The first Whitley Charters (7) - the service

I think that as at c.1220-1230) Whitley was held in effect directly from the lord of Pontefract (John de Lacy), some by the father of the Dransfeld brothers, and some by Peter de Birthwaite, with no effective intermediate holder. And Whitley was not their only holding. Dransfield senior, and Peter, then die. Then-

A. Charter 1. William de Dransfeld grants the Whitley land he has inherited from his father to his [younger] brother Thomas

B. Lost Charter. Thomas de Dransfeld obtains a grant of Whitley land from the Birthwaite family

C. Charter 2. The Earl buys both these lots of Whitley land from Thomas

D. Charter 3. The Earl grants the land to John Muncebote / Mucenbot with permission to designate William de Beaumont as his heir

E. Charter 4. John Mucenbot / Muncebote confirms Beaumont as his heir.

Sub-infeudation

Although I think John de Lacy had been able to do away with the old middle interests (see previous note), he now begins to create new ones.

Each change of ownership that was not an inheritance, is not seen as a transfer, but as a grant of a junior interest (a new link in the chain). Some sort of additional service arises each time. It soon becomes unworkable. Imagine if each time people moved house, they were unable to sell the property, but could only let it.

New chains developed, so that within a couple of generations things must have become as unworkable as before, and the chief lords such as John de Lacy's descendants were soon finding they were unable to collect or enforce what they felt should be due to them such as wardships, escheats, and control  of marriages. 

So they got the law reformed in 1290 by a Statute known as Quia Emptores. Transfers were now allowed, and sub-infeudations banned. All the services would be due to the chief lord, rather than to middle men. This put the great lords much more back in control.

To return to the particular services in this case.

A. A pound of cumin to William de Dransfeld and his heirs

This is first reserved in charter no. 1 (WBD/IX/2) and repeated in charter no. 3 (WBD/IX/1) as due to William and his heirs, though actually in Dodsworth's transcript of William's own charter (MS 133 fo. 117v; WBD/IX/2) it is clearly half a pound of silver (half a pound of cumin in the Catalogue entry for WBD/IX/2). I don't know if the pound is by weight or value.

Cumin seems to me like a luxury item. I don't know if it was just a symbolic thing. But even today we still hear of a "peppercorn rent."

Dransfield Hill Farm (top of map below) is the name of an ancient farm near Whitley

Ordnance Survey 6 ins to the mile. Thanks to maps.nls.uk.

Thomas son of Hugh de Dransfeld had given Byland Abbey some property in Whitley between about 1206 and 1211 (Yorkshire Deeds, 6, no. 540 - in the BL Add Ch series that I mentioned in the previous note). In his own charter William gives Thomas as his father's name. I think William is the eldest son, granting the Whitley part of his inheritance to his brother. 

A family tree that I found online seems to have skipped a generation. For what it is worth I suggest:-

• 1. Hugh de D of Whitley (late c12); father of 
• 2. Thomas (donor to Byland); father of 
• 3. William (granted Whitley to his brother and moved to Bretton); and 
• 3. Thomas (acquired more land at Whitley and sold all to John de Lacy).

Over a hundred years later the Beaumonts' interest at Whitley was still held from the Dransfields (now of Bretton). This is proved by a statement in a "Rental" dated 1370 of the estates of John de Dronsfeld (the spelling is variable):

Brianne de Stapelton knight holds the manor of Whitlay‑beaumond by knight service and renders per annum one pound sterling and for castle ferm 10s.on the feast of St. Martin. 

(Sir Brian Stapleton  controlled the Beaumonts' estates at that time, due to their misdeeds and misfortunes)

(The text of it this Rental and some commentary was published in Old West Riding Magazine vol. 5 no.1 (Summer 1985) by John Addy and Elizabeth Gibson. The Rental was amongst the Bretton Hall / Allendale archives at the Yorks Arch Soc., part of reference BEA/C3/B31, and should now and in future have reference WYW/1849/xxx at West Yorkshire Archives. As at 17 July 2021 it was still not in the online catalogue.) 

