Monday, March 31, 2014

Pedigree of John Goien in medieval Amesbury, Wiltshire

Pedigree of John Goien in medieval Amesbury, Wiltshire

Niall C.E.J. O’Brien

An undated document, written in English, from the end of the fifteenth century gives the pedigree of John Goien. The document says that John Goien had two children: Robert and Christine. Robert Goien died without issue and Christine married John Saucer and was the mother of Robert and Thomas. Robert Saucer married Alice Lytelcot and had issue Isabella, Anne and Joan.

Isabella Saucer married Walter Messenger and had issue: John Messenger, a priest and Ede Messenger who died without issue. Anne Saucer married Thomas Hobbes of West Amesbury while Joan Saucer married Geoffrey Rolfe and died without issue. Anne and Thomas Hobbes I had a son called Thomas Hobbes II who was living at the end of the fifteenth century.[1]

This article sets out to find further information on these people and thus bring them back to life for a modern generation.

The early generations

The manor of West Amesbury was held around 1242 by Patrick de Montfort from Patrick, Earl of Salisbury. By sale, purchase and inheritance the manor came to James and Elizabeth Dawbeney in around 1510.[2] John Goien lived in the area of Great Amesbury and West Amesbury in the second half of the thirteenth century. We don’t know if he ever visited the ancient monument of Stonehenge which lies in the parish of Amesbury. What impact the death of Queen Eleanor of Province on 24/25 June 1291 had on John Goien is equally unknown.

Instead much of the information that we know about John Goien and his descendents comes from property documents. During his life time he gave a tenement with a croft in Great Amesbury to Alexander de Wylegh to hold for life. Alexander de Wylegh was still alive in September 1331. John Goien also gave a tenement and croft in Great Amesbury to Ralph le Pope to hold for life. This Ralph le Pope was also still alive in 1331.[3]

In his lifetime John Goien was a witness to the land deeds of his neighbours. An undated deed that he witnessed was between Ralph the baker, son of John the baker, and William the baker, both of West Amesbury, for a grant of 25 pence of rent which Ralph used to get from Clarice the washerwoman. John le Saucer, his son-in-law, was also a witness to this deed.[4]

Sometime before November 1290, Robert Goien, son and heir of the late John Goien, made a gift with warranty, for 7 marks, of 4 acres of arable land at West Amesbury along with a meadow and a close to John le Saucer of West Amesbury and Christine Goien, his wife.[5] In 1299 Robert Goien gave a messuage and one virgate of land in Durington to the Prioress of Amesbury.[6]

As John Goien, father of Robert, was dead by 1290 it therefore seems that the second person called John Goien, who was witness to a number of deeds in West Amesbury, between 1321 and 1330, must be a son of John Goien the first by second marriage or a cousin of same.[7] The second John Goien was married to Alice and was connected with a person called William Goien. John and Alice Goien had a messuage and a carucate in Great Amesbury in 1312.[8]

As said previously, Christine Goien succeeded to the property of her childless brother Robert Goien and married John Saucer. They had two sons, Robert and Thomas Saucer. In September 1361 Thomas Saucer was witness to an inquisition post mortem at West Amesbury.[9] Thomas Saucer married a woman called Christian and had one son called Robert and a daughter called Christian. In August 1437 these two children were unmarried and so the gift with warranty by Thomas Saucer of property to John Marmell was made successive to the Isabel Messenger and Anne Hobbes, daughters of his brother, Robert Saucer.[10]

Robert Saucer married Alice Lytelcot and was dead by October 1393. On 9th October 1393 the trustees of the late Robert Saucer gave to his widow, Alice, her due dower lands, tenements and rents in West Amesbury.[11]

West Amesbury, Wiltshire from the www.thewritingnut.com 

On 15th January 1428 the dower lands of Idonia, wife of Thomas Saucer were divided equally between Isabel, wife of Walter Messenger and Anne, wife of Thomas Hobbes I, daughters of Robert Saucer.[12] The division of the property gives an interesting picture of the property of a strong farmer in the fifteenth century.

