Autonomy and Community: The Royal Manor of Havering, 1200-1500 (Cambridge Studies in Medieval Life and Thought: Fourth Series)

Cambridge studies in medieval life and thought

AUTONOMY AND COMMUNITY

Cambridge studies in medieval life and thought Fourth series General Editor: j . c. HOLT

Professor of Medieval History and Master of Fitzwilliam College, University of Cambridge Advisory Editors: C. N. L. BROOKE

Dixie Professor of Ecclesiastical History and Fellow of Gonville and Caius College, University of Cambridge D. E. LUSCOMBE

Professor of Medieval History, University of Sheffield

The series Cambridge Studies in Medieval Life and Thought was inaugurated by G. G. Coulton in 1920. Professor J. C. Holt now acts as General Editor of a Fourth Series, with Professor C. N. L. Brooke and Professor D. E. Luscombe as Advisory Editors. The series aims to bring together outstanding work by medieval scholars over a wide range of human endeavour extending from political economy to the history of ideas. Titles in the series 1 The Beaumont Twins: The Careers of Walesan Count of Meulan and Robert Earl of Leicester D. B. CROUCH

2 The Thought of Gregory the Great G. R. EVANS

3 The Government of England under Henry I JUDITH A. GREEN

4 Charity and Community in Medieval Cambridge MIRI RUBIN

5 Autonomy and Community: The Royal Manor of Havering, 1200-1500 MARJORIE KENISTON McINTOSH

AUTONOMY AND COMMUNITY The Royal Manor of Havering, 1200—1500

MARJORIE KENISTON McINTOSH Department of History, University of Colorado, Boulder

The right of the University of Cambridge to print and sell all manner of books was granted by Henry VIIIin 1534. The University has printed and published continuously since 1584.

CAMBRIDGE UNIVERSITY PRESS CAMBRIDGE LONDON

NEW YORK MELBOURNE

NEW ROCHELLE SYDNEY

PUBLISHED BY THE PRESS SYNDICATE OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CAMBRIDGE

The Pitt Building, Trumpington Street, Cambridge, United Kingdom CAMBRIDGE UNIVERSITY PRESS

The Edinburgh Building, Cambridge CB2 2RU, UK 40 West 20th Street, New York NY 10011-4211, USA 477 Williamstown Road, Port Melbourne, VIC 3207, Australia Ruiz de Alarcon 13, 28014 Madrid, Spain Dock House, The Waterfront, Cape Town 8001, South Africa http://www.cambridge.org © Cambridge University Press 1986 This book is in copyright. Subject to statutory exception and to the provisions of relevant collective licensing agreements, no reproduction of any part may take place without the written permission of Cambridge University Press. First published 1986 First paperback edition 2002 A catalogue recordfor this book is available from the British Library Library of Congress Cataloguing in Publication data Mclntosh, Marjorie Keniston. Autonomy and community: the royal manor of Havering, 1200-1500. (Cambridge studies in medieval life and thought; 4th ser., 5) Bibliography. Includes index. 1. Havering (London, England) - History. 2. Manors - England - Essex - History. 3. England - Economic conditions - Medieval period, 1066-1485. 4. England - Social conditions - Medieval period, 1066-1485. 5. Feudalism - England - Essex - Case studies. 6. Land tenure - England - Essex - History. 7. Essex - History. I. Title. II. Series: Cambridge series in medieval life and thought; 4th ser., v. 5. DA685.H28M38 1986 942.174 86-2265 ISBN 0 52132018 6 hardback ISBN 0 52152609 4 paperback

ForJ.R.M.

CONTENTS

Va&e *x xi xiii

List of figures and tables Acknowledgements List of abbreviations INTRODUCTION

I

PART I HAVERING, THE CROWN AND EXTERNAL CONTROL, 1200-1500 1

ROYAL PROFIT AND THE PRIVILEGES OF THE ANCIENT DEMESNE, I2OO-65

Royal gain and tenants' rights The privileges of the ancient demesne 2

13

15 42

EXTERNAL DEMANDS AND HAVERING's RESISTANCE, 50

1265—I5OO

Routine supervision by the crown Resistance to seigneurial demands Legal and administrative control Havering and the Peasants' Revolt

51 57 66 76

PART II ECONOMIC INDEPENDENCE AND ITS CONSEQUENCES, 1251-1460 3

DIFFERENTIATED LANDHOLDING AND THE POPULATION, I25I-I46O

89

Assarting and landholding, 1066—1352/3 Land tenure, inheritance and transfers, 1352/3-1460 Havering's people, 1251-1460

vn

90 116 126

Contents 4

A COMMERCIAL ECONOMY, I35O-I46O

136

Agriculture Craft, trade and Romford market Wage labour Cash, covenants and credit The economic roles of women Individualism and economic change

137 152 160 166 170 176

PART III COMMUNITY, CONFLICT AND CHANGE, 1352-1500 5

6

THE MANOR COURT AND THE RESOLUTION OF LOCAL PROBLEMS, I352-I46O

l8l

Manor court rolls, community and conflict The crown as lord Local conflict Community concerns and public order Use of the court and the place of women

182 185 191 201 215

NEW PROBLEMS, NEW SOLUTIONS: THE LIBERTY OF HAVERING-ATTE-BOWER, I46O-I5OO

221

Resurgence of the land market and arrival of newcomers Intensified capital investment and specialisation Lay control over religion and charity The establishment of the Liberty, 1465 Self-government and society Conclusion

221 223 235 240 244 261

Appendix I Officials of the manor, palace, park and Liberty of Havering, 1200--1500 Appendix II Havering cases heard in the central courts, 1199-1499 Appendix HI Surviving rolls of the Havering manor court to 1500 Appendix IV Priests and clerks in the parish of Hornchurch, 1200-1500 Appendix V Minimum numbers of Havering crafts- and trades-people, 1200-1499 Bibliography Index

265 275 277 280 285 289 301

vm

FIGURES AND TABLES

FIGURES

1 The manor of Havering, c. 1200 2 Distribution of known sizes of holdings, 1251 and 1352/3 extents 3 The Pecok family, c. 1251 4 The Pecok family, c. 1320-53 5 Activity of the market in Havering land, 1330s—1490s 6 Havering land and weather

page 5 108 113 114 125 139

TABLES

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

Value of the manor of Havering, 1352/3—1511 Growth of Havering's lands and value, 1066—1251 Distribution of sizes of direct holdings, 1251 Growth of Havering's lands, rents and total value, 1251-1352/3 Distribution of sizes of holdings, 1352/3 The impact of subtenancies upon sizes of direct holdings, 1352/3 Average rent paid per acre, 1251 and 1352/3 Types of transfers of Havering land which came before the manor court, 1382—1501 Continuity of resident or landholding families mentioned in the manor court rolls, 1352—1497 Private suits opened in the manor court, 13 52-1497 Termination of private suits, 13 52-1497 Public business of the court, 1352—1497 Havering assaults, 1383-1499 Use of the court and attendance, 1352—1497 IX

55 92 97 100 106 109 in 120 132 192 196 206 210 216

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

This project has received assistance from many generous teachers, archivists and colleagues. I have had wise guidance from W. K. Jordan, Giles Constable, Joel Hurstfield, M. M. Postan and G. R. Elton. For permission to use the records in their collections I thank the archivists of the Public Record Office, the Essex Record Office, the Guildhall Library, London, the British Library, the Cambridge University Library and the Huntington Library, California, together with the Warden and Fellows of New College, Oxford. Paul Brand, David Crook, John Guy and John Post helped me with some of the less familiar classes of documents in the Public Record Office. At the Essex Record Office I have learned from F. G. Emmison, Hilda Grieve, Nancy Briggs, K. C. Newton and Victor Gray. Francis Steer made the New College records accessible to me; A. E. B. Owen facilitated use of manuscripts at the Cambridge University Library. During the years in which our three young children made travel difficult, Elizabeth Key furnished expert research service in England. Useful criticisms of individual sections of the book were offered by John Beckerman, Richard Helmholz, Dorothy Owen, Robert Palmer, J. Z. Titow and B. P. WolfFe; the entire study was read with thoughtful care by Thomas Green, John Hatcher, R. H. Hilton and Eleanor Searle. J. C. Holt provided valuable editorial suggestions. I appreciate several other forms of support. I am grateful to Harvard University for a Frank Knox Memorial Traveling Fellowship in 1965—6, to the Simmons College Fund for Research for a summer grant in 1969, to the American Council of Learned Societies for a fellowship in 1972—3 and a grant-in-aid in the summer of 1979, to the American Philosophical Society for a grant in 1974, to the Howard Foundation, Brown University, for a fellowship in 1976—7, to the American Bar Foundation for a summer fellowship in 1981 and to the National Endowment for the Humanities for a fellowship in 1983-4. The XI

Acknowledgements History Department of the University of Colorado at Boulder provided an academic home during the later stages of the project. I prepared the final version of the text in the admirable intellectual and personal climate of Newnham College, Cambridge, as Visiting Research Fellow in the Arts in 1983—4. My husband, our children, my parents and parents-in-law already realise how important their encouragement has been. As I was about to begin writing this book, our family spent a week at Mesa Verde in southwestern Colorado. There we camped at the base of the great plateau densely populated between the tenth and thirteenth centuries by the Anasazi Indians, called' the old people' by their modern Pueblo descendants. As we explored the cliff dwellings, I reflected upon the nature of this native American culture as compared with Havering in the same period. During our last night beneath the mesa I dreamt that I was visited by a delegation of men from medieval and Tudor Havering. The tenants had heard that I was soon to start writing my book. They were worried, for they had read the articles which I had already produced about their manor, and they did not like them. My papers were boring — too quantitative and technical — and failed to give a picture of what life was actually like for residents of Havering. In characteristic fashion, the tenants had called a community meeting to discuss the problem. The assembly decided to send a group to speak to me, with Nicholas Cotton, a Romford yeoman of the sixteenth century, as its spokesman. Addressing me in a courteous but firm manner, Cotton told me of the tenants' concerns. He reminded me that I was writing about real people, not just about numerical distributions and legal formulations. He and his fellows then took their leave. While I fear that the tenants would not find the following account entirely to their liking, I hope they would at least feel that I have captured some of the distinctive features of medieval Havering. Boulder, Colorado March 1985

Xll

ABBREVIATIONS

1251 extent

1352/3 extent BL BNB Cal. inq. misc. CChR CCR CFR CLR CPR CRR DB

Extent of the manor of Havering taken in 1251, PRO SC 11/189. Parts of this survey have been published in translation in English economic history, select documents (ed. A. E. Bland, P. A. Brown and R. H. Tawney, London, G. Bell, 1914), pp. 56-65 (misdated as 1306-7). Extent of the manor of Havering taken in 1352 or 1353, a sixteenth-century copy of which is preserved in NCO MS 9744, fols. i6ir-i84v. The British Library, London, formerly the British Museum. Bracton s note book (ed. F. W. Maitland, 3 vols., London, C. J. Clay, 1887). Calendar of inquisitions miscellaneous (1216—1422, 7 vols., London, HMSO, 1916—69). Calendar of the charter rolls (1226-1516, 6 vols., London, HMSO, 1903-27). Calendar of the close rolls (1227—1509, 62 vols., London, HMSO, 1892-1963). Calendar of thefinerolls (1272-1509, 22 vols., London, HMSO, 1911-63). Calendar of the liberate rolls (1226-72, 6 vols., London, HMSO, 1917-64). Calendar of the patent rolls (1216-1509, 56 vols., London, HMSO, 1891—1916). Curia regis rolls (1189—1237, 15 vols., London, HMSO, 1923-72). Domesday Book account of Havering, 1086, in Liber censualis vocatus Domesday-Book (4 xm

Abbreviations

Descr. cat. anct. deeds

vols., Record Comm., London, 1783—1816), vol. 2, pp. 2b and 3; translated in English economic history, select documents (ed. A. E. Bland, P. A. Brown and R. H. Tawney, London, G. Bell, 1914), p. 17. Descriptive catalogue of ancient deeds in the Public Record Office (6 vols., London, HMSO, 1890-1915).

DNB ERO FFE GLL Hornch. Pr. kal.

NCO PR

PRO Smith, Hist, of H-a-B VCH Essex, vol. 7

Dictionary of national biography. Essex Record Office, Chelmsford. Feet of fines for Essex (4 vols., Essex Archaeol. Soc, Colchester, 1899-1964). Guildhall Library, London. Hornchurch Priory: a kalendar of documents in the possession of the Warden and Fellows of New College Oxford (ed. H. F. Westlake, London, P. Allan, 1923). New College, Oxford. Pipe Rolls: the published pipe roll volumes, issued by the Pipe Roll Society (60+ vols., London, 1884-ongoing) and the Record Comm. (3 vols., London, Eyre and Spottiswode, 1833—44), followed in the references by the regnal year and the page number of the volume. Public Record Office, London. Harold Smith, A history ofthe parish ofHaveringatte-Bower, Essex (Colchester, Benham, 1925). Victoria county history of Essex, vol. 7 (ed. W. R. Powell, Oxford, Oxford Univ. Press, 1978).

xiv

INTRODUCTION

The medieval tenants of the English royal manor of Havering, Essex, enjoyed exceptional autonomy. Both as individuals and as a community Havering people reaped the benefits of freedom to a degree seldom found between 1200 and 1500. This unusually large manor, containing 16,000 acres, sheltered nearly 2000 inhabitants in 1251. As residents of a manor held by the crown, the tenants profited from royal administrative neglect. As residents of a privileged manor of the ancient royal demesne, they profited from a series of special rights: free personal status, a form of tenure functionally equivalent to freehold, protective legal procedures, enhanced authority for their local court, freezing of their rents, services, and entry fines as of 1251, and exemption from market tolls. In legal and administrative terms, Havering was encumbered by little outside supervision apart from the workings of the criminal law; the latter intrusion was remedied in 1465 when the tenants obtained a charter which established Havering as a Liberty, complete with its own justices of the peace. Throughout the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries taxes were levied within Havering at a lighter level than that mandated by law. The residents were thus accustomed to scant seigneurial domination and to minimal interference by other external authorities. When in a few instances individual monarchs tried to exert more effective control over Havering, the tenants resisted. Havering's participation in the Peasants' Revolt was likewise fuelled by the imposition of new demands from outside. The economic independence of Havering people was equally pronounced. Located at the southern edge of the medieval forest of Essex, Havering was still heavily wooded in 1200. New holdings were being assarted until the end of the thirteenth century. Havering's proximity to London, which lay just 14 miles to the west, and the manor's unrestricted tenure fostered an active market in land. London merchants, lawyers and royal officials recognised the potential of

Introduction Havering land, as did people of lesser standing. By 1251 the size of holdings in Havering covered a broad range, with an abnormally high proportion of large units. More than a quarter of the tenants held at least 30 acres and so were in a position to engage in commercial agriculture. Trade was facilitated by the market held in the town of Romford, situated in the middle of Havering astride the great road which connected London with Chelmsford, Colchester and the coast. By the mid-fourteenth century Romford had become a major source of consumer goods for the capital, especially animals and wood. The manor's commercial focus was extended by the fifty to sixty men who earned their living from craft-work or trade. The economy rested upon wage labour, provided by the lesser tenants. Financial transactions produced an intricate network of credit. Wealth and opportunity were widely distributed in this unregulated setting, and women could lead independent economic lives. Havering's individualistic medieval tenants pursued their own interests on the basis of rational considerations, taking risks in hopes of greater gain. In the absence of outside control, Havering's dominant families were free to run the political life of their region. This they did through the administrative and legal vehicle of the manor court. The Havering court was a three-weekly assembly of all those who held land directly from the crown, supplemented three times per year by wider meetings focused on public business. Although the court met in the presence of the royal steward or his deputy, the crown exerted virtually no influence over the body's proceedings. Havering's leaders (landholders with 15 to 100 acres and the wealthier craftsmen) used the court to resolve the tensions generated by the manor's complex economy. They provided a forum in which private suits between local people might be heard, encouraging solutions which restored goodwill among the parties. They also maintained order within Havering, forming juries which reported upon and punished anyone guilty of actions which threatened the stability of the community. Between 1460 and 1500 a group of developments intensified Havering's distinctive attributes. The land market quickened in the mid-i45os. Three prominent Londoners accumulated huge holdings and settled on their estates, triggering economic change. Poor outsiders moved into the community in large numbers. The depth of capitalisation and degree of specialisation in both agriculture and craft production increased. The local laity assumed greater importance within a religious context, hiring their own priests to avoid direct conflict with the established clergy. They experimented with charitable solutions to the

Introduction problem of growing poverty. Because the new economic and social climate accentuated the need for strong local authority, the dominant tenants arranged for Havering's reconstitution as a Liberty. The manor court, working in tandem with the Liberty officers, moved into a remarkable period of activity. Armed with more effective procedures and punishments, it heard a wide gamut of private suits and tried to curb rising violence. The jurors also used the court as a form of social control with respect to the behaviour of the poor, supervising their labour, recreations and sexual morality. People who did not conform to the standards of the leading families were expelled from the manor. During the later fifteenth century Havering displayed many features generally regarded as characteristic of the Elizabethan or Jacobean years. The intrinsic interest of Havering's history is matched by rich sources. No thorough study of a manor of the ancient demesne which remained in the crown's hands has thus far been written, a gap due in large part to the daunting task of seeking information about one area amongst the vast archives of the central government. Yet the preservation of records concerning Havering in the crown's collections makes possible a far more diverse account than would be possible from local records alone. We have ministers' accounts for Havering as a royal possession together with administrative material from the Exchequer and Chancery rolls. The records of the central courts allow us to examine the involvement of local people with external law. The rolls of the Havering manor court, divided between the Public Record Office and the Essex Record Office, are preserved in good series only from 1382. They contain abundant information, however, about economic matters and the public life of the manor. Wills survive from the 1390s, becoming ample in the later fifteenth century. Valuable manuscripts have been safeguarded in the muniment tower at New College, Oxford, whose original endowment included 1500 acres in Havering. Among these are private land records, accounts and rentals of the college's property, and the extraordinary manorial survey of Havering, its tenants and subtenants made in 1352/3. Although there are omissions in the records and hence subjects we cannot explore, the rare variety of sources permits us to treat Havering as a multifaceted community. We can observe it both from the outside and from the point of view of the tenants, relating the manor's position vis-a-vis external authority to local economic and political factors. A chronological span of three centuries helps us to identify Havering's distinguishing features over the course of time and to recognise change as it occurs. Havering's history illustrates life at one extreme of the

Introduction spectrum of personal and collective freedom during the later Middle Ages. It reveals the kinds of patterns which could emerge when medieval people were placed in a setting of unusual independence. The privileges of Havering's tenants and the economic and political structures which grew up in this manor were by no means characteristic of the English peasantry in general. Nevertheless, while Havering was in many respects atypical, discussion of its experience contributes to our understanding of a number of wider historical issues. Within a seigneurial, administrative and legal sphere, Havering expands our knowledge of the ancient demesne, offering evidence that the economic advantages and increased local authority accruing to the tenants of these lands were more highly valued than the narrow legal rights which are normally emphasised. We encounter the question of the crown's supervision of its own estates, particularly the closer regulation which is said to have occurred under the Angevin and Yorkist monarchs. Havering suggests that the crown's ability to control what went on within its own lands and to tap the wealth of its estates was far more limited than studies based upon central records alone would indicate. We can also investigate local objections to seigneurial or governmental demands — the reasons which led people to protest, the forms which resistance might take and the success of overt versus tacit rebellion. Havering's history touches upon many topics of economic significance. We shall discuss the process of differentiation among customary tenants in the centuries after 1066, adding an early example of uneven land distribution and noting some of the factors which promoted heterogeneity. Havering's commercialised economy emphasises the importance of late medieval markets. It also points out the narrowness of much historical debate concerning medieval economic change and the transition from feudalism to capitalism. The pragmatic response of Havering's employers and workers to the post-plague demand for labour and the active participation of women in the economy focus attention on adaptability. The conspicuous individualism and enterprising approach of Havering people, clearly tied to their economic freedom, highlight the absence of * peasant' characteristics within this manor. Havering provides a valuable modification of existing studies of the nature of cooperation and conflict in medieval communities. Here we can examine the interactions between local people in a setting in which the power of the lord was minimal. Despite the independent approach of the wealthier tenants in economic matters, they worked together

Introduction NAVESTOCK South f

Weald

to Brentwood Chelmsford & Colchester

» Barking 0

10

mile

Chelmsford.0'

KEY

miles

KENT

Watercourses Manor boundary The main Essex road Secondary roads Local ways

Figure i The manor of Havering, c. 1200

effectively through the manor court in pursuit of common goals. We shall consider how Havering's economy both created friction and required that tension be harmoniously resolved, and we shall ask how the leaders of the court made decisions about the maintenance of order. The period between 1460 and 1500 is of particular interest with

Introduction respect to the rise of early modern forms and attitudes. The agrarian element of Havering's economy foreshadowed many features of sixteenth-century capitalistic organisation. The religious and charitable concerns of the Havering laity force us to reassess the impact of Protestant or Puritan thought. Havering confronted the problem of mobile and undisciplined poor people long before the Elizabethan years. The rise in violence in Havering and differing standards of behaviour between prosperous local families and landless newcomers illustrate the multiple aspects of a divergence between rich and poor. The overt attempt of the leading tenants to enforce morality upon those beneath them reminds us that 'puritanism' as a social ethic might precede the religious form. Nor was social control a Tudor invention. Havering's history thus indicates that our current view of the later Middle Ages must be broadened to include greater diversity of form and wider variation over time. Before turning to late medieval Havering, we may look briefly at the manor's physical setting and early history. Havering's large area, covering about 25 square miles, lay within an irregular set of boundaries which stretched northward from the banks of the Thames for more than 8 miles (see Fig. i). 1 The southern section of the manor, adjoining the Thames, consisted of a strip only a mile across which broadened gradually as it moved north. Havering's northern half was wider, extending more than 5 miles from east to west. Walking from the Thames to the northeast corner of the manor would have taken several hours, as would a trip across Havering's breadth and back. Havering's size fostered the establishment of three distinct villages within the manor.2 The village of Hornchurch was situated 4 miles north of the Thames on a rise about 100 feet above sea level.3 Hornchurch lay in a region of light soil and was the home of the original parish church in Havering. A few miles to the northwest was the village of Romford, located at the point at which the London— 1

2 3

The medieval manor of Havering, coterminous with the parish of Hornchurch, comprised the area later to be divided into the smaller parishes of Havering-atte-Bower, Romford and Hornchurch. Throughout this study the term ' Havering' will refer to the entire medieval area, not to the smaller subunit. VCH Essex, vol. 7, pp. 9, 25 and 56, and ERO D / D U 162/1. The origin of the name 'Hornchurch' is not clear, although the element 'Horn-' does appear in other Essex place-names. The tower of the parish church in Hornchurch has been decorated with some kind of horn-like emblem since c. 1600, but the horns evidently derive from the name, rather than vice versa. Though there was a horned head on the local prior's seal in 1384—5, this was long after the first written mentions of the name in 1222 (in Latin) and 1233 (in English). (P. H. Reaney, The place-names of Essex (Cambridge, Cambridge Univ. Press, 1935), pp. 1.12—13.)

Introduction Colchester road forded the river Beam.4 Romford, at an elevation of 50 feet, was increasing in population and economic importance in the early thirteenth century. A hunting palace belonging to the crown lay in the northwest corner of the manor, built on a hill about 350 feet above sea level, with scenic views to the west and south. The royal compound, set amidst heavy woods, included a small palace, an enclosed hunting park, and a chapel. By 1200 a little village had begun to grow up beside the cluster of royal buildings, a settlement to be known as Havering-atte-Bower. In addition to these main villages, there were a number of smaller hamlets or groups of houses in other parts of the manor, most of them located at the intersections of roads and paths — dispersed settlements common to areas recently cleared from forest. Domesday Book records eighty-seven households in Havering, a figure which had increased four-fold by 1251. Havering included a variety of soils, deriving from different geological origins.5 The area which bordered the Thames was marsh, already drained and in use by 1200. To the north of the marsh, in the south-central part of the manor, lay glacial valley gravel, light soil which was easily worked but relatively infertile. The major agricultural area of Havering during the earlier Middle Ages was located on this readily usable land. The northern part of the manor sat atop heavy clay soils, a terrain better suited to wood or grass production than to active crop growing. Northern Havering was still largely covered by trees in 1200, although clearing of land was moving ahead with energy. The diversity of soils within Havering made possible a complex and flexible pattern of land use. Information about Havering in the centuries before 1066 is limited. Roman remains have been excavated in several places within the manor: at Mardyke farm in the extreme southwest, in the area to the north of Romford, and just to the west of Havering-atte-Bower village. The location of the Roman town of Durolitum is not known but is thought to be at or near Romford. The Roman sites near Havering-atte-Bower contained not only arable fields, buildings and cremation remains but 4

5

Romford's name, often spelled and apparently pronounced Rumford, derives from' the wide (rum) ford.' The suffix '-atte-Bower' for the village in the northwest corner presumably comes from the use of'the Bower' (or 'Bowre' or 'Boure') as a name for the king's house there, a building also known as the king's chamber. (Reaney, Place-names of Essex, pp. 117 and 111; Smith, Hist. ofH-a-B, p. ix.) V. N. Scarfe, 'Essex', in The land of Britain, part 82 (Land Utilisation Survey of Britain, London, Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries, 1942), pp. 406-50, passim, and Roland Allison, 'The changing geographical landscape of south-west Essex from Saxon times to 1600' (Univ. of London MA thesis, 1958), ch. 2. The author is grateful to Dr Allison for permission to have a microfilm copy of his thesis and to make reference to it.

Introduction also *a complex of gullies and ditches associated with metal working'. 6 The Saxon settlers from whom Havering took its name (' Haveringas' = the followers or people of Haver) established themselves in somewhat different regions of the manor from those chosen by their Roman predecessors. The earliest Saxon settlements and agricultural lands are thought to have lain on the gravel soil of the southern half of the manor. Hornchurch village forms one of an east—west row of early Saxon communities in southwest Essex which lie at the edge of the flood plain terrace. Romford is one of a second row of villages located about 2 miles north of the first, deriving from a later stage of settlement. In other areas of southwest Essex both sets of villages are named in Domesday Book. Because Havering is described as a single manorial unit in the 1086 survey, neither Hornchurch nor Romford is mentioned, but both were presumably in existence. The beginning of Havering's association with the crown is unrecorded. The manor seems to have been a member of the Anglo-Saxon royal estate by the eleventh century and perhaps earlier still. Several local legends associate the manor with Edward the Confessor, although in 1086 Havering was said to have belonged to Earl Harold of Wessex prior to the Norman invasion, as did the other royal manors in Essex.7 The presence of a well-established hunting palace and park at Haveringatte-Bower by the early twelfth century supports the view that the manor was part of the royal demesne prior to 1066 as it was to be later. Havering remained a royal manor until the nineteenth century, from 1262 onward usually granted to the queen in dower. The Liberty of Havering-atte-Bower was sold by the crown into private hands in 1828 but lasted as an independent entity until 1892.8 In the sphere of religion, Havering was by 1200 under the control of a foreign monastery, a situation which arose through a pious donation of King Henry II. In 1158/9 Henry gave c. 1500 acres near the village of Hornchurch to the Augustinian hospital of St Nicholas and St Bernard at Montjoux in Savoy.9 While Henry's motives are 6

7

8 9

VCH Essex, vol. 7, p. 9, and see pp. 25—6 and 56. For Saxon settlements, see Allison, 'Changing geographical landscape', pp. 48—9. DB. For the legends, see Philip Morant, The history and antiquities of the county of Essex (2 vols., London, 1768), vol. 1, p. 58, and Smith, Hist. ofH-a-B, pp. 1-5. Smith, Hist. ofH-a-B, esp. pp. 265 and 272. For the founding and early history of Hornchurch Priory, see Hornch. Pr. kal., A. V. Worsley, Hornchurch parish church: a history (Colchester, Benham, 1964), VCH Essex, vol. 7, pp. 22,46 and 82, and Marjorie K. Mclntosh, 'Hornchurch Priory, Essex, 11 s$/9-1391', RevueBentdictineXCV (1985), 116-38. The 1500 acres included whatever glebe lands accompanied the gift of the parish church in 1163 as well as the original grant in 1158; the latter also conveyed lands worth £ 8 annually in Chiselhurst, Kent.

8

Introduction unknown, his gift may have come in thanks for assistance provided by the canons to English travellers crossing the Alps, for the hospice lay at the top of the pass of Great St Bernard, leading from Savoy into northern Italy. Or perhaps Henry saw the donation as a means of cultivating the friendship of the count of Savoy in his conflict with Louis VII of France. The Havering land was held in frankalmoign, exempted from payment of ^25 in annual rents to the king. The endowment supported a cell within the manor. A building in Hornchurch village soon housed a small community of never more than around ten members: a master plus a few canons and brethren. The house quickly became known as Hornchurch Priory. In 1163 Henry II granted to the priory the parish church of St Andrew in Hornchurch, described in the charter as 'the church of Havering'. 10 A papal confirmation of these gifts, issued in 1177, noted that the chapel within the village of Romford was also to belong to the priory. Henceforth, Hornchurch Priory was responsible for providing priests to serve at those churches. The priory took on the further duty in 1274 of furnishing a priest for the larger of two chapels at the royal compound at Havering-atte-Bower, this one used by local village people as well as by the crown's servants. By the late thirteenth century the spiritual life of the entire manor of Havering, as administered through the three churches and chapels which served the parish of Hornchurch, was in the hands of Hornchurch Priory. In 1391 the priory's lands and the spiritual rights which accompanied them were purchased from the hospital of Montjoux by William of Wykeham as part of the endowment of the college he was founding at Oxford. This study begins by considering Havering's relations with outside authority between 1200 and 1500. An external focus is required in the opening chapters because the earliest surviving records illuminate the manor's contacts with other forms of control. We can also establish immediately the autonomous context within which the community's economic and political patterns arose. Part I looks first at Havering's interactions with the crown as lord of the manor in the thirteenth century, including the growth of its privileges as ancient demesne. We move then to seigneurial, legal and administrative supervision during the later medieval years and to the types of local resistance. In Parts II and III the emphasis shifts to Havering's internal life. Economic questions are addressed in Part II. After examining Havering landholding between 1066 and 1352/3, we turn to the tenure and transfer 10

Hornch. Pr. kal., no. 78.

Introduction of land, followed by the size and composition of the medieval population. The commercial economy of the years from 1350 to 1460 is described next. Part III opens with discussion of the way in which Havering's tenants made use of their manor court during the century after 1352. In conclusion we explore the changes of the critical years between 1460 and 1500.

10

PART I HAVERING, THE CROWN AND EXTERNAL CONTROL, 1200-1500

Chapter 1

ROYAL PROFIT AND THE PRIVILEGES OF THE ANCIENT DEMESNE, 1200-65

At the opening of the thirteenth century the tenants of Havering enjoyed many forms of personal, tenurial and legal freedom. They could give their daughters in marriage without the permission of the lord and were not subject to punishment for lapses in the chastity of local women. They could leave the manor temporarily or permanently whenever they wished. They were free to buy, sell, lease or subdivide their land at will. Those who held directly from the crown owed only trivial labour in the royal fields within the manor. Should a dispute arise concerning their land, Havering people could bring legal action either before the king's central court or within their own manorial assembly. Havering was also accustomed to considerable independence from seigneurial control. The king had no regular agent within the community to look after royal rights and profits. The chief functional officer was the manorial bailiff, a man chosen from among Havering's wealthier tenants who had no reason to place the crown's interests above those of his fellows. Income from the manor, submitted to the crown by the sheriff or the person to whom the king had granted the farm of Havering, was in practice collected by the bailiff. Royal justices occasionally inquired about the crown's personal property within Havering or about assarting from the woodlands. Such commissions were a threat, but at least they were rare. Neglect by the king must have been accepted by Havering's residents in the years around 1200 as traditional and proper. The tenants' rights and independence were nonetheless fragile, vulnerable to royal attack. Their customary privileges had not been written down or officially approved by the crown. Weak royal supervision was a matter of expediency for Richard I and John, tied to considerations of patronage. Should any future king choose to increase his control over Havering, he was presumably entitled to do 13

Havering, the crown and external control, 1200—1300 so. A sovereign who made use of all the weapons at his disposal would be a formidable opponent as lord of the manor. In the middle 1230s the crown began to experiment with ways of increasing its authority within Havering and of expanding its profits from the manor. At the same time, paradoxically, the rights of the tenants were being augmented, defined and protected. Because these two developments were in many respects antithetical, the mid-thirteenth century saw sporadic conflict between Havering and the king. By 1265 the crown had abandoned its attempts to tap the real wealth of Havering; the rights of local people, now viewed as constituting the distinctive privileges of the ancient demesne, had been firmly established. Chapter 1 traces the history of the manor from 1200 to 1265. Between 1265 and 1500 the freedom of Havering's tenants was minimally constrained by outside authority. The queens who held Havering used routine methods of administering the manor which involved no direct supervision. They were thus unable to prevent administrative 'slippage', as the tenants gradually ceased rendering accustomed rents and dues. When a few queens tried to extract full payment from the manor, the tenants resisted, as individuals or as a group. External courts and administrative bodies usually acted within Havering in narrowly defined channels, but the tenants mounted increasing objection to the religious and seigneurial demands of Hornchurch Priory and later New College, Oxford. In the generation prior to 13 81, a cluster of social, economic and political factors contributed to an unsettled mood within Havering, unrest which was to culminate in the manor's involvement in the Peasants' Revolt. Chapter 2 examines the various forms of outside control over Havering in the later medieval years and considers the tenants' reactions against threats to local autonomy. In this part of the study we are forced to observe Havering primarily through the eyes of royal lawyers, accountants and clerks. The crown's seigneurial records and the administrative materials of the Exchequer and Chancery are obviously directed toward matters of financial or legal concern to the crown itself. The files of the central courts and other organs of law and administration similarly provide little information on the causes of events within Havering. We therefore cannot explore in detail the association between the precocious stratification and economic prosperity of the manor and the willingness of Havering's tenants to resist external demands. Nor can we analyse closely the link between community organisation vis-a-vis the outside world and day-to-day cooperation concerning local matters. We must

Royal profit and privileges of ancient demesne, 1200—65 nevertheless remain aware that internal developments both shaped and were shaped by Havering's unusual autonomy. ROYAL GAIN AND TENANTS

RIGHTS

During the years between 1200 and 1265 two major issues coloured the relation between the king and the tenants of Havering. The first involved the crown's changing policy concerning the use, supervision and exploitation of its manor in seigneurial terms. The king was the lord of Havering in much the same sense that a nobleman held a private manor of his own. He had a hunting lodge and a park within Havering to which he and his court resorted at will. He met the problem encountered by many landlords of having to oversee and control a manor within an extensive, widely scattered estate which he could not supervise personally. He had to balance the various forms of benefit which the manor offered against his own immediate and future needs. In considering how to profit from his manors, the king faced an ultimately insoluble dilemma. If he wished to extract maximum financial gain, he needed either to station a resident official within the area or to arrange for regular visits by outside administrators and/or justices. In the absence of an eagle eye acting on behalf of the crown, the tenants did not submit their rents and dues in full and the agricultural yield from the king's own demesne lands tended to decline. The need for direct supervision was especially acute in wooded areas in which assarting was underway. A distant and rigid administrative system could never hope to keep track of the quiet process whereby royal woodlands were converted into the private holdings of the crown's tenants. Yet having an official present within each manor, a person familiar with the local landscape, holdings and dues, would have necessitated hiring and supporting a substantial staff, a bureaucracy whose magnitude lay beyond medieval definitions of the royal household and government. Paying wages to even a limited number of employees out of current income was difficult. Further, using royal officials to oversee the king's estate meant that valuable positions were lost to the patronage network. The might of the crown rested in no small measure upon the king's ability to provide economic benefit and social prestige to those whom he wished to reward or whose support he hoped to earn. Binding powerful men to the crown through beneficial grants of elements of the royal estate might well be more important than an increased revenue from the land. The second feature of the interactions between Havering and the 15

Havering, the crown and external control, 1200—1300 crown in these years was the gradual emergence and formalisation of the privileges of the ancient demesne. Tenants of the crown's ancient demesne, defined by the later thirteenth century as consisting of those lands held by the king at the time of the Conquest, enjoyed certain forms of legal protection and economic profit not normally available to villein tenants on other manors. Some of these rights were already present in Havering by 1200, but many of them emerged over the course of the following two generations. Although the growth of ancient demesne privileges in Havering was in a few cases of mutual benefit to the king and the tenants, in other instances the tenants' rights severely diminished the crown's ability to profit from the manor. In the following discussion we shall look first at the king's personal use of Havering and the crown's experiments with administrative forms between 1198 and 1242. Development of protective legal practices for the tenants and the granting of personal freedom and economic security will be described next. In conclusion we shall assess the impact of Havering's ancient demesne rights from 1265 onward, offering some suggestions about the origins of these privileges and the reasons which may have led the crown to allow special benefits to its own tenants. The monarch's personal use of Havering

The kings and queens of England made direct use of Havering in several ways. They might themselves spend time at the palace, enjoying its attractive setting and the pleasures of the hunt. A few of the monarchs devoted considerable attention to building projects within the royal compound. The crown could utilise Havering's park and other resources for its own supplies or as gifts to others. Units of tenant land which came into the king's hands were granted to royal servants or followers. Honorific offices connected with the crown's estate could be bestowed as acts of patronage. Because the records concerning royal use of Havering are particularly good during the middle decades of Henry Ill's reign, we may examine these years in more detail. The Angevin monarchs seem to have made relatively little direct use of the crown's palace or hunting lodge within Havering. Henry III visited the manor about once a year for a night or two until 1235 and came only once every few years thereafter.1 The royal buildings in the earlier thirteenth century consisted of a central block containing a great hall and chamber, sleeping and living quarters for the king, queen and royal children with associated wardrobes and side rooms, 1

Smith, Hist. o/H-a-B, p. 7. 16

Royal profit and privileges of ancient demesne, 1200—65 a knights' chamber or hall, two chapels, living quarters for the chaplains and housing for the servants.2 Elsewhere, probably in separate buildings, lay auxiliary rooms for food storage and preparation: a kitchen, buttery, saucery, pantry, bakehouse, larder, salting house, napery, chandlery, store rooms and a wine cellar. Around the sides of a large courtyard lay the stables, an almonry and a gate house. Between 1240 and 1260 Henry III undertook extensive rebuilding and redecorating of the private chambers, the upper chapel, the stables and the almonry; an entirely new chapel, 28 by 14 feet, was built for the queen. 3 These projects were supervised by a pair of' overseers of the king's works at Havering', usually local men. The building done within Havering in the mid-thirteenth century was costly when compared with the king's income from the manor. (This was especially true since Henry III derived little immediate benefit from the improvements, visiting his newly expanded residence only twice after its completion.4) Construction and decoration required the purchase of many manufactured items and the hiring of labourers and skilled craftsmen. Local building workers were probably employed to do most of the tasks in the thirteenth as they were in later centuries. Although total costs for the project have not been recorded, the work ordered in 1251 and carried out over the next few years cost about ^900. 5 Since the annual issues of Havering came to no more than £145, building consumed more than the crown's income from the manor. The issues were collected in these years either by the tenants themselves or by a resident royal bailiff. The king could therefore order that income be delivered immediately to the overseers of construction as it came in rather than having to wait until the sheriff or farmer of Havering had rendered his full annual account to the Exchequer.6 The crown's own estate within Havering included wooded areas as well as the palace. The formal deer park contained 1300 acres, surrounded by a wooden fence or pale; adjacent to the park lay the royal outwoods, called Havering forest in the earlier 1200s. The park and woodlands had an economic component in addition to the 2

3 4 5 6

Liberate rolls, especially CLR, 1245-51, p. 372, and CLR, 1251-60, p. 119, H. M. Colvin et al., The history of the kings works (6 vols., London, Ministry of Public Building and Works, 1963-73), vol. 2, pp. 956—9, and VCH Essex, vol. 7, pp. 22-3. Colvin, King's works, vol. 2, pp. 956—7, and see CLR, passim. In 1270 and 1272: Smith, Hist. ofH-a-B, p. 7. Pipe roll 36 Henry III, rot. 5, as cited by Colvin, King's works, vol. 2, p. 957. In 1245 and 1246, when the men of Havering held the farm of the manor, they delivered four units of cash for repairs or construction at the royal buildings, totalling about ,£370; in 1251 and 1252, ,£325 was given to the overseers of the Havering construction, in seven batches (PRO E 352/45, m. 20, and the liberate rolls for 1251 and 1252). 17

Havering, the crown and external control, 1200—1500 attractions of hunting. The most important item was wood, in great demand during the thirteenth century for use in building and as firewood. Much of the wood allocated for construction was used for the crown's own projects — within Havering, at the Tower of London or at Westminster. Trees were also ordered from Havering in 1228, 1257 and 1260 for making or repairing crossbows at the Tower, the wood specified as alder or holly; in 1292 ten hornbeams from the park were used to make saddle bows. 7 There are a few references to the preparation of charcoal, to be used in connection with building operations. Permission to take wood from Havering was a common royal grant to friends or worthy organisations. Between 1225 and 1274 at least eighty-nine wood licences were issued, resulting in the cutting of about 350 trees for building, usually great oaks, and about 250 for firewood.8 Timber production remained the most important economic function of Havering's park until its sale in 1652. The park and outlying woods were also used for animals. Deer were raised both for the hunt and for meat. Havering park could sustain more than 500 deer, a population maintained by the pale and deer-leaps; 9 the deer in Havering's outwoods moved freely in and out of the adjoining forest of Essex. Between 1230 and 1259 around 1400 deer were killed in Havering on the authority of royal writs and another 200 were caught alive, many of these bestowed as gifts.10 (From the larger forest of Essex, only about 700 deer were taken between 1230 and 1259.) Havering park was used for the sustenance of pigs too, for their eating patterns did not compete with those of deer. Several hundred pigs roamed the park during the thirteenth century, and as many as fifty pigs were granted in a single gift.11 Cattle were generally kept out of Havering park, although they were allowed to graze in the outwoods.12 7 8

CCR, 1227-31, p. 49, CLR, 1251-60, p. 352, CLR, 1260-7, P- 6, and CCR, 1288-96, p. 242. For charcoal, see CCR, 1247-51, p. 273, and CCR, 1268-72, p. 177. Roland Allison, 'The changing geographical landscape of south-west Essex from Saxon times to 1600' (Univ. of London MA thesis, 1958), p. 181 (taken from CPR and CCR, passim), supplemented by entries from CLR, passim, and other miscellaneous records. Cf. C. E. Hart, Royal forest: a history of Dean's Woods as producers of timber

9 10 11 12

(Oxford, Clarendon Press, 1966), ch. 2. 1352/3 extent, fol. i6ir. Allison,' Changing geographical landscape', p. 211, plus additional references from the liberate rolls and other miscellaneous documents. CCR, 1251-3, p. 420, and CLR, 1240-5, p. 284. In 1260-1, however, the keeper of the park was ordered to have it grazed temporarily by 200 or more cows in order to remove the old grass and improve the park (Rotulorum originalium in curia Scaccarii abbreviatio, Henry III—Edward HI (2 vols., Record Comm.,

London, Eyre and Strahan, 1805-10), vol. 1, p. 17). 18

Royal profit and privileges of ancient demesne, 1200-63 Land was another means whereby the crown might reward its servants or supporters. The monarch could not count on having Havering land to give, since under normal circumstances all land passed by inheritance to the heirs of the current tenant without reverting to the lord. The king gained access to a holding only if the tenant died without heir or if he or she committed a felony. All Havering land which did come into the king's hands during the thirteenth century was immediately granted out again, rather than being added to the king's own demesne holdings within the manor. The recipients were nearly always royal servants, some of whom had no other connection with Havering and probably regarded their new holding only as a potential source of profit to be leased out or sold. In 1259 John le Naper, a royal huntsman, was granted in thanks for his long service a Havering holding consisting of 18 acres of land, 4 acres of meadow and a house, then in the king's hands through the hanging of its former tenant. 13 John was to pay an annual rent of just id. for the land, but after his death his heirs were to render the normal rent and services due from the holding. There is no indication that le Naper ever lived on this holding, and it may not have remained long in his possession. Other gifts of land went to officials who were already involved with Havering or who subsequently moved to the manor. Richard of Dover, for example, received in 1247 a grant of 417 acres plus a water mill and sections of two watercourses.14 Dover already held Havering land — some which he purchased in the mid-12 30s, the rest as the dower of his wife, a relative of Robert Passelewe, the unpopular royal minister.15 Dover was in Passelewe's employ by 1242 if not before. Later he transferred to the king's military service, leading troops for Henry in France and Wales. Upon receipt of his large Havering holding, bestowed while Passelewe was a justice of the forest, Dover settled down upon his estate, taking no further part in royal activities. The king's palace and park within Havering needed care and supervision during the monarch's long absences from the manor. Someone had to make sure that the buildings were maintained physically and that the park was properly tended: that its pale was kept 13 14 15

CChR, 1257-1300, p. 24. CChR, 1226-57, p- 320, and Marjorie K. Mclntosh, 'The privileged villeins of the English ancient demesne', Viator, VII (1976), 295-328, esp. 318—19. FFE, vol. 1, pp. 113—17, and Calendar of inquisitions post mortem (1216—1392, 16 vols., London, HMSO, 1904-74), vol. 1, p. 295. For Dover's career, see CCR and CPR, passim, and Hornch. Pr. kal., passim; for Passelewe's involvement in Havering in the 1240s, see p. 36 below. For his son Sir John of Dover, also a Havering resident, see Hornch. Pr. kal., passim.

19

Havering, the crown and external control, 1200-1 $00 in repair, that the animals and trees were protected and that the tenants of Havering and their animals were kept out. There were thus two essential, working posts within the royal compound, one of which kept the king's palace in good condition while the other oversaw the park. These offices were filled by resident servants, often local men, who received a stipend.16 The presence at the palace of a small staff of regular employees, including minor officials of the forest of Essex, required in turn that a chaplain be appointed to attend to their spiritual needs, for Havering-atte-Bower was in the early thirteenth century an isolated community surrounded by woods. Royal payments to a chaplain at Havering appear in 1201, and by 1230 an annual fee of 50s. was being given to a chaplain 'ministering in the king's chapel of Havering'. 17 The number of residents in the royal buildings and the neighbouring village seems to have grown toward the middle of the thirteenth century. Because there was no public chapel in Havering-atte-Bower and perhaps because many of the people living in the village worked for the crown, a decision was apparently made to allow the villagers to attend one of the palace chapels. In 1246 a second chaplain took up residence in the royal buildings; in the following year the sheriff of Essex was ordered to obtain a silver chalice plus books, appropriate vestments and all else needed for the celebration of divine service in the king's upper chapel.18 From this time forward the upper chapel, thought to have stood on the site of the current parish church in Havering-atte-Bower, was used by people living within the village as well as by the regular occupants of the royal buildings. In 1274 Queen Eleanor, the first of a long series of queens to hold the manor of Havering, arranged with Hornchurch Priory that it should henceforth name and support a chaplain for the public chapel at Haveringatte-Bower.19 In return, 46s. in annual rents which the priory owed to the crown were cancelled. Other offices associated with the crown's own estate in Havering were largely honorific, bringing to the holder a set fee, opportunities for other forms of personal profit and duties which could be carried out by a deputy. The various officials who ostensibly oversaw 16

17 18 19

PR 4 Henry II, p. 132, PR 6 Henry II, p. 10, and PR 1 John, p. 103. In 1230 William the Parker received i}d. per day for his efforts, and William of Markedich, then the local bailiff of Havering, was paid 2d. per day as keeper of the king's buildings (PR 14 Henry III, p. 162). E.g., PR 3 John, p. 58, PR 13 John, p. 113, and PR 14 Henry HI, p. 162. CLR, 1245-51, pp. 49, 106, 136 and 345, and CLR, 1251-60, p. 83. Hornch. Pr. kal, no. 200, and CPR, 1281-92, p. 378. 20

Royal profit and privileges of ancient demesne, 1200—65 Havering's park and outwoods, for instance, received in most cases an annual payment from the crown and were able to collect sizeable sums through open or illegal sales of wood, grants of grazing rights to the tenants and outsiders, and fees for passage through the park and woods. They, like other Havering officials, were also in a strategic position to assart land for their own use.20 These men, usually friends or servants of the crown, were free to act through assistants and never needed to come to Havering in person. While the bestowal of offices might achieve something in terms of patronage, it was not a satisfactory method of arranging for the supervision of the king's possessions.21 Posts which initially required real service to the crown tended to shed their duties. Either a low-paid deputy was hired to do the work required, generally with no direction from the nominal holder, or the obligations were ignored and gradually forgotten. The serjeanties of Havering involved the right to hold a piece of land taken from the royal outwoods in return for some kind of service in the king's woods or palace. One serjeanty had originally been responsible for supervising the park of Havering, another for the outwoods and a third provided rushes for the floor of the king's chamber when the monarch was present in Havering. At the first mention of these serjeanties, c. 1212—17, each was held by a royal official with duties outside Havering.22 These men had apparently been allowed to enclose for themselves their large holdings of 100 acres or more primarily in reward for services rendered elsewhere. Another serjeanty, described in 1200 as the keeping of Romford woods, its land only recently separated by ditches from the king's outwoods, was at that time responsible for providing pasture for the king's cattle within the manor. 23 During the later 1200s, however, these privileged holdings gradually lost their connotation of service.24 Only the serjeanty which owed rushes for the king's chamber still acknowledged its obligation, and this was hardly an onerous task. Scattered references after 1265 indicate that Havering's palace, park 20 21

22

23

24

Hornch. Pr. kal, n o . 489, and cf. n o . 156. F o r a broader discussion o f patronage and t h e c r o w n ' s estate, see B . P . Wolffe, The royal demesne in English history (London, Allen and U n w i n , 1971). Red book of the Exchequer (ed. H . Hall, 3 vols., L o n d o n , Eyre a n d Spottiswode, 1896—7), vol. 2, p . 458, for William Alcher (Aucher), J o h n de R e w i n e (Derewin, and probably de Ipewin) a n d William Flandrensis (le Fleming). Rotuli

de oblatis et

finibus...temp.

reg. Johannis

(Record C o m m . , London, Eyre and

Spottiswode, 1835), p, 65, and PRO JUST 1/242, m. 70. PRO JUST 1/242, m. 70, The book of fees (3 vols., London, HMSO, 1921-31), vol. 1, pp. 345 and 1348, and see VCH Essex, vol. 7, under manors of Gooshayes, Earls, Redden Court and Romford or Mawneys. Cf. CCR, 1237—42, p. 250. 21

Havering,

the crown and external control, 1200—1300

and woods served similar purposes in the later medieval years. Some of the kings spent time at the compound at Havering-atte-Bower, even in periods in which the manor itself was in the hands of the queen. Edward I and II came rarely to the manor, but Edward III was a frequent and sometimes lengthy visitor.25 He often spent Christmas at Havering and came nearly every year during the spring or summer; the royal household spent twenty weeks at the palace in 1358. Visits were made during Edward's later years as well, with the unpopular Alice Perrers in attendance. Richard II was in Havering at the end of the Peasants' Revolt. The manor was seldom used by Henry IV and V, but Queen Joanna, Henry IV's wife, lived there during her widowhood, both before and after her arrest at Havering upon charges of witchcraft or treason. Henry VI paid a few visits to Havering, and Edward IV used Havering palace to entertain the citizens of London during his campaign to win their support. In addition to this direct use, trees and deer from Havering park were given out by most of the kings and queens, vacant holdings were granted to royal favourites and offices associated with the palace and park continued to proliferate.26 The personal benefits of possessing Havering were not insignificant for the medieval monarchs.

Royal experimentation with administrative forms, ngS—1242

During the first half of the thirteenth century royal administration focused on the related questions of who would account for Havering's yield and whether current knowledge of the manor's full value could be obtained. The crown tried a variety ofprocedures: farming Havering at a beneficial rate to a friend or servant of the crown, a method which diminished both the king's control over the manor and his income, despite its value as patronage; granting Havering to local people in fee-farm, thereby increasing the likelihood that the designated revenues would be submitted without fuss but eliminating any chance for the crown to learn about the true wealth of the manor; and direct management by royal justices or administrative appointees. The Exchequer was most comfortable with a set annual sum from each unit within the royal estate, an amount which could be increased or lowered if the barons of the Exchequer were properly notified but which would 25

26

Smith, Hist, of H-a-B, pp. 18-28, CPR, 1354-8, p. 479, PRO E 37/25, mm. I5~57d, CPR, 1381-5, pp. 24 and 26-7, and PRO SC 2/172/28, m. 6d. See App. I and Smith, Hist. of H-a-B, pp. 18-28, PRO SC 2/172/25, mm. 3, 4, 7 and 9, and CCR, 1333-7, pp. 28 and 141.

22

Royal profit and privileges of ancient demesne, 1200—65 then remain at the new value. The sum due was based upon a previous survey or extent of the manor, a detailed account prepared by a royal official on the basis of testimony from local people which laid out every source of income and * extended' each item, assigning to it a cash value. The primary item on Havering extents was the money owed by the tenants as rent and for commuted labour services, which together constituted 75% to 85% of the total manorial income. 27 Heriots and reliefs were listed, as were any profits from the crown's own stock of animals and crops grown on the king's private demesne. The yield of the manor court and certain classes of income from the park and outwoods, like windfallen wood, also appear. Against his income a Havering accountant could deduct such expenses as the fees of Havering officials, alms ordered by the king and maintenance or construction at the royal houses and park. Between 1198 and 1242 the crown's utilisation of the manor went through several distinct phases.28 The administrative neglect which had apparently characterised the later 11 oos carried on into the mid-i23os. King John and the advisers of Henry Ill's minority made little effort either to supervise Havering or to profit fully from it. During the twelfth century Havering's income had evidently been returned to the Exchequer by the sheriff of Essex and Hertfordshire as part of the farm of the county. Havering's issues are not mentioned by name on the pipe rolls from their beginning in 1155 until the very end of the century. In 1198, however, the method of handling the manor's revenues changed. In that year and the next, the canons of Hornchurch Priory rendered account for Havering.29 They paid an annual farm of ^85 and were excused from ^ 2 5 for the land which their house held in free alms. Between 1200 and 1221 Havering's farm was granted as patronage to influential men. These keepers rendered ^ 8 5 annually; in some years the farm was set at £110, from which Hornchurch Priory's ^ 2 5 were then deducted.30 In 1222 an experiment of considerable importance to the tenants was initiated: the men of Havering were collectively awarded the farm of their own manor, still at a nominal value of ^ n o . 3 1 Havering continued to gather and 27 28

29 30

31

E.g., the 1251 extent and P R O E 1 4 2 / 8 0 / 4 . See, more generally, Robert S. Hoyt, The royal demesne in English constitutional history, 1066-1272 (Ithaca, New York, Cornell Univ. Press, 1950), esp. chs. 4 and 5, and Wolffe, Royal demesne, chs. 1 and 2. PR 10 Richard I, p p . 126 a n d 138, a n d PR 1 J o h n , p . 103. PR 5 John, p. 135, and PR 11 John, pp. 190-1; PRO E 159/5, m. i5d, E 368/3, m. 5d, and E 368/5, m. 5d. See App. I. PRO C 60/18, m. 10. The author is grateful to Henry Summerson for this reference. See also PRO SP 14/94/101 and PR 14 Henry III, p. 142.

23

Havering, the crown and external control, 1200—1300 account for its own profits, at the same value, through 1230 and probably until 1236. We do not know how the community organised itself to handle this responsibility, but the local bailiff accounted for the farm. Because there had been no increase in the amount owed to the Exchequer since 1198 and perhaps a good deal earlier despite a growing population and active assarting, the bailiffs were rendering a lower fraction of the manor's actual worth than had earlier farmers. With surprising indifference, the crown made no attempt between 1198 and 1242 to profit from the enthusiastic clearing of land currently underway in Havering. Local people were bringing into their own use at the expense of the king's outwoods new holdings of all sizes, ranging from 120-acre units down to tiny lots. A few of the larger tenants may have been prepared to notify the crown of their assarts and pay a fee in order to obtain a formal, legal title to the land. Other men, even royal office holders, obviously hoped that their clearings would never come to the crown's attention. This approach was not foolish, for no land seems to have been arrented during these years and no extents were prepared. Supervision of the woodlands was minimal. The working parker kept watch over the enclosed hunting park, but the serjeanty associated with the outwoods carried no specified duties. The outwoods were by definition hard to oversee, both because they lacked recognised boundaries and because it was known that the crown was prepared to accept new assarts there under certain conditions. The justices in eyre occasionally inquired about the condition of the crown's woods within Havering. In 1227 and 1235 the justices, sitting in Chelmsford, asked for information about Havering's serjeanties and reported upon some offences within the park.32 What was later in the century to become the most effective form of control over Havering's woodlands, the system of itinerant justices of the forest, was felt only lightly before 1243.33 Although it was therefore easy for Havering people to appropriate land without royal knowledge, unofficial assarting was in the long run to prove an Achilles' heel for the tenants, as they or their heirs found themselves unable to furnish evidence of title when challenged by the crown. The king's economic administrators did make one effort in the later 32 33

PRO JUST 1/229, m. 15, and JUST 1/230, m. 6-6d. A l t h o u g h a 1207-8 forest eyre dealt with Havering and the perambulations o f the forest o f Essex made in 1225 and 1228 included the manor within its boundaries, a roll o f pleas o f the forest in Essex from 1238 contains n o mention o f Havering ( P R O E 3 2 / 3 4 9 , VCH Essex, vol. 7, p. 20, and B L Addit. Roll 28404). See also Charles R. Y o u n g , The royal forests of medieval England (Philadelphia, Pa., U n i v . o f Pennsylvania Press, 1979), ch. 5.

24

Royal profit and privileges of ancient demesne, 1200—63 twelfth and thirteenth centuries to gain a share in the growing prosperity of the royal demesne. This was callage, a form of taxation levied only upon the present and former crown lands.34 Between 1168 and 1268 a total of twenty-nine tallages were collected. They were more frequent during the reigns of Richard I and John, as might be expected, levied on the average ofjust under every two years, whereas Henry II and Henry III tallaged approximately every four years. Havering is recorded as having paid for each of Henry II's five tallages and for eleven of the twenty-four succeeding ones.35 From 1168 through 1214 Havering's tallages averaged ^11—12, a sum which then increased to ^ 1 5 . If Havering was assessed for every callage at those rates, the total sum distributed annually would have averaged 70s. to 80s. per year. When an unusually heavy callage of £20 was assessed on Havering early in 1234, the tenants evidently complained: Henry III ordered his tallagers in Essex to assess Havering moderately, not oppressing the tenants, and a third of the original sum was then excused.36 In subsequent decades Havering was usually assessed at £13-6-8. Tallage was not a heavy burden upon this manor. Relations between Havering and the king around 1230 were highly advantageous to local people, giving them extensive control over the financial and administrative life of their own manor. Their independence was to be challenged, however, as the crown set forth upon a new programme in dealing with Havering. From 1234 through 1253 the crown explored ways of supervising Havering more directly and of increasing the king's income from the manor. The first sign of the more aggressive royal policy came in the summer and autumn of 1234. The crown launched proceedings against fourteen tenants of the manor before the central court, questioning by what right they claimed to hold parcels of Havering land.37 This challenge to the legitimacy of title was part of a widespread series of quo warranto proceedings initiated throughout the 1230s. Three of the Havering defendants were substantial tenants who held the land at issue by purchase or inheritance from a former official within the manor who 34

35

36 37

Hoyt, Royal demesne, pp. 107-24, and Sydney K. Mitchell, Taxation in medieval England (ed. S. Painter, N e w Haven, C o n n . , Yale U n i v . Press, 1951), chs. 5 - 8 . PR and CCR, passim, P R O E 3 5 2 / 4 5 , m . 20, a n d E 368/50, m . 3. T h e handful o f freehold tenants in H a v e r i n g w e r e e x e m p t from the p a y m e n t of tallage ( P R O E 1 5 9 / 4 3 , m m . 6 d - 7 , T h o m a s M a d o x , Firma burgi (London, R. Gosling, 1726), p . 746, and the 1251 extent). T h e author thanks D a v i d C r o o k for the first o f these references. CCR, 1231-4, pp. 377 and 422. For later values, see PRO E 142/80/4. CCR, vol. 15, nos. 1027, 1065, 1144, 1145, 1147, 1191, 1241 and 1350. See Ralph V. Turner, The king and his courts (Ithaca, New York, Cornell Univ. Press, 1968), pp. 215^-25.

25

Havering, the crown and external control, 1200—1300 had assarted the holding. Since, however, they lacked charters affirming that the land had been legally cleared and arrented (and it probably had not been), judgement was given against them. The land lost by them was granted by the crown to Richard ofHavering, at that time a Serjeant of the countess of Pembroke (the king's sister).38 The other eleven defendants, all smallholders within the manor, were prosecuted by Richard ofHavering on behalf of the crown, and when judgement went against them, he again received the lands in question.39 Quo warranto suits constituted a grave danger to Havering's tenants. A broader intrusion into Havering's autonomy, reflecting a deliberate change of policy toward exploitation of the royal demesne, started in 1236. Continuing conflict with the barons led the crown to decide that it must reduce its reliance upon taxation and instead try to capitalise upon the royal estate as a predictable and independent source of income.40 In 1236 all royal manors were removed from the accountancy of the sheriffs or from the care of their farmers and were placed under the direct custody of a few royal keepers. These keepers were intended to receive the full current value of the estates; they were, where necessary, to order local inquiries concerning the true value of each manor, including any profits or rights which were being withheld from the king and royal lands which were being used privately without authorisation. Havering was affected by this system in the spring of 1236. Walter de Burgo (one of three royal officials named to take over the rest of the king's lands) and William Dun (a wealthy newcomer to Havering married to a former nursemaid of Henry Ill's) were ordered to take into the king's hands the four royal manors in Essex and to determine 'how much they are worth yearly in demesnes, rents, services, villeinages and all other issues, and touching alienated lands therein, and of other things enjoined upon them by the king'. 41 The men of Havering were deprived of the farm of their manor. A few years later de Burgo compounded this offence by going to court against John of the Wood, the local bailiff from 1233 to 1237, apparently for arrears owing from the farm.42 John, heir to a holding of about 450 acres in 38 39

CRR, vol. 15, nos. 1145 and 1350. Richard's acquisition of the land raises the possibility that the proceedings were actually opened by Richard himself rather than by regular crown officials, a process which has been suggested for other quo warranto proceedings as well. Cf. Turner, King and his courts, p . 224, citing Plucknett's suggestion, and CRR, vol. 15, p . xxxi.

40

H o y t , Royal

42

PRO KB 26/32, no. 1181. The local bailiffs were all prosperous tenants. The holdings in 1251 of the five Havering bailiffs between 1229 and 1264 (see App. 1.3) were 72, 568, 332, 88 and 47 acres respectively.

demesne,

4I

p p . 156--61.

26

CPR, 1232-47,

p . 145.

Royal profit and privileges of ancient demesne, 1200—63 Havering, had in consequence to render 50 marks to de Burgo. The latter also prosecuted Hornchurch Priory for encroaching on the king's land, action delayed by Henry III when he learned it concerned the area around Romford chapel being used as a cemetery.43 Having demonstrated his power, de Burgo named a minor royal official to act as the Havering bailiff in his absence. There is no record of resistance on Havering's part to this change in administration, though the policy cannot have been more popular here than it was in other elements of the king's estate.44 During the later 1230s, the Exchequer found that its new plan for demesne supervision was not working well. The keepers and their assistants were unable or unwilling to collect the full sums due from the various manors. In 1240, therefore, the crown ordered a second set of inspections, leading to the dismissal of some of the 1236 keepers and their bailiffs. Two new keepers were named for the royal manors in Essex and were told to replace the bailiffs employed by the previous keepers; they were instructed also to investigate the king's stock of animals on each manor, together with rents, customary services and judicial rights.45 Throughout the royal demesne, the inquiries conducted by the 1240 keepers were followed either by the appointment of a new financial official for each manor or by the granting of the manors at farm, usually to their own tenants. The latter arrangement was adopted for Havering. In 1240 or 1241 the men of the manor again acquired the farm, still set at a nominal value of £110, which they held until 1246. A local man was reinstated as bailiff.46 Although the crown had made its authority felt, it had not succeeded in increasing its revenues or regular control. The development of protective legal practices, ngg—1240

In the same decades which witnessed these administrative experiments, an unusual set of legal procedures was authorised for use within the Havering court. The distinctive practices grew out of the king's seigneurial role with respect to Havering's tenants and were later regarded as one of the major privileges of the ancient demesne. Like any feudal lord, the king was responsible for providing a court of justice for his vassals, men bound to him by ties of personal loyalty and « CCR, 1234-7, p. 3H-

44 45 46

H o y t , Royal demesne, p p . 158—60. CCR, 1237-42, p . 220. PR 26 Henry III, p. 215, PRO E 352/45, m. 20, and CLR, 1245-51, p. 57; PRO E 368/18, m. 4d.

27

Havering, the crown and external control, 1200—1300 landholding. While it was well established by 1200 that the king should hear cases involving those barons, knights and larger ecclesiastical houses who held directly from the crown, the royal justices had not yet decided what the legal connection should be between the king and his manorial tenants - the people who held land by customary tenure on the royal demesne. The king was still the lord of the customary tenants and they swore fealty to him when they entered their land, but they obviously lacked the personal ties with the monarch, the wealth and social status, and the political importance of the tenants-in-chief. The king owed to his manorial tenants the provision of some kind of court, but it was not clear whether these lesser tenants should have direct access to the king and his central justices. In seigneurial terms, the king's provision ofjustice for his Havering tenants in the early thirteenth century lay primarily within the court of the manor, described as the king's court. 47 In the manor court the tenants could lodge personal suits concerning wrongs, such as trespass, and contractual obligations, such as debts and covenants. There too they could bring legal action concerning their lands, either contentious suits (when there was an actual dispute over the land) or collusive ones (used to accomplish a transfer of land between tenants or to record an agreement about the holding of land).48 The tenants of Havering also had more direct access to royal law. The earliest curia regis rolls, beginning in the reign of Richard I, indicate that Havering people sometimes went before the king's court at Westminster or the justices in eyre at Chelmsford in order to plead a case concerning their land. Because the common law and seigneurial functions of the king's courts had not yet been sharply separated, it seemed reasonable for the king as lord of the manor and his justices to listen to cases involving the land of royal tenants.49 Over the course of the first third of the thirteenth century, however, cases brought by the tenants of customary land on royal manors, including those initiated by Havering's tenants, were gradually excluded from the central courts. In place of direct royal justice, the king and his legal officers authorised a formal method 47

In the early thirteenth century the manor court was normally called ' the king's court o f Havering' or 'the king's court in his manor o f Havering': e.g., CCR, 1231-4, p. 589, BNB, vol. 2, no. 834, and Homch. Pr. kal., nos. 327, 336 and 522. 48 T h e collusive forms c o m m o n l y used in Havering were a land action leading immediately to a settlement (a final concord or ' fine') and the action o f warranty o f charter, used to record the terms o f a written agreement. Non-adversarial suits were entered with the agreement o f both parties. 49 For the broader context, see P. R. Hyams, Kings, lords and peasants in medieval England (Oxford, Clarendon Press, 1980), and S. F. C. Milsom, The legal framework of English feudalism (Cambridge, Cambridge Univ. Press, 1976). 28

Royal profit and privileges of ancient demesne, 1200—63 whereby the crown's lesser tenants could achieve much the same kind of protection which they had received in the king's central courts but now within the setting of their own manor court. The development of this set of procedures can be traced in Havering. Between 1199 and 1233, when Havering's tenants still pleaded before the king's court and the justices in eyre, the courts considered a variety of legal issues concerning Havering land. 50 The justices also allowed Havering people to use their facilities and their carefully preserved rolls to record agreements about land and to convey holdings by means of collusive suits. The courts were prepared to summon cases involving Havering land from the Essex county court and to receive and investigate complaints from those who felt they had not received p'roper justice in the Havering manor court. Certain tenants made regular use of these extra-manorial opportunities. Richard of the Wood, energetically expanding and solidifying his family's estate, appeared before the royal courts in at least fifteen suits in these years. 51 Because of the relaxed attitude of the courts toward hearing cases from the king's own estate, thejustices did not bother to ask if the parties were tenants-in-chief or by what tenure the land in these cases was held. In practice, nearly all the Havering cases heard by the royal courts concerned land held by customary tenure. (Indeed, nearly all land within the manor was customary, with only the serjeanties considered freehold.) Havering's customary tenure was close to freehold but contained a few characteristics of villein tenure as found on other manors: most important, it owed labour services, although at a very light level and not on a weekly basis. In 1199 and again in 1210 the nature of Havering's customary tenure was raised by the defendants in cases before the curia regis. Alice of Havering, a sister of Richard of the Wood, said expressly in the latter year that the land at issue was held by villein tenure and that she should therefore not be sued concerning it in the king's court. 52 The plaintiff disputed this claim, arguing that the manor's customary tenure was essentially free; he pointed out that customary land in Havering was inherited and that land actions for such holdings were normally initiated by royal writ. 50

51

52

Mclntosh, 'Privileged villeins', 299-300. T h e appendix to that article lists Havering cases heard by the royal courts from 1199 to 1235, to which should be added a few cases from the 1227 eyre roll, P R O J U S T 1/229, m m . 1, u d , 12 and 13, and a pone of 1210 from PR 12 John, p . 200. CRR, vol. 1, p. 77, vol. 5, p . 324, vol. 6, pp. 68 and 201, vol. 15, n o . 1458, BNB, vol. 2, no. 641, P R O J U S T 1/229, m m . 1 and u d , and FFE, vol. 1, p p . 24, 46, 6 1 , 98, 104, 115 and 117. For his son John, see pp. 26-7 above; their estate is described in ch. 3 below. CRR, vol. 1, p. 77, and vol. 6, p. 68.

29

Havering, the crown and external control, 1200—1500 (Writs were elsewhere reserved for freeholds.) In both cases the justices apparently allowed the actions to proceed. Between 1212 and 1233, however, the provision of immediate royal justice for the tenants of the manor was completely withdrawn. From 1213 through 1228 few if any Havering land cases were heard by the curia regis, although some were still coming before the justices in eyre. 53 After 1228 no actions of right involving customary land in Havering were heard by any courts outside the manor. The late 1220s also saw termination of the use of the possessory assizes as a vehicle for bringing Havering cases before the central courts. In 1229 and 1230 two assizes were summoned by royal justices concerning Havering land. 54 In each case the manorial bailiff (and others) testified that this form, specifically designed for free holdings, should not be and never had been used for Havering land. In one assize the bailiff explicitly stated that the land at issue was held by villein tenure. Thereafter no assizes concerning land in Havering came before external courts. 55 Between 1231 and 1233 the remaining types of land action, such as that employed in claiming a widow's dower, were used a few times more but then they too disappeared from the central courts. 56 After 1233 the tenants of Havering no longer pleaded directly before the king's justices about their customary holdings. It seems strange that tenants of Havering were claiming that the manor's customary lands were held by villein tenure and hence should be dealt with by their own manor court in the very years in which tenants of other, non-royal manors were arguing that their lands were not held in villeinage and hence should be allowed to enjoy access to the royal courts.57 The explanation may lie in the attractiveness of the alternate procedure which the king and his justices were suggesting as a replacement for direct use of the royal courts. The first mention of the local option came in the instructions which the royal justices gave to the plaintiff in the assize barred from the central court in 1230. The 53

54 55

56 57

P R O J U S T 1/229, rnm. I, n d , 12 and 13. In 1228 a Havering land case brought by writ of right was halted during proceedings before the justices in eyre sitting at Chelmsford when the bailiff of Havering appeared and claimed that his court had the sole right to hear the case. The reasons for his claim are not k n o w n (JUST 1/229, m. 1 id). T h e author is grateful to Robert Palmer for discussing this case with her. CRR, vol. 13, no. 2279, and vol. 14, no. 458. In 1233—4 t n e sheriff of Essex w e n t t o the H a v e r i n g court to hear an assize under w a y there, b u t it is n o t clear w h y . ( P R O C 6 0 / 3 3 . This reference was kindly provided b y Robert Palmer.) E.g., CRR, vol. 14, nos. 1429 and 2140, and BNB, vol. 2, no. 641. R. H . H i l t o n , ' F r e e d o m a n d villeinage in E n g l a n d ' , Past and Present, X X X I (1965),

3-19.

30

Royal profit and privileges of ancient demesne, 1200—65 justices told him to ' obtain for himself a writ to the bailiffs and court of Havering, that it may be brought to trial there according to the custom of the manor'. 58 This statement contains the key features of the procedure which was to be described in detail by the king and his justices in the next few years for use within the Havering manor court. Customary land cases were to be opened by a royal writ, later known as 'the little writ of right close', directed to the bailiffs of the manor. 59 Judgements were made within the manor court on the basis of the evidence of a sworn jury of tenants who testified about the facts and rights of the case and about the relevant customs of that manor. Between 1220 and the mid-i24os, this set of forms was applied to all the manors which had belonged to the king in 1066, becoming the characteristic method of protection for tenants of the ancient demesne. A series of complaints to the king from parties dissatisfied with the Havering court enabled the royal justices in 1234 and 1235 to conduct inquiries and issue detailed instructions explaining to the tenants how the procedure should be employed.60 The single writ used for customary land cases could in practice open a range of different procedures, variations modelled closely upon the forms of action available to parties in the central courts. 61 The king's justices demonstrated their commitment to the role of local custom in judgements within manors of the ancient demesne. They were prepared to sustain a verdict of the Havering court, even if different from that which they would have made in the central court on the basis of common law, provided the Havering jurors could prove that their decision had been made in accordance with the custom of the manor. 62 Considerable fluidity still existed within and among the various courts of the king. One particular land action began in the Havering manor court but was heard by officials of the royal household, by central court justices and by Henry III in person before being finally returned to Havering for judgement. 63 Once the ancient demesne procedures had been fully regularised, such flexibility disappeared. The Havering court was told that if it did not furnish adequate justice to parties before it, the central court was willing to review the cases and, if necessary, to reverse the decision and punish the local court. Set forms whereby tenants of the 58 59

60

61 63

CRR, vol. 14, no. 458. Early registers of writs (ed. Elsa d e Haas a n d G. D . G. Hall, Selden S o c , v o l . 87, L o n d o n , Q u a r i t c h , 1970), p . 113. BNB, v o l . 2, n o . 834, CCR, 1231-4, p . 589, a n d CRR, v o l . 15, nos. 1068, 1081, 1098 and 1458. 62 CCR, 1231-4, p . 589, a n d see chs. 5 a n d 6 b e l o w . BNB, v o l . 2, n o . 834. CRR, v o l . 15, n o . 1068, p . 239, n o t e 1, nos. 1081 and 1098.

31

Havering, the crown and external control, 1200—1300 ancient demesne could obtain review of the practices and judgements of their local courts were later established. This constituted another of the privileges of the king's tenants, for villeins on non-royal manors had no right of appeal.64 The customary tenants of Havering were allowed to use the central courts to record collusive land cases for another twenty years after their contentious suits had been sent back to the manor court. This argues that the volume of cases coming before the royal courts may have been a factor in the decision to exclude customary land actions: entering and enrolling a collusive suit did not require the personal attention of the justices but could be handled by royal clerks. Eight collusive cases concerning customary land in Havering were recorded in the central courts between 1236 and 1252, with three more appearing on the rolls of the justices in eyre.65 An agreement made in 1249 regarding the sale of a piece of Havering land specifies that the current and prospective tenants will come before the king's court to ratify the conveyance and to obtain a formal copy of the transfer.66 This use of the courts ended sometime after 1253, however. Another collusive plea involving Havering's customary land heard by the central courts in that year was later endorsed by a clerk, * It is made void (dampnatur) by order of the king, because it concerns the king's demesne.'67 From c. 1254 onward, the manor court bore full responsibility for all customary land cases, collusive as well as contentious. Freehold tenements, however, could still be considered by the central courts.68 It is unlikely that the procedure authorised by the royal courts for use in ancient demesne manors was a new and untried form. More probably, the king and his justices were standardising and giving official approval to a traditional method of dealing with land actions, one which had been used in many if not all of the royal manors for some 64

6s

66 67

68

The purchaser of a writ could allege that justice was being withheld locally, that the procedures of the court were unfair or that the court was not carrying out a previous judgement given in his favour. See Early registers of writs, pp. 114—15, Registrum brevium tarn originalium, quamjudicialium (London, Thomas Bassett, 1687; orig. publ. 1531), fols. 9b—13 a, and cf. Paul Vinogradoff, Villainage in England (Oxford, Clarendon Press, 1892), pp. 98—100. FFE, vol. i, pp. 115, 117, 130, 132, 135, 139, 144 and 190, and PRO JUST 1/231, mm. 1, i8d and 27d. There was also one case called up from the county court by a writ of pone in 1238-9 (PRO C 60/36: the author thanks Robert Palmer for this reference). N C O MS 10723. PRO CP 25 (i)/283/i3, no. 295, a reference generously provided by Paul Brand. FFE, vol. 1, p. 194, says the order came from the justices. By the sixteenth century, some freehold tenants were bringing cases before the Havering court by little writ of right (PRO C 142/31/6 and C 3/399/64).

32

Royal profit and privileges of ancient demesne, 1200—65 time. One of the components of the procedure, the use of a jury of customary tenants testifying about local rights and traditions, was already accepted practice on certain of the king's manors. As early as 1202 exclusive authority to hear customary land actions was claimed for a jury convened within the court of an ancient demesne manor: it was stated that land cases involving villeins should be settled 'according to the custom of the manors of the lord king' by a jury of villeins within that manor. 69 Other cases from the early years of the century speak of keeping land actions concerning the king's customary tenants within their own manor courts, that local customs or even * the customs of the king's demesnes' might be protected and enforced.70 Another element in the ancient demesne procedure is the provision of a writ for customary land cases, the only instance in medieval English law in which writs were used for non-freehold land. Here again, the writ was probably not a new creation of the justices but rather a formalisation of a practice already in at least partial use. In the case from Havering which came before the royal court in 1199, it was claimed that the men of the four royal manors within Essex pleaded by the king's writ for their customary tenements; in a case from elsewhere on the ancient demesne, blocked in the king's court in 1224 because the land was held by villein tenure, the plaintiffs were told to * obtain a writ of right according to the custom of the manor'. 71 The latter wording is unusually specific for the 1220s and 1230s, when the ancient demesne writ was normally described only as a writ of right, undifferentiated from the writ of right as employed for free holdings. As late as the 1310s the writ was called 'the writ of right according to the custom of the manor'. 72 The little writ of right close was nothing more than an order from the king to the bailiffs of one of his manors. It instructed them to provide justice between the parties named in the writ, the first of whom has complained that he is aggrieved by the latter, concerning land held of the manor. Judgement was to be given in accordance with the custom of the manor. The early forms of the writ were probably general in wording and must have resembled the writ ofright as used for non-royal freeholds. They certainly did not specify whether the land in question was freehold or customary, for even when the wording of the little 69 70

71 72

CRR, vol. 2, pp. n o - i i , concerning Ewell, Surrey. E.g., CRR, v o l . 8, p . 58, P R O K B 2 6 / 9 9 , m . 6d, as printed in H o y t , Royal demesne, p. 209, and CRR, vol. 3, p. 333, the latter from Cobham, Kent, in 1205. PRO KB 26/85, m. 34d, from Bray, Berks., as printed in Hoyt, Royal demesne, p. 208. Early registers of writs, p. 113. For examples of'the king's writ of right' in the Havering court in 1237, see N C O MSS 10894 and 10976.

33

Havering, the crown and external control, 1200-1300 writ of right close became fixed later in the thirteenth century, it did not indicate that the land had to be held by customary tenure. Although the use of writs for customary holdings on the royal demesne may not have been new, it constituted a significant privilege. As the royal courts in the thirteenth century sharpened their definition of free tenure and hence of free personal status, the fact that the tenants of the ancient demesne pleaded by writ for their lands cast an aura of freedom about them. A man who was allowed to employ a writ for his land cases and therefore had access to one aspect of royal law could not be deemed fully servile or villein, even though the land was acknowledged to be a customary holding. In the descriptions of the various classes of men and tenure which were produced in the thirteenth century by lawyers concerned with exact terminology, the customary tenants of the ancient demesne could not be lumped together with ordinary villeins who held their land from private lords. For the privileged tenants of the ancient demesne, who might resemble ordinary villeins closely in economic but not in legal terms, a special classification had to be established. They were commonly designated as 'villein sokemen'. 73 The ancient demesne procedure was evidently popular with the tenants of Havering during the later 1220s and 1230s. We can suggest some considerations which may have influenced their reactions to the various legal methods which confronted them during the first half of the thirteenth century: (a) they were eager to have protection for judgements made on the basis of manorial custom, that their local traditions concerning landholding and inheritance might be secured; (b) they preferred a quick, inexpensive and convenient local procedure; (c) the local bailiff and other important tenants wanted to play a major role in the determination of suits arising within their own manor; (d) some tenants liked having a provision by which they could appeal to the king's courts against the practices or decisions of the manorial body. The new form addressed all these concerns. The customary tenants of Havering and the other manors of the ancient demesne may well have felt by the 1240s that they were fortunate as compared to their villein counterparts on non-royal manors. The ancient demesne procedure was probably beneficial from the 73

Bracton first speaks of villein socage, calling the sokemen glebae ascriptidi (Bracton on the laws and customs of England (ed. and trans, by S. E. Thorne, 4 vols., Cambridge, Mass., Harvard Univ. Press, 1968^77), vol. 2, pp. 29 and 37-8. Britton, writing later in the century as if speaking for the king, commented that ' our sokemen... are free of blood and hold land of us in villeinage' {Britton: an English translation and notes (ed. F. M. Nichols, Washington, D C , J. Byrne, 1901), p. 344).

34

Royal profit and privileges of ancient demesne, 1200—65 point of view of the king and royal justices too. In simplest terms, it removed a number of unimportant cases from an already overcrowded docket and contributed to a tidier definition of the jurisdiction of the central courts. At the same time it provided a means whereby the king's legal and administrative interest in his manorial tenants could be maintained after their land cases had been excluded from the central courts. The king and his officials retained some degree of supervision through issuing writs for customary land cases and accepting appeals against the procedures or judgements of the manorial courts. In the latter context the ancient demesne procedure may be seen as merely preserving the king's continuing seigneurial rights. The development of ancient demesne legal forms was of mutual advantage to the tenants of Havering and to the crown. Personal freedom and economic gain for the tenants, 1243-65

Because the crown's experiments during the later 1230s had not proved successful in improving royal control over Havering or raising revenue, Henry moved in 1243 to a different form of supervision — inspection by the justices of the forest.74 This may have reflected the crown's realisation that even the strictest management was unlikely to achieve much expansion of current income from the manor. The best and perhaps the only way to increase profits substantially was to capitalise upon the tenants' use of the woodlands, especially assarting. At a national level, desire for immediate profit motivated the investigation into encroachments upon the royal forests ordered in 1243—4. 75 In Havering, however, the crown's actions were more complex. Forest justices and Exchequer officials between c. 1243 and 1251 did indeed try to learn about, define and enforce all royal rights, provoking active resistance by the tenants. Yet between 1247 and 1251 the crown also confirmed the personal freedom of Havering's residents and granted further economic privileges. Certain royal officials seem to have concluded by the later 1240s that harsh treatment of the tenants of the crown's estate would in the long run serve to discourage assarting. 74

75

F r o m 1243 until 1323—4 Havering was considered to lie within the bounds of the forest of Essex and hence was subject to the jurisdiction o f the justices. See P R O E 3 2 / 1 2 - 1 4 and 16, passim, E 1 4 6 / 1 / 2 0 , m m . 1 and 11, CCR, 1288—96, p . 307, and Documents illustrative of English history in the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries (Record C o m m . , London, Eyre and Spottiswode, 1844), pp. 37—8. Robert Passelewe suggested the inquisitions as a means of raising money; his severity as a justice of the forest was said to have brought ruin upon people of all ranks while enriching the treasury with fines of several thousand marks. (DNB article on Passelewe, based upon Matthew Paris' account, and Young, Royal forests, pp. 76-7.)

35

Havering, the crown and external control, 1200—1500 The justices of the forest dealt with a variety of offences in Havering between 1243 and 1250. They arrested and imprisoned men for forest crimes and initiated punishment of those guilty of misdeeds in the royal park.76 More ominously, they prepared sometime between 1243 and 1246 a list of illegal clearing and enclosing within the manor's outwoods, assarts stretching back to the beginning of the century.77 In 1246 Robert Passelewe arrented many of these purprestures and some additional new units, assigning rents of a higher per-acre value than those paid for established holdings.78 Four years later he gave formal definition to the serjeanties. Of particular concern to the tenants was the extent of Havering prepared by William le Breton in 1246.79 This survey, the first in at least half a century, resulted in a large increase in the value of the manor. The total income on the 1246 extent of ^119—6—8 from all sources (apart from the ^ 2 5 originally due from Hornchurch Priory's lands) was a jump of 40% from the ^85 at which the manor had accounted since 1199. Perhaps at the suggestion of the forest justices, the Exchequer too clamped down on Havering in 1246. It carried out a detailed inquiry concerning all the issues which the local bailiffs had received in the past six years while the tenants held their own farm. 80 Its officials then took steps to force Richard of the Elms of Havering, bailiff from 1240 to 1243 and later to be a serjeant in the central courts, to pay ^24—18—6 which they claimed he still owed from his term. 81 William of Uphavering, bailiff from 1243 to 1246 and a man of considerable stature within the manor, was arrested in 1246 and placed in the prison of the marshal of the Exchequer for his failure to pay ^ 4 8 said to be outstanding from his first two years in office.82 As part of this new approach, the farm of Havering was once again removed from the hands of the tenants in 1246 and assigned to a royal official.83 The 76 77 78

79 80 81

82

CCR, 1247-51, p- 416, P R O E 368/20, m . 9d, a n d Homch. Pr. kal, n o . 7 1 . B L Addit. Roll 28421. P R O E 3 52/45, m . 20, and the 1251 extent. For a lease m a d e by Passelewe and le Breton, see Cal. inq. misc., vol. 1, p . 33. T h e serjeanties are in The book of fees, vol. 1, p . 345; see also F. M . Powicke, King Henry III and the lord Edward (2 vols., Oxford, Clarendon Press, 1947), vol. 1, p p . 103-4. T h e extent itself does n o t survive, b u t see P R O E 352/45, m . 20. P R O E 368/18, m . 4d. Ibid., m m . 4d and 5. T h e author thanks Paul Brand for information o n the career o f Richard de Ulmis o f Havering, said t o be a narrator in 1258 (CPR, 1247—58, p . 617). H e was sometimes called merely Richard o f Havering b u t is n o t the same m a n w h o prosecuted the quo warranto actions in 1234. PRO E 368/18, m. 4d, and CCR, 1242-7, p. 399. In these years Walter de Burgo and the Exchequer also tried to collect the remaining arrears due from John of the Wood's period as bailiff in the 1230s (PRO KB 26/32, no. 1181, E 368/18. 4d (bis) and 83 PRO E 352/45, m. 20 (John Walensis). E 372/96, m. I5d).

36

Royal profit and privileges of ancient demesne, 1200—65 peaceful (and profitable) isolation of Havering was clearly a thing of the past. The resentment generated within Havering by the actions of the forest justices and the Exchequer reached a boiling point in 1250—1. The issue which finally drew forth active resistance posed a threat to the tenants' personal status as freemen as well as being yet another financial obligation. Havering people were accustomed to making payments to the crown for heriots and relief. When the 1246 extent was prepared, however, these dues were apparently joined by two new ones: requirements that the tenants pay the king for permission to marry their children and to have the custody of minor heirs. Whereas heriots and relief were collected of tenants of all social ranks in England and carried no stigma, merchet payments had the connotation of villein status.84 Havering's tenants objected to the imposition of the new dues, claiming, with evident justification, that such payments had not been required before. The royal keeper of the manor nevertheless continued to demand sums for merchet and wardship between 1246 and 1251. 8 5

In 1250 or the early months of 1251 the tenants took the drastic step of lodging a formal complaint before Henry III himself against the levying of all personal dues.86 This action suggests a considerable degree of local organisation, self-assurance and familiarity with the law. We do not know who the instigators were, but they may well have been drawn from among those thirty men who held 60 acres or more in 1251, people who had been hard hit by royal interference and who had the resources to take part in such a protest. It is possible that Richard 84

85 86

The crown's attempt to impose merchet and wardship payments upon Havering apparently de novo does not fit neatly into the debate over whether merchet was a form of seigneurial control over property or over marriage. In Havering the effort to introduce merchet seems to have arisen simply from a desire for additional revenue, not from any plan to impose villeinage upon the tenants. See Jean Scammell, 'Freedom and marriage in medieval England', Econ. Hist. Rev., 2nd ser., XXVII (1974), 523—37, Eleanor Searle,' Seigneurial control of women's marriage: the antecedents and function of merchet in England', Past and Present, LXXXII (1979), 3—43, the resulting debate carried on between Paul A. Brand, P. R. Hyams, R. J. Faith, and Searle in Past and Present, XCIX (1983), 123—60, and R. M. Smith, 'Some thoughts on "hereditary" and "proprietary" rights in land under customary law in thirteenth and early fourteenth century England', Law and History Rev., I (1983), 95—128. PRO E 352/45, m. 20, E 372/96, m. I5d, SC 6/844/10, and CPR, 1247-58, pp. 106-7. T h i s case is described o n l y briefly i n CPR, 1247—58, p . 105. T h e a u t h o r has f o u n d n o reference to Havering payments for marriages or wardship in any published or unpublished records prior to 1246 nor in those after 1252, apart from two puzzling references from 1232 and 1235 (CCR, 1231—4, pp. 29 and 34—5, and Excerpta e rotulis finium in Turri Londinensi asservati, Henry III (2 vols., Record Comm., London, 1835—6), vol. 1, pp. 292-3).

37

Havering, the crown and external control, 1200—1500 of the Elms contributed legal expertise to the tenants' case.87 Henry III responded by suggesting that the matter be heard 'in the king's court', to which the tenants consented. When judgement was given, however, it went against their claim.88 The crown moved quickly to secure this judicial victory. Laurence de Brok, a royal lawyer who specialised in seeking out hidden or lost crown rights, was sent to Havering early in August 1251 with orders to conduct a full inquiry ' touching marriages, wards, reliefs and other the king's rights concealed and alienated in the manor since the coronation of King John; who had them; by whom they were concealed and withdrawn; what they were worth in all issues'.89 De Brok was instructed to amerce ' the commonalty of the said manor' who had claimed these rights for themselves and had brought their grievance before the king. The letter to the men of Havering concerning de Brok's assignment noted that he was under instruction to conduct his investigation ' by oath of good men of that manor, as they are not willing to be convicted by foreigners [outsiders] '. 90 This objection to the use of outside witnesses concerning manorial custom parallels the emphasis on local juries within the recently formalised land procedure for the ancient demesne. By the end of August de Brok had finished his inquiry and assessed a stiff penalty of ^42—12—o against the men of Havering for concealment of rights owed to the crown.91 Henry ordered that the money be used for work on his buildings at Havering-atte-Bower.92 Although Havering's tenants had joined 87

88

89

90 91

Richard apparently lost royal favour and his Havering land within the next few years ( P R O C P 25 ( i ) / 2 8 3 / i 3 , n o . 295, versus CPR, 1247-58, p . 617). CPR, 1247-58, p . 105. T h e author was unable t o find mention o f this case o n the curia regis rolls o r the Exchequer rolls of the period. She is grateful t o Paul Brand and David C r o o k for their assistance. T h e procedure used in the case is characteristic of the m e t h o d w h e r e b y complaints were b r o u g h t before t h e king concerning misdeeds o f a royal official during the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries. T h e plaintiff applied t o the king by petition, after which the matter was sent t o the c o m m o n l a w courts or t o the Exchequer for examination (VinogradofF, Villainage, p p . 102—4). T h e report o f the Havering case also resembles closely the procedure later t o be used w h e n tenants o f those ancient demesne manors n o longer in the king's hands wished t o plead in the king's court against increased services o r changes in custom, using the special writ monstraverunt. (See VinogradofF, Villainage, p p . 101—5, and Robert C . Palmer, The county courts of medieval England (Princeton, N e w Jersey, Princeton U n i v . Press, 1982), pp. 2 8 2 - 3 ; for early instances o f an equivalent procedure, cf. Turner, King and his courts, p . 246, and H o y t , Royal demesne, p . 200.) CPR, 1247-58, p. 105, and see CCR, 1247-51, p. 488, and Select cases in the Court of Kings Bench, vol. 5 (ed. G. O. Sayles, Selden Soc, vol. 76, London, Quaritch, 1958), pp. xxxii-xxxiv. CPR, 1247-58, p . 105. £18-5-4 levied from the tenants 'for concealment' was included in the royal bailiffs 92 CLR, 1245-51, p. 372. account later in 1251 (PRO E 352/45, m. 20).

