Lost Langtons
Langton Lineage
Langton Manors and Houses
by Joel Langton
The Langton's are known to have held a variety of manors and houses over the years. Some given, some inherited, some disinherited
This article aims to list these buildings, and provide details of their ownership and history. Where possible, pictures or photos are provided.
Langton-by-Splisby/Partney Lincolnshire
1086
At this point in time the manor in Langton-by-Spilsby/Partney (and presumably the village too) had belonged to Hugh Lupus (1070—1101), the powerful Earl of Chester, and Nephew of William the Conquerer.
Previously the manor had belonged to Earl Harold (who briefly became King in 1066 before loosing to William the Conquerer at Hastings at 1066). Having resisted the invasion in 1066 this was taken from him, along with everything thing else and indeed his own life.
Langton Hall was in the field to the S.E. of the Church, the site being marked by extensive mounds and remains of a moat.
Robert de Langton
Robert de Langeton was given the Manor and lands of Langton-by-Partney by Hugh Lupus.
Why? We may never know.
1405
In the reign of Henry IV a Manor house in Langton burnt down.
1550ish
John Langton started building the mansion around 1550, and his son, Sir John Langton, High Sheriff of Lincolnshire, finished the Elizabethan mansion in Langton-by-Spilsby. It was built to the N.E. of the Church. It was this mansion which was visited by Dr. Johnson, friend of Bennet Langton.
The mansion was completed by about 1616
1st May 1620
On this date, William Langton of Langton-by-Spilsby (Partney), sold three manor houses and the estate lands.
He sold them to Richard Johnson of Grimsthorpe, Lincs.
The contract stipulated that if Johnson defaulted on his payments then the lands would transfer to William Lockton of Swineshead, who was William's brother in law, through his sister Elizabeth Langton.
The three manors were in the following villages in Lincolnshire:
- Langton by Partney
- Sausthorpe, adjoining Langton
- Welton, now called Welton-le-marsh. A short distance East of Langton. There are two other possibilities which i am discarding (Welton le Wold, West of Louth) and (Welton, North of Lincoln). Saxton’s map of the county (1576) shows each of them as simply "Welton". The close proximity of Welton-le-Marsh to Langton is strong evidence this is the correct village.
In addition the outlying land was sold as part of the sale.
- Skendleby Thorpe
- Skendleby
- Hogsthorpe
- Sloothby
- Willoughby
- Hagworthingham
View Langton Manors and Houses in a larger map
Who was buying?
We know who William Langton was, and we know William Lockton was his brother in law, and was wealthy, owning the Abbey in Swinshead and was lord of the Manor of the Moor at Swineshead, which he had inherited from his Father, Sir John Lockton. But who was who Richard Johnson?
One source points out that in 1620, Grimsthorpe was owned by the Willoughby family, having been granted it by Henry VIII, and therfore Richard Johnson would most likely have been closely associated with the Willoughbys. The Willoughby's had also moved in the area of Sausthorpe and Welton-le-Marsh after gaining access to Grimsthorpe in the late 1530s.
My research into the Williughby's has shown an earlier link to the Langton villages. When they were given advowsons rights to the churches in at least two Langton villages and other villages in the area, as well as Cause chantry to the Cathedral in Lincoln.
Why was William Langton selling?
Lets look at what was going on in his family at the time.
His Father Sir John Langton, (who had been sherrif of Lincolnshire) had died 5 years previous, and William being the eldest son, had inherited.
His uncle William, had moved to Berkshire and married into the Stonehouse family
His Uncle George had married, and moved to mareham le fen, South-West of Langton-by-Spilsby.
His Aunt Rose married someone from Horncastle, and likely moved there
William's sister, Margaret got married in 1619/20
William had at least two, possibly three brothers alive at the time of the sale
William was married and had had one child in 1613, a son called John, though his son died in 1614.
William was 34 years old in 1620 when he sold up
He also had some other distant relatives, some with the same name, living in other areas of Lincolnshire, and elsewhere.
It is clear this is a significant sale, he is selling a huge amount of land with three manors, including the village and manor of his namesake. A village which had been in the hands of his family at this point for around five centuries. In addition the land was prime agricultural land, which in those days especially made it very valuable. The contract also talks of mills on the land which were a very good source of revenue at the time. Was he in debt? Possibly, he was certainly in some kind of trouble it would seem, but with his brother in law involved in the sale you would think that he could have sold less land, or even borrowed the money from his brother in law himself. Perhaps his brother in law had already tried to help out but this was the last option open to William Langton.
How come the Langtons of Langton-by-Spilsby/Partney are still there today
It seems they got at least the Langton village and Manor back as direct descendants of the Langtons lived there until very recently.
Did the deal not go through? (the Langtons had until sometime in July 1620 to get out)
Perhaps Richard Johnson died before the deal was completed?
Perhaps Richard Johnson died later in the civil war and it was passed to William Lockton, who sold it back to Langton?
Perhaps Langton bought it back of Richard Johnson at a later date?
There is one important piece of information to bare in mind. We know that the estate was inherited by Williams cousin George Langton after he died, so things do not add up.
In actual fact this whole 'sale' is a ficticious one, as i will explain. William Langton did not sell the estate, in fact the reality is that he sold nothing, and no one bought anything.
William Langton inherited the Langton estates a few years previous when his Father, Sir John Langton deceased. But there was a catch.
There was a Fee tail (or entail) in place on the estate which William Langton owned, which was the norm in those days.
A fee tail was put in place by words of grand in the deed. For example, "to X and the heirs of his body".
The wording in a fee tail is suptly but crucially different from a standard conveyance. The last three words "of his body" meant that the heirs had to be off the land owners body. i.e. his children.
