Site Map

A detailed history of Preston: Part three

History part four

History part two

The Manor of Minsden from Domesday to the fifthteenth century

Lest we become obsessed with the domination of Preston by Temple Dinsley, it is time for a reminder that the district around Preston was also governed by other manors. One such was Missenden or Minsden.

Domesday reported that ‘King William holds Mendlesdene. It is assessed at 4 hides (480 acres). There island for 8 ploughs. In the demesne (the Lord’s holding) there are 2 hides and 2½ virgates. A priest with 8 villeins and 2 cottars have 3 ploughs between them and there could be 2 more. There are 6 serfs. Meadowland there is sufficient for the livestock of the vill. There is woodland to feed 30 swine. The manor belonged and still belongs to Hiz (Hitchin). Earl Harold held it.’

Thus, significantly, a priest lived at Minsden together with around 38 other people in 16 homes. We might conclude that there was a church at Minsden in 1086 (although Bishop suggests that Minsden Chapel was built in around 1300). The manor comprised mainly of meadows and included a compact wooded area. Gerry Gingell described it as ‘a very small hill-based community which struggled for survival up until the seventeenth century.’

The hilltop of Minsden. The chapel is to the right of the copse

All that remains of Minsden is the ruined chapel of St Nicholas. It was a chapel of ease to St Mary’s at Hitchin and served villagers from the village of Langley. As it lay near the pilgrims’ route of St Albans Highway (being clearly visible from the road, perched on a hillside) it also would also attract travelling worshippers. Did Prestoners worship at Minsden? As we will see, there is no doubt that they attended services there in the sixteenth century. However, from before Domesday, there had been a religious house at Preston and the Templars had established a preceptory at the village from the end of the twelfth century. Was this for the exclusive use of the Templars, excluding local folk? Probably not - as already noted non-Knights (albeit august personages) such as the de Balliol family worshipped at Dinsley. Perhaps Preston worshippers only drifted to Minsden when regular services at Dinsley were interrupted several centuries later. Minsden manor was owned by Guy de Bovencourt until the King claimed it back in 1204. Then, Minsden was included in the holdings around Hitchin which rested with the de Balliol family until 1295. Robert de Kendale then assumed ownership until was ousted by the King on a point of law – of which possession was not nine points in this case. In the fourteenth century, Minsden was conferred upon John de Beverle ‘for services rendered’. Then, it was passed down to his wife and two daughters. In the early 1400s, the manor was sold to the Langfords, Robert then his son, Edward, followed by later generations of this family. We will return to Minsden later.

Introducing the Knights Hospitaller (the Order of St John and the Knights of Malta)

If anything, the origins of the Hospitallers slightly predated the Templars as their Order was established in the 1070s. If the Templars kept the routes to the Holy Land open, then the Hospitallers tended those who who fell by the wayside. They opened a hospice (as distinct from a hospital) at Jerusalem which ministered to sick and injured pilgrims – they eased their plight rather than treating them. They were a quasi-religious Order who took vows and donned distinctive clothing and existed to provide a positive service for others, together with an emphasis on spirituality. In 1113, their role was acknowledged by the Pope when he issued a papal decree granting the Hospitallers protection and privileges. They were supported by gifts from crusaders and from well- meaning donors in Europe, who had an eye on their own salvation earned by their ‘charitable’ gifts. Increasingly, the Hospitallers became involved in the Holy Land war effort – prevention of injuries was as important as curing them. Instead of concentrating on the after-care of the wounded and dying, they sought to protect travellers from attack in the first place by providing an armed escort. This stance evolved so that in the third crusade (1189 -1192) they played a major military role for the first time. As mentioned earlier, there was rivalry between the Templars and the Hospitallers – the Templars alleging that the Order was created in their image. When the Christians were repulsed from the Holy Land in 1291, both sets of Knights were criticised for their rivalry which it was considered contributed to their defeat - ‘...divided they fell’ The Hospitallers were not included in the witch-hunt against the Templars, however, and when the latter were dissolved, the majority of the Templar estates (except those on the Iberian peninsular) were given to the Hospitallers. They were required to to find ‘yearly two chaplains to celebrate divine service in the chapel of the manor’ at Temple Dinsley.

