284-5 agree that "John fitz Aer holds the vill of Magna Wythiford with its members, viz. Mokelinton (Muckleton) and half the of Edgebalden (Edgboulton) under John le Strange"; but when one Record adds that it was so held as a member of John le Strange's Manor of Ruton (Ruyton, near Baschurch), and when both Records say that John le Strange held it in capite of the King, the expression whether it be referred to Ruyton or Withyford is inaccurate. He held both Manors under Fitz Alan.

In 1287, John fitz Aer was appointed one of the Conservators of the Peace in the County of Salop; and in 1290 was returned as a Knight of the Shire. At the Assizes of October 1292, John fitz Aer is named as one of the existing four Coroners of Shropshire and ready to give account for his period of office. The Writ of Diem clausit announcing his death, bears date on January 16, 1293. The Inquest, held at Shrewsbury on February 12 following, found (inter alia) that he had held Aston Eyres of the Earl of Arundel by service of a Knight's-fee, returnable at Oswestry: and that he had held Wythyford of Sir John le Strange for half a fee. Hugh, son and heir of the deceased, was now 30 years of age.

In July 1297, Hugh fitz Aer was returned as a holder of 20 librates of lands and rents, and was summoned as such to serve in foreign parts.

A Fine levied January 20, 1306, I take to be a settlement on the marriage of the then eldest son of Hugh Fitz Aer.- "Hugh le fitz Aer, Plaintiff, acknowledges a grant of a messuage and carucate, and 100s. rent in Criddon (Salop), and of 10 rent in Farnbarewe (Warwickshire), to Henry le Haleys, Deforciant (and Trustee probably), whereof had been Plea of convention. The said Henry settles the premises on Hugh for life, with remainder to William, Hugh's son, and to Cristina, daughter of John de Redmarleye, and the heirs of the said William by Cristina; and with further remainder to the right heirs of William, quit of the heirs of Hugh". [2]

An Inquest held in April 1311, found it to be non- injurious to the Crown if Hugh fitz Aer were to enfeoff one William Canne in a messuage and carucate at Harcott, and the said William were, in turn, to settle the same on Hugh fitz Aer and Alina his wife, and

[1] Inquisitions, 21 Edw. I., No. 44.
[2] Fines Divers. Com., 34 Edw. I.


their heirs. On this occasion Harcott was valued at 40s. per annum, while Hugh fitz Aer's other estate at Aston Eyre, and which still would be his in fee-simple, was estimated to yield 100s. per annum. [1]

We know that Hugh fitz Aer eventually settled the tenancy of Aston on a younger son, Hugh. I also find him securing portions to two other younger sons in Withyford.- As "Hugh fitz Aer, Lord of Magna Witeford", he gives to John his son, a parcel of land and bosc, called Engeware, in his aforesaid fee of Witeford. If the Grantee die without heirs of his body, the gift is entailed on Margery, the Grantor's eldest daughter, sister of the Grantee. [2] Hugh fitz Aer, by another Deed, grants a parcel of land, etc., to his son Henry. [2]

The King's Writ of Diem clausit on the death of Hugh fitz Aer bears date December 3, 1313. An Inquest, held at Shrewsbury on the 24th instant, speaks of the share of Withyford, now under notice, as half the Manor. The Seigneuries of both Fitz Alan and Le Strange are to be recognized in the statement that the deceased had held half Withyford of the Earl of Arundel, by service of half a knight's-fee, returnable at Ruyton Castle (which was Le Strange's). The value of the whole Manor, whether held under Fitz Alan, or Botyler of Wem, was 14. 2s. 4d. per annum. Harcott was extended at 40s.; Whetenaston (i.e. Aston Eyre) at 9. 17s. per annum. Thomas fitz Aer, son and heir of the decessed, was aged 17 years on February 2, 1313. [3] I conclude therefore that William fitz Aer, presumed to have been eldest son of Hugh in 1306, had died without issue.

We may now estimate the truth and significance of the return called the Nomina Villarum, which is of date March 1316. It gives Harcott and Criddon to Alina fitz Aer; thus showing the proposed settlement of 1311 in operation, but the Fine of 1306 as abortive. It gives Aston Eyre to Hugh, son of Hugh fitz Aer, doubtless according to some settlement, which however I cannot find to be in existence. Lastly, it gives Wythiford to Thomas fitz Aer;- in accordance with the Inquest of 1313. [4]

Thomas fitz Aer's tenure of his estate must have been very brief. Margery, his only child and heir, was born and baptized at Wistanstow on April 4, 1314;- that is, when her father was little more than eighteen years of age. She had a long minority, but (not

[1] Ad quod Damnum, 4 Edw. II. No. 49.
[2] Harl. MS. 1396, fo. 67.
[3] Inquisitions, 7 Edw. II., No. 46.
[4] Parliamentary Writs, IV. p. 851.


knowing the date of her father's death) I am unable to state its precise duration.

From a Writ of July 9, 1328, I find that Margery, daughter and heir of Thomas fitz Aer had petitioned the Crown for livery of her inheritance, which was then in custody of the King, and Roger de Mortimer, [1] and William le Botiller of Wem. She asserted herself to be of full age, but an Inquest held at Wenlock on August 2, 1328, proved her, by concurrent, and very curious, evidence, to have been only fourteen on April 4 previous. [2]

I have shown, under Apley-Castle, that in the year previous to this Inquest, Alan de Cherlton of Apley had license to crenelate his mansion of Withyforde. [3]-

The difficulty of accounting for this seeming anachronism is not so great as I have hitherto thought. Alan de Cherlton (I.) had doubtless obtained custody of Withyford, from Roger de Mortimer, and had already affianced its infant heiress to his own younger son, Alan. I refer back to Apley, for a full account and proof of this marriage and the probable date of its consummation. [4]

On May 10, 1338, two Fines were levied, whereby Alan, son of Sir Alan de Cherleton, Knight, and Margery his wife, Plaintiffs, convey the Manors of Wheton Aston, Magna Withyford, and Hakercote (Harcott) to John de Wyke, Parson of Magna Gatesden, and to James de Morton, Parson of La Rode (evidently two trustees). The said Feoffees in return, settle the three estates on Alan (Junior) and Margery, and their bodily heirs;- remainder to John, [5] son of Sir Alan de Cherlton, knight, and the heirs of his body;- remainder (in respect of Aston and Withyford only) to Thomas de Cherleton, [5] brother of the said John, and the heirs of his body;- remainder of all three estates to the right heirs of Margery. [6]-

[1] Roger de Mortiiner here represents his unfortunate victim, Edmund, Earl of Arundel. On the Earl's attainder, Mortimer had obtained a grant of his Shropshire estates (Dugd. Baronage, I. 145).

The Earl we know from other authority had had custody of Aston Eyre and Withyford (supra, p. 57), during part of Margery fltz Aer's minority.

The King's custody arose in respect of Harcott; William le Botiller's in respect of a part of Great Withyford.
[2] Inquisitions, 2 Edw. III., No. 63.
[3] [4] Supra, pages 55, 56.

[5] It should be observed that Alan de Cherlton (I.) and Alan de Cherlton (II.) had each a brother John, and a brother Thomas. We must not therefore identify the John and Thomas of the above Fine with John de Charlton of Powys and Thomas de Cherlton Bishop of Hereford. The two latter were Uncles of the two former.- This coincidence of nanes, added to another circumstance (noticed above, p. 55), has caused great confusion in the genealogical accounts of this family.
[6] Pedes Finium, 12 Edw. III., Nos. 102, 103.


This entail seems grossly unjust, though its injustice never became effectual. The making John and Thomas de Cherleton, contingent reversioners in the estates of their Sister-in-Law, would, had she died childless, have disinherited her right heirs.

Subsequent to this Fine, Alan de Cherlton (II.) demised all the above estates to his own Father, for life. The sequel has been given already, [1] except some of the curious statements which were adduced at, and corroborated by, the Inquest of 1356. These related partly to the descent of the Fitz Aers, partly to the relative signeural rights of the Crown and the Earl of Arundel over the Fitz Aers. I give some extracts, with comments thereon.-

"Earl Roger (de Montgomery) died at Quatford; the Jurors did not know on what day". (Here is a tradition 260 years old, and as remarkable for its probable truth as for its topographical interest. The place of Earl Roger's death has, I believe, nowhere else been stated; the year is to this day uncertain; but the day (July 27) has been fixed by Ordericus).

"Earl Roger died seized of the services set on Harcott". (This proves Fitz Aer's Serjeantry to have existed at Domesday, and that the silence of that Record is no proof of the non-existence of such tenures; for Alcher was already seized of Harcott.)

"Earl Roger was succeeded by Hugh, his son and heir; Hugh, by Robert his brother, who died without heir. Hence the King had the Seigneury of Harcott per viam Escaet. "(Here we note correctively, that Hugh was not really Earl Roger's heir, but was made his successor in England; also that Robert de Belesme's escheat was not by failure of heirs, but by attainder.)

"It was found by reference to the Red Book (of the Exchequer), in the Chapter entitled 'De combustione monetae', that the whole County (i.e. Earldom) of Salop, of which the services (i.e. the Seigneury) of Harcott were part and parcel, was in manu Regis, as an Escheat, and not de jure Coronae. It was therefore discordant with Justice that a title of tenure should accrue to the Crown, distinct from its original title". And again, "Earl Roger never had any wardship of Harcott, nor had any Earl or King since, except when Edward II. had custody thereof by reason of the minority of Margery, infant heir of Thomas Fitz Aer, and, even then, Edmund Earl of Arundel had custody of Aston Eyre and of half Withyford". (The point was, that the infant heir of a Tenant-in-capite-de-Corona, became a ward of the Crown, both as to such heir's person, and also as to all estates

[1] Supra, pages 56, 57.


[For pedigree, see pdf.]


of the heir, of whomsoever holden. But where the King's Seigneury was only De escheata, it conferred no such conclusive rights, but only affected the particular estate held in-capite.) Lastly, the Jurors most accurately deduced the pedigree of the later Fitz Aers as follows, though they omitted to state the minority of Thomas fitz Aer at his father's death.- "John fitz Aer died seized, etc. Hugh, his son and heir, enfeoffed William Canne, who settled Harcott on the said Hugh, his wife Anna, and their heirs. The heir of Hugh and Alina was their son Thomas, whose daughter and heir, Margery, married Alan, son of Alan de Cherlton. The latter died seized of 20 librates of rent payable by his Father for the Fitz Aer estates, at Aston and Withford, and John son of Alan, now a Minor, was son and heir of Alan de Cherlton Junior". [1]

I commit to a tabular form some further particulars in the Genealogies of Fitz Aer and Cherlton. None of the knightly families of Shropshire are traceable with greater certainty to a Domesday original than that of Fitz Aer.

OF UNDERTENANTS, taking a name from Withyford, some belong to Little Withyford, and have been mentioned already. Others have been named under Shawbury. There was also a Ranulph de Wydiford who acted in 1275, as Deputy-Collector under the Abbot of Shrewsbury, of the tax of the fifteenth. John de Withyford, who occurs from 1296 to 1340, seems to have been son of Robert de Stanton. In the 14th century there was a family of Cressets seated at Withyford. In a testing-clause of 1339, Thomas Cresset of Withyford precedes Thomas Cresset of Haughton.


We have seen that Muckleton was a member of Fitz Aer's part of Withyford.- "Between the years 1255 and 1260", John, son of William fitz Aer, and Lord of Withiforde, gave and confirmed to Haghmon Abbey two half-virgates in the vill of Moclyton, which Thomas fitz Roger and Richard Kane sometime held, with a messuage, crofts, and appurtenances, and also 4 nokes of land with messuages, etc., in Moclyton. The grant was to sustain the Alms given at the Abbey Gate, and was in exchange for the Mill of Withyforde, which Robert, the present Grantor's Uncle (avunculus), bequeathed, with his body, to the Abbey; and which William, the present Grantor's father gave thereto. [2] Witnesses,- Sir Thomas de Roshall,

[1] Inquisitions, 30 Edw. III., No. 46.
[2] This admission was probably extorted by the Canons of Haughmond, and was at variance with truth (supra, p. 312).


Sir Odo de Hodenet, and Sir Vivian de Roshall. [1]- We gather from this Deed the probability that Robert fitz Aer (III.) was buried at Haughmond; and we learn how the Canons abandoned their legacy of Withyford Mill.

On June 5, 1268, Alan Champyun has a Writ of mort d'ancestre against John fitz Aer, for two-thirds of a messuage and quarter-virgate in Muclinton. A new Writ of 1270 speaks of two-thirds of half a messuage and a quarter-virgate, as the subject of claim. It must have been at this very juncture that "John fitz Aer, Lord of Widiford, gave and quitclaimed, to Haughmond Abbey, Adam, son of Alan de Mocliton, with his wife Margery". This was in consideration of one merk, paid to the Grantor by the said Adam. The Grantor retains all the issue of the said Adam, whether sons or daughters (as his Villeins). The Deed was attested by Reginald de Wideford and Roger de Preston;- two names which have already appeared in conjunction in 1269. [2]

In Trinity Term 1269, John fitz Aer was under summons to answer William de Egebaldenham (now Edgbolton), Chaplain, as to the observance of an agreement which Fitz Aer had made with Richard de la Hull of Egebaldenham, the Plaintiff's father, concerning 6 acres of land and meadow in Mollington. Fitz Aer now conceded to the Plaintiff, and his Mother, Isabella, 3 acres for a term of 12 years, and 3 acres for a term of 15 years. [3]

A mutilated Fine of February 1271 names another son of Richard de la Hull.- "Roger Friday and Matilda his wife, tenants of half a messuage and (some) part of a virgate at Moclyton, quitclaim the same, for themselves and the heirs of Matilda, to Alan le Kam ***, [4] Plaintiff. Alan, then, at their request, concedes the premises in fee to Roger, son of Richard de la Hulle of Eggebaldenham,- to hold, at a rent of 1d., payable to Alan and his heirs, and by performance of all services due to the Lords of the Fee. For this Roger de la Halle paid to Roger Friday and his wife 40 shillings".

I think that William de Egebaldenham, Chaplain, may have been the same with William de Mokelinton, who, in an Inquest of 1302, appears as Tenant of half a virgate in Great Bolas.

In 1313 we have a reappearance of Roger, son of Richard de la Hulle, after an interval of 42 years. To him did the Abbot of Haughmond then demise that nokate and half- nokate in Mocliton which Adam, son of Alan, sometime held. A rent of 7s. 6d. is

[1] Haughmond Chartulary, fo. 145.
[2] Supra, Vol. VIII. p. 74.
[3] Placita, 53 Hen. III., m. 12.
[4] Perhaps Alan le Kampion.


reserved in this Deed, which cost the Grantee 4, paid down. Another Demise, of the same date, concedes a noke, half-noke, and messuage, to the same Roger, at the same rent; but whether the Deeds represent more than one transaction seems doubtful.

I refer back to High Ercall for the mention, about this period, of Philip de Moclyton, of William, son of Richard del Hul of Mocliton, of Richard, his brother, and of Richard and John Wercoks of Edgebold. [1]


We have seen that half Edgbold was a member of Fitz Aer's Manor of Withyford. We have also seen that Hugh de Upton was in the year 1200 a Tenant, whether rightfully or not, in Withyford. It is also clear that Hugh de Upton's tenancy descended to his heirs, and was a tenancy under Fitz Aer.

Of Hugh de Upton, as Lord of Upton near Morville, I have already given some account. [2] At the Assizes of October 1203, Richard Werecoc, being impleaded under Writ of mort d'ancestre for a virgate in Egboldenham by Robert Goch, declared that he was the Villein of Hugh de Upton. Robert Goch had therefore leave to exchange his Writ for one against Hugh de Upton, if he chose so to do.

I next find good evidence that John de Upton (Great-Grandson of Hugh de Upton, above mentioned, and who succeeded to Upton in 1283-4) was Fitz Aer's Tenant in two virgates,- part of Fitz Aer's share of Edgebolton. These two virgates were conveyed by John de Upton to Robert Corbet of Morton and his wife Matilda. Consequently in the Inquest taken January 1301, concerning the specific settlement of certain estates of Robert Corbet, deceased, we find that "he and his wife Matilda had been jointly enfeoffed in two virgates in Egebaldenham by John de Upton, which two virgates the deceased had held in capite under Hugh le fitz Aer, at a rent of one pair of white gloves". [3]

It was, I suppose, some small part of Robert Corbet's purchase in Edgebolton, that William, son of John de Buleton, had been disseized of in 1292. The Defendants were "Robert, son of Richard Corbet, and William Hord", but the Plaintiff failed to prosecute the Suit.

About 1294-8, Margery, widow of John le Preyers of Dothull, grants to William Goge of Eggebaldenham, and Eadith his wife, her

[1] Supra, pages 92, 93.
[2] Supra, Vol. I. p. 140.
[3] Inquisitions, 29 Edw. I., No. 45.
[4] Assizes, 20 Edw. I., m. 17.


estate in Eggebaldenham. Witnesses,- Hugh fitz Eyr, William Hord, Richard Fremon of Schaubury, William Crasset, and John de Wythyford. [1]

On Nov. 16, 1298, Margery, widow of John le Preyers, Lord of Dothull, quitclaims to William, called Gegth, of Eggebaldenham and Eadith, his wife, all her right in a messuage, curtilage and virgate in Bradmedwe within the vill of Eggebaldenham. Witnesses,- William Hord, John de Stanton, and Richard de la Hull of Moklyton,- Dated at Welynton. [2]

The lands which passed in the above two Deeds I take to have been in Fitz Aer's part of Edgbold.

It will presently be seen that, independently of his (probably purchased) interest in Edgebolton, Robert Corbet of Moreton had an hereditary claim there also.- Now therefore I must speak of another part of Edgebolton, constituting, as I suppose, the hide held by Albert at Domesday, and which, with reference to Albert's known descendants, I will call-


Withyford, doubtless, contributed its share to the service of one knight and 3 muntators, due in 1165 by Hugh fitz Albert (the known descendant of Albert, and the known ancestor of the Rossalls) to the Barony of Fitz Alan. [3] Again we have seen Vivian de Rossall accused in 1200 of having occupied a part of Fitz Aer's estate in Withyford. [4]

The two following Deeds probably passed between the years 1190 and 1195.- The first is by a Tenant of Vivian de Roshall, the next by Vivian himself.- "Roger de Egebaldesham, son of Roger, gives to Haghmon Abbey, a virgate of land in Egebaldesham in the Parish of Shaubury. Witnesses,- William de Ethlega (Hadley), Reginald de Tirne, Baldwin de Wischar (le Wichart), Stephen de Staunton, Wido de Shaubury, Robert fitz Aer, and Reiner de Acton".

