CHAPTER II.THE MANORSOFWESTBOURN AND PADDINGTON.

Ifwe 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 renderedhim 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 Kingat 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 witnessof which thing the aforesaid jurors have set their seals to this inquisition.Endorsed 20s. 6d.”

“Inquisition a. q. d. 9. Edw. II. No. 105.Middlesex.

Inquisition made before the Escheator of the Lord the Kingat 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 witnessof 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 retainedsome rightover 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 thepublication 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.”

“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 thepublication 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 sevenacres 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.”

“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 sevenacres 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 hundredpounds 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.

Thehistory of the lands which have been claimed by the Bishop of London, and the Dean and Chapter of Westminster, as their portion of the spoils of the Convent can be completely written by those only who have free access to all the records in the archives of St. Paul’s and St. Peter’s. And as it would appear that the time is not yet come for placing at the disposal of the public, for public uses, many of the important documents held in charge by Deans and Chapters, we must be content with that account which can be furnished by those which they have permitted us to see, and those which more confiding holders have thrown open to our inspection.

Most of the facts, which I have been able to discover, relative to the acquisition of the Abbey lands in Paddington, have been already related. One or two, however, having an important relation to the lands of the existing church, and the possessions of the people, remain to be told.

Aubrey de Vere, “who came in with the Conqueror,” was grandfather to Aubrey, first Earl of Oxford, and held, as we have already seen, a tract of land called in Domesday, Chenesitun.[28]His eldest son, Geoffry having been cured of a sickness by the Abbot of Abingdon, while grateful for the skill and kindness shewn him, persuaded his father to bestow the church of Kensington on that Monastery. The grant was made, and confirmed by the next heir, Geoffry having died during his father’s lifetime. This footing having been obtained, a subsequent Abbot claimed the privileges of a manor for the lands given to that church. This claim, which appears to have been set up previous to the issue of a quo-warranto, seemed tothe Earl then in possession, rather more than his ancestors, in their liberality had given. He appears to have opposed the claim: and it was ordered that the matter should be investigated. From some cause or other, however, the suit did not proceed, and theAbbot’sKensington became a manor like its progenitor, theEarl’sKensington; and so the Reformation found a goodly quantity of land firmly grasped in the dead hands of the Abingdon monks. This good thing, however, had not been kept wholly to themselves. They had allowed their brothers at Westminster to have a finger in the pie. And that portion of this manor which was set aside for charitable purposes, was intrusted to the charitable care, of St. Peter. This portion of the Abbot’s manor was valued, in the year 1371, at five marks; while the other portion, “the church and vicarage,” was valued at thirty-six marks.[29]

In the patent roll which contains the grant of Henry the eighth to the Dean and Chapter of Westminster—Pat. 34. Henry 8. P. 5. M. 32. (6)—“of the site of the late monastery of Westminster, with all its ancient privileges, free customs, &c., &c.,” we find, at the foot of the same membrane, this continuation of the grant “all those messuages, lands, tenements, meadows, pastures, feedings, rents, reversions, services, and other our hereditaments whatsoever known by the name or names of Seynt Mary Landes, lying and being in Westbourne, in the parish of Paddington, in our said county of Middlesex, and now or late in the tenure or occupation of John Genie, or his assigns, to the said late monastery of St. Peter, Westminster, lately belonging and appertaining, and being parcel of the possessions of the said late monastery.”

I have not been able to discover the exact extent of these lands at the time of the reformation; or the amount of their growth during the last three centuries; but I have many reasons for believing that these “Seynt Mary lands lying and being in Westbourne in the parish of Paddington,” were the self-same lands given by St. Mary of Abingdon to St. Peter of Westminster for charitable purposes. That, in fact, this land was the poor allotment of the manor of Abbot’s Kensington.

Out of this and another small grant the parvenu manor of “Knightsbridge and Westbourne” was manufactured.

Besides these manors of Abbot’s Kensington, and Knightsbridge and Westbourn, another manor, called West-town, was created out of lands called “the Groves,” granted to “hisdear and faithful chaplin, Simon Downham,” by Robert the fifth, Earl of Oxford, in 1214.

By an inquisition, taken in 1481, we are informed that the Groves, formerly only three fields, had extended themselves out of Kensington into “Brompton, Chelsea, Tybourn, and Westbourne.”

“The Groves,” now a manor, passed from Richard Sturgion and William Hall to William Essex. The Marquis of Winchester, Lord High Treasurer of England, purchased it of Thomas Essex, for one thousand pounds, in May, 1570; and the next marquis sold it to William Dodington for seven hundred pounds, who sold it to Christopher Baker for two thousand pounds, and it was afterwards purchased by Walter Cope for one thousand three hundred pounds, who attached the Groves to Abbots Kensington, which he had purchased.[30a]

But besides the manors, which the Abbots of Abingdon, and Simon the priest, and the Abbots and Monks of Westminster, had so nicely created for themselves, another, called “the manor of Notingbarons, alias Kensington,” then “Nutting Barns,” afterwards “Knotting-barns,” in Stockdale’s new map of the country round London, 1790, “Knolton Barn,” now Notting-barns, was carved out of the original manor of “Chenesitun.”[30b]And from an inquisition holden in the fifteenth year of Edward the fourth, we find that this manor remained in the hands of the De Vere’s with Earls Kensington, when John the twelfth Earl of Oxford, and his eldest son, Aubrey, were beheaded.

