Feudalism in Guernsey

The earlier period of feudalism in Guernsey

The two fiefs Bessin and Cotentin

The history of feudalism in Guernsey unfolds from the early 11th century, characterized by the division into two principal fiefs. 

The first confiscation of the fief of Bessin (Fief Anchetil - Le Comte) (from 1028 to 1034)

Duke Robert later confiscated Anchetil's lands, granting them along with certain rights from Nigel's benefice to the Abbey of Mont St. Michel between 1028 and 1034, marking some of the earliest instances of knight's fees in Normandy.

The restitution to Ranulph of part of the fief of Bessin (1042)

Subsequently, around 1042, William the Conqueror reclaimed these lands for Ranulph, Anchetil's son, and compensated the Abbey with Alderney and Sark. Later adjustments allowed the Abbey to regain a portion of the Vicomte's fief in Guernsey.

The conspiracy of Nigel II and the confiscation of the fief of Cotentin (1047)

A conspiracy involving Nigel II, Vicomte du Cotentin, against William the Conqueror occurred around the time of the Battle of Val-ès-Dunes in 1047. This rebellion was led by several Norman barons against William's rule in Normandy. Following this conspiracy against William, Nigel II, Vicomte du Cotentin, lost his Guernsey fief. His fief in Guernsey was forfeited, and the advowsons of his six parishes, and two carucates of land, were given by the Conqueror to the great Abbey of Marmoutier, near Tours. 

The creation of the fief of Anneville

The battle of Val ès Dunes is the reason why Edith Carey posits that the Seigneur of Anneville fought in the battle of Val-ès-Dunes against Nigel and got the fief of Anneville in this period with a part carved out from the Fief of Cotentin .

The other possibility is that the Seigneur of Anneville effectively liberated the island from the pirates in this period and got a part of the fief not given to the Abbey. 

It appears that the fief of Anneville was notably the first secular fief awarded to an island resident, marking a pivotal point in the evolution of the island, evidenced by the construction of a manor house on its grounds. In contrast, the two fiefs of Bessin and Cotentin did not have manor houses, indicating the absence of a residence for a lord on these lands. Consequently, they were more likely regarded as extensions or dependencies of their respective honors located on the mainland, lacking a central place for local governance or residence by a seigneur. 

Sampson (or Samson) d'Anneville was a historical figure who formed the origin of the modern feudal settlement of Guernsey. Born around 1025 and dying at the Battle of Hastings on 14 October 1066, he was a seigneur of Anneville sur Saire in Normandy and a knight under the Duke. A extract of a cronique of the abbaye de Caen mentions the Seigneur of Anneville as one of the Seigneurs that should rule Normandy during the conquest of England and in specific he should rule on Val-de-Saire (https://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/bpt6k54249211/f314) . It is therefore sure that in 1066 a seigneur d'Ansneville or Anneville was governor of the Val-de-Saire and was in good relationship with the Duke. 

The probable partial restitution to Nigel of part of the fief of Cotentin 

Nigel received pardon some years later. Some writers have supposed that Nigel never recovered all of his lands in Guernsey, but this is probably not the fact, as we find another Nigel, his son or grandson, confirming, about 1090, certain gifts made by his tenants in Guernsey to the Abbey of St. Sauveur-le-Vicomte, Normandy, which had been founded by the Vicomtes du Cotentin under the shadow of their great castle. 

For sure he didnt recover the entirety of his fief as for the donation to the Abbey of Marmoutier and Anneville.

According to one account, the descendants of Sampson d'Anneville held the seigneurie and Fief d'Anneville in Guernsey for four generations, starting with Sampson himself. His second generation included two sons: Guillaume (also known as William) and Humphrey. Guillaume is believed to be the "sire Val-de-Saire" mentioned by the poet Wace ("fearing neither stake nor fosse, and overthrowing and killing many a good horse and man"), who was present at the Norman Conquest and held lands as an under-tenant of Roger de Montgomery in Hampshire.For some other historians the Sire Val-de-Saire was Sampson himself. In 1106, Guillaume made a donation of a church to the Abbey of Lessay and is known to have traveled to the Holy Land with Robert Courteheuse, Duke of Normandy and Godfrey of Bouillon in 1099. He was married to Hawise.  

