PREFACE.

The various manor-rolls cannot conveniently be treated as one group, consisting as they do of court-rolls, account-rolls, estreats, amercements, surveys, inventories and the like. The court-rolls, being the official record of proceedings in both the court-baron and the court-leet, seem to claim precedence amongst the rolls, in any attempt to arrange them for publication.

A glance through the court-rolls and the many volumes of extracts therefrom, shows that they are far from being continuous and that the pre-reformation court-rolls are now few in number and cover only short periods; but the extracts taken from court-rolls, many of which rolls cannot now be found, are numerous and contain much information relating to the copyholders of the manor and their customary holdings; in many cases these extracts cover extended periods, forming complete abstracts of title to specific holdings and disclose several generations of local families who owned copyhold lands within the manor of Sheffield. These extracts were written in books consisting of double sheets of paper stitched down the middle into a soft vellum binding; and some only of these books have a title endorsed; we find amongst the latter such volumes as Liber Finium, Extracta Feodarii, Register of Copyholders' Surrenders and others.

It is surprising to find that these manuscript volumes should have been so well preserved and that the original court-rolls from which they were compiled should have disappeared; perhaps it will be possible to suggest some explanation for the loss of the original court-rolls, which existed as recently as the 17th century.

In arranging and selecting for publication, what yet remains of the original precommonwealth rolls and the extracts therefrom; it is necessary to ascertain which of these have already been published; the following is a list of such as are now in print.

1. A manuscript volume entitled Liber Finum [sic] Customariorum written on forty nine double sheets of foolscap paper, stitched through the fold with brown thread into a soft parchment cover or binding, making a volume of 98 pages, of which many are blank; the paper bears a watermark which was in use about 1671 of which an approximate sketch is reproduced. This book contains a record of the customary fines paid on the admittance of tenants to the copyhold lands, within the manor of Sheffield, from 4 Edward 1 to 18 Elizabeth; covering three centuries, 1275 to 1576. The extracts appear to be copied in extenso from the original Latin and relate exclusively to fines payable to the lord of the manor on the admittance of copyhold tenants; an English translation, made by the late Sir Alfred Scott Gatty, was. published in the Transactions of The Hunter Archaeological Society of Sheffield, volume i, page 257.

2. A manuscript volume entitled Extracta Feodarii in Comitatu Halom, -being a book of feudal aids payable by the tenants who held by socage, made for lord John earl of Shrewsbury in 1451. A transcript of the original document made by Mr S. O. Addy was published with his notes in the same Transactions at page 137.

3. An account-roll of Henry Stafford clerk, receiver of the moneys of lord John earl of Shrewsbury, for the year ending Michaelmas in the 26th year of Henry VI (1447). A transcript of part of this roll, with an English translation of the whole, made by Mr A. H. Thomas when lecturer in History at Sheffield University, together with his introductory notes, was published in the same Transactions, volume ii, at page 341.

1. Two inquisitions Post mortem; one held at Rotherham in 1332 on the death of Thomas de Furnival lord of Hallamshire; and the other at Sheffield in 1383 on the death of his second son William, with whom the male line of the Furnivals came to an end. These two inquisitions are now at the Record Office, where Mr Edmund Curtis, when lecturer in History at Sheffield University, transcribed them; his transcripts and notes, together with a full translation, were published in the same Transactions, volume i, at page 31.

2. The rolls of the collectors of the Lay Subsidy, granted to Richard II in the 2nd year of his reign, being a Poll Tax for the West Riding of Yorkshire 1378-9, now at the Record Office, published by the Yorkshire Archaeological Society in its journal (1879), volume v.

3. Two account-rolls for the year ending Michaelmas 1442, now at the Sheffield Public Reference Library, made for John Talbot earl of Shrewsbury; one being a compotus of John Page and others, foresters of Bradfeld and Rivelin etc; and the other a compotus of Thomas Hanley and others, collectors of the issues rents etc of the soke of Sheffield and its members; a translation of these accounts, with a~ by Mr ??~ was published in the same Transactions, volume ii, at pages 65 and 142.

