• 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. Uncle and Niece: The Disputed Huse Family Inheritance

In this month’s fine Dr. Paul Brand, fellow of All Souls College, Oxford, and member of the project’s International Advisory Committee, disentangles a web of legal documentation surrounding the descent of a knightly family inheritance in the thirteenth century, highlighting the struggle to come to terms with developing and disputed inheritance law in England at that time.

⁋1Henry (III) Huse succeeded to the family estates at the end of October 1213, after having agreed to pay king John a fine of 100 marks to succeed his father, Henry (II) Huse. ¹ He was among those who sided against John in the civil war and did not recover his lands until 23 March 1217. ² The order for their restoration mentions lands in the counties of Hampshire, Wiltshire, Nottinghamshire and Berkshire. The Hampshire land was perhaps a carucate at Eling close to Southampton which was held in chief of the king for a tenth of a knight’s fee. Henry held this in right of his wife Cecily, the daughter and heiress of Emma of Stanton alias de Clere. This land had formerly been part of the royal demesne but had been granted to Emma and Cecily jointly by king John, apparently as recently as 1209. ³ Emma was dead by Michaelmas 1214. ⁴ If it was Eling that was being restored, Henry and Cecily did not enjoy quiet possession of it long. Eling was among the lands seized into the king’s hands as part of the royal demesne later the same year but it was restored to Cecily and her husband Henry Huse late in October. ⁵ It was again seized as part of the royal demesne and again restored in November 1221. ⁶ In May 1227 Cecily (whom a margination notes as being the wife of Henry Huse) obtained a royal confirmation of king John’s charter of grant. ⁷ There was, however, also another Huse family interest in Hampshire. This was at Dummer in north Hampshire close to Basingstoke. The whole of this holding had, however, apparently been subinfeudated to the Dummer family before 1204, when William of Dummer was summoned to do homage for the two knight’s fees he owed Henry (II) Huse and performed the homage in court. ⁸ The Wiltshire lands comprised several distinct holdings. There was land at [North] Tidworth on Salisbury Plain close to the Hampshire border, ⁹ held of the earl Marshal for one half or one third of a knight’s fee, ¹⁰ and certainly in Henry’s possession at the time of his death. ¹¹ There was a holding of ten pounds of land at Knighton, long in the family’s possession and held of the senior line of the Huse family (of Stapelford in Wiltshire) for half a knight’s fee. ¹² This was also certainly still in Henry’s possession at the time of his death and continued in the possession of his descendants. ¹³ There was also a manor at Littleton Pannell [in West Lavington] in the same county held in chief of the king which was another old family possession, ¹⁴ and can also be found later in the possession of Henry’s descendants. ¹⁵ The Nottinghamshire land was the manor of Averham, close to Newark, probably acquired through a marriage grant made by Adam Tison on the marriage of Henry (I) Huse to his daughter Avice. ¹⁶ This was said in 1235–36 to be held for two knight’s fees of the Mowbray barony. ¹⁷ This too was in Henry (III)’s possession at the time of his death and is later found in the possession of his descendants, but was then alienated by them. ¹⁸ The Berkshire holding was the manor of South Standen or Standen Hussey in Hungerford, close to the Wiltshire border and partly in Wiltshire, held of the Ferrars family for a knight’s fee. ¹⁹ This too can be shown to have been an old family holding. ²⁰ Henry (III) was in possession of the manor at the time of his death, ²¹ and it too can later be traced in the hands of his descendants. ²² It is not clear why the 1217 order for restoration did not also go to the sheriff of Sussex. The family holdings in that county which the earl of Arundel had given to Henry (I) Huse went back to at least the mid-twelfth century. ²³ Direct later evidence (and indirect earlier evidence) indicates that the family holding was centred on Harting, close to the Hampshire border of the county and to the family religious house of Durford, and was held of the earls of Arundel for the service of three knight’s fees. ²⁴

