A HISTORY OF MIDDLESEX 



general rule of leniency in the suppression of the revolt. As to the 

 local outbreaks in the county we have little more than the scantiest in- 

 formation. The disturbances at Pinner were sufficiently serious to 

 warrant a royal inquiry, the manor of Harrow being in the king's hands 

 as part of the temporalities of the see of Canterbury during the vacancy 

 caused by the murder of Simon of Sudbury. 86 An entry in a Fulham 

 court roll of 1392 states that the court rolls were burnt tempore rumoris. 

 Amongst the exclusions from the pardon are men from Hendon, Houn- 

 slow, Ruislip, Greenford, Twickenham, Fulham, Chelsea, Charing and 

 Heston ; but it does not appear whether they were engaged in local dis- 

 turbances or in the London rebellion. At Heston the tenants seized the 

 opportunity to pay off their old score against Nicholas Est. William 

 Weyland, John Walter and Richard Umfray attacked Est on 5 June, 

 1381, with swords and staves, abused and wounded him, and finally 

 imprisoned him for a day and night, until Nicholas paid 4OJ. for 

 his freedom. When the latter brought an action against them in 

 1383, the three men pleaded and brought four credible witnesses in 

 support of their plea that they had not acted of their own free will, 

 but by the orders of Jack Straw, Walter Tyler, and other insurgents. 

 The acceptance of this plea entitled them to benefit by the general pardon 

 and they were actually dismissed sine die* 1 That an outbreak occurred at 

 Harmondsworth is clear, for Walter Come, Richard Gode and Robert 

 Freke, junior, forfeited their lands for rebellion against the prior and the 

 king's peace, and William Pompe's and John Pellyng's lands were also seized 

 for the same reason. It seems probable that the manor rolls were burnt, 

 for the early custumals are extant, not in the originals, but in transcripts 

 of the reign of Richard II, and with the exception of one roll of the 

 time of Edward I there are no earlier court rolls of the manor extant 

 than the one actually in use at the time of the rebellion. The prior was 

 evidently not disposed to be harsh indeed, it was far from the interests 

 of the landlords to prevent a quiet settlement to the stalu quo for 

 William Pompe got his land back a few months later, and at the instance 

 of his friends the prior reduced his fine from 40*. to 40^. John 

 Pellyng's land was given back to him in 1383 at the prayer of two of 

 the tenants. Robert Freke, junior, is again in possession in 1385 and 

 again does not come to superintend the reapers, and in 1386 Richard 

 Gode is once more in a position to come late to the autumn bedrippe. 88 

 Indeed, things went on at Harmondsworth after the rebellion just as they 

 did before. There were quite as many defaults at bedrippes and super- 

 intending works, and the same names recur amongst the defaulters 

 John Austyn, Thomas Hyne, William Pompe, John Attehelme, 

 Nicholas Herbard, Roger Fayrer and Robert Freke. The position 

 of reeve was so unpopular that William Boyland fined 10 marks to 

 escape it, although diligently required by the steward to accept the 



*> P.R.O. Pat. 5 Ric. II. * P.R.O. Ct. R. 16 Ric. II, bdle. 188, No. 66. 



" Cf. ante, p. 72, and Inq. I Ric. II, No. 1460 ; Coram Rege R. Trin. 7 Ric. II, m. 23 (rex). 



* P.R.O. Ct. R. 1-9 Ric. II, bdle. 191, No. 14. 



84 



