Purchase of a Moiety of the Manor of Blackburn, February 1721/2
Abram in his History of Blackburn, Town and Parish stated that Thomas Belasyse, the fourth Viscount Fauconberg, sold his moiety of the Manor of Blackburn 'in 1721, for £8650, to William Baldwin, Henry Feilden and William Sudell, Esqrs' and that the Manor of Blackburn 'eventually was entirely vested by purchase in the Feilden family' with the Sudells conveying their share of the manor to the Feildens. In 1890, in an article published in the Blackburn Standard, Abram returned to the Baldwin, Feilden and Sudell's purchase of a moiety of the Manor of Blackburn. In the article Abram transcribed various documents from a court case in 1792 relating to a challenge to the Manorial Rights of Blackburn. The opening statement in the case sheds a different light on what happened after the purchase of a share of the manor: 'Messrs. Baldwin, Feilden and Sudell conveyed a very considerable part of the estate to different purchasers … without reservation of any Rent, suit or service'. Documents held by Lancashire Archives provide evidence that Baldwin, Feilden and Sudell raised the £8650 required to purchase the Belasyse moiety of the Manor by agreeing sales of the freehold of property, previously held on leasehold from the Belasyses, either to the sitting tenants or to new purchasers. This article will study the means by which Baldwin, Feilden and Sudell purchased a moiety of Blackburn Manor by examining documents held by Lancashire Archive after a brief examination of the function of manors, a short history of the Manor of Blackburn and some information on the leases let by the Belasyses. Also, it will argue that Baldwin and the Feilden and Sudell families, who held leaseholds from the Belasyses, were more interested in obtaining the freehold of property than any rights and benefits associated with a lordship of the manor. It will also dispute Abram's claim that the Feildens acquired the title to the manor after acquiring the part held by the Sudells. It will conclude by indicating future areas of study following the action of Baldwin, Feilden and Sudell after Lord Fauconberg sold them his moiety of the Manor of Blackburn.
Lordship was the essence of medieval social organisation with manors and honours being the units of lordship into which land was divided in England and Wales. The origins of the manorial system are uncertain but the system was established throughout England at the time of the Domesday Book in 1086. Although ubiquitous, a typical form of manor did not exist. Being the landlord, or lord of the manor, was not confined to the nobility. By the sixteenth century lords of the manor could be noblemen, knights, esquires, gentlemen or ecclesiastical institutions. In some places the Crown held land directly but everywhere lordship derived ultimately from the monarch; only the Crown could own land in its own right. Often several manors were grouped into an honour under a lord paramount. Both honours and manors were of uneven size and distribution with some honours having jurisdiction over more than 100 manors and some landlord holding one manor only whereas others held several manors that could be distributed throughout England. A variety of tenures existed within a manor giving various degrees of security. In general, three types of land existed within a manor: demesne lands for the use of the lord, freehold tenancies which gave the holders security of ownership with the right to sell, lease and bequeath lands and property and 'customary' lands which gave no security of tenure. In addition manors usually contained commons and wastes open to use by tenants and freeholders. Before the Black Death, when the Plague struck England in the first half of the fourteenth century, the villeins, or unfree men, farmed the lord's demesne lands as part of their service rent. Tenants of the lord of the manor had to work on the demesne lands for specified number of days, doing tasks such as ploughing, reaping and so forth, as well as supplying the lord with a specified amount of their own produce. After the population decline of the fourteenth century, service rents became almost extinct, replaced by money rents, sometimes with a symbolic product rent, or boon service, of a few hens. After the fourteenth century tenants held the demesne lands on copyhold tenure. Copyhold tenures were entered on the manorial court rolls with the court giving the tenant a copy. The copyholder had to pay a substantial fine at the beginning of the tenancy then a small annual rent. The tenancy was for a specified period or on the term of two or three lives, with the agreement ending, usually, on the death of the last person nominated in the agreement. Copyhold tenancies did provide some security because a new lease could be taken out after the drawing up of a new agreement and the payment of a fine. Most tenants were copyholders but some held land by the payment of customary dues. 'Admission' and 'surrender' was according to the custom of the manor. In the middle ages customary dues were a mixture of labour service and rent payments which could be produce or money or both. By 1500 serfdom, which such tenancies represented, was almost extinct, being replaced by tenancies-at-will which were held from year to year with no legal rights. However, the essence of the manorial system was a series of rights and obligations of the lord to the tenants and of the tenants to their lords.
