WILLYBROOK HUNDRED 



EASTON ON THE HILL 



I J hides in Upton Green hundred. Though the 

 same hidation is given, there was only land for two 

 ploughs, and the whole was worth only 4.0/.' Both 

 portions, however, had increased in value enormously 

 since the time of King Edward, showing that this 

 village had suffered exceptionally little from the recent 

 ravaging of the country.' It is noted of the land in 

 Upton Green hundred that it belonged to ' St. 

 Peter of Burg.' This is explained by an entry of 

 the time of Henry I in a Peterborough cartulary. 

 Anschitil de St. Medard held of the abbot of Peter- 

 borough 10 hides and three parts of a virgate in 



E?^5Tow w THE Hill 

 Old RECTORy 



C IJOO 



^i'cate of fccT 



CI pjicr pldn 



WMW/////'^ 



^^^^^^ 



(q-roorvd Fla.r> 



Euiri4> 



Northamptonshire. Of this fee King William gave 

 to Eudo Dapifer one hide and a half in Easton, com- 

 manding the abbot to recompense Anschitil with 

 other land, but this the abbot refused to do.' The 

 king's action did the abbey a real injury, for it was 

 not merely a change of tenants for the land, but 

 the holder of Easton from henceforth never did service 

 or paid dues to Peterborough at all. Eudo was the 

 son of Hubert de Rie, a great favourite of his 

 sovereign. In the 12th-century survey of North- 

 amptonshire Easton is still entered under two 

 hundreds, both portions being held by Simon de 

 Lindon. The amount, one hide and a half, is the 

 same in the soke, but in VVillybrook Simon is said to 

 hold 2 hides in Easton.* Both portions were held of 

 the crown, the lands of Eudo having escheated to the 



king on his death, without male issue, in 11 20. 

 Simon de Lindon, also called Simon of Easton, mort- 

 gaged his land to Robert, nephew of the bishop, 

 grandfather of William de Humez, constable of Nor- 

 mandy.' William de Humez by force of this mort- 

 gage had entered into land in Easton, and in 1 204 

 Simon de Lindon, grandson of the above Simon, 

 demanded an inquiry as to his rights. William just 

 at this period forfeited his lands in England on 

 account of the loss of Normandy, and Simon's petition 

 was so far successful that he was allowed to have the 

 lands in Easton on payment to the crown of 300 

 marks.^ Simon was followed before 1229 by his son 

 Alan, who does not seem to have been a very 

 estimable character, being strongly suspected in 1 23 I 

 of murdering his brother RoUand.' He was suc- 

 ceeded by Richard, who died about 1255, holding 

 the manor of Easton of the king in chief as two 

 knights' fees.' Richard's son Simon enfeoffed Eleanor, 

 consort of Edward I, with the manor.' It fell to the 

 crown on her death, and was granted in 1305 to 

 Queen Margaret of France as dower,'" and after her 

 death to Queen Isabella in I 3 18." She surrendered 

 it, however, the next year with the Northamptonshire 

 manors of Torpel and Upton in exchange for other 

 lands.'" From this date until the death of Edmund 

 de Holand, earl of Kent, in 1408, the manor of 

 Easton follows the descent of that of Upton in Castor, 

 except that on the forfeiture of Edmund, earl of Kent, 

 in 1330 it was granted temporarily to Bartholomew 

 de Burghersh instead of, as in the case of Upton, to 

 Simon de Bereford." On the death of Edmund, earl 

 of Kent, in 1408, Easton formed part of the portion 

 of his sister Eleanor, wife of Thomas, earl of Salisbury." 

 After her death it was held by her husband by the 

 courtesy of England until 1428, when it descended to 

 his daughter and sole heiress Alice," who married Sir 

 Richard Neville. Their son was the famous Richard, 

 the king-maker, earl of Warwick and Salisbury-, who 

 lost his life in 1 47 1 on the field of Barnet. Easton 

 then fell to George, duke of Clarence, husband of 

 Richard's eldest daughter Isabel, who, being suspected 

 of disloyalty to his brother, King Edward IV', was 

 attainted and executed in 1477. His young son and 

 heir Edward was kept in prison by the successive 

 sovereigns until his attainder and death in 1503-4. 

 His lands and titles by his attainder wxre forfeited to 

 the crown, but on her own petition his sister Margaret, 

 the wife of Sir Richard Pole, in I 51 3, was restored 

 to his lands and the dignities of the earldoms of War- 

 wick and Salisbury. She, as the last of her race, was 

 regarded jealously by King Henry VIII, and was 

 attainted in 1539, and executed two years later.'* 

 Easton, therefore, fell once again into royal hands, and 

 was granted in 155 1 to John, earl of Bedford," 



' V. C. H. Norl/mrts, i, 343*. 



a Ibid. p. 261. 



s C/ironicon, p. 16S. 



* y. C. H. Northant!, i, 367*, 388.2. 

 Probably the valuation ia Willybrook 

 hundred included the \ hide of St. 

 Pierre sur Dive, assessed separately in 

 1086. 



' R. of Finn and Ohlatiom (Rec. Com.), 

 p. 218. 



« Pipe R. 6 John, m. \\d. It is not 

 certain whether William de Humez had 

 the whole or only part of the Easton 

 lands. Two entries in the Red Book of 

 the Exchequer (Rolls Ser.) pp. 173, 534, 

 look as if he had held the whole. In 



i20i-2Simon de Lindon was holding two 

 knights* fees in Northamptonshire * pro ' 

 William de Humez, and in 1210-12 he 

 had two knights' fees which had belonged to 

 William de Humez by fine with the king. 

 The whole of Easton was held as two 

 knights* fees in the reign of Henrj' III 

 (Chan. Inq. p.m. 39 Hen. Ill, No. 25). 

 On the other hand, in a suit concern- 

 ing the land of William in Duddington, 

 he is stated to have held only 5 vir- 

 gates of land in Easton, which the king 

 gave to Simon de Lindon for 200 marks 

 (Bracton, Note Bk. (ed. Maitland), Nos. 

 503, 565). The survey of William's 

 land in Easton, taken on his forfeiture in 



1204, unfortunately does not give the 

 exact amount, but the value and the 

 amount of stock seem large for only 5 

 virgatfs (Norman R. 6 John, m. 2). 



'' Bracton, Note Bk. 514. 



' Chan. Inq. p.m. 39 Hen. Ill, No. 



9 Ibid. 26 Edw. I, No. 28. 

 1° Pat. 33 Edw. I, pt. ii, m. 19. 

 '• Ibid. II Edw. II, pt. ii, m. 30. 

 " Ibid. 13 Edw. II, m. 27. 

 " Ibid. 4 Edw. Ill, pt. i, m. 25. 

 '^ Chan. Inq. p.m. 10 Hen. IV, 51. 

 '5 Ibid. 7 Hen. VI, No. 57. 

 '" G. E. C. Comflele Peerage, vii, 36. 

 '■ Pat. 3 Edw. VI, pt. vii, m. 42. 