Walter Messenger and Isabel got thirteen separate plots of one acre each and one plot of half an acre. Thomas Hobbs and Anne got fourteen separate plots of one acre each and two half acre plots. The difference in acreage is not a problem as the division of the property was on the bases that each side would have a share of equal monetary value. Some of these one acre plots appear to have been originally two acre plots. For example both sides got a one acre plot of land in Dedeforlong between the lands of John More and Walter Paunsfote.[13]

These nearly thirty separate plots of land of one acre each would drive a modern farmer mad. My own farm is in two divisions separated by five miles and even with modern transport and machines it still takes a lot of time to get round to all the jobs. To get round to thirty different plots would like take forever. Yet our notions of the one person farmer didn't work in medieval times. In medieval times people held possession of individual plots, but all the differently owned plots in a large field, of say fifty acres in size, would be worked in a communal manner. This joint effort helped get the work done with hard working farmers and lazy farmers playing their part together.

It is difficult to know which plots were held by John Goien in the time of King Edward I from the list made in 1428. Various plots were likely to have been brought and sold over the intervening years. The marriages of the descendants of John Goien also brought unknown amounts of land into the big pool.  

In March 1455 Walter Messenger and Thomas Hobbes were witnesses to a grant of a messuage with curtilage and garden in Amesbury and the release of same by way of a lease for life.[14]

The family after 1500

R. B. Pugh in his introduction to the Calendar of Antrobus Deeds (page xiii) said that the pedigree of the Goien family, drawn up at the end of the fifteenth century was “not wholly trustworthy” and the “affiliations between Goien, Saucer, Hobbes and Ballet are extremely difficult to unravel”. Pugh gives the heirs of Thomas Hobbes I as three daughters and Thomas Hobbes II as a son who died without issue. My own interpretation is that the three daughters were the children of Thomas Hobbes II.

The Goien family pedigree made at the end of the fifteenth century described Thomas Hobbes II as then living. By 1502 Thomas Hobbes II was deceased. A detailed extent of the lands belonging to the late Thomas Hobbes II was made about 26th September 1502. This extent listed eighteen plots of half acre each; sixty-six plots of one acre each; eight plots of 1½ acres each; fourteen plots of two acres each; one plot of 2½ acres; seven plots of three acres each; one plot of 3½ acres; one plot of four acres and one plot of 4½ acres. There were five other named plots but no acreage figure was given for these. The grand total is something just over 150½ acres.[15] In modern farming this would be a good sized farm. Yet the one hundred and seventeen different plots and not all in one area (a few miles between plots in some cases) would be a nightmare.

What the 1502 extent does show is that in the modern Tudor age the landscape of the medieval countryside was still visible. Many of these plots would not have a separating hedgerow. People would know by custom and numerous law actions at the manor court where the boundaries were. There were some hedgerows in existence but the patchwork quilt of fields and hedgerows we see today are mostly the result of the enclosures of the medieval open fields which were made in the eighteenth century.  

As said Thomas Hobbes II of West Amesbury left a number of daughters as his heirs. One daughter, Avise Hobbes married John Silverthorne. By 1517 Avise and John Silverthorne had a mature son called William Silverthorne. On 23 April 1517 William Silverthorne made a gift to Gilbert Beckington of lands, rents, reversions and services in the town and fields of West Amesbury.[16]

Another daughter, Christine Feyth Hobbes, married John Ballet and they had three daughters. Agnes Ballet married John Stephens; Edith Ballet married William Stephens; and Elene Ballet remained a signal woman living in Baberstock, Wiltshire. On 20th May 1526 the three daughters and their husbands sold all their property in West Amesbury and Great Amesbury to William South of West Amesbury.[17] The sale was made possible by a settlement made two days before (18th May 1526). On that day Robert South of New Salisbury, Wiltshire made a bond of £40 to obey a judgement of Sir John Fitz James, chief justice of the King’s Bench. The judgement related to a dispute between William South (brother of Robert) and Gilbert Beckington on who had title to the lands in West Amesbury.[18]

Before October 1538 John Beckington, son of Gilbert Beckington, filed a claim before the courts that William Silverthorne, son of John Silverthorne and Avise, his wife, daughter of Thomas Hobbes II, had sold various parcels of land in West Amesbury to his father Gilbert Beckington. The court decided that such a sale was properly made and drew up an agreement to divide the lands between John Beckington and William South.[19]

