A HISTORY OF LANCASHIRE 



The manor was sold before 1300 to Adam de Prest- 

 wich.^® 



The new lord of Pendlebury married Alice de 

 Woolley daughter of Richard son of Master Henry de 

 Pontefract,*^ the eventual heir being a daughter Alice, 

 wife of Jordan de Tetlow. Her heir also proved to 

 be a daughter, Joan, who married Richard de Langley," 

 and the manor descended regularly in this family 

 until the end of the 1 6th century. Joan de Langley 

 died in or before 1 3 74., and her son and heir Roger 

 being a minor the sheriff took possession of the manors. 

 Roger himself died in 1393, holding the manor of 



Pendlebury as one plough-land 

 by a rent of 16/., and a mes- 

 suage called Agecroft, the fa- 

 mily seat, by a rent of 6s. Sd. 

 Again the heir was a minor, 

 Roger's son Robert being fif- 

 teen years of age, but already 

 married to Katherine daughter 

 of Sir William de Atherton." 



Robert Langley died in April 

 1447, seised of the manors of 

 Pendlebury and Prestwich, and 



Langley of Agecroft» 

 Argent a cockatrice table 

 beaked or. 



^^ In 1297 Adam de Prestwich granted 

 his manors, &c., of Prestwich, Alkrington, 

 and Pendlebury, to John, his son and heir, 

 and Emmota his wife and their heirs ; 

 Agecroft D. no. 4. In 1 300 Adam pro- 

 cured a release of all her right in the manor 

 from Beatrice daughter of Ellis de Pendle- 

 bury ; Final Cone. (Rec. See, Lanes, and 

 Ches.), i, 188. Probably, as in the case 

 of Whittleswick, which was included in 

 the fine, William de Pendlebury had al- 

 ready transferred his claim. Shortly after- 

 ward? Beatrice brought a suit of novel dis- 

 seisin against William ; Assize R. 1321, 



m. 3- 



There are considerable difficulties in the 

 Prestwich succession. Adam's *3on and 

 heir' John, married by 1297, must have 

 surrendered the manors to his father, as 

 they did not descend to his issue, Adam 

 had another son Henry, to whom he gave 

 Whittleswick in Barton. About 1300, as 

 stated in the text, Adam married Alice de 

 Wolveley or Woolley, and her children 

 were made his heirs. 



The elder family continued to appear. 

 In 1319 Thomas son of John de Prest- 

 wich released to Alice widow of Adam de 

 Prestwich all his right in the manors of 

 Prestwich, Alkrington, and Pendlebury ; 

 Agecroft D. no. 13. In 134.0 appeared a 

 John de Prestwich the younger, the grand- 

 son of John son of Adam ; Lord Wilton's 

 D. Later, in 1375, Thurstan son of 

 John de Prestwich released all his right to 

 Robert de Holland, and gave a similar re- 

 lease in 1416 to Robert de Langley; 

 Agecroft D. no. 37, 72. 



^7 In 1304 Alice daughter of Richard 

 son of Master Henry de Pontefract sought 

 leave to concord with Adam de Prestwich 

 concerning tenements in Pendlebury ; 

 Dc Banco R. 149, m. 34. Two years 

 later Henry de TrafFord and Henry his 

 son made an agreement concerning the 

 manor of Pendlebury ; ibid, 161, m. 382 d. 

 In 1307 Alice widow of William de Pen- 

 dlebury claimed dower in the manor of 

 Pendlebuiy against Alice de Woolley 

 (whose attorney was Thomas de Ponte- 

 fract), and in Halliwell lands against Adam 

 son of Robert de Shoresworth ; ibid. 164, 

 m. 47 d, Adam de Prestwich, called to 

 warrant as to Pendlebury, denied that the 

 plaintifl^'s husband had ever been in 

 seisin ; ibid. 170, m. jjd. 



An Agecroft Deed (no. 7) shows that 

 Thomas de Clifton, perhaps as trustee, 

 gave to Adam de Prestwich and Alice de 

 Woolley various lands and services in the 

 viU of Woolley which he had had from his 

 kinsman William de Bri . . , hton, with re- 

 mainders to Alice daughter of Adam and 

 Alice and her heirs, and then in succession 

 to Robert and Joan, other children, and 

 in default of issue to the heirs of Adam. 

 Henry brother of the said Alice de Wool- 

 ley was a witness. 



In 1 3 1 1 a settlement of the manor of 



Pendlebury was made, whereby Adam dc 

 Prestwich granted it, with land in Prest- 

 wich, to Alice daughter of Richard de 

 Pontefract for her life, with remainder in 

 succession to her children — Robert, Alice, 

 and Agnes; Final Cone, ii, 12, Two 

 years later a more extensive settlement 

 was made by the agency of Thomas de 

 Woolley ; by this the manors of Prest- 

 wich, Alkrington, and Pendlebury, and 

 the advowson of Prestwich, were, after 

 the death of Adam de Prestwich, to go to 

 Alice de Woolley for her life, and then to 

 her children — Thomas, Robert, Alice, and 

 Agnes, with final remainder to Roger de 

 Prestwich and his heirs. Claims were put In 

 by Alice sister of John de Byron, John 

 son of John de Prestwich, Adam de Wor- 

 legh, Emma his wife, and John and 

 Thomas sons of Emma ; ibid. x6. About 

 the same time Alice de Woolley secured 

 from Alice daughter of William the 

 Lanedyman various tenements in Wool- 

 ley, with remainders to her children — 

 Thomas, Robert, Alice, Joan, and Agnes. 

