No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
Ranulf De Glanvill in Yorkshire*
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 16 January 2009
Extract
Glanvill, as we have seen, held office as sheriff of Yorkshire during the two periods 1163–1169 and 1175–1189. Throughout both periods it is he who, according to the Pipe Rolls, renders the account of that sheriffwick. During the second of these periods, however, there is reason to believe that he did no such thing. In the year 1177, the Pipe Rolls say outright, with respect to another county, that he accounts by the verumdictum of “Reiner his steward” in respect of the past three years; and although they do not speak of Reiner, or indeed of any other, as his deputy when accounts are rendered for Yorkshire, there is little doubt that Glanvill employed Reiner to act for him as sheriff in that county also. Indeed, Glanvill as sheriff of Yorkshire could hardly appear otherwise than by deputy when presenting his accounts at the exchequer where Glanvill the Justiciar presides.
- Type
- Articles
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © Cambridge Law Journal and Contributors 1958
References
1 [1957] Camb. L.J. 163–164.
2 26 P.R.S. 123 (s.t. Farm of Westmorland). Thereafter Glanvill held the Farm of Westmorland beneficially, see [1957] Camb.L.J. 165, n. 13. See Morris, W. A., Medieval Sheriff, 179–180,Google Scholar for the hereditary shrievalty of Westmorland in the 13th century.
3 As regards the problem of exchequer control when high curial officials served as sheriffs and perhaps also as itinerant justices in their own counties, see Morris, , op.cit., 104, 114.Google Scholar As regards stewards, and their personal liability when accounting on their lords' behalf at the exchequer, see H. G. Richardson in 21 N.S., p. xciv. For Reiner as deputy, see ibid., p. xciii, and J. H. Round in 34 P.R.S., p. xxxii.
4 e.g., 26 P.R.S. 123. The same year (1177) he is described in a Yorkshire entry as one of Glanvill's servants or serjeants: ibid. 81.
5 4 E.Y.C., pp. xxxi, 128. Glanvill gave him the manor of Upton (Norfolk): see Farrer, , Honors and Knights' Fees, iii, 435.Google Scholar
6 See 2 E.Y.C. 336 (no. 1010) for the charter which granted him this toft. The date assigned to it is circa 1180–1196. When in Glanvill's company or when acting as his deputy, he presumably enjoyed official perquisites of hospitality (post, p. 188).
7 e.g., 2 E.Y.C. no. 986; 3 E.Y.C. nos. 1412, 1620, 1744 (here another witness is “Master Peter, brother of the sheriff”); 4 E.Y.C. p. 128 (here he ranks next after the King's justices in the list of witnesses and is “sheriff”); 5 E.Y.C. nos. 148, 224. Cf. 1 E.Y.C. no. 610, and 5 E.Y.C. no. 216, where he is simply “steward of Ranulf de Glanvill.” The approximate dates assigned to these charters range from 1175 to 1189.
8 e.g., 3 E.Y.C. no. 1837; 5 E.Y.C. nos. 263, 335. Here the approximate dates range from 1184 to 1189. See also footnote 48, post.
9 3 E.Y.C. no. 1779.
10 The first entry of this in the Pipe Rolls is 16 P.R.S. 117; the last is 32 P.R.S. 56–58.
11 16 P.R.S. 117: “Randulf de Glanvill concerning the issues (de exitu) of the honour of earl Conan by verum dictum of Reiner his servant. … In the treasury £62. 4. 5; but he has not rendered account.” See also Red Book, p. 50, where, in that year, Glanvil does not render account (of its scutages, semble) “because he cannot yet know the number of Knights of the same honour.” In 1177, Glanvill's accounts for the honour include moneys for cattle, etc., and corn de prisa servientum suorum (cf. Morris, W. A., Medieval Sheriff, 115)Google Scholar, who include Reiner and Hamo de Valeines (possibly a relative of Glanvill's wife): 26 P.R.S. 81.
12 4 E.Y.C., p. xi and Ch. II.
13 Ibid., pp. 108–113, also ante, footnote 10. In 4 E.Y.C. 75, Mr. C. T. Clay suggests that, although Glanvill was accounting for the revenues to the exchequer, they were in fact being collected for Geoffrey.
14 It seems that Hubert Walter had the courage to tell John so: 2 P. & M.282. Constance did not die until 1201: 4 E.Y.C. 113.
