Court Rolls of the Manor of Ingoldmells in the County of Lincoln/Introduction

by William Oswald Massingberd

Layout 2

INTRODUCTION

History of the Manor

I Begin my short account of the manor of Ingoldmells, or, as it is now called, Ingoldmells-cum-Addlethorpe, by trans­cribing two entries from Domesday Book, which I translate.

‘Land of Robert Le Despenser [Robertus Dispensator].

‘Manor. In Herdertorp Wiuelac had 3 carucates of land for geld. There is land for 3 ploughs. There Robert has 3 ploughs in demesne, and 32 sokemen with a moiety of this land and 12 villeins with six ploughs. There are there two churches, and 400 acres of meadow. In King Edward’s time it was Worth 8l., now it is worth 10l. There is soke in Guldelsmere.

‘Soke. In Partenai, and Stepinge, and Tric, and Burg there were 2½ carucates of land for geld. There is land for as many Ploughs. There 5 sokemen and 2 villeins have half a plough, and 30 acres of meadow.’

I suggest that ‘Herdertorp’ is the same place as ‘Ardu­luetorp,’ later ‘Ardelthorp,’ i.e. Addlethorpe. We find ‘Hardel­thorp’ for Addlethorpe in 1205, and again in the 15th century. I suggest further that Ingoldmells and Addlethorpe are described under this name of ‘Herdertorp,’ or ‘Herdetorp,’ in Domesday Book, and that the manor of Ingoldmells-cum-Addlethorpe with its soke is described in the above entries. Mr. Eyton in his Lincolnshire Collections tells^[1] us that he has no doubt that Guldelsmere may be safely identified with Ingold­mells, and eventually he came to the conclusion that Robert Le Despenser’s manor of Ingoldmells is, as a manor, described under the name of Herdertorp.

A comparison of the Domesday description of the soke with the following entry in Testa de Nevill leaves no doubt in my mind of the identification of Guldelsmere with Ingoldmells.

P. 334, Wapentake of Candleshoe:

‘Lady Matilda de Lacy holds in Ingoldemoles, and in Schekenesse, and in Steping, and in Burg, and in Partenay 3 carucates less half a bovate.’ Here, three places (Steeping, Burgh and Partney) are certainly the same as in D.B., so that it seems fair to conclude that Tric is the same as Skeg­ness and Guldelsmere as Ingoldmells, and this conclusion is much strengthened by a charter I am able to produce, which accounts for the possession of the manor by the Lacy family.

Duchy of Lancaster, Royal Charters, No. 1:

‘William king of England to Robert bishop of Lincoln, Os[bert] sheriff of Lincoln, and his barons and faithful men, French and English, greeting. Know ye that I grant the exchange which Ur[so] Abet[ot] and Robert de Laceio made of Ingolnesmera and of Witchona. Witnesses: Robert bishop of Lincoln, and R. fitz Hamon, at Brigstock.’

Robert Bloet became bishop of Lincoln in 1093, William Rufus died in 1100, so we may date the charter between those years. And we find that Urso de Abitot, the hereditary sheriff of Worcestershire, had become possessed of the manor of In­goldmells before that date, and had exchanged it with Robert de Lacy. Now we know that Urso was brother to Robert Le Despenser, and his possession of the manor of Ingoldmells can be accounted for, if we conclude that he was his brother's heir. The Marmions succeeded to the rest of Robert Le Despenser's lands in Lincolnshire, and this charter shows why they did not succeed also to his lands in Candleshoe Wapentake.

Robert Le Despenser has been supposed to be the same person as Robert Marmion, the father of Roger Marmion of the Lindsey Survey, but the fact that the Beauchamps obtained the larger share of Robert Le Despenser’s^[2] possessions in Leicestershire and Worcestershire points rather, as Mr, Round suggests, to descent on the part of both the Beauchamps and Marmions through his brother Urso.

When the Lindsey Survey was taken c. 1115 the Lacy lands, having been forfeited, were in the hands of Hugh de la Val [de Vallo], who held 4 carucates and 6 bovates in the wapentake of Candleshoe. As Roger Marmion, the successor of Robert Le Despenser at Scrivelsby and other places, held nothing in this wapentake, we have here a confirmation of the views set forth.

To Hugh de la Val succeeded Guy, his son and heir, who, or another Guy, gave^[3] to the priory of Spalding the church of Addlethorpe. A Guy de la Val also presented^[4] to the church of Skegness. It seems that on the death of Hugh de la Val the Honor of Pontefract was^[5] divided, and so in 1166 we find Guy de la Val holding^[6] 20 out of the 60 fees of the Honor. In 1205 Roger de Lacy obtained the whole of the land in England which had been Guy’s.^[7]

This Roger de Lacy was son and heir of John fitz Eustace, Constable of Chester, and grandson of Richard fitz Eustace and of Albreda de Lisours his wife. Albreda’s mother was Albreda de Lacy, daughter of Robert, who obtained the manor of Ingoldmells by exchange, and sister of Ilbert de Lacy, who died without issue, and of Henry de Lacy, whose son Robert died without issue in 1194.^[8] By an agreement in 1194^[9] between Albreda de Lisours and Roger, constable of Chester, her grand­son, Roger obtained the lands which had been Robert de Lacy's, while Albreda retained the lands of Robert de Lisours, her father, for life, with remainder to William, her son by her second husband, the ancestor of the Fitzwilliams of Sprotborough.

It was Roger’s widow that held the Ingoldmells property c. 1212.^[10] His son and heir, John de Lacy, was among the north-country barons^[11] who won the Great Charter from King John. He married Margaret, daughter and heir of Robert de Quincy, by Hawise his wife, fourth sister and coheir of Ranulph Blundeville, earl of Chester and Lincoln, and was created earl of Lincoln 23 November, 1232, with remainder to the heirs of his body by Margaret his wife. John de Lacy died in 1240, and his widow married as her second husband, about 6 January, 1243, Walter Marshall,^[12] 5th earl of Pembroke, who held the Ingoldmells property in her right.

Testa de Nevill, p. 329:

‘Walter Marescall holds the vill of Ingoldemol, Partenay, Burg, Steping, Skeggnes of the king in chief, of the honor of Purnfrey.’

Edmund de Lacy, son of John and Margaret, married Alesia daughter of the marquis of Saluzzo, but died in 1258^[13] before his mother. His son and heir, Henry de Lacy, earl of Lincoln, was lord of Ingoldmells when the earliest court rolls we have were written, and had been^[14] found to have free warren in Ingoldmells on his own lands and other people’s twenty years in 1276.