⁋2Henry (III) Huse seems to have died shortly before 1 April 1235, when orders were given to seize all his lands in the counties of Sussex, Nottinghamshire and Wiltshire into the king’s hands. ²⁵ There was a dual justification for this seizure into the king’s hands. The Wiltshire manor of Littleton Pannell was held in chief of the king and the lands at Harting in Sussex were held of the heir to the barony of Arundel, who was in the king’s wardship. Henry’s death raised one of the classic problems of thirteenth century inheritance law. Henry’s eldest son had also, in accordance with family tradition, also been named Henry. Henry (IV) had married a wife named Amy (Amia) but had died before his father, leaving one surviving child, a daughter named Maud. Henry (III)’s younger son Matthew seems still to have been living as part of his father’s household at the time of his father’s death. On one fairly widely held view of inheritance law, an elder son who predeceased his father but had a legitimate child or children of his own simply passed on what would have been his entitlement to the inheritance to them: they ‘represented’ him for inheritance purposes. On this view, Maud was entitled to inherit all of Henry (III)’s lands. Another view of inheritance law, however, held that it was ‘closeness’ of blood that mattered. Thus a son’s claims (even a younger son’s claims) were always to be preferred to those of a more remote relative, whether grandson or grandaughter. A third view of inheritance law was that what mattered most was membership in the household of the person who had died at the time of death. If a younger son had remained part of his father’s household (‘at his father’s hearth’) and under his control up to the time of his death then he had a special claim to inherit as his ‘hearthchild’ (astrarius), as against a grandson or grandaughter who had not formed part of their grandparent’s household and whose parent might have received in advance a share of the family inheritance which had allowed them to form their own household. On this view, too, Matthew’s claims were superior to those of Maud.

⁋3We can see these three competing views being appealed to by the parties in what follows. Two weeks after Easter 1235 (on 22 April or shortly thereafter) Matthew and Maud both appeared before the king at Westminster, asking to be given possession of Henry’s lands. The plea roll of the court coram rege records what then happened and what was said, not in the form of litigation but in the form of a dialogue before the king and his advisers. ²⁶ Matthew started off by offering the king 700 marks to have such possession of his father’s lands as his father had enjoyed on the day of his death, claiming that he was the ‘closer heir’ (heres proximior) of his father. Maud claimed that she was better entitled to take possession of them as being the daughter (and sole issue) of the eldest son of Henry (III). She offered the king 1000 marks for this. Matthew refused to acknowledge her as his brother’s daughter, claiming that he had no knowledge of whether or not her mother Amy had ever married Henry. The clear implication seems to be that the marriage was not one which had been arranged by Henry (III) or made with his approval and that the couple had not lived with Henry (III) after the marriage; the possible implication that Maud was of dubious legitimacy. Maud said that she was Henry’s daughter by his lawful wife and had been accepted by him as his daughter. She claimed the same seisin of her grandfather’s lands as her father would have had if he had lived. Matthew still continued to claim to be the closer heir. The king did not simply go for the higher offer, which would have given possession to Maud. Matthew seems to have had his lower offer accepted because he added to his offer an additional rider providing that he would be ready to answer any claiming to have right in the lands and accepting that the grant of seisin was to be without prejudice (salvo jure cujuslibet). Three successive entries on the Fine Roll record the mandates issued to the sheriffs of Sussex, Wiltshire and Nottinghamshire after this decision, authorising them to put Matthew in possession of his father’s lands. ²⁷ Two further entries record the sureties for payment of the 700 marks and the terms fixed for payment. ²⁸ The following year Cecily, the widow of Henry (III), also died. Her inquisition post mortem was held by virtue of a writ issued on 16 May 1236. ²⁹ Just over a week later on 24 May 1236 Matthew made a further proffer, this time of only 10 marks, to succeed to her lands at Eling and had it accepted as well. ³⁰

