left no surviving issue, unless Ann, mentioned as Prioress of Acornbury, were his daughter.

A.D. 1326-27 (20 Edw. III). Richard de Barri. After the death of John, his nephew David, son of his brother David, succeeded to the Irish lordships, but his right to Manorbeer was disputed by his uncle Richard. The state of the controversy seems to have been the following, as set forth by David. John de Barri, by fine levied in the court at Pembroke, granted and quitclaimed to David, his brother, and his heirs the manors of Manorbeer and Penally, for which quit-claim he granted the same manors to John and Beatrix his wife for their lives, to return on their death to him, David, and his heirs. David dying before John, left David, his son and heir, a minor. On his brother David's death, John (who, as a tenant for life only, had no power to make a fine) granted, nevertheless, the manors in dispute to Richard ap Thomas, who immediately re-granted them to John and his wife for their joint lives. There is no full counterstatement by Richard; but it is evident, from certain proceedings, that he disputed the legality of the fine made to David. The dispute was at its height between the uncle and nephew in 1327 (1 Edw. III), shortly after that King had succeeded to the throne. At that time the whole kingdom and principality of Wales were in a state of commotion, and the lordship of Pembroke also was in the hands of the Crown; Laurence de Hastings, heir of Aylmer de Valence, being then a minor.1

It would appear that David endeavoured to enforce and make good his claim by the strong hand, and took forcible possession of the estate. That he did this also, is evident, in defiance of an injunction to the contrary from Roger de Mortimer, then Justiciary of Wales;

1 Laurence de Hastings succeeded his father as fourth Baron in 1325, being then a minor of five years of age. In 1339 he was made Earl of Pembroke, on attaining majority.

2 Notorious for the part he took against Edward II. He was Baron Mortimer of Chirke, second son of Roger Mortimer, sixth feudal lord of Wigmore, distinguished for his services in the field, and much employed, t. Edward I, in the wars of France, Scotland, and Wales. He was summoned to Parliament in 1307, and constituted Lieutenant of Wales, having had all the castles of the Principality committed to his custody. Being an opponent of the Spencers (5 Edward II) he was imprisoned in the Tower of London with his nephew, Lord Mortimer of Wigmore, and died about 1336. (Cf. Burke, Extinct Peerage.)

for the Justiciary's lieutenant, Thomas de Hampton, who was also seneschal of Pembroke, ejected him, and took the manors into the King's hands.1

These proceedings were in due course followed up by Richard de Barry. Certain parties, William de Crespigny, Stephen Perot, and others, were indicted by him for conspiring with David de Barry, with a view to defraud him (Richard) and his wife of their inheritance. He alleged also that the said William, Stephen, and the rest, had undertaken to help David both by law and by force. The jury found William guilty; Stephen (who appeared in court) departed in contempt of the bailiff and court, upon which a verdict was taken against him. The parties in question were seized and imprisoned, and for their release, William had to give a bond for two hundred marks, and Stephen for a larger sum. (Close Rolls, 9 Edw. III, m. 19.)3

On the fall of Mortimer, David sent in a petition to the King, in which he stated that he had been wronged by Mortimer whilst holding the county of Pembroke during the minority of Laurence, son and heir of John de Hastynges, and that wishing to injure and annoy him (pergravare), had not only seized his lands, but asserted him to have been a partisan of the Earl of Kent. Elsewhere it is stated also that he had adhered to Prince Rees ap Griffith; but with which of the two, or with neither, he had sided, the fact was found to be untrue by the inquisition to ascertain the truth (5

1 Roger de Mortimer is stated to have seized the lands in 1327, "die Lune proxima post festum Sancti Michaelis, anno regni regis nunc primo." The inquisition is dated "Die Jovis proxima post festum decollacionis Sancti Johannis Baptiste, anno r. r. Edwardi tercii a conquestu quinto", and has already been recited, vol. xi, 4th Series, p. 141.

2 Floyd, MS. Collections.

3 This must have been Edmund of Woodstock, second son of Edward I. On the accession of his nephew, King Edward III, he was arrested, and sentenced to death for having conspired with others to deliver his brother (Edward II) out of prison. beheaded in 1330. His daughter Joane, "The Fair Maid of Kent", married the Black Prince, and was mother of Richard II.

He was

Edw. III, 1331.)1 The matter, therefore, being as stated by David, William de Carew, Owen ap Owen, and Thomas de Carew, were indicted for the share they had taken in deforcing him, David de Barry. (Close, 5 Edw. III, p. 2, m. 9.) It was subsequently ordered (Close, 9, Edw. III, as above) that the bonds given by William de Crespigny and Stephen Perot should be cancelled, if it was found that they were given under the circumstances stated by them. The result of the proceedings does not appear; but the issue was that the lordship of "Maynorbier" remained with Richard.

In looking into the history of those days, and especially into the whole course of these proceedings, it is evident that Pembroke at that time was divided into two parties, the Carews and the Roches: the one, headed by the former, supported Richard; the other, by the latter, upheld David. Whichever party was in the ascendant packed the jury with its own adherents, and so obtained a verdict to suit its purposes. There seems, however, a reasonable probability for believing the cause of Richard to have been the just one.

