Page 169 12. Bequests. Bequests in catholic times were part and parcel with good works and indulgences, but after the Reformation the towns purse strings were tugged in several directions to repair the church, bells, highways, bridges and the poor. In 1312 the then bishop of Lincoln had granted twenty days of indulgence to anyone contributing towards the upkeep of the Cherwell bridge. These useful donations had been stopped. The surviving wills of the 1546 to 51 period, when the protestant King Edward VI was on the throne, ignored the new ruling of no more intercession for souls in purgatory and leaving money for altar and rood lights. They were still asking "the blessed Mother Saynte Marie and all the holly companye in heavon" to care for their souls. Once Queen Mary was on the throne the catholic form was again allowed which the next group of surviving wills used from 1556 to 1558, after which the opening words were changed leaving out Angels and Saints, the high altar and rood lights for intercession and even money for the bells which were soon mostly forgotten. In August 1558 William Vallens [?23] was one of the last to leave a catholic will in which he left strict instructions with his wife Agnes to have "at my buriall v tapers and my wyffe to kepe dirige and masse for my soule and all christian soules till xij months day as Agnes think best" (p41). Agnes as a fellow member of their lay fraternity would indeed know the right way to go about saving his soul, he had no need to worry. She poor woman would not gain such comfort if that was her wish. Just Richard Lumberd in 1563 gave 4d to the high altar for forgotten tithes, four years after the altar should have been replaced by a table. Any forgotten tithes being by then covered by a mortuary. A catholic priest would use the dead person's name as they were lowered into the grave, protestants were now using the third person. The naming of ancestors stopped and the processions round the church and town. Robert Robins, who died just after Queen Mary, knew that a new processions book was wanted and so he left money for one. He also left a shilling for the bells when tuppence or fourpence was more usual. Was he the last of the catholic Robins? During Queen Mary's reign five out of eighteen mention a sepulchre light and rood lights. Not all the bequests for lighting candles went to the lay fraternities. Churchwardens kept the altar lights going as well as the Easter sepulchres. Gillian Walser [35] left 6d towards the new mass book in May 1558. Had they still not bought one six years into her reign, or was there still a debt after purchase? Gillian died just as the bell land money was returned (p42), so perhaps they tolled the bell for her. William Densy from Bourton the following March left 3s-4d towards "the byeinge of a Masse Booke". By this time Elizabeth was on the throne and a different book was required. Did he mean a catholic "mass" book or were they using an old term for the new protestant service book? Church Repairs and The Bells. The repairs to the church, was one which Thomas would most certainly remind them about, though the nave was not his concern only the chancel. Before vicar Holloway's time twelve out of seventeen of the testators whose wills were proved at the Cropredy church court, felt obliged to leave something towards the upkeep of the church and twentyseven from 1578 up to 1641. Page 170 John French [6] and Anthony Hall [6] as lay impropriators leave 6s-8d and £2 in their PCC wills. The church courts, after presentations about church fabric had to point out that repairs were very necessary. Prices were rising and Ambrose Holbech who attended to the writing of wills after Thomas Holloway, may have been able to suggest a further nine bequests from 1s up to 10s. The Woodroses and other wealthier men often ignore the fabric, but perhaps they had contributed a great deal in their lifetime. Cottagers like Watts the weaver [27] and Sutton the tailor [42] were not at the time of death contributing to the highways or the poor, and they too left out such bequests. Cross the miller who leased a little land considered only the poor [51]. The Bells were remembered in most of the early wills, but only five from 1578 to 1609 [1,4,9,12,14,15,25,26,32,35] and again all had land. The churchwardens noted in 1619 that "the bell ys usually for the most parte tolled when any are passinge owte of this life, neyther have we any Ringinge at all in tyme of comon prayers," the later being a "popish" practise had been stopped, except when bells all over Britain rang out for some specific event like the birth of the Royal son, the future Charles II. For the curfew bell see page 46. The Highways at "Ower End of the Towne." Far more important to their families everyday comfort was money to repair potholes and ruts in the townships highways. Every household leasing land had to contribute time. By 1562 each must contribute at least six days a year. When the farmers had provided a man and horse as their share they would co-ordinate with the neighbours to scrape with shovels and help load the carts. Those with the most land supplying a team and cart to take away the scrapings to put on the fields and take back the stones gathered from the fields to fill in the pot holes. There were names for all the roads (see maps in Part 4). Those which led to a particular place or from one town to another were called Causeways. Cropredy had two causeways, the Long Causeway leaving the Green southwards to Bourton and the Bridge Causeway leaving the Green eastwards towards the Cherwell bridge. They