• 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 fine roll of 11 Henry III, 28 October 1226–27 October 1227

This Fine of the Month is submitted by Sophie Ambler who has followed up a first in History at King’s with a distinction this year in the MA. In bringing together evidence from, particularly, the fine and charter rolls, Sophie examines some of the processes involved in royal revenue gathering and patronage and, in so doing, emphasises the strength of the king’s position at that time and that of those closest to him in government.

1.1. Introduction

⁋1The fine roll for the eleventh year of Henry III, which ran from 28 October 1226 to 27 October 1227, exemplifies the wide ranging nature of the rolls and also provides an invaluable insight into a pivotal moment in Henry’s reign: his assumption of full regal powers in January 1227. For the first time, the king was able to concede charters and make permanent alienations, concessions vital for the patronage through which he would reward followers and secure support. Since, however, Henry remained very much under the sway of the justiciar, Hubert de Burgh, who effectively continued to control central government, the concessions were also, as we will see, very much about Hubert rewarding himself and his own followers. The timing of this decision was largely unexpected, perhaps because it was only taken at this point to exploit the death of Louis VIII, the French king. The debate that had concerned government and subjects throughout Henry’s minority centred around whether the king would assume power at the age of fourteen or twenty-one. ¹ In the event it was neither; on 21 January 1227, the king sent out letters to the sheriffs announcing that by ‘common counsel’ he would ‘henceforth… cause charters and confirmations to be made under our seal’. ² The king was little over nineteen years old and neither at this point nor later was he declared ‘of age’. The political manoeuvring behind this decision can be glimpsed in the fine rolls, as will be seen.

⁋2This period of Henry’s reign has received comparatively little attention. While Carpenter’s Minority of Henry III and Vincent’s Peter des Roches both recount it and, indeed, note the place of the fine rolls in its illumination, neither includes an extensive analysis of the king’s assumption of full power. ³ The ‘Fine of the Month’ feature has begun to redress this imbalance with Carpenter’s articles on fines for the confirmations of charters in 1227, and on the individual fine of Peter des Roches from the same year. ⁴ However, there is still a great deal that this one fine roll can tell us, especially when the entire roll is considered. While there are many potentially rewarding aspects of this roll (fines for legal writs, for example), it is not possible to analyse them all here. Instead, the aim is to concentrate, in more detail than did Carpenter, on the fines for the charters and other concessions in the period after the king assumed power, thus throwing fresh light on the process and its beneficiaries.

1.2. Fines for Confirmation and Issuing of Charters

⁋1Royal letters issued on 21 January from Westminster announced the king’s intention to ‘cause charters and confirmations to be made under [his] seal’, and invited all persons who had, or believed they had, claim to lands or liberties granted by Henry or his predecessors to come to court by the beginning of Lent to have their charters confirmed or new ones issued. ⁵ There was precedent for this process: the start of the reigns of both John and Richard I saw many confirmations and new charter issued, while it has been calculated that 50 per cent of all of Henry II’s charters were issued in the first 25 months of his reign. ⁶ These occasions, effectively very similar in nature to 1227, provided an important opportunity for a subject to secure his or her position and the king to make money. In 1227 religious houses, the king’s ministers, and several towns and counties responded to Henry’s proclamation although with varying degrees of enthusiasm, as will be seen. These fines for charters, new and confirmed, made up some 5,180½ marks out of 11,723½ marks proffered in the whole roll, some 44 per cent of the total.

⁋2Unusually, the majority of fines for charters are not dated in this roll, although it is possible to suggest their dating by their corresponding entries in the charter rolls. The two rolls combine to produce a much fuller picture of the sequence and nature of events in 1227. The charter witness lists, omitted by the editors of the charter rolls but now made available by Marc Morris, ⁷ also help to suggest how a fine was negotiated by often showing who was at court when it was made. These sources come together to suggest the workings, compass and nature of the young king’s government.

