fragments of a great national inquest, which seems to have escaped
the notice of constitutional historians, and which, if its full
returns had been preserved, might not unworthily be compared with the
Domesday Inquest itself. In the course of doing so, I shall hope to
prove that abstracts of these returns have been wrongly assigned by
all antiquaries to an earlier and imaginary inquest, and that their
belief has recently received an official confirmation. The solution I
shall now propound will remove the admitted difficulties, to which the
existing belief on the MSS. has, we shall find, given rise.
The bewildering _congeries_ of returns known as the ‘Testa de
Nevill’--an Edwardian manuscript shovelled together, and printed by the
old Record Commission in 1807--has long been at once the hunting-ground
and the despair of the topographer and the student of genealogy. Now
that the returns contained in the Red Book of the Exchequer are also
at length in type,[531] it is possible to collate the two collections,
and thus to remove, in part at least, the obscurity that has hitherto
surrounded them.
Mr. Hall, in his preface to the ‘Red Book,’ writes thus:
The Sergeanties and Inquisitions which form a considerable part
of the Feodary in the Red Book of the Exchequer, have hitherto
been little known, and their true value has been by no means
sufficiently appreciated. This neglect has perhaps arisen from
the greater convenience of reference to the printed collection
known as the _Testa de Nevill_; but as it is now very
generally recognised that the text of this work is far from
satisfactory in its present form, the evidence of the kindred
returns contained in earlier Exchequer Registers deserves our
most careful attention (p. ccxxi.).
In the ‘Red Book’ itself the returns are headed:
Inquisitiones factæ tempore regis Johannis per totam Angliam
anno scilicet regni sui xii^o et xiii^o in quolibet comitatu de
servitiis militum et aliorum qui de eo tenent in capite secundum
rotulos liberatos thesaurario per manus vicecomitum Angliæ
tempore prædicto (p. 469).
They are accordingly given, by the editor, the marginal date
“1210–1212” throughout (pp. 469–574). On the other hand, the ‘Testa de
Nevill’ returns were, as he shows, delivered at the Exchequer on the
morrow of St. John the Baptist (25th June), 1212 (p. ccxxi.). Thus then
we have, according to him, two successive and “independent returns”:
(1) The ‘Liber Rubeus’ returns made between May, 1210, and May,
1212.
(2) The ‘Testa de Nevill’ returns made in June, 1212.[532]
It is necessary to keep these dates very clearly in mind, because,
although the editor accepts the ‘Red Book’ statement, and adopts
accordingly the marginal date “1210–1212,” he yet, by an
incomprehensible confusion, speaks of the same as the Inquisition
of “1210–1211” on p. ccxxviii. (_bis_), and even as “the earlier
Inquisition of 1210 entered in the Red Book” (p. ccxxvi.), and of “the
two independent returns of 1210 and 1212” with “two stormy years”
between them (p. ccxxiv.); while in another place he actually dates
the said “returns of 1210” as belonging to “1212” (p. clxv.). He thus
dates the Red Book Inquisitions in one place ‘1210–1212,’ in another
‘1210–1211,’ in a third ‘1210,’ and in a fourth ‘1212.’
Now I may explain at the outset that what I propose to do is to show
that instead of two Inquests (one recorded in the ‘Red Book’ and the
other in the ‘Testa’), there was only a single Inquest, with one series
of returns, and that this was the Inquest of June, 1212.
As this view is in direct conflict with the heading in the ‘Red Book’
itself, we must first glance at Mr. Hall’s statement that “the date of
the Inquisitions entered in the Red Book can be proved from internal
evidence” (p. ccxxiii.). What he there claims to prove is that their
date is between 1209 and “the early part of 1213.” Such a conclusion,
it will be perceived, in no way proves that they do not belong, as I
shall contend they do belong, to June, 1212. Putting aside the obvious
and inherent improbability of an Inquest being made in 1212 on the very
matter which had formed the subject of an Inquest only just concluded,
we need only compare the returns to prove their common origin. Mr. Hall
observes that at times
we come upon a passage of a few lines or a whole page or more
in the MSS., headed in the later Register ‘De Testa de Nevill,’
dated in the original rolls in the 14th year of John, and
corresponding entry for entry with the Red Book Inquest of the
12th and 13th years of that reign (p. ccxxv.).
