Original Documents: Edward I Parliaments, Roll 1

Roll 1

THE ORIGINAL RECORDS

Special Collections: Parliament Rolls, Exchequer Series (SC 9)

Roll 1 (SC 9/1)

Roll 1 consists of twelve membranes. All twelve are between 215 and 220 mm. in width. The shortest is membrane 7 (635 mm.) and the longest is membrane 5 (785 mm.). Membrane 6 consists of two separate membranes (760 mm. and 165 mm. respectively) sewn together. (fn. roll01-foot-1) All twelve membranes are written in a neat, official hand. Their condition is reasonably good, though there has been damage to the bottom of several membranes and the lower part of membrane 6 and the bottom of the dorse of the upper part of the same membrane are badly stained with gall. The whole of the dorse of membrane 12 is also lightly stained with gall. There is a contemporary parchment cover sewn to the foot of membrane 11 with various identifications of the contents of the roll, mostly illegible. There are also identifications on m. 11 itself. The membranes are stitched together through two sets of holes, one at each side, which are knotted in the middle at the front and back. There is a contemporary Roman enumeration in ink of the membranes and a modern enumeration in Arabic numerals in pencil. There is writing on the face and dorse of each membrane other than m. 11, which has writing only on its face. The language of the roll is Latin throughout.

Only three membranes have headings purporting to date their contents. Membrane 1 says that it contains 'Pleas before the lord King and his Council at his parliaments after Hilary and Easter in the eighteenth regnal year of king Edward the son of king Henry.' Membrane 11 is ascribed by its heading to the Clipstone parliament held one month after Michaelmas in the eighteenth year [of Edward I], that is beginning around 28 October 1290. Membrane 12 is ascribed by its heading to the parliament held at Ashridge on the morrow of the Epiphany in the nineteenth year, that is beginning around 7 January 1291.

Richardson and Sayles say that the roll is a composite one, consisting of two separate portions: mm. 1-10 and mm. 11-12. (fn. roll01-foot-2) They suggest that, notwithstanding the heading of m. 1, the whole of the first section (mm. 1-10) was written at or shortly after the Easter parliament of 1290. No membrane, they argue, can be distinguished as belonging solely to the Hilary parliament and most, if not all, of the Hilary business that is recorded consists of cases subsequently adjourned to the Easter parliament. Their implication is that this section contains these earlier stages only as a necessary preliminary to their Easter stage, which it was the main business of this section of the roll to record. They would also date the whole of mm. 11-12, again despite the specific contrary evidence of the heading of m. 11, to the Ashridge parliament held early in 1291, on the grounds that one of the two cases it contains was continued at that parliament, (fn. roll01-foot-3) and the other adjourned coram rege at the quindene of Hilary and that the membrane has an endorsement connecting it with the Ashridge parliament.

A re-examination of the roll and reconsideration of its contents suggests the following, rather different, conclusions:

i) at least two membranes (membranes 1 and 8) record business from the Hilary parliament of 1290 only and appear to have been written as part of what was originally intended to be a separate roll recording business at that parliament. (fn. roll01-foot-4) There are certainly posteas to some specific entries on these membranes, recording further connected proceedings which took place at the Easter parliament, (fn. roll01-foot-5) but then there is also one entry where the postea records only the further action that took place at the Michaelmas parliament of 1293. (fn. roll01-foot-6) The very fact that the proceedings at the Easter parliament were recorded in the form of a postea , even if the handwriting seems sometimes to be identical with that of the main entry, (fn. roll01-foot-7) suggests that the entry was primarily intended as a record of what had happened at the Hilary, rather than the Easter, parliament. There are also entries on these two membranes which record business that was determined (as far as parliament was concerned) at the Hilary parliament, (fn. roll01-foot-8) or which have no postea recording what was done at that parliament, even if they look forward to action there (fn. roll01-foot-9) or which contain a record of business initiated at the Hilary parliament that was continued later, but is then recorded in a quite separate enrolment. (fn. roll01-foot-10)

ii) six membranes appear to contain business belonging solely to the Easter parliament of 1290 : these are membranes 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 9.

iii) two membranes seem to include material from both the Hilary and the Easter parliaments of 1290 : membranes 6 and 10. At least four items on membrane 6 can be securely dated to the Hilary parliament either by internal or external evidence; (fn. roll01-foot-11) and seven items on the same membrane can similarly be dated to the Easter parliament either by internal or external evidence. (fn. roll01-foot-12) There is also at least one entry on membrane 10 which seems on internal evidence to belong to the Hilary parliament, (fn. roll01-foot-13) while four seem on internal or external evidence to belong to the Easter parliament. (fn. roll01-foot-14)

iv) membrane 11 really does belong, as its heading proclaims, to the Clipstone parliament of Michaelmas 1290 . There seems no reason to doubt that item 66 is primarily a record of what was done at this parliament with only a postea recording a follow-up at the later Ashridge parliament. Had the record been compiled for the latter parliament itself the proceedings at the previous parliament might be expected to have received recapitulation in a completely different form that would have referred back to the previous parliament in a way that made it clear that it had already occurred. (fn. roll01-foot-15) Item 67 is certainly the record of business heard at the Clipstone parliament and thereafter transferred into King's Bench. (fn. roll01-foot-16)

v) only membrane 12 is properly to be regarded as a record of the Ashridge parliament of Epiphany 1291.

This analysis suggests that the roll is even more heterogeneous than Richardson and Sayles suggested, as it seems to contain material from no less than four separate parliaments. Its most puzzling feature is the two membranes which contain material from the two separate parliaments of Hilary and Easter 1290. The most likely explanation for this seems to be scribal confusion: the rough notes or separate pieces of parchment recording individual cases from each parliament having become muddled together before any attempt at enrolment of the proceedings of the Hilary parliament had been made and rendering difficult, if not impossible, the separate recording of the proceedings of this parliament. (fn. roll01-foot-17) This may explain the heading on membrane 1 which carefully drew attention to the fact that it recorded material from both parliaments.

Much, though not all, of the business recorded on this roll takes the form of litigation involving the king. Several entries record formal proceedings on petitions submitted to the king for the restitution of lands or other rights currently in the king's hands, whether on a permanent or only a temporary basis, (fn. roll01-foot-18) or for the payment of arrears of an annuity allegedly owed by him. (fn. roll01-foot-19) Others take the form of proceedings on complaints against royal officials, royal justices and the members of the king's council active during the king's absence, (fn. roll01-foot-20) or on complaints against the bailiffs of the queen consort. (fn. roll01-foot-21) There are also entries relating to proceedings for the enforcement of rights and privileges nominally, potentially, or actually, belonging to the king. (fn. roll01-foot-22) Other entries arise out of the reference to parliament of litigation in other courts where a party had sought the king's aid in defence of his title to land, (fn. roll01-foot-23) and out of breaches of parliamentary privilege. (fn. roll01-foot-24) But the roll also contains a record of a grant of feudal taxation by the magnates; (fn. roll01-foot-25) several royal concessions, ordinances and statutes; (fn. roll01-foot-26) evidence of royal activity as a mediator in disputes between his subjects, (fn. roll01-foot-27) and miscellaneous records of responses to petitions, (fn. roll01-foot-28) and of administrative and other decisions. (fn. roll01-foot-29) For additional notes on the contents of this roll see the Appendix.

This roll was known to the compiler of the Vetus Codex who copied it (with omissions) on ff. 1-26 of his work and designated the whole as 'parliamenta i, ii'. It was printed from that later copy by Ryley in Placita Parliamentaria at pp. 1-73. The editors of the 1783 edition of RP went back to the original roll in making their edition. The roll is printed in volume I at 15-45 and 66-9.

Text and translation

Appendix: Additional Information and Related Material for Roll 1

1

i) The forest eyre at which the seizure took place was in 14 Edward I (1285-6): CChR 1257-1300, 348-9. The bishop apparently blamed Richard de Loges, the forester of Cannock, for the loss of the wood and this subsequently led to Richard's excommunication by the bishop. Richard then submitted a petition to parliament complaining of the bishop's action: see Roll 2, item 65.

ii) By 28 July 1287 the bishop had laid a formal complaint that the justices of the forest eyre had exceeded their powers by seizing into the king's hands not just the woods belonging to the king in the forest allegedly usurped by the bishop but also the bishop's own woods appurtenant to his manors of Lichfield, Rugeley, Haywood and Cannockbury and the regent, Edmund of Cornwall had ordered an enquiry to be held by the justice of the forest through local forest officials into the boundaries between the king's woods and those of the bishop: C 47/11/4, no. 6, m. 1 No action seems to have been taken on this order for it was repeated on 28 October 1287: C 47/11/4, no. 6, m. 2. A verdict was eventually given at Rugeley on 3 March 1288: C 47/11/4, no. 6, m. 5. A further related mandate was issued on 6 July 1288: C 47/11/4, no. 6, m. 3.

iii) The bishop proffered a fine of one thousand marks for the restoration of his woods. The king pardoned him three hundred marks of this at the request of master Robert of Radeswell for losses suffered by the archdeacon through the appropriation of a church within his archdeaconry to the abbey of Vale Royal: E 159/63, m. 13d

de fine R. Coventr' et Lich' episcopi . Memorandum quod Rogerus Coventr' et Lich' episcopus finem fecit cum rege per mille libras pro boscis suis de Alto Canoko captis in manum regis per Rogerum Extraneum et socios suos justiciarios itinerantes ad placita foreste in comitatu Staff' rehabenda cum venacione, vasto et omnibus aliis pertinentibus suis tanquam pertinentes ad maneria de Ruggele et Canekeber' ut liberam chaceam suam in liberam, puram et perpetuam elemosinam, sicut continetur in carta regis eidem episcopo et successoribus suis episcopis ejusdem loci inde confecta. De quibus rex perdonavit eidem episcopo .cc. marcas et .c. marcas ad instanciam magistri Roberti de Radeswell archidiaconi Cestr' pro dampnis que sustinuit occasione ecclesie de Waverham que est in archidiaconatu suo appropriate ad instanciam regis abbacie de Valle Regali. Per testimonium magistri Willelmi de Marchia thesaurarii.

iv) The king's grant of 28 May 1290 which specified the boundaries of the bishop's wood and included various additional provisos is printed in full in Monasticon Anglicanum, iii. 236 and is calendared in CChR 1257-1300, 348-9.

2

The original dispute between the bishop of Lincoln and the university had arisen at the end of 1288: Annales Monastici, iii. 317. The king had originally asked the bishop to suspend action until the quindene of Michaelmas and on 30 September 1289 wrote to him asking for a further postponement until the next parliament: William Prynne, The History of King John, Henry III and Edward I (London, 1670), 1297.

3-4

[nothing found]

5

For a related but earlier complaint see item 49 below and for other related material (including a second copy of this petition) see E 175/11/ 7

6

The archbishop and master Robert settled their differences, apparently with royal assistance, during the course of the Easter parliament. The agreement, which is dated 8 May 1290, is printed in full in Beverley Chapter Act Book, vol. II, ed. A.F. Leach (Surtees Society 108), 160-1. For earlier litigation brought in the king's name in Easter term 1288 against the archbishop for disregarding the king's order to suspend all actions against master Robert, the dean of York, who was a royal clerk belonging to the king's household, while master Robert was on the king's service, until the king's return from Gascony, see KB 27/110, m. 25.

7

i) In Trinity term 1290 there is a King's Bench enrolment recording the response of the sheriffs of London to an order to levy one hundred pounds from the land and chattels of Bogo de Clare to render to Edmund earl of Cornwall which Bogo had acknowledged owing to him in the parliament after Hilary before the king and council and which he had not paid. The sheriffs reported he was a clerk without any lay fee in their bailiwick and the archbishop of York was therefore ordered to levy the money for the quindene of Michaelmas instead: KB 27/124, m. 37d . In Michaelmas term the archbishop reported back on his efforts. He had sequestrated Bogo's ecclesiastical goods but found no purchasers. He was instructed to hand them over at a reasonable price to the earl and to levy the rest for the quindene of Hilary 1291: KB 27/125, m. 17.

ii) Some time prior to the Ashridge parliament of January 1291 the king pardoned Bogo five hundred marks of his fine and during that parliament (on 16 January 1291) pardoned him a further five hundred marks and allowed him to pay the rest at the rate of two hundred marks a year: CFR 1272-1300, 288. A few days earlier (on 13 January 1291) the king also pardoned him the whole of the queen's gold of two hundred marks due on the original fine: CCR 1288-96, 158.

8

i) For a related writ of enquiry issued on 30 May 1290, its verdict in favour of the petitioner and the king's serjeant's objections to judgment being given on its basis see CIPM, ii, no. 778.

ii) The wardship of the manor was restored to John on 28 August 1290: CCR 1288-96, 100.

9

i) For an enrolment of the resulting order to Penchester dated 12 February 1290 see CCR 1288-96, 70.

ii) The revocation was probably in response to the petition of the abbot of Fecamp summarised in Roll 2, item 67.

10

i) The community of Southampton had been non-suited in their case against the bishop for the patronage of the hospital in the Common Bench at Easter term 1286: CP 40/62, m. 6.

ii) For a record of the earlier proceedings at the Hilary parliament of 1290 see item 25 and for related proceedings later in this parliament see item 53.

iii) For an adjournment of the plea between the king and the bishop of Winchester on the hospital in King's Bench in Michaelmas term to Hilary term for lack of jurors see KB 27/125, m. 19 (Michaelmas term 1290).

11

There is no trace of this case on the rolls of procedings before the auditores querelarum.

12

For a later related petition see SC 8/1, no 1

A nostre seygnur le Rey e a sun consayl prie Johan de Newburgh' remedie ke par la ou devant mestre Raf de Ivingeho agarde ly furunt les fiz de chivaler ke ne < ne > furunt contenuz en la fin ke leva entre ma dame la Reyne e Henri de Neuburgh' sun pere en le conte de Dors e Sumers' e sur se bref de jugement aveyt a Hunfray de Waledene de luy mettre en sesine e les tenauns aturner ne se voleent del homage le Rey turner sauns garant especial par que par < bille > bute a prochen parlement ke fust par le consayl comande ly fust bref de la chaunselerie al dit mestre Rauf ke il fest venir le record devaunt le dit consayl sauns delay le quel dist mestre Rauf rins de se ne fist ne unkore fere ne veut dunt il prie al bref de la caunseler cum autre fete de fere vener le record ou enchesun assigner pur que fere ne le poyet.

Endorsement

Habeat breve Radulpho sicut alias quod venire faciat recordum vel causam significet etc.

ii) For later related proceedings see Roll 12, item 261.

13

i) For a related entry see Roll 2, item 172 (second half) and the notes on that entry in the Appendix to Roll 2.

ii) For the final concord mentioned which survives with a endorsed note of its having been voided see CP 25(1)/259/10, no. 35.

iii) For a second copy of this entry and for other proceedings in the Common Bench at the same time against Matthew and the judgment given on it see CP 40/83, m. 168

Placita coram ipso domino rege et ejus consilio in parliamento suo post Pascha anno regni sui decimo octavo

Wygorn' . Willelmus de Wasthull' queritur domino regi et ejus consilio per quandam peticionem suam de hoc quod cum aliquo tempore convenit inter Matheum del Escheker ex una parte et ipsum Willelmum ex altera, videlicet quod idem Willelmus concessit et dimisit predicto Matheo per quoddam scriptum inter eos confectum totam terram suam quam idem Willelmus habuit in Werlyngescote in comitatu Wygorn' et in Blakegreve in comitatu Warr' tenenda ad terminum duodecim annorum proximo sequencium et idem Matheus postea tulisset quoddam breve de convencione versus ipsum Willelmum de predicto termino affirmando, prout idem Matheus ipsi Willelmo intendere fecit, et super hoc fecit ipsum Willelmum quendam atornatum facere ad finem inde levandum coram justiciariis de Banco apud Salop', predictus Matheus tantum fecit et procuravit erga atornatum illum qui fuit de noticia et amicicia sua quod idem attornatus recognovit alia tenementa que fuerunt ipsius Willelmi et in scripto inde inter eos confecto non contenta, videlicet unum mesuagium et duas carucatas terre cum pertinenciis in Wasthull' infra manerium de Alvevechurch', esse jus ipsius Mathei et illa ei in eadem curia reddidit habenda et tenenda eidem Matheo et heredibus suis in perpetuum in decepcionem curie domini regis et ad exheredacionem ipsius Willelmi etc. Et super hoc per preceptum domini regis predicta peticio tradita est justiciariis de Banco. Et dictum est eis quod associato sibi Thesaurario et vocatis partibus faciant quod de jure fuerit faciendum etc.

Et Matheus postea coram thesaurario et justiciariis etc. venit. Et bene cognoscit quod levare fecit predictum finem de predictis tenementis in querela predicti Willelmi contentis set dicit quod hoc fuit ex consensu et voluntate dicti Willelmi, quia dicit quod dictus Willelmus concesserat ei quedam tenementa de feodo episcopi Wygorn' tenenda ad terminum annorum per quoddam scriptum inde inter eos confectum. Et quia predictus episcopus non permisit ipsum intrare feodum suum ex mutua voluntate ipsorum Willelmi et Mathei inter eos provisum fuit quod finis levaretur in curia regis, ita quod per breve regis quod exiret de levacione predicti finis posset attingere ad seisinam predictorum tenementorum habendam et idem Willelmus super hoc fecit attornatum suum ad predictum finem levandum. Et dicit quod hoc totum fecit ad inheredandum quendam Willelmum filium predicti Willelmi etc.

Et Willelmus dicit quod intencio sua nuncquam fuit nec umquam consensit nec inter eos aliqua prelocucio facta fuit quod aliquis finis levaretur inter predictum Matheum et ipsum nisi tantummodo de tenementis in predicto scripto nominatis et ad terminum in eodem scripto contentum. Et hoc paratus est verificare quocumque modo curia ista consideraret, quod quidem verificare idem Matheus dicit se nullo modo velle expectare eo quod prelocuciones de tenementis predictis inter eos ita occulte fuerunt quod curia ista super hiis per aliquod verificare patrie cerciorari non potest. Et idem Willelmus quo ad atornatum predictum dicit quod idem Matheus adduxit secum quendam extraneum et ignotum omnino ipsi Willelmo quem idem Willelmus nuncquam antea viderat nec postea vidit, ita quod per recognicionem illius attornati ad procuracionem ipsius Mathei alia tenementa quam ea que continentur in scripto predicto recognita fuerunt esse jus ipsius Mathei et ei in eadem curia racione illius finis reddita. Et super hoc idem Matheus quesitus si aliquod breve secutus fuit de seisina tenementorum in fine illo contentorum habendam dicit quod sic, set dicit quod nuncquam aliquam seisinam inde habuit nec ad presens aliquid juris clamat in eisdem. Quesitus eciam ad quem predicta tenementa devenerunt dicit quod predictus episcopus a tempore prime seisine quam inde ceperat semper hucusque continuavit statum suum et adhuc est in seisina de eisdem. Et predictus Willelmus dicit quod post recognicionem et reddicionem in curia regis ipsi Matheo per predictum atornatum sic factas et postquam breve perquisierat de seisina sua habenda idem Matheus remisit et quietumclamavit de se et heredibus suis predicto episcopo totum jus et clamium quod habuit in eisdem tenementis in perpetuum; unde dicit quod per recognicionem et reddicionem predictam per predictum atornatum sic factam exclusus est de predictis tenementis < petendis > in perpetuum. Et predictus Matheus quesitus si fecit predicto episcopo predictum scriptum quieteclamacionis dicit quod sic set dicit quod hoc fecit ea racione quod predictus episcopus inveniret predicto Willelmo filio Willelmi victum et vestitum tota vita ipsius Willelmi filii Willelmi, et idem episcopus sic fecit quousque ipse Willelmus filius etc. arramiavit quandam assisam nove disseisine versus eundem episcopum de quadam parte predictorum tenementorum racione prosecucionis cujus brevis idem episcopus predictum Willelmum filium etc. de ipso penitus amovit et repulsit. Et predictus Willelmus de Wasthull' ex quo predictus atornatus fuit de noticia predicti Mathei et mere per ipsum factus atornatus et per recognicionem ipsius atornati alia tenementa quam in scripto inde inter eos confecta contenta in predicto fine fuerunt recognita et nominata et ipsi Matheo ut jus suum reddita in eadem curia absque assensu et voluntate ipsius Willelmi prout paratus est verificare per quod idem Willelmus per predictum Matheum quantum in ipso est omnino est exeheredatus; et eciam quia idem Matheus in responsione sua superius dixit quod omnia predicta fecit ad inheredandum quendam Willelmum filium ipsius Willelmi et postea cognovit et confessus est quod post recognicionem et reddicionem in curia regis factam et post breve liberatum sibi de seisina eorundem tenementorum habenda remisit et quietumclamavit de se et heredibus suis predicto episcopo totum jus et clamium quod habuit in predictis tenementis inperpetuum quod manifeste est ad exheredacionem predicti Willelmi < filii > etc. petit judicium. Et quia predictus finis coram justiciariis de Banco levatus fuit et idem Matheus ibidem de aliis decepcionibus curie in eodem loco factis rettatur dictum est eisdem justiciariis quod recordum istud in rotulis suis faciant irrotulare. Et tam super recordo illo quam super aliis ipsum Matheum coram eis contingentibus procedant ad judicium, et debitum et festinum faciant justicie complementum etc.

Propter quod justiciarii de Banco associatis sibi Thesaurario et baronibus de Scaccario et similiter justiciariis de Banco domini regis in presencia Henrici de Lacy comitis Linc', magistri Willelmi de Luda Elyensis electi, Roberti Typetot et aliorum domini regis fidelium fecerunt venire predictum Matheum coram eis. [in margin Norff' ]. Et super hoc venit quidam Johannes de Ingham et queritur quod cum idem Matheus in octabis sancti Hillarii proximo preteritis coram justiciariis de Banco tulisset quoddam breve de falso judicio versus eum quod fieri debuit ut asseruit in curia Norwyc' de quodam mesuagio cum pertinenciis in eadem villa, ad quem diem idem Johannes fecit se essoniari et habuit diem per essoniatorem suum in octabis sancte Trinitatis proximo sequentibus versus ipsum Matheum, idem Matheus falso et in decepcionem curie domini regis in mense Pasche proximo ante predictas octabas sancte Trinitatis prosecutus fuit quandam defaltam de predicto placito versus eum et illam fecit intrare in propria persona sua et quoddam breve de judicio vicecomiti Norff' habuit ad attachiandum ipsum Johannem quod esset coram eisdem justiciariis de Banco in quindena sancti Michaelis proximo futura eidem Matheo inde responsurus unde petit judicium etc.

Et Matheus bene cognoscit quod ipse tulit predictum breve de falso judicio versus prefatum Johannem in octabis sancti Hillarii, ad quem diem idem Johannes fecit se essoniari et dicit quod adjornatus fuit ad mensem Pasche proximo sequentem. Ad quem diem ipse fecit intrare predictam defaltam eo quod intendebat diem suum habuisse adtunc versus eum. Et super hoc scrutato capitali rotulo de essoniis de Banco compertum est quod partes adjornate fuerunt in octabis sancte Trinitatis. Et prefatus Matheus incontinenti respondit et dicit quod ostendebatur ei ad mensem Pasche quando predicta defalta fuit intrata quidam alius rotulus quem vidit in quo continebatur manifeste adjornamentum sibi factum in mense Pasche et petit quod rotulus ille inspiciatur. Et quia non est in Banco aliquis alius rotulus essoniorum nisi tantum rotulus domini regis de essoniis et rotulus capitalis qui scrutatus est dictum est clerico domini regis quod deferat rotulum ipsius domini regis de essoniis; quo delato et scrutato concordat in adjornamento predicto cum rotulo capitali. Et quia idem Matheus falso et in decepcionem curie prosecutus fuit predictam defaltam in propria persona sua et ad decepcionem illam tegendam maliciose inposuit curie quod vidit quendam rotulum continentem diem predictum, scilicet ad mensem Pasche, super quo per predictos duos rotulos in adjornamento predicto concordantes convincitur manifeste contrarium dicti prefati Mathei manifeste videtur quod idem Matheus decepit curiam; propter quod consideratum est quod commitatur gaole moraturus ibidem per unum annum et unum diem juxta formam statuti etc. Pretera quia idem Matheus non dedicit quin atornatus quem prefatus Willelmus de Wasthull' in predicto placito convencionis constituerat nominatus fuit per ipsum Matheum omino extraneus eidem Willelmi per collusionem inter ipsum Matheum et atornatum predictum initam contra convencionem prius inde inter eos prelocutam et factam, prout idem Willelmus juxta consideracionem curie paratus fuit verificasse, quod verificamentum idem Matheus exspectare precise recusavit, falso et in decepcionem curie domini regis predictus finis levatus fuit, per quem finem omnia predicta tenementa tam illa que in scripto convencionis fuerunt contenta quam alia que in eodem non fuerunt nominata absque scitu et assensu ejusdem Willelmi recognita fuerunt esse jus ipsius Mathei et eidem Matheo in prefata curia reddita unde idem Matheus prout manifeste cognovit sequebatur breve domini regis de judicio ad habendum de tenementis predictis seisinam et breve illud penes se habuit set dixit quod hec omnia fecit propter inheredacionem Willelmi filii Willelmi de Wasthull', per quod eidem Matheo visum fuit quod ex quo ad presens nichil juris clamat in predictis tenementis in nullo deliquit in hac parte; et eciam quia idem Matheus cognovit quod postea totum jus quod habuit in predictis tenementis remisit et quietumclamavit de se et heredibus suis predicto episcopo Wygorn' inperpetuum et ex hoc sequitur evidenter quod idem Willelmus filius Willelmi per ipsum Matheum quantum in ipso est penitus est exheredatus et predictus Willelmus pater similiter videtur curia quod idem Matheus falso et in decepcionem curie [predictum] finem levari et fieri procuravit. Ideo pes illius finis a thesauraria domini regis extrahatur et adnulletur et cancelletur. Et [idem Matheus] commitatur gaole moraturus ibidem per unum annum et unum diem secundum formam statuti ultra annum et diem supradictos [et satis]faciat prefato Willelmo de dampnis suis que taxari non possunt antequam predicta tenementa extendantur. Ideo preceptum est [vicecomiti] quod extendi et appreciari faceret predicta tenementa etc. et extensionem etc. scire faciat hic a die sancti Johannis Baptiste in xv dies etc. Ad [quem diem] vicecomes nichil inde fecit set mandavit quod preceperat ballivis libertatis episcopi Wygorn' de Osewold' qui nichil inde fecerunt . [Ideo sicut alias preceptum] est vicecomiti quod non omittat propter eandem libertatem quin extendi et appreciari faciat predicta tenementa et extensionem et appreciacionem [scire] faciat hic in octabis sancti Michaelis etc. Ad quem diem vicecomes mandavit quod predicta tenementa in Werlingescote valent per annum ... solidos et predicta tenementa in Alvevechurche valent per annum centum solidos. Ideo consideratum est quod predictus Willelmus recuperet dampna sua versus predictum Matheum que taxantur per justiciarios ad quinquaginta libras etc. Et sciendum quod [predictus] finis levavit in octabis sancte Trinitatis anno regis nunc undecimo.

Et sciendum quod comittebatur gaole die veneris proxima ante festum sancti Barnabe ... predicta dampna taxari non possunt antequam predicta tenementa extendantur preceptum est vicecomiti quod extendi faciat etc. et extensionem etc. scire faciat hic a die sancti Johannis Baptiste in xv dies etc.

iv) there is also an entry on the memoranda rolls under Trinity term 1290 relating to the annulment of the final concord: E 159/63, m. 15

de fine adnullato coram justiciariis de Banco : Memorandum quod die veneris proxima post octabas sancte Trinitatis anno xviij extractus fuit ab aliis finibus qui sunt in thesauro regis pes unius finis levatus coram Thoma de Weylond', Johanne de Luvetot, Rogero de Leyc' et Willelmo de Burnton' justiciariis de Banco apud Salop' inter Matheum de Lescheker querentem et Willelmum de Wasthull' deforciantem per Robertum de Upton' positum loco suo ad lucrandum vel perdendum de duobus mesuagiis, tribus carucatis terre, .xx. acris bosci et .x. acris prati cum pertinenciis in Derlingscote, Tredington et Alverchirch' eo quod prefatus Matheus per fraudem et in decepcionem curie regis finem predictum levari fecit, sicut attinctum est in pleno Banco et pronunciatum per Gilbertum de Thornton' nunc justiciarium ad placita regis assidentibus ei Johanne de Metingham et sociis suis justiciariis de Banco predicto, magistro Willelmo de Lud electo Elyensi, Roberto de Tybetot et aliis domini regis fidelibus die predicto et finis predictus adnullatur per judicium curie.]

v) The land at Wast Hills in the manor of Alvechurch seems to be the same as the messuage and three carucates there which Godfrey bishop of Worcester was said to be holding of the gift of William of Wast Hills to himself and his heirs and which he surrendered to the king so that the king could regrant it to the bishop and his successors on 6 November 1289: Cal. Charter Rolls, 1257-1300 , 360. Part or all of the same holding was in the hands of the bishop when he died in 1302 and passed to his nephew and heir: CIPM , iv, no. 101. For the petition of his successor seeking to overturn the inquisition post mortem and claim the land for his see see Roll 12, item 53

14

i) For a summary of the related petition and response see Roll 2, item 56

ii) The king confirmed the prior's right to this annual pension on 1 July 1290 but only after he had restored the advowson to the bishop of Carlisle: CPR 1281-1292, 370.

15

i) For a summary of the related petition and response see Roll 2, item 201

ii) The resulting writ was issued on 16 June 1290 : CIM , i, no. 1513. The enquiry found William had been of sound mind when he made the grant; that Stephen had done no more than compose and write the petition for a payment of four pence; and that the real mover of the false allegation was master Solomon of Burne who was to have received Reginald's share in return for his assistance.

16

[nothing found]

17

i) The Common Bench plea roll for Trinity term 1287 records only the bishop's unsuccessful action of quare impedit against Isabel and Idonea: CP 40/68, m. 10d.

ii) For the record of the king's successful plea which was heard in the Common Bench in Trinity term 1287 see CP 40/68, m. 78.

18

For a related writ of 28 June 1290 to the sheriff of Oxfordshire see CPR 1281-1292, 373.

19

i) For the rather different enrolment of the proceedings against Bogo de Clare and Henry de Anesleye and others in King's Bench in Trinity term 1290 see KB 27/124, m. 68d

London . Bogo de Clare et Henricus de Anesley attachiati fuerunt ad respondendum Johanni le Waleys et domino regi de placito quare cum nuper rege in parliamento suo London' existente venerabilis pater J. Cantuar' archiepiscopus misisset per ipsum Johannem nuncium suum litteras suas de citando predictum Bogonem occasione quorundam excessuum ab eo Deo et ecclesie commissorum predictus Henricus [sic: read ' predicto Henrico'] de precepto, consensu seu voluntate ipsius Bogonis predictum Johannem le Waleys apud London' durante parliamento regis predicto infra procinctum virge regis ceperunt et ipsum vi et armis litteras predictas comedere compulerunt et ipsum verberaverunt, vulneraverunt et maletractaverunt in Dei et sacrosancte ecclesie necnon regis contemptum manifestum et predictis Johannis dispendium non modicum et gravamen et contra pacem etc.

