Inquisition post mortem

Last updated

An Inquisition post mortem (abbreviated to Inq.p.m. or i.p.m., and formerly known as an escheat) [1] (Latin, meaning "(inquisition) after death") is an English medieval or early modern record of the death, estate and heir of one of the king's tenants-in-chief, made for royal fiscal purposes. The process of making such inquisition was effected by the royal escheators in each county where the deceased held land. The earliest inq.p.m. was made in 1236, in the reign of King Henry III (1216–1272), and the practice ceased c.1640, at the start of the English Civil War, and was finally abolished by the Tenures Abolition Act 1660, which ended the feudal system.



The escheators were ordered by a writ from the king's chancery to investigate the deaths of tenants-in-chief in order to assess what monetary value was due to the king from his so-called feudal incidents, comprising for example feudal relief, wardships, and marriages. Such revenues which resulted from the deaths of his tenants-in-chief formed a significant proportion of the mediaeval royal revenues. The feudal due which was payable to the king on the inheritance of the lands by the tenant's heir is termed a relief, from Latin levo, levare (to lift-up), plus re (again), signifying the process of re-elevating the heir to the honourable position of the deceased, as a lord of the manor and tenant-in-chief. The scale of reliefs payable to the king by his tenants-in-chief who held under the feudal land tenure of barony had become a fixed sum under clause two of Magna Carta (1215), but the king nevertheless needed to know who the heir was so payment of the relief could be demanded. If the tenant-in-chief was found to have no heir, for example if he was unmarried or childless, the lands held would "escheat" (i.e. revert to the demesne of the king) to be re-granted as a valuable reward to a favoured courtier or official, or sold for cash proceeds. This aspect of the process was the origin of their former appellation by early Victorian antiquarians of "escheats". If the tenant-in-chief left a minor son as heir, that is to say one aged under 21, his wardship escheated likewise to the king, who was able to sell or award his marriage to a third party. Generally the marriages of such wards were purchased by wealthy men as husbands for their own daughters, and a marriage contract was drawn up at the direction of the bride's father which entailed the ward's future estate onto the progeny of the marriage. Thus the wealthy purchaser's grandchildren became the inheritors of the ward's estate. If the deceased tenant-in-chief left a minor daughter, that is to say one aged under 14, or one younger who was not contracted in marriage, as sole heiress (or more as joint-heiresses), her wardship and marriage likewise escheated to the king. Such wardships constituted a significant part of the royal revenues in mediaeval times.

Avoidance measures

The practice arose amongst tenants-in-chief of transferring the legal title in their lands to feoffees to uses, which effectively established trusts enabling the tenant-in-chief to continue to use the land and its revenues, but to avoid being officially recognised in law as the legal holder. This exempted him from the scope of the Inquisition post mortem, as the legal holders were effectively an immortal corporation one or two of whose constituent feoffees could on occasion die, only to be replaced by others. Such avoidance devices were apparently tolerated by the crown for a considerable time, yet on the accession of King Henry VII (1485–1509) the king's ancient right to his feudal incidents was enforced with determination and ruthlessness.


For an heir to inherit his paternal lands a formal and lengthy standard procedure had to be completed, only at the end of which he could "sue out his livery of seisin" (i.e. gain physical possession of his inheritance), so it was in his best interest to get the process started as soon as possible after the death. He himself, or his relatives if a minor, would generally inform the king's chancery that the death had occurred, [2] and this would prompt the production of a writ by the chancery under the king's great seal addressed to the various escheators of the counties in which the deceased held lands, known as a writ diem clausit extremum. This writ, the earliest identified example of which dates from 1254, [3] informed the escheator that the king had been informed (quia datum est nobis intelligi ("because it has been given to us to know")) that the tenant-in-chief named had "closed his last day", as the Latin phrase by which the writ has become known may be translated, and that he was ordered to hold an inquisition post mortem, and to send the resultant report back to the chancery, with his seal and with the writ diem clausit extremum sewn onto it. On receipt of the writ the escheator requested the sheriff of the county concerned to empanell a jury made up of local freeholders, that is to say persons of social standing, who could be relied upon to provide the standard information required in accurate form. Such information, termed 'the jurors' "verdict"' [4] comprised:

The most immediate order in the writ however was that requiring the escheator to take control of all the deceased's demesne lands, i.e. those which had not been sub-enfeoffed to mesne tenants but had been managed in-hand directly by the deceased and his household officials. All revenues resulting from such lands whilst in the hands of the escheator had to be audited (i.e. accounted for before the Barons of the Exchequer) periodically at the treasury.

