Non omnia grandior setas
Quae fugiannis habet.




1. To precede page 1. MAP OF PART OF SHROPSHIRE (duplicate).
2. To face page 28. STRETTON CHURCH. Rev. J. Brooke, del.


THIS was the only Manor in Lenteurde Hundred, which Helgot held immediately of the Norman Earl of Shrewsbury.- Isdem Helgot tenet AElmundestune. Edricus tenuit. Ibi una hida, geldabilis. Terra est IIII carucis. In dominio est una (caruca); et II Servi et V Villani cum una caruca. Valebat XX solidos. Modo (valet) VIII solidos. [1]

I may refer to what has been said under Charlcott, Burwarton, Oxenbold, and other places, [2] for statements of the large proportion of Helgot's Domesday tenures which passed, by feoffment or inheritance, to the family of Girros. Alcaston was among the number. Hence in 1195, when the Escheator occupied all the lands of Robert de Girros, deceased, he accounts to the Crown for 20s. as the current receipts of Robert de Girros's Manor of Agemundeston, and for 6s. 8d. as the value of hay, sold therefrom. [3]

When, about the year 1251, De Girros's Fief was divided among his coheirs (Hopton and Constantine), Alcaston fell to the former. That which so descended was however nothing more than a mesne-tenure; for the Rossalls had already been enfeoffed in the Manor. The first Thomas de Rossall seems again to have sub-enfeoffed his eldest son, Vivian, in the Manor. This brings us to the state of things, as they are partially described in the Munslow Hundred-Roll of 1255.- "Phinian de Roghale holds Alhameston under Thomas his father, for one hide of land. He does suit neither to County nor Hundred; the Jurors know not by what warranty of exemption; but he pays the King 12d. yearly for strelward and motfee. And the aforesaid suit has been withdrawn five years, to the loss of the King at the rate of 2s. per annum". [4]

The above withdrawal of the suit of Alcaston from the ordinary jurisdiction of County and Hundred is to be attributed to the Barons

[1] Domesday, fo. 258, b, 2.
[2] Supra, Vol. I. p. 153; Vol. III. pp. 31, 32; Vol. IV. p. 20.
[3] Rot. Pipe, 7 Ric. I.; Schedule of Escheats, Tit. Salop.
[4] Rot. Hundred. II. p. 70.


of Holgate, probably to William Mauduit, the last of them. The King of the Romans and the Master of the Templars (both in their turn Lords of Holgate) persisted in these encroachments on the prerogative of the Crown. A general Inquest (now nearly defaced) was taken on the subject, late in Henry III.'s reign. Enough remains to show that Allameston was one of the Vills specified as having been withdrawn from Munslow Hundred. [1]

Vivian de Rossall was still Lord of Halchamston in 1259, but within the next eight years he seems to have transferred the fee-simple to John fitz Alan (II). Hence in the Inquest, taken on that Baron's death in 1267, Sir Walter de Hopton (his own Vassal at Hopton Castle) is recorded as his Suzerain at Halchameston. Fitz Alan's rent to the said Walter was 6d. per annum, or a pair of gilt spurs. The net value of the estate was 2. 15s. 2d. per annum. [2]

There must have been some negotiation between Vivian de Rossall (II) and John fitz Alan (III) about this Manor: for in September 1272, Reymund, a younger son of the said Vivian, was Tenant-in-fee thereof. At the Assizes, then held, the Munslow Jurors presented that "Vivian de Roshal owed suit to the Hundred for Alghameston, that the said suit had been withdrawn 16 years, and that Reymund, son of the said Vivian, now held the Manor". And, again at these Assizes, Isabella, widow of John fitz Alan (III), sued Reymund de Haghman (it should be de Halgameston) for one-third of the Manor of Holgamton, as part of her dower. This was an indication that she at least imagined her late husband to have been sometimes seized in demesne of the same, so that what I have surmised as to a re-feoffment becomes doubly probable. Reymund called young Richard fitz Alan to warranty (of his father's charter, I presume); but, he being a minor, his Guardians (Roger de Mortimer and Robert Aguylon) were summoned to give warranty on an adjourned day. On the said day (in Hilary Term 1273) Mortimer appeared, and stated that he owned his guardianship by virtue of a Charter of the late King, Henry III.; and that therefore he could give no warranty without the King. Aguylon said that, for his part, he had a share of the said wardship, merely in the capacity of a King's Bailiff. On Nov. 27, 1273, King Edward I. issued a Writ to the Sheriff of Shropshire, ordering him to extend the vill of Halchamston, one-third whereof was claimed by Isabella aforesaid, in dower. The extent was made by Jurors of the Vicinage, viz. "Philip Russel, Thomas de Stock in Acton, John de Wiggelei in

[1] Inquis. incert. temp. Hen. III., No. 25-b.
[2] Inquisition., 52 Hen. III., No. 37.


Acton, Thomas de Munslow, Robert Clerk of Henley, and others". Their valuation specified the following sources of annual receipt.- De Dominico 10s. De Feno 10s. De Molendino 15s. De Serverio [1] 12d. De Gardino 5d. De Curia 6d. De redditibus 29s. et 1 lib. cumin. De anciliis, [2] tercio anno, 6s. There was also a bosc appurtenant to the Manor, but being in the King's Forest nothing could be had therefrom but firewood. The gross value of the estate is computed to be 3. 19s. 5d. per annum. [3] I presume one-third of such revenue was assigned by the King to Isabella de Mortimer, but charged on some other source.

The Feodary of 1284 shows Reymund de Rossall fully recognized as Reymund de Alcaston. He held Alcaneston under the heir of John fitz Alan for half a knight's-fee. The said heir is further stated to have held of the King; but I doubt whether the mesne-tenure of De Hopton is not too arbitrarily suppressed by such a statement. An Inquest, held on June 4, 1302, after the death of Richard, Earl of Arundel, says that the said Earl's tenure at Alkamston was under Walter de Hopton, by service of a pair of gilt spurs. The estate was valued at 1. 19s. 0d. per annum. [4]

It would seem from this that the tenancy of Reymund de Alcaston had expired. Other Tenants, probably Feoffees of Fitz Alan, appear afterwards. On April 17, 1306, a Fine was levied at Westminster, whereby Reginald de Muneton, Impedient, gives to his son Peter, ostensibly for 10, one messuage, 3 acres of meadow, and 8 and two-thirds acres of land in Woluretone and Alghamston.


This was originally subject to the Church of Acton Scott. Its former existence is asserted by Tradition and ascertained by other evidences.

On May 11, 1259, Giles de Erdinton is appointed by Patent, to try a suit of Dernier presentment concerning the Chapel of Halehamston, which Vivian Roshall claimed against Robert, Parson of Akton in Longefelddesdale.

On Oct. 20, 1344, Roger Godessone of Hungerford and his wife, Alice, acknowledge, by Fine, that they have given 11 acres of land, one acre of meadow, and one-third of a messuage in Wolreton (Wollerton) to Roger de Affecote, Parson of the Chapel of Alghamston;- to hold of the Lords of the Fee.

[1] A Stew, or fish-pond.
[2] Perhaps De auxiliis should be read.
[3] Inquisitions, 2 Edw. I., No. 51.
[4] Inquisitions, 30 Edw. I., No. 30.


On March 19, 1349, Roger de Affecote, Rector of the Chapel of Alcamaston, exchanges that preferment with Henry Tatton, for a Prebend of Westbury. [1]

Minton and Wittingslow.

Domesday couples these two Manors together, and notices them, very briefly, as properly in Lenteurde Hundred, but as recently annexed to Earl Roger's exempt Jurisdiction of Church Stretton. Leofric, Earl of Mercia, had been the Saxon Lord of Minton and Wittingslow, perhaps of Stretton also, but Domesday when speaking of Stretton adverts to the period when Edwin (Earl Leofric's grandson) held it. The Domesday entry about Minton and Wittingslow is as follows.- In Lenteurde Hundred habuit Leuric Comes duo Maneria, Munetune et Witecheslawe. Ibi IIII hidae, geldabiles. Hi (sic) duo Maneria jacent in firma Rogerii Comitis ad Stratune. [2]

By one of the Norman Earls, or more probably by Henry I., Minton, or some part thereof, was again separated from Stretton, and was constituted a tenure by Serjeantry. Wittingslow, and with it perhaps a part of Minton, was similarly annexed to the Fee or Honour of Montgomery. This rearrangement obliges me to speak of the two places distinctly.


The Serjeantry of Minton obliged its tenant to keep and protect those portions of the Long Forest, which lay about the Stretton and Long-Mynd hills, but more especially to preserve the two Royal Hayes of Haycrust and Bushmoor, the citadels, as it were, of the whole jurisdiction.

The Serjeants of Minton were also Fitz-Alan's Tenants at Willstone (near Cardington), under which place I have given but slight particulars of their descent, [3] reserving much more to the present occasion.

FOULCIUS will presently be shown to have been the original Grantee of the Crown in respect of the whole vill of Minton. The previous Tenants were made subject to him. I cannot think that this was later than Henry I.'s reign, but the date is quite uncertain.

[1] Vide supra, Vol. VII. p. 61.
[2] Domesday, fo. 259, b, 2.
[3] Supra, Vol. V. p. 126.


WALTER, the supposed head of this family in 1165, was perhaps identical with-

WALTER DE WILLAVESTON, who occurs on the Forest-Roll of 1180, as compounding for some pourpresture or imbladement, by payment of 12d.

WALTER DE MINITON, the first actually recorded Tenant of this Serjeantry, occurs in September 1199. He then paid 2 merks for some assessment or amercement, set upon his Serjeantry by the Justices-in-Eyre. A Record, drawn up within two years of the same date, makes Walter de Muneton's estate to be 1 carucates, held by Serjeantry, in Muneton. A third of this estate (held in demesne) was worth 10s. per annum, the rest (let out to Villeins) paid him 20s. [1] At the Assizes of 1203, Walter de Muneton appears as Security for a Fine proffered by Hamo Marscot, and for an amercement set upon Hugh de Scotot of Bitterley.