The obligations between the lord of the manor and the tenants were based upon the foundation of a formal legal structure administered through courts. The manorial courts were the court baron, which dealt with free tenants, and the customary court, sometimes known as the halmote or halmoot, that dealt with unfree tenants. All free men attended the court baron, both as suitors and judges. The court dealt with all matters related to tenure which included fulfilment, or non-fulfilment, of feudal service, payment of feudal dues and disputes between free tenants of a single lord. The customary court, presided over by the lord's steward or bailiff, dealt with unfree tenants who held property as tenants-at-will. The court administered feudal service and unfree tenure and disputes between unfree tenants, such as debts and minor assaults, and land use and agricultural service, essential to the upkeep of the manor. The lord of the manor also held the court leet but this court was held by grant of the monarch, not as a manorial right of the lord. The court leet dealt with minor offences and misdemeanours, such as failure to maintain boundaries or depositing refuse on rights of way, and received fines paid to the court for any offences. The manorial courts, both court baron and customary, declined after the fifteenth century and often combined with the court leet. The court leet, in turn, declined with the advent of the Justices of the Peace but in some places survived to become the basis of local government in the nineteenth century.
Whitaker, in his History of the Parish of Whalley, provided the standard account of the early history of the Manor of Blackburn, including the moiety sold by Lord Fauconberg in 1722. According to Whitaker, a manor existed in Blackburn from before the twelfth century, but he questioned whether the moiety of the Manor held by the Fauconbergs had a legitimate claim to the rights of the true manor. Although the Belasyses, and the Bartons before them, had let property on tenancies, no evidence exists of courts to administer these tenancies, which would appear to support Whitaker's claim. The claim to rights of the manor is interwoven with the move of the Abbot and Convent of Stanlaw from Cheshire to the Abbey founded in Whalley in the thirteenth century. John de Lacy purchased the mediety of Manor of Blackburn in 1230 so that he could confer the advowson of the church in Blackburn on the abbey of Stanlaw. The Bishop of Lichfield confirmed this in 1238. In 1251 the Bishop of Lichfield appropriated the second mediety and conferred all the rights to the church to Stanlaw. According to Whitaker, the second mediety brought with it the manorial rights, which remained with Whalley Abbey until its dissolution in the 1530s and, when Edward VI re-granted it to the Archbishop of Canterbury 1547, the rights to the true manor went with it. The origin of the moiety sold by the Belasyse was when John de Lacy, after purchasing the second mediety from Richard de Hulton, re-granted the de Hulton lands, which form Blackburn manor's demesne, but without any claims to the manor. From the de Hultons this moiety descended by inheritance and marriage to the Belasyses in 1659, on the death of Sir Robert Barton. Lord Faconberg sold this moiety of Blackburn Manor to William Baldwin, Henry Feilden and William Sudell on 22 and 23 February 1721/2. Whitaker argued that 'from ignorance of the real state of the case each party pretended to the whole, whereas the claim of the Archbishop was to an original moiety of the genuine manor, and that of the Fauconberg family to manorial rights over the moiety which had arisen out of usage and sufferance'. Whitaker's claim, made in the early nineteenth century, is interesting but irrelevant as the moiety sold by Lord Fauconberg's was accepted as being part of Blackburn Manor but Whittaker does help explain why Blackburn Manor never appeared to hold manorial courts.
