| Page 420 |
|
Plan of Brasenose Cottages in Church Lane [18-20]. |
Page 421 27. Brasenose Trade Cottages. Copyhold commons attached to particular cottages on the Brasenose estate are recorded in a terrier of around 1704. Would it be possible to trace these cottages back to the time when they were built in stone? M.W. Barley found no properties which would certainly have ranked as cottages surviving from a date earlier than 1700 [The English farmhouse and Cottage 1961 p76]. A cottage could be of one to three bays and a husbandman's two, three or more. Difficult to define. A cottage without at least half a yardland in Cropredy did not contribute to the poor rate, but a cottage leasing a half yardland parcel was eligible. It would appear the land, not the cottage, was the basis for paying rates. Some of the tenants leasing land in 1663 were on the hearth tax list in spite of being only cottagers. R.B. Wood-Jones did not find many artisan's or labourer's cottages for the late sixteenth or early seventeenth century, but on the whole his work concentrated on yeomens' dwellings in the Banbury area, and Cropredy was mainly a town of husbandmen and artisans. His attention was however caught by the one cell cottage [42] which was about to be demolished, having been left to run down for several years [Wood-Jones: Fig.52 p179]. Plant's and Boddington's husbandmen's cottages were described from Great Bourton, but the lesser cottages belonging to the College he passed by. Partly I suspect because the remaining ones have suffered from massive alterations over the years, and better yeoman dwellings still remained in other parishes, and partly because in the 1950's documentary evidence was not so easily available. This is not a criticism, nor do I wish to detract from the tremendous value the Traditional Domestic Architecture in the Banbury Region has been as the main authority for the house survey. The vicar's tithe books and Easter lists had not been repaired and family reconstitution could not be done for a complete area, nor wills and inventories searched all round Banbury for these have to be left to local societies to collect. Even when they have all been transcribed the problems of attaching inventories to existing buildings is often frustratingly difficult, and would have failed in Cropredy without the help of the Holloway documents. The terriers made between 1667 and 1670 for the larger College properties all declared them stone built and thatched. What of the cottages? Had they been built prior to the College survey of 1704? One of the reasons for putting forward the theory that the tenant had helped to fund the rebuilding was the fact that their rents remained the same before and after the new stone cottages had been built. Or did the Brasenose college contribute the stone and raise the entry fine when rents were set by custom? The entry fines were certainly rising. Once the few court records belonging to the B manor were found they revealed the presence of certain copyhold cottages who paid a set rent and that the rents belonging to particular cottages were a great help to pick out and take individual cottages back in time. These can be traced back through the families into our period to meet up with the vicar's lists. Two cottages in Church Lane paid 6s-8d [19 & 20] and Matchams [18] paid 10s. Redes having two cottage commons paid 13s-4d [55] and the blacksmith with three cottages as much as 16s [13]. Lucas [2] paid only 4s and Truss 8s [33]. Devotions [3] since 1566 fell into the farming group. Having discovered the rent, any reference connected to it brought forward the name of the copyholder. Of the two which paid 6s-8d the Hills remained constant tenants right down to 1717. All changes on the second 6s-8d cottage copyhold could safely be attributed to the cottage next door [19]. Page 422 How, some are sure to be asking, can the presence of the family prove the cottage was built in stone? The seemingly impossible task of locating wills and their inventories to properties when manorial records are as scant as Cropredy's, can often render both sets of information quite useless in answering that question. However with the family reconstitution stretching as far back as the Easter lists, we have already seen they can be plotted house by house, albeit very slowly and tediously. Having placed each family at one of the sixty Cropredy properties, all those who were left from the shared registers ought to live in Great or Little Bourton and must be put on one side. Several other tithe lists were used to confirm the findings as well as a patient and time consuming search on the ground for collaborating evidence, which was and still is vanishing at a very fast rate. Having finally placed inventories to a site, they were then searched for evidence of hearths, fire equipment and hall chimneys (ch.38) and finally the house survey was used to weigh up the evidence. Difficulties still arose especially when cottages over the years have been altered. All the reconstructions of these early buildings must be treated as suggestions only. They became necessary to try and interpret the documentary evidence. It might be that the smaller cottages stood more chance of a longer survival rate on the Brasenose estate than the A. Manor, because after enclosure of the Open Common Fields the A manor landlord had to sell off cottages in the town. This will have to be asked again after sifting through the evidence. Farm tenants were able to purchase the A manor properties to house their married staff. On the College estate some of the cottagers remained, but others were unable to do the necessary, but increasingly expensive repairs before being allowed re-entry. Or was it the lack of sufficient cow pastures and no parcels of land to lease which had once kept them more independent and able to renew their copyholds? After 1775 the College did sell the smallholding near the river [55] to the Oxford Canal Company who promptly rebuilt in brick. By 1872 all copyhold cottages were sold off to the tenants [BNC:217]. Devotion's old farm was turned into cottages (p418). The middle cottage [19] in Church Lane had been drastically altered in 1814, and after 1872 Lamberts practically rebuilt Matcham's [18], by then three cottages, into two and a half storey dwellings. It had changed from being Matcham's the tailors to Lamprey's the mercers to becoming Lambert's the wheelwrights. The third one [20] had the roof raised in this century and many years later a complete internal rebuild. Hill's barn was sold to next door [19] where John Allitt, butcher, baker and farmer lived before moving to Home Farm [39]. At first he had the one bay barn as a butcher's shop and then for a Sunday School before the vestry commissioned the fine Church Rooms designed by the Banbury architect W.E.Mills before he moved to Oxford. |
 |
Reconstruction of Three Copyhold Cottages in Church Lane [18-20]. |
