M. L. Holford - Border Liberties and Loyalties in North-East England, 1200-1400

8/15/2019 M. L. Holford - Border Liberties and Loyalties in North-East England, 1200-1400

1/480

B O R D E RL I B E RT I E S

A N D

L O YA LT I E SNorth-East England, c .1200– c .1400

M. L. Holford and K. J. Stringer


2/480

Border Liberties and Loyalties

North-East England, c . –c .

M. L. Hol ord and K. J. Stringer

EDINBURGH UNIVERSI Y PRESS


3/480

© M. L. Hol ord and K. J. Stringer,

Edinburgh University Press Ltd George Square, Edinburgh

www.euppublishing.com

ypeset in Minion and Gill Sansby Servis Filmsetting Ltd, Stockport, Cheshire andprinted and bound in Great BritainCPI Antony Rowe, Chippenham and Eastbourne

A CIP record or this book is available rom the BritishLibrary

ISBN (hardback)

Te right o M. L. Hol ord and K. J. Stringer to be identi edas authors o this work has been asserted in accordance withthe Copyright, Designs and Patents Act .

Published with the support o the Edinburgh University Scholarly Publishing Initiatives Fund.


4/480

Contents

List of Maps and ables v

Preface vi

Authors’ Notes viii

List of Abbreviations ix

List of Manuscript and Record Sources xvi

Map xxiv

Introduction Matthew Holford and Keith Stringer

PAR I HE ECCLESIAS ICAL LIBER IES

. Durham: History, Culture and Identity Matthew Holford

. Durham: Government, Administration and the LocalCommunity

Matthew Holford

. Durham: Patronage, Service and Good Lordship Matthew Holford

. Durham under Bishop Anthony Bek, – Matthew Holford

. Hexhamshire and ynemouthshire Matthew Holford


5/480

BORDER LIBER IES AND LOYAL IES

iv

PAR II HE SECULAR LIBER IES

. ynedale: Power, Society and Identities, c. –

Keith Stringer . ynedale: A Community in ransition, –c.

Keith Stringer

. Redesdale Keith Stringer

Conclusions and Wider Perspectives Matthew Holford and Keith Stringer

Index


6/480

v

Maps and Tables

M

. Te Greater Liberties of North- East England xxiv

. Te Liberty of Durham ‘between yne and ees’

. Te Liberty of Hexhamshire

. Te Liberty of ynemouthshire

. Te Liberty of ynedale

. Te Liberty of Redesdale

. Swinburne of Haughton, Capheaton

. Swinburne of Haughton, Little Swinburne . Swinburne of Knarsdale, Little Horkesley

. Umfraville of Redesdale


7/480

vi

Preface

Tis book could not have been written without the good offi ces o theLeverhulme rust, which generously unded the research project on whichour work is based. Te project, entitled ‘Border Liberties and Loyalties inNorth- East England in the Tirteenth and Fourteenth Centuries’, was con-ducted under the joint direction o Michael Prestwich and Keith Stringer asa collaborative venture between the universities o Durham and Lancaster.It was also associated with the North- East England History Institute whenit was supported as a Research Centre by the Arts and Humanities ResearchCouncil. We are indeed most grate ul to all these bodies or their interestand assistance. It is likewise a pleasure to acknowledge that the publicationo our ndings has been acilitated by an award rom the Marc Fitch Fund.

Part o the ‘Border Liberties’ project was realised in the appearance o

Liberties and Identities in the Medieval British Isles (Woodbridge, ),which was the product o a colloquium held in Durham and edited by MichaelPrestwich. In the present study, Keith Stringer ocuses on the North- East’ssecular liberties and Matthew Hol ord deals with its ecclesiastical liberties,though each writer has contributed to the other’s work. Te Introductionand the Conclusion are jointly authored, with Keith Stringer being respon-sible or their nal orm, and or the editing o the book as a whole. In addi-tion to Matthew Hol ord, two research associates, Alastair Dunn and AndyKing, were employed on the project or shorter periods, and we thank them

or the preparatory work they undertook. We are also indebted to DauvitBroun, Constance Fraser, Christian Liddy, Cynthia Neville, ony Pollard,Michael Prestwich, David Rollason and Alan Rushworth, all o whom havegiven welcome advice and support. Another important debt is to the cus-todians o the thirty archives we have used. Particular thanks are due toAlan Piper and Michael Stans eld at Durham, and to staff at Te NationalArchives; Balliol College, Ox ord; Castle Howard, Yorkshire; CumbriaRecord Offi ce, Carlisle; and Northumberland Collections Service. We are

also much obliged to Esmé Watson o Edinburgh University Press or herun appability and encouragement. Keith Stringer is especially beholden toUniversity College, Durham, where his tenure o the Slater Fellowship ortwo terms in – enabled him to begin his researches or the project in


8/480

PREFACE

vii

hospitable surroundings, and within close reach o major library and man-uscript resources. His chapters on ynedale and Redesdale are dedicated tothe memory o Rees Davies, who took a keen interest in the project during

its initial stages, and who remains a constant source o inspiration.


9/480

viii

Authors’ Notes

. As a rule, modern surname orms are used where they exist; otherwisesurnames representing identi able place- names are given according toOrdnance Survey spellings. Troughout all surnames normally appearwithout any preceding ‘de’ or ‘o ’.

. Knights are not styled ‘Sir’ on their every occurrence, though theirstatus is made clear whenever it is germane to the argument, and allknights are recorded as such in the Index.

. Considerations o space have prohibited the inclusion o a ull bibliog-raphy o relevant printed material, but the key publications consultedare listed in the Abbreviations.

. While we have bene ted rom earlier prosopographical writings onthe medieval North- East, especially on its offi ce-holders, it has not

been practicable to provide regular citations or basic biographicaldetails. Te chie works or Durham are C. H. H. Blair, ‘Te sheriffs othe county o Durham’, Archaeologia Aeliana, th ser., ( ), pp.

– ; C. M. Fraser, ‘Offi cers o the bishopric o Durham under AntonyBek, – ’, ibid., ( ), pp. – ; and, most recently, M. L.Hol ord, ‘Offi ce-holders and political society in the liberty o Durham,

– (part )’, ibid., th ser., ( ), pp. – . Tose orNorthumberland are W. P. Hedley, Northumberland Families (Societyo Antiquaries o Newcastle upon yne, – ), and the ollowingstudies by C. H. H. Blair: ‘Members o Parliament or Northumberland,

– ’, Archaeologia Aeliana, th ser., ( ), pp. – ;‘Members o Parliament or Northumberland, – ’, ibid., ( ), pp. – ; ‘Te sheriffs o Northumberland’, ibid., ( ),pp. – ; ‘Knights o Northumberland, and ’, ibid., ( ), pp. – .


10/480

ix

Abbreviations

AA Archaeologia Aeliana Acta – English Episcopal Acta : Durham

– , ed. M. G. Snape (Ox ord,)

Acta – English Episcopal Acta : Durham– , ed. M. G. Snape (Ox ord,)

Acta – English Episcopal Acta : Durham– , ed. P. M. Hoskin (Ox ord,)

Bek Recs Records of Antony Bek, Bishop andPatriarch, – , ed. C. M. Fraser

(SS, )BF Te Book of Fees commonly called esta de

Nevill (London, – )BL British Library Bodl. Bodleian Library, Ox ordBrand, Newcastle J. Brand, Te History and Antiquities of

. . . Newcastle upon yne(London, )Brinkburn Cart. Te Chartulary of Brinkburn Priory , ed.

W. Page (SS, )CChR Calendar of the Charter Rolls, –

(London, – )CCR Calendar of the Close Rolls (London,

–)CCW – Calendar of Chancery Warrants,

– (London, )CDS Calendar of Documents relating to

Scotland , ed. J. Bain, G. G. Simpson and J.

D. Galbraith (Edinburgh, – )CFR Calendar of the Fine Rolls (London,

–)


11/480


x

Chron. Lanercost Chronicon de Lanercost , ed. J. Stevenson(Bannatyne Club, )

CIMisc. Calendar of Inquisitions Miscellaneous (London, –)

CIPM Calendar of Inquisitions Post Mortem (London, –)

CPL Calendar of . . . Papal Letters (London,–)

CPR Calendar of the Patent Rolls (London,–)

CR Close Rolls of the Reign of Henry III

(London, – )CRO (Carlisle) Cumbria Record Offi ce, CarlisleCRO (Kendal) Cumbria Record Offi ce, KendalCRR Curia Regis Rolls(London, –)CWAAS Cumberland and Westmorland

Antiquarian and ArchaeologicalSociety

Davies, Lordship and Society R. R. Davies, Lordship and Society in the March of Wales, – (Ox ord,

)DCL Durham Cathedral Library DCM Durham Cathedral Muniments (now

housed in Durham University Library,Archives and Special Collections)

DCRO Durham County Record Offi ce, Durham‘Durham assize rolls’ ‘ wo thirteenthcentury assize rolls or

the county o Durham’, ed. K. C. Bayley,

in Miscellanea II (SS, )EHR English Historical ReviewFA Inquisitions and Assessments relating

to Feudal Aids, – (London,– )

Fasti Dunelm. Fasti Dunelmenses, ed. D. S. Bout ower(SS, )

Foedera Foedera, Conventiones, Litterae, ed. .Rymer, new edn by A. Clark et al. (RecordCommission, – )

FPD Feodarium Prioratus Dunelmensis , ed. W.Greenwell (SS, )


12/480

ABBREVIA IONS

xi

Fraser, Bek C. M. Fraser, A History of Antony Bek,Bishop of Durham, – (Ox ord,

)

G&B W. Greenwell and C. H. H. Blair, Catalogue of the Seals in the reasury ofthe Dean and Chapter of Durham , rstpublished in AA, rd ser., pp. –( – ), and then separately ( )

GEC Te Complete Peerage by G. E. C[okayne],revised by V. Gibbs et al. (London,

– )Gesta Dunelm. ‘Gesta Dunelmensia, A.D. MCCC’, ed. R.

