Christopher Chattock's Genealogy

Antiquities: consisting of translations of some three hundred inedited charters and deeds, Chattock, Christopher.

Birmingham, Cornish brothers, 1884.

This is an excerpt from Chapter 8 of the book by Christopher Chattock pp. 254-284

Chapter 8: Notes as to Marmion, and Montfort Families ; Records of Early Anglo-Hebrew Christians ; and Unique Case of Ownership and Occupancy by one Family of Alodium, Franc Alond, or Free Land, from the Conquest.

"Those fenceless fields the sons of wealth divide,

And e'en the bare worn common is denied." — Goldsmith.

P. 254

In substantiating this claim to an " unique ownership and occupancy of free land from the Conquest," I will commence with our own period and work upwards. In the first place, then, I must refer my reader to the present and recent assessments of the hamlet of Castle Bromwich, then to the last of the charters and deeds, viz.: that of 1825. This is about the date that the Tithe Commutation Map and Reference Book were made, in and upon which he will find the name of the family and property. About this time, also, the Government Ordnance Survey and Map was made, upon which he will see the present Hay Hall or House marked, as also the Hay Hall Moat of the first residence, that is, the " messuage," alluded to in the charter of Richard II. in 1397, to "embattle." This moat is a double one on the north side and west end, and in the meadows, at the north-west corner, the garden and hemp pleck is still traceable. The island of the moat was, with the exception of a small circular portion in the centre, taken out to turn it into a pond for trolling in 1770, but the whole is in a pretty good state still, although an inefficient drain was taken through it about thirty years ago with a view to let all the water out of it.

The allusions to either the property or family, or to both, in the deeds and documents from 1825 to 1695 are numerous.

In the deed of 22nd July, 1695, it states: "and have long been reputed as part of the Antient Inheritence of the said Chattocks called the Hay; "thus identifying the Hay as the " Antient Inheritence." This deed is in my possession, but the one dated 23rd July (the next day) has " Antient Messuage " in it also. In deeds of 3rd and 4 th January, 1681, "Antient Messuages" and "Antient Inheritance " are applied to the Hay House and Hodge Hill Houses and Estates. The deed of 21st August, 1675, has the term "Antient Inheritance" That of 28th May, 1670, has "(W)hoarstone field, between the Antient land of Inheritence on both sides." That of 1st May, 1668, has " Bucknoll field in Bucknoll End, late the Inheritence of Thomas Chattock, deceased." That of 29th of September, 1665, runs thus: "All that Antient capital Messuage called the Hay House having long been the Antient Inheritence of Henry Chattock and divers others of his ancestors, and all the parcels of land usually used, occupied, reputed, and accepted, as part of the Chattock's said Antient Inheritence; " and the Hodge Hill House Estate is included, and two of its fields, the Marsh and Newfield (Newhay), mentioned by name. That of 8th March, 1661, has "between Antient Inheritence on both sides," in describing four acres sold by Hen. Chattock in (W)hoarstone field. In will of 1st January, 1657, there is "Antient Land of Inheritence and Antient House in Castle Bromwich." That of 4 May, 1646, has "Antient land of Inheritence in Hay End." In deed of 16th April, 1618, by which the Stone House and Estate in Little Sutton (adjoining Bradnock Hay and Little Hay) is sold by the family similar terms are used as to inheritance. Those of 10 March, 1630, and 15 May, 1649, have the terms "his own free land" applied to the estate, and the "(W)hoarstone field and Chattock's Hodge " as part of it. These dates are long prior to 12th Charles II., when tenancies in capite were abolished. The Estate in Little Sutton, adjoining Bradnock Hay and Little Hay (where there is a Little Hay Hall), is first mentioned in these charters in tern. Edward VI.; and in deed of 3rd April, 1569, it says in describing it "which doe apertayne and belonge to a tenemente of John Chattock, of Castel Bromwich, being his Inheritance." That of 1st July, 1659, states of the "Hurste field" as; also of late the Inheritence of John Chattock, deceased, late father of the saiit Henry Chattock, and belonging to his Antient Messuage in Castle Bromwich." On this deed (which had evidently been tied up with some others) is an endorsement, thus— (These are deedes concerning the sale of lands in Sutton and other places sold by our ancestors, the Chattocks). From these dates to 8th Henry IV. Charters with the names of the family and at least some field of the property in them frequently occur. The deed of that date, 1407, has " Thomas Chattock, of Castle Bromwich, lord of the Hay." Then we have the Hon : Chattock, of Okie Hay and Hay End in permission to embattle of 20th Ric. II., A.I). 1397. The property is called the Oldehay in charter of 1259, and "the Old Hay” and "Oldhaymore" occur in several of the earliest charters, and the Haii (the Norman-French form) in 1171 A.D. in the first charter. This Hugh of the Haii (the last witness in the attestation clause) is some occupier of a portion of the Hay then given up to cultivation. The Hodge Hill House Estate —"Chattock's Hodge " as it is frequently called in the deeds —can be identified as forming part of the Hay originally by deeds of 15 May, 1649, and others, and by charter of 8 Ric. II. A.D. 1385, in which the field " Marsh " occurs. This same field and the Conygree (of which presently) still form part of the estate (see Parish Plan with reference book).

The site of the present and, consequently, of the old original church formerly belonged to the Chattocks, and formed part of the Hay. The living is a donative (see Liber Regis), which "are seldom mentioned in Diocesan Records," as Eyton says in his " Salop," vol. viii. p. 237. See also " Notes and Queries," fourth series, vol. i., p. 343, and Eccleston's "Antiquities," p. 228. Donatives, free chapels, royal peculiars, "were (see Gwin) founded by a king out of his antient demesne, or by a subject by his permission." In the books of the chapel warden's of Castle Bromwich for the year 1700 there is an entry thus : "Paid for a lace for Chattock's chancel." This entry is noted in Sharp's "Coventry Mysteries," p. 37, note, and in the eighth number of the "Warwickshire Antiquarian Magazine," p. 456 ; also, I believe, in a work on architecture called either "Glossary of terms in Architecture," "Dictionary of Architectural Terms," or, "Oxford Glossary of Architecture." I forget which. See also Burns on " Ecclesiastical Law " as to chancels. This church was rebuilt in 1717 (see date over the doors in the interior). In consideration of the Bridgemans (now Earls of Bradford) rebuilding the church, with the exception of some of the timber, hauling, and one of the bells, which has the name of Chattock on it, our family consented to change or use the four pews in the church, which now have the name of the family upon the doors, instead of, as formerly, the chancel pews. As is well known, the original proprietor of a chancel was always the real founder of the church or chapel, and always the actual owner of the site (see "Encyclopedia Britannica," under chancel and chapel). The site of this church, part of the Chattock's Have, was about the centre of it, for it is nearly equi-distant between Park Hall and Bromford, its eastern and western extremities. With respect to the date of the first church or chapel, Dugdale states that the inhabitants of Water Orton attended it previous to the erection of their own in 1346. In the foregoing charters it is mentioned in 29th Edward L. A.D. 1301. It is there called the chapel of Wody-Bromwig, as part of the hamlet was at one time called when it was coming into cultivation. It appears by this charter that the chapel was dedicated solely to the Virgin Mary then, but afterwards " St." Margarett was added. This lady, from what I recollect from a perusal of that quaint historical romance, "Butler's Lives of the Saints," was said to be the daughter of an idolatrous priest at Antioch, from which legend I expect that one of our ancestors was a " pious " crusader, and when some addition or alteration or " restoration " was made to the chapel, this "Saint's" name was added. She is said to have died A.D. 275, but did not become famous till the eleventh century. 1301 is nine years after the last crusade. The charter (which see) of 29th Edward I., A.D. 1301, whereby Alice of Stechford covenants to "keep a wax light and torch burning before the altar of the blessed Mary in the chapel of Wodybromwich," having come into the possession of the Chattocks, shows that it was held by them to see that the covenant was kept and the office performed in their chancel or chapel.

