Non omnia grandior setas
Quae fugiannis habet.




1. To precede page 1. MAP OF PART OF SHROPSHIRE (duplicate).
2. To face page 38. WHITTINGTON CASTLE. Rev. J. Brooke, del.
3. To precede page 53. MAP OF PART OF SHROPSHIRE.
4. To precede page 179. MAP OF PART OF SHROPSHIRE.
8. To face page 202. FONT, Lydbury North. Rev. J. Brooke, del.
6. To face page 206. BISHOPS CASTLE CHURCH. Rev. J. Brooke, del.
7. To face page 236. CLUN CHURCH. Rev. J. Brooke, del.
8. To face page 236. FONT, Clun. Rev. J. Brooke, del.
9. To face page 236. DOORWAY, Clun. Rev. J. Brooke, del.
10. To face page 254. HOPESAY CHURCH. Rev. J. Brooke, del.
11. To face page 254. DOORWAY, Hopesay. Rev. J. Brooke, del.
12. To face page 290. MORE CHURCH. Rev. J. Brooke, del.
13. To face page 301. PISCINA, Clungunford. Rev. J. Brooke, del.
14. To face page 320. FONT, BUCKNELL. Rev. J. Brooke, del.
15. To face page 362. WISTANSTOW CHURCH. Rev. J. Brooke, del.
16. To face page 362. FONT, Wistanstow. Rev. J. Brooke, del.


mere (a member of West Felton). From 1255 till about 1265, Sir John fitz Philip appears as a Knight and as a frequent witness of local Deeds. In several instances his attestations are followed by those of Thomas, his brother, and Hugh, his son. The latter, when at length he succeeded his father, was not, as one would have expected, called Hugh fitz John. He took his Grandfather's name and was always called-

HUGH FITZ PHILIP. Under that name he attests a Charter of John fitz Alan (III) between 1268 and 1271, and a Charter of John le Strange (IV) between 1269 and 1275. On February 27, 1305, Thomas de Lee, Hugh fitz Philip, and Stephen, son of Thomas de Felton, were apparently Coparceners in Felton, for they jointly presented to the Church. On July 25, 1310, Hugh fitz Philip of Felton appears as sole Patron of the Living, but his right to present thereto was afterwards contested by Edmund, Earl of Arundel. On May 13, 1314, Hugh le fitz Philip occurs as settling a dispute with the Abbot of Haghmon, which I shall again refer to under Aston. Before the year 1325, Hugh fitz Philip had been succeeded by his son John. On October 25 of that year the latter, as-

JOHN, SON OF HUGH FITZ PHILIP DE HIDESLONDE, mortgaged five seylions in Aston to Haughmond Abbey. On July 2, 1326, "John, son of Hugh fitz Philip of Felton", with assent of Edmund, Earl of Arundel, gave to Haghmon Abbey all his part of the Moor called Werngof, in Hisland, and leave to make a water-mill on the rivulet called Ridgalet, which bounded Aston and Hisland. "Witnesses,- Stephen de Felton, Thomas de Wodeton". On February 7, 1333, "John, son of Hugh de Felton, gave another mortgage in Aston to Haghmon Abbey" On December 1, 1333, "John, son of Hugh, son of Philip, appoints Nicholas de Blakeway, Clerk, and Ralph de Broc, his Attorneys to give seizin to Nicholas, Abbot of Haghmon, of one place of moorland in Haghton juxta Radenhale. [1] Dated at Aston".

I should here say something of Richard de Drayton, William, son of Alan de Drayton, and Philip de Hugford,- three persons who appear at Berrington in 1255 as Coheirs of Hugh le Strange. We should expect to find them or their descendants similarly interested in West Felton. My evidences are insufficient to satisfy such an expectation; but still we have one or two hints in accordance therewith.- For instance-

RICHARD DE DRAYTON attests an Aston Deed about 1258,

[1] Haughton, near Rednall.


a circumstance which connects him with this neighbourhood. We have also seen him, or his son, attesting two Ruyton Deeds, in and about the year 1272.
[1] Richard de Drayton's heir we know was Thomas de Felton, living in 1292; and Thomas de Felton's heir was his son Stephen. [2] Accordingly, Stephen de Felton occurs in 1305 as a Coparcener in the Advowson of West Felton, and in 1324 as a landholder in West Felton and Tedsmere. [3] With regard to-

WILLIAM, SON OF ALAN DE DRAYTON, his heir was his sister Petronilla, wife of John de la Lee. Perhaps it was as Petronilla's guardian that Thomas de la Lee (John's father) occurs as apparently interested in this neighbourhood previous to John's succession. The latter is still more frequently a witness of local Deeds. When Thomas de Lee appears in 1305 as a Coparcener in the Advowson of West Felton, we are at a loss to say who this Thomas was, whether the younger son of John (elsewhere mentioned [4]), or Thomas de Lee of Stanton, whom we know to have obtained more than one estate from his kinsmen, the Lees of Berrington. Either supposition will tally with the idea that Thomas de Lee's interest at West Felton, in 1305, was the equivalent of William de Drayton's supposed interest in 1255.

AS TO PHILIP DE HUGFORD, or his heirs, having had an interest in West Felton, I can prove nothing. It would be absurd to make even a conjecture on the point, for we have no clear information on one essential preliminary;- that is, we do not know positively who Philip de Hugford's heirs were.


Under this member of West Felton I shall make more plausible that which I have only surmised of the Capital Manor, viz. that West Felton, and with it Tedsmere, were held in the 13th century by Strange of Berrington under Strange of Ness, and by Strange of Ness under Fitz Alan. About the year 1205, John le Strange (II), as "John, son of John le Strange, allows for himself and his heirs that the land of Robert Hert of Teddesmere be quit of Guards Doverant for ever. [5] Witnesses,- Roger Sprenghose, John de Chetwind, Hugh le Strange, Henry le Strange, Wido Wallensis, [6] Griffin fitz

[1] Supra, Vol. X. pp. 114, 116.
[2] Supra, Vol. VI. p. 37.
[3] Supra, Vol. X. p. 78.
[4] Supra, Vol. VI. pp. 39-41, 105.
[5] See a similar acquittal under Balderton (supra, Vol. X. pp. 72, 73), and its probable import.
[6] Of Barrington and Bagley;- deceased in 1221 (vide supra, Vol. VI. p. 35; and Vol. X. p. 135).


Jarvord, [1] Philip Grene, Osbert Purcel, and John le Butiler". [2] Within the next 20 years Robert Hert of Tedsmere seems to have been succeeded by William Hert, and William by a son, William. It was, I suppose, the first of these Williams who, as "William, surnamed Hert, of Tedsmere", acknowledges himself bound to the Abbot of Haghmon in 12d. rent arising from a half-virgate, which "Jewan Gries held, of the said William's inheritance". This Deed (attested only by the Vicar of Knokin) was equivalent to giving the Abbot a seigneury over the said half-virgate. Soon afterwards the Abbot obtained a second half-virgate in Tedsmere from Hugh le Strange, who received 2 merks for the same, John and Hamo le Strange attesting the bargain. This second half-virgate was held by William Hert himself at the time of sale. About 1226-7 the Abbot enfeoffed or reinvested the second William Hert with both half-virgates, if I understand rightly the following Deed.- "William, Abbot of Haghmon, gives and confirms to William, son of William Hert, by Mable de Teddesmere, and to his heirs, for their homage and service, one virgate in the vill of Teddesmere, half of which had been previously held by the said William and Mable (the Grantee's father and mother), and half of which the Abbot had afterwards bought from Hugh le Strange, for 2 merks". The present Grantee is to hold the said virgate, in fee, under the Abbot. An annual rent of 20d., a Heriot, and a Relief of 20d. on succession, are reserved by the Abbot, besides scutage. The testing-clause of this Deed runs as follows.- Hiis testibus, Johanne Extraneo [3] fratre ejus Hugone Extraneo, Rogero de Say.

Thus did the Abbot of Haughmond become lord of that part of Tedsmere which was held by the Herts: so that John le Strange (V), when in 1298 he confirmed his Ancestors' gifts and concessions to the Abbey, included totam terram Radulphi Hert, quam tenuit Teddesmere. I presume that Ralph Hert was tenant of the above virgate in 1298, or else at the time of some previous Confirmation by a Strange of Ness. We shall see under Aston that in 1318 a third William Hert was representative of the same family, and was seated at Tedsmere.

I should here notice that a Charter of John le Strange (V), which passed in December 1275, is attested by John Yris (Irish) of

[1] Griffin, son of Gervase Goch, of Sutton, etc., and now John le Strange's tenant at Kynaston.
[2] Of Felton Butler (vide supra, Vol. X. Page 202).
[3] Probably the word Hamone, has been here omitted; for I cannot suppose that William, Abbot of Haghmon, was brother of John le Strange (II), or that Hugh le Strange stood in that relation.


Teddesmere; [1]- doubtless a tenant here. Again, a Deed of the year 1324 mentions Stephen de Felton as having a tenement not only in Felton but in Tedsmere. [2] With the exception of this Stephen (who was a Coparcener in Berrington and Felton), I find no evidence that those Coparceners, who, as heirs of Hugh le Strange, divided Berrington and West Felton, asserted or maintained any interest in Tedsmere; but evidence on a matter of such detail is hardly to be expected in cases where the main features are wellnigh buried in oblivion.


This is the only Church in Merset Hundred which belonged to the diocese of Chester. Like the Church at Ruyton, it was perhaps originally an affiliation of Baschurch. The Taxation of 1291 values the Church of Felton (in the Deanery and Archdeaconry of Salop) at 10 per annum. [3] The situation of Felton, in Oswestry Hundred, seems to have exempted the Parish from the Tax of the Ninth in 1341. The Valor of 1534-5 gives the income of Thomas Grenoo, Rector of Felton, as 21 per annum, less 6s. 8d. for Procurations and 1s. for Synodals. [4]


JOHN DE BIRITON, Acolyte, instituted February 27, 1305. Patrons, Thomas de Lee, Hugh fitz Philip, and Stephen, son of Thomas de Felton. Licenses of non-residence, studendi gratia, are allowed to this Rector on October 18, 1307, and March 5, 1309. He died on May 4, 1310.

THOMAS DE CHEYNNEYE, Acolyte, instituted July 25, 1310, at the presentation of Hugh fitz Philip, of Felton, has similar licenses on January 17 and December 7, 1314. This Rector's right to hold the living was afterwards questioned by Edmund, Earl of Arundel, who, in 1322, affected to consider it vacant, and presented-

RICHARD DE DOUNTON, Clerk, thereto. The Bishop wrote to the Archdeacon of Salop, desiring to inquire concerning the alleged vacancy and the Earl's right. On November 1, 1322, the Archdeacon had sent no reply, and the Bishop cites him to answer for such neglect and contempt. On April 5, 1323, the Bishop announces that the Archdeacon and his Official (Commissaries in the case) had judged Thomas de Cheyne to be wrongfully Incumbent,

[1] Supra, Vol. X. p. 284.
[2] Ibidem, p. 78.
[3] Pope Nich. Taxation, p. 247.
[4] Valor Eccles. III. 185.


had further removed him, and had decided that Richard de Dounton should be admitted. On April 7 following, the Bishop admits the latter, at Earl Edmund's presentation. Nevertheless Thomas de Cheyne would not give way; and we have seen that on July 3, 1335, he was styled Rector of Felton by the Abbot of Haughmond. [1] Thus things continued till September 1340, when Richard de Dounton died, and Thomas de Cheyne was found by the Bishop to be still de facto the Incumbent in possession. On December 13, 1340, the Bishop admits-

STEPHEN DE PULTON, Clerk, to the Benefice, at the presentation of Richard, Earl of Arundel. At the same time, the Bishop appoints a Commission to deal summarily with Thomas de Cheyne. The Archdeacon's Official and Master Richard de Longenorle, Rector of Nesse, are the Commissioners. They are first to cite Cheyne and admonish of his injustice, and then to induct Pulton into corporal possession, using all the Episcopal powers of coercion hereby delegated to them. Stephen de Pulton died July 23, 1349 (probably of the Pestilence), and, on October 17,-

JOHN DE LYNCH, Chaplain, was admitted. Patron, Richard, Earl of Arundel. John de Lynchis died September 29, 1352; and, on November 29 following,-

WILLIAM DE FORD, Chaplain, was admitted. Same Patron. Ford resigned in 1354, when, on February 11,-

WILLIAM DE WALINTON, Chaplain, was admitted. Same Patron. Wolreton was here in 1356.

ROGER DE SONDFORD, Acolyte, was admitted April 30, 1362. Same Patron.

RICHARD DE SONFORDE the name given for the Rector in 7 Ric. II. (1383-4).

JOHN GAMEL, Priest, was admitted 19th November, 1388. Patron, Richard, Earl of Arundel.

SIR JOHN BOSHELE resigned the Living in 1393, when, on June 2,-

ROBERT EGGERLEY, Priest, was admitted on a like presentation.


I presume hat this was, like Tedsmere, a member of West Felton; and that it was the place alluded to in the following remarkable Lawsuit.- At the Assizes of 1203, Hugh le Strange claimed 40 acres in Edeston against Osbert Purcel and Hugh fitz Walter.

[1] Supra, Vol. X. p. 116.


The case was to have been tried by process of Grand Assize; but William fitz Alan came into Court and made the following assertion of privilege. He said that "the disputed land was in his Hundred, which Hundred owed no suit to the County of Salop, neither did the men of that Hundred come before the King's Justices, or the Sheriff, in matters of murder, or arson, nor upon any other summons". He further said that "no Grand Assize ought to be holden concerning a tenement in the said Hundred. Such a thing had never been done". The whole County-Court corroborated this last assertion, and the case went no further. [1]

Osbert Purcel, I may observe, occurs mere than once in matters connected with West Felton or its neighbourhood. He was perhaps related to Richard Purcel, who married one of the daughters and coheirs of Walter le Fleming.


THIS township of Oswestry is described in Domesday as an independent Manor, held by Rainald, the Sheriff.- Isdem Rainaldus tenet de Comite Udetone, et Robertus de eo. Edricus tenuit cum II Bereuuichis. Ibi II hidae. Terra est IIII carucis. In dominio est una caruca, et II Bovarii, et VIII Waleis (Wallenses) cum I caruca. Valet XV solidos. Ibi XI leuuae silvae. [2]

There can be no doubt that Robertus, the Domesday Tenant of Wooten, was identical with Robertus Pincerna, of whom and of whose immediate tenure under Earl Roger, I have said something under Walford. His tenure of Wooten was in another ratio viz. under Rainald. Vicecomes; but, if the general rule (stated under Walford) is to hold good, we must expect to find the Lords of Montgomery (as successors of Robert Pincerna's Escheat) holding Wooton under the Fitz Alans (as successors of Rainald Vicecomes). Such an expectation will be fulfilled to the letter; for we shall see under Aston, that nearly two centuries after Domesday the second John fitz Alan withdrew the services due to the Honour of Montgomery from Wodeton, Aston, etc., and that a Provincial Jury of

[1] Assizes, 5 John, m. 4.
[2] Domesday, fo. 255, a, 1.


1274 complained of the abstraction, and asserted Wodeton to be an appurtenance of that Honour. It is probable that they were mistaken in the specific case of Wodeton, and that the case of Aston was more to their purpose: for though Aston had at one time been held by Robert Pincerna, immediately of the Norman Earl, or of the Crown, Wodeton had never been held otherwise than mediately of the Barony of Oswestry. It may further be observed that in the case of Weston (Rhyn), where Robertus held a hide of land, under Rainald Vicecomes, at Domesday,- that there Robertus Pincerna was probably the person in question, and yet that no claim to a mediate interest in Weston Rhyn was ever set up by the Lords of Montgomery. The case of Weston Rhyn afforded, I imagine, a truer analogy for that of Wooton than the case of Aston.

At the beginning of the 13th century the Manor of Wooton was divided into Great and Little Wudeton. I must refer back to Walford for some particulars about Reginald de Hesding, about the Tenant-interest which he acquired in Great and Little Wudeton, and about his grant of the whole thereof to Haughmond Abbey. [1] I have only to add, of this Reginald, that his payment of 20 merks, acknowledged by the Sheriff of Shropshire in 1212, was probably on account of some stores at Oswestry, which he had sold for the Crown whilst Constable of Oswestry Castle. But Reginald de Hesding's tenement in Wooton was quite exceptional. It is clear that in the 13th century the Mesne-Lords of Wooton were Philip fitz William, John fitz Philip, and Hugh fitz Philip;- each in succession, as I have traced their descent under West Felton. They then were Fitz Alan's immediate tenants at Wooton. Under them the Manor in general, was held by a number of Coparceners, evidently the descendants of that Walter Flandrensis of whom I have discoursed under Walford. Much that I have further to say of these Coparceners shall be given under Aston, for there they held under the same Suzerain as at Wooton.

HAUGHMOND ABBEY FEE. About 1216-18 "Reginald de Hesding gave to the Abbey 4 nokes, that is, all that he had in Great and Little Wooton". [2] In 1258, "Henry, son of William de Wodeton, gave a noke in Great Wodeton, with a messuage, croft, and meadow, and with 3 acres, being the dower of Leuca, wife of Reginald, in the said noke. Witnesses,- Sir Thomas de Lee and Sir William de Leghton, then Constable of Oswestry". On April 2nd, 1258, "William de Leghton, Knight, Constable of Oswestry, certified the

[1] [2] Supra, Vol. X. pp. 292, 293.


said grant in it full Court of Oswestry Hundred. Witnesses,- John called Extraneus, [1] and William Seys, Provosts of Oswestry". About the same time "Henry, son of William de Wodeton, surrendered to the Abbey all he held under it in the vill of Wodeton. Witnesses,- Henry fitz Broun of Wodeton, Richard de Twiforde". About the same time, "Yarard, [2] son of Henry Gerard of Wodeton, gave the Abbey 16 acres in the fields of Great Wodeton. Witnesses,- Sir John fitz Philip, and Thomas, his brother". Also, "John, [2] son of Henry Gerard, gave 13 acres there. Witnesses,- Sir John fitz Philip, and Hugh, his son". Also, "Henry, son of John, son of Henry Gerard, released all right in the said 13 acres", the same witnesses attesting. [3]

On April 23, 1258, "Amilia, daughter of Herbert de Sibeton, quitclaimed to the Abbey all the land which Yarard, son of Henry Gerard, and John, son of John (Query Henry) Gerard, held in Great Wodeton. Witnesses,- John fitz Philip, and Hugh, his son". [3] About the same time, the same "Amilia gave to St. John's Hospital at Oswestry, called Sputt, a croft under the 'House of the Infirm', in the field of Wodeton. Witnesses,- Sir William de Leighton, then Constable of Oswestry, and Roger fitz John". [3] About the same time, "Ithel fitz Griffin, [4] of Great Wodeton, with consent of John, his son and heir, sold a noke and croft to the Abbey, for 9s. Witnesses,- John fitz Philip, Hugh, his son, and Thomas fitz Philip".- Also, "John and Eynon, sons of Wrenou, gave the Abbey 3 acres. Same witnesses".- Also, "Richard, son of Richard, son of Henry de Twyford, gave land to the Abbey in Wodeton. Witness,- Sir John fitz Philip".- Also, "Dayky fitz Loward of Wodeton gave 2 acres there. Witnesses,- Sir John fitz Philip, and Hugh, his son". Also, "Lowarch, son of Eynaun Du of Wodeton, gave one acre. Same witnesses". In April 1305, "Richard, Abbot of Haghmon, demised to David ap David Horseele, a messuage and 8 acres in Great Wodeton, at 2s. rent. Witnesses,- Master Robert de Preston, Roger de Halghton, Hugh fitz Philip". On Oct. 6, 1305, "the same Abbot demised to Gevan Grouch 3 seilions in Wodeton. Dated in Curia de Aston".

[1] He was a Burgess of Oswestry.
[2] These two brothers are called "Joweyn Seys, son of Henry", and "Jareford his brother", in a confirmation by John fitz Alan III (1268-1272).
[3] Haughmond Chartulary, fo. 235.
[4] Ithel fitz Griffin had a brother, Wronou, tenant of a noke in Wodeton, which, as well as Ythel's noke, was confirmed by John fitz Alan (III).


Aston near Oswestry.

THIS Manor stands in Domesday last of those which Robert Pincerna held of the Norman Earl. The Record places it in Bascherch Hundred, but probably by a mere mistake, the Scribe having forgotten to add the proper marginal affix which would have shown it to be in Mersete Hundred. It is described as follows.- Isdem Robertus tenet Estone. Uluric tenuit. Ibi II hidae. Terra est IIII carucis. Ibi XII Walenses habent II carrucas. Valuit III solidos: modo X solidos. [1] Of the Saxon, Uluric, I may observe that he was also owner of Woolston, in Merset Hundred, a circumstance which connects him with the same district as that now under notice.

The Domesday Fief of Robert Pincerna, so far as its members can be identified, was placed, probably by Henry I., under the seigneury of the Lords of Montgomery. A Vassal of the Lords of Montgomery appears to have held Aston and Hisland in Henry ILI.'s reign. This was John fitz Philip, whose ancestors I have endeavoured to trace, and whose successors I have named under West Felton. In West Felton and Berrington he was only a Coparcener, probably in right of a wife or maternal ancestress;- a Coheiress of the family of Le Strange of Berrington. But of Aston and its member, Hisland, and also of Wooton, John fitz Philip was sole Lord. We conclude that he inherited all three from his paternal ancestors.

Between the years 1255 and 1267, John fitz Alan (II), presuming probably on his rights as Lord of Oswestry Hundred, withdrew all the suit and service which was due, or alleged to be due, to the Honour of Montgomery, from Aston, Hisland, and Wooton. In November 1274 the jurors of Chirbury Hundred recorded and complained of this withdrawal. They said that these three vills "pertained to the Honour of Montgomery", but that, owing to John fitz Alan's act, "they were still out of the King's hand, so as to be respondent to the said Honour in no one thing or service", and that thereby "the King suffered an annual loss of 20s". [2] The defence against this presentment probably was, that John fitz Alan (II) asserted John fitz Philip to hold Aston, Hisland, and Wooton,

[1] Domesday, fo. 256, a, 2.
[2] Rot. Hundred. II. 89.


immediately of himself. In the case of Wooton it is easy to discern the justice of such a view; and, in the case of Aston and Hisland, we know that John fitz Alan's act held good, whether just or not.

In March 1272 the Knights'-fees and other services of the Barony of Oswestry were apportioned between the King (as Guardian of young Richard fitz Alan) and Isabel de Mortimer (as widow of John fitz Alan (III)). Part of Isabel's dower was to be the services due on a knight's-fee in Elston (Aston), Woditon (Wooton), Twiford, Hiddelond (Hisland), and Bromhurst, except that 2s., out of 3s. rent accruing from Bromhurst, was to go to the King. It is true that this Knight's-fee is described in the Record as if held under Fitz Alan by six Coparceners. The fact however was that Hugh fitz Philip must have been Fitz Alan's immediate Tenant, and so Mesne-Lord over the said Coparceners. A Memorandum made between the years 1292 and 1325 places this matter of tenure in the clearest light. It enumerates six Coparceners as "holding Aston, Hideslond, Wodeton, and Twyforde, under Hugh fitz Philip, for a knight's-fee"; but it adds that "Hugh fitz Philip holds the same Vills of the Lord Earl of Arundel, likewise for one knight's-fee, and owes suit every three weeks to the Court of Oswestry. Also Aston pays yearly 16s. 8d. for Trethmorky, [1] at four annual periods, and owes suit to Oswestry Mill".

The question of feudal tenure being now settled, I may state that the material interests of John fitz Philip, his ancestors and successors, in the above vills, do not appear to have been very great. A mesne interest seldom involved much more than quit-rents, or occasional wardships. In the large series of Deeds Which I shall have to quote under Aston, We need not therefore be surprised to find that the Mesne-Lords hardly ever appear except as witnesses. But, before I recount these Deeds, I must enter fully on the subject of those Coparceners who held Aston, Hisland, Wooton, and other lands, under John fitz Philip, his ancestors and his successors. These Coparceners were undoubtedly the heirs, or the representatives or assignees of the heirs, of that Walter le Fleming of whom I have

[1] Trethmorky. This seems to me to be a corruption of the Welsh word Trethmerch (from Treth, a tax, and merch, a maiden). The Welsh word, Gwobr Merch (or maiden-fee), probably related to the same, or a similar class of customs: and identical with, or besides these, there was the custom called Amgwobyr or Amobyr (i.e. commutation fee), about which I will not attempt a discussion. Suffice it to remark that, whatever was the original nature of the custom, called Trethmorky in the text, it had been commuted in the Lordship of Oswestry for a fixed annual assessment, chargeable on certain vills or communities, and not on individuals.


spoken so often under Walford and other places. They appear under the following dates, combinations, and circumstances.-

In 1240, "Juliana de Stanwardine and her Coparceners" represent the Coheirship.-

In 1248, "Amelia (Wife of Yarwurth fitz Maddoc), Illaria fitz Walter, Elizabeth fitz Walter, Hugh fitz Hugh, and Hamo le Butiler" are named in a like position. In 1249, "Juliana, daughter of Walter le Fleming; Sibil, wife of Philip de Hugford; Hugh de Patinton; Alora le Fleming; Amilia, wife of Yarford fitz Madok; Elizabeth, Amilia's sister; Hugh fitz Hugh; and Hamo Botyler", are the eight parties concerned in a transaction which bears upon this question. In 1255, William de Leighton, Philip de Hugford, the Abbot of Haghmon, Hugh de Patinton, and John de Esseford, appear in a like predicament. In 1272 "Hamo le Botiler and five others" are said to be tenants of a knight's-fee which we know to have been originally held by Walter le Fleming. In 1292, John le Botyller; Richard de Leighton; Walter, son of Hugh de Woderton; Walter, son of Henry de Woderton; William, son of John de Carricova; Richard Purcel; Eva, relict of Walter de Drayton; and Hugh de Patyton, were accounted responsible for certain dues on a part of Walter le Fleming's former estate. A Plea-Roll of the same date implies that Walter le Fleming had had five daughters, viz. Cecilia, Hillaria, Amicia, Hillaria (sic), and Isolda, whose Grand-children, now living, were (1) John, son of Hamo le Botyller; (2) Sibil, wife of Walter, son of Henry de Wodewarton; (3) Walter fitz Hugh; (4) Richard, son of Richard Purcel; and (5) William de Carrecova. It was further alleged that, besides the daughter or other representative of Cecilia, from whom one of the above five persons derived, Cecilia le Fleming had left three other daughters, viz. Juliana, Sibil, and Matilda;- that the said Juliana was mother of one John, father of one Hugh, father of one Hugh, living in 1292;- that the said Sibil was mother of another Sibil, mother of Amicia, mother of one Evota, living in 1292;- and that the said Matilda was mother of one Hugh, father of another Hugh, living in 1292. These three allegations were not denied by persons interested in denying them, and who must have been aware of the facts. Nevertheless it is clear that the descents thus pointed out were chronologically improbable, and therefore it is possible that the Clerk, who affected to transcribe the process of the Plea, was puzzled by the details, and transcribed them wrongly. Within a few years after this last Record, the Coparceners, or rather Co-tenants, of Aston,


Hisland, Wooton, and Twyford, were the Abbot of Haghmon, Walter de Woderton, Richard de Camera, Richard le Strange, John le Botiler, and Richard Purcell. I have elsewhere endeavoured to construct a genealogical table of the descendants of Walter le Fleming from the above particulars, supposing them to be all accurate. On future pages I shall have to recur to some branches of this very ramified subject.

HAUGHMOND ABBEY FEE. I have shown (under Walford) how, about the year 1217, Haughmond Abbey obtained a good footing in Aston, its neighbourhood, and its appurtenances, viz. "3 nokes in Twiford, 4 nokes in Great and Little Wooton, all Reginald de Hesding's land in Aston, and all his land in Great and Little Hisland". We are now to see in prolix detail [1] how the Abbey improved the said opportunities. The Benefactions which I shall name first, were those of Amilia, daughter of Herbert de Sibeton (already named under Wooton), and of Ankaret ap Madoc, widow of the said Herbert, and mother of the said Amilia. These persons were not, I think, Coheirs of Walter le Fleming, but Tenants of some of those coheirs.-

About 1258, "Amilia, daughter of Herbert de Sibeton, in her liege power, gave the Abbey one acre in Hideslonde. Witnesses,- Sir William de Leythton, then Constable of Oswestry; Sir Ythell, Vicar of the same place; Richard de Drayton; John le Strange, of Oswestry; William le Kynge, of Knokin, and Henry Broun of Wodeton". About the same time "Amilia de Wodeton, daughter of Herbert de Sibbeton, gave to the Abbey a noke, messuage, and croft in Aston, sometime held by Hunyth, daughter of Tuder, lying between the houses of Yewan fitz Wronou and Eynon Voile;- also 5 seilions lying within the croft of the Canons of Haghmon, and liberty to get marl in our common marlpit of Hideslond. Witnesses,- Sir John fitz Philip; Hugh, his son; Richard de Drayton; Thomas fitz Philip, and W. le Kynge". Also "Amilia, daughter of Herbert de Sibeton, in her full power, gave an acre in Aston, near the Canons' Grange, for the purpose of improving their Curia (or local Court-house). Witnesses,- William de Lecheton and others". Again "Amilia, daughter of Herbert de Hideslond, in her liege power, gave and confirmed a noke in Aston which Angaret, her mother, having it in dower, had demised to the Canons for her (Angaret's) life, and which Wyn ap Meredith held;- also a moiety

[1] The Deeds quoted under Aston are from the Haughmond Chartulary, fos. 8-22 & 106-b-111-b.


of a messuage and croft; to the same noke pertaining; also half a noke held by Ythell Wernoh, and a messuage and croft appertaining; also 5 acres of land in the same vill. Witnesses,- Sir John fitz Philip, and Hugh his son". About the same time (1258) "Amilia, daughter of Herbert de Sibeton, gave to St. John the Baptist's Hospital at Oswestry, a noke of land in Aston. Witnesses,- Sir Thomas de la Lee, and Sir William de Leghton, knights". Before the year 1267, the same "Amilia sold certain land and right in Hisland, Aston, Wooton, and Meresbury, to John fitz Alan" (II). Between the years 1268 and 1272, "John fitz Alan (III) gave the said land and right to Haughmond Abbey, and confirmed all other land which the Canons had in the said vills, acquitting them of all secular exactions, and particularly of a rent of one pound of cumin, which Roger de Sybiton used to receive from the said land". Further, the Baron "releases the Canons from a certain service, called Kilh, which the Canons had been accustomed to render to the Satellites of the Grantor, and also of the service called stretwarde, so far as it was due on any lands held in demesne by the Canons, in the aforesaid vills".

About 1265-70, "Angareht, widow of Herbert de Sibeton, in her liege power, conceded, gave, and confirmed to the Canons, 5 acres in Le Sokemonnes Croft in the fields of Wodeton, and one noke in Aston held by Wyn fitz Meredith, with half a messuage and croft appertaining, all which the Canons already had from the Grantress or her daughter, Amilia, in the fee of Aston and Wodeton. For this the Canons gave a quarter of wheat and a quarter of seigle. Witnesses,- Hugh fitz Philip, etc". About the same time "Ankaret fitz Madoc, relict of Herbert de Sibeton, conceded to the Canons a parcel of land in the field of Aston in which the Leper House [1] used sometime to stand, also the lordship over Ythel Wernch's land, which she had in dower, and one third of the land of Crupewalle (Crumpwell), and all claim to any land of her late husband. Witnesses,- Hugh fitz Philip and Hamo le Botiler".

At the Assizes of 1272, Isabel, widow of John fitz Alan (III), affected to consider a certain tenement in Hydeslond to be part of her late husband's demesne. She sued the Abbot of Haghmon for thirds of a messuage, half a carucate, and a Mill there: but the Abbot refused to plead, because Hydeslond was extra corpus Comitatus and in Walescheria, so that the summons served on him was bad. This compelled the Plaintiff to withdraw.

[1] Elsewhere called Domus infirmorum (supra, page 9).


On December 22, 1281, "Amelia, daughter of Herbert de Sibeton, quitclaims to the Canons, all the lands which they held in Hideslonde, Aston, and Wodeton, which were her father's. Witnesses,- Hamo le Botiler, John his son, and John de Wichcote". This Deed is dated at Haghmon.

Another series of Deeds I venture to arrange as follows.-

Before 1258 "Kenewric fitz John, of Aston, gives the Canons an acre in the field of Aston, in exchange for another acre, half of which lay between the lands of Herbert de Hydeslond and of Wyon, and half between the lands of Cadugan and Hythell Dromdoin extending to Crocmor". In the year 1256, "William le Mason and Amilia de Hideslonde his wife, lease to the Abbot, for 13 years, their share of a meadow in Aston. The Abbot pays 30s. down, and, for greater security, the parties enrolled this convention on the Court-Rolls of Sir John fitz Alan. Witness,- William de Lechton, Constable". About 1258 "Thomas Faber, son of John de Aston, gave and quitclaimed, for 20s. paid by the Canons, six acres and a messuage in Aston. Witnesses,- John fitz Philip, Hugh his son". John fitz Alan's Confirmation (between 1268 and 1272) mentions two-thirds of a noke in Aston which Thomas Rufus, Faber, and Daykyn his nephew (nepos) once held".

About 1258, "Henry, son of Richard de Twyforde, gives the Canons half a noke in Aston. Witnesses,- John fitz Philip, Hamo le Botilere, and Thomas de Hideslonde". About the same time, "Philip fitz Ythell of Aston gives 8 acres in Aston and 1 acres in Crofteskathlank, between the lands of Sir John fitz Philip of Hideslonde and of Roger fitz John of Oswestry: he also quitclaims to the Canons the reversion of all lands which may be coming to him on his brother's death. Witnesses,- Sir John fitz Philip, and Hugh his son". John fitz Alan's Confirmation (1268-72) describes this grant as dimidia noka quam Philippus filius Itelli tenuit in Aston. After this, but how long after I cannot say, "the Abbot gives a house in Aston, late Philip fitz Ythell's, to Griffin fitz Keneurike Sau, who had quitclaimed an acre of land and all that place in Aston, whereon the Abbot's house, grange, and other buildings, had been erected". About the same time (1258) Wyon fitz Osbern of Aston gave the Canons one acre in exchange for another acre, near the road going to Pentremeys (Pentre-maes). Witnesses,- Sir John fitz Philip, and Thomas his brother. About the same time "John fitz Philip (the Mesne Lord) gave the Abbot leave to get marl in the common marl-pit of Hideslond. Witnesses,- Sir Richard de


Streton, and Thomas, the Grantor's brother". About the same time, "Kenewric fitz Worthrich sold to the Abbey, for 18s., six acres in Hidesland, and undertook that he and his heirs should continue to do suit to the Abbot's Court (at Aston), et acquietare Le Keys [1] Albi Monasterii, et dare de redditu tres denarios per annum pro uno domo et uno curtilagio quae de Abbate tenemus una cum rationabili testamento de me et heredibus, cum acciderit. Witnesses,- Sir John fitz Philip, Hugh his son, and Thomas his (Sir John's) brother, Henry son of William de Wodeton, and Henry Broun of Wodeton". Also, the same "Kenewric sells to the Abbey, for 5s., two acres in the moor towards Aston". (Same Witnesses.) Also, "John son of Wronou sells 3 seylions in Hidesland for 5s."; and "John fitz Nandrech of Hideslond sells one acre for 40d."; the same witnesses still attesting in each case. Of the above four purchases, John fitz Alan's Confirmation (1268-72) only alludes to "a noke in Hideslond, which Kenwrik fitz Wrotherich once held".

Fifty years afterwards "Gorgonnow de Hideslond quitclaimed to the Canons an acre in Hideslond. Witnesses,- Thomas de Wodeton, Thomas his son, Yevan atte Grene, and Eynon Abbot".- And "Kenewreg, Gorgonnow's daughter, quitclaimed the same. Witnesses,- John fitz Philip, Thomas de Wodeton, William le Saltere, Thomas his brother, and William Dod, then Bailiff of Aston".

Between the years 1258 and 1263 "Heynam, son of Gronow de Hideslond, and Kadugan his brother quitclaim to the Abbey that noke in Hideslond which Kadugan, their Uncle, lost for felony. Witnesses,- Sir Thomas de Rossall, then Seneschal (of Oswestry), Sir John fitz Philip, Adam de Chethemunde, then Constable (of Oswestry), and Richard de Drayton". Between 1261 and 1270, "Ithell Wern of Dendour, having a twenty years' lease (commencing Feb. 2, 1260-1) of half a noke, or 8 acres, in Aston, and of half a messuage and croft, transfers the remainder of his term to the Abbot. Witnesses,- Sir John fitz Philip, and Hugh his son".

John fitz Alan (III), in his Confirmation to Haughmond Abbey (between 1268 and 1272), alludes to many of the above acquisitions. He further mentions among the Abbey lands, a noke in Aston, once held by Eignon fitz Meyron, half a noke, once held by Eignon Andreu, and half a noke, once held by Wronou, Eignon Andrew's

[1] Le Keys.- This was clearly a custom or due, assessable on the vills of the Lordship of Oswestry. It is elsewhere called Kylek (see Vol. X. p. 331), Kilgh, Kilth, Kilketh, Cylch, or Cwlch. I understand it to be a commutation of some ancient service or liability which lay on the Vassals of Fitz Alan. I think it was identical with the custom called Treth Canidion (Vol. X. p. 344), which will recur under Clun.


brother. The main object of his Charter was to enfranchise all these lands, that is, to free them from the liabilities to which they were feudally subject. Among the witnesses of his Charter was Hugh fitz Philip.

At Michaelmas 1278, "Thomas Faber Rubeus, [1] of Oswestry, mortgages six acres in Aston, for 4, to hold to Richard de Camera, for 20 years. Witness,- Roger le Strange, then Seneschal (of Oswestry)". [2] At the same time, "Madoc, son of Jevan, son of Edevan-dret, and Cadugan Crupel, mortgage to the said Richard, thirteen acres in Aston, for 60s., and for a term of 20 years. Witness,- Geoffrey Clerk, then Constable" (of Oswestry). About 1280-90, "Roger Hyde of Aston gives to Haghmon Abbey a messuage in Aston and 2 acres in the field of Wodeton. Witnesses,- Hugh fitz Philip and Hamo le Botyler".

On June 18, 1293, "Richard, Earl of Arundel, being at Castle Isabel, appoints Roger de Haghmon and Richard, Serviens of Aston, his Attorneys, to warrant to Gilbert, Abbot of Haghmon, certain messuages and lands (viz. 54 acres in Great Hideslonde, 4 messuages and 14 acres in Aston juxta Westfelton, and 4 acres in Meresbury) which were disputed by William, son of William, Clerk of Oswestry, and Cecily, his mother". Another Patent of the same Earl, dated at Shrewsbury on May 18, 1294, undertakes the defence of Abbot Gilbert in the premises, "which the Plaintiffs had sometime unjustly claimed against the Abbot in our Court of Oswaldestre"

Richard, Earl of Arundel, expedited two great Charters (one of them dated on January 14, 1298), in which he recited, renewed, and confirmed the Charter of his Father to Haghmon Abbey, With all the franchises and privileges thereby conveyed, in respect of the Abbey's lands at Aston, Hisland, Wooton, and Maesbury.

About this time, "Richard de in Chaumbre (whom we know to have been a Coparcener or a Cotenant in Aston) gives the Abbey an acre called Herder, near the Abbot's Court-house, and near Cynan ap Cynan's land. Witness,- Hugh fitz Philip".

It was perhaps about 1300-1310 that "Jevan ap Garensid mortgaged, for 3s., to his Lords, the Abbot and Canons of Haghmon, an acre in Aston, new Isolda le Salter's land. Witnesses,- Richard de Aston, Thomas Broun of Wodeton, and Yvan, his brother".

A sale of one acre in Aston by Lowarch fitz Meyler, of one acre by Madyn fitz Ythenarde, of one acre by Eynon, son of Eynon

[1] He has occurred before (supra, p. 15) in, or about, the year 1258.
[2] Roger le Strange entered office as Steward of Oswestry on July 17, 1277.


Voil; also an exchange with Eynon Godknave (in which the field towards Bromehurst is mentioned) are among the Charters of Haughmond Abbey, but I can assign no probable date to any of the four documents. On May 13, 1314, Hugh fitz Philip and Richard, Abbot of Haughmond, settle a dispute about the Moors of Hidesland. It was agreed that "all moors and pastures hitherto undivided should remain common, till it should please both parties to bring them into more profitable culture; also that the pastures of Gravelly and Smalemore should be common. Witnesses,- Master Robert de Preston, Griffin de Kyneneston, and William le Saltere of Oswestry". On Oct. 27, 1314, "Yervors Thu and Jevan Hyr severally grant lands in Aston to Richard, Abbot of Haghmon, for a term of 10 years, and in consideration of two sums of 25s. and 26s. 8d. received". In the same year, Jarford Thu accepts a lease under the Abbot of the three acres so granted by himself, for 10 years, at a rent of 18d. On Dec. 8, 1314, "Cadugan ap Eynon and Jevan ap Ythell jointly grant land in Aston to the same Abbot, for a term of 10 years". On Dec. 20, 1314, "Yevan Hyr mortgages to the Abbey 4 acres in Aston, between the lands of Richard de Camera and Thomas le Saltere". On Feb. 1, 1315, "Roger le Swoen borrows 20s. from the Abbot, on the messuage which he had bought from John fitz Richard in Aston". On the same day, "the Abbot leases the said messuage to Roger le Swon for 4 years, at 2s. rent" Some time afterwards we have "Roger le Swon giving a messuage in Aston to Haghmon Abbey. Witness,- John fitz Hugh". On May 11, 1315, "David ap Cadugan of Hideslond obtains 12s. from Abbot Richard, as a mortgage on 3 acres in Hidesland". In the same year, "John, son of Richard de Aston; David and Yevon de Hideslonde, sons of Yarvord The; Eynon Thus; Eynon ap Thewar; David ap Jarforde; Wyon ap Jareford; Eynon Abbot of Aston; and Jevan de la Grene, mortgage to the Abbot their several portions of Caldewalle, Crokmer, and Wernerighis meadows". Also, "Cadogan ap Eynon mortgages his part of Croft Gof". Also, "David ap Eynon of Aston quitclaims some small parcels of land to the Abbot, in presence of Master Robert de Preston". On May 6, 1316, "Jevan ap Ythel, with consent of Heonnith, his mother, mortgages meadow-land in Croft Gof to the Abbey"; also, "Jarford mortgages a messuage, and Cadugan ap Eynon mortgages land to the Abbey". On Oct. 18, 1316, "David ap Kynon of Aston surrenders a messuage to Abbot Richard, in presence of Thomas de Wodeton". On the same day, "Tanguistull, relict of Cadugan ap Eynon ap Gogh,


with Eynon and William, sons and heirs of the said Cadugan, quitclaim to Abbot Richard all their right in a messuage and croft called Croft Goofe, which the said Cadugan had mortgaged". This was done in "the Abbot's full Court at Aston, under seal of Thomas de Wodeton". In 1316-7, "David ap Cadugan of Hideslonde, John, son of Richard de Aston, Thomas de Wotton, William Dod, and Eynon Abbot", occur in like transactions with Richard, Abbot of Haghmon. A Mortgage of Oct. 27, 1317, by Eynon ap Philip, to the Abbey, mentions Bromhurst as a locality in Aston. About this time, "John fitz Richard, surrendering a messuage in Aston to the Abbot, concedes to him, at a rent of 40d., all the land which he had in the field of Weston (Weston Cotton), and a messuage near the Mill, and four seilions in the fields of Hideslonde". On Dec. 14, 1318, "Ankaret, daughter of Eynon ap Gok, in her liege power, quitclaims an acre in Croft Gof to the Abbey. Witness,- William Hert of Teddesmere".

At this time it appears that, besides the suits due from Aston to Oswestry, all the Coparceners of Aston owed suit (per afforcia-mentum) to the Abbot of Haghmon's local Court. On the other hand, the Abbot's lands in Aston were exempted, by John and Richard fitz Alan's Charters, from all "terrene demands, customs, works, tallages, and suits of Court at Oswestry". The said Charters were inspected, recited, and confirmed by Edmund, Earl of Arundel, in a great Charter, dated at Haghmon on Dec. 27, 1318, and attested by Sirs Fulk le Strange, John Peschel, and Thomas de Roshale, knights; and by Richard Hord, Roger le Chenney, John de Lee, and Robert de Preston.

From a Deed of August 10, 1319, it appears that Yewan ap Ythel ap Gofh, tenant of some land in Croft-Gofh, had denied that he held it under Abbot Richard. An Inquest taken in the Court of Oswestry had given the premises to the Abbot, who now re-lets them, for the rent, service, and suit (viz. of Aston Manor-Court) which were due thereon.

On Sept. 9, 1319, "Jarford Thu of Aston mortgages a messuage, for 20s., to the Abbey, in presence of Thomas de Wodentone". On Aug. 10, 1320, "Jarford Duy of Aston sells to the Abbey all his land in Crofte Goof. Witness,- Thomas Broun of Wodeton". In another, but undated, Deed, "Jarford Duy gives the Abbey two messuages in Aston, and all his land of Crofte Gofe, between the two rivulets in Aston fields. Witnesses,- Sir Richard de Camera, Clerk, William le Salter, etc". On August 24, 1321, "John (i.e.


Yewan or Jevan) fitz Ithel Gouch of Aston quitclaims to Abbot Richard 4 acres in Aston-fields, and buildings in Croft Gouch. Witness,- Thomas de Wattone". The same person, under the name of "John fitz Ythel ap Goch, quitclaims to the Abbey a seylion in Aston, outside the Court-House (curiam) of Richard de Camera". This Deed is undated. On Sept. 19, 1321, "Abbot Richard lends 20 on Mortgage to Roger fitz John of Oswestry;- the land mortgaged to be restored on June 24, 1328, if the said money be then repaid". An undated Deed, probably subsequent to the above, has "Roger, son of John de Oswestry, giving and confirming to the Abbey all the land (70 acres) which he held under the Abbey in Hideslond. Witnesses,- Walter de Burhtone, Richard de Dounton, John de Bukkeley, and William le Saltere". On July 1, 1322, "Thomas, son of Henry de Wodeton, quitclaims to Abbot Richard a croft between Aston and Hisland, which he had under a mortgage, and which was held of the inheritance of Roger fitz John of Oswestry. The Abbot paid 6 for this". On June 1, 1323, "Cecilia, widow of Richard de Camera, quitclaims to the Abbey a noke in Aston, held by Ythel ap Griffin Levuhe, Yeoman".

By Charter, dated at Castle Isabel on Nov. 28, 1323, Edmund, Earl of Arundel, confirms the exchange of lands in Hideslond, made between the Abbot of Haghmon and John, son of Hugh de Buckeleye. By another Charter, dated at Castle Isabel on November 18, 1324, "the Earl reiterates the above Confirmation, and extends it to all exchanges in the Seigneury of Blangmostier made by the Abbot of the one part, and Cecilie de la Chaimbre and her son, Richard, on the other part". In a separate, but undated, Deed, these exchanges are stated to be "in the fields of Aston and Meresbury, on Le Bryn Bonhadeloc, in Le Croft Gook and Croft Gethyn, in the waste above Graneky and in Croftgene". Adam le Smith, Yevan ap Ythell ap Goch, John Bercar, and Madoc Duy are named as existent tenants.

On July 29, 1330, Jevan ap Ythell of Aston mortgages one acre in Aston fields to Nicholas, Abbot of Haghmon, for 6 years. Howel ap Madok, an adjoining freeholder, is named in the Deed. On the same day, Jevan ap Philip of Aston, and his brother Eynon, similarly mortgage one acre; while a third Deed, of little import, names Thomas Brown of Wodeton, Thomas, his son, and John de Aston as contemporaries. On Oct. 3, 1330, a negotiation between Abbot Nicholas and Anion ap Jevan, his Bailiff at Aston, is attested by the same three persons. In this year also, we again have mention


of Ankaret, daughter of Eynon ap Gof. She acknowledges the receipt of money, borrowed on mortgage, by hand of William Dod. On May 19, 1331, "Jevan ap Ithel gives to Abbot Nicholas an acre in Aston-fields, towards Wodeton. Witness,- John de Aston". On Feb. 6, 1332, "Thomas le Saltere of Oswestry leases land in Hideslond to the Abbey". On January 8, 1336, "Hova, son of Jarvord Duy of Aston" has some transactions with the Abbey.

On June 7, 1336, "Cecilia, widow of Richard de la Chambre of Oswestry sells to Abbot Nicholas all her right in a messuage and 6 acres, which Thomas Faber Rubeus of Oswestry formerly (that is in 1278, if a former Deed be correctly dated) mortgaged to Richard de Camera, her husband, and all her right in 13 acres at Hideslonde, which Madoc fitz Jevan fitz Edevan and Cadugan Crupell similarly mortgaged. Witness,- John Loit of Oswestry". On the next day (June 8) the same "Cecilia sells to the Abbot all her goods and chattels on the same land". On May 11, 1337, "Roger Morgan of Oswestry gives to Abbot Nicholas 3 acres in Meresbury. Witnesses,- John Thloit of Oswestry, Richard de Hauston, John de Aston, William de Smethcott and Walter Cressett" On Sept. 28, 1337, "Jevan ap Ythel ap Gof mortgages a messuage in Aston to Abbot Nicholas". On Feb. 2, 1340, "the same quitclaims to the same 2 acres called Caldewalmede. Witness,- Thomas de Wotton". On May 12, 1340, "the same quitclaims to the same all lands and tenements which he held at the said date. Witnesses,- John de Bocheley, Richard de Haston, John Thloit of Oswestry, John de Aston, and Thomas de Wotton". On Sept. 29, 1340, "Thomas, son of Thomas Brown of Wodeton, gives Abbot Nicholas an acre in Aston, in exchange for an acre in Great Wodeton". On Nov. 1, 1340, "Madoc ap Philip of Aston and Anian, his brother, mortgage for 6 years a messuage to Abbot Nicholas. Witnesses,- Eynon Gam, and Madoc ap Grene, then Provosts (of Oswestry)". On Dec. 4, 1340, the Abbot demises the said messuage to the Mortgagors at a rent of 3s. 4d.

I now pass to the Valor of 1534-5, in which 50s., assized rents, are stated to be the annual income of Haughmond Abbey from Aston Abbots juxta Oswestree. [1]

[1] Valor Eccles. III. 192.



Domesday describes one of the Manors of Mersete Hundred as follows.- Iwardus tenet de Comite Newetone. Turgot tenuit. Ibi dimidia hida, geldabilis. Terra est II carucis. Ibi II Villani et II Bordarii habent dimidiam carucam. Valuit VII solidos; modo (valet) V solidos. [1]

This place is now lost. Of Turgot, the Saxon, we know nothing more than that such a person held, in the Confessor's reign, a small estate on the eastern frontier of Shropshire. The Iward of Domesday occurs nowhere but at Newetone. The circumstances of that Manor, as detailed in Domesday, would incline one to suppose that it lay on the eastern side of Mersete Hundred. We have seen that a place called Newton, in the Diocese of St. Asaph, was in 1291 associated with Caldecot, and that Caldecot was near Knockyn, and that both Caldecot and Newton were then possessed by Haughmond Abbey. [2] This is the only mention of any place which I can suppose to tally with the Newetone of Domesday; but how Haughmond Abbey became possessed of such a Newton, the Chartulary of that House does not inform us, and what became of it after 1291 I can neither learn from the Chartulary nor any other Record. [3]


THIS place is now a mere township of Ruyton-of-the-eleven-Towns. Domesday treats it as an important Manor, held by Odo of the Norman Earl. Isdem Odo tenet Wiche. Eduinus Comes

[1] Domesday, fo. 259, b, 2.
[2] Supra, Vol X. page 376.
[3] There are two places called Calcott and Newtown, one near Llandysilio, the other near Criggion. Both lie south of the Vyrnwy, and may have been the localities in which Haughmond Abbey was interested. But, even at this rate, we fail to identify the Domesday Newetone, for Mersete Hundred does not appear to have involved a single locality south of the River Vyrnwy.


tenuit. Ibi VII hidae cum III Berewichis. Terra est X carucis, et geldabilis. In dominio sunt III carucae; et VI Bovarii et IV Bordarii cum una caruca. Ibi Piscaria, nil reddens, et Silva in qua est una haia. Wasta fuit. Modo valet XV solidos. [1]

The Fishery attached to Wykey was probably in the River Perry. Two out of its three Berewicks were perhaps Shelvock and Shotatton. Nothing in the later history of the place corresponds with its Saxon dignity, as a Manor of the Mercian Earl. Odo, its Domesday owner, was Lord also of Hordeley and Ruyton. Hordeley went to Shrewsbury Abbey; Ruyton and Wykey to augment the Fief of Fitz Alan. At this point the history of Wykey, as regards tenure, becomes identical with that of Ruyton; that is, both places went to constitute the great Fief with which the first William fitz Alan invested the first John le Strange; and, when John le Strange (V) sold Ruyton "with all its homages and fees" to Edmund, Earl of Arundel, Wykey was doubtless a part of the surrender, being then accounted a member of Ruyton. This was at the very beginning of the 14th century. Before the end of that century Wykey and Shelvock had been again detached from Ruyton and given by some Earl of Arundel to a Feoffee. Hence the Feodary of 1397-8 gives Shelfake and Wyke as an estate held by John Yonge, by service of a fourth part of a knight's-fee, and of the Honour of Richard, late Earl of Arundel. [2]

SHELVOCK. This is the only one of the presumed Berewicks of Wykey concerning which I have found any particulars. Those particulars have already transpired under Balderton, [3] except that Philip de Shelvock (an Undertenant here) occurs as a witness about 1270-6.


Ernucion tenet de Comite Chenardelei. Dunning et Algar tenuerunt pro II Maneriis. Ibi I hida, geldabilis. Terra est duabus carucis. Ibi unus Waleis reddit unum accipitrem de firma, et ibi est silvae diniidia leuua.
[4] On this passage of Domesday I can only

[1] Domesday, fo. 257, b, 2.
[2] Calend. Inquis. Vol. III. p. 223.
[3] Supra, Vol. X. p. 72.
[4] Domesday, fo. 259, a, 2.


observe that Dunning and Algar, Saxon owners of Kinnerley, were probably identical with Dunniht and Algar, Saxon owners of Hordeley. As to Earl Roger's tenant, Ernucion, nothing more of him or his interests is heard after Domesday. I suppose that Kinnerley devolved, as an Escheat, to the hands of Henry II., and that it was one of the estates which he conferred on Gervase Goch, his Latimarius, or Interpreter, in negotiations with North Wales.

The homage of Madoc ap Griffin ap Gervase, otherwise known as Madoc de Sutton, was accepted by Henry III. on January 24, 1221. [1] Nothing is known of this Madoc's history which will account for a Writ of July 6, 1223, whereby the King, then at Worcester, orders the Sheriff of Shropshire "to give Baldwin de Hodnet immediate and full seizin of the Castle of Kinardeslegh, with its appurtenances, and to restore whatever may have been taken therefrom since the said Castle was seized into the King's hand". [2] A contemporary Writ orders a similar restoration of Whittington Castle to Fulk fitz Warin. Now we happen to know that, in or about the end of February, 1223, Whittington Castle had been besieged by Lewellyn. I conclude that the two Castles of Whittington and Kinnerley had since been taken into the King's hand, either from distrust of their owners, or to secure them most effectually against Lewellyn. These arrangements were probably ordered by the King during a hurried visit which he made to Shrewsbury on March 7, 8, 9 of the said year. In June following, Henry was negotiating with Lewellyn, and arranging a friendly conference with him, to take place at Worcester between the 3rd and 17th of July. The King was at Worcester from July 5th to July 16, and during that interval he expedited the above Writ about Kinardeslegh Castle. On the same day (July 6) he issued other Writs, prohibiting his subjects from all trade or intercourse with Lewellyn or his supporters;- so that it is evident that the Welsh Prince had declined the proposed conference. Within the next two months Lewellyn took Kinardesle Castle by storm, and proceeded to lay siege to Reginald de Braose's Castle of Builth. The news of this last outrage had reached Henry at Westminster on September 8, when he issued summonses for the instant muster of the Army of England in the "parts of Gloucester". The King himself left Westminster on the 14th, and, travelling by way of Windsor, Hereford, Leominster, and Shrewsbury, reached Montgomery on the 30th. Meantime Llewellyn had been excommunicated as a truce-breaker, and this, rather

[1] Supra, Vol. II. p. 114.
[2] Rot. Claus. Vol. I. pp. 554, 565.


than any warlike successes of King Henry, brought him to speedy terms. On October 7, 1223, the King being still at Montgomery, Lewellyn was absolved. He swore that, on any day and at any competent place, to be fixed by the Archbishop of Canterbury, "he would satisfy the King for all damages done by the Welsh to the English, from the day of the capture of Kinardesley Castle to the day when he himself had absolution". This will serve to explain a Writ-Close, dated at Montgomery on October 9, 1223. The King orders the Sheriff to give Baldwin de Hodnet "full seizin of his land of Kinardesley, with its appurtenances, and to support him in his seizin thereof, and to restore whatever may have been taken therefrom since the said land was in the King's hand". [1] The terms of this second Writ vary intelligibly from those of the first, but still I am unable to show Baldwin de Hodnet's right to Kinnerley or any other place in Shropshire of a similar name. A third Writ, dated March 18, 1225 (when Baldwin de Hodnet was dead) is much to our present purpose. It enjoins the Sheriff of Shropshire that, so far as Madoc fitz Griffin is concerned, the said Sheriff is not to carry out a general order "to constrain all persons to take knighthood who held one knight's-fee or more in his Bailiwick". The reason of this exception is given, viz. "because the King was assured that" the land of Kinardesley, being the caput of such lands as Madoc fitz Griffin held by military service, was in the hands of Lewellyn. [2] I cannot explain Llewellyn's reoccupation of Kinnerley at this period. His engagement of October 7, 1223, had been postponed through no tergiversation of his. He was still negotiating a meeting with the King, and that meeting now stood fixed for April 27, 1225, at Shrewsbury. Another rupture in the Autumn of 1225 was followed by a reconciliation in August 1226. This lasted two years. We have seen that in the Autumn of 1228 Madoc ap Griffin had been arrested and imprisoned by Lewellyn; [3]- probably on the ground of his English office and tendencies. I have shown under Condover what was the relation of the Courts of England and North Wales at this very juncture. [4] Lewellyn was in open rebellion, and had laid siege to Montgomery Castle. Such was the prelude to the not undecisive campaign of Keri.

We may now quit these general details; for the subsequent history of Kinnerley assumes that distinctness which makes it especially valuable to the searcher after local and provincial details.

[1] Claus. Vol. I. pp. 554, 565.
[2] Claus. Vol. II. p. 24.
[3] Supra, Vol. II. page 116.
[4] Supra, Vol. VI. page 13.


The following story, excluding the parenthetical remarks, is taken from an Inquest of undoubted authority and clearness.- "A certain Madoc, Lord of the Manor of Kenardesle, enfeoffed his son, Thomas, therewith, and the said Thomas was in good seizin thereof". (The date of Madoc de Sutton's feoffment of his son Thomas will have been between 1235 and 1245.) "And when the power of Wales in those parts grew so strong" (alluding, I think, to the events of 1244-5) "that Thomas, because of his want of weight and power, could not peaceably hold the Manor, he adverted to the circumstance that James de Audley was a man of much greater resources: so he agreed to marry James de Audley's niece, and to accept a Feoffment at the hands of the said James, viz. the Staffordshire Manors of Apedal and Cestreton, and 50s. rent in Wich Malbanc: and, in return and exchange for this, the said Thomas, with consent of his Father, Madoc, enfeoffed James de Audley in Kenardesle". "James de Audley" (he succeeded his father, Henry, in November 1246) "held Kinardesle peaceably for eleven years, [1] till he crossed the seas with Richard, King of Almagne, and went to Almagne". [2] (This was on April 29, 1257.) "James de Audley (previous to his departure) having great confidence in Madoc, son of Griffin (Lord of Bromfield and Powis Vadog), who had married his Sister, entrusted Kinardesle to the said Madoc's custody. Madoc only kept it a month after Audley's transfretation, for he was ejected by the violence of the Welsh". [3] "On Audley's return from Almagne" (this was before August 1258) he assembled his power, and ejected the Welsh occupants of Kenardesle, and held the Manor, and erected a few buildings thereon, and committed it to the custody of his Bailiffs. The Welsh returned, burnt these buildings, and retained the Manor till, on the breaking out of war between England and Wales (this was in 1264), Hamo le Strange once more ejected these intruders. From Hamo le Strange (who, it will be remembered, left England in 1270, and perished in the Crusade) Kenardesle got into possession of Roger le Strange" [4] (Hamo's brother).

[1] Jacobus optinuit per quinque et sex annos quiete.
[2] The fact of Audley's transfretation is proved by another document (Rymer's Faedera, I. 355).
[3] In consequence of Lewellyn's uneasiness, and the Border disturbances here alluded to, King Henry, on July 18, 1257, summoned the Army of England to muster, one part at Chester, and one part on the frontier of South Wales.
[4] Sic, per talem adquisicionem et tale factum Hamonis, Rogerus Extraneus habuit ingressum, et non per feoffamentum Madoci.- The precise nature of the conveyance from Hamo le Strange to Roger le Strange is not stated. The case of Ellesmere probably supplies the analogy.


So far the Inquest, which I have been quoting. It appears that Roger le Strange's title to Kinnerley was more precarious than the Inquest states. Bogo de Knovill, as Sheriff of Shropshire, had again the business of ejecting Lewellyn from the Manor. This was probably in 1276; for from January 10, 1277, till January 28, 1278, Bogo de Knovill farmed Kinnerley as an Escheat of King Edward I. His account of the proceeds states particularly that "by reason of the war with Wales he had superseded Lewellyn in the possession of Kinardeley". [1] Meanwhile, that is, on November 13, 1277, King Edward, then at Rhuddlan, had ordered an Inquest to be taken by lawful men of Shropshire and Walcheria on the following points, viz. "what seizin Roger le Strange had had in the Manor of Kynardesley, and what seizin James de Audley had had, and by whom the latter was ejected, and who had the better right thereto, and whether the King himself had any right"? The Inquest which the King ordered to be taken at Oswestry on November 28, 1277, sat at Shrewsbury on December 22nd. Its discoveries I have already detailed. The Jurors added to their story that Roger le Strange had not had any ingress through Madoc (de Sutton), former Lord of the Manor; that Thomas fitz Madoc's feoffment of James de Audley was not conditional but absolute; that the Manor was held in capite, but that the King had no right of retaining it in demesne; finally, that the right of William de Audley was better than that of Roger le Strange, because of the feoffment of Thomas ap Madoc, made to James de Audley, William's father, and because of Madoc's Confirmation of such feoffment. [2]

On January 28, 1278, Bogo de Knovill gave up Kinnerley to "William, son and heir of James de Audley, who held it in capite for one knight's-fee".

On the death of William de Audley, in 1282, the Inquest states him to have held Kynardeley of the heir of Madoc de Sutton, in exchange for Apedale, Staffordshire. The Manor was out of the County, that is, in Walcheria, and was worth 7. 2s. 10d. per annum. [3]

Again, on Nicholas de Audley's death, in 1299, the Manor of Kinardesleg was valued among his estates. On Thomas de Audley's death, in 1308, the Inquest states him to have held the Manor of Kenardeley, with its member, Egardesley (Edgerley), of the heir of

[1] Compotus ejusdem (Bogonis) de Manerio de Kinardel' quod Bogo seisivit super Leulinum occasione guerre (Mag. Rot. Pip. 5 Edw. I., Salop.) [2] Inquisitions, 5 Edw. I., No. 29.
[3] Inquis. 11 Edw. I., No. 34.


Madoc de Sutton, without any service. The value of the Manor was 18. 5s. Among the Tenants were Geoffrey Randolf and Griffin de Kynnaston. The latter held a messuage and 11 acres at a rent of 8s. [1] He has also occurred to us above, as attesting a local Deed in 1314. [2]

It would seem that eventually the Fitz Alans added this Manor to their other possessions, engrossing nearly the whole of Oswestry Hundred, as regarded the Seigneury at least. The Feodary of 1397-8 gives the Manor of Kynardeslie, and the advowson of the demesne tithes thereof, among the possessions of Richard, the late attainted and executed Earl of Arundel.


We have already had some particulars of Kinnerley Church, viz. that it was the Mother-Church of a district, and that its Rector, at the close of the 12th century, established a relative supremacy over the newly founded Church or Chapel of Knockyn. We have further seen that before the year 1248 the Advowson of Kinnerley had been granted to, and appropriated by, the Order of the Knights Hospitallers of St. John of Jerusalem. The Grantor was undoubtedly Griffin Goch, or his son Madoc de Sutton, for the Father presented the last Rector of Kinnerley, and the son survived the period when the Hospitallers were Impropriators of the Rectory.

The Taxation of 1291 places the Church of Kynardyllef in the Deanery of Marchia and Diocese of St. Asaph. It was appropriated by the Hospitallers, but its annual value is not stated, because the property of that Order was exempt from the ordinary Papal decimation. [3]

In the year 1292 a cause relative to the Advowson of this Church was tried at Salop Assizes. [4] James (it should be Nicholas) de Audley is represented as impleading the Prior of the Hospitallers under a Writ of Quare impedit, viz. that the said Prior should allow the Plaintiff to present a fit Parson to the Church of Kynardelegh, then vacant. The Plaintiff's case was that one Griffin fitz Yarvord (i.e. Griffin de Sutton), who held the Manor and Advowson in Henry III.'s time, had presented Madoc ap David, his Clerk, to the Church, that ever since the said Madoc's death the Church had been vacant, that the presentation now belonged to the Plaintiff as Lord of the Manor, and that the Prior hindered him from

[1] Inquisitions, 1 Edw. II., No. 63.
[2] Supra, page 18.
[3] Pope Nich. Taxation, p. 285.
[4] Assizes 20 Edw. I., m 4.


presenting, thereby damaging him to the extent of 20. The Hospitallers' defence is not given, but it is notified that the parties had agreed. The result left the Advowson with the Hospitallers. We have seen that in 1338 it was theirs, and that its impropriate value was 8 per annum. [1] We have also seen that at the close of the same century there was an exception as to the demesne tithes of Kinnerley, the presentation to which was still in the Lord of the Manor. [1] The case is a curious one.

In the Valor of 1534-5 the Vicarage of Kenerley is stated to be worth 7. 6s. 8d. per annum. [2] The Rectory, appropriated by the Commandery of Halston, was worth 20 in respect of the average tithes of corn and hay. [3]


We have now arrived at a Manor whose real history is most interesting to the Antiquary, while its Legendary history is very curious, inasmuch as it contains so many unmistakeable, though distorted, allusions to actual facts.

Domesday, the great basis of all local investigation, speaks of the Manor as follows.-

Ipse Comes tenet Wititone cum VII Bereuuichis et dimidia. Rex Edwardus tenuit. Ibi XVIII hidae, geldabiles. Terra est XXV carucis. In dominio sunt VI carucae, et XV Villani, et VI Bordarii cum XII carucis. Ibi XII Bovarii et aliqui Walenses reddunt XX solidos; et molendinum ibi de V solidos. Silvae una leuuede. [4] Tempore Regis Edwardi fuit wasta. Modo reddit XV libr' et XV solidos. Tempore Regis Adelredi, patris Edwardi Regis, reddebant haec tria Maneria (scilicet Cireberie, Meresberie et Wititone) dimidiam firmam noctis. [5]

Here we have a comparative statement of the several values of a Border Manor at three different periods. That which in the time of Ethelred the Unready (978-1016) yielded about a four-thousandth part of the annual expenses of the English Court, had

[1] Supra, Vol. X. p. 381; Vol. XI. p. 28.
[2] Valor Ecclesiasticus, Vol. IV. p. 456.
[3] Valor Ecclesiasticus, Vol. IV. p. 456.
[4] Leuuede and Leuua are synonymous. Vide supra, Vol. IV. p. 142, note 3.
[5] Domesday, fo. 253, b, 1.


become utterly profitless during Edward the Confessor's contests with Wales. Earl Roger de Montgomery, whether by controlling or conciliating his Cambrian neighbours, had brought the Manor back to the high rental, or annual value, of about 17s. per hide.

The 7 Berewicks of Whittington have numerically an extraordinary correspondence with the townships now composing the Parish. These are, Welsh Frankton, Berghill, Daywell, Fernhill, Hindford, Ebnall, and half Old Marton. Carrying this comparison still farther, we find that every hide of Whittington is represented by about 400 modern acres.

It is probable that Whittington, on the forfeiture of Earl Robert de Belesme, devolved to the hands of Henry I. as a Manor of Palatine demesne. It is also probable that that King gave it to the elder William Peverel of Dover. It is quite certain that the said William Peverel was Lord of Whittington in Henry I.'s time, and that, being childless himself, he looked upon his brother Hamo and his nephew William as his prospective heirs. Again, proof has been given under Ellesmere, that William Peverel, the Nephew, did actually succeed to Whittington, nay, that it was one of the Castles which he fortified against Stephen in 1138. [1]

King Henry II. does not seem to have allowed the Sisters and Coheirs of the younger William Peverel to establish any claim upon Whittington. In the first instance the King resumed the Castle as one of Royal demesne: [2] in the next instance he gave it to that-

GEOFFREY DE VERE who, about Michaelmas 1164, married Isabel de Say, Baroness of Clun, and who, about three months after, was appointed Sheriff of Shropshire. How long Geoffrey de Vere was Lord of Whittington we know not, for we cannot tell the exact date of his investiture. However, in the summer of 1165, the King resumed Whittington Castle into his own hand, assigning Geoffrey de Vere 12 librates of laud at Edgmond in lieu thereof. [3] This arrangement continued till Geoffrey de Vere's death in 1170.

There can be no doubt that the King's resumption of Whittington Castle in 1165 was in order that he might confer it on Roger de

[1] Supra, Vol X. page 233.
[2] This is proved by the following payments, made by the Sheriff of Shropshire in a series of years, at the King's order.

In 1160,- Et servientibus de Witinton. 8. 6s. 8d. In 1161,- Et in liberacione 10 servientium de Witinton 8. 13s. 4d. In 1162,- Et 10 servientibus de Witenton 8. 13s. 4d. In 1163,- Et liberacione 10 servientium de Witenton 8. 13s. 4d. In 1164,- 90. 9s. 10d. was the general cost of the King's services, and liveries of his Servientes, as paid by the Sheriff.
[3] Vide supra, Vol. IX. p. 115.


Powis. Some Genealogists have accounted for Roger de Powis's claim upon Whittington by supposing that he was brother (on the father's side) to William, Hamo, and Pagan Peverel. [1] The story and alleged relationship are altogether incredible, and the circumstances with which it is combined are demonstrably false. In short we do not know, and are never likely to know, who the father of the three Peverel brothers really was. On the other hand the Welsh Genealogists assert Roger de Powis to have been son of Wrenoc, son of Tudor, son of Rys Sais, and make Tudor to have been Domesday Lord of Maelor Saesneg, now in Flintshire. This story is so entirely consistent with chronological tests, and with certain circumstances which probably were unknown to the Welsh Genealogists, that I cannot hesitate to accept it as the truth. The political career of-

ROGER DE POWIS is far better known than his genealogical antecedents. He was one of those Welshmen, whom Henry II. thought it worth while to attach to the English cause by all manner of favour and patronage. At Michaelmas 1157 the King appointed him Censor of Dean Forest and of the Hayes of Herefordshire, trusts for which he was to pay 10 and 3 per annum to the Exchequer. The King excused him his first years' rent. He continued Censor of the Forest of Dean at least five years longer, and left the post owing 50, or five years' arrears of his rent. This again the King excused in 1182.

In 1159 the Sheriff of Shropshire paid, by the King's order, 7 to Roger de Powis, for putting some Castle or Castles in a state of defence. Similarly in 1160 he had 12 as Custos of Overton Castle (in Flintshire), and 4. 3s. 4d. as Custos of the Castle of Dernio, which I take to be Edeyrneon, in Merionethshire.

In 1161 some payment of uncertain amount (**. 8s. 8d.) was made to Roger de Powis: while (his brother) Jonas de Powis had 100s. for the cost of some item, obliterated on the Roll. In 1162 Roger de Powis had one merk from the Sheriff pro salt, as the Record describes it; and Jonas de Powis had 40s. In 1164 a Livery of 4. 12s. was paid to Jonas de Powis, while Roger had 2 merks for fortifying a Tower in Shrewsbury Castle. In 1165 Jonas de Powis had a present of 20s. and Roger of one merk. In 1167, the Earl of Leicester ordered 60s. to be paid to Roger de Powis "for his Destrier" (which he had probably lost in the King's service). In 1168, 4 more went to Roger de Powis, under a Royal order:

[1] See Archaeologia Cambrensis (N.S. XII. 285).


it was to redeem a Destrier. In 1169 the King ordered 60s. to be paid to Roger de Powis; and 4 to him and his brother Jonas, jointly. It was to restock their lands;- which had probably been ravaged by their own countrymen, indignant at their Anglicizing tendencies. In 1170 the Sheriff of Worcestershire pays 5 merks to Roger de Powis, by Royal order. He also had bought 40 measures of corn for 59s., and 30 measures for 44s. 10d., and delivered them to Roger and Jonas respectively, under a like order. Also the Sheriff of Herefordshire had delivered 40 measures of siegle (value 40s.) to Gervase Coch and Roger de Powis, and 15 measures of siegle (value 15s.) to Jonas de Powis.

In 1172 (as we have seen already), Roger and Jonas de Powis were endowed with considerable charges on the Royal Manor of Wrockwardine; charges which were continued with more or less regularity till the death of Mereduc, son of Roger de Powis, about July 1187. But it was perhaps as early as 1171, that Roger de Powis had livery of Whittington; for in that year he had no other emolument from the Crown, and an entry on the Pipe-Roll of 1173 would seem to represent him as having a Castle of his own. The said entry runs as follows. Et decem Archariis, qui fuerunt in Castello Rogeri de Powis, 11s. 8d. de liberacione 18 dierum, per breve Regis. Et Rogero de Powis 102s. ad faciendam liberacionem servientium Regis de Daggenoc, per breve Ricardi de Luci. So then Roger de Powis had not only been assisted by the Crown in defence of his own Castle (probably Whittington), but, under direction of the Justiciar, De Luci, had superintended the defence of a Royal Castle, called Daggenoc. In 1187, not only was Roger de Powis dead, but about July in that year, his son-

MEREDUCH FITZ ROGER, died also, and apparently left no issue. His heir was his brother, viz.-

MEURICH, son of ROGER DE POWIS, who occurs in the following instances.- The Scutage of Galway, at the rate of 20s. on every knight's-fee, was assessed in 1187, the very year of Mereduch fitz Roger's death. In 1189 the Pipe-Roll of Cambridgeshire and Huntingdonshire debits Richard, son of Warner Engaine, with an arrear of 5s. in respect of the said scutage. He did not pay it, but he remonstrated that "half of the Fee on which it was charged, was held, under Royal sanction, by Meurich, son of Roger de Powis, and that the said Meurich was the person responsible". [1] Now there is

[1] Ricardus filius Warneri Engaine debet V.s. Sed calumpniatur quod Meurich filius Rogeri de Powis habet medietatem feodi per Regem, et inde debet respondere.


no question but that the fee, or half-fee, on which Engaine thus declined to pay more than a moiety, was Whittington. How he became liable at all, I shall explain hereafter.

In 1194 Meurich de Powis and his followers accompanied King Richard into Normandy. The entry on the Shropshire Pipe-Roll shows how the Sheriff was commissioned to provide for the journey of this contingent of the Army to the place of rendezvous.- Et Meurich filio Rogeri et VI servientibus cum duobus equis et LX servientibus peditibus, 108 solidos, pro liberacionibus suis de octo diebus ad eundum in servitio Regis in Normanniam, per breve Regis. In 1195, we have seen under Wrockwardine, not only that Meurich fitz Roger was, like his father had been, a participant in the revenues of that Manor, but had returned from Normandy, and was in King Richard's Welsh service. The fact is that he and his Cousin, Wian, son of Jonas de Powis, had been deputed to take custody of the Castle of Denbigh by King Richard. Hence the following payments by the Sheriff of Shropshire in the year ending Michaelmas 1196.- Et Meurico de Powis, qui custodit Castrum de Dinebech, 20.s. ad vestes. Et Wiano filio Jone qui custodit idem Castrum 20.s. ad vestes. Et Meurico de Powis 2 marcas; et predicto Wiano 2 marcas, ad sustentandos se in custodia predicti Castri. Et predicto Meurico 40.s., de dono Regis, in solutione equorum quos amisit in predicto Castro et ad acquietanda vadia sua.

In 1199 the Justiciar, Geoffrey fitz Piers, had authorized the Sheriff of Shropshire to pay Meurich de Powis a sum of 40s. ad arma sua acquietanda, that is, I suppose, to redeem his arms from some usurer or enemy. On Meurich de Powis's death (about May 1200), we have seen that the interests of his family in Wrockwardine ceased. But previous to his death, that is about April 1200, "Meuric de Powis of Wittinton fined 50 merks with King John to have the King's Confirmation of Wittinton and Overton, which Henry II. did confirm to Roger, his Father". King John accepted this Fine, and Meuric, at summons of Geoffrey fitz Piers, was to pay 17 merks on May 14, 17 merks on Sept. 29, 1200, and 16 merks at Easter (March 25) 1201. [1] This Fine was doubtless suggested by a claim, urged five years before by Fulk fitz Warin (II), and now renewed by Fulk fitz Warin (III). They had claimed Whittington Castle, and apparently a judicial decision in favour of, and a Fine proffered by, the elder Fulk, [2] had been followed by no restitution. However, Meurich de Powis's Fine, though

[1] Oblata, page 58.
[2] Supra, Vol. VII. p. 70.


no instalment thereof was ever paid, procured King John's conditional Charter, dated at Worcester, on April 11, 1200. The substance of the said Charter is as follows.- Johannes, Dei gratia, etc. Sciatis nos concessisse et presenti carta confirmasse Meurico filio Rogeri de Peuwis pro servicio suo, ipsi et heredibus suis, Wititonam et Overtonam, cum omnibus pertinenciis suis, ad tenendum de nobis et heredibus nostris per servicium quod Rogerus, pater prefati Meurici, et Jonas, frater ejusdem Rogeri, facere solebant Henrico Regi, patri nostro, de ferendis mandatis nostris per Walliam; et ea condicione quod si aliquis terras predictas calumpniatus fuerit et eas versus nos diracionaverit, satisfaciemus inde per escambium donandum illi Meurico vel heredibus suis, vel ei qui versus nos terras illas diracionaverit. Quare volumus et precipimus, etc., quod ipse Meuricus, et heredes sui post eum, terras illas habeant, etc., de nobis et heredibus nostris per prenominatum servicium, libere et quiete, etc., in castellis et domibus, in bosco et plano, etc., sicut Rex Henricus, pater noster, eas dedit predictis Rogero et Jone fratri suo, sicut carta ejusdem Henrici Regis rationabiliter testatur, etc. [1]

WRENNOC, SON OF MEURIC DE POWIS, succeeded his Father about May 1200, and before the 1st of August "proffered a Fine of 80 merks and two Coursers to King John, for possession of the vills and Castles of Hitinton and Overton; the said Fine being inclusive of one of 60 (read 50) merks, proffered by his father". [2] This second Fine secured King John's Charter, dated August 1, 1200, and which is nearly a transcript of the former Charter, except that here the grant is to "Werennoc and Wennoneo, sons of Meurich de Powis, and their heirs", and except that here the King not only confirms Henry II.'s Charter to Roger and Jonas, but his own previous Charter to "Meurich, father of Wrennoc and Wenneon". [3]

In the year ending Michaelmas 1201 King John gave a gratuity of 100s. to Werennoch fitz Meurich and his mother Wennour. [4] In the Pipe-Roll of 1202 both Meurich's Fine, and that of Wrenoc, are entered as debts. In 1203 the former is discontinued, and the latter entered, notwithstanding that a recent and much larger Fine had been proffered. It was one of 100 and 4 Palfreys, payable within the year by Wrenoch fitz Meurich "for having Whitenton with its appurtenances, whereof he had Henry II.'s Charter and John's Confirmation, and whereof his father had died seized". His Surety for this Fine was William de Braose. It was never paid;

[1] Rot. Chartarum, 1 John, p. 2, m. 16.
[2] Rot. Canc. 3 John, page 126.
[3] Rot. Chartarum, p. 74.
[4] Rot. Canc. 3 John, page 122.


for in the following year King John was brought to recognize the better claim, which the third Fulk fitz Warin, and his Father before him, had urged in respect of Whittington. We have seen that in 1205 a nominal equivalent for his loss was provided for Wrenoch de Powis, in the Royal Manor of Worfield. [1] The King was bound by his own Charters to furnish such an equivalent, and Wrenoch remained seized of his Worfield estate for 19 years.

Before I enter on the question of Fitz Warin's title to Whittington I must turn back to the reign of Henry I. and the aera of William Peverel (I) of Dover, to show how the Engains obtained a footing in the Manor. This was under a feoffment made by the said William Peverel to Engain's maternal ancestor, and fortunately the substance of the document itself has been preserved. [2]- Willielmus Peverel de Dovera, Hamundo P. fratri suo, et Willielmo P. nepoti suo et omnibus fidelibus suis hominibus, Francigenis et Angligenis, necnon amicis, tam futuris quam presentibus, salutem. Sciatis me donasse Thurstano dapifero meo et heredibus suis Geddingam [3] et Laiwellam, [4] pro servicio suo, de me et de heredibus meis tenendas, in feodo et hereditate, in soca et in saco, in tol et tem et infangenthuf, in nemoribus et planis, in vills et vico et campis et pratis, in aquis et omnibus aliis locis per servicia dimidii equitis. Teste, Waltero de la Haia, et Waltero de Faiarcis, [5] et Hugone de Girundo, et Pagano de Surma, [6] Arnulfo Sacerdote de Chetelestan, [7] Waltero filio Tyolf, [8] Roberto Capellano, Rogero filio Wimundi, Roberto filio Walteri, Reginaldo Lagud.

The above Charter may be certainly dated in 1121-2, according to the internal evidence of King Henry I.'s contemporary sanction thereof. [9]- Henricus Rex Anglie Roberto Lincoln' Episcopo, et Roberto Coventrensi Episcopo, et Ricardo Episcopo London, et Gisleberto Vicecomiti, [10] et omnibus Baronibus suis et fidelibus de Huntedonesir' et de Saloppesir' salutem. Sciatis me concessisse Thurstano dapifero Willielmi Peverel de Dovero, terras de Goding et Dixwell (sic) quas Willielmus Peverel, dominus suus, ei dedit. Et volo, etc., quod bene, etc. Testibus, Willielmo filio Odonis, et Gaufrido filio Pagani, apud Brugias.

[1] Supra, Vol. III. p. 106.
[2] Enrolled on the Plea-Roll of Michaelmas Term, 1225, and also among the Chartae Antiqua (p. 36).
[3] Gidding, in Huntingdonshire. There are three places of the name.
[4] Read Daiwellam, i.e. Daywell near Whittington.
[5] Waltero de Marisco (in one copy).
[6] Pagano de Suenna (in one copy).
[7] Ketelstan (in one copy). It was in Huntingdonshire.
[8] Traull (in one copy).
[9] Vide supra, Vol. I. p. 246.
[10] Sheriff of Huntingdonshire (Compare Monasticon, VI. p. 87, Num. III)


Thurstan the Steward, Feoffee of Gedding and Daywell, left a daughter, and heir, Matilda, who married Warner Engaine. Hence the following Confirmation of Henry II., which must be dated within five years after his accession to the throne.- Henricus Rex Anglie, Dux Normannie et Aquitanie et Comes Andegavie R. (Roberto) Linc' Episcopo et W. (Waltero) Coventr' Episcopo, et R. (Ricardo) London' Episcopo, et Justiciariis, etc., de Huntingdon' et Salop' salutem. Sciatis me concessisse Warnero Engainne et Matilde uxori sue terras quas Willielmus Peverel dedit Thurstano patri predicte Matilde; et volo quod ipsi et heredes eorum eas habeant, etc., sicut Thurstanus tenuit, et sicut Carta Henrici avi testator. Testibus, Manessero Biset dapifero, et Warino filio Geroldi apud Norhamt'.

It is, I think, to Warner Engain's feoffment at Gedding and Daywell that allusion is made in the Huntingdonshire Feodary of 1165, where Warner Enganie is said to be answerable for half a fee (of the Honour of Brunne). [1] Warner Engaine was succeeded by his son Richard, that Richard who was in 1187 put in charge to the scutage of Galway, for half a knight's-fee, held in capite. The debt would be 10s. He seems to have paid 5s., and to have alleged the liability of Meurich de Powis to pay the other 5s., as having half the fee on which the charge was made. I cannot quite explain this, unless it was that Whittington, Daywell, and Gidding were altogether assessable to scutages as half a fee, and that so Richard Engain was only liable for a quarter fee in Daywell and Gidding, and Meurich de Powis for the other quarter. Richard Engain's objection was at all events recognized at the Exchequer. Under Cambridgeshire and Huntingdonshire, he was charged half a merk (the rate being 2 merks) to the Scutage of 1199. To that of 1201 (the rate being 2 merks) he was yet charged one merk "on a quarter fee". He paid only half the impost. At the same time, as Tenant of a quarter fee in Huntingdonshire, and of a quarter fee in Northamptonshire, he compounded for transfretation, by payments of 10 merks and 1 merk. The former sum was remitted. The Northamptonshire tenure is expressed to be "of the Honour of Dover".

I am not concerned to say whether "William, son of Warner Engain, Richard's successor, was his brother, nephew, or grandson. A Patent of September 20, 1216, gives safe conduct to William de Gedding and William Engain whilst travelling to their own parts

[1] Hearne's Liber Niger, I. 257.


"to procure their redemption". The precise meaning of this it is difficult to declare. Perhaps they had to raise money to meet some amercement for rebellion against King John. Again, it was "Sir William, son of Warner Engaine", who appears to have procured the enrolment of the three Charters, above quoted, in 1225. In 1223, the Scutage of Montgomery had been put in charge (at the rate of 2 merks per fee). His quota thereof, viz. half a merk, had been charged against William Engaine in Cambridgeshire, but, being unpaid in 1229, it is charged upon the Vill of Witenton in the Shropshire Pipe-Roll. In 1236 I find mention of another Warner Engain, I think William's successor. A Huntingdonshire Feodary, drawn up about 1242, says that Warner Engayne holds a quarter of a fee, in capite, at Geddinge. [1] Warner again was deceased in 1253, and was succeeded by James, his brother and heir, but I find nothing further to connect the family with Whittington and Daywell. Probably they made over their interest there to Fitz Warin.

I now come to the main and most interesting question, viz. What constituted the original, and ultimately established, right of the Fitz Warins to Whittington Castle? I think that the case of Engain's feoffment gives a clue to the mystery, and that one of the Fitz Warins was enfeoffed by one of the Peverels in the greater part of the Manor. Of this we have no direct proof. The utter falsity of the Fitz Warin Chronicle renders its evidence almost worthless, even though that evidence so far corroborates my idea, in that it makes the Peverels the original Lords of Whittington, and traces it to a Fitz Warin, by gift of a Peverel. As to a Fitz Warin's marriage with a Peverel Coheiress, that is a mere fable, though possibly the two families were related.

I have given in former Volumes all the evidences I can collect as to Fitz Warin's connection with, or Vassalage under, the house of Pevere1. [2] The second William Peverel certainly enfeoffed the first Fulk fitz Warin at Tadlow in Cambridgeshire. My fixed belief is that the same thing happened with respect to Whittington. Henry II. confirmed the feoffment in the case of Tadlow. It is obvious why his Confirmation should be silent in the supposed case of Whittington. He had views of his own with respect to that Manor.

We have seen that in 1176 the second Fulk fitz Warin was heavily amerced for forest-trespass by King Henry II. [3] These amercements

[1] Testa de Nevill, page 354.
[2] Supra, Volume II. pages 4, 5; and Volume VII. pages 67, 68.
[3] Supra, Volume VII. page 69.


were probably levelled against persons whose disaffection during the late rebellion had developed itself in some overt and lawless act. Perhaps also Fitz Warin's disaffection was caused by the non-recognition of the claim which he afterwards asserted to Whittington. He seems to have got a judicial decision in his favour; but he died while his efforts to make that decision effectual, were still pending. [1] Fulk fitz Warin (III) was more successful. His proceedings I have already recounted. [2] From the fears, rather than the justice, of King John he obtained livery of Whittington Castle and estate, on October 17, 1204, and obtained it as his right and inheritance. A Shropshire Feodary of 1211 says accordingly, that "Fulco fitz Warin holds of the King in capite by service of one knight's-fee, and that his land is (yearly) worth 10". [3] A Writ of October 28, 1212, shows King John recognizing a lesser right of Fulk fitz Warin, whose men of Witenton had taken some prisoner. Robert de Vipont, who had somehow got hold of the said prisoner, is ordered to give him up to Fulk's custody, unless he were a knight. In any event, if the prisoner was redeemed, Fulk was to have the money paid for his redemption. [4] From April 1215 to November 1217, Fulk fitz Warin was again in rebellion. The particulars, as well as others relating to Whittington Castle and its history till 1223, have been given on former pages. [5] The upshot is that Fulk fitz Warin was distrusted by the English King and besieged by the Welsh Prince.

The fourth Fulk fitz Warin fell at Lewes on May 14, 1264. Four days after the Battle of Evesham, that is on August 8, 1265, the King gave the custody of his lands and heirs to Hamo le Strange. In Michaelmas Term 1266 we have Constance, Widow of Fulk fitz Warin (IV), suing the Tenant of the Berkshire Manor of Stanton for dower. The Tenant called the infant Fulk to warranty. Personally he was then in custody of Robert le Strange (Hamo's brother), while his land was in custody of William de Walceia. The Court ordered a summons to issue for the appearance of Robert le Strange. I may here observe that when Robert and Hamo le Strange were stated in 1272 to have this custody, and to be making no appearance to a suit of Thomas Corbet, [6] the real reason was that both brothers had gone on the Crusade.

Fulk fitz Warin (V), arriving at full age about 1273, comes

[1] Supra, Vol. VII. pp. 70, 71.
[2] Supra, Vol VII. page 72.
[3] Testa de Nevill, p. 55-b.
[4] Rot. Claus. I. 126.
[5] Supra, Vol. VII. pp. 74, 75.
[6] Supra, Vol. VII. p. 83.


[For engraving, see pdf.]


[For pedigree, see pdf.]


frequently on the scene in the reign of Edward I. His summonses, military and parliamentary, it would be vain to recount. In 1277 he is not described as a knight, though he then acknowledged the service of one knight's-fee for the muster against Lewellyn. He was prepared to discharge the obligation by two Servientes, himself and another. On March 26, 1283, he obtained King Edward's Charter of Free Warren for his demesnes at Witinton juxta Oswestre. The Charter was dated at Aberconway in Snaudon. [1]

The following feud between Richard, Earl of Arundel, and Fulk fitz Warin (V) involves many points of interest.- As Fulk alleged, the Earl had, on Feb. 14, 1293, entered the Plaintiff's lands at Whytington with horses and arms and banners displayed, had spoiled the inhabitants of their goods, slain some of Fulk's men, and committed other enormities. Oxen, kine, and foals, worth 300 in all, had been carried off by the Earl. Fulk had complained to the King, who, declaring that he could not overlook the matter, summoned the Earl to appear before him in a month of Easter. The Earl came, but objected to plead in the King's Court, stating that "he was a Baron of Walescheria, where there was an approved custom that the Barons of those parts, whenever a quarrel of this kind arose, should meet in a certain place, and that there such quarrel should be adjusted by the friends of both parties". [2] The Earl further stated that he and his ancestors, from time immemorial, had observed this rule, and he asked judgment, whether the case ought to be tried according to English law, and contrary to Walescherian custom. The Court told the Earl to make further answer if he thought it expedient so to do. He availed himself of the hint;- denied the force, injury, homicide, etc.;- declared that he was in Sussex at the time alleged, and for long before and after;- and finally appealed to a Jury. Fitz Warin, in reply, renewed his charge. So the Court ordered that the Sheriff of Shropshire should empanel 24 knights and others, to appear before the King in three weeks of Trinity Sunday, and make recognition in the matter. [3]

In the year 1300, Fulk fitz Warin was returned as a holder of lands or rents of the early value of 40 and upwards, both in Gloucestershire and Yorkshire. On Feb. 12, 1301, as Fulco filius Warini, Dominus de Whitington, he joined in the famous Barons' Letter to Pope Boniface VIII. The summonses, military and

[1] Rot. Chartarum, 11 Edw. I., No. 39.
[2] Compare Vol. VII. page 80.
[3] Placita coram Rege, Pasch. Tm. 21 Edw. I, m. 26.


parliamentary, to Fulk fitz Warin continued in the early years of Edward II.'s reign. One of January 8, 1313, and most of the subsequent ones (which continued to be issued four years after his death) entitle him Senior. He was deceased on January 5, 1315. His wife was a daughter of Griffin ap Gwenwynwyn, Prince of Powis, and her name was Mable, unkss he married a second wife of the latter name.

Fulk fitz Warin (VI) is called Junior in a Writ of June 18, 1310, which summoned him for military service against the Scots. He continued to be so described in a summons of July 28, 1317. However, on January 5, 1315, the King had allowed special livery of Whittington to Eleanor, his wife, because (his father being dead) he was himself in foreign parts. He was an adherent of the Earl of Lancaster, and in a pardon dated Oct. 22, 1318, he is styled Miles. During the remainder of Edward II.'s reign he appears to have been in constant employment as a Peer and a Soldier; and frequent levies of recruits were ordered to be raised from his Lordship of Whittington.

After this period the history of the Barony of Fitz Warin becomes a matter of notoriety rather than research. At all events I have followed it to the extent of my ordinary limits. The elder male line became extinct in 1420 by the death of a Fulk fitz Warin, an infant. This infant was the eleventh in a lineal succession which had uniformly borne the same Christian name. [1]

KNIGHTS HOSPITALLERS' FEE IN WHITTINGTON. This arose between the years 1165 and 1187.- "Roger de Powis gave to the Hospitallers certain lands in his fee of Witinton". He gave them de dominio proprie mense sue, that is out of the demesnes which furnished forth his own sustenance. [2] The lands given were "Kineshull (now Kinsall), Ewinthir (probably Evenall), Biket and Burlee; viz. Kineshull, from the ford of Whittington-Mill to the ford of Rus;- Ewinthir, from Kineshull to the foss of Berkelai;- Biket and Burlee, from the foss of Whittington-meadow to the wood of Babingis (now Babies Wood)". Also Roger de Powis gave, for the use of the same Brethren, freedom of his wood, like as for the swine of his own demesne.

King John's general Confirmation to the Hospitallers (dated at Rouen, on August 30, 1199) recites and sanctions the above grant. [3] This gift of territory would seem afterwards to have been commuted

[1] Dugdale, and other writers on the Peerage, have reduced the number to nine.
[2] Compare Vol. VIII. p. 155.
[3] Rot. Chartarum, page 16.


for a gift of tithes; for we have seen that in 1338 the Hospitallers had only the tithes of Kinsall and Evenall, and the great tithes of Whittington-demesne; whilst they were bound to furnish a Chaplain for the Chapel of Whittington Castle. However the Valor of 1534-5 gives the Hospitallers of Halston, not only certain tithes in Whittington Parish but a revenue of 13 from demesne-lands in the Lordship of Whittington. Of course these apparent discrepancies might be explained by Charters and Agreements, of which we may imagine the tenour, but cannot certify even the existence.


There is nothing in the Domesday notice of Whittington to indicate the pre-existence of a Church. Nevertheless, if Whittington Church had been founded later than Domesday, we should probably have heard of it as an affiliation of Oswestry in the first instance. About the year 1218 David Vewan, Parson of Witinton, attests two Deeds of Reyner, Bishop of St. Asaph. [1] The Taxation of 1291, placing the Church of Chwytunton in the Deanery of Marchia and Diocese of St. Asaph, values it at 12 per annum. [2]

John, Priest of Witinton, occurs in the 13th century, but I cannot fix more proximately the date of a Deed which he attests. [3]

On Nov. 2, 1349, a vacancy in this Church, probably caused by the Great Pestilence, was filled up by King Edward III., as Custos of the heir of Fulk fitz Warin. Roger de Acton, Clerk, was the King's Presentee. [4]

An Inquest of the year 1420 mentions the Advowsons of Whittington and Selattyn as appurtenances of Whittington Castle. [5]

The Valor of 1534-5 gives the Rectory of Whityngton as worth 26. 13s. 4d. per annum, less 6s. rent, payable to the Lord Fitz Warren; 10s. for the Bishop's Lactualia, 10s. for Procurations, and 3s. 4d. for the annual average of the procurations payable at the Bishop's Visitation.

[1] Supra, Vol. X. pages 349, 350.
[2] Pope Nich. Taxation, p. 285-a.
[3] Supra, Vol. X. page 344.
[4] Patent. 23 Edw. III., pars 3, m. 21.
[5] Inquis. 8 Hen. V., No. 106.
[6] Valor Ecclesiasticus, IV. 448.



THIS Manor, whose real name was probably Wolfhere's-ford, must have stood on some river or stream. Domesday says little about it.- Rogerius Comes tenet Wlferesforde. Rex Edwardus tenuit. Ibi II hidae. Terra est VI carucis. Wasta fuit et est. Ibi parva silva. [1]

The materials for identifying this Manor with any modern locality are too scanty. They hardly furnish the basis of an analogy. I might have conjectured that a place called Wolf's Head was a corruption of Wolfhere's-forde, but that place is in the township of Kinton, and in the Parish of Great Ness, and so in a district which does not represent any part of Mersete Hundred. I rather take the name Wolfheresforde to have become entirely extinct, and the Manor to have been absorbed in one of those other Manors of Oswestry Hundred, of whose topographical history the very outlines vanish in distance or obscurity.

Burtone, Boginton, or Porkington.

Domesday describes a Manor of Mersete Hundred in the following terms.- Madoc tenet de Comite (Rogerio) Haustune et Burtone. Seuuardus tenuit (tempore Regis Edwardi). Ibi II hidae, geldabiles. Terra est IIII carucis. Wasta est. [2]

The locality, here called Haustune, no longer bears any such name. Burtone, on the other hand, is undoubtedly identical with the Broginton of the twelfth, and the Porkington of the twelfth and nineteenth centuries, however difficult it may be to trace any etymological affinity between the first syllables of the three names.

Madoc, the Domesday Lord of Porkington, is said to have been a younger son of Blethyn ap Convyn, Prince of North Wales. That Blethyn had a son, Madoc, is quite clear, [3] and there is nothing inconsistent in supposing that this scion of a Royal House might have

[1] [2] Domesday, fo. 259, b. 2.
[3] Powel (Ed. 1811), page 88.


accepted a feoffment at the hands of the Norman Earl of Shrewsbury. Madoc ap Blethyn was killed at the Battle of Lhechryd in 1087;- the year after Domesday. [1] Leaving no issue, Porkington is plausibly said to have reverted to his elder brother, Meredith ap Blethyn, the reigning Prince of all Powis. Meredith died in 1133, and Porkington will have passed to his eldest son, Madoc, who, on the partition of Powis-land by Meredyth, had been destined to that portion of the kingdom which was afterwards known as Powis Vadoc. Again, on Madoc ap Meredyth's decease, in 1160, Powis Vadoc was subdivided among his three sons. One of these sons, viz. Owen, was illegitimate. Nevertheless he took Dynmael and Edeyrneon in the partition of Powis Vadoc. He also accepted the English fee of Porkington, and so was called, by the Welsh, Owen Brogynton, and by the English, Owen de Porkington.

Owen, if analogies are to guide us, must have held Porkington immediately under King Henry II., as having the Palatine Earldom of Shropshire by escheat. At this point English Records come to bear upon traditions and presumptions with extraordinary weight. In the very year of Madoc ap Meredyth's death, his son Owen was taken into the King's pay. Before Michaelmas 1161, the Sheriff of Shropshire, by the King's order, had paid to Oen de Porchinton the handsome livery of 30. 10s. 6d., equal to at least 1,500 a year of modern currency. In like manner Oen de Porchinton received 27. 7s. 6d. in 1162, 27. 7s. 6d. in 1163, 5. l3s. 4d. in 1165, and 56 in 1166. When therefore the Welsh Chronicle (describing the Welsh league against King Henry and the events of the summer of 1165) says that "the sonnes of Madoc ap Meredyth with the power of Powys" were against the King, [2] it would almost seem that Owen de Porkington was on the same side with his half-brothers, and that this may have been the reason of the total or partial suspension of his salary in 1164-5. However, the accuracy of the Welsh Chronicle is, in this instance, doubtful. [3]

The next payment to Owen de Porchinton, after that of 1166, was in 1169.- Et Oeno de Porchinton 40 sol. per breve Regis. [4] After this, we hear no more of any such payments to Owen de Porkington. The death of Owen Gwyneth in 1169, and King Henry's subsequent alliance with Prince David ap Owen rendered such bribes or retaining fees unnecessary. Owen de Porkington was succeeded, at what time I cannot say, by his son, Blethyn. Blethyn ap Owen is

[1] Powel (Edition 1811), p. 88.
[2] Powel's Chronicle (ut supra), p. 162.
[3] Vide supra, Vol. X. p. 323, note 4.
[4] Rot. Pipe, 15 Hen. II., Salop.


enrolled as a member of that triumphant band which Lewellyn ap Jorwerth managed to unite against King John in the summer of 1215. The allies marched upon Shrewsbury, and carried the town by storm. In the following year this league was dissolved, and the Welsh Princes were busy quarrelling among themselves. Early in 1218, young King Henry and his brother-in-law, Lewellyn, came to a convention or treaty, the particulars of which I cannot discover. However the result was that several Welsh Nobles, who were partially Vassals of the English Crown, recognized at once their fealty to King Henry. Among them was Blethyn fitz Oeyn de Porkintun. Henry does not seem to have apprehended that the homage done to himself would compromise these Nobles with their native Prince. He writes to Lewellyn, telling him what had occurred, and ordering him to allow them to have their rights and franchises, and to restore whatever the Prince or any other Welshmen might have taken from them. The King further appeals to the recent convention, and bids Lewellyn to send to Court those other Welshmen who had not yet acknowledged their English fealty, that they might discharge that duty. [1] I hear nothing more of Bleddyn ap Owen's connection with the English. It appears that he was Lord of Dynmael, north-west of Corwyn; where he was succeeded by Owen ap Bleddyn; who was in turn succeeded by Griffith ap Owen. The latter was living in 1285, and afterwards accepted Henry, Earl of Lincoln, as his Suzerain for Dynmael. Griffith again had two sons;- Howel, his successor, stated to have sat on a Bala Inquest in 1374; and Llewelyn surnamed Offeiriad (or the Priest). [2] The latter was a famous Genealogist, and an original MS. of his is stated to be still in existence.

SELATTYN CHURCH. Manorially, Selattyn was a member of Porkington, but the Church, happening to be at Selattyn, gave that place the parochial pre-eminence.

The Taxation of 1291 values the Church of Sulatwn (in the Deanery of Marchia, and Diocese of St. Asaph) at 6. 13s. 4d. per annum. [4] In 1420 the Advowsons of both Whittington and Sulatton were ascertained by Inquest to be appurtenances of Whittington Castle, and so part of the estate of the last Fulk fitz Warin, then recently deceased. [5] This looks as if Whittington Church had been originally the Mother-Church of the district, and as if the

[1] Claus. I. 363-b.
[2] These particulars I owe to Mr. Joseph Morris of Shrewsbury.
[3] Viz. at Jesus College, Oxford.
[4] Pope Nich. Taxation, p. 285.
[5] Inquis. 8 Hen. V., No. 106.


Fitz Warins, as Patrons of Whittington, had retained the Advowson of the affiliated Church, though they had nothing to do with the Manor.

In the Valor of 1534-5, Salatin Rectory stands as worth 13. 6s. 8d. yearly; less 10s. for the Bishop's Lactualia; and 2s. 2d. for the annual proportion of the Bishop's triennial Visitation-fees; and 5s. for annual Procurations. The net value was therefore 12. 9s. 6d.

Cynllaeth and Edeyrneon.

UNDER the Fief of Rainaldus Vicecomes, nay, under the very Hundred of Mersete, the Shropshire Domesday notices a large territory in the following terms.-

Isdem Rainaldus habet in Walis duos Fines; [2] Chenlei et Derniou. De uno habet LX solidos de firma: de alio octo vaccas a Walensibus. [3]

I have more than once adverted to a passage of Ordericus which seems to claim for Warin, the first Sheriff of Shropshire, an extraordinary ability in dealing with his Welsh neighbours. The above extract from Domesday is circumstantial evidence to the same effect. Rainald, Warin's successor, is actually in receipt of an annual rent of 3 from the Welsh Lord or Lords of Cynllaeth; a district which, with Mochnant is Rhaiadr, was afterwards reputed to form one of the three Commots of Cantref Rhaiadr, and which, at a still later period, and under another arrangement, falls into the County of Denbigh. As to Cynllaeth itself, it abutted immediately on the south-western frontier of the Walcheria of Oswestry.

Though I am not very clear as to what may have been the contents of the district called Cynllaeth, I have no evidence that any part thereof, lying to the west of the present boundary of Shropshire, was retained by Rainald's successors, the Fitz Alans: but, if Cynllaeth included Bryn, G1an-y-rafon, Cefn-y-Blodwel, and Llan-y-Blodwel, then I have already given evidence of a decisive character that those places did remain with Fitz Alan, and were annexed to the Walcheria of Oswestry. With Cynllaeth, or that part of it,

[1] Valor Eccles. IV. 448.
[2] The Word Finis may be rendered by the Welsh word Cwmwd, or Commot.
[3] Domesday, fo. 255, a, 1.


which Welsh writers associate with the Commot of Mochnant is Rhaiadr, I have no further concern. I may briefly state that on the partition of Powis-land it fell to the Principality of Powis Vadog, and was never, that I know of, reputed to be held under any English subject.

OF EDEYRNEON, or DERNIOU, I have quite another story to tell. In 1086 its Welsh Tenants paid a rent in kind for this district, viz. 8 kine yearly to the Sheriff Rainald: and yet the most eastern point of Edeyrneon must be calculated to have been 12 miles distant from the most western point of the Walcheria of Oswestry.

William fitz Alan (I) is known to have had a Castle at Ruthin; a thing which we cannot account for, or combine with any evidence later or earlier. But it is probable that the same Baron had a Castle in Edeyrneon: and this is a thing in remarkable conformity with the antecedent given in Domesday. In 1160, the year of Fitz Alan's death, and when his son was a mere child, Wido le Strange, as Custos of his estates, provided out of those revenues for the garrison of Ruthin Castle. The same Wido, in his capacity of Sheriff of Shropshire, looked also to the maintenance of the Castle of Dernio or Derniant. He fortified a Tower therein, charging the expense (6. 4s.) to the King. The King also, through the same Sheriff, paid 4. 3s. 4d. to Roger de Powis for custody of the Castle of Dernio. The same or similar expenses may be hidden in the Pipe-Rolls of succeeding years, under the form of a payment to some Welsh Chieftain, but the Castle of Dernio is not again specifically mentioned. It may have been the possession of this fortress in 1165, which tempted Henry II. to invade North Wales by the line of the River Dee. The Fabian policy of Owen Gwyneth defeated the enterprise. The King exhaled his wrath on the stormy heights of the Berwyn, and probably in the vicinity of that very Castle of Edeyrneon, of whose history we know thus little, and whose site I cannot pretend more nearly to identify.

Edeyrneon, as a district, included the Country about Corwen. It was one of the three Commots which formed the Cantref of Barwn, and which, under the more modern arrangement of Welsh Counties, would tally with the north-eastern portion of Merionethshire. On the partition of Powis-land, by Meredyth ap Blethyn, Edeyrneon is stated by Welsh Writers to have gone to the share of his eldest son, Madoc, and so to have formed part of the Principality of Powis Vadoc. Again, when Madoc subdivided his dominions, Edeyrneon went to his illegitimate son, Owen Brogynton.


The latter, though he was a Vassal of England in respect of Porkington, is nowhere, that I have seen, stated to have acknowledged such a Seigneury in respect of Edeyrneon.


Maelor Saesneg.

THERE is another Welsh Commot on which something should be said in this place. The following passage of Domesday comes immediately after the notice of Whittington. Tuder quidam Walensis tenet de Comite (Rogerio) unum Finem terrae Walensis et inde reddit IV libras et V solidos. [1]

I have already spoken of Rys Sais, a Welsh Noble, who was living at the time of the Norman Conquest. He was called Sais, or Saxon, either because he understood the Saxon language, or had served in England, or (still more probably) because of his English predilections. He is said to have divided his possessions among his sons in 1070. His sons are again authentically mentioned under the date of 1079, when they slew Urgeney ap Sitsylht, a Welsh noble. Tudor, the eldest son of Rys Sais, is believed to be the person mentioned in the above quotation from Domesday. The estate or commot which he had consented to hold under Earl Roger, was probably part of

[1] Domesday, fo. 253, b, 1.- There is also a remarkable passage in the Cheshire Domesday, which undoubtedly relates to the Commot held by Tuder under Earl Roger. It runs as follows.-

ROTBERTUS DE ROELENT tenet de Rege NORTWALES ad firmam pro XL libris, praeter illam terram quam Rex ei dederat in feudo, et praeter terras Episcopatus. Isdem Rotbertus calumniatur unum Hundredum, ARVESTER, quod tenet Rogerious Comes. Walenses testificantur istum Hundredum esse de his NORTWALIS.