K. Richardson, in Camden Miscellany XIII (Camden Tird Series, )

Gibson, ynemouth W. S. Gibson, Te History of the Monastery Founded at ynemouth(London, – )

Greenwell Deeds Te Greenwell Deeds, ed. J. Walton(Newcastle, )

Hartshorne C. H. Hartshorne, Feudal and Military

Antiquities of Northumberland andthe Scottish Borders (London, ),Appendix III, ‘Iter o Wark’ [the –

ynedale eyre roll]Hat eld Survey Bishop Hat eld’s Survey , ed. W. Greenwell

(SS, )HC Te House of Commons, – , ed.

J. S. Roskell, L. Clark and C. Rawcliffe(Stroud, )

Hexham Priory Te Priory of Hexham, ed. J. Raine (SS,– )

HN J. Hodgson, A History of Northumberland (Newcastle, – )

JBS Journal of British StudiesLaing Chrs Calendar of the Laing Charters, ed. J.

Anderson (Edinburgh, )Lapsley, Durham G. . Lapsley, Te County Palatine of

Durham (New York, )Lucy Cart. Lucy Cartulary (xvi cent.), CockermouthCastle, Cumbria, D/Lec/


13/480


xii

NAR Tree Early Assize Rolls for the County ofNorthumberland , ed. W. Page (SS, )

NCH A History of Northumberland

(Northumberland County HistoryCommittee, Newcastle, – )NCS Northumberland Collections Service,

Woodhorn ( ormerly NorthumberlandRecord Offi ce, Gos orth)

NDD Northumberland and Durham Deeds fromthe Dodsworth MSS., ed. A. M. Oliver(NRC, )

NER Te Northumberland Eyre Roll for ,ed. C. M. Fraser (SS, )

Neville, Violence C. J. Neville,Violence, Custom and Law:Te Anglo- Scottish Border Lands in theLater Middle Ages (Edinburgh, )

Newcastle Deeds Early Deeds relating to Newcastle uponyne, ed. A. M. Oliver (SS, )

Newminster Cart. Chartularium Abbathiae de Novo Monasterio, ed. J. . Fowler (SS, )

NH Northern History NLS Te Northumberland Lay Subsidy Rollof , ed. C. M. Fraser (Society oAntiquaries o Newcastle upon yne,

)Northern Pets Northern Petitions Illustrative of Life in

Berwick, Cumbria and Durham in theFourteenth Century , ed. C. M. Fraser (SS,

)Northumb. Fines, i Feet of Fines, Northumberland and

Durham , ed. A. M. Oliver and C. Johnson(NRC, )

Northumb. Fines, ii Feet of Fines, Northumberland, A.D.–A.D. , ed. C. Johnson (NRC,)

Northumb. PDBR Northumbrian Pleas from De Banco Rolls[ – ], ed. A. H. Tompson (SS, )

Northumb. Pets Ancient Petitions relating toNorthumberland , ed. C. M. Fraser (SS,)


14/480

ABBREVIA IONS

xiii

Northumb. Pleas Northumberland Pleas from the CuriaRegis and Assize Rolls, – , ed. A.H. Tompson (NRC, )

Notts. Archives Nottinghamshire Archives, NottinghamNRC Newcastle upon yne Records CommitteeNYCRO North Yorkshire County Record Offi ce,

Northallerton‘Offi ce-holders’, i M. L. Hol ord, ‘Offi ce-holders and

political society in the liberty o Durham,– (part )’, AA, th ser.,

( ), pp. –‘Offi ce-holders’, ii M. L. Hol ord, ‘Offi ce-holders and

political society in the liberty o Durham,– (part )’, AA, th ser.,

( ), pp. –Parl. Writs Parliamentary Writs and Writs of Military

Summons, ed. F. Palgrave (RecordCommission, – )

Percy Cart. Te Percy Chartulary , ed. M. . Martin(SS, )

PQW Placita de Quo Warranto , ed. W.Illingworth (Record Commission, )PROME Te Parliament Rolls of Medieval

England, – , ed. C. Given-Wilson(Woodbridge, )

PSAN Proceedings of the Society of Antiquaries ofNewcastle upon yne

Raine, North Durham J. Raine, Te History and Antiquities ofNorth Durham (London, )

Reg. Corbridge Te Register of Tomas Corbridge, Lord Archbishop of York, – , ed. W.Brown (SS, – )

Reg. Giffard Te Register of Walter Giffard, Lord Archbishop of York, – , ed. W.Brown (SS, )

Reg. Gray Te Register, or Rolls, of Walter Gray, Lord Archbishop of York, ed. J. Raine (SS, )

Reg. Green eld Te Register of William Green eld, Lord Archbishop of York, – , ed. A. H.Tompson (SS, – )


15/480


xiv

Reg. Langley Te Register of Tomas Langley, Bishop ofDurham, – , ed. R. L. Storey (SS,

– )

Reg. Melton Te Register of William Melton, Archbishop of York, – , ed. R.M. . Hill et al. (Canterbury and YorkSociety, –)

Reg. Melton Register o Archbishop William Meltono York ( – ), Borthwick Institute,York, Reg. A–B

Reg. Neville Register o Archbishop Alexander Nevilleo York ( – ), Borthwick Institute,York, Reg.

Reg. Newark Te Register of Henry of Newark, Lord Archbishop of York, – , ed. W.Brown (SS, )

Reg. Romeyn Te Register of John le Romeyn, Lord Archbishop of York, – , ed. W.Brown (SS, – )

Reg. Toresby Register o Archbishop John Toresby

o York ( – ), Borthwick Institute,York, Reg.Reg. Wickwane Te Register of William Wickwane, Lord

Archbishop of York, – , ed. W.Brown (SS, )

Reg. Zouche Register o Archbishop William Zoucheo York ( – ), Borthwick Institute,York, Reg.

RH Rotuli Hundredorum , ed. W. Illingworth(Record Commission, – )

RLC Rotuli Litterarum Clausarum in urriLondinensi Asservati, ed. . D. Hardy(Record Commission, – )

Rot. Scot. Rotuli Scotiae in urri Londinensi . . . Asservati, ed. D. Macpherson, J. Caleyand W. Illingworth (Record Commission,

– )

Royal Letters Royal and Other Historical LettersIllustrative of the Reign of Henry III , ed.W. W. Shirley (RS, – )


16/480

ABBREVIA IONS

xv

RPD Registrum Palatinum Dunelmense: TeRegister of Richard de Kellawe, LordPalatine and Bishop of Durham, –

, ed. . D. Hardy (RS, – )RS Rolls SeriesScriptores res Historiae Dunelmensis Scriptores res, ed.

J. Raine (SS, )SS Surtees Society Stevenson, Docs Documents Illustrative of the History of

Scotland, – , ed. J. Stevenson(Edinburgh, )

Storey, Langley R. L. Storey, Tomas Langley and theBishopric of Durham, – (London,

)Surtees R. Surtees, Te History and Antiquities of

the County Palatine of Durham (London,– )

CE Tirteenth Century England CWAAS ransactions of the Cumberland

and Westmorland Antiquarian and

Archaeological Society RHS ransactions of the Royal HistoricalSociety

ynemouth Cart. ynemouth Priory Cartulary (xiv cent.),Alnwick Castle, Northumberland, MSD.XI.

VCH Victoria History of the Counties ofEngland

YASRS Yorkshire Archaeological Society RecordSeries


17/480

xvi

Manuscript and Record Sources

N R

Te National Archives: Te Public Record Offi ce

(Unless otherwise speci ed, all unpublished sources cited in this book arehoused in Te National Archives.)

Admiralty ADM Royal Greenwich Hospital: Deeds

Chancery C Six Clerks Offi ce: Early Proceedings

C Common Law Pleadings, ower SeriesC MiscellaneaC Parliamentary and Council ProceedingsC Close RollsC Patent RollsC Supplementary Patent RollsC reaty RollsC Warrants or the Great Seal, Series IC – Inquisitions Post MortemC Inquisitions Ad Quod DamnumC Miscellaneous InquisitionsC Ancient Deeds, Series CC Certi cates o Statute Merchant and Statute StapleC Miscellaneous Files and WritsC Recorda

Common Pleas

CP / Feet o FinesCP Plea RollsCP Brevia Files


18/480

xvii

MANUSCRIP AND RECORD SOURCES

Duchy of Lancaster DL Deeds, Series LSDL Accounts o Auditors, etc.

