THE HFlPRESENTATION OF THE BARONS OF DUNHAM, 17 16 THE REPRESENTATION OF THR BARONS OF DUNHAM, he held, before 1097, both the terra and the villa. I think he witnessed true that a charter of 1278, purporting to be a grant of the advowson charter iv in order to show that he acquiesced in the gift and raised no of Bowdon to Birkenhead Priory, has been widely copied, and printed claim to the latter property. This distinction between the terra and (under Birkenhead) both by Ormerod and in the Monaaticou," But the filius villa seems on the whole to Le borne out by x and xj. There was description of the grantor, "Ego Hamo de Masey et heres' Hamonis qu,arti," is so unusual, as in itself to be suspicious; and when we find, another claimant to the terra, and his name is given in cxvij. 'l'he terra had certainly been held by Linlf of the King and of the in addition to the facts already related, that a vacancy occurring about monks by the payment of forty shillings to the latter, Docs not this this very time gave occasion to a keenly contested lawsuit between the payment identify it as one of the Cohliu~harn8hirc estates from which guardian and the Prior ; and the latter not claiming under any grant from the last baron, but alleging that his predecessor presented the half ii mark per hide was enjoined to be puid in 10981 It should be noted that King David, in 11 ~(i, seems to have gmnted or confirmed last incumbent, and judgment given against him, 4 we need no longer hesitate to pronounce the charter a forgery. the ovcrlordship of these Coldinghamshire estates to the monks. I understand this to be the effect of charters xv and xvj, and that they We learn, from Leycester, who had the privilege of consulting explain the double tenure, and the suit of court which, in later times, evidences then preserved at Dunham Massey, that Sir Hamon married first, Isabella, daughter of Humfrey de Beauchamp; that she died owners of Swinton owed to the monks. I take it, then, that Linlf had a lease of the villa which came to an before the marriage was consummated ; and that he next married· her end before 1098, but that be and his heirs eoutinued to hold the t(rra sister. Probably this story is substantially correct, and accounts for on lease, 1t will be noticed that the fin,t ~rnnt to Hernulf is merely a what afterwards happened, though we may have our doubts about the lease for two lives, and it may rcnsouubly be assumed thnt former very tragic turn Sir Peter gives it, and prefer to suppose the first, as holders of Swinton held upon similar terms. The various grants to often happened, was a marriage solemnised before the parties were of an Coldingham by later Kings of the estates given by Edgar prove very age to come together. A Humfrcy de Beauchamp witnessed the Masey clearly that the right of any King to alienate the possessions of the charter to Altrincham. Of him I know nothing more; but it is certain Crown from his successors was at least open to doubt. But in David's that Mary de Beauchamp was this Sir Hamon's wife, and mother of his time, "fiefs," as Douglas observes, were "becoming hereditary," and we three daughters-born probably about 1280, or very soon after. She accordingly find that King gt·anting Swinton by a second charter to was in London in 1309, in receipt of a terminal allowance, perhaps alimony.6 Sir Peter, at any rate, tells us of a divorce, though he Hemulf in feudo &ibi et heredibus. confuses Mary with a wife Alice, who occurs subsequently in 1314.6 Lastly, about 1317, he married Joan Clinton, as Leycest,er calls her, widow of Edmund Dcyncourt, the younger. She died in 1327-8, having had no issue by him, and having lost a daughter, the only child of her former marriaga.? As early as 1308, Sir Hamon was raising money upon the reversion THE REPRESENTATION OF THE BARONS OF DUNHAM. of his estates, and procured licence to dispose of it to Robert do Roland, then Justice of Chester," though I have no evidence that the Since Dr. Ormerod incorporated in bis History of Chester Sir Peter bargain was ever completed. Ultimately in 1322 he did sell, or Leycester's account of Dunham Massey,' several reports of the Deputy mortgage it, to Sir Oliver de Ingham, Roland's successor, for 700 marks, Keeper of Public Records, upon the Rolls of the County Palatine, payable by instalments ; and as security for payment of the purchase have brought to light a cousidemble body of new evidence, tending