15 It is possible that Glanvill acted for a while as Constable of the honour before earl Conan died (4 E.Y.C. 57), and possibly again for a short period soon after 1180 (5 E.Y.C. 217). A charter refers to homage done in the earl's court at Richmond at the time when Glanvill was Constable: 5 E.Y.C. 217, no. 307.
16 12 N.S. 88; 4 E.Y.C. 114 (where Dr. Clay identified it as the Newnham mill in Cambridge). This was in the year 1199–1200. The rent of the mill amounts to £9 per annum. The evidence on which Dr. Clay identified this as the Newnham mill in Cambridge is perhaps somewhat precarious: it is a charter (4 E.Y.C. 6–7 no. 6) whereby, in 1107, Stephen count of Brittany had granted to a French abbey fishery rights in Swavesey (Cambs.) and “the tithe of my mills which are in Cambridge.” There is also, however, some supporting evidence in Domesday: it records that Count Alan of Brittany has in the borough of Cambridge in 1086 ten burgesses (ff. 189, 194); also that there are two mills, besides the three which Picot the sheriff has built; that one of those two belongs to the abbot of Ely and the other to Count Alan; and that “those mills yield [each ?] £9 a year” (f. 189). For some notes on the Honour's five hides in Little Abington (Cambs.) see Appendix, post, p. 189.
17 5 E.Y.C. 9. Its tenants owed service of castle-guard at Richmond Castle: 4 E.Y.C. p. vii.
18 e.g., 18 P.R.S. 5; 31 P.R.S. 46; 32 P.R.S. 56. For the ancient drengage tenure, see 1 P. & M. 258.
19 Thus in 18 P.R.S. 5 (1171–1172) a later item adds an extra 18d. “which he had this year of the farms of manors besides the sum above.” There are also items such as “de pullis venditis 46s. 8d.” (32 P.R.S. 58): and the figure for the earl's Holland Fair varies from year to year—from £76 to £105. See also supra, footnotes 11 (“de exitu”), 13.
20 The Middleham Fee comprised some 15 knight's fees, of which 6 were in Yorkshire and 6 in Norfolk: 4 E.Y.C., p. vii; 5 E.Y.C. 13, 297: Red Book, 479, 587.
21 [1957] Camb.L.J. 175.
22 Red Book, 432: Glanvill has in custody this barony which Everard holds [sic] of the King. The record is of Everard's feoffments.
23 35 P.R.S. (Rotuli de Dominabus) 1: the widow is in the King's gift.
24 37 P.R.S. 90 (3½ Knight's fees). He was apparently a Norman and should be distinguished from William Paynel of Hooton Paynel (son of Agnes Fossard): 6 E.Y.C. 42 n. His scutage for the years 1172 and 1187 is mentioned in the Red Book, pp. 53, 62. See also footnote 28, infra.
25 This is clear as regards Everard de Ros (see footnotes 22, 23 supra), but less obvious as regards the mysterious William (see preceding footnote).
26 Morris, W. A., Medieval Sheriff, 130, 131.Google Scholar
27 12 P.R.S. 89 (the barony).
28 37 P.R.S. 90 (the knight's fees). Contrast Red Book, 62, which seems to imply that it was paid. This same year an accountant for that same (Galway) scutage in Cornwall is excused the charge upon half a knight's fee “in perdonis to Ranulf de Glanvill” (37 P.R.S. 155); so perhaps William Painel de Alta Ripa had held a half fee in Cornwall also.
29 35 P.R.S.; Morris, , op. cit. 131.Google Scholar
30 His relatives are an infant grandson (heir of Robert fitz Ralph): 35 P.R.S. 49; the widow (his neptis) of Ralph de Haudebovil and the newly born heir, with lands in Suffolk, ibid. 60; Mabel (his neptis) the widow of Albric Picot and the heir (though of age and a knight) with lands in Cambs. (Quy and Waterbeach): ibid. 83, 84, 86. Others are the widow and infant heir of Gilbert de Colevill: ibid. 61. He also held for the King the dower of Countess Margaret when, for a few months, it was seized into the King's hand: ibid. 4–6, 62; and he acted as custodian of certain Norfolk manors of the earl of Arundell: Red Book, p. cclxxii (by the King's precept Glanvill gives one and a half knight's fees thereof to one Ralph de Muntkenesi in order that he may make himself a knight). According to Glanvill's Treatise, vol. vii, 12, a widow ought not to be in her lord's custody although, as his tenant, she needs his consent to remarry.
