Sheffield And Its Environs 13th To The 17th Century Part 3

In this deed there is an evident desire on the part of the draftsman to strengthen and even to extend the rights and privileges appurtenant to the Hawksyard estate, which then included a house of considerable importance, occupied by Ralph Bradbury and Maud his wife. Towards the end of the deed a belated attempt at a recital of the earlier John of Gaunt deed is added, with extracts giving the full description of the boundaries; and this earlier deed is treated as the root of t.i.tle to Hawksyard.

The question and the only question we have to consider is whether these two deeds give us a true account of the origin and early history of the place-name Hawksyard? At first sight it would appear that they do; but unfortunately there is much in the earlier deed to arouse suspicion. It is not that the story of John of Gaunt's visit to Highe Frith is improbable, on the contrary he rebuilt and occupied Tutbury Castle twenty miles away; nor is there any reason to think that in those days Sir Edward Mundy would hesitate to ask the duke for a few acres of rough moorland waste, as a memento of a red-letter day in the history of the Mundy family. Perhaps such a request, under the circ.u.mstances, const.i.tuted true politeness in the middle ages; or he may have wished to commemorate the day by building a house on the land to bear the name Hawksyard; but, however probable these surmises may be, there are many things in this alleged deed of gift which suggest a date much later than the reign of Richard II and cast a doubt as to its _bona fides_.

In the first place it is obvious that the date 15th May 1399 cannot be correct, as John of Gaunt died in January or February 1398; further the deed states that the duke visited Highe Frith on the 10th May 1399, which was impossible; and it is perhaps equally surprising to find that a deed, dated in the reign of Richard II, should refer to the first year of Henry IV, whose reign had not then begun and might never have occurred.

These impossible dates require explanation, but our difficulties do not end with dates; the writing in the John of Gaunt deed is not characteristic of the period, it is not uniform throughout, the body of the deed being written in characters of the rugged native script, the names of the witnesses being added in a flowing Italian hand of the Elizabethan period. Attention should also be called to the fact, that of the five witnesses in whose presence the duke is said to have affixed his seal, not one of them was above the rank of gentleman. The seal is impressed with a hunting horn, suggestive of forest heraldry, but the royal arms of the son of Edward III do not appear on this seal; and, if the hunting horn is in its proper heraldic position, the point of the s.h.i.+eld is at the top.

As above stated, the form of the deed is unusual and follows no precedent; many words are more suggestive of the cla.s.sics than the customary usage of diplomatics in the 14th century. _Equitem_ takes the place of the more conventional _militem_; _nuncupatur_ is used instead of _vocat_ and _coram_ instead of _testibus_. Each of the first four witnesses is described as gent and the last as attorney, while Derby is written once in English; further, the exact legal effect of the deed seems to be intentionally vague; it is headed _conventum_, meaning a covenant, but in the subsequent deed of 1568 it is referred to as a grant. The full description of the land in the later deed, with all its boundaries and appurtenant rights, suggests that the Elizabethan draftsman had some doubt as to the true facts; these details being apparently exploited with some ulterior intent.

In comparing the size make-up and general appearance of the two deeds, it is impossible not to see in them a strong resemblance; they are both typical of the time of Elizabeth, the deed of 1399 is too large and too coa.r.s.e for a charter of that date. The fact that one is in Latin and the other in English makes the comparison less easy; but in both we find similar parchment ink and seals; the script is much the same in both deeds, each having the dates written in the same bold Arabic numerals; and the later recites the earlier deed.

It would not be difficult to find other points of resemblance between these deeds; and it is impossible to compare them without coming to the conclusion that they were prepared at the same time by the same person, with the definite object of making a good t.i.tle to the Hawksyard property, on the sale to John Weston.

This forces us to the conclusion that the John of Gaunt deed is not altogether trustworthy; and we have to consider whether or not the information it contains, with regard to the origin of the place-name Hawksyard, can be relied on; or if we must treat its whole contents as pure fiction and entirely discredit all it tells us of the hawking party in Highe Frith.

[Ill.u.s.tration: =Seal= of 15th May 1399.]

There must be some explanation of this extraordinary deed; and it may yet be possible to find a solution of the problem. Here is the deed! How can we account for it? How much of what it tells us may we accept as truth?

To what extent is its story supported by extraneous evidence?

The points as to which we require information are; whether John of Gaunt was in a position to give and grant lands in the Highe Frith to Sir Edward Mundy or had he only the rights of an overlord? Why did he hesitate before complying with Sir Edward's request? Was he in doubt as to whether the land were his to give or whether he held as tenant _in capite_? Did he execute a deed of gift or did the gift rest on a verbal promise, Sir Edward taking possession of the lands and converting them to his own use? Did the lawyer of 1568, who carried through the sale to Weston, act _ex fide bona_ and endeavour, according to his lights and the practice of his time, to put the t.i.tle to Hawksyard in order, for the mutual benefit of both vendor and purchaser?

For answers to these questions we must return to the days of John of Gaunt.