were nicknamed cowsey or causeys. The Long Causeway was also referred to as "The Town of Cropredy," and Elizabeth Lumberd [14] mentions in 1558 the "Kyngs cawsseis ways." The oldest roads had all needed a ditch to take the surplus water, but the Causeways were often raised well above the deep ditch. The Streets which gave access to the fronts of the houses were kept as free as possible from the passage of cows. Church Steet was able to do this, but the High Street had to wait. Stone pavements were used to keep the walker above the mire along one side of the street. The Lanes were used to bring the cows home from the Open Common Fields and the Oxhay common. The cattle could pass down Backside to the Green, but to reach Creampot Lane they used to pass along the High Street. The problem of keeping cows off the Street was solved when they cut a new lane from Backside to Creampot between the Robins [26] farmsite and the Watts [27]. The first will to mention this was Thomas Robin's in 1557. He calls it Newes Streete Lane. The lane was narrow and had no ditch and at some point a raised stone pavement was built above the mire so that it was now a lane for cows and yet needed a raised walk like a street, even though this short lane had no front doors opening onto it. Was this the derivation of the word "Newes Streete Lane?" Robin's left "a strike of barlie" in 1603 still using the old name for Newscut Lane. Page 171 The houses in Creampot Lane had to put up with the mire and drained it with the help of a ditch. Once Church Lane was built up on the south side and encroached over a possible ancient ditch on the north side, it too needed a raised stone path, but there was a long delay and it was not there in our period. Church Lane remained a lane and the church was approached via Church Street by the Robins [26], Howse [28] and others. Which way did the Nuberry's [8] and Woodroses walk to church? They had the choice of walking up Hello or via the Green and along Church Lane. In the early wills twentytwo remember to leave 2d or 4d, a strike (half a bushel) or even a quarter of barley (eight bushels) for the causeways, and fourteen remember the long bridge over the Cherwell, and the sow foot bridge next to the sowburge ford at the gateway into Bourton. Another ford was on the Clattercote boundary. At the other entrances into Cropredy the fords had been replaced by bridges which varied in size from packhorse width up to single cart width. Robins left 4d for "Brod narrow bridge." Was this the Brodimoor stone bridge on the Prescote boundary? The Boddington Way crossed the tiny Bootham's bridge as it passed from Ewe Furlong into the green lane through Clattercote (p195). There were at least four bridges over High Furlong brook built in stone with small arches and Prescote's stone bridge north of Cropredy's upper mill were all part of the town's responsibility. William Carter, father-in-law to Richard Rede [32], farming from Creampot left money "towards the mendynge of the causey from my house towards the church" as well as the long bridge and the Long Causeway in 1550. We saw the Robins trying to keep Newstreet Lane clear, but where was William Vallens thinking of when he talks of "mentence of the cowes causey waye" 4d, unless it was Church Lane? Gillian Walser at the bottom of Creampot lane [35] is a little clearer "the causewayses towards ower end of the towne halfe a stryke of malte." Thomas Howse [9], who may have used his team time and again, less selfishly gives the quarter of barley to pay for "the highwayes whose most nede is" (p695 for Will dates and references). Up to nine in Holloway's time specify where the highway repairs must be done. In 1595 French [6] left £2 for the two causeways and when his executors failed through the death of one of them to pay the highways request, the widow Rose was presented for negligence at the church court in 1608 [Oxon c157 p322 & Oxon Archd. papers b52. 162]. In 1600/1 John Russell [13] left 1s for the causeway from his house to the bridge. After this the bridge seems forgotten. Each house or cottage must keep the highway clean and unfouled in front of their property. While being responsible for all the roads, leaseholders were naturally especially concerned with those leading from their house to the church. The Robins [26] wills now add "The causeway from my house towards the church" or "the churchway from the house where I dwell to the churchyard of Cropredy" 2s in 1627. The Robins were crossing the High Street and going between Bostockes [41] and Tanners [39] before turning the corner towards the north church gate at the top of Church Street. Alese Howse [28] is more specific "towards the mendine of the causeway goinge to the church near Edward tanners house" 6d. Alese would set out down the narrow passage between their farmyard wall and Lyllee's [29] house to reach Creampot Lane. Turning right then left at the crossroads Alese then followed the Robin's route. Her uncle Fremund Densy [28] left 1s to mend the causeway "towards the church" which could be either way. Presumably the neighbours knew which way he preferred as Church Lane would be unavoidably "cowsey" from the three farms on the north side? Widow Toms [15] and Thomas French [4] leave money to be spent against or near their houses 6d and 2s. Justinian Hunt [16] left his "to the repaire of the Causeway goeing towards the Town fence Crosse" 1s. The Hunts overlooked the Green and no doubt suffered from the passage of cattle and sheep as well as any through traffic. Page 172 He also reminds us that the Cross was not on Hunt's side of