The occupants of Temple Dinsley from 1312

There was an interval between the disbanding of the Templars in 1312 and the granting of Temple Dinsley to the Hospitallers in 1348. R P Mander asserts that in 1307, Temple Dinsley was given to a money lender, Geoffrey De La Lee probably in settlement of an outstanding debt. The Victorian County History states that after 1312, the manor was ‘occupied for some years by the lords of the fee’ and that it was then let by them to William de Langford for an annual rent of 27 marks. He was still a tenant in 1338. The basis for this observation was a report dated 1338 by Prior Philip de R Thame to the Grand Master of the Hospitallers, Elyau de Villanova. It stated, ‘there is a manor of 3 carucates of arable land at a rent of 100 shillings per annum, 60 acres of underwood destroyed by the occupiers of the Temple. The worth of the aforesaid manor with all outgoings beyond maintenance for the services of a chaplain for the chapel – 27 marks.’ This was ‘remitted to William, the farmer of Langeford, who says that the manor was occupied of the Lord’s fee and he who seized it had occupied it for many years after being annulled by the Templars. The rent of the same – 27 marks.’ During this period the Hospitallers became owners of property by virtue of a statute of 1324. As they now had access to the fund-raising activities that were one of the main reasons that the Templars had so much land, in effect the two Orders were merged, despite the fact that the Knights Templar had fallen from grace. The Hospitallers continued to fight Muslims in the Middle East and the line of battlefronts ebbed and flowed - but the cost of warfare escalated as innovations were introduced - plate armour was more expensive than chain mail, for example. From the viewpoint of the villagers at Preston, probably little changed when the Hospitallers became their lords and masters, apart from the personnel at the mansion. Indeed, the Hospitallers inherited the debts and obligations of their predecessors. However, as we will see, although owning Temple Dinsley, the Hospitallers let the estate to a succession of tenants and the holding of religious services became less important. There is one curious historical note that refers to the Lord of the manor of Hitchin from 1348, Edward de Kendale and his wife, Elizabeth. The effigy of Bernard de Balliol in St Mary’s, Hitchin has already been featured, but there are also two other effigies there - of Edward (below left) and Elizabeth.

I have found one comment that both effigies were ‘said to be brought from Temple Dinsley’. If true, this is an indication of the continuing prominent part Dinsley played in the history of the region.

The Manor of Maidencroft is created from part of the Manor of Dinsley

There is a connection between Edward and Elizabeth de Kendale and the manor of Maidencroft. Maidencroft manor did not exist at the time of Domesday as it was then part of the manor of Dinsley. However, by the middle of the fourteenth century there had been a partition of Dinsley and the new manor of Maidencroft (which was also known as Dinsley Furnival) had been established. Thus, in 1347, it was recorded that when Margaret de Kendale died, she owned ‘a tenement (house) called Madecroft in the manor of Dynsle Furnival’. Edward de Kendale then became the new Lord of Maidencroft manor. It follows from this that size of manors was not set in stone. Indeed, when the Hitchin manor of Welei ceased to exist, its land was incorporated within its neighbouring manors which included Temple Dinsley. Maidencroft manor lay within the parish of Ippollitts although Salmon noted that it also extended into the parish of Hitchin. In 1427 it was assessed at 287 acres of arable land and 193 acres of pasture. It included 14 houses, 5 cottages and a dove house. It encompassed land to the north and east of Preston.

Preston and the plague of 1349

Preston, indeed the whole of Hertfordshire, felt the virulent grip of the Black Death. It was so severe in Hitchin that everyone died in one district and ‘a street became known thereafter as ‘Dead Street’. The BBC documentary, Christina - a Medieval Woman, described the remorseless march of the contagion across Hertfordshire. It travelled at a kilometre a day and struck Codicote, which is almost five miles south-east of Preston, on St Dunstan’s Day, 19 May 1349. It embraced Preston a few days later. Graffiti on a stone pillar of Codicote Church describes the pandemic as ‘pitiable, ferocious and violent. Only the dregs of the people are left to bear witness’. As an example of the local impact of the plague Hine, when writing about Stagenhoe (which is a little more than a mile from Preston) said ‘the tenants dwindled to a mere handful and the Lord’s demesne was left derelict and untilled. The villeins and serfs forsook their manors and with fear of death in their eyes wandered over the country living in woods and hillsides like wild beasts’. Sixty villages disappeared from the map of Hertfordshire as a result of the Black Death. Included among them was probably the village and Manor of Welei. Preston has its own reminder of this virulent pandemic - Dead Woman’s Lane. Local legend has it that it was named after the plague victims that were buried at nearby Wayley Close.

