« PreviousContinue »
In 1341, Sir John de Siggeston and Sir William Bruys, no doubt a member of the Pickering family of that name, were knights of the shire at the Parliament which met on the Monday after the Quinzaine of Easter in that year (April 23). The members for Yorkshire sat for forty-four days, for which they received pay at the rate of 4s. a day. It was at this Parliament the King promised before supplies were granted (a) that all moneys received should be audited by a board chosen in Parliament, and (6) that he would not choose ministers without the consent of his council, and (c) that at each Parliament ministers should resign, and be compelled to answer all complaints before they could be reappointed. It is true the King recalled the statutes, but a great principle had been asserted, and a step forward in constitutional government taken, which bore fruit in later times.
The evidence relating to Sir John now gets scanty. On January 27th, 1343, he paid roli. for a licence for the alienation in mortmain of a messuage, nine acres of land, one acre of meadow, and 6os. rent in Siggeston, Foxton, and Alverton, to a chaplain, who was to celebrate service daily in the parish church of Siggeston, for his soul, and the souls of his ancestors. It was probably in connection with this chantry that the stained glass still existing was placed in the church. The female now in the aisle may also be associated with this event.
The last instance we have of any mention of Sir John of Sigston is on September 16th, 1343, when he and Henry le Pork were nominated as attorneys of Bartholomew Fanačourt, who was going on pilgrimage beyond the seas. Fanacourt was a Frenchman, who was the third husband of Lucy de Thweng, 4 and Henry le Pork had married Sigston's cousin, Elizabeth Colville.5
As nothing more is heard of John de Siggeston, it is probable he died somewhere about this date. Dodsworth' gives a pedigree derived from charters of Everingham Cressy of Birkin, showing that John's only son Philip died without issue in 15 Edward III (1341), leaving John Plaice and John de Wadesley his heirs. The fact is probably right, though the date is incorrect. According to these charters, John de Siggeston, knt, was possessed of the castle
i Cal. of Close Rolls (1341–3), p. 144.
• Guisborough Chart. (Surtees Soc.,
at rather later date another John de Siggeston, who was acquiring property in Kepwick and
Northallerton in 1345 (Yorkshire Fines (1327--1347), pp. 180, 181). In 1362, John de Siggeston of Alverton (North allerton) was absolved from a sentence of greater excommunication for violent laying on of hands on John de Otrington, clerk, to the shedding of blood (Thoresby's Register, fo. 283).
7 Dodsworth MSS., xci, 177d.
of Berford, in Siggeston, and of rents and services in Siggeston, Foxton, Winton, Alverton (Northallerton), Fyrthby, Baldersdale, Newton, Ingle (?), Scorton, Thresk, Bagby, Kepewyk, and Brodford.
The skeleton pedigree here given will prove useful in understanding these notes. The additional information is derived from the Dodsworth MSS., xci, 177d.
ARMS:-Argent a double-headed eagle sable displayed, beak and feet gules.
Michael de Ryhill, 1238-9=Alice de Flamville
John son of Michael de Ryhill, = Joan Colville, 1268
Brian son of John,
John son of John son of=(1) Ilria, relict of Geoffrey
of Maunby, 1283
=(2) Joan, dau. of Henry
Mansel, 1314. She
Sir John of Sigston, knt.,
Agnes1--Sir Robert de
John, 15 Edw. III
15 Edw. III
John, 15 Edw. III
John, 15 Edw. III
| Robertson of Robert de Waddesley and Agnes his wife were parties to a fine about lands in Wilsick, near Tickhill, and
Asenby and Dishforth, near Thirsk, in 1329 (Yorkshire Fines (1327-1347), p. 26).
A SUPPOSED ROMAN “CAMP" NEAR
By FRANCIS VILLY.
This earthwork, situated about half on Grange Farm and half on Cow Dyke Farm, and about it miles north of Harrogate Station, is noted in various topographical books (e.g. Speight's Nidderdale, p. 315, and Grainge's History of Harrogate, p. 363), and is usually regarded as of Roman origin. It is so classed in the preliminary schedule of the Earthworks Committee of the Yorkshire Archæological Society. The accompanying plan shows that, so far as external appearances go, such a suggestion is highly reasonable ; but the slight investigation to be recounted almost proves it to be mistaken.
To describe the site first, measured from the inner edge of the fosse (so far as the position of that line can be laid down), it covers just about three acres—a very usual size
“cohort-fort,” i.e. one calculated to hold a garrison consisting of an auxiliary cohort of about 500 men, and its almost equilateral form is also usual in forts of this size. The skew shape is strongly in favour of its being Roman work, nor is the slight irregularity of the plan necessarily a contra-indication. The width of the vallum and the regular and widely sweeping curve of the corners are not often to be met with in earthworks of other origin. Situated at an average of about 275 feet above sea-level, it is planted astride of a spur of high ground sloping from west to east, the western vallum being overlooked at rather unpleasantly close range, especially at the north-west corner, the summit of the hill being about 100 feet higher at one-third of a mile away. This military weakness is the only external sign pointing against the work being Roman, and it is far from conclusive by itself. The other three sides face downhill, and are strong. The Oak beck runs approximately north and south at the foot of the slope to the east, nearly 300 yards away. No signs of gateways can be traced.
The whole extent is marked on the 1847 six-inch Ordnance Survey map, the latest one showing only the south-eastern