The deed of 1313 printed above, and a Wrottesley Manor Roll of 1382 give the following names of villein tenants who were natives of the manor : The inference seems to be that the villein tenants were assessed equally with the free tenants. The second Subsidy Roll of 6 Edward III shews that at that date John de Hampton had given up his residence at Wrottesley, and as John de Tettebury's assessment had been doubled in the meantime, I conclude that Sir John Hampton had relinquished his share of the manor to John de Tettebury, who already held one-third of it as dower of his wife. It is not unlikely that at the same time Hugh de Wrottesley had been handed over to the care of his mother and John de Tettebury, for judging by what we know of the character and subsequent proceedings of Hugh de Wrottesley, his guardian must have been glad to be relieved of his charge. Whatever the arrangement may have been, the result was unfortunate and produced a violent feud between Hugh and his stepfather. At Michaelmas term 5 Edward III, when the former would be between seventeen and eighteen years of age, he had already two suits pending in Banco against John de Tettebury and his mother. In the first of these, Hugh appeared by his custos Henry de Lench, and sued John de Tettebury and Joan his wife for waste and destruction in the lands, houses, woods and gardens which they held in dower, of his inheritance in Wrottesley.1 Henry de Lench, who occurs in this suit as the custos of Hugh, was one of the Prothonotaries of the Court of Common Pleas, and had been made a party to the action, in order to enable Hugh to sue as a minor. The second suit was an action against the same defendants, to render an account for the time they had held the custody of his lands and tenements in Wrottesley, which he pleaded were hold in socage. The defendants put in no appearance in either action, and the Sheriff was ordered to attach them for the 2 De Banco, Mich., 5 Edward III, m. 54. following Hillary term. A guardian in socage was supposed to hold the tenements for the benefit of the heir, and was bound to account to him for the profits. It appears from this last suit that John de Tettebury and Joan held the status of John de Hampton in the manor. Besides the suits above-mentioned, he was likewise suing his stepfather in the Court of King's Bench, or Coram Rege as it was then called, for a trespass committed at Wrottesley, in taking fish from his fishponds to the value of £20,1 and he had a fourth action against the same defendant and Joan his wife to render an account for lands and tenements in Pateshull, which were held in socage, and of which they had held the custody during his minority. This last action clearly refers to the mill of Hawk well, and here he stood on better ground, for this mill was held in socage of the lords of Patshull. The record of Michaelmas term, 7 Edward III, states that Hugh de Wrottesleye sued John de Tettebury and Joan his wife in a plea, that whereas it had been provided by Statute that the guardians of lands and tenements, which were held in socage, should render a reasonable account of the issues of the said lands, etc., to the heirs of the same, when they came of age, the said John and Joan refused to give any account for lands and tenements in Pateshull, which were held in socage and of which they had held the custody during his minority. The defendants did not appear, and the Sheriff returned into Court a sum of 20d. as the proceeds of a distress levied upon their goods. He was therefore ordered to distrain again and produce them on the Octaves of St. Hillary.2 It will be seen that Hugh could not maintain this action, unless he was of age, and at this date he had not completed his twentieth year. The clue to this enigma is that he had been knighted and his knighthood gave him possession of his estates. By the common law, if a minor was knighted, he was forthwith entitled to the livery of his lands. This was in fact, "a legitimate consequence of the old Teutonic custom, for being invested with the arms of manhood, he was deemed to be full of age." 1 Coram Rege Roll, Hill., 7 Edward III., m. 134 dorso. Hugh complained that John had taken from his fish ponds "lupos aquaticos (ie. pyke) perch et roch, et breme (sic) ad valenciam viginti librarum." All these suits brought by Hugh against his stepfather continue on the Rolls until Michaelmas 10 Edward III, when they appear to have been dropped simultaneously. De Banco, Mich., 7 Edward III, m. 240 dorso. 3 Palgrave's English Commonwealth. SIR HUGH DE WROTTESLEY, K.G., A.D. 1333 To A.D. 1381. UI Sir Hugh de Wrottesley, who now succeeded to his inheritance, is shewn to be son of the last Sir William by the deeds above printed, a suit in Banco of Easter term 13 Edward II, and, another suit on the Staffordshire Assize Roll of 13 Edward III. He was born in the early part of the year 1314, but is found to be a Knight and in full possession of his estates in January 1334. As he was under age at the date of his knighthood, he must have been made a knight on the field of battle, and he was doubtless one of those created by Edward III on the 19 July 1333, the eve of the battle of Halidown Hill.1 Early in the year 1334, Sir Hugh having previously enfeoffed John de Fulford in the manor of Wrottesley and the Patshull Mill, the said John reconveyed them to him, under the title of Hugh de Wrottesley, Knight, to be held by him and Elizabeth, his wife, and the heirs of the body of Hugh, with remainder to Roger, brother of Hugh, the son of William de Wrottesleye, and the heirs male of his body with remainder to Idonia, his sister and the heirs male of her body, with remainder to Elianora, the sister of Idonia and the heirs male of her body, with final remainder over to the right heirs of Sir Hugh. This deed is dated on the Sunday after the Feast of St. Hillary, 7 Edward III, which would be the 16 January 1334.2 Roger is styled here son of William de Wrottesleye, to distinguish him from the half brothers of Sir Hugh, the sons of John de Tettebury, of whom several were living at this date. John de Tettebury and Joan apparently did not acquiesce in their expulsion from the Wrottesley estates, for on the Patent Roll of 8 Edward III William de Shareshulle, Roger Hillary, and John de Peyto, the elder, were appointed to take an assize of 'Holinshed's Chronicle. 