g's
Royal Forest of Cannock.

The founder of the family was succeeded by a son, and by a grandson, both
of whom were also called "Richard Leveson, of Willenhall," although the
last one was sometimes designated as "of Wolverhampton," to which town he
was doubtless attracted by the greater profits to be made in the wool
trade.

The early commercial fame of Wolverhampton was based on this industry.
Although there were no wool-staplers here in 1340, yet in 1354, when the
wool staple was removed from Flanders, Wolverhampton was one of the few
English towns fixed upon by Parliament for carrying on the trade. (A
staple, it may be explained, is a public mart appointed and regulated by
law.) Although the staple was again changed to Calais, it was speedily
brought back to England, and the Levesons were soon among the foremost
"merchants of the staple."

A Clement de Willenhale is mentioned in an Assize of the year 1338, but
not improbably he was identical with the Clement Leveson mentioned in
another lawsuit in 1356, a party to which was a member of the ancient
local family of Harper--"John le Harpere," as he is therein called.

Then there is mention in 1351 of the John de Willenhale, who is described
as being in the wardship of the Prince of Wales. But perhaps the best
insight into the social state of Willenhall at this period will be
obtained from a consideration of its inhabitants liable to pay a war tax
which was levied by Edward III. in order to enable him to carry on a war
of defence against Scotland. For this popular military expedition,
Parliament in 1327 granted the youthful king a Subsidy to the amount of
one-twentieth leviable upon the value of nearly all kinds of property.
Assessors and collectors were appointed for every town and village, and
they were sworn to make true returns of every man's goods and chattels,
both in the house and out of it. The exceptions allowable were the goods
of those whose total property did not amount to the full value of ten
shillings; the tools of trade; and the implements of agriculture. On the
face of it, these exemptions seem fair and just to the lower orders; but
we find the higher orders were also favoured, and unduly so; not so much
perhaps in the matters of armour and cavalry horses, as in the
non-liability of the robes and jewels of knights, gentlemen, and their
wives, as well as of their silver and household plate.

Here is a copy of the Subsidy Roll of 1327 so far as