Page 423 Were these properties originally built to specifications insisted upon by the College? Truss's and Devotions had something in common, and the three in Church Lane would have begun with similar needs. Hill's [20] and Hudson's [19] may have been designed to have a very small barn linked by an open gateway which would serve to shelter equipment, the cow, or provide an area to thresh grain. At Matcham's [18] the Church Lane entrance into his yard could have been through a 13' gateway (a) beside a 15' barn (b) (Fig. 27.2). At some point prior to 1704 the 15'(b) had gone to [19] and become their third house bay. Matcham's site had a three bay barn built on the eastern side of his yard with a 7' entrance (c) from the gatehouse. A huge stone oven was housed inside the barn with the remainder taken up by a manger. The whole building overlapped behind [19]'s third bay (b). Once again the parcels of land seem to originate from 60' wide plots. In Church Lane these B manor cottages may each have started off with a whole plot. By 1775 this had changed (Fig. 27.1). Unfortunately as Matcham's [18] has been partially rebuilt, even the original position of the hall and fireplace have been lost. Hill's [20] fireplace was thought at first to be on the eastern gable, but the upper floor window took up too much space. Then a photograph taken from the rear in the late nineteenth century, before the thatch was replaced, was discovered and this shows the chimney at the west end. A second photograph taken after the roof had been slated clearly reveals an older position of the hall or entry front window. This if central to the room was further east than at present due to the stone chimney taking up space in that bay. Local knowledge placed the entrance in the west wall at the street side of the chimney. This makes it difficult to understand how the entry described in the inventory was positioned (p351). They began their appraisal for William Hill's estate in the barn, crossed the possible gatehouse to the hall house which had the spits and pothangers and then went through a door out of the entry into "the chamber next to the entrye" with the usual bed, coffers and linen. A ladder or newel stairs took them up to the chamber over the hall. There was no mention of the chamber over the chamber which would have been his married son's room. The chimney must include a baker's oven possibly projecting back into the gateway. Where then did they put the newel stairs, remembered by the undertakers for their very awkwardness? The only place left was between the entry door and the inglenook. Cottages on the whole tended to be built right against the edge of the road on the College manor, except for Lucas's [2]. Those in Church Lane being flush with the Lane which was very slightly convex. There was only room for "a slip of ground behind" [BNC:620]. At [19] this measured only 21 perch. Bokingham's [55] on a larger site was also hard pressed against the west edge to give the maximum space for an orchard and close. The blacksmith's cottages [13] were set right next to the road. One faced the river and the second had the gable end to the front using only one corner of the close while the smithy across beyond the entrance took up the south east corner with the stables behind. The barn had the north side of the yard. Truss's [33] was also built right by the verge. It would seem that although the cottages had different amounts of land they all, except Lucas [2], had some barn accommodation. In Church Lane all three had a cow common. Hill's [20] and Hudson/Bayley's [19] who paid a rent of 6s-8d and "a herriot when it happened," had no arable land. The fine for entry to [19] in 1703 was 20s. At the Court Baron held at the Brasenose Manor farm [8] in about 1671 "came the owner of a cottage [18] and two acres and renewed her holding for self and son by leave of the court." The rent was 10s and she was "to perform the old suit and service." Widow Matcham swore fealty and was again admitted. To be readmitted the customary tenants had first to surrender their holding using the symbol of a rod or twig, and then, once the entry fine was paid and the oath sworn they could again take up the rod and be given their half of the copy duplicated in the manorial roll. Their tenancy was then renewed. Page 424 The reason the tailor's rent was more than his neighbours' was because he had more land. Matcham's acre piece in Sarewell furlong being part of the North Field and in the South Field they had two butts which were in the Middle Copthorne furlong. Rents were still fixed in 1820 [BNC:873]. The tenant having to do repairs and keep the whole in good order. Checkleys had neglected theirs at [19] so that in 1812 the bursar noted it "consists of a house in ruins." The bursar "positively refused to listen to any treaty for renewal, till the buildings are rebuilt. Checkleys then requested to be allowed to diminish his buildings in length and to increase them in height, to this I consented" [BNC:620. 1814]. Six months later, the roof raised, a new brick front and inner gable (with extra fireplaces?), Checkley was allowed to pay his entry fine and put in a tenant. He reused the stone for the rear walls reducing them to no more than 18" thick. How far into the road had Checkley's once protruded, for even with a thinner brick wall at the front, the inner measurements were only 13' deep after his renovations? Next door at Hill's [20] their two house bays had an internal depth of 15'9" with 22" walls. Had Checkley diminished the width rather than the length? The extra bay (b) was taken from [18] for a scullery and attached to the middle cottage, but there was no access from the scullery to the hall. Could this have been in exchange for a piece of garden behind [19] before 1775 (Fig. 27.1)? An earlier inspection visit in May 1766 found the bursar at Lamprey's [18] and Langley's [20]. Lamprey had allowed the three bay barn on the east side of the yard to fall out of repair. The bursar reported "ye Rafters all decayed and the thatch off. Lamprey promised to put on new rafters and thatch it immediately" [BNC:458]. No doubt being nervous of what would happen if he did not. Had there been a storm for his neighbour's barn [20] also needed attention? The bursar had written: "Langley's cottage. A small Barn wanting a new roof and I have marked 8 small ashes for it - in ye garden and left standing 3 ash weavers and 2 elm" weavers [BNC:458]. In his small garden of 22 perch they had to use the boundaries to plant ash and elms for future roof rafters. From building evidence and photographs the thatch on their cottages and barns came down to within eight feet of the ground. They were steep and the upper chambers were well into the roof. While the A manor reorganised allowing cottagers some leyland, the B manor had not increased their lesser tenants' land. They were well below, or quite without the four acres recommended by the later act of 1589. Absolutely essential was access to water. Some had good drinking water and others had wells which were only used for washing. The Church Lane cottages each had a well near their south wall. Matcham's [18] was not used for drinking when Lambert's were in residence. They went over to the deep well opposite [23], which was an old one lined with stone and producing excellent water. An extract from William Hill's inventory taken and exhibited on the 5th of August 1631:
Page 425 The Tenants. |
 |
Hills the Whitbakers of [20] Church Lane. |
