Exchequer Pipe Rolls

Exchequer pipe rolls contain accounts of the royal income, arranged by county, for each financial year. The rolls represent the earliest surviving series of public records, and are essentially continuous from the mid-12th until the 19th centuries.

 

Published online 2007.

 

Exchequer pipe rolls contain accounts of the royal income, arranged by county, for each financial year. They are the written record of the audit process of the king's accounts for one financial year, which ran from Michaelmas (29 September) to Michaelmas.

The Kent Hundred Rolls of 1274-5, preserved in the National Archives, provide a mine of information for local historians. Many were printed by the Record Commission in the early nineteenth century, but the two bulky volumes are only to be found in major libraries and the rolls are printed in abbreviated Latin. This new website edition by the Kent Archaeological Society comprises the complete rolls for Kent, in the original Latin and in an English translation by Dr Bridgett Jones.

The Kent Rolls are remarkably complete, although there are a few omissions. The major liberties are only mentioned incidentally, namely the lowy of Tonbridge and the hundred of Wachlingstone, in the hands of Gilbert de Clare, Earl of Gloucester and Hertford; Wye, in the hands of the abbot of Battle abbey, Sussex; and the Cinque Ports which had their own privileges. In addition, there is no return for Sheppey or Ospringe.

Edward I returned from crusade in 1274 to a kingdom where the crown had been weakened by civil war during the baronial reform period of 1258-65, and where there was extensive local government corruption. According to the heading of the Kent Hundred Rolls, inquiry was to be made into the king’s rights which had been usurped by lay and ecclesiastical lords, and into the excessive demands of sheriffs, escheators and coroners, and also of bailiffs and other officials, whether royal or seigniorial. Many of the encroachments on royal rights, often dating from c.1258-65, were the result of the expansion of royal government and justice in the thirteenth century. As new royal procedures developed, lay and ecclesiastical lords did their best to take them over for their own use, in order to strengthen their hold over their tenants. Henry III had ordered an inquiry into franchises in 1255, and Edward I throughout his reign was intent on building up the rights and powers of the Crown. He and his lawyers considered that all judicial rights belonged to the Crown, and any private liberty or franchise had to be backed up by royal warrant. He was, moreover, a reformer of law and justice, and realised that discontent among his subjects might lead to protest and rebellion. On the other hand, justice and good government would increase his prestige and his revenues.

The procedure for the Hundred Roll inquiry was similar to that of many other royal inquiries of the thirteenth century. Commissioners were appointed, two for each group of counties, who carried out their work between November 1274 and March 1275. The sheriff was ordered to empanel juries for each hundred who were to appear before the commissioners on a set day and place. The names of the Kent hundred jurors, together with those for Canterbury, Rochester, Brasted and Dartford, are recorded on the rolls (see pages 161-66). Judging by the returns for Blackheath and Axtane hundreds (see pp. 153-160), the jurors were unable to answer all the articles of the inquiry. The Blackheath jury, however, had plenty to say about franchises in private hands, recent encroachments on royal rights, the tax of one-twentieth on movable property, and the waste committed by the escheator when the vacant archbishopric of Canterbury was in his custody (1270-2). Their longest complaint concerned the so-called gifts taken by sheriffs, bailiffs and coroners under various pretexts.

Dr Jennifer Ward has written a Commentary on the Kentish Hundred Rolls which will appear in Archaeologia Cantiana, CXXVII (2007). The description above is drawn from the introduction to that paper.

The Kentish Hundred Rolls contain a very large number of place-names not readily identifiable – these are shown in italics in this edition. It has not been possible to undertake an exhaustive study of these unidentified names and is hoped that all with local knowledge, will be able to help in locating as many as possible.

Another issue is the identification of personal names.

Jump to:

Aloesbridge (Shepway)
Axtane (Sutton at Hone)
Barkley Scray
Bewsborough St Augustine’s (Hedeling)
Bircholt Barony (Scray)
Bircholt Franchise (half) (Shepway)
Blackborne (Scray)
Blackheath (Sutton at Hone)
Bleangate (St Augustine’s)
Boughton (Scray)
Brasted (Sutton at Hone)
Brenchley Aylesford
Bridge St Augustine’s
Bromley Sutton at Hone
Calehill Scray
Canterbury St Augustine’s
Chart Scray
Chatham and Gillingham
Aylesford
Codsheath Sutton at Hone
Cornilo St Augustine’s (Hedeling)
Cranbrook Scray
Dartford Sutton at Hone
Downhamford St Augustine’s
Eastry St Augustine’s (Hedeling)
Eyhorne Aylesford
Faversham Scray
Felborough Scray
Folkestone Shepway
[Great] Barnfield Scray
Ham Shepway
Heane Shepway
Hoo Aylesford
Kinghamford St Augustine’s
Larkfield Aylesford
Lesnes Sutton at Hone
Little Sutton at Hone
[Little] Barnfield (half) Scray
Littlefield Aylesford
[Chart and] Longbridge Scray
Longport (half) Shepway
Loningborough Shepway
Maidstone Aylesford
Malling Aylesford
Marden Scray
Milton Scray
Newchurch Shepway
Newenden Scray
Ospringe
Oxney Shepway
Petham St Augustine’s
Preston St Augustine’s
Ringslow St Augustine’s
Rochester Aylesford
Rolvenden Scray
Ruxley Sutton at Hone
Selbrittenden Scray
Shamwell Aylesford
Sheppey
Somerden Sutton at Hone
St Martin Shepway
Stowting Shepway
Street Shepway
Tenham Scray
Tenterden Scray
Toltingtrough Aylesford
Tonbridge Lowy
Twyford Aylesford
Wachlingstone
Westerham Sutton at Hone
Westgate St Augustine’s
Whitstable St Augustine’s
Wingham St Augustine’s (Hedeling)
Worth Shepway
Wrotham Aylesford
Wye

 

 

Jump to translation

 

Inquisiciones facte per preceptum domini regis in comitatu Kancie de juribus et libertatibus domini regis subtractis et excessis vicecomitatum coronatorum escheatorum et aliorum ballivorum domini regis quorumcunque aliorum ballivorum alioquo modo dominum regem spectantibus anno regni regis Edwardi tercio.

 

Back to index

 

Inquisitions made by the lord king’s command in the county of Kent about the lord king’s rights and liberties which have been taken away and the excessive demands of the sheriffs, coroners, escheators and other of the lord king’s bailiffs and of any other bailiffs whosoever appertaining/belonging to the lord king in any way, in the third year of King Edward’s reign 1274-1275.

 

Bleangate

 

Jump to translation

 

Hundredum de Blengate lastus Sancti Agustini de comitatu Kancie

Jurati dicunt quod hundredum de Blengate solebat tradi ad firmam cum lasto Sancti Augustini et Hedeling pro xxiiij libris a tempore Reginaldi de Cobeham vicecomitis.
Item dicunt quod hundredum de Blengate est in manus domini archiepiscopi Cant’ sic una medietas et altera medietas in manu abbatis Sancti Augustini set a quo tempore aut quid valet nesciunt.

Item dicunt quod dominus archiepiscopus Cant’ habet returnum et extractum brevium placita de namio vetito wreccum maris et alias libertates que ad coronam pertinent et abbas Sancti Augustini Cant’ habet furcas et assisam panis et cervisie set a quo tempore aut quo warento ignorant.

Dicunt eciam quod archiepiscopus predictus habet liberam chaciam et warennam de antiquo et abbas Sancti Augustini Cant’ clamat habere warennam quo warento nesciunt.

Item dicunt quod dominus Willelmus de Brewose impedivit execucionem mandatorum domini regis fieri in hoc quod tenuit januas parci de Trindele clausas ubi preceptus fuit per justiciarios domini regis eas tenere apertas ita quod transeuntes possunt ibidem transire.