1.3. Fines of Religious Houses and Orders

⁋1For the whole regnal year of 1226–27, religious houses and orders fined some 3,442½ marks, of which 2,487½ marks were for confirmation of charters after the 21 January letters had been sent. ⁸ The first was the abbot of Bury St Edmund’s, Hugh of Northwold, who must have made fine on or before the 30 January. ⁹ This suggests that he was either with the court at Westminster or close by on the 21 January. After this start, nineteen houses made fine for confirmations before the deadline of the beginning of Lent (28 February) but, according to the dating of the charter roll, twelve did not make fine until March and offers were still trickling in to the Chancery in July. This might be partly explained by the distance of some houses from Westminster and the time taken to organise a fine, especially considering the unexpected timing of the king’s assumption of full power. Perhaps, though, some were cautious about trusting charters issued while the king was still under the age of twenty one. ¹⁰ This might also explain why even more houses did not come forward to have charters confirmed.

⁋2The range of fines proffered does suggest there was consideration made for ability to pay. ¹¹ While the Templars offered 600 marks and the Hospitallers 500 marks for confirmations, the prior of Bermondsey was allowed to offer only 5 marks. An important part of negotiations must also have been over the addition of new concessions and privileges. Several fines ostensibly for confirmations include license for new markets and fairs while others secured more substantial liberties. As well as confirmations, Adam of Lathbury, abbot of Reading’s 60 marks bought a new quittance for the house and its men from suit of shire and hundred court; the abbot of Peterborough’s 120 marks included a license to collect the king’s debts in his land and answer for them at the Exchequer (thus preventing the sheriff intervening in the abbey’s estates), and Shrewsbury abbey managed to include the exclusion of the king’s ‘Gridserianz’ serjeants from its fee. ¹² This was evidently a great opportunity for those houses big enough to wield clout in negotiations to gain more independence from central government. Perhaps significantly, few houses offered fines for entirely new charters; Barnwell gained a change of payment for its farm of Chesterton, Welbeck several mills to hold in frank almoin and St. Mary, Rouen the wood of Wittingley and new markets and fairs. ¹³ The reluctance of more houses to make payments solely for new liberties again suggests a cautious approach to charters made by the young king.

1.4. The King’s Ministers

⁋1The king’s new ability to issue charters presented a great opportunity to the ministers who had served him loyally at the centre of government and were at court when the restrictions were lifted. There was here a crucial, and hitherto un-noticed, delay between the decision to allow the king to issue charters and its actual announcement and implementation. According to the proclamation of 21 January, the decision had been made at Oxford ‘by the common counsel’ of Archbishop Langton and the bishops, earls, barons and other magnates. ¹⁴ This council had met between 8 and 10 January. It was, not, however, this large group which benefited from the decision but the much smaller group of ministers who were present at Westminster around 21 January when it was actually announced. This group is revealed by the charter witness lists. It included only the bishop of London (Eustace de Fauconberg, the king’s treasurer), the bishops of Bath and Salisbury, the justiciar, Hubert de Burgh, and a few of the knights of the king’s household, including the stewards Richard de Argentan and Ralph fitz Nicholas. Their prominence and favour is reflected by the early dates of some of the charters issued to them. The third charter Henry issued (on 20 January even before the despatch of the letters) was to fitz Nicholas and this was followed by a series in favour of the bishop of Bath. ¹⁵ This ministerial circle was a distinctive one. Apart from Hubert de Burgh, it was dominated by Jocelin of Wells, bishop of Bath, and Richard le Poore, bishop of Salisbury. The latter had studied in Paris with Stephen Langton, archbishop of Canterbury, and both were brought to the heart of government by the archbishop, probably to oversee Hubert, in 1223. Where the bishop of Winchester in 1189, the prominent member of the royal household Godfrey de Lucy, had made fine to secure family manors, the custody of two castles and a sheriffdom, ¹⁶ Jocelin and Richard used their position in 1227 to gain important confirmations and concessions for their dioceses.