(I do wonder if the pound sterling is an update of the pound of cumin, and if the ten shillings for castle farm is an update on one of the other older services). 

B. Ten shillings to the heirs of Peter de Birthwaite

This service is mentioned in Charter No. 2 (WBD/IX/3) but I think must have been reserved first in a now missing charter. Besides getting his brother's interest at Whitley, Thomas de Dransfeld also bought something there from the Birthwaites. He then sold the combined estate to the earl, who paid twenty marks to him according to Dodsworth's transcript of the charter.

My reading from Yorkshire source books such as EYC III is that Peter of Birthwaite had died in about 1230 leaving a daughter Juliana who married one John de Rockley. 

The money apparently continued to be paid from the Beaumonts to the Rockleys as Peter's heirs. This is suggested by the fact that an (assumed) descendant and heiress Alice, daughter of Peter de Rockley, is found in 1320, when certain service due to her was said to include the homage and service of Sir Robert de Beaumont for land held at Whitley.

From Cal. Close Rolls 1318-1323 p.220

The name of Birthwaite, Birkethwaite etc may have been confused by some writers with eg Birthwistle or Briestwistle.

C. White gloves at Easter

This is the particular service reserved by the Earl in charter no. 3 - the one granting Whitley to John Mucenbote.

White gloves is quite clearly what RHB read, and the latin text from Dodsworth, partly lost in a fold, looks like duas cirotecas albas. I understand that chirotecae means the liturgical silk gloves worn at Easter by Roman Catholic bishops and cardinals. The translation in the Archives Catalogue is "vestments" but I don't accept that. 

Rent of liturgical gloves is not that unusual.  It is more than a token since the gloves would be expensive. However to some extent as with the cumin, it must be symbolic.

D. The foreign service

This service is mentioned in several of the charters as being in addition to the service arising from the grant in question.

Foreign or "Forinsec" service means, I think, in this context, the service due to the chief lords (Pontefract). It might be defined as the service due to any lord further up the chain than the immediate one. It certainly does not mean just service outside of England. 

The Earl bought the land of which he was already the chief lord. Today, if a Landlord buys the interest of his Tenant, the lease will cancel itself, but this is clearly not how they saw it. When the Earl granted the property to John Mucenbote, the older services due to Dransfeld and Birthwaite had survived.

The "foreign service"was reserved or preserved (saved) expressly in Charter no. 1 when William de Dransfeld sold to his brother (Dodsworth MS 133 fo.117v)(catalogue summary DD/WBD/IX/2). 

I think the translations that say that the Earl acquits the land from some of these services are incorrect. The service is saved or preserved, so that the new holders have to do that as well as the service to the intermediate people.

It is not very clear what the Forinsec service exactly was, perhaps a fraction of a knights fee.

E. No service due to John Mucenbote's heirs

No additional service is due from William de Beaumont, to John Mucenbote's heirs. William is treated as John's heir. Whether or how he was related to John Mucenbote may never be known.

The local historian Mrs Frances Collins about 100 years ago, suggested that the rent being white gloves shows that the grantee was considered one of the family. This was a plank in her argument that William de Beaumont was related to Adam FitzSwain, as (on this basis) was John, who she made out to be Roger de Montbegon's son. This is just fanciful. Anyway the gloves are the reserved service in the grant by the Earl to John Mucenbote, not the grant by him to William Beaumont!

Is this the site of Whitley Hall?

A final question might be whether we can identify the exact property to which these charters refer. I certainly can't. There was a "capital messuage" - this was included in charter no. 2 (Thomas to the Earl) and the subsequent charters. I don't see mention of it in Charter no. 1 so I do not know if it was included in the Dransfield part, or the Birthwaite part, of the estate. Anyway, that would not be enough to identify where this "capital messuage" stood. 

Also, whatever was meant by Whitley, there is nothing to suggest that these charters comprised the whole of it.

EMB 26 July 2021