deep and wide ; the appearance and noise of this cascade have a
romantic effect, and the river below, for half a mile, is made to …
appear like a lake, forming a fine piece of water well stocked with
trout and eels. On each side of the river downwards from the
gardens, are high banks well wooded, in which the river is lost for
some space and then seen again.”
Such descriptions would scarcely apply to the present aspect of the valley. The old hall is gone not a trace of it remains ; its antiquities have vanished with it ; not a stone of the old
corn mill is left ; the river has played sad havoc with the weir ; the stately woods have died out slowly, and the trout and eels have disappeared. It seems a big price to pay for our modern
conveniences when a few years of so-called progress can bring about so great a transformation.
Little of an authentic character can be said respecting the early history of Hyde Hall. Like most other manor houses in its vicinity it was evidently the successor of an earlier structure
built upon the same site. Old chronicles show the family of Hydes to have been settled here from a very early date, and it is only reasonable to suppose that they dwelt in a house suitable
to their rank and position. There are traditions which claim that one Lord Matthew de Hyde erected a castle in these parts as far back as the 12th century.
The hall appears to have been built in the reign of Queen Elizabeth, and to have been re-built about the time of the Restoration. It continued to be the residence of the manorial lords of Hyde, until it was disposed of to the Fultons, of Fulton, in
Lancashire. It was demolished in the year 1857.
Local chroniclers have woven around the venerable building much that is highly romantic. It is said that the lords of themanor of Hyde lived here in the fine old English style, dispersing their hospitality in a regal manner, holding ” brilliant
entertainments ” and ” courtly ” family
gatherings. It is also a popular rumour that Queen Anne first saw light in Hyde Hall, and it is claimed as a fact that the two princesses of James II. frequently came down to the hall, on long visits to their relatives at Hyde. However that may be, it is beyond all dispute that the family of Hyde is of great antiquity and corresponding fame.
ARMS OF HYDE.
Arms : Azure, a chevron between three lozenges ; Or Crest : A raven or crow, wings elevated, sable (sometimes depicted as an eagle or a hawk).
Soon after the doomsday the township belonged to the Baggeleghs, who were styled “Lords of Baguley and Hyde,” but as early as the days of King John, we find one moiety in the possession of a family bearing the local name De Hyde.
Sir William de Baggelegh, who was living in the early part of the 14th century, left (on the death of his son John de Baggelegh without issue) his two daughters as co-heiresses. One of these,
Ellen, married Sir John Legh, of Booths, ancestor of the Leghs of Baguley and Adlington ; the other, named Isabella, as shown later, married John de Hyde, of Hyde and Norbury, whose descendants succeeded to a moiety or half the manor of Hyde. It appears from an inquisition that this moiety was held under the Leghs of Baguley.
Matthew de Hyde, who lived in the 12th century, and who is thought by some to have been descended from the De Bromales, seems to have been the first Lord of the house of Hyde. He had
issue a son, Robert de Hyde, frequently referred to as Sir Robert, who married the heiress of Thomas de Norbury, and thus acquired the manor of Norbury, Newton, and other lands in
Derbyshire. This Robert is described as ” Lord of half of Hyde, and of Newton or part thereof, in Cheshire ; Shalecross and Fernely in Derbyshire, and Haughton and Denton, in Lancashire.
Some authorities imagine it was the Robert of the next generation son of the above Robert who formed the Union with the heiress of the Norburys, but Ormerod is inclined to
believe that it was the father who contracted the marriage. There is the greater likelihood of this being so, as the second Robert certainly married Margery, whose father, Sir Robert de Stokeport, gave to ” Robert, son of Robert de Hyde, in frank
marriage with her,” lands in Bredbury. Sometime near the end of the reign of Henry III., the son of the above Sir Robert de Stokeport exchanged certain lands in Romelegh, with Robert de
Hyde, for these frank marriage lands. Moreover, according to Ormerod though Earwaker has a note disputing this the second Robert seems to have married as a first or second wife, Alice de
Hyde, daughter of William, son of Elias de Hyde, and he would also appear to have had an elder brother John, who as son of ” Agnes de Herdisle, cousin and heiress of Thomas de Norbury, quit
claims to Robert his right in Norbury, Newton, and half of Hyde.”
Robert de Hyde, who witnessed the Stockport charter, was succeeded by his eldest son, Sir Robert de Hyde, who married Margery, daughter of Sir Robert de Stokeport, and was the father
of two sons, John and Alexander. The first-born, known as John del Hyde, succeeded to the estates, and Alexander became the progenitor of the Hydes of Denton, settling on an estate which his father had given him on the Lancashire side of the river Tame. This same Alexander had grants from his brother of all the latter’s lands in Romiley and Denton.
John del Hyde obtained, by fine, of Robert, son of Richard de Dewsnap and Hawis his wife, 17 acres in Hyde, In the reign of Edward II. he is found obtaining by fine, of William de Ruylegh,
Chaplain, the manor of Norbury, and the other moiety of the manor of Hyde. He married as his second wife Isabella, daughter of Sir William de Baggelegh, and in connection with the union
the following passage is found in the Hyde deeds:
” I, William,
lord of Baguley, have given to John de Hyde in frank marriage with Isabella my daughter, and to heirs of their bodies, a weir for their mills in Halghton upon the river Tame, whenever they chose to make it within the boundaries of Hyde.”
From the union with Isabel Baggelegh there was issue John de Hyde, who was knighted before 1353. He served with the Black Prince in the wars of the period, and was engaged, under the banners of the Earl of Chester, fighting the cause of England at the battle of Poictiers in 1356, when John, the King of France, was made prisoner of war. Sir John Hyde is chronicled as having led seventy-one archers to the king’s wars. This warrior married (either Margery, daughter of Sir Thomas de Davenport, of Wheltrough, or as some give it, Margaret, daughter of Sir John de Davenport), and through his fourth son Ralph, became the ancestor of the Hydes of Urmston. He sold his interests in the manors and lands of Shallcrosse, Godlegh, Newton, Fernelegh, Heigham, and Heiton.
After the death of Sir John Hyde the lands and manorial rights of Hyde passed to his third son, Eobert de Hyde. Robert was heir to his brother William, the second son, who in turn was
most probably heir to the eldest son Roger. William is thought to have married the daughter and heiress of Sir John Davenport, of Bramhall, and most likely died without surviving issue, hence the succession devolved on the third son Robert.
Robert de Hyde appointed Thomas de Stavelegh, of Staveley, as his attorney for his manors of Norbury and half of Hyde. He married Elizabeth, daughter of Robert de Stavelegh, and had a
son Robert de Huyde, so styled in the spelling of the day, who was wounded at Nether Alderley. This Robert de Huyde was followed by his son, John de Hyde, lord of Norbury in the time
of Henry VI.
John de Hyde married Matild, daughter of Hamon de Masci, of Rixon.
Their heir was Hamon or Hamnet Hyde, of Norbury and Hyde, who died before 1476, and was eventually succeeded by his second son, Thomas Huyde heir to the elder brother John.
Thomas married a daughter of Kniveton, of Underwood. He was exempted from serving on juries, August, 1511. In 1542, we find Robert de Hyde, the son of Thomas, in possession.
Robert de Hyde was thrice married, first to Margaret, the daughter of Richard Holland, of Denton, by whom he had twosons, Hamnet and John during the reign of Edward VI
__ SL8.IT for Blackberry