the Green any more, but next to the town's protective ring hedge and bank. This hedge saved the arable from any roaming stock on the north and west sides. The river and sowburge providing the town's south and eastern boundaries. Ellen Rose's [60] bequest was for "the amendinge of the causeway or passages near my house next the churchgate" 6d. She lived at the house along the south wall of the churchyard and her passage is of course Hello, or perhaps she called it Hellhole with Palmers five cows coming to his barn next door and John Suffolks mares coming up that narrow way to her stables. It was likely that the communal well in Hello was regarded as a holywell in catholic times, but had now been shortened to Hello? There are other explanations coming from the origin of the name (p527). Lastly John Hentlowe [35], whose mother had been a Walser, lived perhaps all his life in her farm at the bottom of Creampot. He left 3s-4d rather than malt as his grandmother had done, for now the farm was sublet to another. Maybe he felt the rush of muddy water coming down to the pond. The ditch on the south side of his farm took the water from the pond to the mill. Hentlowes' had to negotiate not a pleasant Creampot, but more a muddy pot-holey surface amidst a thick wet cowsey sludge, and the name was some kind of ancient joke. Thomas Holloway left nothing to the highways, or to church repairs. The church except for the chancel might not be his concern, but surely the highways were as a farmer? The highway bequests finish by 1627 so they may then have been allowed by the Justice to collect a rate. Church fabric and highways were a constant drain upon resources, but keeping "the common cheste" full was up to all the twentytwo or more husbandmen who had not themselves fallen upon hard times. While all husbands took good care of their households this was an additional responsibility to remember in their wills for the vicar no longer shared the small tithes with the poor. "To the poor ffolkes xxs" John Gybbs in 1557. The town had a "pore mens box" also called "the common cheste," which had three locks like the parish chest. They called their poor the "decent" sort. The widows and widowers who are frequently mentioned in these pages, whose essential partner in life had been torn from them, leaving them to battle alone and needing some assistance from their good neighbours. In 1601 William Howse, husbandman [9] gave 2s-6d and Fremund Densy [28] in 1609 gave 3s-4d"among the poore in Cropredie to be distributed by the discretion of my overseers where the most neede is." The vicar was one of the overseers and the other was Richard Howse [24]. Shepherd Truss left 20s which his overseers were to divide as they think fit according to their several necessities. Widow Robins insisted that the poor must inhabit the town, in other words no strangers were to be helped at the expense of the local poor. Who amongst them had been doing this so that the widow felt she must declare her intent? Many cared even more for the poor in their midst than the state of the lanes, especially as the puritans began to help the submissive deserving cases, though they might ignore others. Robert and Dyonice [8] each leave £2. Fortythree out of ninety wills proved in both courts up to 1641 leave bequests for the poor. Some had made a habit of helping the poor giving more than the recognised amount, but at the same time reserving the right to organise the distribution of the gifts and favouring some at the expense of others. Page 173 The new poor rates were disliked by those who preferred to organise their own giving, such as the Gorstelows. Walter wrote briefly that his father was a very religious man, kind and charitable. "To the poor he often gave flesh, bread and corn, his man, I know, he sent amongst them." Walter himself recalls leaving his home at Prescote manor carrying a written note in one hand and a purse in the other, to distribute one or two shillings in Cropredy [Gorstelow W. p207]. Those like John French husbandman [6] in 1595 who ignored the other bequests were more than generous to the poor. John may have been involved in the relief of the poor for he appears to appreciate how much each town around had to spend on their poor and leaves various amounts accordingly. Bourton Magna 2s, Mollington 2s-6d, "Cleaydon" 2s, Williamscote 2s, Wardington 5s, Chipping Warden 5s, and "Edgcott" 2s. Thomas Gregory of Bourton Parva 6d. Was he the only one in that small hamlet? Could it have been worked out at 6d per poor inhabitant meaning the money he gave was revealing the number of the poorest parishioners that year? It was a summer when they desperately awaited a harvest which was not going to come. French's boundaries here stretch as far as Chipping Warden and Edgecote outside the ecclesiastical parish (This also happened with the pupils who were able to take up spare places). Had the French's relations in these parishes? Some specify to every poor house 4d (1578), to the poorest (1609), to every poor house 1d (1587), or 2d to every poor cottager (1604), others leave "strykes of barlie," "two dosen of bread to be distributed att my decease," others a sum such as 1s, 2s, or in the PCC wills £1 or £2. The shepherd Sheeler particulary asked his brother "to bestow twelve shillings upon the poore of Cropredy at my burial." Thomas Holloway gave among the poor to be distributed at his funeral service (not his earlier burial), "twenty dozen of bread." They would come from the whole ecclesiastical parish to the funeral, especially the poor who by tradition received bread. The rest