BHO

Plea Rolls for Staffordshire: 17 Edward II

Pages 44-56

Staffordshire Historical Collections, Vol. 10, Part 1. Originally published by Staffordshire Record Society, London, 1889.

This free content was digitised by double rekeying. All rights reserved.

Citation:

Table of contents

Coram Rege. Mich., 17 E. II.

Derb. The Essoign of magister Henry de Mannesfeld, the Dean of St. Mary of Lincoln, appeared against Thomas de Wynesbury, John de Multon, John de Clynton, of Coleshull, John Murdak, John de Lee, William de la Spynee, Thomas de Hastang, Richard de Hastang, Philip de Chetwynd, John son of Anselm de Bromwych, John de Swynferton, Peter de Greseley, and three others, for taking, vi et armis, 14 oxen, 5 cows, 2 steers and 160 sheep, belonging to him and worth £40, from Assheburn. None of the defendants appeared and the Sheriff was ordered to attach them, and he returned they could not be found and held nothing within his bailiwick. He was therefore ordered to arrest them and produce them at the Quindene of Hillary. m. 25.

From the proceedings taken against Stephen de Segrave, Constable of the Tower, for permitting the escape of Roger de Mortimer who had been committed to his custody, 3 February, 16 E. II., it appears that on the same date the following were in prison in the Tower, viz., Roger de Mortimer, the uncle, Roger de Mortimer, the nephew, Thomas Gurnay, John de Eyville, John le FitzSimond, Hugh de Eland, Edmund Darel, John de Vaus, Bertelmeu de Burghersh, and John de la Beche, Knights, Walter de Seleby, Geoffrey de la Mare, John Knoynt, John Page, Richard de Pessehale, Henry de Assheburne, John FitzJohn de Mounbray, and Giles de Badelesmere. Stephen stated in his excuse that Roger and his valet had made between them a certain artful drink, "quendam potum ingeniosum," which they had given to drink to the guards, and in consequence of which, such a deep sleep had taken hold of them that they were unable to keep watch, and the said Roger and his valet had feloniously escaped from the Tower, and from the custody of the said Stephen, but not with his assent or knowledge, and he stated further that inasmuch as he could have imprisoned the said Roger in more profound and stricter custody than he had done "in profundiori et arciori custodiâ quam fecit," and as the said Roger had escaped as aforesaid and he no longer held him in custody according to the obligation of his indenture with the King, he put himself on the King's grace, and the King wishing to be further advised on the matter, committed the said Stephen to the custody of the Marshall, Walter de Beauchamp. Afterwards at the intercession of John de Segrave, the father of the said Stephen, the King permitted him to follow the King's Court, and that the Marshall should find lodging for him, but that the said John should be answerable for him, on pain of forfeiture of all his lands and tenements. m. 32, Rex.

Derb. The jury of the vill of Derby, presented that Roger de Okovere, Knight, on the day of St. James the Apostle, 10 E. II., with many other malefactors in his retinue, had insulted, beaten, and ill-treated at Derby, Nicholas de Trowell, at that time the King's bailiff in that town. The Sheriff was therefore ordered to attach him, and the said Roger afterwards appeared and could not deny that he was guilty of the said trespass. He was therefore committed to prison, and the said Roger afterwards appeared before the King at Hereford on the 26 January of this year in the custody of the Marshall and made fine with the King for the said trespass at £20, by the surety of William Deveros, of co. Hereford, Robert de Beck, of co. Stafford, Henry de Penebrugge, of co. Hereford, William Beysan, of the said county, and of John de Lantony, of the same, and of Henry le fitzHerbert, of co. Derby, who also became sureties that the said Roger would conduct himself well in future as well towards the King as towards others, under pain of forfeiture of all those things which could be forfeited to the King. m. Rex, 6.

Of Felonies presented Coram Rege in co. Stafford.

Extracts.

Staff. The jury of the Hundred of Pireshull presented, that John de Grete about the Feast of the Exaltation of the Cross, 10 E. II., feloniously killed John de Mere at Norton-under-Kevermund, and that Richard the Parker of Chebeseye, had aided and abetted him.

That Roger de Chestershire, the groom of Ralph de Marchynton, feloniously killed Thomas de Grendon at Gayton, on the Wednesday after Mid-Lent, 16 E. II.

That William le Wodeward of Blithefeld, on the Feast of Easter, 12 E. II., feloniously killed William de Gayton; miller, at Blithefeld.

That Thomas son of Nicholas de Bromleye about the Feast of St. Martin, 16 E. II., feloniously robbed William le Ward of Cherleton of a horse worth one mark, at Cherleton.

That Adam de Peshale, Geoffrey le Bedel of Eccleshale, Philip le Barker of Eccleshale, William le Bedel of Eccleshale, Henry de Sagenhulle Barkere, Alan de Cherleton, John de Cherleton Barkere, on the Vigil of St. Ceadde, 16 E. II., feloniously broke into the house of Thomas le Walker of Offeleye, at Offeleye, and carried away linen, twelve silver spoons, five mazers, 40s. in money, and other goods to the value of £20.

That John de Swynnerton, Knight, Richard de Swynnerton, John de Wethales, Richard de Wethales, Richard de Chelle, William de Chelle, Hugh de Chelle, and Henry de Chelle, in 5 E. II., feloniously took and abducted felonice ceperunt et rapuerunt, Joan de Greseleye from Drakelowe, and took her to Swynnerton, where they still detained her.

That Richard de Swynnerton had feloniously killed Henry the Parson of Penchris, in 9 E. II., and that the said Richard Thomas de Aston, and Robert the son of Thomas, and Richard de Aston, had feloniously robbed Roger le Marchal and others travelling from the market of Newcastle, of cloth, silver, jewels, and other goods to the value of £20 at Harnegge.

That Roger de Swynnerton is a receiver and maintainer of the said Richard de Swynnerton his brother, and knowingly received him after the said robberies and felonies had been committed.

