THE ORIGIN OF THE SHIRLEYS AND OF THE GRESLEYS. 1 55 



name (sic) of the heirs were unmentioned, it is probable that 

 they were co-parceners, and female heirs or their descendants, 

 so that no one was as yet responsible for the service 

 due from the fees. . . . Several families claim descent, 

 but it is to be feared that their claims will not stand the 

 brunt of investigation. . . . The family of Shirley 

 especially seem at fault with their proof, and they do not 

 even possess the advantage of possessing any of Sewal's 

 manors "* 



On another page he goes further, and boldly suggests that 

 the family had to flee the country! Annotating an entry on 

 the Pipe Roll of 1 169, he observes : — 



Henry fil Fulcher, 2 m. for his son and nephew, for whom he was bail, 

 and who did not appear. (This was the first knight of Henry {sic) de 

 Ferrers, and it may explain the extinction of that family. Probably they 

 were involved in Henry Ferrars' rebellion and fled the country, f) 



Of this we need only say that the first knight of William 

 (not Henry) de Ferrers was not Henry, but his brother Sewal 

 (see above); that Henry de Ferrers had, according to the 

 author himself (p. 269), died so far back as 1088; that it was 

 not Henry, but William de Ferrers, Earl of Derby, who 

 rebelled; and that his rebellion did not begin till n 73. Only 

 Mr. Yeatman, therefore, could suggest that these men had 

 fled, in 1169, for having been involved in that rebellion! 



Mr. Yeatman's objection to the Shirley pedigree is quite 

 clear from his remarks in the Domesday chapter (p. 76), 

 where he says of " Saswalo " (the first Sewal) : — 



His sons Henry and Fulc held 9 manors temp. Henry I., and in the 

 reign of his grandson they were held by the co-heirs of Henry,% yet the 

 Heralds claim these Knights as the ancestors of the noble house of Shirley. 

 The objection would be sound enough if the record stated 

 that the fees were held by unnamed " co-heirs." Unfortunately 

 for him, it states, on the contrary, that they were held by 

 " Sewaldus, the heir of both " (Henry and Fulcher). This 

 Sewaldus was son of Fulcher, and nephew of Henry, and 

 we find him, the very year in which this return was made 



* PP- 279-280. 



t Vol. I., p. in. 



X The italics are mine. 