4. An account-roll of William Swyfte deputy of Roger Stedeman receiver of Hallamshire to John Talbot earl of Shrewsbury, for the year ending Michaelmas 1443, now in the manuscript department of the British Museum, where it was transcribed by Mr Thomas; whose translation and notes were published in the same Transactions at page 225.

5. An Exact & Perfect Survey & View of the Mannor of Sheffield with the Mannors of Cowley & Ecclesfield, by John Harrison, dated the 29th September 1637. This survey was made for Thomas Howard earl of Arundel and Alethea his wife, one of the daughters and co-heirs of Gilbert earl of Shrewsbury. The original survey cannot be found; but two copies are now in Sheffield, from which the late Mr J. G. Ronksley of Sheffield made a transcript, which was privately printed in 1908 by Robert White & Co of Worksop for the late Mr Arthur Wightman of Sheffield. The volume is large octavo and contains 382 pages, with an index and an introduction by the late Mr R. E. Leader. It gives no information as to fines nor are they referred to, though its pages are filled with details of rentals and outgoings; the 'particulars' of the lands have marginal numbers, which are stated to refer to Ye Plott, by which some map or sketch is meant; but this Plott cannot now be found.

In this descriptive catalogue are included, what are probably the earliest courtrolls of Sheffield manor now extant; but still earlier ones may be found, in which case they must appear in a later volume. It is however certain that earlier court-rolls, of the time of Edward 1 and his successors, did exist as late as the 17th century, when Liber Finium, The Register of Copyholders Surrenders and many other extracts were made from these early court-rolls. In the hope that some of these may yet come to hand, it will perhaps be of advantage to gather all the information we can, as to the missing rolls, from which the extracts were made, probably by a steward of the manor who would be well acquainted with the Sheffield records; and an examination of these 17th century manuscript volumes throws much light on the subject.

If we take Liber Finium, we find it bears no date of compilation; but as the last extract from the rolls which it contains, is dated the 18th year of Elizabeth (1576), we must assume that the volume was prepared after that date; there are however other matters to be considered, such as the water-mark on the paper used by the compiler and also his handwriting. Almost every page of Liber Finium bears the same watermark, which measures 3.5" X S' wide and shows three initials C A B; and some of the double pages bear in addition a subsidiary or countermark showing only the three initials in a plain border, this countermark occurs on a few pages only, but always along with the watermark. The larger mark belongs to a group common in England during the middle of the 17th century. viii

Through the kindness of Mr Edward Heawood, and after reading his most helpful paper on watermarks, published in The Geographical journal for May 1924, 1 find that a letter, recently purchased for the Royal Geographical Society, bears this same mark; it was written in 1671 by John Ogilby the cartographer, to (? Sir Daniel) Le Fleming of Rydal Hall Westmoreland. In speaking of this mark Mr Heawood says 'When first used (cir 1635) the mark was much smaller but after 1650 the larger form came into fashion and is found with various initials.' This information, on a subject about which so little can be found, is of great value in connection with the compilation of Liber Finium. In addition to the watermark on the paper we have to examine the handwriting, of which examples are reproduced, the script is characteristic of the middle of the 17th century; and, as will be seen in one of the photographs, the compiler, writing in Latin, sometimes breaks into English for a few words; the writing probably does not change throughout the volume, though it varies considerably and sometimes is much compressed. The work of extracting the entries from the court-rolls has every appearance of having been done continuously and not entered up from day to day, as the fines were incurred, which would have involved many changes of handwriting.

On examining this volume we find that on the outer cover is written partly in large capitals and with some adornments of the scrivener, the words Liber Finum [sic] Customariorum tenementor' infra Mann' do Sheffeild tomporib' Regn' Antiquor' etc. Opening the volume we find two blank pages numbered in manuscript 1 and 2; then on page 3, without any heading, begins the record of the search for fines, in the rolls of the ancient kings. It would appear that the steward intended to start his search prior to Edward I, leaving two pages blank for those years; and that he was disappointed not to find any court-roll till some years later. His first lines on page 3 read as follows

