LEYLAND HUNDRED 



LEYLAND 



More than a third was granted out in alms to the 

 Hospitallers and to Evesham Abbey, and some part of 

 the remainder may have been held in demesne or given 

 in small parcels, but most was included in the grant 

 of two plough-lands and 2 oxgangs in Longton and 

 Lcyland made to Robert Bussel by Roger de Lacy 

 about I 206,' and the part of this gift lying within 

 Leyland constituted what w\'vs afterwards called the 

 manor of LETLJND, It was held by knights* 

 service.' 



Robert Bussel was the tenant in 121 2 and in 

 I2-|.2,^ but soon afterwards his estates seem to have 

 been divided among co-heirs. One moiety of the 



manor descended through a daughter to the Farington 

 family/ The other moiety was acquired, possibly 

 by purchase from another co-heir, by the Waltons of 

 Ulnes Walton '' ; being like their other manors pur- 

 chased by Henry Earl of Lancaster in 1347/ it 

 descended with the duchy ' until 1551, when it was 

 sold to Anthony Browne,^ whose wife Joan, as heir 

 of Sir Henry Farington, held the other moiety.^ 

 The whole, by gift and by inheritance, descended to 

 Dame Browne's heirs, the Huddlestons,'^ and was in 

 1 61 7 sold by them to William Farington, then the 

 principal representative of his family." It has since 

 descended like the following estate. 



^ Lancs,Ittq,andExtents{Ktz.%oz*'L^nz^. 

 and Ches.), i, 3+. This may have been a 

 confirmation of Robert Bussel's existing 

 right, made in consequence of the acqui- 

 sition of the barony of Penwortham by 

 Roger dc Lacy in 1206; sec P'.CJI, 

 Z^flKCj, i, 336. Robert was no doubt the 

 son of Geoffrey Bussel, and one of tlie 

 claimants of the barony. 



- The Leyland and Longton holding, 

 together \vith the lordship of Euxton, 

 was to be held by the tenth part of a 

 knight's fee. Later it would appear that 

 each of the divisions was held by die 

 tenth part of a fee, 



^ Lanes. Inj. and Extents^ i, 34.-6, 150. 



Some grants by Robert Bussel (or 

 Busshel), lord of Leyland, are printed in 

 the Arch, youm., 1875, pp. 479-80, from 

 the originals at Worden. One is a grant 

 to his son William of all easements and 

 profits pertaining to two houses in the 

 viU of Lcyland. Another gave an acre to 

 Thomas the Tailor, son of Geoffrey de 

 Leyland, at a rent of 6d. The third was 

 of 20 acres to Henry de Whallcy, son of 

 Ughtred ; the boundaries began at the 

 highway where it descended to the brook 

 between Leyland and Clayton, ascended 

 this brook to Werden, along Werdcn 

 south to Sussnape, then following Green- 

 lache to the highway. 



■^ In a pleading of 1334 it was shown 

 that certain land claimed against William 

 de Walton had been included in a gift by 

 Robert Bussel to John son of William 

 del Meols in free marriage with his 

 daughter Avice ; their son William was 

 father of William de Farington, the plain- 

 tiff j De Banco R. 300, m. 311 ; 304, 

 m. 407 d. ; 306. 



^ In 1333 Richard son of Adam de 

 Leyland claimed a moiety of the manor 

 of Lcyland against William de Walton, 

 and various lands in the vill against 

 others 5 De Banco R. 296, m. 86 d. He 

 stated that Richard son of Warine Bussel 

 had given it to Thomas de Lcyland and 

 Alice his wife and their heirs ; that they 

 had two sons, Richard (s.p.) and Adam, 

 the latter being plaintiffs father ; ibid. 

 299, m. 54d. The suit was continued 

 later against William de Walton for two- 

 thirds of the moiety of the manor and 

 against John de Croft and Emma his wife 

 for the other third ; also against Adam 

 de Knoll, William son of Adam de Knoll, 

 Robert son of John Salcockson, Adam 

 son of Ralph the Smith and Agnes his 

 wife, John Banastre, Christiana widow of 

 Henry son of Ellis, Adam de Rossall and 

 Alice his wife, Robert son of Geoffrey de 

 Walton and Cecily his wife, for various 

 messuages and lands ; ibid. 303, m. 54. In 

 a continuation of the suit it was alleged 

 that Richard son of Warine Bussel, great- 

 grandfather of the plaintiff, had granted 



the moiety to Master Adam dc Walton ; 

 ibid. 306, m. 105 d. 



The moiety of the manor was held by 

 the Waltons as early as 1301; Final 

 Cone. (Rec. Soc. Lanes, and Ches.), I, 194. 

 Somewhat earlier (1296) William de Lea 

 and Maud his wife unsuccessfully claimed 

 a messuage and half the mill In Leyland 

 against Master Adam de Walton and John 

 his brother and heir j |De Banco R. 113, 

 m. 75. 