would come to pay tribute, but also to hear the sermon. Arthur Coldwell [50], a gentleman, makes a statement in his bequests which was the line puritan's were taking in various parts of the country [Underdown D. Fire from Heaven 1993]. Arthur wrote "I give to the poor of Cropredy twenty nobles to be imployed for a yere in [one] person for their relief for ever." This £6-14s was to ensure the future livelihood of a townsman who was out of work, so that he would remain independent of the parish purse. This real regard for the poorer members of society was coupled with the desire to make them once again hardworking, sober and respectful members of the community. Perhaps a family fallen on hard times and now on the parish, but obviously with no relatives from whom he could beg help. Did Mr Coldwell wish to provide someone with a means to learn a trade, to perhaps purchase stock, or pay an entry fine for a parcel of land? This would clear the town elders of a responsibility and at the same time create an industrious member of the community. Mr Coldwell also left in that January of 1617/18 gifts to the following parishes: Bortons 20s, Wardington and Williamscote 20s, "Cleadon" 10s, "Banburie" 40s and Northampton town £10. The cost of the poor was rising. Mothers from other parishes who died in Cropredy left money for their former towns, such as Mrs Gardner the widowed mother of Elizabeth Holloway, who remembered Thorp and Culworth in 1609. Mrs Batchelor staying with her daughter at Gybbs [25] remembers West Adderbury in 1628. Richard Hall left 3s-4d to Cropredy to be distributed in bread and the same for Bourton. Thomas Browne [58] whittaw (pp 474,183) left the poor 2s-6d in Cropredy and the same for Wardington in 1579. Apart from Thomas Browne all were known to be leasing land and were expected to help the poor, although Thomas may well have had half a yardland which escaped the slim number of records and this is the clue. Page 174 Were Thomas Browne and his employer John Pare early puritans? John considered his wordly goods to have been lent him during his life on earth, which many puritans believed. "The Disposing of that portion of Worldly Goods" "As touching the disposinge of thys worldly goods wch yt hath pleased god to lende me." John Pare 1610 [58]. Pare's attitude was a very early one for Cropredy. By the 1620's and 30's the idea that goods were lent during a life time in his service was repeated by Elizabeth Holloway [21], Joanne Robins [26], Woodrose [8], Tanner [39] and Richard Hall [34] in the period when Ambrose Holbech was acting as a scribe for their wills. Had they all increased their worldly goods for the benefit of their families? Cropredy had no large property owners within the town anxious to keep their land intact by passing all to the eldest at the expense of the younger children. When the owner of the A manor Lady Corbet lived at Clattercote she left the estate to Henry Boothby her third son by a former marriage. After which it passed to the eldest son. Siblings had little chance of marriage amongst the wealthier landowners unless their parents gave them portions of a sufficient size to keep up their former status in life. This was altered once a strict settlement (post 1650) began to operate which made it necessary to help each child. Less was expected from husbandmen and artisans who were tenants and yet the heads of each household in Cropredy already took great care to distribute legacies to all their children. Married sons and daughters already catered for often received a love token of a shilling or more. Husbandmen's wives who had no jointure made at their marriage settlement, received the customary half if children were still to be settled, or a third when they had all come of age. Bourton manor did the same. Other parishes might follow different customs, but if a man died intestate then the local church court saw to it that the widow had a third and the children the rest until they were settled, except for those already catered for in deeds. Artisans mostly considered the whole family, but husbandmen (twentyfive out of thirtynine) had to pass the farm lease to the eldest son. Trade did not follow this rule and cottage copyholds often went to younger siblings and so hopefully extended the lifehold on the property. Cropredy had copyholds for usually three lives. All of whom had been entered at the manor court. The evidence has to come from wills and family reconstitution which shows the line of descent occupying the property. The artisan's widow must find some means of supporting herself and the family, unless the son or daughter who took on the copyhold took care of her. Towards the end of the sixteenth and early seventeenth centuries a wider range of legacies are left by husbandmen, but it becomes more difficult to compare farms with cottages when fewer and fewer of the elderly cottagers manage to leave a will. Making wills and receiving legacies often brought about the need for other signed documents. Legatees had a duty to make an acquittance for their goods. One annoyed mother, Johan Robins [26], who had previously failed to get one, explained in her will of 1578 why she made a detailed list of goods for her son Richard (p566). If this married son again fails to make an "acquittance" at the receiving thereof both his legacy that was given him by his father's will which he hath received "of me" and also for "this the whiche I his mother dothe geve hyme" then his refusal to do so meant his sister Margaret, who was the executrix was to allow him only £2. Page 175 Other documents were made under the