In 1717 Thomas Belasyse, the third Viscount Fauconberg, submitted a return of his property as a suspected Papist. The return provides details of Lord Fauconberg's tenants in Blackburn along with the terms of their tenures but, unfortunately, the return provides few details of the property, such as name or location. The tenures for most of the Belasyse's Blackburn estate were for 99 years, or on three lives, with a significant fine paid at the beginning of the lease and then a small annual rent with, in many cases, an annual boon service of one or two pennies and a specified number of hens, hence, they had the form of copyhold tenures without the manorial courts to administer them. The final page of the return includes a list of some tenancies renewed annually, including a malt mill, called the Blackburn Horse Miln, and parts of Bastwell and Brookhouse, as well as fines for encroachment and small annual charges for no specified purpose. A summary of the leasehold or copyhold tenants is provided in Table 1 below:
|Leaseholder(s)||No. Leases||Total Fines||Total Rent||Total Boon|
|Evan Wilkinson||2||£225 0s 0d||£1 2s 2d||6 hens|
|Elizabeth Duboys||1||£210 0s 0d||£1 18s 2d||2d & 4 hens|
|Robert Morris, Mary Ainsworth||1||£190 0s 0d||15s 10d||6 hens|
|John Astley||1||£120 0s 0d||16s 3d||2d & 6 hens|
|Thomas Haworth||2||£102 10s 0d||£3 2s 11/2d||2d & 91/2 hens|
|Thomas Ainsworth||1||£100 0s 0d||15s 4d||6 hens|
|Thomas Sharples||2||£97 10s 0d||£1 6s 1d||n/a|
|Randle Feilden||4||£90 0s 0d||£3 7s 5d||4d & 12 hens|
|John Sudall||2||£86 2s 6d||£1 6s 1/2d||2d & 7 hens|
|Giles Walmsly, William Clayton||1||£85 0s 0d||8s 1/2d||1d & 4 hens|
|Alice Davenport||1||£80 0s 0d||£1 7s 4d||2d & 4 hens|
|William Pickup||1||£80 0s 0d||£1 2s 4d||1d & 2 hens|
|William Baldwin||2||£70 0s 0d||9s 4d||1d & 41/2 hens|
|William Dixon||1||£70 0s 0d||9s 10d||2d & 7 hens|
|William Gradwell||1||£70 0s 0d||£1 5s 0d||2d & 6 hens|
|Thomas Bolton||1||£65 0s 0d||£1 4s 7d||2d & 3 hens|
|Randle Sharples||1||£55 0s 0d & 1 broad piece of gold||12s 8d||1d & 3 hens|
|Giles Bolton||1||£52 0s 0d||4s 5d||1d & 2 hens|
|John Hopkinson||2||£50 0s 0d||7s 4d||2d & 2 hens|
|Roger Winsley||1||£48 0s 0d||£1 0s 0d||1d & 3 hens|
|Peter Edge||1||£40 0s 0d||£1 2s 0d||2d & 7 hens|
|Thomas Whaly||1||£34 0s 0d||£1 0s 4d||1 hen|
|Christopher Ainsworth||1||£30 0s 0d||4s 0d||n/a|
|James Farrer, Peter Summers||1||£28 0s 0d||9s 8d||1/2d & 1 hen|
|Roger Whaley||1||£22 0s 0d||16s 4d||1d & 4 hens|
|Ralph Livesey||1||£19 0s 0d||13s 10d||1d & 3 hens|
|Thomas Low||1||£13 0s 0d||7s 3d||n/a|
|Christopher Ainsworth, James Brindle||1||£10 0s 0d||6s 8d||n/a|
|Thomas Orrell||1||£10 0s 0d||4s 2d||n/a|
|Robert Horrobin||1||£10 0s 0d||2s 0d||n/a|
|Thomas Greenall||1||£10 0s 0d||1s 0d||1d & 2 hens|
|John Hayhurst||1||£8 0s 0d||3s 0d||n/a|
|Ellen Gillibrand||1||£7 0s 0d||2s 6d||n/a|
|Henry Feilden||1||£7 0s 0d||8d||n/a|
|Mary Haworth||1||£7 0s 0d||3s 0d||n/a|
|Christopher Duckworth||1||£6 0s 0d||9s 4d||n/a|
|Mary Bolton||1||£5 0s 0d||2s 0d||n/a|
|Roger (Robert) Lowe||1||£5 0s 0d||2s 5d||n/a|
|James Brindle||1||£4 10s 0d||9s 5d||1d & 3 hens|
|Ann Walmsly||1||£4 0s 0d||3s 5d||n/a|
|Thomas Clayton||1||£3 15s 0d||9d||n/a|
|John Sharples||1||£3 10s 0d||2s 0d||n/a|
|Richard Nabb||1||£2 17s 6d||2s 0d||n/a|
|James Bolton||1||£2 15s 0d||1s 6d||n/a|
|John Clayton||1||£2 10s 4d||8d & 1 hen||n/a|
|Thomas Mawdsly||1||13s 4d||1s 0d||n/a|
Table 1: Entry fines, annual and boon service rents as declared by Lord Fauconberg in 1717 from LA DDX 1094/21.
