Hide
A History of the Family of Sandford of Sandford, Askham, Howgill and Helton in the County of Westmorland
hide
Hide
FROM THE YEAR 1174 TO THE PRESENT DAY.
By William Arthur Cecil Sandford
Part 2
1
Sandford of Sandford 1174 - 1404
The northern part of the county of Westmorland did not form part of the England which passed to William of Normandy at the battle of Hastings. It was not till the reign of his son, William Rufus, that it passed from the Kingdom of Scotland to that of England. In 1092, however, Rufus first entered into an arrangement with the Scottish King, Alexander, whereby Cumberland and Westmorland became part of the former's dominions, and he consolidated his new possessions by building the castle of Carlisle. Despite this, Alexander's successors still claimed the two counties as part of their kingdom, till in 1157 Henry II forced the young Scottish King, Malcolm (Canmore) to give up all claim to them, and the boundary between England and Scotland was fixed as it is today; though for some time after the Scottish kings kept reviving their old claim. Finally at a conference held at York in 1237, Alexander III, King of Scotland, gave up all claim to the counties of Cumberland, Westmorland and Northumberland in exchange for lands of annual value of £200 to be held of the King of England by the annual render of a falcon to the Constable of Carlisle Castle. (a) However, in the quarrels between Edward II and King John Baliol all these lands were seized and reverted to the Crown. The lands included the Honour of Penrith, which in consequence suffered heavily at the hands of the Scots for several generations as a result of the King of Scotland's claim to that manor.
The new subjects thus brought under the English crown seem to have been chiefly of Norwegian descent - the descendants of the Viking who in the 10th century conquered and overran the North of England. In no part of England today is the appearance of the peasantry so typically Scandinavian, and the place names for the two counties, together with the local speech, bear out this contention very completely. (b) The Scandinavian termination "by" a town, "thorpe" a village, "thwaite" a forest clearing, "holme" a river island, to name a few, far outnumber the names of Celtic and Saxon derivation, while such words as "beck" a stream, "fell" a hill, "garth" an enclosures - all pure Scandinavian - are in common use today
(a) Archaeological Journal XVI, 324; Lyson's "Magna Britannia" (1816) IV, 114; etc.
(b) Starting Dictation...For more on this interesting subject see: Ferguson's "The Norsemen in Cumberland and Westmorland".
2
It is true Rufus "planted" or imported a number of peasant families from the South of England, but the great bulk of the population, including almost certainly the majority of the local lords of the land, were of pure Viking descent. The lordship or Barony of Westmorland was granted to the great family of Morville, the heiress of which family carried it to the Veteriponts, from which it eventually passed to the Cliffords, also through an heiress.
Four miles S. E. of Appleby, on the north bank of the fair river Eden, stands the manner of Sandford in the parish of Warcop, and it is here that the family of which the following pages treat was seated when the first records of it appear. The earliest member of whom we have any mention is one Gamel de Sandford, whose name appears as a witness to a confirmation to the abbey of St Mary's York and Clement the Abbot and the monks there by William Breton de Colby of a grant by his cousin Emsand son Walter of a carucate of land at Colby to the Abbey of St Mary's York and the Monks of Wetherall. The other witnesses are Robert, Archdeacon of Carlisle, Robert Distorell, Murdac, Deacon of Appleby, William de Louther (ancestor of the Lowthers of Lowther, now Earls of Lonsdale), Ada de Musgrave (ancestor of the Musgravs of Eden Hall), Gospatrick son of Orm ( ancestor of the Curwens of Workington), Thomas de Hellebeck, Robert son of Coleman, Ada son of Uctred of Boteton, Alan son of Torfin de Alvastain, Walder de Kirkby Thore, Ulf de Applyby, and Copsi the woorward.. (a) The deed is not dated, but we know the approximate date from the fact that the grantor and two of the witnesses were fined for surrendering Appleby Castle to William the Lion, King of Scotland, in 1174, when the latter invaded England in pursuance of his revived claim to the Northern counties. The fines appear in the Pipe Roll for Everwicher (Yorks) of 22 Henry II (1176) when the latter being accounted for by Ranulph de Glanville, Sheriff of Westmorland, and from this we learn that Gospatrick son of Orm, was fined £500 marks, Robert son of Coleman £10, and William Breton of Colby (the grantor of the land) 40/-. So Gamel de Sandford was living at the same time as these three, who were all living in 1174.