testators hand and seal declaring their intent. John Hunt on the 7th of October 1583 made certain articles about the giving of £20 to his natural daughter Elizabeth before making his will. Robert Woodrose [8], a gentleman wrote in his will "And concerning my lands, tenements ... in London I suppose it is needles for me to give them or make mencon of them in this place because I have already conveyed them in wrighting unto my two sons Edward and David ...after the decease of my wife." At least he recorded his land which otherwise would have remained invisible. The majority of tenants who have land elsewhere had no need to mention it in a will. Ages at which Legacies were paid. The wills usually reveal the varied ages at which their offspring would receive legacies and some of the problems their executors could have had in meeting the requirements. During our period an eighth of the legacies were to be given at eighteen years while half preferred twentyone or marriage. In many poorer families the final division of possessions, or money, may come after the death of one of the parents, but only if the remaining widow had enough to live on, the majority having to wait until she too had died. Of course some large families, like Nicholas and Martha Woodrose [8], had to have the legacies staggered as they reached adulthood to make it easier for the widow. Sixteen was not often considered a reasonable age to be left goods, although boys and girls were old enough then to receive communion and boy servants became men. Three instances stand out: first, as a widower John Sherman of Bourton left six children so he suggests that whoever shall have "the kepynge of the children to occupye it [a quartern of land] tyll they dooe come to twelve yeres of age." At twelve they would go out to service one by one leaving the eldest son who was the executor, to the use of the land. This brother looking after his sisters would pay each a legacy when they were sixteen. A second in 1632 was Thomas French's [4] legacy of £6 which was to be paid him at sixteen, and a third in 1640 when Solomon Howse [9] leaves maintenance only up to sixteen and then his infant Mary may have "one bedstead now standing in the chamber over the hall, 1 woolbed, 2 blanketts, 2 bolsters, 1 hilling, 1 coverlett, likewyse 1 great cupboard now standing in the lower chamber, also 1 brass pott, 4 kettles and 1 large pewter platter." Up to then his wife may have the household stuff, brass and pewter. Apprenticeship was one good reason for an earlier payment. Another was when the widow had decided to remarry, in which case she must first pay the legacies. The overseers appointed by her late husband made sure they were all correctly paid off. The majority must continue out at service until twentyone before receiving their legacy, but not all could be paid for many years after that. "All the legacyes there in given unto my grandchildren shalbe imployed by my executors and the parents of my grandchildren for their best use and benefit untill they shall accomplish the severall ages of one and twentie yeares," sums up the general custom and responsibilities of all concerned. Legacies of Stock, Corn and Goods. Elizabeth Lumberd [14] who died in 1558 made a will in June, leaving her sons and daughter corn, malt, wood and stock. A great deal of thought had gone into the distribution of the farm's assets, but here we will reduce it somewhat: Page 176
First the Cows : Nearly every Cropredian had parents who owned at least one cow, for many this was their most precious possession. Her welfare came even before the family and this was right for their welfare in turn depended on the cow. Thomas Holloway left his wife beasts, but then mentions that she already owned ten (p92). He wanted recognition to be made of her "rights" to her own stock which the law allowed her husband to take full control of, as wives had no claim to their stock once they were married, so the Holloways may have been very unusual. This was a good thirty years before George Fox's wife kept full control of her inheritance. Such actions could lead to taunts of the husband being a Puritan, or after our period a Ranter or Quaker. Owning stock was an important reason for making a will. It was a great surprise to find only nine people [Lucas [2], Toms [15], Holloway [21], Robins [26], Howse [28], Lyllee [29], Truss [33], Coldwell [50] and Palmers [59] (from 1579 to 1640)] leave a cow as a legacy. Secondly Horses: Testators seldom mention horses in wills. In Bourton those who paid a colt tithe obviously owned mares, but even they may die not owning a horse (p255). How could they avoid loosing a valuable mare to the landlord especially a horse they had become particularly fond of and which they would wish to keep breeding from. Was it possible to hastily sell this beast to a son when illness struck? Or could the son "own" the team once he took over the ploughing as part of his legacy? The few horses which appear in wills must be only those which had a low value? William Vaughan [23] left a colt and young horse to a son and Widow Toms [15] also left her mare to a son. Rede's [32] left a black one. Considering how many horses there must have been we should expect the team to be high on the list, but only the odd reference is made. Hugh Page left the whole team for a two and a half yardland farm, to William in 1547, with "the carte, geares, the plough and all belonging to it". The son was still a minor which may be why they had not already passed the team on before his father died. Surely horses should go automatically with the residue