Henry de Lacy, ‘the closest counsellor of Edward I,’^[15] took an eminent part in the affairs of the kingdom during the earlier years of the reign of Edward II. He married Margaret, daughter and coheir of William de Longespee. Their son, Edmund, was drowned in a well in Denbigh Castle in the life­time of his father, and their daughter Alice became their heir. The earl in 1292 granted^[16] his honor of Pontefract, with the manors &c. belonging thereto, to the king, but eventually an entail was made, whereby after the death of Henry and Margaret his wife all their castles, manors &c., including Ingoldmells, were settled on Thomas Plantagenet, earl of Lan­caster, and Alice his wife, daughter of the earl of Lincoln, and the heirs of their bodies, with remainder to the heirs of Thomas.

Henry de Lacy died at his mansion house, called Lincoln’s Inn, 5 Feb. 1311, whereupon Thomas, earl of Lancaster, and Alice his wife became possessed of the manor of Ingoldmells. It is stated on the rolls^[17] that the earl of Lancaster held the manor for life only, and after his death in 16 Edward II we find Ebulo le Strange in possession of the manor in right of Alice his wife.

Alice, countess of Lincoln, died without issue in 1348, when under the above-mentioned entail Henry, earl of Derby and Lancaster, became her heir. It was found by an inquisition taken^[18] at Bolingbrok, 15 October A.D. 1348, that Alice held the manor of Ingoldmells, with appurtenances, to herself and Thomas earl of Lancaster, formerly her husband, and the heirs of their bodies, with remainder to the right heirs of Thomas, and that the said manor after the death of Alice belongs to Henry earl of Lancaster, kinsman and heir of the same Thomas formerly earl of Lancaster. It is said in another part of the inquisition that Thomas and Alice died without heirs of their bodies, and that Thomas’s brother Henry had a son Henry, who is his heir.

This Henry, earl of Derby and Lancaster, was created earl of Lincoln in 1349, and duke of Lancaster in 1351. He died in 1360, leaving two daughters his heirs, Matilda, who married twice but died without issue, and Blanche, who married John of Gaunt, fourth son of Edward III.

John of Gaunt is mentioned on the rolls as lord of the manor of Ingoldmells in 38 Edward III, and, as is well known, had by Blanche, his wife, an only son, afterwards King Henry IV. On John’s death in 1399, Henry of Bolingbroke, his son, obtained his great inheritance, and it became merged in the crown, so that 5 Nov. 1 Henry IV the court held at Ingold­mells is that of ‘Henry King of England.’

The manor of Ingoldmells continued to be crown property until ‘on or about the 9^th day of Sept. 4 Car. I,’ when the king^[19] sold it by letters patent under the great seal of England and duchy seal to Edward Ditchfield, citizen and salter of London, John Heighlord, citizen and skinner of London, Humphrey Clarke, citizen and dyer of London, and Francis Moss, citizen and scrivener of London, and to their heirs, trustees for the mayor, aldermen, and commoners of the City of London, who in pursuance of several acts of Common Council did grant and convey the said manor to John Stone, Nathaniel Manton, Methuselah Turnor, their heirs and assigns, who by their indenture, enrolled in the Court of Chancery 23 Feb. 1657, being authorised by divers acts of the Common Council made by the mayor, aldermen, and commoners of the City of London, sold the manor to Francis Purley of the Inner Temple, London, gent: he being trustee for Sir Drayner Massingberd, knt, to whom in performance of his trust he did grant and release it 26 April 1658.

Sir Drayner Massingberd’s^[20] great-grandson, Charles Burrell Massingberd esq^r, died without male issue in 1835, leaving an only daughter and heiress, Harriet, wife to Charles Godfrey Mundy esq^r, whose grandson, Charles Francis Massingberd Mundy esq^r, is now lord of the manor of Ingo1dmells-cum-Addlethorpe.

The jurisdiction of the manor extended over part of six parishes, but not over the whole of any of them. Its jurisdiction over the greater part of Ingoldmells and Addlethorpe will not be denied, though it is curious that Addlethorpe is seldom mentioned by name on the earlier court rolls. Until the reign of Queen Elizabeth, the manor is called the manor of Ingoldmells, and Addlethorpe church is called the West Church of Ingold­mells, or the church of S. Nicholas, while in the Bishops’ Institutions we read of the church of ‘Ardelthorp in Ingoldmels’ A.D. 1491, and of ‘Ardelthorp alias Westingolme1ls’ A.D. 1555. It is clear also that the jurisdiction of the manor extended over the greater part of Skegness. Courts were often held there, free and bond lands there held under the manor are frequently mentioned, the township of Skegness sometimes presented offences, as well as the township of Ingoldmells, and the banks and dikes of Skegness were under the jurisdiction of the court as well as the port and the seashore. I cannot find any mention of a separate manor of Skegness, except a small one^[21] belonging to the dean and chapter of Lincoln, though some land there was held of the manor of Croft.

The court rolls show that the jurisdiction of the manor extended over part of Burgh. The courts were sometimes held there, there were several freehold lands there, and the common of and some bond tenants holding Skalflete in Burgh was under the jurisdiction of the manor of Ingoldmells, and trespasses there were presented and amerced in the court.

The part of Great Steeping under the jurisdiction of the manor of Ingoldmells must have been small, but the only case of hanging mentioned on the rolls was that of two Steeping women for housebreaking at Steeping: and some freehold lands at Steeping are mentioned.

The small part of Partney under the urisdiction of the manor of Ingoldmells is never mentioned on the rolls, but I find^[22] that the lands there were in the possession of Lord John Bek at a rent of 32^d per annum, and that the earl of Lincoln granted this rent to him before A.D. 1295.

The Manorial Court.

It is with much diffidence that I venture to write anything on this difficult subject, and yet it seems well that I should point out a few facts, referring, however, my readers to such works as Professor Maitland’s Introduction to ‘Select Pleas in Manorial Courts,’ and Professor Vinogradoff’s ‘Villainage in England’ for more general information.