Gospatrick son of Orm, who received the heavy fine of 500 marks, was in command of Appleby Castle at the time of the surrender. Jordan Fautosme's Chronicle tells us in its quaint old Norman-French of this raid - the first of many that we shall read of during the next 450 years.
(a) Prescott's Register of Netherall, p.393; Also see N. & B., I, 428.
3
"Ne fist a cele feiz a Robert nul contraire
Ains alad a Appelbi, la endrait tint sun lire.
N'i aveit nule gent: si fud tut desguarni.
Gospatric le fiz Norm, un veil Engleis fluri
Estiant li cunstable; si cris tost merci.
Li reis William d'Escoce ad ja pris Appelbi
E Roger de Munbrai qui esteit sis amis;
E mettent la dedenz lur serjanz marchis
E tres Cunestables el chastel unt asis." Etc.
He (i.e King William) did not this time do any harm to Robert
But went to Appleby; there he directed his march
There were no people in it, therefore he took it speedily.
The King had very soon the castle of Appleby
There were no people in it, but towards quite unguarded.
Gospatric, the son of Orme, an old grey headed Englishman
Was the Constable: he soon cried mercy.
King William of Scotland has already taken Appleby
And Roger of Mowbray who was his friend.
And place within it their sergeants as Warders of the Marches
And they have appointed three constables in the Castle." (a)
Gospatric's mother was Gunilda, daughter of Gospatric: Earl of Dunbar, and he was therefore closely related to the Royal Family of Scotland. It is quite possible that his sympathies were rather with the Scots than with the English.
Clement, Abbot of St Mary's York, to whom the confirmation was made, was appointed Abbot in 32 Henry II (1186) (b) The description of Gospatric in the Chronicle as "an old grey headed Englishman", i.e., in 1174, shows that the charter witnessed by Gamel de Sandford and him could not be very much later than that date, so it must have been shortly after the appointment of Clement as Abbot, the date therefore being about 1186. Gamel was probably over 50 at the time, as his son Robert was aged at least 21 (he witnessed a deed about the same year) so the date of Gamel's birth would be about 1134.
(a) Translation by Francisque Michel, who edited the Chronicle for the Surtees Socy.
(b) N. & B., I, 428.
4
The social position of Game1 de Sandford's co-witnesses to this charter show that even at this early date the Sandford fami1y was of high standing in the county, but of Gamel's parentage or the earlier origin of the family we have no record.. The name of Sandford occurs on every known copy of the Roll of Battle Abbey, and from this it has been claimed that this family as well as the Shropshire family of the same name, descends from one of the Normans who accompanied the Conquerer on his invasion of England. It is pleasant to talk of "Norman blood', but is now known that the much vaunted Roll of Battle Abbey was compiled as late as the 14th century. It is merely a list of surnames, and probably comprises those families who by their long descent and feudal position claimed to have "come over with the Conqueror". It is only known to us through the 16th century versions of Leland, Holingshead and Ducheane, all of which differ from each other: indeed Sir Egerton Brydges described it as "a disgusting forgery", and E.A. Freeman as a transparent fiction". As a matter of fact it is pretty clear from the name Game1 that the family, like most of the ancient families of Cumberland and Westmorland, is of Scandinavian - probably Norse - descent. Gamelsby is a hamlet in the parish of Addingham in Cumberland, and the name is a not uncommon Scandinavian one. A few years later we find Uchtred de Sandford and Wigan de Sandford, - both Norse names ~ members of the same family There is little doubt that the family descended from the old Norse sea-kings who had conquered the country 250 years before Gamel's day , driving out the Saxons they found there, and probably exterminating the last of the old British race whose barrows still stud the moors of Westmoreland. Gamel was therefore still holding the lands his ancestors had conquered by the sword 21/2 centuries before. It is after all a finer descent than the "Norman Blood of William's adventurers drawn from all the races of Europe,
As for the origin of the name here again many fantastic suggestions have been put forward especially for the Shropshire family of Sandford. Whatever truth than may be in these for this latter family, for the Westmorland family the name requires 1ittle explanation or surmise The family were lords of Sandford so were called by the name of their lands. Nicholson points out that Sandford is on the bank of the river Eden, and there was probably once a ford there, and further states that the soil in the district is unusually sandy - hence 'sand ford". The explanation is simple and probably correct.