Item dicunt quod idem dominus Willelmus de Brewose inclusit communem stratam que ducit de Cant’ versus Stodm’ in parco suo de Trendele ut gentes ibidem non transirent. Ita cum gentes de Taneto emiserent de communi pecunia quomdam mariscum cum quodam milite nomine Ricardo de Bickel et fecissent murum ut rectius irent de Teneto ad Cant’ et illud iter super predicto muro per xx annos usi fuissent et ultra alienas terras ubi non emerunt ita iter venit abbas Sancti Augustini Cant’ et fecit fossatum magnum ad siccandum mariscum inter caput dicti muri et terras alienas ita quod gentes de Teneto non possunt ultra metas marisci sui transpire set solitum fuit quondam ibidem esse fossatum antequam iter et murus fierent ibidem

Item dicunt quod dominus Henricus de Burn’ quondam vicecomes cepit de Willelmo de Cruce de Chiselet v marcas pro felonia facta Johanni de Roffeburn et de Roberto de Heliere cepit xxs pro felonia facta Egidio de Or. Item dicunt quod Robertus de Sarsted cepit de Ada de Hersing pro ipso removendo de juratis vjd et de pluribus aliis pro simili ad estimacionem dimidam marcam. Item dicunt quod Hamo de la Forstall ballivus cepit iiijs de Augustino de Bradelond in ultimo Itinere justicariorum apud Cant’. Item dicunt quod Walterus de Berksted cepit de hundredo de Blengat’ xLs de catallis Andrei de Blengat’ feloni et dictum hundredum versus dominum regem inde non aquietavit quare iterum pacavit.

Item dicunt quod Henricus Malemains et Fulco Peyforer collectores vicesime cepit cepit [sic] de hoc hundredo Ls pro pondere ultra certum numerum denariorum.

Item dicunt quod Magister Ricardus de Clifford excaitor dum fuit custos archiepiscopatus Cant’ cepit de bosco de Reysele et Litlewud iiij libras et iiijs et de tenentibus ibidem de tallagio x libras. Item Hugo de Thornham clericus eius cepit de eisdem ne eos occasionaret 1 marcam, item de Andreo le plumer, Salomone Atteburn Ricardo le Cruder Roberto de Aula Radulfo de Strathend Jacobo de Halewolding Goldingo Palmario Hamone de Hawe Henrico de Herveford Jacobo de Colweinwod Roberto de Sowinton Thoma Dunstan et Thomas Dunstan extenditoribus instauri de Recluffre summam x equorum et iiij bovum de precio vj libras vjs et viijd dictum precium in denarios recepit et quare non solverunt ad voluntatem suam amerciavit eos in iiij libris et cepit. Item cepit de eisdem ita quod se non intromitterent de venditione aliqua inpreterum v marcas et de tota curia cepit Cs pro eodem. Item escaetor archiepiscopi dimiserunt in manibus prepositi de Reculv’ Ls ad emdendum quoddam molendinum quos denarios Hugo de Thornham clericus excatoris estorsit a manibus dicti prepositi.

Item Johannes Baudifer ballivus dicti exchaitor cepit de Willelmo Milite ut posset dare relevium suum post fratrem suum dimidiam marcam. Item de Milone clerico ut posset ducere croppum suum seminata quo vellet Xs., item de Gervasio le Taillur inponendo sibi falso quod occidit uxorem suam Xs. Item de Petro de la Sole qui portavit securim in manu sua transeundo per mediam domum ubi sedebat dimidiam marcam, item de Johanne Lucas pro ingressu habendo in terra sua 1 marcam, item de Eote Bermund pro eodem dimidiam marcam, item de Luca capellano quod inposuit sibi quod detinuit iniuste servicium suum dimidiam marcam, item de Salomone de campis de Westhalimot quod discessit de Cant’ sine licencia sua in ultimo Itinere justiciarorum viijs, de Heldrido de Gravene pro warda puerorum suorum habenda ij marcas, item de Waltero clerico Andreo le Plummer Ricardo le Cruder ut non inprisonavit falso diffamatos XXXs., item de Daniele mercatore inponendo sibi quod uxor sua occiderit puerum suum xLs., item de Simone Iuven’ ut non distrineret eum pro debito Judaismorum dimidiam marcam, item de Milone clerico pro eodem 1 marcam, item de borgha de Serr inponendo sibi quod recepit quemdam garcionem contra defensionem suum dimidiam marcam, item de Ada de Aula ut dimitteret eum ne esset prepositus xxjs., item de Radulfo Algod pro eodem xs., de Johanne le Marun pro eodem ij marcas, de Gervasio de la Forde pro eodem xxiiijs., de Hamone de Bromfeld pro simili ij marcas, de Jacobo Colewennewod pro simili ij marcas, de Sampsone de Ett ut posset ducere bladum quo vellet xvjs., item de eodem ne inprisonaretur pro eisdem denariis non solutis ad mandatum suum dimidiam marcam, de Stephen Alcorn inponendo sibi falso quod debet fecisse dampnum in bosco de Rihslie xxs., item de Ricardo de Hawe pro concelamento injuste sibi inposito de wrecco maris ij marcas, item de Hamone de Henherst ut non inprisonaretur pro transgressionibus filii sui v marcas et dimidiam, item de Walerano King inponendo sibi injuste quod debuit fecisse dampnum in bosco de Rihsshelie vijs., item de Radulfo de Strethende ne inprisonaretur pro falso crimine sibi inposito iij marcas et dimidiam, item de borgha de Brokesgate quod manucepit Galfridum Holte et non habuit eum coram justiciariis iiij marcas, item de eadem borgha de catallis eius xxvijs et nichilominus respondit eadem borgha de evasione et catallis eius coram justiciariis, item de Waltero preposito falso sibi inponendo de expensis suis factis in Knavingepoll quod noluit eidem allocare xxviijs et viijd, de Elia de Romenal pro ingressu habendo in terram suam in gavelikund xxs., de executoribus Alienore relicte Willelmi de Eneford ne inpediret eos in executione sua xxs., item idem habuit de Petro de Boytun ij boves nomine districcionis precii xvjs numquam eos restituit dicto Petro, item de borghis de Reculver et Brokesgate pro animalibus captis in pastura archiepiscopi tempore aperto ij marcas, item de Waltero Hughelot falso sibi inponendo quod extraxit animalia sua de pastura domini sine licencia dimidam marcam. Item Hugo de Thornham clericus excaitoris cepit de debito domini regis de Willelmo Roper dimidam marcam et eum non aquietavit, item de Elia Koc eodem modo Xs., item de Waltero clerico et Johanne Potin eodem modo dimidiam marcam, item de Sarra de Helesole eodem modo dimidiam marcam, item de Henrico de la Grave inponendo sibi quod furabat stipulas in campo domini quas emit Xs.

 

Back to index

 

The jury say that Bleangate hundred used to be demised at farm with the lathe of St Augustine and Hedeling for £24 from the time of Reginald of Cobham the sheriff.

Then they say that the hundred of Bleangate is in the hand of the lord archbishop of Canterbury, thus one moiety and the other moiety is in the hand of the abbot of St Augustine’s but they do not know from what time or what it is worth.

Then they say that the lord archbishop of Canterbury has the return and extract of writs, pleas of wrongful distraint upon goods, wreck and other liberties which pertain to the crown and the abbot of St Augustine’s Canterbury has a gallows and the assize of bread and ale but from what time or by what warrant they are ignorant.

They say also that the aforesaid archbishop has free chace and warren from ancient times and the abbot of St Augustine’s Canterbury claims to have warren but they do not know by what warrant.

Then they say that Sir William de Braose has hindered the execution of the lord king’s mandates in that he has kept the gates of his park at Trindele [Trenley] closed when he was instructed by the lord king’s justices to keep them open so that people could travel through there.

Then they say that the same Sir William de Braose has enclosed a common way which leads from Canterbury towards Stodm[arsh] in his park of Trendele so that people cannot pass through there. Then since the people of Thanet with a certain knight named Sir Richard de Bickel bought a certain marsh with communal money and had made a [sea?] wall so that they could easily go from Thanet to Canterbury and they have been accustomed to make that journey by the side of the aforesaid wall for 20 years and the abbot of St Augustine’s Canterbury came over the other lands where they had not bought right of way and made a great ditch to drain the marsh between the head of the said wall and the other lands so that the people of Thanet can not travel beyond the metes of their marsh, as they used to do formerly before the road and wall were made there.