The end result of the inquisition would be one of the three following, depending on what the jury reported:

Form of permanent record

Inquisitions post mortem (or "escheats") were recorded on two duplicate sheets of parchment. The original return was held in the records of the chancery, to which department the escheator had made his original return, the other by the treasury, which had caused a copy to be made for fiscal purposes, in order to verify the escheator's accounts [5] which were presented to the treasury periodically. Unlike some other series of records, they were not historically sewn together as rolls, but in modern times the parchment sheets have been bound in files with covers, and are today held at the National Archives in Kew. The documents formerly comprising the chancery records are classified under the initial letter "C", whilst those from the exchequer bear the class letter "E". After the establishment of the Court of Wards in 1540 a copy of the Inq.p.m. was also sent to that court, and these records also survive at the National Archives classified as "WARD 7". When an Inq.p.m. had been held not as a result of a writ from chancery but under the escheator's own authority, the verdict was sent to the exchequer only. [6]

Value as historical source documents

Inquisitions post mortem form a valuable source for historians and genealogists, as they not only detail the familial relationships of many of the English nobility and gentry, but also provide information on the history of individual manors, including their size and forms of tenure by which they were held. [7] They thus constitute "one of the most important sources for the social and economic history of mediaeval England". [8] They also provide summaries and terms of settlements made during the lifetime of the deceased, for example settlement to feoffees, the original copy of which has rarely survived.


The following example of the abstracted Latin inq.p.m. of William Pagam (d.1422), published in 1995 as no. 932 in vol. 20, 6–10 Henry V, of the Calendar of Inquisitions Post Mortem, illustrates many common elements:

"Writ 24 July 1422. Hampshire. Inquisition. Alton, 26 Aug.

He held of the king in-chief in his demesne as of fee the manor of Drayton, annual value 8 marks, for 6s. 8d. paid to the king by the constable of Porchester Castle at Michaelmas and providing at his own expense for 15 days a hobbler to keep the castle in time of war. By an indenture of 26 Oct. 1418, shown to the jurors, William Tauk, Robert Monkeston and Thomas Welegh, who were seised in their demesne as of fee, granted the manor of Pury, a messuage, carucate and 13 acres meadow, 40 a. pasture and 20 a. wood at "la Bere juxta Southwyke" as lands and tenements in Pury, Badley, "Colvyle", "Holdmede", and "Bere", to William Pagam and his wife Agnes, who survives, for life of Agnes, remainder to William and his heirs in fee simple. The manor of Pury, annual value 6 marks, is held of the king in chief, service unknown. The messuage, carucate, arable, meadow, pasture and wood at "le Bere" annual value 40s. are held of the king in chief for 7s. 4d. paid to the king by the constable of Porchester Castle at Michaelmas. He died on 15 July last. Philip Pagam is his son and next heir, aged 6 years and more. C 138/63, no.26A"

Here the manor of Drayton is held by the feudal military tenure of castle-guard; the manor of Pury had been transferred to feoffees to uses, and was re-granted by them in 1418 back to William and his wife for their uses under trust.

Calendars of Inq.p.m's.

Printed calendars (abstracted summaries) of almost all the rolls of Inq.p.m.'s have been published in some form, with the exception of the periods 1447–1485 and 1509–1660. An extensive series of calendars extending from the reign of Henry III to that of Richard III, and with an appendix of lists to the reign of James VI and I, was published in four volumes by the Record Commission between 1806 and 1828, edited by John Caley and John Bayley. However, these volumes were later judged by Sir Henry Maxwell Lyte to be of "unsatisfactory character", and to contain many omissions. In 1865 two volumes were published, covering the reigns of Henry III and Edward I, in a new series edited by Charles Roberts entitled Calendarium Genealogicum, which concentrated on providing the names of heirs omitted from the previous publications, designed to be of particular use to genealogists. In 1898 the production of three volumes covering the reign of Henry VII (1485–1509) was started, and was completed in 1955. In 1904 the first volume of a new series of Inq.p.m.'s was published, intended to be more complete and systematic, under Maxwell Lyte's editorship. It covered the reign of Henry III, from 1236, when the practice of producing inq.p.m.'s began. This "first series" continued for 26 volumes, the last volume having been published in 2009, although volumes were not published in chronological order. Winchester University and the Department of Digital Humanities at King's College London are currently working on a project to publish on-line in searchable format a revised and expanded series of all existing texts covering the years 1236–1447 and 1485–1509. [9] The project also aims in the long-term to produce calendars for the first time of the periods 1447–1485 and 1509–1542. A number of county record societies have published calendars of Inq.p.m.'s relating to their own counties, abstracted from the chancery and exchequer rolls.