The lands at West Amesbury continued in the South family for a number of generations and were enlarge by other purchases.[20] The lands acquire by the Beckington family also continued to be held by them.[21]
The Silverthorne family does not appear in the Wiltshire taxation list for 1545 but a number of members are listed in the 1576 taxation list. In 1576 William Silverthorne the elder and William Silverthorne the younger lived at West Ashton. It is possible that William Silverthorne the elder could be the same William Silverthorne of 1538. Also living there were John Silverthorne and Joan Silverthorne who was a widow.[22]

Further information on the Silverthorne family is difficult to know. The surviving medieval documents relating to property are concerned mainly with who owns the property, how much is it worth and how much do the tenants owe to the landlord. When a family sells land their subsequent history is of little concern to archivists working between the land sale and our own time. Thus our present history draws to a close until some new document surfaces sometime, somewhere.   

Medieval history is usually about royalty, great abbeys and the great barons who left behind them tons of documents. This article began with one undated document from the latter quarter of the fifteenth century. The pedigree of John Goien, contained in that document, was somewhat straightforward but also difficult to interpret properly. Yet that document, and the other surviving documents, allowed us to get a partial look in at an ordinary family who lived in West Amesbury nearly three hundred years and that is extraordinary. Although in the end the family severed their connection with West Amesbury with a bill of sale that end was with a bill of sale and not some eviction by a hungry landlord or war or plague and that is nice to see.

============

End of Post

============




[1] R.B. Pugh (ed.), Calendar of Antrobus Deeds before 1625 (Wiltshire Record Society, vol. 3, 1947), no. 76
[3] R.B. Pugh (ed.), Calendar of Antrobus Deeds before 1625, no. 18
[4] R.B. Pugh (ed.), Calendar of Antrobus Deeds before 1625, no. 3
[5] R.B. Pugh (ed.), Calendar of Antrobus Deeds before 1625, no. 5
[6] Edward Alex Fry (ed.), Abstracts of Wiltshire Inquisitions Post Mortem in the reigns of Henry III, Edward I & Edward II, 1242-1326 (British Record Society, 1908), p. 240
[7] R.B. Pugh (ed.), Calendar of Antrobus Deeds before 1625, nos. 9-16, 18-20
[8] R.B. Pugh (ed.), Abstracts of feet of fines relating to Wiltshire for the reigns of Edward I and Edward II (Wiltshire Record Society, vol. 1, 1939), p. 82
[9] Ethel Stokes (ed.), Abstracts of Wiltshire inquisitions post mortem in the reign of Edward III, part 2, 1354-1377 (British Record Society, 1914), p. 344
[10] R.B. Pugh (ed.), Calendar of Antrobus Deeds before 1625, nos. 49, 50
[11] R.B. Pugh (ed.), Calendar of Antrobus Deeds before 1625, no. 36
[12] R.B. Pugh (ed.), Calendar of Antrobus Deeds before 1625, no. 45
[13] R.B. Pugh (ed.), Calendar of Antrobus Deeds before 1625, no. 45
[14] R.B. Pugh (ed.), Calendar of Antrobus Deeds before 1625, nos. 59, 60
[15] R.B. Pugh (ed.), Calendar of Antrobus Deeds before 1625, no. 78
[16] R.B. Pugh (ed.), Calendar of Antrobus Deeds before 1625, no. 80
[17] R.B. Pugh (ed.), Calendar of Antrobus Deeds before 1625, no. 85
[18] R.B. Pugh (ed.), Calendar of Antrobus Deeds before 1625, no. 84
[19] R.B. Pugh (ed.), Calendar of Antrobus Deeds before 1625, no. 88
[20] R.B. Pugh (ed.), Calendar of Antrobus Deeds before 1625, nos. 92, 112, 130
[21] R.B. Pugh (ed.), Calendar of Antrobus Deeds before 1625, nos. 107, 109, 139, 145
[22] G.D. Ramsey (ed.), Two sixteenth century taxation lists 1545 and 1576 (Wiltshire Record Society, vol. 10, 1954), p. 139 

Friday, March 21, 2014

Huish manor in Wiltshire: from death to debt

Huish manor in Wiltshire: from death to debt

Niall C.E.J. O’Brien

This article sets out to follow the descent of a Wiltshire manor from Domesday to 1363. A manor which for one hundred and fifty years and more was held by the Doygnel family such that the place became known as Huish Doygnel. A strange succession deal along with a few quick deaths and one person’s excessive debt destroyed the Doygnel connection with Huish.