My interpretation of this passage is, that Robert de Rhuddlan had authority from King William the Conqueror to hold any Seigneuries in a certain district of North Wales which he might be able to acquire. He was to pay an annual rent of 40 for such acquisitions, independently of the services which were due on his more positive feoffments, and he was to assert no seigneury over Episcopal estates. On this pretext he claimed the Hundred of Arvester (Erbistock), already appropriated to the Seigneury of Earl Roger de Montgomery. He so claimed it, because it was in that district of North Wales, which the natives asserted, and he supposed, to be involved in his conditions with the King.


Maelor Saesneg, called Saesneg, or Saxon, to distinguish it from the commot of Maelor Gymraeg, or Welsh Maelor. It had perhaps been held by Rys Sais himself, under a Saxon Suzerain, and had taken its name either from that circumstance, or from his tenure thereof. Bleddyn, the elder son of Tudor, is further stated to have inherited Maelor Saesneg, and from him many Welsh families derive their descent. We have seen that Wronou, a younger son of Tudor, is alleged to have been father of Roger and Jonas de Powis.

Maelor Saesneg was one of the three Commots which composed the Cantref Uwchnant. It is now mainly represented by a part of Flintshire. In the primary division of the kingdom of Powis, Welsh Writers incorporate Maelor Saesneg in Powis Vadoc; and further say that Madoc ap Meredyth, when he subdivided his principality among his children, gave Maelor Saesneg to Gruffyth Maelor, the eldest of them. We may presume, however, that the fee-simple, if we may use such a term, was in the descendants of Bleddyn ap Tudor.

But I must state that these quotations and observations are made under a distinct impression that the district called Maelor Saesneg, by the Welsh, was never, either at Domesday or afterwards, the subject of any such wholesale classification and allotment as will justify its being called a Welsh Commot. This reputed Commot contained, or has been said to have contained, the Parishes or Manors of Erbistock, Hope (alias Queen Hope), Bangor, Overton, Worthenbury, Bettisfield, and Hanmer, with the two Chapelries of Iscoyd and Penley, and with the Chapelry of Dudleston. Yet the history of these places, when taken separately, presents every variety of tenure. For instance we know that at Domesday,-

DUDLESTON gave name to one of the Hundreds of Cheshire, and that in the 13th century it was manorially an appurtenance of Oswestry, and parochially an appurtenance of Ellesmere, and that it still remains in Shropshire. We also know of-

WORTHENBURY and BETTISFIELD, that they are identical with the Domesday Manors of Hurdingberie and Beddesfeld, both in the Cheshire Hundred of Dudestan, both held in Saxon times by Edwin, Earl of Mercia, and both held in 1086, by Robert fitz Hugh aud his Norman Dependents, under Hugh, Earl of Chester. Of Hanmer too (whether an appurtenance of the Domesday Bettisfield or not) we know that it was of the Seigneury of Henry II., and that, both in his reign and for two centuries after, it was in the Diocese of Lichfield and Coventry. To complete the list of exceptions, we come to-

50 YALE.

OVERTON, held, with its Castle, by the Peverels, in the reigns of Henry I. and Stephen, and subsequently held by Roger de Powis, not under the Lord of Powis Vadoc, but under Henry II. And though in Richard I.'s time, a Cadet of the House of Powis Vadoc asserted and exercised a certain power in Overton, that same power was at a later period reasserted and re-exercised by the nephew of Roger de Powis; while King John actually confirmed Overton to the Grandsons of Roger de Powis, as an English Fief.

I am not concerned to enter further into the history of places which now form a detached portion of the County of Flint. I will conclude this Chapter with a recapitulation of those points which illustrate the text of the Shropshire Domesday.-

I hold then (1) that the Finis or Commot, held by Tudor Walensis, under Earl Roger, was a considerable part, but far from the whole, of Maelor Saesneg;- (2) that the Seigneury over many portions of Maelor Saesneg was, after Domesday, recurrently asserted and exercised by English Suzerains;- (3) that Roger de Powis and other descendants of Tudor Walensis, so far as their tenancy in Maelor Saesneg can be traced by authentic records, held under the English Crown;- and lastly- (4) that the rights, if any, exercised by the Princes of Powis Vadoc, over portions of Maelor Saesneg, were either mediate rights, allowed to an Ally by the King of England, or rights casually asserted in times of hostility and in defiance of the said King. [1]


THERE is yet another Welsh Commot which claims a brief notice before we leave the frontier of North Shropshire. Domesday describes it as follows.- Hugo Comes tenet de Rogerio Comite in Walis terram de Gal. Haec terra extenditur V leuuis in longitudine et una leuua et dimidia in latitudine. Tempore Regis Edwardi fuit wasta, et quando Hugo recepit similiter. In dominio sunt III carucae et II

[1] I am indebted to Mr. Joseph Morris of Shrewsbury for many valuable hints, embodied in the above Chapter; though on some points our opinions differ.

YALE. 51

Presbyteri et XXXIII homines habentes inter se VIII carucas; et adhuc una caruca posset ibi esse. Ibi molinum nil reddens. Tota valet modo XL solidos. [1]

Why the Conqueror should have assigned Yale to the Palatinate of Shropshire, rather than to that of Cheshire, does not appear. It certainly lay more apposite to the latter County, but the anomaly was squared by Hugh Lupus, Earl of Chester, accepting it as a Feoffment from his brother Earl. The after possession of the district was however by no means decided by any testimony of Domesday. The Welsh claimed it, and hotly contested it. In 1149 (it was the period of England's humiliation and weakness) Owen Gwyneth, Prince of North Wales, is said to have built a Castle in Yale. [2] About eight years afterwards Jorworth Goch ap Meredyth, a known ally of Henry II., "got the Castle of Yale and burnt it". [3] It is very remarkable that Madoc ap Meredyth, Prince of Powis Vadoc, was at this very period (1157) in the closest league and co-operation with the English King. He died at Winchester in 1160, still in the same alliance; and yet the Welsh Writers, who treat on the subject, affect to consider Yale as one of the three Commots composing the Cantref y Rhiw, and declare that Madoc, in dividing his possessions, assigned Yale to his eldest son Gruffyth Maelor. It is quite possible that King Henry may have ceded this right to his Ally, but, if so, Yale must still be considered to have been held under the English Crown. However, when we see that the same Welsh Authorities talk of Oswestry as a Commot in Cantref Trefred, and of Whittington, as a Commot in Cantref Rhaiadr, [4] we conclude that the whole arrangement is founded on asserted right or embodied desire, rather than on international compacts or unvaried possession.

In the year 1212 there is evidence on the Shropshire Pipe-Roll that there was again a Castle in Yale, and that it was garrisoned by King John. The Burgesses of Shrewsbury charge the Crown with certain expenses ordered by the King, viz. for Smiths despatched to "Castle Yal", and for "iron mallets to break up the rock for a foss at Yal Castle". It was in this year that Madoc ap Gruffyth, Lord of Powis Vadoc, rebelled against King John. From this period till the Conquest of Wales, I have found nothing to indicate an English ascendency, asserted or maintained in the Province of Yale. The Princes of Powis Vadoc were undoubtedly

[1] Domesday, fo. 254, a, 2.
[2] Powel's Chronicle, p. 147.
[3] Supra, Vol. II. p. 108.
[4] Pennant's Tour, Vol. I. p. 215.


Lords Paramount of the district; and, whatever professions of fealty they may have occasionally made to the King of England, no local interference on the part of the latter is to be traced.

Witentreu Hundred.

As will be seen from the annexed Table, the modern Hundred of Chirbury partially represents the Domesday Hwidred of Witentreu. The exceptions are Church-Stoke, Leighton, Montgomery, and several members of the Chatellany of Montgomery. These all have been annexed to different Hundreds of Montgomeryshire. Also several ancient members of Worthin (such as Gatten, [1] Upper and Nether Heath, and Habberley Office) are now to be found in the Hundred of Ford, and Edenhope, an ancient member of Montgomery, is now to be found in the Hundred of Clun.

On the other hand, the present Hundred of Chirbury contains nothing which the Domesday Hundred of Witentreu did not contain;- unless indeed Guildendown (now in Chirbury Hundred) was in the Domesday Hundred of Rinlau.

These changes are comparatively of modern date; for when Henry I. rearranged the Hundreds of Shropshire it is probable that the Hundred of Witentreu was only changed in name. The Seigneury of Chirbury Hundred, and of every Manor therein which was at the King's disposal, went to form the Honour of Montgomery, and that Honour, with other adjuncts, in Shropshire and elsewhere, was conferred on Baldwin de Bollers, in marriage with Sibil de Faleise, the King's niece. In course of time the heirs of this Honour, inheriting through females, seem to have been divested of some of their privileges, and relieved of some of their responsibilities. The Manor of Chirbury, the Seigneury of Chirbury Hundred, the Manor, the Advowson, and the Castle of Montgomery, had been reassumed by the Crown before Henry III. had reigned seven years.

As regards its state and jurisdiction, Chirbury Hundred differed

[1] Perhaps Gatten was originally a member of Wentnor, rather than of Worthin. If so, it was abstracted from Rinlau Hundred in the first instance.


widely from Oswestry Hundred. It was an integral part of the County of Salop; it owed suit to the County, and was, in general matters, responsible like other Hundreds. It was governed by English law or custom, except so far as that some of its members came to be absorbed in the Walcheria of the Corbets of Caus, or the exclusive jurisdiction set up by the same Corbets at Worthin. These details belong however to a future page.-

At the earliest Assizes of which we have any full particulars, the Hundred of Chirbury was duly represented. Among the Pleas of the Crown, one murder, and one breach of the Assize of wine, were reported. The Jurors had also two complaints against the Municipality of Shrewsbury:- Shrewsbury Market had been changed from Sundays to Saturdays; and the Borough neglected to observe the Assize of cloth.

At the Assizes of 1221 I do not find any presentments for Chirbury Hundred, nor can I account for the omission.

A Patent of June 14, 1233, draws a curious distinction between two parts of the Hundred of Chirbury, Offa's Dyke being the line of demarcation. The King enjoins the men of Chirberi Hundred, on this side Offedich, to give heed to the Sheriff of Shropshire in all matters which relate to the Hundred (that is, to the ordinary jurisdiction of the Hundred). A second Writ enjoins the Constable of Montgomery not to prevent the said men from so doing. The inference is that the civil and military authorities were liable to collision, and that the King wished to confine the Constable's civil power to the immediate vicinity of Montgomery.

The Inquisition of 1255 contains some important references to Chirbury Hundred. Thomas Corbet's great Manor of Worthin had been withdrawn from the Hundred and exalted into a separate jurisdiction. This had taken place immediately after the Eyre of William de Eboraco and his Fellow-justices (November 1236). The Pleas of the Hundred, as regarded the vill of Legh, had also been usurped, and annexed to Corbet's jurisdiction of Caus. The vill of Aston-Kelmund having got into the possession of a former Bishop of Hereford, its dues to the Honour of Montgomery had become obsolete. At the present moment Prince Edward was not only Lord of the Manor, but of the Hundred, of Chirbury, by gift of his Father. The Inquest does not state the value of the Hundred, apparently because the Prince paid no ferm for the same to the Sheriff of Shropshire. The Bailiffs of Chirbury Hundred had, and maintained, a customary right to hold Pleas of forbidden


[For table, see Witentreu]


distress. [1] Several other questions mooted at this Inquest, will appear under the particular localities concerned.

At the Assizes of January 1256, William le Bedel, Chief Bailiff, and 12 Jurors of the Hundred of Chirbury, were in due attendance at Shrewsbury. Among other things they reported Griffin ap Wenunwen (Prince of Powys) and the Prior of Chirbury, as Freeholders in their district, and as absent on the present occasion.

At the Assizes of 1272, Eynon Wendut appeared as Chief Bailiff of Chirbury Hundred. Among the 12 Jurors were Richard fitz Elyas, Lewelin fitz Ygel, Roger Brode, and Richard fitz Provost, whose tenures I cannot discover. Among the Defaulters were Richard Reven, Yarworth Vachan, Simon Wauhn, Dakyn de eadem (sic), David fitz Simon, Tudur fitz Madok, William Tudur, Richard Gille, William Vireli, Philip ab Yarworth, Yarworth fitz John, Reginald de Warklowe, Henry de Sned, Robert ab Houel, and Wyn Coly;- most of them, I imagine, Welshmen, who at this Epoch had thrown up their English tenements and allegiance, in deference to the policy and attitude assumed by their native Prince.

The Inquest of Chirbury Hundred, taken November 28, 1274, relates rather to sundry abstractions of the feudal services due to the Barony of Montgomery, than to the civil state of the Hundred. However, the whole district and all its affairs must have been in a disorganized condition, for we are not only told of several vills, which were actually occupied by Lewellyn, but it is stated that a third part of the Barony of Caus, viz. all that lay between the Camlad and the Severn (inter Kelemet et Sabrinam), was in the hands of that Prince. [2]

At the Assizes of 1292, David de Stocton, as Chief Bailiff, attended with 12 Jurors of Chirbury Hundred. Their presentments related chiefly to the encroachments and subtractions of the Corbets of Caus, the details of which will appear under the localities concerned. At this time the Hundred of Chirbury, that is the Jurisdiction, was deemed an appurtenance of Montgomery Castle. Both were in the Crown, and in the custody of Bogo de Knovill.

[1] Rot. Hundred. II. pp. 60, 61.
[2] Rot. Hundred. II. pp. 89, 90.



THIS Manor, successively the Caput of Witentreu, and of Chirbury, Hundreds, is thus described in Domesday.- Ipse Comes tenet Cireberie. Rex Edwardus tenuit. In dominio sunt IIII carucae; et XIII Villani cum Praeposito habent V carucas. Ibi VIII Bovarii, Ibi duae AEcclesie cum Presbytero, qui habet unam carucam. Huic Manerio pertinet Witetreu Hundred'. Tempore Regis Edwardi erat Wasta. Modo valet XL solidos. [1]

There is some probability that after Domesday (1086), and before Earl Roger's death (1093-4), one Gilbert de Salnerville obtained a grant of Chirbury from that Earl. At all events King Henry I., confirming the possessions of Shrewsbury Abbey in 1120, includes "the tithe of Cireberia which Gislebert de Salnervill had bestowed on the Abbey when Earl Roger, that man of good memory, and that honour to the realm, was buried". My doubt about the relevance of this passage is grounded on the facts that, before the time of this Confirmation, Chirbury had reverted to the Crown, and that Shrewsbury Abbey does not, at any later period, appear with any tithes in the district. The Manor of Chirbury was probably held by the descendants of Baldwin de Bollers till the Honour of Montgomery was dismembered by King Henry III. Being then resumed by the Crown, it became a Royal Borough, but its contiguity to, and connection with, Montgomery, lessened its individual importance.

In 1249 the Manor of Cherebyr' together with Rhiston and Chirston (i.e. Church Stoke) was assessed 5 merks to a Royal Tallage, [2] whilst the Prior of Chirbury paid 4 merks to an Aid contemporarily assessed on the Religious Houses of Shropshire. In 1254 the Manor of Montgomery was assessed 10 merks, and Chirbury, Riston, and Chirston, were assessed 6 merks, to a Royal tallage. In 1255 the Manor of Chirbury, then held by Prince Edward, was valued at 13. 0s. 4d. per annum, and it was accounted Royal demesne. The following persons held various feoffments in the Manor under grants of former Lords of Montgomery, or of Deputy-Stewards of that Honour.- JOHN FITZ RICHARD Of Chirbury held half a

[1] Domesday, fo. 253, b. 1.
[2] This Tallage of 1249 was never paid.


virgate under a grant by Stephen de Bollers. His rent was 6d. to the Lords of Montgomery. He owed suit thrice yearly to the Court of Montgomery. He was bound to provide an attendant on the hunting expeditions of the said Lords or their Bailiffs, thrice yearly. He also owed a week's castle-guard at Montgomery in time of war. WILLIAM FITZ RICHARD of Chirbury held half a virgate. His rent was 16d. He owed services in respect of Castle-guard and hunting expeditions, as the last Tenant: but his suit-of-court was due to Chirbury Hundred. He was also bound to convey Writs anywhither in Shropshire for the Lords of Montgomery. HOEL AP ADAM of Chirbury held a noke. His only services were Suits of Court, thrice yearly to Montgomery, and thrice yearly to Chirbury Hundred. He was non-attendant at the Inquest of 1255. WALTER FITZ CECILY of Chirbury held two messuages. Rent 2d. Hunting services as above.- RICHARD CLERK of Chirbury held 4 acres of land, a meadow, and a messuage. Rent 2d. There were also 23 burgages in Chirbury. They were held by rents of 9d. each, payable to the Lords of Montgomery. Godescall de Maghelines, while Bailiff, or Castellan, of Montgomery (1223-1227) had created these tenures. [1]

In 1249 and 1281 I find mention of a local Provost of Chirbury. One Roger, "Provost of Chirbury", attended Inquests in those years as a common Juror. Roger le Budell who precedes him on the list of 1281 was probably an Officer of the Hundred. I omit here to notice several tenures in the Manor of Chirbury, because the Tenants will recur as having more important holdings elsewhere.


Towards the close of the 12th century, and in the reign either of Henry II. or Richard I. Robert de Buthlers, Lord of Montgomery, placed a Convent of Augustine Monks at Snead, then a member of his Manor of Church Stoke. It was probably under the same auspices, and very soon after its first organization, that this fraternity migrated to Chirbury, the Advowson of which constituted the richest part of its original endowment. Baldwin de Buthlers and William de Courtenay, the succeeding Lords of Montgomery, were no friends to this establishment. We hear nothing of it during their aera, but how they oppressed it. In 1224 the Canons appealed to Henry III., then Lord of Montgomery, for redress. Hence a Writ of March 25, addressed by the young King to Hubert Hose

[1] Rot. Hundred. Vol. II. p. 60.


and Godescall de Maghelines, his local Deputies, who had forwarded to Court the results of an Inquest, whereby it had been discovered that "Robert de Bruillers had sometime given a virgate and 4 acres of land, in pure alms, to the aforesaid Prior, which land the Prior and Convent had held for the life of the said Robert;- that after Robert's death, Baldwin, his son (Query brother) and heir, had disseized them; that they had recovered their seizin, and had held the land till their second ejectment by William de Courtenay, since which they had been excluded therefrom". The King not being at present competent (by reason of his nonage) to secure the Canons a seizin in perpetuity, orders them a seizin during pleasure of the premises. [1]

The next year, the King was himself at issue with the Prior of Chirbury about certain assarts, made, and proposed to be made, by the said Prior at Snead. An Inquest, taken at Montgomery, before the Bishops of Salisbury and Chichester, and the evidence given thereat by men of the Hundred of Montgomery, induced the King to give way on all points. On Apri1 28, 1225, he addresses Godescall de Maghelines accordingly, and tells him that, if any new quarrel had arisen between him and the Prior, he was to report particulars to the Court, "when the King would put all to right, as he might think expedient". [2]

On July 23, 1227, King Henry III. expedited a Charter to Chirbury Priory. He first confirms a recent agreement, made between Prior Philip and the Parson of Montgomery relative to certain parochial questions which belong to another page of our narrative. The Charter then proceeds to give the Prior 11 acres in Sneth (Snead), near the land held by William fitz Eygun, in exchange for the land of the old hermitage, which was near the King's new Castle of Montgomery, and which the Canons had hitherto enjoyed under a grant of Robert de Buelers. Further, the King allows the Prior to depasture, in the Royal pastures of Montgomery, 50 mares with their foals, and 100 cows with their calves;- the foals and calves to be removable at the ages of two and three years respectively. He also allows free pasturage for all the oxen of the Prior's teams, and for all sheep and swine of the Prior's demesnes at Chirbury and Sneth, and for all animals of the Prior's tenants at Chirbury and Sneth, save and except within the King's enclosures. For this the Prior and Convent renounced a general concession of common pasture which they had had from Robert de Boulers. [3]

[1] [2] Rot. Claus. I. 589; II. 34.
[3] Rot. Chart. 11 Hen. M., p. 2, m. 6.


On Sept. 27, 1227, the King concedes to the Prior and Canons the tithes of pannage of the woods of Montgomery, and the tithes of Montgomery Mill, which (Woods and mills) were in the Parish of St. Michael of Chirbury. Thomas de Haye (then Constable of Montgomery) had the King's orders to allow the Prior to take the said tithes. [1]

A Deed which will have passed soon after the above Charters is worth transcribing.- Sciant presentes et futuri quod ego, Hugo filius Hugonis de Wdenerton dedi etc. Philippo Priori de Chirberi, in escambium pro quodam messuagio quod mihi dederunt (Canonici) de Curia Ricardi Persone, in Chirbiri, scilicet inter pomerium nostrum et messuagium Martini Capellani et Sokemer, unum messuagium in eadem Chirbiri, inter Cimiterium et ostium Prioris;- tenendum et habendum in feodo, etc., nil reddendo, quia ego et heredes servicium acquietabimus. Hiis testibus, Henrico et * * * Capellanis, Thoma filio Wither, Willielmo de Merstun, Willielmo de Mulestune, Eustachio clerico. [2]

In 1242, King Henry III., through the Sheriff of Shropshire, presented a donum of 100s. to the Canons of Cherebir'. In 1250, the Prior of Chirbury stands on the Pipe-Roll, as having been amerced 40s., pro injusta detencione. The cause of this will appear under Shelve. In 1253, the Prior of Chirbury is entered on the Pipe-Roll as owing 5 merks for his quota of the Aid levied on the King's transfretation into Gascony. In 1254, the Sheriff had paid, by Royal Order, 75s., for carriage of 50 oak-trees from the King's woods in the Bailiwick of Montgomery to Chirbury Priory. I presume the Canons were increasing their Conventual buildings under Royal auspices.

At the Inquest of 1255, the Jurors for Chirbury Hundred found that "the Prior of Chirburi had four carucates of land in the Manor of Chirburi by gift of Robert de Bulers, in pure and perpetual almoign". [3] In Easter Term, 1271, the Prior of Chirbury was prosecuting John Bernard, William de Lake, William, son of Hugh le Vileyn, and others, for having come vi et armis to the Prior's house in Shrewsbury, and for having insulted his Brother Canons, and for having carried away his goods to the value of 100s. The cause was adjourned, but I cannot find its renewal or settlement. [4]

[1] Rot. Claus. Vol. II. p. 201.
[2] Cartae Miscellaneae in Curia Augmentationum.
[3] Rot. Hundred. II. 60.
[4] Placita, Pasch. Tm., 55 Hen. III., m. 19 dorso.


In 1272, Anian, Bishop of St. Asaph, requests John, Bishop of Hereford, to enjoin the Prior of Chirbury to restore the Vill of Kilkewyd to the Rectors of Pole (Welshpool), Bettws (Bettws Cedewen), and Aberriw (Berriew), which Rectors had formerly held the said vill.
[1] About this time, "Brother Geoffrey, Prior of Chirbury, and his Convent, give to Nicholas Brusebon [2] two cultures and 2 acres of land in the field of Montgomery called Witbemoresfeld, for an annual rent of 6d. Witnesses,- William fitz Baldwin, Walter de Hokelton, Alexander fitz Philip, Baldwin fitz Philip, William Gage (Query, Sage), Walter Chaplain, and John Heremor". The Deed mentions the River Severn, the vill of Landussel, and adjacent lands of William fitz Baldwin and William fitz Brun. The Legend round the Seal is S. GALFRI PRIORIS DE CIRREDUR'. [3]

By Deed, dated at London on May 18, 1281, "the Prior and Canons of Chyrebury and of Sneth" concede to Roger de Mortimer a full participation in all the spiritual benefits of their house, and undertake to keep an anniversary on the day of his obit (whenever that should happen), and to bestow on the said day, towards the pittance of their convent, a sum of 5s., issuing out of their Mill near Caldemore, on the Severn; or, in default, to pay 20s. towards the fabric of Hereford Cathedral. This was in consideration of a right which Mortimer had conceded to the Canons, viz. to make and to attach a stank in the land of Hoydelouclaf. The Deed makes mention of "Roger de Mortimer's father, Ralph, and of his mother, Gladosa". [4] On this transaction I should remark that it occurs just two years after Mortimer had obtained from Edward I. a grant of the Welsh provinces of Kerry and Cedewen. The acquisition made Mortimer a neighbour in some sort of the Chirbury Canons.

On May 21, 1281, the Prior and Convent of Chirbury obtained King Edward's license to remove back to Snede, where, says the Patent, "their possession and devotion had first originated". The change was not to diminish ought from those spiritual benefits and services which were due to the souls of such persons as rested at Chirbury: nor were any of the Brethren's rights at Chirbury to diminish, because of their removal. The reason of this change was that the Ministry of the Brethren had been in many ways interrupted during their residence at Chirbury. [5] We may presume that

[1] Liber Ruber Assavensis, fo. 21-b. The word which I venture to write Rectors is represented in the MS. by the letter R.
[2] The Grantee in this Deed has been mentioned before (Vol. II. pp. 43, 44).
[3] Transcript by T.F. Dukes, Esq.
[4] Harl. MS. 1240, fo. xli.
[5] Monasticon, VI. 580; Num. i.


their desire for change was removed by the pacification of the Borders which followed the Conquest of Wales. At all events we know that King Edward's license was not acted upon.

In October 1285, Chirbury Priory was visited by Bishop Swinfield. On the 26th of that month he writes to the Prior from Bishop's Castle, and says that many things which he had observed at his late visit were displeasing to him. He forbids such free access of strangers within the Monastery, and insists that all the members of the fraternity shall be Regulars. A second Letter of Bishop Swinfield, dated June 17, 1286, and addressed to the Prior of Chirbury, shows that the Convent was still in a state of great insubordination, notwithstanding the former censure. The Brethren were as the Bishop had heard, tam vani, litigiosi, garruli, vagi, et profugi super terram, guod nec Deo nec Priori, neglecta regularis observantia discipline, obediunt ut deberent. The Prior is to reduce his Canons to order, and, if opposed, to send the names of the disaffected to the Bishop, who promises forthwith to adopt such measures of castigation and expulsion as he shall deem expedient for the spiritual good of the Convent and the peace of other folk. And lastly, the Prior is reminded that when the Bishop visited the Priory "he ordered these things and some others to be amended". [1] On November 24, 1288, Bishop Swinfield again visited Chirbury Priory. I have already alluded to the business which brought him into these parts on the said occasion. [2] The boundary of his own Diocese was rather in question than the economy of Chirbury Priory.

In a Charter of October 1289, Bishop Swinfield confirmed the Priory in its right to certain great tithes in that very district of Gordwr, the Diocesan supremacy over which had previously been disputed between himself and the Bishop of St. Asaph. On this occasion Swinfield commends the Convent of Chirbury for its piety, charity, and hospitality. In May 1290, Swinfield, again visiting his Diocese, was entertained on two days (the 6th and 7th) by the Prior of Chirbury. [3] The Bishop came hither from Alberbury, and passed on to Bishop's Castle.

The Valor of 1291 enumerates the Prior of Chirbury's possessions and income as follows. [4]-

Chirbury;- a carucate of land, netting yearly: 0 13 4
Chirbury;- rents: 0 6 8
Egge;- half a carucate of land, netting: 0 6 8

[1] Swinfield Register, fo. 50-b.
[2] Supra, Vol. VII. p. 87.
[3] Swinfield's Household Roll, p. 81.
[4] Pope Nich. Taxation, pp. 162, 163.


Mokelewyk (Mucklewick);- assized rents: 0 15 0
Husinton (Hyssington);- assized rents: 0 6 0
Chircstok (Churchstoke);- assized rents: 0 18 0
Caldemore, in Montgomery Parish;- two carucates: 1 6 8
Little Weston;- assized rents: 0 7 6
Eccele (Hagley);- assized rents: 0 6 0
Annual profits on nine brood-mares: 0 13 6
Total (according to the Record) [1]: 5 18 4

In October 1292, the Prior of Chirbury was subjected to a process of Quo Waranto as to his title to the Manor of Sneth, or Snead, where, it will be remembered, the Priory originally stood. The Attorney for the Crown alleged that King John had been seized, in demesne as of fee, of the said Manor. The Prior denied this, and obtained the general verdict, "that his present tenure of the Manor was founded on a better title than the King's claim". [2]

In the year 1299, Adam, Prior of Chirbury, "worn out with age, and suffering grievously from ill-health", resigned his office into the hands of Bishop Swinfield. [3]

We may now pass to the Valor of 1534-5, when Oliver Middulton, Prior of Chirbury, rendered an account of the income and expenditure of his House, of which the following is an abstract.-

RENTS AND FERMS.- Snead, 5; Hyssington, 1. 1s.; Montgomery, 4; Tyretref, [4] 6s. 8d.; Shrewsbury, 1s. 4d.; Priest Weston, 9s.; Marton and Stockton, 2s.; Heychley (Hagley), 8d.; Duddiston, 12d.

DEMESNES.- At Snead, 1. 14s. 4d.; at Chirbury and elsewhere, 3. 18s. 10d.

Sum total of Temporalities, 16. 14s. 10d.

CORN AND HAY TITHES.- Marton 3; Wilmington, 2; Wooddeton (Wotherton), 1. 13s. 4d.; Stockton, 1; Priest Weston, 1. 3s. 4d.; Marrington, 15s.; Heccalton (Hokelton), 1; Walcot, 1; Chirbury, 10s.; Winsbury and Dudson, 5. 10s. 8d.; Timbirth, 2s.; Rorrington, 4s.; Middleton, 13s. 4d.

OBLATIONS at the several shrines of Saints in the Parish Churches of the Prior's Advowson, 5. 12s. 10d.

SMALL TITHES, of wool, lamb, geese, etc., 5.

TITHES OP CHAPELRIES.- Forden Chapel, 13. 6s. 8d.;

[1] The items really amount to 5. 19s. 4d.
[2] Quo Waranto, p. 680.
[3] Swinfield Register, fo. 126-b.
[4] Tiertrev, I presume;- a Manor which at this time involved the Townships of Castlewright and Aston.


Hyssington Chapel, 5. 13s. 4d.; Snead Chapel, 2; the Chapel of St. Mary's Well (Sanctae Mariae de Fonte), 8s.; Churchstoke Chapel, 20.

Sum total of Spiritualities, 70. 12s. 6d.

The Gross income of the Priory was therefore 87. 7s. 4d., from which the following permanent outgoings were to be deducted.-

To the King, quitrents on divers lands, including 5s. on lands in Churchstoke: 4 11 8
Fee to the Seneschal of Chirbury Hundred: 1 0 0
Fee to the Bailiff and Receiver of the Priory: 2 6 8
Pension to the Vicar of Chirbury: 9 6 8
Archdeacon's Procurations: 1 8 2
Bishop's triennial Procurations, averaging yearly: 1 15 6
Pension to the Praecentor of Wenlock: 0 10 0
Total: 20 18 8

The Net Income of Chirbury Priory, shortly before the Dissolution, was therefore 66. 8s. 7d. per annum.

In 28 Henry VIII. (1536-7), the Ministers' Accounts fhrnish another estimate of the gross income of the late Prior. The items are arranged and combined in a way different to that employed in the Valor, and a total of 92. 14s. 1d. is the result. The excess over the former estimate is only 5. 6s. 9d.; but that difference is increased by 5. 12s. 10d., inasmuch as the Oblations reckoned in the Valor are not included in the Ministers' Accounts. The particular discrepancies or agreements of these two estimates will furnish matter of observation elsewhere. Here I should notice that the rents and ferms of Snead stand at 5 in both accounts; as also do the receipts from Tyretiff, viz. 6s. 8d.: but in the Ministers' Accounts the Seite and Demesne lands of the late Priory stand as worth 9. 15s. 4d. per annum; and an item of 1. 2s. 8d., arising from lands and tenements at Mykelwyk, is altogether suppressed in the Valor.


Domesday, as we have seen, reckons two Churches and one Priest among the adjuncts of the Manor of Chirbury. I can have no hesitation in suggesting that one of these Churches was at Church Stoke, and that it was a mere affiliation of the greater foundation at Chirbury. The ancient Parish of Chirbury was indeed enormous. With the exception of Worthin, it probably included the whole of


the Domesday Hundred of Witentreu. Thus, not only Church Stoke, but the various Churches and Chapels which have at any time been founded at Montgomery, Snead, Forden, and Hyssington, were originally affiliations of the Church of St. Michael. This great Advowson was part of the endowment which Robert de Bullers, Lord of Montgomery, bestowed on Chirbury Priory. This was probably in the reign of Henry II., or of Richard I.

Between the years 1219 and 1227, William, Rector of Montgomery, was at issue with Philip, Prior of Chirbury, about the Chantry [1] of the newly built Church of Montgomery, and about their respective interests in regard to the Burial of the Dead. At this time three-fourths of the Rectory of Chirbury seems to have been appropriated to the Priory; the remaining fourth was held by one Richard, as Parson or Co-Rector. Such a division indicates the original Church to have been Collegiate, and suggests that the appropriation of all its Portions was in process, but not yet complete. In the above dispute with the Rector of Montgomery, Richard, the Co-Rector of Chirbury, of course sided with the Prior. The parties came to an agreement, which appears to have gone much further than the immediate matter of difference, and, in short, to have established the Church of Montgomery in a position of relative independence. Hugh Foliot, then Bishop of Hereford, ratified this agreement in a Charter of which the following is the substance.-

Hugo Foliot, esc., Noveritis quod hec composicio facta (est) inter Philippum Priorem et Conventum de Chyrebury, et Ricardum, Personam quarte partis Ecclesie de Chyrebury, ex una parte, et Willielmum Personam de Novo Mongomery ex altera, super Cantaria Ecclesie ejusdem de novo constructe et sepultura mortuorum ibidem, videlicet, quod Ecclesia (de Mongomery), sine contradictione Prioris, propriam habeat Personam, quem Rex presentabit perpetuo.- Ecclesia fontes habeat et sepulturam, etc., cum omni jure quo matrices ecclesie utuntur. Persona (de Mungomery) reddet Ecclesie de Chirebury 30 solidos annuatim pro composicione oblacionum quas Ecclesia de Chirebury percipiebat quondam de Parochianis de Mungomery; et sit pena dimidia marca, Priori solvenda, pro quolibet termino in qua Persona a solucione 15 solidorum cessabit. Persona (de Mungomery) etiam reddet dimidium principalis legati de tota Parochia de Mungomery, qualitercunque fuerit legatum, tam infra quam extra Castellum; et hoc Clerici et Capellani ministrantes in Ecclesia de Mungomery et Persona se servaturos jurabunt coram Episcopo.

[1] By the word Chantry I here understand the right to perform the services in general.


Licebit Priori, sine reclamocione Persone, recipere corpora liberetenencium de Parochia de Mungomery, salvo jure Ecclesie de Mungomery. This agreement was ratified by Bishop Foliot in the presence of Thomas, Dean of Hereford; [1] R., [2] Treasurer of Hereford; S., [3] Archdeacon of Salop; Thomas, [4] Praecentor of Hereford; Master William Platun; R., a Canon; Robert, the Bishop's Chaplain; Master R. de Bukehull; and Godefrid, Clerk. Also, King Henry III., as Patron of Montgomery Church, sanctioned the whole proceedings by a Charter of July 23, 1227. [5]

In 1255 the Jurors of the Hundred valued Chirbury Church at 40 merks. "The Prior had it", they said, "in propriis usibus by gift of Robert de Buler".

The dispute as to boundaries of the two Dioceses of Hereford and St. Asaph has been more than once alluded to. The boundaries of Chirbury Parish and the Prior's appropriate rights were, as a matter of course, involved. The result, favourable to Hereford, is partly seen at this day; for all that portion of Montgomeryshire which lies in the present Parishes of Snead, Church Stoke, and Hyssington, was thus retained in the Diocese of Hereford.

On Saturday May 6, 1290, Richard Swinfield, Bishop of Hereford, visited the Parish Church of Chirbury. On the next day the Bishop dedicated the said Church. [6] The reason of this second consecration (for it can have been nothing else) of the two Churches of Alberbury and Chirbury, it is not easy to give. Perhaps the Bishop was anxious to multiply the exercise of his functions in a district which had recently been invaded by another Prelate.

The Taxation of 1291 places the Church of Chirbury in the Deanery of Pontesbury, the Archdeaconry of Salop, and the Diocese of Hereford. Its reputed value (30 per annum) must be taken for the Rectory. The Precentor of Wenlock Priory had also a Pension of 10s. in the Church; [7] a circumstance which might be assigned with equal probability to any one out of a dozen causes. Conjecture is, in such cases, vain.

This Taxation, I should observe, assigns a distinct valuation of 5 to the Chapel of Husynton, which it places in the same Deanery of Pontesbury. [8]

[1] Thomas de Bosbury (1218-1231).
[2] The Lists give Elias de Radnor as Treasurer of Hereford from 1217 to 1230 (see Hardy's Le Neve, Vol. I. p. 488). The date 1217 is probably incorrect.
[3] Simon succeeded Nicholas de Hamton, as Archdeacon of Salop, between 1219 and 1227 (supra, Vol. III. p. 336).
[4] Thomas Foliot.
[5] Rot. Chart. 11 Hen. III., p. 2, m. 6.
[6] Swinfield's Household Roll, pp. 81, 82.
[7] [8] Pope Nich. Taxation, pp. 166, 167


In 1341, the Assessors of the Ninth, quoting the Taxation of Chirbury Church as one of 30, reduced it to a levy of 9. 13s. 4d. for the present occasion. The reason of the reduction was because the Prior of Chirbury's Rectorial Glebe, being 4 carucates of land, and in the holding of 20 Tenants, constituted 8 of the Church-Taxation; because also a greater part of the Parish was out of the County and in Wales; because also many Tenants were going about begging, and their poverty had thrown 200 acres of land out of cultivation; because, lastly, the greater sum, or Church-Taxation, included small-tithes, altarages, and other emoluments, which had nothing to do with an estimate of the ninth of wheat, wool, and lamb, produced in the Parish. [1]

The Valor of 1534-5 estimates the hay and corn-tithes receivable by the Prior of Chirbury from 14 vills, at 18. 11s. 8d. per annum. These fourteen vills exactly correspond with the modern Parish of Chirbury. Add the small-tithes (5) and the tithes of Hyssington Chapel (5. 13s. 4d.), as recorded in the Valor, and we have a total of 29. 5s.; which total seems, in the Ministers' Accounts of 1536-7, to be represented by a sum of 31. 6s. 10d., the annual value of Chirbury Rectory. As to the Vicarage, held by John Middulton, the Valor mentions it in two places as only endowed with a fixed pension of 9. 6s. 8d. payable by the Prior of Chirbury. This income was chargeable with 1. 7s. 10d. for the Procurations of the Archdeacon of Salop. [2]


RICHARD, probably the last of the Co-Rectors or Portioners of Chirbury, occurs between 1219 and 1227. A Deed already quoted, speaks of his Curia or Rectorial residence, which it seems was then at the disposal of the Priory. Probably Richard was deceased at the time, and his Portion appropriated.

JOHN, Vicar of Chirbury, occurs in 1289, and again on October 13, 1295, when Richard le Croon of Burghton, and Margaret his wife, give him 60 acres in Espes, with warranty for themselves and the heirs of Margaret. For this, the Fine quoted states the Vicar to have paid 20.

RICHARD DE CHIRBURY, Priest, was presented to the Vicarage on March 6, 1308, by the Prior and Convent of Chirbury. He died in 1349 (probably of the pestilence).

[1] Inquis. Nonarum, p, 185.
[2] Valor Eccles. III. 213.


On July 21, 1349,-

SIR GERVASE DE CHIRSTOK, Priest, was instituted at the presentation of the same Patrons.

SIR PHILIP OKEY, was instituted Dec. 18, 1379, and occurs as Vicar in 1386.


The Domesday hidage of Chirbury is not given. We cannot therefore say whether its area, as a Manor, was great or small. There are a number of vills, not identified in Domesday, but which must be considered to have been either members of Chirbury, or else members of the Chatellany of Montgomery, called by some other name than that which they now bear. I do not pretend to distinguish between these two classes of vills. I will notice some of them here, and some of them under Montgomery.-

STOCKTON and TIMBIRTH. These two places are parochially members of Chirbury, and so in Shropshire. Though one stands 1 miles north, and one 1 miles south, of Chirbury, both were anciently held by the same Tenants-in-capite. Of these Tenants I have the following particulars.-

At the Assizes of 1203, Matilda, widow of Roger de Stocton, sued one David, a Clerk, for her dower, viz. a third of 3 virgates in Stocton. David proved himself not to be the heir of Roger, so the cause was adjourned till Matilda could procure the attendance of the real heir, who was in Ireland. In 1240, we have David de Stocton as holding a fourth part of a knight's-fee in Tonebur' (or Chinebur') and in Stokton. He held de baronia de Mungumery, [1] that is in the escheated part thereof. In 1249-50, David de Stockton and Amicia his wife occur in a Lawsuit which I shall notice under Wilmington, but it is very doubtful whether this David was identical with the David of 1240; for Roger de Smethcote, deceased in April 1253, held Tynebur' and Stocton, by service of providing two equipped archers at Montgomery for 15 days (in wartime). Of Roger de Smethcote I have spoken fully under Smethcott. [2] The Chirbury Hundred-Roll of 1255 makes Philip (his son and heir) to be Lord of Timiburt and Stocton.- "Timibirt is half a hide, and Stocton is half a bide, and Philip de Smethekote holds them for one-fifth of a knight's-fee, and does ward at Montgemery Castle 15 days for Timiburt, and 8 days for Stocton; but the men of

[1] Testa de Nevill, pp. 46, 48, 50.
[2] Supra, Vol. VI. p. 252.


Timiburt have to victual the Guards (of Montgomery), and three men of Timiburt and one man of Stocton do suit throughout the year to Chirbury Hundred; and both vills have to accompany the Lords of Montgomery in hunting, thrice yearly". [1] David and Hoel de Stocton, Jurors at this very Inquest, were Undertenants either of Philip de Smethcote in Stockton, or of the Lords of Wilmington in Wilmington. I can trace nothing more of the Smethcotes, as Mesne-Lords of Timbirth and Stockton, neither can I say by whom they were succeeded; save that in 1346 John de Stokton and certain Coparceners were responsible for an Aid assessed on that fourth part of a Knight's-fee in Stokton and Tuneburth which had once (in 1240) been held by David de Stokton.

Of the Undertenants in Stockton and Timbirth, the family which took its name from the former place will recur to our notice under Walcot and under Wilmington. Eynon de Tunebd who occurs on a Montgomery Jury in 1250 was perhaps of Timbirth.

WITINGTRE. This member of Chirbury probably lay east of Chirbury itself and on the opposite bank of the Camlad. The bridge which I take to have connected the two vills is still called Whittre Bridge; otherwise the vill of Witingtre is lost. It was probably the place where the folkmote of the Hundred assembled in Saxon times; so that the change from Witentreu Hundred to Chirbury Hundred was little more than a change of name.

The vill of Witingtre was given, probably by King Henry I., before he founded the Honour of Montgomery, to the Ancestor of the Mores, and it constituted thenceforth part of the Serjeantry by which the Mores held Long Stanton and More. It appears that Roger de la More, who lived in the reigns of John and Henry III., alienated Witingtre to one Philip Colebelt. In 1247 this estate was estimated to be 2 virgates, and to be worth 20s. per annum. [2] In 1251 Robert de Witintre, Philip Colebelt's heir, was holding it under Roger de la More (II). [3]

The Chirbury Hundred Roll of 1255 says that "Wititre is half a hide, and Robert de Wititre holds it of Roger de la More for 5s. 6d. (rent), and does suit to Chirbury Hundred, and victuals the Castle-guards of Montgomery.
[4] Robert de Wititre did not himself attend the Inquest at which this statement was made. He was, says the Record, infirm. [5] He had however, as I find elsewhere, attended local Inquests in 1249 and 1251. I cannot explain why

[1] Rot. Hundred. II. 60.
[2] [3] Testa de Nevill, pp. 58, 59.
[4] Rot. Hundred. Vol. II. p. 60.
[5] Ibidem, page 61.


an intermediate Inquest of June 1250 was attended by William de Wititre: nor can I be sure how Robert, son of William de Whitre, who occurs in December 1271, was related to the former Robert. He was then suing Ralph Sprenghose and others for disseizing him of a tenement in Whitre.

At the Assizes of 1272, Richard Clerk of Whytetre was one of the Jurors for Chirbury Hundred; as was Robert de Quittre at the Assizes of 1292. This second Robert de Wititre, or Whytre, occurs on other Juries of the years 1290, 1301, and 1316.


Elward tenet Cirestoc. Siuuard tenuit, et liber fuit. Ibi V hidae geldabiles. Terra est VII carucis. Ibi unus Waleis habet I carucam. Silva ibi centum porcis incrassandis. Valuit X solidos; modo LXIII denarios. [1]

As a Parish, Churchstoke now lies chiefly in Montgomeryshire, partly in the Hundred of Caurse, partly in that of Montgomery. A portion of the Parish still remains in the Shropshire Hundred of Chirbury. This portion consists of the townships of Rhiston and Brompton, the former of which constituted a distinct Manor at the time of Domesday.

Of Alward, or Elward, son of Elmund, I have spoken more than once on former occasions. [2] The general rule is, that what he held under Earl Roger at Domesday became afterwards an escheat, and was mostly annexed by Henry I. to the Honour of Montgomery. That Churchstoke thus escheated to the Crown there can be no doubt; but I think that it may be rather said to have been annexed to the Manor of Chirbury than to the Honour of Montgomery; if indeed there was any primary distinction between the two. At all events, on the extinction of the male line of De Bollers, Churchstoke became Royal demesne, and was associated with Rhiston and Chirbury, so as that the three were, in two instances at least, deemed liable to a Royal Tallage. [3] I have little else to say of Churchstoke as a distinct Manor.- In 1228, Chirchstok and many

[1] Domesday, fo. 259, b, 1.
[2] Supra, Vol. VI. pp. 9, 109, 250; Vol. VII. pp. 120, 173, 194-5.
[3] Supra, page 57.


other Villates in Chirbury Hundred participated in some Fine, the object or nature of which is not specified on the Pipe-Roll.

We have seen that in 1291 the Prior of Chirbury had 18s. assized rents from Chirestoc. The Valor of 1534-5, though it does not specify any lands or rents held by the said Prior in Churchstoke, tells of a quitrent payable by the Prior to the Crown for some such lands. And again, in 1536-7, among the assets of the late Priory we find, "Rents of a tenement and land at Churchstoke, 5s.;- and Ferm of a Mill at Churchstoke, 2". [1]


This was a mere affiliation of Chirbury Church, but probably a very ancient one. I have alluded to that matter before. The Chapel became appropriated like the Mother-Church to Chirbury Priory. The Valor of 1534-5 estimates it as worth 20 per annum. In the Ministers' Accounts, two years later, it is valued at 21. 10s. [2]

Rhiston anb Brompton.

Elward tenet Ristune. Seuuardus tenuit et liber homo fuit. Ibi III hidae geldabiles. Terra est IIII carucis. Ibi unus Radman habet I carucam cum III servis, et (sunt) II Villani cum I caruca. [3] Silva XXX porcis incrassandis. Valebat X solidos; modo XII solidos. [4]

Rhiston must here be taken to include Brompton. The Saxon and Domesday tenure of the Manor corresponds exactly with that of Churchstoke. Its subsequent history too is nearly the same, that is, Rhiston may have passed in the first instance to De Bollers, as Lord of Montgomery, but when the male line of De Bollers became extinct in the reign of John, Rhiston was retained by the Crown, rather as a member of Chirbury than a member of Montgomery. However there was much confusion between these relative conditions, and the history of Rhiston will exhibit that confusion for a time, but will also at length show that there was a real distinction between the two.-

[1] [2] Monasticon, Vol. VI. p. 580.
[3] Here is a proof that the Villeins of Domesday were sometimes possessors of teams. In general the Record is ambiguous on the point.
[4] Domesday, fo. 259, b. 1.


We find that at different periods certain tenants had feoffments in Rhiston and Brompton, a thing which we have not been able to show in respect to Churchstoke. William de Bouleres, deceased in 1226, had enfeoffed his brother Engeram in certain land at Rhiston and Ackley. The further history of this estate shall be given under Ackley. In 1228, Fines of various amounts were proffered by, or levied upon, the vills and free-tenants of Chirbury Hundred. The whole produced 53 merks, which sum was devoted to the works of Montgomery Castle. The quota contributed by the Villate of Bramton was 7 merks.

The collective inference from the Feodaries of 1240 is that Meuric de Hop held an eighth part of a knight's-fee in Riston and Brocton (read Brompton). [1] The tenure is said to be De vallo de Mungomery, or De baronia de vallo de Mungomery, or De feodis de vallo de Mungomery, phrases which I cannot explain literally. [2]

In 1249 and 1254, we have seen that Rhiston was assessed to Royal Tallages just as Chirbury and Churchstoke were. At the Inquest of 1255, a question as to "what belonged to the Royal Castles" of the District was answered by the Chirbury Jurors as follows.- "The vill of Rhiston answers for half a hide, and free-tenants hold it of Montgomery, by services of half a merk annual rent, and of doing ward at the said Castle for three days in wartime, and of doing suit every three weeks to the Hundred of Chirbury and to the Court of Montgomery, and of going to hunt with the Lords of Montgomery thrice yearly, and of victualling the Guards (of Montgomery Castle)". [3] The same Jurors reported Yorwor fitz Cadugan as a Free Tenant, who did not attend the Inquest. We shall see that he was of Rhiston. At the Assizes of January, 1256, as "Jarvord fitz Cadugan", he appears on the Jury-list for Chirbury Hundred. He further appears as a Juror on the general Inquest of 1274, on a local Inquest in March 1281, and at the Assizes of 1292. In the last case he is called de Riston. A Writ of Diem clausit, dated at Carlisle on Nov. 7, 1300, announces the death of Yareford de Riston. An Inquest held at Chirbury on March 1, 1301, states that Yareford ap Cadougan of Riston was a tenant in capite at Riston by service of finding one archer in ward of Montgomery for a day and night in time of any Welsh war. He had held 36 acres at Riston (value 6s. per annum), and two acres of meadow, on which holdings he paid the King 14d. rent, at

[1] Testa de Nevill, pp. 45, 48, 50.
[2] I suspect that in each case Valle should be read for Vallo.
[3] Rot. Hundred. II. 60 b, 61 a.


Montgomery Castle. He had held 50 acres of land and 8 acres of meadow at Brompton, by a rent of 5d., payable at the said Castle. His whole estate, after paying 1s. 7d. rent, was worth 1. 3s. 4d. yearly. Yareford, his son and heir, was 50 years of age and more. One of the Jurors on this Inquest was Philip de Riston. [1]

By a Writ of August 8, 1318, King Edward II. desires John de Bromfield, John de Barwe, and William de la Hulle, to inquire into the following grievance, alleged by the King's Tenants "of his Manors of Brompton and Ruston, in Chirbury Hundred". They complained that, although they lived within the limits of the County of Salop, and although they and their ancestors held under the Kings of England, as tenants in the Manors and Hundred aforesaid, and according to the common law of England, by certain services, and by doing suits to the County of Salop and (every three weeks) to the King's Court of Chirbury, yet that Hugh de Audley, late Custos of the Castle and Honour of Montgomery, had distrained the said Tenants to do suit to the King's Court of Halsetene, [2] within the Bailiwick of Montgomery, and to perform other Walensic services, as though they were Welshmen. The Tenants further complained that the grievance had not abated.

In October following, an Inquest, held at "Hebbelonde, on the confines of the County of Salop and the Bailiwick of Montgomery", reported the above complaints to be well founded, and that the men of Brompton and Ruston owed no suit to the King's Court of Halsetene; that Bogo de Knovill, when Custos of the Castle and Honour of Montgomery, had first instituted the unjust demands above stated, and had obtained a gratuity (curialitatem) for himself, as long as he held office, which gratuity the Tenants had paid as a composition for the said services. William de Leybourne, a succeeding Custos, had been similarly oppressive and venal; and Hugh de Audley, the present Custos, insisted on the demands of his predecessors. [3]

In 1346, William de Boudlers and certain Coparceners held that eighth part of a knight's-fee in Brompton "which Meuric de Hope had once held".

[1] Inquis. 29 Edw. I., No. 12.
[2] Halsetene, Halston, or Halcetor is the name of a district or Manor, rather than a place. It formed part of the Parish of Churchstoke, that part which now comprehends the townships of Churchstoke and Hurdley, with parts of Hopton, Mellington, and Bishop's Tiertref. Somewhere in the district thus defined sat the Court which, in Edward II.'s time, regulated the civil concerns of the whole Bailiwick of Montgomery Castle.
[3] Inquisitiones ad quod damnum, 12 Edw. II., No. 108.


OF BROMPTON, as distinct from Rhiston, something further should be said. Robert fitz Madoc, of whom we shall hear more under Middelton and Great Weston, is named as a Tenant in capite at Bromton in 1224. He left two sons, Owen and Meurich, at his death in the same year. Robert ap Howel de Brompton was a Juror for Chirbury Hundred at the Assizes of 1292. In 1296 Owen de Brompton was husband of Sibil, second sister and coheir of John de Wotherton, deceased. In March 1316 Howel de Bromton and Howel fitz Robert were Jurors on a local Inquest.

At the Dissolution, Chirbury Priory was in receipt of a rent of 2s. from a croft in Brompton. [1]


Isdem (Alwardus filius Elmundi) tenet Udevertune. Elmundus tenuit et liber homo fuit. Ibi III hidae geldabiles. Terra est XIV carucis. In dominio est dimidia caruca, et VI Villani et unus Bordarius et Presbyter et IIII Radmans cum XII carucis. Ibi Molinum reddens XXIV vascula frumenti. T.R.E. valebat IV lib'; modo similiter. [2] I cannot say why a Priest should be resident at Wotherton. The district was parochially subject to Chirbury, and I know not of any Record or Tradition speaking of a Chapel there.

The Post-Domesday history of Wotherton, as far as the Seigneury is concerned, is exactly the same as that of Churchstoke and Rhiston. The Feoffees, on the other hand, were a race of persons who took their name from the locality. -

HUGO DE WODENERTON was a Knight and a Juror in some principal causes, tried at the Shropshire Assizes of 1203. He also occurs in 1206 as security for Baldwin de Bollers, then Lord of Montgomery. I cannot further prove that he was of Wotherton, nor say that he was father of-

HAMO DE WODENERTON, Lord of that Manor, who was deceased in 1227. This Hamo left a son and heir,-

HENRY DE WODENERTON, who was a Minor in 1227, and in ward

[1] Monasticon, Vol. VI. p. 580.
[2] Domesday, fo. 259, b, 1.


to Hiliana Trussebut, widow of Robert de Bollers, a former Lord of Montgomery. That Lady's title to this wardship was probably as part of her dower. The Record says that she had it per dominum Regem, which perhaps means that the King, having the Lordship of Montgomery as an Escheat, had allowed Hillaria Trussebut's right of dower therein. The land of Henry de Wodenerton was valued at 20s. per annum. [1]

The Feodaries of 1240 give Henry de Wodeverton, Wodenton, or Wodforton, as holding in capite one-third of a knight's-fee in that vill, the tenure being De Vallo de Mongumery. [2] Henry de Wodinton occurs on a local Jury in June 1250, and on Juries of the Hundred in 1255 and 1256. The Inquest of 1255 reckons Wodenertun to be one hide. "Henry de Wodenertun held it for half a knight's-fee, doing three weeks' ward at Montgomery Castle in wartime, and doing suit throughout the year to Chirbury Hundred, and going to hunt thrice yearly with the Lords of Montgomery". Henry de Wodenertun held also a messuage in the town of Chirbury. "It had been conveyed to him at a rent of 9d. by John le Strange". [3] The latter had been Custos of the Chatellany of Montgomery from 1235 to 1242.

Henry de Wodenton occurs on a Jury of 1260, [4] which is the latest notice I have of him. He was succeeded by-

HUGH DE WODERTON, his son; but Hugh, son of Henry de Woderton, must not be confused with Hugh, son of Hugh de Wotherton, who was Henry's contemporary. [5]

At the Assizes of 1272 Hugh de Wodenorton was ninth, and Walter de Wodenerton was twelfth, Juror for Chirbury Hundred. They were brothers, I think. On October 23, 1274, Hugh, son of Henry de Wodenerton, was Foreman of the Jury which valued the estates of the late Thomas Corbet of Caus. At the Inquest of November 1274, Hugh de Wodurton was first, and Walter de Wodurton fifth, Juror for the same Hundred. In the Inquest, taken in 1276, on the death of John le Strange, Hugh de Wodenerton was 14th, and Walter de Wodenerton 24th, Juror. In 1285 Hugh de Woderton occurs as Lord of Rodenhurst. [6] In 1292 Walter, son of Henry de Wodenton, was living, but Hugh, his supposed elder brother, was dead. Hence, at the Assizes, it was presented by the Chirbury Jurors, how that Hugh de Woderton had held 10 merks

[1] Testa de Nevill, p. 53.
[2] Ibidem, pp. 46, 48, 50.
[3] Rot. Hundred. II. 60.
[4] Supra, Vol. VII. p. 82.
[5] Vide supra, Vol. X. p. 303.
[6] Supra, Vol. VII. p. 386.


of land in capite at Woderton, and how John, son and heir of the said Hugh, was a minor and in custody of Bogo de Knovill. The latter being called upon to account for having such wardship, stated that he was Custos of Montgomery Castle, with all its fees.

JOHN DE WODENORTON'S decease is announced by a Writ of Edward I., dated at Berwick-upon-Tweed, on April 7, 1296. An Inquest, held at Wodenorton on June 8 following, found the deceased to have held lands, of 5. 5s. annual value, in capite, at Wodenerton, by service of providing a Guard at Montgomery Castle for 20 days during any war with Wales. He had also owed suit every three weeks to Chirbury Hundred. His house in Chirbury, also held in capite, by a rent of 9d. payable through the Bailiff of Montgomery, was valued at 2s. per annum. He had also held rents of 15s. 1d. value, in Dodeston (Dudson), by service of 6d. payable to the heirs of William de Muleston. His tenure of Rodenhurst has been stated elsewhere. His heirs were his four sisters, viz. Eva, aged 30, now wife of Richard Hord; Matilda, aged 28, now wife of Walter de Hokelton; Sibil, aged 25, now wife of Owayn de Brompton; and Amice, aged 22, now wife of William le Seneschal. [1] A question afterwards arose, and a new writ was issued on Nov. 14, 1296, as to this alleged Coheirship. There was a doubt whether Margaret, widow of the deceased, were not enceinte. This was found not to be the case, by an Inquest, usual to such occasions, which sat at Shelve on December 28, 1296. [1]

On Jan. 8, 1299, Richard Hord with Eva his wife, Walter de Hokelton with Matilda his wife, Owen de Brompton with Sibil his wife, and William, son of William le Seneschall, with Amicia his wife, jointly fine half a merk for some judicial Writ.

A Fine of November 18, 1303, shows Richard Hord and Eva his wife purchasing, for 100, the share of William Styward (called William, son of William le Seneschal above), and his wife Amice in the estates of the Wothertons. Richard Hord thus obtained 2 messuages, one noke, and half a virgate in Bodeston and Rodenhurst, and one-fourth of the Manor of Wodenerton;- to be held of the Lords of the fees, by himself, his wife Eva, and the heirs of Eva.

In the Nomina Villarum of 1316, Woderton is named as one of the Vills of Chirbury Hundred, but its Tenants are not enumerated. I suppose that Richard Hord of Walford bought up some other share of Wotherton; for the Inquest taken in January 1326, found him to have died seized of three-fourths of the Hamlet and Mill

[1] Inquis. 24 Edw. I., No. 55.


of Wodenorton, which he held of the King for three-fourths of a knight's-fee. [1]

In 1346 Richard Hord (II) of Walleford is entered on an Aid-Roll as holding "that third of a knight's-fee in Woderton, which Henry de Woderton had once held". An Inquest taken in 1398, on the death of John, son of Roger Hord of Walford, gives some further hints as to the descent of Wotherton. The particulars have been stated elsewhere. [2]

Besides the elder line of Woderton which we see merged in Co-heiresses in 1296, there was a younger branch of which I should give some particulars.-

HUGH DE WODENERTON, the Knight of 1203, was possibly the father of-

HUGH DE WUDENERTON, who in 1228 is found contributing one merk of the Fines already spoken of as levied in Chirbury Hundred. This Hugh de Wotherton of 1228, I take to be the person who married one of the daughters and Coheirs of Walter le Fleming. [3] Again,-

HUGH, SON OF HUGH DE WDENERTON, who had an exchange with the Prior of Chirbury about 1230, was possibly the son of, possibly identical with, the last Hugh. Godescall de Maghelines ceased to be Bailiff of Montgomery on April 5, 1227. While in office, he granted half a virgate in the Manor of Chirbury at 6d. rent, and Hugh de Wodentun (probably son of the original Grantee) was holding the said half-virgate in 1255. The following further particulars will belong at all events to the Tenant of 1255.- In 1254 Giles de Erdinton is appointed by Patent to try a suit of novel disseizin which Hugh de Woderton had against the Prior of Chirbury concerning a tenement in Esple. Hugh de Wodenerton was sixth Juror for Chirbury Hundred at the Inquest of 1255, and fourth Juror at the Assizes of 1256. He occurs on other Juries and in other relations from 1248 to 1260; but especially as recovering a small estate at Milson in 1256, [4] his title to which I cannot explain. In a Patent of May 18, 1260, Hugh de Wodenerton was appointed a Receiver of the revenues of the Honour of Montgomery, without the Borough. He was succeeded by his son, usually called-

WALTER FITZ HUGH, and who sat as seventh Juror for Chirbury Hundred at the Assizes of 1272, and as fourth Juror at the Inquest

[1] Inquis. 19 Edw. II. No. 73.
[2] Supra, Vol. X. p. 297.
[3] Supra, Vol. X. p. 303.
[4] Supra, Vol. p. 347.


of 1274. At the Assizes of 1292 he was one of the Elizors for the same Hundred. In June 1296 and March 1301 he was Foreman of local Inquests. I shall have more to say of him under Winsbury, inasmuch as he inherited a share of the estates of Walter le Fleming.

OF UNDERTENANTS in Wotherton I may name John de Wodeton, ninth Juror for Chirbury Hundred at the Inquest of 1274; also Roger de Wodenerton, fifth Juror on a local Inquest in 1296, and eighth Juror on a local Inquest of 1299.

Muletune, postea Muneton.

Elward tenet Muletune. Godric tenuit et liber homo fuit. Ibi una virgata terrae geldabilis. Terra est uni carucae. Ibi est (una caruca) in dominio, cum II servis. Valuit et valet V solidos. [1] This place is now lost. It was known as Mineton, Muneton, Monetun, or Moneton, in the 13th and 14th centuries. As to its situation and tenure, the following particulars will constitute satisfactory, if not complete, evidence.-

At the Assizes of 1221, "Adam de Brerlawe sued William Passavant for 1 and 3/8 acres in Mineton, of which Philip, Adam's father, had died seized. The Defendant came into Court and surrendered the premises, the Plaintiff giving him one shilling". On Oct. 29, 1227, a Fine was levied, whereby "Odelina, widow of Robert Blund, releases to Adam de Brerelawe, tenant, a claim which she had to a noke of land in Muneton. For this, Adam gave 10s". In Trinity Term 1233, Adam de Brerlawe was Attorney for one John fitz Robert in a Plea of land against Thomas Corbet of Caus. He essoigned his attendance at Westminster by William de Brerlawe. Adam de Brerlawe occurs as a Juror on Montgomery Inquests in 1249 and 1251.

The Chirbury Hundred-Roll of 1255 contains the following question.- Quid pertinet ad Castro Domini Regis, ut in redditibus, wardis, et aliis rebus assisis, etc.? Among the several answers we have this one.- Adam de Brerlawe et Adam Passavant tenent unam

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


virgatam in Munetun que solebat respondere una cum vills de Eitun ad Castrum de Mungomery de quinta parte feodi militis; et Willielmus de Cantulupo nunc habet dominacionem, nescimus quo waranto. [1]

Here we have clearly a reproduction of Elward's Domesday virgate in Muletune. The seigneury had descended to Cantilupe as Coheir of De Bollers;- a very usual destination of Elward's Domesday Manors. But I should observe that the third William de Cantilupe, the person above alluded to, had died in the Autumn of 1254. The Chirbury Jurors were probably ignorant of that fact. I should also observe that the Eiton above alluded to was part of Eyton near Alberbury, in Ford Hundred. The tenure of half Eyton, under Cantilupe, and under the Honour of Montgomery, has been made plain elsewhere. [2] It is curious that two places so distant as Eyton and Muneton, and held by different tenants, should be jointly responsible for a quota of military service at Montgomery: but the original assessment was probably made at some very early period, when, for aught we know, the Tenants were identical.

A document of the year 1272, which I shall give more fully under Bromlow, associates that place with Muneton, Aston Rogers, Whytspon, and Luckley. This doubtless gives us the proximate situation of Muneton.

As Adam de Brerlawe, or two persons of that name, occur in Chirbury Hundred from 1221 to 1255, so Adam de Brerlawe (alias de Wigmore), or two persons of that name, have occurred to us under Ford Hundred from 1221 to 1274.
[3] They held at Wigmore and Brerlawe (near Westbury) under Boterell of Longden.

In 1280 Milisent la Zouch, as Coheiress of Cantilupe, was suing many tenants of her Fief for their services. We have seen under Eyton that a place, written Monentun, was combined with Eyton as regarded the service claimed. [4] The hint, I can call it nothing more, is relevant to our present subject.

In the Nomina Villarum of 1316, John Hager stands as Lord of the vill of Muneton, in Chirbury Hundred.

The continued Seigneury of Cantilupe's Heirs at Muneton is seen in a Feodary of 1395-6, where Eyton Stokes (i.e. Eyton near

[1] Rot. Hundred. II. 61.
[2] Supra, Vol. VII. pp. 121, 122.
[3] Supra, Vol. VII. pp. 27, 124, 171. In the last instance Adam de Brerlawe is inadvertently stated to have been Corbet's Tenant at Lower Mellington. I should have said Cantilupe's, at Mellington.
[4] Supra, Vol. VII. p. 122.


Alberbury) and Moneton are said to be held of Zouche of Haryngworth, by half a knight's-fee. [1]


Godeboldus tenet, de Comite, Lach. Leuric tenuit. Ibi una virgata terrae et dimidia, geldabiles. Wasta fuit. Modo reddit XVI denarios. [2]

Godebold, thus mentioned, was, I presume, that influential Ecclesiastic of whom I spoke last under Preston Gubbalds. [3] Lack still remains in Shropshire. With Rhiston and Brompton it constitutes the English part of the Parish of Church Stoke; but it is no longer a distinct township, being involved in Brompton. From the time of Domesday downwards, I find no instance of its being named as a separate estate; consequently, I know nothing of its ownership. We may suppose it to have escheated to the Crown in Henry I.'s time, and afterwards to have been treated as part of Rhiston and Brompton.


Domesday assigns this Manor to the Shrewsbury Church of St. Chad; but Elward, the Tenant of the said Church, was clearly identical with Alward, son of Elmund, who held so many Manors in the Hundreds of Witentreu and Ruesset, immediately under the Norman Earl. [4] Domesday speaks of Marton as follows.- Ipsa AEcclesia (Sanctus Cedda) tenet Mertune et tenuit. Eluuardus tenet de AEcclesia. Ibi II hidae geldabiles. In dominio est dimidia caruca, et III Villani et III Radmans et unus Bordarius cum III carucis et dimidia; et adhuc II carucae plus possent esse. Silva

[1] Calend. Inquis. Vol. III. p. 193.
[2] Domesday, fo. 259, b, 1.
[3] Supra, Vol. X. p. 171.
[4] Vide supra, page 70.


(est) L porcis incrassandis. T.R.E. reddebat VIII solidos. Modo valet X solidos; sed non reddit nisi VI solidos et II denarios. [1] After Domesday we have not a trace of any seigneury maintained by St. Chad's Church at Marton. Like Alward's other Manors it escheated to the Crown, and was annexed, probably by Henry I., to the Honour of Montgomery. On the failure of the elder male line of De Bollers in the time of King John, the Seigneury of Marton was again an escheat; but it was one of those Seigneuries which were afterwards permitted by the Crown to descend to Cantilupe, as collateral heir of De Bollers. Cantilupe's Feoffees were those Hunalds of Frodesley, concerning whom I have said so much in a former Volume. [2] Not to repeat all that has transpired as to the earlier Hunalds, we pass to the Feodary of 1240, which states that-

WILLIAM HONAUD holds half a fee in Merton, of the fees of William de Cantilupe. [3] In Easter Term 1248 William Hunald having deceased, his widow, Lauretta, was suing William de Cantilupe for one-third of the Manor of Marton, as her dower. Cantilupe's defence was that "Thomas, William Hunald's son, ought to be in his custody, and that Loretta had carried him off". The Court ordered Loretta to produce the said heir on the morrow of Ascension-day, if she judged it expedient so to do, because that day was assigned in banco to John fitz Alan, who (as Seignenral Lord of Frodesley) claimed the same wardship and marriage. [4]

A Patent of August 1252 appoints Giles de Erdinton to try a suit of disseizin alleged by Richard Purcel and Hillaria his mother against Loretta, widow of William Honaut, concerning a tenement in Marton. The Plaintiffs, it appears, gave the King one merk for this Writ. [5] A second Fine of one merk was proffered in 1254 by widow of Richard Purcel, pro uno brevi ad terminum. [6] The result of one or both of these Fines may be gathered from an entry on the Pipe-Roll of 1254;- "Loretta, widow of William Hanaud, owes half a merk for disseizin and trespass".

The Chirbury Hundred-Roll of 1256 describes the status of Marton as follows.- "William Hunald, deceased, held the Vill of Marton, which is two hides of land, and did the service of half a knight's-fee to Montgomery Castle, and did suit throughout the year to Chirbury Hundred, and used to victual the Guards of Montgomery; and Sir William de Cantilupe had the Seigneury (dominacionem)

[1] Domesday, fo. 253, a, 1.
[2] Supra, Vol. VI. pp. 292-294.
[3] Testa de Nevill, p. 46.
[4] Gloucester Assizes, 32 Hen. 117. m. 4 dorso.
[5] [6] Rot. Finium, Vol. II. pp. 138, 185.


of the said Vill, and custody of the heir thereof, the Jurors know not by what warranty". [1] We have seen under Frodesley that Thomas Hunald was nearly, if not quite; of age at this crisis. We also know that William de Cantilupe (III) was deceased. A Suit, tried at the Assizes of January 1256, is apposite to both considerations.-

THOMAS HANAUD, as heir of his father William, sued Odo de Hodnet for a carucate in Merton, alleging that his said father had died seized thereof. Odo de Hodnet appeared, and stated that he claimed nothing in the premises, except under a demise made to him by W. (Walter de Cantilupe) Bishop of Worcester, and Matilda de Cantilupe, as Executors of the Will of William de Cantilupe (II), father of William de Cantilupe (last deceased). The said Executors had demised the premises to the said Odo, from year to year, and during their pleasure; and he now called them to warranty. Summonses to the Bishop (in Worcestershire) and to Matilda (in Northamptonshire), returnable on Feb. 16, were issued accordingly. [2]

In Easter Term 1263, Thomas Corbet (of Caus) had a suit de audienda electione against Thomas Honaud, concerning 73 acres in Morton, and against sundry other tenants of Thomas Honaud, whose holdings the said Thomas was bound to warrant. These Tenants were Richard Putrel, of 37 acres; Howel ap Adam, of 23 acres;- Griffin Seys, of 10 acres;- Robert de Hope, of 7 acres;- Robert Coleman, of 8 acres;- and Richard Purcel, of 7 acres. This suit recurs in Hilary Term 1267, in a simpler form, viz. between Thomas Corbet, as claimant, and Thomas Honaud, etc., as tenants, of the above lands. The quantities vary slightly from the above, and instead of Richard Putrel, we have Richard Purcel, and instead of Richard Purcel, we have Roger Purcel, as tenants of 23 acres and 7 acres respectively. The latter correction was (as we shall see) an accurate one; but I hear no more of the suit.

In July 1272, Loretta, widow of William Hunald, was still living. She, with Matilda, widow of Richard Purcel, and with Griffin ap Madoc, were impleaded coram Rege "for cutting down the trees of Petronilla Corbet in the bosc of Weston (i.e. Binweston)". The Inquest, taken in December, 1273, on the death of George de Cantilupe, seems to have included Marton juxta Hathewildeford [3] among the Fees of Montgomery of which he had the Seigneury.

[1] Rot. Hundred. II. p. 61.
[2] Assizes, 40 Hen. IIL, m. 12.
[3] Calend. Inquis. Vol I. p. 49. Heathway lies a little N.W. of Marton.


WILLIAM HUNALD, the supposed successor of Thomas, seems to have died in 1278. A lost Inquest of that year alluded to his "Vill of Merton in Chirbury Hundred". [1]

JOHN HUNALD, supposed successor of William, has been noticed under Frodesley as occurring from 1292 to 1316. I find nothing of his connection with Marton till the latter year, when John de Henaud, Regis de Mathehurst (probably Reginald de Mailhurst), and Simon de Henaud are enrolled in the Nomina Villarum as joint Lords of Marton.

OF THE PURCELS, as Undertenants in Marton, I have something to add to what has transpired above.-

RICHARD PURCEL (I), deceased in 1248, left a widow Hillaria. She was one of the daughters and coheirs of Walter le Fleming.

RICHARD PURCEL (II) was deceased in 1266. He left a widow, Muriella, or Matilda. This Richard Purcel seems to have perished in an affray with the men of Thomas Corbet of Caus. About September 1266, Murilla, widow of Richard Purcel, had an appeal in the Curia Comitatus against the alleged murderers of her husband, viz. Adam de Worthin, Alan Corbet, Madoc de Beechfield, Ralph Sturry, and about 60 others. The King ordered that the challenge should come before himself in person, viz. on October 20th, 1266. Adam and his accomplices sent word to Court that they were in garrison at Caus Castle, and dared not come out, because of the ambuscades which were being laid for them by the enemy (the Welsh). The King hereupon adjourned the summons for one returnable at Westminster on January 20, 1267. Still the parties appeared not, and a summons, returnable in one month of Easter, was issued. In Michaelmas Term 1267, it was the Plaintiff, Muriella, who was non-attendant. She was ordered to appear on Feb. 3, 1268, and meanwhile the Sheriff was forbidden to proceed with any process of outlawry against the accused, or to trouble their lands. On Feb. 3, 1268, Muriell was still in default, but the accused were in Court. They were therefore all dismissed sine die: and on May 15, 1272, the King, at instance of Thomas Corbet, pardoned them all, as regarded Suit of his peace: and the Sheriff was enjoined to let the Defendants have the King's peace. I find it subsequently recorded, how that "Peter Corbet (Thomas Corbet's son), Robert Corbet, [2] Hugh Grysetayl, and Roger Burnel, with others who died in Henry III.'s time, entered upon the fields of Marton

[1] Calend. Inquis. Vol. I. p. 63.
[2] Called Robert Corbet filius in the Record. However, neither Thomas nor Peter Corbet had any son named Robert.


and Weston (probably Binweston) and slew Richard Purcel, and carried off 50 head of cattle to Caus Castle": and how that "Since then, Peter Corbet, Robert Corbet, and Hugh Grysetayl, had got an acquittal, as far as the King's peace was concerned, under a pardon of Henry III". As to the robbery, their acquittal of that is recorded with the above particulars on the Assize-Roll of 1292; for they showed that the Cattle were taken whilst trespassing on a meadow and garden of Thomas Corbet.

ROGER PURCEL attended a Middleton Inquest in March 1281. It was possibly he who is written as Roger Burnel of Marton, on a Bicton Inquest of 1290. He left a son and heir, Richard; for-

RICHARD PURCEL of Marton was one of the Chirbury Jurors at the Assizes of 1292, and the same person is called "Richard, son of Roger Purcel", in a Jury-list of 1301, and called "Richard, son of Roger Purcel, of Marton", in other lists of 1318. In the latter case Griffin fitz Griffin of Marton was also a Juror.

THE PRIOR OF CHIRBURY had something in Marton, besides the great tithes. The Valor of 1534-5 gives him 2s. rent in Marton and Stockton. According to the Ministers' Accounts, two years later, 1s. came from land in Marton, and 1s. from land and meadow in Stockton.


THIS was a divided Manor at the time of Domesday. The part which I propose to treat of first, is thus described in that Record.- Ertein tenet de Comite Mildetune. Ipsemet tenuit (et) liber homo fuit. Ibi III virgatae terrae, geldabiles. Terra est uni carucae. Ibi est (una caruca) in dominio cum II servis. Valebat IX solidos: modo (valet) XII solidos. [1] This Manor was probably retained by its Saxon owner, Ertein, only for a short time after Domesday. In the hands of Henry I. it became parcel of the Honour of Montgomery; but on failure of the line of De Bollers it does not seem to have gone to Cantilupe or any other collateral heir. Its Tenants were therefore first Tenants of De Bollers and afterwards Tenants-in-capite of the Crown.

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


MADOC, the earliest of these Tenants whom I can name, became a Monk early in the year 1200. His son,-

ROBERT FITZ MADOC, instantly proffered a Fine of 15 merks to King John "that he might have seizin of such lands as his father had held by right hereditary on the day when he put on the habit of religion, which thing he had done recently; saving to the Seigneural Lords of such lands all services and reliefs, and saving the claims of all persons". [1] The King ordered the Sheriff to take security for the above Fine. Later in the year it was renewed, or rather increased by a Palfrey. [2] No instalment of Robert fitz Madoc's debt had yet been received at Michaelmas 1202. At the Salop Assizes of October 1203, Robert fitz Madoc sat as a Juror, and apparently a Knight, in some principal causes. In 1209 he occurs as one of the Manucaptors, or Sureties, concerned in the Forest trespass of Robert Corbet of Caus. [3]

On Feb. 6, 1224, King Henry III. orders his Treasurer to make Robert fitz Maddoc a present of 20s., towards his expenses. [4] Another Writ of July 16, 1224, orders Godescall de Maghelines (then Bailiff of Montgomery) to restore the house and lands, of which he had disseized the said Robert, and to protect him. [5] A third Writ of Oct. 4, 1224, is addressed to Baldwin de Hodnet (then Seneschal and Custos of Montgomery). He is to give "Robert fitz Madoc such seizin of Middeton and Bromton as he had when he set out to see Lewellyn on the King's affairs". Moreover, "the challenge or appeal made by one Thomas fitz Ivette against Robert fitz Madoc, for murdering his (Thomas's) daughter, is to be adjourned till the King should visit those parts". [6] On November 28, 1224, Robert fitz Madoc being dead, the King, at the instance of Lewellyn, orders Godescal de Maghelins to deliver to the Widow of the said Robert such portion of his lands and chattels as was customary in those parts, she having been nurse to the King's niece, Lewellyn's daughter. [7] On Feb. 13, 1225, the same functionary is ordered to "take lawful men of the Honour of Montgomery and go to the late Robert fitz Madoc's estate of Weston, and, after assigning his widow her dower therein, to deliver the residue up to Thomas Corbet, of whose Fee Weston was". [8] Another precept of Feb. 25 extends the above order to any other lands of the deceased, besides Weston, the King repeating the grounds of his personal interest in the Widow, viz. that she had nursed his niece. [9] A Writ of March 21, 1225, aims to

[1] [2] Oblata, pages 60, 79, 138.
[3] Supra, Vol. VII. page 16.
[4] [5] [6] Rot. Claus. I. 583, 611, 623.
[7] [8] [9] Rot. Claus. II. pp. 8, 16, 17.


secure to Thomas Corbet his seigneural rights in Weston.
[1] On April 3, 1225, we have yet another Writ, implying that-

HOWEN AP ROBERT AP MADOC was of full age. Godescal de Maghelines is first to ascertain his legitimacy, and then to give him livery of all such lands of his late father as were in the King's keeping: but Meurich fitz Robert (I presume another son of Robert ap Madoc) is to retain Stretforton and Banhaltreth (he having fined for the same), saving the right of any other claimant. [2] I hear no more of Owen ap Robert, nor yet can I tell how it was that his estate at Middleton fell to Coparceners. Of the Coparceners in question we have repeated notices.-

On Nov. 3, 1250, a Fine was levied at Westminster, whereby Gytha de Middelton (tenant of half a virgate in Middelton), Adam Falc and Isolda his wife (tenants of one and two-thirds nokes, except 7 acres, there), Osbert fitz Heylin (tenant of half a virgate), Roger fitz Elyas (tenant of half a virgate), and Alice fitz Roger (tenant of one-third of a virgate there) give 20s. to Reginald de Cordin and his wife Mable for renouncing a claim which they had urged to the several premises. A contemporary Plea-Roll certifies this 20s. to be due from the Defendants to the Plaintiffs, but here Adam Falk's wife is called Isabella, and Reginald de Cordin's name is altered to de Verdun.

The Chirbury Hundred-Roll of 1255 makes this estate to be only a third of Middletun and to be one virgate in extent. The Tenants named are Roger fitz Elyas, Adam Falc, Robert (read Osbert) and Philip, sons of Heilin, and B'ucha, wife of (read Gytha, widow of) Heilin. Their services were "to provide a man, with bow or lance, in ward of Montgomery Castle for 15 days in wartime;- to do suit thrice yearly to the Court of Montgomery, and throughout the year to Chirbury Hundred-Court;- also to go hunting thrice yearly with the Lords of Montgomery, and to victual the Guards of Montgomery". [3]

By a Fine levied on Feb. 9, 1256, one Stephen fitz Osbert releases for 5 merks, his claim to 30 acres in Middleton held by Gutha, widow of Helin de Middleton;- to 20 acres held by Osbert fitz Helin, under warranty of the same Gutha;- to 10 acres held by Philip fitz Helyn under a like warranty;- to 16 acres held by Adam Falk and his wife Isolda;- and to 35 acres held by Roger fitz Elyas, under warranty of the same Adam and Isolda.

Roger fitz Elyas, I observe, served on local Juries in 1250 and

[1] [2] Rot. Claus. II. pp. 24, 25.
[3] Rot. Hundred. II. 60.


1251, and was on the Chirbury Jury-list at the Inquest of 1255, the Assizes of 1256, and the Inquest of 1274. I infer that Richard fitz Elyas, ostensibly a Juror at the Assizes of 1272, should have been written as Roger. A local Jury of Feb. 1281 was attended by Roger son of Roger de Middelton; and at the Assizes of 1292 the said Roger (the son) is empanelled as "Roger Elys of Middleton";- a good instance of the way in which a patronymic, or rather an avonymic, became converted into a surname.

Madoc Falk, a defaulter at the Assizes of 1272, was probably son of Adam Falk.

I now return to show the Saxon and Domesday status of the other part of Middleton. It was held by Robert fitz Corbet under the Norman Earl.- Isdem Robertus tenet Mildetune. Edric Salvage tenuit. Ibi III virgatae, geldabiles. Ibi I Radman et I Villanus et II Bordarii cum dimidia caruca, et adhuc una caruca posset esse. Valuit IV solidos: modo (valet) V solidos. [1]

After what I have said under Eudon Savage, [2] I need repeat nothing about Edric Sylvaticus, nor, having fully stated the matter under Longden, [3] need I reiterate the circumstances under which a share of Robert Corbet's Barony devolved to the Cornish family of Botreaux. The Seigneury of this estate at Middleton was part of that share. The earliest Feoffee of Botreaux at Middleton was one-

GRANTA DE MIDDLETON. He was living (as I shall show under Linley) between the years 1148 and 1154. His father's name was Lenewine, his Grandfather's name was Grenta, and he had an Uncle, Roger fitz Grent. Descended from the above Granta de Middleton was another-

GRANTA DE MIDDLETON. He occurs early in the 13th century in connection with Linley, but of that matter I shall speak elsewhere. A Writ-Close of January 5, 1227 names Grand de Middleton as having lands adjoining to Caldecot. [4] Caldecot was near Colebatch. Among the Fines negotiated or inflicted at the Autumn Assizes of 1227, and recorded on the Pipe-Roll of 1228, we have one of 6s. 8d. paid by Grant de Middleton, followed by one of 1. 6s. 8d. paid by the men of Middelton. Also Grant de Middelton had paid 20s. for license to compound a suit at the said Assizes; and the particulars of the Concord happen to be preserved.- On Oct. 13, 1227, Noel fitz Robert, having impleaded Grant de

[1] Doomsday, fo. 256, a, 1.
[2] Supra, Vol. III. pp. 48-50.
[3] Supra, Vol. VII. pp. 157 st seqq.
[4] Rot. Claus. II. p. 165.


Middelton for two virgates of land in Middelton, under Writ of mort d'ancestre, releases his claim for 6 merks. Next in this succession I find -

ROGER FITZ GRENT. He was Juror on local Inquests in 1250 and 1251: he was ninth Juror for Chirbury Hundred at the Inquest of 1255, and eighth Juror at the Assizes of 1256. The Chirbury Hundred-Roll of 1255 records his tenure at Middleton as follows.- "Two-thirds of Middeltun which Roger fitz Grant holds of the Barony of Longedun (i.e. under Reginald Botreaux) owe suit to Chirbury Hundred, and have to victual the Guards of Montgomery, in return for pasturage which (the Tenants) have on lands of the Lord Edward". [1] (Prince Edward was now Lord of Montgomery Castle and Honour.) At the Assizes of 1272, Roger fitz Grent was one of the Elizors for Chirbury Hundred; and in 1274, he sat on the Inquest which valued the late Thomas Corbet's estates, and was second Juror at the Inquest of Chirbury Hundred, though his estate at Middleton seems to have been in the hands of Lewellyn, by conquest. The death of Roger Grauntesone, as he is here called, is announced by King Edward's Writ, dated Feb. 11, 1281. An Inquest, held on March 4th following, found that the deceased had held nothing of the King in capite; but under William de Botereus he had held two-thirds of the Vill of Midelton and Kyngton (i.e. Kinton), as two virgates of land. His services were three annual appearances at William de Botereus's Court of Longedon, with wardship and relief whenever they should happen. He also did due suit to Chirbury Hundred-Court. His two virgates were valued at 4. 15s. per annum. Philip, his son and heir, was 16 years of age at Michaelmas, 1280. [2]

PHILIP DE MIDDLETON, the said heir sat as second Juror for Chirbury Hundred at the Assizes of 1292. He also occurs on a local Inquest of March 1301. In the Nomina Villarum of 1316, he stands alone as Lord of the Vill of Middelton.


PURSUING our account of Robert fitz Corbet's Manors in Witentreu Hundred, we come to Marrington.- Isdem Robertus tenet Meritune.

[1] Rot. Hundred. II. 60.
[2] Inquis. 9 Edw. I., No. 2.


Eluuard et Aluric tenuerunt pro duobus Maneriis, et liberi homines erant. Ibi dimidia hida geldabilis. Ibi sunt II Radmans et III Bordarii cum II carucis, et Silva XV porcis incrassandis. Valebat (T.R.E.) VII solidos; et post V solidos; modo IV denarios plus. [1]

I need not repeat what I have said under Woodcote, [2] as to the descent of a moiety of Robert Corbet's Domesday Fief to the Fitz Herberts. The allusion will sufficiently explain how the Fitz Herberts became Seigneural Lords of Marrington. Their Tenants here will form the main subject of this chapter.- At the Assizes of 1203,-

RICHARD DE MERITON was amerced half a merk for some default. At the Assizes of 1227 the Vill of Mereton contributed to the Fines levied in this district, and which were applied to works at Montgomery Castle.

WALTER DE MERITON occurs on Montgomery Juries in January 1249, June 1250, and October 1251.

JOHN DE MARRINGTON seems, from subsequent Records, to have come next in this succession, or at least to have been father of William de Marrington, now to be named. The Feodaries of 1240 enrol-

WILLIAM DE MERINTON as holding one-fourth of a knight's-fee in Merinton, of the Barony of Herbert fitz Peter. [3] The Chirbury Hundred-Roll of 1255 says that William de Maritun holds Maritun of Reginald fitz Peter, doing suit throughout the year to Chirbury Hundred. [4] He also held an estate at Rorrington under the same Suzerain. William de Marinton was one of the Jurors for Chirbury Hundred at the Assizes of 1256. It was soon after this, I think, that William de Marinton died. He seems to have left a son, William, and three sisters, Christiana, Isabella, and Alice. Christiana was the wife of Baldwin de Bullers and mother of William de Bullers; Isabella was wife of Eynun Wendut; Alice's husband is not named, but she had a son, John, and a grandson, William, who was in minority in 1272. For some reason or other, the sisters of William de Marinton (I) got hold of his estates; and we have many notices of the efforts made by them to hold, and by his son to recover, them.- First, they had to deal with Ingaretta, widow of William de Mereton (I), who, on May 14, 1260, was claiming her dower in the Courts of Westminster. She so claimed one-third of the Manor of Merton, one-third of two parts of the Manor of

[1] Domesday, fo. 256, a, 1.
[2] Supra, Vol. VII. p. 146 et seqq.
[3] Testa de Nevill, pp. 48, 50.
[4] Rot. Hundred. II. 61.


Rorington, and one-third of 5s. rent in Hanwood. The premises were seized into the King's hand, but I cannot find any continuation of the suit. The Defendants were Baldwin de Bollers and his wife, Christiana, and Alice and Isabella, daughters of John de Merton. I cannot but think that these Coheiresses denied the marriage of their late brother and Ingaretta.

A Patent of Feb. 3, 1261, appoints Giles de Erdinton to try a suit of novel disseizin, arraigned by Baldwin de Bolers and his wife against Reginald fitz Peter and others, who had disseized the Plaintiffs of their free tenement in Mariton. I suppose this suit ended in a concord; for in July 1263 I find Reginald fitz Peter suing Baldwin de Boulers at Westminster, his object being to oblige the said Baldwin to abide by a convention, made concerning half a messuage and a carucate in Merton. In October 1266, the suit, still pending, purports to be about a third part of a messuage and carucate in Mereton. The last that I hear of this suit is in February 1267, when Baldwin de Boulers notwithstanding the stringent orders which had been made to secure his appearance at Westminster, was still a Defaulter. In December 1271 the nature of this litigation changes.- "William de Merton has a Writ of mort d'ancestre against Baudewyn de Bolers and Christina, his wife, concerning a messuage and carucate in Rorinton and Merinton". A second Writ of January 1272 is one of novel disseizin, obtained by William de Mariton against Baldwin de Bullere. A third Writ of April 12, 1272, is the one which at length led to a trial. It is for "an assize of mort d'ancestre, arraigned by William, son of William de Meriton, against William, son of Baldwin de Bolledere and others, concerning a messuage, a carucate, and a virgate in Meriton and Rorington". A contemporary Writ of novel disseizin by William de Meriton versus Baldwin de Bolledere concerning a tenement in Mariton, is very usual to such cases. The double Writs were taken out ex abundanti cautela. The Suit, actually tried at the Assizes of October 1272, was one of mort d'ancestre, viz. whether William, father of William de Meryton (the Plaintiff), had died seized of a messuage and carucate in Meryton and a virgate in Roryton, and who was his heir? The Defendants in such a suit were of course the existing Tenants. These were William, son of Baldwin de Bouldere (as regarded a messuage, half-carucate, and half-virgate); Eynon Wendut [1] and his wife, Isabella (as regarded a quarter-carucate and half-virgate); and Eynon Menseyth and his wife,

[1] Eynon Wendut was at this time Chief Bailiff of Chirbury Hundred (supra, p. 56).


Matilda (as regarded a quarter-carucate). The third party held under the second party, and called them to warranty. So also William de Boulers called his father and mother, Baldwin and Christiana, to warranty. The said warranties being vouched, the virtual defendants were Christiana and Isabella, sisters of William de Marrington (deceased), and wives of Baldwin de Bollers and Eynon Wendut. Their defence was of a complex nature:- first, that Stephen de Bullers held part of the premises (viz. half a virgate) and that William, the alleged tenant, was not his heir;- secondly, that William de Meryton, deceased, had left, besides Christiana and Isabella, a third sister, Alice, who shared in the original partition of his estates, and that Alice had left a son, John, and John a son, William, which William, by reason of his minority, was no party to the suit. The whole case was adjourned till this youth should come of age, except the quarter-carucate held by Aynon and Matilda Mensh and warranted by Aynon and Isabella Wendut. That was recovered at once by-

WILLIAM DE MARRINGTON (II), as right heir of his father. [1] Altogether, I think it probable that, at the time of his father's death, William de Marrington (II) was an infant, and his legitimacy perhaps questioned. Reginald fitz Peter seems at first to have denied, and afterwards to have partially allowed the claim of one of his Aunts. The result had been his disinheritance, until, by the trial of 1272, his title to all his father's estates was virtually made good. He sat, as a Juror for Chirbury Hundred, at the Assizes of 1292 and on a local Inquest in 1299. It is clear however that Baldwin de Bollers, or rather his son, William, retained an independent estate in Marrington and Rorrington. On the death of-

WILLIAM DE BOLERS in 1299, the Inquest found him to have held certain tenements at Mariton under John fitz Reginald, by service of providing one soldier in wartime, at the moat of Poole, [2] with a bow, two arrows, and a bolt (trivolo), for a night and day; and by service of appearing thrice yearly at Pontesbury Manor-Court. He had also held, of the same John fitz Reginald, certain tenements at Roriton, but without render of any services thereon.

[1] Salop Assizes, 56 Hen. III., m. 4.
[2] Ad motam de Pola.- This service is extraordinary. I know of nothing which, at the period, should make the services of Fitz Herbert's Tenant returnable at Powis Castle. Afterwards, when several of Fitz Herbert's Shropshire Seigneuries were conveyed to the Barons Cherlton of Powis, the arrangement would have been more intelligible.


Philip ap Eynon (perhaps a son of Eynon Wendut) was a Juror on this Inquest. [1]

WILLIAM DE BOLERS (II), son and heir of the above William, was 23 years of age on August 1, 1299. He was deceased on October 1, 1323, having held a messuage and 40 acres of land in Mariton, under John de Cherlton, by service of 5s. rent. The annual value of the tenement was 10s. 6d. Robert, son and heir of the deceased, was 21 years of age on Nov. 1, 1323. [2] On the death of John de Cherlton of Powis in 1374,-

HUGH DE BOUDLERS was found to be his Tenant, in respect of the whole Manor of Maryton, which he held by service of one-third part of a knight's-fee. The estate was worth 6 merks per annum. [3] Of this family of Bollers I shall have something more to say under Winsbury.

SIDNAL was probably a member of Marrington. John and Hugh de Sidenhale occur on a Chirbury Inquest in 1316, and Hugh de Sidenhale on a Marrington Inquest in 1323.

Priest Weston.

THIS was another of Robert Corbet's Domesday Manors.- Isdem Robertus tenet Westune. Sex teini tenuerunt pro VI Maneriis et erant liberi. Quisque habebat unam virgatam terrae, et geldabat. Modo sunt ibi VII Radmans cum III carucis, et reddunt XX solidos. Terra duorum valebat X solidos; aliorum vero wasta fuit. [4]

This estate descended to Botreaux as a member of the Barony of Longden. Botreaux' tenants here were persons who had another estate at Colebatch, near Bishops Castle, where we shall hear of them again.

ROGER DE COLEBECH occurs in 1227, but I cannot say that he was of Weston. In that year the Vill of Weston contributed to the Fines so extensively levied in Chirbury Hundred. The Chirbury Hundred-Roll of 1255 states concerning-

LEWELYN DE KOLEBECHE that he was infirm, and did not attend the Inquest. "He held Weston of the Barony of

[1] Inquis. 28 Edw. I., No. 23.
[2] Inquis. 17 Edw. II., No. 15.
[3] Inquis. 48 Edw. III., No. 19.
[4] Donsesday, fo. 256, a, 1.


Longedon, and owed suit to the Hundred of Chirbury, and was bound to victual the Guards of Montgomery in return for a right of pasturage which he enjoyed over the Fee of Montgomery". [1]

ROGER DE COLLEBECHE occurs on a local Inquest in 1281.

When the Manor of Longden passed to the Burnells by exchange between William Botreaux (IV) and the Bishop of Bath and Wells, the Seigneury over Priest Weston seems to have passed with the capital Manor. Hence the Inquest, taken in 1315, after the death of Edward Burnell, names certain rents receivable from free-tenants in Preostes-Weston, as adjuncts of the Manor of Longedon. [2] One of these Free Tenants we are able to identify. William de Wynesbury, deceased on Oct. 1, 1323, held 20 acres in Weston under John de Hanloo, by a rent of 2s., the estate being worth 5s. per annum. [3] Of William de Wynesbury we shall hear elsewhere.

That this place should have acquired some name to distinguish it from other Westons in the vicinity is not surprising; but when first, and why, it was called Priest Weston is not so clear. Perhaps it was because the Canons of Chirbury had an estate here. In the Valor of 1291 this estate is placed indeed in Little Weston, being valued at 7s. 6d. per annurn. But Little Weston was a member of Priest Weston: so also was Hagley (called in the same Record Eccele), whence the Canons derived further rents of 6s.

The Valor of 1534-5 gives the Priory 9s. rent from Priest Weston, and 8d. rent from Heychley. The Ministers' Accounts, two years later, speak of a messuage and land at Priest Weston yielding 9s. per annum to the late Priory.


THIS was a divided Manor at Domesday. We will first deal with Robert fitz Corbet's share.- Isdem Robertus tenet Roritune. Aluric tenuit. Ibi una virgata non geldabilis. In dominio est I caruca et VII servi et IX Bordarii. Ibi silva XV porcis incrassandis; et dimidia haia ibi. Valuit III solidos; modo (valet) VI solidos. Leuric tenet de Roberto. [4]

[1] Rot. Hundred. II. 61.
[2] Supra, Vol. VII. p. 169.
[3] Inquisitions, 17 Edw. II., No. 19.
[4] Domesday, fo. 256, a, 1.


The seigneury of this share of Rorrington fell, on partition of Robert Corbet's Barony, to the Fitz-Herberts. Hence from the Hundred-Roll of 1255 we learn that-

"WILLIAM DE MARITON holds half a virgate in Rounton of Reginald fitz Peter, and does perennial suit to Chirbury Hundred". Also-

"ROGER DE LONGEDON holds half a virgate in the same, and does like suit. Both these Tenants, as long as they had pasturage on the King's land, used to victual the Watchmen of Montgomery, but when their right of pasturage was suspended, they withdrew that service". [1] We have heard of William de Marrington, and his estate at Rorrington, before. In the subsequent contest between his Sisters and his Son, this estate is put at one virgate, so that, I suppose, the disputants held or claimed the whole of one moiety of Rorrington. We have seen that William de Bollers, dying in 1299, had held what he had in Rorrington under John fitz Reginald. In the Nomina Villarum of 1316, Lucas de Roriton seems to be the owner of the moiety now under notice.

Domesday gives another share of Rorrington as part of Roger fitz Corbet's Barony.- Isdem Rogerius tenet Roritune et Osulfus de eo. Eluuard tenuit et liber homo fult. Ibi I virgata non geldabilis. In dominio est dimidia caruca, et VI Bordarii cum dimidia caruca. Ibi silva XV porcis incrassandis et dimidia haia. Valuit (T.R.E.) VII solidos; et post XVI denarios; modo (valet) VI solidos. [2]

It is singular that, after Domesday, we never hear of any seigneury at Rorrington, asserted, or maintained, by the Corbet's of Caus. Nevertheless, I cannot but think that it was this moiety of the Manor (though reduced to half a virgate) which was tenanted by Roger de Longedon in 1255, and by Edward de Longedon in 1316. [3] We have had mention in a former Volume of these and other members of the family of Longdon. [4] The circumstances under which they occur are consistent with, but do not prove, vassalage under the Barons of Caus. Possibly those Barons, at some early period, had surrendered their seigneury at Rorrington to their kinsmen, the Fitz Herberts.

[1] Rot. Hundred. II. 61.
[2] Domesday, fo. 255, b, 2.
[3] Richard de Longedon appears also on a Chirbury Jury in 1323.
[4] Vide supra, Volume VII. pages 49, 124, and 170.



This great estate of Roger fitz Corbet is the subject of a long notice in Domesday.-

Isdem Rogerius tenet Wrdine. Morcar Comes tenuit. Ibi XIIII hidae et dimidia geldabiles, cum XIII Bereuuichis. In dominio sunt II carucae et II servi; et XIII Villani et VI Bordarii et III Radmans cum X carucis et dimidia. Ibi II Molini reddunt III summas frumenti, et Silva II leuuas longa, in qua sunt IIII haiae; et CC porcis incrassandis sufficit.

De terra hujus Manerii tenet Picot de Rogerio III hidas, et Reinfridus III hidas et dimidiam, et Goisfridus I hidam et dimidiatn, et Grento dimidiam hidam. In dominio habent IIII carucas et dimidiam; et (sunt) IIII servi et VII Villani et VIII Bordarii cum IIII carucis et III Bovariis.

In hoc Manerio est terra XLI carucis. In dominio Rogerii possent esse IIII carucae (plus). Totum T.R.E. valebat X libras; et post X solidos. Modo quod tenet (Rogerius, valet) C solidos; quod Milites, IIII libras et X solidos.

The following digest of the above notiee is statistically curious:-

Roger Corbet, with his inferior tenants, held 6 hides;- his knights, 8 hides.
Roger Corbet, with his inferior tenants, employed 12 teams;- his knights, 8 teams.
Roger Corbet's demesne would employ 4 additional teams;- his knights', 16 teams.
The value of Roger Corbet's holding was 5;- of his knights', 4. 10s.
The inferiors, employed on Corbet's holding, were 24;- on the knights', 22.
Roger Corbet employed 2 teams per hide;- his knights' two and fifteen-seventeenths teams.
The value of Roger Corbet's holding was 8s. per team:- of his knights', 10s. 7d. per team.

It is probable that some thirteen of the following places correspond with the thirteen Domesday Berewicks of Worthin, viz. Aston Pigot, Aston Rogers, Beachfield, Binweston, Brockton, Bromlow, Grimmer, Hampton, Hope, Leigh, Meadow-Town, Shelve, Walton, Gatten, Habberley Office, and Heath.

As regards the Capital Manor of Worthin its jurisdictional or municipal history is much fuller than any topographical or personal details. In fact that very independence, which the Corbet's usurped or procured for the district, served to expunge its minor and domestic affairs from the national Records.

[1] Domesday, fo. 255, b, 2.


It was in the year 1236-7, that is immediately after the Eyre of William of York in Shropshire, that Thomas Corbet withdrew Worthin from all connection with Chirbury Hundred, and established for it an independent status. I do not find that his authority to do this was questioned for 50 years except by provincial Juries. Justiciars, who visited Shrewsbury during that interval, seem uniformly to have recognized the change. In 1246 Thomas Corbet procured a Charter of Free Warren which extended to his demesnes in Worthen and Forden. [1]

We have seen that at the Inquest of 1255 the Chirbury Jurors stated that Worthin had been withdrawn from Chirbury Hundred, and now " answered separately by four men and a Provost". [2] This means that the Manor kept its, own Pleas of the Crown, and was represented by its own community when the King's Justices visited Shrewsbury, or on other equivalent occasions. And, in fact, at the very next Assizes (those of January 1256) the Schedule, entitled Placita Corone, contains this item,- Manerium de Worthin venit per V. The presentments then made by the Worthin Jurors are immaterial, but it appears from another Schedule that a Provost (Roger de Merse) and six other Jurors were really in attendance. The said Jurors were Roger de Hampton, Robert Ips, Roger fitz Baldwin, Roger Purcel, Richard fitz Roese, and William le Blak. The Chirbury Jurors of 1255 further alluded to Thomas Corbet's right of Free Warren in Worthin, and told how one John de Hugford having been arrested in that warren had been since liberated, in what mode they knew not. In the civil war of 1264-5, we have seen that Thomas Corbet's own Tenants plundered his demesnes at Worthin and Shelve. [3] On July 11, 1270, King Henry III. granted to Thomas Corbet license to hold a weekly Market on Wednesdays at Worthin, and also two annual Fairs;- one on the eve, day, and morrow of the Feast of St. Peter and St. Paul (June 28, 29, 30), one on the eve, day, and morrow of the Exaltation of the Holy Cross (Sept. 13, 14, 15). [4]

At the Assizes of 1272 the Manor of Worthyn is entered as attending by six Jurors, but none of their presentments are enrolled. Richard fitz William was Chief Bailiff of the Franchise; Hugh Hager and Roger de Hanton were Elizors; the other Jurors were Richard Worthyn, Herbert de Brocton, William fitz Owen, and Richard Bruche.

[1] Supra, Vol. VII. pp. 22, 23.
[2] Supra, Page 53.
[3] Supra, Vol. VII. p. 28.
[4] Rot. Chart. 54 Henry III., m. 5.


An Extent of Worthin was taken in October 1274, after Thomas Corbet's death. He had held four carucates, in demesne, and 7 virgates, in Villeinage, there. Among the free tenants were Richard de Hope, Adam Hager, and Roger de Brocton. [1] On Nov. 27, 1274, the Manor of Worthin was subjected to one of those Inquests which were ordinarily made on Hundreds or independent Franchises. The Jurors were Roger de Hanton, Richard de Worthin, Richard Bouche, Madoc de Bechesfeld, Richard Bradbred, and Eynon Pich. These Jurors were remarkably ignorant on most of the questions submitted to them. They had a hit however at Thomas Corbet of Caus, their late Suzerain. "He had appropriated to himself new Forests, which had never been Forests before his time, viz. Horsemor, Lelutleleg, Espeleg, Wystenhalt, Rotbeche, Woxsebeche, and Calsebeche; and further he had transgressed the limita of his own free Haye above Caus, which Peter, his son, now held". [2] These Jurors further reported Lewellyn's conquests as Pourprestures on the English Crown;- but whereas the localities occupied by the Prince were not in the Franchise of Worthin, we may dismiss this piece of evidence as irrelevant to our present subject. However another statement, inasmuch as it involved the interests of their own Suzerain, is both historically and personally interesting. They said that "Sir Peter Corbet held his Barony of Chaws of the King by service of 5 knights'-fees, but that Lewellyn had occupied and still withheld a third part of his Barony, viz. the whole land between Kemelet (the Camlad) and Severn, so that Sir Peter could not plenarily perform the services which he owed to the King". Lastly, in answer to a question about Sheriffs' Tourns, these jurors stated that "no Sheriff could hold a Tourn in Worthin Manor; but that Thomas Corbet, deceased, had held his Tourns, not only twice yearly as all his Ancestors had done, but he and his bailiffs had held Tourns oftener than they ought, so that the Free Tenants of the Manor were inordinately aggrieved". On the whole these Worthin Jurors may be said to have displayed much tact in their meagre report. They kicked the dead Lion, worshipped the rising Sun, professed general ignorance, but lent special attention to any question which involved their own interests.

At the Assizes of 1292 the Manor of Worthyn was represented by its Chief Bailiff, Richard Burt, by its Elizors, Adam Hager, and Adam Kech, and by four other Jurors, viz. Maddoc de Beechefelt, Richard Fitz Adam of Worthyn, Richard Fitz Roger of Weston, and Roger de Hamton. These Jurors, in answer to a question De

[1] Inquis. 2 Edw. I., No. 42.
[2] Rot. Hundred. II. 113.


libertatibus, said that "Peter Corbet claimed view of frank-pledge in Worthyn, and had a Market on Wednesdays and a Fair on the Feast of St. Peter (and St. Paul), at Worthyn, also a Market on Fridays and a Fair on the Feast of the Invention of the Holy Cross, at Shelve. And in the said Manors he had emends of the Assize of bread and beer, pillory and tumberell. No Coroner had ingress into the Franchise; but Corbet's own bailiffs viewed the bodies of dead persons and performed all the Coroner's offices. Corbet alao claimed rights of Forest and Warren, and held Forest-Courts, and amerced offenders at his pleasure". On this presentment it was remarked by Hugh de Louther, that the King's Writ (of Quo Waranto) was forthcoming, to deal with the matter. But the presentments of the native Jurors of Worthin are not more apposite to the subject before us than the contemporary statements of the Jurors for Chirbury Hundred. These men said (and with great inaccuracy of date, I think) that "the Manor of Worthyn with its members of Weston, Leye, Brockton, Shelve, and Hamton, used to do suit, every three weeks to, and to be geldable with, Chirbury Hundred, till 25 years ago": and that "Thomas Corbet had withdrawn these suits". Also "Thomas Corbet had appropriated to Caus Castle a place called Milcole, which was within Chirbury Hundred and was worth 3s. per annum". Peter Corbet appeared to this charge and stated that the places in question were not geldable in King Richard's time, nor since. An appeal was made to a Jury which decided otherwise as to all the places, and stated, with respect to suit of Chirbury Hundred, that Worthyn and Brocton used to do one such suit jointly, that Weston alone used to do one such suit, that Walton with its member, Leye, used to do one such suit, that Shelve did one such suit, that Hampton and Hope, "though Hope had not been named", did jointly oue such suit. As to Milcole, the appellate Jurors found that "it used to be geldable, and that the Sheriff and other Officers used to exercise their functions there, till Robert Corbet recovered the place in the Curia Regis against the Prior of Chirbury. It was waste and was worth 3s. per annum". The appellate Jurors went on to date Thomas Corbet's withdrawal of the above suits as a thing of 30 years' standing, and to value the loss incurred by the Crown at 2 merks per annum. Grossly inaccurate as this verdict must have been, both in date, theory, and fact, the King recovered the aforesaid suits to Chirbury Hundred, and 60 merks as cumulative damages against Peter Corbet, who was also pronounced in misericordia for opposing the process (quia contra


placitavit). Milcole also was for the future to be geldable and to be open to Sheriffs and Coroners.