"Vivian de Roshalle confirmed the above grant, as the Charter of Roger fitz Roger doth testify. Witnesses,- Ralph Hose, and William his brother; Hamo fitz Marescoth; Wido de Shaubury; Reginald de Tirne; and Robert le Poer". [5]

[1] The Seal of this Deed had the Legend- S. JOHIS ALIC' DE WELYNTON.
[2] Newport Evidences. I suspect that Robert Goch of 1203 and William Goge or Gegth of 1298, were ancestors of the Geches and so of the Newports. If so the original name of the family seems to have been Goch, which would prove a Welsh extraction.
[3] Liber Niger, I. 143.
[4] Supra, page 312.
[5] Haughmond Chartulary, fo. 57-b.


It appears that Vivian de Roshall had still three virgates in Edgbold left. These be gave to Roger, son of Simon de Jagedon, in exchange for land at Jagedon (a place now lost). One of the said three virgates was assigned by Roger fitz Simon to his Mother in dower, but about the year 1280 he sold to Vivian de Roshall, all his interest in Edgebolton. His deed, which is in the form of a Quitclaim or surrender, indicates that Vivian de Rosshall had retained at least a nominal seigneury in Edgebolton. It runs as follows.- "I, Roger, son of Simon de Jagedon, have surrendered (reddidi) and quitclaimed to Sir Vivian de Roshalle, for 10 merks, all the land which I held of him in Egebalden, viz. three virgates which the said Vivian heretofore gave to me in exchange for the land of Jagedon. And one of the said three virgates, which my Mother had in dower, is to revert (at her death) to the said Vivian. Witnesses,- Robert Girros, William de Staunton, Walter Hose, Robert de Actun, Reiner de Franketon, Alan de Burghton, and Wido de Hadnal". [1]

Within the next 10 years "Vivian de Roshall gave to Haghmon Abbey, for the souls of himself, his ancestors, and successors, and together with his body (in burial), all the land he had in Egebalden, which he bought from Roger, son of Simon de Jagedon. Witnesses,- Sir John le Strange, Richard Corbet, and Thomas de Roshall". [1]

It was the Widow, I suppose, of Simon de Jagedon who as "Emma Banastre, Widow", gave to the same Abbey, about the same time, that virgate in Egebold which she had in dower "in lieu of her part of Jagedon". Witnesses,- Walter, Parson of Ruton; Nicholas his brother; Wido de Hadenhalle, Reiner de Acton, John de Thonga; and John de Preston. [1]

I must now retrace my steps to state that two out of the three virgates which Vivian de Roshall gave to, and got back from, Roger de Jagedon, had been in the first instance obtained by the said Vivian from Richard Corbet of Morton. Richard Corbet held these two virgates, I presume, under Vivian de Roshall, so that his alleged grant was in the nature of a surrender. His right so to grant or surrender, was afterwards brought in question.- His Widow, Petronilla, was surviving in 1272, and then claimed the said two virgates as her marriage-portion (maritagium), saying that her late husband, though she could not gainsay him in his lifetime, had wrongfully alienated them to Vivian de Rossall. Petronilla Corbet's suit lay of course against the Tenants in possession. These were Isabel de la Hulle and Thomas Hannage, each holding a virgate for


life, under Haughmond Abbey. They appeared not to the prosecution, but the Abbot of Haughmond appeared in their stead, accepted the defence, and called Vivian de Roshall (grandson, I think, of the former Vivian) to warranty. Vivian appeared and stated that neither Richard Corbet nor his wife Petronilla had been seized of the premises for 10 years after their espousals. This Petronilla denied; [1]- and here the Record breaks off.

The above Suit and its chronological significances bear strongly on the descent of the Corbets of Morton, a descent which I have treated too hastily under Wattlesborough. It now appears that there must have been three Richard Corbets in succession; that it was the second who married the daughter of Bartholomew Toret, and the third who married Petronilla, "Lady of Edgbold", as she is called in the Heraldic Pedigrees. Of this however we will say more under Moreton Corbet. Robert Corbet, son and successor of Richard and Petronilla, does not appear to have recovered the estate claimed by his mother in 1272, though, as we have seen, he purchased an equal estate in Fitz Aer's part of Edgbold.

The evidence that Haughmond Abbey retained its acquisitions here, is as follows.- In 1274, the Abbot demises a virgate in Edgebolton to Richard Burnell and Elianor his wife, for 30 years, retaining a rent of 12s., suit of Court, and a heriot.- In 9 Edw. II. (1315-6) the Abbot demises a messuage and virgate here to William, son of Philip Cok, for life; also a messuage and virgate to Johanna, wife of Roger de Smethcote and her three sons, for the longest life.- In 15 Edw. II. (1321-2), the Abbot demises a messuage and virgate here to Walter Cresset and his wife, Alice, for their lives.- On January 31, 1339, Thomas, son of Thomas de Lee of Staunton, agrees with the Abbey to make a new ditch in the Abbey lands at Edgbold, as a boundary between Edgbold and Sowbatch. The ditch was to extend from the King's highway to the River Roden. Thomas was to pay a rent of 4d. to the Abbey, for which, if unpaid, the Canons might distrain on Sowbatch. Witnesses,- Sir William de Ercalue, Sir Robert Corbet of Morton, Knights; and John de Withiforde. Between the years 1377 and 1399, the Abbot demises a messuage and virgate here, to John and Rawlin, sons of Roger Cok, for ther lives, at 10s. rent.

In the Valor of 1535-6, the Abbot of Haghmond's receipts from Haughton, Astley, Edgebaldham, Isombridge, Sugden, and Rodington were returned collectively, as 2. 8s. 8d. per annum. [2]

[1] Assizes, 56 Hen. III., m. 2 dorso.
[2] Valor Ecclesiasticus, III. 192.


WITHYFORD CHAPEL. The evidence for the sometime existence of this Chapel, and its subjection to Shawbury Church, has been already given. It appears to have been founded in the time of Bishop Clinton (1129-1148), and endowed by the Lord of the Fee, probably that Robert fitz Aer who founded a similar Chapel at Aston Eyre. [1]

The Canons of Haughmond, as Rectors of Shawbury, of course took small care of its Subject-Chapebs. This was remedied in some degree by the second Robert fitz Aer, who about 1190-5 gave the Canons certain land at Newton near Ellesmere on condition that they would have divine service performed in his Chapel of Withyford, three days a week, when he or his wife or their heirs were resident in the Manor. But the Parishioners of Withyford were excluded from this agreement, and were not to attend the said chapel-services, to the injury of the Mother-Church. All Festivals were excepted from the agreement, except the feasts of St. Thomas (Dec. 21), Pentecost, and All Saints (Nov. 1). To strengthen this agreement Robert fitz Aer and his wife Emma gave their bodies to the Church of Haghmon, that they might receive good offices, when dead, from those whose Church they had benefited while living. [2]-


IN speaking of this important locality it is necessary to follow in strict chronological order those early notices which allude to it either as a Manor, or a Parish, or the Caput of a Hundred.- During the Saxon aera it was, as a Manor, small in extent, but great in proportionate value. This discrepancy probably arose from its being a Royal Manor, and the Caput of the Hundred to which it gave a name. More than doubled in value, the Manor and Hundred were of course annexed to the Palatine demesnes of Earl Roger de Montgomery. Though Earl Roger's Charter to Shrewsbury Abbey was written and expedited after Domesday, it recapitulates his grants of an earlier date. Among other things the Earl gave to the Abbey

[1] Supra, Vol. I. p. 207.
[2] Haughmond Chartulary, fo. 152.


"the Church of Hodenet with all its appurtenances". [1] And Domesday chronicles the transfer in the following survey of the Manor.-

"The Earl himself holds Odenet. King Edward held it. Here is a hide and half. In demesne are III ox-teams; and (there are) XII Villains, II Boors, a Priest, and a Provost with VII teams; and yet there might be IX additional teams (employed) here. Here is a little wood, yielding no income. The church of St. Peter holds the Church of this Manor. In King Edward's time this manor yielded an income of 3. 6s. 8d. Now, with the Hundred which pertains thereto, it yields 8". [2]

After Domesday the next allusion which we have to Hodnet, is the mention of Earl Roger's bestowal of the Church, in William confirmation to Shrewsbury Abbey. [3] Then we come to the spurious Charter of Earl Hugh, conveying perhaps some proportion of truth in its averment, that the Earl granted to the Abbey "the tithes of his demesnes of Hodeneth, and of Peopelawa (Peplow), and of Loscesford (Losford)". [4] Earl Hugh's more authentic Charter to the Abbey confirms two-thirds of the demesne-tithes of Loskesfort and of Prestone as the gift of one Hunald, and speaks only of the demesne-tithes of Hodenet and Peppelawe as his own personal gift. [5] Some other Charter of Earl Hugh, obsolete in the original, but inspected by Bishop Clinton within 50 years of the Earl's death, "gave and confirmed" to the Abbey "two-thirds of the demesne of Hodeneth and of the demesne of Pepelawe, and of the demesne of Loschesford". I will not here pursue a topic which relates to Hodnet, in respect of its parish or its parochial members, rather than its Manor. Enough has been said to show that whatever feoffments Earl Hugh may have granted in Hodnet or its Post-Domesday members, he retained the central Manor in demesne. And it is clear, I think, that Hodnet came to the hands of King Henry I. as a manor of Palatine demesne, but not so to the hands of King Henry II. In the latter case it would have formed part of that territory so often alluded to in these pages as forming the Corpus Comitatus. Such was not the result with Hodnet or any of its members.

King Henry I. undoubtedly founded the Honour of Montgomery, a Lordship, on the peculiar constitution and endowment of which I shall have much to say hereafter. King Henry I. also, as I think, founded the Seneschalcy of Montgomery, and endowed that hereditary office not only with the Domesday Manor of Hodnet, but with

[1] Monasticon, III. 520, Num. III.
[2] Domesday, fo. 253, a, 2.
[3] Salop Chartulaty, No. 34 [4] [5] Ibidem, Nos. 5, 3.


certain Manors, or Vills (such as Peplow, Little Bolas, Preston-on-the-Wealdmoors, Horton, and, put of Lawley), which had fallen to the Suzerain's disposal since Domesday, and were henceforth reputed to be mere members of Hodnet.

A statement of the 13th century, viz. that the Seneschalcy of Montgomery had existed since the Conquest, [1] was but the hallucination of a provincial Jury. Montgomery, whether as a town or castle, was non-existent for years after the Norman invasion.

But we may well admit that the first Seneschal of Montgomery was the nominee of King Henry I., and was the Ancestor of that powerful family, which adopted the name of De Hodnet from its principal possession. The name of this first Seneschal is, I believe, unrecorded, but I have little doubt as to the race from which he sprang. I will give four reasons for thinking that he was of the same stock as the Fitz Warins, and perhaps a younger son of Warin de Metz himself.-

(1.) The Fitz Warin Chronicle calls Baldwin de Hodnet, of King John's time, cousin of the Fitz Warins of that period, and describes him, with ascertained truth, as a sharer in their rebellion.-

(2.) The Hodnets were Vassals of the elder house of Fitz Warins in two instances, viz. Welbatch and Moston.-

(3.) Both the Hodnets and the elder Fitz Warins obtained great and contiguous, and probably cotemporary, feoffments in the Barony of Caus, viz. at Westbury and Alberbury.-

(4.) The arms borne by De Hodnet, were Fitz Warin Arms, viz. Quarterly per fesse indented azure and or;- the difference of tincture being an early Heraldic mode of marking cadency. [2]

I now proceed to give such particulars of the family of Hodnet as have not already transpired under Westbury.

ODO DE HODNET (I.) has been seen attesting two Marchamley Deeds, the latest of which probably passed in or before 1194. In this instance he is accompanied by Baldwin his son, and by Alan his brother.

[1] Rot. Hundred. II. 58.
[2] It was another and later family of Hodnets which bore for its arms,- Gules, a bend ermine between two mullets argent.

A MS. in the British Museum (No. 21,018, p. 334) notices a John de Hodnet as admitted to Sutton Church on Feb. 24, 1225-6, at presentation of the Prior and Convent of Wenlock. This is a mistake as to date (vide supra, Vol. VI. p. 366); but John de Hodnet bore for arms,- Quarterly per fesse indented Arg. and Gu., with a label of 5 points azure. Here the fundamental Coat of Hodnet would seem to be the actual arms of Fitz Warin; for the Label I take to be allusive to John de Hodnet's individual cadency from the Hodneta.


Besides attesting grants to Haughmond Abbey, Odo de Hodnet was himself a Benefactor of that House. The following Deed passed about 1196-1200.- Noverint tam presentes quam futuri quod ego, Odo de Hodenet, concessi et dedi Deo et Ecclesie Sancti Johannis Evangeliste de Haghmon et Canonicis ibidem Deo servientibus, in liberam et perpetuam elemosynam, pro salute anime mee et ancessorum meorum totum superius pratum meum de Olhmulneshurste quod est propinquius le Cote [1] cum omnibus pertinenciis et libertatibus suis, tenendum de me et heredibus meis, integre, honorifice, quiete, et libere ab omni seculari servicio, et in perpetuum possidendum. Et ut hec donacio mea perpetue firmitatis robur obtineat, eam presenti carta et sigilli mei patrocinio roboravi. Hiis testibus, Rogero Corbet, Stephano de Stantona, Widone de Schauburi, Balwyno Vischart, Willielmo Silioch, Waltero de Hortona, [2] Henrico de Longeford et multis aliis. [3]

BALDWIN DE HODNET, between the years 1204 and 1211, confirmed the above grant of his father, describing the meadow as Aldemulneniste and as near Chote. Witnesses,- Stephen de Stanton, Bartholomew de Mortun, Richer de Shauburi, Robert de Hespeley, Radulf fitz Odo, [4] Walter Hose, William Silioch. [5]

On November 6, 1224, custody of the "Seneschalcy of the Honour of Montgomery" was committed, by Patent, to Godescall de Maghelines. This was in consequence of the recent death of Baldwin de Hodnet, who but a month before had received that high mark of the King's confidence, already set forth under Westbury.

ODO DE HODNET (II.), son and heir of Baldwin, by Cecily de Hadley, came of age in 1228. At a Forest-Assize, held in 1230, Odo de Hodenet covenanted to pay an annual ferm of 8d. for 2 acres of Forest-land, to be taken out of Regard. The charge is made against him more or less regularly on the Pipe-Rolls of 40 years following, and in 1273 he owed 9s. 8d. on this account, or the arrears of 14 years.

The following Fine, entered on the Pipe-Roll of 1239, I give as it stands.- Odo de Hodenet et Thomas Corbet (debent) 100 sol. ut deleatur consuetudo capiendi singlis annis 5 summas siliginis de Manerio de Hodnet et 1 summam siliginis de Manerio de Maston et 1 summam siliginis de Manerio de Hatton, et pro relacione cujusdam

[1] Cotton on Tern.
[2] Probably Hoptona (vide supra, p. 273).
[3] Harl. MS. 446, Quatern. xii. fo. 11. The Deed is rubricated as "Carta de prato de Hodeneth". In the Sundorn Chartulary it stands under the title "De pratis pertinentibus Grangie de Hoppeley".
[4] Probably a brother of Baldwin.
[5] Haughmond Chartulary, fo. 114-b.


cariagii sicut continetur in originali". Odo de Hodnet, Lord of Hodnet, and Thomas Corbet, Lord of High Hatton, were uterine brothers. Maston, here alluded to, was probably Moston, but I cannot define the nature of those Royal dues which Hodnet and Corbet thus combined to buy off.

At the Assizes of November 1240, four Placita Nativitatis, as they were called, resulted in Final Concords whereby Odo de Hodnet granted manumission to certain Tenants-in-Villeinage. He thus released the Villeinage (nativitatem) and servitude of two brothers, Richard and William de Wulfrinton, for 2 merks, of William Sylyon for 6 merks, of Henry Sylton for 6 merks, and of William fitz Levenath for 20s.

In July 1241 I find Odo de Hodnet commissioned as a Justice to try a local cause. In 1250 Geoffrey de Langley, Justice of the Forest, amerced Odo de Hodenet 30 merks for venison-trespass. In the Pipe-Roll of 1252 Odo de Hodenet owes 23 merks of this amercement, and 25 merks more for some Charter which he had obtained, but of which I find no enrolment in the usual Record.

The Hundred-Roll of 1255 speaks of Hodnet as follows.- "Sir Odo de Hodenet holds the Manor of Hodenet, from the Conquest of England, in capite, of Mongomeri (i.e. as of the Honour of Montgomery), and by service of Seneschal (acting as Seneschal) at the mandate of the Lords of Mongomeri;- to wit, he shall abide in the Bailiwick of Montgomeri Castle, at the charges and at the discretion of the said Lords, and shall have a house there sufficient for himself and his followers (familiae) to reside in. He does suit to the County, and, every three weeks, to the Hundred". [1]

At the Assizes of January 1256, Sir Odo de Hodnet acted as a Juror in causes of Grand Assize. An Inquest, held pursuant to a Writ of Sept. 18, 1257, found that it would be no injury to the Crown or the Country, if Odo de Hodnet were to enclose two footpaths which ran through the middle of Hodnet Park;- provided that he gave a different course to the said footpaths outside his Park, one towards the East, the other towards the North. [2] In August 1256, July 1258, and February 1259, Odo de Hodnet was commissioned as a Justice for the gaol-delivery of Shrewsbury and Bridgnorth. In Easter Term 1261, Ranulf Payn was suing Odo de Hodnet for a debt of 9 merks, but the Knight, now, as often previously, failed to appear at Westminster.

In the period which now ensued, Odo de Hodnet's known

[1] Rot. Hundred. II. 58.
[2] Inquisitions, 41 Hen. III., No. 35.


character as a Royalist must be taken in explanation of the following suit, which commenced soon after the Restoration. In Michaelmas Term 1265 and January 1266, Odo de Hodnet, or his Attorney, Alan de Hodnet, appeared twice coram Rege, complaining how William Trumwyn, Stephen de Ocle, and others, had, during the late troubles, devastated with fire and rapine his Manor of Hodnet. The Defendants in this cause never occur as appearing to the charge, but always as Defaulters. So too Odo de Hodnet was prosecuted by John de Bottelegh (his own Tenant, I think), for seizing his lands at Langeford during the recent troubles and still detaining his goods. The suit was called on in January 1266, and Hodnet's Manucaptors were amerced for his non-appearance. The result I do not find.

In November 1268, July 1269, and January 1272, Odo de Hodnet was again commissioned as a Justice to deliver Bridgnorth Gaol. A Patent of June 27, 1270, shows that Sir Odo de Hodnet had, during the civil wars, been in the following of that distinguished Royalist, Hamo le Strange, who had written to the King certifying that fact. The King therefore, for his part, pardons the said Odo for all trespasses committed in defiance of the Provisions of Oxford, [1] up to the 10th of March, 1268.

