1922. NOSALL. 1572- 1699. Staffordshire Staffordshire parish IRegtsters Society. E ditor and H on. S ecretary : PERCYSample W. L. ADAMS,County F.S.A., Woore Manor, via Crewe. D e a n e r y of E c c l e s h a l l . Studies C&nosall (Parish iReotster. PRIVATELY PRINTED FOR THE Si AFFORDSFIIRE PARISH REGISTERS SOCIEII. A ll Communications respecting the printing ana transctiption op Registers and the issue of the parts should be addressed to the Editor. ' Attention is especially directed to Notices on inside of Cover. ( S n o s a l L GNOSALL, written in Domesday Book Geneshale, remains (as regards its prefix) a complete puzzle for philologists. It is possible that the Domesday scribes blundered in their Staffordshirespelling, the early forms of the word (12th century) being almost invariably Gnoweshale, which later took on the similar spelling of Gnouskale and the like, with practically no change throughout the centuries. The PARISH included the Manors of Gnosall, Walton [Grange], Moreton, Ivnightley, Befcote and Cowley, Wil- brighton, and the small estate of Burgh [or Brough] Hall. Domesday Book records close upon 100 families within these manors. Until the close of the 12th century Blymhill was also included within Gnosall parish, and until recent times the eastern boundaries by Rule, and Alston seem to have been indecisive. The mention of “ Mr. Whitgreeves Rule " in the Register (Sept., 1614) is presumably intended to dis­ tinguish the part which lay within the parish. Gnosall township in 1086 only had about half the popu­ lation and one quarterSample of the valueCounty of the neighbouring manor (and parish) of Norbury, and compared still less favourably with the King’s manors of Cowley and Befcote where the bulk of the population lived. Clearly the growth of Gnosall was due to its church, although in 1086 it had its [water] mill as it does still. THE CHURCH, (i. Its Constitution). There is no evidence of a Saxon church here. DomesdayStudies book deals with Gnosall and Penkridge jointly, stating that nine clerks held these manors from the King. Both places were of increasing value, and apparently colleges were then in the process of formation. But whereas the Penkridge founda­ tion assumed the normal form of a dean and seven canons, the development of Gnosall was arrested. But the church of Gnosall has usually been termed ‘ ‘ Collegiate, ” as a college of four canons under a titular dean, who except for patronage held office without emolument. From the time of Stephen the ‘ ‘ dean ’ ’ was the bishop of the diocese, and the claim of the crown to the advowson of the church failed in 1293- The endowment consisted of the manor of Gnosall which v as divided into four portions, the profits of which went to the prebendaries alone. There appears to have been no common Gnosall. vii. elected. Of the latter the Churchwardens’ accounts give : Churchwardens .. .. 2 Sidesmen . .. overseers of the poor . 4 (for Gnosall, Cowlev and Coton, Knightley, More- Staffordshire ton and Wilbrighton). Surveyors of the highways 8 (one each for Gnosall, Cowley and Coton, Kni­ ghtley, Bcffcote, Moreton and Wilbrighton, Chat- wall, Apeton and Alstone, Plardiwick.) Annually one of the chief payments of the churchwardens was for the Dinner for the Officers and Jurors, held at the time of the Easter visitation of the Registrar and Apparitor, when also the election of officers took place. One of the chief duties of the parish officers was the levying of ‘ ‘ lewnes ’ ’ or church rates. This assessment was made on two classes of property : ‘ ‘ Hollowers ’ ’ and Cottages, the former beingSample privileged toCounty pay double. In the Church­ wardens ’ accounts for 1675 there is “ a Copy of all the Hollowers and Cottages of the other parte of the parishI eyond the water that pay to church ’ ’ :— [Summary] Cowley .. .. .. 16 hollowers 3 cottages. nX o Befcot .. .. .. / 2 >> “ n Wilbrighton (including W al­ Studies ton Grange, Cowley Hall, Linder farm , Morton Hall) 23 ,, 10 P lardiw ick .. .. 6 ,, 3 Coton & Coton End .. 8 ,, 7 Chat wall .. .. .. 