sign in sign up
<<
Home , Demesne, Earl of Lancaster, Inquisition post mortem, Myerscough, Needwood Forest

NOTES ON THE LANCASTER ESTATES IN THE THIRTEENTH AND FOURTEENTH CENTURIES

BY DOROTHEA OSCHINSKY, D.Phil., Ph.D.

Read 24 April 1947

UR knowledge of mediaeval estate administration is O based mainly on sources which relate to ecclesiastical estates, because these are easier of access and, as a rule, more complete. The death of an abbot affected a monastic estate only in so far as his successor might be a better or a worse husbandman; the estate was never divided between heirs, was not diminished by the endowment of widows and daughters, and was not doubled by prudent marriages as were seignorial estates. Furthermore, the ecclesiastics had frequently been granted their lands in frankalmoin, and no rent or service was rendered in return. With few exceptions their manors lay near the centre of the estate; and, finally, the clerics had sufficient leisure to supervise their estates themselves and little difficulty in providing a staff trained to work the estates intensively and profitably. Therefore we realise that any conclusions which are based on ecclesiastical estates only must necessarily be one-sided, and that before we can draw a general picture of the estate administration in the , we have to work out the estate adminis­ tration on at least some of the more important seignorial estates. The Lancaster estates with their changing fate are well able to reveal the chief characteristics of a seignorial estate, its extent, management and administration. The vastness of the estates of the Earls of Lancaster, and the importance of the family in the political history of the country, accen­ tuated and multiplied the difficulties of the estate adminis­ tration. The estate contained a far greater number of components than any ordinary seignorial estate since it represented in itself a composition of several large seignorial estates brought together and divided again by political 9 10 NOTES ON THE LANCASTER ESTATES IN THE events. The management and organisation of the local units, however, were much the same whether the estate was in the hands of Henry de Lacy, Thomas of Lancaster, or Queen Isabella. The Earldom of Lancaster was created in 1267 when Henry III granted it to his younger son Edmund. The components of the estate of this new earldom were the Earldom and Honour of Leicester, the castles and lands of the , both forfeited to the king after the Barons' War of 1265, and the Honours of Lancaster, Newcastle- under-Lyme, and Pickering. (1) When Edmund of Lancaster died in 1297 he owned the Honours of Leicester, (Staffs, and Derby), Lancaster, and the bailiwicks of Pickering (Yorks.), (Northants), and Dunstanburgh (Northumberland). (2) His son, Thomas, added (by his marriage with the heiress of the , Henry de Lacy) the Honours of Clitheroe (Lanes.), Halton (Ches.), (Yorks.), and Bolingbroke (Lines.). <3) The estates which the Earls of Lancaster owned in Wales had been acquired partly by Henry de Lacy (e.g. Denbigh), and partly by grants in reward to Edmund for his services against the Welsh (e.g. , Grosmont, White Castle, Sken- frith). (4) In the early 14th century the Lancaster estates consisted of seven honours, three bailiwicks, the Welsh estates, and some smaller estates in Norfolk, Suffolk, Middle­ sex, , etc. The survey of the ' fees granted by the Earls of Lancaster gives the names of thirty-one counties; 15' that is to say the estates were scattered all over England. <6) The estates included large forests in Derbyshire, Stafford­ shire, , and Denbighshire, fenland in , moorland in and good arable land and pasture all over England. But the estate administration had also to

111 See W. E. Rhodes, " Edmund Earl of Lancaster " (English Historical Review, Vol. X, 1895). <2) Calendar of Inquisitions post mortem (Public Record Office), Vol III, No. 423. I am indebted for information on this subject to Mr. R. Somer- ville who has allowed me to use some of his notes. '" Calendar of Inquisitions post mortem, Vol. V, No. 279. '" W. E. Rhodes, op. tit, pp. 31ff. <"' Duchy of Lancaster Knight's Fees (P.R.O.), Bundle I, No. 11. '" For this essay we need not consider the estates in France. THIRTEENTH AND FOURTEENTH CENTURIES 11 be adapted to such widely different types of habitation as were to be found in Denbigh and in Yorkshire or Lincoln­ shire. In Denbigh there were groups of small villages, each nothing more than a hamlet formed by the Celtic custom of dividing the land among the heirs ; (1) in Yorkshire and Lincolnshire, on the other hand, the Scandinavian settlers had formed large villages. A final word about the fate of this enormous estate. It was forfeited to the king after the decapitation of Thomas of Lancaster in 1322; part of it was a few years later granted to Thomas's brother, Earl Henry of Lancaster, part of it was returned to Alesia, Thomas's widow, and part of it remained for some time in the hands of Queen Isabella to whom the king had given it after it had been escheated to him. m Substantial parts of the estate had been temporarily granted away by Thomas of Lancaster, e.g. the lands which he gave to Robert de Holand in Lancashire, U) and some lands had been assigned in dower to Henry de Lacy's widow in 1311 and to Thomas's widow in 1322. (4) It was a characteristic mediaeval idea that the possession of land was of no value unless profit was derived from it. (6) This made it easier for the to grant lands away than if the present day conception prevailed whereby the ground itself is of value. Also the feudal system required every important lord to give sufficient land to his retainers to support them, just as he had received the land from his with the obligation of feudal service in return. Thus the larger part of the land which was in the possession of a lord might be given out to his feudal tenants. The return from these estates would consist of military service, some token rent, a rose, a pair of gloves, a pair of spurs, suit to the lord's courts, and the feudal incidents (aids, reliefs, etc.). Apart from the land handed over to military tenants, the

