THE HUNDRED OF LIFTON IN THE TIME OF

TESTA DE NEVIL, A.D. 1243.

BY OSWALD J. REICHEL, B.C.L. AND M.A.; F.S.A.

(Read at Tavistock, 22nd July, 1914.)

Preliminary.

AT the Kingsbridge meeting of the Association in 1897 the late Mr. Whale gave a summary of the contents of the volume known as Testa de Nevil, relating to Devon (Trans. xxix. 218), and in the following year at Honiton an analysis of those parts of it (Nos. 1 to 23) which are ordinarily referred to the year 1241 (Trans. xxx. 203). At Princetown in 1905 dates were assigned to all the earlier sections (Trans. xxxvii. 410), which Dr. Round criticised in the following year (Trans. xxxviii. 313), giving adequate reasons for substituting 1212 for 1216 as the date of the earliest section, part 33. The date of parts 1 to 23 was not dealt with in that paper, Sir William Pole's date, 27 Hen. III., being accepted as sufficiently accurate.

Although the returns of the 6 hundreds-Lifton, Witheridge, Budleigh, Stanborough, Haytor, and Ermington (parts 27 to 32)-date from very nearly the same time as the honour lists (parts 1 to 23), yet, as in one or two cases, "the heirs are mentioned in the hundred lists where the knight himself is mentioned in the honour lists, it is only a reasonable inference that the hundred lists are a year or two later than the honour lists. That both lists must have been compiled between the years 1240 and 1244 is sufficiently proved from the following considerations.

It is stated in the honour lists that William de la Londe held the honour of Braneys as bailiff for the King (Testa, 778, p. 1826). But William de la Londe held it in succession to Henry de Trubevil. Henry de Trubevil was,

however, in possession on 19 September, 1239; for on that day he obtained a weekly market for Bradninch (Charter Rolls, p. 246); he died soon afterwards and his widow was in possession of one-third of the manor of Bradninch and of the homages thereto belonging at the time of her death on 16 October, 1244 (Trans. xlii. 242). William de la Londe must therefore have come into possession after 19 September, 1239. William died without issue, as we learn from the Hundred Rolls (3 Ed. I. No. 7, p. 65), and his death must have occurred before 11 November, 1244, because on that day the King gave the honour of Braneys to his brother, Richard, Earl of Cornwall (Charter Rolls, p. 281). Both honour and hundred lists must therefore date from a time between 19 September, 1239, and 11 November, 1244.

The same conclusion is arrived at from the statement in the honour list that William Caperon [Champernon ?] held the honour of Berry on behalf of Henry de la Pomeray who was then under age (Testa, 730, p. 182a). For Henry's father died in 1240 and Henry came of age in 1244 (A.-D. Inq. 38 Hen. III. No. 9, p. 12). The lists must therefore have been drawn up between those two dates. If the hundred lists are a year or two later than the honour lists we cannot be far wrong in dating the honour lists in 1241 and the hundred lists in 1243.

One other remark. In a paper read at Exeter in 1912 (Trans. xliv. 312) attention was drawn to the fact that when prior to the statute of Quia Emptores, 18 Ed. I. in 1290 a number of persons are described as holding the same estate a clue is thereby afforded as to the hands through which the estate had previously passed. The actual tenant in possession, the tenant paravail or terre tenant, is said to hold the manor or the land, but the tenant who has parted with the possession, in whom or in whose heir-at-law the property is still supposed to vest, is said to hold the fee. by ignoring this fact.

Many mistakes have been made If, moreover, before the year 1290 the manor, say, of A, fell between coheiresses and the

1 The late Mr. Whale in Trans. xxvii. 149, for instance, stated that John de Mohun held a fee in Bratton as though it were a separate estate from the fee in Bratton held by Dyaudone and others. Mohun held the fee of Bratton as middle-lord. He also suggested that when Hugh de Courtney is said to hold Wyke Langford in baronia, in baronia was an error for cum bertona; whereas it means that he was the baron or overlord holding the fee in chief of the King.

coheiresses divided the lands among them, each of them is often described as holding the manor of A, although each only held a portion of one and the same manor.

Coming now to the return of the hundred jury on p. 188a of Testa de Nevil, this runs as follows:

Inquiry as to the fees and holdings in the Hundred of Laston [Lifton] made by the oath of William Trenchard [of Lew Trenchard], William de Hiwis [of Stowford], Roger de Parco [one of Valletort's tenants; Testa, 1516, p. 1986, and probably steward of the Hospitallers in Moor; Feud. Aids, 366], Geoffrey de Curiton [of Coryton], Robert de Bikketoth [of Tolleslow and Bickecot], Ricard de veteri Ponte [of Bradwood Wiger], Reginald de Cumb [of Combe and Guscot an outlier of Bratton Clovelly], Roger de Direhill [of Willsworthy, Stanon and Beardon], Augustin de Dunterton, William Pe de Leure [Pied de lièvre, Harefoot or Pedlar of Kempthorn], Peter de Bovy [

and Richard Bareth [

who say:

],

[1041] William Piparth holds in Kari (DOWNACARY in Bradwood Wiger] fee of William de Cantilupe of the honour of Totton (Testa, 871, p. 183b).