The Vicomtes du Cotentin continued in peaceful possession just of a small of part of their Guernsey manor until the commencement of the reign of Stephen. The reign of Stephen of England commenced in 1135, following the death of his predecessor, Henry I 

By the conclusion of Henry I's reign (1135), Guernsey featured several fiefs, and the ecclesiastical fiefs for the Abbeys of Mont St. Michel and Marmoutier that were derived by William the Conqueror. Despite transitions in ownership, these fiefs maintained their historical names and importance, highlighting the lasting influence of their original proprietors.

We may here glance at the condition of the island at this period. The population must have been small and chiefly engaged in fishing, the chief industry and wealth of the people during the next two centuries. The town, if it yet existed, can have only consisted of a few houses straggling along the sea shore. 

Our parishes known by their present names already existed early in the century. The Duke of Normandy owned no lands in the island, which was divided, as we have seen, into various fiefs, but these were already subdivided into arrear fiefs held by persons of sufficient wealth to make considerable gifts to religious establishments in Normandy. Some of these seigneurs may have been resident in the island, but the bulk of them were owners of property, and lived in Normandy.

There is no proof that the the two vicomtes were still in power and we have no proof that the administrative and judicial powers of our two vicomtes over the tenants of their fiefs in Guernsey was as full and complete as those they possessed on the main land (this opinion is expressed by De Grucy in its book on Medieval tenures in Jersey and can apply also to Guernsey). 

The tradition says the judiciary power was held by the fief of Anneville and the Abbey of Mont Saint Michel. 

Probably existed the court of fief Le Comte and other ones composed as were similar feudal courts in Normandy, of a seneschal or bailli, sitting as president with their suiters or chief tenants, as judges, would have judged all causes of their tenants, have held pleas of the sword as well as pleas of land and chattels. The few cases reserved for the duke’s judgment would not have been sufficient to warrant the assumption that anything approaching a permanent local ducal court was in existence at this period. Assault in the duke’s court, or on the way to or from it, offences committed in the host, or within a week of its setting forth or its return, offences against pilgrims, and violations of coinage, are all the causes reserved for the duke’s judgment by the “consuetudines et justii” of William the Conqueror 1091.

The Exchequer, with its permanent judicial officials, was established by Henry I of England during his reign, which lasted from 1100 to 1135. The Exchequer became fully operational in its role of managing the kingdom's finances and judiciary functions within this period, specifically around the early 12th century. 

Possibly at the end of the period after the establishment of the exchequer, with its permanent judicial officials, by Henry I (before 1135), some supervision may have existed, even in the isles, over the jurisdiction of the viscounts, similar to that which he was creating in Normandy.

The reign of Stephen (from 1135) ushered in a new era of our history. Stephen was the chosen king of both the English and Norman barons who hated the Angevin Geoffrey. The latter’s first attempt to conquer Normandy, establish his wife Matilda’s claims, failed conspicuously, but two years of Stephen’s mis-rule paved the way second and successful attempt in 1138. 

Roger, Vicomte du Cotentin, was one of Stephen’s justiciars, and chief supporters in Normandy, and was killed in an ambuscade by the partisans of Geoffrey of Anjou, in 1138. 

The forfeiture of fief le Comte

Both of the overlords of Guernsey were partisans of Stephen. Ranulph, Earl of Chester, was a strong supporter of his up to 1140, though he afterwards changed sides frequently during the civil wars, as occasions offered for his own advantage.  

When he changed side it is probable there was forfeiture of his fief in Guernsey.

Geoffrey Plantagenet, also known as Geoffrey of Anjou, became master of Normandy in 1144 The result when Geoffrey became master of the island of Guernsey must have been the forfeiture of their fiefs, which probably may account for the altered condition of the island when we next hear of it under Henry II.

We dont know exactly what happened in this period. There is an old tradition telling that the fief of Le Comte was carved out of the fief of Anneville or was a dependency of the fief d'Anneville that is important to analyze in its validity and origin. 

In theory it is possible something happened around 1150-1160 as many readjustment took place. This period is undocumented. Is possible and probable that the fief Le Comte lost its status: it could be proved by the fact that at some indeterminate date in the early 12th century the fief Le Comte was split into sub-fiefs, consisting of the Fief Rozel, which went to the Rozel family, the Fief Longue, given to the Wake family (who held land at Longues, near Bayeux), the Fief Suart, which went to the Suhart family, and finally, the Fief Sotuas, given to a cadet branch of the Magneville (Mandeville) family from Sottevast. 