At the Forest Assizes of 1209, Walter de Muneton was twice assessed for assarts in the Long Forest. A Tenure-Roll, drawn up about the year 1210, makes Walter de Muneton's Serjeantry to be "the forestership of Longa Munede". [2] A similar Roll of 1211 makes him "Custos of the King's Forest of Longa Muneton".

RICHARD DE MUNETON, successor, and probably son, of Walter, first occurs on the Assize-Roll of November 1221. He had accused John fitz Alan of disseizing him of a tenement in Acton (probably Acton Scott), but withdrew the suit. His Sureties were Richard fitz Mayun and Hugh le Engleis. A Writ-Close of August 18, 1225, exempts Richard de Muneton and other Foresters of the King from liability to serve on Juries, Inquests, etc. [3] A Tenure-Roll of the year 1227 represents Richard de Muneton's estate at Muneton to be only 5 acres, held by service of keeping the Forest. [4]

From about Michaelmas 1227 to Michaelmas 1229 Richard de Muneton was Fermor of his Royal Manor of Stretton. He paid 48 for the two years of his trust. In 1231 he occurs as Surety for Henry de Sibton. At Michaelmas 1233 the Sheriff had paid, by the King's order, 57 shillings to Richard de Muneton and his band. It was the head-money of 57 Welshmen who had been apparently intercepted and slain in a foray at Stretton-dale.

ADAM DE MUNETON was (as we have seen under Winston) Lord of that Manor in 1240. When, about March 1247, Robert Passelewe visited Shropshire, to ascertain the state of Serjeantries, he set

[1] Testa de Nevill, p. 61.
[2] Liber Ruber Scacc. fo. cxxxij.
[3] Rot. Claus. Vol. II. p. 59.
[4] Testa de Nevill, p. 54.


an arrentation of 40d. on one bovate and half a virgate, which had been alienated from the "Serjeantry of Muneton". The person assessed was not Adam, but Peter, de Muneton; for at Michaelmas 1250,-

PETER DE MUNETON is the person entered on the Pipe-Roll as liable for 3 years' arrears of Passelew's arrentation. [1] His duties, still to be discharged, were "to keep custody of the Forest of Longa Munede, of the Haye of Bissemore and of Haucchurste, and of the Forest of Stratton and Heywode". [2] A Tenure-Roll of the year 1251 repeats this statement as to Peter de Mineton's services, and adds that the alienated bovate and half-virgate aforesaid were held hy Richard fitz Edeline and Walter fitz Richard. [3] Peter de Muneton is said to pay the arrentation of 40d.; but the fact is that the Feoffees paid it through his hands. The Hundred-Roll of 1255 proves this, and also shows us that Richard de Muneton was the original alienator of these lands. It says that "Richard de Muneton and Stephen de Hope abstracted 50 acres of land and more from the Manor of Stretton": also that "Richard, Lord of Muneton, sold a half-virgate to Walter fitz Richard, and a noke to Richard fitz Odeline, which two parties pay the King 3s. 4d". [4]

The same Record makes frequent mention of Peter de Muneton as the existing Forester of Stretton.- "He claimed no perquisites, such as dead wood, cheminage, fowls, oats, or eggs, but only his bailiwick and his land. He had goats, pastured in his own wood, and frequenting the unwooded hills; but the latter was a privilege enjoyed by even the poor people of the manor of Stretton in the time of every King, and which indeed constituted their livelihood". The same Hundred-Roll of 1255 gives Peter de Muneton as Foreman of the Munslow Jury.

At the Assizes of 1256 Peter de Muneton occurs on a Jury and as a Defendant. In the latter capacity he ceded one-third of a half virgate in Wytton, and John le Means ceded one-third of 4 acres in Stretton to Sibilla, widow of Richard le Engleys, who had claimed the same as her dower.

At the Forest-Assizes of February 1262 it was stated that a doe (bissa), haying been stricken with an arrow in the Chase of Thomas Corbet (of Caus), afterwards fled to the King's Forest and fell dead in a preserve which was within the Bailiwick of Peter de Muneton. The only result of this presentment was that the vills of

[1] Rot. Pipe, 34 Hen. III., Salop.
[2] Heywood was a part of Wenklock Edge.
[3] Testa de Nevill, p. 59.
[4] Rot. Hundred. II. pp. 83, 84.


Little-Stretton, Hope (Bowdler), Acton (Scott), and Marsh, were pronounced in misericordia for not attending to investigate the matter. But at the same time another entry on the Roll proves that Peter de Muneton was dead. His name is entered on the list entitled Essonia Mortis, and Geoffrey de Muneton was his Essoignor. At this point of our story we have to encounter some difficulty. It would seem that Peter de Muneton was succeeded in office and estate by-

JOHN DE MUNETON, his son. [1] A Writ of Diem clausit, dated February 21, 1263, announces the death of John de Moniton, and it appears that a subsequent Inquest (now defaced) spoke of the said John's tenure of the Manor of Moniton, and of his connection with the Forests of Bisemore and Hauechurst. [2] The same Inquest (as far as I can decipher or restore it) gives the deceased John three sisters and coheirs, viz. Alice (aged 28), Agnes (aged 26), and Margery (aged 25). [3]

A Patent of March 15, 1263, gives to Margery, daughter and co-heir of John de Muneton, license to marry whom she pleased, for a Fine of 4 merks, paid by her to the Crown. I have no hesitation in saying that of the above three Ladies (sisters of John, and daughters of Peter de Muneton) Alice was already married to Saer Mauveysin of Berwick. But (to proceed with actual Records) a Writ of March 18, 1263 informs the Escheator that the King has accepted the homage of Margery, daughter and coheir of John de Moneton, and of Richard de Grimenhull, who had married Agnes, the second daughter of the same John. The Escheator was to take security for the payment of two-thirds of 10 merks, as the proportionable relief of the said Margery and Agnes, and divide their inheritance in equal portions (that is, to give a third to each), but to retain the share of Saer Mauveisyn and his wife Alice, the eldest coheir, till the King should give further orders. [4] In this Record the word filia, whenever used, is underlined, as though there was a nearly coeval knowledge of its inaccuracy. It appears that John de Muneton left a widow, Isabel. In Trinity Term 1263 the said Isabel (through her Attorney, William fitz Roger) was suing Richard de Grimenhull, his wife Agnes, and Agnes's sister Margery, for a third of the Manor of Muneton, which she (Isabel) claimed in dower. The Defendants appeared not at Westminster; so the said third was seized in manu Regis, till Michaelmas term.

[1] Supra, Vol. VII. p. 392.
[2] Inquis. Calend. Vol. I. p. 22.
[3] Inquis. 47 Hen. III., No. 1.
[4] Rot. Finium, 47 Hen. III., m. 8.


Before I proceed any further with the history of the sisters and coheirs of John de Muneton I must deal with another question of equal difficulty with that which has been now dismissed. It concerns the parentage of that Peter de Muneton, whose eldest daughter was born about 1235, and who died about 1260-1. I have said under Willston that this Peter was son of Adam de Muneton, Lord of Willston in 1240. [1] That statement was premature, as the following facts will manifest.-

ADAM DE MUNETON of 1240 was probably identical with Adam de Muneton, who in 1248-9 stood Security for a Fine, proffered by Stephen de Bitterley. Again in 1251-2, Adam de Muneton negotiated a Fine of 20s. with the Crown, the object expressed being pro habendo recordo. Again a Patent of August 1252 appoints Nicholas de Turri to try a suit of disseizin brought by Adam de Muneton against Robert de Peleshall, who had levelled a stank in Wilreston; and the contemporary Pipe-Roll charges Adam de Muneton one mark pro habendo brevi. Again the Pipe-Roll of 1263 records an amercement of 6s. 8d. set on Adam de Muneton pro falso clameo.

We have seen under Willstone that in 1255 Milo de Hope was Peter de Muneton's Tenant at Willstone. This is very extraordinary, for Milo de Hope was the father of Adam de Muneton; in other words, the son in 1240 had occupied the very position in which the father is found 15 years later.

There are two Deeds in the Haughmond Chartulary which must needs be quoted here. About the year 1260-1 (as I suppose) "Adam de Muneton, son of Milo de Hope, gives to the Abbey, together with his body, a rent of 4s., arising from land in Willereston, which land the Grantor had bought from Richard fitz Adam of Willereston. Witnesses,- Stephen de Buterleg and Sir Vivian de Roshall". Again, and apparently at the same time, "Peter, Lord of Muneton, confirms his brother Adam's gift and bequest (legacionem) of the aforesaid rent of 4s. Witnesses,- Sir Stephen de Buterleg and Sir Vivian de Roshall".

The premises in this case are now before us. The conclusions which they suggest are that Peter de Minton was not the son of Milo de Hope (for the said Milo was Peter's Tenant in 1255); and that Adam de Minton was half-brother to Peter. We may perhaps assume that after the death of Peter de Minton's father, his mother remarried with Milo de Hope, and had by him a son, Adam, and that Peter de Minton, though his name is not mentioned so early, was really Mesne-lord of Willstone in 1240. Why Peter's stepbrother should be named as Tenant of Willstone in 1240, and his stepfather named in 1255, is the residuary difficulty which I cannot solve, and which almost makes me doubt whether I have rightly interpreted all the documents above quoted.

A question remains as to who was Peter de Minton's father. That I can only answer negatively. It was not Richard de Minton. The latter was living in 1233; and therefore any widow of his cannot have had, by a second marriage, a son old enough to occupy the position which Adam de Minton occupied from 1240 to 1253. Peter de Minton therefore succeeded to Richard by some other relationship than that of son.

Lastly, I have to supply one or two former omissions with respect to Willstone. The extent of Fitz Alan's Oswestry Barony, taken in June 1272, is as I have said, utterly defaced; [2] but the subsequent partition of the said Baron's estates and fees is quite legible. It assigns to the King, as Guardian of Fitz Alan's heir, the services of half a knight's-fee held by Adam de Monitone in Wolfreton (Willstone). I cannot say whether this Adam was identical with, or the son of, him, who was living in 1260-1; but I suspect that Peter de Minton's coheirs had still a Mesne-lordship over Willston.

