The English Historical Review/Volume 37/Sheriffs in the Pipe Roll of 31 Henry I
Sheriffs in the Pipe Roll of 31 Henry I
In 1898 Mr. A. Hughes and Mr. J. Jennings issued their well-known List of Sheriffs for England and Wales from the Earliest Times to 1831. This is a useful compilation, especially from the year 1155 onwards, when its editors were able to draw from the uninterrupted succession of the Pipe Rolls. As a work of reference for the preceding period, however, it is much less satisfactory, since it does not attempt to do more than to indicate the sheriffs and their terms in so far as these may be gathered from Domesday and the Pipe Roll of 31 Henry I. Thus, for the important period succeeding the Conquest, the gaps in the List are necessarily great. The editors made no attempt to supply these from material afforded by charters and chronicles. But even in the unique Pipe Roll of Henry I there is much that escaped their notice. Careful analysis of this source both discloses a considerable number of sheriffs unnoticed in the List, and also enables one to make numerous corrections in the terms of service of many there given. The results of such an analysis are presented in thefollowing paper, where the sheriffs, given by counties, are followed by such discussion and proof as seems necessary.
Bedfordshire and Buckinghamshire
|Richard de Wintonia||Before Michaelmas 1125.|
|Richard Basset||(joint sheriffs)||Michaelmas 1129–30|
|Aubrey de Vere|
In these counties Richard Basset and Aubrey de Vere jointly account for the 'new' or current farm of the year 1129–30. Their account is followed by an entry in which Maenfinin is debited with 10 marks of silver de Qersoma pro Comitatibus habendis usque ad .iiij. annos. Finally, a few entries further down, Juliana, the daughter of Richard Winton', renders account of 43 and more de veteri firma Buckingehamscirae et Bedefordscirae. From this last reference it would appear that Richard had been sheriff of these two counties at some date preceding Michaelmas 1125, at which time Maenfinin must already have been sheriff. Richard's probable term of service was 1124–5, though possibly he held the office for a year or term of years preceding that period.
|John Belet||Before Michaelmas 1126.|
|Baldwin Fitz Clare||Before Michaelmas 1127.|
|Anselm, viscount of Kouen||Michaelmas 1127–9.|
|William de Pontearch||Michaelmas 1129–30.|
William de Pontearch accounts for the farm of 1129–30. Immediately after the entry relating to William, follows one in which his predecessor, Anselm, renders account of £522 and more de veteri firma Berchescirae. Since the amount of Anselm's indebtedness exceeds the total, £521, for the farm of the year 1129–30, as appearing in the accounts of William de Pontearch, it would seem that this amount represents a remnant of at least a two years' farm. That this was the case is made even more certain by other items of Anselm's account. Thus he pays down on the farm more than £250, and in other items gives evidence of a willingness and ability to meet the demands on him. The probability, indeed, is that at Michaelmas of the year before he paid down a sum as large as, if not larger than, in the present instance, for the amount paid down when the farm was first due usually exceeded the amount paid in subsequent years. In any case, one can safely say that the sum of £522 and more represents a remnant of at least a two years' farm, and that consequently Anselm was in office for at least two years. That Anselm's term of office should be dated earlier than Michaelmas 1129 may be taken as certain, since there is not the slightest suggestion or probability that William de Pontearch had held office before that date.
Anselm's predecessor, Baldwin, is entered as owing £412 and more de veteri firma Berchescirae, £28 and more de Gersoma pro Comitatu, and £17 and more de preterito danegeldo which secum detulit. Now the farm of the county, as has already been shown, totalled a trifle more than £521, so that Baldwin's indebtedness, after being out of office for three years, is only £109 less than the total farm. In other words, on the supposition that Baldwin's original indebtedness represented about £521, or the equivalent of one year's farm, in four accountings, the first of which must have occurred not later than 1126, Baldwin reduced his debt by only £109. Since payment at such a slow rate is exceptional, one might be tempted to think that the amount of Baldwin's original indebtedness was more than £521, and represented, therefore, a term of service of two years rather than one year. Yet Baldwin in the present year paid nothing at all, and the presumption is created that in the preceding years his payments were slight. This presumption is strengthened when it is noted that he still owes for his lease of the county and for a remnant of the danegeld which he carried off with him. The probability is, therefore, not that Baldwin had held the office for two years, but that he was, to say the least, an inefficient and negligent sheriff for one year only. Since Anselm's term began at least by Michaelmas 1127, Baldwin's tenure of office cannot have been later than 1126–7, and may have been earlier.