A reason for this loss of status could be that In March 1153 an event took place affecting the destiny of the Fief Le Comte. As a manoeuvre preceding the Treaty of Wallingford, Henry made an agreement at Devizes with the treacherously opportunist Earl of Chester to let bygones be bygones and to restore the earl to his Norman lands (including the Fief Le Comte in Guernsey). This bargain, however, came to nothing as the earl died in December 1153 and his heir (Hugh) was only six years of age. The fief thus reverted to Henry as Duke of Normandy. After he granted it to Hugh Wake. The father of Hugh Wake held Fief Longue. 

So in 1168 we find that the Fief du Comte had passed from the Earls of Chester and at that date Hugh Wake gives to the Abbey of Longues, which he had recently founded in Normandy, certain lands, on his fief in Guernsey, still called “Le Fief de Longues,” at St. Saviour’s, formerly belonging to his father, Geoffrey Wake, a contemporary of Stephen.

At the same time the third generation of the family Anneville in Guernsey was represented by the two sons of Guillaume d’Anneville, Geoffrey and Jean.

Geoffrey, the first son of Guillaume, confirmed the donation made by his father in 1118. This is recorded in a document found in the Gallica Bibliothèque Nationale de France. The second son, Jean, confirmed the donations made by previous generations to the Abbey of Lessay in 1139. He is mentioned in various other documents, which can be found in the same source.

In 1144, a Richard d'Anneville is mentioned in Guernsey alongside a Mautalent.

We find further comments about this period 1150-1160 (extracted from an article of Ewen): "The years around 1150 are very important because in this period it is possible and probable that a redistribution of fiefs happened.
Though documentary evidence is lacking, it seems certain, as Prof. Le Patourel has shown in his “Mediæval Administration of the Channel Islands”, pp. 107-9, that after 1144 Geoffrey of Anjou exercised effective control over the Channel Islands. In the case of Guernsey, the whole Island had reverted to the Duke as Roger, Vicomte of the Cotentin, who held the south-eastern half of the Island, had been killed in 1138 while fighting in Normandy on Behalf of Stephen, and had left no heir, and the Earl of Chester, the holder of the other half of the Island, supported Stephen, and was in rebellion against the crowned Duke of Normandy, thus breaking his allegiance to his feudal lord, and rendering his fiefs not only in Guernsey, but also in Normandy, forfeit to the Duke. As a result of this conjunction of events Geoffrey was in legal possession of two fiefs, which comprised the entire Island of Guernsey, and was thus in a position to re-distribute the fiefs in accordance with his own wishes.

In 1444 Geoffrey’s main concern was to safeguard the succession of his son, Henry, then aged 11, to the Dukedom of Normandy, and to further his son’s claim to the throne of England. To achieve these ends he needed to win the support of the Church and Papacy for his son’s claims, and to consolidate the military strength of Normandy (including the Channel Islands) with a view to a second Norman Conquest of England. The only documentary evidence of his actions at this period is the Extente of 1248 (published by La Société Guernesiaise―1934) where it is stated (p. 26) that: “The men of the whole Island as a community owe every year as an aid 70 livres tournois, and for these 70 livres they should be quit, and in time of the Kings they have been accustomed to be quit of service with the host, from tallage, taxes, and all other tribute, save only that they should go with the person of the Duke of Normandy, if needs be, to recover England”. As Prof. Le Patourel has pointed out, this last provision could only have had a meaning between the years 1142 and 1153, because in 1153 Henry was recognized as heir to the English throne, to which he succeeded on the death of Stephen in 1154. On the subject of the land only information given in the Extente of 1248 is the statement that: “In the time of King Henry, the father of John, Radulphus de Walemoun held assizes in the Islands, and enfeoffed lands then waste, and accessed them to rent, to wit, thirty sols tournois every year” (p. 27). Prof. Le Patourel has emphasised that the Extente shows that the farm was paid not merely on the king’s fief, but also on all the other fiefs in the Island, and he suggests that this practice implies that the farm had been assessed on the whole Island at the same time, and that this could have happened only when the whole Island was in the Duke’s hands, i.e. after Geoffrey had established his control over Normandy in 1142.

Thus, we can expect that some large-scale readjustments in the allocation of the Island fiefs took place about the year 1150. In fact, the evidence of charters shows that major changes took place not only in the ownership of the fiefs but also in their geographical boundaries."

From this era also stems the composition of the Royal Court, in which the fief of Le Comte is not represented, whereas the fief of Anneville is. An intriguing aspect is the absence of a manor house in the fief of Le Comte. 