List of published calendars

Period coveredVolume no.Regnal yearsPublisher, date, editorsNational Archives classes
1236–1272vol 121–57 Henry III1904 C132; E149
1272–1290vol 21–19 Edward I1906 C133; E149
1291–1298vol 320–28 Edward IHMSO, 1912 C133; E149
1299–1307vol 429–35 Edward IHMSO, 1913 C133; E149
1307–1315vol 51–9 Edward IIHMSO, 1908 C134, E149
1316–1327Vol.610–20 Edward II1910 C134; E149
1327–1335Vol.71–9 Edward IIIHMSO, 1909 C135; E149
1336–1345Vol.810–20 Edward III1913 C135; E149
1346–1352Vol.921–25 Edward III1916/17 C135; E149
1353–1360Vol.1026–34 Edward III1921C135; E149
1361–1364Vol.1135–38 Edward III1935 C135; E149
1365–1369Vol.1239–43 Edward III1938 C135; E149
1370–1373Vol.1344–47 Edward III1954/5C135; E149
1374–1377Vol.1448–51 Edward III1952C135; E149
1377–1384Vol 151–7 Richard IIHMSO,1970C136; E149
1384–1392Vol 167–15 Richard IIHMSO, 1974C136; E149
1392–1399Vol 1715–23 Richard IIHMSO,1988C136; E149
1399–1405Vol 181–6 Henry IVHMSO,1987C137; E149
1405–1413Vol 197–14 Henry IVHMSO, 1992C137; E149
1413–1418Vol 201–5 Henry VHMSO, 1995C138; E149
1418–1422Vol 216–10 Henry VBoydell & Brewer, 2002, ed. J.L.Kirby, Janet H. StevensonC138; E149
1422–1427Vol 221–5 Henry VIBoydell & Brewer, 2003, ed. Kate Parkin, Janet H. StevensonC139; E149
1427–1432Vol 236–10 Henry VIBoydell & Brewer, 2004, ed. Claire NobleC139; E149
1432–1437Vol 2411–15 Henry VIBoydell Press, 2010, ed. M.L.Holford, S.A.Mileson, C.V.Noble, Kate ParkinC139; E149
1437–1442Vol 2516–20 Henry VIBoydell Press, 2009, ed. Claire NobleC139; E149
1442–1447Vol 2621–25 Henry VIBoydell Press, 2009, ed. M.L. HolfordC139; E149
1447–1461uncalendaredconsult original documents onlyC139; E149
1461–1483uncalendaredconsult original documents onlyC140; E149
1483–1485vol 35Edward V; 1–3 Richard IIIBoydell and Brewer, 2021, ed. G. KcKelvie, M. HicksC141; E149
1485–1496Vol. 11–12 Henry VIISecond Series, HMSO, 1898C142; E150
1496–1504Vol. 213–20 Henry VIISecond Series, HMSO, 1915 C142; E150
1504–1509Vol. 320–24 Henry VIISecond Series, HMSO, 1955 C142; E150
1509–1660uncalendaredconsult original documents onlyC142; E150

See also




Further reading

Related Research Articles

Escheat is a common law doctrine that transfers the real property of a person who has died without heirs to the crown or state. It serves to ensure that property is not left in "limbo" without recognized ownership. It originally applied to a number of situations where a legal interest in land was destroyed by operation of law, so that the ownership of the land reverted to the immediately superior feudal lord.

Alveston Human settlement in England

Alveston is a village, civil parish and former manor in South Gloucestershire, England, inhabited in 2014 by about 3,000 people. The village lies 1 mile (1.6 km) south of Thornbury and 10 miles (16 km) north of Bristol. Alveston is twinned with Courville sur Eure, France. The civil parish also includes the villages of Rudgeway and Earthcott.

