The Legends and Traditions of Huddersfield and Its District: Volume II, Part II (1944) by Philip Ahier

The following is the OCR text of a book and will likely contain conversion errors. This page is designed to be indexed by search engines. Click on a page number to view the book in your web browser.

Please note that the text is not in the Public Domain and should not be reproduced further without the express permission of the copyright holder or their estate.

Page 1






i Photographs by Mr. J. Hadfield — Perey ag ec re Pn I pie ‘Illustrations by Mr. G. N. Allsop.

PRICE 3/6.

1944. He ‘HUDDERSFIELD : _ Tre ApveErtiser Press Lrtp., Pace STREET.

Page 3






Photographs by Mr. J. Hadfield and ‘Hlustrations by Mr, G, N, Allsop.


Page 5


To Mr. JOE HADFIELD who has helped me with photographs former occasions and whose co- operation in the illustration: of this Part has been most

cordial and helpful.

Page 6



CHAPTER: I..- Continued.

(4) The Literary Sources of the Feud

(5) Problems connected with “The Elland Feud’’

(i) (ii) (iii) (iv) (v)

(vi) (vii).



Is the Story historically true ? The Cause of the Feud

The Dates between which the Feud took place The Identity of “ Hugh” de Quarmby

The Christian name of “Old” Lockwood de Lockwood

The Identity of Sir Robert Beaumont

The Age of Adam Beaumont at the time of his father’s murder in 1341

The Attestation by the various antagonists in the Feud of each other’s charters ...

The Part played by the Lacys of Cromwell- bottom in the Feud

The Relation between the Saviles and the de Elands

The scene of William de Lockwood’s death

(6) Conclusion

(7) Documentary Confirmations


at 65

65 67






85 87

89 a9

103 104

Page 7


Page 1. Mr. Fred Lawton, of Skelmanthorpe hy out 2 ae Bhand Old -.. aie eh jigs ae 3. Elland Mill and the Stones over the River ea ae re ra ia ct bie 4. The Bridge over the River Calder at Elland _... ee Oe Patt oF leas Moll) ee 6. A Doorway at Exley Hall ve a eat 7, ‘Bexley fall: |: ae oe a ee 77 So. “ihe Bridge at Elland ee as bas ie 9. The Old Earth Farm House A i ut Soe ee 10, Hilnod Cen a a oe Il. 200. =, a we a hee oe ee

12. Lockwood and his Lover in the Hollow of the Old Oak’ Tree in Paucy Park”... i a cc A

Page 8



As stated in the Preface to Part I., my own contribution to the literature of ‘‘The Elland Feud’’ is contained within these pages.

Even then, there still remains a section on ‘“‘The Places men- tioned in the ‘Sources,’’’ which has had to be held over to the third Part, and for which postponement, I crave indulgence of my

readers. ,

I am under a considerable debt of acknowledgment to the researches of Mr. Charles T. Clay, M.A., F.S.A., Librarian to the House of Lords, whose two most interesting and learned Mono- graphs on ‘‘The Family of and ‘‘The Family of Lacy of Cromwellbottom”’ have been of inestimable value in the writing of this Part.

I am also most grateful to Mr. Joe Hadfield for the excellent photographs which he has taken of some of the places which are mentioned in the story; to Mr. G. N. Allsop, A.T.D., I must once again express my very best thanks for having drawn sketches of

several episodes.

T cannot conclude this Preface without, once more, referring in most cordial terms, the facilities which have been granted to me at the Huddersfield Public Library ; to Mr. Horace Goulden, F.L.A., Public Librarian, and to his many Assistants, in the Reference

Room, I wish to convey my appreciation for valuable help received. PHILIP Lightridge Road, Huddersfield. August, 1944.

Page 10


Mr. FRED LAWTON, The G.O.M. of Skelmanthorpe.

Page 11



A perusal of the three ‘‘ sources’’ of the Elland Feud (pp. 6—50), will, no doubt, have convinced the reader, first, that among the wealth of episodes thus narrated, there are incorporated therein, many fictitious and fabulous elements (‘‘frillings,’’ as one writer terms them); secondly, that the Ballad version terminates with the flight of the conspirators from Ainley Wood and gives no account of the subsequent ends of young William de Lockwood and Adam Beaumont. It is quite possible that the first Balladist who versified the sundry which took place between the years 1341 and 1356 (the year in which young de Lockwood is supposed to have met his death), did not consider that the philan- dering of de Lockwood at Cannon Hall (or in Emley Park), and the ‘‘crusading’’ exploits of Adam Beaumont in Hungary and in the Island of Rhodes warranted such poetic treatment.

These three ‘‘sources’’ will be shortly considered in further detail, it is a moot point whether a prose version existed before the ballad or vice—versd.

I am inclined to think that in early 15th century days, if not even earlier, there was in existence ‘‘a primitive basic narrative’’ compiled by some unknown chronicler which contained the salient details of—

(a) The first series of triple murders at Quarmby Hall, at Lockwood Hall, and at Crosland Hall which probably took place in 1341 (sometimes referred to as Act I. I the ‘‘Drama’’ of The Elland Feud).

(b) The murder of Sir John de Eland the elder in Cromwell- bottom Woods in the October of the year 1850 (Act II.).

(c) The murder of Sir John de Eland the younger at Elland Mill on Palm Sunday, April 10th, 1351 (Act II.).

(d) The flight of the conspirators from Elland to Ainley Wood and their ultimate fate.

The ‘‘primitive basic narrative’’ has long since been lost, but the story of the murders, the flight of the conspirators, &c., must have been handed down for successive generations till the days of Henry VIII. As can be expected, during the course of two cen- turies of oral tradition, considerable extraneous matter was added to the actual events which occurred during the years 1841—1356.

From this ‘‘ primitive basic narrative ’’ no less than three types of written versions emerged :—

(i) A Play, now lost.

(ii) A Ballad, of which three are known to have been tran- scribed and probably enlarged from the one originally compiled. I )

Page 12


(iii) A Prose Account, of which there seems to have been no less than five different MS. transcriptions.

These sources can be set out in tabular form thus:

THE PRIMITIVE BASIC NARRATIVE mre pigs A Play (now lost) A Ballad Prose Narratives (i) ‘‘The Dyscorse,” or the Cannon Hall MS., transcribed by John

I I I The Holroyd Turner I The Cannon Hall Hanson.

MS. (pp. 45—50) I MS. (ii) “The first printed by The Beaumont-Watson MS. Mr. J. Horsfall Turner in 1890 (pp. 6—12). (iii) The Hopkinson M.S. (not yet printed).

(iv) The Broomhead Hall MS.

(v) “Revenge upon Revenge” (? Dr. S. Midgley, first printed i in 1708, pages 13—43).


Our knowledge that the story of the Elland Feud had been dramatised is derived from Dodworth, who, as already stated, (p. 122) summarised the episode and added : :-— This. appeareth by evidence and pedigree in the keeping of John Armitage, Esq. (of Kirklees Hall), and they have a Play and Song thereof in the country still’? (Y.A.J., Vol. II., p. 163).

The late Mr. J. Horsfall Turner, in his work on ‘‘The Elland T'rragedies’’ (p. 1), stated that the late Sir George Armytage, of Kirklees (1819—1899), had ‘‘made diligent but unsuccessful search for such writings,’’ which would, of course, have included both the play and the song, the latter, no doubt, being the Ballad. The Play Version of the Feud, was one of those dramatised ‘‘histories’’ which was written in the days of Queen Elizabeth, if not earlier. Students of English Literature will remember that this reign saw the evolution of the Chronicle Play of which the great exponent was William Shakespeare (1564—1616). Be- sides Shakespeare, historical episodes and events were drama- tised by Marlowe, Greene, Peele, and the anonymous writer of ‘“The Yorkshire It would seem that some unknown Yorkshire playwright, a forerunner of Messrs. J. R. Gregson and

J. Priestley, had, before the year 1629, dramatised the story of the Elland Feud.

It is quite conceivable that the play contained a good many fictitious episodes. Mr, Fred Lawton, of Skelmanthorpe, in an article entitled ‘‘Why I still believe that Lockwood, was killed in

Page 13


Emley Park,’’ said that the murders did not give sufficient matter for the whole of the play, and that a number of ‘‘frillings’’ was added, such as ‘‘the little boy eating bread and the big refusing,’”’ Lockwood’s speech when the conspirators had reached the age of twenty-one years, the story of the miller and his wife being shut in the mill, Lockwood meeting his cousins at Fenay Bridge, etc. Truth, local history, and everything must go, except the imagina- tion of an obscure play writer.’’


The Ballad Version usually piinted now-a-days was probably first written in metrical form in the days of Henry. VIII. (1509— 1547). It was first transcribed by John Hopkinson (1610—1680), the year 1650, so Dr. Whitaker in his ‘‘Loidis and Elmete’’ (p. 385) averred. Hopkinson accompanied Sir William Dugdale as his secretary in the Visitation of Yorkshire (1665—1666). In his spare moments, Hopkinson occupied himself in transcribing old deeds connected with Yorkshire families, and in compiling pedigrees. Copies of his MSS. are to be found in the British Museum and in the Leeds Fublic Library.

The Beaumont—Watson Transcript of the Ballad was first printed by the Rev. John Watson, in his ‘‘History of Halifax,’ written in 1775, in which he made ‘‘ Observations ’’ upon the theme, the persons and the places mentioned therein. This ver- sion of the Ballad was originally the property of Mr. R. H. Beaumont, of Whitley Hall (1748—1810), the well-known anti- quary, who had lent it to Watson.

Watson made the following ‘“Observations’’ upon the ‘‘poem’’ as he termed the Ballad :—

this humble well-meaning poet was, is quite uncertain, as is the time when it was wrote; it was penned some time after the facts as plainly appears from the 13th and 27th verses, and yet the style shews it to be no modern composition.’’ I

am of opinion that it was wrote by some bard, for the use of the minstrels, to be sung to the gentlemen of these parts, at _ their public entertainments, and divided, for that reason, into parts, between each of which there was always a considerable interval allowed, either to indulge variety, or that the company _ might better make their remarks on the performance and the un- common facts therein recorded.’’

‘And amongst the great variety of these kind of compositions still extant, this subject is not the least curious, for which reason it is a little to be wonderéd at that this is the first time of its

Page 14


making its first appearance in the world.’’ (‘‘History of Halifax,’ p. 176). 7 This version of the Ballad was also printed by Dr. T. D. Whitaker in his ‘‘History of Loidis and Elmete,’’ written in 1816, pp. 896—401. The latter made a critical study of the whole poem. His final verdict upon this version was :—

‘‘T suspect the whole to be an expansion of a much more ancient, and perhaps almost contemporary ballad, which has now irretrievably perished. Tradition could never have carried down so many probable and consistent facts from the reign of Edward III. to that of Henry VIII., and not have failed to gather in its course much of the wonderful and the fabulous.’’ (‘‘Loidis and Elmete,’’ pp. 395—396).

Crabtree, in his ‘‘History of Halifax,’’ written in 1836, also printed the Ballad and added a few notes on the persons therein named. ‘

Of Huddersfield historians, Hobkirk summarised the story of the Feud in his first edition of his ‘‘History of Huddersfield,’’ written in 1859, and which was reproduced on pages 3 and 4. Hobkirk also wrote the story in the form of a historical novel, which appeared in the ‘‘Huddersfield Weekly News,’’ (Oct. 1881—

April, 1882). The story containéd many ‘‘chronological inexacti- _

tudes,’’ and introduced ‘‘Robin Hood and His Merry Men.’’ The late Mr. D. F. E. Sykes, in his ‘‘History of Huddersfield and its Vicinity,’’ (pp. 48—52), related the story of the Feud, and inter— spersed it with illustrative extracts from the Ballad. Mr. Taylor Dyson, M.A., in his ‘‘History of Huddersfield and its District,”’ reproduced the greater part of the Beaumont—Watson version ol the Ballad.

The date of the composition of this version of the Ballad was discussed by Whitaker in his ‘‘Loidis and Elmete’’ in these words :

“The present poem, wherever the writer procured his materials, is later, by a little less than two centuries, than the events which it records. Hopkinson, indeed, has given it an air of modernism to which it is not entitled by having altered the spelling ; yet, on the whole, I am inclined to refer it to the end of Henry VIII.’s reign (1509—1547), when, from several other speci- mens, it appears that a humour of versifying prevailed in this country. Before that time I think it cannot be placed from inter— nal evidence, nor after it from external. The hint given to ‘‘Savile’’ not to lose the good graces of the people by pride, may well suit Sir Henry Savile, who died in 1558, but would have been impertinent had it been addressed to Edward Savile, his long-lived son, an idiot. After his death, which did not happen till 1604, it is too late to fix the date. To prove that it cannot be fixed earlier, if the style did not suffice, there are several hints of the distance


Page 15


of time, and the remark thrown in, to obviate the objection from so much violence having escaped with impunity, that there was then no regular police.’’ (‘‘Loidis and Elmete,’’ p. 395).


A second MS. version of the Ballad was discovered about 1887, along with a prose narrative, entitled ‘‘The Discourse of ye slaughter of Eland, Beaumont, Lockwood, Quarmby, etc.’’ ‘This MS., which, in 1890, was the property of Mr. H. T. Barber, of Halifax, and’is now in the possession of Mr. A. Exley, of Gerrards Cross, bespeaks a much older date than 1650 as given by Mr. Beaumont, the antiquary, from Hopkinson’s copy (J. Horsfall Turner, ‘‘Elland Tragedies,’’ p.+51). Mr. J. Horsfall Turner made the. following statement upon these two MSS; of “The Elland Feud’’ discovered in 1887 :—

‘‘In a comparatively modern hand, is the note; ‘This copy was communicated by J. B. Holroyd, now Lord Sheffield.’ John Baker Holroyd was born in 1735, was created Earl of Sheffield ir 1768, and died in 1821. The Holroyds were a very ancient local family, and the manuscript must have been written about 1620, as I judged by the caligraphy, and had evidently been preserved by the family. It could not have been communicated to Mr. Watson or to Dr. Whitaker, before the publication of their His- tories, or they would undoubtedly have copied its quaint wording’s and extra (?) verses. I am decidedly of the opinion that the copies, for there must have been at least two, were taken from a much earlier version, and whilst Mr. Beaumont’s (used by Mr. Watson) was modernised, the one Mr. Barber has recently secured was copied literatim, and although shorter, gives some extra (!) verses”’ (“Elland Tragedies,’’ p. 51).

It is difficult to understand how Mr. Turner arrived at the conclusion that there were extra verses in the Holroyd—Turner transcript of the Ballad, actually it contains 111 verses to the 124 in the Beaumont—-Watson version. Probably what Mr. Turner meant to imply was that there was one verse (No. 74, p. 48) which did not have its counter-part in the Beaumont—Watson transcript.