(1) E. Lipson, The Economic History of England, Vol. I, p. 85; H. C. Darby in An Historical Geography of England, pp. 204ff. <" Calendar of Patent Rolls (P.R.O.), 1327-30, p. 32; 1330-34, p. 195; 1343-45, p. 447. 131 Inquisition ad quod damnum, Edward II (see W. Farrer, Lancashire and Cheshire Record Society, Vol. 54, p. 34). (4) Calendar of Inquisitions post mortem, Vol. VI, No. 371, Vol. IX, No. 107. 151 E. Lamond, Walter of Henley, p. 18: " e la terre est votre e ne mye alowe ". 12 NOTES ON THE LANCASTER ESTATES IN THE religious zeal of the Middle Ages was the cause of frequent grants of estates in frankalmoin to religious houses which did not bring any return in rent or service to the lord except the prayers of the monks for the donor and his family. The revenues of the lord which actually filled his coffers and from which he paid his expenses were derived from his estates. These demesne estates were by no means all landed estates, nor were they all run by the lord's servants and worked for his profit. We find among them rights and privileges that were rented out for a fixed amount, e.g. the jurisdiction of a hundred court or the advowson of a church, the rent assize of a borough, the profits from tolls, markets and fairs. A substantial part of the rights, privileges and lands which made up these demesne estates of the lord, however, were actually worked " in demesne". Forest rights, for example, were made profitable by the keeping of vaccaries and by the collecting of brushwood; mines were exploited on the lord's account, pastures and meadows were used for the feeding of the lord's sheep and cattle, and, finally, land was ploughed by the lord's tenants or his serfs. These demesne lands, woods and rights sometimes cost more than they brought in, e.g. castles sometimes needed costly repairs which exceeded the profits, mills sometimes were thrown over by storms and were out of action, mines sometimes were not in productive use. It was the merit of the manorial system that it provided administrative, geographical and jurisdictional units which allowed a firm grasp to be kept on the numerous sources of revenue. Token fees, rents and revenues due from the lands of free tenants, thegns or knights, situated between two manors could be included in the account of one or the other manor. A seignorial bailiff or in charge of a manor had to account for the feudal incidents and token fees from tenants just as he had to account for the rents from mills, mines and courts in his district. The management of the manorial inland was only one of his many duties. For the purpose of administration the manors, townships, lands, forests and rights were grouped in bailiwicks or receiverships under the supervision of a bailiff, steward or receiver. The honours, too, acted as such administrative THIRTEENTH AND FOURTEENTH CENTURIES 13 units. They were held of the king in chief against payment of military service. The caput of the honour was usually a castle which had the same name as the honour, and the estates were grouped around it. (1) Table V (see below) shows the honours, bailiwicks and receiverships of the Lancaster estate at the beginning of the 14th century and their relation to the General Receipt in Kenilworth and to the Household Receipt. The comparative importance of the receiverships is indicated by the amount of money-receipts after the arrears have been deducted. The sources for the study of the administration and management of the estates of the Earls of Lancaster are primarily inquisitionespost mortem, rentals, manorial accounts and valors. The most important inquests preserved are those drawn up after the deaths of Edmund of Lancaster in 1297, (2) of Henry de Lacy Earl of Lincoln in 1311, 13 ' of Thomas of Lancaster in 1327, (4) and of Alice de Lacy in 1348. (S) There were also some valuable inquisitiones post mortem drawn up after the deaths of feudal tenants of the Earls of Lancaster, e.g. of members of the Grelley, Banastre, Dacre, and Lea families. (6) They are full of details illus­ trating the management of smaller seignorial estates and showing how it differed from that of the larger seignorial estates. The only valors which have been preserved for our period relate to the years 1330-31 and 1331-32. <7) This type of record could only be developed and used on an estate as highly centralised as the Lancaster estate. The valors are the first of a series of which more frequent examples are found after 1400. Judging from the later valors, it was their object (1) e.g. the estates of the honours of Bolingbroke, Pontefract, Leicester, etc., were each situated around a castle of the same name. (a) Calendar of Inquisitions post mortem, Vol. Ill, No. 423. The Lancashire section is edited and translated by W. Farrer in Lancashire Inquests, Extents and Feudal Aids (3 vols), Vol. I, pp. 284ff (Lancashire and Cheshire Record Society, Vols. 48, 54 and 70). 131 Calendar of Inquisitions post mortem, Vol. V, No. 279; W. Farrer, Lancashire Inquests, Vol. II, pp. 2ff. (4) Calendar of Inquisitions post mortem, Vol. VIII, No. 82; W. Farrer, Lancashire Inquests, Vol. II, pp. 221ff. '" Calendar of Inquisitions post mortem, Vol. IX, Nos. 107,472; W. Farrer, Lancashire Inquests, Vol. Ill, pp. 169ff. 161 Cf. W. Farrer, Lancashire Inquests, Vols. I-III, passim. " > 's Fees (P.R.O.), Bundle I, No. 11. 14 NOTES ON THE LANCASTER ESTATES IN THE to give the income from each manor, township or forest as derived from their rents, farms, sales and court incidents, after the wages of the manorial officials and any allowances in rent or necessary expenses had been deducted. This type of record was possible only on an estate where demesne farming had been largely replaced by a system of rent collection. The primary sources for our knowledge of the working of the estate are, however, the manorial accounts. Three rolls have been preserved for the late 13th and early 14th centuries, two for the estate of the Earl of Lincoln before it was trans­ ferred to Thomas of Lancaster in 1311, and one after the transfer had taken place. (1) These rolls are not the bailiffs' original accounts but the copies which were compiled after the yearly audit. They contain, moreover, the account of the official in charge of the manorial group, whether this group was an honour, a wapentake or a bailiwick, and the account of the household. The accounts are unfortunately not complete, especially in the roll relating to the year 1313-14. With regard to the Lancaster estates in Lancashire we may rely on the Lacy rolls of 1296 and 1305 to provide information for the estates in Blackburn Hundred, but we have no parallel information for 1314. The general receiver's account gives the amount of money which was received from these estates, but the detailed receipt and expenses accounts of the former Lacy estates were for some reason not enrolled on this copy roll. There are other omissions too; neither the dense property in West Derby Hundred, which at the time was in the hands of Robert de Holand, (2) nor the estates in Leyland and Hundreds are entered on the roll of 1314. A rental, dated 1322, and an account for 1324 are extant showing the state of affairs during the period following the execution of Thomas of Lancaster, (3) when his estates had escheated to the king. A keeper, John de Lancaster, had then been appointed for the estates of the rebels, and it is his account that has come down to us. But here again there