31 Farrer, Introduction to 1 E.Y.C. p. x: with the exception of the liberty of the Archbishop, the city belonged to the Crown's demesne.
32 6 Monasticon 607 et seq.
33 1 E.Y.C. 186 (no. 225).
34 1 E.Y.C. 254 (no. 335).
35 29 P.R.S. 62.
36 Its last appearance is in 1191: 2 N.S. 62—cf. ibid., 208 (1192).
37 6 N.S. 27.
38 The full formula was still continuing in 1209 (24 N.S. 123). But in 1212, in the last of the published Pipe Rolls of King John, we read only “to the hospital of St. Leonard six shillings”: 30 N.S. 28.
39 Prince John stands first in a list of 18 witnesses, who include Glanvill's brother Gerard. Prince John witnessed also Glanvill's foundation charter to Leystone Abbey in 1182.
40 1 E.Y.C. 255 (no. 336). Instead of a warranty there is a quare volo clause, similar to that employed by royal grants. There are 18 witnesses, including Prince John and Glanvill's brother Gerard.
41 1 E.Y.C. 256 (no. 337).
42 Others include William de Aubervill (son-in-law), Gerard de Glanvill (brother), Theobold de Valeines (nephew of Glanvill's wife), William fitz Hervei, Ranulf de Gedding, Stephen de Glanvill, and John Glanvill.
43 1 E.Y.C. 256–257 (nos. 338, 339).
45 If, as the original grant to Glanvill says, there were (several) “houses” on the land and if, as Glanvill's and the King's confirmations say, William de Fyskergate gave (only) one house to the hospital, it may be that the apparent delay in adjusting the Pipe Roll entries has some other explanation than mere inertia or dilatory procedure at the exchequer. The missing 6s. per annum in the years 1192–1194 may be connected in some way with a royal pardon, granted to the hospital in 1191, of half a mark—the outstanding balance of a debt of 40s. which they had owed to Aaron of Lincoln: 2 N.S. 22.
46 1 E.Y.C. 253 (no. 333): the editor dates it 1163–1166. He is again “Ranulf the sheriff” in 1166–1176: 2 E.Y.C. 118 (no. 780). His father was already full of years in 1150: see [1957] Camb.L.J. 163, n. 4.
47 5 E.Y.C. 78 (no. 176), 140 (no. 240).
48 e.g., 5 E.Y.C. 157 (no. 263): here he is described as “Summa justicia” and the other witnesses include three “who were then justices at York.” In 5 E.Y.C. 252 (no. 335) he is “dominus.” In both, Reiner is a witness and is “sheriff of Yorkshire” (see also ante, note 8). The editor dates them 1187 and 1184–1189 respectively. See also note 49, infra.
49 5 E.Y.C. 154 (no. 262). Here he is “Randulf de Glanvill” and is the leading witness. The approximate date is 1175.
50 2 E.Y.C. 118 (no. 780).
51 Of the other four women, two are described as the wife of somebody and two as the daughter of somebody. Another instance of female witnesses is a late 12th-century charter whereby three sisters sold land in Northants: there the first six of 28 named witnesses were women: Facsimiles of Early Charters (4 Northants Records Soc. 114), no. 42.
Although Maud was presumably the eldest of Glanvill's three daughters ([1957] Camb.L.J. 173–175), her husband, unlike the husband of the youngest daughter Helewise (ante, n. 30), outlived Glanvill. The first sign that her nephews—she has evidently outlived her two sisters—are claiming from her their share of Glanvill's inheritance is the beginnings of an intended action against Maud and William her husband in the Michaelmas Term of 1194: the nephews appoint an attorney (Plac.Abr. 3; 1 R.C.R. 24: both Norfolk); the defendants essoin themselves (1 R.C.R. 102, 124: Suffolk); and the steward of the Honour of Eye claims jurisdiction over such of the lands as are held of that honour (Plac.Abr. 5: Suffolk). But by 1196 William is dead, and his heirs are in the wardship of Hubert Walter and so are exempted from the second (?) scutage of Normandy (7 N.S. 288; 8 N.S. 30). [At the very begining of 1194, however, an evasive defendant, who is being sued by the Glanvill heirs for having re-taken lands which Glanvill had bought from him, alleged inter alia that Maud (William suing with her but she representing him) has an heir who, being already a knight, ought to be one of the plaintiffs (14 P.R.S. 31–32: Suffolk).]
