[Illustration: Halton Castle.]
There is an interesting little village called Halton on the northerly
border of Cheshire, about two and a half miles from Runcorn; but as it
is not on the high road to anywhere in particular, it is little known
and seldom visited by strangers. It is interesting because of the ruins
of an old castle which are there. This castle is situated on a high
hill commanding an extensive view over a large part of Cheshire and
across the river Mersey (which is of considerable width at this point)
into Lancashire. Halton Castle is of very ancient date. It was built
by Hugh Lupus, first Earl of Chester, soon after the Norman Conquest,
and the manor and fee of Halton descended to Henry the Fourth, since
when it has been annexed to the Crown, except during the time of the
Protectorate of Cromwell, when it was put up for sale by auction and
purchased by Henry Brooke of Halton, a predecessor of the present Sir
Richard Brooke. On the restoration of the monarchy it reverted back to
the Crown, and at this day it belongs to the King, who, as the Duke of
Lancaster, is Lord of the Manor.
In former days the stewards of this manor were officials of
considerable importance, and one of the early stewards was John of
Gaunt, Duke of Lancaster. The late Mr. William Beamont and Mr. Robert
Davies of Warrington were stewards in more recent years. On the death
of the latter gentleman in 1902, Mr. Bolden, one of the officials
in the Duke of Lancaster’s office in London, was appointed steward,
and Mr. Vere Beamont Davies and Mr. Herbert Hatton of Warrington were
appointed deputy stewards, and this arrangement holds good at the
present time. In connection with this manor there is a court of very
ancient origin, termed the Halton Court Leet, held at the castle, and
over which the deputy steward presides. The earliest records of the
court are dated 1347, in the time of Edward III.; but it is believed
the court goes back for a period of about 660 years. The court formerly
had a very extensive jurisdiction and a variety of duties to perform,
but at the present time it has been superseded by the county courts and
magistrates’ courts, and its powers have passed away.
The court rolls were formerly kept in a large chest at Halton Castle,
but have now been removed to London. The late Mr. William Beamont gives
a very interesting account of these rolls in his book, _An Account of
the Rolls of the Honour of Halton_, and sets out numerous extracts
detailing the work performed by the Court Leet in former days. The
following are some of them, and will, we think, be of interest to our
readers:--
In 5 Ed. IV. the inquest at the court make this short return, “Nil
presentant propter breve tempus.”
At the Halton Court held in 4 Hen. VIII., 1512, Elizabeth Heath,
servant to John Blinsten, and Agnes, wife of John Owen, were found to
be common carriers away of the poles of the park, and were fined for
it; and Agnes was further charged with stealing the racks placed in the
park to hold the hay which had been placed there for the King’s deer
(_feris_).
In 1544 the jury at Thelwall presented Robert Bold and Thomas Heypey
for keeping cards “talos [dice] et alia joca illicita,” in their
houses, “contra firmam statuti.”
In 1559 a tenant was presented at the court for not ringing his swine.
In 1608 John Lawton was fined 3s. 4d. for allowing Thomas Whiteley to
remain tippling in his house, which it is presumed was public, for one
hour.
In 1655 a man was fined for suffering his wife to fight and draw blood.
On Thursday before St. George’s Day, 4 Hen. VIII., 1512, William Hicson
was excused attending at the Manor Court because he was going with the
King on his wars in France. This man probably went with the Marquis of
Dorset’s unfortunate expedition, with which, however, the King did not
go.
In the 42 Edward III., 1370, Hamon de Warburton is fined by the court
for taking a hare in the lord’s warren at Whitley. The warren here
spoken of must mean the lord’s free warren, for hares are not, like
rabbits, confined in an enclosed warren.
In 1507 the jury at the Halton Court held at Thelwall presented John
Bollyng of Warrington, yeoman, for that he on 1 February, and on divers
other days as well before as after at Appleton and elsewhere within the
fee of Halton with greyhounds and other dogs (cum greybitches venaticis
et aliis canibus) was a common hunter “vi et armis,” not having lands
and tenements to the value of xls. a year, and, it is added, “nil habet
ideo capiatur.”
In 1512, at the Runcorn halmote, the jury, as we have before mentioned,
presented William Runcorn of Runcorn, chaplain, for that he not being
beneficed to xls. a year did keep a hare hound and was a common hunter.