[1] Supra, Vol. V. page 126.
[2] Supra, Vol. V. page 126.


Between the years 1279 and 1286, "Adam, son of John de Willereston, acknowledges that his Ancestors and himself had been bound to pay 4s. rent to Haghmon Abbey for a messuage and half-virgate in Willereston; which rent had been recently recovered by the Abbey, under a King's Writ, and after an Inquest taken thereupon. He gives the Abbey power of distress to secure the same in future. Witnesses,- Sir Roger Sprenchose, then Sheriff of Salop, William Sprenchose".

There are later evidences of the Abbey having maintained and increased its influence in Willstone.

SAER MAUVEYSYN of Berwick married Alice, eldest sister and coheir of John de Minton, which Alice was born about 1235. This marriage had probably taken place long before John de Minton's death in 1263. Why the King detained Alice's purparty of her brother's estate, I cannot say. The disturbances of 1264-5 supervened, and probably caused a much longer period of escheat than the King had originally intended. At length, on April 18, 1266, the King being at Windsor, accepted the homage of Saer Mauvaisin and his wife Alice, sister and coheir of John de Mineton. The Escheator was ordered "to take security for a reasonable relief, and then to give the parties livery of their third of the said John's estates". [1]

I have elsewhere noticed a dispute between Saer Mauveysin and Richard de Grymenhull (his wife's brother-in-law), and how it was settled at the Assizes of 1272. The Escheator, it seems, had given to Alice Mauveysin more than her share in Minton. [2] At the same Assizes the Jurors for the Liberty of Stretton spoke of Saer Mauveysin as sole Tenant of the vill of Munetone, and added that he was performing the duties of his Serjeantry, viz. "custody of the Forest of Bushmoor and Haycrust". The Inquest taken in December 1233, on the death of Saer Mauveysin, has been already referred to.
[2] With regard to Moneton, it states that "he had held there, of the inheritance of his wife, a messuage, 20 acres of demesne, 3 acres of meadow, one-sixth of a Mill, and 15s. 8d. annual rent, by service of being custos of the Forest of Haycrust, Bushmoor, and Longmynde".

PETER MAUVEYSIN, son and heir of Saer, now succeeded. A presentment of the Stretton Jurors, at the Assizes of October, 1292, shows how Serjeantries which had fallen among Coparceners were managed. They said that "Peter son of Saer Mauveysin, Richard Mauveysin, Richard de Grymenhull, and Margery de Muneton, held two carucates of land, worth 40s. per annum, by Serjeantry"; that "Peter being son of the eldest of the three daughters [1] Rot. Finium, 50 Hen. III., m. 6.
[2] Supra, Vol. VII. page 393.


(de eynecia trium filiarum) of Peter de Muneton, did the service of the Serjeantry, and was the King's homager (est in homagio Regis)"; and that the others contributed to enable the said Peter Mauveysin to perform his service.

At these same Assizes, Laurence de Ludlow sought to hold Peter Mauveysin to an agreement made between Alice, Peter's mother, and the said Laurence. It appeared that on January 25, 1288, Alice (then a widow) had demised 28 acres of land, and 3 acres of meadow in Muneton and Whyttingeslaue, to Laurence de Ludlow, for 10 years; also that on Dec. 1289, the same Alice had demised 22s. rent to the said Laurence for eight years;- that Laurence had been seized of the land two years, and of the rent half a year, when Alice died, and the King seized the land as being a Serjeantry;- that then Peter Mauveysin obtained seizin, but refused to hold to the agreements made by his Mother, which agreements Laurence produced in Court. It was now settled, by Peter's concession, that "Laurence de Ludlow should hold the land for 8 years, and the rent for 7 years, longer". [1]

A Forest Inquisition, taken in December, 1296, was attended by Peter and Alan Mauveysin, as Under-Foresters of Shropshire. At his death in January 1299, Peter Mauveysin left a sister, Margery, surviving him. On Oct. 15 of that year, "Margery, daughter of Saer Mauveysin", fines half a merk for some judicial Writ.

A Jury, which sat at Muneton in Strettonesdale, on January 29, 1299, was attended by Richard and William de Afcote, by Walter le Schotte, William Aleyn, and by William Attewode and Walter Stevenes, both of Acton (Scott). It found that Peter Mauveysin, deceased, had held certain tenements in Muneton by Grand Serjeantry. Among the rest was a fourth part of a mill, paying a rent of 1 quarters of corn. Of this corn-rent (being 12 strikes) seven strikes had been given by one Thurstan Bony (described as Peter Mauveysin's Sexton) to the support of a Chaplain in Minton Chapel. The remaining 5 strikes, being part of Peter's effects, were valued at 20d. per annum. The whole estate of Minton (i.e. lands and rents) was valued at 1. 5s. 9d. per annum. Besides this, the Custody of the King's Hayes brought in 1. 6s. 8d. yearly, but this custody had been seized, as his Escheat, by Roger fitz John (of Bolas) as Seneschal of the Shropshire Forests, and he would allow no King's Officer to enter there. [2] Of the birth, age, and career of-

JOHN MAUVEYSIN, son and heir of Peter, I have already given

[1] Assizes, 20 Edw. I., m. 2 dorso.
[2] Inquisitions, 27 Edw. I., No. 20.


the chief particulars. [1] An Inquisition taken after his death, and on May 16, 1324, describes his Serjeantry in the usual terms. His estate at Muneton comprised a messuage (in ruins), 6 acres of demesne, worth 18d. yearly, and 6s. of assized rents. [2] The Inquest taken in July, 1326, and which proved-

JoHN MAUVEYSEN (II) to be of full age, repeats the statements of the Inquest of 1324 in its chief particulars; but puts the assized rents of Muneton at 11s. I now return to say a few words about-

RICHARD DE GRYMENHULL, and his wife Agnes. The latter was born about 1237, and having been married before 1263, was then heir to one-third of John de Muneton's estates. She died long before her husband, by whom she had three daughters, the eldest born in 1263; but her husband continued to hold her estates per legem Anglie, till the day of his death. That event is announced by a Writ of Diem clausit, dated Feb. 28, 1308. An Inquest, held at Shrewsbury on April 1 following, was attended by Reginald de Muneton, Walter le Scot, Philip de Wistanstow and Walter de Wytingeslawe. The deceased, they said, had held, per legem Anglie, one-third of the vill of Muneton, by serjeantry of keeping Haycrust and Bushmoor, near the Long Forest. The estate was valued at 1. 1s. 3d. yearly. Isabella, eldest daughter and heir of Richard and Agnes, was now 45 years of age and wife of William le Kyng; Amicia, their second daughter, was 44, and wife of Simon Underhull; Margery, their third daughter, was aged 40, and apparently unmarried. [3] We now return to-

MARGERY DE MUNETON, youngest sister and coheir of John de Muneton. She was born about 1238, and was yet unmarried in 1263. I believe that she afterwards married William le Fleming of Whitcott, whose aera has been already fixed as from 1246 to 1291. [4]

I refer to the three Minton Deeds which I have given under Whitcott [5] for the proofs, or rather probabilities of such a match, and for the mode in which William le Fleming and his wife and widow, Margery, dealt with their share of Minton. It will be observed that one of their Feoffees was Reginald fitz Walter of Minton. In singular keeping with the evidence of these Deeds we have a public Record.- At the Assizes of October, 1292, Margery, widow of William le Fleming, sued Reginald fitz Walter of Muneton for 5 acres, and Walter fitz Reginald of Muneton for 1 acres in

[1] Supra, Vol. VII. pp. 394-5. See also Vol. VI. p. 344.
[2] Inquisitions, 17 Edw. II., No 48.
[3] Inquisitions, 1 Edw. II., No. 8.
[4] Supra, Vol. XI., p. 216.
[5] Supra, Vol. XI., pp. 216, 217.


Muneton saying that they had no ingress thereto, save by William le Fleming, her deceased husband, whom, while he was living, she could not gainsay. The Tenants called William, son and heir of William le Fleming, to warranty. He appeared, but was obliged to surrender the premises to Margery, and to provide an equivalent out of his own lands for his Father's Feoffees. [1]

We have seen under Whitcott, that, within four years of this date (1292), Margery le Fleming made a provision in Minton for her two daughters, Joan and Amice. I doubt whether William le Fleming was her son, and what became of her daughters I know not.

THE UNDERTENANTS of Minton were (as was usually the case in estates held by Coparceners) very numerous. But, before any Coparcenery existed, there was a tenancy of ancient date and very singular character.- It was probably as early as the reign of Henry I. that a certain Alurid held a messuage and virgate in Minton, by service of keeping the Hayes of Bushmoor and Haycrust. This was by grant of some King, but a Jury of the thirteenth century knew nothing more specific about Alurid's title. Afterwards (but still, as I think, in Henry I.'s time), a certain Folcius came to Minton, and arrogated to himself the Lordship or Seigneury of the whole vill, having a Royal grant to that effect. Alurid hereupon became a kind of Deputy-Ranger. He, and all the Tenants of the said vill, and their successors, held immediately under Folcius and his heirs. In the time of Henry III., the heirship of Folcius was in Peter de Minton, and the heirship of Alurid was in John le Wodeward. The latter held his messuage and half the original virgate, by service of providing a man to guard the aforesaid Hayes in concert with another man appointed by Peter de Minton. A quarrel arose between Peter and John. Peter ejected John from his tenement, and forced him by distraint to perform other services than those which belonged to his tenement. This course Peter pursued through life, and when he died, one-third of Minton and one-third of John le Woodward's services were allotted to Peter's widow in dower. Saer Mauveysin, who married Peter's eldest daughter, succeeded to his Bailiwick, and continued to require, and to obtain, by still heavier distraint, the services which his father-in-law had imposed on John le Woodward's land (here stated to be a virgate). John le Woodward was succeeded by his son Richard, and in the year 1274, the said Richard petitioned Edward I. on the subject. The King by a Writ of April 25, 1274,

[1] Assizes, 20 Edw. I., m. 23.


ordered Roger de Clifford (Justice of the Forests citra Trent), to inquire into the matter. The Inquisition, thereupon held at Gretton, found the above facts, but what redress Richard le Woodward got I cannot say.

