Page images


q. if Vpton be not in Nottinghamshire,—note in margin.
Ex Gasc. lib. F. fo. 20.

In the writeings of Tho: Wentworth, Baronet.

G [vol. 127] 113

W [vol. 152] 11

[Part of the entry given under THORP nere WENTBRIg, ante, p. 130].

Fines 14 H. 3 [1230].

Between Geffrey de Reynevilla 30 comp1t, and Walter Archbishop of Yorke deft of the Mann' of Upton.31 the right of the Archbishop. the foresaid Archbishop granted the Mann aforesaid to the said Geffrey for terme of life, paying 28 yearly.


29 In the Domesday Survey this township was called Ulton; but as the name was spelled correctly in the Recapitulation, the Ulton of the Domesday text would be an inadvertence only. No special particulars were given in Domesday of the manor of Upton, which was grouped with Badsworth and Rogerthorp as two manors formerly held by two brothers," but at the time of the Survey by Ilbert (de Ramosville, not de Lascy). Badsworth, Upton and Rogarthorp are, however, reported as having had a geldable area of 9 carucates 5 bovates, with a capability of 6 ploughs, and as producing a royal revenue of £3. Ilbert de Ramosville, or Reineville, had in his demesne 1 ploughs, while 13 villanes and 11 bordars had 5 ploughs. The value was still as in the pre-Norman time. There was a church and a priest, and 1 acres of meadow. There was no mill, and the woody pasture was 1 leuga by three-quarters. The present area of Badsworth and Rogerthorp is 1,516 acres. At the time of the Poll Tax in 1378, Upton contributed 7s. 8d. by 22 taxpayers, only two of whom paid 6d., but their occupation is not reported.

30 The civil portion of Abp. Gray's register contains the memorial of an earlier stage of this transaction under date Cawood, Kal. April 1228 (should be 1229), so that with the exception of the ten years between 1218 and 1229, the course of the manor of Upton can be traced uninterruptedly from the Domesday Survey as always in possession of the original grantee or one of his descendants. Ilbert de Reineville, its first holder, was head of one of the two branches of the Reinevilles, the only one which seems to have continued the name.

His father, Robert de Reineville, was reported in the Survey as holding the two Smeatons and Stubbs. He probably died while the endowment of St. Clement's Chapel was proceeding, for his son Gerald was then in possession of Smeaton and granting a portion of the tithes, while one Cheme, if the name is not corrupt, but of whom nothing more is known, held Stubbs (afterwards called Stubbs Walding). On the other hand, Ilbert (whose descendants retained the family name of Ramosville or Reineville), being called Ilbert only, is sometimes confused with Ilbert de Lascy, the lord of the fee. As Ilbert he had received large grants even before the time of the Survey, for he is reported as then holding Badsworth, Bramley, a moiety of Campsall, Elmsall, Frickley, Kirkby, Rogerthorp, Upton and Womersley, which manors descended together through a Thomas to a William, who might have been his son, his nephew or his grandson, for I have not been able to ascertain the particulars of the intermediate generation or generations. This Thomas was, however, an important personage, for at the head of the laymen he witnessed 57 R. (soon after 1154, for Abp. Roger was a co-signatory). But I meet with nothing to show his exact position in the genealogy as regards either Ilbert, or William, or the subsequent Adam. William, who runs for some time concurrently with Thomas, which would rather imply that they were brothers, is identified by his gift, about 1150, of lands at Bramley to Kirkstall Abbey, of which there was a confirmation by Henry de Lascy, when he recovered his fee from the Earl of Lincoln. After 1165, he witnessed a charter of

31 For note 31, see p. 135.

Adam fitz Peter to Rievaux (No. 94 R.), while in 1166 he was reported as then holding four knights' fees. He that year made his first appearance on the Pipe Roll as owing 5 marks, and in the following year, 12 H. 2 (1167-8) he rendered an account of 20s. He witnessed 10, 11,