In 1380 one William Harper, who had been tried at Chester and found
guilty of the murder of Adam Mushet, was brought back to Halton and
there hanged by the bailiff, and the lord of the fee received six pence
for the value of his goods.
In 1450 six or more persons were charged with feloniously entering and
breaking into a dwelling-house at Halton and stealing thereout money
and goods.
In 1474 there is a notice of a more serious charge. Two Welshmen from
Mold having committed a burglary at Keckwick, and stolen thereout,
among other articles, a sheaf of arrows, and having been committed for
it, broke out of the castle, taking with them their fetters and chains,
which must have helped to discover them, for they were soon afterwards
retaken and tried before Thomas, Lord Stanley, the seneschal, and,
being found guilty, were hanged at Halton.
At the Widnes Court in 4 Hen. VIII., 1512, Robert Woodfall was charged
with walking at night through the King Street in Farnworth in front of
the houses of the King’s tenants, and with force and arms, namely, a
staff and a dagger, calling out “Whoever wishes to fight me, let him
come out,” whereby the King’s subjects were disturbed and put in fear;
wherefore he was fined by the court.
In the same year three persons were presented for _lucrum excessivum_,
by which it is supposed usury was meant; though in 1375 some butchers
were presented _quia ceperunt lucrum excessivum_, meaning that they had
charged too much. In 1512 some men were presented for using bows and
arrows to drive a man off some land where he was digging turf.
In 1544 one George Amery of Barnton was presented for that he did keep
and harbour crows in his grounds and did permit them to build in his
woods, to the injury of the country and contrary to the statute in such
case made and provided.
On October 3, 1561, Helena Ditchfield was charged with a trespass in
pulling down her neighbours’ fences.
In 1593, a grievous murder having been committed at Grappenhall Heath
on the person of John Findley, a hawker of Scottish cloth, the crime
was brought home to one William Geston, a servant of the Bishop of
Chester. The jury at Halton presented the fact, and the prisoner,
having been tried for it and convicted at Chester Assizes, was hanged
in chains on April 27, 1593, near the spot where the murder was
committed.
In 1608 one Stockton was presented for selling ale without the
justices’ licence, and taking in and entertaining irregular and
pernicious persons to the disturbance of his neighbours, and one Lawton
for permitting a man to tipple in his house for one hour was fined 3s.
4d., and Charles Hall for taking in inmates was fined 6s. 8d.
On January 16, 1660, Roger Drakeford, who had conveyed a prisoner to
Sir Peter Leycester’s (the great Cheshire antiquary), a journey of
fourteen miles, was paid 3s. 6d. for himself and his horse, a small sum
for so long a journey.
In 1388 the Prior of Norton was charged with making two fish-yards
in the Mersey, one called Gracedieu and the other Charity, which
obstructed the passage of the lord’s boat of eight oars from Fresh Pool
to Thelwall.
In 1598 the jury found that Robert Dutton of Preston did fish in Thomas
Dutton’s pit and did take his fish in the daytime without leave or
licence from him, and therefore they did amerce him.
In 1605 the court complained of the number of the fish-yards at
Thelwall and of the encroachments they made on the river.
On October 8, 1655, the old complaint of the river being obstructed by
fish-yards was again renewed.
In 1655 a number of persons were presented and fined for keeping up
their weirs and fish-yards in the mid-stream of the Mersey so that the
Lord of the fee could not pass by the “key” of Thelwall with boats and
barges.
It will thus be seen that the Court in former days had a wide and
extensive jurisdiction and dealt with a variety of matters. Nowadays,
as before stated, the court has no powers, but the court is held by the
deputy steward at the Castle, or rather at the Castle Hotel adjoining
the ruins, once every three years, simply to keep up the old custom,
and for the sake of past memories. A jury summons signed by the Bailiff
of the Court in the following form:--
=Manor and Fee of Halton=, in the County of Chester, TO WIT.
By Virtue of a Precept to me directed, I hereby require you personally
to be and appear at a Court Leet and View of Frank Pledge and Court
Baron to be held at Halton Castle, according to the custom there time
immemorial used and approved, on Saturday, the day of at the hour
of to be upon the Jury there.
Herein fail not at your peril.