This inquisition states, that “John, late Earl of Oxon. was seized to his own use, the fourteenth day of April, anno regni 12 Edw. IV., of the manors of Kensington, and Knotting Barns, in the county of Middlesex, and that afterwards, by a certain Act, made in the Parliament, which began at Westminster, the sixth of October, in the twelfth year of the reign of King Edward the fourth, and by several prorogations continued to the twenty-third of January in the fourteenth year of the King, it was decreed that the Earl shouldforfeit to the Lord the King all the manors, lands, and tenements which he, or any one to his use had, and that the manors of Kensington were accordingly forfeited. The jurors say the said manor of Kensington is worth, in all issues, beyond outgoings, twenty-five marks per annum; and that from the fourteenth day of April, anno twelve, the issues and profits have been and are taken and received by Richard, Duke of Gloucester, but by what right or title they know not.”[31]

By this inquisition we perceive that these manors were no longer held by the De Vere’s in virtue of their office of Lord Great Chamberlain; but that this Earl died, possessing the manors “seized to his own use.” And by an Act of the eleventh year of Henry the seventh, we find out what the jurors did not know, viz.—That the widow of the beheaded Earl, “by compulcion, cohercion, and emprisonement,” while her son was suffering for his support of the Lancastrian cause, was obliged to release to Richard “late in dede, and not of right, King Englond, while he was Duke of Gloucetir,” divers manors, lands, &c. &c. This being in all probability one of them.

When the said Richard had been dispatched in Bosworth field, and Henry the seventh had ascended the throne, these acts of the usurpers “inordynate covetyse, and ungodly disposicion” were quietly put aside by regular Acts of Parliament. And by the first and eleventh of Henry the seventh, not only this Earl of Oxford, but all his family, were reinstated in their estates, honors and dignities. And by the latter act the compulsory release which Richard had obtained from Elizabeth, Countess of Oxenford, was rendered null and void. But during all these troubles the Earl appears to have got into debt, to discharge which he appears to have sold “a messuage, four hundred acres of land, five acres of meadow, and one hundred and forty acres of wood in Kensington.”

In giving us this information, Mr. Faulkner also tells us that the estate was recovered by “The Great Marshall of England,” and sold to Sir Reginald Bray for four hundred marks. He also corrects a mistake into which Lysons has fallen; and shews that it could not have been the original portion of the manor, or the manor of Earl’s Court, that was sold, and suggests that it may have been “one of the smaller manors of West-town or Knotting Barns.” But Lysons and Faulkner throw no further light on this subject.

The truth being that it was this manor of Notting Barns which was purchased by Sir Reginald, or Sir Reynolde as it is frequently written; and it was this manor which the generous Lady, in whose service he was engaged for so many years, purchased of him to complete the establishment of her munificent foundations.

Widmore tells us that this lady, Margaret Countess of Richmond, mother of King Henry the seventh, obtained a licence of Mortmain for one hundred and fifty pounds per annum, and that she proceeded so far as to convey ninety pounds of it to the Convent of Westminster, for the purpose of an anniversary for herself, for three monks to celebrate mass in the Abbey Church, and for the payment of the salaries of the professors founded by her in the two universities, and her Cambridge preacher. And we learn by her will, and by the Valor Ecclesiasticus, that besides the establishment of these professorships, ten pounds per annum was to be given to the poor out of the estates she left for these purposes. We also learn by her will, and by an entry in that Ecclesiastical valuation, which was taken by order of her grandson, in the twenty-sixth year of his reign, that a considerable portion of the land given by the Lady Margaret, for the purposes named, then lay in Paddington.

In her will, we find, after the notice of the “licence given unto us by the King our Soverain Lord and most dere son,” and the mention of lands at Drayton, Woxbrig (Uxbridge), and other places, the following words, “and also diverse londs and tenements in Willesden, Padington, Westbourn and Kensyngton, in the county of Midd’x, which the said Abbot, Prior, and Convent, at their owne desire, and by their entire assents and consents, have accepted and taken of us” at such a “yerely valow,” and for such purposes, as therein specified.

We also find in the Valor Ecclesiasticus of Henry the 8th, under the heading—

“Fundacio Domine Margaret, Comitisse Richmond.Midd’.”

and after the mention of property at Drayton, Uxbridge, and Willesden, to the amount of fifteen pounds, six shillings and eight-pence, these words—

“Et tenet’ in Padington . . £10.”[32]

And in the fifth folio of 441 Lansdowne Manuscripts, theindentures entered into by the Abbot of Westminster and the Lady Margaret Countess of Richmond respecting the disposal of her property, we find the same fact thus stated:—“and also dyvers landes and tenements in Willesden, Padyngton, Westburn, and Kensington in the countie of Midd. which maners, landes and tenements the said Princes late purchased of Sr Reynolde Bray, Knight.”

I think this evidence is sufficiently conclusive to prove that this manor of Notting Barns, sold to Sir Reginald Bray, was purchased by the Lady Margaret for the purposes of her bequests.

It is true that this notable Knight and most noble mason,[33a]sold another estate “for 400 marc steryling,” which is described as “lying and being in Tybourne, Lilliston, Westbourn, Charying, and Eye.” But this was sold “to Thomas Hobson, gent.;” and called “the maner of Maribone,” which is said to have consisted of “all the meses, lands, tenements, &c. which were of Robert Styllington, late Bishop of Bath and Welles and of Thomas Styllyngton cosyn and Heyre of the same Robert.”[33b]

It may also be true that Sir William, afterwards Lord Sands, or Sandys, succeeded by the aid of William, Archbishop of Canterbury, Lord Chancellor of England, the Lord Chief Justice of the Common Pleas, “and divers other friends of both parties,” in dividing the great property left by Sir Reginald Bray, between himself and the nephews to whom Sir Reginald had left it in his will. And it is perfectly true that Sir William, who “had married the daughter and heir of Sir Reginald’s elder brother John,” came into the possession of property in Paddington by this Star Chamber decision. But this was through his having had the manor of Chelsea as a portion of his share of Sir Reginald’s lands assigned to him.