The next name we have is Robert de Sandford. Here the Norman name of Robert enters the family. A steady
5
"Normanizing" of the ruling classes was going on; Norman French was the fashionable speech and was ousting the old language amongst the owners of the land. It was the language of the Court, and the language in which later on all proceedings of Parliament were recorded. In the south of England Norman names had become the only possible ones for anybody with any pretention to social standing, but in the North the process took somewhat longer.
This Robert de Sandford (called in the charter Robert de Santeford) witnesses a confirmation by Torphin Fitz Robert of a grant of lands by Richard Fitz Ketel (note the mingling of Norse and Norman names) to the Abbey of Byland in company with William de Louther and others. (a) William de Louther was living in 1186, so Robert had arrived at man's estate by about then. Also Wennisa, wife of Robert de Sandford, and Alice, daughter of Uctrede de Sandford, both appear as witnesses to a grant by Eva, daughter of Gospatrick son of Wa1theof, wife of Robert son of Copsi, to Byland Abbey. (b) Copsi, as we have seen, was living in 1186, being contemporary. with Gamel de Sandford. So Robert de Sandford's wife and Alice daughter of Uctrede de Sandford, were both contemporary with Robert son of Copsi, which Copsi was living in 1186. The presumption is that this Robert de Sandford was son of Gamel de Sandford, and that Uctrede de Sandford was Robert's uncle. This presumption is confirmed by a deed (undated) in the Machel MSS. at Carlisle consisting of a grant of lands at Ormeshead by Robert son of Robert son of Gamel de Sandford to Richard de Warthecopp. © Here we have three generations, Gamel, Robert and Robert.
But when we try to date this latter deed we are up against a difficulty. Nicholson and Burn state that this Richard de Warthecopp was one of the commissioners appointed on the death of Robert de Veteripont, Lord of Westmorland, in 49 Henry III (1263), and who was still living in 20 Edward I when he was a juror in a case at Appleby between the King and the Abbey of St. Mary at York, but was dead in 8 Edward II when his son Henry held the manor of Warthecop. (d) so Richard de Warthecop lived between 1292 and 1315. If he died in l300, and, was aged (say) 70, the grant of Ormeshead could not be much earlier than 1255. This gives 70 years between Robert de
(a) Dodsworth MSS.
(b) Dodsworth MSS.
© Given in N. & B, I, 602.
(d) N.& B., I, 602.
6
Sandford (II) and his father, which is improbable, and the Ormeshead grant was probably made to an earlier Richard de Warthecop than the one mentioned by Nicholson and Burn, a more likely date being about 1215. He also witnessed a grant by Robert son of Coleman and his heir, to St Peter's at York and a demise by the same, also to St Peter's of eight score acres of land at Asby the dates of these two deeds being about 1184. The other witnesses to the first deed are Richard English and Thomas de Musgrave, and to the second deed Richard English and Herbert de Tebay (a) Richard English ("Anglicus" in the original) was ancestor of Sir Thomas d' Englys or English, whose daughter and heiress married Edmund de Sandford some two hundred years later, bringing Asby as part of her dowry.