The Sheriff was commanded to apprehend all the above and produce them coram Rege at the Octaves of Hillary, on which day the Sheriff returned they could not be found and held nothing within his bailiwick, etc., but he was ordered to postpone the "exigend" of Roger de Swynnerton quousque, etc. (fn. 1)

Afterwards at Easter term, 17 E. II., John de Wethales came and surrendered himself prisoner and was committed to the Marshalsea, and Richard Damory the Steward of the King's Household, "Seneschallus hospitii Regis" and others testified that the said John was of good fame, and William de Shareshull, Robert de Sareshulle, James de Podemore, and William de Blorton of co. Stafford, became surety for him, and he had a writ to supersede the "exigend."

Afterwards at the same term, viz., Easter, 17 E. II., Adam de Peshale surrendered himself, and as the said Richard Damory, and the others testified that he was of good fame, William de Shareshull, William de Charles, John de Blorton, Walter de Mokynton, Robert de Shareshull, and William de Okley came and stood bail for him, and he had a writ, etc., as before.

Afterwards, at the Octaves of Trinity, 17 E. II., the said John de Swynnerton surrendered, and being asked how he wished to be acquitted of the abduction and rape of the said Joan, stated that the King had pardoned him for the same, and he produced the King's pardon, which stated that on the 25th of May, 3 E. II., he had pardoned John de Swynnerton, John, son of Adam de Whethales, Roger de Tytnesovere, Ralph Proudfot, John de Bentele, Alexander de Adiele (sic), John le Clerk of Swynnerton, Robert Bole, Robert le Stedman of Swynnerton, Richard Bateson, and three others of Swynnerton for the rape of Joan, formerly wife of Peter de Greseley. The said John is therefore acquitted of the same and had a writ to supersede the "exigend."

Afterwards, on the third day of Trinity, 17 E. II., Ralph Licoriz surrendered and was committed to the custody of the Marshal, viz., to John Gay, and as it was testified that the said Ralph was of good fame, James de Podemore, William de Holynes, Richard de Mere, Thomas de Aston, clerk, Richard de Boghay, and William de Bromley, all of co. Stafford, came and stood bail for him. And on the same day Thomas de Aston surrendered and was committed, etc., and as it was testified he was of good fame, Robert de Bek, James de Podmore, Robert de Hoton, William de Okleye, William de Holynes, and Thomas de Aston, clerk, came and stood bail for him and the "exigend" was superseded.

Afterwards, on the Quindene of St. John the Baptist, Richard de Whethales, surrendered and was committed, etc., and William de Venables and Adam de Muckleston, James de Podemore, and Adam de Swynesheved of co. Stafford, and Thomas de Ashburn and Richard de la Pole of co. Derby, came and stood bail for him. And on the same day Richard de Aston surrendered and was committed, etc. and William de Venables, Adam de Muckleston, James de Podemore, John le Say of Dunston, Thomas de Eccleshale of co. Stafford, and Nicholas de Rossinton of co. Derby, came and stood bail for him, etc. N.B.—All the others indicted surrendered and found bail in the same manner.

The jury of the Foreign Liberty of the Bishop of Chester presented that John de Wenforde, William, son of Richard de Wasteneys, Henry, son of Richard de Boys, and John his brother, about the Feast of St. Michael, 16 E. II., had broken into the house of Adam Barker at Edenesford and taken his goods to the value of 100s., and had afterwards feloniously burnt the house.

That Richard de Swynnerton and John Fox of Eccleshale had come by night to the house of William de Bydenhale, Chaplain at Bydenhale, and had taken two quarters of siligin, worth a mark, and 60s. in money, about the Feast of St. Nicholas, 10 E. II.

That John de Whethales had feloniously robbed Richard Gregory of Freseley of twelve pigs in the wood of Cannok, about the Feast of St. Martin, 11 E. II.

That Adam, son of Adam de Pesehale, and Geoffrey, formerly Beadle of Eccleshale, about the Feast of the Annunciation, 16 E. II., had come to the house of Thomas le Walkere in Offeleye and had broken open a chest and taken away goods to the value of ten marks.

Staff. The jury of the Hundred of Offelowe presented that John de Acton with others unknown, had feloniously killed Thomas de Attelbergh and Richard de Seckyndon his servant, at Honnesworth (Handsworth), and taken his goods to the value of 100s., on the vigil of St. Laurence, 5 E. II. That Andrew de Folleshull, chaplain, conducted two strange men whose names are unknown, in order to kill a certain strange woman, and they killed her on the Coalfield (super le Colfeld) of Great Barr recently with the assent and by the mission of the said Andrew, viz., on the Feast of the Apostles Peter and Paul, 14 E. II., and that Thomas Burdoun of Ridewarhampstal feloniously killed William Burdoun and Juliana his wife at Ridewarhampstal on the Feast of St. Peter ad Vincula, 10 E. II.

That Ralph, son of the Lady of Overton, feloniously killed Adam de Warmeleye, chaplain at Tamworth, on the Feast of St. Edith, 14 E. II., and that Henry Skyrm feloniously killed William Nicol of Burton on the day of St. Modwen at Burton, 15 E. II.

The jury of the Hundred of Cotheleston presented that William Cothel of Wolgarston had feloniously killed Thomas de Swynnerton at Wolgarston on the Tuesday after the Feast of St. John the Baptist, 8 E. II.

That John de Kneelet feloniously killed Thomas de Blythefeld at Pencrich on the Thursday, the Feast of St. Michael, 5 E. II., and that John le Taillour of Pencrich aided and abetted the said Thomas de Blythefeld (sic), in committing the said felony.

That John de Stepilton feloniously killed Nicholas Crabbe at Haulegton on the Monday after the Feast of St. John the Baptist, 13 E. II.

That John, son of Peter de Gnousehale feloniously killed William de Donynton at Gnouheshale, on the Friday before the Feast of the Ascension, 2 E. II., and that William Whyteheved, and William son of Peter aided and abetted him.

That Richard de Swynnerton feloniously killed Henry, the parson of Pencrich, in the house of the said Henry at Pencrich, on the Tuesday after the Feast of St. James, 9 E. II.