⁋2The fourth charter on the charter rolls was dated 22 January and was in favour of Jocelin. ¹⁷ This was the first of several charters for which he had made a single fine of 500 marks and five palfreys. This was a large sum but Jocelin obtained value for his money, gaining a vital charter confirming his patronage of Glastonbury abbey. ¹⁸ King John had granted Jocelin the patronage in 1215 after a long running dispute with the abbot, and in 1218 Richard le Poore and the abbot of Reading, as papal judges delegate, granted the permanent endowment of several manors to Jocelin’s see as part of the “Peace of Shaftesbury”, which asserted Jocelin’s right of patronage and visitation but removed all claims on the abbacy. ¹⁹ In two charters of 22 January, his patronage and the same manors were finally confirmed. ²⁰ These charters had both been issued with a small witness list of only five names, which is perhaps why the other charters for which Jocelin fined were apparently delayed while wider consent was sought. ²¹ Not until 12 February was a charter issued for the disafforestation of North Curry, while the manor of Congresbury was merely confirmed to Jocelin on that date, its charter of disafforestation having to wait until 17 February when it could be witnessed by an impressive array of eighteen prelates and magnates. ²² Most of the same men approved charters on 16 February which granted Jocelin and his successors all amercements from his men, land and fees, as well as those of the abbot of Glastonbury, Robert of Bath, in addition to an impressive list of privileges which virtually excluded shrieval authority from both sets of land. Jocelin’s case demonstrates the delicate balance the king, or justiciar, needed to maintain between rewarding those who had served the king and the need for wider consent to such major grants, a need perhaps acknowledged as much by the recipients as by the king and justiciar.

⁋3The fine of Jocelin’s colleague, Richard le Poore, bishop of Salisbury, demonstrates a similar situation. Richard fined 300 marks for a new charter to bring him and his successors all amercements from his men, lands and fees and those of the dean and chapter of Salisbury. ²³ This fine corresponds roughly in date to a charter issued on 20 March that includes just those privileges mentioned in the fine. ²⁴ This was not, however, the first charter to be issued in Richard’s favour after 21 January. The first is recorded on 30 January and ratified the move of the cathedral from Old to New Sarum and granted an extensive list of liberties, including the right to hold an annual fair at New Sarum and to fortify the town. ²⁵ It also has a small witness list of eight names. No corresponding entry appears in the fine rolls and it would appear that the bishop received this charter for free. The March charter, though, costing 300 marks, like Jocelin’s appears to have been a bargain. Firstly, it was issued together with a confirmation of a charter of King John which is not mentioned in the fine and is unrecorded in the charter roll. ²⁶ Secondly, the benefits it granted were extensive, granting the bishop and his men all amercements that would otherwise have pertained to the king, all property confiscated from criminals, protection from the entry of sheriffs and other officials into Salisbury land, and quittance from suit of court. That Richard gained such a far-reaching charter for what seems a reasonable sum, and the foundation charter apparently free of charge, surely reflects his central and privileged position in government. It seems possible, though, that this was also a statement by the young king at the beginning of a new chapter in his reign. Where his father had quarrelled with the Church and the kingdom had suffered an interdict during his reign, Henry intended to be a generous benefactor and here displayed an early enthusiasm for the sort of impressive building project that he himself would undertake later in his reign.

⁋4Richard and Jocelin’s fines contrast sharply with that of another ministerial bishop, Peter des Roches, bishop of Winchester, whose fine of £500 (750 marks) has been analysed both by Carpenter and Vincent. ²⁷ Its place on the fine roll dates it between 23 and 27 March when, as Carpenter has pointed out, Peter’s inclusion on the charter witness lists places him at court and, indeed, the corresponding confirmation is recorded in the charter roll on 23 March. ²⁸ It is, though, not just the size of the fine (abnormally large for its purpose) but its late timing which is interesting. The witness lists show that Peter had been at court earlier, just at the same time as others were making fines to have charters confirmed. ²⁹ That Peter did not make his fine then might be an indication of how far he was from the favour of justiciar and king. Equally, it may be that Peter did not did not approve of the timing of the royal proclamation. Thus, in January, Peter witnessed a charter on 20 January but not again until the end of the month, suggesting he departed on 20 or 21 January, angry and frustrated with the decision to proclaim the king’s assumption to full power with the opportunities it would offer Hubert and his other enemies. ³⁰ If Richard’s and Jocelin’s fines show that their involvement with the king and government decision-making put them at the front of the queue, then Peter’s distance from the administration had him torn whether to join it at all.