38

Royal profit and privileges of ancient demesne, 1200—63 together effectively to lodge their complaint against the king, their mission had failed, leaving them with the dismal task of deciding how their punishment should be distributed.93 Oddly enough, their position had either just been vindicated or was about to be by two royal officials sent to Havering to prepare a new extent. In the summer of 1250 Elerius, soon to become abbot of Pershore, and Richard le Rus (son of a minor royal official who had been granted land in Havering) were ordered to make a set of extents of the royal boroughs and manors.94 Although their appearance in Havering sometime between late March and October 1251 may have been greeted with dismay by the tenants, the extent which they produced was to be an essential guarantee of personal freedom and tenurial rights for local people. The 1251 extent gives a revised definition of manorial practices with respect to the very issues contained in the tenants' complaint to the king.95 In contradiction to the extent made in 1246, the 1251 survey says specifically that nearly all tenants of the manor * can marry their sons and daughters without licence of the king or of his bailiffs'. Only the eight tenants of Havering's cotlands had to obtain permission for marriage. The seven cotlands ranged in size from 20 to 60 acres, so the cotters held as much land as many other tenants, but they were marked by an inferior personal status. Not only did they have to ask licence before marrying their children, they were obliged to guard any prisoners by day in their own houses. (The other tenants were required only to watch prisoners at night.) The cotters may possibly have been descendants of the servi of Domesday Book, while the villeins and bordars of 1086 seem to have blended into a single class of customary tenants. The 1251 extent deals also with wardship, stating that although the king has the right to claim the wardship of the heirs and lands of any direct tenant of Havering, if he exercises this right he may take no heriot or relief when the heir enters the land. Wardship was never again claimed, the crown preferring to collect the more easily administered heriot and entry fine. The extent measures the total issues of the manor at .£112-10-1 if, a drop of nearly £ 7 since 1246; this 93

94

95

O n e w o n d e r s w h e t h e r Havering's tenants considered offering bribes t o the justices: b o t h de B u r g o and de B r o k w e r e receiving regular gifts from some of the monasteries during these years. (J. P . Maddicott, ' L a w a n d lordship: royal justices as retainers in thirteenth- a n d fourteenth-century E n g l a n d ' , Past and Present supplement n o . 4 (Cambridge, 1978), 4-7.) CPR, 1247-58, p p . 7 1 , 81 and 95. For the dating of the H a v e r i n g extent, see Mclntosh, 'Privileged villeins', 300, note 19. PRO SC 11/189, Havering. Ch. 3 below utilises the extent's information on landholding.

39

Havering, the crown and external control, 1200—1300 decline may well have resulted from the disappearance of personal dues. Henceforth no Havering document mentions any qualification of the free status of the tenants. The 1251 extent specifies the amount of rent due from each piece of land and lays down in great detail what labour services were owed by the tenants of each holding and what the commuted value of each piece of work was. The rents and services/payments recorded in 1251 were hereafter regarded as immutable. Existing rents could not be increased nor new obligations added. Moreover, the annual rent listed on the extent was used from this time onward as the set entry fine to be rendered to the crown at the time of a land transfer. One year's rent was a low entry fine under any circumstances, and its fixed definition barred the crown from the common seigneurial technique of charging a variable and often high fee for admission to a holding whose normal rent could not be raised. The tenants in 1251 must have been relieved that their rents and dues had been officially recorded and thus were less subject to arbitrary change. Their successors over the coming centuries had increasing reason to be grateful for the set nature of all local obligations as the real value of Havering land increased. Further, the tenants had apparently established their claim to local juries: the officials who prepared the 1251 extent and those who held inquiries in the following decades were careful to use juries of Havering men alone as the source of their information.96 These years brought another economic gain for the tenants. In 1247 Henry authorised a market to be held at Romford each Wednesday; this was followed in 1250 by permission to hold an annual fair during the week of Pentecost.97 There must already have been trade between Havering and London, but the royal grant gave sanction to a regular market with the associated 'liberties and customs'. Romford market stimulated and expanded the commercial aspect of Havering's later medieval economy. Its importance may have been enhanced by the fact that Romford served as an administrative and legal centre. 98 One of 96

97

98

The jurors also spanned a wide economic range. O f the twenty-nine men assembled to testify for the 1251 extent, nine (31 %) held less than 10 acres, six (21 % ) held 10-29 acres, six (21%) held 30-59 acres and eight (27%) held 60 acres or more. A total of 108 men were summoned for nine other juries between 1251 and 1269, to report on particular holdings within the manor. O f these jurors, a third held under 30 acres in 1251, a third held 30-59 acres and a third held 60 acres or more (PRO C 132/23/12, C 132/44/16, C 143/3/16 (bis), C 1 4 5 / 5 / 1 . C H 5 / 7 / 6 , C 145/21/16, and C 145/24/1 and 21). CCR, 1242—7, p . 536, a n d CCR, 1247—51, p . 256. T h e r e is n o indication that a fair w a s

held within Havering during the medieval and earlier Tudor periods. R. H . Britnell, ' E n g l i s h m a r k e t s a n d royal administration before 1200', Econ. Rev., 2 n d ser., X X X I (1978), 183-96.

40

Hist.

Royal profit and privileges of ancient demesne, 1200-63 the most significant market 'liberties' for the tenants, not mentioned in the original grant but visible by 1274-5, w a s freedom from payment of toll." Exemption from toll, later to be viewed as an ancient demesne right, would apply to Havering people not just in Romford but in all markets throughout the realm. This privilege was carefully defended by the tenants, for it effectively prohibited the crown from partaking of the rising commercial wealth of the manor. There is no record of the collection of any tolls at all from the market in Romford until 1619.100 Havering's complement of ancient demesne rights was now full. The manor was not quite rid of seigneurial interference, however. From 1251 to 1253 the crown tried one last version of immediate control over Havering, stationing a full-time official in the manor to collect the issues and oversee the king's own property. Late in 1251 Henry notified the tenants that Elerius, now a royal escheator, was coming to Havering to look into a few remaining questions' concerning the king's profit of the manor'; he would then name a deputy as bailiff or keeper of the manor. 101 The man appointed by Elerius to supervise Havering was Thomas le Rus, brother to Elerius' partner in the 1251 extent. Thomas and the two bailiffs who followed him in 1253 seem to have lived within Havering, holding no other royal offices. They carried out a series of orders on behalf of Elerius or the king, some concerning the manor of Havering with its rents and profits, others involving the king's buildings and park. 102 Because Thomas' father had been associated with Havering since the 1230s, Elerius may have hoped that le Rus would be accepted by the tenants as a local man. Such was not the case. A resident royal official was a thorn in the flesh of the tenants even if he had had earlier contacts with the manor. Local people 99

100

101 102

T h e hundred rolls note that the constable o f the castle in (Chipping) O n g a r refused to stop taking tolls from ' the king's tenants o f Havering' despite royal instructions (Rotuli hundredorum (ed. W . Illingworth a n d j . Caley, 2 vols., Record C o m m . , London, Eyre and Strahan, 1812—18), vol. 1, p . 152). Exemption from toll was of sufficient value to the tenants that they obtained royal letters restating their privilege in 1368, 1383, twice in 1384 and again in 1399, some of which identify this exemption as an ancient demesne right (CPR, 1367-70, p. 119, CCR, 1381-5, pp. 314, 354 and 455, and CCR, 1399-1402, p . 9). It is possible that three writs of exemplification of Domesday Book's account of Havering ordered between 1399 and 1441 were requested by the tenants in connection with their resistance to toll ( P R O C 260/112, n o . 1, C 260/132, n o . 24, and C 260/145, n o . 20). T h e author is grateful to Elizabeth Hallam Smith for these references. For the introduction of Romford market tolls by James I, see Marjorie K. Mclntosh, The Liberty ofHaveringatte-Bower, 1500-1620 (forthcoming), ch. 5. CPR, 1247-58, p. 113. E.g., CCR, 1251-3, pp. 76, 342 and 354, and CLR, 1251-60, p. 83.

41

Havering, the crown and external control, 1200—1300 engaged in quiet obstruction of the bailiffs' work. In 1251, for instance, when le Rus was instructed to assume management of the king's stock of animals in Havering, 'the men of Havering' dragged their feet over delivering ^7—11—4J to him which they had previously received from the Exchequer for purchasing new animals.103 Le Rus was murdered in Stepney the following year while still serving as bailiff, but the cause and perpetrators of the crime are unrecorded.104 Between 1254 and 1265 the crown and the tenants of Havering moved toward a compromise. The king gave up his attempts at close supervision and full economic exploitation. The resident bailiff was withdrawn. The tenants enjoyed a final period of farming their own manor collectively from 1258 to 1264, but in subsequent years they were unable to regain the fee-farm.105 With the granting of the manor to Queen Eleanor in 1262, the needs of patronage once again became paramount. Since the queens had relatively few offices of which to dispose, they chose normally to utilise Havering's farm as well as its honorific positions to support and reward their servants and friends. By 1265, the crown had settled upon the method of overseeing and profiting from Havering which it was to use for the rest of the medieval period. The tenants of the manor had acquired a substantial body of protection and privilege.106 Havering's experience suggests that Angevin reforms in the administration of the royal estate may have been far less effective than is generally assumed. They were limited by the demand for patronage, an inadequate bureaucracy and tacit and sometimes overt local resistance. THE PRIVILEGES OF THE ANCIENT DEMESNE

In evaluating the rights of the tenants of Havering during the later medieval years, we find that the emphasis commonly given by historians to the distinctive legal practices of the ancient demesne is partially misplaced.107 Havering valued legal privileges primarily for their consequences in two vital areas — economic benefits for individuals 103 105

106

107

I04 CCR, 1251-3, p . 29. CPR, 1247-58, p . 161. PRO E 372/104, m. 2d, E 372/105, m. 2od, and E 372/108, m. I5-I5d; VCH Essex, vol. 7, p. 11. The desirability of Havering's tenure is suggested by the purchase of estates in the manor in the 1260s and 1270s by Thomas Weyland and Roger Loveday, central court justices (identifications kindly provided by Paul Brand). The exceptions are Vinogradoff, who in the first discussion of the ancient demesne noted the existence of economic as well as legal privileges (Villainage, esp. p. 92), and R. H. Hilton, who has emphasised the importance of fixed and low rents and services (A medieval society: the West Midlands at the end of the thirteenth century (London, Weidenfeld and Nicolson, 1966), p. 142).

42

Royal profit and privileges of ancient demesne, 1200—63 and augmented power for the local community as expressed through the manor court. We may look briefly here at the effects which the various rights of the ancient demesne were to have upon Havering after 1265.

Free status and tenure had many merits. Personal freedom applied to everyone living in the manor. A villein who spent a year and a day on the ancient demesne was henceforth considered a freeman, though there are no explicit references to this process in the Havering records. Free status was mainly an economic advantage, for the tenant's independence of movement and marriage was not touched by the hand of the lord. Closely related was the functionally free form of tenure found within Havering, permitting use and transfer of land in whatever fashion its tenant chose and contributing to the existence of an active land market. Ancient demesne land could be inherited or devised by will, in contrast to the limitations normally imposed by the common law. Among the attractions of the little writ of right close was its provision of unusual security of title through formal court approval and a safe record of land conveyances. It also protected transfers based upon local custom. In economic terms, the chief benefit of ancient demesne status in Havering's agricultural world was the freezing of rents, services and entry fines at their 1251 level. Freedom from toll must have been of comparable value for those people seriously involved in trade. All of Havering's inhabitants enjoyed these rights: there are no references to purchase of * the liberty of the manor or borough* as occurred in other places within the ancient demesne. 108 In the matter of taxation, the tenants of the ancient demesne were not meant to receive any privileges at all. To the contrary, they could be tallaged by the king at will through the thirteenth century, and when this form of levy was replaced by lay subsidies, ancient demesne manors were to be assessed at a higher level than ordinary rural regions. Even though Havering managed to slip out of its larger subsidy payments, the crown clearly intended to use both tallage and the subsidies as a form of access to the wealth of its own estates. It should also be noted that ancient demesne status did not carry with it an economic right coveted by Havering's late medieval tenants — exemption from royal purveyance, the practice whereby royal household officials could requisition goods from producers and sellers. 108

Cf. J. A. Raftis, A small town in late medieval England: Godmanchester (Toronto,

Pontifical Institute of Mediaeval Studies, 1982), p. 85, and R. H. Hilton, 'Lords, burgesses and hucksters', Past and Present, XCVII (1982), 3-15. 43

Havering, the crown and external control, 1200—1300 The little writ of right close and the opportunity for review of local judgements by a central court were apparently not prized by Havering's tenants. The requirement that the writ be used to initiate all land actions meant a trip to London and the expense of buying the document. Many local people preferred to bypass the writ by prosecuting disputes over land as personal actions. Appeal to a higher court was seldom used between 1265 and the 1480s.109 A far more important legal consequence of ancient demesne status was the extensive jurisdictional scope and authority of the Havering manor court. The court was empowered to hear all actions involving land and the full range of personal suits. It was not subject to the limitation imposed on most lower courts of a maximum value of less than 40s. in debt and other personal cases.110 The emphasis within the ancient demesne procedure on local juries and manorial custom led to an unusually powerful role within the court for the tenants and an equivalently passive position for the royal steward. The possibility of review of the procedures and decisions of the court, though rarely employed, fostered professional attitudes and well-recorded proceedings within the court. The court was also permitted to deal with public matters at its view of frankpledge; by the later thirteenth century it was functioning as a hundred, preparing indictments of felony.111 Havering's exemption from the control of most external legal institutions and officials was the result of the wide span of its own court's jurisdiction. The tenants did not attend the court of a hundred or the county because their manor court performed equivalent functions. Similarly, the sheriff of Essex was prohibited from coming within the bounds of Havering on legal business because the manorial bailiff was another of the king's servants and could act with a degree of local authority comparable to that of the sheriff. When a legal writ which concerned Havering people was addressed to the sheriff, he delivered the order to the Havering bailiff, who then carried out the writ's instructions. It was because of Havering's hundredal quality and the exclusion of the sheriff that the manor was frequently described as a 109 110

111

See ch. 2 below. John S. Beckerman, ' T h e forty-shilling jurisdictional limit in medieval English personal actions', in Legal history studies 1972 (ed. Dafydd Jenkins, Cardiff, Univ. o f Wales Press, 1975), pp. 110-17, and Palmer, County courts, ch. 8. It is not clear exactly when Havering acquired its hundredal status or on what grounds. The manor was listed as part o f Becontree hundred in Domesday Book, and Becontree was later often called a half-hundred. Helen Cam has pointed out that hundredal manors were often part of the ancient demesne (Liberties and communities in medieval England

(Cambridge, Cambridge Univ. Press, 1944), pp. 64-90).

44

Royal profit and privileges of ancient demesne, 1200—6s

* liberty' after 1265. II2 Bailiffs from other areas were obliged to act through the Havering bailiff too, rather than entering the manor themselves; failure to respect the autonomy o f the liberty of Havering' resulted in a penalty levied by the manor court. 113 Since the Havering court now heard all local actions, the tenants were not summoned outside the manor except occasionally for criminal juries. The lands and tenants of the ancient demesne have received generous attention from historians.114 The records of ancient demesne courts are unusually detailed and full. Their quasi-free villein tenants are inherently attractive, particularly to those concerned with the relation between lords and peasants. Yet because of the abnormal features of the ancient demesne we must be extremely cautious in moving from studies of demographic, economic, seigneurial or legal topics within these communities to more general comments about the English peasantry. In few parts of the ancient demesne were the characteristic privileges as fully developed or as widely extended among the tenants as in Havering.115 Nevertheless, any ancient demesne manor is likely to 112

For the evolution of the term 'liberty', sometimes equated with 'franchise', see Cam, Liberties and communities, her 'The evolution of the mediaeval English franchise', Speculum, XXXII (1957), 427-42, M. T. Clanchy, 'The franchise of return of writs', Trans. Royal Hist. Soc, 5th ser., XVII (1967), 59-82, and the Oxford English dictionary.

As early as 1269, an inspeximus of a Havering private charter spoke of land within 'the liberty of Haveringes' (CChR, 1257-1300, p. 119). Between 1290 and 1332 there are several additional references to the bailiff of the liberty of Havering or to the bailiff of Queen Philippa's liberty of Havering (e.g., Homch. Pr. kal., nos. 189 and 302, and Cal. inq. misc., vol. 2, p. 314). The sheriff of Essex shared in the usage in 1389, delivering a writ to 'the bailiff of the liberty of Haveryng-atte-Bower' (ERO D/DU 102/4, m. 3d). ! " E.g., ERO D/DU 102/47, m. 8. 114 Among the manors studied are King's Ripton (by F. W. Maitland, ed., Select pleas in manorial and other seignorial courts (Selden Soc, vol. 2, London, Quaritch, 1889), and Anne DeWindt, 'A peasant land market and its participants: King's Ripton, 1280-1400', Midland History, IV (1978), 142-59, and 'Peasant power structures in fourteenth-century King's Ripton', Mediaeval Studies, XXXVIII (1976), 236-67); Halesowen (by G. C. Homans, English villagers of the thirteenth century (Cambridge,

Mass., Harvard Univ. Press, 1942), Hilton, Medieval society, and Zvi Razi, Life, marriage and death in a medieval parish (Cambridge, Cambridge Univ. Press, 1980)); Stoneleigh (by R. H. Hilton, ed., The Stoneleigh leger book (Dugdale Soc, vol. 24, Oxford, Oxford Univ. Press, i960)); Bromsgrove and King's Norton (by A. F. C. Baber/Bourdillon, ed., The court rolls of the manor of Bromsgrove and King's Norton, 1494-1504 (Worcesters.

115

Hist. Soc, Kineton, Roundwood Press, 1963)); Godmanchester (by Raftis, Small town); and Writtle (by K. C. Newton, The manor of Writtle (Chichester, Phillimore, 1970), and Elaine Clark, 'Debt litigation in a late medieval English vill', in Pathways to medieval peasants (ed. J. A. Raftis, Toronto, Pontifical Institute of Mediaeval Studies, 1981), pp. 247-79). In Stoneleigh, for example, the full list of ancient demesne rights applied only to the thirty-seven 'sokemen' families; nearly 200 other families were far less privileged {Stoneleigh leger book, pp. xlii—iv).

45

Havering, the crown and external control, 1200—1300 display atypical patterns of mobility, landholding and inheritance. Moreover, the exceptional rights of the tenants and the power of their courts often elevated the level of political cooperation, especially action against their lord. While the Havering material has enabled us to paint a detailed picture of the rise of ancient demesne rights in one manor, it does not provide an explanation of origins. We badly need a full study of the chronology of and reasons for the development of the privileged royal estate.116 Many modern historians have followed the general theory first proposed by Bracton, who explained the privileged villeins of the royal demesne as the descendants of freemen of pre-Conquest times; ejected from their free holdings in 1066, they later returned to their lands as tenants in villeinage.117 VinogradofF, for example, writing in 1892, concluded that ancient demesne tenure after the Conquest was a remnant of conditions before 1066. Il8 After linking the privileged royal villeins to the Saxon tradition of independent right, he explored the question of why the destructive effects of Norman victory were arrested on the ancient demesne. This approach to the ancient demesne achieved its widest distribution in Pollock and Maitland's discussion and was then accepted for a half-century. Maitland described the tenants, holdings and rights of the ancient demesne in terms similar to VinogradofTs, he agreed that the Conquest was the date for determining which manors fell within this category, and he asked why the king here acted as a conservative.119 In the past few decades, however, the traditional view has been challenged on several fronts. R. S. Hoyt reported in 1950 upon his study of the place of the royal demesne in constitutional history. He found that the concept of an ancient royal demesne, as contrasted to the current royal estate, emerged only in the late 1240s and 1250s.120 Similarly, although the earliest plea rolls reveal unusual privileges among the villeins living on royal manors at the end of the twelfth century, there is no reference to a special class of villein sokemen on the king's demesne manors until Bracton. Villein sokemen appear on the plea rolls only in the middle of the thirteenth century. The specific test for ancient demesne status, pre-Conquest royal possession as 116

117 118 119

Such a study will need to incorporate the contributions of Milsom, Legal framework of English feudalism, Hyams, King, lords and peasants, and Palmer, County courts. Bracton on the laws and customs of England, vol. 2, pp. 37—8. Vinogradoff, Villainage, ch. 3. Frederick Pollock and F. W. Maitland, The history of English law before the time of Edward I (2nd edn, 2 vols., London, Cambridge Univ. Press, 1968 (orig. publ. 1899)), vol. I20 1, pp. 383-406. Hoyt, Royal demesne, pp. 171-207.

46

Royal profit and privileges of ancient demesne, 1200—63 recorded in Domesday Book, likewise emerged c. 1250, becoming the normal way to establish a claim as ancient demesne in the reign of Edward I. (It is interesting that Havering seems always to have been accepted as part of the ancient demesne, since Domesday Book states that the manor was held by Harold rather than by Edward the Confessor.) In place of the older * survival' theory, Hoyt proposed that the privileges of the crown's villeins began to develop only during the second half of the twelfth century as Henry II tried to convert the royal estate into a source of cash revenue. One of the rights which the crown realised it could exploit was the legal protection of its peasantry. Through the procedure authorised for manors of the ancient demesne, the crown gained the profits ofjustice in cases involving villein lands. Further, it could exact a higher rate of callage from peasants whose tenure and services were secure. Revision of the VinogradofF/Maitland theory was continued in 1971 with B. P. Wolffe's administrative analysis of the crown's lands. WolfFe questions the existence even of the concept of a * royal demesne' before the end of Henry II's reign.121 He sees callage as central, for it promoted a definition of that group of lands which currently were or had previously been in royal hands. The development of economic privileges for tenants of the ancient demesne in the later thirteenth and fourteenth centuries led peasants on many manors which had been held even briefly by the crown to claim that they shared in this protected status.122 Such claims were seldom approved by the central courts, especially when made by tenants attempting to resist increased demands by their lords.123 On the basis of Havering's history we can offer some tentative suggestions about the timing and causes of the growth of ancient demesne privileges. In Havering individual pieces of the full range of eventual benefits appeared gradually and probably for a variety of reasons. It is therefore possible that elements of both the Vinogradoff/ Maitland and the Hoyt/Wolffe views are correct. Havering's tenants may well have enjoyed aspects of free personal status and free tenure before the Angevin monarchs came to the throne, perhaps as far back 121 122

WolfFe, Royal demesne, p p . 1 7 - 2 4 . Elizabeth M . H a l l a m , Domesday Book through nine centuries ( f o r t h c o m i n g , L o n d o n ,

Thames and Hudson, 1986), ch. 4 (this author is grateful to have seen the chapter in draft form); Zvi Razi, ' The struggles between the abbots of Halesowen and their tenants in the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries', in Social relations and ideas (ed. T. H. Aston et al., Cambridge, Cambridge Univ. Press, 1983), pp. 151-67. 123

M. A. Barg, 'The villeins of the "ancient demesne'", in Studi in memoria di Federigo Melis, vol. 1 (Naples, Giannini, 1978), pp. 213—37.

47

Havering, the crown and external control, 1200—1300 as 1066. The forms of status and tenure are not easily changed. The free qualities visible in Havering c. 1200 may have been part of a long tradition: they were said by contemporaries to be among the customs of the royal manors, and there is no indication of an alteration in practices. Direct access to the king's court and use of a writ may have been relatively recent innovations at the time they come into view in 1199, although we cannot rule out the possibility that the king had traditionally provided some kind of judicial forum in his own court for his lesser tenants. Certainly the authorisation of the ancient demesne procedure in the Havering court and the expansion of the tenants' economic security occurred only between 1230 and 1251. The reasons which moved the Angevin kings to provide special rights for the tenants of the ancient demesne remain obscure, in part because we are not yet sure whether the crown was defining existing privileges or granting new ones. We must assume that each of the kings, giving additional forms of protection or profit in a piecemeal fashion over the course of a century, was acting in what he perceived to be the crown's or his best interests. As we have seen, there is a possible explanation of the crown's decision to provide immediate justice to its own tenants and then to establish or formalise the local procedure. It is more difficult to make sense of the later thirteenth-century definition of the ancient demesne as including all land held by the crown in 1066, much of it no longer in royal possession. Why would the kings have conferred rights upon tenants whose prosperity would then enrich another lord? This question may be answered either by postulating a pre-existing group of privileged tenants who already shared the beneficial customs of the king's manors or by emphasising the role of tallage, collected on lands which had been alienated as well as on the current royal estate. Most puzzling of all is the crown's approval of those economic rights of such importance to the tenants. It is not clear that Henry III and his officials intended in 1251 that Havering's manorial dues should henceforth be deemed unchangeable and that the residents should be free from toll. The development of these privileges prohibited the crown from exploiting subsequent growth in local wealth while simultaneously enhancing the wellbeing of the tenants. It is unlikely that Henry III was emulating Louis IX's emancipation of rural bondsmen on the Capetian royal estate between 1246 and 1263.124 Louis' actions were prompted by the immediate cash payment demanded of the serfs for their freedom, whereas there is no indication 124

Marc Bloch, Rois et serfs (Paris, Edouard Champion, 1920), pp. 60-70.

48

Royal profit and privileges of ancient demesne, 1200—63 that Havering's tenants were charged for their rights. Royal policy in Havering was more probably influenced by long-term considerations. Willingness to accept a stagnant income from existing rents, services and tolls may well have derived from recognition that the most effective way to achieve enlarged profit from the crown's estate on an ongoing basis was to encourage assarting. Since many of the royal manors were still wooded in the mid-thirteenth century, a deliberate effort to attract new colonising tenants may have lain behind the crown's decisions.125 Surely, however, the Angevin kings can have had no idea of the disastrous impact which their protection of Havering's tenants was to have upon royal income from the manor over the coming centuries. Only through continued arrenting of new land could the crown raise its revenue. Yet over the course of the century after 1250 assarting in Havering slowed and then ceased. By the middle of the fourteenth century the crown could hope for no more than to collect in full its fixed dues. The tenants, on the other hand, viewed any attempt at vigorous enforcement of royal rights as a violation of their customs. As Havering's population and economy continued to expand after 1265 and as the tenants gained confidence in running their own community through the manor court, their readiness to resist interference not only by the crown but also by external legal/administrative bodies became even more pronounced. 125

R. H. Hilton has noted the similarity between ancient demesne rights in Warwickshire and the tenure of freeholders on those neighbouring manors which were engaged in active assarting; he has also emphasised the use of free status to promote clearing by peasants (Stoneleigh leger book, pp. xxvii—iii, and Bond men made free: medieval peasant movements and the English rising 0/1381 (London, Temple Smith, 1973), p. 74).

49

Chapter 2

EXTERNAL DEMANDS AND HAVERING'S RESISTANCE, 1265-1500

With the establishment of routine forms of royal supervision over Havering, the tenants settled down into a comfortable pattern which normally involved very little outside control. The crown's decision to grant Havering at farm rather than trying to extract full profit from the tenants freed local people from the presence of resident royal officials and from the dangers of active, immediate economic exploitation. Financial loss to the crown through administrative 'slippage' continued unabated. Even the reforms in accounting introduced by the Yorkist kings brought little change. When in a few cases the queens to whom Havering was assigned tried to tighten their supervision of the manor or to collect their dues aggressively, the tenants protested. Havering was also subject to the operation of certain extra-manorial courts and some forms of central government administration. In practice, however, external authority was usually confined to a narrow range of activity. A series of economic and administrative demands during the generation before 13 81 formed the background to Havering's involvement in the Peasants' Revolt. In this chapter we shall consider the restrictions imposed upon Havering by the outside world and the resistance which they evoked. When Havering's tenants were confronted with demands by the lord of the manor or other external bodies which they felt violated their autonomy, they could express their objection in one of several ways. In the least dramatic but ultimately most successful form of resistance, they simply withdrew their cooperation. The tenants or their officers could refuse to make payments or be slow in submitting them. They might hide goods from a royal purveyor, tax assessor or tithe collector. They could fail to provide full or accurate information to an agent of the lord's or a judicial commission. (The merits of silence must have been amply demonstrated within the local setting by the utter dependence of Havering's steward upon the facts provided by jurors 50

External demands and Havering s resistance, 1265—1300

in the manor court.) A second type of protest involved taking legal action - against the monarch directly, against crown or county officials or against such bodies as Hornchurch Priory. Although Havering's tenants lost their case in every recorded action of this kind, legal proceedings provided a forum for public statement of grievances and may have helped to unite the community against outside intrusion. Violence was the third response. The few instances of individual or group violence in Havering appear to have been spontaneous; the strong reaction by all external authorities against the use of force presumably rendered this an ineffective weapon. Each of these three forms was employed in Havering both before and after 1265 and has been noted in other manors as well. Resistance was thus a recurring theme in Havering's medieval history even though in most periods the tenants experienced so little control that no protest was required. Havering's dealings with the outside world in the later medieval years — including its willingness to resist — were influenced by developments within the manor. The stratification of landholding already visible in 1251 had become even more pronounced by 1352/3. Sixty families now had actual holdings of 30 to 59 acres and another forty had 60 acres or more. Havering's economy in the following century was highly commercialised and in close contact with London. The larger estates produced for sale to the capital; at least fifty men engaged in craft-work or trade, activity often focused on Romford market. The prosperity of Havering's economy rested in no small measure upon the manor's privileges as ancient demesne and its freedom from seigneurial control. The leading tenants must therefore have been prepared to defend their rights in part for economic reasons, while at the same time their wealth and connections beyond the manor made them better able to resist. Similarly, the Havering manor court enjoyed unusual authority because of its ancient demesne and hundredal status. The dominant tenants who ran the court were presumably eager to protect its exclusive jurisdiction in order that their own control over Havering's affairs might be maintained. Familiarity with the law and experience in manipulating local power must have facilitated their resistance to outside demands. Internal and external factors were tightly intertwined. ROUTINE SUPERVISION BY THE CROWN

During the centuries after 1265 seigneurial requirements upon Havering were minimal. The tenants benefited from the crown's decision to keep Havering in its own hands (apart from two short periods in 1397—8

Havering, the crown and external control, 1200—1300 and 1400) and to assign most of the manor's offices to royal friends or servants.1 In the decades of continued assarting prior to c. 1290 royal officials prepared a few new extents, but there was then a gap until the great survey of 1352/3, itself the last until the sixteenth century. 2 After 1324 Havering was no longer subject to the regular authority of the justices of the forest. The crown normally asked for little from the tenants beyond the payment of their fixed land rents and the issues of the manor court. The system adopted by the crown after 1265 involved using Havering offices for a variety of ends. Certain positions were devoted solely to patronage.3 The keeping of the manor was assigned to a well-connected person who occupied or rented out the royal buildings within Havering when the king or queen was not in residence. The growing number of park and woods offices were nearly all sinecures, held by men who appointed deputies to perform whatever tiresome tasks might be required. The chief functional officer in the manor, the local bailiff, carried out duties for the crown, including in most periods the collection of tenant rents as they came due twice a year. The bailiffs, however, were always prominent tenants who also played an important role in the operation of the manor court. They must have seen themselves primarily as spokesmen for the community rather than as agents of the crown.4 A key question was who would account for Havering's income at the Exchequer. This was usually a matter of queenly patronage. A household official or someone else whom the queen wished to reward was named as royal farmer or bailiff of Havering and allowed to keep for his own profit some fraction of the total issues of the manor or to tap secondary sources of income.5 A second pattern involved farming Havering to a substantial tenant of the manor but as an individual rather than collectively on behalf of the tenants. This 1

2 3 4

5

Thomas Arundel, archbishop of York and later of Canterbury, and/or Edward, first earl of Rutland, later first duke of Aumale, actually held the manor of Havering, not just the keepership, in 1397-8, presumably by gift of Richard II. In 1400 Henry Percy, first earl of Northumberland, held Havering. See App. 1.2 and PRO SC 2/172/28, passim (headings of the court sessions), ERO D/DU 102/10, m. 2, and PRO SC 2/172/29, passim. Cf B. P. Wolffe, The royal demesne in English history (London, Allen and Unwin, 1971), chs. 2—3. For the years between 1251 and 1352/3, see ch. 3 below. Justices of the forest are considered later in this chapter. See App. I. An unscrupulous or disaffected bailiff was also in a position to use his knowledge of the crown's estate to his own advantage. For Robert William, a former bailiff and farmer, see below. See App. L5.

52

External demands and Havering s resistance, 1265—1500

procedure was first employed between 1319 and 1324, was resumed between 1342 and 1373 and appeared occasionally for brief terms thereafter. It may have seemed particularly desirable in periods when demographic crises made collection of manorial profits difficult. A third arrangement, used in the 1280s and again from 1487 to 1497, placed Havering under the direct accountancy of a royal economic official. Royal administrative changes in the decades after 1450 had little effect upon Havering. The resumptions of crown land in the 1450s resulted merely in the appointment of a new Havering bailiff who was required to pay the full traditional sum due from the manor rather than having part of the amount excused.6 Sometime between 1458 and 1461 an anonymous official in the Exchequer made plans to launch an assault on the decline in royal profit from Havering, but he does not appear to have carried out his attack.7 The reforms introduced by Edward IV on the royal estate, part of the Yorkist restructuring of government, similarly had scant impact within Havering. By Edward's alterations, the crown lands were removed from traditional Exchequer control and placed under the supervision of professionally trained surveyors, receivers and auditors working usually through the Chamber. 8 Havering was transferred from the Exchequer to the accountants of the Duchy of Lancaster in 1464, remaining there for the next nine years. In the earlier years of Edward's reign, Thomas Cook, a wealthy London merchant who had recently moved to Havering, held the farm at the favourable rate of ^85 annually. However, with Cook's reversal of political loyalties away from the Yorkist camp and his resulting accusation of treason in 1468, the farm was removed from his hands.9 Edward now turned Havering over to a bailiff who was required to account for all customary issues from the manor. For the rest of the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries, the latter practice was normally employed. Apart from one lease of an escheated piece of meadow at a going market rate in the later 1470s, the crown and its bailiffs made no attempt to enlarge the customary manorial dues. The sums available to the crown from Havering rose between 1251 6 7

WolfFe, Royal demesne, ch. 5 and app. C; see also App. I.4 below. See the memorandum of items to be investigated the next time its author went to Havering, PRO E 163, box 28 or 29, kindly made available to the author by M. M. Condon. Cf. the administrative vigour of the bishop of Worcester in the early 1450s: Christopher Dyer, Lords and peasants in a changing society: the estates of the bishopric

8

9

of Worcester, 680-1540 (Cambridge, Cambridge Univ. Press, 1980), pp. 165-7. Gordon Batho, 'Landlords in England: the crown', in The agrarian history of England and Wales, vol. 4 (ed. Joan Thirsk, Cambridge, Cambridge Univ. Press, 1967), pp. 256-76, and Rotuli Parliamentorum (7 vols., London, 1783-1832), vol. 5, pp. 463^75. PRO DL 29/41/800; for Cook's career more generally, see ch. 6 below.

53

Havering, the crown and external control, 1200—1500 and 1352/3 but declined thereafter. During the century after 1250, a period to be discussed more fully in Chapter 3, the amount of cleared land in Havering and the population increased. The net value of the manor consequently grew. (See Table 4 below.) From the middle of the fourteenth century onward, however, the manor yielded less to the crown than it had before. As Table 1 indicates, its value excluding profits from the park dropped from £123 in 1352/3 to ^116 in the 13 70s, with references to unoccupied land in 1369, 1376 and 1379, presumably the result of later plague attacks. 10 In 1382 the manor was officially valued at ^100, but ^ 2 0 of that amount could not be collected. There had thus been a drop of 35 % over the course of thirty years. The value rose again at the end of the fourteenth century, said to be ^ 110 in 1405. It then declined once more to ^92 in 1451. With the Yorkist shift from beneficial farming to full accounting, the crown's income rose by about 20%, but the new figure then remained roughly constant into the sixteenth century, despite the economic transformation taking place within Havering after 1460. The fact that the farm was slightly higher than the appraised value of the manor from 1405 until 1451 suggests that farmers may have been expected to profit from hidden sources of income. On the other hand, there is also evidence that during particularly hard economic times the farm may have been set too high. Robert William, a local man who accounted for Havering between 1319 and 1321, was unable to render the sum required of him even though he held more than 250 acres himself. For his failure to collect the rents in full, he was prosecuted in the Exchequer and eventually outlawed, his lands and goods seized by the crown.11 Bitterness over this treatment may have precipitated his crimes against the crown's property. In 1337 he was arrested for misdeeds committed within the park; three years later he engineered the impressive theft of 80 gallons of wine from the queen's house in Havering.12 In an odd about-face, William later returned to a legal course. In 1342 he began to pay off the remaining debt of ^15 to the Exchequer from his term as farmer more than twenty years before. 13 Although he still owed a little in 1352, he had apparently cleared his slate and recovered some of his land by the time of the 1352/3 extent. 10 11 12

13

PRO SC 6/844/13, CFR, 1368-77, p- 362, and CFR, 1377S3, p. 174PRO JUST 3/18/5, Hornch, Pr. kal., nos. 163, 300 and 459 (misdated), PRO SC 6/1090/13, and C 131/3/16. CPR, 1334-8, p. 376, and PRO KB 27/366, rex m. 35—35d, as printed in Essex sessions of the peace, 1351, 1377-9 (ed. Elizabeth C. Furber, Colchester, Essex Archaeol. Soc, 1953), PP- 179-80. PRO SC 6/1091/7. For below, see PRO SC 6/1091/13.

54

External demands and Havering s resistance, 1263—1300 Table 1. Value of the manor of Havering, 1332/3—1311"

Year 1352/3 1369-70

1370-9 1382

1405-51 1451 1451^60

1464-8 1470-4

Type of record and total value of the manor (excluding profits from the park*) Extended at £123 ( + £ 2 freehold rents paid into Exchequer + £37 from park). (Bailiff asks to be excused from £ 4 in uncollectable rents, from 3 unoccupied holdings + 29 other pieces of land.) Manor farmed at ,£116. Granted to queen; nominally valued at £100 but said to be worth £20 less than that = £80. Held by queen, net worth of £110; farmed at £112—16 p.a. Inquisition taken by sheriff says net worth is £92. Farmed at £100-2. Farmed at £85. Bailiffs account for £102-6 net profit; nominal value of £113—21.

Value of traditional rents and services of the tenants £113 —

— —

— — — —

£12-13 of the £113 of traditional rents not collectable = £100-1

1481-2

and 1510-11

Bailiffs account for £103-5 net profit; nominal value of ^.£124. Includes £ 1 received from lease of a demesne meadow.

£12-13 of the £113 of traditional rents not collectable = £100-1

a

All figures have been rounded to the nearest pound. The park was normally valued and farmed separately in this period. Sources: NCO MS 9744, fols. i6ir-i84v; PRO SC 6/844/13; CFR, 1368-77, pp. 88 and 362, CFR, 1377-83, p. 174, and PRO E 364/11; CPR, 1381-5, pp. 126 and 203; Cal. inq. misc., vol. 7, p. 167, PRO SC 6/844/14-17 and 20, SC 6/1093/1, BL Harley G.40 and CFR, 1413-22, p. 407; CCR, 1447-54, p. 391; PRO SC 6/844/20 and CFR, 1452-61, pp. 20 and 275; PRO DL 29/41/800; PRO DL 29/41/800 and 793; PRO SC 6/1094/7, and SC 6/Henry VIII/752, m. 5. b

The profit which a queen might gain from Havering depended both upon the ability of the tenants to pay their accustomed rents and dues and upon the crown's success in harvesting the established sums. Most large estates experienced declining income and massive arrears in the 55

Havering,

the crown and external control, 1200—1500

later fourteenth and early fifteenth centuries, the consequence of a lowered population and unfavourable economic conditions. In Havering, however, immigration of new tenants eager to take advantage of the manor's benefits quickly filled empty holdings; the presence of London ensured a continued demand for agricultural and craft goods. A more important cause of the crown's lowered income after 1352/3 was administrative weakness. Because of Havering's position as ancient demesne, the queens were barred from increasing rents and other dues. Active assarting had ceased. Hence, maintaining existing payments was the most the crown could achieve. Yet the queens' decision to abandon direct control, apart from a few brief periods, meant that they had no official who dealt regularly with the manor, knowledgeable about its tenants and their obligations. The accountant for the year needed only to submit the rents and other dues collected by the local bailiff. In most periods the farmer's statement to the Exchequer, based upon the bailiffs report, that certain items could not be collected was accepted. In these circumstances, the tenants were able to evade payment. There is no reason to believe that Havering land was going out of use and returning to waste, except possibly for short periods immediately after a bad plague epidemic. More land was probably used for pasture and wood production in the years after 1349 than before, but rent was still owed from such land. However, the detailed bailiffs' accounts of the 1470s indicate that about 10% of the traditional rents from the tenants could no longer be collected, a figure which was to rise over succeeding decades.14 This administrative 'slippage' accords with a drop in average per-acre rents for virgate and cot units between 1251 and 1352/3, even though the rent for each piece was supposed to be fixed. Once a tenant had successfully avoided payment of part or all of his rent for several years, it was virtually impossible for the crown to reestablish its right to the sum.15 Similarly, heriots were still being paid by the virgate and cot tenants in 1352/3 but were gone by 1400. The various payments owed for use of the woods gradually ceased, although the crown continued to enforce the tenants' obligation to repair the pale which kept the deer inside the royal park.16 Little by 14 15

16

PRO DL 29/41/793 and 800. For 1251 and 1352/3 rents, see ch. 3 below. Cf. Eleanor Searle, Lordship and community: Battle Abbey and its banlieu, 1066-1538 (Toronto, Pontifical Institute of Mediaeval Studies, 1974), pp. 141-2, and Christopher Dyer, 'A redistribution of incomes in fifteenth-century England?', Past and Present, XXXIX (1968), 11-33. The tenants had to maintain most of the pale, but until 1380 Barking Abbey was responsible for about a mile and a half of its length; in the 1430s New College tried unsuccessfully to rid itself of its obligation for repair of the pale (CPR, 1377—81, p. 482, and ERO D / D U 102/28, mm. 3~i4d, passim).

56

External demands and Havering's

resistance, 1263—1300

little, the crown's profits slipped away. Most of the queens who held Havering did nothing to stop the loss. The crown's practical inability to supervise Havering offers a corrective to studies of administration based only on central archives and points out the need for a careful study of the royal estate as an economic and bureaucratic entity. RESISTANCE TO SEIGNEURIAL DEMANDS

Despite the general pattern of seigneurial neglect, a few queens made brief attempts to increase their control over the manor or their profits from it. For this a queen had to spend time in Havering herself or to name officials who would learn about the manor on her behalf. In most of the cases about which we have information the queen was entirely within her rights and sought no more than to enforce payment of clearly established dues. Nevertheless, the tenants viewed these demands as an infringement of their privileges. Regardless of the form in which Havering responded to royal intrusion, however, the tenants were seldom able in the short term to mount successful opposition to the queen. In a direct conflict the power of the crown, backed if necessary by force or outside courts, was too great even for the tenants of Havering. In the longer term, however, the issues were gradually resolved to the tenants' satisfaction. The crown might win open battles but it had insufficient administrative resources to overcome the tenants' unwillingness to provide information or their withdrawal of obligations. The first of the conflicts between a queen and Havering was the only one in which the crown tried to enlarge its accepted rights. It was also the only one in which physical coercion was employed. In the later thirteenth century Queen Eleanor, the first queen to hold Havering, spent time at the palace and was familiar with local affairs. To the tenants' annoyance she carved out an area from the manorial woods and defined it as a protected royal warren. Complaint by local people to the king's justices in 1274—5 w a s t o n o avail.17 During a visit to the manor sometime in the late 1280s Eleanor was informed that the tenants were hunting in her warren, against the will of her officers. She therefore summoned twelve local people before her. When this episode was recalled sixty-five years later, the jurors were described as 'wise and wealthy'. 18 Headed by two former bailiffs, they were leading 17 18

Rotuli hundredorum (ed. W. Illingworth and J. Caley, 2 vols., Record Comm., London, Eyre and Strahan, 1812-18), vol. 1, p. 149. The incident was reported in testimony given in 1352 by six old men, all aged seventy to over ninety years (NCO MS 9744, fol. I74r).

57

Havering, the crown and external control, 1200—1300

figures in the community. With considerable courage, the men refused to provide the queen with the facts which she demanded about offences in the warren. Eleanor responded with a legally questionable but effective method: she placed the entire group in confinement, with only rushes to lie upon, until they agreed to cooperate. After three days and three nights, the jurors admitted defeat. They gave a report about misuse of the warren by the tenants and chose one of their number to be both bailiff and 'warrener', the latter a new title. Henceforth it was deemed illegal in Havering for any tenant to carry a weapon into the warren or to allow his dog to leave the way while passing through it. Eleanor had won, but over the following centuries the tenants were to regain use of the warren.19 The most sustained and potentially most damaging challenge to Havering's freedom was issued by Queen Philippa, amidst the confusion produced by the 1349 plague. Philippa's invasion utilised judicial rather than physical weapons. During the early 1350s the queen faced the problems common to large landowners whose revenues were shrinking as a result of the plague. She was also concerned about mounting lawlessness on her estates. In 13 51 she apparently decided that the supervision of her manors had been too lax, that she must establish tighter administrative and legal control. The impact upon Havering of her change in policy was profound. Between May 13 51 and July 1353 at least nine separate commissions inquired into Havering's affairs, either to obtain information concerning sources of royal profit or to investigate and punish wrongdoing by the tenants. Although these inquiries violated the manor's customary autonomy and were resented by local people, the tenants did not mount effective resistance. A sharp division within the community hamstrung any attempt at cooperation. The queen's new attitude was first manifested in September 1351, when she named a group of justices to look into the question of who bore responsibility for maintaining the pale around the park of Havering, which was then in disrepair.20 The justices arrived in Romford shortly before Christmas and received a report from a local jury indicating which people ought to repair how much of the pale. 10

20

Although the queens kept close personal watch over the warren in the 1300s (PRO SC 2/172/25, m. 1, and ERO D/DU 102/4, mm. 13 and 12), by the following century royal interest had ceased. The tenants apparently hunted in the warren during the later 1400s, a right which they explicitly claimed in the 1540s (PRO SP 1/245, fol. 42). CPR, 1350-4, p. 162, and Cal. inq. misc., vol. 3, pp. 24-5, Philippa had recently ordered that timber be cut from Havering park and taken to her London house; the supervisor of the project was apparently authorised to conscript carpenters and sawyers over the next three years (CPR, 1350-4, pp. 136, 342 and 518). For the second inquiry about the pale, see NCO MS 9744, fol. I73r.

58

External demands and Havering s resistance, 1265—1500 Every one of the people named either lived outside Havering or was a royal official: not a single regular tenant of the manor was listed. This curious fact presumably did not escape the notice of the queen's agents, for three months later the steward of Havering was required to hold another inquisition about apportionment of the pale. The steward and keeper at this time was John de Molyns, an active royal servant with responsibilities elsewhere in the queen's estate as well as in Havering. The second inquiry about the pale, conducted in Molyns' presence, produced a long list of local names. This experience must have reminded royal officials that they had no current knowledge about landholding and customs within the manor. Another team of justices was therefore sent to Havering early in March 13 52 to prepare a detailed extent.21 About a year later, probably in February 1353, the survey was revised by Molyns, who by now must have known the manor and its tenants intimately.22 This version of the extent was copied and preserved at New College. The revised extent contains a few adjustments of the current tenants and lists the entries in a slightly different sequence from the 1352 original. The manor's value had increased by 42% since 1251 but by only 7% since 1299 (see Table 4 below). The commissioners sent to Havering made an effort to reverse the losses stemming from a century of lax supervision. Molyns and other officials held an inquiry in July 1353 about * lands and rights withheld from Queen Philippa and evasions of remedies \ 2 3 Molyns apparently spotted the doubtful legitimacy of the manor's assarted holdings. The account he submitted to the Exchequer for sums received during his sessions in Havering includes * fines' paid by ten tenants, sums ranging from 20s. to ^ioo. 2 4 Although the cause of these payments is not stated, they were probably made to obtain royal approval of claim to land for which no valid proof of original title could be provided. The largest fine was for the holding called Dagenhams, a unit of 420 acres assarted by the Wood family in the second half of the twelfth century.25 The queen was also attempting in 1352 and 1353 to use the Havering manor 21

22

23 24 25

BL Lans. M S 260, no. 71. Comparison of the extracts preserved in the BL with the extent at N e w College indicates their sequence; a date of 8 March 1352 is mentioned in the BL copy. N C O M S 9744, fols. 161 r—184V. A likely period for the revision of the extent is 25 January-28 February 1353, judging by information about the death of tenants drawn from other records, especially the manor court roll of 1352-3 ( P R O SC 2/172/25). For Molyns, see P R O SC 6 / 8 4 4 / 1 3 . Cal. inq. misc., v o l . 3 , p . 4 6 . PRO SC 6/1091/16. For the clearing of the Wood estate, see ch. 3 below. For the 1352-3 manor court roll, see PRO SC 2/172/25; see ch. 5 below.

59

Havering, the crown and external control, 1200—1300 court to oversee her own property and agriculture among the tenants. Not since the supervision of Havering by justices of the forest between 1243 and 1250 had the manor been subject to such close royal attention. In 1352 Queen Philippa confronted the rash of crimes being committed within her demesne, especially in her forests. A commission of oyer and terminer issued in February ordered a group of officials, including Molyns, to investigate and punish all cases of hunting and theft of wood from the queen's forests.26 The group was also to examine any manorial officials who might have appropriated rents or other profits from the queen's lands to their own use. In May Molyns and his group reached Havering. After inquiring into offences in the local forest and withheld profits, the commissioners indicted a number of Havering people for crimes committed in the royal park and prepared a report about the crown's warren in Havering. In December another commission of justices was assigned to hear felonies and trespasses within the domains of the queen. When they sat at nearby Stratford Langthorne, Havering people were named among the indictments.27 It cannot be a coincidence that the only regular records of the manor court which survive from before 1382 date from this period. One bundle of the rolls, covering sessions between October 1352 and March 1353, was evidently taken to London in connection with one of the royal inquiries and never returned to the main series of court records, thereby escaping destruction in the Peasants' Revolt. In view of Havering's history of objection to royal interference, one would have expected strong protest in the early 1350s against the crown's actions. The atypical docility of the community seems to have stemmed from a dispute which fractured the manor's ruling elite, crippling the single attempt at resistance. This entire story is shadowy, for we know about it only through the allegations of negative witnesses and through a brief and garbled statement on a royal pardon three years later. In late May 1351a commission of the peace sitting in Chelmsford summoned a jury from Havering.28 This was surprising, for Havering's liberty status usually assured that internal issues were not heard elsewhere. The jurors who went to Chelmsford were men of some means, holding an average of nearly 50 acres each. In the coming years most of them would move into local power, but in 1351 they were still relatively young. They submitted an indictment of conspiracy 26

27

28

CPR, 1350-4, pp. 287, 288 and 331. For below, see PRO C 88/25/11, and NCO MS 9744, fol. I73rPRO KB 145/2/29. The recorda files were kindly made accessible by David Crook. For the 1352-3 Havering roll, see PRO SC 2/172/25; cf. App. III. P R O K B 2 7 / 3 6 6 , r e x m . 35—35
60

External demands and Havering*s resistance, 1265—1500

against a group of eleven Havering men led by Adam atte Hache, father of one of the jurors. 29 They also reported a string of additional Havering offences stretching back to 1340, many of them committed by men in atte Hache's group. Atte Hache and his alleged coconspirators were senior figures in the manor. At least seven of them were more than fifty years old and another was the former farmer of Havering. They were also wealthy, with an average holding of over 60 acres. Atte Hache had n o acres to his own use. Although we do not know the names of manorial office holders prior to October 1352, these were men likely to have served in the primary position of chief pledge. The nature of their ' conspiracy' is unclear. They were accused of having sworn oaths to each other on May Day 13 51 to join in a common undertaking.30 Apparently they intended to indict eleven Havering people of unspecified crimes.31 The target group included three of Havering's most prominent tenants: Sir John of Havering (who held Gidea Hall and other lands totalling 500 acres), Adam of Colkirk (an important newcomer currently in the process of acquiring the 600-acre Dagenhams and Cockerels unit) and William of North toft of Finchingfield (a royal official then purchasing the large holding called Bretons in Hornchurch). We are not told what offences atte Hache and his fellows planned to allege, but the men who faced indictment at their hands were worried. Seven of the eight local residents offered payments of more than fy in hopes of preventing the charge.32 It was probably through information provided by one of the target group that the crown became aware of the situation and decided to intervene by calling a jury before the justices. Strikingly, seven of those whom atte Hache proposed to indict sat on the Chelmsford jury. When the jurors returned to Havering after preparing their indictments, atte Hache's company took revenge by threatening to indict them in turn.33 At least nine of the jurors capitulated, offering fines ranging from u s . to 66s. 8d. each. The power of the conspirators over their fellow tenants is puzzling. It seems improbable that men of solid local status would have submitted so readily to blatant extortion even if they were young. The suggestion that atte Hache's group may have held manorial office is reinforced by the fact that they justified receipt 29 31

32

33

30 Ibid., pp. 178-80. Ibid., p. 178. This is suggested in CPR, 1354-8, p. 179, atte Hache's pardon from 1355. The account is chronologically confused, conflating several different episodes into a single account. CPR, 1354—8, p. 179. Havering, Colkirk and Northtoft were all in debt, the former two owing money to the queen (CCR, 1340-54, pp. 395-6, 271 and 519). CPR, 1354-8, p. 179.

6l

Havering, the crown and external control, 1200-1300 of their cash payments by claiming they had power from the king to act. This was ariskyjustification of bribery unless they did indeed hold some authority within the Havering court. Legal action against those indicted in Chelmsford began at the county level but was interrupted in July 1351 when Edward III ordered the sheriff to stop proceedings because he wished to receive certification of the indictments in his own person.34 The matter was then called into Chancery by a writ ofcertiorari; in January of the next year the justices of the Court of King's Bench were directed to make further examination and take action on the indictments.35 Within a month atte Hache and the others appeared for trial in Chelmsford. All were acquitted. This was not the end of atte Hache's activity. In 1352 he took the lead in attempting to organise local resistance to the crown's invasions of Havering's autonomy. He first tried to 'disturb and bring to naught* a session held by Molyns to investigate offences within the manor.36 He then called a public gathering, charging ' the commonalty of the town under a penalty' to meet with him. When the men of Havering assembled, atte Hache urged them to 'sue some liberties' with the crown.37 In an approach reminiscent of the complaint made to Henry III in 1250—1, he proposed that the tenants prepare bills 'to be exhibited by the commonalty to the king and his consort, containing very many grievances and falsities done by the justices in their offices there and elsewhere'. Before the bills could be submitted, however, atte Hache was indicted before one of Molyns' commissions, probably in early May 1352, for assorted 'conspiracies, extortions, trespasses and excesses'.38 Quickly he was arrested and carried away to the king's prison in Langley Marish, Bucks. By 17 May 1352 his lands and goods had been seized by the crown.39 Atte Hache, obviously a man who landed on his feet, managed to escape from gaol and disappeared from view. In February 1355 the king pardoned him for all his crimes, whereupon he returned to Havering and local responsibility, apparently none the worse for his adventures.40 34 CCR, 1349-54, PP. 3 7 6 - 7 . 35 P R O K B 2 7 / 3 6 6 , r e x m . 35-350!, as cited b y F u r b e r i n Essex sessions of the peace, p . 26. F o r t h e C h e l m s f o r d trial, see ibid., cited i n Essex sessions of the peace, p . 180, n . 2 . 36 CPR, 1354S, p- 179. 37 ibid. 38 Ibid. 39 PRO SC 6/1091/13. He waived goods worth at least £12, and for the next year the Havering manor court attempted vainly to collect £34 from him, part of £40 assessed in damages for unspecified offences (PRO SC 6/1091/16, and SC 2/172/25, passim). *° CPR,1354-8, p. 179, and, e.g., BL Addit. MS 15663 and PRO C 143/368/1. Cf. CPR, 1354S, p- 459-

62

External demands and Havering s resistance, 1265—1500

It is unfortunate that we know so little about this conflict within the community and about atte Hache's actions and intent. This is the only time in Havering's medieval history that we have evidence of a serious division among the manor's leading families. The split, occurring in part along generational lines, may have derived from the strains caused by the plague. The motives which underlay the original * conspiracy' are unknown. Perhaps atte Hache and his fellows used the threat of indictment simply as a means of increasing their own influence or of extorting money for their private gain. It is equally possible that they were manorial leaders who planned the indictment on official grounds. They would presumably not have chosen three of Havering's most powerful men as victims if they were simply trying to frighten weak neighbours into payment. Atte Hache's reasons for mobilising the Havering community are likewise obscure. Lawyers for the crown charged that he acted only to conceal from the king his own evil deeds, yet his objection to outside interference struck a responsive chord among at least some of the tenants.41 The course of action he proposed was fully in keeping with Havering's traditions. It is nevertheless clear that the fracture within the manor in 1351—2 impaired the tenants' ability to fight back effectively against the intrusions of the crown and outside justices. After 1353 Queen Philippa returned to a more distant form of supervision over Havering. She had managed to obtain much of the information which her officers needed to extract full profits from the manor, the rent-roll had been raised slightly and some tenants guilty of wrongdoing had been punished. But these efforts had been extremely costly in terms of administrative time and energy. The plague had brought assarting in Havering to a halt, so the queen could not count on further increase in revenue. On the contrary, over the coming decades the manor's yield was to decline. For the crown, the lesson of this attempt at direct control must have been that the gain did not justify the expenditure. For Havering, the message was certainly that when the dominant tenants lost their ability to cooperate, the manor's privileges were vulnerable. A far more modest attempt to hold on to royal rights was made by the queen dowager, Joanna, in the 1420s. Her effort concerned a customary payment owed by the tenants for use of the woodlands. Havering's outwoods were open to local people during most of the year, but between Michaelmas (29 September) and Martinmas (11 November) tenants had to pay small fees for grazing and other 41

CPR, 1354-8, p. 179.

63

Havering, the crown and external control, 1200—1500 activities. The most profitable of these dues for the crown during the fourteenth century was the payment required for pigs, a custom known officially within Havering as 'garsanese' but often called by its more common name of pannage.42 In 1352/3 autumn pannage yielded ^ 4 annually and in 1405 72s. 4d.43 Its value then began to fall sharply. Sometime in the early 1430s Queen Joanna tried to stop this decline. Her attempt to collect * garsanese' more assertively was resisted by six of Havering's middling landholders and craftsmen, leaders of the manor court. When they refused to pay the sums she claimed, Joanna brought suit against them in the Court of Chancery.44 The outcome of the case is not recorded but the names of the defendants do not appear on the list of those paying pannage between 1437 and 1440. 'Garsanese' withered away thereafter. During the later 1430s and 1440s it produced no more than 20s. in any year; by the 1470s no income at all was received. Several lesser payments for woodland rights followed a parallel course.45 The last attempt by a queen to extract full profit from Havering came at the end of the fifteenth century. This effort provoked both minor recalcitrance and a violent individual response. In 1487 Henry VII's wife Elizabeth decided with her council to send a collector of rents to Havering with instructions to live in the manor and carry out a broader range of duties than was normal. 46 In addition to gathering in the rents, he was to collect the goods of felons and fugitives and to claim stray animals which came into the manor. The assignment was regarded by the tenants as an attack upon custom, for these tasks were usually performed by the manorial bailiff. Further, the presence within Havering of a regular official who had time to become familiar with the full range of tenant obligations was ominous. The tenants' resentment was at first expressed in an ad hominem fashion. John Staunton, the queen's rent collector, was reported by a local jury in 1489 for killing a deer within the bounds of the royal forest.47 In 1491 42 43

44 45

46

47

1352/3 extent, fol. I 6 I V . P R O SC 2 / 1 7 2 / 3 0 , m . i d . T h e values given below are from E R O D / D U 102/28-9, 'tails' (giving names of tenants and sums due), and P R O S C 6 / H e n r y VII/140. PRO C 1/69/2 and C 44/24/5. H a v e r i n g ' s 'subtenants o n l y ' o w e d p a y m e n t s k n o w n as 'strategatesilver' a n d ' y o k silver' for grazing animals. A n y o n e w h o d r o v e a cart t h r o u g h the w o o d s during t h e closed weeks h a d t o pay i d . b y the custom called ' c h e m i n a g e ' . T h e first t w o customs came t o only 40s. in 1352/3 and cheminage yielded just 6s. 8d.; b y the 1470s the bailiff rendered nothing for these dues. ( N C O M S 9744, fol. 161 v, and P R O D L 29/41/793.) See ch. 5 below. See, e.g., PRO SC 2/172/35, mm. 7d and 13d, SC 2/172/38, m. 5d, and SC 2/172/40, mm. 14 and I7d. PRO DL 39/2/21. For below, see PRO SC 2/172/36, m. 5.

64

External demands and Havering s resistance, 1265—1300

a jury at the Havering court was obviously pleased to announce that Thomas Dene, then the collector of rents, had been frequenting the company of the wife of Thomas Harryes, a Romford innkeeper of low reputation. Dene was ordered to stop seeing her, under penalty of 40s., unless licence should be given to him by the queen's council. In 1497 the rent collector expanded his assignment, either of his own accord or in response to the queen's orders: he tackled the thorny problem of customary rents which had been subtracted or withheld. Since .£12—13 had slipped out of the crown's grasp over the past century, his interest was clearly appropriate (see Table 1). On 2 March the collector, now Thomas Elrington, swore into office an exceptionally large jury of twenty-two men who were to investigate and report upon unpaid rents.48 The jurors, less than enthusiastic about their assignment, requested first one postponement and then a series of others, ostensibly to have time to gather information on the question. At one point they were ordered by the steward to assemble in Romford to go over the 'Domysday book', the 1352/3 extent. Finally, after more than four months, most of the jurors appeared at the court prepared to give a report. In view of the length of time which they had had to assemble their information and the magnitude of lost rents, the jurors' list of delinquents was remarkably modest. They announced that they had found only three withheld payments, coming to a total of 8s. 6d. The largest sum, a rent of 4s., was due from Sir Philip Coke, son and heir of Thomas Cook and tenant of nearly 900 acres. Sir Philip was the most important person in the manor in the later 1490s, the elected justice of the peace for Havering and recently knighted for his valour on the battlefield at Blackheath.49 When Elrington at a court session held late in September ordered the bailiff to seize goods as bond from each of those owing rent, Coke's anger exploded. He first argued with the collector and then physically assaulted him, an act said by the clerk to be in contempt of court, injurious to the honour of the queen, and a dangerous example to the tenants present at the session.50 The queen's council agreed with this assessment and imposed on Coke an extraordinary penalty of £$. Emboldened by royal support, Elrington announced at the next court session that he had decided to collect twelve years' back rent from the three holdings as well as the current 48

PRO SC 2/172/38, m. i2d. Marjorie K. Mclntosh, 'Some new gentry in early Tudor Essex: the Cookes of Gidea Hall, 1480-1550', Essex Archaeology and History, IX (1977), 129—38. s° PRO SC 2/172/38, m. 19.

49

65

Havering, the crown and external control, 1200-1500 payments.51 Once again Coke flared up. His belligerent words and threatening behaviour so disturbed the court that the steward hastily adjourned the session. For this verbal attack the queen's council ordered that he pay another ^ 5 . Coke's conduct on these occasions surely explains why he was never again elected justice for Havering nor named to any other office until his death in 1503. Once more, however, the failure of direct local resistance to royal control was followed by subsequent victory. Elrington was withdrawn from Havering after Coke's violence and the use of resident collectors was abandoned. 52 The history of Havering's resistance to seigneurial demands during the later medieval period suggests that in the face of determined action by a powerful lord even the most privileged tenants could do little to defend what they considered to be their rights. Head-on confrontations were generally won by the lord. Yet there was also little which the lord could do to sustain his rights in the face of consistent lack of cooperation by the tenants. The crown's inability to provide regular, direct supervision of its estates was far more important to Havering's autonomy than was local resistance.

LEGAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE CONTROL

Despite Havering's independence as ancient demesne and a hundredal liberty, the manor was occasionally subject to outside authority in legal or administrative matters. The force of external law was felt primarily through the criminal and ecclesiastical courts. The central government imposed taxation, but here Havering had manoeuvred its way into a highly favourable situation. Hornchurch Priory and its successor, New College, made religious and seigneurial demands which were increasingly resented. Of these forms of control, the criminal law curtailed the tenants' autonomy most visibly. Three types of external jurisdiction played some role in the lives of Havering people. The first consisted of those courts which dealt with felonies and violations of the peace. The tenants of Havering were subject to the same criminal laws and general procedures as were all other English people. When a felonious offence was committed within the manor, an indictment was prepared on the basis of information provided by a Havering jury sworn before a regular or ad hoc group of royal justices or, after Havering acquired liberty status in the late 51 52

Ibid. But cf. PRO SC 2/172/40, mm. 14 and 17c!.

66

External demands and Havering s resistance, 1265—1500 thirteenth century, before the manor court. 53 The latter procedure, which gave considerable discretion to the leaders of the local court in deciding which misdeeds to report as felonies, formed part of the intramanorial system for maintaining order in the community. Some suspected felons were gaoled upon being caught in the act of their crime. Others were arrested because of a report of murder given to the coroner of Essex when he came to the manor to view the body of a person who had died an unnatural death. A few people were placed in prison after being accused of a crime by an approver. Anyone charged with felony was held in gaol - either in the county gaol in Colchester or in one of the London prisons, usually Newgate. Until he was conveyed into formal confinement elsewhere, a suspected felon was kept in Havering's 'gaol'. It is not clear that an official building was designated for this purpose prior to 1465. Before the mid-13 oos prisoners were apparently kept in the tenants' houses, with special duties for the cotters; from the later fourteenth century the constables were responsible for guarding prisoners.54 Those taken to gaol were tried by the group ofjustices who next delivered the prison. Judgement was followed by freedom or by hanging, normally on Havering's own gallows. If the criminal could establish himself as a clerk, he was handed over to the ordinary for further determination of guilt and possible punishment. The king had the right to pardon an individual found guilty of a felony. Havering people indicted of felony who had not been captured and did not turn themselves in to prison were outlawed, their lands and goods forfeit to the king or queen as lord of the manor, as were the possessions of anyone hanged for felony. After 1465, Havering had its own justices of the peace and a formal gaol. Surviving records of the central and itinerant courts are sporadic in their coverage by place and date. We are therefore unable to measure 53

54

The Havering court apparently did not begin to prepare indictments until c. 1300. Prior to that time Havering's felonies were reported regularly to the justices in eyre (e.g., PRO JUST 1/229, m. 15, JUST 1/238, m. 52, and JUST 1/242, mm. 68d--7o; cf. JUST 3/35B, mm. 10-49, passim). By the 1310s, however, some Havering people imprisoned in Colchester or Newgate had been indicted by the local court; most people accused of Havering felonies in the later 1300s and 1400s were gaoled either through capture 'red handed' or through testimony given before the coroner (e.g., PRO KB 9/166/2, KB 9/168/ 15-16, KB 145/2/29, KB 145/3/13/1, C 260/41/51, JUST 2/33B, mm. 1-3, JUST 3/18/5, mm. i8d~36d, passim, and JUST 3/126, mm. 12—27, passim).

PRO C 145/85/4, the 1251 extent, the 1352/3 extent, fol. i68r, PRO JUST 1/242, mm. 68-69d, CCR, 1256-9, p. 408, PRO JUST 2/254, m. 4 (printed in Select casesfrom the coroners' rolls, 1265-1413 (Selden Soc, vol. 9, London, Quaritch, 1895), pp. 129-30), CCR, 1396-9, p. 383, and CPR, 1396-9, p. 483.

67

Havering, the crown and external control, 1200—1500 the character and extent of serious crime in medieval Havering. It is obvious, however, that Havering's location increased the number of felonies involving non-residents. Local juries may also have been more willing to report the offences of outsiders than of their own neighbours. In a delivery of Newgate gaol in 1279, the justices sent the sheriff to Havering to take testimony concerning the charges against three clerics: Thomas, the vicar of Great Totham, Essex; Richard, the vicar of Goldhanger; and Hubert of Helbrook, clerk.55 A Havering jury told the sheriff that on Friday the first of August, Simon Goding of Havering was seated at a tavern in Romford. After vespers he started back toward his house, walking through Romford woods. As he reached a great oak tree called * le Blakstock' he encountered the two vicars in the case together with a servant boy who accompanied them. Simon joined the clerics, but soon he and the vicar of Great Totham fell into an argument. The disagreement reached a head as they approached a hamlet known as 'le Welle' (probably Havering Well, about a mile south of Romford). In front of the house of Richard Scarlet, Simon took up an iron fork and blocked the path of the others. When the vicar of Great Totham ordered his servant to clear the way, the boy stretched his bow and struck Simon with a barbed arrow, a wound from which he died immediately. Bystanders levied the hue and cry and caught the two vicars. They also arrested Hubert the clerk, who happened to arrive just as the chase began but was not present when Simon was killed. The boy who fired the arrow escaped capture by fleeing at once across the fields. The criminal courts were also responsible for assuring that Havering's officials and juries behaved appropriately in criminal matters. Although interference was rare, it could be an effective curb on local exercise of power. In 1285 the justices delivering Newgate gaol began the trial of John le Wodeward, charged with failure to hold in custody a group of men accused of assorted crimes in the park of Havering and in neighbouring Chigwell.56 John denied responsibility and asked for a jury, whereupon the sheriff was ordered to summon twelve men from Havering and Chigwell. When the jury appeared, however, its membership was promptly challenged by Elias le Forester of Havering, the person who had initiated the case against John. Elias claimed that some of the jurors had been suborned by friends and relatives of John's. Those jurors charged in turn that other members of the panel had been suborned by Elias in order to obtain a conviction. At this stage the 55 56

PRO JUST 3/35B, m. 49. Ibid., m. 13 (1). See also PRO JUST 1/253, m. 5d (and cf. Cal. inq. misc., vol. 2, p. n o ) .

68

External demands and Havering s resistance, 1265—1500 justices threw up their hands, announcing that it was clear that evil actions had taken place. They dismissed all the jurors and called instead for twelve * belted knights' from the county of Essex plus twelve local men from adjoining areas to give honest and uncorrupted testimony. Wrongdoers in Havering occasionally came within the jurisdiction of other royal courts. When the king was in residence at Havering palace, officers of the royal household might intervene locally to keep the peace, acting through the Marshalsea court.57 The justices of the forest posed a potential threat to Havering's autonomy. 58 During the second half of the thirteenth century Havering was treated as part of the forest of Essex and hence subject to the authority of the forest courts.59 At a major forest eyre in 1323—4, however, Queen Isabel received permission to name a separate justice to hear and collect the profits resulting from all offences committed within 'Havering forest'.60 Henceforth, although the definition of the forest was not formally altered, Havering's woodland was in practice regarded as forest purlieu, those areas bordering on the forest proper which were subject only to regulations concerning deer hunting. Apart from special commissions of justices which inspected the park and * forest' of Havering on a very irregular basis into the seventeenth century, there was no outside supervision over Havering's woods. 61 The tenants had a second type of contact with the outside legal world through private suits heard in extra-manorial courts. In practice, external courts were seldom used voluntarily by local people. There is no indication that Havering people brought suit in the county court nor did they employ the courts of the city of London.62 A little use 57

58

59

60

61

62

E.g., P R O SC 2/172/29, m. 2-2d. Cf. Marjorie K. Mclntosh,' Immediate royal justice: the Marshalsea court in Havering, 1358', Speculum, LIV (1979), 727-33. See above, ch. 1, William R. Fisher, The forest of Essex (London, Butterworths, 1888), passim, and VCH Essex, vol. 7, p. 20. P R O E 32/12 (1276-7), E 32/13 (1291-2), CCR, 1288-96, p. 307 (1293), Documents illustrative of English history in the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries (Record C o m m . , London, Eyre and Spottiswode, 1844), pp. 37-8 (1318-19), and P R O E 3 2 / 1 6 (1323-4). P R O S C 1/36/38, and CPR, 1321-4, p . 389. Havering's ill-defined status with respect to the forest is illustrated b y its inclusion in an inquiry de statu foreste in 1361 ( P R O E 32/279, m . 8); cf. E 32/285, m . 6, and E 3 2 / 2 9 9 / 1 a n d 3. P R O C 8 8 / 1 9 / 6 , CPR, 1396-9, p . 411, P R O D L 3 9 / 2 / 2 1 , and Marjorie K. Mclntosh, The Liberty of Havering-atte-Bower, 1500-1620 ( f o r t h c o m i n g ) , c h . 5. The county court records do not survive, but there are no references in other sources to Havering cases heard there after 1239. No Havering people appeared before the London Court of Hustings or the Mayor's Court apart from Court of Common Pleas outlawries: Corp. of London Record Office Court of Hustings CP 76, 113 and 169; the Books of the Court of Hustings, 1448—1600; and Calendar of early Mayor's Court rolls, 1298-1307 (ed. A. H. Thomas, Cambridge, 1924) and Calendar of plea and memoranda rolls [of the London Mayor's Court, 1323-1484] (ed. A. H . Thomas and P. E.Jones, 6 vols., Cambridge, Cambridge Univ. Press, 1926—61).

69

Havering, the crown and external control, 1200—1500 was made of the Court of Common Pleas, which remained willing after the 123os to hear cases involving Havering's freeholds and was considering customary holdings as well by c. 1450.63 Although the Havering court should have had exclusive jurisdiction over all personal suits which arose within the manor, a few local people thought it worth the extra cost and time to bring suit before the Court of Common Pleas.64 Hornchurch Priory and later New College used the Westminster court for suits against their tenants.65 Havering people might also find themselves called before the Court of Common Pleas as defendants in private suits. If they did not appear, they faced outlawry. 66 A rash of suits against Havering tenants seems to have broken out during the decades after 1430, a fact which may have been of importance in the decision to obtain Havering's charter.67 When Havering people were defendants before an outside court, any instructions concerning the case which involved action within the manor were given to the Havering bailiff for implementation. Should the bailiff fail to respond, the sheriff could be told to carry out the original order, despite Havering's position as a liberty. This was done through a special clause on the writ, non omittas propter libertatem, which empowered the sheriff to enter a privileged area and act directly upon its inhabitants.68 Another court sometimes available to Havering people as a setting for private suits was the Marshalsea court, held by the steward and marshal of the royal household. Although this court was supposed to deal only with a few, narrowly defined kinds of cases, by the fourteenth century it was prepared to hear minor private suits between ordinary people which had arisen within the general vicinity of the household. 69 The Marshalsea court was well liked by Havering people, for it was inexpensive to use, more successful than the manor court in compelling defendants and jurors to appear and quick in its procedures. When the king and his household were in London or Westminster for long periods, as during the 1310s and 1350s, five to twenty Havering people annually travelled to the Marshalsea rather than using their own manor 63

64

65

66 67 68 69

See ch. i above and FFE, vol. i, pp. 123—4, 249> 2 5 7 a n d 275, vol. 2, p . 25, vol. 3, pp. 118, 178, 251 and 254, vol. 4, passim. P R O C P 40/270, m. 12, C P 40/274, m. 5, C P 40/275, m. 187, and CPR, 1429-36, p. 227. The majority of the C P 40 rolls checked by the author contained n o Havering cases; there were no private suits at all from Havering on the K B 27 rolls consulted or on the Exchequer of pleas rolls, 1435-85 (PRO I N D 9995/1-2). PRO CP 40/268, m. 40, CP 40/272, m. 76, CP 40/712, m. i n , and CPR, 1452-61, P- 133. CPR, 1374-7, p . 119, CCR, 1374-7, p . 365, a n d CPR, 1461-7, p . 257. CPR, 1429-36, p . 227, CPR, 1452-61, p p . 133 and 609, a n d CPR, 1461—7, p . 257. A good example of the procedure is in PRO CP 40/208, m. 213. Mclntosh, 'Immediate royal justice'.

70

External demands and Havering s resistance, 1263—1300 70

court. At a time when the king was staying within Havering, local people flocked to the royal palace to enter their suits: nearly 200 cases involving Havering people were heard by the Marshalsea during twenty weeks in 1358 when the household paid several long visits to the manor.71 Though the Marshalsea's presence was clearly unpredictable, it occasionally offered a desirable alternative to the manor court. If parties in private suits heard by the manor court were not satisfied with the justice they received, they could obtain a writ which initiated a review of the case by one of the central courts.72 This benefit of ancient demesne status was only seldom utilised by Havering's tenants. Inspection of selected records has produced just six instances of central court review between 1237 and 1479: three writs of false judgement which called the record of land actions into the Court of Common Pleas, and three writs of certiorari summoning material about local suits into the Court of Chancery.73 Only after 1480 were parties in Havering cases to make active use of the right of review. The third type of legal interaction between Havering and outside authorities came through the ecclesiastical courts. The surviving evidence concerning the role of the church courts in Havering (or, more correctly, in the parish of Hornchurch) does not accord with the generally accepted view that the parish was a 'peculiar'jurisdiction, exempt from the normal supervision of diocesan officials.74 Although by c. 1600 New College was treating Hornchurch at its peculiar, medieval records indicate that the area was earlier inspected in a regular fashion by church authorities.75 During the years in which Hornchurch 70 72

73

74

75

7I P R O E 3 7 / 2 - 3 , and E 3 7 / 1 3 - 2 4 . P R O E 3 7 / ^ 5 , m m . I5~57<1. See above, ch. 1, Early registers of writs (ed. Elsa de Haas and G. D . G. Hall, Selden S o c , vol. 87, London, Quaritch, 1970), p p . 114—15, Registrum brevium tarn originalium, quatn judicialium (London, ThomasBassett, 1687; orig. publ. 1531), fols. 9b-i3a, and Marjorie K. Mclntosh, ' C e n t r a l court supervision o f the ancient demesne m a n o r court of Havering, 1200-1625', in Law, litigants and the legal profession (ed. E. W . Ives and A. H . Manchester, London, Royal Historical S o c , 1983), p p . 87-93. Cf. James V. Capua, * Feudal and royal justice in thirteenth-century England: the forms and impact o f royal r e v i e w ' , Amer. Journal of Legal History, X X V I I (1983), 54-84. P R O C P 4 0 / 2 7 , m . 2d, C P 4 0 / 6 8 , m . 36d (a reference kindly provided b y Paul Brand),

CP 40/851, m. 460, SC 2/172/26, C 260/144/9, and ERO D/DU 102/37, m. 4d. Cf. App. II. See, e.g., A. V. Worsley, Hornchurch parish church: a history (Colchester, B e n h a m , 1964), which states that H o r n c h u r c h 'enjoyed complete exemption from the diocesan jurisdiction' because of the priory's foreign parentage, an arrangement perpetuated b y N e w College (p. 12). New College first seems to have claimed peculiar jurisdiction in 1574, and by the 1680s the right was well established (NCO MS 9760, fol. 107V, and Worsley, Hornchurch parish church, p. 12). The author is grateful to Dorothy M. Owen for helping her to sort out this question of jurisdiction. 71

Havering, the crown and external control, 1200—1300 Priory was a cell of St Nicholas and St Bernard of Montjoux, the bishop of London's court heard three cases involving Hornchurch, the bishop's commissary proved a few Havering wills or granted administrations, and there is an explicit mention of the bishop's visitation in 1346.76 After the acquisition of the Hornchurch estate by New College in 13 91, there are fewer references to the authority of the bishop but definite indications that the archdeacon of Essex was conducting an annual visitation and proving Havering wills.77 It is possible, though unlikely, that during the later medieval years the archdeacon was acting within Hornchurch at the request of and on behalf of New College, as he was to do in the early seventeenth century. 78 In any case, the parishioners and clergy of Hornchurch were apparently subject to the same degree of supervision as people living in other areas. Unfortunately, we cannot describe what this control entailed or what use the parishioners made of the church courts for their private suits until the extant records of the ecclesiastical courts improve after 1560. Just as external legal control did not weigh heavily upon Havering's tenants, so too was the manor free from most forms of central government or county administrative authority. The sheriff was ordered in a few instances to act within Havering in financial matters. 79 If special problems arose, Havering might receive attention from a body named to amend the condition of roads and bridges which linked adjoining hundreds, to keep rivers between regions flowing or to repair the walls which protected marsh areas from the Thames.80 With the exception of the period between 1362 and 1380, however, Havering normally attended to its own roads, streams and marsh defences. The only form of regular administrative contact was taxation. During the later twelfth, thirteenth and early fourteenth centuries, 76

Hornch. Pr. kal., nos. 237, 142,137 and 2 1 ; GLL M S 9171/1, fols. 14.1v— I42r and 464V, and M S 9171/3, fols. I72r and 3731-; N C O M S 9744, fol. 1531-. 77 For annual payments to the archdeacon for procurations and synodals, 1403-82, see, e.g., N C O MSS 6400, 6422, 6449 and 6476, and Hornch. Pr. kal., no. 366; for wills, see E R O D / A E R 1 and D / A E W 1, passim. In a dispute in 1528-32 between the college and the archdeacon concerning tithes and spiritual control over Hornchurch, the archdeacon claimed that he had visited the church at Hornchurch and the t w o chapels 'for time out of m i n d ' , in his o w n right; final judgement in the case assigned full supervision over the parish to the archdeacon ( N C O MSS 4593/212 and 10674). T h e only evidence of possible college control comes from 1447, when the college named five men as proctors for Hornchurch, responsible for conducting a visitation of the parish ( N C O M S 9654, fol. 255V). 78 PRO KB 29/252. ™ E.g., PRO E 159/48, m. 23, C 131/3/16, and N C O MS 6482. 80 E.g., Public works in medieval law, vol. 1 (ed. C. T. Flower, Selden Soc, vol. 32, London, Quaritch, 1915), pp. 77-82, and cf. CPR, 1354-8, p. 479.

72

External demands and Havering s resistance, 1263—1300

Havering paid royal callage, the sum having been set at ^13—6-8 in c. 1234. The second half of the thirteenth century brought the rise of the lay subsidy, assessed at the rate of a fifteenth of the value of a person's movable goods if he lived in the countryside and at a tenth of the worth of town dwellers.81 Since, however, the crown hoped to use the subsidies as a means of tapping the wealth of the ancient demesne, its own manors were to be assessed at a tenth even if they were agricultural rather than urban in nature. The first subsidies were levied directly upon individuals by the assessors, but in 1334 the tax was imposed as a unit upon the local communities, which were then allowed to distribute the payment among their own members as they chose. The amount of the subsidy assessment in 1334 was used as the basis for all subsequent levies. After the interruption of the subsidies between 1377 and 13 81 by the experiment with poll taxes, the older form of taxation was resumed, still reckoned as multiples or fractions of the 1334 value for the rest of the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries. Despite the crown's intent, the tenants of Havering managed to escape the full burden of subsidy payments. This was true both collectively and in some cases individually. Probably through bribery — though perhaps merely through an administrative error — Havering avoided the assessment at a tenth as prescribed for manors of the ancient demesne.82 If the stated Havering taxes for the surviving assessments between 1319 and 1332 are multiplied by ten, the per capita assessment is much lower than that of Havering's neighbours and of Essex in general; multiplication by fifteen produces values within the same range as elsewhere. In 1352 Havering was said on a subsidy record to be assessed at a fifteenth, and from 1379 onward Exchequer clerks sometimes commented that Havering ought to be taxed at a tenth as ancient demesne but had traditionally been rated at a fifteenth.83 The manor's assessment at .£15—19—4 in 1334 and in many later subsidies probably constituted a smaller proportion of Havering's actual worth than had the .£13—6—8 assessed in thirteenth-century tallage. The inclusion of Havering tenants on the surviving itemised assessments (from 1319, 1327 and 1332) is inconsistent.84 The 1332 subsidy was to have been levied upon all those who possessed goods 81

M. W. Beresford, Lay subsidies and poll taxes (Canterbury, Phillimore, 1963), parts 1 and 2, and the introduction to The lay subsidy of1334 (ed. Robin E. Glasscock, London, Oxford Univ. Press, 1975). For tallage, see above, ch. 1.

82

Cf. P . D . A . H a r v e y , A medieval Oxfordshire village: Cuxham, O x f o r d U n i v . Press, 1965), p p . 105—9. PRO E 179/107/41, E 179/107/62, and E 179/108/107. PRO E 179/107/10, 13 and 17.

83 84

73

1240 to 1400 ( O x f o r d ,

Havering, the crown and external control, 1200-1300 worth more than 10s. in the countryside and 6s. in boroughs and the ancient demesne. If the higher figure was used for Havering, most tenants of 10 acres or more should have been assessed: at that time, 10s. was the value of about 16 bushels of wheat or two cows. The 1251 and 1352/3 extents suggest that 130—90 heads of households ought to have paid the tax, whereas the actual number was 67-8 people in 1319 and 1327 and 102 in 1332.8s Though the economic problems of the 1310s and 13 20s may temporarily have lowered the movable wealth of many Havering families, these numbers seem low. One may also examine the assessment lists for the names of those fifteen Havering families with a fixed surname who held the same piece of land containing more than 20 acres on both the 1251 and the 1352/3 extents, people who should have been assessed for every subsidy. This search reveals only ten names in sum, few of which are found on all three lists. To make sense of the way in which Havering individuals appear on the subsidy lists, one must postulate either gross incompetence on the part of the assessors or deliberate action by certain tenants to avoid inclusion. For those tenants who did not escape the assessors' notice, the average tax was between 2s. 5d. and 3s. 6d., the equivalent of 2d. to 3d. per year between 1319 and 1332. Havering was certainly paying less than its fair share of taxes. The final forms of non-local control were exercised by Hornchurch Priory and later New College. Both institutions had a spiritual function, responsible for providing clergy to hold services in each of the parish's three churches and chapels. Members of the priory themselves seem to have celebrated mass in the parish church at Hornchurch, hiring outside priests for the chapels at Rom ford and Havering-atte-Bower.86 When William of Wykeham purchased the Hornchurch property for his college, he acquired its religious component as well as the land. From 1392 onward New College appointed to the church at Hornchurch a chaplain, frequently named as vicar, who had an assistant priest and a clerk to help him. 87 A chaplain for Romford was named either directly by the college or by the vicar at Hornchurch; the Havering-atte-Bower chaplain was normally appointed by the Hornchurch incumbent. There is no indication that the vicars and chaplains were men of distinction. The growth of lay fraternities in Hornchurch and Romford during the fifteenth century may reflect dissatisfaction with the religious life provided by the established clergy. 85 86 87

For sizes o f holdings in the extents, see ch. 3 below. See A p p . IV. N C O M S S 6386, 9654 and 9 7 5 7 - 6 3 , and W o r s l e y , Hornchurch parish church, p p . 8-13.

74

External demands and Havering s resistance, 1263—1300

The Hornchurch connection is presumably the reason that three Havering boys enrolled at New College between 1428 and 1444.88 The priory and New College also collected Havering's tithes and * the profits of the altar', the oblations of the faithful. The papal bull approving sale of the Hornchurch estate to Wykeham specified that the college was to provide a perpetual vicar to serve the church, supported by the parish tithes, but a few years later the college obtained a revised bull which freed it from that obligation.89 Henceforth the college was allowed to collect all the tithes itself, assigning whatever fraction it chose to the vicar and the other chaplains or to lay lessees. In the later fourteenth century the priory and college received about ^ 6 0 annually from religious income, as compared to ^ 5 5 from lands.90 The priory and college had a further role as lord of the 1860 acres in Havering which by c. 1300 formed the Hornchurch estate.91 Each institution wielded its seigneurial authority through two manor courts, a view of frankpledge and a bailiff.92 The manor courts were active primarily in those areas of interest to the priory or college. In addition to recording land transfers, heriots and entry fines, the courts noted tenants' houses which were in disrepair and attempted to enforce the performance of labour services by Hornchurch's tenants into the early fifteenth century.93 Members of the Havering laity demonstrated their goodwill toward Hornchurch Priory from its founding through the late 1200s by donation of land.94 The fourteenth and fifteenth centuries, however, saw considerable conflict between local people and the priory and college in every area of control.95 In 1315 Robert William, Richard le Rous, John le Brettoun and Nicholas the clerk of Romford, acting on behalf of the parishioners of Hornchurch, brought suit against the priory before the bishop of London. In an emotionally charged statement they alleged that the house was failing to perform its spiritual 88

Andrew Clark, 'Early Essex Wykehamists', Essex Rev., X V I (1907), I73~5- For 89 fraternities, see ch. 6 below. Hornch. Pr. kal., nos. 311—12 and 315b (recte 1398). 90 N C O MSS 9744, fol. i86r-v. 91 See ch. 4 below for the economic organisation of the estate. 92 N C O M S S 3731, 3732 and 3734, Hornch. Pr. kal., nos. 289, 185 and 482, and Placita de quo warranto (Record C o m m . , L o n d o n , Eyre and Strahan, 1818), p . 2 3 2 ; for the bailiff, see, e.g., N C O M S 3731, m . 2, and M S 9744, fol. I96r. 93 NCO MSS 3731 ^nd 6399. 94 About 360 acres were given in at least thirty-eight separate donations prior to 1300. (The 1251 and 1352/3 extents plus this author's analysis of the gifts and bequests recorded in Homch. Pr. kal.) 95 Marjorie K. Mclntosh, ' H o r n c h u r c h Priory, Essex, 1 1 5 8 / 9 - 1 3 9 1 ' , Revue Benedictine,

XCV(i985), 116-38.

75

Havering, the crown and external control, 1200—1300 duties and was misusing gifts and bequests.96 That same year William, le Rous and le Brettoun testified in the Exchequer that the priory ought to pay its share of Havering's tallage on all land acquired after the original royal foundation. This obligation was denied by the priory. There was also resistance to seigneurial demands, perhaps due in part to invidious comparison with the perfunctory requirements imposed by the lord of the manor of Havering. By the early 1340s the priory was having grave difficulty in forcing compliance, as did the college during the first few decades of its ownership. Collection of tithes was a particular problem for the college.97 From the 1420s onward New College leased to lay renters the main set of buildings and land along with most of the parish tithes (a holding known as Hornchurch Rectory), the manor of Suttons, another smaller farm called Risebridge, a mill and most of the other fields.98 Local people who held leases from the college rode to Oxford to sign contracts or pay rents; others went to explore the possibility of obtaining a lease in the future. The rents demanded for these leases were low and remained fixed in some cases for centuries, so it was possible for the tenant to make a generous profit from them. Several leading Havering families of the Tudor period rose to wealth through late medieval Hornchurch leases, most notably the Legatts. By the early sixteenth century there was vigorous competition (including the use of gifts and all possible connections at court) to obtain a lease or the promise of one. Havering thus expected to experience outside authority only in certain prescribed areas and to a limited degree. Any change in external supervision was resented by the tenants not as a matter of principle but rather because it might weaken their economic independence or their intramanorial legal and administrative control. We must be conscious of the sensitivity of Havering's tenants toward challenges to their usual autonomy as we explore the generation of unrest which was to culminate in the Peasants' Revolt. HAVERING AND THE PEASANTS

REVOLT

The generation following the 1349 plague was an unsettled period within Havering, as it was in many places. The mortality caused by 96

98

Hornch. Pr. kal., nos. 137 and 21. For below, see PRO E 13/37, rot. 24, and cf. NCO MSS 2985 and 9744, fols. i85v-i86r. Robert William was about to become farmer 97 of Havering: see above. E.g., NCO MSS 4593 and 6400. NCO MSS 9654 and 9757. For elaborate efforts to obtain leases, see NCO MS 179, and Mclntosh, 'Some new gentry'.