And now as to the extent of the Hay. Dugdale, little thinking of the admission he made in his account of Park Hall, says that "it was in the Haya of Bromwich," and then he resumes his customary strain of babble about the " old lords of Dudley," &c, giving it two distinct manorial names, viz. : " Manerium de la Logge," alias "Park Hall." Here I will divulge a secret. My reader, who, of course, loves antiquities, as all readers should do, may have met with these words in old deeds and works, viz. : "The manor, or reputed manor, of," &c. This peculiar phraseology originated in the following way: The old lawyers (I mean "the elder lawyers"), when drawing the conveyance for the purchase of a grange by a land-grabbing client, in order to please him and justify a stiff fee, inserted, or insisted upon having inserted, the words "manor, or reputed manor," if only the smallest piece of common, waste, roadside waste, sand, gravel, or marl pit, or stone quarry adjoined it, or lay anywhere near, then such an one, or his successor, as opportunity occurred, would appropriate and enclose them, claim all manorial rights and privileges, and, if action was taken against them, before the lapse of time gave them a title, they could, by the peculiar wording of the clause, back out of the imputation of having claimed the rights of others. If, on the other hand, they held possession long enough to establish a title, the words "reputed manor" — and twenty-one years possession carried the manorial rights — and the words of the poet were verified as to one mode of effecting enclosures. In such a case the "aforesaid " grange would be dubbed a "capital messuage" (from caput, the head), and which would after this pass for a manor house.

As surnames, with a very few exceptions, were unknown until temp. Edward IV., the fact of a John or Thomas, or anyone with a Christian name only, occurring as landowners in Arden (" de Arden " = of Arden), is no evidence at all as to any two of them being related to each other; so that Dugdale's babblings about the Ardens inheriting such and such properties so early is all twaddle, for, according to his "de"ified theory (that is, if fully carried out), every soul living in the extensive district of Arden (and it extended to the Severn from High Cross) must have been of the family of the individual who at the time of the assumption of surnames took the name of Arden. Every individual in the vast district would be John or Thomas "de" Arden, or whatever else his Christian name might be, that is, if he had not been named after some small place within the district. As to the Turchill de Arden, and Turchill de Warwick, he gives, it was a common name enough. There was one of Dorset. It is a Danish name. He produces not the slightest evidence as to many of the early "de" Ardens' consanguinity. He is with them as with the "de" Birminghams, le Archers, and atte Holts. I have no patience to argue with such a writer. He did not understand the descriptive particle "de." What he says of the hamlet of Water Orton bears out my assertion as to the manufactory of these "reputed manors." His words are: "There is besides this another manor, at least, in reputation, within the precincts of this hamlet." He calls Water Orton a manor, and then sets up another manor within it. The whole hamlet is not much larger than a good-sized farm. How could the manorial rights run together? I must further dilate upon the monstrous muddle Dugdale has made as to Park Hall and the Ardens. He first states that it had belonged to the Ardens for three hundred years previous to his time, and that" in 38th Edward III. it was situate in haya de Bromwich." If it is correct to say that they held Park Hall so long, it could never have belonged to " the old barons of Dudley," for this "Hay of Bromwich," as I am proving, belonged to the Chattocks, and was never brought into the feudal system. As I shall next proceed to show, this Hay included most of the hamlet of Bromwich, but in course of time the grasping "old barons of Dudley," or their henchmen—"the elder lawyers," might, and perhaps did, get hold of some of the granges and properties sold by the Chattocks from their free land by the process I have described, viz. : dubbing them manors and reputed manors as they acquired them by purchase. The "old barons of Dudley" could not have held any land in Bromwich, excepting that outside the "free Hay," which would not be much. Previous to the erection of Bromwich Hall by the Devereux family, there was no residence upon the little property held by them in this hamlet. As I have stated, their seat was at Sheldon Hall. By reference to assessment of 1694, there is but 7s. 6d. difference in the amounts of the sums levied on the Bromwich Hall Estate and the Chattock's Hay. In the assessment for Train Bands, 1681, Bromwich Hall is omitted, Park Hall is rated (to Eowland Brasebridge I believe) at £1 2s., and the Chattock's Hay at £6 5s. This difference is owing to the Chattocks having then recently purchased most of the Devereux property. The present Hceg House, " Hay Hall " of the Ordnance Map, was erected in 1603, and Bromwich Hall some time after, so that even subsequent to the erection of this new Hall of the Devereuxs Haye House, as in deed of 29th September, 1G65, and elsewhere, was described as "All that antient Capital Messuage called Hay House having long been the antient inheritence of Hen. Chattock and divers others of his ancestors." This term "capital messuage" is synonymous with chief manor houses caput messuagium. The king's castle of temp. Eic. II. had disappeared, and these early assessments show that at least eighty per cent, of the land in the hamlet belonged to yeomen and small freeholders, and about twenty per cent, only to the Devereuxs. The yeomen were Arden, Chattock, Ward, Sadler, and Thornton. We read in the writings of the pedigree-mongers that "Lord Ferrers, of Chartley, who was proprietor of Birmingham in the reign of Henry VIII., enjoyed this estate by marriage, and his granddaughter brought it to the Devereuxs of Sheldon; "and here we see what it is worth. From this it would appear to have been a "goodlie" estate of some two thousand acres, whereas, when John Bridgeman, Esq., purchased it in 1657, it was but about three hundred acres. This hamlet may be a manor in "reputation," as Dugdale conveniently expresses it, and no more. All our encyclopaedists assert that "capital messuage, or manse, mansion, and chief manor place, are synonymous terms. If your name, gentle reader, happened to be Forrest, or Forrester, and your family came from the New Forest, Hants, I could draw you as good a "de"ified pedigree from the Forest Eolls, &c, &c, as ever old pedigree-monger ever drew. The "Thomas de Arden, of Hanwell," mentioned on page 652 of Dugdale, is but some one of the name of Thomas without a surname who went from the district of Arden to Hanwell, and probably was not of the slightest affinity to the family who afterwards assumed the name of Arden. The same may be said of "Letitia, daughter of Siward de Arden, mentioned at p. 157, and as to Siward being son to Turchill at p. 670. With a view to glorify the ancestor, and gratify the vanity of a subscriber, he first essays to carry his pedigree up to Anglo-Saxon times, then falls back upon the period of the Conquest, and afterwards muddles up its origin with a concubine of the conqueror's son. There were no doubt several people in and from the extensive district of Arden who assumed the name of that place when surnames were first used. The foregoing charters show a person without a surname being called "de Warwick" because he went from there to Castle Bromwich.

