COURT ROLLS THE MANOR OF WAKEFIELD. VOL. II. THE YORKSHIRE ARCHEOLOGICAL SOCIETY. Founded 1863. Incorporated 1893. RECORD SERIES. Vol. XXXVI. FOR THE YEAR 1906. COURT ROLLS OF THE MANOR OF WAKEFIELD. Vol. II. 1297 to 1809. EDITED BY WILLIAM PALLY BAILDON, F.S.A. PRINTED FOR THE SOCIETY. PRINTED BY J. WHITEHEAD AND SON, ALFRED STREET, BOAR LANE, LEEDS. INTRODUCTION. The first volume of these Court Rolls ended with the Court held on the Vigil of St. Matthew the Apostle, that is September 20th, 1297 ; the present volume ends with the corresponding Court in i3°9* There is, however, an unfortunate gap between 1298 and 1306, for which period the rolls are missing. In 1309 a suit was adjourned because the rolls were wanting (ii, 194); and again at a later Court because the rolls had not been found (ii, 199). It appears from this that the missing rolls were lost or destroyed at an early date. As stated in the Introduction to vol. i (p. xvii), the Earl of Surrey had been appointed Keeper of Scotland in 1296. His services there are incidentally mentioned more than once in this volume. Thus, in 1298 a suit against Richard de Colley is adjourned until Richards return from Scotland (p. 27); in the same year John de Holne was sued for the value of a sheep carried off in Scotland in 1295-6 (p. 38). John de Warenne, Earl of Surrey, died on September 27th, i3°4* The year is given in the Complete Peerage as 1305, but this appears to be an error. On October 16th, 1304, the King gave leave to the executors of the Earl’s will to dispose of his lands in Norfolk for a term of ten years, notwithstanding certain defects in the will1; and on December 10th, 1304, mention is made of “John de Warenna, late Earl of Surrey.”2 These items seem conclusive as to the year. The inquisition taken after his death, if any, has not been preserved. This is most unfortunate, as we might have had some interesting details of the Yorkshire property. The Earl’s only son, William de Warenne, died in his father’s lifetime, on December 15th, 1285, having been killed in a tournament held at Croydon. John de Warenne, only son of the above William, therefore succeeded to the title and estates of his grandfather. He was born on June 29th, 1286,* and was therefore under age when his grandfather 1 Patent Roll. 2 Ibid. 3 Complete Peerage. VI WAKEFIELD COURT ROLLS. died. Here again the proof of age on his attaining twenty-one is most unfortunately not forthcoming. He was knighted on May 22nd, 1306, and from that year until 1335 he was almost constantly employed in public service of some sort. His services in the Scotch wars are incidentally mentioned several times in this volume. In 1311 the Earl had a grant of the Castle and Honour of the Peak, in Derbyshire, which has a remote local bearing. The family of Peck was for several centuries one of the most noted in Wakefield, and I think there is little doubt that the Peter del Peak, mentioned on p. 10, etc., is the ancestor of the Pecks, and that he was a Derbyshire man from the Peak. In the same way, Thomas de Dorking, p. 33, etc., must have come from the Earl’s Surrey manor, and Peter Llewelyn from one of the Welsh estates. Such migrations of individuals owing to feudal relationships are by no means uncommon, but it is not often that they can be traced so distinctly. Apart from these Court Rolls, there is but little to record of the manor of Wakefield during the period covered by this volume. The Patent Rolls throw no light, nor do the Close Rolls so far as they are printed; there is one more volume of the Close Rolls for the reign of Edward I yet to be issued. The indefatigable Watson prints a translation of a confirmation by Earl John to the Burgesses of Wakefield, of wdiich the following is a note1:— “ His temporal grants, which I have seen any account of, are, that he confirmed to the free-burgesses of Wakefield, and their heirs, their privileges, and granted them to be toll free in all his lands, for all wares, merchandise of their own manufacture, and that they should not be obliged to answer at any court but his, called Burman Court, in Wakefield, unless for trespasses against himself; and that whatsoever goods should be bought of any burgess for him, or his use, at certain rates, should be paid for within forty days; the pawnage for every hog to be twopence, and for a pig one penny. They were also to have commonage for all cattle but goats, in all his woods, moors, &c., except the new and old park, and