Welei: lost village

Temple Dinsley from the middle of the fourteenth century

During the reign of Richard Ii (1367 - 1400), Hospitallers continued to reside at Temple Dinsley as the preceptory is mentioned during this period. However, the holding of religious service here appears to have become spasmodic and had probably lapsed by 1498. At this time, the manor was leased (for the duration of his life-time) to John Tong, a preceptor, who undertook to find a chaplain to perform religious services. Two years later Prior Robert Kendal and the Chapter granted a chaplain, Robert Shawe, his board at Dinsley at the table of gentlemen. He was paid 5 marks to perform services in the chapel. But, just seven years later, in 1507, the manor was let to Thomas Hobson (and then later to Reginald and Dorothy Adyson ) who were also asked to provide the chaplain – the implication being that Shaw was no longer performing this duty. An inventory of the contents of the chapel was taken in 1514. Among the items listed were: a high altar, and two smaller alters; images of the Virgin Mary and John the Baptist; three mass books – one being new; two, old; various vestments; 8 alter cloths; a copper cross and a pair of censors. It seems that even if the will to worship was not constant, the accoutrements were available. Another tenant was John Docwa. He asked to be buried at either Temple Dinsley or St Mary’s, Hitchin. In 1525 there was a bizarre incident which indicates that Temple Dinsley was moving from its monastic life to a regime of hunting which continued into the nineteenth century. ‘Henry VIII. visited Hitchin and stayed several days there hawking and then went to Temple Dinsley ; while following his Hawk, in leaping over a ditch with a pole, the pole broke, so that if one Edmond Moody, a footman, had not leaped into the water and lifted up his head, which was fast in the clay, he would have been drowned.’ The involvement of the Hospitallers at Temple Dinsley ended in 1540 during the dissolution of the monasteries by Henry VIII. They had owned the manor at Preston for almost two centuries. Because of the lapses in providing divine services at Dinsley, apart from the change of ownership, there was probably little difference to the daily routine at Dinsley.

The Sadleir family - owners of Temple Dinsley

Henry VIII evidently was uncaring of the religious privileges of his subjects at Preston – he sold them to one of his principal Secretaries of State and Privy Councillor, Sir Ralph Sadleir (1507 - 1587), together with Temple Chelsin, for £843 2s 6d - one twentieth of a knight’s fee. He paid an annual rent of £4 9s 4d. Sadleir was employed in dissolving religious houses such as Temple Dinsley and was wealthy. He was a diplomat who was frequently employed at the Court in Scotland. He was entrusted with Mary Queen of Scots while she was a prisoner at Tutbury Castle but was rebuked by Queen Elizabeth I for taking Mary hunting beyond the environs of the Castle. As Sir Ralph had been granted the Manor of Standon, Herts by Henry VIII, he lived here rather than at Preston. However, his son, Edward Sadleir lived at Temple Dinsley. Following Ralph’s death, Temple Dinsley then passed through five members of the Sadleir family over the next 170 years: Sir Ralph; Anne (Sir Ralph’s daughter-in-law); Thomas (grandson of Anne); Sir Edwin (son of Thomas) and Sir Edwin jnr. Thomas Sadleir (a baptist) was at Dinsley during the time of the English Civil War (1642 - 1651). At this time, many in the country were deeply dissatisfied with their monarch, Charles I, and supported the Parliamentarians organised by Oliver Cromwell. After Charles was executed in 1649, England was ruled by a republic until 1660 when control was wrested back by Charles II. During this period of turbulence, Hitchin (despite its having been a royal manor) and its neighbourhood were solidly behind the Parliamentarians - it was a Parliamentary stronghold. Thomas Sadleir was an ardent supporter, not least because Sir Ralph Sadlier had been received into the family of Thomas Cromwell. However, one of his younger sons at Temple Dinsley on the outbreak of war, fled from his father and joined up with Royalist, Prince Rupert. Hertfordshire saw more of the organisation of the Parliament’s armies than any other county in the Eastern Association (formed by five counties including Hertfordshire) which was formed to raise an army and prevent war from encroaching on their districts. Thomas Sadleir as the grandson of a famous military engineer, Sir Richard Lee, was part of the Council of War for Hertfordshire and served on the Committee of the Eastern Association. Although battles swirled around the Hertfordshire borders, the county saw only a few skirmishes. When the Royalist army led by Rupert threatened Hitchin in 1643, a force of three to four thousand Trained-Band Volunteers were mobilised which, in view of Sadleir’s involvement, may well have included men from Preston. Several of this force were killed in the fields around Hitchin. During the winter of 1643-4, the army was billetted at Hitchin, much to the town’s peoples’ annoyance, and Sadleir was in the party dispatched to Parliament to lobby that their soldiers be removed and that the taxation for their upkeep levied upon Hertfordshire, be abandoned. Thomas himself, despite his mansion and 600 acres of land, was no longer able to maintain his son because of these dues. Cromwell raised another army of 3,000 men from Hitchin, Cambridge and surrounding villages. His recruits came in with ‘ incredible speed and alacrity’ and fought during the Roundhead’s victorious battle of Nazeby. Afterwards, the attention of the Parliamentarians was drawn to Ireland where Sadleir served as Adjutant-General with some of his Hitchin soldiers. He stormed Ballydoyne, Graney, Dunhill and Clonmell and was made Governor of Galway. Present-day Preston may retain a memorial of these days. Hine wrote of ‘the village green at Preston, then known as Cromwell’s Green’ in 1691. I do not know the source of this information, but suggest that in fact Hine may have meant what is known today as Crunnells Green - an area in the village adjacent to the grounds of Temple Dinsley. It was known as Cranwells Green in 1713. Meanwhile, at Temple Dinsley after 1540, without the patronage of the nuns of Elstree, the chapel at Preston soon fell into decay and ruin. By 1700, it was reported that, ‘no trace of this building now remains’. In the first few years of the eighteenth century, Sir Edwin Sadleir was forced to sell Temple Dinsley to offset his debts.

