Walter de Rudham held in his demesne as of fee a fourth part of the manor (quartam partem manerii) of Messeworth with appurtenances of the king in chief, as of the Honor of Wallyngford, by service of the fourth part of a knight's fee (per servitium quarte partis unius feodi militis). There is there a capital messuage worth 20s. yearly. There are there 2004. arable, by the lesser hundred (cc. acre arabilis per minus centum scilt. 100 as opposed to 120) each worth 6d. and the sum is 100s. They say that he held the third part of a water mill and it is worth 88. as let (sicut ponitur ad firmam). There are there 24a. meadow, worth 18d. each, the sum 3s. 9d. There are there 4a. pasture each worth 6d., the sum 28. There is there a rent of free [tenants] by the year 24s. 7d. by equal portions, viz. Christmas, St. Mary in March, Midsummer and Michaelmas. There is there a rent of customary [tenants] by the year 20s. 10d. at the same terms equally. He held 2a. wood in Drayton Beauchamp of the heirs of William de Beauchamp by service of 12d. yearly, whereof there is no profit; he held of Ralph de Wedone 284a. arable and the moiety of a water mill, by service of 3s. 2d. yearly at the said terms, and they are worth in all issues 20s. ; the sum 20s. from which in payment of rent to Ralph de Wedon 3s. 2d. Item dicunt quod Willelmus Bygod nepos predicti Walteri est propinquior heres ipsius Walteri et etatis xl. annorum et amplius. In cujus, &c. The said Walter held no other lands in my bailiwick the day he died other than those contained in that inquisition. (Ings. post mortem. Chancery. Edward I. File 125 (20)).

William le Bygod is found by this inquisition to be nepos and heir of Walter de Rudham, aged 40 and more. The word nepos, exactly like the word "nephew" in English, may signify either grandson or nephew in the modern sense. Now it is obvious that if William, in this instance were grandson of Walter, Walter must have attained a great age, for William is stated to be 40 years old and over. Thus it is with some surprise that on turning to the Fine Roll again we find :

:

De homagio Willelmi
Bygod.

Rex cepit homagium Willelmi Bygod nepotis et heredis Walteri de Rudham defuncti de omnibus terris et tenementis que prefatus Walterus [avus interlineated] suus tenuit de rege in capite die quo obiit . . . Ex ideo mandatum est . . . escaetori . . . quod . . . eidem Willelmo de omnibus terris . . . de quibus prefatus Walterus avus suus fuit seisitus . . . plenam seisinam habere faciat xv die Februarii [35 Edward I (1306-7) m. 10].

...

Here it is most clearly asserted that William was Walter's grandson.

With much celerity William Bygod disposed of his newly-acquired

property. A writ issued on 12 June, 35 Edward I (1307) that is to say, within four months of the writ to put Bygod in possession, directing an enquiry whether it be to the king's loss that Ranulph de Monte Caniso (scilt. Montchansy) and Albreda, his wife, retain to them and the heirs of Albreda, the manor of Masseworth, held of the king in chief, as of the Honor of Wallingford, by service of of a knight's fee, which they had acquired, to them and Albreda's heirs, of William le Bigod, without licence. An inquisition was taken (A.Q.D. File 68, no. 7) on the Tuesday after St. John the Baptist, 35 Edward III (26 June, 1307), when it was found not to be to the king's loss, &c.; that it is worth 8l. 19s. 3d.; and that no lands remain to William le Bigod (after parting with Masseworth).

