Top Sources

By Region


Classifieds

Medieval Close Rolls
Henry III - Henry VII (1227-1509). Double rekeyed volumes just £30 for year's access - subscribe now
british-history.ac.uk
Usability survey
Take our short, one-page survey to give us your views on British History Online
british-history.ac.uk

Latest questions

Ebenezer Chapel Colchester There is an old chapel in Nunns Road in...
medieval law I am reading the rolls of the London Eyre 1244...
Torriano (Avenue or Cottages) Torriano Avenue in London's Kentish Town was...

Lancashire Fines
Diverse counties (John and Henry III)

Sponsor

Institute of Historical Research

Publication

Final Concords for Lancashire, Part 1: 1189-1307

Author

William Farrer (editor)

Year published

1899

Pages

142-152

Citation Show another format:

'Lancashire Fines: Diverse counties (John and Henry III)', Final Concords for Lancashire, Part 1: 1189-1307 (1899), pp. 142-152. URL: http://british-history.ac.uk/report.aspx?compid=52537 Date accessed: 19 May 2013. Add to my bookshelf

Highlight

(Min 3 characters)

Contents

Divers Counties.
Sussex, Kent and Lancaster. Westmeriland—Lancastre. Lincoln—Lancastre. Lancastre—Lincoln. York—Lancaster. York—Lancaster. Westmorland—Lancaster. Lancaster—Nottingham. York. 4 John. Footnotes

Divers Counties.

Sussex, Kent and Lancaster.

No. 11.—At Westminster, . . . . after Easter, 4 Henry III. [after 29th March, 1220], before Henry de Burgh, Chief Justice of England, and others.

Between Alice, formerly the wife of Geoffrey de Gestling, plaintiff, by Fulk de Echingham put in her place, and John Gestling, (fn. 1) tenant of the third part of two-thirds of all the lands with the appurtenances, which the said John (sic) held in Gestling, and in Ydenne [Iden], and in West-Winchelese, and in Hamest . . . . in co. Sussex; and in the town of Hallo [Halling], in co. Kent; and in the towns of Wistelesheued [ ], and Lickeberege, in co. Lancaster [Lickbarrow], which portion the said Alice claims against John as her dower, by the gift of [Geof]frey her husband.

[The remainder of the chirograph is torn, but there is a mention of Barbote, wife of the said John Gestling, and of Juliana his mother].

Westmeriland—Lancastre.

No. 92.—At Westminster, in a month after Easter, 16 Henry III., [9th May, 1232.]

Between Robert de Kyme, (fn. 2) plaintiff, and William de Lancastre, deforciant of fifteen librates of rent in Vlueston [Ulverston], respecting which Robert complained, that whereas William is bound to him to pay yearly the said fifteen pounds at the two terms of the year, until he shall have appointed to him fifteen librates of land in fee and inheritance, he has withheld from him the rent for six years, and is in arrears four score and ten pounds sterling.

William acknowledged and granted for himself and his heirs, that he will render yearly fifteen pounds to Robert, or to his messenger, bearing his letters patent, in the Abbey of Furness, by the view of the Abbot of that place, or his successors, or by view of the monks of that place, yearly at the two terms, during the life of Robert, to wit, one moiety at the feast of St. Michael, and the other at Easter; and he further granted that he and his heirs will render to Robert fifty pounds sterling for the said arrears in which he was bound to Robert, to wit one hundred shillings at the feast of St. Michael next coming, and the same at Easter, and so yearly ten pounds until fully paid. In default of payment as above said, it shall be lawful to the Abbot or his successors to distrain William or his heirs upon their lands, and upon their chattels found within the liberty of the Abbot of Furness, until full payment be completed. After the death of Robert, the said William and his heirs shall be quit from the said payment. If Robert or his heirs hereafter produce any charter against William or his heirs respecting these fifteen librates of rent in Vlueston, it shall be altogether of no effect.

Lincoln—Lancastre.

No. 104.—At Westminster, in five weeks from Easter, 17 Henry III. [8th May, 1233].