The Inquest, taken in 1273, on the death of George de Cantilupe, Lord of Montgomery, seems to have included Hodnet among the Knights'-fees held of that Honour. [2]

The Inquest held Feb. 15, 1284, on Odo de Hodnet's death, is rather more full than the Hundred-Roll as to the Serjeantry of the Seneschals of Montgomery. When on duty, the Seneschal was to, or might, have 5 horses, 4 greyhounds, and 6 Brachets in his train. His house in the Castle was to be sufficient for his wife, and one damsel, and the rest of his following. If he tarried there for his own pleasure he was to pay his own charges and then depart (reddat compotum suum et recedat). His Manor of Hodnet, held by such service, was valued at 19. 10s. per annum, arising from a messuage, garden, and 4 carucates of land, from assized rents, a Park, and the profits of the Manor Court, from a weekly market, and two Mills. [3]

In Easter Term 1284, Milisent de Montalt (Sister and Coheiress of George de Cantilupe) was impleading-

WILLIAM DE HODNET for the service of a knight's fee in

[1] The edicts of the Mad Parliament, held at Oxford, in June 1258.
[2] Calend. Inquis. Vol. I. p. 49.
[3] Inquisitions, 12 Edw. I., No. 24.


Hodnet. [1] The Feodaries of 1284-5 say that "William de Hodnet holds the Manor of Hodnet with its members, viz. Longford, Peplow, Parva Bowlas, Preston (on the Wealdmoors), Horton, and half the vill of Lawley of the King in capite, the Jurors knew not by what service. The said William had at Hodnet rights of Market, Fair, and Free Warren, under a Charter of King Henry III., and he used those franchises". Here I should observe that when the Hodnets are said to be Tenants-in-capite, the expression is not inconsistent with their holding mediately under the Lords of Montgomery. The Jurisdiction and tenure of these Lords was much qualified by a direct control, exercised by the Crown over the Castle and Honour of Montgomery.

In January 1287, William de Hodnet was appointed one of the Conservators of the Peace in Shropshire. On a Jury-list of 1290, though he takes precedence of Sir Ralph de Sandford, knight, he is not styled a knight himself. At the Assizes of October 1292 he appears as a Knight, and as a Juror in causes of Grand Assize. His exercise of Free Warren in Hodnet was made matter of presentment on this occasion. His tenure of Hodnet, by service of Seneschalcy, was also set forth, and the Manor valued at 40 per annum. Peplow and Preston were treated as members of Hodnet, and the alienations therein specified, as I have elsewhere stated them. The Tenants in one instance affirmed that "their Ancestors had held under the Ancestors of William de Hodnet from a time to which memory did not reach, viz. from the time when Roger de Beleme (sic), Earl of Salop, enfeoffed William de Hodnet's ancestors in the aforesaid Serjeantry". This bold assertion was corroborated by a Jury, but circumstantially it cannot have been true.

William de Hodnet was, immediately after this, questioned under Quo Waranto for holding a Market, exercising Free Warren, and assizing bread and beer in Hodnet. The two former privileges he justified by a Charter of Henry III. [2] The third privilege, be pleaded, was involved in the first. So he was dismissed sine die. [3] In 1294, he was appointed Assessor and Collector of the tax of the Tenth in Shropshire. In 1297, as holding lands or rents of 20 annual value, and upwards, he was summoned to perform military service with horses, arms, etc., in parts beyond the Seas. The Muster was to be at London on July 7, but on Oct. 23 William de Hodnet was appointed a Commissioner of Array for Salop and

[1] Abbrev. Placitorum, p. 206.
[2] Probably the lost Charter for which Odo de Hodnet fined in 1252.
[3] Quo Waranto, p. 678.


Staffordshire. In May 1298, he was returned to the Parliament of York as a Knight of the Shire, his Manucaptors being Roger Caber and Stephen Parker, both of Hodnet. In the same month, and for the same day (May 25), he had military summons to be at York, for service against the Scots.

On Nov. 12, 1300, a Fine was levied between William de Hodnet (Plaintiff) and William, son of Laurence de Ludlow and his wife Matilda (Deforciants) of the Manor of Hodnet. William de Hodnet first acknowledged the Manor to be the right of Matilda, by gift of himself to her and her husband. They in turn granted it to William de Hodnet for his life, to hold under themselves and the heirs of Matilda at a rose-rent, and by performance of all capital services. Remainder to William de Ludlow and Matilda his wife, and the heirs of Matilda. A similar settlement of William de Hodnet's other estates followed in July 1301. I have already set it forth, [1] and need only to explain here that the places called Wylbeleye Corbet and Wolureton were Weobley and Woolerton near Hodnet, but that they were not members of Hodnet, and that, whatever William de Hodnet held in either, must have been held as a Feoffee. In the case of Woolerton he doubtless held under Shrewsbury Abbey.

In 1301 William de Hodnet had again a military summons to serve against the Scots; but in this and the following year his actual employment seems rather to have been as an Assessor and Collector of Taxes in his native County. [2] The time of his death is uncertain, but he was succeeded in all his estates by his son-in-law,-

WILLIAM DE LUDLOW, of the origin and rise of whose family I have spoken under Stokesay and Ludlow. [3] This William had succeeded his Father, Laurence, at Stokesay, before the year 1296. In 1297 he had been returned from the Counties of Hereford, Salop, and Stafford, as a Tenant of 20 librates of lands and rents, and so, liable to personal service in foreign parts. In 1301, as a Herefordshire Landowner he had summons for military service against the Scots. In 1301-2 he appears as Assessor and Collector of the tax of the fifteenth in Herefordshire. [4] In 1307 he was returned as a Knight of the Shire for Salop. As a Collector or Assessor of taxes in Shropshire, he appears in 1307, 1309, 1315, and 1316; as a Conservator of the Peace or a Justice for special occasions, he occurs in 1307, 1308, 1309, 1310, and 1314; as a Commissioner of Array,

[1] Supra, Vol. VII. p. 58.
[2] Parliamentary Writs, I. 670.
[3] Supra, Vol. V. pp. 36, 290.
[4] Parl. Writs, 1. 718; IV. 1126.


[For pedigree, see pdf.]


in 1311 and 1315. In 1313 he obtained a pardon, as an adherent of the Earl of Lancaster in the matter of Piers Gavaston. In 1314 and 1316 he had military summons to serve in person against the Scots. [1] In the Nomina Villarum of March 1316 he appears as Joint Lord of Stokesay, and Lord of Westbury. Doubtless also he was Lord of Hodnet, though William de Hodnet's name is entered in that position.

The Inquest on William de Ludlow's death (taken November 11, 1316) has been in part quoted under Westbury. [2] It values Hodnet with its members of (Little) Bolas, Peplow, and Longford, at 23. 7s. 4d. (per annum). It recites the Fine levied thereof (in 1300) as having been levied by Royal license. Hodnet was held of the King, and of the Honour of Montgomery, by Serjeantry, etc. (as before). The Seneschal's suit while resident in the Castle was to be maintained at the cost of the Lords of Montgomery. It included the Seneschal's wife, a Valet, a Chambermaid, 4 horses, 2 greyhounds, and 4 brachets. [3] The conjoint feoffment of Matilda de Hodnet of course left the Manor in her hands for life. The King too, ordered the Escheator to respect her rights, and not to intromit with any lands of William de Ludlow, deceased. Matilda de Ludlow remarried with William Wyn. The Escheator at length discovered that the late William de Ludlow had held in capite de corona, 100 acres of bosc and 10 librates of rent at Markeleye in Herefordshire, the custody whereof ought at this juncture to have fallen to the Crown as a matter of Prerogative. So the Escheator reseized the said land, but the King ordered Matilda's dower therein to be assigned to her and her second husband. A Writ-Close of November 20, 1318, recites these particulars, but confesses that the King is still uncertain as to his rights. He therefore nullifies the reassumptive act of his Escheator, and orders the receipts from Markeley to be made over to whomsoever they belong, saving the King's right and saving the aforesaid dower. [4]

LAURENCE DE LUDLOW, son and heir of William, is variously stated to have been born in 1301 and in 1304.
[5] We must accept the earlier date, for in May 1324 he appears as a Knight, and as summoned to attend the Great Council then impending at Westminster. [6]

I have already given some further facts in the descent of the

[1] Parl. Writs, I. 718; IV. 1126.
[2] Supra, Vol. VII. p. 59.
[3] Inquis. 10 Edw. II., No. 69.
[4] Claus. 12 Edw. II., m. 23.
[5] Supra, Vol. VII. p. 59.
[6] Parliamentary Writs, IV. 1126.


Ludlows of Hodnet. To enter in detail on their ulterior history would carry me far beyound my usual limits. I have consigned a few principal names and ascertained dates to the form of a tabular Genealogy.

THE UNDERTENANTS in Hodnet proper can hardly be distinguished from Tenants of the Lords of Hodnet in circumjacent localities. There was always a risk in granting feoffments in a Serjeantry, so that, I suppose, the Tenants in Hodnet itself were very few. Nevertheless, a few names may be mentioned as conveniently here as elsewhere.-

Paulinus de Hodnet had apparently, in October 1203, some claim or interest in the neighbouring Manor of Weston. At the Assizes then held, the following allusions to a pending suit were made.-

"Augnes, wife of Paulinus, makes the said Paulinus her attorney against Thomas fitz Noel and Griffin fitz Gerward in a Plea of Assize".

Thomas Noel and Margery his wife essoign themselves in a Plea of land against Paulinus de Hodnet, by Richard de Alvitheleg and Richard fitz Roger.

"Griffin fitz Garforth essoigns himself by William Monk in a Plea of mort d'ancestre, against Paulinus de Hodnet and his wife Agnes.- Adjourned to Worcester".

"Matilda, wife of Griffin fitz Garforth, had named Griffin fitz Enuch (elsewhere called Griffin fitz Eniow) her Attorney in the same suit". The Attorney named by Griffin fitz Garforth is apparently "William fitz Seman". Of him we have heard before. [1]

At Gloucester, but during the same Iter, "Paulinus de Hodnet fines one merk for license to accord. His Sureties were Griffin fitz Eniow and William fitz Seman". This Fine is made a Crown debt on the Pipe-Roll of 1204.

Soon after this, Paulinus, son of Gilbert Chaplain of Hodnet, concedes and gives in pure almoign to Haghmon Abbey, half of all his meadow and moor, according to these boundaries, viz. from Webeleia (Weobley) along the stream to Eitaneslache, and in width along the way which leads to Eitaneslache from Ewine's-seilion;- which moor the Canons had already assarted at their own expense. Witnesses,- Baldwin de Hodnet, Reginald de Hestinges, and Stephen de Stanton. [2]

"Baldwin de Hodnet confirmed the grant of a meadow made by

[1] Supra, Vol. II. p. 119, note 42.
[2] Haughmond Chartulary, Tit. Hopley.


Paulinus, son of Gilbert, Chaplain of Hodnet. Witnesses,- Reginald de Hestinges, Stephen de Stanton". [1]

Alan de Hodnet, whom I have already named [2] as probably a younger brother of Odo de Hodnet (I.), occurs on the Assize-Roll of 1208. He was dismissed sine die from some Suit, because two of the Plaintiffs therein were dead. [3]

Of Radulf de Hodnet, occurring from 1231 to 1244, I have spoken under Alberbury, Corselle, Peplow, and Edgmond.
[4] He was a younger son of Odo de Hodnet (I.).

Also Richard de Hodnet, a younger son of Odo de Hodnet (II.), and occurring in 1280 and 1292, has been noticed under Westbury, [5] and under Peplow. [6] I further find him acting on local Juries in 1300 and 1301.

Thomas Cabot, who occurs on local Juries in 1300, 1301, and 1306, was, I think, a Tenant in Hodnet, or one of its Dependencies.

LONGFORD, if indeed it was a member of the Domesday Manor of Hodnet, appears to have been the only one. Peplow, Little Bolas, Preston, Horton, and Lawley, stood in quite another ratio at Domesday, and must clearly be taken as subsequent annexations. The great distance which separated Longford from Hodnet, and the fact that it was in another Parish (Moreton Say), suggest that it too had belonged to some other Domesday Manor than Hodnet, but had been severed from its Parent, and annexed to that Fee of the Seneschals of Montgomery which we know to have been so industriously and so anomalously enlarged in other cases. Still, as I cannot point out the Domesday Manor from which Longford was thus severed, I must treat of it as an original member of Hodnet.

We have seen a Styche Deed, about the year 1200, attested by Robert de Longeford and Turstan his son, and by Peter de La Forde and Hugh his son. [7] We have also seen Robert de Hongforde (probably Longford) attesting a Deed of about the same period, [8] which concerned Hopton and Hopley,- places very near to Hodnet. Here then we have the local and the feudal connection of Robert de Longford in just that contrast which illustrates our subject.

This Robert de Longford gave half a virgate in Langeford, together with his body, to Combermere Abbey. The Abbey, about the year 1235, conveyed the same to Yvo Meverel in exchange for

[1] Haughmond Chartulary, Tit. Hopley.
[2] Supra, pages 273, 328.
[3] Assize-Roll, 5 John, m. 1.
[4] Supra, Vol. VII. pp. 77, 94; Vol. VIII. pp. 25, 255; Vol. IX. pp. 124, 329 n.
[5] Supra, Vol. VII. p. 58.
[6] Supra, Vol. VIII. p. 256.
[7] [8] Supra, pp. 266, 283.


all the land which the said Yvo had between the land of Clive (Cliff grange) and the land of Sutton. Yvo Meverel was not only to be responsible for the services heretofore due from the Abbey to the Seigneural Lord of Longford, but was to pay the Abbey 6d. rent for the said half virgate, [1] and was also to continue responsible, he and his heirs, for the services due on the land which he gave up. This Cirograph, as it is called, was attested by Peter de Eyton, Hugh de Say (of Moreton), William de Stuches (Stych), Robert de Drayton, Thomas Rabath, and Richard de Tunstall. [2]

Another tenement in Longford, viz. half a hide, appears to have been held by Thomas de Dunton under Odo de Hodnet (II.). In Michaelmas Term 1242, Isabella, widow of the said Thomas, was suing the said Odo for a third of the same. After repeated defaults, made by the Defendant, Isabella recovered her claim. [3]

A deed, of about 1260, re-introduces the family of Forde as interested in Longford.- "Robert de Forde gives to Richard Pantulf, the Hunter, in frank marriage with Alice, the Grantor's daughter, half a virgate in Longeford. Witnesses,- Sir Ralph le Boteler, and Matildis Pauntolf his wife; Sir Yvo Pantolf of Rudelawe; Ralph de Saunford; Robert de Say of Moreton; and Roger de Coleshasel". [4]

I have noticed the Pleas of trespass and violence which John de Bottelegh was maintaining in 1266-7, against Odo de Hodnet, his Suzerain. [5] Such Suits were necessarily heard coram Rege. It was another matter, viz. actual "disseizin of his free tenement in Langeford", for which John Bottel' obtained a Writ againt Odo de Hodnet in September 1266. Giles de Erdinton was deputed to try the latter suit.

Except the mention of Longford, in 1284-5, and in later Inquests, as a member of Hodnet, I find little more of the place or its Tenants. Ralph de Longford, Juror in a High-Hatton Inquest in 1300, may have been of Longford near Newport.

I may here resume a matter of some topographical interest.- The great road which still runs in a straight line from Bletchley to Hinstock, and crosses the Tern at Tern Hill, is undoubtedly of

[1] This rent-charge of 6d. on Longford remained with Combermere Abbey till the Dissolution (Valor Ecclesiasticus, V. 216).
[2] Charter at Adderley.- A Deed of about the same date (supra, p. 202) has Richard de Tunstall as Grantor, and Robert de Drayton, Thomas Rabaz, and Robert de Forde, as witnesses.
[3] Placita, Mich. Tm. 27 Hen. III., mm. 4 dorso, 17 dorso.- For a later mention of Isabella de Dunton, vide supra, p. 215.
[4] Dugdale's MSS. Vol. 39, fo. 82.
[5] Supra, page 331.


Roman origin.- There are two evidences of this. One is the arrow-like course of the road itself; the other is, that the precise point at which it crossed the River Tern, was called Stratford in the time of Henry III. [1] This Road was at the same period, and for a century afterwards, called "The Longford". The Vill of Longford which lay more than a mile to the North-East of this Road must not mislead us as to the course of the latter, though the Vill undoubtedly took its name from a certain proximity to this most ancient and most famous thoroughfare.-

A Writ of King Edward II., dated May 20, 1319, orders the Sheriff of Shropshire to ascertain whether the Royal Road called Longeford, between Bleccheleye and Neweport, and the bridges and footpaths (calceta) thereof, were so dilapidated by the overflowing of the circumjacent marshes, as that no one could pass thereby without peril of life;- also whether many passengers had actually thus perished;- also whether any parties were bound to repair the road;- and if not, whether it would injure the Crown to allow a levy of the due called Pontage towards such repairs. In the next month the Sheriff (Robert de Grendon) held Inquest on this matter at Drayton in Hales. The bad state of the road, and the damage caused by floods were substantiated; also the peril of passengers; but it did not appear that any loss of life had hitherto happened. The repairs lay specifically on no one. The Levy of Pontage for a fixed term, would injure neither the Crown nor any other. [2]


Resuming my account of this Church and Parish at the point where its history ceases to illustrate the history of the Manor, I come to another of Bishop Clinton's Confirmations to Shrewsbury Abbey. The former Charter of the same Prelate treated of tithes. This confirms "the Church of Hodnet with its Chapels and the annual pension of 2 merks receivable therefrom by the Abbey". [3] Again, Bishop Durdent's Charter confirms "the Church of St. Luke of Hodeneht, with the tithe of the same Vill, and the tithe of Papelawe, and Locheforde (Peplow and Losford), and with the Chapels pertaining to the aforesaid Church". [4] Subsequent Charters, whether Royal, Archiepiscopal, or Episcopal, are but repetitions of the above.

[1] Supra, Vol. VIII. p. 202, note 5.
[2] Inquisitions ad quod Damnum, 12 Edw. II., No. 128.
[3] [4] Salop Chartulary, Nos. 328, 327.


In 1291, the Church of Hodnet, with its Chapels, was valued at the high sum of 40 per annum, over and above the Abbot of Shrewsbury's pension of 1. 6s. 8d. [1]

In 1341, the Assessors of the Ninth inadequately took the Taxation of Hodnet Church to be 40. They rated the Parish at 40 merks to the Ninth, remarking that the difference of 20 merks consisted of Glebe land and other profits of the Church, not computable in the present instance. The Temporalities of Shrewsbury Abbey contributed a rateable part of the current assessments The allusion is to the Abbot's estate at Woolerton.

The Valor of 1534-5, gives the Rectory of Hodnet, then held by William Marshall, as worth only 30 per annum; and that sum was chargeable with 13s. 4d. for synodals, 6s. for procurations, and with a pension of 3 to Marchamley Chapel. [3] In the Abbot of Shrewsbury's return to the Valor we find that his pension of 1. 6s. 8d. was still receivable from Hodnet Church. [4]


The mention of Ralph, Vicar of Hodnet, about 1253-63, [5] must not suggest that the Rectory was ever impropriated by Shrewsbury Abbey. Probably the original Saxon Foundation was so far Collegiate as to include a Vicar, and the office was revived whenever any Rector chose to name an acting substitute.