Mr. Turner was of the same opinion as Dr. Whitaker, that an older Ballad had existed, and that from it two versions which I have designated the Watebs and the Holroyd— Turner transcript were copied, and ultimately printed, the first by Watson in 1775, in his ‘‘History of (pp. 170—176) and the second by himself in 1890, in his ‘‘Elland Tragedies’’ (pp. 59—82). Mr. Turner printed the two versions with the correspond- ing verses under each other in a ‘‘staggered”’ style.


Page 16


_ The Holroyd MSS. contained, besides a transcript of the Ballad, a prose narrative regarding which Mr. A. Exley, its pre sent owner, sends me the following particulars :— \

‘‘My MSS. start with the poem on the verso of the first leaf followed by ‘The Discourse’ on the recto of the second leaf, the poem resuming on the verso of that and ‘The Discourse’ on the recto of the third leaf and so on to the end.”’

The Holroyd—tTurner transcript of the Ballad does not seem to have received the attention which it really deserves. Althougn it is shorter by thirteen verses than the Beaumont—Watson ver- .sion, yet it contains fewer ‘‘moral reflections’’ upon the motives -and deeds of the various actors who took part in the Feud.

A perusal of the transcript indicates that, at two places, the writer of the original Ballad had seen some earlier MS. relating the events of the Feud, but whether this MS. was in poetry or in prose, is not known :—

(a) In verse 17, when the murder of Sir Robert Beaumont at Crosland Hall, he says :—

‘“Yet have I read most certainly (be) headed before he were.’”’ _ (p. 45).

Mr. Horsfal! Turner, in an asterisk oy asked the question, nere oO?

(b) Part III. commences with the words :—

‘When Sr John Eland thus was Slaine, indeed ye story tells, both Beaumont & his fears (=fellows) certaine fled all to Forness fells.’’ (v. 60, p. 47).

(c) Although the pronoun ‘‘I’’ is omitted in the second line of verse 89, and is inserted in the corresponding verse 97 of the ~Beaumont—Watson transcript of the Ballad, yet there is the hint given that the Balladist had seen some previous source :—

‘“ What times these skayes (=schemes) did frame, ° deeds (I) have read and heard”’ ; (p. 48). Unfortunately, the original ‘‘primitive basic narrative,’’ is, as yet, non-existent; if it should be discovered, a great many problems with which the Feud is complicated might be solved.

It is almost certain that many copies of the first Ballad were made for the use of those wandering minstrels, who sung it in the halls of the nobility and gentry in Tudor and Stuart days; it is also possible that the Master of the House desired to have a copy, and that this is the explanation of those formerly in the possession of the Earl of Sheffield (J. B. Holroyd) and Mr. R. H. Beaumont.

Frequent transcripts would result in diverse styles of spelling and probably account for the additional verses containing the ‘‘moral

Page 17


The Holroyd-Turner transcript is decidedly West Riding in composition and style (as no doubt was the other version before Hopkinson modernised the spelling), as witness the number of dialect words and expressions, e.g., ligg (=lie); brigg (=bridge) ; whome (=home); maister (=master), etc.; there are likewise several obsolete words used, e.g., skayes (=schemes); appaid (=aggrieved); wight (=person), etc.; there are one or two in- stances of a plural subject being linked with a singular verb, e.g., ‘‘Lacy and Lockwood was with them,’’ ‘‘more gentlemen yn (=then) was not there.’’ The spelling of many words differs from that in the other version, e.g., ‘‘deceipt’’ for ‘‘deceit,’’ while occasionally a different word is used from that found in the Beaumont—Watson transcript, e.g., ‘‘sent’’ for ‘‘hent,’’ etc.

There is internal evidence in this version that it is more ac- curate in the facts related than those given in the other ‘‘poem’’ (the Beaumont-Watson), and even more so than some of those recorded in the two prose narratives, ‘‘“The Discourse’’ and ‘‘Re- venge upon Revenge’’ (pp. 6—12, pp. 13—43).

(a) There is no mention of ‘‘Hugh’’ de Quarmby’s being the first victim of Sir John de Eland the elder’s hatred (v. 11, p. 45); this is a most important point and appears to have been completely overlooked by Mr. J. H. Turner and later historians; further con- tiene of this will be given on pages 78 and 79.

po verse 63 (p. 47), Savile’s abode is said to be at Rish- nea ereas the other transcript of the ballad gives Rush- worth; is might, however, be a copyist’s spelling error.

(c) i cs is mentioned in verse 93 (p. 49) as one of the townsmen of Elland who rose up in arms against the conspirators (Adam Beaumont, etc.), after the murder of Sir John de Eland the younger. It ‘‘is probably the name in the original ballad and not Rimmington (as in the Beaumont-Watson transcript) which was not then locally known,’’ so suggested Mr. Turner (‘‘The Elland Tragedies,’’ p. 78). Incidentally, Wilkinson is the rame given n ‘The: Discourse’’.{p, 9).

Watson’s ‘‘observations’’ upon the ‘‘poem’’ which he printed in his ‘‘History of Halifax’’ (pp. 176—180), can now be considered He correlated these notes with a prose narrative of the: Feud which he stated he had seen in Hopkinson’s MSS.; this prose narrative does not seem to have been ‘‘The Discourse’’ (pp. 6—12) which latter account differs in one or two places from the extracts quoted by Watson from the former unprinted MS. story of the Feud These ‘‘observations’’ apply equally to the Holroyd-Turner transcript of the ballad; I have given the numbers of the verses in this last-named version : —

(1) (verse 8, p. 45). The patent for making Elland a market town was as ‘“‘the balladist weened (=supposed) under King

Page 18


Edward Seal.’’ From an MS. in the British Museum (Harleian I Collection), Watson gathered that this grant of market rights had been made in the year 1317. Mr. C. T. Clay, in his monograph on ‘‘The Family of Eland,’’ reproduced the text of this grant which he extracted from the Calender of Charter Rolls, 1300— 1326 (p. 334) :— ‘‘1316—1317, Feb. 24, Grant, at the request of Earl Warren, to John de Eland and his heirs, of a weekly market on Tuesday at _the Manor of Elland, and of two yearly fairs there, one on the day before the vigil, the vigil and the feast of St. Barnabas (June 11th), and the other on the day before the vigil, the vigil and the feast of St. Peter and Vincula (August Ist). (Y.A.J., Vol. 27, p. 236)

(ii) The fact that Crosland Hall ‘‘was watered well about’’ (v. 14, p. 45), indicated, as pointed out by Watson, that the ‘‘poet’’ was fully acquainted with the topography of that homestead at the time he compiled the ‘‘poem’’; a part of the moat of Crosland Hall can still be seen in Mr. Saxton’s farm-yard at South Crosland. On the other hand, the omission of the mention of moats around Quarmby Hall and Lockwood Hall was duly noted by Watson.

(iii) (v. 25, p. 46). Watson’s remark is: ‘‘This threat was not carried out for while Sir John’s issue was entirely cut off, that I of the Beaumonts continued.’’ The Beaumont family is now re- presented, first, by Capt. H. R. Beaumont, formerly of Whitley Hall, and secondly, by Viscount Allendale, of Bretton Hall. (Vol. 1.5 p48).

(iv) Watson’s account of the attitude of the Lacys of Crom- wellbottom will be considered on page 87. !

It is generally believed that Sir Henry Savile, who died in 1558, was the patron of the copyist of the Beaumont-Watson _ version of the Ballad. Except in one important particular, the references to this gentleman’s ancestor, who was a contemporary of Sir John de Eland the elder, are alike in both transcripts, and will be discussed later (p. 90).

No information, however, is given to Sir Henry Savile in the Holroyd-Turner version to ‘‘dwell in as is found in the other. The corresponding appeal to the nobility and gentry who had the pleasure, or otherwise, of hearing the Ballad recited Or sung, is in general terms, (vv. 108—111, p. 50), no particular family being singled out for honourable mention. ;

Page 19

2%, 72. é STL 0, Mee LRTI


oe lbh LL


WY Ma OSS a NOR ney :

Wily Rr 17 a LL,

ELLAND: OLD = HALL Sketch by Mr. G. N. Allsop

CE: ge Me 5 Re gO One ares

+2 tae fete. > LPI eg Pen tes. Se

os eee, <5 + oOo . ? ee O69, Pode Mn Oe rg a Oat oly oh, Org, Or eM a? Patera’ er eto rotate ie

ry Oboe ms

LN NN ie Hany a; I OL A i uur be \ si TA



ts SS rhe RNG ea

IA zi NY. ai

4 a


Page 20


There are no less than five extant and distinct prose narratives of the Elland Feud :—

(a ‘‘ The Dyscorse of the Slayter of Eland, Lockwood, Quarmby.”’

(‘‘The Dyscorse,’’ or the Hanson MS., or, the Cannon Hall MS., formerly in the possession of the late Mr. J. Montague Stanhope, M.A., J.P., of Cannon Hall). The first chapter of ‘‘The Dyscorse’’ commences with the preamble :— !

‘“Howe Sr John Eland of Eland Haule and Sir Robert Beau— mont, of Crosland Haule, had battled th’ on agenst th’ other in behalf of theye maistere, whom hey weare faythfull unto whyche was a destruction unto them bothe.’

Mrs. A. M. W.. Stirling, in her * Annals of a Yorkshire House,’’ which deals with the History of Cannon Hall and its owners, prints the. whole of the third chapter of ‘‘The Dyscorse’’ with its title Lockwood was enamoured on a woman dwellyng at Cannell Houle and how he was betrayd and slaine.”’

Enclosed in the same Cannon Hall MS., so Mrs. Stirling states, ‘‘is a copy of it, together with a less accurate ballad ver- sion, contained under the same cover and evidently dating from some generations later.’’ (‘‘Annals,’’ Vol. 1., p. 7).

Mrs. Stirling says that this MS. of ‘‘The Elland Feud’? is in the handwriting of John Hanson, the antiquarian of Rastrick, who I died 1621, and whose daughter, Mary, married Walter Stanhope, the ancestor of the late Mr. J. M. Spencer Stanhope, above mentioned. A photograph of ‘‘The Elland Manuscript’’ appears on page 19 of ‘‘The Annals of a Yorkshire House.’’ Mrs. Stirling is of the opinion that this MS. is an original document of which the others are ‘‘bowdlerised copies.’’ (‘‘Annals,’’ Vol. II., p. 325). I I Mrs. Stirling had the privilege of seeing and studying this particular MS., nevertheless I am inclined to think that Johh Hanson transcribed this version from one compiled in early Tudor days and retained much of its archaic spelling, whereas the copyist of ‘‘*The modernised the spelling in many places. The punctuation marks in ‘‘The Dyscorse’’ are fewer; it abounds in contractions, e.g., ‘‘prmytt’’ for ‘‘permit,’’ ‘‘depted’’ for ‘‘de- parted,’’ etc. There) is at least one error in Chapter III., John Hanson copied ‘‘Buley Haule’’ where ‘‘Emley Hall’’ should have been written. Bewlay Hall is on the west side of the River Nidd near Pateley Bridge.

(b) The Hopkinson MS. , The Rev. J. Watson, in his ‘‘Observations’’ on the ‘‘poem”’ . (p. 178), refers to this MS. The greater bulk of these manu-

Page 21


scripts is to be found in the Leeds Public Library, but owing to the War, this priceless collection has been removed to a place of safety and is inaccessible to students.

(c) The Broomhead Hall MS. Mr. Horsfall Turner, in his ‘‘Elland Tragedies’’ (p. 6), wrote:

‘‘Among Mr. Wilson’s MS. at Broomhead Hall near Sheffield, sold in 1743 to Sir Thomas Phillips probably, we are told that there was a copy of ‘The Elland Tragedy,’ as reported by the Rev. Joseph Hunter, who made a catalogue of the collection.’’ (Hunter, Yorkshire,’’ Vol. II., p. 431). A consultation ofthis volume has, so far, failed to reveal the existence of this para-


(d) The Discourse of ye of Eland, etc. (pp. 6—12).

This MS., as already stated, was printed under the title in 1890 by the late Mr. J. Horsfall Turner in his ‘‘Elland Trage- dies’’ (pp. 52—58).

The compiler, or copyist, probably the latter, appears to have had at his disposal other sources of information, for,

(i) The prose narrative (‘‘The Discourse’’) and the ‘‘Stanzo”’ referred to on page 9, formed a complete manuscript now in the possession of Mr. A. Exley (p. 1). I

(ii) As Mr. Turner himself suggested (p. 12), he (the copyist) may have ‘‘copied it from an older manuscript.”

This prose version is certainly older in date than ‘‘Revenge upon Revenge,’’ which was probably written by Dr. Midgley (pp. 13—43), but according to Mrs. A. M. 'W. Stirling it is later in date than John Hanson’s transcription of ‘‘The Dyscorse’’—the Cannon Hall MS. Mr. Turner thought this MS. dated between the years 1600—1630 (p. 12). I

‘The embodies many interesting features not found in the Beaumont-Watson transcript of the Ballad or in “Revenge upon Revenge.’’

(a) The dates of years and months in which some of the epi- sodes of the Feud took place are given :—

(i) We are told (p. 6) that the triple murders of ‘‘Hugh’’ de Quarmby, old Lockwood of Lockwood, and Sir Robert Beaumont occurred in the month of May, but, the copyist omitted to state in what year !

(ii) The date of Sir John de Eland the elder’s murder by Adam Beaumont and his companions is given, in brackets, as having taker. place in ‘‘21-E. III., 1347,’’ (p. 8).. The date. usually as- cribed to this murder is October, 1350 (p. 66).

Page 22


(iii) The date of Savile’s marriage to the sister (?) of Sir John de Eland the younger is given as 1326 (p. 9). This is one of the many problems connected with the accuracy of the statements made in ‘‘The Discourse’’—a solution thereof is given later (p. 91).

(iv) At the conclusion of Chapter Il. appears the sentence (p. 9) :— ‘‘On ye other page Stanzo: 89 (p. 9), it is said ys (=this) was done in King Edward ye 3ds Reign, who began to regne Jan., 1326, and reigned 51 years. So his reign ended a:d 1377.”

The reign of King Edward III. is now recorded as 13827— 1377, and the discrepancy can be explained by the fact that Janu- ary, 1326, is now regarded as January, 1327, as the result of the Calendar having been altered in 1751. (b) The relationship (‘‘nigh between Sir Robert Beaumont and old ‘‘Hugh’’ de Quarmby and that between the former and old Lockwood de Lockwood, are mentioned (p. 6). From the pedigree of the Beaumonts of Whitley (p. 83), we learn that Sir Robert married Agnes de Quarmby (or de Quernby), the sister of William de Quarmby. As yet, the connection between the Beaumonts and the de Lockwoods has not been established.