The next member of the family of whom we have mention is William de Sandford, who calls himself William son of Robert de Sandford, thus fixing his place in the pedigree. This William de Sandford executed a very interesting deed, now in the Machel collection at Carlisle, by which he granted to Robert de Veteripont his whole wood and turbary of Sandford for 15 marks of silver and one palfrey, and for the release of the rest of his lands from homage and service. The deed is particularly interesting as it gives the complete boundaries of the land thus granted as follows (translation): -
"Beginning from Creskeld-beck where it falls into Coupemanebeck, and so going up through the middle of Erthasegill to a place where Rouch-beck falls into the said Greskeld-beck and so going up Rouche-beck into Tonwode mire which lies between the aforesaid wood of Sandford and Humfreysheved, and so from Humfreyshead going up to the sike which falls from the pack of Burton and so to the way which goes from Sandford toward Burton, and then going down northwards to the corner of the field of William son of Simon, and so going up by the side of the said field towards the south to the head of Swinesete and so going along between the improved land and this wood which encompasseth Sealestedes mire - descending westward to the brook which is called Sandwath just at the going out of Sandford aforesaid to Coupmane-beck: paying to him and his heirs yearly 3d. at the feast of St Lawrence."
Witnesses: "Reimund de Berneford, Sheriff of Westmorland, Guido de Hellebeck, Thomas son of Reimund, Adam de Musgrave, Roger de Botham, Thomas son of William son of Reimund, William son of Simon, William de Morvil, Galfridus de Cateby, Robert the forester, Nicholas de Ribles, and others." (b)
(a) Given in N. & B. I. 606. (b) Ibid.
7
Afterwards the said Robert de Veteriponte regranted the same by the same boundaries to Robert de Sandford, son of the said William de Sandford for £20 pounds paid to him "in his necessity", the witnesses being Reimund de Derneford, Sheriff of Westmorland, Thomas de Helebeck, William Morvil, Thomas Bowet, Robert de Askeby, William de Warthecopp, Matthew de Rosgill, Geoffrey de Watsby, Adam de Musegrave, William Chartney, and others. (a)
So here we have yet another generation, Robert, son of William de Sandford. Now for the date of these two deeds.
Robert de Veteriponte was Baron of Westland, and overlord of the Sandfords. He was a well-known person in his day and one of the most powerful of the Norman barons. He died 12 Henry III (1228), so the deed are of before that year. The names of the witnesses point to their being executed during the reign of King Richard I or King John. Robert de Veteriponte took part in the third Crusade, and it is possible that his sale or regrant of Sandford wood to Robert de Sandford was made when he was raising funds for this. His son John of Veteriponte, Baron of Westland, died 26 Henry III (1243), and during his tenure of the Barony gave a grant to the Lord of the manor of Warcop (unnamed) and to the Lords of the manors of Sandford, Burton and Helton, (unnamed) of "freedom from pulture (i.e. encroachment) of the foresters, and from all things that he, his ancestors or heirs or foresters might or could take or demand at any time by occasion of the said pulture by the testimony of his verderers or their officers of the forest; but if any forfeiture should incur by reason of any trespass committed in the forest or of vert or venison, the forester should apply to the Lords of the said townships and demand of them wytnesman, and the lords shall find to the foresters wytnesman." (b)
It will be seen from the above deeds that the Sandfords held the lands from the Veteriponts as overlords, a tenure which was later transferred to the Cliffords. A note on the various feudal tenures will be found in appendix IV, (p. - - -); we shall often have occasion to refer to them and it is in fact impossible to fully understand any family history of the middle ages without some knowledge of these, on which the whole of the feudal system was based.
(a) Hist. MSS. Commn. F th Report. Appendix IV. P.319
(b) N. & B.,I, 602 .
8
The unnamed Lord of the Manor of Sandford in the above deed of John de Veteripont was Robert de Sandford who had bought back Sandford wood from John's father Robert de Veteripont.
Before however we deal with Robert de Sandford we must revert to his father William, who had ceded Sandford wood to the Veteriponts.