I shall now proceed to show that the extent of the Haye was such originally as to preclude the possibility of there being much, if any, land "to view" in the reputed manor of Bromwich. As I have previously pointed out in notes on facsimile of Domesday, the woods or Forest of Coleshill were half a mile wider than Dugdale states. This would run them into the Park Hall woods, near Water Orton station, on the railway bank there, near to Bosworth's wood of the Ordnance Map. Erdington, of which Berwood Hall estate is part, adjoins Park Hall estate on the north of the river ; and of the Forest of Erdington it is stated in Domesday that one Peter held it'; f: in defenso regis e."

This links Coleshill, Bromwich, and Erdington together as royal demesne, with the Hay in the centre. The site of "Chattock's Chancel" is in the centre of this Hay. The deed of 1st May, 1668, in which the field at Buck Knoll End is said to have been " late the inheritence of Tho. Chattock," takes the Hay to the south-east corner of the hamlet. That of 29 Sep., 1665, in which it states that a certain field called the Marsh had, with others, u been long the Antient Land of Inheritence," &c. ; and that of 8 Eic : II., 1385, in which this same field, the Marsh, is also mentioned, clearly show, as they are still so called upon the Parish Plan, that it extended very nearly to the south-west corner of the hamlet. The farm called Wood Hays Farm (it is not known by that name now, but such it is described in the title deeds) has one of its fields called the Hnrste-lield (still on parish plan), and this it states belonged to" the Antient Messuage of Jo. Chattock." This field and farm fill up the gap between the church and Park Hall. The Brockhurst field, Hey field (sometimes erroneously spelt High field), Two Cross fielde, and others so frequently mentioned in the earliest of these charters, extend the Hay to Ward End or Little Bromwich; so that all these isolated enclosures, though not now in the present curtailed estate called the Hay, were so originally, because they are stated to be so in the oldest charters and deeds, and can now be identified by the most recent plan of the parish. This leaves very little room for the "old lords of Dudley" to "lord it "about the hamlet without encroaching upon " free land." Adjoining the field called the Marsh there is a field called the Conygree. This curious old word has given rise to a little wordy war. It is mentioned early in one of the foregoing deeds, and is still called by the same name on the parish plan and in reference book. In "Notes and Queries," first series, vol. vii., p. 182, "Conyngers" are mentioned. At p. 241 a Conygry is said to be a "rabbit warren;" and at p. 368 it is stated that Hamper, in the " Gentleman's Magazine" for October, 1808, p. 873, says, the Cony-gre, or rabbit ground, was a common appendage to a manor house; but that Savage, in his "History of the Hundred of Carhampton," p. 440, says, Conygar seems to be derived from Anglo-Saxon cyning = king, and the Mcesogothic garas =a house—the king's house. In first series, vol. xii., p. 195, a Mr. J. Eastwood states that Coney-grees were originally portions of crown, lands, and quotes Throsby's Leeds" as to Coneyshaw =" king's grove." In third series, vol. viii., p. 258, it states that there are few old manor houses or monasteries to which there was not attached a coney-gree or rabbit warren. Bartlet, in his "History of Mancetter," p. 130, states that there is a coney-gree there. All these learned lucubrations together establish the deductions I have drawn from the "Anglo-Saxon Chronicle," Eyton's " Salop " (who quotes literally from the "Public Records"), and other sources, as to the real origin of the word Hoey or Hay being a royal preserve for game in forests, and enclosed by hedge, from which they take name, i.e., noted game-lying grounds, or favourite resorts of game, were fenced round by hedges to prevent the roving quadrupeds from flushing the feathered and putting up or disturbing the other game; hence the numerous coney -greens (which is the real " Bill's Ticker " name after all), hayes, buck woods, badger woods, or hursts, still found in ancient demesne, such as Brockenhurst, in the New Forest, and numerous other names indicating the same. To proceed with our "abstract of title." The charter of A.D. 1301, as to the old chapel, is the earliest date we have ascended to yet. There are several others in which the property " Hay," or the family, is mentioned by name between that time and the first charter in 1171 A.D., wherein it is called the Haii. This early date lands us pretty near to the Conquest. It takes us clearly out of the reach of the "old barons of Dudley." The charters of 1407 and 1395 show that they had no power in the "free land" of the Hay then, and as the permission is to "embattle" only, the "messuage" of that date, and not to build and embattle also; it is evident that the moated residence had been in existence for some time. The power of Ric. II. to "embattle" was to "Hen. Chattok of the Old Hay, or Hay End," i.e., what then remained of the original Hay. The precise date of making over the Royal Hay of Bromwich to our family I am still in hopes of clearly proving from the Forest or other Rolls at the Record Office when I have an opportunity for making searches there.

The following extracts from an article of mine in the "Hebrew Christian Witness," for March, 1875, published by Stock, Paternoster "TRACES OF EARLY ANGLO-HEBREW CHRISTIANS, FROM AUTHENTIC SOURCES.

"The author of 'The History of the Jews in England,' and all our best historians, allege that, at their expulsion from this country in A.D. 1290, about fifteen thousand were expelled. If we compare this number with the approximate amount of the then population, it is something considerable; and if we take the present population of the country, and compare the number of converted and unconverted Jews at the present time, the relative proportion of converted Jews in 1290 would be at least —say, five hundred.