to money, Ingham executed a deed of quitolaim, releasing all right in the shew thut the supposed coheirs of the last baron were illegitimate ; estates to the vendor, and lodged this deed in the Abbot of Chester's and a record, printed iu brief by General Wrottcsley, in a recent issue hands, together with an indenture of covenant, whereby the Abbot was of The Genealogist, would seem completely to prove that they were so. to deliver it up to Ingham when payment was complete, or in case of There is, however, other evidence, which puts a very different complexion upon tho case ; and it seems important, therefore, that n 3 fuller account should now be published. At the same time we may Orm. ii, 461. Monasticon, iv, 241 (Eel. 1823). The authority seems to be that very mysterious document the 0/iQhire Domcaday. correct one or two errors of detail in Leycester's narrative. 4 Coram Rege, No. 11, m. 31d; No. 17, m. 19. Printed (but inaccurately) in The last baron succeeded his father (or gra:1dfather) not later than Abbreviatio Placitorum. 1272; for James, Lord Audley, who was dead in that year, had his 8 See MS. Harl. 2112, f. 139; receipt found by Randle Holme among Sir Cecil wardship and marriage, and granted it to Alice de Beauchamp, who was Trafford's papers. See also the proceedings of 1334, hereafter referred to. still his guardian in 1275.2 He was born, therefore, about 1255-65. It is • Chester Plea Roll, 7 I\Dd 8 Ed. II, m. 32 d. ' Pat. 7 Ed. II, pt. 2, m. 21 ; 10 Ed. II, pt. 2, m. 18, 13, 10, 3; Claus. 1 Ed. Ill, Leycester, Historical Antiquities. Ormerod, i, 521 sqq. ('l'his 1111d auhsequent 1 pt.1 1, 111. 22d., 11; 2 Ed. III, 111. 37, 36. Esc. 2 Ed. III (first Noa.), No. 22. references are to the 2nd edition.) Inq, ad q. d, 2 Ed. II, No. 105, Pat. 2 Ed. II, pt, 2, m, u, and see Cheater 2 El!C. 66 Hen. III, No, 11; 1 Ed. I, No. 62 ; 2 Ed. I, No. 61. Abbreviatio Reoog. Roll, 2 Ed. II, 111. 2. Placitorum (v. infra), 0 18 THE REPRESENTATION OF THE BARONS OF DUNHAM. THE REPRESENTATION OF THE BA!tONS OF DUNHAM. rl_9 his making default, to Sir Hamon. By two fines, of that year,0 the having been thus tried, the question is whether anything that estates were settled upon Sir Hamon and Joan, his wife, part in tail subsequently happened can impair either the effect of this finding in male, the rest in tail general; and the reversion upon Ingham and his law, or its value as historical evidence. heirs. But the matter did not end here. In 1345, by three fines, the The exact date of Sir Hamon's death is unknown: that given in an estates were conveyed to Henry of Laucaster,15 and he granted them to inquisition many years later is certainly incorrect. He was living in feoffees, namely Lord Lestrauge and a priest, from whom he took a life 1331-probably in 1332; but died before April 1334, when his interest for himself, settling the reversion upon Lestrange and his executors were sued for debt-among them being Hamon, his son.l? heirs. 'I'he lutter thus secured, by a new title, au estate in fee for his Evidently, therefore, Leycester was mistaken in supposing that the representatives, in place of his own very precarious life interest, in son's early death was his motive for selling the reversion; and we may right of Joan, his wife. What consideration the coheirs received does rather attribute this to a bitter family quarrel (since, perhaps, happily not appear, but we find proof that they acted under pressure of some composed), or to some desperate need for money. The son's name is kind, and not of their own free will ; for a year later they were raising dropped in subsequent proceedings; and, as au inquisition states that money, upon certain terms, to take effect only after they should have he died in Gascony,11 and the coheirs claim, not through him, but recovered actual possession of the estates.16 However, further efforts, direct ·from their father, it may be that he was already dead, but the whatever they were, proved ineffectual; and the Lestranges were not news had not then reached Cheshire. Ingham took possession, and ousted for nearly ninety years longer. was soon involved in harassing litigation with neighbours and tenants ;12 In 137.'