But the obvious inference that the two Inquests were really one and
the same seems not to have occurred to him. We will glance, therefore,
at the parallel returns he has himself selected. Foremost among these
is “the Middlesex Inquisition” for 1212, of which he has printed
“the original return” as an appendix to his Preface (pp. ccxxvi.,
cclxxxii.-iv.), for comparison with the texts in the ‘Red Book’ and in
the ‘Testa de Nevill.’ But he warns us
that the numerous variants and the independent wording of the
entries, as well as the thirteenth century note “in Libro”
on the bottom of the Roll, forbid the supposition that this
is really an original of the earlier Inquisition of 1210
(_sic_) entered in the Red Book.
The “original” return and the two texts all begin with the “Honour”
of William de Windsor, who inherited from his Domesday ancestor,
Walter fitz Other, a compact block of four manors, East and West
Bedfont, Stanwell, and Hatton, in the south-west of the county. The
first entry is for East Bedfont, and the second ran, in the “original”
return: “_Walterius_ Bedestfont, Andreas Bucherel, feudum unius
militis.” But _Walterius_, Mr. Hall tells us, was altered in a
contemporary hand to “in alterius.” The ‘Testa’ renders this as “in
villa alterius,” while the ‘Red Book’ gives us “Walterius de Bedefonte,
Andreas Bukerellus j feodum.” There can be no question that the ‘Testa
de Nevill’ is right, and that Andrew Bucherel was the sole tenant of
the fee, for the scutage is accounted for accordingly on the same page
(p. 361). It follows, therefore, that the ‘Red Book’ and the “original”
return have both evolved, in error, a Walter de Bedfont from “in
alteri” Bedfont. Hence I conclude that the strip of parchment termed
by Mr. Hall “the original return,” was not the original return, and
that the error common to the ‘Red Book’ and itself demonstrates a close
connection between the two.
But if this document was not the original return, what was? To answer
this question, we must turn to Worcestershire, one of the counties
cited by Mr. Hall for the parallel character of the returns. How
significantly close is the parallel these entries will show:
Comes Albemarlie j militem et Comes Albemarlie tenet
dimidium in Severnestoke, pro Savernestokede dono regis Ricardi
qua et Kenemertone et Botintone per servicium j militis et
in Gloucestresyra Rex acquietat dimidii pro qua et pro Kenemerton
abbatem Westmonasterii de iij et Botinton in Glouc[estresyra]
militibus (‘Liber Rubeus,’ p. dominus Rex acquietat abbatem
567). Westmonasterii de iij militibus
(‘Testa de Nevill,’ p. 43).
It will be obvious, from the verbal concordances, that instead of
representing, as Mr. Hall holds, two “independent” returns made in
different years these texts are derived from one and the same return.
But instead of being, as in the case of Middlesex, arranged in the
same order, they are here found, in the respective texts, arranged
in very different order. The explanation of this is that the ‘Testa’
records the Inquest by Hundreds, while the ‘Red Book’ groups the fees
under the barons’ names and the sergeanties apart at the end. This is
particularly interesting from the parallel of Domesday Book, where
the Inquest, of which the original returns were drawn up hundred by
hundred, was rearranged in Domesday Book in similar fashion. I was led
to suspect that this great Inquest was, generally at least, drawn up by
Hundreds, from Mr. Hall’s remark that
There is a marginal note in the Red Book returns for Wilts,
now partially illegible, but (_sic_) which clearly records the
loss of the Inquisition of several of the Hundreds of that
county, while a precisely similar note is entered on the dorse
of one of the original returns for Norfolk in the _Testa_ (p.
ccxxiv.).[533]
The view I advance at once explains and is confirmed by the remarkable
allusion to this Inquest in the ‘Annals of Waverley’:
(1212) Idem (rex) scripsit vicecomitibus ut _per singulos
hundredos_ facerent homines jurare quæ terræ essent de
dominico prædecessorum suorum regum antiquitus, et qualiter a
manibus regum exierint, et qui eas modo tenent et pro quibus
servitiis.
