• Home
• Project Information
• Fine Rolls
• Style Book
• Commentary
  • Introduction to Reign
  • Introduction to Rolls
  • Originalia Rolls
  • Technical Introduction
  • Heads and Headings
• News
• Help
• Fine of the Month
• Book Publication
• Blog
• Conference
• Podcasts
• Related Papers

1. The role of the sheriff of Essex and Hertfordshire in local and national politics

This month sees the welcome return of Tony Moore of Churchill College, Cambridge. Mr. Moore highlights the local and national importance of a series of fines concerning the transfer of the shrievalty of Essex and Hertfordshire in January 1224, a moment of considerable political sensitivity.

⁋1This article is concerned with a series of provisions made after the transfer of the shrievalty of Essex and Hertfordshire from Stephen of Seagrave to Richard de Argentan in January 1224 and recorded on the fine roll for that year. ¹ It will focus on two aspects in particular. First, it sheds light on how the Exchequer dealt with some of the complications arising from a change in sheriff at an unusual time during the financial year. Second, changes of sheriff were often politically-motivated, and the replacement of Seagrave by Argentan can be used as a window into the political crisis of Christmas 1223.

⁋2The four entries from the fine roll translated below provide important details about the mechanics of the hand-over of office from one sheriff to his successor, especially in relation to their accounting at the Exchequer. The financial year ran from Michaelmas to Michaelmas and the debt owed by the sheriff who served for a part of one year to the Exchequer was usually calculated simply by dividing the county farm by the proportion of the year served. This did not reflect the reality of the situation, however, since shrieval income did not fall in evenly over the year, but was concentrated around Easter and Michaelmas. The problem was especially acute in this case, firstly because Seagrave was only in office for the first three months of the financial year 1223–24, and secondly since the change of sheriff resulted from a political crisis. The fine roll entries that address the question of how Seagrave was to account for his time in office are dated 9 February 1224, whereas Seagrave had been replaced as sheriff on 23 January, more than two weeks previously. The most interesting of the four entries is the first. It sets out two possible methods of dividing the financial obligations of the office between the two sheriffs. ² One possibility was that Argentan would hand over a portion of the money that he had received from the various sources of shrieval income to Seagrave, sufficient to allow the latter to account for his time in office. The alternative was for Seagrave to render all the monies that he had collected to Argentan, who would then account for the whole year. The fine does not specify who was to decide which of the two approaches to adopt, and it is likely that the choice was left to Argentan and Seagrave. It seems as though the second option was preferred as Argentan accounted for the whole year at Michaelmas 1224. ³

⁋3The remaining three entries also deal with various aspects of the transfer of office from Seagrave to Argentan. The second entry provides that Argentan should render to Seagrave all arrears owed to him from the counties for his period in office, in order that Seagrave could account for them at the Exchequer. It also contains a clause providing that, if it was decided that Seagrave should answer personally for the first quarter of the year 1223–24, then Argentan should also render to him any arrears from that period. In the event, Argentan accounted for the whole year and this clause was not activated. The third and fourth entries relate to the custody of the manors of Writtle and Newport, which had been managed by the sheriff since the resumption of the royal demesne in 1222. This was an important issue since the combined value of these two manors was roughly equal to that of the farm of Essex and Hertfordshire after deductions. ⁴ The provision for the stock and crops in the manors to be assessed by view of local men was standard practice, but the entry also specifies that copies of these records were to be kept by both Seagrave, the outgoing keeper, and his successor Argentan.

⁋4As well as these technical details, the fine is also of interest for its relationship to national politics. The following is a brief sketch of the outlines of politics nationally and in Essex during the minority of Henry III. On a national scale, the politics of the years between 1221 and 1224 were dominated by conflict between two factions within the minority government. On one side stood Hubert de Burgh, the justiciar, in alliance with William Longsword, earl of Salisbury and uncle of the young king and William Marshal II, son of the former regent and the new earl of Pembroke. Their chief opponent was Peter des Roches, bishop of Winchester, joined by the English earls of Chester and Gloucester, the bulk of whose support was drawn from among the foreign captains employed by John, including Falkes de Bréauté. ⁵ This opposition was mirrored within Essex. On one hand, de Burgh, as lord of the three honours of Rayleigh, Haughley and Hatfield Peverel, was the dominant force in south-east Essex. ⁶ In addition, de Burgh had secured the support of most of the great magnates of northern Essex. ⁷ On the other hand, the key local offices were all in the hands of men connected to des Roches. This was a legacy of the early concern of the minority government with security, especially in areas like Essex, which had been one of the rebel heartlands during the Magna Carta civil war. ⁸ For example, Hertford castle was restored to Falkes de Bréauté, who had held it for the king during the civil war, and Colchester castle was entrusted to William de Sainte-Mère-Eglise, then bishop of London. ⁹ However, the priorities of the government can be seen most clearly in the appointment of sheriffs.

