Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-89wxm Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-07T09:11:06.710Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The medieval county of Kildare

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 July 2016

J. Otway-Ruthven
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The general outlines of the Norman settlement of Leinster were laid downin the time of Strongbow. At the time of the Norman invasion that part of Leinster which was to become Kildare was divided into four main tribal territories, described as cantreds under the Normans: Offelan in the north; Offaly to the north-west and centre; Omurethy in the south; and Leix to the south-west.

Offelan is now represented by the baronies of North and South Salt, Ikeathy and Oughterany, and Clane (formerly Otymy), which were granted to Adam de Hereford, who shared his grant with his brothers John and Richard; and North and South Naas, which were granted to Maurice Fitz Gerald, whose son, William, also divided his grant with his brother Gerald, the ancestor of the earls of Kildare.

Type
Articles
Information
Irish Historical Studies , Volume 11 , Issue 43 , March 1959 , pp. 181 - 199
Copyright
Copyright © Irish Historical Studies Publications Ltd 1959

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 For the topographical details which follow, see the map facing p. 196.

2 The western part of the barony of North Salt was originally included in Naas, for it was part of William Fitz Maurice’s grant to his brother Gerald.

3 This was so from 1181 at least: Giraldus says that it was given by Strongbow to Meiler Fitz Henry, who was forced to exchange it for Leix in that year. See Orpen, , Normans, i. 381-2.Google Scholar

4 See Orpen, , Normans, iii.113.Google Scholar

5 T.C.D. MS E.3.4, p. 59.

6 Mounmohennok is often written simply as Moun, and thus confused with Mouncolumkille (the modern Moone), misleading even Orpen (Norman, i. 385).

7 Slievemargy was part of co. Kildare, but the service of 6 knights which it owed was assigned to the Bigod purparty in co. Carlow atthe partition of the Marshal inheritance. See E. St J. Brooks, Knights fees in counties Wexford, Carlow and Kilkenny, pp. 56-60.

8 This grant seems to have been resumed after the death of Strongbow, and though Wicklow remained with the lords of Naas, Arklow wasgranted by John, and subsequently by William Marshal, to Theobald Walter, and remained a Butler manor. For its history, see Price, L., ‘The manor of Arklow‘, R.S.A.I. Jn., lxvi. 52–62 Google Scholar.

9 This account of the subinfeudation of the area is based on Orpen, Normans, i. 377-86. For the placing of certain areas in a particular cantred, see Cal. justic. rolls, Ire., 1295-1303, pp. 167-208.

10 Donoughmore was a settlement which failed: c. 1303 all the burgage lands were held by a single tenant (N. B. White, RedBook of Ormond, p. 19).

11 See Otway-Ruthven, J., ‘The organization of Anglo-Irish agriculture in the middle ages‘, R.S.A.I. Jn., lxxxi. 1 Google Scholar.

12 Red Book of Ormond, pp. 12-17, 19-22, 29-32.

13 In Imail lands above this level were held in fee farm by Irishmen (Red Book of Ormond, p. 20).

14 Cal. doc. Ire., 1252-84, no. 2028.

15 P.R.O., C47/10/18, no. 17.

16 Butler, C.M. and Bernard, J.H., ‘The charters of the abbey of Duiske’, in R.I.A. Proc.,xxxv, sect. C, p. 16 Google Scholar.

17 N. B. White, Irish monastic and episcopal deeds, p. 310.

18 Gormanston reg., p. 201.

19 Otway-Ruthven, J., ‘Anglo-Irish shire government in the thirteenth century’, above, v. 4 Google Scholar.

20 The position is illustrated by the petitions printed by H.G. Richardson and G.O. Sayles, Rot. parl: hactenus inediti, pp. 37-8, 39.

21 Otway-Ruthven, J., ‘The constitutional position of the great lordships of South Wales‘, in R. Hist. Soc. Trans., series 5, viii. 9–10 Google Scholar.

22 For the partition, see Orpen, , Normans, iii. ch. 21 Google Scholar.

23 These are fully analysed in Brooks, Knights’ fees.

24 These are the list of services due from Kildare which occurs in various pipe rolls during the reigns of Edward II and III (P.R.I. rep. D.K.,passim); the inquisition post mortem taken on the death of the second earl of Kildare in 1328, preserved in the Red Book of Kildare;T.C.D. MS E.3.4, pp. 57-59; and B.M., Harl. MS 3758, ed. H. F. Hore, Kilkenny Arch. Soc. Jn., new series, ii-v (1858-66). There are also the inquisitions post mortem on certain of the Marshal heirs (Cal. doc. Ire., 1252-84, nos 1963, 2028; 1293-1301, no. 481; 1302-7, no.335; Cal. inquisitions post mortem, v. 232). I hope to analyse these sources at length elsewhere.