Between Olive, formerly the wife of Roger de Mont Begon, plaintiff, by Richard Flambard put in her place, and Henry de Munedene, tenant of the third parts of the manors of Tunnec [Thonock], and Thorp, (fn. 3) with the appurtenances in county Lincoln, and of the third part of the manor of Totington with the appurtenances in county Lancastre, which third parts Olive claimed to be her dower, which belonged to her of the free tenements formerly belonging to her husband in those towns.

Henry granted to Olive the whole manor of Totington with the appurtenances in all things, and one hundred solidates of land with appurtenances in Tunnec of his demesne, to wit, twenty bovates of land, of which each bovate contains twelve acres of arable land, and two acres of meadow, measured by the perch of eighteen feet; and for a messuage, the three tofts formerly belonging to Gilbert de Tunnec, Roger Fresel, and Roger Kidere in Tunnec, also common of pasture for all manner of beasts, which she may have in the said manor, with free entry and egress, excepting the park of Tunnec, and husbote and haybote in the said Henry's wood of Tunnec without waste, and by view of Henry's forester, whoever be forester there for the time being. If the forester should absent himself, then Olive shall not be let by reason of his absence, but shall peacably take her estover to husbote and haybote in that wood without causing destruction or waste; to hold all her life in the name of dower. For this grant Olive released to Henry her right in the remainder of the lands and tenements of Roger, her late husband. Saving nevertheless to Olive all the land which she previously held with appurtenances in the name of dower in Horneby, which was of the inheritance of her said husband. And be it known that Henry has granted that when Olive shall depart this life, she shall give and bequeath all her chattels, and the corn sown in the said lands, without gainsay or let of Henry or his heirs.

Lancastre—Lincoln.

No. 121.—At Wilton, on Monday next after the feast of St. Hilary, 20 Henry III. [14th January, 1236].

Between Olive, formerly the wife of Roger de Montbegon, plaintiff, by Robert Luvecok put in her place, and Henry de Monedene, whom Hubert de Burgh, Earl of Kent, called to warrant, and who warranted to him, respecting the third part of the Manor of Horneby (fn. 4) with the appurtenances, by John de Stokes put in his place, which third part Olive claimed to be the reasonable dower belonging to her of the free tenement which belonged to Roger, formerly her husband, in that town.

Olive released to Henry and Hurbert and their heirs her right in the third part of the said manor in the name of dower. For this release Henry granted to Olive eight and a half marks, to be taken yearly at Tunneyc all her life in the name of dower, by the hand of Henry, his heirs, or his bailiffs, to wit one moiety at Pentecost, and the other at Christmas. Henry further granted that if at any time default should be made in payment thereof, Olive should have eight and a half markates of land in his Manor of Tunneyc, by a reasonable extent; to hold all her life in the name of dower. After her death Henry and his heirs shall be quit of the payment aforesaid.

York—Lancaster.

No. 173.—At Lancaster, on the Octave of St. Martin, 26 Henry III. [18th November, 1241].

Between Sarah, daughter of Robert de Staunton, plaintiff, and William de Tunstall, (fn. 5) tenant of five oxgangs of land with appurtenances in Cauncefeud [Cantsfield]; and between the said Sarah, plaintiff, and the said William, tenant of six oxgangs of land in Oustewyk [Austwick].

William acknowledged the land to be the right of Sarah. For this acknowledgment she granted to him the land in Oustewyk, and two oxgangs of the land in Cauncefeud, which Agnes, formerly the wife of Richard de Goldeburg held in dower; to hold to William and his heirs, of Sarah and her heirs in perpetuity, rendering yearly for the six oxgangs one pound of pepper at the feast of St. Michael, and performing the forinsec service belonging thereto; and for the two oxgangs one pound of cumin at the Nativity of our Lord, for all service.

York—Lancaster.

No. 205.—At Westminster, on the morrow of the Purification of the Blessed Virgin, 30 Henry III. [3rd February, 1246].