There can, in my opinion, be no question whatever that this refers to
the writ ordering the great Inquest of service in 1212. This is printed
in the ‘Testa’ (p. 54), and as an appendix to the ‘Red Book’ (p.
cclxxxv.). It is too lengthy to be quoted entire, but in it are found
these words:
De tenementis omnibus quæ antiquitus de nobis aut de
progenitoribus nostris regibus Angliæ teneri solent, quæ sint
data vel alienata ... et nomina illorum qui ea teneant et per
quod servitium.
The only difference is that the writ leaves the method of inquest to
the sheriff’s discretion (“sicut melius inquiri poterit”) while the
chronicler says it was to be made Hundred by Hundred, which, as we have
seen, was probably the method adopted.
In the ‘Testa’ the writ is not dated, but the copy printed by Mr. Hall
is dated June 1 (1212) at Westminster. This seems but short notice
for a return due on June 25, but it is remarkable that the ‘Annals of
Waverley’ mention it in conjunction with a writ dated June 7, which
certainly favours the statement. This latter writ directs an enquiry as
to the ecclesiastical benefices held under gift of the prelates lately
exiled from the realm.[534] It is remarkable that the Worcester returns
to the great Inquest of service in 1212 are followed by a return made
to such an enquiry:
Inquisicio ecclesiarum. Maugerius episcopus dedit ecclesiam
de Rippel’ Willelmo de Bosco clerico suo et vicariam ejusdem
ecclesie dedit Ricardo de Sancto Paterno clerico suo. Qui
Ricardus reddit predicto Willelmo x marcas de pensione. Ecclesia
autem integra valet per annum L marcas.
Idem episcopus dedit ecclesiam de Hambur’ juxta Wych magistro
Ricardo de Cirencestra, que valet per annum x marcas (‘Testa,’
p. 44).
Bishop Mauger died in the very month of the Inquest (June, 1212).
The Notts and Derbyshire returns (p. 18) include two similar entries
relating to the archbishop of York, and those for Somerset and Dorset
contain two at least relating to the bishop of Bath (pp. 161 _b_, 162
_a_). The Sussex and Surrey returns similarly contain two entries
(p. 226 _a_) relating to Surrey churches to which the archbishop
of Canterbury had presented. In this last case the annual value of
the livings is deposed to, it should be noted, by six men of each
parish.[535]
Having now dealt with Middlesex and Worcestershire, I pass to
Lancashire, another county cited by Mr. Hall for comparison. The
magnificent return for this county in 1212[536] is noteworthy for
several reasons. In the first place, it is headed:
Hec est inquisicio facta per sacramentum fidelium militum
de tenementis datis et alienatis infra Limam in comitatu
Lancastrie, scilicet per Rogerum Gerneth, etc., etc.
This is a good illustration of the principle of “sworn inquest.” In
the second, it leads off with the entry: “Gilbertus filius Reinfri
tenet feodum unius militis.” Although this was a well-known man, _jure
uxoris_ a local magnate, the ‘Red Book’ text leads off with the gross
corruption: “Gilfridus filius Rumfrai i militem” (568). Mr. Hall,
in his index (p. 1183), identifies him with the “Galfridus filius
Reinfrei” of another ‘Red Book’ return (p. 599)--where the ‘Testa’ has,
rightly, “Gilbertus”--and fails to recognise in him the above Gilbert.
This is a striking comment on his views expressed at the outset as to
the inferiority of the ‘Testa’ text. So also is the fact that the ‘Red
Book’ reads “Thomas de Elgburgo” at the foot of the same page, where
the ‘Testa’ has “Thomas de Goldebur[go]” (p. 406), the correctness of
the latter reading being proved by the “Thomas de Goldeburgo” of the
‘Red Book’ itself (p. 69) in its extract from the Pipe Roll of 1187.