In 1398 Richard II, seeing that his uncle John of Gaunt was in failing health and that John's son, Henry Bolingbroke earl of Hereford, might press his claim to the throne of England in case of Richard's death without issue, took advantage of a quarrel between Bolingbroke and the duke of Norfolk, in which each accused the other of treason, to banish them both from the realm.

The loss of his son fell heavily on John of Gaunt, who died at the end of January or the beginning of February 1398; and it is important to bear in mind that the year 1399 began on the 25th March and not the 1st January.

Richard, being free for a time from the menace of the House of Lancaster, seized the whole of the Lancastrian estates in the absence of the banished heir and crossed to Ireland to complete his conquests and strengthen his hold on that country.

During Richard's absence in Ireland the banished Henry, hearing the news of his father's death and the confiscation of the Lancastrian estates, landed on the Yorks.h.i.+re coast with a few trusted friends and three thousand men-at-arms.

He was at once joined by the great barons of the north and with an army, which increased as it advanced, he ultimately reached London; where he was well received by the people, who were tired of Richard and looked to Henry as their future king.

On hearing the news of Henry's return Richard, after much delay through rough weather, recrossed the Irish Channel to Milford Haven, only to find that both his friends and his armies in England had melted away and that his kingdom was lost.

He was forced by Henry and his supporters to resign his crown and, in Westminster Hall on the 29th September 1399, his resignation was received with shouts of applause; on the following day his cousin Henry Bolingbroke, son and heir of John of Gaunt, was proclaimed King of England as Henry IV.

On Henry's accession he regained the estates of the duchy of Lancaster, which however remained in his hands as crown property.

The above events and the dates on which they occurred are of importance in considering the two Hawksyard deeds; and if we are to understand how and why they came into existence, we must also trace the early history of Highe Frith and learn something of the conditions then prevailing as to the holding and devolution of landed estates in England; more especially with regard to earldoms honours and manors, which formed the basis of the feudal system.

When we clearly understand the way in which land in England was held in pre-reformation days, it will perhaps be possible to see whether the facts set forth in the deed of gift of the 15th May 1399 were consistent with the early history of the manor of Alstonefield; and whether John of Gaunt was shortly before his death in a legal position to comply with the request of Sir Edward Mundy.

As already stated Hawksyard was in Highe Frith, part of the manor of Alstonefield, and a manor was an estate in fee simple in a tract of land granted by the sovereign to a subject, usually a man of some consequence, in consideration of certain services.

He was the lord of the manor and he reserved for his own use such parts of the land as he required, which were called the demesne lands; other parts he granted out to his tenants, under varying conditions which included estates of inheritance, estates for life, for years and at will; the barren lands which remained in his hands were what was known as the commons and wastes of the manor or the foreign lands. The whole formed a manor or lords.h.i.+p which had its own courts and customs and enjoyed feudal privileges, which extended not only to the lands held by tenants but also to the commons and waste lands.

When many manors, perhaps extending into several counties, were held by one great baron or overlord they formed an honour which was held of the king _in capite_; this was quite different in character to the manor. It was a jurisdiction, vested in private hands, and not a territorial possession; the lords of the manors retaining their separate manorial organisation and rendering suit and service to their overlord.

Manors also formed part of the earldom or s.h.i.+re; for some time after the conquest an earl also had the t.i.tle of count and from the counts the s.h.i.+res took the name of counties. The t.i.tle however soon disappeared in England but we still retain countess, county and viscount.

When a great earldom honour or manor fell by forfeiture or escheat into the hands of the sovereign which constantly happened, it retained its distinct corporate existence and the whole apparatus of jurisdiction or tenure. Under its own t.i.tle it either continued in the possession of the sovereign or was granted out again as a hereditary fief.

The manor of Alstonefield appears to have been included in different earldoms and different honours at different dates, prior to the time when it came into the hands of John of Gaunt and his first wife's ancestors.

At the taking of the Domesday survey in 1086, Alstonefield manor was held as a knight's fee by Robert count of Shrewsbury with William de Malbanc under him as lord of the manor. The Shrewsbury overlords.h.i.+p did not last long and Alstonefield, which seems to have been much in request, possibly owing to its grouse moor, was transferred to the honour of Chester under Hugh Lupus; to whom William had, three years after the conquest, given the earldom of Chester and William de Malbanc, of Wich Malbanc now Nantwich, held the position of lord marcher under Lupus, so that the lords.h.i.+p of Alstonefield formed part of the marchlands or boundaries of the honour of Chester on the east, over which William de Malbanc would have supreme control as lord of the marches.

That part of the manor which lay between Leek and the river Dove, including the site of Hawksyard, was chiefly forest and moorland; shortly after the conquest and for many centuries after, it was known as Malbanc Forest; but in 1220 the Malbanc barony devolved on three co-heiresses, who held Alstonefield in co-parcenary.

On the forfeiture of a third share by the eldest daughter, then countess of Warwick, it came into the possession of Hugh le Despencer, though how he got it is not clear, and this share included the tract of barren moorland known as Highe Frith of Malbanc Forest.

