Page:Notes and Queries - Series 9 - Volume 7.djvu/411

 9*8. VII. MAY 25, 1901.] NOTES AND QUERIES.

403

Mowbray, elder daughter of the first Duke of Norfolk, and William Berkeley, the son of James, Baron Berkeley, and Isabel Mowbray, the younger daughter of the same nobleman. Each of these ladies therefore became en- titled in 1483 to one-sixth of the Sanford manors. Sir Robert Gowshill, of Havering- ham, Notts, and Elizabeth Fitzalan, had left a daughter and heiress, Johanna, who married Thomas, Lord Stanley; and his son Thomas, first Earl of Derby, became also entitled to a sixth share of the manors. Sir Rowland Lenthall's descendants had apparently lapsed with his son Edmund, who died without issue, and the Lenthall share was therefore divisible among the other coheirs. The remaining third of the manors was inherited by Elizabeth Beauchamp, daughter and heiress of Richard Beauchamp, Earl of Wor- cester (killed in 1422), the son of William Beauchamp, Lord of Bergavenny, and Joan Fitzalan. Elizabeth Beauchamp married Edward Nevill, who was summoned to Par- liament as Lord of Bergavenny, and died in 1476. He was succeeded by his son George, from whom the present Marquis of Aber- gavenny is descended. To resume. When the Tudors ascended the throne one-third of the manor of Tyburn belonged to George Nevill, Lord Bergavenny; one-sixth to John Howard, Duke of Norfolk; one-sixth to William, Marquis Berkeley; and one-sixth to Thomas Stanley, Earl of Derby. I have traced the descent of this manor at some length, because, so far as I am aware, it has never been done before, and certainly not by Lysons.*

It is a little difficult to say how the present manor of Marylebone was formed. I have an impression that originally only that portion of the manor of Tyburn which fell to the share of the Mowbrays was so named, for in the Inquisition p.m. of John, third Duke of Norfolk (1 Edward IV., 1461), he and his wife Alianora, who was daughter of William, Baron Bourchier, and grand- daughter of Thomas of Woodstock, Duke of Gloucester, are said to have been seised of the manor of Tyborne al's Marybone. This is the earliest mention of Marylebone that I have been able to trace. Robert Stillington, Bishop of Bath and Wells, who was high in favour with Edward IV., but who took the

William Essex, 20 Edward IV., 1480, 1 think MR. RUTTON will find on inspection that while Essex held the manor of " Westowne in MiddV he was in possession of lands only in "Kynsyngton, Bromp- ton, Chelcheth, Tyburne, and Westburne." He did not own those manors (see ante, p. 311).
 * With reference to the Inquisition p.m. of

wrong side in the time of that monarch's successor, and was imprisoned in consequence by Henry VII., seems to have acquired the manor from the Berkeleys. This was trans- ferred by his nephew 'and heir, Thomas

"Manor of Marybourne," which seems to have included premises in Tyburn, Lileston, Westbourn. Charing, and Eye. Sir Reginald Bray sold the manor to Thomas Hobson, gent., who also acquired in 1503 the shares of Lord Bergavenny, the Earl of Derby, and the Earl of Surrey (the dukedom of Norfolk being then under attainder), and thus became possessed of the whole of the old manor of Tyburn. It remained in the hands of the Hobson family until 1544, when it was ex- changed with King Henry VIII. for some other lands. It is unnecessary to pursue the history of the manor further, but it may be as well to state that there is no evidence that the boundaries of the manor granted by King James I. in 1611 to Edward Forset corresponded in every particular with the boundaries of the old manor of Tyburn We know, for instance, that the space which had been formed into. Marybone Park was excluded, and it is possible that the lands situated in Paddington which were included in the manor were among those granted to the See of London by Edward VI. in 1551.

It is generally considered that the site of the old church of Tyburn, which in the ' Taxatio Ecclesiastica ' of Pope Nicholas IV., circa 1291, was valued at 61. annually, was on or near the present court-house in Mary- lebone Lane, the only ground for this opinion being a statement by Maitland that a number of human bones were dug up while the founda- tions of the old court-house were being pre- pared in 1727. Some more bones seem to have been discovered when the present court-house was being built in 1822, and this is sufficient for Thomas Smith to declare that the old cemetery, which hypo- thetically adjoined the church, must have occupied this site (* Account of Marylebone,' p. 60). A writer in the City Press has recently pointed out that it is very difficult to excavate anywhere in London without finding human bones, and the presence of bones in Marylebone goes a very little way to prove the existence of a church. Applying the test of common sense to the (jueshon, we find that Oxford Street was anciently called Tyburn Road; that Park Lane was called Tyburn Lane; that Tyburn turnpike stood at the southern end of the Edgware Road; that