THE MANORS
OF
WESTBOURN AND PADDINGTON.
IF we accept the definition of the word manor given by the learned Judge
Blackstone, in his Commentaries on the Laws of England, {19} or look upon
a manor to be “the subinfeudation of a particular district made by A to
B,” I think we must come to the conclusion, that neither Westbourn nor
Paddington, in ancient times, were manors in either of these senses,
unless indeed we consider Westbourn and Tybourn synonymous terms, for we
find no account of any lordly residence in either of these places till
many centuries after the Conqueror’s survey; neither is there any
account, which can be relied on, to establish the fact of any King having
granted these districts to the Abbot and Monks of Westminster; or of the
Abbot’s subinfeudation of them. And if we do not consider these places a
portion of the Tybourn manor, it is pretty certain that the cottagers who
cultivated the land in this neighbourhood were not only freemen, but
freeholders, even at the time of the Conquest. They could have owned no
other lord but the King, and the suit and service they would have
rendered him differed but little from that exacted of the most powerful
lord in the land. Each paid his tax according to his circumstances. But
many new manors were created after the conquest, and an Act of
Parliament, the 18th of Edward I, 1290, was passed to put a stop to this
practice.
It was no uncommon thing, for Religious Houses, when they had obtained a
few acres of land in any place, to elevate them to the dignity of a
manor, and assume on their general licence, manorial rights over the
district in which their newly acquired property lay. {20a}
Moreover, to secure the assistance of the monks, the early Norman Kings
were frequently obliged to connive at practices of which they could not
approve, but which they dared not condemn. And when the monks of
Westminster, after casting a longing eye on the lands of Paddington,
produced the charters which they called Edgar’s and Dunstan’s, and
claimed the lordship over these outlying districts, the King, who then
happened to require their services, may have thought it mattered but
little, who reaped the benefits derivable from being the lord of the few
tenants in Paddington. And he may have sanctioned that which was in fact
an usurpation.
If, however, Edgar’s and Dunstan’s Charters were brought forward for the
purpose of shewing some sort of title to the manor of Paddington, when
the first claim to the lordship was set up, which I think was most likely
the case, it is very evident that the monks themselves had no great faith
that these charters would bear any sort of legal examination, even in
those days, when the wig was adopted to hide the shaven crown. {20b} For
when a writ of Quo Warranto was issued in the twenty-second year of
Edward the First to the then Abbot of Westminster—Walter of Wenlock—to
enquire “by what authority he claimed to hold the Pleas of the Crown, to
have free warren, a market, a fair, toll, a gallows, the chattels of
persons condemned, and of runaways, the right of imprisonment,” and
various other such like privileges, as well as “the appointment of the
coroner in Eye, Knythbrugg, Chelchehethe, Braynford, Padynton, Hamstede,
and Westburn,” besides in the town of Staines, and its dependencies; he
did not claim manorial rights over Paddington and Westbourn on account of
Edgar’s, or Dunstan’s grant of these manors; neither did he mention those
charters, as he might have done had they been genuine or had they
received the confirmation of Stephen, or Henry the Second, as Dart states
they did. On the contrary, the Abbot appeared to the writ, and said that
these places were parts of the town of Westminster—“sunt membra ville
Westm’—;” and for Westminster, Staines, and their membræ, he claimed all
their ancient privileges. {21a} Moreover, “he says, that the lord King
Henry, father of the King that now is, hath granted to God and the Church
of St. Peter of Westminster and the monks, serving God therein, and their
successors, all his tenements, {21b} and hath commanded that they hold
them with all their liberties and free customs, &c. * * * * And he
produces the charter of the King which witnesses the same * * * * And he
saith, that the Lord King hath inspected the Charter of the Lord King
Henry, his father, which witnesseth that the same Lord King Henry hath
granted to God and the blessed Edward, and to Richard, Abbot of
Westminster, and to the monks serving God there, that they and their
successors, should have for ever all the fines of their own people, from
whatever cause they may arise, and before whatever justices of the Lord
King they may have been ordained, and that they shall have all the
returns of the King’s briefs in all their lands in England. ****** ”
{21c}
But we must not receive this statement of Walter de Wenlock with implicit
confidence, or at all events without some further explanation; {21d} for
it was this Abbot who transgressed one of those salutary laws, which had
been recently enacted to stay the encroachments of the regular clergy.