The average in the household for the 8 listed years was 2.87. An undated terrier of around 1704 [BNC: 554] states "John Hills Tarry of one cottage"..."The dwelling house two Bays./ The Barne one bay" [altered to one from two?] "all stone walls and thacked/ and one Little Garden Plott." The cottage was one and a half storys high. The church rooms have since taken up the barn's 20' and some of the gatehouse's 14'. The western front entrance has also been moved to the north elevation onto Church Lane. Page 426 Inside the barn Hill's had two small chambers and possibly a cow stall with loft over the whole bay. The outside measurements of Hill's cottage were 25' 9" by 19' 9" deep. The barn and gate house taking up approximately another 34'. A small passage down between the Parsonage Close opposite the vicarage and Hill's eastern gable end brought the garden to just over 60' wide by 115' to 120' long. Once the barn was lost the garden was reduced in width for the land behind belonged to the middle cottage. The son had already taken over the bakery so William Hill had one of the lowest inventory totals of £3-14s-4d. William and Margaret had died from some fever sweeping the town. To have ignored them and declined to make an inventory because of their poverty would have been unthinkable, yet did their very presence in a house where fever had killed two people put the appraiser's lives in jeopardy? One of those John Hill asked to come was John Stacey [35] whose relation Thomas had died the day before. William Brasse the wayfarer seems to be a possible suspect for the outbreak of the 1631 fever which spread through Cropredy (p448). Fortunately neither of the two appraisers, nor John Hill appear in the burial register soon after. The Stacey's had only been married for a couple of years and they had taken over Hentlowes [35] house down Creampot Lane. William was a whitbaker and learnt his trade from his father William. His son John, grandsons John and Edward and great grandson John son of Edward carried on as tenants of the copyhold. The last John became a shepherd. The Hills had security of tenure, dry stone walls and providing the roof was well cared for each generation was allowed to enter the next life and remain there. They did have one problem as the growth of ovens built in with the stone chimneys increased in the late sixteenth century. This made it more than necessary to find outwork on the farms and so Hill earned the title of labourer, especially as by then his son was the baker. The father had had to sell his only remaining asset, his labour for a wage, and was thereby declared a pauper. William Hill's inventory was taken on the 5th of August 1631 (The date given for when this inventory was exhibited was also the day it was made (p160). Were both dates accurate?):
In the hall their fire tools included a spit and their cooking kettle and pots were of brass. They even had 4s worth of pewter. The room had an expensive "cubbert" worth 10s. Was this just large, or was it carved and a precious heirloom? In addition to the usual table there were two forms and one chair. They did not need to sleep in the hall, because they had their bed in the second bay with their son above, keeping the hall chamber as a store for an old bed and three spinning wheels. Or were these William's belongings and as his grandchildren's beds did not belong to him they were not written down? The women might earn some money spinning, but providing enough for their own clothes had obviously become a problem as the whitbaker's wearing apparel was worth only 6s-8d. It could have been even less if that very small amount included Margaret's as well for she had died three days before him. Where did they make the bread which was cooked in the oven? Was it across the covered way in the back house made inside the barn for there they had a "bolting which" for their flour and two kivers used for making the dough which were worth 4s. Page 427 In the "Chamber next the Back house" Hill's had another storage "cubbert" and one coffer. Was this where they stood the bread to cool, or was that the purpose of the hall's expensive "cubbert?" The lower half of the barn had been made into a preparation and storage place and as there was no mention of a shop, or even a shop board no room had to be set aside for one, just a cupboard. William was a man without a cow when he died aged sixtyfour, having passed on the responsibility to John and his second wife Christian who had John's three children to provide for. William need no longer set the cow commons to Henry Hill [58] as Holloway's tithe book recorded (p231). On two occasions in the Poultry book William gave the vicar two hens so he had once kept poultry. Before he died his son must have taken over the cock and hens. Hills [20] lived opposite the vicarage [21] and sometimes purchased corn from the Holloways as they had no arable strips of their own. Did they buy it unthreshed and take it into the gatehouse to thresh and winnow prior to going down to the miller with a bushel of corn whenever they were going to bake the next day? William and his wife Margaret did not baptise John at Cropredy which may mean William had worked elsewhere, only to return when his own parents passed the business on. In the lists we find John at home in 1615 which meant he was by then over eighteen. By 1631 John was in his thirties and doing most, if not all, of the baking. What other contract work did they do to supplement their income besides helping with hay and corn harvests? The Hill family [20] it was discovered stretched back to William and Maryan whose five girls were baptised between 1549 and 1564 and then the family was completed in 1567 by a son William, the next tenant, and so on down to 1717. At that particular Court Baron held in Cropredy Elizabeth Hill, widow of John, re-entered the copyhold with two lives. In 1721 she married again and Thomas Langley entered his life and their son Thomas's on the copyhold. The south side of Church Lane began with the vicar's stable and barn in the churchyard, then the hedge of the Parsonage close and the three copyhold cottages tenanted by Hills, Hudson/Bayley and Matchams. At the end of their gardens the three cottages butted into the orchard at the rear of Hunt's [16]. Only Matcham's garden could poach the verge at the edge of the Green acquiring 7 perch by the nineteenth century. Every inch of land could be put to good use. |
Hudsons and Bayleys of [19] Church Lane. |
 |
Page 428
1614: wam bagly ux ijd...1624: Richard Andrewes et uxor ijd The average in the household for the 8 listed years was 2.75. "The dwelling hous three bays/ barne and Gatehouse Two bays/ all stone walls and Thacked./ One Little Gardinge Plott" [BNC:554. c1704]. |
 |
Reconstruction of the Bakehouse [19] post 1814. |
