The Descent of the Manor of Evegate in Smeeth with Some Account of its Lords

ithsologin ^antintiH THE DESCENT OF THE MANOR OF EVEGATE IN SMEETH WITH SOME ACCOUNT OF ITS LORDS By N. H. MACMICHAEL THE main road from Ashford to Folkestone passes a short distance south of Smeeth church. From the main road, opposite the turning to the church, a narrow lane running south-westwards leads to Bonnington and the Marsh. About half a mile from the main road, the lane bends to the left and runs downhill to cross the East Stour. In the angle of the bend, that is, to the east of the lane, there stands an ancient house. This is Evegate. I t is my object in the ensuing pages, as far as possible, to trace the history of the manor, or rather that of its lords, from the time of the Norman Conquest, throughout the Middle Ages. In doing so I hope to give an account of several families who are little known today but who, in their time, were of considerable local importance. First, however, I must thank the Dean and Chapter of Westminster for permission to reproduce Plates I and II, and also the Keeper of the Muniments of the Abbey, Mr. L. E. Tanner, F.S.A., for his help and encouragement throughout my work. I am deeply grateful to Mr. F. D. Scott for his lending me all his family deeds, which have been of extraordinary importance in tracing the fifteenth- and early sixteenth-century history of Evegate. Likewise, I am indebted to the late Mr. R. P. Howgrave-Graham, F.S.A., for taking the photograph for Plate II. Unpublished Crown Copyright material in the Public Record Ofiice is reproduced by permission of the Controller of H.M. Stationery Ofiice. Evegate's history in the thirteenth century has, so far as I know, never been written before ; the existence, amongst the muniments of Westminster Abbey, of over fifty origmal and, all except for one, unpubhshed charters, concerning the Grelley family, who were lords of Evegate at that time, originally prompted me to investigate its history. As one would expect, Hasted's is, until now, the most detailed account in print of the descent of the manor, but he is wrong on several points and does not discuss the Grelleys at all.1 The Pashleys, who 1 History of Kent, i n , 291. 1 4A THE DESCENT OF THE MANOR OF EVEGATE IN SMEETH formerly held many hundreds of acres in Kent, Sussex and elsewhere, are httle known, while the Pympes, though their name lingers on at Pimp's Court in East Farleigh, are not mentioned at Nettlestead in the church they built and filled with some of the most notable stained glass in the county. The Scotts survive, but no longer do they live at Smeeth. The earhest reference to Evegate (or Thevegate as it was commonly spelt throughout the period with which I am dealing) would seem to be in the somewhat mysterious charter in the Liber Monasterii de Hyda. The charter is dated 993, and in it are described various properties forfeited by a man called Wulfbold ; one property is described as consistmg of four half-sulungs " aet >eofacotan ". Later, in the charter, when the land-marks are given, two places mentioned are " Heortesstede " and " Stanstede " ; and " J>eofacotan " becomes " >eofagadan". 1 Wallenberg, in his two works Kentish Place-Names and The Place-Names of Kent, identifies " J?eofagadan " with Thevegate. He knows that "Stanstede " was in the neighbourhood of Evegate and identifies it with Stonestreet Green. " Heortesstede" is not discussed by Wallenberg,2 but as both " Stanstede " and " Hertestede " occur frequently in the Westminster Abbey muniments concerning Thevegate, this would seem to settle the matter. The pre-Conquest tenant was a person whose name was God. Domesday Book tells us that Hugh de Montfort held 1| yokes in demesne in " Tevegate " and the Domesday Monachorum confirms this.3 Hugh de Montfort, Seigneur of Mdrftfort-sur-Risle, was granted by William the Conqueror a large group of manors which later became known as the Constable's Honour. The caput of the honour was at Haughley in Suffolk, but in Kent the manors seem originally to have been grouped around Saltwood, which Hugh, however, was forced to surrender to Lanfranc.4 It is not surprising that the history of a single manor, a member of the honour, is obscure throughout the 12th century, since the descent of the honour itself is not altogether clear. At some time between the compilation of Domesday Book and the inquest of service in 1212, Thevegate was alienated from the Constable's Honour and became a part of the Honour of the Archbishop oi Canterbury.5 About a third of the Constable's Honour is known to have been alienated in King Stephen's reign and in 1163 all the lands of Henry of Essex, who held the Honour, were forfeited to the Crown ;" i (R.S.), 242-63. 2 K.P.N., 336 et sqq. ; P.N.K., 422, 464. a V.C.H. of Kent, III, 260, 268. 4 J. H. Round, The Commune of London, 280-1, and Geoffrey de Mandevilh. 147-8, 158, 326-7 ; The Genealogist (New Series), XXXVIII, 113 et sqq. s See below, note 3, p. 4. 0 Geoffrey de Mandeville, loe. cit. 2 WITH SOME ACCOUNT OF ITS LORDS so it is possible, though unproven, that Thevegate was granted to the Archbishop then. Since a member of the Montfort family held the Honour after 1107, in which year Robert de Montfort forfeited all his lands to Henry I,1 Hasted would seem to have been wrong when he said that Thevegate reverted to the Crown at that date. In fact' there is some doubt whether Robert de Montfort ever had held any English lands at all. Professor Douglas has suggested that a modification is needed in the De Montfort pedigree, as given by Mr. G. H. White in The Genealogist,2, since the list of knights in the Domesday Monachorum would seem to belong to about the year 1093. The list includes a Hugh de Montfort. Now, the Hugh who came with the Conqueror, and who is usually known as Hugh II, became a monk of Bee and died there. It is supposed that at least his entry into the monastery, if not, in fact, his death, must have occurred by 1093. Douglas would therefore have it that the Hugh in the hst was Hugh III, son of Hugh II, and that he, not his brother Robert, succeeded to the Enghsh lands. Hugh I I I is said to have died childless, but from a consideration of the ages of those concerned, it seems more probable that this statement is incorrect and that Hugh III, not Hugh II, was the father of Adeliza, successively the wife of Simon de Moulins and Robert, son of Bernard de Vere.3 Robert de Vere, a Constable under King Stephen, and Adeliza founded Monks Horton Priory on land at Horton which Robert held in right of Adeliza. This must have been between 1130 and 1141. Amongst the grants to the Priory confirmed by Henry II was one of an acre of meadow called " Langahopa " made by Simon de Tewegata.4 Either the chief lord of Thevegate at that time, whoever he was, or a predecessor of his, must have made a feoffment of the manor, for it will be remembered that in Domesday Book Hugh was said to have held it in demesne. The above is the only mention that I have found of this family who took their name from Thevegate. As has been said, it is not known when Thevegate was alienated to the Archbishop, but the De Montfort family retained an interest in Saltwood at least as late as the primacy of Hubert Walter.5 It is, however, a fact that the Archbishop was Thevegate's overlord at the begirining of the 13th century and, from then on, the descent of the manor can be traced with certainty. 1 Ibid. 2 Loe. cit. 3 D. C. Douglas, The Domesday Monachorum of Christ Church, Canterbury, 65 et sqq. This modification has been accepted by Mr. White. See The Genealogists' Magazine, Vol. IX, pp. 465-6, where he points out that he had himself, in The Geneal. Mag., Vol. VII, pp. 255-7, considered the possibility. 4 A.C, X, 269-76. 6 C.R.R., XII, 301 (No. 1466). 3 THE DESCENT OF THE MANOR OF EVEGATE IN SMEETH THE GRELLEYS In 12121 there comes the first definite connection of the manor with the family of Grelley,2 an association which was to last for the next hundred years. The hst of the Archbishop's enfeoffed knights, contained in The Red Book of the Exchequer, gives Henry de Grele as holding one third of a knight's fee in Tennegate (sic).3 When he acquired the manor is not clear, nor is it known whether he was the first member of his family to hold it. His name appears as a knight on the Grand Assize in Easter Term 1201, in a case concerning land at Swetton in Cheriton,4 so it would seem not unlikely that he was then holding Evegate. In addition, he witnessed an undated charter of Baldwin de Bethune, Count of Aumale, granting land to Monks Horton Priory.5 Baldwin became Count of Aumale about 1196 and died in 1212.6 Henry Greslei also served on the Grand Assize in 12127 and was apparently living shortly before 28th July 1214, for he was a witness to an undated agreement read in the Shire Court on that day.8 There is, however, amongst the muniments of Westminster Abbey a deed (Plate I) which seems to be of decidedly earlier date and concerns the Grelley family.9 It is a grant from Nigel de Broc to Theobald Grelle, his man, (Teoballo Grelle homini meo), for his service, of land in (?) Thanet (Tanet) which he (Nigel) held, " in guage " for 42 marks of Robert de Wodes, to be held of him in the same way as he held it of Robert. The witnesses were Robert the priest of Angemar' (i.e. Angmering), Hereue (i.e. Harvey) the chaplain, Robert de Broc, Ralph de Parcingijs and William his son, Henry Grelle, Walter de Perepont, Osbert de Pagaham (i.e. Pagham), John de Ledrede, (i.e. Leatherhead), Jeldewin and many others. There are no other references to Theobald Grelle in those Westminster Abbey Muniments which concern the Grelley family, but several10 deal with property in Sussex, more especially in Pagham, and it will be noticed that a number of the witnesses abovementioned are Sussex men. From the general character of the writing, the charter would seem to belong to the reign of Henry II. Nigel de Broc is mentioned on the Pipe Rolls from the second to 1 J. H. Round, in The Commune of London, 261-77, assigned this date to the list of knights. 2 The name is spelt in a great variety of ways as will be seen in the following pages. 8 The Red Book of the Exchequer (R.S.), 470. 1 C.R.R., I, 448. 6 A.C, X, 274. 6 G.E.C., I, 354. ' C.R.R., VI, 193, 246, 271. 8 Acta Stephani Langton (Cant, and York Soo.), 16 (No. 8). 8 W.A.M. 5244. i» W.A.M.'s 4037, 4043, 4057, 4059-61, 5167, 5252, 22866. 4 PLATE I * * It 2 LM s D r i j--J «' JK3- [/a« p. 4 PLATE II The Seal of A^mice de Grele. (j*) WITH SOME ACCOUNT OF ITS LORDS the fifth years of Henry II, and a certain Jeldewin brother of Savaric fitz Savaric occurs on the Pipe Roll for 4 Henry II, under Sussex.1 These facts tend to suggest a date for the charter of c. 1160. If this date is correct, it is rather unlikely that Henry, the witness to this charter, was the Henry who held Thevegate in 1212 and whose relationship with Theobald is unknown. Henry, of Thevegate, had two sons William2 and Henry.3 In Trinity Term 1220, William Gresley demanded of Hamo de Hammes and his wife Emma certain lands in Chichester and its suburbs,4 which, he claimed, Henry Gresley, his father, had leased to Warin, canon of Chichester. In Easter Term 1221, the case was continued and it transpires that Emma was Warin's niece.5 Roger Gerun (or Gernun) also demanded the property from Hamo and his wife, claiming that they had not entry therein unless by Warin de Ferles, who held it for life, and that after Warin's death it ought to have reverted to Roger.6 Later, in April, 1225, Roger Gernun quitclaimed to Sir William Gredle all the lands which had been leased by Henry Gredle to Guarin de Ferles and agreed that if he, Roger, should try to nullify this quitclaim or make peace with William's adversaries, who were then holding the land, then he would fall under the excommunication of Stephen, Archbishop of Canterbury.7 It may be argued that this is not sufficient evidence for Wilham and Henry Gresley of Chichester being the same as WiUiam and Henry Gresley of Thevegate, but the identification is made certam by the evidence of the fine8 which concluded the dispute. Philip Gernun, on 10th December, 1229, granted certain lands, clearly the same as those mentioned above, to Hamo de Hamme and Emma his wife " t o be held . . . of William de Gresley, the chief lord of that fee, and of his heirs, returning yearly 20s. . . . at Yeuegate9 in the county of Kent, at William's own house . . . " In June 1226 Archbishop Langton confirmed the grant by William de Acre of all the land he had of the Archbishop's manor of Pagham to his " beloved knight William Gredle ".10 This piece of land was a hide in measurement, and its earlier history is traced in the Victoria County History of Sussex.11 The hide lay at Crimsham in Pagham,12 1 Pipe Rolls—2-3-4- Henry II (Pipe Roll Soc), 40, 90, 91, 170, 182 ; Ibid.—5 Henry II, 46. a See below. * W.A.M. 5213. * C.R.R., IX, 66. B C.R.R.. X, 120. « C.iJ.i?., XI, 71 (No. 380). ' W.A.M. 5252. » S.R.S., II, 66 (No. 244). 0 Transcribed and printed in S.R.S., II, as Yenegate. 10 W.A.M. 4037. This has been published with a photograph (Plate II) in Acta Stephani Langton, 105-6 (No. 87). 11 Volume IV, 230-1. " W.A.M. 6167. 5 4B THE DESCENT OF THE MANOR OF EVEGATE IN SMEETH and with its acquisition by William Gredle began the connection of Thevegate with Crimsham, which was to last for over a century. There are, at Westminster, nine other charters concerning Sir William Gredle, but none is dated.1 It has been said above that Sir William had a brother Henry ; this Henry also appears as a witness,2 as do Richard Gredle, many times,3 and Ralph Gredle.4 Richard would seem to have been the Richard who, with Joan his wife, is mentioned in a fine of 1236, and in 1242 with three others was holding half a fee in Silesbreg.5 It seems, therefore, not improbable that since, as will be seen below, Wilham was not succeeded by a son (or if he was, the son must have died shortly afterwards), Richard and Ralph were also brothers of his. The name of Sir William's wife remains obscure, but it is just possible that she was the Lady Emma Gredle who occurs in W.A.M. 5157. The last dated reference to William is in the fine of 1229. It seems, therefore, that he died sometime between 1229 and 1244, for by that year the tenant of Thevegate was Geoffrey de Everle. His name occurs in the Book of Fees6 as " Geoffrey de Heveresleg ", holding one third of a fee in " Tunnegate " of the Countess of Eu7 and she holding it of the Archbishop. How this lady had come to hold the manor of the Archbishop, and Geoffrey to hold it of her, is somewhat puzzling, for Henry Grelley had certainly held it directly of the Archbishop8 and so did his descendant and namesake in 12799. The occasion of maldng the hst of fees belonging to the Countess was almost certainly in 1244 when Henry III seized all the Enghsh lands of those Normans who had sided with the King of France in the late war.10 It was perhaps for this reason that in 1246 an inquisition was taken at Smeeth to ascertain what lands Geoffrey de Everle held there of the inheritance of Ahce his wife.11 Four years later he made fine with the King for 20 marks to have the custody of the land and heirs of Alice de Gresley during their nonage and also their marriage.12 In 1254 the Barons of the Exchequer were ordered to demand from Geoffrey 20 1 W.A.M.'s 5155, 5159, 5164-5, 5218-9, 5227, 5247, 5250. 2 W.A.M.'s 5164, 5250. s W.A.M.'s 5155, 5164-5, 5218-9, 5227, 6247, 5250. 4 W.A.M. 5227. 6 Cal. of Kent Feet of Fines (Kent Rec. Soc, XV), 140 ; The Book of Fees, 657, 676. « The Book of Fees, 1153. 7 Alice, Countess of Eu, Lady of Hastings, widow of Raoul d'Exoudun (G.E.C., V, 160-4). 8 See above, note 3, p. 4. 8 See below, note 1, p. 10. 10 The Book of Fees, 1142-5. 11 A.C, H, 293-4 and Cal. I. p.m., I, 14 (No. 59). In the latter Alice is eaUed late the wife of Geoffrey de Everle but not in A.C. On referring to the original, Larking's version in A.C proves to be right. 13 Excerpta e Rotulis Finium (Rec. Com.), U, 90 and A.C, 11, 317. 6 PEDIGREE OF GRELLEY THEOBALD GRELLE and HENRY GRELLE, temp. Henry II SIR HENRY DE GRELE or GRESLEY Lord of Thevegate in 1212. Occurs, 1201-1214. Dead by 1220 SIR WILLIAM DE GRESLEY = or GREDLE I Lord of Thevegate. 