Both William Baldwin and Henry Feilden held leases. William Baldwin held two leases for which he paid total entry fines of £70 and annual rent of 9s 4d. Henry Feilden held one tenure for which he paid a small fine of £7 with an annual rental of only 8d. However, Randle Feilden, Henry's father, held four leases for which he paid a total of £90 and annual rental of £3 7s 5d, making the total Feilden holding significant. William Sudell held no leases from the Belasyses but his father, John Sudell (spelt Sudall), held two leases with total entry fines of £86 2s 6d and annual rent of £1 6s 1/2d. The Baldwin, Feilden and Sudell families were significant tenants of the Belasyses but by no means the most significant; Evan Wilkinson, Elizabeth Duboys and, jointly, Robert Morris and Mary Ainsworth had that honour. In total Lord Fauconborg had forty six leaseholders with fifty five tenures on lives, with entry fines ranging from £210 paid by Elizabeth Duboys to 13s 4d paid by Thomas Mawdsly. Some of these leases changed between 1717 and the sale in 1722 but, essentially, it provides a picture of the tenants of the Belasyse when they sold their moiety of Blackburn Manor in 1722.
A document held by Lancashire Archives provides an explanation of how Baldwin, Feilden and Sudell financed the purchase of the moiety of Blackburn Manor from Lord Fauconberg in 1721/2. It takes the form of rudimentary accounts either kept by Baldwin, Feilden or Sudell or someone acting on their behalf. It lists people against amounts of money due, details of who had not paid, either in part or in full, details of money borrowed to finance the deal along with details of some repayments of those loans, including interest paid. The two paged document does not provide the full story but it helps explain how three local yeomen/chapmen were able to pay Lord Fauconberg £8650 for his moiety of Blackburn Manor, equivalent to over £1.2 million at 2017 prices. A transcript of the first two columns on the first page is shown in Table 2 below. It shows the amounts to be paid by the named people, including William Baldwin, Henry Feilden and both John Sudells, senior and junior, as well as fees payable to Jeffrey Prescott for arranging the purchase from Lord Fauconberg. It also shows that Baldwin, Feilden and Sudell were liable for chief rents, presumably payable to the Lord of the Honour of Clitheroe. The second page of the document, not reproduced here, provides an explanation of the right hand columns: these are people who had not paid. The second page also shows that some people did not pay the full amount, leaving a shortfall of £1400 which had to be borrowed. £1000 of this money was borrowed from a Mr Johnson with £300 from Mrs Hammond and £100 from a name that has not been unravelled. Some information is given on the repayment of these loans, including interest paid, but this is far from comprehensive. Other documents held at the Lancashire Archives prove that this document shows the amounts payable for each of the named parties to gain the freehold of each of the tenures that formed part of the Belasyse moiety of Blackburn Manor.
|Thomas Brewer for Abbott Tenement||209||11||10||Mrs Labeagh for Horseload||311||19||41/2|
|Thomas Ainsworth for Longshaw||191||7||71/4||Farrer & Summer's Tenement||111||5||11/4|
|John Walmsley for Thomas Ainsworth house||33||6||43/4||Edmund Eccles for part of Horrabins||36||18||2|
| " for Astley gate Tenement||455||4||1||Richard Crew for the other part||15||8||1|
|Mr Kippax for Hill Tenement 307:5:4}|| || || ||William Piccop Beardwood||143||12||71/2|
| paid[?] for Kirkhams 176:18:31/4}||484||3||71/4||Richard Haworth alies Coren||42||3||21/2|
|Robert Norris for X Keys||374||1||6||John Hayhurst Northgate||23||14||43/4|
|Miles Aspinall for Shadsworth||83||0||6||Widow Greaves Shear Brow||40||7||6|
|Mrs Alice Bolton for her tenement 153:19:31/4|| || || ||John Sharples Blacklemoor||26||10||43/4|
|Mrs Ann Walmsley her Mother for hers 43:17:7||197||16||101/4||Mr Roger Whalley Banke||466||16||21/2|
|Mr William Baldwin for his tenement 194:3:61/2|| || || ||Paid Mr Jeffrey Prescott money towards Expenses||20||12||41/4|
| " for Haworths Tenement 106:4:11|| || || || || || || |
| " for Mill 80:0:0||380||8||51/2|| || || || |
|Thomas Bolton for his tenement||207||15||2|| || || || |