Exchequer E Justices o the ForestE reasury o the Receipt: Miscellaneous BooksE R: Ancient Deeds, Series AE R: Ancient Deeds, Series ASE R: Ancient Deeds, Series WSE King’s Remembrancer: Accounts VariousE KR: Customs AccountsE KR: Extents, etc., o For eited LandsE KR: Escheators’ FilesE KR: Memoranda RollsE KR: Subsidy RollsE KR: Feudal enure and Distraint o KnighthoodE KR and Lord reasurer’s Remembrancer: Sheriffs’

Accounts, etc.E KR: Writs, Original Series

E KR: Ancient Deeds, Series DE Augmentation Offi ce: Ancient Deeds, Series BE AO: Ancient Deeds, Series BSE Pipe Offi ce: Miscellaneous Enrolled AccountsE PO: Account Rolls o Subsidies and AidsE L R: Memoranda RollsE PO: Pipe Rolls

Itinerant JusticesJUS Eyre Rolls, etc.JUS Gaol Delivery Rolls

King’s BenchKB Indictments Files, etc.KB Coram Rege Rolls

Palatinate of Durham

DURH Chancery Court: Cursitor’s RecordsDURH Assizes and Court o Pleas: Plea and Gaol DeliveryRolls

DURH Exchequer: Auditor’s Records


19/480


xviii

Special CollectionsSC Ancient CorrespondenceSC Ministers’ and Receivers’ Accounts

SC Ancient PetitionsOther SourcesIND Indexes to Various SeriesPRO Domestic Records o the Public Record Offi ce

(including transcripts)

British Library

Additional ChartersCotton Roll XIII. Earl o Northumberland’s Retinue- list, Egerton ChartersHarley ChartersMSS Additional Wardrobe Book, – Beauchamp Cartulary, xv cent.MSS Cotton

Claudius D.IV Durham Priory: Historical Collections, xv cent. Faustina A.VI Durham Priory Register, xiv cent. Nero C.VIII Wardrobe Accounts, – iberius E.VI St Albans Abbey Register, xiv–xv cent. Vitellius A.XX Historical Collections, xiii cent.MS Harley Durham Priory: Historical Collections, xvi cent.MSS Lansdowne Durham Priory: Miscellaneous Collections, xiv

cent. ranscripts, xviii cent.MSS Stowe Wardrobe Book, – Durham Priory Register, xiii–xiv cent.

O R

Alnwick Castle, Northumberland

MS D.XI. ynemouth Priory Cartulary, xiv cent.

Northumberland Collections ranscripts, xix cent.


20/480


xix

Balliol College, Oxford

E. Stam ordham and Heugh

Bodleian Library, Oxford

MSS Dodsworth , , , ranscripts, xvii cent.MS Eng. c. owneley Papers, xvii cent.MS Laud. Misc. Durham Priory: Historical Collections,

xv cent.MS anner Wardrobe Accounts, MS op. Yorks. e. ranscripts, xviii cent.

Borthwick Institute, York

Reg. A–B Register o Archbishop William Melton ( – )Reg. Register o Archbishop William Zouche ( – )Reg. Register o Archbishop John Toresby ( – )Reg. Register o Archbishop Alexander Neville ( – )

Castle Howard, Yorkshire

A Dacre and Greystoke

Cockermouth Castle, Cumbria

D/Lec/ Lucy Cartulary, xvi cent.

Cumbria Record Offi ce

(a) CarlisleD/Ay Aglionby D/HA Hough, Halton and Soal o CarlisleD/HC Howard o Corby D/HGB Blencow o BlencoweD/Lons/L Lowther o Lowther, Earls o Lonsdale

D/MBS Mounsey, Bowman and Sutcliffe o CarlisleDMH Mounsey- HeyshamD/Mus Musgrave o EdenhallD/Wal Walton o Alston


21/480


xx

D/Wyb WyberghMS Machell ranscripts, xvii cent.

(b) Kendal WD/Crk Crackanthorpe o NewbigginWD/Ry Le Fleming o Rydal Hall

Durham Cathedral Library

MS Raine ranscripts, xix cent.MSS Randall , ranscripts, xviii cent.

Durham County Record Offi ce, Durham

D/Gr Greenwell DeedsD/Lo Londonderry EstatesD/Sa Salvin o CroxdaleD/Sh.H Sherburn HospitalD/St Strathmore Estate

Durham University Library, Archives and Special Collections

(a) Palace GreenHNP/N Howard Family: NorthumberlandSGD Littleburn, Holywell and Nafferton

(b) Te CollegeDurham Cathedral Muniments

Original Deeds, etc. Elemos. Elemosinaria Finc. Finchalia Haswell Deeds Loc. Locelli Misc. Ch. Miscellaneous Charters Pont. Ponti calia Reg. Regalia Sacr. Sacristaria SHD Sherburn Hospital Spec. Specialia


22/480


xxi

Other Sources Bursar’s Accounts Cart. I–IV Cartularia, xv cent.

Cart. Vet. Cartuarium Vetus, xiii cent. Reg. II Priory Register, xiv–xv cent. Reg. Hat eld Register o Bishop Tomas Hat eld

( – ) Rep. Mag. Repertorium Magnum, xv cent.

Essex Record Offi ce, Chelmsford

D/DBy/ Miscellaneous Deeds

Guildhall Library, London

MS Skinners’ Company

John Rylands Library, Deansgate, Manchester

Latin MS Accounts o Queen’s Household, –

PHC Phillipps Charters

Lancashire Record Offi ce, Preston

DD O owneley o owneley

Levens Hall, Cumbria

Medieval Deeds

Lincolnshire Archives, Lincoln

Dean and Chapter Muniments Dij/ /iii Lincolnshire Churches

Merton College, Oxford

Stillington Deeds


23/480


xxii

Northamptonshire Record Offi ce, Northampton

Stop ord-Sackville Muniments

Northumberland Collections Service, Woodhorn

Blackett-Ord o Whit eldSAN / RA Society o Antiquaries o Newcastle upon yne:

ranscripts o RecordsWater ord ChartersZBL Blackett o Mat enZMI Middleton o Belsay

ZSW Swinburne o Capheaton

North Yorkshire County Record Offi ce, Northallerton

ZAZ Hutton o MarskeZBO Bolton HallZIQ Meynell o KilvingtonZQH Chaytor o Crof

Nottinghamshire Archives, Nottingham

DD/ P, P Portland o Welbeck, th and th DepositsDD/FJ Foljambe o Osberton

Nottingham University, Manuscripts and Special Collections

PL/E Dukes o Portland: Northumberland Estates

St George’s Chapel Archives and Chapter Library,Windsor Castle

XI.K. Ancient Deeds

Shakespeare Birthplace rust, Stratford- upon- Avon

DR Gregory-Hood o Stivichall


24/480


xxiii

Society of Antiquaries, London

MS Wardrobe Book, –

MS Wardrobe Book, –

York Minster Library and Archives

MS XVI.A. Cartulary o St Mary’s Abbey, York, xiv cent.


25/480

xxiv

Map 1 The Greater Liberties of North-East England


26/480

Introduction Matthew Holford and Keith Stringer

his book is the irst ull-length modern study o lordship and societyin the North- East o England in the thirteenth and ourteenth cen-

turies. In part it explores the workings o political li e in the EnglishBorders in ways that may use ully advance research into the structuresand dynamics o medieval rontierlands. More particularly, by address-ing the institutions and political cultures o medieval England beyond itsmetropolitan heartlands, it aims to achieve resh perspectives on the real-ities o power and politics that underlay Westminster- centred orthodox-ies about the English experience o ‘state-making’. And, above all, it seeks

to illuminate the signi icance o the greater north- eastern liberties – thatis, largely sel -regulating territorial jurisdictions – or local authority andgovernance and or socio-political cohesion and identi ication. Similarly,while the North- East had its own setting and history, we hope that our

indings will have a wider bearing on the relevance o medieval England’sliberties or people’s lives and loyalties, and will thereby contribute tothe mainstream o ongoing debates about ‘state’, ‘society’, ‘identity’ and‘community’. 1

It is a commonplace that in our period England consolidated its positionas the most centralised ‘state’ in the medieval West. Indeed, even by about

the authority o the English monarchy was ‘ubiquitous and, on itsown terms, exclusive’.2 Yet a closer look at how power was distributed andasserted in the mid- thirteenth- century kingdom is instructive. Much localgovernment was exercised not solely by the crown and its offi cers, but indifferent degrees through power- structures enjoying so- called ‘ ranchisal

1 For a broader conceptualisation, see K. J. Stringer, ‘States, liberties and communitiesin medieval Britain and Ireland ( c. – )’, in M. Prestwich (ed.), Liberties andIdentities in the Medieval British Isles(Woodbridge, ), pp. – .

2 R. R. Davies,The First English Empire: Power and Identities in the British Isles, – (Ox ord, ), p. .


27/480


rights’.3 Tus liberties o various sorts (ignoring hundredal and lesser juris-dictions) peppered the countryside rom the English Channel to the ScottishBorder. Te most typical were those with ‘return o writs’, which allowed

liberty-owners to execute all the normal duties and powers o the king’ssheriffs, and to hold courts equivalent to county courts, whose competencewas much in erior to that o ull royal courts, but much superior to that oordinary honour or manor courts. Several earls and many bishops claimedthis prerogative, as did numerous religious houses such as the abbeys oAbingdon, Chertsey, Cirencester, Evesham, Waltham and Westminster.Return o writs was likewise a routine perquisite o privileged boroughs – in

– , or example, no ewer than twenty-two towns received royal con-rmations o this right – and it could also be held over large areas, including

the Isle o Wight, the Soke o Peterborough, Holderness, Richmondshire,and most o Cambridgeshire and Suffolk. 4 All fraunchise, as Chie JusticeScrope was to state in , ‘is to have jurisdiction and rule over thepeople’;5 and such liberties had a real effect on the processes o local govern-ance and control. Tey there ore provide one important rame o re erencewithin which the operation o local power can be understood; and theywere in act so widespread that none o the king’s counties was a uni ormlegal and administrative unit under the sheriff’s direct supervision. Each

dissolves on examination into a jumble o jurisdictions.6

During the course o Henry III’s reign ( – ), a select number oliberties were also ormalising their rights to dispense royal justice intheir own courts. Tey claimed cognisance o the civil pleas usually triedbe ore the king’s justices; their criminal jurisdiction covered the crownpleas withdrawn rom the king’s sheriffs by Magna Carta o . Most othese liberties were located at ecclesiastical centres such as Battle, Beverleyand Ripon; and in some cases, as at Bury St Edmunds, Ely, Glastonburyand Ramsey, no crown offi cer took any part in the hearing o pleas. Eventhese latter examples, however, did not represent the highest level o localautonomy and authority: justice and administration were conductedby liberty offi cers, but ofen on the basis o royal commands; and royalwrits were necessary to initiate the possessory assizes and other actions

3 Use ul surveys include S. Painter, Studies in the History of the English Feudal Barony (Baltimore, ), Chapter .

4 A key study is M. . Clanchy, ‘ he ranchise o return o writs’,TRHS, th ser., ( ),pp. – .

5 Quoted in A. Harding, Medieval Law and the Foundations of the State (Ox ord, ), p..

6 See, or example, B. English, ‘ he government o thirteenth-century Yorkshire’, in J. C.Appleby and P. Dalton (eds), Government, Religion and Society in Northern England,

– (Stroud, ), pp. – .


