PETERBOROUGH SOKE 



ETTON 



Northborough, and Hugh his son.' Early in the 

 reign of Edward III an inquiry was held for the 

 crown relative to an alleged holding of Etton manor 

 by Bartholomew de Badlesmere, whose estates had 

 been forfeited for treason in i 3 2 1 ; but the explanations 

 of Hugh de Northborough and his son with regard to 

 their status being found satisfactory, it was declared that 

 Bartholomew did not hold the manor at his death, nor 

 for a long time before, and the sheriff was ordered to 

 desist from further proceedings. No evidence has been 

 found that the Badlesmeres ever ' held Etton, and 

 perhaps the confusion arose through their connexion 

 with Paston and Milton, where the Russells also held. 

 Hugh of Northborough was still holding the manor 

 in 1396,' but it passed soon after into the possession 

 of the family of Rempston. Court rolls exist for this 

 manor from the end of the i4.th century,* the court 

 being generally held by feoffees, but occasionally 

 b) members of the Rempston family. About 141 2 

 Margaret, late wife of Thomas Rempston, possessed 

 the manor,' while in 1428 Thomas Rempston was 

 officially returned as holding the half-fee in Etton 

 which had once belonged to 

 Hugh of Northborough.' The 

 next holders of the manor were 

 the Pulter family, John Pulter 

 senior and John Pulter junior ' 

 holding a court in 1448-9. In 

 1 5 14 Richard Pulter sold the 

 manor and advowson of Etton 

 to Sir William Fitzwilliam,' 

 whose lineal descendants still 

 possess it. Mr. G. C. W. Fitz- 

 william of Milton is now lord 

 of the manor. 



U'OODCROFT, Wodecroft 

 (xii cent.), Wudecroft (xiii cent.). — The tene- 

 ment of Osbern in Woodcroft was confirmed by 

 Pope Eugenius in 1 146 to the abbey of Peter- 

 borough,' and about the same time a certain Walran 

 was holding the sixth part of a fee in Woodcroft.'" 



Pulter. Argent t'wo 

 henJt table and a Cornish 

 chough in the cantle. 



Richard I confirmed to Peterborough Abbey half 

 a knight's fee in Walton and Woodcroft held by 

 Herbert and Roger of Woodcroft." In 1 2 19 land 

 in Woodcroft was held from Waleran son of Roger 

 of Woodcroft, by Walter Preston," and from this 

 time onward the Prestons gradually acquired most 

 of the land in Woodcroft, which had formerly 

 been divided into various small holdings." In 1280 

 Lawrence Preston was impleaded by the abbot of 

 Peterborough for the relief of a quarter of a knight's 

 fee in Woodcroft which he held as the heir of his 

 uncle Gilbert Preston.'* This Lawrence apparently 

 fell into financial difficulties, for in a suit brought 

 against his son in 1304 by Simon de EUesworth it 

 was st-ited that he had assigned his manor of Wood- 

 croft to the complainant for a term of years to acquit 

 a debt." The manor continued with the Preston 

 family until the death of Wymmer Preston without 

 direct heirs about 1434,'* being then divided between 

 his nephews, Robert Brudenel and Nicholas Boxstede. 

 The latter, in 1449, gave up his claim to Robert 

 Fenne and Juliana his wife," against whom a suit was 

 brought for the manor by Robert Brudenel and John 

 son of Nicholas Boxstede a few years later." This 

 suit was apparently successful, for in 1525 John, 

 grandson of Robert Brudenel, with the assent of Sybil 

 Ruddill,granddaughter of Nicholas Boxstede, sold half 

 the manor of Woodcroft to Richard Fermour of 

 London." Sybil Ruddill, with Richard her husband, 

 had previously in 15 10 sold the other half of the 

 manor to Richard Pulter, lord of Etton and North- 

 borough.'" In 1 53 1 and 1532 Francis son of 

 Richard Pulter and Richard Fermour together 

 held a court for the manor of Woodcroft." In 

 1530 Richard Fermour sold his half of the manor 

 to Sir William Fitzwilliam," and Sir William at the 

 time of his death was in treaty with Fr-incis Pulter for 

 the other half" The sale was concluded by his son 

 in 1535," and the whole manor of Woodcroft has 

 since remained in the possession of the Fitzwilliam 

 family, and is now held by Mr. G. C. W. Fitzwilliam." 



» Close, 4 Edw. Ill, m. 6 ; Feet of F. 