The evidence relating to Baldwin's predecessor, John Belet, occurs in two entries isolated alike from each other and the successive entries already referred to in connexion with his three successors. One entry occurs in the Berkshire accounts, the other in those of Dorset. The former entry runs as follows: 'John Belet owes £34 … for the past danegeld on account of the land of the abbot. But he is placed in Surrey.' In the Dorset entry John is debited fifty marks of silver pro foris facturis comitatus Berchescirae. Since both items for which John is held responsible are characteristic elements of sheriffs' accounts, it is clear that at one time John had been sheriff of Berkshire. His tenure of office must have been earlier than Baldwin's.
|Richard Basset||(joint sheriffs)||Michaelmas 1129–30.|
|Aubrey de Vere|
In the List Fulcoin is given as sheriff of Surrey only, but the evidence shows clearly that he held Cambridgeshire and Huntingdonshire as well. Under the heading 'Surrey, Cambridgeshire and Huntingdonshire' first occur the names of 'Richard Basset and Aubrey de Vere' as jointly accounting for the combined farms of these counties. Immediately following the entries dealing with the accounts of these joint sheriffs occurs this entry:
Fulcoius qui fuit vicecomes reddit compotum de .cc. et quater .xx. l. … de veteri firma. … Et idem Fulcoius debet quater .xx. l. … de Gersoma pro comitatibus habendis.
Then follow the separate accounts of the three counties, that of Cambridge coming first. It is thus apparent that Fulcoin preceded Richard Basset and Aubrey de Vere in the administration of this combination of the three counties. Evidence outside the roll also shows that Fulcoin, at an earlier date, was acting as sheriff not only of Surrey but of Cambridgeshire and Huntingdonshire as well. From this evidence it appears that Fulcoin's term as sheriff of the three counties began at least as early as 1126, and that in the office he succeeded his uncle Gilbert, who held these counties for a long term of years, dating possibly from 1110.
Derbyshire and Nottinghamshire
|Serlo de Burg||Before Michaelmas 1127.|
|Ivo de Heriz||Michaelmas 1127–8.|
|Osbert Silvanus||Michaelmas 1128–9.|
|Michaelmas 1129–Easter 1130.|
Osbert renders account for the 'old farm' of the counties and for the 'new farm' of the same for 'a half year'. On the basis of this evidence, it appears that Osbert was sheriff at Michaelmas 1128–9, and from Michaelmas 1129 to Easter 1130. But there is no indication that he was supplanted at Easter 1130 by any other man. Moreover, the rest of his account gives no hint of a tenure of service for less than a whole year, since he apparently accounts for the danegeld and the aid of the boroughs for the whole year 1129–30. Also in other respects it is a thoroughly normal, whole year's account. It would seem highly probable, therefore, that Osbert, though at this time accounting for only half the farm, was nevertheless in office for the whole year 1129–30. An item, quoted in the account of Serlo de Burg below, suggests a possibility that Osbert may have been the son of Serlo.
Immediately after the entries relating to Osbert comes one in which Ivo de Heriz accounts for an 'old farm', presumably that of 1127–8, since Ivo was the predecessor of Osbert. The accounts of Serlo, Ivo's predecessor, suggest that he had been out of office for a number of years, so that Ivo's term may have begun as early as Michaelmas 1126 or 1125.
In the accounts of Yorkshire, Serlo de Burg is debited with £60 and more de veteri firma de Nottinghamscira et Derbiescira, as well as with sums for other items. The last of these is a debt of 20 marks of silver pro ministerio Osberti filii sui, and suggests a possible identification of Osbert Silvanus, sheriff of the year, as Serlo's son.