Hudson/ Bayley's barn at [19] was attached to Hills, but it lacked the depth being only 13' inside. They kept part of the stone gatehouse but surely rebuilt the rear stone wall of the house in 1814. By then brick was coming into fashion and Checkleys rebuilt the front in brick. Two of the house bays had the thatch roof raised, but the third bay (b) remained a single storey scullery kept as an outhouse with no entrance into the hall. The newel stairs and the inglenook took up the whole 13'. Even the oven must project southwards. The original entry was again from the gateway, but after a brick wall replaced the old inner gable the entrance was moved to the front and the old entry became the buttery with the chamber behind in the east bay, leaving the hall to the middle bay. By doing this the buttery was to the front of the house. It is not always possible to see which was the dominant front wall. Was the brick elevation the important one after 1814, but before that the stone elevation facing the small garden? After the alterations the hall had not only a new front door, but a rear door to reach the kitchen. The hall and lower chamber had their three light casement windows facing south? The two upper chambers had similar windows with the thatch coming down around them. The ladder or newel stairs led up to the hall chamber and an innermost chamber beyond. A new chamber was made over the gatehouse in 1814. Could the three fireplaces have been added then to this chamber as well as the parlour and innermost chamber? Page 429 If so this was an early record for a cottage. To reach each bedroom they must still pass through a chamber to reach the next. The Allitts [19] who followed the Checkleys had a flour loft over the bakehouse in the barn. There was a through way to the loft from the bedrooms to get to the dough kiver first thing on dark mornings. The barn and gatehouse measured 30'and the cottage another 30', with the scullery/ kitchen (b) crossing in front of half of Matcham's [18] barn adding another 15'. Across [19]'s yard on the south side there was a second stone barn and behind that part of Matcham's garden. The various families for this property can be followed in the few Brasenose court records back to 1654. John Gardner's son Roger had it in 1775 and his father had entered it by marrying the only daughter of Richard and Francis Elkington. Both were described as labourers, having not then taken on a farm lease, or had given one up? It was discovered that Francis had been married before to Justinian Hunt and when he died in 1650 aged only twentyfive her marriage to Richard Elkington had given Richard access to the copyhold [Dew C4:Bodly & PCC 11/212]. Marrying an only daughter, or a widow, being one recognised way of obtaining a copyhold cottage. Another was to take over the care of a couple or elderly person who gave up the copyhold to be looked after. To go further back across a gap to the Easter lists the occupiers were established by the two neighbours and show that Hudsons and Bayley moved out and Andrews took on the copyhold all between 1613 and 1624. For some reason this cottage, most unusually, did not have a family coming down the centuries which may be due to the type of trade followed by the occupiers. Elkington and Gardner both had elder brothers, or relations who prospered, but younger brothers were less fortunate. It was hard for them to keep up with the same group they were born into. Such a cottage as this was ideal to begin their way up into a leasehold farm, or a trade. Living at [19] were William and Joane Hudson who only baptised one daughter Anne in 1593. Anne must have left Cropredy for when the Bayleys married in 1612 they took on the care of William Hudson for Joane had died in 1611. William Bayley and his Cropredy wife, Ellin (or Alice) Truss from Creampot [33], were able to do so only because William Hudson had no surviving lives to enter on the copyhold. Baileys would "buy" their way in, and pay the entry fine and reward the widower by giving him the downstairs chamber, and his meat, drink and heat by the fire. Hudson's name was not entered in the Easter list of 1617 and yet no burial entry appears. Why did he leave? Had he become too ill for Ellin to manage? Or quite simply they buried him with other ancestors in another parish, but away from his wife? Bayley's have the cow common after Hudson in the tithe accounts from 1614 -17. The young couple had poultry, giving the vicar a cock in 1615. They stay for seven years until some opportunity came their way and they moved, or the lease ran out. Very seldom do women get left stock after they are married for it would go automatically to their husband, yet Ellin's brother John Truss [33], the shepherd, left her ten sheep when he died. Was she by then a widow, or was this another instance of a woman having her own stock as Mrs Holloway [21] did? Wherever the Bayleys had moved to they would have to lease enough sheep commons to graze them. The next list of 1624 gives the occupiers as Richard Andrew and his new wife Elizabeth Mallins. Elizabeth was then aged thirty, a Cropredy girl from Round Bottom [53] (p473). The Hills [20] as whitbakers in the sixteenth century had their oven in their house. The bakers of Church Lane in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries lived at [19], but there was also an ancient outside stone oven at the third property [18]. Page 430 |
Matcham the tailor of [18] Church Lane. |
 |
The average in the household for the 8 listed years was 5.62.
An extract given below was taken from Matcham's inventory. Made by Thos Palmer and Richard Hunt on the 26th of December 1629 and exhibited on the 12th of April. The total came to £13 -9s -4d:
The Matcham's three bay cottage was once about 30' long with 28' between his house and [19]'s gable end. If the 28' gap was used for a barn and gateway then the whole Lane was designed as one piece. A second barn situated behind the front row on Church lane was measured in the 1970's. This had a 26' long south wall with an inside width of 11'6". It appears to be the remains of an old stone barn used as a stable at the east end and later made into a bakery. Later still it had a brewing furnace. An old 7' wide doorway was blocked to the north. A door and window faced west onto the yard and two blocked windows once faced southwards. Lambert's [18] filled the original garden belonging to their close with the wheelwright and building business. The three cottage dwellings made out of the house needed a place for a toilet, pigsty and washing lines in the small garden plot taken from the middle cottage [19]. Figure 27. 1 shows how complicated this site has become over the years when compared with a modern map. Page 431 The Matchams first appear in 1600 when Thomas married Gillian Hunt. The descent of this cottage passes from the younger son Edward and his widow to the Lampreys in the late 1670's. When Edward Matcham was tenant he may have set the land to neighbours. Cropredy had a tailor on each estate, although a population of around three hundred could hardly support both of them and their families. Matcham had the advantage of a three bay house and stone farm buildings which Sutton lacked, but Thomas Matcham did have the disadvantage of a small yard and garden without an orchard. How far did Matcham's ride extend? Which big houses gave him work? His clothes bear witness to a better living than his other neighbours, being valued at £1. Thomas could write, but he called in the schoolmaster William Rede to write his will. He then added his own memorandum instructing his children to pay all expenses to save his wife the cost of proving the will. Matcham had the security of being able to farm his small holding so that in the barn and house at the time of his death there were barley and peas worth 30s. A great deal from two lands in Middle Sarewell on Field End which were equal to an acre, and his peas in two butts in the South Field that year. For some reason the Sarewell