"> Duchy of Lancaster Ministers' Accounts (P.R.O.), Bundle I, Nos. 1, 2, 3. 121 W. Fairer, Lancaster Inquests, Vol. II, pp. 34ff. (3) Ibid., Vol. II, pp. 75ff. (Cf. P.R.O. Rental and Survey Roll, No. 379). THIRTEENTH AND FOURTEENTH CENTURIES 15 are serious omissions. The estates which had been either returned to Thomas's widow Alice or given to Queen Isabella are omitted, and we have also to keep in mind that the account represents the balance sheet of the royal keeper and does not give detailed information about the income and expenses of each locality. It seems certain that the estate administra­ tion suffered after Thomas's death, that the local officials were not too eager to reveal the real state of affairs to a royal official, and that the rebellion had been a hard drain on the resources of the earl. All that is mentioned to account for the depreciation of rents, however, is the destruction caused by the Scottish invasion. (1) The many types of estate property are reflected in the receipts. There are first and foremost the rents from tenants by charter, free and customary tenants and cotters, the farms from demesne land which had been let, the commu­ tation of labour services, and the profits from corn, wool, beasts or other produce that had been sold. There was also the income from rights, whether farmed or still in the hand of the lord, such as fisheries, forest rights, mill or oven rights, pasture rights, etc. Finally there was the income from the lord's boroughs, markets, fairs and tolls. All these revenues (rents, farms, and profits from sales) make up the main part of the lord's income, accounting for between 70% and 90% of the total receipts in 1314. (2) Some amounts, for example the firma burgi of Newcastle (£40), Higham (£28), Preston (£15), and Lancaster (£13), were substantial sums, some mills were farmed against a high rent, and the income from vaccaries was important, but there were also many small rents of one shilling, sixpence or even one penny for small plots of ground. A second source of receipts was the rights of jurisdiction, the incidents from the lord's courts, from the halmote as well as from the wapentake and hundred courts, the entry fines, merchet, heriot and the reliefs. They come to 10% to 15% in each of the receiverships with the exceptions of Tutbury and the Honour of Leicester, where a large number

111 W. Farrer, Lancashire Inquests, Vol. II, pp. 168ff. 12 'These and the following figures are based on the 1313-14 account (P.R.O. Duchy of Lancaster, 29 1/3). 16 NOTES ON THE LANCASTER ESTATES IN THE of townships paid a round sum of one or two shillings pro visit, that is for judicial revenues from places where the earl had views of frank-pledge. The income from this source adds up to 31 % of the whole amount of the receivership. There are also incidental incomes such as from and aids, which occur especially in the Higham Ferrers, Pickering and Tutbury receipts of 1314, but they never amount to more than 5 % of the total income of any one receipt. In 1314 the income from feudal tenants which passed through the hands of the local receivers was so small that we may omit it altogether, with the exception of one item of £20, which was derived from the sale of the custodianship of the estates of a feudal tenant. The detailed study of the origin of the earl's revenue is interesting and important, but it is too wide a subject for this essay. A concise table of the figures of some of the receiver­ ships may be permitted, however. For the understanding of the table it should be noted that the " total " simply represents the total of the different columns; it is not identical with the total as shown in the Ministers' Accounts, because it does not include arrears or the money which had been received from other estates of the earl. The total has been given only in order to permit the working out of the percentage; it does not show the profit which the earl derived from his estates, because it does not exclude the necessary expenses. To give an example, a sale of corn is here shown without the expenses of growing and harvesting, and they might easily offset any profit from it. The second column includes the income from rents and farms and sales of any kind; the third column shows rents received from free tenants and sokemen. The large number of sokemen in the Honour of Higham Ferrers and the nature of their services indicate that their status there did not differ much from that of bond tenants. For working out the percentages I have added the rents from the free and semi-free tenants to the rents as given in the first column. The fourth column includes the profit from manorial incidents such as reliefs, merchet, heriots, and also the income from the courts. We have not yet found the key which would enable us to work out accurately the income which a seignorial lord TABLE I. To show the sources of revenue on the Lancaster Estates in 1314. aH 53 H Rents, farms, Rents from tn Honour or Bailiwick sale of work free tenants, Manorial incidents, ca Total and produce sokemen and fines and perquisites and Aid Divers Z drengs

