• Home
• Project Information
• Fine Rolls
• Style Book
• Commentary
  • Introduction to Reign
  • Introduction to Rolls
  • Originalia Rolls
  • Technical Introduction
  • Heads and Headings
• News
• Help
• Fine of the Month
• Book Publication
• Blog
• Conference
• Podcasts
• Related Papers

1. A Medieval Murder Mystery, or the Crime of the Canteloups

This month we welcome out first guest contributor, Tony Moore of Churchill College, Cambridge. Dr. Moore has recently successfully submitted a PhD thesis in which he uses Essex as a case study to examine the relationship between centre and locality in the thirteenth century. In analysing an infamous murder of 1225, this set of fines highlights the importance of the fine rolls in the study of local criminality and gentry society in the reign of Henry III.

⁋1The subject of this month’s discussion is one of the more violent incidents to take place in thirteenth-century Essex, namely the murder of John de Goldingham by his neighbour Sir Hugh de Canteloup in the spring of 1225, for which Hugh was later hanged. This crime seems to have enjoyed some notoriety. It was unusual for the deeds of gentry families to attract the attention of medieval chroniclers, but, the author of the annals of Dunstable included it in his list of the most notable events of 1225. ¹ Furthermore, according to Matthew Paris, when Hugh’s son Master Roger de Canteloup became involved in a heated exchange with Alexander de Stavensby, bishop of Coventry and Lichfield, the latter made a pointed reference to the sins of Roger’s father. ² The chronicle accounts do not provide any further details of the crime and, indeed, no single source provides a full account. The course of events has therefore to be reconstructed from scattered references in the documentary records. The fine rolls provide several key pieces of this jigsaw, and this short essay is intended to demonstrate they can illuminate events within local society, especially if used in combination with other published and unpublished royal records. For clarity, the escalating stages of the dispute have been reconstructed in chronological sequence rather than according to the order in which they appear in the documents.

⁋2The Goldinghams and Canteloups were lords of the neighbouring manors of Goldinghams and Smeetham Hall in the Essex village of Bulmer. ³ There are numerous examples of the two families interacting peacefully, at least before the events to be described. ⁴ The dispute between the two families seems to have arisen from a disagreement about rent, which was a common source of friction within landed society. In fact, the early stages of the dispute provide a good case study of the methods used to resolve conflicts over property rights during the early thirteenth century. At some point, the Goldinghams had acquired a small parcel of land held of the Canteloups by the modest rent of 12d per annum and one penny towards scutage. ⁵ The immediate cause of the quarrel was that John de Goldingham stopped paying this rent, probably around 1215. He may well have been trying to take advantage of the confusion resulting from the Magna Carta civil war, during which Hugh de Canteloup’s estates had been confiscated after he joined the rebels. ⁶ In an attempt to compel him to pay, Hugh seized some of John’s livestock as a distraint. This may sound extreme to modern ears, but it was the standard recourse for a lord in such circumstances. John probably took two steps to counter this. First he brought a plea of unjust detinue before the county court of Essex, in effect claiming that Hugh had resorted to distraint without allowing John the opportunity to argue his case. John must have been victorious in this because, in November 1223, Hugh offered the king one mark to have a record of the plea heard before the royal justices at Westminster. ⁷ This fine is the first evidence we have of the dispute. Unfortunately, no plea rolls of the central courts survive for Hilary and Easter terms 1224 and so any record of this plea has been lost. John also increased the pressure on his opponent when Hugh de Goldingham, probably his brother, appealed Hugh de Canteloup, William his son and another relative, Peter, of wounding and breach of the king’s peace before the county court. Appeal procedure is usually associated with serious offences such as murder, arson and rape, but it could also be used to prosecute more minor disturbances and appeals were commonly used in civil litigation as tactical instruments to bring pressure on an opponent, in the same way as pleas of trespass would be used in the second half of the century. ⁸ In this case, it probably relates to a scuffle that took place the previous year when Hugh first distrained on John. The appeal first appears in the royal records in Trinity term 1224 but it must have been brought some time previously. ⁹ What followed was entirely typical of the medieval legal process, in that the two parties reached a compromise agreement. In Michaelmas term 1224 John recognised that he owed the annual rent of 12d with arrears, and Hugh dropped his right to the scutage and the punitive damages of 10 marks that he had claimed. ¹⁰