Richard fitz Edeline and Walter fitz Richard, who were enfeoffed at Minton by Richard de Minton before 1240, were, I think, father and son. Both Feoffees were apparently living in 1255, and Walter, son of Richard Hedelyne (as he is called) was surviving in 1284-5. He then sued Richard, Bishop of Hereford, John de Ploweden, and William de Eyton, for disseizing him of a right of common in Lydebyry, which belonged to his free tenement in Muneton. The Bishop's Bailiff so managed the defence that the Plaintiff and his Sureties (John de Moniton and William de Raggedon) were left in misericordia. [1] We have seen Walter, son of Richard fitz Edeline, mentioned as a former tenant in the Manor of Minton in a Deed of about 1285-91. [2] Meantime an Inquest of December 1283 was attended by Reginald de Muneton. I can hardly think that this Reginald de Muneton was son of Walter, son of Richard fitz Edeline, though he is called Reginald fitz Walter in the two feoffments which he acquired between 1285 and 1291 (as cited under Whitcott). The same two Deeds name several previous, and several existing, tenants in the Manor. Among the latter are Henry fitz Roger, Henry fitz Walter, and Richard fitz Richard.

The two following Deeds probably belong to the interval between 1292 and 1300.-

(1) Henricus filius Henrici de Muneton dedi, etc., Ricardo filio Nicholai de Herdewyke pro quadam summa, duas acras terre in campis de Muneton, quarum una jacet in campo de Gravenore inter terram Johannis de Herewyk ex una parte et terram Walteri filii Nicholai ex altera, et extendit se a prato de Gravenor usque le Holwesiche. Alia acra jacet super le Helden inter terram Reginaldi filii Walteri, etc., et extendit se versus le Outrake ejusdem ville:- habend' et tenend' de capitali domino;- reddendo pro me I denarium, etc., salvo regali servicio. Hiis testibus, Reginaldo filio Walteri de Muneton, Waltero filio suo, Ricardo filio Henrici de eadem, Waltero le Schirreve de eadem, Henrico clerico de Muneton et m. a.

(2) Reginaldus filius Walteri de Muneton remisi et quiet' clamavi Willielmo filio meo, pro servitio suo, totum jus in terris et tenementis cum mesuagio et pratis que erant de perquisitione mea, ubique infra villam de Muneton et extra, cum duobus croftis, videlicet in Le Lyncroft et in Le Berecroft, subtus villam de Muneton, juxta viam

[1] Swinfield's Register, fo. xxxiv.
[2] Supra, Vol. XI., page 217.


de Gravenor, etc., de quibus predictus Wilhelmus per cartam meam feoffamenti est feoffatus. Ita quod, etc. In cujus, etc. Hiis testibus, Elya de Sutton, Johanne Purcell, Johanne domino de la Munede, Waltero Scot de Acton, Ricardo filio Henrici de Muneton et multis aliis.

It will be seen from the above Deeds, and from those quoted under Whitcott, that Reginald fitz Walter had at least two sons, Walter and William.

The Inquest, taken after Peter Mauveysin's death in January 1299, enumerates his free-tenants, viz. Walter de Muneton (who paid him a rent of 2s. 8d., and was probably Reginald fitz Walter's son), Walter le Schirreve, John Atte-walle, John Raynald, Henry fitz Adam, and William Grate.

Reginald fitz Walter was, I presume, a different person to Reginald de Muneton, living in 1306, and whose grant to his son Peter has been quoted under Alcaston. [1] Also I find Reginald de Muneton sitting on a local Jury in 1308. The two following Deeds may perhaps be dated between 1310 and 1320.-

(1) "Ricardus *elbug de Muneton dedi Ricardo de Brintoon et Juliane uxori sue curtilagium in villa de Muneton. H.T., Waltero filio Reginaldi de Muneton, Waltero filio Walteri de eadem, Thoma de Fonte, Ricardo filio Ricardi, Philippo Godefrey et aliis".

(2) "Johannes filius Walteri le Schureye de Muneton dedi, etc., Regnero de Wolverton et Agneti uxori sue unum messuagium, etc. H.T., Waltero filio Reginaldi de Muneton, Wilhelmo fratre suo de Muneton, Johanne Zor, Thoma de Fonte, Philippo Godefez, Johanne Modesley, esc.".

Reginald de Muneton (he who occurs in 1306 and 1308) was buried by his son Peter on April 4, 1314. Peter appeared at Wenlock on August 25, 1328, and, being then 44 years of age, testified that Margery fitz Aer was baptized at Wistanstow on the very day when his father was buried. [2]

MINTON CHAPEL has been mentioned above as existing in 1299. Of course it was a mere appendage to the Manor-house of the Mauveysins. I learn that its site was recognized at the beginning of the present century. [3]


We have seen what was the Domesday status of this vill, and how it was annexed (probably by Henry I.) to the Honour of Montgomery.

[1] Supra, page 3.
[2] Inquisitions, 2 Edw. III., No. 63.
[3] Blakeway's MSS.


Under Gatacre, Great Lyth, Lydley Heys, and Waters Upton, I have said much of the family of Upton, descended from Walter fitz John and his wife Richildis. [1] This Richildis was heiress of a family, which had held a part of Wittingslow under the Lords of Montgomery in the 12th century. Richildis died long before her husband, who then seems to have dealt with her estate in a way which, as being only Tenant per legem Anglie, he was not entitled to do. The litigation, which ensued, commenced in the Courts of Westminster on Nov. 8, 1200. The Record is rather confused, but I venture to state that its essence is as follows.- William fitz Walter sued Herbert fitz Alan, for a hide of land in Wittingeslawe. William fitz Walter claimed under writ of mort d'ancestre, viz. as heir of his deceased mother, Richoldis. Herbert fitz Alan called Walter (fitz John), father of the Plaintiff, to warranty. The said Walter appeared, and stated that "Richoldis, his late wife, was mother of the Plaintiff and of several other children, amongst the rest of Matilda, wife of Herbert fitz Alan. To this Matilda he (Walter) had given the disputed hide of land in marriage". Hereto William fitz Walter replied that "his father could not legally thus dispose of his (William's) mother's hereditament". Walter rejoined that "having married Richoldis, he was entitled at least to hold her marriage-portion for life, and to warrant it to whom he pleased". [2]

On April 22nd, 1201, the cause was reopened, but it appeared that "Walter fitz John" was deceased; so the Court gave the Plaintiff leave to sue the Tenant of the land, if he pleased. He seems to have done so; for on Nov. 25, 1201, I find Herbert fitz Alan essoigning his attendance at Westminster, by Nicholas Oldeker. The case was adjourned to Trinity Term 1202, and the Sheriff was ordered to secure the attendance of several Defaulters, who were on the Jury, by attachment. At Shrewsbury Assizes, in October 1203, Herbert de Abacun (as he is here called) makes Walter de Muneton his attorney in this case, which was at length actually tried. The Jury found that "Richonda, mother of William, was seized on the day of her death of one hide in Witingeslow, now held by Herbert fitz Alan". The judgment was that "William do have his seizin, and Herbert be in misericordia for unjust detention". [3]

The Pipe-Roll of 1204 gives William fitz Walter as fining 3 merks for some assize to be had. It is probable that the dispute between himself and Herbert fitz Alan was reopened in the form of

[1] Supra, Vol. III. p. 88; Vol. VI. pp. 23, 195-6, 240; Vol. VII. p. 54.
[2] Placita, Mich. Tm. 2 John, m. 16 dorso.
[3] Assizes, 5 John, m. 6.


a suit by Grand Assize. Such a Suit was ended on Nov. 6, 1208, by a Fine, wherein William fitz Walter, Tenant of one hide in Witokeslawe, gives 4 merks to Herbert fitz Alan, for renouncing his claim to the same. [1]

Walter de Hupton has been seen attesting a Linley Deed between 1221 and 1230. [2] I am somewhat doubtful who this Walter was; [2] but a Walter de Upton, living at the time, was (as I have shown under Waters Upton) son and heir of William fitz Walter. Some time after the year 1240, Walter de Upton was succeeded at Waters Upton by Nicholas de Upton, probably his brother. The same thing will have happened earlier at Wittokeslawe, which is entered on the Feodary of 1240 as half a knight's-fee, held, under William de Cantilupe, by "Nicholas de Opton and his Coparceners". [3]

After this we find Waters Upton apparently divided among coheirs; but persons of the name of Upton, whether coheirs or not, continued to have an estate at Wittingslow.

We have seen that in 1255 Walter de Upton held lands in Brockton under the Bishop of Hereford. This only connects him with the neighbourhood, not with the Manor, of Wittingslow, but the coincidence is worth observing.

The Inquest taken in 1273 on the death of George de Cantilupe is lost. An old abstract thereof enumerates, among the "fees belonging to the Barony of Montgomery", the Manor of Wittokeslawe and a virgate of land in Moneton. [4] In Easter Term 1280, Milisent, sister of the said George, and now widow of Eudo la Zouche, was suing various Tenants of her late brother's Barony for their services. She so sued Walter de Upton, Walter de Gonsale, and Walter de Wytokeslewe, for half a knight's-fee in Wytokeslewe. A second half-fee, for which she impleaded William de Stanwardine, Hugh de Patinton, and Roger de Eston, is placed by the Record in Eyton-Stokes and Monentun, but I apprehend that Monentun, or Minton, is inaccurately introduced in this clause of the proceedings. [5] A Plea-Roll of Hilary Term 1282 (with still grosser inaccuracy) gives William de Titnel' and Thomas de Felton [6] as Tenants of half a fee in Wittokeslowe. A Roll of Easter Term 1283 is probably

[1] It is difficult to see how the heir of a Tenant-by-courtesy-of-England could ultimately gain anything by questioning his father's acts. He might indeed recover the specific inheritance of his mother, but then the ousted Tenant, be he who he might, could compel him, as his father's heir, to warrant his father's grant, or provide an equivalent.
[2] Supra, Vol. XI., pages 211, 223.
[3] Testa de Nevill, p. 46-a.
[4] Calend. Inquis. Vol. I. p. 49.
[5] Vide supra, Vol. VII. p. 122.
[6] Compare Vol. X., p. 289.


accurate, so far as it gives Milesent la Zouche's tenants of a half-fee Wittokeslow as Walter de Upton, Walter de Coneshale, and Walter de Wittokeslow: but a Roll of Easter Term 1284 most inaccurately adds Robert de Stapleton's name to the last three, as a tenant in Wittokeslowe. I cannot certify any subsequent interest here, as held by the Uptons. The seigneury of Wittingslow remained with Zouche of Haryngworth a century later at least.