The following Rectors (except where the contrary is expressed) were all presented by the Abbot and Convent of Shrewsbury.-

MASTER G. DE WESTON, "Parson of Hodeneth", occurs in April 1241.

ROGER LE STRANGE was presented by a Patent of August 7, 1244. This was during a vacancy of Shrewsbury Abbey; but, on the same day, the King assented to the election of Abbot Adam.

PHILIP DE SAY occurs as Rector in 1321-2.

MASTER RALPH DE SALOP, admitted December 8, 1328, was consecrated Bishop of Bath and Wells, September 3, 1329.

ROGER DE MORTIMER, Clerk, admitted October 23, 1329. He had a year's license of non-residence in October 1331, and died February 28, 1332.

RALPH DE LA RODE, Clerk, was admitted May 3, 1332.

JOHN MACCLESPELD, Clerk, was presented by a Patent of March

[1] Pope Nich. Taxation, p. 247.
[2] Inquis. Nonarum, p. 183.
[3] [4] Valor Ecclesiasticus, III. 184, 189.
[4] Supra, Vol. VI. p. 150, note 7.



[For engravings, see pdf.]


12, 1334, which alleged a recent vacancy of Shrewsbury Abbey. [1] However the King afterwards waived his right and restored-

RALPH DE LA RODE, by a Patent of November 4th, 1334. [2] Ralph de la Rode, on October 11, 1341, completed an exchange of Livings with-

MASTER RICHARD DE PRAERS, late Rector of Pukelchirche (Wygorn. Dioc.). On October 29 following, this Rector has license for two years' non-residence studendi gratia. He occurs also in 1342.

RICHARD DE DERBY, Clerk, was presented by the King, on Oct. 20, 1345, because of a recent vacancy of Shrewsbury Abbey. [3] A second Patent of May 4, 1346, reiterates this presentation, the King having recovered the right against Adam, Abbot of Salop, who had disputed it in the Court of King's Bench. [4]

WILLIAM DE MANTON occurs as Rector 12 December, 1361.

NICHOLAS DE HETH resigned in 1388, being ejected by process of Quare impedit brought by the King, who ought to have presented during that vacancy of Salop Abbey which was concurrent with the last vacancy of Hodnet Rectory.

ROGER WESTWODE, Priest, was presented May 20, and admitted July 1, 1388, the King presenting, "because the temporalities of Salop Abbey were in his hand". [5] Westwode died in 1433.

Weston and Red Castle.

WITH Weston I introduce a series of three Manors which Ranulf Peverel held in the Domesday Hundred of Odenet.-

"The same Ranulf holds Westune (under Earl Roger). Edric Salvage held it (in Saxon times). Here are III hides, geldable. In demesne are II ox-teams; and (there are) VIII Serfs, III Villains, I Radman, and IX Boors with one team; and yet V teams more might be (employed) here. In King Edward's time the Manor was worth

[1] [2] Patent, 8 Edw. III., p. 1, m. 29; p. 2. m. 11.
[3] Patent, 19 Edw. III., p. 2, m. 10.
[4] Patent, 20 Edw. III., p. 1, m. 11.
[5] Patent, 11 Ric. II., p. 2, m. 7.-

It is difficult to understand this presentation. According to the Historians of Shrewsbury (Vol. II. p. 121), Nicholas Stevenes sat as Abbot from November 1361 till August 11, 1399.


60s. (per annum); afterwards it was worth 5s.; now it is worth 40s". [1] Of Ethic Sylvaticus [2] and Ranulf Peverel [3] I have discoursed already. Weston, whether by escheat of William Peverel of London in Henry I.'s time, or by forfeiture of William Peverel of Nottingham in 1154-5, or by lapse of some tenure, intermediate or subsequent, was an escheat in the hands of Henry II. in 1169. The King held it till the year 1175 and then, as I have fully stated under Alveley, granted it to Guy le Strange. [4]

On the death of Ralph le Strange in the summer of 1195, Weston became temporarily an Escheat. A sum of 12s. 1d. was the ferm thereof, realised by the Eschaeter in the quarter ending Michaelmas 1195; and at Easter 1196, half a year's ferm, similarly accounted of, was 1. 14s. 5d., besides the winter pannage of the vill which had produced 7s. The Fine proffered by the Sisters and Coheirs of Ralph le Strange in 1196, made them of course Coparceners in Weston. Their tenure was not undisturbed. Within four years, Robert fitz Iwein, alias Robert Baggard, claimed the Manor, and (if a procedure by writ of mort d'ancestre may be taken to imply as much) claimed it as heir of a former owner, viz. Iwein. This produced a Fine from the Coheiresses and their husbands. They offered King John 15 merks to prevent any trial being held between them and the Plaintiff. [5] Hence the following Writ, issued by King John to his Chief Justice, Geoffrey fitz Piers, and certified by the latter to the Courts of Westminster in April 1200.- "The King injoins Geoffrey fitz Piers not to hold, or suffer to be held, the trial subsisting between Robert fitz Iwein (of the one part) and Thomas Noel and Margaret his wife, Richard de Wapenbiry and Juliana his wife, and Griffin Walensis and Matilda his wife (of the other part), concerning the land of Weston, which the said Robert claims against them, and whereof they have a Charter of King Henry, the King's father, as they affirm, granting the same to William (read Wido) le Strange, father of the said Ladies;- because the King wishes to be informed what ingress Iwein (father of the present Plaintiff) had in the said land, and how he lost it". [6]

In the same Term as that in which this Writ was exhibited at Westminster, Griffin, son of Gervase Goch (the Griffin Walensis of the above Fine), is noticed as not appearing at Westminster in a

[1] Domesday, fo. 256, b, 2.
[2] Supra, Vol. III. pp. 49, 50.
[3] Vol II. pp. 104-5; Vol. VI. pp. 310-1.
[4] Supra, Vol. III. p. 127.
[5] Oblata, p. 64.
[6] Rot. Curiae Regis, II. 185.


Suit against Robert Bainard. The reason of Griffin'a non-appearance was warranted by a Writ of King John, as I have elsewhere stated. [1] Robert Bainard was identical with Robert fitz Iwein. Before the close of the year 1200, Robert Baggard, as he is here called, endeavoured to counteract the move of his opponents by a Counter-fine of greater magnitude.- "He gave 40 merks, that the King would once again (alia vice) order the recognition (trial) to proceed, which had been arraigned under writ of mort d'ancestre, before the Justices at the Exchequer, between the Plaintiff, and Thomas Noel, etc., concerning one Knight's-fee;- which recognition had been made a remand by Writ of the King;- and (the Fine stipulated) that the trial should come on at Westminster on the octaves of Hilary (January 20, 1201)". [2]

I do not find any instalment paid on the proffers of either party in the above suit. However in January 1201, Geoffrey fitz Piers orders the trial "concerning a knight's-fee in Weston "to proceed, in consequence of the later Fine. The Justices in banco issued summonses accordingly to all parties concerned, to appear at Westminster in three weeks of Easter (1201). [3] When the cause was adjourned sine die, because of the transfretation of Thomas Noel, one of the defendants.
[4] Three Fines, levied at Westminster on June 4, 1201, show that Robert Bagard's pretensions were no mean ones.- For a Quitclaim of one-third of Weston to Thomas and Margaret Noel, he got 14. 8s. 5d.; for a similar Quitclaim to Griffin Cof (i.e. Coch) and his wife Matilda, he got a like sum; and a third Quitclaim to Richard de Wapenbiri and Juliana his wife was purchased by the same consideration. In short, the Manor of Weston cost its reputed Coheiresses 43. 5s. 3d., a sum which I cannot suppose to have been less than the value of the fee-simple at that period.

I have explained under Alveley how in 1211 the Coparceners in Weston were reduced to two, viz. Thomas de Albo Monasterio and Griffin de Sutton. [5] Their estates, whether in Alveley or Weston, were only valued at 5 merks (3. 6s. 8d.) per annum. A Record of 1227 alludes incidentally to one Coparcener in Weston. Matilda le Strange (as Widow of Griffin Goch) is said to be at the King's disposal (as regarded her remarriage). Her land in Bradford Hundred was valued at 3. 3s. per annum, [6] but this may have included her dower in Rowton and Ellardine.

[1] Supra, Vol. II. p. 118.
[2] Oblata, p. 80.
[3] [4] Placita, Hilary Term and Easter Term, 2 John.
[5] Supra, Vol. III. pp. 134, 139.
[6] Testa de Nevill, p. 53.


It will be remembered that only two Coheiresses of Ralph le Strange were at this time represented in Shropshire.
[1] These were Matilda (herself living) and Margaret, whose inheritance was now divided between her two daughters;- Alice Noel, widow of William de Harcourt, and Joan Noel, widow of Thomas fitz Eustace. Already had Alice and Joan parted with their shares of Weston, and even their Aunt Matilda, who had that portion of the Manor, on which was the Rock called Red-Cliff, had sold the said Rock and 2 acres of land.

King Henry III.'s Charter, confirming the various acquisitions of his great Servant, Henry de Audley, bears date May 2, 1227. It includes the following items.- Ex dono Alicie de Harecurt, filie Thome Noel, totam terram suam de Weston cum omnibus pertinenciis suis. Ex dono Johanne filie Thome Nohel totam terram suam in Weston cum omnibus pertinenciis suis. Ex dono Matilde Extranee totam Rupem de Radeclif, quantum ad eam pertinet, et duas acras terre de dominico suo in Weston.

We see instantly what was Henry de Audley's object in obtaining Red-Cliff. A Patent of August 17, 1227, empowers him to builds the Castle of Radeclif. Henceforth we hear of Red-Castle as the Shropshire Stronghold of the Audleys, and the Manor of Weston is to this day called Weston-under-Red-Castle. Soon afterwards Matilda le Strange's moiety of Weston was acquired wholly by Audley. He obtained it from her son, Madoc de Sutton, to whom he gave in exchange Stanway and Stoneacton. [4]

The Bradford Hundred-Roll of 1255 gives the following account of Weston.- "James de Alditheley holds the Manor of Weston, viz. one moiety under Sir Richard de Harcourt, to whom he pays a yearly rent of 13s. 5d., and the other moiety under Madoc de Sutton, in exchange for Stanway. And Weston is 4 hides, and pays neither siretward nor motfee, nor does it any suit to County or Hundred". [6]

I cannot help remarking how these immunities were common to another of Ranulf Peverel's Domesday Manors, viz. Cressage. [7] As the intermediate histories of Cressage and Weston had been quite distinct, perhaps the said immunities arose with Ranulf Peverel himself. Another point to observe is that the mesne-interest of

[1] Supra, Vol. III., pp. 139, 142.
[2] Rot. Chart. 11 Hen. III., p. 1, No, 51.
[3] The word is firmare. It may mean to fortify a pre-existent mansion.
[4] Vide supra, Vol. III. p. 91.
[5] Concerning whom, see Vol. III. p. 135 [6] Rot. Hundred. II. 57.
[7] Supra, Vol. VI. p. 312.


Joan Noel's heirs seems now to be annexed to the interest of her Sister, represented by that Sister's son, Richard de Harcourt. Lastly we must inquire how it was that instead of being 3 hides, as at Domesday, Weston now involved 4 hides? I can give no satisfactory answer to this question. Half a hide, originally in Whixall (near Prees), had perhaps been annexed to Weston, leaving Whixall so much short of its Domesday area. Still a hide additional in Weston remains unaccounted for. I can only suggest that there was some mistake in the matter. When a Manor was exempt from all assessment on its hidage, that hidage was not likely to be very accurately remembered. It was, in short, a matter of no import.

At the above Inquest of 1255, other franchises were stated to be exercised by James de Audley. He assized beer in his Liberty; he imprisoned persons taken within his Warren; and he accepted fees for his Advowry. [1]

After this we have many allusions to Weston which are common to Audley's neighbouring estate of Marchamley. Without repeating these, I may state, that on the death of James de Audley (II.), in 1273, Weston, Marchamley, Edgmond, and Ford, realized an annual income of 107. 14s. 6d. At Weston the deceased had held 2 carucates in demesne. The heirs of Madoc de Sutton were reputed to be Mesne-Lords of the Manor. [2]

Again, on the death of Henry de Audley (II.) in 1276, his tenure of Red Castle and two-thirds of Weston is said to be "under Margery and Matilda de Harcourt, [3] in exchange for Stanwey", and by a rent of 1d. payable to them.

The value of the estate was 4. 5s. 9d. The remaining third of Weston was being held in dower, I suppose, by Ela, widow of James de Audley (I.).

On William de Audley's death in December 1283, the Estate of Red-Castle with its members and with Marchamley, excepting the dower of his Mother Ela, was valued at 26. 16s. 2d. per annum. The Castle was good, but no separate value was assigned

[1] The meaning of the word Advowry (Advocacio), and the kind of protection it implied, are best ascertained by instances (vide supra, Vol. I. p. 363; Vol. V. pp. 123, 283, 300).
[2] Inquisitions, 1 Edw. I., No. 30.
[3] Inquisitions, 4 Edw. I., No. 60.- The allusion to Margery and Matilda de Harcourt, is a misnomer as regards both, and an anachronism of 50 years. The Jurors alluded to two Sisters of Ralph le Strange, long since dead; but one of whom (Margaret) was only ancestress of the Harcourts, while the other (Matilda) was wife of Griffin de Sutton and mother of the person who exchanged Stanwey.


thereto because it was insufficiently garrisoned (militum indiget ad sustentacionem). There were two Parks in Weston. It was now said to be held of Richard de Harcourt's heir, by a rent of 1d.: while Marchamley was held under Fitz Alan for part of a Knight's-fee. [1]

The Tenure-Roll of 1285 makes an astonishing statement about Marchamley and Weston.- Under the title, Marchymley, it says,- "Nicholas de Audley holds the Manor of Weston with its members, viz. Wexhill and Chirbere, of Robert de Mortimer as members of his Barony of Burford, and he (Mortimer) holds them of the King in capite, for half a knight's fee. And he (Audley) holds here his free court twice yearly, and has gallows and warren under Charter of Henry III., and has used those franchises for 30 years. The state of this Liberty has not been altered (by encroachment)". Now, as regards Marchamley, we know that that was held, then as afterwards, under Fitz Alan. Therefore the above extract must be taken to refer only to Weston, Wixhill, and Chirbury (places near Weston). That Weston, with or without these adjuncts, was ever a part of the Barony of Burford is not to be supposed for an instant. The Jury which made this return was probably mystified by some confusion with Badger, where indeed Le Strange's Coheirs had at one time been Tenants of the Barons of Burford.

At the Assizes of 1292, Nicholas de Audley's franchises in Marchamley and Weston were made subject of presentment. The Quo Waranto which followed, I have given under Marchamley. The Inquest on Thomas de Audley's death in 1308, shows that, the deceased being a Minor, Red Castle was in keeping of the King. It was valued at half a merk, and a Dove-cot which it contained had just the same value. Weston and Wykeshul, including Red-Castle Park (worth 10s.) and a Water Mill (worth 13s.), were extended at 20. 6s. 9d. per annum. [2]

The Inquest on the death of Nicholas de Audley (II.) in 1316, masses the Honour of Red Castle in a new way, making all Audley's estates in this quarter to be members of Red Castle. Thus not only Quekeshale (i.e. Whixall, near Prees) is disposed of, but Marchamley. Kinstone, Ightfield, Losford, and Gravenhanger, are added to the List. [3] The arrangement has its historical significance. The very remembrance of those nominal or petty mesne-tenures, which manorially distinguished these places, was dying out. The Tenant by purchase had the prominent interest. Occupancy was

[1] Inquis. 11 Edw. I., No. 34.
[2] Inquis. 1 Edw. II., No. 63.
[3] Inquis. 10 Edw. II., No. 73.


the bond of assimilation, and Audley's Castle was the ostensible, though by no means the real, Caput of Audley's various tenements.

OF UNDERTENANTS in Weston I find scanty mention. Thomas de Lee, so often mentioned in these pages, had something here in 1224, for then did Baldwin de Hodnet fine 20s. for a Writ of attaint against XII Jurors, who had decided a Suit between himself and Thomas de Le, concerning a certain stank in Weston. This extract rectifies a former mistake and shows me that the grants made by Reyner de Lee and his son, Thomas, to Haughmond Abbey were in Weston near Hodnet, not in Weston near Clun. I refer back for the particulars. [1]

At the Assizes of 1292 Robert, son of Thomas de Weston, was on the Bradford Jury.

WESTON CHAPEL. As a mere Dependency of Hodnet, we must not expect any early notices of this Chapel. Nevertheless it was of some Antiquity. The following Coats of Arms were in the Chapel Windows, in the 16th or 17th century.

1. Quarterly, France and England.
2. Chequy, Or and Az.
3. Gu, a lion rampant arg., crowned or.
4. Or, a spread eagle sa.

In the East Window were two kneeling figures, male and female. The dexter or male figure was spurred, the head covered by a cap. The knight wore a surcoat of Arms, viz. Az., a spread-eagle, arg., with a label of 3 points or fretty Sa. Underneath were the Letters DNS JOHANNES. The Female figure wore a surcoat of arms, viz. Quarterly, per fesse indented or, and gu. Underneath were the letters DNE (sic) ISABELLA. [2]

WIXHILL. There is some difficulty in distinguishing matters which belong to this member of Weston from those which belong to Whixall, near Prees; for by an extraordinary accident, the superior Lords of both places were identical, and consequently much of their history was common to both. My impression is that Wixhill (near Weston) was almost uniformly held in demesne by the Lords of Weston, so that Freehold Tenants who obviously took a name from one or other place (Wixhill or Whixall) must usually be assigned to Whixall, which was not thus held in demesne by the Lords of Weston, except in the earliest times.

The Tenure-Roll of 1285 seems to me to distinguish these two places; but not very emphatically. The entries are as follows.-

[1] Supra, Vol. VII. p. 274.
[2] Harl. MS. 2129, p. 171.


Wekeshall'. Will. Laken tenet villam de Wekeshall' de Nich'o de Audeley ut membrum de Weston, quod alali (read alibi) invenitur, et est gildabilis.

Marchymley. Nich. de Audeley tenet maner. de Weston cum membris, scilicet Wexhill' et Chirbere de Rob'to de Mortuomari, ut membrum Baronia suae de Burford, etc.

The first entry seems to allude to Whixall, near Prees; the last to Wixhill near Weston. Of the latter I can say nothing further, for it seems to have been as much involved in Weston as the adjoining hamlet of Chirbury was.