"This cannot by any means be considered an excessive estimate for men women, and children, as the Conqueror is said to have brought over Jews in great numbers, and they were much favoured by the three first Norman kings. The Domus Converaorum, or home for converts, was established in 1232, a private one in 1213, in London, and one even much earlier still in Oxford. Supposing then that half of the five hundred were males, and one hundred of the two hundred and fifty perpetuated their name and family to our time, I would ask where and who are they ? Amongst the number of cities and "king's towns," in and about which the ancient Jews were known to be specially located, I will treat only of four, viz., Exeter, Norwich, Warwick, and Worcester, as I have only yet (and that but cursorily) inspected some of the evidences in these districts. Of the following long list of Jewish names, some ninety-seven per cent, were converted Jews, as will appear by the offices they held, and from their being of the post expulsion period mostly; but the whole list is given to identify the converts by their Jewish names. Then, as to the power, even of these priests to perpetuate their name and family, I have documentary evidence from charters in my possession that ecclesiastics were frequently in the habit of marrying at this period; and, besides, most of them would doubtless have brothers, uncles, and cousins. The first work I quote from is Prynne's History of Kings John, Henry III, and Edward I., pp. 464, 592, 600, 702, 709. 946, and 992, where it is stated: — 'Adam le Jeu (Adam the Jew), parson of Levanston, Exeter Dioc. ; Stephen Maunsell (Mansell), John Maunsell, parson of Brynton, 22 Edward I.; John Abel, vicar of Neuburn ; William Abell, parson of Linley ; William Abel and John Blund, 30 Edward I. ; John Lovetot, prebend of the Free Church of Wolverhampton.' The latter, I hope, will be particularly noted. From Maddox's History of the Exchequer, vol. i., pp. 68, 221, 225-6, 234, 382, 744: 'John Mansell, Keeper of the King's Seal, 31 Henry III. Jews great landowners; Benet the Jew; William Briton, Justice of the Jews. This name at first sight seems somewhat singular, but it is doubtless from Breton, one whose Jewish ancestor came originally from Britanny, and would be le Breton in the first instance. Vol. ii., pp. 59, 88, 285 : 'John Abel, Baron of the Exchequer; Richard Abel, maker of dyes of moneyers; — Blount; and see index for following:—Blund and Blundi, William Briton, Justice of Jews; Adam Gomer, and his brother Simon; Hamon, son of Menischin, Hamo Dapifer to William I.; Hamon, Justice of the Jews; Hamon of Hereford; Joce = Josey Joseph; Johel Jordan, temp. Henry II.; William Maunsell, 29 Henry II., his land at Schenley.' There is a 'Shenley Fields 'about six miles from here. 'Jo. Maunsell at the Exchequer; Jordan Tolebu, his land at Chinsbury, temp. Henry II.' There is a Kinsbury near Castle Bromwich. The two last place names should be noted. Adam Blund and others; Gustos Curicormn, and an Abel at the Mint; Ranulf Briton. Benet, Aze = Azor. From Blomfield's and Parkin's History of Norfolk, vol. ii., pp. 57, 287; 'Robert Frauncy's, Robert Blund, vol. iv, pp. 225, 227, 336, 369, 475. New Synagogue at Norwich, built temp. Henry II.; it existed temp. William II. William Schattock (query Shetach —a name again occurring and to be separately treated), rector of Hackford, 1382. John Chitok, John Blund, vol. v., pp. 52, 59, 90, 381: Nicholas Jobbe = Job, vicar of Swerdston, AD. 1318; Isaac, chaplain, and other Jews in 1286; Henry Hagar; Sir John Abel in 1317.' The 'Sir' here is synonymous with Clericus, vol. vi.. pp. 122-3, 254, 255-6. Sporle was a royal demesne and Cawton also, and before 25 Henry III. were held by Jews. This I wish to be noted. Vol. vii., pp. 161, 180. Robert Chattock (Shetach), vicar of Rudham, A.D. 1312. Vol. viii., 34, 43, 48, 74, 123, 194, 200, 324, 331, 374-5, 459, 481: Richard Abel, rector of Geldeston, 1307; Nicholas Jacob, 1379; James Sampson, rector, 1375; John Abel, 30 Edward I.; — Frauncys, 1320; John Jacob, rector of Gauton, 1352; William Chattock (Shetach), rector of Gctuton and Brandeston, 1331; John Adam 1455 ; Edward (A)hagav, 1629 ; Kobert David, 1539 ; Jordan, prior of Castleacre, A.D. 1160, and Adam in 1250; Henry Abrabani, 1465. Many Jews in Lynn, temp. Richard I., and Lad houses and lands.' Vol. ix., pp. 19, 290, 426: 'Henry Abraham, 1458; John Abraham, 1353; John Est (East), 1443.' Vol. x., pp. 122-3, 220, 451. Robert Est (East), 1300. In the index will also be found the following self-speaking names :—' Hagar, Adamson, Balam, Bartholomew, Edon, Michel, Paul, and Seth.' Eyton's History of Salop, vol. i, p. 63: Gilbert Sadoc, p. 232; Richard Sadock, A.D. 1180. Vol. hi., p. 296: Joybert = Jobet, a diminutive of Job, a prior in 1192. Vol. v., p. 272: Lacy mortgages property at Ludlow to Jews, 319; John Aaron early date, vol. vii., p. 69; Ric. Sadock. A.D. 1180. Vol. viii., p. 77, do. 1201. Vol. ix, Ric Saddock, junior, 1191.' In the index will also be found Jos. Aaron, a priest, 1195; Blund, Bryd, or Brid; Robert de Bromwich; Eli Jonas, 1188; Abel, Briton, Adam, Hagar, Jo. Richard, and Heming SheakeL' (That Sadoc was a Jewish name, see St. Matthew c. 1, v. 14. This Robert de Brnmuich's name occurring near a Haye of Eardington, close to Bridgenorth, Salop, in A.D. 1188, and amongst the names Sadoc, Sadock, and Saddock is most remarkable.)

"In Blakeway's History of Shrewsbury, vol. ii., p. 196:—' la 1324, Richard Abel, Dean of St. Chad's, exchanges livings with rector of Rollesly, Norfolk.' I have searched Dugdale's Warwickshire but a few moments, but found, p. 81, John Maryot incumbent of Astley in 1414, and there is a Mariot at the Conquest. These names are diminutives of Mary. At pp. 108-111, occur (very early) Moyses = Moses, and Joybert = Jobet (a diminutive of Job), monks of Coventry. There are places in Warwickshire, and not far from Warwick, called Jabet and Morton Morrell = Moor ton, the ton, or homestead of Morrell, a thorough Jewish name. At p. 222, there also occurs Azor at the Conquest. It will be observed that in all the foregoing names most of the Christian and all the surnames are evidently Jewish. The earliest instances we have of two names are a few Anglo-Saxons and most of the Hebrew Christians. The latter is easily accounted for, as on their becoming converts they would be sure to have a name added, and the priests, to humour them and their families, would, of course, allow, or perhaps even suggest, a name from the Old Testament. The earliest instances of two names to be met with are Jewish. In the History of the Dispersion of the Jews, Modern Universal History, vol. ii., p. 10, Jews with two names are recorded as early as the seventh century and, at pp. 27, 28, occur Samuel Levi, A.D. 1027, and Samuel Cophis, 1096, both Jews.

"The very early dates of all the double names recorded in this paper are remarkable, as with the English the single name, with the descriptive particle " de," is continued down to temp. Edward IV., with the exception of a very few Anglo-Saxon names, such as Godwin. These numerous and authentic traces of early Anglo-Hebrew Christians will, I think, prepare the way for the introduction of what I consider the only case of Jewish descent traceable to the present time. The Haye was royal demesne in the forest of Coleshill, formerly the caput of the hundred in Doomsday. In some of the earliest charters the name in four cases is spelt Shattok and Schattok, as well as Chattok, the legitimate spelling of which is, I contend, Shetach, formerly a well-known Jewish name, one Simon ben Shetach being mentioned in the Talmud (see Millman's History of the Jews, vol. ii., p. 40, &c.) S. and soft c were in old English as legitimately interchangeable as I and j are now. Amongst the names of vendors and purchasers, adjoining proprietors, and attesting witnesses, in the earliest of these charters, are the following, evidently Jewish, namely, "Jordan Britun, Kandolf Jordan, Isabel Brid, John Blund, Thos. Ansel, Thos. Abell, Adam Lovetot, Henry Wolf, John Frauncys, Ealph Kicardus (Ricardo), Robert Andrews, Humfrey Benet, Nathaniel Symon, Richard Michel, and Thomas Shattok" (query =Shetach). Of course there are many English names also, such as William de Bromwich and Henry de Sharpmore. These are simply William of Bromwich and Henry of Sharpmore, i.e., without a surname or name of continuance. The Christian as well as the surnames of nearly all the foregoing are Jewish. The whole of them with the exception of Shattock or Chattok (and that, too, if it is meant for Shetach) were known as Jewish names from temp. Henry III. to the present time. They appear in the Jewish parliament held at Worcester in 1240; or the Hebrew stars or charters at the Public Record Office, and elsewhere, as in the London Post Office Directory for the current year, though I am not quite so sure as to the last name, and wish much for further information; as to all the others, there is not a doubt about it. In "Men and Names of Old Birmingham (five miles from here) from Thirteenth to Sixteenth Century," by the late Toulmin Smith, are the following Jewish names (see Index): ''Richard Andrews, William Benet, Hamon Cissor, Thomas Chattok (query Shetach), A.D. 137D. John Frauncys, William Goldsmyth, Humfrey Jordan, John Lepper, Richard Lumbard. John Michel, John Philip, and Wm. Symon."

