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.
Nov2006.jpg)
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
[26] http://www.british-history.ac.uk/report.aspx?compid=63816&strquery=John%20Cottelegh
accessed on 12 March 2014
[27] http://www.british-history.ac.uk/report.aspx?compid=64486&strquery=John%20Cottelegh
accessed on 12 March 2014
[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
[32] http://www.british-history.ac.uk/report.aspx?compid=63816&strquery=John%20Cottelegh
accessed on 12 March 2014
[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
No comments:
Post a Comment