Hanham Court Estate

Hanham Court Estate [From the Normans to the Creswickes]

[My understanding of the land records as quoted by Fosbroke, & Ellacombe]

1.  The Domesday Survey of 1086 established how the land that William had promised to his lords was now held, and what they owed him for it.  -  Yes they would owe him taxes, but more importantly, some of them were becoming uppity and fractious and William needed to have a firm grip over their entitlement to land and their fealty with a duty to military service.

2.   Once the Land Register was established, land and its owners’ duties to the King could not be transferred without his written permission. This permission was called Royal Licence. There are clear examples locally where, - when Royal Licence had not been granted, land was confiscated from the purchaser and re-allocated. Thus a Baron could not allow parts of his Barony to be sold beyond his control without the King’s permission.

3.   After a long time the operation of the Royal Licence system became cumbersome and ways were devised to avoid the legal rigmarole and expense.   However the Statute of Mortmain of 1279 was a specific ban on transferring property to religious orders without a Licence.

4.  One way that was devised to transfer ownership as a sale was to set up a fictitious legal case that would record an agreement of recompense to the previous owner.  The final Judgement was called a finé. - Written copies were made for the parties also a court record. [See following page]

          These court copies are called ‘feet of fines’. And so we see that a purchaser held land ‘by a fine’.

The Manor of West Hanham

          John of Saltmarsh was a very young baby when he inherited the Manor of West Hanham He was a descendant of the De Hanham family who held the manor from the Lords of Berkeley. Two neighbouring Lords, The Blounts of Bitton and De la More of Oldland wished to control the Estate and fought a court action [1272] as to who should acquire the wardship of the manor during his minority. De la More prevailed.

          In 1287 when Saltmarsh attained 15 years [the age of discretion] he took court action to oust the guardianship of De la More. However De la More proved that by his lineage Saltmarsh held the Manor by a Knight’s Fee, which was a military duty and he could not do so until he reached the age of 21.

          If he had held it under an ordinary tenancy called soccage he would have been able to sell the manor later without much trouble. But when he came to sell it in 1329 the Knight’s Fee was an obstacle to a regular sale. ~ It seems likely that he would have approached the ‘Superior Lord’ to see what could be done about it.   -   The Knight’s Fee was part of the Baron’s duty to the Crown which could not be removed without considerable trouble and expense. It was clear that the Berkeleys could not allow a sale that might let it fall into the hands of another Lord unless they sought the king’s permission.   ­-    They would have to specify the prospective new owner who would take on the Knight’s Fee.

          The Berkeleys had founded the Abbey of Keynsham and over time had given much to it.  -  It is recorded in Sir Robert Atkyns’ ‘History of Gloucestershire’ that William de la Grene held land in Marshfield for the Abbey of Keynsham [1326]. He and John de Bagworth would have been known to the Berkeleys as commissioners for the Abbey.

          When Saltmarsh wishes to sell the manor in 1329 there remains this obstacle to a sale in the open market. However the Berkeleys do have a way to help Saltmarsh by arranging the sale to William de la Grene and John de Bagworth who will apply for a Licence under the Statute of Mortmain to give it to the Abbey.  This will extinguish the ‘Knight’s Fee’.  -  It then seems obvious that the Berkeleys would have funded de la Grene and de Bagworth to make the purchase. Then the expected conveyance to the Abbey took place within a year.  It was in fact another gift to their favourite Religious Order.   A previous suspicion that the commissioners were a ‘front organization’ appears doubtful as they took the proper action by licence. Only the money source and amount are not vouchsafed to us. - I doubt there was any subterfuge involved.

     The estate transferred at this time is listed as: -

One Capital messuage, [Hanham Court]: One carucate [about 120 acres of arable]:

6 acres of mead & 4 acres of wood:  Estimated 60 acres tenanted @ 10 shillings from Wm. de la More;    a Water-Mill:  3 acres of mead and 6 acres of wood from Thomas de Berkeley:   and 1 virgate [30acres] at Beach [Upton House] from Bath Abbey.

After the dissolution of the Monasteries (Keynsham in 1539) the estate sold to John Lacey had grown to 1470 acres, and Ellacombe completes the story via T Colston to the Creswickes as follows: - Queen Mary In 1553 had sold West Hanham to Rowland Hayward. He in 1555, to John Reed and he in 1566 sold the manor house and 1470 acres to John Lacy of London and Bristol.

In 1633 The Laceys sold to T. Colston, who in 1638 sold it to Francis and Henry Creswicke, whose family held it until 1842

R. J. Williams 15.06.18