• 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. Alan Basset and the men of High Wycombe

In the latest Fine of the Month, William Stewart-Parker, who is in the first year of doctoral studies at King’s, examines the playing out of power relationships at a local level in English society. Combining the fine rolls in his analysis with chancery and legal material, he show how the fine rolls can enhance our understanding of the conflicts, negotiations and settling of a balance of power between a well-connected local potentate and a wealthy vill.

1.1. C 60/9, Fine Roll 2 Henry III (28 October 1217–27 October 1218), membrane 3

1.1.1. 182

⁋114 Aug. Crendon. Buckinghamshire. The men of Wycombe give the king 20s. that they be not penalized up to [the feast of] St. Andrew in the third year for selling their burels containing less than two ells. Alan Basset is their pledge for this debt. Witness the earl.

1.2. C 60/27, Fine Roll 12 Henry III (28 October 1227–27 October 1228), membrane 4

1.2.1. 198

⁋1 Concerning respite of a demand. Order to the sheriff of Buckinghamshire to place in respite the demand he makes by summons of the Exchequer from the men of Alan Basset of Wycombe for a murder fine, until Michaelmas in the twelfth year. [Windsor, 9 June 1228].

1.3. Analysis

⁋1In a fine made on 14 August 1218 in the presence of the regent William Marshal at his manor of Long Crendon, the men of High Wycombe, Buckinghamshire, gave the crown 20s. so that they would not be penalized up to the feast of St Andrew in the third year of the reign of Henry III (30 November 1219) for selling woollen cloth below the standard measurement. For this debt Alan Basset, lord of High Wycombe, acted as their pledge. Almost a decade later, on 9 June 1228, an order was enrolled in the fine rolls to the sheriff of Buckinghamshire to give respite to the men of Alan Basset in Wycombe for a murder fine, until Michaelmas of the same year . It would appear Alan Basset, as lord of the vill, had exerted his political influence, to protect his men.

⁋2Viewed in isolation, this fine and respite order might appear unremarkable, but this Fine of the Month, using other chancery material, together with the plea rolls of the justices in eyre and the bench at Westminster, aims to show how the truth was more complex. Behind the fine and the concession, there lay a series of negotiations and litigation arising from Alan Basset’s determination to assert his authority over, and profit from, the men of High Wycombe, following its grant to him by King John in 1203, and the men’s equal determination to defend the autonomy of their emerging borough.

⁋3The career of Alan Basset is a case study of how men of middling background could rise through service to the Angevin kings. Alan was the youngest of the three sons of Thomas Basset, itinerant justice and sheriff of Oxfordshire under Henry II who had held a modest seven fees of the honour of Wallingford. Alan was granted the manor and vill of Compton Basset and Berwick Basset (both Wiltshire) by his father, and later he held two fees of the honour of Wallingford in Wootton Bassett in Wiltshire and in the adjacent Broad town, of the inheritance of his wife, Alina de Gay. ¹ His base in Wiltshire was further enhanced by a grant from his uncle, Walter (II) de Dunstanville, baron of Castle Combe, which brought Alan the whole manor of Winterbourne Basset. ² Though these provisions from his family gave Alan an independent landed base, any further advancement in his fortunes depended on his career, the lands he could accumulate in his lifetime, and the manner in which he could profit from them.

⁋4Alan, as a younger son with his fortune to make, followed his father and elder brothers into the service of the Angevin kings, spending over forty years in royal favour and acting in various capacities. ³ First noted in the latter years of Henry II, Alan passed into the court of Richard I, where his loyalty was rewarded with the granting of the manors of Woking (Surrey) and Mapledurwell (Hampshire). ⁴ Upon Richard’s death in 1189, Alan remained a useful and loyal servant to the new king, John. The granting to Alan of the manor of High Wycombe in 1203, as one knight’s fee in return for an annual farm of £20 , marked one of the greatest of the rewards he received. ⁵ He held Wycombe in chief as the honour of Wallingford was in the hands of the crown, and he was repeatedly forgiven scutage on the five fees he held of the honour. ⁶ Alan remained close to John in the later years of the reign. He was labelled by Roger of Wendover as one of John’s evil councillors, ⁷ and, with his brother Thomas, named by John himself as one of those on whose advice he conceded Magna Carta in June 1215. ⁸

⁋5The witness lists to the charters of Alan Basset attest furthermore to his association with the prominent courtiers, servants and household knights of John and Henry III. The relationship with William Marshal in particular is notable; not only were they neighbours in Wiltshire but they were together in royal service, in various capacities together from the reign of Richard. ⁹ Indeed, according to The History of William Marshal, Alan Basset played an important role at the great council which made the Marshal regent after John’s death in 1216, observing (probably in line with the Marshal’s own thinking), that the only possible candidates were the earl of Chester and the Marshal himself. ¹⁰ Later Alan and Thomas Basset distinguished themselves at the battle of Lincoln. ¹¹ One of Alan’s sons entered the service of the Marshal and was rewarded with a grant of land. ¹² Such a close association between the two was an important foundation to Alan’s position. In January 1219 Henry III granted Alan a Friday market in Wootton Bassett. No doubt it was because he was a political ally of the regent William Marshal, that Alan was able to get this concession while the king was a minor. ¹³ The Marshal certainly used the grant of markets to help advance his allies and reward those on whom the early minority government had depended in a time when royal resources were scarce. ¹⁴