|Mary Bolton||92||8||31/4|| || || || |
|Mr John Clayton for Little Harwood||7||3||2|| || || || |
|Mr Thomas Clayton London for house 37:19:103/4|| || || || || || || |
| " for Clayton Tenement 182:11:93/4||220||11||81/2|| || || || |
|Thomas & Robert Whitticre for Devenp Tenement 197:18:83/4|| || || || || || || |
| " and for Beardwood Tenement 433:2:10||631||1||63/4|| || || || |
|Mr William Dickson for Eatons Tenement||309||18||21/2|| || || || |
|Mr Henry Feilden for Beardwood 196:18:103/4}|| || || || || || || |
| " for Wilworth 159:17:6}|| || || || || || || |
| " for Sagars 100:14:8}|| || || || || || || |
| " for his house 67:10:11}|| || || || || || || |
| " for Nag Poole 31:4:1}|| || || || || || || |
| " for Whalley's Shorrock Fold 292:9:11/2}||848||15||21/4|| || || || |
|Henry Walmsley for part Coward Tenement||40||7||6|| || || || |
|Thomas Greenall||82||9||91/4|| || || || |
|Mr Wilkinson for his house 90:03:06|| || || || || || || |
| " and for Bull Tenement 391:11:81/2||481||15||21/2|| || || || |
|John Hopkinson Junior for Broomhills||28||6||8|| || || || |
|Widow Garner for part of a Tenement||30||0||0|| || || || |
|John Hull for Sharples Tenement||285||3||6|| || || || |
|Robert Law||33||1||8|| || || || |
|Thomas Livesey||166||19||61/2|| || || || |
|John Sudell Junior||38||19||83/4|| || || || |
|Thomas Law Executors||41||15||31/4|| || || || |
|Mr James Parkinson & James Baron||31||10||11/2|| || || || |
|John Sudell Senior for his Tenement 325:4:7|| || || || || || || |
| " for Peels 130:2:11/2|| || || || || || || |
| " for Edge Tenement 385:15:83/4||841||2||51/4|| || || || |
|Randle Sharples||142||5||91/2|| || || || |
|John Smalley||65||5||71/4|| || || || |
|James Wensley||250||8||21/2|| || || || |
|Thomas Whalley Coalpits||191||1||21/2|| || || || |
|Thomas Orrell||34||7||61/2|| || || || |
|Messrs Baldwin Feilden & Sudell for Chief Rents||47||18||4|| || || || |
| ||7449||5||81/2|| ||1239||17||51/2|
|Jeffrey Prescott, Preston, Debit Remitted him by Baldwin, Feilden and Sudell & others as above||8689||3||2||Mr Jeffrey Prescott Contra Credit Pay [abbreviation not understood] Lord Fauconberg for Purchase||8650||0||0|
| || || || ||Pay money in his hands towards defraying his Charges feeing Council Se: on our Account||39||03||02|
| || || || || ||8689||03||02|
Table 2: DDX/1094/25 The amount of the Tenements according to the Schedule
Three indentures between Baldwin, Feilden and Sudell and, individually, Robert Law, Robert Norris and Honoratus Lebeg provide evidence that the purchase of the manor was partly financed by selling the freehold of property previously let on leases by the Belasyses. The documents DDX 1082/1/1 are dated 25 and 26 Apil 1722 and DDX 1094/24 is dated 26 April 1722. The first are documents of lease and release to Robert Law, husbandman, for £33 1s 8d of Jackson o' th' Coal Pits and half an acre of land on Whinnel Edge and one rood at Islington. This is the amount listed against Robert Law in the purchase document. The second is a counterpart of the release document relating to the purchase of New Hall and Barkside by Robert Norris for £374 1s 6d, the amount listed against Robert Norris for X Keys in the purchase document. Robert Law had leased Jackson o' th' Coal Pits under a tenure from Sir Rowland Belasyse in 1699 whereas Robert Norris held a lease with Mary Ainsworth, which is listed in Lord Fauconebrg's declaration but had only been renewed in 1720. Hence both Robert Law and Robert Norris were tenants of the Belasyses who purchased the freehold of their tenancies through Baldwin, Feilden and Sudell's purchase of a moiety of Blackburn Manor. DDX 196/1, documents of lease and release between Baldwin and Feilden and Honoratus Lebeg provides an example of the sale of the freehold of an estate to someone who had not been a tenant of the Belasyses. These documents are dated 27 and 28 of January 1729 and are for the purchase of the Horseload estate, as well as land on Revidge and Whinney Moors, for £311 19s 41/2d. Lord Fauconberg had previously leased this property to Mrs Dubois with Elizabeth Duboys being listed in Lord Fauconberg's 1717 return. In the purchase document from 1722 a Mrs Labeagh is listed against the sum of £311 19s 41/2d. These 3 sets of documents show that Baldwin, Feilden and Sudell helped finance the purchase of a moiety of Blackburn