1 Occurs, 1220-1229. I Dead by 1244 |_ HENRY DE GRESLEY RALPH RICHARD GREDLE = JOAN Alive, 1236 and 1242. Dead by 1249 Alive, 1236 ANDREW = DE WYDEFLETE GEOFFREY DE EVERLE = ALICE DE GRESLEY Lord of Thevegate in 1244. Alive, September 1258. Dead, October 1262 WILLIAM ROBERT JOHN RICHARD GREDLE Occurs Occurs, 1249 1254 to 1258, and ? also in 1290 ClOELY DE WYDEFLETE Occurs, 1249 to 1258 ADAM DE GILLINGHAM = ALICE Dead in 1276 Alive in 1276 SIR WILLIAM DE GRELLEY (1)=MARGARET alias WILLIAM DE EVERLE, Occurs 1272 Lord of Thevegate. .Alive, 1288 Alive, 1273. Dead, 1277/8 (2) J O H N PECOHE Alive, 1288 SIMON DE GRELLEY, Clerk, alias SIMON DE EVERLE Occurs, 1262-1286 HENRY DE GRELLEY Lord of Thevegate Occurs in 1278. Alive, 1297 ; dead, 1305/6. =AMIOE Married before 1277/8. Alive, June 1319 WILLIAM GEOFFREY THOMAS DE GRELLEY Lord of Thevegate Alive, 1313 ; possibly dead by 1327 PETER RIOHARD Alive, 34 Edward I GODFREY Alive, 34 Edward I [face p. 0 WITH SOME ACCOUNT OF ITS LORDS marks of a fine which he had made with the King to have the custody and marriage of his wife's heirs.1 It is clear from this that he had married Alice de Gresley, who would seem to have been a widow with children. These children must have died young because Geoffrey's son, as will appear shortly, succeeded him at Thevegate. Despite the absence of a definite statement to that effect, it seems probable that Ahce was the daughter of Sir WiUiam Gredle, and as such her name is entered tentatively on the pedigree. To support this, a charter2 may be cited whereby Richard Gredle quitclaimed to Geoffrey de Euerle a free rent of 3 sums of barley which the heirs of William Gredle were wont to pay yearly from a certain mill called Cuttemelne (which was in Brabourne, see W.A.M. 5158). This deed must date from before November, 1251, by which time Joce Poinant, one of the witnesses, was dead.3 Little is known about Geoffrey de Everle. He would appear to have been related to Master Geoffrey de Everleye, the King of Spain's clerk, for in 1276, the latter was instrumental in procuring the pardon of Geoffrey de Everle's daughter, Alice, for the death of her husband Adam de GiUingham.* Geoffrey occurs, either as grantee or grantor, in fifteen charters at Westminster Abbey. Most of them concern small pieces of land near Evegate and contain much interestmg material on local place-names, and the lists of witnesses give a good idea of the influential inhabitants of Smeeth and Aldington and the neighbourhood in the 13th century. Two of the deeds relate to Crimsham in Pagham. One5 is an undated quitclaim from Lucian Fitz William to Geoffrey of the hide at " Cremesham " and the other6 a lease of land in Pagham from Nicholas de Cremesham. This last is dated 42 Henry III, but since the term is for 7 years from Michaelmas the charter was probably made at about that time (i.e. 29th September, 1258). The matter is of some importance for it is the latest date at which Geoffrey is known to have been alive. Before passing on to Geoffrey's sons, it will be convenient here to mention another branch of the Grelley family. Richard Gredle, who has been mentioned above, would seem to have had four sons named John, Richard, William and Robert. John son of Richard Gredle occurs in a grant7 dated 1254, and his father by then was dead. Four fines and one of the Westminster charters8 concern Richard, son of Richard Gredle, and his wife Cecily. The dates of these are 1249, 1255, 1255, 1258 and 1254/5 respectively. The charter gives the 1 Ex. e Rot. Fin., II, 189. 2 W.A.M. 6152. 3 Cal. of Kent . . . Fines, 239. * C.P.R., 1272-81, 147. 5 W.A.M. 5167. « W.A.M. 4061. ' W.A.M. 5223. » Cal. of Kent . . . Fines, 229, 265-6, 268-9, 293 ; W.A.M. 5157. 7 40 THE DESCENT OF THE MANOR OF EVEGATE IN SMEETH additional information that Cecily was an heiress, the daughter of .Andrew de Wydeflete. John and Richard Gredle occur also as witnesses to a number of grants and in one of them1 they are joined by their brothers William and Robert. The latest dated charter of Richard belongs to 1290, but it is conceivable that this person is a son of the younger Richard by Cecily, since he is there called Ricardus Gredle filius Ricardi.2, I t has been said that Geoffrey de Everle is last known to have been living about Michaelmas 1258, but precisely when he died is uncertain. He must have been dead by October, 1262, when Joan de Bunintun, daughter of Roger de Langeford,3 quitclaimed to William de Euerle and Symon his brother a rent which their father Geoffrey de Euerle was wont to pay. This document4 is dated in October, 46 Henry III, but since Henry's regnal year began on 28th October, it is possible that the date should be October, 1261. There are a number of Westminster charters concerning these two brothers. They are sometimes, as in W.A.M. 5207, called William de Greyley and Simon his brother, but it is perfectly clear that they are the same people. The identification is made sure by an entry on the Close Roll for 1273, in which they are called William de Everle Grel and Simon, his brother.5 William was a knight6 and in 1270 protection was given to William de Everle because he was going with Prince Edward to the Holy Land.7 Five deeds show that between 1261 and 1266 Sir William was acquiring land at Crimsham from Bartholomew (alias Bertin) de Cremesham and Nicholas, his younger brother, the sons of Nicholas de Cremesham.8 Then in 1272 the manor of Crimsham became the property of William de Grexly and Margaret his wife, as the result of a fine made with Amice, Countess of Devon.9 A grant, which may be dated 1276-80, by Simon de Greyle styles him "clerk", and the occurrence, in the witness-list, of the name of Nicholas de Knovile, rector of Bocton, and Alan de Freystone, archdeacon of Norfolk,10 immediately raises the question whether Simon was the Simon de Greylle, rector of Godmersham, a prominent member of Archbishop Winchelsey's household and executor, with Knovile, of Archbishop Peckham. There are a number of references to this 1 W.A.M. 5162. 2 W.A.M. 5163. 3 Several W.A.M.'s concern this Joan ; more about her can be found in Cal. of Kent . . . Fines, 44, 77, 239; also in Abbreviatio Placitorum and Exc. e Rot. Fin. (both Rec. Com.). 1 W.A.M. 6161. 6 C.C.iJ., 1272-9, 14. « W.A.M. 5168. ' O.P.R., 1266-72, 440. • WA.M.'s 4043, 4057, 4059, 4060, 22866. » S.R.S., VII, 83 (No. 804). 10 W.A.M. 5151. 8 WITH SOME ACCOUNT OF ITS LORDS person in Winchelsey's Register, and the fact that he was also a canon of Chichester would seem to suggest that he was indeed a member of the Grelley family who held Crimsham and Thevegate.1 Simon de Greyle was alive in 12862 but, since there are no dated Westminster charters concerning him later than this, it is difficult to say whether his dates would agree with those of the rector of Godmersham, who was certainly hving as late as 1309, but was possibly dead in 1311.3 Shortly after acquiring Crimsham, Sir William de Grelley and his brother Simon would appear to have engaged in what can only be described as a feud with a certain Laurence de Sokenesse. This person witnesses several undated4 grants of land which could scarcely have been made after the quarrel had begun. What occasioned it I have not discovered, but several entries on the Close and Patent Rolls tell the story such as it is. In 1273, one WiUiam Prigel together with Laurence de Sokenesse and his wife Agnes had accused three men of killing Nicholas Waleway, a kinsman of Prigel's, and also of robbery and breach of the peace ; moreover they had gone further and had said that WiUiam and Simon de GreUey had consented to and even ordered the crimes. The case was to have been heard in Trinity Term, but the sheriffs concerned had acted precipitately and had confiscated the Grelleys' lands and chattels, although the brothers were prepared to stand trial and before the actual criminals had been found guilty. Since WiUiam and Simon had managed to find securities for their appearance in court on the day specified, the sheriffs were commanded to return their property to the Grelleys.6 Nearly five years afterwards came the sequel, but in the meantime Sir William de Grelley had died,6 and Sokenesse, who had charged WUliam and Simon with murder, had himself met a violent death. His widow Agnes accused " Simon de Everle and Margery, late the wife of William de Everle ", of having murdered Laurence and also of having robbed, wounded and beaten her ; the jury acquitted Simon and Margery and, accordingly, on 8th March, 1277/8 they were pardoned by the king.7 Sir WiUiam had three sons, Henry, Geoffrey and WiUiam. Henry, presumably the eldest, succeeded his father as Lord of Thevegate,8 for which on 23rd June, 1279, he did homage to the newly-elected 1 Registrum Roberti Winchelsey, (Cant, and York Soc), passim. a W.A.M. 5158. 3 Reg. Rob. Winchelsey, 1104, 1237-8. 4 W.A.M.S 4059. 5207, 6228. 6 O.C.R., 1272-9, 14. 0 However, he was certainly alive in November, 1273 and possibly until Nov. 19th, 1274, since W.A.M. 5168, in which he is the grantee, is dated 2 Edward I. ' C.P.R., 1272-81, 260-1. 8 W.A.M. 5169. 9 THE DESCENT OF THE MANOR OF EVEGATE IN SMEETH Archbishop Peckham.1 A year before, as a member of the household of Robert Kilwardby (then Cardinal-bishop of Porto, but previously Archbishop of Canterbury), Henry had been pardoned for trespasses and other excesses committed in the royal forests and parks.2 In 1288 Sir WiUiam de Grele's widow, Margaret, was stUl ahve, but she was by then married again, to a certain John Pecche. Up to that time Margaret had held one third of the manor of Thevegate in dower but Henry then agreed to grant to her and her husband the whole of Crimsham for her life in return for the third of Thevegate ; also Henry granted that if he should predecease Margaret the third of Thevegate should remain to her for life but the reversions of the manors to Henry's heirs.3 It is not, therefore, impossible that Margaret, perhaps married yet again, was the otherwise mysterious " Lady Margery MarteU " who was holding a third of Thevegate, apparently in 1306, when the aid was levied to knight Edward, Prince of Wales, and by which time Henry was dead.4 Henry de GreyUe had by his wife Amice (whose maiden name is so far undiscovered and whom he married whUe his father was stiU alive)5, four sons Thomas, Peter, Richard and Godfrey.6 On 15th November, 1296, a writ of summons was issued to Henry de Greley and the parson of Charing, as representatives of the county of Kent, ordering them to appear on 13th December before the Treasurer and Barons of the Exchequer.7 Henry's name also occurs on the list of those summoned to attend a mUitary councU in the presence of Prince Edward at Rochester on 8th September, 1297.8 Before January 1305/6 he had died (although probably only recently), because Amice bis widow then demanded from her son Thomas that he should give her a third of Crimsham as her dower.9 A httle over a year later, however, on 4th June, 1307, Thomas de GreUey parted with Thevegate. By a fine, levied at Westminster on that date, Edmund de Passeleye acquired from Thomas the manor of Thevegate and " a messuage, one carucate of land and twenty-two shillings rent" in Pagham and Chichester. The Sussex property, presumably Crimsham, Thomas was to hold for Hfe, but after his death it was to remain to Passeleye and his heirs.10 Some months earher Passeleye had also been granted by Amice de GreUle what amounted 1 Registrum Johannis Pecham (Cant, and York Soc), 8. 2 C.P.R., 1272-81, 275. 3 Assize Roll (J. I. 1), No. 924, mem. 12. 1 A.C, X, 125. 5 Add. MS. 39490, f. 292 (quoting De Banco Roll, Hil., 34 Edward I, meia. 6). 8 W.A.M. 5192 ; (R. H. Griffin's abstract, now in Kent Archives Office, T.R. 465, of) Kent Feet of Fines, 34 Edward I, No. 595. ' P.W., I, (App.) 393. 8 Ibid., I, (MUitary Service). 296. 9 Add. MS. 39490, loe. cit. 10 S.R.S., VII, (No. 1228). 10 WITH SOME ACCOUNT OF ITS LORDS to the reversion of " a messuage, a carucate of land and a third part of a miU " in Aldington, Smeeth, Brabourne and WUlesborough.1 This property may have been Amice's third part of Thevegate to which she would have been entitled as dower. The latest of the GreUey documents at Westminster (W.A.M. 5192) is a quitclaim from Amice GreUe to Thomas GreUe,2 her son, of aU the lands which she bought from Peter GreUe, her son, in Smeeth, Aldington, Mersham and WUlesborough and which formerly belonged to WUliam GreUe, Peter's uncle. Its date is April 20th, 1310. To it is attached Amice's seal (Plate II) which shows her, veiled and wimpled, holding in her left hand a pennoned lance and in her right a shield charged with what appear to be three mallets3 or just conceivably tau-crosses. The legend is : + .SEL AMICE. [D]E GRELE: As we have seen, the tenure of Thevegate by the GreUey famUy ceased in 1307, but before ending the account of that famUy it is perhaps necessary to mention an episode which is recorded in Archbishop Winchelsey's register, but which remams obscure. The Archbishop wrote, on 23rd August, 1309, to the dean of Lympne, saying he had " received the detestable complaint from Dame Amice de GreyUe, wherein it is said that T. de GreyUe, her own son, did not fear to attack her with dreadful inhumanity in abusive words and with extreme recklessness laid violent hands upon her, throwing her to the ground by means of blows and lashes ", and therefore Winchelsey commanded the dean to cite the said T[homas] to appear in person before the Archbishop, on the Morrow of the Decollation of St. John the Baptist next foUowing.4 What the result was is not known. Thomas was stUl living in 1313, when Edmund Passelewe acknowledged to him a debt of £100, which was possibly connected with the conveyance of Thevegate and Crimsham.5 Since nothing was said in September, 1327, of Thomas's holding Crimsham, which he was to have done for life, he may have been dead by that time.6 Amice de GreUey, his mother, was ahve and holding one third of Thevegate in dower, in June 1319.7 1 Kent Feet of Fines, 34 Edward I, No. 595 (Griffin's abstract in K.A.O., T.R. 465). 2 There is another Westminster charter, of 1308, being a grant to Thomas, of land in Richardeslese and Throketonesbroke in Smeeth (W.A.M. 5173). 3 For this interpretation of the charges I am indebted to Mr. J. A. Goodall. The arms would seem to be those of the Martel family, because on the Parliamentary Roll (c. 1313) Sire Adam Martel of Barkschire bore de sable, a iij martels de argent. Unfortunately this does not help very much in the identification of the Lady Margery Martel. 4 (Cant, and York Soc), 1106. 6 C.C.R., 1307-13, 584. 6 Cal. I. p.m., VII, 12 (No. 32). ' A.C, XTV, 260-1. 11 THE DESCENT OF THE MiUSTOR OF EVEGATE IN SMEETH THE PASHLEYS The new owner of Thevegate, Edmund de Passeleye (or Passelegh, but most frequently, at that period, spelt Passele) was a man of some eminence. There have been hitherto only passing references to him and his descendants in Archceologia Cantiana, but I hope to show that he had an interesting and distinguished career that deserves more attention than it has received.1 In the Dictionary of National Biography and Foss's Judges of England are to be found brief accounts of him, but these are not without errors, and Mr. L. F. Salzman has pointed out2 that the name Passele is quite distinct from Passelewe,3 which is probably a nickname, and that it is certainly wrong to attribute to Edmund a close relationship with Robert Passelewe, Henry I l l ' s Treasurer.4 Passele, from which Edmund took his name, is a property now caUed Pashley, in Ticehurst, on the eastern edge of that parish just over the county boundary into Sussex. Edmund, to judge from the date by which he was married and by his subsequent career, was probably born about 1270. He was the son of Sir Robert de Passele,5 almost certainly by Sarah who was Robert's wife in 1272.6 Now, that De Passele was not the surname of Sir Robert's father is shown by an entry in the great cartulary of Christ Church, Canterbury, which has copies of a number of deeds concerning Merstham in Surrey.7 Robert de Passele is mentioned in five deeds,8 but one of these is especiaUy interesting.9 It is a grant in soul-alms, to the Prior and Convent, of a piece of meadow in Merstham and the grantor describes himself as " Robert, son of Ralph de Alderstede of Merstham, called de Passele. "10 The deed has no date but five of the witnesses plus Robert himself witnessed another grant dated 15 Edward I (20th Nov. 1286-19th Nov. 1287).11 In the three other deeds, which he witnessed, his name occurs as "Sir Robert Passelegh, knight" (No. 1824), "Sir Robert Passelewe, knight" (No. 1825) and as " Robert de Passelewe " (No. 1826). There can 1 In A.C, IX, 246, he was described as " a stirring personage ". * Sussex Notes and Queries, VI, 140-2. 