The parish of Huish is located about five miles south-east of Marlborough. The parish is about 740 acres in area and is roughly square in shape. The land is varied. Huish Hill rises to 850 feet from where the land to the north slopes gently downwards. The land to the south falls steeply away to about 500 feet. Huish Hill is unsuitable for ploughing but the land to the north is good for cultivation while the south-west corner of the parish is good meadow land.[1]

Huish Hill

Huish manor in Domesday

In the Domesday Bok of 1086 Richard Sturmid, an officer of King William, held Huish in the hundred of Swanborough which was then known as Iwis. The land contained three carucates of which one carucate in demesne with 4 serfs. There were three villeins and four coscets with two carucates. There was also four acres of meadow and a wood one mile long by four furlongs wide. The holder of the property in the time of King Edward was not stated but the value of the property, rated at one hide and a virgate and a half had increased from 30 shillings in 1066 to 60 shillings in 1086.[2]

It would appear that Richard Sturmid was a good landlord. His other property in Wiltshire, Cuvlestone also increased in value from 15 shillings in 1066 to 30 shillings in 1086.[3]

Huish manor and the Doygnel family

The manor of Huish next appears in the records during the reign of King Henry III. An undated extent was made of the lands in chief of the king held by Robert Doygnel during that reign. The twelve jury men who met at Huish found that Robert Doygnel held land in demesne worth 40 shillings, rent in assize worth 33 shillings and a meadow worth half a mark. He held no pasture in his own right and thus the total value of his property was 79 shillings 8 pence.[4]

In 1293 two inquisitions were held concerning Huish. The first stated that Silvester Doygnel held certain lands and tenements in Huish from the king in chief worth 13 shillings 4 pence which were taken by the sheriff of Wiltshire to pay the ward-ship dues to the king. Silvester Doygnel also held 80 acres of land worth 4 pence per acre, 40 acres of poor land worth 2 pence per acre, 6 acres of meadow worth 12 pence per acre and pasture worth 12 pence per year. The rent of the freemen and villeins with their services was 75 shillings 8 pence. The easements of the manor court were worth 12 pence per year while the pleas were worth 2 shillings. Added to the total value of 119 shillings was the advowson of the church which was worth 5 marks. Peter Doygnel was the son and heir of Silvester Doygnel and was aged 14 years.

In addition to this property, John Doygnel and Simon de Ordeston had enfeoffed Silvester Doygnel and Margaret, his wife, of one virgate and one acre of land at Huish in return for one rose per year. This land was worth 16 shillings 7 pence. Silvester and Margaret also had 3 virgates of land in West Tokham worth 30 shillings for which thy paid 24 shillings per year to Cristiana Spileman.[5] The second inquisition found the enfeoffment at Huish was made about 1278 while the property at West Tokham was acquired about 1269.[6]

Silvester Doygnel and Margaret also held property at Dreton Passelewe in Buckinghamshire by enfeoffment of Alexander son of Robert Myle. There they held a messuage, 77½ acres of land, 6 acres of meadow and 5 shillings of rent. This property was acquired around 1286 and was held from Woburn Abbey by service of 12 pence yearly.[7]

Peter Doygnel

Peter Doygnel inherited his father’s lands when he became of age in 1300. In October 1313 Peter Doygnel and his wife, Amice, granted 1 messuage and 4 virgates of land at West Tokham to William de Wynselawe. It would seem that Amice Doygnel had died by 1317 when Peter Doygnel is solely mentioned as landlord of 8 acres and 3 roots of land in Ore.[8] Sometime after Peter Doygnel married Agnes Burdon, a widow.