⁋5The first sheriff of Essex and Hertfordshire appointed by the minority government was no less a figure than the regent himself, William Marshal I, earl of Pembroke, possibly the only man with the reputation and respect to keep order amongst the former rebels. After his death, he was succeeded by his under-sheriff Walter de Verdun, who was also a knight of the royal household. ¹⁰ A key change in government policy towards the localities came at Easter 1220, when the Essex knight Robert Mantell made fine to recover the shrievalty of Essex and Hertfordshire. ¹¹ This appointment was partly an attempt to move away from the military governors and to increase income from the shires, but it also had a wider significance, as Mantell was the first former rebel to serve as sheriff since the civil war. ¹² Of particular relevance given the situation in Essex, however, was the part played by de Burgh in Mantell’s appointment. ¹³ Unfortunately for all concerned, Mantell’s tenure in office was a catastrophe. When he appeared before the exchequer on 3 November 1220, he was unable to provide an account for his time in office with the result that less money was raised from Essex and Hertfordshire in 1220 than in the previous year. Mantell was also amerced for not returning a judicial writ, and his under-sheriff Geoffrey de Roding admitted that he had failed to execute royal orders. ¹⁴ Most seriously of all, Mantell and Roding were accused of conspiring with Henry fitz Aucher, an Essex landowner with connections to Salisbury and de Burgh, to falsify a judicial writ against a knight linked to Falkes de Bréauté. ¹⁵ This offence came to light before the justices of the bench on 10 November and within a week Mantell had been removed from office. The man chosen to restore order to the shrievalty was Stephen of Seagrave, who proved a great success. In contrast to all his predecessors since 1217, he was not once in arrears on the county farm. ¹⁶ Although primarily motivated by administrative necessity, there was a political subtext to Seagrave’s appointment, since his loyalties lay with the earl of Chester and des Roches, rather than with de Burgh. ¹⁷ This may have been a blow to de Burgh’s interests in Essex, but, given Seagrave’s exemplary performance in office and de Burgh’s share of the responsibility for the Mantell debacle, it was politically impossible for him to replace Seagrave with a more congenial figure.

⁋6This only changed when the essential factional conflict within the minority government finally erupted in late 1223. ¹⁸ It has been thought that the immediate trigger for these events was de Burgh’s attempt to appoint new sheriffs to Herefordshire and Gloucestershire, which des Roches and his allies among the great castellans may have interpreted (correctly) as the first step in the unravelling of their own local fiefdoms. Perhaps even more significant was a change to the custody of the Tower of London. It is not clear precisely when this occurred, since it is not referred to in any of the surviving written records, but at some point between Easter and Christmas 1223 Stephen of Seagrave was replaced as constable by de Burgh himself. ¹⁹ This may well have been the key element in precipitating the crisis and it would explain why de Burgh’s opponents chose to mount an armed demonstration against the Tower. When it did not fall they retreated to Waltham. The chronicle account does not specify whether this refers to des Roches’ manor of Bishops Waltham in Hampshire or to Waltham Holy Cross in Essex. The latter seems more plausible, since from Waltham Holy Cross there is a clear line of communication via de Bréauté’s midland powerbase to Chester. ²⁰ It is also possible that Seagrave, as sheriff of Essex and Hertfordshire and keeper of the royal manors of Writtle and Newport, was able to provide supplies to des Roches and Chester. This in turn would explain why Seagrave sold no corn or hay from Writtle in 1223. ²¹ The two factions then gathered their supporters at rival Christmas courts. It soon became clear that the balance of power favoured de Burgh and, through the mediation of Stephen Langton and the bishops, des Roches and his allies came to terms. Nationally, this confirmed de Burgh in control of the minority government, and he began to put in place a series of reforms, including a purge of local office. The significance of de Burgh’s victory for Essex was that he was now able to replace Seagrave and de Bréauté with his ally Argentan, thereby adding control of local office to the territorial dominance that he and his allies already enjoyed within the county.

1.1. C 60/21, Fine Roll 8 Henry III (28 October 1223–27 October 1224), membrane 9.

1.1.1. 73

⁋1 Essex. To the sheriff of Essex and Hertfordshire. Order to cause Stephen of Seagrave to have a moiety of the farms of sergeants, frankpledges and aids of the sheriff, sursises and perquisites and other issues of the said counties for one half-year, namely from Michaelmas in the seventh year to Easter in the eighth year, so that he might answer the king sufficiently at the Exchequer for a moiety of that half-year, namely for a quarter of one year; or to retain fully the aforesaid issues of the aforesaid half-year so that Stephen renders to him that which he received of the issues of the same half-year and then the sheriff is to be respondent to the king for all the issues of the whole of the aforesaid half-year. Witness the king, Westminster. 9 February 1224.

1.1.2. 74

⁋1 Essex. To the same. Order to cause Stephen of Seagrave to have all of his arrears due to him in the aforesaid counties from the time before Michaelmas last past in the seventh year etc, for which he answered at the Exchequer. If he should answer for the time after the same Michaelmas, then he is similarly to cause him to have all of his arrears for all of the time for which he is ready to answer. Witness as above.

1.1.3. 75

⁋1 Essex. To Stephen of Seagrave. Order to cause the king's manors of Writtle and Newport to be delivered to Richard de Argentan ²² , sheriff of Essex and Hertfordshire, by the view of law-worthy men, to keep for as long is it pleases the king, with the stock and corn of the same manors and with the issues that have arisen since Michaelmas in the seventh year, so that Richard might answer the king in full for the whole year from Michaelmas aforesaid, and he is to cause it to be distinctly and openly recorded by the view of the aforesaid trustworthy and law-worthy men, how the said manors were delivered to Richard and how the same Richard received them, so that he is to have one roll and the aforesaid Richard the counter-roll. Witness as above.

1.1.4. 76

⁋1Order to Richard de Argentan to receive the aforesaid manors with their appurtenances, as aforesaid, and to keep them safely until the king orders otherwise. Witness as above.