It may be asked, ‘who attended and formed the Court of Ingoldmells?’ I answer, the suitors—the tenants who owed suit. These were both freemen and villeins. The villeins were in the earliest times obliged to attend personally, and were not ‘essoined’ or excused.^[23] The freemen were at first the free­holders, who for the most part owed suit from three weeks to three weeks, though some may only have owed it twice a year and when specially summoned, but later there were freemen who held customary lands for which they owed suit. The free­men could be essoined, and frequently paid a small fine to be excused suit for a year, a practice which villeins were allowed to adopt also later. The list of fines for respite of suit of court 10 Henry V shows 80 tenants who paid, from which I infer that there were over 100 tenants of the manor, for there were 24 tenants on the two inquisitions, and others must have attended the court for various reasons. I am inclined to think that the free and bond tenants were about equal in number, but in con­sequence of the rule that no villeins were to be essoined the court, except on special occasions when all tenants were summoned, would be composed of more villeins than freemen. On the other hand the list of tenants sworn on the inquisition 4 Edw. III shows more freemen than villeins. A good way to get an idea of the business done in the manorial court will be to turn to the proceedings of three or four courts at different periods, and and see what went on. For example we might take^[24] a court temp. Edward I, another temp. Edward II, a third temp. Henry IV, and then lastly a fourth temp. Elizabeth.

It will be found that on the earlier rolls pleas of debt and agreement, conveyancing entries, and police cases, all appear together in such a manner as to lead to the inference that the later legal distinctions between the various courts were then disregarded in practice. And the villeins appear in the same court with the freemen, serve^[25] on the same juries, join in the same^[26] presentments, and form with the freemen the court which finds the judgments. And so the important question is—‘What were the powers of the court of Ingoldmells?’ The lord of Ingoldmells certainly had a view of frank pledge, and the right of gallows, he had the assize of bread, and of ale, he had rights of wreck and of taking royal fish^[27] at Ingoldmells and Skegness, he had rights of warren and of taking waifs and estrays, besides the ordinary jurisdiction over his free and bond tenants which belonged to every lord of a manor. And his tenants had certain immunities^[28] from paying toll, and being summoned to other courts.

As regards the business, at first the largest part of the rolls is taken up with pleas of debt and trespass, but as time goes on the conveyancing entries fill more and more space, and at the view of frank pledge held twice a year the presentments occupy considerable space also. These presentments were made at first by the townships, and sometimes Ingoldmells, Skegness and Burgh presented separately.

In 13 Edw. II^[29] 12 jurors presented, and so at times until the end of the reign of Edw. III, though still the townships sometimes presented. In the reign of Rich. II two juries appear to present at the views, one of freemen and the other of villeins, but in the other courts the elected presenters of the manor present. There could have been no serious difficulty here in finding sufficient freemen to present, and serve on the inquisitions, and in the fifteenth century the second jury presented certain offences and the first jury affirmed that what they said was true, but I cannot show that the system of double presentment, whereby one jury presents that a man is suspected of an offence and another jury says whether he is guilty or no, went on at Ingoldmells.

The presenters present those who are guilty of any offence or misdemeanour, who transgress the customs and regulations of the manor, who entertain strangers contrary to the earl’s peace, who carry off wreck, who break the assizes of bread and ale, who obstruct a drain, injure the highway, or trespass in the warren, and the offender is amerced, or otherwise punished according to the nature of his offence. They also present that a free tenant owes fealty or other services, and that a villain is dead, and his heirs owe a fine for entry, or that he has acquired free land and owes a new rent, or that he has left the manor without licence, or that his daughter has been guilty of immorality. It is not told us who imposes the penalty in these cases, but such an entry as that in 9 Edw. II,^[30] which tells of a fine for merchet, ‘if the steward will accept this,’ does not favour the view that penalties were imposed at the will of the steward, for there could not be any doubt about his acceptance of a fine he had imposed himself.

The proceedings^[31] in the cases of felony recorded on these rolls show the prosecutors ‘appealing’ the felons, who had the right to choose between trial by the court or before the king’s judges. If they put themselves on the court it is the court that that finds them guilty, or not guilty, and, if found guilty, they may ‘therefore be hanged.’ But^[32] legislation during Edw. III’s reign provided that justices of the peace should hear and determine all manner of felonies and we find no such cases tried in the court of Ingoldmells after that time. In civil cases the defendant might put himself upon ‘the country,’ or ‘wage his law.’ As a rule he put himself upon the country, whereupon the bailiff was ordered to summon an inquisition, which decided not only questions of fact but points of customary law, and lastly the court^[33] found the judgment. If the defendant elected to wage his law, he must do so with care and nicety, or he will ‘fail in his law.’ There i an interesting instance of successful waging of the law in 7 Henry V,^[34] when the prior of Bullington appeared with 12 compurgators in the court, composed as it was of freemen and villeins, and said that he owed nothing to the plaintiff, and was allowed to go away quit, and the plaintiff was in mercy for an unjust claim. Sometimes substantial debts were recovered, and the limit of 40^s evaded. In 7 Henry IV a plaintiff^[35] recovered 39^s in each of 5 pleas of debt, and 18^s 4^d in a 6^th plea, or 10^l 13^s 4.^d in all, besides damages. In 2 Henry VI 42^{s [36]} were recovered in a plea of debt, and in 19 Edw. III 105^s.^[37]

Several entries show the steward exercising considerable influence and control. The court was sometimes held^[38] before him, though even then the township presented what the custom of the manor was. We find cases postponed for the coming of the steward, and others presented for the common council. In 7 Edw. II a woman was^[39] put in the pillory by the consideration of the steward. Sometimes he condones a fine. Occasionally tenants complained to the lord for lack of justice, and the steward was directed to administer to the parties such justice that they have no reasonable cause to complain.^[40]

It is, of course, well known that the surrenders and admit­tances of customary tenants were recorded on manorial court rolls. On the earlier rolls such entries are comparatively few, the object of recording the proceedings of the courts not being to afford the villein written evidence of his title to the land he occupied, but to serve as a check on the manorial officers, and show what the amercements, fines, and profits of the manor were.^[41] As time goes on we find these entries increasing in number and importance, a tenant pays a small fine to be allowed to search the rolls for evidence of his title, later he calls the rolls to ‘warrant’ it, and temp. Edw. IV^[42] judges begin to give copyholders some protection in the king’s courts, and the con­veyancing entries come to take up half the roll, and eventu­ally in the seventeenth century hardly any other entries appear.

I must not omit to mention that the court of Ingoldmells was the court of a considerable fief. The lord might, perhaps, have summoned his Lincolnshire tenants to the court of his honor at Pontefract, but this would have been most inconvenient to them, and have caused much discontent, and so he summoned them to his principal manor in the county of Lincoln; even so they often made default, but eventually seem to have fallen into the custom of paying a fine for respite of their suit of court for a year, though in 2 Henry VI John Harpyswelle of Toft Newton actually served on the inquisition of freemen.