16 ,, o 761 „ 25 + 41 “ in holding ” — 66 Hollowers in ye holding are 56=total 132 A and 8 prebend hollowers besides. Of the chief inhabitants that appear in this list, Mr. Fowke was of Cowley, Philip Harper of Befcote, Joseph Ball of Wilbrighton, Mr. Gifford of Walton Grange, Thomas Astley of Linder farm, Mr. Fleetwood of Plardiwick, and John Astley and Humphrey Podmore of Coton and Co ton End. viii. Staffordshire Parish Registers. BROUGH HALL. Brough Hall or Burgh Hall was probably the Bughale of Domesday, which is stated to have ‘ ‘ belonged to Halstone. ’ ’ It was a comparatively small estate lying between Gnosall and Ranton, and Halstone may have been the Alston which with Brough and Rule were for civil purposes taken together Staffordshirein the 17th century (S.H.C., 1019, pp. 158, 221). But Halstone may have been Haughton, another manor of Robert de Stafford’s adjoining. Burgh Hall certainly was in the possession of the Stafford family as early as 1150 when it was granted with Ranton and Cooksland to the Noel family. This grant was confirmed by the then Robert de Stafford in c. 1181-4. (S.H.C. II., 219, 256.) It seems probable that Philip de Burgn, the first who took his name from this place, was a Noel (? the same as Philip brother of Thomas Noel of Ranton). He lived in the time of Henry II. and John, married one Alice and was father of Bertram de Burgh who married Elisande of Little Onn (living 1253). Bertram was dead in 1219, leaving a son and heir, Bertram, a minor. This Bertram, who was living 1271, was the father of William de Burgh (living 1305, 1324) who married Joan de Cowley. He was also lord ofSample Apeton and Countypart of Wilbrighton. He was the father of Adam de Burgh whose daughter and heir Elizabeth married John Knightley of Gnosall, Shusions, &c., a descend­ ant of a younger son of Robert Knightley III. This marriage set the fortunes of this family of Knightley (which has often been confused with that of the older branch) on a firm footing with Burgh Hall as their home. John Knightley was M.P. for the County and died in 1413. He was father of John Knightley, also M.P., and (1403) Justice of Chester, whose elder brother Richard, of Gnosall, was the father Studiesof Richard Knightley, who bought Fawslev in 1416 and died there in 1443. It is not necessary to follow the members of this family further, as Burgh Hall was a secondary dwelling place for younger sons. It was so occupied by Thomas Knightley (a third son) who was living in 1619, aged 78, whose eldest son Richard (b. 1584) appears in the parish register from 1614 to 1619. Previous to 1600 it was apparently leased to Robert Harcourt, a natural son of Robert Harcourt, of Ranton. The Knightleys of Burgh Hall eventually succeeded to the greater house at Fawsley, when (it may be supposed) Burgh or Brough Hall took a lower status. In 1680 it was occupied by Ralph Smart as ‘ ‘ tenant to Lady Knightley. ’ ’ The present building (a farm house) would appear to date from the first years of che eighteenth cencury. Only the old moat remains which is rectangular, measuring 160 x 100 yards, enclosing an area over 3 acres in extent. The property is now Lord Lichfield’s. ® nosaIl flarislj R psta*. NOTE .— The early Gnosall Register takes rather a carious form. The main portion consists of 40 leaves of vellum measuring about 2ft. 6in. long and Staffordshire7in. in breadth. Being thus of an inconvenient size it has been folded across (roughly) in the centre. This bundle is supplemented by four similar sized gatherings of four leaves each, one of ten and one of eleven leaves (and a frag­ ment). This takes the record to March, 1700. _ The register contains mixed entries from which the Marriages were separately copied “ by Miss Stokes for Mr. Turner ” in and before December, 1904, and afterwards set up in type. For this reason the marriages have bee n here printed apart. Miss Stokes’ copy has been again checked with the original up to 1700. It proves to have been on the whole very accurate. Certain omissions and doubtful readings have, however, been rectified and a few instances of the curious phrase “ now his wife ” in the 1590 period have been inserted. The parishes of the parties to a marriage are seldom given in the earlier period, and the copy has usually omitted mention of Gnosall in the later. It may be assumed, however, that one or more of the parties were “ of this parish.” In the case of the Baptisms and Burials it will be observed that the form of entry (until 1602) repeats the surname. The original copyist seems to have taken pride in diversifying the spelling as much as possible. In the abbreviated form in which the entries are printed certain alternative, spellings are given within brackets. While the spelling of the surnames has been (with the above exceptions) carefully preserved, that of the commoner Christian names (which differs considerably under different curates) has not been closely followed. The. name Francis is spelt Samplethe same for both manCounty and woman, and it is often impos­ sible to be certain (in burials) which gender is intended. Subject to this, the feminine form has been printed with an e. The original transcript (which was not made in a week) was apparently finished in December, 1599. This and other changes are duly noted in their proper places. G. P.