76

External demands and Havering s resistance, 1263—1500

the initial onslaught of disease and its successors had social and economic as well as demographic consequences. Changes in administrative practices threatened Havering's customary exemption from outside supervision. Edward Ill's frequent presence in the manor during the 13 70s and the introduction of the new poll taxes were further elements in the growing unrest in the community. Havering must have been densely populated in the years just prior to 1349, for there were enough people living in the manor when the plague struck to fill in the resulting vacancies among the tenants." By 1352—3, few newcomers had moved into the community. However, subsequent attacks of the plague, which recurred in Essex once or twice per decade for the rest of the century, reduced the existing Havering population to such an extent that land was left temporarily untenanted. In 1369 the bailiff of Havering asked to be excused from rents which he was unable to collect since the holdings were unoccupied.100 Outsiders now began to come into the manor. By 1388—9 half of the resident or landholding families mentioned in the Havering manor court rolls had moved to the area since 1352—3; of these 125 new households, 72 would be gone again by 1405. The rapid turnover of land and arrival of outsiders must have disrupted the familiar patterns of local life. Secondary effects of the extraordinary mortality were felt during the 1350s and 1360s. Wages rose, a development of prime importance given the heavy reliance upon hired labour in the manor.101 The Statute of Labourers of 1351, which attempted to hold wages at their pre-1349 level, was not enforced in Havering, so wages were free to go up in accordance with demand. The agricultural income of some of the larger holdings evidently declined. Prices must also have risen. These compounding changes caused strains within the community, conflicts which apparently led to a predisposition toward violence and a tendency to subvert the law to the tenants' own ends. These traits are illustrated by a long series of illegal actions directed against the thoroughly disliked royal servant, William of Northtoft. His house in Havering was broken into and robbed several times, and there was an elaborate attempt to frame him by planting under his bed * a die and other suspicious instruments to forge gold and silver for making false money'. 102 99 See b e l o w , c h . 3 . 100 P R O SC 6/844/13. For newcomers, see ch. 3 below. 101 Paid labour and the Statute of Labourers are discussed in ch. 4 below. 102 cpR 1358-6i, pp. 232 and 444, PRO C 260/71/10B, and CPR, 1370-4, pp. 294-5.

77

Havering, the crown and external control, 1200—1500 During the 1360s and 1370s administrative and physical disturbances, most of them not associated with the plague, added to the troubled mood. In 1361 Havering was included within the scope of an extensive forest inquiry, the first time since 1323 that forest justices had dealt directly with the manor.103 This development may well have been viewed with alarm by the tenants, although it was not repeated in future years. Of considerable concern to those 140 people who held land from the Hornchurch estate was the crown's appropriation in the mid-13 60s of the property belonging to the priory.104 From 1365 until at least 1372 and again from 1385 until 1391 the Hornchurch lands were in the hands of royally appointed keepers, men whose primary interest was the short-term profit which they could squeeze from the property. After the confiscation of the possessions of all alien priories in 1379, it was claimed that many of the farmers or keepers administered their lands harshly. Hornchurch's keeper in 1365 had two of his tenants imprisoned in the Tower of London for a trespass committed against him, and a later keeper was charged with having caused great destruction on the estate, letting buildings decay and cutting large amounts of wood for sale.105 Though Hornchurch Priory had not been popular with its tenants, at least it was a familiar and conservative manorial lord. Transfer of the estate to keepers may have led to increased financial demands upon the tenants and raised fears about the security of their lands and customs. The poor condition of the marsh walls along the north bank of the Thames led to an invasion of the exclusive jurisdiction of the Havering court. A series of commissions named between 1362 and 1380 were instructed to inspect defects in the Thames walls and to order repairs in a stretch which included Havering marsh. 106 These bodies, small groups of royal officials and important Essex landholders, included John of Gildesburgh, John of Bampton and Robert Belknap, the three men attacked first in Essex during the 13 81 uprising. Despite the commissioners' efforts, 1374 and 1376—7 saw bad flooding. Havering marsh was inundated, requiring expensive rebuilding of the Thames walls.107 The activity of the commissioners must have been particularly 103

Inquiry de statu foreste, PRO E 32/279, m. 8, and see n. 60 above. CCR, 1364—8, p . 209, Homch, Pr. kal., nos. 321 a n d 159, and W o r s l e y , Hornchurch parish I05 CCR, 1364—8, p . 2 0 9 , a n d Cal. inq. misc., v o l . 5, p p . 153—4. church, p p . I O - I I . 106 W i l l i a m D u g d a l e , The history of imbanking and drayning... ( L o n d o n , Alice W a r r e n , 1662), pp. 79—80, which also mentions conscription. 107 CPR, 1370-4, p. 473, and PRO E 364/11. The author is grateful to Andrew Prescott for drawing her attention to the earthquake of 1380, for which he cites BL Cotton Charter IV.3 and short notes by P. H. Reaney and P. Laver in Trans. Essex Archaeol. Soc, N.S. XXI, 136-7, and XXII, 131.

104

78

External demands and Havering's resistance, 1265—1500 resented because in the 1370s they were allowed to conscript labour and imprison any carpenters or other workers whom they found refractory. Further damage to the marsh defences may have resulted from the earthquake of 1380. Many of the tenants of Havering must have been unusually aware during the 1370s of the royal court and perhaps of the power struggle going on around the elderly king. Edward III was often at the palace at Havering-atte-Bower and a number of important political confrontations took place there. Several of the contesting figures at court had independent connections with Havering. Alice Perrers, Edward Ill's mistress, was a local tenant as well as a frequent visitor at Havering palace during the closing years of Edward's life. 108 William of Wykeham, bishop of Winchester, was associated with Havering as early as 1373, when he served as one of the witnesses to a scrutiny of Hornchurch Priory's charters.109 In the following decade he loaned money to the priory and hence was in a prime position to buy up the property for his college in 13 91. Havering's tenants had several kinds of contact with the world of the court while the household was in residence in the manor. They made regular use of the Marshalsea court for their private suits. Thereby they gained not only effective judgements but also a fine excuse for entry into the royal compound — a golden opportunity to get inside the buildings and, with luck, to glimpse famous people. The Havering workmen who were employed in large numbers during the 1370s on an extensive project at the palace must have had similar chances to observe the court. Between 1372 and 1377 skilled construction workers and ordinary labourers from the manor were hired for a total of about 7800 days, an average of 1560 working days annually.110 (Here too it is likely that labour was conscripted, for royal wages were lower than Havering's normal rates.) The many servants who accompanied the royal household to Havering must have been a fine source of business and news.111 Because the events occurring at Havering palace during 108

109 110

111

In 1373 Alice acquired the m a n o r o f Gaynes in t h e adjoining parish o f Upminster, an estate which had formerly been held by J o h n o f Havering a n d included land within Havering. Alice henceforth lived in U p m i n s t e r while n o t at court and was buried there (CPR, 1377-81, p. 503, and VCH Essex, vol. 7, p p . 148-9). O n e of the offences for which she was banished b y Parliament in 1377 took place at Havering palace: Rotuli Parliamentorum, vol. 3, p p . 12-14. W o r s l e y , Hornchurch parish church, p . 11, a n d M c l n t o s h , ' H o r n c h u r c h P r i o r y ' . PRO E 101/464/24, 26-7 and 30, E 101/465/1, and below, ch. 4. For conscription, see CPR, 1370-4, pp. 266-7, a n d Andrew Prescott, 'London in the Peasants' Revolt', The London Journal, VII (1981), 125—43. E.g., PRO SC 2/172/28, m. 6d (an exchange of horses, 1397).

79

Havering, the crown and external control, 1200—1300 the 13 70s were of objective interest and because the channels of information were exceptionally good, it is probable that many tenants of the manor had some knowledge of the king's doings. The disquiet of national politics may thus have contributed to a sense of local unrest.112 The presence of the royal household in Havering must also have accentuated the chronic hostility of the tenants toward purveyance. In addition to routine, county-based levies to provision the king's household, the royal clerk of the market and purveyors were allowed to requisition goods and carriage from any private family within 12 miles of the king's person and from people selling wares publicly. 113 Purveyors often paid less than full market value for the items which they claimed, and they commonly settled by tally or a bill of debenture, to be redeemed in the wardrobe or Exchequer, rather than in cash. Despite the passage in 1362 of a statute designed to regulate purveyance, it remained a matter of national objection in the coming decades. Havering was at odds with the clerk of the market over purveyance in 1365, as a result of which 'the men of the vill of Romford' were forced to pay a penalty to the king. 114 The long stays of Edward III in Havering during the 1370s presumably made purveyance a sore point for many local producers and traders.115 In 1368 the tenants went to the bother of obtaining confirmation of their exemption from market tolls. There are signs during the 1370s of renewed conflict between the crown and the tenants of Havering. Early in 1370 a local jury was instructed to provide information on a holding which had been taken into royal hands because its tenant, John Annore, had committed a felony; the land was subsequently granted to the keeper of Havering park.116 The jurors gave a long history of the Annore family and stoutly 112

113

114 115

116

Cf. R. H. Hilton, Bond men made free: medieval peasant movements and the English rising

0/1381 (London, Temple Smith, 1973), pp. 158—9. C.J. Given-Wilson, 'Purveyance for the royal household, 1362-1413', Bulletin of the Institute of Hist. Research, LVI (1983), 145-63, and cf. J. P. Maddicott, 'The English peasantry and the demands of the crown, 1294-1341', Past and Present supplement no. 1 (Cambridge, 1975). During one visit by Edward III and his entourage, in Easter 1357, sums were laid out for household provisions ranging from a few shillings up to ^44 and including the following items: hay, oats, cut grass, rushes, halters, bridles, firewood, charcoal, clay and salt (PRO E 101/392/17). PRO SC 6/1092/3, m. 13. Some tenants may have been able to escape. In the 1390s New College can be seen bribing royal purveyors and John Parker, a major tenant and usher of the queen's chamber, obtained a special grant freeing him from purveyance (NCO MSS 6387, and CPR, 1388-^2, p. 257). For tolls, see ch. 1, n. 100, above. Cal. inq. misc., vol. 3, pp. 291-2, and PRO KB 145/2/44/1. For the subsidy complaint, see PRO SC 1/42/102.

80

External demands and Haverings

resistance, 1265—1500

denied that John had ever been convicted of a felony or outlawed. A complaint from the tenants to the king against the excessive exactions of the officials named to collect a recent subsidy within Havering apparently dates from the early 1370s. One of those accused was the hated William of Northtoft. By June 1373 the crown had become sufficiently concerned about the high level of violence and obstruction of justice in Havering that it ordered a group of justices, headed by Robert Belknap, shortly thereafter to be named chief justice of the Court of Common Pleas, to go to the manor to investigate ' all trespasses, extortions, oppressions, damages, grievances and excesses'.117 The uneasy atmosphere within Havering may well have been increased by the 1377 petition of the House of Commons and resulting royal ordinance about exemplifications of Domesday Book. These official copies of the entry from 1086 concerning a given manor were being requested by villeins attempting to secure their personal and tenurial freedom, commonly by arguing that their manor was ancient demesne.118 The strong response of Parliament and the crown against such claims, backed by special commissions of oyer and terminer in 1377 and 1378 to punish the offenders, may have led Havering's tenants to fear for the safety of their own rights. Announcement of the poll tax in 1377 heightened local resentment of crown demands. We have noted that Havering paid a disproportionately small share of the subsidies and from 1334 was allowed to decide how the manor's total obligation was to be distributed. The tenants must therefore have responded with dismay to the tax of 1377, for although the payment was only 4d. per head, outsiders determined the assessment and imposed the duty on 703 Havering people.119 Not only did the poll tax touch seven times more people than had been assessed in 1332 and presumably thereafter, it promised to become a regular form of taxation. A second poll tax was authorised in 1379, this time with provision for a sliding scale of payments based upon income and marital status. The 1379 tax was collected with difficulty in many parts of the country and produced less than was expected due to deliberate evasion. The tension within Havering probably intensified with the arrival »* CPR, 1370-4, p. 313. J. H. Tillotson, 'Peasant unrest in the England of Richard II: some evidence from royal records', Historical Studies, XVI (1974), 1-16, and Rosamond Faith, 'The "great rumour" of 1377 and peasant ideology', in The English rising 0/1381 (ed. R. H. Hilton and T. H. Aston, Cambridge, Cambridge Univ. Press, 1984), pp. 43-73. 119 ' Essex and the Peasants' Revolt' (compiled by W. H. Liddell and R. G. E. Wood, Essex Record Office Publ. no. 81, Chelmsford, 1981). For Havering's assessment in 1377, see PRO E 179/240/259, part 4, MS 134, information kindly given to the author by Carolyn Fen wick. 118

8l

Havering, the crown and external control, 1200-1500 in the manor in spring 1380 of a commission sent to report upon the maintenance of the pale around the park. 120 This inquiry resulted from a petition by the abbess of Barking that her house be freed from its customary duty of repairing a long section of the pale. Three men were named to consider the request: Alan of Buxhall, knight, who was then the keeper of Havering and enjoyed other perquisites within the manor; John of Gildesburgh, knight, perhaps the former keeper of the Hornchurch estate, as he was to be again in the late 1380s; and John of Bampton, the man who would in a few months be appointed steward of Havering. Although the officials did not go on to investigate other seigneurial obligations of Havering's tenants, local people cannot have felt comfortable about their intentions. About a year later a far more significant commission met near Havering. In spite of the problems which had arisen during the collection of the poll tax in 1379, the crown, eager for money to finance the fighting in France, persuaded Parliament late in 1380 to approve another imposition of the tax. 121 Collection of the third poll tax, which was to be assessed at a higher rate than that of 1379, began in December. Faced with widespread evasion, the government appointed commissioners in the spring of 1381 to investigate and enforce payment of the tax. In late May two justices travelled to the town of Brentwood, located just two miles east of Havering on the London—Colchester road, to hold sessions.122 These men, both connected with Havering, were John of Bampton, now the steward, and John of Gildesburgh. In Brentwood on 30 May the justices aroused the ire of those present at the session. They were assaulted and forced to flee through Havering on their way to London. One report of the rebellion says that a few days later Robert Belknap, now chief justice of the Common Pleas, was sent to Brentwood with a group of colleagues to punish the perpetrators of this crime. 123 Belknap, known in Havering through his trial of local people in 1373 and his role as a commissioner for marsh 120 CPR, 1377—81, p p . 4 6 9 - 7 0 a n d 482, a n d Cal. inq. misc., v o l 4, p . 6 9 . 'Essex a n d t h e Peasants' R e v o l t ' , a n d Essex sessions of the peace, p p . 5 - 1 0 . 122 This account is influenced b y A n d r e w Prescott's evidence c o n c e r n i n g possible inaccuracies in t h e description o f t h e o p e n i n g stage o f t h e rising in Essex presented in the Anonimalle chronicle and by his own use of the indictments in PRO KB 9/166/2 (personal communication, and see Anonimalle chronicle, 1333-1381 (ed. V. H. Galbraith, Manchester, Manchester Univ. Press, 1927)). The author is extremely grateful to Dr Prescott for his assistance. See also Alan Harding, 'The revolt against the justices', in The English rising 0/1381 (ed. R. H. Hilton and T. H. Aston, Cambridge, Cambridge Univ. Press, 1984), pp. 165-93. 123 The Anonimalle chronicle, which Andrew Prescott thinks may be incorrect with respect to Belknap's commission. 121

82

External demands and Havering s resistance, 1263—1500

walls, passed through the manor and began on 2 June to take testimony and prepare indictments in Brentwood. There he and his cohorts were interrupted by 'a rising of the commons', an armed assault which prompted the justices to halt their session and beat a hasty retreat to London. At this point the well-known stages of the uprising began. In Essex, the tenants of many manors destroyed the property of their lord or burned the records of their manor court. 124 Among those against whom violence was directed were Bampton and Gildesburgh. Bampton's head was demanded by the rebels and three of his clerks were killed and decapitated, their heads displayed on poles. Gildesburgh's property in five Essex villages was attacked, his houses and manorial records destroyed. As the rebellion began to die down, in the third week in June, Richard II went first to Waltham Abbey and then to the palace at Havering-atte-Bower. He was in Havering by 26 June, the day on which a group of justices commissioned to try rebels in Essex and Hertfordshire began a two-day session at Havering. 125 The king apparently remained in Havering until 1 July, when he proceeded to Chelmsford to join the justices engaged in the trial and hanging of Essex rebels there; he then returned to Havering for several more days on 6 July. By mid-July the process of punishment was effectively completed. The level of Havering's involvement in the Peasants' Revolt is poorly documented. Nicholas Gromond and John Hermar, both of Havering, were arrested in Surrey for having incited rebellion. 126 They had previously been at the burning of the Savoy Palace in London and were probably active agitators. They confessed that they were the first who rose in the county of Essex and were the first to go to the Savoy. Gromond does not appear in Havering records, but Hermar was a member of an old local family, a man frequently involved in minor violence. Rather surprisingly, both these men were pardoned by the king and were soon at home again. The surviving record of the session held in Havering is fragmentary, with just a few irregular entries. It includes mention of only one Havering person, John Shepherd, who 124

'Essex and the Peasants' Revolt', and Christopher Dyer, 'The social and economic background to the rural revolt of 1381', in The English rising 0/1381 (ed. R. H. Hilton and T. H. Aston, Cambridge, Cambridge Univ. Press, 1984), pp. 9-42. I2 s CPR, 1381-5, pp. 24 and 26-7, and PRO KB 9/166/2. 126

PRO KB 27/483, rex m. 26, as printed in The peasants' rising and the Lollards: a collection

of unpublished documents (ed. Edgar Powell and G. M. Trevelyan, London, Longmans, Green, 1899), pp. 17-18, KB 27/484, rex m. 25, and CCR, 1381-5, p. 80. The author is grateful to A. L. Brown and Andrew Prescott for discussing the Havering participants with her. 83

Havering, the crown and external control, 1200—1300 was one of a group of four said to have ' risen with the commons of the said county [of Essex]' at Brentwood.127 They then went to London, where they killed diverse Englishmen and foreigners and attacked the Savoy and other houses. Shepherd appears in no Havering records. The role of several other men is revealed by the records of private suits initiated after the rebellion had been put down. Four Havering men, all from long-established, middle-level families, were accused by John of Gildesburgh of having broken into his houses at High Easter and Wennington in Essex, where they burned charters, writings, rolls and other muniments as well as taking goods worth fyo.I28 John Tailor of Havering was charged with having been involved in the major attack on the manor of the Princess of Wales at North Weald, Essex, burning court rolls and removing goods to a value of ;£ioo. Nicholas Gromond, mentioned above, was sued by the prebendary of Navestock, Essex, for a similar offence there. Apart from the activities of those eight people, we can only guess at the degree of participation by Havering tenants in the uprising. The fact that the earliest stages in the rebellion occurred at Brentwood and that the initial acts of violence were directed against officials associated with Havering raises the possibility of far greater involvement than the existing records indicate.129 News of the beginning of the revolt must have been spread at the annual view of frankpledge held in Romford on Tuesday, 4 June, just five days after the attack on Bampton and Gildesburgh and two days after the probable confrontation with Belknap's commission.130 Richard's presence at Havering during the period of local trials and the decision to hold a major session in the manor itself may be significant. Further, the rolls of Havering's manor court begin only in 1382 (with the exception of two earlier fragments preserved amongst the crown's records in London).131 The rolls were presumably destroyed as a symbol of seigneurial authority, probably in association with the murder of John of Bampton's clerks: the steward, and by extension his clerks, had custody of the rolls. Havering's experience before and during the Peasants' Revolt 127 128

129

130

131

PRO KB 9/166/2, m. 1. PRO CP 40/489, m. 49id, and CP 40/490, m. 263d. For the cases below, see PRO CP 40/487, m. 165, and CP 40/492, m. 3iod; CP 40/483, m. 569. These accounts and references were most generously provided to the author by Andrew Prescott. The Anonimalle chronicle says that the first insurgents in Essex planned to kill all the lawyers, jurors and royal servants they could find (Anonimalle chronicle, p. 135). The Havering view of frankpledge was always held the Tuesday after Whit Sunday, the latter falling in 1381 on 2 June. See App. Ill for the dates and references of the surviving rolls.

84

External demands and Havering s resistance, 1265—1500

emphasises the need to approach the uprising within a broad framework. The tenants of Havering were freemen who held their land by a functionally free form of tenure. Apart from the years between 1351 and 1353, the lady of the manor had made no attempt to increase her control over the tenants. Yet at least a few Havering men took part, possibly playing a central role, in the early stages of the 13 81 revolt. Perhaps we should direct more attention toward such issues as the impact of the confiscation of the property of alien priories, royal purveyance and the use of conscripted labour by the crown and local administrative bodies, all set within the context of movement of tenants onto new manors. With the end of the Peasants' Revolt, the restive mood apparent in Havering during the previous generation gradually dispersed. Seigneurial supervision was remote, outside intrusion was again minimal and the poll tax was not repeated. The tenants of Havering, buttressed by a fine array of formal privileges and the benefits of neglect, returned to their immediate interests with undivided concentration. In the later parts of this study we shall explore the two major foci of local concern: economic activity and community control.

PART II ECONOMIC INDEPENDENCE AND ITS CONSEQUENCES, 1251-1460

Chapter 3

DIFFERENTIATED LANDHOLDING AND THE POPULATION, 1251-1460

Havering's freedom from external authority enabled the tenants to develop their own economic lives without restriction or serious exploitation by a manorial lord or the government. The opportunities available to them as landholders were exceptionally favourable. Havering's location amidst woods open to assarting led to wide variation in sizes of holdings rather than standard groupings at set fractions of virgates. Weak seigneurial control and the freedom of Havering's tenure promoted a vigorous market in land. Purchase and sale of entire holdings, not merely of secondary pieces, were common by the early thirteenth century. By 1251 the distribution of holding sizes had assumed an atypical shape, with a heavy weighting of very large estates, fewer tenancies of middle rank and many smallholders. Chapter 3 first examines the way in which the holdings developed up to 1352/3 and then looks at the great extent of that year. Next we turn to the characteristics of tenure, inheritance and the market in local land. We end with consideration of the size and composition of the population before 1460, emphasising the place of outsiders and newcomers. Between 1350 and 1460 Havering already displayed the patterns of a commercialised economy. Those 100 tenants who worked 30 acres or more were in a position to grow produce for regular sale to London, transactions facilitated by the market at Romford. Craft activity and trade, again centred around the market, were attractive to some of the manor's smallholders; others were employed as wage labourers. Cash and credit pervaded the economy, and women played diverse roles. In Chapter 4 we shall explore these facets of Havering's late medieval economy. A concluding discussion addresses the tenants' robust individualism and the irrelevance to Havering's development of most analyses of medieval economic change.

Economic independence and its consequences, 1251—1460 ASSARTING AND LANDHOLDING, IO66-I352/3 Expansion of cleared land, 1066—1251

The manor of Havering is listed under Becontree hundred in Domesday Book.1 It is said to have been held by Harold during Edward the Confessor's reign, as were the other royal manors in Essex, and in 1086 contained 10 * hides' of land. The adult male population of Havering consisted of forty villeins (substantial customary tenants), forty-one bordars (men who may have owed some servile dues) and six servi.2 A problem in interpreting the 1086 account stems from uncertainty as to the size of the Domesday hide within Havering. This unit of assessment normally corresponded to around 120 acres in the Domesday Survey's usage. If the hide contained 120 acres when applied to Havering, the tenants' land would have comprised about 1200 acres, resulting in an average holding of 15 acres for each of the eighty-one villeins and bordars.3 However, a hide in Essex was usually composed of four virgates. In 1251 the virgate in Havering was abnormally large, containing 120 acres.4 Further, Domesday Book notes that there were forty plough-teams among Havering's tenants. In other manors, a ratio of one plough-team for c. 120 acres was standard. It therefore seems probable that the Domesday hide was reckoned at 480 acres. The tenants' land would thus have extended to 4800 acres, with an average holding of 59 acres. The king's demesne lands in Havering were modest. Only two plough-teams were needed for the demesne arable, suggesting an area of c. 240 acres. We cannot be sure of the amount of meadow and woodland within the demesne, for the Domesday figures for these 1 2 3

4

DB, and see J. H. Round's comments in Victoria county history of Essex, vol. 1 (ed. H. A. Doubleday and W. Page, Westminster, Constable, 1903), esp. pp. 429-30. In 1066 the manor had contained forty-one villeins and forty-one plough-teams. The other figures remained the same. Jan Titow thinks it probable that an assessment unit of 120 acres was used for Havering as for virtually all other manors in Domesday Book. This unit, called a 'hide' in 1086, remained in use in Havering for land assarted during the later medieval years, now designated as a 'virgate' (personal communication). Eleanor Searle, however, has suggested to the author that the Havering hide may have been set at 480 acres as a tax incentive for assarting (personal communication): cf. her' Hides, virgates and tenant settlement at Battle Abbey', Econ. Hist. Rev., 2nd ser., XVI (1963), 290-300. See also VCH Essex, vol. 7, pp. 17-18. The 1251 and 1352/3 extents employ identical virgates, which in the latter survey clearly contained 120 acres. Similarly, the two extents reckoned on the basis of an acre of the same size. In 1352/3 the acre is specified as calculated from a standard 'measured' rod or perch of i6j feet; a perch of that size is used on a detailed map from the 1610s (ERO D/DU 162/1).

90

Differentiated landholding and the population, 1251—1460 components may refer to the whole manor. Havering was said to have 100 acres of meadow and 269 sheep; there were enough woods to support 500 swine, though only 160 pigs were grazing there at the time of the survey. In 1251 the king's demesne contained about 390 acres. If it was of similar size in 1086, the crown would have held at least 150 acres of demesne meadow and woods. The obligation of the tenants to do work on the demesne cannot have been great, as the amount of arable demesne was small when compared to the amount of tenant land. Havering also included one mill and several detached freeholds, not physically part of the manor but associated with it for accounting purposes. These freeholds do not appear again in Havering records. The Domesday description ends by saying that the manor was worth ^ 3 6 before the Conquest and ^ 4 0 in 1086. The obscure sense of * worth' is suggested by the further statement that the sheriff received ^ 8 0 from Havering in customary payments plus .£10 in 'gersum', consideration money paid for obtaining the lease. During the century and a half which followed the making of Domesday Book, land clearing within Havering was carried on at a rapid pace (see Table 2). Assarted land was taken from the royal outwoods, the * forest of Havering'. Official approval and formal arrenting were not demanded at the time of clearing.5 If the Domesday hide in Havering contained 480 acres, 3255 acres of new land were added between 1086 and 1251, an increase of 63 %, or 3 8 % per century. (If the hide contained 120 acres, 6855 acres were added, an increase of 430%.) Of the new assarts, about 1200 acres were arrented as virgate units, owing labour services on the demesne and maintenance of the pale around the king's park as well as money rents. Another 1655 acres were rented as customary assarts, owing nothing except rent and suit of court. The four serjeanties, now treated as freeholds, amounted to about 400 acres. The clearing of land, much of it in the wooded area to the north of the London—Romford—Colchester road, was apparently performed entirely by the tenants, with no evidence of royal initiative or assistance. It was done evidently by single individuals or small partnerships rather than by organised groups or as a collective community project. Extensive assarting led to a dispersed pattern of settlement in northern and eastern Havering. It also must have contributed to the independent, acquisitive approach of many of the manor's tenants. The land assarted in Havering between 1086 and 1251 seems to have lain predominantly and probably entirely in separate, enclosed units 5

See ch. i above. 91

Table 2. Growth of Havering s lands and value, 1066-1251"

Date 1066-86 Sometime during the years between 1086 and 1245 1158/9-1163

No. of virgates (at 120 a./virgate)

No. of acres of assarts, cotlands, forelands and service holdings

10 'hides', probably = 4800 a. c.9 virgates added = 1080 a

No. of acres of demesne

Change in acreage

c.39Oa.?

c.2935 a. new tenant land

c.1455 a. customary land + c.400 a. freehold added

c.i 500 a. granted to Hornchurch Priory, much of it land already in use by 1086 plus the parish glebe 1198-1245

1246 arrenting and extent

[ virgate added = 120 a.

200 a. customary land added

130 a. arrented to tenants

1251 extent

40 virgates = 4800 a.

1355 a. customary land + c.400 a. freehold

130 a. arrented+ 260 a. still in king's hands

a

320 new a. added + 130 a. demesne arrented

Total acreage

Total value of manor

Probably 4800 a. tenant 'Worth' £36-40; land + c.390 a. rendered £80 to demesne = 5190 a. sheriffs-£10 gersum 7735 a. tenant land + 390 a. demesne = 8125 a. Land worth £25 in 6235 a. tenant land rents granted to Horn+ 390 a. demesne = 6625 a. ( + c.i 500 a. church Priory; that sum henceforth not = 8125 a.) paid Farm of manor stable at £85 without Hornchurch Priory's £25 = £110 nominal farm Extended and farmed at 6685 a. arrented+ 260 C.JQ119 without a. demesne = 6945 a. ( +c.i 500 a. = 8445 a.) Hornchurch Priory's &S = £ i 4 4 total value 6685 a. arrented+ 260 a. Extended at £ i i 2 - i o - u | without demesne = 6945 a. ( +c.i 500 a. = 8445 a.) Hornchurch Priory's £25 = £137-10-1 if total value

The figures shown here are based upon a 480-acre Domesday hide (4 virgates at 120 acres each). If Havering's Domesday hide contained 120 acres, there would have been 1200 a. of tenants' land in 1086, with a total acreage of c.1590 a. The clearing between 1086 and 1245 would then have consisted of c.39 new virgates ( = 4680 a.), with a total change in acreage of 6535 a. See n. 3 above. Sources: DB; Hornch. Pr. kal., passim; PR 5 Henry II-26 Henry III, passim; PRO E 352/45/20; PRO SC 11/189, Havering; NCO MS 9744, fols, i6ir-i84v and i86r.

Differentiated

landholding and the population, 1231—1460

rather than in common fields. The great mass of records concerning land from the late twelfth century onward speak of self-contained fields, some of which formed part of a larger, named unit. The only possible exceptions are a few descriptions of holdings from the earlier thirteenth century which may conceivably have consisted of segments within a field which had recently been open.6 There is also a reference in the 1251 extent to strips, each 40 perches long, but the latter lay within the king's own demesne arable and hence do not necessarily argue for the presence of common fields. Although later there was certainly non-arable common, both in Hornchurch marsh and in the northern wooded areas, there is no clear indication of open-field agriculture in Havering prior to 1251 and none at all thereafter.7 A factor which required community cooperation in many manors was therefore absent from Havering's life, while individualism was reinforced. An example of large-scale assarting comes from the estate of the Wood family, a holding later to be known as Dagenhams and Cockerels. A Reginald of the Wood began the process of building the family's lands through clearing in the years around 1150, gaining one and a half of Havering's 120-acre virgates.8 His son Richard, active in the second half of the twelfth century, added another two virgates. A younger Richard, Reginald's grandson (c. 1173-c. 1243) devoted his major energy to legal battles rather than to further assarting. His suits derived in some cases from lack of solid title to the land cleared by his father and grandfather but never formally arrented. Richard bought and sold a number of smaller pieces of land and purchased a mill; he tried repeatedly but unsuccessfully to gain the approval of the central courts for his appropriation of a neighbouring virgate assarted by Geoffrey Goshaye in the late twelfth century. The younger Richard's son John, bailiff of Havering from 1233 to 1237, did no clearing himself but acquired an increment of 120 acres at the time of William le Breton's arrenting in 1246. This virgate had been assarted in the later 1230s by Roger Cockerel, the keeper of Havering park, who continued to receive an annual payment from the holding for many years after leaving office. In four generations, then, the Wood family had created de novo an estate of 570 acres, all but 30 acres lying in great, consolidated blocks taken from the woods in the northeast corner of Havering. In the mid-twelfth century a sizeable fraction of Havering's land was 6 7 8

E.g., NCO MS 10909. Cf. VCH Essex, vol. 7, pp. 18-19. CRR, vol. 6, p. 201. For below, see Hornch. Pr. kal., passim, CRR, vol. 1, p. 77, vol. 5, p. 324, vol. 6, p. 68, BNB, vol. 2, pp. 492-3, PRO JUST 1/229, nun. 1 and n d , and the 1251 extent.

93

Economic independence and its consequences, 1251—1460

transferred permanently out of the crown's control. In 1158/9 and 1163 Henry II gave about 1500 acres to the hospital at Montjoux. 9 Most of this land lay in the immediate vicinity of Hornchurch village and must have been part of the acreage already in use in 1086. The donation seems also to have included the glebe land associated with the parish church. Hornchurch Priory's original endowment appears on few subsequent Havering records as it owed no rents or services to the manor. Havering land was in high demand between 1086 and 1251. As time passed the rents charged for newly cleared land increased. In 1251 there were a total of forty virgates, in addition to whatever virgated land was held by the priory. Of the forty, twenty-two paid money rents of between 17s. and 23s. each; another eight paid 24s. to 28s. each.10 Most of these units had probably been brought into use before 1086, with variation in rent due to the quality of the land and the time of arrenting. The final ten virgates, including the unit arrented in 1246, paid 29s. or 30s. each and were presumably the most recently cleared areas. The rents charged for non-virgated assarts show a similar pattern. The 700 acres cleared before 1246 paid on the average 44d./acre, whereas the 200 acres arrented in 1246 rendered an average of 7-7d. /acre. By the early thirteenth century an active market in land is clearly visible. Holdings of all sizes were being bought and sold.11 Between c. 1233 and c. 1243 two men alone accounted for twenty recorded transactions: Adam of Lincoln, a draper of London, and Richard of the Elms of Havering.12 The vitality of this unusually early market in customary land was an important factor in the heterogeneity of sizes of holdings so marked by 1251. 9

10 11

12

Hornch. Pr. kal., nos. 168 and 78. The figure of 1500 acres is suggested by later descriptions of the Hornchurch estate (e.g., N C O MS 9744, fols. i62r-v and i86r), from which donations by the tenants after 1163 must be removed. This size is consistent with the annual value of the land granted, X 2 5» which at 1500 acres would yield an average rent of 46. per acre. There is no mention after 1163 of any glebe. Henry's gift also included lands worth £ 8 annually in Chislehurst, Kent. The 1251 extent. See the references cited in ch. 1, n. 50, above, plus Hornch. Pr. kal., passim. Cf. P. R. Hyams, 'The origins of a peasant land market in England', Econ. Hist. Rev., 2nd ser., XXIII (1970), 18—31, the introduction to Carte nativorum (ed. C. N . L. Brooke and M. M. Postan, Northampton Record S o c , Vol. 20, Oxford, Oxford Univ. Press, i960), and Edmund King, Peterborough Abbey, 1086—1310: a study in the land market (London, Cambridge Univ. Press, 1973), esp. ch. 6. Homch. Pr. kal., FFE, vol. 1, and CChR, vol. 1, all passim. Transactions in Hornch. Pr. kal. dated only as temp. Henry III have been included in this list, as neither man appears to have engaged in land activity before or after the dates noted. For Richard of the Elms, see ch. 1 above.

94

Differentiated landholding and the population, 1231-1460 The tenants and their holdings, 1251-1331 In the midst of the centuries-long process of assarting, Elerius, abbot of Pershore, and Richard le Rus arrived to make a detailed survey of the manor of Havering.13 The 1251 extent, as we have seen, was to be of lasting significance to local people as one element in the growth of their protection as tenants of the ancient demesne. The extent lists the rents and services owed from land and itemises all other sources of income for the crown and all other tenant obligations. It describes in detail the royal demesne lands which had not yet been granted out. The crown's profits from the park and outwoods are specified, including the payments to be made by the tenants for use of the woods during the closed autumn weeks. At the end the survey lays out the rights of the king with respect to wardship, heriot, relief and marriage. The extent states that the king has the right to tallage Havering's tenants and to collect the issues from the manor court. The sum total which Havering was to yield to the king was .£112—10—11£, without the rents paid by the serjeanty freeholders to the Exchequer and a few small dues which the makers of the extent found difficult to quantify. The 1251 extent enables us to see how the land and population had been affected by the extensive assarting of the past generations. The survey lists all tenants who held land directly from the king, together with the amount of their land, rents and services; it gives the names but not the holding sizes of the wealthier subtenants.14 The extent indicates that 254 customary tenants held a total of about 6300 acres, yielding an average holding of 25 acres. Hornchurch Priory and the other freeholders had about 1900 acres. In addition to those tenants who held land directly from the king, another 113 people held only as subtenants of their neighbours. Half of these 'subtenants only' had the same surname as a direct tenant and may have been settled on a relative's land; others probably held of the priory. Only 4 % of all the tenants and subtenants were non-residents or recent arrivals from outside. 15 Women constituted 11 % of the total. The extent lists the holdings by type of land. It moves through the 13 14

15

The 1251 extent, and see ch. I above. Havering subtenants who had goods to the value of 4od. or more owed a small service to the king, leading to their mention on royal surveys. This is a blessing for the historian, since most extents do not indicate the presence of subtenants at all. The 4od. requirement probably excluded most subtenants with less than around 5 acres, for 8 bushels of rye or four sheep or two pigs were valued at 4od. c. 1251. (PRO C 145/7/6.) Outsiders are defined and discussed later in this chapter. For women tenants, see ch. 4 below.

95

Economic independence and its consequences, 1251—1460

forty virgates one by one, giving the tenant of each fraction of each virgate. The virgates had been divided into 136 units. Thirty holdings consisted of half virgates or more (60 acres and up), while thirty-five contained a quarter or third virgate (30 or 40 acres). The remaining seventy-one pieces were held as units of less than a quarter virgate, amounts ranging down to a thirty-second of a virgate or 3.75 acres. The extent suggests that in 1251 the process of subdividing the virgates was still underway. The survey turns next to the tenants of the n o acres of forelands. Then come the service tenants, those who formerly held a total of 125 acres in return for performing an estate duty such as being a shepherd or smith but who now simply pay a money rent. The cotlands, 225 acres, follow. The extent concludes with the tenants and rents of the 890 acres of non-virgated assarts and the names of the subtenants with goods worth 4od. About a quarter of the direct tenants of the king held virgate units or cotland only, half held assarts or forelands and just 20% held more than one type of land, usually a virgate fraction plus a piece of assart. A quarter of the direct tenants held additional, unspecified land as subtenants. The obligations which Havering tenants owed to the crown in return for their lands were not heavy. Rents were moderate, averaging c. 4d. per acre, including the value of any work owed. 16 Only that land arrented in 1246 and demesne meadow paid more than 5d. per acre. Tenants of virgate units had previously been required to perform agricultural labour on the king's demesne lands, but these services were probably not being demanded in full in 1251. The extent assigns a money value of 7s. to all the labour owed by each virgate, with a specific sum allocated to each particular task. The suggestion of the partial commutation of labour services into a regular money payment accords with the renting out of a third of the crown's demesne fields in 1246. By 1275, when the demesne was entirely in the hands of the tenants, labour services were no longer collected at all: the 7s. per virgate had become part of the fixed cash payment. Even when field work was required, it was at a light level, far less onerous than the demands imposed upon the tenants of those manors with larger demesnes. Havering's tenants had to perform a series of detailed tasks rather than owing a certain number of days or half-days of work per week. The individual jobs are listed carefully in the extent. The total amount of work originally demanded from each 120 acres came to about seventy-five days per year, fifteen days annually for an average 25-acre holding. This amount is trivial when compared with 16

See below for rents.

96

Differentiated landholding and the population, 1251—1460 Table 3. Distribution of sizes of direct holdings, 1251 Direct holdings (land held immediately from king)

Size of direct holding, in acres

No. of people holding only from king (no land held from other tenants)

No. of people holding both from king and from other tenants (by size of royal holding)

23 24

22

o-under i 1—under 3

3-under 5

12

5—under 10

H

Total, under 10

73

18

5 6 51

Total no. of people 41 = 46 = 17= 20=

16% 18% 7% 8%

124 = 49%

( = 4 1 % of 124) 10—under 20 20-under 30

34

Total, 10-under 30

52

5 5

18

10

39=15% 2 3 = 9% 62 = 24%

( = 1 6 % of 62) 30-under 60

39

0

60—under 100

20

0

39 = 15% 2 0 = 8%

Total, 30-under 100

59

0

59 = 23%

100-under 200 200 and over

5 4

0 0

5 = 2% 4 = 2%

Total, 100 and over

9

0

9 = 4%

Grand total

61

193

254

( = 2 4 % of 254) Source: PRO SC 11/189, Havering.

the pattern of several days per week required of the customary tenants of many other manors. Havering's virgate tenants were also responsible for repairing about 100 feet of the wooden pale around the king's park for each 120 acres held. The land held directly from the king by Havering people in 1251 was distributed unevenly.17 As Table 3 indicates, about half of the direct 17

For differentiation in peasant landholding, first seen among free tenancies in the twelfth century, see Edward Miller, The abbey and bishopric of Ely (Cambridge, Cambridge Univ. Press, 1951), pp. 143—53-

97

Economic independence and its consequences, 1231—1460

tenants held less than 10 acres, another quarter held from 10 to 29 acres, and the final quarter held 30 acres or more. (This pattern is plotted in graph A of Fig. 2 below.) If the holdings of the subtenants had been included in the extent, the proportion of small units would presumably be higher. When the Havering sizes are compared with those from other English manors, one finds that Havering's distribution resembles most closely that of the free peasant holdings recorded in the hundred rolls of 1279 — not surprising in view of the nature of Havering's tenure. In contrast to customary holdings elsewhere, Havering had a higher proportion of small tenants with less than around 15 acres, far fewer middling tenants in the range between 15 and 39 acres, and an exceptional number of large tenants. 18 The fact that nearly a fifth of the tenants in 1251 held 40 acres or more emphasises the precocious nature of landholding development in Havering. The appearance of large estates of this sort, held by peasant 'kulaks', is generally viewed as one of the characteristics of the later fourteenth and earlier fifteenth centuries. 18

The comparison may be displayed in tabular form: 0-4 a.; less than

1/4 30-a. virgate

5-i4 a.; 1/4 30-a.

15-29 a.; 1/2 30-a.

virgate

virgate

30-39 a.; full 30-a. virgate

40+ a.; more than 1 30-a.

virgate

p

manors, late twelfth to late thirteenth centuries Havering, 1251: direct holdings 1279 hundred rolls, six Midland counties: Villein holdings Peasant free holdings

33a

45

41

22

8

17

15

29

9

36

25

1

47

12

18

15

8

a

19

Postan's middle-rank tenants commonly held half a virgate, or around 12—15 acres. Sources: M. M. Postan,' Medieval agrarian society in its prime: England', in The Cambridge economic history of Europe, vol. 1 (2nd edn, Cambridge, Cambridge Univ. Press, 1971), pp. 548-632, esp. pp. 618-20, and E. A. Kosminsky, Studies in the agrarian history of England in the thirteenth century (Oxford, Basil Blackwell, 1956), pp. 216 and 223, supplemented by material from Edward Miller and John Hatcher, Medieval England (London, Longman, 1978), pp. 143-4.

98

Differentiated landholding and the population, 1251—1460 It has been suggested that roughly 10 to 13^ acres were adequate for the needs of one English family between 1200 and 1350. Such a holding permitted the production of food for the tenants' own consumption plus some crops to be sold for cash to pay rents and other monetary obligations.19 About 4 5 % of Havering's direct tenants held 14 acres or more in 1251 and hence were probably in a position to grow at least a little additional produce for sale. Proximity to London and the market at Romford fostered commercial utilisation of the larger estates. Nor were Havering people with less than 10 acres necessarily marginal tenants, dependent upon the vagaries of the harvest. Some of them engaged in craft-work or trade, occupations expanded in range and volume by the market. There was also a substantial demand for labour on the large holdings and to a lesser degree in other segments of the local economy. The presence of uncleared woods and Havering marsh increased the viability of little holdings, as witnessed by the many small tenants in other forest and fen communities.20 Havering's landholders at many levels must therefore have enjoyed unusual economic security and opportunity. The century which followed the making of the 1251 extent witnessed continuing pressure on land throughout England into the later thirteenth century, followed by a probable subsistence crisis during the 1310s. Between 1320 and 1349 demand for land and population trends seem to have varied considerably among regions. The history of Havering's land during the century after 1251 may be sketched on the basis of some scattered sources.21 Energetic clearing and arrenting of new land lasted for at least another generation after 1251 and was now actively encouraged by the crown. In 1268 two officials were sent to the manor to investigate what 'waste lands' lay outside the royal park and woods and to bring that land into cultivation and arrent it.22 By 1275, when a brief extent of Havering was prepared, ^4—3—2 of new tenant rents had been added and the king's demesne lands were fully rented out. 23 (See Table 4.) A further ^3—15—10 in new rents 19 20

21

22

J. Z. Titow, English rural society, 1200-1350 (London, Allen and Unwin, 1969), pp. 78—90. Cf. H. E. Hallam's analysis of holdings within nine Waltham Abbey manors from wooded areas of western Essex in 1230: 6 7 % of the tenants held under 10 acres, 2 8 % held 10-29 acres, and 5 % held 30 acres or more (material prepared for a medieval volume of The agrarian history of England and Wales (forthcoming)). See also Hallam's Settlement and society: a study of the early agrarian history of south Lincolnshire (Cambridge, Cambridge Univ. Press, 1965), esp. pp. 215—22, and Barbara Harvey, Westminster Abbey and its estates in the Middle Ages (Oxford, Clarendon Press, 1977), pp. 300-1. Marjorie K. Mclntosh, 'Land, tenure, and population in the royal manor of Havering, Essex, 1251-1352/3', Econ. Hist. Rev., 2nd ser., XXXIII (1980), 17-31, esp. 25-30. 23 CPR, 1266-72, p. 184. CPR, 1272-81, p. 71, and PRO E 142/80/4.

99

101

IOO

Year and source 1251 extent

Table 4. Growth of Havering s lands, rents and total value, 1251—1352/3

Amount of tenant land 6155 a. customary Und+I3oa. ex-demesne + c.400 a. freehold assarts+c.i 500 a. with Homchurch Priory — total of

Value of rents and services from customary tenants £88-8-2

Payments from subtenants

History of the king's demesne lands

Profits of manor court. reliefs and heriots

£4-6-0

1 jo a. rented out for £1-18-4 + 260 a. in king's hands worth £7-19-0}

£5-o-o

Profit from park and woods £5-0-0 (not including £5-0-0 from windfallen wood, which bailiff receives)

Total value of manor Extended at £112-10-11} (without Homchurch Priory's £2s-o-o and £5-0-0 from wood)

8185 a.

1259-64 accounts

—

—

—

—

—

—

1267 grant

—

—

—

—

—

—

1275 extent

If new land arrented at 6-8 d./acre, 120-60 a. added+ 260 a. ex-demesnc = total of 8565-605 a.

£92-11-4 ( = increase of £4-3-2 since 1251)

£2-16-8

—

—

1281-5 accounts 1286-7 account

If new land arrented at 6—8 d./acre. 105-40 a. added = total

of 8670-745 a.

£2-10-0

'•£96-7-2 ( = increase of

£3-15-10 since 1275), but £2-6-4 in rents excused = £94-0-10 collected

Wholly rented, for £11-6-6

—

Wholly rented (for c.£ 11-6-6)

£5-0-0

—

£6-16-2}

£12-0-0 (including £5-0-0 from windfallen wood)

—

£14-5-10} (including £2-0-0 from windfallen wood)

1290 grant

—

—

—

—

—

—

1299 grant

—

—

—

—

—

—

1318 and 1331 grants 1352/3 extent

—

—

—

—

—

—

9445 a. (increase of 700-75 a. since 1287 and of 1260 a. since 1251, of which 1000 a. were newly arrented)

£100-7-3} ( = increase of £4-0-1} since 1287 and'of £11-19-1} since 1251)

£2-0-0

Wholly rented but for only £10-8-4

£10-0-0

£37-9-2 (including £5-0-0 from windfallen wood and £4-0-0 from pannage)

Rendered £103-16-7 to £104-19-11 actual yield Granted to queen; to render £104 Extended at £128-2-11}, of which £4-7-5} freehold rents paid directly to Exch. = £123-15-6 manorial issues Rendered £115-10-0 to £120-10-6} actual yield in Nominal value of £i3i-5-9, of which £128-19-5 actually collected Granted to queen; extended at £130 Granted to queen; valued at £140 with park and woods plus £ 1 0 from park beyond extended value = £150 Granted to queen; value £140 Extended at £162-4-3}, of which £1-19-1 freehold rents paid to Exch. = £160-4-9} manorial issues

Sources: PRO SC 11/189, Havering; PRO E 372/105/20 and E 3 7 2 / 1 0 8 / 1 5 - ^ ; CPR, 1266-72, p. 107; PRO E 142/80/4; PRO SC 6/1089/20-21; PRO SC 6/844/11; CPR, 1281-92, p. 368, and CCR, 1288-96, p. 85; PRO E 142/1/2; CPR, 1317-21, pp. 115 and 202, and CPR, 1330-4, p. 55; N C O MS 9744, fols. i6ir-i84v.

Economic independence and its consequences, 1251—1460

appear on an itemised bailiffs account for 1286—j. 24 If the post-1251 land was arrented at about the level of payment of the 1246 assarts, the increase of £j—19-0 would have resulted from the addition of 225 to 300 acres. Although demand for Havering land continued for a generation after 1251, the value both of newly cleared land and of some existing holdings seems to have declined toward the end of the thirteenth century. Two new virgates were created at unknown times during the century between 1251 and 1352/3, almost certainly after 1287, a n d 550 acres of assarts were arrented. Yet the rents charged for these holdings were 10—20% lower than the rents assigned in 1246. Further, the purchase prices for existing land and the assessments of the value of land provided for royal inquiries between 1251 and 1370 suggest that the worth of certain older holdings also fell after 1300.25 Reasons for the drop in value of some Havering land after c. 1290 may be suggested. There is no reason to suspect lessened demographic pressure on land, unless the mortality of the 1310s caused a temporary setback. Royal interest in new rents did not diminish in the early fourteenth century. In 1307 an order made at the request of Queen Margaret sent two men to * assart, assess, and arrent the queen's wastes in her forests and chases' in Havering and other royal manors; the king promised to grant formal charters for these new holdings. 26 It is likely that the level of new Havering rents fell because of the poorer quality of the land currently being assarted. By the end of the thirteenth century the line of clearing within Havering had evidently passed beyond the soils suitable for arable use. The northward movement of Havering's 'frontier' seems now to have reached the heavy London Clay of the upper part of the manor, soil of limited agricultural value (see Fig. 6, below). The clay land was probably seldom cultivated, used instead as rough pasture or exploited for the commercial value of the wood. Sixteenth-century descriptions indicate that many northern Havering holdings contained large amounts of woodland (occasionally called 'scrub'), sometimes as much wood as arable. The lowered valuations for certain older Havering holdings between the late thirteenth and the middle of the fourteenth centuries may have resulted from a drop in the arable productivity of the land: the chemically infertile soil of the southern part of the manor may not have been receiving sufficient enrichment to maintain good yields. By the early 24 25 26

PRO SC 6/844/11. F o r discussion a n d tables, see M c l n t o s h , ' L a n d , t e n u r e , a n d p o p u l a t i o n ' , 27—8. CFR, 1272-1307, p . 5 5 1 . 102

Differentiated landholding and the population, 1251-1460 1420s crop yields on New College's Hornchurch estate had reached the pitifully low level of less than 2 bushels per acre net yield for both oats and wheat.27 Another aspect of the history of Havering's land is the division or accumulation of holdings. A comparison of the 1251 extent with that made in 1352/3 establishes that the land held directly of the king was being consolidated in the hands of a smaller number of tenants. This process may be traced in the virgates and cotlands, which are described in similar terms in both extents and for which previous tenants are named in 1352/3. In 1251, 121 tenants held the 143 units of virgate or cotland. Subsequently, eleven units were created by subdivision, in addition to eight virgate fractions newly arrented. The subdivision probably took place primarily in the generation immediately after 1251, continuing the fragmentation in evidence at that time. By the time of the tenancy of those people from whom the 1352/3 tenants acquired their lands, there were only 100 people holding the 162 virgate/cot units. In 1352/3, the 162 units were held by 87 tenants. The years between 1300 and 1330 witnessed considerable accumulation of the direct holdings; the consolidation visible in 1352/3 was not merely a result of the mortality and dislocated inheritances caused by the 1349 plague.28 Tenants, subtenants and the actual distribution of land, 1352/3—1460

The 1352/3 extent of Havering is a remarkable document, well warranting its local name of 'le Domysday \ 2 9 The extent first lists the normal components of an estate survey — the lord's various sources of profit, the holdings and rents of the direct tenants and manorial customs. It then proceeds, however, to name the subtenants of each of the primary tenants, with their lands and rents, ending with the subtenants of the subtenants.30 The inclusion of the subtenants and their 27

28 29 30

See below, ch. 4, and cf. V . N . Scarfe, 'Essex', in The land of Britain, part 82 (Land Utilisation Survey o f Britain, London, Ministry o f Agriculture and Fisheries, 1942), pp. 406ff., esp. p. 450. Cf. Ian Kershaw, 'The great famine and agrarian crisis in England, 1315—1322', Past and Present, LIX (1973), 3-50. For the making o f this extent and its dating, see above, ch. 2. W . R. Powell plans to bring out an edition o f the extent, as one o f the E R O Edited Text Series. The arrangement o f the extent in its description o f lands and tenants may be illustrated by the holdings o f Walter Legatt. Under the heading o f direct tenants o f the king, Walter is said to hold one messuage (a house site, assigned a value o f J acre in computing the size o f Havering holdings) and an eighth o f one virgate, containing 15 acres. This holding had previously belonged to the late John Hegeman. Legatt paid 2s. 8d. to the king for the unit each year, o f which 7d. was for 'customs', i.e., commuted labour

103

Economic independence and its consequences, 1231—1460

holdings makes this extent highly unusual and of exceptional benefit to historians. Thanks to the wealth of information, we can determine not only the direct holdings of the king's immediate tenants but also the net size of the actual holdings of all tenants and subtenants. This is a rare opportunity. The 1352/3 extent, like its thirteenth-century predecessor, describes the obligations of the tenants. All Havering tenants are assumed to be of the same personal status, freemen.31 Although people holding cotlands still owed special care of prisoners and were responsible for providing a pound for animals, there is no mention of a licence for marrying their children.32 The king's claim to a heriot at the death of all direct tenants except those holding ex-demesne lands is affirmed. The amount of the pale of the park to be maintained by the tenant of each virgate fraction is carefully recorded, as are the rights of the king and the tenants with respect to the park, the outwoods and the warren. The extent discusses the arrenting of new assart land, the subdivision of holdings and the duty of certain tenants to assume manorial offices. There is even a copy and explanation of Domesday Book's account of Havering. The 1352/3 extent reveals that assarting had slowed during the previous century. There were now 5195 virgated acres in the manor, 1730 acres of assarts and forelands, 360 acres of cotlands and ex-service holdings, 245 acres of the former demesne and 1915 acres held by some form of free tenure, including Hornchurch Priory's original endowment. These 9445 acres constituted an increase of 1000 acres since 1251, growth of about 12% over the century. (See Table 4 above.) The

31

32

services. Walter also held from the king another one eighth virgate containing 15 acres plus a messuage which had been John of Chylteberne's, paying for it 4s. 4jd., of which iojd. were for customs. For his two virgate units Legatt was responsible for the repair of 22 feet of the park's pale. He also held 23 \ acres of'new lands' (assarts), rendering annually u s . 8d. For these 53\ acres and two messuages Legatt paid a total of 18s. 8jd. to the king. Later on in the extent, in the listing of subtenants, Walter is said to hold from William atte Elmes one messuage and 10 acres, for which he gave to William 4s. 6d. annually. Walter in turn had his own subtenants, five of them, who together held three messuages, two ' tofts' (house plots with yards, reckoned at \ acre each) and 31 acres of land, for which they paid to Walter u s . 6d. Walter thus had a net holding of 32 acres in his actual use, for which he rendered a net rent of u s . 8^d. The only subsequent reference to possible differences in status probably resulted from the ignorance of a temporary holder of the manor. In the summer of 1397 Havering was in the hands of Thomas, archbishop of Canterbury and Edward, earl of Rutland. Their steward asked a jury of Havering tenants whether any ' villeins by blood' had entered the manor. The jurors said no, explaining that although John Shillyng, a newcomer to Havering, was sometimes said to be a villein, they viewed him as of free condition. (PRO SC 2/172/28, m. 6d.) Similarly, Cal. inq. misc., vol. 2, p. n o , from 1320, makes no reference to marriage. 104

Differentiated landholding and the population, 1251—1460 pace of arrenting between 1251 and 1352/3 was therefore only about a third as rapid as that noted between 1086 and 1251. Havering's enlarged agricultural area was apparently occupied by a greater total number of tenants and subtenants than in 1251. In 1352/3 just under 200 people or religious institutions held land directly from the king —187 customary tenants and 5 freeholders. Another 301 people appear on the extent only as subtenants. About a third of these 'subtenants only' had the same surname as one of the direct tenants. Non-residents and newly arrived outsiders comprised 4 % of all tenants and subtenants, as they had a century before; the proportion of women had increased to 17%. The tenants holding immediately from the king may be examined first. Their direct holdings (disregarding subtenancies) are shown in part A in Table 5 and in graph B of Fig. 2. A further development of the pattern of large holdings seen in 1251 is noticeable. There were now fewer direct tenants than in 1251 but they were holding a larger total amount of land than a century before. The average direct holding had therefore risen from 25 to a startling 37 acres. A third of the direct tenants in 1352/3 held 30 acres or more, and the number of smallholders had dropped slightly. From the extent we can calculate the size of the actual holdings in 1352/3. A 'net' holding consisted of land held directly from the king plus land held from other tenants, minus land granted out to subtenants. The lack of correspondence between the net holdings and the direct tenancies is striking. Most of the direct tenants in 1352/3 held land as subtenants of their neighbours. Whereas in 1251 only n % of the direct tenants with 5 acres or more were also subtenants, by 1352/3 the figure had risen to 69%. Taking land as a subtenant was not limited to smaller tenants who wanted to fill in their direct holdings to a subsistence level: there was a high degree of subholding activity for all tenants up to 100 acres.33 The average direct tenant held 2.0 pieces of land from the king and another 2.2 units from his fellows, with 3.2 pieces granted out to his own subtenants. The net holdings of the direct tenants are shown in the left column of part B in Table 5 and in graph C of Fig. 2. The percentage of net holdings containing 20 to 100 acres was even larger than the percentage of direct holdings in that range. Nearly 40% of the direct tenants had net holdings of 30 acres or more. Yet, since much of this increase came at the expense of the major freeholds, the percentage of net holdings containing 5 acres or less among the direct tenants had also declined. 33

For the forms of involvement in subtenancies in 1352/3 and the mechanism of change from direct to net holdings, see Mclntosh, 'Land, tenure, and population', 24-5. 105

io6

107

Table 5. Distribution of sizes of holdings, 1352/3 A. Direct holdings (land held immediately from king) No. of people

Amount of land held, in acres o-under 1—under 3—under 5—under

1 3 5 10

holding only from king (no Umd held from other tenants)

No. of people holding both from king and from other tenants (by size of royal holding)

4

20

12

7

3 4

II 17

B. Net holdings

(land in actual occupation)

Total1 no. of people

No. of people holding some land directly from king

24 19 14 21

14 = 14 = 12 = 20 =

= = = =

13% 10%

7% »%

7% 7% 6% 11%

( + 1 free)

23

55 (=71% of 78)

78 = 4 2 %

60 = 32%

10—under 20 20-under 30

10

20

4

13

30 = 1 6 % 17 = 9 %

Total, 10-under 30

14

33 (=70% of 47)

6

Total, under 10

30-under 60 60-under 100 Total, 30-under 100

100-under 200

= = = =

26% 15% 9% 19%

81 51 35 67

= = = =

18% 12% 8% 15%

(+1 free)

234 = 53% (+ifree)

26 = 14% 23 = 12%

28 = 11% 16 = 6%

54 = 12% 39 = 9%

47 = 2 5 %

49 = 26%

44 = 17%

93=21%

24

30 = 1 6 %

40 = 21%

23 = 9%

63 = H% (+1 free)

4

11

15 = 8 %

17 = 9%

10

35 (=78% of 45)

45 = 2 4 %

57 = 3O%

g 2

(+ifree) Total, 100 and over

67 37 23 47

Total no. of known tenants and subtenants"

174 = 69%

10

( + 4 free)

13 =

2

(+1 free)

4 = 2% ( + 2 free)

7

17 = 9 %

(=41% of 17)

( + 1 free) 'Net negative' holdings"

—

Grand total, holdings of known size

( + 4 free)

57

7 /o

5

( + 3 free) 200 and over

No. of people holding land only as subtenants"

(+3 free)

(+5 free)

—

( + 1 free) ( + 1 free)

130

187

( + 5 free)

3 = 1% 26 = 10%

13 = 7%

0

2=1%

0

15 = 8% ( + 2 free)

0

( + 1 free)

187

(+1 free) 83 = 19%

13 = 3 %

(+1 free) 2 = 0%

(+ifree)

( + 1 free)

( + 5 free)

20 = 5%

(+2 free)

( + 2 free)

6 = 3%

(=70% of 187)

( + 1 free)

( + 1 free)

9 = 4% 253"

•5 = 3 % ( + 2 free)

15 = 3 % 44O

( + 5 free)"

" The holdings of forty-eight subtenants of Homchurch Priory are not described in the extent. See n. 34 below. ' 'Net negative' holdings are those in which the direct tenant or subtenant only appears to have granted out more land to his own subtenants than he himself held. Such tenants presumably held additional, unrecorded land from Homchurch Priory. Source: NCO MS 9744, fols. i6ir-i84v.

70 customary tenants customary plus five free tenants

60

50 H

£

40

30 20 10

0- 10- 30- 100+ 9 29 99 No. of acres

1251. Direct holdings : land held immediately from the king (254 customary tenants)

0- 10- 30- 100+ 9 29 99

0- 10- 30- 100+ 9 29 99

No. of acres

No. of acres

1352/3. Direct holdings : land held immediately from the king (187 customary tenants)

1352/3. Net holdings of the direct tenants* (181 customary tenants)

0- 10- 30- 100+ 9 29 99

0- 10- 30- 100+ 9 29 99

No. of acres

No. of acres

1352/3. Net holdings of people with land as subtenants only* (244 people)

1352/3. Net holdings of all numerated customary tenants and subtenants'*^ (425 people)

* Six 'net negative' holdings of direct tenants, nine 'net negative' holdings of subtenants only and forty-eight Hornchurch subholdings of unknown size not included. See the notes to Table 5. f The distribution is the same when the five free tenants are included. Figure 2 Distribution of known sizes of holdings, 1251 and 1352/3 extents Sources: PRO SC 11/189, and NCO MS 9744, fols. 161T-184V.

Differentiated

landholding and the population,

1251-1460

Table 6. The impact of subtenancies upon sizes of direct holdings, 1352/3° Average sizes (in acres) Size of direct holding, in acres**

No. of cust. tenants

Direct holdings6

holdings6

o-under I 1-under 3

24

0.5

7.6

19

1.6

3-2

3—under 5

H

39 7-3

93

5-under 1o-under 20-under 3o-under 60-under 100-under

10 20 30 60 100 200

200 and over Total

21 30 17 30 15 13

( + 3 free) 4 ( + 2 free) 187

14.0 24.5 41.1 74.8 135

(153 free) 428

Net

24.6 17.0 28.9 47.1 60.8 96.4 (102 free) 235

(1060 free)

(381 free)

36.9

34-3

a For a more detailed analysis of the mechanism of change from direct to net holdings, see Mclntosh, 'Land, tenure, and population', Table 3. b Direct holdings and net holdings are defined in the text. Source: N C O MS 9744, fols. 16H-184V.

As Table 6 displays, most direct holdings of up to 60 acres were enlarged through the operation of subtenancies. The distribution portrayed in graph C of Fig. 2 is indeed extraordinary for medieval customary tenants. The 1352/3 extent sheds valuable light upon those normally invisible people who held land only from their fellows, not from the lord at all. The 'subtenants only', a quarter of whom had subtenants of their own, had far less land than did the direct tenants. Table 5 (the central column of part B) and graph D of Fig. 2 show that of those 'subtenants only' whose holding size is known, about 70% occupied under 10 acres; the average holding was only 10 acres. (There were a further forty-eight subtenants of Hornchurch Priory whose holdings are not recorded in the extent.34) The distribution of the net holdings of all 34

The extent describes the holdings of eighty-seven subtenants of Hornchurch Priory, who together held c. 1130 acres from the house. In addition the survey mentions five people as subtenants who owed services but does not say how much land they held. Another forty-three are listed only as having subtenants of their own: the size of their holdings from the priory are not recorded. These were not all smallholders, for a third of them had granted out 5 acres or more to their own subtenants. 109

Economic independence and its consequences, 1251—1460

numerated tenants and subtenants is presented on the far right of Table 5 and in graph E of Fig. 2. The latter displays a strong similarity to graph A, raising the intriguing possibility that the development of a network of subtenancies in the past century may have served merely to maintain the continuity of actual holding sizes. Just over half of all Havering landholders had net holdings of less than 10 acres and nearly a quarter held 30 acres or more. The nature of the Havering subtenancies deserves consideration. The subtenants, called * undersettles' on this as on many other manorial extents, were not holding the land on the basis of leases for a term of years or by other temporary grants. On the contrary, the land had been permanently alienated. The subtenant had the right to buy, sell or divide his holding as he chose. The subtenancies thus resembled subinfeudation more closely than a common peasant sublet, since the latter was normally temporary. It is unfortunate that more is not known about the creation of subtenancies and the financial agreements which accompanied them, for it was through purchase and sale of the subholdings that much of the flexibility of the land market in Havering was maintained. Sealed charters were used to convey the subholdings as well as the direct tenancies.35 Some of these documents speak only of the rent arising from a subholding although the land was in practice conveyed as well, a variation in wording which leads to discrepancies in later medieval and Tudor descriptions of Havering holdings. In interpreting the figures provided by the 1352/3 extent we must recognise that some Havering tenants held additional land outside the manor. A few of the wealthiest men had holdings in other parts of Essex or in other counties, especially after the middle of the fifteenth century. More common in earlier periods were those local people who had pieces of land in nearby manors. Tracing known men with distinctively Havering surnames in collections of land records such as the Feet of fines for Essex or the Descriptive catalogue of ancient deeds is a haphazard effort.

To deal with this question in a quantitative fashion, one would need to undertake a regional study such as is being done by Professor Raftis and his students at the Pontifical Institute of Mediaeval Studies in Toronto. In the absence of equivalent information for Havering, we can only say that the amount of land which a person held locally in 1352/3 should be regarded as a minimum value. The 1251 and 1352/3 extents also provide information on rents. Comparison of particular, identifiable direct holdings in the two surveys indicates that the money rents owed to the crown in 1251 remained 35

E.g., NCO MSS 10719-20, 10893, 10899 and 10948. HO

Differentiated

landholding and the population, 1251—1460

Table 7. Average rent paid per acre, 1251 and 1352/3 1352/3 tenants grouped by size of net holding* paid/acre to king, including commuted services, grouped by size of direct holding, in pence Size of holding, in acres Under i i—under 3 3—under 5

5—under 10 Total, under 10 io-under 20 20-under 30 Total, io-under 30

1251

(N = 254)

1352/3 (N = 187)

27.6

Direct tenants, total rent paid per acre of net holding, in pence** (N = 181)

8.5 6-3 6.3 6.9

11.7

7.6 6.7 5.6 7-4

6.8

Subtenants only, rent paid per acre of net holding, in pence** (N = 244)

23.6

6.8

7.6

95 5-4

6.2

9.6 (N = 60)

7-3

(N = 174) 4-4

5-9

4-1

6.1

5.6

39

4.6

4-4

3-0

4.0

53

49

3-7

30—under 60 60-under 100 Total, 30-under 100

30

3.8

3-1

3.1

3-3 3-8

3-3 3-6

3-1

3-5

3-5

3-3

100-under 200 200 and over Total, 100 and over

3-3

3.5

3-1

—

3-2

3-2

2-5

—

32

3-4

2.9

—

3-5

3.8

3-7

4-3

Average, all holdings

a 'Net negative' holdings are not included in this table. See the notes to Table 5. * Three of the direct tenants performed field service as well as paying money rents to their fellows for land which they held as subtenants, and another eight owed honorific rents of a clove, rose or glove in lieu of money. Of the subtenants only, twenty-three owed field work in addition to cash, while six offered honorific rents only. Sources: PRO SC 11/189, Havering, and NCO MS 9744, fols. i6ir-i84v.

constant in 1352/3. The sum included 'for customs' within each payment for virgate and cot units in 1352/3 was the amount due from that holding in 1251 for commuted labour services. Table 7 displays the average rent paid per acre on the two extents. The left-hand pair of columns contrasts the rents of the direct tenants to the king in 1251 in

Economic independence and its consequences, 1251—1460

and in 1352/3. The decrease in average rent for those holding less than 5 acres is probably due to administrative * slippage', the crown's chronic difficulty in keeping track of and enforcing all payments due to it. Thus, the average rent owed for the virgates and cotlands dropped from 3.id./acre to 2.9d. between 1251 and 1352/3, despite the ostensibly fixed nature of all individual rents. The increase in per-acre rents among the tenants with 10 to 59 acres and in the total figure resulted from the fact that the rents charged for the ex-demesne and other lands ar rented between 1251 and 1352/3 were higher than the composite pre-1251 rents. In Havering, as elsewhere, one sees an inverse relationship between rent and size of holding, a disparity most pronounced for those tenants holding less than an acre. The right-hand pair of columns in Table 7 displays the total rent paid by the direct tenants per acre of their net holding as compared with the per-acre rents of the subtenants only. The rents paid by the subtenants were in general slightly lower than the rents of the direct tenants, with the exceptiofi of those who held less than 3 acres. There was thus no rentier class in Havering. Since subtenancy rents were viewed as fixed at their 1251 level, direct tenants who wished to profit financially from their subtenants had to find sources of income apart from land rents.36 A number of the characteristics of landholding in Havering from 1198 to 1352/3 may be brought into clearer focus by looking at the history of the Pecoks, one of Havering's most fecund and continuous families. In 1251 seven members of the Pecok family held land directly from the king, just one of whom held additional land as a subtenant; an eighth was a subtenant only. As Fig. 3 displays, three of the Pecoks held 25 acres each, one held 10 acres, two held 5 acres each, and a John Pecok whose place in the family is unknown had a tiny holding of 0.2 acres. The whole family together held 95.2 acres, resulting in an average unit per household of 14 acres. The Pecoks' land consisted largely of virgate units: 75 virgated acres and 20 acres of assart. The virgate units and 9 of the assarted acres had been arrented no later than 1198. The family had obviously been dividing its virgate fractions into smaller and smaller parcels, apparently rejecting primogeniture in favour of a more even distribution of land.37 The Pecoks' 75 virgated 36 37

See ch. 4 below. For the ability o f prosperous local families to acquire land for their younger sons even in a system o f primogeniture and impartible inheritance, see Edward Britton, The community of the vill (Toronto, Macmillan o f Canada, 1977), pp. 6 0 - 4 , and Zvi Razi, Life, marriage and death in a medieval parish (Cambridge, Cambridge Univ. Press, 1980), ch. 2. 112

Differentiated landholding and the population, 1251—1460

1 Richard, fl. 1224-51 (held 5 a. in 1251)

William, son of Richard (held 25 a. in 1251 + land as a subtenant)

William, fl. 1224-42, dead by 1251 (held land in Havering marsh and in Romford/ Harolds Wood

John (held 0.2 a. in 1251)

Isabel (held 25 a. in 1251)

William, son of Isabel (held 10 a. in 1251)

Simon (held 25 a. in 1251)

Robert, dead by 1251

William Richard (subtenant son of Robert only, 1251) (held 5 a. in 1251)

Figure 3 The Pecok family, c. 1251 Sources: PRO SC 11/189, Excerpta e rotulis jinium, vol. 1, pp. 114-15, CRR, vol. 11, pp. 347 and 583, Hornch. Pr. kal, nos. 52, 314, 355, 405 and 425, and BL Addit. Roll 28421.

acres in 1251, totalling f of a full virgate, were in fact composed of three units of 24: of a virgate each (5 acres), four units of -^ virgate each (10 acres) and two units of £ virgate each (15 acres). These nine fractions had been subdivided out of four quarter-virgate sections, lying within three different virgates. The remaining subfractions were held by people with other surnames. The partitioning of the family's virgate land must have taken place over the course of several generations prior to 1251. In two instances, for example, Simon Pecok and Isabel, widow of William Pecok, each held half of a given virgate fraction which had evidently been divided between siblings in this or a previous generation. Between 1198 and 1246 members of the family had gained 11 acres of new assarts, obtained either through their own clearing or by purchase. In 1251 William, son of Isabel, held 5 acres of assart which had just been arrented in 1246, as well as 5 acres of virgate land; Richard's son William had 6 acres of new assart beyond his inherited 113

William P. of the marsh

John P. of the marsh, fl. 1332-53 (held 45 a. in 1352/3)

William (Broune) P. (held 51 a. prior to 1352/3)

?

Walter P., d. 1317-8

Christine P. John P. Reginald P., (held? a. (held 50 a. fl. 1306, d. 1344-5 in 1352/3) in 1352/3)

John P. of the woods (held 43 a. in 1352/3)

Sabina P. (of Abenhache) (held 15 a. prior to 1352/3)

John P., fl. 1319 d. by 1327

Nicholas P. called Coleman d. 1352/3

John P., Coleman d. 1352/3 (held 5 a. in 1352/3)

his heirs (held 10 a. in 1352/3)

John P.

Nicholas P., (held 5 a. in 1352/3)

Henry P. d. by 1352/3 (held 40 a. prior to 1352/3)

William (Longe) P., fl. 1319/32

Richard P. of the woods (held 77 a. in 1352/3)

Richard (Longe) P fl. 1352-8 (held 7 a. in 1352/3)

Figure 4 The Pecok family, c. 1320-53 Sources: NCO MS 9744, fols. 1611--184V, PRO E 179/107/10, E 179/107/13 and E 179/107/17.

Differentiated landholding and the population, 1251—1460 10 acres of virgate and 9 acres of pre-1198 assart. John's little holding consisted of two ' day works' of new assart, for which he paid a rent of 2d. Despite the acquisition of recent assarts, however, the family's size in 1251 exceeded the agricultural resources available to it: three Pecok households held 5 acres or less and must have had to supplement their landed income in other ways. The Pecok family continued to multiply and bear fruit between 1251 and 1352/3, as Fig. 4 demonstrates. In the years around 1330 we know of at least six households of Pecoks. By 1352/3, despite losses from the plague, there were eight separate households headed by males, most of them apparently of the same generation, plus a woman who was probably the widowed mother or unmarried sister of one of them. Paralleling their success in perpetuating themselves, the Pecok family had gained a good deal of additional land in the intervening century. In 1352/3 six male Pecoks held a total of 173 acres directly from the king; four of these men were subtenants as well. Their average direct holding of 29 acres was thus about double the average in 1251. The other two Pecok men and one woman in 1352/3 were subtenants only. The eight male Pecoks in 1352/3 together had 240 acres in their actual use, an average net holding of 30 acres. This land was distributed between the branches of the family in an interesting fashion. Whereas three of the Pecok tenants in 1251 had held 25 acres each, with the rest holding 10 acres or less, the rich had become richer over the course of the succeeding generations and the middle had dropped out. In 1352/3, three of the Pecok men had net holdings of between 42 and 50 acres while another had 77 acres. (The direct holdings of these men were 6, 29, 75 and 50 acres, respectively.) These four households were able to produce for the market on a regular basis. There was then a gap down to the net holdings of subsistence or less-than-subsistence level: one at 10 acres, another at 7 acres, one at 5 and one at 4. Several of the smaller tenants added to their income through craft-work. Two of the four Pecok men with 10 acres or less were said to be colemen, or charcoal burners, living in wooded sections of the northern part of the manor. Although the Pecoks had by the mid-fourteenth century accumulated some larger units of land, this growth had not come through further assarting, either their own or anyone else's. In 1352/3 the eight Pecok men together held as direct tenants 142 acres of virgated land (as compared with 75 acres in 1251), but their assart land had risen to only 31 acres from its 20-acre base of 1251. Further, none of their new virgate or assart units had been arrented after 1251. The more energetic Pecoks 115

Economic independence and its consequences, 1251—1460

had therefore expanded their holdings in the generations between 1251 and 1352/3 by acquiring established virgate units rather than by going out and clearing new land for themselves. The wealthier Pecoks may also have been successful in arranging advantageous marriages for their sons. Walter Pecok, who died in 1317-18, was married to Sabina (of) Abenhache.38 The Abenhache family, busily clearing land in the first half of the thirteenth century, had 82 acres in 1251. In the early fourteenth century they held the large estate later to be known as Gidea Hall plus other lands which in total came to more than 400 acres. By 1352/3 economic differentiation in Havering had resulted in a skewed distribution of landholding. At the top were seventeen tenants with net holdings of more than 100 acres and eighty-five people with between 30 and 100 acres. These may be regarded as prospective yeomen or even gentlemen. The seventy-five families with between 14 and 30 acres presumably had a comfortable standard of living, while the remaining 268 households must have depended upon income beyond what their lands could provide. We cannot trace in detail the subsequent history of Havering holdings, due in part to the lack of extents after 1352/3. The number of tenants owing suit at three-weekly sessions of the Havering manor court or at general courts should provide a measure of the consolidation of the direct holdings. These figures, shown in part C of Table 14 below, suggest a decline of about 10% in the number of direct tenancies between 1352—3 and 1388—9, followed by an equivalent rise by 1405—6. Substantial consolidation of holdings — a reduction of 40% — had occurred by 1444—5, with a small reversal by 1464—5. This pattern may, however, be influenced to some degree by changes in the level of efficacy of the manor court itself. LAND TENURE, INHERITANCE AND TRANSFERS, I352/3-146O

By 1352/3 all Havering tenants who held land directly from the king, apart from the five freeholders, shared a common form of tenure. The manor had an unusually free version of ancient demesne tenure. It was both customary — determined and defined by local traditions — and protected: through the provision that conditions of tenure could not be changed, by decisions of the manorial court based upon custom and because of the potential willingness of the central courts to review suits concerning Havering holdings. Contentious actions involving customary land and collusive pleas used to achieve land transfers were prosecuted within the manor court through purchase of a little writ 38

NCO MS 9744, fol. I93r-v, and the 1251 and 1352/3 extents.

Differentiated landholding and the population, 1231—1460 of right close. The minor distinctions between the various types of customary Havering land were increasingly obscured after 1352/3, as royal administrators found it difficult to keep accurate records of which tenants held virgate and cot units as opposed to those with ex-demesne or assart land. In practical terms, Havering's customary tenure resembled freehold in nearly all respects. The tenant of a customary holding was free to buy, sell, lease or subdivide his land at will. 39 He could leave his land to whatever heirs he chose. Upon acquiring a holding, a direct tenant had to come before the manor court to record the transfer, register the obligations due from the land, swear fealty to the king or queen, whoever then held the manor, and pay relief— an entry fine of one year's rent from that unit. Once in possession, the tenant's primary responsibility was the customary rent from his holding, including a set sum for commuted labour services. The tenants were obliged to attend sessions of the manor court, the number and type depending upon the origins of the land held. Tenants of the virgates and cotlands were required to attend the three-weekly sessions of the court, whereas tenants of assart lands had to come just to the two general courts, held in the spring and autumn. Those people who held land only as subtenants were to attend the annual view of frankpledge, as were all other adult male inhabitants within the manor. Tenants of the former virgate and cot holdings were still rendering heriots to the king in the decades after 1350, but payment of these dues had ended by 1400. Virgate and cot tenants were also responsible for repair of sections of the pale of Havering park, and certain of the tenants had to pay small fees for autumn use of the crown's woodlands. Havering's few freeholders had somewhat different rights and obligations. They were able to bring private suits concerning their lands before the central courts. They paid only a simple monetary or honorific rent, which they submitted to the Exchequer rather than to the Havering bailiff. In the late fourteenth and early fifteenth centuries, they had to obtain royal licence before conveying their lands, although this requirement then died out. 40 Freehold tenants did not owe suit of court within Havering unless they held customary land as well. There were no restrictions upon who might become a tenant of Havering land. Women could hold land in their own right if they were 39

40

Havering's tenure is k n o w n primarily through the Havering m a n o r court rolls (see A p p . Ill for their dates and references), the 1352/3 extent and wills. T h e latter are preserved in E R O classes D / A E R and D / A E W , at the GLL, and in the P R O a m o n g the prerogative court of Canterbury records. CPR, 1385-9, p . 406, CPR, 1396-9, p . 250, a n d CPR, 1413-16, p . 103. 117

Economic independence and its consequences, 1251—1460

unmarried. A husband and wife usually held jointly any land which had previously been the woman's. 41 Children were allowed to become normal tenants, regardless of age. This was atypical, for in most manors there was a minimum legal age for tenants, often eighteen or twenty-one years. The age of the heir is seldom provided in reports of Havering inheritances. If age is mentioned at all the entry merely states that the heir is * of full age'. No heir is ever recorded as having been excluded from a holding because he was a minor.42 To the contrary, there are a few instances in which the manor court rolls indicate overtly that a young child entered as a regular tenant. In January 1393 it was reported that Joan Petit, widow, had died, leaving her two-year-old daughter as heir; the child was explicitly said to be of full age.43 The nearest heir to a deceased tenant in a complicated inheritance in 1456 was said to be a seven-year-old girl, who was ordered to swear fealty in normal fashion. This was not a regional custom, however, for on the Hornchurch estate the heir had to be an adult before entering a holding. Here, in the event of a minor heir, the child and the land were put into the care of a maternal relative.44 Groups of people as well as individuals could hold land. Joint tenancy was most often used by a husband and wife.45 By this arrangement, the wife did not need to pay relief if her husband died before her although she did have to come to the court to offer fealty. Several daughters might inherit a holding jointly, but usually they divided the holding between them; alternatively, one sister and her husband might buy out the other co-heirs. There is no indication that holdings were held and worked jointly by several laterally-related members of a given family. Nor was it common for a father to name his son as co-tenant of land. Feoffees to use appear frequently after c. 1380.46 Many tenants made use of small groups of relatives, friends and/or neighbours as 41

42

43 44 45

46

N C O MSS 10722-3, P R O SC 2 / 1 7 2 / 2 5 , m . i , and E R O D / D U 102/13, m. 4. See ch. 4 below for women. The oath of fealty of a three-year-old b o y was, however, postponed until he came of age, and the mother of a sixteen-year-old paid his relief for him (ERO D / D U 102/45, m. id, and D / D U 102/7, m . 4d). ERO D/DU 102/6, m. i6d; for below, see D/DU 102/46, m. 3. N C O M S 9744, e.g., fol. 193V (bis). E.g., PRO C 260/144/9 and ERO D / D U 102/4, m. 12. For daughter co-heiresses, see, e.g., BNB, vol. 3, p. 56, and Descr. cat. anct. deeds, vol. 1, p. 59. E R O D / A E W 1/6, G L L M S 9 1 7 1 / 5 , fol. 382, Calendar of plea and memoranda rolls [of the London Mayors Court, 1323-1484] (ed. A.H.Thomas and P.E.Jones, 6 vols., Cambridge, Cambridge Univ. Press, 1926-61), vol. 5, pp. 51—2, ERO D / D U 102/42, m. iod, and D / D U 102/44, m. 4d. For an enrolled Latin charter from 1384 granting land to feoffees with the condition described in French, see ERO D / D U 102/3B, m. id.

Differentiated landholding and the population, 1231—1460 feoffees. Purchase through feoffees was the normal practice of those London merchants who bought Havering land between 1440 and 1470. After 1480 feoffments to use were employed less often, although they are seen occasionally until their limitation by statute in 1536. Transfer of land within families was not limited by any binding local customs. The most common inheritance pattern was from father to oldest son, at least for the major component of the holding. 47 Younger sons and daughters, if there were any, might be given smaller or peripheral pieces of land, goods or cash instead. Table 8 displays the inheritances recorded on the manor court rolls between 1382 and 1501, numbers which constitute only some fraction of the total number of inheritances. About half of these transfers involved the passage of the parent's land to a single son. In the absence of a son, the land went to the daughter(s) of the deceased tenant. Should there be no children at all, the land generally passed to other relatives, often to a sibling or nephew. Male primogeniture was not, however, a requirement. A holding could be divided between several children, though this was less frequent after 1350 than it had been during the years of intense population pressure prior to 1349. If the deceased person had prepared a will specifying that the land should descend in a fashion other than the conventional one, the manor court honoured the arrangements. Illegitimate sons had a weaker claim than did legitimate heirs, even if the illegitimate son was an adult and the legitimate one a minor. 48 The very low rate of conveyances between living members of a family, as shown on Table 8, suggests that few fathers transferred to their sons the legal title to their land during their own lifetime. Because this analysis rests upon use of surnames and the court's own identification of relatives, it conceals most conveyances to prospective sons-in-law as part of a marriage settlement and probably fails to recognise some relatives with different surnames. To be certain that all transfers between relatives are identified, one must have detailed knowledge of local families over several generations. Reliance upon surnames alone has led to underestimation of the continuity of land tenure among more distant relatives after the 1349 plague. 49 If no provision was made for a widow in her husband's will, it was customary for her to receive for term of her life a dower of a third of the land which her former husband had held at the time of his 47 48 49

Information about Havering inheritances comes mainly from the manor court rolls and wills. P R O SC 2 / 1 7 2 / 2 5 , m. 5. Zvi Razi, 'Family, land and the village community in later medieval England', Past and Present, XCIII (1981), 3-36. 119

120

121

Table 8. Types of transfers of Havering land which came before the manor court, 1382—1501 1382-1406

1432-54

122

194

110

103

No. of sessions of the manor court analysed,

1455^70

1488-1501 54

in runs of 12-39 consecutive sessions each Total no. of land transfers within the sessions analysed

Types of land transfers A. No. within the family Through inheritance Through conveyance by a living person Total B. No. outside the family Without writ With writ

22

48 = 44% 33 = 30%

63 = 61% 18 = 17%

45 = 67% 20 = 30%

15 = 63% 5 = 21%

81 = 74% 7 = 6%

8l

= 79%

65 = 97%

20

Total B. Definitely or probably outside the family Without writ With writ Total Total, average no per year

8 = 8%

= 3%

4 = 17%

= 83% 0

2.8

1.2

0

0.5

0-3

0.7

0.5

0.5

3-1

1-9

0.5

1.0

7.6 4.6

5-5 1.6

10.7

3-6

12.2

7-1 9.0

15-5 16.0

4.8

1.2

4.8 5-7

7\ o } = 5°% 1 2 3 1

o 0 0 o

o | 1 ) =5 ° 0 0 o 1

20

14

o

2

I 0 1

o 7 1

0 1 1

1 1 o

4 2 I 2

Total

2

0

9\ 2) = «%

B. Through conveyance by a living person Father to son Same surname, but relation not indicated Other11

= 21%

0

15-3

Patterns of intra-family transfers A. Through inheritance Father to son Mother to son Father to daughter(s) Man to wife Man to male heir other than son Other or unknown relation"

Total

Total

2 = 8% 2 = 8%

22 = 20%

Average no. of transfers per year A. Within the family Through inheritance Through conveyance by a living person

B. Through a jury's report Within the family Outside the family

0 2 = 3%

14 = 14%

Total

Total

24

2O = 18% 2 = 2%

C. Unclear type, but probably outside the family

Method whereby the court obtained information about the transfer A. Through the voluntary appearance of the new tenant Within the family Outside the family

67

2

0 0

8

2

2

6 = 27% of 22 54 = 61% of 88

9 = 41% of 22 30 = 37% of 81

I = 50% Of 2 29 = 45% of 65

0 8 = 40% Of 20

60

39

30

8

16

I

%

34

13 51

36

4 12

50

64

37

16

" In 1382—1406, one man to his sister, and one death in which the heir was unknown to the court; in 1432—54, one woman to her husband; in 1488-1501, one woman to her granddaughter. ' ^1382-1406, one man to his father's widow; in 1432-54, one man to his two sons; in 1455^70, one woman and her husband to her sister and brother-in-law. Sources: Series of twelve to thirty-nine consecutive sessions of the Havering manor court rolls from the following years: 1382—3, 1388—9, 1392—3, 1396-8, 1401-2, 1405-6, 1432-3, 1437-8, 1440-2, 1444-^, 1449-51, 1452-5, 1464-5, 1467-8, 1469-^70, 1488-9, 1492-3, 1496-^7, and 1500-1. The references for these years are given in App. III.