Around the year 1346 Peter Doygnel, knight, died leaving as heir, his son Silvester Doygnel who was then aged about 30 years. The subsequent inquisition found that Huish was held in chief of the king by 13 shillings 4 pence in yearly service. The jury found that long before his death, Peter Doygnel gave Huish to Sir Patrick, parson of Yatesbury church, John de la Roche and Sir John de Whetlaye, vicar of Yatesbury to hold in trust for Peter and his wife Agnes, with reminders to Thomas, son of Thomas le Blount; then to Peter le Blount, brother of Thomas son of Thomas and then to Nicholas de Cottelegh. After the expiration of all these reminders the manor was to pass to the right heirs of Peter Doygnel.[9]

It is interesting to note that Thomas le Blount the younger was married to Margaret, daughter of John de la Roche, one of the three trustees of the Doygnel estate. Medieval people liked to arrange things and keep things in the family. It looked good in the papers and didn’t upset people at breakfast! 

Agnes Doygnel

Agnes Doygnel died on 6th May 1349. Her inquisition post mortem found that she held the manor of Huish for life by the gift of the three trustees mentioned above. This was held of the king in chief by the service of petty serjeanty of 13 shillings 4 pence per year. Agnes Doygnel also held the manor of Yatesbury in dower of the inheritance of Nicholas Burdon. Edward, Prince of Wales, was the lord of Yatesbury and the property was held by knight service. This Nicholas Burdon was a son of Agnes and was aged 40 and more in 1349.[10] It is very possible that Nicholas Burdon was a son of Agnes Doygnel from a previous marriage. We are told he was her heir in blood.

The Burdon family

The Burdon family had their chief Wiltshire residence at Paulesholt. This was held by Sir Nicholas Burdon at the time of his death in 1273. Sir Nicholas was succeeded by his twenty-seven year old son, Robert Burdon (born c.1246). Robert Burdon held Paulesholt at the time of his death in 1280 and was married to a woman called Marie. Robert Burdon was succeeded by his forty year old son, Nicholas Burdon (born c.1240).[11]
In 1292 it was recorded that Nicholas Burdon held land at Fogheleston by Wilton. This land was not mentioned in his inquisition post mortem but was held by a kinsman, Edmund Burdon in 1362. This Edmund Burdon also possessed Yatesbury by that time which Nicholas Burdon once held and had given the old family estate at Paulesholt to trustees.[12]

It appears that Nicholas Burdon was married to Isabel Pipard.[13] Nicholas Burdon increased the family’s property by the time of his death in 1301, much of it via his wife. In his inquisition post mortem Nicolas Burdon possessed Wiltshire property at Yatesbury (held of the Earl of Lincoln), Paulesholt (held of the Earl of Arundel), Henton (held of Henry de Cobeham), and La Littleton (held of Henry de Cobeham).[14] In addition, Nicholas Burdon possessed the manor of Oldbury in Gloucestershire (held of the Earl of Lincoln)[15] and the Devon manor of Kingesteynton (held in chief of the king). This latter manor was assigned to Marie, widow of Robert Burdon as her dower land. Nicholas Burdon was succeeded by his eleven year old son, Nicholas Burdon (born c.1290).[16]

An addendum document to the inquisition of 1301 says that Agnes was the wife of this Nicholas Burdon and that the eleven year old son was her son. This would make the Nicholas Burdon of 1349 a fifty-nine year old person and not forty according to the jury return.[17] As said above, sometime after 1317 Agnes Burdon, a widow, married Peter Doygnel, a widower.

Further lands of Agnes Doygnel

Agnes Doygnel held additional dower lands at La Littleton and Broad-Henton from John le Cobeham by the service of 4 shillings yearly.

St. Nicholas Church, Huish by Andrew Smith

The succession deal of Peter and Agnes Doygnel

Earlier we observed the succession deal of Peter and Agnes Doygnel. This deal made Thomas le Blount the younger as first heir with his brother Peter le Blount as the second heir and Nicholas de Cottelegh as the third named heir. The deal seems strange. It was mentioned that Thomas and Peter le Blount were grandsons of Peter Doygnel.[18] Their mother was Anastasia Doygnel, daughter of Agnes and Peter Doygnel. Yet Anastasia had a brother, Silvester Doygnel. Silvester Doygnel was 30 years old when his father died and was of age to inherit in the normal run of things but he didn’t. One is even surprised that Silvester Doygnel was not named as first heir in the succession deal.

In other inheritance documents mention is made of any disability with the heir. We read of John Thymulby of Lincolnshire who was congenitally insane when his father died. In Herefordshire Thomas Wouton was thirty years old and heir to his father but was “a fool and an idiot from birth” thus the family property was taken into state care.[19] No such disabilities are mentioned in relation to Silvester Doygnel. There was clearly something going on in the Doygnel household that the absence of documents makes it difficult for us to understand. 