Manor by agreeing the sale of the freehold to either sitting tenants or to people who had not leased property from the Belasyses. Therefore, rather than using their own money to purchase the manor they only paid the amount agreed for their purchases with the balance provided by selling freeholds to either sitting tenants or new investors. This provides evidence that Baldwin, Feilden and Sudell were not interested in any powers and rights associated with the lordship of a manor but were only interested in owning property. They helped finance this by divesting themselves of property in which they had no interest either soon after they acquired the manor, as in the case of Law and Norris, or as soon as they could after the termination the lease of estates sold to outside parties; Lebeg being an example of this. With so many freehold estates created Abram's claim that by acquiring the Sudell properties the Feildens became Lords of the Manor is invalid. However, a far wider range of issues is raised by the actions of Baldwin, Feilden and Sudell, more significant than the acquisition of a title.
Manors and their lords had been part of social organisation in England since before the eleventh century. Both lords and tenants had obligations to each other, administered through manorial courts. The moiety of Blackburn Manor, acquired by the Belasyses in 1659, does not appear to have had any manorial courts, which supports Whitaker's claim that the rights of the manor for the Belasyse's share had 'arisen out of usage and sufferance'. Whether this moiety of the manor was a true manor or not did not affect the sale to William Baldwin, Henry Feilden and William Sudell in 1722. The rudimentary accounts drawn up in 1722 as part of the purchase process, supported by documents held by Lancashire Archives related to sales of property after the purchase of the manor, show that Baldwin, Feilden and Sudell were not interested in becoming lords of the manor, with the associated rights and obligations, but in obtaining the freehold of property for themselves. To do this they divested themselves of the rest of the moiety to either existing tenants or new purchasers. This was a business deal, not an attempt to enhance the social status of three men. Because the moiety of the manor had been divided among so many new freeholders, the Feildens could not have acquired the lordship of the manor by acquiring the property held by the Sudells. The action of Baldwin, Feilden and Sudell raises several questions. Who were the purchasers of the freeholds and what were their motives, which includes the men behind the deal with Lord Fauconberg, William Baldwin, Henry Feilden and William Sudell? What impact, if any, did the creation of so many freeholders have when Blackburn developed as a manufacturing town in the late eighteenth century? These questions will form the basis of future research.
 The Belasyses inherited the Lancashire estates of the Bartons of Smithills, near Bolton, including a moiety of Blackburn manor, through Grace, the daughter, and heiress, of Thomas Barton. Thomas Barton died in 1659, the date generally accepted as when Thomas Belasyse, second Viscount Fauconberg, grandson of Henry Belasyse, inherited. However, the Schedule attached to DDFD/1/85, Release and Conveyance; Lord Fauconberg to Feilden, Baldwin and Sudell, in the Lancashire Archives indicates an earlier date. Summarised in the schedule is an indenture of lease and release dated 9 and 10 December 1657 transferring the ownership to Thomas Belasyse and Mary, his wife and third daughter of Oliver Cromwell, on the authority of Oliver Cromwell. Thomas Belasyse, who had been created Earl Fauconberg in 1688 by William III and Mary II, died in 1700 with his Lancashire estates passing to his nephew, Thomas. Lady Mary did not die until 1713 but she had no claims over the Lancashire estates at her death. (PROB 11/533/375: Will of Mary Countesse Fauconberg, Dowager of Soho Square City of Westminster, Middlesex, dated 26 June 1713). On the death of Thomas, the third Viscount, in 1718, the Lancashire estates passed to his son, Thomas, who became the fourth Viscount Fauconberg who sold the moiety of Blackburn Manor to Baldwin, Feilden and Sudell. (W. A. Abram,
History of Blackburn, Town and Parish (Blackburn, 1877), pp. 254-5.).