"THE same Rannulf (Peverel) holds Witehala (under Earl Roger). AEldid held it (in Saxon times) and was a freeman. Here is one hide, geldable. In demesne there is one ox-team, and II Neatherds and II Boors: and one team more might be (employed) here. In King Edward's time the Manor was worth 8s. (per annum); now it is worth 6s".

It would seem that Whixall went to nearly the same succession of owners as Weston; so much so, that it came to be reputed a member of Weston just as much as Wixhill, which was close to Weston itself. I take it that Whixall passed to Guy le Strange under Henry II.'s Charter of Weston, just as much as Wixhill did, though neither are named in the Charter. So also did it apparently descend to Guy le Strange's daughters.

In 1203 we have Richard de Wappenbury (husband of one of the said daughters) essoigning his attendance at the Assizes by Walter de Witekeshill; but it is impossible to say whether this Walter was of Wixhill or Whixall. At the same Assizes Elias de Withekesall and his wife, Edith, had a suit of mort d'ancestre against Ralph de Estleg and his wife, Edith, for a virgate in Sulton; but Ralph de Estleg being dead, the Court ordered a remanet. Now Soulton (the place concerned) stands about midway between Wixhill and Whixall, so that we cannot say whether the Plaintiff, Elias, was of the former or the latter.

[1] Domesday, fo. 266, b, 2.


The Pipe-Roll of 1207 gives Adam de Woxhull as amerced one merk, and Richard de Campiun as amerced half a merk, apparently at some Forest-Assize. The former was perhaps the same person with "Adam Venator, son of Wulfric de Wikeshalle", of whom we shall hear presently.

At the Assizes of November 1221 the death of Griffin fitz Jarforth [1] prevented process in a suit which Radulf de Lindiseie had against him for a tenement in Wykeshull. The Plaintiff was ordered to get another Writ. [2] It is evident that he did so, for the Suit was renewed in January 1222 at Warwick, against Matilda (le Strange), widow of Griffin fitz Jarvord. She then surrendered a virgate in Wykeshull to the Plaintiff. [3] A Fine was levied on the occasion, whereby it appears that Ranulf de Lindes' paid 3 merks for Matilda's concession, and was to hold under her, in fee, at a rent of 12d.

We next come to "Adam Venator, son of Wulfric de Wickishalle", who, it seems, had an estate in Sandford, but who preferred the son of his sister Alice to the son of his brother Richard. A series of Deeds and Fines, already set forth, [4] ended, it appears, between the years 1242 and 1249, in Adam fitz Richard fitz Wulfric of Witekeshale ceding a fourth part of the Vill of Witekeshale to Richard de Sandford, to hold under Richard de Lache at a rent of 21d.

We may assume then that at this period Richard de Lacon was mesne-lord, at least of a part of Whixall; and we shall presently see that assumption justified by fuller evidence.

From the Pipe-Roll of 1249 I find that while R. de Thurkelby was in eyre in Worcestershire (this was in January 1249 [5]), John de Wytekeshall had proffered a Fine of 10 merks for some Inquest to be holden. His Sureties were Adam, son of Richard de Wytekeshall, and Madoc fitz Yarforth.

The Hundred-Roll of 1255 treats Wickeshall as a distinct Manor from Weston, but in so doing speaks doubtless of Whixall near Prees. "It was half a hide (not the whole hide of Domesday), and William de Lake held it of James de Audley by service of 15d. per annum". [6]-

One Adam fitz Wulfric de Wickishall, is named in the same Record, as paying 4d. per annum to Ralph le Botyler (of Wem) for his Advowry. This was not the Adam Venator above mentioned. The

[1] Supra, Vol. II. p. 114.
[2] Assizes, 6 Hen. III., m. 3 dorso.
[3] Placita apud Warwick, 6 Hen. III.
[4] Supra, pp. 226-228.
[5] Anglia Sacra, p. 493.
[6] Rot. Hundred. II. 58, 59.


latter was dead in 1242. The Adam fitz Wulfric of 1255 was perhaps Adam, son of Richard fitz Wulfric, but called by his Grandfather's rather than his father's name. At the same Inquest of 1255, Ralph le Botiler of Wem was reported as accepting an advowry of 6d. yearly from Yevan de Wickishall. We next find the Baron of Wem obtaining a still more effective footing in Whixall.- A Fine of Feb. 9, 1256, shows Robert de Alkminton and Margery his wife (Impedients) acknowledging their grant of 10 acres in Wykeshall, to Ralph le Butiller (of Wem) and his wife Matilda, who ostensibly pay a sore-hawk for the grant, and are to pay a glove-rent to the Grantors, and to discharge forensic services. [1]

After this the principal tenant of Whixall seems to have been Robert de Whixall, holding under William de Lake, who held under Audley. We have seen this Robert de Wynckeshull attesting a Hopton Deed about 1270. We shall also see him with Petronilla his wife as obtaining in 1276, an estate at Cotes (Cotton near Hodnet).

The Feodaries of 1284 concur in stating that William de Laken holds the vill of Wychesale or Wekeshall of Nicholas de Audeley; and one of the said Feodaries states it to be a member of Weston. It is evident that in both cases Whixall near Prees is the Manor thus distinguished.

To return to Robert de Whixall, William de Laken's presumed Undertenant, I find him sitting on a Wem Jury in 1284 and on other Juries in 1290, 1292, and 1293. But there were many other Undertenants in the Manor at this period. For instance, about 1284 we have seen Hugh de Steel selling a fourth of Wilkeshall to William de Sanford. Then, about 5 years later, we have Yovan fitz Adam of Wickeshale selling the tenancy of John, son of John, son of Yovan Campion of Wickeshale, to Sir Ralph de Sandford: the Deed being attested by Philip de Montague and Madoc de Wickeshale. [2] About 1290 we have a second conveyance from Hugh de Steel to William de Sanford, of a fourth of Wilkeshal or Quickeshalle.

About this time Robert, son of Robert de Weme, was suing four parties for different tenements in Wycheshall, viz. William fitz Matilda de Wycheshall for a messuage and 3 acres, Madoc fitz

[1] The boundaries of these 10 acres are given in the Fine. Among them are the Cross of Richard Scrupe, Northwood bosc, the field of Edestaneston, Le Oldebuttes, the field of Eylburgrene, Le Horchalk, Le Charkingok, Rakenhurst, Shytenhurst, the boundaries between Wemme and Lake, Le Fermbuttesford, Le Longenhaleshurst, Foxeleg-hedge, and Okenhulleshurne.

[2] Supra, pages 232-3.


William of the same for a messuage and bovate, Heylin de Wycheshall for a messuage and 12 acres, and Wyon fitz Madoc of Wykeshall for a messuage and 4 acres. The Defendants were to be summoned to Westminster, and the summonses to be served by Madoc, son of Thomas de Wycheshall, and Thomas de Styele (Steel). [1]

About 1305 we have Alice, widow of Madoc fitz William of Whixall, quitclaiming property to William de Sanford, whilst Philip de Montacute, John fitz Yevan, and John fitz William, attest her Deed. In January 1308, Philip de Montague and William de Wynekeshull sat on a Sandford Jury. About two years later John, son of Richard de Wyckeshall, grants lands to the above William de Sandford; the Deed naming Hugh fitz Alan and John de Montacute as Whixall Freeholders, and being attested by Thomas fitz Heylin and John fitz William. [2] Cotemporary with these persons was one Roger de Wekineshall who precedes Richard de Lakyn in attesting a Hopton Deed already set forth. [3]

The above very scattered details suggest a remark as to the great number of persons of Welsh extraction who held small tenements in Whixall. Probably they were first introduced to the Manor by Griffin Gohc of Sutton or his son Madoc.

At the close of the 13th or the beginning of the 14th century, the Botelers of Wem acquired the mesne-lordship of Whixall, holding under Audley and over the Tenants in general. When the Inquest of January 1316 states that Nicholas de Audley, deceased, had received 6s. rent from a free-tenant in Quckeshale, we may be sure that the said tenant was William le Boteler (II.) of Wem: for, in the Nomina Villarum of March 1316 William le Boteler is actually entered as Lord of Wycheshale. [4]

In 1369, we have seen that William le Botiler of Wem, died seized of Quixhall, which he held under James de Audley by service of a pair of spurs. [5] Whixall was much nearer to Wem than to Weston, and lay indeed in the midst of Le Botiler's Dependencies. Probably Le Botiler's mesne-interest there had arisen in motives of convenience; but I cannot say whether it was the same mesne interest as had previously been held by the Lacons.

WHIXALL CHAPEL. Of this foundation, however ancient it may have been, we are not likely to have early notices. It was an affiliation of the Church of Prees, and retains its state of dependence to this day.

[1] The origiual Writs of Summons in possession of T.H. Sandford, Esq.
[2] [3] Supra, pages 233, 286.
[4] [5] Supra, pages 175, 177.

352 LACON.


THIS is the last of Ranulf Peverel's Manors, which we shall have to notice.- "The same Rannulf holds Lach (under Earl Roger). Elnod held it (in Saxon times), and was a free man. Here are 2 virgates, geldable. In demesne there is half an ox-team with one boor, and an additional half-team might be (employed). The old value of the Manor was 5s. (per annum). Now it is worth 3s".

Lacon had a very different destination to any other of Ranulf Peverel's Shropshire Manors. It did not, like Cressage, go to repair the shattered Fief of De Lacy, nor, like Weston and Whixall, to reward the services of Guy le strange. The neighbouring Manor of Soulton had belonged to the Chapel of St. Michael in Shrewsbury Castle at Domesday. Whenever or however Lacon escheated to the Crown, the King added it to the endowment of that Chapel. Some Incumbent of St. Michael's enfeoffed a Toret or a Corbet of Morton, both in Lacon and Soulton. Corbet again in the 13th century had his Undertenants in both Manors, each such Tenant being named after the place of his feoffment.

A Suit, which commenced in 1271 and ended in 1272, tells the status of Lacon and Soulton, as far as Corbet was concerned.- In October 1271, "Richard de Sarr', Parson of the Church of St. Michael in Shrewsbury Castle", impleaded Robert Corbet at Westminster, for the purpose of obliging him to render right and customary services for the free tenement which he held under the said Parson in Soleton and Lach: to wit, the Parson complained that whereas his predecessor, William, had been seized, in the present reign (Henry III.'s) of 5s. rent receivable from Robert Corbet, for the aforesaid tenement, Corbet now detained 2s. thereof. The suit had been adjourned to October 1272, and Corbet had meanwhile appealed to a trial of Grand Assize, whether he held by 3s. or by 5s. rent. At the Iter then in progress, Corbet repeatedly offered himself as Defendant in this Cause; but, as often, Richard de Sarr' failed to appear. So judgment went for Corbet, by default, i.e. he was henceforth to hold by 3s. rent, not 5s. [2]

[1] Domesday, fo. 256, b, 2.
[2] Assizes, 56 Hen. III., m. 1 dorso.- One of the intermediate steps in this suit is entered on a Westminster Plea-Roll of February 1272.-

Dies datus est Ricardo de Say personae Ecclesiae Sti Michaelis in Castro Salop', querenti, et Roberto Corbet de Morton, de audienda electione quatuor militum de placito consuetudinum et servitii, a die Paschae in quinque septimanas, pro defectu quatuor mititum, quia nullus venit. Vicecomes habeat corpora omnium.

LACON. 353

The next evidences of Corbet's mesne-tenure at Lacon, bears with some import on the early genealogy of the Lacons, and shows the great advantage which may result from ocular inspection of an original document.-

The Feodary of Bradford Hundred, drawn up in 1284 and commonly known as Kirby's Quest, says accurately enough that "William de Laken holds the vill of Laken of Robert Corbet, and Robert holds it of the King's Chapel in Salop Castle".

But an original and nearly cotemporary Tenure-Roll, in my possession, usually much more accurate than Kirby's Quest, places Laken, not in Bradford Hundred, but last of a series of Manors in Pimhill Hundred, adding that "John de Laken holds the vill of Laken of Robert Corbet, and he of the King's Chapel in Salop Castle"

On looking closely at this entry I find that it is written in a later hand and paler ink than the body of the Roll. It is, in fact, supplementary, and has been inserted under Pimhill Hundred because the vellum did not afford the requisite space under Bradford Hundred. Moreover we shall see that John de Laken did not succeed to Laken till about 30 years after the general date of these Feodaries.

I here leave the subject of Corbet's mesne-tenure, and revert to the earlier history of his Feoffees, the Ancestors of the once wealthy family of Lacon.

RICHARD DE LAKE (I.) occurs in the year 1200, when an amercement of half a merk had been set upon him for some act of disseizin. [1] I cannot imagine why Bartholomew Toret, Lord of Moreton-Toret, should concern himself about Lacon Mill, unless it was as Mesne-Lord of Soulton and Lacon. Be this as it may, the Deed, from which the following extract was taken, seems to have passed early in the 13th century.-

"Sciant tam presentes, etc., quod ego Bertholomaeus filius Petri de Mortun dedi, etc., Ricardo de Laca stagnum molendini de Laca, unde placitum fuit inter me et ipsum Ricardum in Curia Domini Regis. Testibus,- Hugone Pantulf, Willielmo Pantulf filio ejus, Ivone Pantulf fratre ejus, Alano fratre ejus, Hugone fratre ejus, Roberto de Say, Hugone filio [2] ejus, Radulfo de Sanford, Reginaldo de Le,

[1] Rot. Pipe, 2 John. Salop.
[2] I should have expected to find fratre here. (Vide supra, page 260.)

354 LACON.

Roberto de Hesene, Roberto de Wotenhul, Hugone de Stuhe, Roberto de Longeford et multis aliis". [1]

On October 29, 1227, Richard de Lak having been impleaded under Writ of mort d'ancestre for 7 acres in Lak, acknowledged the same to be the right of Alice, wife of Griffin fitz Trearin. Alice, her husband, and her heirs, were henceforth to hold the same under Richard de Lak at 12d. rent.

The above Richard de Lake seems to have married Gilian, a sister of the first Ralph de Sandford, and to have had with her in frank marriage two virgates in Sandford. [2] That the Lacons adopted the Sandford Arms with reference to this match I have already suggested. We have had Richard de Lake acting as Surety for Ralph de Sanford in 1203. [3] We have also seen Richard de Lacke attesting a grant in Styche to his presumed Brother-in-law; and we have seen the same Brother-in-law (Ralph de Sandford) enfeoffing William, son of Richard de la Lake, about the year 1280. [4] I take this William to have been Nephew of his Feoffor, and younger son of Richard de Lake (I.).

RICHARD DE LAKE (II.), in a Deed which proves him to have been son of Richard and Gilian, enfeoffed Richard, son of Robert de Sanford, in the before-named two virgates in Sandford. This was about 1245, and Sir Richard de Sandford (the Feoffor's first cousin, I think) attested the Grant. [5]

This second Richard de Lake has further been shown to have been Mesne-Lord of Whixall between 1242 and 1249.

WILLIAM DE LAKE, who officiated as a Juror at the Inquest of Bradford Hundred in 1255, was, I think, son and heir of Richard de Lake (II.). He might possibly have been his younger brother, above mentioned; but if so, he must have lived 50 years after his feoffment by Ralph de Sandford. On this very Inquest of 1255, William de Lake is entered as Mesne-Lord of Whixall, but the Manor of Lacon is not mentioned. At the Assizes of 1256 William de Lake was one of the Elizors for Bradford Hundred. He was also found to have disseized his neighbour, Ivo de Suleton, of certain common-pasture in Hawode, which common-right pertained to Suleton.

William de Lake appears on a Hodnet Jury in 1257, and about the same time attests a Hopley Deed.

In March 1276 William de Lake attended the Inquest on the

[1] Newport Evidences.
[2] Supra, page 228.
[3] Supra, Vol. IV. page 48.
[4] [5] [6] Supra, pages 225, 228.

LACON. 355

death of John le Strange, and in May 1276 William de Lakey attended that on the death of Henry de Audley. [1]

In 1284 we have had full assurance that William de Laken was Mesne Lord both of Whixall and Laken, holding the former under Audley, the latter under Corbet of Moreton. Here then was the first step in the transition from the name Lake to that of Lacon. Laken was the intermediate form.

RICHARD DE LAKE (III.) comes into notice soon after this. In February 1290 he sat on a Longslow Inquest. At the Assizes of 1292 he was ninth Juror for Bradford Hundred. He was an occasional witness of undated Deeds from this time till January 1308, and November 1316, when we have him again on local Juries.

Meantime we get a most satisfactory proof that the land at Aychley, in Sandford; which had been given about 1230, to William, son of Richard de Lake, [2] had descended to Richard de Lake (III.), and been made over by him, while living, to his son John. About Michaelmas 1315 the latter, styling himself Johannes filius Ricardi Domini de Laken, sets all his land of Achesleye (including two messuages, and all appurtenances within and without the Fee of Sanford) to Robert fitz Warin of Ercalue; to hold to the Lessee for a term of 16 years commencing Michaelmas 9 Edw. II. A Fine of 20s. was paid down for this Lease, and a rent of 5s. and a Heriot were reserved to the Grantor. Witnesses,- Richard de Sontford, John de Wilaston, William de Sontford, Alexander de Wylaston, Richard de Wottenhul, and John de Hethe. [3]

JOHN DE LAKEN succeeded his Father in due course at Lacon. In May 1324 he was returned by the Sheriff of Shropshire as a Man-at-arms, and as summoned to attend the great Council impending at Westminster. [4] I find further mention of John de Lakene in 1336, and of John, Lord of Lakene, in 1347.

[1] Cotemporary with William de Lake were William, son of Nicholas de Lake, who in 1255 was paying 6d. per annum for the Advowry of James de Audley (Rot. Hundred. II. 59);- and William son of Robert de Lak, named as a Surety in a Shavington Suit of 1256.

There was also a William de Lake, of whom we have had mention (Vol. VI. p. 16; Vol. VII. p. 143) as living from 1274 to 1292; but his interests seem to have been in the hundreds of Condover and Ford.

[2] Supra, page 225.
[3] Charter at Sandford.
[4] Parliamentary Writs, IV. p. 1064.


Mostyn, alias Moston.

I HAVE already stated that Roger Venator's Manor of Mostune, though placed by Domesday in Patinton Hundred, was doubtless in the Hundred of Odenet. [1] It seems to me that between Wem and Shawbury the River Roden formed a continuous boundary between the Hundreds of Bascherch and Odenet. A glance at the Map will explain this, but nothing will explain the double, if not treble error, which will hereafter appear to be involved in the Domesday account of this district. Of Mostyn the Record speaks thus.-

"The same Roger (Venator) holds Mostune (of the Earl). Dodo and Ulgar held it (in Saxon times) for two Manors, and were free men. Here are II hides, geldable. There is (arable) land for IIII ox-teams. Here one Radman has one team, with II Villains. In King Edward's time the Manor was worth 40s. (per annum); now it is worth 15s. He (Roger Venator) found it waste". [2]

The Saxon Dodo was perhaps the same with him who held Ellardine and Shavington in Odenet Hundred, but more certainly was he identical with that Dodo who was a Coparcener in Bessford, a manor of Bascherch Hundred, but only separated from Mostyn by the River Roden. As to Ulgar, his name will reappear under Bearstone and Gravenhanger;- both in Odenet Hundred.