Neither this “honest country lord,” this “merry gamester,” whom Shakspeare has immortalized, nor the “Gent.” whose choice is still a proverb, held land in Paddington long. Both Lord Sands, and Thomas Hobson, exchanged their lands and manors of Chelsea, and Marylebone, with Henry the eighth, for other manors and lands; and the manor of Chelsea with those lands in Paddington which had belonged to Lord Sands weresettled on Katherine, the widowed queen of the many-wived murderous monarch.

The beautiful, and perfectly preserved, illuminated indenture, in the Lansdowne collection, B.M., to which I have just now refered, more fully than the Countess’s will, which was printed in 1780, with other royal wills of an anterior date, details the donor’s desires with respect to the property she had disposed of. How far those desires and wishes have been carried out, others can tell much better than I can. No expense or pains appears to have been spared by the munificent donor to make her bequest in accordance with the law, and so far as her knowledge went, useful to posterity. Her Cambridge and Oxford professors are still known. But where is her grant to the poor? Are her professors still paid the stipends she fixed for them; or do the readers and the preachers divide between them the large estates she left? Where is that large estate in Paddington, which was valued in her grandson’s reign at the exact amount she left to the poor?

Besides the charitable bequests made by the Countess of Richmond, she left “divers other parcels of the same maners, londes, &c.” valued at six pounds, thirteen shillings and four-pence per annum to her faithful servant Elizabeth Massey; and we find an account of “part of the descent of Massye, of Paddington,” down to 1626, in the Harlein collection of MSS. No. 2012, p. 45.

The first authentic document I find relating to the Notting Barns manor after it was disposed of by the Countess of Richmond is an inquisition, taken at Westminster on the ninth of October, in the seventeenth year of the reign of Henry the eighth, after the death of Robert Roper, or Fenroper, citizen and alderman of London.[34]

From this inquisition we learn that “The manor called Notingbarons, alias Kensington,in the parish of Paddington, was held of the Abbot of Westminster as of his manor of Paddington by fealty and twenty-two shillings rent;” that the manor at this time “consisted of forty acres of land, one hundred and forty acres of meadow, two hundred acres of wood, twenty acres of moor, twenty acres of furze and heath, and forty shillings rent; and that it was valued by the jurors atten pounds per annum.” This manor, a lease of which had been, in all probability, purchased of the Abbot by the aforesaid Robert, was left by the Alderman to his wife for life, “Remainder toHenry White, gent., and Etheldreda his wife, one of his three daughters and co-heirs.”[35a]

What “arrangement” was made at the time of the Reformation with respect to this manor I cannot precisely tell; but its further history, so far as I have been able to trace it, is not without interest.

Lysons tells us in his account of Paddington, that “a capital messuage called Westbourne-place, with certain lands thereto belonging was granted by Henry the eighth, in 1540, to Robert White;” and he refers to the Augmentation Office, but to no special record there, for his authority. This grant I have not been able to find. But in his account of Kensington, Lysons says Henry White, the son-in-law of the alderman, “in the year 1543 conveyed the manor of Knotting Barns to the King.”

By a deed of exchange recited in Pat 34. Henry 8th. P. 8., M. 13 (15), I find that the King purchasedRobertWhite’s interest in this manor, and that “the said Robert White, esquire, having bargained and sold the manor of Nutting Barnes, with the appurtenances, in the county of Middlesex, and the farm of Nutting Barnes, in the parish of Kensyngton, and the capital messuage with the appurtenances called Westbourne in the parish of Paddington, in the same county, and also the wood and lands called Nutting Wood, Dorkyns-Hernes, and Bulfre Grove, in the parish of Kensington, as also two messuages and tenements in Chelsaye, with all other the possessions of the said Robert White, in the same places and parishes; and in consideration of one hundred and six pounds, five shillings and ten pence” had other lands conveyed to him, by the King, in other places, as fully set forth in the patent above referred to.[35b]It will be observed, that in this document, which is of a later date than the dissolution of the monastery, a portion of this manor is now said to be in the parish of Kensington. It appears that the manor was made up of two farms (over and above the small tenements), one called Notting Barns, and the other Westbourn; and we find from a manuscript document, dated thirty-eighthHenry the eighth,[36a]that the “messuage called Westbourne, with the lands purchased of Robert White,” were demised to one Thomas Dolte, at a rent of one hundred shillings per annum; the same sum on which this Thomas Dolte was charged in the subsidy levied in the sixteenth year of this reign.[36b]This farm appears to have been but half the manor purchased by the Countess of Richmond, and this half remained in the parish of Paddington, while the Notting Barns farm seems to have been considered a part of Kensington, after the Reformation.