25 Eleanor, the seventh sister, died without issue before 1275, and her share was divided among her sisters. The fees of William de Vescy, William Mohun, and John Mohun are listed in inquisitions (Cal. doc. Ire., 1252-84, no. 1963; 1293-1301, no. 481; 1302-7, no. 335).

26 The share of Roger Mortimer (ibid., 1252-84, no. 2028).

27 See below, p. 189.

28 This further partition is fully described by Orpen, , Normans, iii. 97–106 Google Scholar.

29 The seneschal of Leinster witnesses a number of charters from 1200 on, but the office must have existed much earlier.

30 Cal. doc. Ire., 1252-84, no. 1647. This pattern of courts is entirely on the English model: the practice of the marcher lordships of South Wales, from which so many of the Normans of Leinster came, seems to have had no influence. See J. Otway-Ruthven, ‘ The constitutional position of the great lordships of South Wales’, as above, pp. 5-6.

31 Cal. doc. Ire., 1252-84, no. 861.

32 Ibid., no. 1096. The sisters alleged that the issues of the county had been under-valued because the extent was made by jurors procured by Agnes, but the surplus may well have been imaginary.

33 Gormanston reg., p. 177.

34 Rot. chart., p. 176.

35 The pleas of the crown are discussed by Hurnard, N.D. in ‘The Anglo-Norman franchises’, E.H.R., lxiv. 289–310 CrossRefGoogle Scholar. Miss Hurnard minimizes the importance of forstall, but though her definition of it is certainly correct, it was nevertheless clearly a matter of great importance in the thirteenth century if not to us.

36 See Otway-Ruthven, J., ‘Anglo-Irish shire government in the thirteenth century’, above, v. 7–8 Google Scholar.

37 For Durham, see G. T. Lapsley, The county palatine of Durham; for Chester, G. Barraclough, The earldom and county palatine of Chester; for one of the most important of the lesser English liberties, E. Miller, The abbey and bishopric of Ely.

38 Gormanston reg., p. 201. The assizes were introduced into Durham c. 1208, and into Chester about the same time (Lapsley, op. cit., pp. 165-8; Barraclough, op. cit., pp. 16-18).

39 Pipe roll, 14 John, p. 16.

40 Representatives from the liberties were summoned in 1207, the first occasion on which we hear of any elected representatives ( Stat. Ire., John-Hen., V, pp. 194-6)Google Scholar.

41 Gormanston reg., p. 160 P.R.I, rep. D.K. 20, p. 47; P.R.I, rep. D.K. 35, p. 42.

42 Above, p. 189.

43 Cal. justic. rolls, Ire., 1295-1303, pp. 123, 204-5; Cal. doc. Ire., 1293-1301, nos 300, 363.

44 Ibid 1285-92, no. 928.

45 Cal. close rolls, 1313-18, p. 189; Cal. justic. rolls, Ire., 1295- 1303, p. 429.

46 Ibid., p. 196.

47 Rot. parl, hactenus inediti, pp. 37-8, 44.

48 Ibid., pp. 40-41, 44; Cal. doc. Ire., 1293-1301, no. 100.

49 Gormanston reg., pp. 176-7.

50 Cal. justic. rolls, Ire., 1295-1303, p. 174. Robert Perceval held Ballymany in the barony of East Offaly (Cal. doc. Ire., 1252-84, no. 1963).

51 Cal. justic. rolls, Ire., 1295-1303, pp. 174, 203-4.

52 Rot. parl. hactenus inediti, pp. 37-8, 39. See above, p. 185.

53 Cal. doc. Ire., 1295-1303, no. 100.

54 Cal. justic. rolls. Ire., 1295-1303, p. 198.

55 Cal. doc. Ire., 1293-1301, no. 106; Stat. Ire., John-Hen. V, p. 219.

56 Cal. justic. rolls, Ire., 1295-1303, p. 202.

57 Ibid., pp. 167, 168.

58 Ibid., p. 167; P.R.I. rep. D.K. 38, p. 88; P.R.I, rep. D.K. 42, p. 41.

59 Cal. justic. rolls, Ire., 1295-1303, pp. 167, 170-1; Cal. doc. Ire., 1293-1301, no. 481.

60 P.R.O., C47/10/24, no. 4. See also P.R.O., S.C.8/31/1536; Cal. close rolls, 1346-7, pp. 440-1; Cal. pat. rolls, 1345-8, pp. 207, 262; 1348-50, p. 17. Cf. Cal. justic. rolls, Ire., 1295-1303, p. 442; Cal. doc. Ire., 1302-7, no. 50.