28/480

IN RODUC ION

concerning reehold estates.7 In contrast, the emergent ‘royal liberties’,‘regalities’ or (ultimately) ‘counties palatine’ lay more completely outsidethe orbit o crown jurisdiction, and were de ned primarily by the maxim

that ‘the king’s writ does not run there’. Tus in principle they were dis-tinct sel - governing entities, and in practice the king and his ministersnormally recognised their independent existence. Tey possessed theirown separate ‘royal’ institutions, which were staffed by their own person-nel and replicated in microcosm the apparatus through which the ‘state’could assert itsel . Each liberty naturally had its own shire organisation;crown and civil pleas were sued be ore the lord’s justices and by hisown writs; and it was already assumed that ‘regal jurisdiction’ includedexemption rom parliamentary taxation. Te lord himsel was the main

ocus o rule and law within the liberty, and it was his peace, not the kingo England’s peace, that was en orced locally. He also enjoyed broaderpowers o lordship and patronage similar to those exercised by the crownelsewhere in the kingdom; and his governmental and political authorityexceeded that o all other English liberty-owners save the ‘lords royal’ othe March o Wales. Medieval England’s regalities included the earldomo Chester and the palatinate o Lancaster ( – and rom ); theother concentration was in the North- East.

Te various kinds o liberty just described have long attracted scholarlyattention; yet, with the notable exception o Chester, the heyday o theirhistoriography was in the rst two- thirds o the twentieth century. 8 Teresulting studies, many o continuing value, are not easily summarised.But beginning with Gaillard Lapsley’s pioneering book on Durham, pub-lished as A Study in Constitutional History in , they generally centredon institutional theory and orms; and thanks mainly to Helen Cam’swritings in the s and s, there was a marked predisposition to setthe history o liberties rmly within a power-map de ned by the Englishcrown according to its own speci cations. So it was that historians inessence accepted the neat- and- tidy view o the world held by thirteenthcentury royal lawyers such as Henry Bracton, who took it or granted thatall jurisdiction derived rom the crown and was exercised exclusively in itsname. Indeed, Cam wrote o ‘the king’s government as administered by the

7 M. D. Lobel, ‘ he ecclesiastical banleuca in England’, in Oxford Essays in Medieval History (Ox ord, ), pp. – ; and, most recently, A. Gransden, A History of the Abbey ofBury St. Edmunds, – (Woodbridge, ), Chapter .

8 Recent work on medieval Cheshire, especially its administrative history, amounts to asmall industry. See, or example, P. H. W. Booth, The Financial Administration of theLordship and County of Chester, – (Chetham Society, ); D. J. Clayton,The Administration of the County Palatine of Chester, – (Chetham Society, ); P.Morgan, War and Society in Medieval Cheshire, – (Chetham Society, ).


29/480


greater abbots o East Anglia’: liberty-owners were thus to be regarded asroyal surrogates and servants, while their offi cials were also characterisedas ‘the king’s ministers and bailiffs’.9 Likewise something o a Bractonian

consensus emerged that medieval ‘state- ormation’ depended not on anydynamic o governmental pluralism but on the integrating orce o centralauthority and institutions. Accordingly a paradigm was constructed o thelinear expansion o crown power and centralisation, so that even ‘royalliberties’ were relegated to the historical sidelines on the grounds that theybecame much like standard counties. ‘Teir in ated reputations’, JeanScammell observed, ‘ alsi y many assessments o the effectiveness o mon-archy and the possible extent o immunities in medieval England’; and shewent on to conclude that Durham should be seen as little more than ‘anenormous estate situated in a remote part o England’. 10 In similar vein,James Alexander categorised Chester, Durham and Lancaster as ‘puny localquasi-autonomies’, and believed that, so ar as Edward I and Edward IIIwere concerned, ‘the reality o power they shared not’.11

Tis was a ar cry rom the view o Robin Storey (echoing Lapsley) thatthe bishops o Durham ‘exercised an authority equal in its scope to that othe King elsewhere in the realm’. 12 Rather, liberties o all types were merely‘cogs’ in the ‘magni cent machine’ o medieval English royal governance.13

Or, as Eleanor Searle argued in her work on Battle, a liberty’s place in thelocal governmental and political order was decided by the king’s decree. 14 Tere was thus much less interest in the actual powers o liberty- ownersover those whom they might call their ‘subjects’; or in how a liberty’s insti-tutional and political rameworks might have bene ted local society andshaped its behaviour, values and loyalties. And traditional approaches haveindeed cast a long shadow. Robert Palmer, or instance, set his analysiso the relationship between the jurisdictions o county courts and libertycourts largely within the context o their integration into a single ‘national’

9 H. M. Cam, Liberties and Communities in Medieval England , new edn (London, ),pp. – , and her ‘Shire o icials: coroners, constables, and baili s’, in J. F. Willard etal. (eds), The English Government at Work, – (Cambridge, MA, – ), iii, p.

.10 J. Scammell, ‘ he origin and limitations o the liberty o Durham’,EHR, ( ), pp.

, . C . R. B. Dobson,Church and Society in the Medieval North of England (London,), p. : ‘the capacity o the bishops . . . o Durham to play an autonomous role on the

Anglo-Scottish Border was virtually non- existent’.11 J. W. Alexander, ‘ he English palatinates and Edward I’, JBS, ( ), p. .12 Storey, Langley , p. ; c . Lapsley,Durham , p. .13 Cam, Liberties and Communities, pp. , .14 E. Searle, Lordship and Community: Battle Abbey and its Banlieu, – ( oronto,

), p. : ‘ or the ranchise to be . . . maintained, it had constantly to be reinterpreted,and reinterpretation depended upon the king’.


30/480

IN RODUC ION

justice system.15 More recent work by legal historians has tended, directlyor indirectly, to endorse such ormulations and conclusions. 16 Tey like-wise sit easily with some current interpretations o the late- medieval

English constitution. Tus, to cite Helen Castor, ‘the hierarchies o govern-ment, both ormal and in ormal, depended undamentally on the universaland universally representative authority o the crown’. 17

Admittedly conceptions o this sort have not gone unchallenged. ReesDavies urged us to recognise that medieval government was everywhereless uni orm and unipartite than étatist story-lines presuppose. ‘Weshould’, so we learn, ‘beware o rei ying the state, o accepting its ownde nition o , and apologia or, itsel .’18 For later medieval England, GeraldHarriss has made clear the complexities o the interplay between the‘public’ and the ‘private’ aspects o local power, and how the ‘private’ couldmesh with, parallel or rival the ‘public’. 19 More particularly, some historianso England’s liberties have explicitly called into question the homogenisingcapacity o the crown’s superiority and control. Edward Miller cautionedagainst the notion that the thirteenth century saw ‘a taming o liberties,a harnessing o their machinery to the machinery o the state’. 20 We havealso been reminded that individual liberty- owners might jealously de endtheir prerogatives against royal encroachment by insisting that they were

independent local rulers, who enjoyed a law ul jurisdiction ‘ rom timeout o mind’.21 Nor did Simon Walker doubt that John o Gaunt, as dukeo Lancaster, was ‘the only source o justice and patronage within hispalatinate’, or that his lordship was ‘almost unrestrained by the exerciseo royal power’.22 Even lesser liberties, in Rodney Hilton’s opinion, weresigni cant nodes o local governance since what mattered in ‘an inevitablydecentralized state’ was the law as administered by the immediate lord. 23

15 R. C. Palmer, The County Courts of Medieval England, – (Princeton, ),

Chapter .16 Compare, or example, the important review o A. Musson and W. M. Ormrod, TheEvolution of English Justice (London, ), by C. Donahue, Jr, in Michigan Law Review,

( ), pp. – .17 H. Castor, The King, the Crown, and the Duchy of Lancaster (Ox ord, ), p. .18 R. R. Davies, ‘ he medieval state: the tyranny o a concept?’, Journal of Historical Sociology ,

( ), p. .19 G. Harriss, Shaping the Nation: England, – (Ox ord, ), especially pp.

– .20 E. Miller, The Abbey and Bishopric of Ely (Cambridge, ), p. .21 For example, A. Gransden, ‘John de Northwold, abbot o Bury St. Edmunds ( – ),

and his de ence o its liberties’,TCE, ( ), pp. – .22 S. Walker, The Lancastrian Affinity, – (Ox ord, ), p. , and his ‘Lordship

and lawlessness in the palatinate o Lancaster, – ’, JBS, ( ), p. .23 R. H. Hilton, A Medieval Society: The West Midlands at the End of the Thirteenth Century

(London, ), p. .