66

Kari (W. 538, p. 571; Vict. Hist. 467b) had belonged to Chenestan before the Conquest. In 1086 it was held by Waldin of Juel. Waldin held 2 other estates of Juhel, viz. Memland in Holbeton (Vict. Hist. 474b) and the 2 Langdons in Wembury (ibid., 477). Otherwise his name does not occur in Devonshire. Possibly Downacary with other estates may have formed part of the 5 fees which Hugh de Carevill held in 1166 of the tenement of Totnes (Black Book, 125), and certainly they were part of the 5 fees held by the Pypards in 1205, the services of which, at the division of the tenement on 5 June, 1205, were awarded to William de Braose (Devon Fine, No. 56).2 In 1241 William Pipard was in possession of [Downa] Cary fee (Testa, 871, p. 1836), in 1285 John Pipard who held it for fee of the heirs of Thomas Pipard (Feud. Aids, 321). In 1303 John Pipard and John Benstede held 1 fee in Cary, Tolleslow, and Backot (ibid., 355), and in 1346

2 In 1286 (A.-D. Ing., 14 Ed. I. p. 26) Thomas Pipard died seised of following fees North Bovey, South Pool, Calstone, Memland, Bagton in South Milton, Upton in Stanborough Hundred, Tetcot. Cary, Washburn Durant, Larkbear and Charlton. See Trans. xliii. 213, n. 53.

William Pypard held the same fee in succession to John (ibid., 405), but for fee. In 1428 the Earl of Warwick held fee in Cary, Polssho (Tolleslow), Dilecote (Bickecote), and Thorn (ibid., 493), and John Donworthy and Walter Byccote held fee in the same places in succession to William Pypard (ibid., 449).

[1042-3] Richard de Kary and Robert de Bikketoth hold in Tullesle [TOLLESLOW in Virginstow] and in Bikketoth [BACKCOT or Becket in Bradwood Wiger] 1 fee of Gilbert son of Stephen and he of William de Cantilupe of the same honour (Totton).

Tornelowa (W. 543, p. 574; Vict. Hist., 468) and its appurtenant estates of Backcot and Thorn, which before the Conquest had been Sawin's, was one of a group which Nigel held in 1086 of Juhel of Totnes. The group included Bradwood Wiger, Raddon in Maristow, Moor in Bradwood, Bradford in Virginstow, Mary Tavy, South Sydenham, and Homeavy. In 1031 we hear of Guy de Nonant who then held the honour of Totnes accounting for £10 "to avoid litigation (ne placitet) respecting land which Johel son of Nigel claimed against him" (Pipe Rolls, 31 Hen. I.). Some of these estates appear afterwards as fees held by Richard de veteri ponte; others, after being in the King's hands as escheats in 1194 (Pipe Rolls, 6 Ric. I.), are found among Gilbert son of Stephen's fees. This looks as though Nigel's son Johel had had only daughters coheiresses, one of whom had forfeited her share for some misdeed, which had then been given to Gilbert son of Stephen, or to his father William, and were held of him by the several tenants named in 1243. Tolleslow and Becket subsequently descended along with Downacary.

p. 188a.

[1044] Richard de Langeford holds fee in Wyk [WEEK LANGFORD in Germansweek] of John de Curtenay of the honour of Okemeton.

This is Wica (No. 361, p. 387; Vict. Hist. 447) which Ednod held before the Conquest and in 1086 Rainer Baldwin's house steward held of Baldwin. This and the other estates which Rainer held in 1086 are all found held in 1166 by Roger de Langford, and make up the 4 fees which Roger then held of Robert the King's son of the honour of Okehamton (Black Book, 119). The 4 fees consisted of

Week Langford, Kigbear and Croft in Okehamton, Greenslade in North Tawton, Payhembury, Langford in Collumton, Marsh and Upcot in Rockbear together with Dotton in Colaton Raleigh 1, and Town barton in Tedburn (A.-D. Ing. 1 Ric. II. No. 12). In 1241 Richard de Langford held fee in Wyk (Langford, Testa, 499, p. 1796). This he demised to John de Weston, who on 8 July, 1270, gave it to the prior of Frithelstock (Devon Fine, No. 674). In 1285 the prior held Wyk Langford of Roger de Langford for fee and Roger held the same of Hugh de Curtenay (Feud. Aids, 320). The prior was the holder in 1303 (ibid., 355) and continued to be the holder until the dissolution, when it was valued at £9 16/- (Oliver, Mon. 223). Germansweek derives its name from the church dedicated to St. German, a daughter church of Bradwood Wiger.

[1045] The heirs of Henry le Deneis hold fee in Sudwyk [SOUTH WEEK in Germansweek] of Henry de la Pomeraye of the honour of Bery.

Wyca (W. 641, p. 911; Vict. Hist. 479) was held in King Edward's time by Alward, after whom it was first called Alardeswik or Alwardswick (Devon Fine, 8, 27), subsequently South Wick. In 1086 Henry de la Pomeray held but soon parted with it as also with Pancras week, then called Dunsdon, to Deneys, and in 1166 it formed part of the 2 fees which Joslen Dacus or le Deneys held of Henry de Pomeria (Black Book, 129). In 1241 the heirs of Henry le Denys held 1 fee in Pancrasweek and fee in Suthwik of the honour of Berry of which honour William Caperon was then guardian on behalf of Henry de la Pomeray, under age (Testa, 752, p. 182a and 759, p. 182b). In 1285 Robert le Deneys held fee in Suthwik of the heirs of Patrick de Chauworth, and the same heirs held it of the heirs of Henry de Pomeray (Feud. Aids, 321). The interposition of Chaworth as middle-lord is accounted for by Chaworth's being one of the heirs of William Briewere, to whom the. fee of Alardeswike or Southweek had been sold by Henry de la Pomeray, son of Matilda, on 26 April, 1198 (Devon Fine, No. 8). On 27 October, 1289, Robert le Deneys sold South Week to Sapiencia de Sideham in consideration of an annuity of 100 shillings to himself (ibid., No. 845). In 1303 Martin de Kelly, a younger son of Richard Kelly of Kelly and Dionisia his wife (Pole, 343),