> a new claimant appeared in the person of Thomas Fitton, of but he remained possessed at his death in 1344. He had two Gouseworth. An eschoator'a jury found that Sir Hamon de Masey died danghters: Elizabeth, who died before him, and her only daughter without heir of hi!:! body ; that he had a sister Cecilia, married to shortly after, without issue; and Joan, who married first, as second Thomas de Orreby ; that she had a daughter Isabella, wife of Thomas wife, Roger, Lord Lestrange, of Knokyn, but had no issue by him; Fiton, who had Thomas Fi ton, then li viug ; and that he was thus heir secondly, Sir Miles Stapleton, of Bedalc, whose son Miles was thus sole at law of Sir Hamon.l? Fitton next took proceedings to recover the heir to Ingham in 1376.13 deed of quitclaim, already mentioned, from the Abbot of Chester, who No sooner was Ingham dead than Sir Hurnou's heirs, who had submitted himself to the judgment of the court; but as Miles de previously asserted their claim, made a determined effort to recover Stapleton, Ingham's then representative, was living out of the his lands. The claimants were Cecilia Fyton, his eldest daughter; the palatine jurisdiction, the matter was referred to Westminster. There four daughters of Diouysia, his second daughter, whose issue became the proceedings lingered on till 1378,tB when they seem to have ended extinct before 1386; and the three daughters of Isabella, his third abortively; for in that year Lestra.nge's heir further secured his title by daughter, of whom there will be more to say. But a serious obstacle paying a fine of £100, and procuring pardon for various conveyances met them, in the shape of a claim upon Ingham's estate by the and other transactions already mentioned, which had taken place representatives of the Earl (the Black Prince), and a writ from him to without the licence of the king or .Ki.rl.19 Eight years later, as heir stay all proceedings during his absence on foreign service. 'I'his of Masey, Fitton commenced a fresh suit against the then Lestrange prohibition was subsequently withdrawn, and the case proceeded. himself-the record of which General Wrottesley has brought to light. The defendants pleaded that Sir Hamou's three daughters were plaintiffs rejoined that "Cecil' Dionis' & Isabell' fu•nt filie Hamonis de Masey bastards. This the claimants denied: and issue having thereupon been nate & procreate infra sponsalia intr ptd'c'm Hamone' & quamdam Mariam de joined, a jury found five separate verdicts in their favonr.14 'l'he issue Beachamp vx•em eius & pro filiabz p'dc'I Harnonia tente & eognite & illo modo legitime." Was the plea so framed to avoid the jurisdiction of the eccleaiustical • Chea. Plea Roll, 15 and 16 Ed. II, m. 8. The effect of these flues is recited in court, and bring the issue within the purview of a common law jury 'I 11 the records of 1336 and 1344 ; and the particulare about the deed of quitclaim in other Ches. Plea Roll, 18 and 19 Ed. III, m. 13, 15. For the feotfment, etc., see the proceedings to be presently noticed. Patent of 1 Ric, I[, It is said that Lestrange gave lands in Lincolnshire in exchange. JO Sir Hamon is party to two suite, Ches. Plea Holl, 4 and 5 Ed. Ill, m 11. In Ormerod ii, 467. 1332 the paufreymou of Hnmon de Masey, and the liberties of Hamon de Masey It Duchy Lane. Great Cowcher, i, f. 45. 17 are mentioned, 'l'lte executors arc sued Chea. Pie" Holl, 7 and 8 Ed. II I, m. 9 a, and Ches. Inq. 41J Ed. III, No. 3. This finding corrects the pedigree of Fitton of in later rolls. The false date in Chea. luq., 49 Eel. Ill, No. 3 and 4 Hen. VI, No. 6. Gaweworth by Gen. Wrottcsley in the Genealoyist, N.S., xii, 109. The record he While this paper is in the press, I find among the Arley Charters, edited by quotes (Che&. PI~ Holl, 26 and 27 Ed, III, m. 16), after reciting a fine to which W. Beamont, a grant hy Sir Hamon de :Masey, of Dunham, to Sir Geoffrey de Macclesfieldand Isabella were parties in l Ed. II (not 1 Ed. I : "anno E. regis aui Werburton, dated St. Hilary, 7 Edw, Ill, 13 Jan. 1334 (p, 351. d'ni Oomiu» nunc p'rno "; and see Plea Roll for that year), proceeds "ex insinuacione 11 Ches. lnq. 4 Hen, VI, No. 6. I presume the son, whose legitimacy was also Thome fil' 'I'horne Fyton, fil' and heredis p''fate Isabelle "<-words which lend them• impugned, waa by Mary de Beauchamp ; but see the subsequent note upon Alice. selves to either interpretation. But this and other records shew that Isabella had u Chea, Plea Rolls; see especially an action by the tenants against, Ingham's two other husbands, Sir John de Grendon and Thomas Fyton, and that the younger be.iliffs,9 and 10 Ed. Ill, m. 20, 20 d., where the fine is recited. Thomaa wa.s her son. See Plea Roll, 4 and 6 Ed. II, m. 41; 9 and 10 Ed. II, m. i» This is proved by several inquisitions; 18 Ed. III, No. 49; 22 Ed. Ill, No. 50, 38, etc. 18 etc., and see the suit of 1376. Chea, Plea Uoll 50 Ed. Ill-2 Ilic. II, m. 3 d. ; de Banco 51 E