As to Serlo's term of office, there can be little doubt that it must be assigned to a year or years preceding Michaelmas 1127. For had his account been entered among those of Nottinghamshire and Derbyshire, it would have been placed, in all probability, immediately after Ivo's, thereby indicating him as Ivo's predecessor, doubtless his immediate predecessor. If further evidence were needed for the conclusion that Serlo preceded rather than followed Ivo, it would be found in a comparison of Serlo's account with Ivo's. For in the first place, the remnant of farm for which Serlo owes is some 80 less than that owed by Ivo. Thus, other things being equal, it seems fair to assume that the smaller the remnant the older the account, because the longer it had been on the books the more chances it has had of being reduced. This argument cannot be pressed far, but it has some weight. Again, the same suggestion of greater age is given by the general form of Serlo's entry, especially by the greater abbreviation and compression of the account. For a noticeable thing about the entries in the Pipe Roll of 31 Henry I, as also in the later Pipe Rolls, is the tendency shown by the scribes to abbreviate them after their first appearance. Each time an old item presents itself for recopying to the scribe, he seems inclined to treat it more curtly and give it less space; if it is a group of items, such as the remnant of a sheriff's account, as in this case, instead of each item being accorded a line to itself, all are crowded together into as small a space as possible. Now, while every item in that of Ivo is still given a separate line, those of Serlo's account are all crowded together. Thus the smaller amount owed by Serlo and the greater compression of the items of his account both suggest, apart from other evidence, that his term of office preceded that of Ivo de Heriz. As to the length of Serlo's term, there is no indication one way or the other. It would be exceptional if he had not been in office for at least a year; it would be nothing unusual if his term had covered a number of years preceding Michaelmas 1127.
|Richard Fitz Baldwin||Before Michaelmas 1128.|
|Geoffrey de Furnellis||Michaelmas 1128–30.|
Geoffrey accounts both for the 'new' and the 'old' farm. In the entry immediately following, Richard cleared up an indebtedness of £20 for an 'old farm', doubtless that of 1127–8.
|William de Pontearch||Michaelmas 1128–30.|
William accounts both for the 'new' and the 'old' farm. From a reference of about the year 1115, it appears that he was also holding the office at that date.
|Fulcoin. See under Cambridgeshire||Michaelmas 1128–9.|
|Richard Basset||(joint sheriffs)||Michaelmas 1129–30.|
|Aubrey de Vere|
Leicestershire and Northamptonshire
|Hugo de Legecestria. See under Lincolnshire||Michaelmas 1127–8.|
|Hugo de Legecestria||Michaelmas 1128–9.|
|Hugh de Warelvilla||Michaelmas 1129–Easter 1130.|
|Richard Basset||(joint sheriffs)||Easter 1130–Michaelmas 1130.|
|Aubrey de Vere|
At the head of the accounts for Northamptonshire and Leicestershire, Richard Basset and Aubrey de Vere are entered as jointly accounting for the current farm of the counties, while Hugo de Legecestria is entered as accounting for the farm of the year preceding. In the printed List Hugo de Legecestria is indicated as the predecessor of the joint sheriffs whose tenure of service is assigned to the year 1129–30. But hidden away among the various items that constitute the new business of the year, set apart on the roll from the old business by the heading, Nova Placita et Nove Conventiones, there appears the significant entry:
Hugo de Warelvilla reddit compotum de .cc. m. argenti de Gersoma pro Comitatibus habendis usque ad .v. annos. In thesauro .xx. m. argenti. Et in perdona Eidem Hugoni .c. et quater .xx. m. argenti quia non tenet nisi dimidio anno.
If the sense of this passage is that Hugh had agreed to pay 200 marks of silver for a five years' lease of the counties, but is excused from paying 120 marks because he held the counties only half a year, it would seem that he should be credited with the shrievalty for that half-year. It should be noted, however, that in the roll he is not held accountable for any part of the current farm. If Hugh's term be correctly dated, then the beginning of that of the joint sheriffs, Richard Basset and Aubrey de Vere, must be postponed to Easter 1130.