It is possible that behind the legend there is a truth. A possibility is that the fief of Le Comte became a dependency of the fief of Anneville through a redistribution of fiefs to lords who perhaps demonstrated loyalty to Roger.
It is highly probable the D'Anneville staid loyal to Roger as their fief was untouched.
This dependency is believed to have been established around the year 1150. Subsequently, it was transferred to the Wake family.
Subsequently  the fief of Le Comte was transferred from the Wake family to the De Ver family. 

An important fact is that In 1253, De Cheny leased the De Ver fief from Hugh Bigot for the duration of Baldwin de Ver's minority. This leasing is important as in reality could be a proof of the fact that the Fief Le Comte had been considered as a dependency at this period. If Anneville had the overlordship, this arrangement aligns with the norman customary practice that the overlord should hold the dependent fiefs in the event the owner is a minor.

At this point the Abbot of Mont St. Michel saw an opportunity of obtaining a grip on the Fief Le Comte by leasing the Fief from Sir William de Cheny (C.I. p. 204), but this agreement ended in 1257 when Baldwin de Ver came of age, and entered into his inheritance. He at once leased the Fief Le Comte to William de Ver and his heirs for 10 years (C.I. p. 439), but in 1262 he sold the fief outright to Sir William de Cheny and his wife Felicia. 

This historical sequence could explain why the fief of Le Comte lacked a manor house, was not represented in the Royal Court, and why the De Chesney family preferred the title of Seigneur d'Anneville over Seigneurs du fief Le Comte. Additionally, the loss of manorial rights by the fief of Le Comte, rights that were once associated with the fief of Bessin, is further evidenced by the fact that many fiefs in the Bessin area, such as the fief des Longues, were deemed independent fiefs under the dependency of Anneville. 

Legally there is an official document of 1597 realized by the Commisioneers of the King that  says that the fief d'Anneville went from Richard d'Anneville to Henry II (5 March 1133 — 6 July 1189) also known as Henry of Anjou and nicknamed the Brave or the Strong that was the King of England from 1154 and that he than transferred the fief to John, Count of Mortain, (more famously known as King John of England, was a pivotal figure in medieval history. Born on December 24, 1166, in Oxford, England, he was the youngest son of King Henry II of England and Eleanor of Aquitaine. He inherited the title Count of Mortain from his father and was later appointed Lord of Ireland.) John became King of England, ruling from April 6, 1199, until his death in 1216.  These documents submitted to the commissioners may not have been original and may not align with the aforementioned reconstruction. Despite this, they were accepted and legalized by the Royal Court as they corresponded with the prevailing circumstances. 

A similar observation can be done on the fact that at the Assizes of 1299 and 1309, the de Chesneys were called upon to show by what right they claimed one fourth of the wreck of the sea throughout the whole island, also the right of court for their tenants, and of chase on the King’s Fief. Their reply was that Robert, Count of Mortain, had given it to his servant, Baldwin de Vere, whose son and heir had sold it to Sir William de Chesney, and that Sir William Baldwin and the Earl had all enjoyed these privileges. We see that no mention is made of the Wake family and instead we see the mention of the Count of Mortain. In face of documentary evidence still in existence, the only way to understand why such a statement could have been made and accepted is that it corresponded to same state of facts but we lack more documentary evidence. (The County of Mortain was a medieval county in France centered on the town of Mortain. A choice landholding, usually either kept within the family of the duke of Normandy (or the king of France) or granted to a noble in return for service and favor. There is a Robert II de Vitrè listed as Count of Mortain but it is also true that in the period 1159-1167 the County was vacant and so the title reverted to the Duke or the King).c

The Fief of Mont Saint Michel

In 1150 a Bull of Pope Eugéne III confirmed the Monastery of ”, Mont St Michel in ownership of ‘whatever you possess in the island’. A further Bull of “Pope Adrian IV in 1155 spoke morespecifically of the monastery holding a quarter ,, “ of the whole island. It thus emerges that by 1155 Mont St Michel had recovered half the territory in the Fief du Bessin taken from it by Duke William II in 1042. It is probable that Geoffrey made this restitution around 1150 (he died in 1151) both to win the support of the Church for the claims of Henry (to whom he handed over the Duchy in 1150), and as reparation for the damages suffered in 1138 by Mont St Michel itself in the course of the fighting. However, to avoid alienating the powerful lords whose support was needed for the projected invasion of England, the area granted by Geoffrey to Mont St Michel as its fief consisted of scattered non-arable wasteland. It was this which was inspected in 1156 by the Abbé, Robert de Torigny, when he came over to Guernsey to survey his monastery’s new acquisitions. 