Et predictus Johannes le Waleys licet sepius et sollempniter vocatus non venit. Ideo predicti Bogo et Henricus quo ad sectam suam inde sine die. Et predictus Johannes le Waleys, quia non est prosecutus, in misericordia.

Et dictum est predictis Bogoni et Henrico quod ipsi respondeant ad sectam domini regis de predicta transgressione. Et predictus Henricus defendit vim et injuriam et quicquid est contra pacem regis etc. < et ipsius contemptum. > Et dicit quod in nullo est culpabilis. Et de hoc ponit se super patriam. Et Willelmus Inge qui sequitur pro rege similiter. Ideo preceptum est custodi et vicecomitibus London' quod venire faciant coram rege a die sancti Michaelis in tres septimanas ubicumque xxiiij etc., per quos etc., et qui predictum Henricum nulla affinitate attingant etc., ad recognoscendum etc. Et predictus Bogo dicit quod non videtur ei quod respondere debet domino regi de predictis transgressione, injuria et contemptu antequam predictus Henricus vel aliquis alius de predicta transgressione convincatur. Et idem dies datus est predicto Bogoni in banco. Et sciendum est quod dominus Robertus de Hertford et dominus Roger Brabazun, et dominus Petrus de Campania et Thomas de Normanville assignati fuerunt ad examinandum homines predicti Bogonis de predicto facto et quod predicti justiciarii provideant quod predicta examinacio valeat domino regi secundum quod valere possit et debeat.

Postea a die sancti Michaelis in tres septimanas anno xviij ^o consideratum est quod loquela ista sit sine die quo ad Bogonem qui non debet respondere de precepto antequam aliquis de facto convincatur etc.

Postea in crastino Purificacionis Beate Marie anno regni regis nunc decimo nono venit predictus Henricus et similiter juratores qui dicunt super sacramentum suum quod predictus Henricus in nullo est culpabilis de transgressione predicta. Ideo ipse inde sine die etc.

Lond' . Dominus rex per Willelmum Inge qui sequitur pro eo optulit se iiij die versus Henricum Braban, Johannem Dunkan, Willelmum le Carterpage, Rogerum de Burnham, Johannem le Porter ^e<et Henricum de Anesley>^e de placito quod essent hic ad hunc diem ad respondendum regi de placito quare cum nuper domino rege in parleamento suo London' existente venerabilis pater J. Cantuar' episcopus misisset per Johannem le Waleys nuncium suum litteras sua de citando predictum Bogonem occasione quorundam excessuum ab eo deo et ecclesie commissorum predicti Henricus et alii de precepto, consensu seu voluntate ipsius Bogonis predictum Johannem le Waleys apud London' durante parliamento regis predicto infra procinctum virge regis ceperunt et ipsum vi et armis litteras predictas comedere compulerunt et ipsum verberaverunt, vulneraverunt et maletractaverunt in Dei et sacrosancte ecclesie necnon regis contemptum manifestum et predicti Johannis dispendium non modicum et gravamen et contra pacem etc. Et ipsi non venerunt et preceptum fuit vicecomitibus quod attachient eos. Et vicecomites mandaverunt quod non sunt inventi etc. nec aliquid habent per quod possunt attachiari etc. Ideo preceptum est vicecomitibus quod exigant eos de hustengo in hustengum quousque utlagentur si non comparuerunt; et, si comparuerunt, tunc eos capiant et salvo etc, ita quod habeat corpora eorum coram rege in crastino Purificacionis Beate Marie ubicumque tunc fuerit in Anglia etc.

ii) For further related King's Bench enrolments in Hilary term 1293 see KB 27/135, mm. 5, 17

m. 5: Lond' . Ricardus de Breteville qui sequitur pro rege optulit se iiij ^to die versus Bogonem de Clare de placito quare cum rex [sic: read 'rege'] in parliamento regis existente apud London' venerabilis pater J. archiepiscopus Cantuar' misisset Johannem le Waleys nuncium suum cum litteris suis de citando predictum Bogonem occasione quorundum excessuum ab eo deo et sancte ecclesie comissarum quidam Henricus Braban, Johannes Dunkan, Willelmus le Carterpage et Rogerus de Burnham, qui in hustengo regis Lond' utlagati fuerunt occasione cujusdam transgressionis de precepto, consensu et voluntate ipsius Bogonis predictum Johannem le Waleys apud Lond' durante parliamento regis predicto infra precingtum virge regis ceperunt et ipsum litteras suas commedere compulserunt et ipsum verberaverunt, wlneraverunt et male tractaverunt in dei et sacro sancte ecclesie et regis contemptum manifestum et predicti Johannis dispendium non modicum et gravamen et contra pacem etc. Et ipse non venit. Et preceptum fuit custodi et vicecomitibus quod distringerent predictum Bogonem. Et custos et vicecomites mandaverunt quod breve regis adeo tarde etc. Ideo sicut prius preceptum est custodi et vicecomitibus quod distringant predictum Bogonem quod sit coram rege a die Pasche in tres septimanas ubicumque etc. ad respondendum regi de placito predicto etc.

m. 17: recordum de rotulis Gilberti de Routhebyris de parliamento sancti Hillarii et Pasche anno regni regis Edwardi filii regis Henrici decimo octavo: as Roll 1, item 19 but with the following continuation:

'Et quia dominus rex non wlt quod predicta enormis transgressio facta per predictos Henricum Braban, Johannem Dunkan, Willelmum le Carterpage et Rogerum de Burnham qui jam in hustengo Lond' occasione ejusdem facti fuerunt utlagati per preceptum consensum et voluntatem predicti Bogonis de Clare transeat inpunita preceptum est vicecomiti Hertf' quod venire faciat Thomam de Turberville et David le Graunt et vicecomiti Hunt' quod venire faciat Walterum de Molesworth' et vicecomiti Ebor' quod venire faciat Willelmum de Milkesham et vicecomiti Somers' quod venire faciat Simonem de Ludgate et vicecomiti Buk' quod venire faciat Willelmum le Fraunceys manucaptores predicti Bogonis ad habendum corpus ejus coram rege ad respondendum domino regi de precepto et missione predictis cum dominus rex inde loqui voluisset quod sint coram rege a die Pasche in tres septimanas ubicumque etc. et ibi habeant predictum Bogonem ad respondendum domino regi de precepto, consensu et missione predictis etc.

Ad quem diem Bogo venit. Et requisitus qualiter se velit acquietare de transgressione predicta ad sectam domini regis dicit quod in nullo est culpabilis. Et de hoc ponit se super patriam. Ideo preceptum est custodi et vicecomitibus London' quod venire faciant coram rege in crastino Ascensionis domini ubicumque etc. xxiiij ^or de wardis propinquioribus per quos etc. et qui etc. Idem dies datus est predicto Bogoni etc. Et super hoc Walterus de Molleswrth' de comitatu Hunt', Simon de Ludgate de comitatu Somers', Robertus de Boyton' de eodem comitatu, Johannes de Danecastr' de comitatu Ebor' et magister Willelmus de Brunham de comitatu Linc' manuceperunt ipsum Bogonem habendi corpus ejus ad prefatum terminum et eciam de die in diem et termino in terminum usque finem placiti sub pena qua decet.

Ad quem diem venit predictus Bogo et similiter Ricardus de Bretteville qui sequitur pro domino rege et datus est eis dies die mercurii in septimana Pentecostes in gihalla London' pro defectu juratorum etc. Et de inde datus est die partibus die sabbati proximo sequenti in gihalla London' pro defectu juratorum quia nullus etc. Ad quem diem sabbati etc. venit Ricardus de Breteville qui sequitur pro domino rege et similiter predictus Bogo venit et datus est eis dies in octabis sancte Trinitatis coram rege ubicumque pro defectu juratorum etc.

Ad quem diem coram Gilberto de Thornton' et Roberto Malet assidente Radulpho de Sandwico custode civitatis domini regis London' venerunt Nicholaus de Warwyk' et Ricardus de Bretville qui sequuntur pro rege et Bogo de Clare venit et similiter Radulphus le Blund, Willelmus le Maceliner, Thomas Box, Walterus de Finchingfeud', Johannes de Gysorcio, Johannes clericus coronatoris, Salmanus le Cotiller, Thomas Cros, Johannes de Stertford, Robertus le Treyer, Johannes le Bener et Edmundus Horn juratores veniunt. Qui dicunt super sacramentum suum quod revera predicta transgressio facta fuit predicto Johanni le Waleys clerico infra portam curie ipsius Bogonis in Londoniis absque scitu ipsius Bogonis per predictos Henricus le Braban et alios qui ad sectam domini regis in hustengo London' pro facto predicto uthlagati sunt et dicunt quod quamcicius ipsi Henricus et alii per aliquos de familia ipsius Bogonis sciverunt quod predictus Bogo factum suum predictum non advocavit set inde vehementer angustiebatur et irascebatur ipsi statim eo facto a domo ipsius Bogonis et ejus servicio absentarunt et se omnino retraxerunt, ita quod idem Bogo ipsos Henricum et alios postea invenire non potuit ad attachiandum et dicunt precise quod idem Bogo de consensu, missione, precepto, assensu sive receptamento eorundem post factum illud in nullo est culpabilis. Ideo predictus Bogo ad presens inde sine die etc.

20

Also enrolled in E 159/63, m. 13d

21

i) The letters referred to are probably those entered on the Close Roll and calendared in CCR 1288-96, 134-5. For different letters from the king to the pope promising to go on Crusade see CPR 1281-92 , 341

ii) See also item 36.

22

[nothing found]

23

i) For the petition which led to these proceedings and which was evidently written during the king's absence in Gascony see SC 8/65, no. 3212

Co mustrent au conseil nostre seygnur le rey les burgeys de Neuchastel sur Tyne ke la ou meymes ceus burgeys unt la vile a ferme de nostre seygnur le rey pur une certeyne summe de argent rendaunt par an la vient le priour de Tynemuwe e voet enfrauncher les marchaunz ke venent od lur marchaundises en le ewe de Tyne ke a ly vendent e ne soffre ke il paent lur custume du eynz lur fet charger e descharger dedenz le ewe de Tyne en un lu ke home apele les Scheles e vendent a marchaunz payn e cerveyse e co ke mester lur est en deseretisoun nostre seygnur le rey e encountre sa fraunchise e en destruccioun de la vile avauntdite desicom la custome de la vile est itele, ke nule nyf venaunt ov marchaundises ne poet attamer rien dedenz le havene de Tyne de sa marchaundise vendre ou descharger ke il ne paye custume de kaunt ke il ad dedenz la neyf, la vent le priour avantdit e vout enfrauncher ceus marchaunz ke il ne payent custome com fere deyvunt solom les usages avantdiz. Dunt memes cely priur enplede les burgeys au Baunk e de ceo ke la ou nostre seygnur le Rey soleit aver ses prises, ceo est asaver de chescone navee de harang un cent, de chescon batel venaunt od pesson a lavauntdite vile j morue pur j dener e j cent de haddoke de chescon batel en la sesun pur vj deners dunt le rey ne ad rien de chose kest descharge en le lyu avantdite et de co prient il remedie si ke la fraunchise nostre seygnur le rey ne seyt perie taunt com il sunt ses fermers ne le play parentre eus e le priur avauntdit ne passe mye en jogement saunz la presence nostre seygnur le rey ou la vostre, ke son lyu tenez, pur co ke il dutent le pays ke taunt est procure par le priour. E estre ceo, la ou soleyunt estre caseles al Sheles a herberger pestors venaunz de la mer soulement pur tempeste la est ore leve une vile graunt a forestal de la vile avantdite ou il bracent e furneent en destruccion de la vile avantdite. Dunt la vile nostre seygnur le rey est enpire chescon an de dyz liveres.

Endorsement

In cancellaria sequatur breve pro rege et burgensibus Novi Castri ad faciendum venire priorem de Tinemue ad proximum parliamentum post Pascha.

Habeat breve secundum formam peticionis.

ii) For the inquisition taken in 16 August 1291 see Gibson, Tynemouth, ii, appendix, no. lxxviii and for the judgment given at Hilary term 1292 see Gibson, Tynemouth, ii, no. xc

iii) For a related, follow-up plea in King's Bench in Michaelmas term 1290 see KB 27/125, m. 57d

24

i) For related proceedings brought by Osbert Giffard against the custodian of his lands enrolled in King's Bench in Hilary term 1291 see KB 27/126, m. 4

Oxon', Norht', Somers', Dors' . Dominus rex mandavit breve suum Philippo de Wyleby decano ecclesie beate Marie Linc' in hec verba:

'Edwardus dei gracia rex Anglie, dominus Hibernie et dux Aquitanie dilecto sibi in Christo Philippo de Wyleby decano ecclesie sancte Marie Lincoln' salutem. Cum pluries vobis mandaverimus quod omnes terras et tenementa dilecti et fidelis nostri Osberti Giffard que vobis nuper commiserimus custodienda eidem Osberto et Johanne uxori ejus una cum bladis et aliis bonis et catallis inde perceptis a die capcionis terrarum et tenementorum in manum nostram sine dilacione restitueritis, prout coram nobis et consilio nostro nuper fuerat ordinatum, ac vos blada et alia bona et catalla predicta juxta tenorem mandatorum nostrorum et ordinacionem predictam eis nondum liberaveritis, sicut ex querela eorundem Osberti et Johanne accepimus, de quo miramur nec inmerito ac movemur, nolentes ipsos Osbertum et Johannam laboribus et expensis onerosis quas circa prosecucionem predictorum mandatorum nostrorum se asserunt apposuisse per responsa simulata diucius in hac parte indebite fatigari vobis iterato mandamus sicut pluries mandavimus firmiter injungentes quod blada et alia bona et catalla predicta sine dilacione liberetis eisdem juxta tenorem mandatorum nostrorum prius vobis directorum vel vos ipsi sitis coram nobis in octabis sancti Hillarii ubicumque tunc fuerimus in Anglia ostensurus quare mandatis nostris tociens vobis inde directis parere noluistis vel non debuistis. Teste me ipso apud Kingesclipston' xxiiij die Octobris anno regni nostri decimooctavo.'

Ad quem diem, scilicet in octabis sancti Hillarii, venerunt predictus Osbertus Giffard et Philippus. Et idem Osbertus queritur quod predictus Philippus terras et tenementa sua < cum exitibus eorundem > contra mandata domini regis sepius inde sibi directa, videlicet manerium suum de Dadington' in comitatu Oxon' quod valet annuatim quadraginta libras, manerium de Astwell' in comitatu Norht' quod valet per annum viginti libras, manerium de Foxcote et Teaumes quod valet per annum xl libras in comitatu Sumers' et manerium de Wynterburn' in comitatu Dors' quod valet per annum quadraginta libras in manu sua detinuit postquam capta fuerunt in manum domini regis, videlicet die dominica proxima post festum Omnium Sanctorum anno regni regis nunc terciodecimo, ad dampnum ipsius Osberti ducentarum librarum. Et inde producit sectam etc.

Et predictus Philippus dicit quod restituit predicto Osberto predicta tenementa una cum bonis et catallis inde a die capcionis terrarum et tenementorum in manum domini regis perceptis exceptis racionabilibus reprisis terrarum et tenementorum predictorum. Et de hoc paratus est secum computare quando voluerit. Et super hoc de consensu predictorum Osberti et Philippi dati sunt eis auditores, scilicet Thomas de Fisseburn' et Willelmus de Crostwheyt, ut inde adinvicem computent. Et datus est eis die de die in diem usque in octabis Purificacionis Beate Marie ubicumque etc. ut tunc faciant et recipiant quod de jure fuerit faciendum etc. [editorial note: The remainder of this entry is written on a schedule attached to the membrane]

Postea ad diem illum, scilicet in octabis Purificacionis Beate Marie, venit predictus Osbertus in propria persona sua et Johanna uxor ejus per Walterum de Sutton' attornatum suum. Et similiter predictus Philippus. Et Philippus dicit quod recepit terras predicti Osberti ad festum Annunciacionis Beate Marie anno regni regis nunc xiiij et illas tenuit usque ad septimum diem Februarii anno regis predicti xviij et dicit quod quicquid recepit infra predictum tempus de terris et catallis ac exitibus terrarum predictorum Osberti et Johanne reddidit eis integre una cum catallis que ipse Osbertus cepit auctoritate sua propria tum per ipsum tum per ballivos suos dum terre ille fuerunt in seisina ipsius regis exceptis racionabilibus reprisis terrarum predictarum. Et de hoc ponit se super patriam.

Et predicti Osbertus et Johanna dicunt quod predictus Philippus non reddidit eis predicta bona que recepit de catallis, terris, tenementis et exitibus infra predictum tempus. Dicunt enim quod predictus Philippus recepit de predictis terris infra idem tempus plus quam reddidit eisdem Osberto et Johanne de .vj. ^.c. et .viij. libris. Et offerunt verificare per patriam sicut curia regis consideraverit. Ideo < preceptum est coronatoribus predictorum comitatuum quod faciant > venire juratores coram rege a die Pasche in quinque septimanas ubicumque etc. Quia tam etc. Et super < hoc > venit Ricardus de Bretteville qui sequitur pro rege et dicit quod predictus Osbertus ... Annunciacionis Beate Marie anno regni regis nunc .xiij. de die in diem ivit continue de manerio in manerium, videlicet de Astwell' in comitatu Norht' usque Dadington' in comitatu Oxon', Foxcote et Theaumes in comitatu Somers', Winterburn' et Houton' in comitatu Dors' et levavit de predictis maneriis .xxvij. libras .viij. solidos et duos denarios ad opus suum proprium super seisinam domini regis ad dampnum ipsius regis mille librarum et ipsius contemptum etc.

Et predictus Osbertus defendit contemptum et injuriam quando etc. Et petit judicium si inde debeat domino regi respondere sine brevi ipsius regis. Et si curia domini regis hoc consideraverit libenter respondebit.

Et predictus Ricardus de Bretteville petit judicium de eo desicut predictus Osbertus presens in curia nichil dicit super hiis que sibi obiciuntur ex parte domini regis tanquam de indefenso. Et super hoc datus est dies predicto Osberto de audiendo judicio suo ad prefatum terminum etc. Et Johannes Gyffard frater Osberti Giffard, Walterus de Wilton', W. de Sutton' et Johannes filius Gilberti manuceperunt predictum Osbertum habendi eum coram rege ad prefatum terminum corpora pro corpore etc.

Ad quem diem predicti Osbertus [sic: read 'Johannes'] Giffard et alii non habuerunt predictum Osbertum sicut eum manuceperunt. Ideo ipsi in misericordia. Et preceptum est vicecomiti quod venire faciat eum coram rege in crastino Animarum ubicumque etc. ad respondendum domino regi in forma predicta etc.

Ad quem diem predictus Osbertus non venit nec vicecomes breve misit. Ideo sicut prius preceptum est vicecomiti quod venire faciat eum coram rege in crastino Purificacionis Beate Marie ubicumque etc.

Ad quem diem dictum est predicto Osberto in curia invento quod respondeat ulterius si sibi videat expedire. Qui dicit quod ipse nichil cepit de predictis maneriis postquam devenerunt in manum domini regis et per ipsum dominum regem eidem Philippo commissa fuerunt custodienda. Et de hoc ponit se super patriam. Et Ricardus de Bretville qui sequitur pro rege similiter. Ideo veniat jurata coram rege a die Pasche in unum mensem ubicumque etc.

ii) For subsequent proceedings against Osbert relating to the same lands enrolled in King's Bench in Hilary term 1292 see KB 27/130, m. 31d

peticio Philippi de Willeweby clerici regis missa de consilio domini regis

Oxon', Norht', Sum' Dors' . Osbertus Gyffard in curia domini regis inventus positus est ad racionem per Philippum de Wilugby clericum domini regis qui sequitur pro eo si quid sciat dicere quare custodia terrarum et tenementorum que fuerunt Osberti filii Osberti Gyffard in Dadinton in comitatu Oxon' que de domino rege tenuit in capite per servicium militare simul cum custodia aliarum terrarum predicti Osberti filii Osberti quas tenuit in feodo de diversis dominis suis, videlicet manerium de Winterburn in comitatu Dors', et maneria de Foxcote et Theaumes in comitatu Somers' et manerium de Astwell' in comitatu Norht' que ad ipsum regem pertinet et unde idem dominus rex qui nunc est fuit seisitus de homagio predicti Osberti filii Osberti pro manerio de Dadington' quod de ipso domino rege tenuit in capite, predictus Osbertus predictam custodiam predictorum maneriorum super ipsum dominum regem detinet injuste occupatam; unde dicit quod dominus rex dampnum habet et deterioratus est ad valenciam mille librarum etc. Et hoc offert verificare pro ipso domino rege qualiter etc.

Et predictus Osbertus pater dicit quod revera nuper proposuit transfretare et antequam transfretavit concessit predicta maneria predicto Osberto filio suo tenenda quousque rediret reddendo inde .vij. centum libras per annum et unde scriptum cyrographatum factum fuit inter eos et super hoc fecit quamdam cartam de feoffamento predicto Osberto filio et heredibus suis pro predicto redditu in scripto cyrographato contento. Et cum rediit intravit predicta tenementa sicut ei bene licuit eo quod predictus Osbertus filius non reddidit ei predictum redditum. Et postea dominus rex qui nunc est cepit predicta tenementa in manum suam super predictum Osbertum patrem occasione cujusdam transgressionis ipsi Osberto patri imposite, propter quod idem Osbertus pater accessit ad dominum regem in parliamento suo et ibi in presencia Osberti filii sui peciit predicta tenementa sibi liberari et Osbertus filius reclamavit et non obstante reclamacione sua dominus rex liberavit predicta tenementa predicto Osberto ut jus suum. Et de hoc vocat recordum domini regis et petit judicium si de libero tenemento suo sine brevi domini regis predicto Philippo hic debeat respondere.

Et predictus Philippus dicit pro domino rege ad evidenciam juris ipsius domini regis quod Sarra que fuit uxor predicti Osberti filii Osberti in curia domini regis coram justiciariis suis de Banco anno ejusdem regis decimonono tulit brevia ejusdem domini regis de dote versus predictum Osbertum patrem de predictis maneriis de Dadington' in comitatu Oxon' et Astwell' in comitatu Norht', ad que quidem brevia idem Osbertus pater in eadem curia objecit eidem Sarre quod predictus Osbertus vir suus die quo ipsam desponsavit nec postea fuit in seisina ita quod ipsam inde dotare potuit. Et de hoc posuit se super inquisicionem. Per quam convictum fuit in eadem curia quod fuit seisitus, ita quod ipsam dotare potuit. Ob quod consideratum fuit quod predicta Sarra recuperaret seisinam suam de predictis tenementis. Et quia predictus Osbertus vocat recordum domini regis de reddicione predicta ideo dictum est predicto Osberto quod sequatur versus dominum regem. Et dies datus est a die Pasche in unum mensem ubicumque etc.

Et postea post iiij diem post adjornamentum predictum in isto termino sancti Hillarii venit Hugo de Louther qui sequitur pro rege et vocat recordum justiciariorum de hoc quod aliqua dicta fuerunt in placitando pro ipso domino rege que irrotulata non sunt in predicto recordo, videlicet quod in carta feoffamenti quam Osbertus pater fecit Osberto filio suo non continetur quod liceret ei in predictis tenementis ingredi pro defectu dicti redditus non soluti. Et super hoc protulit cartam predicti Osberti que hoc idem testatur. Et predictus Osbertus requisitus si predictum scriptum sit factum suum quod quidem scriptum esse factum suum bene cognovit; unde predictus Hugo qui sequitur pro rege petit judicium de recognicione sua de eo quod ipse Osbertus prius cognovit ipsum ingressum fuisse super seisinam Osberti filii sui per formam feoffamenti predicti, in quo talis condicio non reperitur et de illa intrusione dominus rex ipsum amovit nec dominus rex aliquod jus nec aliquam seisinam liberi tenementi ei fecit nisi talem qualem prius habuit, et hoc per [[The following text has been deleted:
falsam]] suggestionem suam si racione predicte reddicionis dominus rex a custodia sua debeat repelli. Et datus est dies ut supra etc.

iii) their continuation is enrolled on the King's Bench plea roll for Easter term 1292: KB 27/131, mm. 42-42d

peticio Philippi de Wilughby clerici regis missa de consilio domini regis G. de Thornton' et sociis suis ad placita sua tenenda assignatis in quidena sancti Hillarii anno regni ejusdem regis vicesimo

Somers', Dors', Oxon', Northt' . Osbertus Giffard in curia domini regis inventus positus est ad racionem per Philippum de Willugby clericum domini regis qui sequitur pro eo si quid sciat dicere quare custodia terrarum et tenementorum que fuerunt Osberti filii Osberti Gyffard in Dadinton in comitatu Oxon' que de domino rege tenuit in capite per servicium militare simul cum custodia aliarum terrarum predicti Osberti filii Osberti quas tenuit in feodo de diversis dominis suis, videlicet manerium de Winterburn in comitatu Dors', et manerium de Foxecote et Theaumes in comitatu Somers' et manerium de Astwell' in comitatu Norht' que ad ipsum regem pertinet et unde idem dominus rex qui nunc est fuit seisitus de homagio predicti Osberti filii Osberti pro manerio de Dadyngton' quod de ipso domino rege tenuit in capite, predictus Osbertus predictam custodiam predictorum maneriorum super ipsum dominum regem detinet injuste occupatam; unde dicit quod dominus rex deterioratus est et dampnum habet ad valenciam mille librarum etc. Et hoc offert verificare secundum quod curia etc.

Et predictus Osbertus pater dicit quod revera nuper proposuit transfretare et antequam transfretavit concessit predicta maneria predicto Osberto filio suo tenenda quousque rediret reddendo inde septingenta libras per annum et unde scriptum cyrographatum factum fuit inter eos et super hoc fecit quamdam cartam de feoffamento predicto Osberto filio et heredibus suis pro predicto redditu in scripto cyrographato contento. Et cum rediit intravit predicta tenementa sicut ei bene licuit eo quod predictus Osbertus filius non redidit ei predictum redditum. Et postea dominus rex qui nunc est cepit predicta tenementa in manum suam super predictum Osbertum patrem occasione cujusdam transgressionis ipsi Osberto patri imposite propter quod idem Osbertus pater accessit ad dominum regem in parliamento suo et ibi in presencia Osberti filii sui peciit predicta tenementa sibi liberari et Osbertus filius reclamavit et non obstante reclamacione sua dominus rex liberavit predicta tenementa predicto Osberto ut jus suum. Et de hoc vocat recordum domini regis et petit judicium si de libero tenemento suo sine brevi domini regis predicto Philippo hic debeat respondere.

Et predictus Philippus dicit pro domino rege ad evidenciam juris ipsius domini regis quod Sarra que fuit uxor predicti Osberti filii Osberti in curia domini regis coram justiciariis suis de Banco anno ejusdem regis decimonono tulit brevia ejusdem domini regis de dote versus predictum Osbertum patrem de predictis maneriis de Dadington' in comitatu Oxon' et Astwell' in comitatu Norht', ad que quidem brevia idem Osbertus pater in eadem curia objecit eidem Sarre quod predictus Osbertus vir suus die quo ipsam desponsavit nec postea fuit in seisina, ita quod ipsam inde dotare potuit. Et de hoc posuit se super inquisicionem. Per quam convictum fuit in eadem curia quod fuit seisitus, ita quod ipsam dotare potuit. Ob quod consideratum fuit quod predicta Sarra recuperaret seisinam suam de predictis tenementis.

Et quia predictus Osbertus vocat recordum domini regis de reddicione predicta ideo dictum est predicto Osberto quod sequatur versus dominum regem etc. Et dies datus est a die Pasche in unum mensem ubicumque etc.

Et postea post quartum diem post adjornamentum predictum in isto termino sancti Hillarii venit Hugo de Louthere qui sequitur pro rege et vocat recordum justiciariorum de hoc quod aliqua dicta fuerunt in placitando pro ipso domino rege que irrotulata non sunt in predicto recordo, videlicet quod in carta feoffamenti quam Osbertus pater fecit Osberto filio suo non continetur quod liceret ei in predictis tenementis ingredi pro defecti dicti redditus non soluti. Et super hoc protulit cartam predicti Osberti que hoc idem testatur. Et predictus Osbertus requisitus si predictum scriptum sit factum suum quod quidem scriptum esse factum suum bene cognovit; unde predictus Hugo qui sequitur pro rege petit judicium de recognicione sua de eo quod ipse Osbertus prius cognovit ipsum ingressum fuisse super seisinam Osberti filii sui per formam feoffamenti predicti, in quo talis condicio non reperitur et de illa intrusione dominus rex ipsum amovit nec dominus rex aliquod jus nec aliquam seisinam liberi tenementi ei fecit nisi talem qualem prius habuit, et hoc per falsam suggestionem suam, si racione predicte reddicionis dominus rex a custodia sua debeat repelli. Et datus est dies ut supra etc.

Postea a die Pasche in .xv. dies hoc anno mandavit dominus rex breve suum in hec verba:

'Edwardus dei gracia etc. dilectis et fidelibus suis Gilberto de Thorneton' et sociis suis justiciariis ad placita sua tenenda assignata salutem. Cum in loquela que est coram nobis sine brevi nostro inter nos ad prosecucionem dilecti clerici nostri Philippi de Wyllugby que sequitur nomine nostro et dilectum et fidelem nostrum Osbertum Giffard' de eo quod idem Osbertus custodiam maneriorum de Dadyngton', Wynterburne, Foxcote, Theaumes et Astwell' quam idem Philippus dicit ad nos pertinere eo quod Osbertus filius predicti Osberti obiit in homagio nostro pro predicto manerio de Dadyngton' tanquam de eodem et aliis maneriis predictis feoffatus super nos injuste detinet occupatam, prefatus Osbertus pater responderit quod nos dicta maneria pro quadam transgressione sibi inposita in manum nostram capta et ad tempus detenta in parliamento nostro postmodum reddidimus eidem et ea super nos minime occupavit ac judicium pecierit si de libero tenemento suo sine brevi nostro debeat respondere, nos super recordo et processu loquele predicte coram vobis habite ac super discrecione et consilio vestro quid in premissis fuerit faciendum plenius cerciorari volentes, maxime cum idem Osbertus pater postmodum ad nos accedens asseruit se seisinam pacificam a tempore reddicionis predicte tam ante mortem predicti Osberti filii sui quam post hucusque sine temporis interrupcione continuasse predicto filio suo superststite et plene etatis existente tempore reddicionis predicte, vobis mandamus quod in instanti quindena Pasche associatis vobis justiciariis ac aliis fidelibus de consilio nostro si quos tunc presentes esse contigerit recitatisque coram vobis recordo et processu predictis et inspectis scriptis nuper coram vobis in judicio prolatis si necesse fuerit ac habito avisiamento seu consultacione super hiis que ad legem spectant regni nostri in hac parte nos de premissis omnibus sub sigillis vestris distincte et aperte reddatis cerciores sine mora. Remittentes nobis hoc breve. Teste me ipso apud Westm' iij ^o die Aprilis anno regni nostri vicesimo.'

