In England, a feudal barony or barony by tenure was a form of Feudal land tenure, namely per baroniam (Latin for "by barony") under which the land-holder owed the service of being one of the king's barons. It must be distinguished from a barony, also feudal, but which existed within a county palatine, such as the Barony of Halton.[1] The duties and privileges owed by feudal barons cannot now be defined exactly but involved respectively the provision of soldiers to the royal feudal army on demand by the king, and the attendance at the kings feudal court, the precursor of parliament. The estate-in-land held by barony if containing a significant castle as its caput and if especially large, that is to say consisting of more than about 20 knight's fees (each loosely equivalent to a manor), was termed an "honour". These manors invariably included many that were subinfeudated.
William the Conqueror established his favoured followers as barons by enfeoffing them as tenants-in-chief with great fiefdoms to be held per baroniam, a largely standard feudal contract of tenure, common to all his barons. Such barons were not necessarily always from the greater Norman nobles, but were selected often on account of their personal abilities and usefulness. Thus for example Turstin FitzRolf, the relatively humble and obscure knight who had stepped in at the last minute to accept the position of Duke William's standard-bearer at the Battle of Hastings, was granted a barony which comprised well over twenty manors.[2]
The feudal obligation imposed by the grant of a barony was termed in Latin the servitium debitum or "service owed" and was set as a quota of knights to be provided for the king's service, which figure was arbitrarily decided by the king for each barony. It bore no constant relation to the amount of land comprised by the barony, but was fixed by a bargain between the king and the baron.[3] It was at the discretion of the baron as to how these knights were found by him. The commonest method was for him to split his barony into several small fees, i.e. fiefdoms or fiefs, (estates-in-land) or of no standard size, but at least few hundred acres each, possibly up to a thousand acres, into each of which he would sub-enfeoff one knight, by the tenure of knight-service. This tenure gave the knight use of the fief and all its revenues, on condition that he should provide to the baron, now his overlord, 40 days' of military service, complete with retinue of esquires, horses and armour. The fief so allotted is known as a knight's fee. Alternatively the baron could keep the entire barony or a part thereof in demesne, that is to say "in-hand" or under his own management, using the revenues it produced to buy the services of mercenary knights known as "stipendiary knights". A barony which could support more than the number of knights required by the servitium debitum had clearly been obtained from the king on favourable terms.
Where a baron had sub-enfeoffed fewer knights than required by the servitium debitum, the barony was said to be "under-enfeoffed", and the balance of knights owing had to be produced super dominium, that is "on the demesne". This does not mean they were resident within the baron's demesne, but that they had to be hired from the revenue therefrom. Conversely, a barony was "over-enfeoffed" where more knights had been enfeoffed than was required by the servitium debitum, and this was a signal that the barony had been obtained on overly-favourable terms.
A survey was commissioned by the Treasury in 1166 known as the Cartae Baronum ("Charters of the Barons"), which required each baron to declare how many knights he had enfeoffed and how many were super dominium, with the names of all. It appears that the survey was designed to identify baronies from which a greater servitium debitum could in future be obtained by the king. An example is given from the return of Lambert of Etocquigny:[4]
"To his reverend lord, Henry, king of the English, Lambert of Etocquigny, greeting. Know that I hold from you by your favour 16 carucates of land and 2 bovates by the service of 10 knights. In these 10 carucates of land I have 5 knights enfeoffed by the old enfeoffment:
And from my demesne I provide the balance of the service I owe you, to wit, that of 5 knights. And from that demesne I have given Robert de Portemort 3/4 of 1 knight's fee. Therefore I pray you that you will send me your judgement concerning Richard de Haia who holds back the service of his fee, because I cannot obtain that service except by your order. This is the total service in the aforesaid 16 carucates of land. Farewell"
- Richard de Haia holds 1 knight's fee; and he withheld the service which he owes to you and to me from the day of your coronation up to now, except that he paid me 2 marks.
- Odo de Cranesbi holds 1 knight's fee.
- Thomas, son of William, holds 1 knight's fee.
- Roger de Millers holds 2 knight's fees.