Between William de Pinnington, plaintiff, and Richard de Pynnington, tenant, of the moiety of the Manor of Hertesheued, county of York, which moiety William claimed as his reasonable share of the free tenement which belonged to Hugh de Radecliue, father of Richard and William, whose heirs they are; and between the said William, plaintiff, and the said Richard, tenant, of the moiety of the Manor of Pinington [Pennington, parish of Leigh], county of Lancaster, which William claimed as his reasonable share of the free tenement which belonged to Margery, formerly the wife of the said Hugh, and mother of the said Richard and William, whose heirs they are.

William acknowledged the moieties of the said manors to be the right of Richard. For this acknowledgment, Richard granted to William one messuage and forty acres of arable land, to wit, that messuage with the appurtenances and meadow which William, son of Ormer, once held, and thirty acres of land lying near the said messuage, extending towards the wood of the Nuns of Kyrkelegh and Mirefelde Wude, and ten acres lying in the culture called Bromiflat. Moreover Richard granted to William common of pasture for all his beasts in all parts of the woods and pastures of the said manor of Hertesheued, and in all the arable lands and meadows in the said manor, after the corn has been carried away and the hay lifted; to hold to William and his heirs, of Richard and his heirs in perpetuity, rendering yearly 6d. at the feast of St. Oswald, and performing forinsec service belonging to so much land, for all service, suit of court, custom and demand. The remainder of the said manors shall remain to Richard and his heirs, quit of William and his heirs for ever.

Westmorland—Lancaster.

No. 214.—At Warwik, on the Quindene of Easter 31 Henry III. [14th April, 1247].

Between Henry, Abbot of Cokersand, plaintiff, by brother Richard de Singleton, put in his place, and William, son of Henry de Wraton, respecting this, that William should acquit the Abbot of the service which William de Lankastre and Ralph de Eyncurt claimed from the said Abbot, of the free tenement which the said William, son of Henry, holds of the said William in Whynnefel [Whinfell, par. Kendal], of which the said William, who is mesne between them, ought to acquit him, respecting which he complained that he had been distrained by reason of this default.

The Abbot granted, for himself and his successors, that henceforth he will perform to the chief lords of the fee the services which belong to the said tenement, so that William and his heirs shall not be bound to acquit the Abbot and his successors of any service or suit belonging to the tenement. For this concession William granted to the Abbot and his church aforesaid, nine acres of land in Wenynton, co. Lancaster, to wit, four acres in the culture called Cobbanarghe, and two acres in Dalslakland and in Gayle, and three acres in "Longe of Thorolflond"; to hold to the Abbot and his successors and church, of William and his heirs in pure and perpetual alms for ever.

Lancaster—Nottingham.

No. 288.—At Westminster, on the Quindene of Easter, 37 Henry III. [4th May, 1253].

Between Amiria, formerly the wife of Robert de Hylton, plaintiff, and Jordan de Hylton, tenant of the third part of seven oxgangs and fifteen acres of land in Flixton, of one messuage and one and one-half oxgang of land in Halughton [West-houghton], thirty-five acres of land in Farinworth [Farnworth], twenty-four acres of land in Dumplinton, four acres of land in Kokeney, in the county of Lancaster, and fifty acres of land in Kingeswode, in the county of Nottingham, which third parts Amiria claimed to be her reasonable dower of the free tenement which was Robert de Hylton's, formerly her husband.

Amiria acknowledged the tenements to be the right of Jordan. For this acknowledgment Jordan granted the said third parts to Amiria to hold of him and his heirs, rendering yearly for the tenements in Flixton 3s., at the feast of St. Michael, for all service, and performing for the tenements in Halugton, Faringworth, Dumplinton, Kokeney, and Kingeswode, the services thereto belonging, with reversion after her decease to Jordan and his heirs in perpetuity.

York. 4 John.

No. 15.—At York, on Friday next after the feast of St. Katherine, the Virgin, 4 John [29th November, 1202].

Between Henry de Cleiton, plaintiff, and Uhtred de Chirche, tenant of half a carucate of land with appurtenances in Chirche [Church], respecting which a jury of Grand Assize had been summoned between them.