Any Seigneury which was Roger Venator's at Domesday must, according to the usual rule, be afterwards looked for, as pertaining to the Barony of Pulverbatch. The rule holds good in, and derives a strong corroboration from, the case of Mostyn. One of these Barons enfeoffed a Fitz Warin both in Mostyn and Welbatch; a Fitz Warin subenfeoffed some head of the kindred House of Hodnet. Hence Baldwin de Hodnet was enabled to grant a moiety of his Vivary at Moston to Henry de Audley: [3] hence also (as we have already seen [4]) on Baldwin de Hodnet's death in 1224, custody of Welbatch and Mostyn, rightly pertained to the Fulk fitz Warin of that period. After this, the Mesne right of Fitz Warin, though it continued apparent in the case of Welbatch, vanished for a time in the case of Mostyn, which would thus seem to have been held

[1] Supra, Vol. III. pp. 222, 223.
[2] Domesday, fo. 259, a. 2.
[3] Rot. Cart. 11 Hen. III., pars. 1, No. 51.
[4] Supra, Vol. VI. pp. 120, 196-7.


immediately by Odo de Hodenet (II.) under the Lords of Pulverbatch. The unreality of such appearances will be proved in the sequel. It was doubtless this tenure in Mostyn which caused Odo de Hodnet to be enrolled (about 1240) as Tenant of some part of a knight's-fee in Pulverbatch; [1] by which is meant, that he held something in the Honour of Pulverbatch. The Bradford Hundred-Roll of 1255 reduces this theory to demonstration. It says that "Odo de Hodenet holds Moston for two hides (the Domesday measurement), and pays 8d. for motfee, and holds of the Fee of Pulrebatch, doing service in proportion to a fourth part of a knight's-fee; and he does suit to the Hundred twice yearly at the Sheriff's Tourn". [2]

The Inquest on Odo de Hodnet's death in 1284, values Moston at 40s. per annum. A carucate of land and a Mill were the chief items productive of that income. The deceased had held it for one-tenth of a fee under Philip Marmion (then Lord of Pulverbatch). [3] The Feodaries of 1284-5 follow this statement, except that William de Hodnet is Tenant of Moston, and the vill is rather inaccurately said to be a member of Marmion's Barony of Kilpek.

Among the numerous acquisitions of Robert Corbet of Morton, was a messuage and virgate in Moston, purchased apparently from Stephen, son of William le Marescal. The Tenement was charged with a rent of 2s. 8d. to William de Hodnet. On Corbet's death, in 1300, it was found by Inquest that he and his wife had been jointly enfeoffed therein. [4]

The Fine by which William de Hodnet settled Welbatch and Moston on his daughter Matilda and her husband, William de Ludlow, has been given under Westbury. [5] This was in 1301. In 1316 the Inquest on William de Ludlow's death states how he and his wife had held conjointly the said vills. [6] Here again the mesne-tenure of Fitz Warin appears as still existent.- The deceased had held by the service of one-tenth of a fee not immediately of the Barony of Pulverbatch, but of Fulk fitz Warin. Moston at this time produced 119s. 6d. rent to the Ludlows, exclusive of its Watermill.

[1] Supra, Vol. VI. pp. 120,196-7.
[2] Rot. Hundred. Vol. II. p. 58.
[3] Inquisitions, 12 Edw. I., No. 24.
[4] Inquisitions, 29 Edw. I., No. 45.
[5] Supra, Vol. VII. p. 58.
[6] Inquisitions, 10 Edw. II., No. 69.



Domesday, after noticing Roger Venator's Manor of Mostune, passes to Ludecote, but between the two is a marginal mark corresponding to an entry lower down the page, which entry shows that the list of Roger Venator's Manors was incomplete, as the Scribe first wrote it, and that Haustone (Haughton) in Recordin Hundred belonged thereto. We have seen that this coeval emendation was really correct, and that a part of Haughton belonged to the Fee of Pulverbatch for ages. [1] The next question is as to the Hundred in which the Scribe meant to include Ludecote. I suppose that it should rather follow the Hundred in which Mostune was, than that in which Haustone was. Now, the situation of Mostune was in Odenet Hundred, though the Record omits to state that fact. We must take such omission to extend also to Ludecote, and look for Ludecote in Odenet Hundred. [2] We shall find this search a difficult one, and must therefore make the most of every hint which Domesday gives.- The Record says that- "Radulfus Cocus and Thochi hold Ludecote of Earl Roger. Dunning and Sauuinus held it (in Saxon times) and were free. Here are II hides, geldable. The arable land is enough for III ox-teams. In demesne are 1 teams, II Neat-herds, V Serfs, and I Boor. In King Edward's time the Manor was worth 8s. (per annum); now it is worth 16s. It was partly waste (i.e. when the present holders obtained it)". [3]

We may observe that Tochi was the name of the Lord of Woodcote and Eye in 1086, and that Dunning had been Lord of Spoonley in the Confessor's reign;- but such hints serve nothing, that I can see, towards establishing the identity of Ludecote. The name, Ludecote, and the hidage are all that Domesday else affords for our guidance. We must look for any place anciently called Lude as near a passable part of some Stream or River. [4] Places, anciently called Cote, are found afterwards to be usually called either Cotes, Coten, Coton or Cotton, which is but a change from singular to plural, and quite intelligible, when we consider that it probably corresponded with the multiplication of dwellings in any particular

[1] Supra, Vol. VIII. pp. 285-6.
[2] Vide supra, Vol. III. pp. 222, 223.
[3] Domesday, fo. 259, a, 2.
[4] Supra, Vol. V. p. 238.


spot. Now there is a place called Cotton, standing on the river Tern, and near the spot where the road which passed between Hodnet and Stoke (upon Tern) must have crossed that River. This place, I think, represents the Ludecote of Domesday, and I will first prove that Ludecote was, within 50 years of Domesday, called simply Cote.-

King Henry I.'s Confirmation to Shrewsbury Abbey passed in 1121. It speaks of one hide in the Vill called Cota, which had been given to the Abbey by Tochil. Stephen's Confirmation also includes the grant, and calls the Grantor Tochi. Henry II.'s Confirmation, as well as Henry III.'s, confirms Thochi's grant as one of two hides in Cota.

Now I suppose that the earliest confirmations are most likely to represent exactly, what portion of Ludecote or Cote the Abbey acquired under Tochi's grant. We may therefore estimate the acquisition as half the Manor. That Shrewsbury Abbey does not afterwards appear seized of half Cotton, is an argument against the identity I am endeavouring to establish, for I shall show that Cotton remained, in part at least, a Manor, after the period of Tochi's grant, and in other hands than those of the Monks of Shrewsbury. But my belief is, that what Tochi granted to the Abbey was annexed to the Abbey's neighbouring estate of Woolerton, and that the original Manorial distinctions were so far destroyed. A continuous territory thus extending from Woolerton to Cotton will have flanked the Manor of Hodnet on its Eastern side; and to this I attribute the disputes and agreements which were made between the Lords of Hodnet and the Monastic Owners of Woolerton. [1]

After thus assuming Ludecote to be identical with Cotton, and part of it to have been thus disposed of to Shrewsbury Abbey, and absorbed in Woolerton, we have next to trace, if we can, any evidences of the residuary Manor.- As a mere hypothesis I will assume that that part of Ludecote which Radulfus Cocus held at Domesday became an escheat, and that it was annexed to the Fee of Pulverbatch. It may have been such a transfer that suggested the mistake, or false analogy, which I have already pointed out, when speaking of the neighbouring vill of Hopton. There De Lacy's escheated interest was, on one occasion, erroneously deemed to have passed to the same Fee of Pulverbatch. [2]

It will appear probable that, as in Moston, so in Cotton, the Hodnets became Feoffees of the Barons of Pulverbatch. The grant

[1] Supra, page 207.
[2] Supra, pp. 271-2.


of a meadow to Haughmond Abbey (as already set forth [1]), by Odo de Hodnet (I.) and his son Baldwin, describe the said meadow as near Le Cote or Chote. This does not indeed prove the Hodnets to have been seized of Cote itself, or any part thereof; but it will assist my future argument.

The Bradford Hundred-Roll of 1255 describes Cotin as a "Vill consisting of half a hide. One moiety thereof was held by John de Cotin, the other by Walter Bras. Both held of the Fee of Pulverbatch. They paid 2d. for stretward and 2d. for motfee, and did suit every three weeks to the Hundred. Robert Dios of Cotin-sub-Tune and his two sons, paid a shilling each to Odo de Hodnet for his Advowry". [2] Here the mesne interest of Odo de Hodnet (II.) is all but suppressed. It fully appears however, in the Feodaries of 1284-5, that the Hodnets were Mesne Lords of Coten or Coten; for "Robert de Wynkeshull held the said vill under William de Hodnet, who held under Philip Marmyon, who held of the King, in capite, by service of one-twentieth of a knight's-fee". After this, the residuary part of the Manor seems to me to have been as completely absorbed in Hodnet as the primary part had been absorbed in Woolerton.

I have only to notice in conclusion those of Hodnet's Tenants in this Vill, whose names I can trace. Elyas de Cotes was Juror in a Forest Inquest of 1220. John de Cotin and Walter Bras occur, as above, in 1255. About the year 1270, John de Cotes and Robert de Winckeshull attest a Hopton Deed. [3] John de Koten super Tern sat on a local Jury in 1274 and again in February 1284. In the latter year Robert de Wynkeshull was De Hodnet's sole Tenant here. This Transfer is well explained by a Fine which had been levied on April 19, 1276. Thereby "John de Cotes (Impedient) acknowledged the right of Robert de Wykeshull and his wife, Petronilla (Plaintiffs), to a messuage and 3 bovates in Cotes, whereof had been Plea of Warranty. In return the Grantees conceded the premises to John de Cotes to hold for his life, at a penny rent, under themselves and the heirs of Petronilla. The premises were then to revert to Robert and Petronilla and to the heirs of Petronilla".I suppose that Petronilla was daughter and heir of John de Cotes, and that the latter, having thus settled his estate, died in 1284. Later notices of Robert de Whixall have been given under Whixall.

[1] Supra, p. 329.
[2] Rot. Hundred. II. p. 55, 59.
[3] Supra, page 285.


Lee Brockhurst.

I HAVE already stated my reasons for thinking that there is an omission in Domesday, where it seems to place that Manor of Lege, which Normannus held, in Condover Hundred. The place was undoubtedly Lee Brockhurst, and so should have been placed in Odenet Hundred. [1]

A tract of woodland which lay hereabouts was called Brockhurst, and in aftertimes gave a distinctive name to two vills, viz. Lee and Preston. Nor was the distinction needless; for the Shropshire Domesday enumerates six different Manors with the name of Preston, and five which are called Lega, Lege, or Lai. Domesday describes Lee Brockhurst as follows.- "The same Normannus holds Lege (of Earl Roger). Uluiet and Wictric and Elfac held it (in Saxon times) for three Manors, and were free. Here is one hide, geldable. The (arable) land is enough for II ox-teams. Those (two) teams are in demesne, with IIII Neat-herds and I Boor. Here is a Mill of 6s. (annual value). In King Edward's time the Manor was worth 13s. (per annum); now it is worth 3. He (Normannus) found it waste". [2]

Normannus is recorded to have had other dealings with this Manor, besides the great improvement which he effected in its value. He gave to Shrewsbury Abbey the land of Boleley. Now Booley must have been an outlying member of Lee Brockhurst. It is also observable that this grant of Booley is described as made by Normannus Venator; a satisfactory proof that the Normannus of Domesday was as well entitled to the name Venator as his brother Roger, though the latter only is called Venator in Domesday.

Of Manors noticed in these pages, Lee Brockhurst is now the fourth, in which the Domesday Seigneury of Normannus can be traced to have descended to the Pichfords. This analogy with Albrighton, Bishton, and Cantlop, extends still further, in the case of Cantlop: for, as the descendants of Ulger Venator were Pichford's Feoffees in half Cantlope, so did they claim to have a Seigneural interest in Lee Brockhurst.-

However, the actual and rightful Tenants of Lee Brockhurst were

[1] Vide supra, Vol. VI. page 1.
[2] Domesday, fo. 259, a, 1.


the De Burghs, descended, as I have elsewhere shown, [1] from Alice, sister and eventual heir of Engelard de Stretton. This Alice had married Philip de Burgo, alias Philip filius Episcopi, whose real origin is probably indicated in the latter name. Alice survived her husband, Philip, and her son and heir, Bertram. The latter left a widow, Helisant, and an infant son, a second Bertram, whose wardship was obtained by his Mother. While things stood thus, the Infant Bertram became a Suitor in the Curia Regis against his Grandmother, Alice, and recovered from her plenary seizin of two carucates in Legh. [2] The time of this recovery is uncertain, but probably it took place before the kingdom was disorganized by the Barons' league against King John. While the infant Bertram was yet in seizin by virtue of the aforesaid recovery, Ralph de Pichford appeared on the stage, and, probably as seigneural Lord of Legh, took possession of the estate. In October 1219, a precept (the latest of a Series) was expedited from Westminster, to the Sheriff of Shropshire, enjoining him "to restore the Infant to his estate, and to attach Ralph de Pichford, if Helisant, the Infant's Mother, continued to complain of the said Ralph's intrusion at Legh". [3] An entry on the same Roll, shows that on, November 18, 1219, "Helisant's Attorney (Robert de Claushall) appeared on her behalf, and on behalf of Bertram fitz Bertram, her son and ward, against Ralph de Pichford, concerning land in Lecham".
[4] The Sheriff was ordered to attach the said Ralph, to appear in Court in three weeks of Hilary (1220):- I hear no more of this Suit; but entries on the Plea-Rolls of Michaelmas Term 1242, and of Easter Term 1243, show the widow, Elysaunt, as remarried to Robert de Bromlegh, and as holding her dower in Legh under warranty of Bertram de Burgo;- her son of course. The said dower consisted of 20s. rent, the Advowson of the Church of Legh, and a third of half a hide, except one virgate. Bertram de Burgo was, on his part, seized of two-thirds of half a hide in Legh. All these parties were impleaded for their respective tenements, by one William, son of Robert de Legh, who alleged himself to have been in seizin of the whole in King John's reign. This claim was probably that of an assumed Feoffee of the De Burghs or Pichfords. It was ordered to be tried by Grand Assize. The result, non-apparent on the Plea-Rolls, will be seen to have

[1] Supra, Vol. VI. p. 270.
[2] Alice was heiress of Legh, but had probably resigned the estate to her son, Bertram, and then, on his death, reseized it, without due deference to the rights of his heir.
[3] Placita, 3 Hen. III., m. 5 recto.
[4] Placita, 4 Hen. III., m. 18 dorso.


been in favour of the Defendants at large; for the Bradford Hundred-Roll of 1255, says that "Bertram de Burgo holds the vill of Lega of the Fees of John de Picheford. And it is half a hide and half a knight's-fee: and it pays 2d. motfee and 2d. stretward per annum, and does suit twice yearly to the Great Hundred". [1]

At the Assizes of 1256, John fitz Hugh of Bolas appeared as claiming that relative seigneury over Bertram de Burgo which was actually enjoyed by John de Pichford. In the first instance he employed the form of mort d'ancestre, viz. he impleaded the Tenant, Bertram, for 20s. rent in Legh, alleging that some ancestor (probably his Father, Hugh fitz Robert) had died in receipt of the said rent. This Suit he did not prosecute. His Surety therein was Richard fitz Syward of Wythiford. [2]

His second Suit was in the form of a Placitum Servitii. He challenged Bertram de Burgo to answer him as to the said Bertram's obligation "to do customs and service for the tenement which he held under the Challenger in Lega, as in homages, rents, and other things". He alleged that, since Bertram so held one-fourth of a knight's-fee, he ought to do homage to the Plaintiff, and pay him an annual rent of 20s.; which services and rent this identical Bertram had done to the Plaintiff's Father, Hugh; but since Hugh's death had withheld the same, thereby damaging the Plaintiff to the extent of 10. To all this Bertram replied that he held no tenement under John fitz Hugh, but that he held under John de Pichford, who was in seizin of his homage and service. The Court hereupon dismissed Bertram sine die, but gave the Plaintiff leave to proceed by a Writ-de-recto against Bertram, if he should so desire. [3]

In 1256, though Bertram de Burgo was Tenant of 15 librates of lands, the Sheriff of Staffordshire reported him among those who had not taken knighthood. He had a good estate at Wilbrighton in that County, held under Le Strange of Ness and Cheswardine.

At the Forest Assizes of February 1262, it was presented that Bertram de Burgo and his brother, Thomas, were habitual trespassers (malefactores custumarii) on the King's Forest. They appeared not at first, but Bertram, coming forward at last, was

[1] Rot. Hundred. II. 57.
[2] [3] Assizes, 40 Hen. III., mm. 10 recto, 3 dorso. It seems to me that the primary question involved in this suit was that of "Tenant or no Tenant"? The Placitum Servitii was not calculated to get an issue on that point. It assumed the Tenancy, and dealt only with the nature and amount of service due thereon.

On the other haud, the Writ de recto left the discretion of the Court unfettered with any such technical barriers.


committed to prison. He procured his liberty and that of his brother and men, by a Fine of V merks, his Sureties being Michael de Morton and Ingelard de Acton. I learn from a Writ of September 2, 1267, that John fitz Hugh had renewed his suit of mort d'ancestre against Bertram de Burgo for 20s. rent in Lega. There were several hearings of this case, but it would appear that Bertram, having called John de Pichford to warranty, was worsted, and appealed. In Easter Term 1270, his complaint was in consideration Coram Rege, viz. that the Assize of mort d'ancestre had been faulty in process. The said process was now to be reviewed, and John fitz Hugh and John de Pichford were summoned to attend in Michaelmas Term. After several adjournments, the case was reviewed, coram Rege, in Hilary Term 1272. It appeared from the statement of Martin de Littlebury (the Judge who had determined the suit of mort d'ancestre), that on the occasion in question, "John de Pichford, being called to warranty by De Burgh, had appeared in Court and desired to know why he was bound to give such warranty";- that thereupon "De Burgh had produced a Charter of Ralph de Pichford, John's Father, which Charter gave to De Burgh the vill of Legh-subtus-Brockhirst (salvo forinseco servicio) and all the right which the Grantor had by gift of Richard de Legh, except half a virgate, which the Prior of Wombridge held:- to hold to De Burgh and his heirs, under Ralph and his heirs;- by render of the ancient service. After this", continues Littlebury's statement, "Bertram departed in contempt of the Court, and did not prosecute his plea (of warranty) against John (de Pichford). So, at an adjourned hearing of the suit of mort d'ancestre against John fitz Hugh, the Jury had found for the latter, viz. that Hugh, his Father, had died seized of the 20s. rent now claimed by the Son". "Thus", concludes Littlebury's statement, "did John fitz Hugh recover 20s. rent, and damages".