The privilege which balanced the burden of the servitium debitum was the baron's right to attend the king's council. Originally all barons who held per baroniam received individual writs of summons to attend parliament, which attendance was their privilege. This was a purely practical measure as the early kings were peripatetic in that they were on almost continual progresses around the kingdom, taking their court (i.e. administration) with them. A king only called a parliament, or council, when the need arose either for advice or funding. This lack of a parliamentary schedule meant that the barons needed to be informed when and where to attend. As baronies became fragmented over time due to failure of male heirs and descent via co-heiresses, (see below) many of those who held per baroniam became holders of relatively small fiefdoms. Eventually the king refused to summon such minor nobles to parliament by personal writ, sending instead a general writ of summons to the sheriff of each shire, who in turn was to summon representatives only of these so-called lesser-barons. The greater barons, who retained sufficient power to insist upon it, continued to receive personal summonses. The king came to realise, from the complacency of the lesser barons with this new procedure, that in practice it was not tenure per baroniam which determined attendance at parliament, but receipt of a writ of summons originated by himself. The next logical development was that the king started issuing such writs to persons who did not hold per baroniam and who were not therefore feudal barons, but "barons by writ", albeit still existing during the feudal era. The reason for summoning by writ was based on personal characteristics, not feudal tenure, for example the man so summoned might be one of exceptional judgement or have special military skills, of value to the king's council. The arbitrary summons by personal writ, which signalled the start of the decline of feudalism, eventually evolved into summons by public proclamation in the form of letters patent.
Of most importance, the higher prelates such as Archbishops and Bishops were deemed to hold per baroniam, and were thus members of the baronage entitled to attend parliament, indeed they formed the greatest grouping of all. Marcher lords in Wales often held their lordships by right of conquest and appear to have been deemed feudal barons. The Barons of the Cinque Ports were also deemed feudal barons, by virtue of their military service at sea,[5] and thus formed part of the baronage entitled to attend parliament.
"Baronial relief" was payable by an heir to a tenant-in-chief of baronial status in order that he might lawfully take possession of his inheritance.[6] Baronial relief was thus a form of one-off taxation, or more accurately a variety of "feudal incident" levyable by the King on his tenants-in-chief for a variety of reasons. The term "relief" implies "elevation", both words being derived from the Latin levo, to raise up, into a position of honour. Not all fiefs were baronies, but may have been held under other kinds of feudal tenure such as socage, grand serjeanty or simple knight-service (tenants per baroniam all owed knight-service as assessed upon each constituent manor within the barony). Nor were all tenants-in-chief necessarily holders of baronies. A tenant who held from the King per baroniam was thus deemed to be a baron (or baro in mediaeval Latinised form). A prospective heir to a barony, termed baronia in its Latinised form, generally paid £100 in baronial relief for his inheritance.[6] Where a barony was split into two, for example on the death of a baron leaving two co-heiresses, each daughter's husband would become a baron in respect of his moiety (mediaeval French for "half"), paying half of the full baronial relief. A tenant-in-chief could be the lord of fractions of several different baronies, if he or his ancestors had married co-heiresses. The tenure of even the smallest fraction of a barony conferred baronial status on the lord of these lands.[6] This natural fragmentation of the baronies established by the early Norman kings led to great difficulties within the royal administration as the king relied on an ever increasing number of men responsible for supplying soldiers for the royal army and the records of who these fractional barons were became more complex and unreliable. The early English jurist Henry de Bracton (d.1268) was one of the first writers to examine the concept of the feudal barony.
The power of the feudal barons to control their landholding was considerably weakened in 1290 by the Quia Emptores statute. This prohibited land from being the subject of a feudal grant, and allowed its transfer without the feudal lord's permission.
Feudal baronies became perhaps obsolete (but not extinct) on the abolition of feudal tenure during the Civil War, as confirmed by the Tenures Abolition Act 1660 passed under the Restoration which took away Knights service and other legal rights.
Under the Tenures Abolition Act 1660, many baronies by tenure were converted into baronies by writ. The rest ceased to exist as feudal baronies by tenure, becoming baronies in free socage, that is to say under a "free" (hereditable) contract requiring payment of monetary rents. Thus baronies could no longer be held by military service. Parliamentary titles of honour had been limited since the fifteenth century by the Modus Tenenda Parliamenta act, and could thenceforth only be created by writ of summons or letters patent.
Tenure by knight-service was abolished and discharged and the lands covered by such tenures, including once-feudal baronies, were henceforth held by socage (i.e. in exchange for monetary rents). The English Fitzwalter Case in 1670 ruled that barony by tenure had been discontinued for many years and any claims to a peerage on such basis, meaning a right to sit in the House of Lords, were not to be revived, nor any right of succession based on them. In the Berkeley Case in 1861, an attempt was made to claim a seat in the House of Lords by right of a barony by tenure, but the House of Lords ruled that whatever might have been the case in the past, baronies by tenure no longer existed, meaning that a barony could not be held "by tenure", and confirmed the Tenures Abolition Act 1660. Three Redesdale Committee Reports in the early nineteenth century reached the same conclusion. There has been at least one legal opinion which asserts the continuing legal existence of the feudal barony in England and Wales, namely that from 1996 of A W & C Barsby, Barristers of Grays's Inn. [7] The opinion does not however have widespread support as a reliable authority.