£ s. d. £ s. d. £ s. d. £ s. d. £ s. d. £ s. d. z Higham Ferrers 503 06 6 346 03 09 59 01 11 61 01 06 36 19 04 o 81 % 12% 7% Lancaster 440 16 2 295 10 06 27 05 10 102 11 04 15 08 6 o 73% 23% 3% c Pickering 495 10 5 297 04 10 45 04 02 70 14 00 72 07 05 10 00 0 jo H 69o/0 15% 14% 2% tn Berks & Wilts 209 07 5 162 01 09 3 17 00 21 15 04 1 13 04 20 00 0 tn 80 % 11% 9% Z Melbourne 94 04 5 83 14 06 10 08 07 0 1 4 H 90% 10% K Newcastle 167 07 7 148 16 07 | 18 11 00 O 89% 11% tn Leicester 632 00 0 437 17 11 1 1402 191 12 10 0 15 4 Z 69% 31% H Tutbury 1942 12 1 1497 12 08 115 10 09 264 15 06 64 02 10 0 10 4 C 82 % 14% 4% 50 tn CA 18 NOTES ON THE LANCASTER ESTATES IN THE derived from his estate in the Middle Ages. The precise interpretation of the valor, the manorial account, and the figures given in the inquisitiones post mortem is still not possible. On the other hand it is of great importance for the sake of comparison that we should have some idea of the profit which the lord could get from his estate. The estate was divided for the purpose of administration into honours and receiverships. The officials in charge of the smallest units, whether manors or townships, drew up their receipts and expenses sheets on which the expenses included, as a rule, not only the sums spent on the upkeep of the manor but also the cash livery sent up to the receiver in charge of the honour or receivership. On a well-run estate we may expect the livery to be in proportion to the size and importance of the unit from which it had been sent. If the amount was very great it may indicate that the lord had asked for too much and that large sales had had to be made to comply with his demand, or that some unusual income had swelled the receipts for that year perhaps the profitable farming out of a piece of demesne land, perhaps the raising of a special tax. If the cash livery was small as compared with the importance of the manor it may mean that the estate had been stocked up during the year, that the lord or other visitors had stayed there and used up some of the profits, that it had been run badly, or that some catastrophe had occurred. In any case we shall find the explanation in the account. We have to mention these possibilities here in order to show the limitations of the figures and to illustrate the importance of detailed study before we pronounce judgment on the quality of the earl's management. For the present we may say therefore that any cash that had been sent up to the receiver estate from the manor or township was, prudently or imprudently, exacted " profit". The receivers of the honours or receiverships collected the monies which had been sent up to them, they paid the fees due to themselves and to senior officials of the receiver­ ship or honour, and they accounted for expenses incurred in the running of their office. Part of the incoming monies, however, was used for paying the ' bills, and for building houses, mills, chapels, etc. The remainder was THIRTEENTH AND FOURTEENTH CENTURIES 19 sent up to the head office of the estate in Kenilworth. If we want to know the " profit" from any receivership we have to take the total of the receipts, deduct the arrears, which may mean cash in hand or bad debts and which are not income in our sense of the word, and deduct also the fees and the expenses. The remainder will be " profit " in our meaning of the word. Frequently a manor did not send all surplus cash to the receiver to be forwarded to the head office, but instead sent part direct to the general receipt or to the earl's chamber. Therefore it is not possible to arrive at the profit of the whole estate simply by adding up the profits of the receiver estates; we have to work out the profits of the general receipt and of the lord's household receipt in the same way, that is by deducting arrears and fees and working expenses. In order to avoid counting more than once the " profits " which had been sent up from the receiverships to the general receipt and from there to the lord's household receipt, we must deduct the profits forwarded in all receipts but the highest. This explains why in the following table the profit of the local receipts is small compared with that of the earl's chamber. The account roll for 1314 does not contain the accounts for the receiverships of the former Lacy estates, though they then belonged to Earl Thomas. All we can read from the accounts of the general receiver and the household receiver are the amounts which had been sent up to them. To obtain an approximate figure for the " total profits from the estates ", we may use the account roll of 1305, which had been drawn up under Henry de Lacy, to fill the gap. We should remember, of course, that nine years could make a considerable difference in the running of an estate and that the good husbandry of Henry de Lacy is as well known as the extravagance of Thomas of Lancaster. (1) On the other hand an extravagant lord would have to be more careful to get the maximum profit from his estate. We know, moreover, that a number of estate officials had been taken over from the time of Henry de Lacy, and they would safeguard the continuity of the administra­ tion. (1) See J. F. Baldwin, " The Household Administration of Henry de Lacy and Thomas of Lancaster ", p. 180 (English Historical Review, Vol. XLII, 1927). TABLE II. To show the profits of the Earl of Lancaster from his estates in 1314. ^ o CD H Profit I Profit II Profit III en Receivership Total receipts Arrears Necessary Liveries sent to Money spent Revenues t/5 plus arrears expenses other receipts in loco from the Receiverships II § £ s. d. £ s. d. £ s. d. £ s. d. £ s. d. £ s. d. (JQ hH Lancaster 1099 05 00 28 19 00 91 00 00 831 13 00 112 10 00 944 03 00 a S' 33 Tutbury 2127 10 501 06 90 13 997 00 516 04 1513 04 n CT* w Leicester 951 11 43 07 66 06 686 00 95 04 781 04 o. ft" r Higham Ferrers 753 16 36 01 30 00 270 08 315 00 585 08 Pickering 445 04 1 16 22 00 352 00 352 00 1-1 n 2; Berks & Wilts 606 17 8 08 14 04 647 00 24 10 671 12 8 OQ o Essex, Middlesex and 2 5' 83 00 < o London 210 04 36 00 72 00 155 06 ft ^. Pontefract 3396 08 814 09 158 06 253 12 2170 01 2423 13 "* P m Bolingbroke 2556 06 650 10 55 11 327 03 1523 02 1850 05 Canford 777 02 199 00 29 00 305 00 244 02 549 02 o S^ 8 % w Holborn 400 05 124 14 38 06 315 00 93 18 408 18 en General Receipt 2377 08 77 06 42 12 1502 06 203 11 1706 05 Countess's Household11' 441 08 439 09 439 09 Earl's household 6661 18 424 13 7518 05 7518 05 H W Total Profit 13338 16 a less surplus 626 13 \ 1 Total profit 12712 03 H 33 to (1) The countess stayed for some time during the year 1313-14 in Pickering and cash from this receipt and from P o some of the Wiltshire manors make up her income for the time when she was not included in the Earl's household. S.S. L THIRTEENTH AND FOURTEENTH CENTURIES 21 the necessary expenses follow in the second and third columns. As a rule the necessary expenses, though not under this heading, have been totalled separately in the original, thus making it easy for us to decide what were " necessary " and what 'were " unnecessary " expenses. The latter have to be added to the profit. The fourth column shows cash liveries sent from the receiverships to the general receipt at Kenil- worth or to the earl's household receivership or to any other receipt. The last column gives what for the present we want to term " profit", i.e. the total receipts less arrears, necessary expenses and cash liveries. The account for Holborn ended hi 1305 with a surplus of £78, that is to say the receiver had disbursed more than was in his coffers. For our purpose this sum has to be deducted from the total profit. The account of the receiver-general of Kenilworth shows that he did not keep the cash in his coffers but forwarded most of it to the household of the earl. The total income from the Lancaster estates in 1314 (we again stress that the figures for the Lacy lands leave room for considerable error) was £12,221. Half of this amount, £6,273, swelled the coffers of the house­ hold receiver and was spent by him, and the other half was spent by the local receivers and by the general receiver in paying bills, building, etc. The valors of 1330 and 1331 give different figures though the comparison of the different receipts, whenever that is possible, shows the same trend. Since they also include the income from other sources and the household receiver's account of how he spent the money, they draw a fine picture of the household of Henry Earl, of Lancaster. A short description of their contents is here given. TABLE III. Valor tenarum comitis Lancastrie anno quinto.

