Catalogue description Petitioners: Prior of Worksop Addressees: King and council Occupation: ...

Ordering and viewing options

  • Free

  • Download format PDF
  • Approximate size 1 MB

Order up to 10 items per basket, and up to 100 in a 30 day period.

Details of SC 8/8/399C
Reference: SC 8/8/399C
Description:
Petitioners: Prior of Worksop
Addressees: King and council
Occupation: Prior of Worksop
Nature of request: The prior of Worksop states that his predecessor had a windmill in the vill of Gringley, with the suit of the men of the same vill, of the gift and feoffment of Maud de Lovetot, lady of the vill, and one of his predecessors was disseised of this by Constance de Bierne, John de Vescy and others. He brought an assize of novel disseisin in the time of the late king, by which it was found that he had been disseised, but judgement was not given because the matter touched the king. The prior has presented a petition in parliament for Geoffrey le Scrop and his companions to examine the record and process and to do justice, which was done, as can be seen by the record sewn to this bill, but they would not proceed to judgement on the verdict of the assize. The prior was told to rebuild his mill on his own ground if he wished, and to take action at common law if he wished. He has rebuilt the mill, but the suit was of bondsmen of the vill and manor of Gringley, as can be seen from the charter sewn to this petition, and this is now in the king's hand as of right, and he cannot take action at law against the king. Therefore he asks to be put in possession of his suit as his predecessor was seised as of right of his church.
Nature of endorsement: Faithful people are to be appointed in chancery to enquire, in the presence of the constable or his lieutenant, if Maud Lovetot gave the mill with the suit, as is claimed etc., and to which prior, and if the same prior and his successors were seised of the suit of the men of the vill by this gift, and from what lands this suit is owed and for what time, and of the suit of what men, and how many measures of flour they used to mill, and from what time the suit has been withdrawn, and in the time of which prior, and for what reason, and if that mill is now built in the place where it was before the withdrawal of that suit, or in the same fee, or not, and if suit used to be to the same mill or not, and if so then how and in what way, and if there is some underlying reason why the same men ought not now to mill at the prior's mill, then for what reason, and how etc. and how much it is worth per annum etc., and into other necessary articles etc. And the inquisition is to be returned in chancery and justice done there.
Places mentioned: Worksop, [Nottinghamshire]; Gringley on the Hill, [Nottinghamshire]
People mentioned: Prior of Worksop, predecessor of present prior; Maud de Lovetot; Constance de Bierne; John de Vescy; Geoffrey le Scrop (Scrope), justice
Note: Dated 1327 on petition with reference to CIM. CCR 1330-1333, p.197 (dated at Langley, 12 February 1331) and SC 8/8/400 mention a petition submitted to the king in parliament in the first year of his reign, whose response, an enquiry into whether suit was owed to the mill or not etc., seems very like the response here: so it is likely that this is that petition. However it refers to the assize of novel disseisin being held 'en temps le roi qui mort est': as it is clear from SC 8/8/399A that the petition was held during the reign of Edward I, this would seem to date the petition to the reign of Edward II. Is this a slip of the scribe's pen, or yet another petition, which, because its response was reiterated in the petition submitted to the first parliament of Edward III, is not subsequently mentioned? The petition in Rot. Parl. p.440, no.42 appears to be earlier, and part of the response is an instruction to the treasurer and chamberlains to search the exchequer rolls for evidence of the king's right: which could plausibly be seen to be the writ quoted in SC8/8/399A and dated 20 October 1325. This then could either be a follow-up petition, dating from between 20 October 1325 and Edward II's fall - hence 1326 - or the petition submitted to parliament in the first year of Edward III's reign.
Date: [1325-1327]
Related material:

For a related petition see SC 8/340/16006

For another petition on the same subject see SC 8/158/7873

For an earlier related petition see SC 8/150/7477

For a related petition see SC 8/79/3903

For a later petition on same matter see SC 8/8/400

For a copy of the grant of the mill, which was probably enclosed with this petition, see SC 8/8/399B

For a writ and inquisition mentioned by this petition and probably enclosed with it, see SC 8/8/399A
Held by: The National Archives, Kew
Legal status: Public Record(s)
Language: French
Closure status: Open Document, Open Description
Publication note:

Calendar of Close Rolls, Edw III, vol. II, 1330-1333, (Public Record Office, 1898), p.197 (order to the keeper of the manors of Wheteley and Grengeley, to have the mill replaced where it was before it was moved, and to cause the prior to have the suit of the men of Gryngeley pertaining to the mill, and let them grind their corn there as previously)

Calendar of Inquisitions Miscellaneous, vol. II, Edw II - 22 Edw III, (Public Record Office, 1916), p.284: various documents relating to the case up to January 1331

Rotuli Parliamentorum; ut et Petitiones, et Placita in Parliamento, vol. I, Edw I and Edw II, (Record Commission, 1783), p.440, no.42 (edition of a later copy of an earlier related petition)

Image viewer

Preview a low-resolution image of this record.

Subject image
Thumb item {{thumb.id}}
Image   of {{thumbImages.length}}
Loading image ...

Have you found an error with this catalogue description?

Help with your research