As to the bulk of the property the defendant then vouched to wattanty of Dionysia was evidently extinct by 1386 ; for the only representatives Henry, Earl of Derby, as heir of his grandfather ; but as to one acre of the coheirs at that date were Venables and Joan Grosvenor. Isabella, in Kelsall, he vouched one Eyton and his wife, as heirs of the other the third daughter, married Hugh de Dutton, of Dutton, the younger, feoffee; while as to one other acre, he pleaded denying that Fitton was who came of age iu December 1297, when Sir Hamon entered into a the heir at law. The Eytons answered, alleging that the representatives recognisance to him for sixty marks.23 Thomas, his son and heir, born of Sir Hamon's daughters were his heirs: the plaintiffs rejoined that in 1314, was by a second wife, Joan. Hy Isabella he had three they were bastards ; and issue was at once joined on that plea, daughters, Katherine, wife of William de Hyde, Margaret, wife of resulting in a verdict for the plaintiff. Then note a very significant Handle de Ditton, and Matilda, who in 1338 all sued for a messuage fact. No sooner was judgment given in regard to the two acres and land in Dunham, which was settled upon their mother at her than the plaintiff executed in court two deeds of quitelaim to the marriage.24 The same three daughters were among the claimants in defendant, the first releasing all right in the bulk of the estate, the 1344; Matilda, however, was not a party to the fine of 1345. But second in the two acres he had just recovered-and these deeds Joan, Katherine's grand-daughter, who married Robert Grosvenor, was immediately follow upon the same membrane.20 the daughter of Robert de Pulford; and the Pulford property passed in Now what the legal effect of such contrary verdicts may be, I am her right to Thomas Grosvenor, her son.25 Evidently, therefore, not qualified to say. 'I'he court could not be conversant with every since General Wrottesley has shewn that Robert was her son and heir, matter entered on the rolls more than forty years before, or know that Katherine Hyde had been previously married to a Pulford, whose the issue was res [udicata : nor, so far as appears by the record, was it christian name I have not discovered. '!'here is some obscurity in informed of the fact, which would be hardly unknown to both the regard to the Pulford pedigree. Our knowledge of it is derived chiefly parties. Would they have chosen knowingly to try it a second from mere copies of charters and other documents, the completeness and time 1 Had they even the power lawfully to do so 1 Or supposing a accuracy of which cannot altogether be trusted. But an inquisition, second verdict to have been obtained by subterfuge, would it hold good taken early in 1362, after the death of John, son of Robert de Pulford, after a scrutiny of the records had disclosed the first ! These are points shews that he held Pulford and other estates, including three messuages for lawyers to decide. But, regarded as historical evidence, there are and a carucate of land in Dunham Masey, and that Joan (aged fourteen certainly good reasons for preferring the earlier verdict. In 1344 the facts years and a half) was his sister and heir.26 She was hastily married, of the case must have been widely known and well remembered, and without proving her age, suing out livery of her lands, or obtaining the evidence of contemporaries was still procurable. And at that trial licence, to Thomas, son of John de Belgrave, who accordingly had to the persons directly interested in proving the facts on either side were procure pardon the same year :27 and it seems that there were children parties to the suit. In 1386 it was quite otherwise. More than fifty of that marriage also. Three daughters are named, Maud, Elizabeth, years had passed since the death of Sir Hamon ; more than seventy and Joan ; and Dr. Ormerod, finding that Thomas Grosvenor recovered since his remarriage with Alice; probably a century at least since the the Pulford estates from Robert, son of Robert de Logb, assumed that birth of the youngest coheir. And those who were directly affected by Isabella, the wife of