76 Erlestoke mid its Manor Lords. 



had been held of him by one Ealph Fitz-Keping, and the customary 

 tenants had no power of sub-letting, moreover these latter seldom 

 held more than one virgate each, and none of them would be likely, 

 when taking his land of the lord on lives, to include two daughters 

 in the agreement. In 12-49 a similar transaction passed between 

 Matthew's second son Peter, then the owner of the manor, and 

 Idonea, the daughter of Kichard Cut, with whom was associated 

 one lioger Buzun, who was probably her husband. In this case 

 an assize of mort d'ancestor was summoned between the parties 

 before the justices in eyre sitting at Wilton, when the lord gave 

 his tenant title to a virgate of land and paid half a mark for 

 licence to come to an agreement with him, whereupon in the 

 King's court at the same place a final concord was executed 

 whereby Peter acquired all right and claim to the land on his 

 payment to Idonea of twenty shillings.^ The formula used in the 

 assize roll in describing the nature of Richard Cut's tenure is : 

 " seisitus in dominico suo ut [ = quasi] de feodo," and is that which 

 was always applied to the position of a free-tenant. In 1256 a final 

 concord passed before the justices in eyre sitting at Ilchester between 

 two free-tenants, Ernulph de Gurcy and Geoffrey de Aubervile, 

 concerning a messuage, seventeen-and-a-half acres of arable and one 

 acre of meadow, with appurtenances, whereby Ernulph acquired 

 those tenements in consideration of his grant to Geoffrey of a life 

 interest at an annual rent of one penny, in two acres of the arable 

 identified in the record as having been held by Avicia de Gurcy ,^ 

 and thirty-three years later, when Ei-nulph de Gurcy was dead 

 and his lands had passed into the hands of Jolm Auiey, Matilda, 

 the widow, sued him under a writ of dower, but the case was 

 settled out of court.^ In these four cases there is proof that the 

 power of the free-tenant over liis land was limited only by the fact 

 that the actual freehold was vested in the lord, foi' it is seen from 

 the first two that he could dispose of it by sale, and from the last 



' Feet of Fines, Wilts, File 16, No. 95 ; Assize Roll, No. 996, 33 Hen. III., 

 m. 8. 



- Feet of Fines, Wilts, File 18, No. 9. 

 ' Assize Roll No. 1006, 17 Edw. I., m. 15. 