to the widow, or son to work the land? Thirdly Sheep : If well cared for and disease free sheep produced a steadily rising return. Many grandchildren inherited one or two, and one father left six to each child. Gybbs [25] thought of his two godsons, Hall [34] his two stepchildren. All these children's guardians would try and find commons for grazing to increase this legacy. Truss [33]could add ten to his sister Ellen's [19] and forty sheep and twenty lambs to his brother-in-law Tustain who shared the smallholding [33]. Others who left sheep were Robins [26] in 1603 and 1627, Toms [15] in 1607 and Lyllee [29] in 1623. Nine year old Thomas Nuberry [8] already had five sheep when his father died in 1578. These were to be "put forth to his better use" and delivered up to him when he was seventeen. Fifteen year old Henry's ewe and lamb were also to be put forth. Nuberry added "and what shepe my son Andrew [aged 8] now hath being knowne by my Shep to be delivered to the overseers also to be put forth for his best use." The eldest daughter who was nearly twenty and the five year old Margery by his second wife, must have "one ewe shepe each." William aged twelve had no sheep, but then his father had sent him to school. Andrew who was later drawn by lot to attend school was even more fortunate than William. George Watts of Bourton's children were to choose a ewe and lamb of the best and keep it winter and summer on their eldest brother's yardland and three quarters he had from Elkington in Bourton [M.S.Wills Pec. 47/1/1]. Page 177 Fourthly Household Effects: Elderly widows with time to arrange for the disposal of their moveable estate go to great lengths to describe their belongings. Widow Johan Robins left such a lot of detail that some of her effects deserve to be mentioned (p566). Johan hung onto all her possessions and then allowed Richard sufficient goods to set him up as a husbandman. When the wife has half the household goods, the last to be still at home may receive her bedstead, sheets, blankets, coffers, table, benches, "cubbord" and a new kettle as Isabell Toms did [15]. Grandmothers having settled their daughters portion concentrate on settling beds and bedding on grandchildren, or money to godchildren. In 1616 French [4] left his three grandchildren their dowries. First Anne born in 1590 was to have twenty markes [£13-6s-8d] when she was twentyeight. The second girl in three years time when Joyce was twentyfive and Mary in four years when she would be twenty. They each had two pairs of sheets, a tablecloth, two table napkins, two platters, a brass pot and a bedstead not of the best for that was for their brother the main heir. Between them they would share a christening sheet and one "face cloath" for riding out. Their grandfather had taken on the financial burden of bringing up the children since their father died, even though their mother lived in the house, for she had no money of her own. Increasing the household linen was a valuable way to help children set up house. How many spun and spun, taking their results round to the weaver and bringing back a sheet to stow away in the coffer? Flax must have been grown, but no one put it in an inventory, though we know some grew hemp as this was recorded. It was not just the daughters who needed linen. Robert Robins [26] desires his wife Joanne in 1603 to see that "Robert my sonne may have certaine payres of sheets, tablecloaths and table napkins as shee by her wisdome shall think fitt and his need therin shall require." Fifth was Corn : Corn though perishable was part of the moveable estate. The older wills often mention "strykes of barlie," maslin or bread corn as Johan had done, for the repair of the highways, the poor, the church and relations. Widow Toms [15] tells us that William Bessen in Wardington had the care of her son William's children and she leaves a bushel of barley and another of maslin to help feed them. When William Lyllee knew he was dying the barley and maslin set aside in the barn for his share of food was obviously not now required and could be spared for a relative. Sixth was Timber : As children approached marriage some parents liked to get in planks of timber to have a table made or even a bedstead. If death came quickly then they left these planks as part of the childs legacy. In 1579 Johan Robins [26] left her niece Elnar Kench, daughter of Richard, "a borde to make hir a coffer." Others left "timber to make a bedsted" which must come from a tall tree. In 1601 William Howse [9] left to all his other children "a plank to make them a Table with all." John Hunt [16] in 1587 wanted his daughter to have "Tymber to make her a bedsted and also a coverlett," and Vaughan [23] left his son Thomas in 1599 "my sawed timber for a bedsted." In 1558 Henri Sherman of Bourton left to Willm Leydbroke..."the tyre of my Iron bound carte and timber to make him a plowe and a bedstede," and Thomas Gyll left to Richard "tymber to make hym a plough with all," in 1557. [183:256R, 183: 257v]. Page 178 The value of five table bords and seven other bords in widow ElizabethGybb's [?25] kitchen in 1577 was 17s and in 1612 Thomas Smyth of Bourton had "ladders and iij peaces of woode lyninge by they sawpitte" worth xs. The only saw-pit mentioned, but quite by chance [M.S.Wills Pec. 51/1/2]. Seventh came Tools : Tradesmen must consider the parting of their tools and these are described with their cottages in Part 4. Artisans had to be very careful with their widows portion making sure there was sufficient for her to fall back on in a crisis. Could their tools be a means of