Robert Legh, of Adlington (said to have been the issue were not then parties to the suit, and had no opportunity of daughter and heir of Thomas de Belgrave, and to have brought putting their case before the jury-indeed, it is hardly too much to Belgrave to the Leghs) was either a fourth daughter of Joan, or say that a verdict against them was snatched behind their backs. To perhaps identical with the Elizabeth, just named. We have, however, my mind, the whole business savours distinctly of collusion. no evidence that Joan's husband was lord of Belgrave; while the form To return to Sir Hamon's three daughters by his wife Mary de in which his name appears may be intended to distinguish him from Beauchamp/1 Cecilia Fyton, the eldest; was ancestress of Fitton of another Thomas, the head of his family. On the other hand, we learn Bolyn, Venables of Bolyn, Trafford, and Booth of Dunham: the pedigree that there was an Isabella, married (probably at an early age) to a son is well known,22 and we need not stay now to elaborate it. The issue of John de Pulford's, who had died before his father, and that she took ~, Ches. Plea. Roll, 9 and 10 Ric. II, m. 8. See Gene,1lo9ist, N.S., xiii, 249, 250. by settlement a life estate in Pulford.P The question therefore arises n Leycester adds 1\ fourth daughter, Alice, wife of Hamon de Hilond. In the whether she was not afterwards wife of Robert Legh, and mother of litigation about the Masey inheritance the existence of Ruch a daughter is never once referred to; but in 1347 one Hamon, son and heir of Alice de Masci, daughter and the younger Robert, who released the Pulford property to the one of the heirs of Hamon de Masci, knt., quitclaims to Henry of Lancaster all right Grosvenors. As to the daughters of Joan, by Belgrave, nothing seems in the lands which were his grandfather's, Duchy Lane. Grea.t Cowcher, i, f. 45. Evidently she was not on the same footing as the other three daughters. Yet she 13 Her husband's name in the pleadings, 1338. Proof of age and recogniaance, can hardly have been born later than 1308, since her son was presumably of age in Chea. Pie.. Roll, 25 and 26 Ed. I, m. 11 d., 15 d. 1S47; while Mary de Beauchamp we know was living in 1309. Was there an intrigue 1• Chea. Plea Roll, 12 and 13 Ed. III, m. 2. The property claimed seems to have between Sir Hamon and his later wife Alice, and had they a da.ughter born before been & part only of their mother's estate ; see the Pulford inq. below. marriage I Such a liauon may have formed the motive for a divorce. ~ Bee Ormerod, Pulford, ii, 854, and Alloetock, iii, 148. 11 22 The evidences given above effectually dispose of the absurd conjecture about • Chea. Inq. 85 Ed. III, No. 8, The holding in Dunham completes his Identiflca• Cecilia made by the later editor of Ormerod, snd followed unhappily by others, e.g. tion. by Earwaker. It is lamentable that hands so incompetent have been permitted to 17 Chee. Recogn. Roll, 35 and 36 Ed, III, m. 3, Fine 400 marks. tamper with Ormerod's admirable work. 29 Ormerod ; see under Allostock. 22' THE REPRESENTATION OF THE BARONS OF DUNHAM. THE REPRESENTATION OF THE BARONS OF DUNHAM. 23 to be positively known. Ormerod elsewhere suggests that they died The subjoined pedigree will serve to illustrate my narrative. In it I without issue, apparently because their mother's lands became vested have printed in italics all that I derive from the statements of Ormerod in Thomas Grosvenor. But the subsisting life interest of Isabella, and and Sir Peter Leycester, and in one instance a conjecture of my own, the irregularity of Jean's first marriage, would very likely stand in the as distinguished from facts of which I have found proof in original way of a valid settlement; and it may well be that her second records. husband's legal advisers were able to take advantage of Belgrave's Sir Hamon de Mascy.ee- .. rashness, to the detriment of his children and to the profit of her I second family. At all events I have seen nothing that amounts to r-----..L------, proof of the failure of her first husband's issue ; and it should be liabella, (I !;=Mary de (21)T'Sir Hamon de,={31) Alice={41) Joan Olin- Cecilia, remembered that, supposing Belgrave left a son, who survived his dau.of Hum- Beauchamp, I Masey, fast : occurs in ton, widow of wife of 29 f,·eyde Beau- living 1309. Baron of Dun- : 1314. EdmundDeyn· Thomas mother, then ( apart from settled estates) the inheritance would descend r.hamp (Sir ham, under : court, junior, de Orreby through this son to his sisters of the whole blood, and not to his half P.L.) j age 1272,5; : remdcirc.1317; of Gaws- brother. ob. circ. 1334. : ob. cire, 1327 worth. The special significance of these details will shortly appear. : s.p.s. =r Ultimately, in ] 433, after the lapse of almost a century, Dunham Massey : I r""'""-r--,--,- 1..