Northants, j 9 Edw. II, No. 472. The re- 

 i.ition of the St. Medards to the manor at 

 this period is doubtful. They were un- 

 questionably at first overlords, but Nicho- 

 las appears to treat on equality with the 

 Russells. In 1330 John de St. Medard, 

 son of Nicholas, made so full a quit-claim 

 of the manor to Hugh of Northborough 

 that it might well mean relinquishing all 

 connexion with the place (Soc. Antiq. No. 

 38, fol. 30). This view is borne out by 

 another entry (Ibid. fol. 158) which 

 states that Hugh of Northborough held 

 immediately of the abbot, because John de 

 St. Medard had quit-claimed all right. But 

 the St. Medards and their successors 

 several times later are mentioned as over- 

 lords, perhaps only through custom. Add. 

 MS. 252S8 J Cott. Nero, C, vii, 202 </. 



» Close, 4 Edw. Ill, m. 6. 



'Cott. Nero, C, vii, 130; Ct. R. at 

 Milton Hall. 



* The rolls are at Milton Hall in the 

 custody of Mr. G. C. W. Fitzwilliam, the 

 present lord of the manor. 



» Lay Subs. R. ^V- 



• Misc. Bks. Eich. K. R. iv, 235. 



' According to Glover (Hist, of Derhy- 

 thire, pt. I, vol. ii, p. 600) the manor was 

 bought by these persons from Thomas 

 Rempston in 26 Hen. VI, and this ap- 

 pears to be borne out by the dates of 

 the Ct. R. A small slip of paper among 



the Ct. Rs. at Milton Hall, not earlier 

 than the i6th century, states that Hugh 

 of Northborough had a son Thomas whose 

 grand-daughter Anne married Thomas 

 Pulter, and thus brought the manor into 

 that family. But there is no evidence to 

 confirm this. 



8 Deed at Milton Hall. There are 

 several other deeds at Milton relative to 

 this manor, mainly concerning trusts 

 created by means of feoflfees by Richard 

 Pulter. 



* Sparke, Scriptures, p. 78. No earlier 

 mention occurs ercept in the spurious 

 grant printed by Birch, Cart. Sax. i, 22. 



^"^ Cott. Vesp. E, xxii, fol. 99^, et seq. 



" Cart. Antiq. DD. 17; Chart R. 11 

 Hen. Ill, pt. i, m. 19. 



" Feet of F. Northants, 3 Henrv III, 

 No. 38. 



" Soc. Antiq. MS. No. 60, fol. 155. Feet 

 of F. Northants, 24 Hen. Ill, No. 379 ; 

 Feet of F. Northants, 46 Hen. Ill, No. 

 829, 836 ; Bracton, Note Book, No. 440 ; 

 Lib. Swapham, fol. 161 1). 



** Chronicon, p. 35. 



'* De Banco R. No. 149, m. 3111/. In 

 1315 Thomas de Goldcsburgh was hold- 

 ing the land of the Prestons in Wood- 

 croft (Lands, 993). Perhaps his connexion 

 with the place was similar to that with 

 the manor of Gretton, also held by the 

 Prestons. (Quo. IVarr. R. (Rec. Com.), 

 p. 563.) 



487 



" Chan. Inq. p.m. 13 Hen. VI, No. 49. 



" Close, 27 Hen. VI, m. 6 d. 



" De Banco R. 35 Hen. VI, m. 135 rf. 



" Anct. D. (P.R.O.), A 4778 j Feet 

 of F. Northants, Hil. 17 Hen. VIII. 



'O Deed at Milton Hall. 



" Ct. R. at Milton Hall. There are a 

 few other Ct. Rs. of various dates for this 

 manor at Milton. 



" Deed at Milton Hall. 



» Ibid. 



»< Ibid. 



^* The de la Mares, hereditary con- 

 stables of the abbey of Peterborough, had 

 some connexion with Woodcroft. In 

 1225, Brian de la Marc was a party in a 

 suit concerning a carucate of land in 

 Woodcroft (Pat. 9 Hen. Ill, m. 4,/) ; in 

 1243 Woodcroft is mentioned as part of 

 the de la Marc fee (Soc. Antiq. No. 60, 

 m. 251), in which it is always afterwards 

 included until 1428, when the carl of 

 Somerset was in possession of the de la 

 Mare lands (Misc. Bks. Exch. K. R. No. iv, 

 p. 23;). There is no evidence that the 

 de la Mares were overlords of the Prestons 

 or of those who held before them, buf 

 some land in Woodcroft belonged to the 

 manor of Maxcy, the principal possession 

 of the de la Mares, and it is perhaps CD 

 this land that the constant references arc 

 made (1st Mins. Acct. 27 and 28 Hen. 

 VIII, Northants, No. 10). 