The officers of the manor besides the steward were:

The grave, or reeve, who was elected by the whole homage, i.e. by the villeins, and sworn to serve the lord faithfully. He had to render a strict account of the receipts from fines, amercements &c.

The graves of the sea dikes, or banks, at Ingoldmells and Skegness, whose duty^[43] it was to see that all defects were repaired, and to distrain those who did not repair the portion for which they were answerable, the township deciding what was necessary.

The bailiff, who summoned tenants to come to the courts, and to serve on the inquisitions, and levied distraints &c. To threaten or beat the bailiff, or make a rescue against him, was a serious offence.

The foreign bailiff, who summoned the foreign or outside tenants, and, I suppose, levied the distraints made upon them, but was not always willing to perform his office.^[44]

The constables, the wardens and tasters of ale, and the clerk of the courts. An ‘officer of the court’ is also mentioned, 1 Henry VI, as condoning certain damages. A grave of the meadows is mentioned on the earliest roll.

Some of the dues paid for ships may be explained by a lease,^[45] 11 July 1511, to Thomas Totoft of ‘the herbage of the meles in Skegnes, with the profits of the warren of rabbits there, and with the spreading of nets to dry upon the soil of the lord the king there, and the custom of ships called Leyre, that is to say for a ship laden with herrings, 100 herrings or the price, for every strange ship carrying its nets upon the soil of the lord the king there to dry as often as it shall ground fourpence for custom.’

The Freeholder

There were, in 1086, 37 sokemen at Ingoldmells, including the soke, as compared with 14 villeins. In later times the numbers of both increased. We may divide the free tenants into two classes: (1) those who held lands in Ingoldmells or the soke; (2) those who held lands outside, but owed suit at the court.

I. The lords of the manor of South Hiltoft held an independent manor, but still were not included amongst the ‘foreign’ tenants, as S. Hiltoft was in Ingoldmells. On the earliest roll appears the name of Sir Thomas de Burnham, knight, who held this manor probably in right of Philippa his wife, who seems to have been the same person as Philippa de Hiltoft who presented to the church of Ingoldmells in 1273. Robert de Hiltoft had presented to this church in 1227, and Sir William de Hiltoft presented in 1324, whose daughter and heiress Alice married Sir William de Skipwith, and thus the Skipwiths^[46] acquired the manor of Hiltoft. From the Skip­withs it passed to the Balletts, and in 38 Elizabeth ‘John Ballett died seised of the manor of South Hiltoft freely held of this manor by the rent of 39^s 8^d yearly, and common suit of court, and Nicholas Ballett is his kinsman and next heir.’^[47]

The Gipthorps certainly held lands of the lord of Ingoldmells in Skegness, and probably also in Ingoldmells. Sir Peter de Gipthorp, knight, died seised^[48] in 1334 of the manor of Wolmersty in Wrangle, Alexander being his son and heir. In 1369 Robert, son of Peter de Gipthorp, chivaler, secured by a fine^[49] lands in Burgh, Ingoldmells and Winthorpe, after his death to Peter, son of Alexander de Gipthorp, knight, and Agnes his wife, and the heirs male of their bodies. But before this in 1346^[50] William, son of Sir Alexander de Gipthorp, had succeeded to lands in Skegness, which had belonged to Simon de Thorp, whose daughter he had married. To one branch of the Gipthorps William Manby esq^r succeeded as tenant before 9 Elizabeth, having married Alice, daughter and coheir of Thomas Gipthorp. It seems probable that Alice was sister to William son of Thomas Gipthorp, who died^[51] in 1506, leaving a son William, who seems to have died without issue. Sir John Babington, who was tenant in 1499, and Lord Sheffield, who was tenant in 1567, held lands which had been William Gipthorp's.^[52]

The Lords de Willoughby succeeded to the Bek lands in Partney, and also to some lands in Great Steeping, which had long been held by a family of the name of Steping. But part of the lands which had been Robert de Steping’s were acquired^[53] by John son of Simon son of Petronilla de Halton, to whom succeeded Sir John de Cokrington, chivaler. In 1473 the Lord de Kyme was in possession of lands which had been Gilbert de Cokeryngton’s, and later we find the names of Robert Umframvile and Robert Tailboys, knights, amongst the tenants. A family of the name of Kelsey also held lands in Great Steeping, who were succeeded^[54] in the fifteenth century by Thomas Ruston. In 1506–7 John More^[55] sold the manor of Kelsey and lands in Great Steeping to Sir John Hussey, knight. Edward Wythypoll died in 1582^[56] seised of the manor of Kelsey Hall, Paul, son of Paul, his eldest son, being his heir. Mr. Maddison of Partney now owns this manor, which was bought by Sir Ralph Maddison of Sir Francis Williamson.

The following freeholders were summoned to serve on two inquisitions in 1330: William de Waycroft, Robert de West­mels, Robert de Steping, William son of Richard de Hilletoft, William Cadihorn, Robert de Caleflete, and William Marays. Here we have the names of families which held free lands under the manor of Ingoldmells, and, frequently appearing in the courts, must have materially influenced the proceedings.

The absence of any survey of the manor makes it difficult to define the social position of the different freeholders. But I have no doubt that there were several small proprietors whose condition was very little superior to that of some of the villeins. I will name only one family as typical of the rest, that of Akewra John de Akewra paid relief in 13 Edw. II for tenements in Ingoldmells which had been his father's. In 24 Edw. III John son of Simon de Akewra, a freeman, married a woman who had to pay merchet.^[57] In 25 Edw. III John son of Robert de Akewra of Ingoldmells gave 6^d yearly to be in the protection of the lord like a bond tenant.^[58]

II. I now come to the 'foreign' tenants, several of whom held lands at a considerable distance from Ingoldmells, and were lords of manors themselves.