It was this Walter of Wenlock, and of Westminster, who appropriated to
himself and his house in fee, lay fees in Knightsbridge, Paddington, Eye,
and Westbourn, without the license of the King; and for which his
successor was fined ten pounds. This appears from the following entry on
the Fine Roll, 12th Edw. II, and in the Rotulorum Originalium in curia
saccarü abbreviatis,—vol. i. p. 245—
“Abbas Westm’ finem fecit cum R. p decem libr ’p pdon’ hend’ de
tnsgr’ quam Walts quondam abbas loci illius pdecessor suus fecit
adquir’ sibi et domui sue in feodo laicum feodum in Knyhtebrugge,
Padyngton, Eye, et Westburn et illud ingred’ sine licene’.”
In the reign of the second Edward, we find that three inquisitions were
held, to enquire what injury that King would sustain if certain tenements
and lands in these places were granted to the Convent; and it was upon
one of these inquisitions that the discovery above referred to was made.
{22}
As these inquisitions refer to the only bona fide grants of land in
Paddington or Westbourn, down to the fourteenth century, which I have
been able to discover, with the exception of the purchase by Walter of
Winchester before referred to; and as they will serve to shew not only
the sort of suit and service rendered to the lord, but will also further
illustrate the mode in which the land in these places was actually
acquired by the Abbey, I shall give a translation of each.
These documents are kept in the Tower, and form a portion of the
“Inquisitiones ad quod damnum,” so called, and are thus described in the
calendar published by the Record Commission. “These inquisitions
commence with the first year of the reign of Edward the second, 1307, and
end with the thirty-eighth year of Henry the sixth: Thomas Astle,
esquire, thus speaks of them.—They were taken by virtue of writs directed
to the Escheator of each county; when any grant of a market, fair, or
other privilege, or licence of alienation of lands, was solicited, to
enquire by a jury whether such grant or alienation was prejudicial to the
King or to others, in case the same should be made.”
“Inquisition a. q. d. 9. Edw. II. No. 105.
MIDDLESEX.
Inquisition made before the Escheator of the Lord the King at the
church of St. Mary Atte Stronde, on Thursday next after the Feast of
the assumption of the Blessed Mary, in the ninth year of the reign of
King Edward, by the oath of Robert de Aldenham, Alexander de Rogate,
Nicholas de Curtlyng, John de la Hyde, Walter Fraunceis, William de
Padinton, Hugh de Arderne, William Est, Arnold le Frutier, Simon le
Brewere, Roger de Malthous, and Roger le Marshall, junior: who say,
upon their oath, that Walter de Wenlock, lately Abbot of Westminster,
had acquired to himself and his House one messuage with appurtenances
in Knyghtebregge, of William le Smyth of Knyghtebregge, and four
acres of land there of William Brisel and Asseline his wife, and nine
acres of land there of William Hond, and twelve acres of land in
Padinton of William de Padinton, and three acres and a half in Eye of
Hugh le Bakere of Eye, and thirteen acres of land in Westbourn of
John le Taillour, and eleven acres of land there of Matilda Arnold,
and two acres of land there of Juliana Baysebolle after the
publication of the statute edited concerning the nonplacing of lands
in Mortmain and not before. And they say that it is not to the
damage nor prejudice of the Lord the King, nor of others, if the King
grant to the Prior and Convent of Westminster, that the Abbots of
that place, for the time being, may recover and hold the aforesaid
messuages and land to them and their successors for ever. And they
say that the aforesaid messuage is held of the said Abbot and
Convent, by service of a yearly rent of six-pence, and of performing
suit at the court of the said Abbot and Convent, and of finding one
man for two half days to mow the Lord’s meadow, price threepence: and
it is worth over and above that service in all issues twelve-pence a
year. And the aforesaid fifty-four acres and a half of land, at the
time of the aforesaid acquisition, were in like manner held of the
said Abbot and Convent by service of a yearly rent of eighteen
shillings and two-pence: and of finding one man for ten half days to
mow the Lord’s meadow, price fifteen-pence: and one man for ten half
days to hoe the Lord’s corn, price ten pence: and of doing seven
ploughings, price three shillings and six-pence: and of finding one
man for ten half days to reap the Lord’s corn, price fifteen-pence:
and of making seven carriages to carry the Lord’s hay, price three
shillings and six-pence: and of performing suit at the court of the
said Abbot from three weeks to three weeks. And they say that the
aforesaid fifty-four acres and a half of land are worth by the year
in all issues over and above the aforesaid services nineteen
shillings and six-pence. In witness of which thing the aforesaid
jurors have set their seals to this inquisition.