During this period, the independent religious spirit of Preston villagers was demonstrated by events at Minsden Chapel These are documented in detail at this Link: Minsden Chapel

LINK

Views of Temple Dinsley circa 1700

The houses of Preston seem to be shown to the left and outside of the mansion’s grounds on the right are a collection of buildings which probably include stables. It is likely that a mill is also shown here in the right foreground - the building has a medieval hood-mould which may date from the thirteenth century.

The mansion of Temple Dinsley ‘partly pulled down’

Benedict Ithell purchases Temple Dinsley

Benedict Ithell was the deputy treasurer of Chelsea Hospital. In August 1712, he bought Temple Dinsley for £3,922. Possibly Ithell bought the estate for the hunting potential of the land surrounding the building rather than the house itself. The Sadleirs had evidently not been able to maintain the house in a good state of repair because two years later, in 1714, Ithell demolished Dinsley and built a new mansion close- by. The house had a heraldic badge in the form of a rising bird and the inscription ‘1714’ on rainwater heads. According to archaeological findings and radar surveys in 2000, the mansion was just to the east of the old building which was sited under the present-day rose garden. Ithell also restored estate cottages in Preston. Ithell was appointed as Sheriff of Hertfordshire in 1727 and was also made a trustee of Hitchin Grammar School. He formed a bond with Ralph Radcliffe of Hitchin Priory. The pair drove to St Mary’s Church at Hitchin on Sundays in a style guaranteed to upset the church wardens. Their gilded coaches were ‘emblazoned with arms and their crests glittering in silver radiance from every part of the harness where a crest could possibly be placed’. They swung through the south gates and along the gravelled path of the graveyard to the entrance of the porch to the accompaniment of the tolling church bells. The pageant was ‘brought up in style with straining and struggling of horses, cracking of whip, glistening of harness and flashing of wheels through gravel, horses fretted into a foam, dashing the pebbles against the poor pedestrian people’. This ‘flaunting parade of petty lordings’ so incensed a churchwarden, Richard Whitherby, that without consulting the vicar or his fellow churchwardens, on Saturday night (9 November 1734) he drove a great beam into the centre of the gravelled way and girdled three chains and padlocks around the entrance gates. That would fix their little games! He reckoned without the resourcefulness of Radcliffe. He sent his carpenter to break the chains and saw down the offending beam - all this just in time for Ithell to drive through in triumph. Whitherby still had some cards to play. On the Monday morning, he summonsed both the carpenter, for malicious damage, and Ithell’s coachman, for trespass. They escaped on the grounds that no apparent annoyance had been visited on the corpses in the graveyard! While this makes for a good story, if this was typical of the man, one wonders how such a squire behaved towards the ‘poor people’ of Preston. Carriages and Benedict also featured in another historical tit-bit: he ordered the manufacture of a carriage from London. The makers requested a measurement of local ruts so that his carriage should run smoothly.

Benedict Ithell snr (above) died on 8 July 1737, aged 67. He was interred within St Mary’s Church immediately below a magnificent monument (shown above, left). His son, Benedict jnr was also buried at St Mary’s and a reader about him is on a wall (see above, right). Benedict snr’s will was proved 14 September 1737. He asked to be buried ‘in the vault lately made by me in the parish church of Hitchin’. He bequeathed each of his daughters, Elizabeth, Mary and Martha a legacy of £2,000. His estate was left to his son, Benedict jnr and thence, if he died without issue, to his daughters. They later died without marrying and were all buried at St Mary’s. The estate of Temple Dinsley was bequeathed by the sole survivor, Martha Ithell, to Thomas Harwood in her will of 3 April 1767. Harwood was her ‘faithful friend and steward’.