That Hugh le Page of Salop feloniously killed John de Bylinton at Locwode, on the Monday after the Feast of St. Margaret, 10 E. II.

That John de Whetales and William Burguilun feloniously robbed William Cook of Pellshale of two pigs, worth 6s., in the Haye of Teddesleye, 12 E. II., and that the said John de Whetales feloniously robbed Richard de le Chambere, of timber, worth a mark, at Teddesleye on the Friday after the Feast of St. James, 9 E. II., etc. m. Rex, 3.

The jury of the Hundred of Pirhull presented that William Malvisin, Ralph le Walker, Richard de Stretton, Gilbert Henri, Robert Mollesone, and William de Duffeld during Lent in 15 E. II., were at the bridge of Burton assisting the Earl of Lancaster against the King, and that the said Gilbert and one Richard de Holand of Barton, at the time the King was pursuing the said Earl and his rebels, broke down the bridge of Rydeware to impede the passage of the King. The Sheriff was therefore ordered to attach them, and the said William Mauveysin, Gilbert Henri and Richard de Holand of Barton afterwards appeared, and being questioned respecting the premises stated they were not guilty and put themselves on the country, and the jury said that William Malveysin and Richard de Holand were guilty and they were committed to the custody of the Marshal, and that the said Gilbert was not guilty.

The said William Malveysin and Richard de Holand of Barton afterwards appeared and could not deny the above transgression (fn. 2) and they were committed to the custody of the Marshal, and William Malveysin afterwards made fine with the King for 20s. and found surety, viz., John de Kynardeseye, Henry de Hounhill, Thomas le Chamberleyn, and Hugh le Ryder of Lychfield who stood bail for his good behaviour in the future, and the said Richard de Holand made fine for 40s. by the surety of Thomas de Rolleston, Richard de Calangwode, John le Rous, Robert de Barton, clerk, John de Suthwell, and Walter de Everingham who also stood bail for his good behaviour in future, and Mathew de Vilers, John, son of John de Miners, Richard de Calangwode, and Robert le Clerk of Barton, of co. Stafford, afterwards appeared and made fine for the said William de Duffeld at half a mark, and the said Richard de Stretton made fine as appears on the back of this Roll. m. 4, Rex.

The jury of the Hundred of Offlow presented that John de Wetales, John de Bilinton, and John de Wytinton, chaplain, are common malefactors and disturbers of the King's peace, and that the said John de Bilinton on the day of St. Edith, 5 E. II., had cut off the hand of Stephen Longeman at Cotoun near Tamworth, and that he and John de Wytinton on the Wednesday in the week of Pentecost, 10 E. II., had beaten and wounded Nicholas de Tymor at Lychefeld and that the said John de Wetale in the same year had besieged the house of William de Boweles at Rushale, vi et armis, seeking Robert de Esinton who was concealed there out of fear of him, and had shot arrows over the gates of the said William.

And that William de Aston is a common malefactor and disturber of the King's peace and beat Stephen de Calewych at Burton, because he would not sell him victuals at will in 16 E. II., etc. m. 4, Rex.

The same jury presented that Guy de Mauncestre, Knight, Edmund de Whitacre, parson of the Church of Elmedon, Richard de Ruyton, and four others named, came with others unknown, vi et armis, on the Friday after the Feast of the Nativity of the Blessed Mary, 14 E. II., to the Colefeld at Great Barr, and took feloniously the goods and chattels of Elias le Callere of London to the value of £200, and they are common malefactors.

That William de Pycheford in Swynefen is a common malefactor and disturber of the peace, and had beaten and wounded Henry de Teddesleye at Sheneston on the Wednesday after the Feast of St. Edith, 15 E. II. The Sheriff was therefore ordered to attach them, and the said William de Pycheford afterwards appeared and could not deny the said transgression, and he was committed, etc., and afterwards made fine with the King for 20s. by the surety of Geoffrey de Wasteneys, Richard de Pycheford, John de Wyrley, and Richard de Faulde of co. Stafford, who also stood surety for his future good behaviour, etc.

The same jury presented that Simon Trumwyne at the time he was custos of the King's gaol of Stafford, made Stephen de Lullyngton, an approver detained in the said gaol, by pain and hardship to maliciously appeal certain legal men of good fame of various felonies, and that Roger Trumwyne at that time Sheriff, refused to admit them to bail without a heavy fine. The Sheriff was therefore ordered to summon them, and he returned they could not be found. He was therefore ordered to attach them and produce them at Hillary term.

The same jury presented that John de Myners, Richard de Holand of Barton, John de Vernay, John Umfrey of Childecote, Richard Leysing, Ralph Leysing, Robert le Wayte, and fifteen others named, broke down the bridge of Wichenore to impede the passage of the King, when he was pursuing the Earl of Lancaster and his other enemies, and they were at the bridge of Burton, assisting the said Earl against the King, and that Richard de Wamberge, parson of the Church of Castelford, Walter son of Walter deMongomery, Peter de Limesi, Knight, Richard de Limesi, Knight, Thomas Blauncfront, Knight, William Trussel, Knight, Simon de Bereford, Knight, Nicholas de Langeford, Knight, John de Leybourne, Knight, Nicholas de Crompton, Knight, Robert, son of Henry Gerveis, Henry Troke, John, son of Hamon le Broune, Gilbert Choppecok, and John Curteis of Defford, and many others unknown were assisting the said Earl at the bridge of Burton and elsewhere against the King. The Sheriff was therefore ordered to attach them, etc. N.B.—A postscript shews they all made fine with the King eventually, and found bail for their good behaviour. m. 4, dorso, Rex.

