Bowarcher south dating
Blakeway from a set of deeds which he classifies under the title "Jones". With Badger however it was otherwise, for the Inquisitions which, down to the time of Richard II, detail the possessions of the successive heirs of Osbern Fitz Richard's Barony, imply their continuous claim upon this Manor, though such claim probably amounted to nothing more than the payment of a small quit-rent. 63 this William, who very possibly may have been son or grandson of Robert, was granted by the said Osbern to Guy le Strange. iii, b.)  I speak with some hesitation about this deed, of which there seems to have been two originals,- one seen by Dugdale among the Lacon Evidences, the other extracted by Mr. Mary's Salop, was instituted, having exchanged with Everyngham.  It will be better to speak of him and his house when we come to treat of his greater Domesday Fief, viz. His Manors in Alnodestreu Hundred will indeed have some time been annexed to his Tenure in capite; but I find no hint of his successors retaining any such concern in Brockton or Ryton, as might be taken to represent his Domesday interests there. It is one of those which owing to this uncertainty of date was unfortunately omitted to be printed in vol. I, and again obtained judgment in a suit then pending. I have already alluded to a composition which about the year 1198 passed between the Dean of Brug and the Prior of Wenlock; Warner de Wililey was a witness, and doubtless on the part of the Prior.
de Ercalewe, Walter de Beysin, Will de Hugford, Knights, Walter de Hopton, Ivo de Clinton, Robert Dodington.- Now I need not point out to any one conversant with Shropshire genealogies of the thirteenth century, that this combination of witnesses existed only at its close, and therefore is inconsistent with a deed which must have passed at its beginning. However, about the time of Henry II's accession, it would seem that one William de Begesour was tenant under Osbern Fitz Hugh, grandson of Osbern Fitz Richard above mentioned. The loss of the document is in the present instance harmless, for that mixture of secondary evidence and analogy, which must often be our guide in these investigations, has enabled us to indicate the mode in which Guy le Strange and his heirs became Mesne-Lords of Badger.
There are some other differences between the two copies, but unimportant, except that Dugdale gives a set of witnesses with his deed whose names are as follows:- Wm. Of Robert, Sub Tenant here, in 1085, I can say nothing further, nor whether he left descendants to inherit his interests. Had this return been preserved, it would probably have contained a statement to the effect that Guy le Strange held something of new feoffment under the said Osbern.
The former had had two Seals, but Dugdale gives only the impression of the second or sinister, vis.- Arms * * on a chief * two cinquefoils *. Blakeway describes his deed as sealed with a fret (the bearing of De Williley). It is singular that except by these Inquisitions and the evidence of one or two private deeds, we should not have been able to identify Earl Roger's Tenant Osbern, with the powerful Baron whose name occupies other folios of the Domesday Record. Osbern Fitz Hugh made a return of his Barony in 1165, but it was sent back to him owing to some informality, and thus its contents are lost to posterity.
SEAL of Saint James's Hospital, Bridgnorth (Vide Vol. His limited acquaintance with Shropshire names might prevent his detection of an inconsistency which would strike a native Antiquary at once. The Feoffees, by another deed, regranted the premises (or most of them) to Warner and Petronilla in tail with remainder to the right heirs of Petronilla. This will appear still clearer from the following.- At Salop Assizes, January 1256, Margery de Lacy sued Burga de Wililegh that she should surrender to said Margery, Andrew, son and heir of Nicholas de Wililegh, custody of whom Margery asserted to belong to herself, because Nicholas had held under her at Rushbury by half-a-Knight's-fee; whereas Burga ever since Nicholas' death kept Andrew from the Plaintiff, who was thereby damaged to the extent of 10. It had no Parish, being within the Parish of Wenlock, but it was perhaps chargeable with a pension as an affiliation of Wenlock Church, and the Vicar of the latter was responsible for its service. The nature of the subinfeudation just alluded to is so well made out by contemporary documents as to merit particular attention.
My own idea is that Dugdale, copying a number of deeds, inadvertently took a testing-clause for this one from some other document lying before him.  Thus the minority of Andrew de Williley in 1255 was no concern of the Prior's, and was not alluded to in an Inquest which related mainly to the Prior's Franchise.  Summarily then, the Church of Willey may be presumed to have been founded and endowed by the Lords of the Manor. Some facts necessary to such fuller account will however be furnished by our present inquiry.