Tenant-in-chief Medieval vassal in possession of land granted directly by the Crown

In medieval and early modern Europe, the term tenant-in-chief denoted a person who held his lands under various forms of feudal land tenure directly from the king or territorial prince to whom he did homage, as opposed to holding them from another nobleman or senior member of the clergy. The tenure was one which denoted great honour, but also carried heavy responsibilities. The tenants-in-chief were originally responsible for providing knights and soldiers for the king's feudal army.

Seisin denotes the legal possession of a feudal fiefdom or fee, that is to say an estate in land. It was used in the form of "the son and heir of X has obtained seisin of his inheritance", and thus is effectively a term concerned with conveyancing in the feudal era. The person holding such estate is said to be "seized of it", a phrase which commonly appears in inquisitions post mortem. The monarch alone "held" all the land of England by his allodial right and all his subjects were merely his tenants under various contracts of feudal tenure.

<i>Quia Emptores</i> English statute of 1290

Quia Emptores is a statute passed by the Parliament of England in 1290 during the reign of Edward I that prevented tenants from alienating their lands to others by subinfeudation, instead requiring all tenants who wished to alienate their land to do so by substitution. The statute, along with its companion statute Quo Warranto also passed in 1290, was intended to remedy land ownership disputes and consequent financial difficulties that had resulted from the decline of the traditional feudal system in England during the High Middle Ages. The name Quia Emptores derives from the first two words of the statute in its original mediaeval Latin, which can be translated as "because the buyers". Its long title is A Statute of our Lord The King, concerning the Selling and Buying of Land. It is also cited as the Statute of Westminster III, one of many English and British statutes with that title.

Feoffee English feudal trustee of land

Under the feudal system in England, a feoffee is a trustee who holds a fief, that is to say an estate in land, for the use of a beneficial owner. The term is more fully stated as a feoffee to uses of the beneficial owner. The use of such trustees developed towards the end of the era of feudalism in the Middle Ages and declined with the formal ending of that social and economic system in 1660. Indeed the development of feoffees to uses may have hastened the end of the feudal system, since their operation circumvented vital feudal fiscal mechanisms.

Court of Wards and Liveries Court in England 1540–1660

The Court of Wards and Liveries was a court established during the reign of Henry VIII in England. Its purpose was to administer a system of feudal dues; but as well as the revenue collection, the court was also responsible for wardship and livery issues.

Livery of seisin is an archaic legal conveyancing ceremony, formerly practised in feudal England and in other countries following English common law, used to convey holdings in property. The term livery is closely related to if not synonymous with delivery used in some jurisdictions in contract law or the related law of deeds. The oldest forms of common law provided that a valid conveyance of a feudal tenure in land required physical transfer by the transferor to the transferee in the presence of witnesses of a piece of the ground itself, in the literal sense of a hand-to-hand passing of an amount of soil, a twig, key to a building on that land, or other token.

Maurice Denys (sheriff)

Maurice Denys, Esquire, of Siston, Gloucestershire, was twice Sheriff of Gloucestershire in 1460 and 1461. The Denys family were stated by Sir Robert Atkyns, the 18th-century historian of Gloucestershire, to have provided more sheriffs for that county than any other family.

Ralph Fitzwilliam, or Ralph, son of William de Grimthorpe, Lord of Greystoke, was a feudal baron with extensive landholdings in the North of England, representative of a manorial lordship seated where Grimthorpe Hill rises to commanding views a mile to the north of Pocklington in the Yorkshire Wolds. He gave sustained military service and leadership through the Scottish and Welsh campaigns of Edward I and was summoned to parliament from 1295 to 1315. His marriage in c. 1282 brought him other manors including Morpeth in Northumberland and its appurtenances. In 1297 he was enfeoffed as tenant-in-chief of the entire barony of Greystoke, seated at Greystoke in Cumberland but with Yorkshire estates, through his matrilineal Greystok descent. He entered upon these in his own right in 1306. Having served in the retinue of Aymer de Valence, during the first decade of Edward II's reign he remained dependable as a military leader and royal lieutenant in the defence administration of the northern counties and Scottish marches. His descendants adopted the Greystoke name, and their inheritance continued in the male line until the end of the 15th century.

William Devereux, was an important Marcher Lord, and held Lyonshall Castle controlling a strategically vital approach to the border of Wales. The castle's significance was heightened by the rebellion of Llywelyn ap Gruffudd, Prince of Wales. With strong family ties to the politically powerful families of Cantilupe and Giffard, his support was strongly sought after by Henry III and Simon de Montfort throughout the Second Barons' War.