14, 15, 18, and 48 P., the name of his son Adam being coupled with his in the first, perhaps as his infant heir, which was not at the time an unusual practice when some of the rights of the heir were being granted away. Adam Vetus must then have been very young, for he survived 1218, and as 10 P. was witnessed soon after the re-dedication of Pontefract Priory in 1159 (for it mentions that the consecration was then but a recent event, and the witnesses are of the decade 1160-1170), I suggest that he was then but an infant, brought forward by his father in his early parental pride: for after that date he appears no more for some thirty years, till about 1190, when he tests P., as seneschal (probably for the Clitheroe manors), to the new lord, Robert de Lascy. Thenceforward, even as his own name was coupled with that of his father William in the attestation of 10 P., so his own is constantly followed by that of his eldest son, Thomas, not only to the seigniorial charters such as 5, 9, 19, 20 P., but also to those of the tenants. With a numerous family (he had two wives, and Thomas, his eldest, would have been quite thirty years older than Jordan, his youngest, who was with John de Lascy at the siege of Damietta in 1218), he did not give much to the monks; but in the Nostell Chartulary two gifts of Walter de Glentham and Murandus de Tori are said to have been from his fee in Ponte. fract. Adam's progenitors seem not to have had large families, and probably on that account there had been no previous

necessity for such a course, but Adam Vetus, who had five sons, continued that policy of distributing manors and estates among them, even during his lifetime, which had been during the greater part of the century so marked a feature of land management in Yorkshire, partly, perhaps, because such a grant evaded the royal death-duty. He gave Badsworth to Swein, his fourth son, as I have already shown (vol. x., 263), and bestowed Bramley, Campsall, Upton, and Womersley on his eldest son Thomas, who, dying before his father, did not inherit, and has thus almost entirely eluded the genealogists a remarkably curious circumstance, considering the very large number of documents which he witnessed in conjunction with his father, whom for a series of years he seems to have followed like a shadow. But there was a fine in 1218 (3 Henry III., see particularly vol. x., 362. Hunter is quite right, and the reference to the Kirkstall volume is incorrect), between Eva his widow, the daughter of Hugh de Boby, and Adam her husband's father, with regard to her dower in those places; from which it is clear that at his death Thomas had, at least, Bramley, Campsall, and Upton, which thus brings the possession of Upton by the main line of the Reinevilles to within ten or a dozen years of the date of the above fine between Geoffrey de Reineville and Abp. Gray. I have, however, met with no document or record which satisfactorily bridges over this space, or which shows whether the Geoffrey of the text was son, or grandson, or great-grandson to Adam. All that I find of him is the attestation to a Pontefract charter of Adam de Reineville (212 P.), concerning land at Bramley.

The following pedigree illustrates this note:

[blocks in formation]

Abbreviations of Pleas before ye King, Easter terme, 11 H. 4 [1410] rot. 44, fo. 69.

W [vol. 152] 40 The Jurors say that Jone wife of John Deyncourt Kt [lately (Dodsworth)] deceased, was seized in demeasne as of fee of the Mann' of Upton, nere Elmesall, as daughter & heire of Robert Gray of Rotherfield Kt, & long before her death gaue & graunted to Alice Deyncourt, William Leeke, John Lutterell & Thomas Ponsax [Pensax (Dodsworth)] the foresaid Mann".

Escheats 10 H. 4 [1409] fo. 108 [should be 109].

PPP [vol. 82] 84

Jone, late wife of John Deyncourt K', held the day yt she died the Mann' of Vpton of the King in Capite, as of the honour of Pontefract, & that William is sonne & heire of the said Jone.

C [vol. 120] 66

Charte A. 4 Ed. 3 [1330] 44.

The King granted to John Gray of Rotherfeild free Warren in all his demeasne Lands [in the county of Bucks, and Oxon, and Berks, and Northampton, and (Dodsworth)] of Upton, Stillingflete, Moreby, Dringhows, Scoulcotes & Kettlewell, in y County of Yorke.

Chartæ eodem Anno [1330] ñ 94.