8 Edmund is sometimes called Passelewe even in contemporary records, e.g. C.C.R., 1307-13, 584, (quoted earlier). « Cf. A.C, XXVIII. « S.R.S., VII (Feet of Fines), 151 (No. 1038); Wrottesley, Maj.-Gen. the Hon. G., Pedigrees from the Plea Rolls, 69. « S.R.S., VII, 84, (No. 807) 7 In the Chapter Library, Register 5, ff, 365-7. « Ibid., Nos. 1817, 1823-6. » No. 1823. 10 " Robertus filiue Radulphi de Alderstede de Merstham. diclus de Passele. dedi. concessi et. . . . " N.B, Robert was called de Passele and not Ralph. Translated into English it is ambiguous. « No. 1817. 12 PEDIGREE OF PASHLEY WALTER DE KECHENORE RALPH DE .ALDERSTEDE . = JOHN DE KECHENORE I ALICE — BENEDICT AT CHERCHE CONSTANCE (2) GILES DE PASSELE =ROSAMUND Living circa 1230 [ and 1242/3 Alive in Dead in 1272 1272 RALPH DE NORMANVILLE = Lord of Kenardington. 06. 1259 ^GALIENA A son Died 1335 •• S I R R O B E R T D E P A S S E L E alias DE ALDERSTEDE M.P. for Sussex 1295 and 1299/1300. Occurs from 1272. Alive in 1310 ; dead in 1327 = (1) SARAH de Passele Alive in 1272 I THOMAS DE NORMANVILLE Lord of Kenardington 1257-1282 =DENISE RALPH Living 1319 MAUD DE KECHENORE (1) Married by 1289/90,dead by Trinity, 11 Edward II WILLIAM DE PASSELE Eldest son. Dead by 1327, s.p. I JOHN RALPH: DE PASSELE ATTE Of full age in 1327 ; MORE dead 1366, s. p. I SARAH DE PASSELE Dead by 1366 DE LoNSFORD I =MARGERY DE PASSELE Dead by 1366 JOAN (2b) = S I R EDMUND DE PASSELE (2) Alive in 1344 Baron of the Exchequer, Justice of Assize, Lord of Thevegate. Circa 1270-1326/7 I DE CHALFHUNTE THOMAS ATTE MORE Alive in 1366 : ID ONI A I DE EDMUND DE PASSELE PASSELE Born 1314 or 1315. Dead by 1366 Murdered at Coulsdon, March 13th, 1327/8 I (2a) MARGARET DE NORMANVILLE Lady of Kenardington 1283—October 15th, 1341 ROBERT DE BASING : Citizen of London I (1) S IR WILLIAM DE BASING Died 1316 REYNOLD S IR EDMUND DE PASSELE = (1) Lord of Thevegate (2) JOAN, daughter Born 1318 or 1319 ; of JOHN DE SOLE Died 1361, s.p. I ROBERT DE PASSELE Lord of Thevegate Died about Michaelmas, 1362 WILLIAM DE LONSFORD = Dead by 1366 THOMAS DE' CHALFHUNTE Alive in 1366 I SIR ROBERT DE PASSHELE Lord of Thevegate. M.P. for Kent, 1376/7 and 1379. Born after Michaelmas 1341 ; probably of age in 1366. Living 1388. Dead by 1397 Joan, daughter of Richard Ockingham I SIR THOMAS DE PASSELE Lord of Palstre Born by 14 Edward I I . Alive 1358, but died, s.p., before his brother Sir Edmund MARGARET DE PASSELE = A N N E , daughter of Sir Robert Howard, by Margaret, daughter of Robert, Lord Scales. Married by October 1366. Alive 1397 JOHN DE LONSFORD Alive in 1366 THOMAS DE BASING, Lord of Kenardington. Aged 15 and more in 1316. t t RALPH DE BASING. Dead by 1341, s.p. REYNOLD DE BASING EDMUND WILLIAM THOMAS BITTELLESGATB Lord of Knyghsteton, co. Devon Esquire ROBERT PASSHELE (1) =PHLLIPPA SERGEAUX Esquire, Lord of Thevegate. Dead by 1406/7 1372 or 1373-1420. (See Sergeaux Pedigree.) =(2) WILLIAM SWYNBOURNE Died, s.p., in 1422 RICHARD WODEVILLE of Maidstone and Grafton, Northamptonshire, Esquire. Died, 1441 = daughter of William Beauchamp of Somerset =JANE BITTELLESGATB Survived her husband. Living, July 1448 THOMAS GOWER — of Clapham, Esquire Died 1458 EDMUND PASSHELE Younger son ALICE, widow of (2) WILLIAM RYMAN and JOHN BEAUFITZ, and daughter of John Topclive. Died 1459 S IR JOHN PASSHELE Elder son. Lord of Thevegate. Born in 1397 or 1398. Died June 8th, 1453 (1) ELIZABETH WODBVILLE Married in 1424 RICHARD WODEVTLLB = JACQUETTA DB LUXEMBOURG, 1st EARL RIVERS I widow of JOHN, DUKE OF BEDFORD Beheaded in 1469 RICHARD GOWER of Clapham, Esquire. Died February 3rd, 1462/3 JOHN GOWER of Clapham, Esquire. Beheaded May 6th, 1471 Died s.p. LOWYS GOWER (1) = JOHN PASSHELBY (1) Dead by 1458 = (2) ALICE =(2) RICHARD Esquire. 1 Dead by 1474/5 NANSEGLES Lord of Thevegate. or NANZEGLYS, Born in 1431 or 1432. " Gentilman ". Died November 20th, 1468. ANTHONY WODBVILLE, 2nd EARL RIVERS. Beheaded in 1483. Died s.p.l. I JANE WODEVILLE = WILLIAM HAUTE of Bishops- Married in 1429, f bourne, Esquire. The naino of as 2nd wife I his first wife was Margarot. He I had by her a daughter and died t in 1462. SIR JOHN GREY (1) -ELIZABETH WODBVILLE - - (2) KING EDWARD IV N.B.=Dotted lines and italics indicate alleged and/or probable relationships but which are, however, unproved. REYNOLD PYMPE = ELIZABETH PASSHELEY 1448 or 1449-1530/1 f Lady of Thevegate. Dead by 1485. (See Pympe and Scott Pedigree.) WLLLIAM PASSHELEY, " Gentilman". Lord of Thevegate. Born 1449 or 1450. Died, s.p. before 1480 ISABEL PASSHELEY Living 1458 (Perhaps identical with Elizabeth). KING EDWARD V Murdered. Died s.p. RICHARD, DUKE OF YORK. Murdered. Died s.p. PRINCESS ELIZABETH OF YORK = KING HENRY VII t [face p. 12 WITH SOME ACCOUNT OF ITS LORDS be little doubt that this Robert de Passele, alias de Alderstede, was the same Robert who was Edmund's father, for, at the Surrey inquisition post mortem on Edmund, he was said to have died seised of land in Merstham and Gatton and to have granted away to his son the reversion of the manor of Alstede, which was his inheritance but was held in dower by Custance widow of Robert de Passelee.1 Manning and Bray2 mention a MS. of Sir WUliam Dugdale in the Ashmolean3 which says amongst other, less probable, things that Sarah, Robert's wife, was the daughter of GUes de Passele. The pedigree then given by Manning and Bray is certainly wrong but there are two reasons for supposing that Sarah, his first wife, may very well have been Gfies's daughter. First, in the same fine, which mentions Robert and Sarah, there occurs, holding land, " Rosamund, who was the wife of GUes de Passelegh ".4 The mere fact that Sarah, as a wife, is mentioned at all would seem to suggest that it was a transaction concerning her property. GUes de Pessele was a witness to an undated charter granting land to CombweU Priory, which is some three miles from Pashley. This grant cannot have been before 1229, but Giles also seems, with Thoma de Pessel, to have witnessed another dated 1242/3.5 Secondly, in the normal way one might suppose that GUes was Robert's father, but since, in this case, the name of Robert's father is known, and if it is not unfair to assume that GUes was a very near relation, then it is not unlikely that GUes was Sarah's father. Sir Robert de Passele was evidently a Sussex landowner of some importance although he never achieved the same eminence as his son. Twice he was Knight of the Shire, in 1295 and in 1299/1300 ; in 1295 he was a commissioner for collecting subsidies. In 1296 he was one of the Sussex representatives summoned to be before the Treasurer and Barons of the Exchequer on the same occasion as Henry de Greley and, also lUce Henry, he was summoned to the military council at Rochester in 1297. His name was also returned as a knight holding lands within the rape of Hastings when in 1295 there was an order to defend the sea-shore.6 If the word amita can be taken in its strict Classical-Latin meaning of " aunt on the father's side ", Sir Robert must have had a sister named Alice, who married Benedict at Cherche, by whom she had a son. A Northiam deed giving this information and describing her as amita of Edmund de Passeleghe is cited by StreatfeUd.7 1 Cal. I. p.m., VII, 12 (No. 32). 2 The History . . . of Surrey (1809), II, 257-8. 3 Not described more specifically. 1 S.R.S., VII (Feet of Fines), 84 (No, 807). 6 A.C, VIII, 281 ; A.C, VI, 219. « P.W., I, 43, 46, 85 ; Ibid. (Military Service), 275, 297 ; Ibid. (App.), 393. ' Add. MS. 33893, f. 189. 13 THE DESCENT OF THE MANOR OF EVEGATE IN SMEETH Sir Robert de Passeleye was living as late as 1310,1 but he probably died shortly afterwards and at any rate predeceased his son Edmund. Sir Robert's widow Constance (or Custance) died in 1335.2 To continue, however, the story of Edmund de Passele, the earliest reference to him, so far noted, dates from Easter Term, 1289, when his father and he bought the reversion of the manor of Leigh in Iden from Hamo de Crevequer.3 By the January following (1289/90) Edmund was married, and he and his wife Maud were having some trouble with Matthew de KneU and others, over a tenement in Beckley, Sussex.4 Maud was the daughter and heir of John de Kechenore of Kitchenour in Beckley. John de Kechenore was son and heir of Walter, son and heir of William de Kechenore. By this marriage, Edmund de Passele had at least two sons, WUham5 and John, and possibly a third, Edmund, as weU as three daughters, Sarah, Margery and Idonia, who survived infancy.6 In 1315 WiUiam, who was certainly older than John (since WUliam was his mother's heir),7 and his father acquired the manor of Parrock in Hartfield from James de la Parroke.8 More wUl be said about John de Passele presently. Of his sisters, Sarah married an Atte More (apparently Ralph)9 and had a son Thomas, Margery married a De Lonsford and had a son WUliam and Idonia married a De Chalfhunte and had a son Thomas.10 It is rather tempting to identify Idonia de Passele with Idonia, the wife of Thomas de Cobham, who is concerned with her husband, and WUliam and John de Passele, in a fine made in 18 Edward II.11 Edmund de Passele was a member of the legal profession, and the foUowing brief outline of his pubhc career shows how well he did in it. He is known to have held a considerable amount of property at his death and his descendants possessed more, which they certainly had inherited from him ; even if we take into account his advantageous marriages, it is clear that his own wealth and that of his descendants was largely due to his professional success. Passele's name occurs as counsel in the pubhshed legal Year-Books from 30-31 Edward I (1301-1303) onwards, and he may already have 1 C.P.R., 1307-13, 311. 2 C.F.R., 1327-37, 446. 3 S.R.S., VII, 151 (No. 1038). 4 C.F.R., I, 269, 271. 6 Add. MS. 39373, f. 294 (quoting De Banco Roll for Trinity 11 Edward II, mem. 56d). 6 A.C, XV, 293 ; Add. MS. 39374, f. 215 (quoting De Banco Rolls Michaelmas 40 Edward III, mem. 289 and Trinity 41 Edward HI, mem. 294). ' Add. MS. 39373, f. 294. 8 Abbreviatio Placitorum (Rec. Com.), 325. 9 Add. MS. 39374, f. 14b., (quoting De Banco, Mich. 3 Edward III, m. 33). 10 Ibid., f. 215. 11 A.C, XV, 293. 14 WITH SOME ACCOUNT OF ITS LORDS been acting as such for some years before.1 He was certainly retained by the Barons of Faversham in 29 Edward I, and it is probable that by then he had a fair practice.2 In addition, Passele was engaged on Archbishop Winchelsey's business in 1299/1300 and was Steward of the Liberties to the Archbishop in 1301 ; in his wUl, dated 1313, Winchelsey bequeathed 10 marks to WUham de Passele.3 From the outset of Edward II's reign, Edmund was a man of importance and appeared on many local commissions. 1309 saw him appointed a commissioner for illegal prizes and a few months earlier he had been sworn as one of the two Serjeants of the King's Pleas. In 1311 Edmund received a writ of summons to Parliament as an Assistant of the CouncU, and two years later he was summoned to Parliament as a Judge. His name was returned in 1316 as one of those holding certam lordships in the hundred of Bourne, Sussex,4 by which time his father must surely have been dead, although as long ago as 1298, when Sir Robert was certainly alive, Edmund had obtained a grant of free warren in his demesne lands at Leigh, Kitchenour and Pashley.5 His prosperity at this period was increasing, and he was accumulating large estates in Kent and Sussex, as is proved by the Feet of Fines for these counties. It has been noticed that he bought Thevegate and very probably Crimsham in 1307 ; he did homage to the Archbishop for these manors in 1309/10 and also for half a knight's fee in Wittersham. 6 The latter had been held in 1306 by James de Palstre and Richard de Wytrychesham ; Edmund de Passele would seem to have acquired it together with the manor of Palstre, which had been held in 1306 by James de Palstre, but was held by Passele in 19 Edward II.7 In Kent, Edmund also bought land at Wrotham, Luddenham, Midley, Old Romney, Rolvenden, Fairfield, Brookland, Burmarsh, Newchurch, Dymchurch, Saint-Mary-in-the-Marsh, BUsington, Ruckinge, Ivychurch Hope AU Saints and Lympne. In 4 Edward II, he bought Fairlight manor in Sussex and afterwards land in Mountfield, Ticehurst, Iden, Playden, Peasmarsh, Beckley, Ewhurst, Northiam, Catsfield, HoUington and St. Andrew's, Hastings.8 He obtained in 1316/7 a further grant of free warren in his demesne lands at Smeeth, Wittersham, Fairlight, 1 R.S. and Selden Society Yearbook Series. 2 A.C, X, 221 et sqq. and XTV, 185 et sqq. 3 Reg. Rob. Winchelsey, 414, 696-7, 1325, 1342. 4 P.W., H, passim. 5 C.Ch.R., LI, 474. 6 Reg. J oh. Pecham, 21. ' A.C, X, 125 ; List of Inquisitions Ad Quod Damnum (P.R.O., Lists and Indexes, XVH), 254. 8 Kent Feet of Fines, 29 Edward I, No. 540 (Griffin's abstract in K.A.O., TR. 465); A.C,XI, 329andXH,299 ; S.R.S.,XXIII, (Nos. 1306,1422,1589and 1597). 15 THE DESCENT OF THE MANOR OF EVEGATE IN SMEETH Ticehurst, Mountfield, Brightling, Battle, Mayfield, Hartfield, Pagham and Merstham.1 In 1318 Passele received licence to creneUate his manor house at Leigh in Iden near Rye.2, This house, which seems to have been buUt by Edmund, was caUed The Mote, but it has long been a ruin. The original licence to creneUate, of which the very fine initial letter was reproduced in facsimUe in J. R. Scott's Memorials of the Family of Scott of Scot's Hall (1876) and the whole grant Ulustrated in Holloway's History of Romney Marsh, is now in the Hastings Museum. He also founded a chapel at The Mote, and in 1320 obtained permission to ahenate the advowson of Fairlight church and certain lands, in mortmain, for the support of six chaplains. Some five years later he made a further ahenation of lands in Brookland, Fairfield and elsewhere, for the same purpose.3 By Trinity Term 11 Edward II, Edmund's wife Maud de Kechenore was dead, and he made a new aUiance.4 The lady in this case was Margaret, the widow of Sir WUliam de Basing, and the daughter of Thomas de NormanvUle by his wife Denise.5 As wUl be seen shortly, Margaret was a most remarkable woman. Her father, Thomas, and his younger brother, Ralph, had been left orphans, Thomas being aged two, by the death of their father, Ralph de Normanville,6 who had gone on a pilgrimage to Santiago in 1259 and had died, possibly whUe stiU on the way, shortly after setting out. The custody of the heir himself and of his lands was bought by his mother, Galiena de NormanvUle, who also bought her own marriage.7 Thomas de NormanvUle, Margaret's father, inherited the manors of Kenardington with Cokride, in Kent, and of Empingham in Rutland. He did not hve long, but died before 12th November, 1282 ; the inquisitions taken upon his death, for his lands in Kent, give his heir as his brother Ralph, aged twenty-two.8 Eight months later, however, it was stated that Thomas's heirs were under age and their wardship was committed to John de Luvetot.9 It would appear, then, that Margaret was posthumous ; her name becomes known for the first time with the king's confirmation of Luvetot's grant of her marriage 1 0. Oh. R., I l l , 333. 1 C.P.iJ., 1317-21, 255. 3 List of Inquisitions A.Q.D., 204, 254. 4 Add. MS. 39373, f. 294. 6 Selden Soc. (Year-Books of Edward II), XXIV (Case No. 17) j Cal. I. p.m., V, 366 (No. 566). 0 .Ancient Petitions in the Chancery and Exchequer (S.C.8), File 66, No. 3272 ; CaU. p.m., II, 292 (No. 479). 7 Cal. I. p.m., I, 117 (No. 421) : V.C.H. Rutland, II, 244. 8 Cal. I. p.m., I, 117 and II, 292 ; C.F.R., I, 172. 9 C.F.R., I, 187. 