Henry released his right in the land to Uhtred and his heirs. For this release Uhtred gave Henry two marks of silver. (fn. 6)

No. 147.—At York, on Saturday in the feast of St. Clement, 4 John [23rd November, 1202].

Between Henry de Lancastre, plaintiff, and William, Prior of Lancastre, tenant of two oxgangs of land with appurtenances in Neweton, (fn. 7) respecting which an assize of mort d'ancestor had been summoned between them.

Henry released from himself and his heirs to the Prior and his successors his right in that land. For this release the Prior gave him three marks of silver.

Footnotes

1 John de Gestling was a justiciar temp. John. On the 4th November, 1217, the Sheriff of Lancaster had letters from the King to put him in seisin of lands, presumably in co. Lancaster, of which he had been disseised during the disturbances of the last years of John's reign (Close Roll, 2 Hen. III. m. 16). The two places said to be in co. Lancaster have not been identified.
2 In the Curia Regis, on the Octave of Holy Trinity, 1231, William de Lancastre was attached to answer Robert de Kyme in the suit, of which details are given in this concord. William states in his defence, that three years previous to the commencement of the suit he had assigned to Robert fifteen librates of land in Killington, to wit, 300 acres of land, and had been wishful to give him a charter of that land, but Robert would not accept it, nor would he render up the charter which he held, but the land was given to him by metes and bounds, and he was in seisin, so that he held himself satisfied with that land for fifteen librates of land; and he produced two witnesses, of whom one stated nothing, and the other nothing adequate. Robert in reply stated that no land had been assigned to him, nor had he ever held himself satisfied with other land, nor does William's attorney show anything, or that he had been satisfied even to two and half marks. And because William's attorney acknowledges the charter (promising Robert fifteen librates of land), and showed nothing that the land had been assigned to Robert, except his simple word, the Court considered that Robert should recover his arrears, amounting to £88 6s. 8d, and the damages which he claimed, viz., forty marks. The Sheriff was ordered to levy those sums from William's land and chattels, and to have the money by the Quindene of St. Michael (Curia Regis Roll, No. 109, m. 16). Subsequently the parties concorded as above.
3 The following record of a suit heard at the Lincoln Assizes, in the 29 Henry III., 1244–5, has been introduced here, as containing much interesting matter relating to Hornby Castle, and the family of Montbegon.
Hugh de Ros sues Henry de Munegheden, for the fourth part of twothirds of the Manors of Thorp and Tunheyk, as his right and inheritance, and states that Roger de Montbegon, was in seisin, in his demesne, as of fee and right in the time of King Henry, the grandfather of the present King, from whom the right to that land descended to Adam, as son and heir, and from Adam to Roger de Mount Begon, who was in seisin of that land, in his demesne, as of fee, in the time of King Henry, that now is, taking the issues thereof to the value, &c. And whereas the said Roger died without heir of his body, the right of that land reverted to the three sisters of the said Adam, viz: to Beatrice, Matilda and Agnes. From Beatrice the title of that land descended to William de Ros, as son and heir, and from him to his two daughters, Margery and Juliana. From Margery, to William de Ros, as son and heir, and from him to the plaintiff Hugh, who now sues as son and heir. From Juliana, the title to the said land descended to Adam de Tyd, as son and heir, and from him to Roger de Tyd, who is named in the writ, but does not sue. From the said Matilda the title to that land descended to Roger, as son and heir, and from him to William, as son and heir, and from him to Thomas de Scotenhy, who is named in the writ, but does not sue. From Agnes, the title to that land descended to Robert, as son and heir, and from him to Henry, as son and heir, but because the said Henry died without heir of his body, the title descended to Robert, as son and heir (of Robert), and from him to Henry (de Munegheden who now holds the said land, as son and heir; and that such is his title, the said Hugh offers to put himself upon a Jury.