I now return to notice other parts of this Manor, with which the Uptons seem to have had no concern, though the Seigneury was Cantilupe's.- On Sept. 26, 1199, a Fine was levied, whereby Robert de Hope released a claim to one hide in Witekeslawe, which he had been urging against Hugh de Semton, the Tenant, by process of Grand Assize. Hugh gave 10s. for the Release.

At the Forest Assizes of 1209 Richard Russel de Wittokeslawe is enrolled among the Assarters of the Long Forest.

About the year 1220, Walter de Witekelau and John, his son, attest a Cheney-Longville Deed.

Walter de Gonsale and Walter de Whittingslow were Sharers in the Manor from 1280 to 1284.

John de Wittikingeslowe occurs among the Subforesters of Shropshire in an Inquest of 1296.

Walter de Wittokeslow occurs on a local Jury in 1308.


Stretton in the Dale, now Church Stretton.

THIS was a Demesne Manor, first of the Earls of Mercia, and afterwards of the Norman Earls of Shrewsbury. Such exempt jurisdictions are not assigned by Domesday to any particular Hundred.-

Ipse Comes tenet Stratun. Eduinus Comes tenuit cum IIII Berewichis. Ibi VIII hidae. In dominio sunt III Carucae, et VI Servi et II Ancillae; et XVIII Villani et VIII Bordarii cum Presbytero habentes XII carucas. Ibi Molinum et AEcclesia; et in silva quinque Haiae:


et VI carucae adhuc possunt esse. Tempore Regis Edwardi valebat XIII libras. Modo (valet) C solidos. [1]

Stretton came to the hands of Henry II. as a Manor of Royal demesne, whose reputed fiscal value was 4 per annum. That was the sum for which the Sheriff of Shropshire was accountable as Fermor of Stretton, unless he could in any year or years show that he had had a Royal warrant for disposing otherwise of the Revenues of the Manor.

Here too was a Royal Castle which Henry II. in the first year of his reign deputed to the custody of Engelard de Pitchford, to whom also 4 per annum (being the reputed revenue of the Manor) were assigned as a salary. Engelard de Stretton, as he came to be called, held this trust till the summer of 1177. The probable reason of his removal has been suggested under Ryton. [2]

Simon fitz Simon, appointed Castellan of Stretton in 1177, remained so till Michaelmas 1189. His salary was not merely the 4, produced by the Manor, but an annuity of 16, charged on the Royal demesnes of Wellington and Edgmond. [3] It is remarkable that, of the five tallages of Henry II.'s reign, only one (that of 1177) was assessed upon Stretton. [4] In 1186 William de Vere and his associate Justices amerced the community of Stretton 20s. for making some false return (pro falso dicto).

For the years ending Michaelmas 1190 and Michaelmas 1191, and for the half-year ending Easter 1192, the Sheriff allowed 4 per annum, or the full revenue of Stretton, to the Custos of its Castle, but the name of the officer is not given. From Easter 1192 to Easter 1194, William fitz Simon and his brother, James, must be considered as Lords of the Manor of Stretton, for the King allowed them the whole local revenue of 4, as well as 16 per annum from Wellington and Edgmond. However, they were not Castellans of Stretton. That office was discharged by the Sheriff himself (William fitz Alan) from Easter 1192 till Easter 1197, and he had an annual salary of 20, chargeable on no particular Manor, for the duty. From Easter 1197 till Michaelmas 1208 Cassewelanus fitz Oen was Castellan of Stretton. His pay for the whole period was 4 per annum, or the fiscal value of the Manor. He may, therefore, he considered as Lord of Stretton for the term of his office; and something should here be said as to his origin and history.

CADWALHON AP OWEN, surnamed MAELRHY, was an illegitimate

[1] Domesday, fo. 254, a, 1.
[2] Supra, Vol. II. pp. 83, 84.
[3] Supra, Vol. IX. page 41.
[4] Supra, Vol. VI. page 11.


son of Owen Cyveliok, Prince of Higher Powis. His Welsh estates were Lhanerch Hudol and Braniarth, parts of the Seigneury of his half-brother, Gwenwynwyn; but he had them for life only. [1] As early as the year 1187 Cadwalhon and Gwenwynwyn were united in an action which rather indicates the ferocity of their age and country, than the infamy of the individuals. They murdered Owen Vachan, son of Madoc ap Meredyth (Prince of Lower Powis), at Carrechova Castle.

At Michaelmas 1196 the Sheriff of Shropshire's accounts would lead us to suppose that Cassewelanus had been serving under King Richard in Normandy. In obedience to Writs of Archbishop Hubert (then Viceroy of England), the said Sheriff had paid Cassewelanus 20 merks to support him in the King's service, 13 merks for his apparel, when he went over sea in the said service, and 5 merks bestowed on him by the King "for certain ***" [2] which he had, and for the redemption of things which he had pledged". [2] At Michaelmas 1198, Cassewellanus being Custos of Stretton, as above, the same Sheriff pays Walter de Mineton 10 merks for a quantity of corn, which the said Walter, by order of Archbishop Hubert, had delivered to the said Cassewelanus, to support him in the King's service. It would further seem that the English Government not only rewarded the services, but made itself responsible for the iniquities of its choicer agents. The Sheriff paid "Wenonwen fitz Oen 2. 3s. 4d. in recompense of injuries done him by Caswallanus, his brother, in a time of peace". At Michaelmas 1199, the Sheriff, in pursuance of orders from Geoffrey fitz Piers (then Viceroy), had paid Caswallan 15 merks towards his support in the late King's service, in Wales and in the Marches. He had also paid him two several sums of 10 merks (I suppose since King John's accession), wherewith to support himself and his followers. Again, in the year 1200, the Sheriff paid 10 merks to Caswalan (here called "son of Oen Kivinoc") for his sustenance in King John's service. [3]

The Stretton Jurors attended at the Assizes of October, 1203, their Manor being distinct from any other Franchise. One of their presentments related, I presume, to their Castellan. They told how "Caswallan, having challenged Kadugan with a breach of the peace, had had the license of Geoffrey fitz Piers to compound the

[1] Powel's Chronicle, p. 156.
[2] Pro peis suis quas habuit et pro vadiis suis acquietandis. The second word may perhaps be read as parcis, and may mean pay.
[3] Rot. Pipe, 2 John, Salop.


matter". Another presentment related to a dead body found at the Quaking-bridge (ad pontem trementem), by a Carter. No one could identify the deceased, but the Prior of Leominster, who had stood surety for the Carter's appearance at the Assizes, failed in his duty. A third presentment related to Robert de Boulers, a Cruce-signatus, who had died before he set out for the East. No one knew what had become of his chattels.

After Michaelmas, 1208, Stretton was, for one year, farmed by, the Sheriff, as Royal demesne; at least the Pipe-Rolls do not inform us of any assignment of its revenue.

In March, 1209, the Justices of the Forest amerced "Stratton, the King's Manor", one merk, for making an assart sine latencia, that is, without doing the thing in a surreptitious way. A Feodary of the year 1212 makes Hugh de Nevill to be holding the Manor of Stretton, which used to pay 4 (yearly) to the Exchequer. [1] He is said to hold it De Ballivo Regis, an expression which implies more than mere trusteeship, but less than a tenure in fee. Accordingly, at Michaelmas, 1212, the Sheriff, accounting for three years, assigns "12 in Stretton to Hugh de Nevill, for custody of the Castle", and states that "Hugh himself ought to render an account of his trust". No such account is preserved, nor do the Pipe-Rolls of 1213-4 assign the revenues of Stretton to Nevill or any other. However, in the year 1214, Hugh de Nevill was assessed 40s. to the Scutage of Poitou, in respect of "one knight's-fee as Stretton, which once had been Engelard de Stratton's". In the same year, Stretton was assessed 6. 13s. 4d. to a Tallage, but both Tallage and Scutage remained in arrear against Hugh de Nevill in 1219. In 1220 the Essex Pipe-Roll explains that Hugh de Nevill acknowledged himself to have collected and received both the above sums, but had also expended them in the works of Stratton Castle.

By a Writ-Close of June 26, 1214, King John orders the Sheriff of Shropshire to advertise a weekly Market, to be held on Wednesdays at the King's Manor of Strettonedale, and also a yearly Fair to be held on the feast-day of the Assumption (Aug. 15); but the said Market and Fair must not injure any neighbouring assemblages of like character. [2]

We have seen the fact that John fitz Alan was on August 2, 1215, possessed of Stretton Castle, and that it was probably an act of rebellion, the King wishing it to be restored to William Barat, a

[1] Testa de Nevill, p. 56.
[2] Rot. Claus. 16 John, m. 4.


servant of Hugh de Nevill. [1] On the 19th of the same month, the King, by Patent, directs Hugh de Nevill instantly to give up Strattondale Castle to Hugh de Mortimer (of Wigmore), who is to hold it during the King's pleasure. [2] The anarchy of the ensuing period prevents us tracing the history even of Royal Manors. In 1221 Hugh de Nevil1 was exempted from the Scutage of Biham by a Writ addressed to the Sheriff of Shropshire, as though he were assessable in that County.

At the Assizes of November, 1221, the Villate of Stretton was duly represented by a Provost and six Jurors. In 1223 the Manor was assessed to a Royal Tallage. [3]

From Easter 1226 to Michaelmas 1227 the Sheriff exempts himself from 6, or 1 years' ferm of Stretton. Hubert de Burgh had obtained a grant of the Manor during the King's pleasure, and at an annual ferm of 24. Accordingly, on the Pipe-Roll of 1229, the Justiciar accounts for the debt of 36, thus incurred two years previously. In the Pipe-Rolls of 1228 and 1229 the Sheriff exempts himself from 4, for each current year's farm of Stretton, "because Richard de Muneton was accountable"; and it actually appears that, during this period, Richard de Minton farmed the Manor for 24 per annum, and duly accounted for the debt of 48 thus incurred.