16 WITH SOME ACCOUNT OF ITS LORDS to Robert de Basinges, citizen of London, who intended to marry her to his son Reynold. This Royal confirmation was in 1294. In February 1296/7, when Margaret was stUl a minor, although had she been born before her father's death, she would have been by then turned fourteen, Robert de Basings obtained the Royal permission to marry Margaret to WUliam, another son of Robert's, because his son Reynold had been captured and was then held a prisoner in Gascony.1 The Victoria County History of Rutland would seem to be wrong in saying that Margaret's father inherited Empingham but that Kenardington was divided between him and Ralph according to gavelkind. It also states that in 1282 Margaret inherited Thomas's Rutland property and Ralph inherited his Kentish lands.2 The NormanvUles did hold gavelkind lands, but Kenardington was held of the King in chief by service of one knight's fee,3 which clearly precluded the custom of gavelkind from operating in the manor. Margaret de Normanville did marry WUliam de Basinges (or Basing) probably soon after she had achieved her majority, and had by him five sons, Thomas, Ralph, Reynold, Edmund and WUliam.4 WUliam de Basyng died, a little whUe before 8th June, 1316, seised of the manors of Empingham, Kenardington and Iffin in Thanington, aU held in the right of Margaret his wife ; Thomas, his son, was his heir, and was then aged fifteen and more. Margaret's age was given as thirty and more, but she must have been at least thirty-three.5 Margaret, stUl as " Margaret who was the wife of [WUliam] de Basinges ", in October 1317 obtained a settlement from two persons, who seem to have been her feoffees, of certain lands in Kent upon her various sons.6 Just over a year later, in November 1318, Edmund de Passeleye and Margaret, described for the first time that I have noted as his wife, were granted a market and fair at Empingham.7 By June 1319 they had a chUd, Edmund, who was, I am inclined to think, their eldest son, although Mr. Salzman thinks otherwise ;8 at that date Thevegate was settled upon Edmund their son, who can have been no more than an infant, and upon his parents. Amice de Grelley was still dowered in the manor.9 As weU as Edmund, Edmund de Passele had by Margaret two sons, Thomas10 and Robert11 and a 1 C.P.R., 1292-1301, 80, 231-2. 2 II, 244. 3 Cal. I. p.m., I, 13 (No. 55) ; Ibid., II, 292 (No. 479). 4 A.C, XIV, 247-8 ; Cal. I. p.m., V, 366 (No. 566). 6 Cal. I. p.m., V, 366 (No. 566). • A.C, XD7, 247-8. 7 C Ch. R., Ill, 395. 8 Sussex N. & Q., loe. cit. o A.C, XIV, 260-1. 10 S.R.S., XXIII, (No. 1589) ; A.C. XVIII, 344. 11 Cal. I. p.m., VII, 12 (No. 32). 17 6 THE DESCENT OF THE MANOR OF EVEGATE IN SMEETH daughter caUed Margaret.1 A little over a year later a simUar settlement to that above was made with regard to the manor of Fairlight and lands in its neighbourhood. This time the settlement was upon Thomas de Passele and his parents, with remainder, faUing heirs of Thomas, to Edmund his brother.2 To return to the pubhc life of Edmund de Passele : as weU as serving on numerous special commissions of oyer and terminer, in 1319 he had been a justice of assize.3 Up to this time he does not seem to have been a knight, but he is definitely described as one in January 1320/1 by the chronicle, wliich says he was one of the justices appointed to hear the pleas of the Crown at the Tower of London at that time.4 A year or so later his name was returned by the Sheriffs of Kent and Rutland as one of the knights, as opposed to men-at-arms or esquires, holding land in their jurisdictions. Throughout the disturbances of Edward II's war with the Barons, Sir Edmund was constantly in receipt of writs of summons to Parliament in his capacity as a Judge.5 Hasted, citing the Pipe RoU for 17 Edward II, says he was present and fought for the King at the battle of Boroughbridge on 16th March, 1321/2.6 Be that as it may, Passele, together with Henry de Cobeham, John de Held and Ralph Sauvage, was commanded to pronounce sentence of hanging, drawing and quartering on Bartholomew, Lord Badlesmere. This they did at Canterbury on the Wednesday in Easter Week, 1322, and Badlesmere was accordingly executed.7 On 20th September of the foUowing year, Sir Edmund de Passele was appointed a Baron of the Exchequer, in the place of Walter de Fryskeney ; Sir Edmund was commanded to attend to his ofiice on the Morrow of Michaelmas.8 He continued to sit in Parliament and also to appear on commissions, such as one in 1324 concerning a great riot at Rochester, and another in 1325 to look into the misconduct of Commissioners of Array and others in Middlesex. In December 1326, Passele was sent his last writ of summons to attend the parliament which was to be held on the foUowing 7th January.9 Whether he suspected it or not, however, Sir Edmund was not to hve much longer. Towards the end of February he was at Margaret's manor of Iffin, not far from Canterbury, and there, for some reason, 1 Reg. Archbp. Reynolds, f. 158. 2 S.R.S., XXIII, (No. 1589). 3 P.W., II, passim. i Chronicles of Edward I and Edward II (R.S.), I, 290-1. 6 P.W., II, ibid. 0 Hasted, loe. cit. ' P.W., II, ibid. 8 Ibid. 9 Ibid. 18 WITH SOME ACCOUNT OF ITS LORDS though sound of mind and in good health, on the Monday before St. Matthias, 1326/7, Edmund de Passele made his wUl. He desired to be buried in the church either of Ticehurst or Kenardington according to the provision of his friends. AU his goods he left to Margaret his wife, so that from them she should dispose, as she should wish, to the poor and for the upbringing of their own chUdren. To Margaret and to Robert his son he left aU his property in London and to his daughter Margaret he bequeathed £100 for her marriage. He made Margaret his wife and Henry, Prior of Holy Trinity, Hastings, his executors, and to the Prior he gave £20 to help Margaret and his chUdren in executing the will1. Edmund also apparently chose at about this time to settle more of his real estate on his son Robert. The manors of Pashley and Eastbourne (caUed " Brokhous " and later Little Pashley) and the reversion of Alderstead manor in Merstham were aU granted to Robert. Margaret held Leigh and Fairlight, with their member Redge Clayton, jointly with her son Thomas de Passele, and she also held, jointly with Sir Edmund, certain land in Merstham and Gatton.2 Precisely how or when it occurred has not been revealed, but the death of Sir Edmund de Passele took place ten days after he had made the above-mentioned settlement, and writs to hold his inquisitions post mortem were issued on 27th March, 1327. Somewhat irritatingly, the Kent jurors said no more than that he had held no lands in the county, of the king in chief, on the day he died. In Sussex and Surrey, although he had held nothing in chief in these counties, the jury still gave detaUs of his other property and he certainly did possess lands in Kent.3 Sir Edmund's firstborn son, WiUiam, although he had been ahve in 19 Edward II,4 was not given at the inquisition as his heir, but his brother is named. John de Passele, therefore, inherited the manors of which his father had been seised in fee at the time of his death ; these were Crimsham, Parrock and Aldbury in Merstham. John had also inherited Kitchenour from his mother.5 As soon as Sir Edmund was dead, the various members of his famUy began to dispute with each other for his lands. In fact hardly one De Banco RoU for almost twenty years after his death is free from " Passele versus Passele ". In Michaelmas Term 1327, John de Passele sued " Margaret who was the wife of WUliam de Basyng " and the Prior of Holy Trinity, Hastings, as executors of Sir Edmund's wfll, for unjust detention of deeds. In the foUowing term, Hilary, " Margaret, who was the wife of Edmund de Passele " 1 Reg. Archbp. Reynolds, f. 158. 2 Cal. I. p.m., VII, 12 (No. 32). 3 Ibid. ; A.C, XD7, 260-1. 4 S.R.S., XXni, 59 (No. 1660). 5 Add. MS. 39374, f. 215. 19 THE DESCENT OF THE MANOR OF EVEGATE IN SMEETH sued John de Passele for dower in Parrock and Crimsham. This case dragged on for some time—it was stiU going on a year later1—but Margaret eventuaUy won it and obtained dower, because in 1333 John de Passele released his right in La Parrok together with the reversion of aU the lands, which " Margaret, late the wife of Wilham de Basynges " held in that manor as dower.2 It is very noticeable in these legal proceedings that Margaret sues as " Margaret, who was the wife of Edmund de Passele ", but that John de Passele sues Margaret as " Margaret, who was the wife of WUliam de Basynge ", so denying his father's marriage to her. There was, however, another person who refused to admit that Edmund and Margaret were ever lawfully married. UntU Easter Term 1328, nothing has been discovered which hints at the existence of a " Joan, who was the wife of Edmund de Passele" , but then a person describing herself in this way came forward and, hke Margaret, claimed dower in Crimsham and elsewhere, from the unfortunate John de Passele. John denied the marriage, but Joan maintained that Edmund had dowered her at the church-door of St. Mary Magdalene next " Oldfysshestreete ", London, when he had espoused her. The Bishop of London testified to the truth of this, and so Joan was adjudged to have proved her case and that she should have a writ to enquire concerning damages.3 Apart from her suit for dower, though, Joan had other more serious charges to make, and for this reason she addressed a petition to the King and CouncU. In spite of the fact that she must actuaUy have sent in the petition, which is undated, some few years afterwards, probably not untU about 1332 or 1333, it seems best to give it at this point and, because of its remarkable nature, in full and in the original French. I give as a footnote a very tentative translation which, although not professing to be by any means a good one, may at least convey something of the feelings of the much injured petitioner. A nostre seignur le Roi et son conseU moustre Johanne qi fu la femme Esmon de Passele qe come Margarete qi fu la femme WUliam de [Basyng] vesqui long temps od le dit Esmon en soiUauntie taunqe le dit Esmon fu charge par ses confessours de returner a la dite Johan[ne qi] fu sa femme de dreit, La quele Margarete aparceyuant. qU ne la voleit esposer ne tenir contre dieu et seinte eglise purceo qele voleit qe ses fiz ioyessent les terres le dit Esmon, si fist la dite Margarete felonousement enpoysoner le dit Esmon et WUliam son fuiz et heir et puys come cele qe ne se pout sauler saunz espaundre le saunk as 1 Add. MS. 39374, passim, quoting De Banco Rolls. 2 C.CiJ., 1333-7, 338-9. 3 Add. MS. 39374, f. 8b et sqq. (quoting, inter alia, De Banco Roll, Easter 2 Edward III, mem. ld) ; Year Books of 17-18 Edward III, (R.S.), 374. 20 WITH SOME ACCOUNT OF ITS LORDS cristiens fit mourdrir Esmon son fuiz del age de xnj aunsz et Johan WaUet son garson a Colesdon' en le counte de Surreye come piert en lenditement de ceo priz et enuoife] deuant le Roi par quoi qe bref issit de prendre son corps, et ele vint et se rendy e fu torcenousement meinprise a ceo qU semble de pus qe le principal est atteint e issint fauxement detient les terres le dit Esmon, si qe la dite Johanne qest sa dreiturele femme ne poet atteindre a son doware, ne le dreit heir a son heritage, et va manacant la dite Johanne de vie e de membre, e procurant vne chartre de pardoun e vn faux pays de sey acquiter de ceste felonie e de plusurs autres faitez auxibien contre nostre dit seignur le Roi come contre autres estranges persones, et ceo est conue chose et notorie en touz les cynk countez environ lui e en meinte autre lieu du realme, dount la dite Johanne prie grace et remedie. The answer was : " Sue si ele voet de la mort Esmon son baron, et quant a dower, sue a la comune ley."1 In discussing these charges against Margaret, it wUl be best to take them in turn. The first one, that of living with Edmund although he was lawfully married to Joan, touches on what is perhaps the most puzzling feature of the whole affair. Clearly, if Joan claimed to be Edmund's lawful wife, she must have regarded Margaret as no more than his mistress. But Margaret maintained she had been married to him, and the Royal grant to them both of the market and fair at Empingham, as well as Edmund's inquisition post mortem, seems to have recognized Margaret as Edmund's wife. Moreover she managed to recover dower in his lands against his son John, and this she surely could not have done 1 " To our lord the King and his council, Joan, who was the wife of Edmund de Passele, shows that whereas Margaret, who was the wife of William de [Basyng], lived a long time with the said Edmund in concubinage until he was charged by his confessors to return to the said Joan, who was his rightful wife, the said Margaret perceiving that he did not wish either to marry her or to keep her in defiance of God and Holy Church, because she wished that her sons might enjoy the lands of the said Edmund, so the said Margaret had the said Edmund and William, his son and heir, feloniously poisoned and then, as this could not be accomplished without shedding Christian blood, she had murdered Edmund his son, aged 13 years, and John Wallet, his servant, at Coulsdon in the county of Surrey as it appears in the indictment concerning it, taken and sent before the King, upon which a writ issued to take her body, and she came and gave herself up and was wrongfully mainprised, whereby it seems since then, that the principal (?) object has been attained and thus she falsely keeps the lands of the said Edmund, so that the said Joan, who is his rightful wife, cannot get her dower, nor the rightful heir his inheritance, and goes threatening the said Joan of life and limb, and procuring a charter of pardon and a false peace-making, to acquit herself of this felony and of many others done, as well against our said lord the King as against other outside people, and this is well known and notorious in all the five counties round about and in many another place in the kingdom, of which the said Joan asks grace and remedy. " " Sue, if she will, for the death of Edmund her husband, and as to dower, sue at the common law. " Ancient Petitions in the Chancery and Exchequer (S.C.8), File 266, No. 13293. 21 THE DESCENT OF THE MANOR OF EVEGATE IN SMEETH unless she had proved the legahty of her marriage to him, when it was in doubt. The only solution I can offer, and it is tentative in the extreme, is that Edmund had never been more than betrothed to Joan. Joan could then insist that any subsequent marriage of his was void because of his pre-contract with her ; Margaret could claim that his marriage to Joan was not fuUy solemnized and' John, his son, could deny the validity of both, on the same grounds as those which each woman had brought against the other. This, however, is merely a suggestion, and until something more definite becomes known, it is to be feared that how Sir Edmund managed to leave two widows, who both recovered dower in his lands, wUl remain a mystery. The evidence in support of the second charge, that of having murdered Sir Edmund and his son WUham, is likewise obscure. The dates at which WUham is known to have been alive and dead are not inconsistent with his having died at the same time as his father, and those on which Sir Edmund made his wUl and the settlement on Robert, his son by Margaret, certainly look very suspiciously near to his death. I have not noticed any trial of Margaret or anyone else on a charge of having poisoned father and son, but there may have been one at which she was acquitted. It is always possible that they died naturaUy, and that it was afterwards aUeged that their deaths had been due to poison. The record of the case on the remaining charges is surprisingly fuU.1 It may be remarked concerning this Edmund, son of Sir Edmund, that his death is the first and only fact I have discovered about him. Margaret would hardly murder her own son, so it is probable that, unless he were by yet another, unknown woman, he was Sir Edmund's son either by his first wife, Maud, or by Joan. It is difficult to believe that if he were Joan's son, she would not have mentioned it in the petition, and so it would appear most hkely that he was another son by Maud de Kechenore. The story of the double murder at Coulsdon was as foUows. It took place on Sunday, 13th March, 1327/8, although the King's mandate to the sheriff of Surrey, Robert de Stangrave, to hold an inquest was not issued until 10th AprU, 1329. Accordingly on 25th April, 1329, the jurors returned that, on the Sunday after the Feast of St. Gregory, 2 Edward III, Edmund de Passele and John Walet, by the procuration of Margaret de Basynge, had been wretchedly murdered and robbed of wooUen clothes to the value of 13s. 4d., by Adam 1 Controlment Roll, No. 1 (K.B. 29/1) mm. 53d, 59 ; Coram Rege Rolls, Nos. 278 (Mich. 3 Edward III, K.B. 27/278), Rex part, mm. ldd, 21 ; 283 (HUary 5 Edward III, K.B. 27/283), iJea; part, mm. 7, lid-, 286 (Mioh. 5 Edward III, K.B. 27/286), Rex part, mm. 16, 16d. 22 WITH SOME ACCOUNT OF ITS LORDS Saule and Edward le Peleter. The jury also said that Margaret afterwards, knowingly, had received the criminals.1 The King, having received this inquisition, promptly sent it to Geoffrey le Scrope and other justices of the