Henry appears and defends his title, etc., and says that he ought not to reply to him, for that when Roger de Montbegon, son of Adam died, the King seised the whole of the land into his own hands, and thereupon came William de Ros, father of the said Hugh, Thomas de Scoteny, and others, and declared themselves to be the said Roger's heirs (fecerunt se hœredes). Whereupon an Inquest was taken by the King's command, before M. de Pateshull [to determine] who might be the said Roger's next heir; and the said William and Thomas, and the others, put themselves upon that Inquest, which declared that the said Adam had only one sister, Agnes by name, from whom descended the said Henry, and that it was thereupon considered [by the Inquest], that Henry was next heir, and that the others could claim no title to the said land; and upon this he calls to warrant the Roll of the tenth year [of King Henry III].
And Hugh pleads that the said Inquest ought not to prejudice him, when he is pursuing his title, because that Inquest was made by the King to inquire to whom that land ought to be committed (debuit commiti), and because his father William was not impleaded for the said land, nor impleaded anyone, nor was ever summoned by any writ; and he prays for a verdict.
Afterwards the Roll of the Eyre of M. de Pateshull was examined, for a certain Jury chosen by the consent of the suitors before M. de Pateshull and his associates, at Lincoln, in the tenth year of this reign [A.D. 1225–6], by the following jurymen (recognitiones), viz.: Robert Bussel, Richard de Thorington, William de Tounstal, John de Cincefeld (Cantsfield), Adam de Wenington, Richard de Wraton, William de Tatham, Alexander de Pilkington, Henry de Brodeshagh, Roger Gernet of Burgh, Alan de Pennington, William de Millum, Gilbert de Kellet and John Gernet; and by the following from county Lincoln, viz.: William, son of Engelram, son of Simon, Roger de St. Martin, Herbert de Nevill, Gilbert de Tours (Turribus), and Ralph de Barkewin, to make recognition who is the next heir of Roger de Montbegon, and who by nearness of kinship ought by right and custom of the kingdom to obtain the inheritance lately belonging to the said Roger, whereof William de Ros, Adam de Tid and Thomas de Scoteny declare themselves to be the heirs, by reason that Roger de Montbegon, the grandfather of the said Roger, had one son named Adam, father of the said Roger, the younger, who lately died, and three daughters, viz.: Beatrice, Agnes and Emma, from whom descended the said William de Ros, Adam and Thomas, as they aver; and whereof Henry de Munegheden, declares himself to be heir, because he is the heir of the said Roger, in that the said Roger, the grandfather, had only one son and one daughter, to wit, the said Adam and the said Agnes, from whom he descends; and whereof John de Mikeham, Robert de Talewrth and Robert de Hamesden declare themselves to be the heirs of the said Roger, and that the said Roger, the grandfather, had one son, as is aforesaid, and three daughters, viz.: Matilda, Beatrice and Emma, from whom the said John, Robert and Robert descended as they aver; and whereof John de Cume (Kime) declares himself to be the heir of the said Roger, because he descended from Matilda, sole daughter of the aforesaid Roger, the elder; and whereof Adam de Beri (Bury) declares himself to be the heir of the said Roger, because the said Adam, father of the said Roger last deceased, had one daughter called Alice, from whom he descended, as he avers; and to make recognition if the said Roger who lately deceased, in the year and on the day of his death, was in seisin of the Castle of Horneby, and if he took the issues of the lands of Horneby and Melling, appurtenant to that castle, down to the day of his death, or no.
The recognitors declare the said Henry to be the next heir of Roger, and to have a better title to the inheritance which belonged to the said Roger, by reason that Adam had only one sister called Agnes, from whom the said Henry descended. It is therefore considered that the others are unable to claim any title during the lifetime of the said Henry.
Concerning the Castle and lands of Horneby and Melling, they declare that Roger was not in seisin on the day of his death, because more than a year previous, he gave that Castle and those lands to John de Lungvilers, who thereafter remained in seisin of the Castle and lands by that grant down to the day of the death of the said Roger, and tilled the land, taking the corn, and rents and issues, as from his own land, so that when the King sent the Justices into those parts to assess the fifteenth (in A.D. 1225), the said John gave a fifteenth of the corn and chattels, as of his own goods.