Then they say that Sir Henry de Burn, formerly a sheriff, took 5 marks from William de Cruce of Chislet for a felony committed against John de Roffeburn and he took 20s from Robert de Heliere for a felony committed against Giles de Or. Then they say that Robert de Sarsted took 6d. from Adam de Hersing for removing him from juries and half a mark by estimation from many other men for a similar reason. Then they say that Hamo de la Forstall, the bailiff, took 4s. from Augustine de Bradelond in the last eyre of the justices at Canterbury. Then they say that Walter de Berksted took 40s. from Bleangate hundred for the chattels of Andrew of Bleangate, a felon, and he has not acquitted the said hundred versus the lord king because it paid again. Then they say that Henry Malemains and Fulk Peyforer, the collectors of the tax of one-twentieth took from this hundred 50s. by weight more than the assessed amount. Then they say that Master Richard de Clifford, the escheator while he was the custodian of the archbishopric of Canterbury took £4 4s. from the wood of Reysele and Littlewood and £10 from the tenants there as tallage. Then Hugh of Thornham his clerk took 1 mark from the same men so that he should not prosecute them, then he took from Andrew, the plumber, Solomon Atteburn, Richard le Cruder, Robert de Aula, Ralph de Strathend, James de Halewolding, Golding Palmarius, Hamo de Hawe, Henry de Herveford, James de Colweinwod, Robert de Sowinton, Thoma Dunstan and Thomas Dunstan, the valuers of the stock of Reculver a total of 10 horses and 4 oxen, price £6 6s. 8d., he received the said amount in money and because they did not pay this of their own accord he amerced them £4. Then he took 5 marks from the same men because they had not previously taken part in any sale and 100s. from the whole court for the same reason. Then the archbishop’s escheator delivered 50s. into the hands of the reeve of Reculver to repair a certain mill, but this money Hugh of Thornham the escheator’s clerk extorted from said reeve’s hands. Then John Baudifer, the said escheator’s bailiff, took half a mark from William Knight that he might give his relief after his brother. Then 10s. from Miles the clerk that he might carry his sown crop where he might wish, then 10s. from Gervase the tailor accusing him falsely of killing his wife, then half a mark from Peter de la Sole who carried an axe in his hand when walking through the middle of the house where he was sitting, then 1 mark from John Lucas for having entry in his own land, then half a mark from Eota Bermund for the same reason, the half a mark from Luke the chaplain because he accused him falsely of unjustly withholding his service, then 8s. from Solomon of the fields of Westhalimote [Minster in Thanet par., lost] because he departed from Canterbury without his licence at the last eyre of the justices, 2 marks from Heldrid of Graveney for having the wardship of his sons, then 30s. from Walter the clerk, Andrew the plumber, Richard the Cruder that he should not imprison them on false accusation, then 40s. from Daniel the merchant accusing him that his wife killed their son, then half a mark from Simon Iuven’ that he should not distrain him for a debt to the Jews, then 1 mark from Miles the clerk for the same reason, then half a mark from the tithing of Sarre making accusation that a certain youth had been received contrary to his prohibition, then 21s. from Adam Hall so that he would excuse him from being the reeve, then 10s. from Ralph Algod for the same reason, 2 marks from John de Marun for the same reason, 24s. from Gervase de la Forde for the same reason, 2 marks from Hamo of Broomfield for a similar reason, 2 marks from James Colewennewod for a similar reason, 16s. from Sampson de Ett that he can cart corn as he may wish, then half a mark from the same man that he should not be imprisoned as this was not paid at his order, 20s., from Stephen Alcorn accusing him falsely that he caused loss in Rihslie wood, 2 marks from Richard de Hawe, accusing him of unjustly concealing a wreck of sea, then 5½ marks from Hamo de Henherst that he might not be imprisoned for his son’s trespasses, 7s. from Waleran King, unjustly accusing him of causing damage in Rihsshelie wood, then 3½ marks from Ralph de Strethende that he might not be imprisoned for a crime of which he was fasely accused, then 4 marks from the tithing of Brookgate because they bailed Geoffrey Holte and did not bring him before the justices, then 27s. from the same tithing for his chatells and nevertheless the same tithing made response before the justices about the escape and chatells, then 28s. 8d. from Walter the reeve falsely accusing him about his expenses incurred in knavingepoll which he was unwilling to allow him, 20s. from Elias of Romney for having entry into his own land in gavelkind, 20s. from the executors of Eleanor, widow of William of Eynsford that he would not hinder them in their work as executors, then the same man took 2 oxen, price 16s. from Peter Boytun as a distraint, he has never returned them to the said Peter, then 2 marks from the tithings of Reculver and Brookgate for their animals taken upon the archbishop’s pasture at a time it was open, then half a mark from Walter Hughelot, falsely accusing him of driving his animals from the lord’s pasture without licence. Then Hugh of Thornham, the escheator’s clerk, took half a mark from William Roper for a debt to the lord king and he has not acquitted him, then 10s. from Elias Cook in the same way, then half a mark from Walter the clerk and John Potin in the same way, then half a mark from Sarra de Helesole in the same way, then 10s. from Henry de la Grave accusing him of stealing stubble, which he bought, in the lord’s field.

 

Preston

 

Transcription

 

Hundredum de Preston

Jurati dicunt quod dominus rex habet in manu suo manerium de Middelton cum Merdenn. Item dicunt quod Menstre et Salmoneston solebant esse in manu regis antiquo et modo ea tenent abbas et conventus Sancti Augustini Cant’ a quo tempore aut quo warento nesciunt, Item dicunt quod Monekenteton solebat aliquando esse in manu regum antiquorum et prior et conventus ecclesie Christi Cant’ modo tenent a quo tempore aut quo warento nesciunt. Item dicunt quod manerium de Ofspring fuit in manu domini regis Henrici et modo illud tenet domina regina mater domini regis nunc quo warento nesciunt. Item dicunt quod Henricus Malemains dedit pro comitatu Kancie tenentibus Cs. ad dampnum patrie et tradidit lastum Sancti Augustini et Hedeling cum hundredo de Bregg’ et dimidiam hundredi de Estri pro xxxij libris ad dampnum patrie et modo Thomas de Sutheneye ea tenet pro xxxvj libris et antiquitus solebant tradi pro X libris.

Item dicunt quod archiepiscopus Cant’ et abbas de Bello clamant habere returnum brevium et alias libertates regis. Item prior ecclesie Christi Cant’ et abbas Sancti Augustini clamant habere wreccum maris furcas assisam panis et cervisie quo waranto nec a quo tempore nesciunt. Dicunt eciam quod dominus Willelmus de Brewuse et Willelmus de Leyburn’ clamant habere furcas et assisam panis et cervisie et nesciunt quo warento.

Item dicunt quod archiepiscopus Cant’ prior ecclesie Christi et abbas Sancti Augustini Cant’ habent et vendunt maritagia et wardas sokemannorum aliter qua deberent quare in Kancia non est warda

Item dicunt quod iidem archiepiscopus prior et abbas Willelmus de Brewuse et Willelmus de Leyburn habent chacias et warennas quo warento nesciunt. Item dicunt quod idem dominus Willelmus de Brewuse opturat et deforciat quomdam viam communem hominibus pedibus per medium boscum suum.

Item dicunt quod dominus Henricus Malemains vicecomes cepit xLs de Dionisia uxore Rogeri ate Nesse, Johannes Baldefar ballivus de Wingeham sub excaitore et Stephanus de Lynmming custos libertatis sub excaitore cepit de eadem Dionisia Ls que Dionisia fuit indictata et diffamata de morte Rogeri viri sui in hundredo de Wengeham. Item dicunt quod Hamo de la Forstall serviens lasti Sancti Augustini anno regni regis Henrici Lvj et Robertus de Garsted serviens eiusdem lasti post et Thomas de Suthen’ proximo post ipsum ceperunt multociens pro summonitionis assisis redemptione de pluribus hominibus de dicto hundredi, sic dictus Hamo cepit de Paulino de Fonte ijs., de Thomas Belewe vjd., de Roberto de Fonte vjd., de Waltero Lyneth vjd. Item Thomas de Suthen cepit de Johanne de Sewinton xijd, de Godardo et Willelmo de Havekes xvjd.

Item dicunt quod Hamo de la Forstall serviens dicti lasti occasionavit Ricardum Pertriche de hundredo de Preston inponendo ei concelamenti cepit de eo et quodam alio vjs. anno regis Henrici Lvj de Philippo Atteho et Waltero Budde eodem modo eciam xLd. Item Robertus de Sharsted serviens eiusdem lasti anno sequenti cepit de Radulfo de Pire ijs.