The jury of the Hundred of Cotheleston presented that William de Stretton and Thomas his brother, the chaplain, are common malefactors, going about in the society of other malefactors, armed to fairs and markets, to the great terror of the people, and that they had beaten John Balle, and Ralph de Grendon of Gayton at Pencrich on the Feast of St. Michael, 17 E. II., and together with John de Wethales and Robert le Knyght they had broken into the Bishop's park at Brewode, when the See was vacant, viz., in the fifteenth and sixteenth years of the reign and had taken and carried away beasts from it. The Sheriff was therefore ordered to attach them, and they afterwards came and confessed themselves guilty of the said trespasses, and the said William made fine with the King for the said trespasses and for others at four marks, for which William de Wolseley, Adam de Morton, Adam Henri of Stretton, Richard de Pichford, William Champioun of Sardon, and Roger, son of William de Draycote of Stretton, were sureties, and who also stood bail for his good behaviour in future, and the said Thomas made fine with the King at four marks for the said trespasses and for others, for which he found the same sureties. m. 5, Rex.

The same jury presented that John de Levynton the Esquire (Armiger) of Ralph le Botiller is a common malefactor, riding armed about the country to the terror of the people, and on the Friday after St. Hillary 14 E. II., he took a colt of Richard Jouwe of Horselowe, worth 20s., and a colt of Robert Brid of Horselowe, worth 16s., in the wood of Lyndovere. The Sheriff was ordered to attach him, and returned he could not be found and held nothing within his bailiwick. A postscript states that afterwards Henry de Solihulle and Roger de Levynton came and stood bail for the said John for the said transgression as appears in the Roll of Fines of Trinity term, 18 E. II.

The same jury presented that Ralph de Grendon, Knight, deputed for the selection of men for the aid of the King against the Scots extorted 2 marks from the community of Cutheleston to make the election at Pencrich, so that he might not vex them in remote places to make the said selection. The Sheriff was therefore ordered to summon him, and Philip de Chetewynde, Ralph de Grendon of Gayton, and Hugh de Aston afterwards appeared and made fine for him for the said transgression at 40s.

The same jury presented that John de Whetales, Richard and Adam his brothers, Thomas Bynde, John le Fox, Robert le Knyght, and John de Charnes, on the Friday before the Feast of St. John, 6 E. II., beat, wounded, and illtreated John Dod, the Canon of Pencrich at Pencrich, and similarly on Michaelmas day of the same year beat Reginald le Pottere of Stafford at Pencrich, and they are common malefactors, and that Robert Bagot, Robert de Kent, and Richard de Swynnerton are common malefactors, and that with others unknown had come to Pencrich on the Thursday after St. James, 8 E. II., and had prevented Henry de Cressewalle, the Coroner, from performing his office on the body of Henry Persoun, who had been killed by the said Richard de Swynnerton at Pencrich. The Sheriff was therefore ordered to attach them, etc.

The jury of the Hundred of Offelowe presented that James, son of William de Stafford and John his brother on the occasion of the strife which arose between the said James and Richard de Swynnerton, collected a great multitude of armed men and other malefactors, and rode through the country viz., to the market towns and elsewhere to the great terror of the people, and the said James and John on the Friday the morrow of St. John the Baptist, 12 E. II., at Eccleshale, beat, wounded, and ill-treated Richard de Swynnerton. Also the Hundred of Tatmoneslowe presented that when Thomas de Furnivall, junior, had taken William de Stafford, Knight, to his castle of Alveton, the said James and John in the month of March, 15 E. II., with others unknown came to the said castle and put fire against the gates of it. And that the said James and John were at Burton Bridge armed assisting the Earl of Lancaster against the King. The Sheriff was therefore ordered to attach them, and the said James and John afterwards appeared and stated that the King at the instance of Nicholas de Verdoun had pardoned them for the death of Alexander de Swynnerton and for all robberies and felonies, homicides, etc., and they produced the King's Charters of pardon dated from York, 27th October, 16 E. II.

And the jury of the Hundred of Offelowe presented that William de Chetilton the Lord of Chetilton is a common malefactor and disturber of the peace, and a maintainer of false quarrels, and that he collected unknown malefactors, and rode armed about the country to the terror of the people, and he was of the society of the said James and John, sons of William de Stafford, and had insulted the Abbot of Deulacres at Deulacres in 14 E. II., so that the Abbot did not dare to leave the doors of the Abbey. And the jury of Tatmanslowe presented that the said William de Chetilton, Nicholas de Langeford, Knight, John de Twyford, Knight, with others unknown, in the month of August, 15 E. II., entered the park of Thomas de Furnival of Alveton, and took one of his beasts. The Sheriff was therefore ordered to attach them, and Vivian de Staundon, William de Chetewynde, Vivian de Chetewynde, John de Ipstones, James son of William de Stafford, and Adam de Beresford, afterwards came and made fine for the said William de Chetilton at £20, and stood bail for his good behaviour in future under pain of forfeiture of all things which could be forfeited to the King. m. 6, Rex.

The same jury presented that on the occasion of the strife between William de Stafford, Knight, on the one side, and Roger de Swynnerton, Knight, on the other, Joan, formerly Countess of Lincoln, who was now dead, had sent her men with horses and arms, viz., Peter de Lymesi, Thomas Blauncfront, Knights, William de Chetelton, Roger de Podmor, Simon Pare, and William his son, who with many others unknown, both horse and foot, had ridden about armed in the parks of Heleye, Newcastle, Ecclesale, Swynnerton, and Stafford, in the 13th and 14th years of the present reign, as malefactors armed, and disturbers of the peace, in the maintenance of the quarrel of the said William de Stafford against the said Roger de Swynnerton to the great terror of the people, the said William de Stafford himself being ignorant of it. The Sheriff was therefore ordered to attach them, and William de Chetelton afterwards made fine as appears above, and it was testified that the said Roger de Podmor and Simon Pare were dead, and as regarded the others, the Sheriff returned they could not be found and held nothing within his bailiwick. He was therefore ordered to produce them coram Rege on the morrow of the Purification. m. 6, Rex.