On hearing the above process, the Court of Appeal (i.e. the Coram-Rege Court of Hilary Term 1272) adverted first to the fact that though Bertram had moved for this review of a former process, he was not now present. So the Court ordered that the former decision should stand, and that the Sheriff should levy 9 damages on Bertram's lands.

In June 1276, Sir Bertram de Burgo appears at length as a Knight, and as Foreman of a Jury which sat at Hales-Owen.

I cannot tell how many Bertrams there were in this succession, nor can I say why, after John fitz Hugh's success in 1272, the


mesne right, established by the Lords of Bolas at Lee Brockhurst, does not reappear.-

The Feodary of 1284, says that "Bartholomew de Burgh holds the vill of Leye subtus Brochurst, of John de Pychford, and the said John of the King, etc".

So too the Inquest taken May 24,1285, as to the estates of John de Pychford, deceased, says that "Bertram de Burgo held Leye subtus Brochurst under him, for half a knight's-fee".

Why the Tenure-Roll of 1285 should make Nicholas Pecheford to be Bertram de Burgh's Seigneur at Lye sub Brockehurst, I cannot say. Perhaps the Commissioners who drew up the Record, were ignorant of the real name of John de Pichford's heir. [1]

Whether it was Pichford's Seigneury or De Burgh's tenancy at Lee Brockhurst which passed to the Audleys I cannot say. The Inquest taken in 1299, on Nicholas de Audley's death, seems to have reckoned the Manor of Lega subtus Brockhurst as one of his estates, but the Document is wholly defaced. The Nomina Villarum of 1316, has Nicholas de Audley (II.) as Lord of Leye subtus Brochurst. [2]

LEE BROCKHURST CHAPEL. The early history of this Chapel is involved with that of the Church of Stanton Hyneheath;- under which some allusions have been made to this Dependency. The Appropriation of Stanton Church in 1331, left the Vicar of Stanton Incumbent also of Lee Brockhurst, but James de Audley, "Lord of Lye subtus Brochurste", disputed the right of Advowson with Haughmond Abbey, as far as the Chapel was concerned. At length on February 7, 1336, the Baron renounced his claim to the said Patronage and to half a virgate of land, and was thenceforth, with Joan his wife, made a participator in all those spiritual benefits which the Abbey promised its Benefactors. The agreement was dated at Red Castle, and attested by Sir William le Botiler, knight; Sir John, son of James de Audley; Sir William de Ercalewe; Thomas de Hextane, knight; John de Lakene; and Philip de Peninton. [3]


I have already said that Norman Venator, gave this member of Lee Brockhurst to Shrewsbury Abbey. Nothing better shows the falsity of Earl Hugh's spurious Charter to the Abbey, than where it

[1] In 1316 there was a Nicholas de Pichford of Cantlop (supra, Vol. VI. p. 290); but he can hardly be taken as the Representative of his House.
[2] Parliamentary Writs, IV. 397.
[3] Haughmond Chartulary, fo. 136.


affects to convey the tithes of Bolelea, as if they were tithes of the Earl's demesne. His less suspicious Charter says nothing about Booley or its tithes; nor did that lost Charter of Earl Hugh, which is partly preserved in Bishop Clinton's Inspeximus, make any such allusion.

It is possible however that Norman Venator, before he gave the vill of Booley to the Abbey, gave part of the tithes thereof; for Bishop Peche confirms two-thirds of the demesne tithes of Bole, as arising from the demesne, not of the Abbey itself, but of some Benefactor (de dominicis aliorum). [1]

Henry I.'s Charter to Shrewsbury Abbey passed in 1121. It says nothing about the tithes of Boleleia, but speaks of a small estate (terrulam) so called, as having been given by Norman Venator. King Stephen's Charter repeats the same words, except that instead of terrulam, it says villulam. Henry II's and Henry III's Charters confirm, de dono Normanni Venatoris, Bolelegam.

The acquisition of Booley itself by no means obliterated the acquisition of its tithes. Between the years 1236 and 1255, the Abbot of Shrewsbury settled the tithes of Booley on Hugh, Parson of Stanton, for his life. Witnesses,- Sir Stephen de Stanton then Patron (advocato) of Stanton Church, Masters Alan Cox and Reginald Pinzun; and Henry, Vicar of the Altar of St. Cross in Salop Abbey. [2]

The estate of Booley came to be held under the Abbey by the Corbets of Moreton. Hence the Tenure-Roll of 1285, says that "Robert Corbet holds the vill of Boley under the Abbot of Salop, and he of the King in capite, and as within the Liberties of Eyton". This last allusion is to the Abbot's distant Manor of Eyton-upon-Severn, which was occasionally considered as the Caput of his Manors throughout a large district. The Inquest on Robert Corbet's death in 1300, states his tenure of Boleye under the Abbot of Salop to have been by service of 5s. rent.

Norton in Hales.

THIS was Helgot's only Manor in Odenet Hundred.-

"Helgot holds Nortune of Earl Roger. Azor held it (in Saxon

[1] [2] Salop Chartulary, Nos. 329, 355.


times) and was a free man. Here are III hides, geldable. There is (arable) land (enough) for VI ox-teams. Here is one Radman with one team, and IIII Villains with two teams. The Wood will fatten 200 swine. In King Edward's time, the Manor was worth 30s. (per annum). Now it is worth 20s". [1]

I have related how this Manor was given to Shrewsbury Abbey by Herbert fitz Helgot, in the time of Henry I., and confirmed by his sons under the name of Norton juxta Lime. [2] The Manors of Norton in Hales and Betton in Hales thenceforth formed one continuous estate of Shrewsbury Abbey; so that several particulars which relate to Norton and its Tenants have already transpired under Betton. Other particulars are as follows.-

Stephen de Acleth, whom we have seen attesting a Betton Deed before 1190, [3] was identical with Stephen de Ocle, who, in 1203, was on a commission to ascertain the validity of an essoign. He took his name from Oakley in the Staffordshire Parish of Muckleston, but was a Tenant of Shrewsbury Abbey at Norton-in-Hales.

A Plea-Roll of Michaelmas Term 1225 alludes to a Suit which Amilla, widow of one Thegus, or Fegus, and now wife of Gregory Pistor, was urging against Stephen de Achel (Oakley) for a third of half a virgate in Norton subtus Lime,- her dower in respect of her first marriage. Her Essoignor and Attorney was her son, in one place called Reginald fitz Thegus, in another Thegus fitz Thegus. In Hilary Term 1226 the Suit was renewed. Stephen de Ocle did not appear, but Richard de Lache, as actual Tenant of the land, did. His land which had been seized in manu Regis was restored to him, and Gregory Pistor and his wife were ordered to amend their Writ. [4]

At Assizes, held coram Rege, at Salop, in August 1226, we have Fegh fitz Fegh appearing in a suit of mort d'ancestre against Stephen de Hocle for a whole carucate in Norton. Stephen appeared not. [5]

We have seen Stephen de Ocle attesting a Tunstall Deed as late as 1232; [6] soon after which he was succeeded by his son, a second or third Stephen. Adam de Norton, also a witness of Tunstall Deeds

[1] Domesday, fo. 258, b, 1.
[2] [3] Supra, Vol. IV. pp.. 53, 54; Vol. IX. p. 199.
[4] A membrane of a Plea-Roll of about this date (improperly attached to a Roll of 5 John) gives Gregory Pistor as suing Stephen de Ocle and his wife for dower: and Emma wife of Stephen as making Reginald fitz Fegus her Attorney. The mistake is obvious.
[5] Assizes, 10 Hen. III., m. 4 dorso.
[6] Supra, page 202.


till about 1242, was also soon succeeded by a son William, who sat as a Juror for Bradford Hundred at the Assizes of 1256. At these Assizes we find the representatives of the two families at issue. Stephen de Ocle had a Writ de ingressu against William de Norton and Milisant, his Sister, for a virgate in Norton. The Defendants, it seems, were not joint Tenants, so Stephen had leave to amend his Writ. [1]

At the same Assizes, Stephen de Ocle, as Tenant of half a virgate in Norton, was impleaded for the same by Geoffrey Ovyet, a minor, as heir of William Ovyet, a Crusader. The question was similar to that in a suit of mort d'ancestre, viz. "whether William Ovyet was seized, on the day when he left for Jerusalem". The Jury found a verdict, proper only to a suit of mort d'ancestre, viz. that William Ovyet had not died, seized of the premises. So Geoffrey took nothing. In May 1259 Geoffrey, here called son of Walter Ovyet, has another Writ of mort d'ancestre against Stephen de Oclee for land at Norton in Hales.

A Hodnet Inquest of 1257 was attended by "William, Lord of Norton", and by "William fitz Richard of Norton". The latter we have seen attesting Tunstall Deeds of the period.

In November 1269 Isabella, widow of Richard de Blakenhalle, has a Writ of disseizin, concerning a tenement in Norton, against Stephen de Acle and others. Robert Fulton (the Justiciar appointed to try the cause) not having leisure to do so, a second Writ issued in December to Ralph de Hengham. The Assize-Roll of 1272 exhibits William de Northton as a Juror for Bradford Hundred, and introduces a third or fourth Stephen de Oakley.- Ranulf fitz Fegh abandoned a Writ de ingressu, for two bovates at Norton-in-Hales, against Stephen, son of Stephen de Ocle, and his wife Melisant. William de Norton, or his son of the same name, occurs as a Juror or a Witness in of 1276, 1293, and 1294.

In Easter Term 1283 a Fine was levied, whereby Thomas de Coleshesele [3] and Milicent his wife (Deforciants) quitclaim, for themselves and the heirs of Milicent, a messuage and half-virgate at Norton in le Hales, to Stephen, son of Stephen de Ocle (Plaintiff), who pays 7 merks for the surrender.

In 1289 we have had mention of Richard, son of Stephen de Okeleye. [4] Stephen de Ocley, who occurs on Jury-lists of 1290,

[1] Assizes, 40 Hen. III., m. 14.
[2] Ibidem, m. 5.
[3] Perhaps identical with Thomas, son of John de Culce, who has occurred in 1256 (vide supra, Vol. VIII. p. 26).
[4] Supra, Vol. VIII. p. 25.


1292, and 1301, was probably his elder brother. In 1294 we have seen that the latter was called Stephen, son of Stephen de Ocleg. [1]

Norton continued a possession of Shrewsbury Abbey till the Dissolution, but in all Valuations, from that of 1291 downwards, its revenues must be taken to be included in those of Betton. [2]


There is no appearance in Domesday of a Church existing here, and I should suppose that in Saxon times the district belonged to the Parish of Drayton. However Norton Church must have been founded at some such early period as will consist with the fact of its having been endowed with the tithes of the whole Manor. This power of arbitrary consecration of tithes hardly existed after the beginning of the twelfth century. Perhaps Herbert fitz Helgot was the Founder of Norton Church, for his Successors at Norton, the Monks of Shrewsbury, were not addicted to such works.

A Charter of Bishop Clinton (1129-1148) confirms to Shrewsbury Abbey, the Church of Norton with a pension of 2s.; [3] that is, the Monks had the Advowson, and were entitled to the said pension in token that every Rector was their Clerk or Nominee.

Bishop Durdent's Confirmation of Churches to the same Abbey, names the Church of Mortuna last. [4] Norton must unquestionably be understood. Bishop Peche's, and Archbishop Peckham's, Confirmations say nothing about any Church of Mortune, but specify that of Norton, with its pension of 2s. [5] The Taxation of 1291 mentions the Church of Norton-in-Hales, as being in the Deanery of Newport, but does not assign its value. It refers merely to the pension of 2s. receivable therefrom by the Abbot of Shrewsbury. [6] In 1341 the Assessors of the Ninth merely rate the Parish of Norton-in-le-Halys at 2 merks to the current tax. [7] They evidently knew of no Taxation of the Church. The Valor of 1534-5 gives the preferment of Richard Wordeley, Rector of Norton in Hales as 6 per annum, less 6s. 8d. for Procuration, 2s. for Synodals, and 2s. for the, still exacted, Pension of the Abbot of Shrewsbury. [8]


The Abbot and Convent of Shrewsbury must uniformly be taken as Patrons of this Church.

[1] [2] Vide supra, page 200.
[3] [4] Salop Chartulary, Nos. 328, 61.
[5] Ibidem, Nos. 329, 62.
[6] Pope Nich. Taxation, pp. 244, 245.
[7] Inquis. Nonarum, p. 193.
[8] Valor Ecclesiasticus, III. 187, 189.


RICHARD, Parson of Norton in Hales, had letters of protection in 1294. On May 23, 1323,-

ROBERT, Rector of Norton in Hales, has license of non-residence, so long as he should be in the following of Master Philip de Turvill, and prosecuting matters connected with the Church of Malpas.

SIR ROBERT DE WYNDESLEYE (perhaps the same person) occurs as Rector of Norton in 16 Edw. III. (1342-3). He died Aug. 14, 1349 (probably of the Pestilence).

ROBERT DE ALSTONE, Clerk, admitted Sept. 14, 1349, has, on May 1, 1356, a license of non-residence, so long as he should be in attendance (in comitiva) on the Lord Abbot of Salop. He resigned in 1358.

SIR WILLIAM DE LONGELEYE was admitted Nov. 1, 1358.


SIR WILLIAM WALLEFORD, admitted April 5, 1401, resigned in 1404.

Little Drayton.

THIS was one of two Manors, in Odenet Hundred, which Domesday assigns to the Fee of Turold.-

"The same Turold holds Draitune (of the Earl). The Countess Godeva held it (in Saxon times). Here is one hide, geldable. There is (arable) land enough for V ox-teams. In demesne is one team, with II Neatherds and one Villain. In King Edward's time, the Manor was worth 8s. (per annum). Now it is worth 6s. 8d. He (Turold) found it waste". [1]

I have remarked on the circumstance that Domesday calls the Greater Drayton a Berewick. In extent, value, and population, it surpassed the adjacent Manor now under notice, and it contained the Church of the district. Perhaps a traditional importance still hung about the smaller Manor, as having once been held in demesne by the Mercian Earls, and as having formed part of the dower of Earl Leofric's illustrious Countess.

Under Willey I have told all that is known of Turold de Verley, and particularly the date and circumstance of his grant of Drayton Minor to Shrewsbury Abbey. [2] The Monks thenceforward treated

[1] Domesday, fo. 258, a, 1.
[2] Supra, Vol. II. p. 47.


the estate as a member of their Manor of Betton in Hales, which was within the same Parish. From a Fine of October 29, 1227, it appears that Henry, Abbot of Salop, had given half a virgate in Drayton to Richard fitz Ralph, but being unable to warrant it, was obliged to restore it to Walter fitz Ralph, another claimant, who was henceforth to hold it of the Abbot at a rent of 2s. The Abbot further bought off Richard fitz Ralph's claim to this, or an equivalent, warranty by payment of 3 merks. It appears from a Deed in the Salop Chartulary, undated and unattested, that Richard fitz Ralph held also a virgate in Minor Drayton, by grant of his father Ralph, and that this tenement descended to Richard, son of Richard, and grandson of Ralph. The younger Richard, so describing his title, acknowledges that he and his heirs are to pay 6d. rent to the Abbey, annually at Martinmas, for this tenement. [1]

I cannot be sure whether the following Fine relates to Little Drayton or to Market Drayton. In Trinity Term 1243, William de Drayton, Tenant of one carucate in Drayton, surrenders the same to Robert de Drayton (Plaintiff). The latter then settles it on William and the heirs of his body, to hold of the Lords of the fee. In default of such heirs there is a remainder to Robert.

Possibly this was the Robert de Drayton whom we find as a fellow-surety with Odo de Willaston in 1236, and who occurs on a Hodnet Inquest in 1257.

An Inquest held on June 13, 1259, found that William de Uppinton, deceased, had held two virgates of land in the vill of Drayton subtus Lyme, by a rent of 8s. payable to the Abbot of Salop. The tenement was worth 16s. 8d. per annum, [2] and, I may add, must have been a half of the Abbot's estate in Little Drayton. I cannot trace this tenancy to the Burys of Uppington, the said William's descendants.

The Tenure-Roll of 1285 divides the vill of Parva Drayton.- Half was held by the Abbot of Salop, and accounted a member of Betton. The other half was accounted a member of the Barony of Wem and was held by William de Drayton under the then Baroness of Wem. This last statement was a little more and a little less than the truth.- No part of Little Drayton was a member of the Barony of Wem: but it so happened that the Barons of Wem were the Abbot of Shrewsbury's Tenants of half the Manor, and William de Drayton was their Undertenant. This is fully explained by a later Inquest, where a Baron of Wem was found

[1] Salop Chartulary, No. 95.
[2] Inquisitions, 43 Hen. III., No. 31.


to have held 8s. rent in Parva Drayton of the Abbot of Shrewsbury". [1]

In October 1292 William de Parva Drayton (the above Under-tenant, doubtless) was a Juror in several Pleas of Quo Waranto.

In all valuations of the estates of Shrewsbury Abbey, its receipts from Little Drayton must be taken as included under those from Betton. [2]


"THE same Turold holds Bardestune (of the Earl). Ulgar held it (in Saxon times) and was a free man. Here is one hide, geldable. There is (arable) land (enough) for V ox-teams. In demesne is one team; and (there are) II Neat-herds and III Boors with one team. Here is a Mill of 3s. (annual value); and a wood which will fatten 60 Swine. In King Edward's time the Manor was worth 20s. (per annum): now it is worth 10s. He (Turold) found it waste". [3]

Of the fourteen Manors which Turold held at Domesday, two went to Shrewsbury Abbey by grants of himself and his son, and I have said that eleven of the remaining twelve can be traced to the Chetwynds. [4] It is very remarkable that for two centuries after Domesday we should meet but twice with any mention of Bardeston, and that these notices should be in accordance with the Rule thus laid down.-

On John de Chetwynd's death in 1281, the Inquest values his estate at Bearston. Six and a half virgates and half a noke of land, held in demesne, produced 5. 7s. 10d. yearly. Four Cottars paid rents of 4s. 9d., and Bearston Mill produced 5. 16s. 8d.

The Feodary of 1284, known as Kirby's Quest, makes Bardeston not only a member of Chetwynd's Fief, but actually a member of Chetwynd itself. [5] Probably this was because the Chetwynds held it so exclusively in demesne.

PAROCHIALLY, Bearstone is in the Staffordshire Parish of Mucklestone. The same may be said of three adjacent estates, viz. Gravenhanger, Dorrington, and Woore, which to this day retain their Manorial position in Shropshire, as Domesday had assigned it.