(c) The cause of the Feud is more explicitly stated in ‘‘The ‘‘Discourse’’ than in the Ballad. It is hardly conceivable that the first Balladist could have versified the reasons which made Sir — John de Eland the elder vent his spleen upon Sir Robert Beaumont and his friends in such a brutal manner.

(d) The story of Lockwood’s philandering with ‘‘his woman”’ at Cannon Hall and in Emley Park, as well as of his untimely end at Cannon Hall, are related in graphic detail; although, as will be mentioned later, (p. 99), a strong local tradition states that Lock- wood was put to death in Emley Park, and not in Cannon Hall.

(ce) But the most important fact mentioned in ‘‘The Dis- course,’’ (and also in ‘‘The Dyscorse’’), and which has since been confirmed by the discovery of the actual documents in question, 4s the statement at the conclusion of Chapter III. regarding -war- rants for the arrest of Adam Beaumont :— ‘*There came down from London diverse processes directed to ye Sheriffe and diverse other Noblemen for. to attach (=arrest) him’’ (p. 12). These documents will be considered later (p. 66), but this I sentence alone certainly gives reason to believe that there are some elements of truth in the story of the Elland Feud in spite of the denials and scepticism of former historians. One point of divergence between a statement found in “‘The Discourse’’ and the corresponding account in Hopkinson’s MS. is- worth observing :—

Page 23


‘‘The Discourse’’ says that ‘‘ye Knight’s servants raised ye Town of Eland to revenge ye death of their Lord,’’ (p. 9), but in Hopkinson’s MS., it is written “‘the town and neighbourhood were raised by; the sound of horn and the ringing of bells back— wards’’ (Watson, ‘‘History of Halifax,’’ p. 180). Several other interesting features of ‘‘The Discourse’’ will be considered in the section entitled ‘‘Problems connected with the Feud”’ (pp. 65—99). Discourse’’ ends with the letters ‘‘F.N.’’ Mat, 7% Horsfall Turner commented upon this conclusion of the above prose version with these remarks: ‘‘I am at a loss to recognise these initials. The writer must have lived about 1600—1630 judging by his caligraphy. He has certainly copied from an older manuscript.’’ (‘‘Elland Tragedies,’’ p, 58).

I am inclined to think that the letters F.N. may be an abbre- viation of the Latin word ‘‘Finis’*—the end !

(e) “Revenge upon Revenge,” or ‘‘ An Historical Narrative of the ey Practices of Sir John Eland, of Eland, etc.” (pp. 13—43 The ‘‘Revenge’’ was first printed i in 1708, in William “Halifax and its Gibbet Law.’’

The writer of this prose narrative is generally supposed to have been Dr. Samuel Midgley ; in fact, Watson said that he was the real author of the work published for Bentley, the Parish Clerk of Halifax, which was printed in London.

Dr. Midgley had been imprisoned for debt in York Castle and had been similarly incarcerated three times in the Jail at Halifax, at which place he died on the 18th of July, 1695. His poverty prevented him from printing his MS., which he wrote for his own support, and thus ‘‘he not only lost the benefit of his life-time, but another’s name was added to his work after he died’’ (Watson, ‘‘History of Halifax,’’ p. 491). Watson also stated that this prose story of the Feud was ‘‘very ill told and entirely taken from the above poem’’—the ballad which he had printed in his History (pp. 170—176).

Mr. J. Horsfall Turner printed the ‘‘Revenge’’ in his ‘‘Elland Tragedies” (pp. 17—48), and also the sequel which had likewise appeared in Bentley’s ‘‘Halifax and its Gibbet Law.’’ The title of the sequel reads :—

‘A short but full account of the Lives and Deaths of Wilkin Lockwood, and Adam Beaumont, Esqs., and What Travels and Adventures happened unto them ‘after the Battle with Eland Men in Anely Wood, as the name is Recorded in a very Ancient Manu- script, in the Custody of a very worthy Gentleman, kindly com- municated for Public Satisfaction.”’ (p. 33).

Page 24


There can be no doubt that-the three Chapters of the ‘‘Re- venge’’ and the ‘‘Account of the Lives and Deaths of Wilkin Lockwood, etc.’’ are one and the same part of the original manu- script, and that Bentley (or the London printer) in 1708 split it up into sections which were printed under these two titles. Prob-. ably, if Dr. Midgley had printed his own prose version of the Feud, it would have assumed an entirely different form; he would no doubt have divided it into the same chapters as those of ‘‘The Discourse.”’ . I

The writer of the ‘‘Revenge,’’ whether it be Dr. Midgley, or not, says that he is re-telling the story as told by the Balladist— ‘‘the old poet,’’ as he terms him, while in ‘‘The Account of the Lives and Deaths of Wilkin Lockwood’’ there are likewise refer— ences to ‘‘an old poet.”’

When was the story ‘‘ Revenge upon Revenge ’’ originally written ?

(a) The use of the word ‘‘Cabal,’' which occurs a few times in the second chapter of ‘‘The Revenge’’ suggests that it was written after the year 1674, when that word became common, due to its association with the names of Charles II.’s Ministers, viz., Clifford, Ashley, Buckingham, Arlington and Lauderdale, their initials forming the word ‘‘Cabal,’’ although the New English Dictionary gives an earlier use of the word (Vol. II., p. 2).

(b) The writer’s reference to ‘‘Savile, the lineal ancestor oi the Right Honourable the late Marquess of Halifax,’’ gives a clue that it was written after the death of the first Marquess on April 6th, 1695; or, perhaps, it may have been written after the death of the second Marquess of Halifax, which took place on the 31st of August, 1700.

(c c) If Dr. Samuel } Midgley be the real author of “Revenge — upon Revenge,’’ then he must have written it before his death, which took place on July 18th, 1695, in the Halifax Jail.

(d) As the MS, was printed in London for William Bentley, of Halifax, in 1708, there seems every reason to believe that it was. written between the years 1695 and, 1708 (within narrow limits, April to July, 1695), and also that the drew his facts from older MSS., both in verse and in prose.

It would be interesting to know who was the owner of that ancient manuscript, who is described in the sequel (‘‘The Lives, &c.’’) as ‘‘a very Worthy Gentleman,’’ who had ee communicated’’ it ‘‘for Public Satisfaction’? ?

As this prose narrative of the Elland Feud is ‘‘ill told’? and of a much later date than the others previously mentioned, I 90 not propose to discuss it in further detail. 7

Page 25


A condensed version of ‘‘Revenge upon Revenge,’’ which omitted a good deal of the philosophical moralisings, was printed by Mr. Thomas Castle in ‘‘The Journal of The Spen Valley Liter- ary and Scientific Society’’ (Vol. I., No. 5, pp. fortunately there are references to the Earl of Manchester where the correct name should be the Earl of Lancaster ! f


At the present time, there is a large number of problems con- nected with the Feud, some have been discussed by former writers, but many others have hardly been mentioned.


For many years considerable doubt existed as to whether the events narrated in the Ballads and in the Prose Versions were historical facts or not.

Wright, in his ‘‘History of Haitian, > written in 1738, refused to print the story, as, to quote Watson, ‘‘ he disbelieved it, and his reason for so doing was because the whole seems to have been done in defiance of all law, but many things of this sort, it is weil— known, were transacted in those early unsettled times, and little or no notice taken of them, except getting a formal pardon from the Crown, which, I doubt not, but Sir John Eland obtained’’ (Watson, of Halifax,’’ p. 176). I Mr. R. H. Beaumont, F.S.A., the well-known antiquarian, of Whitley Hall (1748—1810), declared the whole story to, be a myth, ‘‘because at the very period of the tragedy the different parties appear to have been at peace, so far as it may be inferred from their attesting each other’s charters.’’ (Whitaker, ‘‘Loidis and Elmete,’’ p. 395). ‘‘But,’’ wrote Dr. Whitaker in the re— futation of this objection, this argument is not’conclusive; there was an interval of fifteen years in which, though the flame was not extinct, it was smothered under embers, so that the decent appear- ances were kept up between the survivors of the families. In my opinion, the poem authenticates itself. ? (‘‘Loidis. and p. 395.) In spite of Dr. Whitaker’ s efforts to overcome Mr. R. H. Beaumont’s criticism, the latter’s argument has been quoted by later historians who have been sceptical about the truth of the story, either as a whole or about parts of it.’ Even the late Mr. G. W. Tomlinson described the Feud as ‘“ poetical fiction.’’ (Y. A.J., Vol. VIII., p. 503).

Page 26


It was not until 1890, when the late Mr. W. Paley Baildou discovered in the Public Record Office that a writ had been sent down ta Yorkshire from London on account of the murder of the de Elands (Y.A.J., Vol. XI., p. 129), that local historians began to realise that there was an; element of truth in the latter part of the story, although, as previously stated, (p. 51) it contains many ‘fictitious and fabulous elements.’’

As already stated (Vol. I., p. 128), there is, as yet, no docu- . mentary evidence to prove, that Sir John de Eland the elder mur- dered ‘‘Hugh’’ de Quarmby of Quarmby, Old Lockwood de Lock- wood, and Sir Robert Beaumont, but a few documents (to be found in the Calendar of Patent Rolls and elsewhere), have con- firmed the undoubted: facts that Sir John de Eland the elder was murdered in the October of the year 1350, and that his son met with the same fate in the following year.

From these documents, we learn that—

(i) In March, 1350, William de Horneby, son of William de Quernby (Quarmby), and William, son of Thomas de Lockwood, were in prison at York, ‘‘for felonies and trespasses in the West Riding.’’ They appear to have escaped on regained their liberty for the same document concludes with the words, ‘‘as the King is _informed that the said William (de Quarmby) and William (de Lockwood) purpose to procure their deliverance fraudulently by suborned or procured Jurors, by mainprise, or by some other means’’ (Calendar of Patent Rolls, 1348—1350, p. 530; Y.A.J., Vol. 27, p. 242). It would seem from the subsequent events ot the year 1350, that they did regain their liberty.

(ii) On the 8th of September, 1350, Sir John de Eland the elder made his will, and therein stated that he desired to be buried in the Chapel at Elland, he also appointed his wife, Aline, to be his executrix. This will was proved on the 24th of November, 1350, (Register Zouche, Halifax Wills, Vol. II., p. 214). If the story, as related by the Balladist (and in ‘‘The Discourse’’) be true that he was murdered as he was returning from the Brighouse tourn (or court-leet), then he met his end in the October of that year, in which month and in April, the tourn was held. I (iii) On July 6th, 1351, a Commission was sent to William de Plumpton, Brian de Thornhill, and a number of others, ‘‘reciting that Adam Beaumont, William de Lockwode and very many other felons the death of John de Eland, one of the King’s Justices, appointed to hear and determine trespasses in the West Riding, Co. York, gathering to themselves a very great number of felons and evildoers, have killed John, son of said John, because he (Sir John de Eland the younger) was suing before the King to punish them for his father’s death, and many others of the house- hold and friendship of the said John de Eland, etc.’’ (Cal. Pat. Rolls, 1350—1354, p. 156; Y.A.J., Vol. 27, pp. 242-243).

Page 27


This document conclusively proves that Sir John de Eland the younger was dead by the 6th of July, 1851, and that previous to this date he had been suing before King Edward III. for the punishment of his father’s murderers. If again, the story as related in the Ballad and in the Prose narratives be true that the younger Sir John was murdered on Palm Sunday, 1351, by Adam Beaumont, William de Lockwood and William de Quarmby, then, _as already suggested, this murder can be definitely fixed as having taken place on the 10th of April, 1351. From this document, also, it will be noted, that there is no reference to William de Quarmby, and, it is thus possible that the Prose and Ballad versions of his death at the hands of the men of Elland may be likewise true, (p. 9, p. 383; verses 99—106, p. 48).

(iv) After the murder of Sir John de Eland the younger, various persons in Huddersfield, Almondbury, Brighouse, Holm- firth, Skelmanthorpe, etc., harboured the three remaining con- spirators, Adam Beaumont, William de Lockwood and Thomas Lacy :— . In 1353, Robert de Bothe and his brother, Richard of Holm— firth, Matthew de Hepworth of Huddersfield, Thomas Litster ot Almondbury, and Ralph of Skelmanthorpe, were arrested and subsequently tried at York for having ‘‘received William de Lock- wood and Adam Beaumont (who had feloniously slain John de Eland, knight).’’ Edmund de Flockton was similarly charged for having harboured Adam Beaumont; and Thomas Molot of Wake- field, ‘‘because he maintained Thomas, son of Thomas Lacy, who had feloniously slain John de Eland, knight, and because he gave the said Thomas, son of Thomas, forty shillings of silver, for his maintenance, after the said felony, and knowing that he had com- mitted it. (P.R.O. Assize, N. 129, Mem. 17, printed in Y.A,J,, Vol. XI, p. 128). Strange to relate, all these persons were ac-- quitted.

Two other documents, dated 1855 and 1357, printed on pages 104—106 also deal with the same type of chargé, and clearly prove that Adam Beaumont and his two friends were accomplices in the murder of Sir John de Eland the younger.


No satisfactory reasons, as yet, have been given as to why the Feud arose, nor is it definitely known why Sir Robert Beaumont was murdered by Sir John de Eland the elder in- 1341. Three (if not four) suggestions have been put forward :—

(a) A local development of the Lancaster—de Warenne dis- pute, 1317—1322.

Page 28


f Photo by. Mr. J. Hadfield.


Photo by Mr. J. Hadfield.

Page 29


This explanation of the cause of the Feud has already been discussed in Volume I. (pp. 121—123), and as I therein argued, this dispute had no. bearing; whatever on the murders which took place in 1341, 1350 and 1351.

(b) A private quarrel between Sir John de the elder and Sir Robert Beaumont.

In support of this contention which seems more feasible than that formulated by Dodsworth (p. 121), we have the statement of the Balladist :—

“* Some say that Eland sheriff was By Beaumont disobey’d, Which might him make for that trespass With him the worse appaid.”’ - —_(v. 9, p. 45). Mr. G. T. Clay, in his monograph on ‘‘The Family of Eland’’ (Y.A.J., Vol. 27, p. 244), suggested that ‘‘some such occurrence as described in the first part of the ballad would seem to afford a more reasonable origin of the feud, that is to say, a dispute be— tween Sir Robert Beaumont and Sir John de Eland during the latter’s term of office as Sheriff.’’

Unfortunately, the precise act of disobedience committed by Sir Robert Beaumont towards Sir John de Eland the elder is not known; the Balladist is not explicit, he seems dubious on this: point, as Watson, in his ‘‘History of Halifax,’’ originally ob- served.