The reading of her will caused uproar. Her cousin, Benedict Clarke of London claimed in Chancery that Martha was of unsound mind – but lost his case. (Part of the document signed by Martha at Chancery is reproduced left) Thomas Harwood was installed as the new Lord of Dinsley Manor.

During this time another colourful character strode onto the Preston stage - Robert Hinde of Preston Castle. He is featured in the article at this Link: Robert Hinde

Thomas Harwood inherits Temple Dinsley

Thomas Harwood’s remarkable social elevation is well mirrored in the Hitchin Militia List (Link: Militia Lists). From 1758 he was described as ‘servant’, ‘gentleman’s servant’ and even ‘labourer’. Then, in 1768, he is Thomas Harwood, ‘Esquire’! But tongues were wagging. Why had Thomas received this windfall? When he in turn left his estate to a Joseph Darton, even in the twentieth century, a newspaper reported, ‘some suggested that Joseph Darton was his son by a secret marriage to Martha Ithell or that he was a nephew or cousin. The Preston Village web-site relating to St Martin’s Church states that Joseph Darton was the ‘secret son’ of Martha and Thomas. I do not have access to any documents which support this claim. It may be true or it may be tittle- tattle that has been handed down in the village. However, there is some evidence that refutes these rumours - Thomas may well have had a nephew named ‘Darton’. This information emerges from the details in his will. Thomas Harwood’s will was drawn up on 10 January 1786. It was witnessed by William Wilshire, Isaac Coxall and Joseph Halstead. Thomas left annuities (from his property at Shadwell, Stepney, Middlesex) to his brother John Harwood (£100) and his sister, Ursula Darton (£50). He bequeathed his manor and property in Hertfordshire to his ‘nephew, Joseph Darton’. Legacies were left as follows: nephew, Thomas Harwood -£100; the other children of brother John Harwood - £30 each; niece, Sarah Kitchener (‘wife of Benjamin’ - Benjamin Kitchener married Sarah Darton at Knebworth, Herts on 19 January 1782) - £400; friend, Edward Kitchener (a farmer at Preston) - £100; Robert Heathcore - £20; his servants at the time of his death - £10 each ‘for mourning. The residue of his estate was given to Joseph Darton. Thomas signed a codicil on 9 February 1787. He left further legacies to Thomas Harwood - £100; the other children of John - £20 each; Edward Kitchener - £100; Robert Heathcote -£20. Further legacies were given to William Wilshire - £20, ‘for a new wig’ and to housekeeper Mary Roberts - £40. The will and codicil were proved on 5 March 1787.

The achievement of arms (or heraldic insignia) of Thomas Harwood in St Mary’s, Hitchin. The motto means, ‘There is peace in heaven’

So, wonderful details of Thomas’ immediate family are provided by his will.He had a brother John (who was a mere servant at Great Wymondley with a lame/sore leg). He had a sister Ursula (who married Michael Darton at Shephall, Hertfordshire on 16 May 1749. This couple had at least one child, Sarah). Thomas’ origins can also be confirmed from this information - he was born on 17 January 1725 at Bennington, Herts, the son of John and Sarah Harwood. Thomas was therefore 62 years old when he died. Two undeniable facts are apparent. Firstly, that Thomas showed generosity towards several nephews and nieces in his will. Secondly, it was possible that he did indeed have a nephew with the surname, ‘Darton’ towards whom he also showed extreme favour -he certainly had a niece named, ‘Darton’. But, I would be happier if the baptism of Joseph Darton could be found in parish registers - but there again, Sarah Dartons’ baptism also cannot be located. There is a further indication that Joseph Darton’s father was Michael. When Joseph baptised his children, evidently following a naming pattern, he had his fourth son christened, Michael - a relatively unusual name at the time. A possible explanation for the absence of Joseph and Sarah Darton’s baptism is that perhaps there was a Quaker influence in the family. This would mean that they would not be have been in an Anglican Church. Joseph Darton’s wife, Elizabeth was a Quaker. On balance, from the facts outlined above, I am inclined to think that Joseph Darton was indeed Thomas Harwood’s nephew - until evidence is presented which refutes this. There is one further curious detail: the Court Baron for Maidencroft recorded in 1787 that John Harwood of Great Wymondley was Thomas’ ‘only brother and heir’. John promptly surrendered Thomas’ property to Joseph Darton.