Four years later Ranulph de Monte Caniso died and by an inquisition taken 22 February, 4 Edward II (1310-11), it was found that he died seised inter alia of a fourth part of the manor of Masseworth, held of the earl of Cornwall, as of the Honor of Wallingford, by service of of a knight's fee and of the wood, land, and moiety of a water-mill in Drayton Beauchamp,—of everything in fact that Walter de Rudham had owned at his decease,

A quarter of the manor of Marsworth means presumably of the whole vill; but as the whole vill was apparently held for two knights' fees, the service one would suppose for a quarter of it ought to be reckoned at half a knight's fee-as Walter de Rudham had held it in 1284. On the other hand, if the service is correctly stated at a quarter, then it was an eighth of the whole vill of which Walter de Rudham actually died seised, although it is described as a quarter of the manor, and we are left to suppose that he had sold or otherwise got rid of the other eighth, which he had originally held, in his lifetime. Some certainty on the point might facilitate the understanding of the claim advanced, in 1318, by Peter Doynell, and the answer to that claim made by John de Monte Caniso.

John de Monte Caniso was the son and heir of Ranulph, aged at his father's death in 1311 between 24 and 26 according to the various returns, and it was against him that, apparently in 8 Edward II (1314-15) Peter Doynell began his suit for "a moiety

of the manor of Messeworth." The proceedings were possibly instituted on a writ of "Cosinage," which is very similar to a writ of "Aiel," and may perhaps in this case have been confused with it; for in the plea, which follows, we find "predictus Walterus avus "in one line and immediately afterwards :-" de ipso Waltero quia obiit sine herede," &c. :

Buk.' Petrus Doynel petit versus Johannem de Monte Caniso medietatem manerii de Messeworth ut jus suum et cujusdam Thome Bygod Et de quo Walterus de Rudham consanguineus predictorum Petri et Thome cujus heredes ipsi sunt fuit seisitus in dominico suo ut de feodo die quo obiit etc. Et unde idem Petrus dicit quod predictus Walterus avus etc. fuit seisitus de predicto manerio in dominico suo ut de feodo tempore pacis tempore Edwardi patris domini regis nunc capiendo inde explecias ad valentiam etc. Et inde obiit seisitus etc. Et de ipso Waltero quia obiit sine herede de se descendit feodum etc. quibusdam Cecilie et Katerine ut sororibus et heredibus etc. Et de ipsa Cecilia descendit feodum propartis sue cuidam Margarete ut filie et heredi etc. Et de ipsa Margareta descendit feodum etc. isti Petro qui nunc petit ut filio et heredi etc. Et de predicta Katerina descendit feodum propartis sue cuidam Willelmo ut filio et heredi etc. Et de ipso Willelmo descendit feodum etc. isti Thome qui nunc non sequitur pro proparte sua ut filio et heredi etc. Et inde producit sectam etc. Et sciendum vid, aliter A° viij. est quod alia medietas predicti manerii excipitur eo quod predictus Thomas alias scilicet in crastino Sancti Martini anno regni domini regis nunc decimo habuit diem per essonium suum postquam summonitus fuit ad sequendum simul etc. et tunc non proseque. batur ita quod tunc consideratum fuit quod predictus Petrus sequeretur sine etc. [pro] proparte sua etc.

Et Johannes per Adam de Brom attornatum suum venit. Et dicit quod ipse non potest predictam medietatem predicti manerii quam predictus Petrus petit eidem Petro reddere Quia dicit quod ipse non tenet integre manerium illud dicit enim quod quidam Radulphus de Wedon tenet de predicto manerio unde etc. quaterviginti acras terre octo acras prati decem acras bosci et quinquaginta solidos redditus Et quedam Maria de Peyvere tenet de eodem manerio quaterviginti acras terre octo acras prati octo acras pasture et quinquaginta solidatas redditus Et quidam Nicholaus de Bouedoune et Alicia uxor ejus tenent de eodem manerio unum mesuagium quaterviginti acras terre octo acras prati decem acras pasture decem acras bosci quinquaginta solidatas redditus et medietatem unius molendini et tenuerunt die impetracionis brevis etc. Et hoc paratus et verificare etc. unde petit judicium etc.