RECEIPTS From Estates, i.e. Honours 1330 1331 or Bailiwicks of: £ s. d. £ s. d. Lancaster 647 00 09 642 15 06 Pickering 360 07 10 362 00 03 Tutbury 1157 19 01 1266 02 11 22 NOTES ON THE LANCASTER ESTATES IN THE £ S. d. £ s. d. £ s. d. Melbourne 64 08 09 79 19 02 Newcastle 142 09 11 145 02 07 Leicester 386 13 03 407 11 03 Higham Ferrers 384 18 04 378 02 03 Kenilworth 42 06 11 58 12 01 Lincolnshire 126 03 01 Huntingdon 202 10 07 202 10 00 Norfolk 8 10 09 Kynemerford 404 01 06 459 02 10 Hampshire 414 15 07 414 04 01 Wales 990 08 08 1043 03 10 Dunstanburgh 135 18 00

Total 5516 12 08«> 5516 12 08

£ s. d. Salaries 227 06 08 Annuities 386 13 03 613 19 11 12> 4892 12 09 (3) Incidental income 2557 04 01< 4 ' 7449 16 11 Cash left with officials 1197 05 02 <5 > 6252 11 09 Total Receipts £6252 11 09

111 The Lacy lands did not belong to the Earl in 1330, and the lands in Wales, Huntingdonshire and Norfolk were not included in the 1314 account. I2) Here only the salaries of the senior officials of the receiverships are included. In Lancashire the steward received £25 00 00 and the receiver £10 00 00. No other official is mentioned for this county. '"This item included payments to the lord's retainers and household servants, e.g. domino H. de Ferrers ad terminum vite per annum £100 00 00, magistro J. Coco £10, S. la Lavender £2. '*' This amount includes profits or moneys which did not come in every year. The biggest item in this chapter is the arrears £1,665 04 04, which had been left in the hands of officials from the previous year; they represent cash in hand. Other items are income from the sale of wood in Melbourne, Needwood, and Kenilworth £83 10 10, fines for assarts in West Derby and Needwood forests £83 06 08, debts owed to the earl by the king and by the Earl of Warenne £237 12 06, income from his lands in France £104 19 07, income from the aid for knighting his son £136 06 08, custody of estates which were temporarily in the lord's hands £110 09 00, and marriage fines £68 13 04. 15 ' This amount corresponds with the arrears described in the previous note. It will appear in the valor of 1331 as such. THIRTEENTH AND FOURTEENTH CENTURIES 23 EXPENSES

Upkeep of the household including pur- £ s. d. chases of spices and wax 1819 09 08 Travelling expenses of the earl's son Henry and of other members of the household 1476 11 01 Cash payments to the lord's chamber and to the chamber of his children (approx.) 335 00 00 Pocket money for the lord 702 00 05 Saddles, parchment, towels, etc. (approx.) 55 00 00 13 horses and 2 hawks (approx.) 201 18 09 Expenses for transport and messengers (approx.) 48 00 00 Donations and gifts 163 03 07 Restocking and rebuilding (approx,) 810 00 00 Payments by the lord's wardrobe and and certain debts of the lord 683 12 01 (1> Total expenses £6294 15 07 <3 The valor of 1330 shows a surplus of £42 03 10(3)