⁋5That Hubert and his familiars were in a prime position to gain from the king’s assumption to power is demonstrable by both inclusions and omissions in the fine roll. For instance, Hubert’s familiar, Ranulf le Breton, made fines of a leniency which makes them almost token, such as a meagre 5 marks for a new charter authorising him to clear part of the king’s forest. ³¹ Ranulf’s closeness to Hubert is reinforced by the note at the end of another of his fines in which he pays 5 marks for a wardship; the sheriff of Nottinghamshire-Derbyshire is ordered to give Ranulf seisin and is reminded, with clear indignation on the part of the king or justiciar, that ‘the sheriff was not ordered in the writ directed to him to take security for those 5 marks’. ³² If Ranulf’s fine was token, then the numerous charters issued in this period for which there is no proffer in the fine roll suggests that others were even closer to the king and justiciar. It is possible that these were paid for in cash or treasure and were recorded on wardrobe rolls now lost. ³³ Given the identity of the beneficiaries, however, it is equally possible that they were free gifts. A stream of charters granting manors and privileges were issued for Hubert from 11 February onwards. ³⁴ Ralph de Neville received a charter granting him the Chancery for life on 12 February, the same day that Hugh Despenser received one granting license for new markets and quittance from suit of court. ³⁵ Richard de Argentan, the steward of the king and a regular on the charter witness lists, was granted new markets and fairs and all amercements from view of frankpledge on his manor of Newmarket. ³⁶ This, along with the evidence for the fines of the king’s ministers detailed above, suggests that even if the timing of Henry’s assumption was purportedly decided ‘by the common counsel’, it was a comparatively small group who were in a prime position to benefit.

1.5. Towns and Counties

⁋1The fines of numerous towns and counties for charters in 1227 demonstrate a quite different aspect of government, namely the difficult relationship between the centre and localities. Although one fine was made in February, the majority were probably made in March and April, with others offered sporadically until August. ³⁷ This might well reflect the logistical problems of agreeing and organising a fine amongst local men, rather than just distance from central government; although the citizens of London were some of the first to offer a fine, on 18 February. 16 and 17 March brought fines from as far a field as Preston and Lancaster, while the fines made in the summer months came from Grimsby, Carmarthen and Mansfield. There seems to have been little concern about the validity of the young king’s charters, for many towns and counties were eager to gain as much as they could. 1,327.5 marks were fined by this group, more than 11 per cent of the total fines for the regnal year. Importantly, though, only the men of Preston and Lancaster fined solely for confirmation of charters. ³⁸ The fines made by the men of Northampton, Shrewsbury, Bedford and Hereford all took the form of an offer of a specified sum both for the tallage levied that year and for a confirmation of charters, sometimes with new liberties tacked on. ³⁹ In accepting these and other fines (for example one from the men of Worcester) Hubert and the king may have been intentionally conciliatory. ⁴⁰ Such an approach is certainly suggested in the charters which were issued apparently free of charge. The men of Kent received pardon and quit-claim from the custom of forage imposed by the constable of Dover, clearly a move to conciliate those supporting the castle of which Hubert was castellan. ⁴¹ Most strikingly, though, the citizens of London received extensive confirmations, apparently free of charge, which included the right to elect a mayor and hold the sheriffdom of London-Middlesex, possibly a move to help reconcile the Londoners after Hubert’s forceful action after the riots of 1222. ⁴²