Economic independence and its consequences, 1231—1460 50

death. Even if a widow remarried, she was allowed to keep her third of her previous husband's holdings. Although she could under some circumstances sell these lands, usually they descended at her death to her first husband's heirs. This practice was so clearly understood and accepted within Havering that it is rarely mentioned in the manor court rolls. Exceptional arrangements for widows were recorded more formally. In 1433 Thomas Tyle appeared before the Havering court. 51 He came in part to offer fealty and pay his relief for the holding called Elms, consisting of about 250 acres, which he had recently inherited from his father Nicholas. At the court Thomas also enrolled the agreement he had made with his stepmother whereby he assured her of a dower of 12 marks per year, to be paid in the form of 10 marks from his Havering land and 2 marks from a holding elsewhere. Widows could also set up individual plans to provide security for themselves, even at a modest level. In 1450 Matilda Mont and John Turk, her son by an earlier marriage, conveyed a messuage to three men on condition that the new tenants and their heirs should during the lifetime of Matilda repair, maintain and defend against wind and rain one house next to the gate of the said messuage and permit Matilda and John Turk to hold and occupy the house with freedom of entry and exit, and permit Matilda to collect and have half the fruit growing in the garden of the messuage, and permit Matilda to have one cock and two hens within the enclosure of the messuage.52 This is one of a tiny number of cases in which Havering land is known to have been conveyed in association with an agreement to maintain the former tenant. Sales of land outside a family formed the basis of an active market in land.53 Unlike most customary land markets, conveyances in Havering consisted often of entire holdings, not just of small parcels. 54 A sale was arranged privately between the parties, a purchase price agreed upon, and the terms usually recorded in written form, as a sealed charter.55 Even men of low economic status had their own seals, as did 50

FFE, vol. 1, pp. 61 and n o , vol. 3, p. 118, and ch. 4 below. ERO D / D U 102/24, m. 2. This holding had belonged to Richard of the Elms in 1251. s2 ERO D / D U 651/16. 53 Material o n land transfers is derived f r o m t h e m a n o r court rolls, private charters a n d other records o f sale. 54 Cf. A. DeWindt, 'A peasant land market and its participants: King's Ripton, 1280-1400', Midland History, IV (1978), 142-59, and R.H.Hilton, The English peasantry in the later Middle Ages (Oxford, Clarendon Press, 1975), pp. 47—8. 55 Marjorie K. Mclntosh, * The privileged villeins of the English ancient demesne', Viator, VII (1976), 317-19, and 'Land, tenure, and population', 22, n. 1. 51

122

Differentiated landholding and the population, 1231—1460 some women. 56 The crown made no attempt to control the land market apart from the stipulation that the new tenant of a direct holding had to come before the manor court to report the sale, swear fealty and pay relief. Occasionally a tenant would bring a charter to the court and have it read aloud and entered on the rolls, presumably for a fee.57 A person who wanted a more formal legal title to one of the direct holdings could obtain a little writ of right close and pursue a collusive suit in the manor court, an action which resulted, by prearrangement, in the land's assignment to the purchaser. Transfer was accompanied in at least some cases by the formal gesture of conveyance known as livery of seisin.58 Letters of attorney survive which empower another person to act on behalf of either the old or the new tenant during the delivery.59 The price paid for land is seldom recorded: the values mentioned in collusive suits are not trustworthy. Leasing of land was relatively unimportant prior to 1460, probably because purchasing was so simple. There were a few leases of large holdings for life or for a long period of years, especially in the thirteenth century, but the more common lease was of no more than 5 acres for a period ranging from twelve months to two or three years.60 This suggests that people rented land primarily on a temporary or emergency basis, probably related to short-term family needs, rather than acquiring leasehold as an ongoing part of their total holdings. The leased units were often described as pasture or meadow and hence must have been suitable for grazing a small number of cattle or sheep. Local butchers and their London brethren also leased Havering grassland, thereby increasing their economic flexibility.61 The manor court and royal administrators normally ignored leases. Temporary tenants were not required to come before the court, and extents list the lessor, not the lessee, as the tenant. 56

See n . 35 above, a n d cf. Carte nativorum, p . xlii. In t h e thirteenth c e n t u r y H a v e r i n g people m a y have designed their o w n seals t o reflect their occupations o r n a m e s : there is an anvil in t h e centre o f a smith's seal and a crudely d r a w n rearing lion o n t h e seal of Richard, son o f Leofwin, spelled ' L e w i n ' o n t h e seal ( N C O M S S 10893 a n d 10913). Later seals w e r e m o r e formal. 57 PRO SC 2/172/25, m. 9, ERO D/DU 102/3B, m. id, and D/DU 102/47, passim. 58 A party in a dispute concerning land in 1339 stated that by the custom of the manor of Havering a person who wished to convey a holding to another had to come to the manor court and surrender the land into the hands of the queen, through the common symbol of handing a rod to the steward of the court; the steward would then grant the land via the rod into the hands of the new tenant (CCR, 1339-41, pp. 125—6). s^ ERO D/DU 651/1, and Hornch. Pr. kal., no. 126. 60 Information o n leasing is derived f r o m private suits recorded o n t h e m a n o r court rolls, e.g., ERO D / D U 102/1, m. 8d, D/DU 102/5, m. 6d, and PRO SC 2/172/29, m. 16. 61 Hornch. Pr. kal., no. 18, and PRO SC 2/172/27, mm. 6d, 7d and iod. For the absence of leases from Havering extents, cf., e.g., CPR, 1232—47, p. 279, with the 1251 extent. 123

Economic independence and its consequences, 1251—1460

We cannot describe the volume of inheritances and land transfers in quantitative terms because they are incompletely recorded on the manor court rolls. (This is another reason why it is impossible to trace the distribution of land within families after 1352/3.) The court did not attempt to keep track of the subtenancies, limiting its purview to the direct holdings. The direct holdings themselves, moreover, were not fully monitored since the tenants did not always choose to have the transfers recorded. They needed neither the approval of the court to justify their title nor the description of the transfer on the court rolls as an official record. Charters and wills provided sufficient documentation. For most people the court's knowledge of a transfer meant nothing more than having to pay an extra year's rent as relief. Only in a contested inheritance or irregular sale would the court's authorisation have mattered. Considerable reluctance to register transfers is suggested by Table 8. Of the sales to non-relatives which came to the court's attention between 1382 and 1470, no more than 61 % did so through the voluntary appearance of the new tenant. The fraction was not above half for intra-family transfers. Given this lack of tenant enthusiasm, the crown found it difficult to learn about conveyances. Its control over the manor court was weak. The steward or his deputy was ordered to swear injuries charged with reporting all recent changes in landholding. This was done regularly. 62 Yet the steward himself had nothing to gain from an accurate list, since he did not profit from the entry fines, and the jurors had no reason to spend their own time trying to track down deaths or sales and the names of new tenants. Jurors may well have been subject to local pressure, and perhaps bribery, to refrain from mentioning transfers. Not once between 1352 and 1460 did a steward ask for a second jury to check the report of the first concerning conveyances. There must also have been genuine confusion on the part of the jurors about current tenants during periods of particularly rapid turnover in the land market. During the early 1350s and the 1380s, for example, jurors sometimes said that they knew a given tenant had died but did not know who the heir was.63 Non-resident tenants must have been especially difficult for local people to identify. Some of these factors probably affected the registration of conveyances even in more closely supervised private 62

63

Juries sworn t o report u p o n land transfers, s u m m o n e d b y the steward ex officio, are reported t w o t o four times annually in the m a n o r court rolls, at the spring and a u t u m n general courts and occasionally at other times, e.g., E R O D / D U 102/2, m . 6d, and D/DU 102/4, mm. i8d, 6d and id. E.g., PRO SC 2/172/25, m. 9 (Alice Whit), and ERO D/DU 102/4, mm. i8d and 6d. 124

Differentiated landholding and the population, 1231-1460

18

Londoners

16 14

I

Transfers recorded by the manor court

12

c O

"g 10

i

8 6 Larger holdings

!330s

1340s

/

1350s

1360s

1370s

1380s

1390s

1400s

1410s 1

70s

1480s

1490s

Decades

•

Average annual no. of land transfers outside the family, direct holdings only, from Havering manor court rolls, calculated by decade

.£>

Total no. of Havering land transfers per decade from FFE, Descr. cat. and. deeds and published crown rolls, mainly holdings of 30 4- acres

A

Total no. of Londoners per decade holding Havering land

Figure 5 Activity of the market in Havering land, 1330S-1490S Sources: Havering manor court rolls (PRO SC 2/172/25-39 and ERO D/DU102/1-58), FFE, vols. 1-4. Descr. cat. and. deeds, vols. 1—6 plus typed calendars at the PRO, and CCR, CChR, CFR, CLR and CPR, all passim.

manors. Hence court roll data alone provide a precarious guide to the reality of landholding. While the number of transfers recorded on the Havering rolls is certainly incomplete, these figures may be used in conjunction with other records to provide a general indication of the level of activity of the local land market. Fig. 5 gives a picture of the volume of sales between 1330 and 1499. The manor court rolls suggest a peak around 125

Economic independence and its consequences, 1231—1460

1400 and another burst of sales beginning in the 1450s. The larger holdings whose transfers are preserved in the central government's records changed hands in roughly equivalent fashion, with the addition of increased activity between 1360 and 1380, a period for which the Havering rolls are missing. The contribution of Londoners to the vigour of the Havering land market is also displayed in Fig. 5, with peaks between 1390 and 1410 and again in the 1450s and 1460s. Havering's protected and effectively free version of customary tenure coupled with unfettered inheritance clearly contributed to the desirability of local land. The ease of buying and selling holdings reinforced a continuing demand. The geographical mobility of Havering people provided a further stimulus, as property was transferred through both immigration and emigration of tenants. While the crown could not always keep pace with the transfers, the tenants profited from an unrestricted market in land. HAVERING'S PEOPLE,

1251-1460

The size of the population

We can suggest approximate sizes for Havering's population at a few points during the medieval years and comment upon the probable direction of population movement. In 1086, as we have seen, Havering had 87 tenants; by 1251 the number of direct tenants and more prosperous subtenants had risen to 368. Although we have no information on household size in medieval Havering, we may use a suggested figure of 4.5 for a family and its servants.64 By this assumption Havering would have had a population in 1251 of 1650 to 1700 people in the recorded, wealthier households. Addition of the families of the poorer subtenants would yield a total population of perhaps 1800 to 2000. Further clearing of land in the generation after 1251 probably indicates an ongoing rise in population. Evidence on the consolidation of holdings during the earlier 1300s suggests that the population may have stabilised or declined slightly during that period, perhaps because of the bad harvests of the 1310s.65 In 1352/3 there were 493 tenants and subtenants within the manor. In proposing a multiplier for household size during the immediate post-plague years, we may use a lowered figure of 3.0 or 3.5, on the supposition of considerable disruption of families and a higher proportion of unmarried tenants. 64 65

T i t o w , English rural society, pp. 83—9. Mclntosh, ' Land, tenure, and population \ 2 8 - 9 .

126

Differentiated landholding and the population, 1231—1460 With such a value we obtain a total landed population of 1500 to 1750. The number of people without land was probably small, given the loss from disease. A total population of somewhere around 1600 to 1800 people thus seems reasonable, slightly below that suggested for 1251. The extraordinary aspect of the 1352/3 figures is that the extent was prepared just a few years after the first devastating outburst of the plague, which throughout England as a whole probably killed 30-45 % of the population.66 The plague is mentioned once in the extent, in a comment that * because of the immense mortality of the present time arising from the plague' no one wished to assart new land from the woods. Apart from that reference a reader of the extent would hardly know that a major demographic disaster had just occurred. There is absolutely no evidence of any empty, untenanted holdings. Yet the plague could not have bypassed Havering, with its ties to London and other trade and population centres. There were few outsiders holding Havering land in 1352/3, so it cannot be argued that a great influx of newcomers had arrived to take up the vacant holdings. One must therefore conclude that the population of the manor had been significantly larger in 1349 than it was in 1352/3, with enough extra people to take up the holdings of those killed by the plague. Further, the pre-plague population was able to fill the empty tenancies without pronounced consolidation of holdings. The record of current versus former tenants in the 1352/3 extent indicates that the 1349 epidemic hit Havering with sufficient severity to cause substantial transfer of land both within families and between families in the manor. Due to scanty records from the 1340s, we are unable to determine the level of mortality. To gain an approximate value for Havering's pre-plague population, we may use a posited death rate of 33^%, which would suggest that Havering had 2400 to 2700 inhabitants just before 1349. If a larger household size of 4.5 is again employed, we may think in terms of 530 to 600 households in the 1340s, with relative and perhaps absolute overcrowding. Havering's population seems to have remained low for at least a generation after 1349. The plague continued to recur over the following decades, the 13 61—2 outbreak striking Essex with particular intensity. In 1369 the bailiff of Havering reported three entirely empty tenancies owing 23s. iojd. annually plus 51s. 6^d. of uncollectable rents from twenty-nine other parcels of land.67 Havering's farm was granted 66

John Hatcher, Plague, population and the English economy, 1348-1530 (London, Macmillan, 1977), ch. 2. 0? PRO SC 6/844/13. 127

Economic independence and its consequences, 1251—1460

at a set rate in 1376 and 1379 provided that the farmer ask for no allowance 'for lands not occupied through lack of tenants'. 68 The 1349 epidemic had evidently removed the excess population so thoroughly that when subsequent onslaughts came, vacant holdings could be filled only by the arrival of new tenants from outside the manor or by consolidation of land into fewer tenancies. Both these processes took time to be implemented after each visitation of the plague. In 1377 a total of 703 Havering people paid 4d. each in the poll tax of that year. 69 The poll tax was to be assessed upon all men and women over the age of fourteen years unless they were beggars. If all qualifying people in Havering were in fact assessed, the manor must have contained somewhere around 300 household heads. Use of a suggested multiplier of 2.0 yields a total population of about 1400, down from 1600 to 1800 in 1352/3. 70 The lowered population after 1349 probably contributed in some degree to the decrease in the crown's profit from the manor between 1352/3 and 1382.71 The population apparently rose around 1400 but then shrank once more. The number of chief pledges selected at Havering's annual view of frankpledge is not a direct measure of the size of the total population but provides a reflection of the changes which occurred. The fluctuating range of twenty-four to twenty-seven chief pledges between 1385 and 1400 increased to thirty-one in 1408. The number dropped back to twenty-six by 1430 and remained at the medieval minimum of twenty-four between 1432 and 1452.72 A pattern of gradual decline between 1352/3 and the closing decades of the fourteenth century, expansion around 1400 and then another drop leading to a period of low population until the early 1450s is consistent with information on the land market, consolidation of holdings and the level of royal income from Havering. It might be tempting to undertake a more detailed demographic analysis of Havering and its families on the basis of court roll evidence, a type of exploration pursued for a handful of other manors.73 We are 68 69

70 71 72 73

CFR, 1368-77, p . 362, a n d CFR, 1377-83, p . 174. P R O E 179/240/259, part 4, M S 134. This information was kindly given to the author by C a r o l y n Fen wick. R. H . Hilton, ' L o r d s , burgesses and hucksters', Past and Present, X C V I I (1982), 5, n. 6. See ch. 2 and Table 1 above. Figures taken from all surviving view records: see A p p . III. The pioneering work was done at the Pontifical Institute of Mediaeval Studies in Toronto: J. A. Raftis, Tenure and mobility: studies in the social history of the mediaeval English village (Toronto, 1964); J. A. Raftis, 'Social structures in five east Midland villages: a study of possibilities in the use of court roll data', Econ. Hist. Rev., 2nd ser., XVIII (1965), 83—99; J. A. Raftis, Warboys: two hundred years in the life of an English 128

Differentiated landholding and the population, 1251—1460 barred from this inquiry by the nature of the Havering rolls and by their incomplete preservation (see App. III). The records of the view of frankpledge should ostensibly list the names of all males aged twelve years or more. In Havering, however, we are not given the names of those already sworn into tithings and present at the view, although some men were reported each year for failure to enter a tithing or to attend. Further, the Hornchurch estate held a separate view for its own tenants. Since the Havering court did not record transfers of the subholdings, subtenants appear in the records only if they took part in private suits, committed a misdeed or were registered at the view. Comparison of court roll data with other Havering records illustrates the inadequacy of the rolls' coverage. In 1352—3, when the extent names about 500 tenants and subtenants, suggesting a total population of perhaps 1000 people over the age of twelve, only 217 local men and women are mentioned in the manor court's records in all capacities during eight consecutive sessions between mid-October and early March. In 1377, 703 adults paid the poll tax, but only 365 local people appear in the court rolls during a twelve-month period in 1388—9. A cumulative list of names drawn from all surviving rolls would lessen but not eradicate the deficiencies. Incomplete registration of the full resident population by manor court rolls is especially pronounced in Havering. Weak seigneurial control over the court, the unusual importance of subtenancies and a large and mobile population accentuated the problem. Nevertheless, even with rolls better suited to demographic study there are severe questions about the reliability of the method. The people named in the records of any manor court form an unknown fraction of the total local population. The sample is always biased in favour of those adult males who held land directly from the lord, dominated the local economy and filled manorial offices. The lists of resident males assembled by views of frankpledge are certainly incomplete. Temporary residents who lived in a community for a year or less were not required to join tithings. Other men must have escaped notice, principally those who were poor or lived on the margins of society. Landless men and servants mediaeval village (Toronto, 1974); E. B. DeWindt, Land and people in Holywellcum-Needingworth (Toronto, 1972); Britton, Community of the vill; andj. A. Raftis, A small town in late mediaeval England: Godmanchester (Toronto, 1982). Elements of the methodology in these studies was criticised by Zvi Razi, 'The Toronto School's reconstitution of medieval peasant society: a critical review', Past and Present, LXXXV (i979), 141-57; Razi then produced his own demographic work, Life, marriage and death. See also Christopher Dyer, Lords and peasants in a changing society: the estates of the bishopric of Worcester, 680—1540 (Cambridge, Cambridge Univ. Press, 1980). esp. pp. 224-41. 129

Economic independence and its consequences, 1251—1460

are seldom visible. Nor do women ordinarily appear unless they held land, were bakers or brewers, or misbehaved. Few manor courts recorded transfers of subholdings. It is difficult to distinguish true changes in population from the effects of changes in the vitality of the manor court — its level of activity and efficacy. This problem is most acute in the fifteenth century, as the vigour of many manor courts waned. An increase in the rate of turnover of holdings, due to disease or a more lively market in local land, can easily be confused with a rise in population since each leads to the appearance of more tenant names on the rolls. In any manor, demographic study on the basis of court roll evidence should be carried out with great caution and only when diverse supplementary records are available. Outsiders and newcomers

The number of outsiders holding Havering land and the rate at which newcomers moved into the manor from other places varied chronologically. In identifying outsiders we can be sure that a few known tenants were non-resident, but beyond that we must rely upon the use of toponymic surnames. This method may exaggerate the apparent number of non-resident tenants, for people like Henry of London, a subtenant only in 1251, and John of Plaistow, a direct tenant in 1352/3, may actually have lived within the manor. If so, they had probably moved to Havering within their own lifetimes. The figures presented for the number of outside tenants therefore include both non-residents and fairly recent arrivals. At the time of the 1251 extent, the land was held overwhelmingly by local people. Only eight outsiders were included among the direct tenants and just five among the subtenants, together comprising 4 % of the total landholding group. Of the outsiders, one was a nobleman, Roger Bigod, 6th earl of Norfolk; one was a religious institution, Waltham Abbey; two or three were royal officials; and eight others were said to be of another parish or town, one of which was the adjacent community of Barking. The direct tenants from outside the manor had relatively large holdings: two with 10 to 29 acres, three with 30 to 99 acres, and two with 100 acres or more. Waltham Abbey enjoyed profits from a millpond and two water courses. The number of outsiders with large estates would have been increased somewhat if the ex-serjeanties had appeared on the extent. The low percentage of outside tenants continued through most of the fourteenth century. In the 1352/3 extent, eleven outsiders held land 130

Differentiated landholding and the population, 1231—1460 as direct tenants and another eight as subtenants only, again constituting 4 % of all landholders. Two were knights holding free land, Walter de Mauny, victor over the French fleet at Sluys in 1340, and Thomas Passelewe; four were religious bodies; and one was a royal official active in Havering. The remainder were said to be of other areas: three from southwest Essex; three from London, two of whom were merchants; and six from other regions, two of whom were named Chapman. Although five of the eleven direct tenants held more than 100 acres, the operation of subtenancies reduced the net holdings of the outsiders to a distribution virtually identical to that of the full group of Havering tenants. This was still primarily a local tenant population, and there were few large absentee landlords. The number of outsiders rose conspicuously in the years around 1400. The percentage of outside tenants in the rolls of the Havering manor court grew from 5 % in 1352—3 to 9% in 1388—9 and on to 15% in 1405—6. It then dropped to the negligible figure of 3 % in 1444—5. We have seen that an apparently abundant population just prior to 1349 enabled vacant holdings to be filled almost entirely by local people. In the years after 1352/3, however, newcomers began to move into the manor. Mobility was high in many parts of England during the later fourteenth century, but outsiders may have been particularly drawn to Havering by the advantages of its economic life.74 Comparison of the resident or landholding families who appeared in the manor court's records in 1388—9 with the 1352—3 roll and the 1352/3 extent reveals that 45 % of the families found in the later year had not lived in Havering thirty-six years before (see Table 9, part A). Rapid turnover is further suggested by the fact that a quarter of the families present in Havering in 1388—9 had not only come to the manor within the past generation but would disappear again within the next seventeen years. The rate of immigration seems to have declined somewhat at the end of the fourteenth century. By 1405—6, nearly two-thirds of the resident or landholding families had been in the manor since 1388—9. The number of new families entering Havering had fallen further by 1444—5. The real rate of family turnover was probably higher than these figures suggest, for the measurements here are based upon the survival of family names. Since many of Havering's middle-level families had several branches flourishing at once, the disappearance of a surname 74

R. H . Hilton, The decline of serfdom in medieval England (London, Macmillan, 1969), pp. 32-5, Cicely Ho well, Land, family and inheritance in transition: Kibworth Harcourt, 1280-1700 (Cambridge, Cambridge Univ. Press, 1983), pp. 44-8, and E. B. DeWindt, Land and people, p. 158.

Table 9. Continuity of resident or landholding families mentioned in the manor court rolls, 1352-1497

Total no. of resident or landholding families mentioned in the manor court rolls during selected twelve-month periods* A. No. of families continuing from previous measurement year'' No. of new families which remained until the next measurement year No. of new families which were gone again by the next measurement year B.

a

No. of families which had been present within Havering for c. three generations (for 53—66 years) No. of families which had been present for c. five generations (for 109-24 years)

1388-9

1405-6

1444-5

1469-70

1497

282

267

184

219

186

157 = 56%*

174

= 65%

117 = 64%

119

53 = 1 9 %

21

= 8%

29 = 16%

16

72 = 2 6 %

72

= 27%

38 = 2 1 %

84 = 38%

72 = 39%

= 46%*

104 = 57%

93 = 42%

77 = 4 1 %

57 = 26%*

44 = 24%

123

= 54%

95 = 5 1 %

= 7%

19 = 10%

Does not include institutional tenants or outsiders who appear in the rolls only in non-land capacities. Does count those families recorded in both the previous and the next measurement years who are not mentioned in this particular year. Measurement years are those shown plus 1352-3, for which use was made of both the partial manor court roll for 1352-3 and the 1352/3 extent. Use of the extent should raise the level of continuity with 1352-3 as compared with other years which use only court rolls. Sources: PRO SC 2/172/25 and the 1352/3 extent; ERO D / D U 102/4; PRO SC 2/172/30; ERO D / D U 102/32, m. 14, and PRO SC 2/172/32, mm 3-23; ERO D / D U 102/53, mm. 1-2, and D / D U 102/54, mm. id-10; PRO SC 2/172/38, mm. n - 2 i v .

Differentiated landholding and the population, 1251—1460 could mean the death or departure of two or more distinct households. Yet, as part B of Table 9 displays, there was a central core of about 100 families who remained in Havering for at least three generations between 1352 and 1470. The heads of these old houses played a disproportionate role in the economic and political life of the community. Many of the newcomers who bought Havering land during the later fourteenth and fifteenth centuries came from London. Some of these men followed in the footsteps of earlier royal officials who had received land within the manor. John Parker, usher of the queen's chamber, was granted the holding called Uphavering by the crown in or shortly before 1386. He was later named royal keeper or bailiff of the manor and was given some park offices as well. 75 Although Parker was often in attendance at court or away in Ireland in the king's service, he had come to regard Havering as his home by the time of his death in 1395. More common were the London merchants or tradesmen who acquired Havering land. While many of them invested in land for purely financial reasons, some became residents of the manor. Nicholas Longe, a citizen and butcher of London, began in the early 1380s to lease and buy parcels of meadow and small units of arable land in Havering.76 In 1385 he leased from Hornchurch Priory a property consisting of a grange and the tithe of hay from sections of northeast Havering. With his land and tithes Longe raised cattle and sheep for sale in London. During the 1380s he remained in the capital, hiring a herdsman to tend his animals in Havering, but around 1390 he moved to the manor and proceeded to purchase more land. Before his death in 1394 he conveyed his land to feoffees, mainly local men, to hold to the use of his wife; in his will he asked to be buried in Hornchurch parish church. Professional men and 'careerists' bought Havering holdings too. 77 The desire of royal officials, London citizens and lawyers to acquire an estate within easy reach of the capital helped to maintain activity in Havering's land market even during slow 75

76

77

CPR, 1385-9, p . 382, CPR, 1391-6, p p . 387 and 531, P R O S C 6 / 1 2 6 2 / 8 , E R O D / D U 102/4, m m . 6d and i d , G L L M S 9 1 7 1 / 1 , fol. 338, and A p p . I. ERO D / D U 102/1, m. 2d, D/DU 102/2, m. 5, Hornch. Pr. kal, no. 386, ERO D/DU 102/3B, mm. id and 10, D/DU 102/4, passim, 102/6, mm. 12-14, and GLL MS 9171/1, fol. 319. In 1406, John Macclesfield, clerk, a Cheshire man now established in London, acquired the manor of Dagenhams and Cockerels. The list of his thirteen feoffees is 'a veritable who's who of northwest midlands careerists', six of them important lawyers from Cheshire, Lancashire and Derbyshire. (Personal communication from Michael Bennett, referring to the charter in BL Cotton MS D VI, fols. iO5v-io6r. Cf. PRO SC 2/172/30, m. 5d.)

133

Economic independence and its consequences, 1251—1460

economic periods and brought new families into the manorial community. 78 Among the newcomers were two groups who tended to remain distinct because of their background or occupation. A small trickle of foreigners entered Havering. Between 1380 and 1450 they came mainly from Holland, Flanders and Germany; most of them were craftsmen or trades-people.79 There was also a sizeable number of priests and clerks within the manor. From 1392 onward Hornchurch parish church was staffed by a vicar or chaplain, who usually had a second priest to assist him, and by a clerk.80 The clerk was a literate man who may have done some teaching of local boys, as well as drawing up wills and other documents. Romford chapel had a priest, and there was a chaplain at Havering-atte-Bower. Other, unaffiliated clerks lived in Romford. Many of them presumably supported themselves through their literacy, although two of the four wine sellers operating in the 1270s were clerks. The Havering manor court reported any misbehaviour of the clergy. Personal assaults were frequently mentioned, such as those committed by Richard the chaplain of Romford against Petronilla, wife of William Gate, Simon Bryth, John Clerk and John Holand in 1395.81 Less violent offences included the theft by John Holiwater, clerk of Hornchurch, of two rabbits, one ferret and hunting nets in 1388, an action not only bad in itself but smacking of dark deeds in the royal warren in the future. The brethren of Hornchurch Priory, numbering just four to eight members in most periods, led an isolated life, having few contacts with the local population, until the priory's dissolution.82 The converse of Havering's newcomers consisted of those local people who left the community to seek employment elsewhere, sometimes remaining away permanently. The best opportunities seem to have lain in London's commercial world, although occasionally a 78

79

80 81 82

For other instances of purchases b y Londoners in the city's periphery, see A n n B r o w n , ' L o n d o n a n d north-west Kent i n t h e later Middle A g e s : t h e d e v e l o p m e n t o f a l a n d - m a r k e t ' , Archaeologia Cantiana, X C I I (1977), 145—55, Douglas Moss, ' T h e economic development o f a Middlesex village [ T o t t e n h a m ] ' , Agricultural Hist. Rev., X X V I I I (1980), 104—14, a n d Paul D . G l e n n i e , ' A commercializing agrarian region: late medieval and early m o d e r n Hertfordshire' (Univ. o f C a m b r i d g e P h D thesis, 1983), ch. 2.5.1. J o h n T a y l o u r o f H o l a n d ' in the 13 80s; Margaret Feverokys o r F e n e r o k y s , ' F l e m m i n g ' , in t h e 1390s; William Colyns, ' F l e m y n g ' , Lawrence M y , ' c o r d e w a n e r ' , b o r n in O l d water, a n d Florence Phelipson a n d James Sterman, b o t h b o r n in ' H o l a n d ' , all in t h e 1430s; and J o h n Taylour, ' d u c h e m a n ' , in t h e 1440s. See A p p . IV. ERO D/DHt Mi92d; for below, see D/DU 102/4, mm. I7d and i8d. Marjorie K. Mclntosh, 'Hornchurch Priory, Essex, 1158/9-1391', Revue Benedictine, XCV (1985), 116-38.

134

Differentiated landholding and the population, 1231—1460 Havering man found a position in an important household or in the crown's service.83 Other Havering people, of both sexes, may have left the manor temporarily, living with and working for a master in another area as a servant, a form of absence which leaves no trace in the records. The precocious forms of landholding in Havering and the exceptional autonomy of its tenants were thus shaped by economic and social factors internal to the manor as well as by exemption from outside control. Stratification, free tenure and Havering's location on the periphery of London all combined to produce a situation ripe for commercialisation. It is to the later medieval patterns of agriculture, craft-work and trade that we now turn. 83

The author has been able to identify relatively few Havering people who moved to London, for men from the manor did not usually identify themselves as such. See, e.g., GLL MS 9171/7, fol. 144.V, A. B. Bamford, 'Bequests relating to Essex...[from wills in the London Court of Hustings]', Trans. Essex Archaeol. Soc, N.S. XIII (1915), 253—66, and Richard Newcourt, Repertorium ecclesiasticum parochiale Londinense (2 vols.,

London, C. Bateman, 1708-10), vol. 1, pp. 141 and 301. Cf. Brown, 'London and north-west Kent'. For Havering men working for nobles or the crown, see Richard of Dover in the 1240s and Richard of Havering from the 1230s to the 1250s (CPR, CCR, CFR, CLR and CRR, passim). The age and status of servants are not clearly documented, but see ch. 4 below.

135

Chapter 4

A COMMERCIAL ECONOMY, 1350-1460

Havering's late medieval economy was complex and prosperous. The dominant pursuit was agriculture, but a form of agriculture very different from peasant subsistence. A variety of soils each suited to specialised purposes promoted mixed farming within individual estates. There was a strong market orientation, focusing upon production of animals and wood for the London populace. This emphasis was fostered by the high cost of labour, low soil fertility and the regular presence at Romford market of tradesmen from the capital. Commercial farming, especially stock raising, required considerable investment, but Havering's agricultural resources were widely distributed among the tenants rather than tightly concentrated at the top. Though much of the activity of Havering's fifty to sixty male craftsmen and retailers was directed toward intramanorial consumption, the artisans and traders also served outsiders — those who came to the market or travelled along the main Essex road. No guilds regulated production or sale. Because of the stratification of landholding and the constant inflow of newcomers, the labour supply was sufficient to meet the needs of the 100 estates with 30 acres or more and of the larger craft/trade establishments. Wages were well above the level prescribed by law, and short-term employment was preferred. A complicated network ofcredit permeated the community, with money the normal unit of exchange. Women played diverse economic roles. Havering's commercial life was both vigorous and dispersed among a broad range of local people. This economic climate nurtured attitudes which in turn affected other aspects of Havering's history. Individualism flourished. The wealthier tenants were accustomed to complete freedom in pursuing profit for themselves and their families, and they expected to wield power in economic terms. In consequence they were ready to resist outside demands which might limit their autonomy and hence their prosperity. Self-interest also dictated that they devote time and energy 136

A commercial economy, 1330—1460 to the manor court, the community vehicle through which economic disagreements were resolved, order maintained and their own values and authority implemented. The economic patterns to be described here therefore form the background to the developments portrayed in Parts I and III of this study. Surviving records enable us to present a qualitative picture of each segment of Havering's economy between 1350 and 1460 but not to measure its precise level or volume. The 1352/3 extent informs us of the distribution of land among the tenants and subtenants at the start of the period, and we have account rolls from the extensive Hornchurch estate under New College's management. The best information about local agriculture comes from the detailed pleadings in private suits heard by the manor court, available from 1382 onward, and from occasional records of external courts. These can be supplemented by deeds and wills. Material about Havering's craft-work and trade, employment, credit and women is similarly drawn mainly from court proceedings — pleadings and presentments. These sources are not ideal. There are no accounts from private agricultural holdings, from craft operations or from Romford market to provide quantitative data. Further, the manor court, from which much of our information comes, was itself undergoing changes in activity and competence during these years. Hence we cannot determine whether the period from 1350 to 1460 contained economic subphases. In this chapter we shall look first at agriculture and then at crafts and retailing. Wage labour, cash and financial agreements are considered next, followed by an evaluation of the position of women. We end with a discussion of individualism and the limitations of much historical analysis of late medieval economic developments. AGRICULTURE

By 1352 agriculture in Havering already displayed the four characteristics which have been suggested as prerequisites for agricultural revolution: a sizeable fraction of holdings containing 30 acres or more; management of large estates by local farmers rather than by distant lords; a balance between arable cultivation and grazing; and new agricultural techniques such as enclosure and mixed land use.1 In 1352/3, 2 3 % of Havering's net tenancies of known size contained at least 30 acres, and consolidation of the direct holdings after 1406 presumably increased this fraction. Another 17% of the tenants in 1

Christopher Dyer, Warwickshire farming, 134^.1520:

preparations for agricultural

revolution (Dugdale Soc. Occasional Paper no. 27, Oxford, Dugdale Soc, 1981).

137

Economic independence and its consequences, 1231—1460

1352/3 held between 14 and 29 acres and hence had more land than they needed to provide for the consumption and expenses of their families.2 The crown as lord of the manor made no effort after 1275 to engage in or control agriculture. Between 1352 and 1460, 85% to 97 °/0 of the tenants were resident. All land in Havering was enclosed. The thirty-eight major estates consisting of 60 acres or more used their land for varied and large-scale market production of animals, wood and occasionally grain. The sixty-four families with 30 to 59 acres and the seventy-five households with 14 to 29 acres often specialised in animals and wood while growing enough grain for their own use. Even among those 268 tenants with 13\ acres or less and the forty-eight subtenants with unknown holdings, there were some small market flocks. Commerce affected agriculture at nearly all levels. The forms of land use were shaped by soil and weather conditions. 3 As Fig. 6a indicates, most of the manor's land lay at a low elevation, with only a small region of ground above 200 feet in the north. Fig. 6b displays the location of the types of soil. The alluvium along the Thames was still marshland in the later Middle Ages. The adjoining region of glacial gravels underlay the original arable fields of the Saxon settlement at Hornchurch. This land, easily worked, was of low fertility and readily leached, requiring regular addition of manure if cultivation was to be maintained. During the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries much of the gravel was devoted to grain production, but crop yields were extremely low for oats and wheat. Most of the northern part of Havering lay upon London Clay, naturally suited to forest and grassland and still partially wooded in 1350. London Clay is very heavy soil, difficult to work in wet weather, quick to crack in dry weather and impervious to water. When the woodland which had initially covered this region was brought into private use, it was rarely if ever used as arable but rather for producing trees and/or grazing animals. The temperature in Havering is moderated by the sea, but the area is liable to frost. Havering receives only moderate rainfall, as seen in Fig. 6c. Essex as a whole is a dry county, and Havering lies in an area of light rainfall even by Essex standards. Only the northernmost parts of 2

3

For the suggestion that 10 to 13^ acres were sufficient for the needs of one family, see J. Z. TitQw, English rural society, 1200—1350 (London, Allen and Unwin, 1969), pp. 78—90. The larger value has been employed here, due to the low yields of some Hornchurch land, to be discussed below. V. N. Scarfe, 'Essex,' in The land of Britain, part 82 (Land Utilisation Survey of Britain, London, Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries, 1942), pp. 406—52, and Roland Allison, 'The changing geographical landscape of south-west Essex from Saxon times to 1600' (Univ. of London MA thesis, 1958), ch. 2.

138

A commercial economy, 1350—1460

6a Contour map of Havering (lines at 50-foot intervals)

London Clay Glacial gravels Alluvium 6b Drift geology

6c Mean annual rainfall (inches) Figure 6 Havering land and weather

Economic independence and its consequences, 1231—1460

the manor receive more than 23 inches of rain annually. While wheat and other grains could be grown amidst such relative aridity, as could rough grass for pasture, hay production was difficult. The variety of soil types within Havering led to mixed and convertible farming. Many of the tenants held several sorts of ground. To illustrate the diversity of land use, we may create a sample estate by averaging fifteen holdings which were described in detail between 1234 and 1452.4 These holdings were larger than normal, ranging in size from 24 to 724 acres, resulting in a composite unit which is exaggerated in size but still provides a sense of the distribution of land types. Our artificial holding consisted of 189 acres in the tenant's own occupation, of which 138 acres (73%) were arable land. The tenant also held 29 acres of pasture, much of this probably assarted woodland, 10 acres of productive woods, 9 acres of well-watered meadow and 3 acres of marsh. In addition to the land which he himself worked, the tenant of our composite holding received 44s. of rent annually from his own subtenants. At the average subtenant rent of 4.3d. per acre, his holding must have contained about 120 acres more, permanently granted out to subtenants. The relative desirability of the various types of Havering land is indicated by their per-acre assessments during the later thirteenth and fourteenth centuries: arable was valued at 3d. to 4d. per acre; pasture at 4d. to 6d.; woods at 3d. to 4d.; meadow at I2d. to i8d.; and marsh at i8d. to 24d.5 By the mid-thirteenth century Havering's arable land was arranged entirely in enclosed, separate fields, units ranging usually from 3 to 20 acres. Tenants were responsible for maintaining the hedges and/or ditches around their holdings.6 Because their land was enclosed, Havering people could decide individually each year how to use their fields, adjusting their plans on the basis of the amount of labour available to their family and in accordance with the current demand for and prices of agricultural produce. The most profitable usage was for animal raising, a common characteristic of English agriculture in the post-plague century. 7 4

The descriptions appear passim in FFE, Cal. inq. misc., CCR, CPR and Calendar of inquisitions post mortem (1216-1392, 16 vols., London HMSO, 1907^74), plus PRO C 131/3/16, C 133/87/12, C 135/39/8, and ERO D/DU 102/42, m. iod. s PRO C 145/5/1. C 145/7/6, C 132/23/12, C 145/24/1, C H 5 M / 2 I , C 133/87/2, C 133/87/12, C 131/3/16, C 135/39/8, C 135/42/20, C 143/368/1, NCO MS 9744, fol. i86r, and BL Lans. MS 260, no. 71. 6 E.g., ERO D/DU 102/24, m. 3, and D/DU 102/30, m. 2d. 7 A shift in land use from arable to pasture after 1349 has been frequently noted; a close comparison, from Tottenham, is in Douglas Moss, ' The economic development of a Middlesex village', Agricultural Hist. Rev. XXVIII (1980), 104-14. 140

A commercial economy, 1350—1460

Meadow and pasture were normally held privately, permitting ready conversion of the better land to arable when desired and allowing flexible use of less fertile fields for grazing and/or wood production. The royal outwoods were viewed as common pasture, subject only to payment of small fees for autumn use.8 They were used mainly by smaller tenants, often craftsmen, who lacked sufficient private pasture. More prized were Havering's 600 acres of marshland — less than 4 % of the manor's total area. Marsh was held either as enclosed private units or as strips within the common marsh; animals grazed within movable hurdles on the open marsh.9 The marsh required constant supervision. It was apt to become waterlogged unless the drainage ditches were kept flowing, and it was vulnerable to flooding by the Thames. 10 The manor court controlled use of the woods and inspected the marsh ditches and Thames wall, with occasional intrusion by outside bodies. Many Havering people kept animals for their own needs. Horses were used for riding and shared the role of draught animal with oxen. 11 Cattle were bred for their meat, hides and milk, the latter used for cheese-making and butter. Pigs were an inexpensive source of meat and fat. Sheep yielded meat, wool, hides and the milk which formed the basis for the famous Essex cheeses, usually produced within Havering as elsewhere in the form of massive round weys of several hundred pounds each.12 Chickens and doves were kept for food, and geese for their feathers and for the table. More important were those animals raised for sale by Havering tenants over a wide spectrum of wealth. Smallholders commonly had 9 ew horses and cows, a pig or two and little market flocks of around ;n sheep.13 Middling tenants engaged in active commercial production often raised cattle as well as sheep. The animals seized by the bailiff in 1358 from John atte Watre, a tenant of 19 acres, consisted of the following: three horses (worth 60s.), two oxen (worth 26s. 8d.), four 8 See ch. 2 above, and ERO D/DU 102/3A and D/DU 102/30, m. 9. « VCH Essex, vol. 7, P- 19, ERO D/DU 102/8, D/DU 102/9, m. 15, and PRO SC 2/172/27, m. 1id. 10 It has been suggested that the level of the Thames was lower in the early medieval years than it is at present, making the use of marsh areas more feasible: Allison, 'Changing geographical landscape', pp. 81—3. 11 References to animals are from the Havering manor court rolls, e.g., ERO D/DU 102/1, mm. 1-8, and PRO SC 2/172/28, mm. 2—18, passim, plus PRO E 37/25, passim, JUST 3/35B, m. 10, and JUST 3/126, m. 14. For cheeses and fowl, see, e.g., NCO MSS 6386, 6399 and 6410. 12 In 1392—3 the wey of cheese in Hornchurch was said to contain 32 stone but the weight of the stone is not given (NCO MS 6386). By 1596 the Essex wey had become set

at 336 pounds (Oxford English dictionary).

" E.g., ERO D/DU 102/31, mm. 10-11, and PRO JUST 3/18/5 (tris). 141

Economic independence and its consequences, 1231—1460

cows (worth 53s.), eight steers (worth 40s.), fourteen sheep (worth 30s.), twenty-eight ewes (worth 56s.) and one lamb (worth iod.). 14 Atte Watre thus had livestock worth over ^13 on a holding which paid an annual rent of just 7s. iod. Henry Marchall, a substantial husbandman, had three horses, sixteen cows, four steers, four calves and a hundred sheep in 1441. There were also some large flocks of 200 to 300 sheep, and in 1392 the estates of Bretons, Gidea Hall and Markedich ( = Mardyke) had full-time herdsmen who tended their sheep, cows and pigs.15 For those unable to afford the purchase of animals or who wanted to increase their stock temporarily, leasing was a possibility. Rental of animals occurred regularly in the later fourteenth and fifteenth centuries, usually of a few cows or often to twenty ewes leased for a year's term. Most of Havering's stock was sold to the London butchers who came to Romford market.16 Transactions normally concerned meat cattle, often calves, and sheep. The great majority of these sales dealt with fairly small batches of animals, few agreements conveying more than five cows or forty sheep at one time. The total volume of animals offered each week, however, and the availability of stock throughout the year encouraged the regular attendance at Romford market of butchers from the capital. The butchers usually contracted for animals at the market, the Havering seller agreeing to drive them into the city on the hoof, or sometimes to bring them by cart, to be slaughtered there. After 1350 a few London butchers acquired little parcels of Havering land, described as meadow or pasture, which they used for fattening or penning their own animals.17 This practice was found in other suburban regions as well. Animals offered secondary commercial possibilities. Wool was in 14

PRO E 37/25, m. 33d (and cf. the 1352/3 extent). For below, see ERO D/DU 102/30, m. 7. Dyer suggests that a market herd of seven to eleven cows would have yielded an annual profit of at least £ 1 to £2 in the late medieval period (Lords and peasants in a changing society: the estates of the bishopric of Worcester, 680—1540 (Cambridge,

15 16

17

Cambridge Univ. Press, 1980), p. 327). PRO SC 2/172/28, m. 15, SC 2/172/29, m. 13, and ERO D/DU 102/6, m. 13d. For leasing, see, e.g., ERO D / D U 102/9, mm. 8d and 13, and D/DU 102/43, m. 2. E.g., ERO D/DU 102/6, mm. iod and n d , D/DU 102/10, mm. 3-4, and PRO SC 2/172/29, m. 5. Cf. Philip E.Jones, The butchers of London (London, Seeker and Warburg, 1976), esp. chs. 4—6. GLL MS 9171/5, fol. 349r, ERO D/DU 102/47, m. 8d, NCO MS 5032, fols. i6r-i8r, GLL MS 9171/7, fol. 144V, PRO SC 2/172/28, m. 20, and see Nicholas Longe, ch. 3 above. For butchers in the London area, see Moss, 'Economic development', and Kevin McDonnell, Medieval London suburbs (London, Phillimore, 1978), pp. 60-1; for other urban centres, see R. H. Hilton, The English peasantry in the latermiddle ages (Oxford, Clarendon Press, 1975), pp. 169-^70, and Christopher Dyer, Lords and peasants, p. 338. I42

A commercial economy, 1350—1460

demand, whether one sold a few fleeces to a local spinner or several hundred to a substantial wool merchant. In 1391 Peter Wollemonger of Sudbury, the centre of the East Anglian cloth district, owed .£5-8-4 to John Bokynham, a large Havering farmer, for wool which he had bought from him, a sum which suggests a sale of around 220 fleeces.18 The skins of dead animals were purchased by Havering's tanners and tawyers. Although a good deal of sheep cheese was produced for domestic consumption and local sale, there was little dairying for the London market before 1460. Because the fertility of some Havering land was exceptionally low, manure must have been a valued commodity, one which made possible more varied use of land.19 The diversity of profit from animal raising thus lessened the risk associated with specialisation. The low need for labour in animal raising (apart from dairying) was well suited to a period of generally low population. The second focus of commercial landholding was wood. As woodland diminished and the price of fuel and building timber rose, especially in the London area, many tenants decided to devote at least part of their holdings to arboriculture. This was particularly true for those who held land on the London Clay of northern Havering: they could use the property simultaneously for wood production and as rough pasture. Some wood was consumed as fuel by local people who lacked private woodland. It might be sold in defined lengths called * talwood', bundled into faggots of smaller pieces, or prepared by the cartload.20 Several hundred units of talwood were commonly offered at once, and 100 faggots were taken as a single batch in 1388. Another form of fuel was created by Havering's charcoal burners, who converted natural wood into more hotly burning coal. Wood was also grown as building timber, with oaks apparently favoured for construction purposes.21 Although we know little about housing in. Havering, there was clearly some demand for timber even at times of constant or declining population. Ordinary houses were of a fairly transitory nature, quickly assembled but easily ruined.22 An 18 19 20

21 22

ERO D / D U 102/6, m. 8. For tanners, see, e.g., PRO SC 2/172/27, m. 9d. Low soil fertility is discussed below. E.g., ERO D/DU 102/2, m. 3, D/DU 102/38, m. 3, PRO SC 2/172/27, m. i2d, and NCO MSS 6409-11. For below, see ERO D/DU 102/9, mm. 6 and i6d, and D/DU 102/4, m. 11. E.g., ERO D/DU 102/1, m. 8d, and D/DU 102/20. The fragile quality of many of Havering's houses is suggested by the 1352/3 extent. In discussing the responsibilities which pertained to the tenants of certain holdings, the survey made explicit provision for identifying the location of those houses which had collapsed (by taking a rafter from the dwelling and standing it on the site). (NCO MS 9744, fol. 172V.)

143

Economic independence and its consequences, 1251—1460 example of a larger, more substantial wooden house comes from 1399-1400, when New College constructed a dignified building in Hornchurch village to house the vicar of the parish and to serve as the college's own headquarters within the manor.23 The central element of this house was a 24-foot hall, running east—west, with side aisles and a high ceiling. To the hall were adjoined a wing at the western end, running north—south, and probably a similar wing at the eastern end. The west wing was two storeys high and contained in the upper storey two sleeping chambers, one of them reserved for the use of college officials when they came to the manor. Another chamber plus a kitchen and dairy lay at ground level. The only buildings in Havering known to have been made of stone were the three churches and parts of the royal compound at Havering-atte-Bower. A large volume of wood was sold to the capital, usually to Londoners who came to Romford market to contract for wood which was delivered later by the Havering producer.24 While some wood was acquired for building purposes by London carpenters, most sales prior to 1460 were for fuel. In 1394 and again two years later Havering men were hired to cart units of 500 lengths of talwood to London.25 Most wood was taken to London by road, but there are a few references to freighting by boat. In 1451 Thomas Carrowe, a small retailer, charged Thomas Estbrok with having removed 200 units of talwood which Carrowe had left stacked at 'Frendeswharfe', presumably waiting to be carried by boat to the capital; later in the century building timber too was shipped to London. The high price to be obtained for wood (talwood was selling at just over id. per length in the 1390s) more than covered the cost of hiring labour to cut it.26 Theft of wood was common. By the late fourteenth century the manor court heard many private suits alleging the cutting and taking of wood, whether small amounts from hedges and groves or large quantities of mature trees. Wood worth 100s. was cut illegally and removed from John Gale's holding in 1379, and in 1442 100 oaks, 40 ash trees and 200 cartloads of underwood worth £ 2 0 were stolen from William Turk. 27 John of Gildesburgh, keeper of the Hornchurch 23

24 25

26

27

E R O T / Z 103/1 (an architectural analysis o f the building made in 1970 after a fire) and N C O M S S 6394 and 2958. E.g., P R O S C 2 / 1 7 2 / 2 8 , m . 13d, and C 1/811/17. ERO D/DU 102/9, mm. 6 and i6d; for below, see D/DU 102/40, m. 7d, and PRO C 1/811/17. E.g., ERO D/DU 102/6, m. 3d. For thefts, see, e.g., ERO D/DU 102/2, m. 3, and PRO SC 2/172/29, m. 21. ERO D/DU 102/2, m. 4d, and D/DU 102/31, m. 9. For below, see Cal. inq. misc., vol. 5, pp. 153-4.

144

A commercial economy, 1350—1460

estate between 1387 and 1389 after royal appropriation of the priory's lands, was accused of having felled from a single 40-acre tract and sold for his own profit four hundred oaks, thirty ash trees, forty-six willows and twenty hazels, blackthorns and whitethorns. Arable crops were grown principally for local consumption. The major grain was oats, for which the light soil of the southern part of the manor was well suited.28 A lesser amount of wheat was grown, plus some rye and barley. Much of the barley was malted for the production of ale, and occasionally oats were malted too. Payments of tithe grains from southern Havering between 1421 and 1425 suggest that for every 10 bushels of oats raised, the tenants grew 4 bushels of wheat and 2 bushels each of rye and barley. Legumes were also planted by many people, but in limited amounts. Little hay seems to have been produced.29 Private suits indicate that tenants were raising crops mainly for their own use. There is no evidence of grain sales to London in these years except by the very largest estates. Sales of grain seldom involved more than 10 bushels and were nearly all between local people. New College was growing grain for market sale c. 1400, but in general Havering tenants found animal raising and timber production more profitable than arable farming. Working a holding of 30 acres or more, even with a non-arable emphasis, required more labour than most families could themselves provide. The labour available from relatives was limited. Younger sons who inherited little or no land could acquire their own holdings, seek oppportunities in a non-agricultural occupation or leave the manor. Consequently, in order to obtain sufficient labour to operate their holdings, most of the 100 larger tenants had to make use of hired agricultural workers. The farm labourers, to be discussed below, probably constituted the largest group of wage employees. Between 1350 and 1460 those Havering tenants with 100 acres or more tended increasingly to treat their estates as if they were manors in their own right, rather than subtenancies of the manor of Havering. The direct tenant now viewed himself as lord of his (sub)manor, the land in his actual occupation as his demesne and the holders of his subtenancies as manorial tenants subject to secondary dues. While the 28

29

E.g., ERO D/DU 102/1, mm. 1-7, and PRO SC 2/172/28, mm. 3-18, passim, plus information from E 37/25, mm. 33d and 38d, KB'145/3/13/1, JUST 3/18/5, m. 29d, and E 101/556/52. For tithe payments, see the Hornchurch accounts from 1392 to 1403, NCO MSS 6386-99. Royal purveyors for the king's horses in the 1350s found scant hay in Havering: PRO E 101/556/46, 49 (1) and 50, and E 101/631/9, references generously supplied to the author by Richard Britnell.

H5

Economic independence and its consequences, 1231—1460 core lands given to Hornchurch Priory by the crown in 1158/9 had traditionally been deemed 'the manor of Suttons', with its own manor court, the other tenancies in Havering, those held directly from the king by free or customary tenure, had no claim to manorial status. Yet they too moved toward defining themselves as manors. By c. 1600 a total of twenty units in private hands were regarded as manors.30 This development enhanced the desirability of Havering estates in social terms. The tenants of these large holdings found it difficult to profit from their subtenancies since the rents due to them were frozen as of 1251 and were in general slightly lower than the rents which they themselves owed to the king. They often collected heriots and entry fines of one year's rent.31 A few of them claimed work services as well as money rents from their subtenants, though as specified days of work, especially at harvest, rather than as weekly work. The question of how to benefit from the subtenancies was particularly troublesome in the generation after 1349, when many direct tenants were able to collect only a part of the rents due from their subtenancies because of temporarily empty holdings and administrative confusion - the same problem which the crown faced with respect to the direct tenants. During the later fourteenth and fifteenth centuries a few of the major tenants carried out formal extents of their holdings, to try to identify and define all possible sources of profit.32 The customary protection of the subtenants restricted full commercial exploitation of Havering's largest holdings until the introduction of new techniques of management after 1460.33 30

31

32 33

To the north of the London-Colchester road: Bedfords (usually with) Earls, Pyrgo, Romford alias Mawneys, Dagenhams (usually with) Cockerels, East House, Gidea Hall, Gobions alias Uphavering, Gooshayes, Stewards and Marks (in Dagenham prior to c. 1465). In the southern part of Havering: Bretons, Dovers alias Newhall, Baldwins alias Lee Gardens, Mardyke, Maylards Green with Wybridge, Elms or Tylle (later Nelmes), Redden Court and Whybridge. Also viewed as manors were the crown's estate at Havering-atte-Bower plus Suttons, Hornchurch Hall and the lesser units of Reyns (later Newbury) and Risebridge, all held by New College. See Philip Morant, The history and antiquities of the county of Essex (2 vols., London, 1768), vol. 1, pp. 58—73, and VCH Essex, vol. 7, account of manors under Havering-atte-Bower, Hornchurch and Romford. The claim made in 1274—5 by the lords of the submanors of Bedfords (alias Beaurepeir) and Dovers to hold their own views of frankpledge is not mentioned again (Rotuli hundredorum (ed. W. Illingworth andJ. Caley, 2 vols., Record Comm., London, Eyre and Strahan, 1812—18), vol. 1, pp. 149 and 152). PRO SC 2/172/28, m. 6, E 37/25, m. 39d, and CFR, 1337-41, p. i n . For below, see the 1352/3 extent, e.g., fols. I74r and 176V, ERO D / D U 102/2, m. 2, D / D U 102/30, m. 1, and PRO C 143/368/1 (defective rents). CCR, 1399-1402, pp. 165-6. See ch. 6 below, and cf. R. H. Britnell, 'Minor landlords in England and medieval agrarian capitalism,' Past and Present, LXXXIX (1980), 3-22.

146

A commercial economy, 1330—1460 The only surviving account rolls come from the Hornchurch estate as managed by New College between its acquisition of the property in 1392 and c. 1425, when it abandoned direct farming. While this estate cannot be taken as characteristic of Havering holdings in all respects, because of the special needs and problems of an institutional and distant landlord, the college's experience does nevertheless bring out some key features of local land use. The Hornchurch estate contained about i860 acres — the 1500 acres of the original endowment plus 360 acres given to the priory since 1163 by local laymen. 34 The bulk of the estate, 1130 acres, had long since been granted to subtenants who paid ^19—17—02 in annual rents of assize; 730 acres were arable or pastoral demesne. The demesne came from the original manor of Suttons and the cluster of glebe land and later gifts known as the manor of Hornchurch (Hall). These units lay upon light gravel soil in the southern part of Havering and had almost certainly been brought into agricultural use before 1086. Beam Land, Newbury and Risebridge, the latter two situated upon northern Havering clay, were given to the priory in the thirteenth century. The estate also contained 70 acres of marsh. When Wykeham bought the Hornchurch property in 1391, about 370 acres of the demesne were being used each year for animal grazing, with 200 acres devoted to crops. This pattern was continued by New College.35 The remaining 160 acres are not mentioned in the accounts. They may have lain fallow on a loose rotational basis or have been assigned in part to workers on the estate for their own use. The college kept around 15 draught horses for its ploughs and carts (it did not use oxen for pulling), but the rest of its stock was raised for sale: 90 to 125 head of meat cattle, 520 to 560 sheep, 70 to 100 pigs and a small amount of poultry.36 Another 50 cows and 140 ewes were leased to a farmer who raised them for their milk, most if not all of it used to make cheese. This is the only known case of commercial dairying in Havering before 1460. The number of animals sold for meat varied greatly from year to 34

35

36

For the size, value, location and early history of the holdings, see E R O D / D U 162/1 (map of the Liberty of Havering, c. 1618), N C O MSS 5617 and 9744, fols. 186V-187V, VCHEssex, vol. 7, p p . 31—2, and Marjorie K. Mclntosh, ' H o r n c h u r c h Priory, Essex, 1158/9-1391', Revue Benedictine, X C V (1985), 116-38. See t h e bailiffs' account rolls, N C O M S S 6 3 8 6 - 8 , 6 3 9 1 - 4 , 6399-402, 6 4 0 4 - 5 , 6 4 0 9 - 1 1 , 6419 a n d 6 4 2 1 - 3 , plus a few accounts from t h e 1450s for c o m p a r i s o n , M S S 6449 a n d 6482. The estate also included the tithes of the entire manor of Havering together with oblations and other religious sources of income, profits Worth in sum about as much as its lands. All information in the following discussion comes from the Hornchurch accounts cited in n. 35 above, unless otherwise indicated, and will not be individually referenced.

147

Economic independence and its consequences, 1251—1460

year — from 40 to 170, depending upon weather and animal disease as well as upon the college's need for cash. The income ranged accordingly from ^ 4 to ^24. The estate also profited from sale of wool, animal hides and other secondary items. The 1402—3 account, for example, includes the following items sold: 234fleecesof sheep's wool from the estate's own animals plus 164 fleeces from the flock of milk ewes then at lease, 59 fleeces from part of the parish tithes, 67 fleeces of lamb's wool from the estate, 15 skins of dead sheep and n of dead lambs with the wool still on them, 21 sheep hides without wool, 12 cow hides, i\ great weys of cheese as partial rent for the milk animals, and 500 hens' eggs and 6f more cheeses from tithes. Sale of this produce yielded just over ^10. The estate raised doves for food and for sale, and the parishioners gave to the college 60 to 120 tithe doves and young herons each year. The combined income from the sale of animals, wool and other by-products was in most years around ^20. Rent from the farm of the milking animals was of similar value. The costs associated with raising animals were relatively low. One herder was hired by the year to tend the Hornchurch cows, sheep and pigs. The sheep were washed and sheared each spring, and people were paid to make pens for enclosing sheep and geese. When the animals needed supplementary feeding, the estate's own crops were used. There were certain cash outlays, the most expensive being the purchase of new animals to bring the herds up to optimum size and composition. Tar and ointment for salving the wounds and sores of the sheep had to be bought, as did ruby stone for marking them. These various expenses seldom amounted to more than a few pounds each year, however. The college had little wood to harvest during the first decades of its ownership of the Hornchurch property because the keepers of Hornchurch during the 1380s had cut down and sold most of the estate's large trees for their private gain.37 The college did, however, prepare sizeable numbers of faggots of small wood to be marketed as fuel. Between 1411 and 1414, 2600 faggots were sold, at a profit of ^ 4 beyond the cost of hiring someone to cut and bundle the wood; 20s. came from sale of underwood and tree trimmings from several wooded fields and 2s. from oak bark for tanning. Unlike most Havering landholders, the Hornchurch estate was raising large amounts of grain, much of it for market sale. Just over a third of the utilised land was planted in grain each year, of which 37

CFR, 1383-gi, pp. 128-9, 168, 261, 301, 304 and 322, CPR, 1388-92, pp. 207 and 239, and Cal. inq. misc., vol. 5, pp. 153-4.

148

A commercial economy, 1350—1460

about half went to oats, seeded usually at the rate of 3 bushels per acre, with experiments of 2^ or 4 bushels per acre. A quarter of the arable land was used for rye, with smaller amounts of wheat and a few acres of barley. Wheat and rye were seeded at 2^ or 3 bushels per acre, barley at 4 or 5. Of the grain produced from its own fields and obtained from tithes, which unfortunately cannot be distinguished on most of the accounts, the college sold about three-quarters of the oats and a sixth of the wheat. The rest of the grain was used in other ways: as seed, to feed Hornchurch's animals, as part of the stipends of the parish chaplains, as partial pay or food for workers on the estate, or as gifts. In 1392—3 the college received about £39 from the sale of 2100 bushels of oats and 200 bushels of wheat; the remaining 700 bushels of oats, 900 bushels of wheat, 1100 bushels of rye and 350 bushels of barley were consumed on the estate. Growing crops posed problems for the college in two respects. The first was the expense of paying the workers needed for arable cultivation. The land was worked by a resident staff of full-time employees — three or four ploughmen, an indoor servant and two or three other men. The college was able to collect some work services from its subtenants, but it depended upon hired labour for most of the tasks which required extra hands for short periods. In 1392—3 the bailiff spent £ 7 - 6 - 6 at times other than the harvest in hiring people to do extra ploughing and to seed, harrow, weed, mow, reap, thresh and winnow, as well as doing odd bits of work such as carting wool and wheat, knocking down thorns in the fields, digging out drainage ditches and carrying manure. A decade later £12—12—11 was paid in cash wages for weeding, mowing, threshing and winnowing alone. Large numbers of additional workers were required at the harvest. This in turn necessitated further payments beyond their daily wages. Food was bought for the work crews: meat and fish (plus salt and spices for flavouring them), butter, eggs and milk. Extra food was prepared from the estate's own stocks. Wheat bread was baked, cheeses cured, ale brewed, and sheep, pigs, geese and chickens slaughtered. Each year a cook and his boy assistant were hired to work for about six weeks during the harvest, another cook was employed to prepare pottage, and a brewer and a baker were hired for nine or ten weeks, sometimes with an assistant to help them. One woman was paid to disembowel capons for the harvest while another washed the napkins and other cloths used by the cooks and harvesters. The workers ate by the light of candles, using wooden plates, knives and cups, all of which had to be purchased. In 1403 and 1404 harvest evenings were enlivened by the playing of 149

Economic independence and its consequences, 1251—1460

Thomas Pipere and his companions, minstrels. The college had also to pay for the travel and living costs of one of their fellows, often the bursar, who came to Hornchurch to supervise the harvest. Each year the account includes a payment to a barber for cutting the hair and beard of the college's representative at the harvest. The total cost of the harvest ranged from jTg—i—2 to ^12—10—11^. Even with the use of grain allowances for day labourers, cash wages and the harvest consumed about half of the college's profit from its crops. A second problem was the extremely low crop yields from the Hornchurch demesne fields. This difficulty must have plagued other local farmers too. It is possible to determine specific yields only for the years from 1421 to 1425 because of the confusion of demesne grains and tithes on most accounts. When calculable, however, the net yield after deduction of seed for the next year was only 1.9 bushels per acre for oats and 1.3 bushels per acre for wheat. If the Hornchurch land had owed tithes the net yields would have been still lower. These figures may be compared with net yields from the Winchester estate in a somewhat earlier period of 5 bushels per acre for oats and 7 bushels per acre for wheat.38 The Hornchurch net yields for rye and barley were better, closer to values found elsewhere: q\ bushels per acre for rye and 10 bushels per acre for barley. The oat and wheat yields were so very low, barely enough to warrant the labour involved, that it seems likely that the infertile soil of the Hornchurch demesne had become depleted, probably due to insufficient manuring, fallowing and weeding over the years. The college tried to improve the fertility of the Hornchurch fields by sprinkling ashes and prescribing to those who rented its lands a set procedure for preparation of arable fields. The land was first to lie fallow, usually for a year, was then to be ploughed and composted with manure, either spread by cart or through pasturing sheep, and was finally to be ploughed yet again. The high cost of labour and the pitiful yields lowered the college's net profit per acre of arable to about the level obtained from grazing. While its income was thus circumscribed, the college still had to invest capital in the Hornchurch estate. Stock had to be purchased and buildings maintained: substantial residences and farm buildings on the 38

See Titow, English rural society, pp. 80-1, and his Winchester yields (Cambridge, Cambridge Univ. Press, 1972). Hornchurch's net yields per measure of seed in the early 1420s were also well below the Winchester yields for oats and wheat but within the Winchester range for rye and barley. Cf. R. H. Britnell, * Agricultural technology and the margin of cultivation in the fourteenth century', Econ. Hist. Rev., 2nd ser., XXX (1977), 53-66, and W. H. Long, 'The low yields of corn in medieval England', Econ. Hist. Rev., 2nd ser., XXXII (1979), 459-69. 150

A commercial economy, 1350—1460

manors of Suttons and Hornchurch Hall and a smaller house and tithe barn at Risebridge. The dairy house at Suttons, associated with the farm of milk animals, was especially costly to keep up, as it contained plumbing for water and several ovens or furnaces, all necessary to cheese-making. In addition, the college was obliged to provide and repair houses for the vicar of Hornchurch and the chaplains at Romford and Havering-atte-Bower. Keeping all these buildings in adequate repair normally cost ^ 2 to ^ 5 per year, using timber grown on the estate, but if major rebuilding or expansion was needed, the annual cost could go as high as £40 to £50. The college was also responsible for a windmill with an attached shop and for about 1000 feet of the Thames wall.39 Payments for chalk, timber and labour were made every year, amounting to 10s. to 50s. in the absence of serious flooding. If the wall was broken, the charges rose dramatically. As an absentee landlord, the college paid for the supervision of its estate and relied upon the energy and integrity of its local agent. The Hornchurch bailiff, a Havering man chosen annually by the college, received the solid wage of 40s. to 50s. per year in cash plus grain. As well as overseeing the agricultural functioning of the estate and the collection of rents, heriots and entry fines from the subtenants, he did other business for the college. He travelled to London to hire two chaplains for Hornchurch parish and carried back their belongings to the community. He took messages or instructions to other manors held by the college and transported animals, crops and cash to London, Oxford or elsewhere as required. Each autumn he rode to Oxford to render his account and receive directions for the coming year. The Hornchurch bailiff had further to protect the legal and financial rights of the college as against the manor of Havering and other outside bodies.40 Acting upon orders from the college, the bailiff handled a regular traffic in gifts or bribes.41 In 1393-4 he gave 2 bushels of wheat and 18 bushels of malt to a purveyor who was then in Havering impropriating food for the queen's household. A decade later the parker of Havering received 3s. 4d. and his assistants 6d. 'for having and continuing [their] goodwill toward the manor of Hornchurch'; the 39 40

41

N C O M S 5617 (map o f H a v e r i n g marsh, 1600) a n d M S 9744, fols. 186V-187V. N C O M S 9744, fol. i86v. Cf. Cicely H o well, Land, family and inheritance in transition: Kibworth Harcourt, 1280-1700 (Cambridge, C a m b r i d g e U n i v . Press, 1983), p . 40. Cf. P. D . A. H a r v e y , A medieval Oxfordshire village: Cuxham, 1240 to 1400 (Oxford, Oxfordshire, O x f o r d U n i v . Press, 1965), p p . 105-12, and Manorial records of Cuxham, c. 1200-1359 (ed. P. D . A. H a r v e y , Hist. M S S C o m m . , L o n d o n , H M S O , 1976), p . 4 and passim as a ' foreign expense' in the accounts. For purveyance, see ch. 2 above.

Economic independence and its consequences, 1251—1460

bailiff of the manor of Havering and his servants enjoyed similar presents for their friendship. Another critical group, 'the merchants of Romford', received grain for their horses, one supposes in hopes of high prices for the following year's sales. Presumably because of the administrative difficulty and limited profits of direct exploitation of the Hornchurch demesne, New College decided around 1425 to lease the property in large lots to local farmers instead. CRAFT, TRADE AND ROMFORD MARKET

The craft, trade and service sectors of Havering's economy were equally well developed. In addition to the usual kinds of craftsmen and retailers who served every village and town, Havering contained specialised producers dependent upon the manor's remaining woodlands. Romford market and the London-Colchester road brought outsiders into the community who purchased local goods and services, especially food, drink and lodging. Although the manor court supervised certain aspects of craft production and prices, the absence of guilds permitted Havering's commercial world to operate largely without restraint. Our knowledge of the distribution of non-agricultural occupations is incomplete, resting mainly upon references in the manor court rolls and wills. Appendix V displays the minimum numbers of known occupations and the people in them. The figures are fuller between 1380 and 1410 and are probably closest to being complete around the middle of the fifteenth century, especially for those crafts reported by the manor court: brewers, ale sellers, bakers, butchers, fishmongers, tanners, tawyers and cobblers. In each half-century before 1450 about thirty non-agricultural occupations are mentioned, about eighteen per decade, a figure similar to those reported for other small market communities in the later Middle Ages.42 Between 1380 and 1410 forty to fifty people were engaged in craft-work and trade at any one time, a number which had risen by the 1440s to around eighty-five, sixty of them male. Since few artisans and tradesmen held more than 13^ acres of land, it is probable that a fifth or sixth of all smallholders supported themselves primarily through craft-work or retailing. Commerce in Havering rested upon the mutual dependence of the various craft and trade activities and upon the links between them and local farmers. The largest group of crafts-people was engaged in the 42

See R. H. Hilton, 'Lords, burgesses and hucksters', Past and Present, XCVII (1982), 3-15 and Paul D. Glennie, 'A commercializing agrarian region: late medieval and early modern Hertfordshire' (Univ. of Cambridge PhD thesis, 1983), ch. 5. 152

A commercial economy, 1350—1460

production and sale of food and drink. Between 1440 and 1460 about twenty people were working at any one time as bakers, butchers or fishmongers, and another twenty to forty were brewing ale and/or selling it. A few people practised several different food-related crafts at once. Most of the brewers and ale sellers were women. All those fined by the manor court were brewing regularly and evidently commercially, not just selling the surplus from domestic production on a sporadic basis.43 Brewers and ale sellers either dispensed their ale for consumption within their establishments or poured it into the containers which their customers brought with them, to be taken to their own homes for drinking. This was ale rather than beer: hops had not yet been introduced into Havering. Bakers made human and' horse' bread, the latter a coarse baked substance used as animal food. The brewers and bakers were in close economic contact with the farmers who supplied grain and with the makers who prepared the barley for brewing. Food and drink were purchased by both local people and outsiders. Each of the villages and lesser settlements within the manor had a few shops which took care of the daily needs of their neighbourhoods. Tenants at many economic levels made frequent small purchases, usually on credit. In 1399 Walter atte Heche, a fishmonger, brought suit against John Munt, a tenant of 30 acres, for food worth 4s. iod. which John had bought from him at diverse times in the past.44 John Smyth of Pelstrate in Hornchurch claimed in 1397 that John Lovekyn, a former bailiff of Havering, owed 4s. 6d. for ale which Lovekyn had bought from Smyth's wife between Easter and late September 1396. There were also a few retailers who dealt in a variety of foodstuffs: in 1390—1 Richard Geron was selling mustard, herrings, candles and other merchandise. Havering's ale-houses and hostelries were apparently still relatively small and informal, better behaved than those of the later fifteenth century but lacking the status of the Elizabethan inn. Havering's butchers, five or six of them, were in a position to reap considerable profit from the local emphasis on stock raising if they could afford ongoing outlays for purchase of animals and a slow return from their investment. Though most sales of Havering stock to London bypassed the local butchers, they occasionally did some slaughtering for London purchasers, and a few men furnished live animals to their 43

44

In some communities, by contrast, the majority of ale sellers brewed only occasionally, with a small number of ongoing 'professionals' (Christopher Dyer, Lords and peasants, p. 346). PRO SC 2/172/28, m. I9d; for the instances below, see ibid., mm. 7 and 6.

153

Economic independence and its consequences, 1251—1460

city counterparts. Some of them kept animals on their own land. Butchers had access to various subsidiary sources of income. They sold the fleeces of the sheep they slaughtered, and local tanners were eager to purchase animal hides. In 1396 John Revel, a Romford butcher, agreed to sell to Robert Denys for a set price the skins of all the sheep which he killed between Christmas and the following 2 February.45 Instead, Denys claimed, Revel kept out the best hides for himself. John ClyfFord, butcher of Romford, brought a plea of debt in 1455 against Robert Lasunby, a Hare Street tanner frequently in trouble with the manor court. The suit concerned 2od. owing from one cow hide purchased by Lasunby nine months before but not yet paid. The most important of Havering's skilled crafts was leather working, which employed ten to fifteen men. This was a traditional local occupation. Pell Street in Hornchurch, now High Street, presumably took its name from the hides of animals sold there by tanners and tawyers, and there are references to leather working from the early thirteenth century onward. 46 Many of the tanners and tawyers by 1350 ran large establishments with a sizeable capital investment in facilities and supplies. In the fifteenth century they were also leaders of Havering's political life. In the 1440s and 1450s there were five to seven tanners (producing heavy, stiff leather suitable for saddles, traces and shoes), four to six tawyers (curing soft, pliable leather for gloves and other light uses) and a few people who made specialised goods out of leather, primarily the cobblers. Havering's animal production and woodland resources provided skins and tanning materials for a larger number of leather workers than local demand could have supported. While there are no records of sales to London retailers prior to 1460, we know that outsiders came to Havering to buy leather goods for their own use.47 Havering's leather workers went to other Essex markets to sell their wares, and they probably supplied travellers and carters moving along the road. Tanners normally bought raw hides themselves, which they sold after curing, but they were also willing to tan hides brought to them by other people. Walter Herstman, a landholder, sued John Stanford, a tanner, for detinue of chattels in 1390.48 Herstman said that he had delivered two cow hides to Stanford for tanning, skins worth 5s. and 45 46 47

48

P R O SC 2/172/28, m. 13d. For below, see E R O D / D U 102/45, m. 5d. VCH Essex, vol. 7, p p . 26 and 40, and see A p p . V b e l o w . E.g., PRO SC 2/'172/29, m. n . For below, see ERO D/DP M575, Writtle accounts. While the royal household was in Havering during the 1350s, purveyors bought halters and bridles (PRO E 101/392/17). PRO SC 2/172/27, m. 9d.

154

A commercial economy, 1350—1460

2od. respectively, but Stanford had not returned the cured hides to him. Stanford admitted that he had received the skins and that he still had them, but he denied that their value was so great. In 1465 Thomas Brooke, a Hornchurch tanner, pleaded against William Dreywood, junior, for trespass, claiming that William had broken into his work yard with dogs.49 The dogs had dragged out of the tanning liquid and destroyed certain hides, 'viz. sheepe fells and calve fells' worth 20s. Havering's woodlands supported several other crafts as well.50 Wood cutting and local building projects offered regular employment to five sawyers and carpenters, supplemented by semi-skilled workers at times of particular need.51 One or two colliers or 'colemen' made charcoal. In most cases they cut their own wood, although on occasion a person might deliver wood to them. Claypits provided materials for three tilers. These men, who sold to outsiders as well as to local people, made pots too and were often presented by the court for digging clay out of roadways or protected areas of the common. 52 There was a small number of workers in each of a variety of standard local crafts. Cloth was made, but apparently only for local consumption. Five or six weavers, fullers and dyers were at work between 1440 and 1460 producing fabric, and three tailors could be hired to fashion it into clothing. Here as -elsewhere cloth making was done by specialised workers. In 1309 a clerk from outside Havering was found guilty of stealing unfinished cloth from Stephen le Fullere of Romford, and in 1395-6 John Lovekyn left a piece of cloth three ells in length (c. 13 feet) with Richard Dyere to be tentered.53 Two blacksmiths took care of the need for horseshoes, plough shares and small iron tools and equipment such as vices, wedges, axes, hammers, spades, hinges and hatches.54 The high cost of metal led to conversion of iron from one form to another. John Algor delivered a scythe worth 3 s. 4d. to Robert atte Melle, a blacksmith, to be reworked into a plough piece in 1383. While millers are rarely mentioned during the century after 1350, there « ERO D/DU 102/47, m. id. 50 Cf. J. R. Birrell, 'Peasant craftsmen in the medieval forests', Agricultural Hist. Rev., XVII (1969), 91-107. 51 N C O M S 6421, and E R O D / D U 102/3B, m . 7d. For charcoal making in the previous century, see C C R , 1247-51, p . 273, and CCR, 1268-72, p . 177; for this period, see, e.g., E R O D / D U 102/30, m m . 3 and 5. T h e wares of charcoal burners and smiths were taken by royal purveyors in the 1350s ( P R O E 101/392/17). 52 ERO D/DU 102/2, m. 13, 102/9, m. 9, PRO SC 2/172/32, m. 17, and GLL MS 9171/3, fol. I72r. 53 PRO JUST 3/40/2, and ERO D/DU 102/9, m. 8. s^ PRO SC 2/172/28, m. 8d, SC 2/172/29, m. 2od, and PRO JUST 3/126, m. 14. See ERO D/DU 102/2, m. 8d, for the case from 1383.

155

Economic independence and its consequences, 1251—1460

were at that time several windmills and probably one old water mill. 55 Transport of goods and animals, mainly to London but sometimes along the road in an easterly direction, required the services of several carters and drovers. Romford market was the setting of much of Havering's commercial activity. It was one of a ring of markets which surrounded London, serving the double function of providing a centre for local trade within their own areas and of channelling goods from rural regions to the capital. Little is known about either aspect of the peripheral London markets. Because the Havering manor court acted as the court for Romford market too, we may use information from its rolls plus private deeds to give a qualitative account of the operation of this trading structure. The open market place, which later was c. 400 yards by 50 yards, lay on the main road and was surrounded by shops, ale-houses, inns and regular dwellings.56 A unit sold in 1390 extended 19 feet along the market place and 94 feet back. Most of the shops were owned by local people, but sometimes an outside tradesman acquired a base in Romford. One particular tenement was held in the 1440s and 1450s first by John Brookman, a Romford baker, then by a tradesman from Southwark and next by George Downeham and his wife Katharine, the latter a fishmonger.57 These shops were open on a daily basis. There were also ale-houses and taverns, enjoyed by local people and travellers as well as market visitors; inns provided overnight accommodation. Within the central area, stalls for trades-people and pens for animals were set up on market days. Havering residents were exempt from payment of all market tolls through the manor's status as ancient demesne. There is no evidence that any tolls or stall rents were collected from Romford market until 1619.58 Local people used the market both in its daily form and in its Wednesday version with many outsiders and a much greater volume of goods. Havering's craftsmen and trades-people formed the nucleus of the activity of the market.59 The area's farmers came to the market too, especially on Wednesdays, bringing their animals, wood, grain and other forms of produce. An illustration of the involvement of local 55

VCH Essex, vol. 7, pp. 39-40 and 74. For carters and drovers, see E R O D / D U 102/6, m. iod, D / D U 102/13, m. 1, and P R O SC 2/172/29, m . 5. P R O L R R O 1 / 7 6 1 . T h e l o t is i n Descr. cat. and. deeds, v o l . 6, p . 2 0 5 . 57 Descr. cat. and. deeds, vol. 6, p. 67. For below, see PRO JUST 3/35B, m. 49, and ERO D/DU 102/3A, m. id. 58 P R O E 3 1 7 / E / 1 3 , and cf. E 134/24 Charles I Easter/9. s^ E.g., PRO SC 2/172/29, m. 11, ERO D/DU 102/30, m. 3, and PRO JUST 3/40/2. Cf. Hilton, 'Lords, burgesses and hucksters'. 56

156

A commercial economy, 1350—1460 tradesmen in the market and thence in a broader sphere comes from the career of John Aldewyn, butcher, active in the closing decades of the fourteenth century. John belonged to the junior branch of an old Havering family, the head of which held c. 50 acres in 1352/3 and played an important role in local affairs.60 John's side of the family held c. 20 acres in 1352/3 and were craftsmen: his father, brother and nephew were all tailors. Records from the 1380s reveal John, then in his thirties, working as a butcher in Romford.61 He lived and conducted his trade in an urban messuage, held as a subtenancy of the Romford woods/Mawneys free holding. Around 1384 John began to supplement the slaughtering of animals with more varied and lucrative enterprises. He first expanded the range of goods which he sold in the market, retailing other foodstuffs as well as meat.62 Then, although he continued to operate his Romford shop, he gradually branched out into trade with London, selling his own agricultural produce and apparently serving sometimes as a middleman. He transported calves and talwood into the capital. By 1385 he had inherited his father's 20-acre holding, and in 1388 he was left another little parcel by a distant female relative. With this additional land he enlarged his stock of animals. On several occasions he leased more meadow and pasture land for periods of one to four years.63 If the demand for meat fell, he simply rented out part of his stock, as in twenty cows leased to Richard Leg from autumn 1394 until autumn 1395 for the goodly sum of at least is. per head. He was also employing regular labour to help with his new enterprises, including some people on a full-time, annual basis. In 1396 Richard Dunton brought suit against Aldewyn, claiming that John owed him 7s. as part of his agreed wages for a full year which he had spent in his service beginning in autumn 1393. Aldewyn's aggressive commercial stance was reflected in frequent appearances in private suits heard by the manor court.64 As his economic horizons broadened, so too did his political importance. He 60

61 62 63

64

Hornch. Pr. kal, passim, the 1251 and 1352/3 extents, BL Addit. Charter 55224, and ERO D/DU 102/4, m. i8d. ERG D/DU 102/1, m. id, and D/DU 102/2, mm. 6d and 13d. ERO D/DU 102/6, m. iod, and D/DU 102/9, m. i6d. PRO SC 2/172/27, mm. 6d and 7d, and ERO D/DU 102/9, m. 8d. For Dunton, see ERO D/DU 102/9, m. i5d. During one eight-month period in 1388, for instance, Aldewyn brought two pleas of debt and two of trespass against other Havering people, he was himself the defendant in one plea of debt and one of trespass, and he served as pledge for a neighbour's payment of a fine and for a servant's appearance to wage his law (ERO D/DU 102/4, mm. 7-18). See ERO D/DHt M192 for ale taster and D/DU 102/6, m. n d , through PRO SC 2/172/30, m. 4, passim, for chief pledge/affeeror.

157

Economic independence and its consequences, 1251—1460

served as ale taster and from 1392 onward was chosen as a chief pledge. He evidently retired from active trade in the later 1390s, although he maintained his contacts with London, serving as a pledge for a city saddler who bought a Romford messuage in 1397. He continued to hold local office until his death in 1406/7. While Romford market played a vital role as the centre of the local economy, it was also used by outsiders.65 Some of these were farmers and tradesmen from surrounding communities who came to Romford on market days to sell their goods. In January 1394 John Mokke of Orsett decided to drive a dozen lambs the 12 miles from his farm to Romford in hopes of finding a buyer for them at the market.66 His trip was not in vain, as he arranged to sell them to Thomas Felawe, senior, a London butcher, but Felawe subsequently failed to pay him the 9s. upon which they had agreed. Retailers sometimes came from London and other towns: in the 1380s, a London vintner, selling wine at the market, plus butchers from Barking and Brentwood and a poultry dealer from London. Other people travelled to Romford to buy goods. This demand covered a wide range, extending during the 13 90s from a Brentwood man who came to buy a pair of shoes to major purchases of animals and wool. 67 There were also less legitimate visitors to the market. In 1373 a trio of thieves sold a horse with its saddle and bridle which they had recently stolen in Acton, Middlesex, to an unknown man at Romford market for 10s. The most important outsiders at the market were the London craftsmen and retailers who came on Wednesdays to arrange for the purchase and transportation of consumable goods. Chief among these were the butchers, a few of whom opened up their own stalls in Romford market.68 Their presence was resented by local tradesmen. In 1392 John Aldewyn took the opportunity provided by being a chief pledge to strike a blow at the butchers of London. The chief pledges were sworn to give honest answers in response to a set of questions; they vowed also to preserve the secrecy of their official deliberations concerning which offences to report at the public view of frankpledge. Among the topics discussed in 1392 was whether there were any 65

66

67

68

Outsiders at R o m f o r d market are d o c u m e n t e d in t h e H a v e r i n g rolls, b u t there is n o systematic record o f their use o f the market. ERO D/DU 102/7, m. 4. For below, see ERO D/DU 102/2, m. 13, D/DHt M190, andD/DSgM3i. PRO SC 2/172/29, m. 11, and ERO D/DU 102/6, m. 8; for below, see CPR, 1370-4, p. 297. GLL MSS 9171/1, fol. 319V, 9171/5, fol. 349r, 9171/7, fol. 144V, and N C O MS 5032, fols. i6r—i8r.

158

A commercial economy, 1350—1460 forestallers within Havering, traders who bought up goods before they were brought to public market. 69 Aldewyn proceeded to attack some of the London butchers as forestallers, giving the names of the offenders. The next day, to his chagrin and commercial danger, Thomas Brokman, a landholder and fellow chief pledge, reported Aldewyn's words to the butchers involved. Aldewyn then brought suit against Brokman, saying that because he broke the oath of secrecy, John was * in despair of his life' through the hostility of the butchers, as well as gravely damaged in his trade. Romford thus gives every indication of being a thriving little market centre. In 1524 Romford town and its suburb Hare Street would contain 32% of Havering's taxable population and 40% of its taxable wealth.70 It would not be surprising if the medieval urban community had an identity of its own, different from the rural regions of the manor. The nature of the records prohibits careful examination of this question. The term * Romford' was applied both to the vill and to the larger area of Havering which lay north of the main road. The manor court seldom described its members or activities by region before 1460. We therefore cannot isolate the geographical characteristics of the town or its occupational structure. However, Romford town does not appear to have been sharply differentiated from the surrounding rural area. Institutional privileges similar to those often claimed by small towns pertained to the entire manor of Havering as ancient demesne.71 Havering's pattern of multiple holdings, whereby many people held land both in Romford town and in rural regions, probably undermined a distinctive urban economy. The only indication of regional conflict prior to 1460 stemmed from the desire of those people living in the northern part of the manor to have a burial ground at Romford chapel, rather than having to go to Hornchurch. This practical issue was resolved in 1410 when a new chapel with a cemetery, built alongside the market, was consecrated in Romford.72 By 1350 Havering was highly commercialised. Romford market had become a predictable supplier of certain types of consumer goods to London. Factors internal to Havering's agriculture and proximity to London both led to concentration on fattened animals and wood, items difficult to transport over long distances. Commercial activity, while varied and extensive, was still limited in depth. Many local craftsmen 69 71

72

70 ERO D/DU 102/6, m. n d . PRO E 179/108/150. See R. H. Hilton, 'Small town society in England before the Black Death', Past and Present, CV (1984), 53—78, and his English peasantry, pp. 76—87.

VCH Essex, vol. 7, p. 82. The original chapel was dedicated to St Andrew, the new one to St Edward the Confessor.

159

Economic independence and its consequences, 1231—1460

did a little farming or stock raising on the side. In this system of simple commodity production, most craftsmen sold their own wares directly to consumers; few people functioned solely as retailers. Craft items were rarely taken from Havering to London for sale, and Romford market was little used by outside farmers for large-scale transfer of animals to the capital. Nor was there prior to 1460 any significant accumulation of urban holdings in the hands of people who could then live off their rental income. 73 Commerce, like capital, was distributed among many people. WAGE LABOUR

The diverse but integrated nature of Havering's economy necessitated wage labour. The wide disparity of holding sizes resulted in a minimum of 100 estates which probably required some hired workers. Many of the larger households of craftsmen and tradesmen must also have demanded help beyond that provided by their own members. Despite the general shortage of labour in later medieval England, smallholders and recent immigrants to Havering provided a source of workers, many of whom sought temporary rather than annual employment. High wages between 1350 and 1460 encouraged landholders to avoid arable farming but conversely made it possible for lesser tenants to augment their landed income to an adequate level by means of a modest amount of hired employment. Havering's employers and workers alike responded in pragmatic, adaptable fashion to the economic conditions of the post-plague century. Many of Havering's smaller tenants needed wage income. Of the 268 families with less than 14 acres in actual occupation in 1352/3 and the 48 subtenants with an unknown amount of land, no more than 50 to 60 households were supported primarily through craft-work or trade. The 101 tenants who held 5 to 13^ acres must have been able to cover many of their needs through their own land. These people probably earned some wages through occasional employment but were not full-time members of the labour force. A tenant with 5 acres would have needed to work in unskilled labour, earning 3d. to 4d. per day, for only six to ten days to gain the average sum of 23d. to 3od. due to the crown as rent. A 10-acre tenant could have earned his rent payment in thirteen to twenty days. Working for six weeks during the harvest would have taken care of rent and furnished extra cash. Those 73

Cf. A. F. Butcher, 'Rent and the urban economy: Oxford and Canterbury in the later Middle Ages,' Southern History, I (1979), 11-43, Searle, Lordship and community, pp.

357—9, Moss, 'Economic development,' and Hilton, English peasantry, pp. 208—12. 160

A commercial economy, 1350—1460

families who held less than 5 acres must have relied more heavily upon wage income. Due to the discrepancy in per-acre rents noted in Chapter 3, a person with less than an acre paid an average rent of I2d. to 24d., while those with between 1 and 5 acres paid 6d. to iod. per acre. The total rents of the cottagers were thus in some cases virtually equal to those of their neighbours with somewhat larger holdings. These marginal tenants must also have had to lay out money for much of their food and clothing. At least 167 families probably contained members who worked for pay on a fairly regular basis. Annual servants who lived with their employers received low wages beyond their room and board, so their contribution to the cash income of their home families was not substantial. The demand for wage labourers was greatest in agriculture. Even with the emphasis on animals and wood, the thirty-eight estates with 60 acres or more must have retained annual as well as seasonal labourers. The sixty-four holdings with between 30 and 59 acres probably hired additional help during the harvest and perhaps at other times during the year. The preferred form of employment was short-term, with people hired to complete a specific task. This arrangement, part of a national trend, was potentially advantageous to both employer and worker at a time of high wages. The employer needed to pay only for those particular jobs which he wished to have done. The labourer, if he held even a small plot and cottage of his own, could earn as much cash through piecemeal work as through an annual contract and yet retain his independence.74 Ploughmen, for example, were usually hired by the day in Havering, bringing their own equipment, at a normal wage of is. During the 1390s John atte Heche was hired for three days with three horses and one servant, John Hermar was hired for two days in March, and John Longe was to plough 14 acres in the spring with his own plough, oxen and accoutrements; in 1440 John Berneman was hired for five days with his own equipment during the week beginning 29 September.75 Other workers were paid to carry grain during the harvest, to mow a meadow, to make a hedge around a grove, to seed wheat in August and to thresh oats in October. Working during the harvest alone yielded one man 16s. 6d. in 1383.76 More specialised 74

Razi has noted a large decline in the number of Halesowen families w h o hired regular servants in the post-plague period as well as an increase in specific task hirings (' Family, land and the village community in later medieval England', Past and Present, XCIII (1981), 3-36). 7 5 PRO SC 2/172/27, m. 5d, ERO D/DU 102/6, m. 1, PRO SC 2/172/28, m. 8d, and ERO D/DU 102/29, m. 11. For below, see ERO D/DU 102/1, m. 8, D/DU 102/9, m. 10, D/DU 102/27, m. 2d, and D/DU 102/28, m. 3d (bis). 76 ERO D/DU 102/1, m. 7. For below, see ERO D/DU 102/12, m. 4.

Economic independence and its consequences, 1231-1460 labour might also be needed, as when William Stace agreed in 1416 to cure another man's horse in return for a payment of one cheese worth i6d. plus i2d. in money. Annual agricultural employment was apparently less common, especially when residential. Although some of the largest farming operations hired resident ploughmen, carters, herders and unskilled labourers, these contracts carried low money wages. New College paid its employees 10s. to 20s. per year plus room and board between 1392 and 1403.77 Since one could earn an equivalent cash sum merely by doing day labour at the harvest, it is unlikely that many workers were willing to accept long-term employment at those rates. There was further need for paid labour within the craft, trade, service and domestic segments of Havering's economy. Some of the larger manufacturing families, especially the wealthy tanners, tawyers and dyers, hired regular workers, among them young men being trained in the craft. Others needed help only sporadically, during critical stages of the operation. The major trades-people, especially those engaged in food and drink retailing and the innkeepers, probably needed serving assistants before 1460 as they did later.78 Little is known about domestic servants in medieval Havering. If the situation was similar to that of the Elizabethan period, the majority were young people who lived with the families of their annual employers until they married and set up households of their own. 79 Both day labourers and residential servants could bring suit in the manor court against their masters for failure to pay their wages, using pleas of covenant or debt.80 Occasional employment, unpredictable but sometimes abundant, might be found at the two large clusters of buildings within the manor, those of Hornchurch Priory/New College and the royal palace at Havering-atte-Bower. In most years each of these establishments hired building workers and unskilled labourers to do routine maintenance and minor repairs. Now and then large numbers of people were needed. The crown probably used conscription to obtain workers, at least in the 1350s and 1370s. Between 1362 and 1393 and again from 1438 to 1444 rebuilding was undertaken at the royal palace, mainly through the labour of Havering people.81 Good accounts from 1372 to 1377 77 78

79 80 81

E.g., NCO MSS 6386-7 and 6399, and cf. PRO SC 2/172/29, mm. n - i 2 d . See ch. 6 b e l o w and Marjorie K. M c l n t o s h , ' Servants a n d t h e household unit in an Elizabethan English c o m m u n i t y ' , Journal of Family History, I X (1984), 3 - 2 3 . M c l n t o s h , 'Servants and t h e household u n i t ' . E.g., ERO D/DU 102/1, m. 8-8d, and D/DU 102/9, mm. 6, 10, and isd. See CPR, passim, PRO E 101/464/24, 26-7 and 30, E 101/465/3, and E 101/622/24. The accounts from 1372 to 1377 are the first four listed here. 162

A commercial economy, 1350—1460

indicate that men were hired for a total of c. 7800 working days. Metal founders and lead workers were brought in from outside, but the following employees came almost entirely from Havering: carpenters (2760 days), tree cutters and sawyers (1200 days), nailers (290 days), masons, brick layers and tile layers (520 days), shinglers (560 days), wall makers, daubers and plasterers (200 days) and unskilled labourers (about 2300 days). In addition, carters were hired to carry supplies, including the heavy job of bringing building stone from the wharf at Dagenham up to Havering-atte-Bower. For those men unable to find sufficient formal employment to sustain themselves or who did not care to labour in a conventional setting, there were other ways of supplementing one's income. The royal woodlands, especially the park, invited local exploitation. We obviously know only about those people who were caught, probably a small fraction of the total since there was no regular policing system. Deer were hunted, usually with bow and arrow, and smaller animals were trapped. In 1323—4 the justices of the forest received reports that a total of twenty-six deer had been killed by known malefactors in the park of Havering during the past three years and another six deer taken from the out woods.82 That same decade an anonymous letter was sent to the king and his council describing the stealing of game from the park. It included the names of the supposed offenders and said that the ropes for their snares (les cordes pour lour engyns) were hidden in the house of Stephen Goding, a tenant charged with hunting deer in the king's parks in Hertfordshire in 1323. The royal warren contained rabbits, pheasants and partridges, also the target of hungry or sporting local people. During the later fourteenth and fifteenth centuries, when the manor court supervised the woodlands, the woodwards evidently did not consider hunting outside the park and warren to be illegal. The trees in the royal woods were also desirable. Oaks, smaller trees and branches worth ^ 1 2 had been taken from the park during the three years prior to 1323, and an inquiry on the state of the forest in 1361 reported 400 oaks and a 2-acre grove cut down within Havering in the past few years.83 While we cannot assess the precise extent to which tenants of the manor made illegal use of the woodlands, it is probable that food and wood could be obtained there with limited risk. Hired workers and their employers were theoretically subject to the provisions of the Statute of Labourers. This law, passed in 13 51 on the 82

83

PRO E 32/16, mm. 12-24. For the letter, see PRO SC 8/158/7874. For Goding, see CPR, 1321-4, p. 383. He was later outlawed for felony (CPR, 1330-4, PP- 494~5)PRO E 32/16, mm. 23~35d, and E 32/279, m. 8.