=Witness= my hand at Halton aforesaid, this day of 19
Bailiff of the said Court.
is sent to the Overseers of the following townships:--
Aston juxta Budworth, Aston juxta Sutton, Appleton, Antrobus, Astmore,
Barnton, Bartington, Bexton, Budworth (Great), Comberbach, Cotton,
Church Hulme (Holmes Chapel), Cogshall, Crowley, Daresbury, Halton,
Hatton, Kekewick, Lymm, Millington, Newton juxta Daresbury, Preston
o’th Hill, Sutton, Stretton, Seven Oaks, Toft, Tabley (Over), Weston,
Walton Superior, Walton Inferior, Whitley Superior, Whitley Inferior.
A jury is appointed, and sworn in by the deputy steward, and a
constable and two burleymen are appointed.
The following is the form of oath administered to the foreman and rest
of the jury:--
“You as foreman of this inquest, with the rest of your fellows, shall
duly inquire and true presentment make of all such matters and things
as relate to the present service, wherein you shall spare no man for
fear, love, favour, or affection, nor present any man out of malice or
hatred, but according as things here presentable shall come to your
knowledge, by information or otherwise, so shall you make thereof true
presentment without concealment. So help you God.”
Before the opening of the court by the deputy steward, the bailiff
makes the following proclamation:--
“Oyez! Oyez! Oyez! All manner of persons who owe suit and service to
this Court Leet and view of Frankpledge and Court Baron of His Most
Gracious Majesty the King, as Duke of Lancaster, Baron of Halton, and
paramount Lord of this Manor and Fee, draw near, give your attendance,
and answer to your names.”
No business is, of course, transacted, and the proceedings finish up
with a dinner, over which the deputy steward presides.
As before stated, the court must have had jurisdiction over a wide
area, as the jurors are summoned from Barnton, near Northwich, and
from Toft and Tabley, near Knutsford, and also from Holmes Chapel. It
is also evident from the extracts from Mr. Beamont’s book that minor
courts were held in connection with the Halton Court at a variety of
places, and it is also to be noticed that the jurisdiction of the court
extended across the river Mersey into Lancashire, and that courts were
held at Widnes and Farnworth. In fact, there is the Manor of Widnes,
comprising land on the Lancashire side of the river, which also belongs
to the Duchy of Lancaster, and of which the King is the lord, and it is
presumed the jurisdiction of the court would extend over the area of
this manor.
In some remarks on the last Court Leet, held in December 1908, the
_Warrington Guardian_ stated:
“That the Widnes or Farnworth Leet, which was subject to Halton,
had the power to mete out only four punishments. These included
the pillory, an ignominious punishment; and the cuck-stool or
ducking-chair, for punishing a scold, of whose unruly member it was
said:
‘Of members the tongue is the worst and the best,
And an ill tongue sows often the seeds of unrest.’
To curb the tongue, they had also the brank, an iron bridle which
kept the tongue quiet by more mechanical means. The court had
also the stocks, the constable’s prison as it was called, and the
whipping-post, but the Farnworth or Widnes Leet, though allied
to Halton, had not the power which Halton certainly possessed of
inflicting the punishment of death.”
In addition to its powers of punishment, there is no doubt that, prior
to the days of printing and when only few people could read or write,
the court was used as a means of making public proclamations, and that
presentments were made to it of matters of general interest to the
people which otherwise could not have been brought to their knowledge.
To-day we have our telegraphs and telephones, our newspapers and our
books, and all other ways of letting every one know everything. Who
shall say which were the happier days?
“Let the great world spin for ever
Down the ringing grooves of change.”
In conclusion, we may remark that there is another relic of old times
in connection with the Manor of Halton, in that part of the land
there, and also in the Manor of Widnes before referred to, is still of
copyhold tenure, and the ordinary laws of conveyancing do not apply to
it. For instance, a conveyance of land is carried out by way of what
is called a Surrender and Admission and a mortgage by a Conditional
Surrender, and the deeds have to be signed by the parties before the
deputy steward. These deeds are all entered on the court rolls of the
manor, the originals being sent to the Duchy Office in London, and
copies are kept at the office of the deputy steward, and other copies
handed to the parties dealing with the property.
This mode of transfer of the land is cumbersome and expensive, and
is gradually dying out, for any copyholder can apply to the Duchy of
Lancaster to have his land enfranchised, and on the payment of certain
fees he obtains a conveyance of same from the King, as Lord of the
Manor, and the property then becomes his absolute freehold, and is
dealt with afterwards like any other property. The seal of the Duchy
of Lancaster is always affixed to the enfranchisement deeds, and is so
large that it has to be attached to the deed by a strip of parchment
and kept in a tin box.