It will be observed that in the Ist, 2nd and 3rd years nothing was found [nuls invent], this may mean that no roll was found or that no fine was entered on the roll for these three years ; the former alternative seems probable, as the next line says, in the 4th year no fine, which suggests an examination of a court-roll and a failure to discover any fine recorded; so that we may perhaps venture to assume that whoever it was compiled Liber Finium, he was unable to find any court-roll prior to the 4th year of Edward 1 (1275), when the fines amounted to £5 . 4 . 5. In the 6th year of Edward I, no court-roll was found; and in the 7th, 8th and 9th years there were no fines, though presumably the court-rolls had been searched to ascertain that fact. As the extracts of fines proceed a note is always made of missing court-rolls and by this me~ we are able to say what court-rolls were in existence when Liber Finium was cow~ and which were then missing.

It we start with the 4th year of Edward I, we find that the 17th century compiler of this book of fines h" taken the fines for the regnal year and not for the year anno domini, which me~ would have the effect of breaking the yearly periods at the end of each reign; and where are entered as 'missing' or 'no rolls found,' it is apparently for the regnal year only. Perhaps it was customary in Sheffield to make one continuous roll for each full or unexpired regnal year; but we should hardly this uniformity of practice to extend throughout three centuries.

The regnal years for which the court-rolls are said to be missing by the compiler of Libre Finium are the 6th, 13th, 17th, 18th, 19th, 20th, 21st and from the 24th to the 35th years of Edward I; the 1st to the 12th, the 14th and 15th years of Edward II ; the 1st to the 7th, the 9th, 11 th and the 2 1 st to the 49 th years of Edward III; the 7th year of Richard II ; the lst, 3rd, 4th, 7th, 8th, 9th, 15th, 16th, 18th, 19th, 21st, 27th, 33rd, 35th, 37th, and from the 40th to the 48th years of Henry V1; no court-rolls were found for the reigns of Edward IV, Edward V or Richard III; they were also missing for the lst to the 9th years of Henry VII; and the 3rd, 4th, 5th, 9th, 12th, 14th, 15th, 16th and 17th years of Henry V III ; no further indication of a missing court-roll is given from the 17th year of Henry VIII to the 18th year of Elizabeth, when the last entry in the book of fines appears on page 126, leaving many blank pages at the end of the book; so that, up to the time of making the extracts in the 17th century, many early Sheffield court-rolls, from which nearly 1,000 entries of fines, had been transcribed, were in existence : and the problem is, where are these rolls now ? why should they be missing ? while the volumes of extracts made from them should have been so carefully preserved in the muniment rooms of the dukes of Norfolk and their predecessors the earls of Arundel and Surrey; even if the court-rolls of the manor, which were sufficiently legible to be read by the compiler for the purpose of Liber Finium, not three hundreds years since, had subsequently become worn and illegible, they would none the less have been cherished and preserved by the successive lords of the manor of Sheffield, as lares et penates from the days of the Plantagenet Kings, and we may assume that it was not through carelessness or indifference, on the part of the lords of Hallamsbire, that so many Sheffield court-rolls, which were in existence less than three centuries ago, should now be missing.

The absence of these court-rolls from the muniment rooms of Norfolk House and Sheffield must have our further consideration, as it may be possible to account for their disappearance. We naturally ask, why these numerous books of extracts were prepared, when the original court-rolls could be referred to; were they prepared in the ordinary course of work in the steward's office; or was there some special reason for compiling such a record as Liber Finium.

In considering the possible reasons for preparing an exhaustive list of fines, about the middle of the 17th century we cannot overlook John Harrison's Survey of 1637 above mentioned, which took four years to complete and must have involved the examination of manor records; but his Survey dealt with the manor as it was at that time and it seems unlikely that he would require a list of fines paid by the tenants during the preceding three hundred years. His work was, to show the new earl what lands would devolve on his heir through the countess Alethea. It was to be a Survey of the present and not of the past. On the death of Mary dowager countess of Shrewsbury in 1632, it became probable that, under a family settlement of the 27th May 1627 and the then existing circumstances, the Hallamshire estates would shortly devolve on the heir of the earl and countess of Arundel, who appear to have thought it desirable to have this survey -made for their own use and that of their successors; and this 'Exact and Perfect Survey' was the result.