From this M.S. in the land revenue office we also learn that Henry the eighth purchased the then existing interest in other lands in this parish, and in the parishes of St. Margaret, Westminster, and Kensyngton, of one John Dunnington. The gross rental of which I find was put down at nine pounds thirteen shillings and fourpence; “from which there was an allowance, for lands inclosed within the king’s park of Hyde, of twenty-eight shillings per annum; leaving the clear yearly value of eight pounds five shillings and fourpence.” The same document shews, too, that a separate rent of forty-one pounds six shillings and eightpence was received for the manor and rectory of Paddington.

Faulkner states that “in 1549 king Edward the sixth, granted this manor or farm of Notting Barns to Sir William Pawlet, earl of Wiltshire,” at a rent of sixty shillings per annum. In 1562, and 1587, it appears to have been in the hands of the lord treasurers of England, the marquis of Winchester and lord Burghley. From lord Burghley it passed to Sir Thomas Cecil who sold it to Sir Walter Cope of Kensington; and in 1601 the queen “granted a pardon to the said Walter Cope, for the sum of six pounds, in consideration that the above alienation had been made without her majesty’s licence.”[36c]

Thus the Notting Barns manor was claimed by the crownand by private individuals; and so this portion of the Lady Margaret’s gift was disposed of.

But with “the messuage called Westbourne, and the lands purchased of Robert White,” we have something more to do.

Thomas Hues, esquire, doctor of medicine, one of queen Mary’s “principal physicians,” purchased of that queen and others, a considerable quantity of land, in this and the adjoining parishes, fully described in Escact, 2. Eliz. part 2. No. 23, which he gave to his wife for her life, “And in remainder to the Wardens and Fellows of Martyn (Merton) college in Oxford, for the purpose of founding within the said college for evermore two apt and meet persons to be Fellows of the Fellowship of the said College. Or else three scholars, or four, as the land will extend unto, at such times as the same shall come to the hands and possession of the said Warden and Fellows of the said college or to their successors for the time being; to have continuance and succession within the said college as fellows or scholars thereof for evermore. There to be found, governed, and used with the revenues of the said lands, and to be brought up and educated in virtue and good learning according to the rules, good order, and diet of the said College, whereby other the Fellows or Scholars of the said House have in time past been well governed, ordered, ruled and brought up.”

By Pat. 2. Mary, P. 1, we learn other particulars respecting the messuages, tenements, &c., which were purchased by Dr. Hues. We find the cost of the whole to have been three hundred and forty-six pounds, one shilling and eight-pence halfpenny; that they were purchased of various owners; and that “a message and tenement called Westbourne” was included in the purchase, and that “four closes of land called by the names of Darking Busshes, Holmefield, Balserfield, and Baudeland, and six acres of arable land lying apart in the common fields; and six acres of arable land lying apart in the fields called Dowries, all in the parish of Paddington” were purchased of the crown.

As a description of these four closes of land is still preserved in the Harleian M.SS. No. 606, f. 46 b., I have thought it right to translate and print it in this place, it is as follows:—

“A parcel of the possessions of the late lord Sands.County of Middlesex.”“An account of four pasture closes in and near Paddingtonin the county aforesaid, containing, by estimation, fifty acres, lately in the tenure of John Kellet by indenture for a term of years.“One.—A close called Darking Busshes[38]lying between the close called Sunhawes on the southern side, and between the field called Wrenfelde on the northern side, and extending in length over the green called Kellsell Greene on the eastern side, and over the land belonging to Notting-barns called Dorkinghernes on the western side.“Another. A close called Homefelde and extending above the road leading from Paddington to Harlestone on the eastern side, and above the close called Reding-meade on the western side, and abutting upon the close called Church-close on the southern and western sides, and upon the angle of Reding-meade aforesaid on the northern side.“Another close called Balserfeld, extending in length upon a piece of land called Lytle Balserfeld on the northern side, and upon a close called Horsecreste and Ponde-close on the southern side, and on one head of the land abutting upon the west-lane on the western side, and upon Reding-meade aforesaid on the eastern side.“Another close called Bandelonds lying between the close called Swanne lease and Three acres on the northern side, and a close called Downes on the southern side, and one head abutting upon a close called Abbot’s-lease, and upon the Green-lane or Kingefelde-green on the eastern side, and upon the close of Notting-barnes on the western side.They are worth £4.”

“A parcel of the possessions of the late lord Sands.County of Middlesex.”

“An account of four pasture closes in and near Paddingtonin the county aforesaid, containing, by estimation, fifty acres, lately in the tenure of John Kellet by indenture for a term of years.

“One.—A close called Darking Busshes[38]lying between the close called Sunhawes on the southern side, and between the field called Wrenfelde on the northern side, and extending in length over the green called Kellsell Greene on the eastern side, and over the land belonging to Notting-barns called Dorkinghernes on the western side.

“Another. A close called Homefelde and extending above the road leading from Paddington to Harlestone on the eastern side, and above the close called Reding-meade on the western side, and abutting upon the close called Church-close on the southern and western sides, and upon the angle of Reding-meade aforesaid on the northern side.

“Another close called Balserfeld, extending in length upon a piece of land called Lytle Balserfeld on the northern side, and upon a close called Horsecreste and Ponde-close on the southern side, and on one head of the land abutting upon the west-lane on the western side, and upon Reding-meade aforesaid on the eastern side.

“Another close called Bandelonds lying between the close called Swanne lease and Three acres on the northern side, and a close called Downes on the southern side, and one head abutting upon a close called Abbot’s-lease, and upon the Green-lane or Kingefelde-green on the eastern side, and upon the close of Notting-barnes on the western side.

They are worth £4.”