Having so far treated of the estates of the Earl of Lancaster in England as a whole, we will now deal with his estates in Lancashire in greater detail. Lancashire has had a different historical development from the other counties. It was an area where Anglian and Scandinavian settlement overlapped and, moreover, throughout its history it changed hands repeatedly from the Crown to tenant-in-chief and from tenant-in-chief back to the Crown. Roger of Poitou held the land until he forfeited it in 1102. About 1150 the honour of Roger of Poitou was in the hands of the Earl of Chester, - U) This item includes expenses for the replacement of horses for some of the lord's men, commutation of certain gifts of salmon, cattle and horses, some small payments to household officials, a gift to a man who had been wounded in , donations to monastic houses, rewards, etc. m The last totals are only approximate, because they are not included in the account and it is therefore not possible to be exact without a detailed study. "'i.e. the total is £6,463 16 04 for the expenses, and the surplus £21 04 06. Since the receipts came to £6,252 11 09 these figures are inexplicable. 24 NOTES ON THE LANCASTER ESTATES IN THE and from 1164 to 1189 it belonged to the Crown and appears on the Pipe Rolls. After a short interval when it was in the hands of John, while he was still Count of Mortain, it remained with the king till 1267 when Henry III gave it to his son Edmund, Earl of Lancaster. A similar story could be told of West Derby, Salford and Leyland Hundreds, which at the beginning of the 13th century were in the hands of the Earl of Chester and through his sister came into the hands of William Ferrers. In 1265 his grandson Robert forfeited them to the king. A glance at the map of Lancashire shows that the main part of the estate of Earl Edmund, if we leave out for the moment the Lacy estate, was situated in South Lonsdale, Amounderness and West Derby. Some estates were also in Salford and Leyland Hundreds. There were two adminis­ trative centres, Lancaster in the North and West Derby in the South. Lancaster became the head of the whole estate in the county. The manors and vills of Bolton, Slyne with Hest, Skerton and Overton were grouped around Lancaster, while the manors of Great Crosby, Everton and Thingwall were situated around West Derby. There were also the large forest areas of Quernmore and Wyresdale in the north, and the smaller parks of Toxteth, Croxteth and Simonswood in the south. There were the two boroughs of Lancaster and Liverpool, and finally there were the numerous estates which had been granted to military tenants, that is to knights and thegns, in or in fee farm. The estate in Amounderness was less extensive and less centralised. It included the borough of Preston and the park of Fulwood in the south-east of the hundred; Singleton, Ribby and Wrea, old demesne manors, in the western part; the parks of and Bleasdale, and again, as in Lonsdale and West Derby, the many estates which were in the hands of military and free tenants. The bulk of the demesne property of Henry de Lacy was situated in Blackburn Hundred, but there was Tottington in Salford Hundred, Widnes in West Derby Hundred and a few smaller estates. The components of the were the castle with the manor and borough of Clitheroe, the chases and forests of Rossendale, the demesne THIRTEENTH AND FOURTEENTH CENTURIES 25 manors of Standen, and Accrington, and the surrounding vills where the land had been demised to tenants for rent. The estates in Lancashire included some of the most valuable property of the earl, surpassed only by the estates of the Honours of Bolingbroke, Pontefract and Tutbury. The officer in charge in 1314 was Sir Thomas le Waleys, who received the high fee of £10 per year for his services. Though the Lancashire estates were not subordinate to any other receipt, they were closely related to the neighbouring estates in Yorkshire, and roughly 20 % of the receipts of Lancashire were forwarded to the receipt at Pontefract. The greater part of the monies received from the Lancashire estates, however, was handed either direct to Kenilworth, the general receipt of the whole estates, or to the lord's house­ hold. The duty of the receiver was to receive and to render an account of the monies from the Lancashire estates, from its manors, forests, vaccaries, wapentakes and courts. The estates were for this purpose grouped; there were the forests of Lonsdale and Amounderness as one group, and the vaccaries of Wyresdale as another; the receipt of Clitheroe which had been taken over from Henry de Lacy formed a third administrative unit, and there were finally the manors and boroughs of the Hundreds of Amounderness, Lonsdale, Salford and Leyland, though we have little information about the last. The officials in charge of the boroughs and manors had to answer directly to the receiver of Lancashire, Sir Thomas le Waleys, who therefore includes in his account the receipts from Singleton, Ribby, Wrea and Preston in Amounderness, and from Slyne, Overton, Skerton and Lan­ caster in Lonsdale, without drawing up separate receipt and expense sheets for each hundred or manor. The estates in Blackburn Hundred form an exception. They were managed in 1305 and also in 1313 by a separate steward and receiver. The receiver had to account for the money rents paid in by the several townships of Colne, Haslingden, Tottington, etc., and for the money profits derived from the vaccaries the latter had been paid in to him by the head stockkeeper. The supervision of the management of the manors of Ightenhill and Accrington and of the cattle farms was left to the steward, 26 NOTES ON THE LANCASTER ESTATES IN THE who probably inspected them during the year and advised the servants in charge of the manors as well as the head stockkeeper. The forests of Lonsdale and Amounderness were'in the charge of a keeper, William de Hornby, who received for his work a salary of 30 shillings. He was helped in his task by two parkers, one of them in charge of the park of Myers- cough and the other in charge of Quernmore forest. Separate accounts were drawn up for the forests of Lonsdale and Amounderness, which in 1314 were audited in Tutbury. Any money profits from the forests were however handed over to the receiver, Sir Thomas le Waleys. The vaccaries of Wyresdale in 1314 were under the super­ vision of Adam de Whitlidale as Head Stockkeeper; he received for his services a salary of £1. The stock was housed in 12 booths, each in the charge of a boothkeeper, who had to answer to the head stockkeeper. The general observations made in the first part of the paper as to the proportion of land let out for knights' fees as com­ pared with lands kept in demesne, and the income from both, hold good for the Earl of Lancaster's estates in Lancashire; they have been partly based on this material. It is extremely difficult to get reliable figures because we do not know how much the ploughland, as used for the assessment, differed from the actual measure; furthermore the number of acres which made up an oxgang could vary from five to twenty. (1> There is, however, no doubt that a standardised assessment of knights' fees existed in spite of the local variations. The of Ralph de Beetham in 1254(2) mentions that he held one ploughland and five oxgangs in Bryning and Kellamergh where twelve ploughlands make one knight's fee. In Newsham a knight's fee contained nine ploughlands, <3) and in Rawcliffe twenty-four ploughlands. (4) The value of a knight's fee in Lancashire shows the same tendency towards standardisation in spite of some differences.