Later writers, who have summarised the story of the Feud, have, without any documentary evidence, endeavoured to give the nature of this disobedience :—

(1) The late Mr. Smith Carter, of Netherton, in his ‘‘History of Crosland Hall’’ (published in 1910), wrote :— ©

‘Hugh of Quarmby, Lockwood of Lockwood and Sir Robert Beaumont of Crosland, had refused to attend Sir John, when summoned to do so, on one of his visits to York as the Sheriff of the West Riding. This must have been the cause of the hostility, for shortly afterwards, his ire inflamed by wine, etc.”’

(2) The anonymous compiler of ‘‘The History of Elland,’’ in a little booklet published by the Bile Beans Company, wrote in ai similar vein :— I ‘‘Three of his (Sir John de Eland’s) neighbours aroused his passionate hatred because they ignored his summons to accompany him to Court at York as attendants on him, the Sheriff of the West Racing 07° (3) William Andrews, in ‘‘Historic (p. 71), gave another fanciful reason, which is, as yet, devoid of truth :— ‘‘Surrounded on every side by the evidences of his wealth and power, he looked with the watchfulness of jealousy upon the for-

Page 30


tunes of his neighbours, especially upon the wealth and influence of Sir Robert Beaumont, of Crossland Hall (sic); whom he re- garded with feelings of the utmost hatred, partly for these reasons, and partly, it is thought, because Sir Robert and certain of his friends had come into some estates which Sir John had expected to inherit (!) Doubtless he would in his capacity of Sheriff strain his authority to be revenged upon his enemies.’’

(4) Dr. Midgley, or whoever wrote the prose narrative ‘‘Re- venge upon Revenge,’’ suggested that the cause of the trouble arose “‘from some undervaluing and degrading words which should have been spoken against Sir John Eland, or else, that in con- tempt of his authority, in one kind or another, his commands had been openly disobeyed, by the said Beaumont and Quarmby and the rest of their allies, as he was the King’s High Sheriff.’”’ (p. 16).

These additions to the older narratives which have no docu- mentary foundation can only cause confusion, and are to be de- precated.

(c) The account in ‘‘The Discourse’’ is a little more explicit, and says that Exley, a relation of Sir Robert Beaumont, had slain a brother’s son of Sir John de Eland the elder ‘‘for the which he (Exley) had agreed to’ give a certain piece of land to the Elands; yet after the agreement was made, Sir John Eland sought to have him slain, and therefore Exley was constrained to flee unto Sir Robert Beaumont for aid, who, because he was his. kinsman, rescued him, which partly was the occasion of the great malice that was betwixt the said Robert Beaumont and Sir John Eland." (‘‘The Discourse,’’ ‘pp. 6, 7).

According to this older prose MS., the harbouring of Exley by Sir Robert Beaumont was ‘‘partly’’ the cause of the quarrel between Sir John de Eland the elder and the owner of Crosland Hall, but, as yet, there is no contemporary nor quasi-contemporary document to substantiate this statement.

Moreover, a study of the family trees of the de Elands and of the Lacys of Cromwellbottom has failed to give a clue as to which nephew of Sir John de Eland the elder might have been slain by Exley.

Sir Hugh de Eland, according to the pedigree compiled by . Mr. C. T. Clay (Y.A.J., Vol. 27, p. 248, reproduced on p. 91), had four children by his wife, Joan, the daughter of Sir Richard Tankersley :—

(i) Sir John de Eland the elder, murdered in 1350.

(ii) James de Eland, Rector of Tankersley, 1329—1348; after his death, he was succeeded in this office by John de Eland junior, on the presentation of Sir John de Eland the elder on November 10th, 1348; John de Eland junior may have been a son of the

Page 31

71 A previous rector. ‘‘but there seems no proof of this,’’ he resigned his rectorship a year later. (Y.A.J., Vol. 27, p. 238). (11) Richard de Eland, who was living in 1322, and is men- tioned in one of the deeds relating to Fixby. (iv) Margaret de Eland, who, about 1290, married John de Lacy of Cromwellbottom, and,

(v) possibly, Sir William de Eland, ep of Nottingham.

The brothers of Sir John de Eland the elder do not appear to have married and left issue, and thus it is difficult to reconcile the statement made in ‘‘The Discourse,’’ that Exley had murdered a nephew of the Lord of Elland with the facts given in Mr. Clay’ 5 pedigree.

(d) Watson, in his ‘‘History of Halifax,’’ also observed :

‘‘T have one MS. which says that Exley, above named, was a relation of Sir Robert Beaumont, and that he happened to kill a sister’s son (not brother’s son) of Sir John Eland, for which Exley gave to the Elands a piece of land for satisfaction ;. yet, notwith- standing, Sir John sought to slay him, and he fled thereupon to Sir Robert, Beaumont for protection; on which, Sir John got to- gether a considerable number of armed men, and, in one night, in the month of May, put to death the said Robert, and two old gentlemen, his near relatives, Sir Hugh de Quarmby and old Lockwood.”’

is so far confirmed, that in Mr. Hopkinson’s MS. col- lections at North Bierley, in Yorkshire, it is said ‘that with Sir Robert Beaumont were slain his brother William, and the runaway Exley, who had killed the brother’s son of Sir John Eland.’ ”’ (‘‘History of Halifax,’’ p. 178).

With respect to Watson’s first paragraph, quoted above, the statement that Exley had murdered a sister’s son of Sir John de Eland the elder doesi not coincide with the actual facts also eluci- dated by Mr. C. T. Clay in his monograph on ‘‘The Family of the De Lacys of Cromwellbottom.’’ (Thoresby Society Publications, Vol. 28, -p. 471).

Sir John de Eland the elder’s only sister, Margaret, as above stated, married John de Lacy of Cromwellbottom. The ‘children of this marriage were :—

(i) Henry de Lacy, who died between the years 1356—1361.

(ii) Thomas de Lacy, who died before 1353. (He was prob- ably the father of Thomas Lacy who is mentioned in the.Ballad as well as in ‘*The Discourse.’’)

(iii) And, possibly, Margaret de Lacy, who married Thomas de Thornhill, the ancestor of Colonel Basil Thornhill, M.C., the present Lord of the Manor of Fixby.

Page 32


There is no mention in Mr. Clay’s monograph of any children of Margaret de Lacy having been murdered, while it’ also appears that both her sons died after the termination of the Feud.

Moreover, it is very doubtful whether Exley would have slain one of the de Lacys, seeing that Thomas Lacy afterwards allied himself with the sons of the three men murdered by Sir John de Eland the elder in avenging their father’s death... (‘‘The Dis- course, <p. 8).

Who was Exley ?

Until further documents are forthcoming, he must remain a _ mystery—an enigmatic personage hovering on this sordid episode, and yet, according to the Prose Narratives, ‘‘partly’’ responsible for the subsequent tragedies.


Exley’s name does not appear in the pedigree of the Beaumont family originally compiled by Mr. R. H. Beaumont, the anti- quarian; this negative evidence, however, does not exclude the possibility that he was related to Sir, Robert Beaumont, as there must be missing members in the early part of that family tree.

Watson,; in his account of the hamlet of Exley (‘‘History of Halifax,’’ pp. 311—312), quotes summaries of deeds relating to land transactions, etc., effected by persons of the name of Ecclesley and who were also witnesses to other documents; few dates are _ given, and, curiously enough, the names of Sir John de Eland the elder and John Lacy of Cromwellbottom, among others, occur in these deeds and documents.

The late Mr. John Lister, M.A., of Shibden Hall, Halifax, in his monograph of ‘‘Ex!ley Hall, Southowram,’’ (Proceedings of the Halifax Antiquarian Society, 1914 Volume, pp. 117—119) gave a detailed and chronological account of the family of Ecclesley, amplifying many of the statements made by Watson.

It seems that in 1303, Richard, son of William de Ecclesley, murdered one William, son of William da Astaye. This Richard subsequently served in Scotland in a force sent by King Edward I. to avenge a defeat suffered by the English army at the hands of John Comyn, the Regent. Richard was pardoned for the crime he had previously committed ‘‘in consideration of his distinguished services in ( !)

Mr. Lister was of the opinion that the part taken by Exley in the Elland Feud was an echo of that played by Richard Ecclesley in the murder of William, son of William de Astaye. I In 1329, a Richard Ecclesley is mentioned in the Wakefield Court Rolls, but nothing can be gathered from Mr. Lister’s mono-

graph which might throw light upon this ‘‘mystery’’ man of the Feud.

Page 33


The account in the Hopkinson MS., and that in ‘‘The Dis- regarding Exley’s having murdered a brother’s son of Sir John de Eland the elder, agree, but unfortunately, Watson did not give any clue to the MS. in which the victim of Exley’s crime was said to be a sister’s son of the Lord of Elland.

It is possible that Dodsworth may have: read in some MS. of an account of a fracas between Exley and the de Elands when he -wiote ‘‘there being a man slain of the Earl Warren’s party in a hurly-burly betwixt the said Lords for that matter’’ (Vol. I., p. 122). But this “‘hurly-burly’’ had no connection with the abdue- tion of Alesia de Laci by order of John de Warenne, Earl of Surry, in 1317, for there is no mention of any fatal casualty in connection with this affair.

(e) The Balladist also suggested that there was some enmity between Sir’John de Eland the elder and old Lockwood de Lock- wood :—

‘“ To Lockwood then the self same night, They came and there they slew Lockwood of Lockwood, that hardy wight, Who stirr’d this strife anew.” tv. 12) 40):

On this alleged additional cause of the Feud, Watson wrote :

‘‘It seems not unlikely that some fresh provocation was given from what is said in verse 12, Lockwood of Lockwood, being there charged with something of this sort, when he is called a ‘wily wight’ (in the later Ballad), and said to have ‘stirr’d this strife anew.’ He appears, indeed, to have been a person of a bad character, for in the Court Rolls at Wakefield, 35 Edward I. (1309), John de Lockwood was presented, and afterwards found guilty of having forcibly ejected one, Matthew de Linthwaite, from his free tenement, and when the earl’s grave and bailiff came to take possession thereof, he made an attempt, with others un- known, to have slain them, so that they barely escaped with their lives.’’ (‘‘History of Halifax,’’ p. 177). I am rather dubious, however, whether this John de Lock- wood who forcibly ejected Matthew de Linthwaite in 1309, was the old Lockwood de Lockwood mentioned as the second victim of Sir John de Eland the elder’s ‘‘blood lust.’’

% * * *

There is an element of mystery attached to the words of the preamble in the first chapter of ‘‘The Discourse’’ (p. 6) :—

‘“How Sr. John Eland of Eland & Sr. Robert Beaumont of Crossland Hall had batteled ye one against ye other in ye behalf of their maister whome ye were faithfull unto wch was a distruction unto them both.’’

Page 34


Who was “‘their maister whome ye (=they) were unto’’?

If this preamble had the words ‘‘their

then the reason put forward by Dodsworth as the cause of the Feud might have been confirmed (Vol, I., pp. 121—122).

It has been previously: pointed out (Vol. I., p. 121) that Sir John de Eland the elder held his lands under the Manor of Wake- field, whose Lord from 1341 to 1347 was John de Warenne, Earl of Surrey (Vol. I., pp. 114—120), while from 1347 to 1350, the date of Sir John de Eland the elder’s death, this Manor was held by Edmund of Langley, Earl of Cambridge, afterwards Duke of York, a son of King Edward III. Sir Robert Beaumont, ‘‘Hugh’’ de Quarmby and old Lockwood de Lockwood, held their estates under the Honour of Pontefract, whose Lord from 1326 to 1337 was Henry, Duke of Lancaster, and from 1337 to 1861, Henry, Earl of Derby, afterwards Earl of ‘Lancaster (Vol. I., p. 124) on the death of his father in 1345.

During the years 1341 to 1351, there does not seem to have existed that animosity between the respective Lords of Wakefield and Pontefract such as had prevailed between their predecessors during the years 1317 to 1822; and, as previously stated, the reason given by former historians that the Elland Feud was 4 continuation or later development of the Lancaster—de Warenne _ dispute, is, I strongly maintain, devoid of foundation.

Was ‘‘their maister’’ the King?

This is one possible explanation. Sir John de Eland the elder was Sheriff of Yorkshire in 1341, and, in that capacity, swore an oath of allegiance to the Crown; Sir Robert Beaumont had been summoned to the Parliament held at Westminster in 1323, and was Commissioner for Array (an early form of Militia) for the wapentake of Agbrigg, in which dual roles, he, too, would have taken a similar oath; of the other persons who figured in the first act of the Drama, ‘‘Hugh’’ de Quarmby and old Lockwood, nothing i is as yet known of their holding judicial or executive func- tions in early 14th century days.

Did the compiler of the first prose narrative, from which later versions were copied, suggest that notwithstanding the loyalty and devotion to the Crown of the two principal antagonists in the early decades of the 14th century, yet this fidelity did not prevent

them from being victims of a nemesis which ultimately overtook them both ?

Or, was this early chronicler endeavouring to enforce a moral he used the expression ‘‘faithfull unto their maister’’? Was there in these words an implication that ‘‘their maister’’ was the Supreme Godhead ?

Page 35


Sir John de Eland the elder was the patron of the living of Tankersley, having granted it to his brother Hugh de Eland in 1321, and to John de Eland junior in 1348. He probably observed the outward ceremonies of the Catholic Church, and no doubt, following the custom of the time; was punctilious in his attendance at the Elland Parish Church, which stood on the other side of the River Calder to his Hall. It is not known whether the Beau- monts had a private chapel at Crosland Hall, they probably wor- shipped at the Almondbury Parish Church; there existed an oratory in. Whitley Hall, the subsequent domain of, that family. The de Quarmbys were associated with the Huddersfield Parish Church, as one of the chapels in the second edifice belonged to this family, so Dodsworth recorded when he visited this Church on July 3rd, 1627. Hence, it is very difficult to explain the import of the latter part of the preamble to the first chapter of ‘‘The Discourse.’’


Dodsworth, in the excerpt quoted on pages 121—122 of Volume I., suggested that the murders of Sir Robert Beaumont, Sir John de Eland the elder and his son, Sir John de Eland the younger, were committed in the 24th year of the reign of King Edward III., that is, in 1351, (Y-A.J., Vol. II., p. 163), but the Balladist said that there was an interval of fifteen years between Sir Robert Beaumont’s death and that of Sir John de Eland as elder in Cromwellbottom Woods :—

‘‘The feats of fence ye (=they) practised to weald their weapons well, till fifteen years were finished, &yn soe itt befell:’” “{v: 36; p. 46).

‘“The Discourse’’ gives no interval of time, but states that the sons of victims of Sir John de Eland the elder ‘‘were twenty years of Age’’ when Dyson, Haugh (i.e., Haigh) and Dawson joined them, the latter informing ‘‘the young gentlemen”’ of Sir John’s intention to be at the next Brighouse ‘‘Sherriff returne’’ (=Court Leet, p. 7).