C[vol. 120] 66b The King c. Know ye that whereas Robert de Moreby & Margret his wife doe hold the Mann's of Coges in Oxfordshire, & of Vpton & Scoulcotes in ye County of Yorke, &c. with the appurtnances, for the terme of ye life of ye said Margret, after whose decease they ought to remaine to John de Gray & his heires, the King granted free warren in all the foresaid Lands to the foresaid Robert Margaret dureing the life of Margret & after her decease to the said John Gray.

[Other references are: CCC (vol. 34) 19, 47, 56, 72; and F (vol. 125) 12.]

G [vol. 127] 21

Vseflete, tent., of &C

[blocks in formation]

Fines in ye Treasury 9 R. 1 [1198].

Between Robert de Longo campo, Abbot of St Mary of Yorke complt., & Walter son of William de vj Carucates of Land in Vseflete, Haldenby, Whitgift,

During the last few years of his episcopate, Abp. Walter performed many ecclesiastical acts, such as institutions, and dated many documents from Upton.

The Greys of Codnor, of Wilton, of Ruthin, of Groby, and of Rotherfield, were all descended from elder brothers of Abp. Gray, who, however, always so spelt his name. His namesake Walter (also Gray), was the son of the Abp's. next elder brother, Robert of Rotherfield, and

as the Abp. had given Rotherfield to the father, so it is probable that at the death or surrender of Geoffrey de Reineville he gave the manor of Upton to the son, from whom the descent of Robert Gray of Rotherfield is traced by Hunter (S. YORKSHIRE II., 444), who seems, however, not to have been acquainted with the transaction referred to in the previous note.

33 Like each of the other component

DD [vol. 122] 134 [Given under ESTOFT & HALDENBy, vol. xi. 46.]

Escheats 7 Ed. 1 [1278] n. 11.

AA [vol. 117] 112 Walter de Vseflete held the day that he died liberties in Haldenby & Vseflete. [Dodsworth has this incomplete memorandum: This is in my E booke (vol. 123) set lit & fo. ]. [Another reference given is SS (vol. 148) 46.]

Out of Melton's Register.

B [vol. 28] 96. [Part of the extract which is given under SNAITH, ante, p. 106.]

C [vol. 120] 23

Charta 41 Ed. 3 [1367] m. 8.

Henry, King of England, Grandfather [sic] of the now King gaue in pure Almes to ye Abbey of St Mary of Yorke, Vseflete & Eyremine [Airmin] & what he had in Haldenby & whatsoeuer is contained between Vseflete & Eyremine &c. wch the King confirmed [M. q' Thomas Abbas nunc ib'm (Dodsworth)].

Charta 7 Ed. 1 [1278] m. 3.

C [vol. 120] 31 The King granted to Walter de Vseflete free warren in all his demeasne Lands of Haldenby and Vseflete in

ye County of Yorke.

Charte 11 Ed. 3 [1336-7] n. 2.

C [vol. 120] 72 Given under Hook (vol. xi. 57).

[There is one other uncopied reference, F [vol. 125] 130.]

Went als Wenet.8+

Out of Kirkstall booke in the Duchie office at Grays in, fo. 32.

DDD [vol. 39] 27 Know p'sent & to come that J Robert de Lacy haue giuen to the Monkes of Kirkstall &c. [vaccariam in le Roundhaya (Dodsworth)], one carucate of Land with ye Appurtnances in Wenet &c.

parts of the parish of Whitgift, Usefleet had no mention in Domesday. In the Poll Tax of 1378, however, Osse Fleth was reported as having 55 taxpayers, who among them contributed 19s. 10d. Of these, five, a carpenter, a smith, a souter, a tailor, and a wright each paid 6d., and an artificer mercer, as he is called, paid 12d. Among the unusual names were Robert Gudynegh, Margaret Gudsonwyf, Johanne Modir, and William Leptman.