Yet the editor ignores the ‘Testa’ form, and gives ‘Elgburgo’ in the
Index.[537]
A third point is that the ‘Red Book’ compresses here into a skeleton
nearly thirteen columns of the closely printed ‘Testa de Nevill.’ The
text of the latter is of value not only for its wealth of information
and its witness to the detailed and far-reaching character of this
Inquest, but for such expressions as “pro herede Theobaldi Walteri qui
est in custodia sua” (_i.e._ regis). Theobald had died more than five
years before the Inquest was made; and yet in the ‘Red Book’ text he
appears as the living tenant.
This instance is of some importance in its bearing on apparent
contrasts in the ‘Testa’ and ‘Red Book’ versions. For Mr. Hall,
believing them to represent two successive returns, observes that
In the Inquisitions ... of the years 1210–11 entered in the Red
Book of the Exchequer, Walter Tosard is returned as holding his
land in Banningham.... In the original return, dated 1212, from
which the earliest list of Feudal services in _Testa de Nevill_
was compiled, we find that Walter Tosard _held_ this serjeanty,
and that Avicia Tosard still holds it (p. ccxxviii.).
The apparent discrepancy of the two returns is explained, exactly as in
the case of Theobald Walter, by the fact that the full return mentioned
Walter Tosard as dead, while the brief and inaccurate abstract of it,
in the Red Book of the Exchequer, gives his name as if he were alive.
Passing over the elaborate entry for Bradwell, Essex,[538] the two
versions of which, it will be found, are clearly derived from the same
original, I pass, in conclusion, to the return for Northumberland
(‘Testa,’ 392–3). Although not among the counties cited above by Mr.
Hall, its return to the “Inquisicio facta de tenementis, etc., que
sunt data vel alienata,” etc.,[539] is specially full and valuable
for comparison. Its text appears to reproduce the original _in
extenso_. Now any one comparing this return with the meagre list
in the ‘Liber Rubeus’ (pp. 562–4) will perceive at once that the
latter is derived from the same original. The names occur in identical
order. The only discrepancy is that the ‘Red Book’ shows us “Sewale
filius Henrici” in possession of land (Matfen and Nafferton)--held by
the interesting serjeanty of being coroner--while the ‘Testa’ reads
“Philippus de Ulkotes tenet terram que fuit Sewall’ filii Henrici.” It
might be urged, as is done by Mr. Hall in the case of the serjeanties
and the Boulogne Inquest (pp. ccxxviii., 575), that this proves the
‘Testa’ return to be the later of the two. But here, again, the real
explanation is that--as in the case of Lancashire, where Theobald
Walter’s name, we saw, is given in the ‘Red Book’ when he was dead--the
appearance of Sewal is merely due to the carelessness, in the ‘Red
Book,’ of the scribe. This, indeed, is evident from his similar
appearance in a list which is, according to Mr. Hall, later than
either.[540] How essential it is to collate these parallel lists is
shown by the very first entry, relating to the interesting tenure of
earl Patrick (of Dunbar). According to the ‘Testa’ (the right reading)
he held “iij villas in theynagio.” The ‘Red Book’ makes him hold “iii
milites (!) in theynagio,” a reading which its editor accepts without
question. Another no less striking correction is afforded by the
‘Testa,’ in its entry relating to the porter of Bamborough Castle and
his tenure: “Robertus Janitor de Bamburg’ tenet.” In Mr. Hall’s text we
find him as “Robertus, junior” (!), and, as such, the unfortunate man
is indexed, although he appears elsewhere, both in the ‘Red Book’ and
the ‘Testa,’ as “Robertus Portarius.”[541] From these instances it will
be evident that though (in the printed text at least) the ‘Testa’ is
not perfect, the ‘Red Book’ list, for Northumberland, is, when compared
with it, worthless.