Misit eciam dominus rex breve suum dilecto clerico suo Philippo de Wyllugby hic per ipsum Philippum retornatum in hec verba:

'Edwardus dei gracia etc. dilecto clerico suo Philippo de Wyllugby salutem. Cum mandaverimus dilectis et fidelibus nostris Gilberto de Thorneton' et sociis suis justiciariis ad placita nostra tenenda assignatis quod nos super recordo et processu loquele que est coram eis sine brevi nostro inter nos per vos sequentem nomine nostro et dilectum et fidelem nostrum Osbertum Giffard de eo quod idem Osbertus custodiam maneriorum de Dadyngton', Wynterburne, Foxcote, Theaumes et Astwell' quam vos dicitis ad nos pertinere eo quod Osbertus filius predicti Osberti obiit in homagio nostro pro predicto manerio de Dadyngton' tanquam de eodem et aliis maneriis predictis feoffatus super nos injuste detinet occupatam ac super tenore scriptorum hinc inde nuper coram eis in judicio prolatorum ac omnibus aliis negocium predictum tangentibus in instanti quindena Pasche plenius reddant cerciores vobis mandamus quod cartam feoffamenti predicti per vos nuper coram eis exhibitam habeatis tunc coram eis ubicumque tunc fuerimus in Anglia vel si commode interesse non poteritis eam eis per aliquem de vestris transmittatis inspiciendum si forte super tenore ejusdem iterato instrui necesse habeant vel informari. Et habeatis ibi hoc breve. Teste me ipso apud Westm' iij ^o die Aprilis anno regni nostri vicesimo.'

Et predictus Philippus de Wyllugby qui sequitur pro rege et similiter predictus Osbertus ad eundem diem veniunt. Et predictus Osbertus profert quoddam scriptum indentatum inter ipsum et Osbertum filium suum in hec verba:

'Omnibus Christi fidelibus ad quos presens scriptum pervenerit Osbertus Giffard filius domini Osberti Giffard salutem in domino. Noverit universitas vestra me recepisse a domino Osberto patri meo in custodia mea tanquam sit ultra mare per unum pactum factum inter me et ipsum manerium de Dadyngton' et de Wynterburn' et de Stanlake et de Astwell' et de Stetiford' et de Foxekote et de Loderford' et Stenford' si est adhuc quietum cum omnibus suis pertinenciis usque dominus meus Osbertus Giffard reversus sit in patria, reddendo ei annuatim predicto domino Osberto patri meo tanquam sit ultra mare pro terris predictis .vij. centum libras esterlingorum de bona moneta et fideli solvendo eidem domino Osberto Giffard patri meo wel ejus certis attornatis litteras suas patentes deferrentibus in curia de Wynterburn Hweton' vel in curia de Foxcote terminis subscriptis, videlicet in festo Purificacionis Beate Marie .iij. centum et .l. libras et in festo Nativitatis Beati Johannis Baptiste .iij. centum et .l. libras sine ulteriori dilacione. Et ego volo et concedo quod predictus Osbertus pater meus possit ingredi et seisinam capere ad quamlibet horam se esse placentem sine omni nocumento mei vel aliquorum per me. Et omnia scripta inter nos facta volo quod non possunt mihi valere nec domino Osberto patri meo nocere. Et seisinam capiat in omnibus terris et tenementis in quibuscumque locis predictus Osbertus pater meus fecit custodem. Iterum volo et concedo quod omnia blada et alia catella super terras inventa sunt predicto domino Osberto Giffard patri meo salva. Insuper obligam me fide mea et sacramento quod non dabo nec vendam nec ullo modo alienabo acram nec dimidiam neque terras nec tenementas nec curtellagia nec aliquem faciam liberum nec aliquod tenementum liberari nec ullum servum removeam nec de ullo proposito compotum recipiam nisi sit per visum domini Johannis Giffard'. Et ad majorem securitatem in manu predicti domini Osberti patris mei fidem eam dedi et sacramento super corpus domini me astruxi in ecclesia Sarum quod si ita contingat (quod deus defendat) quod absit in solucione dicte pecunie terminis predictis in parte vel in toto me deficero vel aliquid faciam contra scriptum istum ex tunc subico me malediccioni patris mei domini Osberti Giffard et domine matris mee quam pater et mater filio dare possunt et in omnibus sentensiis quam erchiepiscopi et episcopi dare possunt et quam omnes homines et clericos vel laicos me teneant in sentencia. Item renuncio omni jure et remedio et auxilio regie curie, per quod aliquo modo mihi prodesse poteritis seu dicto domino Osberto patri meo possit impedire aut nocere. In cujus rei testimonium ego Osbertus filius domini Osberti uni parti hujus scripti sigillum meum apposui et sigillum domini Osberti patris mei alteri parte est appensum. Hiis testibus dominis Ricardo de Maneston' miles, Jacobo de Trowe miles, Radulpho de Rocheford et dominis Oliveri de Dynham miles et dominus Nicholaus de Monte Forti et Simon de Torini et dominus Johannes filius Gwydonis, Willelmus le Povere, dominus Ricardus de Lyuns, Robertus de Rumeny, Walterus de Wynchehul', Robertus le Her ballifus de Wondescot, Simon filius magistri, Willelmus de Maydewell' et multis aliis'.

Et post multas altercationes inter partes dictum est partibus quod ponant in scriptis raciones suas secundum quod melius viderint expedire et secundum hoc irrotulabuntur. Et Osbertus dicit quod cum ipse nuper inventus in aula Westm' arrestatus esset ad sectam Philippi de Willugby ad respondendum super hiis que ex parte domini regis eidem Osberto obicere vellet quo ad hoc quod ei imposuit quod occupaverat super ipsum dominum regem manerium de Dadyngton', Wynterburne, Foxekote, Theaumes et Astwell' post mortem Osberti filii sui que debent esse in custodia domini regis eo quod predictus Osbertus filius obiit in homagio ipsius regis pro predicto manerio de Dadyngton' facto tanquam de eodem de aliis maneriis predictis feofatus predictus Osbertus pater respondit quod predictum manerium de Dadyngton' et alia maneria sunt liberum tenementum suum et petit judicium si inde sine brevi domini regis debeat respondere.

Dicit eciam quod occupacionem super dominum regem de predictis tenementis non fecit eo quod idem Osbertus pater seisitus fuit de predictis tenementis in dominico suo ut de feodo et de jure ante mortem et in morte et post mortem dicti Osberti filii sui. Et cum occupacio non censeatur esse de aliquibus terris que debent esse in custodia domini regis nisi de illis de quibus tenens suus fuerit seisitus in dominico suo die quo obiit et predictus Osbertus filius inde non obiit seisitus petit judicium si de libero tenemento suo etc.

Respice in tergum

m. 42d

Preterea predictus Osbertus pater dicit quod predicta carta quam predictus Philippus, qui sequitur pro rege, in curia ostendit eidem Osberto nocere non debet quia cum in eadem carta continetur quod predictus Osbertus filius habeat et teneat predicta maneria secundum proportum predicti scripti indentati videtur sibi quod predicta carta sit condicionalis et totum dependet ex predicto scripto indentato; unde petit judicium, desicut predicta carta non est purum feoffamentum neque simplex set dependens ex condicione ut predictum est, si predicta carta ei debeat nocere aut alicui alteri valere.

Preterea, salva sibi excepcionibus predictis ob reverenciam domini regis ad certificandum ipsum regem dicit quod ipse dudum proposuit transfretare et tempore transfretacionis sue tradidit Osberto filio suo predicta tenementa in custodia dum esset in partibus transmarinis per predictum scriptum inde inter eos indentatatum reddendo inde eidem Osberto patri per annum septingentas libras, ita tamen quod post reditum suum in Anglia bene liceret ei pro voluntate sua predicta tenementa ingredi et retinere sine contradiccione et impedimento predicti Osberti filii et quod omnia scripta inde inter eos confecta si que fuerunt extunc pro nichilo haberentur, quod quidem scriptum profert quod hoc idem testatur, que quidem tenementa statim post reditum suum in Anglia juxta formam predicti scripti intravit, predicto Osberto filio suo superstite et plene etatis non contradicente nec in vita sua reclamante, et petit judicium ut prius si de libero tenemento sine brevi etc.

Et quo ad hoc quod ei impositum est quod, eo quod recognovit quandam cartam feoffamenti de predictis tenementis coram justiciariis domini regis in judicio prolatam, per consequens ipse recognovit quod predictus Osbertus filius habuit feodum in predictis tenementis Osbertus pater bene defendit quod nuncquam recognovit quod predictus Osbertus filius habuit feodum in predictis tenementis nec aliquid aliud nisi secundum proportum predicti scripti indentati et de hoc ponit se super recordum justiciariorum.

Dicit eciam quod licet dominus rex maneria predicta pro quadam transgressione eidem Osberto patri imposita in manum suam capi precepisset et ea ad tempus detinuisset illa tamen ei postmodum in parliamento suo adeo integre sicut ea ceperat reddidit cum omnibus exitibus inde perceptis in presencia predicti Osberti filii, ipso non reclamante nec contradicente tunc nec unquam postea in vita sua et de reddicione predicta vocat recordum domini regis et petit judicium desicut continuavit seisinam suam de predictis tenementis ante mortem et post mortem et in morte predicti Osberti filii sui si debeat inde respondere sine brevi.

Et predictus Philippus qui sequitur pro rege dicit quod predictus Osbertus alias, scilicet in termino sancti Hillarii ultimo preterito, cognovit ipsum dimisisse predicta maneria cum pertinenciis predicto Osberto filio suo tenenda ad terminum annorum per quoddam scriptum de convencione inde inter eos factum, reddendo sibi quandam summam pecunie in eo contentam, et similiter bene cognovit quod super hoc fecit eidem Osberto filio et heredibus suis cartam suam de feoffamento, unde petit judicium si contra recognicionem suam predictam modo dicere possit quod predictus Osbertus filius suus nichil habuit in tenementis predictis nisi terminum tantum.

Dicit eciam predictus Philippus quod postquam Osbertus filius fuit in seisina de predictis tenementis per predictum feoffamentum patris sui dominus rex per breve suum et per magistrum Henricum de Bray tunc eschaetorem suum seisire fecit predicta tenementa in manum suam, nolens quod predictus Osbertus filius aliquid predicto patri suo redderet vel inveniret ad sustentacionem suam racione cujusdam delicti ipsius Osberti patris contra pacem domini regis commissi et sic tenementa predicta in manum domini regis per aliquod tempus extiterunt, ita quod postea idem Osbertus filius ad dominum regem accessit et predicta tenementa sibi peciit liberari racione feoffamenti predicti, et quia manerium de Dadyngton' de domino rege tenetur in capite dominus rex inde homagium predicti Osberti filii cepit et seisinam dicti manerii et aliorum maneriorum in predicto feoffamento contentorum sibi liberari precepit et sic in eisdem maneriis reintravit et seisinam suam pacifice inde continuavit per unum annum quousque dominus rex iterato eadem tenementa in manum suam reseisire fecit et ea Philippo de Wyllugby pro voluntate sua commisit custodienda et idem Philippus sic ea tenuit per triennium usque reditum domini regis de Wasconia et tunc idem dominus rex eadem tenementa eidem Osberto patri liberare precepit salvo jure domini regis et alterius cujuslibet et postmodum post predictam liberacionem predicto Osberto patri factam predictus Osbertus filius infra duos menses proximo sequentes in fata discessit, post cujus mortem Sarra que fuit uxor predicti Osberti filii in curia domini regis dotem suam recuperavit de quibusdam maneriis, scilicet de Astwell' in comitatu Northt' et Dadyngton' in comitatu Oxon', racione feoffamenti predicti et ut de illis de quibus Osbertus vir suus fuit seisitus in dominico suo ut de feodo et versus Osbertum patrem per juratores patrie in quam idem Osbertus pater se inde posuit; unde desicut per predictam cartam feoffamenti ipsi Osberto filio statum super statum termini predicti in eisdem habiti et quam cartam idem Osbertus pater superius cognovit jus, feodum et liberum tenementum eorundem tenementorum pure et absolute a persona predicti Osberti patris in personam predicti Osberti filii pure et integre devenerunt et eciam cum dominus rex per homagium predicti Osberti filii quod inde cepit ipsum Osbertum filium tenentem suum recognovit et admisit et sic statum ipsius Osberti filii affirmavit et seisinam dictorum tenementorum eidem liberavit. Et eciam cum per inquisicionem patrie predictam convictum fuit quod idem Osbertus filius fuit seisitus de predictis tenementis ut de feodo nec idem Osbertus pater aliquem titulum liberi tenementi sibi per predictum Osbertum filium aut alium facti a tempore confeccionis carte predicte per ipsum facte ostendat vel dicat petit judicium si racione predicte tradicionis per predictum dominum regem facte que facta fuit salvo jure cujuslibet nec idem dominus rex per tales tradiciones nec se nec alios quoscumque intellexit seu intendat excludere a jure suo custodiarum, maritagiorum vel aliorum sibi de jure pertinencium; et eciam cum idem Osbertus filius in homagio ipsius domini regis obiit, quod dedici non potest, et recenter post tradicionem ipsi Osberto patri factam et infra tam breve tempus [titulum] liberi tenementi eidem Osberto patri ut videtur per legem communem accrescere non potuit, si dominus rex a custodia terrarum heredis predicti Osberti filii tenentis sui et qui in homagio suo obiit debeat excludi.

Postea mandavit dominus rex breve suum in hec verba:

'Edwardus dei gracia etc. dilectis et fidelibus suis Gilberto de Thornton' et sociis suis justiciariis ad placita sua tenenda assignatis salutem. Cum inter nos et dilectum et fidelem nostrum Osbertum Giffard super custodia maneriorum de Dadington, Astwelle, Foxcote, Theaumes et Wynturbur' ad prosecucionem dilecti clerici nostri Philippi de Wyleby placitum coram nobis pendeat sicut nostis, vobis mandamus quod de placito illo ulterius tenendo ad procuracionem seu prosecucionem quorumcumque nullatenus vos intromittatis sine mandato nostro speciali. Et quia tam super custodia predicta quam super aliis contentionibus diversis inter predictos Osbertum et Philippum quantum in eis est de consensu nostro sunt concordati vobis mandamus quod formam concordie illius quam vobis mittimus presentibus interclusam in rotulis vestris coram vobis irrotulari faciatis et prefatum Osbertum et eciam juratores inquisicionum quarumcumque predicta placita et contentiones tangencium de quibuscumque comitatibus tam de amerciamentis quam de exitibus quietos esse faciatis et indempnes. Teste me ipso apud Culeford sexto die Maii anno regni nostri vicesimo.'

'Concordatum est coram venerabili patre domino R. dei gracia Bathon' et Wellens' episcopo cancellario domini Edwardi illustris regis Anglie apud Sanctum Edmundum et aliis fidelibus domini regis sibi assidentibus quod Alicia filia et heres Osberti filii Osberti Giffard habebit et retinebit post mortem predicti Osberti patris in feodo et hereditate quinquaginta libratas terre in villis de Dadyngton' et Stanlake in comitatu Oxon', videlicet de terra quam dominus Osbertus pater emit in predicta villa de Stanlake de quodam Johanne de Hadnham, ita scilicet quod manerium de Stanlake quod Sarra que fuit uxor Osberti filii Osberti Giffard modo tenet non computabitur in predictis quinquaginta libratis terre sed preter illud manerium predicta Alicia habebit quinquaginta libratas terre ut predictum est, et id quod defuerit de quinquaginta libratis terre in predictis duabus villis habebit in Loderford' in comitatu Somers'. Et si terre et tenementa in Loderford' non sufficiant plenarie ad perficiendum id quod defuerit de predictis quinquaginta libratis terre in predictis duabus villis tunc predictus Osbertus id quod defuerit perficiet de terris et tenementis suis in comitatu Dors' et alibi preter quam in Wynterburn'. Dotem vero quam predicta Sarra recuperavit et de qua nunc est seisita in Dadinton' coram justiciariis domini regis de Banco versus Osbertum Giffard patrem retinebit et inde sit contenta et pro dote ipsam Sarram contingente de tenementis que Johannes Giffard tenet in Astwell' eadem Sarra habebit et retinebit sexaginta solidatas terre et reditus per legalem extentam inde faciendam de terris et tenementis predicti Osberti patris in villa de Stanlake, videlicet de tenementis que fuerunt Johannis de Hadenham. Et si terre et tenementa illa non sufficiant ad predictum redditum sexaginta solidorum tunc idem Osbertus id quod ibidem defuerit plenarie perficiet prefate Sarre habendum et percipiendum de ceteris terris et tenementis suis in villa de Dadington'. Et si forte terre et tenementa predicta in villa de Stanlake excedant summam sexaginta solidorum per annum tunc prefata Sarra ad valenciam superplusagii illorum sexaginta solidorum assignabit prefato Osberto patri percipiendum de terris et tenementis eidem Sarre assignatis in dotem in villa de Dadington. Et eadem Sarra integre habebit et retinebit omnes terras et tenementa predicta in Stanlake que fuerunt predicti Johannis simul cum aliis terris et tenementis prefate Sarre ut predictum est assignatis ad terminum vite sue nomine dotis. Et post mortem prefate Sarre omnia tenementa predicta prefate Sarre assignata in dotem revertentur et remanebunt prefato Osberto patri ad terminum vite sue si prefatam Sarram supervixerit. Et post mortem ipsius Osberti prefate Alicie et heredibus suis imperpetuum, salvis semper Alicie filie et heredi Osberti filii predicti Osberti predictis quinquaginta libratis terre in quibus predicta tenementa de dote debebunt computari. Et predicta Sarra comitatus Somers' et Dors' nullam dotem decetero impetrabit sed brevia que super hoc impetravit retractabit. Et si forte predicta Alicia filia et heres predicti Osberti filii Osberti predictum Osbertum patrem, heredes vel assignatos suos temporibus futuris implacitaverit de aliquibus terris et tenementis occasione alicujus feoffamenti facti predicto Osberto patri predicte Alicie ut dicitur tunc racione concordie predicte aut scripti predicti nichil cedat in commodum alicujus parcium predictarum nec aliqua pars per eandem concordiam de statu aut jure suo precludat set salvetur utrique parti quod de jure fuerit salvandum non obstantibus concordia aut cartis predictis nec aliquam partem ledent nec extunc alicujus momenti existant. Extente vero super premissis faciende fiant citra festum sancti Michaelis proximo futurum.'

iv) for the dower plea brought by Sarra the widow of Osbert the son of Osbert Giffard against her father-in-law in Hilary term 1292 see CP 40/92, m. 162d

Somers', Dors' . Sarra que fuit uxor Osberti filii Osberti Gyffard' per attornatum suum petit versus Osbertum Gyffard' terciam partem manerii de Wynterburn' Houton' in comitatu Dors' et terciam partem maneriorum de Foxcote in Tehaumes in comitatu Somers' ut dotem etc.

Et Osbertus venit. Et dicit quod predicta Sarra non debet inde dotem habere quia dicit quod predictus Osbertus filius Osberti quondam vir etc. numquam fuit in seisina de predictis tenementis ut de feodo. Dicit enim quod predictus Osbertus filius Osberti nichil habuit in predictis tenementis nisi ex concessione ipsius Osberti Gyffard' patris predicti Osberti filii Osberti quondam viri etc., qui illa ei dimisit simul cum maneriis de Dadynton', Stanlake, Asshwelle, Stenford' et Loderford' tenendum dum idem Osbertus pater etc. fuisset in partibus transmarinis et reddendo inde per annum ipsi Osberto patri etc. septingentas libras per annum, videlicet medietatem ad festum Purificationis Beate Marie et aliam medietatem ad festum sancti Johannis Baptiste etc.; ita quod bene liceret eidem Osberto patri etc. predicta tenementa reintrare cum voluisset absque aliquo impedimento ipsius Osberti filii Osberti. Et profert partem cujusdam scripti indentati inter ipsos Osbertum et Osbertum que hoc idem testatur etc.

Et Sarra dicit quod predictus Osbertus pater etc. dedit predicto Osberto filio Osberti predicta tenementa cum pertinenciis tenenda sibi et heredibus suis de corpore suo exeuntibus et profert quamdam cartam sub nomine predicti Osberti patris etc. que testatur quod predictus Osbertus pater etc. dedit Osberto filio suo et heredi suo manerium suum de Dodynton' cum pertinenciis et omnia maneria et terras que habuit in Anglia exceptis terris suis in comitatibus Devon' et Glouc' tenenda ipsi Osberto filio Osberti et heredibus suis legitime procreatis omni tempore vite ipsius Osberti patris etc. reddendo inde per annum tota vita ipsius Osberti patris etc. illum redditum qui continetur in quodam scripto inter eos cyrograffato terminis ibidem statutis pro omni servicio etc.. Et dicit quod idem Osbertus filius Osberti fecit homagium domino regi nunc pro predicto manerio de Dadynton' quod tenetur de domino regi in capite, et idem dominus rex post mortem predicti Osberti filii Osberti, quia obiit seisitus de predictis tenementis ut de feodo in homagio ipsius domini regis, filio et herede ipsius Osberti filii Osberti infra etatem existente, idem dominus rex coram G. de Thornton' et sociis suis justiciarii ad placita domini regis nuper peciit custodiam predictorum tenementorum versus ipsum Osbertum patrem etc. et idem Osbertus pater etc. bene cognovit ibidem predictam cartam, et quod predictus Osbertus filium Osberti habuit predicta tenementa sibi et heredibus suis de corpore suo exeuntibus, reddendo per annum ipsi Osberto patri etc. septingentas libras, videlicet medietatem ad festum Purificaciam Beate Marie et aliam medietatem ad festum sancti Johannis Baptiste etc ex concessione ipsius Osberti patris etc. sub hac condicione, videlicet quod si predictus Osbertus filius etc. in solucione predicte pecunie ad aliquem terminum defecisset in toto vel in parte bene liceret eidem Osberto patri etc. predicta tenementa reintrare et tenementa illa tenere absque aliqua contradiccione ipsius Osberti filii etc. et ibidem dixit ulterius quod quia Osbertus filius etc. nichil ei solvit de predicta firma reintravit ipse in predicta tenementa sicut ei bene licuit. Et quod ita sit ponit se super recordum justiciariorum predictorum; unde desicut predictus Osbertus pater etc. in curia domini regis coram prefatis justiciarus suis recognovit quod predictus Osbertus filius etc. habuit feodum talliatum in predictis tenementis, petit judicium si predictus Osbertus modo possit resortiri et dicere quod predictus Osbertus filius etc. numquam fuit in seisina de predictis tenementis ut de feodo nec quod aliquid habuisset in predictis tenementis nisi ad voluntatem ipsius Osberti patris etc.

Et Osbertus dicit quod predictus Osbertus filius Osberti nunquam fuit in seisina de predictis tenementis ut de feodo nec aliquid habuit in eisdem nisi ad firmam ad voluntatem ipsius Osberti patris etc. secundum purportum predicti scripti inter eos cyrograffati etc. Et hoc paratus est verificare sicut curia consideraverit. Et quo ad hoc quod ei imponit quod recognovit coram prefatis justiciariis ad placita domini regis quod prefatus Osbertus filius Osberti habuit feodum talliatum in predictis tenementis bene defendit quod nunquam recognovit coram prefatis justiciariis quod predictus Osbertus filius etc. feodum habuisset in predictis tenementis nec aliquid aliud nisi secundum purportum predicti scripti cyrograffati etc. Et de hoc ponit se super recordum predictorum justiciariorum etc. Et preterea dicit quod hoc quod ibi cognovit ad huc hic wlt cognoscere, scilicet quod predictus Osbertus filius etc. nunquam habuit aliquam seisinam de predictis tenementis per predictam cartam que ibidem proferebatur, immo secundum purportum predicti scripti indentati.

Postea predictus Osbertus dicit quod predictus Osbertus filius Osberti quondam vir etc. die quo ipsam desponsavit nec umquam postea fuit in seisina de predictis tenementis ut de feodo, ita quod ipsam inde dotare potuit. Et de hoc ponit se super patriam. Et Sarra similiter. Ideo preceptum est tam vicecomiti Somers' quam vicecomiti Dors' quod venire faciant hic a die Pasche in quinque septimanas xij etc., per quos etc., et qui nec etc., ad recognoscendum in forma predicta. Quia tam etc.

25

For related enrolments see items 6 and 53.

26

i) The writ of enquiry is enrolled on the Patent Roll under 20 February 1290: CPR 1281-92 , 398

ii) for the sequel see Roll 10, item 11

27

i) The king's first intervention came on 18 September 1289. It ordered a cessation of hostilities and the sending of representatives from both side for a proposed settlement at the next session of parliament: CPR 1281-1292, 323. A further mandate continuing the cessation of hostilities and requiring the sending of representatives to the parliament after Easter was sent on 30 January 1290: CPR 1281-1292, 339

ii) The widow's appeal appears to have led to the outlawry in King's Bench reviewed and quashed in proceedings in the same court in Michaelmas term 1290: KB 27/125, m. 61

Norff' . Dominus rex mandavit breve suum Gilberto de Thornton' et sociis suis etc. in hec verba:

'Edwardus dei gracia etc. dilectis et fidelibus suis Gilberto de Thornton' et sociis suis justiciariis ad placita regis audienda et terminanda assignatis salutem. Cum Johannes Lambert de Sandwyco, Robertus Golde de Stonore, Robertus de Ingesham, Robertus Patecok, Hurtinus de Stonore, Willelmus Bataille, Willelmus Mancepe, Stephanus Gormeyr, Nicholaus Alard, Johannes Bughard, Bartinus Tasse, Lovericus Lambert et Johannes Samitus ad sectam Cecilie que fuit uxor Roberti de Rollesby que ipsos coram vobis appellavit de morte predicti Roberti quondam viri sui sint utlagati ac in processu ejusdem appelli manifestus error intervenerit, prout ex parte ipsorum Johannis, Roberti, Roberti, Hurtini, Willelmi et Willelmi, Stephani, Nicholai, Johannis, Bartini, Loverici et Johannis intelleximus, nos errorem si quem in predicto processu inveniri contigerit emendari et predictam utlagariam si minus rite et contra consuetudinem regni nostri ad eandem promulgandam processum fuerit adnullari volentes ut tenemur, vobis mandamus quod scrutatis rotulis vestris recordoque et processu predicti appelli diligenter examinatis, vocataque predicta Cecilia coram vobis auditisque racionibus amicorum predictorum Johannis et aliorum in presencia ipsius Cecilie si interesse voluerit ad predictam utlagariam adnullandam, errorem si quem in predicto processu inveneritis corrigi et utlagariam predictam si vobis constiterit ad eandem promulgandam minus rite processum fuisse revocari faciatis et adnullari secundum quod de jure et consuetudine regni nostri fuerit faciendum. Teste me ipso apud Herdeby xxvj die Novembris anno regni nostri xix.'

Et scrutatis brevibus et rotulis invenitur quoddam breve returnatum a die Pasche in xv dies proximo preterito in hec verba:

'Edwardus dei gracia rex Anglie, dominus Hibernie et dux Aquitanie vicecomiti Norff' salutem. Si Cecilia que fuit uxor Roberti de Rollesby de magna Gernemuth' fecerit te securum de clamore suo prosequendo tunc attachies Johannem Lambert de Sandwico, Robertum Golde de Stonore, Robertum de Ingesham, Robertum Patecok, Hurtinum de Stonore, Willelmum Bataille, Willelmum Mancape, Stephanum Germeyn, Nicholaum Alard, Johannem Buchard, Bartinum Tasse, Lovericum Lambert et Johannem Saunter per corpora sua secundum consuetudinem Anglie, ita quod eos habeas coram nobis a die Pasche in xv dies ubicumque tunc fuerimus in Anglia ad respondendum prefate Cecilie de morte predicti Roberti quondam viri sui unde eos appellat. Et habeas ibi nomina plegiorum et hoc breve. Teste me ipso apud Westm' .x. die Februarii anno regni nostri .xviij..'

Invenitur eciam in rotulis coram rege de eodem termino irrotulamentum in hec verba:

'Cecilia que fuit uxor Roberti de Rollesby de Magna Gernemuth' optulit se quarto die versus Johannem Lambert de Sandwyco, Robertum Golde de Stonore, Robertum de Ingesham, Robertum Patecok, Hurtinum de Stonore, Willelmum Bataille, Willelmum Mancape, Stephanum Germeyn, Nicholaum Alard, Johannem Buchard, Bartinum Tasse, Lovericum Lambert et Johannem Saunter de morte predicti Roberti quondam viri sui unde eos appellat. Et ipsi non veniunt. Et preceptum fuit vicecomiti quod capiat eos. Et vicecomes mandavit quod predicti Robertus et alii non sunt inventi etc. Ideo preceptum est vicecomiti quod exigi faciat eos de comitatu in comitatum quousque etc. utlagentur. Et si etc. tunc eos etc. et quod habeat corpora eorum coram rege a die sancti Martini in .xv. dies ubicumque etc.

Ad quem diem vicecomes mandavit breve domini regis in hec verba:

'Edwardus dei gracia rex Anglie, dominus Hibernie et dux Aquitanie vicecomiti Norff' salutem. Precipimus tibi quod exigi facias Johannem Lambert de Sandwyco, Robertum Golde de Stonore, Robertum de Ingesham, Robertum Patecok, Hurtinum de Stonore, Willelmum Bataille, Willelmum Mancape, Stephanum Germeyn, Nicholaum Alard, Johannem Buchard, Bartinum Tasse, Lovericum Lambert et Johannem Saunter de comitatu in comitatum quousque secundum legem et consuetudinem Anglie utlagentur si non comparuerint. Et si comparuerint tunc corpora eorum capias et eos salvo in prisona nostra custodias ita quod habeas corpora eorum coram nobis a die sancti Martini in xv dies ubicumque tunc fuerimus in Anglia ad respondendum Cecilie que fuit uxor Roberti de Rollesby de Magna Gernemuta de morte predicti Roberti quondam viri sui unde eos appellat. Et habeas ibi hoc breve. Teste G. de Thornton .viij. die Maii anno regni nostri .xviij..' una cum returno in dorso brevis in hec verba:

'Ad comitatum Norwyci die lune proxima ante festum sancti Barnabe Johannes Lambert et alii fuerunt primo exacti.

Ad comitatum Norwyci die lune proxima post festum apostolorum Petri et Pauli fuerunt secundo exacti.

Ad comitatum Norwyci die lune proxima ante festum sancti Petri Advincula fuerunt tercio exacti.