By the time Agnes Doygnel died in 1349 the first named heir was dead. This was Thomas le Blount, son of Thomas le Blount. His wife, Margaret, daughter of John de la Roche was also dead. They left no children. Thus Peter le Blount, brother of Thomas, was the next heir and was eight years old in 1349.[20]

Peter le Blount and Huish manor

Peter le Blount succeeded to Huish manor before he achieved his majority. But he did not long enjoy his inheritance as he died before July 1361. The subsequent inquisition post mortem found that Huish and the other family property was in a rundown state. The capital messuage at Huish generated no income while one of the two dovecotes was in ruins. Much of the farm land was held in common by the tenants leaving little room for improvement. Yet still the approximated value of the manor was a respectable £7 14 shillings 4 pence.[21]

When Peter le Blount died the jury which met at Marlborough, in July 1361, for the inquest into Peter’s property found that his uncle Silvester Doygnel was alive and was aged forty years. The jury declared Silvester Doygnel as the next heir but acknowledged that John de Cottelegh was heir of Huish under the succession settlement.[22] But for a time none of the heirs entered into the possession of Huish. Instead Huish was taken into the king’s hand. On 20th September 1361 Edward III presented Roger de Hanyndon, chaplain, to the church at Huish.[23]

Nicholas Cottelegh

It was mentioned that Thomas and Peter le Blount were grandsons of Peter Doygnel.[24] It is possible and likely that Nicholas de Cottelegh was also a relation of Peter Doygnel but the nature of that relationship is as yet unclear.

A document of 1284 said that Nicholas de Cottelegh was married to Joan, daughter and co-heiress of Geoffrey Foliot of Berkshire and that they were married about 1277.[25] Nicholas de Cottelegh succeeded to lands in Oxfordshire at Wainhill in the parish of Chinnor and was lord of that place in 1279. Nicholas de Cottelegh was succeeded by his presumed son Geoffrey de Cottelegh who was lord of Wainhill in 1295. In 1319 Geoffrey de Cottelegh leased Wainhill to Henry de Malyns and his son, Edmund, for life, and this was confirmed by his son, Nicholas de Cottelegh in 1325.[26]

An undated document records the grant by Philip Percy of some land in the furlong of Stapleway in Dorset to Nicholas de Cottelegh.[27] More firmly dating evidence of the Cottelegh family is provided in a taxation roll of 1327.

In the 1327 lay subsidy roll for Dorset Nicholas de Cottelegh is listed as taxpayer in the township of Leigh in the hundred of Yetminster. There he had a tax bill of 3 shillings 2½ pence. The highest taxpayers were Philip Curteys and John Papel (both 6 shillings) while most people paid 6 pence. The record relating to Chardstock is damaged and so we cannot tell if Nicholas de Cottelegh is listed as taxpayer in that parish where his son John lived in 1361.[28] In the 1332 lay subsidy roll for Dorset, Nicholas de Cottelegh had a tax bill on his movable goods of 2 shillings in the township of Leigh which Isabella de Cottelegh (possibly his mother) had a tax bill at Chardstock of 8 shillings 4 pence.[29]

Nicholas de Cottelegh got married on or before 1330 as his son, John de Cottelegh was said to be 30 years old in 1361.[30] Nicholas de Cottelegh was dead by July 1361 and possibly for many years before that.[31]

John de Cottelegh and Huish

John de Cottelegh seems to have succeeded to his father’s Oxfordshire estates by the late 1340s and continued the practice of leasing out these estates to others. In 1347 John son of Nicholas de Cottelegh made a similar lease for life of Wainhill to Edmund Malyns and in 1348 released all his rights to Edmund Malyns who became effective owner of Wainhill.[32]

In July 1361 the jury which met after the death of Peter le Blount found John de Cottelegh was heir to Huish in Wiltshire by the Doygnel family succession settlement. Sometime after September 1361 John de Cottelegh acquired full possession of Huish. The inheritance was a welcome addition to John’s income and John needed a lot of income.