The Chirbury Jurors further reported that "Thomas Corbet, in his time, had appropriated Bectyn (The Breidden), and the boscs of Letton (Leighton), Weston (Binweston), Walton, Hantone, Bechefeld, and the bosc called Le Hey, and had held them as a Free Chace, as Peter Corbet still held them". Peter Corbet appeared to this charge, and said that "the Boscs of Letton and Brethyn were in Walcheria, and out of the County, and that his father had died seized of the other boscs". The Court ordered Hugh de Louther, the King's Attorney, to follow this question up by process of Quo Waranto.

One more presentment of the Chirbury Jurors may be as well noticed here. They said that "John fitz Philip of Bobbington had held the vill of Coten juxta Caus, [1] and that it used to do suit every three weeks to Chirbury Hundred, until 40 years past (i.e. till 1252); and that when Thomas Corbet purchased the vill he withdrew the said suit". Peter Corbet appeared to this charge, and denied that King Henry III. had ever been seized of such a suit. An appellate Jury decided that Henry III. had been so seized till 24 years back (i.e. till 1268) and that Thomas Corbet withdrew the said suit, which was worth 1s. per annum. Here the Court decided that King Edward should recover the said suit, and that Peter Corbet should pay the cumulative damages of 24s.

One comment is sufficient for these greedy and too politic proceedings of King Edward's Lawyers.- Wales was conquered, and the Barons Marchers were at a discount with the King of England.

We may now turn to that notable Lawyer, Hugh de Louther, and see how he followed up the game started by the Chirbury Jurors. His Writs of Quo Waranto against Peter Corbet of Caus were manifold.- Corbet's right to hold Pleas of the Crown and to have Market, Fair, and Wayf, in his Manors of Worthyn and Shelve was questioned. He justified, "by two Charters of Henry III., made to Thomas Corbet his Father, a weekly market on Wednesdays, an annual Fair on June 28, 29, and 30, and a second Fair on Sept. 13, 14, and 15, all held at Worthyn; also a Market on Fridays, and an annual Fair on May 2, 3, and 4, both held at Shelve". This was enough for that point. As to Pleas of the Crown, he said that "Shelve was a member of Worthyn", and that "at Worthyn he held two yearly Courts, equivalent in their jurisdiction to a Sheriff's

[1] See Vol. VII. p. 45.


Tourn: he also had wayf and infangenthef in Worthin, all which he justified by immemorial usage of his ancestors". Hugh de Louther replied that the usurpation of these liberties, by Corbet's ancestors, was within memory, and that he should be able to prove from the Assize-Rolls, how the King's progenitors had sometime exercised the franchises thus usurped. [1] The case was adjourned; but Hugh de Louther renewed only that part of it which was strongest for the Crown. He impleaded Peter Corbet by a new Writ as to his warrant "for holding Pleas of the Crown and having wayf in Worthyn, Shelve, and other places" elsewhere mentioned. [2] Corbet's defence as to Worthyn and Shelve was special to those Vills. He again produced King Henry's Charters allowing Fairs and Markets there, and pleaded that such Charters implied emends of the Assizes of bread and beer. He now declared that he exercised no other franchises, nor claimed to hold any other Placita Corone in those Vills. Therefore those other Franchises were adjudged to remain in the Crown.

Another Writ questioned Peter Corbet's right "to have free-chace in Hampton Howell, Hampton Roger, Bechefeld, Binne-Weston, Walton, Hope-juxta-Bromlowe, and Shelve-juxta-Mokelwyk". Here Peter Corbet produced King Richard's Charter to his ancestor Robert Corbet, concerning the Forest of the Stiperstones (here called Tenfrenstanes), which Charter restored and granted the said Forest, "with all its appurtenances, free and quit of any forestage or exaction which pertained to the (King's) Forest, etc". [4] Peter Corbet now maintained that Hope and Shelve were within the limits of the Stiperstones-Forest. As to the other vills, he asserted the immemorial custom of his ancestors to hold free-chace therein, except that the men of the district had been used to hunt the fox and hare only. Hugh de Louther hereupon relinquished the process as regarded Shelve, but, as to Hope, he denied Corbet's statement, and said that no prescriptive free-chace had been exercised there, for Peter Corbet had purchased the vill within the last 20 years. Corbet rejoined that, previous to the said purchase, Hope had been held under his Ancestors, which Ancestors had maintained free-chace there, ever since the Stiperstones Forest had been restored to them by King Richard. This part of the case now went to a Jury, which corroborated all Corbet's statements about Hope and Shelve. As to the other vills, Hugh de Louther persisted that "Thomas

[1] Quo Waranto, p. 677.
[2] Supra, Vol. VII. p. 35.
[3] Quo Waranto, page 686.
[4] Vide supra, Vol. VII. p. 12.


Corbet was the first who had had free-chace therein, and that he had it by his own proper usurpation". Here the Jury corroborated the prosecution; and Peter Corbet was forbidden for the future to maintain any separate or exclusive chace in those vills. [1]

Another Writ questioned Peter Corbet for maintaining free warren in his Manors of Edeleston (Edderton), Wedeleston, Thornburry, Hemme (now Great and Little Hem), Wrobeton, Wolstanes-mened (now Wolston-mynd), Forton (Forden), Schelve, Leugh (Leigh), Aston-Pygod, Walton, Hope, and Worthyn; and for maintaining free-chace in the boscs of Gravenovere (now Gravenor), Overes, Gateden (now Gatten), Westyn, Walton, Hanton, Becesfeld, and other places and boscs (already mentioned in a former Chapter [2]). Those parts of Corbet's defence, which are proper to our present subject, I insert here. He said that in the Vills of Hemme, Aston-Pygod, and Walton, he claimed neither chace nor warren. He said that the vills of Schelve, Leugh, and Hope, and the boscs of Gravenovere, Overes, and Gatesden, were within that Forest of Steyfrestanes in which his ancestors had always enjoyed free-chace. As to free-chace in his boscs of Weston, Walton, Hanton, and Bechesfeld, he denied claiming either chace or warren in any of those boscs. As to free warren in Edeleston, Wedeleston, Thornburry, Wrobeton, and Wolstan Mynd, he affected to consider those vills as members of Caus, or Worthin, or Forton, to which time Manors King Henry Charter of Free Warren (to Thomas Corbet) extended. Hugh de Louther replied, that "in King Richard's time, the vills of Shelve, Leygh, and Hope, and the boscs of Gravenore, Overes, and Gatesden, were not within the bounds of the (Stiperstones) Forest; but that the men of the district could hunt and take beasts therein without being questioned (sine calumpnia)". Peter Corbet rejoined with a mere repetition of his former statement as to the extent of the Stiperstones Forest, and his Ancestors' customary rights. [3] An adjourned hearing of the points which were thus left undecided, took place at Lichfield. Corbet at first appeared not, so the Court decided that, until he should appear, the following franchises were to be seized in manu Regis, viz. Free Warren in Corbet's Manors of Edeleston, Wedeleston, Thornbury, Hemme, Wrobeton, Wolstans-mynd, Forton, Shelve, Legh, Aston Pygot, Walton, Hope, and Worthyn; and Free-chace in the boscs of Gravenor, Overes, Gateden, Weston, Walton, Hanton, and Bechesfeld.

[1] Quo Waranto, p. 685.
[2] Supra, Vol. VII. pp. 35, 36.
[3] Placita de Quo Waranto, pages 718 and 719.


Corbet seems subsequently to have attended, and continued his defence, and to have got a dismissal sine die. [1]

A fifth Writ of Quo Waranto against Peter Corbet has partly been recited already. [2] It related to his withdrawal of certain places from suit of the King's Hundreds of Ford and Chirbury, and from suit of the King's County-Court of Salop. The result was in favour of Corbet and of his technical objections to the form of procedure. [3] The Vills which were probably deemed by the Crown Lawyers to owe suit to Chirbury Hundred and to the County were Hefle (perhaps Heathway), Walton, Hope, Hemme, Thornbury, Forton, Edelston, Wedelston, Wrobbeton, and Wolstans-Mynd, and also the Manor of Worthin.

The Inquest taken in August 1300, on the death of Peter Corbet (I), values Worthyn at 18. 7s. 8d. per annum. Two Mills were among the adjuncts of the Manor. Among the Tenants were Eva Godale, William de Hampton, Eynon Gogh, Roger Balle, William Gigon, and Adam Hager. [4]

On the death of Peter Corbet (II), in 1322, Worthin was one of the estates found to have been settled on his widow, Beatrix, for her life. [5]

On partition of the Corbet estates between the coheirs of that Barony, Worthin went to the Lords Stafford.


Any Domesday notice of a Priest usually betokens a Church, but the silence of Domesday as to both Priest and Church does not

[1] Quo Waranto, p. 720.
[2] Supra, Vol. VII. page 34.
[3] Besides Corbet's objections (already noticed), one of the others was ingenious and one curious.- He said that the words Quo Waranto and sectam, quam facere debent (contained in the Writ) required an issue on a question of mere right; but that the word subtraxit (also contained in the Writ) required an issue on a question of personal trespass. He therefore objected to plead to a Writ which contemplated two incongruous issues. Corbet also traversed the Writ for its verbal inaccuracy; remarking that suits of court were not done by vills (as the Writ had it), but by the inhabitants of vills! It is further remarkable that the Crown Lawyer was obliged to meet Corbet's legal quibble by something like a mere appeal to common sense; and to qualify the verbal objection by reference to colloquial usage. It is clear, on the whole, that Corbet's Counsel was more cunning of fence than the King's. He carried the Court with him, though the wary Justiciars did not state which of his arguments had the most weight with them. Their decision in Corbet's favour was elicited quibusdam rationibus predictis et aliis;- by certain of his Counsel's arguments, and by other reasons.
[4] Inquisitions, 28 Edw. I., No. 40.
[5] Inquisitions, 15 Edw. II., No. 34.


argue the non-existence of either in any particular Manor. This is the case with Worthin Church, which was undoubtedly a Saxon foundation of very high antiquity;- and yet Domesday does not allude to it.

Besides its present Parish, the original Parish of Worthin comprehended the modern Parishes or Chapelries of Shelve, Buttington, Leighton, Wolston-Mynd, and perhaps Ratlinghope. [1] Three of these places were in that district of the Gordowr which was finally settled to belong to the Diocese of Hereford by the famous award of 1288, by the Perambulation of Nov. 23rd in that year, and by the curious ceremony of self-investiture performed by Bishop Swinfield, on Nov. 25, at the Ford of Rhyd-Whimman. [2]

As Anian, Bishop of St. Asaph, had previously claimed the Diocesan rule of the Gordowr, so had the Incumbents of Welsh Pool claimed the tithes and the Parochial jurisdiction thereof. The question of Parish seems to have survived tbe question of Diocese, for it was not till August 6, 1289, that Philip de Orreby, Rector of Worthin, John, Rector of Pole, and Griffin, Vicar of Pole, submitted to the arbitration of Bishop Swinfield their disputes about the tithes of "four vills in the country of Gordowr, viz. Botinton, Hope, Leghton, and Wlstanes Mynde", all which were acknowledged by the disputants to be in Hereford Diocese. [3]

The Taxation of 1291 values the Church of Worthin (in the Archdeaconry of Salop and Deanery of Pontesbury) at 20 per annum. [4]

In 1341, the Assessors of the Ninth, quoting the above Taxation, rated the Parish at 10. 14s. 7d. The reasons given for the reduction were, because "the greater portion of the Parish was in the parts of Wales, and because a large part of the said Parish (read Taxation) consisted of glebe and other spiritualities, which had relation to (read had no relation to) the said Ninth".

The Valor of 1534-5 gives the income of John Tycksall, Rector of Worthyn, as 30 per annum; the charges whereon were 6s. 8d., payable to the Commissary; 1s. for Archdeacon's Synodals; and 17s. 9d. for the annual proportion of the Bishop's triennial Visitation-fees. [6]


HUGH CORSET was Rector of Worthin in 1245.

[1] [2] Supra, Vol. VI. p. 182; Vol. VII. p. 87.
[3] Swinfield's Register, fo. lxj.
[4] Pope Nich. Taxation, p. 166.
[5] Inquis. Nonarum, p. 185.
[6] Valor Ecclesiasticus, III. 213.


THOMAS DE BROMPTON, Clerk, Curios of this Church, has a Licentia studendi, dated Oct. 2, 1278.

SIR DAVID DE MONTGOMERY was next appointed Custos of this Church, he to receive 30 merks per annum and to keep up the buildings, until-

EDMUND BAGOT be instituted. Edmund Bagot was in due course instituted; but died soon after St. David's day (March 1), 1283. It appears that on his death certain dependants of Peter Corbet took forcible possession of the offerings and tithes, which belonged of right to his Executors. This occasioned a spirited but paternal rebuke from Bishop Swinfield to the Baron of Caus. The document is dated at Ledbury on September 26, 1283, and is worth perusal. [1] The Bishop promises to fulfil Sir Peter's request "in the business of the Parson of the Church of Worthin". This alludes, I presume, to the nomination, by Sir Peter, of-

PHILIP DE ORREBY, who was admitted to the Church long before his institution. He will in fact have been that Rector of Worthin who, together with the Rectors of Westbury and Pontesbury, was censured by Swinfield in a letter of Oct. 25, 1285, for not appearing at his Visitation and for holding a plurality of benefices. The Dean of Pontesbury was ordered to cite them before the Bishop. On May 27, 1289, Bishop Swinfield, then at Kington, instituted Sir Philip Orreby to Worthin Church. He has occurred above as Rector, on August 6 of the same year.

NICHOLAS DE PONTESBURY, Priest, was instituted March 9, 1314, at the presentation of Sir Peter Corbet.

RICHARD DE STAFFORD, Priest, was presented by Ralph, Baron Stafford, on August 16, 1349. In Sept. 1366, he is certified to be holding this Rectory, together with the Prebend of Woolvey in Lichfield Cathedral. He was slain by one Thomas Watkyns, and in 46 Edw. III. (1372-3) one Richard Batkyns has a pardon as an accomplice in the murder.

MASTER EDMUND DE STAFFORD was instituted July 16, 1369, at presentation of Ralph, Earl of Stafford. On January 13, 1387, he exchanges preferments with-

JOHN PROPHETE, Prebendary of South Welling in the jurisdiction of Canterbury. [2] On Sept. 27, 1390, John Prophete exchanges preferments with-

[1] Bishop Swinfield's Roll (Camden Soc. 1854). Abstract, p. lxxi.
[2] John Prophete was, at this time, a Prebendary of Hereford and Dean of St. Chads' (Shrewsbury). After his resignation of Worthin, he became a Canon of Chichester, and successively Dean of Hereford and of York.


REGINALD DE WOLESTON, Prebendary or Portioner of Overhall in the Church of Ledbury. Woleston was presented to Worthin by the King, as Custos of the land and heir of Hugh, late Earl of Stafford.



It is not improbable that Aston Pigot constituted those three Domesday hides which were part of Worthin, and which were held by one Picot under Roger fitz Corbet. This view obliges me to correct a former statement, [1] viz. that-

RALPH FITZ PICOT, living in 1180, acquired Aston near Worthin, with his wife Susanna, daughter of Henry, and sister of Roger, de Aston. It was Medlicott, near Wentnor, which Ralph fitz Picot thus acquired. Ralph fitz Picot was antecedently of Aston Pigot, as his wife's family was of Aston Rogers and of Medlicott. I have something here to add to what I have said under Woolaston about Ralph fitz Picot's descendants.- He was succeeded, at Medlicott at least, by his son Robert, who as-

ROBERT, SON OF RALPH PIGOT, and some time between the years 1200 and 1210, made a grant in Medlicott to Haughmond Abbey. But besides this Robert, and for ought I know contemporary with him as well as with his father, there was a-

WILLIAM FITZ PICOT, who, between the years 1190 and 1201, attests two Deeds of Ralph fitz Picot, which will be given under Medlicott. [2] There was also one-

HENRY PICOT, against whom and others Juliana (I think second wife, but certainly), widow of Ralph Picot, released her claims of dower in 1221. Her sureties de prosequendo were William de Wudecot and Alexander de Campure. [3] At these same Assizes one-

RALPH FITZ WILLIAM, having a suit of mort d'ancestre against Stephen fitz Roger, withdrew it. His Sureties were Adam de Brerlawe and Richard Bagot, and the land claimed by him was in Wilagescot and Eston, [3] which I take to be Woolaston and Aston Pigot. Ralph fitz William was amerced half a merk for this withdrawal. Again-

[1] Supra, Vol VII. page 113.
[2] A William Picot also occurs on the Pipe Roll of 1199 as having been amerced 6s. 8d. for some concealment. I will not deny that this William Picot may have been the person already mentioned under Acton Pigot as occurring from 1200 to 1203 (supra, Vol. VI. pp. 93-4). My belief is that but one person is concerned in all these instances, that is, that William fitz Picot, a cadet of the family which held Aston Pigot, became Lord of Acton Pigot in right of his wife.
[3] Assizes, 6 Hen. III., m. 7.


ROBERT PICOT, who occurs from 1240 to 1274, either at Woolaston or Aston Pigot, was clearly son of one William Pigot. A Patent of July 14, 1241, appoints Justices to try a suit which Robert Picot had against Ralph del Ewe and others, concerning a tenement in Aston Pigott. In 1250 the Pipe-Roll gives Robert Pikot as paying a Fine for license to compound some suit, in which Thomas Corbet had been his Surety. The Chirbury Hundred-Roll of 1255 says that "Robert Pigod holds the vill of Aston of Sir Thomas Corbet and does suit to Chirbury Hundred". [1]

At the Assizes of 1267 Thomas Corbet and his son, Peter, were found to have disseized William fitz Filote of a messuage and half-virgate in Aston Pigod. As to-

HOWEL, son and heir of Robert Picot, I have nothing to add to what has been said under Woolaston and elsewhere.
[2] I doubt whether the family continued seized of Aston Pigot.


OF HENRY DE ASTON, and his son, Roger, I have said something under Eyton near Alberbury, [3] and on other occasions. [4]

ROGER DE ASTON is named twice on the Assize-Roll of 1221, viz. as a Surety for William Corbet, and as one of those Jurors (usually Knights) who were appointed to try causes of Grand Assize. In 1237 I find him appointed as a Commissioner to try a special case of novel disseizin. In 1240 he stands on several Feodaries as holding a knight's-fee in Aston or Eston, in the Barony of Thomas Corbet. [5] The Chirbury Hundred-Roll of 1255 says that "Roger de Astun holds the vill of Astun of Sir Thomas Corbet and does suit to Chirbury Hundred. He had been blind for seven years, and unable to walk or ride". [6]

Before January 1256 he was dead, and Margery his widow was suing his various tenants for dower. She required thirds of the following tenements, viz. a half-virgate and 4 acres in Aston, held by Jorvord de Cotes;- 14 acres in Aston, held by Roger fitz Richard;- 6 acres in Aston, held by Stephen de Aston;- 13 acres in Aston held by Richard Pas;- a half-virgate in Aston, held by William and Amice Page;- 2 acres of meadow in Aston, held by John de Arundel;- a half-virgate (less 6 acres) in Bromlawe, held by Richard de Hybernia;- a half virgate in Bromlawe, held by

[1] Rot. Hundred. II. 61.
[2] Supra, Vol. VII. pp. 34 n, 106, 114, and 127.
[3] Supra, Vol. VII. pp. 120-122.
[4] Supra, Vol. VI. p. 124, Vol. VII. pp. 113, and 174.
[5] Testa de Nevill, pp. 45, 48, 50.
[6] Rot. Hundred. Vol. II. page 61.


William son of Hugh Heylin and his wife, Sibil;- a half virgate in Bromlawe, held by Roger fitz Henry;- and 5s. 4d. rent in Whytespon and Locley, [1] held by Simon de Deukenwye and Robert de Hope. Of these tenants, William Page got a dismissal at once, because the late Roger de Eston had enfeoffed him before be and the said Margery were espoused. The others called John fitz Peter, nephew and heir of Roger de Aston, to warrant them against this claim of dower. John fitz Peter was a minor and in custody of Thomas Corbet. Corbet appeared and vouched the warranty, so far as his ward's estate would allow it. The Sheriff was ordered to ascertain whether the said estate was sufficient for the purpose, and, if not, to raise the claimant's dower out of the tenements aforesaid, though the holders had produced in court their charters of feoffment by Roger de Aston.

At these same Assizes, Reginald de Aston and Stephen de Aston adjusted a dispute about pasturage, the former paying half a merk for license so to do. Also Susanna, wife of Richard de Lopinton, claiming to be daughter and heir of Peter de Aston (deceased), sued Thomas Corbet, as tenant, for a messuage and two-thirds of a carucate in Aston. Corbet objected to the insufficiency of the summons, served upon him in this cause, and it was adjourned.

Of John fitz Peter, as occurring in 1274, under the name of John le Knicht de Aston, I have spoken in a former volume. [2] I have also spoken of Henry de Mortimer of Chelmarsh, who in 1316 was Lord of Aston juxta Caus. [3] He died seized thereof in 1317, as did his Great-Grandson William de Mortimer in 1391.

I must here transgress my usual limits to notice the curious Will of William Bromshill, Esq., but of which (as printed elsewhere) [4] I will only give an abstract. It is dated July 1, 1429. It directs that his estates at Aston Rogers and Minton [5] shall go to Haghmon Abbey. His lands in Hope, Aston Pigot, Worthin, Lokeley, and Hampton beside Cawes, he directs to be sold, aud the proceeds to be devoted to the building of Worthin Church and Steeple. A tenement in Medowe (now Meadow-town) he bequeaths to John Rodenhurste. The Haughmond Chartulary proves that the above bequests were afterwards secured to the Abbey, by the Trustee of the Testator, and by a License of King Edward IV.

[1] Whitsborn Hill and Luckley, near Browlow. (See Map.) [2] Supra, Vol. VII. p. 122.
[3] Supra, Vol. III. pp. 42, 44, 184.
[4] Coll. Topogr. et Geneal., Vol.I. p. 373.
[5] This is perhaps the lost vill whose history has been given above (pp. 78-9); but the name Minton or Muneton was very common in the Border. It is equivalent in meaning to Hill-town or Hilton.


BROMLOWE. Dehewind de Bromlowe occurs on a Montgomery Inquest in 1249. The Chirbury Inquest of 1255 gives Richard de Hibernia and Dewehind de Bromlawe as non-attendant on the occasion. Both were stated to be infirm. In 1256, William, son of Richard Pygod, sued Eynon ap Owen for 11 acres in Bromplawe. Eynon got a dismissal sine die, saying that he had ingress through Dewynt de Bromplawe, to whom Richard Bygod, the Plaintiff's Father, had demised the premises for a term.-

Some other contemporary Undertenants of the heir of Roger de Aston in Bromlow have been named under Aston Rogers. As a sequence to what has been said under Aston Rogers about John le Knight and Susanna de Lopinton, apparently his sister, I find a Patent of May 1272, directing trial of a suit of mort d'ancestre, brought by Richard de Lopinton (Susanna's husband) against John le Kent (read Knight), for 2 carucates of land in Aston, Bromlawe, Whytspon, Lockelegh, and Muneton. [1]

At the Inquest of 1274 the Chirbury Jurors complained that "Thomas Corbet (deceased) had been used to inflict forest-penalties in cases where animals had trespassed on the fields of Muneton, [1] Bromloe, and Weston; whereby the Tenants of and near those vills were greatly harassed, seeing that the said vills had never been in the Forest".

BERCHFIELD. Of Undertenants in this member of Worthin, I can only name Madoc de Bechesfield, a Juror for Worthen Liberty at the Inquest of 1274 and the Assizes of 1292.

BROCKTON. Only one Undertenant of Brockton has occurred to my notice viz. Herbert de Brockton, a Juror for Worthin Franchise at the Assizes of 1272.

WHITSBORN. Madoc de Wytespon occurs on a Montgomery Inquest in 1249.


This member of Worthin was chiefly held in demesne by the Corbets, and at length it came to be reputed a distinct Manor. However, we have occasional hints that parts at least of Binweston were held by Feoffees of the Barons of Caus.- In 1255 the Jurors of Chirbury Hundred reverted to a period 28 years earlier, and remembered that when Godescall was Bailiff of Montgomery, the Bailiffs of Chirbury Hundred used to make attachments of, and to

[1] This is evidently the same vill as that called Minton in the last page. Though now lost, its situation may be very nearly inferred from the context.


levy distresses for, Pleas belonging to their Hundred Court, in the vill of Binweston. [1] The Jurors knew not whether this was right or not, but they knew of a recent instance where, the Bailiffs of Chirbury having levied some such distress at Binweston, the men of Thomas Corbet had rescued the goods so taken. [2]

We have seen that in 1272 Petronilla Corbet was prosecuting two other Ladies who are known to have had estates at Marton, for a trespass in Weston. [3] I suppose that Binweston was the place alluded to, and that Petronilla Corbet was the widow of Richard Corbet of Wattlesborough. [4] It is further possible that something in Worthin Manor was surrendered by Robert Corbet (Petronilla's son), in 1278, to Peter Corbet of Caus, and that that something was in Binweston. [5]

Richard fitz Roger de Weston, a Juror for Worthin Liberty at the Assizet3of 1292, must, I think, have been of Binweston. I may add that, in the proceedings against Peter Corbet in 1292, this member of Worthin is indifferently called Weston, Westyn, or Binne-Weston; and that another Weston which the Corbets once had near Montgomery is not alluded to in a single instance. [6]

On Nov. 11, 1295, Peter Corbet assigned Binweston as the dower of Joan, widow of his eldest son, Thomas. The Inquest on Peter Corbet's death, in 1300, questions this procedure as having been taken without Royal license. In a Fine of 1303 the Manors of Worthyn, Schelve, and Bynweston are treated as distinct, and settled on Peter Corbet (II) and Beatrix his wife, and their joint heirs, with remainder to ths right heirs of Peter. [7] The same three Vills are treated as distinct in the Nomina Villarum of 1316, and Peter Corbet, is enrolled as Lord of each. The Inquest on his death, in 1322, says nothing more of these Manors than to describe the remainder which entailed them on his wife Beatrix for her life. Several further particulars of this Manor, and of its Tenants in the time of Edward II. and Edward III., have been given in a former Volume. [8]

On the partition of the Corbet estates, among the Coheirs of the Barony, Binweston was divided according to the exact ratio of the claimants' general rights; that is, one moiety went to the Lords Stafford, and the other moiety was equally divided between De Harley and De Cornwall, as coheirs of De Brompton.

[1] [2] Rot. Hundred, II. 60, 61.
[3] Supra, page 82.
[4] Vide supra, Vol. X. p. 182.
[5] Vide supra, Vol. VII. p. 110.
[6] William de Weston, who occurs on Montgomery Inquests in 1250 and 1251, was probably of Weston near Montgomery.
[7] Vol. VII. pp. 37, 38, 39, and note.



This member of Worthin was famous in the 12th and 13th century for its lead-mines. In what right of Seigneury King Henry II. engrossed the whole or a great part of the profits of these Mines, I can only guess.- Robert Corbet, the contemporary Baron of Caus, was in disgrace at the time of which I am going to speak, and there is something more than a semblance that the Stiperstones Forest was withheld from him till after Henry II.'s death. [1] Between September 1179 and September 1180 Shropshire was visited by Thomas fitz Bernard, Justice of the Forest. He leased the Lead Mine of Schelfe to one Nicholas Poncier for a year. The rent (55) was to be payable by even instalments at Easter and Michaelmas following. At Michaelmas 1180, Hugh Pantulf, then Sheriff of Shropshire, is charged 55 "for the King's lead", as sold by Thomas fitz Bernard. The Sheriff accounted for this debt in 1181.- Under an order of the King he had delivered lead to the King himself, and to the full amount, and he was quit. In the current year, or half-year, Thomas fitz Bernard seems to have let the mines for 40 merks (26. 13s. 4d.) and for that sum Hugh Pantulf also accounts.- He had forwarded 60 cart-loads of lead, value 21, for the King's use. He had paid 5. 12s. 10d. in carriage of the above lead and of 120 cart-loads of other lead to Gloucester, according to the King's order. He now paid a balance of 6d. into the Treasury, and was quit. In 1182 the King seems to have had the Lead-mines in his own hand. The Sheriff had conveyed the King's lead from Shrewsbury to Gloucester at a cost of 3. 8s. 9d. as certified by William fitz Simeon and Warin fitz Alric. He had further purchased 110 cart-loads of lead for the King at a cost of 38. 10s. This lead is expressed to be ad operationes ecclesie de Ambresb' . This explains the whole matter. The great Wiltshire Nunnery of Amesbury had been dissolved by Henry II. in 1177, on account of the immorality of its members. The House was newly inaugurated as an Abbey, on May 31 in the same year, and colonized with a purer sisterhood from the Abbey of Fontevrault. The King, the Archbishop of Canterbury, and the Bishops of Exeter and Norwich, attended the ceremony. Henry II. left nothing undone which could contribute to the dignity of the new Foundation: and Amesbury became the select retreat for females of the aristocracy. The lead-mines of Shelve doubtless furnished the roof of the Conventual Church.

[1] Vide supra, Vol. VII. pp. 11, 12.


Hugh Pantulf"s accounts as Sheriff continue to show the same diligence in respect of lead forwarded to Gloucester. In 1183, thirty cart-loads cost 10. 10s. and the carriage thereof 18s. 9d. In 1184, 4. 11s. was paid for lead and 8s. 3d. for carriage. In 1185, the carriage of 30 cart-loads, sent from Shrewsbury, had cost 18s. 9d., and the carriage of 30 cart-loads, sent direct from the mines, had cost 2. 6s. 3d.

In Robert Corbet's Grant to Shrewsbury Abbey (about 1220-1) I observe that he gives the tithes of his share only of the produce of Shelve Mines, [1] while Thomas Corbet's grant of 1270 contains no such limitation. [2] I know of nothing to account for this difference of expression. Each Grantor, at each period, was in full enjoyment of the Stiperstones Forest.

In November 1249, Thomas Corbet was endeavouring to oust the Prior of Chirbury from 15 acres, and Hoel ap Thomas from 6 acres, of land in Schylve. In July 1250 Corbet recovered the premises, owing to the Defendants' non-appearance. David ap Thomas is here named as a third Tenant and Defendant.

In 1255 the Chirbury Jurors asserted that the vill of Shelve was within the limits of their Hundred; and yet that, as a member of Sir Thomas Corbet's Manor of Worthin, it now responded in all things with that Manor: but the Jurors knew not by what right or warranty (the change had been made). [3]

In 1264-5 we have seen that Thomas Corbet's estate at Shelve was pillaged by his own Tenants. On Peter Corbet's death in 1300 the Inquest values Schelve at 1. 14s. 10d. per annum. It contained a Water Mill. Sixteen Tenants-at-will and a number of Cotters were its occupants. It was one of the Manors which were found, by the Inquest of 1322, to have been settled on Beatrix, widow of Peter Corbet (II) for her life. Some other particulars of Shelve, as a distinct Manor, held in demesne by the Corbets of Caus, have been given under Caus, [4] Worthin, and Binweston. On the partition of the Corbet estates, Shelve went wholly to the Harleys.

SHELVE CHURCH. This was originally a mere Chapel to Worthin, but was so far independent in the 14th century, that the Lords, not the Rectors, of Worthin were the Patrons. In the Valor of 1534-5 the Rectory of Scelwe (in the Deanery of Pontesbury) is valued at 2. 13s. 4d. per annum, less 6d. for Archdeacon's Procurations. [5]

[1] [2] Supra, Vol. VII. pp. 18, 30.
[3] Rot. Hundred. II. 60.
[4] Supra, Vol VII. pp. 28, 37, 38.
[5] Valor Eccles. III. 213.


THOMAS DE SYBALDESCOT, Priest, was instituted to this Chapel Sept. 16, 1349. Patron, Sir Ralph Baron of Stafford.

ADAM CROK was instituted to this Parish Church on October 1, 1386. Patron, Sir Hugh, Earl of Stafford. Crok resigned in 1418.

JOHN HYNLEY was Rector of Shelve in 1534-5.


In giving an account of these members of Worthin, the descent of that family of Hager which held them under Corbet of Caus, will form the chief topic.-

HENRY HAGER attests a Medlicott Deed at the end of the 12th century. By a Fine of Sept. 25, 1199, Henry Haer, tenant of 44 acres of land and one acre of meadow in Waleton and Lege, gives 10s. to Gilbert de Cote and Matilda, his wife, who release their suit of mort d'ancestre for obtaining the same. About the year 1203, Henry Hager attests a Charter of Robert Corbet, already cited. [1] Very soon after this we have another Charter of the same Baron attested by-

HUGH HAGER, [2] whom I reckon next in the succession; and before the year 1220 we have a third Charter of the same Robert Corbet attested by-

THOMAS HAGER. [3] This Thomas has further appeared among the Corbet Defendants in a matter of the year 1221. [4] At the Assizes of 1227 Thomas Hager and his Fellow-jurors were amerced 20s. for some collective delinquency. Thomas Hager left, I think, two sons, Hugh and William. William, probably the younger, occurs from 1260 to 1282. I have mentioned him under Oaks, [5] and other places, but usually as the clerk, agent, accomplice, or companion of Thomas Corbet, or his son, Peter. At the Assizes of October 1272, William Hager gives half a merk for license to compound some suit with Adam fitz Aynon and Iseud, his wife. In 1274 Thomas, son of William Hager, was among the Tenants of the Manor of Caus. [6]

HUGH HAGER, presumed to have been William's elder brother, was of Walton. While he was under age, and apparently about the year 1239, Thomas Corbet, his Guardian, withdrew the suit of Legh from Chirbury Hundred. When Hugh came of age, he often did personal suit to the Hundred, but Corbet still withheld the Pleas of Legh and tried them in his Court at Caus. This involved a loss

[1] [2] [3] Supra, Vol. VII. p. 18.
[4] Supra, Vol. VI. p. 124.
[5] Supra, Vol. VI. pp. 167, 168.
[6] Inquisitions, 2 Edw. I., No. 42.


of 1s. 10d. yearly to the Crown, or (about) 30s. for the 16 years during which the grievance had existed before the Inquest of 1255. [1] Hugh Hagar occurs on local Inquests in 1250 and 1251. He was a Juror for Chirbury Hundred at the Inquest of 1255, which stated that "Hugh Hagar held Walton of Sir Thomas Corbet, and owed suit to Chirbury Hundred". He was also one of the Chirbury Jurors at the Assizes of 1256. He attested Thomas Corbet's Charter to Alberbury Priory in 1262; and in June 1263 he is mentioned, in company with his Suzerain, as employed in the warfare of the Border. However, at the Assizes of August 1267, Hugh Hager convicted the said Suzerain (Thomas Corbet) of disseizing him of the vills of Walton and Lege, and got 40s. damages for the injury. Corbet's Sureties were Robert de Acton and William Hager; his defence was that the Welsh had set fire to the two vills in question, so that for three years past Hugh Hager's services to himself had been in arrear, and that Hugh Hager had been unable to occupy the estate. In the same year (1267), Hugh Hager and Thomas le Young of Acton were Sureties of Thomas Shere, who had a suit of disseizin against Thomas Corbet. In 1272 we find Thomas Corbet procuring a judicial favour for his tenant, Hugh Hager; [2] and, at the Assizes of the same year, Hugh Hager was one of the Elizors for the Franchise of Worthin.

ADAM HAGER was probably son and heir of Hugh. The Inquest on Thomas Corbet's death in 1274 names the said Adam as one of the Feoffees of Worthin. In 1277 he was one of the Servientes, named by Peter Corbet as forming the military contingent due from the Barony of Caus. [3] Adam Hager occurs on a local Inquest in March 1281, and at the Assizes of 1292 was one of the Elizors for the Franchise of Worthin.

JOHN HAGER, was Lord of the vills of Leye and Muneton, in Chirbury Hundred, according to the Nomina Villarum of 1316. The same Record makes the Priory of Chirbury to be Lord of Walton.

Of LEGH, as distinct from Walton, I should say a few words more. Thomas Corbet is said in the Chirbury Inquest of 1255 to have annexed Legh to his Jurisdiction of Caus [4] (not of Worthin); but, in 1292, another Record states Leye to have been a member of Walton, and to have been combined with Walton as regarded a suit of court, anciently due to Chirbury Hundred. [5] These statements

[1] Rot. Hundred. II. 60.
[2] Supra, Vol. VII. p. 177.
[3] Supra, Vol. VII. p. 33.
[4] [5] Supra, pp. 53, 98.


are perhaps reconcilable, without adopting an idea that there may have been some Leigh nearer to Caus Castle than that Leigh which was so much nearer to Worthin. At all events we are sure that a branch of the Corbets succeeded the Hagers as Lords of Leigh, and that the Leigh of which Roger Corbet was seized in 13241 was called Legh-juxta-Caus.


I cannot be sure that this was the vill of Hope which was amerced 3s. for waste by the Justice of the Forest in 1180. Hope, near Worthin, was within the limits of the Stiperstones Forest, which at the time was probably in manu Regis. The first Tenant here who has occurred to my notice is,-

ROBERT DE HOPE. He appears among the Dependants of Robert Corbet in 1209. [2] The Feodary of 1240 enters Robert de Hope as holding half a knight's-fee in Hope of the Barony of Thomas Corbet. [3] In 1249, 1251, and 1255, the same, or another,-

ROBERT DE HOPE sat as a Juror on several Inquests. The Inquest of Chirbury Hundred, in 1255, reported him to be holding the Vill of Hope under Thomas Corbet, and to owe suit to Chirbury Hundred. [4] At the Assizes of 1256 he was among the Jurors of the said Hundred; and appears also as tenant of certain rents in the neighbouring vills of Whytespon and Lockley. [5] In 1263, we have had mention of one-

RICHARD DE HOPE among the retainers of Thomas Corbet. [6] At the Inquest of 1274 Richard de Hope was one of the Jurors for Ford Hundred, and in 1277 he appears as one of the Servientes ready to perform the military services due from Peter Corbet. [7] He occurs on local Juries in 1283 and 1286, and at the Assizes of 1292 was again among the Jurors for Ford Hundred. It would seem that he had, ere this, surrendered his tenancy at Hope to his Suzerain; for the Chirbury Jurors made a presentment in these words.- "A certain Richard de Hope used to hold (tenuit) the Manor of Hope and to be assessable with the Hundred (of Chirbury); and Peter Corbet now holds (tenet) the same, and hath withdrawn it to his Franchise". To this charge Peter Corbet replied that "he did the required suit". So it was decided that the Manor do remain geldable.

[1] Vide supra, Vol. VII. pp. 41, 42.
[2] Supra, Vol. VII. p. 16.
[3] Testa de Nevill, p. 45.
[4] Rot. Hundred. II. 61.
[5] Supra, page 107.
[6] [7] Supra, Vol. VII. pp. 27, 33.


The contemporary processes of Quo Waranto against Peter Corbet call this vill Hope juxta Bromlowe, to distinguish it from another Hope which was in The Gordowr. Richard de Hope occurs as a witness in 1303, [1] but the deed belongs to Ford Hundred rather than Chirbury. An Inquest of October 16, 1370, shows that Hope juxta Caus, as it is called, had been tenanted by a branch of the Corbets. John, son of William Corbet, then deceased, had held it by knight's service under the Earl of Stafford. The same John had held two-thirds of the Gloucestershire Manors of Alneston and Herdecote in capite, and also two-thirds of the Gloucestershire Hundred of Langeleye. His heir was his brother William, aged 18 years. [2]

HAMPTON. This member of Worthin is called a Manor in a document already referred to. [3] Worthin, Brocton, Aston, Hanton, Bechesfeld, and Bromlawe, were Manors of Thomas Corbet;- alleged to have been plundered by John le Strange, Junior, in 1255. Afterwards the estate was divided into Hampton Rogers and Hampton Howel, according to the Christian names of the two undermentioned tenants.-

Roger de Hamton was one of the Jurors for Worthin Liberty at the Assizes of 1256. In August 1267 Roger de Hanton impleaded Thomas Corbet for disseizing him of 48 acres in Hanton, but withdrew the suit, Corbet accepting him as Tenant, and he undertaking to pay the accustomed services, and giving Corbet 4 merks on the instant. Roger de Hamton was Elizor for Worthin Franchise at the Assizes of 1272, and a Juror at the Inquest of 1274. In 1282 he is found associated with Peter Corbet in an action of disseizin. [4] At the Assizes of 1292 he was again a Juror for Worthin Liberty. At these same Assizes and in the Suits of Quo Waranto which followed, Hampton is usually named as an individual member of Worthin, but in one instance [5] a distinction is recognized between Hampton Roger and Hampton Howel. We may therefore conclude that Hoel de Hampton was already tenant of the latter vill, though I can find no actual mention of his name till November 1299, when he occurs on a local Jury. He again occurs on a Jury-list of March 1301.

HEATHWAY. I think it more probable that this place was in the Liberty of Worthin than in the Chatellany of Montgomery. We have first an indication that something in Heathway was claimed

[1] Supra, Vol VII. p. 127.
[2] Inquis. 44 Edw. III., No. 18.
[3] [4] Supra, Vol. VII. pp. 25, 126-7.
[5] Supra, page 100.


by Thomas Hunald of Marton. In October 1259 Thomas Corbet had a Writ of attaint, "against Thomas Hunant concerning a tenement in Hethway";- that is, I suppose, Corbet wished to attaint the Jurors who had tried some previous issue between himseff and Thomas Hunald. In Easter Term 1260 Thomas Corbet was prosecuting Roger Frogge and others, for insulting him and his men, and razing his houses in Halwey. The Sheriff had been ordered to take the Defendants into custody and to bring them to Westminster, but he had replied to the mandate, that "they all lived in Chirbury Hundred and out of his jurisdiction". The Court had however been informed that they lived at Merton (Marton), and so in the Sheriff's jurisdiction (ubi Vicecomes potest intrare). The Sheriff was ordered to have their bodies in Court on Oct. 6. An entry on the Westminster Plea-Roll of Easter Term 1263, shows that damages of 60s. had been awarded to Thomas Corbet for the destruction of his two houses at Heywey: and that the Sheriff had been ordered to raise that sum by distraint on the lands of Martin Pekoc and John fitz Edeline. The Sheriff now sent word to the Court that its Writ had not reached him in time for him to execute it. In Trinity Term 1263, the place is called Hegwey. The Sheriff excused himself again, because the above two, and other delinquents, lived within the Liberties of Montgomery. The Court, understanding that they had Chattels without those Liberties, repeated its order. Before the Courts of Westminster could proceed with this suit, a general Rebellion had arisen and been quelled; and King Henry's throne had been lost and won. In October 1266, the Court repeated its orders to the Sheriff, to levy 60s. damages on the lands and chattels of Martin Pecok, John fitz Edith, and Adam Don, for their trespasses at Hogway. A similar order of Hilary Term 1267 is all that I can further say of this matter.

Perhaps Heathway is this place described as Hefle in the proceedings against Peter Corbet in 1292. [1]


THIS was another of Roger fitz Corbet's Domesday Manors.- Isdem Rogerius tenet Lestune. Seuuard tenuit et liber fuit.

[1] Supra, page 102.


Ibi una hida, non geldabilis. In domino est I caruca, et unus Radman, et II Bovarii. Ibi silva II leuuas longa; et suficit CC porcis incrassandis. Valuit et valet V solidos. [1]

After Domesday, I find no mention of Leighton or its tenants till the Assizes of 1272, when the Chirbury Jurors reported Richard de Leueton as not in due attendance. We have seen how in 1292 Peter Corbet defended his holding free-chace in the Bosc of Letton by stating that it was in Walcheria: and how the Crown-Lawyer vainly pursued this point by a Writ of Quo Waranto. [2] But he also sued Peter Corbet, under a Writ of right, for the Manor of Leyghton itself, as well as for that of Coten. [3] Corbet's defence was, that there were three vills in Shropshire called Coten and two called Leyghton; and he prayed judgment on the Writ, because of its indistinctness. Hugh de Lowther replied, by what seems to me a simple falsehood, viz. that "there were no second vills in the County, called Leyhton and Coten, without some adjective". He appealed to a Jury on the point. Corbet assented, and the Court decreed a Jury; but Hugh de Louther then refused to abide by such an issue. So Corbet was dismissed sine die. [4] Leghton in Walcheria was given by Peter Corbet (I) to his younger son John, who, as I have said, died without issue. [5] Nevertheless some other branch of the Corbets seems to have been afterwards enfeoffed in Leighton. Sir John Corbet of Binweston was proposing in 1356 to settle that Manor on his son John and on Joan, the son's wife, and on their issue. A Feodary, drawn up in 22 Richard II. (1398-9) gives the heirs of John Corbet as Tenants of a knight's-fee in Leighton and Kinweston (read Binweston), held under William, late Earl of Stafford.

PAROCHIALLY. Leighton was like some other vills of the Gordowr, in the Parish of Worthin.


Domesday has two passages descriptive of that territory and Castle to which the Norman Earl had given his own name. The first

[1] Domesday, fo. 255, b, 1.
[2] Supra, Vol VII. p. 36.
[3] Cotes juxta Caus (vide supra, Vol. VII. p. 45, and Vol XI. p. 99).
[4] Quo Waranto, p. 685.
[5] Supra, Vol VII. p. 38, note 12.


relates to the stock and income of the Chatellany, the second is of a more historical character. [1]

Ad Castellum de Montgomery habet ipse Comes IIII carucas; et VI libras denariorum habet de uno Fine de Walis pertinente ad istam Castellariam. Rogerius Corbet habet ibi II carucas, et de Walis, cum fratre suo, habet XL solidos.

The second notice clearly places Montgomery in Witentreu Hundred, and determines its territory to have been claimed, but not continuously colonized, by the Saxons.-

Ipse Comes construxit Castrum, Muntgumeri vocatum, ad quod adjacent LII hidae et dimidia, quas tenuerunt Seuuar, Oslac, Azor de Rege Edwardo, quietas ab omni geldo. Ad venandum eas habuerunt.

In Etenehop (est) I hida; in Estune II hidae; in Stantune VII hidae; in Castelop II hidae; in Mulitune III hidae; in Goseford III hide; in Hoptune II hidae; in Benehale VII hidae; in Dudeftune I hida; in Wadelestun III hidae; in Elchitun dimidia hida; in Walecote I hida; in Ulestanesmude III hidae. Has terras tenuerunt supradicti III Taini. Modo tenet Rogerius Comes. Wastae sunt et fuerunt. Et de L hidis superioribus sunt III hidae in dominio ejus.

Ipsi iidem III Teini tenuerunt Westune de III hidis; et Staurecote de I hida; et Horseford de dimidia hida; et Torneberie de I hida; et Heme de III hidis; et Edritune de I hida; et Furtune de dimidia hida; et Urbetune de I hida; et Achelai de I hida. Has terras tenet Rogerius Corbet de Comite, praeter Achelai, quam tenet Eiluuard. In his sunt in domino IX carucae et dimidia;- et XV Villani, et XIIII Bordarii cum III Radmans et VIII Servis, habent XII carucas et dimidiam. Wasta fuerunt: modo valent C solidos. In Heme sunt III Piscariae, et silva cum haia: in Edritune ailva LX porcis incrassandis: in Achelai una haia.

There are some discrepancies in the above account.- The total contents of the Chatellany are in one place stated as 52 hides, in another as 50 hides. The last is perhaps an expression adopted for conciseness, but the items, when added together, amount not to 52, but to 50 hides. Again, Roger Corbet's teams are in one place counted as two, in another as 9. The former perhaps relates to land in the very precinct of Montgomery. Again, Robert Corbet is in one place alluded to as a Welsh Suzerain; but, when we come to the particular items, Roger Corbet alone is registered as a sharer in the Chatellany. We shall in the sequel find a probability that Robert Corbet had an interest therein also, so that the general

[1] Domesday, fox. 253, b. 1, 254, a. 1.


expression of Domesday is more correct than the details. As regards the civil and progressive history of the district, we may observe that the very names of more than half the villages given, indicate a Saxon occupation and colonization, anterior to the reign of Edward the Confessor. That Monarch's struggle with Wales is known to have been inglorious, till the famous campaign of Harold, son of Godwin. We need not marvel then that the tune and the cote and the berie and the hale are pronounced by Domesday to have been indiscriminately waste in the Confessor's day, and reduced to the condition of a hunting-ground for his Thanes.

A word now as to these Thanes. Seuuar, if we may suppose him identical with Seuuard, or Siward, was perhaps, after Kings and Earls, the greatest Landholder in Shropshire. Azor was far less extensively interested in that County; but as to Oslac, I do not remember a single estate of his holding.

Passing to Earl Roger de Montgomery, we see that here, as on the more northerly frontier, he had constrained or induced the Welsh to hold a whole commot of their country under his Chatellany. The two Fitz Corbets had been proportionably influential. And this Welsh territory must be taken as quite distinct from those 22 estates which Domesday names as members of Montgomery. Great indeed was William, Duke of Normandy, and great was his sagacity in the choice of his Lieutenants. After the aera of Domesday, till the conquest of Wales, there lived neither King, nor Viceroy, nor Baron of Caus, who might count on rents and venison westward of Montgomery.

Earl Roger's division of this province seems to have been eminently liberal or deeply politic. A Castle, three hides of demesne land, 6 of Welsh rent, and 35 hides of desert land he retained. The desert was perhaps still devoted to purposes of the Chase. It is marvellous how many of the village names in this wild district,- names which were only traditionary then,- are preserved now.

On the other hand, what the Earl had bestowed on Roger Corbet was an available property, already recolonized and made productive at the time of Domesday. That which was waste in the Confessor's reign, now realized the handsome income of 100s. With perhaps two exceptions, [1] Roger Corbet's vills retain their names to this very day.

The date of Earl Roger de Montgomery's death was probably July 27, 1093, but there is more doubt about the year than the day

[1] Viz. Staurecote and Horseford.


About two years afterwards, the Welsh took Montgomery Castle by storm, and put the garrison to death. Florence of Worcester (whose authority is paramount on this matter) designates the garrison as "the men of Hugh, Earl of Shrewsbury". The expression is important, for it proves that the said Earl still held the Castle in demesne. To revenge this insult, King William II. undertook a Welsh expedition in October 1095, and the result was "a heavy loss in men and horses". The English host, according to one authority, pernetrated as far as Snowdon and commenced a retreat about All Saints' day (Nov. 1).

It is agreed on all hands that Montgomery Castle was rebuilt by the English, but whether by King William or Earl Hugh, is not quite clear. Certain it seems that on the fall of Earl Robert de Belesme (in 1102) King Henry I., having the Chatellany of Montgomery as an Escheat, augmented it largely with distant estates, and "granted it to Baldwin de Bollers, in marriage with Sibil de Faleise, his niece". The legitimate nieces of King Henry II. might be accurately enumerated without discovering this Lady Sibil. To trace how many nieces or half-nieces may have resulted to the King through his own frailties, or those of his brother Robert, would be an endless and hopeless task. However, I suspect that the word neptis was sometimes an euphemism for a relationship of a nearer hat less presentable character. It was with reference to-

BALDWIN DI BOLLERS, and his seizin of Montgomery, that the Welsh called the place Tre Valdwyn, e. the town of Baldwin. [1]

[1] Powel's Welsh Chronicle tells us (under the year 1091-2) how "Roger de Mountgomery entered into Powys land and wan the Castell and towne of Baldwyn, which he fortified, and called it Mountgomery after his owne name". This astonishing anachronism has induced later writers to imagine some Baldwin, a contemporary of William the Conqueror, and appointed Lieutenant of the Marches by that King; and they go on to show how the said Baldwin, or (he being subdued by the Welsh) his Conquerors, were ousted by Earl Roger in the reign of William Rufus, etc. etc.

The slaughter of Earl Roger, by the Welsh, in an affray between Cardiff and Brecknock, in 1094;- this is a further revelation of Powel's Welsh Chronicle.

Whether such statements are due to ignorance, credulity, or falsehood, I do not care to discuss. I wish to explain why these and some other points in the popular history of Montgomery are not noticed in the text. It is because I can trace them to no sound authority.

I must not however omit to mention that about the year 1115, Montgomery Castle is said to have been the prison of Howel ap Rees, brother and partisan of that Gruffyth ap Rees who was then a candidate for the sceptre of South Wales. Gruffyth's claim was strongly opposed by Henry I. Howel ap Rees fell into the hands of the English, and it was (ostensibly) Arnulph de Montgomery (one of Earl Roger's sons) who contrived his incarceration at Montgomery. This introduction of Arnulf de Montgomery is certainly anachronous, nor is it probable that the said Arnulph had ever any concern in this part of Wales. However the Welsh Chieftain's imprisonment at, and escape from, Montgomery, are credible enough, when taken alone.


He has occurred to my notice in only one specific instance, and that is when, in the year 1121, as Baldwin de Bollers he affixed his signature and attestation to Henry I.'s great Charter to Shrewsbury Abbey. [1]

In a Plea-Roll of 1225, when the succession to the Honour of Montgomery was in great dispute, I find it stated, or intimated, that "Baldwin de Bollers had by his wife, Sibil, an only daughter, Matilda, who became wife of Richard fitz Urse, by disposition of Henry I". This I believe to be verbally true, but still I think that Sibil was also mother of a son whose line expired in the reign of King John, and therefore before the above Plea-Roll was engrossed. The same Plea-Roll relates that Baldwin de Bollers, after decease of his wife, Sibil married a second wife; but, as having had issue by Sibil, he enjoyed the Honour of Montgomery for life. Also it is said that, by his second wife, Baldwin de Bollers left sons and daughters. All this, as I believe, is perfectly true; and I think that it was in virtue of a descent from this second marriage that the Erdintons and Stantons alleged a title to the Honour of Montgomery in the time of King John. Their claim was (as regards descent from Baldwin) probably well-grounded, but (as regards priority of descent, or any descent from his wife Sibil) wholly unfounded.

It shall be my first business to trace, if I can, the male descent of those whom I believe to have been alike heirs of Baldwin de Bollers and of Sibil de Faleise.-

STEPHEN DE BOLLERS was, as I think, son and heir of Baldwin and Sibil. Of his connection with Montgomery I can say nothing, save that such a person apparently enfeoffed the ancestor of one John fitz Richard (living in 1255) in a half-virgate at Chirbury. [2] But this Stephen was undoubtedly that Stephen de Buthlers who has occurred to us in a former chapter, with his wife Maria, his son Robert, and other members of his family. [3] This was probably in Stephen's reign, but certainly before the year 1160. Stephen de Buthlers was, at the time, seigneural Lord of Stallington, in Staffordshire.

ALMARIC DE BOLLERS, or (as he is called in the Pipe-Roll) AMALRIC DE BUILLERS, was undoubtedly Lord of Montgomery in

[1] Salop Chartulary, No. 35.
[2] Supra, pages 57, 58.
[3] Supra, Vol. VII. p. 389.


1162. His proportion of the Danegeld, then assessed in Shropshire, was 104s., a sum which was excused, but which stamps him at once as the contemporary Lord of Montgomery; for no other Fief which could have belonged to such a person, at such a time, and in the said county, was proportionate to such an assessment. I cannot say how Almaric was related to his predecessor, Stephen. I moreover very much doubt whether Baldwin Buelot (a Northamptonshire Feudatory of 1165) belongs to this succession at all, though Dugdale has called him "De Bollers", and inserted him in this descent. [1] Excluding this Baldwin from the probable pedigree, we come to-

ROBERT DE BUSLERS, undoubtedly Lord of Montgomery, but how related to Almaric we cannot determine. The Shropshire Pipe-Roll of 1176 gives Robert de Buslers as amerced 40 merks for forest-trespass by Henry II. He paid 20 merks on the instant, and 20 merks in the year following. This Robert married Hillaria Trusbut, sister and co-heir of Robert Trusbut, and daughter of William Trusbut, of Watre (Yorkshire) by Albreda de Harcourt, niece and co-heir of William Peverel (II) of High Ercall, Dover, and Bourne [2] On the death of Robert Trusbut, and in June 1194, partition of his estates was made between his three sisters. [3] They are called Roesia, Hillaria de Boulers, and Agatha Memfilin. [4] In 1195-6, 500 Welsh foot-soldiers were sent over sea to serve under King Richard in Normandy. Their commander was Philip, a Knight of Robert de Boilliers. The Sheriff of Shropshire paid their wages for the first eight days of their service, viz. 50 merks (or 2d. per day for each man) and 8s. (or 1s. per day for the Commander). Two Servientes equites, at 6d. a day each, and 200 more Welsh soldiers at 2d. per day, seem to have belonged to a contemporary levy, but they are not said to have been under the same Commander.

Robert de Bodliers was assessed in Shropshire for the two Scutages of Normandy in 1195 and 1197. His quota was 60s. in each case, the sum proportionate to three knights'-fees. The charge was duly paid. Similarly in 1199 Robert de Bodliers paid 6 merks (or 2 merks per fee, on 3 fees) for the first scutage of King John, as assessed in Shropshire. In October and November 1199 and in February 1200 I find Robert de Bullers and Hillaria his wife suing other parties for land in Coppegrave (Yorkshire), and for 2 carucates of land in Arkendun (Yorkshire). In 1201 and 1202 Robert

[1] Baronage, Vol. I. p. 598.
[2] Supra, Vol. IX. p. 69.
[3] Placita, Trinity Term, 5 Richard I. (ut videtur, membrane 2.
[4] Memfilin was the generic name of Hamo fitz Hamo, Agatha's first husband.


de Bouleres paid scutage on 3 Shropshire fees, viz. 6 merks on each occasion, to the second and third scutages of King John. His contemporary assessments in Yorkshire and Lincolnshire were for the estates acquired with his wife. On Feb. 10, 1202, we have seen Robert de Budlers joining in a Fine, as Seigneural Lord of Hope Bowdler, [1] which Manor was of the Honour of Montgomery. At Michaelmas 1203 no Lord of Montgomery was assessed to the fourth scutage of King John. The reason will appear presently. Robert de Bullers' grant in Rowton to Shrewsbury Abbey, [2] and his release of Preston Montford to Lilleshall Abbey, [3] have been spoken of on former pages. Pulton in Wiltshire was a member of the Honour of Montgomery, and Robert de Budlers gave the Advowson of Pulton also to Lilleshall. [4] Before Michaelmas 1203 Robert de Bullers was deceased without issue. He was buried in Lilleshall Abbey. His heir was his brother Baldwin, but I should first speak of his widow-

HILLARIA TRUSBUT, who long survived him. Immediately on her husband's death, this Lady gave King John a Fine of 300 merks and one palfrey, that she might not be constrained to remarry. This produced the King's Charter, dated at Caen on Oct. 12, 1203, whereby it is allowed that Hillaria, widow of Robert de Bollers, shall not be constrained to remarry; but it is also stipulated that, if she herself wish to remarry, the King's consent shall be necessary. She is to have her reasonable dower in the lands of her late husband. Robert de Ros, the first witness of this Charter, was Hillaria Trusbut's nephew, and William de Aubeney, the third witness, was her brother-in-law.

At the Shropshire Assizes of October 1203, the Chirbury Jurors reported Hillaria, widow of Robert de Bullers, as at the King's disposal. But by far the most interesting documents relating to Hillaria Trusbut are her munificent Charters to Lilleshall Abbey. The earliest of these conveys the whole of her Yorkshire estate of Arkendene to the Abbey. The offering is expressed to be for the souls of her father and mother, and of Robert de Budlers her late husband, and for the health of herself and of her heirs. The object of the gift is the maintenance of the Convent-Kitchen, and the augmentation of victuals in the Refectory; and it is stipulated that there shall be no withdrawal of the food previously and customarily set before the Brethren. [5] The Charter is attested by "Robert

[1] Supra, Vol. V. p. 115.
[2] [3] Supra, Vol. VII. pp. 177, 195.
[4] Lilleshall Chartulary, fo. 55.
[5] Monasticon, VI. 263. Num. IX.


Walensis then Sheriff of Yorkshire"; which would alone prove it to have passed between 1203 and 1209.

There seems to have been another Charter concerning Arkendene, in which Hillaria Trussebut specified the contents of the Manor as 3 carucates of demesne land and 8s. free-rent, due, from Thomas fitz Vivien and another, on two half-carucates. This was the Charter which King John recited and confirmed on May 31, 1213. [1] Hillaria's edition thereof was attested by Robert Walensis then Sheriff of Yorkshire, William de Percy of Kerneteby, William Wart', William de Cramarc, William Pant', Roger de Say, Roger de Bullers, Robert fitz Richard, Radulf Mauleverer, Roger Mauleverer, Robert Trussebut, Richard Dagan, Nigel Pincerna, William Dusill, Richard his brother, Ralph Clerk of Dene, and Nicholas Brito. [2] The next Charter of this Lady relates to her wish of heing buried, like her husband, at Lilleshall, and carefully guards against the anticipated opposition of her friends. This interesting document I epitomize from the original, [3] which is in existence, and is sealed with the device of a human head, surrounded with a tressure.

Hillaria Trussebut uxor quondam Roberti de Budlers omnibus, etc. Ad universitatis vestre noticiam volo pervenire quod ego Abbatiam de Lilleshull in qua Dominus meus jacet sepultus, ea integritate amoris dilexi, ut in ea ubicunque decessero, mihi sepulturam elegi. Cartam siquidem istam in dicta domo reposui, a fratribus meis ibidem porrigendam contra illos qui in preljudicium mee libere voluntatis et corporis disposicionem voluerint resilire. Cartam Conventus penes me retinui ut, cum opus fuerit, lis si qua fuerit exorta, in medio exhibita, litigantium possit decidere questionem. Hiis testibus, Rogerio de Say, Rogerio Capellano, Roberto Trussebut, Radulfo clerico de D***, Roberto de Waletun, Nicholao, Johanne Marescallo, Roberto de Longed', Gilberto de Girevill, et m. a.

I am inclined to date the above negotiation about 1210. The next Grant of Hillaria Trussebut to Lilleshall, recites how that she had devoted, or vowed, her body to be buried in that Abbey. She gives all her land at Braundeston (i.e. a third part of Branston, Northants), for the souls' health of herself and of Robert de Budlers her husband. The gift is to maintain one Canon, who, after her decease, is to perform a full daily service for the souls of herself, of Sir Robert de Budlers, of her father, mother, and all her ancestors and successors. She retains a third part of the Advowson of Braunston (only a third belonged to her) for herself and heirs.

[1] Rot. Chartarum, p. 192.
[2] Lilleshall Chartulary, fo. 76.
[3] At Trentham.


She also stipulates for the service due to the Seigneural Lord of the Fee. [1]

Another Charter is explanatory of the last. "Dame Hillaria Trussebut, with consent of the Abbot of Lilleshall, ordains that the revenues of the third of Brandeston which she had given, as above, to maintain one Canon, etc., should he divided into three parts, two whereof were to be applied to the clothing of the convent, and the third to the lights of the Abbey Church". [2] This Grant of Branston I take to have been made later than 1216, for it is not included in Pope Honorius's Confirmation to Lilleshall, which passed after that year.

A Writ-Close of October 27, 1225, shows that part of Hillaria Trussebut's dower in the Honour of Montgomery had consisted of the services due on Harley, from William de Harley its Lord. He was now dead and his heir in minority. The King orders that custody of the said heir be given to Hillaria, by Godescall de Maghelines (then Castellan of Montgomery). This incident will add something to the facts, and will slightly correct the dates of a former chapter. [3] It is probable that Hillaria Trusbut lived to the age of 90 or thereabouts. Her decease is certified by a Writ of April 12, 1241, ordering the Sheriff of Worcestershire to seize the lands which she had held in dower in that County, and retain them till further orders. The Sheriff was also to take security for a Palfrey, of 100s. value, for the King's use, which had been proffered, by Robert Wafre, alleging himself to be heir to the said dower, or, in other words, heir of De Bollers. [4] This question of heirship it would be premature here to enter upon. I now return to-

BALDWIN DE BOLLERS (II), brother and heir of Robert de Bollers. Before Michaelmas 1203, this Baldwin had negotiated his Relief with King John. It was "100 for the land of his late brother, saving to the wife of the said Robert her dower and her proper share of his Chattels". In the year 1205, Baldwin de Bodliers cotnpounded by a Fine of 10 merks for his Shropshire quota of the 6th scutage of King John. His ordinary liability would have been 6 merks. In 1206 he had special quittance of King John's 7th scutage.

On June 11, 1206, a suit was pending between Amabel de Limesy and Baldwin de Bullers concerning the homage and service of the land of Haketon (Worcestershire) which Yllaria Trusbut held in dower. Baldwin de Bullers' sureties were Baldwin de Hodnet

[1] Monasticon, VI. 264. Num. X.
[2] Lilleshall Chartulary, fo. 91.
[3] Supra, Vol. p. 233.
[4] Rot. Finium, 26 Hen. III., m. 11.


(Seneschal of Montgomery) and Hugh de Wodenerton (a tenant in that Honour). These securities were ordered to be increased, because of Baldwin's non-attendance. I think that before Michaelmas 1207 Baldwin be Bollers was deceased; for at that period the Sheriff of Shropshire charges for "repairs done at Montgomery Castle while it was in the King's hand". At all events he died without issue, and with him expired the elder male line of De Bollers. He left a widow, called-

WENTHLIAN or WENTHLIAN TET, Of whom I have to say something.- On October 13, 1208, she ought to have appeared before the King at Gloucester to have her dower measured out in opposition to William de Courtenay, then Lord of Montgomery. She sent William de Poulton with an essoign de malo veniendi. Another day (November 12) was appointed for her to appear; and the Sheriff of Shropshire was also to appear and account for some neglect in this matter. In November 1228, when Henry III. granted the Castle and Honour of Montgomery to Hubert de Burgh, he grants it cum escaetis dotum quas Elaria Trusbut et Wenthlon Tet tenuerunt in dote de terris pertinentibus ad Honorem de Montgomery. This does not mean that these ladies were dead or that their dowers were escheated. I take it rather to be a reversionary grant of their dowers, whenever they should fall to the Crown. I suppose that Wenthlian Tet died in 1243, for a Writ of October 3 in that year directs that it be ascertained by Inquest "how much land, de terris Normannorum, [1] had been held in Poulton by Wenthlian, wife of Robert de Bollers"? The Jury valued the said land in Pulton at 17. 7s. 6d. per annum, and explained that Pulton was not Terra Normannorum; that Robert de Buthlers, sometime tenant thereof, was an Anglican, and dying without issue had been succeeded by his younger brother Baldwin; also that it was Baldwin who had married Wentlian. [2] I now return to-

WILLIAM DE COURTENAY, the next heir of Baldwin de Bollers (II). About June 1207 this William fined 400 merks, with King John, "to have all the land of which Baldwin de Buller had died

[1] Terra Normannorumn; the technical expression for those English estates which escheated to the Crown when King John lost Normandy, their owners proffering their allegiance to Philip Augustus.
[2] Inquisitions, 27 Hen. III., No. 27. Pulton (Wiltshire) went for a time to Cantilupe, but was not eventually retained by him or any collateral heirs of De Bollers. An Inquest taken Nov. 23, 1263, by the King's order, found that Pulton was not indeed ancient demesne of the Crown, but an Escheat on the death of Baldwin de Bollers, "who left no heir or relation who could or ought to have it". "The King could give it to whom he pleased without injuring any one". (Inquis. 48 Hen. III., No. 35.)


hereditarily seized, saving the right of any future claimants". [1] This Fine seems to have been certified to the Sheriffs of Suffolk, Worcestershire, Essex, and Hertfordshire, and other counties, who were enjoined to give the said William seizin of the premises, and to allow him to levy an aid on his knights and free-tenants, to enable him to meet the Fine. Among his securities I see the names of Robert de Courtenay, Matthew Fitz Herbert, Alan de Dunstanvill, and Thomas Basset, but of no one more nearly connected with Shropshire. A Patent of June 30, 1207, informs the Sheriff of Shropshire and the Constable of Montgomery that the King has restored the Castle of Montgomery and all its appurtenances to William de Curtenay, "as his right", saving the right of any future claimant. Curtenay is to have instant seizin.

In October 1208 William de Courtenay names Jordan fitz Urse his Attorney against Wenthlian, his predecessor's widow. In 1209 he gives the King two destriers that he may be allowed to pay, by instalments of 100 merks yearly, his debts to the Crown, viz. the residue of the above Fine, and of Baldwin de Bodliers' debts to the King, and of the Aurum Regine.

A Shropshire Feodary of 1209-10 says that "William de Curtenai holds 3 fees in capite in Salopesire". [2] Another Feodary, of June 1211, says that "William Curtenay, Baron, is a tenant in capite and owes the service of 3 knights". [3] William de Curtenaye confirmed Robert de Budler's grant of Pulton Church to Lilleshall Abbey, and apparently assented to its appropriation. Both Charters were further confirmed by Herbert, Bishop of Salisbury, on July 17, 1214. [4] William de Courtenay, we have seen, was less friendly to the Canons of Chirbury. On July 30, 1214, King John, then at

[1] Oblata, 9 John, m. 12.
[2] Liber Ruber Scacc. fo. cxxxvi.
[3] Testa de Nevill, p. 55.
[4] Lilleshall Chartulary, fo. 56. There is a curious episode about Pulton Church, or rather its Rector Alan de Bullers, who lived in the reign of John, was accused of "bestowing favours and aid on excommunicated persons in defiance of the Holy Roman Church". Gualo, the Pope's Legate, being then in England, took cognizance of the matter, and by a formal sentence, published at Worcester on August 1, 1217, deprived Alan de Bullers of "all his benefices". The Church of Pulton, thus vacated, was given, by the arrogant Priest, to Cynthius, a Nephew of the contemporary Cardinal of St. Pudentian, it being at the same time understood that the Abbot of Lilleshall was to present on the occasion of any future vacancy (Chartulary, fol. 56). We have here an instance of the abject servility to which the late King's policy had reduced the sovereignty of England. The yoke, thus placed on the neck of young King Henry, was not removed during the 56 years of his reign.

Of Alan de Bullers, Clerk, and of his further connection with Lilleshall Abbey, we shall hear more under Dudson.


Angouleme, desire's the Bishop of Winchester to inform him of the amount of William de Courtenay's debts to the Crown, and meanwhile not to press for their payment. [1]

Before January 18, 1215, William de Courtenay was deceased, without issue. Writs, of that date and of April 22 and July 22, following, relate to the dower of his widow, Ada, in Upminster (Essex). [2] A further Writ of May 27, 1217, assigns her dower in the Manor of Bulwick (Northamptonshire), and a Writ of Oct. 5, 1217, restores Upminster to her, she having been disseized thereof by Vitalis Engaine. [3] Suffice it to say further of this Ada that she remarried with Theobald de Lascelles. [4]

Before I enter on the topic of William de Courtenay's heirs, I should show how he himself had been heir of the Honour of Montgomery. The story will involve a famous name, and touch upon a curious point in the popular theory of retributions.-

"Baldwin de Bollers (I) had by Sibil de Faleise an only daughter, Matilda". The authority for, and probable meaning of, this recorded fact, have already been stated. On the extinction of the male descendants of Baldwin and Sibil in 1207, William de Courtenay gained the Barony as heir of their daughter Matilda. His title was simple enough. The said Matilda married Richard fitz Urze, by arrangement of King Henry I. This Richard fitz Urse occurs in the Pipe-Roll of 1130 as having interests in seven counties, viz. Wiltshire, Oxfordshire, Kent, Surrey, Essex, Northamptonshire, and Buckinghamshire. He was deceased before 1158; and left three children, viz. (1) Margery, who was born about 1135, and married Richard Engaine;- (2) Mable, wife of * * * * Gernet, and mother of Roger Gernet;- and (3) a son, Reginald.

REGINALD FITZ URSE of course succeeded his father. The earliest notice which I have of him is in the Pipe-Roll of 1158, when he is pardoned his quota of Danegeld in the three counties of Somersetshire, Essex, and Northamptonshire. He was clearly therefore in favour with Henry II. We also have it recorded that he experienced some benefits from a person then all-powerful in Henry's Court, the Chancellor, Becket.

In 1165 Reginald fitz Urse was registered under Northamptonshire, as a Tenant-in-capite of 3 and one sixth knights'-fees. Two of these were of old feoffment; the remainder had been enfeoffed by his father, Richard, out of the said Richard's demesnes. [5] One of these fees I know from other Records was at Chaudefield, in Wiltshire.

[1] [2] [3] [4] Claus. I., 169, 184, 196; 222, 309; 327.
[5] Liber Niger, I. p. 116.


On December 29, 1170, Reginald fitz Urse distinguished himself in that bloody drama to which I have alluded elsewherel with reference to his name. His share in the murder of Becket was prominent, both in the savage cruelty of his demeanour, and because in his case the crime was deepened by the sin of ingratitude. I can mark no further event in the life of this miscreant, nor can I state the period of his death. He left an only child, a daughter. Her name was Matilda. She married Robert de Courtenay, and had by him an only son, William;- that William who of course derived his title to the Honour of Montgomery in the above mode; and who died in 1214, without issue. Thus did the descendants of Reginald fitz Urse become utterly extinct.

It is obvious, if William de Courtenay had been right heir to the Barony of Montgomery, that, on his decease without issue, the next heirs were the descendants of his Great-Aunts, Margery and Mable fitz Urse. Mable had left a son, Roger Gernet, but him we never find asserting any claim to the inheritance, though his right is in one instance spoken of. On the other hand-

MARGERY FITZ URSE, wife of Richard Engain, was more clearly represented. Her husband had died between the years 1177 and 1185, leaving a son and heir, a second Richard Engaine, who was his mother's apparent heir in 1185, when she, though 50 years of age, had remarried with one Geoffrey Brito. Richard Engaine (II) was of Pixley (Northants), and in due course succeeded his mother. He left a son and heir,-

VITALIS ENGAINE, who, as we have seen, disseized Ada de Courtenay of her dower at Upminster in 1217. This was tantamount to an assertion of his heirship to the Honour of Montgomery. In the next year, the King, for a fine of 10 merks, recognized his claim to Upminster as heir of William de Courtenay, and reserved to Ada de Courtenay only her dower therein. This was by a Writ of April 5, 1218. [2] In Michaelmas Term 1225 Vitalis Engaine put in a claim to the whole Honour of Montgomery, drawing his Pedigree and that of Roger Gernet as I have stated it, and appointing Ralph de Ketelberg his Attorney, apparently against Giles de Erdinton and other contemporary claimants. [3] I may safely add that Vitalis Engaine never realized anything more than a fraction of his pretensions, and that his success, if any, was in regard to some very distant members of the Honour of Montgomery, such as

[1] Supra, Vol. I. pp. 168, 169.
[2] Rot. Finium, 2 Hen. III., m. 7.
[3] Placita apud Westm. Mich. Tm. 9 & 10 Hen. III, membr. 3 dorso.


Upminster. The other claimants of the Honour of Montgomery, as far as I can ascertain them, were Thomas de Erdinton and Stephen de Stanton in 1214, Giles de Erdinton in 1225, Rohert Wafre in 1241, and lastly William de Cantilupe at some unascertained period. The ground on which Giles de Erdinton and other unnamed claimants of 1225 rested their pretensions are said to have been that "Baldwin de Bollers (I), on the death of his wife Sibil, married a second time, and had sons and daughters whose heirs these claimants pretended to be". Meantime it seems that King John and Henry III. had been doubtful about this question of heirship, had given partial encouragement to the Erdintons, but on the whole, had affected to treat the Castle and Manor of Montgomery as an Escheat since the death of William de Courtenay. The particulars of either King's conduct in the matter will form the next topic of consideration.-

On January 14, 1215, King John, by Charter "concedes and confirms to Thomas de Erdinton and his heirs the Honour of Montgomery with all its lands, tenements, fees, possessions, and appurtenances, and with the Manors of Bednundesfeud (Badmunsfield), Pulton, Acton, and Lydham, belonging to the said Honour, according to an agreement between the said Thomas and Stephen de Stainton and Robert, Stephen's son and heir; provided however that Erdinton shall abide a trial in the Curia Regis if any one should gainsay his title. Wherefore the said Thomas and his heirs are to have and to hold the premises as is aforesaid and as Stephen's Charter thereanent did reasonably testify, which Charter Thomas already had".
[1] A Patent of January 18, 1215, certifies the above Charter to the Knights and Free-tenants of the Honour of Montgomery, and bespeaks their homage and services for their new Lord. A Writ-Close of the same date orders the Sheriff of Shropshire to give Erdinton seizin. [2]

It is to be observed that these documents say nothing about Montgomery Castle. I believe that the King retained that in his own hand, but appointed Erdinton Custos thereof. A Writ-Close of May 6, 1215, orders the Barons of the Exchequer to reimburse Erdinton for his outlay at Shrewsbury, Oswestry, Shrawardine, Morton, Clun, Montgomery, Mortoin, and at other Castles which were in his custody. [3]

There is not the slightest evidence that Thomas de Erdinton ever relaxed in his allegiance to King John or to Henry III., or that

[1] Rot. Chartaram, 16 John, m. 5.
[2] [3] Claus. I. pp. 184, 199.


either of those monarchs wished to abate their favours to him. Thomas de Erdinton moreover lived till March 20, 1218. The change therefore which King John adopted with respect to the Honour of Montgomery must be attributed to a conviction that the combined title of the Erdintons and Stantons was unsound. On January 28, 1216, King John, then at Newcastle-on-Tyne, "gave to William de Cantilupe, his Seneschal, all the land which had been William de Curtenay's, saving to every one his right, if any other right should be asserted; and saving to Wennunwen (Prince of Powis) the land of Montgomery which the King had conceded to him during pleasure". Copies of this Writ were addressed to the Sheriffs of Northamptonshire, Worcestershire, Shropshire, Somersetshire, Dorsetshire, and Essex, with orders to give instant and full seizin to Cantilupe. [1] Three days afterwards, the Sheriffs of Hertfordshire, Northamptonshire, Huntingdonshire, and Essex are ordered to give Cantilupe possession of all the lands of Richard Engaine and his son Vitalis. [2] The last act of the King was one of vengeance, the first judicial; but both are relevant to our subject.

A Writ of August 8, 1223, clearly shows Montgomery Castle to be in the King's hand.- The Chief Forester of Shropshire is to admit the King's Carpenters (Hugh de Albo Monte and Burnell) into Shirlot Forest, there to prepare timber for the fortifications of the said Castle when need should arise. [3] At Michaelmas following, the Sheriff of Shropshire charges the King 3. 3s. 4d.;- "the wages of the King's Master-Carpenters, Hugh and Burnell, working at Montgomery for 42 days, at 9d. a day each". The Under Carpenters (minuti carpentarii) had also been paid 3. 3s. 9d. for four weeks' work. In October of this year, the King was himself at Montgomery. The particulars of his visit, and of Lewellyn's submission, have been given in a former chapter. Nevertheless the King's precautions continued. On Oct. 9 (two days after Lewellyn's humiliation) he sends to his Forest of Dean for 20 able Miners to do certain works at the Castle which he had built at Montgomery. Nineteen of these workmen appeared, with their leader, John fitz Wulfwy, at Worcester on Oct. 14th. The King was there too. He sent them forward, with orders for their employment and pay, addressed to Godescall de Maghelines; who here appears for the first time as Castellan of Montgomery. A Writ of October 22nd (when the King had reached Westminster) speaks of the Knights who were employed by him in the fortifications of the above Castle.

[1] [2] [3] Claus. I. 246, 247, 558.


On the 27th the King sends Gilbert Fayel and the Carpenter, Robert de Albemunt, to Montgomery. On Nov. 8, he sends 200 thither, for liveries, and Castle-Works. On the 22nd being at Gloucester he orders 6000 quarrels, manufactured at St. Briavells, to be conveyed thither: he also enjoins Hubert Hose and Godescall de Maghelines to continue the livery of a Serviens, one Peter Blund, like that of the other Servientes who were remaining at Montgomery, "till the Castle should be completed". The same Officers are further to give arrears of pay to several Knights who had served under the King in the preceding Autumn. Among these Knights were Henry, the King's brother, and Fulco de Montgomery. Another Writ of the same day relates to a Chapel "in the New Castle" of Montgomery, proving that of which we have had a previous hint, viz. that Henry III.'s Castle was a new structure. Whether it was built on the site of the Old Castle is a question for the local Antiquary. I believe that Baldwin's Castle has been well assigned to quite a different situation.

On Dec. 9, 1223, the King sends 300 more for works and liveries of Knights and Servientes at Montgomery. On January 19, 1224, he orders the Sheriff of Shropshire to proclaim an annual Fair to be held in "our Manor of Montgomery, from Nov. 1 to Nov. 8 inclusive". This shows that the claims of any Heir of Montgomery were, as regarded the Manor itself, deemed to be quite abeyant: but a Writ of Feb. 1, 1224, determines a much wider question. It appoints Hubert Huse and Godescall de Maghelines to be Custodes of the Castle, Honour, and Vale of Montgomery during the Royal pleasure, and it desires Henry de Audley to give them seizin of the premises. On Feb. 23, 1224, the King sends 300 more to Montgomery, by hand of Fulco de Montgomery and another. On March 31, 1224, the King restores the Seneschalcy of Montgomery to Baldwin de Hodnet. Other Writs and proceedings, relating to Baldwin de Hodnet and his connection with Montgomery, have been given already. [1] A Writ-Close of May 2, 1224, now demands our attention. "The Sheriff of Shropshire is to give William de Cantilupe instant seizin of the fees of his Knights and Free Tenants of the Honour of Montgomery; such seizin, to wit, as the said William had before the Discord recently moved between the King and his Barons". [2] It is clear that this Writ was not meant to extend to the Castle, Town, Precinct, Manor, or Chatellany of Montgomery. It related to many Fees in Shropshire and other Counties

[1] Supra, Vol. VII. p. 56.
[2] Claus. I. 597.


which had been originally annexed to the Honour: but what theory of succession dictated such a distinction we may vainly ask. The civil discord, alluded to in the Writ, must be that which subsisted in 1223-4, when the Earl of Chester and other Nobles had vainly conspired to remove Hubert de Burgh from his office of Justiciar, and from the Royal favour. The two Cantilupes, father and son, are mentioned by Matthew Paris as among the Conspirators.

On August 22, 1224, the King despatches 200, to pay the Liveries of the knights and servientes, at his Castle of Montgomery, and to continue the works there. On Oct. 1, 1224, the King was himself at Montgomery, with his Justiciar. He restored to the Abbot of Cumhir certain lands at Baghewenith and Brosimeshanle, which the King's Bailiffs had seized, as appurtenances of the Honour of Montgomery. On Oct. 2nd the King was back at Ludlow. Having reached Hereford on the 4th he again orders the Sheriffs of Shropshire and six other Counties to proclaim an eight days' Fair (from Sept. 1 to Sept. 8) to be held near Montgomery Castle, and to assure all attendants that the journey was safe. On Nov. 6, 1224, 300 more are despatched by the King for the works and garrison of Montgomery Castle. On January 9, 1225, Peter, Clerk of Montgomery, had to convey 100 more, and 50 followed on April 19. The same day the King advertises to North and South Wales, and to several English Counties a four days' Fair at Montgomery, to commence on May 3rd following.

On May 10, 1225, a general balance was struck between William de Cantilupe's debts to the Crown, and his credits for military services dining the reign of John. Among the debts released are some which show clearly that Cantilupe was held to be William de Courtenay's coheir. He owed 44. 19s. 2d., being a moiety of a debt of 89. 18s. 4d., which William de Curtenay had contracted, for having the land, which Robert de Curtenay had held till the day of his death, and which was of the inheritance of William de Curtenay's mother. He owed a moiety of one palfrey, being William de Curtenay's Fine for a Mill in Wurle. He owed a moiety of 1 gold merks, being the Aurum Regine due from the said William de Curtenay. He owed a moiety of 65. 11s. 8d., being the said William de Curtenay's arrear of his Fine pro habenda terra de Muntgumery. He also owed scutages on one knight's-fee in Eyton, and knights'-fees in Bolewich, [1] two places which I think had to do with the original Honour of Montgomery.

[1] Claus. II. 37-b.


By a Writ of May 30, 1225, the King orders Godescall de Maghelines to enjoin all persons who had fortalices (motas) in the Valley of Montgomery to strengthen the same with wooden turrets (bretaschiis), for their own security and the defence of those parts. On June 15, 1225, the King orders 200 to be paid to Godescall de Maghelines for Castle purposes, and 20 towards proceeding with the King's assarts in the parts of Montgomery.

A Writ of August 12, 1225, I have reserved for this place, because it is evidence that the King viewed the Chatellany of Montgomery as his Escheat. He tells the Castellan to ascertain what right Robert de Bollers had in the bosc of Snet (Snead), which he gave to the Prior and Canons of Snet (Chirbury), and what manner of seizin the said Prior had thereof, between the date of the gift and the time "when we took into our hand our Castle of Montgomery". Such manner of seizin is now to be restored to the Priory. [1]

On Oct. 27, 1225, the King draws another Cheque of 200 merks for the Castle-works and assarts of Montgomery. Another Cheque of May 25, 1226, is for 210; another of Oct. 21 is for 200. On Oct. 22, 1226, we have a Writ, showing the ultimate result of an inquiry already alluded to. [2] The King is assured that the men of the Honour of Montgomery have no right to require common-pasture, or to cut herbage in Thomas Corbet's Hayes of Gateden, Murtherele, and Godwinescall, or in his Park of Elrenemor, or his Forest of Stenufrestanes. Godescall de Maghelines is to prevent such trespasses in future.

In 1227 the men of Montgomery bought their franchise as a Free Borough from King Henry III. for a Fine of 20. By his Charter, dated at London on Feb. 13, in that year, the King wills and concedes that his Town of Montgomery be a Free Borough. The Burgesses may enclose the Town with a Wall and Foss. They may have a Merchant-Guild, with a Hanse, and other customs. None, except those of the Guild, may do merchandise there, without consent of the Burgesses. If any native be received into the Guild, and pay scott and lott for a year and a day, he may not be recovered by his Lord without judicial process. The Burgesses are to have soc, sac, tol, theam, and infangenthef, and to be quit of tolls (theloneo), lastage, passage, pontage, stallage, lene, and Danegeld. They are to have all such franchises as the Citizens of Hereford enjoyed. They are also to have two annual Fairs;- one of four days

[1] Claus. II. 57-a.
[2] Supra, Vol. VII. pp. 20, 21.


at the feast of St. Bartholomew (Aug. 24), the other of eight days, on the eve, day of, and six days after, the feast of St. Michael (Sept. 28-Oct. 5). All Merchants visiting the Town are to be under Royal protection; but the Liberties of the City of London are to be reserved in all things. [1] A Writ-Close of Feb. 20, 1227, orders the Sheriff of Herefordshire and four other Counties to proclaim and read this Charter in full County-Court, and to cause its franchises and provisions to be observed.

A Patent of April 5, 1227, appoints Thomas de la Haie to be Constable of Montgomery Castle, in lieu of Godescall de Maghelines. The latter is to deliver all stores, within and without the Castle, and on the King's other demesnes, to the new Constable, who is to forward one half to the King, and keep the other half. On April 20, 1227, the King sends an Actuary, one Peter de Colemere, to live in Montgomery Castle, and to keep account of the expenses and mises there. Thomas de Haie is to admit the said Peter and provide for his livery, as it was provided for, when he served the like office under Godescall de Maghelines. A writ of August 1, 1227, requires Thomas de Haie to ascertain "whether the same Godescall used the perch of 24 feet in measuring and assigning certain assart-lands to the King's men of Montgomery". If he did, then the present Constable is to dismiss his scruples about allowing such a mode of measurement.

On August 2, 1227, the King sends two Knights (Walter de Brione and Richard de Meinegat) to reside in Montgomery Castle till Friday after the Assumption. The cause of this unusual step soon appears. In October 1227, the King's Justices sitting at Shrewsbury, received a report from Jurors of Chirbury Hundred, which stated that Lewellyn was in occupation of half Wolston-mynd, Ackley, and Kilkewydd, and all the issues thereof. [2] These were then accounted members of the Manor (or Hundred) of Chirbury, and the King was apparently the Loser. Such was one of the preludes to the campaign of Kery.

On the 27th of April, 1228, one of those Charters passed the Great Seal which shows the lavish hounty of Henry III. to the Favourite of the hour.- "By advice of the magnates of England, and in return for the faithful services of Hubert de Burgh, Earl of Kent, rendered to the King and his Father, the King concedes to the said Earl the Justiciarship of England for his life; also the Castle, Manor, and Port of Dover, and the Castles of Rochester and

[1] Rot Chart. 11 Hen. III., p. 1, m. 27.
[2] Testa de Neville, page 53.


Canterbury, with a salary of 1000 merks per annum, for keeping the same in time of peace. He further is to have the Castle of Montgomery, with its rents and services, for life, and a salary of 200 merks for keeping the same. In case of war he is to have a competent addition to the above, 1200 merks, to enable him to discharge his duties to the honour of the realm". [1] This appointment of the Earl of Kent to a post on the Borders was unfortunate. The result will be found elsewhere,- told in the clearest manner and with some able topographical comments. [2] The King, coming in aid of his Justiciar, journeyed somewhat as follows.- On the 13th and 15th and 21st of August 1228, he was at Hereford, on the 28th at Brug, on the 29th, 30th, and 31st, at Shrewsbury. He was at Montgomery on the 5th and the 22nd of September; on the 26th and 27th his Writs are dated in the Vale of Kery; on the 28th at Kery itself. He was still at Kery on Oct. 3, but was back at Westminster on the 17th.

The Pipe-Roll of 1228 contains some other allusions to the campaign of Kery. The Sheriff charges for the carriage of the King's wine from Brug to Montgomery. He had paid 24 into the Royal Wardrobe at Montgomery: the Burgesses of Brug had similarly paid 3. 1s. 8d. into the Wardrobe at Kery. Again, at the Assizes of October 1227, a large sum had been levied in the way of Fines on the district about Montgomery. The proceeds (53 merks) had heen handed over by the Sheriff to Thomas de Haie, to complete the Castle-works at Montgomery. The scutage of Kery, levied in 1228-9, at the rate of 2 merks for every knight's-fee in the kingdom, was an extravagant outlay, if we measure it by King Henry's successes.

On November 25, 1228, the King, by Charter, gives to the Earl of Kent, for his homage and service, the whole Town of Montgomery with the Castle, Honour, and Valley of Montgomery, with the Advowsons of Churches and the Knights'-fees pertaining to the same, and with the reversionary dowers of Hillaria Trusbut and Wenthlian Tet, and with all lands belonging to the said Town, Honour, etc., to hold to the said Hubert, for the service of one knight's-fee. [3] The further Charter of January 2, 1229, whereby the King annexed all the military services, anciently returnable at Shrawardine, to the Castle of Montgomery, has been already recited. [4]

To Hubert de Burgh Montgomery owed its more extended liberties

[1] Rot. Chart. 12 Hen. III., p. 1, m. 6.
[2] Hist. Shrewsbury, I. 105, 107.
[3] Rot. Chart. 13 Hen. III., p. 2, m. 14.
[4] Supra, Vol. VIII. p. 202.


as a Free Borough. His Charter to the Burgesses, which probably passed within a year of his obtaining possession of the Honour, contains the following provisions.- As "Hubert de Burgh, Earl of Kent and Justiciar of England", he concedes to his Burgesses of Montgomery, that they may hold their town in fee-farm, viz. all their lands and tenements, both in New and Old Montgomery; also that they may have Fairs and Markets, with a Merchant-Guild, and all franchises and liberties appurtenant to the said Fairs. Their fee-farm rent is to be 60 merks. The Earl retains the Advowson of the Church, the Mills, the Pleas of the Crown, and also a parcel of land, sufficient for his Granges and Ox-stalls, in the New Town, near the Chirbury Gate. He also retains the land, late Simon de Hauberdin's, and also the New Bailey, which reached from the road towards Bedewin to the Earl's Castle. He retains further the homages and services of Richard Launce, Thomas de Kevilok, William Saye, William Postely, and Walter fitz Nesta, as regarded their lands in Old Montgomery: but these tenants were to share in the lands, Merchant-Guilds, etc., allowed to the other Burgesses. The Burgesses were to elect two Provosts of their own, to take custody of the Town, which Provosts were to swear before the Earl, or (if absent) before his Constable, to keep the Town securely for his advantage and the advantage of his heirs, and to administer justice to all, and to cause right assizes to be observed. The Burgesses were also to have two Coroners, who should faithfully attach all Pleas of the Crown, and should keep such Pleas till it were the Earl's pleasure that they should be heard. All Merchants might bring their goods with security, to the Town, and, paying the right dues, should be under the Earl's protection. No Constable or Bailiff of the Earl should take or buy anything from a Stranger, save by that Stranger's consent. The said Constables and Bailiffs might buy victuals from the men of the Town, but must by no means defer payment for the same beyond 20 days. This Charter was attested by John de Monemue, Stephen de Segrave, Walter de Clifford, Gilbert de Lacy, William fitz Warin, Ralph de Mortimer, William Honaud, Simon de Haburdin, Hugh de Croft, and Almaric de Parco. It was also inspected and confirmed by King Henry III. at Westminster, on Oct. 6, 1229, in the presence of Stephen de Segrave and John fitz Philip. [1]

It was in April 1230 that Lewellyn opened the way for further hostilities with England, by hanging an English Nobleman, William

[1] Rot. Chartarum, 13 Hen. III., p. 1, m. 2.


de Braose, who was his captive. The provocation, commonly alleged for this outrage, was probably fictitious; but whether the invention was Lewellyn's own, or that of his Biographers, we cannot say. In May 1231, Lewellyn broke an existing truce, or at least nullified a pending negotiation, by ravaging the estates of his late victim. Henry hovered on the western frontier for a time, that is, he was at Hereford on the 20th of May, at Wenlock on the 26th, and at Worcester on the 27th. He then went southwards, leaving Hubert de Burgh to watch the Borders. The Welsh began to plunder about Montgomery, and were intercepted by the garrison. De Burgh beheaded all the prisoners. This threw Lewellyn into more open hostility. Henry summoned his army to meet the storm. The muster was at Oxford, on July 13th. Henry marching by way of Reading, Gloucester, and Hereford, had reached Elvein on August 2nd. Nearly two months were consumed in the campaign of Elvein; the particulars of which, and of the rebuilding of Castle Matilda, may be seen elsewhere. [1] One incident was that the Garrison of Montgomery under Walter de Godarvill, was betrayed into an ambuscade by false information, as to Lewellyn's position and force, given by a Monk of Cwm Hir. Numbers were slain, and a famous knight, Sir Giles de Argentine, was taken prisoner. In revenge for this treachery, Henry sacked one of the Granges of Cwm Hir and pillaged the Abbey. The Monastery, a noble structure, was saved from conflagration by a ransom of 300 merks.

In July 1232 the King deposed Hubert de Burgh from his office of Justice of England. His disgrace was followed quickly by confiscation of his vast estates and by imprisonment of his person. The Shropshire Pipe-Roll of 1233 once more shows us that Montgomery was in the King's hand. The Castle had been repaired under view of Robert de Broy and of Baldwin, the Provost of the Borough. John le Strange had apparently been appointed Constable on the forfeiture of De Burgh: for on June 14, 1233, the King, then at Worcester, orders the said John to give custody of the Castle of Mongomeri and of Sneth to William de Boeles. On July 11, 1233, the King, being at Westminster, assigns the revenues of the Borough of Montgomery to William de Boeles, as wherewith to support himself in custody of the Castles of Mongemeri and Sneth. It was the rebellion of Richard, Earl Marshal, which brought King Henry to the Border in the autumn of the same year. I find the King at Worcester on August 18th, at Hereford on the 23rd, at Haye (in

[1] Hist. Shrewsbury, I. 108, and M. Paris, sub anno 1231.


Radnorshire) on September 1st and 2nd, and at Montgomery on the 16th. There, by Patent, he empowers Robert Cementarius, of Montgomery, to make a Mill between Montgomery and Dudinton, and a Wind-Mill near Montgomery Castle. The Patentee is to pay 2 merks and 1 merk, yearly rent, to the King, and to grind, toll-free, for the Castle. Negotiations with Lewellyn were at this time proceeding, and the King passed from Montgomery to Shrewsbury on this same 16th of September. On November 8th following, the King was at Hereford, and spent the greater part of two months in Herefordshire, Worcestershire, and Gloucestershire. A Patent of January 7, 1234, is dated at Gloucester, and bids John de Baieux to allure the men of the Valley of Montgomery into the King's service. The suspicion, thus implied, was justified within a week by the joint march of Lewellyn and the Earl Marshal upon Shrewsbury. On January 28th the King sent Roger de Clare to Shrewsbury on special, but unexplained services. Henry's impotence and inactivity at this juncture are notorious. They were soon relieved by the death of the Earl Marshal, and in June following negotiations were reopened with Lewellyn. In this same year (1234) Hubert de Burgh was partially restored to his ancient position; but Montgomery Castle was one of the things which were specially excepted from the boon.

At Michaelmas 1235 John le Strange again appears in office as Constable of Montgomery, and with a salary of 200 merks per annum, one-fourth of which had recently been paid by the Sheriff of Shropshire. The same Sheriff had bought 4 ox-teams for 12, and transmitted them to the Constable. They were to till the King's demesnes at Montgomery. A Tower beyond the Castle-Well had also been repaired at the King's expense, under view of Robert de Broy and Baldwin de Montgomery. In 1236 John le Strange continues to draw his salary as Constable, and a Patent, dated at Tewkesbury on July 9, protects him from all Lawsuits while in that office. On October 26, he also became Sheriff of Shropshire and Staffordshire. The Pipe-Roll of 1237 charges the King 37. 13s. for 5 wooden turrets made in the Forest of Ineht (query Sneht) under view of Baldwin Fitz William and Robert de Broy. The same Visors had superintended repairs to the Walls of Montgomery; and 4 wooden turrets had been safely conveyed to Montgomery at a cost of 3 merks. In 1238, some of the King's wine had been sent to Montgomery, but the purpose is not apparent. The Pipe-Roll of 1240 charges Robert Cymentarius of Montgomery


14 merks, or 7 years' arrears of his rent for one Mill at Montgomery, as granted to him in 1233. The Pipe-Roll of Michaelmas 1242 shows that John le Strange had then been two years farming the Chatellany of Montgomery. [1] His rent to the Crown was 20 per annum, and he had to keep custody of the Castle as well. In 1243 there is a space left on his Roll as Sheriff, for his account as Fermor, but no particulars are entered, save his debt of 20. He certainly retained the trust five years (that is, till 1245) if not longer, for he owed 100, or five years' arrears on this account, in 1248. In 1247 and part of 1248 Richard de Dover was Castellan of Montgomery, but his account is left blank in the Pipe-Roll. He was succeeded by Andrew de Goyz. A Patent of May 16, 1248, informs the Tenants of Montgomery Castle that the King had given to Richard de Burgh, custody of the said Castle and of Kedcwy and Kery. Andrew de Goys, Constable of the Castle, is desired to deliver it accordingly. A third Patent of Dec. 17, 1248, transfers custody of the Castle to William de Oddingseles.

On January 7, 1249, an Inquest was held at Montgomery as to the dilapidations suffered by the Castle, with its Chapel, Bridge, and other buildings, during the times of William de Boweles, John le Strange, Richard de Dovere, Andrew le Gorz, and Sir Richard de Burgh, successive Constables of Montgomery. The items of damage are curious, as enumerating the different parts of such a fortress.-

The Castle, inside the Keep (Le Dunjun), damaged to the value of: 0 46s. 8d.
The Chamber and Chapel, damaged to the extent of: 0 26 8
The wooden turret (bretachia) and bridge, near the Chapel: 0 40 0
The Balister's House: 0 20 0
The wooden turret next the town: 0 26 8
The stable: 0 40 0
The wooden turret beyond the outer gate: 4 16 0
The wall around the Grange: 40 0 0
The Grange itself: 0 20 0
The Penthouses or sheds (pentiscie) which covered the woodwork (merimium) beyond the five wooden turrets: 0 30 0
The tower (garrita) without the gate: 0 26 8
The barrier (jarullum) near the Chapel: 0 3 0
The Porter's-lodge (hostarium): 0 8 0
Total 59 3s. 8d.

A greater portion of these dilapidations had taken place in the time of John le Strange.

The same Jury valued the whole Chatellany of Montgomery as

[1] Compare Vol. I. p. 278.


follows.- Annual rents from the Vale of Montgomery, 3. 0s. 4d. The Hundred of Chirbury, when put out at farm, 2. The annual rents of Halchseten, [1] 5. The Pleas and perquisites of Halchseten Court, 1. 6s. 8d. Annual rents of the vill of Montgomery, in time of peace, 16. 3s. The Market and Fairs of Montgomery in time of peace, 24. Pannage of woods, 13s. 4d. There were also 5 carucates of demesne land at Chirbury, and 6 carucates at Montgomery; but there were only four teams to till the whole. This deficiency was attributable to the era of Sir Richard de Dover. [1]

A Patent of June 13, 1251, orders William de Odingsells to resign his trust as Constable of Montgomery to Guy de Rochfort. In the latter year the Burgesses of Montgomery gave the King 60 merks, "that articles contained in a certain Charter of theirs might he deemed null and void". In 1252, the Sheriff of Shropshire paid by the King's order 20 merks to the Masters of the works at Montgomery. In 1253, 40 merks more were similarly paid for works at Montgomery.

Meanwhile, that is on Jan. 7, 1249, one Philip fitz Alexander was a Juror on the Inquest concerning the dilapidations at Montgomery Castle. On Nov. 20, 1250, the King orders William de Odingseles, Constable of Montgomery, to ascertain "whether it would injure the Crown to allow Philip fitz Alexander of Montgomery to erect two Mills on his own land, where half of the stream of the Severn belonged to the King and half to the Welsh; also to ascertain whether it would injure the Crown if the King were to concede to the said Philip and his heirs a certain Mill which belonged to Montgomery Castle, and which could work only in winter, and which hitherto had only paid 16s. rent;- to hold to Philip and his heirs at a rent of two merks"? [3] There is no return preserved to this Writ; but a seoond Writ of May 20, 1251, directs the same Bailiff to ascertain "whether two Mills, already built by Philip fitz Alexander, were built so as to injure the Crown; also whether the King's Mill in Montgomery called Stanlawes-mulne would be advantageously granted to the said Philip at the aforesaid rent"? Twenty-four Jurors sat on these questions on May 30, 1251. Among them were Henry de Wodenerton, Hugh de Wodenerton, William de Hukelton, Hugh Hagar, Robert de Hope, Baldwin de Budlers, Adam de Brerlawe, William de Weston, Roger fitz Grant, David and Howel de Stockton, Roger fitz Henry of Chirbury, Roger fitz Elyas, Richard Lance, William Sage, Stephen

[1] Vide supra, p. 73, n.
[2] Inquis. 33 Hen. III., No. 64.
[3] Inquis. 35 Hen. III., No. 24.


fitz William, Walter his brother, William fitz Brun, Roger Miller, Philip fitz Alured, and William fitz Tirri. They said that the two Mills were built to the advantage of the Crown; and that Stanlawes-mulne, being worth only 16s. per annum, was of course well let at 2 merks. [1]

A Charter of May 1, 1252, grants to Philip fitz Alexander all that the above inquest would suggest, he and his heirs paying a fee-farm rent of 2 merks for Stanlawes-mulne. [2] The Pipe-Rolls show that in this same year, a Fine of 100s. was proffered by Philip fitz Alexander and accepted. Its object is expressed to be, ut molendinum possit stare, where I presume the singular number is used for the plural.

Inquests of 1249, 1250, and 1251, are attended by Baldwin de Budlers, alias Baldwin de Montgomery. On Sept. 18, 1251, the King orders Guy de Rochfort and John le Strange to ascertain whether it would injure the Crown to allow Baldwin de Montgomery to turn the course of the Severn, so as to bring it to a Mill, which he had obtained by grant of certain Welshmen. A Jury sat on this question on October 2, 1251, and reported that it would be no injury, because the King had not any Mill in that district; moreover that it would be to the King's advantage to receive a rent of 6s. 8d. for the said Mill, from which he had hitherto derived no rent at all. [3] A Charter of October 5, 1252, grants the required privilege to Baldwin de Mungomery, "the King's Burgess", for an annual rent of half a merk. [4]

By a great Charter, dated at Bazats on Feb. 14, 1254, King Henry III. gave to his son Edward "the whole land of Ireland (with certain exceptions); the whole county of Chester, with certain conquered provinces of Wales adjacent; the Town and Castle of Bristol; the two Castles of Grosmunt and Skenefrith; the three Castles of Montgomery, Carmarthen, and Cardigan, with their appurtenances; the Castle of Buelt; and sundry other possessions and Seigneuries;- to hold to the said Edward and the heirs of his body, so as never to be separated from the Crown of England". [5] A Patent of March 16, 1254, orders the Constable of Montgomery to give up the Castle to Bartholomew Peche, for the use of Prince Edward. In like manner, the Jurors of Chirbury, at the Inquest of 1225, recognized Prince Edward as Lord of their Town and Hundred, because they were deemed appurtenances of Montgomery Castle. [6]

[1] Inquis. 35 Hen. III., No. 24.
[2] Rot. Chartarum, 36 Hen. III., m. 12.
[3] Inquis. 35 Hen. III., No. 23.
[4] Rot. Chartarum, 36 Hen. III., m. 2.
[5] Rot. Vascon. 37, 38 Hen. III.
[6] Rot. Hundred. Vol. II. p. 61.


On Sept. 26, 1257, Peter de Montford was appointed not only Sheriff of Shropshire and Staffordshire, in succession to Hugh de Acour, but custody was given him of the Welsh Marches in the parts of Montgomery. A Patent of June 1, 1258, promises safe-conduct to certain messengers of Lewellyn coming to the Parliament of Oxford. On August 18, 1258, Peter de Montfort and James de Audley were appointed Commissioners to receive satisfaction from Lewellyn for breaches of the existing truce. By Letters-Patent dated at London on May 18, 1260, Prince Edward, with consent of his Father and the Council, gives custody of Montgomery Castle to John le Strange Junior. His salary as Custos of the Castle and Honour is to be 120 merks for the present year, to be raised out of the issues of the lands of the Honour. William de Hukelton and Hugh de Woderton are appointed receivers of the said issues extra burgum, and Stephen fitz Baldwin and William de Gras, [1] Receivers of the issues of the Borough. A Patent of March 23, 1263, exhorts the Knights of Shropshire and Staffordshire to aid Prince Edward in his defence of the Marches, against Lewellyn, who was devastating the King's territory in spite of an existing truce. Another Patent of April 29 names John fitz Alan, Vivian de Roshall, and John de Chetwynd among the Princes companions. A Patent of Nov. 22, 1263, orders John le Strange to give up Montgomery Castle to Hamo le Strange. The reason of this was doubtless because the loyalty of John le Strange Junior was suspected. [2]

It is well known how the Battle of Lewes (on May 14, 1264) resulted in the captivity of Henry and his son Edward. The Prince was liberated, or believed by his Father to have been liberated, in March 1265: and in the same month the King was made by his gaolers to issue an order to Adam fitz Philip, Constable of Montgomery, calling on him to surrender the Castle to John le Strange Junior. The Constable refused, unless the order were backed by one from Prince Edward. The unfortunate King was then made to write to his son to solicit the said order, and to threaten the loss of a father's blessing if the Prince refused. This letter is dated at Westminster on March 28. The King concludes it by inviting his son to visit him in person at the approaching Easter. [3] It is a curious question whether Prince Edward was at this moment free, and a trap was being laid for his re-apprehension, or whether his Father only supposed him to be free. Be that as it may, the King

[1] William le Gras occurs on a local jury in January 1249.
[2] Vide supra, Vol. X. p. 272.
[3] Claus. 49 Hen. III., m. 6.


on April. 2, 1265, was made to issue another Patent to Adam fitz Philip for the surrender of the Castle, and to state that he wrote "with consent of his son". It would seem that in the course of this year (1265) John le Strange Junior was actually reinstated as Constable of Montgomery. The Pipe-Roll of 1267 holds him responsible for the issues of the Town and Castle, and refers to an arrangement on the subject, made in 1265: but neither the sum due, nor the period for which he was accountable, are stated. A blank entry on the Pipe-Roll of 1273 would make it appear that 26 years had elapsed without any regular account of the Ferm of Montgomery having been audited at the Exchequer.

On Thursday Sept. 29, 1267, Montgomery became the scene of one of those empty negotiations which characterize the international diplomacy of England and Wales. King Henry was there, and in the presence of the Cardinal Ottobone he reoeived the homage and fealty of Lewellyn, whom he at the same time acknowledged to be Prinoe of Wales. For the other provisions of this notable treaty I refer elsewhere. [1]

Except that Roger Sprenghose occurs as Constable of Montgomery in 1273, [2] I know nothing of the civil history of the Manor between the Battle of Evesham (August 1265) and November 1274. The Jurors of Chirbury Hundred then reported (with some inaccuracy) that King Edward I. was holding "the whole Barony of Montgomery as an Escheat, which had accrued to his father from Baldwin de Bollers, Lord of the said Barony, who died without an heir". [3] It is hardly necessary to repeat that Baldwin de Bollers was not the last tenant of the whole Barony, nor to state that he and his successor, William de Courtenay, both died in the reign of John, not of Henry III. These Chirbury Jurors were doubtless more correct on contemporary matters. They spoke something very relevant to that weakness of the executive which had followed on Montfort's rebellion.- "Lewellyn, Prince of Wales, occupies and holds four vills, Kilkewyt, Lettegu, Newarch, Acle, Midulton, which are used to be held of the King and of the Honour of Montgomery". And again, "The Prince occupies and holds the whole country of Kery and the whole country of Kedewing which belong to the same Honour; whereby the King suffers a yearly loss of 200". And again- "The Prince occupies and holds the vill of Aston Kelemont and half the vill of Castleruht and half of Muliton, which pertain to the same Honour: whereby the King suffers an annual loss of 40s".

[1] Eymer's Foedera, I. 474.
[2] Vide supra, Vol. VI. p. 57.
[3] Rot. Hundred. II. 89.