We glean further from these proceedings that Richard de Barri had married the daughter of Nicholas de Carew, who died, 5 Edward II (1311-12), and that a bond for £500 had been given by Nicholas to John de Barri, Richard's brother, some time previously. As the marriage of Richard, without property, would have been no consideration for the bond (and some such there must have been), it is likely that it was the settlement of Manorbeer. We have stated that in 1319 (13 Edward II) John de Barri passed his Irish property to David, and there is no doubt that this was done as a recompense to David for relinquishing any right he might have in Manorbeer.

1 There is a manifest discrepancy as to the names Earl of Kent and Rees ap Griffith, for in the inquisition, 5 Edward III, 2 m., No. 45, to which the writ containing the petition is annexed, the words are, "eundem David dilecto et fideli nostro Rees ap Griffith adhesisse." The petition is included in the writ, 5 Edward III.

2 Floyd MS. Collections.

We are ignorant of the date of Richard's death, but according to the Cambrian Register (ii, p. 184) he was still living in 1334, as seen by a final concord to which he was witness (8 Edward III), made in the court of Isabel (Elizabeth) de Burgo.' It must have occurred before 1336, for he was then succeeded by his daughter Avisia, who had married Owen ap Owen.

A.D. 1336 (9 Edw. III). Avice de Barri, wife of Owen ap Owen. By this marriage there was no issue. Owen died before Avice his wife, and her death occurred 15 Aug. 1358.2 It was found that she was seized of the manors of " Maynebeer" and Penally, held of the lordship of Pembroke; and of that of Bigelly, held of John de Carew as of his barony of Carew. The first two manors are stated to have been worth £30, and Bigelly £10 yearly. An earlier inquisition (5 Edw. III), however,

1 She had the custody of the Earldom of Pembroke during the minority of Laurence Hastings, son of John by Isabel, the eldest daughter of Aymer de Valence.

2 As this inquisition deals with the fine already shown as cause of litigation between her father and cousin, we here give the same (Ing. p. m., 33 Edw. III, 1st nrs., No. 16) :

66

:

Inquisition taken before the Escheator of Hereford and the Marches of Wales, on Monday before the Feast of the Purification, on the death of Avisia, wife of Oweyn ap Oweyn :

"The jury say that John de Barry was seized in his demesne as of fee of the manors of Maynerbire, Pennally, and Begeley, in the county of Pembroke; which John de Barry gave the aforesaid manors to David de Barry, his brother, and to the heirs male of the said David. David de Barry then demised the manors to the said John de Barry for the term of his life. On the death of David, John, who had only a life-interest in the said manors, alienated them in fee to Richard ap Thomas, whereupon Richard ap Thomas forthwith demised the manors to John de Barry and Beatrix his wife for their lives (cuidam Ricard' fil' Thome in feodo alienavit, et predictus Ricardus fil' Thome maneria predicta predicto Johanni de Barri et Beatrici uxori sue statim dimisit ad terminum vite eorum'). David, son and heir of David de Barry, recently entered the lands, whereupon John de Barry gave up possession to the said David in the warranty.

"David, son of David de Barry, held the manors for some time, until Richard de Barry, brother of David de Barry (the elder) disseized vi et armis David, son and heir of David de Barry, and died seized of the said manors, when Avisia, the wife of Owen ap Oweyn, who was the daughter and heir of Richard de Barry, entered the said manors, and died seized of them."

shows that Jameston and Neweton were members of Manorbeer, and this manor and Penally were worth £100 yearly. As to the number of knights' fees, by which the property was held, there occurs a difference at various times. In 1247 the Barrys held five fees, the same again in 1323, but in 1331 the property is said to be held by three fees only.

A.D. 1359 (33 Edw. III). David de Barri. The heir of Avice was stated by the said inquisition to be David de Barry, son of David, brother of Richard, and aged twenty-four years.

Herein is an evident mistake, and it is obvious that grandson of David, brother of Richard, must be intended, inasmuch as the nephew of Richard was (as before shown) a man of full age (plene etatis) in 1327 (1 Edward III); but the difficulty seems capable of easy solution. David de Barry we find declared, by the above quoted inquisition, to be heir. Now there is extant a charter (Arch. Camb., Jan. 1853), or rather letters of attorney, dated 18 Oct. 1358 (33 Edw. III), from David de Rupe, lord of Fermoy, appointing William de Rupe of Wales to take seizin for him of Maynerbeer and Penally. The two, there can be no question, are the same person, for at that early date it was not uncommon for individuals to bear two designations or family-names as here given indeed, in an Irish Patent Roll, 3 Rich. II (p. 106, 3), mention is made of William Roche de Barry. In 1362 David de Barry is stated (as by inq., 36 Edw. III, on John de Carew, Sept. 1362) to have held of him at Bigelly two knights' fees worth thirty marks. How long after this he held the property is uncertain. Before the end of Edward III's reign he had no longer any interest in it, for at that period, and indeed for some time before, we find William de Wyndesore in possession of Manorbeer; whilst subsequent Patent Roll and Coram Rege Roll entries assign the property to Holland, Earl of Huntingdon, and ostensibly (pro tem.) to John de Wyndesore. The connection of the Barrys ceases, therefore, with him; and of its subsequent owners, as far as ascertainable, we will now speak.