Sir Adam de Peshale II1
M, d. 8 January 1346
|Father||Adam de Peshale I b. c 1258|
|Mother||Alice de Swynnerton de Suggenhulle|
Adam de was born in Staffordshire, England, at the Manor of Peshale in the parish of Eccleshall. Adam married Joan de Eyton, daughter of John de Eyton of Wildmoors, circa 1336 in Shropshire, England.2 He obtained the Manors of Bishop's Offley & of Cresswell through his marriage to Joan. He was a fighter & a soldier in Staffordshire. He was sheriff of Staffordshire & Shropshire in 1341. He was of Horsley, Staffordshire at the time of his death.3 Adam departed this life on Saturday, 8 January 1346 in Caynton, Shropshire, England. Adam's political enemies trumped up charges against him and had him labeled as an outlaw and killed as a felon. He had been unjustly accused, with his enemies having obtained a writ of arrest. The felony charge was used as a cloak for their killing of Adam and of course, to be consistant they claimed he had been outlawed which put his property into the hands of the king. Facts show however that Adam had never been tried or convicted. The trumped up charge was successful in putting Adam's property into the hands of his enemies who were in power in both Shropshire and Staffordshire. In later years and a change of kings with a new order to the politics, the Peshale family came into power and had their lands reinstated. After his death, the appointees of King Edward III seized all of Adam's property; in fact, they seized anything that looked like it might have been his. As of 8 March 1346, his property was in the custody John de Okore. His family sought the return of the seized property, primarily on the basis that Adam had been killed without a trial and he was not, therefore, a felon at the time of his death. Other arguments raised included the dower rights of his wife and the fact that certain properties were not possessions of Adam when he was killed. It should be pointed out that it was the practice at the time, that on the death of any landed personage, the King or at least his subordinates, would make every effort to have any property in question be reverted to the Crown. It was up to the individual families then to prove that they indeed had the right to the property. Thus, a strong motivation for landed families to have a good record of their lineage and also documentation of their property rights. In Janruary 1348, his widow, Joan, and his son and heir, Richard, formally entered a petiton as did his son, John, in July of 1348, for a return of lands that had been taken from him that he had been seized of in 1344 for the term of 30 years, and had not been in the hands of Adam. Adam's wife again petitoned for her dower rights along with John's request.4,5,6
|Joan de Eyton b. c 1316|
- [S103] Clarence E. Pearsall, History of the Pearsall Family, Volume I: Chapter 17 - Adam de Peshale, section 1 , pages 509-
page 511 - Adam son of Adam de Peshale & Geoffrey, formerly Beadel of Eccleshale about the feast of Announciation, 16 Ed. II., had come to the house of Thomas le Walker in Offley and had broken open a chest and taken away goods to the value of ten marks.
- [S506] Note: It must be noted that there is no evidence to indicate which children of Adam II are also children of Joan de Eyton, nor is there any evidence of a prior marriage. But from what has been seen in records after the death of Adam II, his sons, Richard and John, could not be issue of Joan. Because of the the dates of death of Adam III and Isobella, it is highly probable that they at least these two are her children. Hopefully in time, further evidence will come to light which will definitively indicate which children are of Joan. - KLM.
- [S1018] Edited by The William Salt Archeological Society, Collections for a History of Staffordshire, Volume II: page 103 - The parentage of Adam de Peshale, Sheriff in 1341, is not clear, but the probability is that he is the same person as the Adam son of Adam de Peshale, who was charged together with Geoffrey, formerly Beadle of Eccleshall, for an act of violence in the house of Thomas le Walkere of Offeleye in 1323.
- [S989] National Archives of the United Kingdom: 8 March 1346 - Letters patent committing to John de Okore custody
of the lands of Adam de Peshale, in King's hands by reason of his father's forfeiture, he is to answer in the Chamber for the issues. By writ of Privy Seal. Dated at Westminster.
- [S989] National Archives of the United Kingdom: Petitioners: John [de Peshale], son of Adam de Peshale.
Addressees: King and council
Places mentioned: Sandon, [Staffordshire]; Combermere, [Cheshire].
Other people mentioned: Abbot of Combermere; Adam de Peshale.
Nature of request: Peshale states that the abbot leased the church of Sandon to him for thirty years, which term is still in being. However, following the death of Adam de Peshale it was alleged that the church was held by Adam and it was seized into the king's hand. Peshale requests that he be able to have his term of the church as the law of the land demands.
Endorsement: The petition is to be brought into Chancery and there the matter is to be enquired of by good men assigned for that purpose to see if the things contained in the petition are true. The inquest thus taken and returned into Chancery, the chancellor when he has examined how the church was leased, and has summoned those that he wishes to summon, and heard the arguments for the king and the party, he is to do justice.
This is dated to 1348 by the details given in Rot. Parl., vol II, p.175; see also PROME, parliament of January-February 1348, appendix, no. 70. This dating seems to be correct, as a commission was appointed to consider the matter on 6 July 1348 (CPR 1348-50, p.162).
- [S989] National Archives of the United Kingdom: Petitioners: Joan de Peshale, widow of Adam de Peshale, and Richard de Peshale, son and heir of Adam de Peshale.
The Peshales request that justice be done to them and that she is able to have her dower, and he is able to have his inheritance as her husband forfeited without being attainted of any manner of felony and the lands are now in the king's hand.
The petition is dated to 1348 as the petition is published in Rot. Parl. II from a Hale manuscript which dated the petitions to the parliament held in 21 Edw. III (Jan 1348) (Rot. Parl. vol. II, p.192a (no.69)).