ONGAR HUNDRED 



BOBBINGWORTH 



wife Katherine whose first husband had been Henry 

 Stafford, Duke of Buckingham (d. I483).*'* 



Nicholas Spigurnel died before 1 27 5 .*5 Sir Edmund 

 Spigurnel, son of Nicholas, died in 1295-6 leaving his 

 widow Clarice to hold for her life i messuage, i 

 carucate of land, and 50J. rent in Bobbingworth.** In 

 1297 his brother and heir John granted the reversion 

 of this estate after the death of Clarice to Henry 

 Spigurnel, probably his younger brother, and to the 

 heirs of Henry.*^ In 1328 Henry Spigurnel died in 

 possession of this estate, which was then described as a 

 manor.*^ He was succeeded by his son Thomas who 

 in 1332 quitclaimed all his rights in the manor to 

 Robert de Hakeney, citizen of London, and his wife 

 Katherine.*' In 1361 Thomas son of Robert de 

 Hakeney granted an annuity of ^^lo from the manor to 

 James de Lacy and his heirs.'o Thomas de Hakeney 

 left at least one sister, Katherine, as his heirJ' In 1 389 

 Maud de Enfield, who was perhaps the widow of John 

 de Enfield and perhaps also the sister of Thomas de 

 Hakeney, granted the reversion of the manor, then 

 held for hfe by Joan wife of Luke Morell, to Ralph de 

 Tyle and his wife Alice, daughter of John de Enfield, 

 to John their son and to the heirs of Alice.'^ In 1403 

 Thomas Horsman and his wife Margaret and John 

 Abberbury and his wife Alice granted the reversion of 

 the manor, after the death of Joan Morell, to Sir John 

 Ashley and his heirs.'s The conveyances of 1389 and 

 1403 led, after the death of Joan Morell, to a contest 

 for possession of the estate. 



Joan Morell died on t6 May i409.7't At that time 

 Alice and Ralph de Tyle and their son John were dead 

 and the next of kin of Alice was her cousin Thomas, a 

 minor, son of her father's brother Thomas de Enfield." 

 On 22 May 1409 William Wodeward and his wife 

 Agnes, a kinswoman of Thomas, were granted custody 

 of the manor.'* Shortly afterwards, by letters patent 

 which apparently were antedated to 20 May 1409 the 

 custody of the manor was given to Helming Legat, 

 who was closely connected with Sir John Ashley, and 

 William Loveney." The grant to the Wodewards was 

 annulled and they were removed from possession of 

 the estate.'* They then proceeded to complain by peti- 

 tion in Parliament and in June 1410 the case was 

 examined by the king's council." In the course of the 

 hearing Helming Legat stated that at the instance of 

 Sir John Ashley he had released all his claim in the 

 estate to John Habhale, a servant of Ashley.*" At the 

 close of the hearing the council declared that the grant 

 to Legat and Loveney should be revoked on the 

 ground that when it was made the grantees did not 

 fulfil their legal obligation of revealing other gifts which 

 they had received from the king.*' At the same time 

 the council secured an acknowledgement by Loveney 



that the letters patent dated 20 May were sealed after 

 the letters dated 22 May.*^ In accordance with the 

 council's judgement the Wodewards were restored as 

 custodians of the estate in October 1410.*' 



It is not clear whether Sir John Ashley took any 

 further steps to obtain possession of the manor after his 

 attempt in 1409. An inquisition taken in 14 12 

 declared that Thomas de Enfield was the heir to the 

 estate in virtue of the fine of 1389.** By 1420, how- 

 ever, a lawsuit was begun to contest Thomas's claim. *5 

 In 1420 William Ashley, brother and heir of Sir John, 

 came to an agreement with Nicholas Thorley whereby 

 Nicholas was to pay the costs of the action and a further 

 70 marks to William in return for which William was 

 to enfeoff him with the manor or with half of it, if only 

 half was recovered.** It is not clear how far the action 

 was pursued. In January 1424 an inquisition declared 

 that in virtue of the fine of 1389 Thomas de Enfield, 

 who had come of age in October 1423, was entitled to 

 the estate.*' In March 1424 Thomas conveyed what 

 he described as 'all my manor of Bobbingworth' to Sir 

 Lewis Robessart and others who granted it to Nicholas 

 Thorley.** In August 1424 William Ashley conveyed 

 what he also described as 'my manor of Bobbingworth' 

 to Nicholas Thorley and the heirs of Nicholas.*' 