The Hundred of Pirhull presented that Peter de Lymesi, John de Twyford, and Thomas Wyther, Knights, John son of John de Iselewall, John Unfrey, Richard Keys, Robert de Knythesleye, Parker (Parcarius) of Adgaresle and Robert le Warner were with the Earl of Lancaster at the Bridge of Burton, against the King, and that the said Peter de Lymesi, John de Twiford, Thomas Wither, and John son of John were taken on that occasion, and the said John and the others had not been attached hitherto, and the Sheriff was ordered to attach them, etc. John Umfrey and Robert le Warner afterwards appeared and were fined 20s. each and found sureties for their good behaviour, and the Sheriff was ordered to produce the others on the morrow of the Purification. m. 6, dorso, Rex.

The same jury presented that Peter de Eyton, William de Eyton, and Brother Roger de Eyton, the Canon of Wombridge, are common malefactors and disturbers of the King's peace, and that when Richard de Sideway in 16 E. II., was driving 16 oxen and his cows to Whitemor from fear of the King's enemies, the said Peter and others unknown took the oxen and cows, vi et armis, and detained them until the said Richard paid them 2s., and that the said William de Eyton in the same year took by force a quarter of wheat from Roger the Chaplain of Wolstanton at Kel, and that Thomas de Aston, Robert his son, and Richard de Aston are common malefactors, and they beat William del Pek at Aston on the day of St. James, 14 E. II., and that Adam de Pesehale is a common malefactor, and beat John de Haketon at Eccleshale on the Nundines of the day of St. Mary Magdalene, 12 E. II. The Sheriff was therefore ordered to attach them. A postscript states that afterwards the said Peter de Eyton, William de Eyton, and brother Roger de Eyton appeared and admitted the said transgressions and were committed to the custody of the Marshal. And the said Peter, William, and Roger afterwards made fine with the King at 1 mark each, for which John de Perton, William de Waleye, John de Virleye (Wirley), and Adam de Morton were sureties, who also stood bail for their good behaviour in future both towards the King, and any others, under pain of forfeiture, etc. And the said Richard de Aston made fine as appears elsewhere, and with regard to the others, the Sheriff returned they could not be found, and held nothing within his bailiwick. He was therefore ordered to attach them for the morrow of the Purification, and Thomas de Aston and Robert his son afterwards appeared and made fine with the King as appears on the Roll of Fines of Easter term, 18 E. II.

The same jury presented that William de Chetelton, William Shirard, Richard and Thomas his brothers, William de Butteleye, Thomas son of Ralph de Rudeyard and John his brother, are common malefactors and disturbers of the peace, and that near the Feast of St. Margaret, 17 E. II., they had beaten William Maunche, the servant of the Abbot of Deulacres, at le Lek (Leek). And the Sheriff was ordered to attach them. Afterwards the said William de Chetelton made fine for that, as well as for other transgressions as appears below, and the said William Shirard, Richard and Thomas his brothers, and Thomas son of Ralph, made fine as appears in the Roll of Presentments of the Hundred of Tatmanlowe. And John de Rodeyerd afterwards appeared and made fine with the King at 2 marks, for which Adam de Bereford, Ralph Burgiloun, William de Beresford, and Richard del Boure were sureties, and who stood bail also for his good behaviour in future. And William de Butteleye made fine as appears on the Roll of Presentments of the vill of Newcastle.

The same jury presented that Richard de Wenlok and Ralph de Bissebyri, and others unknown, at the time the temporalities of the See of Coventry and Lichfield were in the King's hand, viz., in 15 E. II., took in the park of Brewode, ten bucks, and they are common malefactors in parks. The Sheriff was therefore ordered to attach them, and Henry de Bissebiri, William de Waleye, Robert Byffri, John Roberd of Wydenefeld, Thomas atte Brok of Bissebyri, and William le Freman of Hampton, afterwards appeared and made fine with the King for the said Ralph de Bisseburi at 40s., and stood bail for his good behaviour in future. And as regarded the said Richard Wenlok, the Sheriff returned he could not be found, and he was ordered to produce him, coram Rege, on the morrow of the Purification. m. 6, dorso, Rex.

The jury of the vill of Newcastle-under-Lyme, presented that Peter de Lymesy, Knight, John de Twyford, Knight, Thomas Wyther, Knight, John de Uselwall, Henry del Peek, William his brother, William, son of Adam Coly, Henry his brother, Ralph del Shawe of Knotton, Elias Irento of the same, Thomas, son of Richard de Knotton, William, son of Richard de Knotton, Nicholas, son of Robert de Knotton, William le Grobber of Knotton, Richard, son of Ralph Raven, Stephen, son of Robert de Dymesdale, William, son of Stephen le Broun of Wolstanton, Nicholas Colmare of the same, and nine others named were at the Bridge of Burton, assisting the Earl of Lancaster against the King in 15 E. II. The Sheriff was therefore ordered to attach them. A postscript shows the defendants all appeared eventually and were fined sums varying from 40 pence to 1 mark, and found sureties for their good behaviour. m. 8.

The same jury presented that Thomas de Warwyk, formerly Clerk of the Countess of Helegh (sic Lincoln), like a common malefactor, in full market of Newcastle-under-Lyme, in 13 E. II., insulted Roger, son of Roger de Swynnerton, and beat and maltreated him. And that Richard de Swynnerton, Richard, son of Adam le Hirdeman, Richard de Childerplawe, and William son of William, the Smith of Chelle, at Newcastle, on a market day in 13 E. II., beat and wounded the said Thomas de Warewyk almost to death. And that Henry, the Clerk of the Countess of Helegh, Henry le Peleter, and John de Iselwalle at Newcastle, on a market day in 13 E. II., came like common malefactors and beat and wounded Agnes the wife of Robert del Bakhous, and Adam son of Adam de Lanton, etc. And that Adam Deneys of Congelton, of co. Chester, came armed with many unknown men to the number of five hundred to Newcastle on the Feast of St. Gregory, 15 E. II., and took the goods and chattels of William de Snethe, viz., linen and woollen cloth worth 10s. and 20s. in money, five quarters of oats worth 15s., and other victuals and goods worth 20s., and that Ralph de Fouleshurst was of the retinue of the said Adam and took from Stephen Bonetable of Newcastle a brass pot worth 10s., etc.

