1342-05-05, Westminster

Order to supersede the execution of any levy money of the goods and chattels of the prior or convent of the use of others than the king, until the king is satisfied for the which the prior is bound at the exchequer. - By K. of process showing that the king, by his writ, ordered de Felton, escheator in co. Northumberland, and by another writ John de Faucomberge, escheator in co. York, to take into the king's the lands whereof Nicholas de Meynill, tenant in chief, was seised in his demesne as of fee, and keep them safely until further to take inquisition concerning what lands Nicholas held in chief other lords, by what service and their value, who is the next heir age, and by the inquisition returned by the escheator of Northit is found that Nicholas at his death held in his demesne in chief as of the crown, a moiety of the manor and town and divers other lands in that county, by homage and fealty and suit every six weeks at the county of Northumberland, and by returned by the escheator of York it is found that Nicholas lands at his deaéh in his demesne as of fee, in chief as of the crown service, in co. York, but that he held an assart in Aldewerk, Rydyng, in chief by the service of rendering 35s. at the exchequer at Michaelmas by the hands of the sheriff of York, and that he held the manors of Wherleton, Heton near Rudby, Semer, Middelton and Aldewerk with the hamlets of Carleton, Pothou and Tranholm, pertaining thereto, in co. York, of the archbishop of Canterbury by homage and scutage and by the service of serving the archbishop on the day of his consecration, with a cup from which he should drink on that day, and taking the fees pertaining to that oftice from the archbishop, and also that Elizabeth, daughter of Nicholas, is his next heir and was aged eleven at Michaelmas in the 15th year of the reign ; and upon this the archbishop came before the chancellor, justice and others of the council and showed that Nicholas held of him as of the right of his church of Christ Church Canterbury, the said manors and hamlets, by homage and scutage as shown by the inquisition, and died in the archbishop's homage ; after his death the archbishop seised the manors and hamlets into his hand by reason of the minority of Elizabeth, to hold until she should come of age, and was seised thereof until he was amoved by the escheator of York, and he says that according to the law of the land all lords, after the death of their tenants by knight's service, even if they similarly held other lands of the king, anciently had the custody of those lands during the minority of the heirs, and that he and his predecessors had such custody of all the lands held of them in like case, although such custody was haply occupied by the king and his ministers for some time, because he says that in the time of Henry III one William de Valencia, that king's brother, to whom the king had granted the custody of the land and heir of Warin de Mountchenesy, tenant in chief, occupied by virtue thereof, a certain knight's fee in Preston which Warin held of the archbishop as of the right of his church, by knight's service, and afterwards at the archbishop's suit claiming that custody of that fee, it was determined by the magnates of the council that no prejudice should accrue to the archbishop by that occupation, who should have the custody of his fees, and the chief justice was enjoined to cause the archbishop to have the damages. sustained by him by reason of the occupation, as fully appears by the chancery rolls of the time, and also in the late king's time, Walter, archbishop of Canterbury, after the death of Gilbert de Clare, earl of Gloucester and Hertford, who held of the archbishop the castle and honour of Tonebrigg by knight's service although the earl held other lands of the king by knight's service, seised the castle and honour as a custody, because Matilda, late the earl's wife, was then pregnant, and he was seised thereof until he was amoved by John Abel, then escheator, and afterwards at Walter's suit before the late king and his council, asserting that the custody of such lands ought to pertain to him and that the king's hand ought not to be laid thereon, and beseeching the king to cause his hand to be amoved, because it was found that the archbishop had entered the castle and honour immediately after the earl's death, before they were taken by the escheator, and considering that the church is privileged beyond all the churches in the realm of England, the king removed his hand, allowing the archbishop to hold the castle and manor as a custody as the right of his church, and that no prejudice should be done to the archbishop by order of the king in the premises or by any escheator or other ministers as appears by the chancery roll of that time ; and moreover the king has ordered his hand to be amoyed from the manor of Houthfeld, co. Kent, which belonged to Giles de Badelesmere tenant in chief, which is held of the archbishop, and which was taken into the king's hand among the other lands which belonged to Giles by William Trussel, escheator, and ordered him to deliver the issues thereof to the archbishop ; he also says that when such custodies fell in in times . Parr 1. 523 he nor his predecessors were impugned by the king's for occupying them, but held them peacefully as of the right church, to wit in the time of King Henry son of King John, Edmund, after the death of the bishop of Rochester, who manor of Middelton Cheyndut, co. Northampton, and the manor co. Kent, in chief, by knight's service, had the custody of Hallyng, Stanes, Bromelegh, Trettesclyve, Holibergh, Burstall, Derteford, Fakenham and other manors, which of the archbishop by knight's service, and Archbishop Boniface, death of the then bishop of Rochester, who held the aforesaid in chief, had the custody in the form aforesaid; similarly John de Pecham and Robert de Wynchelse had like custody death of divers bishops of Rochester, and by the records and aforesaid, his right and those of his church and his possession are and it is not found to be restricted by any special law or by any of the treasurer and barons of the exchequer made by the king's that answer was made to the king from such lands except of the archbishopric, and he seeks that the king's hand be from the custody and that it be restored to him together with the And the king's serjeants being called upon the premises said for that he had such right against all, pertaining to his crown and that when men hold lands in chief by knight's service and of other by knight's service, the king has the custody of all the said lands heir come of age, and as it is clear by the inquisition taken by the of Northumberland that Nicholas held in chief the moiety of the town of Wollore and other lands by knight's service, the king to have seisin of the manors and hamlets held of the archthe matters alleged by the archbishop whereby he claims his that of his church and his possession haye no origin from any adjudged upon them so that they yield to the prejudice of the cases, and although the kings were not seised thereof, through of their ministers, that negligence does not yield to the of the king, and according to the common law the king should custodies when they fall in and dispose thereof as he sees fit seek that the manors shall remain seised in the king's hand. archbishop says that the things which are alleged of the record were process made to the said judgments therein upon the long of such custody, and by those judgments the right is affirmed as right of the said church and it should be supposed according to law of the land and this is proved by the exception in an of the king's prerogative of such custodies among the other fees wherefore he and his predecessors have held such according to the common law, the contrary whereof is not alleged of the record or otherwise, and the right is not restrained by thing, and the archbishop was seised of the custody as aforehe seeks that the king will amove his hand therefrom; and on inspection of the chancery rolls for the times alleged by it is found that the archbishops were seised of the as alleged, and the right of his church in the matter is apparent by by other evidences and reasons, it is determined by the king and the king's hands shall be amoved from the custody and it shall to the archbishop, and that the taking of the custody into the shall not yield in prejudice of the archbishop, his successors or or be drawn as an example for future time, and the escheator a writ to amove the king's hand from the custody, restoring the 20.