Читать книгу Paddington: Past and Present - William Robins - Страница 6

Table of Contents

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.