The complete forfeiture of the Cotentin

Roger, Vicomte du Cotentin, left no descendants, and his vast possessions in Normandy went to his niece Letitia, wife of Ralph Tesson. The viscount ship of the Cotentin, however, remained escheated to the Crown. Letitia seems to have possessed some lands in Guernsey, probably those of the demesne lands of the viscounts, but she is only mentioned in connection with the island in one charter whereby she confirms, as overlord, the gift of Robert Le Boutillier to the Abbey of Marmoutier of certain lands that he held on her fief.

From the charters of the Norman abbeys of the twelfth century, and the Extente of 1274, which mentions many of the lands forfeited in the reign of King John, we get an idea of the feudal holdings in Guernsey previous to the separation of Normandy. We find the island then divided up into a number of fiefs mostly held by great Norman families of the Cotentin.

The fief of the Vicomtes du Bessin was divided between the Wakes, Seigneurs of Fief du Comte, and the Abbey of Mont Saint Michel. These held the two largest manors in the island, and of them, Roger Suhart, member of an important family of the Bessin, held the Fief Suhart in the Castel and St. Peter’s-in-the-Wood, and Robert Legat, another large fief at the Vale. 

The remainder of the island, representing the old fief of the Vicomtes du Cotentin, was also divided into a number of small manors of which the Sires du Rosel e the Fief Rosel at St. Peter Port.

In the fourth generation, Geoffrey had two sons: Sampson and John. Sampson is mentioned in the charter 268 of the Livre Noir de l'Abbaye de Lessay in 1208, where he made donations in memory of his deceased parents. He is also recorded in the Norman Exchequer Roll for 1180 as having paid a fine for the peaceful settlement of a judicial duel. Sampson's brother John is also mentioned in a document found in the Gallica Bibliothèque Nationale de France. These two brothers correspond to the John and Sampson whose lands in Guernsey were escheated. 

 In 1174 the Seigneurs of Anneville en Saire held the Fiefs of Anneville and Foville at St. Sampson’s, which had probably been in their possession for three generations, as they were forfeited in the reign of King John around 1204, by two cousins, John and Sampson d’Anneville.
Not all the d'Anneville were against king John and may be there were other Anneville in Guernsey. De Gruchy in Medievel Tenures etc... says: The Fief d'ANNEVILLE in Jersey in the southern part of the parish of St. Martin was stated in 1331 to have been confiscated from Raoul d’Anneville, knight, in the reign of John. Other than this late evidence we only know of a Thomas d’Anneville who had died in or before 1220, and had apparently been faithful to Henry III, as his widow got her dower on his lands in Guernsey and Jersey, but the holders of the Fief d’Anneville in Guernsey were Jean and Sampson d’Anneville, and this fief was confiscated at the spoliation. Colonel de Guérin has shown that these men were probably all members of the family of Anneville-en-Saire near Barfleur. In any case the Jersey fief was confiscated before 1274 and remained in the King’s hands until 1349, when it was regranted, together with the adjacent curacy of Everard" 

(King John of England reigned from 1199 to 1216. England lost control of Normandy to France in 1204, during King John's reign, after the Battle of Bouvines and the subsequent French conquest of the region). 

The Le Bouteillers held manors at St. Martin’s and St. Andrew’s. The de Barnevilles, descendants of the Sires de Rosel, seem to have held the Fief of Jerbourg, now known Sausmarez Manor. Another member of the same family, Robert Mauvoisin, de Rosel, held the Fief of Mauvoisin, at St. Saviour’s, which he gave to the Abbey of Blanchelande. Richard de Martinvast held the Fief of Beggeville at Torteval, and the Le Canellys were probably already possessed of the Fief au Canelly, which straggles over part of Torteval, St. Peter’s-in-the-Wood and St. Saviour’s. Serk belonged to the de Vernons, and was given about the middle of the twelfth century by William de Vernon, Baron of Nehou, to the Abbey of Montebourg, whilst Alderney belonged to the l’Enginours one of whim William l’Enginour, Lord of Alderney, gave part of the island to the Abbey of Notre Dame du Voeu, Cherbourg, in 1184. The bulk of these Seigneurs were great landowners in Normandy; therefore, we must suppose it was the importance of our fisheries that caused our lands to be so much sought after, the possession of a fishery being a valuable asset in those days.