Over the previous few years John de Cottelegh lived the good life on borrowed money. It seems John de Cottelegh did make improvements to Huish to generate more money but not enough. The value of the dovecot increased from 3 shillings 4 pence in 1361 to 6 shillings 8 pence in 1363, while the profits of the manorial court increased from 3 shillings 4 pence (1361) to 26 shillings 8 pence (1363). But John de Cottelegh did few investments. Under Peter le Blount 180 acres of grain was planted each year but John de Cottelegh only plant a fraction of this acreage. Clearly John de Cottelegh was trying to hit the tenants hard to get more money. But his efforts were not good enough to repay his massive debts.

By early 1361 John de Cottelegh was in court for unpaid debts. On 9th March 1361, before John Pyel, then mayor of the Staple of Westminster, John Cottelegh of Cherdestoke (Chardstock) parish in Dorset (now in Devon) acknowledged a debt of £500 owed to Gilbert le Despenser. This debt was to be payable by 2nd May 1361 but it would seem the debt was not repaid.[33]

On 30th January 1363 a royal order was sent to conduct an inquisition into the assets of John de Cottelegh so the debt could be recovered. This was to be done and returned by 16th April 1363. The extent of John de Cottelegh’s property in Wiltshire was held in Marlborough on 4th March 1363.

The twelve jury members reported that John de Cottelegh held the manor of Huish with the advowson of the church. There was a house with at least two rooms and a kitchen. Among the outbuildings was a dovecot worth 6 shillings 8 pence along with a ruined dovecot worth nothing. The land around Huish contained 240 acres of arable land (there was 360 acres of arable land in the time of Peter le Blount) worth 3 pence per acre (worth 4 pence per acre under Peter le Blount); 6 acres of meadow worth 12 shillings; pasture in severalty for 18 oxen and 6 working cattle and pasture in common worth 10 shillings; there were rents from various free life tenants but the extent document is damaged at that point and the proper value of these rents is unclear; and finally the perquisites of the manor court with fines was worth 26 shillings 8 pence. The total value of Huish manor was £9 8 shillings 4 pence (increased from £7 14 shillings 4 pence in 1361). In addition to this valuation there were 20 acres of grain sown which was worth 40 shillings. This made a total valuation of £11 8 shillings 4 pence.[34]

Huish was seized for the unpaid debts and over the following sixty years passed through many different owners.[35] John de Cottelegh lost his long sought inheritance and possibly much more. It is not known if he even fully repaid his debts or left any property to his heirs. The loss of Huish, which had become more known as Huish Doygnel, must have been painful for Silvester Doygnel. The family inheritance was gone and he was left without means. Subsequent records do not mention Silvester Doygnel. Thus a strange family succession deal, along with too many quick deaths and one person with excessive debt had ended the Doygnel association with Huish.  

