Folios: 193v-194v. County of Yorkshire. Responses given to the articles concerning...

Folios: 193v-194v. County of Yorkshire. Responses given to the articles concerning the Earl Marshal [Roger Bigod] for the bailiwick of the forest of Pikering [Pickering]: To the article of the Earl Marshal, seeking that he can hold his bailiwick in peace in the forest of Pikering [Pickering] and in the same state in which H le Bigot [Hugh Bigod], his father, had it, the bailiff of Pickering answers that the earl still holds and has the said bailiwick in peace, although the custody of the earl was seised on the coming of the justices at Pik' [Pickering] into the hands of Edmund by default of the earl and his bailiffs and foresters on account of clear and manifest causes, which Edmund has in his hands. And because the bailiwick was seised and handed back again to the earl by writ of the king, therefore the earl has that custody in peace until the coming of the justices otherwise at Pickering, who then are to proceed according to what they see should be proceeded in this matter according to the assize of the forest.

The earl says that he has paid 63s 4d per annum to Edmund for his bailiwick. Whereupon he seeks that he can have those things which pertain to the levying of the said farm, according to what lord H [Hugh Bigod] had. The bailiff answers that it is true that the earl paid per annum for his bailiwick, although unwillingly, and that the earl has had up to this point all things which pertain to the levying of the farm, and greater things, for which he will perhaps answer before the withdrawal of the justices. And on account of the claim that he has exacted the loppings, bark and croppings from oaks and trees given to be sold or taken to Edmund's use throughout his whole bailiwick, from such things nothing is heard or sought by any of the ministers of the earl, and therefore nothing is handed over or about to be inquired into, because such things pertain to the earl, and he does not have any instrument by which he can claim such things or allege seisin.

As to the fact that the earl [had] as his right in the forest in the woods of Langedene and Aleintoftes herbage, windfallen, dry and dead wood without waste and destruction, honey, 'rere-pannage', loppings, barks and croppings of trees, they answer that it is true that he had the herbage, dry and dead wood, honey, 'rere-pannage' and farm of collecting nuts and still has. But by what warrant it is not still inquired into by the justices, because it will be inquired into on their next coming, as it is believed, as the earl always alleged that it was not held from his custody, and he does not answer to anyone except before the king or the justices itinerant about the forest of Pik' [Pickering]. And it is only said that the earl ought to have dry and dead wood in those woods without waste and destruction, and it is true that the bailiffs of the earl took dry and dead wood with greenwood and this with destruction.

As to the fact that the earl complains that Edmund's bailiffs cause the land and waste to be rented in Alayntoftes, where the earl claims herbage as pertaining to his farm in that forest, the bailiffs answer that it is true that he causes it to be rented, because Alayntoftes is of Edmund, where no one shares or can share without Edmund's licence. And wherefore Edmund, by his letters patent, ordered his lordships there and elsewhere to be rented, just as it was well lawful for him to do, as it seems, so that Edmund does not lose the profit of this lordships on account of the claiming of the herbage of the earl. As to the fact the earl complains that those to whom the said lordships are demised cause land to be enclosed, it is true that they do not have the profit thereof otherwise.

As to the fact that the earl says that agistment made in the hay of Scalleby [Scalby] is to the damage and disinheritance of Edmund on account of the sale made in the hay, because branches of oaks regrow, to this the bailiff answers that he passed everywhere through the middle of the wood of Scalleby [Scalby], and did not find such branches, which could be browsed by beasts. But it is true that the bailiffs and foresters of the earl complained more about the fact that they lose the escapes of the said hay on account of agistment there, than on account of any other damage, which could happen to Edmund.

As to the fact that the earl seeks letters of Edmund to be directed to the earl's bailiffs to oversee the sale of wood made in his custody, on account that the earl will be charged for the timber of tree stumps found in his bailiwick, the bailiff says that the earl in the beginning of the sale, now four years ago, sought the same letter and obtained it in the said form. Which same letter from the handing over of Peter de Molingtone [Mollington], then bailiff of the earl, in the said custody, remains in the hands of Thomas de Ebreston [Ebberston], now steward of the earl. Wherefore, on account of this, the earl can not acquit himself or allege that it is suitable for him to answer for the timber of the said tree stumps.