On October 18, 1229, we have a Royal Charter, dated at Portsmouth, whereby the King "grants the Manor of Stratton, in the County of Salop, together with the Advowson of the Church, to Hubert de Burgh and his heirs;- to hold in fee, at a rent of 16, payable at the Exchequer". [4] The effect of this Charter is at once visible on the Pipe-Rolls. Even that of 1229 assesses Hubert de Burgh for a knight's-fee in Stratton, viz. at 2 merks to the scutage of Kerry. Also in 1230, the Sheriff clears his account of the 4 ordinarily due for Stretton, saying that "Hubert de Burgh has it by Royal Charter, and answers for himself". De Burgh's account appears in a Schedule, and is in these words.- Hubertus de Burgo reddit compotum de 16 de firma de Stratton, quod Manerium Rex concessit ei et heredibus suis, cum advocacione Ecclesie et omnibus ad dictum Manerium pertinentibus, sicut continetur plenius in carta quam inde habet. In thesauro liberavit; et quietus est.

I need not repeat what has been said under Montgomery as to the fall and forfeiture of Hubert de Burgh in July, 1232. I will

[1] Supra, Vol. VII. p. 250.
[2] Rot. Patent. 17 John, m. 17.
[3] Supra, Vol. VII. p. 11.
[4] Rot. Chart. 13 Hen. III., p. 1, m. 1.


merely quote from the Pipe-Rolls whatever may be taken to relate, to his tenure of Stretton.- In 1230 Hubert de Burgh was assessed at the usual rate (3 merks) on one Shropshire fee, to the Scutage of Brittany. In 1231 the accounts of him and the Sheriff, as to the Ferm of Stretton, are repeated as in 1230. Hubert de Burgh was also acquitted of his contribution to the Scutage of Poitou, in respect of one fee in Stratton. In 1232 the Sheriff claims the usual deduction from the Corpus Comitatus of 4 for "Stratton, given to Hubert de Burgh", and adds that the said "Hubert accounts underneath"; but Hubert's corresponding schedule is left in blank. The Pipe-Rolls of succeeding years only show that Hubert's forfeiture prevented the Sheriff from giving any intelligible account of the status of Stretton. The acquittance of the Scutage of Elvein, recorded in the Roll of 1232, as in favour of "Hubert de Burgh's fee of Stretton", had a retrospect of more than a year. [1]

Stretton being again, in point of fact, a Royal demesne, a Patent of June 14, 1233, gives us some information as to the circumstances of the district. The men of Strattondale are informed that the King has given to Richard de Muneton and to Walter, Provost of Stretton, custody of "the parts of Strattondale", to defend them against the King's enemies. Also the Provost is acquitted of a rent of 3s. 4d., which he was wont to pay to the Crown for land in Stretton. In 1235 Stretton was assessed to a Royal Tallage, and the Sheriff of Shropshire accounted for the ferm of the Manor, not as a demesne of the Crown, but as an exceptional Escheat, realizing much more than its fiscal or technical value of 4.

In the same year (1235) we have account of oak-trees fallen at Womerton, for the repairs of Stretton Castle. [2]

Stretton was one of the Manors which, by a Patent of June 11, 1238, King Henry III. assigned to Henry de Hastings and his wife Ada, in lieu of her purparty of the County of Chester. [3] It is remarkable that in the cognate cases of Worfield and Condover the Sheriff discharged his annual account of the ferm of those Manors, but did not do so in respect of Stretton. On March 11, 1245, the King, for some reason or other, recalled Stretton into the Royal demesne, ordering the Sheriff "to seize into the King's hand the Manor of Strattundale, which had been assigned in tenancy to Henry de Hastings and his wife Ada, etc., and to keep the said Manor till the King issued further orders". [4] In the same year

[1] Supra, Vol. XI. p. 138.
[2] Supra, Vol. VI. p. 55.
[3] Supra, Vol. III. p. 107.
[4] Rot. Finium, 39 Hen. III., m. 12.


(1245) the Sheriff (John le Strange) is held responsible for the issues (not the fiscal ferm) of the Manor of Strattundal, but the account was not filled up in the Pipe-Roll. At Easter, 1248, the Sheriffs of preceding periods owed collectively 8 years' ferm of Stretton. The debts were never paid; at least, they were still in arrear after the accession of Edward I. In 1253 the ferm of Stretton formed part of the enormous sum of 844. 14s. 4d., which stood on the Debtor's side of John le Strange's accounts with the Crown. In the same year two debts, amounting to 12. 15s. 1d., which had stood for more than twenty years against the name of Hubert de Burgh, in respect of his connection with Stretton, were released to his executors by the King's direction. Meantime, we may observe that, between the years 1246 and 1261 (inclusive), Stretton was assessed to every tallage which was levied in Shropshire. [1] We have also the Hundred-Roll of 1255, giving an account of the Manor of Stretton as an independent jurisdiction, for the ordering of which its own community was responsible to the Crown. The Provost of Stretton at this period was named Henry. Meyler de Stretton, Warebort de Stretton, William Wlqui, Filip Clerk, Walter fitz Richard, and Richard fitz Adam were his six Assessors, as Jurymen. They reported a pourpresture, of more than 20 years' standing, by the Abbot of Haghmon. It was 2 acres in extent, and lessened the King's revenue 4d. yearly. They also reported the abstraction of 50 acres of forest land by Richard de Muneton and by Stephen de Hope. They valued the Manor, being Royal demesne, at 24 per annum. William English and the Prior of Ratlinghope had made pourprestures of half an acre, and above 2 acres, respectively, on the King's Forest, and held their acquisitions without any acknowledgment. The Sheriff of Shropshire had ordered four men to let dry the King's Vivary, and to sell the fish; which had realized 9 merks. To a question about the state of Royal Castles, they replied that there was no Castle (at Stretton). [2] To a question about Hundreds they

[1] Supra, Vol. VI. p.11.
[2] Stretton Castle probably occupied the site now known as Brocards Castle, or Brockhurst Castle, the position of which may be seen in the Map of Lenteurde Hundred. The foundations and ditch are still traceable; and persons living remember a fragment of wall, with an arch. It would seem, from the text, that Stratton Castle has been dismantled more than six centuries. Camden speaks of "the ruins of an antient castle, called Brocard's castle", as "still remaining" in his time. He says that the ruins were "surrounded by verdant meads, which anciently were fish-ponds". Here then we have the Vivaries alluded to in the text (see Gough's Camden, p. 397).


replied that Stretton belonged to no Hundred. [1] Other matters, alluded to in this Inquest, are either trivial in themselves, or have been spoken of elsewhere in these Volumes.

At the Assizes of January, 1256 the Manor of Stretton was represented by Richard de Chongelond, its Bailiff, and by 7 Jurors, viz. Henry Provost, Robert fitz Priest, Philip Clerk, Ingelard de Stratton, Roger fitz William, Adam de Stratton, and John fitz Hodelou.

Meanwhile, for the half-year ending Easter 1254, Robert de Grendon (then Sheriff) was accountable for 8. 12s. 9d., as the issues of Stretton; and, for the three years ending Easter 1257, Peter, Bishop of Hereford, had farmed the Manor at a rent of 20. 7s. 1d. per annum, which debt he duly accounted for to the Crown in 1259. For the half-year ending Michaelmas 1257, the Sheriff (Hugh de Acovere) was Fermor of Stretton. His debt on this account, like the debts of some of his Predecessors, was in arrear after Edward I.'s accession.

In 1258, 1259, and 1260, the Men of Stretton were farming the Manor themselves, at a rent of 24 per annum; and they expected that the original contract with the Crown would entitle them to continue this arrangement for three years longer. This I have from the Pipe-Roll of 1260; but there must have been either a breach of faith on the one hand, or a want of precision on the other; for by a Patent of November 11, 1259, the King had given custody of the Manor of Stretton to Peter de Montfort, to hold till Pentecost following, together with the Castle and Manor of Ellesmere, already entrusted to the said Peter. We know that these and other commissions were bestowed on Peter de Montfort, nominally by the King, but really by the faction then in the ascendant. A long period now elapses in which we hear nothing of Stretton. We may presume that it was after the Battle of Evesham (August 4, 1265) that the King, restored to his full sovereignty, bestowed Stretton and Ellesmere on Hamo le Strange. The gift was a feoffment, but liable to revocation, if at any time the King should provide the said Hamo with 100 Librates of land elsewhere. Hamo le Strange undoubtedly accompanied Prince Edward in the Crusade of 1270. Before he went, he enfeoffed his brother, Roger, in Ellesmere, and there is good reason to suppose that he made some conditional assignment of Stretton to his sister, Hawise.

[1] Rot. Hundred. II. 83, 84.


Hawise le Strange was, as we know, wife of Griffin ap Wenhunwyn, Prince of Powis. I suppose that the following Deed dates on the eve of her brother's departure to Palestine.- "Hawise de la Pole, with the assent of Sir Griffin her husband, promises that whenever her brother, Sir Hamo, may return from the Holy Land, it shall be lawful to him to enter the Manor of Stratton, in the County of Salop. Witnesses,- Sir Roger le Strange, Robert his brother, and Odo de Hodnet". [1]

It was under this abeyant state of things, that the Stretton Jurors, at the Assizes of October 1272, said, inter alia, that the "Church of Stretton was of the King's gift; that the King gave it to Hamo le Strange together with the Manor; and that it was worth 20 merks (per annum)".