(l > See the rental of 1323 (W. Fairer, Lancashire Inquests, Vol. II, p. 96) where it is shown that each oxgang in Crosby contained five acres. In an inquest of 1249 (ibid., Vol. I, p. 175) each oxgang in Bolton is said to have contained twenty acres of arable and five acres of meadow. <*> Ibid., Vol. I, pp. 193ff. <3 > Ibid., p. 171. I4) Ibid., p. 174. THIRTEENTH AND FOURTEENTH CENTURIES 27 In 1297 most fees were worth £40 each, but there was half a fee in the hands of Margaret de Nevill which was worth £60, while the second half of it was valued at £40, i.e. £100 for one knight's fee. (1) A further difficulty is that fees could be split up and that the fractions show changes even after short intervals. For instance Thomas de Beetham (2) in 1249 held by knight service nine and a half oxgangs in Kellamergh and Bryning, where twelve ploughlands made one knight's fee, each oxgang being worth five shillings. Five years later in 1254 his son, Ralph de Beetham, 13 ' held thirteen and three- quarter oxgangs there, each oxgang being worth six shillings. There are also instances of knights' fees being mortgaged. Thus Theobold le Botiler owed Richard fitz John in 1297 the sum of 560 marks, and he gave him the manor of Weeton (Amounderness), which he held of Edmund of Lancaster, with all its yearly issues (worth £30) until the debt was paid. (4) Finally the knights' fees could be, and were, subinfeudated; Ralph de Beetham for example held three ploughlands in Warton by knight service from Henry de Lacy. These he had partly given in and partly farmed, and the inquisition post mortem adds that he received only two shillings from the estate " because others had been enfeoffed freely in those carucates ". (5) The case of Robert Livesegg is also a good example of .'8 ' At the beginning of the 13th century an ancestor of Henry de Lacy had enfeoffed Robert Livesegg with four oxgangs in the manor of Rochdale; there was no rent to be paid but the tenant owed suit to the lord's court. Robert Livesegg enfeoffed the abbot of Salley with the land but the latter had to pay him four shillings; and suit of court was still rendered by Livesegg. The abbot of Salley passed on the land to the Prioress of Hampole who had to pay him ten shillings for it, which left him six shillings profit after he had paid the four shillings to the heirs of Robert Livesegg. The Prioress of Hampole subinfeudated the land further, asking her tenant, Robert de Whiteword, for a rent of sixteen shillings, of which, as we know, ten shillings were paid to the abbot of Salley, who paid four

111 Ibid., p. 298. "»#>«., p. 171. <" Ibid., p. 194. <" Ibid., pp. 282ff. 161 Ibid., p. 195. <«> Ibid., Vol. II, pp. 42ff. T 28 NOTES ON THE LANCASTER ESTATES IN THE shillings to Robert Livesegg's heirs, who in turn owed suit. This procedure of subinfeudation was still not finished for Robert de Whiteword farmed the land to three parties, though he died while in the possession of the estate. The son of this last tenant, finally, enfeoffed a chaplain with the estate; this time no increase of rent took place and the chaplain, Thomas Neubold, paid sixteen shillings. This development stretched over a period of a hundred years. In 1293, thirty years before the final transaction took place, Henry de Lacy freed the heirs of the original tenant from their duty to render suit; in return the abbot of Salley was asked to pay the four shillings to Henry de Lacy instead of to Robert Livesegg's heirs. Thus one link in that chain was removed. The matter had been brought up when the chaplain, Thomas Neubold, asked for an inquisition ad quod damnum to decide whether it would be to the disadvantage of the king if he, Thomas Neubold, passed on the land to the abbot of Whalley. All this information is extremely valuable for a social and economic survey of the county, but for the study of the estate administration of the earldom of Lancaster all we need is a rough idea of the area which was let out to feudal tenants and the service or income that was derived from it. In 1302 the " sum of all the fees in the County of Lancaster " is given as 29ffc. (1> Of these, 24& fees (that is all but 5fW) were in the hands of feudal tenants of the Earls of Lincoln and Lancaster. Of these fees 1-h were in West Derby, 3r£s were in Lonsdale, 4^a were in Blackburn, and ITS were in Leyland, Sfs were in Salford and STS were in Amounderness. In Amounderness the feudal tenants (e.g. Ingram de Gynes who held half a knight's fee in Garstang, Richard fitz John who held half a knight's fee in Weeton, and William Boteler who held one knight's fee in Laton) had to render ten shillings for each complete and five shillings for each half knight's fee for castleward. Ingram de Gynes held half a knight's fee, \2\ ploughlands, and he rendered five shillings and owed suit to the county and wapentake courts at . (2) The rental of 1322 records in addition the payment of ten shillings castleward and three shillings and four pence