⁋3Until this point, this is an entirely typical example of the successful resolution of a relatively minor dispute between neighbours. However, while the agreement of Michaelmas 1224 may have settled the legal question of the rent, it failed to calm the hostility between the families. It has been suggested that Hugh de Goldingham brought his appeal of breach of the peace in order to increase the pressure on the Canteloups to come to terms. It is therefore unusual that he continued with his appeal even after the original dispute had been resolved. This caused some problems for Peter de Canteloup, who was forced into a series of elaborate evasions to avoid coming before the king’s court. His creative use of essoins, or excuses for non-attendance, even attracted the attention of the complier of Bracton, the greatest medieval work of legal theory. ¹¹ Hugh de Canteloup was not hanged as a direct result of this appeal, but the Goldinghams’ intransigence in pursuing it may have provided the motive for the murder. John was probably killed in late March 1225 and by April 1 the minority government had learned of his death. ¹² Hugh soon came under suspicion and by May he had been arrested and imprisoned. ¹³ His son William, who also seems to have been implicated in the murder, fled the area and was outlawed in his absence. ¹⁴ There is no surviving record of the proceedings against Hugh, but, according to the Dunstable annalist, he was hanged after being defeated in a judicial duel. Once Hugh had been executed his lands escheated to his immediate feudal lord, who happened to be the king as lord of the honour of Boulogne. ¹⁵ In June, his former manors and property at Smeetham Hall and Finborough (Suffolk), including feudal lordship over manors in Pebmarsh (Essex) and Buxhall (Suffolk), were granted to Ralph fitz Nicholas, a rising star at court. ¹⁶ The lesser prize of the keeping of the lands of William de Canteloup for the customary year and day was secured by Richard fitz Hugh de Dyne, a local landowner and lesser member of the court. ¹⁷ In this way, the dominant figure within the government, the justiciar Hubert de Burgh, was able to take advantage of the misfortune of the Canteloups to build alliances at court.

⁋4Thus far we have looked at these events from a local perspective. There is, however, another aspect to this story that is worth exploring. It was very unusual for gentry families to engage in direct violence against each other and even rarer for substantial landowners to be executed as a result. The hanging of Hugh de Canteloup is especially surprising given the political situation. At the siege of Bedford in 1224, Hugh had fought in support of Hubert de Burgh against his factional rivals within the minority government. He even received a grant of favour, and the fine rolls record that Hugh had a respite of his debts. ¹⁸ Furthermore, the Canteloup family were particularly well-connected. First, they probably shared a common twelfth-century ancestor with the powerful courtier William de Canteloup, steward of the royal household between 1204 and 1222. ¹⁹ Unfortunately, William was associated with Peter des Roches, bishop of Winchester, and de Burgh’s main rival within the minority government. After the factional conflict at court was resolved in favour of de Burgh in late 1223, William found himself marginalized. ²⁰ By the summer of 1225 he had managed to recover some of his former influence, but this came too late to save Hugh de Canteloup. The second and more important relationship for the Canteloup family of Essex was with the earls of Oxford. This dated back to the middle of the twelfth century when Euphemia de Canteloup married Aubrey de Vere, second earl of Oxford. ²¹ Several members of the family attest charters of the earls, and they usually appear immediately after members of the de Vere family and before all other local figures. ²² This relationship continued into the thirteenth century. Engeler de Canteloup was a member of the garrison of the de Vere castle of Hedingham when it was captured by King John in March 1216, and both he and Simon de Canteloup were among the pledges of Isabella widow of Robert de Vere when she made fine with the king to have the wardship of her late husband’s lands in November 1221. ²³ It was the death of Earl Robert in late 1221, leaving a young son aged only eleven, that may have proved fatal for Hugh de Canteloup. If the earl had been alive in 1225, it is likely that he would have sought to intercede on Hugh’s behalf. By contrast, the widowed countess Isabel lacked her late husband’s political clout. The fact that the Hugh’s fate may have been determined by such considerations also serves to illustrate the intimate connections between politics at the highest and lowest levels of English landed society.

1.1. C 60/21, Fine Roll 8 Henry III (28 October 1223–27 October 1224), membrane 10.

1.1.1. 36

⁋1 Essex. Hugh de Canteloup gives 1 m. for having a record before the justices of the Bench of a plea that was in the county court of Essex between the same Hugh and John de Goldingeham, concerning John’s livestock detained against gage and pledge, about which Hugh complains that false judgement had been made. Order to the sheriff to take etc. Witness as above. ²⁴

2.1. C 60/21, Fine Roll 8 Henry III (28 October 1223–27 October 1224), membrane 4.

2.1.1. 282

⁋1 Essex. Order to the sheriff of Essex to place in respite, until Michaelmas in the eighth year, the demand that he makes of Hugh de Canteloup of one mark, which he promised to the king for having a writ, and of one mark of the king’s scutage. Witness the king. Bedford, 27 July 1224.

3.1. C 60/22, Fine Roll 9 Henry III (28 October 1224–27 October 1225), membrane 1.

3.1.1. 217

⁋1 Concerning the valuation of the oxen formerly of Hugh de Cantilupe. Order to the keeper of the honour of Boulogne to have the cattle of Hugh de Canteloup, recently found guilty of felony before the king’s court, valued by honest and law-worthy men, and deliver the oxen to Ralph fitz Nicholas who is to answer to the king for their assessed value. Witness the king. Westminster, 13 July 1225.