The vill of Stafford presented that John Blaunchard is a common malefactor and on the Friday after the Feast of the Translation of St. Thomas the Martyr, 14 E. II., had insulted John de Hastang at Stafford, and had beaten, wounded and maltreated him. The Sheriff was therefore ordered to attach him and returned he could not be found, etc.

The same jury presented that Richard de Aston, Thomas de Aston, Robert, son of the said Thomas and Richard le Seriveyn of Stone, Chaplain, are common malefactors, and came to Stafford on the Thursday the Feast of St. Peter and Paul, in 8 E. II., at the time of the Fair and broke open the gates of the town and beat and wounded and maltreated John de Huyghtesdon (Hixon) and Philip his brother, etc. The Sheriff was therefore ordered to attach them. A postscript shows that Richard de Aston afterwards appeared and admitted the transgression and made fine with the King for that and other transgressions at 40s., and the Sheriff was ordered to produce the others on the morrow of the Purification. m. 9, Rex.

The vill of Lychefeld presented that Peter de Gresele came, vi et armis, to Lychefeld on the day of St. Nicholas, 15 E. II., and insulted, beat, and maltreated Richard Serich of Cotoun, and cut off his left hand, and that he is a common malefactor. And that John de Stepilton and Nicholas his servant are common malefactors, and beat and wounded Walter de Wynterton at Lychefeld on the Wednesday before the Feast of St. Peter ad Vincula, 4 E. II. And that John de Whetale, John Fox, Ithel le Forester, and Robert Stedeman are common malefactors going through the country armed to the terror of the people and that they beat Roger Bate of the Thornes in the week of Pentecost, 6 E. II. And that Richard de Elmherst, Vicar of the Church of Lychefeld, with others unknown had impeded, vi et armis, at Lychefeld upon the Goya extra dausum, the Coroner of the King's Household, and John le Moigne, the Cryer (Proclamator), and other ministers of the King, sent to take horses for carrying victuals from Caldewalle to Burtonebrigg, in 15 E. II., and had shot quarrels at them and thrown stones at them, and that the beer and other victuals of the King were lost through defect of carriage for them, and that the same Richard with other malefactors had entered the house of John de Sutton at Lychefeld about the Feast of St. Gregory, 14 E. II., and had insulted and beaten the Parson of the Church of Herteshorn and William his servant, and that the same Richard and others unknown, about the Feast of the Annunciation of the Blessed Mary, 14 E. II., had entered the house of John de Byrmyngham, Clerk at Elmhurst, and had taken three horses and six oxen of the said John from his plough, and had driven them to Lychefeld and kept them there until he paid the said Richard 20s., and that John de Byrmyngham, Clerk, in the week after the Feast of St. Gregory, 15 E. II., after the rout of the King's enemies at Burton-upon-Trent, had taken goods and chattels of many of the King's lieges returning from the service of the King, viz., two horses of Henry de Bisseburi, the Sheriff of Staffordshire, laden with victuals, and 16 oxen belonging to the same, and 40 horses, and other goods and victuals of divers men to the value of £100. The Sheriff was therefore ordered to attach them. And the said John de Byrmyngham afterwards came, and being questioned, said he was not guilty, and appealed to a jury, and a jury being sworn said he was not guilty. And Robert le Stedeman made fine with the King as appears on the Rolls of the Hundreds of Offelowe and Pirhull, etc., and respecting Peter de Gresele and the others, the Sheriff returned they could not be found, and he was ordered to produce them on the morrow of the Purification, and Richard de Elmherst afterwards appeared and made fine with the King as shown on the Roll of Trinity term, 18 E. II. m. 9.

The jury of the Hundred of Tatmonlowe presented that Robert de Madele and many others unknown of the retinue and household of Thomas de Furnival, junior, by command of the said Thomas, entered, vi et armis, in the month of February, 15 E. II., the granges of John de Kynardesle and Nicholas de Hungerford, and had taken corn from them to the value of 100s., and that the same Robert had in the same way taken the corn of Thomas Broun of Alveton to the value of 10 marks, and that the said Thomas de Furnival in the same month took by force from Thomas Moeverel at Trouleye sixteen pigs worth 16s., and two oxen worth 20s.; and the same Thomas with others armed of his household had taken of the goods of William de Stafford six horses and victuals to the value of £20, and had caused them to be transported to his castle of Alveton. The Sheriff was therefore ordered to attach him, and the said Thomas afterwards came, and being questioned stated that at that time he had collected by the King's command a retinue of men-at-arms for the assistance of the King against his enemies and rebels to the greatest number possible, and he had retained them in his retinue for a long time to aid the King against his enemies, and the said men through defect of victuals had taken the goods and corn of John de Kynardesle, and the others named for their sustenance, and he had afterwards fully satisfied them for the same, and for having taken the corn and chattels in the above way, he put himself on the King's grace. A day was given to him at the Quindene of Hillary to hear judgment. m. 10.

The same jury presented that Richard Shirard, senior, Thomas his son, Henry Beneyt of Chetelton, John de Vernay and Robert Ploungoun are common malefactors and beaters of men, and in the month of July, 14 E. II., they had beaten Richard de Wyvereshale in the vill of Lek. And that Richard, son of Richard Shirard, and William his brother, in May of the same year had beaten John, the Smith of Hales at Chedle, and they are common malefactors. The Sheriff was therefore ordered to attach them, and Henry de Cressewalle, Richard le Vernay, William de Chauldon, and Henry his son, Ralph de Rodeyerd, William son of Henry de Chetelton, William atte Halle of the same, Ralph Burguilloun, Vivian de Verdoun, Robert de Tylington, Ralph de Grendon on the moors, and Robert de Homereslegh (Hammersley), of co. Stafford, appeared and made fine for the said Richard Shirard and his sons at £20, and stood bail for their good behaviour in future, and John de Vernay afterwards came and made fine for the above and other transgressions as appears in the Roll of co. Derby, and with respect to the said Henry Beneyt and Robert Ploungoun, the Sheriff returned they could not be found, and he was ordered to produce them on the morrow of the Purification. m. 10.