There is a small manor called Pipe Hayes, which (see Dugdale) adjoined our Haye in 1850, and was held by a Wm. Mansel in temp. Henry III. —a real Jewish name. Other adjoining proprietors in early times were named respectively, Andrews, Peter, Este (East, who held another Haye in Yardley parish), and Blund, that is, in Erdington, Yardley, and Witton. In fact, it plainly and indubitably appears that there must have been a colony of Anglo-Hebrew Christians hereabouts in early times.The chapel mentioned in these charters as early as twenty-ninth Edward I. is what is called a free chapel, a donative or royal peculiar, belonged to our family; and, as before stated, there was a John Lovetot, a converted Jew, prebend of a similar church at Wolverhampton (fourteen miles distant; at this very time, and a contemporary, Adam Lovetot, a witness in the Chattock charters. All free churches and chapels were built on royal demesne lands. Most of our old historians allege that the Conqueror introduced the Jews into England to assist him in monetary matters, which, of course, would embrace the royal demesne, free lands, forests, chases, and Hayes. The seven kings of the Heptarchy each possessed such properties. These would all descend through Egbert, first sole monarch, to William I., which, when the New Forest (so near to the then capital, Winchester) was completed, would be found comparatively useless, and no doubt most of them would be handed over to the Jews to be utilised, and some portions would naturally pass to them, in lieu of money, for services rendered. When a family can trace their pedigree back for four or five generations or so, it is customary for them to allege, without the slightest proof, that " they came over with the Conqueror; "but an uncle of ours, who was born about a century ago, always said that, joking apart, the family tradition was that this ancestral property was actually a grant from William I.; and if for civil services during the tranquil period of his reign, it would not appear in the Roll of Battle Abbey, and, of course, not in Dooms-day.

"I have placed my name and address at the head of this hurried statement with the view of soliciting assistance in the way of searches at the Record Office and other places in London, for which I have but little time when there. I am naturally most anxious to clear up the point to a certainty. The name cannot, etymologically, be derived from any place name. The Norfolk Chattocks, or Schattocks, still continue under the name of Chittock, and I have heard from one of them, a solicitor at Norwich. I have evidence that they are a branch of our own family, and clear proof that many of their descendants are now in America, bearing the name of Shattuck; so that it would really appear as though the name was working back again to the old spelling, if it originated from Shetach. A curious and apropos instance of the interchange of s and c exists in the history of this American branch of the family. There is a work in the British Museum by one of its members called ' Memorials of the descendants of William Shattuck,' &c, by Lemuel Shattock, member of the American Antiquarian Society, &c, published in 1855 ; and at p. 58 it is stated that in America the name first occurs as Chattock, in 1642. So that, if my conjecture is correct, it began with S in England, and ended in C, and with C in America, and ended with S.

I did think at first that the name might be derived from the family of the good old Anglo-Saxon Bishop Chad of Lichfield (Chadock) ; but this would be only a diminutive, whereas Chattok, Shattok, and Shetach are the same names, with trifling and legitimate letter changes only. Chattock is a much more probable derivative of the Jewish name Sadoc than it is of Chad. In any case, we can well join in prayer with the pleader of the favoured people of old, and say, 'The Lord our God be with us, as He was with our fathers; let Him not leave us nor forsake us.'

I attach but very little importance to the formal phrases, such as "chief lord of the fee, rendering," &c, as used in some of the foregoing and similar charters. They do not occur in all of them. They have been applied to every piece of stolen free land, common, waste, road-side waste, and open space throughout the country. The two deeds of 10 March, 1630, and 15 May, 1649, each show that what then remained of the Hay (and it was according to the assessments then as large within a few acres as the property the Devereux's held in the hamlet), was free land, and they, moreover, show that the title of the original Hay, which we have seen included most, of the hamlet, was of that title also, because they were originally part of the Hay, and it all had but one title of course.

In confirmation of my conjecture that a kind of Jewish or Hebrew-Christian colony existed in the neighbourhood of the Bromwich Hay, and in the vicinity of the Hay, near the Shropshire Eardington, I sent a list containing a number of the names of witnesses to charters, owners and occupiers in and about these two Hays to the late Dr. Margoliouth, a good Hebrew Scholar, and he confirmed my opinion as to the etymon of very many of these names being Jewish. The most remarkable feature of the case is that from the quotations of Eyton's Salop there was a family of the Hebrew name of Sadoc, Saddock, or Shaddock, who held property in a Hay in the Shropshire Eardington, at the same time that our family (who in some of the early charters spelt their names Shattock) were holding the Haye of Bromwich, adjoining the Warwickshire Erdington.

In vol. i., p. 124, note 99, it states that Gilbert Sadoc was of the Haye of Erdington, near Bridgenorth. This Sadoc [a Jewish name] being connected with church lands, shows that the reports of early writers are correct as to our Norman kings concerning themselves with ecclesiastical revenues, and sometimes getting the Jews to farm them. William II. was notorious for this. At length these things instigated the priests to start the tales about the Jews crucifying Christian children on Good Fridays to raise a persecution against them, and induce the king to rob and expel them in A.D. 1290. Some Jews who turned Christians soon after their coming into this country would settle down upon lands they had acquired by, and for managing the royal demesne, forests, and Hays (Earl Beaconsfield — De Israli did the same), and be left unmolested and undisturbed at this expulsion, which was two hundred and twenty-four years after the Conquest. The estate at Little Sutton, adjoining Little Hay and Bradnock Hay (which is pushing out towards Lichfield), and said to have belonged "to the ancient messuage of John Chattock of Castle Bromwich, being his inherytance," in deed of 1569, is also mentioned in deeds of Edward VI., 1550; and as (see deed) sold in 1618. This, from its proximity to Lichfield, may have been " church " land originally, and rescued from Eome by the Norman kings undoing what some of the early Anglo-Saxon kings had done. This is what made them so unpopular with the priesthood, and induced some writers to believe (and I think they are correct) that the second William succumbed to the shaft of the " church," instead of the chase, when he fell in the Forest of Ytene. "It was proved by several old deeds before 1st Mary that divers parcels of land belonging to the See of Lichfield, lie in the fields of Lichfield." " Cannock Forest (of which Little Sutton was part) belonged to the See of Lichfield in Saxon times." See Harwood's Lichfield, pp. 13 and 3G0-1. Again, the Ilaye of Bromwich was in the See of Coventry and Lichfield, which See was founded by Oswy the 6th, Anglo-Saxon king of Mercia, in A.D. 656, and is said to have been so rich, that Offa, by the favour of Pope Adrian, constituted it an archi-episcopal one. Warwickshire, and Staffordshire, and great part of Salop, including the archdeaconry of Shrewsbury, were included in this see, so that the three Hays, one at Eardington, near Bridgenorth, little Hay, near Lichfield, and the Hay of Bromwich, were all within the diocese, and may all have been " church " land originally, and first alienated by the Anglo-Saxon kings from the forests, and then rescued by the Normans, who erected this royal castle or "shooting box " here. By the charter dated the feast of St. Clement, 26th Edward III., A.D. 1353, it appears there was a Have at or near Coventry, "Henricus de la Hay de Coventre." The unenclosed common still there, which is on that side leading out from the city towards Stonebridge and Castle Bromwich, is, I believe, a portion of it.

