OF THE MIDDLE AGES. 11 



than 100 years after his death it would bo difficult to fix it with any 

 positive certainty. Our oldest county historian, Sir Robert Atkyns, 

 Lord Chief Baron of the Exchequer, a veiy good antiquary and 

 genealogian, one who looked at facts with the keen ej'e of a lawyer, 

 and was not likely to admit evidence of a doubtful character, states 

 that about the beginning of the reign of Edwai'd L the family of 

 "WTiittington became possessed of an estate at Pauntley, in this County, 

 nearly nine miles fi-om our County Town, on the borders of Hereford- 

 shire and "Worcestershire. This estate was handed down from father 

 to son, until it came into the possession of Sir "William "Whittington " 

 who had three, if not more, sons, but he only makes mention of the 

 three eldest, of whom William possessed Pauntley, and dying without 

 issue the estate passed to his brother Robert, who became High Sheriff 

 of this County, (3 Hen. I"V.) in 1402 and again in 1407, and Richard 

 the younger, who, he says," was thrice Lord Mayor of London and a great 

 benefactor to that City." Guy "VN'hittington, son of Robert, was High 

 Sheriff also twice, in 1426 and 1431. Thomas "Whittington was High 

 Sheriff in 1472 ; anothei", Robert, was High Sheriff in 1495. John "Whit- 

 antiquity in this County, tracing back to 1538. It contains the entry of the 

 burial of Thomas "\^^littington, the last male of this branch of the family, in 1546. 



g Sir Robert Atkyns commits a slight error in making Richard, our hero, to be 

 the son of William Whitington, who married Catherine Staimton, whereas that 

 William was his eldest brother. "We have Richard Whifington's own authority for 

 the fact that he was son of Sir "William and Joan, see his will and his ordinances. 

 Sir Robert appears to have followed an incorrect pedigree in the Heralds' College, 

 in which the same error occurs. Wc find that this William was succeeded in his 

 estates by his brother Robert, which would not have been the case had he left a son. 



Two of Sir Richard's predecessors rcceiA'ed the honor of knighthood, but that 

 woiild not necessarily argue that the dignity was confencd for any distinguished 

 services. The Kings of England, at that period, made the fee, consequent upon 

 the confeiTing of that honor, a source of profit, by almost compelling persons who 

 had an estate of £20. per annum, i.e. £200. per annum of our money, (afterwards 

 it was raised to £40. or say £400. per annum) to become knights. It therefore 

 did not by any means prove that a knight was a man of diaracter, or even of very 

 large fortune. Many paid the fee to escape the honor. — Fosbroke's Enc\jchp(cdia 

 of Antiquities, vol. 2, p. 748. Maitland's iTw^ Z(;«<;?. vol. 1. p. 127. The practice of 

 extorting fines on this pretence was earned so far that the Commons petitioned 

 that no person should be fined twice for refusing knighthood, but the Crown 

 refused to comply. 