Item dicunt quod Henricus Malemains et Fulco Poyforer collectores vicesime ceperunt de isto hundredo ultra certum numerum denariorum xxvjs.

Item dicunt quod Willelmus de Stubbeldun et Willelmus de Kerston distrinxerunt homines de Preston quousque habuerunt xLs quare vj homines summoniti fuerunt per constabularium Dover’ ad castrum de Tunebrigg’

 

Back to index

 

Hundred of Preston

The jury say that the king holds the manor of Middleton with Marden in his own hand. Then they say that Minster and Salmoneston [Margate par.] used to be in in the king’s hands in ancient time and now the abbot and convent of St Augustine Canterbury holds these, they do not know from what time nor by what warrant. Then they say that Monkton at some time used to be in the hand of the ancient kings and the prior and convent of Christchurch Canterbury now hold it, they do not know from what time nor by what warrant. Then they say that the manor of Ospringe was in the lord King Henry’s hand and now the lady queen, the present lord king’s mother, holds it [Eleanor of Provence, married Henry III 1236 d. 1291, mother of Edward I], they do not know by what warrant. Then they say that Henry Malemains gave 100s. to the tenants for the county of Kent with loss to the county and he handed over the lathe of St Augustine and Hedeling with Bridge hundred and half of Eastry hundred for £32 with loss to the country and now Thomas de Sutheneye holds those for £36 and in old times these used to be handed over for £10. Then they say that the archbishop of Canterbury and the abbot of Battle claim to have return of writs and other liberties of the king. Then the prior of Christchurch Canterbury and the abbot of St Augustine’s claim to have wreck, the gallows, the assize of bread and ale, they do not know by what warrant nor from what time. They say also that Sir William de Braose and William de Leyburn claim to have the gallows, and the assize of bread and they do not know by what warrant. Then they say that the archbishop of Canterbury, the prior of Christchurch and the abbot of St Augustine’s Canterbury have and sell marriages and wardships of sokemen other than where they ought, because there is no wardship in Kent. Then they say that the same archbishop, prior and abbot, William de Braose and William de Leyburn have chace and warrens, they do not know by what warrant. Then they say that the same Sir William de Braose obstructs and damages a certain common way through the middle of his wood for men travelling on foot. Then they say that Henry Malemains, the sheriff, took 40s. from Denise, Roger ate Nesse’s wife, John Baldefar the bailiff of Wingham under the escheator, and Stephen of Lyminge, the keeper of the liberty under the escheator, took 50s. from the same Denise who had been indicted and accused in Wingham hundred of her husband Roger’s death. Then they say that Hamo de la Forstall, a serjeant in the 56th year of King Henry’s reign [October 1271-1272] of the lathe of St Augustine and Robert de Garsted, a serving man of the same lathe after him and Thomas de Suth’ the next one after him, took from many men of the said hundred on many occasions for exempting them from summons to the assize; so the said Hamo took 2s. from Paulinus de Fonte, 6d. from Thomas Belewe, 6d. from Robert de Fonte, 6d. from Walter Lyneth. Then Thomas de Suthen’ took 12d. from John de Sewinton, 16d. from Godard and William de Havekes. Then they say that Hamo de la Forstall, a serjeant of the said lathe, arrested Richard Pertriche of Preston hundred, accusing him of a concealment. He took 6s. from him and another man in King Henry’s 56th year, and 40d. from Philip atte Hoo and Walter Budde in the same way. Then Robert de Sharsted, a serjeant of the same lathe, in the following year took 2s. from Ralph de Pire. Then they say that Henry Malemains and Fulk Poyferer, the collectors of the tax of one-twentieth from this hundred took 26s. more than the assessed amount. Then they say that William de Stubbeldun and William de Kerston made distraint upon the men of Preston until they received 40s. because 6 men had been summoned to Tonbridge Castle by the constable of Dover.

 

Preston

 

Transcription

 