In 1086^[59] Ilbert de Lacy held only two manors in Lincoln­shire in chief, but he also held lands of considerable extent under the Bishop of Baieux, which were held^[60] in chief c. 1115. Although I cannot give exact dates I can trace an outline of the process of subinfeudation, whereby before the end of the twelfth century more than ten knights' fees were parcelled out. Circa 1115 Hugh de la Val, who held the lands which had been Ilbert de Lacy’s, and Robert’s, his son, held more than 35 carucates of land in Lindsey. Some of these lands had already been sublet. William son of Haco held of him 1 c. 4 b. in Clee and Thrunscoe [Cle and Tirnesco], Richard son of Losward 6 b. in Toft Newton [Newetuna], and Richard, son of Osbert the sheriff, 1 c. in Elsham [Helesham], while he himself sublet^[61] to Costa de Widcala 3 c. 7½ b. in Withcall [Widcala]. And William de Freston held in Cockerington 3 c. ⅔ b. of the same Hugh. In 1166 Jordan Foliot^[62] held 3 fees of Guy de la Val, probably in Firsby near Lincoln and Hackthorn, and Richard de Dunham held also of the same Guy, probably the 3^rd part of 1 fee in Dunholme. The 4^th part of 1 fee in Cleatham had been sublet before the death of Roger de Lacy, having been held^[63] of him by Richard de Prestun, as also had been the 4^th part of 1 fee in Northorpe, which was held of him by Ralph Bardolf.

I will now give a few short notes concerning the tenants of the fees.

Clee and Itterby, ½ fee. Thomas^[64] son of William de Saleby succeeded William son of Haco, and his daughter and heir married, first, Norman de Camera, and, secondly, Brian de Insula. William de Hardredeshull held^[65] this half fee c. 1243­. The name of his grandson, another William, appears on the earliest court roll. The manor of Clee and Itterby, held of the Duchy of Lancaster by the serve of half a knight's fee, formerly of William de Hardredhull, and later of Brian Curteys, was purchased before 1575 by Robert Halton esq^r of Thomas son and heir of Anthony Curteys.^[66]

Withcall, 1⅔ fees. Costa or Costentinus de Withcale was Succeeded by his son Ranulph, who had 3 sons, William, Henry and Simon.^[67] Henry son of William held^[68] these fees c. 1243. The Lords de Cantilupe are the earliest tenants of these fees mentioned on the court rolls. To them succeeded the Lords de la Zouch, of whom Eudo had^[69] married Milicent, daughter of William, and sister and coheir of George de Cantilupe. In 1376 Ralph de Daubenay is mentioned as tenant. I suppose he and others held lands in Withcall which were of the Cantilupe fee, for in 1428^[70] the Lord de la Souch, Patrick Skypwith, John Legburn, clerk, William Daubenay and the abbot of Kirkstead held severally 1 fee in Withkall, formerly John Daubenay’s, of the fee of Cantilupe. In 1575^[71] two manors at Withcall, formerly of William de Cantilupe and Ralph de Newton, late belonging to the College of Tattershall, and now to Henry Sidney, knight, were held of the Duchy of Lancaster.

Ashby cum Fenby, Hole, Itterby and Brigsley, 1 fee.

A.D. 1210–12 John de Lasceles^[72] held 1 fee in Askeby, Brigelega, Wathe, Ravendale, Ellesham, Iterby, Hol, of the Honor of Lascy. In 1301 Philip Fraunke, son and heir of Dominus William Fraunke, was distrained for the relief of one knight's fee. The will of William Fraunk, knight,^[73] was proved 5 Jan. 1346, and mentions Alan his son. In 1427–8 William Fraunk, chivaler,^[74] held half a fee in Briggele and Wathe, and half a fee in Clee and Utterby, which had been Alan Fraunk's. In 1493 Lady Elizabeth Tunstall, widow, daughter and heir of Sir William Fraunk, knight, and Thomas Tunstall, her son and heir,^[75] manumitted by deed Robert Abbot of Itterby in the parish of Clee. Thomas Tunstall died^[76] 7 May 1493, and his sister and heir, Elenor or Ellen, married John Ascough. In 1547 Richard Ascough, gent., and others were plaintifis, and John Ascough, esq^r, and others deforciants of the manor of Ashby cum Fenby.^[77] Later, Sir Christopher Wray, knight, Chief Justice of England, was^[78] seised of the manor of Ashby and lands in Ashby and Fenby, to the use of himself and Anne his wife for life, remainder to William Wray and Lucy his wife and the heirs of their bodies.

Firsby, Ingham, Hackthorn and Saxby, 2½ fees.

Jordan Foliot gave to the Templars the church of Firsby before 1185. Jordan Foliot held^[79] of the Honor of Lascy 3 knights’ fees in Friseby, Aketone, Streton and Yngeham, A.D. 1210–12. Roger de Lacy, who died in 1211, held^[80] 1 fee in Friseby and Haketorn of the king in chief, Jordan Foliot held it of him. Robert de Tateshale held 1 fee of the king, Jordan Foliot held it of him. In 1236 Jordan Foliot^[81] acknow­ledged the advowson of the church of Saxeby to be the right of the prior of S. Katherine and his church, as that which he has of the gift of William Foliot, uncle of the said Jordan. Richard son of Jordan Foliot gave^[82] to Barlinges land in Risom, and in 1251 Richard quitclaimed to the abbot the manor of Risom. In 1275^[83] Richard Foliot had warren in Friseby. In 13 Edw. II Robert Foliot had^[84] not done homage. In 41 Edw. III Michael de la Pole had the tenements of Robert Foliot. In 1401–2 Willian Tynton had^[85] the 2½ fees, formerly Michael de la Pole’s.

Elsham and Ravendale, 1 fee. In 1166^[86] Simon de Lacelles held 2 fees of Guy de la Val. Wil1iam de Lascelles held in Elsham^[87] the third part of one fee of the Constable of Chester, c. 1243. In 1401–2 the abbot of Thornton^[85] held 1 fee in Elsham and Ravendale.

Cockerington, 2 fees. Hugh de la Val^[88] held 3 c. in Cocrington of the king and two parts of 1 b., in Alvingham 3½ b., in Somercotes 1½ b., and in Salfleteby 3 b., and William de Freston held them of Hugh by the service of 2 knights, and the heirs of the said William still hold. A William de Fristona is mentioned in the Pontefract Chartulary, his father was Robert son of Gerbodo, his son Bertram died in his life time, and his [William’s] daughter Alice was his heir. In 1210–12 Guy de Olebec^[79] held 2 fees in Cockerington of the honor of Lascy. In 1295 it was found^[89] that Alice de Vavasor, deceased, held cer­tain lands in Cockerington of Henry de Lascy, earl of Lincoln, and William Vavasor is her son and heir. In 1342 Henry le Vavasour^[90] granted his manor of Cockerington to feoffees, who were sworn to assign it to the abbot and convent of Louth Park. His wife, Constance, afterwards said that he was not of sound mind, and I suggest that a compromise was made, for we find the Vavasours in possession of the manor, and the abbot in possession of certain lands there. In 1401–2 Henry Vavasour and the abbot held the 2 fees. In 1427–8 Henry Vavasor held^[91] in Cockeryngton and Salfletby two fees, formerly Henry Vavasor’s, whereof the abbot of Louth Park held in alms ¼ f., and the prior of Alvingham, the heirs of John Goderde, the abbot of Louth Park and others held between them ½ f. of the said 2 fees.