================

End of post

================




[2] William Henry Jones (ed.), Domesday for Wiltshire (R.E. Peach, Bath, 1865), pp. 144, 221
[3] William Henry Jones (ed.), Domesday for Wiltshire, p. 127
[4] Edward Fry (ed.), Abstracts of Wiltshire Inquisitions Post Mortem Henry III-Edward II (British Record Society, vol. 37, 1908), p. 66; J.E.E.S. Sharp (ed.), Calendar of inquisitions post mortem preserved in the Public Record Office, Vol. 1, Henry III (Kraus reprint, 1973), no. 894
[5] Edward Fry (ed.), Abstracts of Wiltshire Inquisitions Post Mortem Henry III-Edward II, p. 196
[6] Edward Fry (ed.), Abstracts of Wiltshire Inquisitions Post Mortem Henry III-Edward II, p. 197
[7] J.E.E.S. Sharp (ed.), Calendar of inquisitions post mortem preserved in the Public Record Office, Vol. III, Edward I (Kraus reprint, 1973), no. 97
[8] R.B. Pugh (ed.), Abstracts of feet of fines relating to Wiltshire for the reigns of Edward I and Edward II (Wiltshire Record Society, vol. 1, 1939), pp. 84, 95
[9] J.E.E.S. Sharp (ed.), Calendar of inquisitions post mortem preserved in the Public Record Office, Vol. VIII, Edward III (Kraus reprint, 1973), no. 578
[10] J.E.E.S. Sharp (ed.), Calendar of inquisitions post mortem preserved in the Public Record Office, Vol. IX, Edward III (Kraus reprint, 1973), no. 420
[11] Edward Fry (ed.), Abstracts of Wiltshire Inquisitions Post Mortem Henry III-Edward II, pp. 86, 132, 280
[12] R.B. Pugh (ed.), Abstracts of feet of fines relating to Wiltshire for the reigns of Edward I and Edward II, p. 38; Ethel Stokes (ed.), Abstracts of Wiltshire inquisitions post mortem in the reign of Edward III (British Record Society, 1914), p. 303
[13] E.G. Atkinson (ed.), Calendar of inquisitions post mortem preserved in the Public Record Office, Vol. X, Edward III (Kraus reprint, 1973), no. 668. Isabel Pipard received Yatesbury as her dower lands.
[14] Edward Fry (ed.), Abstracts of Wiltshire Inquisitions Post Mortem Henry III-Edward II, pp. 278-281; J.E.E.S. Sharp (ed.), Calendar of inquisitions post mortem preserved in the Public Record Office, Vol. IV, Edward 1 (Kraus reprint, 1973), no. 20
[15] J.E.E.S. Sharp (ed.), Calendar of inquisitions post mortem, Vol. IV, Edward 1, no. 20; Sidney J. Madge (ed.), Abstracts of inquisitions post mortem for Gloucestershire, part IV, 20 Henry III to 29 Edward 1 (British Record Society, 1903), pp. 227-230. In 1343 Oldbury was held by Nicholas Burdon from the Earl of Salisbury = Edward Fry (ed.), Abstracts of inquisitions post mortem for Gloucestershire, part V, 30 Edward 1 to 32 Edward III (British Record Society, 1910), p. 301
[16] Edward Fry (ed.), Abstracts of Wiltshire Inquisitions Post Mortem Henry III-Edward II, pp. 278-281; J.E.E.S. Sharp (ed.), Calendar of inquisitions post mortem preserved in the Public Record Office, Vol. IV, Edward 1 (Kraus reprint, 1973), no. 20
[17] E.G. Atkinson (ed.), Calendar of inquisitions post mortem, Vol. X, Edward III, no. 668; J.E.E.S. Sharp (ed.), Calendar of inquisitions post mortem preserved in the Public Record Office, Vol. IX, Edward III (Kraus reprint, 1973), no. 420
[19] Kate Parkin (ed.), Calendar of inquisitions post mortem preserved in the Public Record Office, Vol. XXII, 1 to 5 Henry VI, 1422-1427 (Boydell Press & National Archives, 2003), nos. 557, 838
[20] J.E.E.S. Sharp (ed.), Calendar of inquisitions post mortem, Vol. IX, Edward III, no. 420
[21] Ethel Stokes (ed.), Abstracts of Wiltshire inquisitions post mortem in the reign of Edward III, pp. 272-273
[22] Ethel Stokes (ed.), Abstracts of Wiltshire inquisitions post mortem in the reign of Edward III, p. 273
[23] Calendar of Patent Rolls, Edward III, 1361-1364, p. 75
[25] J.E.E.S. Sharp (ed.), Calendar of inquisitions post mortem preserved in the Public Record Office, Vol. II, Edward 1 (Kraus reprint, 1973), no. 60
[28] Alexander R. Rumble (ed.), The Dorset lay subsidy roll of 1327 (Dorset Record Society, vol. 6, 1979), pp. 25, 26, 57
[29] A.D. Mills (ed.), The Dorset lay subsidy roll of 1332 (Dorset Record Society, vol. 4, 1971), pp. 36, 38
[30] Ethel Stokes (ed.), Abstracts of Wiltshire inquisitions post mortem in the reign of Edward III, p. 273
[31] J.E.E.S. Sharp (ed.), Calendar of inquisitions post mortem preserved in the Public Record Office, Vol. XI, Edward III (Kraus reprint, 1973), no. 13
[33] Angela Conyers (ed.), Wiltshire extents for debts Edward I-Elizabeth I (Wiltshire Record Society, vol. 28, 1973), no. 13
[34] Angela Conyers (ed.), Wiltshire extents for debts Edward I-Elizabeth I (Wiltshire Record Society, vol. 28, 1973), no. 13