married), and on account of this contract the said Agnes gave him the land at Crucheston, and gave him a charter of the land, both at Uphulle and Crucheston, for 200 marks.

And the said William quietly continued possession of the land for eleven years, during which time the said Agnes frequently demanded and entreated him to make her his wife, to which request he would not and could not consent, as he was married elsewhere; and therefore the said Agnes being reduced to the greatest poverty came to the Queen at Clarendon, and gave her to understand how she had parted with her land, and how by the falsehood of the said William she was disinherited. Whereupon the Queen being moved by piety came and showed the King this deed and falsehood, and he incontinently directed Walter de Wymburn to call the parties before him, and do in the matter what right and reason demanded. And the said Walter attached the said William to answer touching the said deceit by the King's marshals. And he answered, that he was enfeoffed of the lands by the charter of the said Agnes, without any condition whatever. And issue being joined, the jury say that the said Agnes recovered seisin of her land before the said Walter de Wymburn. Being asked if she received the 200 marks alleged to have been paid her, they answer, no. Being asked if the said William was married when he made the contract with her, and if she knew it, they answer, he was married in the county of Southampton, but the said Agnes was entirely ignorant thereof. And they say, that the said Agnes afterwards gave the said tenements to the lady the Queen, and enfeoffed her thereof and the Queen gave her for seven years while she lived, ten marks a-year for food and clothing.

Shortly after this the record becomes defaced, but there is little doubt that William de Pateney is put out of court.

The two next cases show the equitable principles with which both the auditors and the Queen's executors were actuated in the settlement of matters.

The Prior and Convent of Ledes, pray that justice may be done them, and the late Queen's will be fulfilled in this matter; that the said Queen had promised them forty marks annual rent to found a chantry for three canons in the chapel of the castle, to which the King and Queen bound themselves by writing, and the service has been daily

VOL. X.

Q

performed, and only twelve marks has been received. Being asked what authority they have for the promise, they say the Queen's letter, which they show to the above effect, dated at Leyburne, in Gascony, 24th October, a° 14. The justices obtain certificate of the value received by the said prior, and the claim having been recited before the King, they are to recover twenty-eight marks rent out of the Queen's lands, and hold the same for ever.

Michael de Elhurst complains, that the water running to his mill at Merdon (Kent), had been diverted by the Queen's bailiffs, and his wall broken down so that he could not grind. The bailiffs allege that the former holder of Bokyngsand, of whom the Queen had it, bought the water of the said Michael's ancestor, and yet he had raised his wall to the injury of the Queen's mill. This answer is confirmed by the jury; but as the water had washed away the earth from the said wall, and more water flowed to the Queen's mill than usual, it was directed that the wall be repaired, and the said Michael recover seisin.

The roll of proceedings in the counties of Chester and Flint, is full of curious matter, especially to those locally interested but besides the extracts already given from it, there are several other entries which appear to possess general interest.

The first case is remarkable as one in which an admission is made that will bear an unfavourable construction upon the late Queen's conduct.

Richard de Stokepord, Knt., complains, that the lady the Queen, caused twenty marks to be levied upon him by her bailiff, because he had not presented John de Cam at the Queen's request, to the Church of Stokepord; and this he could not do, as he had made the presentation before he received the Queen's commands. And the Queen's bailiff said in secret, that he well knew that for the reason alleged, the said Richard had been distrained and ill-treated till he had paid the said fine. And as the Bishop of Bath (Robert Burnel, the King's chancellor, and one of the Queen's executors), was said to know this was true, entreaty shall be made thereon to the Queen's executors.

Madoc, the son of Griffith Vachan, the son of Griffith Ab Madoc (who has been traced by a Welsh gentleman, well versed in these matters, to be the lineal ancestor of Owen

Glendower; and the spirit displayed in this case is certainly that which characterised his celebrated descendant;) complains that from the time when he ought to have had the inheritance of his late father, it had been taken into the Queen's hands "by force," and he himself claimed to be in custody till he attained full age, which he says, "is a thing "that was never imposed upon any Welshman, nor should "it be, because it is not the custom of that country." Since the Queen's death his inheritance was in the King's hands, whence the youth has nothing for his support but six marks a-year. He prays inquiry may be made if ever any Welshmen have been in custody, or ought to be. Hugh de Cressingham replies that the father of the said Madoc was enfeoffed by the King by barony and other military services which give the King custody. Madoc denies that any Welsh ever were or ought to be in custody, and says his father held his lands as his ancestors had held them, and none of them ever were in custody. The Baron of Edernion was also enfeoffed by the King, and his heir though under age, had been restored to his inheritance.

The case is not decided, but is to be referred to the King. If it had been, we should know whether Edward I. succeeded in imposing upon the Welsh all the incidents of feudal tenure, which were so profitable to the King, but irritating to the tenant, against the chief of which Madoc here so strongly protests.

The next instance is one of family fraud and oppression, but corrected in consequence of the Queen's officers' conduct being questioned.

Tangwystel and Wentilyan, daughters of Yovan Gough, complain that they claimed the inheritance of their father, but the Queen's bailiff refused to grant it them, and delivered it to Yerefret Fyllok. The bailiff answers, that the uncle of the said daughters had seisin of the inheritance before it was claimed by them. But the jury say, that the said Tangwystel and Wentilyan are the right heirs of their father, and on the day their uncle (Yerefret) came into court to claim the inheritance, they also came to do so, but their said uncle so threatened and otherwise terrified them, that they were afraid to make their claim.

There are two cases, which show how the late war in

Wales had affected two persons in very different positions ; and with these I will conclude my extracts.

Hugh de Venables complains, that his father being about to sell certain land to the Queen, the execution of the deeds was stopped by the commencement of the war in Wales; but the Queen was in possession of the land. After the war, the Queen refused to give up the land, but promised to pay for it. This had not been done, so his father had died from poverty, and he was in debt £100. No proceedings took place, and it is recorded that entreaty should be made to the King, as the complainant can only refer to promises.

The Bishop of St. Asaph complains, that the Englishmen of the parish of Hope and the towns adjoining, who came there since the last war, would not obey his citations or appear before him out of their parish, and in this they were encouraged by the Queen's bailiff; and what was worse, the tithes and customs due to the bishoprick they refused to render, wishing in this and other things, to hold a higher place than the Welsh and natives of the land. The King is to be spoken with and prayed to remedy it.

And it appears by several proceedings here recorded, that after the war in Wales, the King had induced Englishmen to settle where the Welsh had left or been driven out, by proclaiming such settlers to be rent free for ten years; although that promise was said to have been disregarded by the Queen's bailiffs in some places. But it is only in one instance that the complainants substantiate their case, and the bailiffs are punished.

That the King's own directions greatly guided the auditors, is shown by many other cases besides those where I have noticed the expression in which their settlement is postponed, till the King could be consulted in the matter.

This selection forms but a small portion of the entries upon the rolls, and there can be little doubt that they are well worthy the consideration of the historical inquirer; and that such consideration will not in any way lower the already high estimation in which the characters of King Edward I., and Queen Eleanor of Castile are usually held.

JOSEPH BURTT.