The husband of Glanvill's other daughter, Mabel, was Ralph de Arden. He likewise outlived Glanvill. In 1194, he was pardoned a scutage because he went on the expedition to Normandy (5 N.S. 143); and it would seem that he has remarried (1 R.C.R. 121): and, at one point in the above litigation against Maud and William, he is named with his son, perhaps erroneously, as though he were representing his son in that action (1 R.C.R. 124; yet three weeks ago the son had nominated someone else: 1 R.C.R. 24).
52 2 E.Y.C. 119 (no. 782). The editor dated it 1147–1163. See also footnote 56, infra.
53 2 E.Y.C. 360 (no. 1049): again the lord's son is said to have consented and is a witness. The editor dates this charter 1154–1157, and adds (at p. 361) that Welburn, in the Fossard Fee, had probably come to the lord as the maritagium of his wife, who was probably Emma Fossard.
54 2 P. & M. 16: “ probably under twelfth-century law the estate of the donee [of maritagium] was deemed inalienable.” Glanvill's treatise, vii, 18, is silent on the point: but he says (vii, 3) that husbands cannot give away their wives' inheritance without the consent of their heirs.
55 Martin, , Record InterpreterGoogle Scholar, translates duaria as “jointure; dowry.” The British Academy's Medieval Latin Word-List translates duarium as “dowry, marriage-portion.”
56 The concurrence of the heir-apparent or heir-presumptive was usual in 12th-century gifts of land: at that time freedom of alienation was not fully developed, though the precise rules are not entirely clear. See 2 P. & M. 13, 306–311.
57 Glanv., Bk. 6, cc. 3, 11, 13. See also Woodbine's note to Glanvill, pp. 217–218; and 2 P. & M. 421–422.
58 See notes 54, 57, supra.
59 See 9 Camb.L.J., 91 (n. 24), 198 (n. 48) for early cases of actions to recover maritagium between 1194 and 1202; also Woodbine's Glanvill, p. 218, for a widow recovering her dower from her husband's alienee in 1194.
60 The witnesses correspond rather closely to those who attested Glanvill's foundation charter for Leystone Abbey in Suffolk circa 1182: 6 Monasticon, 880.
61 [1957] Camb.L.J. 164, n. 8.
62 A custodian of royal estates accounted annually at the exchequer for “a sum assumed to cover everything he received except provisions”: Morris, W. A., Medieval Sheriff, 130.Google Scholar
63 That son-in-law was Robert fitz Ralph fitz Ribald [1957] Camb.L.J. 175.
64 See Morris, , op.cit., 282Google Scholar for the excessive demands made by the sheriff of Cambridge upon the priory of Barnwell, where he would stay for several days at a time with his wife and family and numerous horses and retainers.
65 See Darby, , Domesday Geography of Eastern England, 10–11, 267–269Google Scholar; Farrer, , Feudal Cambridgeshire, 6–7, 54–57.Google Scholar
66 Apparently the river Granta is their dividing line. Abington Piggotts, however, is in Armingford Hundred and some fourteen miles away—its name evidently derives from Picot (the Domesday sheriff) who held land there.
67 See also Inquisitio Comitatus Cantabrigiensis (ed. Hamilton, ), 31, 32, 35Google Scholar, to the same effect. For the 15 acres of terra regis, see footnote 100, post.
68 Rotuli Hundredorum, ii, 422b, 423a et seq. (1279). The advowson of Little Abington church belonged at that time not to the Honour of Brittany nor to its immediate tenant (the heir of John de Burgo) but to one of the latter's tenants John de Vallibus, who was himself a mesne lord. As to the earl of Oxford holding Great Abington, see further, e.g., Book of Fees (1242), 921—“Abiton”; Calendar of Feudal Aids (1284–1286), i. 140 “Abitone Magna.”
69 At the end of the Cambridgeshire entries in the Pipe Roll for 1157–1158 (P.R.S. 166), under the head “New Pleas and Agreements,” is a list which includes as successive entries “20s. de Abiton Com. Conani … 2 marks arg. de Abiton Com' Alberici….” In so far as the entries in this list assert their origin they are fines pro murdro imposed on certain localities: the named localities include two hundreds and the vills of Gamlingay and Fowlmere. Evidently our two Abingtons are each being fined as though separate vills: and it is not, as one might at first sight suppose, two isolated scutage assessments upon their respective proprietors.
