The Making of an IPM

Inquisitions were produced in a variety of ways under a range of pressures and influences, which this document identifies.

IPMs can be briefly defined as inquiries into the lands held at their deaths by tenants-in-chief of the crown. Their aim was to determine what lands the tenant held, of whom and by what services; their value; the identity of the tenant’s heir, and whether this heir was old enough to succeed to the estates. If the heir was of age, the documents established what sums the crown was owed for the period between the tenant’s death and the heir’s succession, a period when the king enjoyed custody of the lands through his prerogative right of primer seisin. If the heir was not of age, the documents established whether the crown had a claim to his wardship and marriage and the wardship of his estates, and what those estates ought to be worth yearly. How were these documents created?

The Making of an IPM

The great majority of IPMs were produced in response to a royal writ of diem clausit extremum. (For a full translation of such a writ see section 3.1 below). Such writs issued from the royal chancery when it was believed that a tenant-in-chief had died. How this news reached the Chancery is rarely clear, especially when the persons involved were relatively obscure. But often, as we shall see later, information must have been supplied by the tenant’s heir, for whom the production of an IPM was usually a necessary stage in succeeding to their inheritance. Thus William Paston, in 1425, with other counsellors of the duke of Norfolk, was ‘occupied about the due service of writs diem clausit extremum’ after the death of the duke’s mother.

The writ first directed the escheator to take into the king’s hands all the lands and tenements held by the deceased in demesne as of fee; which is to say, lands held directly by the tenant according to ordinary common law rules of inheritance, rather than held for life only (‘in free tenement’) or in an entail to heirs general, male, or female. The escheator was then ordered to inquire by a jury as to:

  • what lands and tenements the deceased held of the king in chief, in demesne and in service, on the day of his death
  • what lands and tenements he held of others
  • by what feudal services the above were held
  • their yearly value
  • the date of the deceased’s death
  • the identity and age of the heir.

The completed inquisition was then to be returned to Chancery together with the royal writ.

In theory, then, the great majority of IPMs were produced in response to royal writs by local juries under the guidance of escheators. (The exceptions were inquisitions virtute officii, taken by virtue of the escheator’s office without the need for a writ.) In reality, the situation was a little more complicated. Historians have long recognized that documents as complicated as some surviving IPMs could not have been produced without the assistance of a tenant’s family or lawyers. Following the evidence of contemporary complaints and legislation, they have also recognized that IPMs could be manipulated or falsified to defraud the king or to frustrate the interests of rival families. In practice – and without wishing to state the obvious – inquisitions were produced in a variety of ways under a range of pressures and influences. Ideally each document must be considered in its administrative and local context. It must also be recognized that the extant IPMs, despite their finished appearance, might be only the first stage in proceedings that continued with the audit of the escheator’s account and with the escheator’s own response to that audit before the treasurer and barons of the Exchequer.

Case Studies

The preceding generalization can be illustrated, in the first instance, by a series of brief case studies.