Endorsed 20s. 6d.”
This sum of twenty shillings and sixpence was, as I conceive, due to and
paid to the King. So that although the Convent had managed to obtain a
lordship over this land, the King still retained _some right_ over it,
and the fee of this land could never have been given to the Abbot. But
the result of this inquisition does not appear to have been satisfactory
to all parties; for another was held in the twelfth year of the same
reign. It will be observed that the same land is the subject of enquiry,
but the significant words “with appurtenances,” are added this time to
each little plot.
“Inquisition a. q. d. 12 Edw. II. No. 37.
MIDDLESEX.
Inquisition made before the Escheator of the Lord the King at
Westminster, on Tuesday the morrow of St. George the Martyr, in the
twelfth year of the reign of King Edward, by Henry le Ken, Robert de
Aldenham, Thomas de Stragenho, Roger Marshall, junior, William de
Padyngton, Walter Franceys, {24} Ralph Fitz John, Richard Atte Doune,
John de Oxenford, Jocetus le Taillour, Henry le Glovere, and Walter
Peure, who say, upon their oath, that it is not to the damage nor
prejudice of the Lord the King, nor of any others, if the King grant
to the Abbot and Convent of Westminster that they may recover and
hold to them the said Abbot and Convent and their successors for ever
one messuage with appurtenances in Knyghtebrigge, which Walter
formerly Abbot, predecessor of the said Abbot, had acquired in fee to
himself and his House of William le Smythe of Knyghtebrigge; and four
acres of land with appurtenances in the same vill of William Brisel
and Asceline his wife; and nine acres of land with appurtenances in
the same vill of William Hond; and twelve acres of land with
appurtenances in Padinton of William de Padinton; and three acres and
a half of land with appurtenances in Eye, of Hugh le Bakere of Eye;
and thirteen acres of land with appurtenances in Westbourn of John le
Taillor; and eleven acres of land with appurtenances in the same vill
of Matilda Arnold; and two acres of land with appurtenances in the
same vill of Juliana Baiseboll, after the publication of the statute
edited, concerning the non-placing of lands and tenements in
Mortmain; and the license neither of the Lord Edward, formerly King
of England and father of the present King, nor of the present King
himself, having been in this matter obtained. And they say that the
aforesaid messuages and land are held of the same Abbot and Convent
by service of a yearly rent to the same Abbot and Convent of
four-pence for each acre of land and of performing suit at the court
of the said Abbot and Convent from three weeks to three weeks for all
service. And they are worth by the year in all issues according to
their true value, and over and above the above mentioned services,
five shillings. In witness of which thing the aforesaid jurors have
placed their seals to this Inquisition.
Endorsed, let it be done by fine of £10.”
This fine of ten pounds seems to have been made an excuse for obtaining
the fee of more land in Paddington and other places; or, at least, so I
understand the expression in the following inquisition, “in part
satisfaction of ten librates of land, &c.”
“Inquisition a. q. d. 20th Edward II. No. 14.
MIDDLESEX.