31/480


New work has gone a stage urther by power ully disputing the concept oan inexorable growth o crown regulation and administrative uni ormityover the long duration. Tus important studies o Cheshire and Durham

by im Tornton and Christian Liddy have highlighted the continuedgovernmental vitality o these liberties, the extent to which the monarchyrespected their status as entities distinct rom the rest o the kingdom, andthe resilience o regional autonomy as a potent and enduring idea into theearly modern era. 24

Moreover, some scholars have pointed directly to the roles libertiesmight play in moulding common attitudes, interests and allegiances. WhenNigel Saul re erred to ourteenth-century Sussex as ‘a county o communi-ties’, and ony Pollard ound in feenth- century Yorkshire ‘“counties”within the county’, they based their assessments on brie i revealing analy-ses o how each county’s ‘rapes’ or ‘shires’ in uenced its social and politicalstructures. 25 Robert Somerville took the view that Lancashire’s palatinatecourts created a deep and abiding sense o local attachment because theywere prized sources o speedy and amiliar justice.26 Majorie McIntosh’sstudy o the hundredal liberty o Havering in Essex, and Andy Wood’slong look at privileged mining communities such as that o Alston Moor inCumberland, have stressed the signi cance o relatively minor jurisdictions

or socio-legal solidarities.27

Relatedly, Alan Harding has argued or theimportance o ‘ ranchises’ as sources o people’s right ul customs and per-sonal reedoms, so that ‘the meaning o liberties [shifed] rom the powerso the prelates and barons to the rights o individual subjects’.28 No less pro-

oundly, Tornton’s work on Cheshire, and Liddy’s on Durham, have sug-

24 hornton: Cheshire and the Tudor State, – (Woodbridge, ); ‘Fi teenth- century Durham and the problem o provincial liberties in England and the wider ter-ritories o the English crown’, TRHS, th ser., ( ), pp. – ; ‘ he palatinate o

Durham and the Maryland charter’, American Journal of Legal History , ( ), pp.– . Liddy: ‘ he politics o privilege: homas Hat ield and the palatinate o Durham,– ’,Fourteenth Century England , ( ), pp. – ;The Bishopric of Durham in

the Late Middle Ages (Woodbridge, ).25 N. Saul, Scenes from Provincial Life: Knightly Families in Sussex, – (Ox ord,

), p. ; A. J. Pollard,North-Eastern England during the Wars of the Roses (Ox ord,), p. .

26 R. Somerville, ‘ he palatinate courts in Lancashire’, in A. Harding (ed.), Law- Making andLaw- Makers in British History (London, ), pp. – .

27 M. K. McIntosh, Autonomy and Community: The Royal Manor of Havering, – (Cambridge, ); A. Wood, ‘Custom, identity and resistance: English ree miners andtheir law, c. – ’, in P. Gri iths, A. Fox and S. Hindle (eds),The Experience of Authority in Early Modern England (London, ), pp. – . On the Alston miners,see urther below, especially Chapter , pp. – , , .

28 Harding, Medieval Law, pp. – (quotation at p. ), and his ‘Political liberty in theMiddle Ages’,Speculum, ( ), pp. – .


32/480

IN RODUC ION

gested how major liberties might oster independent political cultures andact as ‘imagined worlds’ around which local identities could crystallise. 29

Such insights, it would seem, invite historians to rethink traditional

assumptions about the taxonomy o the medieval English ‘state’ or, to bemore precise, the manner in which different governance systems interactedwith society, their relative signi cance or power, loyalty and identity, andthe extent to which England’s ‘local polity’ was in reality a polycentric ordero multiple local polities. Yet despite some questioning o earlier views,the act remains that the central issues in recent scholarship have beenthe institutions o ‘bureaucratic monarchy’ or, more particularly, govern-ment and political society as organised around the king’s counties. 30 So itis that liberties in their own rights have rarely gured in the work doneover the last decade and more on such seminal themes as the interactiono law and society, the origins and development o ‘bastard eudalism’, andthe emergence o the gentry. Rather, the emphasis has been on deepeningour understanding o a legal system and culture presided over by the kingand his justices; o the ability o individual magnates (or, more ofen, theirinability) to dominate county politics; and o the role played by the countyas a ocus or a rising gentry class in terms o service, advancement andidenti cation. 31 Not least the existence and nature o ‘county communities’

have been keenly argued, largely in relation to a county’s administrationand its encounters with the crown, and in ways that take little account o thesum o local jurisdictions within, or co- existent with, county jurisdictions. 32 Such approaches have there ore had only limited relevance or registeringthe possible or actual signi cance o alternative institutional rameworks

or local governance and society.33 And, certainly, they do not provideready-made models or illuminating the history o the medieval North-

29

hornton, Cheshire and the Tudor State , Chapter ; Liddy, Bishopric of Durham,Chapter .30 Recent rein orcements o state-centred paradigms include A. Jobson (ed.), English

Government in the Thirteenth Century (Woodbridge, ).31 See respectively (and most accessibly), A. Musson, Medieval Law in Context (Manchester,

); M. A. Hicks,Bastard Feudalism (London, ); P. Coss,The Origins of the EnglishGentry (Cambridge, ).

32 For an in luential survey, see C. Carpenter, ‘Gentry and community in medieval England’, JBS, ( ), pp. – . he latest contributions include J. Freeman, ‘Middlesex in the

i teenth century: county community or communities?’, in M. A. Hicks (ed.), Revolutionand Consumption in Late Medieval England (Woodbridge, ), pp. – ; A. Polden,‘ he social networks o the Buckinghamshire gentry in the thirteenth century’, Journal of Medieval History , ( ), pp. – .

33 A notable recent exception is D. A. Carpenter, ‘ he second century o English eudalism’,Past and Present , ( ), pp. – , though the ocus is on the continuing importanceo the ordinary honour in the political organisation o thirteenthcentury England.


33/480


East, which had more in common with the highly ragmented governmen-tal landscapes o the March o Wales and o English Ireland than with mucho midland and southern England.

Such a statement requires some ampli cation. In re erence wasmade to ‘royal liberties’ in Ireland ‘like Durham and Chester [that] takerom the king not only great pro ts, but much o the obedience o the

persons en ranchised’.34 Strictly speaking, this assessment exaggerated thelegal-constitutional status o the Irish liberties: afer all, their courts wererarely entitled to hold all crown pleas, their church lands were supposed tocome under the jurisdiction o the king’s sheriffs, and their inhabitants wereliable to the king’s taxes.35 A closer parallel or the greater north- easternliberties is supplied by the Welsh March. Te prerogatives and rule- makingpowers o the Marcher liberties were undoubtedly more exclusive, so thatthey remained in a remarkable sense beyond the reach o the English mon-archy and its agents. But it is the magisterial work o Rees Davies on theseliberties that has provided the key contextual basis – and the main inspira-tion – or the present study. 36 Indeed, or all that the March was atypicaland distinctive, his analyses o how liberties tted into and in uenced theorganisation o governance and loyalties have set an agenda that is gener-ally applicable to the institutional and political con guration o the English

polity as a whole. And, in act, it was Davies’s scrutiny o the March that indue course prompted his reappraisal o the anatomy o the medieval ‘state’,including that o ‘crown-centred’ England itsel . For there, too, powermight well be characterised by its ‘alternative nodal points’, its ‘multiplexnature’ and its ‘plurality and overlapping context’. 37

What then were the local coordinates o government and justice in themedieval North- East? A composite snapshot is provided by the HundredRoll inquests o – , the Northumberland eyre rolls o , and theQuo Warranto inquiries o .38 Te English crown’s direct power inthe region was based on the county o Northumberland. Its effective gov-ernmental boundaries were much narrower than those o the modern

34 CCR – , p. .35 R. Frame, ‘Lordship and liberties in Ireland and Wales, c. –c. ’, in H. Pryce and

J. Watts (eds), Power and Identity in the Middle Ages (Ox ord, ), pp. – .36 See especially Davies,Lordship and Society , and his The Age of Conquest: Wales, –

(Ox ord, ), Chapters , , . Rees Davies’s inal book,Lords and Lordship inthe British Isles in the Late Middle Ages (Ox ord, ), appeared as our work went topress.

37 Davies, ‘Medieval state’, pp. – .38 RH , ii, pp. – ;NAR, pp. – ;PQW , pp. – ;NER, pp. – .


34/480

IN RODUC ION

pre- county;39 and there were no hundreds or wapentakes, or regularrankpledge and tourn, through which the sheriff’s authority could be

articulated. Te shire proper was divided into eight wards, which were

primarily administrative- scal units; and within them lay numerous baro-nies, which exercised a hundred- type jurisdiction. Tus their lords had bylong usage gallows and in angthie , and the assizes o bread and ale; theymight also claim, ofen by royal grant, rights o chase, warren, market and

air. Such powers were signi cant orms o local authority: in angthie , orinstance, allowed the lord to hang thieves caught red- handed on his lands.But they were scarcely the hallmarks o major jurisdiction, and or pur-poses o royal administration the baronies were normally treated as regularparts o the county. It was, however, a different matter or the borough oNewcastle and the earl o Lancaster’s barony o Embleton, whose rights toreturn o writs excluded the sheriff. Newcastle also elected its own coroners,and both liberties long retained distinct identities as separate tax- payingcommunities. 40 Yet neither compared in independence with the ve power- structures that had not been absorbed into, or were largely detached rom,the routine systems o county and royal governance. Tese were the liber-ties recorded in and in as entitled to hear all crown and otherpleas at their own eyres; and together they dominated much o the North-

East, both territorially and governmentally. Durham ‘between yne andees’, with Bedlingtonshire, Islandshire and Norhamshire, was controlledby the bishop; Hexhamshire by the archbishop o York; Redesdale by theUm ravilles, an old-established Northumbrian amily; ynedale – or mosto the thirteenth century – by the king o Scots; and ynemouthshire bythe prior o ynemouth. Tese liberties, it is true, were not equally privi-leged. Redesdale and ynemouthshire were ‘merely’ superior return- o - writs jurisdictions like Battle, Beverley and Ripon; it was there ore onlyin Durham, Hexhamshire and ynedale that the king’s writ was said notto run. Nevertheless Redesdale and ynemouthshire had developed widepowers by the later thirteenth century, and both deserve to be considered,as they are in this book, alongside the north- eastern regalities.