Hundredum de Preston Jurati dicunt quod dominus rex habet in manu suo manerium de Middelton cum Merdenn. Item dicunt quod Menstre et Salmoneston solebant esse in manu regis antiquo et modo ea tenent abbas et conventus Sancti Augustini Cant’ a quo tempore aut quo warento nesciunt, Item dicunt quod Monekenteton solebat aliquando esse in manu regum antiquorum et prior et conventus ecclesie Christi Cant’ modo tenent a quo tempore aut quo warento nesciunt. Item dicunt quod manerium de Ofspring fuit in manu domini regis Henrici et modo illud tenet domina regina mater domini regis nunc quo warento nesciunt. Item dicunt quod Henricus Malemains dedit pro comitatu Kancie tenentibus Cs. ad dampnum patrie et tradidit lastum Sancti Augustini et Hedeling cum hundredo de Bregg’ et dimidiam hundredi de Estri pro xxxij libris ad dampnum patrie et modo Thomas de Sutheneye ea tenet pro xxxvj libris et antiquitus solebant tradi pro X libris. Item dicunt quod archiepiscopus Cant’ et abbas de Bello clamant habere returnum brevium et alias libertates regis. Item prior ecclesie Christi Cant’ et abbas Sancti Augustini clamant habere wreccum maris furcas assisam panis et cervisie quo waranto nec a quo tempore nesciunt. Dicunt eciam quod dominus Willelmus de Brewuse et Willelmus de Leyburn’ clamant habere furcas et assisam panis et cervisie et nesciunt quo warento. Item dicunt quod archiepiscopus Cant’ prior ecclesie Christi et abbas Sancti Augustini Cant’ habent et vendunt maritagia et wardas sokemannorum aliter qua deberent quare in Kancia non est warda Item dicunt quod iidem archiepiscopus prior et abbas Willelmus de Brewuse et Willelmus de Leyburn habent chacias et warennas quo warento nesciunt. Item dicunt quod idem dominus Willelmus de Brewuse opturat et deforciat quomdam viam communem hominibus pedibus per medium boscum suum. Item dicunt quod dominus Henricus Malemains vicecomes cepit xLs de Dionisia uxore Rogeri ate Nesse, Johannes Baldefar ballivus de Wingeham sub excaitore et Stephanus de Lynmming custos libertatis sub excaitore cepit de eadem Dionisia Ls que Dionisia fuit indictata et diffamata de morte Rogeri viri sui in hundredo de Wengeham. Item dicunt quod Hamo de la Forstall serviens lasti Sancti Augustini anno regni regis Henrici Lvj et Robertus de Garsted serviens eiusdem lasti post et Thomas de Suthen’ proximo post ipsum ceperunt multociens pro summonitionis assisis redemptione de pluribus hominibus de dicto hundredi, sic dictus Hamo cepit de Paulino de Fonte ijs., de Thomas Belewe vjd., de Roberto de Fonte vjd., de Waltero Lyneth vjd. Item Thomas de Suthen cepit de Johanne de Sewinton xijd, de Godardo et Willelmo de Havekes xvjd. Item dicunt quod Hamo de la Forstall serviens dicti lasti occasionavit Ricardum Pertriche de hundredo de Preston inponendo ei concelamenti cepit de eo et quodam alio vjs. anno regis Henrici Lvj de Philippo Atteho et Waltero Budde eodem modo eciam xLd. Item Robertus de Sharsted serviens eiusdem lasti anno sequenti cepit de Radulfo de Pire ijs. Item dicunt quod Henricus Malemains et Fulco Poyforer collectores vicesime ceperunt de isto hundredo ultra certum numerum denariorum xxvjs. Item dicunt quod Willelmus de Stubbeldun et Willelmus de Kerston distrinxerunt homines de Preston quousque habuerunt xLs quare vj homines summoniti fuerunt per constabularium Dover’ ad castrum de Tunebrigg’ Hundred of Preston The jury say that the king holds the manor of Middleton with Marden in his own hand. Then they say that Minster and Salmoneston [Margate par.] used to be in in the king’s hands in ancient time and now the abbot and convent of St Augustine Canterbury holds these, they do not know from what time nor by what warrant. Then they say that Monkton at some time used to be in the hand of the ancient kings and the prior and convent of Christchurch Canterbury now hold it, they do not know from what time nor by what warrant. Then they say that the manor of Ospringe was in the lord King Henry’s hand and now the lady queen, the present lord king’s mother, holds it [Eleanor of Provence, married Henry III 1236 d. 1291, mother of Edward I], they do not know by what warrant. Then they say that Henry Malemains gave 100s. to the tenants for the county of Kent with loss to the county and he handed over the lathe of St Augustine and Hedeling with Bridge hundred and half of Eastry hundred for £32 with loss to the country and now Thomas de Sutheneye holds those for £36 and in old times these used to be handed over for £10. Then they say that the archbishop of Canterbury and the abbot of Battle claim to have return of writs and other liberties of the king. Then the prior of Christchurch Canterbury and the abbot of St Augustine’s claim to have wreck, the gallows, the assize of bread and ale, they do not know by what warrant nor from what time. They say also that Sir William de Braose and William de Leyburn claim to have the gallows, and the assize of bread and they do not know by what warrant. Then they say that the archbishop of Canterbury, the prior of Christchurch and the abbot of St Augustine’s Canterbury have and sell marriages and wardships of sokemen other than where they ought, because there is no wardship in Kent. Then they say that the same archbishop, prior and abbot, William de Braose and William de Leyburn have chace and warrens, they do not know by what warrant. Then they say that the same Sir William de Braose obstructs and damages a certain common way through the middle of his wood for men travelling on foot. Then they say that Henry Malemains, the sheriff, took 40s. from Denise, Roger ate Nesse’s wife, John Baldefar the bailiff of Wingham under the escheator, and Stephen of Lyminge, the keeper of the liberty under the escheator, took 50s. from the same Denise who had been indicted and accused in Wingham hundred of her husband Roger’s death. Then they say that Hamo de la Forstall, a serjeant in the 56th year of King Henry’s reign [October 1271-1272] of the lathe of St Augustine and Robert de Garsted, a serving man of the same lathe after him and Thomas de Suth’ the next one after him, took from many men of the said hundred on many occasions for exempting them from summons to the assize; so the said Hamo took 2s. from Paulinus de Fonte, 6d. from Thomas Belewe, 6d. from Robert de Fonte, 6d. from Walter Lyneth. Then Thomas de Suthen’ took 12d. from John de Sewinton, 16d. from Godard and William de Havekes. Then they say that Hamo de la Forstall, a serjeant of the said lathe, arrested Richard Pertriche of Preston hundred, accusing him of a concealment. He took 6s. from him and another man in King Henry’s 56th year, and 40d. from Philip atte Hoo and Walter Budde in the same way. Then Robert de Sharsted, a serjeant of the same lathe, in the following year took 2s. from Ralph de Pire. Then they say that Henry Malemains and Fulk Poyferer, the collectors of the tax of one-twentieth from this hundred took 26s. more than the assessed amount. Then they say that William de Stubbeldun and William de Kerston made distraint upon the men of Preston until they received 40s. because 6 men had been summoned to Tonbridge Castle by the constable of Dover. Hundredum de Wytstapel Jurati dicunt quod manerium de Witstapel pertinet ad baroniam de Eyelsham et tenetur in capite de domino rege et valet per annum £2 Item dicunt quod Alexander de Baillol dominus de Culham habet hundredum et warennam de antiquo tempore. Item dicunt quod Henricus Malemains et socii sui collectores vicesime ceperunt ultra certum numerum denariorum de hoc hundredo xiijs et Hamo de la Forstall iniuste vicecomes cepit de quodam Johanne Symon qui fuit socius cuiusdam hominis versus ecclesiam qui interfecit quendam hominem in redeundo de ecclesia postquam idem Johannes aquietatus fuit per patriam 1 marcam. Item idem Hamo cepit de Ricardo le Nute vs inponedo sibi quod fuit in Judaiismo ubi numquam fuit. Idem Hamo cepit de Ricardo de Bulling eodem modo vs, de Joce de la Brok pro simili iijs. Item dicunt quod Ricardus de Shamelford constabularius castri Cant’ cepit injuste et sine causa de Willelmus de Wycheford et Willelmo le Blund Ls inponendo sibi quod insultaverunt Randulfum filium Thome de Estling maliciose et non fecerunt. Item idem Ricardus cepit de Ricardo