⁋6This was the context of the first entry in the fine rolls mentioned above, in 1218, concerning Alan Basset and High Wycombe. It is significant that the fine was given at Long Crendon, the manor of the regent, William Marshal, and indeed was witnessed by him. Thus, even if Alan was no longer following the itinerary of the regent or court, he was within a day’s travel from High Wycombe to gain audience and press the interests of his vill to a long term friend and political ally.

⁋7The background to the fine appears to be the coming eyre in Buckinghamshire in 1218. ¹⁵ The eyre would be the normal place where breaches of the assize of cloth would be punished, and the records of the breaches can be traced through the pipe rolls. High Wycombe, though not a hundred, made its own presentments (that is gave its own evidence) before the judges as the ‘vill of Wycombe, villata de Wicumbe’, and would have to testify before them as to breaches of weights and measures. ¹⁶ The eyre was not commissioned until November 1218 (it began on the 25 November), which suggests that Alan may have had insider knowledge of its coming and so took the precaution to protect the vill from any breaches of the regulations up until the time of the eyre; once again Alan’s close association with the Marshal and other prominent men of the court would have been key in accessing this information before it was common knowledge. The pipe rolls record the debt of 20s. from the men of High Wycombe in 1218, and they paid this off in the following year. ¹⁷

⁋8Between the making of the first fine in 1218 and the later concession of 1228, conflict between Alan and his tenants in High Wycombe came to a head and led to litigation in the court of the bench at Westminster, this in a kingdom having recovered from the turmoil of the Magna Carta war. The first conflict to surface was that between Alan and the abbess of Godstow, who had properties and rights in the vill. In October 1222 there was a settlement in which Alan agreed to renounce his claims to an acre and a half of meadow in return for the abbess receiving ‘Alan Basset and his heirs into all the prayers and benefits made in the future in their church of Godstow’. ¹⁸ This seems amicable enough but a more serious conflict was also ongoing. In the Trinity term of 1222 the abbess brought a suit against Alan claiming that he was oppressing both herself and her men of Wycombe in contravention of the charters which the house had been granted by the king’s ancestors: he was taking a 4d. toll on all the houses of the abbess’s men in Wycombe, occupied and unoccupied alike, whether they faced onto the main street or not; he was also blocking the movement of the abbess’s carts from her fields, and was forcing the abbess’s men to act as testers of the quality of bread and ale so that he could fine them for any breaches of the regulations. ¹⁹ Alan’s defence to all this was that he was simply enforcing the customs enjoyed by his predecessors. In the event a settlement was reached quite quickly in which the abbess, in return for half a mark a year granted in pure and perpetual alms, recognised some of Alan’s claims but not others: he was, for example, only to have the 4d. toll from the occupied houses facing the main street. ²⁰

⁋9By far the greatest challenge to Alan’s authority in High Wycombe, however, came from the burgesses of the vill. A conflict of interest was always likely in the relationship between an ambitious lord who was keen to make as much money as possible from his new acquisition and a prosperous vill with a tradition of autonomy. Prior to John granting High Wycombe to Alan Basset, the vill had enjoyed considerable autonomy so that in the early years of Henry II the ‘men of Wycombe’ were answering directly to the king for the farm (the annual payment) they owed for the vill. Between 1181 and 1183 the ‘vill’ of Wycombe was obliged to pay £4 for a false statement in respect to its ‘liberties’. ²¹ During the years immediately before the vill was granted to Alan Basset, the men of Wycombe had accounted for tallages and scutages themselves, delivering these to the Exchequer via William Brewer. ²²

⁋10The burgesses (they are so named in the litigation) claimed that Alan, after High Wycombe had been granted to him by John in 1203, had disregarded the charter of liberties granted to the vill by Henry II. This charter, they claimed, gave them permission to have their own guild of merchants, so that no merchant could sell cloth or other merchandise unless they were part of the guild and licensed by the bailiffs of the borough. As well as seeking to regain control of trade in the town, the burgesses also challenged Alan’s levying of half a mark each year as a toll, which the vill had traditionally paid to the king. ²³

⁋11Alan Basset, in response to this, explained that he had been granted the vill by King John for a payment of £20 a year and for his homage and service. After that, the men had never had a guild merchant. True, they had murmured amongst themselves and had often sought a guild from him, but since they were unable to show any warrant for it, he did not see they ought to have it. In any case, the vill had been much improved through merchants and others being freely allowed to sell their merchandise there. ²⁴ Perhaps the breach of the regulations on the selling of cloth, from which Alan protected the men in 1218, was the result of this free trade. The burgesses replied to Alan but were in a difficulty because, as they admitted, their charter from Henry II, which had been kept in the church of Wycombe, had been burnt there ‘in time of war’.