the great meadow (only not in fawning time). They might likewise inclose, and hedge their corn ground, and fright away his deer from thence, without horn. Witnesses, John de Nevil, Hugh de Eland, William son of William, Roger son 1 Watson’s Memoirs of the Ancient Earls of Warren and Surrey, 1782, vol. ii, P- 59- INTRODUCTION. Vll of Thomas, Peter son of Thomas, knights, John de Doncaster, John Curson, Peter de Stamford, Tho. de Heton, Adam de Pontefract. Dated at Coningsburgh, Oct. 5, 1 Edw. II.” Watson, contrary to his usual practice, gives no authority for this charter, nor any text save the above rather inept translation; it seems evident, therefore, that he had not seen the original document and had no copy of it. Nevertheless, there are internal indications that his note was taken from a genuine charter, and I see no reason why it should not be accepted as such. We are now in a position to give some account of these Court Rolls generally, but I must preface my remarks with the statement that they do not profess to be a treatise on manorial courts at large; and, as I presume the bulk of my readers are not lawyers, I have endeavoured to keep as free from legal technicalities as possible. THE COURT BARON AND CUSTOMARY COURT. It is commonly said that a manor with freehold and copyhold tenants has two courts, the Court Baron and the Customary Court, the former for the freeholders and the latter for the copyholders. At a later date than that with which we are now dealing, the title or heading frequently runs “Court Baron and Customary Court of A. In these rolls we have no trace of any such arrangement, unless the plea of a free man, that he was not bound to answer at the Court held at Rastrick, is an indication that this was a Customary Court («> 7)- , . The principal Court was held at Wakefield every three weeks, “from three weeks to three weeks,” as it was often quaintly expressed but there was a certain amount of elasticity, and when a feast day or other cause made the normal day inconvenient, the interval might be shortened or lengthened. In addition to those at Wakefield, twice a year Courts were held at Kirkburton and Rastrick, and occasionally at Brighouse and Halifax; these were generally in May and October. The Steward was the presiding officer at these Courts, but in his absence the deputy-steward officiated. Apparently he had less power than the Steward, for matters were often adjourned until the Steward himself could be present. Vlll WAKEFIELD COURT ROLLS. The business transacted was of a very miscellaneous nature, and may be divided roughly into three classes, (a) transactions relating to the holding and transfer of land, (b) litigation, and (c) manorial offences. Practice. The practice of the Court followed generally that of the King’s Courts. We do not hear of any writ, but there must have been a summons of some sort, and it was probably in writing. If the defendant did not appear he was first attached and then distrained, but certain excuses for non-appearance were allowed, such as sickness, being on the King’s service, or the bad state of the roads; these were called “essoigns.” An essoign could not be made after a default (i, 238), and was vitiated if the person essoigning was seen in Court (i, 254). If a plaintiff who had made essoign was afterwards seen in Court, he was liable to have -judgment given against him on the ground of non- prosecution (i, 206). An essoign from suit apparently was good for other matters at the same Court. A. sued B. for assault; B. had essoigned from suit, and the question arose whether that was a good essoign against A. or not. At the next Court it was ordered that B. should be summoned, which seems to answer the question in the affirmative (i, 156). The pleading, like that in the King’s Courts, was of a highly technical nature, and any departure from the proper form was fatal to either side. Several instances of this are worth noting. A defendant “denies everything against Richard de B. and his suit”; the plaintiff was not Richard de B., but Thomas his man, and judgment was given for him on this slip (i, 88). A plaintiff does not name the day nor the hour when certain goods were alleged to have been stolen : his claim failed accordingly (i, 104). A. charged B. with assault and carrying off his bow and arrows ; B. pleaded that he was not bound to answer, because he was charged with two offences, one of which might be true and the other false (ii, 15).