Estates subject to these restrictions were known as 'entailed' or 'in tail' estates.
Fee tails were in put in place since feudal times by land owning aristocracy, to ensure the estate remained in the family.
This worked very well, and ensured landed families remained in possesion of the land.
It did bring with it limitations however, it was very difficult to mortgage land in fee tail because when the land owner who took out the mortgage died the land passed by operation of law to the land owners children, but they were not liable to the mortgage lender.
It also meant the land owner could not sell the estate or any part of it. They could only give or sell someone a part of the estate for the duration of their life, since the agreement only lasted so long as that land owner was alive. Furthermore the fee-tail meant a land owner could not pass any of the estate to an illegitimate child.
The complications arising from entails were a great concern to those with an estate of any size, especially from about the late 17th to the early 19th centuries. Owning an estate but not being able to sell any of it, divide it up, or anything else, could cause problems.
In theory you could live in a grand house surrounded by lands but have no money and starve to death in your lovely manor house.Things got complicated if the land owner produced no heir. If the land owner died without issue, the entailed land went to the next descendants of the former owners who became entitled to inherit the estate. Who was next in sucsession was often a complicated matter.
For William Langton, there seems to have been some reasons to be concerned about this posible turn of events. He had no heir, he had one son, who had died before his Father died. He had brothers who might inherit, but their mother had died some time previous, allowing his Father, Sir John, to marry a second time. Through this marriage there was a son, Robert.
William was probably concerned that Robert might inherit, certainly is William outlived his other brothers this would have been the likely turn of events.
"Common Recovery" was the name of a collaborative set of lawsuits and legal fictions to "bar" an entail, i.e. remove the conditions of fee tail from land and enable its free conveyance in fee simple - absolute ownership.
This 'sale' of the Langton estates by William, was in fact ficticious and was one part of a scheme through the common recovery laws to break the fee-tail which was in place and which restricted William Langton from being able to do what he wanted with the estate, and to decide who it would pass to when he died.
How did "Common Recovery" work?
First you sell the land (remember you can sell, but only for your lifetime, at death it would revert to your heir.
So the owner of the land, A (in this case William Langton) conveyed it to someone else B, (in this case Richard Johnson), and a third person in the contract, who was known as the demandant (in this case William Lockton) might sue for it. C then issued a writ against person B. In court, person B defended his right saying (correctly) that he had acquired it from person A. Person A was called upon by the court, to vouch for his right to the land. Person A, says that he acquired the land from a person D (Person D is known as the common vouchee, but does not in reality exist). Person D asks for time to appear and then fails to appear at court. The judgment is then made that Person C should recover the land, as per the contract, and that Person D is liable to compensate Person B. Person D does not exist and has no assets, so the judgment placed against him is valueless, and is never enforced. Person A doesnt mind as he is in on all of this and obviously never paid anything for the land and never truely owned it. The end result is that Person C recovers the estate in 'fee simple', which A had previously owned in only 'fee tail'. Person C then sells the land back to Person A (though no money actually changes hands - accept maybe a gift from Person A to Person C who helped him in the process.)
The end result here is that William Langton owns the estate as before accept the fee-tail restrictions are now removed. He is free to sell it, divide it up, mortgage it, and pass it to whoever he chooses upon his death.
I have found the following record from 1922 which proves the Common Recovery took place:
"Exemplification of Common Recovery: Lockton vs. Johnson: Langton by Partney, Sausthorpe, Welton, Skendleby, Skendlebythorpe, Hogsthorpe, Sloothby, Willoughby and Hagworthingham, 1622"
The Exemplification, is what the lawyers produced at the end of the case, it was a formal transcript of the proceedings in the monarch's name and was sealed with a large seal.
Legally speaking the Langtons did not own the estate for approx. 2 years bettween 1620 and 1622, though in reality of course they continued to live their as normal in this period.
Fee tail was abolished by the Property Act of 1925.
In Summary, William Langton sold the estate to George Langton his cousin, and then mostly disapears. George's son (also called George) then inherited. It is this George who kept a series of Diaries, some of which have been published by David Hammilton, see "Diaries of George Langton (1647-1727): The Unpublished Diaries of a Lincolnshire Landowner and Businessman". David Hamilton
1822
The Elizabethan Manor had lasted until about 1817 when it was destroyed by fire. The foundations of a house thought to be the Elizabethan Manor was discovered in about 2006. John Stephen Langton built an Italian villa, of Palladian style on the hill side on the edge of the village to replace the destroyed manor, however, it was built on defective foundations, and suffered from subsidance and therefore lasted only some 23 years before being pulled down.
approx. 1845-1865
A farmhouse served as Langton Hall in this period, until the new Langton house was built.
1866/7
Bennet Rothes Langton Esq. inherited the estates when he was about 16 years old, his Father having died in 1833. Bennet decided a new mansion should be built. Unlike his Father he built it on sound foundations, and bought in the experts.
James Fowler (1828-1892), a prolific architect who was five times mayor of Louth, designed the last Langton Hall, built in brick in 1866-7 at the then very considerable cost of £8,000.
James Veitch (1815-1869), who owned the Royal Exotic Nursery of Chelsea and who came from a long line of horticulturalists specialising in fashionable and exotic plants, designed the garden.
This house was pulled down in the 1960’s as it was impractical for modern living but the former stables are now used as farm buildings.
There is now virtually no trace of this building, the site of which is in the middle of a wood a few hundred yards from the centre of the modern village and which had replaced a previous hall built in the reign of Queen Elizabeth I. The Elizabethan hall, the foundations of which have recently been discovered in the centre of the village
, and then the present mansion was built by , in 1866.