The following memorandum is added to this description:—

“Mem.—That the rent of the premises is paid to the bayliffe of Chelsey albeit it lyith nother within Town nor parisshe of Chelsey but within the parisshe of Paddington,ij myle from Chelsey. What mynes, leade, or other commodytes ar apon the premisses I know not. The same are no parcel of th’ auncyent demeans of the Crown, or of the Duches of Lanc. or Cornewall, the Quene hath no more lond in Paddyngton but only these iiij closes.Ex. per me Alexandrum Hewes superius.”“xiii mo. of Maie 1557 Rated for Mr. Hues one of the Quenes mties phicisions.“The clere yerely value of the premesises iiii li whiche rated at xxvi yeres purchace ammountethe to ciiij li.“The money to be paid in hand viz before the xxvi of Maie 1557. The King and Quenes ma.. do dischardge the purchacer of all thinges and incumbraunces made or don by their majesties except leases. The purchacer to have the ’ssues from the fest of Th’ annuncyation of our Lady last past. The purchaser to discharge the King and Quenes majesties of all fees and reprises goying out of the premisses. The tenure in socage. The purchacer to be bound for the woodes. The leade and belles to be excepted.Ex. Willm Petre. Fraunceis Inglefield. Jo Bakere.”

Ex. per me Alexandrum Hewes superius.”

“xiii mo. of Maie 1557 Rated for Mr. Hues one of the Quenes mties phicisions.

“The clere yerely value of the premesises iiii li whiche rated at xxvi yeres purchace ammountethe to ciiij li.

“The money to be paid in hand viz before the xxvi of Maie 1557. The King and Quenes ma.. do dischardge the purchacer of all thinges and incumbraunces made or don by their majesties except leases. The purchacer to have the ’ssues from the fest of Th’ annuncyation of our Lady last past. The purchaser to discharge the King and Quenes majesties of all fees and reprises goying out of the premisses. The tenure in socage. The purchacer to be bound for the woodes. The leade and belles to be excepted.

Ex. Willm Petre. Fraunceis Inglefield. Jo Bakere.”

These were the closes in Paddington then, which belonged to Lord Sands; and it will be seen by this memorandum, and by the patent, that although this land was considered a part of Chelsea manor, it was no part of Chelsea parish at that time.[39]

In 1536, Lord Sands alienated the advowson of Chelsea and his manor of Chelsea to the King, in exchange for other lands. By the words of this transfer, which is printed from the original document in Faulkner’s Chelsea,[40]we find, that the hereditaments conveyed to the King lay “in the parish of Chelcheth aforesaid and Paddington.” And in “A peticular booke of Chelsey manor 1554,” relative to the possessions of Queen Katherine, we find these four closes “in Paddington,” mentioned as having been then let at four pounds per annum, to Henry White.

Faulkner speaks of the transfer of the manor of Chelsea to Edward the sixth by the Duke of Northumberland, and of other surrenders backwards and forwards; but neither in his works nor in Lysons can I find anything about Dr. Thomas Hues’ purchase; or one word about his gift to Merton. Neither can I find any notice of this liberal bequest in any of the Histories of the University of Oxford which I have examined.

What “arrangement,” then has been come to respecting this property? Are any learned fellows or poor scholars benefitted by this physician’s bequest? Or, is this estate like the other portion of the Lady Margaret’s gift, safely lodged in private hands?

I must confess that I am not able to answer these questions.

But it would appear that the large and valuable estates bequeathed by the Countess of Richmond and Dr. Hues do not include the whole of the “College Land” in Paddington.

Lysons in his Environs, and Chalmers in his History of the University of Oxford, tell us that the Manor of Malurees, “consisting of some houses and about one hundred and twenty acres of land,” situated in the parishes of Willesden, Paddington, Chelsea, and Fulham, was surrendered by Thomas Chichele to King Henry the sixth, who granted it to the Warden and Fellows of All Souls College in Oxford; and this grant has not been wholly lost to this College, for I believe that down to the present day a rent is paid to All Souls for some portion of this land.

One of the most important preliminaries to the great Reformation was the institution of a new valuation of church property.

The King and people, saw how inefficiently Pope Nicholas’s taxation represented the value of church property in the sixteenth century, for if it had not progressed in valuein the same proportion as other property, still the difference between the values in Edward and Henry’s time, was very considerable; and it required no conjuror to tell that the clergy had ceased to pay their fair quota towards the national expenditure.

Yet the difference between the Pope’s valuation and the reforming King’s, is far less than the actual value of church property in Queen Victoria’s reign and that which is entered on “the King’s books.” It is true that the clergy are now taxed differently from what they were before the Reformation; and that “the first fruits and tenths” no longer go into the national exchequer. But “the Queen’s bounty” would find the benefit of a valuation taken in our Queen’s reign; and if this payment of first fruits and tenths was anything like what it pretended to be, the whole of the first year’s income, and the tenth of all future years, those who dispense that bounty would not have to be so parsimonious in their assistance to the poorer clergy.

To the Record Commission we owe the publication of that valuation which was taken by King Henry the eighth, as well as that taken by Pope Nicholas the fourth.

In addition to the quotation I have already given from the former valuation, the following entries are to be found in it relative to Paddington:—

Officium Saccristi Westm’Midd’.

Rector’ de Padington

Officium Elemosinar’ Westm’Midd’.

Valet in bosc’ apud Padington coibus annis

„

Officium Custod’ Capelle Beate MarieMidd’.