John Darras (c.1355–1408) was an English soldier, politician and landowner, who fought in the Hundred Years' War and against the Glyndŵr Rising. A client of the FitzAlan Earls of Arundel, he served them in war and peace, helping consolidate their domination of his native county of Shropshire. He represented Shropshire twice in the House of Commons of England. He died by his own hand.

Sir John Gage was a major landowner and grandfather of the Tudor courtier Sir John Gage KG.

Eleanor St Clere was the heiress of a substantial number of manors and grandmother of the Tudor courtier Sir John Gage KG.

A proof of age inquisition was required during the feudal era in England to enable a minor to exit wardship. The age of majority to be proved for a male was 21, for a female 14 if married, 16 if unmarried. Witnesses were required to give evidence of the subject's date of birth, or christening. The findings of the inquisition were returned to the appropriate court, which then ordered the guardian to release the property to the ward, who obtained seizin. If the minor was a tenant-in-chief the inquisition reported to the appropriate Royal Court. The first stage of the process was the application by the ward for a writ for the inquisition to commence. This was effectively a written order by the king to the escheator in the county in which the ward's lands were situated, to empanel witnesses and begin the inquisition.

William la Zouche, 1st Baron Zouche 13th and 14th-century English nobleman

William la Zouche, 1st Baron Zouche (1276/86–1352) lord of the manor of Harringworth in Northamptonshire, was an English baron and soldier who fought in the Wars of Scottish Independence. He is referred to in history as "of Harringworth" to distinguish him from his first cousin Alan la Zouche, 1st Baron la Zouche (1267–1314) of Ashby de la Zouch in Leicestershire.

John Devereux, Lord of Munsley, was an Anglo-Norman nobleman living during the reigns of Edward I and Edward II. The Devereux were a prominent knightly family along the Welsh Marches during the thirteenth century, and played an integral role in attempts to control the Welsh Marches during the thirteenth century.

Sir John Cornwall (c.1366–1414) was an English soldier, politician and landowner, who fought in the Hundred Years' War and against the Glyndŵr Rising. He had considerable prestige, claiming royal descent. As he was part of the Lancastrian affinity, the retainers of John of Gaunt, he received considerable royal favour under Henry IV. He represented Shropshire twice in the House of Commons of England. However, he regularly attracted accusations of violence, intimidation and legal chicanery. Towards the end of his life he fell into disfavour and he died while awaiting trial in connection with a murder.

Sir John Cockayne was an English soldier, politician and landowner whose wealth made him a major force in the affairs of Derbyshire under the House of Lancaster. After numerous acts of criminality in concert with other Midlands landowners, he became a member of the Lancastrian affinity centred on John of Gaunt and a supporter of Henry IV. He fought in two campaigns of the Hundred Years War but his violence and lawlessness continued and he was decidedly out of favour during the reign of Henry V. With power less concentrated in the early years of Henry VI, he was able to serve three terms as High Sheriff of Nottinghamshire, Derbyshire and the Royal Forests and to wield considerable power and influence. He represented Derbyshire no less than nine times and Warwickshire twice in the House of Commons of England.

Sir Edward de Warren was an illegitimate son of John de Warenne, 7th Earl of Surrey by his mistress Maud de Nerford of Norfolk. He was lord of the manor of Skeyton and also held other lands in Norfolk. His son Sir John de Warren was the first of this surname to succeed to the manors of Stockport and Poynton in Cheshire, and Woodplumpton in Lancashire.


  1. Maxwell-Lyte, Introduction, uses the term "inquisition post mortem" and states they were "formerly known as 'escheats'". Modern academic usage favours the term Inq.p.m., see e.g. the Winchester University project, op.cit.
  2. That the heir himself generally sued for a writ of diem clausit extremum is noted by Fleming, Peter & Wood, Michael, in Gloucestershire's Forgotten Battle: Nibley Green 1470
  3. Maxwell-Lyte
  4. Called a verdict in contemporary correspondence re the Inq.p.m. of William Paston (d.1444), see Winchester University case study 2: Informing the Escheator
  5. National Archives, op.cit., para 5
  6. National Archives, para.5
  7. Lyon Constitutional and Legal History p. 478
  8. Winchester University, stated in several passages
  9. "Inquisitions Post Mortem – Mapping the Medieval Countryside: properties, places & people" . Retrieved 19 August 2016.