It includes the neighbouring manors of Cowley and Ecclesfield and gives much information as to the lands and tenements as they then were; but there is no reference to fines then or formerly payable by copyhold tenants on admittance to their lands and it is difficult to see what use Liber Finium could have been to John Harrison, unless he was expected to make a valuation of the manor and show what income it had produced in the past.

There is one important point in connection with the compilation of Liber Finium to which attention should be drawn; it is obvious that when the compiler began his task, he was under the impression that he had arranged in chronological order all the Sheffield court-rolls then in existence, up to at any rate the 18th year of Elizabeth; and if that compiler had been John Harrison or his clerk them is no doubt that, with the help of the steward of the manor every extant court-roll, then kept at the castle, would have been produced for his use before he started his work on the court-rolls; but we have reason to know that at least one Sheffield court-roll which the compiler of - Liber Finium said was missing is now at Norfolk House and must have been kept back either intentionally or through carelessness, when Liber Finium was compiled.

This roll, stated to be missing, is for the 19th year of Henry VI; and a full abstract of it is given in Part II of this catalogue; it records the holding of twenty courts, the first on the 8th October 1440 and the last on the 28th September 1441. The regnal years of Henry VI began on the lst September; and of the twenty courts recorded, eighteen were held in his 19th year and two in the first month of his 20th year. In Liber Finium, after the note saying that the rolls for the 18th and 19th years of Henry VI were missing, the compiler takes up the list of fines on the 19th October 1441, exactly three weeks after the holding of the last court recorded on the roll, stated to be missing but now found to be in existence. This point, it will be seen, is of importance when considering the probable circumstances under which Liber Finium was compiled and whether the compiler had the friendly help and assistance of the lord and his steward or whether the manorial records were seized and explored by a hostile sequestrator or an unfriendly county committee in the early days of The Commonwealth.

If we assume that this book of fines was made in or about the middle of the 17th century we m~ ~Your to ascertain the object, in making at that date a do~ hat of these fines, extending over three hundred years; the fines had long since been paid or waived; they were not grouped by the compiler, as being fines relating to particular families or properties. It was simply a chronological list, which apparently could only be of use to any one who wished to form some idea as to what was the value of the manor, based on its past income from fines alone; the income arising from a manor being largely made up of fines paid by the customary tenants on admittance as purchasers or heirs at law to their copyhold lands, though there were other sources of income accruing to a lord of a manor.

If Liber Finium were made for valuation purposes in the middle of the 17th century, we naturally ask whether any sale or mortgage of the manor was then contemplated. This, under the circumstances hereafter narrated, is quite possible; though no record of a mortgage or contemplated sale by any lord of Hallamshire has been disclosed; we have, however, to explain not only the appearance on the scene of Liber Finium but also the disappearance of the original court-rolls, from which it was compiled and without which it could not have come into existence.

As evidence of the intention of the compiler to limit his extracts to fines; we find the following in Liber Finium at 1 October 4 Elizabeth. 'Note There are many surrenders in this year, but no fines entered in the Roll, therefore they [the surrenders] are omitted from being noted'.
With respect to the roll of the lay subsidy collectors of Richard II, the inquisitions post mortem, the Book of Feudal Aids and the compotus rolls of the foresters of lord John Talbot, these came into existence in the ordinary course of national or local administration; but a list of nearly 1,000 fines payable to the successive lords of the manor of Sheffield during a period of more than 300 years, is on an entirely different footing.

No doubt the earls of Shrewsbury had their oak chests at Sheffield Castle in which their letters patent, land charters, manor-rolls and family papers were kept; these chests would pass with the castle from one lord to another; and so long as the castle remained in the hands of its rightful owner, the manor-records would be safe; but with the outbreak of civil war in 1642 the position changed and the risk of loss injury or destruction of such things as muniments was very great; especially in those parts of the country where the armies came into conflict. Sheffield was for a time within the fighting zone and if we are to form any idea as to the probable custody and security or otherwise of the Sheffield manor-records, we must recall such part of the history of Sheffield, following the death of Gilbert earl of Shrewsbury as will show into whose hands the early court-rolls probably passed, up to and after the compilation of Liber Finium.