---, r-----.J passed in moieties from the Lestranges ;80 and one moiety, including Ha- Cecilia, Diony- lsa·(l),=Hugh9'(2)Joan 1 Alice, Isabella, da.and,=(3) Tho, the caput baronire, became vested in Sir Robert Booth, and Dulcia his mon, mar. sia, bells, I Dut- I Finland, mar. heir, mar. (1) I mas wife, who was tho representative, or rather one of the joint representa• died in John whose mar. ton, before Hamon Roger de Mac· Fyton, tives, of Cecilia Fyton. The other was equally shared between Sir Gas- Fyton issue circ. of 1314. de Hi- elesfield, 1808, 1317, cony of Bo· wesex- 1!197. I Dut· 1 lond s.p.] (2) John I Thomas Stanley and one William Channterell. The latter is said to have (circ. lyn. tinctin I ton,b. , (Sir de Grendon, I married the daughter and heir of Thomas de Bolde ; and the form of 13311) 'r 1386. 1276. P.L.). 1312. feoffment rather suggests that his interest also may have arisen through s.p, I T his wife. Now if we could shew that this transaction was not one .+- r--.J r--1 Fyton and Venables of Bolyn; Hamon, B. and h., ThomaaFytonof Gaws- simply of bargain and sale, but in pursuan~e of a judgment in favour Trafford; Booth of Dunham. I I b. before 1327. worth, s. and h. of of Mascy's heirs, or even a compromise resulting from the revival of Isabella, 1875-86. their dormant claims, it would add a new and powerfnl argument to !..--~------, those I have already advanced for their legitimacy. Or supposing it r-----..L-----,------, I <1c0r=Ko.therine,co-=William de Margaret, mar. Me.tild11., Thomae, were found that the second moiety passed to the heirs of Isabella, as Pulford. I heir to her Hyde, 1338, !fondle de Ditton, 1338-44. son and the first to those of Cecilia, that in itself would be highly suggestive. mother. 46. 1338 ·46. heir, b. But I have not so for succeeded in tracing either the dcsccndanta of !.. , 1314. Joan de Pulford, by her first husband, or the ancestors of Chaunterell Robert de Pulford, son and heir.,=Joan, and Bolde; nor can I suggest any loophole in the received pedigree of I the Stanleys by which such a descent might be brought in. The r------,--.J discovery, however, of the record, which we owe to General Wrottesley's John de Pulford,,= .. · Thomas, son of (1)=,=Joan, heir to her,=(2) Robert Gros, of Pulford, ob. I John de Belgrave, I ~rother, aged 14} I venor, of Holme, industry, reducing as it docs the number of Mascy'e representatives to s.p.s, mar, 1362. · m 1362. ob. 1396. two lines only, seems at once to anticipate a division by moieties, and certainly tempts one to surmise that the partition which actually took r-----.J 1..-,-r, L--, place was thus to be accounted for. Possibly a more extended study of Robert. de Pul-=I,abclla. (.I da.."'j=(2 1 Robert. Maud, Thomas Grosvenor, the Plea Rolls would bring to light further facts, and either prove or ford, ob. v.p. a.nrl hei1• of I Leg!,, of Ad- b'lizabctfi, son and heir, b. s.p, Tlrnma., de lington.) Joan, 1366. 13i7. -T disprove such a hypothesis. Belgrave.) r-----.J A-. 21 The words of the inq. p.m. Robert Grosvenor (Chea. Jnq. 19 Ric. II, No. 9) seem Robert Legh, who released Pulford, etc., Grosvenor of Holme to imply that no sou of the first marriage was then living ; but Joan may have been to Thomas Grosvenor. and Eaton. dead for years at that time. The document of 40 Ed. III, in which Belgrave's daughters are named, as· quoted in Ormerod, does not mention one either ; but there may have been a son born after that date. W. H. B. B. •° Chee. Recogn, Roll, 11 and 12 Hen. VI, m. 12d. It may be asked, how ea.me Trafford to take no share, if this were a partition, It appears that Trafford and Booth had made a p11rtition shortly before of the lands inherited by their wives as coheirs, and po.~siblythe dormant clnirn to Dunham may have been, by agreement, allotted to Booth as part of his share. 1'he Booths of th•tt generation were evidently men of extraordinnry energy, ability, aud influence-just the men, therefore, to tnke up a difficult claim, and caITy it to a auccessful termination.