There is a book published by the Cumberland and Westmorland Antiquarian and Archaeological Society in 1934 which reproduces a survey undertaken in 1603 by Lord William Howard, of his recently acquired lands known as the Barony of Gilsland.
Gilsland covered an area to the east of Carlisle, meeting the border with Northumberland, and at times straddling the contentious border between England and Scotland. It had been in Dacre hands until the death of Lord Thomas Dacre in 1566 who died without a male heir, but with three infant daughters. The barony then became escheat to Queen Elizabeth I. This was challenged by Lord Thomas’s brother Leonard Dacre who, impatient with the legal process of claiming it for himself, garrisoned himself in Naworth Castle and was eventually routed by the royal cavalry and fled to Scotland with his brother Edward. In 1601 the Queen reluctantly ceded the lands after a petition from Lord William Howard who had married Lady Elizabeth Dacre, one of those infant Dacre daughters. She demanded a high price, rumoured to be £10,000, since he was known to be a Catholic and as such not trusted by the Protestant Queen.
The entire region has a colourful history being both subject to Scottish invasion, and far enough away from Court to be able to please themselves to a great extent, the local lords were marrying strategically, forming alliances and fighting to extend their grasp and power base. Two years after this deal was done, William Howard, was forced by the new King James I to remove the hereditary rights of tenure that Gilsland had afforded his tenants and replace it with a rental system. Why? Because James I was also King of Scotland (James IV) and such hereditary rights were traditionally offered on the condition that the tenants would form an army should their Lord require it. James I did not want William Howard to have this ability and use it against his own people.
William Howard’s 1603 survey was conducted to appease the King, formalise these rents and remove the notion that the properties were held as hereditary. It is a who’s who directory of his tenants and reveals at least two of them to be Hudlas men.
Robert Hudlas is described as living on a tenement on the south side of Brampton, close to a pretty good sounding stone house in its own grounds owned by Lord Howard.
Further on Robert Hudlas again is described as having a tenement and croft at Brigwood.
Further on in the document we come across John Hudlas tenanting an area call the Rowbanke. A John Hudlas is further mentioned as having two other tenancies near “the Wrea” and multiple pieces of common pasture in the area of “Edmundcastle” and a “little pightle of medow & pasture adjoininge” Tranemire.
Edmond Castle was close to Hayton and the original seat of the rival Graham family. It was demolished in the 18th Century and to make way for a bigger house.
It is hard to say if these are just two men or more. Geographically today, we can see Rowbank Wood is very close to Brampton, and Edmond Castle and so could be possibly managed by one man and extended family members. But the Wreay area would have been a half day’s journey from Brampton and so there may have been more than one John Hudlas. Either way, this record is the earliest record of the Hudlas name I have so far found in Cumberland. No matter how many Johns or Roberts there were, in 1603 their status was about to change, as they lost the right to pass down the properties they tenanted to their families and instead had to sign an oath saying they were happy about it and would gladly pay “enhanced rents”.
We can also reasonably assume that Brampton and its surrounds are ground zero for Cumbrian Hoodlesses. Robert or John Hudlas just might be the missing link joining the Wetheral and Parkhead branches.