Our priority is to assess the capacities o each o these liberties as a localpolity in the ullest sense o that term. Tus we examine the nature o theliberty-owner’s rights and rule; the extent to which loyalty to the lord

39 According to the ampler claims made or the crown’s jurisdictional supremacy, the medi-eval county embraced the entire region between the ees and the weed; but we are hereconcerned with actual practice, not abstract theory.

40 See, or example,NLS, pp. – , – ;The Lay Subsidy of , ed. R. E. Glasscock(London, ), pp. , . R. R. Reid, ‘Barony and thanage’,EHR, ( ), p. ,incorrectly assumes that all tenants by barony in Northumberland had return o writs.


35/480


overrode other allegiances; and how ar his tenants were tied to the libertyby their landed interests and social relationships, by its mechanisms o gov-ernance and justice, and by involvement in offi ce- holding. No less impor-

tantly, how effectively did each liberty shape or affi rm local identities andsolidarities by serving the common needs o local society, by orging a senseo collective commitment to its institutions and reedoms, and by develop-ing its own speci c culture, customs and traditions? Moreover, to whatdegree did the power and demands o the ‘state’ endanger or strengthen aliberty as a unit o government and social organisation, and how did theirimpact vary over time? In what measure were a liberty’s authority and cohe-sion affected by broader processes o political and socio-economic change?

Te thirteenth and ourteenth centuries are the obvious and criticalperiods or addressing such matters. Te available documentation, notably

rom the s to the s, is relatively rich. Te Durham archive iso course outstandingly important; but archiepiscopal registers coveringHexhamshire, ynedale eyre rolls and the ynemouth Priory cartulary giveinsights into liberty- society interactions o the sort that are rarely possibleat other times. Again, these two centuries represented the most ormativeera in the liberties’ histories, especially as regards their relations with theEnglish monarchy. Richard Kaeuper’s distinction between the thirteenth-

century ‘law-state’ and the ourteenth-century ‘war- state’ is a constructthat does not entirely convince, but it can use ully be adopted the better toget our bearings. 41 In the thirteenth century, when the crown’s supervisoryauthority dramatically increased even in England’s northern outskirts,it was the ‘law-state’ that tested the rights and powers o liberties, be itthrough the expansion o the king’s justice or by rigorous Quo Warranto scrutiny o the claims o liberty-owners. In the event, this kingdom- widerenegotiation o central and local power involved give and take on bothsides; but it naturally brings the greater north- eastern liberties into sharper

ocus, and acilitates assessment in some detail o their strengths and limita-tions as hubs o governance and social cohesion. Te ‘law- state’ was hardlya spent orce in the ourteenth century: while there would be no parallel tothe systematic inspection o liberties o – , the growing appeal o thecentral royal courts posed resh challenges. 42 Arguably, however, afer theoutbreak o the Scottish wars in it was the pressures and problems othe ‘war-state’ that had the most decisive effects on the development o thenorth- eastern liberties. With war came intensi ed military- scal and politi-

41 R. W. Kaeuper, War, Justice and Public Order: England and France in the Later Middle Ages (Ox ord, ).

42 See most recently G. Dodd, Justice and Grace: Private Petitioning and the EnglishParliament in the Late Middle Ages (Ox ord, ).


36/480

IN RODUC ION

cal demands rom the crown, a new cohort o royal offi cials, and increasedopportunities or employment and reward in the king’s service. No morethan in the thirteenth century would ‘state centralisation’ lead inescap-

ably to serious erosion o a liberty’s institutional authority and relevance;paradoxically it may sometimes have rein orced them. Yet war did bringthe north- eastern liberties into closer contact with the crown in ways thatmight deeply affect traditional patterns o power and leadership. In addi-tion, the ailures o the ‘war-state’ resulted in urther changes and diffi cul-ties, which serve in their turn to highlight the evolving history o individualliberties and their roles in society.

We approached each liberty with the same terms o re erence; but inevi-tably our researches evolved in different ways, partly because o thenature o the relevant historiography. Good general studies exist orDurham, Hexhamshire and ynemouthshire, while Durham’s consti-tutional and legal development has received detailed attention. 43 Late- medieval Durham’s government, landed society and ‘community’ have alsobeen addressed in Christian Liddy’s recent monograph. 44 Such contribu-tions thus made it easible to concentrate on key themes or episodes wherethe impact o these three liberties on society could be explored in particular

depth. By contrast, the historiographical bases or ynedale and Redesdaleproved to be much less help ul and secure. 45 Moreover, since these weresecular liberties, and also lacked major religious houses, the documentationis much less extensive: indeed, the entire corpus o surviving medieval deeds

or both liberties can be counted in the low hundreds, whereas by them-selves the ‘Miscellaneous Charters’ in the Durham Cathedral Muniments,most o which predate the Re ormation, number some , items. So

ynedale and Redesdale have required more groundwork treatment, and inother respects the scope o the analyses provided re ects what is possible inthe circumstances. ynedale’s – eyre roll, or example, gives such aunique insight into the liberty’s socio- political culture that it receives muchcloser analysis than any comparable roll rom Durham.

43 For Durham, special mention should also be made o Constance Fraser’s work: notablyFraser, Bek, pp. – ; ‘Edward I o England and the regalian ranchise o Durham’,Speculum, ( ), pp. – ; ‘Prerogative and the bishops o Durham, – ’,EHR, ( ), pp. – ; and (with K. Emsley)The Courts of the County Palatine ofDurham (Durham, ).

44 o minimise overlap with Dr Liddy’s work, the chapters on Durham in this book deal ina relatively cursory ashion with the period a ter Bishop Bury’s death in .

45 Un ortunately the introductory chapters on ynedale and Redesdale in R. Robson, TheEnglish Highland Clans: Tudor Responses to a Mediaeval Problem (Edinburgh, ), areo ten misguided.


37/480


Te available sources have also in part determined that the ollow-ing chapters are largely studies o ‘gentry’ societies. We use the term asa convenient way o describing potential or actual members o political

society between the baronage and the richer peasantry. Tey might beknighted or unknighted, and armigerous or non- armigerous; they wereofen offi ce- holders; and as regards landed wealth, though not necessarily,in our experience, as regards involvement in local politics and governance,a distinction can normally be made between greater and lesser gentry. 46 Sometimes, however, it has been possible and in act essential to look morewidely and deeply into local society and political li e – as, or instance,in thirteenthcentury ynedale where one magnate amily, the Comyns,took a major role; or in Durham where clergymen were prominent insecular administration; or in Hexhamshire where most landowners had

ew claims to ‘gentility’. In essence, though, local gentry are our dramatis personae.

It is there ore chie y rom their perspective that we have attempted toestablish how ar each liberty supplied – or ailed to supply – a strong basis

or ‘identity’ and ‘community’. Tese concepts are notoriously elusive andcontested, as is re ected by the vast literature they have generated in historyand the social sciences. 47 Clearly it would be wrong to search or identi-

ties by presupposing that they were any less multi- centred and ambigu-ous in the medieval past than they are today. But we do not consider sucha search to be utile, as long as it recognises the possible pit alls. Formalproclamations o solidarity, or example, can rarely be taken at ace value,and it is important wherever practicable to delve behind the rhetoric inorder to explore its political context and content. Nor can it automaticallybe supposed that ‘the community o the liberty’ was incompatible withother senses o ‘community’ or, indeed, anything other than contingent.In assessing such questions, the medievalist almost inevitably turns to theanalysis o networks o socio-political association, on the assumption thattheir patterns offer the surest guide to where people’s attachments and

46 For a recent review o the historiography o medieval England’s gentry, see P. Coss,‘Hilton, lordship and the culture o the gentry’, in C. Dyer, P. Coss and C. Wickham(eds), Rodney Hilton’s Middle Ages (Past and Present Supplement, , ), pp.

– .47 Key statements include C. J. Calhoun, ‘Community: towards a variable conceptualiza-

tion or comparative research’, Social History , ( ), pp. – ; A. Shepard and P.Withington (eds), Communities in Early Modern England (Manchester, ), especiallythe editors’ introduction. Our approaches have also been in luenced by the work o theanthropologist Vered Amit: notably ‘Reconceptualizing community’, in V. Amit (ed.), Realizing Community (London, ), pp. – ; V. Amit and N. Rapport, The Troublewith Community (London, ).


38/480

IN RODUC ION

allegiances lay.48 But the impersonal nature o so much o the evidence– mainly legal and estate records – also prioritises the signi cance o land-ownership and related connections at the expense o less tangible aspects o

identi cation; and we have thus tried to acknowledge both the concrete andthe conceptual bases o ‘identity’ and ‘community’.49Finally, though it is not our purpose here to summarise all the issues

raised by this study o the North- East’s major liberties, it may be help ul oruture re erence to stress that at root each liberty’s relevance or individual

or collective interests, rights and loyalties depended in equal measure onits institutional resources and its political modalities. Te legal and judicialapparatus had to be able to maintain good order and local harmony, and besuffi ciently attractive to end off competition rom the royal courts. Muchlikewise hinged on the ability o a liberty’s privileges, administratively, s-cally or otherwise, to bene t its tenants and residents by shielding them

rom unwelcome external inter erence and impositions; and that rested inturn on its effi ciency in mediating between the locality and the ‘state’. Alsocrucial was how ar a liberty’s governmental authority and structures gavecoherence to local society by providing or communal participation andrepresentation. Beyond these (and other) considerations lies the vital ques-tion o the character and style o the liberty-owner’s rulership. From the

viewpoint o local society, he was expected to govern with due regard to thecommon rights and customs o the liberty; he was likewise under a generalobligation to be a good lord by acting as a ocus o service, protection andreward. But governance and lordship were also matters o personalityand practice; and, more especially, there was no guarantee that the lord’srule would be master ul and air.

