Posts Tagged ‘Hugh de Manneby’

Henry III’s Fine Rolls Blog Sunday 8 July to Saturday 14 July 1257

Wednesday, July 18th, 2012

Henry III spent all this week at Woodstock, while his army assembled to meet him at Chester in the first week of August. Material on the fine rolls, as it did last week, illustrates the law relating to property rights in marriage. On 14 July the king made a concession in favour of the Warwickshire knight, John of Ladbroke. John had married an heiress, namely Joan, daughter of Richard de Baresworth.  Although Joan had been married before, and her inheritance would eventually pass to the children of her first marriage,  John was entitled to control that inheritance during her lifetime. What, however, would happen after her death, for she had indeed now died? Here everything depended on whether there had been offspring from the marriage. If there had not been, then Joan’s inheritance would pass at once to the offspring  her first marriage. If, however, Joan and John had produced a child, even if it was now dead, then John was entitled to keep the inheritance for his own lifetime.  In legal terminology, this was called tenure ‘by the courtesy of England’. What the entry on the fine rolls shows (no.832) is that John was indeed in this fortunate position. The only misfortune was that, having control of Joan’s inheritance, meant that he had also to shoulder the debts to the crown, which Joan had inherited from her father. These included debts owed the Jews, which had been taken into the king’s hands, and which, so John said, were to be paid off at £1 a year. John’s complaint was that the exchequer was now forcing him to pay the whole debt, and was disregarding the terms allowing payment at the rate of £1 a year. The king, therefore, ordered the exchequer to allow John to recover those terms. The king added ‘if this is true’, so the exchequer had some  leeway, but there was evidence to back up John’s story. The pipe rolls, the annual audit of money owed the crown, do show that Joan’s first husband had been allowed to pay the debt off at £1 a year. The pipe rolls for this year, that is for 1256-1257 (for the membrane, click here), by contrast,  show  John himself paying in  £1 16s 8d, in other words he was having to cough up  more than a  £1.  In the pipe roll for 1257-1258,  John does just pay in £1 so his complaint had some effect.  The debt itself was a large one, amounting to £97, which made it  important to secure terms for its repayment.

One further point of interest is that writ to the exchequer, on John’s behalf,  is said in the  fine rolls to be ‘per’, that is authorised by Laurence de Manneby.  Evidently  Laurence was John’s contact at court, and it was he who saw the concession through.  Laurence was a king’s clerk and brother and, as the fine rolls show (CFR 1255-6, no.77; 1257-8, no.997) to Hugh de Manneby, who was at this time earning an evil reputation as sheriff of Northamptonshire.  I do not know the connection between Laurence de Manneby and John of Ladbroke. Has anyone any clues here?  How did those fair in their petitions who did not have these connections?

Next week the king gets ready for his Welsh campaign.

For the membrane with  the writ in favour of John of Ladbroke, see four from bottom here.