At p. 267 of this volume, it states that in A.D. 1209, when Thomas de Erdington (of Warwickshire Erdington) was sheriff of Salop, a Richard de Bromwich was made a constable of Bridgenorth. Castle. This is very remarkable. He was made sheriff of Salop in 1206, and sent his friend and neighbour, Richard, to keep the castle soon after. The Shaddocks of the Have of Eardington, near Bridgenorth, are mentioned so early that the grandfathers of the Richard Saddock, of A.D. 1180, and the Richard Saddock, Junior, of 1191, must have been alive at the Conquest. In vol. viii., pp. 129-130, it states that a " Richard de Morville, in 1250, married Agnes, whose mother was Isabella, daughter of Gilbert Sadoc, and that this Agnes had property in the Hay of Astley Abbotts." At p. 140 of the same volume there is a Robert de Bromwieh mentioned as then of Salop. Where, I would ask, are now the pure Jewish names of Sadoc (or Shaddock) and Shetach, if they are not merged in the modern Chaddock and Chattock ? By the Lichfield registers I see there was formerly a very old family of Chaddock of Salop, afterwards of Chaddock Hall, Lancashire, mentioned by Baiues, in visitation of that county in 1644; and I contend that Shetach has merged into Chattock, or that Sadoc has, after passing through Chaddock.

I will now proceed to give short extracts from my note-book showing the early communications, or connections, that must have been kept up by and between various families in Salop, Warwick, and Norfolk, including, amongst others, Marmion, Mountfort, and Chattock.

From Evton's Salop.

Vols. i. and ii., p. 70, and notes, states that forests (which would include Hays) are not generally mentioned in Domesday, but only lands of productive capacity. Vols. hi. and iv., a Matilda de Birmingham is mentioned as then of Salop, p. 234. Hotchpot mentioned as early as A.D. J 282. P. 239, Hen. de Birmingham mentioned as then of Salop in 132G. Vol. iv., p. 132, ditto, Walter de Birmingham, a priest, p. 362. A coal mine mentioned in 1291. Vol. v., p. 21, here we find our parson author trying to exclude the Devereux family from Domesday Book. Why, it is as pure a French name as any ever known! There never was any other place name of Devereux but in France. Montfort and Percy are as much English as French. In another place he does much to disparage the Montfort family. These were " rebel " families in his eyes. These are about the only imperfections of his excellent work. In vol. vi., p. 197, Philip Marmion is mentioned as holding Pulverbach in 1244. At vol. vii., p. 120, it is stated that Romans had lead mines in Salop; and at p. 250, that Thomas de Erdington (Warwickshire), who was sheriff of Salop, had tenants in Norfolk in 1217, and he married Eose de Cokeford of that county. Vol. viii., p. 237, has that donatives are seldom mentioned in diocesan records, but he neglects to give the reason, which is simply because they are not subject to episcopal visitation. At p. 143 of vol. ix., and numerous other places, the Wrekin is called Mount Gilbert. This is from its summit so frequently having snow upon it, it is (gilt— bright) brht—light. Snow-dun was also so named. The etymology of Mountfort is simply a mound, mount, or fort protecting a ford, and my belief is that Mountfort, Salop, perhaps, gave name to the famous family of that name. Dr. Margoliouth states somewhere in his works that the father of the celebrated Simon de Montfort was an early Hebrew Christian; and Eyton acknowledges that the Salop Montforts and the Simon de Montfort family were originally the same. There is a most remarkable muddle somewhere in the pedigree of the de Montfort family. I believe that if thoroughly gone into, it is very uncertain as to whether the family of Simon de Montfort came from, and were named after the place of that name in France. My belief is that they were named and came from Monfort in Salop, and were of Jewish origin, not only from the Christian names of the father and son, but also from their being so thoroughly mixed up with the other little colonies of early Anglo-Hebrew Christians, not only in Salop, but in Warwick, and in Norfolk also. It should be noted that when the Montforts disappear in Salop, they turn up at King-hurst Hall, part of which estate is in Castle Bromwich, so that they left the neighbourhood of the Saddocks and went into the neighbourhood of the Chattocks. If a " de " Montfort of France came over with the Conqueror, it does not follow necessarily that he must have been the progenitor of our Simon de Montfort. As to the evil spirit of the feudal system, I must say with the poet

"If that thou be'st a devil,

I cannot kill thee. "

