Page images

his chancellor, a doctor of laws, or a knight. The Archbishop of Canterbury was to enjoy the same privilege in the province of York unconditionally.*

In this curious manner this dispute which had caused such grievous trouble, was finally settled officially; but who will say that friction between the two primacies ceased at the same time?

The following works have been consulted and quoted in writing the above:

The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle; Bede's Ecclesiastical History; Wm. of Newburgh's Chronicle; ditto of Wm. of Malmesbury; Roger de Hoveden's Annals; Rymer's. Fœdera; Caprave's Liber de Illustribus Henricis; Register of Archbishop Walter Gray, Surtees Society; Fasti Ebor., Raine; Wharton's Anglia Sacra; History of the Archbishops of Canterbury, by Gervase, a monk of Canterbury; Historical Letters and Papers from the Northern Registers, Raine, Rolls Series, &c.

NOTE. The engraving which illustrates this paper is from block supplied to me for the purpose by Messrs. Harper and Co., New York. It is from an old print in the British Museum. It shows the respective seats of the two Archbishops in the councils of state. The cross on the top of the staff of the Archbishop of Canterbury is accidentally omitted.

* There is an order for the payment of £7 88. 5d. to Richard de Grymesby, goldsmith, for certain images made in honour of S. Thomas of Canterbury and

delivered to John, Archbishop of York, of the king's gift, for his oblation at Canterbury.

Pell Records, 161.





THIS, the final instalment of the Osgoldcross Notes will be found by no means the least interesting of the series, dealing as it does among other subjects with what has hitherto been the vexed question of the supposed connection of the Stapletons of Darrington with the larger and more widespread family which hailed from Stapleton-on-Tees and the North Riding, and which had their West Riding head and centre at Carleton near Snaith, a short ten miles away.

The two families are now proved to be clearly distinct, and it is demonstrated in the clearest possible manner that the Darrington family did not bring their name to Stapleton, but that altogether and entirely independently of those who already possessed a similar patronymic, they adopted that which they found at the most important of their manors. And moreover that they did not follow the fashion of appropriating a local name till the time of their third recorded generation, till the time of Hugh son of Gilbert, son of Dama.

Another interesting point connected with the Darrington Stapletons, is the fact as now brought forward, that they themselves were the root from which the de Swillingtons, the de Hortons, the de Maras and other families sprang, and that while the two Stapleton families of the North Riding and of Darrington frequently crossed the same path, they not only never intermarried, but that they were so distinct that they had different coat-armour, the North Riding Stapletons bearing a lion rampant, and those of Darrington a chief indented.

A third hitherto unsettled point dealt with in this instal

ment, and which likewise may now be considered satisfactorily ascertained, is the origin of the supplementary name of Thorp Audlin as derived from Aldelin, the king's steward, the owner of the manor of Thorp next Smeaton in the time of Henry II.

But besides these, the various notes have also thrown some light upon still one further question, the date of the introduction of windmills into England, and I propose here to collect into one narrative the information on this subject scattered through the various notes; to which I shall add some few other remarks.

The general opinion seems to be, at least the usual "authorities" say so, that windmills were introduced into this country "in the time of the Crusaders." This statement is in itself sufficiently vague, and one would think that its vagueness ought to have excited some suspicion, and led to some enquiry. But as it seems to have been received with pre-eminent meekness and complacency, I propose to go behind it in order to bring the local mills to the test, so as to compare this statement of "the authorities" with the account told by the mills themselves and by their surroundings, as well as by their history; and I think that after listening to their tale, and collating what has been brought forward in connection with these Osgoldcross notes, we shall consider ourselves justified (1) in attributing the introduction of windmills into England to a date much earlier than any Crusade; (2) in asserting without the shadow of a doubt that their introduction had taken place, at least in this great county, long before the Survey was made; and (3) in pointing out that while its compilation was proceeding, there was an extensive addition to the mill-power of the county, that addition including many of the new-fashioned windmills.