Indeed, the marvellously elaborate returns for Somerset and Dorset,
Lincolnshire, Lancashire, etc., printed in the ‘Testa de Nevill,’ with
which the meagre lists in the ‘Liber Rubeus’ cannot be compared for an
instant, make one read with absolute amazement Mr. Hall’s statement,
when comparing the two, that
one or the other is in its present form lamentably incomplete.
This deficiency chiefly exists on the side of the _Testa_,
for it will be evident at once that the isolated and
fragmentary membranes which formed the sole surviving contents
of Nevill’s _Testa_ in the reign of Edward I. cannot be
satisfactorily compared with the relatively complete returns
preserved in the Red Book (p. ccxxiv.).
It is evident that the editor has no conception how many and how long
are the returns in the ‘Testa’ relating to this great Inquest.[542]
This may be due to his conception that they are there headed “De
Testa de Nevill” (p. ccxxv.), an idea which he repeated in a lengthy
communication to the ‘Athenæum’ (10th Sept., 1898) on the “Testa de
Nevill.” Mr. Hall wrote:
The really important point about the whole matter is one which
seems to have been entirely overlooked, namely that not only
does the title ‘Testa de Nevill’ refer to certain antique lists
alone, which, indeed, form but a small percentage of the whole
register, but that the greater part of the lists thus headed
appear to have been made at a certain date in the fourteenth
year of John.... ‘_De_ Testa de Nevill’ is the invariable
heading of these lists (p. 354).
The very point of the matter is that, on the contrary, the greater
portion of these lists have no such heading, but are hidden away among
later returns, from which they can only be disentangled by careful and
patient labour.[543] The result of my researches is that I believe the
printed ‘Testa’ to contain no fewer than a hundred columns (amounting
to nearly an eighth of its contents) representing returns to this
Inquest. At the close of this paper I append a list of these columns,
of which only thirty-eight are headed (or included in the portion
headed) “De testa de Nevill.”
To resume. For the great Inquest of 1212 (14 John) we have (1) mention
in a chronicle, (2) the writ directing it to be made, (3) the record
of a sworn verdict of jurors who made it. For the alleged Inquests of
1210–12 (12 and 13 John) we have nothing at all.[544] We have, further,
the fact that, when collated, the returns said to belong to these
“independent” Inquests are found to be clearly derived from a single
original. In spite, therefore, of the ‘Red Book’ and its editor, it may
safely be asserted that there was but one Inquest, that of the 14th
year, the returns to which were handed in on 25th June (1212).
Thus “the remarkable circumstance,” as Mr. Hall terms it (p. ccxxiii.),
that the ‘Testa’ compilers know nothing of “the original returns of
the 12th and 13th years,” while, “on the other hand, the scribe of the
‘Red Book’ had not access to the returns of the 14th year,” is at once
accounted for: they both used the same returns, those of 1212.[545]
As my criticism has, at times, been deemed merely destructive, I may
point out that, here at least, it has established the facts about an
Inquest worthy to be named, in future, by historians in conjunction
with those of 1086 and 1166, while the rough list I shall append of
its returns, as printed in the ‘Testa,’ will, one may hope, enable
its evidence to be more generally used than it has been hitherto. The
unfortunate description of the ‘Testa,’ on its title-page, as “_temp._
Henry III. and Edward I.,” has greatly obscured its character and
misled the ordinary searcher.
Historically speaking, this Inquest may be viewed from two standpoints.
Politically, it illustrates John’s exactions by its effort to revive
rights of the Crown alleged to have lapsed.[546] Institutionally, it
is of great interest, not only as an instance of “the sworn inquest”
employed on a vast scale, but also for its contrast to the inquest
of knights in 1166, and its points of resemblance to the Domesday
inquest of 1086. Of far wider compass than the former--for it dealt in
detail with the towns[547]--it was carried out on a totally different
principle. Instead of each tenant-in-chief making his own return of his
fees and sending it in separately, the sheriff conducted the enquiry,
Hundred by Hundred, for the county; and out of these returns the feudal
lists had to be subsequently constructed by the officials. Lincolnshire
is not among the counties named by Mr. Hall for comparison, but it
shows us well how the inquest was made Wapentake by Wapentake, and
then the list of fees within the county extracted from the returns and
grouped under Honours. This, I believe, is what was done in Middlesex
also.[548] It is noteworthy that in the case of Middlesex the returns
of 1212 were made the basis for collecting the aid “for the marriage of
the king’s sister,”[549] in 1235, the same personal names occurring in
both lists. If, as this implies, they formed a definitive assessment,
we obtain a striking explanation of the fact that 1212, as Mr. Hall
observes, seems to mark a terminal break in Swereford’s work (pp.