1.6. Relief, the influence of Magna Carta and the strength of the government

⁋1The fine rolls contain important information about the king’s management of his subjects and the implementation of Magna Carta. The Charter makes fines made to Henry in 1227 strikingly different to those made by his predecessors, as 1227 was the first time that a monarch had taken full power since its promulgation. It had been confirmed in 1225 and pervaded the political consciousness of both subjects and king, as the fines below demonstrate. These relate to relief, or payment to inherit, which Magna Carta had fixed for a barony at £100 and for a knight’s fee at £5. Was this clause to be obeyed now the king had full power or might there be an attempt to return to the exorbitant reliefs for which John and Richard were infamous? ⁴³ Fines were made for succession to several important baronies in this year and these show the Charter was indeed obeyed. In 1190, Robert de Ros has been charged 1,000 marks for his relief and had joined the rebellion against King John before later being reconciled to the Minority government. ⁴⁴ In 1227, Robert’s son, William de Ros, was charged the £100 relief stipulated by Magna Carta for a barony as was another son of a former rebel, Gilbert de Umfraville. ⁴⁵ This was a clear signal of the transformation of royal government and the direction the young king might choose to take at the beginning of his full assumption of power.

⁋2The case of William Brewer junior apparently stands in marked contrast. In February 1227 William made fine for 600 marks for possession of various manors, hundreds and other properties which had been held by his father, the great minister William Brewer senior. If this was, in effect, a relief (and the fine included the concession that William was to be quit of relief for all his lands), it might seem in clear contravention of Magna Carta. ⁴⁶ There was also another problem. In 1225 William senior had, with the king’s permission, passed the possessions covered in the 1227 fine to William junior, who had taken seisin, only for him to be disseised by order of the king on his father’s death next year. ⁴⁷ That William junior considered this an unlawful act in contravention of chapter 39 of the 1215 Charter (29 in 1225), or at least feared such an unlawful act in the future, is suggested by the terms of the February fine, which included the promise ‘that he is not to be disseised without the judgement and law of the land from any of the aforesaid, but if the king or anyone else will wish to speak against him concerning any of the aforesaid, he will stand to right in the king’s court’. ⁴⁸ The irony here, if William junior was indeed pointing to the charter, was that his father back in 1223 had forcefully declared that it had no validity as it had been extracted by force. ⁴⁹

⁋3On the face of it, the government, in testimony to its new strength, was simply pouncing on William Brewer junior, who had never enjoyed the prominence of his father. Its conduct did, though, have some colour of justification. The goverment alleged that one of the manors in question, that of Stoke in Northamptonshire, was held by William Brewer senior from the lands of the Normans, only ‘at bail of the king’, in which case it could be lawfully resumed. ⁵⁰ It would also follow that William junior would have to pay more than a simple relief if he wanted to retain or recover it. The other properties, including the vill of Chesterfield and the wapentake of Scarsdale in Derbyshire and the vill of Sneinton in Nottinghamshire, and the vill and hundred of Axminster in Devon, had certainly been granted by King John to William Brewer senior in hereditary right, and thus William junior was entitled to succeed to them. ⁵¹ They were, however, all demesne properties of the crown, and there was a growing feeling that these were inalienable. The government may well have been trying to recover them for the crown, but the fact remained that William junior’s title to the succession, resting on a royal charter, was unchallengeable. In effect, albeit in exchange for a large sum of money, the government recognised this in returning the manors to Brewer, thus in effect respecting the Charter. Can the sum itself be justified? Perhaps so. Stoke, as we have seen, may not have been hereditary. The royal demesne in the Brewers’ hands was but it was held neither by barony nor by knight service. Instead, the Brewers paid annual farms to the exchequer. ⁵² The properties were not, therefore, covered by the specific clause of the charter which related only to baronies and knights’ fees.