Survivals of feudal baronies, in their geographical form, are the Barony of Westmorland, the Barony of Kendal The Barony of Arundel and Barony of Abergavenny.[8] These terms now describe areas of the modern county of Westmorland, in the same way that the word "county" itself has lost its feudal meaning of a land area under the control of a count or earl.
The surest method of identifying baronies is to search the archives, for example Exchequer documents such as fine rolls and pipe rolls, for entries recording the payment of baronial relief. This exercise was undertaken by Ian Sanders, who published his results in English Baronies, a Study of their Origin and Descent 1086-1327 (Oxford, 1960). This work appears to be the first attempt to identify and list all the feudal baronies of England. Sanders identified 132 certain baronies where evidence was found of payment of baronial relief, and a further 72 which he termed "probable baronies" where the evidence was less clear. These are listed below.
Lands forming a barony were often located in several different counties, not necessarily adjoining. The name of such a barony is generally deemed to be the name of the chief manor within it, known as the Caput, Latin for “head”, generally assumed to have been the seat or chief residence of the first baron. Certain baronies however have no identifiable Caput, and these are named by Sanders after the name of the baron, for example the “Barony of Miles of Gloucester”.
The date of creation of most ancient feudal baronies cannot be determined, as their founding charters have been lost. Sanders' list treats all baronies as commencing with the Norman Conquest of England in 1066, that is to say he makes no enquiry into any such tenures under the Anglo-Saxon kings. Many of the baronies are first recorded in the Domesday Book survey of 1086.
Note: Any additions to this list not listed by Sanders, 1960, must provide footnote evidence of baronial relief having been paid, else in the interest of accuracy they will be removed. A second list entitled "List of "Probable" English feudal baronies" exists below, which may be a more suitable position for the listing of probable baronies where no evidence of such payment can be proved. Evidence must be provided nevertheless in a footnote supporting the probability.
| Name of barony | County of caput | First known tenant | Earliest record |
|---|---|---|---|
| Aldington | Kent | William FitzHelte | 1073 |
| Arundel | Sussex | Roger de Montgomery | pre 1087 |
| Ashby | Lincolnshire | Gilbert de Neville | 1162 |
| Ashfield | Suffolk | Robert Blund | 1086 |
| Aveley | Essex | John FitzWaleran | 1086 |
| Bampton | Devon | Walter de Douai | 1086 |
| Biset | — | Manasser Biset (d.1177) | pre 1177 |
| Gloucester | Gloucestershire | Robert FitzHamon(d.1107) | pre 1107 |
| Miles of Gloucester/Brecon | Brecon | Miles de Gloucester | 1125 |
| Basing | Hampshire | Hugh de Port | 1086 |
| Beckley | Oxfordshire | Roger d'Ivry | 1086 |
| Bedford | Bedfordshire | Hugh de Beauchamp | 1086 |
| Belvoir | Leicestershire | Robert de Todeni | 1086 |
| Benington | Hertfordshire | Peter I de Valoynes | 1086 |
| Berkeley | Gloucestershire | Robert FitzHarding | tempore H II, pre 1166 |
| Berkhampstead | Hertfordshire | Robert, count of Mortain | 1086 |
| Beverstone | Gloucestershire | Robert de Gurney | 1235 |
| Blagdon | Somerset | Serlo de Burci | 1086 |
| Blankney | Lincolnshire | Walter I de Aincourt | 1086 |
| Blythborough | Suffolk | William FitzWalter | 1157 |
| Bolham | Northumberland | James de Newcastle | 1154 |