Ad comitatum Norwyci die lune proxima ante festum Decollacionis Sancti Johannis Baptiste fuerunt quarto exacti. Non venerunt. Ideo utlagentur. Ad quem diem predicta Cecilia licet primo, secundo, tercio, quarto die solempniter vocata non venit, et de defalta ejus nichil ad presens quia predictus Johannes et alii ad sectam ejus sunt utlagati.'

Et super hoc venit quidam Matheus de Horn de Wynchelsee et Ricardus Godefrey de eadem villa amici predictorum Johannis Lambert et aliorum et pro eis ante exaccionem predictam et nunc in partibus transmarinis agentibus quod ad utlagariam in eos promulgatam minus rite processum est in eo, scilicet, quod predictus Robertus de cujus morte appelli sunt fuit sanus et incolumis ab Anglia recessit et nunquam postea ad eam rediit et ad partes transmarinas se transtulit sed ad quas partes nescitur. Et quia curie regis Anglie constare non potest utrum predictus Robertus adhuc superstes sit necne et si obierit constare non potest curie utrum morte naturali vel ex felonia precogitata et si ex felonia precogitata nescitur per quem nec ubi, et si appellati in partibus extiterint transmarinis necne. Dicunt insuper quod predicti Johannes Lambert et alii appellati sunt barones quinque portuum et talem habent libertatem quod nullus eorum exigi debeat alibi quam in curia regis de Shipweye. Et cum predictum appellum < de jure > sit nullum petunt quod predicta utlagaria de toto adnulletur et predicti Johannes Lambert et alii ad omnia restituantur. Et quia ad predictam utlagariam confirmandam seu infirmandam procedi non potest antequam sciatur utrum predictus Robertus vivus et sanus ab Anglia recessit ita quod ad eam postea non rediit, et si predicti appellati in partibus transmarinis extierint necne preceptum est vicecomiti quod in pleno comitatu etc. in presencia dicte Cecilie ipsa tamen racionabiliter premunita si interesse voluerit coram custodibus placitorum corone regis per sacramentum proborum et legalium hominum etc. per quos etc. diligenter inquirat utrum predictus Robertus sanus et incolumis ab Anglia recessit, ita quod ad eam postea non rediit, et si predicti appellati in partibus extierint transmarinis sicut predicti Matheus et Ricardus qui sequntur pro eis dicunt necne; et inquisicionem illam distincte etc., sub sigillo etc. et sigillis eorum per quos etc. regi mittat in crastino Purificacionis Beate Marie ubicumque etc. et scire faciat predicte Cecilie quod sit coram rege ad prefatum terminum ostensura < quare > predicta utlagaria sic minus rite promulgata ut dicitur adnullari non debeat si sibi viderit expedire etc.

Ad quem diem vicecomes returnavit quod scire fecit predicte Cecilie per Johannem de Norwyco et Johannem de Ely quod esset in pleno comitatu etc. et similiter hic in crastino Purificacionis Beate Marie etc. Et similiter returnavit inquisicionem in pleno comitatu factam etc. que residet in ligula brevium ejusdem termini in qua inquisicione compertum est quod predictus Robertus de Rollesby sanus et incolumis ab Anglia recessit et ad partes transmarinis se transtulit et nunquam postea ad Angliam rediit et dicunt quod credunt quod idem Robertus in redeundo versus Angliam fuit occisus in Britanniam et eciam dicunt quod predicti Johannes Lambert et omnes alii appellati de morte ejusdem Roberti de Rolleysby tempore exaccionis et utlagarie in eos promulgate fuerunt in partibus transmarinis.

Per quod manifeste patet quod predicta Cecilia breve suum tacita veritate optinuit quod pro non impetrato debet reputari et sic processum est ad exaccionem et utlagariam ubi nullum appellum factum fuit in comitatu nec per breve predicte Cecilie quod robur habere debeat et sic contra legem et consuetudinem Anglie quia predicta Cecilia de morte predicti Roberti qui ab Anglia sanus et incolumis recessit et nunquam postea rediit et qui forte adhuc superstes est et adhuc forte sanus et incolumis redire poterit et in qualibet utlagaria rite promulgata oportet quod subsit vera causa sive presumptiva et contumacia quod in isto casu esse non potest et si forte predictus Robertus in aliena regione nequiter occisus fuerit hoc esse non potest contra pacem regis Anglie, consideratum est quod predicta utlagaria irritetur et pro nulla habeatur et quod predicti Johannes Lambert de Sandwyco, Robertus Golde de Stonore, Robertus de Ingesham, Robertus Patecok, Hurtinus de Stonore, Willelmus Bataille, Willelmus Mancape, Stephanus Germeyn, Nicholaus Alard, Johannes Buchard, Bartinus Tasse, Lovericus Lambert et Johannes Saunter redeant si voluerint et ad omnia restituantur. Et preceptum est vicecomiti quod in pleno comitatu et in locis pupplicis proclamari faciat firmam pacem predictorum Johannis Lambert et aliorum et predictam utlagariam fore annullatam et pax predictorum Johannis Lambert et aliorum in pleno banco proclamata est.

28

For a related mandate to the justices of the Common Bench dated 18 June 1290 see CP 40/83, m. 45

29-30

For related litigation see below, nos. 46 and 40. See also Roll 2, item 282

31

There is a summary of the preceding petition and its response in Roll 2, item 29

32

i) A damaged copy of the agreement is included in the King's Bench plea roll for Easter term 1290 on a membrane whose dimensions are significantly wider than the remainder of the membranes on the roll but which has suffered damage: KB 27/123 (Easter 1290), mm. 53-53d. A full text is printed from other copies in Munimenta Academica Oxonie , ed. H. Anstey (Rolls Series, 1868), i, 46-56

ii) For a follow-up complaint in Michaelmas term 1293 see KB 27/138, m. 5: printed in Select Cases in the Court of King's Bench , vol. II, 151-4

33

i) For a commission associating John of Mettingham and John of Cobham with Penchester in determining these disputes see CPR 1281-92, 402-3.

ii) the transfer of the litigation to Penchester is also recorded in Roll 2, item 30.

34

i) For an earlier stage of this case see CP 40/82, m. 3.

ii) This quitclaim received royal confirmation on 28 May 1290. From this it appears that John's full name was John son of Nicholas of Bromholm of Great Yarmouth and that the plot of land which had belonged to his father which he was claiming lay next to the friars' house in Great Yarmouth: CPR 1281-92, 358.

35

The commission of enquiry was issued on 20 February 1290: CPR 1281-92 , 398

36

[nothing found]

37

These proceedings arose out of the case before the auditores querelarum in which the justices of the southern eyre circuit were convicted of misconduct at the 1286 Norfolk eyre. For a transcript of the record see BL Additional Roll 14987.

38

i) This mainprise was recited in a writ of 15 May 1290 to the constable of Leeds castle ordering the release of William Douglas who was in his custody until the following quindene of Hilary (though the list of mainpernors here substitutes Nicholas of Seagrave for Roger de Mohaut and calls William of Ryther William de Rye): CCR 1288-96, 79. On 24 May 1290 the sheriff of Northumberland was ordered to release the lands, goods and chattels of William and his men until the following quindene of Hilary when the king was to decide with the advice of his council what to do in respect of William's alleged trespass in abducting Eleanor, the widow of William de Ferrars, while she was in Scotland: CCR 1288-96, 81.

ii) The original order for the seizure of William's property and for William's arrest was given on 28 January 1289: CFR 1272-1307, 256

iii) For a follow-up to the original order for the seizure see C 47/22/3, no. 2

Venerabili patri in christo et domino suo si placet reverendo domino ... dei gracia Elyensi episcopo suus in omnibus humilis et devotus R. Knut vicecomes Norhumbr' salutem, honorem et reverenciam. Quia ex precepto domini nostri regis Anglie < omnes > terras et tenementa quas Willelmus de Duglas et Johannes Wichard in balliva mea existentes seysiri feci pro rapina quam fecerunt de Alianora de Ferariis apud ?Traverment et tamen de novo intellexi quod Johannes Wichhard habet terras in Tindale que sunt in libertate et in balliva domini Thome de Normanvyle ubi potestas mea non se extendit sine speciali mandato quare si vobis placet quod terras dicti Johannis in libertate predicta occasione predicta seisiri faciam mihi < vestro > velle vestrum inde scribere dignemini una cum beneplacito vestro in omnibus. Valeat sancta paternitas vestra et dominacio per tempora longiora.

iv) William was eventually allowed on 18 February 1291 in return for a fine of £100 to purchase the king's rights in respect of the remarriage of Eleanor: CFR 1272-1307, 289.

v) there is also a note of William Douglas's mainprise in C 47/22/1, no. 11

Dominus Johannes de Hastinges; dominus Nicholaus Segrave; dominus Willelmus de Rye; dominus Robertus Bardulf

Isti manucapiunt Willelmum de Duglas habendi coram rege a die sancti Hillarii in xv dies proximo sequenti ubicumque etc. suo periculo quod decet ad respondendum Alianore que fuit uxor Willelmi de Ferrars de placito transgressionis.

39

Adam had previously put in his claim to the final concord which Hugh had made with John of Easton: CP 40/81, m. 42. In Michaelmas term 1291 Adam quitclaimed all right to Hugh and his heirs: CP 40/91, m. 321.

40

i) For the earlier proceedings at the Hilary parliament see item 46.

ii) The king's writ is given below at item 42.

41

For a follow-up writ of 27 May 1290 to the treasurer and barons of the exchequer see Annales Monastici, iii. 360-1 and E 159/63, m. 13

42

i) For the context of this writ see above, item 40.

ii) For the justification for this writ and evidence that it was issued on 18 May 1290 see Roll 2, items 98, 99

43-4

[nothing found]

45

There is a brief related enrolment on the King's Bench roll for Easter term 1290: KB 27/123, m. 4d

Norff' . Memorandum de quodam brevi de inquisicione tradito Gilberto de Roubur' clerico inter Ricardum Lomb qui sequitur pro domino regi et episcopum Norwyc', Robertum de Tatershal' et alios in brevi de theolonio pro caseo, butirio et aliis injuste captis in villa de Len'.

46

For the next stage in this case see item 40.

47

i) for a second copy of this entry from another, apparently separate roll see SC 8/1, no. 4

ii) For a related, but subsequent, complaint see Roll 2, item 31

iii)The jury verdict in this case was eventually given in the 1292 Cumberland eyre: it found that the king was free to give the tithes of these places, as of any other land assarted within the forest, to whomsover he wished: C 260/6, no. 10, mm. 3-4

iv) The king sent to Cressingham, the chief justice of the Cumberland eyre, on 3 June 1293 asking for a record of this plea, possibly as the result of a petition at the Easter parliament of 1293. It was not, however, until 5 December 1293 that the king granted the priory of Carlisle all the tithes arising out of assarts within the forest of Inglewood and from all extra-parochial land there, as he had recovered them in the Cumberland eyre: CPR 1292-1301 , 55-6.

48

Subsequently litigation was brought in King's Bench for the manor and in the Common Bench for the advowson. For the former see KB 27/125, m. 45; KB 27/126, m. 16d; KB 27/127, m. 9. For the latter see CP 40/83, m. 89d and CP 40/106, m. 231d.

49

For related proceedings see item 5 above.

50

[nothing found]

51

i) The original petition behind this entry is SC 8/331, no. 15657

Ceo vs moustre Roger de Mohaut fiz e heyr Robert de Mohaut ke cum il ad le maner de ... ove tote les apurtenaunz e tent del heritage Robert son pere par le bayle e la ...nostre syngnor le Roys mon sire Renaud de Grey justise de Cestre ad occupe e purpris une graunt partye des apurtenauncez de meyme ceo maner, ceo est asaver Ewlawe, Belynges e une grant partye du boys de Swerdwode ensemblement ove les assarz ky la gent de Aston' Scotton e Belynges tenent e ount tenu pus le tens ke mon sire Roger de Mohaut ael meyme cesty Roger ky er est si approwa de meyme les assarz.

Derechef vous moustre meyme cesty Roger ke la ou le Reys ....paas de Swerdwode la sount venuz les gent de W...rth' de Cestre ... pays par un cryee ke mon sire Renaud de Grey fit ... a lur volonte en meyme ces boys parmy e par tut saunz ...gent meyme ceo boys wastent e coupent e destruyent ... par tut hors de pas e ne mye en pas. E de cestes choses ... remedy e grace nostre seyngnor le Roys.

ii) for a related entry see Roll 2, item 265

52

See also item 69 below.

53

i) For a separate record of these earlier proceedings see item 10.

ii) For the sequel as recorded in King's Bench in Hilary term 1291 see KB 27/126, mm. 15-15d

Placita coram consilio domini regis anno regni regis Edwardi filii regis Henrici decimo octavo

Sutht'. Preceptum fuit vicecomiti Sutht' quod cum dominus rex nuper in parliamento suo Pasche proximo preterito versus venerabilem patrem Johannem Wynton' episcopum seisinam custodie hospitalis Sancti Juliani extra Sutht' per consideracionem curie sue recuperaverat, et eidem vicecomiti per breve suum preceperat, quod Roberto le Aumoner capellano talem seisinam, nomine domini regis, de eadem custodia habere faceret, qualem idem Robertus, nomine domini regis, antequam per predictum episcopum et racione cujusdam brevis domini regis, eidem vicecomiti alias inde directi, de eadem custodia ejectus fuit, habuit; ac idem episcopus postea coram ipso domino rege et ejus consilio venisset, et ab ipso domino rege petivisset, quod seisinam advocacionis custodie predicte sibi, ut vero patrono predicti hospitalis, restitueret, et quod ipsum eandem custodiam conferre, et de eadem custodia ordinare permitteret, prout predecessores sui episcopi Wynton' custodiam illam conferre, et de eadem ordinare consueverunt; quod idem vicecomes scire faceret predicto Roberto, quod esset coram domino rege, a die Sancti Johannis Baptiste in quindecim dies ubicumque etc. ipsum dominum regem et consilium suum super advocacione predicti hospitalis et collacione [m. 15d] custodie ejusdem plenius cercioraturus et ostensurus si quid haberet, vel pro ipso domino rege dicere sciret, quare predicto episcopo predictam advocacionem restituere, et ipsum custodiam predicti hospitalis conferre permittere non deberet.

Ad quem diem predictus vicecomes mandavit, quod scire fecit predicto Roberto le Aumoner, juxta formam predicti precepti sibi facti, et per homines subscriptos, scilicet Johannem Atte Barre, et Henricum Bryan. Propter quod, tam predictus episcopus quam predictus Robertus, et similiter quidam Johannes de Hardlegh', qui pro domino rege sequitur, coram ipso domino rege et ejus consilio apud Westm' ad diem predictum venerunt, et idem episcopus instanter petiit, quod idem dominus rex advocacionem custodie predicti hospitalis sibi restitueret, et quod ipsum de eadem custodia ordinare, et eandem conferre permitteret, prout predecessores sui episcopi Wynton' eandem custodiam conferre, et de eadem ordinare consueverunt.

Et predictus Robertus dicit quod ipse nichil clamat in advocacione predicti hospitalis. Set dicit quod ipse est seisitus de custodia ejusdem hospitalis per judicium istius curie et per collacionem domine regine matris domini regis, nomine ipsius domini regis, ut de libero tenemento suo; et petit, quod quicquid contingat de advocacione predicta inter dominum regem et predictum episcopum, quod nichil ei cedat in prejudicium quo ad liberum tenementum suum de custodia ejusdem hospitalis.

Et super hoc predictus Johannes, qui sequitur pro domino rege, dicit quod predictus episcopus restitucionem advocacionis predicti hospitalis habere non debet; dicit enim quod cum dominus rex, in parliamento suo Pasche proximo preterito, seisinam advocacionis custodie predicte versus ipsum episcopum recuperaverat per consideracionem curie sue, et predicto vicecomiti preceperat, quod predicto Roberto le Aumoner, nomine ipsius domini regis, de eadem custodia talem seisinam plenarie et integre habere faceret, qualem idem dominus rex per predictum Robertum habuit, antequam per predictum episcopum ejectus fuit, quod quidam Rogerus de Multon' bona et catalla predicti hospitalis ad valenciam trescentarum librarum et amplius, ut in libris, calicibus, domibus prostratis, et maheremiis venditis, ciphis, mappis, et utensilibus, bobus, vaccis, et aliis averiis, vendidit, destruxit, et alienavit a tempore ejeccionis predicti Roberti, et de quibus idem Robertus non dum est in seisina; et petit judicium, si predictus episcopus ad restitucionem predicte advocacionis petendam admitti debeat, antequam dominus rex de seisina ejusdem custodie, et etiam predictus Robertus de predictis rebus per ipsum episcopum et predictum Rogerum clericum suum alienatis et subtractis, juxta formam predicti judicii pro ipso domino rege redditi plenarie et integre fuerint seisiti. Dicit etiam quod predictus Rogerus, et quidam Paganus thesaurarius clericus predicti episcopi, a tempore predicti judicii pro ipso domino rege redditi, quoddam scriptum inter quendam Petrum de Roches quondam episcopum Wynton' predecessorem predicti episcopi, et burgenses Sutht' confectum, super ordinacione predicti hospitalis et collacione ejusdem, penes se retinuerunt et quod quidem scriptum eidem episcopo et in potestate sua nunc remanet, et per quod dominus rex super jure suo advocacionis predicte plenius cerciorari poterit etc. Et petit quod predictus episcopus predicta catalla, et etiam predictum scriptum, per se et suos alienata, restituat, antequam ad restitucionem predicte advocacionis petendam admittatur.

Et, quia predictus Johannes dicit predicta catalla per predictum Rogerum fuisse alienata, et non per ipsum episcopum, et versus quem Rogerum idem Robertus accionem habere poterit de catallis illis reddendis, et etiam idem Rogerus sufficiens sit inde responsurus et satisfacturus si inde convincatur, nec est juri consonum quod predictus episcopus de peticione sua quoad advocacionem predicti hospitalis petendam per factum predicti Rogeri excludatur, dictum est predicto Johanni, qui pro domino rege sequitur, quod aliud dicat pro domino rege si sibi viderit expedire.

Et idem Johannes dicit, ut prius, quod predictum scriptum, per quod dominus rex de jure suo cerciorari debet, devenit in manus et potestatem predicti episcopi, per predictos Rogerum et Paganum, clericos suos, ut predictum est; et hoc paratus est verificare pro ipso domino rege sicut curia etc.

Et episcopus dicit, et bene defendit, quod nec predictum scriptum, nec aliquid aliud per quod dominus rex super jure suo advocacionis predicte cerciorari poterit, in manum suam aut potestatem devenit per predictos clericos suos, aut alios quoscunque, nec penes se remanet. Et de hoc ponit se super patriam. Et predictus Johannes, qui sequitur pro rege, similiter. Ideo preceptum est vicecomiti Sutht' quod venire faciat coram domino rege, a die Sancti Michaelis in .xv. dies, ubicunque etc. .xxiiij. etc. per quos etc., et qui nec predictum episcopum etc., ad cognoscendum in forma predicta. Quia tam etc.

Postea coram domino rege a die sancti Hillarii in quindecim dies anno regni regis nunc decimo nono venerunt juratores inquisicionis predicte. Et predictus Johannes episcopus Wynton' venit et similiter predictus Johannes de Hardleye qui sequitur pro domino rege venit. Et idem Johannes de Hardel' calumpniavit omnes juratores [[The following text has been deleted:
quasi]] < tamquam > suspectos. Ideo preceptum est vicecomiti < Sutht' > quod venire faciat coram rege a die Pasche in tres septimanas ubicumque etc. sexdecim liberos et legales homines de villa Sutht' et preter illos sexdecim liberos et legales homines de proxioribus visnetis de Sutht' < quorum sex sint milites gladiis cincti > per quos etc., et qui predictum episcopum nulla affinitate attingant, ad recognoscendum in forma predicta. Quia tam etc.

Postea predicta inquisicio capta fuit coram Roberto Malet et Willelmo de Berford' justiciariis prout inveniri potest inter recorda de termino sancti Michaelis anno regni regis < nunc > nonodecimo incipienti vicesimo in dorso cujusdam recordi cujus inquisicionis tenor talis est: 'Postea apud Winton' coram R. Malet et W. de Bereford' die jovis proxima ante mediam quadragesimam anno regni regis Edwardi vicesimo venerunt juratores de consensu parcium electi. Qui dicunt super sacramentum suum quod nunquam aliquod scriptum inter Petrum de Roches quondam episcopum Winton' predecessorem Johannis episcopi qui nunc est et burgenses Suthampton' super ordinacione hospitalis sancti Juliani extra Sutht' ad manus et potestatem predicti Johannis episcopi devenit per Rogerum de Molton' vel Paganum clericos ipsius episcopi seu per aliquem alium nec per aliquem alienatum fuit nec eciam intelligunt quod unquam aliquod scriptum inter predictas partes fuit consignatum nec factum. Dies datus partibus de audiendo judicio coram rege ad diem in brevi contentum etc., videlicet a die Pasche in tres septimanas anno vicesimo.'

Ad quem diem venit predictus episcopus per attornatum suum. Et Johannes de Hardeleye qui sequitur pro rege. Et consideratum est quod predictus episcopus quo ad predictum scriptum eat inde ad presens sine die etc. Et quo ad advocacionem predicti hospitalis sequatur versus dominum regem de jure suo ostendendo secundum quod sibi viderit melius expedire etc.

iii) For a further sequel recorded in King's Bench in Michaelmas term 1293 see KB 27/138, m. 19d

Sutht' . Peticio missa de consilio per Gilbertum de Robyry . Domino regi et ejus consilio supplicat Johannes episcopus Wynton', sicut prius supplicavit, quod advocacio hospitalis sancti [[The following text has been deleted:
Johannis]] < Juliani > extra portam Sutht' ei restituatur, de qua quidem advocacione nondum extitit restitutus obtentu cujusdam excepcionis quam quidam Johannes de Hardelee, qui sequebatur pro rege, proposuit contra ipsum, videlicet quod non debuit restitucionem predicte advocacionis habere quia de uno scripto per quod dominus rex posset instrui de jure suo quoad advocacionem ejusdem hospitalis quod fuit amotum per clericos predicti episcopi et per eosdem clericos devenit in manibus ejusdem episcopi, sicut predictus Johannes de Hardelee alias inposuit eidem episcopo coram consilio regis, de cujus scripti amocione idem episcopus et clerici sui se plene adquietaverunt per bonam inquisicionem sicut curia regis eis consideraverat et recesserunt quieti propter quod predictus episcopus supplicat domino regi quod restitucio predicti hospitalis ei non differatur set quod ipse possit restitucionem ejusdem habere et et de eo facere et disponere sicut predecessores sui fecerunt temporibus retroactis.

Postea ad peticionem dicti episcopi datus est ei dies usque in octabis Purificacionis Beate Marie Virginis ubicumque etc. Ad quem diem venit predictus episcopus et datus est ei dies a die Pasche in quinque septimanas ubicumque etc. Idem dies datus est Ricardo de Breteville qui sequitur pro rege etc. Postea ad diem illum venit predictus episcopus per atornatum suum et datus est ei dies a die sancti Michaelis in xv dies ubicumque etc. Idem dies datus est Ricardo de Breteville qui sequitur pro rege etc. Ad quem diem venerunt partes etc. et datus est eis dies a die sancti Hillarii in xv dies anno regni regis nunc xxiij etc.

54

For the record of proceedings at the Michaelmas parliament see item 67.

55

i) For the record of Walter's conviction at the 1288 Dorset eyre see JUST 1/213, m. 29d

ii) For Walter's petition against his conviction see C 49/2, no. 16

Ces sunt les articles pur les queus la gent de Purbik et les autres par le procurement de sire Johan Mautravers, sire Rauf de Gorges < e de > sire Roberd le fiz Payn enditerent fausement Water de Berton' en le eyre de Dors' de tuz les maus ke eus poent e saveent pur penser coment eus le pussent mettre a hunte.

Ceo est le un article: ke un Johan de Derneford vallet sire Roberd le fiz Paen e principal de iceus ke le enditerent aveit entendu ke cestuy Water voleit aver sywy un bref de mort de ancestre sur le avantdit Johan en le eyre avantdite de ij hydez de tere a Langeton' en Purbik pur un Roberd de Bois e Margarete sa femme cusine meime cestui Water e de la quel tere un Richard de Gouiz pere Margarete avantdite murust vestu e seisi en son demeine.

E un autre article est: ke meimes cestuy Johan de Derneford e plusurs autres de sa affinite feseent entendanz a les avant dist Johan Mautravers, Roberd e Rauf ke celuy Water les devoit encuser pur meffesurs en la garenne de < Corf > de les cerfs le rei e par aillurs en parks e en forestes par quei eus ove tut lur poer devenoent ses morteus enemis.

Le terz article est: ke un le greygnur mestre jurur de ceus ke le enditerent e de la compaignye avantdite fust aparceu ke cestuy Water voleit aver suwy un bref sur luy pur le rei meimes de la meite de un maner en Dors' ke est le dreit le Rei e de la quele meite le rei Henri per a nostre seignur le rei ke ore est ke deus gard en fust seisi com de son dreit e de la queu meite le avantdit jurur en est ore tenant e atort cum ceus de meimes le visne ben le sevent e ceu bref e le autre bref ad il enters uncore ver luy pur ceo ke il ne les poet sywre en le eyre avantdite.

E des choses de queus il fust endite en cel eyre prie il ke len enquerge par tuz del bank e de la chancelerye parentre les queus il ad este nory e conversant ces .viij. anz enterement e ceo est pus ke il ren sout de la curt e solum ceo ke len trove par ceus ke plus le unt conu prie il ley e grace favor e remedie de la grant angusse, durresce e defaute ke lung tens ad suffert sanz ses dessertes come deu le set en les queus il ne peot geres durer ove la vie.

Endorsement

Supplicacio Walteri de Berton' capti et detenti in Turrim.

Coram rege.

[[The following text has been deleted:
videatur]] Quia rex intendit quod convictus est ideo nic[hil] set mandetur recordum J. de Metingh' et sociorum suorum de itinere de Dors' coram quibus etc.

57

For the relevant record of the judgment leading to the seizure of the abbot's lands given in King's Bench in Trinity term 1290 see KB 27/124, m. 16d

Wigorn' Midd' Oxon' . Willelmus de Huntyngdon monachus Westm' alias venit coram domino rege cum litteris abbatis Westm' patentibus, scilicet a die Pasche in unum mensem anno regni regis nunc decimo octavo, et peciit Johannem de Thorny et Walterum de Thorny clericos convictos ad sectam regis per Ricardum Bustard qui sequitur pro eo de morte Roberti Bustard prout in curia regis possunt convinci; et qui ei liberati fuerunt tanquam ordinario etc. sub pena etc. et dictum fuit ei quod assignaret predicto Ricardo diem et locum de felonia predicta versus eos probanda qui ei assignavit diem, scilicet a die sancte Trinitatis in tres septimanas, in capella sancte Margarete Westm' de felonia versus eos probanda sicut patet in rotulo sancte Trinitatis anno regni regis nunc decimoseptimo; ita quod quia ad eundem diem testatum fuit coram rege quod predicti Johannem et Walterus ante diem predicto Ricardo pro rege per predictum monachum assignatum per favorem abbatis Westm' purgacionem suam minus rite fecerunt in prejudicium et contemptum domini regis mandatum fuit predicto abbati quod esset coram rege die veneris proxima post festum sancti Johannis Baptiste hoc anno ad respondendum domino regi de contemptu predicto; et quod ibi haberet predictos Johannem et Walterum clericos suos ad faciendum in hac parte quod secundum legem et consuetudinem regni Anglie fuerit faciendum. Et predictus abbas ad predictum diem coram rege venit. Et peciit diem usque in crastinum scilicet usque diem sabbati sequentem ad interloquendum etc. Ad quem diem licet sepius et solempniter vocatus et licet illum diem in curia receperit coram domino rege venire non curavit. Judicium. Preceptum est vicecomitibus Wigorn', Midd' et Oxon' in quibus comitatibus baronia sua est quam tenet de domino rege quod distringant eum per omnes terras et catalla sua et de baronia sua etc., et quod de exitibus etc., et quod habeant corpus ejus coram rege in octabis sancti Michaelis ubicumque etc. ad respondendum domino regi de contemptu predicto; et ibi habeat clericos suos predictos etc.

Postea per totum consilium domini regis ordinatum fuit quod predicta districcio omnino relaxaretur; et ideo preceptum est vicecomitibus predictis quod de districcionibus ea occasione faciendis cessent etc. donec aliud etc.

58

i) For the king's initial grant to Queen Eleanor of the custody during pleasure of the hundred of Normancross recently recovered against the abbot of Thorney by the judgment of the justices of the 1286 Huntingdonshire eyre made on 28 June 1290 see CPR 1281-92 , 369.

ii) For a summary of the related petition see Roll 2, item 92

59

i) For another version of this entry apparently from a different roll see SC 8/1, no. 4.

ii) The king's regrant to the earl of Gloucester of 3 November 1290 is calendared in CPR 1281-92 , 393, 451.

60

for a related note enrolled in King's Bench at Hilary term 1291 see KB 27/126, m. 12

Memorandum quod Gilbertus de Rouyebyry tulit quatuor brevia de distringendo executores testamenti Johannis de Kyrkeby episcopi Eliensis ad respondendum Willalmo Servade et sociis suis etc. coram auditoribus querelarum regis etc.

61

The record of the original proceedings heard in Easter term 1286 is to be found in KB 27/98, m. 3. This also includes in a postea a record of these subsequent proceedings in the Easter parliament of 1290

Rex . Petrus Baudrat de Pictavia, qui se dicit unus heredum Stephani de Baiocis, venit coram domino rege et petiit quod dominus rex reddat ei partem suam de hereditate predicti Stephani de Baiocis. Et unde dicit quod predictus Stephanus habuit duas filias, scilicet quandam Matillidem antenatam et quandam Johannam postnatam, matrem ipsius Petri, et cujus heres ipse est. Et unde dicit quod dominus rex ei reddere debeat medietatem predicte hereditatis quia dicit quod dominus < Henricus > rex pater domini regis nunc post mortem predicti Stephani habuit in custodia sua omnes terras et tenementa unde predictus Stephanus obiit seisitus, eo quod predictus Stephanus tenuit de domino rege in capite per baroniam; habuit eciam dominus rex custodiam dictarum filiarum Matillidis et Johanne, eo quod tunc fuerunt infra etatem, et custodiam dictarum filiarum et heredum dedit cuidam Elyony de Rabel', qui quidem Elyo predictam Matillidem duxit in uxorem et per predictum donum dicti domini Henrici regis retinuit ipse totam predictam hereditatem, nulla parte dicte hereditatis reddita dicte Johanne. Et unde dicit quod desicut predicta Matillis [sic: read 'Johanna'] mater ejus fuit extra suam hereditatem per factum dicti domini regis Henrici dominus rex nunc debeat factum illud emendare et partem dicte hereditatis sibi reddere.