70 Maitland, , Domesday Book and Beyond, e.g., at pp. 336, 389, 394Google Scholar: the virgate, a quarter hide, was usually 30 acres: ibid., and at pp. 385, 519. See also Darby, , op.cit., 274Google Scholaret seq.; 1 P. & M. 346–348.
71 Maitland, , op. cit., pp. 10Google Scholaret seq.; Darby, , op. cit., 277–279.Google Scholar
72 Maitland, , Constitutional History, 157–158Google Scholar; 1 P. & M. 235–236. This variability was most pronounced, it seems, where there had been sub-infeudation: see Sayles, , Medieval Foundations of England, 226.Google Scholar
73 Nor, I think, by supposing that they thought of Great and Little Abington as a single vill; for the two were evidently regarded as separate vills some forty years earlier: see footnote 69, ante.
74 Cal. Inq. Misc. i., no. 521. Cf. footnote 97, post.
75 See Glanvill, , De Legibus Angliae, vii. 3Google Scholar: thereupon the lord must take her heir's homage, but not before.
76 But the grandfather was not a Lanvalei: he was Alan fitz Henry (or Hemeri): 1 C.R.R. 72; s.c. Plac.Abr. 61.
77 Cf. 5 E.Y.C. 239, surmising that Simon's “interest in Little Abington” came from this demesne. Cf. also nn. 97, 99, post.
78 31 N.S. 87–88; s.c. 24 P.R.S. 239–240.
79 The introductory recital speaks of 5 virgates; but the knights speak of 5 hides. The virgate was approximately 30 acres, the hide approximately 120 acres, of arable land: ante, footnote 70.
80 e.g., the indexes to 1 C.R.R. 72 and 3 C.R.R. 174, 218.
81 Of the four knights, I have noticed Robert de Curson in Norfolk and Suffolk as well as in Lincs (where he held of the honour a third of a knight's fee); Benedict de Wyberton and Lambert fitz Tuli (or de Bussay) in Lincs only—a Master Benedict held there a half fee of the honour; and a Richard de Lea only in Essex and Beds—but the honour of Richmond had fees in Lea (or Lee) in Lincolnshire: see e.g., vols 1–4 of C.R.R.; and Books of Fees. Simon le Bret held a knight's fee of the honour in Lincs (ibid. 194; Red Book, 520-Simon le Broc, sic) and another in Yorkshire it seems (5 E.Y.C. 239).
82 1 C.R.R. 72 (marginal venue Cantebr') indexed s.t. Great Abington; s.c. Plac.Abr. 61 (there dated 10 John, but in fact 10 Richard). The plea is recorded as though it was both heard and decided in the Hilary Term, so perhaps Simon's essoin against John, in May 1199, “concerning a plea of land” (1 Rotuli Curiae Regis, 269) relates to some later action.
83 If John said “earl” (rather than “countess”) advisedly, he thereby implied that the land was granted to him prior to Geoffrey's death some fifteen years before: cf. p. 192, ante. The countess Constance did not die until 1201: 4 E.Y.C. 113.
84 Perhaps, moreover, John misdescribed the land at the preliminary view: 68 Selden Soc. 79. It seems likely that, when this action was over, Simon le Bret began at once a fictitious action against Simon his son, with intent to levy a fine and so strengthen his title: see 1 C.R.R. 73 (Hil. 1199, Cantebr')—the court gave them a day for next Easter with licence to concord. But at Easter the father essoined himself and then Geoffrey fitz Peter's writ put the plea in respite: 1 R.C.R. 240, 310.
85 Ibid., 451.
86 Ibid. 240 (marginal venue Cantebrig).
87 The shorthand of the rolls seems, when extended, to say: Ipse Simo et filius suus et Willielmus le Mcgre arripuerunt ipsum Johannem per manum dextram extensam ultra librum, dicentes quod nequiter voluit abjurare super cum pecuniam illam.
88 12 N.S. 47; repeated the following year—14 N.S. 68. In each the entry is under Essex and Herts., where William de Lanvalei held a knight's fee of the de Veres (Red Book, 353). The entry unaccountably ceased after that year. Unlike Simon, John seldom appeared in the Pipe Rolls: they name him only in the years 1200–1202 and only in relation to these two cattle oblations.