King's Bench, who ordered that Saule, Le Peleter and Margaret should be arrested and should appear in the King's Bench in the Michaelmas Term foUowing, to answer the respective charges against them. When the appointed day came round, the sheriff reported that neither Saule nor Le Peleter was to be found in his baUiwick and so he was unable to attach them ; but it was testified in court that Adam Saule had been captured and was at that moment in Newgate Prison in the charge of the sheriffs of London. Thereupon it was ordered that he come into court on the Monday before AU Saints' Day to answer the charge of murder. The sheriff of Surrey was told to summon Edward le Peleter and, if he did not appear, let him be outlawed and if he should appear, then to arrest him and bring him into the King's Bench in Trinity Term next foUowing, i.e. 1330. Meanwhile, the sheriff of Sussex had sent his undersheriff, Thomas de Ledrede, and the bailiffs of the rapes of Lewes and Hastings to arrest Margaret on charges of procuring the murders and of harbouring Saule and Le Peleter. They went with Robert de Pevlesdon, the clerk whom by letters under the Privy Seal the long had assigned to supervise the affair, and on Sunday, 27th August, 1329, found Margaret at Pashley, where Nicholas de Ledrede, the bafliff of Lewes rape, arrested her. No sooner had he done this, than a great number of people led by John Aleyn of Clifton and by Margaret's sons, Thomas, Reynold and Edmund de Basinge, rescued Margaret. From the various records can be compUed a list of the malefactors, who included Richard de Haremere, John de Beggebury, Simon le Frensh, Robert le Porter, Richard de Brom, chaplain, John son of Richard de Codinge, Walter son of Thomas le BotiUer, Michael Brid of Empingham, Adam Bailiff, Nicholas de Passele, bailiff, Thomas le Cok (also caUed Thomas Margaretescok de Basynge), John le Gardener of Couchenham (or Kechenham), Adam Margaretescharrer de Basynge, John Colet, Simon MareschaU, James Brounyng, Robert Othewy and many more. Apparently egged on by Margaret, they insulted, assaulted, wounded and maltreated the king's officers, so that they fled for fear of death. Later on in the proceedings, the events were described in greater detaU. The affray took place on the Sunday before St. Augustme the Confessor, 3 Edward III, in the town of Ticehurst in a certain place caUed " Passele ", at noon, at a point from which the highway leading to Winchelsea was 40 perches to the south, a certain hedge caUed Holdewykehaye 1 Ibid. 23 THE DESCENT OF THE MANOR OF EVEGATE IN SMEETH 40 perches to the east, and a certain ashtree caUed Holdwicheesshe 40 perches to the west. Margaret's retainers took hold of Robert de Pevlesdon and threw him to the ground. Then Reynold de Basyng, at Margaret's command, with a certam sword of Cologne, which he held in his right hand, feloniously struck the said Robert across his right hand, in the middle, between the thumb and fingers of the same, maldng a wound 5 inches long, and cutting and severing the veins and nerves of the said right hand, thereby feloniously maiming him, so that Robert completely lost the use of the same hand. Whereupon the malefactors, Margaret, Reynold and the rest, fled. Robert de Pevlesdon raised a clamour and the hue and cry from town to town, but Margaret evaded arrest and got away into Kent. AU this reached the King who, on 17th September, 1329, Ordered the sheriff of Sussex to attach Margaret, John Aleyn and the others and make them appear in the King's Bench at Michaelmas in one month. The sheriff returned that he could do nothmg because the criminals were not to be found in his baUiwick. The King, however, thought the sheriff's answer insufficient, because the sheriff had sent in no record of an inquisition concerning the matter, so the King again commanded him to attach the said persons. On the appointed day the sheriff had done nothing nor had he returned the king's writ, therefore as before, he was told to send the inquisition into the King's Bench in Easter Term, 1330. On Monday before AU Saints' Day, 1329, the sheriffs of London returned that Adam Saule was taken by the appeal of Robert, son of Nicholas de Aldistede, cousin of the murdered boy, Edmund, son of Edmund de Passele, which appeal, before the Justices of Gaol Delivery of Newgate, then remained undecided ; however, it was ordered that the sheriffs bring Adam into the King's Bench. This they did, and he came, said he was in no way guilty of the charges and put himself upon the country. The day on which the jury were to come was the Quinzaine of St. Martin, 1329 ; so on that day a jury from Coulsdon came and said that Adam Saule was not guflty of the deaths of Edmund, son of Edmund de Passele and John Walet, nor of the robbery, and so he was acquitted.1 MeanwhUe the proceedings against Edward le Peleter and Margaret were continued. Le Peleter, having been summoned for the fifth time at Guildford on 26th March, 1330, was outlawed for not having appeared. A writ was issued to attach Margaret, and bring her in Michaelmas Term 1330, to answer for procuring the murders and harbouring the criminals. Then, in the Octaves of Michaelmas, 1330, Margaret came and, surrendering herself to the Marshalsea prison, was committed to the keeping of the marshal there. Immediately she i Ibid. 24 WITH SOME ACCOUNT OF ITS LORDS was led out by the marshal into court, where she said she was not guUty and put herself upon the country. The day appointed was the Octaves of St. Hilary foUowing, i.e. 1330/1 ; meanwhUe she was released on baU. On the other charge of resisting arrest, the sheriff had been told to have her and the others before the court in Easter Term 1330 ; at that time the Sheriff had sent the court the inquisitions which he had faUed to return earlier, but had said that he could not attach the criminals, because they were not to be found in his bailiwick. Therefore he had been told to bring them into court in Trinity Term, but then he had returned the same answer. But, at Michaelmas 1330, when Margaret surrendered herself on the procuration charge she answered at the same time that she was not guUty of resisting arrest, and so forth, and so she was given bafl, having been told to appear in the Octaves of St. Hilary 1330/1. When that day came, this case was adjourned until Easter Term, but on the charge of procuring the murder she was acquitted by a jury from Coulsdon. In Easter Term a jury from Pashley similarly acquitted her on the charge of resisting arrest. The charge remained, however, against the Basyng brothers, John Aleyn and the rest. Some of them surrendered in Michaelmas Term 1331, were bailed until the following Hilary Term, and afterwards would seem to have been acquitted. MeanwhUe in Easter Term 1330, Robert de Pevlesdon had personaUy appealed the Basyng brothers, Margaret and her retainers of having maimed him. The sheriff of Sussex returned John de Passele, Margaret's stepson, and Roger Stretton as pledges of prosecuting, but Margaret did not come into court. He was therefore told to arrest her and bring her before the court in Trinity Term. The process was, however, continued in HUary Term 1330/1, at which time Margaret surrendered and Robert de Pevlesdon instantly appealed her. She was given baU and told to appear at the Octaves of Michaelmas ; the sheriff was ordered to arrest John Aleyn and the others, so that they should answer the appeal at the same date. The Basyngs and some of the others came as ordered, and Robert appealed them—Reynold de Basyng of the actual maiming and the others of having aided him. Reynold put himself upon the country and the rest did hkewise, so they were released on being baUed by Sir Henry de Valoignes, Sir John Malemeyns, Thomas de Faversham, Robert and Gervase Alard, Richard del'Isle, WiUiam de Reculvre and others, having been told to appear in the Octaves of HUary 1331/2. About half of Margaret's retainers, however, had faUed to appear at Michaelmas 1331 ; those who did appear had, in fact, surrendered before but had been released on baU. The remamder, the chief among them being John Aleyn of Clifton and John de Beggebury, had been summoned five times between Easter and the end of July. At the 25 THE DESCENT OF THE MANOR OF EVEGATE IN SMEETH fifth summons, on St. James the Apostle's Day, John de Beggebury had given himself up. The sheriff had been instructed to outlaw those who did not appear and to arrest those who did. He, therefore, took Beggebury into custody and outlawed John Aleyn and the rest. When at the Octaves of Michaelmas, Reynold de Basyng and his brothers surrendered to answer the appeal, the sheriff, John Dabernoun, had been instructed to bring in John de Beggebury as weU, but Dabernoun was unable to produce his prisoner and was therefore in mercy for 20 shUlings, and told to have him before the court in HUary Term 1331/2. When in February the case was continued, aU the accused, except John Aleyn, appeared in court and Robert de Pevlesdon appealed them. But, in the interval, Margaret had obtained from Pevlesdon a charter of pardon from aU manner of actions which he had against her. This document, dated at Westminster on the Thursday before St. Valentine's Day, 6 Edward III (i.e. 1331/2), she proffered in court and the whole case against her and her followers collapsed. Robert de Pevlesdon was sent to the prison of the Marshalsea, from whence he was released on payment of a fine.1 John Aleyn of Clifton was pardoned of his outlawry in the foUowing July.2 Whether Edward le Peleter was ever caught and brought to account for murdering young Edmund and John Walet, and, if so, whether Margaret managed to save him, does not appear. Having successfuUy defended herself on the criminal charges, Margaret de Passele continued the suits connected with her husband's property. Her rival, Joan, tried to obtain dower in Pashley and Brokhous in Eastbourne which were held by Robert de Passele, and John de Passele also claimed the manor of Leigh from Margaret and Thomas her son. Neither claim would seem to have succeeded.3 John de Passele had also complained in 1327 that Thomas and Reynold de Basynge, and many of those who were later concerned in the fight at Pashley, had committed trespass in his lands at Peasmarsh, Hartfield and elsewhere, and had assaulted Stephen Adam his servant.4 The manor of Palstre in Wittersham, although it seems to have been acquired some few years before his death by Sir Edmund de Passele, was finaUy settled in 1329 on Margaret, his widow, and Thomas de Passele, her son.5 Margaret also had some correspondence with the prior of Christ Church, Canterbury, apparently concerning Alderstead in Merstham.6 1 Ibid. 2 C.P.iJ., 1330-34, 315. 3 Add. MS. 39374, f. 6, et sqq. 4 C.P.iJ., 1327-30, 167, 656. 6 A.C, XVIII, 344. 0 Literae Oantuarienses, I, 498-501 and II, 102-5. 26 WITH SOME ACCOUNT OF ITS LORDS Sir Edmund's stepmother Custance died in the summer of 13351 and at her death, according to Sir Edmund's settlement, Alderstead descended to Robert de Passele. It seems that John de Passele claimed it, and the Prior feared lest the process concerning the suit should be removed out of his manor court and into the King's court, to the prejudice of the rights of his church.2 At about this time the changes in the course of the Rother, owing to the disastrous storms of the previous half-century, affected Margaret's lands. In May 1337, licence was given to Margaret de Basinges and others to fiU up an old trench leading from Appledore to Romney (which trench was partly her soU), as there was a new trench made. The new trench was partly her soU and the soU of both trenches was held of the long in chief of the manor of Kenardington.3 Some four years later, however, Margaret's life came to an end. She must have been aged about fifty-eight. The date of her death given in the Kent inquisition post mortem differs from that given in the Surrey one ; the Kent inquisition, having been made nearer to the time of her death, is more probably correct and there it is said she died on Monday, 15th October, 1341. Thomas ae Basing, her eldest son, succeeded to Kenardington and the other NormanvUle lands.4 His legitimate issue, in the main male line, ceased in the middle of the foUowing century, and in 1460 his great-great-great-nephew John Passhele, describing himself as cousin (he was her great-great-great-grandson) and heir of Margaret Passhele, daughter and heir of Thomas NormanvUle, quit claim to the manor of Kenardington.5 To her lands at Gatton, her son Edmund de Passelee succeeded. At the date of his mother's Surrey inquisition, 7th July, 1343, he was aged 24 years and more, wliich would put the date of his birth back to 1318 or 1319, if not earher.6 Edmund de Passele, junior, who was a knight,7 seems, unUke his mother, to have Hved an uneventful life. Upon her death, he became lord of Thevegate where he seems to have resided, and for which he paid aid at the knighting of the Black Prince.8 At the Proof of Age of Katherine and Joan, the daughters of Robert Gower of Brabourne, a certain Thomas Mersshere said that, on the day on which Katherine was born, he had carried 100s. to John Syward 1 O.F.R., 1327-37, 446. 2 Lit. Cant., loe. cit. 3 O P.R., 1334-8, 457. 4 Cal. I. p.m., VIII, 219 (No. 307), 282 (No. 422). 6 V.C.H. Rutland, loe. cit. ; C.O.R., 1454-61, 447, 449. 0 Cal. I. p.m., VIII, loe. cit. ' The Cartulary . . . of the Priory of Bilsington, Kent (British Academy), 144 ; A.C, XLI, 26-7 (where the date is given wrongly as 1359). 8 A.C, X, 125. 27 THE DESCENT OF THE MANOR OF EVEGATE IN SMEETH of London, in the name of Sir Edmund de Passhelee. Mersshere also said that on the Saturday before St. John Baptist, 1342, when Joan was born, he was at Brabourne with the Lady Joan de Passhelee who stood godmother to Joan. Thomas Stoutyng said that on the day on which Joan was born he sold aU his lands at Stowting to Sir Edmund de Passhelee.1 According to Weever, there was formerly a picture of Lady de Passhelee in a window at Brabourne. He gives the foUowing legend, " Iohanna Pashlee filia Iohannis de sole secunda vxor Edmundi Pashlee ".2 Unless a minute fragment of glass in the north nave window, bearing one or two pieces of a black-letter inscription, is part of Joan's window, aU trace of it would seem to have vanished. William de Soles, apparently a feoffee of Sir Edmund, occurs in 1366.3 Who Sir Edmund's first wife was I have not discovered. Partly, no doubt, owing to the fact that the Kent inquisition post mortem on Sir Edmund, senior, gives no detaUs of his lands in the county, one receives the impression that his son, Sir Edmund junior, fared badly in his inheritance, when compared with his brothers. As has been said, he inherited Thevegate and a few acres in Gatton, but he must have had more land than this and he probably inherited the lands that his father is known to have held on, and bordering upon, Romney Marsh. However, his brother, Thomas, seems to have predeceased him, whereby Sir Edmund acquired the manors of Palstre in Wittersham and La Mote in Leigh, Sussex, as well as other lands in that county.4 Sir Edmund de Passele died without issue5. Since he began a suit for payment of a debt in Hilary Term, 35 Edward III, and his widow, Joan, carried it on a year later, his death must have occurred in 1361.6 Lady (Joan) de Passele, after her husband's death, was tenant for life of Thevegate and Palstre, but in 1366 her husband's nephew Robert alienated the reversion of Palstre to Richard Charles,7 who was 1 Cal. I. p.m., X, 323-4. 2 Ancient Funerall Monuments, 270. 3 C.C.iJ., 1364-8, 289. 4 Ibid. s Wrottesiey, op. cit., 348-9. 6 De Banco RoUs, Nos. 405 (Hil. 35 Edward III) m. 269 and 408 (Hil. 36 Edward III), m. 150. Since writing the above, I have noticed Sir Edmund's will. An abstract is printed in the Calendar of Wills Enrolled in the Court of Husting, London, Pt. II, 59. He must have died between August 5th and November 22nd, 1361, these being respectively the dates of making the will and that of its enrolment. From the fact that he desired to be buried " in the new chancel of the church of Smethe, " it seems not improbable that his is the canopied tomb in the north wall of the north chapel there. The tomb is immediately below a window which contains a shield of the Pashley arms. 7 C.C.iJ., 1364-8, 289. 