 Henry son of Richard de Pontefract was 

 a witness ; Agecroft D. no. 10. In 

 1316 Henry de Bury of Woolley leased 

 all his manor in that vill to Adam de 

 Prestwich and Alice his wife, reserving 

 for himself and his son John ' proper sus- 

 tenance * in board and bed during the lives 

 of Adam and Alice, Robert de Ponte- 

 fract of Woolley was a witness ; Age- 

 croft D. no. 12. 



Alice survived her husband, and was a 

 plaintiff in 1323 ; Coram Rege R. 254, 

 m, 24 d. In 1324 she held a plough-land 

 in Pendlebury, paying loj. yearly ; Duchy 

 of Lane. Rentals and Surv. 379, m. 13. 

 She was dead in 1332, when her son 

 Robert claimed under tiie fine of 131 1, 

 the elder son Thomas having taken pos- 

 session of Pendlebury In acccordance with 

 the later fine ; De Banco R. 290, m. 4 ; 

 292, m. 64 d. Hugh son of Hugh de 

 Atherton and Richard son of William de 

 RadclifFe were joined with Thomas as 

 defendants. In 1349 Adam son of Thomas 

 dc Prestwich released to John de Radcliffe 

 the elder all his claim to the manor of 

 Pendlebury ; Agecroft D. no. 27, 



The separate descent of Pendlebury 

 freed It from the disputes which arose about 

 Prestwich. 



^^ Adam son of Thomas de Prestwich 

 demanded the manor of Pendlebury against 

 Robert de Prestwich in 1344, a messuage 

 and lands in the manor being excepted ; 

 Dc Banco R. 340, m. 557d. In 1346 

 Robert de Prestwich held lands in Pendle- 

 bury in thegnage, paying 26j. %d. a year 

 and double for relief; Add. MSS. 32103, 

 foL 146. 



In 1350 Richard de Langley and Joan 

 his wife, daughter and heir of Alice sister 

 of Robert de Prestwich, claimed the manor 

 of Pendlebury in accordance with the fine 

 of 131 1. They stated that Robert had 



398 



died childless, and as to the objection ta 

 Joan's legitimacy the Bishop of Lichfield 

 made inquiry and adjudged in her favour ;. 

 De Banco R. 362, m. 120. It had been 

 alleged that she was born before marriage ^ 

 Duchy of Lane. Assize R. 2, m. J d. A 

 settlement was made of the manor, to- 

 gether with lands in neighbouring town- 

 ships, in 1352, William de Langley, rector 

 of Middleton, being trustee for Richard 

 and Joan ; Final Cone, ii, 132. The re- 

 mainder was to William de Walton and 

 Katherine his wife. John de RadclifFe the 

 elder and Richard his son put in a claim.^ 

 John son of Richard de Radcliffe was de- 

 fendant in a Pendlebury case in X358 ^ 

 Assize R. 438, m. 8 d. 



In Booker's Prest'wich it is suggested 

 that Richard de Langley derived his sur- 

 name from a place called Langley or Long- 

 ley in Middleton. His parentage does not 

 seem to be known. A pedigree of the 

 family is in Misc. Gen. et Herald. (Ser. 2), 

 ii'. 75- 



" Lanes. Inq. p.m. (Chet. Soc), i, 50. 

 In this the fine of 1313 is recited, and a 

 statement made regarding the descent, 

 whereby it appears that Thomas, the elder 

 son, who had Prestwich, left two daughters,, 

 Margaret and Agnes ; the former became a 

 nun at Seton in 1360, and the latter died 

 without issue, so that Roger de Langley 

 came into possession of the whole estate. 

 Further details will be found in the account 

 of Prestwich. 



The descent through Alice de Tetlow 

 and her daughter Joan de Langley is alsa 

 fully stated in the plea quoted ibid. 52. It 

 appears that Margaret, the nun, was mar- 

 ried to Robert de Holland, who put in a. 

 claim to the lands; but in 1376 Robert 

 son of Thurstan de Holland and Margaret 

 his wife released to Roger de Langley all' 

 claim on the lands of Robert son of Agnes 

 de Woolley in the viUs of Pendlebury, Age- 

 croft and Prestwich (near the ferry) -y 

 Agecroft D. no. 49. They further re- 

 leased all claim to the manors and lands- 

 of Thomas son of Adam de Prestwich ;. 

 ibid. no. 50. Roger de Langley made a 

 settlement of lands in Pendlebury, Prest- 

 wich, and Middleton in 1390 in favour 

 of his son Robert, probably on the latter'^ 

 marriage ; ibid. no. 52, 53. 



The reason of the increase of the thegn- 

 age rent from 1 01. to l6s. does not ap- 

 pear, and though Agecroft or Achecroft 

 continued to be the manor-house, the 

 rent of 6s. id. for it is not recorded in. 

 the later inquisitions. From the inquisi- 

 tions of Thomas Langley quoted below 

 it would appear that Pendlebury proper 

 continued to be liable for loj. and Age- 

 croft for 61. %d., yet the total of 161. in- 

 stead of 161. id. seems later to have been 

 accepted. 



Dower was assigned to Margaret, widow 

 of Roger, in her husband's lands in 1394 ; 

 Agecroft D. no 56. In Pendlebury she 



Digitized by Microsoft® 