[1] [2] Supra, pp. 177, 200.
[3] Doomsday, fo. 258, a, 1.
[4] Supra, Vol. II. p. 48.
[5] Supra, Vol. VIII. p. 88, note.



WITH this place we may introduce a series of four Manors in Odenet Hundred, held by William Malbedeng under the Norman Earl of Shrewsbury.-

"Willelm Malbedeng holds Gravehungre of Earl Roger. AEluric and Ulgar held it (in Saxon times) for two Manors, and were free. Here is one hide, geldable. The (arable) land is (enough) for IIII ox-teams. Here II Radmans have one Team. Here is a Haye. In King Edward's time the Manor was worth 13s. (per annum). Now it is worth 12s. He (William) found, it waste". [1]

The great Fief which William Malbedeng held under Hugh Lupus, Earl of Chester, occupies three Columns of the Cheshire Domesday. [2] Thereby he and his successors constituted one of the greatest Baronial Houses of the Palatinate. His Cheshire Manor of Wich Malbank long memorialized his name, [3] and it is one of the very few instances in which a Domesday Norman can be said to have stamped such an impress on an English locality.

I am far from proposing to give any extended account of a Barony, whose history is so little associated with that of Shropshire. Suffice it to say, that William Malbanc, the Domesday Baron, was succeeded by his son, Hugh, who, in or about the year 1134, founded the Abbey of Combermere, one of the oldest Cistercian Houses in the Kingdom. Hugh Malbanc was succeeded in turn by his son-

WILLIAM MALBANC (II.), who greatly increased his father's foundation of Combermere. But I notice more particularly here a grant of his to Lilleshall Abbey. It was of ten measures of salt (the produce doubtless of his salt-pits at Wich Malbanc, now Nantwich), to be paid to the Canons yearly before Pentecost for the souls' health of his father, mother, himself, his ancestors, his wife, and his heirs. [4] This William was deceased in 1186. In 1190 his widow, by the name of Alda Malbanc, fined 50 merks pro se maritanda, and for her dower in Standon, and for six

[1] Domesday, fo. 257, b, 1.
[2] Domesday, fo. 265, a, and b; fo. 266 a.
[3] It is now called Nantwich.
[4] Lilleshall Chartulary, fo. 61.


librates of land in Cadeham, and 60 solidates of rent in the vill of Withinham. [1]

William Malbanc (II.) left four daughters and coheirs. About these Ladies and their respective marriages there exists a strange confusion. [2] I have here to speak of Alienore, alleged by some Genealogists to have been the wife of Henry de Audley. Her husband however (the only husband of whom I can find authentic notice) was Robert Bardolf, as the two following Deeds will manifest.-

"Robert Bardulf, for the souls' health of his father, mother, and of William Mauban, gave to Lilleshull Abbey one place of land in Wich, whereon to make one free salt-pit of twelve plumbs;- upon the bank, near the salt-pit of Ralph Rufus and of Matthew Monoclus. He gave it free of all toll".

Again, "Alienor, daughter of William Mauban, in her proper power, for the love of God and for the health of Robert Bardulf, her husband (domini mei), gave to the same Abbey a free salt-pit, with twelve plumbs in Wich;- that salt-pit, namely, which Robert Bardulf, her husband, had confirmed".

This Alienor is said by some authorities to have died without issue, and I quite concur in such a probability. It was as a Widow, I presume, that she gave to Henry de Alditelegh all her lands in Cheshire, within the Lyme. This Deed was dated on "Tuesday before St. Mark's day, in the seventh year of the Interdict", a date equivalent to April 22nd, 1214. [3]

Now I have little doubt that Gravenhunger came to the Audleys by some grant similar to the above, and vouched by one or other of the Coheirs of Malbanc. That it was held under the Audleys in the 13th century, will fully appear in the sequel. At present we turn to notice the first recorded Feoffee or Tenant of the Manor.-

[1] Rot. Pip., 2 Ric. I., Staffordshire.- This Alda was daughter of Hugh de Beauchamp, and brought the Bedfordshire Manor of Cokesdune as her marriage portion. In 1186 she was set down as a Widow of 30 years of age. She was probably something more, for the eldest of her four daughters by William Maubanc was then 16 years of age, and in custody of Hugh de Beauchamp, her Grandfather (Rot. de Dominabus, etc., p. 16).

Alda Maubanc, under the name of Ada de Bellocampo, granted 10 acres in Parva Sandon to Stone Priory (Monasticon, VI. 233, No. ix.). It is remarkable that her Deed is expressed to be for the souls' health of William Maubanc, her husband, herself, and her heir Hugh". It is more probable, I think, that her son, Hugh, was the son of William Maubanc, and died in infancy, than the son of any second hushaud.
[2] Erdeswick's Staffordshire (Edition 1844), pp. 45, 46.
[3] Ormerod's Cheshire Domesday-Roll (1851), page 11.


"David, Lord of Gravinhunger, gives to Roger, son of Adam de Chetewind, all his part of the watercourse (Duit), which separated his land from the land of Dorinton, viz. half of the aforesaid davit;- so that Roger might erect a Mill on the said Duit, and make a stank thereto, on the Grantor's land. Moreover the said David gives his Moor of Chudeleford, and a right of common, in pastures, roads, etc., to all who might frequent the proposed Mill. For this Grant one merk was paid down, and a rent of 10d. reserved to the Grantor".
[1] This Deed probably passed early in the 13th century. The Bradford Hundred-Roll of 1255 says that "Gravinhunger is of the Barony of Mauban, and is one hide, geldable. Roger de Loskesford, Lord thereof, held it in socage, paying an annual rent of 1d. to James de Audley. The Manor paid 4d. for motfee, 4d. for stretward, and did suit every three weeks to the Hundred". [2]

At the Assizes of 1256, Agnes fitz Adam, describing herself as daughter and heir of Adam le Venur, sued Ralph le Taillur for half a virgate in Gravenhungre. James de Audley was called to warranty by the Defendant, and proved, not only that one Edelina, held a third of the premises in dower, but that Agnes was not Adam le Venur's heir, for she had been born long before the said Adam had married her mother. The Jury found accordingly, but allowed that Adam le Venur had died seized of the premises. [3]

Again, at these Assizes, one Augnes, as widow of Thomas fitz Richard recovered her dower against several tenants in Gravenhunger, viz. thirds of 60 acres against Roger de Loskesford, of 22 acres against Robert de Ocle, and of 1 acre against Ralph le Taylur. [4]

At Westminster, in Michaelmas Term 1266, Juliana, widow of Robert de Aldithelegh, sued Hugh de Frodesham for 20 acres in Gravenhunger, by the process de ingressu. She also sued Stephen de Asseton for an acre there, as her right. The former suit was adjourned, the latter she gained.

The Pipe-Roll of 1267 exhibits Adam fitz Richard of Gravenhunger [5] taking out some Writ, at a cost of 6s. 8d. In June 1269,

[1] Lilleshall Chartulary, fo. 72. In the Rubric of this Deed, Roger de Chetwind is styled Clerk.
[2] Rot. Hundred. II. 55.
[3] Assizes, 40 Hen. III., m. 4. I suppose this Adam le Venur to have been of Whixall and Sandford. We have seen that such a person, deceased in 1242, left only collateral heirs (supra, pp. 227, 349). However the widow of the said Adam is there called Editha, not Edelina.
[4] Assizes, 40 Hen. III., m. 6.
[5] This Adam fitz Richard was perhaps identical with a person already mentioned, viz. Adam, nephew of Adam fitz Wulfric de Whixall (vide supra, pp. 227-8).


Lucia, widow of Richard de Gravenhunger, has a writ of disseizin against John de Baskerville; and Stephen de Aston has a similar Writ against Adam de Gravenhunger. In December 1269, Edda de Derington, and her son Alan, have a like writ against Adam fitz Richard of Gravenhunger. In October 1270, Lucia, widow of Richard de Gravenhunger, has a like writ against Stephen de Aston and others. In October 1271, Adam fitz Richard of Gravenhungre had a Writ, ad juratam capiendam, against Stephen de Aston. [1]

The Plea-Rolls give but slight evidence of the procedure in the above cases. In Easter Term 1271, and Hilary Term 1272, the widow Lucia's suit against John de Baskervill was adjourned. It was for seizure of certain corn of the Plaintiff's.

Meanwhile other Suits than those authorized by the above Writs were in progress. In Easter Term 1271, Milierna (Meyler) de Waure and his brother John appeared against Adam de Herlaunde, concerning a messuage and bovate;- against Robert le Carpenter and Juliana his wife, concerning a messuage and bovate;- and against Lucia, widow of Richard de Gravenhunger, concerning a messuage and bovate, all in Gravenhunger. These Suits were adjourned at Westminster, a third time, in Hilary Term 1272. Then also arose a new suit wherein Adam, son of Richard de Gravenhunger impleaded Henry, son of Henry de Mers, Alan de Asseleye and Juliana his wife, and Stephen de Aston, for his right in five small parcels of land in Gravenhunger.

At the Assizes of 1272 a suit of mort d'ancestre, concerning a messuage and virgate in Gravenhunger, terminated in favour of Robert de Ocle who had been seized thereof three years before the death of Thomas, son of Richard Godrich, the ancestor, whose seizin on the day of his death was in question. Robert de Ocle had since enfeoffed the present Tenants, viz. Richard le Theyn and his wife Alice. The Plaintiff was Dionisia, wife of John Jeon, and sister, and alleged heir, of Thomas, son of Richard Godrich.

It is obvious that a part at least of the above suits coexisted with some very ramified Coparcenery among the Tenants of Gravenhunger. The Tenure-Roll of 1285 corroborates this, when it states that "Richard de Loskesford and his Coparceners hold Granhunger

[1] I am not clear about the object of the Writ ad juratam capiendam. The Writ ad Juratores capiendos ordered the Sheriff to arrest Jurors who had been convicted of making a false return to some previous Writ. The Writ of venire facias juratam merely ordered the Sheriff to summon or resummon a Jury, but was sometimes involved with a Writ of capias (or arrest), against any party to a suit who might be recusant in respect of attendance.


under Nicholas de Audley". The latter held it in capite, by no other service than doing suit to County and Hundred.

The Seigneury of the Audleys at Gravenhunger is apparent in most of the Inquests, taken as to their estates;- for instance, William de Audley, deceased in 1282, had 5s. 8d. per annum from this Manor; and the rents of Nicholas de Audley (II.), deceased in 1316, were 5s. 1d. In the last instance Gravenhunger was treated as a member of Red Castle.


"THE same William (Malbedeng) holds Anelege. Edric held it (in Saxon times). Here is one virgate of land, geldable. In King Edward's time the Manor was worth 5s. (per annum). Now it is waste". [1]

Except in the pages of Domesday, I have seen no mention of Onneley as manorially distinct from Gravenhunger. We conclude therefore that it became involved with that Manor at a very early period, though the small addition, thus made to the hidage of Gravenhunger, escaped notice at the Inquest of 1255.

A farm-house at the extreme east of the township of Gravenhunger, and Parish of Woore, is still known as Onneley Hall, and some portion of an adjoining road as Onneley Lane. Across the Staffordshire border, and in the Staffordshire Parish of Madeley, there is a township of Onnely, but there is no reason to think that the latter had anything to do with the Manor of Anelege, as described in the Shropshire Domesday.


"THE same William (Malbedeng) holds Waure. Leuuin and Edric held it (in Saxon times) for two Manors, and were free. Here is one hide, geldable. There is (arable) land for III ox-teams. Here

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

378 WOORE.

II Radmans have one team, with III Boors. The Wood will fatten 60 swine. In King Edward's time the Manor was worth 23s. Now it is worth 10s. (per annum). He (William) found it waste". [1]

The Seigneury of Woore seems to have come to the Audleys in precisely the same way as that of Gravenhunger; but the Audley Inquests do not allude to it as a distinct estate. The names of the Tenants seldom occur, but, in 1255, they were four Coparceners, viz. Richard de War' had one moiety of the Manor, while Robert fitz Meiler, Richard Thein, and William fitz Adam had the other moiety. The Manor was still reputed to be one hide, and to be of the Fee of Mauban. It did suit every three weeks to the Hundred, and paid 4d. for motfee and 4d. for stretward. [2] Richard de Waure, the chief of these Coparceners, was one of the Jurors who made the return. He was also a Juror at the Assizes of 1256.

Meyler and John de Waure, who occur in 1271, were, I think, sons of the above Richard, who was living in 1271. Richard le Theyn, who occurs, with his wife Alice, in 1272, was probably son of Richard Thein above mentioned. John and Robert de Wouere sat on a Wem Jury in January 1284, the latter being, I think, identical with Robert fitz Meyler. In this case he must have died within the year, for in the Feodaries of 1284-5, the four Coparceners of 1255 seem to be respectively represented by Meyler de Waure, by Alice, widow of Robert Meyler, by Richard fitz Richard, and by Richard fitz William.

But a new fact transpires in these Rolls, viz. that Katerine de Wervelleston stood mediate between these Coparceners and Nicholas de Audley. Who this Lady was, I have not been able to discover.

In the Nomina Villarum of 1316, William Meyler is alone entered as Lord of Wouere. He was probably son of Meyler, last mentioned, but I cannot suppose the other Coparceners to have abandoned the Manor.

PAROCHIALLY, Woore is in Staffordshire, and forms a Chapelry of the great Parish of Mucklestone. The said Chapelry includes five of the Domesday Manors of Shropshire, viz. Woore, Gravenhunger, Onneley, Bearstone, and Dorrington.

The Valor of 1535 does not distinguish this Chapelry from the Mother Church. If the Chapel was existent at that, or any earlier period, its dependence upon Mucklestone was too implicit for its Incumbents to be named in the Diocesan Registers.

[1] Domesday, to. 257, b, 1.
[2] Rot. Hundred. II. 55.



"THE same William (Malbedeng) holds Derintune. Leuuin and Edric held it (in Saxon times) for two Manors, and were free. Here is one hide, geldable. There is (arable) land for III ox-teams. Here is one Radman, with a team and with one Boor. The wood will fatten 100 swine. In King Edward's time the Manor was worth 14s. (per annum). Now it is worth 8s. He (William) found it waste". [1]

It will first be observed that the tenures of Dorrington and Woore were identical both before the Conquest and at Domesday. After this nothing can be more distinct than the histories of the two Manors, and nothing more strange than the destination of Dorrington. It went to Wenlock Priory, by whose gift, or at what period, it were almost vain to conjecture. The loss of every clue to the transfer, perhaps points to a very early date, and perhaps suggests one of the Malbancs themselves as the Giver. The Lords of Willey were in some sort Tenants of the Monks of Wenlock in respect of Willey. They became so, absolutely, at Dorrington.

I will now arrange a few particulars about the Tenants who held Dorrington under De Wililey. One of these Tenants, Roger fitz Adam, was a Cadet of the House of Chetwynd. Now the Chetwynds were Seigneural Lords of Bearstone, near Dorrington, and were also, in some sort, Seigneural Lords of Willey. It was consistent with such an influence, local and personal, that a Cadet of the Chetwynds should obtain ingress at Dorrington.

We have seen this Roger, son of Adam de Chetwynd, obtaining one side of a watercourse or stream which divided Gravenhunger from Dorrington, his object being to erect a Mill. [2] We will now show how he obtained a continuous right on the other, or Dorrington, side of the stream, for the same purpose.-

"Roger, son of Richard de Dorinton, gave to Roger, son of Adam de Chetewind, his part of the Duit which divided Dorinton from Gravenhunger, and leave to erect a Mill, and, upon the Grantor's land, a stank. He also gave his share of Chudelesford-Moor, and right of common to those who should do suit to the Mill. Neither

[1] Domesday, fo. 257, b, 1.
[2] Supra, page 375.


would the Grantor nor his heirs make, or permit others to make, any Mill to the injury of the Grantee's Mill".

"For this the Grantor had half a merk down, and reserved a rent of 5d., and power to grind toll-free at the proposed Mill, as far as his own House was concerned". [1]

By another, and I suppose, cotemporary Deed, "William, son of William de Derinton, gives to the same Roger, son of Adam, for his homage, all his share of the aforesaid Duit, reserving a similar right of grinding toll-free for his own house".

At this point the Scribe who wrote the Lilleshall Chartulary seems to have confused two, if not three, Deeds together. It cannot have been William who, according to the Rubric of the last Deed, charged the Mill of Chudelesford with 30s. per annum, "in support of the Pittance of the Lilleshall Canons in their Refectory": nor can it have been he, who according to a clause (ostensibly in the same Charter), reserves a power of grinding (next after any corn which might be found in the hopper) such corn as might be wanted for consumption (expensacionem) on the three feasts of the Nativity, Easter, and the Assumption. It seems to me as if Roger de Chetwynd must have been the person who charged the Mill with 30s. rent; and as if the last clause must have been some reservation on the part of the Canons of Lilleshall.

About 1220-30, we have a Nicholas de Derinton, probably of this place, attesting an Ashley Deed. [2]

An early Rent-Roll of Lilleshall Abbey gives 30s. as annually receivable from Cudelesford Mill, and 2s. from William de Dorinton. Perhaps this was the William de Derinton, whom the Bradford Hundred-Roll of 1255 enters as Lord of the Vill. It was one hide, geldable, and "of the fee of Nicholas de Wileleg". [3] It paid 4d. motfee and 4d. stretward; and did suit every three weeks to the Hundred. [4]

In February 1270, Richard Cok of Derynton has a Writ of disseizin against Richard de Waure for a tenement in Derynton.

Between the years 1275 and 1284, there was a dispute and a settlement between Lucas, Abbot of Lilleshull, and Adam Coc of Derinton, concerning the malture of Cudelesford Mill. [5]

In Michaelmas Term 1277, William fitz Adam de Derinton, Lord of Derington, was impleaded by Henry fitz Robert of Derinton,

[1] Lilleshall Chartulary, fo. 73.
[2] Supra, Vol. II. p. 15.
[3] He was dead, and his heir in minority (supra, Vol. II. p. 51).
[4] Rot. Hundred. II. p. 55.
[5] Lilleshall Chartulary, fo. 128.


for enclosing 26 acres of common, and for obstructing a footpath there. On the latter charge he was in misericordia, but the Statute of Marlborough justified the enclosure, sufficient common being still left. [1]

In the Feodaries of 1284-5, William de Derynton (probably identical with the above William fitz Adam) is entered as Lord of Derynton. He held it under Richard de Harley (the then representative of De Wililey), who held it under the Prior of Wenlock.

In June 1299, one Henry de Derinton fines to have some trial at law, but possibly he was of another place.

In the Nomina Villarum of 1316, a William de Deorinton again stands as Lord of this Vill.

The later Rent-Rolls of Wenlock and Lilleshall do not allude to any receipts from Dorrington as accruing to either Monastery.

[1] Abbreviatio Placitorum, p. 268.

Return to top of page

URL of this page: http://www.melocki.org.uk/eyton/Vol09.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.