^ Final Cone, i, 124. See further in 

 the account of Ulnes Walton. A claim 

 for the manor seems to have been made 

 by Legh and Radcliffe In 1365 ; De Banco 

 R. 421, m. 225. 



In 1355 the holders of the tenth part 

 of a knight's fee in Leyland, Longton and 

 Euxton, formerly held by Robert Bussel, 

 were Henry Duke of Lancaster, William 

 de Farington and WlUIam de Holland j 

 Feud. Aids, iii, 87, 



"^ Some details of the grants and leases 

 of the group of manors to which the 

 moiety of Leyland belonged will be found 

 in the account of Ecclcston. John Duke 

 of Lancaster in 1368 demised to William 

 de Farington and John his brother the 

 moiety of the manor of Leyland for a term 

 of thirty-five years, paying the ancient 

 rent for the first five years and the due 

 proportion of the increased rent (^^140) 

 of the manors of Ulnes Walton, Eccleston 

 and Leyland ; Duchy of Lane. Great 

 Coucher, I, fol. 70, no. 46. In 1402 and 

 again in 14 10 the moiety of the manor 

 was demised for life to William son of 

 John de Farington, deceased ; Duchy of 

 Lane. Misc. Bks. xvi, 40, 41 d. (pt. il). 

 Sir Henry Farington, lord of the other 

 moiety, became the lessee m 1505 ; Ibid. 

 xxi, a/59 *^' 



A survey of the duke's moiety of the 

 manor in 1398 is copied In Piccope MSS. 

 (Chet. Lib.), xiv, 6^-y. The free tenants 

 were the heirs of William de Farington, 

 holding by knights' service and 31. rent 

 (half to the duke and half to Penwortham); 

 Adam de Knoll, 13c/. ; Adam dc Black- 

 lache(Blacklidge), 3^. \ Adam de Brether- 

 ton, 4^. ; William de Leyland, 6d. ; Abbot 

 of Evesham, zzd. -y William Mercer the 

 draper (for Ayscough land), zod. ; John 

 de Fald worthing, 5^. id. ; Ralph Banastre, 

 Ss, 6d. 5 and the heirs of Richard de 

 Shireburne, 6d. ; of Nicholas de London, 

 ^d. ; of John de Leyland, ^d, ; of — 

 Baldwin, ^d. ; of John de Farington, 

 14^^/. ; of — Culmelache, 35. ; and of 

 William Herrcson, 2s. ^d. ; the total of 

 free rents was 38^. oj^., and of rents of 

 tenants at will ^21 is. iijt/. The latter 

 included Robert de Farington, rector of 

 Beblngton, and John the Milner, who had 

 the mill, a cottage and an acre on each 

 side of Northbrook, paying i6s. ^d. 



^ Duchy of Lane. Misc. Bks. xxiii, 



I I 



70 d. Land called Conylache was in- 

 cluded. 



'■' See the account of Farington, 



William de Farington in 1333 clniiwcd 

 7 acres against John dc Faldworthing ; 

 De Banco R. 296, m. 431 j 298, m. 191 d. 

 In 1336 he purchased a messuage and 

 land in Leyland from Hugh del Rldleys 

 and Alice his wife ; Final Cone, il, 

 102. The land was the right of Alice ; 

 see Dc Banco R. 296, m. 219 d. ; 297, 

 m. 27 d. 



Free warren In Lcyland was allowed 

 to William de Farington in 1349 ; Charter 

 R. 143, m. 30, no. 41. 



William Farington in 1445-6 held lands 

 In Leyland of the duchy, rendering 18.^. 

 yearly ; Duchy of Lane. Knights' Fees, 

 bdle. 2, no. 20. 



At the death of Sir William Farington 

 in I 501 his lands in Lcyland were found 

 to be held of the king as of his duchy of 

 Lancaster by the tenth part of a knight's 

 fee \ Duchy of Lane. Inq, p.m. Ill, no. 6y. 



His son. Sir Henry, had a son William, 

 who married a co-heir of Clayton and left 

 an only daughter and heir, Joan, named 

 in the text, who by Henry Beconsaw, her 

 former husband, had a daughter Dorothy, 

 heiress of a large part of the Farington, 

 Beconsaw and Clayton estates. The 

 Brownes had a long contest with Robert 

 Farington, third son of Sir Henry, who 

 claimed as heir male. See the account 

 of Farington and numerous references in 

 the Ducatus Lane. (Rec. Com.). 



See Pal. of Lane. Feet of F. bdle. 12, 

 m. 94 ; 20, m. 87 ; 44, m. 211. 



'" In 1575 Edmund Huddleston of 

 Southwold and Dorothy his wife com- 

 plained of an invasion of their lands by 

 William Farington. They stated that Sir 

 Anthony Browne, being in his lifetime 

 seised of a moiety of the manor of Ley- 

 land, granted it In 1557 to the said 

 Dorothy and her heirs ; while the other 

 moiety was settled on Sir Anthony and 

 Joan his wife for life, with remainder to 

 the petitioners and their issue, who had 

 duly entered. William Farington answered 

 that he was lawfully seised of the land In 

 dispute in virtue of an award In a former 

 suit with Robert Farington * his uncle'; 

 Duchy of Lane. Plead. Eliz. Ixxxli, H14. 



" Leyland Manor was included in a 

 Huddleston settlement in 1606, the de- 

 forciants In the fine being Sir Edmund 

 Huddleston, Dorothy his wife and Henry 

 their son j Pal. of Lane. Feet of F. bdle. 

 70, no. 84. In a fine three years later the 

 deforciants were Thomas Emery and Mary 

 his wife ; ibid. bdle. 76, m. 2. This refers 

 to the 'manor of Leyland' and lands, d:c., 

 there. 



The date 16 17 is given by Canon 

 Raines, quoting * Worden Evidences ' ; 

 Stanley Papers (Chet. Soc), pt. 11, p. xlx. 