allowing her to hold onto the business? Lastly Money: Husbandmen and their wives were occasionally left money by relatives to hold in trust for their children. One widow worried over her son John who, although he was thirtyseven, was not apparently responsible enough to take care of his legacy. Mrs Arnett had been a widow for twentythree years and she left John a legacy in 1607, but in the care of overseers. An uncle in Staffordshire had given him forty shillings and to this his mother added a further twenty. Here was one reason for delaying payment of a legacy. "I will [it] maybe payed unto hym by the discretion of my overseers"(her cousin and Thomas Holloway) "as shalbe thought best in husbandry to use yt and that yt may rather be put forthe for some yerelie preferment untill he do marrye, growe aged, lame or sickley and thereby greater occasion to use it." He could have a blanket and pair of sheets meanwhile. Her two sons Richard and William she had already given "as my poor abilitye could allowe." The Revd Thomas Holloway and his wife Elizabeth both witness the will with Charles Allen, Richard Arnett's fellow pupil from the Williamscote grammar. Widow Arnett left with four surviving sons and a baby daughter had had a struggle which had kept her in some way, now unknown, in contact with the vicarage. She cannot be traced to any property, so was she living with a relative at [60], or working at the vicarage? The Reverend Thomas Holloway, gentleman [21] made sure that money secured in bonds as well as other income would be made over to each of his children. All but the last two had been catered for when he fell ill in 1619. Thomas junior was at Oxford and Joanne still at home. Their father had made an agreement with an older son Gamaliell who had the living of Kislingbury to use the tithes he had purchased from a Mr Adkins to pay £50 to his son Thomas over the next seven years. Joanne also had "bonds and writings for money that are taken in her name" which he hoped she may peacebly enjoy. He also desired his wife "to better my daughter Joannes porcion, as god shall enable her." In the margin Holloway wrote "whereas John Symett oweth a debt by bond to my sonne Thomas I doe will my daughter Joanne maye have to her use," as well as £40 he hoped Thomas "maye suffer my daughter to receive [from] the benefitts of that bond." In 1631 Thomas Devotion [3] was forced to speak his will in a hurry. He desired each child to have 40s at marriage, but three years later his widow Em had obviously given the matter a great deal of thought and increased it to £7 perhaps to take into account their unpaid work at home, making it payable over the following three years. By then her three single daughters for whom no suitable husbands had been found were Em, Ursula and Ann aged fortythree, thirtytwo and twentyfour. As George the eldest son did not marry he made it possible for his spinster sisters to come and go from the home, perhaps taking it in turn to look after him and at the same time guarding or increasing their legacies if that was necessary. In 1600 William Howse [9] wanted each child to have £6-13s-8d at twentyone years, which would allow his widow to pay these on the following years, 1608, 10, 13, 14 and 19, so easing her burden. This being all the farm profit available while the eldest waited to get married. It did not work out as planned. Page 179 Widow Margery Howse accepted an offer of marriage and Henry Broughton took over the farm. Henry an educated man had been connected with Moss Mill which the late William Howse had been leasing. They were married and the eldest son remained a bachelor until after Henry's death. Would Henry have had to settle the legacies prior to marriage? One family in the High Street [26] increased their legacies over the generations for they married well, purchased land in Wardington, and educated their children. In 1603 the Robins family left legacies of £20 to be given at twenty years of age, or marriage. The two who had already been catered for when they married had a token £1. The wife and son were made joint executors. He could also have the "best yron bound cart as long as his mother and he occupy together," which they did. His young third (or fourth) wife, Joanne nee Cox lived on for a further twentyfour years. The son Robert married the vicar's daughter and increases the family wealth (or his wife Anne Holloway had brought with her a large dowry and land), so that by 1634 he is able to leave his seventeen year old daughter Elizabeth £100. Their nineteen year old Thomas still at university was to have two parts of a house and land to share with his mother at Wardington. The youngest Robert aged only twelve had the rest with his mother, but he died before taking up the farm which meant that the only daughter Elizabeth who married John Blagrave were the ones who took over the tenancy of the family farm in Cropredy [26]. Many executors had to delay payment of legacies. It must have been hard to wait until their thirties rather than twentyone as Ann Toms and other children did, though it could be that they had had no acceptable marriage proposals. It was almost a privilege to marry and depended on more than a prospective suitor for there had to be the future promise of a vacant property. The fortunate might move in with the "stranger" who required help in old age and in return for this they received a tenancy [19] (p429). The tailor Matcham [18] had not chosen to set his remaining assets at the children's disposal until he neared his death and even then they must wait. Matcham was adamant they must not