Te dynamics o liberty- society relationships were thus complex andunpredictable. I a liberty was well placed to meet local aspirations andexpectations, it might well cement loyalty to its autonomy and traditions,mobilise an awareness o ‘community’, and develop its own politicalethos. I the converse was true, alternative power- sources and competingaffi liations were likely to become more signi cant, to the general detri-ment o a liberty’s governmental and socio- political integrity. Equally,however, inadequate lordship might prompt collective action, notably inthe orm o appeals to a liberty’s privileges as touchstones o communal‘liberties’. As such comments may serve to indicate, there were there ore

48 For the methodologies involved, see in particular C. Carpenter, Locality and Polity: AStudy of Warwickshire Landed Society, – (Cambridge, ), pp. – .

49 Compare, or example, A. Paasi, Territories, Boundaries and Consciousness (Chichester,), p. : ‘All . . . identities are, in a sense, ictional identities which are connected with

“imagined communities”.’


39/480


important variations in how the greater north- eastern liberties developedand operated; nor was it unusual or a liberty to be ‘weak’ in some aspectsand ‘strong’ in others. In short, like all local polities these power- structures

had diverse capacities and vulnerabilities, and their individual ortunescould wax and wane. But it will be seen that even the ‘weakest’ cannot bediscounted as an institutional anachronism or as an irrelevance or localsociety. Te world o north- east England rom was to experiencetwo centuries o pro ound change; yet liberties would remain basic to thatworld.


40/480

PAR I

HE ECCLESIAS ICALLIBER IES


41/480


42/480

Durham: History, Culture and Identity Matthew Holford

Durham was by some distance the largest o the north- eastern liberties,even not counting its detached members o Crayke (Yorkshire) and

Bedlingtonshire, Islandshire and Norhamshire (Northumberland). Its core,‘the bishopric o Durham between yne and ees’, covered almost ,square miles; and in terms o privileges, as well as o size, Durham was pre- eminent. By the beginning o the thirteenth century, it was well establishedas an area where ‘the king’s writ does not run’; by the end o that century,the bishops claimed even more substantial privileges. hey were accordedby the exalted, i ill-de ined, style o ‘earl palatine’, and therea ter the

title o ‘county palatine’ continued to be brandished.1

As early as , andthroughout the i teenth century, Durham, alongside Cheshire, was under-stood to represent the most highly privileged liberty in England. 2

Partly because o its importance, Durham has been by ar the moststudied o the north- eastern liberties; and, since Lapsley’s pioneering workat the beginning o the last century, it has been central to modern discus-sions o liberties and their place in the medieval ‘state’. Study o the libertyhas also been stimulated by its extensive surviving documentation, nowlargely shared between Te National Archives and the Dean and ChapterMuniments o Durham Cathedral. Both the copious evidence and the volume o earlier writing on the liberty make a detailed chronologicalnarrative at once impractical and super uous; and the our chapters onDurham in this book there ore adopt a largely thematic approach. Naturallythey explore the same key questions as those addressed elsewhere in the

1 PROME, i, p. ; D. J. Seipp, ‘An Index and Paraphrase o Printed Year Book Reports,– ’ (www.bu.edu/law/seipp/index.html, accessed May ), . ;Year

Books of the Reign of King Edward the Third: Year XVII , ed. L. O. Pike (RS, ), pp.– . On the origin and meaning o these expressions, see J. W. Alexander, ‘ he English

palatinates and Edward I’, JBS, ( ), pp. – ; J. Scammell, ‘ he origin and limita-tions o the liberty o Durham’,EHR, ( ), pp. – .

2 CCR – , p. ; Seipp, ‘Index’, . ; . ; . .


43/480


Map 2 The Liberty of Durham ‘between Tyne and Tees’


44/480

DURHAM: HIS ORY, CUL URE AND IDEN I Y


45/480


present study: the liberty’s position in relation to the crown, the strength oits institutions, the structure o lordship and society, and the impact o the‘law- state’ and ‘war-state’. But they also attempt to do justice to the eatures

that distinguished Durham rom the other north- eastern liberties – notablyits well-developed cultural traditions, and the prominence o what contem-poraries called ‘the community o the liberty’. Tis rst chapter outlines theliberty’s privileges, the structure o its landed society, and its relations withthe ‘state’; it then ocuses on the historical traditions associated with theliberty, the ‘imagined communities’ they nurtured, and how they helped theliberty’s privileges to be maintained and developed. Te second chapter onDurham looks in more detail at ‘the community o the liberty’, particularlyin relation to the liberty’s institutions and government; the third examinesthe sources o good lordship in the liberty, and the shifing opportunitiesthat law and war came to offer within and outside it; and the ourth is adetailed study o the regime o Bishop Anthony Bek ( – ). Tis nalchapter is, in part, a study o heavy lordship, that is, the development andexploitation o the bishops’ powers over their subjects. It also reveals thestrength o local community, and the increasing reach o the crown, andthus draws together the conclusions o the preceding chapters.

Te ocus throughout is on the liberty ‘between yne and ees’, which is

re erred to variously as the liberty o Durham or the bishopric o Durham,ollowing contemporary usage.3 In some ways Crayke, Bedlingtonshire,Islandshire and Norhamshire were integral parts o this liberty, andshared its privileges. But their geographical separation rom the libertygave them their own distinctive histories; and this was particularly true oNorhamshire and Islandshire, which were exposed to unique pressures bytheir position on the Scottish Border. Te outlying members o the libertywill there ore receive only incidental mention; like the lesser Yorkshireliberties o the bishops o Durham, Allertonshire and Howdenshire, theyrequire independent treatment. 4

Because a narrative thread is not always prominent in these chapters, a briesketch o the liberty’s history rom around to will be help ul. Atthe beginning o our period, the liberty had assumed its ullest territorialextent, essentially that o pre- County Durham; or the wapentake oSadberge, on the north bank o the ees, had been acquired rom the crown

3 he ‘bishopric’ must be distinguished rom the diocese o Durham, which covered – withsome exceptions – the modern counties o Durham and Northumberland.

4 For Norhamshire, with Islandshire, see M. L. Hol ord, ‘War, lordship, and community inthe liberty o Norhamshire’, in M. Prestwich (ed.), Liberties and Identities in the MedievalBritish Isles (Woodbridge, ), pp. – .


46/480


by the bishop o Durham in about . However, episcopal rights in thiswapentake were not ully established, and had to compete with the claimso local magnates, notably the amilies o Balliol and Bruce o Barnard

Castle and Hartness respectively. Te thirteenth century, broadly speak-ing, saw the expansion o episcopal lordship in Sadberge and in the libertyas a whole, as the bishops’ powers as ‘lords royal’ became increasingly wellde ned and elaborated. o review some key achievements, the right toinitiate legal pleas by writs rom the episcopal chancery was established,afer challenges in the early s, under bishops Richard Marsh ( – )and Richard Poore ( – ). In Henry III, acknowledging the ‘royalrights’ that the bishops enjoyed in Durham, released to Bishop RobertStichill ( – ) his claim to the manor o Greatham, or eited by PeterMont ort or rebellion against the king. Bishop Robert Lisle ( – )obtained royal con rmation o his claim to prerogative wardship in theliberty, and under Edward I this claim became more rmly established,with the recognition that the crown’s rights o prerogative wardship didnot extend ‘between yne and ees’. Finally, under Bishop Anthony Bek( – ), it seems that the bishops established the right to restrict alien-ation o lands held o them in chie , as the king did outside the liberty.5

Tese developments in episcopal lordship were one o the actors leading

to the rebellion o ‘the community o the liberty’ against Bishop Bek in theearly years o the ourteenth century, which ormed a pivotal period in theliberty’s history. Edward I became involved in the dispute between bishopand community; he took the liberty into royal hands, and con scatedthe lordships o Barnard Castle and Hartness because they were held byScottish rebels. Te lordships were granted to royal ollowers, to be held othe crown, and despite the best efforts o bishops Richard Kellawe ( –

), Lewis Beaumont ( / – ) and Richard Bury ( – ), theystayed only partly under the liberty’s jurisdiction. In this respect Anglo- Scottish war dramatically heightened royal inter erence in the liberty. Butother effects o war, while equally pro ound, were more complex. On theone hand, service to the crown became increasingly important or theliberty’s gentry, and this sometimes meant that the crown’s in uence inthe liberty was increased. Conversely, the crown’s demands or men andresources rom the bishopric prompted unprecedented action rom ‘thecommunity o the liberty’, the Haliwerfolk, which was able to establish itsimmunity rom compulsory military service. Tis ‘community’ became a

real orce in the rst hal o the ourteenth century, in response not only5 For these developments, see below, pp. , – ; Chapter , pp. – ; Chapter , pp.

– .