| Bolingbroke | Lincolnshire | Ivo de Taillebois | 1086 |
| Bourn | Cambridgeshire | "Picot" | 1086 |
| Bradninch | Devon | William Capra | 1086 |
| Bulwick | Northamptonshire | Richard FitzUrse | 1130 |
| Burgh-by-Sands | Cumbria | Robert de Trevers | tempus H I(1100–1135) |
| Burstwick/"Holderness"[9] | Yorkshire | Drogo de Brevere | 1086 |
| Bywell | Northumberland | Guy de Balliol | tempus W II(1087–1100) |
| Cainhoe | Bedfordshire | Nigel d'Aubigny | 1086 |
| Castle Cary | Somerset | Walter de Douai | 1086 |
| Castle Combe[10] | Wiltshire | Humphrey de Insula | 1086 |
| Castle Holgate | Shropshire | "Helgot" | 1086 |
| Cause | Shropshire | Roger FitzCorbet | 11th.c. |
| Cavendish | Suffolk | Ralph I de Limesy | 1086 |
| Caxton | Cambridgeshire | Hardwin de Scales | 1086 |
| Chatham | Kent | Robert le Latin (held under Odo Bp. of Bayeux) | 1086 |
| Chester | Cheshire | Gherbod the Fleming | 1070 |
| Chipping Warden | Northamptonshire | Guy de Reinbuedcurt | 1086 |
| Chiselborough[11] | Somerset | Alured "Pincerna" | 1086 |
| Clare | Suffolk | Richard I FitzGilbert | c.1090 |
| Clifford | Hereford | Ralph de Tony | 1086 |
| Cogges | Oxfordshire | "Wadard" (held under Odo Bp. of Bayeux) | 1086 |
| Cottingham | Yorkshire | Hugh FitzBaldric | 1086 |
| Crick | Derbyshire | Ralph FitzHubert | 1086 |
| Curry Malet | Somerset | Roger de Courcelles | 1086 |
| Eaton Bray | Bedfordshire | William I de Cantilupe | 1205 |
| Eaton Socon | Bedfordshire | Eudo Dapifer | 1086 |
| Ellingham | Northumberland | Nicholas de Grenville | tempus H I |
| Embleton | Northumberland | John FitzOdard | tempus H I |
| Erlestoke | Wiltshire | Roger I de Mandeville | tempus H I |
| Ewyas Harold | Herefordshire | Alfred of Marlborough | 1086 |
| Eye | Suffolk | Robert Malet | 1086 |
| Field Dalling/St.Hilary | Norfolk | St. Hilary | 1138 |
| Flockthorpe in Hardingham | Norfolk | Ralph de Camoys | 1236 |
| Folkestone | Kent | William de Arques (held under Odo Bp. of Bayeux) | c.1090 |
| Folkingham | Lincolnshire | Gilbert I de Ghent | 1086 |
| Framlingham | Suffolk | Roger I Bigod | 1086/tempus H I |
| Freiston | Lincolnshire | Guy de Craon | 1086 |
| Great Bealings | Suffolk | Hervey de Bourges | 1086 |
| Great Torrington | Devon | Odo FitzGamelin | 1086 |
| Great Weldon | Northamptonshire | Robert de Buci | 1086 |
| Greystoke | Cumberland | Forne son of Sigulf | 1086 |
| Hanslope | Buckinghamshire | Winemar the Fleming | 1086 |
| Hatch Beauchamp[12] | Somerset | Robert FitzIvo (under Count of Mortain) | 1086 |
| Headington | Oxfordshire | Thomas Basset | 1203 |
| Headingham | Essex | Aubry I de Vere | 1086 |
| Helmsley | Yorkshire | Walter Espec | temp.H I |
| Hockering | Norfolk | Ralph de Belfou | 1086 |
| Holderness (see caput:Burstwick) | |||
| Hook Norton | Oxfordshire | Robert d'Oilly | 1086 |
| Hooton Pagnell | Yorkshire | Richard de Surdeval (under Count of Mortain) (part) Ralph Pagnell (under King) (part) | 1086 |
| Hunsingore | Yorkshire | Erneis de Burun | 1086 |
| Kendal | Westmorland | Ivo de Taillebois | tempus W II |
| Kington | Herefordshire | Hugh de Port | post 1100 |
| Kirklinton | Cumberland | Adam I de Boivill(?) | post temp. H I |
| Knaresborough | Yorkshire | William de Stuteville | c.1175 |
| Launceston | Cornwall | Descent as Earl of Cornwall | 1086 |
| Leicester | Leicestershire | Hugh de Grandmesnil | 1086 |
| Long Crendon | Buckinghamshire | Walter I Giffard | 1086 |
| Longden & Alcester | Warwickshire | Robert Corbet | 1086 |
| Marshwood | Dorset | Geoffrey I de Mandeville | temp. Henry I |