It is therefore considered that Henry shall go sine die, and Hugh de Ros be in miscricordia, by surety of Eudo le Fraunceys of Thyd, and Simon son of Beta de Sutton (Assize Roll, No. 482, m. 17.).
4 See the note to the preceding concord.
5 William de Tunstall, and Thomas his son occur in a concord of 1202 (No. 16, p. 14). Thomas married Matilda, one of the daughters of Akarias de Austwick (No. 54, p. 31), and had a son William (No. 15, p. 48), who is the tenant of the land referred to in this concord. The following entries in the Assize Roll of 1246, relate to this family:—
(a) William (1), son of Thomas de Tunstall was summoned to answer William (3), son of William (2) de Tunstall in a plea to hold the agreement made between Thomas, father of William (1), whose heir he is, and William, father of William (3), whose heir he is, respecting two oxgangs of land in Tunstall, whereby Thomas gave William (2) the service of Roger his brother, from two oxgangs of land which Roger held of him in Tunstall (cf. No. 15, p. 48); so that if Roger died without issue, the land should revert to William (3), quit of Thomas and his heirs, to hold in demesne, of Thomas and his heirs for ever.
William stated that William his father died seised of Roger's service, but because William, his father, died before Roger, who died without issue, the land ought to revert to him (3) as son and heir of William (2); and that the agreement has not been observed, whereby he has suffered loss to the amount of 40s., and he proffered in evidence the chirograph made between them.
William, son of Thomas, appeared and stated that William (2) was never in seisin either of the land held in demesne, or of the service. But afterwards they concorded, and William (1) gave 20s. for licence to concord, by the pledge of William (3), and they shall have a chirograph. (Assize Roll, No. 404, m. 6 dorso).
(b) William de Tunstall (1) sued William (3) for seven perches of land in Tunstall, in which the latter has no entry except by William (2) his father, to whom Thomas, father of William (1), whose heir he is, demised the land for a term, which has passed. A day is given them at the coming of the justices. (Ibid., m. 13.)
(c) Adam, son of Nicholas, sued William (3) for one oxgang of land in Tunstall, in which William has no entry except by William de Tunstall (2), to whom Nicholas, father of the said Adam, whose heir he is, demised the land for a term, which has passed. Adam stated that the demise was for the life of William (2) only.
William (3) appeared and prayed for a view. A day was given them on Thursday next before the feast of St. Martin, at Appelby, for the strengthening of the court. (Ibid., m. 14.)
(d) Joan, formerly the wife of Roger de Tunstall, by her attorney, sued William de Tunstall (1) for the third part of two oxgangs of land in Tunstall, as her dower. William appeared and said that she ought not to have dower thereof, because Roger did not hold the land in his demesne, when he married her, nor at any time subsequently.
The jury say that Roger, before he espoused Joan, released all his right in that land to the said William, by chirograph levied before Martin de Pateshull and his associates, Justices in Eyre in this county, but William permitted Roger to hold the land of him all his life, and after his decease it reverted to William and his heirs. William is discharged, and Joan in mercy for a false claim. She is poor. (Ibid., m. 15.)
6 This concord has been printed in the Surtees Society's Volume of Yorkshire Final Concords (vol. 94, p. 71), together with the following note. "Church . . . . in Lancashire. As part of the Lacy fee (it was) sometimes reckoned in Yorkshire. In the Selby Chartulary (No. cccix), Uhtred de Chirche is said to be father of William, then clerk of Brayton, near Selby; and one Huffred of Chirche tests No. 240 of the Pontefract Chartulary, a deed concerning lands in Magna Harwood, near Rochdale (sic). Another witness to that document is a Jordan of Cleytun, doubtless the same Cleiton as that to which this plaintiff belonged.—R.H." Cf. Whitaker's History of Whalley, vol. ii, p. 293.
7 Probably Newton, a hamlet of Bulk, near Lancaster. See Register of Lancaster Priory, p. 495. Warin de Lancaster, the Falconer, father of Henry de Lea, here called "de Lancaster," died before 1189.