land became known as Matcham's acre. How did it keep his surname? Cropredy Lawn Farm may now stand on his patch. In the South Field over the Broadway on Middle Copthorn's sloping scarp Matcham planted two butts of peas. The cow added her contribution to the family budget. He kept poultry, but from 1611 to 1619 he does not pay tithes on them. In the yard he would have hovels of wood for the winter cooking. Unfortunately they do not mention how his hall and chamber were placed, or the upper chambers. We know he had a chimney by his utensils and must expect the College to have built his cottage in stone to have attracted a tailor whose business was successful enough to support, as it turned out, five children and two adults and still manage to put money by. There was £7 out on bond, with the consideration. This was one way of safeguarding an entry fine, or heriot to be paid at the death of a life on the copyhold, but in this case it was for legacies after the death of the mother. Thomas and Gillian had been together for twentynine years and he was concerned for her welfare after his death. This family spread out their children by a year or more. Dorothie, John and Edward gaining the most attention. Five children within nine years for a woman who no doubt was helping with the stock and land, and may often have been alone when her husband had to board at a house where he was taking, or fulfilling orders. All their children were still alive in 1629 according to their father's will. The youngest Edward was then twenty, but none had had their legacies. To the girls he left £2 each and for the boys £1. The Matcham cottage and business passed to Edward the youngest. Perhaps in this case he waited to see which was most likely to survive and the most able with a needle before they went to the expense of entering his life on the court roll. Matcham left Edward an ell of canvas and a "newe jerkin forke." "He the said Edward paying for the jerkin." A cloak was left to Dorothie and the rest of his wearing apparel to John. That little matter of Edward having to pay for the forke for his garment, could he have been making it during his time working with his father? Edward was still in Cropredy in 1641 [Protestation Returns], but was it Edward's widow Juliana who appeared at court to renew for herself and son in 1671? In the copyhold record Juliana is called the "owner" for she could sell her rights to the cottage, with the College's permission [Hurst 137]. Each "life" entered upon the Roll was an asset which had its own value. The Matchams died, or surrendered to Lampreys who had arrived by 1684. Before 1731 they were once again allowed to keep a cow and bullock, or breeder [Hurst 207]. This stint on the common was exchanged for a close of land in 1775. Page 432 |
Bokinghams and Reads of Round Bottom [55]. |
 |
Page 433 The average in the household for the 8 listed years was 3.12
Edward Bokingham's house and barn faced east and west. It was built right on the edge of the close opposite the entrance to Hello, with the last bay of the barn curving slightly with the lane. Alongside Round Bottom and next to the present house can still be seen remains of old stone walls. An inventory of Edward's goods was taken in May 1625:
|
 |
Plan of Bokingham's site [55]. |
If the house and barn had been built in the long-house manner the three bay house was at the south end with the western entrance between the hall and nether bay. Page 434 In 1625 the appraisers began at the north end with the cowhouse where the carter could use the gable end to throw hay through a high door into Bokingham's loft as Edward had provided a scaffold over the beasts to take his hay. Up there he also stored his three ladders. Perhaps made by him and used as part of his carpentry business? The three bay barn would have the cart doors in the middle bay, but being May it was almost empty of corn, barely a bushel left. Passing on to the door which would lead from the barn into the nether bay they entered the working end of the house. Here Edward's late wife Marrion had all her brewing vessels in the deahouse. They do not say if the central chimney had been built with a back flue to take the copper. Part of this nether bay had a loft over but was never made into a chamber as Huxeley's was, because the whole property was rebuilt when the canal came. All they kept "over the deahouse [were] Certaine olde Boards & other od Implements" 3s-4d. The bay was divided, but apparently not by a partition, for "in the said deahouse one Iron Bar three shippickes one Axe three Hatchetts one Dungforke/ two Iron Rakes two sawes two old sithes two Augors a spooke shave one mattocke with three/ Leaden waights with certeine olde Iron---xs/ one hand barrowes one wheele barrowe--- xijd." Edward's workshop was for the smallholding and carpentry business as well as a store room for his tools. Sacks were made with the carrier in mind, be it man or barrow. The top of the sack might have two handles, tied according to the contents. A man could use the handles to swing the sack onto his shoulders. Heavy sacks went on the hand barrow for two men to carry, while the wheel saved a man's labour. The size of the sack was limited by the width of the woven cloth, the weight the rounded side seams could hold and the local size of the bushel (p699). Edward could no longer keep up his old trade and had become a labourer to someone else. Day labourers still had to provide their own tools and equipment. Were his wheel and hand barrows once used with his "leaden waights" for building and was he now engaged by one of the other carpenters? The site was ideal for a wheelwright's being on the Bridge Causeway and near the river for water when the tyres were put on the cart wheels, though even if he made his own barrow, it does not prove he was the missing wheelwright. The Eldersons [38], carpenters, also had a pond close by on Tanner's plot [39]. The appraisers all move on to the hall which had the chimney. Here Marrion would have served her ale to the customers. At the first Church court for 1616/17 held at Cropredy someone wrote a memorandum that on the 23rd of March, a sabbath "last past John Ethersey was in the house of Joane Buckingham drinkinge in tyme of devin prayer he being a church warden his wif and tapster and ostler ded fetch him hom this I do of myself." This memorandum had been presented at the court and left unsigned. They had Mrs Bokingham's name wrong, but this was not unusual for she is one of the very few who they called by a christian name. Did she not warrant the respect of being Mrs Bokingham? The note mentions a tapster and ostler signifying an inn where horses were stabled and cared for by the ostler. Edward was carrying out at least one of these occupations as no extra staff are mentioned. Marrion died in the spring of 1619, leaving her daughters to carry on. Had they been taught to brew ale? Edward was still there to help, but the two sons seem to have left. The daughters had their spinning wheels to help supplement their purse, or to put by sheets for a dowry. The appraisers possibly sat at the table and started with the equipment round the inglenook, beginning with the three little brass kettles. There were four brasen candlesticks for lighting the hall when customers came. By the