In the fourth year of King John (1203) he had a final concord with Nigel de Smardale and Eva his wife about three carucates of land there, acknowledged by them to be his right and heredity. Now Smardale was assessed at three carucates, therefore it was the whole township that belonged to him. William then regranted it all except half a carucate and six acres back to Nigel and Eva to hold of him as their overlord; therefore be was mesne Lord of Smardale. (a)
Mr Ragg in his interesting article on the Sandford family shows that William's lands passed to a daughter Isabel, wife of Thomas de Musgrave, from which he concludes that Isabel was the heiress of William and that Hobart de Sandford was nephew and not son of William. (b) But Mr. Ragg does not seem to have noticed the regent of Sandford wood by the Veteriponte to the Sandfords (though he gives the original grant by William de Sandford to Robert de Veteripont, whom he wrongly calls John de Veteripont) in which Robert is distinctly called son of William de Sandford. There is little doubt from the arguments given by Mr. Ragg that Isabel wife of Thomas de Musgrave was a daughter of William de Sandford, and it is also clear that the Musgraves held the manor of Sandford. For in 1278/9 Thomas son of William de Goldington brought an action against Thomas de Musgrave for enclosing ground in Sandford, and in his petition he claims that Musgrave had no right to approve himself" (i.e. enclose) in this land because his father William de Goldington had hold it of William de Sandford before the latter "gave it" to Thomas de Musgrave, and William de Sandford had warranted all easements to William de Goldington. In reply to which Thomas Musgrave claims that he had all William de Sandford's rights and could exercise them. © No verdict is recorded. But
(a) F. of F
(b) C. & W. Trans. (N.S.) XXI, 228
© Assize Roll, 981.
9
later in 1300, the same case comes up again and a full verdict is given in which it is found that Richard de Musgrave had been Lord of Sandford and that Thomas his son succeeded to his rights. (a) This Richard de Musgrave was son of Thomas de Musgrave and Isabel de Sandford. Thomas de Musgrave and Isabel however also had a son Thomas , whose daughter and heiress Avice married Thomas de Hellebeck, and amongst other lands the Hellebecks held the manor of Smardale which they granted to Guido de Smardale in 1291, except half a carucate and six acres - the same amount of land that Robert to Sandford had kept back from his grant to Nigel de Smardale in 1203. (b) It seems that somehow or other the Musgraves had become possessed of a considerable portion of the 8andford lands. Smardale, as we have sees, descended to a daughter, but the manor of Sandford went down in the male line of the Musgraves till 1356, when, as will be seen in due course it once more came back to the Sandfords. There is little doubt however that whatever the Musgrave claim was it was not an undisputed one. In an enquiry held in the year I284 as to the names and lands of those holding their estates from the Veteriponts, Thomas de Musgrave is given as mesne lord of Soulby, Marton and Great Musgrave, and Richard de Sandford as mesne lord of Sandford and part of Smardale, © and at the partition of the inheritance of the Veteriponts between the two daughters of the last Robert de Veteripont, Idonea had allocated to her the homage and service of Richard de Sandford. (d) It would seem that their overlords at least would recognise only the Sandfords as the lords of Sandford. The de Goldington family, as we have seen, refused to recognise the Musgraves as their lords, and in 1291/2 Thomas de Goldington brought an action against Richard de Musgrave (son of Thomas de Musgrave and Isabel de Sandford) for seizing his cattle in Sandford. De Musgrave replied that as Go1dington held his lands of him as others did in Sandford by homage and service (i.e. cornage) and that de Goldington had not paid his services and dues. But it
(a) Assize Roll, 1321.
(b) F. of F.
© C. & W. Transa (N..S.), VIII; 275 et seq,.
(d) N.. & B. I, 607.