The jury of the Hundred of Seyesdon presented that Richard de Swynnerton is a common malefactor and beater of men, and that he had cut off the hand of William de Whytewyk, Chaplain, at the Fair of Pencrich in 16 E. II. The Sheriff was therefore ordered to attach him and produce him coram Rege on the morrow of the Purification. m. 10, dorso, Rex.

The same jury and those of the Hundreds of Tatmunslowe, Cotheleston and Pirhull presented that John de Bentelye, Philip de Lutteleye and John de Ippestanes in 15 E. II., had a commission from the King to collect and raise from the men-at-arms of the County £200 granted to the King, and they had levied money from many who were not men-at-arms. The Sheriff was therefore ordered to summon them, and they were told to shew their Commission. And the King's Commission was produced, dated from Derby, 14th March, 15 E. II., by which it appeared that the men-at-arms of co. Stafford, who had not attended the King in his expedition against his enemies had made fine with him for a pardon at £200. And the said John, Philip and John being questioned if they had levied money from men who were not men-at-arms, admitted that they had done so, and made fine with the King for the said transgression at 10 marks, for which William de Walton and Richard de Ovyoteshay were sureties, and they were ordered to repay the money they had raised from men who were not men-at-arms, to those from whom they had extorted it. m. 10, dorso, Rex.

The juries of the Hundreds of Offeleye, (sic) Pirhull, Cotheleston, Seisdon and Tatmonslowe presented that Roger de Swynnerton, Kt., John de Swynnerton, Kt., Richard de Swynnerton, Stephen de Swynnerton, John de Uselwall, Nicholas de Swynnerton, Parson of the Church of Moccleston, Richard de Whetales, John de Whetales, Richard de Chelle, Hugh de Chelle, Henry de Chelle, Robert de Aston near Stone, Thomas de Aston of the same, Richard de Aston of the same, Andrew le Chamberleyn, John de Charnes, Ithel le Poker, Jukin le Walshe, Adam le Spenser, Adam le But of Swynnerton, William le Wodeward of Beche, and eight others named, were common malefactors and disturbers of the peace, riding about armed through the country to the terror of the people, and that they had come with others who were unknown, armed, to the County Court held at Stafford on a certain Thursday in the summer of 6 E. II., to the great terror of the people, and had forcibly closed the doors of the hall of the Court and placed guards so that none could depart, and they had threatened to kill Hugh de Croft, the Sheriff, and William de Stafford, Knight, in full County Court, unless the Court was stopped, and the said Richard de Swynnerton, Nicholas de Swynnerton, with others unknown had beaten and wounded James de Stafford at Lychefeld in the same year, and the said Richard de Swynnerton in the summer of the same year had beaten William Spark and many others at Wolgarston, and that the same Richard took a ransom from several men for not beating them to the value of 100s. yearly. And the same Richard with other malefactors, at Pencrich in 8 E. II., had prevented Henry de Cressewell, the Coroner of the County, from performing his office on the body of Henry atte Persouns, who had been killed by the said Richard, and that when the said Roger de Swynnerton, Knight, had been indicted before the Sheriff and Coroners of the County for the death of Henry de Salt, killed at Stafford in 1 E. II., the said Roger came to Swynnerton and convoked by force before him all the witnesses, and made them singly pay fines to him because they had indicted him of the said death, as they truly understand "vere prout intellexerunt," viz., Robert Bythewater one of the witnesses paid 50 marks, and Roger de Walton, another witness, 50 marks, and so from all the other witnesses he took at least from each 50 marks, and Roger de Aston then Coroner, because he took the said indictment made fine with him at £100, and he made them all swear that they would take no further proceedings against him.

And they say that the said John de Swynnerton when he was Sheriff in 15 E. II., on the Wednesday after the Epiphany, in 15 E. II., took by force Nicholas de Picheford at Wollerhampton and imprisoned him at Stafford, and kept him there till he paid him £20. And the same John de Swynnerton, John de Charles, Richard de Chelle, and John de Wetale with others unknown, came to Clifton Caunville, in December, 9 E. II., on a day when John Chaynel and John Cave, the Justices assigned to take assizes in the County, were sitting, and disturbed them so that they could not take the assizes. And the said Roger de Swynnerton, John de Swynnerton, Richard de Swynnerton, and John de Wethales, on the Thursday before the Feast of St. Peter ad Vincula, 7 E. II., came to Stafford to the great terror of the people, and forcibly disturbed the Sheriff sitting in full County, so that the pleas of the County could not be taken. And that the said Stephen de Swynnerton, Richard de Swynnerton, John de Whetale, and others unknown, at Gauley, in September 13 E. II., took the goods and chattels of Reginald Perle of Salop, to the value of £100. The Sheriff was therefore ordered to attach them, etc. A postscript states that at Trinity term, 17 E. II., the said John de Swynnerton surrendered and was committed to the custody of the Marshal, and being afterwards brought up, prayed that he might be permitted to make fine with the King for the said transgressions, and he was fined £40, for which Robert de Bek, William de Shareshill, Thomas Pursel, William Golde, Adam le Hayward, and Robert de Wirleye of co. Stafford, were sureties. (In the same way all the other defendants with the exception of Roger de Swynnerton, appeared at different times, and were fined in sums varying from 20s. to 10 marks. The postscripts make no mention of Roger de Swynnerton who was at this time employed in the service of the Crown, and was Constable of the Tower of London.)