hearth they had a skimmer, frying pan, gridiron and the pothangers with the pothooks. Unusually they included a "payre of sheeres sixe dishes/ two wodden Platters & one Ladle." Page 435 His pewter was equivalent to the price of a good ewe, but the five platters, five saucers, six spoons, one dozen trenchers and one salt were no longer top quality. The pewter had no doubt been much used and perhaps slightly battered from feeding the customers who had sat round the table on two benches, a chair and two stools. The master Edward had begun to loft over the hall house and his boards had to go onto the list, but so far all he kept up there was "one drye Tub." His married daughter, Mrs Alice Rede/Read would have one of the upper chambers. In spite of his tools, or because he worked hard elsewhere as a carpenter and helped his wife when at home, the lower chamber still has a ladder to reach the new upper floors. In the south bay he had made an upper chamber and that had the beginnings of a cockloft which could be lit by a gable window. Up there he had an old coffer and his "lanthorne." The boltinge house may have been in the usual buttery area, behind their bedchamber. A hundred years later there was a hall house, parlour and buttery as well as a nether house (the former brewhouse and dairy?). Bokingham's grandson Edward Read died in 1691 and his appraisers mention a new chamber and the chamber at the stairhead. All the ground floor rooms had chambers over except the nether house and the cockloft was now called a garret [MS. Will Pec. 50/3/33]. The smallholding by the Cherwell bridge had been partly taken from meadowland. The Bokingham's boundaries were formed by the river Cherwell on the east, the Bridge Causeway on the south, Round Bottom on the west and possibly the close belonging to Evan [54] the herdsman to the north. Bokingham's was a larger site and had two cottage commons attached. The close having half a customary acre included the orchard and backside. This was under estimated for by 1775 it measured 1a 1r 2p, though over the years some further encroachments onto the verge could have taken place. They had no ley land apart from their meadow close, but being next to the river could they get some hay from it? When Edward Bokingham died he had planted all his arable land, leaving none fallow. There were two butts of barley and two of peas. These in May were worth 30s. This was unusual for though peas could be used to replace fallow (p300), how did he manage to stop the stock entitled to graze the fallow from eating his peas? Had his arable land in the further Watering (off the Moorstone Road to Claydon) already been enclosed, being at the narrow western end of the tiny valley? Butts were often awkward pieces of land. Could he put hurdles across the end as an expensive solution to keep out stock grazing the fallow until a hedge grew up? His two crops were both planted in the spring. The two butts in Hillington furlong in the South Field may have been more difficult to protect. The cow commons had been set probably to his daughter when Edward became a widower though he kept the pig which would soon demolish the whey and barley grains from their brewing, but would still need some food grown in the garden to help fatten it up. In the house two flitchins of bacon had been hung up. The family were fortunate to have enough space to cultivate a garden to provide vegetables for the household. Edward and Marrion's family records begin in 1586 with two sons and three daughters. One daughter Alice married the schoolmaster William Rede who was also the parish clerk (pp134,160) and Redes/Reads began a line of descent that only ended when his great grand daughter married Samuel Goode of Mollington and they let the place to a Toms who was a maltster from across Round Bottom [57]. Did this mean they still had customers drinking their ale throughout Reads time here? Could a schoolmaster's wife run an alehouse up to 1775? The College then sold the site to the Oxford Navigation Company and Simcox built the Navigation Inn and wharf there, but the canal split the close in half. Page 436 William Rede and Alice Bokingham were married in 1624, but out of all the inhabitants they alone, with the vicarage household are not on the lists. Was this because as parish clerk he was exempt from Easter oblations? They had in fact moved into [55] and then around the time their son marries the couple move up Hello to Palmer's cottage [59] where they appear on the 1659 rental. William died that year. The widow paid a tax on two hearths in 1663, which meant they had been leasing at least half a yardland and must pay rates and taxes. Their son Edward had been made the "Register" on the 4th of August 1653 during the interregnum (p134). He was a servant to Sir Francis North. Although called a labourer in his will, for he received wages, he did manage to purchase the two river "hamms" down by the Lower Mill, which were passed down to the Dunns. He also trained a cousin, from Creampot Lane [32], to become a parish clerk. |
 |
Reconstruction of the Brasenose Inn site [13] 29a. |
| Page 437 |
Russell and Denzie at the Blacksmith's [13]. |
 |
Page 438 The average in the household for the 8 listed years was 4.0 Denzie, Densy, Densey are just three of the various spellings of that surname (The spellings used will generally follow those found in the different records). One shop or "smythes forge" together with two cottages were once in the occupation of Harry Walser, labourer, who had married Annes Russell in 1545 [Hurst 113]. Was she a widow because in 1572 the tenancy was granted by the College to John Russell, a blacksmith? Walsers had been in Cropredy since at least 1545 farming down Creampot [35]. Harry used the smith's land for his cow and eighteen sheep, but had no corn at his death in 1583 having no doubt passed half the copyhold to the blacksmith. John Russell's lease was for two cottages and a "smythes forge" for twentyone years at an annual rent of 16s. This was made up of 6s-8d per cottage and 2s-8d for the forge. As there were two cottages John Russell had been able to set up house in his own two bay cottage leaving the other one for Walser. He spent time and money putting in the wooden windows and interior, which would have been the tenant's responsibility, the College supplying the stone for the walls and three chimneys, one per cottage and the third for the forge. Two bays was small for an artisan and they would have had to choose the best use for the room with the fire. They did without the hall, the chimney like Palmer's [59] being used in either the kitchen or the parlour. As one of the first parlours to be mentioned it may already have been used for eating and entertaining with all sleeping confined to the first floor? The buttery perhaps in the usual place at the back of the parlour bay. John Russell, having no son, left his business to his daughter's son Thomas Denzie (born in 1589) who later appears as a blacksmith in the vicar's lists. John's "will is that whereas I have certain loftes about my tenement as namelie one in my parlor, a second over my kytchen, a third over my butterye, that is the cock loft there and a fowerth over my shop," with the transoms, beams and boards to remain unto Thomas after his wife's decease. "Also that house