charge his wife Gillian for anything. Thomas and the girls were twentyfour, twentysix and twentyeight, and the two younger boys, Edward and John, would not receive their £2 until twentytwo and twentyfour and possibly not then if Gillian their mother was still alive and unmarried. Children came back to work at home while their legacy was being accrued in their interest, partly out of their free labour. Until they married they could be working at home or be under a master or mistress elsewhere, but never living as single people in a household of their own, unless a son lost his parents and then failed to marry as George Devotion did [3]. Without a house or a forthcoming marriage they were not yet in need of their legacy. Not all widows remarried. Alese Howse [28] remained a widow and when she died during an epidemic seventeen years later the four bachelor sons had not yet had their money. They were surely adding to their future by staying at home without wages, though increasing their own stock. Alese then doubled their legacies to £10. Page 180 The widower Justinian Hunt [16] when he died in 1609 had not begun to settle any of the children's legacies. Neither had he sent them from home. Early departure seldom happened in Cropredy during the list years, except after the death of a widowed parent. Justinian Hunt died leaving a young family, but without a mother to leave a later will we have nothing to tell us what happened to the children. Justinian had married late, but fortunately had a well stocked farm. He wished his son to pay off just one legacy a year. Three of the nine children died, so he has five legacies to find. William must come first, his £10 would be when he was twentytwo in 1613 . Alyce was twenty when her father died and she must wait until twentyfive, Jane would be twentyfive in 1615, Mary twentyone in 1617, and Joyce nineteen in 1618 would have the last payment. A total of £50 was a lot to pay, but shows what some children did receive, to help with apprenticeships, marriage, or to gain entry to a lease elsewhere. This was thought at first to be especially hard as John had married and had two children of his own by then, but perhaps he had no more for his own use than he would have had if both his parents were still alive. This represented the profit from half the farm normally needed to raise and send forth the family. In 1616 William Watts, weaver [27] left his wife and son equal joint executors for his son must carry on the business. He does not mention the married daughter still living at home, because she would have had her dowry. The two other girls aged eighteen and fifteen were to receive £5 at twentyone or marriage. William who was only ten would have £5 plus a boy's dowry of a table and frame. After 1616 there was a fall in the price of wool and a rise in the price of corn. Fortunately the weavers household finances were helped by their few acres of corn and a cow common, but it was not a convenient time for that family to pay off legacies. The widow Anes had been unable to pay any before she fell ill in 1622 and felt it necessary to add more to the legacies from her half of the copyhold which had been her income to provide the day to day expenses as well as the children's future legacies. Now her son must use it to settle them. The cloth trade was by then in disarray and many weavers suffered from insufficient orders. Would Thomas make enough to pay the legacies when he had already married at the early age of twentyfour soon after finishing his apprenticeship? If anyone tries to find the two unmarried Watts daughters in the lists after they reach the age of eighteen, they will find they have vanished. The more fortunate eldest, Mrs Ann Shotswell left home in 1618, and remained in Cropredy (p452). The expense of boarding the other two girls might prove too much. Possibly they found work at Banbury's hiring fair if their mother or brother had no contacts. Just once in a while brothers must care for a married sister: "My sons Richard and Christopher shall plowe a quartern lande for my sonne [-in-law] John Denzey and razey all manner of ramiages belonging to it for the space of four years after my decease" instructed John Cleredge of Great Bourton in his will of 1609 [PCC 114 f80]. Instructions in wills to help a daughter like this could not be written for them alone as Ales was now the "property" of John Denzey. Just occasionally when the son-in-law displeased the father he would make sure the husband could not spend the legacy by having it put into a trust. The eldest sons whose legacy was the farmhouse or cottage lease was more likely to keep up family traditions. Staying in the home parish made life that much easier. Their family would be in the registers kept in the ancient coffer belonging to Saint Mary's church. The eldest son's descendants had one great advantage over the siblings who had been forced to migrate, for they were able to find their ancestors living in one parish for a greater length of time. Cropredy was a settled town, the maximum number of houses which the land could feed had been taken up and leased out unlike the forest communities in the nearby Stratford-upon-Avon area. Cropredy had no under used common land where the homeless could squat and set up a trade. The woodland and pasture parishes had many people who were less settled and whose descendants could not hope to achieve a long line of records in any one place. Even so few in Cropredy stayed over a hundred years on leased land, but two or three generations was quite sufficient to build up a knowledge of who to trust. |