⁋4This was not, however, the end of the story: that proffer of 700 marks really was accepted without prejudice and gave Matthew Huse only the advantages of the party in possession, not a secure and unchallenged title to his father’s lands. In February 1237 at a meeting of the king’s council attended by a number of magnates there was a general discussion about whether those whose degree of kinship with a deceased ancestor was too remote to allow them the use of the assize of mort d’ancestor should nonetheless be allowed a remedy which permitted them to assert a legal claim to land based simply on the possession of an ancestor on the day of his death and the fact that the claimant was his closest heir. It was agreed that such a remedy should be allowed in future and the basic form of the writ established. ³¹ Maud, or more likely her representative, seems to have come to chancery and asked for a remedy of the new form to claim the lands of which her grandfather and her grandmother had died in possession. In mid or late October 1238 she was given what she wanted and one of her writs was enrolled, evidently as a specimen writ of the new form, on the dorse of the Close Roll. ³² The enrolment carefully notes that the king had ordered, or perhaps authorised, the sealing of the writ and communicated his wishes through Henry of Bath, a junior justice of the Common Bench, in the presence of William de Cantilupe. The case came to the Common Bench in Trinity term 1239. ³³ Maud now claimed all the lands of which her grandfather and grandmother had died in possession in Sussex, Nottinghamshire, Wiltshire, Berkshire and Hampshire. This was mainly against Matthew but also in respect of the land at Knighton against William Huse, who vouched Matthew to warranty. Matthew initially objected to the writ as being ‘against the law and custom of England’ and said he was not obliged to answer it. He was told to answer over, which is hardly surprising in view of the specific approval given in advance to the new writ. When he then made a further answer he did not attempt, as he had in 1235, to cast doubt on the legitimacy of Maud. Instead, he raised a quite different point and one which went to the heart of their dispute, for he claimed to hold the land as his father’s ‘hearthchild’ (astrarius). Maud’s father had died first. Matthew had been living when his father died and had still been with him in his household. Maud insisted on the strict inheritance rules and the rule of representation which made her the closest heir. After argument, the king instructed the justices of the Common Bench to record the case and send it to the court coram rege. There eventually the parties seem to have managed to reach a compromise that was to be embodied in a final concord. This is mentioned in plea roll enrolments in 1241-2. They also show, however, that Maud was by then proving reluctant to appear in court and receive her copy of the concord, the final step necessary before the final concord was binding on the parties. ³⁴ This may be because the terms had been in effect agreed not by her but by her guardian, John of Gaddesden, and she was now in a position to disown them. ³⁵ Even before the concord had been handed over, she had apparently nominally gained possession of some of the lands she was claiming against Matthew, only to hand over some of them (the manor of Averham and the carucate at Eling) to John. ³⁶ In the end the procedures for making and issuing the final concord do not seem to have been completed. No concord seems to survive. Probably none was made. ³⁷

⁋5Matthew died shortly before 14 February 1253. ³⁸ A dower suit brought by his widow after his death indicates that the agreement between uncle and niece had secured Maud something more than just the lands then acquired by John of Gaddesden, for Maud and her second husband, William Painel, were being sued by Agnes later in 1253 for a dower share of the Wiltshire manor of Littleton Pannell. ³⁹ The Close Rolls also show that in March 1253 the king was bringing action against William and Maud to show how they had acquired title to the same manor and the overlordship of the two knights’ fees in Dummer plus a rent in Abbotstone, Hampshire. ⁴⁰ Behind the king we should probably see the hand of the royal clerk and confidant, John Mansel, who had arranged a marriage between his niece, Joan, the daughter of Alard le Fleming, and Matthew’s son and heir, Henry, during Matthew’s lifetime, and who at Matthew’s death was sold the wardship of Henry by the king. ⁴¹

⁋6Matthew’s son Henry came of age in 1260. ⁴² It was, however, to be another eight years before a final concord made in the Suffolk eyre of 1268 between Henry and his cousin Maud and her husband William Painel brought closure to the dispute between the two closely linked branches of the family over the inheritance of Henry (III) Huse. Under its terms, Maud renounced all claims to the lands in Harting, Standon, Eling and Tidworth; Henry to the property in Littleton Pannell, Abbotston and Dummer and in addition to the land at Knighton which had been held by William Huse, subject to his widow’s right of dower. ⁴³