I only wish to show that it was not so completely omnipotent as many believe, until it became perfected as a gigantic system of fraud by the finesse and chicanery of the "elder lawyers " and "churchmen." The statute of Quia Emptores, which was to suppress subenfeudation, and prevent the creation of inferior lords, was passed in 18th of Edward I., so that the Henry Chattock who received the grant or power to embattle of 20th Richard IL, could not have been one of these, as royalty would ignore all such, and treat only with tenants in capite, or owners of "free land," and if the "legal personal representatives" of the aforesaid "elder lawyers "reply " No;" of course not, he must have been a tenant in capite. Then they make him lord of the manor, and snub "the old barons of Dudley." Here they err again, for it never was anything but a "reputed" manor for the purposes I have described. Some "reputed" lord may have had portions of it "viewed," levied paltry little 24 d. chief rents in portions of it, perhaps; but if the hamlet can be shown to have been free land before 12 Ch. II, when every other inch of land, as far as was known was, or was supposed to be, held in capite, it must have been always so, and the feudal system could never have extended to and operated upon it. I have just shown that its title was a free Hay in 20 Richard II., and that, too, under such circumstances (it is called the Old Hay), that it could never have been otherwise, between that date and the Conquest, when the feudal system was first inaugurated. Broke says that free lands, "frank fee, liberum fewdum, were exempted from all services." A great deal of royal demesne (particularly forests and hays) was fooled away to the "church" by the Anglo-Saxon kings, especially after those of the whole heptarchy had centred in the first sole monarch. The Norman kings soon relieved them of some of these burthens, particularly the Conqueror and Rufus. The latter was notorious for letting and selling them to the Jews. The "church" however frightened a charter out of Henry I. to "mitigate" this state of things, and became " reformers " for the first time with the barons under King John to get clauses inserted in Magna Charta to prevent "spoliation," as they called it, Eyton, in his Salop, vols. vii. And viii. (bound together), p. 5, says, "King Edward the Confessor had twelve manors in demesne in Salop." This is not quite so bad (but very nearly so, considering the increased light of Eyton's day) as Dugdale, following the old monk Rouse, and alleging that Caractacus had a manor at Warwick, and built a church there, and dedicated it to John the Baptist before the said John was born. What he intended to say was that the Anglo-Saxon king held twelve places in Salop, which, after the Conquest, were made manors, because manors were not created until then. Mercia was the last kingdom settled when the heptarchy was formed, and Salop being upon the Welsh border would be one of the last counties settled. It was scarcely settled until the conquest. Freeman, on that event, says that Earl Edwin might almost pass in Mercia for an hereditary prince. In Blakeway's Shrewsbury, vol. i., p. 35, it states that on the death of Earl Edwin, Salop went to the Crown. The "church," in Anglo-Saxon times, became possessed of vast properties in this county. Much was taken from it at, and soon after, the Conquest, and some confirmed to it. In vols. vii. and viii. of Eyton, we have, p. 259, " Haymore Abbey, royal demesne;" p. 221, " Wigmore Abbey, royal demesne;" p. 216, "Lyllslmll Abbey, royal demesne." Vol. ii., p. 8, "Morville was held by Shrewsbury Abbey at Conquest," and p. 16, as to Conqueror's grant, or rather confirmation to this abbey. Vol. i., pp. 18 and 19, " The Norman Earl Eoger gave (temp. William I.) great part of Morville to Salop Abbey in 1086,' and at p. 63 is the following, "Nicholas held the Haye of Morville under the descendants of Gilbert Sadok, a man largely interested in Salop Abbey, early in the century." That is, a family of Sadok, who sometimes spelt their names Saddock, held a Haye in Salop about A.D. 1200. P. 232, in chartulary of Shrewsbury Abbey, a witness to a charter in A.D. 1180 is one Richard Sadock, and at p. 240, " Pickthorn was formerly royal demesne and abbey land, and in 1240, Gilbert Sadoc sold property in Pickthorn to Salop Abbey." It would be utterly impossible to produce stronger evidence than this to confirm my statement in the article in the " Hebrew-Christian Witness," as to Jews managing royal demesne and church property for the Norman kings. This Sadoc is a thorough Jewish name; besides the Sadoc mentioned in the 14th verse of 1st chapter of Matthew, the founder of the Sadducees was a Sadoc. Zadok appears to be the same name. The family of Zadoc held the high priesthood of the Jews for considerably more than a thousand years, and were very highly favoured. " The priests of the house of Zadok which kept my charge, which went not astray, when the children of Israel went astray, as the Levites went astray, Ezekiel c. 48 v. 11. This family of Zadoc was known after the destruction of the temple. " Zadoc, the Levite, died A.D. 89." See " Hebrew-Christian Witness," June, 1875, p. 277. Blakeways Shrewsbury in many cases, though but a much smaller work, confirms the quotations from the public records given by Eyton. At p. 8 of vol. i., we have " Baschurch (from bosco, the church in the wood) was royal demesne of Mercian kings." Vol. ii., p. 96, "Richard Hagar (another Jewish name) held land adjoining Salop Abbey, A.D. 1200;" p. 95, "Gilbert Sadoc held land in 1220, adjoining Salop Abbey;" p. 96, "In 1324, Richard Abel (another Jewish name), Dean of St. Chad's, exchanged living with rector of Rollesley, Norfolk." St. Chad's was a donative, built on royal demesne. P. 103, " Abbey of Shrewsbury held forest of Wreken in 1270;" pp. 213, 240, " Fitz Alan of Salop held considerable fiefs in Warwickshire and Norfolk;" p. 18G, Peter de Monntfort, of Salop, in 1258, said to have been of the family of Simon de Montfort.

Blomfield and Parkins Norfolk, vol i., p. 52, Philip Marmion, of Tamworth Castle, was constable of Norwich Castle in 1261. See also Prynne, p. 1221, as to this. As there is a difference of thirty-one years between this date and 1292, when the Marmions are said to have died out, it would appear that two of the same name must have followed each other, for the last one is said to have been a Philip. It is strange that this Philip, who must have died in 1292, should have had the Peter Marmion, of Curdworth (of the Chattock charters), who was alive in A.D. 1289, die so near to the same year. There is as great a muddle in the pedigree of this family as in that of the Montfort's; indeed all these old "de" ified pedigrees seem to be alike to me. Sir Walter Scott, in a note to his Marmion, says, " but after the castle and demesne of Tamworth had passed through four successive barons from Robert (the first), the family became extinct in the person of Philip de Marmion, who died in 20th of Edward I." Now, the 20th of Edward I. was 1292, and "four" generations of thirty years each would be one hundred and twenty years, bringing us down to A.D. 1186 only. This 1186 is but about half-way between the Conquest and the date (1292), in which they are said to have died out. Instead of four generations, it wants but fourteen years of being eight generations from the Conquest. This family took its cognomen from a place name, it appears. The " de " is used to a late period.

This bit of "historical romance" of Sir Walter's is from Dugdale's pedigree-mongery. I never met with two authors so much alike as these, and to my mind so equally good as romancers." In vol. ix., p. 73, of this work (Blomfield and Parkin's Norfolk), it states that the Marmions were still in being in Norfolk so late as temp. Edward III. (1327-1377), which upsets the foregoing romances. At pp. 161-5 of vol. i. of this work, mention is made of a Jo. Chyttok, sheriff of Norfolk, in 1450 mayor of Norwich in 1457, and M.P. in 38 Henry VI., in Parliament held at Coventry; p. 171, Jo. Chytock, mayor in 1466. These and others previously mentioned of the same name were ancestors of the family now represented by Mr. Chittock, solicitor, of Norwich. Pages 642 and 657, Martin de Patshull in 1226, and a T. Bigge in 1524, of county Norfolk. These names also occur in Salop and in the Chattock charters. Vol. ii., p. 141, Jefy de Mundford, of county Norfolk, mentioned ; p. 182, a de Mundford, of Hock wold, said to have been from Normandy, and in Conqueror's army; p. 412, Eobert Marmion in 1219, as then of Norfolk. Vol. iv., a William Sekyrigton (near Tamworth) in 1460, mentioned as then of Norfolk, p. 331 ; one Holden (an Erdington name), mentioned in 1590, p. 336; a William Schattock, buried in church of St. John the Baptist in 1382; he was rector of Hackford and All Saints'. P. 369, Jo. Chitock, alderman of Norwich. Vol. v., p. 353, Eobert Arden in 1464. This was evidently a family who came out of Warwickshire Arden, and was so called in consequence. P. 358, Jo. Tamworth in 1339, and in 1594 a Edward Yardley. P. 358, a Eichard Jennings in 1677. P. 418, a Alan and another Salop family mentioned. P. 433, Eichard de Bradwell mentioned in 1300 (as in Chattock charters). Vol. vi., p. 6, Stephen Smallwode, vicar of Newton, mentioned in 1421, and the name is mentioned elsewhere and earlier. It is a Birmingham name. P. 15, a Hugh de Montford, said to have been at Bodney at the Conquest, and his descendants, until the year 1170. The "Hugh" in this name is evidently Welsh, and bespeaks the Salopian origin of the family, and the whole goes to confirm the expressed opinion of Dr. Margoliouth, and with which I entirely agree, viz., that the family of Simon de Montfort originated with the Shropshire branch. How the early histories or pedigrees of these two famous families of Marmion and Montfort became so muddled is best known to the old heralds and pedigreemongers. I think that with the documents we possess, the Shropshire origin of the Montforts could be proved, and the male line of the Marmions extended to even a later date than temp. Edward III., as mentioned by Parkin and Blomfield in their History of Norfolk, p. 170. The name of Marmion is not yet extinct, as there is a clergyman of the name now, one of my subscribers, I am pleased to say. A Sir W. de Odingsels (Solihull) held land at Oxburgh, Norfolk, in 1249. Pp. 234-294, Adcock, Yardley, and Massey, of county Norfolk, mentioned, and all three are Warwickshire names ; p. 302, and a Baskerville in AD. 1461 ; p. 322, a person named Tamworth in tern. Edward I.; p. 332, a Walter de Marmion, in Norfolk, in reign of John. This "de" again shows the name originated from a place name ; p. 463, the monastery of Nuneaton, said to have had land in Walsingham, Norfolk. Yol. viii., p. 34, there is a Lawrence de Montfort in county Norfolk in 1268. In same vol., at p. 39, occurs a Jo. de Beauchamp, 7 Edward I.

