Kent Hundred Rolls: gallows in Wateringbury (1274/5)
Post date: Dec 18, 2012 4:9:50 PM
The following is an extract in respect of Twyford Hundred, the administrative division of which Wateringbury parish was a part, from the Kent Hundred Rolls. They have been translated from the Latin by Dr. Bridget Jones for Kent Archaelogical Society's epublication at http://www.kentarchaeology.ac/khrp/hrproject.pdf
The rolls represent an enquiry into the usurpation of royal rights undertaken on the return of King Edward I in 1274 from the crusades, and who was intent on rebuilding the power of the Crown. Jennifer Ward has written a commentary on them in Archaeologia Cantiana 2007.
Jurors were empanelled by the sheriff for each hundred and had to appear before the two Commisioners appointed for a group of counties. For Twyford the jurors were: Gilbert de Snodbery, William de Lodeneford, Alexander de Helthe, Gilbert Scissor, Gilbert Burgeys, Godfrey Furst, Richard Messag’, John de Tutesham, Ralph the clerk of Farlee, Philip de Saltrer, John Morcok, Vyvel de Bosco.
The highlighting of Wateringbury and the notes at the end are my own.
The jury say that the earl of Gloucester holds Yalding manor of the king in chief and it is a member of the honour of Clare and is worth £30 each year and Sir Robert de Crevequer holds Teston manor and East Farleigh from the king in chief and they are members of Chatham barony and are worth £30 each year. Then they say that Roger Vinitarius held Aylesford lathe at farm of John de Wattun the then sheriff for £10 and now it is demised at farm for £28 causing a loss to the country by the amount of this increase over the first farm.
Then they say that the aforesaid hundred is in the lord king’s hand and is worth 5s. each year from rent of assize rent and the things they are able to acquire by good fortune, moreover they say that when John de Wattun was sheriff he made a levy of half a mark1 at the sheriff’s tourn2 by his will upon East Farleigh, Teston and Wateringbury and when Walter of Bearsted was sheriff he increased the aforesaid tourn by 40d. and after the battle of Lewes the tithing3 of East Farleigh paid the aforesaid tourn for him, that Wateringbury by the authority of William de Muchenesy withdrew itself with loss to East Farleigh of 5s. each year and a severe loss to the lord king. Then they say that Bartholomew of Wateringbury’s tenants used to do suit at Twyford hundred4 at two lawdays5 each year and withdrew themselves9 after the battle of Lewes6, through William de Montecanis, Nettlestead used to do suit in the same way at two lawdays each year and the tenants withdrew themselves 20 years ago through Roland of Malling, bailiff of Richard then Earl of Gloucester.
Then half the tithing of Whetsted [Capel/Tudeley pars] withdrew itself 3 years ago through Roger de Horn, the earl of Gloucester’s bailiff, and it used to follow Twyford hundred in all things. Now however they have come back and have made peace with Thomas of Hoo, bailiff of the hundred by payment of 4s. for the withdrawal. They say that the earl of Gloucester claims to have return (of writs) at Nettlestead through the honour of Gloucester and he holds pleas of wrongful distraint upon goods and he claims to have a gallows and the assize of bread and ale, they do not know by what warrant.
Then three years ago the Lord William de Munchenes’ raised (a gallows) at Wateringbury and they say that they have never seen a gallows7 there and he holds the assize of bread and ale8 and the bailiff of Twyford hundred, whosoever he might be, used to have the assize of bread and ale at Wateringbury, but they do not know by what warrant the aforesaid William has this.
Then they say that Roland de Oksted, grandfather of the present Roland, made an encroachment upon the royal highway in Nettlestead tithing to the extent of 50 perches in length and 1 perch wide causing impediment to the country and harm to the lord king. Then 25 years ago John Pykenot made an encroachment on the royal highway of two dayworks of land in Stokingbury tithing in [East] Peckham causing obstruction to the country and loss to the lord king. Then Pagan de la Hale has made an encroachment upon Peckham vill’s common in size part of an acre of land causing obstruction to the country.