_ Watson in his ‘‘Observations,’’ did not clarify this problem: but rather added ‘to the confusion by introducing a date for the murder of Sir John de Eland the elder, viz., 1347, which he said he got from some MS. which may have been ‘The Discourse, ’ although he does not mention its name.

verse 42 (in the Beaumont—Watson version of the Ballad, verse 35 in the Holroyd—Turner poem, page 46), the writer tells _ that the three young gentlemen were brought up at Brereton Green (till fifteen years were finished), soon after which they contrived to kill Sir John Eland, as it is said, 21 Edward III., or 1347, therefore Sir Robert Beaumont was married 20 Edward II.,

Page 36


1326 (as in a pedigree of that, family is asserted), his son, Adam, would be, at the death of Sir John de Eland the elder, about twenty years of age, and consequently about five years old at the decease of his father, a circumstance which accounts for the different behaviours of the verse 24 :-—

‘“ The one did eat with him truly, ye younger he was, I think; Adam, ye other, Sturdily -wou’d neither, eat nor drink.’’ —(p. 46)

in a very satisfactory manner, but at the same time invalidated the reason contained in verse 9 :—

‘“ Some Say that Eland sheriff was by Beaumont disobeyed, wch might make him for Such trespass wth him ye worse Appeyed (=aggrieved).’’ (p. 45) Sir John was not Sheriff of Yorkshire, till 15 Edward III., or 1841, and indeed for that reason seems on accounts inadmis- sible.’’ (‘‘History of Halifax,’’ p. 177).

[There seems every reason to believe, as has already been stated, that the first three murders were committed in 1341 by Sir Jobn de, Eland the elder.

(a) The late Mr. W. Paley Baildon (in Y.A. 129), thought an error had been made by Dodsworth in fixing ihe year of the triple murders as 1351, and suggested that they took place i in 1341, in order that the time during which the sons of the murdered men were in Lancashire, should appear to be more reasonable. _

Moreover, the year 1341 was that in which Sir John de Eland the elder was appointed Sheriff of Yorkshire.

Mr. Baildon’s arguments ard here given in full :-—

‘The only question which produces any difficulty is that of date. Sir John de Eland is said to have died in 1350, and it is known that he was Sheriff of Yorkshire in 1341. It is expressly stated that Eland was Sheriff when he slew Sir Robert

“If this is correct, the date given by Dodsworth (Y.A.J., Vol. II., p. 163) is wrong, he says that it was in 24 Edward III, (1351). But if we write 14 Edward III., instead of 24, this will bring: us to 1341, when Eland was Sheriff.’’

‘“As to the date of Sir John de Eland’s (the elder’s) death, it has been objected that Eland, according to tradition, must have been Sheriff in 1356, that’ is fifteen years after the death of Beau- mont, assuming that event to have happened in 1341. ‘It is no- where stated either by Dodsworth, or in the Ballad, that Eland was Sheriff when he was murdered. The words used are ‘as he came from keeping the Sheriff’s turn’ ’’ (pages 7, 25 and 47).

Page 37

A “DOORWAY Ad EALEY HALL, ud’ Photo by Mr. J. Hadfield.


Photo by Mr. J. Hadfield.

Page 38


‘“The chief mistake of the ballad seems to be in making 15 years elapse between the two deaths, whereas, on my contention, it was somewhat under 10 years. But surely this is what we might have expected, and really does not impinge the general accuracy of the Ballad. At any rate, the story cannot now be called ‘merely a poetic fiction.’ ’’ (Y.A.J., Vol. XI., p. 130).

(b) It is possible that Dodsworth may have made an error in transcribing the date from ‘‘Mr. Armitage’s writeings,’’ he copied XXIV. Edward III., that is, 1851, whereas the actual figures may have been XIV. Edward III. (1341); later historians have dis- covered one or two errors in the dates given by Dodsworth in his transcriptions of mediaeval documents. Even Mr. R. H. Beau- mont, the antiquarian of Whitley, notwithstanding his belief that the story of the Elland Feud: was a myth, queried the above date given by Dodsworth (Vol. I., p. 122).

(c) As far as I can the first topographer to give the date of ‘‘Hugh’’ de Quarmby’s murder as having taken place in 1341, was Baines in his ‘‘Directory of the West Riding of York,”’ 1822 (Vol. I., page 578). Baines, or his assistant, when describ- ing the then village of Quarmby, said, ‘‘the seat of that Sir Hugh de Quarmby, whom Sir John Elland, being the High Sheriff of Yorkshire, slew along with John de Lockwood, and Sir Robert Beaumont, in the year 134] . . . The facts, however, are involved in much obscurity.”’


For many years it has been stated that old ‘‘ Hugh’’ de Quarmby (‘‘The King of Quarmby’’ of local tradition) was the first victim of Sir John de Eland the elder. This statement was based on the words of the longer Ballad (Beaumont—Watson) :—

‘To Quarmby Hall they came by night, _ And there the lord they slew, : At that time Hugh of Quarmby hight (=called) Before the country knew.’

‘‘The (in Chapter I., page 6), also mentioned that ‘‘there dwelt two old gentlemen of nigh affinity unto Sir Robert Beaumont, the one called old Hugh of Quarmby, and the other old Lockwood of Lockwood.”’

The above ‘‘Hugh’’ de Quarmby (or Quernby) does not appear in the pedigree of the de Quarmby’s originally compiled by Mr. R. H. Beaumont, the antiquary of Whitley Hall.

The Holroyd—Turner version of the Ballad gives a different story regarding the person or persons put to death at Quarmby Hall by Sir ae de Eland the elder :—

Page 39


Quermbie Hall ye (=they) came by night, & there they (=the) Lords they slew, at yt (=that) time Heir of Quermby right, before the Country knew.’’ (v. 11, p. 45). The statements made in the second and third lines of this stanza are either :—

(a) that the Lords of Quarmby were put to death in toto, or,

(b) that the Heir of Quarmby met his end in the same manner. Probably, the latter is nearer the truth, for it is quite likely that . the copyist of this version made an error in his transcription, and that the rendering in the Beaumont—Watson version of the poem is correct, viz., ‘‘and there the lord they slew.’’

It is also conceivable that subsequent copyists of the original , Ballad, or of the ‘“‘primitive basic narrative,’’ altered the word ‘‘Heir’’ into ‘‘Hugh,’’ as is written in the longer Ballad and in ‘“The Discourse.’’ I I Curiously enough, in the ‘‘ Revenge upon Revenge,’’ no Christian name is assigned to ‘‘Quarmby, of Quarmby’’ (p. 16). Towards the close of the 13th century, the Lord of the Manor of Quarmby was John de Quarmby, who, by his wife, Joan, had two sons, William de Quarmby, living in 1305; John de Quarmby (whose descendants ultimately succeeded to the estates), and one daughter, Agnes de Quarmby (or Quernby) who married Sir Robert Beaumont in 1310—1311. In Mr. R. H. Beaumont’s pedigree of the de Quarmby family, William de Quarmby is given as the elder son,

Concerning William de Quarmby, little is known, his name occurs in a deed dated 1305—6, from which we learn that Henry Cleisby, Richard Calthorne and a priest of the name of Adam, released all the right they had in the Manor of Quarmby, etc... . to William de Quarmby. (Y.A.J., Vol. VIII., p. 519).

Subsequent deeds printed in the Yorkshire Archaeological Journal from transcripts made by Dodsworth when he visited Whitley Hall in 1629, suggest that the estates! at Quarmby even- tually devolved upon his brother, John de Quarmby, and the latter’s son and grandson. (Y.A.]., Vol. Vil op. 018, a0d- Cat, dag: Post Mortem, Vol. VI., p. 663).

It is possible that in the interval between 1305 and 1341, William de Quarmby may have donated some of his ancestral domains to his brother John, and his brother’s childrén, reserving for himself the then Hall. I-am inclined to think that the ‘“‘Hugh’’ de Quarmby men- tioned in the Beaumont—Watson version of the Ballad and in ‘“The Discourse,’’ was none other than the above William de Quarmby the elder, and in support of this hypothesis, one reason I can be put forward to substantiate this theory :

Page 40


In the document printed in the Calendar of Patent Rolls (Y.A.J., Vol. 27, p. 242), wherein the arrest of those persons who had murdered Sir John de Eland the younger was ordered, William de Horneby (=Quarmby) is described as the son of William de Querneby. This William de Horneby is not giyen in the pedigree compiled by Mr. R. H. Beaumont, the antiquarian, as his re- searches were solely based on the deeds in hig possession. Con- sequently, if William de Quarmby were the ‘‘Heir’’ of Quarmby, as previously suggested, and if he were murdered ati the Hall, he must have been the father of the man (William de Horneby) ‘“‘wanted’’ in 1850—1351..

It is possible, too, that in some curious manner, the Christian name of William became corrupted into Hugh, thus :—The French translation of William is Guilleaume, which name might have been used in the days of Edward III. as French was the official language for a short period; Guilleaume was frequently contracted into Guyon (pronounced Geeon); the caligraphy of the letters G and H was very similar in the Middle Ages (see Plate IV. in Wright’s ‘‘Court-Hand Restored’’), it is perhaps possible that the I word became altered to Heeon or Huon and finally to Hugh. This paragraph may seem very far-fetched, but there may be some element of truth in this somewhat fanciful explanation,

I have taken the liberty of amending Mr. R. H. Beaumont’s pedigree of the de Quarmby (or de Querneby) family in view of the information supplied in the Calendar of Patent Rolls.


John de Quarmby = Joan (living in 1294) I

I I I I William de Quarmby : John de Quarmby . Agnes de Quarmby

I (living i in 1305- 6, possibly = Margery = Sir RobertBeaumont, ‘Old Hugh,”’ ‘‘ King m. 1310-1311 of Quarmby ”’ 3 3 I William de Quarmby Thomas de Quarmby John de Quarmby (de Horneby, (living in 1323) = Alice murdered by the men of Elland, 1351) 7 John de Quarmby

- = Margery

Page 41


It is curious that neither the Balladist nor the compilers of the prose narratives mention the Christian name of Sir John de Eland the elder’s second victim; the former describes him as a ‘‘hardy wight (person) that stirr’d the strife anew’’ (verse 12, p. 45).

From a study of the Wakefield Court Rolls, Watson came to the conclusion, as already stated (p. 73), that the murdered man was John de Lockwood, who had been presented at the Wakefield Manorial Court in 1309 for having forcibly ejected Matthew de Linthwaite from his free tenement. (‘‘History of Halifax,’’ p.


_Apparently using this entry as a basis, the late Mr. J. Horsfall Turner compiled a short pedigree of this family in his work on ‘“The Elland Tragedies”’ (p. 10).

John de Lockwood

I I I John William Henry

I Richard Mr. Taylor Dyson, M.A., in his “ History of Huddersfield and its District’ (p. 150), said he had written to the College of Heralds and ascertained that that body did “not possess a pedigree of this

family.”” Hethen printed a slightly different version of the above family tree :— John de Lockwood.

Adam de Lockwood John de Lockwood

William de Lockwood

\ (along with his father, John de Lockwood, and his son Richard and John de Warnby of Wharmby (=Quarmby), mentioned in a deed oT 1324).

I . I John William II. Henry

(The Lockwood of the Elland Feud).

Thus we have a second theory formulated regarding the Christian name of old Lockwood de Lockwood, viz., William.

However, the discovery of documents in the Calendar of Patent Rolls has thrown some light upon this thorny, problem, It is definitely stated that the William de Lockwood who was ‘‘wanted’’ for the murder of Sir John de Eland the younger, as well as an - accomplice in the murder of his father, was the son oF Thomas _ de Lockwood (p. 104).

Page 42


Hence, it is possible that the Christian name of old Lockwood de Lockwood was Thomas.

It is practically certain that there were several families of that ilk which took their surname from the district of Lockwood. Iam inclined to think that.if the first act of the drama of The Elland Feud be historically accurate, then. the pedigree compiled by the late Mr. J. Horsfall Turner referred to another family dwelling in Lockwood which had witnessed deeds relating to sundry land transactions effected by the de Quarmbys. This particular family may, or may not, have been related to old Lockwood de Lockwood, who, in some as yet inexplicable manner, had incurred the ire of Sir John de Eland the elder, and was murdered in Lockwood Hall in 1341.


Two of our local historians have been rather vague and con- their statements the parentage of Sir Robert. Beaumont :

(a) The late Mr. D. F. E. Sykes, in his of Badan field and Its Vicinity’’ (p. 186), stated that Sir John de Bellomonte ‘‘settled his Manor of Crossland on his sons, John and Robert, by deed dated at Crossland, on Sunday next after the Feast of Corpus Christi, This son Robert would be the Sir Robert Beaumont of the Elland Feud.’’

Mr. Sykes confused two members of the Beaumont (originally de Bellomonte) family. He had previously given (p. 185) a short account of Sir Robert de Bellomonte, ‘‘who in 16 Edward II. was a Commissioner of Array, and who married Agnes, daughter of John de Querenby or Quarmby.”’

From the original pedigree compiled by Mr. R. H. Beaumont, it seems that Sir Robert Beaumont was a son of Sir William de Bellomonte, by the daughter and heiress of Richard de Fossato. From this marriage, Sir William acquired lands in South Cros- land, and, no doubt, the homestead which later became the scene of his son’s murder if the first part of the Elland Feud be true.

(b) Mr. Taylor Dyson, M.A., in his ‘‘History of Huddersfield and Its District,’’ unfortunately, has two conflicting paragraphs relating to the early members of the Beaumont family :—

(i) On page 149 of his work, he correctly reproduced a pedi- gree showing that Sir Robert Beaumont was a son of Sir William de Beaumont de Crosland. Then follows a short biography of “Sir Robert Beaumont of the Elland Feud, murdered by Sir 95 de Eland in 1351 (?) according to legend.

Page 43


(ii) On page 286, Mr. Dyson paraphrased Mr. Sykes’s bio- graphy of Sir John de Bellomonte and made the same error of _ representing Sir Robert Beaumont to be a son-of Sir John de Bellomonte.

(iii) On page 289 of his ‘‘History,’’ Mr. Dyson printed ‘‘The Pedigree of the Beaumonts of Whitley Hall,’’ compiled by Mr. G. W. Tomlinson trom that made by Mr. R. H. Beaumont. Here the statements are accurate.