61 Cal. pat. rolls, 1350-4, p. 117; 1354-8, p. 439. By the fifteenth century there seems to have been a chief serjeantcy of Kildare, no longer of the separate cantreds, which were giving way as administrative units to the feudal baronies (Cal. rot. pat. Hib., pp. 74, 161, 203, 205, 211, 231, 235, 254, 265).

62 Cal. justic. rolls, Ire., 1295-1303, passim, and pp. 169-70.

63 Ibid., pp. 181-2, 190, 201, 205, 208; 1305-7, pp. 127-8, 149-50, 152-3, 232, 233.

64 Ibid., 1295-1303, p. 242. The general theory as to the position of the lord of a liberty as it had developed by the later thirteenth century is clearly stated by H. M. Cam, Liberties and communities in medieval England, pp. 179, 183-4, 202-4.

65 See Cal. justic. rolls, Ire., passim.

66 Cal. doc. Ire., 1252-84, nos 1389, 1503, 1974, 1977, 2035.

67 Ibid., 1293-1301, nos 365, 373-5, 379, 385, 414-5, 426.

68 Cal. justic. rolls, Ire., 1295-1303, p. 282; Maitland, Memoranda de parliamento, pp. 153-4; Cal. doc. Ire., 1302-7, nos 129, 660; Cal. close rolls, 1313-18, p. 189.

69 Stat. Ire., John-Hen. V, pp. 196-8.

70 P.R.I. rep. D.K. 36, p. 37.

71 Laud MS Annals, in Gilbert, , Chart. St Mary’s, Dublin, ii. 323 Google Scholar; Marleburrough’s Chronicle.

72 Cal. doc. Ire., 1252-84, nos 1771, 1799, 1801, 2010.

73 Ibid., 1293-1301, nos 566, 677; 1302-7, no. 335; Cal. justic. rolls, Ire., 1305-7, pp. 28-30. Isabel Ferrers was assigned land in the same manors, assigned in 1297 to her granddaughter Mary, wife of John de Meriet (Cal. doc. Ire., 1252-84, nos 1963, 2324; 1293-1301, nos 437, 499).

74 For the pedigree, see Brooks, Knights’ fees, pp. 202-9.

75 Cal. doc. Ire., 1302-7, no. 149.

76 For a full account of the curious circumstances associated with this, see Deviti, M., ‘The barony of Okethy’, Kildare Arch. Soc. Jn., viii. 276-89Google Scholar.

77 Only the Mortimers seem to have complained, and that not till 1357 (Cal. pat. rolls, 1354.-8, p. 634).

78 Cal. rot. pat. Hib., p. 9, no. 78; P.R.I, rep. D.K. 39, pp. 66-7.

79 Cal. chart, rolls, 1300-26, p. 307; Cal. close rolls, 1313-18, p. 288.

80 Cal. chart. rolls, 1300-26, p. 360. Text in Cal. Ormond deeds, i. 217-18.

81 Cal. doc. Ire., 1302-7, no. 390; Cal. pat. rolls, 1307-13, p. 588; 1317-21, p. 43.

82 Cal. doc. Ire., 1302-7, no. 411; Cal. close rolls, 1302-7, pp. 331-2.

83 For their subsequent history, see Devitt, M., ‘The barony of Okethy’, Kildare Arch. Soc. Jn., viii. 289-301, 388-98, 464-88Google Scholar.

84 Cal. Ormond deeds, i, passim.

85 Cal. close rolls, 1360-4, p. 44.

86 P.R.I, rep. D.K., passim.

87 The service of the Pippard inheritance was among the fees held by de Vescy (Cal. doc. Ire., 1293-1301, no. 481), but only that of Cloncurry was now available.

88 See above, pp. 186-7.

89 P.R.I, rep. D.K.I. 43, pp. 16-17, 35-6, 46; Cal. close rolls, 1346-9, pp. 512-3, 580. The liability for a third of the whole service due from Leinster, which puzzled Orpen (Normans, iii. 106-7) must be due to the fact that it was in general the sheriff who proclaimed the service and collected the scutage: in a liberty this was the responsibility of the lord and his seneschal, and as we have seen the liberty of Kildare included the greater part of the territorial area of two full shares. But some of the knights’ fees involved lay outside Kildare—there were certainly some in Kilkenny—and this must explain why the other three Leinster liberties seem to owe between them 6⅔ services more than their full share: they must have been the collecting agents.

90 P.R.O., S.C. 8/222/11066.

91 P.R.I., rep. D.K. 39 p. 34; Cal. fine rolls, 1347-56, pp. 142-3 P.R.O., C 47/10/22, no. 17; S.C. 8/249/12403; S.C. 8/262/13052.