standings standing [sic] upon postes, commonlie called my grindinge house in my backside" to Thomas. All repairs were the tenant's responsibility and they must plant three elms and three ashes yearly on their close mounds for the College to decide what timber they were entitled to. Any other timber the tenant must buy in and so the tenant regarded any floor, partitions, doors or windows built in as theirs, though this was not by then true for it belonged to the landlord if it had become a fixture. At first they would make everything removable and not permanent "standards." "Bords" appearing rather than a floor or a partition. The stone walls of the southern cottage were of coursed horizontal rows with wooden lintels. Some blocked windows can be seen in the south gable. This was 20' 4" deep and the first bay fronting the road 14' 9." At this point the wall has a sharp angle so that the south gable corner is six feet further west than the rest of the cottages front elevation. Did this follow an old boundary or was the next bay an infill to reach the second cottage wall? To complicate matters Russell appears to have his chimney in the "infill" bay. The "infill" is of ashlar build to match the second cottage's gable end. This looks as though the late seventeenth century alterations refaced the front, but left the angled first bay in coursed rubble. The infill, or Russell's second bay, measures 20' 10," and the second cottage gable end was 17' 10" wide. Lintels in the better walls have an ashlar keystone similar to the late improvements at Whytes House [46] (p359). Page 439 Transom windows were made for Prescote manor and Brasenose manor [8] and another for the Inn's upper south gable window [13] which was put in after Ankers took over the copyhold in 1694. They were victuallers not smiths and would have to licence the premises as an Inn. It could be that the blacksmiths had been brewing and selling ale earlier than this. The roof was covering a one and a half storey cottage, and the walls were about twelve and a half feet high. Only in Anker's time did the garrets appear. This Inn needs extensive drawings and minute attention paid to all the details to discover a more accurate constructional history of this very interesting property. Access to the brewery plans and alterations were understandably not given. Russell's three copyhold cottages had the most land and it allowed them to keep three cows. Presumably the blacksmith had the land and the other tenant was in his employ. Rather like Pares [58] and Carters [57] on their site. Bokinghams [55] was once a double cottage unit having two commons, which could have allowed for a master and his married staff? Were the Ladds [40] once attached to Bostocks [41] or Tanners [39]? In 1639 when Richard Denzie the younger was born, a three life term was made for Richard senior, his wife Anne and their son Richard, "three lives successively did hold one cottage, a close and a shopp formerly used and now reputed as three cottages... and for eight butts and a quarter yardland of arable and now pasture in all the fields of Cropredy for three cows and three heifers (called breeders) with their respective appurtances.." [MS.dd Dew c4] [Heifers called breeders?]. The next description, which had changed, came from about 1704. "The dwelling house four bays, barne and stables and straw house Eight bays. The shopp two bays stone wall & thacked. One little orchard and a Little Close Adjoyning to the bridge Lane about three Rude" [BNC:554]. Bridge close was made up of the verge from the Bridge Causeway no longer needed to reach the ford. This considerably narrowed the bottom end of the Green. Their other land was described as:
Except for Job Watts' of [34] all the land was next to other College strips [Arnold at [6], Wyatt at [8] and Maunsell at [35]]. It was part of an old parcel like Matcham's and Bokingham's. Truss's also came from the Rede's [32] ancient parcels. The two cottages had been united as early as the end of Densey's time when it had four bays. His son Richard was taxed on three hearths, but these had been there right back in Russell's time. Walser certainly had his pair of "cobberds," two pot hooks and hangers indicating he had a hearth. Page 440 Blacksmiths, like Wyatts who lived in the second cottage, were promoters of chimneys not belonging to the open hearth traditionalists. A little more is known about the family. John Russell married Margery Gubbyn in 1554 and one daughter Anne survived and married William Denzie of Great Bourton. They had four sons. It was the third son Thomas born in 1589, who was to be apprenticed as a blacksmith. When Margery died in 1588 John Russell married again, this time to a much younger girl. He was around sixty and Elizabeth nee Farmer may have been under thirty. In 1601 Elizabeth was a widow in charge of Thomas Densey, her late husband's grandson, with the vicar as his guardian. Elizabeth lived on in one cottage and let the second cottage to Wyatts the farriers and they may have taken on Thomas as their apprentice. The third cottage continued as the smithy. The College records have many gaps especially for copyhold cottages and only the blacksmiths go back to 1572 though no evidence could be found of how the copyhold passed to the Denseys from the court, or other records until Russell's PCC will of 1601 was found in the Public Record Office [Info. kindly sent by J.S.W. Gibson]. Goodwife Russell was now in possession of a valuable copyhold and her father and brother insist on a £100 security bond for Elizabeth when Richard Terry asks her to marry him (p118). Richard's first wife had been Alice Denzie whose mother was one of the Bourton Gills. Richard Terry, weaver, was much nearer widow Russell's age. He brought his daughter Katherine down to Cropredy. The weaver had received an education before being apprenticed and appears to run a successful business. Terrys are in various records until he died in 1604. The forge was run by Thomas Wyatt with his Bourton wife Christain Plant until she died (p595). The Easter list of 1613 records the residents of the two cottages. Thomas Densey now a married blacksmith was employing William Hunt. Thomas Wyatt also has a man to help, or his second son John who was a farrier. In most towns the blacksmith and farrier were separate trades. Thomas Wyatt's son was called a farrier and Densey's were definitely blacksmiths, so did Thomas Wyatt have to employ a blacksmith before Thomas Densey was old enough to take over? By this time Thomas Wyatt had remarried. His second wife Ursula nee Farmer could be a close relative of the widow Elizabeth Terry. Goodwife Terry had a third chance to marry and left Cropredy with her new husband Richard Smith in 1606. No children are registered from her three marriages. The Wyatts move to Creampot Lane [31] to enter upon a farm lease and the Denseys as the real tenants of the site stay on. In the Poultry tithe accounts Wyatt gave over twelve hens and cocks to the vicar. Densey gave an extra item in 1612: "Tho densy a bottell of wyne" [c25/6 f3v]. Was this a gift or a tithe from an ale house selling wine and other drinks in the parlour, and was that why they had the kitchen as the main cooking place? Thomas Densey and his wife Barbara had five sons and three daughters. Richard