As the history of Sheffield during the civil wars has been told by the historian of Hallamshire, it is only necessary here to recall such facts as may throw light on the custody of the manor-rolls and records; and it may be necessary to add a few well known facts to make the story complete; further, a key pedigree showing the connection between the houses of Shrewsbury and Arundel, may help to make the position clearer.

Gilbert the 7th earl of Shrewsbury died on the 8th May 1616 and was buried in the family vault at Sheffield; at the time of his death he was possessed of vast estates in many parts of England, including Sheffield Castle and its surrounding dependencies; he was lord of Hallamshire and also lord of the manor of Sheffield with its members; he lived in great state at the castle and had his chief steward, also stewards of his courts, auditors, and receivers of his several lordships; Dr Nathaniel Johnston tells us that the yearly estate accounts and rentals were engrossed in parchment rolls, numbered and deposited in order, with as much care as were those of the King's Exchequer; which testimony is the best possible evidence as to the care bestowed by the officers of the earls of Shrewsbury on their manorial records; this statement by Dr Johnston is fully corroborated by such of the pre-commonwealth account rolls as now exist.

The earl left a widow, Mary countess of Shrewsbury, the daughter of Sir William Cavendish of Chatsworth and three daughters Mary, Elizabeth and Alethea, the last a goddaughter of Queen Elizabeth; Gilbert's two sons died in infancy and the three sisters became the co-heirs to all Hallamshire under settlements made by him or his predecessors. The will of earl Gilbert gives us some idea of the display of gold and silver to which they were accustomed at Sheffield Castle in his day; among the specific legacies bequeathed by his will were two cups of gold for the King and Queen worth £200 each and thirteen cups of gold worth £100 each for his children, grandchildren, executors etc.

The following is a key pedigree of those on whom the castle and the manor, together with the manorial records, devolved after the death of earl Gilbert.

GILBERT earl of Shrews- bury d 8 May 1616 = MARY | dr of Sir | William | Cavendish | d 14 Api | 1632 |
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------         |               |                                                           |                                                |                                                         |
GEORGE d s p 1577	JOHN dsp 1583	WILLIAM HERBERT earl of Pembroke b 1580 d 1630 = MARY | m 4 Nov | d s p | March | 1650	HENRY GREY earl of Kent b 1594 d 1651 = ELIZABETH | b 1581 m | before 1627 | d sp 7 Dec | 1651	THOMAS HOWARD 2nd earl of Arun- del and Surrey b 1586 d 20 Sept 1646 at Padua = ALETHEA | ultimate |  heiress | Hallm- | shire | 1606 d 24 | May 1654
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                                         |                                                                                                              |    |    |    |
	JAMES b 1607 d s p 1624	HENRY FREDERICK lord Maltravers b 15 Aug 1608 d 17 April 1652 = LADY ELIZABETH STUART | m 1626 |  |  |		younger sons
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                                   |                                                                                              |
	THOMAS 5th duke of Norfolk	HENRY 6th duke of Norfolk		other children

The two sons of earl Gilbert having died in his lifetime, the three married daughters were left co-heirs to all Hallamshire at his death; and for nearly three years the dowager countess of Shrewsbury held the courts of the manor, up to the 16th February 1618-19; but later these courts were held by the earls of Pembroke and Arundel on behalf of the co-heirs, the income being divided between them and the survivors of them; the whole being eventually payable to the countess Alethea the last survivor of the three and the ultimate heiress of the late earl, her father.

In 1606 Alethea had married Thomas Howard earl of Arundel, a true lover of the arts and a patron of Rubens and Van Dyck*; but who were residing at the castle immediately following the death of earl Gilbert is not clear; it is probable that for a time at any rate, the dowager countess made Sheffield her home, and as we have seen the manor courts were held in her name. The castle and The Manour, a summer mansion across the Park sometimes called The Lodge, were maintained in a condition, adequate for the occasional visits of members of the family; and there is no reason to think that the muniment chests at the castle would up to this time be disturbed. Neither the countess of Kent nor the countess of Pembroke had a child living; and it became obvious that the Hallamshire estates would devolve on the son and heir of the countess Alethea.