Vendic’ bosc’ apud Padington coibs annis

Novum Opus Westm’

Maneriu de Padington

„

The year after this survey was taken, all monasteries, priories, and other religious houses, whose possessions did not amount to two hundred pounds per annum, were given by the twenty-seventh of Henry the eighth, chap. 28, with all their manors, lands, &c. to the King and his heirs for ever.

By this Act, the lands belonging to Kilbourn Priory became the property of the crown; and in the following year these lands were exchanged to Sir William Weston, the priorof the Hospital of St. John of Jerusalem, for the manor of Paris Garden in Southwark. The twenty-eighth of Henry the eighth, chap. 21, which recites the indenture relative to this exchange, states that the demesne lands of the said priory were “in Kylbourne aforesaid, Hamstedd, Padyngton and Westbourn.” And besides these demesne lands, other lands and wood, with “one woode conteynying by estimation twenty-nine acres,” are also said to be “set and beynge in Kylborne and Padyngton aforsayde.” So that it would appear the nuns of Kilbourn as well as the monks of Westminster had possessions in this parish.

By the thirty-first of Henry the eighth, chap. 13, the larger monasteries shared the same fate as the smaller ones had done, and the Abbey lands of this place, and those formerly belonging to the priory, reverted again to the crown.

In the account which was rendered to the King by the ministers appointed to receive the revenues which came to the crown on the dissolution of Religious Houses, we find the value of the other church property in this parish, set down thus:—

Knyghtsbrydge et Westborne

Firm’ Terr’

Knyghtebrydge, Kensyngton et Westbourne

Firm’

Pquis Cur

4½

I have extracted this account from the Monasticon Anglicanum, vol. i, page 326, where these sums are repeated thus:—

Maniu de Knyghtebridge et Westbourne Firm’ Terr’

Westborne, Knightsbridge et Kensington Man Redd et Firm

Pquis Cur

8½

But the Crown had other possessions in Paddington besides those which fell to it by the suppression of Religious Houses.

We have already seen that Henry the eighth obtained land here by exchange and purchase, from Lord Sands, Thomas Hobson, John Dunnington, and Robert White.

We have also seen that those lands which were purchased of Lord Sands and Robert White by the crown were sold to Dr. Hues, and given by him with other lands to Martyn College, Oxford.

Some part of those lands purchased of John Dunnington went to increase the park made by Henry the eighth, viz.Hyde Park; but what became of the remainder I have not been able to discover.

What Henry the eighth did with the manor and rectory of Paddington will be seen by the following translation of a portion of a legal instrument still preserved in the Record Office, Carlton Ride.[43]

“Inrolments of Leases 35. 36. Henry VIII. P. 65.“On the seventh of January, in the thirty-second year of his reign, the King, by an indenture and release, bearing that date, did, by the advice and counsel of the court, for augmenting the revenues of his crown, demise, grant and farm let, to Edward Baynton, knight,and Isabella his wife, all the site and capital messuage of the manor of Padyngton, in the county of Middlesex, and all houses, edifices, barns, stables, dovecotes, orchards, gardens and curtilages adjacent to the said site and capital messuage. And also all lands, meadows, pastures, commons, and hereditaments, commonly called the demesne lands of the manor aforesaid; and another messuage and tenement with appurtenances in the tenure of Edward North, esquire, situate and being in Padyngton, in the county aforesaid. And all lands, manors, feedings, pastures, commons, and hereditaments whatsoever in Padyngton in the county aforesaid to the said messuage and tenement belonging and appertaining, or with the messuage and tenement occupied and being. Also all the rectory of Padyngton in the said county of Middlesex; and all and every tenth, oblation, profit, commodity, and emolument whatsoever to the said rectory in any sort belonging or appertaining; which said manor, rectory, messuage, lands, tenements, etcetera, were part of the possessions of the late dissolved monastery of St. Peter, Westminster, and which were formerly let to the aforesaid Edward North, for a term of years; but excepting always and reserving for our Lord the King, his heirs and successors, all large trees and wood of and upon the premises growing and being, to have and to hold all and singular the premises above specified with their appurtenances, except as before expressed, to Edward and Isabella, and their assigns, from the feast of the Annunciation of the Blessed Virgin Mary, next following, until the end of the term, and for a term of twenty one years next following and fully completed; rendering thence annually to our Lord the King, his heirs and successors, forty-one pounds, six-shillingsand eight pence, legal English money, at the feasts of St. Michael the Archangel, and the Annunciation of the Blessed Virgin Mary, or within one month after the said feasts, in equal portions, to the court aforesaid, during the time aforesaid, &c., &c.”

“Inrolments of Leases 35. 36. Henry VIII. P. 65.