Little is known about Sir Robert Beaumont apart from his land acquisitions and transfers. He married Agnes, the daughter of John de Querneby (or Quarmby) about the year I 310—1311, and consequently was the brother-in-law of William, de Quarmby who I suspect to be the ‘‘old Hugh’’ of ‘‘The Discourse.’’ He (Sir Robert) took no part in the rebellion of Thomas, Earl of Lan- easter, against Edward II. in 1322, while, in the following year, he was appointed Coroner for the County of York, he was also one of one hundred and eighty-four Knights of the County of York summoned to appear at the Parliament held at Westminster in 1323. His name does not appear in deeds after the year. 1329. His widow, Agnes de Querneby, afterwards married Henry d’ Eyville, who owned a moiety of the Manor of Huddersfield.

The following pedigree of the earlier members of the first branch of the Beaumont family will assist the reader :—

William de Bellemonte, living 1206 (Lord a Moiety of the Manor of Huddersfield)

I William de- Beaumont or (de Bellomonte), living 1233-1240 = Elizabeth

Sir William de Beaumont (or de Bellomonte) (i) dau. and heiress of Richard de Fossato (ii) Alice de Woolley

I j Sir Robert Beaumont (murdered in 1341) = Agnes de Quarmby (de Querneby) dau. of John de Quarmby

oo I I I I I I I (o8 Sir John Sir Thomas William Adam Henry Robert Nicholas Agnes John

Page 44



In the Holroyd—Turner transcript of the Ballad we read :—-

‘* T(wo) sons Sr Robt. Beaumont had, they left onlly unslaine, Sr Jon Eland hee ym (=them) bad come eat with him certaine.

The one did eat with him truly, ye younger he was, I think; Adam, ye other, Sturdily, : wou’d neither eat nor drink.’’ (vv. 23, 24, p. 46)

The age of Adam Beaumont in 1341 is one of the problems with which the historian of the Feud has to contend; there are two distinct ideas upon the subject, each of which is bristling with difficulties :—_ I (a) Assuming that Sir Robert Beaumont was married to Agnes de Quarmby in 1311, and that Adam Beaumont, his fourth son, according to Mr. R. H. Beaumont’s pedigree (p. 83), was born in 1317, he would be about twenty-four years of age at the time of his father’s murder, and could hardly have been termed a ‘‘boy’’ as he is called in the Ballad; (v. 25, p. 46).

It is inconceivable that a young man of that age would have complacently stood by and witnessed his father being murdered unless he had had his weapons forcibly taken from him. It is more likely that he would have made a spirited attempt to have slain Sir John de Eland the elder on the spot unless he was dis- armed. Probably he was deprived of his weapons, which might account for his flinging a piece of bread at his father’s slayer when the latter ‘‘proffered’’ it to him, as is recorded in ‘‘The Dis- course’’ (p. 7). 7

3 Moreover, where were the other sons of Sir Robert at the time of the tragedy? According to the pedigree (p. 83) these weré Sir John, Sir Thomas, William, Henry, Robert and Nicholas,

(b) Watson in his ‘‘History of Halifax,’’ attempted to solve the problem. He suggested that Sir Robert Beaumont was mar- ried Edw. III. or 1326 (as in the pedigree of that family is asserted), his son Adam would be . . . . about five years at the decease of his father.’’ (‘‘History of Halifax,’’ p. 178). If this pedigree, which apparently Watson had seen,’ were accurate, then the story told by the Balladist of ‘‘the different behaviours of the two boys’ after their father’s murder might be true, but the consensus of opinion is that this pedigree is not as trustworthy as the one originally compiled by Mr. R. H. Beaumont.

Page 45


Two hypotheses may be put forward to explain (or explain away) the difficulties in reconciling the contradictory ages assigned to Adam Beaumont in 1341, as well as the problem of the non- appearance of the other sons of Sir Robert at Crosland Hall on the day of the murder :—

(i) Adam Beaumont and the other unnamed son of Sir Robert Beaumont are wrongly placed in Mr. R. H. Beaumont’s pedigree and were much younger than have been usually ascribed.

(ii) The absence of the other sons from Crosland Hall was due ' to the fact that they were all grown up and were) living elsewhere on other homesteads of the family or serving Edward III. In 1340—1841, it would seem that only Sir Robert, his wife and these two sons were in residence. There may be some element of truth in this theory, as his eldest son, Sir John de Beaumont (according to Mr. R. H. Beaumont’s pedigree) was still living between the years 1354 and 1360.


This was the reason why Mr. R. H. Beaumont, of Whitley, himself a descendant of Sir Robert Beaumont, the whole story a-myth.

In his annotations of the documents relating to Whitley and Quarmby, Mr. Beaumont made the following ‘‘notes’’ :—

(i) ‘John de Eland witness in two Deeds concerning Beau- mont, viz., 1349 and 1350, the last being a Release of Adam, son of Robert Beaumont, Knight, to Adam de Hopton.’’

(ii) ‘‘Adam de Hopton, and John, son of Robert de Bellomonte, Knt., (Release) de Terra (=land) in Lepton. Witnesses, Sir , Brian de Thornhill, John de Eland, Knt., Thomas Fleming, and others, 1349.”’

The particular deed which upsets a good deal of the Balladist’s story of the Feud is one dated 1350, in which Sir John de Eland witnessed a charter of Adam Beaumont releasing all his rights to lands in Lepton to Adam de Hopton de Mirfield. Whereas, if the story as narrated by the Balladist and the prose writers be true, Adam Beaumont was nursing his revenge against Sir John de Eland the elder in Lancashire in the early part of that year, or was in jail at York!

Mr. Beaumont’s arguments against the veracity of the story of the Elland Feud have already been given, as well as Dr. Whitaker’s rejoinder (p. 65).

Page 46



Photo by Mr. J. Hadfield.


Photo by Mr. J. Hadfield.

Page 47


It has been suggested that when any charters bearing the names of Beaumont, Quarmby, Lockwood, among many others, were presented at the Manorial Courts at Wakefield or at Ponte- fract, Sir John de Eland the elder appended his signature (or his mark !) without having read the names of the parties contracting them !


Watson observed that the ‘‘de Lacy mentioned (verse 65, p. 48) was no doubt one of the de Lacys of Cromwellbottom, the head of which family had just married an aunt of Sir John de Eland, it is not therefore likely that it was he unless we read Cromwell- bottom Hall instead of ‘Wood’ (as, in the Holroyd—Turner ver- sion), for then it would seem that he was involved in the scheme and permitted the conspirators to meet privately at his house, to consider of a plan for their operation; but as he was a neighbour and relation, and one who is not represented to have received any injury from Sir John, it is hard to see why he was concerned.’’

‘It is remarkable, that he is only named when the ambush was laid for Sir John on his return from Brighouse and when they came back from Furness Fells to their own country, but he is not said to have borne any part in the transaction at Elland Mill, per- haps he had either repented of what he had done, or thought it sufficient to assist in taking off the actual murderer of Beaumont, and the rest, without punishing the son of the father into the second and third generation.’’ (‘‘History of Halifax,’’ p. 179).

Unfortunately, Watson made an error when he stated that the head of the Lacys of Cromwellbottom ‘‘had just married an aunt of Sir John de Eland’’ the elder. From the pedigree com- piled by Mr. C. T. Clay, F.S.A.,.in his monograph on ‘‘The Family of Lacy of Cromwellbottom,’’ (Thoresby Society’s Publica- tions, Vol. 28, p. 471, and reproduced on page 89), it will be seen that John de Lacy had married a sister of the above Sir John about the year 1290. 7

Moreover, it is evident that Watson had not read ‘‘ The Discourse’’ and its kindred prose versions, or he would have gathered that this Lacy figured in the Feud at an earlier date than the affair in Cromwellbottom Woods. ‘‘The Discourse’’ (p. 7), distinctly stated that besides the young offspring of Sir Robert Beaumont, ‘‘the children of Quermby and Lockwood, and also one, Lacy, being of nigh affinity th’ one to th’ other as brother

and sister children,’’ were evacuated ’’ into Lancashire and stayed at Sir John Townley’s until they were twenty years of age.

Page 48



This paragraph suggests that the de Lacy family (or a branca of it) must' have been at enmity with Sir John de Eland thé elder in spite of the relationship, and which caused this young scion to: leave his parental home and seek asylum in Lancashire.

But, if this young de Lacy had been a friend of Sir John de Eland the younger, it is hardly feasible, as Watson suggested, that he would have returned to Cromwellbottom Hall and per- mitted the conspirators to meet privately therein.

3 One of the documents giving details of the Gaol Deliveries at York Castle in 1353, specifies that Thomas Molot, of Wakefield, was ‘‘seized because he maintained Thomas, son of Thomas Lascy who had feloniously slain John de Eland, knight, etc.”

This extract certainly confirms the statements in the Ballad I and in ‘‘The Discourse,’’ that young de Lacy was implicated in the murder of Sir John de Eland the elder in the October of

I That young Lacy was an accomplice in the murder of Sir John de Eland the younger on April 10th, 1351, rests on the preamble of Chapter II. of ‘‘The Discourse.”’

‘‘How Adam Beaumont, Lockwood, and Lacy had Battelling against Sr John Eland, his son, and how ye (=they) Vanquished him and put him to death and afterwards Slew his son.’’ ‘When Beaumont, Lockwood, Quermby and Lacy had continued even until Palm Sunday,” etc. (p. 8).

Chapter III. of ‘‘The informs us that after the tragic end of William de Lockwood, Adam Beaumont ‘‘was not a little sorry and also for the departing of his cousin Lacy, who was gone into the North.’’ This is the last time that Lacy’s name appears in the ‘‘The Discourse’’; his ultimate end is not known, there is no reference to him in the Commission dated July 6th, 1351 (p. 104), although he may have been included among the ‘very many other felons indicted of the death of John de E Bland. one of the King’s Justices’’ (p. 104). On the other hand he is’ mentioned in a document dated 1353 (p. 105). The ‘‘nigh affinity’® between the de Quarmbys and the Lacys of: Cromwellbottom has yet to be determined, it is not shown in the pedigree of the former family nor in Mr. Clay’s pedigree of the latter, reproduced below; there was, however, some link or connection between these two ‘families, for in 1823, ‘‘Thomas, son of John de Lascy, was appointed by Thomas, son of John de - Quarmby, as attorney to receive possession of lands in Lindley I and Quarmby.’’ (Y.A.J., Vol. VII., p. 415.).

Page 49


John de Lacy = Margaret, dau. of m. Circa 1290 Sir Hugh de Eland, gene d. 1307-1310 widow, in 1300-1310, and sister of Sir John de Eland the elder

ie I ; Henry de Lacy Thomas de Lacy d. before 1353 Margaret

d. 1356-1361 = Margaret, dau. of Richard de Tong =Thomas de Thornhill I I John Lacy Richard Lacy Hugh Thomas d. 1397 d. 1416-1424 of the Elland Feud

Mr. C. T. Clay, in the monograph above quoted, says that ‘“Thomas de Lacy (son of John de Lacy) may have been the father of Thomas Lacy, who took a share in killing feloniously Sir John de Eland in 13850, and was outlawed for the crime.’’ (Thoresby Society’s Publications, Vol. 28, p. 477.)


~The Saviles of Golcar and Rishworth took no part in the Elland Feud, but ultimately succeeded to the Elland estates after the extermination of the de Elands, as the result of a marriage between Sir John Savile V. and Isabel, the daughter of Thomas de Eland.

The Balladist, who seems to have been a patron of this family, probably, Sir Henry Savile (d. 1558), makes eulogistic allusions to the first statement above made, but he is inaccurate regarding one of the contracting parties which eventually linked up the Elland estates with those of the Saviles. (v. 86, p. 48).

The following items of information concerning Sir John Savile IV. are recorded in both transcripts of the original Ballad :

(i) ‘* More gentlemen yn was not there, in Eland parish dweled, Save Savill half part of ye year his house at Rishworth held.

He kept himself from such debate, removing thence wthall, twise in ye year by Savils gate unto ye bothome Hall.’’ (vv. 63, 64, p. 47). Dr. Midgley, or whoever wrote ‘‘Revenge upon Revenge, paraphrased these two verses :—


Page 50


‘‘For in that Age when these persons were made exiles, there was no Gentleman, or Person of Quality, living within the Parish of Eland besides Sir John Eland, the Lord thereof, save one of the Savile’s, a Gentleman of Ancient Extract, Wise and Solid in his Deportment, never Intermeddling, as concerning himself with either Party, during all these violent contests; seldom appearing in company, nor Travelled much abroad in these Parts, except twice a year, by coming to Rishworth Hall towards the Summer Season, there to Hunt and Hawk, that being a Place well situated for such Recreations, lying in the upper Part of Eland Parish, and from thence returning back towards Winter unto Bothom-Hall, through a Place known to this Day by the Name of Savile Gate’’ (pp. 29—30).

It is evident that the first Balladist (or the compiler of the ‘‘primitive basic narrative’’) was thoroughly cognisant with the homesteads of the country gentry in the days of Edward III. Sir John Savile IV. had two seats, one at Botham Hall in Golcar, which his family had inherited when Sir Henry de Savile married for his first wife, the daughter and heiress of John de Golcar (Agnes de Golcar as Watson suggested, p. 209 in his ‘‘History of Halifax’’); the other at Rishworth, which his father, Sir John de Savile III. had acquired when he married Margery, the daughter and co-heiress of Henry de Rishworth of Rishworth, ‘‘probably in 1300, and certainly before 1306,’’ (J. W. Clay, ‘‘The Savile ¥ Vou 90, :

(ii) ‘“A full sister for sooth had hee, & a half brother alsoe; ye full sister his heir must be, ye half brother (not) soe.

His full sister his heir, she was, & Savile wed ye thus Lord of Eland Savill was & still enjoys ye same. (vv. 85, 86, p. 48).

These two verses have been the source of much geneological speculation particularly in view of Dr. Whitaker’s comments thereon :—

‘‘Let the reader turn to the following transcript from Dods- worth MSS. of that part of the pedigree which refers to the period, and he will find, what Mr. Watson never observed, that though the estate passed by marriage of a sister of the last Elland to the Saviles, there was a brother, Henry. This is not accounted for ; but the poem informs us that this Henry was a brother of the half blood, and, therefore, the immediate ancestor having died intestate, could not inherit. This could‘not have been invented.’’ (‘‘Loidis and Elmete,’’ p. 395).

Page 51


‘ Unfortunately, Dodsworth’s pedigree of the de Eland family, which Whitaker printed on page 401 of his ‘‘History of Leeds,”’ is not accurate; in the revised pedigree of this family, compiled by Mr. C. T. Clay in his monograph on ‘‘The F amily of Eland’ (Y. A.J., Vol. 27, p. 245), the correct facts are given and are reproduced on this page). I

According to Mr. Clay in the monograph above-mentioned : ballad is speaking of the young knight, Sir John, son of Sir John; but there is obviously some genealogical error. Whitaker considers that this allusion to the half blood could not have been invented, and, if we substitute ‘full niece’ for ‘full sister,’ the error is removed and the actual descent of the Manor of Elland as then given by the ballad would coincide with the actual facts.’ Ut Ags, Vol. 27, p. 245).