Elfem xvjs. et de Johanne Bleford quare percussit quamdam mulierem unde pax facta fuit in curia domini cepit injuste iiijs et de Ricardo Elfem ijs. antequam potuit evadere de castello. Item dicunt quod Ricardus de Lindested cepit iniuste quondam equum de Willelmo de la Brok et duxit eum ad castrum Cant’ et antequam potuit equum habere dedit ei vjs. Item dicunt quod Thomas de Sutheneye cepit iniuste de Thoma de Parco pro venditione propriorum bidencium inponendo ei furtum et de Matheo fratre suo dimidiam marcam. Item dicunt quod Hamo de la Forstall cepit de Johanne de Galingeham iiijs inponendo sibi quod fuit fur et fuit fidelis. Item dicunt quod Stephanus de Leming injuste maliciose occasionavit Johannem Belfire et cepit ab eo Xs. Item dicunt quod Willelmus Criel coronator cepit iiijs antequam voluit facere in hoc hundredo officium suum de quodam mortuo. Item dicunt quod Willelmus de Stopindon inposuit iiij hominibus quod fuerunt ad insultum de Tunebrigg’ ad mandatum domini regis et ideo cepit in villa de Witstapel xij marcas. Item dicunt quod Johannes de Toycestr’ distringsit injuste Thomas Legerum et cepit ab eo Xd et Morico filio Radulfi xijd et de Juliana relicta Alexandri xijd pro quadam secta quam Reynerus de Pastevil debebat et non ipsi. Hundred of Whitstable The jury say that the Whitstable manor pertains to the barony of Aylsham and is held of the lord king in chief and it is worth £2 each year. Then they say that Alexander de Baillol, the lord of Culham, holds the hundred and warren from ancient times. Then they say that Henry Malemains and his associates, collectors of the tax of one-twentieth, took 13s. more than the assessed amount from this hundred and Hamo de la Forstall, the sheriff, took 1 mark unjustly from a certain John Symon’ who had accompanied a certain man towards the church and and he killed that man on returning from church, afterwards the same John was acquitted by the jury. Then the same Hamo took 5s. from Richard le Nute accusing him of being in debt to the Jews and he had never been so. The same Hamo took 5s. from Richard de Bulling in the same way and 3s. from Joceus de la Brok for a similar reason. Then they say that Richard de Shamelford, the constable of Canterbury castle, took 50s. unjustly and for no reason from William de Wycheford and William le Blund, accusing them of maliciously assaulting Randulph son of Thomas de Estling and they had not done this. Then the same Richard took 16s. from Richard Elfem and 4s. unjustly from John Bleford because he struck a certain woman, whence settlement had been made in the lord’s court and 2s. from Richard Elfem before he could be released from the castle. Then they say that Richard de Lindested unjustly took a certain horse from William de la Brok and rode it to Canterbury castle and before he was able to have his horse he gave Richard 6s. Then they say that Thomas de Sutheneye took half a mark from Thomas de Parco and Matthew his brother, for the sale of their own sheep, accusing them of theft. Then they say that Hamo de la Forstall took 4s from John Galingeham accusing him of theft and he was innocent. Then they say that Stephen of Lyminge maliciously arrested John Belfer unjustly and took 10s. from him. Then they say that William Criel, the coroner, took 4s. before he was willing to perform the duties of his office in this hundred, concerning a certain dead person. Then they say that William de Stopindon accused 4 men of being present at the siege of Tonbridge at the lord king’s command and he took 12 marks from the vill of Whitstable. Then they say that John of Towcester unjustly made distraint upon Thomas Legerum and took 10d. from him and 12d. from Maurice son of Ralph and 12d. from Juliana relict of Alexander for a certain suit which Reyner de Pastevil owed and which they did not. m.1 dorse Hundredum de Petham. Jurati dicunt quod manerium de Middeltun unacum hundredo de Mardenn tenetur in capite de domino rege per dominum Johannem de Burgo qui nunc tenet ex dimissione domini regis. Item dicunt quod manerium de Ofspring solebat esse in manu domini regis et nunc illud tenet domina regina mater domini regis nunc. Item dicunt quod tenentes de Heghardres et Robertus de Hardres subtraxerunt se de secta hundredi de Brugg’ per Comitem Glovern’ iam per xx annos de dampno nesciunt. Item dicunt quod idem Comes substraxit omnes tenentes de feodo suo in comitatu de sectis et tenet de eisdem visum franciplegium et tenet placitum namio vetito et de sanguine et facit judicium de vita et membris et capit emendas de pane et cervisia et aliis que ad coronam pertinent iam xvj annis elapsis que pertinent ad dominum regem. Item dicunt quod archiepiscopus Cantuar’ habet returnum omnium brevium a tempore regis Henrici patris domini regis nunc set nesciunt quo warrento et tenet placita de namio vetito et habet wreccum maris et alias libertates que ad coronam pertinent et nesciunt quo waranto nisi per libertatem ccclesie Christi Cant’. Item dicunt quod habet liberam chaciam per totum hundredum et warennam excepto tenemento Barrasius de Valoyngnes militis et habuit de antiquo Item dicunt quod Hugo de Thornham clericus Magistri Ricardus de Clifford excaitoris cepit ij marcas de Willelmo Constable et Johannes Parcenario suo heredibus cavel pro hereditate ipsos contingente et saysinam inde habenda. Item dicunt quod cum plures de hundredo summoniti essent ad castrum de Tunebrigg’ obsidendum statim post bellum de Evesham et pace proclamda Gilbertus nunc Comes Glovern’ misit apud Cant’ Willelmum de Gaston et Willelmum et Stupesden et minabantur plures de hundredo ita quod finem fecerunt cum predictis ita quod hundredum de Pecham pacavit ad opus Comitis X marcas. Item dicunt quod Ricardus ate Sole cepit equum Ivonis Fordred injuste et illum duxit ad domum Willelmi de Stupesden et ibidem detentus fuit per vj septimanas quousque finivit pro eo ijs. Item dicunt quod Henricus Malemains et Fulco Poyforer collectores vicesime cepit de hoc hundredo ultra certum numerum denariorum xiiijs pro pondere. Item dicunt quod cum homines hundredi de Pecham summoniti essent apud Wingate precepto domini regis et cum dictus Willelmus de Stupesden serviens Comitis Glovern’ hoc percepisset quod ad summonitionem regis adirent sine precepto suo cepit de Salomone de Stonstret qui ibidem tunc venit xxs. Item dicunt quod Johannes de Toucestr’ familiaris dicti Willelmi cepit averaria dicti Salomonis tempore domini regis nunc in tenemento de Herdres iniuste et ea detinuit contra vadum et plegium quousque pacavit dimidiam marcam. Item dicunt quod cum idem Johannes hospitatus esset ad domum dicti Salomonis crastina die idem Johannes et Hamo de la Forstall servientes domini regis maliciose occasionaverunt dictum Salomonem et extorserunt falso ab eo xvs. Item dicunt quod archiepiscopus Cant’ ( obiit) vendit wardas et maritagia de hiis qui tenerent de eo in gavelikund contra judiciam et statum communitatis licet modo usitatum sit. Item dicunt quod Robertus de Hardres distrinxit Salomonem de Stonstret quod deberet esset eius prepositus et injuste quousque habuit ab eo Xs. Dicunt eciam quod ballivi archiepiscopi capit singulis annis pro puchre proclamanda iniuste xiiijs. Item dicunt quod Hugo de Thornham clericus excaitoris cepit de Rogero Wokkel xxs ad ejiecendum Paulinam de libero tenemento suo. Item dicunt quod Magister Richard de Clifford excaitor qui saysit manerum de Pecham in manu domini regis sede archiepiscopi vacante cepit de tenentibus eiusdem hundredi xLs. Item dicunt quod Hugo de Thornham clericus excaitoris fecit prosternere in Bocholte xxv lingna precii iiij libras xviijs et vj denarios et xj lingnaa precii xxxijs et de subbosco ad valentiam Cs set nesciunt quo tota pecunia devenit. Item dicunt quod idem Magister Ricardus excaitor seysivit totum prioratum in manu domini regis et multa bona inde percepit set per quantum tempus illum tenuit nesciunt. Item dicunt quod idem Magister Ricardus seysivit archiepiscopatum Cant’ in manu domini regis post mortem Bonefacii archiepiscopi et illum tenuit per ij annos et dimidiam Item dicunt quod idem Magister Ricardus seysivit abbathiam Sancti Augustini Cant’ post mortem Rogeri abbatis set per quantum tempus nec quid inde percipit nesciunt.