Inquisition made before the Escheator of the Lord the King, in the
county of Middlesex, on Saturday the fourth day of October, in the
twentieth year of the reign of King Edward, son of King Edward, on
the oath of Roger de Presthorpe, Richard Atte Watere, John de Winton,
Richard Goldsmith, John de Oxford, Richard Cook, Thomas Treuge,
Richard Atte Doune, John Colyn of Padynton, John de Bemflete, of the
county of Middlesex, Nicholas Atte Doune, and Robert Herebard, of the
county of Surrey, who say, upon their oath, that it is not to the
damage nor prejudice of the Lord the King, nor of others, if the Lord
the King grant to Richard de Sudburi, that he may give and assign one
toft, six shops, and one acre of land, with appurtenances in the vill
of Westminster; {25} to Henry de Bathe, that he may give and assign
one acre and a half of land with appurtenances in the same vill; to
John de Beburi, that he may give and assign one toft and seven acres
of land with appurtenances in Padyngton; and to Richard Prat, that he
may give and assign one toft with appurtenances in Wendlesworth; to
the Abbot and Convent of Westminster, to have and to hold to them and
their successors for ever in part satisfaction of the ten librates of
lands, tenements, and rents, which he lately granted for the
acquisition of the same Abbot and Convent by his letters patent. And
they say that the aforesaid messuages, toft, shops, and land, of
Richard de Sudburi are held of the aforesaid Abbot and Convent by
service of eight shillings a year, for all service, and are worth by
the year in all issues, over and above the said service, two
shillings, according to their true value. They also say that the
aforesaid acre and a half of land of Henry de Bathe is held of the
aforesaid Abbot and Convent by service of three shillings and
four-pence a year, and suit at the court of the said Abbot from three
weeks to three weeks. And they say that the aforesaid land is worth
nothing over and above the services aforesaid. They say also that
the aforesaid toft and seven acres of land of John de Beburi are held
of the aforesaid Abbot and Convent by service of twenty-pence a year,
and three hens, price nine-pence, and suit at the court of the said
Abbot, from three weeks to three weeks. And they say that the
aforesaid toft and land are worth nothing over and above the services
aforesaid. They also say that the aforesaid toft of Richard Prat is
held of the said Abbot and Convent by service of fourteen-pence a
year, and one cock and one hen, price three-pence half-penny, and
suit of court from three weeks to three weeks; and by rendering
thence to Joan de Todham nine shillings a year for all service; which
toft indeed does not suffice for the payment of such rent. They also
say that there is no mean lord between the Lord the King and the
aforesaid Richard, Henry, John, and Richard, of the messuages, shops,
tofts and land aforesaid, but the aforesaid Abbot and Convent. They
also say that there are no lands or tenements remaining to the
aforesaid Richard, Henry, John, and Richard over and above the gift
and assignment aforesaid. In witness of which thing the aforesaid
jurors have set their seals, or marks, to this inquisition.”
From such small beginnings as these the present so-called manors of
Westbourn and Paddington arose.
Maitland, in his History of London, tells us that foreign merchants were
not able to land their goods at the port of London previous to 1236, and
that in that year they agreed to pay for this privilege and “to give the
sum of one hundred pounds towards the bringing of the water to the city
from Tyburn; which the citizens were empowered to do by virtue of a grant
from Gilbert de Sandford.”
And he further informs us, {27} that in 1439, “the Abbot of Westminster
granted to Robert Large, the mayor, and citizens of London, and their
successors, one head of water, containing twenty-six perches in length
and one in breadth, together with all its springs in the manor of
Paddington; in consideration of which grant the city is for ever to pay
to the said Abbot and his successors at the feast of St. Peter, two
pepper corns. But if the intended work should happen to draw the water
from the ancient wells in the manor of Hida then the aforesaid grant to
cease and become entirely void.”
It is further added, “This grant Henry the sixth not only confirmed but
likewise by a writ of Privy seal granted them further advantages toward
the performing thereof.”
The following is from Tanner’s Notitia—“Pat, in Vaga Rageman temp Ric 2.
Buckingh Rot 12. quod Abbas debet mundare aquam vocat Bayard’s Watering
Place in paroch de Padyngton.”
Now if we except these grants, which, we shall presently see, were not so
unimportant as may at first sight appear, I think we may give the Abbots
and monks the credit of keeping, as long as they were allowed to keep,
all they ever acquired or ever possessed in Paddington.
But although the Abbots at length, and by slow degrees, acquired to
themselves and their House, either with or without the sanction of the
crown, both spiritual and temporal dominion over these places, we must
not imagine that all the tenements in Westbourn and Paddington had been
by this time transferred by the devout and the timid to their safe
keeping; for besides the few small holders, who obstinately preferred
their hereditary rights, to the prospect of a speedy post-mortem release
from purgatory, there is good reason to believe that the ancient family
of De Veres held a considerable tract of land in this parish down to
1461.