The losses to the Barony of Caus and other items of local disorganization, reported by these Jurors, have been or will be recited elsewhere. One matter of detail I mention here, because I neither know the exact locality nor the person alluded to, The Jurors spoke of one Tudur ab Madoc as a Tenant in the King's liberty and in the Honour of Montgomery, and as a person of greater power than his neighbours. On some malicious pretext, this Tudur had extorted one merk from the men of Hordeleg, who were also Tenants of the Crown.

All I shall say further, as to the Chatellany of Montgomery and the Seigneury of Chirbury Hundred, is that for several years they were farmed under Edward I. by Bogo de Knovill, at an annual rent of 40, most of which was spent on the defences of the Town. In the account of 1282 De Knovill charges another kind of outlay, viz. for "Holy Wauhan, and his son David, and their two Welsh pages who had been captured by De Knovill, and imprisoned at Montgomery 106 days (from April 1 to July 15), at 6d. per day,- 53s.; and in expenses of the said David, during 128 days (July 15 to Nov. 20), at 2d. per day,- 23s". (sic).

It will ere this have become apparent to the Reader, that, during the reign of Henry III., the Chatellany and the Honour of Montgomery were two distinct things, though the latter term is often applied to both. What the King retained as an Escheat and as subject to no hereditary claims, was the Castle, Manor, and immediate dependencies of Montgomery, including the Seigneury of Chirbury Hundred, and the services due from many Manors therein. But, besides this, there was an Honour of Montgomery, consisting of many Manors in Shropshire and other Counties, which was not retained by the Crown as an appurtenance of the escheated Barony, but which was suffered to go to the collateral heirs of De Bollers according to the weight of their claims. There was on William de Courtenay's death, and for long afterwards, much doubt about the merits of the claimants: but it is clear that Erdinton and Stanton were eventually set aside, as being descended from the first Baldwin de Bollers, by his second wife, and as wanting the blood of Sibil de Faleise, his first wife. I will now quote a few documents which will show, I think, who were at length reputed the right heirs of Sibil de Faleise. I need not repeat what has been already said about Engain and Cantilupe, or their interest


in the matter. Engain's title as a coheir is genealogically clear; Cantilupe's will now appear to have been practically as good or better, though the genealogical links are lost.

I think that I have somewhere seen it stated that Mascelina, first wife of the first William de Cantilupe, was a "Coheiress of Montgomery". It is certain that this Mascelina was a daughter of Audulf de Bracy (I), and that the said Audulf left a son and heir Audulf (II). [1] It is therefore improbable that Mascelina was an heiress, unless indeed Audulf de Bracy (I) was twice married, and unless the mother of Mascelina and the mother of Audulf (II) were two persons, and the former an heiress. However I do not think that it was in right of any wife, but rather in right of some ancestress, that William de Cantilupe, in January 1216 obtained possession of all the late William de Courtenay's estates, except Montgomery itself. That had been bestowed by King John to secure the allegiance of Gwenwynwyn [1] Prince of Powis. Cantilupe's contemporary care, to obtain a grant of the estates of Richard and Vitalis Engain, I look upon as a move against a rival coheir, who happened to be under attaint.

William de Cantilupe (I) died, at a very great age, on April 7, 1239. His son and heir, William de Cantilupe (II), was more probably his son by Mascelina de Bracy than by any later wife. The Feodaries of 1240 assign to William de Cantilupe (II) the Seigneury over a number of Manors which seem to have been previously held under the older Barony of Montgomery. In Shropshire we have Hope Bowdler, Wilderley, Marton, Harley, Stanwardine-in-campo, Whittingslow, Cold Hatton, Stapleton, and Eyton (near Alberbury), all of which are known, or may be inferred, to have belonged to this category. The death of Hillaria Trusbut, early in 1241, set free the rich Manor of Badmundesfeld, in Suffolk, which was worth 20 per annum, and which she had held in dower nearly 40 years. On Dec. 11, 1241, "William de Cantilupe and Vitalis Engaine gave the King a Fine of 100 merks that he would restore to them the seizin of this Manor, which they claimed as heirs of William de Courtenay, and as their right; saving, however, the right of any other person in the said Manor". The King excused Cantilupe's share of this Fine, and the Sheriff of Suffolk, having taken security for Engain's share, was to give full seizin of Badmundesfeld to both parties. The proceeds of the Manor, since it came into the King's hand by decease of Hyllaria Trussebut, the

[1] Supra, Vol. VI. pp. 351, 355-6.


King bestowed on Cantilupe. [1] Here, I take it, is proof enough that Cantilupe and Engain were pari passu Coheirs of William de Courtenay. If so, it follows that, like Engain, Cantilupe was descended from a sister of Reginald fitz Urse. "In the year 1241", says Dugdale, "William de Cantilupe, making partition with Vitalis Engaine, for those lands and Fees, which were descended to them by William de Courtney, agreed, in case there were any more undivided; that, whensoever they might happen to be discovered, they should be equally shared betwixt them".
[2] I take it that the claim set up by Robert Wafre in 1241 to any share of Hillaria Trussebut's dower was nugatory in law, and eventually, in fact.

Vitalis Engain died in 1248, seized (inter alia) of lands and rents in Bulwick (Northants), of the Advowson and whole Manor of Upminster (Essex), and of half the Manor of Badmundsfield (Suffolk). These at least he had inherited from the old Lords of Montgomery, and these descended to his son and heir, Henry, aged 30 years, and more, at his father's death. [3]

Meantime we know that Cantilupe had the Shropshire Seigneuries already mentioned, and that he also had a proportionate share of Bulwick and Upminster. The nature therefore of the partition between himself and Engain is clear, at least in its outlines. Meantime Cantilupe had some ephemeral success in claiming the Shropshire Manor of Lydham and the Wiltshire Manor of Pulton. His ultimate failure in both cases shows that the King affected to consider the tenure of these two Manors as cognate with the tenure of the Chatellany of Montgomery; that is, they were decided to be non-divisible among the Coheirs of De Bollers, and so were treated as Escheats of the Crown. Of this matter we shall hear more under Lydham. We may now dismiss this genealogical problem, assured that Cantilupe and Engain were the true and only Coheirs of Reginald fitz Urse and William de Courtenay, that whatever Engain got by his coheirship was not in Shropshire, and that everything in Shropshire or the Marches, which went to either Coheir, went to Cantilupe.


This was originally a Chapel, an affiliation of the great Parish Church of St. Michael at Chirbury. The "Parson of

[1] Rot. Finium, 26 Hen. III., m. 12.
[2] Baronage, I. 732;- quoting a Deed in possession of William Pierpont, Esq.
[3] Inquis. 33 Hen. III., No. 70.


Montgomery", of whom I am first to speak, was probably a Presentee of the Prior of Chirbury, the said Prior being Rector, or at least Patron, of the Mother Church of Chirbury.-

In 1223 King Henry III. had added a Chapel to the New Castle of Montgomery. By a Writ, of Nov. 23, in that year, he desires Hubert Huse and Godescall de Maghelines "to permit any proper Chaplain, appointed by the Parson of Montgomery, to minister and receive obventions in the said Chapel, till such time as the King should determine whether the aforesaid Parson ought to have the Chantry (i.e. the ministration) of the said Chapel or not". [1] On March 28, 1224, the King orders that "the Parson of the Mother Church of Montgomery shall have all obventions of the Castle Chapel, and all corn-tithes of the newly-cultivated lands pertaining to the Castle, whereof he had been used to receive the small tithes". [2] The term, Mother Church, here applied to Montgomery is only relative. It indicates the connection between the Church of Montgomery and the Castle Chapel. The composition of 1227 (already cited [3]) proves that the Church of New Montgomery, as it is called, was itself a recent foundation, struggling for independence against the Prior of Chirbury. This independence was established in all particulars except that a pension of 30s., and half the principale legatum of Montgomery Parish, were to be paid to the Priory. Thus Montgomery became a Rectory, in the Patronage of the Crown.

The Taxation of 1291, placing the Church of Montgomery in the Deanery of Pontesbury and Diocese of Hereford, values it at 25 per annum. The Rector was chargeable with two Pensions over and ahove this Income. One of 2. 10s. is stated to be payable to the Castle of Montgomery: it was, I presume, the Castle-Chaplain's salary. The other of 1. 10s. was payable to the Conventual Church of Shireburn (read Chirbury). [4]

In the Valor of 1534-5, Henry Scurgs, Rector of Mountegomery, is stated to have an average yearly income of 17. 15s. 4d., leas 11s. for Procurations and Synodals, payable to the Archdeacon of Salop. [5] The Prior of Chirbury's Pension would thus seem to have become obsolete, but it is remembered and enumerated among the Assets of the late Monastery, in the Ministers' Accounts of 1536-7.


WILLIAM, Parson of Montgomery in July 1227, had probably

[1] [2] Claus. Vol. I. pp. 576, b, 590, b.
[3] Supra, page 65.
[4] Pope Nich. Taxation, p. 166.
[5] Valor Eccles. III. 213.


been presented by the Prior of Chirbury, or at least by the Rectors or Co-Rectors of Chirbury Church. An Assize-Roll of October, 1227, calls him-

WILLIAM DE BOULERS, and says that the Church was then of the King's advowson. [1] On January 21, 1243, King Henry III., by Patent, addressed to the Archdeacon of Salop, presented-

WILLIAM LE BRUN to the Church of Mongomery. A Patent of Sept. 8, 1251, addressed to Peter Bishop, of Hereford, presents-

REYMUND DE BOVILL, to the same.

JOHN DE KAHAM was presented by a Patent of Jan. 9, 1279. [2]

JOHN DE CADOMO occurs as a Canon of Wolverhampton and Penkridge, and as Parson of Montgomery, in Octoer, 1294. [3]

STEPHEN DE CESTREHUNTE was presented by Patent of Oct. 25, 1299. [4]

NICHOLAS DE CADOMO, Clerk, was presented by a Patent of April 9, 1315; [5] and-

HUGH MIDDELTON, by a Patent of June 9, 1334. [6]

WILLIAM DE BERUGHBY, Parson of Montgomery, has by Patent of June 26, 1327, Royal license to exchange preferments with-

ROGER PINCHBECK, Incumbent of Carleton Curley (Linc. Dioc.). [7] But on September 28, 1337, Boroughby has another license to exchange with-

WALTER DE BREKENDON, Incumbent of Kiltesby (Linc. Dioc.). [8] On July 6, 1338, Walter de Brikinton has the King's license to exchange preferments with-

JOHN DE MONTJOYE, Incumbent of Alta Rothing (London Dioc.). [9] However this exchange does not seem to have taken place; for a Patent of Feb. 14, 1340, allows-

WALTER DE BREKENDON, Parson of Montgomery, to exchange his living for the Rectory of Parva Bernyngham (Norwich Dioc.), and presents the Incumbent of the latter, viz.-

ROBERT DE WINESBURY, to Montgomery. [10]


Under this head I propose to deal with those places which Domesday describes as adjacent, or appurtenant, to Montgomery. And first we will take such as were held by Roger fitz Corbet.-

[1] Testa de Nevill, p. 53.
[2] Rot. Patent. 7 Edw. I., m. 25.
[3] Prynne's Records, Vol. III. p. 596.
[4] Patent. 27 Edw. I., m. 7.
[5] Patent. 8 Edw. II., p. 2, m. 22.
[6] Patent. 8 Edw. III. p. 1, m. 14.
[7] Patent. 11 Edw. III., p. 2, m. 28.
[8] Patent. 11 Edw. III., p. 3, m. 32.
[9] Patent. 12 Edw. III., p. 2, m. 20.
[10] Patent. 14 Edw. III., p. 1, m. 35.


WESTUNE, NOW GREAT WESTON, or WESTON MADOC. This vill lies 1 miles S.E. of Montgomery, and over the modern Border. It probably acquired its name of Weston Madoc, from Madoc, its earliest recorded tenant. Robert fitz Madoc (of whom we have heard under Brompton and Middleton [1]) held Weston in 1224 under Thomas Corbet of Caus. Robert died in that year; the King seized upon Weston, but, finding it to be of Corbet's fee, assigned dower therein to Robert fitz Madoc's widow, and surrendered the residue to Thomas Corbet. Whether Owen, alleged son and heir of Robert fitz Madoc, was allowed to succeed to Weston, I cannot say. We do not even know whether he succeeded to Middleton and Brompton: for there seems to have been a doubt as to his legitimacy. We further know that Brompton and Weston did not descend to the same persons as Middleton. In or about the year 1242 Hoel de Brompton (hardly the same person with Owen ap Robert ap Madoc) died seized of all Brompton and all Weston. The former he had held of the King, as of the Honour of Montgomery, the latter he had held under Thomas Corbet. John le Strange, then Constable of Montgomery, seized upon both Manors indiscriminately. Corbet complained to the King of this, and a nice question of feudal law was tried at Westminster in Michaelmas Term, 1242. The argument is very clear. Corbet claimed custody of Weston (during the minority of the heir) because the deceased had held Weston under him (Corbet) by Serjeantry. Le Strange replied that Hoel's tenure of Brompton was under the Crown by serjeantry, so that custody of Weston also accrued to the Crown. This would have been a true assertion of Royal Prerogative, had Brompton been held in capite de Corona, but it had been held in capite de eschaeta; and this was what Corbet meant, when he rejoined that "Brompton was held of the Honour of Montgomery, and that the King could claim nothing more in the way of custody than any other Capital Lord of Montgomery, having the Honour in his hand, could have claimed". The Court recognized this view (which indeed we have seen elsewhere established in a parallel case [2]), and Le Strange had to surrender custody of Weston to Thomas Corbet. The son and heir of Hoel de Brompton is in one place called Hoel, and seems to have been still a minor in 1255. Hence the Chirbury Hundred-Roll states that "Hoel de Brompton is in custody of Prince Edward, and his land, that which he held of the Prince, worth 100s". This had nothing to do with Weston,

[1] Supra, pp. 74 & 85.
[2] Supra, Vol. IX. pp. 317, 320.


but I think it probable that the Jurors meant to allude to the son and heir of Hoel de Brompton, and that the said son's real name was Roger. Certainly one Roger fitz Hoel was mesne-lord of Weston, and had been allowed livery there before 1256. He had been sued in Thomas Corbet's Court for virgates in Weston, by Margery, daughter of William Ernald. Margery had deduced her title from one Richard, whose sister Alice was his heir, while Margery claimed to be daughter and heir of Alice. Roger fitz Hoel allowed the sometime seizin of Richard, and the heirship of Alice, but he denied the further descent to Margery, because William Ernald (Margery's father) and Alice (Margery's mother) had never heen married. There was an appeal from Corbet's Court to a Trial by Grand Assize. The cause was heard at Shrewsbury in January, 1256, and settled by a Fine, in which Margery renounces her claim, to Roger fitz Hoel and his heirs, for one merk. I can state nothing more of Roger ap Hoel and his probable successors at Weston, than has been hinted under Brompton; neither can I trace anything further of Corbet's seigneury here.

One of the following was an Undertenant, I think, in Great Weston, but the others are just as likely to have been of Binweston or Priest Weston. William de Weston occurs on local Inquests in June 1250, and in May and October 1251. William de Weston held half a virgate in Chirbury, in 1255. It was a feoffment of Baldwin de Bollers, and so dated 50 years back. A rent of 2s. was reserved thereon. This William was Juror for the Hundred at the Inquest of 1255 and the Assizes of 1256. Philip de Weston occurs on a Wynsbury Inquest in April 1290; and, at the Assizes of 1292, Philip de Stanworthyn in Weston was one of the Jurors for Chirbury Hundred. In 1296 a Wotherton Inquest was attended by Hugh de Weston and Philip de Weston. William fitz Roger of Weston and Walter de Weston occur on a Chirbury Inquest in November 1323.

STAURECOTE. This was at Domesday one of Roger fitz Corbet's members of Montgomery. The name seems to have been lost in the 13th century, much less can we trace it now.

HORSEFORD (half a hide) comes next in the same catalogue. I cannot trace it now; but a place called Hossemor was among the New Forests appropriated by Thomas Corbet, as the Worthin Jurors alleged in 1274.

TORNEBERIE, now THORNBURY, (one hide) belongs to the same catalogue. We hear nothing of it for two centuries after Domesday; but Thornibery was one of the vills which the Chirbury Jurors of


1292 spoke of as having been withdrawn from being geldable to their Hundred and as having been annexed by Peter Corbet to his Walcheria. The other vills were Edrestone (Edderton), Wedilstone, Fortone, Hemme, Wrobeton, and Wolstonesmunede. Peter Corbet insisted that they were never geldable, neither in the time of King Richard, nor since; and an appellate Jury confirmed his defence verbatim, as to these seven vills. I have shown in a former page that, soon after these Assizes, Corbet established his right of Free-Warren in the same seven vills, Thornbury included. [1]

HEME, now GREAT AND LITTLE HEM. That Heme which Roger Corbet held at Domesday in the Chatellany of Montgomery must not be confused with Hem near Westbury, nor with Home near Wentnor. The place now under notice had three Fisheries and a Wood. The Fisheries were doubtless in the Camlad, and the Wood still remains, just South of Little Hem. This too was the Hem which Corbet, in 1292, proved to be non-geldable with Chirbury Hundred, and to be in his Free Warren. On Feb. 23, 1293, a Fine was levied whereby Yorvorth ap Yevaf and Matilda his wife, surrender for 40 merks to Peter, son of Peter Corbet, one carucate of land, 20 acres of meadow, 30 acres of bosc, 20 solidates of rent, and half a mill in Hemme. This was tantamount to the Heir of Caus buying out one of his Father's Welsh Tenants. Afterwards Hem was reputed a Demesne-manor of the Corbets. It was one of those settled by Peter Corbet (II) and his wife Beatrix in 1303, as elsewhere recited. [2] It was also found, on the said Peter's death in 1322, to be entailed on his widow for her life. [3]

EDRITUNE, now EDDERTON. This again was one of Roger Corbet's vills, as enumerated in the Domesday account of Montgomery. It had a wood capable of fattening 60 swine. It lies nearly 4 miles north of Montgomery and on the Welsh side of the present Border.

The place must not be confused with Adston, a member of Corbet's Manor of Wentnor, though I have been already guilty of the mistake. [4]

However the vill of Edrestone, or Edeleston, which is named in the Crown proceedings against Peter Corbet in 1292, was decidedly Edderton, near Montgomery. Thus, in this instance we have a revival of Corbet's Domesday tenure;- but more of Edderton I cannot say.

[1] Supra, pp. 101, 102.
[2] Supra, Vol. VII. p. 37.
[3] Inquis. 15 Edw. II., No. 34.
[4] Index, Vol. VIII. p. 295;- where Adston (near Wentnor), not Edderton, is in every instance the place concerned.


FURTUNE, now FORDEN. This was half a hide at Domesday, and one of Roger Corhet's tenements in the Chatellany of Montgomery. In 1246 we have seen that Thomas Corbet of Caus had erected Forton into an independent Manor, and procured for his demesnes there, a Charter of Free Warren. [1] We have also seen that Forton was one of the places in which Peter Corbet defended and upheld his rights as to its being non-geldable, and as to Free Warren, in 1292. [2] On his death iu 1300, the Inquest gives among his demesnes at Forton, a messuage and three carucates of land, each carucate being 100 acres. [3]

Forton was one of the Manors settled by Peter Corbet (II) and Beatrix his wife in 1303. [4] Accordingly on Peter Corbet's death in 1322, the Inquest found that he had not held it in demesne, as of fee, but that the said Beatrix would enjoy it for her life. [5]

FORDEN CHAPEL was a dependency of the Church of Chirbury. The Valor of 1534-5 puts the tithes thereof (as appropriated by the Prior of Chirbury) at 13. 6s. 8d. per annum. Two years later, and the Ministers' Accounts value Fordyn Chapel at 13. 14s. 11d. per annum. [6]

URBETUNE, HOW WROBBETON or WROPTON. This Manor was one hide, and was the last of those members of Montgomery which are said in Domesday to have been allotted by the Earl to Roger fitz Corbet. After an interval of two centuries we have one more instance of the all but unfailing accuracy of Domesday;- for Wrobeton was one of those vills which Peter Corbet then proved to be within his Charter of Free Warren and to be non-geldable in respect of Chirbury Hundred. [7]

ACHELAI now ACKLEY. This vill was the only member of the Chatellany of Montgomery, which Edward held at Domesday. It was one hide, and there was a Haye there.

According to all analogy, we expect any Manor of Alward fitz Elmund to appear after Domesday as a member of the Honour of Montgomery. [8] Accordingly we find that, in the 13th century, Ackley was a member of that Honour;- a member of that part of the Honour which the King retained as an Escheat, not a member of that part which he suffered to go to Cantilupe, as Coheir of De Bollers and Courtenay. From a Writ-Close of August 29, 1226,

[1] Supra, Vol. VII. pp. 22, 23.
[2] Supra, pp. 101-2, 152.
[3] Inquisitions, 28 Edw. I, No. 40.
[4] Supra, Vol. VII. p. 37.
[5] Inquisitions, 15 Edw. II, No. 34.
[6] Monasticon, VI. p. 580, Num. II.
[7] Supra, pp. 100-1, 152.
[8] Vide supra, Vol. VII. p. 173.


we learn that Riston and Acle had been held by William de Bouleres, deceased, but that he had enfeoffed Engeram, his brother, in certain land therein. The latter had not had seizin, and the estate was in the King's hand. The King apprises Godescall de Maghelines that he has conceded an annuity of 16s. to the said Engeram in lieu of the said estate, so long as the King should choose to withhold it. The Constable is to pay the said annuity.
[1] William de Bouleres, thus mentioned, was probably identical with William fitz Elyas, the King's Tenant at Acleid, who was deceased in 11 Henry III. (1226-7). On the Originalia Roll of that year, it is noted that "William, son and heir of the deceased, owed the King 100s. for his relief of one fee in Acleid;- and that the Custos of the Honour of M (Montgomery) had notice thereof" (from the King's Exchequer). This Heir's inheritance must have been an equivocal one; for at the Eyre of the King's Justices in October 1227 it was presented that "half Wlstanesmunede, Acled, and Killewid, were members of Chirbury, but that Lewellyn had abstracted all the suit which those vills were wont to do at Chirbury and all their issues as a ferm". [2] The vicinity of these vills to the Long Mountain seems to have exposed them to repeated attack. In the year 1274 the Chirbury Jurors reported nearly the same state of things. They said that "Lewellyn (II) was in occupation of Kilhewyt (Kellewid) Lettegu (Leighton ?) Newarch (now lost), Acle, and Midulton, four (sic) vills which were wont to be held of the King and the Honour of Montgomery". [3] This statement of tenure was probably incorrect as to Lettegu, if Leighton were meant. The Worthin Jurors were more exact, when they stated at a contemporary Inquest that "Lewellyn Prince of Wales occupies against the King (super Dominum Regem) the vills of Ocleg (Ackley) Kilkewyt, and Wolstandus-munde, whereby the King suffered an annual loss of 10; and the said Lewellyn had made this occupation 10 years back". [4] This date, I should observe, exactly corresponds with the traitorous encouragement given by De Montfort and his accomplices to Lewellyn, what time the King was a Prisoner, and the Rebels were forging Patents to stimulate Lewellyn's action against the Royalists of the Marches. [5] Ten years more, and Ackley was again at the disposal of King Edward, as Conqueror of Wales; but what he did with it I have not ascertained.

We now pass to the thirteen wasted vills which Domesday

[1] Rot. Claus. 10 Hen. III., m. 7.
[2] Testa de Nevill, p. 53.
[3] [4] Rot. Hundred. II. 89, 113.
[5] Supra, Vol. X. p. 241.


annexes to Earl Roger's Chatellany of Montgomery, but which the Earl had not as yet bestowed on any Vassal. We will first treat of the few which can be identified with some modern locality.

ETENEHOP was one hide. It is probably represented by Lower and Upper Edenhope, places which are six miles south of Montgomery, and which the changes of Border topography have placed in the Hundred of Clun.

ESTUNE, postea ASTON KELMUND, NOW UPPER and LOWER ASTON. Estune was two hides at Domesday. The place was about six miles S.E. of Montgomery, and was watered by the Camlad. Hence its secondary name of Aston Kelmund. Robert de Bollers, Lord of Montgomery, he who died in 1203, "gave the whole vill of Aston Kelmund to his son William". This William was, I presume, illegitimate: at all events he was a spendthrift. He parted with the estate to Giles, Bishop of Hereford (1200-1216). "Some said that the transaction was a sale, others that it was a mortgage for which the Mortgagor received certain corn and swine". [1] In 1223-4, when Hubert Hose and Godeschall de Maghelines were appointed Bailiffs of Montgomery by King Henry III., they deprived the Bishop of Hereford (Hugh Foliot) of the Manors of Chestroc (now Castle Wright) and Estune, seizing them into the King's hand as parcel of the Honour of Montgomery, committed to their keeping. The Bishop seems to have complained to the King, who, by a Writ- Close of Feb. 13, 1224, orders his said Bailiffs to give the whole premises back to the Bishop. [2] Hence it came to pass that, in 1255, the Chirbury Jurors reported the vill of Aston Kelmund as alienated and withdrawn, so as to be in no respect amenable to the Honour of Montgomery. Hence also, at the same date, the Purslow Jurors made Eston and Burhton (Upper and Lower Broughton) to he a single Manor, consisting of a hide of land, and held under the Bishop of Hereford's Honour of Ledbury North.
[3] The names of the Bishop's Tenants and their services will appear more fully under Broughton. I should here notice that Hamo le Strange, while Constable of Montgomery (that is, about 1261-4) was very active in seizing on the ancient members of that Honour. He so seized on the Bishop of Hereford's three Vills of Whaleton, Chestroc, and Aston. The Register of Richard Swinfield, Bishop of Hereford, contains a memorandum on the subject, written apparently about the year 1285, in which Sir Hamo le Strange's averment, that these vills were members of Montgomery, is characterized as a falsehood.

[1] Rot. Hundred. II. 60.
[2] Rot. Claus. I. 584-b.
[3] Rot. Hundred. II. 78.


A Patent of June 5, 1268, appoints trial of an action of novel disseizin which Yevaf fitz Madoc had brought against Lewelin son of Lewelin Waghan of La Sned (Snead) concerning a tenement in Aston Kelmund.

The district about Aston was a part of the frontier which Lewellyn so successfully invaded between the years 1267 and 1274. Hence the presentment of the Chirbury Jurors at the Inquest of 1274 as to Lewellyn's occupation of Aston Kelemont, half Castelrupt, and half Muliton (Mellington). The Jurors' further statement (that the premises pertained to the Honour of Montgomery) must have been, in part at least, founded on Hamo le Strange's theory rather than on any other remembered fact. They added that the King suffered a yearly loss of 40s. by Lewellyn's occupancy. It is probable that these estates had been in manu Regis for about ten years, that is from the time when Hamo le Strange seized them, till the time when Lewellyn conquered them. I find that in or about the year 1275 Bishop Cantilupe, having excommunicated certain agents of Lewellyn who had seized on three vills in the manor of Lydbury North, thus obtained their restoration. [1] I cannot say what vills these were, but certainly Bishop Swinfield, succeeding to Cantilupe in 1283, found his See still deprived of Walton, Castle Wright, and Aston.

CASTELOP was two hides at Domesday. It is perhaps the place afterwards called CHESTROC, and CASTELRUPT, but now known as CASTLE WRIGHT. We know not why it was in the Bishop of Hereford's hands about 1223, nor why the King ordered his Bailiffs to forego their seizure thereof in 1224. The status of Castel-ruht in 1274 (as just now quoted) seems to argue that it had been reannexed to the Honour of Montgomery some time between 1224 and 1264, but had since been dismembered by Lewellyn.

MULITUNE, NOW MELLINGTON. This was a wasted estate at Domesday, held by Earl Roger, and consisting of three hides. Of any subsequent tenure here I can say nothing positively.

HOPTUNE. This was two hides at Domesday. Two vills, now called Pied Hopton and Red Hopton, lie about four miles south of Montgomery. They possibly represent the Domesday district. In 1227, the vills of Hopton and Mellington were liable to two of those Fines which were assessed so generally on the vills about Chirbury and Montgomery.

The Prior of Chirbury had a portion of the tithes of Hopton. At the Dissolution this portion was worth 8s. per annum. [2]

[1] Swinfield's Housshold Roll, p. 153 note.
[2] Monasticon, VI. 580.


DUDETUNE, now DUDSON. This was one hide. We have an intimation in Domesday that Robert fitz Corbet, as well as his brother, Roger, had an interest in the territory of Montgomery, but nothing is specifically attributed to him. It is probable however that, either before or soon after Domesday, Dudson was thus bestowed, for the Fitz Herberts, Robert Corbet's coheirs, undoubtedly had it. Of Fitz Herbert's tenants here, we have several notices.-

Hamo de Wudenton, or Wotherton, of whom we have heard before as Lord of Wotherton, held under William de Muleston, who was Fitz Herbert's Tenant at Dudson. Hamo was deceased before 1227. That therefore will be the latest limit of a Deed whereby "Hamo de Wudenton gives to Alan de Bullers, a half-virgate in Dudiston, held by Griffin de Dudiston;- to hold to the Grantee and his assigns (except the Welsh). The Grantee pays 3 merks down, and is bound to a yearly rent of 6d., besides any forinsec services. He is also to pay a reasonable Aid in case the Grantor should wish to become a Knight, or to make his eldest son a Knight, or to bestow his daughter in marriage". [1] William de Muleston, or Mucleston (the contemporary Tenant of Fitz Herbert at Dudson), gives another half-virgate there, held by Simon de Dudeston, to the same Alan de Bullers. He also gives a croft called Ham. This was for 5 merks, paid down, and for a yearly rent of 18d. He also exchanges with his Grantee a messuage at Ham, held by Richard Lachere, for an adjoining messuage held by Grifin, Alan de Bullers adding half an acre in Wttenhull for the improvement of the latter messuage. William de Mucleston reserves the same aid as was contingent on certain events named in the last Deed. [2] Such reservations show a high observance of feudal law in the Honour of Montgomery.

It was still prior to the year 1227 when the Grantee in the above Deeds, calling himself "Alan de Bullers, Clerk", gave "all his land in Duddeston, thus acquired, together with his body, to Lilleshall Abbey". But "the services due to Hamo de Wudenton and William de Muleston are reserved to them, as expressed in their Charters". [3] The Abbot of Lilleshall now became immediate tenant of the two last-named persons; but, being naturally puzzled what to do with so distant a property, he changes place with his Landlords, that is he leases his tenures to them. This will have been after the year 1227, for Henry de Wotherton (then a Minor) had succeeded his father Hamo. "The said Henry, for himself and his

[1] [2] [3] Lilleshall Chartulary, fo. 69.


heirs, acknowledges him and them bound to the Abbot in 6d. annual rent, for half a virgate in Duddiston which Alan de Bullers, Clerk, gave to the Abbey cum corpore; which land the Canons now gave to the said Henry, for his homage and for the aforesaid rent, reserving also a heriot and Relief". [1] Also, by another Deed, "William de Muleston and his heirs are bound to pay the Abbot 12d. every Michaelmas in St. Alcmund's Church, for a half-virgate in Duddeston, which Alan de Bullers, Clerk, gave, etc., and which Symon de Duddeston formerly held, and for a Croft called Hame, etc., which lands the Canons had now given to the said William, for his homage, and for the said rent, and for 20s. paid down". A Heriot and Relief, and an acquittance from forinsec services, are further guaranteed by William de Muleston to the Canons. [1] An early Rent-Roll of Lilleshall Abbey actually enters "18d. rent, as due at Michaelmas from the land of Mungeumery given by Alan de Budlers".

We have seen William de Muleston attesting a Chirbury Deed about 1227. [2] In 1240 William de Moleston appears as sole Tenant of Dudesden. He held it under Herbert fitz Peter for a whole knight's-fee. [3] William de Muleston appears on a local Jury of 1251, but at the Chirbury inquest of 1255, William de Mulestun was prevented by infirmity from attending. He was recorded by the Jurors as "holding Dudiston under Reginald fitz Peter, and as doing suit throughout the year to Chirbury Hundred". [4] The above statement about "infirmity" identifies him at once with William de Muleston of Milson, in South Shropshire. Other hints as to him, his ancestors, and successors, will be found under that Manor. [5] Also several particulars have there been stated about a place called Dodestone, which we may now identify with Dudson. Thus in 1260 we get a list of the Dudson Undertenants of William de Muleston (then deceased). They were Robert fitz William of Wychecot, William fitz John and Eva his wife, William fitz Richard and Matilda his mother, Philip fitz Hugh and Emma his mother.

We have seen that i 1296 certain rents in Dudson had been held by John de Wotherton (deceased), under the heirs of William de Muleston. [6] Who those heirs were is far from clear, but what has been said under Milson will at least furnish a hint on the subject.

[1] Lilleshall Chartulary, fo. 69.
[2] Supra, Page 60.
[3] Testa de Nevill, p. 48.
[4] Rot. Hundred. II. 61.
[5] Supra, Vol. IV. pp. 346-348.
[6] Supra, page 76.


The Seigneury of Fitz Herbert at Pontesbary passed in a way, already recorded, to the Barons Cherlton of Powis.
[1] Their Seigneury at Marrington and Dudson had a like destination; but in what mode it was transferred I know not. On the death of John de Cherleton (III) in 1374, Dodeston was found to have been held under the deceased by two Coparceners, each by the service of one-eighth of a knight's-fee. Each moiety was worth 2 merks yearly to the tenants, viz. Henry de Wynnesbury and Walter de Dodeston. [2] These two persons therefore represented, or held under, the several Coheirs of De Muleston.

The Prior of Chirbury had, it seems, a small estate in Dudson, besides the great tithes, which were due to him as Impropriate Rector of Chirbury. The estate consisted of a messuage and land, valued, both before and after the Dissolution, at 1s. per annum.

WADELESTUN. This was 3 hides, unappropriated and waste at Domesday. Though the locality is now lost, it retained its name at the end of the 13th centnry. There is some probability that it lay near Edderton and Thornbury. [3] It was one of those members of Montgomery which, after Domesday, were given to, or appropriated by, the Barons of Caus. In their hands Wadelestun appears once more as a vill. The Chirbury Jurors alleged in 1292 that the vill of Wedilstone was geldable with their Hundred, but Peter Corbet proved it to be in his Walcheria. So did Peter Corbet, on the same occasion, maintain his right of Free Warren in his Manor of Wedeleston, affecting to consider it as included in Henry III.'s charter of Free Warren for Caus, Worthin, and Forden. A third attempt of the Crown Lawyer was to make Wedelston amenable to suit of County and Hundred. Of course it failed, but we are surprised to see Corbet varying the mode of his defence, when the single word Walcheria was doubtless applicable to, and sufficient for, each case.

ELCHITUN, now HOKELTON. This was half a hide; waste and unappropriated at Domesday. Hokelton was afterwards colonized, and held by free-tenants, under the Honour of Montgomery. In 1224 Godescall de Maghelines (Bailiff of Montgomery) had disseized Walter de Huketon of his land, without any Royal precept

[1] Supra, Vol. VII. p. 134.
[2] Inquis. 48 Edw. III., No. 19.
[3] There is a remarkable Monument under Corndon Hill, now known as The Whetstones. If this name be associated etymologically with the lost vill of Wadelestun, the latter will have been nearer to Shelve and The Stiperstones, than to Edderton and Thornbury. Whatever else is known of the vill of Wadelestun is perhaps equally consistent with either theory as to its situation.


so to do. The King, by a Writ-Close of March 28, orders it to be restored under replevin. [1] On August 29, 1226, the King, then at Shrewsbury, instructs the same Officer as to certain land in Aldefeld, which the King had in hand, though it was of the fee of Walter de Hakelton, from which he and his predecessors used to receive wardships and reliefs, and from which he used to receive 32d. rent, from Undertenants (viz. Hoel, Gervase, and John, sons of Eneon, and Madoc and Griffin, sons of Wurgain). The said Walter is to have an annuity of 5s., during the King's pleasure, in lieu of his land. [2] It must have been some great offence for which Walter de Hukelton had afterwards to compound by a fine of 100s. with Godescall de Maghelines. After Godescall's death Walter dedared to the King that 40s. thereof had been forgiven by the late Constable. The King by a Writ of June 22, 1227, tells Thomas de Haye to inquire the truth of this, and to give Walter acquittance accordingly. [3]

The Feodary of 1240 gives Walter de Hoketon as holding half a knight's-fee in Hoketon, de Vallo Montisgomeri, a term which seems to apply to that part of the Honour which the King held as an Escheat. A writ of June 8, 1250, announces the death of Walter de Hokelton. He was found to have held the vill of Hokelton, by service of half a knight's-fee, to the Honour of Montgomery. William, his son and heir, was of full age. The annual rents of the Manor were 13s. 4d.: the demesnes and other issues were valued at 20s. [4] William de Hokelton did homage at Westminster on Oct. 22, 1250. His Relief was fixed at 50s., for which the Bailiff of Montgomery was to take security, and then to give him seizin. [5] The Hundred Roll of 1255 states as follows.- "Hokeltun is half a hide. William de Hokeltune holds it, and a certain Mill therein, and a half-virgate in Chirbury Manor, for half a knight's-fee; doing three weeks' guard at Montgomery Castle in wartime, and doing suit to Chirbury Hundred throughout the year, and going to hunt thrice yearly with the Lords-of Montgomery". [6] As to this half-virgate in Chirbury there is a distinct entry which leads me to the conclusion that William de Hokeltun's ancestors had been enfeoffed 100 years before. The entry is as follows.- "William de Hokeltun holds half a virgate in the Manor of Chirbury, of the gift of Stephen de Buler, and he holds it induded in his service for Hokeltun". As I have

[1] Rot. Claus. I. 590.
[2] [3] Rot. Claus. II. 134-5, 190.
[4] Inquis. 34 Hen. III., No. 19.
[5] Rot. Finium, 34 Hen. III., m. 1. This debt of 50s. is entered on the Pipe Roll of 34 Henry III.;- again a proof that these accounts occasionally involved matters of later date than the Michaelmas of the currant fiscal year.
[6] Rot. Hundred. II. 60.


elsewhere observed, Stephen de Bollers, Lord of Montgomery, lived in the reign of Stephen.

In the year 1256 Walter (it should surely be William) de Hokelton occurs on the list of those who, holding 15 librates of lands, were yet not knights. In May, 1257, William de Hokelton and his wife Margery fine one merk for some Writ. On May 18, 1260, William de Hukelton was appointed a Receiver of the issues of the Honour of Montgomery, without the Borough. Among the Placita coram Rege of Michaelmas Term, 1260, I find Thomas Corbet suing William de Hokelton, William fitz Baldwin, and others, for the following alleged offence:- "Roger fitz Adam, and other men of the Plaintiff, were passing through the land of Mungumery, towards Corbet's Castle of Wyrebruch, and on Corbet's business. The Defendants came up, beat, wounded, and imprisoned the men, and still detained them". The Defendants did not appear, and the Sheriff declared that they lived in the Liberty of Montgomery and in Walcheria. The Court had evidence that they lived at Chelmick and at Chirbury, and so in the Sheriff's Bailiwick. He was again ordered to compel their appearance. I hear no more of this matter, unless indeed Thomas Corbet's contemporary suit against John le Strange junior (sometime Constable of Montgomery) was of a cognate kind.

Walter de Hokelton, son and heir of the above William, occurs in 1292, in a matter which will be stated under Walcot. This Walter de Hokelton, in 1296, was husband of Matilda, second sister and coheir of John de Wotherton, which Matilda was then 28 years of age. The pair occur again in 1299 as parties with the other coheirs of Wotherton, to some Lawsuit. Walter de Hokelton also occurs on a local Jury in March, 1301.

In the Nomina Villarum of 1316 William de Hokeltone is entered as Lord of that Vill.

In 1346, Walter de Hokelton, as Tenant of one-fourth of a Knight's-fee in Hokelton (held under the Castle of Montgomery), paid his proportion to the Aid for knighting the Black Prince.

WALECOTE, now WALCOT. This was one hide at Domesday, and was part of the waste-land which Earl Roger had not as yet bestowed on any Feoffee. It was then deemed an appurtenance of Montgomery; but it was so near Chirbury that the later Lords of Montgomery annexed it to that Manor and to their demesnes there.

There was one Roger de Walcote, Juror on a local Inquest in


1252, and one William de Walcote, a Juror on a like Inquest in 1301. The tenure of these persons is not mentioned in any Feodary, and probably it was very small.

There was another small tenement in Walcote, which, with other lands in Chirbury, Bukenhull, and Wilmington, became matter of great litigation. It appears that one Peter de Montgomery, alias Peter le Clerk, was the original possessor of these lands. His wife's name was Agnes, and his only child's name was Matilda. He died while Matilda was an infant, but before his death he enfeoffed the child in certain lands, which, because of her infancy, were entrusted to the custody of her mother, Agnes. Agnes, on Peter's death, remarried with one Stephen de St. Albans, and they seem to have played false with Matilda's inheritance. But, before 1249, Matilda married Robert Blundel; and, in Michaelmas Term of that year, the youthful pair commenced a series of suits against the withholders of Matilda's inheritance. Their first suit was against David de Stockton and his wife Amice and others, concerning 3 nokes in Wilmington. The Defendants called their Feoffer, Hugh de Wotherton, to warranty. After sundry delays, and in Trinity Term, 1250, the case was heard at Westminster. The Defendants stated that the widow, Agnes, had enfeoffed Hugh de Wotherton, in her liege power. The Plaintiffs maintained that Agnes had no such power; for that Matilda, when an infant, had been enfeoffed by her Father, Peter de Montgomery. The case was sent to a Country Jury, which made its return in October, 1250, but the Justices rejected the verdict, because it appeared that many of the Jurors were too near akin to Hugh de Wotherton. A new trial was ordered to be had when the Judges should be next in eyre.

Another cause, first moved in Hilary Term, 1250, was by the same Plaintiffs against Henry Balle [1] for 2 nokates in Wilmington. This also was adjourned, from Westminster, in Michaelmas Term following, to the hearing of justices-in-Eyre. Before any Eyre arrived, Robert Blundel seems to have taken the law into his own hands, at least with regard to part of the disputed premises: for the Chirbury Hundred-Roll of 1255 states that "Robert Blundel of Chirbury holds 3 nokes in Chirbury" (meaning in Wilmington) "of the gift of Baldwin de Bollers" (the original Feoffor, I presume, of Peter le Clerk's ancestors), "and by service of 1 lb. of pepper. The said Robert was now in the service of his Lord"

[1] Henry Balk was probably a Feoffor of David de Stockton, for (as we shall see under Wilmington) the latter held 5 nokes in Wilmington in 1255 (infra, p. 166).


(Prince Edward is meant), "towards Scotland; so that he comes not" (to the present Inquest).

The only relevant case which was heard at the Eyre of January, 1256, was an action by Stephen de St. Albans and his wife Agnes, against Robert and Matilda Blundel, for disseizing them of a messuage and one noke in Chirbury, Walcote, and Bukenhull. The Jury found for the Defendants; viz. that the premises were the right of Peter le Clerk, father of Matilda, and her Feoffor when an infant: whereas Agnes and her second hushand, Stephen, had had no seizin, but ouly custody of the premises. Therefore there had been no disseizin.

A Fine was levied at Westminster on April 30, 1256, whereby Robert de Hamp** and Christina his wife grant to Robert Blundel and Matilda his wife, 2 carucates and 25 acres of land and 3 Mills in Bishops Castle, Chirbury, Walceote, Lydbury, and Whitecote, viz. all that they had in those vills;- to be held by the Grantees, under the Lords of the respective fees. In return Robert and Matilta Blundel pay 10, and concede to Robert and Christina de Hamp**, or the survivor of them, a life-tenure of such land in Chirbury and Walecote as the Grantors had previous to this Fine; at a rent of 2s. and 1 lb. of pepper.

Long ere this, Robert Blundel had been an associate of Thomas Corbet, of Caus. In September, 1251, Corbet had taken, without warrant, a stag in Steplewood, Sir Robert Blundel and Robert Corbet being present. At the Forest Assize of 1262, this matter was presented; but Robert Corbet had died in the interval. Between the years 1260 and 1270 we have four other instances of Sir Robert Blundel's connection with the Baron of Caus. [1]

Another tenement in Walcote has now to be noticed.- While Hamo le Strange was Bailiff of Montgomery, that is between the years 1260 and 1265, he alienated virgates in Walecote, which land was part of the demesne-manor of Chirbury, to William de Hokelton. In 1274 Margery de Hokelton (William's widow) being seized of this land, the Chirbury Jurors represented Hamo le Strange's act as involving a loss of 42s. per annum to the Crown. [2] In 1292, Walter de Hokelton (son and heir of William) was impleaded by Writ of right, for two virgates in Walcote, claimed by Edward I., "as son and heir of Henry III., sometime seized thereof". The defence stated Henry III.'s gift of the premises to Edward I., then a Bachelor, [3] and alleged a gift by the said Edward to

[1] Supra, Vol. VII. pp. 26, 27, 30, 95.
[2] Rot. Hundred. II. 89.
[3] Dum fuit Bachilarius.


Hamo le Strange, and another gift by the said Hamo to the Defendant's father, William, whose heir the Defendant was. Before the issue went to a Jury, Walter de Hokelton, by license, surrendered the premises, and the King recovered his seizin. [1] I presume the weak point of the defence to have been Prince Edward's alleged gift to Hamo le Strange; which probably was only a trust, so that Hamo's act was ultra vires.

ULESTANESMUDE, NOW WOLSTON MYND, OR TRELYSTAN. This was 3 hides of waste land at Domesday, and was as yet retained by the Earl as an appendage of Montgomery Castle. Afterwards it was given to, or appropriated by, Corbet of Caus. In 1292, as we have seen, Peter Corbet proved that Walstonesmunede was in his Walcheria, that it was not geldable with Chirbury Hundred, that it owed no suit thereto, nor yet to the County, and that he had a right of Free Warren there. He considered it, I presume, a member of Forden, to which Manor his Father's Charter of Free Warren extended.

Parochially Wolston Mynd was in the district of the Gordowr and in the Parish of Worthin. Some allusions to this status have been made under Worthin Church.

We have now identified with sufficient probability, ten of the thirteen waste districts which Earl Roger retained at Domesday as adjuncts of his Chatellany of Montgomery. Stantune (7 hides), Goseford (3 hides), and Benehale (7 hides) still remain, and their area was nearly half of the whole desert region thus retained by the Earl. Any specific identification of these three districts I will not attempt, for I believe the names to have been extinct for six centuries at least. On the other hand there are districts which must have sometime belonged to the Chatellany of Montgomery, and which, as far as local names are concerned, have no Domesday antecedents. In short, names have been changed, but probably the same territory is implied under the lost names of Domesday and other names current in the 13th century.

I should leave my subject incomplete if I did not say something of this revolutionized district.-

HISSINGTON. In October, 1227, the Villate of Hussington contributed to the Fines which were then proffered by, or assessed upon, the Vills about Chirbury and Montgomery, and the proceeds of which went to the works of Montgomery Castle. Hissington never

[1] Quo Waranto, pp. 679, 680.


owed suit to Chirbury Hundred, but was strictly within the Bailiwick or Chatellany of Montgomery. There are no Records extant which can be expected to contain notices of a place thus circumstanced. The Court-Rolls of Montgomery would have supplied the hiatus, but of course any of an early date are not likely to exist. It was probably this abnormal status of Hissington, that is its uniform separation from Chirbury Hundred, which threw it into Montgomeryshire, when that County was first defined.

HISSINGTON CHAPEL was an affiliation of Chirbury Church; but an ancient one. Under Chirbury Church I have shown that though both were of the Prior of Chirbury's Advowson, Hissington Chapel is distinctly valued in the Taxation of 1291. The reason was that the Prior's appropriation of Chirbury Church did not extend to this Chapel. An Appropriation of the latter was obtained from Edward II., after an Inquest, held at Chirbury on March 27, 1316. The Jury found that "it would not injure the Crown if the Prior and Convent were to appropriate to their own uses the Chapel of Husinton which was in their gift, and which was worth 40s. per annum, and which they held of the King sine medio".' Later notices of Hissington Chapelry will be found under Chirbury Church.

SNEAD, as regards its exclusive allegiance to the Chatellany of Montgomery, its independence of Chirbury Hundred, and its ultimate annexation to Montgomeryshire, corresponds exactly with Hissington. The place has its interest as the spot where Robert de Bollers first located those Augustine Canons, who afterwards migrated to Chirbury. [2] We have seen that they retained estates at Hissington and Snead till the Dissolution.

SNEAD CHAPEL, an affiliation of Chirbury Church, was, I presume, appropriated therewith to the Priory. The Valor of 1534-5 values the tithes of Snead Chapel at 2: the Ministers' Accounts, two years later, value the Chapel at 2. 8s.

MUCKLEWICK. This vill, by far the most Eastern member of the Chatellany of Montgomery, was parochially in Hissington, but, unlike Hissington, it owed suit to Chirbury Hundred. Therefore it comes to pass that it stands in Shropshire to this day.

The Chirbury Hundred-Roll of 1255, puts Mucliwyke down as half a hide. "The heirs of Robert de Oweres held it by 2s. rent, payable to Montgomery Castle". At the Assizes of 1272, the Chirbury Jurors reported Evor de Muchelwych as a Defaulter in respect of due attendance. In the Nomina Villarum of 1316, Mikkelweyc

[1] Inquisitiones ad quod damnum, 9 Edw. II., No. 117.
[2] Monasticon, Vol. VI. 580.


is set down among the vills of Chirbury Hundred, but the King was Lord thereof. He held it, I suppose, in demesne.

WILMINGTON. There is no ground for supposing that Wilmington may have been a member of Marton, Wotherton, or Rorrington,- the three adjacent Manors named in Domesday. The only alternative is to treat it as an outlying member of the Chatellany of Montgomery involved in some Domesday name quite different from Wilmington.

In 1255 two women, Sibil and Margaret, were Tenants in capite of a hide in Wilmiton. Their rent was 2s., or a sore cercelle (cercellum [1]), payable on June 24 yearly to the Lords of Montgomery. [2] A Writ of November 17, 1321, announces the death of Margaret de Wilminton. An Inquest, held two years afterwards at Chirbury, found her to have died seized of certain lands at Wilminton, which she held in capite of the Honour of Montgomery by 12d. rent. This Margaret therefore only represented a moiety of the tenement spoken of in 1255. Her son and heir, Robert de P'ton was 46 years of age at Easter 1323. [3] He occurs on a local Inquest at the close of the same year.

Another tenure in capite at Wilmington was 5 nokes of land, given by Peter de Montgomery to his infant daughter Matilda, but, after Peter's death, usurped by his widow Agnes and her second husband, Stephen de St. Albans, and granted by them to Hugh de Wotherton. Again Hugh de Wotherton seems to have conveyed the premises to David de Stockton and his wife Amice: so that the Hundred-Roll of 1255 says that "David de Stockton holds 5 nokes of land in Wilmiton by service of 1 lb. of cumin to the Lords of Montgomery". There had been, ere this, many attempts by the heiress Matilda and her husband, Robert Blundel, to oust David de Stockton from this estate. The particulars have appeared under Walcote, [4] where the same Plaintiffs had a cognate case in which they succeeded. I cannot certify their success at Wilmington. I must therefore say something more of David de Stockton, supposing him to be a Tenant de facto if not de jure in Wilmington.- In 1250 the Prior of Chirbury, Hoel fitz Thomas, and David fitz Thomas, were amerced 40s. each, pro injusta detencione. In 1251, 1255, and 1256, David de Stocton and Hoel de Stocton occur on local or provincial

[1] Cercellus usually means a teal, or smaller kind of duck. In the present instance I should think it must mean some kind of hawk, and must be coined from the Greek word kipkes.
[2] Rot. Hundred. II. 60.
[3] Inquis. 17 Edw. II., No. 8.
[4] Supra, page 162.


juries of Chirbury Hundred. Thomas de Stocton, who occurs on juries of 1274 and 1281, and who was Elizor for Chirbury Hundred in 1292, may have been son of David or Hoel; but in 1292 a second David de Stocton was Chief Bailiff of Chirbury Hundred. The same David occurs on Juries of 1301 and 1316. A Jury of 1316 was attended by Thomas and John de Stocton; one of 1318 by John de Stocton; and two of 1323 by Thomas and John de Stocton.

WINSBURY, as regards its supposed status at the time of Domesday, and the non-mention of any such name in Domesday, is like Wilmington. It was however far nearer to Montgomery, and so more likely than Wilmington to have been involved in some other member of the Chatellany.

I cannot account for an apparent influence exercised by Lewellyn at Winsbury some time previous to October 1227. His Conquests in the direction of Ackley and Wolston-mynd were events of the last few months. But the report of Chirbury Hundred which announces these successes states also as follows.- "The Heirs of Walter le Fleming hold of the King in Winnesbir', and two of them are yet to be married. Their land in this Hundred is worth 24s. (per annum); and they have ingress into the said land by Lewellin, Prince of North Wales". I suppose that it is not meant that Lewellyn originally enfeoffed these coheirs, but that he did not now disturb them as to their seizin and residence there.

We have already heard more than once of Walter le Fleming and his heirs. The history of Winsbury will afford some additional evidences on this intricate Coparcenery. The Feodary of 1240 says that "Richard Porcel and his Coparceners hold half a fee in Wonesbur' and Stanlawe". [1] The tenure is expressed to be De vallo Montisgomery, that is under the King. On Nov. 8, 1248, a Fine was levied which shows Hamo le Botyler claiming and obtaining 8 nokates in Wynesbyr' and Stanlawe, being, I suppose, his share of the whole estate. One-fifth of 10 nokes was surrendered by Yarwurth fitz Madoc and Amilia his wife, one-fifth of a like estate by Illaria fitz Walter, one-fifth of 10 nokes by Elizabeth fitz Walter, and one-fifth of 10 nokes by Hugh fitz Hugh. Hamo gives a sore hawk, which looks as if the Plea, on which the Fine was grounded, was purely conventional.

In 1249 there was a suit of mort d'ancestre pending, concerning a messuage and two virgates in Wynnebir' and Stanlawe, wherein

[1] Testa de Nevill, p. 53. I suppose Stanlawe was very near to Montgomery, if we may judge from what has been elsewhere (p. 141) said of Stanlawes-Mill.


Baldwin and Stephen de Bulers (brothers) were defendants. The Plaintiffs I take to be Coparceners. They were Juliana, daughter of Walter le Fleming, Philip de Huggeford and his wife Sibil, Hugh de Patinton and Alora le Fleming, Yarford fitz Madoc and Amilia his wife, Elizabeth (Amelia's sister), Hugh fitz Hugh, and Hamo le Botyler. The cause was adjourned, now, and again in Easter Term 1250.

The Hundred-Roll of 1255 says that "Winesburi and Stanlawe are 2 hides, and that the heirs of Walter le Flamanc hold those vills of the Lords of Montgomery for half a knight's-fee, and by doing three weeks' guard at Montgomery in wartime, and suit throughout the year to Chirbury Hundred, and by attending the Lords of Montgomery thrice yearly in the chace". [1]

Hugh de Wotherton was a Juror on the Chirbury Inquest of 1255. Hugh de Wotherton and Richard Purcel were Jurors at the Assizes of 1256. Walter fitz Hugh was a Juror at the Assizes of 1272, and Walter fitz Hugh de Wotherton was Juror at the Inquest of 1274. Walter de Wotherton and John de Carricove were Jurors on a local Inquest in 1281. These extracts from Jury-lists of Chirbury Hundred have relevance to the Coheirship of Walter le Fleming, as may be seen in a Pedigree already given. [2]

The Inquest taken April 9, 1290, on the death of Hamo le Botyller was attended by Richard Porcell. It found the deceased to have held one virgate in Wynnesbury and one virgate in Stanlawe, which latter he had given in his lifetime to his son John. Both were held in capite for one-twelfth of a knight's-fee, and were worth 34s. per annum. The whole estate owed suit to Chirbury Hundred every three weeks, and was liable to the usual seigneural rights in respect of wardship, relief, marriage, and a heriot (proportionate to the estate). John, son and heir of the deceased, was of full age. [3] Here then we have a clear statement as to one of the six Coparceners in Winsbury.

At the Assizes of 1292, Walter, son of Hugh de Wotherton, Richard Purcel, of Marton, and Walter de Woderton, were Jurors for Chirbury Hundred. A Jury of 1296 was attended by Richard Porcel and Robert de Wynesbiry. A Jury of 1301 was attended by Walter fitz Hugh, Richard Purcel, and Robert de Wynesbury. In the Nomina Villarum of 1316 William de Wyndesbury alone is mentioned as Lord of the vill of Wynesbury. [4] In 1318, a local

[1] Rot. Hund. II. 61.
[2] Supra, Vol. X. pp. 302, 303.
[3] Inquis. 18 Edw. I., No. 13.
[4] The mode in which Winsbury obtained ingress in the estates of Walter le Fleming's heirs is not explained by the genealogical tables, given Vol. X., pp. 302, 303. I tbink it was by purchase.


Jury is attended by Richard Purcel and William de Wynsbury. Inquests of November and December 1323 were attended by Richard Purcell, Walter de Wynesbury, Roger de Woderton, and Thomas, son of Robert de Wynesbury. One of these (held on Dec. 1, 1323) was on the death of William de Wynesbury, which had been announced by a Writ of diem clausit on Oct. 1 previous. It appeared that he had held one messuage, 40 acres of arable land, and three acres of meadow in Wynesbury. The tenure was "in capite of the Honour of Montgomery", and was by service of one- sixth of a knight's-fee. Its annual value was 17s. John, son and heir of the deceased, was 24 years of age on June 24, 1323. [1] Here then we have perhaps a hint how two out of six shares of Winsbury were held at the period.

An Aid-Roll of 1346 gives "Richard, son of Richard Purcel, and his Coparceners", as holding that third part of a knight's-fee in Wynnesbury and Stanlowe, which had formerly (that is in 1240) been held by Richard Purcel and his Coparceners, under Montgomery Castle. The Record adds that one-fortieth of a knight's-fee, being part and parcel of the said third of a knight's-fee, was now held by John, son of Robert de Boudlers.

I have, in the above narrative and elsewhere, spoken of persons named De Bollers as occurring at Winsbury and in other parts of Chirbury Hundred and Montgomery Liberty throughout the 13th century. These persons were doubtless descended from the ancient Lords of Montgomery, but probably in an illegitimate way. I have thought it well to collect what I know of these persons under Winsbury.-

Roger de Bullers, between 1203 and 1209 attests a Charter of Hillaria Trussebut to Lilleshall Abbey. [2] Philip de Bodlers was security for Margaret de Watacr', who in 1220 fined one merk to compound some suit-at-law with the same Hillaria, here called de Bodlers. [3] On April 3, 1224, King Henry III. orders Godescall de Maghelins to allow Philip de Boullers to replevy one merkate and one denariate of land which the said Philip claimed to hold of the King in Montgomery. This order was to stand good till the King should visit Montgomery or make some other order. [4]

[1] Inquis. 17 Edw. II., No. 19.
[2] Supra, page 124.
[3] Rot. Pipe, 4 Hen. III., Salop.
[4] Rot. Claus., Vol. I., page 592.


William de Boulers, alias William fitz Elyas, was, as we have seen, of Rhiston and Ackley. He was deceased in 1226, leaving a brother, Engeram, and a son and heir, William. [1] This second William probably died without issue, for I soon come to two brothers,-

Baldwin and Stephen de Bollers, whose father was apparently some William, seeing that the elder of these brothers was often called-

Baldwin fitz William. This Baldwin occurs as Provost of Montgomery (that is, of the Borough) in 1233. [2] In 1235 and 1237 he was Visor of the works then in progress at the Castle, [3] being in one instance called Baldwin de Montgomery, in the other Baldwin fitz William. In 1249, as we have seen, he and his brother Stephen [4] had obtained entry into the Manor of Winsbury in defiance of Walter le Fleming's heirs. In 1249, 1250, and 1251, Baldwin fitz William or Baldwin de Montgomery, or Baldwin de Bollers, occurs as a Juror on local Inquests, and in the same year we have seen him as Baldwin de Montgomery obtaining a license to divert the course of the River Severn to a Mill of his. The Chirbury Hundred-Roll of 1255 calls him "Baldwin de Bullers", and names him as seventh Juror at the Inquest. [5] Of his marriage with Christiana, sister and alleged coheir of William de Marrington, and of the estate which he obtained at Marrington, I have already spoken. [6] He, his wife Christiana, and his sons, William and Stephen, all occur in 1272. Of Stephen I may add that in October 1265, one Richard Pech was prosecuting the said Stephen, with William Hager and others, for robbery and breach of the peace. The King ordered the process to be removed from the County Court to his own hearing. [7]

William, eldest son and eventually heir of Baldwin de Bollers, occurs long before his father's death, viz. in the attack made upon Thomas Corbet's agents in 1260, [8] and in other instances quoted under Marrington. As William fitz Baldwin he was eleventh Juror for Chirbury Hundred at the Assizes of 1272. It was probably he who, as William fitz Baldwin, occurs with his wife, Sibil, in 1283,

[1] [2] [3] Supra, pp. 154, 138, 139.
[4] Stephen de Bollers is called Stephen fitz William, in Jury-lists of 1249 and 1251. In the latter instance he is followed by his brother Walter.
[5] Baldwin, at this time (1255) Provost of Montgomery, was evidently a different person;- not being in attendance at the Inquest (Rot. Hundred II. 61).
[6] Supra, pp. 89-91.
[7] Placita coram Rege, 49 Hen. m. 8, dorso.- Stephen fitz Baldwin also occurs in 1260 (supra, page 148), and is perhaps the person called Stephen de Boulers in 1263 (Vol. VII. p. 27).
[8] Supra, page 161.


and as settling half the Manor of Walford. [1] Sibil seems to have been an heiress, but not one of Fleming's coheirs. He occurs as "William de Bolers of Marrington" in 1286. [2] He died about September 1299, leaving a son and heir, William (aged 26 years on Aug. 1, 1299), and a widow, Margaret. Besides his estates at Marrington and Rorrington, already described, this William de Bolers had held as follows.-

(1) A messuage, lands and rents at Wynesbury and Stanlawe, held in capite by service of one-fortieth of a knight's-fee. Among the tenants was Madoc fitz Adam de Mongomery, holding 3 acres. (2) Certain tenements at Brompton, held of the Honour of Montgomery at a rent of 2d. This estate had been settled by feoffment of Owain de Brompton, conjointly on the deceased and his wife, Margaret, and the heirs of their bodies. (3) Four acres of land at Alderseye, held of the King, by a rent of 2s. 4d. payable at Montgomery Castle. (4) Six acres of land at Schertwode, similarly held, by a rent of 6d. (5) Half a virgate at Egge, held under the deceased by William Godewac, and by the deceased under the heirs of Philip Burnel for 3d. rent. His whole unsettled estate was valued at 3. 16s. 4d. per annum; his settled estate at 1. 10s. 11d which two sums are calculated in the Record to amount to 4. 16s. 3d. [3] (or 11s. less than the real total).

William Boudlers, the son and heir of William fitz Baldwin, died at about the age of 50. The Writ announcing his decease bears date Oct. 1, 1323. An Inquest, held at Shrewsbury on Dec. 1 following, found his son and heir, Robert, to have been 21 years of age a month back. The deceased had held a messuage and twelve acres in Chirbury, of the King and of the Honour of Montgomery, by a rent, here stated to be 2s. 9d. [4] His estate at Marrington has been described elsewhere. [5] We have also seen that John, son of Robert de Boudlers, had succeeded his Father at Winsbury before the year 1346. [6]

The succession of the above branch of a numerous family is unusually clear; but other individuals of the name occur, about whom I can only speak incidentally. Thus one William de Boulers was a Defaulter in attendance at the Assizes of 1272, and one Baldwin de Boulers was third Juror for Chirbury Hundred at the Inquest of 1274. Robert de Bullers has been named under Walford as

[1] Supra, Vol. X. page 295.
[2] Supra, Vol. VII. p. 133.
[3] Inquis. 28 Edw. I., No. 23.
[4] Inquis. 17 Edw. II., No. 15.
[5] Supra, page 92.
[6] Supra, page 169.


occurring in 1260, [1] and was in 1274 one of the Jurors who valued the Barony of Caus. Probably William fitz Baldwin was his heir.

Kerry and Cydewen.

WE have seen that at Domesday Earl Roger was in receipt of 6 annual rent from a Commot (Finis) of Wales which pertained to the Chatellany of Montgomery. [2] Also that the two Fitz Corbets, Roger and Robert, derived an income of 40s. from a similar service. With Domesday for my text, I must not avoid the difficulties which are entailed by such indistinct allusions as the above.

About Earl Roger's Commot I have few doubts. It was surely the district about Kerry and Cydewen. I am not proposing to give any connected account of that district, but only to show how, at different periods, the English title to the Seigneury thereof was reasserted by our Kings, and sometimes acknowledged, sometimes contested, by the Welsh.

When in May 1211 King John invaded North Wales by way of Chester, the Welsh Chronicle tells us how he summoned "such lords and princes of Wales as held of him". Among the number were "Madoc ap Gruffyth Maylor, lord of Bromfield, Chirke, and Yale, Meredyth ap Rotpert, lord of Cydewen, and Gwenwynwen, lord of Powis". It appears that they attended the summons. [3]

Among the Magnates of North Wales, whom Lewellyn contrived to detach from their English allegiance in 1212, were Gwenwynwyn, and Madoc ap Gruffyth, Lords of Powis-land, and Meredyth ap Rothert of Cydewen. The Welsh Chronicle sets forth how they "swore fealty to Lewellyn", [4] which I take to be a tacit admission that their allegiance was, in part at least, due elsewhere.

The siege and relief of Mathraval, [5] which latter event we can fix to a day (August 2, 1212), followed fast upon the above combination; that is, if we adopt Powel's Welsh Chronicle as a guide in respect of the sequence of events. What then can be the meaning of the following Writ, addressed by King John to the notorious Falkes de

[1] Supra, Vol. X. p. 295.
[2] Supra, page 118.
[3] Powe's Chronicle, pp. 191, 192.
[4] [5] Supra, Vol. I. p. 269.


Breant, and dated Sept. 1, 1212?- "Know you that we have made a sure bargain with Madoc fitz Griffin and Mereduc fitz Robert, and Caswadlon and other Welsh, who are in our service, concerning the money to be received from us (by them) at four periods of the year". The Writ proceeds to instruct De Breant to make a similarly sure bargain with other Welsh who were serving the King in De Breant's company. [1]

The inaccuracy of date, thus detected in the Welsh Chronicle, is immaterial to the present question. An inaccuracy as to facts, which is also chargeable to the same authority, will appear in the sequel, but is not distinct in the present case. There are two actual instances in which Meredyth ap Robert occurs rather as the Vassal of Lewellyn than of England. In an address to him and other chiefs, apparently resident near Keri, Lewellyn deprecates any violence or injury likely to be done to an English Priory (Ratlinghope): [2] and in a treaty between Henry III. and Lewellyn, dated March 16, 1218, Marenduc fitz Robert was one of the Securities found by the Welsh Prince. [3]

Meredyth ap Robert was succeeded by his son, Owen, at Cydewen. The Welsh Chronicle says that Owen ap Meredyth ap Rotpert of Cydewen died in 1236. [4] An English Record makes him alive twelve years later, and is much to our present purpose.- On July 30th, 1248, "Owen fitz Mereduc had fined 300 merks with King Henry for to have the land of Kedewy which had been Mereduc's". The King, having taken an Inquest on the subject, accepts the Fine, and orders the Bailiff of Montgomery to take good Sureties for the same, and to give Oweyn full seizin. [5]

I now return to give some parallel proofs of the King of England's asserted Seigneury over Kerry, and of the falsehood of the Welsh Chronicle.- In King John's time, a moiety of Kerry was held by two Chieftains, Mailgon and Cadwallon. The Welsh Chronicle enumerates Madoc ap Mailgwn and Hoel ap Cadewathlon among the hostages given by Lewellyn to King John in 1211 and among the 28 striplings whom John massacred in 1212. [6] I have

[1] Rot. Claus. 14 John, m. 5.
[2] Supra, Vol. VI. pp. 160, 161.
[3] Rot. Claus. 1. 379.
[4] Powel, page 210. This sheet was just going to press when the Chronicle called Brut y Tywysogion (recently edited under the direction of the Master of the Rolls) was put into my hands. I perceive that it dates Maredudd ap Robert's death in 1244, and Owen ap Maredudd's death in 1261. This is doubtless correct; but what becomes of Powers authority on such matters? [5] Rot. Finium, 32 Hen. III., m. 3.
[6] Powel's Welsh Chronicle (Edition of 1811), page 193.


before given double proof that these so-called striplings arrived at man's estate; for they were addressed by Lewellyn among those Marchers of Keri whom he feared might molest the Priory of Ratlinghope. [1] The same two persons are also recorded to have contested Roger de Mortimer's title to the land of Melenyth. The sympathy intended to be excited by the word striplings must therefore be repressed; but the story is otherwise false. It was the fathers of these two persons, viz. Cadwallon and Mailgon themselves, who were executed by King John;- not as hostages, but as rebel subjects, and Felons. [2] The English Record is clear:- "They revolted (insurrexerunt) in the time of King John and were hanged at Bruges (Bridgnorth) for the felony".

I find it stated that, in 1228, when the campaign of Kerry ended in a sort of truce, "the conditions were that King Henry should rase a certain Castle built by Hubert de Burgh, and that Lewellyn should pay 300 merks for the materials, and agree to do homage for the Lordship of Kerry". If this were the case, it shows clearly that Kerry was, once at least, recognized by Lewellyn as an English Fief;- but I cannot verify the statement which I have quoted.

It was in this very year (1228) or soon afterwards, that Lewellyn gave his daughter, Gladuse Duy, in marriage to Ralph de Mortimer of Wigmore. With her the Prince is further said to have given the land of Kery and Kedewyn.
[3] This looks as if Lewellyn himself disallowed those claims of the heirs of Cadwallon and Mailgon, which we shall now see to have been less unfavourably entertained by the English King at a later period.

I do not know what became of Madoc ap Mailgon; but Howel ap Cadwallon (the murdered stripling of 1212!) was living in 1250. Mailgon was at the same time represented by another son, Mereduc. We have seen that in 1248 Kedewy and Kery were in the King of England's hand, [4] but, within two years, Howel ap Cadwallon and Mereduc ap Mailgon petitioned the King to hold that moiety of Kery "which they claimed hereditarily". The King by a Writ of June 11, 1250, ordered the said moiety to be valued, and an Inquest

[1] Supra, Vol. VI. p. 161.
[2] Brut y Tywysogion is far more honest than Powel in this matter, though very erroneous. It says nothing about "striplings", but gives the names of "three illustrious men of the nation, and chief princes, of Wales" who were hanged in England in 1212. The names given are "Howel ap Cadwallon, Madog ap Maelgwn, and Meurug Baruch".

It follows that this part of Brut y Tywysogion is not the work of a contemporary Writer, but the inaccurate rendering of a tradition.
[3] Supra, Vol. IV. page 215.
[4] Supra, page 140.


to be held as to this claim. The Jurors valued the moiety at 8. 13s. 4d. per annum, and 5 in escheats. They added that the claimants "had revolted from the King of England at the beginning of the last war, and so had their ancestors done, whereby their Fathers were hanged at Bruges in King John's time for the felony; and, if there was now any war, the claimants would be the first to rise (isti primo insurgent)". [1]

Owen ap Howell, the contemporary claimant of the other moiety of Kerry, had been more successful. His Fine of 50 merks was accepted by the King, and the Bailiff of Montgomery, having taken security for the debt, was ordered on July 30, 1248, to give him seizin of the said moiety. [2]

I have nearly done with a subject the examination of which has utterly shaken my trust in what ought to have been an invaluable authority on matters of Border History.-

I revert for a moment to documents of another kind. It was one of the demands made by Henry III. on David ap Lewelyn, in July, 1241, that the Prince "should cause the men of Keri, whom he had withdrawn from the King's fealty, to return thereto". [3] David's humble submission, to this and much larger demands, is well known. During Montfort's rebellion Lewellyn of course availed himself of the complicity of that Traitor, and occupied much of the debatable land of the Borders. The Treaty of Montgomery, negotiated by the Cardinal Ottobone and ratified by both parties in September, 1267, was humiliating to England. Nevertheless King Henry still holds the language of a Suzerain when he "demises and concedes to Lewellyn the lands of Kede-Wien and of Kery". [4]

Between the years 1267 and 1274 Lewellyn no doubt asserted an absolute supremacy over Kerry and Cydewen. Altogether we can quite understand the lament of the Chirbury Jurors, as expressed in the Hundred Inquest of 1274.- "The same Prince occupies and withholds the Country of Kery and the Country of Kedewing, which pertain to the Honour of Montgomery, whereby the King of England suffers a yearly loss of 200".

There were yet two more phases in the history of Kerry and Cydewen, before the sword of the first Edward set the question of seigneury at rest for ever. When Lewellyn's brother, David, conspired against him in 1276, David was leagued with Griffin ap Wenunwen, Prince of Powis, and especially with Owen, son and

[1] Inquis. 34 Hen. III., No. 29.
[2] Rot. Finium, 32 Hen. III., m. 3.
[3] Rot. Claus. 25 Hen. III., m. 7, dorso.
[4] Rymer's Foedera, I. 474.


heir of the said Griffin. It was one of David's promises to Owen, that he should have David's eldest daughter to wife, and with her the lands of Kedewenig and of Kery.
[1] Again, in 1281, when as yet Llewellyn ap Gruffudd was living and contending for his own, King Edward grants "the territories of Kiddewy and Kery to Roger Mortimer of Wigmore". [2] I need not add that the Seigneury of this province remained with the Mortimers after the subjugation of Wales. [3]

Withybrook Castle.

THIS Fortress I cannot trace, either in name or situation. It doubtless stood in that district of Wales whence Roger fitz Corbet derived a part at least of his Domesday rents. We know from a Record, already quoted, [4] that Corbet's agents passing, probably from Caus, to Withybrook, had to go through the territory of Montgomery. On this ground we may place it west of Montgomery.

The fate of Withybrook Castle, the supposed treachery of the Castellan, and the estimated value thereof, have appeared on former pages. [5]


THIS also may very possibly have been a part of the Welsh territory which owned Roger fitz Corbet's seigneury at Domesday. Buttington was in that district of the Gordowr, about the ecclesiastical status of which I have already said much. It was notorious in the time

[1] Rymer's Foedera, I. 532.
[2] Dugdale's Baronage, Vol. I. p. 142.
[3] Ibidem, pp. 144-152.
[4] Supra, page 161.
[5] Supra, Vol. VII. pp. 32, 138. I gather from Brut y Tynwysogion, that a Castle, called Gwyddgrug, was destroyed by Gruffudd ap Gwenwynwyn in 1263. This is doubtless Corbet's Castle, under its real name. We may further note that the Destroyer was Prince of Powis, and Thomas Corbet's own Nephew.


of Richard Swinfield, Bishop of Hereford (1288) that "Botinton with two adjacent vills were of the Barony of Caus till Peter Corbet's grandfather gave them with his daughter Margaret in frank marriage, when he bestowed her as wife of the grandfather of Owen, Lord of La Pole". [1] Here then is categorical proof of what I had before concluded from other evidence, [2] viz. that Margaret, wife of Gwenwynwyn, Prince of Powis, was a daughter of Robert Corbet of Caus, not of Rees ap Theodor, as the Welsh Genealogists (with their usual antipathy to English marriages) have pretended.

Owen ap Gruffyth, the Prince of Powys, named in the above Record of 1288, was not himself seized of Buttington. It was in the hands of his mother Hawyse, widow of Gruffyth ap Gwenwynwyn and daughter of John le Strange of Ness and Cheswardine. The question about the Diocese to which the Gordowr belonged had recently been settled. On Nov. 27, 1288, Bishop Swinfield visited Shrawardine Church, and returned back to Alberbury. There, in the Choir of the Conventual Church, "the Principal Chaplain of Hawyse, Lady of La Pole" attended, "and, for himself and the other Chaplains, celebrating at Botynton, swore canonical obedience" to the Bishop. The Lady Hawyse long survived her son Owen. At her death in 1310, the Inquest states that she had held Botynton, with its members, under the Barony of Caus, in name of dower, which Manor, Griffin, her deceased husband, had held for one knight's-fee. Her granddaughter, Hawyse, already wife of John de Cherlton, was her heir, and was 19 years of age on July 20, 1310".

What Welsh district may have owned the Seigneury of Robert fitz Corbet at Domesday I cannot conjecture from subsequent evidences. His heirs had nothing to correspond with such an antecedent;- unless indeed that House of Matefelun, which William Boterell had in 1195, and which he fortified with the aid of the Crown, [4] was inherited from Robert Corbet. That it was in Wales, and that it was near the Shropshire Border, there can be no doubt; but anything further, as to its situation or identity, I will not discuss.

[1] Register of Bishop Swinfield.
[2] Supra, Vol. VII. pp. 17, 23.
[3] Inquis. 4 Edw. II., No. 39.
[4] Supra, Vol VII. p. 161.



Rinlau Hundred.

THE Domesday Hundred of Rinlau is more nearly represented by the modern Hundred of Purslow than by any other. Nevertheless there is a wide difference between the two.-

Rinlau contained two Manors, Clun and Obley, which have been annexed to the Hundred of Clun, and not to Purslow. Gatten also, if it be considered as originally a member of Wentnor, has been separated from Purslow Hundred, and annexed to the Hundred of Ford. On the other hand, Purslow Hundred contains seven Manors, or parts of Manors, which were not in the Domesday Hundred of Rinlan. These are Bedston, Bucknell, Cheney Longville, Woolston, and parts of Wistanstow and Clungunford;- all in the Domesday Hundred of Lenteurde; also Ratlinghope, which was in the Domesday Hundred of Conodovre. The probable reasons for these changes will appear under the Manors themselves. Meantime I should give some account of the jurisdiction of Purslow Hundred, as being more or less the representative of the Domesday Hundred of Rinlau. I should first observe that Domesday departs from its ordinary Rule, in not recording the Caput of Rinlau Hundred. Every Shropshire Manor, which is known to have been Caput of a Saxon Hundred, is also known to have been held by Edward the Confessor; but that Monarch had no Manor whatever in Rinlau Hundred: neither had the Earls of Mercia. Next in degree, the Bishop of Hereford and Edric Savage were antecedently likely to have been Lords of Rinlau Hundred; and, if so, either Lydbury North, Clun, or Lydham, would be the correlative Caput. Of these three, subsequent evidences are most in favour of Clun: for the Barons of Clun claimed to be prescriptive Lords of Purslow Hundred for ages after Domesday. It is true that they paid a fee-farm rent to the Crown for this franchise; but that, after all, may be only a symptom that their title was not held to be quite indefensible. In short, the very silence of Domesday on this question was perhaps the result of some undetermined doubt as to its merits.

When Henry I. changed the names and boundaries of most of the Hundreds, Purslow, a Manor of the Barons of Clun, became the nominal Caput of the new Hundred: I say the nominal Caput,


for at this aera the Caput of a Hundred was in reality only a place, fixed upon for the periodical assemblage of the Hundred-Court. An uninhabited hill was as adequate to the purpose [1] as a small village: a small village was even more convenient than a populous borough. [2]

The earliest actual mention of Purslow Hundred is in the Pipe-Roll of 1183, when Thomas fitz Bernard and other Justices-in-eyre set an amercement of 5 merks on Pusselaw Hundred. The offence alleged was concealment. Probably some Plea-of-the-Crown had been suppressed by the Jurors who ought to have presented it at these Assizes.

I will next quote two Placita Corone which formed the only presentments for Pusselawe Hundred at the Assizes of 1203.- Ricardus Walensis fugit pro morte Rogeri filii Rogeri, et malecreditur de morte; et ideo interrogetur. [3] Petrus et Johannes de Hope fuerunt in campo de Hope, et, contencione mota inter se, uterque occidit alium; et catalla eorum fuerunt 6s. 1d., unde Ricardus de Amberleg Vicecomes debet respondere.- On the Assize-Roll of 1221, there are two presentments of the Hundred of Pusselawe. One was of murder, viz. "Tandy de Jay had slain his companion, had fled to the Church, and, acknowledging the murder, had abjured the realm. He had no chattels".

The Inquisition of 1255 extended to the Hundred of Posselawe. "The said Hundred was held of the King by John fitz Alan at a fee-farm rent of 20s. The Jurors knew not Fitz Alan's Warranty for this. His Bailiff did suit for the Hundred to the Curia Comitatus". [4] At the Assizes of January 1256, the Hundred of Pusselawe appeared by its Chief Bailiff, Richard le Peyn, and by twelve Jurors. John fitz Alan's tenure of the Hundred was recorded. The Placita Corone were chiefly concerning deeds of violence and murder. At the Assizes of 1272, Purslow Hundred was represented by its Chief-Bailiff ***us de Jay and by 12 Jurors. Their presentments were of the usual character. In November 1274 the Inquisitions as to Shropshire Hundreds do not extend to Purslow. Perhaps this was because the Hundred was in the King's own hand, together with the heir of the last John fitz Alan. At the Assizes of 1292 the

[1] As in the cases of the Hundreds of Brimstree and Pimhill.
[2] E.g. the Hundred Court of Wenlock was only so in name. Its actual rendezvous was at Burton.
[3] Interrogetur:-an order of Court, equivalent to the exigater of a later period. A person accused of murder, having been five times summoned (quinquies exactus) by proclamation in the Curia Comitatus, and failing to appear, was then outlawed.
[4] Rot. Hundred, Vol. II. p. 77.


[For table, see Rinlau]

Hundred once more appeared by its Chief-Bailiff, John de Cheyne, and by 12 Jurors. Richard Earl of Arundel's fee-farm rent for the Hundred was unaltered. It was due annually on Sept. 30th. The Jurors presented that the Earl was accustomed to hang such Felons as were captured in the Hundred of Purslow, at Clun, which was not in the said Hundred. The Judges ordered this matter to be investigated. Immediately after these Assizes the Earl was impleaded by the Crown under Writ of Quo Waranto as to "his title to have custody of the Bailiwick of the Hundred of Posselowe". The Earl replied that "he and his Ancestors, from time immemorial, had held the said Bailiwick by a rent of 20s". Hugh de Louther replied that "the Earl could not allege such a title to a Bailiwick, which was in its nature a Sergeantry. He must show some special act of the Crown as a warranty". The case was adjourned, first to Lichfield, then to Stafford, and ultimately to a hearing coram Rege,[1] of which however I can find no Record. I know however that the Earls retained their Franchise in the reign of Henry VIII., and were then again questioned as to their title.


THIS was the only Manor of Rinlau Hundred which was held by Roger fitz Corbet at Domesday.- Isdem Rogerius tenet Wantenovre. Edric tenuit liber homo fuit. Ibi II hidae et dimidia, et (sunt)

[1] Placita de Quo Waranto, page 681. 182 WENTNOR.

geldabiles. In domino sunt III carucae et XV servi et V Villani et XI Bordarii cum VIII carucis. Ibi IIII Haiae. T.R.E. valebat VI libras; et post XL solidos. Modo (valet) IIII libras. [1]

It is not to be wondered at, that the successive Barons of Caus should have selected Wentnor as the Manor best adapted for their eleemosynary grants. Of their demesnes in Shropshire, Wentnor was the best protected against the inroads of the Welsh. The Advowson and tithes of Wentnor, with a virgate of land there, as acquired by Shrewsbury Abbey;- Adston, Gatten, and Medlicott, as acquired by Haughmond;- Wentnor Mill, Ritton, Kinnerton, and Hulemore, as acquired by Buildwas;- all these were draughts upon Wentnor, and the result was that two centuries after Domesday the Manor was reduced to one-fifth of its original area. Of Roger fitz Corbet's grant of the Church and tithes, and Robert Corbet's confirmation thereof, enough has been said already. [2] Everard and Simon Corbet, giving a ferdendel in Wentnor to Shrewsbury, and giving Adstone to Haughmond, have also been noticed. [3] About the year 1198 Robert Corbet of Caus gave Wentnor Mill to Buildwas Abbey. His grant of "all Ritton" to the same House is perhaps five years later. [4] The boundaries of Ritton, as described in the Deed, are topographically curious.- Isti autem sunt termini prenominate Rittone; sicut rivulus ad caput Hulemor descendit usque Mukewyk, ubi duo rivuli concurrunt, et inde usque Wlbenpulle, et inde per rivulum juxta petras de Holebeche usque ad rivulum de Hales, et sic sursum per ipsum rivulum usque ad Blakeruding, et inde sursum usque ad predictum caput de Hulemore.

Within the next fifteen years Robert Corbet increased this grant by giving the adjacent estate of Hulemore to the Monks of Buildwas. The land is described as Hulemore cum tota merscha et cum tota terra campestri que subjacet, per has divisas; scilicet a Schakelire usque ad Lungebirch, et inde usque ad Stanehurst, et inde usque ad fontem, et a fonte usque ad Penlesbrokeshevet, et inde deorsum per Penlebroc usque ad Redehull, et ita per Gretehull et Penlesbroc, usque Rittimesbroc.

At the Assizes of 1221 Robert Corbet and his son, Thomas, seem to have been at issue with the Abbot of Buildwas about some right of pasturage. The Abbot makes Walter de Bolingehal (a Monk of Buildwas) his attorney, but how the matter ended I do not find. Some later disputes with Buildwas were settled on

[1] Domesday, fo. 255, b, 1.
[2] Supra, Vol VII. pp. 9, 10, 18.
[3] Ibidem, pp. 10, 11.
[4] Ibidem, pp. 17, 18.


November 18, 1236, by a Fine of which I give an abstract.- "Thomas Corbet Impedient, allows that 100 acres of disputed land in Ulnesmor (i.e. Hulemore) were the right of Abbot Nicholas, in pure almoign, and by gift of his father Robert; also that Wentnor Mill with its suit, vivary, and adjacent messuage and garden, were the Abbot's right, by grant of the same, at a rent of 12d., payable at Wentnor every Michaelmas. Corbet also conceded that the Abbot might fence his land of Kynnerton and of Ulnesmor, according to the undermentioned houndaries, viz.;- avado de Kynnerton sursum per rivulum que vocatur Onye usque Shotefford, et inde sursum per Crukslesbroc usque Alrenbroc, et sic sursum per Alrenbroc usque ad locum ubi Wythenbroc cadit in ipsum Alrenbroc, et ita sursum per ipsum deytum de subtus Hesenedon, ita quod tota Hesenedon remaneat ex park Abbatis, et inde per deytum usque ad Stanekesford, et inde usque Blakruding, et sic usque terram ipsius Abbatis de Hulesmore, scilicet Shakelir, et a Shakelir usque ad Longebirche, et inde usque ad Stanhurst, et inde usque ad fontem, et a fonte usque ad Penlebroksheved, et inde deorsum per Penlebroc usque ad Rodhull, et ita per Grethull et per Penlebroc usque in Ritonesbroc. Et ex alia parte, a vado predicto de Kynnerton per doytum qui descendit de Kynnerton usque le Sichet qui descendit per inter (sic) Inlondes, et de alneto usque in Sichet in Rewmesmor, et ita sursum per ipsum sichetum usque ad caput ipsius sicheti, et a capite ipsius per veterem spinam et terminos et trenchetas usque ad viam super Turf, et per ipsam viam usque ad aliam viam que tendit versus Linlea, et ita directe contra Weresmendesk et Withienepull usque in ipsum Withienepull".- The Fine then contains certain clauses protective of Corbet's venison; and reserves to Corbet fourteen distinct roads through the enclosed district, each road being minutely described. The Abbot paid Corbet 10 merks for this Concord, and certain Tenants of Corbet came into Court and quitclaimed all right to the common-pasture of Ulnesmor and Ritton, within the above boundaries. The Tenants' names are William Provost, Kenewrec fitz Hodelow, William le Rotur, Tudur fitz Griffin, Lewelin fitz Abraham, Maddoc Sielac, and Kenewrec, his brother.

We have seen that in 1246, Thomas Corbet's attempt, to procure a Charter of Free Warren for Wentnor, failed, because a part of Wentnor was within the King's Forest. [1] Doubtless Medlicott and Home were the places alluded to.

[1] Supra, Vol. VII. pp. 22, 23.


The Parslow Hundred Roll of 1255 says that "Thomas Corbet holds half a hide in Wontenour, of the King, included in the service which he does to the King for Cawes; and it (Wentnor) does suit to Purslow Hundred, and is geldable". [1]

Wentnor was one of the Manors which Thomas Corbet alleged to have been pillaged by John le Strange, junior, on Oct. 26, 1255, as before stated. [2] The same violence was apparently repeated in 1267 by the followers of Hamo le Strange. [3]

In August 1267 John Styr withdrew a suit which he had against Thomas Corbet for disseizing him of 2 virgates in La Home and Wontenoure. Corbet, it seems, restored half the premises.

On November 12, 1292, a second Fine was levied between William, Abbot of Buildwas (Plaintiff), and Peter son of Thomas Corbet, in consequence of the Abbot's complaint that the said Peter would not abide by the Fine of 1236, concerning 100 acres in Ulnesmor: the particulars of the agreement are too prolix for insertion.

The Inquest, taken on Peter Corbet's death in 1300, mentions a Water-Mill among the adjuncts of Wentnor, and names William de Burton as a Free-tenant in the Manor.
[4] Wentnor was one of the Manors entailed by Peter Corbet (II) and his wife, Beatrice, in 1303. [5] On the Partition of the Barony of Caus in 1350, Wentnor went to Robert son of Robert de Harley and of Margaret (de Brampton) his wife. [6]

In 1363 and 1364 Robert de Harley and Joanna his wife levied two Fines, each settling "Yockleton, Shelve, Wentnor, and a fourth part of the Forest of Caus, on themselves for their lives;- with remainder to Fulk, son of Robert Corbet of Moreton, and the heirs of his body;- with further remainder to the right heirs of Joanna". Afterwards, the aforesaid Robert and Joanna ceded their life-interest in the premises to the said Fulk; for a rent of 60 per annum; "but, if Fulk died before themselves, the survivor was to hold the premises for life". In October 1367, another Fine was levied, which appears to me directly subversive of the first. [7] It treats the premises as if Fulk Corbet held them for life only, and ignores the additional entail on him and his heirs. In short, Robert and Joan de Harley settle the premises, after Fulk's death, on Fulk's brother, Roger, and his heirs male, with reversion to Robert and Joan and

[1] Rot. Hundred. II. 77.
[2] [3] Supra, Vol. VII. pp. 25, 29, 30.
[4] Inquis. 28 Edw. I., No. 40.
[5] Supra, Vol VII. p. 37.
[6] Vide supra, Vol IV. p. 244.
[7] Vide supra, Vol. X. p. 191.


the heirs of Joan. This Fine was for valuable considerations, viz. 300 merks. Again, a Fine of 1370 shows Robert and Joan de Harley releasing and quitclaiming Yockleton, Shelve, Wentnor, and other Manors, to Peter de Cornewaille.

Sir Fulk Corbet died on August 4, 1382, seized of such an estate in Wentnor, etc., as the above incongruous Fines may be taken to have indicated. I cannot tell how many Lawsuits resulted in the case; but I know that ultimately Wentnor remained with Elizabeth, daughter and sole heir of Fulk Corbet, and descended, through her, to the De Burghs.


I suppose that this was a Saxon Foundation, for, though Domesday says nothing about it, we have good evidence that it existed within ten years after Domesday, and that Roger fitz Corbet gave the Advowson to Shrewsbury Abbey. I have followed the evidences of this gift down to the beginning of the thirteenth century, when Robert Corbet of Caus confirmed it. [1] Nevertheless it is clear that, during that century, the Abbey lost the Advowson, and retained nothing but a pension in proof of its antecedent rights.

The Taxation of 1291 places the Church of Wentenore in the Deanery of Clun, the Archdeaconry of Salop, and the Diocese of Hereford. It was worth 5. 6s. 8d. yearly, besides a Pension of 5s. due to the Abbot of Shrewsbury. [2] In 1341 the Assessors of the Ninth quote the above Taxation correctly, as one of 8 merks, 5 shillings (5. 11s. 8d.). They assessed the Parish at 30s. only, to the current impost. The reasons given for the difference were that a third of the Parish lay unfilled, and because the Taxation was made so high by the valuation of glebe, hay-tithes, small-tithes, and oblations;- things which had no reference to a computation of the Ninth of wheat, wool, and lamb. [3] In the Valor of 1534-5, George Baker's preferment as Rector of Wentnore is put at 7 per annum, less 1s. for Archdeacon's synodals. [4]


GALFRID, Parson of Wentnor, occurs in 1292, when he was suing the Bishop of Hereford for common-pasture in Asthampton (now Asterton).

ROGER DE CHARNES was instituted Feb. 14, 1305, at the

[1} Supra, Vol. VII. pp. 9, 10, 18.
[2] Pope Nich. Taxation, p. 167.
[3] Inquis. Nonarum, p. 189.
[4] Valor Eccles. III. 205.


presentation of Sir Peter Corbet. "Sir Roger", occurs as Rector in 1332, and-


WILLIAM DE LA LAKE was Rector in 1350, and resigned in 1359, when, on Oct. 5,-

SIR WILLIAM DE HERDEWYK, Chaplain, was instituted, Ralph, Earl of Stafford, presenting.

SIR THOMAS SIBALDSCOTE, Chaplain, was instituted Sept. 21, 1376; Hugh, Earl of Stafford presenting.

SIR WILLIAM MARCHE, Priest, was instituted Aug. 30, 1390; Thomas, Earl of Stafford, presenting. On Marche's resignation, and on Feb. 1, 1397,-

DAVID FYSSHER, Clerk, was instituted, the King presenting. On Feb. 1, 1401, Fyssher exchanges with-

JOHN PAUNTELEY, late Rector of Knille, who is presented to Wentnor by Edward, Earl of Stafford.


ADSTONE. Between the years 1136 and 1155, Ebrard Corbet, with assent of Simon Corbet, gave Edestan to the Canons of Haughmond. Simon Corbet afterwards renewed the grant of Everard, his brother. [1] At the Assizes of 1203 Henry fitz Roger sued the Abbot of Haughmond for 40 acres in Addeston, saying that the Abbot had the said land, only as Trustee or Guardian of the Plaintiff, so appointed by Roger, the Plaintiff's late father. The Abbot denied that Roger or his ancestors had ever had the premises or that he, the Abbot, obtained ingress through Roger. The result does not appear. Henry a Canon of Haughmond was the Abbot's Attorney. At the Assizes of 1221, a cause was tried, showing that Walter de Addestan had left 6 daughters, one of whom, Juliana, then wife of Thomas fitz Alured, claimed, as heir of her father, 20 acres in Addeston against the Abbot of Hageman. She was non-suited, inasmuch as her sisters were not joining in the prosecution. The case was afterwards renewed by four sisters, and a Fine was levied on Oct. 28, 1227, whereby Thomas fitz Alured and Juliana his wife, Nicholas fitz Alured and Alditha his wife, Wimarca and Hunitha, sisters of the said Juliana and Alditha, quitclaimed 20 acres in Addestan to William, Abbot of Haghmon, for 5 merks. Ralph Rufus, a Canon of Haghmon, was the Abbot's Attorney. We have seen that between the years 1227 and 1235 the Canons of

[1] Supra, Vol. VII. pp. 11, 293.


Haughmond surrendered their estate at Adstone to Thomas Corbet of Caus, receiving in exchange an estate at Picklescott. [1]

Subsequently, Robert Corbet (probably of Wattlesborough) appears to have been enfeoffed in Adstone by Thomas Corbet. His disseizin, and restoration in 1266, have been already spoken of. [2]

MEDLICOTT. This member of Wentnor was held under Robert Corbet of Caus by the same persons as held Aston, near Worthin, afterwards called Aston Rogers. About 1180-90 Susanna, daughter of Henry, and sister of Roger, de Aston, took Medlicott, in frank-marriage, to her husband, Ralph fitz Picot, of Aston Pigot.

About 1190-8 Ralph fitz Picot enfeoffed, or rather confirmed, Lewellyn de Medlicott in two-thirds of Medlicott, by the following Charter.- Sciant tam presences quam futuri quod ego Radulphus filius Picoti concessi Leulino de Modlicote et heredibus suis terram suam quam tenet in Modlicote, scilicet duas partes ville, sibi et heredibus suis tenendas, de me et heredibus meis libere et quiete, quantum ad me pertinet;- reddendo 40 denarios;- et hoc concessu Domini Rogeri de Estuna, tali condicione quod si forte ego Radulphus faciam filium meum primogenitum de Susanna militem, vel filiam meam de eadem uxore nuptiis tradam, vel ego ipse in carcere cadam, rationabile auxilium mihi parabit. His testibus, Odone de Westbury, Willielmo filio Picot, Willielmo filio Hodonis, Henrico Hager, Rogero Porcel, Willielmo de Mora, Willielmo de Aqua, Candelano de Kinnerton, et. [3]

Another Deed, by the same Ralph fitz Picot, purports to release his Undertenants at Medlicott from any obligation to do suit to the Hundred-Court of Purslow, or to the great Manor-Court of Lydbury North. It probably passed about the year 1200.- Notum sit omnibus, etc., quod ego Radulfus filius Picoti concessi Lewelino et Kenewardo, ego et uxor mea, Susanna, filia Henrici de Estuna, et heredes mei, illis et heredibus suis ad acquietandos illos de secta de Hundredo de Pussalewe vel de Lideberia, pro XXIII solidis quos mihi dederunt et pro III solidis quos Roberto Corbet dederunt ad hoc certificandum per sigillum suum cum Curia sua. Hiis testibus, Willielmo clerico filio Hodonis, Rogero filio Henrici de Estuna, Willielmo filio Picoti. [4]

Between the years 1200 and 1210, Lewellyn and Heynon de Medlicote held Modlicote under Robert, son of Ralph fitz Picot. They gave 16 acres of land to Haghmon Abbey together with their

[1] Supra, Vol. VI. p. 255.
[2] Supra, Vol. VII. p. 104.
[3] [4] Haughmond Chartulary, Tit. Modlicote.


bodies. They also consented to, and promoted, an arrangement whereby the Abbot became Mesne-Lord, between themselves and Robert, son of Ralph fitz Picot. Hence the following Deed.- "Robert, son of Ralph Pigot, at request, and by consent, of Leueline and Heynon de Modelicote gives to Haghmon Abbey the whole land of Modelicote; to hold under the said Robert and his heirs, at a rent of 4s.:- saving, however, the tenures of Leueline and Heynon, which they are to hold under the Abbey as they had held it under the Grantor". The Grantor further "concedes the gift of 16 acres, made by Leueline and Heynon to the Abbey, cum corporibus. Witnesses,- William fitz Alan, John le Strange, and Walter de Muneton". [1] For this mesne tenure, the Abbot paid Robert fitz Ralph 10s.; and we shall see that the purchase was a politic one.

Robert fitz Ralph's Deed required the consent of his Seigneural Lord, his Uncle I think. Hence within the same interval (1200-1210),- "Roger de Eston, son of Henry de Eston, at request of Leuline and Heynon de Modlicote, gives to Haghmon Abbey whatever was conveyed by Robert son of Ralph Picot's Charter. Witnesses,- William fitz Alan, John le Strange". [1]

We shall now see the Abbot of Haghmon using his position so as to get surrenders from his Undertenants. Before the year 1215, Heynon de Modlicote had been succeeded by his son Roger.- "Lewellyn de Modelicote and Roger, son of Eynion, give and confirm to the Abbey all the mount called Gorsthull, and a right to all manner of common throughout their fee of Modelicote. Witnesses,- Robert Corbet, Roger de Estune, Wido de Arundel, etc". The following repetitions of grants cum corpore show that such grants were not necessarily made in prospect of immediate death. It was certainly after the year 1211 that "Leueline de Modlicote gave, with his body, to Haghmon Abbey, 12 acres in Modlicote and a meadow called Tundemedue. Witnesses,- Richard de Muneton, Adam de Hope, and Thomas de Eddestan". It was also after the year 1224 that the same Grantor "gave another 12 acres and another meadow to the Abbey cum corpore. Witnesses,- Sir Thomas Corbet, Roger de Eston, Adam de Arundel"

The four following Deeds passed before 1255, probably about 1240-50.- (1) "Richard son of Madoc de Modlicote gave to Haghmon Abbey 3 acres in Modlicote at 2d. rent. Witnesses,- William le Fleminge, Lord of Whitecote, Leuline de Modlicote, Roger fitz Roger of Modlicote, Roger fitz Engelard". (2) "John

[1] Haughmoad Chartulary, Tit. Modlicote.


son of Madoc, in full health, confirmed a meadow to the Abbey, and also confirmed 3 acres given by his brother, Richard, and released the rent of 2d. due thereon. Witnesses,- Leuline de Modelicote, Roger Juvenis (i.e. Roger fitz Roger) of Modelicote, and William Champeneis" (probably of Wilderley). (3) "Madoc son of Huchtred de Modlicote gives a meadow there to Haghmon Abbey. Witnesses,- Sir Roger Anglicus; Richard, his brother, William le Fleming, Madoc de Pikelescote". (4) "John fitz Madoc, Roger fitz Roger, Roger fitz Engelard, and Madoc fitz Huchtred, all of Modlicote, give to the Abbey their shares of a meadow called Manmor. Same witnesses".

In 1255, Lewellyn de Modlicott, heretofore tenant of two-thirds of the vill, was dead, leaving his son in minority. Hence the Hundred-Roll of that date says that "The Abbot of Hawemon holds Modlicote (included in the half-hide which the Record had assigned to Wentnor) under Roger de Eston". The Abbot holds as "Custos of Lewelin de Modlicot's heir, and pays 4s. annual rent to Roger de Eston. Medlicott did suit to Purslow Hundred, and was geldable".

Lewellyn de Medlicott's son, also called Lewellyn, had two sons, Nicholas and Lewellyn. He gave to his son Nicholas a parcel of meadow-land, but on June 15, 1281, the said Nicholas was obliged to mortgage it to the Abbey for a debt of 40s., due from his father to the Abbot. The mortgage was attested by Lewellyn, the father, and by Lewellyn, the brother, of Nicholas, also by Roger de Medlicott, Hugh de Stitt, and John de Wilderley.

Towards the end of the 18th century, "Gilbert, Abbot of Haghmon, for 20 merks, concedes to Richard, son of Roger de Stratton of Modlicott, a messuage, etc., there. Witnesses,- Sir Roger Sprenghose, Robert de Stepulton, knights".

In the Nomina Villarum of 1316 the Abbot of Haughmond stands as Lord of Medlicott.

Between the years 1317 and 1372, the Abbot of Haghmon leases to Sir Roger Corbet of Watlesborough, knight, [1] for his life, all his demesne of Modlicote, in lands, meadows, services, rents, etc., and with two messuages which the Abbot had of the demesne of Lewellyn de Modlicote, and a meadow which Roger, the said Lewellyn's brother, now had at farm. Rents of 14s. per annum

[1] I am at a loss to say who this Sir Roger Corbet was. The Pedigree (Vol. X. p. 183) does not account for such a person. Possibly the name, Roger, should have been written Robert. The two names are not uncommonly interchanged.


are reserved to the Abbey, and of 4s. to Sir Hugh de Mortimer of Chelmarsh. [1]

The Valor of 1535-6 probably includes the Abbot of Haughmond's receipts from Medlicott under the general title of Boveria. [2] The Ministers' Accounts (1541-2) particularize only 5s. as the late Abbey's receipt from the ferm of one meadow in Modlecote. [3]

GATTEN. The acquisition made by the Canons of Haughmond of this member of Wentnor has been already alluded to. [4] Its severance from Wentnor has served to place it most anomalously in the Hundred of Ford.

KINNERTON. The Corbets of Wattlesborough held this member of Wentnor under the Corbets of Caus. I have already, and in part, set forth a Deed whereby Richard son of Richard Corbet, between the years 1217 and 1224, gave Kinnerton to Buildwas Abbey. [5] His six Feoffees (who had previously given to the said Abbey their respective shares of Kinnerton) were Eynion Priest of Shelve, Henry his brother, Eynion their nephew, Dandelan fitz Luharch, Griffin Loith, and Luhard his brother. Corbet retained his own rent of 12d. due on the estate. The Abbot's possession of Kinnerton is recognized in the Fine between him and Thomas Corbet in 1236. [6] In Trinity Term, 1243, the Abbot of Buildwas was prosecuting the Abbot of Haughmond for levelling a fence, which had been set up within the boundaries of Kinnerton agreeably to the said Fine, which however is erroneously said to have been levied at Hereford. Alexander, a Canon of Haghmon, represented his House in this business; but I cannot find the result.

The Purslow Hundred-Roll of 1255 puts Kinnerton down at 1 hides, held by the Abbot of Buildwas under Roger (read Robert) Corbet of Wattlesborough, by service of 20s. per annum. The estate owed the service of one-third of a knight's-fee at Caus in wartime. A certain brother (a Buildwas Monk I presume), resident at Kinnerton, used to do suit to Purslow Hundred by the Cellarer of the Abbey, which suit had been withdrawn in the past year, so that a contingent loss of 2s. per annum might result to the King, even if (the Manor) was in his hand. It was geldable. [7]

At the Assizes of 1256 the Purslow Jurors again reported the

[1] We have had other proof that Mortimer of Chelmarsh was heir to the Astons of Aston Rogers (supra, Vol. III. pp. 42, 44, 184; Vol. XI. p. 107).
[2] Vide supra, Vol. VI. p. 166.
[3] Monasticon, Vol. VI. p. 113.
[4] Supra, Vol. VI. p. 165.
[5] Supra, Vol. VII. pp. 102, 103.
[6] Supra, Page 183.
[7] Rot. Hundred. II. 77.


Abbot of Buildwas as having withdrawn Kynewardon from suit of their Hundred.

The Valor of 1291 includes this estate of Buildwas Abbey, as I have elsewhere stated. [1] An exchange was proposed in 1354 whereby Kinnerton and Ritton would have passed from the Abbey to the Earl of Arundel. [2] I do not find that it took effect.

Robert Corbet of Wattlesborough (deceased in 1376) had, as we have seen, 20s. rent from Kynwarton. It came of course from the Abbot of Buildwas. The Valor of 1534-5 gives the Abbot of Buildwas an income of 3. 16s. 8d. from Ragdon and Kynnerdon and an income of 5. 6s. 8d. from Bocton (Brockton, Staffordshire) and Ulmer (Hulemore). Two years later, and the Ministers' Accounts arrange these receipts differently, viz. Raggedon, free rent 1; Kymerton, ferm of the Grange, 2. 6s. 8d.; Broketon, ferm of the Grange, 2. 13s. 4d.; Ulmer, ferm of the Grange, 2. 13s. 4d.

RITTON. Of this member of Wentnor I can say nothing further than has transpired above. An old abstract of the possessions of Buildwas Abbey attributes to "Thomas Corbet" the Grants of Ullesmor and Ritenesmor, meaning Hulemore and Ritton, given by his father.

HOME. This member of Wentnor seems to have been within Regard of the Long Forest. One Peter Corbet was a tenant here in 1250, when Geoffrey de Langley set an arrentation of 3s. on him for cultivating 4 acres of assart in Hamme.

STITT. I have elsewhere treated of Stitt as an undoubted member of the Domesday Manor of Ratlinghope. [3] The Purslow Hundred-Roll of 1255 would make it appear to have been a member of Wentnor, when it states that "the Abbot of Hawemon holds half a hide in La Scutte, under Thomas Corbet (of Caus) by service of 4d. yearly. It does suit to Purslow Hundred and is geldable". [4] I conceive this idea of tenure to be quite a mistaken one. The 4d. rent paid to Thomas Corbet was probably for an assart near Gatten, given to the Abbey by his Father, Robert. [5]

[1] Supra, p. 331. The particular items are- Two carucates of land at Kynevarton, 1; 16 acres of meadow, 1. 2s. 6d.; a Mill at Wantenover, 1; three carucates of land there, 12s.; meadows and pasture there, 13s. 4d.
[2] Ibidem, p. 78, and note 31.
[3] Supra, Vol. VI. pp. 163-166.
[4] Rot. Hundred. II. 77.
[5] Supra, Vol. VI. p. 165.


Chealton, or Choulton.

THIS was the only Manor held by Robert fitz Corbet in the Domesday Hundred of Rinlau.- Robertus (filius Corbet) tenet de Comite Cautune. Gunuert tenuit, et liber homo fuit. Ibi II hidae geldabiles. In dominio sunt II carucae, et unus servus et VII Villani cum II carucis; et aliae duae (carucae) possent adhuc esse. Valuit et valet XX solidos. [1]

Gunuert, the Saxon Lord of Choulton, was probably identical with Gunward, Saxon Lord of Clun (in Lenteurde Hundred). The latter place, in some sort, still preserves his name. It became necessary to distinguish it from the greater Manor of Clun (in Rinlau Hundred), and so it was called Clun-Gunward. Its later names, Clungonas and Clungunford, are corruptions of this original.

Any Domesday Manor of Robert fitz Corbet must be traced out in after-ages according to one general rule. It should be found with one or other of his Coheirs, that is either with Fitz Herbert or Botreaux; or else it should be found divided between the two. The evidences which will bring Choulton (and Eaton, its member) under this Rule are fragmentary, but convincing.

