• 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. The bishop of Winchester’s fine in 1227

In a follow-up to last month's fine David Carpenter analyses the personal consequences for Peter des Roches in his struggle with royal government, dominated by his rival, the justiciar, Hubert de Burgh, to retain the markets and fairs he had established during the years of minority government after Henry III’s assumption of full regal powers in January 1227.

⁋1In the fine of the month for July, I drew attention to the numerous fines made by institutions and individuals in 1227 to secure the king’s confirmation of their charters now that the last restrictions on his power had been removed, and he was able to issue charters of his own. The largest of these fines was that made by Peter des Roches, bishop of Winchester. It amounted to no less than £500 and was offered in return for the confirmation of a charter of liberties granted by King John, together with the further confirmation of all the markets and fairs established on episcopal manors since the peace of November 1217. As Nicholas Vincent rightly observes in his magisterial biography of des Roches, the size of the fine almost certainly reflects the bishop’s unpopularity with the government, which was headed, of course, by his enemy, the justiciar Hubert de Burgh. ¹ The purpose of this note is to show how the fine itself ran into trouble and did not secure the bishop all he wanted. It is undated but, judging from its place on the roll was made at Westminster between 23 and 27 March, a period during which des Roches’s attestation of royal charters shows he was at court. ² Initially the fine was for the confirmation of John’s charter and for des Roches to ‘have the markets and fairs which were conceded to him after the peace’. Subsequently, however, the fine was altered. Instead of having ‘the markets and fairs which were conceded to him after the peace’, the king was to ‘confirm to him the markets and fairs which have been raised in his manors after the peace’. On the face of it, the alteration was in des Roches’s favour. Under the first version he only gained confirmation of markets and fairs which the king had already licensed in his minority. Under the second the confirmation stretched to all the markets and fairs the bishops had established, whether licensed or not.

⁋2The alteration did not end the debate over the bishop’s fine. In the margin against it is the note ‘it has not yet been sent’ (nondum missus est.) The explanation for this comes later in the membrane where we find the heading ‘from here it is to be sent to the exchequer’ (hinc mittendum est ad scaccarium.) This indicated that from this point in the roll copies of the fines had to be sent to the exchequer in a new instalment of the originalia roll, the fines up to that point having already gone. The exception was the fine of the bishop of Winchester. It had not been sent to the Exchequer for collection, doubtless because there was still argument over precisely what the bishop should get in return for it.

⁋3As far as the fine rolls were concerned the argument was soon terminated and in the bishop’s favour. The third entry after the ‘from here is to be sent to the exchequer’ heading repeated the bishop’s fine in its second altered form. Again there is no date but the entry comes between letters of 27 and 28 March. This time the fine did reach the originalia roll and thus duly appeared on the exchequer pipe roll. ³ The impression that the bishop had won, if at some cost, is, however, misleading. If we turn to the record of the actual charter the bishop obtained, as enrolled on the charter roll of this year, we find that it is simply a confirmation of the charter of King John. There is no mention of any additional confirmation of the bishop’s new charters and fairs. ⁴ In the event, therefore des Roches had not gained what he had fined for. He had obtained neither the confirmation of the markets and fairs he had established nor even the more limited confirmation of the ones for which he had already obtained licence.

⁋4The government, which doubtless in practice means Hubert de Burgh, had thus give des Roches a kicking, but now it drew back. Eager to see the back of him, it exacted little of the £500. Instead, in a settlement prior to des Roches’s departure on crusade later in the year, the Exchequer set much of the debt off against money owed the bishop by the crown. Des Roches, however, did not forget and the proof of that is again in the fine rolls, as Nicholas Vincent has perspicaciously noted. The bishop returned to England in the summer of 1231 and immediately began the campaign which was soon to bring him to power and de Burgh to destruction. That October, a writ summarized in the fine rolls instructed the sheriff of Hampshire to give des Roches seisin of the manor of Titchfield, this for the foundation of an Augustinian house. The king explained that he was making the concession ‘for the fine of £500 which the bishop made with the king and for which he satisfied the king at the Exchequer’. As Vincent perceived, this seems a clear reference back to the fine of 1227, a fine for which des Roches had satisfied the king without receiving due satisfaction in return. ⁵

⁋5The background to the bishop’s concern in 1227 is clear. During the minority a considerable number of ministers and magnates had obtained letters close authorizing them to set up markets and fairs. In 1218 Des Roches himself had thus secured permission for markets at his manors of Adderbury (Oxfordshire), Wargrave (Berkshire), and at Overton and Newtown in Hampshire. Next year he added a market and fair at Hindon in Wiltshire. Here, as at Overton and Newtown, he was setting up a new borough. ⁶ All these grants lacked the stipulation, introduced generally towards the end of 1220, that the concession was only to last until the king came of age, but equally they were only made to the bishop himself, not to the bishop and his successors. ⁷ In this des Roches was in the same position as all the other beneficiaries of such grants during the minority, the government thus respecting the restriction on the king making concessions in perpetuity till he came of age. In February 1227, therefore, the king was well within his rights when he prohibited the holding of markets and fairs set up since his first coronation in 1216, whether licensed or not, until the holders obtained special permission for their continuance. ⁸ Clearly here there was an awareness that some markets and fairs had been set up without licence, and that this applied to the bishop is suggested, as we have seen, by the terms of his fine. Conceivably a fair in question was that at Fareham for which des Roches eventually obtained a charter in 1233. ⁹ Perhaps he had also, without permission, changed the day of his fair at Witney, something eventually authorized in 1231. ¹⁰

⁋6Des Roches had, therefore, every reason for seeking formal confirmation from the king for the markets and fairs he had set up since the start of the reign. Seek it he indeed did. Obtain it he did not. In the event, all he got was a letter close (in May 1227) to the sheriff of Berkshire telling him to permit the continuation of the Wargrave market despite the prohibition. ¹¹ How the grievance over the £500 fine continued to rankle we have seen. The only puzzle is that, during his period of power between 1232 and 1234, des Roches did not obtain a charter to put matters right. It was left to his successors to obtain specific charters for Overton and Hindon and a general charter (in 1284) covering, amongst other things, the markets and fairs in all the bishop’s manors. Perhaps, until it was too late, des Roches felt he need not bother, a measure and the confidence and arrogance which was such a marked feature of his career. ¹²

1.1. C 60/25, Fine Roll 11 Henry III (28 October 1226–27 October 1227), membrane 7.

1.1.1. 161

⁋1 For the bishop of Winchester. It has not yet been sent. The bishop of Winchester gives £500 for having confirmation of a charter of King John that he made for him concerning liberties contained in the same charter, and so that the king confirms to him his markets and fairs established in his manors ¹³ after the peace made between King Henry and Louis, King of France. 23–26 March.

1.1.2. 172

⁋1 For the bishop of Winchester. The bishop of Winchester gives £500 for having confirmation of a charter of King John that he made for him concerning liberties contained in the same charter, and so that the king confirms to him his markets and fairs established in his manors after the peace made between King Henry and Louis, King of France. 27–28 March.