28 WITH SOME ACCOUNT OF ITS LORDS of Addington. Later in the same year, Joan obtained leave from Archbishop Langham to have mass celebrated for a year at Thevegate. She was stUl living on 25th November, 1367.1 Sir Edmund's half-brother John de Passele, who was over twenty-one in 1327,2 does not really come into the account of Thevegate, but it will be as well to add one or two facts about him. Although both his father's " widows " recovered dower in Crimsham against John, the one, Joan, does not seem to have been very successful because, after numerous orders to enquire what damages were due to her and then to put her in seisin, in 1340 John sold the manor.3 Against Margaret John was less fortunate, for she obtained dower in Parrock in Hartfield, and in 1345 her son Robert obtained a release from John of his claim to aU the lands held by Robert in Surrey. In 1335 there was a complaint by Robert, that his half-brother John de Passele and ten others had broken into his close at Merstham, mown his grass and carried it and other goods away, and consequently a commission was appointed to investigate the matter.4 A few years later one Henry, son of Vincent de Wynchelse, brought a plea of trespass against John de Passele, but John did not answer it, and, having been summoned, was outlawed, as was usual, for having faUed to appear. However, in Trinity Term 1344, John surrendered himself into the Marshalsea and so was pardoned of his outlawry.5 John had died chUdless by Michaelmas 1366, when his coheirs, his nephews Thomas atte More and Thomas de Chalfhunte, and his great-nephew John, son of WUliam de Lonsford, son of Margery de Passele, claimed the manor of Kitchenour from Sir John Kyriel the elder.6 Thomas de Passele, one of the younger sons of Sir Edmund de Passele, senior, by Margaret de NormanvUle, in 1346 paid aid for Palstre and, with WiUiam de Wytrychesham, for half a knight's fee in Wittersham,7 and was a knight by 1348. In that year he was exempted for life from being put on assizes or made sheriff or other minister of the king against his wUl, and two years later was a commissioner for sewers at KneUefiote on the borders of Kent and Sussex.8 From early in 1352, and for the next few years, Sir Thomas and his brother Robert seem to have carried on a smaU private war with Geoffrey de Say and his foUowers. In March 1351/2, Robert was granted 1 Reg. Simonis de Langham (Cant, and York Soc), 139, 333. 2 Cal. I. p.m., VII, 12 (No. 32). 3 S.R.S., XXIII, (No. 1886). 4 C.P.R., 1334-8, 205. s o.P.R. 1343-5 333. • De Banco Roll,' Michaelmas 40 Edward III, m. 289. 7 A.C, X, 125. 8 C.P.R., 1348-50, 229 ; C.P.iJ., 1350-4, 26. 29 THE DESCENT OF THE MANOR OF EVEGATE IN SMEETH a special pardon for Inning WiUiam de Kechenham and also any consequent outlawry and, later in that same month, Geoffrey de Say, naming Sir Thomas de Passele and five others, complained that they had carried away his goods at Beckley, Peasmarsh and Iden, besieged his servants WiUiam de Wyghtresham and John de Kechenore in a house there, and, as they were coming out, had assaulted them, so that Geoffrey had lost their service for a great time. WUliam de Wyghtresham also complained of his treatment at Beckley, by Sir Thomas and others, who included John " Thomascok de Passele ". Robert de Passele, Richard de Soles, John Haket and WUliam de Basynge were summoned to appear before certam justices to answer certain trespasses against Geoffrey de Say. They did not appear and so were outlawed ; however, in January 1353/4, aU four of them having surrendered to the Marshalsea prison, they were pardoned of their outlawries. SimUarly, Sir Thomas de Passele also had been outlawed for his trespasses against Say and WUliam de Wightresham, but in October, 1354, he too, having given himself up, was pardoned.1 In the foUowing AprU and again in July, twenty acres of land in Fairlight recently had been held by Reynold Alard, deceased, by knight-service of Thomas de Passele, whose lands were said, rather crypticaUy, to be then in the King's hands " for certain causes ".2 Sir Thomas seems to have weathered the storm successfully, for in March 1357/8, Thomas de Passele, " chivaler ", going beyond seas, had letters nominating two men as his attorneys in England for one year.3 That is the last notice I have found of him alive. He had died without issue4 at the latest by the end of 1361, because his brother Edmund succeeded to his lands and Sir Edmund himself died in that year. By their deaths their brother Robert inherited their lands, which descended on his death to his son Robert. This Robert de Passhele had succeeded his father by Michaelmas 1362. He was then under age and in Trinity Term, 1363, John of Gaunt, Duke of Lancaster, claiming to be his overlord of Pashley, brought an action against him, alleging that he had entered into Pashley and withheld its custody from the Duke and also his own marriage, which by reason of his nonage ought to have pertained to the Duke. The suit was stUl in progress in 1370,5 but it seems possible that Robert attained his majority in 1366 ; at any rate in that year he made various settlements of his estates. On 10th May he quitclaimed to Joan, his uncle Sir Edmund de 1 C.P.iJ., 1350-4, 245, 281, 283 ; C.P.iJ., 1354-8, 1, 107. 2 C.P.iJ., 1354-8, 279 ; Oal. I. p.m., X, 202. 3 C.P.iJ., 1358-61, 26. 1 Wrottesley, op. cit., 348-9. 6 Add, MS. 39374, f. 197b, et sqq. ; De Banco Roll, Easter 44 Edward III, m. 310. 30 WITH SOME ACCOUNT OF ITS LORDS Passhele's widow, Reynold de Basynge, WUUam de Halden, WUliam de Home and WUham de Soles (who would seem to have been Sir Edmund's feoffees), Palstre manor and aU other lands formerly Sir Edmund's in Kent, save the manor of Thevegate. The previous day, 9th May, Halden, Home and Soles had quitclaimed to Robert de Passhele the manor of La Mote and aU the other Sussex lands formerly of Sir Edmund.1 By October, Robert was married, because on the 25th (the Sunday before St. Simon and St. Jude) his feoffees Sir Peter Breous, Henry Auger, WiUiam Staunton, parson of Iden, Robert Covert, chaplain, and WUham Holmstede agreed to make estate to him, when he should demand it, in the manors of Pashley, WhUigh, Eastbourne, La Mote (with the advowson of its chapel), Alderstead and the reversion of Thevegate, and if he should die without issue then they agreed to grant the manors and reversion for her lifetime to Anne his wife, and after her death aU of them except La Mote to his right heirs, with La Mote remaining to the feoffees, for them to find two chaplains to sing forever in the chapel there for Robert's soul and for those of his ancestors.2 The identity of Robert's wife is uncertain, but she may have been, as is stated in the Dugdale MS. referred to before, the daughter of Sir Robert Howard of Norfolk. Robert de Passhele certainly had dealings with Howard, for in 1378, Passhele with three others found baU for him for 1,000 marks, when Sir Robert Howard was imprisoned in the Tower.3 The author of The Memorials of the Family of Scott of Scot's Hall, without citing any authority, says (pp. 60, 171) that Anne de Passhele's father was Sir John Howard. Nor is it certainly known who was Robert de Passhele's mother ; Dugdale's MS. according to Manning and Bray caUs her Joan, daughter of Richard Ockingham. Ockingham seems a rather elusive famUy and it is not impossible that it is a misspeUing of Echingham (sometimes spelt Eckingham) of Etchingham, which is very near Pashley. A marriage between the families is not at aU improbable and their coats-of-arms formerly existed separately in stained glass in Hawkhurst church4, and at Challock they stiU do, with Apuldrefeld and Freningham, in the east window of the south aisle. While discussing these marriages, it wiU be convenient to mention one other problem. The Pashleys quartered a cheeky coat ; this may be seen on one of the Scott monuments in Nettlestead church and also in Brabourne, as weU as on the armorial seal of Sir Thomas Scott (temp. Ehzabeth I). The clearest and perhaps most authoritative portrayal of this quartering is in the British Museum. Attached to 1 CCR.,1364-8, 289. 2 Add. Ch. 41853. 3 C.C.iJ., 1377-81, 227-8. 4 A.C, IX, 246, 260. 31 THE DESCENT OF THE MANOR OF EVEGATE IN SMEETH Additional Charter 16156, of which the date is 1458, is an impression of the seal of John Passheley. Also in the British Museum is a cast of a shghtly better impression from the same seal-die.1 It shows a couchi, shield of arms supported on each side by a lion and surmounted by a helmet bearing, as a crest, two hares' ears erect. The shield is : Quarterly, first and fourth, a lion rampant double-queued and crowned (for PASHLEY), second and third, cheeky, and over all an escutcheon, a saltire between twelve cherries (for SERGEAUX). The legend, in black-letter, is " SigUlu : iohis passh . . . armigeri " (cf. Birch, Catalogue of Seals . . ., I l l , 343). What is puzzling about this shield is that its bearer should, since he has SERGEAUX on an escutcheon of pretence, have married a Sergeaux heiress. John Passheley, however, married quite differently, but his grandmother was a Sergeaux and an heiress.2 John's father, also John, whose seal was seen somewhere by StreatfeUd (in whose MSS. there is a drawing of the seal3) used a plain unquartered shield of the Pashley crowned and double-queued hon.4 It would seem, therefore, that John Passheley, the son, may perhaps have had the Christian name in the legend of his grandfather's seal altered from Robert to John to suit himself, but have had the shield left as it was. If this is a not unreasonable conjecture, it would appear on the face of it that a Pashley, before the end of the 14th century, had married the heiress of a famUy which bore a cheeky coat. One such, that springs to mind, is Gatton, but there seems to have been no convenient Gatton heiress unaccounted for. Is it not possible that the original coat of the De Alderstedes was cheeky and that it was a differenced version of the arms of the Gatton family, of whom the De Alderstedes dicti De Passeles held land ?5 Robert de Passhele, having married and settled his estates as above, was a knight already in January 1368/9.6 In January 1376/7, Sir Robert sat as a Knight of the Shire of Kent in the " Packed Parliament " ; he filled the same office in 1379.7 In the foUowing year he lodged a complaint against certain persons who had assaulted him at Beckley, taken away his bondwoman, Aveline Wygge, and so threatened his men and servants that several withdrew from his tenure.8 In the Spring of 1381, Sir Robert and Sir Peter de Veel were sent 1 B.M. Detached Seal CLXII, 20 A and B. 2 See below. 3 Add. MS. 33926, f. 63 ; the seal of John's great-grandfather, Sir Robert de Passhele, simUarly shows the Pashley arms unquartered (see Kent Archives Office, U. 455/T. 124/4). 4 The Pashley arms were Purpure, a lion rampart double-queued and crowned or. (Sometimes the crown is blazoned argent.) 6 See above, note 10, p. 12, and Cal. I. p.m., VII, 12 (No. 32). o Add. MS. 33893, f. 189. 7 C.C.iJ., 1374-7, 536 ; C.C.iJ., 1377-81, 253 ; A.C, LXXI, 207. 8 C.P.iJ., 1377-81, 464. 32 THE COHEIRS OF SERGEAUX SIR RICHARD SERGEAUX Died September 30th, 1393. PHILIPPA, daughter and coheir of SIR EDMUND DE .ARUNDEL SrR WILLIAM = MARNY Dead by 1426 ELIZABETH SERGEAUX Aged 24 and more in June, 1395. Dead by 1426 ROBERT PASSHELE (1) = Esquire f (see Pashley Pedigree) WILLIAM SWYNBORNE (2) = Esquire Died s.p. May 22nd, 1422 PHILIPPA SERGEAUX .Aged 22 and more in June, 1395. Died 11th or 13th July, 1420 SIR RICHARD SERGEAUX Born December 21st, 1374 Died, under age and s.p., about June 24th, 1395. SIR THOMAS MARNY AUve in 1426 GUY DE ST. AUBYN (1) Esquire RICHARD DE VERE (2) 11th EARL OF OXFORD SIR NICHOLAS THORLEY (3) Alive in 1426 = -\ = t = ^ 4 ALICE SERGEAUX Aged 9 i and more in June 1395. Alive in 1426 15 JOAN SERGEAUX Aged 4 and more in June 1395. Died s.p., in 1400 [face p. 33 WITH SOME ACCOUNT OF ITS LORDS upon the King's service into Brittany with a company of men-at-arms and archers ;x later in the same year he was on a commission of the peace in Kent and on commissions of array in 1385 and 1386.2 There occurs, from 1387, a memorandum of an undertaking by various people to be security for Passheley under pain of £200.3 The last notice of him ahve is a simUar undertaking, in July 1388, by Sir Robert, under pain of £100 and also by his securities for £100, that he would do or procure to be done no hurt or harm to brother Thomas Gravene, proctor of the house of Holy Trinity, Moatenden, in Headcorn.4 Sir Robert de Passhele was dead nine years later, having left alive his wife Anne, and apparently only one son Robert, His widow, in June 1397, attorned in respect of a rent out of the manor of Frensshecourt, alias Fairlight, the reversion of which rent, after her death, Robert Passhele, the son had recently granted away.5 Robert Passhele married, before 22nd June, 1397, PhUippa, daughter of Sir Richard Sergeaux of CornwaU, by PhUippa, his wife, daughter and coheir of Sir Edmund de Arundel, the bastardized eldest son of Richard, 14th Earl of Arundel.6 Sir Richard died on 30th September, 1393, leaving a son Richard and four daughters, of whom PhUippa was the second. Richard the son, born on 21st December, 1374, died a knight, chUdless, around about St. John the Baptist's Day, 1395, some six months short of his twentyfirst birthday, and so his four sisters became his coheirs. When her brother died, in June 1395, PhUippa was aged twenty-two and more ; she had married Robert Passhele by June 1397. Her elder sister, Ehzabeth, married an Essex luiight, WiUiam Marny, and her next sister, Alice, married successively Guy de St. Aubyn, Richard de Vere, 11th Earl of Oxford and Nicholas Thorley, another Essex man, later knighted.7 In August 1400, the lands of Sir Richard Sergeaux, junior, were ordered to be divided equaUy amongst his four sisters and on 6th November of that year the escheators of Oxfordshire and CornwaU were ordered to receive the homage of Robert and PhUippa Passhele for Philippa's manors in those counties, because PhUippa was of fuU age and had issue by Robert. ActuaUy, as will be seen shortly, their eldest son must have been at least two years old. Shortly afterwards, Joan, the youngest Sergeaux sister, who had been aged four at her 1 C.C.iJ., 1377-81, 443. 2 C.P.iJ., 1381-5, 77, 590 ; C.P.iJ., 1385-9, 176. 3 C.O.R., 1385-9, 310. 1 C.C.iJ., 1385-9, 600. 5 C.C.iJ., 1396-9, 192. 0 I.p.m., 21 Richard II, FUe 101, No. 50 ; The Complete Peerage, OXFORD. » Ibid. ; I. p.m., 17 Richard II, FUe 82, No. 53 ; I. p.m., 1 Henry XV, FUe 3, No. 14. The inquisitions on Richard Sergeaux, junior, give the date of his death, variously, as the VigU, the Feast, and the Monday after St. John Baptist ; C.F.R., XV, 145-6. 33 6 THE DESCENT OF THE MANOR OF EVEGATE IN SMEETH brother's death, having died a minor and unmarried, the escheators were told to divide the Sergeaux inheritance into three.1 As a result of this division, PhUippa was allotted the manors of Lameath, HeUand, Trefreock in St. EndeUion, Treworder in Egloshayle, a third of the manors of Tremoderate in Roche and of TreveUion in Luxulyan, aU in CornwaU, and a third of Chipping Norton in Oxfordshire. 2 Robert Passhele had by Philippa two sons, John and Edmund, and, perhaps, a daughter, and died before 12th February, 1406/7, when his widow, preparing to marry WUham Swynbome, esquire, granted her manors to him for life to be held of her and her heirs. She herself died either on 13th or 11th July, 1420, seised of no lands in Kent, leaving John Passhelee, aged twenty-two years and more, her son and next heir.3 In Mersham church the stained-glass shield bearing Gules crusilly and six boars' heads couped argent, which the late Mr. R. H. Griffin maintained was a variant of the usual Swynbome coat of three boars' heads, may conceivably be for WiUiam Swynbome. His brother Sir Thomas was Sheriff of Kent in 6 Henry IV and is said to have kept his shrievalty at Thevegate. Sir WiUiam St. John Hope, citing the shields on the tomb of Sir Thomas's widow in Canterbury Cathedral, suggested that he was one of the Northumbrian and Durham Swynbornes,4 but these arms, Per fess gules and argent, three cinquefoils counter changed, seem to have been on the brass formerly at Little Horkesley, Essex, to Sir Robert Swynbourne (1391) and his son Sir Thomas (1412). This Sir Thomas is clearly the former Kentish sheriff, for in his will (.Archbishop Arundel's Reg., II, f. 157) he directs burial at Little Horkesley and mentions his wife Elizabeth Tryvett. WUliam Swynbourn's wUl (P.C.C. 54 Marche) is most remarkable. In the testament, dated 12th June, 1421, he requests burial, in one tomb of alabaster with images made for him and Philippa his wife, in the chapel wherein Robert Swynbourn, knight, late his father, hes buried. In his ultima voluntas, made at Horkesleigh Parva on the same day, he wUls that the chapel of the priory church there, in which Robert Swynbourn late his father lies buried, be made according to the form of the Lady Chapel at Stoke Clare and that the bodies of the aforesaid Robert his father, of Thomas Swynbourn, knight, and of Andrew Swynbourn his brothers, as well as the body of PhUippa his wife, be raised up and put in divers places of the said chapel, as the bodies of the Kings lie at Westminster, as was said and declared by him to John Coote. He mentions his son John but no wife other 1 O.F.R., XII, 73, 100-1. 