FITZ HERBERT FEE. The Fitz Herberts were Mesne-Lords of Pontesbury, and Patrons of the Collegiate Church there. They did not inherit Pontesbury from Robert Corbet, but held it as Feoffees, under the descendants of Roger Corbet, Robert's Brother. When therefore we find the third Portion of Pontesbury Church endowed with the tithes of Choulton, [2] we know that it must have been by grant of some Fitz Herbert. Here then is circumstantial evidence that the Fitz Herberts sometime had an estate at Choulton. But again, we have had ample proof that both Fitz Herbert and Botreaux had an hereditary, though dormant, interest in Robert Corbet's Manor of Ratlinghope, and that it was with sanction, or by the grant, of some members of both families, that Ratlinghope and its member, Stitt, came to be divided between the Abbeys of Wigmore and Haughmond. My belief is that it was a Fitz Herbert who was respectively the Patron of the Wigmore Canons, while Botreaux favoured those of Haughmond. I refer to the grounds of that

[1] Domesday, fo. 256, a, 1.
[2] Vide supra, Vol. VII. p. 141.


belief, [1] and further proceed to state my clear conviction that a Fitz Herbert gave a moiety of Choulton and Eaton to Wigmore Abbey. According to this view I must proceed to speak of Fitz Herbert's Fee in Choulton as the-

WIGMORE ABBEY FEE. It is not mentioned in the Hundred-Roll of 1255; but the Taxation of 1291 gives among the Temporalities of Wigmore Abbey, certain assized rents and a Mill, at Cheolton and Eton, annually producing an income of 2. [2] The Valor of 1534-6 makes no distinct mention of this estate of Wigmore Abbey. Its proceeds are perhaps included in the 4 stated to be the income of Ratlinghope, or the 6. 0s. 10d. said to be coming from Lydbury North. [3] In the Ministers' Accounts (1539-40), among the possessions of the late Abbey of Wigmore we have,- "Chelton, rents of lands 1. 1s. 4d.;- and Eyton, rents of lands and tenements 18s". [4]

BOTREAUX FEE. Botreaux' moiety of Choulton and Eaton is much more clearly traced than Fitz Herbert's. In short, a single Record decides the matter at once.- A Tenure-Roll, or Inquest, of the Hundred of Purslow, which must be dated about the year 1251, contains the following passage.- Item, Reginaldus Botereus tenet de Domino Rege medietatem de Cheleston et medietatem de Eton, pertinentes ad Manerium de Langedon, nescitur per quod servicium. [5] All that requires further remark in this passage is that the Manor of Longdon is a technical expression, signifying nothing more than that Longden was the reputed caput of Boterell's Shropshire Barony.

On May 30, 1267, I find Reginald de Botereus impleading Adam de Mongomery for disseizing him of his free tenement in Eton and Chelton. At the Assizes of August 1267, Adam de Montgomery, by license of the Court, surrendered to Reginald de Botereus his free tenement in Eton and Chelton, concerning which the said Reginald had brought an action of novel disseizin against him, the said Adam.

In the Nomina Villarum of 1316, the Abbot of Wigmore and John le Salter are set down as Lords of Eton. [6] We must understand that the Abbot was tenant of Fitz Herbert's moiety, and Salter tenant of Botreaux' moiety, of Eaton and Choulton.

[1] Supra, Vol. VI. pp. 159, 161, 163, 164.
[2] Pope Nich. Taxation, p. 165, a.
[3] Valor Eccles. III. 208.
[4] Monasticon, Vol VI. p. 355, b.
[5] Testa de Nevill, p. 59-b.
[6] Parliamentary Writs, IV. 399.


Lydbury North.

THIS Manor, involving in itself more than half of Purslow Hundred, and a very considerable part of the County of Salop, was in Saxon and Norman times an estate of the See of Hereford; and by far the greatest in area which any Feudatory of Shropshire has ever possessed. The story, which tells how this Manor was first annexed to the See of Hereford, is fascinating from its antiquity, and credible in its essentials, though not improved by the imagery with which a later age has invested it. The Saxon Chronicle names the year 792 as that in which Ethelbert, King of the East Angles, was doomed to death by Offa, King of the Mercians. Whether this sentence was judicial, and suggested by self-defence, or whether it was a mere act of assassination, prompted by ambition and jealousy, we need not inquire. Ethelbert's had been a blameless life, and he was moreover King Offa's guest at the time. From these causes and some others, his death was accounted a martyrdom. His grave on the banks of the Lugg, though carefully concealed by the agents of Offa, was revealed to others in a vision. The removal of his remains to Fernley was suggested and accompanied by miracles and other marks of divine sanction. Offa survived Ethelbert two years or more. He was yet living and trembling at the portents which were said to be consecrating the shrine of his victim, when two of his own trusted emissaries reported a crowning miracle to their conscience-stricken Lord. One Egwin, the owner of vast estates at Lydbury and in the district afterwards known as Montgomery, was afflicted with a paralytic disorder, not I believe unknown in the present day, and the effect of which is to keep the head in a state of perpetual and involuntary motion. Egwin Shakehead (for so his countrymen called him) visited the Shrine of St. Ethelbert while King Offa's emissaries were there. Praying, fasting, and believing, he was cured of his malady in a dream. His first waking perception was that of restored health, the thing which of all earthly blessings he most desired: his first act was to offer to St. Ethelbert that thing which he had loved the best of all his former goods, the Manor of Lydbury. King Offa, hearing of this event, is said to have repented of his evil deeds, and to have added largely to the endowments of St. Ethelbert. [1]

[1] John Branton, pp. 749-754.


It may be thought that a Legend like the above, drawing largely on the imagination, was hardly worth repeating. Those who think so, will probably be those who imagine themselves to have ascertained the exact limits between faith and superstition. But it should also be remembered that there have been other and well authenticated cases where a spirit of faith and sacrifice has been rewarded by heaven's choicest blessings, and that it was no essential condition of such rewards that the faith should be perfect, or that the thing sacrificed should be an equivalent of the thing sought. And as to the real history contained in such Legends, it may be little, but it is of exceeding interest when it associates itself with the things of today.- That Clerk who duly pays his First-fruits or his yearly tenths to the Crown, and for the benefit of the English Church, knows perhaps that these payments were originally Papal exactions: but he may not know how it was one of the symptoms of King Offa's remorse that he undertook a pilgrimage to Rome, and there acquiesced in some such taxation of his kingdom. And those eyes which gaze enchanted to where the fair City of Hereford sits enthroned on the Wye, had they so gazed some thousand years ago would have seen nought but the little vill of Fernley. He too who bends his knees within the walls of yon stately Cathedral worships God at the Shrine of his Martyr St. Ethelbert.

It is no digression thus to have interwoven something of the earlier history of the See of Hereford with the story of one of its earliest acquisitions. The Conquest of England wrought no disturbance to the Bishops of that See, in respect of their ancient title to the Manor of Lydbury North. To give a preliminary idea of the enormous extent of this Manor I may state that, if restored to its Domesday integrity, and leased out at a modern rental, it would furnish forth the average endowment of four English Bishoprics. Its importance is implied by its very name, for it was called Lydbury North to distinguish it from a Manor of the same Bishops which lay many miles south of Hereford, and which is now spelt Lydbury. The possession of Lydbury North may almost be said to have made a Lord Marcher of every Bishop of Hereford till Wales was conquered. The foundation of Bishops Castle was a feudal obligation no less than a secular precaution;- necessary alike to guard a large extent of frontier, and to protect or control the tenantry of more than 18,000 acres. Domesday describes this Manor as follows.-

Episcopus de Hereford tenet de Rege Lideberie, et tenuit tempore


Regis Edwardi. Ibi LIII hide, geldabiles. In domino sunt IIII carucae; et XXXVIII Villani, et IIII Bordarii, et VIII Radmans cum XXVIII Bordariis, inter omnes habent XXIII carucas. Ibi II Servi, et Molinum serviens Aulae.
[1] Silva CLX porcis incrassandis.

De isto Manerio unum membrum tenet de Episcopo quidam Franco et Willielmus Clericus et aecclesiam ejusdem Manerii cum presbyteris et terra ibidem pertinenti; et ibi est una caruca. In hoc Manerio possent esse quater viginti et duodecim carucae plusquam sunt. Tempore Regis Edwardi valebat XXXV tibras; et post X libras; modo (valet) XII libras. De hac terra sunt wastae XXXII hidae et dimidia. [2]

The next notice of Lydbury North, after Domesday, is that Robert de Betun, Bishop of Hereford (1131-1148), bestowed the Advowson on the Canons of Shobdon, a society then struggling with adversities, but afterwards better known as the Abbot and Convent of Wigmore. It was between the years 1148 and 1154, when the Canons of Shobdon had removed to Aymestry, that Lydbury Church fell vacant by the death of Peter le Kauf, Canon of Lanthony, Archdeacon of Salop, and Rector of Lydbury. Henry, Prior of Aymestry, immediately sent three of his brethren to take possession of Lydbury Church. The Dean of Pembridge is said to have been the Official who put the said Canons in possession, but why he was concerned in the matter is a problem.

One of the features of Hugh de Mortimer's rebellion in 1155 was that he was in forcible possession of the Bishop of Hereford's town of Ledbury. (It is clearly Lydbury North which the Wigmore Annalist here alludes to, for the Canons had nothing to do with the other Ledbury.) Gilbert Foliot, then Bishop of Hereford, was a kinsman of Mortimer's, but he watched the turn of events, and when he foresaw that Mortimer's humiliation was at hand, he brought his own grievance about Ledbury before the King. Henry II. at once reinstated the Bishop; but the latter in his turn seems to have conducted himself with great injustice to the Canons of Wigmore. They had sent, at this crisis, two of their number to guard their Church of Ledbury, and their other possessions there. Foliot's servants forcibly ejected the two Canons from the Church, but the Canons returned again, and seem to have been held in a state of siege till their Abbot, Roger, put himself and his property under the protection of the Papal Court, and was actually preparing for a journey to Rome. Then at length the friends of both parties

[1] Molinum serviens Aulae, i.e. a Mill which produced no revenue, but only served to supply the Manorial Court-house.
[2] Domesday, fo. 262, a. 2.


procured a reconciliation, Bishop Foliot granting the Church of Ledbury to the Canons of Wigmore for ever.

In the year 1162 the Bishop of Hereford's estates in Shropshire were assessed 3. 6s. to the Danegeld; but the debt was excused by special writ.

On the death of Robert de Melun (Gilbert Foliot's successor), which took place Feb. 27, 1167, the See of Hereford suffered a vacancy of more than seven years. John Cumin was the first appointed Custos of the vacancy. The gross revenues of the See for which he several times accounted were 300. 9s. 4d. per annum. The Census statutus, or Rent-Roll, of Lindebia seems to have been about 124 per annum, or nearly five-twelfths of the whole. Geoffrey de Vere, then Sheriff of Shropshire, was coincidently appointed Custos of this Manor, and of the Episcopal Castle which it contained. At Michaelmas 1167, John Cumin had paid the said Geoffrey 20 merks "for fortification of the Castle of Lindebia-nort, by order of the King". In 1168 John Cumin allowed the said Geoffrey a salary of 21 out the revenues of Lindebia, for custody of the Castle thereof. In 1169 this salary was 20; and the Manor, besides its usual rents, was assesssed 4. 13s. 4d. towards the Auxilium on marriage of the King's daughter. This shows that it was then deemed assessable, as a tenure in capite, by service of 7 knights'-fees. [1] In 1170 Geoffrey de Vere again received a salary of 21, as Custos of the Castle of Lindebia, that is, Bishops Castle. His death in the same year, and the continued vacancy of the See of Hereford will have necessitated some other arrangement about Lydbury North, but the particulars of such arrangement I have not discovered. During the Episcopate of Giles de Braose (1200-1216) his see was for some time an escheat, and he himself an Exile. Hence a Shropshire Tenure Roll of 1211 says that "Leddebury Episcopi Hereford' is in the King's hand, and the Sheriff of Herefordshire responsible for the issues thereof". [2]

By a Writ-Close of August 17, 1223, the Sheriff of Herefordshire is informed that the King (Henry III.) had allowed Hugh (Foliot) Bishop of Hereford to summon all the knights and tenants of his fee to the parts of Lidebiry North, to defend the Bishop's castle and lands there, against his and the King's enemies. [3] On August 23,

[1] This assessment was not paid, at least it remained in arrear as long as I can trace it. I doubt its legality, for I don't think that the Bishop's Tenants at Lydbury were liable to scutage or aid. They are certainly not enrolled in the Liber Niger.
[2] Testa de Nevill, p. 56-b.
[3] Rot. Claus. Vol. I. page 559.


1226, Ledebiry North was visited by King Henry III., passing from Leominster to Shrewsbury. [1] An entry on the Shropshire Pipe-Roll of 1228 indirectly shows that the Manor of Lydbury was out of the Sheriffs jurisdiction. The Bishop of Hereford is himself responsible for 40s., the value of the Chattels of one Henry, a Priest, who had committed suicide. In the year 1241 Peter Bishop of Hereford obtained a Charter of Free Warren for Ledebury North, Ledbury sub Malvern, and other Manors. [2] In 1249 the same Prelate obtained a Charter for an annual Fair and a weekly Market, to be held at his Manor of Ledbury North. [3]

The Purslow Hundred-Roll of 1255 is explicit on the above question of Franchise.- "The Bishop of Hereford holds pleas of forbidden distress within his Liberty of Lidebury Nort', and of all other matters on which a Sheriff might hold pleas, but the Jurors knew not the Bishop's warranty, nor could they determine that ancient date at which things begun so to be. The Bishop held the Manor of Lidebury Norht, in capite of the King, but the Jurors never knew him to perform any service for the same, nor did they know that any hide within the Manor was geldable. The Bishop had one Castle (Bishop's Castle) within the Manor;- held under the King by services and warranty unknown. Its custody in time of peace would cost 24. 5s. 4d. per annum; and never less in time of war; but the excess would vary according to the nature of the war". [4] The vill of Lydbury itself was at this time reputed to contain two-thirds of a hide. The Tenants were Richard Rude, John fitz Guche, Richard Hilsy, David Smith, Geoffrey Merlimund and Richard Dun. Their rents varied from 2s. 6d. to 2s., and they all owed suit to the Court of Bishop's Castle. That part of the above two-thirds of a hide which remained was held by the Bishop in demesne.

At the Assizes of 1256 Kardigan son of Lodowyc Weckan withdrew his suit of disseizin against Peter Bishop of Hereford concerning a tenement in Ledebyr': his Sureties being John de Say and Griffin de Ovres. Also Eva, widow of Adam fitz Walter sued Alice la Blunde for dower in a messuage and half-virgate in Ledebyr. The Bishop of Hereford's Bailiff appeared, and proved, that the premises were of the Bishop's Vileinage, and that Alice could not surrender any part of them. So Eva was in misericordia.

About May 1268 I find Richard de Middleton appointed to try a

[1] Rot. Claus. Vol. II. page 134.
[2] Rot. Chart. 25 Henry III., m. 2.
[3] Rot. Chart. 33 Hen. III., m. 4.
[4] Rot. Hundred. II. 77, 78.


suit of disseizin arraigned by P. Bishop of Hereford against John fitz Alan and William fitz Hugh concerning a tenement in Lydbury North. A second commission on the same subject issued to Richard de Middleton and John le Bretun in November following, but the Bishop died in the end of that month, and, singularly enough, John le Breton, already a Canon of Hereford, succeeded him. A Feud hetween the Fitz Alans and the Bishops of Hereford was of some standing. I shall give its probable origin under Bishops Castle.

Thomas de Cantilupe, afterwards canonized as a Saint, was consecrated Bishop of Hereford on Sept. 8, 1275. On May 7, 1276, we have a Precipe from Edward I. to Peter Corbet, to restore, to Thomas Bishop of Hereford, 100 acres of pasture in Esthampton (Asterton) into which Peter had no entry save by an act of disseizin wrought by Thomas Corbet (Peter's father) on Peter, former Bishop of Hereford. It seems that a question of boundary between the two Manors of Wentnor and Lydbury was the thing really at issue: and we have Record of a Perambulation made on Sunday, March 27, 1278. The persons who made it were Sirs Walter de Bukenhulle, William de Huggeford, John fitz Aer, John de Ercalewe, Roger Sprengehose, Thomas Boterel, John de Picheford, and Walter de Pedwardine, Knights; John de Esthope, Robert de Bullers, Richard de Dodemanston and Luke de Overton. They divided the Bishop's land at Esthampton from Corbet's land at Wentnor as follows. The boundary commenced at Bussebrok, then ascended through Flitelesiche to Arswelle, went up thence through Assebache, and ascended from Assebache to the King's Highway on Longemunede (the Long Mynd). [1] It seems that this Perambulation was held to be insufficient, as not having been wholly made by belted knights (militibus gladio cinctis). A King's Writ of June 4, 1278, orders the process to be renewed. The Sheriff again summoned a Jury of belted Knights, but Corbet objected to several of the number and (though the Bishop assented to Brian de Brompton, and his two sons, Walter and Brian, [2] acting on the Panel, albeit the two latter were Corbet's nephews) still the Panel of Knights was incomplete, owing to Corbet's objections. The Sheriff therefore empanelled nearly the same Jury as before, seeing that both Parties had agreed to the former Jury. The differences were that, instead of

[1] Cantilupe's Register, fo. xxij. a.

[2] I suspect some error here, for I do not find any notice elsewhere of Brian, son of Brian de Brompton (III). Brian III.'s Grandson, Brian (IV) was however in active life at the time, and he, I suspect, was the third Juror present. He was Peter Corbet's Great-nephew, and Walter de Brompton was his father (vide supra, Vol. IV. p. 244).


Fitz Aer and Pichford, Sirs Adam de Montgomery and Roger Pichard were now empanelled. This Jury refused to act, hecause it was not composed of Knights, and Corbet now objected to it as containing four freemen. The Sheriff made a return to Westminster, stating his difficulties as above, and adding that there was the greatest scarcity of belted knights in Shropshire, and that the Panel could hardly be filled up without an admixture of Freemen.-

A writ of July 14, 1278, amerces the Sheriff heavily for non-execution of the former Writ, and threatens him with still severer penalties if he should neglect to make a proper return. At length, on October 27, 1278, a proper Perambulation was sent into Court at Westminster. The Panel now consisted of the Sheriff (Bogo de Knovill) himself, John fitz Hugh, John fitz Aer, Hugh Burnel, William de Stepelton, Adam de Elmerugg, Peter de Grete, and six other belted knights who had been ready to act on the last Perambulation. The boundary, now fixed, began at the rivulet of Bussebrok, and thence up to Wistanesbach, through the middle of Presteforefeing; and from Alwynesmor, through the Middle of Wistanesbache, going up straight to the King's road on La Longemunede.

At the Assizes of 1292 the Purslow Jurors presented that "Richard (de Swinfield) Bishop of Hereford, claimed to be quit of suit to County or Hundred. At Bishops Castle he held a weekly Market on Fridays and a yearly Fair on the eve, day, and morrow of the Decollation of John the Baptist. He also held two Great Courts, and claimed emends of bread and beer, and Pleas of forbidden distress, and of bloodshed". In answer to this, Swinfield pleaded Henry III.'s Charter to his predecessor Peter (de Aquablanca). However, Hugh de Louther followed up the matter by a Writ of Quo Waranto as to the Bishop's right to hold Pleas of the Crown and to have wayf in his Manor of Lidbury North. The Bishop again appeared, and claimed a right to hold two great annual Courts, equivalent in jurisdiction to the Sheriff's Tourns, to have wayf, to hold pleas of forbidden distress, and to have infangenthef and utfangenthef. He justified all by "the immemorial usage of his predecessors". Hugh de Louther replied, that, "whereas no Bishop of Hereford had come with the Conqueror, the present Bishop could not claim such rights per conquestum; that the Bishops were a succession of Religious persons and held their franchises by other titles than conquest; but that the present Bishop could show no such special title, or act of any King, conferring the Liberties in


question". The case was adjourned to Lichfield, and thence to a hearing coram Rege, but with what result I know not.

I should here set forth the annual receipts of the Bishop of Hereford from his Manor of Lydbury North, as stated in the Taxation of 1291.

Two carucates, in the Manor called Bishops Castle: 1 6 8
Assized rents, and value of customary labour there: 5 0 0
A Dove-Cot 1s. A Garden 2s.: 0 3 0
Two carucates in the Manor of Lydebur' Northton: 1 6 8
Assized rents, and value of customary labour there: 3 0 0
A Mill at Brocton: 1 10 0
Pascuage: 0 10 0
Pleas, Perquisites, and Fines for Lands: 2 10 0
Total: 15 6 4 [2]

The Valor of 1535 catalogues the Bishop of Hereford's Manor of Lydbery, Salop, as follows.- Assized rents 6. 5s. 5d. Ferm of a Mill, with new rent 1. 2s. Ferm of demesne lands 4. Improved rents 3s. 4d. Total (per annum) 11. 10s. 9d.

Astwood.- Issues of the Manor 3s. 4d. Average perquisites of Court 1. 14s. 11d. Total (per annum) 1. 18s. 3d.

Sadley. Issues of the Manor 12s. Average Perquisites of Court 1. 9s. 7d. Total 2. 1s. 7d.

Borough of the Castle. Ferm of Tolls demised to Robert ap David 10. Perquisites of Court 1. 18s. 4d. Total 11. 18s. 4d.

Bishops Castle. Assized rents 20. 2s. 5d. Ferm of demesne lands 3. 1s. 4d. Ferm of pasturage, together with improved rents, 1. Total 24. 3s. 9d.-

Gross annual income 51. 11s. 9d. [3]

The ancient demesnes of the See of Hereford were not disturbed at the Reformation. They had passed through the hands of five Protestant Bishops, when, under the specious pretext of an exchange, they were confiscated by the Protestant Queen, Elizabeth. Bishop Scory was the weak instrument of a sacrilege, so much the more atrocious, because it practically invalidated the best argument on which the fiscal robbery of the Reformation might be supposed to lean.


From Domesday we should infer that the Church of Lydbury was served by several Priests, and that one William, a Clerk, was

[1] Quo Waranto, p. 681.
[2] Pope Nich. Taxation, p. 168-b.
[3] Valor Eccles. III. 3.


Rector, and held some glebe-land. The bestowal of this Rectory on the Canons of Shobdon, their loss, and recovery of the same, and its consequent appropriation by the Abbey of Wigmore have already been indicated.

The Taxation of 1291 says that "the Church of Lydebury (in the Deanery of Clun) is the Abbot of Wigmore's. Its annual value (i.e. the Rectory) was 13. 6s. 8d. The Vicar's Portion was 4. 13s. 4d". [1] In 1341 the Assessors of the Ninth most correctly quoted the Taxation of Ledbury Church as one of 27 merks (18). They reduced this to a parochial assessment of 6. 10s. The reasons were that a greater part of the arable land of the Parish lay unfilled, the tenants heing poor;- that the hay-tithes, small tithes, oblata, and glebe, went to swell the Church-Taxation, but were not computable in reckoning a Ninth of wheat, wool, and lamb. [2]

In the Valor of 1534-5, the Abbot of Wigmore owns a receipt of 6. 0s. 10d. per annum for rents and ferms of Lydbery. [3] I suspect this to have been the income of land originally glebe, but it is not unlikely that this Abbey had had more direct grants of land in the Manor. The Corn and Hay-tithes of Byshopp Castell, Lydbery, and Byshoppes-launde, receivable by the Abbot as Rector, were worth 27 per annum. [3] As to Richard Davys, Vicar of Lydbury, his preferment was worth in glebe and small-tithes, 13. 4s. per annum, less 7s. 8d. for Archdeacon's Synodals and Procuration. [4]


WILLIAM, Clerk, was Rector at the time of Domesday.

PETER LE KAUF, presented to the Rectory by Bishop Betun (1131-1148), died between 1148 and 1155.

SIR REGINALD being Vicar here in July 1286, and suffering from mental disorder, the Bishop commits him and his benefice to the care of-


WALTER DE ESCH, Deacon, was instituted Vicar on March 10, 1313, at presentation of the Abbot and Convent of Wigmore. On June 5 following, the Bishop confers on him all the fruits which had accrued during the late vacancy.

SIR JOHN DE LA MUNEDE, Priest, was instituted Dec. 15, 1340. Same Patrons.

HERMAN DE OKENE, Priest, was instituted Dec. 5, 1361.

[1] Pope Nich. Taxation, p. 167.
[2] Inquis. Nonarum, p. 189.
[3] Valor Eccles. III. pp. 203, 204.
[4] Ibidem, page 205.


[For engraving, see pdf.]




Within the Manor of Lydbury, but more than two miles North-West of the Vill, a Castle was founded by one of those eight Bishops who occupied the See of Hereford between 1085 (the Date of Domesday) and 1154 (the date of Henry II.'s accession). This Castle was, in the 12th century, always called Lydbury Castle; in the 13th it gradually acquired its modern name of Bishops Castle. It existed in the time of Gilbert Foliot; but I do not think that either he or his predecessor (Robert de Betun) was its Founder. Such a foundation is inconsistent with the known character of Bishop Betun, and with some specific circumstances in the career of Gilbert Foliot. Lydbury Castle was founded then, I think, by one of Bishop Betun's six predecessors, and so before the year 1127.

According to his Biographer, Bishop Betun, during the civil commotions of his time, took refuge, not in foreign lands, but frequented the Monasteries and the Castles which lay scattered about his diocese. [1]

Between the years 1148 and 1153, and probably early in that interval, Bishop Gilbert Foliot wrote a letter to Pope Eugenius III. complaining of Bishop Betun's alienation of the property of the See.- "He had given four Prebends of Hereford Cathedral to the Canons of Lanthony; he had conceded the two Episcopal Castles to the Earl of Mellent and to Hugh de Mortimer, to the great disadvantage and injury of the Church of Hereford". Now I need not enter upon a question as to what Castle was thus bestowed on the Earl of Mellent, though I believe that a short discussion of that point would end in its elucidation. What concerns us now is the inevitable conclusion that it was Lydbury Castle which Bishop Betun conceded to Hugh de Mortimer. Hence Bishop Foliot's complaint to Pope Eugenius was tantamount to his later complaint to Henry II., viz. that "Hugh de Mortimer withheld from him by force his town of Ledbury". The further history of Bishops Castle has necessarily been given in outline under Lydbury North. Many

[1] Contulit se ad Caenobia Religiosorum, ad castella parochialibus suis circumjecta terminis (Anglia Sacra, II. 314). The latter words have been translated, "the Castles at the edge of his Diocese":- which would bring Bishops Castle at once into the question: but I don't think that the Biographer was pointing to any Castle of Bishop Betun's own. The succeeding words, ubi cum pietate et reverentia ab omnibus susceptus est, show that the Bishop's visits were those of a guest, and the Castles spoken of, those of his friends.


other circumstances will transpire in treating of the several members of this great jurisdiction: but one or two things must needs be noted here.-

The Hundred-Roll of 1255, enumerating the members of Lydbury, puts Bishops Castle and Snellescroft at one hide. The Tenants were;- Robert Clerk, who paid the Bishop one merk yearly, and did suit to the Castle-Court;- Richard fitz Walter, who paid 3s. rent, and Walter fitz Madoc, who paid 8d. rent. The latter was a Mesne Lord. His Undertenant, John de Snellescroft, paid him 16d. rent. The remainder of the said hide was in the Bishop's hand. [1] At the County Assizes of 1256, Robert Clerk of Bishops Castle sat as ninth Juror for Purslow Hundred.

On Dec. 28, 1262, Peter de Aqua Blanca, Bishop of Hereford, heing at Gloucester, heard of the recent and safe return of King Henry III. to England. He at once wrote to his Royal Master to congratulate him, but at the same time to point out the fearful state of the Marches.- The Knights of the district were holding conclaves, selling their corn, their stores, and even their lands; leaving also their dwellings vacant. Lewellyn too had made that attack on Roger de Mortimer's Welsh territories, which have been treated of in a former Volume. [2] The Welsh moreover had devasted the Marches of Herefordshire. The Bishop had put Hereford Castle in a state of defence, as far as he was able, but he wants at least 40 of the King's horse-soldiers, trusty and zealous, to whose Commander the keys of the City of Hereford should be committed. The Bishop had come as far as Gloucester and would there wait for these succours, and return with them to Hereford. A physical infirmity prevented his coming at once to Court, but he would do so if the King wanted his counsel. His letter contains an unmistakable suggestion as to the questionable faith of Roger de Mortimer and other Lords Marchers, and he states openly that he cannot come safely to Court, for that "certain malevolents thirst for his life and view him as no more than the King's spy in the Marches". [2] It must have been in January, 1263, that the King, moved by such reports as the above, and feeling himself unable to cope with the difficulty, recalled Prince Edward from abroad, that he might undertake those duties and measures which, as Earl of Chester and as a Baron Marcher, devolved upon him. The King speaks not only of Lewellyn's truce-breaking, but of the partial defection of Prince Edward's own Vassals, and the impossibility of sending an effective

[1] Rot. Hundred. II. 77.
[2] Supra, Vol. IV. p. 219.
[3] Foedera, page 423.


aid to the Marches unless he or the Prince went in person. On the 15th of April, 1263, we find Prince Edward at Shrewsbury, and writing to ask his father to order the Bishop of Hereford to take up his abode at the Castle of Ledesbiry North, for the better defence and security of the March in his (the Bishop's) parts. Such were the doubts, the mistrusts, and the laxity, which heralded the civil war of 1263-4. The degradation of the Crown, the elevation of the deepest Plotter of the day to a position of sovereignty, and the successes of England's most watchful foe, Lewellyn, were natural consequences of such causes.

The earlier features of the Civil War are not such as indicate that distinct division of parties which the fall of the Monarchy afterwards hrought about. Private feuds were first to he foughten out, and the bitterest enemies were often the closest neighbours. At this period John fitz Alan (II) and the Bishop of Hereford were the greatest Feudatories of the South West of Shropshire. Their territorial influence in the Hundreds of Purslow and Clun was nearly equal. Two such Powers combined, would have been a tower of strength to the Monarchy. They were both Royalists, but at the same time mutual foes.

It was just three months after the Battle of Northampton, viz. on July 5, 1263, that Bishops Castle was stormed by "John fitz Alan, Lord of Arundel": the Constable was slain: the Baron retained possession of the Fortress for 16 weeks, and, if we may believe a subsequent statement, made by the aggrieved party, he wrought such havoc in the whole Manor of Lydbury as destroyed its productiveness for six years to come. The collective damages, as scheduled in one of the Episcopal Registers of Hereford, were as follows.- Thirteen oxen, two waggons, two carts, and one white mare, were found in the Castle by its captors; also 32 horse-loads of corn sent thither by the Bishop. In the Grange was stored all the agricultural produce realized by two ox-teams in the previous year. In the fields were the crops of the current year ready for the sickle. In the armoury of the Castle were 6 hauberks, 6 chapels-de-fer, 6 balistae, whole and good, with their banderells, a pair of housings, a tierce of quarrels, and an iron surcoat belonging to the Bishop himself. In the stable was the Constable's horse. These things were valued at 200 merks. The destruction of houses and buildings at Lidbury and the Castle, and of timber which lay at the back of the Castle, was estimated at 200 merks more. The woods destroyed were worth 100 merks. Six years' revenues of the Manor


(excluding the 16 weeks of John fitz Alan's occupation) were estimated to he 560 merks more. So the whole damage done was put at 1,060 merks, to say nothing of the slaughtered Constable. I suppose that John fitz Alan's death in 1267, and the Bishop's death in 1268, prevented this matter from being equitably settled. The Record thereof, appearing in Bishop Swinfield's Register, looks like the memoir of a long outstanding grievance.

Meanwhile we have some trifling matters to notice.- In April 1269 Stephen fitz Roger of Bronton was suing Robert fitz William for disseizing him of a tenement in Bissopes Castell. A Writ of Bishop Cantilupe's, dated April 28, 1276, shows him employing other armoury than that of a Baron Marcher. He informs the Dean of Pontesbury that "certain sons of iniquity had molested the men of his Castle of Ledebury North in the pasture and wood of Astwode, killing one of their horses, etc. The Dean is to take with him certain Vicars and Chaplains, and to excommunicate the offenders in all the neighbouring Churches".

In the course of his Visitation of 1290, Bishop Swinfield passed from Chirbury to Bishops Castle on May 8, and remained in his Baronial residence for four days. On the 12th he passed on to Clunbury. The Record of this visit to Bishops Castle has little to do with the Fortress itself or the adjacent Church, though three Rogation days and Holy Thursday were spent here. The Bill of Fare is the main topic. The Bishop and his Suit fed on the following diet;- wheaten bread, beer, wine, beef, roe-deer, kids, pork, veal, geese, fowls, capons, venison (salted and fresh), cod-fish, salmon, and plaice. Some of these things were presents; and a few items were supplied from the Castle-farm. As to the 34 horses of the Episcopal cavalcade some were shod at a cost of 3d., and all were fed on hay, oats, and bran. The net cost of the four days' sojourn was 5. 11s. 8d. [1]

At the Assizes of 1292 William fitz John of Bishops Castle sat as 9th Juror for Purslow Hundred.


This was of course a mere affiliation of the Church of Lydbury North; but the Patrons of the latter were, it seems, bound to present a separate Vicar to the Chapelry. The Taxation of 1291 says that "the Church of Bishops Castle (that is the Rectorial part) is the Abbot of Wigmore's, and worth 8 per annum. The Vicar's Portion therein was worth 4. 13s. 4d". [2]

[1] Swinfield's Household Roll, pp. 82-3.
[2] Pope Nich. Taxation, p. 167.


[For engraving, see pdf.]


In 1341 the Assessors of the Ninth rightly quoted the above Church value as 19 merks (12. 13s. 4d.). They taxed the Parish at 2 only. The reasons for the reduction were, "because two vills of the Parish, viz. Wytebeche (Woodbatch) and Pentref, were in Wales; because a third of the land lay unfilled for want of means; and because the glebe, hay (tithes), oblata, and small tithes, which went to swell the Church-Taxation, represented no value of the wheat, wool, and lamb now assessable. The Bishop of Hereford's temporalities in the Parish bore their proportion in the said assessment of 2". [1] The Valor of 1534-5 amalgamates the Rectorial tithes of Bishops Castle with those of Lydbury. The Vicar of Bishops Castle, John Gryffis, had an income of 10 from glebe and other small sources. He paid 7s. 2d. for annual procurations and synodals. [2]


The Abbot and Convent of Wigmore were uniformly Patrons of this Church, and presented the following Vicars.-

SIR WALTER DE BOKENHULL, Priest, instituted Oct. 11, 1332, resigned the same day for the Living of Momele (Heref. Diocese).

WALTER PLANTE, Chaplain of Bishops Castle, occurs 6 Edw. III. (1332-3).

SIR WALTER DE BOKENHULL, Priest, was Vicar in 1344. On Sept. 21, 1350, he exchanges with-

SIR WILLIAM COLLYNS, Priest, late Vicar of Chiche**.

GEOFFREY KYDE, Priest, was instituted Feb. 21, 1362.

SIR HENRY DE HOPTON exchanges on Sept. 3, 1373, with-

WILLIAM BONDON, late Rector of Godereth (Linc. Dioc.).

JAMES ATTE VENNE exchanges on April. 24, 1381, with-

SIR REGINALD DE TICLEWARDYN, late Rector of Smethcote.
[3] The latter on June 15, 1392, exchanges with-

JAMES LE VENNES, late Rector of Smethcote. James Scenne occurs as Vicar in 1405-6, and is called Sir James de la Venne at his death in 1410.


This member of Lydbury was given by Gilbert Foliot, Bishop of Hereford, to Grenta fitz Lenewine, alias Grenta de Midleton, of whose descendants or representatives I have spoken under Middleton near Chirbury. The Deed of Feoffment is curious and very ancient. It passed after Foliot's consecration (in 1148) aud before the death

[1] Inquis. Nonarum, p. 189.
[2] Valor Eccles. III. 205.
[3] Vide supra, Vol. VI. p. 257.


of Peter le Kauf, Archdeacon of Salop, who we know was deceased in 1155. It shows that, though Hugh de Mortimer was, at that time probably, occupying the Vill and Castle of Lydbury, yet that the Bishop had power to deal with the Manor, and that he was so far mindful of his title to the Castle as to make provision for its future defence. I give this deed in an abstract form.-

Gilbertus Episcopus Hereford' do et concedo Grente filio Lenewini, concessu et assensu Adame filii Rogeri, terram de Linlega quant Filius Grente tenuit;- totam ita integre in bosco et plano et pratis et pascuis, sicut eam plenius et melius tenuit Rogerus filius Grente avunculus ejus; tenendam in feodo et hereditate, quietam ab omni servicio pro duobus annis, of reddendo dimid' marcam tercio anno; et postea unam marcam annuatim ad summonicionem meam vel successorum meorum. Inveniat et jam dictus Grenta unum servientem in custodia castelli de Lidebury cum suis expensis per XL dies. His testibus, Petro Archidiacono, [1] Ricardo filio Cancellarii, Waltero Archidiacono. [2]

It is probable that Grenta, son of Lenewine, and Grandson of Grenta, disinherited his right heirs and bestowed Linley on Haughmond Abbey. Of that however we have no Record. Certain persons, probably the said heirs, were holding the Manor in 1174, but were afterwards compelled by judicial process to surrender it to the Abbey. Hereupon the Canons obtained a new Deed of feoffment from Bishop Robert Foliot, of which the following is an abstract. [3]-

Universis, etc. R. Dei gratia Herefordensis Ecclesie Minister humilis, etc. Cum primum ad regimen Herefordensis Ecclesie accessissemus, invenimus in Castelario de Lideberia, Madocum, Radulfum, et Agnetem uxorem ejus tenentes terram de Linleia et reddentes unam marcam Episcopo Herefordensi sub annua pensione. Postea Abbas de Hageman et Conventus per litteras domini Pape adversus eos controversiam super dicta terra moverunt et coram Judicibus

[1] The Archdeacon of Salop, Peter le Kauf, seems at this period to have had precedence of the Archdeacon of Hereford. The latter, Walter Foliot, was probably a near relation of the Bishop, and recently promoted by him. He afterwards took the Archdeaoonry of Salop.
[2] The Deeds granted under Linley are from the Haughmond Chartulary, fos. 29, and 136-140.
[3] Haughmond Chartulary (ut supra), collated with a Facsimile of the Original Deed, by the late T.F. Dukes, Esq. (In Bibl. Bodl.) The Haughmond Chartulary most inaccurately supplies the name of the granting Bishop as Roger. This tampering with initial letters I have often before exposed. The Seal of the Deed has a Figure of a Bishop on the obverse; on the reverse, the letters SIGILLUM ROBERTI are distinct. That Robert Foliot, and not Robert de Melun, was the existing Bishop, is or might be proved by the Testing-clause.


Delegatis eam demum evicerunt, ita quod Madocus et Radulfus, assensu Agnetis uxoris, coram G. Decano, et R. Archidiacono, [1] et Ivone Thesaurario, [2] et Waltero Senescallo et multis aliis in manus nostras (terram) resignaverint. Nos, etc., Abbatem investivimus, etc., cum pertinenciis, etc., tenendam de nobis et successoribus nostris sub pensione 20 solidorum. Preterea omni anno quo Werra fuerit, ad summonicionem nostram et ballivi nostri invenient (Abbas et Conventus) in Castello de Lideberia unum servientem per XV dies, per expensas suas. Si Episcopus a liberis illius feodi hominibus auxilium exegerit, tunc facient (Abbas et Conventus) sicuti terra illa antiquitus consuevit, secundum recordacionem Curie nostre de Lideberia. His testibus, G. Decano, Radulfo Archidiacono, Ivone Thesaurario, Reginaldo Constabulario, Magistro Eustachio, Reginaldo Capellano, Willielmo Camerario, Willielmo Decano de Bruge, Hugone Decano de Jarchul, Waltero Decano de Humbre, Magistro Osberto et multis aliis. This Charter, passing about 1175-80, seems to have been followed at once by a Confirmation of the Dean and Chapter of Hereford.- G. Decanus Hereford' et Capitulum, etc., etc., dedisse Linlegam, etc., Abbati et Canonicis de Hageman, reddendo Domino Herefordensi Episcopo XX solidos, etc. Confirmamus etiam Ecclesiam de Sudstoke [3] cum omnibus pertinenciis, eis canonice appropriatam; et ecclesiam, exilem de Stutta [4] cum omnibus libertatibus et pertinenciis. [5]

I think there can be no doubt that Agnes, named in the above Deed, was sister of Grent, son of Lenewine, and mother of Grenta de Middleton. She is elsewhere called Agnes fitz Lewi. Between the years 1200 and 1216, Egidius, Bishop of Hereford, recites and confirms the above Charter of Bishop Robert. Witnesses,- Master Philip, Master Hugh, Robert de Finche. It seems that the Canons of Haughmond had eventually to fortify their title to Linley by obtaining releases from the heirs or other representatives of Grenta de Middleton. First, and between the years 1200 and 1210, we have the Quitclaim of "Roger, son of William de la More", Lord

[1] Ralph Foliot, Archdeacon of Hereford, said (in the best Lists) to occur in 1163 and 1176, and to have died in 1195.
[2] Ivo, Treasurer of Hereford, occurs more than once as contemporary with Bishop Robert Foliot.
[3] Vide supra, Vol. V. pp. 41, 42.
[4] Supra, Vol. VI. pp. 163, 164.
[5] The seal of this Deed has an Architectural device. The Building which it represents must have belonged to a Prae-Norman aera, and therefore must have been more than 100 years older than the date of the Deed. Of the Legend only the letters HERE remain.

The inference would almost be that the Deanery, if not the Chapter, of Hereford, was a Saxon institution.


of the adjacent Manor of More, and whose lineal descendant is, by no very extraordinary vicissitude, Lord also of Linley. By the Deed in question,- "Roger, son of William de la More, grants, concedes, and confirms to the Canons of Haghmon all right in the land of Linley. The Canons pay 20s. down, and undertake to pay the Quitclaimant and his heirs an annual rent of one young falcon (nisum) or of 2s. in lieu thereof. Witnesses,- William fitz Alan, John le Strange, Hamo his brother, Walter de Munetune, Robert de Girros, and Reiner de Lee".

Between the years 1200 and 1216 we have "Grenta de Middeltune releasing to Haghmon Abbey, for 2 merks and 2 colts, all his right in 3 half-virgates in Linley, held respectively by Ernald, Rese, and Matillis (a widow). Witnesses,- Robert fitz Madoc, William de la Munede, Madoc de Overes, Osbern Purcel, Roger Purcel, and Robert de Norbury". Notwithstanding this Deed, the same Granta at the Assizes of 1221 sued the Abbot of Haghmon under Writ of mort d'ancestre for 3 hides in Linley, of which he alleged his mother, Agnes fitz Lewi, to have died seized, he being her heir. The Abbot (doubtless referring to the above Deed) proved that he had been seized of 1 virgates, being part of the premises, since Agnes' death. Granta confessed this, and was pronounced in misericordia. The Pipe-Roll of the same year gives Grant fitz Agnes as amerced half a merk pro falso clameo. His Sureties for this amercement, and also that he should keep the King's Peace, were William de Acton and William de Walcote.

About the year 1226, "Granta de Middleton releases and quit-claims to Haghmon Abbey all right in the whole land of Linley, so that neither he nor any of his heirs could thereafter move any claim thereto against the Canons. Witnesses,- William Thalebot, then Constable of Salop, Vivian de Rossall, Thomas his son, and Robert de Gyros". It was probably within the next 20 years that "Mabilia, widow of Grenta de Middleton, quitclaimed to the Abbey all right in the way of dower which she had in the vill of Linley. Witnesses,- Simon de Hethe, William de Chippeknol".

About the year 1220 "William de Acton" (of Down and Acton, I think) "quitclaims to Haglimon Abbey his right to 3 virgates in Linley, which he had claimed by Writ of the King in the Court of the Lord Bishop of Hereford at Lydbury Castle. He surrenders the King's Writ into the hands of the Seneschal of Haghmon. Witnesses,- Reginald de Lega, then Constable of Lidbury, Roger de More, Madoc de Ham, Philip de Ploudene, and Walter de Newton".


Between the years 1221 and 1230 Adam de Acton (of Acton and Down) had a Writ of the King, authorizing a Suit, in the Bishop of Hereford's Court at Lidbury Castle, against the Canons of Haghmon, concerning the vill of Linley. The said Adam "releases his claim for one merk, paid by the Abbot; and in the said Court of the Castle he abjures the vill, and surrenders the King's Writ into the hands of the Abbot's Seneschal. Witnesses,- Roger de Sibeton, Elias de Costantin, Nicholas le Forfer, then Constable of Lydbury, Adam Clerk, and Walter de Hupton". The above Deeds went to strengthen the Abbot of Haughmond's original title to Linley itself. The following relate to an acquisition made on the confines of Linley, and I think involved an alienation of part of the Manor of Mucklewick.- We have heard of Madoc de Overs, Lord of Overs and Mucklewick. [1] We have just now seen him attesting a Linley Deed between 1200 and 1216. This Madoc granted Little Radley Wood, together with his body, to Haughmond Abbey. I think he was deceased before 1216, but certainly before November 1221, for, at the Assizes then held, the Jurors of Purslow Hundred reported how "Robert, son of Madoc de Hoveres, with Eynon, Griffin, Lewelin, and Tuder his brother, had wasted by fire (combusserunt) the King's land, viz. Roger de More's land of Wulfley. The Court ordered a conference to be had on the matter with the Bailiffs of Lewellyn (Prince of Wales), who were sheltering the malefactors. Here we have five sons of Madoc de Overs named, and we shall presently hear of two more, viz. Wronou and Madoc.-

The three following Quitclaims seem to me to have passed between 1220 and 1230.-(1) "Griffit, Wronou, Madoc, and Lewelin, sons of Madoc de Hoores, grant to Haghmon Abbey all their right in Little Radliche, viz. in all the land and bosc which lay between the Rivulet of Ritton and the wood of Linley, and which their father Madoc bequeathed cum corpore to the Abbey. Witnesses,- Roger de la More, Hugh de Wodenertune, Robert de Norbury, Roger Purcell, and Philip de Ploudene". (2) "Thuder fitz Madoc similarly quitclaims all right in Little Radliche Wood, which Madoc his father bequeathed cum corpore to the Abbey. Witnesses,- Roger de Mora, Hugh his brother, Philip de Ploudene, Robert de Norbury, and Roger Purcel". (3) "Robert son of Madoc de Heures gives a similar Quitclaim for Little Radliche Wood together with Brerecroftes. Witnesses,- Roger de la More, Roger Purcel, Roger Parson of More, Grant de Midelton, and Roger his son".

[1] Supra, Vol. VI. p. 297.


I suppose that the proximity of Radley Wood to Ritton brought the Abbots of Haughmond and Buildwas into collision. In November 1240 the former has an Assize against the latter concerning a tenement, expressed to be in Lynlegh. The Hundred-Roll of 1255 says precisely that the "Abbot of Hawemon holds Linleg' of the Bishop of Hereford for one hide, doing therefore the service of 20s. per annum, and suit to the Castle-Court". [1] About 1263-1264, that is, "while Hamo le Strange was Custos of Montgomery Castle, and during the time of civil commotion", the said Hamo "by his own proper authority caused the aeries (aer), the honey, and the pesson of Little Radliche Wood to be seized, to the no small injury of the Abbot and his Tenants". [2] Eighteen years afterwards we find the Abbot complaining of this grievance to Edward I. An Inquest was ordered, and the King, being at Rhuddlan on August 4, 1282, informs the Sheriff of Shropshire that this Inquest had discovered how "the Abbot had held the wood of Little Radeliche juxta Mokelewike from time immemorial, and had had the hawk's aeries (aer esperveriorum), the honey, and the pesson thereof, so that no one took anything in that bosc save by leave of the Abbot, or of his Tenants for the time being"; also how "Hamo le Strange had disseized the Abbot" (as aforesaid); and also how "the King had no right in the premises". The Sheriff is hereupon ordered to restore the Abbot's right to the above products. Roger Sprenghose, then Sheriff of Shropshire, forwarded the King's Writ to the Bailiff of Chirbury:-for execution.

Between the years 1280 and 1282, Henry, Abbot of Haghmon, enfeoffed Walter, son of John de Lynley, in a half-virgate, etc., in Lynley, for his homage and for 33 merks paid, and for a rent of 5s. and for suit of the Abbot's court. On April 3, 1282, "Walter, son of John de Linley, obliges himself and his heirs, of his tenement at Linley, to act as the Abbot's Attorneys in doing suit to the Court of Bishops Castle, albeit that the Abbot's Charter to the said Walter had not reserved such a service. Witnesses,- Roger de la More, William Fleming, Walter de Burghton, and Thomas Porcell". On Oct. 1, 1291, in the Church of St. Lawrence of Ludlow, "Walter de Hopton, William de Mortimer, Clerk, and John de Esthope,

[1] Rot. Hundred. II. p. 77.
[2] I think it probable that Hamo le Strange seized the produce of Little Radley Wood as a member of Mucklewick, and so of the Honour of Montgomery, and that he knew it to have been unlawfully alienated. It will be observed that the Canons of Haghmon waited till after his death before they stirred in the matter.


as Arbitrators, settled a dispute between Gilbert, Abbot of Haghmon, Adam Prior of Chirbury, Anian Thloit, Thomas de Stocton, and David de Stoke, as to common pasture in Little Radliche juxta Mokelwike. The Prior released the same to the Abbot in the presence of Roger, Lord of More, Philip de Eggedon, John de Munede, John Porcel, Thomas Porcel, William Fleminge, and John de Walecote".

The Taxation of 1291 gives the Abbot of Haughmond, 2 of assized rents, yearly in Lynleye. A Mill there, rendered 5 quarters of corn which, at 5s. per quarter, was equal to 1. 5s. Also 30 acres of land yielded 3 quarters of corn worth 15s. Total 4. [1]

On June 30, 1301, "Gilbert, Abbot of Haghmon, recites the Grant of his Predecessor, Henry, to Walter fitz John, of Lynley, and confirms the same to John, son of the said Walter. Witnesses,- John Purcell, John de la Munede, William de Eggedon, Roger de Stretton, and Walter de Burghton". On September 23, 1309, a dispute about tithes was settled between Simon de Langeton, Rector of the Church of More, and the Abbot of Haughmond. The Rector allows that the Abbot may have tithes of 2 acres in Abbottes mersh and the remaining tithes of Abbottes mersh are to he equally divided. The Tithes of Abbots-stocking are to be the Abbot's in virtue of his Privileges, except of a place called Lynacre, the tithes of which remain to the Rector. The Abbot's Mill of Linley is to be tithe-free by force of his privileges. [2] Assarts in Linley wood, already fallowed (frussatae), were, when brought into cultivation, to be tithed by the Rector. This agreement was confirmed at Leintwardine on Oct. 6, 1309, by Adam Carbunel, the Bishop of Hereford's Official. In the Nomina Villarum of 1316, the Abbot of Haughmond stands as Lord of Linley.

In 1325 the Temporalities and Barony of Adam de Orleton, Bishop of Hereford, were for certain reasons, in the King's hand. The Abbacy of Haughmond was contemporarily vacant, by death of Richard de Broke. Alexander de Midleton, the "King's Constable of the Castle of the town of Bissopescastell", improperly seized Linley into the King's hand. On July 12, 1325, the King, knowing of the election of Abbot Nicholas (de Longenore), commands the Constable to restore to him his hamlet of Lynley.

On Feb. 1, 1327, "the Abbot leases Abbot-stocking to Henry de Lydom and Richard, son of his sister Agnes, for the longest life, at a rent of 20s". On December 30, 1430, "Abbot Richard demises

[1] Pope Nich. Taxation, p. 163.
[2] Vide supra, Vol. VII. p. 292.


the villate of Beche (near Linley) to Richard Watekyns of More, Roger Philipps of Worthin and Thomas Wilcokis, for 59 years at a rent of 13s. 4d., payable at the Abbot's Court of Linley".

In 1535-6 the Abbot of Haughmond's receipts frdm Lynley were returned as 7. 3s. He paid William Adams, his Bailiff at Boveria and Lynley, 30s per annum. [1]


This memher of Lydbury North seems to have been held by Co-parceners at the very beginning of the 13th century. I think there were three Coheiresses, viz. Celestria wife of Robert de Norbury, Alice wife of Roger Purcel, and Margery wife of William de Whitcott.

Roger Purcel attests a Medlicott Deed about 1198, a Wentnor Deed about 1203, and in the latter year was Juror in a process of Grand-Assize. In 1209 he occurs as an associate of Robert Corbet of Caus. [2] His attestations of Linley Deeds range between 1200 and 1230, and in every instance his fellow-witness is Robert de Norbury. He was deceased in 1236, for, on Nov. 25 of that year, a Fine was levied whereby William de Whytecot and Margery his wife (Plaintiff's) renounce, for themselves and the heirs of Margery, a suit of Grand Assize, wherein they had claimed 2 virgates (less 4 acres) in Norbiry, against Robert de Norbiry and Celestria his wife, and half a hide in Hordewik, and 3 virgates (less 6 acres) in Norbiry, against Alice, widow of Roger Purcel. The premises are renounced in favour of Robert, Celestria, and Alice, and the heirs of Celestria and Alice. The Tenants pay jointly 2 merks for the release. By a Fine of Nov. 22, 1248, Celestria de Norbury (now evidently a widow), enfeoffs Hamo Purcel, (probably her nephew) in a virgate at Northbyry, at a rent of 34d. yearly, and reserving forinsec services. Hamo gives for this a sore hawk.

Roger Purcell (II), I presume to have been son of Roger and Alice. I think it is Roger Purcel (II) who is called Roger de Norbury in an Inquest of the year 1254, hereafter to be quoted at length.

In 1255 Norbury and Herdewyke were reckoned as one hide. A third of the said hide, being in Norbury, and a third, being in Herdwicke and Bolle, were held by Roger Purcel. He paid rents of 10s. and 2s. on each respective tenement, did suit to the Castle-Court for one, and ward at the Castle for the other, viz. by providing one equipped archer, for forty days, in wartime, whose costs were payable by the Bishop. Roger Purcel was also mesne-lord of part of

[1] Valor Eccles. III. 192, 193.
[2] Supra, Vol. VII. page 16.


Whitcote and Esthampton. Roger Purcel was on the Jury for Purslow Hundred at the Inquest of 1255 and the Assizes of 1256.

Thomas, son of Roger Purcel, is the next who occurs in this succession. In December 1269 he was being sued by Adam de Montgomery for disseizing the latter of his rights of common in Lydham and Hardwicke. Before October 1272 he was deceased, leaving John Purcel, his son and heir, an infant. At the Assizes of that date, Ethleke de Overs, as cousin and heir of Isabel fitz Howel, was suing Joan and Amicia Purcel, as tenants of half a virgate each, in Herdwyk. The Defendants alleged a title under Charters of Thomas Purcel, deceased, and called John his heir to warranty; but a remanet was ordered by the Court on account of the said John's nonage. John Purcel and his wife Wymarca, as occurring in 1281 and 1283, have been noticed under Diddlebury, where they had some property. [1] He occurs as a frequent witness of undated Deeds, being sometimes called "of Norbury", to distinguish him from another John Purcel, who was of Acton Scott and Aldon. He also occurs as a Witness in 1291, as Elizor for Purslow Hundred in 1292, as a Juror in 1301, and as Lord of the Vill of Norbury in 1316.

To return to Celestria, widow, in 1248, of Robert de Norbury. In 1255, she held one-third of a hide in Norbury under the Bishop, by a rent of 10s. and by doing suit to the Castle-Court. But previous to this, viz. in 1252,- Roger fitz Celestria, her son, occurs on a local Jury. At the Assizes of 1256 the said Roger was apparently in possession, for he and Nicholas Tubbe were found to have disseized William le Fleming of common pasture in Northbiry. I think it probable that Roger fitz Celestria was afterwards represented by Philip de Norbury, who follows Thomas Purcel in a Minton Jury-list of September 8, 1295. A Patent of August 7, 1306, appoints Justices to try a case of disseizin alleged by Philip de Northbury against Thomas Pursel, concerning a tenement in Northbury. By a Fine of Nov. 3, 1306, Philip de Norbury sells, for 40 merks, to John Purcel of Norbury and his wife Wymarca, a messuage, two virgates, and 3s. rent in Norbury, to hold to John and Wymarca and the heirs of John.

As to Thomas Purcel, the Juror and Defendant, above named, I take him to have represented Hamo Purcel, the Feoffee of 1248. He has already occurred to us, as a witness of local Deeds, in April 1282 and October 1291.

A local Inquest, in December 1254, was attended by Richard fitz Robert of Norbury. Who he was I know not.

NORBURY CHAPEL was of course a dependency of the Church of

[1] Supra, Vol. V. p. 169.


Lydbury North. The present Chapel was consecrated to St. Ethelbert, the Patron Saint of Hereford Cathedral, in 1521; but the Diocesan Registers mention no Curate of Norbury till 1587. The district assigned to this Chapelry indudes Norbury, Hardwick, Asterton, and Whitcott, all original townships of Lydbury North.


We have seen William de Whytecot and Margery his wife claiming, and then surrendering a good estate at Norbury and Hardwick in November, 1236. It is certain that Margery was an heiress, for the renunciation is in the names of her husband, herself, and her heirs.

William le Fleming appears as the next Lord Whitcott. He occurs on a Forest Inquest in 1246, and attests several Medlicott Deeds about 1250. He had a wife, Margery, an heiress. I cannot satisfy myself that William le Fleming was son and heir of, much less that he was identical with, William de Whytecot of 1236. In the last case, though not improbable on some accounts, we should have the said William holding estates for the unusual period of 55 years, and his widow, Margery, for longer. I proceed to state what I know of-

William le Flemyng of Whitcott, living from about 1246 to 1291. In 1255 Witicote was reputed to be one-third of a hide. A part was held under the Bishop of Hereford by Roger de Plowden and reckoned to be within his Manor of Plowden. The residue of the said third was held by William le Fleming, but in two different ways.- Half he held immediately of the Bishop by service of doing suit to the Castle-Court, and half he held of Roger Purcel, by service of acquitting the said Roger's land in Hardwick of a fourth part of the Castle-guard due thereon. In other words he was to provide an Archer for ten days at Bishops Castle in wartime.

We have seen a transfer of land in Whitcott taking place in 1256, [1] between parties different from any of the above. I suppose that whatever passed was but some small subtenure. On April 3, 1282, and Oct. 1, 1291, we have William Fleming attesting two Linley Deeds. In the interval passed two Deeds, which, though they relate to property in Minton, I shall do well to give here.- Sciant presentes et futuri quod ego Willielmus le Flemming de Witecote dedi, etc. Reginaldo Walteri de Muneton pro 20 solidis unam culturam terre in campis de Muneton que vocatur ***geleye cum

[1] Supra, page 163.


pratis spectantibus, quam etiam Robertus filius Ricardi filli Meynon quondam tenuit de me, etc., etc., et unum capud extendit se usque Hordeleye, aliud capud ad terram quam Engelard et Walterus filius Ricardi filii Edeline quondam tenuerunt;- teneridam et habendam de me et heredibus meis, sibi et heredibus suis, in feudo, etc., reddendo 2d., etc., et pro herieto 2d., etc., et pro relevio 2d. Ego vero, etc. In cujus, etc. Hiis testibus, Johanne de la Munede, Willielmo de la Munede, Reginaldo le Scot de Acton, Roberto de Stretton clerico, Henf' (sic) filio Rogeri de Muneton et multis aliis. [1]

Willielmus le Fleming de Witicote assensu Margerie uxoris mee dedi, etc. Reginaldo filio Walteri de Muneton communiam pasture ad L capras cum capriolis unius anni in nostra parte de boscis nostris et de campis et montibus et aliis locis in quibus warantizare poterimus, etc., pro XVI solidis. Preterea concessimus unam domum inter furnum praedicti Reginaldi et domum Ricardi de Ragedone, et unam seylionem, etc., reddendo IV denarios, etc. Pro hac dedit XVI solidos. Et ut hec, etc., sigillorum nostrorum, etc., roboravimus. Hiis testibus, Reginaldo Scot de Acton, Roberto de Henneleye, Ricardo Pyrun, Henrico filio Walteri, Ricardo filio Ricardi, et multi aliis. [2]

The next Deed (which probably passed between 1291 and 1295) shows William le Fleming to have left at least two daughters. Margeria quondam uxor Willielmi le Flemeng, in pura viduitate, dedi, etc. Johanne filie mee pro servicio suo totam illam terram cum messuagio et pratis quae Radulfus filius Johannis quondam de me tenuit in villa de Mineton;- habendam et tenendam de me et heredibus meis, etc., Johanne et heredibus suis, reddendo 2 denarios pro omnibus, etc., salvo uno denario nomine herieti et uno denario nomine relevii et uno denario nomine warde, quando contigerit. Dedi etiam, etc. Housbote et Haybote in bosco meo de Muneton, etc. Si Johanna sine heredibus de corpore decedat, remanetur Amicie sorori sue, vel veris heredibus. Ego vero, etc. In cujus, etc. Hiis testibus, Ricardo de Grimenhull, Reginaldo Scot de Acton, Johanne Purcel de Norbury, Reginaldo filio Walteri de Muneton, Waltero filio suo et multis aliis. [3]

Proof will be given under Minton that Margery, wife of William le Fleming, was sister and coheir of John de Minton, and that besides the above two daughters they had a son, William.

[1] This deed has a seal of green wax; the device a branch of some fruit-tree with a bird perching thereon: the Legend, SIGILLUM WILLIELMI LE FLEMMING.
[2] The two seals are gone.
[3] This deed has a seal of green wax; and the Legend SIG' MARGERIE LE FLEMENG.



In 1255 this member of Lydbury North was reputed to be two-thirds of a hide. One Alice, possibly the widow of Roger Purcel (I), held one of the said thirds, but by two different tenures.- A part she held by reason of some wardship: the services thereon being 2s. 6d. rent to the Bishop, and suit of his Court at the Castle. The other part she held under Roger Purcel (II) as mesne-lord. Her rent to the said Roger, viz. 18d., was also his rent to the Bishop. This decides me in the impression that the said Alice and Roger were mother and son.

The other third part of a hide in Esthampton was held by the Bishop in demesne, and by seven different Tenants, viz. Roger le Cron, Roger fitz Parson, Madoc le Cron, Elias, John le Cron, Thomas fitz Muriel, and William de Munede. Their respective rents were 4s.; 1 s.; 2s. 6d.; 2s. 6d.; 1s. 6d.; 2s. 6d.; and 1s. 6d. They all owed suit to the Court of Bishops Castle. [1]

At the Forest Assizes of 1262 certain persons connected with Asterton and its neighbourhood were indicted as follows.- A non-expeditated mastiff, belonging to Madoc le Cron, and another mastiff, helonging to Elias fitz Roger, had throttled a roe in the field of Esthampton on April 25, 1251. The owners of the dogs were not concerned in the matter, but they were pronounced to be in misericordia for keeping mastiffs contrary to the Assize of the Forest. Alice Purcel was somehow implicated in this affair, but not appearing before the Justices, the Sheriff was ordered to compel her attendance, while Roger le Cron and her other Sureties were put in misericordia.

Roger Culvert and Roger fitz Parson of Asthamton occur on a Minton Jury in October 1274. The Perambulation which in 1278 fixed the boundary between Esthampton and Wentnor has already been set forth. [2] We have also seen that Asthampton and the Bosc of Aston were parts of the Manor of Lydbury North which were within the jurisdiction of the Long Forest. [3]

ASTERTON CHAPEL. Mr. Blakeway cites the Diocesan Registers of Hereford as mentioning a "Chapel of Asthampton". The authority is good, though I cannot support it by further evidences.


The Historians of Shrewsbury, speaking of the town-house of the

[1] Rot. Hundred. II. 78.
[2] Supra, page 200.
[3] Supra, Vol. VI. pp. 336, 343.


Plowdens, [1] describe them as "a family who have enjoyed the estate, from which they derive their name as far back as our records extend". [2] The following remark rests on similar authority.- "The Plowdens are said to have acquired their arms (the fleurs de lys) at the siege of Acre in 1194". [3] The latter sentence alludes to a tradition which, in its simplest form, seems to say that-

ROGER DE PLOWDEN was at the siege of Acre; that his arms (being Azure, a fesse dancette or) were, for some act of gallantry, augmented by two fleurs de lys. [4] Another version of this story, ascribes such augmentation of Plowden's Arms to the favour of Philip of France.

Examined by the light of history and other tests, the above quotations need a correction as well as some explanation. Acre fell hefore the Christian arms on July 12, 1191, about a month after Richard of England reached the scene of conflict, and about a month before Philip of France quitted it. If Roger de Plowden was present at the siege of Acre, it must have been as one of the Vassals sent by William de Vere, Bishop of Hereford, a Prelate whose zeal for the Crusade is known on independent evidence to have been ardent. Again, if Roger de Plowden was present at the said siege, he was probably attached to that English contingent which landed at Tyre about Michaelmas 1190, under the guidance of Baldwin, Archbishop of Canterbury, and Hubert, Bishop of Salisbury. This force had been eight months, and Philip Augustus had been two months, under the walls of Acre, before King Richard's arrival. We thus determine a season and may imagine circumstances, at and under which a Shropshire Knight may have won the regard of the King of the White Lilies.

Such will be the more romantic view of this heraldic question. A non-believer in traditions will perhaps be inclined to trace the Lilies of Plowden, as well as those borne by the Walcots of Walcot and the Oakleys of Oakley, to a common and a less antiquated source. The Mitred Barons who sat enthroned in Hereford Cathedral were the Suzerains of all three families; and the arms of those Prelates were charged with certain fleurs de lys, which were perhaps relevant to the present question.

The first Plowden, whom I can speak of on authentic testimony, was William. At the Assizes of October, 1203-

WILLIAM DE PLADEN was sued by one Henry fitz Roger for four

[1] Now The Council House.
[2] Hist. Shrewsbury, II. p. 335, note 1.
[3] Sheriffs of Shropshire, p. 132.
[4] Dansey's English Crusaders.


acres of land and one acre of bosc in Pladen. Henry claimed the premises as heir of his father, Roger. William de Pladen's defence, he being sick, was taken by Visors, sent to him for that purpose. They were Walter de Mineton, Osbert Purcel, and Stephen de Acle, before whom he declared that he claimed nothing in the premises, which were in fact being held by his mother in dower. The Plaintiff was nonsuited.

PHILIP DE PLOWDEN, probably the son and successor of William, may have been so christened with reference to the tradition above discussed. He occurs as a Witness of local Deeds about 1215-30.

In August 1252, an Inquest was ordered as to the immunities theretofore enjoyed by the men of Ludlow in the Markets of Montgomery. Six of the Jurors helonged to the district now under notice, viz. Roger de Walcote, Roger de Plaueden, Walter de Borchton, William de Munedey, Roger fitz Celestria, and William de Pleweden. [1]

ROGER DE PLOEDEN stands second Juror on the Inquest which, in 1254, surveyed the tenures and estates of Roger de la More, deceased.

In the Hundred-Roll of 1255 Ploeden is accounted to be one-fourth of a hide. The above Roger de Ploeden held it, and part of Whitcott, under the Bishop of Hereford, by service of doing forty days' ward at Bishops Castle in time of war, and by doing suit to the Castle-Court; the said ward to be performed by a serviens, with a bow and two arrows, whose charges were to be paid by the Bishop.
[2] At the Assizes of 1272 William de Plauden sat as second, and

PHILIP DE PLAUDEN, as fifth Juror for Purslow Hundred. The latter I take to have been Lord of Plowden, but a much younger man than William, who was perhaps Philip's Uncle. A mere fragment of a Deed, which I suppose to have passed about 1280, shows "Philip de Ploudene granting a third of Preenslege to Roger de ***. Witnesses,- Philip Lord of Edgton, William Bagard, and Roger son of William de Ploudene". An Inquest held at Eaton under Heywood in July, 1283, was attended by Philip de Plouden. About the same time, Philip de Plowden stands first witness of an Edgton Deed, hereafter to be noticed, and this is the latest occurrence of his name. Meantime, that is from about 1282 to 1306, we have mention of a John de Plouden, [3] but he occurs chiefly in

[1] William de Plowden was probably younger brother of Roger. He was of Wilderhope. (Supra, Vol. IV. pp. 99 n, 101, 116 bis.) [2] Rot. Hundred. II. 78.
[3] Supra, Vol. III. pp. 261 n, 309.


connection with the neighbourhood of Much Wenlock. However ahout the year 1285 Richard de Swinfield, Bishop of Hereford, John de Ploweden, and William de Eyton, were joint defendants in a suit which I will set forth under Minton. The Feodary of 1316 gives-

JOHN DE PLOUDON and Robert de Heyton as Lords of the Vill of Ploudon, by which is meant the Vills of Plowden and Eyton. This John de Plowden was living in 1342, and his estate is still held by his lineal descendant.

EYTON. This member of Lydbury was accounted to contain half a hide at the Inquest of 1255. The said half-hide was equally divided between John fitz Philip and Thomas (de Eyton), who held under the Bishop, each by the same services as Roger de Plowden held. The same Record notices William le Forfire of Eyton and Roger fitz Avine of Eyton as having rescued something taken in distress by a certain Beadle of Purslow Hundred, for a debt due to the Crown. Thomas de Eyton was a Juror for Purslow Hundred at the Assizes of 1272, and stands eighth on a local Jury in 1283. William de Eyton who has just now occurred in 1285 was perhaps identical with William is Forfire. Roger de Eyton occurs as a witness about 1300, and Robert de Heyton was the Bishop's Tenant in 1316, as above noticed.


WILLIAM DE WALCOTE is the earliest member I have met with of the family which held this estate under the Bishops of Hereford. He occurs in November 1221, as Security for his neighbour, Grent de Middleton of Middleton and Linley.

ROGER DE WALCOTE occurs as a Juror, on several Inquests in 1252, 1255, and 1256. The Inquest of 1255 states that he holds a quarter of a hide in Walcot, by a rent of 8s., payable to the Bishop, by doing suit to the Castle Manor-Court, and by doing 20 days' ward at Bishops Castle in wartime, by one serviens, armed with a bow and two arrows, and maintained (during the period of service) by the Bishop. Roger de Walcot was probably living in 1270.

By a Fine, levied on January 27, 1283,-

"JOHN, SON OF PHILIP DE WALCOTE (Impedient), gives one messuage, 4 virgates of land, 20 acres of bosc, 20 acres of meadow, and 12s. annual rent in Walcote to Reginald fitz Walter of Moneton. The latter then settles the premises on John, son of Philip and his heirs by his wife Isolda;- to hold at a penny rent and by performance of all


capital services;- with remainder to the next heirs of John, son of Philip, to hold of the Lords of the Fee". John, son of Philip de Walcote, was probably identical with-

JOHN DE WALCOTE, who attests a Linley Deed in Oct. 1291, and sat as 10th Juror for Purslow Hundred at the Assizes of 1292. In the Nomina Villarum of 1316 he appears as Lord of the Vill of Walcote.

This again is one of the few Shropshire families whose existence from the 13th century to the present day can be traced in the male line. [1]

It is worth observing that the ancient coat of the Walcots was charged with a cross and fleurs de lys. The Coat undoubtedly belongs to the same origin, whatever that origin be, as the Coats of Plowden and Oakley: but whereas the Walcots bore a cross in addition to the fleurs de lys, and the Oakleys, three crescents, it becomes exceedingly probable that all these Coats originated at the time of the Crusade, and in some such way as Tradition relates when referring to the Plowden Arms in particular. The way in which the Walcot Arms came to be changed, is the subject of a curious and not improbable story; for which I refer elsewhere. [2]


STEPHEN DE ACLE, already mentioned, under Plowden, as occurring in 1203, may have been ancestor of the family which has held Oakley from that to the present day. If so, he had a contemporary of the same name, but whom I only find concerned in the North-eastern extremity of the County. In 1255 Acliche was reputed to contain one-fifth of a hide. William fitz Roger and Madoc fitz Lewellyn held it under the Bishop of Hereford, by a rent of 2s. 8d. per annum, and by doing suit to the Castle Manor-Court.

At the Assizes of 1292, Robert (or Radulf), Clerk of Oclee, sat as eighth Juror for Purslow Hundred. For some remarks on the Arms and later descent of the family of Oakley I refer elsewhere. [3]

TOTTERTON. This member of Lydbury is called Coterdune in the printed Hundred-Roll of 1255. [4] There is also some mistake as to the relative extents of Coterdune and Oakley: but I think it was intended that Totterton should be reckoned as four-fifths of a hide.

[1] The Rev. John Walcot, Rector of Bitterley, is the present representative of the family.
[2] Sheriff's of Shropshire, p. 112.
[3] Sheriff's of Shropshire, pp. 132, 133.
[4] Rot. Hundred. II. 78.


William fitz Seyselt, William Palmer, Philip de Jacon', and a son of William de Brocton, held it apparently as Guardians of some infant, unnamed. Their services to the Bishop of Hereford were 40 days' ward at the Castle, in wartime, by one serviens, equipped with bow and arrows, and maintainable by the Bishop. They also owed the usual Suit of Court and paid 10d. annual rent. A part of Coterdune was held by the Bishop in demesne.

BROCKTON. Walter de Hupton, who attests a Linley Deed about 1225, was, perhaps, of Brockton. Walter de Borchton was one of the Jurors who in 1252 deposed to the rights exercised by the men of Ludlow when trading at Montgomery. This member of Lydbury was reputed in 1255 to contain two-thirds of a hide. Part of it was held by the Bishop of Hereford in demesne. The Tenants of the rest were Walter de Upton, John le Soy, [1] Madoc Colingh, and Alice. Their respective rents were 5s.; 4s.; 4s.; and 4s. They all did suit to the Manor-Court, held at Bishops Castle. Walter de Brocton, one of the Jurors who took this Inquest, was probably identical with Walter de Upton. A Writ of October 28, 1259, instructs Giles de Erdinton to try a case of disseizin, alleged by Alice de Bruthon against Madok fitz Roger concerning a tenement in Bruchton.

LEA. Reginald de Lega, Constable of Bishops Castle about 1220, may possibly have been the Bishop's Feoffee here. A local Inquest of December 1254 was attended by Kadugan de Lee. In the Inquest of 1255, La Lee stands as two-thirds of a hide, held by this Cadugan. His services to the Bishop were 40 days' Castle-guard by a serviens, equipped as in the other cases, suit of Court at the Castle, and 20s. annual rent. A Minton Inquest, taken in September 1295, was attended by Griffin de la Lee, as Foreman; but I do not know that he was of this place.

COLEBATCH. Lefwin de Colebech occurs on the Pipe-Roll of 1176 as having been amerced 20s. for some default. At the Forest Assizes of 1209 the Bishop of Hereford's vills of Brocton and Colebech were amerced for default. A Writ-Close of January 5, 1227, names Roger de Colebech as having lands adjoining to Caldecott. [2] In 1255 Colebech is reckoned as three-fourths (Quaere, two-thirds) of a hide, held by Roger Lewelin, who paid the Bishop 20s. rent, and did suit to the Castle-Court. By a Fine, levied on January 20, 1256, Philip fitz John of Colebech renounced his claim under process of mort d'ancestre to a half-virgate in Colebech. Leuline

[1] Called John de Say in a More Inquest of 1254.
[2] Supra, page 92.


de Colebech, the Defendant, concedes it to the said Philip, to hold at a rent of 12d.

WOODBATCH. Enian de Widebach occurs on the Pipe-Roll of 1176 as having been amerced 20s. for some default. The debt was uncancelled in 1180 and the debtor nowhere to be found (nusquam invenitur). In 1255 Widebech is reckoned as a third of a hide. Hoel and Gurgenew, the Tenants thereof, paid the Bishop of Hereford 5s. per annum, and did suit to his Court at Bishops Castle. At the Assizes of 1256 Hoel fitz William was impleaded by William fitz O** for a messuage and 13 acres in Wydebech, which the latter claimed as heir of his mother, Golenthych. The Defendant got judgment, on the ground that Roger fitz Walter and William, brother of Herlis, held parts of the disputed premises.

UPPER AND LOWER BROUGHTON. We have seen how Aston Kelmund (now Upper and Lower Aston) and Chestroc (now Castle-Wright), though originally members of Montgomery, got into the Bishop of Hereford's hands. [1] The Bishop seems to have combined Aston with Broughton, which latter was already a member of Lydbury North. In 1255 the joint Manor of Burhton and Eston was reputed to contain one hide. The Tenants of two-thirds thereof were Gadugan Wydhel, Eynon fitz Ythel, Ythel Gaur', and Richard fitz Yarvord. They paid the Bishop 5s. rent, and did suit to the Court of Bishops Castle. Walter fitz Madoc, William fitz Roger, and Madoc fitz Lewelin, tenants of the other third, paid the Bishop 20s. rent, and did like suit. [2]

Among the Bishop's subsequent Tenants at Broughton, I suppose we must reckon, Walter de Boritton, who sat as 7th Juror for Purslow Hundred at the Assizes of 1292, and who is called Walter de Brohton in a Minton Jury-list of 1295. In Easter Term 1305 a conventional Fine was levied, whereby David de Burgheton, Deforciant, is allowed to have a right to 5 messuages, 60 acres of arable land, 12 acres of meadow, 60 acres of bosc, and 12s. annual rent in Burghdon. The said David forthwith settles the premises on Walter de Burgheton, his wife Hawise, and his heirs by Hawise;- to hold of the Lords of the Fee, with remainder to the right heirs of Hawise. Walter de Burghton is entered as Lord of the vill of Burghton in the Nomina Villarum of 1316.

NEWTON. Purslow Hundred, in the 13th century, contained a vill called Newton. I cannot say that it was a member of Lydbury North. I have nothing to tell of it but what relates to its Tenants.

[1] Supra, page 155.
[2] Rot. Hundred. II. 78.

CLUN. 225

Walter de Newton attests a Linley Deed about 1220. Walter de Neuton, or de Newinton occurs on a local Jury in 1254, and on Juries of the Hundred in 1255 and 1256. William Newent was in a like position at the Assizes of 1272, and William son of Walter de Newton occurs on a local Inquest in 1283.


PICOT DE SAY, the Domesday Lord of Clun, was one of Earl Roger's chief Vassals in Shropshire. But before I speak of his English Barony I should relate what little is known of his Norman antecedents. His real name was Robert de Say; while Ficot, or Picot, originally a sobriquet, is used in Domesday as his only name. He occurs in Normandy six years before the Conquest, with his wife Adeloya and his two sons, Robert and Henry.-

Among the several Norman Abbeys which are connected with the memory of Earl Roger de Montgomery, the House of St. Martin at Seez is most associated with Shropshire History. It was with Sagian Monks that the Earl colonized his noble Foundation at Shrewsbury; they were Sagian Monks whom his son, Earl Roger the Poictevin, imported, to organize Lancaster Priory. The fate of the two Houses was different. Shrewsbury became independent of, and antagonistic to, its Parent. Lancaster remained subject to Seez for ages, and so suffered the fortune, usual to Alien Priories. Among the muniments of St. Martin's of Seez, was one of those recitatory Charters, whose very form bespeaks a genuine transaction and an ancient date. The actual date assigned to this Document is the year 1060. I prefer to give it in extenso, adding such notes or remarks as it seems to require.-

Notum sit omnibus quia Dominus Abbas Robertus, faventibus omnibus fratribus Cenobii Sancti Martini Sagii, dedit Roberto de Sayo, [1] qui cognominabatur Ficot, et Adaloye uxori, cum summa devocione petentibus, societatem et beneficium totius congregationis, sicut uni Monachorum ipsius Cenobii, et similiter Roberto et Henrico,

[1] Saium, or Sai was a vill situated about 2 miles S.E. of Argentan and about 9 miles W. of Oximae, or Exmes, the caput of Roger de Montgomery's Norman Vicomte. Sagium or Seez was about 12 miles S.E. of Sai.

226 CLUN.

filiis suis; ita quidem ut, si aliquis illorum monachus unquam voluerit effici, efficietur in Monasterio Sancti Martini: qui vero ex illis omnibus in seculari habitu morietur, in cimiterio Sancti Martini, ut monachus per omnia susceptus, sepelietur. Ipsi vero in eodem Capitulo, pro hac largissima concessione et pro animarum, tam suarum quam parentum suorum, perpetua salvatione dederunt et perpetuo concesserunt edificium matris Picot cum virgulto quod habebat juxta Ecclesiam Sancte Marie de Vrou, et decem acras terre in parochia ejusdem Ecclesiae, et terram ad hortum unum sufficientem, que terra erat in pratis, et Decimam duorum Molendinorum, quorum unum est super Olnam et alterum super Uram. [1] Dederunt etiam prata totius insule de Atheis, et unam piscatoriam que dicitur "de Louis", et unam acram prati in pratis de Juvigneio, et duas acras terre, in ipsa villula, cum medietate ecclesie ipsius villule que erat de dote Adaloye uxoris sue; et, cum his datis de propriis rebus, concesserunt quod Osmelinus de Sayo dedit Sto Martino in eodem Capitulo et eodme die; (scilicet) tertiam partem totius ecclesie de Sayo in omnibus redditibus Altaris et decima, cum duabus acris terre; et ipse Osmelinus et uxor ejus Avitia et omnes antecessores (sic) sui recepti sunt in praedicti Monasterii fraterna societate. Hoc totum viderunt et audierunt Guaschelinus de Vrou et Robertus filius Garini Pillepot et Radulfus Presbyter de Vrou. Cum his quoque concesserunt ecclesias de Vrou cum decimis et quatuor acris terre et dimidia, cum terra sacerdotis, quod totum dederat Osmelinus, qui cognominabatur Avenellus, Sto Martino pro salute anime sue et antecessorum suorum. Concesserunt etiam quod Gaufredus filius Oderelli dederat Sto Martino, (scilicet) quicquid decime habebat in parochia de Vrou; pro qua tamen dation habuit ipse Gaufridus, cum beneficio concesso monasterii, triginta solidos Cenomannenses: adhuc quoque concesserunt quod Guaschelinus de Vrou dederat Sto Martino, (scilicet) quicquid decime habebat in parochia de Vrou et de Sayo, nihil sibi reservans, cum duabus acris terre; et pro hac donacione habuit cum concesso Monasterii beneficio quatuordecim solidos Cenomannenses, et unum pullum equorum pro decem et octo solidis Cenomannensibus, teste ipso et Radulpho Presbytero, et fratre ejusdem Roberto, et Christiano de Furcis etiam concedentibus. Dedit Hugo de Juvigneyo Sto Martino medietatem ipsius Ecclesie (cujus alteram medietatem nos habemus de dono Picot et uxoris ejus Adaloye) et unam acram prati pro concesso sibi benficio Monasterii, cum viginti solidis

[1] The Rivers Olna (L'Orne) and Ura (L'Ure) unite a little to the East of Argentan. Sai was in the angle formed by their confluence.


census. Signum Rogeri Comitis. Signum Picot. Signum Roberti filii ejus. Signum Henrici filii Picot. Signum Adeloye uxoris Picot. Signum Ricardi Capellani. [1]

The grand feature of the above Charter is the internal evidence which it contains in support of its alleged date. It was evidently written when the conquest of England and the emigration of Picot and his family were things undreamt of. Further, the Document contains a valuable proof of a Rule to which I have often adverted, viz. that the testing-clauses of such ancient Charters were very often added, long after the transaction itself was completed. In the present case the year 1060 must have been more than 10 years anterior to the time when Roger de Montgomery would be entitled an Earl.

Ordericus the Historian makes twofold mention of the Baron of Clun. Under the year 1074, he names William Pantulf, Picod, Corbat, and the two sons of Corbat as the men whom Earl Roger set over his County of Scrobesbury. He afterwards mentions the Sheriff Guarin and Picot de Sai as two of the Chiefs (proceres) whom the Earl convoked on Feb. 24, 1083, when he vowed the foundation of Shrewsbury Abbey.

We may now pass to Domesday, which names 27 Manors consecutively as held by Picot, under Earl Roger. Clun, the greatest of them, is placed in Rinlau Hundred, and is thus described:-

Isdem Picot tenet Clune. Edric tenuit et liber homo tenuit. [2] Ibi XV hidae geldabiles. Terra est LX carucis. In dominio sunt II (carucae) et V Servi et X Villani et IIII Bordarii, cum V carucis, et Molinum serviens Curiae: et IIII Walenses reddunt II solidos et IIII denarios.

De hac terra tenet Walterus, de Picot, II hidas, et Picot Miles [3] III hidas, et Gisloldus II hidas. Hi habent III carucas, et II servos, et II Bovarios, et VIII Villanos, et IIII Bordarios, et II Waleis cum II carucis inter omnes. Ibi II Radmans reddunt II animalia de censu.

Totum Manerium, tempore Regis Edwardi valebat XXV libras, et post IIII libras: [4] modo, quod Picot habet (valet) VI Libras et V solidos: quod Milites (valet) IIII libras, V solidos minus. [5]

PICOT DE SAY was living in the time of Earl Hugh (1093-1098),

[1] Gallia Christiana, Vol. XI. pp. 152-3.
[2] Sic; but read fuit. Edric Sylvaticus is doubtless the person alluded to.
[3] Called Miles to distinguish him from his Suzerain.
[4] The period when Edric Savage's Manors were thus deprsciated, was immediately after the Conquest (supra, Vol. III. p. 49).
[5] Domesday, fo. 258, a, 2.

228 CLUN.

but we hear little of him after Domesday, and that little (connected with certain grants to Shrewsbury Abbey) has already been related under Brompton and Fitz. [1] It has also transpired that his son and successor, HENRY DE SAY, was living in the time of Henry I. The latest mention of his name is in a Charter of that King's, which probably passed in 1129 or 1130, and which confirms an exchange (apparently a recent one) made between Henry de Say and the Monks of Shrewsbury. At this rate, Henry de Say will have been living nearly 70 years after the time when he was mentioned in the Sagian Charter, above quoted. There is nothing inconsistent in this, for all that is said of Henry de Say in 1060 is compatible with his being then a mere child. [2]

HELIAS DE SAY, the next Baron of Clun, was probably son and heir of Henry. Something of his personal history will transpire under Wistanstow and Cheney-Longville. For the present it will be sufficient to state that his aera was nearly co-equal with the reign of Stephen, and that it was in the time of him or his predecessor, that Clun and Obley were withdrawn from any other Shropshire Hundred, and converted into an independent jurisdiction, known as the Honour, or Hundred, of Clun. The status of this Franchise was parallel in all points to that of Oswestry Hundred, as already described. In short it was not amenable to English Law.

ISABEL DE SAY (daughter and sole heir of Helias) married William fitz Alan (I), and the two privileged Franchises of Oswestry and Clun became united in one family. Hence, while tracing the fortunes of the House of Fitz Alan, we have had frequent allusions to the Castle and Barony of Clun; [3] allusions which it would be idle to repeat, except where they are explanatory of some point in our present subject. Isabel de Say, as in her own right Lady of Clun, of course carried the Barony to her second and third husbands. During the time of GEOFFREY DE VERE (her second husband) the Record known as the Liber Niger was compiled. This was in 1165; and we have De Vere's return of his wife's Barony in a form which separates it distinctly enough from his other tenures. I may say indeed at once that the Barony of Clun then consisted of 11 knights'-fees, 9 of which were of old, and 2 of new feoffment. [4] I do not here enter into the details of this return any further than to notice the case of William Picot, a tenant of one fee of old

[1] Supra, Vol. VI. pp. 169, 170; Vol. X. pp. 144-5.
[2] Vide supra, Vol. VII. p. 163.
[3] Vide supra, Vol. VII. pp. 160-164, 238, 241, 249, 252-3, 259.
[4] Liber Niger, I. 145, 146.


feoffment. I take him to have represented the Picot Miles of Domesday, but in what part of the Manor or Barony his estate lay, I have only been able to guess. Of that matter I will speak elsewhere.

Of WILLIAM BOTERELL, the third husband of Isabel de Say, I have spoken at large already, [1] and criticized the mode in which he was assessed to the scutages of the Barony of Clun. The grants, made by himself and his wife to Wenlock Priory, belong to the Church rather than to the Manor of Clun; but I should here notice an event which must have occurred during Boterell's seizin. I have elsewhere spoken of the battle of Radnor, fought in 1195-6, and claimed as a great victory by the Welsh Chronicler. [2] According to the same authority, Prince Rees came to this field of Radnor, flushed with a previous success. After a long siege and many a fierce assault, he had stormed Clun Castle and reduced it to ashes. [3]

WILLIAM FITZ ALAN (II) enjoyed the Barony of Clun for about eleven years (1199-1210), which intervened between his mother's and his own death. At the Assizes of 1203, a space is left on the Roll for the presentments of the Villate of Clune. This was either inadvertent, or there was some doubt whether the Honour of Clun was exempt from suit to the Assizes. The absence of any entry under such a heading, probably shows the real state of the case, viz. that no Jurors appeared for the Franchise.

In the year 1204 William fitz Alan gave King John a Fine of two coursers (catzuros) that he might annually hold a four days' Fair at his Oxfordshire Manor of Norton, and a three days' Fair at his Shropshire Manor of Clune. A Charter dated at Oxford on Sept. 8, 1204, secures the said privileges, Clun Fair being fixed for St. Martin's day (Nov. 11) and the two days following. [4]

The Scutages, assessed or not assessed, on the Barony of Clun during the seizin of the second William fitz Alan were six in number. In 1201 he was assessed on 5 Fees (viz. 10 merks, at 2 merks per fee) to King John's second scutage. He paid the charge, and was quit. The third Scutage, in 1202, was, in respect of the Fee of Clun, a repetition of the second. The fourth scutage, in 1203, was assessed on only 10 fees of William fitz Alan's whole Barony, but what fees these were does not appear. To the scutage of 1204 Fitz Alan was not assessed at all; of the scutages of 1205 and 1206 he had special acquittance. In the year 1214 Clun was in the King's hand by reason of the minority of-

[1] Supra, Vol. VII. pp. 160-162.
[2] Supra, Vol. IV. p. 309.
[3] Powel's Chronicle, p. 180.
[4] Rot. Chart. 6 John, m. 11.

230 CLUN.

WILLIAM FITZ ALAN (III). A Tallage of 10 merks was set upon the Manor as if it were Royal demesne. Moreover Thomas de Erdinton, being then Custos of the Barony of Clun, as distinct from that of Oswestry, was assessed to the Scutage of Poitou, in a most unintelligible manner. The rate was 3 merks per fee; and Erdinton was charged 18 on 9 fees of old, and 16 on 8 fees of new, feoffment, which fees, says the Record, had been Geoffrey de Vere's. The mistake probably consisted in adding to the Fees of Clun, many other fees which Geoffrey de Vere had held elsewhere, and by a different title. Of course Erdinton never paid the impost. The next year we have seen Clun mentioned as one of the Castles which had previously been in the custody of Thomas de Erdinton. It was here too that William fitz Alan (III) died, about Easter 1215. [1]

JOHN FITZ ALAN (I) became seized of the Barony of Clun in the Autumn of 1217, when his late rebellion was condoned. A Charter which must have passed within the next ten years shows something of the officers employed by him in the Barony.-

"Meyler, son of Richard de Clun gives to Haghmon Abbey, for the souls of himself and his wife, Isabel, an annual rent of 2s., to be paid in that bake-house (furno) in the Vill of Clun which he had from Sir John fitz Alan. He will pay the said rent during his life, and his assigns will pay it afterwards. His testibus, Domino Willielmo de Draytona [2] tunc Seneschallo Domini Johannis filii Alani (de) toto Hundredo de Cluna, Helia de Costentin tunc Constabulario de Cluna".

The suspicions entertained in 1233 as to the Loyalty of John fitz Alan, [3] seem to have deprived him for a time of the custody of Clun Castle. The Pipe-Roll of that year shows that Baldwin de Vere and nine other Knights were in the King's pay and service at Clun. A Writ-Close of June 14, 1233, is dated at Worcester, and orders John fitz Alan to deliver to Walter de Beauchamp such hostages as the said Walter shall name. A Patent, dated at Hereford on Nov. 3, 1233, enjoins all Tenants in the Chatellany of Clun to give heed to Baldwin de Vere in respect of all services of Castle-guard due at Clun; and a second Patent orders John fitz Alan himself, that he should look to such service being done for the said Baldwin.

The Scutages assessed on John fitz Alan (I) were eight in number, but not one of them seems to have touched his Barony of Clun

[1] Supra, Vol. X. pp. 326, 327.
[2] Vide supra, Vol. VIII. p. 283.
[3] Supra, Vol. VII. p. 252.
[4] In the Scutages of 1229, 1230, 1231, and 1232, John fitz Alan is assessed indeed, both on 9 fees "of Geoffrey de Vere" and on 22 fees of John fitz Alan. His acquittances are on the last item only, but he never paid anything on the first.


I suppose its immunity from such a charge was asserted, if not recognized. His assessment to the Aid of 1235 was another thing. "Thirty-two fees of old feoffment" must, I think, have included the Fees of Clun, but it is doubtful whether the corresponding charge was paid. [1]

A Feodary of the "Barony of Cloune", drawn up about 1240-1, will belong also to the year of John fitz Alan's decease. It enumerates 9 knights'-fees as constituting the Barony. [2]

JOHN FITZ ALAN (II) had livery in 1243, and died about October 1267. The Aid of 1245 was assessed at the usual rate on John fitz Alan's 22 fees, and also on the 9 fees, which we know to have represented the Barony of Clun, but there is no evidence that the full charge was paid. In the Scutage-Roll of 1246 the same 9 fees are charged and acquitted. In the Aid-Roll of 1254 they are again charged, but the question of payment seems problematical. A special and distinct acquittance "de IX feodis que fuerunt Galfridi de Ver" is recorded in favour of John fitz Alan on the Scutage-Roll of 1260. The Inquisition taken on the death of John fitz Alan in 1267 gives the revenues of the Villata de Clawne as 12. 19s. 10d. per annum, [3] a sum which, considering the then state of the Border and the energy of Lewellyn, indicates a very large if not a very secure, property. The Manor of Clun, as co-extensive with the Hundred, was, I presume, the estate valued. Whatever therein was held by military service, and not by a fixed rent, was excluded from the calculation.

JOHN FITZ ALAN (III) died on March 18, 1272, leaving his son Richard a mere child. This circumstance, and the long minority which ensued, caused the value and appurtenances of this Barony to be fully investigated. An Extent or valuation of this kind was taken at Clun Castle on June 21, 1272, before three special Commissioners, viz. Sir G. Talebot, Sir John de Surrey, and Roger de Wardinton, and by the following Jurors, viz. William fitz Henry of Clun, William Bonelle, Elias Erre, Hugh le Flaper, Hugh Piart,

[1] Vide supra, Vol. VII. p. 263.
[2] Testa de Nevill, p. 45.
[3] Inquis. 52 Hen. III. No. 37. The following passage in the Inquest shows the state of the Border. Dominus (de Clun) recepit annuatim, ad sustentacionem Lardarii sui, X solidos ds Walecheria que est in manu sua. Preterea, circa Forestam de Clun est multa Walecheria que multum solebit valere Domino, tam in dominicis redditibus quam in aliis perquisitis et exitibus; de qua non possumus ad presens facere extencionem propter disturbacionem Walensium factam per Lewelinum filium Griffini et balivos suos.- Yet this Inquest was taken less than three months after the Treaty of Montgomery.

232 CLUN.

Hugh Provost, John de Hope, Nicholas fitz Elias, Henry Pemmawe, David Miller, Walter fitz Richard, and Roger Clerk.- "Clun Castle", said these Jurors, "was small but pretty well built. The roof of the Tower wanted covering with lead, and the bridge wanted repairing. Outside the Castle was a Bailey, enclosed with a foss, and a certain gate, in the Castle-wall thereabouts, had been begun (but not finished). The buildings in the said Bailey, viz. a Grange, a stable, and a bakehouse, were in a weak state. In the town of Clun there were 183 Burgages, and 22 Burgages had tenements in the assarts of the Manor. Clun Market, held on Saturdays, produced 10 per annum. Two Fairs of three days each were held at Martinmas (Nov. 11) and at the Feast of Pancrace, Nereus, and Achilles (May 12). They realized 6 per annum. A Tallage assessable by the Lord of Clun, whenever the King had a Tallage, produced 5. The Pleas of the Free-Court realized 2, the Pleas and perquisites of the Portmote 2 merks, per annum. Robert le Clerk paid a rent of 24 horse-shoes or 12d. for his Smithy. Certain of the Burgesses were bound to provide 20 men, each to accompany the Lord of Clun four days yearly on his hunting excursions". [1]

In the subsequent partition of the Fitz Alan estates the Manor of Clun (with the exception of certain members thereof), the Castle of Clun, and two-thirds of the Ward due at the said Castle, from the Knights of the Honour of Clun, were assigned to the King, the whole tangible value thereof being 82. 9s. 5d. per annum. [2] I have already shown how the King, in fulfilment of a previous promise, consigned Clun Castle with the above and other revenues (making up 100 per annum) to Roger de Mortimer, father-in-law of the deceased Baron:- to hold to the said Roger till the heir should attain his majority. [3]

There is some discrepancy in the above Inquest as to the number of Knights'-fees which at this period composed the Honour of Clun. Ten fees and their holders are first specified; but, in speaking of the service of Castle-guard, only 9 fees are alluded to, viz. nine which

[1] Inquis. 56 Hen. III., No. 36.
[2] The Ward was valued at 6. 15s. per annum in time of war, and in peace it was valueless. No part of this item of 6. 15s. was reckoned in the total of 82. 9s. 5d., apparently because it was not tangible revenue. The Knights of the Honour moreover did their quota of ward at their own charges. The Inquest states as much;- I suppose to show that the Revenue assigned to the King was net revenue, and not liable to deduction on account of Castle-Guard.

The way in which the Ward, due at the Castle, was valued, is curious.- Nine knights'-fees, each owing 40 days' ward, by a serviens and a horse, at 4d. per day, will realise the exact amount of 6. 15s.
[3] Supra, Vol. VII. pp. 258, 259. See also Vol. X. p. 331.


owed, and half-a-fee which did not owe, the said service. Again the subsequent partition of general knights'-services, between the King and John fitz Alan's widow, shows a third and different total, of 10 fees. Of these 7 and one sixth were assigned to the King, and 3 and a third to the Widow. I may quit this subject with stating the names of those members of Clun Manor, which were excepted from the King's allotment and assigned to the Widow. They were Obele (now Obley), Pertheroder (now Pentryhodry), Owendriffe (now Hobendrid), Olbaris (now Hobbaris), Larguenhopp (now Lurkenhope), Eileston (now lost), and Moneton subtus Portelok (now Menutton). A Writ Close, dated at Rhuddlan on Nov. 7, 1282, informs the Sheriff that he had unadvisedly seized the Castle of Clun on the death of Roger de Mortimer, "since it had been granted to the said Roger till the heir should be of age". The Sheriff is ordered to give it up to the said Roger's Executors, in furtherance of their execution of his Will. [1]

On August 29, 1293, "Richard, Earl of Arundel, and Lord of Clonne", being at Clun, expedited a Charter, whereby his Welsh Tenants, in the district called Tempsett, became entitled to new privileges, for which they paid a Fine of 200. The said privileges were,- (1) a right of Chace throughout the whole of Tempsett, except in Clun Forest, in Kingsteth (Kingsley Wood, near Knighton), and in the Earl's demesnes;- (2) a right of appeal to Jury in any Plea or Suit, instead of the accused person being, as heretofore, compelled to answer, de verbo in verbum, to the questionings of the Court;- (3) exemption from the seizure of a tenant's cattle, corn, or goods, against the tenant's will: but, if such goods were offered for sale, the Lord was to have them (if he chose) at the best market-price, payable within 40 days. The above Charter was attested by nine Welshmen, three of whom appear to have belonged to the King's Honour of Montgomery, three to Mortimer's Honour of Melenyth, and three to the Bishop of Hereford's Honour of Lydbury.

An Inquest, held at Clun on June 3, 1302, [2] to value the estates of Richard, late Earl of Arundel, found Clun Castle to be worth no more than the expenses of its maintenance, which would be upwards of 20 per annum. In the Town of Clun were 85 Burgesses paying a collective rent of 4. 5s. There were two Water-Mills at Clun. The Walescheria of Clun included the following items, viz. the hamlets of Aderdeley and Bikedon (Bickton), yielding rents of 4. 1s. 9d. yearly; the hamlet of Hodicote, yielding

[1] Claus. 10 Edw. I., m. 1.
[2] Inquisitions, 30 Edw. I., No. 30.

234 CLUN.

10s. 9d.; the hamlet of New Castle, yielding 1. 8s.;- also certain Welsh Tenants living in Temsete (Tempsiter) [1] paid, every other year, a due or custom called Treth-Cinidion. [2] It had been collected in the previous year. The gross annual revenue from the above sources, and from the vills or hamlets of Aston, Hopesay, Berley, Clunton, Kempeton, Acton, and Doune-Herberd, was 70. 6s. 5d.

On October 18, 1317, Edmund, Earl of Arundel, being at Clun, received a complaint from his Tenants of Tempsitt as to the excessive number of Bailiffs employed by the Earl in that district. The Earl, by Charter, reduces the number to one Provost with his Serviens, one Steward with two Under-Bailiffs, and one Serviens for Keryvaldewyne.
[3] The Earl promises to take such security from all future Officers as will cover and satisfy any trespasses, which they may commit in discharge of their functions, so that the community shall no longer be chargeable with the offences of the said Bailiffs. If the new plan should not work well, both for the Earl and his people, he reserves a power of appointing future Officers from among the men of Tempsitt. Witnesses,- Sir John de Blankmoster, and Walter de Huggeford, Knights; the Abbot of Haghmon; Roger de Cheny, then Steward; and.Thomas de Wynsbury.

On January 8, 1326, Edmund, Earl of Arundel, being at Haughmond, confirms to his Burgesses of the town of Clun all the lands, liberties, and customs which they had enjoyed under his ancestors. He also pardons and quitclaims to his said Burgesses all penalties or measures of retaliation which might arise from their having recently adhered to Roger de Mortimer, "the King's enemy and rebel", when the said Roger had visited Clun Castle and taken the fealty of the Burgesses. Witnesses,- William le Botyler, William de Ercalawe, and Walter de Hugford, Knights; Roger Carles, and Alexander de Shavynton.

[1] The Honour or Hundred of Clun is at the present day divided into three portions, viz. the Borough of Clun, the Five-towns Manor, and Tempsiter Manor. The Five-towns Manor contains five townships; but Tempsiter Manor contains twenty-three townships, and comprises the South-western and greater half of the whole Honour. The Temsete of the text must be understood to imply a far less extensive district than the modern Tempsiter.
[2] For previous mention of this biennial tax I refer to Vol. X. pp. 331, 334; Vol. XI. p. 16, n. My attempt to investigate tho terms Kylek, Treth Cynidion, and their synonymes, etymologically, has not been attended with any satisfactory result.
[3] A part of Kerry, of which the Fitz Alms had become possessed. I presume Kerry Valdewyne to have been so called from Baldwin de Bollers, Lord of Montgomery, who probably had a Seigneury over the district in Henry I.'s time.


The sequel of this Deed, is a well known story. [1] Within a feW months the Earl became a victim of the Rebel Mortimer's treachery, and perished on the Scaffold. Mortimer, for a time, enjoyed his forfeited estates, and then met with a like fate.

A Writ dated at Berwick-upon-Tweed, and which I take to have passed on July 21, 1333, shows Richard, Earl of Arundel, fully restored to his Seigneury at Clun. The Writ in question is merely a warrant to Alexander de Shavington (the Earls Steward for the Marches) to release one Lawrence Pricket, who had been imprisoned in Clun Castle on a charge of felony and robbery, but who had found Manucaptors for his enlargement. The said Manucaptors were Sir John de Leyburn and Sir Robert Corbet, whom the Earl calls "our well-beloved Cousins"; also Sir Roger le Strange and Sir William de Ercallewe.


There is nothing in the Domesday notice of Clun to indicate a pre-existent Church; nevertheless we are sure that here was one of those great Saxon Foundations, whose Parishes we hardly venture to define, for fear of falling short of the reality. Some idea of the original extent of Clun Parish, and of the number of its Chapelries, will result from the following particulars.- I suppose it to have been in the time of Richard I. and when Isabel de Say was the wife of a third husband (William Boterell), that she determined on granting the Advowson of Clun and of all its Chapels to Wenlock Priory. Her Charter on the subject runs as follows.-

"Sciant presentes et futuri quod ego Ysabella de Sai, domina de Cluna, dedi, concessi, et hac presenti carta mea confirmavi, pro amore Dei et pro salute animae meae, et pro salute domini Willielmi filii Alani [3] et mei, et pro anima patris mei et matris meae et omnium antecessorum et successorum meorum, Ecclesiam Sancti Georgii de Cluna, quae est de proprio feodo meo, et de donatione mei, [4] cum

[1] See Dugdale's Baronage, Vol. I. p. 316.
[2] The Charters epitomized on this and the two preceding pages are taken (with some trifling alterations) from a paper read to a meeting of the Archaeological Institute at Shrewsbury, in August 1855, and since privately printed. I am indebted to the author of the paper (Thomas Salt, Esq., of Shrewsbury) for my knowledge of these documents.
[3] "Pro amore Dei et pro salute mea et pro salute Domini Willielmi filii Alani, et pro anima", are the words of this clause, as preserved in another copy of the same Grant, among the Duke of Sutherland's Muniments at Trentham.
[4] The words "quae est de proprio feodo meo et de donatione mea", are omitted in the Trentham Copy.

288 CLUN.

omnibus Capellis ad eam pertinentibus: scilicet, cum Capella Sancti Thomae ejusdem Villae, et cum capella Sanctae Mariae de Waterdene, et capella Sancti Swithuni de Clumbirie, et capella Sancta Mariae de Cluntune, et capella Sanctie Mariae de Oppetune, et capellis de Eggedune et Sibbedune, et omnibus aliis capellis et pertinenciis, cum jure patronatus predictae Ecclesiae Sancti Georgii et predictarum capellarum eidem pertinentium, in puram et perpetuam elemosinam, Deo et Sanctae Milburgae de Wenloch, et monachis ibidem Deo servientibus. Quare volo quod praedicti Monachi praedictam Ecclesiam cum omnibus pertinentiis suis, in terris, in pratis, in bosco et plano, et in omnibus aliis rebus ad eam pertinentibus, bene et in pace libere et quiete, et honorifice, habeant et possideant, sicut aliquod Monasterium liberius, quietius, et honorificentius aliquod tenet beneficium ecclesiasticum, [1] ita quod nullus de haeredibus meis elemosinam istam a me factam, in libera potestate mea, diminuere vel infirmare praesumat. Qui autem eam servaverit, benedictione Dei et mea gaudeat. Qui autem eam infringere attemptaverit maledictionem Dei et meam incurrat. Et ut haec mea donatio et concessio rata et perpetua perseveret, eam praesentis sigilli mei munimine roboravi. Hiis testibus, Brientio de Jai, [2] Rogero Anglico, Petro de Oppetuna, Huberto de Buchenill, Hugone Peverell, Johanne Camerario, Roberto de Camera, Willielmo Capellano, Warino de Burewardesley, Philippo de Linleg, [3] et multis aliis". [4]

William Boterell's contemporary Charter runs as follows.-

"Sciant praesentes et futuri quod ego Willielmus de Boterell dedi et concessi et hac carta mea confirmavi et sigilli mei impressione roboravi in puram et perpetuam elemosinam, pro salute animae meae et Willielmi filii mei, Deo et Stae Milburgae de Wenloke et monachis ibidem Deo servientibus donationem quam Domina Isabella de Say, uxor mea, eis dedit super ecclesia Sti Georgii de Clune cum omnibus capellis et terris, et omnibus aliis ad eam pertinentibus, libere et quiete possidendam, juxta tenorem cartae quam praedicti monachi habent inde de praefata Domina Isabella de Say. His testibus, Brientio de Say (read Jay), Rogero Anglico, Petro de Uptune, Huberto de Bechevill, Hugone Peverell, Johanne Camerario, Roberto de Camera, Willielmo Capellano, Warino de Burwardele, et multis aliis". [5]

[1] The words, "sicut aliquod Monasterium liberius, quietius et honorificentius aliquod tenet beneficium ecclesiasticum", are omitted in the Trentham Copy.

[2] [3] Gai; Lingleg or Lillileg (in the Trentham Copy).
[4] Patent. 22 Edw. III., p. 2, m 12.
[5] Monasticon, V. p. 76, Num. V.




[For engravings, see pdf.]


I have already commented on these two Charters, their probable dates, and the relationships which they indicate. [1] The next Charter to be set forth is that of William fitz Alan (II), son and heir of Isabel de Say and step-son of William Boterell. It probably passed between 1205 and 1210 and after his mother's decease.-

"Universis Sanctae Matris Ecclesiae filiis ad quos presens scriptum pervenerit Willielmus filius Alani salutem. Noverit universitas vestra me, ex inspectione cartae venerabilis matris meae Ysabelae de Say, quam super donacione Ecclesiae Sancti Georgii de Cluna Sanctae Milburgae de Wenlok et monachis ejusdem loci, caritatis intuitu, fecit, concessisse et hac carta mea confirmasse, pro animabus patris et matris, meae et omnium ancessorum meorum, et pro salute mea et omnium successorum meorum, in liberam et puram et perpetuam elemosinam, Deo et Sanctae Milburgae de Wenlok et Monachis ibidem Deo servientibus praedictam Ecclesiam Sancti Georgii de Cluna (etc. as in Isabel de Say's Charter) pertinentium. Quare volo quod praedicti Monachi praedictam Ecclesiam cum omnibus pertinenciis habeant et possideant sicut aliquod (etc. as in Isabel de Say's Charter) tenet beneficium ecclesiasticum, ita quod nullus de haerebus meis elemosinam istam a matre mea et a me factam diminuere vel infirmare praesumat. Qui autem (etc. as in Isabel de Say's Charter) roboravi. Hiis testibus; Willielmo filio meo, et Johanne fratre ejus, qui interfuerunt hujus cartae donacioni; Willielmo de Botterell, et Roberto nepote ejus; Stephano de Stauntun, Warino de Willileg, Philippo filio Willielmi, Waltero de Munintun, Alano Pauntun, Hugone de Wronkelawe; Warino Vivian; [2] Philippo Clerico de Parva Wenlok et multis aliis". [3]

Hugh Foliot, Bishop of Hereford, allowed the Monks of Wenlock to appropriate the Church of Clun and all its Chapels; the object being to create a fund for the fabric and maintenance of the Conventual Church of St. Milburg. The Bishop's Charter, which probably passed between 1219 and 1224 runs in brief as follows.- "Hugo Foliot Herefordensis Episcopus, etc. Considerantes quod Monachi (de Wenlock) nullas habeant facultates nec aliqua beneficia ad fabricam vel refectionem Ecclesiae Sancta Milburgae, etc., ecclesiam de Clun cum capellis, etc., concessimus in fabricam, et

[1] Supra, Vol. VII. pp. 162, 163.
[2] This witness is probably the person elsewhere called Warin fitz Hugh and Vivian de Rosshall (supra, Vol. X., pp. 87, 88). If so, the name Vivian, originally an agnomen, became in this instance a praenominem. We have seen the Norman sobriquet, Picot, pass through the same phases (supra, p. 225).
[3] Wenlock Chartulary (Fragment, bound up with the Lilleshall Chartulary at Trentham), fos. 23, 24.