|William Torniant||Before Michaelmas 1127.|
|Hugo de Legecestria||? Michaelmas 1127–8.|
|Rayner de Bada||Michaelmas 1128–30.|
The accounts of Northamptonshire and Leicestershire begin, as is shown immediately above, with an entry in which Richard Basset and Aubrey de Vere jointly account for the current farm of the year 1129–30. In the entry immediately following, Hugh of Leicester accounts for a large remainder of the ' old farm ' of the year 1128–9, pays down some £52, and is still debited with more than £170. ^The next entry, the third, states that:
The meaning of this passage, taken in connexion with the entry which precedes it, would seem to be (1) that at some previous time the three counties of Northampton, Leicester, and Lincoln had been combined in the hands of Hugh; (2) that he wished to get rid of the shrievalty of Lincolnshire, while retaining that of the other two counties, and that he was forced to pay for the privilege of relinquishing it; (3) that the forisfacturae comitatuum are presumably those of all three counties, for otherwise they would have been debited in connexion with the preceding account of Hugh for the year 1128–9, when he held only the two counties. Moreover, since during the year 1128–9 he obviously held only the two counties, his tenure of the three together must have preceded that year, and should be assigned to the year 1127–8, if not to a year or years earlier.
Idem Hugo debet .c. et quater .xx. et .xj. l. et .xxij. d. pro separatione comitatus Linc' et pro forisfacturis Comitatuum.
The evidence of the Lincolnshire accounts, it will be found, points to the same conclusion. For in them Rayner de Bada accounts both for the farm of the current year, 1129–30, and for that of the preceding year, 1128–9, which shows conclusively that by that year Lincolnshire was in other hands than Hugh's. Furthermore, while William Torniant is, further down the roll, found owing for an 'old farm', the position of the entry and the number of items compressed into it suggest that it contains the remains of an account of some years' standing. It would thus seem likely, considering the evidence of the entries both under Northamptonshire and Leicestershire and under Lincolnshire, that Hugh's combined tenure of the three counties (granting that it took place at all) was of relatively short duration, and fell between the terms of Rayner de Bada and William Torniant. It most probably fell in the year 1127–8, and may have begun a year or possibly two years earlier.
Separated by a number of entries from those of Rayner de Bada occurs one in which Willelmus Torn' is debited with 160 and more for an 'old farm' of Lincolnshire. He also owes £170 for 'his old debt and that of Richard, his brother, and 200 marks of silver for the land' of another brother. The 'old farm' for which William still owes, and on which at this time he pays nothing, must, if the dates assigned to Hugh of Leicester be correct, be for a year antecedent to 1127–8. Whether or not William held office for a term of years, it is impossible to say. His nearest known predecessor was Wigot of Lincoln, sheriff about 1120. Wigot's death some years before 1129 is suggested by the fact that Alan Fitz Wigot, in an entry immediately following that concerned with William, is credited with a payment of 20 marks of silver 'pro omni debito patris sui'. Mr. W. Farrer in his article on 'The Sheriffs of Lincolnshire and Yorkshire, 1066–1130', identifies Willelmus Torn' of the Pipe Roll as William Torniant, son of Osbert, a former sheriff of Lincolnshire, though he fails to notice the reference in the Pipe Roll to Hugh of Leicester.
London and Middlesex
|Ralph Fitz Ebrard||Before Michaelmas 1128.|
|Fulchered Fitz Walter||Michaelmas 1128–9.|
|William Lelutre||(joint sheriffs)||Michaelmas 1129–30.|
|Ralph Fitz Herlewin|
|William de Balio|
In the opening entry on the roll no names are specified; the passage merely runs: Quattuor Vicecomites Londonie redd. comp. de firma Londonie. But among the items of new business occur the names of the four sheriffs in connexion with payments ut exeant de Vicecomitatu Londonie.
The account of the four sheriffs is followed immediately by two entries, in the first of which Fulchered Fitz Walter is declared 'quit' for a balance of more than £200 indebtedness on an 'old farm'; in the second he is debited with 120 marks of silver de Gersoma pro Vicecomitatu Londonie.
After Fulchered's account, John Fitz Ralph Fitz Ebrard is debited with £7 and more de veteri firma Londonie de tempore patris sui. Since Fulchered held the office for the year 1128–9, and possibly earlier, Ralph Fitz Ebrard's tenure could not have lasted beyond Michaelmas 1128. From evidence outside the roll it would appear that Aubrey de Vere and Roger, the nephew of Hubert, were joint sheriffs in 1125. Thus Ralph could not have held office before Michaelmas 1125, and there would remain a period of three years, Michaelmas 1125–8, during all or a part of which he might have exercised the office of sheriff.