Et predicta Matillis, que predictam hereditatem tenet, venit coram domino rege. Et requisita si aliquid scit dicere quare predictus heres tanquam alter heres dicti Stephani racione et jure dicte Johanne filie dicti Stephani et ipsius Stephani alterius heredis et matris istius Petri, cujus heres ipse est, et que jam mortua est, de predicta hereditate partem suam habere non debeat, nichil dicit vel ostendit quare predictus Petrus de parte sua de predicta hereditate excludi debeat.

Et quia compertum est per rotulos de cancellaria quod dictus dominus Henricus rex anno xxxiiij ^o concessit dicto Elyoni de Rabayn custodiam terrarrum et heredum Stephani de Baiocis habendam et tenendam usque ad legitimam etatem predictarum heredum consideratum est quod predictus Petrus tanquam unus heredum predicti Stephani habeat partem suam de hereditate predicta, scilicet unde predictus Elyo et Matillis uxor ejus fuerunt in seisina die quo predictus Elyo obiit. Et preceptum est vicecomitibus de comitatibus.

Postea venit predictus Petrus et cognovit quod remisit et quietum clamavit domino regi quicquid habuit in proparte hereditatis predicte etc.

Postea coram ipso domino rege et consilio suo in pleno parliamento suo post Pascha anno regni sui decimo octavo venit quidam Petrus Malore, qui pro predicta Matillide quondam uxore predicti Elye de Rabayn quam idem Petrus duxit in uxorem et eciam pro filiis predicti Elye sequitur, et peciit nomine ipsius Matillidis quod dominus rex recordum predictum videret et, habito super hoc consilio, errorem et defectum ejusdem si qui fuerunt precipere vellet emendari. Dicit enim quod in predicto recordo manifeste erratum est in hoc quod predicta Matillis sine brevi domini regis de hereditate sua et de libero tenemento suo ducebatur respondere cum ipsa Matillis hoc calumpniavit et eciam cum eadem Matillis similiter calumpniavit quod predicto Petro Baudart non deberet respondere de hereditate predicta pro eo quod extraneus fuit ad quecumque tenementa in regno isto petenda eo quod aliengenigena [[The following text has been deleted:
est]] < fuit > et natus in partibus transmarinis. Et petit quod predictum recordum in hoc emendetur et quod judicium super recordo illo redditum revocetur racione predictarum calumpniarum per ipsam Matillidem tunc allegatarum. Et quia, viso predicto recordo et intellecto, nichil de racionibus seu calumpniis predictis quas predictus Petrus dicit predictam Matillidem allegasse tempore illo compertum est et eciam quia predicta Matillis tunc temporis non dedixit quin predictus Petrus Baudart fuit particeps suus hereditatis predicte et eciam quia dominus Henricus rex pater domini regis nunc concessit custodiam et maritagium predictarum Matillidis et Johanne filiarum et heredum predicti Stephani predicto Elye de Rabayn, cujus seisina quo ad hoc fuit seisina domini regis racione doni sui predicta [sic: read 'predicti'] , qui quidem Elyas predictam Matillidem postea desponsavit et predictam Johannam in partibus transmarinis maritavit et propartem ipsius Johanne ipsis Elye et Matillidi uxori sue appropriando in exheredacionem ipsius Johanne, et eciam quia quicquid predictus Elyas fecit de maritagio predicte Johanne hoc fecit racione doni domini regis predicti sibi inde facti nec est juri consonum quod aliquis vel aliqua racione doni domini regis exheredetur consideratum est quod recordum illud et judicium stet < in > suo robore, ita tamen quod decetero non trahatur in consuetudinem quo ad alios alienigenas et ita quod predictus Petrus recuperet et habeat plenariam medietatem omnium terrarum et tenementorum cum pertinenciis cum feodis militum advocacionibus ecclesiarum et omnibus aliis pertinenciis de quibus predictus Stephanus antecessor suus obiit seisitus in dominico suo ut de feodo ad quorumcumque manus terre seu tenementa illa cum pertinenciis devenerint, non obstante predicto judicio in predicto recordo contento, per quod judicium consideratum fuit quod idem Petrus recuperaret medietatem terrarum et tenementorum de quibus predictus Elyas de Rabayn obiit seisitus cum idem Petrus propartem ipsum contingentem de hereditate predicti Stephani et non de hereditate predicti Elye peciit sibi reddi et que quidem hereditas nondum prout decet partita est. Et quia idem Petrus totam propartem hereditatis predicte ipsum contingentem cum omnibus pertinenciis suis plenarie et integre domino regi reddidit, remisit et quietamclamavit de se et heredibus suis inperpetuum, prout per recordum predictum compertum est, consideratum est quod eadem medietas integre et per omnia ipsi domino regi et heredibus suis imperpetuum remaneat et altera medietas remaneat predicte Matillidi et heredibus suis inperpetuum, ita quod omnes terre et tenementa de hereditate predicta de quibus predictus Elyas de Rabayn et predicta Matillis quosdam filios ejusdem Elye seu quoscumque alios feoffarunt assignentur proparti et medietati predicte Matillidis et eadem Matillis sequatur versus feoffatos, prout sibi viderit expedire, et eciam quia predicte terre et tenementa de quibus predictus Stephanus obiit seisitus minus sufficienter extenduntur preceptum est vicecomitibus Linc', Norht', Dors', in quorum comitatibus terre et tenementa illa sunt, quod omnes terras et tenementa illa cum omnibus pertinenciis suis, feodis militum et advocacionibus ecclesiarum reextendant, ita quod dominum regem inde reddant cerciorem a die sancti Michaelis in xv dies ubicumque etc. per litteras eorundem vicecomitum sigillatas sigillis suis et sigillis eorum per [quos etc.] Et dictum est predicto Petro Malore quod eodem modo sequatur pro predicta Matillide et aliis si [sibi viderit] expedire etc.

ii) for related entries see Roll 2, items 216-7

62-6

[nothing found]

67

i) For earlier related proceedings see item 54

ii) For a second enrolment of these proceedings in King's Bench in Michaelmas term 1290 with an additional postea see KB 27/125, m. 54d

Sutht' . Johannes de Hardelegh', qui sequitur pro domino rege, alias domino regi monstravit quod episcopus Wynton' qui nunc est, et post transfretacionem domini regis nunc in Vascon', purprestavit super ipsum dominum regem advocacionem hospitalis Sancte Marie Magdalene extra Sutht', appropriando eandem advocacionem sibi et ecclesie sue Wynton', in exheredacionem domini regis manifestam. Et unde dicit quod cum quidam Willelmus Balways custodiam predicti hospitalis ex dono domini regis optinuisset, et in plenariam possessionem ejusdem pacifice fuisset, predictus episcopus, jam quatuor annis elapsis, domino rege in partibus Vascon' existente, predictum Willelmum de predicta custodia ammovit, et eandem custodiam cuidam Roberto de Putte contulit, qui eam modo tenet, in exheredacionem domini regis manifestam etc.

Et episcopus per attornatum suum venit. Et quo ad custodiam predicti hospitalis dicit quod ipse nichil clamat in predicta custodia, nec in advocacione ejusdem. Immo illam domino regi reddit, remittit, et quietumclamat de se et successoribus suis et ecclesia sua Wynton' domino regi, et heredibus suis in perpetuum; salva sibi et successoribus suis, et ecclesie sue predicte, jurisdiccione in eodem que ad ipsos pertinet, auctoritate ordinaria. Ideo consideratum est quod predicta advocacio remaneat domino regi et heredibus suis, quiete de predicto episcopo et successoribus suis, et ecclesie sue [sic: read 'ecclesia sua'] Wynton' in perpetuum; salva sibi et successoribus suis, et ecclesie sue, jurisdiccione predicta etc. Et preceptum est vicecomiti Sutht' quod capiat custodiam predicti hospitalis in manum domini regis, cum pertinenciis, et eam salvo custodiat; ita quod de exitibus inde domino regi respondeat, donec aliud a domino rege inde habuerit preceptum etc.

Et, quo ad amocionem predicti Willelmi, bene defendit quod ipse nuncquam ipsum Willelmum de custodia predicta, auctoritate sua propria vel racione predicte custodie sibi et ecclesie sue Wynton' appropriande, amovit, nec predicto Roberto custodiam predicti hospitalis contulit, in exheredacionem domini regis, sicut ei imponitur. Et de hoc ponit se super patriam: et Johannes similiter. Ideo preceptum est vicecomiti quod venire faciat coram domino rege, a die Sancti Hilarii in .xv. dies, ubicunque etc. .xxiiij. etc. Et qui nec etc. ad recognoscendum in forma predicta. Quia tam etc.

Postea recordum istud retornatum fuit coram justiciariis locum regis tenentibus hic in octabis sancti Martini per manus Gilberti de Roberiis terminandum. Ad quem diem venit predictus Robertus et dicit quod per communitatem ville de Sutht' prefectus fuit custos de hospitali predicto et non per dominum regem neque per predictum episcopum. Et dicit quod per vicecomitem ejectus est a custodia predicta, ipso Roberto nec communitate nuncquam in curia regis vocata, unde petit quod custodia predicti hospitalis sibi restituatur. Et quia predictum negocium in parte tangit homines predicti burgi preceptum est vicecomiti quod scire faciat majori et ballivis burgi predicti quod sint coram rege a die Pasche in xv dies ubicumque etc., quem diem predicto Roberto rex prefixit ad ostendendum si quid pro se habeat quare custodia predicti hospitalis ad regem non debeat pertinere. Et interim custodiam predicti hospitalis predicto Roberto deliberet nomine regis tenendam.

iii) for later proceedings in the same case in Hilary term 1291 see KB 27/126, m. 15

Sutht' . episcopo Wynton'. Placita coram ipso rege et consilio suo et postea missa Gilberto de Thorneton' et sociis suis. Johannes de Hardelegh', qui sequitur pro domino rege, dicit quod episcopus Wynton' qui nunc est, et post transfretacionem domini regis nunc in Vascon', purprestavit super ipsum dominum regem advocacionem hospitalis Sancte Marie Magdalene extra Sutht', appropriando eandem advocacionem sibi et ecclesie sue Wynton', in exheredacionem domini regis manifestam. Et unde dicit quod cum quidam Willelmus Balways custodiam predicti hospitalis ex dono domini regis optinuisset, et in plenariam possessionem ejusdem pacifice fuisset, predictus episcopus, jam quatuor annis elapsis, domino rege in partibus Vascon' existente, predictum Willelmum de predicta custodia amovit, et eandem custodiam cuidam Roberto de Putte contulit, qui eam modo tenet, in exheredacionem domini regis manifestam etc.

Et episcopus per attornatum suum venit. Et quo ad custodiam predicti hospitalis dicit quod ipse nichil clamat in predicta custodia, nec in advocacione ejusdem. Immo illam domino regi reddit, remittit, et quietumclamat de se et successoribus suis et ecclesia sua Wynton' domino regi, et heredibus suis in perpetuum; salva sibi et successoribus suis, et ecclesie sue predicte, jurisdiccione in eodem que ad ipsos pertinet, auctoritate ordinaria. Ideo consideratum est quod predicta advocacio remaneat domino regi et heredibus suis, quiete de predicto episcopo et successoribus suis, et ecclesie sue [sic: read 'ecclesia sua'] Wynton' in perpetuum; salva sibi et successoribus suis, et ecclesie sue, jurisdiccione predicta etc. Et preceptum est vicecomiti Sutht' quod capiat custodiam predicti hospitalis in manum domini regis, cum pertinenciis, et eam salvo custodiat; ita quod de exitibus inde domino regi respondeat, donec aliud a domino rege inde habuerit preceptum etc.

Et, quo ad amocionem predicti Willelmi, bene defendit quod ipse nuncquam ipsum Willelmum de custodia predicta, auctoritate sua propria vel racione predicte custodie sibi et ecclesie sue Wynton' appropriande, amovit, nec predicto Roberto custodiam predicti hospitalis contulit, in exheredacionem domini regis, sicut ei imponitur. Et de hoc ponit se super patriam: et Johannes similiter. Ideo preceptum est vicecomiti quod venire faciat coram domino rege, a die Sancti Hilarii in quindecim dies, ubicunque etc. .xxiiij. etc. Et qui nec etc. ad recognoscendum in forma predicta. Quia tam etc.

Postea a die sancti Hillarii in .xv. dies anno regni regis nunc decimonono venit predictus episcopus et similiter predictus Johannes qui sequitur pro rege et predictus Willelmus Balways assidente venerabili patre R. Bathon' et Wellensi episcopo et juratores predicte inquisicionis. Et predictus Johannes calumpniavit omnes juratores tanquam suspectos. Et predictus Willelmus Balways requisitus si quid haberet de domino rege per quod constare posset curie quod prefectus fuit custos prefate hospitalis dicit quod habet proteccionem domini regis set nichil aliud. Et requisitus si unquam fuit in seisina ut custos predicti hospitalis dicit quod [[The following text has been deleted:
non]] < sic per quatuor annos > . Et quia predictus Johannes nec predictus Willelmus ostendere possunt quod dominus rex dedit custodiam predicto Willelmo predicti hospitalis prout domino regi ostensum fuit et eciam quia predictus episcopus toti jure suo predicti hospitalis renunciavit et si quid habuerit illud reddidit sursum domino regi et heredibus suis inperpetuum prout patet superius in recordo salva sibi et successoribus suis jurisdiccione ordinaria consideratum quod episcopus eat sine die quo ad ejeccionem etc. Et quia predictus Johannes de Hardeleye superius in sua ostensione dixit quod predictus Willelmus Balveys fuit in pacifica possessione predicte custodie ex dono et collacione domini regis quousque predictus episcopus eum inde ejecit. Et idem Willelmus super hoc quesitus expresse dicit quod per ipsum episcopum nunquam inde ejectus fuit nec de aliqua ejeccione versus ipsum episcopum sequi proposuit nisi ad procuracionem et suggestionem predicti Johannis consideratum est quod predictus Johannes custodiatur quousque securitatem invenerit de veniendo coram domino rege tam ad cerciorandum ipsum dominum regem de jure suo quam ad respondendum de predicta secta versus ipsum episcopum facta auctoritate sua propria etc.

[on schedule] Et quia Johannes de Hardeleye superius in sua ostensione dixit quod predictus Willelmus Balveys fuit in pacifica possessione predicte custodie ex dono et collacione domini regis quousque predictus episcopus eum inde ejecit. Et idem Willelmus super hoc quesitus expresse dicit quod per ipsum episcopum nunquam inde ejectus fuit nec de aliqua ejeccione versus ipsum episcopum nuncquam sequi proposuit nisi ad procuracionem et suggestionem predicti Johannis consideratum est quod predictus Johannes custodiatur quousque securitatem invenerit de veniendo coram domino rege tam ad cerciorandum ipsum dominum regem de jure suo quam ad respondendum de predicta secta versus ipsum episcopum facta auctoritate sua propria etc. Et predictus Willelmus de Balveys respondeat domino regi de exitibus predicti hospitalis de quatuor annis per quos fuit custos ejusdem hospitalis nec ostendit warantum domini regis de predicta custodia optenta etc. Ideo preceptum est vicecomiti quod venire faciat eum coram rege a die Pasche in quinque septimanas ubicumque etc.

iv) for the eventual jury verdict in the case see JUST 1/1297 m. 9

Postea apud Wynton' coram R. Malet et W. de Bereford' die jovis proxima ante mediam quadragesimam anno regni regis nunc .xx. venerunt juratores de consensu parcium electi. Qui dicunt super sacramentum suum quod burgenses Sutht' a tempore fundacionis predicti hospitalis semper hucusque prefecerunt custodem in eodem hospitali et quod communitas predicta et burgenses predicte ville predecessores burgensium qui nunc sunt fundaverunt predictum hospitale de elemosinis suis. Et quod predictus episcopus qui nunc est nec predecessores sui nec dominus rex qui nunc est nec ejus predecessores uncquam aliquem custodem ibidem prefecerunt nec in aliquo se intromiserunt set quod ipsi burgenses debent presentare custodem de eleccione sua loci diocesano etc. Ideo consideratum < est > quod predicti burgenses et Robertus eant inde ad presens sine die salvo jure domini regis et heredum suorum cum inde loqui voluerint. Et preceptum est vicecomiti quod permittat predictum Robertum retinere seisinam predicti hospitalis et quod idem vicecomes respondeat predicto Roberto de omnibus exitibus quos a predicto hospitali percepit a tempore quo predictum hospitale in mamen [sic: read 'manum'] domini regis recepit etc.

Et predicta inquisicio invenire potest in dorso cujusdam recordi quod residet in ligula de termino Pasche anno regni regis nunc .xx. ^o .

68

On 2 March 1291 the manor was restored to Margery on certain unspecified conditions: CCR 1288-96, 163. Those conditions are spelled out in E 368/62, m. 11. By Michaelmas 1292 the manor was back in the earl's possession: E 159/66, m. 64.

69

i) The charter of Henry III to William de Valence of 12 March 1249 is calendared in CChR 1226-57 ,339

ii) for a related entry see item 52, above

70

[nothing found]

71

i) The original proceedings in the 1285 Northamptonshire eyre are recorded on JUST 1/622, m. 43d

ii) In Hilary term 1291 the whole of the prior proceedings in this case were again enrolled on the Common Bench plea roll with a note recapitulating this decision at the Ashridge parliament and giving the terms of the enquiry that was now to be made: CP 40/87, m. 106d. For further proceedings in the case at Easter term 1292 see CP 40/93, m. 88d.

Appendix: Additional Information and Related Material in Translation for Roll 1

1

i) The forest eyre at which the seizure took place was held in 14 Edward I (1285-6): CChR 1257-1300, 348-9. The bishop apparently blamed Richard de Loges, the forester of Cannock, for the loss of the wood and this subsequently led to Richard's excommunication by the bishop. Richard then submitted a petition to parliament complaining of the bishop's action: see Roll 2, item 65.

ii) By 28 July 1287 the bishop had laid a formal complaint that the justices of the forest eyre had exceeded their powers by seizing into the king's hands not just the woods belonging to the king in the forest allegedly usurped by the bishop but also the bishop's own woods appurtenant to his manors of Lichfield, Rugeley, Haywood and Cannockbury and the regent, Edmund of Cornwall, had ordered an enquiry to be held by the justice of the forest through local forest officials into the boundaries between the king's woods and those of the bishop: C 47/11/4, no. 6, m. 1. No action seems to have been taken on this order for it was repeated on 28 October 1287: C 47/11/4, no. 6, m. 2. A verdict was eventually given at Rugeley on 3 March 1288: C 47/11/4, no. 6, m. 5. A further related mandate was issued on 6 July 1288: C 47/11/4, no. 6, m. 3.

iii) The bishop proffered a fine of one thousand marks for the restoration of his woods. The king pardoned him three hundred marks of this at the request of master Robert of Ridgwell, archdeacon of Chester, for losses suffered by the archdeacon through the appropriation of a church within his archdeaconry to the abbey of Vale Royal: E 159/63, m. 13d

about the fine of R. bishop of Coventry and Lichfield . It is to be remembered that Roger, bishop of Coventry and Lichfield, made fine with the king in a thousand marks for regaining possession of his woods of High Cannock which had been taken into the king's hand by Roger l'Estrange and his colleagues, the justices itinerant for pleas of the forest in the county of Staffordshire, together with the hunting, the waste and all their other appurtenances as appurtenant to his manors of Rugeley and Cannockbury, as his free chase in free, pure and perpetual alms, as is contained in the king's charter made on this to the same bishop and his successors as bishops of the same place. Of which the king had pardoned the same bishop two hundred marks and one hundred marks at the request of master Robert of Ridgwell, archdeacon of Chester, for the damages which he has sustained through the appropriation of the church of Weaverham which is in his archdeaconry at the king's request to the abbey of Vale Royal. By the testimony of master William of March, the treasurer.]

iv) The king's grant of 28 May 1290 which specified the boundaries of the bishop's wood and included various additional provisos is printed in full in Monasticon Anglicanum, iii. 236 and is calendared in CChR 1257-1300, 348-9.

2

The original dispute between the bishop of Lincoln and the university had arisen at the end of 1288: Annales Monastici, iii. 317. The king had originally asked the bishop to suspend action until the quindene of Michaelmas and on 30 September 1289 wrote to him asking for a further postponement until the next parliament: William Prynne, The History of King John, Henry III and Edward I (London, 1670), 1297.

3-4

[nothing found]

5

For a related but earlier complaint see item 49 below and for other related material (including a second copy of this petition) see E 175/11/7.

6

The archbishop and master Robert settled their differences, apparently with royal assistance, during the course of the Easter parliament. The agreement, which is dated 8 May 1290, is printed in full in Beverley Chapter Act Book, vol. II, ed. A.F. Leach (Surtees Society 108), 160-1. For earlier litigation brought in the king's name in Easter term 1288 against the archbishop for disregarding the king's order to suspend all actions against master Robert, the dean of York, who was a royal clerk belonging to the king's household, while master Robert was on the king's service, until the king's return from Gascony, see KB 27/110, m. 25.

7

i) There is a King's Bench enrolment in Trinity term 1290 recording the response of the sheriffs of London to an order to levy one hundred pounds from the land and chattels of Bogo de Clare to render to Edmund earl of Cornwall, which Bogo had acknowledged owing to him in the parliament after Hilary before the king and council and which he had not paid. The sheriffs reported he was a clerk without any lay fee in their bailiwick and the archbishop of York was therefore ordered to levy the money for the quindene of Michaelmas instead: KB 27/124, m. 37d. In Michaelmas term the archbishop reported back on his efforts. He had sequestrated Bogo's ecclesiastical goods but had found no purchasers. He was instructed to hand them over at a reasonable price to the earl and to levy the rest for the quindene of Hilary 1291: KB 27/125, m. 17.

ii) Some time prior to the Ashridge parliament of January 1291 the king pardoned Bogo five hundred marks of his fine and during that parliament (on 16 January 1291) pardoned him a further five hundred marks and allowed him to pay the rest at the rate of two hundred marks a year: CFR 1272-1300, 288. A few days earlier (on 13 January 1291) the king also pardoned him the whole of the queen's gold of two hundred marks due on the original fine: CCR 1288-96, 158.

8

i) For a related writ of enquiry issued on 30 May 1290, its verdict in favour of the petitioner and the king's serjeant's objections to judgment being given on its basis see CIPM, ii, no. 778.

ii) The wardship of the manor was restored to John on 28 August 1290: CCR 1288-96, 100.

9

i) For an enrolment of the resulting order to Penchester dated 12 February 1290 see CCR 1288-96, 70.

ii) The revocation was probably in response to the petition of the abbot of Fecamp summarised in Roll 2, item 67.

10

i) The community of Southampton had been non-suited in their case against the bishop for the patronage of the hospital in the Common Bench at Easter term 1286: CP 40/62, m. 6.

ii) For a record of the earlier proceedings at the Hilary parliament of 1290 see item 25 and for related proceedings later in this parliament see item 53.

iii) For an adjournment of the plea between the king and the bishop of Winchester on the hospital in King's Bench in Michaelmas term 1290 to Hilary term 1291 for lack of jurors see KB 27/125, m. 19 (Michaelmas term 1290).

11

There is no trace of this case on the rolls of procedings before the auditores querelarum.

12

i) For a later related petition see SC 8/1, no. 1

John de Newburgh prays remedy of our lord the king and his council in that, whereas there were adjudged to him before master Ralph of Ivinghoe the knight's fees which were not included in the fine levied between my lady the queen and Henry de Newburgh his father in the counties of Dorset and Somerset and had a writ of judgment on this to Humphrey of Walden to put him in seisin and the tenants refused to depart from the king's homage without a specific warrant and so by a bill produced at the last parliament a writ of chancery was ordered by the council to the said master Ralph to produce the record before the said council without delay but the said master Ralph did nothing and is unwilling to do anything, so he requests a writ of chancery sicut alias to produce the record or give reason why he cannot do so.

Endorsement

Let him have a writ to Ralph of sicut alias to produce the record or signify the reason etc.

ii) For later related proceedings see Roll 12, item 261

13

i) For a related entry see Roll 2, item 172 (second half) and the notes on that entry in the Appendix to Roll 2.

ii) For the final concord mentioned, which survives with a endorsed note of its having been voided, see CP 25(1)/259/10, no. 35.

iii) For a second copy of this entry and for other proceedings in the Common Bench at the same time against Matthew and the judgment given on it see CP 40/83, m. 168

Pleas before the lord king and his council in his parliament after Easter in the eighteenth year of his reign

Worcestershire . William of Wast Hills complains of this to the lord king and his council through a certain petition of his: that, whereas there was once an agreement between Matthew of the Exchequer on the one side and the same William on the other, namely that the same William conceded and demised to the said Matthew by a certain writing made between them all his land which the same William had in Darlingscott in the county of Worcestershire and Blackgreaves in the county of Warwickshire to hold for the term of twelve years immediately following, and the same Matthew subsequently brought a certain writ of covenant against the same William to affirm the said term, as the same Matthew gave the same William to understand, and in addition had the same William appoint an attorney to levy the fine on this before the justices of the Bench at Shrewsbury, the said Matthew so arranged with the same attorney, who was known to him and friendly with him, and procured him to acknowledge that other tenements belonging to the same William and not included in the writing about this between them, namely one messuage and two carucates of arable with appurtenances in Wast Hills within the manor of Alvechurch, were the right of the same Matthew and surrendered them to him in the same court to have and to hold to the same Matthew and his heirs in perpetuity to the deception of the court of the lord king and to the disinheritance of the same William etc. And in response, the said petition was handed over to the justices of the Bench by the order of the lord king. And they are told to associate the treasurer with them and call the parties and do what is rightly to be done etc.

Matthew subsequently appeared before the treasurer and the justices and readily acknowledges that he had the said fine levied in respect of the said tenements mentioned in the complaint of the said William but he says that this was with the consent and agreement of the said William, for he says that the said William had granted him certain tenements belonging to the fee of the bishop of Worcester to hold for a term of years by a certain writing made on this between them. And because the said bishop did not allow him to enter his fee it was arranged between them by the mutual agreement of both William and Matthew that a fine should be levied in the king's court, so that he could obtain seisin of the said tenements through the king's writ which would issue on the levying of the said fine and the same William then made his attorney to levy the said fine. He says that he did this all to ensure that William, the son of the said William, obtained an hereditary interest in it etc.

William says that it was never his intention, nor did he ever agree, that any fine should be levied between the said Matthew and himself, nor was there any preliminary discussion between them about this, except in respect of the tenements specified in the said writing and for the term specified in the said writing. He is ready to prove this in whatever way this court should adjudge, which proof the same Matthew says he is unprepared to accept because the discussions relating to the said tenements between them were so secret that this court cannot be informed about them by any jury. In respect of the said attorney, the same William says that the same Matthew brought with him a certain unknown stranger whom the same William had never seen before and has never seen since, so that by the acknowledgement of the same attorney at the procurement of the same Matthew other tenements than those specified in the said writing were acknowledged to be the right of the same Matthew and surrendered to him in the same court by reason of the same fine. Thereupon, the same Matthew was asked whether he had sued any writ to obtain seisin of the tenements contained in that fine and he says yes, but he says that he never had any seisin nor does he at present claim any right in the same. Asked also to whom the said tenements had come he says that the said bishop from the time of the first seisin which he had taken of them had always continued his estate up till now and is still in seisin of them. The said William says that after the acknowledgement and surrender in the king's court to the same Matthew by the said attorney made in this way and after he had obtained a writ to have his seisin the said Matthew had remitted and quitclaimed for himself and his heirs to the said bishop all the right and claim which he had in the same tenements in perpetuity; and so he says that as a result of the said acknowledgement and surrender thus made by the said attorney he has been excluded from the said tenements in perpetuity. The said Matthew is asked whether he had made the said writing of quitclaim to the said bishop and he says that he did but that he did this on condition that the said bishop provide food and clothing for the said William son of William for the whole of his lifetime, and the same bishop did so until the same William the son etc. brought an assize of novel disseisin against the same bishop for part of the said tenements and, as a result of the suing of this writ, the same bishop wholly removed the said William the son etc. from his company and sent him away. The said William of Wast Hills says that as the said attorney was known to the said Matthew and was simply appointed attorney by him and by the acknowledgement of the same attorney other tenements than those specified in the writing on this between them were acknowledged and specified in the said fine and surrendered to the same Matthew as his right in the same court without the consent and against the wishes of the same William, as he is ready to prove, and so the same William has been completely disinherited by the same Matthew as far as possible, and also because the said Matthew in his answer above said that he did all the said things to give hereditary rights to one William the son of the same William and subsequently acknowledged and confessed that after the acknowledgement and surrender made in the king's court and after the writ had been delivered to him for taking seisin of the same tenements he had remitted and quitclaimed for himself and his heirs to the said bishop all the right and claim which he had in the said tenements in perpetuity, which is manifestly to the disinheritance of the said William the son, he asks for judgment. And because the said fine was levied before the justices of the Bench and the same Matthew is accused there of other deceptions of the court committed in the same court the same justices are told to have this record enrolled in their rolls, and they are to proceed to judgment on this record and on the other matters touching the same Matthew and to make a proper and speedy provision of justice etc.

So the justices of the Bench, having associated with themselves the treasurer and the barons of the exchequer and also the justices of the King's Bench, in the presence of Henry de Lacy earl of Lincoln, master William of Louth bishop-elect of Ely, Robert de Tibetot and other subjects of the lord king had the same Matthew appear before them. [in margin Norfolk ]. Thereupon one John of Ingham appears and complains that whereas the same Matthew at the octaves of Hillary immediately past brought a writ of false judgment before the justices of the Bench against him for a judgment which was said to have been given, as he asserted, in the court of Norwich for a messuage with appurtenances in the same town, on which day the same John had himself essoined against the same Matthew and was adjourned through his essoiner to the octaves of Trinity immediately following, the same Matthew falsely and in deception of the court of the lord king one month after Easter prior to the said octaves of Trinity prosecuted a default in the said plea against him and had it entered in person and and had a judicial writ to the sheriff of Norfolk to attach the same John to appear before the same justices of the Bench for the quindene of Michaelmas to answer on this and so he asks for judgment etc.