47/480


to royal demands, but to the recurrent threat o Scottish attack. It was also‘the community’ that took action, around the s, to re orm the liberty’slegal system.6

By the liberty looked very different rom its predecessor o ,not only because o war, but because o legal and administrative develop-ments. Paradoxically Durham’s governmental structures were becomingincreasingly aligned with those o the wider realm; but its privileges werealso becoming increasingly well de ned, and perhaps even more substan-tial, and its local community remained assertive. On the one hand, theyears around saw the liberty’s legal system re ormed, with the assento the king in Parliament, to bring it into closer alignment with the royalcourts. On the other, they saw the development o the so- called ‘palatinateseal’ o the liberty, which was modelled on the royal great seal to emphasisethe bishop’s regalian powers; and they saw ‘the community o the liberty’,the Haliwerfolk, re using to act on the basis o a royal writ. Aspects o theliberty had been trans ormed, and loyalties had been reshaped; but the‘royal liberty’ remained an area where ‘the king’s writ does not run’, and apower ul ocus or identities.7

It is also necessary to introduce at the outset the liberty’s aristocratic ami-

lies.8

At the top o the liberty’s political society was a hand ul o magnateamilies with substantial interests in the bishopric. In the early thirteenthcentury, the greatest powers were the cross- Border amilies o Balliolo Barnard Castle and Bruce o Hartness, and the amilies o Bulmer oBrancepeth and Fitzmeldred o Raby. Less power ul, but still o consid-erable importance within the liberty, were the Amundevilles, with landsscattered around the south and west o the bishopric; the Daudres, whoseprincipal properties lay at Coxhoe, Croxdale, and Mordon near Sedge eld;and the Hansards, with estates around Evenwood and Walworth. 9

By the end o the thirteenth century, the picture was very different. Teamilies o Amundeville and Hansard had declined in importance: theormer remained lords o Witton- le-Wear, but had alienated Coatham

Mundeville and Stillington, while the Hansards had sold the barony oEvenwood. Te amily o Daudre ended with Walter (d. be ore ), mosto whose estates were inherited by his son-in-law Roger Lumley (d. ).

6 Below, pp. , , – ; Chapter , pp. , – ; Chapter , pp. – ; Chapter . 7 Below, pp. , – ; Chapter , pp. , . 8 he structure o landed society in the liberty ( c. – ) is described in much greater

detail in C. D. Liddy, The Bishopric of Durham in the Late Middle Ages (Woodbridge,), Chapter .

9 See the map in W. M. Aird, St Cuthbert and the Normans (Woodbridge, ), p. .


48/480


Meanwhile the most power ul magnate in the liberty had probably becomeRobert Neville (d. ), lord o Brancepeth and Raby, who had unitedthe inheritances o Bulmer and Fitzmeldred. Te Nevilles continued their

ascendancy in the ourteenth century, joined by the newly prominent ami-lies o Hilton and Lumley: it was at Brancepeth, Raby, Hilton and Lumleythat the liberty’s most imposing castles were built or rebuilt in the later

ourteenth century. 10 Te amilies o Balliol and Bruce, which had remainedsigni cant throughout the thirteenth century, or eited their estates in theyears around as a result o Anglo-Scottish hostilities. Teir places weretaken by the Beauchamps, earls o Warwick, at Barnard Castle, and by theCliffords at Hartness. 11

Tese magnates were at the apex o local society; beneath them was asigni cant number o gentry amilies associated more or less closely withthe liberty. Some sense o their changing composition over the course othe thirteenth century is given by a near- contemporary list o ‘knightsdwelling in the liberty o Durham between yne and ees’, which namesabout seventy knightly amilies active between around and .12 Several o these amilies, like the Harpins o Tornley and the Ludworthso Ludworth, restricted their activities largely to the bishopric. RichardHarpin, active around , was succeeded by William and Richard; their

ourteenth-century descendant was John (d. ). Walter Ludworth,active in the mid- thirteenth century, had been succeeded be ore by Hugh Ludworth, who in turn was ollowed, be ore , by WalterLudworth (d. c. ).13 John Harpin and Walter Ludworth were both wellestablished among the liberty’s lesser gentry: John was armigerous, bearinglike his ancestors an eagle displayed ; and both he and Walter were com-missioners o array in Easington ward in , alongside Simon Esh.14 Eshwas rom a rising amily, newly prominent in the rst hal o the ourteenthcentury, but like Harpin and Ludworth his interests were largely con ned

10 A. Emery, Greater Medieval Houses of England and Wales, – (Cambridge,– ), i, pp. – , – , – , – .

11 Balliol and Bruce: below, pp. – ; Chapter , pp. – . Hilton (alias Hylton) andLumley: see the articles in GEC. Neville, Bulmer and Hansard: H. S. O ler,North of theTees (Aldershot, ), Chapter . Daudre: Aird,St Cuthbert , p. ;Greenwell Deeds,nos. , ; DCRO, D/St/D / , . Amundeville: C. . Clay, ‘Notes on the amily oAmundeville’, AA, th ser., ( ), pp. – .

12 he earliest version o the list is edited in Hatfield Survey , pp. xiv–xvi; or discussion, seeM. L. Hol ord, ‘“Knights o Durham at the battle o Lewes”: a reconsideration’,NH , ( ), pp. – . My igure excludes the magnate amilies discussed above.

13 Harpin: DURH / , . v; BL, MS Stowe , . r; DCM, . .Finc. ; Surtees, I,i, p. . Ludworth: DURH / , . v; DCM, . .Finc. ; BL, Additional Ch. ,

.14 G&B, nos. – ;RPD, iv, pp. – .


49/480


to the bishopric. 15 Tese were all men whose world was essentially boundedby yne and ees, although some o the liberty’s gentry amilies (as will beseen more ully below) were ranging more widely a eld in the ourteenth

century.16

Even at the beginning o the thirteenth century, however, the liberty’stenurial structure was less sel -contained than, say, ynedale’s. 17 First,the wapentake o Sadberge had ormerly been part o Northumberland,and its two most important magnate amilies, Balliol and Bruce, held orhad held important estates in Northumberland and Yorkshire respec-tively.18 Tere were thus signi cant tenurial connections with thosecounties. o give only two examples, the amily o Feugeres were lordso Castle Levington in north Yorkshire, which was held o the Brucesin the twelfh century; they were also Bruce tenants at Brierton inHartness. Robert Gower, who was a Bruce tenant at Faceby in Yorkshirein the mid- thirteenth century, also had interests at Elton in Hartness. 19 And there were, in addition, many other connections with neighbour-ing counties, notably but by no means exclusively at the edges o theliberty. For example, the Spring amily, with lands in Winston nearBarnard Castle, also held Lartington a ew miles away in Yorkshire; theBassets, lords o Offerton in Durham, also held property in Bebside,

Cowpen and Eachwick in Northumberland; and the Washingtons oWashington acquired scattered estates in south Northumberland inthe thirteenth century. 20 Again, the amilies o Hadham and Yeland,which shared the manor o Seaham, also held the serjeanty o Naffertonin Northumberland; Hugh Gubion, lord o udhoe around the endo the thirteenth century, was also lord o Shilvington and Whaltonin Northumberland; and unstall (in Stranton) was part o theNorthumbrian barony o Bolam. 21 Several men named in the list oDurham knights, in act, had only peripheral connections with the libertysince the bulk o their estates lay elsewhere. William Vavasour (d. )held the manor o Cock eld, which his ather John had acquired bymarriage. But the amily’s principal seat was at Hazelwood in Yorkshire,

15 M. L. Hol ord, ‘ he Esh amily: o iceholding and landed society in the palatinate oDurham in the earlier ourteenth century’, NH , ( ), pp. – .

16 Below, Chapter , pp. – .17 Below, Chapter , pp. – .18 he Bruce amily had divided in c. into the separate branches o Bruce o Annandale

(which held Hartness) and Bruce o Skelton in Cleveland.19 VCH, Yorks., North Riding , ii, pp. , ;VCH, Durham , iii, pp. – , .20 VCH, Yorks., North Riding , i, p. ;NCH , ix, p. ; W. P. Hedley and G. Washington,

‘ he early Washingtons o Washington’, TCWAAS, new ser., ( ), pp. – .21 NCH , xii, pp. .;NLS, nos. , ;BF , ii, pp. , ;HN , i, p. .


50/480


where William had licence to crenellate in , and where he desiredto be buried. 22 Similarly Adam Boltby (d. ) held the Durham manoro Bolam near Bishop Auckland, also acquired by marriage; but he had

more important properties not only in north Yorkshire, where his amilyoriginated, but in Northumberland, because his ather Nicholas hadmarried the heiress to the barony o Langley. 23

Naturally the liberty’s magnate amilies, too, ofen had important inter-ests outside the bishopric. Te Hansards had estates near Northallertonin Yorkshire, and at South Kelsey in Lincolnshire; the Hiltons o Hiltonheld, in addition to Swine in Yorkshire, Rennington and Shilbottle inNorthumberland, acquired by marriage in about and valued at marks in .24 Brancepeth and Raby were at the heart o the Nevilles’interests, but they also had extensive estates in Yorkshire, centred onSheriff Hutton and Middleham. Other magnate amilies, conversely, hadestates in the bishopric that were o very little signi cance in comparisonto their other properties. Te Percy manor o Dalton Piercy was peripheralto that amily’s concerns.25 Ralph Fitzwilliam (d. ) had the manoro Coniscliffe rom ; but he also held the Cumberland barony oGreystoke, in addition to estates in Northumberland and Yorkshire. 26

For all these reasons, yne and ees did not neatly delimit a landed

society. Most o the liberty’s magnates, and a number o its gentry, wereaccustomed to moving between different social and jurisdictional worlds.Teir ties o neighbourhood could be ar- ranging. Tey sued in the crown’scourts as well as the bishop’s; they were accustomed to seeking the kingand other lords, as well as the bishop, or avour. We cannot assume that,in consequence, the liberty was necessarily o less importance to suchmen. But their possession o estates outside the bishopric could induce anapparent indifference to its privileges, both on the part o the crown, andon the part o landholders themselves. Gilbert II Hansard’s con rmationcharter rom King John in included his Durham estates; and whenRobert Hilton (d. c. ) obtained a charter o ree warren rom Henry III,it extended to Hilton in Durham as well as to Rennington and Shilbottlein Northumberland. Similarly Robert II Ogle’s charter o ree warren,obtained rom Edward III in , included Hurworth- on- ees as well as

22 Early Yorkshire Charters, vii, ed. C. . Clay (YASRS, Extra Series, ), pp. – ;