⁋7It is impossible to know how even a division of the family property this was. It looks as though Matthew’s branch of the family may have retained something of the advantage they had gained from the acceptance of Matthew’s original proffer to the king. The very fact that the lands were divided permanently between the two branches of the family in this way provides dramatic confirmation of the significance of the continuing fluidity in the rules of inheritance in the first half of the thirteenth century, of the competing pull of quite different principles for determining questions of inheritance with none of them able to establish a dominance that wholly excluded the others, so that a sensible family faced with such a conflict between close kin would settle for a division between the rival claimants rather than endless continued litigation.

1.1. C 60/34, Fine Roll 19 Henry III (28 October 1234–27 October 1235), membrane 10.

1.1.1. 213

⁋1 Sussex. Order to the sheriff of Sussex to take into the king’s hand the land in his bailiwick formerly of Henry Hoese, who is dead, and to keep it safely until he has a command from the king otherwise. Witness the king. Abingdon, 1 April [1235].

1.1.2. 214

⁋1It is written in the same manner to the sheriffs of Nottinghamshire and Wiltshire.

1.2. C 60/34, Fine Roll 19 Henry III (28 October 1234–27 October 1235), membrane 9.

1.2.1. 235

⁋1 For Matthew Hoese. Matthew son and heir of Henry Hoese has made fine with the king by 700 m. for having seisin of the lands and tenements formerly of the aforesaid Henry, his father, which he held of the son and heir of the earl of Arundel, the custody of whose tenements pertains to the king by reason of the aforesaid heir being underage, and which fall to Matthew by hereditary right. Order to the sheriff of Sussex to cause Matthew to have full seisin of all the aforesaid lands and tenements formerly of the aforesaid Henry in his bailiwick, of which he was seised as of fee on the day he died, as aforesaid. Witness the king. Reading, 9 April [1235].

1.2.2. 236

⁋1 For Matthew Hoese. To the sheriff of Wiltshire. Matthew son and heir of Henry Hoese has made fine with the king by 600 m. for having seisin of the lands and tenements formerly of the aforesaid Henry, his father, which he held of the king in chief and which fall to Matthew by hereditary right. Order to cause Matthew to have full seisin of all the aforesaid lands and tenements formerly of the aforesaid Henry in his bailiwick, of which he was seised as of fee on the day he died. Witness as above.

1.2.3. 237

⁋1 For Matthew Hoese. Order to the sheriff of Nottinghamshire to cause Matthew son of Henry Hoese to have full seisin without delay of all lands with their appurtenances formerly of the same Henry in his bailiwick, of which he was seised as of fee on the day he died. Witness the king. Windsor, 10 April [1235]. ⁴⁴

1.2.4. 239

⁋1 Wiltshire. Concerning the fine of Matthew Hoese. Pledges of Matthew son and heir of Henry Hoese for the fine of 700 m. which he made with the king for having his seisin of all lands and tenements that the same Henry had on the year and day that he was last alive and died, saving the right of each person henceforward:

1.2.5. 240

⁋1 Wiltshire. Concerning the fine of Matthew Hoese. He is to render £100 each year, namely £50 at Michaelmas and £50 at Easter, until the aforesaid fine is paid. The term for making the first payment is to begin at Michaelmas in the nineteenth year.

1.3. C 60/35, Fine Roll 19 Henry III (28 October 1235–27 October 1236), membrane 8.

1.3.1. 299

⁋1 Hampshire. For Matthew Hoese. Matthew Hoese, son and heir of Cecilia Hoese, has made fine with the king by 10 m. for having seisin of the land formerly of the aforesaid Cecilia, his mother, in Hampshire, which she held from the king in chief and which fall to him by hereditary right, and the king has taken his homage. Order to the sheriff of Hampshire that, having accepted security from Matthew for rendering the aforesaid 10 m. to the king, he is to cause him to have full seisin of all the land formerly of Cecilia in his bailiwick, of which she was seied on the day she died. Witness the king. Merewell’, 24 May [1236].