163

Economic independence and its consequences, 1251-1460 basis of a 1349 ordinance and subsequently revised several times, attempted to regulate the conditions of paid employment and to fix maximum wage rates at their levels prior to 1349.84 Service for a term of one full year was encouraged. The statute was to be enforced through two means: jury reports to justices of the peace or other legal officials concerning improperly high wages or short terms, and private suits brought before local or central courts by parties to an abrogated labour contract. In Havering, the Statute of Labourers received little attention before 1460 because the manor did not normally fall within the jurisdiction of the justices of the peace. Had local practice been subject to outside review, there would certainly have been violations to report. Hiring for less than a full year's term was standard, and wages were well above those specified in the statute. However, it was to the advantage of all Havering workers and many employers to accept the going local wage rate, even if it was higher than that set by law, and to refrain from pointing out violations. The sole instance of outside interference comes from 1389. A jury reported to the justices of the King's Bench, sitting in nearby Brentwood, that a Havering ploughman had been hired to work for a year on a non-residential basis at a wage of 26s. 8d. plus his dinners.85 This rate was markedly above the statutory limit of 7s. to 10s. annually but was well below the daily wage of is. which Havering ploughman commonly received.86 Nor were there many private suits which alleged violation of the statute. Between 13 51 and 1392 only a handful of recorded cases concerned such offences. Two Havering suits were heard by outside courts, in 1358 and 1372, brought by employers against servants who had departed from their service before the end of the contracted term. 87 The manor court handled three cases involving the statute in 1391— 2, just after a revision of the law had initiated a period of active 84

85 86

Elaine Clark, * Medieval labor law and English local courts', Amer. Journal of Legal History, XXVII (1983), 330-53, L. R. Poos, ' T h e social context of Statute of Labourers enforcement', Law and History Rev., I (1983), 27—52, Bertha H . Putnam, The enforcement of the Statutes of Labourers during the first decade after the Black Death ( N e w York, 1908), and N o r a (Ritchie) K e n y o n , ' L a b o u r conditions in Essex in the reign o f Richard I I ' , Econ. Hist. Rev., IV (1934), 4 2 9 - 5 1 . K e n y o n , ' L a b o u r conditions', p . 445. T h e figure o f 26s. 8d. w a s similar t o t h e wages paid for p l o u g h i n g elsewhere in southwest Essex at that time. See K e n y o n , ' L a b o u r conditions', A p p . A - I . F o r Havering's rate of is. per day, see, e.g., ERO D/DU 102/6, m. 1, and D/DU 102/29, m. 11.

87

PRO C 88/44/69, continued in CPR, 1370-4, p. 208, and PRO E 37/25, m. 34. For below, see ERO D/DU 102/6, mm. 7d and 9, and PRO SC 2/172/27, m. 17 d. ,

164

A commercial economy, 1350—1460

enforcement at the county level. Thomas Olive, a chief pledge, brought suit against John Mirable of Noak Hill, who had agreed to work for him as a labourer for eight weeks but did not appear. Simon Baldewyn, tenant of c. 30 acres, charged that John Crips, senior, tenant of c. 35 acres, had taken away a worker contracted to Baldewyn during his term. The final case was entered by Richard Willot, a Havering tiler, against the same John Mirable for having hired a tiler from outside the manor while he himself was available. None of these cases concerned the level of wages paid. No suits against the statute were entered between 1395 and 1460. It is possible to determine the level of cash wages paid by the crown and New College to their building workers between 1372 and 1423.88 Skilled workers, such as carpenters, shinglers, thatchers and sawyers, received 5d. to 6d. per day. Semi-skilled workers, including wall makers and plasterers, were paid 4d. per day or sometimes a little more; unskilled labourers, doing such jobs as digging a trench or clearing out a stagnant pond, earned 3d. to 4d. per day. These rates conform to the levels set by statute and are within the range reported by other institutions in the London area at this time. The nominal Havering rates are, however, distorted. Because the crown was allowed to conscript workers, it could pay lower wages than did other employers. In 1373 the king ordered two men to 'take' carpenters to repair the pale around Havering park, paying them * the king's wages'. 89 New College was required to limit its cash wages to the level specified by the Statute of Labourers: unlike private employers in Havering, the college's payments might fall under the scrutiny of the courts. Since the college needed to attract workers in the face of the illegally high rates common in the manor, it supplemented its cash wages with other forms of reward. Day workers received substantial allowances of grain, and regular employees may have been permitted to make use of allotments in the college's demesne fields.90 These observations suggest that we should not accept at face value the ecclesiastical and collegiate accounts upon which late medieval wage rates are usually based. Widespread use of secondary forms of payment 88

89 90

P R O E 101/464/24, 2 6 - 7 and 30, E 101/465/3 and 5, E 101/622/24, BL Harley G 40, and N C O M S S 6386, 6399, 6410 and 6421. Cf. W . Beveridge, 'Westminster wages in the manorial era', Econ. Hist. Rev., 2nd ser., Ill (1955), 18-35. CPR, 1370-4, pp. 266-7. In the N e w College accounts from 1392 to 1425, as in certain other estates in the post-plague era, the individual components of the demesne described as being w o r k e d directly by the lord do not add u p to the full size of the original demesne, despite the absence of leases. (See p. 147 above and the references in n. 35.)

165

Economic independence and its consequences, 1231—1460

would help to reconcile the discrepancy between comparatively low reported wages and evidence of increased prosperity for labourers in the generation after the plague. If many large estates permitted their workers to utilise part of the demesne, the drop in area of demesne cultivation after 1349 would likewise be explained. CASH, COVENANTS AND CREDIT

Havering people were bound in a network of commercial dealings and credit which must have included most adults in the manor. Financial transactions were both extensive and relatively unspecialised. Capital was not concentrated in the hands of a few merchants or money lenders. If conflicts arose they were settled locally. The economy at all levels relied upon money. Rents and taxes due to the crown were rendered in cash, but a greater incentive for the use of money came from within the local economy, in the business dealings among the tenants and between them and outsiders. Cash was the medium of exchange, or at least of accounting, for nearly all transactions. The widespread use of paid labour promoted the need for cash among some tenants while at the same time serving as the means whereby others could acquire it. Romford market was a particular stimulus to the use of money. Under these circumstances, loaning and borrowing cash were vital aspects of the community's economic life. Money lending was dispersed among many Havering people and involved a wide range of amounts, from a few pence up to sums of ^ 5 to £ 1 0 occasionally loaned by wealthy farmers or tradesmen.91 Priests or heads of monastic houses in other parts of Essex or in London might also have cash to lend.92 Borrowers who needed sums of .£50 or more often turned to London merchants, major landholders or royal officials. The terms of these loans were normally short. During the later fourteenth century the length was specified in the original oral or written agreement, ranging from a few days to six months.93 By the middle of the next century some loans were to be repaid * when required' by the lenders. The surviving records do not state how much interest was charged, due to the Church's prohibition of usury. Money was borrowed for many reasons. Some debts resulted from 91

92

93

E.g., ERO D/DU 102/4, mm. n and 5, D/DU 102/45, m. 1, and D/DU 102/47, m. 2d. E.g., PRO SC 2/'1-72/'27, m. i4d, ERO D/DU 102/7, m. 3, D/DU 102/10, m. 3d, and PRO SC 2/172/28, mm. 12 and 23. E.g., ERO D/DU 102/6, mm. 11 and 13d, and D/DU 102/13, m. 2. The later style is, e.g., ERO D/DU 102/45, m. 1.

166

A commercial economy, 1350—1460 the purchase of land or goods. Others were the consequence of a formal accounting of all debts and contracts outstanding between two people. In 1445 Stephen Wylot, the prosperous farmer of New College's manor of Hornchurch Hall, entered a plea of debt against Richard Parson of Hornchurch.94 Wylot said that Parson had voluntarily rendered account with two non-Havering auditors named by Wylot concerning diverse receipts and deliveries of gold and silver. The auditors ruled that Parson was to pay Wylot the sum of 101s. 4d., but he had failed to do so. Another category of debts arose from the procedure whereby a person borrowing money was obliged to offer two other people as pledges that he would repay the sum as arranged.95 Should the original borrower default, the lender could bring suit against the pledges to force them to cover the debt. In only two recorded cases was a loan arranged to obtain cash as required by the crown: 22d. borrowed by John Strateman in 1378 to pay the tax assessor for Essex, and 32s. borrowed by John atte Heche in 1394 for land rent due to the bailifFof Havering. 96 In the first half of the fourteenth century many large debts were recorded on the back of the close rolls, kept safely but accessibly among the crown's records in London. Between 1310 and 1359, sixteen debts involving Havering people appear on the close rolls, two of them between two Havering parties, the rest concerning Havering men who borrowed from outsiders.97 In all, nine Havering people borrowed a total of c. ^640, in sums ranging from ^6—13—4 to ^200. Their creditors included several prominent Essex men, four London merchants, several individual priests, the abbess of Barking, two men who held royal offices in Havering and a Genoese merchant living in London. Some of the borrowers were large tenants who were buying more land and consolidating their holdings during the period of their loans. They may have borrowed cash which would enable them to improve their long-term financial situation. Others, however, fell into economic distress. At least two of the men who borrowed more than once were later outlawed for debt. 98 It is possible that the bad harvests 94 95 96 97

98

P R O SC 2/172/32, m . 15. E.g., ERO D/DU 102/6, m. 11, and D/DU 102/30, m. 3. ERO D/DU 102/2, m. 2, and PRO SC 2/172/28, m. 4. CCR, 1307-13, p . 246, 1313-18, p . 447, 1318-23, p . 329, 1323-7, p . 325,1327-30, p . 539 {bis), 1330-3* P- 343,1337-9, P- 382, i339-4i> PP- 240, 267 a n d 4 7 7 , 1 3 4 ^ , P- 635, 1 34^~9* p . 280, and 1354-60, p p . 319, 320 a n d 627. Robert William and John Annore (see ch. 2 above). For below, see Beveridge, 'Westminster wages', E. H . Phelps B r o w n and S. V. Hopkins, 'Seven centuries o f the prices o f consumables, compared with builders' wage-rates', Economica, N . S . XXIII (1956), 296-314, and Michael Prestwich, 'Currency and the e c o n o m y o f early fourteenth century England', in Edwardian monetary affairs {1279-1344) (ed. N . J . M a y h e w , British Archaeological Reports, vol. 36, Oxford, 1977), pp. 45—58.

167

Economic independence and its consequences, 1231—1460 of the 1310s and resulting changes in the level of prices and wages contributed to insolvency, as did the increase in available coinage, tempting men to borrow. Commerce in Havering was accomplished through a variety of financial arrangements. When a purchase was made, some kind of contract was often necessary, specifying the terms of payment or delivery and the amount and quality of goods being conveyed. Most of the agreements concerning smaller purchases, especially those made between local people, were purely verbal, made in the presence of witnesses. Larger sales were usually described in written form, as an 'obligatory writing* or even an * account merchant', a practice which rested upon the presence of scribes at the market." Contracts involving an outsider, particularly Londoners, tended to be more precise, with explicit conditions and dates. The agreements made at Rom ford market fell within the jurisdiction of the manor court, which was prepared to enforce delivery, payment and warranties of quality on both oral and written contracts. Trade agreements frequently contained conditions concerning the quality of the goods being sold. In 1358 Roger Tannere of Havering arranged to buy 7000 tiles worth 40s. from Richard Tye of South Weald, under the condition that Tye warrant the tiles to be dry and non-flammable.100 When the tiles were delivered, they had not been properly dried, and Tannere went to court claiming damages of 100s. Horses were warranted by their owners to be in good health. In the late 13 90s Walter atte Hache, a carter, bought a horse at Romford market which was guaranteed by its previous owner, Thomas Munt, to be suitable as a draught animal.101 When, however, atte Hache found that the horse was not strong enough to be used in his craft (ars) of carting, Munt refused to stand behind his warranty. When an arrangement was made concerning the sale of goods, it was rare for delivery and payment to occur on that same market day. In many cases, a purchase was agreed and the goods delivered, with payment deferred. The cash sum might be due within a few days or be scheduled for some months later. Six ewes bought in 1447 were to be paid for in two days, whereas payment for goods worth 9s. 6d. purchased at Easter 1446 was to be made the following 31 October. 102 99 E.g., ERO D/DU 102/9, m. 4, and D/DU 102/4, m. 5. 100 P R O E 37/25, m. 38d; in Marjorie K. Mclntosh, 'Immediate royal justice: the Marshalsea court in Havering, 1358', Speculum, LIV (1979), 7^9, t n i s c a s e w a s erroneously said to have concerned titles. 101 PRO SC 2/172/28, m. isd, and cf. E 37/25, m. 42. 102 ERO D/DU 102/35, mm. u d and 4d.

168

A commercial economy, 1350—1460 This was a convenient arrangement in the absence of banks and with a possible shortage of specie. Alternatively, payment could be made at the time of the agreement, with delivery to follow. While nearly all sales in Havering were conducted on a cash basis, there are a few references to payment in kind. William Syreed, collier, for instance, was paid 1 bushel of wheat plus 3s. by John Watte, a Hornchurch husbandman, for burning one portion of wood into charcoal in 1438.103 Contracts which specified a date of completion, whether payment of money or delivery of goods, were sometimes replaced by a more open-ended arrangement similar to that used for loans. The alternate form said that completion was to take place when requested by the party receiving the cash or goods.104 This practice introduced considerable flexibility into commercial dealings and reduced the number of small cash transactions. It amounted to an informal credit system. Any two people might accumulate a number of such outstanding obligations to each other. As long as goodwill between the parties remained firm, the balances could go uncollected for years. When the parties chose to settle on an amicable basis, they normally named auditors who totalled all current unpaid debts or deliveries and determined the sum(s) which had to be paid to clear the slate.105 This method of resolving potential conflict paralleled the forms used by the manor court to promote or restore harmony. If payment or delivery was not made as arranged, if goods were not of the specified quality, or if trust between the parties broke down for other reasons, the complainant could bring suit in the manor court. The alleged default might have occurred some time back. In November 1440, for example, Nicholas Cullyng, a Romford baker, pleaded against John Caps, collier, for 10s. 4d., claiming that he had paid that amount to Caps for charcoal which had never been delivered.106 Interestingly, payment had been made in autumn 1435, with delivery to have taken place the following spring. Four and a half years had thus passed since the charcoal became overdue, during which Cullyng had not chosen to take action against Caps. The unfulfilled obligations revealed at the time of a breakdown of credit relations sometimes involved a string 103 104

105 106

ERO D/DU 102/30, m. 5. For set dates, see E R O D / D U 102/35, m m . 4d and I 4 d ; for the open version, see P R O E 3 7 / 2 5 , m m . 42 and 55. T h e use o f ' w h e n requested' credit is noted in Elaine Clark's careful analysis o f credit in the royal m a n o r o f Writtle, Essex (' D e b t litigation in a late medieval English vilT, in Pathways to medieval peasants (ed. J. A . Raftis, T o r o n t o , Pontifical Institute of Mediaeval Studies, 1981), p p . 247-79). ERO D/DU 102/4, mm. 7 and 14, and PRO SC 2/172/27, m. 10-iod. ERO D/DU 102/30, m. 3.

169

Economic independence and its consequences, 1251—1460

of varied debts and non-deliveries stretching over many years and could lead to a series of simultaneous suits concerning purchases, loans and wages brought by each of the parties against the other.107 THE ECONOMIC ROLES OF WOMEN

The Havering sources reveal more than most medieval records about the roles of women. Though we cannot draw a picture of all aspects of their lives, we can offer some comments about the range of economic opportunities open to them between 1200 and 1460. Women could hold land in their own right before marriage and while widowed, buying and selling property in their own name and securing their transactions with a written charter; they could acquire additional land through leases.108 Some women had their own seals, which they affixed to legal documents. Around 1235, Beatrice, daughter and heiress of Osbert of the Berne, sold some land. She appended to the deed of sale her seal, which bore the legend 'S BEATRICE FIL OSBERTI'. 109 Fourteen years later, after her marriage to Thomas Gernet, she still used this same seal. When a woman married, her father commonly granted land to her or her husband as a dowry. This was done in poorer as in wealthier families. During the reign of Henry III a baker gave 3 \ dayworks (about 0.35 acre) and a miller granted 2 acres to their daughters when they married.110 The promise of a dowry must have assisted women in finding husbands. William le Porter gave land to Hornchurch Priory in the mid-i23os in return for the lifelong support of himself and his wife, plus the guarantee that the priory would provide a dowry for the couple's daughter, Katherine, * if she finds anyone to marry her'. 111 However, the division of a family's land which resulted from marriage portions could render holdings unstable over successive generations and was sometimes resented by male relatives. In 1212 Richard of the Wood charged that his father had no legal right to have given as large a dowry as one and a half virgates of land to Richard's sister, Alice of Havering, even though Richard inherited two other full virgates from his father. II2 In Havering the widow's dower was a third of her husband's land, unless he had made other arrangements for her in his will or through 107

F o r multiple-issue o r simultaneous suits, see, e.g., E R O D / D U 102/4, m m . 7 and 14,

D/DU 102/19, m. id, PRO SC 2/172/27, m. 10-iod, and SC 2/172/32, m. 15. 108 109 110 111

ERO D / D U 102/10, m. 2, and Homch. Pr. kal., no. 373. NCO MS 10722. For below, see N C O MS 10723. Hornch. Pr. kal., nos. 303 and 202. II2 Ibid., no. 19. CRR, vol. 6, p. 201. 170

A commercial economy, 1350—1460

the use of feoffees. Women sometimes had to go to law to recover their widow's portion. Within the manor court, there was a special legal form for use in cases involving dower lands. Such suits were usually entered by the widow alone, but if she had subsequently remarried, her. new husband joined with her as co-plaintiff.113 In several suits heard by central courts, the widow reached an agreement with the current tenant whereby she received a cash sum instead of the land at issue. Up to c. 1350 sale of dower lands is seen occasionally. Alice, widow of William of the Solarium, granted away her dower in 1250—1 in return for an annual payment for the rest of her life of 32 bushels of meal, 8 bushels of oats and 6s. sterling.114 After the middle of the fourteenth century, few widows sold their dower property, especially if there were children from the first marriage. This may have resulted from a mounting concern on the part of husbands to ensure that their land would descend eventually to their own heirs, a limitation expressed through wills or the use of feoffees. That some flexibility nevertheless remained to widows is indicated by a sealed will from 1466 in which Maude Mogge stated that her own feoffees were to allow her second husband, a Barking man, to occupy her holding in Havering for eight years after her death, following which the land was to go to John Hach, her son by her first marriage, and to his heirs.115 As tenants of land, women faced the problems common to all landholders in the supervision of their property. They had difficulty in collecting the rents and heriots due from their subtenants and sometimes had to bring suit in the manor court in an attempt to obtain payment. 116 They had to defend their land against intrusions by neighbours and their animals. There is no evidence, however, that force was used more often against women than against men. The court seems to have made some effort to protect the rights of married women to their own land. In 1422 Ralph Uphavering, a former royal bailiff, and his wife Alice were conveying by writ of right a piece of land which had belonged originally to Alice.117 Before the transaction was approved, the court took Alice aside and examined her alone, presumably to be sure that the sale was in accordance with her wishes. The two extents and the manor court rolls allow some quantitative assessment of women as tenants. In 1251, 30 of the 254 direct tenants 113

114 116

E.g., PRO SC 2/172/27, mm. 4 and iod, ERO D/DU 102/7, m. 4d, and D/DU 102/21, m. 4. For central court suits, see, e.g., FFE, vol. 1, pp. 61 and n o (from 1222 and 1235), and vol. 3, p. 118 (from 1357). Hornch. Pr. kal., no. 62. »* GLL MS 9171/5, fol. 382L E.g., ERO D/DU 102/43, m. 3d, and PRO SC 2/172/28, m. 6. For below, see ERO D/DU 102/10, m. 2. "7 ERO D/DU 102/13, m. 4<*171

Economic independence and its consequences, 1251—1460

(12%) and 12 of the 113 * subtenants only' (11%) were unmarried women or widows. 118 (Husband and wife co-tenants are listed only under the man's name on the extent.) Just over half the women on the extent (twenty-two of forty-two) were said to be widows, and the others had probably not yet married (fourteen listed in their own names and six described as the daughters of named former tenants). Women held less land per capita in 1251 than did men. The 12% of all direct tenants who were women together held only 8 % of the total arrented acreage. While women who had not been married had an average holding of about the same size as the male tenants, widows were much less prosperous: the average widow's holding was only 7 acres, as compared to 26 acres for men. Since the 1251 extent was taken during a period of land hunger, it is probable that most female tenants did not remain unmarried long unless they were elderly or their holdings very small. The total percentage of women tenants and subtenants had increased by the time of the 1352/3 extent, presumably because of the recent devastation of the plague and the reduction in male heirs. 119 Of all tenants and subtenants in 1352/3, 17% were women. Women constituted 14% of the direct tenants (26 of 192 total), 19% of the 'subtenants only' whose holding size is recorded (47 of 253) and 27% of the subtenants with unknown holdings (13 of 48). The proportion of widows among the female tenants and subtenants had dropped from about half in 1251 to only 15% in the mid-fourteenth century. Thirty-eight of the eighty-six (44%) were described in their own name only, and thirty-five (41 °/0) were said to be the daughters of named men. The increase in the number of women tenants who had not married must have been due to the death of their brothers and other male relatives, suggesting that the average age of female tenants had probably dropped. While women now accounted for 16 % of the tenant population with known holdings, they held just 10% of the manor's arrented land. Women tenants who had not married had less land than their male counterparts, with an average of 17 acres in actual occupation for the female direct tenants and 5 acres for the subtenants only. Comparable figures for men were 36 acres for direct tenants and 9 acres for subtenants only. Although the proportion of widows was lower than it had been a century before, their wealth had increased dramatically. The average net holding had risen to nearly 50 acres for the widowed 118 119

PRO SC 11/189, Havering. NCO MS 9744, fols. i6ir-i 84V. For the types of tenants and subtenants, see ch. 3 above. 172

A commercial economy, 1350—1460

direct tenants. Widowed * subtenants only' had an average of 12 acres in their occupation. The temporary boom in the prosperity of widows after the 1349 plague placed them economically above Havering's male tenants. The fact that 12% to 14% of the direct tenants in 1251 and 1352/3 were unmarried women or widows holding land in their own right must have been influenced by the unrestricted nature of Havering's tenure. The proportion of women among the direct tenants appears to have dropped between 1352/3 and 1460. Our evidence here is less direct and probably less complete, coming from lists of tenants drawn from the manor court rolls.120 The short Havering roll from five months in 1352—3 provides a lower total number of direct tenants than does the extent but gives a similar proportion of women: 13 %. However, only eleven of the nineteen women named in the roll held land in their own right, the rest appearing as joint tenants with their husbands. In 1388—9, 12 % of the direct tenants were women, but only five of the twenty-two held on their own. The decline intensified in the fifteenth century: women constituted just 6% of the direct tenants in 1405—6, of whom three of twelve held alone; in 1444—5, 2 % were women, but none held alone. The virtual elimination of women as direct tenants in Havering may have resulted in part from active immigration into the manor after 1353, causing the prompt marriage or remarriage of female heiresses and widows. The lack of strong family identification with a given holding, the ease of selling land and the accumulation of direct tenancies after 1406 may also have contributed to their disappearance. Information about the subtenancies would probably reveal that women continued as landholders at more modest levels. Women could pursue an independent economic life through participation in some forms of craft-work and trade. Between 1380 and 1460, twenty-five to thirty-five women were at work as brewers or ale sellers each year. Around the middle of the fifteenth century, a few women moved into the traditionally male field of baking or worked as fishmongers. The great majority of Havering's tradeswomen and craftswomen were married, usually to men of middling economic level. Craft-work and retailing were rarely a means whereby single women or the poor supported themselves. Brewing seems to have been 120

The lists have been extracted from the names of those who attended the court as landholders, those fined for non-appearance, those who paid a lump sum to be excused from coming, those who bought or sold land and those who were parties in land-based suits over the course of a twelve-month period. The records analysed below are: PRO SC 2/172/25 (five months only); ERO D/DU 102/4; PRO SC 2/172/30; ERO D/DU 102/32, m. 14, and PRO SC 2/172/32, mm. 3-23; and ERO D/DU 102/47.

173

Economic independence and its consequences, 1251—1460 an activity which was picked up or ended as the family's situation demanded. The wife of John Aldewyn, butcher of Romford, brewed commercially while her husband was in his thirties and just getting established, stopped during his prosperous middle years and resumed her work when he retired in his late fifties.121 Further, at least two-thirds of the married crafts women were the wives of men who had no known connection with crafts or trade but were instead farming. Craft-work by women was not just a side-effect of their husbands' involvement in similar pursuits. The economic benefits of a trade are seen in the experience of Margaret Cappes, active in the middle of the fifteenth century.122 Widowed in her first marriage, she brought a dower of 10 acres to her second husband, Thomas Cappes of Hornchurch, who held 10 to 20 acres himself. Margaret brewed ale for sale throughout her marriage to Thomas, from 1444 until 1471, and she baked bread during the 1460s, bringing in cash resources to the family. She had and used her own seal until her death. The Cappes' three daughters were married to craftsmen of London, Maldon and Stondon, Essex. After Thomas' death in 1471, Margaret went to London to live with a married daughter. In her will, written in 1478, she asked to be buried in Hornchurch. She left to her children a comfortable array of household goods and clothing, including such luxuries as a feather bed, six silver spoons, twenty pewter vessels, a red worsted wall hanging and some gold and silver jewelry. Other opportunities were also open to women. They worked as wage labourers and servants, employed in agriculture, in retailing and as domestic workers. 123 Some may have taken part in those crafts or forms of trade which did not fall within the jurisdiction of the manor court. They do not, however, seem to have played a major role. The commercial production, tailoring and sale of cloth, for example, appear to have been controlled entirely by men. A few women may have been paid to take in children to be nursed, orphans and babies whose mothers could not feed them. 124 The only record of this practice before 121

122

123 124

ERO D/DU 102/2, m. 13, and PRO SC 2/172/30, m. 7. For John, see pp. 157-9 above. ERO D/DU 102/54, ni. 3d, the Havering views of frankpledge and general courts from October 1444 through 1470 (e.g., PRO SC 2/172/32, m. 6d, ERO D/DU 102/47, m. 1, and D/DU 102/55, rn. 5), and GLL MS 9171/6, fol. 2i8r-v. For Thomas Cappes, see ch. 5 below. PRO E 37/25, m. 34, ERO D/DU 102/1, m. 7d, and D/DU 102/42, m. 13. When the Romford parish registers begin in 1562 they document the presence of nurse children in the community, many of them sent out from London (ERO T/R 147/1). See Marjorie K. Mclntosh, The Liberty ofHavering-atte-Bower, 1500-1620 (forthcoming), ch. 3. For below, see PRO SC 2/172/29, m. 2id.

174

A commercial economy, 1350—1460

1460 is a suit brought by John Stanford, a local tanner, against John atte Heche of Romford in 1401. Stanford claimed that atte Heche owed him 22d., of which 2od. resulted from the cost of burying an infant of atte Heche's which Stanford's wife had been nursing. Although the reason for atte Heche's use of a surrogate mother is not given, the fact that the Stanfords, not atte Heche, buried the baby suggests that nursing involved total charge of the children concerned. Women borrowed and lent money. In some cases they handled cash as landholders or crafts-people. In 1388, John Passelew of the nearby village of Ongar brought a plea of debt for the unusually large sum of 1 oos. against Alice Taverner of Havering. 125 Alice, who was indeed an ale seller, had met Passelew to draw up an account of all debts and contracts outstanding between them. As a result, Passelew said, Alice was to have paid him 100s. to clear her obligations. Alice denied the allegation, claiming that she owed him not a penny, and asked to wage her law. The court must have doubted her story, for it required that she come with eleven other people, a larger number of oath-helpers than was generally prescribed. Alice was evidently unable to find the necessary number of friends and neighbours to swear on her behalf and defaulted. Women also made cash loans, even if in small amounts: Emma atte Brook loaned I3^d. to Margaret Feverokys, 'flemmyng', on 11 November 1392, to be repaid on 2 February 1393.126 Because payment for goods was commonly delayed, the community's women brewers and retailers were probably owed money by most of their customers. Historical discussion of the economic roles of women in the later medieval and early modern years has often been somewhat superficial. The involvement of women in Havering's economic life confirms that it is not enough to say merely that women had greater independence during periods of low population pressure or in urban settings. Rather, we need to focus upon those specific characteristics favourable to the participation of women. 127 In Havering, female landholding was facilitated by tenurial freedom in the mid-thirteenth and mid-fourteenth centuries but declined thereafter, at least among the larger holdings. The commercialised but not deeply capitalised economy between 1350 and 1460 created niches well suited to women's activity, and the demand for labour extended to them. Many aspects of Havering's 125 126 127

ERO D/DU 102/4, m. 7. For the wager oflaw, see ch. 5 below. ERO D/DU 102/6, m. 13d. For below, see, e.g., PRO SC 2/172/28, m. 7. The economic functions of medieval women are currently being investigated by R. M. Smith and L. R. Poos, by Zvi Razi and Janet Williamson, by Judith Bennett and by P. J. P. Goldberg. See also Hilton's assessment of peasant women's roles in English peasantry, pp. 98—105.

175

Economic independence and its consequences, 1231—1460 economic life in the later medieval years were thus particularly conducive to female independence. INDIVIDUALISM AND ECONOMIC CHANGE

The economic freedom enjoyed by the tenants of Havering between 13 50 and 1460 promoted and emphasised individual initiative. Assarting had placed a premium on independent action and economically aggressive behaviour in earlier years. The absence of common fields meant that decisions were made on a purely personal basis, without need for group cooperation. A spectrum of holding sizes rather than clusters at standard virgate fractions weakened any tendency for the tenants to think of themselves as similar to their peers within a given tenurial rank. The opportunities for profit offered by Havering's commercialised economy reinforced an individual approach, at least among those families with sufficient initial wealth to be able to take advantage of the system. The lack of regulation, the broad dispersal of capital and the absence of concentrated financial power all worked to create an environment in which personal effort had maximum scope for action and reward. The freedom of Havering people to act in pursuit of their own economic good was untouched by any feudal appropriation by their lord. The term * peasant' has been used in many ways within the English setting, but the situation of Havering's late medieval tenants fits with none of the suggested definitions.128 The individualism of Havering people manifested itself in various forms. By the mid-fourteenth century the manor's residents appear to have been making rational decisions with the aim of improving their economic condition. They sought profit and advancement rather than the satisfaction of minimal or short-term needs. While some families held their land for many decades, there is no evidence that land was in general viewed as belonging to a family in a multi-generational sense. The activity of the land market and movement of tenants made it too tempting to buy and sell property on the basis of the owner's current economic requirements. Havering people treated their property in an essentially instrumental fashion, as they did their employees. They were willing to gamble and take risks, and they were prepared to accept the tensions within their community which arose from fundamentally self-interested behaviour. There is no sign of what has been described 128 Xwo recent sets of criteria as applied to English peasants are Hilton, English peasantry, p. 13, and Alan Macfarlane, The origins of English individualism (Oxford, Blackwell, 1978), ch. 1.

176

A commercial economy, 1350—1460 as a ' moral economy' within a Southeast Asian village setting, in which the values of the community are directed toward assuring the survival of all of its members. 129 Nor did Havering's leading families contribute to the ceremonial life of the area in a fashion which would have reinforced community solidarity at the expense of their own personal wealth.130 Yet, as we shall discuss more fully in Part III, individualism in Havering did not preclude political and legal cooperation. On the contrary, the sense of institutional community within Havering was exceptionally strong. The major tenants demonstrated their ability to work together vis-a-vis the outside world in such matters as the thirteenth-century fee-farm, distribution of taxation and assorted forms of group resistance. They exerted even greater common effort within the manor court. An assumption that individualism and collectivism are diametrically opposed is obviously incorrect. Further, economic freedom, political autonomy and individualistic behaviour were clearly related in Havering. It is thus difficult to regard individualism as a generic characteristic of late medieval English villagers, many of whom were subject to continuing seigneurial demands and the restrictions of local custom.131 Havering's economic patterns emphasise the need for more thorough exploration of the transition from medieval to early modern forms. Despite lengthy debate over the passage from feudal to capitalistic structures, intermediate or alternate types of organisation have received scant attention.132 The narrow range of analytic concepts currently employed has little meaning when applied to Havering or other local commercial centres. Havering's economy between 1350 and 1460 was definitely not feudal but neither does it display the features of a capitalistic agricultural system or of proto-industrial organisation.133 129

130

131

132

133

See, e.g., James C . Scott, The moral economy of the peasant ( N e w Haven, C o n n . , Yale U n i v . Press, 1976). T h e approach o f Havering's tenants was closer t o that described in S. L. Popkin, The rational peasant (Berkeley, Calif., U n i v . of California Press, 1979). Charles P h y t h i a n - A d a m s , ' C e r e m o n y and the citizen: the c o m m u n a l year at C o v e n t r y , 1450-1550', in Crisis and order in English towns, 1500—1700 (ed. Peter Clark and P. Slack, L o n d o n , Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1972), p p . 57—85, and cf. Scott, Moral economy, pp. 41-2. Macfarlane, Origins of English individualism. Cf. S. D. White and R. T. Vann, 'The invention of English individualism: Alan Macfarlane and the modernization of pre-modern England', Social History, VIII (1983), 345—63. See t h e series o f papers published in Past and Present i n response t o t h e initial contribution of Robert Brenner, ' Agrarian class structure and economic development in pre-industrial Europe' (LXX (1976), 30-75, with later articles appearing in vols. LXXVIII-LXXX, LXXXV and XCVII). Ibid, and P. Kriedte, H. Medick and J. Schlumbohm, Industrialization before industrialization (Cambridge, Cambridge Univ. Press, 1981), esp. chs. 1—4.

177

Economic independence and its consequences, 1231—1460

Indeed, Havering had never been conventionally feudal, because the authority of the lord had been restricted at an early date. Nor would its economy assume a standard form in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. Its atypical qualities were maintained by Romford market, the commercial opportunities of London and the desire of the largest tenants to use their estates as gracious retreats as well as sources of income. A more sophisticated explanation of the diverse origins of the early modern economy will need to include the individualistic commercial farmers and traders of later medieval market communities. Commercially based patterns were found in many parts of England, although the form was neither static nor uniform in nature. Havering during the later medieval period was still developing. Prior to the establishment of Romford market in the mid-thirteenth century the manor's ties with London must have been more tenuous; until active assarting ended later in that century much of the tenants' energies must have been directed toward clearing rather than toward exploiting the potential of existing land and trade. Major changes would again transform the economy after 1460. The period between 1350 and 1460 nevertheless displayed considerable coherence. Havering's economy was of course unusual, influenced by the manor's setting and history. It was not, however, unique. Many of the traits we have noted here were found elsewhere, especially in areas on London's periphery and in smaller urban centres. In such places one encounters features like marked diversity of holding sizes, extensive capital investment in animal and wood production, the importance of butchers and the stable prosperity of local crafts- and trades-people.134 Common patterns developed in privately held manors and in Havering. Yet in Havering the tenants were free from any kind of surplus extraction by the lord. We must therefore be cautious in assigning to seigneurial control the leading role in shaping medieval economic development. 135 134

135

See, e.g., Glennie, 'Commercializing agrarian region', Moss, 'Economic development', M c D o n n e l l , Medieval London suburbs, Christopher Dyer, Lords and peasants, Hilton, English peasantry, 'Lords, burgesses and hucksters', and A medieval society: the West Midlands at the end of the thirteenth century (London, Weidenfeld and Nicolson, 1966). Brenner, 'Agrarian class structure' and ' T h e agrarian roots o f European capitalism', Past and Present, X C V I I (1982), 16-113. Cf. John Hatcher, 'English serfdom and villeinage: towards a reassessment', Past and Present, X C (1981), 3—39.

178

PART III COMMUNITY, CONFLICT AND CHANGE, 1352-1500

Chapter 5

THE MANOR COURT AND THE RESOLUTION OF LOCAL PROBLEMS, 1352-1460

Havering's autonomy and its unusual economic patterns together had a pronounced impact upon the community's internal political life. Because there was so little seigneurial, legal or administrative regulation, the tenants were not only free to deal with nearly all local problems themselves, they were indeed forced to do so. Havering's commercial structure generated a complex society, involving a considerable amount of friction, but also produced a body of men who were particularly concerned with local control. These leaders were established residents who profited from Havering's economic system: substantial farmers and the more prosperous tradesmen and craftsmen. It was to their own personal benefit as well as good for the community as a whole to see that a reasonably harmonious and orderly atmosphere was preserved, one in which business might flourish. The institution through which the dominant men wielded power was the manor court. Havering's privileged status and slack supervision by the crown broadened the court's jurisdiction to an exceptional range. The willingness of the tenants to employ this authority was striking. The operation of the court forms a counterpart to those features of the manor's history which we have already explored, providing an example of local cooperation at its zenith. In the years between 1460 and 1500 Havering changed rapidly in many ways. The patterns which emerged were not entirely novel; they merely intensified tendencies already visible in the previous century. The land market pulled out of the doldrums and the number of newcomers shot upward. The economy became more heavily capitalised and specialised, causing a separation between rich and poor. Local families assumed an important role in Havering's religious life and experimented with forms of charity. Recognising the need for stronger local authority, some influential tenants from London obtained in 1465 a royal charter which established the manor as a Liberty, with its own 181

Community, conflict and change, 1352—1500 justices of the peace. The court's leaders now addressed traditional issues with greater efficacy, utilising the gaol built in Romford for Havering's newly created justices. They also turned their attention to the social and sexual behaviour of the poor. Havering displays in these years many of the features commonly ascribed to English life in the late Elizabethan and early Stuart periods. In Part III we shall first consider the way in which the manor court controlled Havering's internal life between 1352 and 1460. Chapter 5 begins with a discussion of local cooperation and conflict as seen through manor court rolls and then examines the limited role of the lord within the Havering court. We turn next to the way in which the court resolved problems through private suits. After looking at how the court maintained public order, we end by assessing local use of the court and the participation of women. In Chapter 6 we shall explore the changes of the later fifteenth century.

MANOR COURT ROLLS, COMMUNITY AND CONFLICT

Manor courts served three general functions: they dealt with matters of concern to the lord, enforcing seigneurial rights over the tenants; they provided a forum in which local people could bring suit against each other; they exercised leet, or public, jurisdiction.1 The often voluminous records produced by manor courts contain information which might be needed later by either lord or tenants: land transfers, heriots, the names of pledges for court appearances or payment of fines, the pleadings and outcome of private suits and reports concerning such public matters as assaults, obstructed lanes or poorly brewed ale.2 Manor court rolls have been used to explore the nature of personal interactions within local communities. Some studies have dealt primarily with the personal bonds which joined individuals or families to their relatives and friends, kinship links or other ties sometimes described as 1

There is no thorough recent study of manor courts and their operation. See Select pleas in manorial and other seignorial courts (ed. F. W. Maitland, Selden Soc, vol. 2, London, Quaritch, 1889), G. C. Homans, English villagers of the thirteenth century (Cambridge,

2

Mass., Harvard Univ. Press, 1942), F. J. C. Hearnshaw, Leet jurisdiction in England (Southampton Rec. Soc, Southampton, Cox and Sharland, 1908), and W. A. Morris, The frankpledge system (Harvard Historical Studies, New York, Longman, 1910). Cf. John S. Beckerman, 'Customary law in English manorial courts in the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries' (Univ. of London PhD thesis, 1972). Court rolls are extant for hundreds of manors. See the list of medieval rolls prepared at the University of Birmingham by Judith Crips and Janet Williamson, under the direction of R. H. Hilton. 182

Manor court and resolution of local problems, 1352—1460

' neighbour liness'.3 A few historians have investigated how communities worked as collective units, regulating activities like open-field agriculture through the manor court or village assemblies.4 Several works have examined group efforts by tenants to resist seigneurial demands.5 The incidence and types of conflict at the local level have also been described, using manor court rolls supplemented in some cases by records of the central courts.6 We must acknowledge, however, that manor court rolls in themselves provide an inadequate picture of human relations.7 They document legal and economic dealings but seldom yield unambiguous statements about the nature and extent of goodwill or conflict. A large number of debt cases between villagers, for example, might a priori be viewed either as evidence of a constructive, positive climate in which minor disagreements were resolved through peaceable and structured means, or as a symptom of acute local hostility. To understand what the suits actually meant, one would need detailed information about the background of the cases, why they were brought before the court and how they were settled. Such material is rarely available. 3

4

5

6

7

E.g., R. M. Smith, 'Kin and neighbors in a thirteenth-century Suffolk community', Journal of Family History, IV (1979), 219-56, J. A. Raftis, Warboys: two hundred years in the life of an English mediaeval village (Toronto, Pontifical Institute of Mediaeval Studies, 1974), J. A. Raftis, A small town in late mediaeval England: Godmanchester (Toronto, Pontifical Institute of Mediaeval Studies, 1982), E. B. DeWindt, Land and People in Holywell-cum-Needingworth (Toronto, Pontifical Institute of Mediaeval Studies, 1972), Edward Britton, The community of the vill (Toronto, Macmillan of Canada, 1977), R. H. Hilton, The English peasantry in the later middle ages (Oxford, Clarendon Press, 1975), and Zvi Razi,' Family, land and the village community in later medieval England', Past and Present, XCHI (1981), 3-36. Especially the pioneering works of W. O. Ault, e.g., 'Some early village by-laws', English Historical Rev., XLV (1930), 208—31, The self-directing activities of village communities in medieval England (Boston, Mass., Boston Univ. Press, 1952), and 'Village assemblies in medieval England', in Album Helen M. Cam (Studies Presented to the International Commission for the History of Representative and Parliamentary Institutions, vol. 23, Louvain, Publications universitaires de Louvain, i960); see also Christopher Dyer, Lords and peasants in a changing society: the estates of the bishopric of Worcester, 680—1540 (Cambridge, Cambridge Univ. Press, 1980), pp. 329—33. Particularly R. H. Hilton, Bond men madefree: medieval peasant movements and the English rising of 1381 (London, Temple Smith, 1973), English peasantry, and A medieval society: the West Midlands at the end of the thirteenth century (London, Weidenfeld and Nicolson, 1966) and Zvi Razi, 'The Toronto School's reconstitution of medieval peasant society: a critical review', Past and Present, LXXXV (1979), 141—57, and 'Family, land and the village community'. E.g., Barbara Hanawalt Westman,' The peasant family and crime in fourteenth-century England', Journal of British Studies, XIII (1974), 1-18, Barbara A. Hanawalt, 'Community conflict and social control: crime and justice in the Ramsey Abbey villages', Mediaeval Studies, XXXIX (1977), 402-23, and Christopher Dyer, Lords and peasants, pp. 370-1. For the limitations of manor court rolls as a demographic source, see ch. 3 above.

183

Community, conflict and change, 1352—1500 Neighbourliness, displayed most commonly as informal mutual assistance, is obscured by the legal provenance of the rolls. The number of people penalised by a court for fighting tells us little about the degree of ill-will within the community unless we know who the jurors were, on what grounds they decided to report a conflict, who was involved in the cases mentioned and what outside bodies were also dealing with local violence. Nor can we assume that cooperation and conflict were mutually antithetical, that a high level of one meant a low level of the other. Complicated economic dealings must have fostered not only cooperative behaviour but also competition and exploitation. We need further to distinguish between the ability of a community to act as a group in a political sense and the amount of economic collectivism found among its residents. The contrast is vivid in Havering. The manor's economic structure promoted a singularly individualistic attitude among the wealthier families. Yet these same men had a rare sense of institutional identity and unusual skill at working together. By the middle of the thirteenth century the tenants were handling the farm of the manor, resisting the claims of the king and distributing economic burdens imposed upon the manor. Outsiders and tenants alike spoke of * the commonalty of the manor', 'the liberty of Havering', or 'the whole court of Havering'. 8 The collaborative behaviour of the later medieval manor court was especially impressive. The sense of community was reinforced by the fact that Havering was a unified geographical entity with a single court for the whole area.9 Romford craftsmen joined with their rural neighbours as manorial officers. This pairing of individual economic assertiveness with group political activity was a characteristic of many medieval communities, particularly the towns. Although manor court rolls cannot provide a precise measure of goodwill or conflict, we may use them fruitfully to examine the role which a given court played within its own community, linking its functions to the context within which it operated. The leaders of the Havering court had clear goals. They wished to preserve a certain level of peace within the community, not as a matter of social idealism but rather because some degree of trust and cooperation was essential to the intricate economic life upon which local prosperity depended. This led them to devise forms for the resolution of conflict which worked 8 9

CPR, 1247-58, p. 105, CChR, 1257—1300, p. 119, and Hornch. Pr. kal., no. 350. Cf. Helen M. Cam, 'The community of the vill', in Medieval studies presented to Rose Graham (ed. V. Ruffer and A. J. Taylor, Oxford, Oxford Univ. Press, 1950), pp. 1-14, and Susan Reynolds, Kingdoms and communities in western Europe, goo—1300 (Oxford,

Clarendon Press, 1984), esp. ch. 5.

184

Manor court and resolution of local problems, 1352—1460

to recreate amicable relations. They wanted to regulate communal property and craft activity so as to contribute to the manor's success as an agricultural and trading unit. They were eager to maintain order. They sought further to buttress their own position within the community and to ensure that their own values shaped public policy. While Havering's unusual privileges exaggerated the power of the court and its leaders, similar concerns must have motivated the dominant tenants of most English manors, even those which enjoyed far less personal and economic freedom. THE CROWN AS LORD

The surviving rolls of the Havering court begin only in 1352, but the assembly had long been in existence. The tenants had probably been meeting in some fashion since at least the eleventh century. The court first comes into partial light c. 1200 as the location in which land was transferred from one tenant to another.10 Tithings were in existence by the 1250s, and the court began to prepare indictments around 1300.11 It must also have been dealing with personal suits between the tenants and listening to the reports of men sworn to report upon public issues, although we do not have evidence of these functions until the late 1330s. In 1352-3 a set of rolls of the court over a five-month period was taken to London and preserved in the royal records. There is then a gap until 1382, from which point the records exist as a discontinuous series (see App. III). During the later fourteenth and fifteenth centuries the court met in Romford every three weeks to deal with private suits, handling public business at the spring and autumn general courts and the annual view of frankpledge. The lord and his interests were virtually absent from the court. The king or queen was represented by a steward who ostensibly presided over all sessions, including the view of frankpledge.12 Because the steward was a patronage appointee, a royal official or friend of the crown's who found it a bother to come to Romford, he usually acted 10 11

12

E.g., BNB, vol. 2, pp. 492-3, and Hornch. Pr. kal., nos. 245 and 522. PRO JUST 1/233, m. 49, JUST 1/235, mm. 10 and 11, and JUST 1/238, m. 52; indictments are discussed in ch. 2 above. For below, see CCR, 1339-41, pp. 125-6, and CCR, 1337-9, p. 503The stewards and post-1465 deputy stewards are in App. I. The court rolls always describe sessions as held in the presence of the steward, even in a few cases in which it can be definitely shown that the deputy was actually presiding (e.g., PRO SC 2/173/2, m. 1, vs the loose memorandum included with the rolls). The steward is sometimes termed the bailiff on the rolls and in writs directed to the court, in conformance with the ancient demesne convention that the court be held in the presence of the bailiff and suitors.

185

Community,

conflict and change, 1332—1300

through a deputy. Neither the steward nor his deputy had any personal incentive to defend the crown's profit or authority, for they received a set salary regardless of the yield or efficiency of the court. Even if the steward had wished to control the court, his ability to do so was severely restricted. The emphasis upon custom and local juries within manors of the ancient demesne, Havering's formalised procedures and the assertiveness of the tenants all served to curtail his independence. He proceeded solely on the basis of information provided by local people. At any three-weekly session he could swear in a jury of tenants to report upon specified topics of concern to the crown as lord. While the list of subjects to be considered was presumably chosen by the monarch's council or financial officials, Havering jurors exercised their own judgement in deciding which facts and problems to bring to the crown's attention. The steward never tried to verify the accuracy and completeness of the jurors' reports about royal rights and property in the manor. Nor was it considered appropriate for the steward to receive private reports about local matters. The crown made no attempt to use the court to enforce payment of rents. It had no claim to a group of rights which were administered through most manorial. bodies: leyrwite and merchet, labour services and payment for permission to leave the manor. Protection of the lord's interests in the Havering court was thus perfunctory on the part of the steward and at the effective mercy of the jurors. Within the range of seigneurial control, the Havering court lay at the least restricted extreme. Although his role was narrowly confined, the steward did have certain duties. He summoned juries to report upon matters of public interest as well as those involving the lord. He probably made the decision to adjourn the court in a few instances in which the session fell on a major feast day and to end a session before all its business was completed.13 Occasionally he consulted with higher authority. The queen wrote to the steward or his locum tenens in 1430 instructing him to delay the court's determination of a penalty for two men presented for driving off deer from the park until she could give her advice. 14 In 1438 New College asked to be excused from repairing its section of the pale around Havering park, a request backed by a writ from Henry VI saying in vague terms that the college should not be molested or oppressed. The steward tabled the question in order that the opinion of the lord might be obtained. After postponements stretching for six months, the request was turned down, on the recommendation of the 13 14

ERO D/DU 102/11, m. 4, D/DU 102/45, m. 5, and D/DU 102/47, mm. 3-4. ERO D/DU 102/21, mm. 4d and 3. For below, see D/DU 102/28, mm. 3 and I4d.

186

Manor court and resolution of local problems, 1332—1460

king's attorney. The steward had to account annually for all entry fines, heriots, strays, amercements and other profits connected with the court, from which he was allowed to deduct his expenses in holding the court and preparing the records.15 For his work he received an annual payment of £ 5 . The clerk, probably named by the steward, attended all sessions and compiled the manor court rolls.16 His method of preparing the rolls is of interest, for little is known about this aspect of local courts. By the 143 os he was taking rough notes on paper, in Latin, during the course of the session. He may have had the use of written statements submitted to supplement the oral pleadings in private suits. The roll for 1427 mentions in a number of suits, at the point at which a jury was summoned, that the pleadings are given on the annexed schedule or bill.17 After the session ended, the clerk wrote a tidy and full Latin record of the proceedings on a parchment sheet, which at the end of the year was stitched together with the other membranes and rolled up for easy storage. During the weeks between one session and the next, notes were sometimes added to the record of the previous court, probably by the manorial bailiff, indicating what goods had been distrained from defendants and what answer they planned to give in court.18 Jurors' reports are almost invariably recorded on the roll of the session at which they were sworn, although in some cases their statement was not given until the following session. The names of the affeerors who determined the level of penalty were often added later, as were the amercements imposed, suggesting that the affeerors met between sessions of the court. The clerk had secondary duties as well. The court rolls were seen as a safe and official record and were therefore in some demand for recording purely private transactions, usually land transfers which had not gone through the court. Tenants might come to the court and ask to have a charter or agreement read aloud and copied onto the rolls, presumably giving a fee to the clerk.19 Written orders to the bailiff had « PRO SC 6/844/18-19. For fees, see PRO SC 6/844/16, SC 6/1093/1, and SC 6/1292/4, no. 5. The first surviving Havering record written in English, from 1393, is a note appended to a Havering account by a clerk asking for a financial reward: PRO E 101/622/24. 17 ERO D/DU 102/16, mm. 1-3. For drafts, see ERO D/DU 102/26 and D/DU 102/50 (cf. D/DU 102/49 and D/DU 102/51). 18 E.g., ERO D/DU 102/2, mm. 10 and 12, D/DU 102/29, m. 17, and D/DU 102/40, m. 9. For affeerors, see ERO D/DU 102/21, m. id, and D/DU 102/22, m. 3. 19 E.g., ERO D/DU 102/3B, m. id, and D/DU 102/47, passim. For written orders, see ERO D/DU 102/28, m. 1, and D / D U 102/32, passim; for the 1388 order, see D/DU 102/4, m - I 7^. 16

187

Community, conflict and change, 1352—1500 to be drawn up after each session. In 1388 it was specified that anyone who executed an order of the court was to sign the warrant with a capital letter A. When a judgement permitted the plaintiff to collect land, goods or damages, he might pay for a copy of the entire record of all stages of the suit to assist him in executing the award.20 Each year the clerk prepared the * estreats' or extracts from the rolls, listing those items of court business which resulted in a money payment. The estreat was submitted to the crown by the steward as part of his account. Despite the limited influence of the king or queen over the court, the crown maintained some interest in it for financial reasons. The lord hoped to use the court to supervise performance of certain dues and obligations by the tenants. The most valuable of these were associated with landholding. Though the crown could not control sales or inheritances in Havering, it needed a list of the current direct tenants, those responsible for rent, entry fines, repair of the pale and sometimes heriot. Yet the steward's knowledge was certainly incomplete. He learned about land transfers only through the voluntary appearance of new tenants and the reports of juries — inadequate sources.21 In the second half of the fourteenth century heriots gradually disappeared from jurors' statements, a development ignored by the steward.22 The ability to withhold information was a considerable weapon in the hands of the tenants and a major source of administrative * slippage'. The court enforced suit of court. Tenants of virgate or cot units were obliged to attend the three-weekly sessions, while those with assarts had to come only to the two general courts.23 All male inhabitants of the manor aged twelve years or more were supposed in theory to be present at the annual view of frankpledge. The court evidently made some effort to compel the direct tenants to appear, but those who held as 'subtenants only' were of little concern. The crown's reason for requiring suit was again financial, for people who did not come and did not essoin their absence were amerced 3d. Either attending sessions or paying frequent small penalties was a nuisance for many of the tenants, and the bailiff found the latter hard to collect. Havering custom 20

21 22

23

P R O SC 2/172/26, and ERO D / D U 102/33, the double membrane. For below, see PRO S C 2 / 1 7 2 / 3 1 . See ch. 3 above. E R O D / D U 102/4, m. i8d, D / D U 102/6, m m . 4, 5d and 13d, and D / D U 102/32, m. 5. Maintenance of the pale continued to be enforced: E R O D / D U 102/3B, m. 4d, and D / D U 102/21, m. id. The categories of suit are from the 1352/3 extent; for essoins and their warranting, see, e.g., PRO SC 2/172/25, m. 2, SC 2/172/27, m. 1, and ERO D/DU 102/6, m. id. For attendance at the view, see ch. 3 above.

188

Manor court and resolution of local problems, 1352—1460 therefore permitted tenants to purchase annual exemption from suit, giving a sum less than the total value of the individual fines but one which they were willing to deliver.24 A few wealthy tenants, usually non-resident, obtained individual letters patent from the king allowing them to render suit through an attorney on a regular basis. The court was also responsible for protecting the lord's lands within the manor. The demesne had been permanently rented out prior to the first surviving roll, so it was only the royal woodlands which fell within the court's purview. Here too the crown's rights were nibbled away, in this case because the tenants were eager to make use of the woods themselves. Reports by juries concerning the park, warren and outwoods were highly selective, focusing upon problems of interest to local people rather than to the crown. Because this practice was not challenged by the steward, royal authority was progressively weakened. Juries mentioned attacks on the trees or deer within the park just twice, in 1426 and 1430.25 Hunting in the crown's warren was reported, but as royal concern with the warren declined after 1400, jurors came to regard the area as a local preserve and hence presented mainly outsiders. The outwoods were treated as manorial common by c. 1400. Juries and the elected woodwards saw their job as protecting the woods for Havering's use — allowing hunting but requiring those who wished to take wood to obtain licence from the woodwards. 26 Collection of the dues originally owed to the crown for use of the woods during six weeks in the autumn died away between 1352/3 and the 1470s.27 The court also dealt with a few 'purprestures'. The jurors assigned a rent to some of these holdings but ordered other occupants to remove their enclosures, especially if they narrowed or blocked a road or path or cut into a space designated for common grazing.28 The court was of further benefit to the crown because it collected or produced some auxiliary forms of profit. The jurors reported upon 24

25

26 27

28

P R O SC 2/172/25, m. 3, and SC 2/172/30, m . 1. For below, see E R O D / D U 102/1, m. 7, D / D U 102/28, m. 8d, and D / D U 102/36, m. 2d. Table 14 shows the number of people owing suit at the court. E R O D / D U 102/15, m. i d , and D / D U 102/21, m. 3. For warren reports, see E R O D / D U 102/4, m m . 9 and 12, P R O SC 2/172/30, m . 8d, E R O D / D U 102/31, m. 1, D / D U 102/40, m m . 13 and I5d, and D / D U 102/42, m . 13. E.g., E R O D / D U 102/2, m. 6d, D / D U 102/4, m . 9, and D / D U 102/47, m . 8. See ch. 2 above. T w o chimnagers were elected annually by the court into the 1420s to account for payments by carts going through the woods during the closed weeks, and two pannagers reported each year through the 1450s on the fees owed for grazing pigs. During the 1430s and 1440s n o more than thirty-four people paid pannage annually (e.g., E R O D / D U 102/28, m. 1 tail, and D / D U 102/32, m. 2 tail). E.g., ERO D/DSg M31, D/DU 102/3A, D/DU 102/45, m. 7, and PRO SC 2/172/32, m. 17.

189

Community, conflict and change, 1352—1500 stray animals and those rights which pertained to the queen or king as lord of a privileged area. Chattels waived by supposed thieves and the goods of felons or outlaws were mentioned a few times each decade.29 The proceedings of the court itself generated additional sums, primarily the 2s. paid by a plaintiff who entered a little writ of right close and the amercements paid by those who failed to appear in connection with a private suit or were reported for having committed a public offence. Even with this diversity of sources, however, the Havering court did not yield a generous income for the crown. A twelve-month period in 1388—9, containing sixteen regular courts and two general courts, produced a total of ^16-15-11^, distributed as follows: profits of the court, including payments for exemption from suit — ^6—1—10; four entry fines — ^3—4— i^; five animals taken as heriots — ^7—1—4; and four strays — ^o—8—8. 30 In 1405/6 the yield was still fairly high, .£14—19—11 including entry fines and strays. But as the activity of the court declined in subsequent decades, the total profit dropped as well, to c. £$ annually in the later 1430s and 1440s. The amount collected through and from the court constituted 7 % to 15% of the value of the manorial rents. Only one Havering roll reveals active royal involvement in the court. The short roll from 1352—3 indicates that Queen Philippa employed the court to administer her own property in the manor, using it as a tool in her general policy of tight control.31 The queen was herself described as the plaintiff in suits brought against those who had committed misdeeds in the crown's woods. In just eight sessions she sent five orders through the court, in French, to the royal parker of Havering, instructing him to deliver wood or deer as gifts to specified people. The roll includes an account of trees cut down within the park at royal command for repairs at Havering palace or for sale. Philippa wrote to the bailiff about how she wished to dispose of land which had escheated through a felony. More intrusively, the steward summoned a jury to report upon the condition of agriculture within Havering. The tenants responded with a polite 'all is well' and then sidestepped nicely with a description of problems with the Thames 29

30

31

E R O D / D U 102/28, m . 2, P R O SC 2/172/25, m m . 2 and 4 (bis), and P R O SC 2/172/32, m. I 7 - I 7 d ; E R O D / D U 102/6, m. 8d, and D / D U 102/45, m . 7; P R O SC 2/172/27, m . 10-iod, E R O D / D U 102/35, m . 8d, and D / D U 102/34, m . 5d. ERO D/DU 102/4, passim. For below, see PRO SC 2/172/30-1, ERO D/DU 102/28, m. I7d, D/DU 102/31, m. 8d, and D/DU 102/32, m. 14, plus PRO SC 2/172/32, mm. 3-23. PRO SC 2/172/25. For Philippa's actions in the early 1350s, see ch. 2 above. 190

Manor court and resolution of local problems, 1352—1460

walls, a subject of legitimate public concern. Supervision of husbandry was never attempted again. Philippa's use of the court was, however, atypical. By the time the court returns to view in the 1380s, the level of personal royal interest has dropped to nothing. The court henceforth operated in the absence of royal regulation. LOCAL CONFLICT

In the eyes of Havering people, one of the most important functions of the manor court must have been its role in resolving local conflicts. The need for an effective means of handling tension was particularly great in Havering because of the manor's economic patterns and high degree of individualism. By providing a setting in which private suits could be lodged and prosecuted, the court helped to channel friction into confined and non-violent forms. By promoting settlements which restored goodwill between the parties, the court minimised the resentment which resulted from punitive solutions. Pressure for recreating amity was strong throughout the community. Private agreements recording a compromise between opponents — over land, maintenance of a ditch or hedge, or straying cattle — were often said to have been made through the counsel or intervention of their friends or neighbours.32 Arbitration was sometimes arranged privately as an alternative to legal action. The manor court was but one facet of a complicated local system for maintaining harmony. A parallel observation has been made about courts at the county and national levels.33 We have unusually good information about private suits heard by the Havering court, for the rolls from 1382 onward record in detail the pleadings of both parties in many actions. Unfortunately, the Havering rolls magnify the problems which always hamper use of legal records as evidence concerning personal interactions. Private suits focus on the activity of the manor's dominant families, leaving obscure the dealings of the poor and newcomers. Since the court's procedures were complex and stylised, the leading tenants who attended the court regularly and knew its methods well had a clear edge in their easy access to the law and ability to manipulate the forms to their own advantage. 32

33

E.g., Homch. Pr. kal., nos. 404, 493 and 516. For arbitration outside the court, see ERO D / D U 102/34, m. 7d. Edward Powell, 'Arbitration and the law in England in the late Middle Ages', Trans. Royal Hist. Soc, 5th ser., XXXIII (1983), 49-67, Edward Powell, 'Settlement of disputes by arbitration in fifteenth-century England', Law and History Rev., II (1984), 21—43, a n d M. T. Clanchy, 'Law and love in the Middle Ages', in Disputes and settlements: law and human relations in the West (ed. John Bossy, Cambridge, Cambridge Univ. Press, 1983), pp. 47-67. 191

192

Number and type of suits opened in the court during selected periods

Table 10. Private suits opened in the manor court, 1352—1497" Five months only ( = 8 sessions)

Full year ( = 1 8 sessions through 1469-^70; 12 in 1497)

1352-3

1388-96

1388-9

1405-6

H44-5

1464-5

1469--70

1497

12

34

57 18

14 5

8 8

I

1

6 6

7 9

67 25 8

24

13

I°3 38 3

20

23 5

2

2

2

2

I

0

0

0

0

0

0

4C 3

6

Personal actions

Debt Trespass Detinue of chattels Covenant Other11 Unspecified or illegible Total

17 0

0

3

8

2

0

0

41

62

99

148

22

38

7 3

10

3 7

1

5

1

0

15

10

2

49

9

109

151

23

40

110

48

80

125

69

48 46

75 77

167 64

79

H

165 42

208

17

139

207

277

94

152

231

131

0

109

48

2

1

0

3

6

2

5

7

2

hand actions {all initiated by little writ of right close)

Contentious actions Collusive actions (used to achieve land conveyance) Total Total number of personal actions plus contentious land

Number of people involved in private suits

As a party In other capacities (as attorney, pledge, warranter, summoner, attacher, manucaptor or member of a trial jury or assize) Total

(no juries listed)

97

52

" This table, and Tables 11, 12 and 14, display figures from sample twelve-month periods, chosen on the basis of surviving records at intervals of twenty to thirty-five years wherever possible. To provide information comparable to 1352-3, when eight courts from a five-month period survive, material has been taken from just the first five months of 1388-9 as well as from the full set of records from that year. ' ' Other' includes for 1469-^70 two actions of account and two of deception; for 1497 one of account, one of deception, two of replevin, one of detention of the farm, and one of false imprisonment. Sources: PRO SC 2/172/25, all (1352-3); ERO D/DU 102/4, all (1388-9); PRO SC 2/172/30, all (1405-6); ERO D/DU 102/32, m. 14, and PRO SC 2/172/32, mm. 3-23 (1444-5); ERO D/DU 102/4.7, all (1464-5); ERO D/DU 102/53, mm. 1-2, and D/DU 102/54, mm. id-10 (1469-^70), and PRO SC 2/172/38, mm. 11-21V (1497).

Community, conflict and change, 1352—1500 They often acted as attorneys for parties in suits. The method of analysing human ties which has proved most valuable elsewhere — examining pledging relationships — is impossible for Havering because by the 1380s personal pledges were seldom used.34 The bailiff and a handful of other prominent tenants did most of the pledging, probably for a fee; in some periods fictitious names were recorded. We may nevertheless consider two more modest questions: the kinds of conflicts addressed through private suits in Havering and the methods of resolution employed by the court. The number and type of suits were shaped by the commercialised local economy. Among the personal actions which came before the court, pleas of debt generally accounted for somewhat over half. (See Table 10, which displays figures from sample twelve-month periods, chosen from among the surviving records at intervals of twenty to thirty-five years wherever possible.) In the later fourteenth and early fifteenth centuries, fifty to one hundred pleas of debt were opened annually. Havering was not subject to the normal limitation that manor courts hear only those cases involving sums of less than 40s.35 The amounts at issue therefore ranged widely, from a few pence to around ^10, with most debts falling between 5s. and 50s. In many instances the debt resulted from the purchase of goods, while others derived from loans of cash or unpaid wages. About a quarter of the suits were pleas of trespass, a broadly defined action which could cover a multitude of problems. Trespass was claimed when a dog bit and killed another man's sheep, when a man drove a cart and horses through another's hayfield, when someone put a pile of new manure on a path used by a neighbour or when animals were taken out of a field.36 Pleas of trespass were sometimes used as a means of trying title to land, thereby freeing the plaintiff from the time and cost of a trip to Westminster to obtain a little writ of right close. In 1388, for example, John Wybregge alleged that Robert atte Melle had cut down a hedge on a parcel of Wybregge's land.37 Atte Melle acknowledged the deed but claimed that the land in question 34 35

36 37

Most successfully b y R. M . Smith, ' K i n and neighbors'. John S. Beckerman,' The forty-shilling jurisdictional limit in medieval English personal actions', in Legal history studies 1972 (ed. Dafydd Jenkins, Cardiff, Univ. of Wales Press, i975)> PP- 110-17, and cf. Elaine Clark,' Debt litigation in a late medieval English vill', in Pathways to medieval peasants (ed. J. A. Raftis, Toronto, Pontifical Institute of Mediaeval Studies, 1981), pp. 247-79. ERO D/DU 102/4, mm. I2d (bis) and 18, and D/DU 102/6, m. isd. ERO D / D U 102/4, m. 17. For other advantages of using pleas of trespass to deal with land titles, see Donald W. Sutherland, The assize of novel disseisin (Oxford, Clarendon Press, 1973), ch. 4.

194

Manor court and resolution of local problems, 1352—1460

belonged to him. The rest of the pleading then centred on the issue of land ownership. Trespass could be used for less immediate offences as well. In 1383 John atte Hach brought a plea of trespass against Thomas Burgh on the grounds that Thomas regularly stood outside the doors and windows of John's house, listening to his secrets, and then defamed him to other men, * so that John has lost the friendship of his neighbours'; for this John claimed damages of 20s.38 In 1391—2 there were three pleas of trespass * against the statute', that is, the Statute of Labourers. In a cluster of actions of trespass in the 1390s, a local official or chief pledge pleaded both on his own behalf and for the queen or king against someone who had committed an offence of concern to them both. In several of these cases, contempt of the lord's court was alleged. In 1392, for instance, Adam Pondere and the queen pleaded against Robert Offyngton in simultaneous pleas of trespass and contempt, charging that Offyngton had forcibly reclaimed goods distrained from him by Pondere, acting in his official capacity as manorial bailiff.39 Actions of detinue of chattels constituted roughly 10% of the Havering suits. Many of these suits arose from the exercise of distraint; here too the pleadings often focused upon title to the land.40 One or two pleas of covenant were heard in most years, in which the plaintiff claimed that the defendant had not adhered to the terms of an agreement made between them — concerning the sale of goods, rental of land or arrangments for employment. There were, finally, those land actions initiated by little writ of right close which were contentious in nature, as opposed to the more common use of the writ to accomplish a land transfer through a collusive action.41 The single ancient demesne writ could be prosecuted through a variety of forms which mimicked the procedures of the central courts. Analysis of how Havering suits were terminated reveals the strong local emphasis upon peaceful resolution of conflict. As Table 10 displays, c. 100 to 150 cases were opened annually between 1352—3 and 1405—6, involving 200 to 300 people in all capacities. But relatively few 38

39 40

41

E R O D / D U 102/1, m . 7d. For trespasses against the statute, see P R O S C 2 / 1 7 2 / 2 7 , m . i 7 d , and E R O D / D U 102/6, m m . 7d and 9. See ch. 4 above. E R O D / D U 102/6, m m . i d and 9. See also ibid., m . n d (bis). E.g., E R O D / D U 102/4, m . 4d, and D / D U 102/47, m . 7. For detention of deposited goods, see, e.g., E R O D / D U 102/9, m . 7. For pleas o f covenant, see E R O D / D U 102/4, m m . i 6 d and 8d, and P R O S C 2 / 1 7 2 / 2 8 , m . 8d. T h e forms most frequently used before 1460 were actions of covenant o r assizes of novel disseisin. Less common were formedom in descender, waste, cui in vita cum parte, dower and right. Collusive actions were normally prosecuted as actions of covenant, leading to a final concord.

195

I96

197

Table u . Termination of private suits, 1352—1497 Full year

5 months only ( = 8 sessions) 1352-3 A. Method of formal terminaation of suits opened in the manor court No. of personal suits and contentious land actions whose termination is recorded Settled out of court: Plaintiff does not prosecute or withdraws plea Defendant obtains licence to concord Total Settled by defendant's acknowledgement of guilt or default Settled by formal court judgement (jury verdict, wager of law or defect in defendant's pleadings) B. Formal termination vs unrecorded disappearance No. of personal suits and contentious land actions opened Officially completed, withdrawn or noted as not being prosecuted Still underway at end of the

period Died out or disappeared with no court termination or notice C. Length of time required for completion of private suits No. of personal suits and contentious land actions whose opening and termination are recorded Terminated in 1-2 sessions after opening Terminated in 3-4 sessions Terminated in 5-7 sessions Terminated in 8 or more sessions Average no. of sessions after opening

1388-9"

( = 1 8 sessions through 1469-70; 12 in 1497) 1388-9

1405-6

H44-5

1464-5

82

29%

32%

40%

36%

33%

57%

46%

48%

54%

50%

86%

78%

88%

91%

83%

2%

6%

2%

12%

16%

10%

109

124

151

1497

28

42

09

1469-70

54%

97%

75%

97%

18%

3%

9%

23

40

no

48

58%

63%

75%

82%

48%

30%

25%

65%

10%

35%

18%

" %

43%

33%

22%

25%

2%

3%

6%

9%

38%

53%

10%

18

29

44%

56%

86%

22% 22%

33%

7% 7%

4.2

2.6

1.8

7%

19

15

55

63%

67%

49%

81%

37%

33%

31% 20%

16%

3%

25% 75%

3-1

1-7

10.5

2-3

—

" See Table 10, n. b. b It is probable that by 1497 the court rolls no longer record those suits in which the defendant admitted his guilt; incomplete recording becomes a severe problem in the sixteenth-century Havering rolls. Sources: See Table 10.

Community, conflict and change, 1352—1500 of those who initiated suits probably did so with the expectation of receiving a court judgement in their favour. Only 10% to 16% of the cases whose completion is recorded were settled by a formal court decision of any kind (see Table 11). The great majority were closed when one of the parties paid a small fee to terminate the suit. Some of these cases, especially the pleas of debt, were almost certainly entered in the court as a form of record keeping, opened at the time of a loan or contract with the understanding that the suit would be withdrawn when the obligation had been cleared. Other cases may have been settled when the defendant, faced with public airing of the issue, agreed to correct his misdeeds or to compromise. A few suits were presumably vexatious, withdrawn when this became apparent. Of the genuine actions resolved prior to court judgement, many were settled through arbitration. This practice was encouraged by the court and resembled the widespread use of auditors in the amicable resolution of those debts and contracts which never became legal issues at all.42 If the parties in a case decided to put their dispute under arbitration, they chose two or four arbitrators, usually from among the respected men of the community. The solution put forward by the arbitrators often required that each party give something to the other, thereby reducing the sense of victory or defeat. In 1395—6, for example, William Wardor and William atte Hache were at odds. After each man had lodged several pleas of trespass against the other, they agreed to put themselves under the arbitration of John Bokynham, a solid landholder and local court official, and Richard (the) Clerk of Hornchurch.43 The arbitrators listened to the history of their disagreements and then ruled that Wardor should pay atte Hache 10s. while atte Hache was to give Wardor 20 bushels of barley. As in this case, arbitration was not always successful: we know of the incident only because atte Hache did not deliver the barley, whereupon Wardor entered a plea of detinue against him. Even in the small number of cases in which a formal judgement was rendered, the court did not abandon its concern with restoring good relations between the parties. A jury verdict was the most common form of court settlement. When a trial jury was to be convened, the bailiff was ordered to prepare a panel of twelve men and summon them to be present at the next session. About half the members of each jury were chief pledges at the time, members of the leading families. Jurors 42

43

ERO D/DU 102/9, m. 7, D/DU 102/12, m. 2, D/DU 102/34, m. 7<J, and D/DU 102/53, m. 1; auditors are discussed in ch. 4 above. ERO D/DU 102/9, m. 7. See also ERO D/DU 102/12, m. 2.

198

Manor court and resolution of local problems, 1352—1460

were to be men 'who bore no relationship to either party', a requirement first mentioned in 1234.44 While immediate kin were of course excluded, bailiffs made no attempt to eliminate friends or neighbours of the parties from the panels. Some degree of impartiality was evidently expected, however, for jurors were chosen with the assent of both parties; either party had the right to exclude potential jurors. 45 Juries had to reach a unanimous verdict. A jury was sworn in June 1386 in a plea of trespass in which Christine Ansy claimed that Richard Trepe had broken a stapled gate of hers. When the jurors were unable to come to an agreement that day, the case was postponed to the next session.46 The trial jury thus resembled an enlarged body of arbitrators as well as serving as fact-finders, a significant modification of its potentially punitive function. In pleas other than trespass a defendant who denied the charge could ask to wage his law, to appear at the following session with a group of compurgators who swore that to their knowledge what the defendant said was true. 47 The number of compurgators was determined by the court on the basis of the person's reliability and the severity of the charge. The need to find people to serve as oath-takers put the burden of proof upon the defendant, yet it enabled an innocent person to clear himself fully, publicly reestablishing his personal and economic trustworthiness.48 The number of personal suits opened in the court dropped sharply between 1405—6 and the 1440s. A decline after the first few decades of the fifteenth century has been noted in other manors as well.49 Although a sluggish land market in Havering, a smaller number of immigrants and possibly a slower economy may have reduced the occasions for conflict, there is no reason to think that tranquillity among the tenants had improved to the extent indicated in Table 10. It is more likely that the reduction in private suits was caused primarily by changes within the court itself. By the 1430s and 1440s the court's ability to handle suits had weakened greatly. It was no longer able to enforce the appearance of defendants and jurors or to keep track of the progress of a case. Orders to the manorial bailiff were repeated over and over to no avail. Frequently the bailiff excused his failure to act on the grounds that the written warrant had reached him a little late 44 45 46 47 48

49

CCR, 1231-4, p . 589, E R O D / D U 102/47, m . sd, and D / D U 102/4, m . gd. P R O S C 2 / 1 7 2 / 2 8 , m . 9d, and E R O D / D U 102/3B, m . 8. ERO D/DU 102/3B, m. 5. E.g., ERO D/DU 102/2, m. 3~3d, D/DU 102/4, m. 6, and D/DU 102/34, m. 7d. Cf. R. H. Helmholz, 'Crime, compurgation and the courts of the medieval Church', Law and History Rev., I (1983), 1-26. E.g., E. C l a r k , ' D e b t litigation', a n d C h r i s t o p h e r D y e r , Lords and peasants, p p . 266-7.

199

Community, conflict and change, 1352—1500 or that a defendant had no goods within the manor by which he might be distrained. Thereupon the original order was simply repeated verbatim. Despite their inefficiency, however, the bailiffs in these years were never amerced by the court for not carrying out their instructions, as their predecessors had been in the 1380s and 1390s.50 When the bailiff did report a summoning or distraint of goods, it had almost always been done by fictitious people — Richard Ryle and Thomas Tyle, John Doe and Richard Roe were favourite names — and hence the act may have been fictional. It is not surprising that by the 1440s few suits reached completion. Those which did usually took eight or more sessions, as compared to just one or two sessions in earlier periods (see Table 11). Because the court was unsuccessful in processing suits, fewer tenants bothered to bring their problems before it: in the 1440s only twenty to twenty-five cases were opened each year. The decline in private suits between 1405 and the 1440s raises several questions. The reason for the court's lack of efficacy is puzzling. We do not know why the men who controlled the court in this generation tolerated incompetence, why they accepted the loss of the court's assistance in resolving problems. Nor do we know how friction was dissipated in the absence of a vigorous court. The number of assaults was very low in the 1430s and 1440s, so conflict did not assume physical form (see Table 13 below). It has been shown elsewhere that local people sometimes made heavy use of outside courts. 51 Records of the London and central courts provide no evidence that this was true for Havering during the first half of the fifteenth century. 52 The most probable answer is that Havering people were now depending upon other, informal means of settling their disputes which had previously supplemented the court's functions, especially on arbitration. The drop in the number of Havering suits furnishes a valuable reminder that all information provided by court rolls has been put through a filter - the court's own interests and degree of power. Apparent changes in local life revealed by legal records must therefore be scrutinised to be sure that the filter itself is not distorting the observation. 50

51 52

P R O SC 2/172/32 provides many examples of the incompetent handling of private suits. For earlier fining of bailiffs, see E R O D / D U 102/4, m. 7, and D / D U 102/6, m m . i4d and i6d. E.g., Sue Sheridan Walker's introduction to The court rolls of the manor of Wakefield, 1331—1333 (Leeds, Yorksh. Archaeol. S o c , 1983), and Dyer, Lords and peasants, pp. 266-7. See ch. 2 n n . 62—4 above. M o r e H a v e r i n g people w e r e , h o w e v e r , called as defendants in private suits brought by non-residents in courts outside the manor during these years.

200

Manor court and resolution of local problems, 1352—1460 COMMUNITY CONCERNS AND PUBLIC ORDER

The Havering court devoted much of its energy to public matters. As a manor of the ancient demesne and a de facto hundred, the court had a wide scope of jurisdiction; for the same reasons, external bodies seldom interfered in Havering. Only with respect to felonies did outside judges have authority, but here the decision of which offences to mention lay in the hands of local people. At spring and autumn general courts and the annual view of frankpledge, held on the Tuesday of Whitsun week, the principal tenants formed juries which reported upon and determined the penalties for public offences. They also elected officials to carry out the court's business between sessions. Havering's leaders brought the full extent of their authority to bear in maintaining an orderly environment. They encouraged a climate favourable to economic activity through regulation of manorial property and the production and sale of craft-work. They tackled problems of violence and misbehaviour, and they protected the court's authority and their own power and status. Public business was handled through juries of presentment. The main figures were the chief pledges sworn at the view of frankpledge. Most of the public jurors enrolled at general courts were chief pledges at the time. The steward delivered to the jurors their charge, the list of items on which they were to report, and they then adjourned to discuss specific offences.53 If a charge was long and complicated or if it required a view, the jury's report might not be given until the following court session. Because the crown was responsible for preparing the charge to Havering juries, it could perhaps be suggested that the court was operating as an agent of seigneurial control. This was not the case, however, for the jurors clearly used their own selective judgement in their response. The steward seldom attempted to check the accuracy of their report. Only twice, in 1385 and 1401, was a second jury sworn in after the chief pledges had presented their list, 'to inquire if the chief pledges have forgotten anything'; even then the pledges were not punished for their failure to mention certain items. 54 In the absence of double presentment, Havering's jurors were free to answer the charge 53

54

For articles contained in the charge, see Hearnshaw, Leet jurisdiction, pp. 43-64. For reports at the following session, see ERO D/DU 102/21, m. id, and D/DU 102/22, m. 3; for inspection by jurors, see PRO SC 2/172/25, m. 4, ERO D/DU 102/29, m. 3, D/DU 102/3A, m. id, and D/DU 102/28, m. I2d. ERO D/DHt M190, and PRO SC 2/172/29, m. u d . Cf. Eleanor Searle, Lordship

and community: Battle Abbey and its banlieu, 1066-1538 (Toronto, Pontifical Institute of Mediaeval Studies, 1974), pp. 411-12, and Christopher Dyer, Lords and peasants, pp. 278-9. 201

Community, conflict and change, 1352—1500 solely on the basis of their own opinions. To protect the exclusive position of presentment juries, the tenants tried to see that information did not reach the ears of the steward through private conversation. Twice in 1444 the steward was notified of problems outside court sessions. When, however, he summoned juries to investigate, the jurors denied the truth of the unofficial statements.55 In a few instances the steward issued a proclamation asking anyone to come forward who had information on a matter about which presentment or an arrest had been made, but no one seems to have cooperated with this irregular procedure.56 In deciding which people and problems to include in their presentment, the jurors had to decide which particular instances of misbehaviour should be ignored and which should be reported; which of the offenders would be suitably chastened by a public discussion of their errors coupled with a small money penalty and which needed stronger treatment; most importantly, which crimes should be defined as felonies and hence turned over to outside justices as capital offences. Jurors had also to consider who had committed the misdeed — the person's status and history as a law-breaker — and any extenuating circumstances. Similar questions confronted manorial officers as they carried out their duties. Presentments were almost without exception accepted as a true verdict. In just two cases did a person accused of an offence challenge the statement. John Pecok was presented in 1397 because a section of the Thames wall for which he and his ancestors had been responsible was worn and dangerous.57 Pecok denied the charge, claiming that he no longer held the piece of land obliged to maintain that unit of the wall. When a jury was summoned, however, it found against him and required that he pay 38s. o^-d. for its repair. In a damaged entry from 1426, a man presented for an assault with a dagger denied his guilt, apparently on the grounds that he was roused by the anger of the other people present at the scene with him. He too asked for a jury. 58 The punishments available to the court were limited in range and closely related to the nature of the offence. Prior to 1460 presentment was always followed by a cash amercement, ranging from a few pence for minor problems to 3s. 4d. for serious assaults with bloodshed. The exact level of amercement was determined by two or four affeerors, 55 56 57 58

ERO ERO PRO ERO

D/DU 102/32, mm. 8 and 13d. D/DU 102/12, mm. 4 and 1, and D/DU 102/43, m. 7d. SC 2/172/28, mm. 8 and 9d. D/DU 102/14, m. id. 202

Manor court and resolution of local problems, 1352—1460

men chosen from the ranks of the chief pledges for that year.59 Havering had a stocks, but it was used for temporary restraint of brawlers or for short-term confinement of suspected felons, not apparently as a regular form of punishment.60 In accordance with the individualism apparent in Havering's economic life, responsibility for misdeeds was seen as an entirely personal matter, not one shared among a group. The Havering court went through the motions of maintaining tithings, but as early as the 1350s these units no longer functioned collectively.61 Although the chief pledges were the nominal heads of the tithings, there is no evidence that amercements were shared among the members. The chief pledges thus controlled both the reporting of offences and their punishment. These men were drawn from the adult male heads of established local families of middling rank. Wealthy outsiders who bought estates of several hundred acres and settled in Havering did not become chief pledges, nor did their sons or grandsons. At the other extreme, people with less than 10 to 12 acres rarely appear on the lists. Between 1383 and 1460 at least three-quarters of the chief pledges were chosen from among those 100 to 150 families who worked 15 to 100 acres of land; the remainder were prosperous craftsmen. The number of chief pledges, usually around twenty-four to twenty-seven, varied in loose relation to the size of the population.62 The company was self-perpetuating: the existing chief pledges seem to have selected those for the next year. Although a few men served as a chief pledge for many years, there was a good deal of turnover within the group. Between 1385 and 1401, for example, a total of fifty-five men served as chief pledge at one of the six surviving views.63 Of these, a third held office at one view only, another third at two or three views, and the remaining third at four to six views. In the 1440s and 1450s, the chief pledges were drawn from a wider membership and held office for shorter periods. Of the sixty-nine chief pledges at six views between 1440 and 1455, half served at one view only, a third at two or three views, and a sixth at four views or 59

60

61

62 63

Sometimes half the affeerors are noted as being for the queen or king, the others for the vill. E R O D / D U 102/12, m. 4. The Hornchurch manor court acquired a tumbrel and pillory in the 1390s ( N C O M S 3752, p. 54). Cf. Morris, Frankpledge system, and D . A. Crowley, 'Frankpledge and leet jurisdiction in later-medieval Essex' (Univ. of Sheffield P h D thesis, 1971). Havering tithings apparently operated in a conventional manner in the 1250s and 1270s: see n. 11 above. See p. 128 above and p. 222 below. V i e w s f r o m 1385, 1386, 1387, 1395, 1396 a n d 1401 (see A p p . III). T h e analysis b e l o w is from the comparably distributed views of 1440, 1441, 1442, 1450, 1451 and 1455.

203

Community, conflict and change, 1332—1300 more. Even so, about half of these men came from families which had provided a pledge in earlier generations. Members of Havering's old families wielded disproportionate influence over the political life of the community. Yet the degree of oligarchy seems to have been considerably lower in Havering than in smaller manors and in the lesser towns.64 Not all men of solid economic status necessarily took part in the court's life. That members of the dominant families were willing to devote large amounts of time to community duties though they received no economic recompense for their labours demonstrates how important the court was in their estimation. Of the officials who carried out the court's business between sessions, all but one were elected by juries of presentment — at a general court through the late 1420s and at the view in most years thereafter. Constables, hundredal officers responsible for maintaining the peace, were chosen annually from the 13 80s onward, their rise associated with the decline of the traditional but less professional practice of raising the hue and cry.65 By 1460 seven ordinary constables and a chief constable were selected each year, named by region within the manor. They had burdensome and sometimes dangerous duties — stopping fights, putting people into the stocks until they cooled off and arresting those suspected of felonious acts. Most constables were chief pledges within a few years of holding office and about a third of them were craftsmen. Constables normally served for only a single year, but many of the chief constables had previously been ordinary constables. Four ale tasters were chosen to inspect production and sale of food, drink and leather goods within the manor. The ale tasters were in most cases of somewhat lower status than the chief pledges who elected them and were often craftsmen. They were likely to remain in office for several years at a time. Two woodwards were named annually. These men were always chief pledges and were drawn from northern Havering's wealthy farming or craft families, generally tanners. Two marsh reeves were similarly chosen from among substantial landholders in the southern part of the manor and were always chief pledges. Woodwards and marsh reeves frequently held office for more than just a single year. 64

65

In m a n y other settings, wealth and manorial o r b o r o u g h office holding were virtually s y n o n y m o u s : see A. D e W i n d t , ' Peasant p o w e r structures in fourteenth-century King's R i p t o n ' , Mediaeval Studies, X X X V I I I (1976), 236-67, E. D e W i n d t , Land and people, p p . 255—6, and Britton, Community of the vill, p . 9 5 ; cf. Razi, ' T h e T o r o n t o School's reconstitution'. This procedure obliged anyone who witnessed a crime being committed to call out, whereupon all within earshot had to come help pursue the guilty person. The contrast between the hue and cry as an amateur undertaking and the constables was pointed out to the author by John Beckerman.

204

Manor court and resolution of local problems, 1352—1460

The most demanding office, that of the manorial bailiff, was evidently filled prior to 1465 through appointment by the steward rather than by election.66 The bailiffs carried out tasks both for the court and for the lord of the manor. They were probably literate and were usually the heads of well-established, financially secure families. They received a formal wage of 100s. annually and may have profited from unofficial income as well. The crown had no mechanism for ensuring the diligent service of the bailiff. The only attempt to check up on his activities failed. At the 1453 view the steward issued a proclamation asking people to step forward with information about any deceptions committed by John Bull, the bailiff, especially any concealment by him of chattels which had come into the crown's hands. 67 Perhaps as a sop to local opinion, the tenants were also invited to report any extortion, oppression or unjust vexation by Bull. No one came forward, however, and Bull was excused. Through their own knowledge and the information provided by the officers, Havering juries of presentment addressed a variety of public problems (see Table 12). They protected the manor's common lands. Public property was of importance both through its place in agriculture and commerce and as a potential source of friction between local people. Because Havering's farming land was fully enclosed, the court had no duties in coordinating open-field agriculture. It did, however, supervise the wood and marsh commons and the manor's pound. Presentments about misuse of the woods usually concerned those who took trees or branches without the woodwards' permission.68 A few reports named people who had set up folds for private grazing; men who took clay or gravel improperly were also penalised. Hunting and fishing for personal use were apparently allowed, but commercial fishermen and outsiders were occasionally mentioned. The common marsh was carefully regulated, for its great economic value tempted over-exploitation. Grazing was limited to those with designated rights, the size of flocks was controlled and seasonal 66

67 68

N C O M S 9744, fol. 174L For his manorial duties, see, e.g., E R O D / D U 102/4, m m 9, 12 and 13, D / D U 102/6, m m . 4~4d, I4d and i6d, and P R O S C 2 / 1 7 2 / 2 8 , m m . 2 and i 6 d ; for his duties for the crown, see Cal. inq. misc., vol. 3, pp. 24 and 291—2, N C O M S 179, Hornch. Pr. kal, n o . 40, E R O D / D U 102/9, m . 2, and D / D U 102/47, m . 8. See A p p . 1.5. ERO D/DU 102/43, m. 7d. E.g., ERO D/DU 102/1, m. 2d, D/DU 102/3A, m. 1, and D/DU 102/31, m. sd. For below, see PRO SC 2/172/29, m. u d , and ERO D/DU 102/3A, m. ir (folds); ERO D/DU 102/2, m. 13, and PRO SC 2/172/32, m. 17 (digging); ERO D/DU 102/9, m. I4d, and D/DU 102/29, m. 4 (fishing).

205

Table 12. Public business of the court, 1332—1497

No. of presentments during a twelve-month period concerning: Misuse of the manor's common lands: trespass (cutting trees, fishing, taking clay), improper pasturing of animals and encroachment (includes bye-laws entered) Drainage of ditches, streams and marsh walls Blocking or littering public paths or roads, and repair of bridges Craft/trade activity (average no. of people reported per public court session) Violent or immoral behaviour Assaults, raising of hue and cry, rescuing of goods or animals and petty theft Indictments of felony Antisocial or unruly behaviour (scolds, night walkers, playing illegal games, being or keeping a prostitute) Protection of the court's rights, procedures, officers and records Officers who did not perform their duties a

Includes two bonds for keeping the peace. Sources: See Table 10.