Matthew readily acknowledges that he brought the said writ of false judgment against the said John at the octaves of Hilary, at which day the same John had himself essoined, and he says that he was adjourned to the month of Easter immediately following. On which day he had had the default entered as he understood that he had his day against him then. Thereupon, after a search of the chief roll of essoins of the Bench it was found that the parties were adjourned to the octaves of Trinity. Matthew immediately answers and says he was shown at the month after Easter when the said default was entered another roll which he saw in which was contained a clear adjournment made of him to the month after Easter and he requests that this roll be examined. Since there is in the Bench no other roll of essoins than the Rex roll of essoins and the chief roll which has been searched the clerk of the lord king is told to bring the Rex roll of essoins. When he had brought it and it was examined it agreed on that adjournment with the chief roll. As the same Matthew prosecuted the said default in person falsely and to the deception of the court and to cover that deception had maliciously asserted against the court that he had seen another roll containing the said day, namely at the month after Easter, and then the contrary to what the said Matthew had said was clearly proved by the said two rolls which were in agreement in respect of the said adjournment, it seems manifest that the same Matthew has deceived the court. It is therefore adjudged that he is to be committed to gaol, to remain there for a year and a day in accordance with the terms of the statute etc. Moreover, because the same Matthew does not deny that the attorney whom the said William of Wast Hills had appointed in the said plea of covenant was nominated by the same Matthew but was a total stranger to the same William and the said fine was levied falsely and in deception of the court of the lord king by collusion between the same Matthew and the said attorney contrary to the prior agreement arranged and made between them, as the same William was ready to prove in accordance with the judgment of the court, which proof the same Matthew explicitly refused to abide, by which fine all the said tenements, both those specified in the deed of agreement and the others not specified in it, without the knowledge and consent of the same William were acknowledged as the right of the same Matthew and surrendered to the same Matthew in the said court and thereupon the same Matthew, as he manifestly admitted, sued a writ of judgment of the lord king to have seisin of the said tenements and had that writ in his possession but said that he did all these things to gaive a hereditary right to William son of William of Wast Hills and so it seemed to the same Matthew that as at present he claims no right in the said tenements he had done nothing wrong in this matter, and also because the same Matthew has acknowledged that he subsequently remitted and quitclaimed for himself and his heirs to the said bishop of Worcester in perpetuity all the right which he had in the said tenements and so it clearly follows that the same William son of William was entirely disinherited by the same Matthew as much as he could and the said William the father likewise it seems to the court that the same Matthew falsely and in deception of the court procured the said fine to be levied and made. So the foot of that fine is to be extracted from the treasury of the lord king and annulled and cancelled and the same Matthew is to be committed to gaol to stay there for a year and a day in accordance with the terms of the statute in addition to the year and a day already mentioned and he is to satisfy the said William for his damages which cannot be assessed before the said tenements are surveyed. The sheriff is therefore ordered to have the said tenements surveyed and valued etc. and to communicate the survey etc. to the court here at the quindene of St John the Baptist etc. On which day the sheriff has done nothing but reported that he had ordered the bailiff of the liberty of the bishop of Worcester of Oswaldslaw and they had done nothing on it. The sheriff is therefore ordered, as before, not to fail by reason of the said liberty from having the said tenements surveyed and valued and from communicating the survey and valuation to the court here for the octave of Michaelmas

etc. On which day the sheriff reported that the said tenements in Darlingscott are worth ... shillings a year and the said tenements in Alvechurch are worth one hundred shillings a year. It is therefore adjudged that William is to recover his damages against the said Matthew which are assessed by the justices at fifty pounds etc. It is to be known that the said fine was levied at the octaves of Trinity in the eleventh year of the present king.

It is to be known that he was committed to gaol on the Friday before St Barnabas ... the said damages could not be assessed before the said tenements are surveyed the sheriff is ordered to survey etc. and to communicate the survey etc. at the quindene of St John the Baptist etc.]

iv) there is also an entry on the memoranda rolls under Trinity term 1290 relating to the annulment of the final concord: E 159/63, m. 15

concerning a fine annulled before the justices of the Bench : Memorandum that on the Friday after the octaves of Trinity in the eighteenth year [9 June 1290] there was extracted from the other fines which are in the king's treasury the foot of a fine levied before Thomas of Weyland, John de Lovetot, Roger of Leicester and William of Brunton the justices of the Bench at Shrewsbury between Matthew of the Exchequer complainant and William of Wast Hills deforciant acting through Robert of Upton appointed in his place to win or lose concerning two messuages, three carucates of arable, twenty acres of wood and ten acres of meadow with appurtenances in Darlingscott, Tredington and Alvechurch because the said Matthew had the said fine levied by fraud and in deception of the king's court, as was found in full court and pronounced by Gilbert of Thornton currently a justice of King's Bench with John of Mettingham and his colleagues as justices of the said Bench, master William of Louth bishop-elect of Ely, Robert de Tibetot and other subjects of the king sitting in court with him on the said day and the said fine was annulled by the judgment of the court.

v) The land at Wast Hills in the manor of Alvechurch seems to be the same as the messuage and three carucates there which Godfrey bishop of Worcester was said to be holding of the gift of William of Wast Hills to himself and his heirs and which he surrendered to the king so that the king could regrant it to the bishop and his successors on 6 November 1289: Cal. Charter Rolls, 1257-1300 , 360. Part or all of the same holding was in the hands of the bishop when he died in 1302 and passed to his nephew and heir: CIPM , iv, no. 101. For the petition of his successor seeking to overturn the inquisition post mortem and claim the land for his see see Roll 12, item 53

14

i) For a summary of the related petition and response see Roll 2, item 56

ii) The king confirmed the prior's right to this annual pension on 1 July 1290 but only after he had restored the advowson to the bishop of Carlisle: CPR 1281-1292, 370.

15

i) For a summary of the related petition and response see Roll 2, item 201

ii) The resulting writ was issued on 16 June 1290: CIM , i, no. 1513. The enquiry found William had been of sound mind when he made the grant; that Stephen had done no more than compose and write the petition for a payment of four pence; and that the real mover of the false allegation had been master Solomon of Burne who was to have received Reginald's share in return for his assistance.

iii) for a further unrelated petition about the same land see Roll 2, item 95.

16

[nothing found]

17

i) The Common Bench plea roll for Trinity term 1287 records only the bishop's unsuccessful action of quare impedit against Isabel and Idonea: CP 40/68, m. 10d.

ii) For the record of the king's successful plea which was heard in the Common Bench in Trinity term 1287 see CP 40/68, m. 78.

18

For a related writ of 28 June 1290 to the sheriff of Oxfordshire see CPR 1281-1292, 373.

19

i) For the rather different enrolment of the proceedings against Bogo de Clare and Henry de Anesleye and others in King's Bench in Trinity term 1290 see KB 27/124, m. 68d

London . Bogo de Clare and Henry of Annesley were attached to answer John le Waleys and the lord king on a plea as to why, while the king was recently at his parliament in London, the venerable father John archbishop of Canterbury had sent through the same John as his messenger his letters to cite the said Bogo by reason of certain excesses committed by him against God and the Church, the said Henry and others by the order and with the consent and by the will of same Bogo had arrested the same John le Waleys at London during the king's parliament within the precinct of the king's virge and had compelled him by force and arms to eat the said letters and had beaten, wounded and maltreated him to the manifest contempt of God and Sacrosanct Church and also of the king and the no small harm and burden of the said John and against the peace etc.

The said John le Waleys, though frequently and formally called, does not appear. The said Bogo and Henry therefore go quit at his suit and John le Waleys is to be amerced because he has not prosecuted.

The said Bogo and Henry are told that they are to answer for the said trespass at the suit of the lord king. The said Henry denies the force and the wrong and whatever is against the king's peace etc. and his contempt. He says that he is guilty of nothing. He puts himself on a jury on this. Wiliam Inge who sues for the king does likewise. The warden and sheriffs of London are therefore ordered to produce before the king three weeks after Michaelmas, wherever he may then be, twenty four men etc., by whom etc. and who are unconnected with the said Henry etc., to give their verdict etc. The said Bogo says that it does not seem to him that he is obliged to answer the lord king for the said trespass, wrong and contempt before the said Henry or anyone else has been convicted of the said trespass. The same day was given to the said Bogo in court. It is to be known that lord Robert of Hartforth and lord Roger Brabazon and lord Peter de Champagne and Thomas de Normanville have been assigned to examine the men of the said Bogo on the said events and that the justices are to arrange that the said examination is to aid the lord king as much as it can or ought do so.

Subsequently three weeks after Michaelmas in the eighteenth year it was adjudged that this case go without day in respect of Bogo, who is not obliged to answer for having ordered the deed before anyone is convicted of having committed it etc.

Subsequently on the morrow of the Purification of the Blessed Mary in the nineteenth year of the king's reign the said Henry appears and also the jurors who say on their oath that the Henry is in no respect guilty of the said trespass. So he is to go without day etc.

London . The lord king through William Inge who sues for him offered himself on the fourth day against Henry Braban, John Dunkan, William the page of the carter, Roger of Burnham, John Porter [[The following text has been deleted:
and Henry of Annesley]] on a plea that they be here on this day to answer the king on a plea that whereas, while recently the lord king was in his parliament at London, the venerable father John archbishop of Canterbury had sent through John le Waleys his messenger his letters to cite the said Bogo by reason of certain excesses committed by him against God and the church, the said Henry and others by the order, with the consent or at the wishes of the same Bogo had arrested the said John le Waleys at London during the said king's parliament within the precinct of the king's virge and had compelled him with force and arms to eat the letters and had beaten, wounded and maltreated him to the manifest contempt of God and sacrosanct Church as also of the king and to the no small harm and grievance of the said John and against the peace etc. They did not appear and the sheriffs were ordered to attach them. The sheriffs reported that they are not to be found etc. and have nothing by which they could be attached etc. The sheriffs are therefore ordered to exact them from husting to husting until they are outlawed, if they do not appear; and, if they do appear, then they are to arrest them and safely etc., so that they have their bodies before the king on the morrow of the Purification wherever he then is in England etc.

ii) For further related King's Bench enrolments in Hilary term 1293 see KB 27/135, mm. 5, 17

m. 5: London. Richard de Breteville who sues for the king offered himself on the fourth day against Bogo de Clare on a pleas as to why whereas, while the king was in the king's parliament at London, the venerable father John archbishop of Canterbury had sent John le Waleys his messenger with his letters to cite the said Bogo by reason of certain excesses committed by him against God and Holy Church, a certain Henry Braban, John Dunkan, William the page of the carter and Roger of Burnham, who were outlawed in the king's husting of London by reason of a certain trespass, by the order, consent and will of the same Bogo arrested the said John le Waleys at London during the said king's parliament within the precinct of the king's verge and forced him to eat his letters and beat, wounded and maltreated him to the manifest contempt of God, Sacrosanct Church and of the king and the no small harm and grievance of the said John and against the peace etc. He does not appear. The warden and sheriffs were ordered to distrain the said Bogo. The warden and sheriffs reported that the king's writ came too late etc. Therefore, as before, the warden and sheriffs are ordered to distrain the said Bogo to appear before the king three weeks after Easter wherever etc. to answer the king on the said plea etc.

m. 17: record from the rolls of Gilbert of Rothbury from the parliament of Hilary and Easter in the eighteenth year of the reign of king Edward the son of king Henry: as Roll 1, item 19 but with the following continuation:

'And because the lord king does not wish that the said enormous trespass committed by the said Henry Braban, John Dunkan, William the page of the carter and Roger of Burnham, who have now been outlawed in the London husting by reason of the same deed by the order, consent and wish of the said Bogo de Clare should pass unpunished the sheriff of Hertfordshire is ordered to produce Thomas de Turberville and David Grant and the sheriff of Huntingdonshire to produce Walter of Molesworth and the sheriff of Yorkshire to produce William of Milksham and the sheriff of Somerset to produce Simon of Ludgate and the sheriff of Buckinghamshire to produce William Franceys the mainpernors of the said Bogo to have his body before the king to answer the lord king for the said ordering and sending, whenever the lord king wished to speak of this, so that they appear before king three weeks afer Easter wherever etc. and are there to have the said Bogo to answer the lord king for the ordering, consent and sending aforesaid etc.

At which day Bogo appears. When asked how he wishes to acquit himself of the said trespass at the suit of the king he says that he is not guilty of anything. He puts himself on a jury on this. The warden and sheriffs of London are therefore ordered to produce before the king on the morrow of the Ascension of the Lord wherever etc. twenty-four men from the nearest wards, by whom etc., and who are not etc. The same day is given to the said Bogo etc. Thereupon Walter of Molesworth of Huntingdonshire, Simon of Ludgate of Somerset, Robert of Boyton of the same county, John of Doncaster of Yorkshire and master William of Burnham of Lincolnshire mainpern the same Bogo to produce his body at the said term and also from day to day and term to term until the end of the plea under a fitting penalty.

At which day the said Bogo appears and also Richard de Bretteville who sues for the lord king and a day is given to them on the Wednesday in Whitsun week in the London Guildhall for lack of jurors etc. A day is then given to the parties on the following Saturday in the London Guildhall for lack of jurors because none etc. On which Saturday Richard de Bretteville who sues for the lord king appears and also the said Bogo appears and a day is given to them at the octaves of Trinity before the king wherever he may then be for lack of jurors etc.

At which day before Gilbert of Thornton and Robert Malet with Ralph of Sandwich the warden of the lord king's city of London sitting with them there appeared Nicholas of Warwick and Richard de Bretteville who were suing for the king and Bogo de Clare appeared and also Ralph le Blund, William le Maceliner, Thomas Box, Walter of Finchingfield, John de Gisors, John the coroner's clerk, Solomon Cutler, Thomas Cross, John of Stortford, Robert le Treyer, John le Bener and Edmund Horn jurors appeared. Who say on their oath that it is true that the said trespass was committed against the said John le Waleys clerk within the gate of the court of the same Bogo in London without the knowledge of the same Bogo by the said Henry Braban and others who have been outlawed at the suit of the lord king in the London husting for the said deed and they say that as soon as the same Henry and the others learnt from others of the household of the same Bogo that the said Bogo had not avowed their said deed but was vehemently troubled and angered by it they at once absented themselves from the house of the same Bogo and his service for that deed and completely left, so that Bogo is in no respect guilty of consent, sending them, ordering, assent or receiving them after that deed. So the said Bogo for the present without day on this etc.

20

Also enrolled on E 159/63, m. 13d

21

i) The letters referred to are probably those entered on the Close Roll and calendared in CCR 1288-96, 134-5. For different letters from the king to the pope promising to go on Crusade see CPR 1281-92 , 341

ii) See also item 36.

22

[nothing found]

23

i) For the petition which led to these proceedings and which was evidently written during the king's absence in Gascony see SC 8/65, no. 3212

The burgesses of Newcastle on Tyne show this to the council of our lord the king: that, whereas these same burgesses have the town at farm from our lord the king for a certain sum of money payable each year, the prior of Tynemouth has come and attempted to enfranchise the merchants who come with their merchandise into the river Tyne who sell to him and does not allow them to pay their due custom but has them charge and discharge within the river Tyne in a place called the Shields and sells bread and ale to the merchants and whatever they need to the disinheritance of our lord the king and against his franchise and to the destruction of the said town, since the custom of the town is such that no ship coming with merchandise may open anything of his merchandise within the harbour of the Tyne to sell or discharge without paying custom on everything he has in the ship, but the prior comes and attempts to free these merchants from paying custom as they ought to do according to the said usages. On this the prior is impleading the burgesses in the Bench. And on this: that whereas our lord the king used to have his prises, namely one hundred from each shipload of herring, from each boat coming with fish to the aforesaid town one cod for a penny and one hundred of haddock from each boat in the season for six pence, of which the king gets nothing for things unloaded in the aforesaid place. And for this they pray remedy so that the franchise of our lord the king does not perish while they are his farmers nor that the plea between them and the aforesaid prior should pass to judgment without the presence of our lord the king or you who are in his place, because they fear the jury which has been so laboured by the prior. Moreover, whereas there used to be shacks at Shields to provide shelter for fishers coming from the sea only to shelter from the storm there has now been raised a large town to preempt the trade of the said town where they brew and bake to the destruction of the said town. The town of our lord the king is impoverished thereby to the extent of ten pounds each year.

Endorsement

In chancery: he is to sue a writ for the king and burgesses of Newcastle to produce the prior of Tynmouth at the next parliament after Easter.

He is to have a writ according to the terms of the petition.

ii) for the inquisition taken in 16 August 1291 see Gibson, Tynemouth, ii, appendix, no. lxxviii and for the judgment given at Hilary term 1292 see Gibson, Tynemouth, ii, no. xc)

iii) for a related, follow-up plea in King's Bench in Michaelmas term 1290 see KB 27/125, m. 57d

24

i) For related proceedings brought by Osbert Giffard against the custodian of his lands enrolled in King's Bench in Hilary term 1291 see KB 27/126, m. 4

Oxfordshire, Norhamptonshire, Somerset, Dorset . The lord king sent his writ to Philip of Willoughby, dean of the church of St Mary of Lincoln, in these words:

'Edward by the grace of God king of England, lord of Ireland and duke of Aquitaine to his beloved in Christ Philip of Willoughby, dean of the church of St Mary Lincoln, greetings. Whereas on several occasions we have ordered you without delay to restore all the lands and tenements of our beloved subject Osbert Giffard, which we recently committed to your custody, to the same Osbert and his wife Joan together with the corn and the other goods and chattels received from them as from the day of the seizure of the lands and tenements into our hands, as was recently determined before us and our council, and you have not yet delivered the corn and other goods and chattels to them in accordance with the tenor of our order and the said decision, as we have learned from the complaint of the same Osbert and Joan, at which we are not undeservedly amazed and moved, and, not wishing the same Osbert and Joan to be further improperly burdened with the heavy labours and expenses which they assert they have bestowed on the prosecution of our said orders by simulated responses in this matter, we order you again, as we have ordered you on several previous occasions, firmly enjoining you that without delay you deliver to them the corn and others goods and chattels in accordance with the terms of our orders previously directed to you or you are to be before us at the octaves of Hilary wherever we may then be in England to show why you are unwilling or not obliged to obey our orders directed to you on so many occasions. Witness myself at King's Clipstone on 24 October in the eighteenth year of our reign.'

At which day, namely at the octaves of Hilary, the said Osbert Giffard and Philip appeared. The same Osbert complains that the said Philip has kept his lands and tenements with their issues contrary to the orders of the lord king so often directed to him on this, namely his manor of Deddington in Oxfordshire which is worth forty pounds a year, the manor of Astwell in Northamptonshire which is worth twenty pounds a years, the manors of Ferscote and Elm which are worth forty pounds a year in the county of Somerset and the manor of Winterborne Houghton in the county of Dorset which is worth forty pounds a year, after they were seized into the hand of the lord king, namely on the Sunday after the feast of All Saints in the thirteenth year of the reign of the present king [4 November 1285], to the damage of the same Osbert of two hundred pounds. He produces suit in support of his complaint.

The said Philip says that he has restored the said tenements to the said Osbert together with the goods and chattels received from them as from the day of the seizure of the lands and tenements into the hand of the lord king except for reasonable expenses for the said lands and tenements. He is ready to account with him whenever he wishes. Thereupon with the consent of the said Osbert and Philip they are given auditors, namely Thomas of Fishburn and William of Crosthwaite, for them to account together. They are adjourned from day to day to the octaves of the Purification of the Blessed Mary wherever etc. so that then they are to do and receive what is rightfully to be done etc.

Subsequently at that day, namely at the octave of the Purification of the Blessed Mary, the said Osbert appears in person and Joan his wife through her attorney, Walter of Sutton. And likewise the said Philip. Philip says that he received the lands of the said Osbert at the feast of the Annunciation of the Blessed Mary in the fourteenth year of the reign of the present king [25 March 1286] and held them till the seventh day of February in the eighteenth year of the said king [7 February 1290] and he says that whatever he received within the said time of the lands and chattels and issues of the lands of the said Osbert and Joan he has returned to them in full together with the chattels which the same Osbert took on his own authority, both in person and through his bailiffs, while those lands were in the seisin of the same king except for the reasonable expenses of the said lands. He puts himself on the jury on this.

The said Osbert and Joan say that the said Philip has not returned to them the said goods which he took from the chattels, lands, tenements and issues within the said period. For they say that the said Philip received from the said lands within the same period £608 more than he has handed over to the same Osbert and Joan. They offer to prove this by a jury as the king's court adjudges. The coroners of the said counties are therefore ordered to produce jurors before the king five weeks after Easter wherever etc. Because both etc. Whereupon Richard de Bretteville who sues for the king appears and says that the said Osbert ... Annunciation of the Blessed Mary in the thirteenth year of the reign of the present king went continuously from day to day from manor to manor, namely from Astwell in Northamptonshire to Deddington in Oxfordshire, Ferscote and Elm in the county of Somerset, Winterborne Houghton in the county of Dorset and levied from the said manors twenty seven pounds, eight shillings and two pence to his own use in breach of the seisin of the lord king to the damage of the same king of one thousand pounds and in contempt of him etc.

The said Osbert denies and will deny the contempt and the wrong whenever etc. He asks for judgment whether he is obliged to answer the lord king on this without a writ of the same lord king. And, if the court of the lord king should adjudge this, he will gladly answer.

The said Richard de Bretteville asks for judgment of him as undefended since the said Osbert is present in court and says nothing in response to the matters alleged against him on behalf of the lord king. Thereupon the said Osbert is adjourned to the said term etc. And John Giffard, the brother of Osbert Giffard, Walter of Wilton', William of Sutton and John the son of Gilbert have mainperned the said Osbert to produce him before the king at the said term, bodies for body etc.

At which day the said John Giffard and the others do not produce the said Osbert as they mainprised to do. Therefore they are to be amerced. The sheriff is ordered to produce him before the king on the morrow of All Souls wherever etc. to answer the lord king in the said terms etc.

At which day the said Osbert does not appear nor does the sheriff send the writ. Therefore, as before, the sheriff is ordered to produce him before the king at the morrow of the Purification of the Blessed Mary wherever etc.

At which day the said Osbert, who is found in court, is told that he is to answer further if it seems expedient to him. He says that he took nothing from the said manors after they came into the hands of the lord king and were committed by the same lord king to the custody of the same Philip. He puts himself on a jury on this. Richard de Bretteville who sues for the king does likewise. Therefore a jury is to come before the king one month after Easter wherever etc.

ii) for subsequent proceedings against Osbert relating to the same lands enrolled in King's Bench in Hilary term 1292 see KB 27/130, m. 31d

petition of Philip of Willoughby the king's clerk sent from the council of the lord king

Oxfordshire, Norhamptonshire, Somerset, Dorset . Osbert Giffard, found in the court of the lord king, is put to answer by Philip of Willoughby, the clerk of the lord king, who sues for him, whether he knows anything to say as to why, whereas the wardship of the lands and tenements which belonged to Osbert the son of Osbert Giffard in Deddington in Oxfordshire, which he held of the lord king in chief by knight service, together with the wardship of the other lands of the said Osbert son of Osbert which he held in fee of his various lords, namely the manor of Winterborne Houghton in the county of Dorset and the manors of Ferscote and Elm in the county of Dorset and the manor of Astwell in Northamptonshire which belongs to the same king and in respect of which the same current lord king was seised of the homage of the said Osbert son of Osbert for the manor of Deddington which he held in chief of the same lord king, the said Osbert has unjustly usurped the wardship of the said manors against the lord king. He asserts that the lord has damage to the value of one thousand pounds etc. He offers to prove this for the same lord king as etc.

The said Osbert the father says that it is true that he recently planned to go abroad and before he left he granted the said manors to the said Osbert his son to hold until he returned, paying for them seven hundred pounds a year, and thereupon a chirographed writing was made about this between them and in addition he made a charter of feoffment to the said Osbert his son and his heirs for the said rent contained in the chirographed writing. When he returned he entered the said tenements, as well he might, because the said Osbert the son did not pay him the said rent. Subsequently the present lord king took the said tenements into his hands from the said Osbert the father by reason of an offence alleged against the said Osbert the father, by reason of which the same Osbert the father went to the lord king in his parliament and there in the presence of his son Osbert requested the delivery of the said tenements to himself and Osbert the son put in a claim and, notwithstanding his claim, the lord king delivered the said tenement to the said Osbert as his right. On this he vouches the record of the lord king and asks for judgment if he is obliged to answer here to the said Philip for his free tenement without a writ of the lord king.

The said Philip says on behalf of the lord king and to show the right of the same lord king that Sara who was the wife of the said Osbert son of Osbert brought writs of the lord king for her dower against the same Osbert the father for the said manors of Deddington in Oxfordshire and Astwell in Northamptonshire in the court of the lord king before his justices of the Bench in the nineteenth year of the same king, to which writs the same Osbert the father in the same court objected against Sara that the said Osbert her husband neither on the day that he married her nor subsequently was in such seisin that he could endow her of them. He put himself on an inquest on this. By which it was established in the same court that he was seised so that he could endow her. And so it was adjudged that Sara was to recover her seisin of the said tenements. Because the said Osbert vouches the record of the lord king for that delivery the said Osbert is told to make suit to the lord king. A day is given one month after Easter wherever etc.

Subsequently after the fourth day after that adjournment in this Hilary term Hugh of Lowther who sues for the king appears and vouches the record of the justices that some things were said in the pleading on behalf of the same lord king which are not enrolled in the said record, namely that in the charter of feoffment which Osbert the father made to Osbert his son it was not contained that he was to be allowed to enter the said tenements for non-payment of the said rent and thereupon had proffered the charter of the said Osbert which attested the same. The said Osbert was asked whether the said writing was his deed and he readily acknowledged the writing to be his deed and so the said Hugh who sues for the king asks for judgment of his acknowledgement as the same Osbert had previously acknowledged that the entry was on the seisin of his son Osbert by the terms of the said feoffment, in which no such condition is to be found, and the lord king had removed him from that intrusion and the lord king had given him no right or seisin of the free tenement except the same as he had possessed, and this by his own suggestion, whether by reason of the delivery the lord king ought to be stopped from claiming his wardship. A day is given as above etc.

iii) their continuation is enrolled on the King's Bench plea roll for Easter term 1292: KB 27/131, mm. 42-42d

the petition of Philip of Willoughby the king's clerk sent from the council of the lord king to Gilbert of Thornton and his colleagues assigned to hold his pleas at the quindene of Hilary in the twentieth year of the reign of the same king

Somerset, Dorset, Oxforshire, Northamptonshire . Osbert Giffard, found in the court of the lord king, is put to answer by Philip of Willoughby, the clerk of the lord king, who sues for him whether he knows anything to say as to why, whereas the wardship of the lands and tenements which belonged to Osbert son of Osbert Giffard in Deddington in Oxfordshire, which he held of the lord king in chief by knight service, together with the wardship of the other lands of the said Osbert son of Osbert which he held in fee of his various lords, namely the manor of Winterborne Houghton in the county of Dorset and the manors of Ferscote and Elm in the county of Dorset and the manor of Astwell in Northamptonshire which belongs to the same king and in respect of which the same current lord king was seised of the homage of the said Osbert son of Osbert for the manor of Deddington which he held in chief of the same lord king, the said Osbert has unjustly usurped the wardship of the said manors against the lord king. He asserts that the lord has damage to the value of one thousand pounds etc. He offers to prove this for the same lord king as etc.

The said Osbert the father says that it is true that he recently planned to go abroad and before he left he granted the said manors to the said Osbert his son to hold until he returned, paying for them seven hundred pounds a year and thereupon a chirographed writing was made about this between them and in addition he made a charter of feoffment to the said Osbert his son and his heirs for the said rent contained in the chirographed writing. When he returned he entered the said tenements, as well he might, because the said Osbert the son did not pay him the said rent. Subsequently the present lord king took the said tenements into his hands from the said Osbert the father by reason of an offence alleged against the said Osbert the father, by reason of which the same Osbert the father went to the lord king in his parliament and there in the presence of his son Osbert requested the delivery of the said tenements to himself and Osbert the son put in a claim and, notwithstanding his claim, the lord king delivered the said tenement to the said Osbert as his right. On this he vouches the record of the lord king and asks for judgment if he is obliged to answer here to the said Philip for his free tenement without a writ of the lord king.

The said Philip says on behalf of the lord king and to show the right of the same lord king that Sara who was the wife of the said Osbert son of Osbert brought writs of the lord king for her dower against the same Osbert the father for the said manors of Deddington in Oxfordshire and Astwell in Northamptonshire in the court of the lord king before his justices of the Bench in the nineteenth year of the same king, to which writs the same Osbert the father in the same court objected against Sara that the said Osbert her husband neither on the day that he married her nor subsequently was in such seisin that he could endow her of them. He put himself on an inquest on this. By which it was established in the same court that he was seised so that he could endow her. And so it was adjudged that Sara was to recover her seisin of the said tenements. Because the said Osbert vouches the record of the lord king for that delivery the said Osbert is told to make suit to the lord king. A day is given one month after Easter wherever etc.

Subsequently after the fourth day after that adjournment in this Hilary term Hugh of Lowther who sues for the king appears and vouches the record of the justices that some things were said in the pleading on behalf of the same lord king which are not enrolled in the said record, namely that in the charter of feoffment which Osbert the father made to Osbert his son it was not contained that he was to be allowed to enter the said tenements for non-payment of the said rent and thereupon had proffered the charter of the said Osbert which attested the same. The said Osbert was asked whether the said writing was his deed and he readily acknowledged the writing to be his deed and so the said Hugh who sues for the king asks for judgment of his acknowledgement, as the same Osbert had previously acknowledged that the entry was on the seisin of his son Osbert by the terms of the said feoffment, in which no such condition is to be found, and the lord king had removed him from that intrusion and the lord king had given him no right or seisin of the free tenement except the same as he had possessed, and this by his own suggestion, whether by reason of the delivery the lord king ought to be stopped from claiming his wardship. A day is given as above etc.

Subsequently at the quindene of Easter this year the lord king sent his writ in these words:

'Edward by the grace of God etc. to his beloved lieges Gilbert of Thornton and his colleagues, the justices assigned to hold his pleas, greetings. Whereas in the case that is before us without our writ between us at the suit of our beloved clerk Philip of Willoughby, who sues in our name, and our beloved liege Osbert Giffard about the same Osbert unjustly detaining from us the wardship of the manors of Deddington, Winterborne Houghton, Ferscote, Elm and Astwell, which the same Philip says belongs to us because Osbert the son of the same Osbert died in our homage in respect of the said manor of Dedddington, as enfeoffed of the same and the other manors, the said Osbert the father has answered that we subsequently returned the same manors which had been taken into our hands for a certain trespass alleged against him and kept for a while in our parliament and he had not usurped them from us and had asked for judgment if he was obliged to answer for his free tenement without our writ, wishing to be informed more fully on the record and process of the said case heard before you and on your discretion and counsel as to what is to be done on these matters, especially as the same Osbert the father has subsequently come to us and asserted that he had continued a peaceful seisin from the time of the said delivery both before the death of the said Osbert his son and hitherto without any interruption, his said son being still alive and of full age at the time of the delivery, we order you that at this quindene of Easter you associate with yourselves the justices and any other lieges of our council who are then present and, after having had recited before you the said record and process and after having inspected the writings recently produced before you in court if necessary and, after taking advice or consultation on those matters which belong to the law of our realm in this matter, you give us full and clear information on these matters under your seals without delay, returning this writ to us. Witness myself at Wesminster on 3 April in the twentieth year of our reign.'