In 1297, on the death of Edmund earl of Lancaster, the King's Escheator held an inquisition at Tutbury for the county of Lancaster, to ascertain what knight's fees were due to the earl; the jury found _inter alia_ that Hugh le Despencer held one knight's fee in the manor of Altonesfelt (Alstonefield) worth yearly in homages etc. 10. "Nomina Villarum" 1316 gives Hugh le Despencer and Nicholas de Audeleye as owners of Alstonefield, a vill in the liberty of the earl of Lancaster, who had the return of all writs.

In 1322 the estates of le Despencer were forfeited to the crown and subsequently bestowed by Edward III on Henry earl of Lancaster, grandfather of Blanche the wife of John of Gaunt.

It may be helpful here to recall how John of Gaunt was created duke of Lancaster and became possessed of the Lancastrian estates, extending into Ches.h.i.+re, Staffords.h.i.+re and other counties.

The first earl of Lancaster was Edmund called Crouchback second son of Henry III; in addition to his Lancastrian estates, his father bestowed on him the earldoms of Derby, Leicester, Lincoln, Salisbury and Chester.

These pa.s.sed on his death in 1296 to his eldest son Thomas earl of Lancaster, who was beheaded at Pontefract in 1322 when his estates were forfeited to the crown.[A] His widow was allowed to retain the Salisbury estate; and the other four earldoms were bestowed on his brother Henry earl of Lancaster, to whom one third share of Alstonefield manor was also given, so that he possessed not only the Lancastrian estates but also the earldoms of Derby (including the honour of Tutbury), Leicester, Lincoln, Chester and the territorial interest of a third of the manor of Alstonefield, including Malbanc Forest; of which Highe Frith was waste of the manor.

Henry earl of Lancaster was succeeded by his son Henry, afterwards first duke of Lancaster, who had no son; of his two daughters, Maud married William of Bavaria and Blanche married John of Gaunt. Maud died without issue, whereupon the whole of the Lancastrian estates devolved on Blanche; and, in right of his wife, on her husband John of Gaunt, who was in 1362 created duke of Lancaster.

It will be remembered that the seal attached to the deed of gift of the 15th May 1399 bears a hunting horn; and in order to find some explanation of this seal it may be necessary to glance for a moment at the history of the honour of Tutbury, which as we have seen was included in the earldom of Derby and pa.s.sed to John of Gaunt with that earldom.

[Ill.u.s.tration: =The Tutbury Horn=, from a photograph in the reference library at Sheffield.]

About the end of the 13th century, the important office of escheator and coroner throughout the whole honour of Tutbury within the county of Stafford, was claimed by Walter Agard who demanded to hold office by right of inheritance; but he was unable to produce any written evidence in support of his claim; and in lieu of charters or writings, he produced a white hunting horn garnished with silver-gilt in the middle and at both ends, to which was affixed a girdle of black silk adorned with buckles of silver, on which was placed the _insignia_ of Edmund earl of Lancaster; this horn was offered and accepted as the charter and evidence of t.i.tle to the office of escheator and coroner, to which he made claim.

It is not necessary to follow the devolution of the Tutbury Horn from Walter Agard; but in the 17th century, on the marriage of an heiress of Agard, it pa.s.sed to the Stanhopes, who sold it with its offices in 1753 to Samuel Foxlow of Staveley Hall, from him it ultimately pa.s.sed to Henry Marwood Greaves of Banner Cross, Sheffield, and Ford Hall, Derbys.h.i.+re, who once only exercised the right of appointment; and on his death in 1859 his eldest son William Henry Greaves, who had a.s.sumed the surname of Greaves-Bagshawe in 1853, succeeded to the horn by inheritance, and appointed the next succeeding coroner. We shall have to consider whether the pendent seal of the alleged deed of gift can in any way be accounted for by the fact, that the honour of Tutbury was part of the duchy of Lancaster prior to John of Gaunt's death.

[Ill.u.s.tration: =Seals= of 24th October 1568.]

Let us now turn to the other party to the deed of gift, Sir Edward Mundy.

In Burke's "Commoners of England" 1836, it is suggested that the Mundy family derived its name from Mondaye Abbey in the dukedom of Normandy; and it may be, that Sir Edward Mundy or his father fought with John of Gaunt in the wars with France and Spain.

It seems probable, from what we find in the earlier deed, that the duke and Sir Edward were close personal friends; and it may possibly have been through the influence of John of Gaunt, that Sir Edward Mundy or his father settled near Derby. However that may be, we are told that Sir Edward entertained the duke at Markeaton and returned with him to Lancaster Castle.

Vincent Mundy of Markeaton was a justice of the peace for the county of Derby in 1558 and his son Edward died in 1607.

Burke also tells us that "from old deeds in existence it appears that the family held lands in the year 1399"; it may be and seems highly probable that he was referring to the deed of gift and the grant above described, to which he presumably had access and gave credence.

On the other hand the two Lysons, in their work on Derbys.h.i.+re, say that the Mundys did not buy the Markeaton property until the beginning of the sixteenth century. Perhaps at that date they added to their original holding?

We now have some idea of how matters stood in 1399 and 1568; we are therefore in a better position to consider whether the deeds of Richard II and Elizabeth can be relied on as giving the origin and early history of the place-name Hawksyard.