I note in the first place that among other rules which guided their construction, it was always an important point with the eleventh and twelfth century mill-builders to place a mill towards the extremity of a manor, where it could be easily reached by the inhabitants of more than one populous centre, as populations then went. Now the manors were generally bounded by topographical features, by streams or by highlands; and with water-mills only in use, advantage could be taken only of the winding streams in the valleys. But the discovery of the practicability of driving mills by wind

power, whenever that was made, at once permitted the millbuilders to utilize the hill-boundaries. And this (which is thus the essence of the question) was done to a considerable extent by those who contributed the large increase in the number of mills in England, which was witnessed by the second half of the eleventh century.

Of the extent to which this addition had recently been, and was even then being made, there is much evidence. scattered throughout the Domesday Survey. At York, the construction of the King's Pool had led to the recent destruction of "two new mills of the value of 20s.," at Malton a site was allotted but the mill was not yet erected. This was the case at Bramham also, and at Treeton, each in the fee of the Earl of Morton; at (North) Elmsall and at Thorp (Audlin) in the wapentake of Osgoldcross and the fee of Ilbert de Lascy; at Tinsley and Hooton Levett in the fee of Roger de Busli; at Cave in the fee of Robert Malet; at Bolton in the fee of William de Percy; and at Appleton (Roebuck), Thorp (Arch), and Ogleston (Tolleston) in that of Osbern de Arches. Thus the number of the mills was being universally, but not extravagantly, increased; each lord adding one, two, or three, according to his wealth and public spirit. And while some of these new mills were undoubtedly of the older construction, a very superficial examination into the facts will enable the enquirer to ascertain that many were placed on hills, far from a stream, and in manors where there was no possibility of driving them by water power; indeed, in some instances there never had been a stream within the bounds of the manors that in the time of the Domesday Survey were reported to be possessed of a mill.

To begin with the place where this is written. At the time of the Survey, Pontefract (see note 90, Vol. XII., page 42) had already its supply of mills; it had three, the sites of which are still well known, and it was 450 years before a fourth was added. Of these public mills two were of the older construction, worked by water; the third was a windmill. The two water-mills were in the lowest part of the town in the hamlet called Kirkby and near the monastery there; the windmill was a secular mill belonging to the town or its lord.

To distinguish between them, and to make the line of my

argument clear, I will enter slightly into the history of all three, which I can easily do, as that history ran on two separate grooves, almost from the time when the Domesday Survey was completed. The two water-mills were I may say at once allotted to the monks, and did not cease to belong to the monastery while the foundation existed. The first was named in their earliest charter (1090) only, being subsequently considered as part of the site, and being merged into "the belongings thereto." The second, the "East mill of Pontefract," "in the outskirts" of the town (as usual) towards Knottingley, was first specifically named in Henry de Lascy's Confirmation Charter, and subsequently enumerated in the royal charter of Henry II. in 1155, and in the consecration charter of Henry de Lascy in 1159; while it received additional confirmation, still as the "East mill," "in the outskirts" "in suburbium situm," from Abp. Roger, Pope Celestine III. and Pope Alexander III.

But the windmill, the third of the Domesday mills, was a West mill, a secular mill, a town mill, a lord's mill; and on the highest land of the manor. This need in no way be confused with the ecclesiastical mills of the lower part of the town; for it was at the opposite extremity of the manor, a mile away, with all the line of the buildings of the town between. After its enumeration among the three mills of Domesday, this third mill is first mentioned by Hugh de Laval in his charter of 1122, giving it to the monastery. The gift was however but temporary; for as was the case with Hugh de Laval's gifts of churches, it reverted ; the donation not being confirmed by the restored lord. But Hugh de Laval's mention of the mill is clear and distinct : Notum sit omnibus quod ego concedo et dono, et presentis carte scripto confirmo meum molendinum de villa Pontefracti," his town mill; that is as distinguished from the other two mills which belonged to the monks. All three had been enumerated together in Domesday, no distinction being made between the ancient water-mills and the newly built windmill; each was a "mill"; but one of the three, this town mill, could never have belonged to the former class, for it was on the top of a hill (still distinguished by the name of Mill Hill), and it had no neighbouring water which could have been utilized as motive power.

Pontefract town mill was therefore complete as a windmill

« PreviousContinue »