The lord king also sent his writ to his beloved clerk Philip of Willoughby which was returned here by Philip in these words:

'Edward by the grace of God etc. to his beloved clerk Philip of Wiloughby greetings. Whereas we have ordered our beloved subjects Gilbert of Thornton and his colleagues, the justices assigned to hold our pleas, that they inform us more fully at this quindene of Easter on the record and process of the case which is before them without our writ between us, suing through you in our name, and our beloved liege Osbert Giffard about Osbert unjustly detaining from us the wardship of the manors of Deddington, Winterborne Houghton, Ferscote, Elm and Astwell which you say belongs to us as Osbert the son of the said Osbert died in our homage in respect of the said manor of Deddington, as enfeoffed of the same and the other manors, and on the tenor of the writings produced by both sides recently before them in court and all other things touching that matter, we order you to produce then before them, wherever we may then be in England, the charter of the said feoffment recently shown by you before them or, if you cannot conveniently be present, send it through one of your people for inspection in case they again have need to be instructed or informed on the tenor of the same. And have this writ there. Witness myself at Westminster 3 April in the twentieth year of our reign.'

The said Philip of Willoughby who sues for the king and also the said Osbert appear on the same day. The said Osbert proffers a certain indented writing between himself and his son Osbert in these words:

'To all the lieges of Christ to whom the present writing may come Osbert Giffard, the son of lord Osbert Giffard, greetings in the Lord. You are all to know that I have received from the lord Osbert my father into my custody while he is overseas under an agreement made between me and him the manor of Deddington and Winterborne Houghton and Standlake and Astwell and 'Stetiford' and Ferscote and Loderford' et Stenford', if it is still quit, with all its appurtenances until my lord Osbert Giffard returns to this country, paying each year to the said lord Osbert my father while he is overseas for the said lands seven hundred pounds sterling in good and honest money, payable to the same lord Osbert Giffard my father or his certain attorneys bearing his letters patent in the court of Winterborne Houghton or in the court of Ferscote at the terms written below, namely three hundred and fifty pounds at the Purification of the Blessed Mary and three hundred and fifty pounds at the feast of the Nativity of St John the Baptist without further delay. And I wish and concede that the said Osbert my father may enter and take seisin at whatever hour he wishes without any impediment by me or of others acting for me. I wish that all the writings made between us may not aid me nor harm the lord Osbert my father and that he may take seisin in all the lands and tenements in all of the places of which the said Osbert my father made me custodian. Moreover, I wish and concede that all the corn and other chattels found on the lands belong to the said lord Osbert Giffard my father. In addition I oblige myself by my faith and oath that I will not give or sell or in any way alienate an acre or a half acre or lands or tenements or curtilages; nor will I make anyone free or free any tenement or remove any serf nor will I receive any account from any reeve except by the view of lord John Giffard. For greater security I have given my faith in the hand of the said lord Osbert my father and have bound myself by oath on the body of the Lord in the church of Salisbury that if it should happen (which God forbid) that I fail in part or in whole in payment of the said money at the said terms or I do anything against the terms of this writing that then I subject myself to the curse of my father lord Osbert Giffard and my lady mother which a father and mother may give a son and to all sentences which archbishops and bishops may give and that all men, both clerks and laymen, may hold me in that sentence. Also I renounce all right and remedy and aid of the king's court which might in any way assist me or impede or harm the said lord Osbert my father. In witness of which matter I, Osbert the son of the lord Osbert, have appended my seal to one part of this writing and the seal of the lord Osbert my father has been appended to the other part. These are the witnesses: lords Richard of Manston knight, James de Trowe knight, Ralph de Rocheford and lords Oliver de Dynham knight and lord Nicholas de Montfort and Simon de Torini and lord John fitzGuy, William Poor, lord Richard de Lyuns, Robert de Rumeny, Walter de Wynchehul', Robertus le Her bailiff of Wondescot, Simon the son of the master, William of Maidwell and many others'.

After many altercations between the parties the parties are told to put their arguments in writing as seems best to them and enrolment will be made accordingly. Osbert says that, whereas he was recently found in Westminster hall and was arrested at the suit of Philip of Willoughby to answer on those matters which he should wish to allege against the same Osbert on behalf of the lord king: as to the charge that he had wrongly taken possession as against the lord king of the manors of Dedddington, Winterburne Houghton, Ferscote, Elm and Astwell after the death of his son Osbert which ought to have been in the wardship of the lord king because the said Osbert his son died in the homage of the lord king in respect of the said manor of Deddington, as enfeoffed of the same and the other manors, the said Osbert the father answers that the said manor of Deddington and the other manors are his free tenement and asks judgment if he is obliged to answer without a writ of the lord king.

He also says that he has made no usurpation as against the lord king of the said tenements as the same Osbert the father was seised of the said tenements in his demesne as of fee and of right before the death, at the death and after the death of the said Osbert his son. And since nothing should be accounted as a usurpation of any lands which ought to be in the wardship of the lord king other than those of which his tenant was seised in his demesne on the day of his death, and the said Osbert the son did not die seised, he asks for judgment whether he is obliged to answer for his free tenement.

Look on the dorse

m. 42d

Moreover, the said Osbert father says that the said charter which the said Philip, who sues for the king, has shown in court ought not to harm the same Osbert because, whereas it is contained in the same charter that the said Osbert the son is to have and hold the said manors according to the terms of the said indented writing, it seems to him that the said charter is conditional and wholly relates to the said indented writing; so he asks for judgment since the said charter is not a pure feoffment nor simple but dependent on the condition, as said, whether the said charter ought to harm him or aid anyone else.

Moreover, reserving to himself the benefit of the said exceptions, out of reverence of the lord king to inform the lord king he says that long ago he planned to go abroad and at the time of his departure he handed over the said tenements to the custody of his son Osbert while he was abroad by the said indented deed made between them paying thence to the same Osbert the father seven hundred pounds each year but on condition that after his return to England he was allowed at will to re-enter the said tenements and retain them without any contradiction or impediment from the said Osbert the son and that all and any deeds made between them would thenceforward be held null, which writing he proffers and which attests this, and which tenements immediately after his return to England he entered in accordance with the terms of the said writing, while the said Osbert his son was still alive and of full age and unopposing and making no claim in his lifetime; and he asks for judgment, as before, whether he is obliged to answer for his free tenement without a writ etc.

As to the claim that, because he had acknowledged a charter of feoffment for the said tenements produced in court before the justices of the lord king, as a consequence he had acknowledged that the said Osbert the son had fee in the said tenements, Osbert the father readily denies that the said Osbert the son had fee in the said tenements or anything else other than according to the terms of said indented writing and puts himself on this on the record of the justices.

He also says that although the lord king had ordered the said manors to be taken into his hand for a certain trespass alleged against the same Osbert the father and had kept them for a period, he had nonetheless restored them afterwards in his parliament as completely as he had taken them with all the issues received from them in the presence of the said Osbert the son, without him making any claim or opposition then or at any time subsequently during his lifetime and for that surrender he vouches the record of the lord king and asks for judgment since he continued his seisin of the said tenements before the death and after the death and at the death of the said Osbert his son and asks for judgment if he is obliged to answer without a writ.

The said Philip who sues for the king says that the said Osbert previously, namely in Hilary term last, acknowledged that he had demised the said manors with appurtenances to the said Osbert his son to hold for a term of years by a certain writing of agreement made between them on that, paying to himself a certain sum of money contained in it, and likewise readily admitted that thereupon he made the same Osbert the son and his heirs his charter of feoffment; so he asks for judgment if he may now say that the said Osbert his son had nothing in the said tenements except only a term contrary to his said acknowledgement.

The said Philip also says that after Osbert the son was in seisin of the said tenements through the said feoffment of his father the lord king through his writ and through master Henry de Bray then his eschaetor had the said tenements seised into his hand, not wishing that the said Osbert the son should render anything to his said father or should find anything for his support by reason of a certain offence of the same Osbert the father committed against the peace of the lord king and thus the said tenements remained for some time in the hand of the lord king, so that subsequently the same Osbert the son went to the lord king and asked for the said tenements to be delivered to him by reason of the said feoffment and because the manor of Deddington is held of the lord king in chief the lord king took the homage of the said Osbert the son for it and ordered seisin of the said manor and of the other manors contained in the said feoffment to be handed over to him and thus he re-entered into the same manors and continued his seisin of them peacefully for a year until the lord king again had the same tenements seised into his hand and committed them to the custody of Philip of Willoughby at will and the same Philip held them thus for three years until the return of the lord king from Gascony and then the same lord king ordered the same tenements to be delivered to the same Osbert the father without prejudice to the right of the lord king and anyone else and subsequently, after the said delivery to the said Osbert the father, the said Osbert the son within two months died, after whose death Sara who was the wife of the said Osbert the son recovered her dower in the court of the lord king of certain manors, namely of Astwell in Northamptonshire and Deddington in Oxfordshire by reason of the said feoffment and as of those of which her husband Osbert had been seised in his demesne as of fee and as against Osbert the father by the jurors of the country on which the same Osbert the father had put himself; thus, since by the said charter of feoffment to the same Osbert the son, an estate was had in addition to the estate of the said term and which charter the same Osbert the father above acknowledged, and the right, fee and free tenement of the same tenements purely and wholly passed from the person of the said Osbert the father to the person of Osbert the son purely and absolutely and also, whereas the lord king by the homage of the said Osbert the son which he took for it, acknowledged and admitted the same Osbert the son as his tenant and thus affirmed the estate of the same Osbert the son and delivered seisin of the said tenements to him. And also, whereas by the said inquest of the country it was found that the same Osbert the son was seised of the said tenements as of fee and the same Osbert the father does not show or explain any title of free tenement made to him by the said Osbert his son or anyone else since the time of the making of the said charter made by him, he asks for judgment whether on the basis of the said delivery made to him by the said lord king which was made without prejudice to anyone else and since the lord king by such deliveries did not believe or intend to exclude either himself or anyone else from his right to wardships, marriages or anything pertaining to him as of right; and also whereas the same Osbert the son died in the homage of the same lord king, as cannot be denied, and so soon after the delivery made to the same Osbert the father and within so short a time no title of free tenement could accrue to the same Osbert the father, as it seems, by common law, whether the lord king ought to be excluded from the wardship of the lands of the heir of the said Osbert the son his tenant and who died in his homage.

Subsequently the lord king sent his writ in these words:

'Edward by the grace of God to his beloved lieges Gilbert of Thornton and his colleagues, the justices assigned to hold his pleas. Whereas a plea is pending before us between ourselves and our beloved liege Osbert Giffard concerning the wardship of the manors of Deddington, Astwell, Ferscote, Elm and Winterborne Houghton at the suit of our beloved clerk Philip of Willoughby, as you know, we order you that you do not concern yourselves any further with the holding of that plea at the procurement and prosecution of anyone without our special order. And because both in respect of the said wardship and in respect of the other various disputes between the said Osbert and Philip, in so far as they can, they have reached an agreement by our consent we order you to have the terms of that agreement which we are sending you enclosed in these presents enrolled in your rolls before you and that you ensure the said Osbert and also the jurors of any inquests relating to the said pleas and disagreements from whichever counties are quit and free of amercements and issues. Witness myself at Culford on the sixth of May in our twentieth regnal year.'

'It was agreed before the venerable father lord Robert by grace of God bishop of Bath and Wells, the chancellor of the lord Edward the illustrious king of England, at St Edmund's and other lieges of the lord king sitting with him that Alice, the daughter and heiress of Osbert son of Osbert Giffard, is to have and retain after the death of the said Osbert the father in fee and inheritance fifty pounds of land in the villages of Deddington and Standlake in Oxfordshire, namely of the land which the lord Osbert the father purchased in the said village of Standlake of one John of Haddenham, so that the manor of Standlake, which Sara who was the wife of Osbert son of Osbert Giffard now holds, is not to be accounted in the said fifty pounds of land but that excluding that manor the said Alice is to have fifty pounds of land, as is said, and whatever is lacking of the fifty pounds of land in the said two villages is to be supplied in Loderford in the county of Somerset. And if the lands and tenements in Loderford do not suffice fully to make up the deficiency in the fifty pounds of land in the said two village then the said Osbert will make up the deficiency from his lands and tenements in the county of Dorset and elsewhere excluding Winterborne Houghton. The dower which the said Sarra recovered before the justices of the lord king of the Bench against Osbert Giffard the father and of which she is seised in Deddington she will retain and she is to be content with that; for the dower share belonging to the same Sarra of the tenements which John Giffard holds in Astwell the same Sarra is to have and keep sixty shillings of land and rent by a lawful survey to be made of the lands and tenements of the said Osbert the father in the village of Standlake, namely of the tenements which belonged to John of Haddenham. And if those lands and tenements do not suffice for a revenue of sixty shillings then Osbert is to supply Sarra with what is lacking, to have and receive from his other lands and tenements in the village of Deddington. And if it happen that the said lands and tenements in the village of Standlake exceed the total of sixty shillings a year then the said Sarra will assign the said Osbert to the value of the surplus receivable from the lands and tenements assigned to the same Sara in dower in the village of Deddington. And the same Sarra is to have and kept fully all the said lands and tenements in Standlake which belonged to the said John together with the other lands and tenements assigned to the said Sara, as is said, for the term of her life by way of dower. And after the death of the said Sara all the said tenements assigned to the said Sara in dower are to revert and remain to the said Osbert for the term of his life, if he outlives the said Sara, and after the death of the same Osbert to the said Alice and her heirs in perpetuity, reserving always to Alice the daughter and heiress of Osbert the son of the said Osbert the said fifty pounds of land in which the said tenements of dower ought to be accounted. And the said Sara will not in future make claim to any dower in the counties of Somerset and Dorset but will withdraw the writs she has acquired on this. And, if it should happen that the said Alice, the daughter and heiress of the said Osbert the son of Osbert, should implead the said Osbert the father, his heirs or assigns at any future time for any lands and tenements on the basis of any feoffment made to Osbert the father of the said Alice, as is said, then nothing is to benefit any of the said parties by reason of the said agreement or the said deed nor is any party to be precluded by the same agreement from his estate or right but each party is to be without prejudice notwithstanding the agreement and charters aforesaid, nor are they to harm any party or be henceforth of any significance. The surveys to be made in connection with the above are to be made by Michaelmas next.'

iv) for the dower plea brought by Sarra the widow of Osbert the son of Osbert Giffard against her father-in-law in Hilary term 1292 see CP 40/92, m. 162d

Somerset, Dorset . Sara, who was the wife of Osbert the son of Osbert Giffard, through her attorney makes claim against Osbert Giffard to a third share of the manor of Winterborne Houghton in the county of Dorset and a third share of the manors of Ferscote and Elm in the county of Somerset as her dower etc.

Osbert appears. He says that the said Sara is not entitled to her dower from them as the said Osbert son of Osbert her late husband etc. was never in seisin of the said tenements as of fee. He explains that the said Osbert the son of Osbert had nothing in the said tenements except by the concession of the same Osbert Giffard, the father of the said Osbert the son of Osbert, her former husband etc., who demised them to him together with the manors of Deddington, Standlake, Astwell, Stenford' and Loderford to hold while the same Osbert the father etc. was in overseas parts and paying thence each year to the same Osbert the father etc. seven hundred pounds a year, namely a moiety at the feast of the Purification of the Blessed Mary and another half at the feast of St John the Baptist etc.; on condition that Osbert the father was to be allowed to re-enter the said tenements whenever he wished without any impediment from the same Osbert the son of Osbert. He proffers part of an indented writing between the same Osbert and Osbert which attests the same etc.

Sara says that the said Osbert the father etc. gave the said Osbert the son of Osbert the said tenements with appurtenances to hold to himself and the heirs of his body and proffers a certain charter in the name of the said Osbert the father etc. which attests that the said Osbert the father etc. had given Osbert his son and heir his manor of Deddington with appurtenances and all the manors and lands he had in England except his lands in the counties of Devon and Gloucestershire to hold to the same Osbert son of Osbert and his lawfully begotten heirs all the days of the life of his father Osbert etc. rendering thence each year for the whole lifetime of the same Osbert the father etc. that rent which is contained in a certain chirographed writing between them at the terms there established for all service etc. She says that the same Osbert the son of Osbert performed homage to the present lord king for the said manor of Deddington which is held of the lord king in chief and the same lord king after the death of the said Osbert son of Osbert, because he died seised of the said tenements as of fee in the homage of the same lord king, with the son and heir of the same Osbert son of Osbert being below age, before Gilbert of Thornton and his colleagues the justices for the pleas of the lord king had recently claimed the wardship of the said tenements against the same Osbert the father etc. and the same Osbert the father etc. had readily acknowledged there the said charter, and that the said Osbert the son of Osbert held the said tenements to himself and the heirs of his body, paying each year to the same Osbert the father etc. seven hundred pounds, namely a moiety at the feast of the Purification of the Blessed Mary and the other moiety at the feast of St John the Baptist etc by the concession of the same Osbert the father etc. under this condition, namely, that if the said Osbert the son etc. defaulted in the payment of the said money at any term in whole or in part Osbert the father was allowed to re-enter the said tenements and hold those tenements without any contradiction from the same Osbert the son etc. and there had said further that because Osbert the son etc. had paid him nothing of the said farm he had re-entered the said tenements as he was allowed. That this is so she puts herself on the record of the said justices. Since the said Osbert the father etc. in the court of the lord king before the said justices acknowledged that the said Osbert the son etc. had fee tail in the said tenements she asks for judgment whether the said Osbert can now contradict himself by saying that the said Osbert the son etc. was never in seisin of the said tenements as of fee and that he had nothing in the said tenements except at the will of the same Osbert the father etc.

Osbert says that the said Osbert the son of Osbert was never in seisin of the said tenements as of fee and had nothing in the the same except at farm at the will of the same Osbert the father etc. according to the terms of the said chirographed writing between them etc. He is ready to prove this as the court will adjudge. As to the assertion that he acknowledged before the said justices for the pleas of the lord king that the said Osbert son of Osbert had fee tail in the said tenements he wholly denies that he ever acknowledged before the said justices that the said Osbert the son etc. had fee in the said tenements or anything else except according to the terms of the said chirographed writing etc. He puts himself on the record of the said justices on this etc. He says moreover that what he acknowledged there he will still acknowledge here, namely that the said Osbert the son etc. never had any seisin of the said tenements through the said charter which was proffered there but only according to the terms of the said chirographed deed.

Subsequently the said Osbert says that the said Osbert son of Osbert her former husband etc. neither on the day he married her nor afterwards was ever in seisin of the said tenements as of fee, so that he could have endowed her of them. He puts himself on a jury on this and Sara does likewise. So the sheriffs of both Somerset and Dorest are ordered to produce here five weeks after Easter twelve men etc., through whom etc., and who are not etc., to give their verdict in the said terms. Because both etc.

25

For related enrolments see items 6 and 53.

26

i) The writ of enquiry is enrolled on Patent Roll under 20 February 1290: CPR 1281-92 , 398

ii) For the sequel see Roll 10, item 11

27

i) The king's first intervention came on 18 September 1289. It ordered a cessation of hostilities and the sending of representatives from both side for a proposed settlement at the next session of parliament: CPR 1281-1292, 323. A further mandate continuing the cessation of hostilities and requiring the sending of representatives to the parliament after Easter was sent on 30 January 1290: CPR 1281-1292, 339

ii) The widow's appeal appears to have led to the outlawry in King's Bench which was reviewed and quashed in proceedings in the same court in Michaelmas term 1290: KB 27/125, m. 61

Norfolk . The lord king sent his writ to Gilbert of Thornton and his colleagues etc. in these words:

'Edward by the grace of God etc. to his beloved subjects Gilbert of Thornton and his colleagues, the justices assigned to hear and determine the pleas of the king, greetings. Whereas John Lambert of Sandwich, Robert Gold of Stonar, Robert of Finglesham, Robert Patecok, Hurtin of Stonar, William Battle, William Manship, Stephen Gormeyr, Nicholas Alard, John Bughard, Bartin Tasse, Loveric Lambert and John Saunter have been outlawed at the suit of Cecily who was the wife of Robert of Rollesby, who appealed them before you of the death of the said Robert her late husband and manifest error occurred in the process of the same appeal, as we have learned from the allegation of the same John, Robert, Robert, Hurtin, William and William, Stephen, Nicholas, John, Bartin, Loveric and John, we, wishing to correct any error which may be found in the said process and to annul the said outlawry, if the process leading to its promulgation was flawed and contrary to the custom of our realm, as we are obliged to do, we order you that, after you have searched your rolls and carefully examined the record and process of the said appeal and after you have called the said Cecilia before you and heard the arguments of the friends of the said John and the others for the annulment of the said outlawry in the presence of the said Cecilia, if she wishes to be present, you have corrected any error you may find in the said process and you have revoked and annulled the said outlawry, if you establish that there were flaws in the process leading to its promulgation in accordance with what is to be done as of right and according to the custom of our realm. Witness myself at Harby on 26 November in the nineteenth year of our reign.'

When the writs and rolls had been searched a writ was found that had been returned at the quindene of Easter last in these words:

'Edward by the grace of God king of England, lord of Ireland and duke of Aquitaine to the sheriff of Norfolk, greetings. If Cecily late the wife of Robert of Rollesby of Great Yarmouth finds you sureties to prosecute her claim then attach John Lambert of Sandwich, Robert Golde of Stonar, Robert of Finglesham, Robert Patecok, Hurtin of Stonar, William Battle, William Manship, Stephen Germeyn, Nicholas Alard, John Buchard, Bartin Tasse, Loveric Lambert and John Saunter by their bodies in accordance with the custom of England, so that you produce them before us two weeks after Easter wherever we may then be in England to answer the said Cecily for the death of the said Robert, her late husband, of which she appeals them. You are to produce there the names of the sureties and this writ. Witness myself at Westminster on 10 February in the eighteenth year of our reign.'

An enrolment is also found in the rolls before the king of the same term in these words:

'Cecily late the wife of Robert of Rollesby of Great Yarmouth offers herself on the fourth day against John Lambert of Sandwich, Robert Golde of Stonar, Robert of Finglesham, Robert Patecok, Hurtin of Stonar, William Battle, William Manship, Stephen Germeyn, Nicholas Alard, John Buchard, Bartin Tasse, Loveric Lambert and John Saunter on the death of the said Robert her late husband of which she appeals them. They do not appear. The sheriff was ordered to arrest them. The sheriff reported that Robert and the others have not been found etc. The sheriff is therefore ordered to have them exacted from county court to county court until etc. they are outlawed. And if they etc., then he is to arrest them and produce their bodies before the king at the quindene of Martinmas wherever etc.

On which day the sheriff sent a writ of the lord king in these words:

'Edward by the grace of God king of England, lord of Ireland and duke of Aquitaine to the sheriff of Norfolk greetings. We order you to have exacted John Lambert of Sandwich, Robert Golde of Stonar, Robert of Finglesham, Robert Patecok, Hurtin of Stonar, William Battle, William Manship, Stephen Germeyn, Nicholas Alard, John Buchard, Bartin Tasse, Loveric Lambert and John Saunter from county court to county court until they are outlawed in accordance with the law and custom of England if they do not appear. If they do appear, then you are to arrest their bodies and keep them safely in our prison, so that you can produce their bodies before us two weeks after Martinmas wherever we may then be in England to answer Cecily late the wife of Robert of Rollesby of Great Yarmouth on the death of the said Robert her late husband for which she appeals them. And produce there this writ. Witness Gilbert of Thornton 8 May in the eighteenth year of our reign.' together with a return on the dorse of the writ in these words:

'At the county court of Norwich on the Monday before the feast of St Barnabas John Lambert and the others were exacted for the first time.

At the county court of Norwich on the Monday before the feast of the apostles of Apostles Peter and Paul they were exacted for the second time.

At the county court of Norwich on the Monday before the feast of St Peter Advincula they were exacted for the third time.

At the county court of Norwich on the Monday before the feast of the Decollation of St John the Baptist they were exacted for the fourth time. They did not appear. They were therefore outlawed. On which day the said Cecily, although formally called on the first, second and third day, did not appear and nothing on her default at present because the said John and others are outlawed at her suit.'

Thereupon there appear Matthew de Horn of Winchelsea and Richard Godfrey of the same town, relatives of the said John Lambert and the others and on their behalf, who have been overseas since before the said exaction and still are, and say that there is a flaw in the process of the outlawry against them in that the said Robert, for whose death they are appealed, was healthy and unharmed when he left England and never subsequently returned to it and went overseas but to which parts it is not known. And since the court of the king of England cannot establish whether the said Robert is still alive or not and, if he has died, the court cannot establish whether he died a natural death or from premeditated felony, and, if by premeditated felony, it is not known by whom nor where and whether the appellees are abroad or not. They say moreover that the said John Lambert and the other appellees are barons of the Cinque Ports and have the privilege that none of them ought to be exacted other in the king's court of Shipway. And since the said appeal is rightfully null they ask that the said outlawry be totally annulled and the said John Lambert and others be restored to all their rights. And because it is not possible to proceed to confirm or quash the said outlawry before it be known whether Robert left England alive and healthy, so that he never subsequently returned there, and whether the said appellees are in foreign parts or not, the sheriff is ordered that in full county court etc. in the presence of the said Cecily, after she has received reasonable notice, if she wishes to be present, he is to to make careful enquiry in the presence of the coroners by the oaths of upright and respectable men etc., by whom etc., whether the said Robert left England in health and unharmed, so that he never subsequently returned there, and whether the said appellees are in foreign parts, as the said Matthew and Richard, who are suing on their behalf, say or not; and he is to send the results of the inquiry in clear form etc. under his seal etc. and the seals of those by whom etc. to the king on the morrow of the Purification of the Blessed Virgin wherever etc. and he is to inform Cecily that she be before the king at the said term to show why the said outlawry thus improperly promulgated, as is said, ought not be annulled, if she deems it expedient etc.

At which day the sheriff returned that he had informed the said Cecily through John of Norwich and John of Ely to be in full county court etc. and also here on the morrow of the Purification of the Blessed Mary etc. He likewise returned an inquisition made in full county court etc. which resides in the bundle of writs of the same term in which inquisition it is found that the said Robert of Rollesby left England healthy and unharmed and went to foreign parts and never returned to England and they say that they believe that on his way back to England Robert was killed in Brittany and they also say that the said John Lambert and the others appealed of the death of the same Robert of Rollesby at the time of the exaction and outlawry proclaimed against them were in foreign parts.

From which it is manifestly clear that the said Cecily obtained her writ by suppressing the truth and that it ought be considered as not having been obtained and so there was a process of exaction and outlawry where no appeal had been made in the county court nor by any writ of the said Cecily that ought to have force and thus against the law and custom of England, because the said Cecily [had appealed] for the death of the same Robert who had left England healthy and unharmed and had never returned since and who is perhaps still alive and might still return healthy and unharmed and in every outlawry that is correctly pronounced it is essential that there be a true or or presumptive cause and contumacy, which cannot be in this case; and if perhaps the said Robert was killed evilly in some foreign part this could not be against the peace of the king of England; it is adjudged that the said outlawry is to be void and to be taken as null and that the said John Lambert of Sandwich, Robert Golde of Stonar, Robert of Finglesham, Robert Patecok, Hurtin of Stonar, William Battle, William Manship, Stephen Germeyn, Nicholas Alard, John Buchard, Bartin Tasse, Loveric Lambert et John Saunter are to return if they wish and are to be restored to all their rights. And the sheriff is ordered to have the firm peace of the said John Lambert and the others proclaimed in full county court and in public places and that the said outlawry is annulled and the peace of the said John Lambert and others was proclaimed in full court.

28

For a related mandate to the justices of the Common Bench dated 18 June 1290 see CP 40/83, m. 45

29-30

For related litigation see below, nos. 46 and 40. See also Roll 2, item 282

31

There is a summary of the preceding petition and its response in Roll 2, item 29

32

i) A damaged copy of the agreement is included in the King's Bench plea roll for Easter term 1290 on a membrane whose dimensions are significantly wider than the remainder of the membranes on the roll but which has suffered damage: KB 27/123 (Easter 1290), mm. 53-53d. A full text is printed from other copies in Munimenta Academica Oxonie , ed. H. Anstey (Rolls Series, 1868), i, 46-56

ii) For a follow-up complaint in Michaelmas term 1293 see KB 27/138, m. 5. This is printed in Select Cases in the Court of King's Bench , vol. II, 151-4

33

i) For a commission associating John of Mettingham and John of Cobham with Penchester in determining these disputes see CPR 1281-92, 402-3.

ii) The transfer of the litigation to Penchester is also recorded in Roll 2, item 30.

34

i) For an earlier stage of this case see CP 40/82, m. 3.

ii) This quitclaim received royal confirmation on 28 May 1290. From this it appears that John's full name was John son of Nicholas of Bromholm of Great Yarmouth and that the plot of land which had belonged to his father which he was claiming lay next to the friars' house in Great Yarmouth: CPR 1281-92, 358.

35

The commission of enquiry was issued on 20 February 1290: CPR 1281-92 , 398

36

[nothing found]

37

These proceedings arose out of the case before the auditores querelarum in which the justices of the southern eyre circuit were convicted of misconduct at the 1286 Norfolk eyre. For a transcript of the record see BL Additional Roll 14987.

38

i) This mainprise was recited in a writ of 15 May 1290 to the constable of Leeds castle ordering the release of William Douglas who was in his custody until the following quindene of Hilary (though the list of mainpernors here substitutes Nicholas of Seagrave for Roger de Mohaut and calls William of Ryther William de Rye): CCR 1288-96, 79. On 24 May 1290 the sheriff of Northumberland was ordered to release the lands, goods and chattels of William and his men until the following quindene of Hilary when the king was to decide with the advice of his council what to do in respect of William's alleged trespass in abducting Eleanor, the widow of William de Ferrars, while she was in Scotland: CCR 1288-96, 81.

ii) The original order for the seizure of William's property and for William's arrest was given on 28 January 1289: CFR 1272-1307, 256

iii) For a follow-up to the original order for the seizure see C 47/22/3, no. 2

To the venerable father in Christ and his lord, if he pleases, the reverend lord ... by the grace of God bishop of Ely his humble and devoted R. Knut sheriff of Northumberland greetings, honour and reverence. Because by the order of our lord the king of England I have had seised the land and tenements of William of Douglas and John Wischard in my bailiwick for the forcible seizure of Eleanor de Ferrars at Tranent and yet I have recently learned that John Wischard has lands in Tynedale which are within the liberty and bailiwick of lord Thomas de Normanvile where my power does not extend without a special mandate so, if it please you that I have seised the lands of the said John in the said liberty for that reason, please write your wishes with your will in all matters. May your holy fatherhood and lordship flourish for a long time.

iv) William was eventually allowed on 18 February 1291 to purchase the king's rights in respect of the remarriage of Eleanor in return for a fine of £100: CFR 1272-1307, 289.

v) there is also a note of William Douglas's mainprise in C 47/22/1, no. 11

Lord John de Hastings, lord Nicholas Seagrave, lord William de Rye, lord Robert Bardulf.

These men mainpern William of Douglas to produce him before the king two weeks after Easter next wherever etc. under fitting penalty to answer Eleanor late the wife of William de Ferrars on a plea of trespass.