⁋12The litigation between the two parties was drawn out over four years before an agreement was finally reached in 1226. This may have been foreshadowed by earlier arrangements because Alan acknowledged that sometimes the men had held the vill from him at farm and that then they had done what they liked. ²⁵ The settlement confirmed the previous liberties and power of the guild in Wycombe, Alan granting to the burgesses the whole borough with rents, markets and fairs and ‘all other things’ relating to the buildings and purchases Alan had made in the borough. Within this agreement Alan’s prior settlement with the abbess was apparently subsumed with the 4d. a year received from each occupied house going to the burgesses to help pay the farm. Alan also relieved the burgesses of the farm of Wycombe paid to the king (£20), along with the service of one knight due from the fee. In return, the burgesses agreed to pay Alan £30 and one mark yearly from the borough. This sum, fixed in perpetuity, suggests little awareness on Alan’s part of inflation or the potential rising value of the vill. However, as with Alan’s agreement with the abbess of Godstow, the burgesses confirmed his rights to all the dung which fell in the streets. ²⁶ In the main, the burgesses had won in their struggle, for they had seen off Alan’s attempts to break the guild, introduce free trade and take all the profits for himself. On the other hand, Alan Basset may have been content with the £10 and one mark, which would be left from the annual payment of the burgesses after he had paid the £20 farm due to the king. Furthermore he maintained a lucrative fair of beasts which was customarily held in his meadow in Wycombe. ²⁷

⁋13Therefore by the time of the second entry in the fine rolls set out above, settlements had been reached over the conflicts in High Wycombe. The concession in the fine rolls relates to the eyre which took place in Buckinghamshire between 29 October and 17 November 1227, and concerns a murder fine for which the vill of Wycombe was held accountable. ²⁸ On the crown pleas roll of the eyre, it seems there is only possible case to which the fine can be linked, namely that concerning the killing of Helewise, daughter of Ascelina of Wycombe, by unknown evildoers. ²⁹ As Englishry was not presented (which meant broadly that no formal attempt was made to identify the body), the vill became liable for the ‘murder’ fine. However, by the order on the fine rolls to the sheriff of Buckinghamshire payment was adjourned until Michaelmas 1228.

⁋14It is interesting to note the way the order refers to ‘the men of Alan Basset in Wycombe’. This seems to affirm Alan’s lordship over the vill and suggests he had used his influence to secure the concession. It suggests too that he was now on reasonable terms with the burgesses, and content with the settlement which granted them a large measure of autonomy in return for £10 and one mark. He was thus ready to protect them, although doubtless aware that the less they had to pay to the king, the more able they would be to pay their annual farm to him.

⁋15The 1227 eyre is of interest in further illustrating life in High Wycombe. One instance suggests that Alan Basset’s authority was open to attack by individuals. John Tabbe, who was accused of killing Jordan Pap in the vill of Wycombe, was taken and imprisoned in the prison of Alan Basset but later escaped. Alan was made to answer for this escape. It was noted that Tabbe did not escape without help, but was aided by others from the vill; a certain Osbert, Elizabeth, Matilda a servant and Humphrey Thorky. These co-conspirators fled to the church and escaped themselves. For this action the entire town of Wycombe was amerced, that is fined. ³⁰ The vill also fell foul of the king’s justices in other cases. It was amerced at the eyre four times for the accidental deaths of its residents which it failed to report and concealed; Christina daughter of Helewise was found drowned in the courtyard of Jordan Le Maton, Christina of Wycombe fell into a boiling vat and died three days after, Paul Teyto was found drowned in the Thames and a certain woman, Edith, fell into a pond and died. ³¹

⁋16What is fascinating to note among those identified in the 1227 eyre for selling bread at excessive prices is the recurrence of names of burgesses listed in the final concord with Alan Basset in 1226 as representatives of the guild of High Wycombe - Adam Le Waud and Richard Dusteburg (while Walter le Duc, brother of burgess John le Duc, is also found guilty of this). ³² The jury of presentment for the vill no doubt contained associates of these men, who came to testify as to their breach of measures. This suggests that the granting back of power to the guild of merchants in Wycombe by Alan following the litigation did not end the problems of maintaining standards and measures which had initiated the fine of 1218, particularly as the burgesses were now in a position to control who had the right to market and sell goods within the borough of Wycombe.

⁋17The purpose of this Fine of the Month was to show how the fine rolls can be utilised with other chancery and legal material to enhance an understanding of a relationship between lord and vill. Behind the support offered by Alan on behalf to the men of Wycombe in the fine rolls, there was a series of conflicts and negotiations over the rights and liberties of both the semi-autonomous borough and the abbess of Godstow and her tenants. The eventual agreements suggest that Alan Basset was a man of sense, prepared to make concessions where they were in his interests. But it also show the great power of the borough before which even a tried and trusted royal servant had to give way. It will be interesting to see whether later fine rolls cast more light on the history of High Wycombe.