In 1442 Sir Nicholas Thorley died leaving as his 

 heir Walter Estoft, son of his sister Katherine.'" Alice, 

 Countess of Oxford and widow of Nicholas, ap- 

 parendy held a life interest in the manor of Bobbing- 

 worth." In 1445 she granted this life interest to her 

 son John de Vere, 12th Earl of Oxford, and to Sir 

 Reynold West and Richard Wentworth who im- 

 mediately sold it to Sir Thomas Tyrell.'^ At the same 

 time Sir Thomas purchased the reversion from Walter 

 Estoft.'s In January 1464 Sir Thomas Tyrell con- 

 veyed the manor to Sir Peter Arderne and others who 

 in December 1466 granted it to Walter Wrytell.'* 

 After Walter's death in 1475 the manor of Bobbing- 

 worth followed the same descent as that of High Laver 

 (q.v.) until 1 5 10." 



In 1 5 10, when they made a partition of the rest of 

 their inheritance, James and Eleanor Walsingham and 

 Edward and Gresilda Waldegrave agreed that they, 

 and the heirs of Eleanor and Gresilda, should hold 

 Bobbingworth manor in common.'* In 1575, how- 

 ever, the owners of the manor. Sir Thomas Walsing- 

 ham, grandson of James and Eleanor, and John 

 Rochester of Terhng, son of William, son of Gresilda 

 by her first husband John Rochester, made a physical 

 division of it." It was agreed that John Rochester's 

 share of the estate should be the manor house which, 

 with its appurtenant 6 acres, was then in the occupa- 

 tion of John Poole who was a freeholder and copyholder 

 of the manor; 175 acres of demesne land of which 117 



'♦ Cal. Inq. p.m. Hen. VIl, i, pp. 61-63, 

 383; Complete Peerage, ii, 73. See note 

 under High Laver manor. 



65 CH3/+/6. 



" Feel of F. Essex, ii, 84; C. Moor, Kts. 

 of Ed'w. I, iv (Harl. Soc. Ixxxiii), 269. 



<>■> Feet of F. Essex, ii, 8+; C. Moor, Kts. 

 of Edtv. I, iv, 269. 



68 Cal. Inq. p.m. vii, p. 104.. 



*"> E.R.O., D/DB T96/6. 



"> Cal. Close, 1360-4, 258. 



'■ E.R.O., D/DB T96/37. 



" Feet of F. Essex, m, 211; C 137/90. 



" Feet ofF. Essex, iii, 240. Alice Abber- 

 bury may formerly have been Alice dcTyle. 

 Alternatively she and Margaret Horsman 

 may have been sisters of Thomas de 



Hakeney. 

 " C137/90. 



75 Ibid. 



'6 Cal. Pat. 1408-13, 231, 240; Cal. 

 Fine R. xiii, 148, 192-3. 



" Cal. Pat. 1408-13, 231, 240; Cal. 

 Fine R. xiii, 192-3. 



'8 Cal. Pat. 1408-13, 231, 240; Cal. 

 Fine R. xiii, 192-3. 



79 Cases Before King's Council 1243-1482 

 (Selden Soc. xxxv), 9^-95 j Cal. Pat. 1408- 

 13, 240; Cal. Fine R. xiii, 192-3. 



80 Cases Before King's Council 1243-1482, 



93- 



8" Ibid. 94. " Ibid. 



83 Cal. Pat. 1408-13, 240; Cal. Fine R. 

 xiii, 192-3. 



*♦ Cl 37/90. 



85 E.R.O., D/DB T96/28. 



8« Ibid. 87 C139/13. 



88 E.R.O., D/DB T96/33-35. 



89 E.R.O., D/DB T96/31. 

 9" Complete Peerage, x, 236. 



9' E.R.O., D/DB T96/41-42; CP 



25(0/71/279/^44- 



92 Ibid. 



93 Cal. Close, 1441-7, 392-3. 

 9« E.R.O., D/DBT96/51. 



95 C 1 42/2 1/2; Cal. Inq. p.m. Hen. yil, 

 i, pp. 61-63, 383; L. Sf P. Hen. Fill, 

 i, p. 103. 



96 E.R.O., D/DB T96/69. 



97 E.R.O., D/DB T98; yisits. of Essex 

 (Harl. Soc), 97, 280. 



I I 