(iii) |‘ What time these men these skayes (schemes) did frame, deeds (I) have read and heard; Eland’s lands came to Savill’s name, in Edward days ye third.’’ (v. 89, p. 49).

Sir John de Eland the younger had a brother, Thomas de Eland, who, by his wife, Joan, had one daughter and heiress, Isabel, who, at some date before 1353-4 married Sir John Savile V. (J. W. Clay, ‘‘The Savile Family,’’ Y.A.J.; Vol. 25, p. 5). 3 After the murder of Sir John de Eland the younger in 1351, Sir John Savile V. in right of his wife, succeeded to the Elland

estates, in which family, some of the property in.that town remains to this day.

THE PEDIGREE OF THE DE ELANDS OF ELLAND. ‘Sir Hugh de Joan, a of Sir Richard Tankersley.

ie Sir John de Eland the elder James, Rector of Margaret

(Sheriff of Yorkshire, 1340-1, Tankersley. = John de Lacy murdered, October, 1350). Richard. of Cromwell bottom =(i) Alice, dau. of Sir Richard de Lathom (see p. 89).

=(ii) (?) Ann, dau. of the Reygate family =(iii) Aline. remarried Geoffrey de Warburton

(i) (i) (ii) I bog

Sir John de Eland the younger Thomas = Joan Thomas (Murdered April 10, 1351) I - Robert : > James John Isabel = >? Hugh (Mortally slain on the same Sir John Savile V. day as his father) upon whom the

Elland estates devolved, a

Page 52


(iv) Continuing the references to the Savile family, we find in the Beaumont—Watson transcript of the original Ballad, the following piece of advice given to ‘‘Savile,’’ that is, to Sir Henry Savile, who died on the 25th of April, 1558 : —

‘‘ Learn, Savile, here I you beseech, that in prosperity, You be not proud, but mild and meek, And dwell in charity.

For by such means your elders came, — to knightly dignity ; Where Eland then forsook the same, And came to misery.” (p. 50).

A few words concerning Sir Henry Savile may not be out of ‘place. © He was the only son of Sir John Savile by his wife, Elizabeth, the daughter of Sir William Paston, Knt., by Jane, the daughter and co-heiress of Edmund Beaufort, Duke of Somerset, who was slain at the Battle of St. Albans, 1455, and cousin-german I to the Countess of Richmond, mother of Henry VII. Mr. Hunter calls this the most splendid of any marriage of any of the earlier Saviles, as the son was thus a partaker of the royal blood. (‘‘The Savile Family,” by Mr. J: W. Clay, Y.A.J., Vol: 25, p. 11).

Sir Henry Savile was High Sheriff of Yorkshire, 1531—1541, and a very important personage in the days of Henry VIII., to whom he adhered steadfastly at the time of the Pilgrimage of Grace. He married Elizabeth, the daughter and co-heiress of Thomas Sothill, from whom he acquired the Sothill and Emley- estates. By his wife, he had one son, Edward Savile, ‘‘of weak intellect,’’ who lived in obscurity, and in male line of the family died out; and one daughter, Dorothy Savile, ‘‘who is almost the only lady of the great Yorkshire houses of the sixteenth century who has been handed down as having sullied the honour of her family, she is said to have had seven illegitimate children..’’

Page 53




Photo by Mr. J. Hadfield.

Page 54


(1), THE PEDIGREE OF THE SAVILES OF THORNHILL. (Originally compiled by Messrs. W. P. Baildon, J. W. Clay and C. T. Clay, Y.A.d., Vol. XXV., pp. 1-47, Vol. XXVIIL., pp. 418-419). bes 7 Saville I I Ralph de Saville The heiress of (i) = Sir Henry de Saville = (2).........: b. circa 1160, ?d.s.p. Golear dan Be 1231 I I Ralph de Saville Sir John de Savile I. = Agnes b. circa 1190; d. circa 1630 b. cirea 1200, ? dead 1250 ; 1250 Sir John de Savile II. = ..,....:....

b. — 1225, dead 1278

Peter de Savile = Maude...... ..... b. circa 1250, dead 1308 1308

_. Sir John de Saville II]. = Margery, dau. and coheiress of Henry Rishworth, 2 1300 b. circa 1275. d. ? 1336

Sir John de Savile IV. (the Savile who lived at Rishworth and at Botham Hall)

b. cirea 1300 dau. of Matthew Wood

Sir John de Savile V. Isabel, dau. and heiress of

b. circa 1325, d. a Thomas de Eland I I Sir John Savile, b. cirea 1355, d. 1405 Henry Savile, d. 1412 = ? Isabel, dau. of Sir Robert Radcliffe = Elizabeth, dau. of

Simon Thornhill Sir John Savile, ds.p.; dead 1412 = Isabel, dau. of Sir William Fitzwilliam I I Sir Thomas Savile, M.P., Yorkshire 1439, d. Henry Savile.

= Margaret, dau. of Sir John Pilkington = Helen, dau. and heiress of Thomas Copley (see Pedigree V.) (p. 98 Sir John Savile, M.P., Yorkshire 1450—1467, d. 1482 = Alice, dau. of Sir William Gascoigne I \ I I John Savile Thomas Savile, of Lupset ‘ = Jane, dau. of Sir Thomas Harrington (see Pedigree II).

Sir John Savile, High Sheriff of Yorkshire, ? d. 1504. Palm Sunday = {i) Alice, dau. of William Vernon = (ii) Elizabeth, dau. of Sir William Paston, and of Jane, dau. of Edmund Beaufort, Duke of Somerset

(ii) Sir Henry Savile, High Sheriff of Yorkshire, 1537—1541, probably the patron of the first Balladist (p. 50), d. April 25, 1558 = tT dau. and co-heiress of Thomas Sothill

I ee Edward Savile (‘of weak intellect) \ Dorothy bapt. 16 Feb., 1539, bur. 16 Feo., 1604 and John = (i) Mary, dau. of Sir Richard Leigh (divorced) = ii) Elizabeth, dau. of Geoffrey Barnby”’ (no issue)

Page 55



(later of Thornhill, later Viscounts and Marquesses of Halifax).

Thomas Savile, d. 1505, younger son of Sir John Savile (p. 94) = Margaret, dau. of Thomas Bosworth (1482)

John Savile, d. 16 Jan,, 1530 = ae dau. of William Wyatt

Henry Savile, M.P. for Yorkshire, 1558, d. 1569 = i) Margaret, dau. of Henry Fuller, or Fowler = (ii) Joan dau. of William Vernon = (iii) Fs dau. of Richard Beaumont, of Elmley ii Sir George Savile, M P. for Yorkshire, 1592, Ist Baronet (succeeded to the Savile Estates on the death of his cousin, Edward Savile, 1604), d. 12 Nov. 1622 (i) Mary, dau. of George Talbot. 6th Earl of Shrewsbury (ii) Elizabeth, dau. of Sir Edward Ayscough (i) I (ii) I .

He Al

I Sir George Savile, 1583—1614 Sir John Savile, of Lupset = (i) Sarah, dau of John Rede (see pedigree III.) = (ii) Anne, Bs of Sir William Wentworth, of Wentworth ii ii

I Sir George Savile, 2nd Baronet Sir William Savile, 3rd Baronet, b. 1611 (cirea) d. 19 Dee,, 1627 M.P. for Yorkshire, 1640: Royalist Commander; Governor of Sheffield, York, d. 24 Jan., 1644 = Anne, dau. of Thomas, Ist Lord Coventry

Sir George Savile, bapt. 28 Nov., 1633; bur. 11 April, 1695; 4th Baronet. Baron Savile of Elland and Viscount Halifax, 1668; Earl _of Halifax, 1677; Marquess of Halifax, 1682

= (i) Dorothy, dau. of Henry, Ist Earl of Sunderland = (ii) Gertrude, dau. of the Hon. William Pierrepont

(i) Sir William Savile. b. 1665, M.P. Newark bur. 9 Sept., 1700; 5th Baronet and 2nd Marquess of Halifax (i) Elizabeth, dau. of Sir Samuel Grimston (ii) Lady Mary, dau. of Daniel Finch, 2nd Earl of Nottingham (no male issue)


Page 56



Sir Ceorge Savile, 1st Baronet, d. 12 Nov., 1622 = (ii) Elizabeth, dau. of Sir Edward Ayscough

I I Sir George Savile Sir John Savile, bur. 8 May, 1660 Henry Savile, bapt. 9 Dec., 1599 1583—1614 a Parliamentarian bur. 1 June, 1667 (Pedigree ii). = (i) Elizabeth, dau. of Sir John © = Anne, dau. of Robert Cruse Armytage, of Kirklees

= (ii) Anne, dau of Sir John Soame

Thomas Savile Pe Sir John savile, 6th Baronet b. 1648, bur. 3 Sept., 1677 bapt. 15 Feb., 1651

d. eirea 1704, unmar.

(sueceeded to the Yorkshire Estates on the death of. his cousin, the 2nd Marquess of Halifax in 1700)


The Rev John Savile, Rector ef Thornhill, bur. 25 Jan., 1701 -= (i) Elizabeth, dau. of Dr. Tully = (ii) Pe dau. of Thomas Jennison, of Newcastle ete ' Sir George Savile. bapt 18 Feb., 1679, d. 16 Sept., 1743, 7th Baronet, M.P. for Yorkshire 1728 — 1734 (sueceeded to the Yorkshire Estates on the death of his cousin, Sir John Savile in 1704) = many: dau. of John Pratt

Phas aoe I Sir George Savile, 8th Baronet, M.-P. for Yorkshire, I Barbara, d. 22 July, 1797

17538—1783, b. 1727, bur. 24 Jan., 1734, = Richard Lumley, lst Earl died unmarried of Searborough

(see pedigree iv).

Page 57



Richard Lumley = Barbara Savile 4th Earl of Scarbrough I m. Dec. 26, 1756 d. 1782 d. July 22, 1797 coy George Augusta Lumley Richard Lumley John Lumley Frederick Lumley oth Earl of Scarbrough 6th Earl of Searbrough th Earl of Scarbrough 1753—1807 1757—1832 1761—1835 ae (assumed the name of = Ann Maria, dau. of Savile) Julius Hering I I John Savile Lumley Richard George 8th Earl of Scarbrough ‘ 9th Earl of Scarbrough 1788— 1856 1813—1856

assumed of Savile in 1836

I Henry Lumley Savile Augustus William Lumley Savile John Savile

1822 — 1881 lst Baron Savile died unmarried b. 6 Jan., 1818

d. 28 Nov., 1896 (took the surname of Savile 1887. lst Baron Savile, 1888

The Rev. Frederick Savile Lumley 1822—1881 Me tudes dau. of Robert Castle Jenkins John Savile Lumley Savile, 2nd Baron Savile, b. 20 Sept., 1853, d. 3 April, 1931 = (i) Gertrude Violet, dau. of Charles Francis Webster Wedderburn = (ji) ms oe Virginia, dau. of John Wolton ii I I I George Halifax Lumley Savile Henry Leoline Thornhill Savile Deidre Barbara 3rd Baron Savile b. 2 Oct., 1923 Elland b. 24 January, 1919 ‘

Page 58



Henry = Helen, dau. and heiress of Thomas Copley (m. 1403 ?} Thomas Savile = Anne, dau. of John Stansfield Nicholas Savile = Margaret, dau. of William Wilkinson John Savile = Margery, dau. of John Gledhill 5 Henry Savile = Elizabeth, dau. of Robert Ramsden (of Elland). Sir John Savile, of Bradley Hall, M.P. for Newton. 1572-1583. d. Feb. 2, 1607. (i) Jane, dau. of Richard Garth (ii) Elizabeth, dau. of Thomas Wentworth (iii) Dorothy, dau. of Thomas, lst Lord Wentworth

; (iv) Margery Peake (i) (ii)

oUt Ue dl

I Sir Henry Savile John Savile, of Methley, d. 1651.

b. 1579, d. 23 June, 1632 = (i) Mary, dau. of John Robinson = Mary, dau. of John Dent = (ii) Margaret, dau. of Sir Henry issue died young Garraway

I ; John Savile, b. 1644, bur 21 Jan., 1717 = Sarah, dau. of Peter Tryon

Charles Savile, b. 1676, (5th surviving son) d. 5 June, 1741 = dau. of Gilbert Millington

Sir John Savile, lst Earl of Mexborough, b. Dec.. 1719, d. 17 Feb., 1778 = Sarah, dau. of Francis Blake Delaval, (m. 30 Jan., 1760)

John Savile, 2nd Earl of Mexborough. b. 8 April, 1761, d 3 Feb., 1830 = Elizabeth, dau. and heiress ‘of Henry Stephenson (m. 30 Sept., 1782)

John Savile, 3rd Earl of Mexborough. b. 3 July, 1783, d. 25 Dec., 1860 = ner dau. of Philip, 3rd Earl of Hardwicke (m. 29 Aug., 1807) John Charles George, 4th Earl of Mexborough, b. 4 June, 1810, d. 17 Aug., 1899 = (i) Rachel Katherine, dau. of Horatio, 3rd Earl of Orford = (ii) fe Louisa Elizabeth, dau. of John Raphael ne 1 - di

I John Horace Savile, 5th Earl of Mexborough ae Henry Savile, 6th Earl of Mexborough b. 17 June, 1843, d. 8 June, 1916 . 27 Sept., 1868 = (i) Venetia, dau. of Sir R. Errington = Hon, Margaret Eva de Burgh Knatchbull-

= (ii) Sylvia Cecilia de Lucca il Gii) Anne, Mrs. George B. Ritchie (no issue

Hugesson, (m. 15th July, 1905).


I I John Raphael Wentworth Savile, b. 11 Oct., 1906 ; Four Daughters (Viscount Pollington), m. 23 July, 1930) = Josephine Bertha Emily, dau. of Manuel Talbot Fletcher, Esq.

I John Christopher George Charles Anthony, b. 28 June, 1934 b. 16 May, 1931

Page 59



Chapter III. in ‘‘The Discourse,’’ has for its preamble : ‘‘How was enamoured on a woman dwelling att Camwell Hall & how he was betray’d and Slaine.’’

The reader, no doubt, will have read the details of Lockwood’s philandering with his woman ‘“‘in Emley Park at a great hollow oake,’’ and his death in ‘‘Cannell hall,’’ due to the treachery of his mistress (‘‘The Discourse,’’ p. 10).

“The Dyscorse’’ (the Cannon Hall MS. of the Elland Feud, transcribed by John Hanson), in spite of an inaccuracy (p. 60), also gives Cannon Hall as the scene of Lockwood’s death.