89 Rotuli de Oblatis et Finibus, 177; 15 N.S. 238; 19 N.S. 204; 30 N.S. (1212) 105, etc. In these the county is Lincs., where Simon's lands chiefly lay. His oblation was also seeking the removal to Westminster of an assise of novel disseisin which was then pending in Lincolnshire between him (or Simon his son) and his nephew Alexander de Pointon: cf. 4 E.Y.C. 240, n. The very first thing that the King's resulting order to his justiciar had required of him (Rot. de Obl. 177) was quod finem illum si poterit ascerscat. Conceivably, perhaps, the word finem may mean here not the oblation itself but the 80 marks at which the cattle had been assessed in the loquendum action.
90 Hunter, , Fines of Divers Counties, 1, 288Google Scholar (s.t. Cambs).
91 There are deficiencies in the roll which leave room for (i) a statement that William de Lanvalei has discharged 50 marks of the debt (as was specifically alleged in 3 C.R.R. 262—see footnote 96, infra)—there is indeed a hint in it that John released to Simon only 30 marks of the debt; and (ii) for the hidage of the land; and (iii) for something as to whether William was to hold of Simon or of the chief lord of the fee direct—presumably the latter.
92 3 C.R.R. 218.
93 3 C.R.R. 174, Cantebr' (both vill and church are here indexed wrongly s.t. Great Abington): s.c. Plac.Abr. 72. This Christiana is the sister of a Robert de Meleton.
94 3 C.R.R. 218, Cantebr'; s.c. Plac.Abr. 73.
95 3 C.R.R. 262 (Hil. 1205, Cantebr'); s.c. Plac.Abr. 46. Meanwhile Richard the abbot has appointed one of his canons to act as his attorney in the action “to gain or lose”; 3 C.R.R. 237, Kantebr'.
96 At the first hearing, William alleged that John had attorned the (full) 80 marks to his (William's) father. At the adjourned hearing he said that Simon le Bret made the fine in return for 50 marks which William's father had given him. Neither explanation fits perfectly, I think, with what remains of the actual record of the fine: see ante, p. 195 and footnote 91.
97 Red Book, 528. If the “one knight” of the castle-guard record (ante, n. 74) implied only guard duty and not, as we have supposed, a tenurial knight's fee shared between John and Simon, there may be an arguable possibility that what we have called John's half was in fact demesne land of the Honour until circa 1200 A.D. and was then granted to William (or to his father) de novo: cf. note 77, ante.
98 Rotulì de Oblatis et Finibus, 372; Book of Fees, 667, 866 (and Index, p. 112). By 1219, she has inherited both her father's and her grandmother's lands and is an infant in the custody of the justiciar Hubert de Burgh (26 N.S. 203; Bracton's Note Book, no. 43); by 1232, she is the wife of John de Burgh (ibid., nos. 681, 682).
99 Vol. ii. 423a, 424a. For all except 30 acres or so (as to which see footnote 100, infra), the “heir of the lord John de Burgo” is the highest mesne lord, holding directly of the honour of Brittany. The mesne lord next beneath him is, as to the Tudenham holding, John de Vallibus (who has the advowson—ante, footnote 68), and, as to the Girund holding, Hugh de Wyndesor. In Feudal Aids, i. 140 (1284–86), the two holdings are together assessed at one knight's fee.
100 Apart from some acres of escheats, the Prioress (ibid. 424b) held 30 acres, with its meadow and pasture, in elemosina, of the heir of Helewys de Wytsond; and the mesne lord intermediate between that heir and the honour was “the heir of Simon le Bret” (the younger, semble): cf. preceding footnote. Perhaps this incongruous 30 acres (1 virgate) derived somehow from the half-virgate which had been terra regis in Domesday: ante, p. 190. But the Pipe Rolls, printed for the period 1155–1212 and for 1230, leave this doubtful:—in 1166 the sheriff accounts for 4s. for corn sold in Abinton and for 3s. 3d. for half a virgate of land there (perhaps already let to a tenant) 9 P.R.S. 85; the latter part of this entry recurs annually (now as for 15 acres) for ten years, whereafter the tenant holding those 15 acres is named as Simon clericus (25 P.R.S. 71); after a further ten years Simon's rent is raised to 4s. (37 P.R.S. 78) and so remains: but in 1230 we find that this 4s., “for the 15 acres of land which Simon clericus held,” is now being collected from the countess of Oxford (4 N.S. 56). Cf. 67 Selden Soc., no. 3519—a pone for half a virgate in 1199.