In the first place, closely following Restold's account of the farm, occurs this entry:
Et idem [Restoldus] debet .c. et .xv. l. et .xv. s. et .viij. d. quos iniuste abstulit villanis et burgensibus de propresturis Maneriorum Regis postquam rex mare transivit.
The crossing of the king here referred to took place in August 1127, and he did not return to England until July 1129. His stay abroad thus fell within the three fiscal years 1126–7, 1127–8, 1128–9. Thus during all or a part of the period, Michaelmas 1126–9, Restold was in office.
In the next place, among the older items, there occurs this entry:
Et idem Vicecomes [Robertus] reddit compotum de .xxxv. l. et .iij. s. et .x. d. de veteribus placitis et danegeldo de tempore Restoldi.
The date of this danegeld 'from the time of Restold' is shown by another entry later in the account and nearer to the heading Nova Placita et Nove Conventiones:
Et Idem Vicecomes [Robertus] reddit compotum de .xlv. l. et .ij. s. et .j. d. de preterito danegeldo.
From the very fact that this entry stands closer to the heading Nova Placita, &c., than does the one first mentioned, it follows, according to the method of making up the Pipe Rolls, known from a study of those of Henry II and obviously used in this unique roll of Henry I, that it deals with a danegeld of more recent date than that referred to in the earlier entry. But by the usage of the Pipe Roll the adjective preteritus, when applied to a danegeld, commonly denotes the danegeld of the year 1128–9, immediately preceding the current year 1129–30. It is, therefore, possible to affirm that the danegeld 'from the time of Restold' must be assigned to a year or years previous to 1128–9, presumably to the year immediately preceding, namely 1127–8. There is a chance of course, though only a slight one, that the danegeld for 1127–8 had been entirely paid up; in such a case, the danegeld 'from the time of Restold' would be concerned with a yet earlier year, presumably 1126–7.
Furthermore, one should not overlook the implication that Robert, in accounting for the 'old pleas and danegeld from the time of Restold', is clearing up all the items of this nature that were owed by Restold. If this be the case, then the preteritum danegeldum, to which reference has already been made, must have fallen due during Robert's tenancy of office, which would then have to be extended to include the year 1128–9. On this reading of the evidence, Robert's term of office began at least by Michaelmas 1128, while Restold's could not have lasted beyond that date.
Thus Robert's term of office probably began at Michaelmas 1128, and covered the two years 1128–30; Restold's term, on the contrary, probably came to an end at least by Michaelmas 1128. His term must have included one of the two years 1126–7, 1127–8, and probably covered them both, if indeed it did not begin earlier still.
|Nicholas de Stafford||Before Michaelmas 1123.|
|Robert de Stanley||Michaelmas 1122–28.|
|Miles de Gloucester||Michaelmas 1128–30.|
In the accounts of Staffordshire, immediately following the entries dealing with the 'new farm' and the 'old farm' as accounted for by Miles de Gloucester, occur the following entries:
Et Idem Vicecomes reddit compotum de .liij. l. et .xix. s. blancorum pro plegio Roberti de Stanlega de veteri firma quarti anni. Et de .lxxviij. l. .xij. s. .ij. d. blancorum de veteri firma tercii anni pro plegio eiusdem Roberti. … Kobertus de Stanlega debet .xx. m. argenti pro Comitatu habendo usque ad .v. annos. Et ipse tantum tenuit. …
From these passages it appears that Robert had leased the county for five years, that he had held it for the whole of this period, that he owed balances on the farms for two of his years of service, and that for these balances Miles had made himself responsible. That his five years of service are to be reckoned back from Michaelmas 1128 appears from the facts that Miles has accounted for the 'old farm' of the past year, 1128–9, and that the vetus firma tercii anni refers, according to the usage of the roll, to the year 1127–8. Thus at Michaelmas 1128 Miles superseded Robert, whose last year of service was 1127–8, and who had held the office for the four preceding years. Robert's term of office, then, extended from Michaelmas 1123 to Michaelmas 1128.