238 CLUN.

Hymbertum Priorem et Conventum, Personas instituimus, salva competenti Vicaria Capellano. Hiis testibus, Magistro Thoma Foliot Thesaurario Hereford', Adam de Ledebiry, Willielmo de Dudelebiry, Magistro Roberto Haket Canonico Hereford', Elia Canonico Lanthoniae, Magistro Willielmo Platun, Adam de Salopia Canonico Hereford', etc.". In dating this License I have been partly guided by a Suit, which was tried at the Shrewsbury Assizes of November, 1221, and which, I think, indicates the previous appropriation of Clun Church. The question was "whether 20 acres in Clumbir' (Clunbury) were free almoign pertaining to the Church of Clune, whereof Walter Chaplain was Parson, or were the lay-fee of John and Lewelin (Plaintiffs)". Walter, Chaplain, appeared in Court, and stated that "he was neither Parson nor Vicar (of Clune), nor did he claim anything in Clun Church, for that Radulf de Clumbiry was Vicar". The latter, being also in Court, confirmed this statement, and the case was dismissed sine die. [1]

It appears to me that eventually both the first and the second John fitz Alan braved the malediction pronounced by their Ancestors, and deprived the Monks of Wenlock of their precious acquisition. Certainly in 1249 the Prior of Wenlock was not Rector of Clun. A Suit was then tried as to whether "a virgate in Posselawe (Purslow) was almoign, pertaining to the Church of Clone, whereof Egidius was Parson (i.e. Rector), or the lay-fee of John de Dawell". John surrendered the premises.

About the year 1270 (as I take it) Master Giles de Avenbury (prohably identical with Egidius, above-named), being Treasurer of Hereford, was also Rector of Clun. He resigned the latter preferment, and forthwith John fitz Alan (III) confirmed it to Wenlock Priory. Hence we have a Charter of John de Breton, Bishop of Hereford, dated at London on January 21, 1270-1, wherein he recapitulates the Charters of Ysabel de Say, and of William fitz Alan, her son and heir, and the collation of Bishop Hugh Foliot. He then alludes to the loss of the Advowson by Wenlock Priory, the resignation of Master Giles de Avenbury, and the recent confirmation (i.e. restoration) by "John, son of John fitz Alan". Bishop Breton concludes by confirming Wenlock Priory in its right of appropriation. A second confirmation, to the same effect, is dated Aug. 14, 1271, and purports to be "with the consent of the Chapter of Hereford". A Westminster Plea-Roll of Easter Term, 1271, shows John fitz Alan's act of restitution certified in legal form. "The

[1] Assizes, 6 Hen. III., m. 7 dorso.


Prior of Wenlock gives 2 merks for license to accord with John, son of John fitz Alan, in a Plea of Charter-warranty". It is intimated on the Roll that a "Cyrograph" or Fine resulted from the above conventional suit; and I actually find such a document to be in existence. It is dated at Westminster in the Quinzaine of Easter, 55 Hen. III. (1271). It is "between Aymo, Prior of Wenlock, Plaintiff (through Richard le Porcer, his Attorney), and John, son of John fitz Alan, Impedient, of 3 acres in Clune and the Advowson of the Church of that Manor, whereof had been plea of Charter-warranty. John acknowledges the right of the Prior, as by his (John's) gift; the premises to be held of the said John and his heirs in free almoign, without any service". The Prior in turn receives the Recognizor into all prayers and benefits of his House, etc. Besides this, a Charter of "John fitz Alan, Lord of Arundel, to Aymo, Prior of Wenlock" is preserved, and is, I presume, the instrument to which Bishop Breton's Charter and the above Convention and Fine referred. The said John gives to Wenlock Priory "three acres of arable land in the vill of Clone which had been formerly held by Avota Ambeliry, whereof one lay between the royal road which led towards Clunton and the land of Hugh Flaper, and two acres lay between the land of Nicholas fitz Enee, and the land of Reginald le Roter, outside the gate of St. Thomas of Clun". He also gives "the Advowson of the Church of St. George of Clun, and of the Chapels pertaining thereto, saving to himself his free Chapels, viz. the Chapel within Clun Castle and any others, if it should happen that he should found any New Castle, with a Chapel, within the limits of the Parish of St. George". Moreover, he gives to the Priory "all his right in the Chapel of St. Mary of Waterdene". For this the Prior and Convent made him a participator in all the prayers, etc., of their House. Witnesses,- Sir Adam Gordon, Sir Walter de Hopton, Sir Peter de Chauvent, Sir Walter de Pedewardyn, Sir Adam de Stretton, Clerk of the Lord King; John de Pageham, and John de Houton. [1]

On May 19, 1281, John (de Peckham), Archbishop of Canterbury, having recently visited his Province, and being again at Lambeth, confirms Wenlock Priory in its possession (inter alia) of the "Church of Clun, with all its Chapels and appurtenances". [2] On June 11, 1281, Thomas, Prior of Christ Church, Canterbury, inspects, recites, and confirms the Charter of the Archbishop. [3]

It is singular that, in his Visitation of 1290, Bishop Swinfield

[1] [2] [3] Patent. 23 Edw. III. (ut supra).

240 CLUN.

avoided Clun (tbe mother Church), and visited Clunbury (the Chapelry). He was at the latter place on May 12, taking it en route from Bishop's Castle to Wigmore. Nothing of the visit is recorded, save what pertained to the kitchen.and the stable. "The Prior of the place" (meaning the Prior of Wenlock) supplied corn and provender, gratuitously, for 34 horses of the Bishop's Suit.

In the Valor of 1291 the first entry under the Deanery of Clone, says that "the Church of Clone, with its Chapels, is the Prior of Wenlock's and worth 36. 13s. 4d. per annum". This was the Rectory. "The Vicar's Portion in the same was worth 5 per annum". [1] On May 23, 1331, the Prior of Wenlock, in the Parish Church of Wenlock, exhibited his Muniments to Thomas (de Cherlton) Bishop of Hereford, then visiting his Diocese. The Prior's title to the Parish Church of Clone and its dependent Chapels was satisfactorily proved. The said Chapels were, the Chapel of St. Thomas in the Vill of Clone, and the Chapels of Clountone, Clonebury, Eggedon, Sibbeton, Hopton, Watirden, and Bechous (Bettws y Crwn). [2]

In 1341 the Taxation of the Ninth did not reach the Manor of Clun or the Church of St. George, though it extended to several of its Chapels. The reason probably was that no Fiscal Officer of the Crown might set foot in Fitz Alan's peculiar jurisdiction.

On July 26, 1348, King Edward III. inspected and confirmed the Charters of Isabel de Say, Bishop Hugh Foliot, John fitz Alan (III), Bishop Breton, Archbishop Peckham, and Thomas Prior of Canterbury, concerning the Advowson, of Clun, etc., given to Wenlock Priory.

The Spiritualities of Wenlock Priory in 1369 were estimated at 108. Of this sum 50 came from the Rectory of Cloon. [3] An extent, made on September 6, 1379, puts the said Spiritualities at 117. 3s. 4d., of which 44. 6s. 8d. was the net annual value of the appropriate Church of Clone with its annexed Chapels. The Vicarage of Clone was at the same time valued at 10 per annum. [4]

A Valuation of Great Tithes receivable by Wenlock Priory, and probably drawn up in the beginning of Henry VIII.'s time, will proximately show the real extent of the ancient Parish of Clun. The reckoning is made under three principal heads, and may be represented'as follows.-

[1] Pope Nich. Taxation, p. 167.
[2] Patent. 22 Edw. III., p. 3, m. 34.
[3] Register at Willey, fo. 36.
[4] Monasticon, V. 78. b.


CLUNBURY. Clunton 4; Kympton (Kempton) 4; Obley 2; Coston [1] 1; Clunbury and Purslow 2. 6s. 8d.; Corston [1] 1. Total 14. 6s. 8d.

WATERDENE. Iskeboru (Skyborrah) 1. 13s.; Trebyrt (Treberth) 1; Solley (Selley) 6s. 8d.; Waterden (Llanvair Waterdine) 13s. 4d.; Kyllwyllsey (Chewilsey) 16s. 8d.; Monyth-Estney (Menethesney) 8s. 4d. Total 4. 18s. 8d. (sic).

CLUN. Monyttyn (Menutton) 10s.; Hobarys (Hobbaris) 13s. 4d.; Porth-redye (Pentryhodry) 15s.; Hobendryd 2. 5s.; Perlloye (Perlogue) 1; Treburward (Treverward) 16s.; Westun 8s.; Whytcott Jevan (Whitcott Evan) 6s. 8d.; Ffad (Spoad) 1; Newcastell 1.; Yutcott Kysett (Whitcott Keyset) 2. 13s. 4d.; Chadwall (Shadwell) 13s. 4d.; Byctun (Bickton) 1; Collsty (?) 1. 6s. 8d.; Atton (Acton) 6s. 8d.; Bott-howse (?) 5s. 8d.; Cloun (Clun) 13s. 4d.; Downe ***; Purslow 1. 4s.; St. Thomas's Chapell 13s. 4d.; Sybtun (Sibdon) 6s. 8d.; Clobury [2] (?) 6s. 8d.; Thomas Mason 2s. 6d. Total 18. 4s. 6d. (sic).-

GROSS TOTAL 37. 9s. 10d. [3]

The Valor of 1534-5, gives the Prior of Wenlock's Rectory of Clun, as worth 34. 13s. 4d. per annum in corn-tithes. The Prior had now also a Pension of 13s. 4d. from the Rector (read Curate) of Clunbury. In the Ministers' Accounts (1541-2) the Ferm of Clun Rectory is again put at 34. 13s. 4d.; but the late Priory had also been in receipt of 1. 16s. 8d. rent, from lands (probably appropriated glebe) in Clunbury and Clun; viz. for a tenement held at will, 2d.; from a tenement held by copy of Court-roll, 10s.; and from a tenement demised by indenture 1. 6s. 6d. [4]

Meanwhile the Valor of 1534-5, by some unaccountable accident, omits to make any mention of a Vicar or Vicarage of Clun.


WALTER, Chaplain, was probably Rector of Clun, in or shortly before November 1221, when the Rectory had apparently been appropriated. [5]

RADULPH DE CLUMBIRY, probably first Vicar of Clun, occurs in November 1221.

ROBERT DE VERE is spoken of as "sometime Rector of Clun

[1] Coston, or Corston, is mentioned twice. Perhaps the tithes were farmed in two portions; or perhaps there were two placss of nearly identical name.
[2] This cannot be Clunbury.
[3] Register at Willey, fo. 41.
[4] Monasticon, Vol. V. page 81-b.
[5] Supra, page 238.

242 CLUN.

and of its Chapels". This is in an Inquest taken in 1347. I am doubtful whether to place De Vere's aera before 1221, or between 1221 and 1249, when the Fitz Alans had repossessed themselves of the Advowson.

EGIDIUS, Rector of Clun in 1249, was probably a Presentee of Fitz Alan, and identical with-

MASTER GILES DE AVENBURY, who resigned the Rectory in 1270-1. This Giles was Dean of Hereford from 1271 to Sept. 19, 1278, when he died, or resigned.

JOHN DE CLONE, Priest, was instituted to the Vicarage of Clone on August 14, 1298. Patrons,- the Prior and Convent of Wenlock.

ADAM DE ASHFORD, Chaplain, was presented to the Vicarage by a Patent of the year 1349, the King being Patron as having Wenlock Priory in his hand.

ROGER PAGYN, Chaplain, presented by a similar Patent of August 16, 1349, was instituted on August 30, following. [1]


These places now form one Township. Its ancient status seems to have been quite anomalous. If we suppose it to have been one of the original members of Clun and to have been involved therein at Domesday, we ought to determine why it did not follow Clun when that Manor, and its members in general, were annexed to the new Hundred of Clun. Several reasons may be assigned for this. Acton and Down may have constituted the Feoffment of Gisloldus or of Picot Miles, as alluded to in the Domesday notice of Clun. A Free Tenant, thus enfeoffed, may have had good grounds for objecting to be thrown into the exclusive jurisdiction which was established for the Central Manor. He may have preferred to stay among his Pares in Purslow Hundred. Or again, the township of Acton and Down was geographically cut off from the central Manor of Clun. Guilden-Down stood in the interval; and Guilden-Down was a place of whose early history or original connection with Clun we know nothing, but which we only know to have been a distant and extraordinary isolation of the Hundred of Chirbury. [2] Again, there is something anomalous in the parochial status of Acton and

[1] Patent. 23 Edw. III., p. 2, m. 10.
[2] A Fitz Alan inquest of 21 Richard II. (1397-8) gives Thomas Yonge as holding a knight's-fee in Sybeton, and a knight's-fee in Gilesdoune and Weston. Sibdon, Guildendown, and Weston (near Stow) are the places indicated. They are distant from each other and were not connected as to tenure in the 13th century. The early history of Guildendown and the cause of its anomalous position in Chirbury Hundred are wholly unknown to me.


Down,- something quite parallel to the manorial condition of the township. It is not in the Parish of Clun, but in the Parish of Lydbury North; and yet the Prior of Wenlock, as Rector of Clun, seems to have had the Great tithes of Acton and Down. [1] It is vain to suggest anything further on these anomalies. It is only wonderful that they are not more frequent in a district where disorganization and change must have been at constant issue with definite boundaries and known precedents.

Of Fitz Alan's Tenants at Acton and Down, I have the following particulars or suggestions to offer. The Liber Niger, or Feodary of 1165, gives William Picot as holding a knight's-fee, of old feoffment, in Clun Barony. [2] His tenure was possibly in Acton and Down, and he, perhaps a descendant of the Picot Miles who figures in the Domesday notice of Clun.

WILLIAM DE ACTON has occurred to us twice, in and about the year 1221, [3] and under circumstances which almost prove him to have been of this place.

ADAM DE ACTON has similarly occurred between the years 1221 and 1230. [3] In the latter year he is named on the Pipe-Roll as owing half a merk for some Fine, his Sureties being William Ged and William Awentr'. In 1255 Adam de Acton sat as 4th Juror on the Inquest for Purslow Hundred. He was found to be holding half a hide in Acton under John fitz Alan. He did Suit to Purslow Hundred and also to the Manorial Court of Clun; and was also bound to provide one foot-soldier, in garrison of Clun Castle, for four days in time of war. The Vill of Acton was geldable. [4]

At the Assizes of January 1256, I find William Pede withdrawing a suit of disseizin which he had against Adam de Acton concerning a tenement in Dune (Down). His sureties were Richard son of Richard Pede of Dune, and Thomas Pede of Acton. At a hearing of some cases, adjourned from the above Assizes to Worcester, Mable de Dune names Geoffrey Russel her Attorney in a suit of dower which she had against Johanna de Berkeley. [5]

[1] Supra, page 241.
[2] Liber Niger, Vol. I. p. 145.
[3] Supra, page 211.
[4] Rot. Hundred. II. 77.
[5] Johanna de Berkeley was daughter and heir of John le Engleys. In 1240 she was probably wife of Giles de Berkeley, a Clun Feudatory of whom we shall hear under Stow and Weston. In 1251 she was wife of Robert de Grendon, and in 1272 of Simon de Keringewyk (supra Vol. VI. pp; 153-155). Giles de Berkeley, of Woolstaston and Down in 1272, was probably son and heir of Johanna, by her first husband. I should have expected rather to have found him holding in Stow or Weston, than in Down;- but I have no direct evidence to support that idea.

244 CLUN.

In 1272 Upper Purslow, Munede, half Bukenhull, half Brome, and a half-virgate in Acton, were held by 9 different Feoffees, who jointly owed the service of a knight's-fee to John fitz Alan deceased. The respective Tenant of the half-virgate in Acton will have been Thomas de Acton. At the same time Dune juxta Clun was similarly held by Egidius de Berkeley for half a knight's-fee. [1] In the subsequent partition of fees, the services on both these tenements were assigned to the King, as guardian of young Richard fitz Alan.

At the Assizes of 1272 Thomas de Acton sat as 2nd Juror for Purslow Hundred. At the Assizes of 1292, the Purslow Jurors presented, how that Roger le Say of Doune, lying under an indictment for homicide, had in fraud and malice enfeoffed his son in his lands, so as to anticipate the coming of the King's Justices. It further appeared that he had been acquitted of the said homicide, the case being among the Placita Coronae of Stottesden Hundred.

An Inquest, taken at Clun, in June 1302, gives as part of the income of Richard, late of Arundel, 20s., receivable from the vill of Acton, and 28s. from the vill of Doune-Herberd.


Of any other original members of Clun, such I mean as may be supposed to have been implied in the Domesday account of the Manor, I can say no more than has transpired in my account of Clun itself. As to Mainstone and Reilth, they, together with Edenhope and Castle-Wright, form one Parish (that of Mainstone), the whole of which, except Castle-Wright, is now accounted to be in Shropshire. But I cannot say that Mainstone and Reilth were held under any English Suzerain before the 14th century, for we never hear of such places. I must therefore leave it undetermined whether they were involved in the Domesday Manor of Clun, or whether they were annexed to that Honour by conquest, before the subjugation of Wales, or by some conventional process, since. Even of-

MAINSTONE CHURCH, we hear nothing till after the Reformation. It is mentioned as in the Diocese of Hereford in the Visitation of Bishop Westfaling, A.D. 1587.


This place, with its townships of Kevencalloneg, Rugantin, and Trebrodier, now forms a part of Shropshire. It is again difficult to

[1] See page 343, note 5.

OBLEY. 245

say when they or any of them were first annexed to the territory of Clun;- whether before Domesday, or before or after the conquest of Wales. At any rate their manorial position and state for two centuries after Domesday will have been liable to constant fluctuations; and, even if the Barons of Clun claimed the territory, they probably derived nothing therefrom.

BETTWS CHURCH, on the other hand, is occasionally alluded to in a way which suggests that it was deemed to belong to English territory from a comparatively early period.- On August 5, 1276, Bishop Cantilupe writes to the (Rural) Dean of Pontesbury and tells him to denounce in general excommunication those who, contrary to the immunities of the Church of Hereford, had committed depredation and sacrilege in respect of the goods of the Prior of Alberbury and in respect of the "Chapel of Betteus which belonged in part to the Prior of Chirbury".

Again we have seen that in 1331 the Chapel of Bechous was recognized as a dependency of the Church of Clun, and as therefore belonging to the Prior of Wenlock. We hear no more of Bettws Chapel till after the Reformation. The Visitation-Book of Bishop Westfaling, in 1587, mentions it as in Hereford Diocese, and accounts Bettws y Crwn and Llanvair Waterdine to be united Curacies.

The Font of Bettws Church bespeaks an antiquity which written records are very far from reaching. This venerable symbol of the highest and purest faith survives for ages, in a district where Christianity, nay, civilization and humanity, were unmeaning sounds.

From the South-Western extremity of Shropshire, dim in the historical horizon, we return to a more familiar foreground and more tangible evidences.-


Isdem Picot tenet Obelie. AElmund tenuit. Ibi II hidae. Hae terrae (scilicet Berlie et Obelie) wastae fuerunt et sunt. [2]

When Picot's descendants procured Clun to be erected into an independent Franchise, Obley was the only other Manor in Rinlau

[1] Supra, page 240.
[2] Domesday, fo. 258, a, 2.


Hundred, which they were suffered to withdraw into their new jurisdiction. The situation of the place, and the probability that it was as yet unoccupied by any Feoffee, will account for this arrangement. Obley is now in the Hundred of Clun, and was anciently in the Parish of Clun; but it was annexed to the Chapelry of Clunbury when the latter became independent of the Mother Church.

Obley seems, from negative evidences, to have been uniformly held in demesne by the Lords of Clun, that is to say, we never hear of it in any other or secondary position.


WE now pass to a series of Manors;- all in the Domesday Hundred of Rinlau;- all held, in 1086, by Picot de Say;- none of them subsequently annexed to the peculiar jurisdiction of Clun;- and therefore all of them in the Hundred of Purslow at the present day. Domesday describes Clunbury as follows.- Isdem Picot tenet Cluneberie. Suen tenuit. Hoc Manerium nunquam geldavit nec hidatum fuit. T.R.E. valebat IIII libras. Ibi erant VI carucae. [1] Here the Record breaks off, but in noticing the next Manor, Chenpitune (Kempton), it adds matter relating to Clunbury also.- Terra in his duobus Maneriis (est) XIIII carucis. In dominio sunt IIII (carucae) et XIII servi et VIII Villani et II Bordarii cum V carucis; et II Waleis reddunt XIIII denarios. Ibi silva C porcis incrassandis et ibi III haiae. Haec duo Maneria valebant T.R.E. VIII libras, et post III libras; modo (valent) VI libras. [1]

ROGER ANGLICUS is registered in the Liber Niger (1165) as holding three-fourths of a knight's-fee, of new feoffment under Geoffrey de Vere, that is, under the Barony of Clun. [2] Probably this Roger was of Clunbury. In Richard I's time, Roger Anglicus [3] attests the Charters of Isabel de Say and William Boterell, conveying the Church of Clun, the Chapel of Clunbury, etc., to Wenlock

[1] Domesday, fo. 258, a, 1.
[2] Liber Niger, I. 146.
[3] This Roger Anglicus was perhaps of Woolstaston (Supra, Vol. VI. p. 152), if indeed the two families were distinct at this period. They were so afterwards, Roger of Woolstaston having left a son and heir, John.


Priory. The next whom I can suppose to have been in this succession is-

HUGH ANGLICUS, a Juror in some of the greater causes tried at the Assizes of 1221, and probably a knight. At these Assizes a curious case was heard, and though I cannot say that it concerned any part of Clunbury I think it may be relevant to land in the adjacent jurisdiction of Clun.- Hugh le Engleis sued Kenewerec de Dicheleg for disseizing him of his free tenement in Bygeyton. The Defendant "came not"; but John fitz Alan appeared in Court and tried to stop the case. He said that "the disputed land was of his fee, and of his franchise, where the King lays not his hand (non apponit manum suum) and where the King's Writs do not run, and on this point he appeals to the County-Court". The Judges ordered that the said Court should make record (i.e. certify the truth) of the averment; but meantime Hugh le Englies withdrew his suit; so he and his Sureties, viz. Hugh Budell and Roger de Laneleg, were in misericordia. [1] I find Hugh Anglicus amerced half a merk on the Pipe-Roll of 1221, quia retraxit se, but here his Surety is Richard Monetarius. In August 1226 Hugh Anglicus appears on a Jury of knightly persons who had to investigate certain matter's relating to the Stiperstones and other Forests of Thomas Corbet. About 1230 he stands first witness of a Haughmond Deed already set forth. [2] The Feodary of 1240 enumerates among the Fees of Clun Barony, one knight's-fee, held by Hugh Anglicus in Clounebury. [3] In January 1246 Hugh Anglicus appears on a Forest-Jury, and in 1248 on a Withyford Inquest. In 1249 he would seem to be deceased, for then Alina, widow of Hugh Anglicus, fines one merk for some Writ of Praecipe. We shall see, under Strefford and Marshbrook that Hugh Anglicus left a son and heir, still an infant in 1255, and in ward to John fitz Alan. Clunbury is not surveyed in the Purslow Hundred-Roll of 1255, but this minority of the heir will hardly have been the reason. Was it because the Domesday immunities of the Manor were still recognized? The son and heir of Hugh Anglicus was probably that-

JOHN LE ENGLEYS, who, on April 25, 1263, takes out a Writ of mort d'ancestre against John fitz Alan and Idel Velin, as holding his inheritance in Clunbiry, Brumpton, [4] Streford, and La Mershe. In June 1272 this John was deceased, again leaving an infant heir;

[1] Assizes, 6 Hen. III., m. 2 dorso.
[2] Supra, Vol. VIII. p. 286.
[3] Testa de Nevill, p. 45.
[4] Little Brompton,- parochially in Hopesay, but still forming one township with Clunbury, for secular purposes.


for the Inquest then held, as to Fitz Alan's Fees, says that the heir of John le Engleys holds one knight's-fee in Clunbury. And, in the subsequent partition of these fees, the fee which the heirs of John le Engleis held in Plumbiri (sic) was assigned to the King. At the Assizes of 1292,-

HUGH LE ENGLEYS, evidently the heir of John, sat as fifth Juror for Purslow Hundred; and it was one of the said Jurors' presentments that "Hugh le Engleys held a whole knight's-fee, and yet was not a knight". By a Fine, levied Nov. 12, 1306, and recorded Feb. 9, 1309, Hugh le Engleys settles his estate. In technical terms, Hugh le Engleys and Isabel his wife (Plaintiffs) give to Gilbert de Bukenhull (Deforciant) one messuage, 2 carucates and 12 virgates of land, 10 acres of meadow, and 60 acres of bosc, in Clumbury and Brumpton, whereof had been Conventional Plea. In turn, Gilbert concedes the premises to Hugh and Isabel, for their lives, with remainder to Johanna, Hugh's daughter, and the heirs of her body, with further remainder to the right heirs of Hugh.

The effect of this Fine is seen in the Nomina Villarum of 1316, where Isabel la Engleyse (of course the widow of Hugh) is set down as "Lady of Clunbury".

In 1346 the aid for knighting the Black Prince was assessed on one fee in Clonbury, Brompton, Streford, and Marsh, as held by Richard Earl of Arundel, Roger Corbet of Hadley, and Hugh l'Engloys.


This, as we have seen in Isabel de Say's Charter to Wenlock Priory, and in other authentic documents of later date, was a mere affiliation of the Church of St. George of Clun. Accordingly the Ecclesiastical Taxation of 1291 says nothing about a Church or Chapel at Clunbury. It existed, but had no independent endowment.

On the other hand, it is quite manifest why the secular Taxation of 1341, though it makes no mention of the Parish of Clun, assesses Clunbury as an independent Parish. The Mother-Church was in an unassessable district, the Chapel only partially so. Thus the Assessors valued the Ninth of corn, wool, and lamb in the Parish of Clonbury at 45s. They added something, which I don't altogether understand, in explanation of their low assessment, viz. that "two vills, Okeleye and Haggeleye, and Le Swet were in Wales;


and that the glebe, hay (tithes), oblata, and small tithes, tended to (augment) some greater sum (not specified) and had nothing to do with the present taxation". [1] The difficulty is to account for the Commissioners' apparent reference to a Church-Taxation which did not distinctively exist. Okeleye and Haggeleye must be taken for Obley and Hagley (Great and Little), and the word Wales to mean Walcheria. As to Le Swet, I cannot find such a locality.

A controversy soon afterwards ensued as to Clunbury Chapel. It was reputed to be vacant in the year 1346, and King Edward III., having Wenlock Priory in his hand as an Alien House, seems to have presented one William Yay or Jay to this benefice, as though it were a Vicarage. On January 31, 1346-7, the Bishop of Hereford, having been served with a copy of the King's Patent (and probably with a remonstrance from Wenlock), issued a commission "to inquire concerning the alleged vacancy of Clonebury, and whether William Jay, Deacon, presented by the King, was in Orders?" An Inquest was taken in the Church of Lydbury (North) on May 7, 1347, by the (Rural) Dean of Clun, and by "the Chaplain of the Chantry of the Chapel of Sibbeton". The last Commissioner seems to have anticipated some attack upon his own benefice, for the return embodies matter quite irrelevant to, and rather obscuring the point at issue. It was stated that "in the time of Robert de Vere, a former Rector of Clun and of the Chapels pertaining thereto, only Chaplains were wont to celebrate Divine service on Sundays (at Clunbury), but that the Chapel of Sibbetone was used to be served three days (weekly), and that by Walter, a Chaplain, then Vicar at Clunbury; and to the better maintenance of such service, Henry Knox, formerly Lord of Sibbetone gave 3 nokes of land out of his demesne to the said Chapel". The Inquisition "does not find who presented last to Clunbury". The Bishop of Hereford, not leaning upon, and perhaps not understanding, this return, had meantime been served with a second Patent, dated May 14, 1347, presenting William de Jaye in the usual form. [2] The Hereford Register shows further that the Bishop instituted William Jay on the Feast of St. Milburge (May 26) to Clunbury, "he being presented by the King, as to a Vicarage". At the same time, the Bishop seems to have certified that "there was no Vicarage of Clunbury". The Prior of Wenlock also petitioned the King, stating that his House had possessed the Parish-Church of Clun and its Chapel, of Clunbury before the enactment

[1] Inquis. Nonarum, p. 193-b.
[2] Patent 21. Edw. III., p. 1, m. 4.


of the statute of mortmain, quoting also the various grants and confirmations, and the license of appropriation relating thereto, adding also that there had never been more than one Vicar (for Clun and Clunbury combined), and representing how the King had presented William de Jaye to the Vicarage of Clunbury, as though such a benefice was vacant. The King by a Patent, said to be of July 28, 1347, declares that J. Bishop of Hereford having searched his own and his predecessors' Registers, had found, and informed the King, that no Vicarage of Clunbury existed. The King, therefore, revokes his presentation of William Jay, and cancels a Writ of Quare impedit which he had issued against the Prior; and because the Priory, having been in manu Regis, was now committed to the Prior at a rent of 200 merks, the King on this ground repeats his retractation of any claim to the alleged Vicarage. This Patent, which I quote from a copy of the Hereford Register, is not to be found in the Roll of 1347, and is inconsistent with a Patent of January 20, 1348, which again presents William de Jaye, Clerk, to the Vicarage of Clonebury, in the usual form, and hecause Wenlock Priory was in manu Regis. [1] I infer that the King's retractation was in July 1348 rather than 1347: and especially is this probable, when we find that it was not till 1348 that the Prior of Wenlock effected the composition above alluded to. [2]

Let us now descend a century and half later, and see what the Monastic Rector of Clun did with his Subject-Chapel of Clunbury. An Indenture, drawn up on July 15, 1503, certifies that-

Ricardus Prior de Wenlok et Conventus tradiderunt et concesserunt Domino Hugoni ap Meredithe, Capellano, totum alteragium nostrum pertinens Ecclesie de Clumbure, granis in campis et agnellis tantummodo exceptis. Concesserunt etiam Hugoni domum sive Cameram juxta Ecclesiam, nunc in occupacione predicti Hugonis:- habendum Hugoni et assignatis usque terminum vite sue; reddendo 6s. 8d. in septimana Pasche, Priori et Successoribus. Et solvet insuper annuatim Diacono ibidem 6s. 8d., et 5s. in die Pasche pro bibitura ex antiqua consuetudine usitatos, et 2s. pro vino, et 8d. pro Beverale, et 4d. pro oleo et Creyme prout ante usitatum fuit; proviso semper quod si Hugo non deserviet nec deserviri faciet dictam ecclesium, bene, congrue, et honeste, prout decet, tunc Concessio sit vacua et nullius vigoris. [3]-

[1] Patent. 21 Edw. III., p. 3, m. 2.
[2] Vide supra, Vol. III. p. 246.
[3] Wenlock Register (among the Muniments at Willey), fo 12.


Such were the sacrilegious and avaricious bargains which invested the less peddling spoliation of the next reign with the garb of a Reformation. Hugh ap Meredyth's successor was John ap David. The latter is styled Curate of Clunbury in the Valor of 1534-5. The Glebe and small-tithes which constituted his preferment were reckoned to be worth 7 per annum. He had, however, to pay a pension of 13s. 4d. (double that of his Predecessor) to Wenlock Priory, and to pay 7s. 8d. yearly for Archdeacon's Synodals. [1] The contemporary value of the Prior of Wenlock's Great-tithes in Clunbury, Clunton, Coston, Kempton, and Obley (which now form the Parish of Clunbury) may be gathered from what has heen said under Clun Church. [2]


THE Domesday notice of this Manor is, as we have already seen, combined with the notice of Clunbury. What relates to Kempton distinctively, is,- Isdem Picot tenet Chenpitune. Isdem Suen tenuit. Ibi IIII hidae geldabiles. Terra in his duobus Maneriis (etc., as under Clunbury).

The subsequent status of Kempton was very different to that of Clunbury. The Fitz Alans retained it in their demesne, of which matter I shall say more under Hopesay. The Inquest on John fitz Alan's death in 1272 gives a separate valuation of Kempeton, but the document is nearly obliterated. The Custumarii were apparently the highest class of tenantry mentioned.


Isdem Picot tenet Clutune. Elmund et Uluric et AElmund tenuerunt pro tribus Maneriis et liberi fuerunt. Ibi IIII hidae, geldabiles.

[1] Valor Eccles. III. 205.
[2] Supra, p. 241


Terra est XII carucis. In dominio sunt II carucae et VI servi et IIII Villani et VIII Bordarii et unus Radman cum II carucis. Ibi V haiae fuerunt. T.R.E. valebat VII libras et XIIII solidos: et post V solidos. Modo (valet) XL solidos. [1]

The subsequent history of Clunton is still more negative than that of Kempton. It was held by the Fitz Alan's uniformly in demesne, and though it was not in Clun Hundred, I find no valuation or mention of the estate, except where it may he supposed to have increased the demesnes of Clun or Hopesay.

The Tenantry of Clumpton, mentioned in the Inquest of 1272, were apparently Custumarii and Cotarii.

PAROCHIALLY, Clunton is a member of Clunbury; but, in the 12th century, the Chapel of St. Mary of Clunton was a distinct affiliation of the Church of St. George of Clun. Of course the Monastic Rectors of Clun reduced its Chapels to the smallest possible number, and that at Clunton seems to have been suppressed at a very early period.


THIS Manor, which has its distinctive name from Picot de Say himself, is called simply Hope in Domesday.- Isdem Picot tenet Hope. Edric tenuit, et liber homo fuit. Ibi VII hidae geldabiles. Terra est XIIII carucis. In dominio sunt II carucae et VI Servi et XIIII Villani, et Faber, et Praepositus cum VI carucis. Ibi II haiae. T.R.E. valebat X libras, et post III libras. Modo (valet) VII libras. [2]

The Manor, whose description savours so much of a cherished demesne, was retained as such by at least ten generations of Picot's descendants. The Charter of Free-Warren, granted to John fitz Alan (II) on January 28, 1254, extends to his demesnes of Hope, Berleg, and Eston, that is Hopesay, Barlow, and Aston-on-Clun. [3]

The Purslow Hundred-Roll of 1255 says that "John fitz Alan holds IIII hides of land in Hope-de-Say, Eston, Kempeton, and Clonton, by military service, and of the King in capite, but the Jurors know not the quantum of service due thereon. They are

[1] [2] Domesday, fo. 258, a, 1.
[3] Rot. Vascon. 38 Hen. III., m. 10.


members of the Barony of Clun, and the said John answers to the King for the said (four) Manors as involved in his services for the said Barony; and they are geldable". [1] (Here we have at least fifteen Domesday hides reduced to four; but such reduction was general in the Manors of Purslow Hundred.) On the death of the above John fitz Alan in 1267, one carucate of demesne in Hope, one carucate of demesne in Clonton, and the other issues of those two estates, were valued at 14. 6s. per annum. [2] It is probable that the estimate included Kempton and Barlow, as well as Aston-on-Clun, which was more strictly a member of Hopesay. The estate, whatever its contents, was more profitable than the whole Chatellany of Clun.

All that I can decipher in the Inquest of 1272, is that among the demesne estates of John fitz Alan (III), Hope, with its bosc, and its eight Customary Tenants, produced an annual income of 1. 10s. 8d. The Advowson of Hope Church also belonged to the Lord of the Manor. Aston, on the other hand, with its water-mill and its Customary Tenants, produced an annual income of nearly 6. [3]

At the Assizes of 1292 the Purslow Jurors presented Richard, Earl of Arundel, as claiming Free-Warren in Hopesay, Aston, Clunton, Kempeton, and Berley (Barlow). The Earl exhibited the Charter of 1252, and, contending that Clunton and Kempeton were members of Hopesay, was subjected to no further question.

In June, 1302, the Inquest after the death of Richard, Earl of Arundel, shows the following estates to have been chiefly held in demesne, or rather in villeinage. The rents, etc., from Aston hamlet were 9. 19s. 10d.;- from Hopesay hamlet 4. 4s. 11d.;- from the hamlet of Berley (Barlow) 2. 2s. 1d.;- from Clunton 10. 18s. 0d.;- and from Kempeton 11. 9s. 7d. [4] Again, this estate was much more valuable than the Chatellany and Walcheria of Clun.

In the Nomina Villarum of 1316, the Earl of Arundel stands as Lord of Hopesay and Asseton (Aston). The expression must be figurative for all the Earl's demesnes in this quarter.


Parochially, there can he no doubt that Hopesay lay within the ancient limits of the Church of St. George of Clun: but no Charter

[1] Rot. Hundred. II. 77.
[2] Inquisitions, 52 Hen. III., No. 37.
[3] Inquisitions, 56 Hen. III., No. 36.
[4] Inquis. 30 Edw. I., No. 30.


or document, which relates to the Prior of Wenlock's Spiritualities, touches the great tithes of Hopesay or the Patronage of its Church. It was in the nature of a Free-Chapel, founded and endowed by the Lords of the Fee out of their own demesnes, and carefully guarded against monastic invasion. On the partition of the Fitz Alan Advowsons in 1272 that of Hope in Opton (as it is singularly called) was assigned as dower to Isabel de Mortimer, widow of the third John fitz Alan.

The Taxation of 1291 values the Church of Hopesay (in Clun Deanery and Salop Archdeaconry) at 6 per annum. [1] In 1341 the Assessors of the Ninth, quoting this Taxation, reduced it to a charge of 30s. on the Parish. A fourth of the arable land in the Parish lay unfilled for lack of capital. The greater sum (the Taxation) involved glebe, hay-tithes, oblata, and small tithes;- things which were not computable in estimating a Ninth of wheat, wool, and lamb. [2]

The Valor of 1534-5 puts the Rectory of Hope-Say (held by John Parker) as worth 17 per annum, less 7s. 8d. for Synodals and Procurations. [3]


SIR ROGER FITZ ALAN, Parson of Hopesay, occurs in a Deed of 1278, and in another undated document.

SIR HENRY DE UPAVENE was instituted May 22, 1280, at the presentation of "Dame Isabel de Mortimer, Lady of Arundel".

RICHARD DE RUSTESHALE, Parson of Hop Say, had Letters of protection on Sept. 28, 1294. [4]

AMBROSE DE NEWBURGH, Acolyte, having been presented by Patent, was instituted April 19, 1306: the King being Patron as Guardian of the deceased Earl of Arundel's heir. [5] On October 7, 1309, some person, unnamed, was instituted to Hopesay.

ROGER DE KINLET, Priest, was instituted May 1, 1313. Patron, Edmund, Earl of Arundel.

JOHN DE KYNALEYE, Acolyte, was instituted March 21, 1317. Same Patron.

MASTER JOHN DE BRYDEPORT resigning in 1325,-

SIR THOMAS DE CLONE, Priest, WaS instituted on August 14.

[1] Pope Nich. Taxation, p. 167-a.
[2] Inquis. Nonarum, p. 189.
[3] Valor Ecclesiasticus, III. 205.
[4] Prynne's Records, III. p. 596.
[5] The said heir is styled Richard, son of Alan, Earl of Arundel, deceased, as though Edmund's father had been named Alan, and himself named Richard.



[For engravings, see pdf.]


Same Patron. Clone occurs as Rector in 1344. A vacancy here, synchronizes with the Great Pestilence, for on Sept. 23, 1349-

JOHN DE WESTDENE, Priest, was instituted. He had a dispensation in 1351, and resigned soon after, for, on July 29 of that year,-

PHILIP AATE, Clerk, was instituted. Patron, Richard, Earl of Arundel. On Sept. 4, 1369,-

JOHN CHEYNE, Clerk, was instituted. Same Patron.

SIR WILLIAM DE OSEMONDESTON, Chaplain, was instituted June 14, 1373. Same Patron.

SIR LAWRENCE PULFORD was instituted Aug. 15, 1378. Patron, Richard, Earl of Arundel and Surrey.

THOMAS DE REDLYNGTON, instituted June 24, 1385, resigned Nov. 24, 1396.

JOHN SOMERTON, Chaplain, was instituted, Sept. 20, 1398, at the presentation of. "Edward of York, Duke of Albemarle, Earl of Rutland and of Cork, and Constable of England".


Isdem Picot tenet Berlie. Uluric tenuit. Ibi dimidia hida.

Such is the notice bestowed by Domesday on this small Manor. The entry is followed by that relating to Obley, to which is added. - Hae terrae wastae fuerunt et sunt.

After Domesday, Barlow was absorbed by the Demesne Manor of Hopesay. At this moment it forms but one township with Hopesay, and is of course in the same Parish.

Hopton Castle,

Isdem Picot tenet Opetune. Edric tenuit et liber homo fuit. Ibi II hidae geldabiles. Terra est IIII carucis. Tempore Regis Edwardi valebat XL solidos. Modo wasta est. [2]

Domesday, fo. 258, a, 2.


Hopton Castle afterwards became Caput of the Fief, which the Hoptons held under Picot's descendants;- a Fief which was double any other in the Barony of Clun.

WALTER DE OPTON, the first of this family whom we are likely to hear of, is recorded in the Feodary of 1165 as holding two knights'-fees, of old feoffment, under Geoffrey de Vere;- that is in the Barony of Clun. [1]

PETER OPPETUNE, or UPTUNE, who about 1190-1200, stands third witness of the Charters of Isabel de Say and William Boterell, [2] was, I presume, of Hopton Castle. Next I meet with one-

WILLIAM DE HOPTON, a person apparently of knightly degree, who in November, 1201, failed to appear at Westminster, as a Juror in a Suit concerning land in Whittingslow. If this William was of Hopton Castle, I have erroneously connected him with Monk Hopton in a former Chapter, where I have stated the circumstances under which William de Hopton, apparently a knight, occurs in 1203. [3] However I am still in doubt as to the family to which this William belonged. Again, there was a William de Hopton whose widow Alice occurs in November, 1221. The Munslow Jurors presented Roger Crolle as having been outlawed at her suit for the murder of her said husband. The Heraldic Pedigrees will not help us much in this matter of descent. It is clear from better evidences that it was the Hopton of King John's reign (1199-1216) who married Joan, sister, and in her issue coheir of Robert de Girros. The Pedigrees call Joan's husband "Walter", and state him to have been son of Henry, son of Walter. [4] it is nearly certain that this Henry was an imaginary person, and I doubt whether the Heralds knew the name of Joan de Gyros's husband. All that I can say certainly, relates to her descendants. Her son and grandson were both named Walter.

WALTER DE HOPTON, who occurs in 1223, may well have been the son of Joan de Gyros. In Michaelmas Term of that year, Agnes, widow of Brane (perhaps Brian), was suing Walter de Hopeton, John his brother, Ithel Pembras, Gilbert de Buchull (Bucknell), and Hugh his brother, for the murder of her husband. The Sheriff was ordered to have the accused in Court, at Westminster, on Nov. 25. On that day, the Prosecutrix herself appeared at Westminster and confessed that her challenge against Walter de Hopton was unjust. She was ordered into custody, and instructed to sue Ithel

[1] Liber Niger, Vol. I. p. 145.
[2] Supra, page 236.
[3] Supra, Vol. IV. p. 28.
[4] Harl. MS., 1396, fo. 54.


Pembras and John de Hopton (who were not to be found) in the County Court. The Feodary of 1240 gives Walter de Hopton as holding two knights'-fees in Hopton, of the Barony of Clun. [1] I cannot say whether Walter de Hopton, who appears as a coheir of Robert de Girros in 1251, [2] was his Nephew or his Great-Nephew.

WALTER DE HOPTON, the Great-Nephew, was he of whom the Purslow Hundred-Roll of 1255 says that "he holds two knights'-fees in Hopton, Bradeford (Broadward), and Coston". His services were to provide one soldier, resident throughout the year, and one, for forty days in wartime, at Clun Castle;- to do suit to (Fitz Alan's) Court (at Clun), and to Purslow Hundred. The estate was geldable. [3]

At the Assizes of January, 1256, Walter de Hopton stands first of the four County Coroners, then in office. In 1256 and 1259 he fines half a merk and one merk for two several Writs of Pone; and a fine of 20s. in 1260, with a like object, is charged to him as Walter de Upton. At Westminster, in Easter Term 1271, Walter de Hopton was suing John fitz Alan and Peter de Jay for seizing his cattle. Walter de Pedwardine was manucaptor for the Defendants' appearance on an adjourned day.

The Inquest on John fitz Alan's death in 1272 gives Sir Walter de Hopton as holding Hopton, Shelderton, Bradeford (Broadward), Coston, Tattel' (Tateley), and Haggele (Hagley) by service of two knights'-fees, under the late Baron. The tenure is said to be De Walecheria, which I conceive to be an error, or to have some unusual and latent meaning. Be that as it may, in the subsequent partition of Fitz Alan's fees, two-thirds of the services, wardships, marriages, etc., accruing on Walter de Hopton's tenure, were assigned to the King, and one-third to Isabel de Mortimer. By a Charter of Nov. 24, 1280, King Edward I. allows the privilege of Free Warren to Walter de Hopton, in his Manors of Hopton, Bradeford, and Shelderton (Salop), and of Over Staunton, Nether Staunton, and Mordel (Herefordshire). [4] I have said more of Walter de Hopton under Burwarton, Patton, Hinstock, Wem, Fitz, and other places. [5] His marriage with the Baroness of Wem rendered him doubly important, though he was, in his own right, one of the first of Shropshire Feudatories. The Inquest which was taken on his death in 1305, was because one of his Suzerains (the young Earl of Arundel) was then a Ward of the Crown. The said Inquest states

[1] Testa de Nevill, p. 45.
[2] Supra, Vol. IV. p. 22.
[3] Rot. Hundred. II. 77.
[4] Rot. Chart. 9 Edw. I., No. 107.
[5] Supra, Vol III. p. 33, Vol. IV. p. 45; Vol. VIII. p. 21; Vol. IX. p. 171.


that the deceased had held the Vill of Hopton with the hamlets of Bradeford and Cheldrinton (Shelderton) under the heir of Arundel by knight's-service and by doing suit every three weeks to the Earl's Court at Clun. The annual value of his estates at Fitz, Mytton, Grafton, Sandford, Burwarton, Hopton, Shelderton, and Bradford was 22. 11s. 4d. He also held Stanton juxta Pembridge, Mallelegh, Overstanton, and Wappelith (all in Herefordshire), the first under Mortimer of Wigmore, the rest under the Barons of Richard's Castle. [1]

WALTER DE HOPTON (son and heir of the last Walter) was two years old at his father's death. Hence we hear of his being in custody of the King in 1310, and still a Minor in 1316. [2] In the Nomina Villarum of Purslow Hundred (drawn up in the latter year), Hugh de Nevill is enrolled as Lord of Hopton. This was, I presume, as having had a grant of the custody thereof from the King. The Hoptons continued to be Lords of the Manor some generations later.


The Chapel of St. Mary of Oppetune was (as we have seen) one of those affiliations of the Church of Clun, which passed to Wenlock Priory in the end of the 12th century, by grant of Isabel de Say. It is evident that the Lords of Hopton did not succumb to such an arrangement. No Prior of Wenlock ever gathered the Great-tithes of Hopton or presented to its Chapel. Hopton Chapel was in short like that of Hopesay;- a Free-Chapel not to be disposed of, either by the Baroness, or the Rector, of Clun; but only by the immediate Lord of the Fee. Hence Hopton is a Rectory at the present day.

The Taxation of 1291 estimates the Church of Hopton (in Clun Deanery) as of less than 4 annual value. [3] In 1341 the Assessors of the Ninth considered the Taxation to be one of 4, but reduced it to 13s. 4d. for the current levy on the Parish. The reasons given for the reduction were that the vill of Paredorn [4] was in Wales and unassessable: that there had heen a general murrain of sheep in the Parish: and that the Church-Taxation included the irrelevant items of hay-tithes and small tithes. [5]

In the year 1415 it was ascertained by Inquest that Hopton Chapel (in Cloneslonde) was non-curative, because the Cure of the

[1] Inquisitions, 33 Edw. I., No. 77.
[2] Supra, Vol. III. pp. 34, 36.
[3] Pope Nich. Taxation, p. 167.
[4] I cannot identify this place. Pentrehodry is in Clun Parish.
[5] Inquis. Nonarum, p. 189-a.


district lay upon the Church of Clunbury. This was proof that Hopton was originally in Clun Parish, but no proof that the Rector of Clun profited thereby, or attended to the Cure thereof. In short, if we examine the joint systems of appropriations and of Free Chapels, the obvious effect of the combination was to dispense with the cure of souls altogether.

In the Valor of 1534-5, the preferment of Richard Newport, Rector of Hopton, consisted of rectorial and other small tithes, realizing 4. 11s. per annum, out of which 6d. went for Archdeacon's Synodals. [1]


SIR JOHN GYROIS, Chaplain, was instituted Dec. 4, 1290, at the presentation of Sir Walter de Hopton. John, Rector of Hopton, occurs in 1308.

STEPHEN DE CLYNTON, Clerk, was instituted to this Chapel on Feb. 18, 1334. Patron, Sir Walter de Hopton.

SIR JOHN DE BIGGETON [2] was instituted to this Chapel on January 12, 1342, the Dean of Clun being ordered to induct.

PHILIP DE LAUELEY, [3] Priest, was presented by Sir John Hopton on May 23, 1373.

Corston, or Causton.

Isdem Picot tenet Cozetune. Suein tenuit, et liber homo fuit. Ibi I hida geldabilis. Terra est III carucis. In dominio est una; et II Villani et unus Bordarius, cum caruca. Tempore Regis Edwardi valebat XX solidos. Modo (valet) similiter. [4]

The modern status of this village is very anomalous. It forms one Township with Shelderton: yet Corston and Shelderton are far apart;- Corston was a Domesday Manor, Shelderton not;- Corston

[1] Valor Ecclesiasticus, III. 205.
[2] He was also Rector of Greet (supra, Vol. IV. p. 337).
[3] He had been a Portioner of Holgate, and was a Canon of St. Chad's, Shrewsbury (supra, Vol. IV. p. 74).-

Non-curative Rectories, Prebends, and Canonries, were of course held frequently in plurality; but it has been well said that Pluralities, since the Reformation, have been much more abundant in number, and more scandalous in degree, than they were before.

[4] Domesday, fo. 258, a, 2.


again is in Purslow Hundred, Shelderton in Munslow Hundred;- lastly, Corston is in the Parish of Clunbury, Shelderton in the Parish of Clungunford. The reason why these two places are now combined into one township is to be sought for in ancient times. It has transpired in the last chapter. It is because both were held by the Hoptons under Fitz Alan.

I have nothing to add to what has been said already relative to De Hopton's tenure of Corston. The Undertenants thereof were called after the place. Stephen de Eston, entered as a Juror on the Purslow Inquest of 1255, was perhaps Stephen de Coston. The latter occurs on the Purslow Jury-list at the Assizes of 1256 and 1272. In a testing clause of the intervening period, Sir Walter de Hopton is 2nd, and Stephen de Coston 8th, witness. [1] On an Inquest of July 1283, Stephen de Coston stands 2nd Juror.


Isdem Picot tenet Egedune. Suein tenuit et liber homo fuit. Ibi II hidae geldabilis. Terra est IX carucis. In dominio sunt II (carucae) et VI Servi, et V Villani, et I Bordarius cum II carucis. Tempore Regis Edwardi valebat LX solidos, et post XV solidos. Modo (valet) XXX solidos.

Eighty years after Domesday, that is in 1165, we find-

HENRY FITZ HAMELINE and Nicholas de St. Laurence holding a knight's-fee in the Barony of Clun. [3] These two persons were Co-parceners in Edgton. I will, as far as the subject will admit, trace their descendants separately. The same or another Henry fitz Hameline was living in November 1208, and then occurs as Mesne-Lord of 2 virgates at Wlfreston (Woolston near Wistanstow). In March 1209 we have-

HENRY DE EGGESDON assessed for imbladements, within regard of the Long Forest. He was undoubtedly a Coparcener in Edgton, but whether identical with, or the successor of, Henry fitz Hameline, I cannot say. Neither can I say whether Henry de Edgedon, living from 1231 to 1240, was a different person from the Henry of 1209.

[1] Supra, Vol, V. p. 39.
[2] Domesday, fo. 258, a.
[3] Liber Niger, I. 145.


In 1231 Henry de Egedon's bosc was in the King's hand, owing to some decision of the Justices of the Forest. He proffered a Fine of one merk that he might be allowed to repossess it. A transaction of the year 1236, relative to Edgton Chapel, speaks of this Henry as the Senior Coparcener in Edgton, and calls him Henry fitz William. The Feodary of 1240 sets down Henry and Nicholas de Egedon as holding a knight's-fee in Egedon, under the Barony of Clun. [1]

About 1250-55, Henry de Egedon and his Coparcener, Nicholas, son of William de St. Lawrence, seem to have agreed to a division of one of the common woods of Edgton. Among the boundaries of the divided wood the following localities are marked, viz. the road called Rugeway; -the fork (furqura) of the said road;- the Old Castle;- an oak-tree covered with ivy;- a certain rivulet;- and the river Oney. In a Deed (of which I have only an abstract), Henry de Egedon surrenders a moiety of the said wood to his Coparcener, viz. that moiety which extended in width to the bosc of John fitz Alan, and in length to the bosc which the said Nicholas sold to his brothers, and which was still in common between Henry de Egedon and them. The moiety retained by Henry de Egedon is described as extending to the Bishop's Wood. The pasturage of the divided wood was still to be common to the two Coparceners, except in mast-time (Sept. 29 to Feb. 2); also "a Marlery was to be common, wherever any Marlery had been lawfully used in ancient times. Witnesses,- Thomas de Roshale, Roger English, Walter de Hopton, John de Say, Roger de la More, and Gilbert de Bukenhale". [2]

Henry de Edgton was apparently deceased in 1255. The Purslow Hundred-Roll of that date is somewhat problematical as to who were then Coparceners in Edgton. The entry relating thereto is as follows. Petrus de Bosco Rog' et Nicholas de Exedon' tenent unam hidam terre in Exedon' et Bronselaue et Wolureston, [3] de Domino Johanne filio Alani per servicium secte curie de Clonne, et Hundredi, et warde per XL dies, tempore guerre, per unum militem vel duos Serjantes; et est gildabilis. [4] The most obvious reading of this passage suggests that there were three Coparceners in Edgton, viz. Peter de Bosco, Roger de Edgton, and Nicholas de Edgton. Such a reading tallies with no other known facts. I believe that but two persons

[1] Testa de Nevill, p. 45.
[2] Transcript; communicated by S.S. Smith, Esq., of Bridgnorth.- The testing clause of this Deed should be compared with one about ten years later (Vide supra, Vol. V. p. 39).
[3] Brunslow and Wootton.
[4] Rot. Hundred. II. 77.


were intended to be named, and that the first was Petrus de Bosco Rogeri or perhaps Petrus de Bosco-Regis [1] (i.e. Peter de Kingswood). The said Peter, whatever his other name, was probably the Guardian, or other representative, of-

PHILIP DE EGEDON, who occurs next in this succession. Philip de Egeton is called Philip de Coztone (I think by mistake) in the Inquest taken on John fitz Alan's death in 1272. The said Philip then held half Egeton, half Wlfreston (Woolston), and half Bruseloue (Brunslow), by service of half a knight's-fee, under the deceased Baron. In the subsequent partition of such services, Philip de Egeton's half-fee is more correctly entered in his name, and assigned to the dower of Isabel de Mortimer.

Philip de Egeton was a Juror for Purslow Hundred at the Assizes of 1272 and 1292, and an occasional witness of Deeds which passed in the interval.

I am indined to date about 1260-70 a Deed whereby "Philip de Egedon gives to Roger, son of John fitz Alan, [2] for his homage and for 6 merks, a plot of land in the wood of Egedon;- lying between the ditch called Brochulleheld and the water called Onye". The following boundaries are also given of the premises, viz. "from the Mill of Porteford, going up to the corner of a little old Castle, and thence to the twisted oak, which was the landmark between the Grantor's wood and the wood of Nicholas de Egedon". The Grantor further gives "a third part of that Moor which lay under Horderley, and on the other side of the Onyne, in the wood of Wolfrestone. Witnesses,- Sir Walter de Hopton, Roger de Sibbetone, Roger de Hauberdyn, Stephen de Coston, Henry de Malkelyn, Osbert le Theyn of Brome, and Roger de Walecot". [3] By another Deed, "Philip, Lord of Egedon, grants to Herbert, son of John of the Well of Egedon, a messuage and curtilage in Egedon. Witnesses,- Roger fitz Alan, Philip fitz Walter, etc". [3]

Philip de Edgton was succeeded, I think, by his son Richard. The latter attests an Edgton Deed as early as 1285, and as-

RICHARD FITZ PHILIP, he attests a Deed which speaks of his father as Lord of Egedon, and which probably passed about 1300. Hs also stands low in a testing-clause of 1318. I find an unvouched statement that "Richard de Edgeton granted Edgeton to William, son of Thomas de Wynnesbury, in 1324". [3] This is contrary to the

[1] Vide supra, Vol. VI. p. 341.
[2] Roger fitz Alan, Rector of Hopesay (supra, p. 254), and Uncle, I think, of that John fitz Alan who died in 1272. (Vide supra, Vol. VII. pp. 229, 256 n.) [3] Transcripts (ut supra).


evidence of a Transcript, dated in 16 Edward III. (1342-3), and which declares that "Richard, son of Philip de Egeton, gave to William, son of Thomas de Wynnesbury all his lands, tenements, rents, escheats, etc., in the vill of Egeton. Witnesses,- Roger de Cheyne, John de Ploudene, John Purcel of Norbury, and John de Purslowe". [1]

The date of the transaction was, I think, in the sixteenth year of Edward II. (1322-3). William de Wynnesbury had been succeeded in a moiety of Edgton by Nicholas de Wynnesbury before the year 1346. The latter and John de Eggedon were then jointly responsible for an Aid of 40s., assessed on that knight's-fee in Eggedon, "which had formerly (i.e. in 1240) been held by Henry and Nicholas de Eggedon".

I now return to trace the descendants of-

NICHOLAS DE ST. LAURENCE, joint Lord of Edgton in 1165. After a long interval, barren of any record, we come to-

WILLIAM DE ST. LAURENCE, who lived probably in the beginning of the 13th century, but of whom the only known particular is that he was father of-

NICHOLAS DE ST. LAURENCE, better known as NICHOLAS DE EGEDON. This Nicholas had, before the year 1236, demised his share of Edgton to Henry de Maskelyn [2] (as the name is more commonly spelt). We have seen that in the reign of Richard I. Isabel de Say had treated the Chapel of Eggedune as a mere appurtenance of the Church of Clun, and transferred its advowson to Wenlock Priory. This eventually brought the Priory into collision with the Lords of the Fee of Edgton, who claimed the Advowson as their own. The Incumbent of Edgton Chapel being deceased in 1236 the question of Advowson arose at once. The issue pending is entered in a Westminster Plea-Roll of that year in the usual form, viz. Quis presentavit ultimam personam, que mortua est, ad Capellam Sancti Michaelis de Eggedon, cujus Advocacionem Henricus filius Willielmi et Henricus de Wakelin clamant versus Priorem de Wenlok? The Prior appeared, and urged that no such Assize ought to be tried, because the Chapel was not vacant, for he, the Prior, had it in proprios usus, i.e. he was Impropriate Rector. The Prior further pleaded that Henry de Makelyn had nothing in Edgton to which any right of Advowson could be deemed appurtenant, for he only held at ferm under one Nicholas, the junior Coparcener of Henry fitz William, which Nicholas had a moiety of the vill. Further, the Prior called John fitz Alan to warranty (i.e. to warrant his

[1] Transcripts (ut supra).
[2] It is also spelt Wakelin and Halkelyn.


Grandmother's Charter). The said John was summoned to be in Court on Nov. 26 following. Meantime the parties, it seems, came to an agreement, and a fine was levied at Shrewsbury on Nov. 23, 1236, to the following effect.- "Nicholas de Egedon and Henry de Egedon (Plaintiffs, through Ralph de Sheldelegh, their Attorney) release to Imbert, Prior of Wenlok (Deforciant), their right to the Advowson of the Chapel of Egedon, whereof there had been suit of Darrein presentment. The Prior in turn received Nicholas and Henry to a participation in all the benefits and prayers of the said Church". It is noted that Henry de Halkelyn was present at this Concord and renounced whatever right he had in the premises.

Our notice of the other moiety of Edgton has shown Nicholas de St. Laurence, alias Nicholas de Edgton, occurring as a Coparcener in the Manor from 1240 to 1255, so that I suppose the subtenure of Henry de Maskelyn was only temporary. Perhaps the latest occurrence of the said Nicholas is his attestation of a Stokesay Deed between 1260 and 1270. [1] He left a daughter Sibil, and was succeeded by-

JOHN DE EDGTON, his son and heir, who in March 1272 appears as holding half Egeton, half Wlfreston, and half Bruseloue, in the Barony of John fitz Alan, deceased, by service of half a knight's-fee. Soon afterwards, the said service of John de Eketon was allotted, two parts to the King, and one part to Isabel de Mortimer, the dowager Lady fitz Alan. At the Assizes of October 1272, John son of Nicholas de Egedon was a Defaulter in respect of attendance. John de Egedon occurs on a local Jury in July 1283, but, hefore the year 1292, he had been succeeded by his son, William. The following Deed is dated at Eggedon. It seems to me to have passed about 1283-5, and to be a surrender or grant by the late John de Edgton's younger brother.-

"Hugh son of Nicholas de Eggedon gives to William, son of John, Lord of Eggedon, for 5 merks, a half-virgate and messuage in the vill of Eggedon. Witnesses,- Philip de Plowden, John de Wallecote, Roger de May of Doune, William son of Philip de Wystanstow, Richard son of Philip de Eggedon, Roger Wyon of Eggedon, William Russell of Brunslow, John son of Maurefitt of Eggedon, and Roger de Frangford". I am doubtful whether-

WILLIAM DE EGGEDON was identical with, or was succeeded by,-

WILLIAM DE BAYTON who occurs as 6th Juror for Purslow Hundred, at the Assizes of 1292. I think that a Fine levied on

[1] Supra, Vol. V. page 39.


June 25, 1293, was part of a settlement, though I cannot discover the counterpart. By the said Fine, William de Bayton and Isolda his wife (Impedients) give 7 messuages, 2 carucates of land, and 7 acres of meadow in Eggedon juxta Caurwode, to Thomas Folyot (Plaintiff), to hold to the said Thomas, under the Lords of the Fee. The Fine purports to be the result of a suit of Charter-Warranty and 100 to be the consideration. The warranty-clause insures the acquiescence of the "heirs of Isolda", which looks as if she was heiress of Edgton. If so, she must have been daughter, not sister, of William de Edgton, whe I know had a brother John, who left issue. Again, it is a mere hypothesis that William de Bayton was identical with-

WILLIAM DE EGGEDON, who, on June 30, 1301, attests a Deed, already set forth. In 1314-5 the same William stands first witness of a local Deed and is styled "Lord of Egedon". Also in the Nomina Villarum of 1316, William de Eggeton is the only Lord of the Vill, whom the Record notices.

JOHN DE EGGEDON appears as successor to William in 1381, and was living in 1346.

SOME UNDERTENANTS of Edgton are named in the following Deeds. [1] About the end of the 13th century,- "John, son of Maurice de Eggeton (who has occurred above as a witness), gives to John Comiter of Ruton (Rowton), a noke, messuage, and croft in the vill of Eggedon, which noke Thomas Eyrligh, of Ludlow, and Alice his wife, sometime held. The Grantee is to pay 2s. annual rent to the Lord of the Fee, and 1s. 6d. for a heriot, and 1s. for relief, whenever due. He is to have housbote, haybote, and socage, in the wood of Philip, Lord of Eggedon (of every kind except of oak trees), in proportion to a noke of land, to be taken under view of the said Philip's Forester. He is also to have 10 swine in the said wood, free of pannage, in the masting season. Witnesses,- John de Plowden, Roger Eyton, William Russell of Brunslow, Richard, son of Philip Lord of Edgton, and John Carpenter of Eggedon". In 8 Edward II. (1314-5), "John, son of William Mal of Egedon, grants land in La Rache. Witnesses,- William, Lord of Eggedon, Thomas de Wynsbury, William, Lord of Sibdon, John de Walcote, and John de Plowden". On March 1, 1318, "Adam Babel, of Wystanstowe, and Alice his wife, daughter and heir of Sibil, daughter of Nicholas de Eggedon, give to William, son of Thomas de Wynnesbury, and his heirs, a messuage and half-virgate in the

[1] Transcripts communicated by S.S. Smith, Esq., of Bridgnorth.


vill and fields of Eggedon, which the said Sibil had by gift and feoffment of her father, Nicholas. Witnesses,- Roger de Cheynne, Henry de Makelyn, John de Plowden, Adam, son of John de Eggedon, and Richard, son of Philip de Eggedon". In 1331, I find notice of a Bond given by John de Egedon and John de Plowden, to William de Wynnesbury;- the same William, I presume, who, as "son of Thomas de Wynnesbury", has appeared acquiring a whole moiety of Edgton in 1322-3. [1]

In 1343, I find "Nicholas de Wynnesbury" obtaining "all the lands, tenements, rights of common, etc., held by Richard de Stone, in Eggedon. Witnesses,- Hugh de Chenne, Robert de Stepleton, William de la More, and William Purcel, of Norbury". In 1349, "John, son of John, son of John, son of Nicholas de Egedon", is quoted as conveying lands in Egedon.

OF BRUNSLOW, which parochially and manorially seems to have been a member of Edgton, I can say no more than has transpired above.

OF WOOLSTON, so often mentioned in conjunction with Edgton, I shall speak elsewhere, as it was really an independent Manor.


We have seen that this was considered a mere appendage of Clun Church in Richard I.'s time, and that in 1236 the Prior of Wenlock recovered the Advowson of the Chapel against the Lords of the Fee. This absorption into a great impropriate Rectory seems to have been virtually suppression. The Taxation of 1291, the Assessment of 1341, the Valor of 1534-5, and the Diocesan Registers, are all silent about any Church, Parish, or Incumbents of Edgton.

"William Kepeton, Chaplain of Egeton", who occurs in 1418, was perhaps one of that succession of ill-paid and degraded functionaries who performed, or neglected to perform, the services of this Chapel.


Isdem Picot tenet Posselau. Uluric tenuit et liber homo fult. Ibi

[1] Supra, page 263.


I hida geldabilis. Terra est II carucis. Tempore Regis Edwardi valebat XV solidos. Wasta est. [1]

Before Henry I's death (1135) some Baron of Clun had enfeoffed some Tenant or Tenants, with estates at Purslow, Bucknell, Broom (near Clugunford), Acton, and Munede. The collective service due from this Tenure was that of one knight's-fee. There is no apparent proof that this Tenancy was a Coparcenery, though it is not easy to trace the succession of each individual Tenant, or to say for what quota of the said service this or that Tenant was responsible. It is clear, however, that the Tenants of Bucknell and Purslow continued so far the same for many generations that we cannot distinguish them. As I must resume the subject under Bucknell, I will here give only the names and terns of such of these Tenants as I conceive to have heen Lords of Purslow-

In 1165, Hugh de Bukwell and Adam his brother occur in such a relation. Hubert de Bukehill, Bockill, or Buchenill occurs from 1183 to 1209. In 1240 Gilbert de Bockenhull is the only recorded Tenant of a knight's-fee in Bockenhull and Posselawe; but the Tenants were doubtless more numerous, and the fee more extensive. In 1255, though Gilbert de Bucknell was living, the sole Tenant of Posselawe is said to be "Margery de Posselawe. Her tenure was half a hide, held under John fitz Alan. Her services were suit of the Manorial Court of Clun, suit of Purslow Hundred, and ward at Clun-Castle for 5 days, in wartime, by one dismounted soldier. The vill of Purslow was geldable". [2] From this we judge that Purslow individually was responsible for the service of one-eighth of a knight's-fee; but who Margery de Purslow was, I cannot say.

In 1272 Hugh de Pusseloue and Wrgenew de Pusseloue were the Tenants who appear likely to have held the Purslow part of this feoffment. The vill is in this case called Pusseloue Superior. On the subsequent partition of the services due from the Clun Feudatories, there were nine sharers in the knight's-fee under notice; and their whole services were assigned to the King, as guardian of young Richard fitz Alan. In this case Purslow is again called Pusselowe Superior. I can say little more of the individual tenure of Purslow.- Hugh de Purslow occurs on a local Inquest in 1283, and John de Purslow as a local witness in 1322. The Aid-Roll of 1346 assesses Bokenhull and Pusselowe as only constituting half a knight's-fee. The Holders were Richard, Earl of Arundel, and John Berde. There are other indications that

[1] Domesday, fo. 258, a, 2.
[2] Rot. Hundred. II. p. 77.


in the 14th century Purslow had been resumed into Fitz Alan's demesnes.

PAROCHIALLY, Purslow is in the Parish of Clunbury, and was anciently in that of Clun. The Prior of Wenlock, as Impropriator of Clun Rectory, had the great tithes of Purslow. At the present day, Purslow, once the caput of a Hundred, does not retain even the dignity of a township.

Sibdon, now Sibdon Carwood.

Isdem Picot tenet Sibetune. Suen tenuit, et liber homo fuit. Ibi II hidae geldabiles. Terra est III carucis. In dominio est una (caruca); et IIII Servi et II Radmans cum I caruca. Ibi silva C porcis incrassandis. Tempore Regis Edwardi valebat XX solidos; et modo (valet) XXX solidos.

I have elsewhere alluded to the grant which Picot de Sai, during the time of Earl Hugh (1093-8), made to Shrewsbury Abbey. It included two-thirds of all the tithes of Pioot's demesnes of Sibbeton. [2] In a Charter attested, or purporting to be attested, by Picot de Say himself, Earl Hugh is made to be the giver of these identical tithes, as if Sibeton was his own demesne. [3] I repeat once more, that this Charter of Earl Hugh is not exactly a forgery, but a travesty of some genuine Charter, now lost, and which probably used the language of confirmation rather than of original grant with respect to the tithes of Sibdon and other places. This question of tithes, and the actual title of the Shrewsbury Monks thereto, belong properly to Sibdon Chapel, where it shall be renewed. It is sufficient to have shown here, that Picot de Say retained Sibdon in his demesne some years after Domesday. Before the death of Henry I. (1135) some Baron of Clun granted Sibdon (and other estates) to a Feoffee. Hence we find that, in 1165,-

HENRY DE SIBBETON held a knight's-fee, of old feoffment, under Geoffrey de Vere, then (jure uxoris) Baron of Clun.
[4] I presume it to have been a second-

[1] Domesday, fo. 258, a, 1.
[2] Supra, Vol. VI. pp. 169, 170.
[3] Salop Chartulary, No. 3.
[4] Liber Niger, I. 145.


HENRY DE SIBBETON, whose name appoint on the Assize-Roll of November 1221 as one of the Coroners of Shropshire. The name indeed is cancelled by a coeval mark, from which I understand that the Officer was deceased at the time when the Justices visited Shrewsbury. And in about two years, viz. on Dec. 29, 1223, we find-

ROGER DE SIBBETON attesting a Charter to Shrewsbury Abbey. The Charter concerned Oswestry Church, and there is reason to believe that Roger de Sibdon had an interest in the neighbourhood of Oswestry;- an interest which afterwards passed to a younger branch of his family. [1] Between the years 1221 and 1230 we have seen Roger de Sibeton attesting a Linley Deed. We have had indications that Sibton (like the adjacent Manors of Edgton and Cheney Longville) was within regard of the Long Forest.
[2] This introduces us to another-

HENRY DE SIBITUN, who, having forfeited his Bosc in 1231, was obliged to fine one merk to recover it out of the King's hand. The Feodary of 1240 sets down Henry de Sibbeton as holding one knight's-fee in Sibbeton, of the Barony of Clun. [3] His attestation of a grant to Haughmond Abbey is some years later. [4] I cannot certainly say whether it was this Henry, or one of his predecessors, who is recorded under the name and style of "Henry Knox, Lord of Sibbetone", to have re-endowed Sibton Chapel. [5] In either case we have one more instance of that Anglo-Norman usage which generally effaced the distinctive names of families by substituting names borrowed from the accidents of residence or local feoffment.

In January 1250, the Justice of the Forest set various arrentations on persons resident in the vicinity of Sibton. Richard de Sibeton and Richard Provost were jointly assessed 9d. for half an acre and one perch of Tillage: Philip de Sibeton and Martin fitz Martin were each assessed 9d. for an acre in Wynestanes; and William de Hordesleg was assessed 4d. for half an acre in the same locality. I have no idea that the persons here named De Sibeton were anything more than Undertenants in the Manor. In 1255 it appears that Henry de Sibton was deceased, leaving a son under age. It would also seem probable that-

ROGER BARDULF, guardian of the son, had married the father's widow, and so obtained temporary possession of the whole Manor.

[1] See several mentions of Amilia, daughter of Herbert Sibeton, and her interests at Aston near Oswestry. (Supra, pp. 9, 13, 14, 15.) [2] Supra, Vol. VI. pp. 336, 340.
[3] Testa de Nevill, p. 45.
[4] Supra, Vol. VIII. page 286.
[5] Supra, page 249.


The Purslow Hundred-Roll of 1255 says that "Roger Bardolf holds:one hide in Sibeton (printed Bilbeton) under John fitz Alan, which (estate) he got with his wife; and he has the wardship of Henry de Silbeton's son; and he does suit to the Court of Clun and to the Hundred of Purslow; and he does ward at Clun Castle, viz. that of one knight for 40 days in wartime; and (Silbeton) is geldable". [1] Roger Bardulf sat as first Juror for Purslow Hundred at the Assizes of 1256: but, in 1262,-

ROGER DE SIBTON, son and heir I presume of Henry, appears to have been of age. His Bosc, within the jurisdiction of the Long Forest, was reported to be waste, and he was amerced half a merk. [2] It would seem that this Roger de Sibeton had a quit-rent (1 lb. of cumin) from certain land at Hisland and Aston (near Oswestry). He was probably Mesne Lord, under Fitz Alan, and over a younger branch of his own family. About 1270 the third John fitz Alan released this quit-rent as a favour to Haughmond Abbey, which had now obtained the lands so charged. [3]

The Feodary, drawn up on John fitz Alan's death in 1272, enters Roger de Sibeton as holding Sibeton, half Witestonestowe (Wistanstow), half Brome, Clunbury, [4] Streford, La Merse (Marshbrook), and Brompton [5] (Little Brompton);- all by service of one knight, due to the deceased Baron's estate. In the subsequent partition, the whole of Roger de Sibeton's services were allotted to the King as Custos of John fitz Alan's heir.

At the Assizes of October 1272 Roger de Sibeton sat as 5th Juror for Purslow Hundred, and was himself presented as tenant of a knight's-fee and yet no knight. On July 21, 1281, as Sir Roger de Sibbeton, he attests a Stokesay Deed: on July 18, 1283, he sat as Foreman of a local Jury, and this is the last I hear of him.

JOHN DE SIBTON, his successor, sat as 11th Juror for Purslow Hundred at the Assizes of 1292. On February 1, 1294, he occurs as a knight and as in company with Richard, Earl of Arundel, at Haughmond Abbey. [6] A money transaction, which he seems to have had with the Earl, has been noticed under Acton Round, and affords proof that he was living in 1304-5. [7] I think that he left two sons, William and John. In the Nomina Villarum of 1316-

[1] Rot. Hundred. II. 77.
[2] Supra, Vol. VI. p. 341.
[3] Supra, page 14, [4] [5] Clunbury, Little Brompton, Strefford, and Marsh seem to be included by mistake. Possibly Roger de Sibdon was Guardian of the infant heir of those estates (vide supra, p. 247).
[6] Supra, Vol. VII. page 277.
[7] Supra, Vol. IV. page 123.


WILLIAM DE SIBBETON is enrolled is Lord of Wistanstow and Sibton, though in the latter instance Siweton is given as the name of the vill and its Lord. The Aid-Roll of 1346 gives-

JOHN DE SIBBETON as responsible for that knight's-fee, in Sibbeton, half Wystanstowe, and Brome, which Henry de Sibeton had held (in 1240) under William (read John) fitz Alan. I shall have something more to say of this family under Wistanstow and Strefford.


We have seen that, at the end of the 11th century, Picot de Say gave two-thirds of the demesne-tithes of Sibdon to Shrewsbury Abbey, and that, at the end of the 11th, the Advowson of Sibdon Chapel passed, as an appurtenance of Clun Church, to Wenlock Priory. The evidences of the Prior's title have been set forth already: but I must give an extract of a Charter to Shrewsbury Abbey, which I deem to be by Gilbert Foliot, Bishop of Hereford (1148-1163), though the Transcriber of the Salop Chartulary assigned it to Bishop Geoffrey de Clive (1115-1119), and though a greater authority (owing to a mere inadventency) assigned it to Bishop Giles de Braose. [1]

G. Episcopus Hereford' concessi et confirmavi omnes Decimas in Diocesi nostra a bonis viris ad constructionem ecclesie sue eis (sc. Monachis de Salop) collatas, videlicet decimas totius ville de Westone, et decimas dominii de Heneleg, et duas partes decimarum dominii de Stottesden et de Walkeslowe, et de Neuton et de Sibeton, decimas de Jokethull, tam majores quam minores, etc. Testibus Waltero Archidiacono; [2] David de Aqua, Magistro Nicholao, Magistro Edwardo, Magistro Galfrido, Canonicis Hereford', et aliis quamplurimis. The above Deed was inspected, recited, and confirmed, by "Radulf, Dean, [3] and by the Canons of the Chapter, of the Church of Hereford". [4]

A dispute as to the tithes of Sibdon naturally arose between the Monasteries of Shrewsbury and Wenlock. On July 5, 1234, Henry, Abbot of Shrewsbury and Humbert, Prior of Wenlock, came to an agreement on this and another question, hefore alluded

[1] Hist. of Shrewsbury, II. 92. The initial letter of Bishop Giles's name would have stood as E. in a Latin Document, Egidius being Latin for Giles.
[2] Walter Foliot, first Archdeacon of Hereford, then of Salop (supra, p. 208, note 1).
[3] Ralph, Dean of Hereford, known to have been in office in 1157.
[4] Salop Chartulary, Nos. 331, 332.


to. [1] "The Abbey was to pay the Priory a perpetual ferm of 2 merks for the tithes of Ellardine and Rowton, and the Priory was to pay the Abbey a like ferm of 1s. for the tithes of Sibetun". Witnesses,- Alexander, Bishop of Coventry and Lichfield, etc". We have seen that, its tithes being thus engrossed by a distant Monastery, Sibdon Chapel was so far re-endowed by a Lord of the Manor, as that the Vicar or Chaplain of Clunbury, being engaged to serve Sibdon Chapel, gave it far the best half of his attention. We have also seen the Prior of Wenlock gathering the tithes of Sibdon down to the aera of the Reformation. [2] As to any Vicar, Curate, Chaplain, or Parish of Sibdon, of course the usual Records do not recognize such practical nonentities. The first Curate of Sibdon, named in the Diocesan Registers, belongs to the year 1587.


Broom now constitutes one township with Rowton, and that township is partly in the Parish of Hopesay and partly in the Parish of Clungunford. As to the original manorial estates of Broom I can determine nothing. Situation would argue it to have been either a member of Sibdon, or Hopesay, or Corston, or Clungunford. My reason for introducing the place here, is, not because I select Sibdon out of these, but because the Lords of Sibdon happened to be Fitz Alan's Feoffees in a moiety of Broom. Of that moiety I have necessarily said something in conjunction with Sibdon. It remains to add the names of two persons whom I conceive to have been Sibdon's Undertenants at Broom. These are-

Robert le Thein, who sat as 2nd Juror for Purslow Hundred at the Inquest of 1255 and the Assizes of 1256, and- Osbert le Theyn, of Brome, who occurs as a witness about 1260-70. [3]

AS TO THE OTHER MOIETY of Broom, it constituted part of that knight's-fee, which I have spoken of under Purslow as the collective service due to the Lords of Clun, from the Tenants of no less than five scattered vills. The following were, I believe, the particular Tenants of that moiety of Broom which I am now considering. In 1165 Tudel de Broma held a share of the said knight's-fee under Geoffrey de Vere.-

In 1272 Robert Pembrome and Ralph Peyne of Brome were two of the nine persons who subscribed to the same service.

[1] Vide supra, Vol. IX. p. 243.
[2] Supra, page 241.
[3] Supra, page 262.


Munede, now Myndtown.

Isdem Picot tenet Munete et Leuric de eo. Ipse tenuit et liber homo fuit. Ibi I hida et dimidia, geldabiles. Terra est III carucis et dimidiae. In dominio est una caruca et dimidia; et II Servi et IIII Villani et IIII Bordarii cum II carucis. Ibi I Haia. Tempore Regis Edwardi valebat LX solidos. Modo (valet) XXX solidos. [1]

Leuric, the Saxon Tenant of Munete, was probably dispossessed soon after Domesday. Before the year 1135 the Manor was combined with those other Manors, which I have alluded to, under Purslow and Broom, as owing a collective service of one knight's-fee to the Barons of Clun. In 1165,-

OSBERT DE MUNETA is one of the four tenants, named as jointly liable to the said service. His tenure was at Myndtown, I presume, and I imagine his share of the said service to have been a fourth or a fifth. The Pipe-Roll of 1181 registers Osbert de la Munede as an Outlaw, whose Chattels had been sold for 17s. 6d.

WILLIAM DE LA MUNEDE is the next Tenant of Fitz Alan at Myndtown, whom I can name with any confidence. He has been seen attesting a Linley Deed, early in the 13th century, and is otherwise mentioned as occurring between 1200 and 1216. I suppose that Henry de Maskelin, who, as we have seen, [2] had obtained possession of a moiety of Edgton in 1236, made some similar acquisition in Myndtown. At all events the Clun Feodary of 1240 registers him as holding half a knight's-fee in Munede.
[3] However the Manor seems afterwards to have reverted to the family of its previous owners. [4]-

WILLIAM DE LA MUNEDEY has been named as a Recognizor in an Inquest of 1252. [5] The Purslow Hundred-Roll of 1255 says that "William de la Munede holds half a hide of land in La Munede, of John fitz Alan". His services were Suit of Clun Manor-Court

[1] Domesday, fo. 258, a, 1.
[2] Supra, page 263.
[3] Testa de Nevill, p. 45.
[4] The family of Maskelin had some more permanent interest in Purslow Hundred than these temporary tenures at Edgton and Myndtown. Henry de Makelin was a Juror for the Hundred at the Assizes of 1256, and occurs as a local witness some years later (supra, p. 262). We have Hugh Maskelin occurring as a Litigant in 1267, and as a Purslow Juror at the Assizes of 1272. A second Henry de Makelyn occurs as witness of a local Deed in 1318.
[5] Supra, page 220.


and of Purslow Hundred, and eight days' Castle-guard in wartime, performable by one mounted Serjeant. The estate was geldable. We have seen that the same William also held land at Asterton under the Bishop of Hereford. [1] The Pipe-Roll of 1259 registers an amercement of 3s. 4d. against William de Munede for some non-attendance. In, or soon after, the year 1267 the services of-

JOHN DE LA MUNEDE were assigned as part of the dower of Matilda, widow of John fitz Alan (II). And again, the Inquest on John fitz Alan's death, in 1272, gives John del Munede as a participant in the service due from the nine Tenants of Bucknell, Purslow Superior, half Brome, half Acton, and the vill of La Munede. About the same time the said John attests a Minton Deed, as "John, Lord of La Munede". I find him attesting Linley Deeds in October 1291 and June 1301. He was living in November 1303. In the Nomina Villarum of 1316-

WILLIAM DE LA MUNEDE is enrolled ss Lord of the vill of Munede in Purslow Hundred.

JOHN DE LA MUNEDE was Lord of the Manor in 1340 and 1344. The Aid-Roll of 1346 holds him responsible for that fourth part of a knight's-fee in La Munde, which had formerly (i.e. in 1240) been held by Henry le Makelyn.

WILLIAM DE LA MUNEDE occurs as Lord of this Manor from 1361 to 1397.


I cannot point out the Mother-Church of this Parish, for Myndtown Church, when we first hear of it, was independent. Clun is out of the question, inasmuch as the Prior of Wenlock never had any tithes from Myndtown. Lydham was the nearest Saxon Church of any importance.

The Church of Munad is mentioned as a Rectory in the time of Bishop Braose (1200-1216). It was in the Deanery of Clun, Archdeaconry of Salop, and Diocese of Hereford. The Taxation of 1291 puts its value as under 4 per annum.
[2] In 1341, the Assessors of the Ninth quote 4 as the actual Taxation of the Chapel of Munede. They reduced this to an assessment of 30s. on the wheat, wool, and lamb of the Parish, "because the lands lay fallow and untilled, the Tenants being poor". [3] The Valor of 1534-5 gives the tithes receivable by John Home, then Rector of Mynton, as worth 4. 13s. 4d. per annum. There were no charges on that income. [4]

[1] Supra, page 218.
[2] Pope Nich. Taxation, p. 167.
[3] Inquis. Nonarum, p. 189.
[4] Valor Eccles. III. 205.



WALTER LE CLERK, Rector of Munad hetween 1200 and 1216, was brother of William de Muneda (Lord of the Vill).

SIR RICHARD DE HOP was instituted to the Rectory of La Munede on Oct. 11, 1282;- Patron, John de la Munede.

JOHN DE LA MENED, Subdeacon, was instituted January 11, 1297.

WILLIAM PERCEL, Clerk, was instituted Nov. 17, 1303, at presentation of John de la Munede; but, on December 9, following,-

JOHN DE LA MUNED [1] was again instituted, and remained here in 1324.

SIR WALTER DE ASSCHE, [2] Priest, was instituted Dec. 15, 1340; Patron, John de la Munede. He died in less than a month, and on Jan. 18, 1341,-

SIR WILLIAM DE FAALE, Priest, was instituted;- the same Patron presenting.

THOMAS DE WALLEFORD, Priest, was instituted Dec. 15, 1361;- Patron, William de la Munede.

SIR THOMAS BOURTON resigned this Living in 1386, going apparently to Easthope. [3] On Oct. 10, of that year,-

SIR WILLIAM WYMOUND, Chaplain, was instituted to the Church of Menede;- William Menede presenting.



THIS was one of the forfeited estates of Edric Sylvaticus, and, being retained by Earl Roger in his own demesne, its Hundred is not assigned in Domesday. It was however surrounded by vills which were in Rinlau Hundred.-

Ipse Comes tenet Lidum. Edricus Salvage tenuit tempore Regis Edwardi. Ibi XV hidae geldabiles. In dominio sunt IIII carucae et XIIII Villani cum Preposito et Presbytero et VI Bordariis habent X carucas; et adhuc XVI carucae possent ibi esse. Ibi VI Radmans, et

[1] [2] Vide supra, p. 202.
[3] Vide supra, Vol. IV. p. 120.


Molinum reddens I porcum. Silvae duae Leuuedes. Tempore Regis Edwardi valebat X libras: modo (valet) XIIII libras. [1]

On the forfeiture of Earl Robert de Belesme, Lydham escheated to King Henry I., who annexed it to that Honour of Montgomery, of which an account has been already given. It was not however quite the whole of Lydham which was thus consigned to Baldwin de Bollers and his successors. More, a member of the Manor, had been previously given by Henry I., or by one of the Norman Earls, to the ancestor of a family which took a name from the place, and which held it for ages, immediately of the Crown, and not of the Honour of Montgomery. The distinction is important, because it proves that the Serjeantry of More was founded within 40 years after Domesday. Reserving this subject for a future chapter, I proceed to trace the descent of Lydham itself through the Lords of Montgomery. -

An Inquest of Edward I.'s time, states positively that "Robert de Boulers, formerly Lord of Montgomery, held the Manor of Lydom all his time; and that to him succeeded Baldwin his brother, who died without an heir". [2] This brings us down to the year 1207, when the last Baldwin de Bollers died; and we know from other sources that his Widow Wenthlian's dower consisted partly of the Advowson of Lydham, and that her Presentee died in 1256.

William de Courtenay, Lord of Montgomery, will have had Lydham Manor in his hand till his death in 1214. On January 14, 1215, King John's Charter, recognizing the right of Thomas de Erdinton to the Honour of Montgomery, makes special mention of Lydham as a member thereof. [3] But another Charter of the same King, dated January 28, 1216, is a qualified recognition of William de Cantilupe's title to the self-same premises. [4] William de Cantilupe's rebellion in 1223-4 will have subjected him to a temporary forfeiture; but the Writ-Close of May 2, 1224, which announced his pardon, [5] probably restored Lydham to his hands.

WILLIAM DE CANTILUPE (I) had license in 1231 to make over to his son all the estates which he held in capite; and on April 11th the King accepted the homage of William de Cantilupe Junior for the same. The father died at a very advanced age on April 7, 1239. There seems to have been some doubt as to his son's title to succeed to certain Manors, which he had held, and which we know to have constituted a part of the Honour of Montgomery. However

[1] Domesday, fo. 253, b. 1.
[2] Inquis. 18 Edw. I., No. 5.
[3] Supra, pages 130, 131.
[4] Supra, page 132.


the Originalia-Rolls of 28 Henry III. (1243-4) show that the King had ordered the Sheriff of Shropshire to allow,-

WILLIAM DE CANTILUPE (II) to have a month's seizin of the Manor of Ledeham; [1] and had ordered the Sheriff of Wiltshire to allow a similar seizin of the Manor of Pulton. [1] I suppose that all this indicates a doubtful title; for the Originalia-Roll of 32 Henry III. (1247-8) refers to two further writs, by one of which, "the Sheriff of Wiltshire was ordered to seize in manu Regis the Manor of Pulton, which William de Cantilupe had held de Ballivo Regis and at the King's pleasure", by the other of which, "the Sheriff of Shropshire was ordered to seize in manu Regis the Manor of Lydeham which the same William de Cantilupe had surrendered". The Shropshire Pipe-Roll of Michaelmas 1248 well illustrates this state of things. Thomas Corbet, Sheriff since May 18 preceding, is charged in blank for the issues of "the Manor of Lydeham, which William de Cantilupe held". After Thomas Corbet had retired from office as Sheiiff, we have a full account of what he had received as Fermor of Lydham.- Up to Michaelmas 1249 he had received 11. 2s. 5d., viz. Assized Rents 4. 18s. 7d.;- issues of Lydham-Mill 1. 7s.;- sale of hay 19s. 3d.;- customary sale of oats 1. 7s.;- Pleas and perquisites 2. 10s. 7d. Up to March 1250 (when Thomas Corbet quitted office), he had received a further sum of 5. 10s. 10d., from the several issues of Lydham in the last half-year. A Writ of June 28, 1250, orders the Sheriff of Shropshire "to go to the Manor of Lydeham, which had sometime been in the hand of the King's faithful and beloved William de Cantilupe, and to cause it to be extended". When thus extended, the Sheriff was to keep it safely, saving to William de Cantilupe whatever corn was found on the land. The Sheriff (Robert de Grendon) went personally to Lydham, and returned the net annual value of the Manor as 7. 14s. 11d. [2] A second Writ, dated on the same 28th of June, gives the Sheriff of Wiltshire similar orders as regarded the Manor of Pulton, sometime in the hand of "the faithful and beloved William de Cantilupe"; whose corn on the estate is also reserved. Pulton proved to be worth 25. 19s. 8d. per annum. [3] William de Cantilupe (II) died about March 1, 1251, according to the apparent meaning of Matthew Paris. His son,-

WILLIAM DE CANTILUPE (III), had livery as his heir on March 3, 1251, but Matthew Paris says that this Livery was not of a plenary character. The remark is perhaps illustrated by the history

[1] Originalia, Vol. I. pp. 5, 10, 11.
[2] [3] Inquis. 34 Hen. III., Nos. 10, 24.


of the Manor of Lydham. On May 12, 1253, King Henry III. ordered an Inquest to be held, as to "whether the Manor of Lidham, then in his hand, was Royal demesne or escheat, so that he could give it to whom he pleased"? The answer was that "Robert de Bullers, formerly Lord of Lydham, had given the Manor to his brother Baldwin;- that, on Robert's death without issue, Baldwin held it as his heir;- that then Wenthlian, Baldwin's widow, had it in dower;- that, on Wenthlian's death, William de Cantilupe held the Manor in his hand till the King seized it as his Escheat, and as an appurtenance of Montgomery, which was already in the King's hand". "This seizure (the jurors added) was during the Shrievalty of Thomas Corbet". The Manor was calculated to yield an annual income of 10. 1s., besides one pound of pepper. [1] On June 25, 1253, the King being at Suthwyk, and about to sail for Gascony, expedited a Patent, by which he concedes that "as soon as he shall return to England, he will cause judgment to be given in the Curia Regis concerning the seizin which the faithful and beloved William de Cantilupe affirmed his father to have had of the Manors of Pulton and Lidenham". [2] The promise, whether kept or not, did not ultimately benefit the Patentee.

William de Cantilupe (III) died "juvenis et elegans" (as the Chronider describes him) about Michaelmas 1254. The Escheator had orders to seize his lands into the custody of the Crown, on Oct. 10, 1254. [3] Meantime, that is up to Easter 1254, Robert de Grendon (Sheriff of Shropshire) had been Fermor of Lydham, and owed 6. 7s. 5d. to the Crown, when he surrendered that trust to Peter, Bishop of Hereford. The said Bishop had it in charge to take custody of the said Manor from Easter 1254, for three years, paying as much, to the Exchequer, for the same, as the King had been wont previously to receive. The Bishop's account, rendered in 1259, charges himself with 6. 7s. 5d. for the ferm of Lydham up to Michaelmas 1254, and at the same half-yearly rate up to Easter 1257, when the term ceased. He paid the whole, "and was quit". The Purslow Hundred-Roll happened to be drawn up during the period of the Bishop of Hereford's tenure. With the exception of a slight arithmetical difference, it records the position of things, much as the Pipe-Roll would lead us to expect. Episcopus Hereford' tenet unam hidam et dimidiam in Lideham de Dominio Rege, sed (Juratores) nesciunt quo waranto. Sed villa debet

[1] Inquis. 37 Hen. ILI., No. 28.
[2] Patent. 37 Hen. III., m. 7.
[3] Rot. Finium, II. 195.
[4] Rot. Pipe, 43 Hen. III., Salop.


sectam ad Hundredum de Posselawe, et est dominicum Domini Regis, et est extenta pro 12. 14s. 1d. per annum. Et Ecclesia illius Manerii est de donacione Domini Regis, et valet per annum 100 solidos, et Adam, Persona dicte Ecclesie, eam tenet de dono Wenthe, que fuit uxor Baldwini de Bodlers; et (villa) est geldabilis.

I have not inquired how, or by whom, Lydham continued to be farmed after Easter 1257. I presume that on that expiration of the Bishop of Hereford's term, the Manor devolved to Prince Edward, as Lord of Montgomery. It will be remembered that after the Battle of Lewes (May 14, 1264) the Prince became a fellow-prisoner with his Father, and did not effectually escape from his Gaolers till May 30, 1265. Two months were then employed by the Prince in preparing for that struggle, which resulted on August 4, in immortal honours gained on the field of Evesham. It was during this interval of two months, viz. on July 1, 1265, that the Prince, being at Gloucester, "granted the Manor of Lydehum to his faithful and beloved Adam de Montgomery;- to hold to him and his heirs by the customary services;- but in case the Prince or his heirs should find themselves unable to warrant the said Manor, then they were to provide an equivalent, or a better, substitute, in some competent quarter, for the said Adam or his heirs. Witness,- Brother Adam, Abbot of Neth, etc.". On November 22, 1265, King Henry III., being at Westminster, fully confirmed by Charter the above Grant of his son. [1] The Great Rebellion had not heen yet entirely quelled when we find-

ADAM DE MONTGOMERY in full seizin of Lydham. A Patent, dated at Kenilworth on July 6, 1266, empowers the said Adam "to receive to the King's peace his men of Aston Kelmund and Lidham, viz. those Welshmen who had heretofore departed from their fealty". A Charter of April 16, 1267, allows that Adam de Montgomery and his heirs may hold a weekly Market, on Fridays, at Lidum, and also two annual Fairs, of four days each, viz. the eve, day of, and two days following, the feast of St. Philip and St. James (April 30May 3); and the feast of St. Mary Magdalene (July 21-24). [2] In September of this same year (1267) I find a notice of Adam de Montgomery which shows that he was identical with that Adam fitz Philip, who in 1265 had distinguished himself as Castellan of Montgomery, by refusing to give up the said Castle to Montfort's nominee. [3]- At the Assizes, held in 1267 at Shrewsbury, "Adam,

[1] Quo Waranto, p. 682.
[2] Rot. Chart. 51 Hen. III., m. 6.
[3] Supra, page 143.


son of Philip de Mongomery, appeared before the Justiciars and quitclaimed to John de Houton and Alianore his wife all right in a messuage and noke at Aston-juxta-Stanes, which Geoffrey, son of Greoffrey de Waleton had given to the said John and Alianore and their heirs". I have nothing to say further on the relevances of this document than that I think it concerned an estate near Stone in Staffordshire.

In December, 1269, I find Adam de Mungomery taking out a Writ against Thomas, son of Roger Purcel, for disseizing him of common pasture in Lydom and Herdwyk. By a Charter of July 10, 1270, King Henry III. concedes to Adam de Montgomery that his vill of Lydeham shall he a Free Borough, and the men thereof free from toll and tallage throughout the Realm. The Grantee may erect a Gallows on his own land, and hang thereon all robbers, taken with their booty upon them: so that this be done without loss to the Crown or to other persons of that district. The Charter also grants license for a weekly Market, to be holden on Wednesdays, at Lydeham, and two annual Fairs of four days' duration each, viz. the eve, and day of, and two days following, the respective feasts of St. Ethelbert (May 19-22) and St. Michael in monte tumba (Oct. 15-18). Lastly, the Charter allows to Adam de Montgomery the privilege of Free-Warren in his demesnes at Lydeham. [1]

At the Assizes of October, 1272, the Prior of Chirbury had a suit against Adam de Montgomery for disseizing him of certain common pasture in Lydun which pertained to the Prior's free tenement in Snedi (Snead). The process is not reported. At the same Assizes the Jurors for Purslow Hundred presented that "Sir Adam de Montgomery had recently set up a Market, on Fridays, at Lydum, and an annual Fair on St. Mary Magdalene's day. The Jurors knew not his warranty". On the Pipe-Roll of 1273 blank spaces are left for certain entries as to the ferm of Lydham. It would seem that the Officers of the Exchequer thought there might be some outstanding claims of this kind. The years 1258, 1259, and 1261 to 1273 were the 15 years contemplated in this retrospect; and I suppose the person primarily responsible was the King himself. I have given further particulars about Adam de Montgomery and his second wife, Isabella de Constantine, under Oldbury, Burwarton, Eaton Constantine, Fitz, and Sandford. At his death in 1290,-

THOMAS DE MONTGOMERY, his son by a former wife, was found

[1] Rot. Chart. 54 Hen. III., m. 5.


to be heir of Lydham, and to have arrived at the age of 30 years on December 25, 1289. It was further found that the late Adam de Montgomery had been enfeoffed in Lydham by Charter of King Edward I., and for the service of one knight's-fee. [1]

Thomas de Montgomery, as soon as he got possession of Lydham, gave, or perhaps sold, it to Roger de la More (of More) and his wife Alice, with remainder to the heirs of the said Roger by the said Alice;- to hold immediately of the King, as Thomas himself had held it. This was said to have been done by Royal license; but, in consequence of some irregularity in the transaction, Hugh de Louther, at the Assizes of 1292, sued the said Roger and Alice; by Writ of right, for two-thirds of the Manor of Lydham. [2] The pleadings were lengthy, but the main facts were acknowledged by both sides, and need merely to be alluded to. These were, the sometime seizin of Henry III., his grant of Lydham to Prince Edward, the Prince's gift to Adam de Montgomery, the title of Thomas de Montgomery as Adam's heir, and the transfer by the said Thomas to Roger and Alice de la More. Hugh de Louther's strong points were, that Prince Edward's Charter was a demise to Adam de Montgomery and his heirs (not to his or their assigns), and that it was a demise ad voluntatem Regis, that is, I presume, it contained clauses stipulating for a power of resumption by the Crown: also that Roger and Alice de la More were in noways related (omnino extranei) to Adam and his heirs; and that, if the King were to wish to avail himself of the resumptive powers retained in his Charter, when Prince, he would he altogether powerless to do so, if Roger and Alice, rather than the heirs of Adam, were in possession. In short, Roger and Alice de la More had acquired (perquisiverant) something of more definite permanence, and, therefore, of greater value, than that which Adam de Montgomery's heirs were entitled to hold, or to part with. This able argument had its weight. After one or two adjournments, and a default on the part of More, the King recovered his seizin of Lydham, as against Roger and Alice de la More. [3] I presume that this

[1] Inquis. 18 Edw. I., No. 5.
[2] I suppose the Defendants were not as yet seized of the remaining third, whioh will have been held in dower by Isabella de Constantine. They were probably entitled thereto in reversion. At these same Assizes of 1292, the Purslow jurors represented that "Isabel, widow of Adam de Montgomery, holds 5 merks of land in the vill of Lydum, and is in the King's gift, and yet to be married".
[3] Quo Waranto, p. 682. There is something curious in the Mores not repeating their first averment, viz. that Thomas de Montgomery's conveyance to themselves had been per licentiam Regis. Probably such license, if it existed, was worded in such cautious or conditional terms, as that Hugh de Louther would have easily defeated any argument grounded thereon.


Recovery was not good against Thomas de Montgomery, and that he is actually the person described in the Nomina Villarum of 1316, as "Thomas de Lydoun, Lord of the Vill of Lydoun".

Eventually Lydham passed into the hands of the Barons Cherleton of Powys. Sir Owen de Cherleton, a Cadet of that House, held it in capite by service of half a knight's-fee. He died without issue on January 29, 1368. His kinsman and next heir was Sir John de Cherleton (III) of Powys, then aged thirty years and upwards. [1]

OF UNDERTENANTS in Lydham I have little to say beyond what is implied in a Charter which must have passed before the year 1256.-

"Robert, son of Madoc de Suerel, gives to Walter fitz Gutha, for his homage and for 20s., all the Moor which reached up to the assart in Twynordelhale, in the vill of Lidem, and as far as Kemlet (the Camlad). Witnesses,- Roger de Mora; Adam, Parson of Lidem; Walter de Henton; John fitz Howel; Madoc fitz Wier; Philip fitz Seer; Gribri fitz Madoc; and Reginald de Lidem". [2] A More Inquest of 1254 was attended by Howel de Lidham, who was also 12th Juror for Purslow Hundred at the Inquest of 1255. In 1267 Howel de Lydom fines half a merk for some assize to be had.

Philip fitz Reginald of Lidum occurs on a local Jury of July 1283, and Houwel de Lydhoum and Robert Dum, of Lydoum, on a similar Jury in September 1295.


The Priest, mentioned among the Domesday residents of this Manor, may be taken to indicate a pre-existent and Saxon Church. In 1255 we have seen that Lydham Church was valued at 100s. per annum, the Advowson being then in the Crown. The Taxation of 1291 values the Church of Lydom (in the Deanery of Clun) at 4. 6s. 8d. per annum. [3] In 1341, the Assessors of the Ninth, quoting this Taxation, rated the Parish at 24s. only, saying that a third part thereof was in Wales, and another third unfilled, and that the glebe, oblata, hay-tithes, and small-tithes, which went to

[1] Inquis. 42 Edw. III., No. 17.
[2] Transcript, communicated by S.S. Smith, Esq., of Bridgnorth.
[3] Pope Nich. Taxation, p. 167.

MORE. 283

swell the Church Taxation, were not a relevant index for the present assessment. [1]

We have had an indication that, in 1343, the Advowson of Lydham, then held by Sir John de Cherleton, of Powis, was about to be bestowed on Haughmond Abbey. [2] The plan seems to have been abortive. On the death of John de Cherleton (III) in 1374, his Advowson of Lydom was valued at 100s. per annum. The Valor of 1534-5 gives the Rectory of Ledon, then held by Roger Walcott, as worth 10 per annum, less 6d. for Synodals. [3]


ADAM, Parson of Lydham, was presented between the years 1207 and 1243, by Wenthlian, widow of Baldwin de Bollers. Adam was living in the summer of 1255, but died before Sept. 29, 1256, when a Patent of Henry III. presents-

SIMON DE BURNHAM to the vacant Benefice.

ROBERT DE FANGEFOS was similarly presented by a Patent of November 10, 1265.

HUGH DE MONTGOMERY, Deacon, was admitted April 4, 1284, at the presentation of Sir Adam de Montgomery, his brother.

ROGER DE LA MORE, Acolyte, was admitted Oct. 7, 1310, at the presentation of Thomas de Montgomery.

ROBERT DE LODYNGTON, Priest, was admitted Oct. 25, 1349:- Patron, "Sir John de Cherleton, Lord of Powys".

HENRY UPTON, or HOPTON, on April 19, 1379, exchanges this Rectory for the preferment of-

SIR WALTER BUFFARD, late of Credenhulle, who is presented to Lydham by the King, as Custos of John de Cherlton's heir.

GRIFFIN, SON OF GRIFFIN DE FORTON, was presented July 8, 1389, by John de Cherleton, Lord of Powys. On Dec. 22, 1391, he exchanges preferments with-

SIR ROGER BROMELOWE, late Rector of Machynllaith.


This Manor, originally a member of Lydham, was detached therefrom, at least as early as the reign of Henry I., and probably by that very King. More was exalted into a Tenure by Grand Serjeantry, This Serjeantry was not endowed with the Manor of More only, but with estates at Wittintre (near Chirbury) and at Long Stanton (near Holgate) which happened to be coincidently at the King's

[1] Inquis. Nonarum, p. 189.
[2] Supra, Vol. VII. p. 298.
[3] Valor Eccles. III. 205.


disposal. The service assigned to the said Serjeantry was as honourable as the endowment was handsome. It is described in various ways, each short of the truth, in one or other particulars, but all, when combined, giving the following idea.- The Lord of More was, as a Constable of the King's host, to assume the command of two hundred foot-soldiers whenever any King of England crossed the Welsh Border in hostile array. The said Constable was to march in the vanguard of the army, and with his own hands to carry the King's standard.-

The importance and responsibility of such an office may be estimated by a story, taken from Henry II.'s first Welsh campaign, when doubtless the Lord of More was at his usual post.- The King having holden a Great Council at Northampton on July 17, 1157, forthwith marched to Chester, where Malcolm, King of Scots, awaited him to do homage. Thence the King proceeded on his expedition against Wales. He had crossed the Border and was already entangled in the pass of Counsylth, near Flint. The army, inexperienced in Welsh strategy, and its leaders, ignorant of the nature of the country, were pressing onward fearlessly and imprudently, when a sudden attack was made by the enemy. A panic, and a great slaughter of the English, were the results. One Chronicler has it that the King himself was "fain to flee", another that he had a narrow escape of his life, another that Eustace fitz John (Constable of Chester), and Robert de Courci were among the slain. The result proves that the affair was but a check, for the King marched afterwards to Snowdon and there exacted homage and hostages from the Welsh Chiefs. It was also on this occasion that he built the Castles of Rhuddlan and Basyngwerk, and founded a House of Knights Templars in that vicinity.

But the misfortune of Counsylth was not to be thus obliterated. At that time, Henry de Essex, a nobleman of the highest birth, and who had served under Stephen, and under Henry himself, when Duke of Normandy, was Constable of England. It began to be whispered that this high functionary was the immediate cause of the panic at Counsylth. "Being in the thick of the skirmish he threw down the Royal Standard. The Welsh were at once emboldened, and the English dismayed, by the correlative idea that the King had fallen". De Essex was at length charged openly with personal cowardice in the affair. His traducer was Robert de Montfort; and it became necessary that De Essex should compurge his honour by the Ordeal of Battle. While this sentence was impending, and

MORE. 285

for five years after the Battle of Counsylth, De Essex continued to stand high in the Royal favour. In 1159, he served with credit in the famous expedition to Thoulouse, and even as late as March 19, 1163, he was named by the King as one of his Sureties for the observance of the Treaty of Dover. In the next month the Duel hetween De Essex and De Montfort was fought in the King's presence at Reading. De Essex was worsted, and so, liable by law to capital punishment. The King spared his life, but confiscated all his possessions. He himself was shorn a monk, and died in the Cloisters of Reading. Thus was a great name expunged from the Aristocracy of England. Thus was a distinguished soldier ruined by a private quarrel, perhaps by the mere jealousy of a younger and stouter antagonist.

Returning to our proper subject, we see what it was to he a Standard-bearer in the English host and in a Welsh defile. As no Lord of More ever incurred such forfeiture as De Essex, we may presume that the race was equal to its office; perhaps we may picture the Chief of the Two-Hundred standing fast by his colours in the very carnage of Counsylth.