39

Adam had previously put in his claim to the final concord which Hugh had made with John of Easton: CP 40/81, m. 42. In Michaelmas term 1291 Adam quitclaimed all right to Hugh and his heirs: CP 40/91, m. 321.

40

i) For the earlier proceedings at the Hilary parliament see item 46.

ii) The king's writ is given below at item 42.

41

For a follow-up writ of 27 May 1290 to the treasurer and barons of the exchequer see Annales Monastici, iii. 360-1 and E 159/63, m. 13

42

i) For the context of this writ see above, item 40.

ii) For the justification for this writ and evidence that it was issued on 18 May 1290 see Roll 2, items 98, 99

43-44

[nothing found]

45

There is a brief related enrolment on the King's Bench roll for Easter term 1290: KB 27/123, m. 4d

Norfolk . Memorandum concerning a certain writ of enquiry handed over to Gilbert of Rothbury clerk between Richard Lomb who is suing for the king and the bishop of Norwich, Robert of Tattershall and others in a writ about the toll for cheese, butter and other things wrongfully taken in the town of Lynn.

46

For the next stage in this case see item 40.

47

i) for a second copy of this entry from another, apparently separate roll see SC 8/1, no. 4

ii) For a related, but subsequent, complaint see Roll 2, item 31

iii) The jury verdict in this case was eventually given in the 1292 Cumberland eyre: it found that the king was free to give the tithes of these places, as of any other land assarted within the forest, to whomsover he wished: C 260/6, no. 10, mm. 3-4

iv) The king sent to Cressingham, the chief justice of the Cumberland eyre, on 3 June 1293 asking for a record of this plea, possibly as the result of a petition at the Easter parliament of 1293. It was not, however, until 5 December 1293 that the king granted the priory of Carlisle all the tithes arising out of assarts within the forest of Inglewood and from all extra-parochial land there, as he had recovered them in the Cumberland eyre: CPR 1292-1301 , 55-6.

48

Subsequently litigation was brought in King's Bench for the manor and in the Common Bench for the advowson. For the former see KB 27/125, m. 45; KB 27/126, m. 16d; KB 27/127, m. 9. For the latter see CP 40/83, m. 89d and CP 40/106, m. 231d.

49

For related proceedings see item 5 above.

50

[nothing found]

51

i) The original petition behind this entry is SC 8/331, no. 15657

Roger de Mohaut, the son and heir of Robert de Mohaut, shows you this: that, whereas he has the manor of [Hawarden] with all the appurtenances and holds it of the inheritance of his father Robert by the bail and the ... of our lord the king, my lord Reginald de Grey justice of Chester has occupied and seized a great part of the appurtenances of this same manor, that is to say Ewloe, Belynges (?Holling) and a great part of the wood of Swordwood together with the assarts which the men of Aston, Shotton and Belynges (?Holling) hold and have held since the time when my lord Roger de Mohaut the grandfather of the same Roger, whose heir he is, made his profit of the same assarts.

Moreover, this same Roger shows you that whereas the king ...the pass of Swordwood the men of the Wirral of Chester have come ... country by a proclamation which my lord Reginald de Grey made ... at will in this same wood everywhere without ...people are wasting this wood, cutting and destroying ...everywhere outside the pass and not in the pass. And for these things [he seeeks a] remedy and the grace of our lord the king.

ii) For a related entry see Roll 2, item 265

52

See also item 69 below.

53

i) For a separate record of these earlier proceedings see item 10.

ii) For the sequel as recorded in King's Bench in Hilary term 1291 see KB 27/126, mm. 15-15d

Pleas before the council of the lord king in the eighteenth year of the reign of king Edward the son of king Henry

Hampshire. The sheriff of Hampshire was ordered that, whereas the lord king recently in his parliament at Easter last had recovered against the venerable father John bishop of Winchester seisin of the wardenship of the hospital of Saint Julian outside Southampton and had ordered the same sheriff by his writ to let Robert the almoner have such seisin in the name of the lord king of the same wardenship as the same Robert had in the name of the lord king before he was ejected from the same wardenship by the said bishop and by reason of a certain writ of the lord king previously directed to the same sheriff on this, and the same bishop had appeared subsequently before the same lord king and his council and had requested the same lord king to restore to him seisin of the advowson of the said wardenship as to the true patron of the said hospital and that he allow him to confer the same wardenship and control the same wardenship, as his predecessors as bishops of Winchester used to confer that wardenship and control it, the same sheriff was to inform the same Robert that he appear before the lord king fifteen days after St John the Baptist wherever etc. to inform the same lord king and his council more fully about the advowson of the said hospital and collation of the wardenship and to show if he has anything or knows anything to say on behalf of the same lord king as to why he is not obliged to restore the said advowson to the said bishop and allow him to confer the wardenship of the said hospital.

On which day the said sheriff reports that he has informed the said Robert the almoner in accordance with the terms of the said order sent him and through the men below written, namely John atte Barre, and Henry Bryan. As a result both the said bishop and the said Robert and also one John of Hardley, who sues for the lord king, appeared before the same lord king and his council at Westminster on the said day and the same bishop made a pressing request for the lord king to restore the advowson of the said hospital to him and allow him to control the same wardenship and confer it as his predecessors as bishop of Winchester used to confer the same wardenship and control it.

The said Robert says that he claims nothing in the advowson of the said hospital but he says that he is seised of the wardenship of the same hospital by a judgment of this court and by collation of the lady queen the mother of the lord king in the name of the same lord king as of his free tenement and requests that, whatever may happen in respect of the said advowson as between the lord king and the said bishop, nothing should prejudice him in respect of the free tenement of the wardenship of the same hospital.

Thereupon the said John, who sues on behalf of the lord king, says that the said bishop is not entitled to restitution of the advowson of the said hospital, for he says that, whereas the lord king had recovered seisin of the advowson of the said wardenship against the same bishop by judgment of his court and had ordered the said bishop to let Robert the almoner have such seisin in full and wholly of the same wardenship in the name of the same lord king as the same lord king had through the said Robert before he was ejected by the said bishop, one Roger of Moulton had sold, wasted and alienated goods and chattels belonging to the said hospital to the value of three hundred pounds and more in books, chalices, houses knocked down and timber sold, cups, cloths and utensils, oxen, cows and other animals since the time of the ejection of the said Robert and of which the same Robert is not yet in seisin and asks for judgment whether the same bishop ought to be admitted to seek restitution of the advowson before the lord king is fully seised of the same wardenship and Robert is seised of the said property alienated and withdrawn by the same bishop and the said Roger his clerk in accordance with the terms of the said judgment rendered for the same lord king. He also says that the said Roger and one Pain the treasurer the clerk of the said bishop from the time of the said judgment rendered for the same lord king had retained in their possession a writing between one Peter de Roches former bishop of Winchester, the predecessor of the said bishop, and the burgesses of Southampton on the control of the said hospital and the right to present to it and this writing now remains within the bishop and under his control, and through this the lord king could be more fully informed on his right to the said advowson etc. He requests that the said bishop restore the said chattels and also the said writing which have been alienated by himself and his people before he is admitted to request the restoration of the said advowson.

Because the said John says that the said chattels were alienated by the said Roger and not by the same bishop and the same Robert can have an action against the same Roger for restoration of those chattels and also the same Roger is sufficient to answer for them and to make satisfaction if he is convicted of this, nor is it in accordance with right that the said bishop be excluded from his claim in respect of the advowson of the said hospital by the actions of the said Roger, the said John, who is suing on behalf of the lord king, is told to answer over for the lord king if he thinks it expedient.

The same John says, as before, that the said writing by which the lord king ought to be informed of his right, has come into the hands and control of the same bishop through the said Roger and Pain his clerks, as was previously said; and he is ready to prove this in behalf of the same lord king as the court etc.

The bishop says and readily denies that neither the said writing nor anything else through which the lord king could be informed of his right to the said advowson has come to his hands or his control through the said clerks or anyone else nor are they in his possession. He puts himself on a jury on this. The said John who is suing on behalf of the king does likewise. The sheriff of Hampshire is therefore ordered to to produce before the lord king two weeks after Michaelmas wherever etc. twenty-four men etc., through whom etc. and who are not etc. to the said bishop etc., to give its verdict on the said matter. Because both etc.

Subsequently before the lord king two weeks after Hilary in the nineteenth year of the reign of the present king the jurors of the said inquisition appeared. The said John bishop of Winchester appears and also the said John of Hardley who is suing on behalf of the lord king appears. The same John of Hardley challenges all the jurors as suspect. The sheriff of Hampshire is therefore ordered to produce before the king three weeks after Easter, wherever etc., sixteen free and law-worthy men of the town of Southampton and in addition sixteen free and law-worthy men of the nearest areas to Southampton, of whom six are to be belted knights, through whom etc., and who are not in any way attached to the said bishop, to give their verdict on the said matter. Because both etc.

Subsequently the said inquisition was taken before Robert Malet and William de Bereford justices, as can be found among the records of Michaelmas term in the nineteenth and the beginning of the twentieth year of the reign of the present king on the dorse of a certain record, and whose tenor is as follows: 'Subsequently at Winchester before Robert Malet and William de Bereford on the Thursday before Mid-Lent in the twentieth year of the reign of king Edward [13 March 1292] the jurors chosen with the consent of the parties appeared. They says on their oath that no writing between Peter de Roches former bishop of Winchester, the predecessor of the current bishop John, and the burgesses of Southampton about the control of the hospital of Saint Julian outside Southampton came to the hands and control of the said bishop John through Roger of Moulton or Pain, the clerks of the said bishop, or by anyone else, nor was it alienated by anyone nor do they understand that any writing between the said parties was ever sealed or made. The parties are adjourned to hear their judgment before the king on the day contained in the writ etc., namely three weeks after Easter in the twentieth year.'

On which day the said bishop appears through his attorney and John of Hardley who sues on behalf of the king. It is adjudged that the said bishop go at present without day in respect of the said writing etc. With respect to the advowson of the said hospital he is to make suit to the lord king to show his right as seems seems best to him etc.

iii) For a further sequel recorded in King's Bench in Michaelmas term 1293 see KB 27/138, m. 19d

Hampshire . Petition sent from the council by Gilbert of Rothbury . John bishop of Winchester requests the lord king and his council, as he requested before, that the advowson of the hospital of Saint Julian outside the gate of Southampton be restored to him, of which advowson he has not yet obtained restitution because of a certain exception which John of Hardley who was suing on behalf of the lord king advances against him, namely that he was not entitled to restitution of the said advowson because of a writing by which the lord king could be instructed of his right in respect of the advowson of the same hospital which was removed by the clerks of the said bishop and through the same clerks came to the hands of the same bishop, as the said John of Hardley on a previous occasion alleged against the same bishop before the king's council, but the bishop and his clerks have fully acquitted themselves of the removal of this writing by a good inquisition as the king's court adjudged them and went quit, so the said bishop requests the lord king that the restitution of the said hospital to him be not put off but that he may have the restitution of the same and do and and dispose of it as his predecessors did in past times.

Subsequently at the request of the said bishop he was adjourned to the octaves of the Purification of the Blessed Virgin Mary wherever etc. On which day the said bishop appeared and he was adjourned to five weeks after Easter wherever etc. The same day was given to Richard de Bretteville who is suing on behalf of the king etc. Subsequently on that day the said bishop appears through his attorney and he is adjourned to two weeks after Michaelmas wherever etc. The same day was given to Richard de Bretteville who is suing on behalf of the king etc. On which day the parties appeared and they were adjourned to two weeks after Hilary in the twenty-third year of the reign of the present king etc.

54

For the record of proceedings at the Michaelmas parliament see item 67.

55

i) For the record of Walter's conviction at the 1288 Dorset eyre see JUST 1/213, m. 29d

ii) For Walter's petition against his conviction see C 49/2, no. 16

These are the reasons why the men of Purbeck and the others by the procurement of sir John Mautravers, sir Ralf de Gorges and sir Robert fitzPayn falsely indicted Walter of Barton in the eyre of Dorset for all the offences they were able and knew how to in order to see how they could put him to shame.

This is one reason: that one John of Derneford, the household servant of sir Robert fitzPain and the foremost of those who indicted him, had understood that this Walter was intending to sue a writ of mort d'ancestor against the said John in the aforesaid eyre for two hides of land at Langton in Purbeck for one Robert de Bois and his wife Margaret, the kinswoman of this same Walter, of which land one Richard de Gouiz the father of the said Margaret had died vested and seised in his demesne.

Another reason is this: that this same John of Derneford and several others of his affinity let the same John Mautravers, Robert and Ralf understand that the same Walter was intending to accused them of being malefactors in the warren of Corfe, taking the king's deer and elsewhere in parks and forests, so that they with all their power became his mortal enemies.

The third reason is: that one of the greatest master jurors of those who indicted him and of that group had learned that this Walter was intending to sue a writ against him on behalf of the king himself for the moiety of a manor in Dorset which is the king's right and of which moiety king Henry the father of the present king, whom God preserve, was seised as of his right and of which the said juror is now tenant and wrongfully, as those of the same area well know,and he still has this writ and the other writ intact in his possession because he was not able to sue them in the said eyre.

And concerning those things for which he was indicted in this eyre he prays that enquiry be made by all those of of the Bench and chancery among whom he was raised and has lived the whole of the last eight years and that is since he ever knew anything of the court and in accordance with what is found through those who have known him best he prays for law and grace, favour and remedy of the great anguish, hardship and want that he has suffered for so long without deserving it as God knows and which he can scarcely survive with his life.

Endorsement

The prayer of Walter of Barton arrested and detained in the Tower

Before the king

[[The following text has been deleted:
let it be seen]] Because the king understands that he is convicted, nothing is to be done but an order for the record of John of Mettingham and his colleagues of the eyre of Dorset before whom etc.

56

[nothing found]

57

For the record of the judgment leading to the seizure of the abbot's lands given in King's Bench in Trinity term 1290 see KB 27/124, m. 16d

Worcestershire, Middlesex, Oxfordshire . William of Huntingdon, a monk of Westminster, previously appeared before the lord king with the letters patent of the abbot of Westminster, namely one month after Easter in the eighteenth year of the reign of the present king, and requested John de Thorny and Walter de Thorny, clerks convicted at the king's suit through Richard Bustard who is suing on behalf of him for the death of Robert Bustard, as far as they could be convicted in the king's court, and who were delivered to him as to the ordinary etc. under the penalty etc. and he was told to assign the said Richard a day and place to prove the said felony against them and he assigned him a day, namely three weeks after Trinity, in the chapel of saint Margaret of Westminster to prove the felony against them, as appears in the roll of Trinity term in the seventeenth year of the reign of the present king; but because on that day it was attested before the king that the said John and Walter prior to the day assigned to the said Richard on behalf of the king by the said monk, through the favour of the abbot of Westminster, improperly made their purgation to the prejudice and contempt of the lord king, the said abbot was ordered to appear before the king on the Friday after St John the Baptist this year to answer the lord king for the said contempt and to produce there the said John and Walter his clerks to do whatever was to be done in this matter in accordance with the law and custom of the realm of England. The said abbot appeared on the said day before the king and requested an adjournment to the morrow, namely to the Saturday following, to imparl etc. On which day, although he was called often and formally and although he had received that day in court before the lord king, he did not care to appear. Judgment. The sheriffs of Worcestershire, Middlesex and Oxfordshire, in which counties his barony which he holds of the lord king is, are ordered to distrain him by all his lands and chattels which belong to his barony etc. so that etc. for the issues, and that they produce his body before the king at the octave of Michaelmas wherever etc. to answer the lord king for the said contempt and he is to produce his clerks there etc.

Subsequently it was decided by the whole council of the lord king that the said distraint was to be wholly released and the said sheriffs are therefore ordered to refrain from the distraints made for this reason etc. until they etc. other etc.

58

i) For the king's initial grant to Queen Eleanor of the custody during pleasure of the hundred of Normancross recently recovered against the abbot of Thorney by the judgment of the justices of the 1286 Huntingdonshire eyre made on 28 June 1290 see CPR 1281-92 , 369.

ii) For a summary of the related petition see Roll 2, item 92

59

i) For another version of this entry apparently from a different roll see SC 8/1, no. 4.

ii) The king's regrant to the earl of Gloucester of 3 November 1290 is calendared in CPR 1281-92 , 393, 451.

60

For a related note enrolled in King's Bench at Hilary term 1291 see KB 27/126, m. 12

Note that Gilbert of Rothbury brought four writs for distraining the executors of the will of John de Kirkby bishop of Ely to answer William Servat and his partners etc. before the king's auditors of complaints etc.

61

The record of the original proceedings heard in Easter term 1286 is to be found in KB 27/98, m. 3. This also includes in a postea a record of these subsequent proceedings in the Easter parliament of 1290

The King . Peter Baudrat of Poitou, who claims to be one of the heirs of Stephen de Baiouse, appeared before the lord king and requested that the lord king restore to him his share of the inheritance of the said Stephen de Baiouse. He says that the said Stephen had two daughters, namely one Maud the elder and one Joan the younger, the mother of the same Peter, and whose heir he is. He says that the lord king ought to hand over to him a moiety of the said inheritance because the lord king Henry, the father of the present lord king, after the death of the said Stephen had in his wardship all the lands and tenements of which the said Stephen had died seised, because the said Stephen held of the lord king in chief by barony; the lord king also had wardship of the said daughters, Maud and Joan, because they were then under age and he gave the wardship of the said daughters and heiresses to one Elyas de Rabayn, who married the said Maud and through the said gift of the said lord king Henry retained all the said inheritance with no share of the said inheritance having been handed over to the said Joan. Since the said Joan his mother was out of her inheritance through the action of the said lord king Henry, the present lord king ought to emend that action and hand over to him a share of the said inheritance.

The said Maud who holds the said inheritance appears before the lord king. When asked if she knows any reason why the said heir is not entitled to his share of the inheritance as the other heir of the said Stephen by reason of, and in right of, the said Joan, the daughter and other heir of the said Stephen and mother of the same Peter, whose heir he is, and who is now dead, she knows nothing to say or to show that the said Peter ought to be excluded from the said inheritance.

Because it is found by the rolls of chancery that the said lord king Henry in the thirty-fourth year granted the said Elyas de Rabayn the wardship of the lands and heirs of Stephen de Baiouse to have and hold to the lawful age of the said heirs, it is adjudged that the said Peter as one of the heirs of the said Stephen is to have his share of the said inheritance, namely that of which the said Elyas and his wife Maud were in seisin on the day on which Elyas died. The sheriffs of the counties are therefore ordered.

Subsequently the said Peter appeared and acknowledged that he he had remitted and quitclaimed to the lord king whatever he had in the purparty of the said inheritance etc.

Subsequently before the same lord king and his council in his full parliament after Easter in the eighteenth year of his reign one Peter Malore appeared, who is suing on behalf of the said Maud once the wife of the said Elyas de Rabayn and whom Peter has married and also for the children of the said Elyas, and asked in the name of the same Maud that the lord king would look at the said record and, after he has taken counsel, will order any errors and defects to be emended. For he says that there is a manifest error in the said record in that the said Maud was led to answer without a writ of the lord king for her inheritance and her free tenement, although Maud challenged this, and also that, whereas the same Maud similarly challenged that she was not obliged to answer the said Peter Baudrat for her inheritance because he was excluded from claiming any tenements in this kingdom as he was an alien and born in foreign parts. He asks that the said record be emended in respect of this and the judgment given on that record be revoked by reason of the said challenges then alleged by the same Maud. Because, when the said record had been seen and understood, nothing was found of the said arguments or challenges which the said Peter says the said Maud alleged at that time and also because the said Maud at that time did not deny that Peter Baudrat was her parcener in the said inheritance and also because the lord king Henry, the father of the present lord king, granted the wardship and marriage of the said Maud and Joan, the daughters and heiresses of the said Stephen, to the said Elyas de Rabayn, whose seisin in this respect was the seisin of the lord king by reason of his said grant, and this Elyas subsequently married the said Maud and had the said Joan married in foreign parts and appropriated the purparty of the same Joan to the same Elyas and his wife Maud to the disinheritance of the same Joan, and also because, whatever Elyas did in respect of the marriage of the said Joan, he did by reason of the said gift of the lord king made to him and it is not in accordance with right that anyone be disinherited by reason of a gift of the lord king, it is adjudged that the record and judgment are to remain in force, but on condition that it not be treated as a custom in respect of other aliens and so that the said Peter is to recover and have a complete moiety of all the lands and tenements with appurtenances, with knight's fees, advowsons of church and all other appurtenances of which the said Stephen his ancestor died seised in demesne as of fee, to whosoever's hands those lands or tenements with appurtenances have come, notwithstanding the said judgment contained in the said record by which it was adjudged that the same Peter was to recover a moiety of the lands and tenements of which the said Elyas de Rabayn died seised, although the same Peter had requested the delivery to him of the purparty belonging to him of the inheritance of the said Stephen and not of the inheritance of the said Elyas and which inheritance has not yet been divided, as it ought to have been. Because the same Peter has surrendered, remitted and quitclaimed the whole purparty of the said inheritance to which he is entitled with all its appurtenances full and wholly to the lord king on behalf of himself and his heirs in perpetuity, as has been found by the said record, it is adjudged that the same moiety is to remain in perpetuity wholly and in all things to the same lord king and his heirs and the other moiety is to remain to the said Maud and her heirs in perpetuity, so that all the lands and tenements of the said inheritance of which the said Elyas de Rabayn and the said Maud enfeoffed certain sons of the same Elyas or any one else are to be assigned to the purparty and moiety of the said Maud and the same Maud is to sue the feoffees, as seems best to her, and also because the said lands and tenements of which the said Stephen died seised have not been properly surveyed the sheriffs of Lincolnshire, Northamptonshire and Dorset, in whose counties the lands and tenements are, are ordered to re-survey all those lands and tenements with all their appurtenances, knight's fees and advowsons of churches, so that they inform the king of the results two weeks after Michaelmas wherever etc. through the letters of the same sheriffs sealed with their seals and the seals of those through whom etc. The said Peter Malore is told to sue in the same way for the said Maud and the others, as seems best to him etc.

ii) For related entries see Roll 2, items 216-7

62-66

[nothing found]

67

i) For earlier related proceedings see item 54

ii) For a second enrolment of these proceedings in King's Bench in Michaelmas term 1290 with an additional postea see KB 27/125, m. 54d

Hampshire. John of Hardley, who is suing on behalf of the lord king, on a previous occasion showed the lord king that the current bishop of Winchester after the crossing of the present lord king to Gascony had usurped from the same lord king the advowson of the hospital of Saint Mary Magdalen outside Southampton, appropriating the same advowson to himself and his church of Winchester, to the manifest disinheritance of the lord king. He says that, whereas one William de Beauvais had gained the wardenship of the said hospital by the gift of the lord king and had been peacefully in full possession of the same, the same bishop now four years ago, while the lord king was in Gascony, had removed the said William from the said wardenship and conferred the same wardenship on one Robert de Puttet, who now holds it, to the manifest disinheritance of the lord king etc.

The bishop appears through his attorney. In respect of the wardenship of the said hospital he says that he claims nothing in its wardenship nor in its advowson but he surrenders, remits and quitclaims it to the lord king for himself and his successors and his church of Winchester to the lord king and his heirs in perpetuity, reserving to himself and his successors and to his said church the jurisdiction in the same which belongs to them by the authority of the ordinary. It is therefore adjudged that the said advowson is to remain to the lord king and his heirs quit of the said bishop and his successors and his church of Winchester in perpetuity, saving to himself and his successors and his church the said jurisdiction etc. The sheriff of Hampshire is ordered to take the wardenship of the said hospital into the hand of the lord king with its appurtenances and safely to keep it, so that he answer for its issues to the lord king until he has another order from the lord king etc.

In respect of the removal of the said William he denies outright that he ever removed the same William from the said wardenship whether on his own authority or by way of appropriating the said wardenship to himself and his church of Winchester nor did he confer the wardenship of the said hospital on the said Robert to the disinheritance of the lord king, as is alleged against him. He puts himself on the jury on this and John does likewise. The sheriff is therefore ordered to produce before the lord king two weeks after Hilary wherever etc. twenty-four men etc., who are not etc., to give their verdict in the said matter. Because both etc.

Subsequently this record was returned before the justices here keeping the place of the lord king at the octaves of Martinmas by the hands of Gilbert of Rothbury to be determined. On which day the said Robert appears and says that he was appointed warden of the said hospital by the community of the town of Southampton and not by the lord king nor by the said bishop. He says that he was ejected from the said wardenship by the sheriff without the same Robert or the community ever having been called into the king's court, and so he asks that the wardenship of the said hospital be restored to him. Since the said matter in part touches the men of the said borough the sheriff is ordered to inform the mayor and bailiffs of the said borough to appear before the king two weeks after Easter wherever etc., which day the king has fixed for Robert to show if he has anything in his favour to show why the wardenship of the said hospital ought not belong to the king. In the meantime he is to deliver the wardenship of the said hospital to the said Robert to hold in the name of the king.

iii) For later proceedings in the same case in Hilary term 1291 see KB 27/126, m. 15

Hampshire . To the bishop of Winchester. Pleas before the king and his council and subsequently sent to Gilbert of Thornton and his colleagues.

John of Hardley, who is suing on behalf of the lord king, says that the current bishop of Winchester since the crossing of the present lord king to Gascony had usurped from the same lord king the advowson of the hospital of Saint Mary Magdalen outside Southampton, appropriating the same advowson to himself and his church of Winchester, to the manifest disinheritance of the lord king. He says that whereas one William de Beauvais had gained the wardenship of the said hospital by the gift of the lord king and had been peacefully in full possession of the same, the same bishop now four years ago, while the lord king was in Gascony, had removed the said William from the said wardenship and conferred the same wardenship on one Robert de Puttet, who now holds it, to the manifest disinheritance of the lord king etc.

The bishop appears through his attorney. In respect of the wardenship of the said hospital he says that he claims nothing in its wardenship nor in its advowson. but he surrenders, remits and quitclaims it to the lord king for himself and his successors and his church of Winchester to the lord king and his heirs in perpetuity, reserving to himself and his successors and to his said church the jurisdiction in the same which belongs to them by the authority of the ordinary. It is therefore adjudged that the said advowson is to remain to the lord king and his heirs quit of the said bishop and his successors and his church of Winchester in perpetuity, saving to himself and his successors and his church the said jurisdiction etc. The sheriff of Hampshire is ordered to take the wardenship of the said hospital into the hand of the lord king with its appurtenances and safely to keep it, so that he answer for its issues to the lord king until he has another order from the lord king etc.

In respect of the removal of the said William he denies outright that he ever removed the same William from the said wardenship, whether on his own authority or by way of appropriating the said wardenship to himself and his church of Winchester, nor did he confer the wardenship of the said hospital on the said Robert to the disinheritance of the lord king, as is alleged against him. He puts himself on the jury on this and John does likewise. The sheriff is therefore ordered to produce before the lord king two weeks after Hilary wherever etc. twenty-four men etc., who are not etc., to give their verdict in the said matter. Because both etc.

Subsequently two weeks after Hilary in the nineteenth year of of the reign of the present king the said bishop appeared and also the said John, who is suing on behalf of the king, and the said William de Beauvais with the venerable father Robert bishop of Bath and Wells sitting in and the jurors of the said inquisition appeared. The said John challenged all the jurors as suspect. The said William de Beauvais is asked if he has anything from the lord king by which the court can be informed that he was appointed warden of the said hospital and he says that he has a protection of the lord king but nothing else. Asked if he was ever in seisin as warden of the said hospital he says that he was for four years. Because neither the said John nor the said William is able to show that the lord king gave the wardenship of the said hospital to the said William, as was shown to the lord king, and also because the said bishop has renounced all his right to the said hospital and surrendered to the lord king and his heirs in perpetuity anything he might have had, as appears above in the record, saving to himself and his successors the jurisdiction of the ordinary, it is adjudged that the bishop is to go without day in respect of the ejection etc. Because the said John of Hardley above in his count said that William de Beauvais had been in peaceful possession of the said wardenship by the gift and collation of the lord king until the said bishop had ejected him from it and the same William, questioned on this, expressly says that he was never ejected from it nor did he propose to sue for any ejection against the same bishop other than at the procurement and suggestion of the said John, it is adjudged that the said John is to be kept in custody until he should find surety to appear before the lord king both to inform the same lord king of his right and to answer for the said suit against the same bishop made on his own authority etc.

[on schedule] Because John of Hardley above in his count says that the said William de Beauvais was in peaceful possession of the said wardship by the gift and collation of the lord king until the said bishop had ejected him from it and the same William., when questioned on this, expressly says that he was never ejected by the same bishop nor did he ever propose to sue against the same bishop except at the procurement and suggestion of the said John it is adjudged that the said John is to be kept in custody till he should find surety to appear before the lord king both to inform the same lord king of his right and to answer for the said suit against the same bishop made on his own authority etc. The said William de Beauvais is to answer the lord king for the issues of the said hospital for the four years for which he was the warden of the same hospital and does not show the warrant of the lord king for obtaining the said wardenship etc. The sheriff is therefore ordered tto produce him before the king five weeks after Easter wherever etc.

iv) for the eventual jury verdict in the case see JUST 1/1297 m. 9

Subsequently at Winchester before Robert Malet and William of Bereford on the Thursday before Mid-Lent in the twentieth year of the reign of the present king [13 March 1292] the jurors chosen with the consent of the parties appeared. They say on their oath that the burgesses of Southampton from the time of the foundation of the said hospital have always hitherto appointed the warden of the same hospital and that the said community and the burgesses of the said town, the predecessors of the current burgesses, had founded the said hospital from their alms. And that neither the said current bishop nor his predecessors nor the present king nor his predecessors have ever appointed any warden or meddled in any respect, but that the same burgesses are entitled to present a warden of their choice to the local diocesan etc. It is therefore adjudged that the said burgesses and Robert are to go without a day at present, saving the right of the lord king and his heirs when they wish to claim. The sheriff is ordered to allow the said Robert to retain seisin of the said hospital and that the same sheriff is to answer the said Robert for all the issues which he received from the said hospital from the time he received the said hospital into the hand of the lord king etc.

The said inquisition can be found on the dorse of a certain record that is in the bundle of Easter term of the twentieth year of the reign of the present king.

68

On 2 March 1291 the manor was restored to Margery on certain unspecified conditions: CCR 1288-96, 163. Those conditions are spelled out in E 368/62, m. 11. By Michaelmas 1292 the manor was back in the earl's possession: E 159/66, m. 64.

69

i) The charter of Henry III to William de Valence of 12 March 1249 is calendared in CChR 1226-57 ,339

ii) For a related entry see item 52, above

70

[nothing found]

71

i) The original proceedings in the 1285 Northamptonshire eyre are recorded on JUST 1/622, m. 43d

ii) In Hilary term 1291 the whole of the prior proceedings in this case were again enrolled on the Common Bench plea roll with a note recapitulating this decision at the Ashridge parliament and giving the terms of the enquiry that was now to be made: CP 40/87, m. 106d. For further proceedings in the case at Easter term 1292 see CP 40/93, m. 88d.