1352-3 (5 months only; no view)

1388-9 (info, from 1386-^7 views)

1405-6 (no view)

29

62

30

5 10

c. 37

H64-5

1469-70

83

87

59

6

1

1444—5

47

46+1 market offence

44

H97

Manor court and resolution of local problems, 1352—1460

restrictions were maintained.69 The marsh reeves themselves might need supervision. In 1396 William Newman, a reeve, was presented by a jury for having allowed animals onto the common marsh in a closed period.70 He was then called before the court by Richard Wylde, the bailiff, to answer both the king and * the community of the vill of Havering' (communitati ville de Haveryng) as to why he had put horses, sheep and cows onto the marsh * against the custom ordained from ancient time'. Wylde said that Newman's action was in contempt of the king, and he claimed damages of 40s. for the community. Newman denied any wrongdoing and asked for a jury. The latter found against him, ruling him guilty of contempt, but he was ordered to pay damages of just 3d. to the use of the community. The pound was used for animals which had been distrained by the bailiffor constables as well as for stolen or waived beasts and those taken to force payment of overdue rents. The court's principal duty here was to punish those who rescued their animals from the pound. 71 Attention to common lands was the only aspect of public activity in which the number of presentments declined during the 1430s and 1440s. Otherwise the court's concern with communal issues remained high to 1460. Effective supervision of drainage ditches and the wall which protected Hornchurch marsh from the Thames was essential to local agriculture. Keeping ditches flowing and the Thames wall repaired were duties associated with certain holdings, but some tenants were reluctant to perform their obligations. Presentments for failure to dig out a length of ditch or to keep a culvert open were the most frequent items at views from the 1380s to the 1460s. Repair of the Thames wall was a more onerous and expensive task but was vital to the common good: should the wall give way in one place, a large area of the marsh might be flooded. If a tenant responsible for maintenance of a section of the wall failed to act, the marsh reeves or bailiff could arrange for the necessary work, levying twice the total cost from the defaulting tenant.72 Despite regular court involvement in the inspection and repair of the wall, the marsh was submerged in 1374, 1376—7 and 1392; the threat of imminent flooding gave a tone of urgency to an 69

70 71

72

P R O S C 2 / 1 7 2 / 2 8 , m . 15, and E R O D / D U 102/9, m . 3. T h e c o m m o n marsh was fenced, with a locked gate ( E R O D / D U 102/34, m . 2od). ERO D/DU 102/9, mm. u d and 15. ERO D/DSg M31, D/DU 102/12, m. 3d, and PRO SC 2/172/28, mm. 1 and 15. The pound had nofixedlocation, privatefieldsbeing used instead (ERO D/DU 102/36, m. 13d). Originally the cotters had been obliged to provide a pound {Cal. inq. misc., vol. 2, p. no). PRO SC 2/172/25, m. 4, ERO D/DU 102/6, m. 4d, PRO SC 2/172/28, m. 9d, and SC 2/172/29, m. 13.

207

Community, conflict and change, 1352—1500 order made by the court on 1 January 1438, commanding the marsh reeves to warn all those responsible for the Thames wall to have it well repaired by the following 2 February, 'due to incumbent danger'. 73 After the severe flooding of the 1370s, the crown helped to cover the cost of rebuilding the wall, authorising the royal farmer of Havering to buy timber and other supplies out of the manorial issues. Havering's commercial life depended upon the easy passage of people, animals and carts within and through the manor. The court tried to keep paths and roads clear. It ordered that adjacent hedges and branches be cut back, new enclosures of land impinging upon ways be removed, water flowing over them be chanelled, pits left by clay digging be filled in, and objects which obstructed travel be removed, most commonly dungheaps but sometimes piles of wood, posts with signs on them, the tumbrel of a well, or 'a dead, fetid dog'. 74 With the exception of the crossing at Romford, Havering's bridges were simple affairs, but some of the bridges joining the area to neighbouring hundreds along the larger paths and roads were more elaborate. The court was often uncertain about who was supposed to maintain a given bridge, resorting, for instance, to a collective fine against the vill of Upminster for failure to repair Hakford bridge.75 Several of the main bridges were the obligation of outside religious bodies. Presentments concerning the poor condition of these bridges were sometimes accompanied by very large nominal fines, as much as ^ 4 0 assessed, but not actually levied, on the abbot of Waltham Holy Cross in 1430 for not mending Dellebregge between Havering and Brentwood. 76 One of the most time-consuming tasks of the Havering court was the control which it exerted over the quality and prices of various branches of local craft production. Since some of the chief pledges and many of the ale tasters were themselves artisans, this supervision must have been regarded as beneficial to Havering's economy. In the 1350s the ale tasters dealt only with the makers and sellers of bread and ale, as defined by the assize of bread and ale, but by the beginning of the following century the court had added butchers, fishmongers, tanners, 73

CPR, 1370-4, p . 473, P R O E 364/11, and E R O D / D U 102/6, m . gd; E R O D / D U 102/28, m . 4. For the 1376-7 account, see P R O E 364/11. 74 E R O D / D H t M i 9 0 , m. i r (manure and w o o d pile), P R O SC 2 / 1 7 2 / 2 9 , m. 14 (water), E R O D / D U 102/21, m . 1 (post), P R O S C 2 / 1 7 2 / 3 2 , m . 17 (hedge and enclosure), ERO D/DU 102/32, m. isd (tumbrel), D/DU 102/38, m. I9d (dog), and D/DU 102/43, m. 8 (clay digging). 75 ERO D/DU 102/47, m. 8. 76 ERO D/DU 102/21, m. id. Others were the abbess of Stratford, the abbess of Barking and the prior of St John ofJerusalem (ERO D/DU 102/9, m. $d, PRO SC 2/172/29, m. I4d, and ERO D/DU 102/35, m. 19).

208

Manor court and resolution of local problems, 1352—1460

tawyers and cobblers to its list. The ale tasters inspected the quality and weight of bread and ale, checking to see that measures of the correct size were used, and they regulated the prices charged. They also inspected the freshness of meat and the quality of leather goods and reported those people who sold at excess price. The crown paid for the weights and measures used by the tasters, and the court backed their authority, imposing extra penalties on any crafts-people who refused to obey the officials' orders.77 On the other hand, the tasters were frequently amerced 3d. at each leet court for having performed their office badly, even if they were re-elected. The court occasionally noted problems at Romford market, usually concerning outsiders who came to sell their wares.78 In 1408 John Brokman, a local brewer and chief pledge, was reported for not having repaired a stall in the market for which he was jointly responsible with a man from Blackmore, a market centre 10 miles northeast of Romford. The court dealt with violent or antisocial behaviour. In this area the jurors had particularly broad discretion in implementing their own personal standards — their sense of how much overt conflict the community could absorb and what kinds of misbehaviour constituted a threat to local order. At each view the chief pledges reported assaults or fighting, providing us with a rough measure of the level of lesser physical violence. Few assaults before 1460 were handled as private pleas of trespass, nor did any outside court deal with fighting in Havering. As Table 13 displays, the years from 1383 to 1408 saw many assaults, consistent with the pattern observed in other manors.79 A quarter of those men who initiated attacks held manorial office at some time within twenty-five years of the assault, and there was a relatively high proportion of multiple offenders. Between 1430 and 1455 little violence was reported, though the level of amercements suggests that the court's leaders took seriously the aggression which did occur. Few attacks in this period were committed by members of the office-holding group. Throughout the span from 1383 to 1455 two-thirds to three-quarters of the participants in violence were men from resident families. Outsiders or newcomers were seldom presented. Until the end of the fourteenth century the hue and cry remained in operation; its correct or improper use was noted on the rolls.80 The 77 78

79 80

PRO SC 6/844/14, and SC 2/172/30, m. 10. E.g., ERO D/DU 102/2, m. 13, and D/DU 102/47, m. 8. For below, see ERO D/DU 102/3A, m. id. See E. D e W i n d t , Land and people, p p . 2 7 2 - 3 , a n d Raftis, Warboys, p p . 2 2 0 - 1 . ERO D/DU 102/2, m. 13, D/DHt M191 and M192.

209

Community,

conflict and change, 1352—1500

Table 13. Havering assaults, 1383—1499 1383-1408 Average no. of assaults reported annually Average no. of people involved in assaults annually Total no. of people involved in assaults during the designated period No. involved in more than i assault*

H3O-55

1464-99

15

4

C.I I

21

5

C.16

142

83

276

38 = 2 7 %

6 = 7%

54 : = 20%

16 = 1 9 %

15 = 2 8 %

28 == 16%

46 = 5 5 % 4 = 5% 1 = 1% 2 = 2% 12 = 1 5 %

26 1 2 2

61 == 35%

All participants during the designated period Initiators of assaults Men Served as manor court official within 25 years of assault* A known Havering resident Servant of local family Priest/chaplain/clerk Described as non-resident No other information: probably a poor newcomer or an outsider Women Total no. Victims of assaults Men Served as manor court official within 25 years of assault* A known Havering resident Servant of local family Priest/chaplain/clerk Described as non-resident No other information: probably a poor newcomer or an outsider Women Total no.

2 =

= 48% =2% = 4% = 4% 7 = 13%

1

2 %

= 2 %

1 1 ==

8 6 52

6%

== 5% == 3% = 30%

7 == 4% I73 C

83

54

18 = 1 9 %

15 = 2 7 %

28 == 16%

26 1 1 2 10

55 == 31% 14 == 8% 6 == 3 %

48% 3% 3% 5%

45 3 3 5

= = = =

10

= 11%

9 = 93

210

10%

= 46% =2% =2% = 4% = 18%

1 = 56C

2 %

1 1 ==

6%

52 =: 29%

14 == 8% 180

Manor court and resolution of local problems, 1352—1460

Table 13 (cont.) 1383-1408

1430-55

1464-99

3.5

0.9

c.1.7

0.5

0.1

c.0.5

5d.

gd.

i6d.

8 full

16 full

16 full + 11 partial

Average no. of assaults initiated annually by a person who held a manor court office within 25 years of the assaulr Average no. of assaults committed annually upon a manor court official who was executing his office6 Average amercement imposed by the court upon the initiator of an assault No. of years within the period for which assault records

a Excluding immediate counter-assaults by the victim upon the initiator. ° Chief pledge or homageman at view; bailiff, constable, ale taster, marsh reeve or woodward. c Plus two illegible names among the 1430-55 victims and one illegible name among the 1464-99 initiators. " One exceptional amercement of 6s. 8d. against the chaplain of Hornchurch has been excluded from this figure. e Assaults were presented at the view of frankpledge through 1467; thereafter they were reported at the view, both general courts, and occasionally at a three-weekly session. In the partial years, 1468-88, the records of only one to two leet sessions annually survive, out of a total of three to four leet courts. Sources: All surviving leet court records (see App. III).

chief pledges also reported petty thefts and breaking and entering. Some of these offences could have been reported as felonies had the jurors chosen to do so, such as the forcible theft in 1442 of several young steers each worth 6s. 8d. from a close belonging to the Dagenhams and Cockerels estate held by Henry, earl of Northumberland. 81 Because Havering could not deal with its own felonies before the 1465 charter, suspected felons received judgement at the hands of external officials, usually the justices of gaol delivery for Colchester or London.82 When a jury decided to present a crime as a felony, it prepared an indictment and assessed the possessions of the suspected 81

82

ERO D / D U 102/31, m. 8, penalised by an amercement of 3s. 4d. See also ERO D / D U 102/29, m. 9d, and D / D U 102/8, m. 1. Cf. Searle, Lordship and community, p. 414. See ch. 2 above. D u e t o incomplete central court records w e cannot measure the level o f prosecuted felony in Havering. 211

Community, conflict and change, 1352—1500 felon.83 In most decades only one or two indictments were recorded by the court, almost all for fairly modest thefts: a horse and colt worth 33 s. 4d. stolen by Nicholas Ree, labourer, in 1447; or a piece of blanket containing 5 yards worth 3od., a yard of russet cloth worth 7d. and a silver belt worth 4s. taken by John Barbour, a barber, in 1450.84 Other indictments were prepared by juries summoned by the coroner of Essex. The obligation to arrest felons and keep them in custody until they were conveyed to gaol was a burden and sometimes an expense for Havering officials: should a felon escape, the person responsible for his keeping was subject to a massive penalty. A constable in Romford was forced to pay 100s. in 1399 because he let a prisoner escape.85 In 1417 Nicholas Hayward was charged with allowing a felon to free himself from the stocks in Romford while in his keeping. 86 Ralph Uphavering, the royal farmer of the manor, pleaded on behalf of the queen in this case. He alleged that John Gerveys had been arrested, placed in the stocks and assigned to the care of Hayward, a man of limited means, below office-holding level. Instead of keeping proper watch, Hayward had gone into Romford church, permitting Gerveys to flee. For this offence Uphavering claimed that Hayward should be amerced 100s. Hayward denied that Gerveys had been placed in his keeping and asked for a jury. The steward first invited anyone who wished to give information to come forward. When no one responded, a jury was called and gave its verdict that Hayward's statement was correct. In keeping with the court's preference for promoting peace rather than punishing conflict, jurors and manorial officers tried to identify potential violence and stop it before it erupted. The standard technique was to require that a person thought likely to attack someone else post a large money bond himself and/or find two men willing to give bond in support of his promise to bear himself well toward his antagonist. Violence between William Heved, a Romford tanner, and John Pondeman was curbed in 1385 when two men gave bond of .£10 each concerning Heved's good bearing toward Pondeman, while two others pledged similar sums on behalf of Pondeman.87 Occasionally the conditions were made more general. In 1401, Thomas Olyve carried 83 84 85

86 87

E.g., PRO SC 2/172/32, m. 6d, and ERO D/DU 102/35, m. 8d. ERO D/DU 102/35, m. n d , and D/DU 102/38, m. ipd. CPR, 1396-9, p. 483. The cotters had previously had special responsibility for guarding felons: Cal. inq. misc., vol. 2, p. n o , and NCO MS 9744, fol. i68r. ERO D/DU 102/12, mm. 4 and 1. ERO D/DU 102/16, m. 1. See also ERO D/DU 102/3B, m. 2d. For an arrest for endangering the peace, made at the request of another individual, see ERO D/DHt M191. Cf. Raftis, Small town, p. 440. 212

Manor court and resolution of local problems, 1352-1460 his misbehaviour too far. For the past thirteen years this former chief pledge and constable had been in trouble for fighting, carrying off wood from the commons without licence and failing to perform his financial obligations.88 When he was presented at the 1401 view for four new assaults, one of them against the chaplain of Romford, the patience of the jurors ran out. Olyve was required to find four men willing to offer bond of JTIO each that he would keep the peace toward John Sebarn, Adam Berneman and all others of the king's people. Should he attack anyone at all, the sums would be forfeit. This threat was apparently sufficient to hold his violence in check. Havering's dominant families displayed a generally relaxed attitude toward the moral behaviour and recreational activities of their fellow residents prior to 1460. Parliamentary statutes existed which allowed the jurors to punish actions which they felt undermined the security or values of the community, but these laws were almost entirely ignored. Only three men, all with histories of violence, were presented as night wanderers: the exact nature of the danger imposed by those abroad at night is not described. In 1385 John Brodeye and Richard Semen, both butchers and regular participants in fights, were reported as night wanderers and disturbers of the peace.89 Thomas Copshef had a bad record in the 1380s and 1390s for fighting, failing to maintain boundary markers and pasturing his sheep illegally in the marsh. He was reported in 1396 as a frequent wanderer at night, at suspicious places and times, to the harm of the inhabitants.90 The sole mention of illegal games occurred in 1438, when Edward Halle, a newcomer to the manor, was ordered to appear in the court to answer the charge that he was a common dice player, against the statute. His confession of error, an oath that he would not play again and payment of an 8d. amercement ended the matter. A final concern of the court was to protect and preserve itself— its rights, procedures and officers.91 A few tenants were charged with having misused the facilities of the Marshalsea court, but otherwise there were no complaints about local people wrongly impleaded in 88

E.g., ERO D/DHt M191 (his offices), D / D U 102/8, m. 1, D / D U 102/4, mm. 9 and 12, and NCO MS 6400. For 1401, see PRO SC 2/172/29, mm. I4~i5d. *> ERO D/DHt M190, m. id (bis), and D/DSg M31, m. id (bis). 90 ERO D/DHt M190, m. id, PRO SC 2/172/28, m. 15, and ERO D / D U 102/8, m. 1 (bis, from 1396). For below, see ERO D / D U 102/28, m. 4d. Illegal games are discussed more fully in ch. 6 below. 91 Dyer discusses the efforts of the bishops of Worcester to maintain their franchisal rights even though the financial yield of these liberties amounted to only £ 4 to £ 5 annually out of a total income of ^900 to £1200 (Lords and peasants, pp. 75—8 and 53).

213

Community, conflict and change, 1352—1500 outside courts.92 Outsiders were hit with large amercements in the 1440s and 145 os for delivering summonses to Havering residents from ecclesiastical courts in London, coming illegally * within the liberty of this viir or 'within the liberty of this frankpledge \ 9 3 Their fault lay in handing a legal document directly to a Havering person rather than following the correct form of giving it to the manorial bailiff for delivery.94 The court likewise imposed penalties upon the agents of other lords or courts who entered Havering to arrest people, such as a deputy of the bailiff of the abbess of Barking who arrested a Dagenham man within Havering in 1464.95 The court worked to maintain the integrity of its own procedures, the dignity of its sessions and the safety of its officers. It punished a small number of people who refused to take part in presentment or trial juries. 96 It recognised that the presentment system required that deliberation of the jurors be honest and private, free from the threat that the comments of individual men would be disclosed. Several chief pledges were prosecuted on behalf of another pledge and the king for reporting the comments of their fellows.97 Established forms in private suits were enforced too. In 1414 John Benham, the defendant in a suit involving an exchange of horses, asked for permission to obtain counsel for himself. When allowed to leave the court for that purpose, Benham instead departed entirely, without giving any answer to the charge against him. The clerk noted that 'it is being considered in what way his departure, in contempt of the court, ought to be settled'.98 When a trial jury retired to deliberate but was later discovered drinking, the jurors were penalised. Members of the audience at sessions were occasionally amerced for 'chattering' or being 'rebellious'. 99 The officers in greatest physical jeopardy were the constable and the bailiff, particularly when making arrests or distraining possessions to ensure 92

ERO D/DU 102/3B, m. 7, and D/DU 102/9, m. 10. Cf. K. C. Newton, The manor of Writtle (Chichester, Phillimore, 1970), pp. 87-8, and Hilton, English peasantry, pp. 56-7. 93 ERO D/DU 102/30, m. 13 (a summons to a Romford carpenter to answer the vicar of South Weald), and D/DU 102/43, m - 7- F°r a n equivalent usage from the 1380s, seeEROD/DSgM3i. 94 For the correct and incorrect procedures as used by the sheriff, see ERO D/DU 102/4, m. 3, and D/DU 102/43, m - 8. 9 * ERO D/DU 102/47, m. 8, and see PRO SC 2/172/29, m. I2d. 96 ERO D/DHt M192 (bis), and PRO SC 2/172/29, m. 14. 97 ERO D/DU 102/6, m. n d (bis). For similar presentments in Halesowen and Broadway, see Hilton, English peasantry, pp. 56-^7. 98 ERO D/DU 102/11, m. 9d. For below, see ERO D/DU 102/31, mm. 9 and iod. 99 ERO D/DU 102/1, m. 2d, D/DU 102/3B, m. yd, and D/DU 102/4, m. 12. Cf. Raftis,

Small town, p. 441. 214

Manor court and resolution of local problems, 1352—1460

their owner's appearance before the court.100 As Table 13 indicates, however, the level of physical aggression against court officials was low, with an average of no more than one attack every other year. While quick to punish those who threatened its agents, the court was in most periods willing conversely to penalise those officers who did not provide information or did not act in accordance with their position. 101 It is impossible to ascertain precisely how successful the court was in enforcing its authority in public matters. A large number of presentments speaks to the magnitude of a problem, at least in the eyes of the jurors, but does not indicate whether the court's orders and penalties were executed. In attempting to measure the efficiency of the court, we might ideally identify an area which was of clear interest to the leading tenants and there examine presentments in consecutive public courts. If a problem was not mentioned a second time, we could assume that it had probably been corrected, whereas repeated orders imply lack of compliance. Disappointingly, no topic addressed by the Havering court has proven fully amenable to this approach. The lists of presentments concerning ditches are potentially the most useful, for it is likely that jurors were genuinely eager to keep low-lying areas dry and usable. Any assessment of efficacy in this area is, however, confused by the changing number of tenants who were non-resident or unknown to the jurors, a factor which severely affected the court's ability to implement its orders. Between 1380 and 1460, a third to a half of the orders about ditches made at a given view were repeated the following year. The court thus seems to have had some difficulty in persuading people to spend time and money on a task which might be for the common good but was not clearly advantageous in purely selfish terms. In other manors, refusal by the tenants to obey the orders of the local court in the later fourteenth and fifteenth centuries has been taken as a sign of resistance to seigneurial authority. 102 In Havering one may suggest instead that economic individualism could sometimes stand in the way even of an exceptionally powerful communal institution. USE OF THE COURT AND THE PLACE OF WOMEN

The various functions of the Havering court brought hundreds of people within its jurisdiction each year. As Table 14 indicates, about 400 people appear in the rolls over twelve-month periods in 1388—9 and 1405—6, 100 101 102

ERO D/DU 102/12, m. id, D/DU 102/4, m. pd, and PRO SC 2/172/29, m. 18. ERO D/DU 102/4, mm. 9 and 13 (bailiff), and D/DU 102/2, m. 6d (woodwards). See, e.g., the works of Hilton and Razi cited in n. 5 above. 215

2l6

217

Table 14. Use of the court and attendance, 1352—1497 Full year ( = 18 sessions through 1469-^70; 12 in 1497) Five months only (— 8 sessions) 1352-3 (no view)

A.

Total no. of people involved in the court

228

B. Major categories of involvement No. of people involved: As chief pledges, elected officials or on presentment 25 = 11% or trial juries In personal (non-land) private suits (as a party, attorney 78 = 34% or pledge) As buyer or seller of land 20 = 9 % Because presented for craft/trade offence 30 — 13% Because presented for ditch scouring offence — Because presented for trespass on commons, assault — or other misdeeds C. People who owed suit of court No. who definitely owed suit at 3-weekly and/or general courts ( = direct tenants of virgate, cot and assart land) No. who definitely owed suit at the view and perhaps at other sessions as well

1388-9 (no view)*1

232

1388-9 (info, from 1386-7 views)

1405-6 (no view)

I444~S

I4«4~5

1469-70

H97

401

402

247

281

349

239

62 = 15%

89 = 2 2 %

70 = 2 8 %

77 = 2 7 %

118 = 3 4 %

70 = 29%

83 = 36%

119 = 30%

181 = 4 5 %

44 = 1 8 %

72 = 2 6 %

165 = 4 7 %

104 = 44%

33 = 14% 29=13%

62 = 15% 54=13% 23 = 6% 45 = " %

57 - 14%

17 = 7%

48 = 17%

43 = 12%

23 = 10%

47 = 12% 49 = 20% 40=14% — c.47 = 19% £-49 = 17% 46 = 11 % 9 - 4% 21=7%

40=11% 40 = 1 1 % 22 = 6%

35 = 15% 5 = 2% 40 = 17%

17 = 7%

ISO

213

96

128

139

45

53

Total no. who definitely owed suit of some kind

181

141

287

239

173

192

232

121

Maximum no. who definitely or possibly owed suit

188

148

297

259

197

210

237

138

25 35

22

23 32

22

14 26

17

25 37

20

24

D. Attendance at court sessions" 1. 3-weekly and general courts Average no. of people present per session Definitely there Definitely + probably No. of people who appeared at one or more sessions Definitely there Definitely + probably 2. The view of frankpledge No. of people definitely present 3. Total no. of people who appeared at some time during the year Definitely there Definitely + probably

97 146

31 85 116

126 173

29

26

139

«5

93

149

86

2O6

I2O

120

181

122

33

24

74 124

95 120

157 186

95 131

" See Table 10, n. a. * These figures apply to those people who are named on the rolls as definitely present at a session and to those who probably were (e.g., pledges in private suits, those playing fine for suit of court or parties/attorneys in a suit which was postponed to the next session). Those presented for craft or ditch offences or for other misdeeds are presumed absent unless present for other reasons. Sources: See Table 10.

Community, conflict and change, 1332—1300 with a comparable number in the short roll from 1352—3. Of these, at least 125 definitely participated in one or more sessions during the year and the real number may have been as large as 200 (Table 14, part D). By 1444—5, t n e number of people coming to the court's attention had dropped to c. 250, due primarily to the decrease in private suits and the inactivity of the land market; no more than 120 people actually attended the court. Most sessions had twenty to thirty participants, a figure which says nothing abut the size of the possible audience at court gatherings. The number of people owing suit of court is shown in part C of Table 14. Although the names of suitors at three-weekly and general courts ought to provide a list of the direct tenants, it is likely that these figures are affected to some extent by the court's interest and success in enforcing suit. On an individual basis, the court was an important element in the lives of certain tenants. Thomas Cappes, c. 1405 to 1471, was a member of an old family of smallholders and craftsmen. He inherited the 9-acre direct holding in Hornchurch which had belonged to his greatgrandfather in 1352/3 and bought as many as 11 acres himself; the dower which his wife Margaret brought from her previous marriage added 10 acres.103 Thomas' younger brother John was a weaver in Romford, while a cousin John worked as a collier in northern Havering. Although Thomas appears in few external records, he was deeply involved in the manor court's operation and in activities which came to its attention.104 He attended virtually all sessions in person, seldom essoining for absence or reported for default of suit. He paid pannage to the crown in autumn 1448 for four pigs and was presented in 1453 for having cut down oaks in the woods illegally. Three of his purchases of small units of land and two sales were mentioned by juries. Between 1444 and 1471 he initiated seven private suits and was the defendant in two others. In May 1469 he and John Ynge, a wealthier landholder, put a dispute over land under arbitration, backed by bonds of .£20 from each of them. To arbitrate on his behalf Cappes chose John Gobyon, a close friend, business partner and chief pledge, and William Reynold of Stondon, tanner, his son-in-law. Cappes was a member of four trial juries and served as a pledge for his fellows on six occasions. He was extremely active in official roles. He was elected pannager four times between 1439 and 1451, woodward in 1447 and 1454, constable seven 103 104

For Margaret Cappes, see ch. 4 above. Cappes is mentioned only seven times in records of the central government but 120 times on the manor court rolls between 1430 and 1471, ERO D / D U 102/21-56 and PRO SC 2/172/31-2, passim. Individual references will not be provided. 218

Manor court and resolution of local problems, 1352—1460 times between 1441 and 1467 and chief constable in 1442. He served as chief pledge at fifteen of the seventeen surviving views between 1438 and 1470, sat on an additional seven ad hoc juries of presentment and was named commonly as an affeeror during the 1440s and 1450s. As a chief pledge he routinely reported his wife's brewing and baking. Women came within the court's jurisdiction in several capacities. Those who held land directly from the king in their own right swore fealty and were required to render suit of court; when a married couple held land jointly, the man alone normally performed these obligations.105 Women made some use of the court for private suits. If we look only at those cases which did not concern land, thereby excluding the variable factor of the proportion of women tenants, we find that women constituted 6% to 8% of the parties in personal suits between 1352—3 and 1444—5. m most years at least half the female parties acted alone, not merely as appendages to their husbands. Women rarely if ever pleaded verbally in front of the court, however, preferring to have a male attorney offer their case for them. While the number of women appearing in connection with private suits was not large, the nature of the issues spanned a considerable range. Many pleas arose out of women's dealings as landholders, craft-workers, retailers and borrowers and lenders of money. 106 Other cases stemmed from the common practice by which a man named his wife as executrix of his last will and testament. A few suits alleged theft or physical violence by women. 107 In 1393 Margaret Feverokys brought suit against Emma Brokys ( = atte Brook), from whom she had borrowed money two months before. Feverokys charged that Brokys had attacked and beaten her in Romford, causing her to despair of her life. Although Feverokys backed up the stock phraseology of her narrative with a request for the exceptional damages of 20 marks, the jury called by Brokys awarded Feverokys only 3 s. 4d. In pleadings which suggest an odd status for women servants, Thomas Burgh charged in 1383 that the husband of one of his female employees had beaten and injured her, thereby depriving Thomas of her service.108 Particularly bitter 105

106

107

108

For fealty, see e.g., PRO SC 2/172/28, m. 17c!, SC 2/172/29, m. 3, and SC 2/172/30, m. id; for husbands swearing in the right of their wives for widows' dowers, see ERO D/DU 102/47, m. 6d, and cf. NCO MS 9744, fol. 161 v. For women's suit of court, see PRO SC 2/172/25, mm. 1-3 and 6, SC 2/172/30, m. 1, and ERO D/DU 102/36, m. 2d. See ch. 4 above. For executrices, see, e.g., PRO SC 2/172/25, m. 2, and SC 2/172/28, m. 3d. ERO D/DU 102/1, m. 8d, D/DU 102/3B, mm. 4 and 10, and D/DU 102/2, m. 8. For below, see ERO D/DU 102/6, m. 16. ERO D/DU 102/1, m. 7d, and D/DU 102/2, m. 4. 219

Community, conflict and change, 1352—1500 were those disputes concerning land or goods claimed both by a dead man's second wife and by the children of his first marriage.109 Such conflicts must have encouraged the use of written wills, specifying in detail how property was to be distributed.110 Women also appeared as parties in courts outside the manor — the Common Pleas, the Marshalsea and the ecclesiastical courts. 111 Women might come to the attention of the Havering court if they committed a public offence. Alice Pottere and Anne Brodeye, both widows, were reported for taking wood from common lands in 1388 and 1393 respectively.112 Rose and Katherine OfFyngton, the wife and daughter of Robert, and Richard and Matilda Seman were each fined 3d. in 1396 for taking the grain of their neighbours at night during the autumn. Two presentments from 1383 are the sole instances of the classic female offence of * scolding', which in context seems to have meant engaging in malicious gossip or spreading false rumours. 113 Women were occasionally presented as participants in fights (see Table 13). The only mention of a rape was in 1437, when William Colyns, ' Flemyng', was reported for having broken into the house of Markys Huk and assaulted Huk's wife, 'enjoying her carnally'. 114 The Havering court between 1350 and 1460 was used by local leaders to reinforce standards of behaviour which they believed conducive to economic activity and peace in their community. Their concern with harmony and the preservation of order could be implemented with relative ease as long as these goals were widely shared by local people. Because, however, the authority of the court was influenced by the structure of Havering's economy and society, it was vulnerable to changes in the world around it. As new people and patterns arrived in Havering after 1460, the court was obliged to change too. 109

E.g., ERO D/DU 102/29, m. 3, and a series of cases between a widow and her stepson in D/DU 102/9, mm. 6d, 10, 14, 16 and I4d. 110 Only thirty-two Havering wills survive between 1395 and 1469, but there are eighty from 1470 to 1499; by the sixteenth century we have thirty to eighty-five in most decades. 111 PRO CP 40/270, m. 12, CP 40/274, m. 5, and CP 40/275, m. 187; E 37/25, mm. 15, 25d and 34; ERO D/DU 102/43, m. 7. 112 ERO D/DU 102/4, m. i8d, and D/DU 102/6, m. 13d. For below, see ERO D/DU 102/8, m. 1 (bis). " 4 ERO D/DU 102/27, m. 2d. "3 ERO D/DU 102/2, m. 13 (bis).

220

Chapter 6

NEW PROBLEMS, NEW SOLUTIONS: THE LIBERTY OF HAVERING-ATTE-BOWER, 1460-1500

Between 1460 and 1500 a cluster of related developments modified nearly every aspect of Havering's life. New patterns appeared in the amount and kind of immigration, the economy, religion and charity, standards of social behaviour and the forms of control as administered by the manor court and Havering's new justices of the peace. None of these changes occurred de novo. They were rootedin Havering's past. Nevertheless, by the end of the fifteenth century Havering manifested many of the characteristics frequently observed elsewhere in the decades around 1600. In this chapter we first discuss the revival of the land market and immigration, looking then at the increasingly capitalised and specialised nature of the economy. The expanding role of Havering's leading families in matters of religion and charity is covered next. After exploring the reasons which led Havering's tenants to seek Liberty status, we consider the provisions of the charter of 1465 and the exceptional jurisdictional range of the Havering court and Liberty as they dealt with traditional concerns and new topics, especially the conduct of the poor. In conclusion we can identify those factors which shaped Havering's history before and after 1460. RESURGENCE OF THE LAND MARKET AND ARRIVAL OF NEWCOMERS

The first signs of change in Havering came in the mid-i45Os, when the vitality of the land market quickened. As Table 8 and Fig. 5 display, the number of transfers reported by the manor court and those of the larger holdings shown in the central court records went up sharply between 1455 and 1470, dropping again over the next two decades. The number of Londoners and other non-resident outsiders who held Havering land rose. Whereas only 3 % of the resident or landholding families mentioned in the manor court rolls in 1444—5 n a d 221

Community, conflict and change, 1352—1500 been outsiders, by 1469—70 17% were non-resident. This was a temporary phenomenon, for by 1497 the figure had fallen back to 8 %. Havering was accustomed to the presence of newcomers, but in the 145os immigration began to climb to an unprecedented height. By 1469—70 barely more than half of all resident or landholding families had lived in the manor for twenty-five years (see Table 9, part A). One hundred new families moved to Havering between 1444—5 and 1469-70; only thirty-eight families present in 1444-5 died out or moved away in these years. Most of the new arrivals were transient: eighty-four of the families who came between 1444—5 a n d 1469—70 were gone again by 1497. Between 1469—70 and 1497 another ninety-one new families moved in. The number of families who had lived within Havering for many years declined (see part B of Table 9), but in 1497 there was still a core of seventy-seven families who had been resident for three generations; forty-four families had lived in the area for over a century. These established houses managed to keep more than their share of economic and political power despite the changes going on around them. Although we have no accurate measures of population, the number of chief pledges may serve as a qualitative indicator. Twenty-four pledges had been chosen each year between 1433 and 1452, but in 1453 the count rose to twenty-eight. Between 1465 and 1474 growth continued, with an average of thirty-one pledges named annually. By 1481 the figure had reached thirty-nine. It then dropped to an average of thirty-four in the later 1480s and 1490s. Similarly, the number of resident or landholding families mentioned in the manor court rolls rose by about 20% between 1444—5 and 1469—70. The latter may be exaggerated somewhat by the simultaneous revival of the court itself. The increase in residents from 1444—5 to 1464—5 was not accompanied by any substantial division of the direct holdings into smaller units, as part C of Table 14 makes clear. Most of the additional newcomers therefore held either subtenancies or no land at all. By 1497 the number of direct tenancies had been reduced enormously, consistent with the shifts in estate management to be described below. The activity of the land market and rising population in the 1450s and 1460s may have contributed to the crown's enlarged profits from Havering, as shown in Table 1, although Edward IV's move away from beneficial farming influenced the figure too. The alterations in the land market and population after 1450 are interesting in several respects. The demand for large estates came particularly from Londoners, some of them politically active merchants 222

New problems, new solutions, 1460—1300 and lawyers connected to the Lancastrian or Yorkist camps. It may be that the uncertainty surrounding the monarchy in the 1450s and 1460s led men to seek ways of investing their capital which not only were financially advantageous but also provided a retreat in time of need. Purchase through feoffees provided additional security in case of the confiscation of property. While some of the new arrivals were wealthy landholders or solid retailers or craftsmen, most of the immigrants after c. 1450 seem to have been people of limited means who held little if any land. It is not clear whether we are seeing the effects of natural increase in other communities, with people pushed out to seek their fortunes, or whether this was simply a rise in mobility, with the economic pull of a thriving market centre attracting people from rural areas.1 Nor can we tell whether Havering's existing population was growing. The Havering evidence thus does not help to answer the question of whether there was an expansion of the English population in the second half of the fifteenth century.2 Certainly, however, we must include the factor of migration, especially of differential migration according to economic level, in analysing population change during this period.

INTENSIFIED CAPITAL INVESTMENT AND SPECIALISATION

A set of economic developments between 1460 and 1500 extended and intensified the patterns found in earlier years. The most pronounced changes occurred in agriculture. Havering's already large holdings were now being built up into major estates of several hundred acres capable of being worked as rationalised commercial farms. The number of direct tenants recorded in the manor court rolls dropped from 181 in 1

2

For increased migration from rural areas to towns between 1450 and 1470, see A. F. Butcher, 'The origins of Romney freemen, 1433—1523', Econ. Hist. Rev., 2nd ser., XXVII (1974), 16-27. For possible growth, seej. M. W. Bean, 'Plague, population, and economic decline in England in the later Middle Ages', Econ. Hist. Rev., 2nd ser., XV (1963), 423-37, J. C. Russell, British medieval population (Albuquerque, New Mexico, Univ. of New Mexico Press, 1948), pp. 185—8 and 270-81, M. M. Postan, 'Some agrarian evidence of declining population in the later Middle Ages', in Essays on medieval agriculture and general problems (Cambridge, Cambridge Univ. Press, 1973), pp. 186-213, Christopher Dyer, Lords and peasants in a changing society: the estates of the bishopric of Worcester,

680-1540 (Cambridge, Cambridge Univ. Press, 1980), pp. 288-305 and R. S. Gottfried, Epidemic disease infifteenthcentury England (Leicester, Leicester Univ. Press, 1978), pp. 187—206. For no growth, see I. S. W. Blanchard, 'Population change, enclosure, and the early Tudor economy', Econ. Hist. Rev., 2nd ser., XXIII (1970). Cf. John Hatcher, Plague, population and the English economy, 1348—1530 (London, Macmillan, 1977), ch. 5-

223

Community, conflict and change, 1352—1500 1469—70 to 114 in 1497 (see Table 14). Acquisition of land in large units by outsiders, a phenomenon noted elsewhere in the London area in this period, brought into Havering a more exploitative approach to agriculture, new capital and different ways of using the land.3 The most conspicuous of the Engrossers' were three powerful Londoners: Sir Thomas Cook, Avery Cornborough and Sir Thomas Urswick. These men, deeply involved in the political struggles of the period, accumulated huge Havering estates amidst purchases throughout the country and settled their families in the manor. Of the twenty-five holdings which by c. 1600 were regarded as manors in their own right, nineteen were in private hands in the 1470s and 1480s.4 Eleven of these were held by Cook, Cornborough and Urswick. Cook was a London draper who served as alderman and sheriff of the city during the 1450s, becoming lord mayor in 1462—3. 5 In 1447 he leased a Hornchurch holding from New College and in 1452 began buying Havering land. By 1469 he held Bedfords with Earls, Gidea Hall with East House, and Redden Court, plus many smaller units, amounting in all to nearly 900 acres. Cornborough, a west country merchant, was MP for Cornwall and a yeoman or esquire of the crown to both Henry VI and Edward IV.6 Noted for his integrity and loyalty in the midst of faction, 3

Paul D. Glennie, 'A commercializing agrarian region: late medieval and early modern Hertfordshire' (Univ. of Cambridge PhD thesis, 1983), pp. 334—6, and cf. Douglas Moss, 'The economic development of a Middlesex village [Tottenham]', Agricultural Hist. Rev., XXVIII (1980), 104-14. 4 See the description of manors under Havering-atte-Bower, Romford and Hornchurch in VCH Essex, vol. 7. The remaining fourteen manorial units were held in the 1470s and 1480s as follows: four by New College, two by the crown, three by unknown people, one by a local man (Stephen Wylot, who also farmed New College's Hornchurch Hall) and four by non-residents: Katherine Mowbray (widow of John, duke of Norfolk), Thomas Scargill (a royal household official and keeper of Havering park), Thomas Tyle (a descendant of Ralph, a royal official in Havering between 1371 and 1395) and John Rand (an unknown outsider). 5 DNB, B. B. Orridge, 'Some particulars of Alderman Philip Malpas and Alderman Sir Thomas Cooke, K. B.', Trans. London and Middlesex Archaeol. Soc, III (1870), 285-306, Mary Albertson, ' London merchants and their landed property during the reign of the Yorkists' (Bryn Mawr College PhD thesis, 1932), A. F. Sutton,' Sir Thomas Cook and his "troubles": an investigation', Guildhall Studies in London History, III (1978), 85-108, M. A. Hicks, 'The case of Sir Thomas Cook, 1468: judicial chicanery or Lancastrian conspiracy', English Historical Rev., XCIII (1978), 82—96, and Marjorie K. Mclntosh, 'The Cooke family of Gidea Hall, Essex, 1460-1661' (Harvard Univ. PhD thesis, 1967). The author is grateful to A. Th. Arber-Cooke for his genealogical assistance. For Cook's land buying, see, e.g., NCO MS 5032, fol. i6r, ERO D / D U 102/34, m. 13d, D / D U 102/42, m. 10-iod, and D / D U 102/47, mm. 2-8. 6 J. C.Wedgwood, History of Parliament, l^g-i^og: biographies (London, HMSO, 1936), pp. 223-4, John Hatcher, Rural economy and society in the Duchy of Cornwall, 1300—1500 (London, Cambridge Univ. Press, 1970), p. 184, and additional material generously supplied to the author by John Hatcher and Anne Sutton. For land purchases, see ERO

224

New problems, new solutions, 1460-1300 Cornborough acquired his main holding of Gooshayes in 1465, later adding Dagenhams and Cockerels plus Dovers, a total of c. 1200 acres. Urswick was a successful lawyer, recorder of London, and the city's MP in 1461.7 In 1460 he bought the manor of Marks, which straddled the border between Havering and Dagenham to the west; in 1467 he acquired the adjacent manor of Uphavering (later Gobions). Although city merchants, lawyers and royal officials had bought Havering estates throughout the medieval period, the wealthy outsiders who arrived in the later fifteenth century had an unusual impact upon local life. The newcomers reshaped the infrastructures of their estates, probably accentuating a process already underway. On Cornborough's Dagenhams and Cockerels estate, for example, only eight of the thirty-eight subtenancies described in 1352/3 were intact in 1524.8 There were still a total of thirty-eight subunits in 1524, but they were far smaller in size, amounting to only about a third of their previous area. More land thus lay in Cornborough's demesne. Urswick's manor of Marks had forty-two subtenants in 1439—40 but seventy by the mid-sixteenth century, with no apparent reduction in the demesne. On the Cook manor of Gidea Hall, the fifty-two subholdings in 1352/3 had risen to sixty-seven by the sixteenth century but the demesne had expanded; of these sixty-seven, only one can be traced by rent and number of acres back to the fourteenth century.9 The Cooks took advantage of Gidea Hall's proximity to Romford and its eastern suburb of Hare Street, granting some of their subholdings as inns, ale-houses or very small urban tenements. The Cooks and a few other large holders reissued escheated subtenancies as leases for a term of years, thereby eliminating the protection which Havering's subtenants had previously enjoyed through the freezing of rents at their 1251 level.10 On a few holdings 'manor courts' were used to ensure proper registration of

7

8 9 10

D/DU 102/47, m. 3d, D/DU 102/50, m. 10, PRO SC 2/172/33, m. 14c!, CP 40/851, rot. 460, and NCO MS 6476. For his * gentle & good disposition', see Sylvia L. Thrupp, The merchant class of medieval London (Chicago, 111., Univ. of Chicago Press, 1948), p. 261; he remained loyal to Thomas Cook even after Cook became a Lancastrian supporter. DNB,J. P. Shawcross, A history of Dagenham (London, Skemngton, 1904), pp. 209-11, C. J. Hart, 'The manor of Marks, in Dagenham', Essex Rev., LVIII (1949), 68-81, and Victoria county history of Essex, vol. 5 (ed. W. R. Powell, Oxford, Oxford Univ. Press, 1966) pp. 275-6. For land buying, see ERO D/DU 102/51, m. 3. The 1352/3 extent (Adam of Kolkyrk), and ERO D/DNe Mi. For Marks, see ERO T/A 320. The 1352/3 extent (John of Havering), ERO D/DSa 68-9, D/DMs 022/1-7, and PRO SP 14/99/93. E.g., PRO SC 2/172/37, m. 1, and NCO MS 3743, fols. 23-8. For below, see ERO D/DNe Mi. 225

Community, conflict and change, 1352—1500 tenants and payment of heriots and entry fines. Such changes increased the number of very small subtenancies, enlarged the amount of land which the direct tenant could utilise directly and lessened the security of those who held by lease. A polarisation of landholding, with simultaneous accumulation of large units and growth in the number of holdings beneath subsistence level, has been observed in other settings too during these years.11 In Havering the willingness of the agricultural entrepreneurs to develop their estates at the expense of their subtenants foreshadows the picture of ruthless capitalist agriculture in the following century as painted by Tawney. 12 The prominent new tenants were able to invest more capital in their estates than had earlier occupants, thanks in part to the feoffee system, and they used their land in more specialised fashion.13 Sir Thomas Cook annexed Romford's existing windmill to his property; his son Philip hired a professional estate bailiff and focused upon large-scale market agriculture.I4 The Cooks apparently identified those types of production which were particularly profitable given Havering's location and the labour available from the rising number of smallholders and rentors. By the mid-sixteenth century the family was devoting most of its land to dairy cattle, wheat and barley, selling the grain in large volume directly to London merchants. Both dairying and grain farming were labour intensive. Comparable shifts in agricultural practices were made by many other tenants, including established families of much more modest wealth. The level of capital build-up already present in Havering by 1460 must therefore have been sufficient to enable local people to join the move to more profitable arrangements. By c. 1500 dairying had spread to many of Havering's middling farms, especially in the northern part of the manor, with herds of twenty to forty cows common. 15 Beef production continued, however, and by the end of the fifteenth century steers were being purchased for fattening. Many people still raised 11

12 13

14 15

E.g., Christopher Dyer, Lords and peasants, pp. 240-3 and 312—13, and Bolton Priory rentals and ministers' accounts, 1473-15^ (ed. Ian Kershaw, Yorksh. Archaeol. Soc. Record Ser., vol. 132, Leeds, Yorksh. Archaeol. Soc, 1970), pp. xv—xvii. R. H. Tawney, The agrarian problem in the sixteenth century (London, Longmans, Green, 1912), esp. part II. Eleanor Searle has suggested that the merchant feoffees of this period were the ancestors of the joint-stock company (Lordship and community: Battle Abbey and its banlieu, 1066-1538 (Toronto, Pontifical Institute of Mediaeval Studies, 1974), p. 406. BL Addit. MS 15662, fol. 1091:; PRO SC 2/172/33, m. 14, and SC 2/172/36, m. 22d. For below, see PRO C 1/1160/21 and C 54/882, C 54/893, and C 54/914, dorses. See the pleadings in suits before the Havering court, e.g., ERO D/DU 102/57, m. iod (bis), PRO SC 2/172/37, m. 13d, and SC 2/172/38, mm. 2d and 12. 226

New problems, new solutions, 1460—1300 sheep, for wool and meat. Sales of animals to the capital increased in size and value. A purchase of cattle in 1466 by Benedict Wheler, butcher of London, from Thomas Colforth, a Romford butcher, was measured in marks sterling (the exact value is damaged), and 120 ewes were bought by another butcher in one batch for ^ 1 4 in 1499. l6 Less wood was being produced, especially for fuel; finer timber was sold for building and skilled crafts. Leasing of both land and animals assumed a new importance. Land had formerly been rented only to supplement an existing holding and for short terms. Now, however, many people leased a dwelling plus land, generally a small acreage, for periods extending to five, seven or eleven years.17 By the end of the century Romford town tenements were being rented, in some cases to poor newcomers. Animals were usually leased separately, often a few cows and ten to twenty sheep for two or three years. Land leases occasionally included animals, as in a smallholding rented with twenty milk cows in the early sixteenth century.18 In 1490 Thomas Cole rented from William Brownyng a large dairy farm consisting of a messuage with 100 acres of arable, 40 acres of meadow, one bull, twenty-six cows, one ram and sixty ewes for a term of three years at an annual rent of JQ12—3—4. By the end of the fifteenth century, Havering displayed many features of a capitalist agricultural organisation as it developed in other regions during the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. Historians of Tudor agrarian capitalism emphasise the importance of such features as economic differentiation among the tenants, larger holdings, heavier investment, use of the demesne for market sale, greater specialisation, innovative agricultural techniques, reliance upon wage labour and experiments with forms of management like new types of tenure and higher rents and entry fines.19 Most of these characteristics had been present in Havering to a lesser degree prior to 1460, so one cannot speak of a sudden transformation in the later fifteenth century. Nor, despite the early appearance of these features, was Havering ever to exhibit a conventional version of agrarian capitalism. There were several limiting factors. Romford market and the proximity of London enabled smallholders to support themselves adequately through agri16 17 18 19

ERO D/DU 102/49, m. sd (Colforth), and PRO SC 2/172/39, m. 4d. E.g., ERO D/DU 102/57, m. 9, PRO SC 2/172/36, m. 2d, and SC 2/172/38, m. 12. For town leases, see, e.g., PRO SC 2/172/37, m. I9d. PRO C 1/1160/21. For leases of animals, see ERO D/DU 102/57, m. 6, and PRO SC 2/172/35, m. 8. For below, see PRO SC 2/172/38, m. 15. See, e.g., John E. Martin, Feudalism to capitalism (Atlantic Highlands, New Jersey, Humanities Press, 1983), who stresses the impact of capitalistic forms of management between 1500 and 1640 (ch. 8).

227

Community, conflict and change, 1352—1500 cultural production for sale and through craft-work. Havering's location attracted tenants who sought a country estate within easy reach of London. Capitalism was further curbed by the desire of the leading families to use their estates for ostentatious display and recreation as well as for profit. The crenellated and embattled house which Sir Thomas Cook built around a courtyard at Gidea Hall and his decision to empark 200 acres of the demesne were obviously unproductive in simple economic terms, as was Urswick's moated manor house at Marks, with at least twenty-two rooms and a chapel.20 Throughout the coming centuries Havering's position within commuting distance of London ensured a progression of city and court tenants who wished to live as gentlemen. Equivalent changes were occurring in other segments of the local economy. New names appeared among the craftsmen and retailers. The organisation of the ale industry altered, part of a national movement toward heavier investment in equipment, more hired labour and a larger volume of production.21 These trends must have been compounded within Havering by the introduction of beer brewing around 1490.22 The new form, using hops which acted as a preservative, was more complicated technically and fostered bigger individual brewings, as the beverage could be stored. The result of these changes was the almost complete elimination of women brewers, together with some of their small-scale male fellows. Whereas all of Havering's twenty-one brewers and ale sellers in 1464—5 were female, by the end of the century only one woman pursued the trade, together with fifteen men. The replacement of women and lesser male brewers by large operations has been noted in other places too during these years and was certainly more than just a change in record-keeping practices.23 Concentration of capital and use of wage labour weakened small producers. 20

21

22 23

Mclntosh, ' T h e C o o k e family', pp. 13-14, CChR, 1427-1516, p . 214, and F. W . Steer, ' A medieval household: the Urswick inventory', Essex Rev., LXIII (1954), 4—20. Patricia S m i t h , ' T h e brewing industry in T u d o r England' (Concordia U n i v . (Montreal) M A thesis, 1981), and Peter Clark, The English alehouse (London, Longman, 1983), p p . 31-2 and 101. PRO SC 2/172/37, mm. sd and 2id, and SC 2/172/40, m. 27. Christopher Dyer, Lords and peasants, pp. 347-8, Peter Clark, English alehouse, pp. 21-32, and DeLloyd J. Guth, 'Borough law and leets' (unpublished paper read at the Kalamazoo, Michigan Medieval Conference, May 1980). The latter suggests that the apparent change was actually due to new procedures for collecting fines. Eleanor Searle has pointed out to the author that the making of ale by women may have become limited to a low level of society, with ale wives now catering only to the unworthy poor - as in John Skelton's poem about Elynour Rummynge, her brewing methods and her clientele (The complete English poems (ed. John Scattergood, New Haven, Conn., Yale Univ. Press, 1983), pp. 214-30). 228

New problems, new solutions, 1460—1300 The food and drink makers who did not increase their output were often obliged to diversify their activity. Local brewers, bakers, butchers and fishmongers spread into other areas of the retail trade after 1460. They sold a wide range of edible goods which they had not made themselves, including the cheese and butter emerging from Havering's farms.24 Foodstuffs were now going to London retailers. Ale-houses and inns increased in number, though most of them were still small. Even so they were regular customers, buying woollen cloth for bedding, brass cooking utensils, firewood, hay and of course such items as ale, wine and herrings.25 Most ale-house keepers remained in Havering only temporarily; the more permanent ones generally had a second occupation, commonly in the cloth trade, as was true for many Tudor and early Stuart tipplers.26 Boarding was also done on a private basis by individual Havering families. Sometime between 1475 and 1485 Thomas Wellys of Mucking, husbandman, paid Thomas Bowreman of Romford 3od. to board his sister for five weeks, and in 1490 John, the priest hired by the fraternity of the Holy Trinity in Hornchurch, arranged with John Wattes to board his younger brother at a charge of i2d. per week.27 Many of the skilled crafts became more deeply capitalised and/or more specialised. Havering's tanners and tawyers invested heavily in equipment and supplies and were in at least some cases selling directly to London merchants.28 Larger operations are seen in cloth making and finishing. In 1499 one of those presented for assault was John Yonge, weaver, servant of John Daweson, clothmaker.29 Dyers and fullers expanded their volume, with 46 bushels of woad seed, used as a blue dye, purchased at once in 1479. Building workers prospered, thanks to the demand for new houses. While local families could not aspire to the grandeur of the Cooks or the Urswicks, there are signs that houses were being built or rebuilt for greater comfort among those of lesser status. In one of the first surviving records in English, probably from 24

25

26 27 28

29

E.g., E R O D / D U 102/57, m. 5 (Walle, a fishmonger),, and P R O SC 2/172/36, m. 1 i d (Hampton, a brewer). For London, see P R O SC 2/172/39, m. 6d, and E R O D / D U 102/49, m. 5d. P R O S C 2 / 1 7 2 / 3 5 , m m . 3 a n d 1 (tris), S C 2 / 1 7 2 / 3 8 , m m . 7d (bis) a n d 8d, a n d S C 2/172/39, m. id. Peter Clark, English alehouse, p p . 73—6. See also p p . 257—8 below. PRO C 1/67/38, and SC 2/172/36, m. 4d. PRO SC 2/172/33, m. 7d, a plea of debt for £3-5-0 brought by a London draper against a Romford hosier in 1480. The wealth of leather workers is shown in the subsidy assessment of 1524, PRO E 179/108/150. PRO SC 2/172/39, m. 2. For below, see PRO SC 2/172/33, m. 12, and SC 2/172/35, mm. 9 and I5d (Tatwatyr, a fuller). 229

Community, conflict and change, 1352-1500 1469, an unnamed Romford man wrote to a friend asking him to find a Dutch or Flemish mason who could build a chimney with a brick mantel for his house.30 Another windmill was put up near Romford in 1491. Many craftsmen concentrated upon particular specialities. In leather working we find a glover and a hosier, in metal crafts a brasier, and among the woodworkers a stainer, a fletcher, several wheelwrights and makers of carts and ploughs. Specific skills required training, as in a contract from 1491 in which Richard Crane of Romford agreed to teach John Walker his art of 'paylemakyng', in return for a payment of 6s. 8d.31 The only craft which seems to have declined after 1460 was charcoal burning. This probably stemmed from the shrinking volume of local wood and the introduction of coal. By 1500 colliers had effectively disappeared from Havering. Romford market expanded and changed as well. It was still used by Havering people to sell their agricultural or craft goods to London tradesmen. In addition, local men were beginning to serve as middlemen, accumulating items from producers which would then be conveyed to a retailer. In 1479 John Mounteney claimed that John Petite of London, goldsmith, had stolen twenty-four dozen 'woolfells alias staplefells' which he had stored in his house.32 Two years later Roger Partrych agreed to furnish 800 bushels of wheat to John Reynold of South Weald at a set price, to be delivered whenever Reynold requested. Romford market was also more heavily used for transactions between two outsiders, not involving Havering people at all. A few of these agreements dealt with food or craft items: six great weys of cheese sold by William Halle of Stondon in 1479 to Robert Hatter of Hoton (probably in Leicestershire), and a bond for ^ 1 6 given by William Colyng, draper of London, to Peter Lucas of Witham, Essex, clothman, for an undescribed sale in 1483.33 Most sales, however, concerned animals. John Edmund of Tryllyngton, Leicestershire sold one cow, eight sheep and four pigs to Thomas Castell, butcher of London, for 36s. 8d. in 1480; Thomas Filer of London owed 15s. 4d. to John Wygmore of Chelmsford, drover, for a market transaction in 1472.34 By the reign of Henry VIII Romford was classified with London's Smithfield market as a major centre for illegal 'engrossing, 30

ERO D/DU 102/52, m. i of the roll. For the windmill, see PRO SC 2/172/36. m.

31

PRO SC 2/172/36, PRO SC 2/172/34, PRO SC 2/172/33, PRO SC 2/172/33, 102/51, m. 6.

12. 32 33 34

m. m. m. m.

22. 1. For below, see PRO SC 2/172/33, m. izd. 8, and SC 2/172/35, m. 21. iod, and ERO D/DU 102/57, m. 3d. See also ERO D/DU

230

New problems, new solutions, 1460—1500 forestalling and regrating of catties'.35 The Court of Star Chamber consequently issued writs of sub poena against those people who had caused * great and high prices' for cattle through their mass purchase and selective resale of animals. (Thomas) Legatt of Romford, one of Havering's most energetic middlemen, was among those cited. Money lending and the use of cash both increased. Loans were normally backed by two pledges, as was customary in earlier years, but in a few cases a secondary agreement or bond was required, specifying the payment of a larger sum at some point in the future if the original debt was not cancelled on time. 36 Collection of interest on loans was evidently permitted by the Havering court. This was even true in a case from the later 1470s or early 1480s in which two outside borrowers claimed that their 'ghostly father* had persuaded them that it was 'not godly nor profitable' for them to pay 20s. in annual interest to John Reynold of Havering for a five-year loan of ^ 4 and certain sheep.37 There are many more references after 1460 than before to specie, suggesting that money was now more readily available and widely used. Coins worth 2s. 8d. were stolen from the strongbox of Richard Wyllot, labourer, in 1470, and two pleas of trespass opened in October 1490 alleged the theft of cash from houses in Romford and Hornchurch, of 20s. and 40s. respectively.38 A number of suits speak of the detention of money or valuables given to another person 'for safe-keeping', presumably as security for other financial arrangements. Thomas Taylour, a man expelled from the manor with his wife in 1497 for sexual misconduct in their house, delivered two leather bags containing ^36 in money to James Wilkinson in 1494.39 The previous year a Havering man had turned over to a London butcher a miscellaneous collection of modest valuables including six silver buttons, a decorated silver cross, a velvet tippet, an archer's glove, one Roman penny, a latten 'St Taudres' ( = St Audrey's) medal and 27s. id. in coins. Consistent with the growing use of wage labour in agriculture and certain branches of craft-work, Havering saw considerable conflict over employment and employees. Some suits were brought by servants against former masters for non-payment of wages, while in others a master claimed that his employee had left his work before the end of 35 36

37 38 39

PRO STAC 2/15, fol. 188. E.g., ERO D/DU 102/54, m. n , and PRO SC 2/172/33, m. 6. The secondary bond was to become common in the sixteenth century. PRO C 1/64/948. ERO D/DU 102/56, m. id, and PRO SC 2/172/36, m. 1. PRO SC 2/172/37, m. 16. For below, see ibid., m. 2.

231

Community, conflict and change, 1352—1500 the contracted term. 40 Such behaviour was sometimes said to be against the Statute of Labourers, an odd revival of a piece of legislation which had previously received little use in Havering. In a few suits the plaintiff alleged contempt of court as well as trespass. Several cases involved two employers, the plaintiff charging that the defendant had lured away a desirable worker during his term of service, likewise against the statute.41 The most heated of these disputes began early in March 1489 when Walter Creswell brought suit against John Bernard for violation of the statute.42 Creswell, a smallholder and tiler, claimed that on 30 November 1488 Bernard had agreed to serve him as an agricultural labourer for one year at a salary of 20s. plus one pair of hose and one cap. Less than three weeks later, however, Bernard withdrew from his service, against the statute. In his defence, Bernard pleaded that he had already worked for Creswell as a tile maker for two years prior to 1488. Creswell still owed him 13s. 4d. from his previous salary, plus 4s. as the price of one robe, i6d. for one pair of hose and 8d. for one cap. When Creswell failed to pay him his back wages, he legitimately left his service. The court persuaded the parties to put the case under arbitration. The arbitrators specified a sum which Creswell should render to Bernard, noting that if he did not pay on the prescribed date, Bernard would be free to leave his service. Creswell failed to deliver the payment, Bernard left his service on 29 May 1489, and Henry Pete, a smallholder and brewer, immediately hired Bernard as an agricultural labourer for a year. Although this arrangement was approved by the court and made in the presence of the constable, Creswell entered a plea of trespass against Pete for having taken Bernard away from his service. At this point emotions were running so high that Bernard was placed in the gaol at Romford, under the official supervision of Philip Coke, the elected justice of the peace. Pete was furious and broke forcibly into the gaol to free Bernard. Coke then brought a plea of trespass against Pete. When, however, Creswell decided not to prosecute his suit against Pete, the court accepted Pete's rather lame justification of his gaol-breaking, and the matter was finally closed. While we cannot measure the exact rate of economic growth in Havering during the later fifteenth century, we can document the 40

41 42

E.g., P R O SC 2 / 1 7 2 / 3 3 , m m . 7d and 8, both of which allege contempt. T h e presence at court sessions o f Havering's justices o f the peace, with p o w e r t o enforce the Statute of Labourers, must have encouraged claims that the statute had been violated. E.g., ERO D/DU 102/58, m. 6. PRO SC 2/172/35, mm. 4, 5d and 15.

232

New problems, new solutions, 1460—1300 community's prosperity in the early sixteenth century. The detailed assessments for the subsidy of 1524 indicate an unusually high level of personal wealth in Havering. The average per capita payment was 7od. for the manor as a whole, with the exceptional figure of 9id. in urban Romford.43 By contrast, Havering's rural neighbours in Chafford hundred to the east and Dagenham and Barking Ripple to the west paid an average ofjust 44d. each, and even Barking town dwellers paid only 62d. By matching the 1524 valuations with known occupations, we find that Havering's tax-paying population of 372 people included 36 gentlemen or prosperous yeomen, crafts- and trades-people assessed at ^20 or more (10%); 35 lesser yeoman, substantial husbandmen and middling crafts- and trades-people assessed at .£10—19 (9%); 106 smaller husbandmen, crafts- and trades-people at £ 3 - 9 (28%); 84 relatively secure cottagers, labourers and servants assessed at 40s., in most cases rated on wages rather than land or goods (23 °/0); and 111 lesser cottagers, labourers and servants assessed at 20s. in wages (30%). Only ten women were listed (3%). This assessment supports a picture of considerable wealth and stratification, with an abnormally high proportion of people in the upper levels of assessment but a substantial fraction dependent upon wages. Havering men in a given occupation were more prosperous than their counterparts in other small towns or villages.44 In a geographical sense, wealth was fairly evenly distributed throughout the community. Romford town and suburban Hare Street were somewhat wealthier than the other regions (the 32% of the population which was urban accounted for 40% of the manor's assessed value), but Hornchurch village and agricultural Hornchurch were comfortably placed too (15 % of the population with 12% of the wealth in the village, and 27% of the population with 30% of the wealth in the rural areas). Only pastoral northern Havering, where agriculture was limited by the London Clay, showed signs of economic constraint (27% of the population with just 18% of the wealth). The 1524 list may also be compared with the 1334 subsidy assessment for Havering. The fourteenth-century record, as we have seen, cannot be taken at face value.45 If, however, we correct the valuations to reflect 43 44

45

P R O E 179/108/150. Cf. Julian Cornwall, 'English country towns in the fifteen twenties', Econ. Hist. Rev., 2nd ser., X V (1962), 54—69, Margaret Spufford, Contrasting communities: English villagers in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries (London, Cambridge Univ. Press, 1974), pp. 28-36, and Keith Wrightson and David Levine, Poverty and piety in an English village: Terling, 1525—1700 (New York, Academic Press, 1979), pp. 32-4. The lady subsidy 0/1334 (ed. R o b i n E. Glasscock, L o n d o n , O x f o r d U n i v . Press, 1975),

pp. 79 and 81, and see ch. 2 above. 233

Community, conflict and change, 1352-1500 a one-fifteenth rate, we can use the resulting numbers as a base for comparison with 1524, acknowledging that the 1334 value may be somewhat too low because of individual evasion. In 1334 Havering's total assessed worth constituted 1.3% of the Essex county total; the adjoining regions of Chafford hundred, Dagenham and Barking accounted for 7.1% of the total. By 1524, Havering's value had risen to 3.0% of the county figure, whereas its neighbours' had dropped to 5.3%. Measured in another fashion, Havering's value had increased between 1334 and 1524 at a ratio of 1:6.8, while its neighbours had grown by just 1:2.2 and Essex as a whole by 1:3.0. Havering's growth, even allowing for some distortion in 1334, placed it within the range of the economically successful towns. 46 Colchester, for example, grew at a rate of 118.3, whereas rural Essex achieved only 1:1.9. Some of the improvement in Havering's prosperity presumably took place during the century before 1460, but it seems likely that much of the expansion of wealth as well as much of the polarisation occurred between 1460 and 1524. In the closing decades of the fifteenth century, Havering was a bustling community, rejuvenated by newcomers and economic change. Indications of a rising population, immigration and concentrated investment are visible in other small market towns in southeast England between 1460 and 1500.47 Without entering fully into the debate over * urban decay' in the later medieval and early Tudor period, we may suggest that the vitality seen in Havering and similar communities was indeed related to the decline of the larger towns.48 In these little urban settlements, no economic organisations regulated trade, no civic institutions demanded expenditure by the leading men. In the eyes of many smaller merchants and craftsmen, the uncontrolled but rapidly expanding economies of the lesser market towns may have seemed a 46

47

48

S. H . Rigby, ' U r b a n decline in t h e later Middle A g e s ' , in Urban history yearbook, 1979 (Leicester, Leicester U n i v . Press, 1979), p p . 46—59, esp. Tables 4 a n d 3 and p . 57. E.g., Saffron W a l d e n ( E R O D / D B y M 8 - 1 0 ) , T o t t e n h a m (Moss, ' E c o n o m i c d e v e l o p m e n t ' ) , the Lea valley (Glennie,' Commercializing agrarian r e g i o n ' ) and Battle (Searle, Lordship and community, pp. 365—6). This point is made in general terms by Alan Dyer, * Growth and decay in English towns, 1500-1700', in Urban history yearbook, 1979 (Leicester, Leicester Univ. Press, 1979), pp. 60-72. Among the extensive literature on this subject, see A. R. Bridbury, Economic growth: England in the later Middle Ages (2nd edn, Brighton, Harvester Press, 1975), ch. 5, R. B. Dobson, 'Urban decline in late medieval England', Trans. Royal Hist. Soc, 5th ser., XXVII (1977), 1-22, Charles Phythian-Adams, 'Urban decay in late medieval England', in Towns in societies (ed. P. Abrams and E. A. Wrigley, Cambridge, Cambridge Univ. Press, 1978), pp. 159—85, and Charles Phythian-Adams, Desolation of a city: Coventry and the urban crisis of the late Middle Ages (Cambridge, Cambridge Univ. Press, 1979), esp. pp. 33-50.

234

New problems, new solutions, 1460—1300

more attractive setting than the major centres. Individualism, however, had not necessarily been enhanced by these economic developments. On the contrary, opportunities for independent action had diminished for those people who lacked the capital necessary to compete on a larger scale. LAY CONTROL OVER RELIGION AND CHARITY

During the later fifteenth century Havering's laity assumed an important role in the religious and charitable life of the parish. This process involved not only the heads of local families of secure means, men who had traditionally dominated the manor court, but also the wealthy new arrivals from London. Both groups apparently shared a sense that the spiritual life provided by the established clergy was insufficient. Until the early 1490s the vicars of Hornchurch, named by New College, were not university educated and generally remained in the parish only briefly. The secondary priest at Hornchurch and the priests at Romford and Havering-atte-Bower were poorly paid men who in several cases were reported for theft or assault.49 Ill-will against the clergy seems to have been taken seriously by New College.50 John Wattes was a respected Hornchurch husbandman and chief pledge who held the farm of New College's manor of Suttons from 1474 to 1484. In the latter year he was prosecuted in the Hornchurch manor court on the extraordinary charge of holding a * heretical opinion \ 5 1 This turned out to be nothing more than his having said, 'It would be better than it is now if there were no priests in the world.' Rather than engaging in direct conflict with the college, Havering people found that they could achieve control over religious affairs in other ways.52 Members of the community's older families extended the range of activity of the churchwardens of Hornchurch and Romford, first by expanding their churches' financial resources. The parish stocks of land and animals, built up gradually from gifts and bequests, were leased out for short terms, the income going to parish needs or other purposes as specified by the donors. The bulk of the money was used 49

E.g., an attack with a stick by Nicholas Langston alias Mustard, chaplain of Romford, on Katherine, wife of John Holwell, in 1464 (ERO D / D U 102/47, m. 6), and the felonious theft by Richard, the former chaplain of Romford, in 1465 of two gowns and two pairs of linen sheets from a close (ERO D / D U 102/48, m. id). See App. IV for the priests in Havering. 5° ERO D / D U 102/51, m. 1, PRO SC 2/173/1, m. 4d, and NCO MS 11197. s1 NCO MS 2985, and cf. MS 9654, fol. 341. 52 The existence of something approaching 'a lay-dominated "alternative" Church' in the generations immediately prior to the Reformation is suggested by J. J. Scarisbrick, The Reformation and the English people (Oxford, Basil Blackwell, 1984), esp. p. 168.

235

Community, conflict and change, 1352—1500 for physical maintenance of the churches, but some was devoted to charitable ends - to the relief of the poor and repair of roads and paths.53 By 1460 Romford's wardens had taken, quite independently, to hiring a priest who acted as parish clerk and conducted services as well.54 Although the original parish of Hornchurch still encompassed the entire manor of Havering, in practice Romford chapel was now functioning as a distinct unit. Even the little chapel of St Mary in Havering-atte-Bower had two keepers of its goods, ornaments and jewels in 1469.55 The rise of Romford and Havering-atte-Bower as centres of religious activity was one aspect of an emerging regional focus within the manor. This extension of the churchwardens' position was matched by the growth of lay fraternities or brotherhoods. Hornchurch had a fraternity of St Peter, founded probably in the fourteenth century but withering away in the late fifteenth century, and a guild of Jesus or the Holy Trinity, established by 1487.56 The fraternity of Our Lady in Romford was in existence by the 1430s. Like the parishes, each fraternity had a stock of land and goods, to which at least a third of all testators in the later 1400s contributed. When a survey of the guilds was made in 1548, Hornchurch's Trinity brotherhood had a clear annual income of .£5—4—11, and the fraternity of Our Lady received ^4—6—10, sums derived almost entirely from land rents. 57 The fraternities maintained an altar or lights in the church and provided small sums to the poor, but, most significantly, they hired their own priests. Consent of the full membership, the same men who served in parish and manorial offices, was required before a priest was selected or leases granted. The fraternity priests said daily masses and by the sixteenth century at least one of them was teaching' poor men's children \ 5 8 Havering's wealthiest newcomers did not take part in parish or fraternity activities. Thomas Cook's son Philip, Avery Cornborough and Thomas Urswick all hired 53 E.g., ERO D/AEW i, 82 and 201, D/AER 1, 18-166, passim, and GLL MS 9171/6, fol. 2r. For the wardens and their duties, see PRO SC 2/172/39, m. 8d, ERO D/AER 3, 19, and ERO T/A 521/1, reverse fols. s* PRO C 1/1146/43-9, ERO D/AER 2, 26, and PRO SC 2/172/40, m. 25. Rates were levied by Romford upon Havering's northern wards from the later fifteenth century: ERO T/A 521/1, reverse fols. 15-16. 55 ERO D/DU 102/53, m. 2d. 56 VCH Essex, vol. 7, pp. 47 and 83-4; ERO D/AEW 1, 139. For bequests to the fraternities, see, e.g., ERO D/AER 1, 12 and 64; cf. NCO MS 3734, 31 May 1493. The wills of sixty-seven Havering men and fifteen women between 1460 and 1499 survive at the PRO, ERO and GLL. 57 PRO E301/19/19 and 21, E 301/20/21 and23, andE 301/30/23 and26. Cf. 'Romford lease of 1530', Essex Rev., XVIII (1909), 223-4. s8 PRO E 301/19/19.

236

New problems, new solutions, 1460—1500 private chaplains for their own households. They, too, may have been dissatisfied with the official clergy. Lay control reached its peak in Havering with the establishment of A very Cornborough's chantry in Romford in the late 1480s. Cornborough entered more fully into Havering's community life than did the other Londoners. In the late 1460s he often attended sessions of the manor court, and in 1481 he was elected justice of the peace. 59 At his death in 1487 Cornborough left the bulk of his estate to his wife, a sister and a nephew. However, he had previously conveyed about 240 acres to a group of feoffees to hold to the use of his last will and testament.60 After his death the income from this land was to support a priest within Romford church who would receive an annual salary of ^12, a generous sum by local standards. In 1494 the bailiff of the manor of Havering, the Romford churchwardens and the chantry priest were legally constituted a corporate body to manage the bequest. 61 A poem carved onto Cornborough's tomb in Romford church described in detail the founder's intent, making clear both his spiritual and his practical concerns.62 The man chosen as priest was to be a Bachelor or Doctor of Divinity or a Master of Arts. He was not allowed to take off more than 40 days per year from his duties. His main function was to preach, giving sermons not only in Romford chapel but also in Hornchurch, Dagenham, Barking and South Ockendon. Cornborough proposed ways of lessening the resentment of the official chaplain of Romford against this well-paid newcomer, and he made provision for possible failure of the chantry board to fill the position. Cornborough's foundation bears a striking resemblance to endowments of a century later, lectureships or preaching ministries set up by hard-headed Protestants who wanted to be sure that their bequests achieved exactly what they intended. 63 By 1500 Havering's lay leaders were deeply involved in religious affairs. They managed property and hired a total of four priests for the community's churches, apparently without regard for the wishes of 59 60 61 62

63

ERO D / D U 102/54, mm. 6-7, and PRO SC 2/172/33, m. 11. PRO PROB 11/8, 3, Calendar of inquisitions post mortem, Henry VII (3 vols., London, HMSO, 1898-1956), vol. 1, pp. 104-5, and VCH Essex, vol. 7, pp. 83-4. PRO E 135/5/19The poem was fortunately copied in the early 1600s before the original was destroyed: John Weever, Ancient funerall monuments (London, T. Harper, 1631), pp. 648—9, and reprinted in George Terry, Memories of old Romford (Romford, T. Robinson, 1880), pp. 79—81. Cornborough also left annual sums to the Romford churchwardens for collecting the chantry rents, to the poor and for bread and ale for the priests and clerks who celebrated a yearly service of remembrance for him. See Scarisbrick, The Reformation and the English people, pp. 169-70.

237

Community, conflict and change, 1352—1500 New College. Their actions suggest no decline in spiritual intensity during the pre-Reformation generations. Rather one sees a concern with the accessibility of services and a strong desire to have religion run in an efficient fashion, preferably by the local laity. Religious authority in Havering was implemented by the same families who controlled secular power; this is not a situation in which the parish or a fraternity can be seen as filling a gap left by decayed or impotent political institutions.64 Probably in response to the growing assertiveness of the parishioners, New College began in the early 1490s to name one of its own graduates as vicar of Hornchurch. The closing decades of the fifteenth century also witnessed greater interest in education. Teaching of elementary skills, perhaps by the fraternity priests among others, began to bear fruit. The first surviving letters in English by local people date from the 1460s.65 By the early 1500s many intermediate and wealthy families had decided to obtain an education for their sons. Four Havering boys enrolled at New College between 1465 and 1487, one of them becoming a chantry priest in Winchester cathedral.66 The first mention of books in Havering comes from the will of John Collyngham, chaplain of Haveringatte-Bower, written in 1487, in which he left three books to a church in Yorkshire. Havering experimented with ways of dealing with the growing number of poor people, most of them newcomers or outsiders. Before the mid-fifteenth century there had been no institutionalised forms of charity in the manor. Even when Hornchurch Priory was in existence, it does not appear to have dispensed assistance to people outside its own ranks. As the problems associated with poverty mounted, however, Havering's leaders tried several forms of relief. These efforts sharpened their ability to distinguish between various types of poverty. The first project dealt with a group of the poor who were both visible and disruptive — transient poor men with no place to stay. Around 1450 an almshouse was set up in Romford to provide temporary housing for indigent strangers.67 Although this hostel was a straightforward and constructive response to the problem, it was unsuccessful. Local people 64

65

66

67

R. H. Hilton, The English peasantry in the later middle ages (Oxford, Clarendon Press, 1975), pp. 91—3, and R. S. Gottfried, Bury St. Edmunds and the urban crisis: I2go—i^g (Princeton, N e w Jersey, Princeton U n i v . Press, 1982), p p . 1 8 0 - 1 . NCO MSS 179 and 11197, and ERO D/DU 102/52; cf. Marjorie K. Mclntosh, The Liberty of Havering-atte-Bower, 1500—1620 (forthcoming), ch. 4. A n d r e w Clark, 'Early Essex W y k e h a m i s t s ' , Essex Rev., X V I (1907), 173-5. For below, see E R O D / A E R 1, 82. ERO D/DU 102/40, m. I5d. For below, see PRO SC 2/172/33, m. 7 (bis).

238

New problems, new solutions, 1460—1300 did not like its patrons. Three men were presented in 1480 for breaking the windows of the almshouse and assaulting people within it. The lack of popularity of the house probably resulted in part from a sense that it was counter-productive, encouraging the wrong sort of person to come to Romford. The poor whom it sheltered were a disorderly lot. In 1492 the keeper was told to establish better rule among the people whom he accepted, ensuring that they were all in the house by 9 at night and out again by 6 in the morning. 68 If he felt that matters were getting out of control, he was to summon a constable or the bailiff at once, under penalty of his own imprisonment. When he failed to improve his governance, the keeper was evicted from Havering. By the end of the fifteenth century local leaders had allowed this house to fall into disuse. A more judicious definition of which poor people ought to receive help was reflected in a second almshouse, founded by Roger Reede in the early 1480s. Reede was a member of a family of small to middling landholders and craftsmen. His inheritance and purchases gave him a total of c. 150 acres, on which he was producing wood for the market during the middle decades of the century.69 Later in his life there are several indications that he was not entirely stable emotionally. 70 In October 1480 a man acting on Reede's behalf came before the manor court to enroll a charter by which Roger conveyed all his lands and goods to a group of Havering tenants headed by Avery Cornborough. 71 While the charter does not state the uses to which Reede's possessions were to be held, this was apparently the first stage in the foundation of his almshouse. In his will, written in 1483, Reede distributed an extraordinary amount of charity, bequests in cash and clothing which were almost certainly far beyond anything his estate could cover.72 He also left 68 69

70

72

P R O S C 2 / 1 7 2 / 3 6 , m . 2 2 ; for below, see S C 2 / 1 7 2 / 3 7 , m m . 4c! and 6d. For Roger and his family, see the Havering court rolls, PRO SC 2/172/32-5 and ERO D / D U 102/34-55, passim, plus PRO E 179/108/125. Some kind of instability is suggested by an extraordinary order made by the court in 1481 which instructed Roger to live outside Romford' in a lane safe from the confluence of people', and forbade him to go to market or to other people's houses (PRO SC 2/172/33, m. 11 d). The bequests in his will, discussed below, appear to have borne no 7I PRO SC 2/172/33, m. 7d. resemblance to his actual wealth. ERO D / Q 26, a later copy. Reede left £ 13-6-8 for repair of footpaths within to tne existing Romford almshouse, coverlets to the value of £20 Havering, £$-6-% to poor maidens at their marriage and £8—6-6 to poor lepers living in other areas. In addition he gave clothing to the poor: 100 petticoats, 100 pairs of hose and 100 pairs of shoes for men and women, 50 smocks for women and 50 shirts for men. Additional cash gifts went to relatives and friends, including £66-13-4 to the Havering smallholder who had married Reede's only daughter.

239

Community, conflict and change, 1352—1500 detailed and rational instructions for the almshouse, forming the basis for an establishment which has functioned in modified form to the present day. Reede's almshouse was not concerned with unknown vagrants but rather with five local indigents of diligent, godly and humble character. The almsmen were to be * no common beggars but such as have been of good governance and be fallen in poverty'. They were to eschew blasphemy, pray daily, attend church every Sunday and holy day and accept the authority of the man named as their master. The initial group of almsmen were already set up in a house which Reede had recently built. They were not allowed to marry after accepting a place but if already wed their wife might join them; the widow of an existing almsman, if she was older than fifty winters and well behaved, could keep a chamber in the house for the rest of her life. Each tenant received 26s. annually in cash plus one load of wood. This foundation, fully in keeping with local mores, was well liked by Havering people and received bequests of cash, clothing and bedding. 73 Its property was managed by a self-perpetuating group of trustees chosen from among the same families who ran the manor court and parish. A concern with selective charity was clearly not the prerogative of Elizabethan or Jacobean Puritanism. THE ESTABLISHMENT OF THE LIBERTY, I465

The demographic, economic and social changes occurring in Havering during the 1450s and 1460s must have emphasised the need for strong local control. Havering's customary exemption from the direct jurisdiction of outside legal authorities, viewed as a benefit in more stable periods, meant conversely that serious crimes could not be handled quickly and effectively within the manor. No local body was empowered to deal with murder, felonious theft or other major offences. No resident justices of the peace were at hand to settle problems as they arose and to exert a restraining influence upon potential wrongdoers. The traditional methods of responding to crime — escorting accused felons to the county gaol, preparing indictments to be sent to outside justices and summoning the county coroner to investigate unnatural deaths — all took time. They also lessened the ability of Havering's leaders to control what went on within their community. The idea of having justices and a coroner of Havering's own probably seemed increasingly desirable. 73

E.g., ERO D/AER 1, 91, and D/AER 2, 64. For the operation of the almshouse, see ERO T/B 262/14.

240

New problems, new solutions, 1460—1300 Developments after 1460 likewise brought into focus the weakness of the manor court in enforcing its orders. The arrival of poor outsiders highlighted the court's inability to make people comply with its demands if they had no land or valuable goods by which they could be distrained. The growing number of non-residents using Romford market accentuated the fact that the court was unable to wield effective authority over those living beyond the confines of the manor. The number of private suits opened in the court had risen by 1464—5 and the bailiff was now attempting to carry out the orders sent to him, but the court was still ineffectual in dealing with pleas (see Tables 10 and 11 above). Havering people were also being called before outside courts as defendants in private suits, in violation of the manor's rights but without vigorous local protest. The limitations of existing forms of local authority must have been particularly conspicuous to the wealthy London newcomers, accustomed to the comparative efficacy of city institutions and Parliament. Because these men had special interest in maintaining order as large employers of labour, the potential role of the justices of the peace in enforcing workers' contracts and holding down wages may have been attractive to them. Finally, the rising volume of agricultural items and craft-goods being produced for sale made the threat of royal purveyance more dangerous than ever before. The absence of any formal official to supervise the operation of Romford market exaggerated the tenants' vulnerability to purveyors. A decision was therefore made in 1464 or 1465 to seek a royal charter for Havering which would establish the manor as a Liberty, with its own officers of the peace and expanded authority for the local court. We do not know who set this plan on foot or who exactly implemented it. The idea presumably met with the approval of the old families who served as chief pledges, for they must have been troubled by the social problems within the manor. They suffered from the court's inability to handle private suits and to enforce its orders in public matters. The actual work of obtaining the charter — getting it drafted and taking it through the various stages of central government approval — was evidently carried out by one or more of the three leading Londoners. 74 Each of these men was resident in Havering by 1465, and each had connections with the court and influence in the capital. The key figure seems to have been Thomas Urswick. His involvement with the charter is suggested by the fact that around 1465 the western boundary of Havering was changed so as to include the manor-house of his estate 74

For later renewals and the payments involved, see Mclntosh, Liberty of Haveringatte-Bower, ch. 5. 241

Community, conflict and change, 1352—1500 of Marks; at Urswick's death in 1479 Marks was said to be held of the manor of Havering whereas previously it had been part of the manor of Barking.75 Urswick may have been joined in arranging for the charter by Thomas Cook, keeper of the manor and park of Havering since 1461 and farmer from 1464.76 In reward for his allegiance to Edward IV, Cook was made a Knight of the Bath at the coronation of Elizabeth Woodville in May 1465, just two months before the granting of the charter. Another possible advocate was Avery Cornborough, then one of Edward's household officials. The king's willingness to grant the Havering charter was probably influenced by several considerations. The men who made the request were not only supporters and household servants of his own, they were closely tied to the London merchant world. During the 1460s Edward was cultivating city backing both as a bulwark against Lancastrian efforts to recover the throne and as part of his attempt to build up English trade.77 He may also have seen the Havering charter as a means of improving the governance of the crown's estate and increasing local order. Edward granted many charters during the 1460s, and in this case the rights he awarded brought no direct loss of income for the crown or limitation of its legal powers. The charter was formally issued as letters patent at Westminster on 15 July 1465, noted as having been given by the king without payment of fine or fee.78 The charter for Havering, titled by the now common name of Havering-atte-Bower, contained seven major provisions. Some were merely restatements of existing practices although described as if they were new rights. The document began by confirming the privileges of the Havering court as a manor of the ancient demesne. All actions which concerned local land and all personal suits arising within the manor were to be heard by the local court. The tenants were not to be vexed by being called into other courts, a problem about which the charter states they had complained to the king. The charter prohibited any intervention within the Havering court by outside officials except through a writ of error or false judgement. This provision did not in practice eliminate use of the writ of certiorari issued by Chancery or writs of non intromittas propter libertatem. 75 76 77

78

Victoria county history of Essex, vol. 5, pp. 275-6, and vol. 7, p. 3. CPR, 1461-7, p. 27, CFR, 1461-71, p. 18, and P R O DL 29/41/800. Edward's use o f Havering's palace and park as the setting for hunting and feasting parties for city officials is described by the chronicler Hall, as cited by Smith, Hist. ofH-a-B, pp. 24-5. The charter is printed in a slightly abridged version in CChR, 1427—1516, pp. 204—6, and has been compared against an Inspeximus from 1559, P R O C 5 6 / 7 8 , m m . 18—19.

242

New problems, new solutions, 1460—1300 The charter then moved to new rights. Although the document refers to Havering always as a manor or lordship, it conferred legal independence which led to Havering's subsequent designation as a Liberty. The area was granted its own justices of the peace, who were to be the royally appointed steward of the manor plus a second man chosen by the tenants and inhabitants from among ' the more discreet and better men' of the community. The Havering justices were given authority equal to that of commissions of the peace for Essex as a whole, but they had to obtain royal permission before reaching final judgement in felonies or treasons. At the same time all other justices were banned from acting within the new Liberty. No further Liberty officers were mentioned in the charter, but Havering soon began electing annually its own coroner and clerk of the market. The tenants, not the steward, henceforth chose the manorial bailiff. Several provisions had pronounced economic and social impact. In a grant of great financial benefit to the tenants, the king barred royal purveyors from operating within the manor. This privilege was energetically defended in subsequent years.79 Havering was also given permission to hold a yearly fair in late June, with jurisdictional rights to accompany it, but there is no indication that a fair was held locally until the 1590s.80 In the last clause, the residents were declared capable of receiving and enjoying the privileges contained in the charter, although Havering was not formally incorporated. The charter referred to those who constituted the Havering community in legal and political terms as' the tenants and inhabitants', not just the direct tenants or even all landholders. This broad definition of Liberty membership was later to pose problems for the very wealthiest families as they attempted to tighten their control over Havering around 1600.81 When the new rights granted by the charter were added to those traditionally enjoyed through ancient demesne status or prescription, Havering had reached an exceptional level of autonomy. It now had as full a quiver of rights as did the more privileged boroughs or some of the great ecclesiastical liberties.82 The tenants recognised the value of the charter, arranging 79

80

81 82

E.g., P R O SP 1/245, fols. 56 and 8 8 - 9 , B L Lans. M S 3, n o . 90, and H u n t i n g t o n Library EL M S S 1308 and 685. P R O E 134/24 Charles 1 Easter/9. T h e fair authorised in 1250 was apparently never instituted. See Mclntosh, Liberty of Havering-atte-Bower, ch. 5. Of the charters granted between 1461 and 1468, Havering's resembles most closely that given in 1462 to Romney Marsh, a strategically important area adjacent to the Cinque Ports in Kent (CChR, 1427-1516, pp. 181-4, and see Martin Weinbaum, British borough charters, 1307—1660 (Cambridge, Cambridge Univ. Press, 1943)).

243

Community, conflict and change, 1352—1500 for its confirmation at the beginning of the reigns of nearly all Tudor and early Stuart monarchs.83 SELF-GOVERNMENT AND SOCIETY

During the later fifteenth century local authority in Havering was employed in a remarkable fashion. Members of the community's older families and the leading newcomers worked in tandem, using the combined power of the manor court and Liberty, to address a wide range of local issues. More efficient procedures enabled the court to tackle with some success the problems created by economic and social change. In addition to resolving conflict through private suits and maintaining order, the court considered several new topics, including the behaviour and morality of the poor. The expanded volume of private and public business brought 280 to 350 people within the court's cognisance annually during the 1460s, with thirty-five to forty people participating in an average session (see Table 14). Traditional jurisdiction at its peak

Havering's economic expansion after 1460 increased the number of disputes pursued as private suits. Even before the granting of the charter, the volume of suits heard by the court had risen from its low point in the 1440s (see Table 10). With the more effective procedures which resulted from Liberty status, the number jumped to around 100 pleas annually. Heavy use of the court probably lasted through the end of the century: the apparent decline by 1497 resulted from the fact that the clerk no longer bothered to record those suits in which the defendant admitted his guilt. The popularity of the court after 1465 depended primarily upon its improved ability to enforce its orders. Rules issued in June 1465 and augmented a few months later specified how amercements were to be imposed upon defendants in private suits who failed to appear; procedures for impanelling trial jurors were likewise tightened. 84 Most importantly, the court began to make use of the gaol built in Romford for Havering's justices o*f the peace. Henceforth, a defendant might be ' attached by the body', arrested and held in gaol until the case against 83

84

CPR, 1485-94, p. 138; PRO KB 27/1104, m. 16, and SC 2/173/3, m. 3; CPR, 1553-4, pp. 224-5 '•> PRO C 56/78, mm. 18-19; C 56/99, mm. 23—5; and Smith, Hist. o/H-a-B, pp. 266-7. ERO D/DU 102/48, m. 2, and D/DU 102/49, m. 1.

244

New problems, new solutions, 1460—1300 him had been heard.85 While distraint of goods was still used routinely against local people of substance, attachment by the body was employed commonly against those lacking property and against outsiders. Any defendant who could persuade two local men to offer themselves as surety for his appearance would be excused from arrest, placing total strangers at a grave disadvantage. Presumably to assist the court and bailiff in making proper use of the new forms, a manual of local procedures was drafted in the late 1460s.86 The cases heard by the court reflected the changes in Havering's economy. More outsiders were found among the parties — around twenty non-Havering people per year in the late 1460s and 1470s as opposed to just one or two annually in the 1440s. As Table 10 indicates, actions of debt remained the most frequent kind of suit, with trespass next. Trespass continued to broaden in definition, moving into semi-public areas which in the past had normally been left to juries of presentment: assault, breaking into a house or close and minor theft.87 The scope which trespass allowed to the accurate assessment and recovery of damages presumably contributed to this shift. In 1480, for example, a jury reported that John Baldewyn and his mother had broken into the house of Joan Boys, the widow of a former chief pledge and park official, but no amercement is shown on the roll.88 Later in the same session Joan opened a plea of trespass against the Baldewyns for the break-in, asking damages of ^10. William Lake, a Romford dyer, claimed damages of 20s. in 1482 on the grounds that Ralph Dale's physical attack upon him had harmed his hearing, so that he was no longer able to conduct his business out of doors. Trespass was also used for violations of the Statute of Labourers and occasionally for false imprisonment.89 In the latter procedure, the defendant was accused of having brought a suit which led to the plaintiffs being held wrongly in gaol, usually in Romford; alternately, false imprisonment could be prosecuted as a distinct form of action. Pleas of trespass were frequently used in actions concerning title to land, eliminating almost entirely the little writ of right close for contentious suits.90 85

For use of this form, see, e.g., PRO SC 2/172/33, mm. 1 and 3d. Written instructions to the bailiff, afierifacias or venire facias, were carefully employed in attachment by the body (ERO D / D U 102/58, m. 1, and PRO SC 2/172/33, m. 6). 86 ERO D/DU 102/52. 8 ? E.g., ERO D/DU 102/56, m. 1, and PRO SC 2/172/33, mm. 7 and 9-9d. 88 PRO SC 2/172/33, mm. 8d and 9. For below, see ibid., m. 12. *> ERO D/DU 102/58, m. 5d, and PRO SC 2/172/33, m. 8. For below, see ERO D/DU 102/54, mm. 1 and 6d, vs PRO SC 2/172/38, m. 20. 90 ERO D/DU 102/54, m. 11, D/DU 102/55, m. 2, and PRO SC 2/172/33, m. 7d.