In 1627 a deed of family settlement was entered into, based on this assumption, particulars of which deed are given in 'Hallamshire' 2nd edition, page 127; but they are not sufficiently full to make the position quite clear; however we have every reason to believe that the manor-rolls were safe in the bands of the daughters of earl Gilbert or their chief officers at the castle; they would probably be in the custody of the steward of the manor, an educated man, who would often have occasion to refer to them in carrying on the routine work of the manor courts.

For some years prior to 1640 the earl of Arundel held a high military command; and he had for many years held positions of great responsibility to the State. In 1640 the King decided to send him, then sixty years of age and in failing health, to the continent to raise arms and money in readiness for the struggle with Parliament which he foresaw and did little or nothing to avert; and in December 1640 the House of Lords granted Arundel permission to leave England.

The King had a double motive in sending the earl, as he was to escort Queen Henrietta Maria and Princess Mary to Holland; they took with them the crown jewels on which money was to be raised through the Banks of Amsterdam and Rotterdam. They sailed from Dover on the 23rd February 1641-2 and landed in Holland, where the Queen raised about £2,000,000 within twelve months; and, with the friendly help of Prince Henry of Orange, she sailed in an English ship with eleven Dutch transports laden with stores and ammunition for the King's army; after many reverses in a storm-tossed sea and with the loss of two transports she landed

*In Freemantle's 'Bibliography of Sheffield', at page 121, are given two portraits of this earl reproduced from originals by Van Dyck; together with facsimilies of the seal and autograph of the earl and also of his son Lord Maltravers. at Burlington on the Yorkshire coast; meanwhile the earl of Arundel and his countess moved south into France and Italy where he expended a large sum, said to be not less than £56,000 of his own money, in procuring arms and ammunition for the royal cause; and we cannot overlook the fact that the whole or part of this money may have been raised on security of his estates in Hallamshire , though we find no evidence of such a loan.

During the earl's absence abroad prior to the outbreak of civil war Sheffield Castle would be left in the charge of his chief officer and staff in whose care the muniments would be in safe keeping; but the leading families in Sheffield of that date, Brights, Spencers and Jessops were not supporting the King; and neither the earl nor his staff at the castle could rely on them for help, in case revolutionary fighting arose in Sheffield.

In June or July 1642, a month before was began, Lord Maltravers the son and heir of the earl of Arundel and an officer in the royalist army, visited Sheffield. He ordered 'four wheel-pieces' to be sent from the castle to Doncaster, as it had been decided that Sheffield Castle could not be successfully held against an attack in strength; and strategically the position was not worth holding at any great sacrifice. Whether Lord Maltravers gave any; instructions as to the protection or removal of the muniments we do not know, but it is almost certain that he would fully realize the risk they ran from fire and sword; and it may be that he ordered them to be removed to The Manour, where they would be comparatively safe. It seems unlikely that at this time the records would be sent to London or even to Worksop; and we may, I think, conclude that they remained in Sheffield, though whether at this date they were at the castle or The Manour is uncertain.

As soon as Lord Maltravers left and the guns had been sent to Doncaster, Kellam. Howmer the armourer at the castle did what he could to secure it for the King's cause; but as soon as war began on the 22nd August 1642, the Sheffield townsmen seized the castle for the Parliament and placed it under the control of Mr Christopher Alured. John Bright of Carbrook, after helping to secure the castle for his party, went to York to join Fairfax, where he soon rose to the rank of colonel. In October the earl of Newcastle with the men of Northumberland marched on York; and Fairfax was thrown back on the manufacturing towns of the West Riding.

In the following year 1643, the royalists had reached Rotherham and some of the Parliamentarians from Sheffield attempted to stop their progress at the bridge between Attercliffe and Sheffield; but being outnumbered they withdrew into Derbyshire and the earl of Newcastle took the castle without further resistance, so that if the manor records were at that time either at the castle or at The Manour, there seems to be no reason why they should have suffered from fire or rough handling. About this time Parliament, in the absence abroad of the earl of Arundel, seized his personal estate, which was in the hands of the sequestrator; this would not include anything at Sheffield Castle, which was then in the possession of the royalists.