“On the seventh of January, in the thirty-second year of his reign, the King, by an indenture and release, bearing that date, did, by the advice and counsel of the court, for augmenting the revenues of his crown, demise, grant and farm let, to Edward Baynton, knight,and Isabella his wife, all the site and capital messuage of the manor of Padyngton, in the county of Middlesex, and all houses, edifices, barns, stables, dovecotes, orchards, gardens and curtilages adjacent to the said site and capital messuage. And also all lands, meadows, pastures, commons, and hereditaments, commonly called the demesne lands of the manor aforesaid; and another messuage and tenement with appurtenances in the tenure of Edward North, esquire, situate and being in Padyngton, in the county aforesaid. And all lands, manors, feedings, pastures, commons, and hereditaments whatsoever in Padyngton in the county aforesaid to the said messuage and tenement belonging and appertaining, or with the messuage and tenement occupied and being. Also all the rectory of Padyngton in the said county of Middlesex; and all and every tenth, oblation, profit, commodity, and emolument whatsoever to the said rectory in any sort belonging or appertaining; which said manor, rectory, messuage, lands, tenements, etcetera, were part of the possessions of the late dissolved monastery of St. Peter, Westminster, and which were formerly let to the aforesaid Edward North, for a term of years; but excepting always and reserving for our Lord the King, his heirs and successors, all large trees and wood of and upon the premises growing and being, to have and to hold all and singular the premises above specified with their appurtenances, except as before expressed, to Edward and Isabella, and their assigns, from the feast of the Annunciation of the Blessed Virgin Mary, next following, until the end of the term, and for a term of twenty one years next following and fully completed; rendering thence annually to our Lord the King, his heirs and successors, forty-one pounds, six-shillingsand eight pence, legal English money, at the feasts of St. Michael the Archangel, and the Annunciation of the Blessed Virgin Mary, or within one month after the said feasts, in equal portions, to the court aforesaid, during the time aforesaid, &c., &c.”

This indenture and release, which, so far as I know, has not been noticed before, and which certainly is not spoken of in any of the private Acts of Parliament relating to the manor and rectory of Paddington, is recited at length in another indenture and release, whichisgenerally referred to, which was made and dated the twenty-first day of December, in the thirty-fifth year of Henry’s reign. The manor and rectory of Paddington, and that other “messuage and tenement with appurtenances in the tenure of Edward North, esquire,” being by it demised to Richard Rede, of London, Salter, for a new term of twenty-one years. The large trees and wood, as was usual in such cases, being again reserved for the uses of the crown.

We have already seen by the entries in the Valor Ecclesiasticus, taken by order of this King, that in the twenty-sixth year of Henry’s reign, twenty shillings per annum, half the rental of the wood spoken of in this indenture, which was then thirty acres in extent, was set apart for charitable purposes; that the other half was appropriated to the Blessed Mary’s Chapel; that the manor, bringing in nineteen pounds per annum, was dedicated to “the New Work,” probably Henry the seventh’s chapel; that the rectory was valued to the Abbey at two pounds, six shillings and eight-pence; that the tenement formerly belonging to the Countess of Richmond was valued at ten pounds; and that the lands at Knightsbridge and Westbourne were valued at eight pounds, one shining and seven-pence.

We see, also, the possessions in Paddington formerly belonging to the church produced the same rent within one shilling and seven-pence, as these lands were valued at six years before.[44]

But the crown was not in receipt of these reserved rents more than three or four years after Henry’s death; for his son,then about thirteen years of age, by his letters patent, granted the manor of Paddington, with several other manors and rectories, together, “of the clear annual value of five hundred and twenty-six pounds, nineteen shillings, and nine-pence farthing,” to Nicholas Ridley, then Bishop of London, and to his successors in that see.

The following are the words in this patent which refer expressly to Paddington—“Necnon totum illud Moneriu nrm de Paddington in dco com nro Midd cum suis juribs membris et ptien univeis nup Monasteio Sci Petri Westm modo dissolut dudam spectan et ptinen ac parell possessionu et revencionu ejusdem nup Monastei dudam existen.”

Newcourt, in his Repertorium, page 703, says “The manor and rectory of Paddington (which of old did belong to the Monastery of Westminster) were by Edward the sixth, in the fourth year of his reign, upon his dissolving the Bishoprick of Westminster then lately erected by King Henry the eighth, given to Dr. Nicholas Ridley, then Bishop of London, and his successors for ever.” From this one might imagine that Paddington had formed part of the possessions of that short-lived see; which, indeed, Lysons, in his Environs, and Mr. Brewer, in his “London and Middlesex,” distinctly state, but of this I find no evidence whatever; and the words of the patent itself, convey a different impression. There are in this patent other places mentioned as having formed part of that see, but as it will be observed, Paddington is stated to have formerly belonged to the Monastery. It will be observed too, that the rectory is not mentioned in the extract from the grant which I have given, neither do I find it anywhere else alluded to, specially, as is the case with certain other rectories given by this patent. But the spiritualities in all the places named, appear to have been given in general terms to the Bishop.

When, with Newcourt, we use the word “given,” we must not do the advisers of the young King the injustice to suppose that no reservation of the rights of the crown was provided for in this open letter; that indeed would be an injustice, for besides the payment of certain specified sums, to certain specified persons and officers an annual rent equal to one-fifth of the sum remaining to the Bishop was to be paid by him to the King, at his Court of First Fruits and Tenths every Christmas day. Which annual rent was in lieu of the first fruits and tenths paid by all bishops and incumbents.[45]

In estimating the first fruits of the manors and rectories granted by the crown to Ridley, at one-tenth of the income they brought in, no hard bargain was struck with the bishop; indeed the calculation was evidently favourable to the future occupants of the see. For not only did this mode of receiving the first fruits do away with the inconvenience arising from having to pay a whole year’s income at once, a system which formerly, when these first fruits bore something like a resemblance to the actual annual income, compelled many a poor man to mortgage his living, and involve himself and family in endless difficulty, but it was actually a bonus to the bishops; for those who made the calculation must have known that the seven bishops who preceded Ridley held the See of London but fifty-four years.[46a]

Intending, without doubt, to be liberal to the bishops, and at the same time just to the crown, the calculation of the proper sum to be paid in lieu of first fruits was made without any reference to the possible, or probable, augmentation of the income from the lands then granted. The advisers of the young King knew that with the assistance of parliament fresh arrangements could be made with future occupants of the see; and they fixed the sum to be paid to the crown at one hundred pounds per annum,as the then fair proportion for all the lands given by this patent.

