[21d] At the present time there is preserved a Fine Roll in the Record Office, Carlton Ride, containing an account of the Temporalities of the Convent of Westminster, from the eighth to the tenth years of Edward the second, taken after the death of Richard de Kedyngton (or de Sudbury), the Abbot who succeeded Walter of Wenlock, and although this document was examined with great care by two gentlemen accustomed to examine documents of this kind no notice or account of Paddington could be found in it amongst the numerous possessions therein described.
[22] Was the first of these inquisitions directed in consequence of the omission of any mention of Paddington in the return of the Abbey possessions just alluded to; or was it suggested by the legal advisers of the Convent to secure a title to their lands in these places?
[24] This Walter Franceys is in all probability the Water Fraunceis of the preceding inquisition, whose descendants we find to be possessed of land in Paddington, after the reformation, like the descendants of John Colyn, mentioned in the next inquisition.
[25] Before these names the sentence which precedes that of Richard de Sudburie is to be understood. It will be noticed that Richard de Sudburi was the name of an Abbot of Westminster, who died in the eighth year of this reign. But whether these lands were acquired by him and inserted here to render that grant a legal holding, or whether it was the grant of some Richard de Sudbueri then living I cannot say.
[27] Maitland’s London, by Entick, vol. i. p. 190.
[28] Now called Kensington.
[29] Lysons, p. 514, vol. iv.—Second edition.
[30a] Faulkner’s Kensington, p. 90.
[30b] From the Domboc, we learn that this land was held by Alberic, or Aubrey, de Vere of the Bishop Constance, the Chief Justiciary of England; and we are informed by Lysons and Faulkner that the second Aubrey was in so much favour with the first Henry, that he was not only appointed to this office, Lord Chief Justice of England, but created Lord Great Chamberlain, “which office” says Faulkner, “was made hereditary in his family, with the tenure of several manors;” and Lysons tells us this manor was so held. Mr. Faulkner’s more recent investigations have brought out several facts respecting this manor, and its subsequent division into separate manors, which did not appear very plain in the account given by Lysons, although his account is exceedingly interesting and contains a great number of facts and references.
[31] Faulkner’s History and Antiquities of Kensington, p. 73–4. Each 15 Edw. IV. m. 12. See also Lysons’ Kensington. Both Lysons and Faulkner state that Richard had a grant of these manors; but the statements in the Inquisition and the Act of Parliament, point out a mode of acquisition not quite so creditable to a King.