1 C.F.R., XV, loe. cit. ' Wrottesley, loe. cit. ; I.p.m., 3 Henry VI (C. 139), File 15, No. 23 ; I.p.m,, 8 Henry V, File 46, No. 40. 4 A.C, XLVIII, 81-3 and XXVII, 211. 34 WITH SOME ACCOUNT OF ITS LORDS than Philippa, who was therefore probably John's mother. At Paris, on 15th May, 1422, he added a codicU and another ultima voluntas ; his son was apparently then dead for WUliam did not mention him, but left to his brother John inter alia half of all his armour, except one harness. The other half he bequeathed to his stepson John Passeley together with a black courser. He also gave the two daughters of Richard Wodeville, esquire, 20 marks apiece for their marriage. William Swynbome died on 22nd May, 1422, leaving as his heir his brother John, who was aged 30 and more in 1424/5.1 It was not, however, untU 1426 that the escheator in CornwaU was ordered to take the fealty of John Passele for his Cornish manors and to give him seisin therein.2 John Passhele, apparently in 1424, married Ehzabeth, daughter of Richard WodeviUe (or WidevUe) of The Mote, Maidstone, and Grafton, county Northampton, esquire.3 Richard WodevUle had married not Ehzabeth, nor yet Mary, daughter of John Bedlisgate, but Jane, daughter of Thomas Bittellesgate of Knyghsteton (apparently Knightstone in Ottery St. Mary), co. Devon, esquire. This appears to have escaped the editors of The Complete Peerage (see under RIVERS), who foUow the pedigree in A.C, Vol. I, on page 178, and since considerable interest is attached to these people by reason of their being direct ancestors of Her Majesty Queen Ehzabeth II, it seems worth whUe quoting the following extract from Early Chancery Proceedings (C.l), File 54, No. 3. To the right Reuerent Fader in god, the Bisshopp of Lincoln' and ChaunceUer of Englond Sheweth vnto youre good Lordshipp, Antoni Erie Ryvers, Cosyn and heire to Thomas BitteUesgate, Esquier, Lord of Knyghsteton ; that is to say, sone of Richard', sone to Jane, doughter to the said Thomas, that where the said Thomas was seased of the Maners of Knyghsteton', aforesaid, Sperkeheys, Lytelcombe, Ovir GabrieU and Maydencombe with thappurtenauncez in the Counte of Deuon' in his demene as of fee . . . The defendant was John KnoUe, son of John KnoUe, whom the petitioner's great-grandfather had enfeoffed to his uses. In preparation for his marriage, Passhele settled his property in a typicaUy medieval way. On 1st February, 1423/4, he enfeoffed Robert Cavendisshe, Walter Bodelgate and WiUiam Joyntour in the manors of Theffegate in Smethe and Passhele in Sussex. His feoffees, the same day, enfeoffed him and " Ehzabeth, daughter of Richard WydewyUe " in the same manors to be held to them for life with i I.p.m., 3 Henry VI, (C. 139), File 15, No. 23. s C.-F.iJ., XV, loe. cit. 3 S.D. 26 (24) and 41 (37). 35 THE DESCENT OF THE MANOR OF EVEGATE IN SMEETH remainder to their heirs and then to the right heirs of John Passhele. On 24th February, Passhele sealed a bond with Richard Wodeville for one thousand marks ; the condition being that the bond should be valid if Ehzabeth WodeviUe should not be in sufficient estate and enfeoffed in the manors of Passhele and Smethe (sic) or other manors to the value at farm of 40 marks above deductions, so that she and her heirs could not enjoy them.1 On Whitsunday, May 19th, 1426, at Leicester, John Passhele, with many of the nobility and gentry of England, was dubbed knight by the four-year-old Henry VI, immediately following the King's own knighting by his uncle, the Duke of Bedford.2 Sir John, his uncle, Nicholas Thorle, and others were concerned, early in 1428, apparently in raising money for paying the ransom of one John Marny, esquire, who was probably a first cousin of Passhele. Marny had been captured in Anjou and held to ransom by a Frenchman named Myngot, who seems to have demanded 1200 marks for him.3 On 26th July, 1429, Sir John Passhele granted all his manors and lands in the counties of Kent, Sussex and Oxford to feoffees, Richard WodeviUe, WUliam Haute, Thomas Bodolgate and Edward Clayton, chaplain. One of the men to whom Sir John gave a power of attorney to dehver seisin was a certain WUliam Banawa,4 and some years later, between 1443 and 1450, he had reason to address a petition in Chancery against this person. "Besechith right mekly your humble seruaunt John' Passele, Knyght ", that, whereas he to " oon WUliam Benalua of J>e Countee of Cornwaflle " for long and continual service had granted an annual pension of 20s., WUham had caused to be made a deed of an annual rent of 4 marks (i.e., 53s. 4d.) "the saide suppliaunt trustinge verUy the redinge of Tpe saide dede to be trewe, and he, beynge vnlettered, seUed [i.e., sealed] J>e saide dede after >e Redinge of J>e saide WUham, to his great hurte and hindringe . . . ", wherefore he asked that a writ of sub poena be directed to the said WUham.5 I t is rather surprising to find an illiterate knight at so late a date as this, especiaUy when it is remembered that Lady Passhele's nephew, Lord Rivers, was one of the most cultured men of his time. In July 1431, Passhele made a further agreement with his feoffees ; on the 14th of that month they covenanted to re-enfeoff jointly Sh* John and Ehzabeth, his wife, and their heirs, in Thevegate, Pashley 1 S.D. 26 (24). 2 Chronicles of London (ed.) by C. L. Kingsford (1905), 95, 130. 3 C.C.iJ., 1422-9, 397-8, 399-400. * S.D. 26 (24). In 1429 WiUiam Haute married Jane, another daughter of Richard WydevUle. For the marriage settlement see Excerpta Historica (1831) by S. Bentley, pp. 249-60. It is interesting to compare the settlements made on the two WydevUle sisters. 5 Early Chancery Proceedings (O.I.), FUe 16, No. 143. 36 WITH SOME ACCOUNT OF ITS LORDS and the third part of Chipping Norton, but to let at farm for six years, to such persons as Richard WidevUe should name, the manors of Moote, Rigge and Frenssh Court and lands in Eastbourne ; the feoffees agreed that at the end of the six years they would grant the latter manors back to Sir John.1 In consequence of this, the feoffees farmed the manors to Nicholas Dixon and Roger Heron, clerks, Richard Bokeland, esquire, and John Olney, citizen and mercer of London ; the lease was for 6 years from Easter, 1431.2 The feoffees never made estate in Thevegate, Pashley and Chipping Norton to Sir John and Ehzabeth Passhele (and, as wUl be seen, this caused trouble later) but Sir John apparently granted Evegate at some time to John Gough, vicar of ToUeshunt Darcy, Thomas Gower, esquire, and Walter Membbys, " Gentilman ".3 Sir John Passele had a brother Edmund, and in 1433 as the coheirs of Sir Edmund de Passelle, the judge, they sued John Gosbourne and others for gavelkind land. Probably in connection with this suit, Edmund, describing himself as Edmund de Passele, esquire, son of Robert, son of Robert, son of Robert, son of Edmund de Passele, quitclaimed to Thomas, John and WUliam Gosebourne of Appledore certain lands and rents in Brookland, Brenzett and Fairfield, which descended to them after the death of their father John Gosebourne.4 I have found very few other traces of Edmund, but he may possibly have been the ancestor of the various Pashleys who were ahve in Kent in the 16th century and who in fact survive today. The deed to which was attached the seal drawn in Add. MS. 33926 (f. 63) may also have been connected with the Gosebourne suit, since the year is the same and Sir John described himself as his brother did, mutatis mutandis. The seal shows a lion rampant crowned and double-queued. The legend is : " . . . [Pas]chele : cheuafler.] " It may be noted that the coat-of-arms in the Cloisters at Canterbury, said to be that of Sir John Passhele, bears only a singletaUed hon. It is not known when his wife Elizabeth WodevUle died, but Sir John seems to have married secondly Alice, the widow of William Ryman and John Beaufitz (or Beaufizth). Ahce, who is said to have been the daughter of John Topclive, died between the 20th of June and the 9th of July, 1459 (the dates respectively of making and proving her wiU).5 According to the inquisition post mortem held at Ashford on 1st November, 1453, Sir John Passhele died on 8th June of that year, 1 S.D. 41 (37). 2 S.D. 26 (24). 3 S.D. 58 (51). 4 Wrottesley, op. cit., 348-9 ; C.C.iJ., 1429-35, 247-8, 250. 6 Alice's wUl, P.C.C. 17 Stokton ; A.C, LXI, 171. 37 THE DESCENT OF THE MANOR OF EVEGATE IN SMEETH leaving as his next heir, his son John, who in November was aged twenty-one and more. The jurors found that he had not died seised of any lands in Kent owing to his deed of feoffment dated 26th July, 7 Henry VI (1429). But for that he would have died seised of Theffegate, which, they said, was parcel held of the Archbishop of Canterbury, by service of half a knight's fee, but they were completely ignorant of who held the rest. Similar returns came from Sussex, where Sir John's manors were given as La Moote, with the advowson of the chapel there, in Iden parish (worth 20 marks per annum), Frensshecourt in Fairlight (worth £6), Rugges in Hastings (worth 6 marks), Brokehous alias Lytylpasshele in Eastbourne (worth £6), Passhele alias Grete Passhele in Ticehurst (worth 10 marks) and a rent from a tenement called Wyndere in HoUington (worth 2 marks). An extent of Theffegate was given where the manor was said to have been worth a clear £20 16s. Sd.1 The heir, John, who must have been born in 1431 or 1432 and was Sir John's son by Elizabeth WodevUle, immediately presented a petition in Chancery against his father's feoffees. In the petition Richard WidevUe is described as " nowe passed to god". John Passhele maintained that they had never made estate to him as they had promised. They said he had never asked them to do so. The proceedings ended at Thevegate on 20th October, 1454, by the feoffees' conveying the debated manors to John Passhele. A power of attorney of even date was given to James Sydeley and John Trengoff to deliver seisin in their name to Passhele.2 John Passheley quitclaimed the manor of La Mote to Sir John Cheyne, WUham Beaufitz, citizen of London, John Scot, esquire, and John Methlay, " Gentilman ", in 1458 ; it is to this deed (Add. Ch. 16156) that his seal, referred to above, is affixed. John Scott (of Scot's HaU) seems finaUy to have acquired the manor of Mote by a fine in 39 Henry VI, but he, with Cheyne and Metheley (Beaufitz having by then died), made a feoffment of it in 1464/5.3 The Victoria County History of Sussex is apparently mistaken in saying (vol. IX, p. 176) John Passheley was the last of his fanuly. He married twice, and had, by bis first wife Lowys, a daughter Ehzabeth, who eventuaUy inherited his land, a son WUliam, and perhaps another daughter Isabel. It is conceivable that Isabel, who with her brother WUliam is named in the will of her grandfather Thomas Gower, is identical with Elizabeth, who is not mentioned, although she must 1 I.p.m., 31 Henry VI (C.139), FUe 149, No. 26. a S.D. 41 (37) is an inspeximus, dated 8th Jan., 33 Henry VI, of the proceedings in Chancery, cf. Early Ch. Proc. (C.l), FUe 24, No. 6, et sqq. See also C.C.R., 1454-61, 44-5. 3 S.R.S., XXIII, (No. 3151) ; Add. Ch. 41854. 38 WITH SOME ACCOUNT OF ITS LORDS have been born by then, since Lowys her mother was already dead.1 His second wife was named Ahce.2 Lowys Passheley was the daughter of Thomas Gower, esquire, of Clapham, Surrey, and sister of John and Richard Gower.3 In December 1454, John Passhele made a recognizance for 200 marks, as a surety, that he would appear in Chancery in Hilary Term, to answer what should then be laid against him, and for his good behaviour meantime towards the king and people, doing or procuring hurt or harm to no one, and in the February foUowing he was surety for the same amount for his brother-in-law, Richard Gower.4 Since WiUiam Passheley was aged twenty-two and more in October 1472, the date of his father's Cornish inquisition post mortem, he must have been born in 1449 or 1450. Ahce survived her husband, John Passheley, who died on 20th November, 1468,5 and married secondly Richard Nansegles.6 WUliam Passheley, his father's son and heir, is something of a mystery. John Passheley had granted Thevegate to certain feoffees for them to hold it to the use of Alice, his wife, for her lifetime. In Trinity Term 1472, the feoffees recovered the manor from William, who had entered into it,7 and in November of that year he released it to them for the lifetime of Ahce.8 From the fact that on 10th January, 1474/5, WiUiam Paschele granted his " manor of Evygate " to Sir Walter Moyll, Thomas Lucombe and John, son of the said Sir Walter Moyll, it would appear probable that Ahce Nansegles was dead by that date.9 In fact, this is the last known reference to William himself. He, and any chUdren he may have had,10 had died before September 1 The will of Thomas Gower (P.C.C, 14 Stokton); The Visitation of Kent, 1530-1, (Harleian Soc), 17 ; Materials for a History of the Reign of Henry VII, (R.S.), I, 133-4 ; Rolls of Parliament, VI, 308-9. See also C.C.R., 1468-76, p. 281, and p. 275, where, however, there is a grave error; one John Denyssh is said to be the grantor's [WiUiam Passelegh's] grandfather. The Close Roll itself (mem. 9d.) reads Johannes Passelegh miles auus mens. * C.C.iJ., 1468-76, p. 281; S.D.s 59 (52) and 61 (64). 3 Thomas Gower's wUl, as above ; Rolls of Pari., loe. cit.; I.p.m. 11 Edward IV (C.140), File 38, No. 41. 4 C.C.R., 1454-61, 43, 54. 6 Placita in Oancellaria, (C. 44), File 32, No. 14. 6 S.D. 59 (52). 7 Ibid. 8 C.C.iJ., 1468-76, p. 281. • S.D. 61 (54). Mr. G. A. Moriarty, in "The Nansiglos Family" (Miscellanea Genealogica et Heraldica, 5th Ser., Vol. V, pp. 38 et sqq.), mentions a Richard Nanseglos, gent., living with .Alice his wife, sister and coheir of William Bonefey, Esq., in 1485. It remains yet to be proved that this Alice was John Passheley's widow. 10 His niece Anne was sole heir of her great-uncle John Gower. For William's alleged other sisters, both called Joan, see The Retrospective Review, Vol. XVI (New Ser., Vol. II), for 1828, pp. 103-117 ; if they ever existed, they also would both seem to have been dead s.p. in 1485. 39 THE DESCENT OF THE MANOR OF EVEGATE IN SMEETH 1480 which is the latest date on which the petition foUowing could have been made, since Thomas Rotherham, the Lord ChanceUor, then became Archbishop of York. Elizabeth Passheley seems to be petitioning for deeds which her stepmother's husband had detained and which, since they concerned her inheritance, must have faUen to her on the death of her brother, WUham. To the right reuerent fader in god, Thomas Bisshop of Lincoln and ChaunceUer of England. Mekely besechith your good and gracious Lordship your contynueU Oratrice Ehzabeth' Passheley, that where oon, Richard Nanzeglys, GentUman, of the Countie of Kent, happenyd the possession of dyuers euydencez, munimentes and writynges concernyng the enheritaunce of your seid Oratrice, and howe be it that your seid Oratrice hath dyuers tymes and oftyn requyred the seid Richard to delyuer her the seid euydenees, munimentes and writynges, as right and conscience requyreth, yet that to doo he vtterly refused, and yet doith, and for asmoche as your seid Oratrice cannot declare ne teU the certeynte of the seid euydence nor how many landes, ne tenementes of her seid enheritaunce that they concerne, ne yet wherin they were delyuered, in chest, bagge or box, lokked or sealed, and so hkly to lose her enheritaunce, without your gracious Lordship to her be shewed in this behalf. Wherfor, please it your good and gracious Lordship, the premysses tenderly considred, to graunte a writte sub pena direct to the seid Richard commaundyng hym by the same to appere before the Kynge in his Chauncerie and ther to be examyned of and vponn the premysses, as righte and conscience requireth, and this atte the reuerence of god and in the wey of charitie.1 Ehzabeth Passheley cannot have succeeded her brother untU 1475 at the earliest. She married," after the date of making the above petition (i.e. 1475) and before 1485, Reynold Pympe, the younger son of John Pympe, esquire, of Nettlestead, by PhUippa his second wife, daughter of John Thornbury of Faversham. By her husband, Ehzabeth had an only daughter and heir named Anne.2 In Volume XXVIII of Archozologia Cantiana, there is a long account of the Pympe famUy and their alliances by Mr. W. E. BaU. It is unfortunate, therefore, that Mr. Ball is ungenerous in the extreme with his references, because a large number of his statements are clearly wrong and as many more seem to be merely conjectural. 