m.1 dorso Hundred of Petham The jury say that the manor of Middleton together with the hundred of Marden is held of the lord king in chief by Sir John de Burgh who now holds it by the lord king’s demise. Then they say that the manor of Ospringe used to be in the lord king’s hand and now the lady queen, mother of the present king holds that. Then they say that the tenants of High [Upper] Hardres and Robert of Hardres have withdrawn themselves from suit of the hundred of Bridge through the earl of Gloucester, now for 20 years, with what loss they do not know. Then they say that the same earl has withdrawn all the tenants of his fee in the county from suits of court and he holds the view of frankpledge for the same tenants and he holds pleas of withername and bloodshed and he gives judgement on life and limb and he takes the fines of bread and ale and other things which pertain to the crown, for the past 16 years. Then they say that the archbishop of Canterbury has the return of all writs from the time of King Henry, father of the present king, but they do not know by what warrant and he holds pleas of wrongful distraint upon goods and has wreck and other liberties which pertain to the crown and they do not know by what warrant unless through the liberty of Christchurch Canterbury, Then they say that he has free chace throughout the whole hundred and warren except in the tenement of Sir Barrasius de Valoyngnes, knight, and he has held this from ancient times. Then they say that Hugh de Thornham, clerk of Master Richard de Clifford the escheator, took 3 marks from William Constable and John his co-tenant as heirs by lot [gavelkind?], concerning their hereditary right and then their having seisin. Then they say that many men of the hundred were summoned to the siege of Tonbridge castle immediately after the battle of Evesham [1265] and peace having been proclaimed Gilbert, the present Earl of Gloucester sent William de Gaston and William de Stupesdon to Canterbury and they threatened many men of the hundred so that they made a fine with the aforesaid men, of which the hundred of Petham paid 10 marks for the Earl’s use. Then they say that Richard ate Sole unjustly took Ivo Fordred’s horse and rode it to William de Stopesden’s house and it was kept there for 6 weeks until he paid a fine of 2s. for it. Then they say that Henry Malemains and Fulk Poyforer, the collectors of the tax of one-twentieth took 14s. by weight from this hundred more than the assessed amount. Then they say that as the men of Petham hundred had been summoned to Wingate at the lord king’s command and when the said William de Stupesden, a serjeant of the earl of Gloucester learnt this that they had gone at the king’s summons without his order he took 20s. from Solomon de Stonstret who then came there. Then they say that John of Towcester, a military follower of the said William, unjustly took the said Solomon’s draught animals in Hardres tenement in the present lord king’s time and kept those contrary to his surety and pledge until he paid half a mark. Then they say that when the same John had been a guest at the said Solomon’s house, on the day after the same John and Hamo de la Forstall, the lord king’s serjeant, maliciously arrested the said Solomon and falsely extorted 15s from him. Then they say that the archbishop of Canterbury (he has died) sells wardships and marriages for those who may hold from him in gavelkind contrary to justice and the custom of the community and the way it is lawfully observed. Then they say that Robert of Hardres made distraint upon Solomon de Stonstret because he ought to have been reeve and he had 10s. from him unjustly. They say also that the archbishop’s bailiffs every year take 14s. unjustly for emending faulty pleas. Then they say that Hugh de Thornham, the escheator’s clerk, took from Roger Wokkel 20s. to eject Paulina from her free tenement. Then they say that Master Richard de Clifford, escheator, who took Petham manor in the lord king’s hand when the see of the archbishopric was vacant [after the death of Archbishop Boniface of Savoy 1270 and before the election of Robert de Kilwardby 1272] took 40s. from the tenants of the same hundred. Then they say that Hugh de Thornham, the escheator’s clerk, has caused 25 trees, price £4 18s. 6d., to be felled in Bocholte, 11 trees price 32s. and underwood valued at 100s., but they do not know what is the total sum of money lost. Then they say that the same Master Richard, the escheator, took the whole priory into the lord king’s hand and took many goods there but they do not know for what length of time he held those. Then they say that the same took the archbishopric of Canterbury into the king’s hands after the death of archbishop Boniface and held it for 2½ years. Then they say that the same Master Richard took the abbey of St Augustine’s Canterbury after abbot Roger’s death [Roger de Cicestre 1253-1273, succeeded by Nicholas de Spina 1273-1283] but they do not know for what length of time nor what he took from it. Hundredum de Bregg’ Jurati dicunt quod hundredum de Bregg’ est in manu domini regis et reddunt domino rege per annum xxs et de turno vicecomitis ij marcas. Item dicunt quod Willelmus de Leynburn tenet unum feodum de domino rege in capite in Burn. Item dicunt quod Comes Glovern’ appropriavit sibi borgham de Heghardres que est quarta pars hundredi per xx annos elapsos ad dampnum regis et communem per annum de iiijs et nesciunt quo warento. Item dicunt quod prior de Mertone clamat habere assisam panis et cervisie et habet in villa de Petrichesburn in hundredo de Bregg’ et nesciunt quo warento. Item dicunt quod dominus Willelmus de Say habet warennam per omnia dominica sua et clamat habere et nesciunt quo warento. Robertus de Hardres clamat habere warrenam per omnia dominica sua et habuit xv annis elapsis et omnes tenentes sui et nesciunt quo warento. Item dicunt quod Henricus de Burn vicecomes attachiavit Andream clericum pro quodam equo et equum retinuit et Andream sine plegium dimisit. Item dicunt quod Henricus Malemains vicecomes attachiavit Willelmum de Thaldann injuste et ipsum inprisonavit quousque pacavit ei xxs. Item dicunt quod Johannes de Braburn ballivus hundredi de Bregg’ attachavit Gunnoram de Hardres iniuste et eam inprisonavit quousque pacavit ei ad valenciam xxxs. Item Hamo de la Forstall attachiavit Guidonem de Brokkeshol iniuste pro quodam angno [sic] et ipsum tenuit in prisona quousque habuit ab eo xs. Item attachiavit quendam Carolum de Pette inponendo sibi falso crimen furti et inprisonavit eum quousque habuit ab eo xxs. Item idem attachiavit uxorem Johannis de Bosco inponendo sibi falso feloniam et ipsam tenuit in prisona quousque habuit ab ea 1 vaccam et 1 porcum precii xs. Item dicunt quod Thomas de Sutheneye nunc ballivus hundredi de Bregg’ attachiavit Thomam le Brok pro felonia et ipsum sine plegium dimisit pro Xs. Item idem attachiavit Walterum de Marais Jordanum de Rede propter furtum et cepit ab eis dimidam marcam et dimisit ipsos quietos. Item Thomas de Leht’ serviens dicti Thome de Suthen’ attachiavit eosdem iterato pro felonia et cepit ab eis vjs et dimisit eos quietos. Item Thomas de Leht’ attachiavit quamdam mulierem in villa de Bregg’ inponendo sibi crimen furti et cepit ab ea xijd et eam dismisit. Item dicunt quod Johannes de Bradeburn ballivus hundredi de Bregg’ cepit 1 marcam pro recognitione removendi de assisis et juratis. Item Willelmus de la Dan’ de Taneto ballivus dicti hundredi pro simili cepit de eodem hundredo dimidiam marcam. Item Philipus de Delham baillivus dicti hundredi cepit de eodem hundredo pro simili 1 marcam. Item Hamo de la Forstall ballivus dicti hundredi cepit pro simili de eodem hundredo xxs. Item dicunt quod Willelmus de Stupindon cepit de hundredo de Bregg’ quare fuerunt ad insultum de Tunebrigg’per preceptum domini regis xLs. Item dicunt quod Reginaldus de Cobeham tradidit Johanni de Bradeburn’ hundredum de Bregg’ ad firmam capiendo 1 marcam plus solito. Item Willelmus de la Dane cepit dictum hundredum ad firmam de domino Johanne de Cobeham eadem firma. Item dominus Henricus de Burn tradidit dictum hundredum Hamoni de la Forstall augmentando firmam de xxs. Item dominus Stephanus de Pencestre tradidit idem hundredum Matheo de Kyngessuod’ de crescendo firmam de dimidia marca. Item dominus Henricus Malemains tradidit dictum hundredum contra adventum justiciarorum Hamoni de la Forstall augmentando firmam de 1 marca. Item Hamo de la Forstall ballivus dicti hundredi per potestatem officii sui extorsit de Roberto de la Dane v perticatas terre cum croppo precii iiijs sine judicio. Henricus Malemains et Fulco Poyforer collectores vicesime ceperunt de hoc hundredo ultra certum numerum denariorum Xs. Item dicunt quod Hamo de la Forstall cepit pro summonitione scaccarii ut dixit set falso de Willelmo Aunsel dimidiam marcam. Item dicunt quod dominus Henricus Malemains vicecomes Kancie cepit xxs de villatis de Bregg’ Blakemannesber’ et Netherhardr’ ut dictas villatas aquietavit de Cs. de summonitione scaccarii et non fecit Item Hamo de la Forstall ballivus hundredi de Bregg’ cepit xijd de Roberto de Woltun pro remittendo hundredo de debito domini regis et et Thomas de Leht’ cepit xijd de eodem pro simili et de Roberto Flagellatore pro eodem cepit viijs. Item dictus Hamo de la Forstall cepit de Roberto Barry xLd ut acquietet eum de debito regis et non fecit. Item dicunt quod Willelmus filius Hamonis de Forstall summonuit apud Greenewich Willelmum de White, Johannem Gervais et alios contra formam brevis domini regis. Item dicunt quod Hamo de la Forstall baillivus hundredi de Bregg’ noluit facere inquisicionem de quodam mortuo murdrato in borgha de Patrichesburn’ in predicto hundredo antequam habuit de borgha Xs. Item idem Hamo attachiavit felonem dicti murdri et noluit tenere hundredum ad deliberandum dictum felonem antequam habuit de borgha de Lungesburn iijs. Hundred of Bridge The jury say that the hundred of Bridge is in the lord king’s hand and pays a rent of 20s. each year to the lord king and 2 marks for the sheriff’s tourn. Then they say that William de Leyburn holds one fee in [Patrix?]Bourne of the lord king in chief. Then they say that the earl of Gloucester has 20 years ago appropriated the tithing of High [Upper] Hardres for himself which is a fourth part of the hundred, with loss to the king and commonalty of 4s. each year and they do not know by what warrant. Then they say that the prior of Merton claims to have the assize of bread and ale and he has this in the town of Patrixbourne in Bridge hundred and they