245

Community, conflict and change, 1352—1500 The little writ was still used for fictitious actions which accomplished a transfer. The utility of the writ had recently been broadened by the introduction of new methods of prosecuting it, based upon the forms used in the central courts.91 The chief of these was a version of the action of entry, entry sur disseisin in the post, which permitted a current tenant to break an entail and hence to sell his land. Some of these conveyances were collusively taken in appeal to the central courts through a writ of false judgement to obtain confirmation of the action.92 As before, few cases came to formal judgement (see Table 11). Arbitration was encouraged by the court, to be accepted by the parties early on in the course of a suit or even once a jury had been impanelled.93 After 1490 the wager of law was no longer used, so all unresolved cases had to be settled by a jury verdict. Once the court's judgement had been announced, the damages and court costs to be paid by a losing defendant were assessed.94 The court's ability to terminate private suits quickly was much higher from 1469—70 onward than it had been prior to the charter, as part C of Table 11 shows. Pleading before the Havering court became more formal after 1460. When local people argued on their own behalf, they frequently employed a sophisticated legal language and showed greater familiarity with central court procedures than before. Claims were barred on technical grounds, new legal forms were described in the French of the central courts, and a few men presented their entire defence in Law French.95 Increasingly, however, local parties were represented by professional attorneys. These men, familiar with the law though not apparently practitioners in the central courts, took up residence in Havering and served regularly as spokesmen in private suits. They were disliked by the chief pledges, presumably because their expertise weakened the ability of the leading local families to control the court to their own ends. The first of the legal specialists was John Standroper, 91

E.g., ERO D/DU 102/49, mm. zff (cessavit, 1465), and PRO SC 2/172/36, m. 23d (ejecit within term, 1492). For the action of entry, see PRO SC 2/172/36, mm. 5dff, passim, and Marjorie K. Mclntosh, 'Central court supervision of the ancient demesne manor court of Havering, 1200-1625', in Law, litigants and the legal profession (ed. E. W. Ives and A. H. Manchester, London, Royal Historical Soc, 1983), pp. 87-93.

92

E.g., PRO SC 2/172/38, m. 25d, SC 2/172/39, mm. sd, 10, 23d and 24d, and cf. CP 40/1011/541— 2. " ERO D/DU 102/57, m. i2d, PRO SC 2/172/35, m. 3, and SC 2/172/40, m. 2od. For the only post-charter wagers of law, see PRO SC 2/172/36, mm. 13 and 22d. 94 ERO D/DU 102/51, m. 7&, PRO SC 2/172/35, m. 2, and SC 2/172/37, m. 2. 9 * E.g., ERO D/DU 102/49, m. 3d, and PRO SC 2/172/33, m. 7d.

246

New problems, new solutions, 1460—1500 active between 1464 and the mid-1470s.96 Standroper, who always pleaded in Law French, worked as a fishmonger when not busy at court and served as the royal farmer of the manor in 1468—71. During the early 1470s William Haynes functioned in the same role until the court ordered that he should no longer act as a * common attorney' for parties nor plead in the court at all.97 A similar ban was imposed in 1491 on William Roxton, another frequent attorney in the previous years. This time the court specified that he was to give up the occupation of attorney in Havering because he was unwilling to obey the orders made by the court and because he said openly that certain jurors sworn in a private suit were false and perjured. Not everyone viewed with enthusiasm the expansion of the authority of the court in dealing with private suits. Local people sometimes thought that the men who ran the court were guilty of favouritism. Philip Coke was one of Havering's largest landholders in 1488, the year in which he was charged with trespass by Thomas Aylmer, a successful Romford fishmonger and chief pledge.98 When the jury was summoned, Coke protested against its membership, chosen by John Kyng, the bailiff, on the grounds that it was favourable to Aylmer. Two men were sworn to investigate the charge, determining that the jury was indeed predisposed to support Aylmer. The court therefore ordered that another panel of twelve men be brought by Kyng to the next court. Conversely, Avery Cornborough's widow Beatrice claimed in c. 1490 that a jury had ruled wrongly against her in a plea of debt for .£14 brought by Philip Coke, now the elected justice of the peace.99 Coke wielded undue influence, she said, because he was * one of the judges' in the court. Those unhappy with the Havering court had easy access to central court review after 1480. Writs of error, initiating an appeal to the Court of King's Bench, had not previously been used by Havering people. Between 1489 and 1497, however, dissatisfied parties in Havering suits obtained at least fourteen such writs (see App. II).100 The purchasers of the writs were often newcomers to Havering, including several ale-house and innkeepers in Romford, men regarded with some suspicion by local leaders. A greater challenge to the independence of 96

97

98 99

E R O D / D U 102/47-57, passim, and P R O D L 29/41/800. John Baker reports that none of these three men appears in his list of central court lawyers, but several men active in the central courts were also fishmongers. ERO D/DU 102/58, m. 1. For the Roxton order, see PRO SC 2/172/36, m. 5; Roxton was physically attacked by a chief pledge in 1490 (SC 2/172/35, m. I7d). PRO SC 2/172/35, m. 2d. I0 PRO C 1/87/50. ° See Mclntosh, 'Central court supervision'.

247

Community, conflict and change, 1332—1300 the Havering court came through the expansion of the equity jurisdiction of the Court of Chancery. The court had received a few complaints against the Havering court in earlier years, but around 1480 the number of petitions alleging faults with the court or its officials began to increase. The complaints focused upon favouritism, practices discriminatory to non-residents and unjust imprisonment in Romford gaol. In the late 1490s, for example, Lewis Bampton, a powerful figure in the neighbouring community of Rainham, was at law in Havering against Thomas Crafford, a Hornchurch gentleman, concerning the farm of the estate called Dovers. Bampton claimed in a petition to Chancery that he was unable to receive a fair hearing in the Havering court because the said Thomas is of high office and behaviour within the said lordship and fraunchise, that is to say, justice of the pease there, and londid and fraunchisid within the said lordship, to whom the most parte of the tenantes and inhabitauntes there stond in awe and dredc.Your said oratour is also a straungere and dwellith withoute the saide fraunchise and for that cause hath there the lesse favour and socour among them.101 The difficulties experienced by outsiders in dealing with the Havering court are laid out in a petition submitted in the later 1480s by George Starky, a London butcher.102 Starky said that a month before he had bought some cattle in Essex and was driving them toward London. When he reached Romford, he stopped to have a drink, leaving his cattle in the highway, as was customary. While he was inside, Thomas Jenyngs of Brentwood, maltman, drove Starky's cattle off the road. Starky came out of the ale-house to confront Jenyngs; an argument ensued and then a fight, in which * either of theym lent other a stripe'. Starky was arrested and his cattle seized by * the keper of the gaole of Haveryng atte Bowre'. Writing his petition from Romford gaol, Starky claimed that he could not arrange for his release because Havering's custom dictated that only tenants of the manor would be accepted as a manucaptor. Since he was a stranger and knew no one there, Starky feared he would perish in gaol unless Chancery issued a writ of corpus cum causa for him and a writ of sub poena for his cattle. The decisions of Chancery have not been preserved prior to 1540, so we cannot determine the outcome of these petitions, but it is clear that the possibility of review by outside courts posed a serious potential threat to Havering's autonomy. External supervision was one of the reasons for the decline of the court in the sixteenth century. In the area of public business, the court now wielded more effective 101

I02

PRO C 1/188/34.

248

PRO C 1/109/45.

New problems, new solutions, 1460—1500 and broader authority. Its activity still rested upon the reports of presentment juries, the chief pledges sworn at the view of frankpledge and the public juries named at other sessions. In 1497 tithings were abandoned; the number of jurors chosen at the view dropped from thirty-seven to twenty and they were henceforth described simply as homagemen.103 The same group of people, however, continued to hold office. More of the court's leaders were now engaged in craft-work or trade. Whereas only a fifth of the homagemen and manorial officials had been craftsmen or retailers between 1440 and 1455, nearly a third of them were engaged in trade between 1489 and 1505. There is no sign of divergent values between officers drawn from Romford town and the rural areas, despite the indications of stronger regional loyalties. Although many newcomers were moving to Havering, authority stayed mainly in the hands of well-established local families. Of those who served as homagemen at the views of 1467 to 1470 and 1489 to 1491, somewhat over half came from families which had furnished a chief pledge in previous generations. About 60% of the chief pledges/homagemen after 1465 belonged to families which had lived in Havering for more than a century, whereas only a quarter of all resident or landholding families in these years had been present for over 100 years (see Table 9). By the 1490s Havering was far more of an oligarchy than it had been in the 1440s and 1450s. Office was held by a smaller number of families, the average length of tenure as an homageman was longer, and more of the manorial officials were chosen from among the ranks of the homagemen themselves. In procedural terms, presentment continued to function much as it had in earlier years. The ongoing discretionary power of juries is illustrated by the treatment of two horse thieves in 1495: John Kyng, a labourer from Edmonton, Middlesex, was reported for his offence and amerced i2d., while William Harward, a local husbandman, faced hanging after being indicted of felony.104 Other aspects of the court's practices were adjusted to enable it to address current problems more forcefully. The court began in the late 1460s to elect constables and to report clogged ditches by section of the manor. By 1489 nearly all public business, including elections, supervision of trade and assaults, was handled separately for each of the manor's six or seven subareas.105 103

PRO SC 2/172/38, mm. 12—13. Tithings were apparently abandoned on several other royal manors in Essex in the 1480s: D. A. Crowley, 'Frankpledge and leet jurisdiction in later-medieval Essex' (Univ. of Sheffield PhD thesis, 1971), p. 234. 104 P R O SC 2/172/37, m. 22d (bis), and SC 2/172/38, m. 3d. 105 PRO SC 2/172/35, mm. 6-6d and i7-i8d. The regions listed in 1490 were Romford (town), Harold Wood, Collier Row, Noak Hill, Havering-atte-Bower with Pyrgo,

249

Community, conflict and change, 1352-1500 The court tried out some new forms of punishment. As the number ofpoor people and outsiders rose, the traditional monetary amercements imposed for public offences became increasingly difficult to collect. In 1473-4, the farmer of the manor reported a total of .£10-1-5 from the profits of the Havering court. 106 He asked to be excused, however, from 45s. 9d. in amercements which could not be collected because the people being punished had no possessions against which the sums could be levied. In place of cash penalties the affeerors turned more often to use of the stocks or the court's recently erected tumbrel. For more serious cases, the court experimented with expulsion from the community, a procedure used particularly against those who had misbehaved sexually.107 Banishment proved successful in many instances, but the efficacy of the measure was limited by the court's inability to force people to depart. Jurors placed weighty cash penalties on those who refused to go, and once in despair they threatened a man and wife with imprisonment for forty days if they did not leave as instructed. The court operated in effect as a legislative body, issuing orders or bye-laws concerning public matters. As in many other manors, ordinances had occasionally been put forth by Havering jurors prior to 1460, but the number of regulatory measures rose after the charter. In each of the court's jurisdictional areas, the rolls contain registration of new rules, initiated by a statement such as * It is ordained by common assent of the tenants of the manor of Havering atte Bower.' 108 These orders were often accompanied by announcement of the money penalty to be imposed upon wrongdoers. Promulgation of bye-laws, a common feature of late fifteenth-century courts, cannot be said in Havering's case to have arisen either from the recent collapse of seigneurial authority or from a formal borough structure.109 It was instead an extension of earlier attempts to identify and prevent problems rather than punishing miscreants after the fact. It also allowed the court to impose selectively larger penalties. Hare Street and Hornchurch. By the sixteenth century the manor was commonly divided into eight wards. Romford side contained Romford town, Harold Wood, Collier Row, Noak Hill and Havering-atte-Bower, while Hornchurch side consisted of Hornchurch town, Northend and Southend. 106 PRO DL 29/41/793. 107 P R O SC 2/173/2, mm. 8 and n d , and SC 2/172/36, m. 1. For cash penalties, see PRO SC 2/172/35, m. 16, SC 2/172/36, m. 10, and SC 2/172/37, m. 6d; imprisonment is SC 2/172/38, m. I2d. 108 EROD/DU 102/51, m. 1. 109 Christopher Dyer, Lords and peasants, pp. 268—9, and Guth, 'Borough law and leets' (see n. 23). 250

New problems, new solutions, 1460—1500 The traditional topics of public jurisdiction were modified after 1460 by economic and social change (see Table 12). Supervision of the manor's common lands, for example, focused in the 1490s on small amounts of bushes or branches taken improperly from the remaining woods by the poor. 110 Whereas nearly all reports of people for fishing in public areas prior to 1460 had involved commercial fishmongers or outsiders, by the later years of the century individuals were being fined for taking fish for their own consumption, men such as 'haltyngjohn'. A few of the poor erected little dwellings on common land, a practice opposed by the court.111 Commercial animal raising and the growing number of people who lacked private land combined to put pressure on public grazing areas. Although use of the commons was not restricted for cattle, a series of orders limited the number of horses which tenants might run in the woods. The court now played a more active role in the regulation of Romford market while still supervising certain local crafts. The clerk of the market, an officer implied though not named by the charter, was by 1489 elected annually at the view, chosen usually from among Havering's lesser gentry families. The clerk was presumably present at each market session, overseeing its operation and the official weights and measures; if an offence was committed he could penalise the guilty party on the spot but usually preferred to report culprits to the manor court for punishment.112 The court itself made orders about the market, in one case at the instigation of the queen's council: it was announced in 1467 with the assent of the tenants that anyone who forestalled food or merchandise at the market should forfeit 20s. to the queen. The court also amerced those who sold unhealthy food, began trading before the market bell rang at the eighth hour or blocked the market area with piles of wood or other obstacles.113 Growing naturally out of its earlier functions was the court's new concern with sanitation and public health. A rising population led to difficulty in disposing of household and commercial wastes and in securing clean drinking water. John Staunton, the queen's resident rent collector, was told in 1495 to move his latrine away from its current 110 111

112 113

E.g., ERO D/DU 102/57, m. id, and PRO SC 2/172/38, mm. 6-7. For fishing, see, e.g., ERO D/DU 102/53, m. 2, and PRO SC 2/172/40, m. 24. PRO SC 2/172/33, m. 11 (William Dreywood). For overloading with animals, see ERO D/DU 102/54, m. 3, PRO SC 2/172/37, m. 10, SC 2/172/33, m. id, and SC 2/172/35, m. 17. PRO SC 6/Henry VIII/752 and SC 2/173/2, m. 2id. For the order below, see ERO D/DU 102/51, m. 1. PRO SC 2/172/36, m. 1, ERO D/DU 102/57, m. 5d, and PRO SC 2/172/37, mm. 5d and 20. 251

Community, conflict and change, 1332-1300 location beside the street, where it harmed his neighbours; the next year Richard Brygges, a Romford innholder, paid a penalty for failing to remove a latrine as instructed.114 The roadways were popular sites for dumping garbage and other * dirty objects'. 115 Butchers frequently left the remains of animals in the street or market area. In 1499 the court ordered that no one should henceforth drop carcasses, old rushes or other filth into Bridgewater in Romford, under penalty of 3 s. 4d. 116 Maintaining a supply of good water demanded vigilance by the court. In 1472, for example, John Coole, tanner, was presented for putting hides into the stream at Hare Street, polluting the common water supply flowing beside the road there. 117 In a rather puzzling reference, Joan Payne, widow, and Elizabeth Brette were expelled from Havering in 1492 because they were 'as lepers (quasi lazare) in their bodies' and harmed their neighbours by remaining within the precincts of the view.118 While this may possibly have been metaphorical language for prostitution, it probably refers to some kind of physical disease: women banished as whores were usually described explicitly as such. Jurors addressed the problem of intentional sowing of ill-will within the community. During the 1470s those presented for scolding or causing quarrels, usually women, were amerced 6d. for each offence, but in 1490 the court ordered that all scolds stop troubling their neighbours under penalty of I2d. plus sitting in the tumbrel. 119 Related to this concern was a solitary public presentment for defamation in 1493. Verbal discord apparently seemed more disruptive to jurors as the population rose and economic life became more complex. The court cooperated with the officials of the Liberty in countering mounting violence within Havering. Jurors continued to report and punish lesser assaults. As Table 13 shows, the number of presentments for fighting rose in the later fifteenth century, even though some instances of violence were being prosecuted as private suits rather than through public report. The constables, drawn as before from the yeomen or solid craftsmen or tradesmen, were increased in number from eight to ten and must have been called into action more often. The amercements imposed upon those who fought were considerably higher than prior to 1455. Although the chief pledges were evidently 114 115 116 118 119

PRO SC 2/172/37, m. 20, and SC 2/172/38, m. 6. ERO D/DU 102/51, m. 1, D/DU 102/58, m. 1, and PRO SC 2/173/2, mm. 13 and 2ld. II7 PRO SC 2/172/39, mm. 3-4. ERO D/DU 102/57, mm. 1 and 5d. PRO SC 2/172/36, m. i8d. ERO D/DU 102/58, mm. 4d, 8d and 9~9d, and PRO SC 2/172/36, m. 1. For below, see PRO SC 2/172/37, m. 6d.

252

New problems, new solutions, 1460—1300

willing to report attacks committed by themselves and other members of established families, the fraction of all participants in violence who were resident laymen dropped to about half. In their place one sees more servants, priests, women and, most significantly, men who appear in no other Havering records and hence were probably either poor newcomers to the community or outsiders just passing through. This change occurred abruptly: between 1450 and 1455, only 9% of the initiators of assaults were men not mentioned in other records, but between 1464 and 1469, 34% were unknown newcomers or outsiders. Interpretation of the records concerning violence is difficult. We cannot be certain whether the large number of presentments for assault indicates that the Havering court was dealing successfully with local disorder, reporting and penalising those involved as a deterrent to others, or whether the jurors had lost their ability to safeguard the peace of the community. A rise in minor violence has been noted in other areas after 1450, often directed toward poor outsiders; this is sometimes explained in terms of a general weakening of order during the Wars of the Roses.120 In Havering the change derived both from the increase in geographical mobility, bringing unknown poor people into the community, and from what seems to have been a growing separation in patterns of behaviour between local families of comfortable means and the poor. Although local leaders may have been unduly sensitive towards any misconduct by the new arrivals, it seems likely that the level of violence was objectively higher among the migrant poor than among settled, prosperous residents. The court was joined in its attempt to preserve public order by Havering's two justices of the peace and the coroner. The steward was normally represented as a justice by his deputy, who convened the manor court; the elected justice was by 1489 chosen by the chief pledges at the annual view. The wealthiest new families controlled this position. Avery Cornborough was followed by Philip Coke. When Coke was disqualified after his attack on the queen's rent collector in 1497, he was replaced by Thomas Crafford, son of Avery Cornborough's nephew and heir, John CrafFord.121 There are no surviving records of sessions of the justices outside the manor court. They appear to have conducted much of their business in the traditional setting. The deputy 120

121

Joanna Mattingly, * Statutory law and criminal activity in the middle Thames valley under the early T u d o r s ' (unpublished seminar paper read at the Institute of Historical Research, London), Searle, Lordship and community, pp. 392—3, and E. B . D e W i n d t , Land and people in Holywell-cum-Needingworth (Toronto, Pontifical Institute of Mediaeval Studies, 1972), pp. 272-3. For Coke's assault, see ch. 2 above.

253

Community, conflict and change, 1352—1500 steward was always in attendance, and the elected justice came to most, possibly to all, sessions. Action concerning Roger Osmond and John Haryson, arrested on suspicion of felony in 1489, was said to have taken place at 'the sessions of the peace and general court with leet of Havering held 1 October'. 122 In 1493 John Hydon of Romford, yeoman, came to a regular three-weekly session to record the terms of a land sale, commenting that he wanted to do so in the presence of the steward, the justice of the peace and the suitors of the court.123 The justices' duties were diverse. They took bonds of those suspected of threatening the peace, usually at the request of another individual. 124 They received indictments of felony prepared by court juries and investigated possible felonies on their own authority outside the court. People arrested on suspicion of felony were held in Romford gaol, as were those indicted by a jury. In one case Robert Marchaunt, a Romford labourer, was allowed his freedom after giving his own bond for £40 and finding five friends from Romford and Barking who each offered ^ 2 0 that he would be present at the next view. 125 When a trial of felony was to be held, the crown issued a special commission for the delivery of Romford gaol. In 1489 the justices of gaol delivery consisted of Sir Thomas Mountgomery, the steward; Thomas Sail, the deputy steward; Sir Richard Fitzlewis, the son of the previous steward; and Roger Philpot, an important landholder in southwest Essex.126 Apart from Sail, these men were all justices of the peace for Essex at the time. Convicted felons were probably hanged locally as they had been earlier and were to be in Elizabethan years, at the spot on the main road known as Gallows Corner. 127 The coroner, elected at the view from among the middling gentry houses (see App. 1.11), carried out the normal duties of his office and acted in place of the bailiff within the manor court when the bailiff was himself a party in a private suit. 128 The court protected Havering's expanded rights and its records. The tenants arranged for confirmation of the vital charter of the Liberty 122 124

125

126 127 128

I23 P R O S C 2 / 1 7 2 / 3 5 , m . pd. P R O S C 2 / 1 7 2 / 3 7 , m . 6d. P R O S C 2 / 1 7 2 / 3 5 , m m . 7d, 3d and 2d. For indictments, see P R O S C 2 / 1 7 2 / 3 7 , m . 22d, and SC 2/172/38, m. 3d; cf. ERO D/DU 102/54, m. 3, and PRO SC 2/172/37, m. 13 d. For investigations, see PRO SC 2/172/36, m. 5, and SC 2/172/35, m. 9d. PRO SC 2/172/37, m. 13d. The gaol was evidently constructed shortly before the formal approval of the 1465 charter; in 1484 there is a reference to the 'court hall in Romford street', which may then have been associated with the gaol as it was to be later, and in 1493 a man was said to live 'next to the prison' (ERO D/AER 1, 54, and PRO SC 2/172/37, m. 5). CPR, 1485-94, pp. 278 and 486. M c l n t o s h , Liberty of Havering-atte-Bower, c h . 5. PRO SC 2/172/35, mm. 3 and 4d, and SC 2/173/1, m. 7d.

254

New problems, new solutions, 1460—1500

in i486, thus ensuring that the change of dynasty would not imperil their freedoms.129 Juries presented Havering people who impleaded their fellows in courts outside the manor.130 In some cases the court ordered them to withdraw their suits, in others it levied the exceptionally steep amercement of 100s. Direct action within Havering by agents of the church courts and other manors was resisted, and in 1493 a royal purveyor paid 20s. as a penalty for trying to appropriate lambs for the king's household within the domain of Havering, against the terms of the charter.131 In the past the steward or his clerk had kept the local records, but now the charter, the manor court rolls, *le Domysday' (the 1352/3 extent) and other rentals and evidences were formally committed by the court to one or more local people for safe-keeping, stored usually in a locked chest.132 Poverty and morality

Between 1460 and 1500 the Havering court extended its range of inquiry to include problems of social behaviour and morality, especially among the poor. While a number of manor and borough courts addressed such issues in the later fifteenth century, few did so with Havering's vigour.133 To some extent this enlarged jurisdiction resulted from Parliamentary legislation. A number of late medieval statutes contained explicit instructions about how the law was to be enforced by local authorities in a selective fashion on the basis of wealth — such measures as a statute of 1389—90 forbidding anyone to keep a greyhound for hunting unless he held land to the value of 40s. per year, and the sumptuary laws of 1463 and 1482—3. 134 While Havering jurors 129

130

131

132 133

134

For the Inspeximus they had to pay 20s. into the hanaper and unknown additional sums to other officers and clerks: CPR, 1485-94, p. 138. E R O D / D U 102/58, m. 9 (bis), P R O SC 2 / 1 7 2 / 3 3 , m. n d , SC 2/172/37, m. 14, and SC 2/172/38, m m . 6-7. ERO D/DU 102/51, m. id, D/DU 102/58, m. 9, and D/DU 102/50, m. 11; PRO SC 2/172/37, m. 4d. For below, see PRO SC 2/172/36, mm. 1 and 22, and ERO D/DU 102/58, m. 4d. P R O S C 2 / 1 7 2 / 3 3 , m . 14 (bis), a n d S C 2 / 1 7 2 / 3 7 , m . 2 1 . Cf. Searle, Lordship and community,

p p . 4 0 9 - 1 7 , J. A . Raftis, A small town in late

medieval

England: Godmanchester (Toronto, Pontifical Institute of Mediaeval Studies, 1982), p. 440, Moss, 'Economic development', Mattingly, 'Statutory law' (see n. 120), and Christopher Dyer, Lords and peasants, pp. 358—60. Butcher suggests that rising prices in the 1470s and 1480s caused poor migrants to become stranded in towns, thus leading to urban unemployment and harsh treatment of the poor (' The origins of Romney freemen'). 13 Richard II, c. 13; 3 Edward IV, c. 5, and 22 Edward IV, c. 1. For presentments concerning greyhounds in Havering, see PRO SC 2/172/36, mm. 1 and 8, SC 2/172/37, m. 10, and SC 2/173/3, m. 5d.

255

Community, conflict and change, 1352—1500 did sometimes report offences as being contrary to statute, they displayed great freedom in deciding which laws to enforce. Thus, there is not a single mention of any violation of the sumptuary laws, and although jurors for a few decades penalised those who kept greyhounds illegally, they began to do so only in the early 1490s, a full century after passage of the act. In their choice of which kinds of misbehaviour to present, jurors were expressing their own concerns about order. It was here that Havering's established families imposed their standards most directly upon those beneath them. The leaders of the court took it upon themselves to discipline men who used their leisure time in inappropriate ways. Robert Shomaker, servant of John Sander, was reported in 1477 for frequenting a Romford ale-house and other suspicious places at night; he was prohibited from doing so in the future under penalty of 3 s. 4d., to be paid by his master.135 In 1489, William Hewet, Richard Hewet and Robert Whytyng, all young members of poor local families, were named in the Hornchurch presentment as wanderers at night (an old concept) who revelled in the evenings and did not keep to their work (a new point). 136 Gaming was seen as a particularly pernicious form of recreation. Not only did it divert young men away from archery, a skill valued by the central government for military reasons, it was conducive to betting and wild behaviour within the community. In 1467 the chief pledges began to enforce with some rigour the acts of 1388 and 1409—10 which prohibited labourers and servants from playing certain card games and dice. 137 After Parliamentary expansion of the gaming laws in 1477—8, Havering people who hosted players were penalised more heavily. The jurors' subjective response is indicated by the rare appearance of familiar residents on the lists. Clearly it was more disturbing to have someone playing dice if he was an unknown newcomer. The increasing need for a disciplined labour force must have contributed to the jurors' reactions. Yet by the early 15 oos illegal gaming had vanished as a subject of the court's attention. Another topic of concern was hedge-breaking. This term was used in Havering and other manors in southeast England to refer to the removal of wood from hedges (generally for fuel) rather than to the destruction of hedges as a protest against enclosures. Hedges around 135 136

137

PRO SC 2/172/33, m. id. PRO SC 2/172/35, m. 6d. For other instances, see PRO SC 2/172/36, mm. 20-1, and SC 2/172/35, mm. id and 3d. E.g., ERO D/DU 102/51, m. id, D/DU 102/57, mm. i-id and n d , PRO SC 2/172/33, m. id, SC 2/172/38, m. 13, and SC 2/173/1, m. 16. The original acts were 12 Richard II, c. 6, and 11 Henry IV, c. 4; the revision was 17 Edward IV, c. 3.

256

New problems, new solutions, 1460—1500 roads and common lands were normally viewed as public not private property, and small amounts of wood had probably been taken from them by the poor for centuries. By the Elizabethan period, however, hedge-breaking had become a heated issue in many communities, linked to a rising population and more indigents.138 In Havering the first individual reports of hedge-breaking occurred in 1465 and 1466, followed by an order in 1467 that anyone who broke hedges in the future would face a punishment of 2od.139 Hedge-breaking nevertheless continued, done often by older women who may have been unable to obtain wood from more distant woodlands. The poverty of these women is suggested by the tiny amercements imposed upon them — usually just 2d. each. Hedge-breaking was regarded as a problem for only a generation in Havering, with but a single report of the problem after 1500. In the opinion of established families, Havering's ale-houses and lesser inns posed a special threat to order and decency. They were centres for illegal games and rowdy behaviour, they were gathering points for poor migrants and they were often operated by newcomers who were of doubtful personal conduct. Drink itself was evidently not seen as an issue.140 Between 1485 and 1500 twelve hosts are known to have been in business in Havering, four at ale-houses and eight at inns. Even when the proprietor came from a local family, the court kept suspicious watch over his house. The host at the Vine tavern in Romford in the later 1470s and 1480s was John Here, the head of an old Havering family who worked part-time as a tailor. Here was amerced in 1477 for keeping open a table in * le ale selling' later at night than was authorised by statute.141 Four years later he was charged with keeping bad rule at the Vine, permitting his patrons to brawl and fight and allowing people into the house after the ninth hour of the night. Here's son John, a draper, helped to run the Vine and carried on the business after his father's retirement. 142 Richard Brygges, another local man who ran a small inn in Romford in the 1490s, was amerced for blocking the way in front of his building with a wooden post, presumably with the house's sign on it, and for paying higher wages to his servants than 138

139

140

141 142

Marjorie K . M c l n t o s h , ' Social c h a n g e a n d T u d o r m a n o r i a l leets', i n The law and social change (ed. J. A. Guy, London, Royal Hist. Soc, 1984), pp. 73-85. ERO D/DU 102/48, m. id, D/DU 102/49, m. 5, and D/DU 102/51, m. id. Later instances are PRO SC 2/172/37, m. 1, SC 2/172/38, m. 10, and SC 2/173/2, m. 4. For opposition to ale-houses in the decades around 1600, see Peter Clark, English alehouse, pp. 167 and 155. PRO SC 2/172/33, m. id; for below, see ibid., m. 11. PRO SC 2/172/35, m. 6, SC 2/172/37, mm. 5, n d and 21, and SC 2/172/39, m. 5.

257

Community, conflict and change, 1352—1500 the statute specified.143 He also had a female tapster said to be * of bad condition', whom he was ordered to expel from his house. The establishments operated by newcomers were particularly troubling to the court. These men generally rented their property and remained only briefly in the community. Eight hosts arrived in Havering between 1489 and 1494 and were all gone again by 1498. They were themselves prone to violence, and several of their women servants were ordered out of the manor because of their low moral behaviour.144 Among the offences of these hosts were keeping a suspicious inn, lodging badly governed outsiders and allowing illegal games to be played. Thomas Harris of the Swan, Thomas Edmonde and Robert Swan were banished from Havering between April and June of 1493 for their failure to maintain adequate order. Harris was specifically directed to take with him his wife Agnes, the woman who had engaged in unsuitable behaviour with the queen's collector of rents in 1491.145 When the couple failed to leave as ordered, the jurors issued a further instruction that Agnes was to depart from Havering before the hour of twelve three days later or face the remarkable penalty of £6. While the hosts may indeed have warranted close supervision, we cannot rule out harassment in the court's treatment of their misdeeds. In the broadest interpretation of its jurisdiction, the court dealt with sexual conduct, a topic normally addressed by the church courts.146 In the 1480s and 1490s Havering juries reported and punished prostitutes and women thought to be of loose morals. The court used money penalties at first, resorting later to expulsion from the community. William Dreywode of le Haye and John Heth of Hornchurch were amerced 6d. each in 1481 for keeping whores and suspicious women in their houses; they were ordered to remove them before the next 143

PRO SC 2/172/36, m. 9, and SC 2/172/37, m. 5; for below, see SC 2/172/37, m. 4d. 144 P R O SC 2/172/35, m. 3d, SC 2/172/37, m. 14, and SC 2/172/38, mm. 6-7; SC 2/172/35, m. 16, SC 2/172/37, mm. 1 and 4d, and SC 2/172/38, m. 1. 145 PRO SC 2/172/37, m. 4d, and cf. ibid., m. 6d. For Dene, the rent collector, see ch. 2 above. 146

S e e , e . g . , R i c h a r d M . W u n d e r l i , London

church courts and society

on the eve of the

Reformation (Cambridge, Mass., The Medieval Academy of America, 1981), ch. iv, which shows that between 1471 and 1502, sexual offences constituted 60% to 66% of all reports. Dyer, by contrast, found that the interest of the Worcester church courts in moral/sexual matters declined in the later fifteenth century; this change may have been linked to the new concern of local manor courts with such topics (Lords and peasants, pp. 362—5 and cf. 358-60). Records of the archdeaconry of Essex survive only from the beginning of Elizabeth's reign: cf. Mclntosh, Liberty of Havering-atte-Bower, ch. 4.

258

New problems, new solutions, 1460—1300 court under penalty of 10s.147 The penalty for not removing whores had increased to 20s. in the 1490s. In 1488 the wife ofJohn Newman, labourer, presented for being of bad repute and under suspicion of unspecified offences, was told to leave the vill under penalty of 40s.; the wife of John Chambre was reported for fornication in 1497, and the bailiff was instructed to remove her from the domain of Havering. I48 The court was willing to punish male misbehaviour too. John Happle was ordered to depart from Havering in 1488 because his conduct wKi the wife of Richard Wyseman was dangerous to women. Between 1488 and 1497 a total of six women, two men and two married couples were sent out of the community for moral offences.149 Neaily all these were recent arrivals to Havering. Only three reports of sexual misconduct occurred between 1500 and 1530 and none thereafter. The handling of social problems by the Havering court highlights several points of importance. We cannot be sure how high the actual level of misbehaviour was in the late fifteenth century among the various socio-economic groups, for the discretionary power of juries obscures the true degree of wrongdoing. Although the court's leaders may have been less quick to report lapses by known local people, it is probable that the standards of social behaviour among the new poor were somewhat different from those of economically stable families. The attempt of the jurors to impose their own values throughout the community was an overt form of social control. The strength of their reaction, including possible harassment and the use of expulsion, reveals the extent of their alarm. It also implies that informal methods of regulating behaviour which might have been applied to established residents (a stern word from a constable, priest or landlord, for instance) were ineffective against poor outsiders who had no reason to respect those particular figures.150 The jurors seem further to have assumed that the poor were likely to misbehave, although upright families of limited means who had lived in Havering for some time were generally excluded from this expectation. One could still be poor but honest —just the sort of person for whom Roger Reede's almshouse was intended. 147

PRO SC 2/172/33, m. 11 (bis). For below, see PRO SC 2/172/35, m. 16, and SC 2/172/38, m. I2d. 148 PRO SC 2/172/35, m. id, and SC 2/172/38, m. 14. For Happle, see PRO SC 2/172/35, m. id. An attempted rape was reported in 1475 (ERO D/DU 102/58, m. 8d). 149 P R O SC 2/172/35, m. id, to SC 2/172/38, m. 14, passim. 150 For extra-legal forms, cf. J. A. Sharpe, 'Enforcing the law in the seventeenth century English village', in Crime and the law: the social history of crime in Western Europe since 1500 (ed. V. A. C. Gatrell, B. Lenman and G. Parker, London, Europa, 1980), pp. 97-119.

259

Community, conflict and change, 1352—1500 The presentments made by Havering juries were directed toward the person rather than the crime, suggesting that they were still thinking within a framework of * community law'. 151 Since, however, a concern with the conduct of the poor was shared by members of Parliament, there was no gap between two concepts of law, one local, the other national. Equally interesting is the 'puritanism' of these presentments. Attitudes similar to those we have observed in Havering became common in many parts of England in the later sixteenth and early seventeenth centuries.152 They were seen within contexts in which those families who controlled local wealth and authority were polarised from the idle, rough and often vagrant poor. The attempt of local leaders in the Elizabethan and Jacobean periods to enforce proper behaviour among the poor has sometimes been regarded as a new development, one arising from the Puritan religious beliefs of the dominant families.153 This is not correct. Not only were such concerns present in Havering and certain other communities in the later fifteenth century, they had already been expressed in the later thirteenth and earlier fourteenth centuries.154 Leaders of villages and towns during the century before the plague were troubled by a similar cluster of problems: hedgebreaking, night wanderers, people who took in badly behaved outsiders, fighting and sexual misbehaviour, all concentrated among the poor, especially newcomers. In the pre-plague era as in Havering between 1460 and 1500, there is no indication that jurors saw the misdeeds of the poor as sinful. They constituted a threat to local order 151

C o m m u n i t y l a w vs state justice is discussed in Bruce L e n m a n a n d Geoffrey Parker, ' T h e state, the c o m m u n i t y and the criminal l a w in early m o d e r n E u r o p e ' , in Crime and the law, p p . 11—48. Cf. Keith W r i g h t s o n , ' T w o concepts o f o r d e r : justices, constables and j u r y m e n in seventeenth-century E n g l a n d ' , in An ungovernable people (ed. J o h n B r e w e r and J. Styles, L o n d o n , Hutchinson, 1980), p p . 2 1 - 4 6 . 152 See W r i g h t s o n a n d Levine, Poverty and piety, esp. ch. 7, J. A . Sharpe, ' C r i m e a n d delinquency in an Essex parish, 1600-1640', in Crime in England, 1550—1800 (ed. J. S. C o c k b u r n , L o n d o n , M e t h u e n , 1977), p p . 90-109, Sharpe's 'Enforcing t h e l a w ' , A. L. Beier, ' V a g r a n t s a n d the social order in Elizabethan E n g l a n d ' , Past and Present, L X I V (1974), 3-29, and P . A. Slack, ' V a g r a n t s and vagrancy in England, 1598-1664', Econ. Hist. Rev., 2 n d ser., X X V I I (1974), 360-79. 153 W r i g h t s o n a n d Levine, Poverty and piety, a n d Keith W r i g h t s o n , ' T h e Puritan reformation of manners, w i t h special reference t o the counties of Lancashire and Essex, 1 6 4 0 - 6 0 ' ( U n i v . o f C a m b r i d g e P h D thesis, 1973). 154 E.g., R. H. Hilton, 'Small town society in England before the Black Death', Past and Present, CV (1984), 53—78, and cf. Margaret Spufford, 'Puritanism and social control?', in Order and disorder (ed. A. J. Fletcher andj. Stevenson, forthcoming), Searle, Lordship and community, p. 415 (for the 'puritanism' of the Battle court's concern with morality in the late fifteenth century), and J. A. Sharpe, 'The history of crime in late medieval and early modern England: a review of the field', Social History, VII (1982), 187-203. 260

New problems, new solutions, 1460—1300 and accepted standards, not an offence against God. In attempting to explain the repeated appearance of this group of issues, we should place less emphasis on Puritanism, focusing instead on rising population, high geographical mobility among the poor and a disparity in values between established families of adequate means and the poor, particularly transients. The absence of religious motivation may explain why the concern seen in Havering between 1460 and 1500 was replaced by a relaxed attitude in the early sixteenth century. The period of rather repressive supervision appears to have been a temporary reaction to problems which struck the jurors as new and threatening. As the alternate kinds of behaviour became more familiar and as fear dissipated, local leaders found that their own way of life could continue and the community could function even while unruly games were being played and sexual wantonness occurred. Only when misbehaviour became sin were godly magistrates unable to overlook it. CONCLUSION

These developments help us to isolate and explain the distinctive characteristics of Havering's later medieval history. The manor's precocious patterns both before and after 1460 were due to its physical setting, its freedom from outside control and its communal capacities. Between 1200 and 1460 Havering was a sufficiently coherent community to absorb and contain considerable immigration, increasing economic complexity and varied conflict. It did so without disruption of its institutional unity. The arrival of newcomers, some of them rich and influential, ensured a supply of capital and knowledge about the royal court, the law and London. Other immigrants contributed their labour. Assarting and tenurial freedom hastened the development of abnormal diversity of tenancies. The manor's commercial orientation, based upon Romford market and London's needs, accentuated the individualism of the residents. Profit remained in the possession of the tenants: the crown as lord found no method of tapping the community's prosperity. Self-interest and a regard for the public good led the dominant tenants to assume control over Havering's legal and administrative life in the absence of external regulation. If claims were made by outside authorities which threatened the wealth or autonomy of the area, the tenants objected. Resistance in turn reinforced local political solidarity. Many of the features which took shape in Havering between 1460 261

Community, conflict and change, 1352—1500 and 1500 are typically associated with the decades on either side of 1600. In this case, however, they cannot be attributed to those specific developments of the Tudor era which are often cited as triggers of the transition to early modern forms. Demographic, economic and social change in Havering prior to 1500 was obviously not the result of the redistribution of monastic property or of acute and lasting inflation. Attitudes toward religion, charity and the poor seen in Havering by 1500 were unrelated to Christian humanism or to Protestant or Puritan thought. If there was any connection between religion and economic or social attitudes in Havering, the pressure must have worked in the opposite direction, predisposing people to accept a reformed religious approach in part because it provided justification for values which they already held. During the later 1400s the autonomy and power of Havering's communal institutions reached their zenith. Yet this group effectiveness cannot be explained as an offshoot of strong central government under the Tudors or of the revival of urban corporations under Mary and Elizabeth. Havering's experience suggests that in trying to understand the processes by which early modern patterns developed, we need to concentrate upon those factors which at any time within the medieval or Tudor periods contributed to geographical mobility, freedom of landholding, opportunities for commerce and the power of local people to control the activities of their own community. Before leaving Havering, we may take a brief glimpse at what the following century was to bring. 155 Although there were no sudden breaks with the past, the cumulative effect of change led to the disappearance by c. 1620 of most of the distinctive late medieval patterns. Mobility remained very high, bringing new gentlemen, farmers and craftsmen as well as many migrant poor. Between 1580 and 1620 only a third of the male residents of Havering who testified before the church courts had been born in the manor. Consolidation of the smaller direct holdings continued, building more estates of a hundred or more gentlemanly acres. Capital concentration in crafts and trade deepened. During Elizabeth's reign a group of Romford yeomen, including Nicholas Cotton, were able to live comfortably on the income from urban rents, money lending and entrepreneurial activity in the market. The economy was increasingly geared toward serving outsiders. Inns and ale-houses became more prominent and more law-abiding. Individualism remained strong among the wealthier residents, but the scope of action open to those who lacked capital was gradually reduced. The contrast in standards of living between rich and 155

For a fuller account, see Mclntosh, Liberty of Havering-atte-Bower. 262

New problems, new solutions, 1460-1300 poor sharpened. Private charity lagged behind the needs of those unable to support themselves. By 1564 Romford parish was supplementing on a regular basis the incomes of deserving local people, especially widows. The sense of community in Havering weakened dramatically between 1500 and 1620. The traditional leaders of middling status — yeomen, craftsmen and tradesmen whose wealth, power and connections were primarily regional — were progressively cut off from the noble and upper gentry families with a national orientation. At the same time, the literacy of these middling families, their high ambitions for their sons and their respectable standards of behaviour created a cultural rift between them and the poor. Geographical divisions intensified too. Conflict between the churches of Romford, Hornchurch and Haveringatte-Bower centred on financial rights. Mounting Puritanism in Romford during Elizabeth's reign magnified the separation between that congregation and the others. The manor court, the customary vehicle of the local leaders, lost its vitality. By the early seventeenth century, outside authorities, especially the Essex commission of the peace, were operating within Havering as a matter of course. A handful of extremely wealthy residents managed what was left of Havering's internal political and legal activity. They regulated most aspects of its religious and charitable life too. Even Havering's exemption from seigneurial exploitation was lost. In 1618 James I issued a formidable challenge to the validity of title of all direct tenancies in the manor, and the following year the crown began to collect tolls in Romford market. The independence which Havering had enjoyed for three and a half centuries was thus gone by 1620, with no protest from the tenants. In the sixteenth century, as earlier, Havering's freedom rested upon its integrity as an economic and social unit. Autonomy and community were mutually dependent. When one was undermined, the other collapsed too.

263

Appendix I

OFFICIALS OF THE MANOR, PALACE, PARK AND LIBERTY OF HAVERING, 1200-1500

CONTENTS:

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

Keepers and/or farmers of (the manor of) Havering, 1198—1299 Keepers of the manor (and warren) of Havering, 13 30-1461 Bailiffs, 1229-90 Farmers and/or (high) bailiffs, 1301—1497 Manorial bailiffs (or sub-bailiffs), 1352—1500 Stewards, 1261—1500 Parkers of Havering/keepers of the park of Havering Keepers of the pale of the park of Havering/palers of Havering Other park/woods officials Elected justices of the peace, 1465-1500 Coroners, 1465-1500 Deputy stewards, 1465-1500

I KEEPERS A N D / O R FARMERS OF (THE MANOR OF) HAVERING, I198-1299

Occasionally called bailiffs. 1198-9 1208—9 and/ through 1213 Early 1200s 1217 1217-18 1217-20 1222-30 (or -36) 1227-31 1231-67

Hornchurch Priory. Farmer. A(ubreydeVere), second earl of Oxford = earl Albericus. Keeper of farm of Havering. William le Fleming (Flandrensis). Prob. keeper of king's buildings as well as holding land by serjeanty. William, Earl Marshal. Keeper. Godwin of Doe. Keeper. Walter of Verdun. Farmer. The men of Havering. Farmer. Henry fitz Aucher. Keeper of king's buildings and park; later called keeper of manor. Richard of Muntfichet. Keeper of manor and park of Havering, with keeping of forest of Essex. Also steward of the forest of Havering, 1231—67. Occasionally called bailiff of Havering. 265

Appendix I 1240/1-6 1246-51 1251-c. 1253 1258-64 1264—5 1265—7 1267 1267—75

c. 1272-4 1292—9

The men of Havering. Farmer. John (le) Waleys (Walensis), king's serjeant. Farmer. Also bailiff, 1250-1. Elerius, abbot of Pershore. Keeper of manor. The men of Havering. Farmer. Humphrey de Bohun, first earl of Essex. Keeper, and had use of king's houses. William of Edessa, archbishop of Rhages. Keeper and farmer. William of Clifford, king's clerk. Keeper. Thomas de Clare, prob. second son of the seventh earl of Gloucester. Also steward of the forest of Havering, 1267--75. Edmund of Caldecote. Keeper of the vill of Havering. John of Bitterleye/Butterle, king's yeoman. Keeper of the manor and park. Occasionally called bailiff.

2 KEEPERS OF THE MANOR (AND WARREN) OF HAVERING, I33O-I461

Sometimes joined with office of farmer/bailiff; in 1400s sometimes called surveyor of the houses of Havering. 1330 1352 1370 1376 1379 1380-C.1393 13 81-6 CI

393~4 1395

(1397-8)

1399 1400

Henry of Ameneye named keeper. Also bailiff, 1329-30. John de Molyns. Keeper (rendered account). Also steward. John Olyve granted keeping. Also manorial bailiff, 1352-3, and farmer, 1372-3. Local man. Ralph (de) Tyle. Also farmer, 1373—7 and 1389-92, and keeper of park, 1376-96. See also 1380-c. 1393. Alan (of) Buxhall, constable of the Tower, named keeper. Also farmer, c. 13 80-1. Ralph (de) Tyle. See 1376 above. Richard Wylde. Also farmer/bailiff, 1381-9, and manorial bailiff, 1396-1401 and 1403-5. Robert Kent, yeoman of the chamber. Keeper. John Wymbish, yeoman of the chamber, named keeper. See also 1400 and 1409-10. (Thomas Arundel, archbishop of York and later of Canterbury, and/or Edward, first earl of Rutland, later first duke of Aumale, actually held the entire manor, in place of the king or queen.) Peter of Craon. Granted manor with use of houses and park. Richard Hammes and John Wymbish/Wymbush named joint keepers. Hammes also farmer/bailiff, 1405-10. Wymbish also farmer/bailiff, 1410-11. See also 1409-10 and 1414-17. 266

Officials of the manor, palace, park and Liberty (1400) 1400-1 1409-10 1414—17 1419-21 1421

1425 1437 and 1438 1449-51 1451 1452 1453 1460 1460 and 1461 1461—2 1461

(Henry Percy, first earl of Northumberland, actually held the manor.) Thomas Gerard, king's servant. Keeper. (Followed Wymbish.) Richard Hammes and John Wymbish. Concurrently farmers. Richard Hammes. See also 1400. Peter Thorp. See also 1425. John Burgh and William Wakefield, gentlemen of London, granted keeping. Burgh farmer/bailiff, 1422—6, 1433-4 and 1437. Peter Thorp. Richard Bitterle/Butterleye and Thomas Est, yeomen of the crown, named keepers. See also 1452. Thomas Broune, king's esquire. Keeper. Also farmer/ bailiff, 1447-51 and 1452-3Robert Browne named keeper. Richard Bitterle and Thomas Est granted keeping. Edmund Beaufort, second duke of Somerset, and John Manser, esquire, of London, granted keeping. Thomas Thorp, secondary baron of the Exchequer, granted keeping. Thomas Tyrell granted keeping. George Dale named keeper. Also bailiff, 1461 and 1471-2. Thomas Cook, king's servant, named keeper. Also parker, 1461, and farmer, 1464—8.

3 B A I L I F F S , 1229—90

c.i 229-30 1233-7 1239-40 (and

William of Markedich. Bailiff and actual keeper of king's buildings at Havering. Local man. John of the Wood. Local man. Reginald le Rus, king's yeoman.

1242-3 ?) 1240-3 1243-6 1250-1 1251-2 1253 1253 1260-4 1269-J2

Richard of the Elms of Havering. Local man. William of Uphavering. Local man. John (le) Waleys (Walensis), king's Serjeant. Also farmer, 1246-51. Thomas le Rus (Russo). Brother to a royal official. Also called keeper of Havering. Thomas de Hotot. Brother to a royal official. Richard le Enveyse. Geoffrey Escurrel (Squirel). Also rendered account for farm, 1258—64. Local man. Robert of Chigwell (Gykewell, Gatewell). Also called warden. 267

Appendix I 1272 and/ through 12771279-C.1285 1284-5 1285-8 1288-90

Temp. Edward I

William de Ho (Hott). Roger of Molton. Bailiff of several royal manors, with a special bailiff for Havering under him. John William, bailiff. Father to Robert, bailiff in 1319-21. Local man. Luke of Gare (Garret). Bailiff of Sussex, Kent and Essex, with a special bailiff for Havering under him. Philip atte Felde (de la Felde, de Campo). Son of Henry of Lamborne. Bailiff/serjeant/receiver of Havering; served beneath Luke of Gare. Local man. Thomas of Hancot.

4 FARMERS AND/OR (HIGH) BAILIFFS, I3OI-I497 c.i301 1303 1311-15 131 i—c. 1315 1315 c. 1318-20 1319-21

1321-4 1325-7 1329-30 1332-C.1339 1333-5 1341-2

1342—3 3 59-6o

1

1365-6 365-70 J 37 2 ~3 1

J

373—7

c.i 3 80-1

Thomas of Dagenham. Bailiff. William atte Brochole. Bailiff. Stephen of Brawode (once called clerk). Bailiff. Robert of Wandovere. Bailiff. John de Luda. Bailiff. Thomas of Derby. Bailiff. Robert (son of John) William. Bailiff and rendered account. Local man, son of John William, bailiff in 1284-5. John of (la) Doune (atte Doune). Bailiff (rendered account 1321—2). See also 1342—3. Local man. Giles Pecche. Bailiff and rendered account. Henry of Ameneye. Bailiff. Named keeper, 1330. Oliver of Blomville. Bailiff of the queen's liberty of Havering and rendered account. Reginald (atte) More. Farmer and bailiff. Roger Belot and William (or Thomas) of Uphavering. Farmers. Belot a royal servant; parker in 1337-52 and farmer in 1365-6; Uphavering a local man. John of (la) Doune. Farmer. See also 1321—4. Local man. John (of) Brydesale and Richard Wylynghale. Farmers. Local men. Roger Belot. Farmer. See also 1341—2. William Albyn. Rendered account as bailiff. Local man. John Olyve. Farmer and bailiff. Manorial bailiff, 1352—3, and keeper, 1370. Ralph (de) Tyle, king's serjeant or esquire. Farmer. Also keeper, 1376 and 1380-c. 1393, and keeper of park, 1376-96. See also 1389-92. Alan (of) Buxhall, constable of the Tower. Farmer. Also named keeper, 1379.

268

Officials of the manor, palace, park and Liberty 1381-9 1389-92 1393-4 1397-9 1405-9

Richard Wylde. Bailiff and farmer. Also keeper, 1381-6, and manorial bailiff, 1396-1401 and 1403—5. Ralph (de) Tyle. Farmer and bailiff. See also 1373-7. John Parker, usher of the queen's chamber. John Bokenham and William Grenehod. Farmers and bailiffs. Richard Hammes. Also keeper, 1400, 1409-10 and 1414-17.

1437-47 and

Richard Hammes and John Wymbish/Wymbush. Wymbish also keeper, 1400 and 1409-10. See also 1405—9 and 1411. John Wymbish/Wymbush. See also 1410. John Fyndern. (William of Burghton. Called sub-bailiff on account.) Ralph Uphavering and John Somer. Local men. See also 1419-21 and 1434-5John Somer. See also 1415—19. John Burgh. See also 1433—4 and 1437. Henry Chadirton. (Thomas Edolf, attorney of the queen, accounts for one particular sum during these years as' bailiff of Havering'.) John Burgh. See also 1422-6 and 1437. Ralph Uphavering. See also 1415—19. John Feme. Local man. John Burgh. See also 1422—6 and 1433—4. Simon Campe(r). Also parker, 1419-20. John Boys, king's servant, named bailiff. Also held park offices, 1439-72. Robert Spenser, yeoman of the king's chamber.

1451-2 1447-51 and

Thomas Broune, king's esquire. Also keeper, 1449-51.

H52-3 1461 and

William Wysden. Bailiff.

1410

1411 1412-14 (1413) 1415-19 1419-21 1422—6 1426-8 (1426-37) H33-4 H34-5 H35-7 H37 c. late 1430s 1445

1464-70 1461 and 1471-2 1464-8 1468-71 1471-4 1479-80 1487-9

1496-7

George Dale. Also keeper, 1461-2. Thomas Cook, king's servant. Farmer. Also keeper, 1461, and parker, 1461. John Standroper. Outsider resident in Havering. Richard Parson. Also manorial bailiff, 1473—4. Local man. John Perys. John Staunton. Also called collector of rents. His deputy, Thomas Dene, rendered account in 1488 and 1491 as local collector of rents in Havering. Thomas Elrington (Elderton). Collector of rents.

269

Appendix I 5 MANORIAL BAILIFFS (OR SUB-BAILIFFS), I352-I5OO All local men. .1352-3

c.i388 1388-9 1390

1391-2 1392 1396-1401 and 1403-5 c.i 3 97 1401-2 and 1405-15 1440-5 1452 H53-5 1464-70 1473-4 1481-98 1499-1503

John Olyve. Also accounted as assistant to John de Molyns, then steward and keeper. Keeper, 1370, and farmer, 1372—3. William Zynge. John Lovekyn. Thomas Willyngale. Received writ addressed to the bailiff of Queen Anne's liberty of Havering-atte-Bower; apparently manorial. Walter Herstman. Called bailiff on legal records; apparently manorial. Adam Pondere. Richard Wylde. Also bailiff and farmer, 1381-9, and keeper, 13 81-6. Robert Horell. John Coupere. Robert Bayly. John Hed (Heved). John Bull. Thomas Scot. Richard Parson. Also high bailiff, 1471—4. John King. John Stokker.

6 STEWARDS, 1261-1500

1261 ^•1339 1352 1353 1369-70 1380-1 1388-9 and/ through 1396-9 (1400) 1405-11 1417-21 I422ff 1427 and/ through 1435—40 1437

Simon of Dunton. Robert of Hagham (Haugham/Hogham). Queen's steward of Havering. Also called bailiff. John de Molyns. Chief steward, steward of the queen. Also keeper, 1352. John of Bampton. See also 13 80-1. Clement Spice. Called bailiff in 1370. John of Bampton. See also 1353. Richard Wythmarsh. (William Lassyngby. Steward Northumberland.) John Scardeburgh. Robert Darcy. Alexander Aune. See also 1437. Lewis John. Alexander Aune. See also I422ff. 270

of

the

earl

of

Officials of the manor, palace, park and Liberty 1442-53 1461-72 and/

Lewis fitz Lewis (son of Lewis John). Thomas Mountgomery, knight.

through 1490 1485

1494-1514 and perhaps to 1523

?John Kendale, king's councillor and secretary. Named 'surveyor and steward' of lordship of Havering and * master forester' of Havering park Thomas Lovell, knight.

7 PARKERS OF HAVERING/KEEPERS OF THE PARK OF HAVERING Temp. Henry II 1158-67 1167-1218 Early 1200s 1210-12 1214 1219-before 1234 1227 1230 and/

Salomon the Parker. Ralph the Parker/Ralph son of Salomon of Havering. Geoffrey (son of Ralph) the Parker. William Aucher (Alcheri). Held land by serjeanty of keeping the park of Havering. William Hurell. Held serjeanty. Richard son of William Aucher/Richard fitz Aucher. Held serjeanty. John Hurell ( = John le Parker). Held serjeanty. Philip the Forester. Keeper of the houses and park of Havering. William the Parker. Actual working keeper? Local man.

through 1252-3 1234-5 1237-40 1241 1257-72 Before 1276 1276 1280s 1285 1286-7 1293-5 Before 1318-31 Before 1323-4 1337-52 1357-8 1371 1373-4

Juliana Hurell, widow of John. See above, 1219—before 1234. Roger Cockerel. John of Sandon. Adam the Parker. Richard le Hore. Peter le Wike. Philip the Parker. Elias le Forester. Richard the Parker. John of Bitterleye, king's yeoman. Also keeper, 1292—9. William Geraud/William le Chaundeler/Geraud the chandeler of the queen. William le Comyn. Simon Symeon. Roger Belot. Keeper of the park. Also farmer, 1341—2 and 1365--6. John Waleys. Walter Parkere/the Parker. Under-parker or underkeeper of the park, 1371. See also 1376-9. William of Sleford, clerk. 271

Appendix I 1376 and/ through 1394—6 1376-9 1396-9 1399-1408

1419-20 1420-7 (1452) 1461

1471-80 I485

Ralph (de) Tyle. Keeper of the park. Also farmer, 1373—7 and 1389-92, and keeper, 1376. Walter Parkere/the Parker. See also 1371. John Lowyk/Lodewyck. John Norbury, king's esquire. John Randall, king's esquire. Simon Campe(r). Also (high) bailiff, c. late 1430s. William Albertyn, king's servant. Thomas Scargill, yeoman/usher of the king. (John de Vere, twelfth earl of Oxford. Keeper of park and houses of Havering, joined to keeping of forest of Essex.) Thomas Cook, king's servant, named keeper of park. Also keeper of the manor of Havering, 1461, and farmer, 1464—8. Richard Barley, valet of the household of the queen. Also paler, 1487-8, and coroner, 1489-94. ?John Kendale, king's councillor and secretary. Named 'master forester' of Havering park. Also perhaps steward.

8 KEEPERS OF THE PALE OF THE PARK OF HAVERING/PALERS OF HAVERING

Joined with office of keeper of the south gate of the park of Havering, at least 13 51

1

3 74-5 3 97~~9 and/ through 1408— 1403-35 1

1419-25 1422 1426 and 1437-8

(1439-53) a n d 1453^72 1487—8

Margery and Thomas Carpenter. She the heir of Robert (the) Parker. This office called a serjeanty, with a piece of land associated with it. She a local woman. Thomas Carpenter. Margery Carpenter and Alexander Boys. Local people. Hugh Broket. Actually oversaw work on pale. Local man. Alexander Boys joined Broket. John Pryor. Called paler in a local reference; he a carpenter. John Kempe, king's serjeant. Named keeper of the south gate of the park. In his will, 1439, called the parker of Havering, but no known connection with that office. Hence recte paler? John Boys. Keeper of south gate of park, 143 9-5 3 ff, and paler, 1453 and/through 1471-2. Also (high) bailiff, 1445. Local man. Richard Barley. Ex-valet of the queen's household. Also parker, 1471-80, and coroner, 1489-94.

272

Officials of the manor, palace, park and Liberty 9 OTHER PARK/WOODS OFFICIALS Keeper of the foreign woods of Havering A serjeanty, which turned into a simple freehold; title reappears in sixteenthcentury grants of manorial offices. 1210-17 i2i9fT

John Derewin (de Ipewin) W(illiam Albini), earl of Arundel

Keeper of the west gate of the park 1

376-7

Robert Arnewy (Alwy) and William Pynchbek. Both local men.

Keeper of the warren of Havering Joined with office of keeper of the manor, I394ff. 1369-86

Richard (of) Redyng, former servant of Queen Philippa. Lived in Havering during term of office.

Steward/keeper/bailiff of the forest of Havering Joined with stewardship of the forest of Essex. 1231-67 1267-75 1360

Richard of Muntfichet. Also keeper of manor and park, 1231-67. Thomas de Clare, prob. second son of the seventh earl of Gloucester. Also keeper of manor and park, 1267-75Aubrey de Vere, second son of the seventh earl of Oxford.

10 ELECTED JUSTICES OF THE PEACE, I465-I5OO 1465-80 1481-2 and perhaps ff 1489—97 1498-1508

Election of JP not recorded on manor court rolls. Avery Cornborough. Died i486, Philip Coke, knight. Son of Thomas Cook. Aged thirtyfour in 1489. Thomas Crafford. Son of John, the nephew and heir of Avery Cornborough. Died 1508. Also coroner, 1494-8.

I I CORONERS, I465-I5OO Elected by the tenants. 1465-88 1489-94 1494-8

Election of coroner not recorded on manor court rolls. Richard Barley, gent. Ex-valet of the queen's household. Also parker, 1471-80, and paler, 1487-8. Thomas Crafford, gent. Also JP, 1498-1508. 273

Appendix I 1498-9 1499-1502

William Coke, gent. Brother to Philip. Thomas Grayson, gent.

12 DEPUTY STEWARDS, I465—I5OO

Named by the steward. 1465-88 1489-96

No information. Thomas Salle.

274

Appendix II

HAVERING CASES HEARD IN THE CENTRAL COURTS, 1199-1499"

Curia regis I

1240-9

L= 8 L= 2 L^ 9 L == 9> FJ ^ 2j CvsC = 2 L= 5

1250-9 1260-9 1270-9

L= 2 L= 2 L= 1

H99~ 2O9 1210-19 1220-9 1230-9

1280-9 1290-9 1300-9 1310-19 1320-9 1330-9 1340-9 I35O-9 1360-9 1370-9 1380-9 I39O-9

Court of Common Pleas

Court of Chancery

Court of King's Bench

L = I ; F J = I;

P= 1 L = 2;FJ = i; P= 1 L= i;P = 1 L= 1 L = 1; P = 1

L= 1 L= 1

P= 1 CvsC = 1

a This tabulation is based upon the author's use of records from sample years of the Courts of Common Pleas, Chancery and King's Bench, the printed curia regis rolls and the records of the justices in eyre, published calendars and indices of the records of the courts, unpublished calendars and indices available at the PRO, cases mentioned in the Havering manor court rolls and references provided to her by other legal historians who encountered Havering material. While this chart is certainly not complete, there is no reason to suspect systematic distortion.

275

Appendix II

Curia regis 1400-9 1410-19 1420-9 1430-9 1440-9 1450-9 1460-9 1470-9 1480-9 1490-9

Court of Common Pleas

Court of Chancery

L= 2

L=2 L= i

L= i

L = i; CvsC = 2

L= i

L=5

L = i;FJ = i L=i L = i ; P = 4;

L = 3; CvsC = 2 L = i;CvsC= i

Key: L = suit involving Havering land FJ = plea of false judgement concerning a case heard by the Havering court CvsC = complaint against the Havering court concerning a case heard there P = personal suit involving parties from Havering E = action of error against the Havering court

276

Court of King's Bench

E= 2 E = 12

Appendix III

SURVIVING ROLLS OF THE HAVERING MANOR COURT TO 1500

Location and reference

Years

Number of membranes

1352-3 1380 1382-3 1383-4 1385 1386

9 3 (extracts re 1 case) 8

1386-7 1387 1388-9 1389 1389-91 1392-3 1394 1395 1396 1396-^7 1396-9 1398 1399-1402 1405-6 1408 1414-15 1417-18 1422 1426 1426 1427 1427 1428 1428

Public Record Office

Essex Record Office

SC 2/172/25 SC 2/172/26 D/DU 102/1 D/DU 102/2 D/DHt M190 D/DSgM3i D/DU 102/3B D/DHt M191 D/DU 102/4 D/DU 102/5

14

1 (view only) 1 (view only) 10

1 (view only) 19 1

SC 2/172/27

17 16

D/DU D/DU D/DHt D/DU D/DU

4 (fragmentary) 1 (view only) 1 (view only, photograph) 16

102/6 102/7 M192 102/8 102/9

SC 2/172/28

23

D/DU 102/10

4 SC 2/172/29 SC 2/172/30

21

13

1 (view only) 10 (damaged) 4 (damaged) 4 (damaged) 1 (damaged) 1 (damaged) 3 (damaged) 2 (damaged)

D/DU D/DU D/DU D/DU D/DU D/DU D/DU D/DU D/DU D/DU

1 1

277

102/3A 102/11 102/12 102/13 102/14 102/15 102/16 102/17 102/18 102/19

Appendix HI Location and reference

Years 1428

1

H30

4 3 1 (extracts re 1 case)

1430 1430/1431?

H32-3 H35

1436-7 H37

1 (view only) 1 (draft, on paper) 3 (damaged) 17

1439-40 1440-1 1441-2 H43-5 H43-4 1444-5 1445-6 1446-7 1447-8 1448-9

18

1450-1 1451 1451-2 H52-3 H53-4 H54-5 1455-6 1464-5 1465 1465-6 1465-8 1467-8 1467-9

Essex Record Office

D/DU 102/20 D/DU 102/21 D/DU 102/22 D/DU 102/23 D/DU 102/24 D/DU 102/25 D/DU 102/26 D/DU 102/27 D/DU 102/28

10

H37-8 H37-9

1449-50 (1449?)

Public Record Office

Number of membranes

SC 2/172/31

9 (estreats)

D/DU 102/29 D/DU 102/30 D/DU 102/31

17 11

SC 2/172/32

23 15

3 21

19 16 18 20 1

15

1 (photograph) 13 10

5 7 4 8 2

6 (damaged) 11 (on paper) 11

12 (4 on paper)

278

D/DU D/DU D/DU D/DU D/DU D/DU

102/32 102/33 102/34 102/35 102/36 102/37

D/DU D/DU D/DU D/DU D/DU D/DU D/DU D/DU D/DU D/DU

102/38 102/39 102/40 102/41 102/42 102/43 102/44 102/45 102/46 102/47

D/DU D/DU D/DU D/DU D/DU

102/48 102/49 102/50 102/51 102/52

Surviving rolls of the Havering manor court to 1500 Location and reference

Years 1469 1469-70 1470 1470-1

Public Record Office

Number of membranes

D/DU D/DU D/DU D/DU D/DU D/DU

2 II

5 2 12

1472-3 1474-5 1477-83 1479-80 1488-91

21

1491-3

23

1493-6 1496-8 1498-1502

24

Essex Record Office

9

SC SC SC SC

14 1

2/172/33 2/172/34 2/172/35 2/172/36

SC 2/172/37 SC 2/172/38 SC 2/172/39

27 30

279

102/53 102/54 102/55 102/56 102/57 102/58

Appendix IV

PRIESTS AND CLERKS IN THE PARISH OF HORNCHURCH, 1200-1500

CONTENTS:

1 The parish church at Hornchurch 2 Romford chapel 3 The chapels at Havering-atte-Bower The royal chapel The public chapel 4 Unspecified places or private priests I THE PARISH CHURCH AT HORNCHURCH

Few names appear before the 1396s, probably because the members o f Hornchurch Priory normally conducted services in the church. 1257-C.1285

c.1285 1315 Before 13 80-1 1388-9 1392

c.i 3 92—c.i 3 99 1402-3 * 1417-22 *I422 *I422—3ff *i43O-iff

Ralph of Hornchurch, chaplain/Ralph the Chaplain/ Ralph de Langeley, chaplain o f Hornchurch. (Also refs. to Ralph de Langley, chaplain o f Romford, c. 1269-72.) Robert le Prest, of Pelsestrate. (Held Havering land.) Saman called Prest. (Held land at Pellestrate. Poss. = Semanus le Preest, Hornchurch, before 13 80-1.) Semanus le Preest. (Held Hornchurch land. Poss. = Saman called Prest, Hornchurch, 1315.) John Holiwater, clerk, of Hornchurch. (Poss. = John le Prest, unspecified, 1388-9.) William Skotlyng (Skyflyng), chaplain of Hornchurch. Richard Norys, secondary chaplain of Hornchurch. Richard Periman, clerk of Hornchurch. William Ware, vicar. Names not given, but three positions for Hornchurch are: the vicar, the chaplain and the chaplain's clerk. John Fowler, vicar of Hornchurch. (Former fellow of N e w College.) William Wayfer, vicar/chaplain of Hornchurch. John Rosson, vicar of Hornchurch. William Sayer, vicar of Hornchurch. 280

Priests and clerks in the parish of Hornchurch, 1200-1500 1445 1452 1452 1452-3 1469-79

* 147 5—in or before 1477 *i478ff 1479-in or before 1485 In or before 1481—in or before 1485 *i48 7 ff In or before 1487-90 In or before 1487 1490 *(i49i?) and certainly 1494-1531

Geoffrey of Kenchurch, vicar of Hornchurch. Richard Whiche/Whithe, vicar of Hornchurch. Hubard, assistant to the chaplain of Hornchurch. (The chaplain 'celebrated through Hubard'.) William the chaplain of Hornchurch. Richard Weston, vicar of Hornchurch and farmer of Romford chapel. John (Tabyn), vicar of Hornchurch. William Lowe, clerk, vicar of Hornchurch. (In 1476, Master William, vicar of Hornchurch.) Thomas Skipwith, vicar of Hornchurch. Robert Newton, vicar of Hornchurch. Robert Beryatt (Byryat), vicar of Hornchurch.

William Hokel (Hakyll), vicar/chaplain of Hornchurch. John —, trinity priest of Hornchurch/John le Prest of the fraternity of the Holy Trinity. ?John Hevyngton, parish priest. (Witnessed will. Of Hornchurch ?) ?John Clerk, chaplain. Of Hornchurch ? George Rede, bachelor of law, chaplain, vicar of Hornchurch.

* Opening date is the recorded year of appointment by New College. 2 ROMFORD CHAPEL

Temp. Henry II c.1233/7-60 c.i 260/2—c.i 272 c. 1269/72c.1285 c. 1269/721285/8 1297-1329

1318/19-24 1352/3-8

(1369 or) 1384before 1412

Reginald of Rumford/Romford, chaplain. Nicholas the Chaplain/Clerk of Romford. (Son of Luke. Poss. son of Luke the chaplain of Havering, c.1200?) Robert the Clerk (of Romford). Hugh the Chaplain of Romford. (Poss. = Hugh the Clerk, unspecified places, temp. Henry III?) Thomas the Clerk (of Romford). Nicholas the Clerk of Romford/Nicholas the Chaplain/Nicholas of Romford, clerk. (Father of Wygan Breton, a lay tenant of Havering land.) John, chaplain of Romford/John le Clerk. (Held Romford land.) Walter, chaplain of Romford. (Prob. = Walter the Chaplain of Havering, 1358. Poss. = Walter of Wychendon, below ?) Walter of Wychendon, chaplain/Walter, chaplain of Romford. (Granted office in 13 84 for fifteen years. Farmed 281

Appendix IV

1392 1393-4

1396-1401^* 1412 1412/13-before 1422 1422-3 1452-3 1460 1464 Before 1465 In or before 1481-4 In or before 1487 In or before 1488 In or before 1488-in or before 1489 In or before 1489-99 In or before 1490-before 1492 In or before 1492—in or

before 1493 1491-3 and perhaps to H97 1494-1524

Romford tithes from 1369. Poss. = Walter, chaplain of Romford, above?) Roger the Chaplain of Romford. ?John de B(r)ayne, farmer of Romford chapel. (Poss. a layman.) Richard Colyn and Richard Williamson of Witham. Chaplains and farmers of the chapel of Romford. (One of them prob. = Richard the Chaplain of Romford, 1396.) Robert Whittemore, clerk/chaplain, farmer of Romford chapel. J(ohn) —, chaplain, farmer of the chapel of Romford. Robert Hay(n)ton, chaplain and farmer of Romford. John Wetwood, chaplain/clerk, farmer of chapel of Romford. Richard Weston, vicar of Hornchurch and farmer of Romford chapel. John Neutre, clerk of the parochial chapel of Romford. Nicholas Langston alias Mustard, chaplain of Romford. Richard —, chaplain of Romford. (Prob. = Richard Weston, above.) John Wylowby, parish priest and chaplain. (Prob. of Romford.) Nicholas Fynne, chaplain of Romford. PWilliam Merwyn, clerk and priest. (In will asks to be buried at Romford. Held office in Romford?) John Abyngdon, parish priest/clerk. (Witnessed Romford wills.) Robert Brampton, priest of Our Lady's brotherhood/ priest of the guild of St Mary in Romford. John —, priest of the fraternity of blessed Mary at Romford. John Bardney, chaplain/parish priest of Romford.

Edmund Fuller alias Clerke, parish clerk of Romford. Stephen Longe, priest of Avery Cornborough's chantry at Romford.

282

Priests and clerks in the parish of Hornchurch, 1200—1500 3 THE CHAPELS AT HAVERING-ATTE-BOWER The royal chapel 1173-4 1201-22/3 1225—c.i 243

I260ff 1272-3, before and during

1322-6 I326ff 1430 H38

?Gilbert the Chaplain. (Received payment from Havering profits but probably not celebrating there.) Andrew the Clerk/Andrew the Chaplain of Havering. John the Chaplain at the king's chapel of Havering = John de Herlane, chaplain of the king's chamber at Havering. (Held land * opposite the gate of the king's chamber'.) Henry of St Albans, chaplain of king's chapel at Havering. William the king's chaplain of Havering/William the Chaplain celebrating at Havering. (Prob. = William the Clerk, who held Romford land in 1272 and witnessed deeds, c.1269-72. Poss. = William the Prestre, unspecified places, 1260.) Hugh de Lactona/Laghton, chaplain of king's chapel or chamber at Havering. Nicholas of Stondon, chaplain of king's chapel in Havering. William Holley, chaplain of the king's chapel of Havering-atte-Bower. John —, the king's chaplain at le Boure.

The public chapel 1358 1398-9 1404 In and poss. before 1487 In or before 1488

Walter the Chaplain of Havering. (Prob. = Walter, chaplain of Romford, 1352/3-8.) William Prince, chaplain of la Boure. Richard Bretford, clerk, of Havering atte Boure. John Collyngham, chaplain of Havering-atte-Bower. Robert —, priest of the chapel at the Bower.

4 UNSPECIFIED PLACES OR PRIVATE PRIESTS Some of these men probably not resident within Havering. Temp. Henry II c.i200-13

Temp. John Temp. John Temp. John

Ailmar le Prest. (Held Havering land. Father to Edmund le Prestre, 1213-51, below.) Luke the Chaplain of Havering. (Brother to John the Clerk/Chaplain, temp. John, below. Poss. father to Nicholas the Chaplain of Romford, c. 123 3/7-60.) ?John the Clerk. (Brother to Luke the Chaplain above. Witnessed Havering deed. Of Havering ?) PRobert the Clerk. (Witnessed Havering deed. O f Havering ?) PNicholas the Clerk. (Witnessed Havering deed. Of Havering ?) 283

Appendix IV 1213-51

1214/15ci 243 c. 1233-7 c. 1233/7c.i 240 c. 1233/7c.i 243 c. 1237-43 Temp. Henry III Temp. Henry III 1251 1254—5 1260-temp. Edward I 1285-1305/6 1310 Before 1352/3 1352/3 1352/3 1352/3 1358 1383 1388—9 1445 1469-70 In or before 1479 In or before 1489 In or before 1491-2 Before 1497 1499

Edmund le Prestre/Prest. (Son of Ailmar le Prest, temp. Henry II, above. Held Havering land. Father to John, c. 1237-43 below. Prob. = Edmund the Chaplain, who held Havering land in 1239-40.) Guido (Guy, Wygon) the Clerk. (Held Havering land.) Martin the Clerk. (Witnessed Havering deeds. Father to John Martin, a lay tenant.) William the Chaplain. (Witnessed Havering deeds.) Richard the Chaplain/Clerk. (Held Romford land and witnessed Havering deeds.) ?John son of Edmund le Prestre. (Witnessed deeds. Possibly a layman.) Godfrey the Chaplain. (Held Romford land.) Hugh the Clerk. (Witnessed Havering deed. Poss. = Hugh the Chaplain of Romford, c. 1269/72-*. 1285.) John the Clerk. (Held Havering land.) Henry the Clerk of Havering. William the Prestre. (Witnessed Havering deeds. Poss. = William the king's chaplain, 1272-3.) John the Clerk. (Witnessed Havering deeds.) Richard the Prest. (Witnessed Havering deeds.) PSimon le Clerk, of Canterbury. (Held Havering land. Poss. a layman.) PThomas le Clerke. (Held Havering land. Poss. a layman.) PJohn le Clerk. (Held Havering land. Poss. a layman.) PRoger le Clerke. (Held Havering land. Poss. a layman.) John Parker, clerk, of Havering. Henry the Chaplain. (Involved in an assault. Local man ?) John le Prest. (Poss. = J o h n Holiwater, clerk, of Hornchurch, 1388-9.) William Algode, chaplain. (Involved in assault. Local man?) ?William Benet, chaplain. (Held Havering land but no indication that he held local office.) PThomas Banyte, parish priest. (Witnessed Havering will. O f Havering?) PThomas Ward, parish priest. (Witnessed Havering will. O f Havering?) Semanus Lane, clerk. (Witnessed Havering will; plaintiff in debt case. Prob. of Havering.) Henry —. Former chaplain to Philip Coke, gentleman. Thomas —. Priest to Thomas Grayson, gentleman. (Fined as ale-house keeper.)

284

Appendix V

MINIMUM NUMBERS OF HAVERING CRAFTS- AND TRADES-PEOPLE, 1200-1499

I2OO-

1250-

1300-

49

99

49

3(7)

3(5) 1

13509

136079*

13809

13909

14009

141019

1420-

1430-

9

1440-

9

1450-

9

9

11 (14) 26 (39)

9(") 20 (28)

1460-

1470-

9

1480-

9

14909

9

Food & drink, makers & retailers

Is)

oo

Baker Brewer Cook Butcher Fishmonger Poulterer Maker Spicer/grocer Ale seller/ale-house keeper/regrater of ale Vintner/wine seller Innkeeper/hosteler Total

2

—

3(4) — — — —

—

4 1 —

— 1 —

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

i

1(2) —

6 27

—

—

2

—

4 —

—

1

7(8)

7(10) 5(6) — 5 3

2(3) 8 (10) 1 5 3(4)

— — 1 1 1

2

1

5

—

11

1(2)

2(3)

1 —

1 —

— 6 4 — 1

—

—

—

—

—

1(2)

—

—

—

2

I — — — 30 (38) 24 (29) 17 (21) 3

—

I<2)

—

8(12) 9 18 (19) 19 (28) —

6(10)

6(9)

4 — —

5 — 1

—

6(13) 4(9) 1(2) —

7 14 —

9(13) 2(3)

18 (24) 27 (41) —

9(13) 5(8) 1

—

1

1

— i

— 1 — 10 — — 1(2) 7(u) 3(6) — 8 (9) — 1

12 (16) 6(9)

36

— — 1 (2)

—

3(4)

—

15 (16) —

21 (23) 54 (71)

17 (19) —

48 (72)

3(6)

3(6)

2(3) 40 (47) 34 (64) 1

16

21 (28)

2

3(6) 66 (103)

47 (52)

Leather workers

Tanner Tawyer Glover/white tawyer Cobbler/shoemaker Saddler Total

8 (10) 4 — — — —, — 1

3 — 1 —

1 —

1

— — — —

1

—

10 (12) 4

4

1

2 —

— — —

— — —

2(4)

2(4)

1

2(4)

4(6)

•

— — —

—

—

—

—

1 —

3 3 —

—

1

1

7

5 5 — —

10

7

7

6 —

4 — —

1

2 16

11

7(10) 4(5)

7(8)

2(4)

4

—

13 (19)

7(8)

—

—

—

1

12 (13)

5(io) 14 (20)

Appendix V (cont.) I2OQ49

1250- I3OO99 49

I35O9

I36O79"

138a- I39O9 9

I4OO9

I4I019

1420- 1430- I44O- 14509 9 9 9

I46O-

9

14709

I48O9

I49O9

Cloth workers

Weaver/webber Fuller Dyer Tentor Blanket maker Tailor Clothier/draper Total 00

2

2 (4)

1

_

_

_

_

1 —

3 1 (2)

1 1

1 2

— —

— —

1 —

1 —

—

1 (2)

1 (2)

2

—

1

3 (4)

3 (4)

—

1

1

—

—

1 4

3

1 10(12)

1

—

1

6(9)

6

1

2

6(7)

_

_ —

1 —

—

—

4(5)

—

—

3

—

1

3

2

2

2

1

—

1

2 (3)

3 (4)

—

1

3

3 (4) 1

2

3

1

—

1

5(6)

9(io)

8

3 (4)

4 (5)

2

4

1

2

1 10(11 )

1 (2) 1 (2)

1 1

1

3 (4)

1

—

1

1 (2) 2 (4)

8(9)

5

6(11)

2

1

2 (4)

3

1

3 (5)

Building workers

Carpenter Mason Thatcher Shingler Brick layer/morterer Total

1 (2)

4 (5)

1

1

5

1

3

—

1 (2)

5 (6)

1

2

7

1

3

1

4 (6)

5 (6)

2 (3)

1

1

2 —

2 ( 4 ) 1 ( 2 ) — — — —

1

3

3 (4)

4 (5)

2

2

5

2

Metal workers

Smith/blacksmith Locksmith Goldsmith Mailor Ploughwright Farrier/marescal 'Engineer' Brassworker Total

2

8(10)

1

2

2 /,\

T

10(14)

7 (9)

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

2

—

3

1

1

—

— —

—

1 —

—

2 (3)

—

— —

—

2

2

—

— —

—

—

2 (3)

2

3

—

— —

2

2 (3)

—

— —

3

—

—

— —

2 (3)

2

—

— —

3

2

2 (3)

_

_

—

—

—

—

—

—

3 (4)

2

3

Woodworkers Sawyer/wood cutter Fletcher Cooper Charcoal maker (collier or coleman) Stainer Wheelwright Pailmaker

^ 00

— — — — 2 2 2 1 — — — — 2 ( 3 ) 2 ( 3 ) — — — — 2 (3) 2 (4) 1 (2) 2 — — — — —

— — —

— — —

— — —

Total

6 (8)

5 (8)

Clay workers Tiler Potter Clayman

— 6 (8) —

— — 4(5) — — —

Total

6 (8)

4 (5)

Transport workers Carter/wainer Drover Sailor

1 — —

— — —

1 — —

Total

1

—

1

— — —

1 (2)

— — —

2

1 1

—

— 2

—

— — —

1

2

1 —

—

4

1 —

3

1

3

— — —

— — —

— — —

— — —

— — —

— 1 —

Total

1

—

—

—

—

—

1

1 (2) 4 (7) — —

— 2 (3) — 1

Total

5 (9)

3 (4)

1 (2) — 1 (3) 1 — — — — 2 (5)

1

—

— —

—

— —

2 — —

2

—

— 1

— — — —

1 — — — —

— — 1

—

—

2

— —

— — 1

— —

1

— 2

— —

— —

—

—

2

— — —

— 1 —

—

— — 1

—

— —

— — —

— — i

1 1

2 (3) —

— —

—

_ 2

1

1

1 —

2 _ 1

2 2

— —

— —

—

—

5

—

2

1

—

1

3

1

1

1

_

1

1 —

1 —

3

—

1 1

— 2 2

_ —

2 (4)

—

1 (2)

— — —

— —

—

— — —

—

—

—

5 (7)

1 _

1

—

3

2 (4)

3 (4)

1 — —

— — —

2

—

— 1 ( 2 ) 1 — —

— — —

1 — —

_ 3

—

— 2

— — —,

3 (4)

— —

—

2

—

2 (3) — — 2 (3)

—

1 — — —

3 _ 3

—

—

— —

—

4

—

1 (2)

—

1 —

2

— — —

3 _

— — —

—

—

3

—

1 —

1 (2) — — —

4 _ —

— —

—

1

5

1 — —

Miscellaneous Miller Merchant/chapman Chandler Hatter

1

4

Education, arts & health Scribe/writer — Minstrel/musician — Barber/surgeon — —

— — —

1 1 —

— —

— 1

— — — —

2 (3)

—

— 2

—

2 (3) 3 — 1 — —

3 (4)

2 —

—

2 (3)

3 (4) — —

—

1 —

— — —

2

—

1 — —

— — —

2

—

2 (3) — — —

— — 3 (4)

1

1 — — — —

1

Appendix V (cont.) I20049 Total minimum number, all craftsand trades-people Minimum number of occupations recorded: by decade by half-century

I25O99

I3OO49

1350- I36O9 79*

40(54) 54(72) 25(37) 53

— 1 9 2 5

—

— 20

18

I38O9

I39O9

I4OO9

I4I019

15(16) 51(62) 44(52) 39(44) 17

8*

16 31

17

18

13

1420- 1430- 14409 9 9

I45O9

I46O9

I47O9

I48O9

I49O9

16(19) 4 5 ( 5 0 85(104) 84(110) 72(81) 75(116) 71(77) 101(151)

10

18 31

18

21

22

26

20

26

35

Spans two decades. x = no. of people active at any one time (y) = total no. active during decade, if different from x Comments on the method of counting: 1. This chart includes all people described as practising a non-agricultural craft or trade, plus all men living before c.1320 who had occupational surnames, plus those alive after 1320 called ' X le [occupation]er\ 2. All surviving Havering records have been used in compiling these figures. 3. The chart includes residents of Havering engaged in * crafts and trade but not outsiders working within the manor or London tradesmen/merchants who bought Havering land. 4. Men who are described as having several closely related crafts (e.g., carpenter and shingler) are entered only once, under the designation most commonly used for their work. 5. A few men practised several unrelated trades (e.g., fuller and baker). They are listed under the individual entries for each trade but are counted in the group total of only their major skill. All those with two occupations dealt in food or drink for at least one of their skills. 6. Some women, as many as ten per decade, were both brewers and either ale-sellers or bakers. They are entered in both places but counted only once in the food/drink group total. 7. Agricultural, building, and transport work required the employment of many unskilled people on a short-term, occasional basis. Only skilled, regular workers in those areas are included on the chart. Comments on the accuracy of the numbers: 1. The numbers presented here are a minimum value, never too large but often much too low, and are heavily dependent upon the quality and type of the surviving records for each decade. 2. Occupational surnames from the two Havering extents provide better coverage in 1251 and 1352/3 than for the periods surrounding them. 3. Detailed pleading in private suits in the manor court provide improved information between 1380 and 1410. 4. The numbers of people making and selling food and drink and of leather workers are most complete for those years in which the manor court reported upon them regularly, 1440-99.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

A. PRIMARY SOURCES

Anonimalle chronicle, 1333—1381 (ed. V. H. Galbraith), Manchester, Manchester Univ. Press, 1927. Bolton Priory rentals and ministers' accounts, 1473-1539 (ed. Ian Kershaw), Yorksh. Archaeol. Soc. Record Ser., vol. 132, Leeds, Yorksh. Archaeol. Soc, 1970. The book of fees, 3 vols., London, HMSO, 1921—31. Bracton on the laws and customs of England (ed. and trans, by S. E. Thorne), 4 vols., Cambridge, Mass., Harvard Univ. Press, 1968-77. Bracton's note book (ed. F. W. Maitland), 3 vols., London, C. J. Clay, 1887. Britton: an English translation and notes (ed. F. M. Nichols), Washington, D C , J. Byrne, 1901. Calendar of the charter rolls (1226-1516), 6 vols., London, HMSO, 1903-27. Calendar of the close rolls (1227—1509), 62 vols., London, HMSO, 18921963. Calendar of early Mayor's Court rolls, 1298-1307 (ed. A. H. Thomas), Cambridge, no publisher listed, 1924. Calendar of the fine rolls (1272-1509), 22 vols., London, HMSO, 1911—63. Calendar of inquisitions miscellaneous (1216-1422), 7 vols., London, HMSO, 1916-69. Calendar of inquisitions post mortem (1216—1392), 16 vols., London, HMSO, 1904-74. Calendar of inquisitions post mortem, Henry VII, 3 vols., London, HMSO, 1898-1956. Calendar of the liberate rolls (1226-72), 6 vols., London, HMSO, 1917-64. Calendar of the patent rolls (1216-1509), 56 vols., London, HMSO, 1891-1916. Calendar of plea and memoranda rolls [of the London Mayor's Court, 1323—1484] (ed. A . H . T h o m a s and P.E.Jones), 6 vols., Cambridge, Cambridge Univ. Press, 1926-61. Carte nativorum (ed. C. N. L. Brooke and M. M. Postan), Northampton Record Soc, vol. 20, Oxford, Oxford Univ. Press, i960. The court rolls of the manor of Bromsgrove and King's Norton, 1494—1504 (ed. A. F. C. Baber/Bourdillon), Worcesters. Hist. Soc, Kineton, Roundwood Press, 1963. 289

Bibliography The court rolls of the manor of Wakejield, 1331—1333 (ed. Sue Sheridan Walker), Leeds, Yorksh. Archaeol. S o c , 1983. Curia regis rolls (1189-1237), 15 vols., London, HMSO, 1923^72. Descriptive catalogue of ancient deeds in the Public Record Office, 6 vols., London,

HMSO, 1890-1915. Documents illustrative of English history in the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries, Record Comm., London, Eyre and Spottiswode, 1844. Early registers of writs (ed. Elsa de Haas and G. D. G. Hall), Seldon S o c , vol. 87, London, Quaritch, 1970. English economic history, select documents (ed. A- E. Bland, P. A. Brown and R. H. Tawney), London, G. Bell, 1914. Essex sessions of the peace, 1351,1377—9 (ed. Elizabeth C. Furber), Colchester, Essex Archaeol. S o c , 1953. Excerpta e rotulis finium in Turri Londinensi asservati, Henry HI, 2 vols., Record Comm., no publisher listed, London, 1835-6. Feet of fines for Essex, 4 vols., Colchester, Essex Archaeol. S o c , 1899-1964. Hornchurch Priory: a kalendar of documents in the possession of the Warden and Fellows of New College Oxford (ed. H. F. Westlake), London, P. Allan, 1923. The lay subsidy of 1334 (ed. Robin E. Glasscock), London, Oxford Univ. Press, 1975Liber censualis vocatus Domesday-Book, 4 vols., Record Comm., London, no publisher listed, 1783—1816. Manorial records ofCuxham, Oxfordshire, c. 1200—1359 (ed. P. D . A. Harvey), Hist.

MSS Comm., London, HMSO, 1976. The peasants' rising and the Lollards: a collection of unpublished documents (ed. Edgar Powell and G. M. Trevelyan), London, Longmans, Green, 1899. Pipe rolls: the published pipe roll volumes, issued by the Pipe Roll Society, 60 + vols., London, various publishers, 1884—ongoing, and the Record Comm., 3 vols., London, Eyre and Spottiswode, 1833—44. Placita de quo warranto, Record Comm., London, Eyre and Strahan, 1818. Public works in medieval law, vol. 1 (ed. C. T. Flower), Selden S o c , vol. 32, London, Quaritch, 1915. Red book of the Exchequer (ed. H. Hall), 3 vols., London, Eyre and Spottiswode, 1896^7Registrum brevium tarn originalium, quam judicialium, London, Thomas Bassett, 1687; orig. publ. 1531. Rotuli de oblatis etjinibus... temp, reg.fohannis, Record Comm., London, Eyre and Spottiswode, 1835. Rotuli hundredorum (ed. W. Illingworth and J. Caley), 2 vols., Record Comm., London, Eyre and Strahan, 1812-18. Rotuli Parliamentorum, 7 vols., London, no publisher listed, 1783—1832. Rotulorum originalium in curia Scaccarii abbreviatio, Henry III—Edward III, 2 vols., Record Comm., London, Eyre and Strahan, 1805—10. Select cases from the coroners' rolls, 1265—1413, Selden S o c , vol. 9, London, Quaritch, 1895. Select cases in the Court of King's Bench, vol. 5 (ed. G. O. Sayles), Selden S o c , vol. 76, London, Quaritch, 1958. 290

Bibliography Select pleas in manorial and other seignorial courts (ed. F. W. Maitland), Selden S o c , vol. 2, London, Quaritch, 1889. Skelton, John. The complete English poems (ed. John Scattergood), N e w Haven, Conn., Yale Univ. Press, 1983. The Stoneleigh leger book (ed. R. H. Hilton), Dugdale S o c , vol. 24, Oxford, Oxford Univ. Press, i960.