1 Early Chancery Proc, (0.1), File 58, No. 417. * The Visitation of Kent, 1530-1, loe. cit.; Rolls of Pari, loo. oit.; S.D.s 63 (56) and 73 (62); De Banco Roll, Hilary, 17 Edward IV. mm. 403, 403d!.; Walter Goodwin Davis, The Ancestry of Mary Isaac, Portland, Maine, U.S.A. (1965), pp. 78-80. 40 PEDIGREE OF PYMPE AND SCOTT ISABELLA . .(1) = JOHN PYMPE (1) of Nettlestead, Esquire Born, July 20th, 1417 Died, November 8th, 1454 :(2) PHILIPPA THORNBURY (2)=(2) S IR JOHN GULDEFORD =(1) Alice Waller Living, May 1478 Died 1493 RlOHARD W H E T E LL or WHETEHILL, Lieutenant of Guisnes JOHN BRUMSTON MARGERY PYMPE REYNOLD PYMPE = Esquire Born in 1448 or 1449. Died, March 21st, 1530/1 ELIZABETH PASSHELEY, Lady of Thevegate. (See Pashley Pedigree) SIR RICHARD =(1) Anne PYMPE GULDEFORD, K.G. f Died 1506 JOHN PYMPE, Esquire, Of Nettlestead. Born, 1447 or 1448. Died, 9th or 11th August, 1496 SIR JOHN SCOTT, of Scot's Hall. Born in 1484 or 1485. Died, October 7th, 1533 = ANNE PYMPE, Lady of Thevegate. Born in or before 1485. Alive, August 1524 and (?) also in July 1536 ; (?) dead, 1539/40 I HENRY PYMPE. Esquire, of Nettlestead. Aged about 2 in 1496. Died, s.p., August 12th, 1518 ELIZABETH WHETELL Married by 1483. Died, May 22nd, 1526 SIR JOHN RAINSFORD = Inquisition post mortem 2 Elizabeth I, No. 3. (C.142, File 127, No. 3.) (2) WINIFRED PYMPE, of Nettlestead. Married by 1519. Died, s.p., October 17th, 1575 WILLIAM SCOTT, of Scot's Hall. Born in 1606 or 1507. Died, s.p., June 5th, 1536. Emetine, daughter of (1) Sir William Kempe of Olantigh SIR REYNOLD SCOTT of Scot's Hall. Lord of Thevegate. Born in 1511 or 1512. Died, December 16th, 1554. = (2) MARY, daughter of Sir Brian Tuke Living, June 1555. RICHARD SCOTT, Esqu|re SIR THOMAS SCOTT of Scot's Hall. Lord of Thevegate and Nettlestead. Born in 1535. CHARLES SCOTT HENRY SCOTT GEORGE SCOTT WILLIAM SCOTT MARY, daughter of GEORGE WHETENHALL REYNOLD SCOTT (Author of The Diseoverie of Witchcraft and A Perfite Platforme of a Hoppe Garden). The coheirs in gavelkind of Winifred Rainsford. On February 20th, 1575/6, their ages were given as upwards of 39, 34, 32, 30, 22 and 38 respectively. N.B.=The information in this pedigree, where it is not given in the text, is taken from inquisitions post mortem and wills. That in italics is from the Visitations of Kent. '[face p. 40 WITH SOME ACCOUNT OF ITS LORDS Since the life of Reynold Pympe is very much bound up with that of his elder brother John and the descendants of Reynold and Elizabeth Pympe (nee Passheley) succeeded to Nettlestead as well as to Thevegate, it is perhaps pardonable to say something about John Pympe and to correct some inaccuracies. John Pympe, the father of the two brothers, was born on St. Margaret's Day 1417, succeeded his brother Reynold in 1436, and proved his age in 1439, when he was, in fact, twenty-two.1 By his first wife, IsabeUa, he had an only daughter, Margery, who married John Brumston.2 John Pympe married secondly, PhUippa Thornbury, and had two sons, John and Reynold, and at least one daughter.3 John, the father, died on 8th November 1454. The age of the heir at the date of his father's inquisition, 10th November 1455, was given as seven years and more, which imphes that he was born in 1447 or 1448.4 His brother Reynold was born in 1448 or 1449.5 I have found no evidence whatsoever that John Pympe, the son, ever married Ehzabeth Cheney, as Mr. Ball alleges ; John certainly married Ehzabeth, daughter of Richard WheteU or WhitehiU, and she at any rate was the mother of his son Henry.6 The letters written to Sir John Paston by John Pympe would seem to have been written from England and offer no evidence that Pympe took part in Edward IV's French campaign.7 Reynold Pympe, John's younger brother, was for a time in the household of Thomas Rotherham, Bishop of Lincoln. As has been said, he married Ehzabeth Passheley, but his wife was dead by the end of 1485.8 In 1483, John and Reynold Pympe took part in the Maidstone rising, which was part of Buckingham's rebeUion against Richard III. Richard's Parliament, which sat in January and February, 1483/4, attainted Buckingham's supporters and both the brothers were mentioned by name.9 It would seem far more probable that this was the occasion on which John Pympe sought sanctuary in St. Martin-le-Grand. The reference to this episode is in a list of his debts10 ; on the subject of this document, Mr. BaU addresses some of his least happy remarks.11 He says it " probably accompanied his will" (which was 1 I.p.m., 16 Henry VI (C. 139), File 88, No. 51 ; I.p.m., 18 Henry VI, (C.139), File 99, No. 32. 2 De Banco Roll, HUary, 17 Edw. IV, mm. 403, 403d ; S.D. 73 (62). 3 S.D. 63 (56) and 73 (62) ; A.C, XXVIII, 275-7. 4 I.p.m., 33 Henry VI (0. 139), File 156, No. 5. 5 I.p.m. (2nd series), 18 Henry VIII, (C. 142), File 45, No. 126. 0 Cal. I. p.m., Henry VII, I, 545 (No. 1224), 551 (No. 1235). ' The Paston Letters (ed.) Gairdner (1896), III, 180-6, (Nos. 792-4). 8 Rolls of Pari., VI, 308-9 ; S.D. 73 (62). 0 Rolls of Pari., VI, 244-9. 10 S.D. 73 (62). 11 A.C, XXVIII, 171-2. 41 THE DESCENT OF THE MANOR OF EVEGATE IN SMEETH dated 7th August, 1496)1, although the list of debts is dated, quite clearly, to 11th November 1491. The very first item contains the foUowing statement : " . . . which CC marc ys fuUy content and paid afore the makyng of this bille wryten on sent Martynes day anno vij° of Kyng Herry the vijth ". (The italics are mine.) Mr. BaU continues : " The reference is undoubtedly to an incident in Perkin Warbeck's insurrection in the year 1492 . . . " He also says that the expression, used by Pympe, " for the Kynge's sake " seems to show that he even then regarded the impostor as the younger brother of Edward V. The actual sentence in the document reads very differently and shows what happens when a phrase is taken at random out of its context. John Pympe said : Item WiUiam Brent was bounde for my payment to the seid Brumston' and for lakk of payment was sued when I was yn sent Martynes sentwary for the Kynges sake above seid, so that he paid to the seid Brumston' in part of payment of the seid CC marc. xx marc, where of paid to hym by John' Herynden and master Reynham of Boxley, mvnk xl s. and to John Tilly by the hondes of the seid Herynden of issues lost by him — x s. There is only one " King abovesaid " and that is Henry VII. From this it would seem that Pympe was referring to the time when he took the side of Henry VII and was attainted by Richard III. If it could be ascertained that John Pympe fled to sanctuary at that time, it would be an indication that the Buckingham rebel leaders knew that the rebeUion was in support of Henry VII, and therefore that they knew, already by October 1483, of the murder of the Princes in the Tower ; for whUe Edward V and his brother lived, the Earl of Richmond could have no possible claim to the throne. There is no indication of what Reynold Pympe did when the Buckingham rebeUion had collapsed. Before the Act of Attainder had been passed, Richard III issued a proclamation on his going into Kent, and named therein the leaders of the Kentish section of the rising. The text of the proclamation is preserved in Brit. Mus. Harleian MS- 433, f. 128b. The King said that " his true subjects of . . . his county of Kent " had lately " been abused and blinded " by various men whom he named. One of them was John Pympe, although in the MS. the scribe originally put Reynold and later altered it to John. A reward of 300 marks or £10 of land was offered by King Richard for the capture of any or each of the following men, Sir John GUford, Sir Thomas Lewkenour, Sir William Hawte, WUliam Cheyne, Richard Gilford and Reynold (sic) Pympe.2 1 Ibid., 276-7. 8 J. R. Gairdner, Richard the Third. 42 WITH SOME ACCOUNT OF ITS LORDS To the Parliament which sat in the autumn foUowing the Battle of Bosworth, Reynold Pympe and Anne, his infant daughter, presented a petition that Anne should have restored to her the lands formerly of John Gower, her great-uncle, whose heir she was. It was aUeged " that the said John Gower was, to the uttermost of his power, in the tytle and ryght of them his naturaU leige lord, King Herrie the vith, at Palme Sonday Feld, for the which he lost his lands, goodes, and possessions, and afterwards he was also attending upon Edward, prince of Wales, duke of CornwaU, and erle of Chester, first begotten son of the said late King Herrie, at Tewkesbury Field, and there the same John Gower, in his service, was taken and slayn ".1 John Gower was one of the Lancastrians attainted in January 1464/5. " Palme Sonday Feld" was the great Yorkist victory at Towton, fought on Palm Sunday, 29th March, 1461.2 After the Battle of Tewkesbury, Saturday 4th May, 1471, a number of the Lancastrian leaders fled and took refuge in Tewkesbury Abbey. The victorious Edward IV pursued them and demanded that they should come out. They did so, having had the King's promise that their lives should be spared. Edward, nevertheless, butchered them aU on the foUowing Monday, 6th May.3 In The Paston Letters (No. 671) is a contemporary list of those who lost their lives at Tewkesbury. The list is in two parts : the first part is headed, " Ded in the Feld " and the second " Thes be men that were heveded [i.e., beheaded] ". In this second category is mentioned "Mr. Gower ".4 In Warkworth's Chronicle and also in Stow, his Christian name is given as James. Anne Pympe's petition was granted and she succeeded to Gower's lands. The attainders of her father and uncle, John Pympe, were reversed.5 Anne Pympe brought Thevegate to John Scott of Scot's Hall by her marriage to him which had taken place by 22nd November, 1506.6 With Thevegate in the hands of the Scott famUy, my story as I meant to teU it is really over, for the Scotts held Thevegate untU late in the 18th century.7 However, the Scotts were destined to inherit the Pympe estates at Nettlestead likewise through Anne, and since Messrs. W. E. Ball and J. R. Scott, in their works on the Pympe and Scott families respectively do not give particularly satisfactory 1 Materials for a History of the- Reign of Henry VII, loe. cit. ; Rolls of Pari., VI, 308-9. • Rolls of Pari., V, 511-12. 3 Warkworth's Chronicle . . . (Camden Soc, 1839), 18-19. 4 (Ed.) Gairdner (1896), III, 8-9. 5 RoUs of Pari., VI, 273-5, 308-9. 3 The Visitation of Kent, 1530-1, loe. cit. ; Add, MS. 33882, ff. 546-58 (quoting Manning & Bray's History of Surrey). 7 Scott Deeds, passim ; Hasted, loo. cit. 43 THE DESCENT OF THE MANOR OF EVEGATE IN SMEETH accounts of the later members of the Pympe famUy, in order to round off this paper I give here what I beheve to be the correct version. Far from not learning his lesson not to rebel against the king, John Pympe seems to have been a loyal servant of Henry VII, and even to have been in the King's favour. On 25th October, 1485, just eight weeks after Bosworth Field, John Pympe received a grant from the Crown of fifty marks a year, which the Abbey of St. Augustine's, Canterbury, had been wont to pay the King.1 As I have said, John's attainder had been reversed, and, in Henry VII's second year, he was Sheriff of the county.2 In December 1485 he was a Justice of Gaol Dehvery at Canterbury and in the foUowing January was granted the office of keeper of the parks of Le Posterne and Cage, by Tonbridge, during the minority of Edward, Duke of Buckingham. Following the forfeiture of the lands of Humphrey Stafford in Worcestershire, they were granted, in October, 1486, to John Pympe and John DareU, esquires, and to their heirs, in tail male. Pympe also served as a commissioner of array and on several commissions of the peace.3 John Pympe married before 3rd August, 1483, Elizabeth WheteU and had by her a son, Henry, who was aged two in 1496.4 He also had a daughter Winifred who married John Rainsford, who was later knighted.5 John Pympe died either on 9th or 11th August 1496, leaving his son Henry heir to Nettlestead and Helth (in Nettlestead) and to his Worcestershire lands ; his remaining manors he had granted to feoffees, to hold to the use of Ehzabeth, his wife, for her lifetime with reversion to his heirs.6 The wardship and marriage of Henry Pympe were committed on 5th March, 1496/7, to Sir Edward Ponynges.7 The latter wrote in 1514 to Bishops Fox and Wolsey that he was having trouble with the escheator of Warwick and Worcester, " who wished to find certain sinister offices on the lands of Henry Pympe ". Henry served with the army in the Low Countries ; on 19th August, 1514, Sir Richard Wingfield wrote to Henry VIII teUing him that on Thursday last, Henry Pympe, gentleman, going from Wingfield's lodging about 10 p.m. was assaulted by certain Spaniards and seriously wounded. The Archduchess had caused informations to be made, to bring the assaUants to justice. The latest notice of Henry, ahve, is from March 1514/5, 1 S.D. 69 (16) (the original Letters Patent), cf. C.P.iJ., 1485-94, 31. 3 P.R.O., List of Sheriffs . . ., 68. 3 C.P.iJ., 1485-94, 68, 70, 140, 322-3, 490. 4 Cal. I. p.m., Henry VII, I, 545, 551. 5 S.D. 86 (70). « Cal. I. p.m., Henry VII, I, 545, 551. 7 O.P.R., 1494-1609, 105. 44 WITH SOME ACCOUNT OF ITS LORDS when he is recorded as having received his wages of war from Sir Edward Benstede, Treasurer of Tournay.1 Henry Pympe died without issue on 12th August, 1518 ; his Worcestershire lands had been granted to his father in taU male2 and hence his heir, his sister, Winifred Rainsford only inherited Nettlestead, Pympe and Helth. Henry's mother, Ehzabeth Pympe, was stUl living and holding the remaining Pympe lands, which were formerly of the Freninghams. In the foUowing year the King took the homage of the Rainsfords3 and on 24th November, 1519, gave Winifred and her husband livery of her lands, as sister and heir of Henry, son of Henry (sic) Pympe.4 By 1524 John Rainsford was a knight, because in that year, on 1st June, " sir Henry Guldeford, knyght, Comptroller of the Kinges most honorable householde " obtained a lease of Nettlestead manor from " sir John Reynesford, knyght, and Dame Wynefryde his wife, Suster and heire of Henry Pympe, Esquyer, Sonne and heire of John Pympe, Esquyer, late of Netelstede ".5 On 22nd May, 1526, Ehzabeth Pympe, widow of John, died. The Freningham manors, which she had had the use of for life, but which were entaUed on the male heirs of John Pympe, the grandfather of her husband, passed to her brother-in-law, Reynold Pympe, who was then aged seventy-seven and more.6 Reynold, after the death of his wife Ehzabeth Passheley, may conceivably have remarried, otherwise it is difficult to account for the existence of Sir Reynold Scott's " aunte Elizabeth Pimpe ", whom he mentions in his wiU, which is dated 1554.7 Mr. BaU says (A.C, XXVIII, 173) that Reynold Pympe was made a Knight Banneret at the battle of Blackheath in 1495. He further says that Reynold " served under Sir Edward Poynings in Ireland " in 1495. The entries in the Privy Purse account, upon which Mr. Ball bases his statement, merely mention " Pympe ", and they would seem more probably to refer to John Pympe, Reynold's brother, who was Treasurer of the Wars in Ireland.8 Moreover, the battle of Blackheath was fought in 1497 and Reynold Pympe was an esquire when he died, on 21st March, 1530/1. He must have then been aged eighty-one or -two. The inheritor of the Freningham manors, under the entaU, 1 Calendar of Letters and Papers, Foreign and Domestic, Henry VIII, I, Pt. 2, 1313, 1352 ; n , Pt. 2, 1514. 3 Lp.m. (2nd series), 10 Henry VTH (C. 142), FUe 33, No. 4. 3 Add. MS. 33882, £f. 54b-58 (quoting Originalia, vol. I). 4 Cal. of Letters