(1 >lbid., Vol. I, pp. 312ff. '" Ibid., pp. 291-292. THIRTEENTH AND FOURTEENTH CENTURIES 29 sakefe for each knight's fee, (1) but there is no other rent or revenue recorded from any of the knight's fees in either the inquisition post mortem of 1297 or the account of 1314. The same applies to the knight's fees of West Derby; the main feudal tenants (William Botiler who held two knights' fees in Warrington, and the Barons of Newton) do not appear in the account. That is to say no revenues, apart from the obligation to render suit and the contribution towards castleward and sakefe, (2) is recorded for the lands which have been given to the greater feudal tenants, lands which, if we exclude the forests, cover just under half the area of the lord's estate. The second and larger part of the earl's estates was that which had been let out in fractions of knight's fees for rent or against service. This was often done by charter. Such tenants could be drengs, serjeants, thegns or just " free tenants ". The great inquest (1212) of lands alienated within the county of Lancashire (3) shows a considerable amount of land still in the hands of knights or tenants who owed some service for it. This service was, with the exception of a few small estates in and about Lancaster, commuted into money payments by the end of the 13th century. Thus we find that the Earl of Lancaster received for the two ploughlands in Heysham three shillings and four pence in 1323-24. (4) In 1212 the land had been held for the service of coming to meet the king at the bounds of the county with a horn and a white rod and of leading him into and out of the county. (B) One of the few exceptions of land still held in serjeanty at the end of the 13th century was the estate of six oxgangs which William of Oxcliffe held in 1297 for and the serjeanty of finding a carpenter in Lancaster castle, if necessary taking one penny a day from the lord's purse. (6> In 1322, twenty- five years later, it was left to the tenant whether he rendered the service or paid three shillings and eight pence instead. (7> Apart from these few exceptions the characteristic feature of

(1 >Ibid., Vol. II, pp. 75ff. m Castleward was paid in lieu of the service of watch; sakefe was paid in lieu of suit of court. (3) Ibid., Vol. I, pp. 2ff. w Ibid., Vol. II, p. 170. < 6 > Ibid., Vol. I, pp. 122. "" Ibid., pp. 123, 295. ., Vol. II, p. 120. 1 30 NOTES ON THE LANCASTER ESTATES IN THE these tenures was the payment of rent. The amount varied very much; for example half a ploughland in Great Crosby brought in twenty-seven shillings and sixpence, three plough- lands in Stapleton Terne brought in twenty shillings, four ploughlands in Melting rendered twenty-two shillings. Sometimes the tenants owed suit to the wapentake and county court, but that was not the rule. Some contracts had been made before 1212 and we find them drawn up in the inquest of service of 1212 with the same conditions attached to them as in the records of the late 13th and 14th centuries; in other cases subinfeudations took place similar to those mentioned for the knights' fees. The area which had been let out in that way covered one half of the whole area of the earl's estate (again the forests excluded), and the revenues from it were roughly £66. There are finally the demesne lands which at the end of the 13th century were with few exceptions let for a fixed rent. . Though their area covers only between one-fourth and one- fifth of the whole, the revenues were four and a half times as large as the rents received from the previous group. The contrast in income between demesne estates and lands let for knight service or rent becomes even more striking if we add to the income from demesne lands the income from other demesne estates, such as towns, vaccaries, mills, courts, etc. The income from the boroughs was about £89. At the end of the 13th and at the beginning of the 14th century this total included about £13 from Lancaster, £25.10.0 from Liverpool, £24.18.0 from Clitheroe, £15 from Preston, and £12.6.0 from Salford. About £39 was derived from the forests and vac- caries of Wyresdale, Quernmore, Fulwood, Bleasdale and Myerscough. The study of the Earl of Lancaster's estates in Lancashire shows clearly that although the number of his barons must have added to the power of the earl, and although knights' fees had an intrinsic value of £20, £40, or £100, hardly a fraction of this found its way into the lord's purse; his household expenses, in short, had to be met by his demesne estates. THIRTEENTH AND FOURTEENTH CENTURIES 31

i-ai- 3 jj a .s i§

. \-% Illll £ 8 §

.s 8s. -9.- :-s- - K w D I 0 Ctf S « 3 1 --§, " o d >,S § §, U PQ

1 2 o PH§ e 13 o n a 1 5 I -e CA -S O 32 NOTES ON THE LANCASTER ESTATES TABLE V. Details of the Lancaster Estates in Lancashire (1314) West Derby Hundred: Temporarily with Robert de Holland. Salford and Ley land Hundreds: No information available. Amounderness Hundred: Receiver Sir Thomas le Waleys, Estates in Singleton, Ribby, Wrea, Preston. Lonsdale Hundred: Receiver Sir Thomas le Waleys. Estates in Skerton, Overton, Slyne, Lancaster. Blackburn Hundred: Receiver Sir Thomas le Waleys. Estates in Clitheroe, Come, Haslingden, Marsden, etc. Wyresdale: Head Stockkeeper Adam de Whitlidale. Twelve booths each with its own keeper and all responsible to Adam de Whitlidale. Forests: Master Forester William de Hornby. Two parkers (one for Myerscough Park and one for Quernmore Forest responsible to the Master Forester).