34 Went or Wentbridge never became a separate manor, or township, or constabulary. It was a district on both sides of the river Went, at the extremity of the several manors of Darrington, Thorp Audlin, and Kirk Smeaton; the first on the north or left bank of the river, the second and third on its south or right bank; and ultimately partitioned among those manors by defined boundaries. As we see above, Robert de Lascy,


Out of Nostell Priory Coucher, fo. 23.36

M [vol. 160] 12 [should be MM (vol. 138) 12] Know p'sent & to come that J Jun [or Eudo] de Longvillers 7 haue giuen &c. to the Church of St Oswald for the Soule of Agnes my wife

at the end of the twelfth century treated it as a distinct entity, as his great-grandfather had done, when about a hundred years before he was making a similar grant to St. Clement's Chapel; but his expression must have been conventional only, and the actual partition must have taken place long before. For, as at this time, Pincerna had Thorp, and Reineville had Smeaton, while only Darrington could have been in the hands of the lord. it is clear that the grant was one of land from the Darrington portion of Wentbridge only. But, on the other hand, had the partition taken place at some subsequent date, evidence of the arrangement would almost inevitably have been placed on record, and survived, as it did in the case of Carleton and Camelsford (vol. x., 364).

35 Wenthill was neither manor nor township, while it could hardly be called a hamlet. It was but a strip of land on the sides of the hill, extending about two-thirds of the breadth of that portion of Darrington Manor which is parallel with the boundary of East Hardwick, from which it was separated by the road leading from Darrington to Wentbridge on the one side, and on the other by a branch road leading from Wentbridge towards Carleton and Pontefract.

35 There is a Nostell Chartulary in the Cottonian Library (Vesp. E. xix.), but I am sorry to find that it has very large and numerous lacunæ amounting to about a third of the whole. It has three separate paginations, the earliest being a folioing, the second a paging (to a great extent concurrent with the previous folioing), and a third, modern, which runs through the volume disregarding the many hiatuses. This last, however, is complete, so that more than a cursory glance is required to enable a reader to ascertain how serious are the deficiencies of the volume. Of the earliest pagination not much is left, a large proportion having disappeared when the volume received its present binding, at which time the original generous margin was considerably reduced, and unfortunately

the portion from which the extracts in the text were taken, was among the losses. It is from this document, now in the Cottonian Library, that the Nosteli Charters, published in the Monasticon, were taken, but as the actual printing lacked the careful superintendence of the real compiler, Roger Dodsworth, a confirmation charter of Robert de Lascy the second leads the Monasticon procession as that of the founder, his grandfather, while the only reference the series gives, fo. 378, should be 328. Examining the remains of the Chartulary in the Museum, I find clear indications that the lacunæ are of old standing. Between the present ff. 114-115 is a memorandum "Desunt hoc loco 4 fo." showing that someone (perhaps Sir R. Gascoigne, who at one tine owned the volume), had discovered the fragmentary condition of the MS. These missing folios would have been paged in the original as 277 to 284, and folioed 144 to 147. Again, between 125 and 126, pages 309-10 (folio 160) are also missing, and between 128 and 129, pages 315 to 318 (folios 163-4) are cut out, with even the butt-ends of the folios remaining. This was in the middle of the Charters which relate to the cell of Scokyrk. After the folio which has the ancient distinctive marks 331-2 and 171, and the modern folioing of 135, the remains of medieval folioing ceased as if one of the now missing pages, which had had their position there, had been the limit of the original pagination, and that when the additional matter was added the newer paging was added also, and then continued throughout. After 135 of the modern folioing (that is, between 333 and 405), from 30 to 40 leaves have been abstracted, this having been done very carefully so as to leave the corresponding strips of parchment still attached; 417-8 is also gone, the missing folio commencing with the middle of a deed from W. de Birstall, prior of St. Oswald, to Geoffrey, son of John the Parker (see also xi., 38), of Huntwick. It relates to a toft and croft in Foleby in Sharneston, which Wm. Pypinhead formerly held,

37 For note 37 see next page.

« PreviousContinue »