Et Petrus dicit quod predictus Johannes die impetracionis brevis sui scilicet octavo die Februarii anno regni domini nunc octavo tenuit integre predictum manerium cum pertinenciis unde etc. absque hoc quod predicti Radulphus Maria Nicholaus et Alicia aliquid inde tenuerunt sicut predictus Johannes dicit. Et hoc petit quod inquiratur per

patriam Et predictus Johannes similiter. Ideo preceptum est viceconiti quod venire faciat hic a die Sancte Trinitatis in xv dies xij etc. per quos etc. Et qui nec etc. ad recognoscendum etc. Quia tam etc. Postea ad diem illum venerunt tam predictus Petrus in propria persona sua quam predictus Johannes per attornatum suum Et idem Johannes dicit quod predictus Petrus nichil juris clamare potest in predicta medietate predicti manerii Quia dicit quod postquam ipsi placitaverunt ut patet superius predicta medietate in seisina ipsius Johannis existente predictus Petrus per scriptum suum concessit remisit et omnino pro se et heredibus suis imperpetuum quietumclamavit ipsi Johanni totum jus et clamium quod habuit vel aliquo modo habere potuit in predicto manerio cum pertinenciis quod fuit domini Walteri de Redham (sic) Clerici Ita quod nec ipse nec heredes sui nec aliquis alius nomine illorum aliquod jus vel clamium in predicto manerio cum pertinenciis exigere vel vendicare poterit imperpetuum Et profert scriptum illud quod hoc testatur etc. Et Petrus bene cognoscit predictum scriptum esse factum suum. Ideo consideratum est quod misericordia predictus Johannes est inde sine die. Et predictus Petrus nichil capiat per breve suum set sit in misericordia pro falso clamore etc.

De Banco Roll (no. 221) Hilary 11 Edward II m. 72 d.

The gist of John de Monte Caniso's answer, when by Adam de Brom (founder of Oriel College), his attorney, he pleads that (practically) equal fractions of the manor are held by Ralph de Wedon, Mary de Peyvre and Nicholas Bouedone and that therefore he cannot render to Peter a moiety of it, is a reference apparently to the original division of the manor (as early as 1235) into four equal parts; and indeed we have already seen that in 1316 John de Monchansy, Ralph de Wedone, John Peyvre (who died in December, 1315, leaving a widow, Mary) and Nicholas de Burdon (the same presumably, as Nicholas de Boudon), were returned as its lords. It would seem therefore, that there had been no alienation by Walter de Rudham of any part of his original fourth.

The case is to go to a jury by consent, but when the day comes John produces a release to him by Peter Doynel of " all his right in the manor aforesaid which was of Sir Walter de Rudham clerk," and so the case ends-in a payment no doubt in cash by John to Peter of unascertainable amount. In other words, there can be very little doubt that Peter Doynel's claim by descent was a just one; that the manor had belonged to his great uncle and his father's guardian, Walter de Rudham, one of the king's clerks, who

had married his ward, Peter's father, to his own niece. The pedigree stands thus:

Upon this showing the whole of the proceedings of 1307 were essentially fraudulent and William Bigod, the beneficiary, did well to convert what he had thus gained into money without delay: but, after all, the matter remains extremely obscure. The fraud seems nearly impossible of perpetration, the more so if Margaret Doinel and her son were owners of land not merely at a distance, in Wiltshire, but in the county of Buckingham itself.

The effect if not the object of the settlement made by Sir Peter Doynel in the last year of his life was the disinheriting of his son and heir. His wife, at this time, was Agnes, formerly wife of Nicholas Burdon, who had died in December, 1300, leaving issue by her a son, Nicholas, then aged 11. The wardship of this boy was granted to one Walter de Freyne. Her dower consisted of land in Broadhinton and the manor of Yatesbury, to which was attached the advowson of the church, and the successive institutions. to this rectory, as printed by Sir Thomas Phillipps, furnish some dates of value for the pedigree. In 1304 the king presents as guardian of the heir of Nicholas Burdon, deceased; in 1317 Henry de Freynes and Agnes Burdon, his wife; in 1330 Peter Doynel and Agnes, his wife. I do not know that the accuracy of Sir Thomas Phillipps' work is entirely trustworthy, but if Henry de