Henry Vavasour was seised^[92] of the manor of Cockryngton, and 31 July 1510 he enfeoffed certain feoffees for the use and performance of certain articles of agreement upon the marriage of John, his son and heir apparent, and Anne, now John’s wife, and sister of Henry Lord le Scrop of Bolton. Henry died 31 October 1515, and John Vavasour esq^r is his son and heir, and 21 and more. The manor is held of the king as of his honor of Bolingbroke. In 1565–6 Sir William Vavasour, knight, and John Vavasour, his son,^[93] sold the manor of Cockerington to Ralph Scrope esq^r. In 1575 the manor^[94] formerly Of William Vavasor, knt., and now of Adrian Scroope, held of the Queen as of her Duchy of Lancaster by the service of 2 knights, was in the Queen’s hand because of Adrian’s minority. Certain lands there formerly belonging to the abbot of Louth Park were held of the duchy, and came into the hands of the late King Henry VIII by reason of the dissolution of the abbey.

Dunholme, ⅓ fee. Roger de Lacy, who died in 1211, held the 4^th part of a fee^[95] in Dunham, and Nicholas de Aula held it of him. In 1341 the abbot of Kirkstead was a tenant in Dunham, and in 1401–2 the abbot held ⅓ f. there. A family of the name of Dunham are also mentioned as tenants, and seem to have been succeeded c. 1374 by Robert Gaskryk.

Sturton, and Ingleby-by-Stow, ½ fee. Thomas de Moulton of Frampton held lands at Stretton in 1340. This half paid nothing in 1401–2, because John son and heir of Thomas Graye was a minor, and his lands were in the hands of the executors of the lord John, late duke of Lancaster. Matilda, daughter and heir of John de Multon, of Frampton, had married Thomas Gray.^[96] ­

Northorpe, ¼ fee. In 1302 John de Hale^[97] held the ¼ f. in Northorp which Simon de Hale formerly held. Nicholas de Hale was the tenant 4 Edward III, and members of his family until 50 Edward III. In 1401–2 the ⅓ f. in Northorp, late Nicholas Hale's, paid nothing, because of the minority of Lewis son and heir of Edmund Cornewayle. Lewis Cornwaill being seised^[98] of the manors of Thunnak and Laghton, and of lands in Upton, Northorp &c., granted them, 6 May 1405, to feoffees, by the name of Lewis Cornwayle, son and heir of Peter Cornwayle. In 1420–1 Edmund was son and heir of Lewis, and of the age of ten years and more.

Cleatham. ¼ fee. In 1303^[99] the heir of William Cobbe, who ¼ f. in Cletham, was under age, so his tenements were seized into the hands of the lord. John Cobbe was tenant before 1351, in 1376 William Vaus, and in 1401–2 John Gray.

Toft Newton, ¼ fee. In 1210–12 John de Neville held half a knight's fee in Newetone and Sichesle of the honor of Lascy. In 1319–20 Robert, son of Herbert de Saltfletby, did homage for lands in Newton by Toft. In 1422 John Harpyswell was the tenant of lands in Toftnewton, late Robert de Saltfletby's.

The Villein.

The researches of Professors Maitland and Vinogradoff have made it clear that the hardness and harshness of legal theory concerning the villein were mitigated in some places by the ‘custom of the manor,’ and it seems to me reasonable to expect that where, as in Lincolnshire, there were, as far as is known, no servi towards whose condition he could be depressed, and many free sokemen, attending the same manor courts, serving on the same inquisitions, and sometimes connected^[100] by marriage, and not the least likely to acquiesce in unjust or high-handed proceedings, the villein would be able to preserve some of his ancient freedom. And I cannot but think that the sturdy independence of the Lincolnshire man must also be taken into consideration, and that we can see traces thereof in the bold and on the whole successful assertion of his rights by the Ingoldmells villein. The fact that his lord lived at a distance may have been in his favour, as it prevented any personal interference with his ancient liberties, and made the lord content with money rents instead of labour services under servile conditions. But the best way to give a fair and impartial account of the condition and status of the Ingoldmells villein will, I think, be to set out his disabilities and advantages.

1. His disabilities were the well-known ones. First I must place his disability to bring an action against his lord in the king's courts. An appeal to these courts by a villein who had been wronged by his lord was of no avail, for they will not^[101] interfere between the lord and his villein. It easy to see how liable to oppression by a bad, unjust, or grasping lord this rule of law rendered the villein, though there were some excep­tions to this rule, for a villein may not be slain or maimed at pleasure, and the lord may not seize his wainage. Still in ordinary daily life under a decent lord the villein might live on, as he seems to have done at Ingoldmells, without experiencing any grievous wrong through this want of protection by the king's courts. Secondly I must put the exaction of merchet, a fine the villein had to pay for marrying his daughter. This might in some forms, and on some manors, be a most odious tax. But at Ingoldmells as a rule the payment was not large, and does not seem to have had anything degrading about it, and as early as the fifteenth century was actually called maritagium. The fine for incontinence naturally connects itself with the merchet, and was by no means so uncommon at Ingoldmells as one could wish.

Other disabilities were that the villein could not leave the lordship nor take orders without the licence of the court, and his goods and chattels were in strict law considered the property of his lord. But the Ingoldmells villein who held land seems to have had no desire to leave it, and the landless man appears to have gone away^[102] to get work, paying a small sum of money (chevagium) as an acknowledgement of the lord’s hold over him. And the fact that, during the time the rolls cover, there was no demesne farm at Ingoldmells must have made the villein more free to work where he liked, because the lord did not himself require his labour. The villein who took orders and thereby became free was particularly difficult to deal with. The court might, and did,^[103] amerce him heavily, but to obtain the fine was quite another matter. And, as regards the personal goods of the villein, neither the court rolls nor the ministers’ accounts lead me to suppose that the lord insisted, as a rule, upon his strict legal rights, so as to seize upon his villein’s goods either during his life or at his death.