10
was found that as Goldington had not 'attourned" i.e., placed de Musgrave in seisen as his overlord, so de Musgrave lost his case. (a)
We shall find the question of the lordship of Sandford cropping up for the next hundred years. For the moment however it is sufficient to say that William de Sandford (the grantor of the wood at Sandford to de Veteripont) had done something whereby his son-in-law Thomas de Musgrave claimed and appears to have been in possession at the manor of Sandford and of a portion of the Sandford lands, but his (William's) son Robert de Sandford was still looked on by his overlords the Veteriponts as Lord at Sandford. This Robert de Sandford (who as we have seen bought back Sandford wood from the Veteriponts) witnessed a deed about Barton Mill in 1252 (36 Henry III) (b) In 1255/6 he held, or claimed, as did also Thomas de Musgrave, common pasture in Dufton, be1onging to the lands they held in Morton. ©
Between the years 1250 and 1278 he granted to his eldest son Richard de Sandford 2 bovates of land in Morton which William de Brampton had held; Richard to hold them of his father for life paying 1d. at Christmas, and after his death to hold them of the chief lords. (d)
In 1278/9 thomas de Musgrave is required to warrant Williams son of Robert de Souleby against the 1/3rd of a tenement which Beatrix, once wife of Robert de Sandford, claimed of him in Souleby as part of her widow' s portion; another claim was made by Beatrix on William Fitz Payne for her dowry in Sandford. (e) From which it is clear that Robert de Sandford was dead.
During his lifetime other bearers of the name appear in the district, one of these being a Wigan de Sandford, who witnessed a charter of Alan Fitz Roland, Lord of Galloway to John de Newbigging. (f) This would be before 1255, when Alan Lord of Galloway died. The other is another Robert de Sandford described as the King's Clerk, who witnessed a deed dated at York April 37 Henry III (1253) whereby David de Lardiner released all his rights in the City of York to the Mayor and Citizens. (g) It is
(a) Assize Roll, 1321.
(b) LowtherMSS; C. & W. Trans. (N.S.) XXI, 229.
© Assize Roll, 979
(d) MSS at Lowther Castle.
(e) C. & W. Trans.(N.S.) XXI, 229.
(f) Newbiggin MSS.
(g) Drake's "Ebracium", I. 325
11
probable that both these were younger brothers of William de Sandford, and so uncles of Robert. The "King's Clerk" seems to correspond somewhat to the modern term "Court Chaplain", only as nearly all the legal work in the middle ages was done by the clergy, they also did the exchequer business for the king, so "King's Clerk" would refer to one who did this. We shall find a number of the Sandford family being described by this title. After the time of Edward I the civil law (i.e. the new civil code brought in from a study of Roman Law) and the canonical law (i.e., the traditional feuda1 law) began to find themselves in antagonism, and the practise of law gradual1y passed to the laiety.
Robert de Sandford also seems to have had a brother John, for in 18 Edward I (1290) is a grant of lands in Sandford from John, son of John de Sandford, to John de Helton, two of the witnesses being Richard de Warthecop and Henry his son. (a) This same John de Sandford is a witness to a chancery Inquisition taken at Westmorland by the King's orders at Michaelmas 1275, to enquire into an incident when Robert le Chamberlain, servant of Roger de Clifford the younger and Isabel his wife, was wounded by Thomas le Breton in the left hand so that he lost his hand, and was also wounded in the head with a shovel by the said Thomas le Breton, and also wounded by Ellis Rybill, and then beaten and left for dead. (b)
Robert de Sandford was succeeded by his eldest son Richard de Sandford, who as we have seen, was granted lands in Norton by his father and who is given as mesne lord of Sandford and part of Smardale in 1284. This Richard Sandford in 1310 granted 1ands in Souleby to his son John to be held of him during his father's life for 6 marks yearly, and after his death for the gift of a rose yearly to Richard's heirs: © so John was his younger son. His eldest son was Robert de Sandford, who succeeded him, and who became a man of note in the county. With him records become much more numerous, and various other members of the family appear whom it is difficult to place properly.
Robert de Sandford first appears in 5 Edward II (1311/12) when Simon de Hoton, accompanying the Bishop of Carlisle to London for the General Council, appointed him his attorney during his absence. (d)
(a) N & B., I, 606
(b) Chancery Inquisns., (misc.); 33 (42).
© F. Of F., 3 Ed. II.
(d) Pat.R., 5 Ed. II (23).