2 Original deed at Wrottesley, copied 1860. novel disseisin, which John de Tettebury and Joan, his wife, had arraigned against Hugh de Wrottesleye and Elizabeth, his wife, and others, touching tenements in Boterdon, Waterfal, Grendon, Stafford and Wrottesley. The other defendants were John de Fulford and Richard de Wolmere.2 Whilst all these suits were pending, Sir Hugh was making preparations to join the crusade, under Philip de Valois. The Patent Roll of 8 Edward III states that Hugh de Wrottesleye, who was about to set out on a pilgrimage to the Holy Land, had King's letters of attorney in the names of Peter de Hoo and Thomas de Cheyne, available for three years, with power to sue in all Courts of England, dated 23 March. The two attornies named were Prothonotaries of the Court of Common Pleas. The Pope, at the request of Philip de Valois, the King of France, had preached a crusade by bull dated 3 December 1331, and the spring of 1334 had been fixed for the departure of the crusaders. Edward, the King of England, had promised to join the crusade, and Philip had taken an oath in 1333 to stay three years in Syria, at the head of a French army. The crusade was afterwards postponed, and the ships ordered to be ready in 1336, but the hostilities between France and England put a stop to the expedition." It would be tedious to give in detail all the law suits brought by Sir Hugh against his step-father. Those in the Westminster Courts continued for two years longer, the latest entry respecting them being one on the Roll of Easter term, 10 Edward III, which states that the Sheriff of co. Stafford had been ordered to proceed in person to the woods of Wrottesleye, which John de Tettebury and Joan, his wife, held as dower of Joan of the inheritance of Hugh de Wrottesleye, Chivaler, and on the oath of twelve men, who had no affinity to the parties, make diligent enquiry into the extent of the waste and destruction caused by the said John and Joan, by cutting down and selling one hundred oak trees, each worth half a mark, and to return the Inquisition at this term, and the Sheriff now returned that the said John and Joan had committed waste and destruction to the extent of £10 in the Wrottesleye woods by cutting down eighty oak trees, and as the Sheriff did not return a certain value for each oak he (viz. Simon de Ruggeleye) was fined 20s., and was ordered to make another Inquisition and return it on the Octaves of St. John de Baptist.5 Besides all 'Rot. Pat., part ii, m. 7 dorso. 2 Essoin Roll, Stafford Assizes, 8 Edward III. Richard de Wolmere was Sir Hugh's attorney. Rot. Pat. 8 Edward III, part i, m. 22. Sismondi's Histoire des Français. 5 De Banco, Easter, 10 Edward III, m. 283 dorso. No further notice of this suit occurs on the Rolls. these law suits, Sir Hugh revived during the course of this year, the claim upon the manor of Loynton, which had been dropped by his father's death in 1320, but the only notice I have found respecting it, is an entry on the De Banco Roll of 10 Edward III which states that Hugh de Wrottesley, Chivaler, not appearing to prosecute his claim against Roger de Levington for the manor of Levynton, the suit was dismissed.1 In the following year, viz., in 1337, we meet with the first notice of the feud between the families of Wrottesley and Perton, on which depended some of the principal events in the life of Sir Hugh. The Coram Rege Roll of Easter term, 11 Edward III (April 1337), states that Hervey le Freman of Okene and Thomas, his son, Ralph le Freman of Okene, Henry de Codeshall, Thomas de Wolmere, Thomas en le Hurne of Wrottesleye, William atte Yate of Wrottesleye, Simon Aylwyne and Roger, his son, Stephen atte Tounesende and William, his son, Henry Benyng, Richard Benyng, Roger Benyng, John, son of William Crey of Tettenhale, and many others named, to the number altogether of twenty-nine, were attached at the suit of Leon de Perton for breaking vi et armis into his close at Wyghtwyk, on the Tuesday before the Feast of the Assumption, 10 Edward III [August 1336], and cutting and carrying away his wheat and barley, rye, oats, beans and peas to the value of £20. The defendants appeared by attorney and denied the injury, and appealed to a jury which was to be summoned for the following Trinity term.2 The plaintiff in this suit was a younger brother of William, the lord of Perton, and held an appointment in the King's household as " Pannetarius Regis," or Chief of the King's Pantry. Nine of the defendants were tenants of Sir Hugh de Wrottesley. This suit occurs on the Rolls for the next three years, but no jury was empanelled to try it, and this is not to be wondered at, for Wightwyke was a member of the King's manor of Tettenhall, and on the 18th March 1337 the King had committed the custody of this manor to Sir Hugh de Wrottesley.3 ever Shortly before this date, Roger, son of Roger atte Blakeleye of Wrottesley (one of Sir Hugh's tenants), had been suing in the lord's Court of Tettenhall, Walter, son of John de Perton, for a messuage, 16 acres of land, and an acre of meadow in Tetenhale Regis. Walter, fearing local influence, transferred the cause to be heard at Westminster, and a writ of right was issued directing the suit to be recorded, and returned into the Court of Common Pleas at Trinity term 12 Edward III. At the latter term the Sheriff returned that he had taken with him 1 De Banco, Mich., 10 Edward III, m. 446, dorso. * Coram Rege, Easter, 11 Edward III, m. 119. 3 Originalia, 11 Edward III, m. 3. |