Then 30 years ago Hugh of Bermondsey, the present Hugh’s grandfather, made an encroachment upon the highway at Lunsford [East Malling par.] in size half an acre of land causing obstruction to the country and loss to the king. Then Auvicinus the clerk made a certain ditch upon the royal highway to the damage of the country and Alan de Meyllaner made an encroachment upon the royal highway the size of a fourth of one acre of land causing obstruction to the country and damage to the lord king.
Then they say that from ancient times the lord kings have held Littlefield hundred and Wachlingstone hundred in their hands. Now the earl of Gloucester holds the aforesaid hundreds by paying 20s. rent each year to the lord king for each one, but they do not know how these were alienated nor at what time. Then they say that John Sparrow took the amount of 10s. from the men of Stokingbury tithing to remove them from the assize.
Then Hugh Mot took 2s. from Richard Palmer so that he should not take him to Canterbury. The same Hugh accused Adam de Cruce that he had associated with his brother who was an outlaw and he took 6d. from him so that he would leave him in peace.
Then they say that William Champeneys and Rose his mother were captured by a robber and when they were released Henry of Leeds, the sub sheriff allowed them to depart without trial, thence the jury is in doubt.
Then they say that John of St Clare, the coroner, is unwilling to perform the duties of his office before he has received certain sums of money, thence during his time he has received the amount of 20s. from the aforesaid hundred.
Then when William of Lunsford had come to the county with the hundred for a certain presentment and Henry Malemeis who was then the sheriff arrested him because there had been a certain dispute in his house and he detained him until he had been fined 10s. and he paid this, he had found pledges and afterwards he, Henry took Richard de Henhurst’s horse, price one mark for those 10s. and kept them and now the present sheriff makes distraint upon the said William of Lunsford for those 10s.
Then after the battle of Evesham10 when Sir Bartholomew of Wateringbury was imprisoned at Dover, Peter de Barkindenn, who was then the lord king’s bailiff, took 18s. from the crop of hay and two oxen price 20s. from the said Bartholomew’s goods. Then Nigel of Chatham caused 20 loads of barley price 3s. per load and 15 loads of wheat price 5s. per load from the said Bartholomew’s grain, to be threshed, by what warrant they do not know.
Then they say that when the lord king’s escheator, Master Richard de Clifford, took Peckham manor into the lord king’s hand after Archbishop Boniface’s death, he took 20s unjustly from Stokinbury tithing. Then they say that Hugh Mot the sub-bailiff took the amount of 4s. from Wateringbury tithing through unlawful destruction.
1. A mark was equivalent to 6 shillings and 8 pence.
2. The tourn was the circuit made by the sheriff in medieval England to the hundreds of his shire. Here he would preside over the hundred court. This court normally met every three weeks, but during the tourn, at Easter and Michaelmas there were especially full meetings. These meetings were also known as 'views of frankpledge', because the sheriff was supposed to look into the frankpledge system, the system of joint surety in tithings.
3. Tithings were a joint surety system (South England not Danelaw). The members of the tithing (often 10 households), under the leadership of a tithingman chosen from among them, had the responsibility of producing in the court of justice any man of their number who was summoned.
4. Twyford Hundred probably met at Twyford Bridge. The hundred court heard minor civil and criminal cases. Many hundreds were in private hands.
5. Two lawdays were Easter and Michaelmas (now 29 September).
6. Battle of Lewis in 1264 was a victory for Simon de Montfort over King Henry III.
7. Gallows:a lord of a manor may have had the right to do justice on a thief caught in possession of stolen property and he would therefore need a gallows. The erection of gallows were especially worrying to King Edward I. William de Montchensy, as well as at Wateringbury, erected gallows at Swanscombe where the story was told that when 3 robbers were hanged, one was not dead when cut down and was revived in church and remained in Swanscombe for a time.
8. Assize of bread and ale was to regulate both the price and quality of these items.
9. Many Lords in Kent were eager to secure jurisdiction over their tenants for whom royal justice was often more popular, not only because of the small financial reward but because of the greater control it gave them of their tenants.
10. Battle of Evesham in 1265 represented a royal victory and the defeat and death of Simon de Montfort. Bartholomew's imprisonment implies he had supported Simon de Montfort and if so he was lucky to have only lost his hay and oxen as many would have had to buy back their lands according to a scale dependent on the extent of their involvement.