ADAM DE LA MORE, who was head of his house at the above period, was deceased before 1180. He had left a son, then an infant, whose wardship had been surreptitiously obtained by one Walter de Oppaton. The thing was discovered; and Ranulf de Glanville, then visiting Shropshire, fined the usurping Guardian 100s. The Sheriff of Shropshire then became, ex officio, Custos of the Minor's estates. The issues thereof were 2. 2s. 2d. in 1180, 1. 5s. 1d. in 1181, 1. 6s. 10d. in 1182, 1. 1s. 8d. in 1183, and 18s. 10d. in 1184. I suppose that in the latter year the son of Adam de la More had livery. I conclude him to have been that-

WILLIAM DE MORE whom we have seen attesting a Medlicott Deed about 1190-8. [1] The career of William de More was a short one. We have supposed that he himself was only twenty-one years of age in 1184, and yet it is evident that his son and heir, Roger, whatever was his age, had obtained his Livery before 1199. Among the fines or amercements, settled or inflicted by the Justices itinerant in September of that year,-

ROGER DE MORA is entered as owing one merk de serjantia sua. This may have been a Fine for Livery (a thing which was sometimes negotiated with Justices Itinerant) or it may have been an amercement or an assessment of some kind. At all events it shows Roger

[1] Supra, page 187.


de Mora in possession of his estate. That he was son of William de More is proved by a Deed of his, in which he so describes himself between the years 1200 and 1210. [1] A Roll of Shropshire Serjeantries, drawn up in or before the year 1210, speaks of Roger de la More's Serjeantry as a Constabularia peditum (a command of infantry) in the armies of Wales, and adds that his pay (while on service) was 12d. a day. [2] (It was twice the usual pay of a knight.) A similar Roll, drawn up in 1211, contains the following entry.- Rogerus de la More tenet per serjanciam et debet esse Constabularius peditum in exercitu Domini Regis in Wallia ad custum Domini Regis,- per diem XII denarios. [3] Another Roll of 1212 reveals no new particular, except that it inaccurately calls the Tenant of this Serjeantry Radulf de la More. [4]

Later in King John's reign we find Roger de Mara, as he is called, suffering imprisonment and forfeiture, doubtless for some political offence. About June 1214 he proffers a Fine of 15 merks, "to have reseizin of the lands of which he had been deprived by the King's order, conditioned that he should remain in the custody of good and loyal men". [5] The Sheriff of Shropshire had the King's Letters Patent accordingly. As the above Fine is somewhat defaced on the Fine-Roll, I will give it as it stands on the Shropshire Pipe-Roll of Michaelmas 1214, where it will also appear that the debt was discharged.- Rogerus de Mora r. c. de XV marcis ut liberetur a prisona et pro habenda saisina terre sue sue unde fuit dissaisitus per preceptum Regis. In thesauro XII marce. Et debet III marcas. Idem r. c. de eodem debito, etc. [6] In the same Pipe-Roll the Sheriff charges the King 20s., in expensis Rogeri de Mora versus curiam;- for the expenses of Roger de More in his journey to the Court. It may be doubted whether the journey, thus paid for, was that of conducting the prisoner in the first instance to the Court, or whether some more recent occasion had required More's attendance there. It will hereafter appear that this Roger de la More made considerable sales of the lands of his Serjeantry;- an illegal thing which was visited on his posterity; but, for one in his position, a Fine of 15 merks was ruinous, and may perhaps account for his seeming prodigality.

At the Assizes of November 1221 it was found that Jarvorth fitz Ithel and his brother Eynon had unjustly disseized Roger de Mora of certain bosc and pasture in More. The trial was taken in the

[1] Supra, page 209.
[2] Liber Ruber Scacc. fo. CXXXVII.
[3] Testa de Nevill, p. 55.
[4] Liber Ruber Scacc. fo. CXXIIJ.
[5] Rot. Finium, 16 John, m. 4.
[6] Rot. Pipe, 16 John, Salop.

MORE. 287

absence and default of the Defendants, and they were in misericordia. [1] The contemporary Pipe-Roll shows that they were amerced half a merk each, pro disseisina.

At the Assizes of 1227 the presentments of Purslow Hundred contain a statement about Roger de la More's Serjeantry.- "He held the vill of More by Serjeantry, viz. to be a Constable of infantry in the King's army in Wales. His estate was worth 2 merks (1. 6s. 8d.) per annum". [2] I imagine that the next Roger de More who occurs was son and heir of the above Roger. Calling him-

ROGER DE MORE (II), the first notice which I have of him is in 1246, when he stands sixth of a Jury of twelve (most of them knights) which had to determine the relations between Thomas Corbet's Manors and the Royal Forests.

About March 1247 Robert Passelewe visited Shropshire to reckon and to assess the various alienations which had been at any time made by the Tenants-in-Serjeantry. The cognizable alienations in Roger de la More's Serjeantry were estimated to consist of one carucate, 4 virgates, and 8 acres of land, and of a Mill, all in La More and in Wytingtre. His service was "to be Constable of 200 foot, in the army of Wales, so long as the King should be there". His assessment in respect of alienations was to be one merk per annum, payable to the Crown. On the Pipe-Roll of 1250 three-and-a-half years' arrears of this rent are charged against Roger de la More. [3] Meanwhile, on Nov. 15, 1248, a Fine was levied, whereby Robert de Overes, Tenant of 6 acres in Staples, released the same to Roger de la More, who had sued him for the same, and who now gave a sore-hawk for the Release. We shall hear of Robert de Overes again, as one who held part of the alienated Serjeantry now under notice. Roger de la More occurs on a Montgomery Jury in January 1249.

The Writ of Diem clausit which announced the death of Roger de la More hears date Dec. 3, 1254. The Inquest, which followed, detailed the nature of his Serjeantry and the amount of his salary

[1] Assizes, 6 Hen. III., m. 1 dorso.
[2] Testa de Nevill, p. 53.
[3] Rot. Pipe, 34 Hen. III., Salop. The particulars of all these alienations (except one of very ancient date) form an item in the Record called Testa de Nevill (p. 58). They amount exactly to a Mill, one carucate, 4 virgates, and 8 acres of land. The gross annual value of the alienations was 3. 6s. 8d. They included not only those in More and Whyttingtre (noticed above), but that at Long Stanton (noticed Vol. IV. p. 33-35). Each tenant or assignee (there were eight) was to contribute a rateable quota of the annual Fine of 13s. 4d. As to the service or serjeantry, Roger de la More undertook that entirely, "because the Tenants were poor and the land was in the Marches".
[4] Pedes Finium, 33 Hen. III., Salop.


(viz. 12d. per day when on duty), also his liability to the Crown of 13s. 4d. in respect of the alienations of his estate. More was calculated to yield a yearly income of 5. 13s. 7d. Besides his Tenure in capite, he had held 5 virgates of land (worth 10s. 4d. yearly) under the Bishop of Hereford and under Adam de Acton, by a rent of 5s. 4d.; and 2 virgates (worth 7s. 2d. yearly) under Roger de Norbury, by a rent of 2s. 10d. Roger, son and heir of the deceased, was of full age. [1]

ROGER DE LA MORE (III) did homage to King Henry III. on January 19, 1255. His Relief was fixed at 10 merks; and the Abbot of Pershore (then Escheator) had the usual order concerning his investiture as heir of his father, Roger. [2] The Inquest of Purslow Hundred, taken in the following summer, reckons Roger de la More's tenement in More to be half a hide, "held by Serjeantry, of the King, by service of accompanying the King in his army of Wales in time of war". He was to receive 12d. a day, with horses and arms, for that Serjeantry, so long as he remained in the host. The alienations in Long Stanton, and Roger de la More's arrentation, are then set forth. More was a geldable estate, and its owner did suit to Purslow Hundred. The same Inquest reports that Cecily, widow of the late Roger de More, who was a Tenant by Serjeantry, had yet to be remarried, and that her land (dower) was worth 40s. per annum.2

At the Assizes of January 1256 Roger de More sat as 12th Juror for Purslow Hundred. These Jurors reported his estate as a whole hide of land, and as worth 6 per annum. The Writ of Diem clausit announcing the death of the said Roger de la More issued on July 28, 1260. The Inquest which followed describes his Serjeantry as that of "taking charge of one constablewick" in the King's Welsh wars. As we might expect from the rapid succession in this family, the son and heir of the deceased (also named Roger) was only nine months old at the time of his father's death. [4] A Writ of August 28 following, commands the Escheator for Shropshire (Stephen de Bitterley) to take custody of the Infant's estate. A Patent of Sept. 11,

[1] Inquisitions, 39 Hen. III., No. 13.
[2] Rot. Finium, Vol. II., p. 200.
[3] Rot. Hundred. II. p. 77.
[4] Inquisitions, 44 Hen. III., No. 17. This Inquest is much defaced. Among the jurors I think I trace Walter de la Neuton, Robert de Overes, Reginald le Cron, Philip fitz Saer, and William and John de le Hom. The deceased appears to have held two-thirds of a virgate (in Dune or Acton) under Adam de Acton, by a penny rent. The value of this estate was 4s. 6d. He also had held 11 solidates of annual rent under John de Verdon in R**ton, but no service was due to the said John from this tenure. The whole estate of the deceased was calculated to yield 4. 3s. 4d. per annum.

MORE. 289

1260, gives to Gilbert fitz Hugh, custody of the land, and marriage of the heirs, of the late Roger de la More, saving the dower of Joan his widow.

ROGER DE LA MORE (IV) was of course still under age at the Assizes of October 1272. The Jurors for Purslow Hundred so reported him, adding that his Serjeantry was "to provide one horse-soldier yearly" for the King's service, and to pay a merk yearly for alienated land. The Manor of La More was now valued at 100s. per annum. Gilbert fitz Hugh's grant of "custody and marriage" was also recorded.

Roger de la More occurs as a witness or juror at the specific dates of April 3, 1283, and Oct. 1, 1291. In the latter instance he is styled "Lord of More". It was about this time that he and Alice, his wife, made that abortive purchase of Lydham which has been already noticed. At the very Assizes at which he was impleaded for his title to Lydham (viz. in October 1292) he was one of the Elizors who had to choose the Jurors for Purslow Hundred. The Elizors always sat as Jurymen themselves, and it is from this Jury of 1292 that we have perhaps the most authentic statement as to the Serjeantry of More. The Record is as follows.- "Roger de la More holds More by Serjeantry of carrying the King's standard in the vanguard (in priori exercitu) through the parts of Montgomery, towards Wales, and also of being a Constable of Infantry. He shall have 12d. per day. He pays the Sheriff one merk yearly. Nothing (of his service) is in arrear; in proof whereof, he cites the Record of the King's Marshal".

The Writ of Diem clausit announcing the death of Roger de la More issued on August 16, 1295. An Inquest held at Muneton on Sept. 8, following, describes his Serjeantry more fully than any other document.- Tenuit quasdam terras in villa de La More per serjanciam portandi vexillum Domini Regis in anteriori exercitu Domini Regis cum contigerit Regem per partes de Montegomery cum exercitu ire in Walliam; et etiam per servicium essendi Superiorem Constabularium (sic) de peditibus Comitatus Salopie, percipiendo per diem de Domino Rege XII denarios: et etiam per servicium reddendi per annum XIII solidos et IIII denarios, videlicet ad festum Sti Michaelis VIs. VIIId. et ad Annunciacionem Beate Marie VIs. VIIId. per Vicecomitem; et per servicium secte ad Hundredum Pusseloue de tribus septimanis in tres septimanas.

The valuation of the estate of the deceased gives the following annual receipts.-


s. d.
A messuage with curtilage and gardens: 3 0
Demesne;- 110 acres of tillage at 2d. per acre: 18 4
Do.; 10 acres of meadow at 8d. per acre: 6 8
A Water-Mill: 13 4
Profits of wood-land: 3 0
2 4s. 4d.

s. d.
Rents of Free-Tenants at Michaelmas: 15 0
Do. at Lady Day: 4 4
Do. at the feast of St. Peter ad Vincula (Aug. 1): 2 0
21s. 4d.

Out of which the Sheriff receives: 13 4
Net Rents of Free-Tenants: 8 0

Customary Rents at Michaelmas: 1 5 1
Do. at Lady Day: 1 5 1
Pleas and Perquisites of the Manor Court: 0 2 0
Total: 2 12s. 2d.

The collective sums are correctly added in the Inquest, as amounting to 5. 4s. 6d.; out of which, Alice, widow of the deceased, was to have her dower in pursuance of the King's Writ, directed to Malcolumb de Harley (then Escheator citra Trent). [1]

WILLIAM DE LA MORE, son and heir of the deceased, was found to have attained the age of 10 years on May 3, 1295. In the Nomina Villarum of 1316 only the Christian name (William) of the Lord of More appears on the Record. In the subjoined list of presentations to More Church, will be found further mention of this William, and of his immediate successor.


This was, I suspect, originally an affiliation of Lydbury North, but under the tutelage of the Manorial Lords it became independent, at a period which the earliest Records fail to reach. The Taxation

[1] Inquisitions, 23 Edw. I., No. 22.


[For engraving, see pdf.]


of 1291 values the Church of More (in the Deanery of Clun) at 4. 6s. 8d. per annum. [1]

In 1341 the Assessors of the Ninth erroneously quote this Taxation as one of 8 merks (5. 13s. 4d.). They assess the Parish of More at 30s. to the current levy, saying that the lands were untilled for want of means; and that the glebe, hay-tithes, small tithes, and oblations, which constituted 60s. in the Church Taxation, had nothing to do with the tax of the Ninth. [2]

The Valor of 1534-5 gives the Rectory of More (then held by John ap David) as worth 8. 13s. 4d. per annum, less 6d. for Archdeacon's synodals and 6s. 8d. for a pension due to the Abbot of Wigmore. [3]


ROGER, Parson of More, occurs about 1220-30. [4]

ADAM, Parson of More, is named in a Deed of the 13th century. [5]

SIR SIMON DE HEREFORD has a license on March 31, 1280, to let this Chapel to farm, provided that the services thereof be duly cared for. He resigned in 1282, when, on April 4th,-

SIR WALTER DE MORE, Chaplain, was admitted at the presentation of Roger, Lord of More.

SIR SIMON DE LANGETON was admitted, Oct. 7, 1301, at the presentation of the King (during the minority of William de la More). Langeton was here in 1309.

ROGER DE LA MORE, Subdeacon, was admitted June 1, 1314, at the presentation of William de la More.

ROBERT DE LA MORE, Clerk, was admitted Oct. 12, 1316, the same Patron presenting:- but on March 20, 1318, the Bishop commends this Church to the care of-


JOHN DE LA MORE was instituted to this Chapel on July 12, 1342. He seems to have died in the year of the Pestilence.

ROGER DE ACTON, Priest, was admitted Sept. 3, 1349; the King (as Custos of the land and heir of William de More) having presented him by a Patent of August 20, previous.
[6] Acton was presented to Whittington on Nov. 2, following, and on Nov. 5, [7]-

[1] Pope Nich., Taxation, p. 167.
[2] Inquis. Nonarum, p. 189.
[3] Valor Ecclesiasticus, III. 204. This pension from the Rector of More also forms one of the Abbot of Wigmore's items of receipt (ibidem, p. 203.) It represented, I imagine, the ancient dependency of More on Lydbury Church.
[4] Supra, page 211.
[5] Blakeway's MSS.
[6] Patent. 23 Edw. III., p. 2, m. 8.
[7] Supra, page 42.


ROGER DE BROMELEY, Clerk, was presented by Patent to More, the King being Patron as Guardian of William de More's heir. [1]

SIR HUGH LE ZONGE, Chaplain, having resigned this Benefice on Dec. 16, 1355,-

SIR RICHARD DE WARDEN was admitted at the King's presentation.

SIR WALTER PRIDE was Incumbent of More in 1357.

SIR JOHN MARCH, Priest, was instituted Aug. 6, 1372, at presentation of John de la More. March died in 1386, when,-

SIR THOMAS DE MORESWODE, Chaplain, was admitted (on July 20), at the presentation of "John, Lord of More".

SIR WILLIAM PHILIPPES was admitted March 9, 1392, the King presenting, as Custos of the land and heir of John de la More. Philippes resigned this Living in 1417, for that of Munslow.


The stir that was made in Henry III.'s time about the alienations of Serjeantries happens to give us full information as to the Undertenants of this Manor. The first and earliest alienation detected, was that of a virgate in More. The Tenant in 1247 is not identified, nor the amount of his rent stated. Probably he paid none. The Alienator of this virgate is said to have been the triavus of Roger de la More then living, and the original Grantee to have been the brother of the Alienator. This statement, taken literally, gives us a greater idea of the antiquity of the family of More than is within any probable compass.- Triavus I presume is put for Tritavus, and Tritavus, in its technical sense, means the Great-Grandfather of a man's Great-Grandfather. Now the Great-Grandfather of the Roger de la More of l25l, was probably Adam de la More, deceased in 1180. Adam de la More cannot have been much less than 40 years of age at the time of his death, for his grandson was in active life 19 years after. If then Adam de la More was born about 1140, his Great-Grandfather may indeed have been contemporary with King Henry I., and have made the alienation now in question; but such a number of generations, crowded into such a number of years, is just within the utmost range of possibility, but altogether without precedent. I take the Triavus of Roger de la More of 1251, to be that ancestor, whatever his degree of remoteness, who held More in Henry I.'s time.

THE OTHER ALIENATIONS are of a much more tangible character.- In King John's time (1199-1216) Roger de la More (Father of the

[1] Patent. 23 Edw. IIL, p. 3, m. 21.


Roger of 1247-54) gave a virgate in More to his brother Hugh. Hugh de la More, probably the son of the original Grantee, was holding this virgate in 1247. Hugh de Mora was also attendant on an Inquest of December, 1254, and was a Juror for Purslow Hundred at the Inquest of 1255. On Oct. 13, 1283, a Fine was levied at Westminster, whereby Morice de la More (Impedient) acknowledges himself to have given a messuage and virgate in La B*** to Hugh de la More, who is to pay a rose-rent, and who ostensibly gives a sore hawk for the grant, which purports to be the result of a suit of Charter-warranty. Meurik de Benet sat as third Juror for Purslow Hundred at the Assizes of 1292. On Sept. 8, 1295, the Inquest on the death of Roger de la More (IV) was attended by Meurice de la Benette and Thomas de la More.

ANOTHER ALIENATION 1s illustrated by the following particulars.-

"In King John's time, Roger de la More gave a virgate and a Mill in the Fee of More to Robert des Ovres". [1] We have heard of Robert son of Madoc de Ovres twice before.
[2] He was living in 1247. His virgate and Mill in More were then valued at 4s. per annum and 6s. 8d. per annum respectively. In 1248 we have seen that he surrendered 6 acres in Staples to Roger de la More (II). In December, 1254, he attended the Inquest on the said Roger de la More's death. As we have seen under Mucklewick, Robert de Overes was himself deceased in 1255. [3] A second Robert de Overes appears on a More Inquest in 1260.

ANOTHER ALIENATION, made by Roger de la More in King John's time, was that of 8 acres in More to two followers (valitis). In 1247 four persons, probably heirs of the original Grantees, held these 8 acres in the following proportions.-

Philip Niger held 3 acres, worth 12d. per annum; Edelena held 3 acres, worth 12d. per annum; Griffin de Overes held one acre, worth 4d. per annum; Wrannoch held one acre, worth 4d. per annum.

Lenteurde Hundred.

OF the Domesday Hundreds of Shropshire, that of Lenteurde was, with the exception, perhaps, of Bascherch, the most eccentric in its organization. It consisted of three portions, each detached

[1] Testa de Nevill, p. 59.
[2] Vol. VI. p. 297; Vol. IX. p. 211.
[3] Supra, p. 165.


[For table, see Lenteurde]


from the other two. The most northernly of these isolations included merely the Manor of Plash, which was cut off from any other portion of Lenteurde Hundred by the independent Liberty and Manor of Church Stretton, or by Cardington and Hope (Bowdler), which were in Culvestan Hundred. South of Church Stretton and Hope (Bowdler), the Hundred of Lenteurde opened again with the Manors of Minton and Chelmick; and, after including Wittingslow, Acton (Scott), Woolston, Alcaston, Wistanstow, Strefford, Westhope, and (Cheney) Longville, it was interrupted by the junction of Stokesay (a Culvestan Manor) on the east, and Sibdon (a Rinlau Manor) on the west. We pass this interruption in the south-westerly direction, and find Lenteurde Hundred reopening with the Manor of Clungunford. With that for its third starting point, it developes itself southwards and south-westwards with comparative freedom. This third section of Lenteurde Hundred included in short an angle at the south-west of modern Shropshire, a large tract of modern Radnorshire, and a district of Herefordshire, which, if taken away from the present County, would somewhat abridge its proportions.

In dealing with such cases, one naturally doubts what properly belongs to Shropshire History. I propose to speak of everything which is in modern Shropshire, as an essential part of my subject; and to speak of such places as were in the Shropshire of Domesday, only so far as is consistent with my plan of making Domesday my text;- that is, when Shropshire Records cease to notice these latter localities, I conceive that they pass away from my subject-matter.

In constructing the annexed Table of the Domesday Hundred of Lenteurde I have departed from the letter of the Record in two instances.- 1st. Westhope is assigned to Lenteurde Hundred, though Domesday places it in Bascherch. I believe this to have been a mere inadvertency of the Domesday Scribe. Weshope is preceded in the Record by Gellidone (a Bascherch Manor) and followed by Wistanestune (a Leuteurde Manor). The only alteration required, is to place the marginal affix of Lenteurde Hd a point higher; that is to make it apply to Westhope as well as Woolston. [1]- 2ndly. A part of Buchehale is assigned to Lenteurde Hundred, though Domesday places it in Patinton Hundred. Here I imagine that the Scribe was altogether in error, or only so far right as that he knew William Pantulf's Manor of Buchehale to be in some Hundred where the said William had no other estate. He therefore

[1] Vide supra, Vol. X. p. 41.


wrote "Patintun Hd" in the margin, where he ought to have written Lenteurde Hd. I have alluded to this question before, and rather countenanced the alternative idea, that the Scribe's error consisted in spelling the name, Buchehale, wrongly, not in placing it in a wrong Hundred.' I now quite dismiss that idea, because I find in Lenteurde Hundred traces of a Manor, or rather Half-Manor of Buchehale (or Bucknell) which may well have belonged to William Pantulf.

In regard to the History of Lenteurde Hundred, as a jurisdiction, very little can be said. Domesday does not so much as inform us what Manor was its Caput, much less does it tell us who, in Saxon times, had the revenues of the Hundred. We may presume, however, that King Edward's Manor of Leintwardine was the original Caput of a Hundred which took its name from that vill: and, if so, we may further presume that the Pleas and profits of the Hundred were divided in the usual way, viz. two-thirds to the King, and one-third to the Earl of Mercia. A jurisdiction, not mentioned in Domesday, was probably abolished already, or held to be in abeyance till some contemplated re-arrangement was complete. That rearrangement, as I have often said, seems to have been made in the time of King Henry I. It was, at least, as early as that reign that Lenteurde Hundred was altogether abolished in name, and in reality. There is consequently no modern Hundred which can be said singly to represent the Domesday Hundred of Lenteurde. The annexed Table will show the various districts among which its Manors have been divided, better than any detailed statement. It is clear that the ratio of the new arrangement was dictated rather by the interests of the several Feudatories, who held the Manors, than by the geographical position of the latter.

Clungunward, now Clungunford.

THIS is one of the very few Shropshire Manors which appears to have taken its name from a Saxon of Edward the Confessor's reign. The ordinary nomenclature of places belongs to an earlier period.

[1] Supra, Vol. IV. pp. 26, 27.


This Gunward (elsewhere called Gunwar, Gunuer, or Gunuert) has already occurred to us as Lord of Choulton and as owner of the land on which Wigmore Castle was afterwards built. [1] His tenure of Brampton (afterwards Brampton Brian) and of part of Lingen will he noticed hereafter. The Domesday Manor of Clungunford was divided, owing to Earl Roger having bestowed three parts thereof on Picot de Say and one part on the Sheriff of Shropshire. The two passages which relate to this partition are as follows.-

(1.) Isdem Picot tenet Clone. Gunuuardus tenuit. Ibi VI hidae geldabiles. Terra est XV carucis. In dominio sunt III (carucae) et VIII Servi et VIII Villani, et IIII Bordarii, cum IIII carucis. Ibi Molinum de LIIII denariis. De hac terra tenet Fulco de Picoto unam hidam et dimidiam, et habet duas carucas in dominio, et IIII Bovarios et III Villanos, et III Bordarios, cum III carucis, et Molinum de XXXII denariis. Totum, tempore Regis Edwardi valebat XII libras et post, XXX solidos. Modo (valet) IIII libras inter totum. [2]

(2.) Isdem Rainaldus (Vicecomes) tenet Clone, et Fulco de eo. Gunwardus tenuit tempore Regis Edwardi. Ibi II hidae, geldabiles. Ibi V Villani et unus Bordarius cum II carucis; et adhuc VI carucae possent ibi esse. Ibi sunt III Haiae. Totum valet XII solidos. [3]

When William fitz Alan (I) married Isabel de Say of Clun, the two portions of Clungunford were in process of being united, as to Seigneury at least;- for their son, William fitz Alan (II), was eventually Lord of both. However the tenure and other circumstances of each part remained quite distinct. We will first speak of that part of Clungunford which pertained to the Fief of Picot de Say.- It probably consisted of Clungunford, Abcott, and Rowton, all which were annexed to Purslow Hundred in Henry I.'s time.

SIMON DE HABURDNIO, who is registered in 1165 as holding a knight's-fee of new feoffment, in the Barony of Clun, [4] was then tenant of the Manor thus defined. In November, 1221, we find a second-

SIMON DE HAUBREDIN in the same position of Mesne-Lord. Matilda, widow of one Robert de Fustens, and now wife of Milo fitz Simon, sued Simon de Haubredin for her dower in Albecote, viz. for a moiety of half a hide; but the Defendant got judgment on the ground that he was not seized of the premises. The same Plaintiffs sued Cecily, widow of Robert de Leytun, for a third part of half a bide in Albecote, as Matilda's dower. Here the Defendants proved

[1] Supra, Vol. XI., page 192; and Vol. III., page 50.
[2] [3] Domesday, fos. 258-a-2; 255-a-1.
[4] Hearne's Liber Niger, I. 146.


that Robert, Matilda's first husband, was never seized of the premises, neither when he espoused Matilda nor afterwards. At these same Assizes of 1221 Simon de Hambany (as he is called) occurs as a Knight and an Elizor in a cause of Grand Assize. In June, 1233, and again in November, 1240, we have Simon de Hauborchin named as a Justiciar to try special cases of novel-disseizin. In the latter year he is enrolled as a Tenant in the Barony of Clun, but his tenure (Cloune-Goneford) is put at only half a knight's-fee. [1] In 1255, he was deceased, and his infant heir was in custody of Katherine de Lacy;- daughter, I conceive, of Walter de Lacy (II), and now or afterwards Prioress of Acornbury. [2] Hence the Purslow Hundred-Roll of 1255 says that "Katerina de Laci holds Clune-Gonnef', Abbecot, and Routon for one hide of land, under John fitz Alan, by reason of being Custos of the heir of Simon de Hauborchin. The services due on this tenure were Suit of Clun Manor-Court and of Purslow Hundred, and 20 days' ward at Clun Castle, to be rendered in time of war by one mounted serviens. The tenement was geldable". [3] The Feodary of 1272 informs us that-

ROGER HADERDEN'S tenure under John fitz Alan, deceased, consisted of half a knight's-fee in Clungonnert, Albecote, and Ruton. However the subsequent assignation of Roger de Hauberden's services to the King (as Custos of John fitz Alan's heir), Clungunford, Habecot, and Rutone are said to constitute a whole knight's-fee. In 1283 it was proved by Inquest that Roger de Hauberdin's services had been wrongfully made matter of partition in 1272, for that they had antecedently been assigned to Matilda, widow of John fitz Alan (II), as part of her dower.

At the Assizes of October, 1292, Roger de Hauberden is named as one of the Coroners of Shropshire then in office. In the Nomina Villarum of 1316, Roger de Hamberdeyn stands as Lord of the Vill of Chingenford. [4] The family remained here some years longer. I have only to say of them that in 1346 the Aid for knighting the Black Prince was assessed on half a knight's fee in Clonegoneford, held by Roger de Hauberdyn. [5]

ROWTON, a member of Clungunford, seems to have been held by Undertenants of De Hauborchin. Thus we have Ivor de Rowton as a Juror for Purslow Hundred at the Assizes of 1256, and as

[1] Testa de Nevill, p. 45.
[2] Vide supra, Vol. V. pp. 20, 191, 192, 195, 277.
[3] Rot. Hundred. II. 77.
[4] Partiamentary Writs, IV. 399.
[5] The Arms of Hauberk (Barry nebulee of six Or and Vert) are quartered by Corbet of Acton Reynold.


witness of a local Deed some years later. [1] Lucas de Routon, a witness in 1279 [2] and a Juror at the Assizes of 1292, was, I presume, also of this place.


That part of Clungunford, which was held by Rainald Vicecomes at Domesday, consisted, I think, of Shelderton, Tateley, and a part of Weo, [3] or of View-Edge. This part, being held by Fitz Alan, and not by De Say, was not, like De Say's part, annexed to Purslow Hundred, but to Munslow. Unlike the Purslow part of Clungunford, it maintained its Domesday hidage in the 13th century. Parochially Shelderton and Tateley are in Clungunford Parish, but Weo is in Stokesay.

What became of Fulco, the Domesday Tenant of both sections of Clungunford, I cannot say. There is no appearance that his line continued. It was probably after the Fitz Alans became Lords of Clun that they added Shelderton, Tateley, and Yeo, to the Fee of Hopton Castle. The Munslow Hundred-Roll of 1255 says that "Walter de Hopton holds Sheldreton, 1 hides, and in Weho, half a hide, under John fitz Alan; and he does suit to Munslow Hundred and gives the King 2s. yearly for stretward and motfee". [4]

At the Assizes of January, 1256, one Richard fitz Henry impleaded Walter de Hopton for refusing him reasonable estovers in Walter's bosc of Shelderton, to which the Plaintiff was entitled by a Charter of Walter de Hopton, the Defendant's father. Richard recovered his right in the boscs of Kingesbolde and of Wyrkewode, but not in La Haye. All three boscs are said to be members of Moutre. [5]

A similar suit, by one Richard Bacun, demanded estovers, etc., in Shelderton bosc. A Fine was levied on Feb. 9 whereby Walter de Hopton conceded this demand, provided that, if he at any time should make assarts in La Haye, the Plaintiff should take his estovers in the woods of Hopton.

At the Assizes of 1267 we have seen that Richard Bacun

[1] Supra, Vol. V. p. 39. The name is written Buton.
[2] Supra, Vol. V. p. 40.
[3] The Clungunford part of Weo, or Yeo, is not distinctively recognized in the present day. The place is considered to be wholly in the township of Aldon, which in fact was the original status of one part thereof (supra, Vol. V. p. 27).
[4] Rot. Hundred. II. 70.
[5] That is, of Mocktree Forest, which I suppose to have sometime had an extensive jurisdiction. In the 13th century the unity of this Forest was no longer recognized, but the greater part of it was in the hands of Mortimer of Wigmore.


[For engraving, see pdf.]


conceived that his tenement of Shelderton entitled him to common-pasture in Wootton (a member of Stanton Lacy) and that his claim was defeated. [1] We have seen too that in 1272 Shelderton and Tattel' were named among the vills which constituted De Hopton's tenure under Fitz-Alan. [2] Coston was another of these vills; and, though Coston is in a different Hundred and Parish to Shelderton, this accident of ancient tenure still serves to combine the two vills in one modern township.

The Feodary of 1284, usually known as Kirbey's Quest, gives Walter de Hopton as holding the vill of Scheldreton under Richard fitz Alan, by service of one-fourth of a knight's-fee. This was probably the proportion due on the share of Clungunford now under notice.


Domesday gives no evidence or hint, from which we can conclude that a Church existed at that day in either part of the Manor of Clungunford. Yet the Foundation must have been a very old one, for the Barons of Clun did not suffer the advowson to pass with a feoffment which we know to have been made between the years 1135 and 1165. In other words, the first William fitz Alan, or else the last of Picot de Say's male representatives, enfeoffing a new Tenant in Clungunford, retained the advowson in his own hand.

In 1291 the Church of Clungonford (in the Deanery of Clun) was valued at 6. per annum. [3] In 1341, the Assessors of the Ninth, quoting this Taxation, rated the Parish only at 40s. The reasons were that the Glebe and hay-tithes (worth 40s.) and the oblata and small-tithes (worth 40s.) were parts of the Church-Taxation, and represented nothing now assessable. Also much land in the Parish lay fallow, the Tenants being poor and the King's taxes frequent. [4]

The Valor of 1534-5 estimates the Rectory of Clongonwar (then held by Thomas Haywarde) at 16. per annum, less 7s. 8d., for synodals and procurations. [5]


STEFHEN DE CLON has a licentia studendi in 1277. [6]

[1] Supra, Vol. V. page 18.
[2] Supra, page 257.
[3] Pope Nich. Taxation, page 167.
[4] Inquis. Nonarum, page 189.
[5] Valor Eccles. III. 205.
[6] Bishop Cantilupe's Register.


ROGER DE HALBERDYN, Acolyte, was instituted Oct. 26, 1302; and was here in 1327. It was to some victim, I presume, of the Great Pestilence, that,-

JOHN VINCENT, Clerk, succeeded 011 Sept. 23, 1349, being nominated by "The noble Sir Richard, Earl of Arundel".

SIR ROGER PYARD, Priest, late Rector of Balecombe (Chichester Diocese), obtained this Living by Exchange on July 31, 1351;- Richard, Earl of Arundel, again presenting.

SIR WILLIAM OSMONDESTON, [1] Priest, was admitted Nov. 28, 1377. Richard, Earl of Arundel and Surrey, presenting. On Osmeston's death, and on April 27, 1387,-

JOHN GAMELL was admitted at a like presentation.

SIR JOHN WYKE, admitted Nov. 26, 1388, at a like presentation, exchanged on Dec. 15, following, with-

SIR ALAN THORPE, late Rector of Llanarmon (Dioc. Assav.), who was admitted to Clungunford, at the presentation of the same Earl Richard.


THIS was another of Picot de Say's Domesday Manors; and his Tenant was that same Fulco who held both parts of Clungunford, under Picot and under Raina1dus Vicecomes.- Isdem Picot tenet Betietetune et Fulco de eo. Uluric tenuit. Ibi duae hidae, geldabiles. Terra est IIII carucis. Wasta fuit et est. [2]

Fulco's Manor of Bedston, with its members, Jay and Beckjay, went in a different succession to either of his shares of Clungunford. Before the year 1135 the ancestor of-

HELIAS DE JAY had been enfeoffed in this Manor, and in 1165 the said Elias held it as a knight's-fee under Geoffrey de Vere, then (jure uxoris) Baron of Clun. [3] Helias de Jaie has occurred to us as a witness about 1170-5. [4] He seems to have married Margery, sister of Gilbert de Buckenhull. She was probably his second wife and very much younger than himself. I cannot tell whether Helias was succeeded by a son or a brother. If by the former, then

[1] Vide supra, page 255.
[2] Domesday, fo. 258, b, 1.
[3] Liber Niger, I. 145.
[4] Supra, Vol. VIII. p. 28.


that son cannot have been his son by Margery de Buckenhull. After the death of Helias, the said Margery remarried with Giles de St. Leger. The successor of Helias de Jay was that-

BRIAN DE JAY, who, in the time of Richard I., attested the grants of Isabel de Say and William Boterell, her husband, to Wenlock Priory. [1] It was probably during the same reign (1189-1199) that Edelina, daughter of Brian de Jay, married that William de Burley, of whom we have heard under Higley and elsewhere. [2] The following extract relates to some land given by Brian de Jay in frank-marriage with his daughter.-

Willielmus de Burlegia concessi Briano de Jaie et heredibus quod, si ego heredes non habuero de Edelina sponsa mea, filia dicti Briani, tota terra quam Brianus dedit cum Edelina, Briano revertetur. Hujus rei testes sunt Radulfus Abbas de Wigemora, Helias de Hugelegia, Willielmus de Weldebef, et Willielmus filius ejus, Philippus de Jaie. [3] The last witness of the above Deed was a brother of Brian de Jay. The said Brian had two sons, John and Robert. He was succeeded by-

JOHN DE JAY, the elder of them. The said John was amerced half a merk in 1231 for some default. In 1237 Geoffrey de Grete and John de Bedesdon were jointly amerced half a merk for some similar neglect. The latter person I suppose to be identical with John de Jay. The Feodary of 1290 registers John de Gay as holding a knight's-fee in Gay, of the Barony of Clun. [4] The estate doubtless included Bedston and Beckjay, as the Purslow Hundred-Roll of 1255 more explicitly declares. The entry is as follows.- "John de Gay holds one hide in Gay, Bedeston, and Beckegay, of John Fitz Alan, by service of one knight for forty days, in wartime, at Clun Castle". The estate also owed Suit to Clun Manor-Court and to Purslow Hundred, and it was geldable. [5]

The following Abstracts of Deeds, [6] showing something of John de Jay's interests and relations, seem to range between the years 1220 and 1240. The Grantor in the first is Walter de Neuf Mesnil, of whom we have heard in a former Volume. [7]- (1.) Walterus de Novo Mesnil, consensu Sare uxoris mee, concessi Johanni de Jaie tenementum de feodo suo (read meo) in Wigemor, quod

[1] Supra, page 236.
[2] Supra, Vol. IV. pages 261, 262.
[3] Harl. MS. 1396, fo. 201. The deed is described as having been sealed with the effigy of a knight on horseback.
[4] Testa de Nevill, page 45.
[5] Rot. Hundred. II. 76.
[6] Harl. MS., ut supra.
[7] Supra, Volume IV. pages 244, 247, 248, 275, n.


Brianus pater (dicti) Johannis tenuit de Ricardo La Bane [1] antecessore dicti Walteri. (2.) Johannes de Jaie filius Briani de Jaie dedi Rogero Vachan de Wygemare pratum (vocatum) Wlrichesmedue. Testibus, Briano de Bromton, Simone de Hauberdon, Waltero de Hopton, Hugone Anglico, militibus; Rogero de Pedword', Roberto de Jay, Henrico Makelin, et multis aliis. [2] (3.) Johannes de Jaia dedi, in feodo, Roberto fratri meo, ut clameum dimitteret quod habuit in quatuor virgatis, que fuerunt avunculi nostri Philippi de Jaia, unam virgatam in Bekejaia. [3] (4.) Gilbertus de Bukenhull me obligavi quod si Margeria soror mea, aut Egidius de Seinleger sponsus ejus vexant Johannem de Jaya de terra quam dicta Margeria habuit in dotem de Elia de Jaya in villa de Bedeston et in villa de Bekejaya, tunc dabo Johanni de Jaia quatuor marcas et dimidiam. [4] The last Deed may be aptly collated with the fact that Gilbert de Bucknell's daughter, Johanna, was John de Jay's wife, and mother of-

WALTER DE JAY, eventual successor of John. The following is an abstract of a Deed which probably passed in John de Jay's life-time and about the year 1250. It is in fact a grant from Gilbert de Bucknell to his Grandson.- Gilbertus de Bukehul dedi Waltero, filio Johannis de Jaye, de Johanna filia mea unam acram terre (vocatam) Le Parroc. Hiis testibus, Domino Simone de Burley, Waltero de Hopton, Hugone de Jaye et multis aliis. [5]

The Inquest on the death of John fitz Alan (III) in 1272, gives Walter de Gaie as his Tenant in Gaie, Bedestone, and Beckele (i.e. Beckjay), all held by service of one knight's-fee. In the subsequent partition of such services, this fee was assigned to the King, as guardian of young Richard fitz Alan. The Tenant's name is erroneously given as Robert de Jay, and we shall further see that neither the King nor John fitz Alan (III)'s widow had any right to divide the services due on this and other fees. At the Assizes of October 1272 Walter de Jay officiated as Chief Bailiff of Purslow Hundred. It was about this time too, that he obtained that restitution from Sir Brian de Brompton which is expressed in the following abstract of a Deed.- Dominus Brianus de Bromptan, Miles, reddidi Waltero de Jay, Militi, pratum (vocatum) Gunnylde-mede. Hiis testibus, Domino Waltero de Hopton, Domino Waltero de Brompton, Domino Waltero de Bockenhull, Domino Waltero de Pedwardine, Ricardo de Lecton. [6]

[1] Ricardo la Dane in another copy.
[2[ [3] The device on the Seals of these two deeds was a Bird.
[4] Sealed with the effigy of Knight on horseback.
[5] [6] Harl. MS., ut supra.


In April 1283, Walter de Jay was deceased, probably leaving a son under age. At all events the question now arose, as to who was entitled to the services due on the knight's-fee which had been held by the deceased (such services involving a Relief, a Wardship, or a marriage, as the case may have been). The King of course claimed these services, by virtue of the partition of 1272. The Counter-claimants were Richard de Amundevill and his wife Matilda, who it will be remembered was widow of that John fitz Alan who died in 1267. By a Writ of April 2, 1283, the King referred the matter to a local Inquest, which was taken at Etone (Eaton under Haywood) on July 18 following. The Jurors declared that not only the fee, late held by Walter de Jaie, had been assigned in dower to the claimant, Matilda, but also the fees of Walter de Hopton, Walter de Bokenhull, Roger de Haubordin, and John de la Munede. "Such assignment had been made in recompense of other fees, taken from the said Matilda, but for the loss of the Fee in Jaye, etc., she had had no recompense". Matilda le Botiler's death, in November of the same year, will have set this question at rest, and re-entitled the King to any custody or relief which might accrue on Bedston. Eventually Walter de Jay was succeeded by his son and heir,-

THOMAS DE JAY. On Oct. 27, 1301, a Fine was levied at York, between Thomas son of Walter de Jay, Johanna wife of Thomas, and John their son (Plaintiffs), and Nicholas de Reygate (Deforciant) of the Manor of Jay. It was merely a conventional affair; Nicholas, ostensibly for the sum of 100 merks, entailing the Manor of Jay on the said Thomas, Johanna, and John, and the heirs of John; to hold of the Lords of the Fee. The subsequent list of presentations to Bedston Church will show Thomas de Jay to have presented thereto in 1313. We know from the same source that he was deceased in 1349, for his widow, Johanna, presented in that year. I may not quit this Chapter on the ancient Lords of Bedston without noticing a personage whose name alone, in the absence of any other evidence, stamps him as a Cadet of the House.-

BRIAN DE JAY was the last Master of the English Knights Templars: at least he occurs in that office just hefore the Dissolution of the Order in the reign of Edward II.


I cannot determine the Saxon Church of which this was an affiliation.

[1] Inquisitions, 11 Edw. I., No. 70.


Clungunford and Leintwardine are the two most probable. At the earliest recorded period, Bedston was a Free Chapel, in the gift of the Lord of the Manor.

In 1291 the Church of Bedeston (in the Deanery of Clun) was valued at 2 per annum, but the Rector, being beneficed elsewhere, was liable to pay tenths. [1] In 1341 the Assessors of the Ninth quote the above Taxation of the Chapel of Bedyston, and reduce it to a rate of 18s. 4d. on the Parish. The Taxation included Glebe and (hay) tithes, worth 16s., and oblata and small tithes, worth 10s. 6d., which items were not relevant to the current assessment. [2] In 1534-8 the preferment of Thomas Chelmyck, Rector of Bedston, was estimated at 4 per annum, less 6d. for Archdeacon's Synodals. [3]


WALTER DE BEDESTON was presented to Bedston Church by a Patent of the year 1283, the King being Patron, as having custody of the land and heir of Walter de Jay. [4]

NICHOLAS DE LYNKEFELD, Acolyte, was instituted to this Chapel on July 29, 1303. Patron, Thomas de Jay.

THOMAS DE JAYE, "having his first tonsure", was presented by Thomas de Jaye, his Father, in 1313; and, on July 12th of that year, the Church was commended to-


SIR WILLIAM DE PALINGHAM, Priest, was instituted August 2, 1349, at the presentation of Johanna, relict of Thomas de Jaye.

WALTER, Rector of Bedstone, occurs in 1386, and was perhaps identical with-

SIR WALTER BEDESTON, who died in 1412, when on July 12,-

JOHN GAM, Chaplain, was admitted at presentation of Thomas Jay.


I HAVE already given my reasons for supposing that Picot's Manor of Weshope, though assigned by Domesday to the Hundred of

[1] Pope Nich. Taxation, p. 167.
[2] Inquis. Nonarum, p. 189.
[3] Valor Eccles. III., 204.
[4] Patent. 11 Edw. I., m. 23.


Bascherch, was in Lenteurde Hundred. Elmund, its Saxon owner, was Lord also of the adjoining Manor of Strefford. Domesday notices Westhope as follows.-

Isdem Picot tenet Weshope. Elmundus tenuit. Ibi II hidae, geldabiles. Terra est IIII carucis. In dominio sunt duae (carucae), et VI Servi et IIII Villani cum una caruca. Tempore Regis Edwardi valebat XV solidos, et post VI solidos; modo (valet) XXV solidos.

It is clear that Westhope, or at least one-half of the Domesday Manor, was usually held in demesne by Picot de Say's descendants. In the Forest-Roll of 11130 the "Lady of Clun" is assessed 1s. 6d. for an imbladement of 3 acres of oats in Westhop. This was because Westhope was within the jurisdiction of the Long Forest. The "Lady of Clun" was of course Isabel de Say. Again in 1209 the "Lord of Westhope" is similarly assessed by the Regarders of the Long Forest, aud I conclude that William fitz Alan (II) must be the person alluded to.

The Inquest of 1255 places Westhope in Munslow Hundred.- "John fitz Alan (II) held it, for a hide of land, immediately of the King. The Vill did suit to the County, but not to the Hundred, and paid neither stretwarde nor motfee". [1]

The Inquest taken in 1267 on John fitz Alan's death, surveys the Villate of Westhop as follows.- With its other adjacent members it contained two carucates of arable land, held in demesne, and worth 1. 6s. 8d. yearly. The rents of free and customary tenants were 3. 8s., including the rent of a Mill. Fourteen half-virgates were held by as many tenants, whose service was to provide one labourer in the autumn for the work of the manorial Lord. The gross income from Hopesay, Westhope, and Clunton, was 14. 6s. per annum. [2]

The Inquest taken in 1272, on the death of John fitz Alan (III), states him to have held 60 acres in demesne at Weshope, and to have had a free tenant there, one John ad Aulam, who held two virgates. The gross proceeds of the Manor were 4 and upwards. [3]

OF UNDERTENANTs Westhope, I may name Roger Pollard of Westhope, deceased in 1262, but against whom an information for vert had been lodged by the Regarders of the Forest. In 1271 John de Westhope was one of the Manucaptors for the appearance of John fitz Alan (III) in a state prosecution. [4] He occurs also on a Minton Jury in Octoher 1274.

[1] Rot. Hundred. II. 71.
[2] Inquis. 52 Hen. III., No. 37.
[3] Inquis. 56 Hen. III., No. 36.
[4] Supra, Vol. X., page 340.


ECCLESIASTICALLY, Westhope was a member of the distant Parish of Diddlebury.


I AM inclined to identify this place with Picot's Manor of Wistanestune, and I think it possible that the Domesday Scribe ought rather to have written the name Wlstanestune. The record stands verbatim and litteratim as follows. Isdem Picot tenet Wistanestune, et II Milites de eo. Spirtes Presbyter tenuit. Ibi II hidae, geldabiles. Terra est VIII carucis. Ibi sunt VI Villani et Presbyter, et III Bordarii et unus Radman cum IIII carucis. Valet XX solidos. [1]

Woolston is in the Parish of Wistanstow, and it is singular that Domesday should mention a Priest as resident at Wistanestune and not at Wistanestou, for the Parish Church was surely at Wistanstow. I must dismiss this difficulty without an attempt to remove it.

Of Spirtes, the Saxon Pluralist, we have heard before, and shall hear again. He held Wistanstow as a Prebendary of St. Alkmund's. Woolston was probably a lay-fee, for I do not find that it was ever claimed as an appurtenance of St. Alkmund's or any other Church. We can trace it, I think, to Picot de Say's descendants: in fact we have done so already, for Woolston was undoubtedly the place which, under the names of Wlfreston or Wolureston, has been so often alluded to under Edgton, [2] and which, with Edgton and Brunslow, constituted a knight's-fee in the Barony of Clun. We have seen that the whole fee was held by two families in Coparcenery, and that this tenure, taking its narrowest limits, endured from 1165 to 1397. In the year 1208, Henry fitz Hameline, one of the Joint Lords of Edgton, had a tenant at Wlfreston, one William fitz Henry, whose tenement was two virgates. The said William fitz Henry had sued his Lord for 2 acres more, which he claimed under Writ of mort d'ancestre, as appurtenant to the said 2 virgates. By a Fine, levied on November 5, Henry fitz Hameline conceded the demand;- the whole to be held by the claimant and his heirs, under

[1] Domesday, fo. 258, a, 2.
[2] Supra, pp. 260-266.


Henry fitz Hameline and his heirs, by the free service of 3s. rent, per annum, in lieu of all, save forinsec, services. For this acknowledgment William fitz Henry paid 10s.

The family of the other Coparceners in Edgton comes next under notice. In 1250 Geoffrey de Langley set an arrentation of 3s. 9d. on 5 acres of forest land in Wlfreton. The Vill or community of Wlfreton, and Nicholas de Eggedon, were the parties assessed. Also David fitz Robert of Wulfreston was assessed 5d. on half an acre. I have no other notices of Woolston except those which have already transpired. [1]


THE Domesday notice of Wistanestune is followed by that of Caurtune.- Isdem Picot tenet Caurtune. AEcclesia Sancti Almundi tenuit in elemosynam. Ibi dimidia hida geldabilis. Terra est uni carucae. Wasta fuit et est. Tempore Regis Edwardi valebat III solidos. Picot tenet injuste. [2]

The name Caurtune is now lost. One might conjecture that the place was near Wistanstow, not merely because it follows Woolston in Domesday, but because it had, like Wistanstow, been a Saxon possession of St. Alkmund's Church. Picot de Say's unjust possession of Caurtune would lead us to expect a restitution after Domesday; but Lilleshall Abbey, which would have profited by such a restitution, does not appear ever to have claimed or enjoyed such a possession as Caurtune. It has been suggested by one authority, [3] that Picot's Manor of Caurtune was Corfton (near Diddlebury), by another, that it was part of Choulton; but the histories of Corfton and Choulton are complete without such an addition, and neither place was in the required district of Lenteurde Hundred. [4] Two centuries after Domesday there was a place written Catton or Cauton, which was indeed a Member of the Barony of Clun, but had been given to some Religious House. The Inquest, taken in 1272 on the death of the third John fitz

[1] Supra, pp. 260-266. See also Vol. VI. p. 341.
[2] Domesday, fo. 258, a, 2.
[3] Hist. Shrewsbury, II. 263.
[4] Corfton was in Culvestan Hundred, Choulton in Rinlau Hundred.


Alan, specifies this Manor among the fees of Clun, and adds that "the Prior of ***rampton holds it in almoign". [1]

I cannot supply the important letter or letters which have been effaced from this Record, but I am satisfied this Catton is not to be looked for within the area of modern Shropshire.


Isdem Picot Chinbaldescote. AEcclesia Sanctae Mariae de Brunfelde tenuit. Ibi V hidae geldabiles, cum una Bereuuicha. Terra est VII carucis. Wasta fuit et est. Ibi III haiae. [2]

I know of nothing within the area of Lenteurde Hundred, nothing among the later possessions of the Barons of Clun, or of the Priors of Bromfield, which can correspond in name or extent with such a Manor as Chinbaldescote. The territory of course exists, but under some other name. I have already half expressed the only conjecture I can offer on this subject. [3] I think it possible that Picot de Say restored Chinbaldescote, and its Berewick, to the Church of St. Mary of Bromfield; and that the two were afterwards represented by Halford and Dinchope, outlying estates of Bromfield Priory. If this idea be admitted as plausible, it leads us a step further. Domesday speaks of 10 hides of land which had belonged to Bromfield Church; in Saxon times; [4]- which were lost to the said Church at the date of Domesday, being then held by Robertus under the Norman Earl of Shrewsbury;- and which were waste, both when the said Robertus first obtained them, and when Domesday was compiled. Now this wasted state, was exactly that of Chinbaldescote, as certified in another page of the Record. So far the resemblance between the two Manors holds good; but the lost Manor was ten hides, while Chinbaldescote was only five;- and Robert was Domesday Lord of the ten lost hides, while Picot was Lord of Chinbaldescote. The first of these ohjections to my theory, or rather suggestion, must remain, for I cannot reconcile the difference between 10 hides and 5 hides, nor show that, if Chinbaldescote constituted half of the said ten hides, the other half existed in

[1] Inquis. 56 Hen. III., No. 36.
[2] Domesday, fo. 258, a, 2.
[3] Supra, Vol. V. pages 623-4, note 61.
[4] Supra, Vol. V. pages 207, 208.


Domesday under some other name. But the difficulty about Picot and Robertus can be got over. They were not necessarily two persons; for Picot's real name was Robert. [1]

Finally, whether the 10 hides, lost to the Church of Bromfield, were partly represented by Chinbaldescote or not, the matter does not further concern us; for we cannot give any history of an undetermined district: nor, even if Chinbaldescote be represented by Halford and Dinchope, have I more to say about those places than has already appeared under Bromfield.

Munetune and Edretehope.

THE Domesday notice of Chinbaldescote is followed by notices of two other places, about which there is the same uncertainty.-

Isdem Picot tenet Munetune. Edricus tenuit. Ibi I hida geldabilis. Terra est II carucis. Wasta fuit et est. Ibi I haia.

Isdem Picot tenet Edretehope. Edricus tenuit. Ibi II hidae et una virgata, geldabiles. Terra est VI carucis. Wasta fuit et est. Ibi II haiae.

Munetune may perhaps be traced in Mynd, a place between Bedston and Bucknell. About Edretehope I can say nothing, as to its identity. If both places have not lost their name, they have at least lost all distinct manorial status. No two Manors bearing any analogy to Munetune and Edretehope, either as respects name or status, have been heard of since Domesday. We may conclude that so much of their Domesday condition remained for a time, as to render the beasts of the field their sole inhabitants; that on their re-colonization their names became changed or lost; and that the territory which they once represented was absorbed by some adjacent township.

[1] Supra, page 225.


Edelactune, Hibrighteselle, and Adelestune.

Isdem Picot tenet Edelactune et Bernardus de eo. Ibi III hidae et III virgatae, geldabiles. Terra est VIII carucis. In dominio est una caruca cum II Bovariis. Valet VI solidos. Ibi una leuua silvae. Wasta fuit et est ex parte magna.

Isdem Picot tenet Hibrihteselle et Fulco de eo. Ulchetel tenuit. Ibi una virgata terrae, geldabilis. Terra est uni carucae. Ibi est (una caruca) cum II Bordariis. Valet IIII solidos. [1]

It will he better to take these two passages of Domesday in conjunction with two others which treat of certain parts of Ralph de Mortimer's tenure in capite.- Isdem Radulfus tenet Adelestune, et Helgot de eo. Reuenesuard tenuit. Ibi dimidia hida. Terra est duabus carucis. Wasta fuit et est.

Idem Radulfus tenet dimidiam virgatam terrae in Edelactune. Wasta est. [2]

I have nothing to say here of the later history of these estates. My impression is that the Domesday tenures of Bernardus, Fulco, and Helgot, had no permanence, and that the above four estates were all annexed to those respective shares of Bucknall which belonged to the Barony of Clun or the Barony of Wigmore.

The names Edelactune and Adelestune are perhaps, one or both, preserved in Adley, alias Adlake. We shall see under Bucknell that Edelactune retained a name in the 13th century nearly approaching to the Domesday form.

I should say a word here as to Helgot's tenure under Ralph de Mortimer. It included not only Adelestune (as above), but also two hides in Bucknell. About a century after Domesday, we have record of a transaction which bears curiously on this subject.- "Hugh de Mortimer, having bought certain land, of 20s. annual

[1] Domesday, fo. 258, b, 1.
[2] Domesday, fo. 260, b, 1.-

The printed Domesday separates Mortimer's two Manors of Adelestune and Edelactune, by a wide interval. In the original, they are combined by corresponding marks or asterisks. The notice of Edelactune is supplementary to, and in paler ink than, the body of the Record. It was the intention of the Compiler, or rather of the Interpolator, to include it in Lenteurde Hundred; whereas the printed Domesday would lead us to look for it in Shrewsbury Hundred.


value, from Herbert du Chastel, gave the same to Wigmore Abbey". [1] Here we have Helgot's grandson selling a part at least of his tenement to the Lord of the Fee. What or where that part was, we cannot say. It is enough that a tenure, asserted in Domesday, is illustrated by a subsequent phenomenon. I can further show that Wigmore Abbey had in the 13th century an estate at Adelacton. On January 20, 1256, a Fine was levied, whereby William fitz David released a half-virgate in Adelacton, which he had claimed against John, Abbot of Wigmore, by suit of mort d'ancestre. The Abbot in return allowed that the said William should continue to hold a second half-virgate, of which he was already tenant, at 2s. rent. In 1291 the Abbot of Wigmore is registered as possessing a carucate of land in Colkeshale. [2] Now Coxwall must be taken to have been a member of the Domesday Manor of Bucknell or of Edelactune. The Wigmore estate there, is consequently a feature of the present subject. I do not find the Abbey retaining any correspondent property at the Dissolution.


If some of Picot's Dom,esday Manors have lost their names, and, if with their names, all means of ascertaining their situation are lost also, yet the indefinite side of the question is not entirely hopeless. In the 12th and 13th centuries we find places mentioned, which as regards name indeed, have no Domesday antecedent, but, as regards states and tenure, correspond exactly with what we should expect to have been the destination of some Domesday Manor of Picot. The inference is that the territory, thus found, corresponds, in part at least, with the territory lost.

Stow and Weston are now in Purslow Hundred, and were in the 13th century members of the Barony of Clun. The Analogy, taken from the neighbouring Manors of Bedston, Bucknell, and Clungunford, suggests that Stow and Weston were in the Domesday Hundred of Lenteurde, and (though they may stand in the Record under some other name or names) were part of the Fief of Picot, or of Rainald Vicecomes, or of William Pantulf.

There was a Weston, the whole tithes of which were given before Domesday by Warin Vicecomes to Shrewsbury Abbey; which tithes were confirmed by Earl Hugh in one of his Charters to that House. [3] I will not say, or even suggest, that this Weston was Weston near

[1] Wright's History of Ludlow, p. 122.
[2] Pope Nich. Taxation, p. 165.
[3] Salop Chartulary, No. 3. Vide supra, Vol. I. p. 68, note 184.


Stow. It was in that part of Shropshire which belonged to the Diocese of Hereford, for Bishop Giles de Braose, in two several charters, recognizes the disputed right of Shrewsbury Abbey to the tithes of the whole vill of Weston, [1] and confirms the same. [2]

The Liber Niger, or Feodary of 1165, gives Hingan Burell as holding a knight's-fee of new feoffment in the Barony of Clun. [3] I think it very possible that Stow and Weston were the seat of this feoffment.

In 1240 a Feodary of the same Barony gives Egidius de Karkele and John de Selfac as joint Tenants of a knight's-fee in Weston. [4] Another copy of this Feodary, quoted in an Aid-Roll of 1346, writes the first Tenant's name as Egidius de Berkeleye.

The Charter of Free-Warren granted to Brian de Brompton on August 17, 1252, extends to his demesnes at Weston and Pittes, Shropshire. We must conclude that ere this he had acquired a tenure in Weston, under Fitz Alan.

The Purslow Hundred-Roll of 1255 would suggest that Weston and Stow were held by services which were together far less than equal to a whole knight's-fee.- "Brian de Bromton holds half a hide in Weston, under John fitz Alan, and owes suit to his Court at Clun, by afforciament, and owes suit to the Hundred of Purslow in like manner; and Weston is geldable". [5]

"The Prior of Great Malvern holds half a hide in La Stowe, under John fitz Alan, by service of doing suit to his Court at Clun and to Purslow Hundred. The Prior also, at his own cost, does ward at Clun-Castle for 20 days in wartime, sending a serviens and horse for that purpose; and Stowe is geldable". [5]

The Feodary of Clun Barony, drawn up on John fitz Alan's death in 1272, is far from being in correspondence with the Hundred-Roll.- "Sir Brian de Brompton holds Brompton (sic) [6] and Weston for half a knight's-fee; and Philip Schelaber holds Weston for half a knight's-fee". [7] And again in the subsequent partition "the services of Brian de Brompton for half a fee in Brompton and Weston, and of Philip de Schelacre for half a fee in Weston", are assigned to the dower of John fitz Alan's widow. [8] On Brian de Brompton's death in December 1294 the Inquest gives him 4s. 5d. rent in Wenton (read Weston), held under the Lord of Clun by service of

[1] [2] Salop Chartulary, Nos. 352, 331.
[3] Liber Niger, Vol. I. p. 146.
[4] Testa de Nevill, p. 45.
[5] Rot. Hundred. II. 76.
[6] Brampton Bryan was not held under Fitz Alan at all.
[7] Inquisitions, 56 Hen. III., No. 36.
[8] Rot. Claus. 56 Hen. III., m. 4.


two yearly suits to Purslow Hundred;- also 33s. rent in Stouwe, held under the Earl of Arundel, by service of 6s, annual rent and two similar appearances at Purslow Hundred-Court. [1] Another Inquest of the same estate, taken 10 years later, gives the late Brian de Brompton 5s. 8d. rent in Weston, and a Mill, with certain rents, in Stowe;- but most inaccurately, calls Weston and Stowe members of Brompton. [2]

Again, as if we were never to have a clear statement on this subject, in the Nomina Villarum of 1316, Robert de Harkeley is entered as Lord of Weston in Purslow Hundred. I suppose Brompton's Coheir, Robert de Harley is meant, rather than any descendant of Giles de Berkeley, a former Lord of Weston.

An Aid-Roll of 1346 makes Robert de Harleye responsible for "one-twelfth of a knight's-fee in Weston, formerly (that is in 1240) held by Giles de Berkeleye and John Selfac in the Fief of William (read John) fitz Alan".


The very name of Stow (signifying a dwelling-place) belongs to a Prae-Norman aera: and, though we hear of no such locality in Domesday, it is almost certain that Stow Church was a Saxon foundation, and a very considerable one too. Knighton in short was at the earliest recorded period a mere Chapelry, the Mother-Church being at Stow.

When we refer back to the history of the Bromptons, and see that the earlier chiefs of that family were buried in the Priory Church of Great Malvern, [3] we have an intelligible hint as to how the Advowson of Stow, as well as an estate there, devolved to the said Priory.

The Taxation of 1291 says that the Church of Stowe (in Clun Deanery), together with the Chapel of Knyttheton, was worth 6 per annum. It belonged to the Prior of Great Malvern, and its revenues went to augment the pittance of the Malvern Monks. The Vicar's portion therein was less than 4. [4] In 1341 the Assessors of the Ninth taxed the Townships of Stowe and Weston ouly 18s., because the lands were unfilled, owing to the pressure of taxes, and poverty. It was further explained that 9 other vills of the Parish were in Wales, and so unassessable. These were Larkehope

[1] Inquisitions, 23 Edw. I., No. 136.
[2] Inquisitions, 33 Edw. I., No. 78.
[3] Supra, Vol. IV. p. 249.
[4] Pops Nich. Taxation, p. 167.


(Lurkinghope), Knyston (Knighton), Smugill (?), Synguhasa (?), Thorneton (?), Leynestha (Llanshay?), Putteskenoule (Upper Pitts?), Enesge (?), Stanage, [1] and Longernes (Llanwen?). [2] The Valor of 1534-5 gives the Vicarage of Stowe (then held by John William) as worth 4. 15s. per annum, less 7s. 8d. for Synodals and Procurations. [3] At the same time the Rectory of Stow, with the annexed Chapelry of Knighton, as appropriated by the Prior of Malvern, was valued at 8. 13s. 4d. per annum. [4]


THIS was a divided Manor at Domesday. I will first speak of that part which was held by William Pantulf under the Norman Earl of Shrewsbury.- Willielmus tenet Buchehale. Elmer tenuit. Ibi I virgata. Terra est dimidiae carucae. Wasta fuit et est. [5]

Elmar, AElmar, or AElmaer, is also quoted in Domesday as having owned Lege, Shirley, and Stanway, all Manors of Lenteurde Hundred. As to William Pantulf's Domesday tenure at Bucknell, I need not repeat all that has been said about that supposed arrangement, whereby, at some early period, he lost the Seigneury of several Manors in South Shropshire. Ingwardine, Middleton-Higford, Upper-Ledwich, and Little-Sutton, are four instances of this change. We may now add a fifth, viz. Bucknell. Whatever William Pantulf had there, was annexed to the Barony of Clun, before the death of Henry I. It went in short to constitute a part of that fee of old feoffment, the services on which were due from the collective Manors of Bucknell, Purslow, Broom, Acton, and Myndtown. [6] In 1165 the Clun estate at Bucknell was probably held by-

HUGH DE BUKWELL and his brother, Adam, for those two are named as Coparceners in the said knight's-fee. [7] The successor of Hugh de Bukwell was I think-

HUBERT DE BUKEHILL. He was, under that name, amerced one merk by Justices who visited Shropshire in 1175. This was for some default. Again in 1183, a misericordia of 6s. 8d. had been set

[1] Stanage is now in the Parish of Brampton-Bryan.
[2] Inquis. Nonarum, p. 193.
[3] Valor Ecclesiasticus, III. 205.
[4] Monasticon, III. p. 452.
[5] Domesday, fo. 257, b, 1.
[6] Supra, pago 267.
[7] Liber Niger, I. p. 146.


upon, and paid by, Hubert de Bochill. This too was the Hubert de Buchevill, who in the time of Richard I. attested the Charters of Isabel de Say, Baroness of Clun, and of her husband, William Boterell, to Wenlock Priory. At the Forest-Assizes of 1209, Hubert de Bukenhull was assessed for imbladements or pourprestures by the Regarders of the Long Forest, but I can hardly think that this was in respect of his tenement at Bucknell. [1]

The Feodary of 1240 puts one person and two places for many persons and places when it enters-

GILBERT DE BOCKENHULL as holding a knight's-fee in Bockenhull and Posselaue, of the Barony of Clun. [2] In January 1249 Gilbert de Bukenhull occurs on a Montgomery Jury. The Hundred-Roll of 1255 is full and instructive. Gilbert de Bockenhull himself was Foreman of the Purslow Jurors, who found that the said "Gilbert held one hide in Bockenhul of John fitz Alan. He owed suit to Clun Manor- Court and to Purslow Hundred; he also owed ward at Clun Castle for 8 days in wartime, with one Serviens and a horse, at his own cost. The estate was geldable". [3] I suppose that-

MADOC DE BOCKENHULL, who sat as 11th Juror at the above Inquest and at the Assizes of 1256, was a Tenant in Fitz Alan's share of Bucknell, but of inferior degree to Gilbert.

I should here notice how the Clun share of Bucknell was reputed in 1255 to be four times as great as the estimate of Domesday; whereas the usual change in Purslow Manors was in the opposite direction, viz. that their reputed hidage was diminished by one-half and often by more. I believe that the true account of this is that the Bucknell of 1255 involved Edelactune or Hibrihteselle, or some other of those Domesday Manors of Picot, whose names and situations are lost.

WALTER DE BUKENHULL occurs next in this succession. On December 10, 1270, he obtained a Charter of Free Warren for his demesnes in Bukenhall, provided they were not within the limits of the King's Forest. [4] In 1272 the late John fitz Alan's share of Bucknell is described as though it were half the vill. Out of the nine Co-tenants of the aforesaid knight's-fee, three would seem to have been of Bucknell. Their names are given as Walter de Bukenhulle, Madoc de Bukenhulle, and Roger de Bukenhulle. [5]

[1] He had also an estate at Chatwall (supra, Vol. V. p. 125.) [2] Testa de Nevill, p. 45.
[3] Rot. Hundred. II. 76.
[4] Rot. Chart. 55 Hen. III., m. 10.
[5] Inquis. 56 Hen. III., No. 36.


At the Assizes of 1272 Walter de Bukenhulle was Foreman of the Jury for Purslow Hundred. At the Assizes of 1292 the Purslow Jurors presented-

GILBERT DE BUKENHULL for exercising free Warren in Bukenhull. He pleaded Henry III.'s Charter to his Father, Walter, as his justification, and was dismissed. Of this Charter we will speak elsewhere. In the Nomina Villarum of 1316, Roger de Cheuency stands as Lord of Bukynhull in Purslow Hundred. [1]

I shall have more to say of the above Feoffees in Bucknell, when I come to speak of the other share of the Manor. Meantime, it is curious to observe how modern divisions of territory represent the ancient distinctions of feudalism. Undoubtedly Fitz Alan's share of Bucknell is that part of the Parish which still remains in Shropshire, while Mortimer's is that which is now reputed to be in the Hundred of Wigmore and County of Hereford.

We will now speak of tilt share of Bucknell which Domesday annexes to the Fief of Ralph de Mortimer. Isdem Radulfus tenet (de Rege) Buchehalle et Helgot de eo. Ibi II hidae. Terra est carucis. Wasta fuit et est. Ibi I leuua silvae. Aluui tenuit (tempore Regis Edwardi). [2]

Presuming that the Lord of Castle Holgate was indentical with Mortimer's Tenant, Helgot, I have only to say that neither he nor any of his direct heirs appear with any subsequent interest in Bucknell, unless we suppose that Herbert de Castello's sale to Hugh de Mortimer (already mentioned [3]) was of land in Bucknell. The next tenant of Mortimer who occurs to notice was-

ANDREW DE STANTON. He may have been a Cadet of the Baronial House of Holgate. The name De Stanton is consistent with, though it is very far from proving, such a connection. [4] The following particulars about Andrew de Stanton may be dated about 1165-1175.-

"Andrew de Stanton, Lord of Bucknell, was charged in King Henry's Court with grave misdemeanours, so that he could not remain publicly in England. He came into the Chapter of the Canons (of Wigmore) and, in the presence of Walter Folioth, Archdeacon of Salop, he gave them the Church of Bucknell in pure and

[1] Parliamentary Writs, IV. 399.
[2] Domesday, fo. 260, b. 1.
[3] Supra, page 312, 313.
[4] Helgot himself the progenitor of the family, was on one occasion called "De Stanton" (supra, Vol. I. p. 111).


perpetual alms. To whom, as long as he remained thus in England in concealment, they honestly furnished all necessaries; and, when he could no longer remain, he passed into Scotland, and remained there in safety till his peace was made with the King; and then he returned to his own land. And while he was absent, they (the Canons) furnished to his wife, Maude de Portz, what was needful for her". [1]

I cannot say when or how it was, that the principal Tenant in Fitz Alan's share of Bucknell became also sole tenant of Mortimer's share. At the Assizes of 1221-

GILBERT DE BUCKHULL is named by his wife Alice as her Attorney in a suit of mort d'ancestre against Jordan de Alneto and Amice his wife. [2] We may conclude that Gilbert de Buckhull's wife was an heiress. In 1223 we have seen that Gilbert de Buckhull and Hugh his brother were on their defence against a charge of homicide. [3] In 1231 Gilbert de Bukenhull was amerced in the heavy penalty of 5 merks, quia canes sui cucurrerunt sine licentia. His Sureties were Richard de Leighton and Thomas de Constantine;- two Fitz-Alan Tenants. I think that, ere this, Gilbert de Bukenhull must have been Mortimer's Feoffee as well as Fitz Alan's. He occurs on a Jury of Knights in 1246. At the Assizes of 1256 he is expressly called a knight, and, as such, acted as Elizor in causes of Grand Assize. He was also in office as one of the four Coroners for Shropshire. In 1265 he was deceased, for on March 15 of that year, I find Justices appointed to try a suit of mort d'ancestre, which-

WALTER DE BUKENHULL had arraigned against Roger de Mortimer, for two-thirds of a knight's-fee in Bokenhull. At the Assizes of 1272 the Purslow Jurors presented that Walter de Bukenhull had free-warren in Bukenhull as entitled by Royal Charter; but that Brian de Brompton hunted in the said Warren without Walter's license. The Sheriff was ordered to summon the said Brian. In July, 1277, Walter de Bokenhull, knight, proffered the service of one knight's-fee, in the pending invasion of Wales, to be discharged by the said Walter, on behalf of John de Meryet, of Meryet, Somersetshire. [4] I think the service also covered Walter de Bokenhull's personal responsibility for his estates in Shropshire. In the Wentnor Perambulation of 1278 Sir Walter de Bukenhull

[1] Wright's Hist. of Ludlow, p. 120.
[2] For Jordan de Alneto, his wife Amice, and her four sisters, see Vol. IV. pp. 244, 247, 292, 293, 294.
[3] Supra, page 256.
[4] Parliamentary Writ+, I. 207.


again appears as a Knight. The latest mention which I have found of Walter is in 1283. [1] At the Assizes of 1292,-

GILBERT DE BOKENHULL (II), as his son and heir, answered on his behalf for his conduct whilst in office as a Coroner for Shropshire.

The Inquest, taken in February, 1305, after the decease of Edmund de Mortimer, constitutes the earliest Feodary, which we have after Domesday, of the possessions of this powerful family. It registers Gilbert de Bokenhulle and the Abbot of Wigmore as Tenants of a knight's-fee, in Bokenhull and Adelahton, under the deceased Baron. [2] I have notices of Gilbert de Bucknell as living a few years after the above Inquest. [3] I have some idea that the Earls of Arundel afterwards became Mortimer's tenants in respect of the share of Bucknell now under notice.


We have seen how Wigmore Abbey acquired this Advowson in the time of Henry II. The date when the Canons obtained an appropriation thereof I cannot discover.

The Taxation of 1291 says that "the Church of Bokenhull (in the Deanery of Clun) is the Abbot of Wigmore's, and worth 5. 6s. 8d. per annum. The Vicar's Portion therein was not as much as 4". [4] In 1341, the Assessors of the Ninth quoted the above Taxation as one of 8 merks (5. 6s. 8d.). They reduced it to 19s. for the current levy; because two-thirds of the Parish of Bokenhill, viz. the vill of Coten, the vill of Adlaghton, and the Manor of Hokesale, were in Wales, and in the Liberties of Wigmore; so as not to he responsible to a Shropshire tax. [5]

The Valor of 1534-5 gives the Vicarage of Bucknell (then held by John Harrez) as worth 5. 5s. per annum less 7s. 8d. for procurations and synodals. [6]


The following Vicars were uniformly presented by the Abbot and Convent of Wigmore.-

[1] Supra, page 305.
[2] Inquisitions, 32 Edw. I, No 63, b.
[3] Supra, Page 248.
[4] Pope Nich. Taxation, p. 167.
[5] Inquis. Nonaram, p. 189.- Coxwall, Adley, and Coten were in the Herefordshire part of Bucknell Parish, but they were also accounted to be in the Walcheria of Wigmore Castle. They were not, therefore, assessable to the Ninth, even in Herefordshire.
[6] Valor Ecclesiasticus, III. 205.


[For engraving, see pdf.]


NICHOLAS surnamed COMMPYUN, Deacon, instituted January 13, 1285.

WALTER, Perpetual Vicar of Bucknell, occurs in 1327. [1]

JOHN POWIS, Vicar of Bucknell, is probably the same with-

JOHN PURS, [2] Priest, instituted Feb. 11, 1362. He was here in 1386.

RICHARD BROMPTON, Chaplain, admitted April 8, 1391, exchanged preferments, on Nov. 9, 1399, with-

SIR THOMAS HULLE, late Vicar of Lekwuton (Dioc. Coventr.). Hulle must have resigned Bucknell within a month; for on December 2, 1399,-

SIR JOHN GRUFFUTH Was instituted. He resigned in 1420.


Domesday gives a small part of this important Manor to Picot de Say.- Isdem Picot tenet de Comite tres virgatas terrae in Lenteurde, et Fulco (tenet) de eo. Terra est duabus carucis. Reddit V solidos. [3]

This, after Clungunford, Bedston, and Hibrihteselle, is the fourth Manor in which Picot appears with Fulco as his Tenant. In no case is there a probability that Fulco's Domesday interests descended to any heirs of his. In the case of Leintwardine, even the seigneural interest of Picot vanished, for the Barons of Clun retained nothing in the Manor. Their share was evidently absorbed by the greater interest of Mortimer of Wigmore, whose estate is described in Domesday as follows.- Isdem Radulfus (De Mortemer) tenet (de Rege) Lenteurde. Rex Edwardus tenuit. Ibi quatuor hidae et una virgata. Terra est XXIV carucis. In dominio sunt III carucae: et VI Bovarii, et X Villani, et VIII Bordarii, et Praepositus, et II Radmans cum Presbytero, inter omnes habent VIII carucas. Ibi AEcclesia; et Molinum de VI solidis et VIII denariis et VI stiches anguillarum. [4] De hac terra tenet unus Miles unam hidam et dimidiam, et ibi habet unam carucam et V servos, et V Villanos, et III Bordarios, cum duabus

[1] Supra, Vol. V. page 28 (corrected).
[2] Compare Vol. VI. p. 358.
[3] Domesday, fo. 258, a, 2.
[4] Leintwardine Mill paid an annual rent of 6s. 8d. in money, and 6 sticks of eels in kind.


carucis. Ibi duo homines reddunt IIII solidos de locatione terrae. [1] Ibi silvae una leuua. Tempore Regis Edwardi (hoc Manerium) valebat XL solidos; et post XXX solidos. Modo (valet) IIII libras. [2]

Domesday is perhaps the latest Record which speaks of Leintwardine as strictly a Shropshire Manor. Yet it must not be supposed that this district, when severed from Shropshire, passed at once into Herefordshire, of which County it now forms a part. There was a long interval, during which Leintwardine and other contiguous Manors cannot be said to have practically belonged to any English County. They were reputed to be part of the Walcheria, or independent jurisdiction, established by the Mortimers at and around Wigmore. For minute details of such a district we look in vain to English Records. Here are the few exceptions in which Leintwardine comes under a notice, far disproportionate to its extent and value.-

At the Shrewsbury Assizes of 1221, William, son of William de St. George, as his father's heir, claimed two virgates in Turplinton (now Trippleton) and 80 acres in Lantewurth. He impleaded Hugh de Mortimer (of Wigmore) as being in possession of the premises; but Mortimer proved that Roger de Langleberge held one carucate out of the said 80 acres, and that his (Mortimer's) mother [3] had the residue of the premises in dower, so that he himself had nothing in demesne at Leintewurthe. This defence was indorsed by a Jury, and the suit dismissed. [4]

The Inquest taken in February 1305, after the death of Edmund de Mortimer of Wigmore, gives John de Boullesdon and John de Pedewardin as his Tenants at Turpleton (Trippleton) and William de Mortimer as his Tenant at Leyntwardyn. The two tenements in Trippleton were held by one-third and one-tenth, the tenement in Leintwardine by one-tenth, of a knight's-fee. At the same time the demesnes of the deceased, and the rents of his free tenants, in Leyntwordyn produced 10. 3s. 6d. per annum. Among the said Tenants were William de la Bourne, Walter de Leyntwardyn, Roger Hord, John le Fleming and Thomas de Turpeton. All did perennial suit to the great Court of Wigmore. [5]

WILLIAM DE MORTIMER, above mentioned as a Tenant in Leintwardine, was not a Cadet of the House of Wigmore. He was

[1] Allotments of land, made to a superior class of Tenantry at a fixed annual rent in money.
[2] Domesday, fo. 260, a, 2.
[3] Isabella de Ferrers (supra, Vol. IV. page 196).
[4] Assize-Roll, 6 Hen. III., m. 5.
[5] Inquis. 32 Edw. I., No. 63, b.


a younger brother of Robert de Mortimer of Richard's Castle, and was usually called "William de Mortimer of Hamme". His tenure in Leyntwardine was not immediate under Mortimer of Wigmore, and he was only Tenant for life. The Inquest, taken on his death in 1308, says that he had thus held divers rents in Leyntwardine "of the inheritance of the heirs of Hugh de Mortimer of Richard's Castle, but without rendering any service". [1] The said heirs, as I have before explained, [2] were William de Mortimer's Great-nieces, viz. Johanna, afterwards wife of Richard Talbot, and Margaret, afterwards wife of Geoffrey de Cornwall.

The Inquest, ordered by a Writ of January 21, 1332, on the death of Edmund de Mortimer (II), shows that a good part of Leintwardine had been held in demesne. His income from this source had been 13. 7s. 3d. per annum. A dilapidated messuage, 80 acres of arable land, 6 acres of pasture, 15 acres of meadow, the Bosc called Moktre, and the rents of Free and Native Tenants made up that total. [3]

The next Inquests I shall quote concern Mortimer's Tenants in Leintwardine.- Juliana, widow of John Talbot of Richard's Castle, died Dec. 1, 1361, and was succeeded by her eldest son, John (then aged 24 years and upwards), in the right to 4. 15s. annual rent in Leyntwardyn, held under the Earl of March by fealty only. [4] Again, Geoffrey de Cornwall died in foreign parts on May 18, 1365. He had held 4. 16s., rents of free tenants in Leyntwardine, under the heir of Roger de Mortimer, late Earl of March, and by military service. Another Inquest, taken at Leintwardine itself, states that Geoffrey de Cornwall's lands and tenements there, were worth 5. 0s. 4d. per annum. Brian, his son and heir, was 10 years old on May 3, 1365. [5]


This was a Saxon Foundation, and the Mother-Church of a Parish whose dimensions we cannot now define. Hugh de Mortimer, in the last five years of his life (1181-5), gave the Church of Lyntwardyn and the Mill of Lyntwardyn to Wigmore Abbey. [6] In his Visitation of 1289, Bishop Swinfield came on May 13 to Leinwordyn. He visited the Church. The Abbot of Wigmore, as Rector thereof, supplied the day's entertainment for the Bishop and

[1] Inquis. 2 Edw. II., No. 65.
[2] Supra, Vol. IV. pages 303, 320-1.
[3] Inquis. 5 Edw. III., No. 79.
[4] Inquis. 35 Edw. III., pars. 2, No. 70.
[5] Inquis. 43 Edw. III., No. 22.
[6] Monasticon, VI. page 349, a.


his suit. [1] An entry of about this date shows the Bishop giving an alms of 12d. to the Recluse of Leintwordyn. [1] The Church probably contained one of those Cells or Parvises, which have been noticed already as the abodes of the Anchorite or Devotee.

The Taxation of 1291 enumerates the following as in the Deanery of Clun.- The Church of Leynthwardyn with the Chapels of Doriton (read Boriton, i.e. Burrington) and Dunton, worth 20 per annum; that is, the Rectory thereof: the portion of the Vicar of Leynthwardyn, worth 4. 13s. 4d.: the portion of the Vicar of Boryton Chapel, worth less than 4: and the portion of the Vicar of Dounton Chapel, worth less than 4. [2]

From a Patent of February 10, 1330, [3] we find that Roger de Mortimer, Earl of March, was busy in endowing that splendid Chantry in Leintwardine Church, whose foundation so remarkably synchronized with the close of his own career. The King's "beloved cousin", who was to perish within ten months on the scaffold, is empowered "to give the Advowson of (Church) Stretton to ten Chaplains who were to celebrate daily masses in the Church of St. Mary of Leyntwardyn for the souls of the said Earl, his ancestors and successors". Further, the said Chaplains had license "to accept and appropriate the said Church, the Statute of Mortmain notwithstanding". Though the Advowson of Stretton did not eventually form a part of the endowment of Leintwardine Chantry, Mortimer's design was completed from other resources. "In the 14th century", says my authority, "nine Chaplains chanted daily mass at the Altars of Leintwardine Church for the souls of Edward III., of Isabella his mother, and Philippa his Queen, of Henry, Bishop of Lincoln, the Earl of Lincoln, his Countess Joan, and others, with all the faithful departed. The lands assigned for these comprehensive services were granted by Roger Earl of Mortimer, and were exempted by royal favour from the statute of mortmain. The Church contained a regularly appointed Choir, with stalls yet remaining; thither the Monks of Wigmore repaired in processions; and the Abbot delivered an annual sermon on the festival of the Virgin, the patron saint". [4]

In 1341 the only part of the Parish of Leyntworth which was liable to the tax of the Ninth was the hamlet of Jay. [5] Ten of the

[1] Swinfield's Roll (Camden Soc.), pages 84, 153.
[2] Pope Nich. Taxation, page 167.
[3] Pat. 4 Edw. III., page 1, m. 41.
[4] Swinfield's Roll, Abstract, etc., page cxcix.
[5] Jay was then in the Manor, and is now in the Parish, of Bedston.


eleven vills of the Parish were not in Shropshire, and I presume escaped Taxation as being in the Franchise of Wigmore. As to Jay it was only assessed 10s., three virgates there being untilled for want of means. [1]

In 1534-5 the Abbot of Wigmore's receipts, spiritual and temporal, from Leintwardine, were very great. The following summary necessarily includes a few items, which might more properly have been introduced on other pages, but it is difficult and tedious to subdivide such accounts.-

Yearly rents and ferms of Lentwarden 16. 0s. 3d.;- Ferm of the Mills of Lentwarden 3. 3s. 4d.;- Corn-tithes and hay-tithes;- of the vill of Leyntwarden 12s. 6d.; of Adlaghton 3s. 4d.;- of Jay and Hethe 10s.;- of the collective vills of Leyntwarden, Atforton, Walford, Bucton, Kynton, Wytton, Tripleton, and Leynthall Strak' (Leinthall Starkes) 16. 6s. [2] The gross receipts were therefore 36. 15s. 5d.; but I cannot see why the tithes of Leintwardine-proper should be twice alluded to.

At this period, the Glebe and small-tithes, which constituted the preferment of John Stiche, Vicar of Leyntwarden, were valued at 8. 3s. 4d. per annum; out of which sum, 7s. 8d. was payable for synodals and procurations. [3]

Among the Articles of accusation exhibited by Henry VIII.'s Officers against John Smart, last Abbot of Wigmore, one of the least was his neglect of Leintwardine Chantry, and of his annual duties there. Beyond this he had stripped forty pounds' worth of silver plate from some costly image of the Virgin which adorned the Church, and had appropriated the proceeds. The particulars of this accusation may be seen elsewhere. [4] Such acts, when perpetrated by Reformers and Puritans, have been called Spoliation and Sacrilege, but our language seems short of any word which would characterize the peculiar infamy of the Abbot of Wigmore's Deed.


THIS was one of those Manors of Ralph de Mortimer, which,

[1] Inquis. Nonarum, page 194.
[2] [3] Valor Ecclesiasticus, Vol. III. pp. 202, 203, 204, 205.
[4] Wright's Ludlow, p. 357.


lying very near to Wigmore Castle, were nevertheless accounted to be in Shropshire.- Isdem Radulfus tenet Stanewei. AElmer tenuit. Ibi I hida, geldabilis. Terra est tribus carucis. In dominio sunt duae (carucae); et VI Servi et Praepositus cum dimidia caruca. Valebat X solidos. Modo (valet) XII solidos. [1]

After Domesday, I hear nothing of Mortimer's Manor of Stanway for two centuries. At length it occurs under circumstances which show that its ancient connection with Shropshire was still remembered, and further that that connection had been suspended, not when the Hundreds of Shropshire had been rearranged by Henry I., but more recently, and because the Mortimers had succeeded in establishing an independent status for Wigmore and many other Manors of that district.

In October 1292 the King prosecuted Edmund de Mortimer, under Writ of Quo Waranto, for withdrawing the suit of various Vills from the County of Salop, and from their several Shropshire Hundreds. The result of this prosecution was a failure, Mortimer taking that technical objection to the process which has been described elsewhere. [2] It will here be sufficient therefore to give a list of, and to identify those Vills, whose suit to the said County and to the specific Hundreds of Munslow and Chirbury was thus alleged to have been withdrawn. They were Brompton (Brompton Brian), Buketon (Buckton), Coceshall (Coxwall), Adelatton (Adley), Parva Pedewardyn (Lower Pedwardine), Brerheld (now Brierley Hill), Lyngayn (Lingen), Bokenhull (Part of Bucknell), Letton (Letton), Neuton (Newton), Diforton (Adferton), Walfrd (Walford), Stanwye (Stanway), Wytton (Whitton), Turpyton (Trippleton), Kyngton (Kinton), Le Wardyn (Leintwardine), Markelowe (Marlow), Trowehers (?), Dunton (Downton on the Rock), Kynnton (Knighton), and three messuages in Lyngebrok (Limbrook). [3] Among these it will be observed are at least a dozen vills which Domesday had described as members of Lenteurde Hundred: nor can we doubt that, since Domesday, they had done suit to the Shropshire Hundreds of Munslow or of Chirbury, as the case may have been. On the other hand I think that one or two places are named which, like Downton, there was no pretence for including in this prosecution.

Another Writ of Quo Waranto was the correlative of the above. It questioned Edmund de Mortimer's right to hold Pleas of the Crown and to have Weyf in Bokenhull (Part of Bucknell),

[1] Domesday, fo. 260; a, 2.
[2] Vide supra, Vol. III. page 208; and Vol. XI. page 102 n.
[3] Quo Waranto, p. 681.


Brompton (Brompton Brian), Bucton (Buckton), Cocheshale (Coxwall), Adelacton (Adley), Parva Pedewardin, Magna Pedewardin (Lower and Upper Pedwardine), Brerehelde (now Brierley Hill), Lyngayne (Lingen), Singebrok (Limbrook), Lecton (Letton), Neuton (Newton), Atforton (Adferton), Walleford (Walford), Stanewey (Stanway), Winton (Whitton), Turpiton (Trippleton), Kynton (Kinton), Lontwardin (Leintwardine), Markelowe (Marlow), Duntton (Downton on the Rock), and Kinehton (Knighton). This question was met by Mortimer with the direct avowal that he claimed to hold Pleas of the Crown in all the above vills. He justified the usage by prescription, viz. that he and his Ancestors, from time immemorial, had exercised the said franchises and had had power over life and limb (dederunt vitam et membra) in all the said vills; nay, that any Sheriff, Coroner, or other Servant of the King, had never [1] entered the said vills for any official purpose. Hugh de Louther replied with his usual arguments, viz. that such franchises constituted the integrity of a Crown, and could not be separated therefrom without a special act of Royal grace. And whereas Mortimer could show no such special act, and whereas the aforesaid vills were within the precinct of the County (of Salop), of which the King alone could be King, he (Hugh de Louther) prayed judgment on the Writ.
[2] All I can say more of this case is that it was adjourned to Lichfield, thence to Stafford, and thence to the hearing of the King himself. There is not any probability or appearance that Mortimer's Franchises were abridged.

Brampton Brian.

Isdem Radulfus (de Mortemer) tenet Brantune, et Ricardus de eo. Gunuar tenuit. Ibi II hidae et dimidia. Terra est VI carucis et dimidiae. In domino est una (caruca) et dimidia; et III Bovarii, et I Villanus, et III Bordarii. Silvae dimidia leuua. T.R.E. wastae fuit; et post valuit V solidos Modo (valet) X solidos. [3]

I have spoken, under Kinlet and elsewhere, of that influential

[1] Uncquam is the word printed, but nunquam is necessary to the sense. The two words, unquam and nunquam, are very liable to be confused by transcribers.
[2] Quo Waranto, p. 675.
[3] Domesday, fo. 260, b, 1.


family which took its name from the vill of Brompton. [1] I have also intimated that Kinlet and Brompton Brian probably devolved to the said family by marriage with a Coheiress of the Domesday Ricardus. Among the fees which-

BRIAN DE BROMPTON (II) held in 1240, under Ralph de Mortimer, Bromton was one. [2] We have seen also, how, in 1252, the same Brian obtained Charters for a Fair and Market at Brompton, and for Free-Warren at Brompton and Buckton. [3] It was-

BRIAN DE BROMPTON (III), whom, in April 1267, Walter de Pedwardine arraigned for disseizin, viz. for depriving him, the said Walter, of a right of common in Brompton. In November 1269 I find Walter de Pedwardyn taking out a second Writ of the same character. On March 10, 1286, King Edward I., in return for the gratuitous services which Brian de Brompton, Senior, was then discharging, cancels 20 of the debts which the said Brian owed to certain Jews. This was one out of two such favours entered on the Patent-Roll of the same year. An Inquest, taken in February 1295, after the death of-

BRIAN DE BROMPTON (IV), values the Manor of Brompton at 8. 7s. 8d. per annum. The homestead, or Manorial residence, is described as a Tower, with a curtilage, garden, and Vivary. The services due to Edmund de Mortimer, as Suzerain, were Castle-guard at Wigmore, performable by one knight for 40 days in war-time, also a yearly rent of 13s. 4d.; and suit every three weeks to the Court of Wigmore. [4] A Feodary, drawn up in February 1305, after the death of Edmund de Mortimer, has been already noticed. [5] It speaks of some of Brian de Brompton's tenures in the Barony, as though he were still living: but the fact is that he had been dead ten years, though his Coheirs, Harley and Cornwall, had not as yet appeared. Preparatory to a division among the said Coheirs, other Inquests on the Brompton Estates were taken in December 1308. Here the Manor of Brompton was valued at 14. 7s. 8d. per annum, exclusive of a certain tenement (value 19s. 6d. per annum) which had escheated to the general estate since the death of Sir Brian de Brompton, having been formerly held by one William Purs. I need not repeat what has been before stated as to Brompton Brian falling to the purparty of Margaret de Brompton, wife of Robert de Harley. [6] I will close this subject with a quotation,

[1] Supra, Vol. IV. pp. 230-1, 240 et seqq.; Vol. XI. pp. 314, 315.
[2] [3] Vide supra, Vol. IV. p. 248.
[4] Inquis. 23 Edw. I., No. 136.
[5] Supra, Vol. IV. pp. 253-4.
[6] Supra, Vol. IV. p. 254.


showing Robert de Harley in connection with his Great Suzerain. By Deed, dated at Pembridge in 20 Edward II. (1326-7), "Roger de Mortimer of Wigmore gives to his beloved Bachelor, Robert de Harley, for his good service, the wardship and marriage of Gilbert, son and heir of Sir John de Lacy". [1]


The earliest mention which I find of this Church is from the Register of Bishop Cantilupe. That Prelate was as yet only elect, when, on July 10, 1275, the Official of the Diocese is ordered to give temporary induction to an Incumbent of the vacant Church of Brampton Brian. The Taxation of 1291 enumerates Brompton among the Churches of Clun Deanery. It was worth 6 per annum, but its incumbent had other preferment. Moreover, the Prior of the Knights Hospitallers of Dinmore had an annual portion of 1 from Brompton Church. [2]

The Valor of 1534-5 gives the preferment of John Davey, Rector of Brompton Bryan, as 7. 6s. 8d. per annum, viz. tithes 7. 2s. 8d. and glebe 4s. The said income was chargeable with a pension of 20s. payable to William de Weston, as Master of the Knights Hospitallers in England, with a portion of 8s. payable to the Vicar of Wigmore, and with 7s. 8d. payable to the Arcdeacon, for procurations and synodals. [3]

Upper and Lower Pedwardine.

THESE two vills formed three Manors in Saxon times, but were united at Domesday, under Mortimer's Vassal, Richard-

Isdem Radulfus tenet Pedewrde, et Ricardus de eo. Elric tenuit. Ibi III virgatae terrae. Terra est II carucis. In dominio est una (caruca), et II Bovarii et unus Bordarius. Valet III solidos. Wasta fuit.

Isdem Radulfus tenet Pedewrde, et Ricardus de eo. Erniet tenuit. Ibi I hida. Terra est II carucis. In dominio est una (caruca), et II Bovaril et I Bordarius. Tempore Regis Edwardi, et post, et modo, valet X solidos. [4]

[1] Dugdale's MSS. Vol. 39, fo. 82.
[2] Pope Nich. Taxation, p. 167.
[3] Valor Eccles. III. 204.
[4] Domesday, fo. 260, b, 1.


Isdem Radulfus tenet Pedewrde, et Ricardus de eo. AErgrim tenuit. Ibi III virgatae. Terra est II carucis. Ibi sunt II Villani cum dimidia caruca. Tempore Regis Edwardi wasta fuit; et post et modo valet V soliclos. [1]

Here again we shall find De Brompton to have succeeded the Domesday Ricardus; but De Brompton was only Mesne-Lord of Pedwardine. Some early grant placed the fee in the hands of a family which took its name from the place.-

ROGER DE PEDWARDINE has been seen to have followed Sir Brian de Brompton as witness of a local Deed, about 1240. [2] At the Assizes of 1256,-

JOHN DE PEWARTHIN withdrew a charge of disseizin which he had arraigned against Richard, son of Roger le Chyld, concerning a tenement in Achton. [3] His Sureties were Thomas de Pedenanwey and Robert fitz Walter, of Atfreton. [4] On October 19, 1267, the King acknowledges a debt of 145 to one-

WILLIAM DE PEDEWARDYN, and to 562 Welshmen of his Con- stablewick, being arrears of pay since the band had been in the King's service. I cannot say that either of the above three persons was a Tenant in Pedwardine; but-

WALTER DE PEDWARDINE, the contemporary of two of them, certainly held that Manor under De Brompton. Of this Walter occurring from 1253 to 1297, we have had frequent mention in former Volumes. [5] A Writ of Diem clausit, dated May 7, 1297, announces his death. An Inquest, held at Brampton Brian, on July 23 following, found that he had held nothing in capite; but under the heirs of Brian de Brompton (then wards of the Crown) he had held by services of one-sixth of a knight's-fee, and suit every three weeks to the Manor-Court of Brompton. His tenements, so held, were in Pedwordin, Brompton, and Borefford (Boarsford),the first valued at 3. 1s. 8d. per annum; the second at 6. 9s. 4d.; the third at 2. 17s. 4d. [6]

ROGER DE PEDWARDINE, son and heir of the above Walter, was of full age at his father's death. It appears that Walter de Pedwardine left a widow, Elizabeth, and that she (according to what has been said under Eyton) must have been his second wife. In April, 1299, the said Elizabeth, with Robert Devereus and Brian

[1] Domesday, fo. 260, b, 1.
[2] Supra, page 304.
[3] Perhaps Ashton, in Herefordshire.
[4] Assizes, 40 Hen. III., m. 1 dorso.
[5] Supra, Vol. IV. pages 190, 276; Vol. VI. pp. 89, 90; Vol. VII. p. 345; Vol. VIII. pp. 31, 32.
[6] Inquis. 25 Edw. I., No. 23.


de Pedewardyn, Executors of Walter de Pedewardyn's Will, fine half a merk for some Judicial Writ. [1]

The Inquest taken in February, 1305, after the death of Edmund de Mortimer, necessarily confines itself to his immediate Tenants. Thus we find Brian de Brompton, deceased, registered as having held two-thirds of a fee, in Pedewardin and Meton, [2] under Mortimer. Roger de Pedwardine, the Under-Tenant, is of course not mentioned in this part of the Inquest; but he is named as Mortimer's immediate Tenant at Walford, where his service was half a knight's-fee. [3] An Inquest, ordered in January 1332, on the death of Edmund de Mortimer (II), enumerates his free tenants at Pedwardine, of whom John de Pedwardine was one. The whole income derivable by the deceased from Pedewardyn (Herefordshire) was 2. 10s. 3d. per annum. [4]


THIS was one of the many Manors held by Ralph de Mortimer's Domesday Tenant, Oidelard.- Isdem Radulfus tenet Buctone, et Oidelardus de eo. Saxi tenuit. Ibi V hidae. Terra est X carucis. In dominio sunt duae (carucae), et IIII Bovarii, et II Villani, et unus Bordarius cum dimidia caruca. Ibi Molinum de VIII T.R.E. valebat XXX solidos, et post XXX solidos. Modo (valet) XXI solidos. [5]

Beside Buckton, Domesday names no less than eight Manors wherein Oidelard was Mortimer's Tenant. They were Chenol, Candovre, and Herdel (Hants), Praxemere and Hodicote (Berks), Tocheham (Wilts), Ideberie (Oxfordshire), and Duntune (Downton Castle, Herefordshire). [6] I have elsewhere expressed an opinion that Oidelard was afterwards represented by the family of Neufmesnil, [7] and we know that the Heir or Coheir of Neufmesnil was De Brompton. Hence we find that Henry III.'s Charter of Free-Warren, granted to Brian de Brompton in 1252, included the said Brian's Manor of Bucton. [8] Again, the Inquest, held on the death

[1] Rot. Finium, 27 Edw. I.
[2] Meaton, near Kinlet (supra, Vol. IV. p. 258.) [3] Inquis. 32 Edw. I., No. 63.
[4] Inquis. 5 Edw. III., No. 79.
[5] Domesday, fo. 260, b, 1.
[6] Domesday, fos. 47, 51, 62-b, 72, 159, 183-b.
[7] Supra, Vol. IV. p. 248 n.
[8] Rot. Chart. 36 Hen. III., m. 21.


of Brian de Brompton (IV) in 1295, says that he held Bocton, by service of one knight in wartime, for 40 days, and under Edmund de Mortimer. The annual value of the Manor was 8. 7s. 8d., and the Tenant owed two appearances yearly at the Manor-Court of Wigmore. [1] Again, on the death of Edmund de Mortimer in 1304, We find Boucton registered as a knight's-fee, held by Brian de Brompton (or rather his heirs) under the deceased Baron. The Inquest, taken in 1308, previous to the partition of De Brompton's estates between his Coheirs, repeats the annual value of Bocton as 8. 7s. 8d. Lastly, we have seen that, on the said partition heing made, Bucton went to the share of Margaret de Brompton, wife of Robert de Harley. [2]


Isdem Radulfus (de Mortemer) tenet Alfertintune. Edricus tenuit. Ibi III hidae, geldabiles. Terra est VI carucis. Ibi V Villani et VI Bordarii et unus Radman cum IIII carucis inter omnes. Valebat VIII solidos: modo (valet) V solidos. [3]

This Manor does not seem to have been bestowed on any Feoffee during the two centuries which followed Domesday. Robert fitz Walter of Atfreton, who occurs in 1256, was probably Tenant of some land here; but the Manor in general was retained by the Mortimers in demesne. The Inquest, taken in 1304 on the death of Edmund de Mortimer, seems to have specified certain rent derived by him from Alfreton in Shropshire: [4] but this part of the Inquest is no longer legible in the original. The Inquest taken in 1332 on the death of Edmund de Mortimer gives a rent of 1s. 6d. as receivable from Adferton.

Linton and Shirley.

Isdem Radulfus (de Mortemer) tenet Lingham, et Turstinus de eo.

[1] Inquis. 23 Edw. I., No. 136.
[2] Supra, Vol. IV. p. 254.
[3] Domesday, fo. 260, a, 2.
[4] Calend. Inquis. Vol. I. p. 190-b.


Gunuer et Edric tenuerunt pro duobus maneriis. Ibi I hida et dimidia geldabiles. Terra est VII carucis. In dominio est una (caruca) et II Bovarii, et I Villanus, et IIII Bordarii cum II carucis. Ibi dimidia leuua silvae, et III haia capreolis capiendis. Tempore Regis Edwardi wasta erat, et post valebat VI solidos. Modo (valet) X solidos.

Isdem Radulfus tenet Sirelei et Turstinus de eo. Ibi dimidia hida. AElmar tenuit. Terra est uni carucae. Ibi est cum II servis et uno Bordario. Wasta fuit. Modo valet II solidos. [1]

I have already discussed the antecedents and the Domesday posi-tion of Turstin de Wigmore, the reputed ancestor of the family of Lingen. [2] At the Shropshire Assizes of 1221, Roger fitz William failed to appear in a suit of mort d'ancestre, which he had arraigned against John de Lingenie, concerning a tenement in Lingein. He was pronounced in misericordia. [3] At the Assizes of August, 1226, Clement Korbet withdrew a suit of novel disseizin which he had arraigned against John de Lingen and Roger Bendehak, concerning a tenement in Lingen. The Plaintiff's Surety was Robert Esmerylin. [4]

I have suggested [5] that it was a second John de Lingen, who in 1236 was suing his Suzerain, Ralph de Mortimer, by process of mort d'ancestre for 40 acres in Lingeyne. By a Fine, levied at Shrewsbury on Nov. 16, 1236, the Baron acknowledges the Plaintiff's right and restores the land, but the Plaintiff pays 25 merks.

In 1259, the Sheriff of Shropshire had paid by order of the King, 15 merks to John Lingeyn, Philip le Bret, Owen ap Madoc, Tudor ap Edner, and Owen ap Meurik, for their charges in the King's services, in the parts of Wales.

I have alluded under Huntington [6] to a Deed which shows the Lingens to have had a Mesne interest in Wigmore itself. I am unable to assign the date of this Deed, but it runs briefly as follows.- Johannes de Lingain concessi Elie filio Haraldi, pro una marca, dimidiam virgatam terre quam tenet de dono Adame filii Ingerani, in Wygemore, quam Adam tenuit de me, etc., reddendo 2s. 4d. His testibus, Briano de Brompton, Rogero de Longebergh, Nicholao de Hinton, Tristram tunc Senescallo de Wigmore, Rogero Rod, et Ingelrano fratre duo, et multis aliis. [7]

[1] Domesday, fo. 260, a, 2.
[2] Supra, Vol. V. pp. 74, 75.
[3] Assize-Roll, 6 Hen. III., m. 6 dorso.
[4] Assize-Roll, 10 Hen. III., m. 4 dorso.
[5] Supra, Vol. V. p. 77.
[6] Supra, Vol. V. p. 77.
[7] Liber Niger de Wigmore, fo. 49-b. Tristram de Ribbeford, Seneschal of Wigmore, attests the contemporary Deed of Adam fitz Ingeran.


As the above extracts are merely supplementary to what has been said concerning the family of Lingen under Huntington, I may here add one more such note. The Feodary, drawn up in 1308, on the death of Matilda, widow of Hugh de Mortimer of Richards-Castle, gives two Lingens as enfeoffed in the Herefordshire part of that Barony, that is, John de Lingeyne held Knull for one-fourth of a knight's-fee; and Thomas de Lingeyne held Herton for half a knight's-fee. [1] In July, 1332, Ralph de Lingeyn was one of the Jurors in the Inquest, taken at Wigmore, on the death of Edmund de Mortimer.

In 1398-9 another John de Lingeyne held Lingeyne under Mortimer of Wigmore for half a knight's-fee. At the same time Ailmondestre (Aymestrey), Covenhope (Conhope), and Shirlythe (Shirley) are similarly held under Mortimer of Wigmore, for a whole fee, by one whose name is printed Richard de Lington, [2] but who, I think, was a Lingen.

LYMBROKE NUNNERY, in Herefordshire, has been attributed to the Foundation of the Lingens. [3] At its Dissolution in 1539, this House had rents, of 1 for a tenement, etc., in Shyrley;- of 13s. 4d. for a meadow in Amestry;- of 10s. from a tenement and land in Much Cowarne, and of 6s. 8d. from a messuage in Leyngyn.

WIGMORE ABBEY also appears to have had possessions in several Manors of which the Lingens were sometime seized. At the Dissolution the following receipts are illustrative of that circumstance. Knill,- pension from the Rectory 3s. Aymonastery,- assized rents 9s. 2d.; annual rents 6s. 2d.; customary rents 3. 18s. 9d.; Tithes 3. 2s. Cowarne,- annual rents 1s. 8d.; messuage and land 3. 6s. 4d. Lingayn,- tithes, 2. [4]


Isdem Radulfus (de Mortemer) tenet Lectune, et Ingelrannus de eo. Seuuard tenuit. Ibi una hida et dimidia. Terra est VI carucis. Ibi VI Villani cum uno Milite habent III carucas. Wasta fuit; et post valuit V solidos. Modo (valet) X solidos. [5]

[1] Inquisitions, 1 Edw. II., No. 59.
[2] Calend Inquis. Vol. III. p. 239.
[3] Monasticon, IV. p. 184. See also supra, Vol. V. p. 76 note.
[4] Monasticon, VI. pp. 355-6.
[5] Domesday, fo. 260, a. 2.


I have spoken fully in former Volumes of Mortimer's tenant Ingelrann, and the subsequent partition of the Domesday Manors of Ingelrann, among the Coheirs of Savage. [1] We have seen that in 1240 two of these Manors, Sheet and Letton, were reputed to be a knight's-fee, and were held by Philip de Mortimer, probably as Custos of some heir of the family of De Bosco, the real Feoffees. Possibly Richard de Bosco, Lord of Sheet in 1255, [2] was Lord also of Letton. Richard de Lecton, who occurs as a witness about 1272, [3] was more probably a Feoffee here.

The Feodary, drawn up in February, 1305, after the death of Edmund de Mortimer, says that "Adam de la Sete (Sheet) had held La Sete, together with the land of Walter de Lecton, for one knight's-fee". Here I take it that Adam de la Sete was Lord of Sheet, and Mesne-Lord of a part of Letton, his Undertenant being Walter de Letton. But there was another estate in Lecton, viz. half a knight's-fee, which was held immediately under Mortimer by Robert de Lecton. [4] In 1398-9, A., the wife of John de Letton, is given as Tenant of the latter half-fee.

WIGMORE ABBEY was possessed of a very considerable estate in or about Letton. How or when it was acquired, I am unable to say, save that there is no mention of it in the Taxation of 1291. In 1540, that is, after the Dissolution, this estate is valued as follows. "Letton, and elsewhere,- Annual rents 8d.; Rents of Tenants-at-will 5s. 0d.; Rents of customary Tenants 13. 13s.; Ferm of the Manor 5. 12s. 4d.; Tithes 10s. 8d.; Letton Mill, rent 6s. 8d. Total 20. 8s. 4d". [5]


THIS was a divided Manor at Domesday, though Ralph de Mortimer was Seigneural Lord of both parts.- Isdem Radulfus tenet Waliforde et Sancta Maria de Wigemore de eo. Alsi tenuit. Ibi dimidia hida. Terra est duabus carucis. In dominio est una, cum

[1] Supra, Vol. IV. pp. 232, 269, 272.
[2] Supra, Vol. V. p. 72.
[3] Supra, page 304.
[4] Inquisitions, 32 Edw. I., No. 68.
[5] Monasticon, Vol. VI. p. 355. There is also other evidence that Letton was a divided Manor early in the 13th century (vide supra, Vol. III. p. 52), one part being associated (as to tenure) with Sheet, the other part with Walford.