2. I now come to the advantages of the Ingoldmells villein. He had a house and small farm on a tenure that seems to me surprisingly good and secure. As early as 1291 he held his land by a settled money rent, which, however, could be increased by 8d. an acre according to the custom of the manor upon alienation. He held at first ‘to him and to his boys.’ In 19 Edw. III the form is ‘to him and to his heirs for ever,’ which seems to bring the lord into danger of losing his villein, so the words ‘according to the custom of the manor’ are added, and a little later ‘in bondage.’ We find him claiming bond land as ‘his inheritance,’ and settling it upon his wife and children. A widow could claim her dower, a third part of her deceased husband’s lands for life. A widower held his deceased wife's lands for life by the ‘curtesy of England.’ A villein could sell or purchase bond lands, and the fines on alienation, though at first uncertain, gradually became a fixed sum of 2s. an acre. He could, and often did, purchase free land. And in the fifteenth century, if not earlier, he disposed of his land and chattels by will.^[104] On the whole it must be admitted that his was no servile tenure in the ordinary as distinguished from the legal sense of the term, but rather ‘customary freehold,’ although he had lost legal protection in the king’s courts.^[105]

Another advantage the Ingoldmells villein had was having the ‘court of Ingoldinells’ close at hand. Here he could recover debts and damages for trespasses, and could enforce agreements. Here he could bring his action for land ‘in the nature of an assize mort d’ancestor,’ or of ‘novel disseisin.’ Here land was alienated by ‘surrender’ and ‘admittance,’ and leased by licence of the court. Here matters of importance to the community were regulated and decided. Here too offenders against the criminal law were punished. And the judgments delivered were, not those of the lord or his steward, but of the court,^[106] composed of villeins as well as freemen. Altogether, however unprotected the villein might be under the common law against his lord, he was by no means dependent upon his mere caprice, but was ruled in accordance with the customs of the manor defined by the tenants themselves. In fact the lord was a constitutional ruler,^[107] and the villeins, as well as the freemen, had a real share in the system of self-government which prevailed. It must, too, in those rough and turbulent times, have been a considerable advantage to the villein to be under the protection of a great and powerful lord, such the earl of Lincoln, or later the duke of Lancaster. I think it will be admitted that the Ingoldmells villein was neither down­-trodden, wretched, nor miserable, as by some accounts were villeins elsewhere. The contemporary opinion of his condition comes out clearly when we find a freeman actually proving that his wife was a nief, contrary to the assertion of the defendant that she was a free woman, when all he could gain thereby was four acres of bond land.^[108] There is abundant evidence that some villeins were in the fifteenth century becoming well-to-do and prosperous. A glance at the Ministers’ Accounts^[109] for 1421–2 will show this. There we find William Thory, Simon Bailly, William Skegnes, and others purchasing considerable quantities of freehold land. And I am able to bring forward a still more remarkable case. Robert Grynne,^[110] a ‘bond tenant [nativus] of the lord the king belonging to his manor of Ingoldmells,’ is said to have^[111] married Alicia, daughter of Sir Robert Sylkeston of East Kirkby, a Lincolnshire knight, and certainly with Richard, his son, acquired in 1392 considerable freehold property at East Kirkby, and elsewhere, which they held in bondage^[112] [in bondagio] according to the custom of the manor, paying a rent of 40s. yearly, wards, marriages, reliefs, and escheats to the king being reserved. Robert Gryn died before 3 July 1411, and 7 August 1411, Richard, his son and next heir of blood, was admitted to his inheritance.^[113] We find Richard on the inquisition of bond-tenants up to A.D. 1422, but in 1433 his younger son, William, was on the inquisition of freemen, and the eldest son, John, is described in 1437 as ‘of Kirkby,’ so probably they acquired their freedom before 1433. In 1477 Richard Grenne, son of John, is described^[114] in a deed as ‘gent.’; but as late as 1492 the Kirkby property was treated as held according to the custom of the manor of Ingoldmells, and Richard Skepper and his wife^[115] had to come to the court, and ask to be admitted, and pay a fine of 10l. for entry. Additional evidence of the prosperity of the Ingoldmells villein may be found in the fact that one was willing to give^[116] as much as 6l. in 1376 to enter on two acres of arable land, and in 1404 land was worth^[117] 3s. 6d. an acre as an annual rent beyond the dues and customs of the lord.

I have been fortunate enough to find amongst the Ingoldmells papers an inventory of the goods of a villein A.D. 1569. He had 2 cows, 15 ewes, 6 other sheep, and 1 pig; indoors he had a feather bed and some other comforts. His goods were valued at 10l. 10s. 8d. perhaps 90l. of our money. But his debts amounted to 6l. 14s., of which 4l. 4s. was for rent, and 2l. 4s. 8d. for money borrowed.

I must now make an attempt to consider the difficult question of what changes can be discerned in the condition of the Ingoldmells villein. It is not to be expected that we should find any sudden changes in the social life of the peasant here but I think we may perceive some indications of a struggle between the claims of the lord and of his villein, and, though I cannot pretend to fix any but approximate dates, there can be no doubt that the vi1lein’s condition did gradually but surely improve until at last he became a free copyholder. It seems to me that there are indications of a struggle throughout the reign of Edward III. Sometimes the lord succeeded in enforcing his claim, as when in 1328^[118] an attempt was made by the homage to conceal purchases of freehold land by villeins, in order that they might avoid the customary^[119] rents and fines. But on the whole the villein seems to have improved his position. From the middle of the fourteenth century the fines on admittance become more certain, and the merchet payments less in amount, and at the end of the century the villein has clearly become more prosperous. And when we get into the fifteenth century his prosperity is undoubtedly increasing, he is allowed contrary to former practice to be essoined, and in 1419 the merchet has become a fine for a marriage licence. I have included some extracts from the rolls of 9 and 10 Elizabeth, as an example of villeinage in a dying condition. Most of the villeins have already been enfranchised, but there is still an attempt made to keep up former claims. In 9 Eliz. the inquisition of nativi still appears, the names of 11 villeins are put down, but only 5 seem to have come and been sworn;^[120] an effort is also made to draw up an account of the villeins and their progeny. The next year there are 6 names on the inquisition of nativi, in 20 Eliz. 2, and henceforward the attempt to form an inquisition of nativi is given up, although as late as 2 James I. 3 nativi are amerced 3s. 4d. each for default of suit of court.