B. SECONDARY WORKS

Albertson, Mary.' London merchants and their landed property during the reign of the Yorkists', Bryn Mawr College PhD thesis, 1932. Allison, Roland.' The changing geographical landscape of south-west Essex from Saxon times to 1600', Univ. of London MA thesis, 1958. Ault, W. O. The self-directing activities of village communities in medieval England, Boston, Mass., Boston Univ. Press, 1952. 'Some early village by-laws', English Historical Rev., XLV (1930), 208-31. 'Village assemblies in medieval England', in Album Helen M. Cam, Studies Presented to the International Commission for the History of Representative and Parliamentary Institutions, vol. 23, Louvain, Publications universitaires de Louvain, i960. Bamford, A. B. 'Bequests relating to Essex... [from wills in the London Court of Hustings]', Trans. Essex Archaeol. Soc, N.S. XIII (1915), 253—66. Barg, M. A. 'The villeins of the "ancient demesne'", in Studi in memoria di Federigo Melis, vol. 1, Naples, Giannini, 1978, pp. 213-37. Batho, Gordon. 'Landlords in England: the crown', in The agrarian history of England and Wales, vol. 4 (ed. Joan Thirsk), Cambridge, Cambridge Univ. Press, 1967, pp. 256-76. Bean, J. M. W . ' Plague, population, and economic decline in England in the later Middle Ages', Econ. Hist. Rev., 2nd ser., XV (1963), 423-37. Beckerman, John S.' Customary law in English manorial courts in the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries', Univ. of London PhD thesis, 1972. 'The forty-shilling jurisdictional limit in medieval English personal actions', in Legal history studies 1972 (ed. Dafydd Jenkins), Cardiff, Univ. of Wales Press, 1975, pp. 110-17. Beier, A. L. 'Vagrants and the social order in Elizabethan England', Past and Present, LXIV (1974), 3-29. Beresford, M. W. Lay subsidies and poll taxes, Canterbury, Phillimore, 1963. Beveridge, W. 'Westminster wages in the manorial era', Econ. Hist. Rev., 2nd ser., Ill (1955), 18-35Birrell, J. R. 'Peasant craftsmen in the medieval forests', Agricultural Hist. Rev., XVII (1969), 91-107Blanchard, I. S. W. 'Population change, enclosure, and the early Tudor economy', Econ. Hist. Rev., 2nd ser., XXIII (1970), 427—45. Bloch, Marc. Rois et serfs. Paris, Edouard Champion, 1920. Brand, Paul A., and P. R. Hyams. 'Seigneurial control of women's marriage', Past and Present, XCIX (1983), 123-33. 291

Bibliography Brenner, Robert. 'Agrarian class structure and economic development in pre-industrial Europe', Past and Present, LXX (1976), 30-75. 'The agrarian roots of European capitalism', Past and Present, XCVII (1982), 16-113. Bridbury, A. R. Economic growth: England in the later Middle Ages, 2nd edn,

Brighton, Harvester Press, 1975. Britnell, R. H. ' Agricultural technology and the margin of cultivation in the fourteenth century', Econ. Hist. Rev., 2nd ser., XXX (1977), 53—66. 'English markets and royal administration before 1200', Econ. Hist. Rev., 2nd ser., XXXI (1978), 183-96. 'Minor landlords in England and medieval agrarian capitalism', Past and Present, LXXXIX (1980), 3-22. Britton, Edward. The community of the vill, Toronto, Macmillan of Canada, 1977. Brown, Ann. 'London and north-west Kent in the later Middle Ages: the development of a land-market', Archaeologia Cantiana, XCII (1977), 145-55. Butcher, A. F. 'The origins of Romney freemen, 1433—1523', Econ. Hist. Rev., 2nd ser., XXVII (1974), 16-27. 'Rent and the urban economy: Oxford and Canterbury in the later Middle Ages', Southern History, I (1979), 11-43. Cam, Helen M. 'The community of the vill', in Medieval studies presented to Rose Graham (ed. V. Ruffer and A. J. Taylor), Oxford, Oxford Univ. Press, 1950, pp. 1-14. 'The evolution of the mediaeval English franchise', Speculum, XXXII (1957), 427-42. Liberties and communities in medieval England, Cambridge, Cambridge Univ.

Press, 1944. Capua, James V. ' Feudal and royal justice in thirteenth-century England: the forms and impact of royal review', Amer. Journal of Legal History, XXVII (1983), 54-84. Clanchy, M. T. 'The franchise of return of writs', Trans. Royal Hist. Soc, 5th ser., XVII (1967), 59-82. 'Law and love in the Middle Ages', in Disputes and settlements: law and human

relations in the West (ed. John Bossy), Cambridge, Cambridge Univ. Press, 1983, pp. 47-67Clark, Andrew. 'Early Essex Wykehamists', Essex Rev., XVI (1907), 173-5. Clark, Elaine. 'Debt litigation in a late medieval English vill', in Pathways to medieval peasants (ed. J. A. Raftis), Toronto, Pontifical Institute of Mediaeval Studies, 1981, pp. 247—79. 'Medieval labor law and English local courts', Amer. Journal of Legal History, XXVII (1983), 33O-53. Clark, Peter. The English alehouse, London, Longman, 1983. Colvin, H. M. et al. The history of the king's works, 6 vols., London, Ministry of Public Building and Works, 1963—73. Cornwall, Julian.' English country towns in the fifteen twenties', Econ. Hist. Rev., 2nd ser., XV (1962), 54-69. Crowley, D. A. 'Frankpledge and leet jurisdiction in later-medieval Essex', Univ. of Sheffield PhD thesis, 1971. 292

Bibliography DeWindt, Anne. 'A peasant land market and its participants: King's Ripton, 1280-1400', Midland History, IV (1978), 142—59. 'Peasant power structures in fourteenth-century King's Ripton', Mediaeval Studies, XXXVIII (1976), 236-67. DeWindt, E. B. Land and people in Holywell-cum-Needingworth, Toronto, Pontifical Institute of Mediaeval Studies, 1972. Dobson, R. B. * Urban decline in late medieval England', Trans. Royal Hist. Soc, 5th ser., XXVII (1977), 1-22. Dugdale, William. The history of imbanking and drayning..., London, Alice Warren, 1662. Dyer, Alan. 'Growth and decay in English towns, 1500-1700', in Urban history yearbook, 1979, Leicester, Leicester Univ. Press, 1979, pp. 60-72. Dyer, Christopher. Lords and peasants in a changing society: the estates of the bishopric of Worcester, 680—1540, Cambridge, Cambridge Univ. Press, 1980. 'A redistribution of incomes in fifteenth-century England?', Past and Present, X X X I X (1968), 11-33. 'The social and economic background to the rural revolt of 1381', in The English rising of 1381 (ed. R. H. Hilton and T. H. Aston), Cambridge, Cambridge Univ. Press, 1984, pp. 9-42. Warwickshire farming, 1349-C.1520: preparationsfor agricultural revolution, Dugdale Soc. Occasional Paper no. 27, Oxford, Dugdale Soc, 1981. 'Essex and the Peasants'Revolt'(compiled by W. H. LiddellandR. G. E. Wood), Essex Record Office Publ. no. 81, Chelmsford, 1981. Faith, Rosamond. 'The "great rumour" of 1377 and peasant ideology', in The English rising of 1381 (ed. R. H. Hilton and T. H. Aston), Cambridge, Cambridge Univ. Press, 1984, pp. 43—73. 'Seigneurial control of women's marriage', Past and Present, XCIX (1983), 133-48. Fisher, William R. The forest of Essex, London, Butterworths, 1888. Given-Wilson, C. J. 'Purveyance for the royal household, 1362—1413 ', Bulletin of the Institute of Hist. Research, LVI (1983), 145-63. Glennie, Paul D. 'A commercializing agrarian region: late medieval and early modern Hertfordshire', Univ. of Cambridge PhD thesis, 1983. Gottfried, R. S. Bury St. Edmunds and the urban crisis: 1290—1539, Princeton, N e w Jersey, Princeton Univ. Press, 1982. Epidemic disease in fifteenth century England, Leicester, Leicester Univ. Press, 1978. Hallam, Elizabeth M. Domesday Book through nine centuries, London, Thames and Hudson, forthcoming, 1986. Hallam, H. E. Material prepared for a medieval volume of The agrarian history of England and Wales, forthcoming. Settlement and society: a study of the early agrarian history of south Lincolnshire, Cambridge, Cambridge Univ. Press, 1965. Hanawalt, Barbara A. 'Community conflict and social control: crime and justice in the Ramsey Abbey villages', Mediaeval Studies, X X X I X (1977), 402-23.

Harding, Alan. 'The revolt against the justices', in The English rising of 1381 (ed. 293

Bibliography R. H. Hilton and T. H. Aston), Cambridge, Cambridge Univ. Press, 1984, pp. 165-93. Hart, C. E. Royal forest: a history of Dean's Woods as producers of timber, Oxford, Clarendon Press, 1966. Hart, C. J.' The manor of Marks, in Dagenham', Essex Rev., LVIII (1949), 68-81. Harvey, Barbara. Westminster Abbey and its estates in the Middle Ages, Oxford, Clarendon Press, 1977. Harvey, P. D. A. A medieval Oxfordshire village: Cuxham, 1240 to 1400, Oxford, Oxford Univ. Press, 1965. Hatcher, John.' English serfdom and villeinage: towards a reassessment', Past and Present, X C (1981), 3-39. Plague, population and the English economy, 1348-1530, London, Macmillan, 1977. Rural economy and society in the Duchy of Cornwall, 1300—1500, London, Cambridge Univ. Press, 1970. Hearnshaw, F. J. C. Leet jurisdiction in England, Southampton Rec. S o c , Southampton, Cox and Sharland, 1908. Helmholz, R. H. * Crime, compurgation and the courts of the medieval Church', Law and History Rev., I (1983), 1—26. Hicks, M. A. 'The case of Sir Thomas Cook, 1468: judicial chicanery or Lancastrian conspiracy', English Historical Rev., XCIII (1978), 82—96. Hilton, R. H. Bond men made free: medieval peasant movements and the English rising of 1381, London, Temple Smith, 1973. The decline of serfdom in medieval England, London, Macmillan, 1969. The English peasantry in the later middle ages, Oxford, Clarendon Press, 1975. 'Freedom and villeinage in England', Past and Present, XXXI (1965), 3—19. 'Lords, burgesses and hucksters', Past and Present, XCVII (1982), 3-15. A medieval society: the West Midlands at the end of the thirteenth century, London, Weidenfeld and Nicolson, 1966. ' Small town society in England before the Black Death', Past and Present, CV (1984), 53-78. Homans, G. C. English villagers of the thirteenth century, Cambridge, Mass., Harvard Univ. Press, 1942. Ho well, Cicely. Land, family and inheritance in transition: Kibworth Harcourt, 1280-1700, Cambridge, Cambridge Univ. Press, 1983. Hoyt, Robert S. The royal demesne in English constitutional history, 1066-1272, Ithaca, N e w York, Cornell Univ. Press, 1950. Hyams, P. R. Kings, lords and peasants in medieval England, Oxford, Clarendon Press, 1980. 'The origins of a peasant land market in England', Econ. Hist. Rev., 2nd ser., XXIII (1970), 18-31. Jones, Philip E. The butchers of London, London, Seeker and Warburg, 1976. Kenyon, Nora (Ritchie). 'Labour conditions in Essex in the reign of Richard II', Econ. Hist. Rev., IV (1934), 429-51. Kershaw, Ian. 'The great famine and agrarian crisis in England, 1315-1322', Past and Present, LIX (1973), 3-50. King, Edmund. Peterborough Abbey, 1086-1310: a study in the land market, London, Cambridge Univ. Press, 1973. 294

Bibliography Kosminsky, E. A. Studies in the agrarian history of England in the thirteenth century, Oxford, Basil Blackwell, 1956. Kriedte, P., H. Medick, and J. Schlumbohm. Industrialization before industrialization, Cambridge, Cambridge Univ. Press, 1981. Lenman, Bruce, and Geoffrey Parker. 'The state, the community and the criminal law in early modern Europe', in Crime and the law: the social history of crime in Western Europe since i$oo (ed. V. A. C. Gatrell, Lenman and Parker), London, Europa, 1980, pp. 11—48. Long, W. H. 'The low yields of corn in medieval England', Econ. Hist. Rev., 2nd ser., XXXII (1979), 459-69. McDonnell, Kevin. Medieval London suburbs, London, Phillimore, 1978. Macfarlane, Alan. The origins of English individualism, Oxford, Blackwell, 1978. Mclntosh, Marjorie K. 'Central court supervision of the ancient demesne manor court of Havering, 1200-1625', in Law, litigants and the legal profession (ed. E. W. Ivesand A. H. Manchester), London, Royal Historical Soc, 1983, pp. 87-93'The Cooke family of Gidea Hall, Essex, 1460-1661', Harvard Univ. PhD thesis, 1967. 'Hornchurch Priory, Essex, 1158/9-1391', Revue Benedictine, XCV (1985), 116-38. 'Immediate royal justice: the Marshalsea court in Havering, 1358', Speculum, LIV (1979), 727-33. 'Land, tenure, and population in the royal manor of Havering, Essex, 1251-1352/3', Econ. Hist. Rev., 2nd ser., XXXIII (1980), 17-31. The Liberty of Havering-atte-Bower, 1500-1620, forthcoming. 'The privileged villeins of the English ancient demesne', Viator, VII (1976), 295-328. 'Servants and the household unit in an Elizabethan English community', Journal of Family History, IX (1984), 3-23. 'Social change and Tudor manorial leets', in The law and social change (ed. J. A. Guy), London, Royal Hist. Soc, 1984, pp. 73-85. 'Some new gentry in early Tudor Essex: the Cookes of Gidea Hall, 1480-1550', Essex Archaeology and History, IX (1977), 129-38. Maddicott, J. P. 'The English peasantry and the demands of the crown, 1294-1341', Past and Present supplement no. 1, Cambridge, 1975. ' Law and lordship: royal justices as retainers in thirteenth- and fourteenthcentury England', Past and Present supplement no. 4, Cambridge, 1978. Madox, Thomas. Firma burgi, London, R. Gosling, 1726. Martin, John E. Feudalism to capitalism, Atlantic Highlands, N e w Jersey, Humanities Press, 1983. Miller, Edward. The abbey and bishopric of Ely, Cambridge, Cambridge Univ. Press, 1951. Miller, Edward, and John Hatcher. Medieval England, London, Longman, 1978. Milsom, S. F. C. The legalframework of Englishfeudalism, Cambridge, Cambridge Univ. Press, 1976. Mitchell, Sydney K. Taxation in medieval England (ed. S. Painter), N e w Haven, Conn., Yale Univ. Press, 1951. 295

Bibliography Morant, Philip. The history and antiquities of the county of Essex, 2 vols., London, no publisher listed, 1768. Morris, W. A. The frankpledge system, Harvard Historical Studies, N e w York, Longman, 1910. Moss, Douglas.' The economic development ofa Middlesex village [Tottenham]', Agricultural Hist. Rev., XXVIII (1980), 104-14. Newcourt, Richard. Repertorium ecclesiasticum parochiale Londinense, 2 vols., London, C. Bateman, 1708—10. Newton, K. C. The manor of Writtle, Chichester, Phillimore, 1970. Orridge, B. B. 'Some particulars of Alderman Philip Malpas and Alderman Sir Thomas Cooke, K. B.', Trans. London and Middlesex Archaeol. Soc, III (1870), 285-306. Palmer, Robert C. The county courts of medieval England, Princeton, N e w Jersey, Princeton Univ. Press, 1982. Phelps Brown, E. H., and S. V. Hopkins. * Seven centuries of the prices of consumables, compared with builders' wage-rates', Economica, N.S., XXIII (1956), 296-314. Phythian-Adams, Charles. 'Ceremony and the citizen: the communal year at Coventry, 1450-1550', in Crisis and order in English towns, 1 $00-1700 (ed. Peter Clark and P. Slack), London, Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1972, pp. 57-85Desolation of a city: Coventry and the urban crisis of the late Middle Ages, Cambridge, Cambridge Univ. Press, 1979. 'Urban decay in late medieval England', in Towns in societies (ed. P. Abrams and E. A. Wrigley), Cambridge, Cambridge Univ. Press, 1978, pp. 159-85. Pollock, Frederick, and F. W. Maitland. The history of English law before the time of Edward I, 2nd edn, 2 vols., London, Cambridge Univ. Press, 1968 (orig. publ. 1899). Poos, L. R. 'The social context of Statute of Labourers enforcement', Law and History Rev., I (1983), 27-52. Popkin, S. L. The rational peasant, Berkeley, Calif, Univ. of California Press, 1979. Postan, M. M. 'Medieval agrarian society in its prime: England', in The Cambridge economic history ofEurope, vol. 1, 2nd edn, Cambridge, Cambridge Univ. Press, 1971, pp. 548-632. ' Some agrarian evidence of declining population in the later Middle Ages', in Essays on medieval agriculture and general problems, Cambridge, Cambridge Univ. Press, 1973, pp. 186-213. Powell, Edward. 'Arbitration and the law in England in the late Middle Ages', Trans. Royal Hist. Soc, 5th ser., XXXIII (1983), 49-67. 'Settlement of disputes by arbitration in fifteenth-century England', Law and History Rev., II (1984), 21-43. Powicke, F. M. King Henry HI and the lord Edward, 2 vols., Oxford, Clarendon Press, 1947. Prescott, Andrew. 'London in the Peasants' Revolt', The London fournal, VII (1981), 125-43. 296

Bibliography Prestwich, Michael. * Currency and the economy of early fourteenth century England', in Edwardian monetary affairs (1279-1344) (ed. N.J. Mayhew), British Archaeological Reports, vol. 36, Oxford, 1977, pp. 45-58. Putnam, Bertha H. The enforcement of the Statutes of Labourers during thefirstdecade after the Black Death, N e w York, no publisher listed, 1908. Raftis, J. A. A small town in late mediaeval England: Godmanchester, Toronto, Pontifical Institute of Mediaeval Studies, 1982. ' Social structures in five east Midland villages: a study of possibilities in the use of court roll data', Econ. Hist. Rev., 2nd ser., XVIII (1965), 83—99. Tenure and mobility: studies in the social history of the mediaeval English village, Toronto, Pontifical Institute of Mediaeval Studies, 1964. Warboys: two hundred years in the life of an English mediaeval village, Toronto, Pontifical Institute of Mediaeval Studies, 1974. Razi, Zvi. 'Family, land and the village community in later medieval England', Past and Present, XCIII (1981), 3-36. Life, marriage and death in a medieval parish, Cambridge, Cambridge Univ. Press, 1980. 'The struggles between the abbots of Halesowen and their tenants in the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries', in Social relations and ideas (ed. T. H. Aston et al.), Cambridge, Cambridge Univ. Press, 1983, pp. 151-67. 'The Toronto School's reconstitution of medieval peasant society: a critical review', Past and Present, LXXXV (1979), 141—57. Reaney, P. H. The place-names of Essex, Cambridge, Cambridge Univ. Press, I935Reynolds, Susan. Kingdoms and communities in western Europe, goo-1300, Oxford, Clarendon Press, 1984. Rigby, S. H. 'Urban decline in the later Middle Ages', in Urban history yearbook, 1979, Leicester, Leicester Univ. Press, 1979, pp. 46-59. 'Romford lease of 1530', Essex Rev., XVIII (1909), 223—4. Russell, J. C. British medieval population, Albuquerque, N e w Mexico, Univ. of N e w Mexico Press, 1948. Scammell, Jean. 'Freedom and marriage in medieval England', Econ. Hist. Rev., 2nd ser., XXVII (1974), 523~37Scarfe, V. N. 'Essex', in The land of Britain, part 82, Land Utilisation Survey of Britain, London, Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries, 1942. Scarisbrick, J. J. The Reformation and the English people, Oxford, Basil Blackwell, 1984. Scott, James C. The moral economy of the peasant, N e w Haven, Conn., Yale Univ. Press, 1976. Searle, Eleanor. 'Hides, virgates and tenant settlement at Battle Abbey', Econ. Hist. Rev., 2nd ser., XVI (1963), 290-300. Lordship and community: Battle Abbey and its banlieu, 1066-1538, Toronto, Pontifical Institute of Mediaeval Studies, 1974. 'Seigneurial control of women's marriage: the antecedents and function of merchet in England', Past and Present, LXXXII (1979), 3-43. ' Seigneurial control of women's marriage: a rejoinder', Past and Present, XCIX (1983), 148-60. 297

Bibliography Sharpe, J. A. 'Crime and delinquency in an Essex parish, 1600-1640', in Crime in England, 1550-1800 (ed. J. S. Cockburn), London, Methuen, 1977, pp. 90-109. 'Enforcing the law in the seventeenth century English village', in Crime and the law: the social history of crime in Western Europe since 1500 (ed. V. A. C. Gatrell, B. Lenman and G. Parker), London, Europa, 1980, pp. 97-119. ' The history of crime in late medieval and early modern England: a review of the field', Social History, VII (1982), 187-203. Shawcross, J. P. A history ofDagenham, London, Skeffington, 1904. Slack, P. A. 'Vagrants and vagrancy in England, 1598—1664', Econ. Hist. Rev., 2nd ser., XXVII (1974), 360-79. Smith, Harold. A history of the parish of Havering-atte-Bower, Essex, Colchester, Benham, 1925. Smith, Patricia. 'The brewing industry in Tudor England', Concordia Univ. (Montreal) MA thesis, 1981. Smith, R. M. 'Kin and neighbors in a thirteenth-century Suffolk community', Journal of Family History, IV (1979), 219-56. 'Some thoughts on "hereditary" and "proprietary" rights in land under customary law in thirteenth and early fourteenth century England', Law and History Rev., I (1983), 95—128. Spufford, Margaret. Contrasting communities: English villagers in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, London, Cambridge Univ. Press, 1974. 'Puritanism and social control?', in Order and disorder (ed. A. J. Fletcher and J. Stevenson), forthcoming. Steer, F. W. 'A medieval household: the Urswick inventory', Essex Rev., LXIII (1954), 4-20. Sutherland, Donald W. The assize of novel disseisin, Oxford, Clarendon Press, 1973Sutton, A. F.' Sir Thomas Cook and his "troubles": an investigation', Guildhall Studies in London History, III (1978), 85—108. Tawney, R. H. The agrarian problem in the sixteenth century, London, Longmans, Green, 1912. Terry, George. Memories of old Romford, Romford, T. Robinson, 1880. Thrupp, Sylvia L. The merchant class of medieval London, Chicago, 111., Univ. of Chicago Press, 1948. Tillotson,J. H. 'Peasant unrest in the England of Richard II: some evidence from royal records', Historical Studies, XVI (1974), 1—16. Titow, J. Z. English rural society, 1200—1350, London, Allen and Unwin, 1969. Winchester yields, Cambridge, Cambridge Univ. Press, 1972. Turner, Ralph V. The king and his courts, Ithaca, N e w York, Cornell Univ. Press, 1968. Victoria county history of Essex, vol. 1 (ed. H. A. Doubleday and W. Page), Westminster, Constable, 1903; vol. 5 (ed. W. R. Powell), Oxford, Oxford Univ. Press, 1966; vol. 7 (ed. W. R. Powell), Oxford, Oxford Univ. Press, 1978. 298

Bibliography Vinogradoff, Paul. Villainage in England, Oxford, Clarendon Press, 1892. Wedgwood, J. C. History of Parliament, 1439-1509: biographies, London, HMSO, 1936. Weever, John. Ancient funetall monuments, London, T. Harper, 1631. Weinbaum, Martin. British borough charters, 1307—1660, Cambridge, Cambridge Univ. Press, 1943. Westman, Barbara Hanawalt. 'The peasant family and crime in fourteenthcentury England', Journal of British Studies, XIII (1974), 1-18. White, S. D., and R. T. Vann. 'The invention of English individualism: Alan Macfarlane and the modernization of pre-modern England', Social History, VIII (1983), 345-63. Wolffe, B. P. The royal demesne in English history, London, Allen and Unwin, 1971. Worsley, A. V. Hornchurch parish church: a history, Colchester, Benham, 1964. Wrightson, Keith. ' The Puritan reformation of manners, with special reference to the counties of Lancashire and Essex, 1640-60', Univ. of Cambridge PhD thesis, 1973. ' Two concepts oforder: justices, constables andjurymen in seventeenth-century England', in An ungovernable people (ed. John Brewer andj. Styles), London, Hutchinson, 1980, pp. 21-46. Wrightson, Keith, and David Levine. Poverty and piety in an English village: Terling, 1525-1700, N e w York, Academic Press, 1979. Wunderli, Richard M. London church courts and society on the eve of the Reformation, Cambridge, Mass., The Medieval Academy of America, 1981. Young, Charles R. The royal forests of medieval England, Philadelphia, Pa., Univ. of Pennsylvania Press, 1979.

299

INDEX

Abenhache: family, 116; Sabina (of), wife of Walter Pecok, 116 Abyngdon, John, priest, 282 accounts merchant, 168 actions: collusive, to transfer land, 28048, 32, 123, 246; contentious, concerning land, 195, 245; of cessavit, 246n9i; of ejecit within term, 246 n9i; of error, 247, 276; see also manor court of Havering, private suits heard by; writs Acton, Msx, 158 administrative 'slippage', 56, 112, 188; see also Havering, supervision of affeerors, see manor court of Havering age, legal, 118 agriculture, 190; changes in, 226-^7; on the Hornchurch estate, 147-52; patterns of, 137—46 Ailmar le Prest, 283 Albericus, earl, see Vere, Aubrey de Albertyn, William, King's servant, 272 Albini, William, earl of Arundel, 273 Albyn, William, 268 Alcheri, see Aucher Aldewyn, John, butcher, 157-9, wife of*. 174 ale: making of, 153, 228; sellers of, 153, 208, 228, female, 173, no. of, 152, 285; tasters, see manor court of Havering ale-houses, 153, 156, 225, 229; in Romfcrd, 248, 256; keepers of, 229, 247, 257, 284, no. of, 285; supervision of, by manor court, 257-8; see also taverns Algode, William, chaplain, 284 Algor, John, 155 alien priories, confiscation of property of, 78, 85 alluvium, see soil, types of almshouses, 238—9; Roger Reede's, 240 Alwy, see Arnewy

Ameneye, Henry of, 266, 268 amercement, see manor court of Havering, punishments ancient demesne, 48-9; claims to the privileges of, 47, 81; legal procedure for, 31-5; legal privileges of, development of, 27-33; historiography of, 46-7; privileges of, 41-5, 243; development of, 45-8; review of cases heard within, 31—2, 71 Andrew the Clerk/Chaplain, 283 Angevin administration of royal demesne, 16-27, 35-42, 4^-9 Anglo-Saxon royal possession of Havering, 8 animals: leasing of, 142, 231; raising of, 141, 147—8; sale of, 142, 148, 168, 227, 231, to London, 153, 157, 230; types of, 141-2, 147-8, cows, 18, 74, 226-7, dogs, 155, 255-6, horses, 168, pigs, 18, sheep, 227 Annore.John, 80, 167 n98 Anonimalle chronicle, 82nn 122—3, 85 m29 Ansy, Christine, 199 approvers, 67 arable, see land, types of Arber-Cooke, A. Th., 224n5 arbitration, 191, 198—200, 218, 232, 246 archdeacon of Essex: role of, 72; visitation by, 7211J7 archery, 231, 256 Arnewy (Alwy), Robert, 273 Arundel: Thomas, archbishop of York, later archbishop of Canterbury, 52 m , 104 n31, 266; William Albini, earl of, see Albini assarting, 24, 26, 35-6, 49, 52, 59, 93, 113, 176, 178, 189; encouragement of, by crown, 99, 102; rate of, 63, 91, 104; by royal officials, 21, 24

301

Index assarts, 36, 94, 96 assaults, 200, 202, 209, 212—13, 235, 239, 245, 248, 252-3, 257—8, 260; involvement of women in, 219-20; no. of, 210-11, 252 assizes: in suits heard by manor court, 193; possessory, 30 attachers, in suits heard by manor court, 193 attachment by the body, 245 attorney, letters of, 123 attorneys, 219; in suits heard by manor court, 193—4; of the crown, 187, 269; professional, 246-^7 Aucher (Alcheri): Henry son of, 265; William, 2in22, 271 auditors, use of, 167 Aumale, first duke of, see Rutland, Edward, first earl of Aune, Alexander, 270 Avery Cornborough's chantry, see Cornborough Aylmer, Thomas, fishmonger of Romford, 247 bailiff of the forest of Havering, see forest of Havering bailiff of Havering, see manor of Havering bailiff of Hornchurch estate, see Hornchurch estate Baker, John, 247 n96 bakers, 153, 208, 229; female, 173; no. of 152, 285 Baldewyn: John, 245, mother of, 245; Simon, 165 Bampton: John of, 78, 82—3, 270, clerks to, 84; Lewis, of Rainham, Essex, 248 Banyte, Thomas, priest, 284 barbers, 150, 212; no. of, 287 Barbour, John, barber, 212 Bardney, John, chaplain, 282 Barking, Essex, 130, 158, 171, 233-4, 237, 254 Barking Abbey, 56 m6, abbess of, 82, 167, 208 n76, 214 Barking Ripple, Essex, 233 Barley, Richard, gent, valet of the queen's household, 272-3 barley, see crops, types of Bayly, Robert, 270 Beam Land, see holdings within Havering Beam river, 7 Beam (family name), see Berne 302

Beaufort, Edmund, second duke of Somerset, 267 Beckerman, John, 204 n6 5 Becontree, Essex, hundred of, 90 Bedfords, see holdings within Havering beer, 228; see also ale behaviour, see social behaviour Belknap, Robert, Kt, 78, 81-2, 84 Belot, Roger, royal servant, 268, 271 Berne (Beam), Beatrice daughter of Osbert of the, 170 Benet, William, chaplain, 284 Benham, John, 214 Bennett: Judith, I75ni27; Michael, 133 n77 Bernard, John, labourer, 232 Berneman: Adam, 213; John, ploughman, 161 Beryatt, Robert, vicar, 281 Bigod, Roger, sixth earl of Norfolk, 130 bishop of London, 72, 75 Bitterle (Butterleye): John of, King's yeoman, 266, 271; Richard, yeoman of the crown, 267 Blackheath, battle of (1497), 65 Blackmore, Essex, 209 blacksmiths, 155; no. of, 286 blanket makers, no. of, 286 Blomville, Oliver of, 268 boarding, 229 boat, freighting by, 144, 163 Bohun, Humphrey de, first earl of Essex, 266 Bokynham (Bokenham), John, 143, 198, 269 bonds for good bearing, see good bearing books, 20, 238 bordars, 39; no. of, 90 boroughs, privileges of, 159, 243 Bowreman, Thomas, of Romford, 229 Boys: Alexander, 272; Joan, widow of John, 245; John, king's servant, 269, 272 Bracton, Henry de, 46 Brampton, Robert, priest of Romford fraternity, 282 Brand, Paul, 32n67, 36n8i, 38n88, 42nio6, 7in73 brassworkers (brasiers), 230, no. of, 286 Brawode, Stephen of, 268 Brayne, John de, farmer of Romford chapel, 282 breaking and entering, 211, 245

Index Brentwood, Essex, 82-4, 158, 164, 208,248 Campo, see Felde Bretford, Richard, clerk, 283 Canterbury, archbishop of, see Arundel, Breton (Brettoun): John le, 75—6; Thomas capital, investment of, 150, 154, 226, 228 William le, 36, 93 Bretons, see holdings within Havering capitalism, transition to, 177 Brette, Elizabeth, 252 Cappes (Caps): John, collier, 169, 218; brewers, 153, 208-9, 228-9, 232; female, John, weaver of Romford, 218; 173; no. of, 152, 285 Margaret, wife of Thomas, 174, 218; brewing, 153, 228 Thomas, 218—19 bribes, 39n93, 73, 76, 8onii5; see also card games, 256 gifts Carpenter: Margery wife of Thomas, bricks layers, 163; no. of, 286 daughter of Robert (the) Parker, 272; bridges, supervision of, 72, 208 Thomas, 272 Bridgewater, see Romford carpenters, 58n2O, 79, 155, 163, 2i4n93; Britton, 34n73 no. of 286 Brochole, William atte, 268 Carrowe, Thomas, 144 Brodeye: Anne, widow, 220; John, carters, 156, 163, 168; no. of 287 butcher, 213 cartwrights, 230 Brok, Laurence de, 38, 39n93 cash, see money Broket, Hugh, 272 Castell, Thomas, butcher of London, 230 Brokman, see Brookman cattle, see animals, types of Brook (Brooke, Brokys): Emma atte, central courts, use of, by Havering 175, 219; Thomas, tanner, 155 people, 29, 32, 71, 246-7, 275-6 Brookman (Brokman), John, 159, baker certiorari, see writs of Romford, 156, brewer, 209 cessavit, see actions brotherhoods, see fraternities Chadirton, Henry, 269 Brown, A. L., 83ni26 Chafford hundred, Essex, 233-4 Browne (Broune): Robert, 267; Thomas, Chambre, John, wife of, 259 king's esquire, 267, 269 Chancery, Court of, 62, 64, 71, 242, 248; Brydesale, John of, 268 no. of Havering cases heard by, 275—6 Brygges, Richard, inn keeper, 252, 257—8 chandlers, no. of, 287 Bryth, Simon, 134 chantries, Avery Cornborough's, 237 building workers, 17, 165, 229; chapel of St Andrew in Romford (to employment of, 79, 162; no. of 286; 1410), see Romford, chapel of see also the individual occupations chapel of St Edward in Romford (14106°), buildings, 151; construction of, 143—4 see Romford, chapel of Bull, John, bailiff, 205, 270 chapel of St Mary in Havering-atteBurgh: John, gent of London, 267, 269; Bower, see Havering-atte-Bower, Thomas, 195, 219 chapel of Burghton, William of, 269 Chaplain: Andrew the, 283; Gilbert the, Burgo, Walter de, 27, 36n82, 39n93 283; Godfrey the, 284; Henry the, 284; butchers, 153, 208, 213, 227, 229, 252; no. Hugh the, of Romford, 281; John of, 152, 285; of London, 123, 133, 142, (the), 283, of Romford, 281; Luke the, 158, 227, 230-1, 248 283; Nicholas (the), 283, of Romford, butter, 229 281; Ralph the, 280; Richard, former, 235n49; Richard the, 284; Roger the, Butterleye, see Bitterle of Romford, 282; Walter the, 283, of buttons, silver, 231 Romford, 281; William the, 281, 283-4 Buxhall, Alan of, Kt, 82, constable of the chaplains, 151, 237; in the parish of Tower, 266, 268 Hornchurch, list of, 280-4; see a^so bye-laws, see manor court of Havering Havering-atte-Bower, chapel of; Byryat, see Beryatt Hornchurch, parish church of; Romford, chapel of Caldecote, Edmund of, 266 chapmen, no. of, 287 Campe (Camper), Simon, 269, 272 303

Index charcoal, 143, 169, 230; see also colliers charity, 236, 230-40 charters, 102, n o , 122; of the Liberty of Havering-atte-Bower, see under Liberty Chaundeler, William le, see Geraud, William cheese, 141, 147, 151, 162, 229-30 Chelmsford, Essex, 24, 60, 83, 230 cheminage, 64045 Cheshire, 133 Chigwell, Essex, 68 Chigwell (Gykewell, Gatewell), Robert of, 267 children, 118, 174-5 chimneys, 230 Chislehurst, Kent, 8n9, 94 n9 chronicles, see Anonimalle churches: of St Andrew in Hornchurch, see Hornchurch, parish church of; of St Andrew in Romford (to 1410), see Romford, chapel of; of St Edward in Romford (i4iofF), see Romford, chapel of; of St Mary in Havering-atteBower, see Havering-atte-Bower, chapel of churchwardens, role of, 235-6 Chylteberne, John of, iO4n3O Clare, Thomas de, 266, 273 clay: wares, 155; workers, no. of, 287; see also soil, types of clearing of land, see assarting clergy, 235; see also chaplains; clerks; priests Clerk (Clerke): Andrew the, 283; Guido (Guy, Wygon) the, 284; Henry the, 284; Hugh the, 284; John (le), 134, 284, of Romford, 281; John the, 283-4; Martin the, 284; Nicholas the, 283, of Romford (1233/7-60), 281, (1297-1329), 75, 281; Richard (the), 284, of Hornchurch, 198; Robert the, 283, of Romford, 281; Roger le, 284; Thomas le, 284; Thomas the, of Romford, 281; see also Fuller clerk of the market: for Havering, see Liberty of Havering-atte-Bower; royal, 80 clerks, 134; in the parish of Hornchurch, list of, 280-4 Clifford (Clyfford): John, butcher of Romford, 154; William of, 266 close rolls, use of, 167 cloth: makers of, 229-30, no. of, 286; making of, 155, 229 304

cobblers, 154, 209; no. of, 152, 285 Cockerel, Roger, keeper of Havering park, 93, 271 Cockerels, see holdings within Havering, Dagenhams and Cockerels coins, 168-9, 231 Coke, see Cook Colchester, Essex, 234; gaol in, see gaols colemen, see colliers Colforth, Thomas, butcher of Romford, 227

Colkirk (Kolkyrk), Adam of, 61, 225 n8 collective action by communities, 177, 183-4 collector of rents, royal, 64-6, 258 Collier Row, 249niO5; ward 25OniO5 colliers, 115, 155, 169, 218, 230; no. of, 287; see also charcoal collusive actions, see actions Collyngham, John, chaplain, 238, 283 Colyn, Richard, chaplain, 282 Colyng, William, draper of London, 230 Colyns, William, Fleming, 134^9, 220 commodity production, simple, 160 common fields, arable, absence of, 93 common lands: pressure on, 251; supervision of, see manor court of Havering Common Pleas, Court of, 70-1, 81-2, 220; no. of Havering cases heard by, 275-6 complaints: by tenants to central courts, 57, 248, 276; by tenants to crown, 37, 62; to king by writ monstraverunt, 381788 compromise, encouragement of, 191, 198-9; see also arbitration compurgation, 199, 246 Comyn, William le, 271 Condon, M. M , 53 n7 conflict: at local level, 183-4; resolution of, 191, 195, 252 conscription, of labour, 58n2O, 79, 85, 162, 165 consolidation of holdings, see land holdings conspiracy, charge of, against Havering people, 61-3 constables, see manor court of Havering contempt of court, 195, 232 continuity of families, 131-3, 222, 249 contours of Havering land, 139 contracts, 168—70 conveyance of land, see land, transfer of

Index Cook (Coke): family, 225; Philip, Kt, son of Thomas, 65-6, 226, 232, 247, 253, 273, chaplain of, 236, 284; Thomas, Kt, draper of London, king's servant, 53, 65, 223, 225 n6, 226, 228, 242, 267, 269, 272; William, gent, brother to Philip, 274 cooks, 149; no. of, 285 Coole, John, tanner of Hare Street, 252 cooperation, within communities, 182—4 coopers, no. of, 287 Copshef, Thomas, 213 Cornborough: Avery, 223, 225, 237, 239, 242, 253, 273, chantry of, 237, 282, chaplain of, 236; Beatrice widow of Avery, 247 coroner: of Essex, 67, 212; of Havering, see Liberty of Havering-atte-Bower costs, of court, 246 cotlands, 96; tenants of, see cotters cottagers, 233 cotters, obligations of, 39, 67, 104, 2O7n7i, 2i2n85 Cotton, Nicholas, yeoman of Romford, 262 council of the queen, see queen counterfeiting, 77 Coupere, John, 270 court house, in Romford, 254ni25 courts, extra-manorial, 69-70; see also Chancery, Court of; central courts; Common Pleas, Court of; King's Bench, Court of; Star Chamber, Court of covenant, actions of, see manor court of Havering, private suits heard by cows, see animals, types of CrafFord: John, nephew of Avery Cornborough, 253; Thomas, gent of Hornchurch, son of John, 248, 253, 273 crafts-people, 233; no. of, 285-8 see also the individual occupations craftwork, 152—60, 228—9; supervision of, see manor court of Havering Crane, Richard, pailmaker of Romford, 230 Craon, Peter of, 266 credit, 166-70 Creswell, Walter, tiler, 232 crime, see thefts; violence criminal law, see law Crips: John, senior, 165; Judith, i82n2 Crook, David, 25n35, 38n88, 6on27

crops, 148—50; types of, 145, wheat, 74, 169, 230 cross, silver, 231 crossbows, 18 crown, seigneurial role of, 15, 27, 51—66, 185-91 crown lands, see royal demesne Cullyng, Nicholas, baker of Romford, 169 curia regis, 28—9, no. of Havering cases heard by, 275—6 custom, role of, 31, 33, 43 customary tenure, 116—17; see also land; land holdings Dagenham, Essex, 163, 225, 233—4, 237 Dagenham, Thomas of, 268 Dagenhams, see holdings within Havering Dagenhams and Cockerels, see holdings within Havering dairying, 147, 226-7 Dale: George, 267, 269; Ralph, 245 damages, in legal actions, 245—6 Darcy, Robert, 270 Daweson, John, clothmaker, 229 debt, actions of, see manor court of Havering, private suits heard by debts, as recorded on close rolls, 167 deer, 18, 65; see also forest of Essex; park of Havering defamation, 195, 252 Dellebridge, 208 demesne fields, 165 n90; of crown, 90, 93, 96, 100 Dene, Thomas, collector of royal rents, 65, 269 Denys, Robert, 154 deputy stewards of Havering, see manor of Havering Derby, Thomas of, 268 Derbyshire, 133 n77 Derewin (de Ipewin, de Rewine), John, 2in22, 273 detention of money or goods, 231 detinue, actions of, see manor court of Havering, private suits heard by dice, see games direct tenants, see tenants distraint, 195, 200, 245 ditches, 207, 215, 249 Doe: Godwin of, 265; John, fictitious name, 200 dogs, see animals, types of

305

Index Domesday Book, 90-1; exemplifications of, 41 moo, 81 Domysday, le, see extents, of 1352/3 double presentment, 201 Doune, John of (la), 268 Dover: John of, Kt, 19m5; Richard of, 19, 1351183 doves, 148 Dovers, see holdings within Havering dowers of widows, see widows Downeham, Katharine, fishmonger, wife of George, 156 dowries, 170 drapers, 230, 257; no. of, 286; of London, 223, 229n28, 230 Dreywood (Dreywode): William, 251 nil 1, junior, 155, of le Haye, 258 drink, 228—9, makers and retailers of, no. of, 285; see also ale drovers, 156, 230; no. of, 287 Dun, William, 26 Dunton: Richard, 157; Simon of, 270 Durolitum, Roman town, 7 Dyere, Richard, 155 dyers, 155, 229, 245; no. of, 286 Earl Harold of Wessex, see Harold Earl Marshal, William, see Marshal earthquake of 1380, 79 East House, see holdings within Havering eavesdropping, 195 ecclesiastical courts, 71-2, 214, 220, 258; visitations, 72, 112 Edessa, William of, archbishop of Rhages, 266 Edmonton, Msx, 249 Edmund (Edmonde): John, of Tryllyngton, Leics, 230; le Prestre, 284, John son of, 284; Thomas, 258 Edolf, Thomas, attorney of the queen, 269 education, interest in, 238 Edward the Confessor, king of England, 8, 1591172 Edward III, king of England, 22, 62, 79, 8onii3 Edward IV, king of England, 22, 242 ejecit, see actions

Elderton, see Elrington Eleanor, queen of England, 20, 42, 57 Elerius, abbot of Pershore, see Pershore Elizabeth, queen of England (wife of Henry VII), 64

306

Elms (Elmes): Richard of the, of Havering, 36, 38, 94, I22n5i, 267, narrator, 36n8i; William atte, iO4n3O Elrington (Elderton), Thomas, collector of royal rents, 65—6, 269 emigration, 77, 134-5, 222 employment, 160, 163—6; conflicts over, 231—2; see also wages enclosed fields, 140 'engineers', no. of, 286 English, use of, i87ni6, 229, 238 entails, breaking of, 246 entry, actions of, see manor court of Havering, private suits heard by entry fines: of subtenants, 146, 226; of tenants, see relief Enveyse, Richard le, 267 equity jurisdiction of Court of Chancery, 248 error, actions of, see actions Escurrel (Scurell, Squirel), Geoffrey, 267 Essex, 166, 234; commissions of the peace of, 263; county court of, 69; justices of the peace of, 254; see also coroner; forest of Essex; sheriff of Essex Essex, first earl of, see Bohun, Humphrey de Est, Thomas, yeoman of the crown, 267 estates: restructuring of, 225—6; use of, for social purposes, 178, 228; see also holdings within Havering Estbrok, Thomas, 144 Exchequer, 22, 36, 52, 76, 80; marshal of the, prison of, 36; of pleas, 7on64 expulsion from Havering, 239, 250, 252, 258-9 extents, 23, 146; of 1246, 36-7; of 1251, 39-40, 95, of 1275, 99; of 1352/3, 59, 65, 103, 255 fair, royal authorisation of, 40, 243 false: imprisonment, 245; judgement, pleas of, 246, 276; see also writs families, continuity of, 131—3, 222, 249 farmers of the manor of Havering, see manor of Havering, officials of farming: of the manor, see manor of Havering; see also agriculture; leasing farriers, no. of, 286 fattening of cattle, 226 fee-farm, see manor of Havering, farming of Felawe, John, senior, butcher of London, 158

Index Felde (de Campo), Philip atte (de la), son of Henry of Lamborne, 268 felonies, 67n53, 68, 211, 243, 249, 254; see also law, criminal felons, 67, 80, 212; goods of, 64, 190 Fenwick, Carolyn, 8inii9, 128n69 feoffees to use, 118, 223 Feme, John, 269 feudal forms, absence of, 178 Feverokys (Fenerokys), Margaret, Fleming, I34n79, 175, 219 fictitious names, used in manor court rolls, 200 fieri facias, 245 n$5

fighting, see assaults Filer, Thomas, of London, 230 financial arrangements, 166-70, 231 fishing, 205, 251 fishmongers, 153, 208, 229, 247; female, 173; no. of, 152, 285 Fitzlewis, Richard, Kt, 254 Flanders, 134^9, 220, 230 Flandrensis, see Fleming fleeces, sale of, 154 Fleming (Flandrensis), William le, 2in22, 265 fletchers, 230; no. of, 287 flooding, of Thames, 78, 151 food, 149, 229; makers and retailers of, no. of, 285 foreign woods of Havering, see outwoods of Havering foreigners, 134 forelands, 96 forest, justices of the, see justices forest of Essex, 18, 20, 24n33, 35n74, 64, 69, 78, 265, 272 forest of Havering, 69; officials of, steward/keeper/bailiff, 273; see also outwoods of Havering forestalling, see Romford market Forester: Elias le, 68, 271; Philip the, 271 forests, royal, supervision of, 60 fornication, see misconduct, sexual fowl, 141, 147-8 Fowler, John vicar, 280 frankalmoign, Hornchurch land held in, 9 frankpledge, view of, see manor court of Havering fraternities, 74, 236; of Holy Trinity, Hornchurch, 236, 281; of Jesus, Hornchurch, 236; of Our Lady (St Mary), Romford, 236, 282; of St Peter, Hornchurch, 236

freeholds, 29, 91 freighting, by boat, 144, 163 French, Law, 246 fugitives, goods of, 64 Fuller (Fullere): Stephen le, of Romford, 155; alias Clerke, Edmund, 282 fullers, 155, 229; no. of 286 Fyndern, John, 269 Fynne, Nicholas, chaplain, 282 Gale, John, 144 gallows, 67, 254 Gallows Corner, 254 games, illegal, 213, 256-^7 gaols, 67-8, 254; in Colchester, 67, 211; in medieval Havering, 67; in London, 67, 211; in Romford, 232, 244—5, 24-8, 254, Newgate, 6 7 ^ 3 , 68; see also prisons; prisoners

Gare (Garret), Luke of, 268 garsanese, 64 Gate, Petronilla, wife of William, 134 gates, 199 Gatewell, see Chigwell Genoa, merchant of, 167 gentlemen, 233 geographical mobility, see emigration; immigration Gerard, Thomas, King's servant, 267 Geraud, William (le Chaundeler, chandeler of the queen), 271 Germany, 134^9 Gernet, Beatrice, wife of Thomas, 170 Geron, Richard, 153 Gerveys, John, 212 Gidea Hall, see holdings within Havering gifts, 151; see also bribes Gilbert the Chaplain, 283 Gildesburgh, John of, Kt, 78, 82-4, 144 glovers, 230; no. of, 285 Gobions, see holdings within Havering Goby on, John, 218 Godfrey the Chaplain, 284 Goding: Simon, 68; Stephen, 163 Goldberg, P. J. P., I75ni27 Goldhanger, Essex, 68 goldsmiths, 230; no. of, 286 good bearing, bonds for, 212—13, 254 goods purchased, 168—9 Goshaye, Geoffrey, 93 grain, 145, 149, 230; see also crops, types of gravel, see soil, types of Grayson, Thomas, gent, 274, priest of, 284 307

Index Great Totham, Essex, 68 Grenehod, William, 269 greyhounds, 255—6 grocers, no. of, 285 Gromond, Nicholas, 83-4 Guido (Guy, Wygon), the Clerk, 284 guilds (economic), 152, 234 guilds (religious), see fraternities Gykewell, see Chigwell Hache (Hach, Hech, Heche): Adam atte, 61-3; John (atte), 167, 171, 195, of Romford, 175, ploughman, 161; Walter atte, fishmonger, 153, carter, 168; William atte, 198; see abo Heth Hagham (Haugham, Hogham), Robert of, 270 Hakford bridge, 208 Hakyll, see Hokel Hallam, H. E., 99n20 Hallam Smith, Elizabeth, 41 moo Halle: Edward, 213; William, of Stondon, Essex, 230 Hammes, Richard, 266-7, 269 Hancot, Thomas of, 268 hangings, 67, 254 Happle, John, 259 Hare Street, see Romford Harold, Earl, of Wessex, 8, 90 Harold Wood, 249niO5; ward, 25OniO5 harassment, by manor court, 258 Harris (Harryes): (Agnes) wife of Thomas, 65, 258; Thomas, host of the Swan/inn keeper of Romford, 65, 258 harvest, labour for, 149-50 Harward, William, husbandman, 249 Haryson, John, 254 Hatcher, John, 224116 Hatter, Robert, of Hoton (Leics?), 230 hatters, no. of, 287 Haugham, see Hagham Havering: commonalty of, 38, 62, 184; community of, as defined in charter, 243; community of the vill of, 207; definition of use of name, 6ni; history of, 7-8, 262-3; men of, 38, 42, as farmers of manor, I7n6, 23, 27, 265—6; officials of, surveyor of the houses, 266, and see below; physical setting of, 5-6; regions within, 249niO5, 250 niO5; supervision of, 13-27, 35—42, 50-66, 68, 76, 185-91; see also forest of Havering; Liberty of Havering-atte308

Bower; manor court of Havering; manor of Havering; outwoods of Havering; park of Havering; warren of Havering; and officials of each Havering: Alice of, sister of Richard of the Wood, 29, 170; John of, Kt, 79nio8, 225119; Richard of, 36n8i, I35n83, serjeant of the Countess of Pembroke, 26 Havering-atte-Bower, 5, 7, 79, 249 n 105; chapel of, 7, 9, 20, 236; clergy of, 20, 74, 134, 235, 283; chaplain of, house of, 151; ward, 25OniO5; see also Liberty of Havering-atte-Bower; palace, royal, at Havering-atte-Bower Havering Well, 68 hay, see crops, types of Haynes, William, 247 Haynton, Robert, chaplain, 282 Hayward, Nicholas, 212 hearing, damage to, 245 Hech (Heche), see Hache Hed, John, 270; see also Heved hedges, 194; breaking of, 256, 260 Hegeman, John, 103 n30 Helbrook, Hubert of, clerk, 68 Henry: chaplain, 284; the Chaplain, 284; the Clerk, 284 Henry II, king of England, 8, 94 Henry III, king of England, 31, 48 Henry VI, king of England, 22 herders, 148 Here, John, draper and tavern keeper, 257, tailor and tavern keeper, 257 heresy, charge of, 235 heriots, 37, 39, 104, 146, 188, 226 Herlane, John de, chaplain, 283 Hermar, John, 83 herons, 148 Herstman, Walter, 154, 270 Hertfordshire, 163 Heth, John, of Hornchurch, 258; see also Hache Heved, William, tanner of Romford, 212; see also Hed

Hevyngton, John, priest, 281 Hewet: Richard, 256; William, 256 hides (of animals), 143, 148, 154—5 hides (unit of land/taxation), 90 high bailiffs of Havering, see manor of Havering Hilton, R. H., i82n2 Ho (Hott), William de, 268 Hogham, see Hagham

Index Hokel, William, vicar, 281 Holand, John, 134 holdings, 77, 112, 140; composite units among, 96, 222; size of, see under land holdings within Havering, 224114; Beam Land, 147; Bedfords, 224; Bretons, 61, 142; Dagenhams, 59; Dagenhams and Cockerels, 61, 93, 133 n77, 211, 225; Dovers, 225, 248; Earls, 2in24; East House, 224; Elms, 122; Gidea Hall, 61, 116, 142, 224-5, 228; Gobions, 225; Gooshayes, 2in24, 93, 225; Hornchurch Hall (later Rectory), 76, 147, 151, 167, 224114; later regarded as manors, list of, 146 n3o; Markedich (Mardyke), 7, 142; Mawneys (originally Romford Woods), 21, 157; Newbury, 147; Redden Court, 211724, 224; Risebridge, 76, 147, 151; Romford (Woods), see Mawneys; Suttons, 76, 146-7, 151, 235; Uphavering, 225; see also estates; Marks, manor of Holiwater, John, clerk of Hornchurch, 134, 280 Holland, 134^9, 230 Holley, William, chaplain, 283 Holwell, Katherine, wife of John, 235^9 Hore, Richard le, 271 Horell, Robert, 270 Hornchurch, 6113, 147, 231, 233, 250 m05; Hall, see holdings within Havering; parish church of, 9, 236-7, churchwardens of, 235, clergy of, 74, 134, 280-1, glebe lands of, 8n9, 94, house of, 144, 151, vicar of, 75, 235, 238, see also parish of Hornchurch; Pell Street, 153—4, 2 8o; Rectory, see holdings within Havering, Hornchurch Hall; side, wards within, 25oniO5; town ward, 25OniO5; village of, physical setting of, 5, 6 Hornchurch, Ralph of, chaplain, 280 Hornchurch estate, 76, 203 n6o; bailiff of, 75, 151; direct farming of, by New College, 147-52; keepers of, 78, 148; manor courts of, 75, 235 Hornchurch Priory, 20, 23, 27, 70, 72, 75, 78, 133, 145, 162, 238, 265; brethren of, 134; early history of, 9, 94; ecclesiastical roles of, 9, 74—5; gifts to, 9, 75, 170; subtenants of, 109^4 horses, see animals, types of hosiers, 229 n28, 230; no. of, 285

hospital at Montjoux, see St Nicholas and St Bernard hostelers, no. of, 285 hostelries, see ale-houses; inns hosts: of players of games, 256; supervision of, by manor court, 257—8 Hoton, (Leics?), 230 Hotot, Thomas de, 267 Hott, see Ho household goods, 174 houses, construction of, 143 n22, 229, 251 Hoyt, R. S., 46-^7 Hubard, assistant to the chaplain of Hornchurch, 281 hue and cry, 209 Hugh: the Chaplain of Romford, 281; the Clerk, 284 Huk, Markys, 220, wife of, 220 hundred: operation as a, 44; rolls, of 1279, 98 hunting, 69, 163, 205; legislation concerning, 255—6; see also outwoods of Havering; park of Havering; warren of Havering hunting palace at Havering-atte-Bower, see palace Hurell: John, 271; Juliana, widow of John, 271; William, 271 husbandmen, 233, 249 immigration, 77, 130-4, 222-3, 238, 241 imprisonment: false, 245; by manor court, 250 indictments, 185, 254; as prepared by manor court, 6 7 ^ 3 , 211-12, 249 individualism, 176—8, 235 infertility of soil, 150 inheritance patterns, see land, transfer of inns, 156, 225, 229, 258; keepers of, 247, 257, no. of, 285; in Romford, 257-8; supervision of, by manor court, 257—8 interest, on loans, 231 Ipewin, see Derewin iron, use of, 155 Isabel, queen of England, 69 James I, king of England, 263 Jenyngs, Thomas, maltman, 248 Jerusalem, St John of, see St John Joanna, queen of England, 22, 63 John: chaplain, 283, of Romford, 281, farmer of Romford chapel, 282; le Clerk, 284; le Prest, 280, 284, trinity priest of Hornchurch, 229, 281; Lewis,

309

Index John (contd.) father to Lewis son of Lewis, 270; priest of Romford fraternity, 282; son of Edmund le Prestre, 284; the Chaplain, 283; the Clerk, 283-4 juries: presentment, see under manor court of Havering; suborning of, 68; trial, see under manor court of Havering justice: obstruction of, 81; royal provision of, 27-8, 30 justices: in eyre, 24, 6 7 ^ 3 , pleading before, 29-30, 32; of the forest, 24, 35, 52, 69, 78, see also forest of Essex; of gaol delivery, see gaols; of the peace, for Essex, 254, 263, for Havering, 36, 254; see also Liberty of Havering-atteBower, officials of, manor of Havering, officials of, steward and deputy steward; see also lawyers keepers of the forest of Havering, see forest of Havering keepers of the manor of Havering, see manor of Havering keepers of the pale of the park of Havering, see park of Havering keepers of the park of Havering, see park of Havering keepers of the warren of Havering, see warren of Havering keepers of the west gate of the park, see park of Havering Kempe, John, king's serjeant, 272 Kenchurch, Geoffrey of, vicar, 281 Kendale, John, king's councillor and secretary, 271—2 Kent, Robert, yeoman of the chamber, 266 King (Kyng): John, bailiff, 247, 270; John, labourer of Edmonton, Msx, 249 king, seigneurial role of, see crown King's Bench, Court of, 62, 7on64, 164, 247; no. of Havering cases heard by, 275^6 king's court, see curia regis knights, belted, 69 Kolkyrk, see Colkirk labour, 228; agricultural, 145, 149, 157, 161-2, 226; conscription of, s8n2O, 79, 85, 162, 165; wage, 77, 160, 241, conflicts concerning, 231—2 labour services, 75, i n , 146; to crown, 23, 40, 43, 91, 96

labourers, 212, 231-3, 249, 254, 256, 259; female, 174 Labourers, Statute of, see Statute of Labourers Lactona (Laghton), Hugh de, chaplain, 283 Lake, William, dyer of Romford, 245 Lamborne, Henry of, father of Philip atte Felde, 268 Lancashire, 133 n77 Lancaster, Duchy of, 53 land, 19, 94, 99, 102, 176, 195; cleared, amount of, 92, 100; suits concerning, see actions; transfer of, 119-25, 246; types of, 140-1; value of, 92, 102 land holdings, 98—9, 103; accumulation of, 103, 115—16, 222—4, 226; distribution by size of, in 1251, 97, 108, in 1352/3, 105-9; see ak° women land market, activity of, 94, 122, 125—6, 221 land use, 138, 226 Lane, Semanus, clerk, 284 Langeley, Ralph de, chaplain, 280 Langley Marish, Bucks, 62 Langston alias Mustard, Nicholas, chaplain, 235049, 282 Lassyngby, William, 270 latrines, 251-2 law: concepts of, 260; criminal, 66-8; subversion of, 77, 81; see also felonies Law French, 246 lawyers, 4211106, 85ni29, 133, 223 lay control over religion, see religion lay subsidies, see subsidies leasing: of animals, 157, 227; of land, 123, 157, 225, 227 leather: workers, no. of, 285, see also individual occupations; working, 154, 230, see also hides (of animals) lectureships, 237 Leg, Richard, 157 Legatt: family, 76; Thomas, of Romford, 231; Walter, 103 n30 legislation concerning social behaviour, 255-6 legumes, see crops, types of leisure time activities, supervision of, by manor court, 256 Leofwin (Lewin), Richard, son of, 123 n56 lepers, gifts to, 239^2 leprosy, 252 letters of attorney, 123 Lewin, see Leofwin

310

Index Lewis, Lewis, son of, son of Lewis John, 271 liberties, ecclesiastical, 243 Liberty of Havering-atte-Bower, 8; charter of, 241—4, 254; creation of, 240-2; officials of, clerk of the market, 243, 251, coroner, 243, 254, 273-4, justice of the peace, appointed, see manor of Havering, officials of (steward and deputy steward), justice of the peace, elected, 65, 232, 241, 243, 247-8, 253-4, 273; privileges of, 242—3; see also Havering; manor court of Havering; manor of Havering liberty status prior to 1465, 45, 66, 70, 184, 214 Lincoln, Adam of, draper of London, 94 literacy, 263 little writ of right close, see writs livery of seisin, 123 loans, 166-8; see also money, borrowing and lending of locksmiths, no. of, 286 Lodewyck, see Lowyk London, 18, 22, 70, 83-4, 151, 166, 178, 223, 228, 230; butchers of, 123, 133, 142, 158, 227, 230-1, 248; courts of the city of, 69-70; craftsmen of, 158, 174, 230; drapers of, 94, 229n28, 230; gaols in, see gaols; land holding by people from, 125-6, 131, 133, 221-3; merchants of, 119, 131, 133, 166-7; sale of goods to, 144, 153, 157, 229; tradesmen of, 133, 230 London, Henry of, 130 Longe: John, ploughman, 161; Nicholas, butcher of London, 133; Stephen, priest of Romford chantry, 282 Louis VII, king of France, 9 Louis IX, king of France, 48 Loveday, Roger, central court justice, 42nio6 Lovekyn, John, 155, 270, former bailiff, 153 Lovell, Thomas, Kt, 271 Lowe, William, vicar, 281 Lowyk (Lodewyck), John, 272 Lucas, Peter, clothman, 230 Luda, John de, 268 Luke, the Chaplain, 283 Macclesfield, John, clerk, of Cheshire, 133 n77 mailors, no. of, 286

maintenance agreements, 122 Maitland, F. W., 46 Maldon, Essex, 174 makers, 284; no. of, 285 manor court of Havering, 28, 44, 134, 184-5, 188-90, 194, 200; arbitration, encouragement of, 198, 232, 246; attendance at, 217—18; bye-laws, 250; common lands, supervision of, 205, 207, 251; conflict, resolution of, 191, 196, 252; crown, role of, 185—91; effectiveness of, 199-200, 215, 241, 244, 246, 249; election of officials, see under individual officials; favouritism in, 247—8; good bearing, bonds for, 212—13, 254; indictments prepared by, 67n53, 211-12, 249; officials of, 249, affeeror, 202, 250, ale taster, 158, 204, 208-9, chief pledge, 128, 158, 198, 201, 203-4, 2 ^2, 246, 253, clerk, 187, 188, 244, 255, constable, 67, 204, 212, 214, 239, 249, 252, marsh reeve, 204, 207, woodward, 204; oligarchy, level of, 203-4, 2 49; orders of, 188, 199, 245 n8 5, 247; participation in activities of, 218—19, 244, by women, 219-20; presentment juries at, 201—2, 204-5, 214, 249; private suits heard by, 157, 162, 164, 168-9, 171, 175, 191, 200, 214, 232, no. of, 192, 194, 199, 244, parties in, 193, 245, termination of, 196-8, 246, types of, 192, 194—6, 245; procedures of, 191, 244-5, 249; proclamations at, 202, 205; protection of its own jurisdiction, 213-14, 254-5; public business of, 201—13, 249-61; punishments, 190, 202-3, 244, 250, 252; recording of land transfers, 124—5, 188; review of judgements of, 71, 247-8, rolls of, 60, 84, 123, 185, 187, 255, 277-9; sessions of, 185, 254; suit of court, 117, 188—9, 217; supervision of craft operations, 208-9, 251, of roads and bridges, 208, 252, of Romford market, 168, 209, 241, 251, of social behaviour, 213, 255—9, of violent behaviour, 209-13, 252; tithings, 185, 203, 249; trial juries at, 193, 198-9, 214; use of, 215—18, 244; view of frankpledge, 44, 84, 201, 249, 254; see also compurgation; Havering; Liberty of Havering-atte-Bower; manor of Havering manor court rolls, 129-30, 182-4, 200

Index manor courts, 182, 225 manor of Havering, 90-1; cleared land in, 92, 100; farming of, 22—3, 27, 36, 42, 52, 54; officials of, bailiff, 24, 27, 36, 41-2, 52, 57, 70, 77, 152, i8sni2, 237, 239, 266-8, deputy steward, 185 ni2, 186, 253—4, 274» farmer, 52, 61, 250, 265-70, high bailiff, 268^70, keeper, 265-7, manorial bailiff (or sub-bailiff), 26n42, 30n53, 44, 52, 64, 188, 194-5, 198-200, 205, 214, 243, 247, 254, 259, 270, steward, 185-8, 201-2, 212, 243, 253—5, 270-1; supervision of, see under Havering; value of, 36, 39, 55, 59, 63, 91-2, 95, 100; see also Havering; Liberty of Havering-atte-Bower; manor court of Havering manorial bailiffs of Havering, see under manor of Havering manors within Havering, 145—6; see also holdings within Havering Manser, John, esquire, of London, 267 manucaptors in private suits, 193, 248 Marchall, Henry, husbandman, 142 Marchaunt, Robert, labourer of Romford, 254 Mardyke, see holdings within Havering, Markedich marescals, no. of, 286 Margaret, queen of England, 102 Markedich, William of, 267 Markedich (Mardyke), see holdings within Havering market: centres, 159, 178, 223, 234; clerk of the see clerk; in land, see land market; Romford, see Romford market; tolls, see Romford market Marks, manor of, 225, 228, 242 marsh, see land, types of marsh of Havering, 205, 207, 213; flooding of, 78, 207-8 marsh reeves, see manor court of Havering marsh walls, 151, 190, 202, 207; supervision of, 72, 78 Marshal, William, Earl, 265 Marshalsea, Court of the, 69, 70-1, 79, 213, 220

Martin the Clerk, 284 masons, 163, 230; no. of, 286 Mauny, Walter de, 131 Mawneys, see holdings within Havering meadow, see land, types of Melle, Robert atte, 194, blacksmith, 155 312

men of Havering, see under Havering merchants, 152; no. of, 287; see also London merchet payments, 37-9 Merwyn, William, clerk, 282 metal: workers, no. of, 286; working, 230 middlemen, local people as, 230 migration, see emigration and immigration millers, no. of, 287 mills, 76, 91, 93; water, 19, 130, 156; wind, 151, 156, 226, 230 minstrels, 150; no. of, 287 Mirable, John, of Noak Hill, 165 misconduct, sexual, 231, 250, 252, 260, supervision of, by manor court, 258-9 mobility, geographical, 131; see also emigration and immigration Mobray, Katherine, widow of John, duke of Norfolk, 224114 Mogge, Maude, 171 Mokke, John, of Orsett, 158 Molton, Roger of, 268 Molyns, John de, steward and keeper, 59-60, 62, 266, 270 money: borrowing and lending of, 166-^7, 231, by women, 175; use of, 231 monstraverunt, see writs

Mont, Matilda, 122 Montjoux, Savoy, Augustinian hospital at, see St Nicholas and St Bernard More, Reginald (atte), 268 morterers, no. of, 286 Mounteney, John, 230 Mountgomery, Thomas, Kt, 254, 271 Mucking, Essex, 229 Munt: John, 153; Thomas, 168 Muntfichet, Richard of, 265, 273 musicians, no. of, 287 Mustard, see Langston, 282 My, Lawrence, 'cordwaner', 134^9 nailers, 163 Naper, John le, royal huntsman, 19 narrator, 36n8i

Navestock, Essex, prebendary of, 84 neighbourliness, 183—4 Neutre, John, clerk, 282 New College, Oxford, 9, 56 n 16, 59, 71, 75-6, 162, 186, 224, 235, 238; attendance at, by Havering boys, 75, 238; direct farming of its Hornchurch estate, 147—52; ecclesiastical roles of, 74—5; holdings of, 224 n4

Index Newbury, see holdings within Havering newcomers, 221—6, 258—9 Newgate, see gaols Newman: John, labourer, 259, wife of, 259; William, marsh reeve, 207 Newton, Robert, vicar, 281 Nicholas: the Chaplain, 283; the chaplain/clerk of Romford (1233/7-60), 281; the Clerk, 283, of Romford (1297-1329), 75, 281 night wanderers, 213, 256 Noak Hill, 165, 249niO5; ward, 25oniO5 non omittas propter libertatem, see writs

non-residents, holdings of, 95, 105, 130, 147, 221-2 Norbury, John, king's esquire, 272 Norfolk: John, duke of, see Mobray; sixth earl of, see Bigod, Roger North Weald, Essex, 84 Northend ward, 250 n 105 Northtoft, William of, 61, 77, 81 Northumberland: first earl of, see Percy, Henry; Henry, earl of (fl. 1442), 211 Norys, Richard, chaplain, 280 nurse children, see children oath-helpers (oath-takers), see compurgation oats, see crops, types of oblations, 75 obligations, of tenants to crown, 37, 39, 96, 104; see also tenure obligatory writings, 168 occupations: types of, no. of people in, 285-8; see also under individual types offices, granting of, 20, 52 officials of Havering, list of, 265—74; see also under Havering; Liberty of Havering-atte-Bower; manor court of Havering; manor of Havering; outwoods of Havering; park of Havering; warren of Havering Offyngton, Robert, 195 Oldwater, I34n79 oligarchy, level of, see manor court of Havering Olyve (Olive): John, 266, 268, 270; Thomas, 165, 212-13 Ongar, Essex, 175 open-field agriculture, 93 order, 253, 260 Orsett, Essex, 158 Osmond, Roger, 254 outlawry, for debt, 167

outlaws, goods of, 190 outsiders, 77, 222-3, 245, 248; land holding by, 130-3, 221; misconduct among, 68, 253, 258, 260 outwoods (foreign woods) of Havering, 18, 22, 91, 100, 104, 141, 205; illegal use of, 163, 218; officials of, 52, chimnager, i89n27, keeper, 273, pannager, i89n27; payments for use of, 63-4, 95; supervision of, 21, 24, 69, by manor court, 189, 251; see also cheminage; forest of Havering; garsanese; pannage; strategatesilver; yoksilver Owen, Dorothy M., 7in75 Oxford, 76, 151 Oxford, second earl of, see Vere, Aubrey de Oxford University, see New College oyer and terminer, commission of, 60 pailmakers, 230; no. of, 287 palace, royal, at Havering-atte-Bower, 7, 16—17, !9» 54. 79nio8, 83; repairs of, 17, 38, 162-3; use of, by kings, 22, 242 n77 palers of the park of Havering, see park of Havering Palmer, Robert, 3On53, 3on55, 32n65 pannage, 64, i89n27, 218 parish of Hornchurch, 71, 75, 235-6; see also Hornchurch, parish church of park of Havering, 5, 7, 16, 18, 100, 104; illegal use of, 54, 60, 68, 163; officials of, 52, keeper of west gate of, 273, paler (keeper of the pale of), 272, parker (keeper of the park), 24, 80, 151, 190, 271-2; pale of, 56, 58-9, 82, maintenance of, 56m6, 91, 97, 186, 188; supervision of, 19, 21, 24, 69, by manor court, 189; trees cut in, 18, 58n2O; use of, 17, 22, 242 n77 Parker: Adam the, 271; Geoffrey the, son of Ralph, 271; John, clerk, 284, usher of the queen's chamber, 8omi5, 133, 269; Philip the, 271; Ralph the, son of Salomon, 271; Richard the, 271; Salomon the, 271; Walter (the), 271-2; William the, 271 parkers of Havering, see park of Havering parks: private, 228; royal, 163 Parson, Richard, 270, of Hornchurch, 167 Partrych, Roger, 230

313

Index Passelewe (Passelew): John, of Ongar, 175; Robert, 19, 35075, 26; Thomas, 131

pasture, see land, types of paths, see roads patronage, 16, 21-3, 52 payment in kind, 162, 169 Payne, Joan, widow, 252 peace, commissions of the, see justices of the peace 'peasant', inapplicability of term, 176 Peasants' Revolt, 82-4 Pecche, Giles, 268 Pecok: family, 112—16; Isabel, widow of William, 113; John, 202; Simon, 113; William, son of Isabel, 113, son of Richard, 113 peculiar jurisdiction, 71 Pell Street, see Hornchurch Pembroke, countess of, sister to Henry III, 26 penalties, cash, imposed by manor court, 250, 258-9 penny, Roman, 231 Percy, Henry, first earl of Northumberland, 52 m , 267 Penman, Richard, clerk, 280 Perrers, Alice, 22, 79 Pershore, Elerius, abbot of, 39, 41, 95, 266 Perys, John, 269 Pete, Henry, brewer, 232 Petite, John, goldsmith of London, 230 Phelipson, Florence, born in Holland,

Pondere, Adam, 195, 270 Pontifical Institute of Mediaeval Studies, Toronto, n o poor people, 251, 257, 259; relief of, 236, 238—9; see also poverty Poos, L. R., I75ni27 population: measurement of, through manor court rolls, 129-30; size of, 126-8, 222 Porter: Katherine daughter of William le, 170; William le, 170 Pottere, Alice, widow, 220 potters, no. of, 287 poulterers, no. of, 285 poultry, see fowl pound of Havering, 205, 207 poverty, definition of, 23 8—9; see also poor people Powell, W. R., 103 n29 preaching, 237 Prescott, Andrew, 78niO7, 82nni22~3, 83ni26, 84ni28 Prest (Preest, Prestre): Ailmar le, 283; Edmund le, 284; John, son of, 284; John le, 280, 284, trinity priest of Hornchurch, 229, 281; Richard the, 284; Robert le, 280; Saman called, 280; Semanus le, 280; William the, 283-4 priests, 134, 236, 253; in the parish of Hornchurch, list of, 280-4 Prince, William, chaplain, 283 princess of Wales, manor of, 84 prisoners, 39, 58, 67, 78 prisons: of marshal of the Exchequer, 36; see also gaols

Philippa, queen of England, 58—60, 63,

190 Philpot, Roger, 254 pigs, see animals, types of pillory, 203 n6o pipe rolls, 23 Pipere, Thomas, minstrel, 150 plague: in later fourteenth century, 54, 77, 127—8; of 1349, 127, consequences of, 58, 77 Plaistow, Essex, 130 pledges: for loans, 167; in private suits heard by manor court, 193—4, 245 ploughmen, 161, 164 ploughwrights, 230; no. of, 286 polarisation: of land holding, 226; of wealth, 233-4 poll taxes, 81—2, 128 Pondeman, John, 212

procurations, see archdeacon of Essex, visitation by prosperity, level of, 233—4 prostitution, see misconduct, sexual Protestantism, 262 proto-industrial organisation, 178 Pryor, John, 272 public health, supervision of, by manor court, 251 purchase of goods, 168—9 Puritanism, 261—3 puritanism, of presentments of manor court, 260 purprestures, see assarts purveyance, 43, 80, 85, 145 n29, 151, 1541147, I55n5i, 241; exemption from, 243, 255 Pynchbek, William, 273 Pyrgo, 249n105

Index queen, council of the, 65-6, 251 quo warranto proceedings, 25 Raftis.J. A., n o rainfall, 138—40 Rainham, Essex, 248 Ralph of Hornchurch, chaplain, 280 Rand, John, 224 n4 Randall, John, king's esquire, 272 rape, 220, 25^148 Razi, Zvi, I75ni27 Redden Court, see holdings within Havering Rede, Gedrge, bachelor of law, vicar, 281 Redyng, Richard (of), former servant of Queen Philippa, 273 Ree, Nicholas, labourer, 212 Reede, Roger, 239, almshouse of, 239-40, 259 Reginald of Rumford, chaplain, 281 regionalism within Havering, 159, 184, 236, 249, 263 regraters of ale, see ale, sellers of relief, 37, 40, 43, 188 religion, role of laity in, 235, 237-8 religious gilds, see fraternities rents: collector of, see collector; to crown, 188, level of, 94, 96, 110-12, payment of, 56, 65, 167, value of, 55, 100; of subtenancies, 40, 43, in—12, 146 resistance: by tenants to outside demands, 50-1; by tenants to seigneurial demands, 57-61, 66, 76 retailing, 153, 228-9 return of writs, see writs Revel, John, butcher of Romford, 154 review: of Havering judgements by central courts, 71, 247-8; of judgements in ancient demesne courts, 31-2, 44 Re wine, see Derewin Reynold: John, of Havering, 231, of South Weald, Essex, 230; William, tanner of Stondon, 218 Rhages, archbishop of, see Edessa, William of Richard: (the) chaplain of Romford, 134, 282; former chaplain of Romford, 235n49; the Chaplain/Clerk, 284; the Prest, 284; vicar of Goldhanger, Essex, 68 Richard II, king of England, 22, 83-4 right, little writ of, see writs

Risebridge, see holdings within Havering rivers, supervision of, 72 roads, 5, 7, 236; supervision of, 72, 208 Robert: le Prest, 280; priest, 283; the Clerk, 283, of Romford, 281 Roe, Richard, fictitious name, 200 Roger: le Clerke, 284; the Chaplain of Romford, 282 Roger Reede's almshouse, 239-40, 259 Roman: penny, 231; remains in Havering, 7 Romford, 5-6, 7114, 48, 84, 152, 159, 225, 231, 233, 254; ale-houses in, 247-8, 256; almshouses in, 238—40; Bridgewater, 252; chapel of, 159, cemetery of, 27, 159, churchwardens of, 235, 237, clergy of, 74, 134, 235, 281-3, clerk of, 236, early history of, 9, St Andrew's (prior to 1410), I59n72, St Edward's (i4ioff) 159^2; chaplain of, house of, 151; Hare Street, 225, 233, 25OniO5, 252; inns in, 247, 252, 257-8; men of the vill of, 80; messuages in, 158, 227; side, 25oniO5; stocks in, 212; taverns in, 68, 257; town, 24911105, ward, 25oniO5; Woods, see holdings within Havering; woods, 68; see also gaols Romford (Rumford): Nicholas of, clerk, 281; Reginald of, chaplain, 281 Romford market, 40, 156, 158, 168, 178, 230; clerk of, see Liberty of Haveringatte-Bower, officials of; forestalling at, 231, 251; sales at, 142, 144; shops, stalls and pens in, 156, 209; supervision of, see manor court of Havering; tolls at, absence of, 41, 156 Romney Marsh, Kent, 243 n82 Rosson, John, vicar, 280 Rous, see Rus Roxton, William, 247 royal: chapel at Havering-atte-Bower, see Havering-atte-Bower; council, see queen; courts, see courts; demesne, 26, Angevin administration of, 42, supervision of, 26-^7, 58, 60, 242, Yorkist administration of, 53, see also demesne fields; officials, 85m29, 133, 228; palace at Havering-atte-Bower, see palace; parks, see parks Rumford, see Romford Rus (Rous, Russo): Reginald le, king's yeoman, 267; Richard le, 39, 75—6, 95; Thomas le, brother of Richard, 41-2,267

315

Index service holdings, 96 services of tenants, value of, 55 settlement, dispersed pattern of, 91 sexual misconduct, see misconduct, 231 sheep, see animals, types of Shepherd, John, 83 sheriff of Essex, 44, 72, 214^4 Shillyng, John, iO4n3i shinglers, 163; no. of, 286 shoemakers, no. of, 285 Shomaker, Robert, servant of John Sander, 256 shops, 153; see also Romford market Simon le Clerk, of Canterbury, 284 simple commodity production, 160 Skipwith, Thomas, vicar, 281 Skotlyng, (Skyflyng), William, chaplain,

Rutland, Edward, first earl of, later first duke of Aumale, 52m, 104031, 266 rye, see crops, types of Ryle, Richard, fictitious name, 200 saddle bows, 18 saddlers, 158; no. of, 285 sailors, no. of, 287 St Albans, Henry of, chaplain, 283 St Andrew's chapel, Romford (prior to 1410), see Romford, chapel of St Andrew's church, Hornchurch, see Hornchurch, parish church of St Audrey's medal, 231 St Bernard, pass of, in Savoy, 9 St Edward's chapel, Romford (14106*"), see Romford, chapel of St John of Jerusalem, prior of, 208 nj6 St Mary's chapel, Havering-atte-Bower, see Havering-atte-Bower, chapel of St Nicholas and St Bernard, Augustiman hospital of, at Montjoux in Savoy, 8,94 Sail (Salle), Thomas, 254, 274 Saman, called Prest, 280 Sander, John, servant of, 256 Sandon, John of, 271 sanitation, supervision of, by manor court, 251 Savoy, count of, 9 Savoy palace, London, 83—4 sawyers, 58n2O, 155, 163; no. of, 287 Saxon settlements in Havering, 8 Sayer, William, vicar, 280 Scardeburgh, John, 270 Scargill, Thomas, 22404, yeoman/usher of the king, 272 Scarlet, Richard, 68 scolding, 220, 252 Scot, Thomas, 270 scribes, 168; no. of, 287 Scurell, see Escurrel seals, use of, 122, by women, 170, 174 Searle, Eleanor, 90 n3, 228 n23 Sebarn, John, 213 security, for financial arrangements, 231 seeding rates of grain, 149 seigneurial control, see Havering, supervision of Semanus le Preest, 280 Semen, Richard, butcher, 213 serjeanties, 21, 24, 36, 91 servants, 135, 231, 233, 253, 256-7; female, 174, 219 servi, 39; no. of, 90

280

Sleford, William of, clerk, 271 ' slippage', see administrative ' slippage' Sluys, battle of (1340), 131 Smith, R. M., 17$11127 Smithfleld market, London, 230 smiths, no. of, 286 Smyth, John, 153, wife of, 153 social: behaviour, standards of, 253, 259-60, supervision of, by manor court, 255-9; bonds, 182; control, 259H50 soil: infertility of, 102, 150; types of, 7, 138-9, clay, 102 sokemen, villein, see villein Solarium, Alice, widow of William of the, 171 Somer, John, 269 Somerset, second duke of, see Beaufort, Edmund South Ockendon, Essex, church of, 237 South Weald, Essex, 168, 214^3, 230 Southend ward, 25oniO5 Southwark, Surrey, 156 specie, see coins

Spenser, Robert, yeoman of the king's chamber, 269 Spice, Clement, 270 spicers, no. of, 285 Squirel, see Escurrel Stace, William, 162 stainers, 230; no. of, 287 Standroper, John, 246-7, 269 Stanford, John, tanner, 154, 175 Star Chamber, Court of, 231 Starky, George, butcher of London, 248

316

Index status, personal, of tenants, 34, 37, 40, 43, 48, 104 Statute of Labourers, 77, 163-5, 195, 232, 245 Staunton, John, collector of royal rents, 64, 251, 269 Stepney, Msx, 42 Sterman, James, born in Holland, 134^9 stewards of the forest of Havering, see forest of Havering stewards of the manor of Havering, see manor of Havering stocks, 203, 212, 250 Stokker, John, 270 Stondon, Essex, 174, 218, 230 Stondon, Nicholas of, chaplain, 283 strategatesilver, 641145 Strateman, John, 167 Stratford, abbess of, 208 n76 Stratford Langthorne, Essex, 60 stratification: of holdings, see land holdings, distribution by size of; of wealth, 233 strays, 190 sub-bailiffs of Havering, see manor of Havering subinfeudation, n o subsidies, lay, 73~4, 81, 233-4 subtenancies, 109-11, 225 subtenants, 641145, 95-6, 105, 109-n Sudbury, SufF, 143 suit of court, see manor court of Havering Summerson, Henry, 23n3i summoners, in private suits, 193 summoning, 200, 214 sumptuary laws, 255-6 supervision of Havering, see Havering sureties, 245 surgeons, no. of, 287 surveyors of the houses of Havering, see Havering surveys of the manor, see extents Sutton, Anne, 224 n6 Suttons, see holdings within Havering Swan, Robert, 258 Swan inn, in Romford, 258 Symeon, Simon, 271 synodals, see archdeacon of Essex, visitation by Syreed, William, collier, 169 Tabyn, John, vicar, 281 Tailor, John, 84

tailors, 155, 257; no. of, 286 tallage, 25, 43, 47, 73, 95 talwood, 143—4 Tannere, Roger, 168 tanners, 154, 208, 212, 252; no. of, 152, 285 tanning, 155 tapsters, 258 Taverner, Alice, ale seller, 175 taverns, 68, 257; see also ale-houses tawyers, 154, 209; no. of, 152, 285 taxation, 72-4; see also subsidies; tallage taxes, payment of, 167 Taylour: John, ducheman, I34n79, of Holland, 134^9; Thomas, 231, wife of, 231 teaching, 236, 238 temperature, 138 tenants, 95, 99, 105, 223; land of, 90-1, 95, 104; personal status of, see status; see also obligations tentors, no. of, 286 tenure, 29-30, 117—18; customary, nature of, 43, 48, 117; see also freeholds Thames, 1411110; see also flooding; marsh walls thatchers, no. of, 286 thefts, 211-12, 235, 245; of cash, 231; of horses, 158, 249; of wine, 54; of wood, 144; of wool, 230 Thomas: le Clerke, 284; priest, 284; the Clerk of Romford, 281; vicar of Great Totham, Essex, 68 Thorp: Peter, 267; Thomas, secondary baron of the Exchequer, 267 tilers, 155, 168, 232; no. of, 287 timber, 143 tippet, velvet, 231 tithe barn, at Risebridge, 151 tithes, 75-6 tithings, see manor court of Havering Titow, Jan, 90n3 tolls, exemption from, 41, 43, 80; see also Romford market Tower of London, 18, 78, 266, 268 trades-people, 233; no. of, 285-9; see also the individual occupations transfer of land, 5ee land transport, 156; see also boat, freighting by; carters; drovers transport workers, no. of, 287 treason, 243 trees, types of, 18, 145; see also park of Havering; wood

317

Index Trepe, Richard, 199 trespass, actions of, see manor court of Havering, private suits heard by trial juries, see manor court of Havering Tryllyngton, Leics, 230 tumbrel, 203 n6o, 250, 252 Turk: John, 122; William, 144 Tye, Richard, tilemaker of South Weald, 168 Tyle: Ralph (de), 224 n4, king's serjeant or esquire, 266, 268-9, 272; Thomas, son of Nicholas, 122, 224114, fictitious name, 200 Tyrell, Thomas, 267 Ulmis, see Elms undersettles, see subtenants Uphavering: Alice wife of Ralph, 171; Ralph, 171, 269, farmer of manor, 212; William of, 267, bailiff, 36; William (or Thomas) of, 268 Uphavering, see holdings within Havering Upminster, Essex, 79nio8, 208 urban decay, 234 Urswick, Thomas, Kt, 223, 225, 228, 241, chaplain of, 236 value of Havering, see manor of Havering venire facias, 245 n8 5

Verdun, Walter of, 265 Vere: Aubrey de, second earl of Oxford (= earl Albericus), 265, second son of the seventh earl of Oxford, 273; John de, twelfth earl of Oxford, 272 vicar of Hornchurch, see Hornchurch, parish church of view of frankpledge, see manor court of Havering villein sokemen, 34, 46 villeins, 39; no. of, 90 Vine tavern, in Romford, 257 Vinogradoff, Paul, 46 vintners, 158; no. of, 285 violence, 51, 77, 81, 209, 252, 258; participants in, 209-11, 253; supervision of, by manor court, 209-13; role of women in, 219-20; see also assaults virgates, 90-1, 94; subdivision of, 96, 112 visitations, ecclesiastical, 72, 112 wager of law, see compurgation wages, 162; level of, 77, 79, 164—5, 232, 257; need for, 160-1

wainers, no. of, 287 waived goods, 190 Wakefield, William, gent, of London, 267 Waleys (Walensis), John, 271, (le), king's serjeant, 266-7 Walker, John, 230 Walter: chaplain of Romford, 281; the Chaplain, 283 Waltham Abbey, 83, 130, 208 wanderers, at night, 213, 256 Wandovere, Robert of, 268 Ward, Thomas, priest, 284 Wardor, William, 198 wardrobe, royal, 80 wards within Havering, 25oniO5 wardship payments, 37—9 Ware, William, vicar, 280 warranties of quality, 168 warrantors, in private suits, 193 warren of Havering, 57, 104, 266-7; illegal use of, 57, 134, 163; officials of, keeper, 273; supervision of, 58ni9, 60, by manor court, 189 water, for drinking, 252 Watre, John atte, 141 Watte (Wattes), John, 229, 235, husbandman of Hornchurch, 169 Wayfer, William, vicar, 280 weavers (webbers), 155, 218, 229; no. of, 286 weights and measures, 209, 251 Wellys, Thomas, husbandman of Mucking, Essex, 229 Wessex, earl Harold of, see Harold west gate of the park, see park of Havering Westminster, 70 Weston, Richard, farmer of Romford chapel, 282, vicar of Hornchurch, 281 Wetwood, John, chaplain, 282 Weyland, Thomas, central court justice, 42 m 06 wharves, see boat, freighting by wheat, see crops, types of wheelwrights, 230; no. of, 287 Wheler, Benedict, butcher of London, 227

Whiche (Whithe), Richard, vicar, 281 white tawyers, see tawyers Whittemore, Robert, clerk, 282 whores, see misconduct, sexual Whytyng, Robert, 256 widows, 122; dowers of, 30, 119, 170— 1; see also women

318

Index Wike, Peter le, 271 Wilkinson, James, 231 William: John, 268; Robert, 54, 75-6, 167 n98, son of John, 268; the chaplain, 281, 283-4; the Prestre, 284 Williamson: Janet, I75ni27, 182112; Richard, of Witham, chaplain, 282 Willot, Richard, tiler, 165 wills, survival of, 72n77, H7n39, 236^6 Willyngale (Wylynghale): Richard, 268; Thomas, 270 Winchester cathedral, 238 wine, 54, 158; sellers of, no. of, 285, see also vintners Witham, Essex, 230 woad seed, 229 Wodeward, John le, 68 WolfFe, B. P., 47 women: economic roles of, 153, 170-5; involvement in manor court by, 219-20; involvement in violence by, 219-20, 253; as land holders, 171—3; misconduct of, 257-9; see also widows Wood: family, 59, assarting by, 93; John of the, 267, bailiff, 26, 36n82, son of Richard, 93; Reginald of the, 93; Richard of the, 29, 170, son of Reginald, 93, son of Richard, 93 wood, 144, 251, 257; production of, 18, 143, 148, 239; sale of, 143-4, H8, 157, 227; workers, no. of, 287, see also individual occupations; working of, 155, 163, 230; see also charcoal; talwood; timber wood crafts, 155 woodland, see land, types of woods, see park of Havering; Romford woods; trees; wood woodwards, see manor court of Havering

wool, 143, 148, 230 Woolemonger, Peter, of Sudbury, 143 writers, no. of, 287 writs, 29, 31, 33; certiorari, 62, 71, 242; corpus cum causa, 248; error, 242, 247; false judgement, 71, 242, 246; little writ of right close, 31, 33-4, 43-4, 190, 192, 195, 245-6; monstraverunt, 38n88; with clause non omittas propter libertatem,

70, 242; return of, 70; sub poena, 231, 248 Wybregge, John, 194 Wychendon, Walter of, chaplain of Romford, 281 Wygmore, John, drover of Chelmsford, 230 Wygon, see Guido Wykeham, William of, 9, 74, 79, 147 Wylde, Richard, 266, 269-70, bailiff, 207 Wylot (Wylott): Richard, labourer, 231; Stephen, 167, 224 n4 Wylowby, John, priest, 282 Wymbish (Wymbush), John, yeoman of the chamber, 266-7, 269 Wysden, William, 269 Wyseman, Richard, wife of, 259 Wythmarsh, Richard, 270 yeomen, 233, 262 Ynge,John, 218 yoksilver, 641145 Yonge, John, weaver, 229 York, archbishop of, see Arundel, Thomas Yorkist administration of royal demesne, 53 Yorkshire, 238 Zynge, William, 207

319