We have ascertained that- Hamo le Strange's death had been heard of in England, and that Ellesmere had been seized by the King's Escheators, before March 3, 1274. [2] A Writ of the year 1273 will suggest that the intelligence had arrived at least half a year earlier, and that a similar seizure had been made of Stretton.- "It was enjoined on the Sheriff of Shropshire that he should seize into the King's hand, and keep safely, the Manor of Strattondale, which Hamo le Strange held of the King in capite, and which was of the ancient demesne of the Crown, and which the said Hamo had alienated without license". [3]

Afterwards, it appears that the King, though he retained Stretton in his hands, allowed that Hawise de la Pole should, for the present, have the whole revenue thereof. The Manor was in the custody of Roger Sprenghose from Oct. 21, 1273 to Dec. 10, 1274; when Bogo de Knovill undertook the charge. Sprenghose's account of his trust is on the Pipe-Roll of 1276. It shows a balance of 26. 7s. 2d., "which balance he had paid over to Hawise, wife of Griffin fitz Wenunwin, in obedience to the King's Writ, which had directed the accountant to pay all the issues of the Manor to the said Hawise". By a Patent of January 11, 1278, King Edward recites that "he had already committed to his beloved Hawise, wife of his faithful and beloved Griffin fitz Wenunwin, his (the King's) Manor of Strattondale, to be held by her at the King's will. The King now further concedes that, if at any time he should wish to resume the said Manor, he would first assign to Hawise, for her life, 20 librates of land in some competent place: but such assignment was to revert to the King or his heirs

[1] Glover's Collect. A. fol. 111.
[2] Supra, Vol. X. p. 197.
[3] Originalia, 1 Edw. I.


immediately on Hawise's death. Moreover, if it should happen that Hawise should erect any new houses at Strattondale, the King would be answerable to her for the reasonable costs thereof. Notwithstanding this Deed, the King, or his Lawyers, actually sued Hawise, widow of Griffin de la Pole, in November 1292, under a Writ of right, for the Manor of Stretton in Strettonesdale. The production of the above Patent of course silenced the prosecution. [1] Proceedings so wilfully vexatious, or so neglectfully inept, do not say much for Edward's title to those lawyer-like attributes which procured for him the name of the English Justinian.

By another Writ of Quo Waranto the King sued the Master of the Templars for 100 acres of land, and 40 acres of bosc in Strettondale, sometime the seizin of King Henry III. The Master got a verdict, on the ground that Richard Sprengeheuse (of Plash I presume) was a joint holder of the premises, viz. that he held an unpartitioned fourth thereof, and had so held on Nov. 11, 1292, when the Writ of Quo Waranto was dated. In a third case the Master of the Templars failed. The Jury found that the King had better right to 50 acres of land at Stretton, in Strettonesdale, than the Master had. [2] The King claimed in this instance as heir of King John, alleged to have been sometime seized of the premises. A fourth Writ was against Peter Corbet for 40 acres of bosc and 40 acres of pasture at Stretton-in-Strettonesdale, alleged to have been part of Henry III.'s demesnes. Corbet asserted the premises to be in Wentnor. [3] This question was referred to a local Inquest but with what result, I know not.

On March 11, 1309, King Edward II. issued a commission to value the Manor and Valley of Stretton, still held by Hawyse de la Pole for the term of her life. The Inquest reported that the collective Tenants of the Manor and Vale paid assized rents of 12. 10s. These rents were for lands held by ancient tenure, for the site of a certain ancient Manor (probably Stretton Castle), for arable lands, formerly constituting the manorial demesne, and for the labour-dues of the Villeins, as valued a long time back. The meadow-land of the Manor was worth 2. per annum. A separate pasture in the King's bosc of Ragelyth, and within the bounds of the Long Forest, was worth 6s. 8d. yearly. The underwood thereof

[1] Plac. de Quo Waranto, page 685.
[2] As far back as the year 1255 the Stretton Jurors had complained how "the Templars of Lidley bad entered a bosc called Bottewde, above Bottestrete, which had previously been a demesne-bosc of the King" (Rot. Hundred, II. 84).
[3] Quo Waranto, pages 678, 684, 706.


could not be taken into account, because it was kept as a covert for game: and there was no high timber therein. The bosc called Wymbrghtoneswode consisted of lofty oaks. The pesson thereof was worth 6s. 8d. yearly; the pasturage thereof was common; and there was no underwood. A Water-Mill was worth 13s. 4d.; two Vivaries were worth 10s. yearly. A custom called Passagium carectarum [1] produced 20s.: and the Pleas and perquisites of the Manor-Court produced 2. 13s. 4d. The whole valuation amounted to 20 per annum; and there was the common-pasture of the Stretton Hills, which pasture was about 10 leagues in circumference. This was not valued because it was open to the whole country. The Advowson of the Church belonged to the Manor. The Church was worth 20. per annum. [2]

Another Extent of Stretton was ordered by Writ of Oct. 26, 1309, the King having conceded the Manor to Edmund, Earl of Arundel, if he should outlive Hawise de la Pole, the present life-tenant. This Extent, taken Nov. 25, 1309, gives a gross valuation of 20. 3s. 4d. for the Manor. [3]

We know that Hawyse le Strange, widow of Griffin de la Pole, died about November, 1310. Consequently in the Nomina Villarum of 1316, we find the Earl of Arundel enrolled as Lord of Stretton cum Strettonesdale. [4] The Earl's unfortunate end is well known, and how Roger de Mortimer of Wigmore, the contriver of his ruin, became for a time the possessor of his estates. In 1330 Mortimer, being thus seized of the Advowson of Stretton, was actually proposing to appropriate it to the Chantry which he was founding at Leintwardine. [5] His speedy forfeiture and death interrupted the scheme, and Stretton again reverted to the Crown. In 1336, King Edward III. gave Stretton to Richard, Earl of Arundel, and his heirs for ever. It remained in that family till the reign of Elizabeth.

SOME UNDERTENANTS in Stretton, not mentioned in the above narrative, should be noticed here. About March, 1250, Geoffrey de Langley set a Fine of 10 merks on William de Chirlestretton for his improvements of waste forest-land. At the Forest Assizes of 1262, amercements were set upon William fitz Gilbert of Chirch Stretton, and Richard fitz Simon of Alured Stretton (now corrupted into All Stretton). A Patent of August 12, 1267, directs John de

[1] The same custom is called cheminagium in another Inquest. It was a Toll on carts passing through the vill.
[2] Inquisitions ad quod Damnum, 2 Edw. II., Number 122.
[3] Ibidem, 3 Edw. II., No. 25.
[4] Parliamentary Writs, IV. p. 397.
[5] Supra, Vol. XI. page 324.


la Lynde (Justiciar) to ascertain whether John fitz Hugh of Strattondale had killed John Treget in self-defence. At the Assizes of October, 1272, Richard fitz Robert was Chief Bailiff, Robert fitz Nicholas was Elizor, and Henry fitz Walter, Lewelyn fitz Roger, John Clerk, John Reys, and Philip Clerk, were Jurors, for the Manor of Stratton. In 1273, Agnes de la Croiz, and ** de la Croiz, of Stratton, each fine half a merk to have some trial at law. At the Assizes of 1292, Robert fitz Nicholas was Chief Bailiff, Richard fitz Robert and John fitz Clerk were Elizors, and Walter fitz Henry, Nicholas de Brugg, Henry fitz Walter, and Henry fitz Richard, were jurors, for the Manor of Stratton. In March 1309 John de Botfeld was one of the Jurors who made a Valuation, or extent, of this manor.

MEMBERS OF STRETTON.- Domesday assigns four Berewicks to this Manor. Little Stretton, Alured Stretton (now All Stretton), and Botvylle, were probably three of the four. About these places, or their occupants, I have little to add to what has incidentally transpired in this and former Volumes.-

A part of the Roman Road, which in fact gave a name to the Roman Station of Stretton, seems to have been called Botte-street, but probably at a later aera than that of the Romans. The etymology of Botte-street, whatever it be, extended to a neighbouring wood called Bottewood, and a neighbouring vill called Botte-vill or or Botte-field.

At the Assizes of 1272, Peter de Parva-Stretton gave half a merk for license to compound a suit of warranty with John le Means and Euda his wife. A Fine resulted, whereby John de Means and Evyda his wife (Impedients) acknowledge themselves to have given half a virgate in Welstanyston (Woolston), to the said Peter, who is to hold the same, under the Grantors and the heirs of Evyda, at a rent of 2d.; and who also pays 8 merks for this acknowledgment.

The name, All Stretton, has been fathered on King James I. The story involves too poor a witticism even for that enunciator of small sayings. When we see that the place was originally called Alured Stretton we may acquit the Monarch of giving it a name. Perhaps it was the estate of that very Alurid whom we have mentioned in a former page as likely to have lived in the time of Henry I. [1]


This was one of the original Saxon foundations of the Deanery

[1] Supra, page 12.


[For engraving, see pdf.]


of Wenlock. The demesne manors of the Earls of Mercia were often the centres of Saxon Parishes. Domesday speaks distinctly both of the Church of Stretton and of a resident Priest.

Records of the years 1227 and 1255 speak of this Advowson as the King's. The latter values the Church at 40 merks (26. 13s. 4d.) per annum. In 1272, the Stretton Jurors reported the Church as worth only 20 merks.

Stretton Church was visited by Bishop Swinfield on Sunday, April 30, 1290. The Record of the event is confined to what was eaten and drunken on the occasion. The Rector of Stretton gave corn and hay for the 35 horses of the Episcopal retinue.

The Taxation of 1291 values the Church of Strattonindale at 15 per annum. [1] Next to Wenlock itself, it was the best Rectory in Wenlock Deanery.

In October 1292 the Stretton Jurors reported the Advowson of Stratton to be the King's. The Church they valued at 40 merks (26. 13s. 4d.).