The reference to Nicholas lies buried in the accounts of Northamptonshire, and is as follows:
Et Idem Ricardus reddit compotum de .xxxv. m. argenti pro terra Matris Nicholai Vicecomitis de Statford.…
The sheriffs of Staffordshire, as has just been seen, stretch back to 1123, consequently Nicholas's term of service must precede that date. It may here be noted that in two writs of Henry I, falling between the years 1107 and 1123, a Nicholas de Stafford is addressed as sheriff of Staffordshire.
|Geoffrey de Clinton||Before Michaelmas 1128–30.|
In the List Geoffrey is credited with being sheriff only for the current year, 1129–30. He, however, accounts not only for the 'new farm' but also for the 'old farm'. In consequence, it is possible to extend his tenure of service back through the year 1128-9.
In the List William is put down as a predecessor of Warin, sheriff for 1128–30, but no attempt is made to define his term of office more exactly. Yet, by observing the amount of William's indebtedness and by comparing it with the estimated amount of the annual farm for Wiltshire, it is possible to affirm that he certainly held the office for two years, and that, in all probability, he held it for three years. In the accounts of Dorset and Wiltshire, Warin is entered as accounting for both the 'old farm' and the 'new farm' of the two counties. Under the head of Wiltshire alone, the first entry is as follows:
Thus William's indebtedness amounts to £1,023. If Warin had accounted for the farms of Dorset and Wiltshire separately instead of jointly, it would have been possible to state definitely the amount of the annual farm of Wiltshire. Yet this amount can be estimated with a fair degree of accuracy, for on the Pipe Rolls of Henry II the farms of the two counties are given separately. From the early rolls of this reign it appears that the annual
Willelmus qui fuit Vicecomes reddit compotum de .M. et .xxiij. l. et .ij. d. blancorum de veteri firma Wiltescirae. In thesauro .xlvij. l. et .iij. s. blancorum.
farm for Dorset was about £120; that for Wiltshire, a trifle more than £500. The combination of the two sums produces a total of £620, an amount slightly less than the total, £650, of the combined farms as accounted for by Warin in the year 1129–30. If any change in the size and relative amounts of the two farms has taken place between the end of the reign of Henry I and the early years of Henry II, such change would seem to have been comparatively slight. It would, therefore, seem reasonable to estimate the amount of the farm of Wiltshire as having been about £500 during the years when William was sheriff. If this is the case, it then becomes at once apparent that William's indebtedness of more than £1,000, twice the amount of the annual farm, must represent at least two years' tenure of office. But this is not all, for it is inconceivable that during the two years since William's departure from office, and during the added years when the farms respectively came due, no payments at all had been made; even in this year William makes a payment of £47. It is, therefore, almost necessary to assume that William's indebtedness must have exceeded that of the total farm for two years; indeed it would not be at all improbable that it exceeded the total farm for three years. In other words, it is difficult to conceive that William held office for less than three years, and there is some probability that he held it for four. Since Warin's term of service began at least as early as Michaelmas 1128, William's tenure of office must have come before that date. In all probability William was in office during the years 1125–8; it is possible, also, that he held the office for the year 1124–5.
|Anschetill de Bulemer||Before Michaelmas 1128.|
|Bertram de Bulemer||Michaelmas 1128–30.|
In the accounts of Yorkshire, Bertram de Bulemer renders account both for the 'old farm' and the 'new farm'. Immediately following these accounts occurs this entry:
It thus appears that Bertram's father has died, and that Bertram has paid a sum of money to take over the ministerium formerly exercised by his father. What this ministerium was is shown by the father's indebtedness pro forisfacturis comitatus, an item ordinarily chargeable only to a sheriff. Obviously, then, Bertram's father had held the office of sheriff for a year or period of years previous to Michaelmas 1128, at which time Bertram was already in office. Mr. Farrer supplies the name of Bertram's
Et Idem Vicecomes reddit compotum de. xxv. m. argenti de debito patris sui pro forisfacturis comitatus. Et de .cc. m. argenti pro terra et ministerio patris sui. In thesauro .lij. l. .vj. s. et .viij. d. Et debet .c. et .xlv. m. argenti.