lxii.-iii.). Personally, however, I am not sure that “the Scutages,”
as Mr. Hall asserts, “concluded abruptly” in 1212. My reckoning being
different from his, I make the last scutage dealt with by Swereford to
be that which is recorded on John’s 13th year roll, that is, the roll
of Michaelmas, 1211.
The following list represents an attempt to identify the returns to
this great Inquest in the ‘Testa,’ and to give the relative abstracts
in the ‘Liber Rubeus.’ Out of 39 English counties (then recognised),
the ‘Testa’ seems to have returns or fragments for 25, and the ‘Liber
Rubeus’ abstracts for 31.
NOTTS AND DERBYSHIRE.
Testa, pp. 17_b_-19_a_. Liber Rubeus, p. 565.
NORTHAMPTONSHIRE.
Testa, p. 36. Liber Rubeus, p. 532.
WORCESTERSHIRE.
Testa, pp. 43–4. Liber Rubeus, p. 566.
SALOP AND STAFFORDSHIRE.
Testa, pp. 54–6. Liber Rubeus,[550] p. 509.
HEREFORDSHIRE.
Testa, pp. 69_b_-70_b_. Liber Rubeus, p. 495.
GLOUCESTERSHIRE.
Testa, pp. 77_a_.
OXFORDSHIRE AND BERKSHIRE.
Testa, pp. 115,[551] 128_a_-129_a_,[552] 129_a_-131_b_,[553]
133_b_-134_b_.[554]
SOMERSET AND DORSET.
Testa, pp. 160_b_-166_a_. Liber Rubeus, p. 544.
DEVON.
Testa, pp. 194–195.
SURREY.
Testa, pp. 224_b_-226_a_. Liber Rubeus, p. 560.
SUSSEX.
Testa, pp. 226_b_[555]-227_b_. Liber Rubeus, p. 553.
HANTS.
Testa, pp. 236_a_,[556] 239_b_.[557]
ESSEX AND HERTS.
Testa, pp. 269_b_[558]-271_a_.[559] Liber Rubeus, p. 498.
NORFOLK AND SUFFOLK.
Testa, pp. 293_a_-296_a_. Liber Rubeus, p. 475.
LINCOLNSHIRE.
Testa, pp. 334_b_[560]-348_a_.[561] Liber Rubeus, p. 514.
MIDDLESEX.
Testa, p. 361. Liber Rubeus, p. 541.
CUMBERLAND.
Testa, pp. 379_a_[562]-380_a_. Liber Rubeus, p. 493.
NORTHUMBERLAND.
Testa, pp. 392_a_-393_b_.[563] Liber Rubeus, pp. 562–4.
LANCASHIRE.
Testa, p. 401_b_-408_a_. Cf. Liber Rubeus, p. 568.
The above list can only be tentative, and does not profess to be
exhaustive. It is believed, however, that genealogists and topographers
will find it of considerable assistance.
XIII
Castle-ward and Cornage
I propose to deal in this chapter with two subjects which are wholly
distinct, but which it has now been proposed, by a singular confusion,
to connect. Speaking of certain miscellaneous returns in the ‘Red Book
of the Exchequer,’ Mr. Hall writes:
The first group in importance comprises the so-called
Castle-guard Rents,’ lists of military services in connection
with the Constableship of Dover Castle ... the Constableship of
Windsor Castle, the Wardship of Bamburgh Castle, and the Cornage
Rents of Northumberland (p. ccxxxvi.).