II Bovariis. Valebat XII solidos; modo (valet) VIII solidos. Wastam (Radulfus) invenit. [1]

Isdem Radulfus tenet Waliforde, et Ingelrannus de eo. Uluuard et Blachemer et Dunning tenuerunt pro III Maneriis. Ibi II hidae et dimidia. Terra est V carucis. In dominio sunt duae (carucae), et IIII Bovarii et III Villani cum I caruca. Tempore Regis Edwardi valebat XI solidos, et post XII solidos. Modo (valet) XV solidos. [2]

The digest of all this is, that four Saxons made way for Ralph de Mortimer at Walford, that he bestowed one tenement, being a sixth of the whole, and waste, on the Collegiate Church of St. Mary of Wigmore, and that he enfeoffed Ingelrann in the other three tenements, being five-sixths of the Manor. Ingelrann's estate at Walford probably descended to his heirs, the Savages of Walton Savage, Neen Savage, Sheet, Letton, etc. The line of Savage, as I have elsewhere stated, had merged in six Co-heiresses before the year 1221. The following extracts will mention several individuals of the families of Foxcote, Hints, and Pedwardine, each of whom I believe to have been, somehow or other, interested in this ramified Co-heirship. Adam le Savage, for instance, is stated to have had a third part of Walford, in a document which professes to give particulars of the family of Savage. [3] Adam de Foxcote was Uncle (avunculus) of Roger de Foxcote, and, at Adam's death, this third of Walford passed to the Nephew. We have heard of Roger de Foxcote, occurring from 1240 to 1256, in former Chapters. [4] When the Feodary of 1240 registers Nicholas de Hintes as holding half a knight's-fee in Welleford, under Ralph de Mortimer, [5] we must understand the said Nicholas to represent at least three Coparceners, one of whom was Roger de Foxcote. It would seem that Wigmore Abbey, founded on the basis of the Collegiate Church of Domesday, succeeded not ouly to the possessions of that Church, but acquired other property in Savage's part of Walford. In Easter Term 1250 William Wymund was suing Benedict Ambrose, and William Heyrun, each for half a virgate in Walleford. The latter proved to be only Tenants-at-will of the Abbot of Wigmore. The Plaintiff was directed to sue the Abbot. At the Assizes of January 1256 we have William fitz Wymund suing the said Abbot for a virgate and noke in Waleford. The Abbot had called to warranty certain persons whom I take to have been the coheirs of Savage, not only

[1] Domesday, fo. 260, a, 2.
[2] Ibidem, fo. 260, b, 1.
[3] Harleian MS. 1087.
[4] Supra, Vol. III. page 54; Vol. IV. pages 248, 257, 366.
[5] Testa de Nevill, page 45.


those Coheirs who were directly interested in Walford, but others. These were Roger de Foxcot, Nicholas de Hyntes, William de Hyntes, William de St. George, Geoffrey de Overton, Adam de Hendon, Nicholas de Pedewurthin, and Richard de Bosco. It now appeared that William de Hyntes was dead, and that his son, William, was a Minor, and in ward to Roger de Mortimer. So the Suit was stayed, till the infant Coparcener should be of age.

At these same Assizes, Reginald Wodecok sued Nicholas de Welleford (identical, I think, with Nicholas de Hyntes) for raising a stank in Welleford to the injury of the Plaintiff's tenement in Leintwardine and Atferton. It proved that the plaintiff had nothing in Atferton, but the stank was ordered to be levelled, so far as it affected Leintwardine. Again, at the same Assizes, a stank was ordered to be levelled which Nicholas de Hyntes had erected in Walleford, to the injury of the Abbot of Wigmore's tenement there. Nicholas de Walneford was in August 1256 suing Gilbert de Bukenhull and others for disseizing him of a tenement in Walneford.

On December 20, 1266 I find William fitz Wymund taking out a Writ of Mort d' ancestre against his old opponent (here called Hendin Ambyas) and others, concerning one and a third virgates in Waleford.

In 1275 Catherine, widow of some Tenant of Walford, held, as dower, one-third of 2 carucates there, and had remarried with Robert de Boulers. A Fine was levied at Worcester on June 30, whereby the said Robert and Catherine ceded the premises to Walter de Pedwardine, under whom they were held. This was for 9 merks paid down, and for an annuity of 39 shillings payable during Catherine's life, but not after. It appears that previous to this, the said Robert and Catherine had demised Catherine's dower in Walleford juxta Atforton (viz. 1 messuage, 3 acres of meadow, 7s. rent, and a third of 2 carucates) to Nicholas de Hintes at a rent of 39s., payable for the life of Catherine. Nicholas de Hintes died:- we have seen that this occurred about 1260, and that his Widow Felicia was forthwith suing Walter de Pedwardine, John de Lingen, and others, for her thirds in Walford. [1] That however is not to our present purpose. Nicholas de Hintes was succeeded by his son, another Nicholas, who has also occurred to us as living in 1263, 1272, and 1278. [2] This second Nicholas failed at two several terms to pay Catherine de Boulers' annuity of 39s. So the said Catherine and her husband, availing themselves of a power of re-entry, which had been retained in the first instance, seized the

[1] Supra, Vol. IV. pages 366-7.
[2] Ibidem, pages 276, 358, 367.


premises, and conveyed them (by the Fine of 1275) to Walter de Pedwardine. Nicholas de Hintes (II) seems to have died between 1278 and 1292, leaving a daughter and heir, Margaret, who became the wife of John, son of John de la Cleton. At the Assizes of 1292 the said John and Margaret sued Walter de Pedwardine by a placitum de ingressu for the premises, saying that the said Walter had no ingress save after an act of disseizin, wrought by his Feoffors (Robert and Catherine) on Nicholas de Hintes, Margaret's father. Walter de Pedwardine now showed how the case really stood: and the Jury found the alleged default of Nicholas de Hintes (II) to have been actual. So judgment was given for Pedwardine. [1]

I suppose that Pedwardine eventually bought up all the other shares of Walford, as well as held something there by inheritance, for I hear no more of the other Coparceners, viz. Foxcote and Hintes. [2] The Feodary of February 1305 gives Roger de Pedwardine (he was son and heir of Walter) as sole tenant of half a fee in Walleford under Edmund de Mortimer, deceased. [3] In 1398-9 the same half-fee in Walleford was held under Mortimer by William de Pedwardyn.

WIGMORE ABBEY FEE. It is remarkable that the Taxation of 1291 gives no account of the Abbot's receipts from his estate at Walford, unless indeed 7 librates of rent, said to arise from the Vale of Wigmore, [4] be taken to include Walford. A carucate of land which the Abbot had at La Neuton (Newton) was another matter. The Valor of 1534-5 masses the Abbot's estates at Adferton, Walford, Letton, and Newton altogether. They produced a rental of 19. 9s. 10d. per annum, less a chief-rent of 7s. 4d. payable to the Crown. [5]

Lege and Tumbelawe.

I CANNOT identify either of these Manors, unless the first be Upper Lye (near Shirley). They are mentioned consecutively in Domesday, between Shirley and Letton.- Isdem Radulfus (de

[1] Assizes, 20 Edw. I., m. 17 dorso.

[2] I presume that the Coparceners of Watford had been for a time identical with those of Hints (supra Vol. IV. page 306).
[3] Inquisitions, 32 Edw. I, No. 63.
[4] Pope Nich. Taxation, p. 165, a.
[5] Valor Eccles. III. 202.


Mortemer) tenet Lege et umus Miles de eo. Elmar tenuit. Ibi I hida. Terra est duabus carucis. In dominio est una (caruca); et II Bovarii et III Bordarii cum I caruca. Ibi II haiae. Tempore Regis Edwardi valebat V solidos. Modo (valet) VII solidos. Wastam invenit (Radulfus de Mortemer).

Isdem Radulfus tenet Tumbelawe. Eldred tenuit. Ibi una hida et dimidia. Terra est V carucis. Wasta fuit et est. [1]

I have not found any Shropshire Record which I can venture to quote as bearing on these localities. I will merely say, suggestively, that, at its Dissolution, Wigmore Abbey was possessed of an estate called Lee; from which it derived the following income, viz. Assized rents 2s. 8d.; annual rents 1s. 4d.; rents of customary tenants 4. 15s. 10d.; tithes 3. 2s. Total 8. 1s. 10d.

Llanvair Waterdine.

THIS is the last of Ralph de Mortimer's Domesday Manors, which we shall have to notice.- Isdem Radulfus tenet Watredene. Eduui tenuit. Ibi V hidae. Terra est XII carucis. Wasta fuit et est. [2]

This Manor was most completely isolated, as regarded any other of Mortimer's Domesday possessions. Bucknell (at least seven miles distant) was the nearest member of the same Barony. It was, perhaps, this very isolation which prevented Llanvair Waterdine from following the bulk of Mortimer's Manors into the Franchise of Wigmore, in the 13th century, or into the County of Hereford, at a later period. Llanvair Waterdine still remains in the Shropshire Hundred of Clun.

It is not to be expected that we should have many Records about a district whose nearest connection with Shropshire was that it stood in the utmost limits of that debatable land which is usually known as Walcheria. In short, we know nothing of the early history of the Manor, but only of-


Though Mortimer had the Manor, the Church of St. Mary of

[1] Domssday, fo. 260, a, 2.
[2] Domesday, fo. 260, b, 1.


Waterdine was, as we have seen, [1] a mere affiliation of the Church of St. George of Clun. Thus, by the grant of Isabel de Say, this Advowson passed to Wenlock Priory in the time of Richard I. The next Record, which we have of this Chapel, is one of those infamous arrangements, whereby the distant Monastery vouchsafed a mere sustenance to a reversionary Curate or Chaplain of Waterdine. This document is dated in the Chapter-House of Wenlock on August 3, 1485. I will give it in abstract.-

Waterden. Convencio inter Thomam Tutbury, Priorem de Wenlock, et Dominum Mattheum ap Jevan Capellanum. Prior concessit Mattheo, quod deserviet Capellam Beate Marie de Waterden, celebrando ibidem, ac sacramenta et sacramentalia et cetera divina officia parochianis ibidem ministrando, immediate post decessum Domini David ap Ree, nunc Capellani, capiendo annuatim totum alteragium preter agnos et mortuaria, prout dictus David et predecessores sui percipere consueverunt.- Habendam et tenendam dictam Capellam post decessum Davidis, predicto Mattheo totam vilam. Si Mattheus peregre proficiscatur Rome, vel ad aliquam Universitatem Anglie, gratia studii, etc., inveniat Capellanum ibidem. Et Prior et Conventus, etc., warantizabunt predictum servicium Mattheo ad vitam.

A second Convention, as it is called, is dated in January, 1520. Thereby Richard, Prior of Wenlock, guarantees to John Page, Chaplain, the preferment of Matthew ap Jevan, whenever the latter functionary should die. [2]

Of course the earlier Diocesan Registers and the Valor of 1534-5 are alike silent about a chapelry like that of Llanvair Waterdine. I find no mention of an Incumbent previous to the Visitation of Bishop Westfaling, in 1587.


HAVING finished the list of Picot de Say's and Ralph de Mortimer's Manors in Lenteurde Hundred, it will be well to notice those of Osbern fitz Richard, Baron of Burford and Richards-Castle. We will begin with Stanage, the best known of the four.-

[1] Supra, pp. 236, 239, 240.
[2] Register at Willey, fo. 12.


Isdem Osbernus tenet (de Rege) Stanege. Ibi VI hidae. Terra est XV carucis. Wasta fuit et est. Ibi III Haiae. [1]

The Lords of Richards-Castle enfeoffed the Bromptons of Brompton Brian in Stanage; at what period it would be vain to conjecture. The Charter of Free-Warren, obtained by Brian de Brompton (II) in August, 1252, includes his Manors of Stanegge, Weston, and Pittes, all then accounted to be in Shropshire. Brian de Brompton (III) was Lord of Stanegg, when the Feodary was drawn up on the death of Robert de Mortimer of Richards-Castle in August, 1287. It was held for one-fourth of a Knight's-fee, and was valued at 40s. per annum. [2]

The Inquest taken in February, 1295, on the death of Brian de Brompton (IV) says that the deceased had held lands in Stanegge under Robert (read Hugh) de Mortimer, by services of doing suit of Court at Stepulton, and of providing one foot-soldier with bow and arrows for 40 days' Castle-guard at Stepulton, in war time, or else of paying one merk. There was a Park at Stanegge, called Ammareslit. The whole estate was valued at 7. 15s. 1d. per annum. [3] An Inquest, taken after the death of Matilda, widow of Hugh de Mortimer, in June, 1308, does not name the Tenant of Stanege, but says that the said hamlet was held under the Barons of Richards-Castle for one-fourth of a knight's-fee, and values the estate at 100s. per annum. [4] The Inquest taken in December, 1308, preparatory to a partition of the Brompton estates between the Coheirs, appears to quote the annual value of Stanegge from the Inquest of 1295. The Writ ordering this Inquest had directed the Jurors to value the late Brian de Brompton's Manor of Ambreslyth; but the Jurors explained that Ambreslyth was no Manor, but only a Park pertaining to the Manor of Stanegge. It was separately worth 20s. per annum. [5] Stanage was subsequently allotted to Elizabeth de Brompton, wife of Edmund de Cornwall. [6]


THIS Manor of Osbern fitz Richard was his before the Conquest,

[1] Domesday, fo. 260, a, 1.
[2] Inquis. 15 Edw. I., No. 15.
[3] Inquis. 23 Edw. I., No. 136.
[4] Inquis. 1 Edw. II., No. 59.
[5] Inquis. 2 Edw. II., No. 62.
[6] Vide Supra, Vol. IV. p. 244.


and so remained at Domesday. I have already stated how this came to pass. [1] The Shropshire Domesday speaks of Cascop as in Lenteurde Hundred, and describes it as follows.- Isdem Osbernus tenet Cascop, et tenuit. Ibi dimidia hida. Terra est duabus carucis. Wasta fuit et est. Ibi silva et una haia. [2]

The Herefordshire Domesday also notices Cascope as a Manor of half a hide. [3] Cascope and Discote (now Discoyd) were two out of eleven Manors, which the Record treats of en masse, as belonging to Osbern fitz Richard before and after the Conquest, as being in the Herefordshire Hundred of Hesetre, as being waste and never subject to Danegeld, and as lying in the Marches of Wales. The Record adds the following quaint comment.- "In these waste lands the woods have grown up. Therein Osbern exercises the Chase, and therefrom he has what he can catch: nothing else". Except that the Commissioners were not quite agreed as to the County and Hundred in which every vill of this wild district was to be placed, the two passages of Domesday, which treat of Cascob, are in wonderful consonance.

I find nothing more of Cascob till we come to the Inquest, taken in August, 1304, on the death of Hugh de Mortimer of Richards Castle. Then the six vills of Atcroft, Wapelith (now Pilleth), Coumbe, Tyteleye (now Titley), Rode, and Cascop are placed in Herefordshire. The deceased had held them of the King in capite, as members of the Barony of Burford. Their collective value was 7. 19s. 2d. per annum. [4] At this time, Mortimer of Wigmore had thirty free-tenants in Cascop, paying a collective rental of 30s. 2d. This part of Cascop seems to have been accounted an appurtenance of Wigmore. [5] We shall have other instances where the Domesday Fief of the Barons of Richards-Cast1e will appear to have been lessened by encroachments of the Barons of Wigmore.- The present result of Cascob having been divided hetween two baronial houses is, that part thereof is accounted to be in Radnorshire, and part forms an isolated portion of the Herefordshire Hundred of Wigmore.

[1] Supra Vol. IV. pp. 302, 304.
[2] [3] Domesday, fos. 260, a, 1; 186, b, 2.
[4] Inquisitions, 32 Edw. I., No. 48.
[5] Inquisitions, 32 Edw. I., No. 63.


Ack Hill.

Isdem Osbernus tenet Achel. Edricus tenuit. Ibi III hidae. Terra est VI carucis. Wasta fuit et est. Ibi silvae dimidia leuua. [1]

I take this Manor to he represented by Ack Hill near Presteign (Radnorshire), rather than by Oak Hill near Stanage. In 1304, a hamlet called Akhull was still reputed to be in Shropshire, and Edmund de Mortimer of Wigmore had died seized of something therein. What that something was, is not to be gathered from the mutilated document which I quote. [2] It is nothing new thus to find Mortimer of Wigmore interested in a Domesday estate of Osbern fitz Richard.


THIS Manor is also placed in the Shropshire Hundred of Lenteurde, and is thus described in Domesday.- Isdem Osbernus (filius Ricardi) tenet Humet. Ipsemet tenuit de Rege Edwardo. Ibi V hidae geldabiles. Terra est XX carucis. Ibi duo Milites habent unam carucam dominio; et (sunt) V Villani et V Bordarii, et unus Radman cum tribus carucis. Haec terra wasta fuit et est, praeter dominium quod valet X solidos. [3]

I only find one notice of this locality after Domesday; and that would seem to indicate that it was a district rather than a vill, and that it owned the seigneury of the Barons of Wigmore rather than of the Barons of Richards-Castle. The Inquest taken on the death of Edmund de Mortimer in 1304, says that nine free-tenants had paid that Baron 9s. 4d., annual rent, for their land on (super) La Humede and Chesewaldesleye. [4]

[1] Domesday, fo. 260, a, 1.
[2] Inquisitions, 32 Edw. I., No. 63.
[3] Domeaday, fo. 260, a, 1.
[4] Inquisitions, 32 Edw. I., No. 63.


Stapleton and Willey.

THESE two places are unknown to Domesday. My impression is that they were founded by one of the early Barons of Richards-Castle, perhaps by Osbern fitz Richard himself, and that they became the recognised Caput of all that territory, which Domesday assigns to Ack Hill and Humet, and perhaps of some others of those wasted Manors of Osbern fitz Richard which Domesday places in the Herefordshire Hundred of Hezetre, but which have since been lost.

As regards the name, Stapleton, we have already had a notorious instance of its being given to a Post-Domesday foundation. The building of a Church in any locality was, in short, enough to suggest such a name. Now the Lords of Richards-Castle and Burford built not only a Church, but a Castle, at Stapleton, and the place (unknown to Domesday) became the caput of this part of their Barony.

The earliest notice which I have of Stapleton Castle is in a Writ of June 30, 1207, when, owing to the minority and widowhood of Margaret de Say, it was at the temporary disposal of King John. The particulars of the King's dealing, with this and other estates of the Lady of Richards-Castle, have been set forth elsewhere. [1] The next notice of Stapleton indicates a flourishing settlement, and treats it according to its antecedents, above presumed, as if it was in Shropshire.- On March 20, 1223, King Henry III., being at Gloucester, concedes a license to William de Stutevill (then Baron of Richards-Castle) for holding a weekly market on Thursdays at his Manor of Tapelton (read Stapelton), until the King should come of age. A Writ of habere facias was accordingly addressed to the Sheriff of Shropshire. [2]

In Easter Term, 1236, Richard, Dean of Bramtun, John de Bedestun, and *** fitz Bernard of Wigmore, were prosecuting William de Stuteville for having instituted a suit in Court-Christian concerning the Advowson of the Chapel of **peltun. Stuteville duly appeared at Westminster to answer the charge, but his Prosecutors came not; so the case was adjourned. [3] The same Plea-Roll possibly refers. to this question of Advowson in an entry of the previous

[1] Supra, Vol. IV. p. 311.
[2] Rot. Claus. Vol. I. p. 537-b.
[3] Placita apud Westminster; Pasch. Term., 20 Hen. III., m. 3.


week to the above; but the form of procedure is strange to me and the entry needs other evidence to show its full purport and bearing on the case. It runs as follows.- Salop. Dies datus est Willielmo de Stuteville, querenti, et Priori de Haghmon et Priori de Wombrug et Abbati de Wiggemore de Placito Prohibitionis, a die Sti Michaelis in XV dies. Et Abbas (de Wiggemore) manucepit absolvendos homines Willielmi infra terminum, et quod decime quedam remanere debent in pace usque ad predictum diem. Willielmus ponit loco suo Willielmum le Tayllur. [1] I think it probable that the Tenants of Stapleton had been withholding certain tithes which were claimed by the Mother-Church (wherever that was) of the district; that the above three Ecclesiastics (being Judges Delegate in the matter) had excommunicated the recusants and thereby exposed themselves to a suit in the temporal Court.

The Inquest taken in 1259 on the death of William de Stuteville records his tenures per legem Anglie in the Barony of his deceased wife. He had, inter alia, held Burford, Wulfreton (Woofferton), and Stepelton with Wililegh-Walcheria, all in the County of Salop. [2]

The Inquest taken in December 1274 on the death of Hugh de Mortimer, of Richards-Castle, says that he had held Stepelton per Baroniam. From two carucates of demesne-land there, and from other local sources, he had derived the goodly income of 28. 3s. 11d. [3]

The Inquest, taken in August 1287 on the death of Robert de Mortimer, son and successor of the above Hugh, states that Richard fitz Randulf had held half a carucate in Stapelton, under the deceased, by service of one-fortieth part of a knight's-fee. The tenement was worth 5s. per annum. [4]

The Inquest, taken in August 1304 on the death of Hugh de Mortimer (II) of Richards-Castle, places the Castle and Vill of Stepleton and the Hamlets of Wilileye and Froggestrete all in Shropshire. The yearly income of the deceased was 23. 14s. 4d. from Stepleton and 5. 5s. 3d. from Wyleleye. [5] The whole income from his Barony in England and Wales was only 89. 5s. 4d., so that this great estate on the Borders constituted nearly a third thereof.

A Messuage and 100 acres of land in "Wyleleye, within the Manor of Stapelton", constituted part of the estate of which Matilda, widow of Hugh de Mortimer (II), died seized in 1308. She

[1] Placita apud Westminster; Pasch. Term 20 Hen. III., m. 1 recto.
[2] Inquisitions, 43 Hen. III., No. 23.
[3] Inquisitions, 3 Edw. I., No. 42.
[4] Inquisitions, 15 Edw. I., No. 15.
[5] Inquisitions, 32 Edw. I, No. 48.


and her late husband had, it seems, conjoint seizin thereof, having united to buy up the interest of some Tenant. [1] In concluding this subject I will quote one document to show how Stapleton was regarded as the Caput of the frontier Barony of the Lords of Richards-Castle. Walter de Hopton, of whom we have heard so often, died in 1305, holding various tenements under the said Lords in Mallilegh, Overstanton, and Wappelith. In respect of this tenure he was bound to do suit to the Court of Stepleton. [2]

Knighton and Norton.

Domesday places both Knighton and Norton in the Shropshire Hundred of Lenteurde. The Norman propensity to distinguish individuals by the most undignified sobriquets, is apparent in this instance. Hugh the Ass was Tenant-in-capite of both Manors.- Hugo Lasne tenet de Rege Chenistetune. Leflet tenuit tempore Regis Edwardi. Ibi V hidae. Terra est XII carucis. Wasta fuit et est. Ibi silva magna. [3]

Isdem Hugo tenet Nortune. Leflet tenuit tempore Regis Edwardi. Ibi V hidae. Terra est XII carucis. Wasta fuit et est. Ibi silva magna. [3]

Hugh Lasne is recorded in the Herefordshire Domesday as Tenant-in-capite of Kenchester and about 20 other Manors. [4] His original Feoffor seems to have been William fitz Osbern, Earl of Hereford. Leflet, the Saxon, had preceded Hugh Lasne in eight of his Herefordshire Manors. In other five he had been preceded by one Turchil, called Wit or Wite in Domesday. There is indeed some ground for supposing that this Turchil was a blood relation of Hugh Lasne; for the latter, at the very date of Domesday, was claiming the great Manor of Radnor, then held by the King. Hugo Asne declared to the Commissioners that "when Earl William gave him the lands of Turchil his (Hugh's) antecessor, he also gave him Raddrenove". [5]

At what period Hugh Lasne's Barony escheated to the Crown, I am not prepared to say. In 1191 the two Castles of Cnichteton and Norton were in the hands of Richard I. The Sheriff of

[1] Inquisitions, 1 Edw. II., No. 59.
[2] Inquisitions, 33 Edw. I., No. 77.
[3] Domesday, fo. 260, b, 2.
[4] [5] Domesday, fos. 187, 181.


Shropshire paid 6. 8s. for 100 swine, which Walter de Clifford [1] and Hugh de Say (of Richards-Castle) had for storing the said fortresses. Also William de Braose had been paid 20 merks for repairs at Cnichteton Castle, and Hugh de Say 25 merks for providing the ward of Norton Castle, by order of the Chancellor (Longchamp). [1] Again, in 1192 the same Castles were stored with 100 horse-loads of corn, for which the Sheriff paid 5. 18s. 2d.

On March 13, 1207, King John, then at Lambeth, gave and confirmed to Thomas de Erdinton, for his homage and service, the Manors of Knitteton and Norton, to hold to the said Thomas and his heirs, of the King and his heirs, by service of one knight's-fee. [2] The Shropshire Pipe-Roll of the same year explains that these Manors were given to Erdinton as Custos of the Counties (of Salop and Stafford) and of the Castles thereof, and in lieu of an annuity of 40 merks which had previously been paid him for the discharge of those duties. On June 12, 1207, the King addresses Roger de Mortimer as Custos of Knighton Castle, and orders him to surrender that trust to Robert de Sireford, Bailiff of Thomas de Erdinton. [3]

A Shropshire Feodary (drawn up about the year 1210) registers Thomas de Erdinton as a Tenant-in-capite of one knight's-fee in Kinton and Norton, described as of the Escheat of Roger de Chaundos. [4]

By a Patent of April 24, 1218, King Henry III. ratifies a convention which had been made between Hugh de Mortimer and Thomas de Erdinton concerning lands in Cingeton and Norton, Salop, which had been given in exchange for land in Wrthye. [5]

Thomas de Erdinton was now deceased, [6] but we are fortunate in having the very Charter by which, towards the close of his life, he had given Knighton and Norton to Hugh de Mortimer of Wigmore in exchange for 10 librates of land in Worthie. The Deed runs in brief as follows.- Thomas de Erdinton dedi Domino Hugoni de Mortuomari terram de Nortun et Kenithtun, sicut eam recepi de dono Regis Johannis, in excambium pro X libratis terre in Worthie, in terris et redditibus. Si contingat Hugonem gravamen vel

[1] Vide supra, Vol. V. p. 152; Vol. IV. p. 309.
[2] Cartae Antiquae, G. 17.
[3] Supra, Vol. IV. p. 209.
[4] Liber Ruber Scacc. fo. cxxxvii. Roger de Candos held two knights'-fees in 1165 under Richard de Condos. The Barony of the latter was, I think, mainly identical with the Domesday Fief of Hugh Lasne. Dugdale's account of the same is very imperfect; and makes no allusion to any Escheat having befallen it.
[5] Kingsworthy, in Hampshire.
[6] Vide supra, Vol. VII. p. 250.


dampnum per defectum mei percepisse, solummodo in homagio faciendo Leulino, licebit Hugoni distringere terram de Worthie donec satisfecerim. [1] Hiis testibus, S. (Simone) D.G. Wigorn' Episcopo, Waltero de Lacy, Waltero de Bellocampo, Wallero et Rogero de Clifford, Roberto de Mortuomari, Henrico de Rybbeford, Roberto de Syreford, Roberto Teneray, Thoma clerico, Willielmo de Northfolk, Johanne de Theneray, Willielmo Forcero, Philippo de Atelles. [2]

The following Charter passed about 1230. It shows that Lewellyn the Great asserted a sovereignty over this part of the Border, but was willing to recognize the title of his son-in-law, Ralph de Mortimer, who had now succeeded to his brother Hugh's Barony.- L. Princeps de Aberfrau, Dominus Snaudonie, etc. Sciatis nos contulisse dilecto filio nostro Domino R. de Mortuomari terras de Nortun et de Kenithtun, pro debito servicio, cum libertate earundem terrarum, quod nobis faciebat Thomas de Erdinton, salvis convencionibus factis inter nos et David filium nostrum ex una parte et dictum R. ex alia parte. Hiis testibus, Magistro Instructo Cancellario nostro, Idvenet Vachan Seneschallo nostro, etc. [3]

Next we have a Charter of King Henry III. showing that he had by no means renounced his sovereignty over this part of Shropshire. The Charter bears date Apud Castrum Sancti Pauli Leon' on October 26, 1230. [4] It concedes to Ralph de Mortimer the right of holding an annual Fair at Knyghteton in Salop, on the eve, day of, and two days following, the Feast of St. Matthew the Apostle. It also concedes a right of Free Warren in Mortimer's Berkshire Manor of Stretfeld. [5]

On June 21, 1237, a Fine was levied, which shows Giles de Erdinton and Ralph de Mortimer ratifying with little alteration the arrangement made twenty years before between the father of Giles and the brother of Ralph.- Giles de Erdinton, Plaintiff in a suit of mort d'ancestre, concedes to Ralph de Mortimer, Tenant, two carucates of land in Norton and one carucate in Chineton, which were his (Giles's) right;- to hold under Giles and his heirs by service of one knight's-fee. Giles is to hold under Ralph 12 librates of land in Worthy, viz. in Sondborne, Shirley, Kilhan,

[1] This psspage is rather obscure. I presume it to mean that, if Erdinton's neglect to do homage to Lewellyn, for Knighton and Norton, should occasion Mortimer any loss, then, and for that cause only, Mortimer should be entitled to take an equivalent out of thc revenues of Worthy.
[2] [3] Harl. MS. 1240, fo. lxxxvi. b.
[4] Matthew Paria gives this as the very day on which the King relanded at Portsmouth, after his expedition to Brittany. The deed is far the most trustworthy evidence.
[5] Patent. 14 Hen. III., page 1, m. 1.


Stowe, Wynton, King's-Worthy, etc., at a rent of one penny. If either party should be unable to warrant his grant to the other, the thing granted was to revert to the Grantor. This Fine is indorsed with a note that Roger de Chandos apposed his claim. [1]

The Shropshire Feodary (drawn up about 1240) gives Ralph de Mortimer as holding in capite a knight's-fee in Kinton and Norton. A Patent of May 8, 1260, empowers Roger de Mortimer to levy customs for 7 years to enable him to enclose with a wall his town of Knytheton. The further history of Knighton and Norton is but the history of every other place which Roger de Mortimer managed to draw into his great Franchise of Wigmore. The effort made by the Crown Lawyers in 1292 were certainly abortive, so far as they failed to recall these and many other Manors into their pristine status, viz. as parts of Shropshire. The Inquest taken in 1304 on the death of Edmund de Mortimer places the Manors of Knighton and Norton in Walcheria. [2] They were never afterwards re-annexed to Shropshire, but serve to form a part of the modern County of Radnorshire.

KNIGHTON CHURCH. We have seen that this was originally a Chapelry, dependent on the Church of Stow. The Prior of Malvern, as Rector of Stow, was also Impropriator of Knighton at the Dissolution. Hence Knighton at the present day is only a Perpetual Curacy.


THE Manors of Lenteurde Hundred, which remain to be noticed, are still within the limits of the County of Salop. Of Chelmick Domesday gives the following account.- Hugo filius Turgisi tenet, de Rogerio Comite, Elmundewic. Edricus tenuit cum una berewicha. Ibi IIII hidae geldabiles. Terra est VI carucis. Ibi IX Villani habent III carucas. Tempore Regis Edwardi valebat XII solidos: modo (valet) VIII solidos. Wasta fuit (quando Hugo recepit). [3]

[1] Fines divers. Comitat. 21 Hen. III., No. 15.
[2] Inquis. 32 Edw. I., No. 63. The document is defaced, but Mortimer's receipts from Knighton were 15. 19s. 4d per annum. Norton is called Norton in Knyghton.
[3] Domesday, fo. 258, b, 2.


Under Hope Bowdler and Wilderley, I have explained that all the Domesday Manors of Hugh fitz Titgis escheated to the Crown (probably in the time of Henry I.) and were annexed to the Honour of Montgomery. [1] This rule includes Chelmick, the Seigneurs' Lords of which must be taken to have been identical with the Seigneurs' Lords of Hope Bowdler, viz. Bollers in the first instance, then Cantilupe, and then Zouch of Haryngworth. As to the Tenants-in-fee of Chelmick I conceive that the Manor passed as a member of Hope Bowdler, to Richard de Wilderley, by the Fine of 1201, already set forth. [2] Stephen de Hope, son and heir of Richard de Wilderley, was certainly, in his turn, seized of Chelmick. This Stephen occurs from 1226 to 1240. I find a mere fragment of a Deed whereby "Stephen, Lord of Hope, concedes to Richard fitz Hubert of Chelmick a virgate of land in Chelmick". [3]

The differences which existed in 1226, between Wenlock Priory on the one hand, and Stephen de Hope and his Tenants on the other, purport to have been concerning lands and rights at Ticklerton; [4] but I think it very probable that the boundary between Chelmick and Ticklerton was doubtful and gave rise to these quarrels. A Fine levied on November 12, 1240, is of a like complexion. Thereby Stephen de Hope, Deforciant, agrees to pay Imbert, Prior of Wenlock, Plaintiff, an annual rent of 6s. 8d., on 1 virgates in Chelmundewyk, being the customs and service which the Prior had demanded for a tenement in Chelmundewyk, alleging the said Stephen to be his Tenant thereof. If this were not a mere question of boundary, we must conclude that so much land in Chelmick had been given to Wenlock Priory by one of Stephen de Hope's predecessors.

Stephen de Hope was succeeded in the Mesne-lordship of Hope Bowdler and Chelmick by Odo de Hodnet, who probably purchased such estate. Hence the Munslow Hundred-Roll of 1255 says that "Baldwin de Mungomeri holds Cheilmundewik of Odo de Hodenet". He did no suit to the Hundred, but his right of exemption was unknown to the Jurors. However he paid 2s. annually for stretward and motfee, being the proportion due on 2 hides of land. [5] Here I should observe on the diminution of hidage which had obtained in Hugh fitz Turgis's Domesday Fief. The three Manors of Hope, Wilderley, and Chelmick were 11 hides at Domesday.

[1] Supra, Vol. V. page 114 Vol. VI. page 256.
[2] Supra, Vol. V. page 115.
[3] Harl. MS. 1396, fo. 65, b.
[4] Supra, Vol. V. page 116.
[5] Rot. Hundred. II. 70.


In 1255 they were represented by Hope Bowdler, Wilderley, Chelmick, and Ragdon, collectively reputed to contain only 5 hides, or within a fraction of that amount. We have traced De Hodnet's Mesne-interest at Hope Bowdler to the Burnells. How, or when, it passed, we know not. The same result, by similarly unknown means, obtained in the case of Chelmick. I shall presently give proof that, in 1325, the Mesne-Lordship of Chelmick was in Alina, widow of Edward Lord Burnell, she having it, I presume, in dower. In other words the status of Chelmick in 1325 was probably as follows. Richard Hord held it under Alina Burnell, who held under Hodnet's heir, Ludlow, who held under Zouch of Haryngworth, who held in capite, as of the Honour of Montgomery.

THE UNDERTENANTS or Feoffees of Chelmick occur to frequent notice, and at length their succession becomes clear and hereditary.- Adam de Chelmundewyk, probably an inferior tenant, occurs in 1226. [1] In the year 1232 I find Richard Fitz Edric of Chelmedewyk amerced by the Justices of the Forest. This may be the same person with that Richard de Chelmundewyk who, about the year 1240, attests Stephen de Hope's grant to William, son of William de Chelmundewik. [2] The latter person was also called William Erdulf. His grant of half a virgate in Hope Bowdler to Buildwas Abbey has been already alluded to. I have since found a copy of the very Charter which passed on the occasion. An abstract thereof is worth giving.- Sciant presentes et futuri quod ego Willielmus Willielmi de Chelmundewyk dedi, etc. cum corpore, dimidiam virgatam in Hope, quam Baldwinus filius Willielmi de Mungomery tenuit, cum messuagio, etc., et terram super Crawentersham et essartum, et duas acras, etc. habenda et tenenda de Stephano Domino de Hope et heredibus;- reddendo 8d. pro omnibus, etc. Hiis testibus, Ricardo de Midelhope, Roberto de Acton clerico, Nicholao persona de Hope, Ricardo de la Lake, Hugone de Leye, Willielmo de Pyvlesdon, Philippo Burnell, etc. [3] This Deed probably passed about 1245-50. All that I can say further of the Grantor is, that his widow, Matilda, remarried with his suzerain, Stephen de Hope, and that his Grand-daughter, Isabella, was apparently his heir, and was in 1272 wife of Richard de la Haye.

Baldwin de Montgomery, alias Baldwin fitz William, has been mentioned twice in this Chapter, viz. as being about 1245-55 a Tenant both in Chelmick and Hope Bowdler. Of him, his

[1] [2] Supra, Vol. V. pp. 116, 117.
[3] Rot. Chart. 20 Edw. I, No. 41.


relations and his descendants, I have spoken fully under Winsbury. [1]

We shall see that they did not long retain their estate at Chelmick.

At the Assizes of 1256 Agnes, wife of Walter-of-the-Mers and Cecily, wife of Philip son of Bernard Crofton, claimed, as daughters and heirs of Joceus Frend, 8 acres in Chelmundewyk. Richard de Eton and Joan his wife and Richard Ruggel of Chelmick (as Tenants and Defendants of 4 acres) called William, son of Richard de Middelhope, and Baldwin de Muntgomery, to warranty. William fitz Peter (as Tenant of the other 4 acres) called Odo de Hodnet to warranty; but the cause was stopped because it was found that Joceus Frend had not died seized of the premises. [2]

It is probable, I think, that William, son of the above Baldwin de Montgomery, transferred his estate at Chelmick to Hugh de Wotherton, of whom we have heard elsewhere, as living from 1272 to 1285. [3] A Fine, levied on May 28, 1283, I believe to be a settlement made by Hugh de Wotherton on his eldest daughter Eva, then a mere infant, but contracted in marriage to Walter de Drayton.- "Walter de Drayton and Eva his wife (Plaintiffs) acknowledge the right of Hugh de Woderton (Impedient) to 1. 6s. 8d. rent in Chelmundewyk. Iu return, Hugh concedes the said rent to Walter and Eva and the heirs of Eva, who are to pay the Grantor a clove rent, and to discharge all capital services". lf Walter should die without issue by Eva, the Fine directs an ultimate remainder to Hugh. I believe that Walter de Drayton did actually thus die without issue, and that his widow Eva, eventually the eldest sister and coheir of John de Woderton, became the wife of Richard Hord, to whom she brought estates at Walford, Wotherton, and Chelmick, and by whom she had a son, Richard, born in 1293. Hence it came to pass that, on Richard Hord's death in December, 1325, the Inquest found him to have held the Hamlet of Chelmundewyk, for the term of his life, and per legem Anglie, i.e. it was his, as surviving husband of his wife Eva. He held it of Alina Burnell by service of 6d., or a pair of spurs. [4]

The following Deeds relate to some more minute subdivisions of the Manor of Chelmick and to Tenants of less importance.- By Deed without date "Emma, relict of Robert Coterell, gives to Alan, son of Richard, son of Nicholas de Chelmundewik, a messuage and half-virgate in the vill and fields of Chelmundewik". In December, 1324, "John, son of Richard de Chelmuudewik, gives to

[1] Supra, pp. 170, 171.
[2] Assizes, 40 Hen. III., m, 3.
[3] Supra, page 75.
[4] Inquis. 19 Edw. II., No. 73.

PLASH. 353

Reginald, son of Alan de Chelmundewik, a parcel of land in La Lee, [1] in the fee of Hatton, between the limits of the field of Hatton and the land of the lord of Hatton. Witnesses,- John fitz Richard of Hatton, Richard his brother, John Kete". [2]

On April 4, 1314, there was a Reginald de Chelmick, then about 26 years of age, whose wife was present when Margery, the future heiress of the Fitz Aers, was baptized in Wistanstow Church. Reginald's wife "lifted the infant from the Sacred Font", and it was this circumstance which in 1328 made the said Reginald a competent witness as to the age of Margery fitz Aer. [3]

Three brothers, Roger, Richard, and Reginald de Chelmedewich have occurred on a former page as living in 1357. [4] The two former were in Holy Orders.

RAGDON might perhaps be taken as the Berewick which Domesday assigns to the Manor of Chelmick. The later history of Ragdon seems, however, to favour the idea that it was a member of Hope Bowdler. As such I have treated of the place in a former Volume. [5]

Plaish or Plash.

THE isolation of this Manor, as regarded the other Manors of Lenteurde Hundred, has already been remarked. [6] Its tenure was not less anomalous; for it was the only Manor in Lenteurde Hundred which was held by Roger de Lacy at the time of Domesday. In all other respects, its history is full of remarkable analogies. Domesday describes it as follows.- Isdem Rogerius (de Laci) tenet (de Comite) Plesham, et Bernerus de eo. Goduinus tenuit. Ibi I hida, geldabilis. In dominio est una caruca; et unus Villanus et unus servus cum dimidia caruca. Valuit III solidos. Modo (valet) V solidos. [7]

Higford is a place more than 20 miles distant from Plash, but,

[1] I cannot identify this place with any existing locality.
[2] Harleian MS., 1396, fo. 65-b.
[3] Inquis. 2 Edw. III., No. 63.
[4] Supra, Vol. IV. p. 105.
[5] Supra, Vol. V. p. 118.
[6] Supra, page 296.
[7] Domesday, fo. 256, b, 1.

354 PLASH.

if we revert to the Domesday account of Higford, [1] we shall find that all the persons named, are identical with those who figure in the above notice of Plash. In short, Goduin had been Saxon Lord of both Manors: Earl Roger was the Domesday Suzerain, De Lacy the Domesday Tenant, and Berner the Domesday Sub-tenant, of both Manors. After Domesday the comparison still holds good. The seigneury of both Manors passed, about the year 1175, from De Lacy to Fitz Alan, and the immediate tenancy, under Fitz Alan, remained with Berner's presumed descendants,- the Higfords. But the Higfords did not hold Plash in demesne. Their Tenants were the Greets who held Greet, near Burford under the Barons of Richards-Castle, and of whose descent I have spoken elsewhere. [2] Again, these Greets subenfeoffed, at Plash, some branch of the Lees; and the Lees subenfeoffed that branch of the family of Sprencheaux, which held Bayston under the See of Hereford. [3]

The first mention which I find of Plash subsequent to Domesday is in the Munslow Hundred-Roll of 1255, and that is a superficial one. It merely states that "Richard Sprenghose holds Playsse of Peter de Grete, for one hide of land, and does suit to the Hundred, and pays the King 12d. yearly for stretwarde and motfeh". [4] At the Assizes of October 1272, Richard Sprenghose was one of the Elizors for Munslow Hundred. We have seen, under Bayston, that Richard Sprenghose's successor was named Walter. The Feodary of 1284 is very full and satisfactory about the extraordinary sub-infeudations which had befallen Plash.- "Walter Springthus holds the vill of Plese of Roger de Le, [5] Roger holds it of Geoffrey de Grete, Geoffrey holds it of William de Hugford, William holds it for one-fourth of a knight's-fee under Richard fitz Alan, who holds of the King". Walter Sprenghose was one of the Munslow Jurors at the Assizes of 1292, and was living in 1297.

The Nomina Villarum of 1316 gives Richard Sprenghose as Lord of Plasshe as well as of Bayston. William Sprenghose of Bayston, who has occurred to us in 1364, appears to have been succeeded by Fulk. I suppose that Roger Hord and William de Merton were acting as Trustees, when they granted to Fulk Sprenchose, Margaret his wife, and the heirs of Fulk and Margaret the Manor of Plesch,

[1] Supra, Vol. III. p. 10.
[2] Supra, Vol. IV. pp. 334-336.
[3] Supra, Vol. VI. pp. 298-300.
[4] Rot. Hundred. II. 71.
[5] I cannot say who this Roger de Lee was. Such a person appears as Bailiff of Ford Hundred in 1272 (supra, Vol VII. Page 4).


with all rents and services of tenants, etc., and also all lands, rents, etc., of their tenants at Holtprene;- to hold to the said Fulk and Margaret of the Lords of the fee. In default of heirs of Fulk and Margaret, the entail settles the premises on the heirs of Fulk. Witnesses,- Reginald de Plesch, John Henald, Robert de Mydulton, Roger de la Lee, Walter de la Lee, etc. This settlement was dated at Plesh on June 30, 1377. [1]


WE happen to have an authentic, and a very interesting, account of this Manor, written apparently in the 12th century, but reverting to a period long antecedent to the Conquest. The fact is that it was one of the ancient possessions of St. Alkmund's Church, and, when Lilleshall Abbey was founded in Stephen's reign, the Canons of Lilleshall, deeming that rightfully it belonged to their House, were careful to record the circumstances under which it had been held and lost by St. Alkmund's. Their narrative, as printed elsewhere, [2] I need not repeat in the original Latin. A translation thereof, interwoven with some occasional notes and remarks, will better serve our present purpose.-

"Great was the veneration which, in the times of the ancient Anglians, attached to the Church of St. Alcmund: for AEdelfleda, Queen of Mercia, is said to have been its Foundress, and to have enriched it with great honours.
[3] After some time King Edgar the Peaceable, [4] by advice of St. Dunstan, enlarged it, and endowed it with lands and possessions, and established ten Prebends therein, because he was descended from the family of St. Alcmund, from the noble stock of Northumbrian Kings. Now one of these ten Prebends consisted of Wilfrescote, More, Mersse, Effechot, and Wistanestowe, four hides to wit, and of the Church of Wistanestowe. Therefore by Royal gift the Canons (of St. Alcmund) successively held the said Prebend till the time of King Edward. [5] And King Edward gave it to Godric Wiffesune, who held it in the time of

[1] Charter in possession of W.W. How, Esq., of Shrewsbury.
[2] Monasticon, VII. 750, Num. XVI.
[3] Ethelfleda died in 922.
[4] Edgar reigned from 959 to 975.
[5] Edward the Confessor (1041-1066).


King William, Duke of Normandy, and of Roger Earl of Salop. When Godric died, Nehel a Clerk, being the Earl's Physician, succeeded to this Prebend by the Earl's gift".

Here we must suspend our narrative for a moment, to see what account Domesday [1] gives of Wistanstow at this very juncture.- Nigellus Medicus tenet de Rege [2] Wistanestou. Spirtes Presbyter [3] tenuit de Sancto Almundo, et erat tempore Regis Edwardi victus Canonicorum, Ibi IIII hidae. Terra est XV carucis. Ibi VII Villani cum VII carucis; et unus Francigena, habens molinum, quod reddit V summas annonae. Tempore Regis Edwardi valebat XXX solidos. Modo (valet) XX solidos. Wastam (Nigellus) invenit.

Any comment on this passage of Domesday, and any minute collation with the Monastic Record, are superfluous. There is just enough disagreement between the two to show that the one writer had not consulted the other, and followed only his own conception of the facts. There is just that amount of agreement which stamps each record with the mark of unmistakable honesty.

Monastic narratives, entitled to such large respect, are not com-mon. We may resume that of the Lilleshall Canons with increased confidence.- "When Nigel (the Physician) died, Earl Hugh, the son of Earl Roger, requested the Canons of St. Alcmund's to demise this Prebend (of Wistanstow) to Gilbert de Cunedore, a Layman, for three or four years, the said Gilbert having to pay 10s. per annum for the same to the Church: but, during the said time and term, the Earl declined to make any provision, whereby the said Gilbert was duly to pay his service, or afterwards to restore the said Prebend to the Church of St. Alcmund. [4] The Earl obtained his request, because there was war between himself and the Welsh, and because all Longefeld [5] was well nigh devastated, and because Gilbert had promised that he would get aid and assistance from the Earl of Hereford [6] and from the Lord of Clun, and would restore the Prebend to its former state. Thus the Dean and Canons (of St. Alcmund's) were cajoled, and conceded the Earl's request. But Earl

[1] Domesday, fo. 260, b, 2.
[2] The narrative implies that it was held of the Earl, not of the King.
[3] Spirtes had preceded Godric Wiffesune. Of him, his pluralities, and his fate, I have spoken elsewhere (Vol. V. pp. 208, 209).
[4] The original passage runs as follows.- "Et infra hoc tempus et terminum praedictum, noluit providere unde reddent predicto Gileberto servicium suum, et deinde reddent praedictam praebendam ecclesiae Sancti Alcmundi". This is quite inexplicable. In the translation I have ventured to read "reddet predictus Gilebertus" and "deinde reddet".
[5] Longefeld here means a district, viz. the country about Longville (now Cheney Longville).
[6] The writer's accuracy fails here.

There was no Earl of Hereford between Earl Hugh's accession and Pagan fitz John's Shrievalty. The Honour was an Escheat, till Stephen and the Empress bestowed it, respectively, on two rival candidates.


Hugh, during the aforesaid term (of three or four years) met his death in Anglesea; [1] and to him succeeded Robert de Belisme, who waged war against King Henry. In Earl Robert's time Gilbert de Cunedore, by the said Earl's sanction, forcibly occupied the Prebend (of Wistanstow). At that time, Earl Robert being banished, [2] Pagan fitz John was Sheriff; [3] and the Canons of St. Alcmund made their complaint to the Sheriff, Pagan, concerning Gilbert, viz. that he wrongfully withheld their Prebend. Moreover Gilbert himself was by Episcopal authority excommunicated. But at length the Sheriff, Pagan, so consulted with Gilbert, as that the latter enacted a repentance, and restored the Prebend into the hands of Adam, Dean (of St. Alkmund's), and of Robert de Longedone and Walter fitz Gubald. [4] And the aforesaid Gilbert and his knights had stripes and discipline administered to them in the Church of St. Martin, and in sight of all the people, by each individual Canon (of St. Alkmund's) [5]: and then Gilbert was led along naked into St. Alkmund's Church, and there he offered up the Prebend upon the Altar. But the Canons made a Cyrograph, whereby they conceded to the Sheriff, Pagan, that he should hold the said Prebend for his life, not hereditarily, but as a Canon, and that he should pay [6] 10s. yearly (for the same) to the Church of St. Alcmund. And the Sheriff, Pagan, gave Uptune to Gilbert (de Condover), seeing that by his advice Gilbert had resigned the said Prebend into the hands of the Canons".

"When Pagan, the Sheriff, was dead [7] the Canons of St. Alcmund seized upon the Prebend of Wistanstowe: but Roger, Earl of Hereford, [8] a man of strife, occupied it by force, because he had Pagan's daughter to wife. [9] Her he afterwards spurned". [9]

[1] This event happened July 1, 1098.
[2] Viz. in 1102.
[3] This is again a loose statement. More than 20 years elapsed between Earl Robert's forfeiture and Pagan fitz John's appointment to the Shrievalty of Shropshire.
[4] Probably two Canons of St. Alkmund's; and the last perhaps a son of Godebald the Priest, a previous Canon.
[5] This is not so improbable in itself as modern ideas might think it. However the mention of St. Martin's Church is to me inexplicable. Monastic writers are never so unguarded as when they portray the sufferings, before or after death, of their enemies.
[6] For reddent (in the original) I here substitute reddet.
[7] This happened in 1196 (supra Vol. V. p. 242).
[8] He succeeded on the death of Earl Milo, his father, in December 1143.
[9] A fact, and a probabilily.- The Earl and the Countess Cecily died childless.


"Now Helyas de Say, Lord of Clune because this Prebend lay near and convenient for him, solicited it from Roger (Earl of) Hereford. Helyas did this by the council of Baldwin de Stepelton, and he gave (the Earl) XXX merks, and obtained it, though the Earl had neither power nor right, to give or sell it. And thus Earl Roger and Helyas, who had previously been enemies and at war with each other, came to reconciliation. This happened in the time of King Stephen".

"Helyas de Say gave the Prebend to Baldwin de Stepelton, for the service of one knight. To Baldwin succeeded his son Philip, who wrongfully occupied the Prebend, and Isabel de Say, daughter of Helyas, received, at Clun, the service of one knight from Philip, son of Baldwin". [1]

"These things", the narrative adds, "we learnt from aged and reverend men, viz. Adam, Dean of St. Alcmund, Walter fitz Gubald, Robert de Longedone, and Richard Pigot, Canons of St. Alcmund; from Herbert de Castello, Roger English, Gilbert and Baldwin English, Ailwin Botte of Cunedoure, and from Thoky and Ulfinge, Priests of Cunedoure".

The above narrative was written after the year 1165, for at that time Baldwin de Stapleton was living, and was registered as holding 1 knights'-fees of old feoffment, in the Barony of Clun.[2] Doubtless a part of this tenure was at Wistanstow, but the other part (viz. the half-fee) will have been some older feoffment, which I cannot allocate. I should observe that the term, old feoffment, as applied to Baldwin's fee of Wistanstow was improperly used. According to the Lilleshall narrative, he acquired Wistanstow after December 1143 (when Roger became Earl of Hereford), and so at least eight years after the death of Henry I., when the term, old feoffment, ceased to be applicable.

Of the family of Stapleton, which thus became established at Wistanstow, I have spoken at large already. [3] Before the year 1188 the Canons of Lilleshall were moving to recover Wistanstow from the then Baron of Clun and from Philip de Stapleton, his Vassal. The matter was settled by a Final Concord, levied at Gaitington on June 14, 1188, before King Henry II. himself. The agreement left nothing with the Abbey but a nominal Seigneury

[1] A seeming transcript of the Lilleshall Chartulary (Harl. MS. 2060, fo. 76) here adds the words quam Ysabellam Willielmus filius Alani duxit in uxorem. It is a mere interpolation of the Transcriber, but quite true.
[2] Liber Niger, I. 146.
[3] Supra, Vol. VI. pages 109 et seqq.


over Wistanstow, and ultimately a pension of 40s. out of the Church. But this ancient Fine should speak its own language,

Hec est finalis concordia facta in Curia Regis apud Geitenton die Martis, proxima post festum Sancte Trinitatis anno regni Regis Henrici secundi XXXIVo, coram ipso domino Rege, et presentibus H. Dunelmensi et J. Norwicensi Episcopis, Godefrido de Luci et Ranulfo de Glanvill et Willielmo de Humex Constabulario et Bertramo de Verdon, et Galfrido filio Petri et Hugone Pantulfe et aliis domini Regis fidelibus;- inter Abbatem de Lilleshull et Willielmum de Boterell, et Ysabellam uxorem suam, et Philippum de Stepelton, de IV hidis in Wiluredechot, [1] unde placitum fuit inter eos, etc. Abbas concessit Willielmo et Ysabelle, et heredibus suis;- tenend' de Abbate;- et inde Willielmus devenit homo Abbatis. Willielmus et Ysabella concesserunt Philippo, tenend' de se et heredibus per X solidos per annum et faciendo forinsecum servicium quod pertinet. Et Willielmus et Ysabella concesserunt Abbati V solidos de prefatis X solidis, domec Ecclesia de Wistanestowe que est de donacione Philippi, vacaverit; et cum vacaverit, Philippus concessit Abbati XL solidos in ipsa Ecclesia, percipiendos per manus Persone, salva Philippo Advocacione et Presentacione: et tunc Philippus et heredes reddent integre X solidos predictos, Willielmo et Ysabelle et heredibus. [2]

An early Rent-Roll of Lilleshall Abbey, drawn up within 40 years of the above Fine, is inconsistent with any of its contingent provisions. It gives 10s. as receivable yearly on All Souls' Day from Wistanestowe. [3] I shall presently offer an explanation of this. By a Charter, which must have passed between 1188 and 1199, "W. (William de Vere), Bishop of Hereford, thinks well to confirm to Lilleshull Abbey the Pension of 40s., which the Canons ought to receive from the Church of Wystan', according to a composition made in the Curia Regis, between the Canons and Philip de Stepelton". [4]

[1] Wiluredechot, elsewhere called Wilfrescote, was a member of Wistanstow. It is here put for the whole Manor or Prebend. So also the Confirmation of Pope Alexander III. to Lillieshall Abbey (supra Vol. VIII. p. 219) names Wiluuredeschot as one of the ancient Prebends of St. Alkmund's, but says nothing distinctively about Wistanstow. It is worth observing that this Papal Confirmation must have passed at a period (1159-1181) when the Abbot's interest in the Prebend was quite abeyant. The language of Confirmations, whether Papal, Regal, or Archiepiscopol, is oftem found to be thus general and formal, and inconsistent with contemporary fad. Such Documents merely imply that the Confirmant recognized a talem qualem title in the Grantee. They were in no way creative of a right;- but the absence of proper confirmation might vitiate a title.
[2] [3] Lilleshall Chartulary, fos. 83, 93.
[4] Ibidem, fo. 52.


It is remarkable that King John's Confirmation of August 31, 1199, assigns "Wystanestowe with all its appurtenances to Lilleshall Abbey, [1] as though the Manor had been an unalienated member of St. Alkmund's Church from time immemorial". William fitz Alan (II) succeeded to his Mother's Barony of Clun about the year 1200. He enjoyed it only 10 years. It would seem to have been his object to divest himself of that mediate Lordship at Wistanstow which had been secured by the Fine of 1188, and to make Philip de Stapleton the immediate Tenant of Lilleshall Abbey.- By one Deed "William fitz Alan concedes and quitclaims to the Abbey the homage of Philip de Stepelton and his heirs, so that for the future they should never be answerable in respect of homage to the Quitclaimant or his heirs". [2] By another Deed "William, son of William fitz Alan, restores and quitclaims to the Abbey whatever he had in Wilfreschot and Wystan', as the Canons' own proper right, which did anciently belong to the Church of St. Alcmund. Moreover the Quitclaimant acknowledges that he and his Ancestors had wrongfully usurped the premises in time of war. Witnesses,- William and John the Grantor's sons, and John le Strange". [2]

Again about 1216-1220, "John fitz Alan, son of William fitz Alan, confirms to Lilleshall Abbey his father's Charters concerning Winlfreceschot and Wystan', and also (the grant of) Helewyse, daughter of Reyner de Brellecton; and the said Helewyse's gift of 5s. chargeable on the Buildwas Monks' vill of Brocton, which the said Monks ought to pay yearly;- and also his father's donation of Longeney and Elfstaneshull. Witnesses,- John le Strange and others". [2]

The Abbot of Lilleshall's receipt of 10s. yearly from Wistanstow, as recorded in the Rent-Roll above quoted, would be the exact result of these Quitclaims of the Fitz Alans. It was in fact De Stapleton's rent, surrendered by the Mesne, to the Seigneural, Lords. The Munslow Hundred- Roll of 1255 ignores the said arrangement. It says that "John de Stepleton holds two carucates in Wystantowe, and does suit neither to County nor Hundred, nor pays stretward nor motfee, and holds of John fitz Alan". [3] Also "the same John (de Stepelton) holds Feldhampton in villeinage and does suit neither to County nor Hundred, nor pays stretward nor motfee, and holds of John fitz Alan". [3]

I have said in a former Volume [4] that John de Stapelton was

[1] Rot. Chart. 1 John, m. 16.
[2] Lilleshall Chartulary, fo. 51.
[3] Rot. Hundred. II. p. 71.
[4] Supra, Vol. VI. p. 113.


deceased "in 1272". I might have said, "in 1267", for in August of that year, Emma Polard withdrew a charge of novel disseizin which she had arraigned against Roger Pichard and Robert de Stapelton (John's successor), concerning a tenement in Wilfercote. [1] Again on May 3, 1269, William de la Hyde presented himself in the Law-Courts, as Essoignor of Robert de Stapelton, who was suing Nicholas fitz Henry and John de Kukenho for seizing Cattle, etc., of 20 value, at Wystanestowe. Also Thomas fitz Robert appeared as Essoignor of Robert de Stapelton in another suit, which he had against Nicholas fitz Henry. This suit was to compel the said Nicholas to render account of the period during which he had acted as Stapelton's Bailiff at Wystanestowe. [2]

We have seen that the Inquest, taken in June, 1272, on the death of John fitz Alan (III), annexes a moiety of Witestonestowe and all La Merse to the knight's-fee which Roger de Sibeton held under the late Baron. [3] The Inquest gives no account of any second moiety of Wistanstow. We may presume therefore that De Stapleton's share of the Manor continued to be held under Lilleshall Abbey, and constituted the said second moiety. We are, however, left in ignorance as to how it was that Wistanstow came to be thus divided as to tenure. With regard to La Merse, or Marsh, the case is clearer. It had been originally a part of the Prebend of Wistanstow, but had wholly passed to the Seigneury of Fitz Alan. We shall hear more of the place under Strefford, inasmuch as Marsh and Strefford were held under Fitz Alan by the same Feoffees. I would here observe that, as Robert de Stepelton's Charter of Free-Warren (procured in 1290) extends to his demesnes at Wistanstow; [4] so on October 16, 1306, did John de Sibeton obtain a like Charter for his demesnes at Whitstanstoue. The latter Charter further empowered the said John to hold a weekly Market on Wednesdays, and an annual Fair of three days at Whitstanstowe;- the Fair to commence on the first Sunday after Trinity; and to last over the two following days. [5]

In the Nomina Villarum of 1316, William de Sibbeton is enrolled as sole Lord of Wistanstow; but it was still only a moiety of the Manor which was thus held. The Aid-Roll of 1346 makes this quite clear; for it assesses John de Sibbeton for a knight's-fee in Sibbeton, half Wystanstawe, and Brome. The other moiety of

[1] Placita coram Rege, apud Salop, 51 Hen. III., m. 6 dorso.
[2] Placita, 53 Hen. III., m. 4 dorso.
[3] Supra, page 270.
[4] Supra, Vol. VI. p. 114.
[5] Rot. Chart. 34 Edw. I., Nos. 14, 15.


Wystanstowe is not alluded to in the Roll;- obviously because it was not held by knight's-service.

After the 13th century there is not the smallest appearance of any Manorial right or Seigneury at Wistanstow remaining with Lilleshall Abbey, though I think that the Stapletons retained an interest in the Manor.

OF UNDERTENANTS, in Wistanstow, I have the following particulars. The Pipe-Roll of 1177 records an amercement of 20s., set on Warin, Chaplain of Wistanestowe, for a default. In Trinity Term, 1271, a Plea was pending coram Rege as to Richard Bagard and others having attacked the house of Petronilla le Walse at Wystanestowe, having wounded her, and carried off 100 shillings' worth of goods. In July, 1283, William fitz Philip and Philip Thou, hoth of Wystanestowe, occur on a local Jury.


Domesday makes no mention of a Church, either in the vill or Parish of Wistanstow, but that there was one I cannot doubt, and indeed, the narrative given in the Lilleshall Chartu1ary speaks of one as existing in Saxon times, and constituting part of the local Prebend of St. Alkmund's Church. The Priest whom Domesday notices among the residents of Woolston was probably attached to Wistanstow Church.

We have seen that by the Fine of 1188, the Advowson of Wistanstow remained with De Stapleton as Lord of the Fee, subject, however, to a pension of 2 payable to Lilleshall Abbey whenever a new Rector should be instituted.

On Friday, April 28, 1290, Wistanstowe was visited by Richard Swinfield, Bishop of Hereford. Hay and corn for thirty-two horses of the Bishop's Suit, were gratuitously provided by the Rector of the place. [1] Concerning the said Rector more will be said in the Sequel.

The Taxation of 1291 places the Church of Wynstanestowe in the Deanery of Ludlow. The Rectory was worth 13. 6s. 8d. per annum: the Vicar's Portion was 5. [2] Nothing is said of the Abbot of Lilleshall's portion.

By a Fine, levied at York on January 20, 1300, Robert de Stepelton sold the Advowson of Wystanstow for 40, to William, son of Laurence de Ludlow. On the death of the Clerk, then holding the Living, Ludlow was to present.

[1] Swinfield's Household-Roll, pp. 78, 79.
[2] Pope Nich. Taxation, p. 166-b.



[For engravings, see pdf.]


In 1341, the Assessors of the Ninth considered Wistanstowe as a Parish in the Deanery of Wenlock. They quoted the Church-Taxation as one of 27 merks [1] (18. 6s. 8d.), which obviously excluded the Abbot of Lilleshall's Portion. This sum they reduced to a Parochial assessment of 6; because the pressure of taxes on the Tenantry had caused 20 virgates of land to be thrown out of cultivation, and because the Glebe-land (worth 4 per annum), the hay-tithes (worth 2), the small-tithes, oblations, and other profits (worth 6. 6s. 8d.) contributed to swell the Church-Taxation, but were not accountable in the present instance. [2]

The Valor of 1535-6 claims with precision for the Abbot of Lilleshall "an annul pension of 40s., arising from the Church of Wystanstowe". [3] The preferment of Francis Bawdewyn, Rector of Wystanstowe (in the Deanery of Ludlow), consisted of Glebe land worth 2, and of tithes worth 16. 17s. per annum. The said income was chargeable with 11s. for annual Synodals and Procurations, and with 17s. 9d., being a third of the whole sum due to the Bishop at his triennial Visitation. [4]


PHILIP DE LEGA, Rector of Wistanstow, occurs more than once about 1250-1265.

ROGER SPRENGHOSE, Subdeacon, was admitted Oct. 12, 1281, on the presentation of Sir Robert de Stepleton. In 1284, this Rector had Bishop Swinfield's license for two years' non-residence, studendi gratia. Sprenghose seems afterwards to have displeased his Diocesan by withholding the usual Procurations, due when the Bishop visited any Church. Swinfield, not very creditably, raked up a Canon of the Council of Lyons and sought to deprive Sprenghose of his Living on the ground that he had not taken Priest Orders within a year after his institution, an omission, be it observed, which the Bishop had overlooked for at least five years since his own consecration. Sprenghose, alarmed by proceedings which had already commenced, appeared before the Bishop at Bosbury on June 6, 1288, and made his submission, promising to abide by the Bishop's award in the aforesaid matter. Thereupon the Bishop turned to the subject of two procurations which were in arrear in respect of two Visitations of Wistanstow. The Rector, after some altercation, promised to compound for the same, by payment of 8 merks. This was clearly

[1] The printed Copy puts the Taxation at 17 merks, but the error is palpable.
[2] Inquis. Nonarum, p. 186-b.
[3] [4] Valor Eccles. III. pp. 197, 201.


the matter which had really affected the Prelate's conscience, for he instantly ordered his official to suspend all process of ejectment against Sprenghose. Sir Geoffrey, Perpetual Vicar of Wistanstow, was a witness of this negotiation. [1]

We have seen how this, probably youthful, Rector had become more respectful or more wise, when Swinfield paid his third visit to Wistanstow.

RICHARD DE LODELOWE, Clerk, was instituted Rector on Sept. 28, 1316, at the presentation of Sir William de Lodelowe, Lord of Stokesay. Sir William, it is known, died before Nov. 11 of the same year, and it is curious to observe that this presentation was afterwards contested by William de Wyne, who married Sir William's widow. On Nov. 24, 1322, Bishop Orleton writes to William de Wyne and informs him that the Earl and Countess of Arundel have notified to him (the Bishop) that Ludlow is desirous of ceding his right, if he had any, to the Rectory of Wistanstow, concerning which a suit, between the said Ludlow and Wyne, was pending in the Court of Canterbury. The Bishop, that the suit may be more easily settled, invites William de Wyne to an interview.

JAMES DE WATENHULL was presented to this Church by King Edward III. on June 21, 1337; [2] but the Patent does not state the ground of the King's patronage. James, Rector of Wistanstow, has a two-years' license of non-residence, dated January 12, 1346-7, the object being that "he should stand in the following of Dame Joan, Lady Countess of March".

SIR ROGER AFFECOTE was presented to this Rectory on Nov. 5, 1373, by Sir John de Ludlow, and on Affecote's resignation, soon afterwards,-

EBULO LE STRANGE was presented by the same Patron.

SIR EDMUND DE LODELOWE was instituted August 6, 1385, at the joint presentation of Richard de Lodelowe, Lord of Hodenet, son and heir of Sir John de Lodelowe; Sir John Griffit, Knight; William Preyer; William Hugeford; Robert de Lodelowe; Philip de Rotinton; Roger Partrich; John Boerley; and William Godman, Clerk. The Living was on this occasion valued at 18. 6s. 8d. per annum (the Taxation of 1291).

JOHN DE STRETTON, Chaplain, was instituted July 30, 1390;- Patron,- "The Noble Richard de Lodelowe".

EDMUND DE LUDLOW, or another of his name, was Incumbent of Wistanstow in 1395-6, 1398-9, and in 1401.

[1] Swinfield Reg. fo. 48-b.
[2] Patent. 11 Edw. III., p. 2, m. 28.

CLEV. 365


AFFCOT, anciently EFFECHOT was, as we have seen, a member of the Prebend of Wistanstow in Saxon times. I suppose it to have continued a member of the Manor of Wistanstow when the latter fell into secular hands.

In November, 1274, William de Affecot appears upon a Ludlow Jury. On April 15, 1313, William, brother of Roger de Affecote, was ordained Priest. On August 25, 1328, Roger de Affecote, then 48 years of age, was guided by this reminiscence in the evidence which he gave as to the birthday of Margery fitz Aer. On April 15, 1316, "Richard, Lord of Affecote, gives to his son Roger, and to Joan, daughter of Roger de Leynthale, all his lands, tenements, and whole Lordship of Affecote, with all rights, liberties, and free-customs pertaining thereto. Witnesses,- Adam de Sibbeton, Walter Scot of Acton, Walter Bareth, Robert, called Clerk, of Stanton Lacy, William Aleyn of Stanton Lacy, Richard, son of Robert de Heyton, Robert de Molineshull, etc. [1]

FELHAMPTON must be reckoned as at all times a member of Wistanstow. It now forms one township with Affcot. Its status in 1255 has appeared on a former page, [2] that is, it was tenanted only by the Villeins of John de Stapleton.

MARSH and MARSHBROOK. Though this is said to have been in Saxon times an appurtenance of the Prebend of Wistanstow, it would seem to have been detached therefrom while the said Prebend was in the hands of the Barons of Clun. It was subsequently annexed to Fitz Alan's Manor of Strefford, under which we shall hear more of it. Meantime, I may notice that the vill of La Merse was in 1167 amerced half a merk by Alan de Nevill, Justice of the Forest; and that in 1250, Geoffrey de Langley set an arrentation of 2d. on *** Pytle for a quarter of an acre of Forest-land in Mersham.


THE Domesday notice of Wistanstow is followed immediately by

[1] Transcript, communicated by S.S. Smith, Esq., of Bridgnorth.
[2] Supra, page 360.


that of Clev, in which Manor again the Saxon Priest, Spirtes, had been succeeded by the Norman Priest and Physician, Nigel.- Isdem Nigellus tenet Clev. Spirtes tenuit. Ibi una hide, geldabilis. Terra est IIII carucis. In dominio est dimidia caruca; et unus servus et unus Radman et IIII Bordarii cum una caruca. Tempore Regis Edwardi valebat XII solidos. Modo valet X solidos. Wastam (Nigellus) invenit. [1]

The vill, here described, is entirely lost. I may safely say that no Record since Domesday speaks of any Manor or Vill which will tally with Clev in the more essential points of comparison. As to the situation of this lost Manor, we have nothing to guide us but the Domesday description. Every feature of that description points to one conclusion, viz. that Clev was closely allied to Wistanstow in respect of tenure and agricultural condition, past and present, and also in respect of geographical position.

It has been suggested to me that Clev is represented by Clewilsey, or Chewilsey, near Llanvair Waterdine; but the Domesday condition of Clev was of too settled a character to admit of any theory which would place it so near to the Border.


EXCEPT a part of Clungunford, this was the only Manor in Lenteurde Hundred which Rainald Vicecomes held at Domesday.- Isdem Rainaldus tenet (de Comite) Straford, et Azo de eo. Elmund tenuit. Ibi II hidae geldabiles. Terra est IIII carucis. Non sunt homines ibi; et tamen (Rainaldus) habet inde XX solidos. Tempore Regis Edwardi valebat XXX solidos; et post wasta fuit. [2]

The Seigneury of any Manor held by Rainald Vicecomes at Domesday, we must expect to find afterwards in Fitz Alan. This was undoubtedly the case with Strefford. Again Azo's tenures, under Rainald, ordinarily passed to Le Strange of Ness and Cheswardine, holding under Fitz Alan. [3] To this rule Strefford is an exception.

The Liber Niger, or Feodary of 1165, gives -

[1] Domesday, fo. 260, b, 2.
[2] Domesday, fo. 255, a, 1.
[3] Vide supra, Vol. I. p. 144.


GILBERT ANGLICUS as holding a Muntator's fee of old feoffment in Fitz Alan's Barony of Oswestry. I have little doubt that the tenement, here alluded to, was Strefford. We have seen that soon after this date, Roger, Gilbert, and Baldwin English were cited as competent witnesses of various incidents which had befallen the Manor of Wistanstow. [1] Now Roger Anglicus was, I think, of Clunbury, Gilbert was, I think, of Strefford, and Baldwin was, as I believe, Gilbert's son. [2] The three were undoubtedly related in some way or other, and their supposed estates eventually centred in one line.

BALDWIN ANGLICUS, the presumed successor of Gilbert, was one of those Shropshire Feudatories who, in 1176-7, fell under the heavy displeasure of King Henry II., for the overt act of forest trespass. Baldwin was fined 20 merks and two Destriers. Before Michaelmas 1177 he had paid the Money into the Treasury, and, in compliance with an order to that effect, had delivered the horses to the King himself. A long interval now elapses in which I find nothing which I can refer with any confidence to this family of English as connected with Strefford. Incidentally in 1221 we hear of a William de Strefford. He was tenant of a virgate of land in Overton, which was unavailingly claimed by one Reginald de Overton, as nephew and heir of one Henry Young, who had been dead 32 years and more. Again in 1232 I find the Forest-Justices amercing the Villate of Stratford 2s., for a pourpresture. At length we arrive at something more definite and discover that-

HUGH ANGLICUS, Lord of Clunbury, who died in 1248-9, was also Lord of Stretford and of Marsh. He left a son, John, under age. Hence the Munslow Hundred-Roll of 1255 says that "John fitz Alan holds Streford and Marshe, as of wardship of the heir of Hugh Anglicus". The vills contained 3 hides, paid 3s. 6d, for stretward and motfee, and did suit to Munslow Hundred. [3] We have seen how-

JOHN LE ENGLEYS was endeavouring in 1263 to obtain livery of his inheritance in Clunbury, Strefford, Marsh, and Brompton. He in turn was deceased in 1272, leaving his son Hugh in minority. It is remarkable that the Feodary, drawn up in June 1272, on the death of John fitz Alan (III), should give the "heir of John le

[1] Supra, page 358.
[2] We have heard of "Baldwin, son of Gilbert de Condover", more than once (supra, Vol. VIII. pp. 47, 53). It is possible, I think, that he was identical with Baldwin Anglicus.
[3] Rot. Hundred. II. p. 70. Marsh (1 hides apparently) had been detached from Wistanstow, its ancient caput, and annexed to Strefford.


Engleys" as holding Clunbury by service of one knight's-fee, and yet should add Clunbury, Streford, La Merse and Brompton to the knight's-fee held by Roger de Sibeton in Sibeton, half Wistanstow, and Brome. In the subsequent partition of Fitz Alan's seigneuries the above two fees are again described as constituted nearly [1] in the same way, and are so awarded to the King as Guardian of Fitz Alan's heir. My impression is that there is a redundancy in both these Records and that Clunbury, Strefford, Marsh, and Brompton constituted no actual part of Roger de Sibton's own fee, but were held by him as having temporary custody of John English's heir.

HUGH LE ENGLEYS, the said heir, had succeeded to Strefford and Marsh before 1284. The Munslow Tenure-Roll of that date says that "Hugh le Engleys holds the vill of Merse and Schereford for one-fourth part of a knight's-fee, under Richard Fitz Alan, who holds of the King".

The following Deed passed, certainly between 1282 and 1292, probably about 1284.- "Hugh English, Lord of Clunbury, gives to Roger Sprenghose, Rector of Wystanstowe, for 6 merks, paid by Martin Brende of Streford, all the suit of his men, with their chattels, services, etc., due to the Grantor, and with a half-virgate of land and half a weir, which Philip Lovel sometime held of him in the field of Streford. He also gives housebote and haybote in the wood of Streford, under view of his Forester, and pannage of 10 swine, free of payment, and common-pasture for all cattle of the Grantee. Witnesses,- Sir Roger de Sibeton, Knight, Philip de Egedon, William son of Philip de Wystanstow, William son of Philip de Wolfreston, William Baldeyn of Longfeld, and John Forester of Busmore". [2]

Roger Sprenghose seems to have been only a Middleman in the above transaction, for, immediately or soon afterwards, he "releases to Martin Brend of Streford, and his heirs, the same premises. Witnesses,- William son of Philip de Wystanstow, Adam de Sybeton, William son of Philip de Wolfreston, Philip, Clerk of Wystanstow, and Adam Pyroun of Longefeld". [2] By another Deed, "the same Roger grants to the same Martin, for his service, a messuage, half-virgate and half a weir, which Philip Lovel sometime held, and which he (Sprenghose) purchased of Hugh le Engleys". Witnesses,- as the last, omitting Philip, Clerk, and adding William Baldyn. [2]

[1] I say nsarly, because La Merse is not named at all in the partition.
[2] Abstracts in possession of S.S. Smith, Esq., of Bridgnorth.


Besides, and perhaps previous to, the above alienation, Hugh le Engleys seems to have sold other rents in Strefford to Robert Burnell, Bishop of Bath and Wells. The Inquest, taken in December 1292, states that Prelate to have died seized of 13s. 2d. annual rent in Streford, which he had held under Hugh le Engleys by service of 1 lb. of cummin. [1] Again, an Inquest taken in July 1294, states that Philip Burnell had died seized of certain rents in Longefeld and Streford; [2] but the Jurors were probably mistaken in saying that both these rents were held under Roger Waldyn. His interest was confined to Cheney Longville.

On March 26, 1318, "Philip, son of Martin Brende of Streford, gives to John, son of John de Sibeton, dwelling in the vill of Wystanestowe, and to Margaret his wife, a messuage in Streford, between the messuage of Sir Edward Burnel and the messuage of John de Boreway, also a half-virgate and half a weir, which Philip Lovel formerly held, upon the water of Strebroke, also housbote, etc., as contained in the former Charter, which tenement the Grantor's father bought of Sir Roger Sprenghose. Witnesses,- Roger de Cheyne, Richard, Lord of Affecote, Richard, son of William de Affecote, Philip, son of William de Wystanstow, and John de Boreway". [3] On August 2, 1338, "John de Sibbetone, with consent of Margaret his wife, settles the above estate on Hugh, his son, with remainder to Walter, Hugh's brother, with remainder to the right heirs of John and Margaret". [3]

Longfield, now Cheney Longville.

EARL ROGER DE MONTGOMERY having selected a site for his great Abbey of Shrewsbury, found that Siward, surnamed Le Gros, a Saxon, was lord of the soil. He sent for Siward, and communicated his wishes, offering to give the said Siward a certain Vill called Langafeld, if he would facilitate the Earl's plans at Shrewsbury. "Siward was a good man, and readily assented, nay,

[1] Inquis. 21 Edw. I., No. 50.
[2] Inquis. 22 Edw. I., No. 45-c.
[3] Abstracts in possession of S.S. Smith, Esq., of Bridgnorth.


as soon as the Earl put him in possession of Langafeld, he gave it with a ready spirit to the Abbey, in the presence of the Earl and his Barons". He covenanted however to hold it of the Monks, for his life. [1]

Within five, probably within three, years of this transaction Donzesday was compiled. It notices Siward's tenure of Longfield, as an ordinary tenure, that is, according to its wont, it neither alludes to Siward's life-interest, nor to the reversionary interest of the Monks of Shrewsbury. But it adds a new circumstance, viz. that Siward had been Lord of Longfield before the Conquest.- Siward tenet de Comite Languefelle. Ipsemet tenuit. Ibi una hida et dimidia, geldabiles. Terra est VII carucis. Ibi unus Villanus et III Bordarii habent II carucas. Valebat XX solidos, et post fuit wasta. Modo valet V solidos. [2]

King William II., in his confirmation to Shrewsbury Abbey, recites how the site of that Monastery had belonged hereditarily to a knight named Siward, and how the pious Earl, wishing to guard his Monks against any future claims, had given Longafeld to Siward in the way of exchange; also how Siward when he accepted the brotherhood of the said Monks conceded that the said vill, so obtained from the Earl, should pass on his death to the Monk's demesne. [3] Godebold, Richard de Belmeis, and Richard de Mont-warold, attested this concession, which probably was reduced to formal writing on the occasion described, and within 15 years after Domesday.

Siward died between the years 1102 and 1108, and was buried in Shrewsbury Abbey. "His son Aldred, unwilling to follow in his footsteps, retained Langafeld from the Monks, and made waste of whatever his father had left there. In this Aldred was backed by the powerful will of Richard de Belmeis, who was at the time Steward (Dapifer) of the County, and who afterwards became Bishop of London. Abbot Fulchered considering these things, studied to regain the vill a peaceful rather than a litigious mode. By the advice of his friends, and of Belmeis, he gave Aldred 15, and other gifts to Aldred's brothers, to induce them to restore the vill. This was done in the presence of Richard de Belmeis, Roger and Robert Corbet, Hamo Peverel, and the whole County". The writer of the story adds that "the vill was at the time so impoverished, that even a Stranger would not have given 15 for it". [4]

The Confirmations of Henry I. and Stephen to Shrewsbury Abbey

[1] Salop Chartulary, No. 1.
[2] Domesday, fo. 259, b, 2.
[3] Salop Chartulary, No. 34.
[4] Ibidem, No. 1.


repeat the substance of the above narrative. The former calls the place Languafecta, the latter Langafeld. Stephen's Charter also speaks of an apparently formal and final quitclaim by Edward and Aldred, sons of Siward, and which, as attested by Richard, Bishop of London, must have passed after 1108 when Belmeis was promoted to that See.

Henry I. was still reigning, when the Monks of Shrewsbury gave Longfield to Henry de Say (Baron of Clun), receiving in exchange Brompton, "a vill which was nearer Shrewsbury, and more fitting for them to occupy". This transaction had the Confirmations of Henry I. and of Stephen, and of the Empress Maud, so that Longfield became about 1130-5 a member of the Barony of Clun. Henry de Say seems at once to have bestowed it on some Feoffee, for -

ROGER, SON OF EUSTACE DE LANGEFELD, was, in 1165, holding a knight's-fee of old feoffment in the aforesaid Barony. [1]

In 1180 the vill of Longefeld (being within regard of the Long Forest) compounded for a pourpreslure by payment of 4s. After Roger fitz Eustace I hear of no Tenant of Longfield till the year 1240, when-

ROGER WAUDIN is registered as holding half a knight's-fee in Langefeud, of the Barony of Clun. [2] We have heard of Roger Waldyn, alias Roger le Engleys, before. [3] He occurs from 1230 to 1254, in which latter year he died, leaving a widow, Cecilia de Wolverslawe, and a son and heir, Roger, under age. But Roger Waldyn appears to have been Lord of Longfield at a much earlier period than we should conclude from the above evidences. The following Deed seems to me to have passed at least as early as the year 1220.-

Sciant presentes et futuri quod ego Rogerus Waldin dedi et concessi et hac presenti carta mea confirmavi Waltero filio Ricardi de Longefeud, pro homagio et servicio, et pro IV marcis argenti, quas mihi dedit de ingressu, unam dimidiam virgatam terre in villa de Longefeud cum omnibus pertinenciis suis, illam scilicet quam Hake, pater predicti Ricardi, jamdudum tenuit, cum quadam terra, que vocatur La Helde, juxta terram Ricardi Wuet. Concessi etiam predicto Waltero et heredibus husbote et heybote in bosco meo de Longefeud, et omnes porcos in eodem bosco de pannagio quietos pro uno solo porco:- tenendam et habendam ipse, et heredes sui de me et heredibus meis in feudo et hereditate, libere et quiete ab omni servitio

[1] Liber Niger, I., 146.
[2] Testa de Nevill, p. 45.
[3] Supra, Vol. VI. pp. 153-155; Vol. VII. p. 184.


et exaction terrena quod ad me vel heredes meos pertinet vel pertinere poterit, salvo servitio regali, pacifice et honorifice in bosco et plano, etc. Reddendo duos solidos, etc. Ego vero, etc. Volo etiam ut predicta summa reddetur Basilie matri mee ad totam vitam suam, et post decessum Basilie mihi et heredibus, etc. Et ut hec, etc. Hiis testibus, Henrico de Sibetun, et Rogero de Sibetun et Reginaldo de Leye, Waltero de Witekelau et Johanne filio ejus, et Johanne Pirun et Nicholao clerico et multis aliis. [1]

The following I suppose to be at least ten years later than the above.- Sciant presentes et futuri, etc., Rogerus Waldin dedi, etc., Johanni filio Eustachii de Longefeud pro homagio et servitio suo et pro 4 marcis et 8 solidos argenti unam dimidiam virgatam terre cum pertinenciis in villa de Longefeud et medietatem prati de Henlemedue cum Helda juxta Henles-medue et cum mora;- et quoddam assartum in Bicchenhale;- illam videlicet dimidiam virgatam quam Eustachius pater ejus, aliquando tenuit;- tenendam et habendam sibi et heredibus suis de me et heredibus meis in feudo et hereditate, libere et quiete ab omni servitio et exactione terrena, tacfre et tolfre, etc.;- reddendo annuatim 3 solidos pro omni servitio, salvo servitio domini Regis et capitalis domini. Cum autem predictus Johannes vel heredes sui in fata decesserint, legabunt mihi vel heredibus meis meliorem averium domus sue pro herieto; et quando venerint ad terram relevandam dabunt 6 solidos pro relevio. Concessi etiam husbote, etc., in bosco meo de Longefeud sine wasto, et illam voleyam quam predictus Eustachius jamdudum tenuit. Ego vero, etc. Et quia volo, etc. Hiis testibus, Toma de Roshale, Simone de Hauberdin, Hugone Anglico, Waltero de Hoptun, Henrico de Sibetun, Henrico de Egedun, Johann Pirun, Reginaldo de Henford et m. a. [1]

The Purslow Hundred-Roll of 1255 was drawn up during the minority of-

ROGER WALDYN (II). It states that Cecily de Wolverslawe (she was his father's Widow) [2] holds half a hide in Longfeud of John fitz Alan. She did suit of court (at Clun) and suit of Purslow Hundred, and ward at Clun Castle for 20 days in wartime, by one mounted Serviens. "And the said land was thus held by reason of the said Cecily's wardship of Roger Waldin's heir; and it was geldable". [3] In 1256 Roger Waudyn was of age. His name was returned among those who held 15 librates of land in Shropshire, and were not as yet knights. At the Assizes, held in

[1] Deeds in possession of W.M. Beddoes, Esq., of Cheney Longville.
[2] Vide supra, Vol. VI. p. 155.
[3] Rot. Hundred. II. 77.


January, 1256, Roger Waudin gave a fine of one merk for license to compound with Cecilia la Englesch (his father's widow), a suit concerning land. His surety was Adam Waudin. [1] The Fine which resulted, is preserved.- Thereby Cecilia le Engleys, tenant of the Manor of Longefeld, acknowledges the right of Roger Waudyn thereto. Roger, in turn, concedes it to Cecilia, to hold to her and her heirs for eleven years, she and they performing all services to the Lord of the Fee. At the end of the said term, the Manor is to revert to Roger. The Inquest taken in June, 1272, on the death of John fitz Alan (III) gives Roger Waldin as holding one knight's-fee in Longfeud, under the deceased Baron. In the subsequent partition, the services of Roger Waudin for Langefeld were assigned to the dower of Isabel de Mortimer, John fitz Alan's widow.

I know not how Bishop Burnell obtained an interest in this Manor; but the Inquest taken in December 1292, after his death, states him to have died seized of 21s. 4d. rent in Longefeld, which he held by a service of 4d., payable to Roger Waldeyn. [2] So also the Inquest on Philip Burnel's death, taken in July, 1294, gives him rents in Streford and Longefeld, as both held under Roger Waldyn. [3] Roger Waldyn's seigneury was however only over Longefeld. How Roger Waldyn's estate in Longfield passed to the Cheyneys, who gave the Manor its distinctive name, I have not been able to discover.-

ROGER DE CHEYNEY was, however, Lord of the Fee in October, 1315, when the Inquest on the death of Edward Burnell states the said Edward to have held 20s. rent in Longefeld under Roger de Cheyny. [4] Again in the Nomina Villarum of March, 1316, Roger de Cheisny is entered as Lord of the Vill of Longefeld. [5] In 1346 the Aid for knighting the Black Prince was assessed on Roger le Cheyne as tenant of that demi-fee in Longefeld which had previously been held by Roger Waldeyn. I must now revert to the previous century to give some account of this branch of the Cheneys, a Norman family which had its representatives in other Counties, from a period little later than the Conquest, but which does not appear in Shropshire till the reign of Henry III.-

HUGH DE CHENEY, who has occurred to us in a former Volume as living from 1240 to 1267, [6] was apparently successor of Sir

[1] Assizes, 40 Hen. III., m. 4.
[2] Inquisitions, 21 Edw. I., No. 50.
[3] Inquisitions, 22 Edw. I., No. 45-c.
[4] Inquisitions, 9 Edw. II., No. 67.
[5] Parliamentary Writs, Vol. IV. 399.
[6] Supra, Vol. V. pp. 33, 34, 189-191.


Alexander de Cheney, of Norton Cheney, near Culmington. I have further to say of this Hugh, that he occurs on a Montgomery Inquest in 1252, and that at the Assizes of 1256 he appears in office as one of the four Coroners of Shropshire. The Pipe-Roll of 1259 records a debt of one merk against Hugh de Cheney and Saer Manveysin. It was apparently the balance of a fine for respite of knighthood. In February 1262 Hugh de Chesney stands first on a list of the Regarders of the Long Forest. In Trinity Term 1263, Hugh de Cheyne and his estates were under process of distraint, as ordered by the Justices at Westminster, the object being to recover a debt of 5 merks due to the Abbot of Buildwas. Reginald, Provost of Norton, and Gilbert Rufus are mentioned as Hugh de Cheyne's manucaptors in the affair. In 1263 Hugh de Cheney appears as a Juror on a Minton Inquest. The Pipe-Roll of 1267 shows him as fining half a merk for some Trial-at-law, and as owing 40s. for some act of contempt. At the Assizes of 1272 he appears still in office as one of the County Coroners, and in March, 1276, he stands first Juror (after Knights) in the Inquest on the death of John le Strange. His further connection with the family of Le Strange appears in an Inquest of the year 1278. Robert le Strange, then deceased, had enfeoffed him in 194 acres of land and 100 solidates of rent at Katerinton or Kadinton (Hampshire); and it seems that since his Feoffor's death, Cheney had been encroaching on the rights of Le Strange's infant heir. [1] In the period immediately following the above, we have mention of a Robert de Cheyne and a-

JOHN DE CHENEY. The latter occurs in 1284 as Hugh's successor at Norton, and in 1292 he was Chief Bailiff of Purslow Hundred. After this we come to two contemporaries, viz. Hugh, son of Hugh de Cheney, and-

ROGER DE CHENEY. They were, perhaps, Uncle and Nephew. Both have occurred to us in former Volumes, viz. Hugh, son of Hugh, as living in 1299, [2] and Roger as living between the years 1292 and 1336. [3] I have merely to add, concerning Roger de Cheney, that he officiated as a Juror on the great Perambulation of the Shropshire Forests in the year 1300, and that he was Lord of Cheney Longville in 1316, as above noticed. Roger de Cheney had at least two sons. John, the younger, was an Ecclesiastic,

[1] Inquisitions, 6 Edw. I., No. 78.
[2] Supra, Vol. V. pp. 167, 190.
[3] Supra, Vol. IV. p. 120; Vol. V. pp. 14, 167, 190; Vol. VII. pp. 282, 296, 302, 317, 334; Vol. XI. pp. 19, 234, 263, 266, 318.


and became Rector of Easthope in 1312, Portioner of Wroxeter in 1314, and Rector of Cound in 1318. [1]

HUGH DE CHENEY, apparently the elder son of Roger, occurs frequently in his Father's lifetime, and between the years 1318 and 1336. [2] I have no evidence as to whether Hugh de Cheney survived his father, Roger, or not, except that, in 1343, Hugh stands first witness of an Edgton Deed. [3] I take it that-

ROGER DE CHENEY. Lord of Cheney Longville in 1346, was son and heir of Hugh.

OF UNDERTENANTS in Cheney Longville I have only to name William Baldwin and Adam Pyroun, who occur as witnesses of Deeds about 1284-5. [4]

Acton Scott, formerly Acton Super Montem, or Action in Longfield.

THE Domesday account of this Manor is as follows.- Eldred tenet de Comite Actune. Edricus tenuit. Ibi III hidae, geldabiles. Terra est IIII carucis. Ibi duo Villani et duo Radmans habent tres carucas. Ibi una Haia. Valuit (tempore Regis Edwardi) X solidos. Modo (valet) XV solidos. [5]

I suppose the Saxon Owner of Acton to have been Edric Sylvaticus. The Domesday tenant may have been Aldred, son of Siward, already spoken of under Cheyney Longville; but more probably was Aldred, brother of the same Siward, who follows the said Siward, the very year after Domesday, in attesting Earl Roger's Foundation-Charter of Quatford Church. [6] How the Fitz Alans became Seigneural Lords of Acton I have no notion, save that the deprivation of a Saxon would naturally result in the advantage of the most powerful of the neighbouring Feudatories. It is probable that the first William fitz Alan annexed Acton to the Fee of the first John le Strange, and that it constituted a part of those two

[1] Supra, Vol. IV. p. 120; Vol. VII. p. 317; Vol. VI. p. 79.
[2] Supra, Vol. I. p. 228; Vol. VII. pp. 296, 302; Vol. X. pp. 54, 55.
[3] Supra, page 266.
[4] Supra, page 368.
[5] Domesday, fo. 259, b. 2.
[6] Supra, Vol. I. p. 112.


knights'-fees of new feoffment, which the said John was holding in 1165 under the Barony of Oswestry. [1] But the Stranges of Ness were never more than Mesne-Lords of Acton. The Tenants-in-fee were descended from a number of Coheiresses, whose origin and aera it is almost vain to conjecture. The estate was in short the subject of a very ramified Coparcenery. Inasmuch as I cannot trace these Coparceners to a common Ancestor, I think it better to set down in chronological order whatever I conceive to relate to them or their estate.

In 1168 Robert de Acheton and his brother had negotiated a Fine of 5 merks with the Justiciar, Alan de Nevill. It was that they might have their rights in respect of certain land. The Fine was in arrear for years, and the Pipe-Rolls repeatedly certify that the Debtors were not to be found.

At the Forest Assizes of 1209, Reginald de Acton is twice assessed for imbladements, within Regard of the Long Forest. In one instance, he is called Reginald fitz Helewise de Acton.

In 1231, Hugh Pollard of Wistanstow, Everard de Fieldhampton, and Robert fitz Reginald were jointly amerced 20s. because their dogs coursed without license. The third of these persons was, I think, of Acton. Robert de Stepelton stood Manucaptor for their due discharge of the debt.

About the year 1240, Walter le Scot of Acton stands first witness of a Deed, already cited under Hope Bowdler. [2]

On October 28, 1252, Simon de Walton was named by Letters Patent, as the Justiciar who was to try a suit of dernier presentment which Margery de Smethcott had arraigned against Roger Pichard and others, concerning the Advowson of the Church of Acton. This Patent reveals to us two at least of the Coparceners of Acton, and a further comparison with the histories of Aldon [3] and of Smethcott [4] shows us that the same two persons were also Coparceners in one or both of those Manors. Within three years of this time, Margery de Smethcott had been succeeded by her Grandson, Philip, at Smethcott, and by her younger son, Stephen, at Aldon and Acton Scott: also Roger Pichard remained a Coparcener in Smethcott, but his name is not again mentioned as having any concern in Aldon or Acton Scott. This remark brings us to the Munslow Hundred-Roll of 1255, which names Walter le Seculer, Stephen de Smethcot, Thomas Purcel and Reginald Scot, as the Coparceners of

[1] Liber Niger, Vol. I. p. 144.
[2] Supra, Vol. V. p. 117.
[3] Vide supra, Vol. V. page 27; and Vol. VI. page 252.


Acton and Hennel' (Henley). "They held the estate, reputed to be two hides, under John le Strange. They did suit to Munslow Hundred, and paid the King 2s. yearly for stretward and motfee". [1] It is not probable that this extract names all the Coparceners of Acton. Of the four which are named, two (Stephen de Smethcott and Thomas Purcel) were also Coparceners in Aldon, and one (Thomas Purcel) was a Coparcener in Smethcott.

The Pipe-Roll of 1259 gives Reginald le Escot as paying an amercement of one merk, for some trespass. A Minton Inquest, taken about March, 1263, was attended by Walter le Scot and Reginald his son as Jurors. I cannot explain this, except by supposing that Walter was the Son, and Reginald the Grandson, of that Reginald Scot who occurs in 1255 and 1259. At the Assizes of 1272, Reginald le Scot's name is entered on the Roll as guilty of some contempt. At the same time he was officiating as one of the Jurors for Munslow Hundred. The following Fine, levied at these same Assizes, requires some remark. It must be understood, I think, as a sale or gift of a part of the Manor of Acton by one of the Coparceners: but from which of the former Coparceners Robert de Acton derived his title, or which of the subsequent Coparceners represented Malcolumb de Harley, I cannot say. By the said Fine, "Robert de Hacton (Impedient) acknowledges that the Manor of Hacton-in-Longef'dsdale is the right of Malcolumb de Harley, to whom he surrenders it, except a Capital Messuage and three nokes of land, which Robert is to retain for his life, paying a rent of one penny to Malcolumb and his heirs".

A Minton Inquest, held in October, 1274, was attended by Robert de Munselowe and Robert de Stretton, of both of whom we shall presently hear more. A Fine of May 1, 1278, shows that Joan, wife of Nicholas de Stafford, was a Coparcener in Acton and Henley, and concurred with her husband in selling her share (apparently one-sixth) of the estate, to Robert de Stretton, Clerk. The said Nicholas and Joan (Impedients) acknowledge themselves to have given to the said Robert (Plaintiff), 2 virgates of laud, 6 acres of meadow, 60 acres of bosc, one-sixth of a Mill, and one-sixth of the Advowson of the Church of Acton in Longefeld, with all appurtenances in Acton and Henneleg;- to be held by the said Robert and his heirs, under Nicholas and Joan, and the heirs of Joan for ever, at a rent of one penny. For this Robert de Stretton paid 60 merks.

[1] Rot. Hundred. Vol. II. p. 71.


The Feodary of 1284 gives us five Coparceners of Acton in Longefeld, which "was held for half a knight's-fee under John le Strange". These were "Reginald le Escot, Robert de Monselowe, Roger fitz Stephen, John Purcel, and Cecily le Seculer". Here we have the four Coparceners of 1255 reproduced, one of them in person, the other three by their heirs, for doubtless Roger fitz Stephen, was son of Stephen de Smethcott. In another part of this Feodary of 1284, Reginald le Escot appears as a Coparcener in Smethcott, and John Purcel as a Coparcener in Aldon.

About this time (1284) Cecily le Seculer seems to have enfeoffed John son of Richard de Hatton in her share of the Manor. The said John soon transferred the feoffment to Alice, daughter of the then Rector of Acton le Scot. I have an abstract of the last Deed. Thereby "John, son of Richard de Hatton, grants to Alice, daughter of Sir Hugh, Rector of the Church of Acton le Scot, for 8 merks now paid, all his land in the vill of Acton le Scot which he had purchased from Cecily le Seculers, to be held by the said Alice and her heirs, under the said Cecily and her heirs, freely, etc., and for the same rent as was reserved in the original grant from Cecily to John. Witnesses,- Reginald le Scot, Robert de Henneley, Roger de Smethcote, Richard de Hatton, Chaplain, and William de la Wood". [1] I imagine that Robert de Henley, the second witness of this Deed, was identical with Robert de Stretton, Clerk, the Grantee of 1278; and that Roger de Smethcott was identical with Roger fitz Stephen, the Coparcener of 1284.

In 1292, John Purcel, Reginald Scot and his wife, Isabella, have been seen to be Coparceners of Aldon. [2]

On November 12, 1305, the following persons acted as joint patrons of the Church of Acton super Montem, viz. (1) Elias de Sutton and Beatrix his wife, as guardians of Stephen, son and heir of Robert de Henneleye; (2) Roger Devereux and Katharine his wife; (3) William de Lodelowe; (4) Isabella Le Skot (probably widow of Reginald). I do not think that all the Coparceners took share in this matter, and, of the four who were represented, I can only connect one with a relative Coparcener of 1284. The son and heir of Reginald le Scot (deceased in 1305) was named Walter. This Walter was born about the year 1268, and he had a son, Reginald, who was married to one Alice on April 4, 1314.

In the Nomina Villarum of March 1316, [3] the Earl of Arundel

[1] Abstracts of Deeds, communicated by S.S. Smith, Esq., of Bridgnorth.
[2] Supra, Vol. V. page 28.
[3] Parliamentary Writs, IV. 398.


and John Purcel are given as Lords of the vills of Acton Scot, Feldhampton and Marsh, all in Munslow Hundred. This involves our subject in unnecessary confusion. I conceive that the Earl had nothing to do with Acton Scott, except perhaps that he had a nominal Seigneury there, a thing which the Record in question is not concerned with. And as to John Purcel, he was only one of several Coparceners in Acton Scott, and had no interest in Felhampton or Marsh.

We have seen Walter Scot of Acton attesting a local Deed on April 15, 1316, [1] and making a grant at Smethcott in 1320, where he styles himself Walter son of Reginald de Scottes-Acton. [2] On August 25, 1328, Walter le Scot, then sixty years of age, presented himself at Wenlock, as a witness to prove that Margery fitz Aer was born at Wistanstow on April 4, 1314. He recollected the fact because his own son, Reginald, was married on the same day. [3] John de Acton, aged 41, was another witness on this occasion. He remembered the date, because, being in the service of Thomas fitz Aer, Margery's father, it fell to him to carry the news of his daughter's birth to the said Thomas.

William de Smethcote occurs, apparently as having an interest at Aldon in 1327, [4] and perhaps was the same person with William son of Roger de Smethcott who follows his elder brother, Philip, in a testing-clause four years earlier. [5]

John de Scottes Acton appears in 1338 as a Joint Patron of Smethcott Church. [6]

The Aid for knighting the Black Prince was levied in 1346 and was assessed at the rate of 40s. per fee on half a knight's-fee in Acton Scot and Heneleye. The tenants named, are "Laurence de Ludlow, William Purcel, and Stephen de Heneleye"; but other Coparceners contributed to the impost.

On August 22, 1349, the Bishop of Hereford issued a commission to try the rights of Sir Laurence de Ludlow and William Purcel of Norbury, affecting to be Patrons of Acton-Scot Church.

In March 1355 and January 1393, William de Smethcott took his turn as a Patron of Smethcott Church; and Roger son of John de Scottes Acton took a similar turn in 1392. A Feodary, drawn up in 1397-8, calls the same person (as I think) Roger de Acton, and gives him as the sole Tenant of half a knight's-fee in Acton

[1] Supra, page 365.
[2] Supra, Vol. VI. p. 253.
[3] Inquisitions, 2 Edw. III., No. 63.
[4] Supra, Vol. V. p. 28.
[5] Supra, Vol. VI. p. 254.
[6] Ibidem, page 257.


Scot, held under the Barony of Fitz Alan. [1] However, in 1400 Hugh Purcell presented to the Church of Acton Scot; as did Thomas Earl of Arundel and Surrey, in 1408.

The above extracts, even when combined with those which have been quoted on a cognate subject, under Aldon and Smethcott, will show how impossible it is to give a connected history of any Manor thus held in Coparcenery, unless the Coparceners happened to hold in capite. It is probable that in the 13th century there were not less than six Coparceners in Acton Scott, and that their common ancestor belonged to the 12th century. Some of them it is clear sold their shares; so that, as mesne tenures became obsolete, we are at a loss to know whether any new Coparcener became so, by purchase, or by inheritance. Again it is not likely that all the Co-parceners of Acton Scott were at any time resident in the Manor. Several of them doubtless subinfeuded their shares, and this introduced a secondary class of Feoffees, whom I usually speak of as-

UNDERTENANTS. A few of these should be mentioned in the present instance. The first Record I shall quote is curious in point of law and usage, but may possibly belong to some other place than Acton Scott.-

At the Assizes of 1221 a question arose as to who was the heir of Mable de Acton, deceased. The said Mable had lived many years with William de Acton, a Priest, and had had by him a son, Arnulf. Afterwards she married Richard de Acton, and had had by him a son, Richard. Her two sons disputed about her inheritance, Arnulf, the elder, declaring that his father had married Mable, before he took Holy Orders. The Jury found otherwise, viz. that there had never been any such marriage; so seizin of the lands in dispute was given to Richard, the younger, and legitimate, son of Mable. A Fine appears to have been levied on the occasion.- Thereby "Arnulf fitz William, Tenant of a virgate in Acton, releases the same to Richard fitz Richard, Plaintiff in a suit of mort d'ancestre, and receives 2 merks".

I think that the following Trial, which took place in 1256, concerned land in the neighbourhood of Acton Scott.- Alice, widow of Reginald de Okes, sued one Richard fitz Robert for her dower, or third part of a messuage and virgate in Prestecote. The Tenant and Defendant, it seems, had been enfeoffed by William le Fleming, and he by William, son of Reginald de Acton. [2] The said William fitz Reginald, being called to warranty, did not deny his liability,

[1] Calend Inquis. Vol. III. p. 222.
[2] Probably identical with Reginald de Okes.


but pleaded that he had not the wherewithal, for that he had demised all his lands for a term to Walter fitz John of Ragdon. Moreover he stated that the Plaintiff, Alice, already had her thirds. Walter fitz John, being summoned and examined, admitted that he held William fitz Reginald's lands for a term of 25 years. The Court allowed the Plaintiff's claim, but it does not appear how the Defendant, the Warrantor, and the Lessee, were respectively affected by the judgment.

At the Forest Assizes of 1262 William de Acton in Longe, as he is called, was amerced 12d. for vert.

At the Assizes of 1272 it appeared that the above Reginald de Okes had left not only a son, William, but three daughters, Amice, Alice, and Agnes. Agnes again had married and was now represented by two daughters, Cecily and Isolda. These four ladies now questioned certain feoffments made by their respective brother and uncle (William), during his life, on the ground that he was non compos mentis when he made them. The Jury found this allegation to be untrue and the Ladies took nothing. The Tenant, originally enfeoffed by William fitz Reginald, seems to have been Walter de Okes, and the feoffment to have been a virgate in Acton Scot. The present Tenants were Margery (Walter de Oke's widow), in nearly one-third of the virgate, and Richard (Walter de Oke's son) with his wife Isolda, in nearly two-thirds of a virgate. The residue of the virgate, being a few acres, was held by Sub-feoffees, viz. Reginald le Scot, John Chulbe, and Adam fitz Reginald, and by Richard son of Reginald de Acton, who was only a tenant-at-will of Richard, son of Walter de Okes. [1]

In July 1283, Philip, Clerk of Acton, occurs on a local Jury.


This was perhaps originally an affiliation of Stretton Church. The Taxation of 1291 calls it the Church of Acton in Longfeld, places it in the Deanery of Wenlock, and values it at 5. per annum. [2]

In 1341 the Assessors of the Ninth quote the said Taxation of Acton Scott Chapel, and reduce it to a levy of 1. 6s. 8d. on the Parish.- "The lands were unfilled for want of means. There were no sheep in the Parish. The hay-tithes, oblations, small-tithes, and glebe, increased the Church-Taxation by 2. 13s. 4d., but were not

[1] Assizes, 56 Hen. III., m. 8.
[2] Pope Nich. Taxation, page 167.


to be taken into account in estimating the present tax", which was a Ninth of wheat, wool, and lamb. [1]

In the Valor of 1534-5, the Preferment of Richard Spragge, Rector of Acton Scott, consisted of glebe and small tithes, worth 5. 16s. 8d. yearly. Out of this he paid 6s. 8d. for Procurations, and 6d. for Synodals. [2]


ROBERT, Parson of Akton in Longefelddesdale, occurs in 1259, as we shall see when we come to Alcaston Chapel.

HUGH, Rector of Acton le Scott, occurs about 1284.

RICHARD, SON OF ROBERT DE HENNELEYE, Clerk, was instituted to the Church of Acton super montem, on Nov. 12, 1305. The names of the Patrons on this occasion have been already given, and it will be seen that the Presentee's elder brother, and therefore the Presentee himself, were Minors. The inference is that the Church was non-curative.

PHILIP DE MUNEDE, presented in 1320, sued the last Incumbent for this Church. A vacancy in 1349 was probably the work of the Great Pestilence. The Patrons neglected to present, and on Oct. 20 of that year the Bishop exercised his jus lapsus by presenting-

WILLIAM DE CALVERHALL. This Rector had a license of non-residence in 1368.

JOHN ALEYN was instituted to the "Church of St. Bartholomew" at Acton, in 1400, at the presentation of Hugh Purcell. On Aleyn's death, and on Sept. 26, 1408,-

RICHARD DOBYN was presented by Thomas, Earl of Arundel and Surrey.

[1] Inquis. Nonarum, page 187.
[2] Valor Ecclesiasticus, III. 209. Return to top of page

URL of this page: http://www.melocki.org.uk/eyton/Vol11.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.