father as Anschetill de Bulemer, and cites references to him in various writs and charters of Henry I. Mr. Farrer states, without quoting his authority, that Anschetill did not die until 1129, and thinks that he probably continued in office up to his death. Against this suggestion should be placed the fact that Bertram accounts for the farm of the year 1128–9.
|Geoffrey Vicecomes de Pourhoi|
|William Fitz Rannulf|
In the accounts of Devonshire, among the items of old business, occurs this entry:
Et Idem Vicecomes reddit compotum de .x. l. et .iij. s. et .iiij. d. de placitis Roberti Arundel de foresta. In thesauro .iij. s. et .iiij. d. Et in perdona per breve Regis Gaufrido Vicecomiti de Pourehoi .x. m. argenti. . . .
In the accounts of Yorkshire occurs this entry:
Willelmus filius Rannulfi Vicecomes reddit compotum de .xx. m. argenti de eisdem placitis. In thesauro .x. m. argenti. Et debet .x. m. argenti.
In the accounts of Huntingdonshire occur these entries:
Et Idem Vicecomes reddit compotum de .iiij. l. et .iiij. s. et .vj. d. de preterito danegeldo. In perdona per breve Regis Comiti Gloec' .xxxij. s. Comiti Morit' .xxxij. s. et .vj. d. Et debet .xx. s. Et remanet in terra Willelmi filii Rannulfi. . . . Willelmus filius Rannulfi debet .xviij. l. et .v. s. et .xj. d. de preteritis danegeldis et murdris et placitis et donis que requirebantur in terra sua de Cheneboltona.
Curtis H. Walker.
- Public Record Office, Lists and Indexes, no. ix.
- Pipe Roll, 31 Henry I, p. 100.
- Pipe Roll, 31 Henry I, p. 122
- Ibid. pp. 123, 13.
- Ibid. pp. 43, 44.
- See J. H. Round, The Commune of London, pp. 121–3.
- Pipe Roll, 31 Henry I, pp. 6, 7.
- Ibid. p. 7.
- Ibid. p. 31.
- Ibid. p. 153.
- Ibid. p. 36; Chronicon Monasterii de Abingdon (Rolls Series), ii. 112.
- Pipe Roll, 31 Henry I, pp. 81, 85.
- Ibid. p. 81.
- The Rev. H. E. Salter has shown that Hugh appears as sheriff of Lincolnshire and perhaps Northamptonshire in a document of between 1120 and 1123 (ante, xxiii. 725).
- Pipe Roll, 31 Henry I, p. 109.
- Ante, xxx. 279, 281.
- Pipe Roll, 31 Henry 1, pp. 143, 149. On page 149 there is first an entry in which all four sheriffs together account for 8 marks of gold to be quit of the sheriffship. This entry is cancelled. A few lines further along, however, occur two entries, in the first of which William Lelutre, Geoffrey Bucherell, Ralph Fitz Herlewin, render account of 6 marks for the same purpose, paying down 3 marks, and being debited with 3 marks; in the second, William de Balio renders account of 2 marks, likewise for the same purpose.
- Ibid. pp. 143, 144.
- Ibid. In Hughes's List Ralph is put down as the successor rather than the predecessor of Fulchered.
- Stow, Survey, ed. Strype, ii. 4, in Round, Geoffrey de Mandeville, p. 309.
- Pipe Roll, 31 Henry I, p. 2.
- Ibid. p. 2.
- Farrer, Outline Itinerary, nos. 557, 525 A.
- Pipe Roll, 31 Henry I, p. 3.
- Pipe Boll, 31 Henry I, p. 73.
- Ibid. p. 82.
- Bigelow, Placita Anglo-Normannica, pp. 95, 137.
- Pipe Roll 31 Henry I, p. 104.
- Ibid. p. 16.
- Pipe Roll, 31 Henry I, p. 24.
- Ante, xxx. 284, 285.
- Pipe Roll, 31 Henry I, p. 155.
- Ibid. p. 28.
- Ibid. pp. 28, 48.