---

1. Addit. MSS. 31929 and 31930.
2. Round, Feudal England, p. 176.
3. Cole MS. xliii. f. 425.
4. Abbrev. Plac. p. 83.
5. Pontefract Chartulary, p. xix.
6. Liber Niger.
7. Cal. to Royal Grants.
8. Pontefract Chartulary.
9. Leycester, Hist. Antiquities, p. 267.
10. Testa de Nevill, pp. 334, 348.
11. Stubbs, Constit. Hist. i. 580.
12. He died 24 Nov. 1245.
13. 14th Report of Hist. MSS. Commission, p. 207.
14. Rot. Hund.
15. Constit. Hist. ii. 333.
16. Cal. of Patent Rolls, 1281–92, p. 511. Ayloffe’s Cal., Duchy of Lancaster, vol. i.
17. P. 94.
18. Chancery Inq. p.m. 22 Edw. III. 1st n^rs. no. 34.
19. Bill, Massingberd v. Newcomen, 12 June, 1706, at Ormsby Hall­.
20. See Hist. of Ormsby for descent.
21. Escheator’s Inq., series II. file 556.
22. Duchy of Lancaster, Ministers’ Accounts, Bundle 1, no. 1, 23 & 24 Edw. I.
23. P. 2.
24. E.g. pp. 22, 54, 216 and 289.
25. P. 107 n.
26. P. 1.
27. In a lease of Skegness meales, and the custom of ships called ‘le layre’ and the profits of sea courts, 26 Feb. 1583, wreck of sea and royal fish were reserved. Duchy of Lancaster, class xi, f. 46, no. 45.
28. Pp. 269 and 294.
29. P. 70.
30. P. 50.
31. P. 55.
32. Statutes of the Realm, i, 301, 364.
33. Pp. 238, 254 and 256.
34. P. 238.
35. Pp. 213 and 214.
36. P. 253.
37. P. 119.
38. P. 69.
39. P. 32.
40. P. 275.
41. Selden Society, vol. II. xiv.
42. The date is now said to be doubtful­.
43. P. 291, ‘banks of the sea called “seadyks,”’ p. 220.
44. P. 106­.
45. Duchy of Lancaster, class xi. vol. 30, f. 7, see p. 150­.
46. See History of Ormsby.
47. Ingoldmells Court Rolls.
48. Chancery Inq. p. m. 8 Edw. III. lst n^rs. no, 36.
49. Feet of Fines, Lincoln, 43 Edw. III.
50. P. 129.
51. Chancery Inq. p. m. 22 Henry VII. no. 165.
52. Duchy of Lancaster Records, Bundle P. no. 29; and Babington Pedigree­.
53. P. 105.
54. Exchequer Q.R. Misc. Bk. vol. iv.
55. Close Roll.
56. Chancery Inq. p. m. 24 Eliz. no. 78.
57. P. 135.
58. P. 138.
59. Domesday Book.
60. Lindsey Survey.
61. Testa de Nevill, p. 339.
62. Liber Niger.
63. Testa de Nevill, p. 345.
64. A charter of Thomas, son of William, son of Haco de Salebi, is in the Cathedral Register, no. 390.
65. Testa de Nevill, p. 317. In 1199 William de Aldredesull gave the king 500 marks for having judgement of the court of the king of the inheritance which he claims against the daughter of Thomas de Saleby, and for having an inquisition whether she was daughter of the same Thomas, or 'partus suus suppositus.'
66. Duchy of Lancaster Records, Bundle P. no. 29.
67. Cathedral Charters.
68. Testa de Nevill, p. 305.
69. Chancery Inq. p. m. 1 Edw. I no. 16.
70. Exchequer Q.R. Misc. Bk. vol. iv.
71. Duchy of Lancaster Records, Bundle P. no. 29.
72. Liber Ruber, i, 518.
73. Test. Ebor. i. 30.
74. Lay Subsidy Roll, 136/167.
75. Hist. Com. 14th Report, Grimsby MSS.
76. Church Notes by G. Holles.
77. Feet of Fines, Lincoln, Mich. 1 Edw. VI.
78. Chancery Inq. p. m. 34 Eliz. 2nd part, no. 114.
79. Liber Ruber, i. 518.
80. Testa. de Nevill, pp. 344, 345.
81. Final Concords, p. 293.
82. Addit. MS. 6118, f. 495.
83. Hundred Rolls, p. 250.
84. P. 77.­
85. Duchy of Lancaster Misc. Doc^ts., Class xxv. Bundle P. no. 5.
86. Liber Niger.
87. Testa de Nevill, p. 315.
88. Testa de Nevill, p. 339.
89. Lansdowne MS. 207. C. p. 629.
90. Chronicle of Louth Park Abbey, p. 59.
91. Exchequer Q.R. Misc. Bk. vol. iv.
92. Chancery Inq. p. m. 8 Henry VIII, no. 113.
93. Notes on Visitation of 1634, p. 105. There is an excellent account here by Mrs. Tempest of the Scropes of Cockerington.
94. Duchy of Lancaster Records, Class xxv. Bundle P. no. 29.
95. Testa de Nevill, p. 345.
96. See Ancestor, July 1902, for the descent.
97. Lay Subsidy Roll, Lincoln, 135/1.
98. Chancery Inq. p. m. 8 Henry V. no. 76. It will be seen the documents do not agree as to the name of the father of Lewis. De Banco Roll 579, m. 178 d., calls him 'kinsman and heir of Edmund de Cornevaill.'
99. P. 23.
100. Pp. 69, 135, 136 and 261.
101. Hist. of Ormsby, p. 68.
102. Pp. 40, 180 and 262. Fines imposed upon villeins who had left the manor show that they had left.
103. Duchy of Lancaster, Ministers’ Accts. (Ingoldmells &c.), Bundle 1, no. 2. 32–33 Edw. I. 20^s of chevage was put upon John Taunte, chaplain, a bondman of the king, who departed by night out of the country leaving nothing behind him.
104. Pp. 191 n., 274.
105. Villainage, p. 220.
106. Pp. 56 and 256.
107. Villainage, p. 396.
108. P. 111.
109. Duchy of Lancaster, Ministers' Accts., Bundle 243, no. 3913.
110. Grenne or Grene.
111. Linc. N^s and Q^s, v. 74, 88.
112. Ministers’ Accts. 1421–2.
113. P. 223.
114. Linc. N^s and Q^s, v. 90.
115. P. 283.
116. P. 175.
117. P. 208.
118. P. 101.
119. Free land purchased by a villein was arrented at 2^d an acre, and a fine was due upon each admittance.
120. P. 286.