But Mr. Fred Lawton, the well-known antiquarian of Skel- manthorpe, disbelieves this statement, and is definitely of the opinion that William de Lockwood was put to death in Emley Park. A tradition has been handed down for centuries in Emley and in Skelmanthorpe that ‘fa man named Lockwood who had killed a man named Elland, and was an outlaw, came courting a woman who lived in Emley Park. Their meeting place was in the hollow of an old oak tree. The gamekeeper seeing them: told Fitzwilliam, who lived at the Hall (Emley), who called his men together and surrounded the tree. Lockwood showed fight. His sweetheart cut his bowstring, so he was caught and killed.’’

Mr. Lawton then adds that this is how the tradition ran, and that he firmly, believes it to be true. On the spot where William de Lockwood was slain, a stone was afterwards placed to record the fact. Mr. Lawton, on this point, continued :—

“William Archer (born 1795) told me. his grandfather said there used to be a stone near the tree (where Lockwood and his lover philandered), and on this stone there was an inscription, ‘Lockwood killed together’ with some letters that were weather-worn. David Firth, of Langley Farm, born in the 18th century, said that Lockwood was 56 years old when he was killed. He said he had seen it ona stone. I (Mr. Lawton) said, ‘No, he was killed in 1356.’ ‘Aw, well,’ he said, ‘it might ha’ been soa for ther’ wor a lot of letters aw couldn’t mak aat.’ ”’

Regarding the story of Bosville’s being the owner of Cannon Hall, and Under-Sheriff at the time of the murder of young de Lockwood, Mr. Lawton wrote most emphatically :—

‘‘Bosville was never Under-Sheriff. Neither did he own Cannon Hall at the time of Lockwood’s death. Thomas Bosville

Page 60

es ee a my ¥ rit ose, ater min Sc cane ga a ae

AA OTT Pe ed © Sa st ne ie , art ere Uy es Diag See mm TT oN hes PALL AWE, his aH ea i aA i

oe RK Ace Ea z iw I, i ae Ks al


ne uf me i

Sketch by Mr. G. N. Allsop.


< ge >

— eae te smal Ne AES we

LOCKWOOD AND HIS LOVER in the hollow of the Old Oak Tree in Emley Park, 1355 Sketch by Mr. G. N. Allsop.

Page 61


married in 1348, Alice de Gunthwaite, an heiress of Gunthwaite

Hall. Then we find him without money, so he mortgaged his

New Hall Estates, and it took him some time to pay back the money. He bought,Cannon Hall about 1877. If Lockwood were killed in 1356—we know! he was alive in 1855—during that year, Thomas Bosville was fighting in France, so could not possibly be at Cannon Hall. So I still believe William de Lockwood was killed in Emley Park.”’

The greater bulk of this last paragraph is confirmed by Lady Alice Macdonald of the Isles, in her biography of Thomas Bosville, to be found in her book on ‘‘The Fortunes of a F amily’? (pp. 28— 30), where there is no mention of the Bosvilles owning Cannon Hall during the years of the Feud. All the authorities agree that Cannon Hall became the property of the Bosvilles after 1377.

In a subsequent communication to me, Mr. Lawton considered that when the first prose narrative was written (or, perhaps, when the ‘‘primitive basic narrative’’ to which I have frequently alluded, took shape), the writer collected all the traditions handed down in the vicinity of Elland, Quarmby, Lockwood, South Crosland, but omitted those in existence at Skelmanthorpe and Emley. Mr. Lawton was also of the opinion that there was no tradition at Cawthorne.

Mr. Lawton’s view is that William de Lockwood, as a tenant of the Earl of, Lancaster, was free to wander in the area covered by the Manor of Wakefield, but liable to be apprehended if caught within the Honour of Pontefract. De Lockwood risked this pos- sibility as the estates of Pontefract and Wakefield were contiguous in the vicinity of Emley and Skelmanthorpe, and could easily evade capture in one fee by jumping over a wall or fence which belonged to the other fee and thus be free,

When Sir John Fitzwilliam, the owner of Emley Old Hall at this time, heard that de Lockwood was frequently meeting his lover in the oak tree, which in 1351, was standing about a hundred yards from the Hall, he sent for Robert Bosville, the High Con- stable of Pontefract (an uncle of Thomas Bosville who later pur- chased Cannon Hall), to effect his arrest, as only an official from the Manorial Court at Pontefract could do this, so tenacious and exclusive were the rights, privileges and customs of the mediaeval feudal courts that a Sheriff of the fee of Wakefield would not have dared to have seized a tenant of the Honour of Pontefract on land which was situated in the Wakefield Manor,

; ; dy id ase \ Moreover, there is no mention in the document (p. 104-0) giving details of the Gaol Deliveries at York Castle of persons in the vicinity of Denby, Silkstone, Dodworth, Cawthorne (not even the

Page 62


tenant of Cannon Hall), having been arrested for having sheltered William de Lockwood. :

It may be, for reasons yet to be discovered, that Cannon Hail did not figure in the original narrative of the episode, and that Emley Hall was intended throughout the account given in Chapter III. of ‘‘The Discourse’’ and that the copyists of the two prose ver- sions confused the name of the building ; even in ‘‘The Dyscorse”’ we find Bulay Hall written for Emley Hall (p. 10). It is possible, too, that the first chronicler confused the Bosvilles of Pontefract with those of Gunthwaite who acquired Cannon Hall after the year 1377.

Taking all, things into consideration, it seems to me that the oral tradition respecting de Lockwood’s death in Emley Park is older than the written version of the same tragedy which makes it take place at Cannon Hall, and, with that observation, I leave this intriguing problem, confessing, at the same time, that I consider that Mr. Fred Lawton, (the G.O.M. of Skelmanthorpe) has advanced very good arguments for substantiating the truth of the oral tradition.


Peter Bosville = Beatrix de Furnivall

living 1296 I I nf Adam Bosville Robert Bosville = Matilda Constable of Pontefract, 1333 Thomas Bosville = Alice ih! Sir Thomas Bosville dau. of John de Gunthwaite, living 1369

and Christiana, his wife,

m. 1348.

Page 63



It is now definitely established that Sir John de Eland the elder died in the year 1350, and that his son, Sir John de Eland the younger was dead by July, 1351. ‘‘Warrants’’ were issued for the arrests of Adam Beaumont and William de Lockwood for the murders of the Elands in the July of 1351. Various persons living in Holmfirth, Huddersfield and its vicinity were detained at York Castle for having ‘‘harboured’’ these two conspirators; pardons were granted to sundry others for their complicity in the events of 1850 and 1351.

But until some documentary evidence is forthcoming that ‘‘Hugh’’ de Quarmby, old Lockwood de Lockwood and Sir Robert Beaumont were murdered by Sir John de Eland the elder in 1341, © it cannot be definitely asserted that the whole of the story as sung by the Balladist and narrated in greater detail by the compilers of the Prose versions is historically accurate in every detail; as already suggested, there can be no doubt that much extraneous matter has been added to the actual events which took place during the years of the Feud.

The late Mr. J. Horsfall Turner, in his ‘‘Elland Tragedies’”’ (p. 6) wrote : ‘‘We may rest assured that as the account is true of the latter half of the story, the former half is equally certain’’; on this point, I prefer to reserve my verdict until further documents are available, for there are many unsolved problems connected with the first act of the Feud which have not yet been solved.

That the three sons of the men murdered by Sir John de Eland the elder slew him in the October of 1350 seems almost certain, that his son was slain on Palm Sunday, 1351, is absolutely certain, but what was the motive of these young men in killing Sir John, the Sheriff of 1341? Some historians would assert that because the sons murdered the slayer of their respective fathers, then Sir John de Eland the elder must have murdered their sires, but, as yet, this point of view cannot be definitely substantiated. In a communication to me some years ago, Mr. C. T. Clay, - M.A., F.S.A., said :— ‘‘T am inclined to agree with Baildon (a particularly competent and critical observer) that the first part of the story has an ade- quate foundation when documentary evidence is forthcoming to prove other parts. That, of course, is not the same thing as saying that because the latter part is true, therefore the first part ise : It has been suggested that Sir John de Eland the elder in his capacity as Sheriff of Yorkshire during the years 1340—41, may

Page 64


-have destroyed the evidence of his own guilt, and, it may be, as Watson imagined, he may have obtained a formal pardon from the Crown. Unfortunately, the Wakefield Court Rolls for the years 1340—1351 have not yet been translated nor printed by the York- shire Archaeological Society; Mr. J. Horsfall Turner’s excerpts therefrom in his ‘‘History of Hipperholme, Brighouse and Ras- trick,’’ reveal little which might throw light upon many problems associated with the Feud.

If the ‘‘basic or the original folk-lore story could be unearthed, say, in some pigeon hole in a private library, long since forgotten by its owners, then, perhaps, we shall know exactly what took place at Quarmby Hall, Lockwood Hall and Crosland Hall in the May of 1341, and why Sir John de Eland despatched 7 the owners of these homesteads to their dire doom. :


(a) March 24th, 1849—50. Appointment of William Basset, John de Eland, Nicholas de Wortele and William de Notton to deliver to the gaol of York Castle of William de Horneby, son of William de Querneby, and William, son of Thomas de Lokwod, detained there on account of felonies and trespasses in the West Riding, Co. York, whereof they are indicted before the same William Basset, and Robert de Nevill of Horneby, Thomas de Fencotes, Brian de Thornhill, Thomas de Seton, Roger de Blay- _ keston, William de Fynchenden, William de Mirfield, and John de Northland, appointed as keepers of the peace and Justices to hear and determine divers felonies and trespasses in that Riding; as the King is informed that the said William (de Horneby i.e., Quarmby) and William (de Lockwood) purpose to procure their deliverance fraudulently by suborned or procured jurors, by mainprise, or by some other means. (Cal. Pat. Rolls for the year 1348—1350, p. 350, Y.A.J., Vol. 27, p. 242).

(b) July 6th, 1851. Commission to William de Plumpton, Brian de Thornhill, William de Skarghill the elder, Nicholas de Wortelay, Henry de Sothill, John de Calverlay, Thomas Flemmyng, Robert de Staynton, Adam de Hopton, John Tours, Aymer Burdet, William de Mirfield, John de Sheffield, William de Lewenthorpe, William de Beston and Thomas de Fenton reciting that Adam Beaumond, William de Lockwode and very many other felons indicted of the death of John de Eland, one of the King’s Justices appointed to hear and determine trespasses in the West Riding, Co. York, gathering to themselves a very great number of felons and evil doers have killed John, son of the said John, because he was suing before the King to punish them for his

Page 65


father’s death, and many others of the household and friendship

the said John de Eland, and have committed various assaults on

the King’s Justices, appointed to hear and determine such homi- cides, felonies, trespasses and misdeeds, and killed some of their men and servants, and now strive to the utmost of their power to hinder those who indict them, the Justices, the Sheriff and other ministers of the King from executing his mandates and their offices, openly threatening them, and so to hinder if they can, the King from ruling and doing Justice to the people; and appointing them to take the said felons and such others as the Justices shall furnish names of and bring them to the gaol of York. Wherefore the King commands them on pain of life and limb and all that they can forfeit, to be diligent in the execution of the premises. (Cal. Pat. Rolls, 1350—1354, p. 156, Y.A.J., Vol. 27, p. 243).

(c) Thursday in the Feast of St. James the. Apostle, 1353. Gaol delivery of York Castle made before William Basset and his fellow Justices, etc. Thursday in the Feast of St. James the Apostle, 27 Edward III. (1353).

Robert del Bothe of Holmfirth, and Richard, his brother, dwelling in Holmfirth, Mathew de Hepworth of Huddersfield, Thomas Litster of Aldmondbury, and Ralph de Skelmanthorpe, seized because they have received William de Lokwod, and Adam Beaumond (who had feloniously, slain John de Eland, Knight), at Holmfirth, Aldmondbury and Skelmanthorpe, knowing that they had committed the said felony and were outlaws.

Edmund de Flokton, seized because he had received Adam de _ Beaumond in the neighbourhood of Flokton, knowing him to be outlawed for the death of John de Eland, feloniously slain.

Thomas Molot, of Wakefield, seized because he maintained Thomas, son of Thomas Lascy, who had feloniously slain John de Eland, Knight, and because he gave the said Thomas, son of Thomas, forty shillings of silver for his maintenance, after the said felony had been committed, and knowing that he had com- mitted it.

Whence, in the presence of Miles de Stapleton, Sheriff of Yorkshire, they were accused, and brought before him. -Having been asked severally by the Justices whether they wished to be acquitted of the charges brought against them, they each say they are not guilty of the said felonies, and submit themselves to the mercy of the country for good or for ill,

The Jurors chosen and sworn, swear on their oaths that the said Robert del Bothe and all the others are in no way guilty of the said felonies,

_ Therefore, it was! adjudged that Robert de Bothe and all the others be acquitted.

Page 66


(Assize Roll No. 1.29. Mem. 17, Public Record Office, printed =— in the original Latin by Mr. W. Paley Baildon, in Y.A.J., Vol. XI., p. 128). (d) (1355) Gaol Delivery of York Castle before Thomas Seton, John Mowbray and Roger de Blaykeston, Justices, on the Thursday next after the Feast of St. Margaret the Virgin, in the 29th year of Edward III.

John de Shellay, seized by an indictment then made before Peter de Nuttle, late Sheriff of Yorkshire, because he had received at Brighouse, William de Lockwod, Adam Beaumond, and others who had feloniously slain John de Eland, Knight, after the afore- said felony had been committed, having knowledge of it, was presented before the Justices, as afore stated, and was acquitted. (Y Vol. AL, p. 128).

(e) July 21st, 1357. Pardon, at the asking of Edward, Prince of Wales, and for good service to the King and the Prince (in Gascony) of John del Hill, for the death of John del Hill, for the death of John, son of John de Eland, and for abetting and receiving Adam Beaumond, William Lokwode and William de Horneby (=Quarmby) indicted of the death of John de Eland, chivaler. (Cal. Pat. Rolls, 1354—8, p. 592, Y.A.J., Vol. 27, p. 243) Mr, ©. .T..:Clay, M.A., F.S.A., in his monograph on ‘*The Family of Eland’’ (Y.A.J., Vol. 27, p. 242) says :— : ‘The Calendars of Patent Rolls, printed since 1891, contain further references to the murder of Sir John and his son. ‘The death of John de Eland, late one of the Justices of the Peace in the County of York, only excepted,’ or ‘the death of John de Eland, Knight, excepted,’ is of frequent occurrence in Royal _ pardons during the period March 4th, 1350—1, to January 28th, 1354 ; and a similar exception is inserted as late as 1362.’’ (Cal. Pat. Rolls for those years). I

Return to the Huddersfield Exposed home page
View the list of other OCR'd books