 Moiety is a legal term for a half or one of two equal parts ('moiety',
Oxford English Dictionary, 3rd Edition (Oxford, 2002) (OED)).
 As the sale happened under the Old Style of dating in use before 1752 when the new year began on Lady Day, 25 March, the sale date of 23 February 1721 is in 1722 under the New Style calendar and should have been represented by Abram as 23 February 1721/2.
Blackburn, pp. 255, 387, 404.
The Blackburn Standard and Weekly Express (BS), 15 November 1890; Lancashire Archives (LA) holds documents relating to the case as to the loss of Blackburn Manor's rights to be a manor, 3 September 1792: DDCM 2/165.
Oxford English Dictionary (OED) defines 'honour' as 'a domain or seigniory of several manors under one baron or lord paramount'; the Manor of Blackburn fell under the jurisdiction of the Honour of Clitheroe.
The Oxford Companion to Family and Local History (2nd ed.), David Hey (ed.), [Online], (2012); Keith Wrightson,
Earthly Necessities, (London, 2002), pp. 70-75.
 Maureen Mulholland, 'Manorial Courts', 'Court Leet',
The Oxford Companion to British History (2 ed.), Robert Crowcroft and John Cannon (eds.) [Online] (2015).
 Thomas Dunham Whitaker,
An History of the Original Parish of Whalley and Honor of Clitheroe etc. (3 ed.) (London, 1818), pp. 420-425; the first edition of Whitaker's history was published in 1801.
 See Whitaker,
Whalley, pp. 61-67 for information on Stanlaw and its transfer to Whalley Abbey.
 Mediety is another word for moiety which was often applied to a share of an ecclesiastical benefice ('mediety',
 LA, DDX 1094/23, quadripartite indenture dated 26 February 1721/2 concerning the sale of Lord Fauconberg's estates in Blackburn, Ramsgreve, Oswaldtwistle etc, contains a recital of Lord Fauconberg's rights to these estates including reference to an indenture dated 9 and 10 December 1657 which settled Thomas Barton's Lancashire lands on Viscount Fauconberg after Fauconberg had married Mary, Oliver Cromwell's third daughter, on 18 November 1657.
Whalley, p. 425.
 Lord Fauconberg's return was made under the terms
An Act for Appointing Commissioners to Enquire of the Estates of certain Traytors, and Popish Recusants, and of Estates given to Superstitious Uses, in Order to Raise Money out of them severally for Use of the Publick, 1716.
 LA, DDX 1094/21: Copy of Lord Fauconberg's extent of his Blackburn lands for the register of papists' estates, n.d .
 These annual agreements and fines for encroachment were to prove significant when the rights to a manor in Blackburn were challenged in the late eighteenth century and the early nineteenth century.
 A broad-piece was the name given to the 20 shillings piece after the introduction of the guinea in 1663, which was much broader and thinner than those issued in the reigns of James I and Charles I (OED: 'broad-piece').
 The lease to Thomas Clayton was with Sir Thomas Barton dating it to 1650s; the lease was probably extant because Ann Walmsly, one of the named lives, was still alive in 1717 as she held a tenure in her own right.
 For example, the tenure held by Robert Norris and Mary Ainsworth was renewed on 6 May, 1720 (cited in LA DDX/1094/24: 26 April 1722 - New Hall and Barkside: Counterpart of bargain, sale & release to Robert Norris of Bolton le Moors).
 LA DDX/1094/25: Papers relating to the purchase of Lord Fauconberg's estates including accounts of payments by purchasers.
 Value calculated using
Measuring Worth, https://www.measuringworth.com/ (accessed 19 April 2017).
 LA DDX 1082/1/1: Evidence of title to lands in Blackburn comprising messuage called Jackson o' Th' Coal Pits etc., 25/26 April 1722; DDX 1094/24: Counterpart release for £374 1s 6d etc., 26 April 1722; DDX 196/1 Lease and release for £311 19s 41/2, 27/28 January 1729.
 Elizabeth Lebeg was the mother of Honoratus Lebeg.
back to top