The manors in the possession of the Church had also greatly increased in numbers. In the eleventh century they had only consisted of those of the Abbeys of Mont Saint Michel, Marmoutier-lez-Tours, and perhaps of La Trinité Caen. By the end of the twelfth century the lands of Mont Saint Michel had been largely increased by gifts from the de Rosels, the Wakes, Suharts, du Viviers and others. The Abbey of Longues had become possessed of its manor at St. Saviour’s, by gift of Hugh Wake in 1168. Those of La Croix St. Leufroy, and St. Sauveur-le-Vicomte held manors at St. Andrew's, where also the Abbey of Cormery held that of St. Helene. At St. Martin’s the Abbey of Blanchelande held the manor of Martinvast, now called “le Fief Blanchelande,” and the Bishop of Coutances held another manor at St. Andrew’s. (d) The Fief of Rosel, at the Vale, was given in 1172, by Philippa de Rosel and her husband, Robert Patry, to the Abbey of Mont Saint Michel for the soul of her father, Hugh de Rosel. – Wiffen, House of Russell, Vol. I., p. 75. 

On the Status of fiefs

For understanding the status of fiefs of the Channel islands the impression one gets is that the fiefs before the separation had been of varying rank and status but sometimes the status of the lower fiefs was enhanced by the separation, perhaps because they were thence forward held in capite of the King, whilst some at least had previously been held from Continental overlords. It must be remembered that there was not in Normandy in 1204 a clean cut between loyalty to the Duke or to the Capetian King; some families committed themselves definitely to the one and lost their lands in the power of the other, but there were families which wavered in their allegiance well into the reign of Henry III. 

Of the four classes of fiefs nobles mentioned in the Ancienne Coutume we are concerned with fiefs de haubert and sergenteries, not with counties or baronies. Of the few counties held from the Duke none is recorded as having included Guernsey or Jersey; it is true that John when Count of Mortain received the Ducal revenues of the Islands, but they retained their administrative independence and were not added to the county. A number of Norman barons held fiefs or the overlordship of fiefs in Jersey and Guernsey, as is shown by their grants of the advowsons and tithes of churches and by their confirmations of the grants of subordinate lords to monasteries. But there seems to be no evidence that such holdings in Guernsey formed part of the Continental honours of their lords (honour = Great or principal estate of a tenant-in-chief ). 

It is certain that at a certain time Anneville was held directly by the king / Duke  and this point could explain its higher status. This fact could also  explain why fief Le Comte was not in these early day considered representative enough to be admitted inside the Royal Court. It didnt have a manor house and after it was bought from De Cheney it was considered for different centuries as dependent from the fief d'Anneville.

The Court of Chief Pleas

This great increase in the number of tenants in chief of the Crown would have necessitated the establishment of a local Royal Court to settle the disputes which must have arisen between themselves or between the tenants of different lords, disputes which could not be settled by Manor Courts. Apart from this the system of local courts under the viscounts (now ducal officials and not hereditary magnates) and the baillis established in Normandy by Henry II. would naturally have been extended to our islands, consequently we may safely date the origin of our Royal Court from this period.

In the Great Roll of the Norman Exchequer of 1180, we get the first glimpse of the existence of such a court in Guernsey, a court under the presidency of a royal officer, who would have executed justice by judgment of the chief tenants, the suitors of the duke’s court, whom we still summon three times a year at our Court of Chief Pleas. 

For at this period in the local courts of the viscounts and baillis in Normandy, and in those of the sheriffs in England, judgment was given by the knights who held lands by suit of court in the district, in other words who owed the service of executing the king’s justice.

The jurisdiction of our court must undoubtedly have been much more restricted at this period, than we find it after the alternations made in our constitution by King John. Already the system of assizes which Henry II. Had instituted early in his reign in Normandy, had been extended to our islands, for the Great Roll of 1180 we find Ralph de Havilland, the deputy of Gislebert, accounting for £37 19s. 6d., the fines imposed at the last pleas or assize. Further, he had been president of the local ducal court, and as such, had been fined by the justices £40 for being present and assisting in compounding a felony of maiming. In other words, for allowing the court to give an illegal judgment. This last entry proving the existence of a local court in the island.