This sum has been paid for these possessions ever since that time, as I am informed, though the revenue they produce has increased upwards of four thousand per cent.

Whatever was the intention of the advisers of the young king, however, in this regard, one thing is pretty clear, viz. that Ridley, and several of his successors, received from the manor and rectory of Paddington, not forty-one pounds, six shillings and eightpence, the sum at which the manor was then let, but that sum, minus one-fifth, deducted by the crown.[46b]

Strype tells us[46c]that in exchange for the grants containedin this patent the bishop gave up to the crown other lands to the annual value of four hundred and eighty pounds, three shillings and ninepence, and Ridley has been blamed for making this exchange; Strype, however, has well defended him, and shewn that the see was in reality the gainer even at the time the exchange was made; and if the present values of the exchanged lands were compared I think it would be found that the successors of Ridley had not lost by his bargain.

There is still preserved in the Record Office, Carlton Ride,[47a]a manuscript record which shews that Henry Rede held the manor of Paddington in the ninth year of Elizabeth’s reign. The reserved rent being as before, forty-one pounds, six shillings and eightpence. But the wood was not included even in this second lease to Rede, supposing he had one; for we are informed by this document that the rent was increased twenty shillings, “for the farm of one wood called Paddington Wood, thus demised this year.”[47b]And this omission does not appear to have been accidental, for I found in another manuscript in the same office[47c]a memorandum dated November 26th, 1561, to this effect: “To speak to Mr. Barton touching a certain wood at Paddington.” So that the mode of disposing of this wood had evidently been under consideration.

The following is the account of the descent of the manor of Paddington given by Lysons:—

“The manor of Paddington was leased in the reign of Henry the eighth to Richard Reade for a long term, which being expired, Bishop Abbot demised it in the year 1626, (together with the capital mansion and rectory) to Sir Rowland St. John, fifth son of Oliver Lord St. John, of Bletsoe), for the lives of himself, his wife Sibyl, and their son Oliver. Sir Rowland, died in 1645. The next year a survey of the manor was taken by order of Parliament; which states the demesne lands to have been six hundred and twenty-four acres, the reserved rent forty-one pounds, six shillings and eight-pence. The great house in which Sir Rowland St. John had lived was then in the occupation of Alderman Bide. The manor was afterwards sold by the Parliamentary Commissioners to Thomas Browne, esquire. After the restoration (in the month of January, 1661), Oliver St. John, the only survivor in thelease (then a baronet), died without having renewed; upon which the estate fell in to Bishop Sheldon, who granted it to his nephews Sir Joseph Sheldon, knight, and Daniel Sheldon, esquire. The lease continued for several years in that family, being renewed from time to time. In the year 1741, it was purchased by Sir John Frederick, baronet, and is now vested in Sir John Morshead, baronet, and Robert Thistlethwayte, esquire, in right of their wives, Elizabeth and Selina, daughters and co-heirs of Sir Thomas Frederick, baronet, deceased, and grand-daughters of Sir John Frederick.”

We have already seen that Alderman Rede’s lease was not the original one granted by King Henry; and there are other additions, and corrections required to make the statement above quoted strictly correct.

Both the manor, and rectory, of Paddington were held by the citizen’s family “for a long term,” although their first lease was but for twenty-one years; for I find no mention of any other lessees till the reign of Charles the first. I think it probable, however, that Sir Rowland St. John, to whom it was leased in that reign, held it in the reign of James the first; for in the eighteenth year of this reign I find him charged on the subsidy roll twenty pounds for Land in Paddington.

An ancestor of Sir Rowland St. John was related to the Countess of Richmond, was appointed her chamberlain, and one of the executors of her will.

The mother of Sir Rowland, lady Dorothy, was the only daughter and heir of Sir John Rede of Oddington, in Gloucestershire; and it was through her, as I suppose, that the Paddington lease came into this family of St. John.

It was Bishop Mountayne who leased the manor of Paddington to Sir Rowland St. John, in 1626, and not Bishop Abbot, as stated by Lysons; for George Abbot was bishop of London only a few months, and was translated to Canterbury in 1611. I learn from the survey to which Lysons has referred, but which I think he could not have examined for himself, that the lease granted by Bishop Mountayne was dated the twenty-fourth of November, 1626, the second year of Charles the first, the reserved rent for the manor only, being forty-one pounds, six shillings and eight pence; the wood of thirty acres before referred to, being now separately leased for forty shillings per annum; and besides the payment of this increased rent, the lessee was bound by this lease to find the surveyor and steward of the said Lord Bishop, “with provision for man and horse during the holding of his court upon the premises.”At the time this parliamentary survey was taken, the rectory, “excepting the parsonage house or houses,” with the great tithe, was held by John Lisle, one of the Commissioners of the Great Seal; and it was separately valued at twenty-eight pounds per annum.

The ordinance which was issued on the sixteenth of November, 1646, for the sale of Bishops’ lands and estates for the service of the Commonwealth, was followed by a valuation of these estates in England and Wales; and from that valuation we learn the following particulars relative to Paddington:—[49a]

Temporalities.

Present rents and profits, per annum

Improvements above, per annum

1119

Timber, wood, &c., valuation in gross

362

Rectory and Parsonage.

Present value

nil.

Future, per annum

Back to Index Next