do not know by what warrant. Then they say that Sir William de Say has warren throughout his whole demesne and claims to have this and they do not know by what warrant. Robert de Hardres claims to have warren throughout his whole demesne and he and all his tenants have had this for 15 years and they do not know by what warrant. Then they say that Henry de Burn, the sheriff, arrested Andrew, the clerk, for a certain horse and he kept the horse and dismissed Andrew without a pledge. Then they say that Henry Malemains, the sheriff, unjustly arrested William de Thaldann and imprisoned him until he paid him 20s. Then they say that John de Braburn, the bailiff of Bridge hundred unjustly arrested Gunnora de Hardres and imprisoned her until she paid him the sum of 30s. Then Hamo de la Forstall unjustly arrested Guy de Brokkeshol regarding a certain lamb and held him in prison until he received 10s. from him. Then he arrested a certain Charles de Pette falsely accusing him of a crime of theft and imprisoned him until he received 20s. from him. Then the same man arrested John de Bosco’s wife falsely accusing her of a felony and he held her in prison until he received 1 cow and 1 pig, price 10s. from her. Then they say that Thomas de Sutheneye now the bailiff of Bridge hundred arrested Thomas le Brok for a felony and released him for 10s. without a pledge. Then the same man arrested Walter de Marais, Jordan de Rede for theft and took half a mark from them and released them as acquitted. Then Thomas de Leht’ the said Thomas de Suthen’s serjeant, arrested the same men again for felony and took 6s. from them and released them as acquitted. Then Thomas de Leht’ arrested a certain woman in Bridge vill accusing her of the crime of theft and he took 12d. from her and released her. Then they say that John de Bradeburn, bailiff of Bridge hundred, took 1 mark for recognition of removal from assizes and juries. Then William de la Dane of Thanet, bailiff of the said hundred, took half a mark from the same hundred for a similar reason. Then Philip de Delham, bailiff of the said hundred, took 1 mark from the same hundred for a similar reason. Then Hamo de la Forstall, bailiff of the said hundred, took 20s. from the same hundred for the same reason. Then they say that William de Stupindon took 40s. from Bridge hundred because the men had been at the assault upon Tonbridge by the lord king’s command. Then they say that Reginald of Cobham demised Bridge hundred to John de Bradeburn’ at farm by taking 1 mark more than customary. Then William de la Dane took the said hundred at farm from the lord John of Cobham, at the same farm. Then Sir Henry de Burn demised the said hundred to Hamo de la Forstall by increasing the farm by 20s. Then Sir Stephen of Pencestre demised the same hundred to Matthew of Kingswood by increasing the farm by half a mark. Then Sir Henry Malemains demised the said hundred to Hamo de la Forstall against the arrival of the justices, increasing the farm by 1 mark. Then Hamo de la Forstall, bailiff of the said hundred, extorted from Robert de la Dane 5 perches of land with crops, price 4s. by the authority of his office without any judgment. Henry Malemains and Fulk Poyforer, the collectors of the tax of one-twentieth took 10s. more than the assessed amount from this hundred. Then they say that Hamo de la Forstall took half a mark from William Aunsel for summons of the Exchequer, as he said, but falsely. Then they say that Sir Henry Malemains, sheriff of Kent, took 20s. from the townships of Bridge, Blackmansbury [Bridge par.] and Nether [Lower] Hardres so that he would acquit the said townships of 100s. for summons of the Exchequer, and he has not done so. Then Hamo de la Forstall, bailiff of Bridge hundred, took 12d. from Robert de Woltun for remitting the hundred of a debt to the lord king and Thomas de Leht’ took 12d. from the same man for a similar purpose and 8s. from Robert Flagellator for the same purpose. Then the said Hamo de la Forstall took 40d. from Robert Barry that he might acquit him of the king’s debt and he has not done so. Then they say that William, Hamo de la Forstall’s son summoned William de White, John Gervais and other men at Greenwich, contrary to the form of the lord king’s writ. Then they say that Hamo de la Forstall, bailiff of Bridge hundred, was unwilling to hold an inquest upon a certain dead person, murdered in Patrixbourne tithing in the aforesaid hundred before he received 10s. from the tithing. Then the same Hamo arrested a felon for the said murder and was unwilling to compel the hundred to deliver the said felon before he had 3s. from the tithing of Lungesburn. Hundredum de Kynghamford Jurati dicunt quod manerium de Middeltun cum hundredum de Merdenn est in manu domini regis et valet per annum CC libras. Item dicunt quod manerium de Kyngeston tenetur in capite de domino rege et dominus Alexander de Baillol per Isabellam uxorem suam illud tenet et valet per annum X libras. Item manerium de Elham tenetur in capite de domino rege et fuit excaeta Normannorum et dominus Henricus rex dictum manerium dedit domino Edmundo filio suo et idem concessit illud domino Rogero de Leiburn et modo illud tenet Willelmus de Leiburn filius eius et nesciunt quo warento. Item dicunt quod quod arciepiscopus Cant’ habet duas partes hundredi de Kynhamford per libertatem ecclesie Christi Cant’ et Alexander de Baillol habet terciam partem et valet per annum iiijs et nesciunt quo warento. Item dicunt quod idem archiepiscopus habet et habere clamat omnes libertates regias per terras suas, Et dominus de Kyngeston habet assisam panis et cervisie et wreccum maris ab antiquo set nesciunt quo warento. Item dicunt quod Hamo de la Forstall ballivus regis cepit de Roberto de Yling ut amoveretur de assisis et juratis apud Grenewich viijd, de Simone le Mercer pro simili vjd., de Elia Wyberd pro simili vjd. Item Thomas de Leht’ serviens Thome de Suthen cepit de Willelmo Warderob’ pro simili xvd, de Alano Gile pro simili xijd. Item dicunt quod Hamo de la Forstall cepit de Gregorio filio Thome de Denne dimidiam marcam inponendo sibi falso homicidium et de Ada filio Roberti de Donne pro simili dimidiam marcam, de Roberto de Yling ijs inponendo sibi falso quod fuit socius cuiusdam homicide. Item idem Hamo et dominus Henricus Malemains cepit de Roberto de Stochman pro diffamacione homicidii xxs. Item dicunt quod Henricus Malemains et Fulco Poyforer collectores vicesime cepit xviijs et vjd pro pondere ultra verum numerum denariorum Item dicunt quod Magister Hugo de Thornham clericus excaitoris et Stephanus de Lymming cepit Xs. et viijd anno regis Lv antequam voluerunt tenere curiam ad judicandum quondam felonem de borgha de Chelwing’ et Birt.’ Item dicunt quod Magister Ricardus de Clifford qui cepit seysinam manerii de Bisshopesbur’ cepit de tenentibus eiusdem manerii catallagium xLs et Magister Hugo de Thornham clericus eius pro simili xxiiijs et iiijd. Item idem Hugo cepit de eisdem de summonitione scaccarii ut dixit set falso ut credunt v marcas et dimidiam. Item idem Magister Hugo et Stephanus de Lymming cepit de Johanne de Chelwing ut non esset prepositus xxs., de Eustachio de la Brome pro simili Xs., de Johanne le Mei pro simili dimidam marcam de Willelmo Cleribaud pro simili iiijs. Item dicunt quod Magister Ricardus de Clifford excaitor fecit prosternere et vendere in bosco manerii Lj quercus precii Lxvs. et amplius et denarios inde recepit. Hundred of Kinghamford The jury say that the manor of Middleton with the hundred of Marden is in the lord king’s hand and it is worth £200 each year. Then they say that the manor of Kingston is held of the lord king in chief and the lord Alexander de Baillol holds that through his wife Isabel and it is worth £10 each year. Then the manor of Elham is held of the lord king in chief and it was an escheat of the Normans and the lord king Henry gave the said manor to his son Edmund [Edmund ‘Crouchback’ fourth child of Henry III, born 1245, d. 1296] and the same man granted that to Sir Roger de Leyburn and now his son William de Leiburn holds it and they do not know by what warrant. Then they say that the archbishop of Canterbury has two parts of Kinghamford hundred through the liberty of Christchurch Canterbury and Alexander de Baillol has the third part and it is worth 4s. each year and they do not know by what warrant. Then they say that the archbishop has and claims to have all royal liberties throughout his lands. And the lord of Kingston has the assize of bread and ale and wreck from ancient times, but they do not know by what warrant. Then they say that Hamo de la Forstall, the kings’s bailiff, took 8d. from Robert de Yling so that he might be removed from the assizes and juries at Greenwich, 6d. from Simon the mercer for a similar reason, 6d. from Elias Wyberd for a similar reason. Then Thomas de Leht’ a serjeant of Thomas de Suthen’ took 15d. from William Warderob for a similar reason, 12d. from Alan Gile for a similar reason. Then they say that Hamo de la Forstall took half a mark from Gregory son of Thomas de Denne, accusing him falsely of homicide and half a mark from Adam son of Robert de Donne for a similar offence, from Robert de Yling 2s. falsely accusing him that he had been an associate of a certain murderer. Then the same Hamo and Henry Malemains took 20s. from Robert de Stochman for an accusation of homicide. Then they say that Henry Malemains and Fulk Poyforer, the collectors of the tax of one-twentieth took 18s. 6d. by weight more that the assessed amount. Then they say that Master Hugh de Thornham, the escheator’s clerk, and Stephen of Lyminge took 10s. 8d. in the 55th year of the king’s reign [October 1270- 1271] before he was willing to hold a court to judge a certain felon in the tithings of Chelwing and Birt. Then they say that Master Richard de Clifford who took seisin of the manor of Bishopsbourne took 40s. poll-tax from the tenants of the same manor and Master Hugh de Thornham, his clerk, 24s. 4d. for a similar purpose. Then the same Hugh took 5½ marks from the same tenants for summons of the Exchequer, as he said but falsely as they believe. Then the same Master Hugh and Stephen of Lyminge took 20s. from John de Chelwing that he had not been reeve, 10s. from Eustace de la Brome for a similar reason, half a mark from John le Mei for a similar reason, 4s. from William Cleribaund for a similar reason. Then they say that Master Richard de Clifford, the escheator, had 61 oak trees, price 65s. and more cut down and sold in the wood of the manor, and he has received the money for it.