In 1341 the Assessors of the Ninth quoted the above Taxation of Chirchestretton. They assessed the Parish at 4. 13s. 4d. to the current levy. This reduction was because the foundation (glebe and site I presume) of the Church was worth 2. 13s., 4d.; the hay-tithes were worth 20s.; the small-tithes, oblations, and other profits (not referable to the present tax) were worth 6. 13s. 4d. [2]

The Valor of 1534-5 gives the preferment of John Dicher, Rector of Stretton, as 1. 6s. 8d. from glebe, 9. 6s. 8d. from corn and hay-tithes, and 5. 6s. 8d. from other tithes. The total of 16 was chargeable with 17s. 9d., being the annual proportion of the Bishop's triennial procurations, and with 7s. 8d. for the annual procurations and synodals of the Commissary and Archdeacon. [3]


RALPH DE NEVILL was presented to the Churches of Stratton and Lutegareshall, by two Patents of May 6, 1214, which were expedited by the hand of Ralph de Nevill himself. [4]

WALTER DE BRACHEL' was presented to the Church of Strettunedale, by a Patent of Henry III., dated Nov. 18, 1222, and addressed

[1] Pope Nich. Taxation, p. 167.
[2] Inquis. Nonarum, p. 187.
[3] Valor Ecclesiasticus, III. p. 208.
[4] Rot. Chartarum, 16 John, pars 1, m. 11. Ralph de Nevill was for a time Lord Keeper under Henry III. He became Chancellor in 1227. He seems to have vacated Stretton on his election to the See of Chichester;- Nov. 1, 1222. He held, while Rector of Stretton, the Deanery of Lichfield and the Chancellorship of Chichester.


to the Bishop of Hereford. This Rector is recorded in a Tenure-Roll of October 1227 as holding the Church of Stretton by the King's gift. [1] A Patent of June 15, 1232, absolves him from the necessity of rendering any accounts for the period during which he was employed in the King's service. Meanwhile, that is, in November 1227, a Charter of King Henry III. speaks of Walter de Brachele's resignation of the parsonage of Strattondale, and reserves to one--

WILLIAM DE *** a portion of 25 merks, as the parsonage of the said Church. The same Patent further appoints-

WALTER DE MORA, Chaplain of Strattondale, to the Vicarage of the Church, also vacant by Walter de Brachele's resignation. [2] It therefore appears that Walter de Brackley had been both Rector and Vicar.

BONETTUS DE PINIBUS was presented to the Church of Stratton by a Patent of Feb. 11, 1246, addressed to the Archdeacon of Salop.

PETER DE CESTRETON was presented to the Church of Stratondale by a Patent of Dec. 12, 1252; but another Patent of June 30, 1253, names-

RADULF DE CESTRETON as having resigned the Vicarage of Stretondale, to the end that the King might appoint the nephew (nepotem) of the Prior of Manse thereto. The Patent apprises Richard, Earl of Cornwall and William de Kilkenny, that Ralph de Cestreton is to be presented to some other ecclesiastical benefice of 20 annual value. In 1255,-

GILBERT, Dean of Pontesbury, was holding Stretton Church, but only as Vicar. [3] I suppose he was the Prior of Manse's nephew, above alluded to. All this time Bonettus de Pinibus or (as he is now called),-

POUN DEL ESPINEYE was Rector of Stretton. A Patent of Nov. 22, 1265, calls him "Parson of the Church of St. Laurence of Strattondale", and, announcing his decease, names-

RICHARD DE RADECLIVE, Chaplain, to the specific vacancy. Another Patent of Nov. 26, 1265, instructs the Bishop of Hereford to admit-

WILLIAM DE IPPEL, Clerk, to the Church of St. Andrew of Strattondale.

WALTER, son of William, the Physician, "bore himself" as Rector of Stretton in 1276-7. On January 7, 1276-7, Bishop Cantilupe,

[1] Testa de Nevill, p. 64.
[2] Rot. Chart. 12 Hen. III., p. 1, m. 1.
[3] Rot. Hundred. II. 84. Blakeway says that "Gilbert, Vicar of Stretton, occurs in a list of fees in Shrewsbury of 6 Edw. I. or Henry III". I don't under-stand what is the authority alluded to, and, any way, I doubt the date.


being certified that the said Walter was in his 17th year, promises that on his entering his 18th year, he shall be admitted to his next Orders, viz. of Subdeacon. Meantime the Bishop releases a Sequestration which lay upon the Church. On March 27, 1277, the Bishop gives corporal possession of this Church to-

MASTER PHILIP DE WALEYS, "under the name of custody, and during the Bishop's pleasure". On April 22, 1277, the said Philip is instituted, but there was no mandate of induction, "because he already had possession, as Custos".

Bishop Swinfield had not been consecrated a week to the See of Hereford, when he commenced a correspondence with Edward I. as to the Living of Stretton. On March 13, 1283, Swinfield informs the King that the Archbishop (John de Peckham) had pronounced the Church void, and desires the King, as Patron, to nominate a fit Clerk thereto. On March 17, the King writes to Swinfield, desiring to know the grounds of the alleged vacancy. Swinfield replies, on March 23, in a tone which savours neither of insolence nor inexperience. He says that though it is not usual to certify to Patrons the cause of vacancies, but only the fact, yet out of respect to so great a King, he recites that the Archbishop, visiting the Diocese of Gloucester on March 9th last, made openly the following charge against Master Philip, surnamed Wallensis, the de facto occupant of the Church, who then appeared before him, viz. "that the said Philip had most wrongfully supplanted and defrauded his own pupil (discipulum), the previous holder of the said Church, and had now for nearly five years since he obtained such possession, delayed to take Priest's Orders, contrary to his oath at Institution". On March 30, 1283, the King rejoins that "he does not suppose the cause of vacancy (viz. that the Rector has disobeyed a constitution of the Council of Lyons) to extend to the Royal dignity; nor does he intend that he or his patronage, wherever it may be, shall be bound to the observance pf statutes of such a class".

It would seem that Swinfield had not the organization of a Martyr. By a subsequent writ he recognizes Philip de Waleys as Rector of Stretton.- "The Dean of Wenlock is to pay the obventions, etc., of the Church to the said Philip till Michaelmas next, seeing that the Bishop, for certain causes, was not able to ordain a Vicar in the said Church". In October 1292 the Stretton Jurors reported-

PHILIP DE VALENCE as Incumbent of the Church of Stratton by collation of the present King (Edward I.). Surely this was the Welsh Incumbent of 1283 with a Normanized name.


MARTIN DE CAMBARIACO, Parson of the Church of Streton, has the King's letter of protection on Sept. 28, 1294; [1] but possibly he was not of Stretton, in Shropshire.

WILLIAM DE CLEOBURY was presented by King Edward II. on August 28, 1309, to the Church of Stretton in Strettonesdale. [2]

MASTER THOMAS DE CHARLETON, Clerk, was presented by a like Patent of Feb. 12, 1316. [3]

ROGER DE KYNLET, [4] Priest, was instituted Feb. 12, 1316, at the presentation of Edmund, Earl of Arundel.

RALPH DE SHELLOSTON was admitted Oct. 10, 1321, on a like presentation; but a Patent of Edward II., dated at Ledes on Nov. 2, 1321, nominates-

ROBERT DE TONG, Clerk, to the vacant benefice. [5]

SIR WILLIAM DE HARDISHULL, Subdeacon, son of William de Hardeshull, having been nominated by a Patent of June 26, 1327, was instituted in the same year. He has a two years' licencia studendi, dated Dec. 17, 1328, and on Feb. 24, 1331, exchanges preferments with-

WILLIAM, SON OF JOHN DE HARDISHULL, late Rector of Seyston (Linc. Dioc.), who is presented to Stretton by a Patent of Edward III., dated January 15, 1331. [6] A Patent of Sept. 21, 1332, [7] sanctions an exchange between Hardeshull and-

ADAM DE BRIDLINGTON, Parson of half Aylmerton (Norwich Dioc.), and Canon and Prebendary of Wengham (Cantuar. Dioc.); but I suppose the exchange did not take place, or else Hardeshull returned to Stretton; for a Patent of Feb. 26, 1334, [8] sanctions his exchanging Stretton Rectory with-

JOHN DE WATENHULL, [9] Rector of Kingeslee (Coventr. Dioc.), Presbyter of St. John the Evangelist in St. Mary's, Salop, and Sacrestan and Prebendary in the Collegiate Church of Boseham (Chichest. Dioc.).

Watenhull's Institution, dated March 31, 1334, mentions him to have resigned only Kingsleye, and a Sacristy and Prebend in the Collegiate Church of Boseham (Chichester Dioc.). He was still at Stretton in 1340.

SIR JOHN SPROTH resigned Stretton in 1358, and on Dec. 7 of that year,-

[1] Prynne, Vol. III. p. 590.
[2] Patent. 3 Edw. II., p. 1, m. 36.
[3] Patent. 9 Edw. II., p. 1, m. 2; vide supra, Vol. VII. p. 142.
[4] Vide supra, Vol. XI. page 254.
[5] Patent. 15 Edw. II., p. 1, m. 12.
[6] Patent. 4 Edw. III., p. 2, m. 14.
[7] Patent. 6 Edw. III., p. 2, m. 4.
[8] Patent. 8 Edw. III., p. 1, m. 35.
[9] Compare Vol. X. p. 71.


MASTER NICHOLAS DE CHADDESDEN, Clerk and Professor of Civil Law, was admitted at the presentation of Richard, Earl of Arundel.

ROBERT DE ASTMEDE, Priest, admitted Nov. 16, 1361, on a like presentation, is called-

SIR ROBERT WASTONADE, on July 21, 1364, when he exchanges Stretton for the preferment of-

WILLIAM DE WOLVERTON, late Rector of Nesse. [1]

SIR RICHARD occurs as Rector of Stretton in 1386. Probably his name was Cloppe, and it was he who was instituted to Shrawardine on May 22, 1388; [2]-

ROBERT POBELOWE, Clerk, late Rector of Shrawardine, being instituted to Stretton on the same day.

SIR WILLIAM BARON, on March 9, 1393, exchanges Stretton for the preferment of-

WALTER CLYFFORD, late Rector of Boyton (Sarum Dioc.), who is presented to Stretton by Richard, Earl of Arundel and Surrey. On Nov. 24, 1395, Clyfford again exchanges Stretton for the preferment of-

SIR WILLIAM SMYTHECOTE, late Rector of Henmere (Lichf. Dioc.), who is presented to Stretton by the same Earl Richard.

[1] Supra, Vol. X. p. 283.
[2] Supra, Vol. X. p. 100.


Return to top of page

URL of this page: http://www.melocki.org.uk/eyton/Vol12.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.