| Monmouth | Monmouthshire | Wethenoc of Monmouth | c.1066 |
| Morpeth | Northumberland | William I de Merlay | temp. Henry I |
| Much Marcle | Herefordshire | William FitzBaderon | 1086 |
| Mulgrave | Nigel Fossard | 1086 | |
| Nether Stowey | Somerset | Alfred de Hispania | 1086 |
| Nocton | Lincolnshire | Norman I de Darcy | 1086 |
| North Cadbury | Somerset | Turstin FitzRolf | 1086 |
| Odell | Bedfordshire | Walter le Fleming | 1086 |
| Okehampton | Devon | Baldwin FitzGilbert | 1086 |
| Old Buckenham | Norfolk | William d'Aubigny Pincerna | temp. Henry I |
| Oswestry | Shropshire | Warin the Bold (held from Roger of Montgomery) | temp. William II |
| Pleshy | Essex | Geoffrey I de Mandeville | 1086 |
| Poorstock | Dorset | Roger I Arundel | 1086 |
| Prudhoe | Northumberland | Robert I de Umfraville | temp. William I |
| Pulverbatch | Shropshire | Roger I Venator (held from Roger of Montgomery) | 1086 |
| Redbourne | Lincolnshire | Jocelin FitzLambert | 1086 |
| Richard's Castle | Herefordshire | Osbern I FitzScrob | 1086 |
| Salwarpe | Worcestershire | Urse d'Abitot held from Roger of Montgomery) | 1086 |
| Shelford | Nottinghamshire | Geoffrey de Alselin | 1086 |
| Skelton | Yorkshire | Robert de Brus | temp. Henry I |
| Skirpenbeck | Yorkshire | Odo the Crossbowman | 1086 |
| Snodhill | Herefordshire | Hugh the Ass | 1086 |
| Sotby | Lincolnshire | William I Kyme (held from Walden the Engineer) | 1086 |
| Southoe | Huntingdonshire | Eustace Sheriff of Huntingdonshire | 1086 |
| Stafford | Staffordshire | Robert I de Stafford | 1086 |
| Stainton le Vale | Lincolnshire | Ralph de Criol | temp. Henry I |
| Stansted Mountfitchet | Essex | Robert Gernon | 1086 |
| Staveley | Derbyshire | Hascuil I Musard | 1086 |
| Stoke Trister | Somerset | Bretel St Clair | 1086 |
| Styford | Northumberland | Walter I de Bolbec | temp. Henry I |
| Sudeley | Gloucestershire | Harold de Sudeley | 1066 |
| Tarrington | Herefordshire | Ansfrid de Cormeilles | 1086 |
| Tattershall | Lincolnshire | Eudo son of Spirewic | 1086 |
| Thoresway | Lincolnshire | Alfred of Lincoln | 1086 |
| Totnes | Devon | Juhel de Totnes | 1086 |
| Trematon | Cornwall | Reginald I de Vautort (held from Count of Mortain) | 1086 |
| Trowbridge | Wiltshire | Brictric | 1086 |
| Walkern | Hertfordshire | Derman | temp. Wm I |
| Wallingford | Berkshire | Milo Crispin | 1086 |
| Warwick | Warwickshire | Robert de Beaumont, Count of Meulan | 1086 |
| Weedon Pinkeny/Lois | Northamptonshire | Ghilo I de Pinkeny | 1086 |
| Wem | Shropshire | William Pantolf (held from Roger, Earl of Montgomery) | temp. Wm II |
| Weobley | Herefordshire | Walter de Lacy | temp. Wm I |
| West Dean | Wiltshire | Waleran the Huntsman | 1086 |
| West Greenwich | Kent | Gilbert de Maminot, Bp. of Lisieux (held from Odo Bp. of Bayeux) | 1086 |
| Whitchurch | Buckinghamshire | Hugh I de Bolbec | 1086 |
| Wigmore | Herefordshire | William FitzOsbern | temp. Wm I |
| Winterbourne St Martin | Dorset | widow of Hugh FitzGrip | 1086 |
| Wolverton | Buckinghamshire | Manno le Breton | 1086 |
| Wormegay | Norfolk | Hermer de Ferrers | 1086 |
| Writtle | Essex | Isabel, sister & co-heir of John the Scot, Earl of Chester | 1241 |
(Source: Sanders, 1960)
| Name of barony | County of caput | First known tenant | Earliest record |
|---|---|---|---|
| Alnwick | Northumberland | Ivo de Vesci | 11th.c |
| Appleby | Westmorland | Robert I de Vipont | 1203/4 |
| Berry Pomeroy[13] | Devon | Ralph de Pomeroy | 1086 |
Source, unless other stated: Sanders, 1960, pp. 103–151