1.7. Widows

⁋1As Professor Holt has shown, the protection of widows played an important part in the conception of Magna Carta in 1215. ⁵³ Chapter 8 stated that ‘no widow shall be compelled to marry’ as long as she gives security that she will not marry without the king’s consent if she holds of him in chief. Chapter 7 guaranteed widows free and speedy entry into their dowers, marriage portions and inheritances. The fine rolls of John’s reign had been littered with examples of widows fining both for freedom to marry and also to receive their inheritance and dower. ⁵⁴ By 1227 these two aspects of the widow’s rights were carefully separated in the fine of Alice, widow of Henry de Neville. ⁵⁵ Her fine of 100 marks was for freedom to marry whom she wished, and was arguably not strictly a breach of the Charter. ⁵⁶ At the same time an order was issued to the sheriff of Lincolnshire to cause her to have full seisin ‘without delay of her marriage portion and reasonable dower’. This was not a backhand way of making her fine for her seisin, as had happened under John, for the order over seisin is carefully separated from the terms of the fine. The next letter on the roll issues the same order to the sheriff of Yorkshire and the keeper of the bishopric of Durham, although it is stated clearly that only the sheriff of Lincolnshire is to take security for the 100 marks. The letter to the sheriff of Yorkshire tells him to let the heir have seisin ‘saving the reasonable dower to Alice… concerning which he has ordered him at other times to make over seisin’. ⁵⁷ Here apparently the government was making an effort to display its willingness to comply with the spirit of the Charter.

1.8. Marriages

⁋1The biggest single fine in the entire roll of 1226–27 is the 2,000 marks offered by the earl of Gloucester. ⁵⁸ This was to secure the marriage of the heir of the earldom of Devon, Baldwin de Redvers, to Gloucester’s eldest daughter, Amice, and 200 librates of land from the earldom for Gloucester to hold until the heir came of age. This fine demonstrates the vastly increased strength of the government, even before Henry’s full assumption to power, and Gloucester’s relationship to the regime. In 1218 William Marshal had been forced to grant the marriage of the heir and the custody of the lands of the earldom of Devon to Falkes de Bréauté free of charge. This came amid the aftermath of the civil war, when the regent was struggling to control important wardships and the government was desperately short of revenue. ⁵⁹ At the end of 1226, the prolonged battle of the justiciar’s administration to establish its authority had been successful enough for it now to charge 2,000 marks for the marriage. This was approaching the sort of fines that King John had been able to charge for baronial marriages. ⁶⁰ The size of the fine, however, might also reflect Gloucester’s uneasy relationship with the justiciar. In 1223–24 he had been among those calling for Hubert ‘to be removed from the administration as a dissipater of the king’s treasure and an oppressor of the people’. ⁶¹ Although he returned to the government’s side, he was to rise again against Hubert in the summer of 1227, this time with Richard of Cornwall. ⁶² Clearly there had been distrust between the two before 1226 which would have limited Gloucester’s ability to negotiate a less burdensome fine.

1.9. Conclusion

⁋1It is clear that the government had come a long way since the early years of the king’s minority. The amount proffered in Henry’s first fine roll totalled an embarrassing 1,320 marks; ⁶³ in 1226–27 the king could attract proffers amounting to 11,723½ marks. True, this was an unusual year because of the amount offered for charters but even in October, before the plan to push forward the assumption was probably even conceived, ⁶⁴ the government felt strong enough to demand 2,000 marks for a marriage that had been given away for free nine years earlier. A lighter hand governed the localities, however, and many were allowed some new liberties at a reasonable cost, through what seems a careful and considered process of negotiation. The king now governed in a political landscape in which the principles of Magna Carta had become entrenched yet where it was possible to work around them. The fine rolls demonstrate the king’s and the justiciar’s acceptance of the charter’s principles and also their confidence in standing firm and demanding higher fines when they felt Magna Carta did not need to apply. It is quite probable that in January 1227 most of the country was unprepared for the king’s assumption of full powers. The fine roll for 1226–27 both demonstrates the results of this decision and illuminates the influences behind it. It is quite clear from the dates of the early charters issued that there was a small group of ministers who were in a prime position to secure rewards. This was led by Jocelin of Wells, Richard le Poore and Hubert de Burgh. The early dates of these charters, as well as the small size of the early witness lists, suggests that it was these most of all who played the key role in Henry’s assumption to full power. The fine roll, charter roll and witness lists combine to show, however, that even if it was not a broad ‘common counsel’ that made this key decision, it was a broader group who could still influence the terms by which these ministers benefited. Wider consent was needed to secure major concessions. The 1226–27 fine roll encapsulates the position of Henry’s government as it readied itself for a new beginning; strong and confident but checked up to a point by the hand of Magna Carta and the principal of government by wider consent.