The following Warwickshire and Shropshire names also occur in this county history, as then of Norfolk at the dates given, viz., vol. viii., p. 43, Jefry de la Hay, 1349; p. 47, a de Castello ; at p. 87 of vol. viii., these also occur : a "Hugh de Montfort, a Norman, in Conqueror's time; ' p. 178, a William de Hay, in 1324 ; p. 425, Giles de Wenlock, of Salop, mentioned in tem. Edward III. Yol. ix., p. 30, a John de Somery, said to have held land in Norfolk, temp. Edwards II. and III; p. 117, a Eic. de Ideshale (Salop), then in Norfolk in 1310 ; pp. 448-0, Trussels, of Salop and Norfolk, said to be the same; p. 45G, same as to families of Alan and Flad ; At p. 467, a Ealf de Smethwick, in 1311 ; p. 479, a Corbet, from Salop. Vol. x., pp. 9, 16, 17, and 41, a Fitz Alan, from Salop; a Tho. de Erdington and William de Drayton ; and in vol. ix., the family of Basset (Drayton Basset) is mentioned; p. 73, Eobert, Abbot of Salop, in tem. Henry III., as of county Norfolk ; p. 324, Lord Strange grants Hunstanton, Norfolk, to Haughmond Abbey, Salop; p. 330, "Holm" by the Sea, county Norfolk, belonged to Lillshall Abbey, Salop ; p. 333, three other Salop names, and a John de Somery mentioned; p. 339, a Hugh de Arden mentioned, 1275. Vol. ii., pp. 54, 111, and 134, families of Bassett, Tymouth (Tamworth), and Smalewood mentioned again; p. 201, a place called Montfort, in Bretayne, mentioned. The foregoing extracts from standard works —Eyton, Blakeway, and Parkins and Blomiield— consisting as they do of reliable extracts from the public records, clearly show that there is evidently some (for the present) inexplicable muddle made by Dugdale and the old heralds and others as to the Montford and Marmion families. It is certain that some of the male descendants of the Montforts exist in the midlands now. In the foregoing assessment for Water Orton for 1700, there is one of the family of Montfort mentioned. Dugdale, too, makes the first prior of Birmingham a Eobert Marmion in 1326, which is thirty-four years after they are said to have been extinct. The great mixing up of affairs and families of Salop, Warwick, and Norfolk here described shows how the Chattock family also moved from each of these counties to the other. Mr. Chittock, solicitor, of Norwich, is also representative of the family of Eobert Chattok, who was vicar of West Eudham, Norfolk, in 1312, mentioned in vol. vii., p. 161, of Blomiield's and Parkin's history of that county. It appears by this work that the priests at this date openly married. The family can be traced in that county from 1312. One of the family, a William Chittock, emigrated to America in 1642, as I have said, and his name appears as a purchaser of land on the register of Waterton, Massachusetts. The name in America afterwards became corrupted to Shattuck, but it first appears on the land register as William Chattuck.

The most remarkable feature of the name, and which strengthens the supposition of its being from Shetach (or Saddock through Sadoc), is the very early period of its appearing with Christian name added in Salop, Norfolk, and Warwick. After almost a life-long perusal of works of antiquarian lore, I do not remember any Anglo-Saxon or Anglo-Norman name, not even Baldwin, Godwin, Devereux, or Marmion, occurring so early with both Christian and surname as the Eichard Saddock and Eichard Saddock, Jun., of A.D. 1180 and 1191, in Eyton's Salop.

The others all have the everlasting " de " at, previous to, and long subsequent to those dates. The names Saddock and Chattock never occur with this descriptive particle. The two Jewish names, Samuel Levi, A.D. 1027, and Samuel Cophis, of 1096, before mentioned, are even earlier. These, too, were doubtless Hebrew Christians.

With the exception of our own immediate relatives (brothers and cousins), the Chittocks of Norfolk, American Shattucks, and the Somersetshire Shattocks, who sprung from the Henry Chattock, who went into Dorsetshire in 1509 (see deed of that date), there are not now, and never have been, any other relatives or people of the name as appears by the modern and earliest directories. The name is never found elsewhere. Chaddock (also very rare) was doubtless the same, originally. From the searches my brother caused to be made at the Record Office and elsewhere, it appears that some of the name were engaged in the Scotch wars, &c.

The following is an extract from the Exchequer accounts : "28th Edward I. (A.D. 1299). Johanie de Derby, cleric, cancellor pro denar p ipsum solutis Ricardus Chattok, et 5 sociis suis constabul' cum equis covertro, pro verdiis suis, et 504 sagittar preditum electorum in Com. Ebor : pro gurra Scocie, anni presentis 7 dies," &c. Either the Latinity of the entry or the copying in this extract was very carelessly done. It appears, also, from these searches that the family had property near Barnet and at Moxhull.

The Earls of Warwick held land in Aston parish at one time. See charter of Henry IV. (1407), which has an endorsement on it to the effect that the land conveyed by it was "free land." Perhaps the Earl of Warwick's family held the royal castle of Bromwich, and as one of the Chattocks fell with the "King Maker " in the battle of Barnet, I expect that both the castle and the embattled "messuage" of the Chattocks upon the "Hay Hall Moat," of the Ordnance Map, were demolished by the triumphant party. The same fate befel the little property that the Devereux family held in this hamlet when the governing powers of the day exchanged places, at least the property changed hands, though the residence was not demolished.

The free land pulled into the feudal system would be at once lost sight of, by the "elder lawyers " reserving "chief rents " in the first conveyance of lands at or after their severance.

In the reference book to the parish plan of Sutton Coldheld there are three fields, Nos. 1912, 1927, and 1928, called "Cattock Hurst " = C(h)attock Wood. The h has evidently been dropped.

This wood, or rather as it is now, three fields, are near Pens, and in the same parish as the property described in deed of 1569, and not very far from Moxhull.

I should think that the Hay of Bromwich was an earlier gift than the Hay of Salop, as alienating and disafforesting would take place in Warwickshire before Salop. These Saddocks, Shetachs, or Chattocks certainly appear to have had the management of some royal demesne, and had part of it given them in lieu of money.

When William I. ascended the throne, the royal demesne coming to him from the seven Saxon kingdoms through the troublous times of the Danes, would be scarcely recognisable, hence the necessity of some one to institute inquiries. Early disafforesting and alienating many of them therefore took place, as the Conqueror could not, of course, sport in all of them; and the new forest also, which was expressly made for the purpose near Winchester, the then capital. The Jews were just the kind of "justices in eyre," to send upon such an itinerancy as this, for as a great deal of this land had got into the hands of the "church” they would be impartial between crown and gown. (p. 284)