The juries of the Hundreds of Pirhull, Offelowe, Cotheleston, Tatmonslowe and Seysdon presented that John de Clynton, and William his brother, Knights, Geoffry de Skeffeton, and John Hackelut, and others unknown, had come, vi et armis, to Lychefeld about the Feast of St. Margaret, 17 E. II., and when one Henry de Tyddesle had arraigned there an assize of novel disseisin against the said John Hackelut respecting certain tenements in this county, before Henry de Hamburi and Roger Hillary, the Justices assigned to take it, the said John de Clynton, and others of the maintenance of the said John Hackelut, had used contumelious words and threats against the said Henry and the recognitors of the assize in order to impede the trial. The Sheriff was therefore ordered to attach them and produce them coram Rege on the morrow of the Purification. The said Geoffrey and John afterwards appeared and made fine with the King as appears on the Roll of Trinity term, 18 E. II., and the said John de Clynton, and William his brother have King's letters of protection because they are in his service in Gascony as appears more fully on the same Roll. m. 9, dorso, Rex.

The same juries presented that Thomas de Stretton, Chaplain, William his brother, Thomas de Wyston, John de Pycheford, Roger Congrefe, Robert Gryffyn, Reginald Charles, and Thomas, son of Ralph de Rodeyerd, are common malefactors, and go through the country armed to fairs and markets, to the terror of the people, and they had beaten John Balle and Ralph de Grendon of Gayton at Penkrich, on Michaelmas Day last. And that Ralph le Boteller, Knight, John de Levington, Hugh de Cotynton, and Hugh de Kemeseye, with others unknown, had entered the park of Hambury, and had taken oxen, cows, mares, colts, and cart horses of Thomas of Rolleston, Nicholas of Rolleston, and other natives of Sir R. de Rolleston, and that Hugh de Audele, junior, Knight, Richard de Lymisy, Knight, Thomas de Gravele, and Richard Ferrour, with others unknown, like common malefactors, had come to Wychenore, in 15 E. II., and had taken by force the oxen, cows, sheep and other goods and chattels of Philip de Somerville and his tenants, to the value of £100, and that Henry Makelyn of Apinton, and Walter de Bucton of Shrewardyn had come like common malefactors to Tatenhale (sic Tattenhill), and taken 4 oxen, 22 cows, and 12 horses and 6 mares, and money of the said Philip de Somerville, worth £40. The Sheriff was therefore ordered to attach them; and Adam de Morton, Henry de Wolaston, William de Wolseleye, Robert de Ovyoteshay, Peter de Joneston, and Richard de Picheford of co. Stafford, afterwards came and made fine with the King, for the said John de Pycheford, for the said transgression, and for others presented against him at 4 marks and stood bail for his good behaviour in future. And afterwards Adam de Stretton, Adam de Morton, Henry atte Rook, and Walter de Parco of Pencrych, came and made fine for the said Roger de Congreve at 10s., etc., and Thomas de Stretton, Chaplain, William his brother, Thomas de Whiston, and Thomas son of Ralph de Rodeyerd, made fine as appears elsewhere.

Derb. The jury of the Wappentake of Appeltree presented that Peter son of Peter de Greseleye, on the vigil of the Exaltation of the Holy Cross, 17 E. II., on the high road under the park of Sheile had feloniously killed William son of Walter de Monte Gomeri, and that John Staleworth of Chestershire, in 15 E. II., had feloniously killed William atte Wode in the high road under Marston park, and Richard de Shirfeld, and Robert son of Peter de Greseleye, Knight, aided and abetted the said felony; and that Robert son of Peter de Griseleye, Knight, had feloniously killed William atte Wode of Lockesleye under the park of Marchington, in December, 14 E. II., and had taken 20s. in money from the purse of the said William; and that Peter son of Peter de Griseleye, Knight, had feloniously killed William de Monte Gomeri, Knight, between Wadlandes and Sheilewode on the vigil of the Exaltation of the Holy Cross, 17 E. II., and that Joan, formerly wife of Walter (sic) de Mont Gomeri, Knight, assented, procured, and was privy to the said felony. m. 3, Rex.

The jury of the Wapentake of Repington presented inter alia that John Scot of Marchinton had feloniously broken open a strong box (forcera) of Joan de Greseleye at Drakelowe, about the Feast of St. Martin, 17 E. II., and had taken goods and jewels to the value of 100s.

Coram Rege. Hillary, 17 E. II.

Staff. John de Melburne of Rolleston sued William Astel in a plea that he had forcibly broken into his house at Rolleston, and taken timber and other goods from it to the value of £10. William did not appear, and the Sheriff returned he could not be found, and held nothing within his bailiwick, he was therefore ordered to produce him at three weeks from Easter. m. 31.

Derb. Staff. The juries of divers Hundreds of co. Derby and the jury of the Hundred of Offelowe in co. Stafford had presented at the last term of St. Michael, that Nicholas de Langeford, Knight, had adhered to Thomas, Earl of Lancaster, the King's enemy, and had ridden armed at Ravenesdale in co. Derby, and at Burton and elsewhere in co. Stafford, against the King, and the Sheriff had been ordered to attach and produce him at this term. And the said Nicholas now appeared, and produced a close writ addressed to Henry de Staunton and the other Justices assigned to hear and determine transgressions committed against the King, which stated that the said Nicholas had paid into the Chancery a fine of 200 marks pro vitâ suâ salvandâ et terris et tenementis suis habendis, and the King therefore commanded them not to molest or trouble the said Nicholas for the said transgression, dated from Westminster, 12th March, 17 E. II. The said Nicholas is therefore quit of the same, and the Sheriffs were ordered to release the distraints made against him. m. 55, dorso.

Staff. A writ of certiorari bringing into Court the proceedings respecting the advowson of the Church of Chetelton, temp. Ed. I., when Nicholas de Aldythelegh, the custos of the land and heir of Richard son of Henry de Chetelton, claimed the right of presentation against the Abbot of Deulacres. The record of the plea in Banco of Easter and Trinity terms, 19 E. I., is given in full and is ordered to be revoked and annulled "tanquam erroneum," and the Abbot is to be put into the same status, as regards the said Church as his predecessor was before the said erroneous judgment had been pronounced. m. 75

Footnotes

  • 1. I.e., until the King's pleasure should be known. Sir Roger was at this time in high favour, and probably the most powerful person in Staffordshire.
  • 2. Sic in orig.— I am unable to account for the discrepancy.