their eldest and his wife Anne had five sons and a daughter. The family continued to work at the smithy for Richard and Thomas, two of their sons, became blacksmiths. Eventually Thomas married and left for Mollington leaving Richard in Cropredy. He took his turn as churchwarden for he had enough land to pay the rates, and no doubt played an important roll as blacksmith. Richard failed to gather any wealth dying penniless in 1686. Working over a hot fire was thirsty work and his customers may have drunk ale with him while they were waiting and entering into the discussions? Page 441 No licence has been found and it was not until 1697 that the vicar records the tithe for "ye Brazen Nose" 3s-4d. The site is repeatedly charged this tithe and can be traced forward through the vicar's records [c25-26]. In the 1699 Manor Court record are the words: "which is changed into the Brasenose" making it appear quite recent, or was that just the name [MS.dd par Dew c4]? In the late seventeenth century church accounts the cost of the twice annual dinners eaten before "ye spiritual court" are sometimes held at the Brazen Nose [13] run by the Ankers who arrived in 1694 and sometimes at Swetman's [49] in Church Street. In vicar Holloway's time the Church Court was still held in the church [The missing church accounts were returned to the Oxfordshire Archives after VCH X was published]. On wet days backsmiths saw an increase in the number of horses turning up to be shod. On frosty days they became even busier as coulters were brought to be sharpened and the older townsmen lingered in the heat from the forge. A centre for heated debate led many blacksmiths to become ale house keepers, and they built stables for traveller's horses if they stayed overnight. Allitts of Little Bourton, wheelwrights, were doing the same several generations later. Bokinghams [55] could have begun their ale house in the same way. Blacksmithing and lodging travellers was denied to Alice Wallis of Bourton according to the will of her late husband Thomas who had died in 1614. They had farmed a little land and Alice made cheese and brewed but the smithy was left to his kinsman Thomas. Other craftsmen with the right wife taught her the trade to safeguard the family business, but perhaps Alice with her educated kinsmen prefered to allow the business to go to a master blacksmith. The smithy judging by the stock of tools ready for sale could have supplied a wide area with metal harrows, shovels and forks. Local husbandmen who had money to spare were saved the work of making their own wooden ones. In his blacksmith's shop, which would be similar to Cropredy's, he had "beams skales and wayghts" and a huge leather bellows to keep the fire hot which John Densey and two others considered was worth the large sum of 23s-8d.
There were no records of the type of equipment produced at the Cropredy forge. Wyatts specialised in shoeing horses, but Densey could have made and sharpened the ploughs and made many of the above items or repaired them. Page 442 |
Lucas Carpenters of the Long Causeway [2]. |
 |
The average in the household in the 8 listed years was 2.5. William Harrison thought our carpenters were preferred to those of all other nations [1587. F.J Fumivall ed 1877 pp 233-42]. The Lucas's who were industrious and successful carpenters may have come from Wroxton. John appears first in 1612 at his marriage to thirtyfour year old Joane Lyllee of Creampot Lane [29]. We do not know which of the two Lucas's recorded in 1613 was the first tenant in Cropredy, John or his father William? The three bay cottage and shop were under one roof with a little orchard measuring about one rood (Fig.26.10 p419). Page 443 In 1766 "The cottage adjoining to Wilkes [3] farm" close still had three bays. In our period Devotion's [3] had Wilke's farm and close on the north side of Lucas's, but on the east and south were the Nuberry's/Woodrose's [8] meadows behind a bank and ditch. The Long Causeway to the west would need a bridge over the ditch. No land was allocated to Lucas in the manor records. There was only commonage for one cow, but they needed barley, peas and hay and had to lease some land from the A manor, or sublet from other tenants. In John's will he left their son William two cows "which I have at [W]Roxton." These were extra to the one he was allowed to keep in Cropredy. Had he any family connections in Wroxton besides Henry Coleman his cousin who he asked to be overseer? The carpentry trade kept this family going for several generations and certainly leaving an estate worth £22-4s-4d was very reasonable considering the size of the copyhold. The two Wroxton cows were not in the total, only the Cropredy cow worth £3-6s-8d. An excellent beast. John had continued to lease some land for there in December 1639 he had barley, peas and hay worth 30s. Prices had continued to rise and this could have come from less acreage than Matchams or Bokinghams though the price would vary by the month. It would appear that the appraisers decided on a round figure somewhat lower than the actual value. The inventory made in December 1639 showed the following rooms:
The stone and thatched house faced south or north. Could this be because the site was not very wide? The house could have been built on the only piece of high land on the close, well above flood level. The hall which took up one bay had two tables one chair and two stools. The buttery which apparently took up the whole of the second bay was used for the preparation of the milk having three barrels a churn and cheese implements. The Lucas's were using it as a kitchen as the Palmers [59] did (p447). They have a chimney, but as the kettles, pot hooks, utensils and three platters worth £1 are separately itemised after the rooms, they make it impossible to locate the position of the hearth. Over the hall and buttery were the sleeping quarters. In the hall chamber they had one "joyned bedsted," four coffers, one flockbed, one "throme cloath," three blankets, four pairs of sheets worth £2. Being a carpenter John could make their joined bedstead. The other chamber over the buttery had an old bedstead for William their son who guarded the malt garner worth 6s-8d. The shop took up the third bay where his carpentry tools were valued at 13s-4d. They unfortunately give no details of individual tools. Even at Little Bourton when Edward Gregory, a carpenter, died in 1622 they only itemise his "2 wedges and a holdfast" worth 1s-6d. Here was another artisan who could lend money to the value of £8-1s, and have 30s of ready money in the house. John's apparel was worth £2 which could mean they mixed with some husbandmen. He made his sixtythree year old wife executrix, asking his "cosen Henry Colman of Roxton" to help her "to sell and dispose of such things as she is willing to have solde." John having been to school could sign his will. Joane died in 1641 and their twentynine year old son William married his first wife Mary Read the following summer. William and Mary had one son John who eventually took over the trade for his was the name they entered on the copyhold. As a widower William married Susanna Mathues in 1650 and four more children arrive, but only Elizabeth may have reached adulthood. John (1642/3-1686) was married by twentyfive and he and Elizabeth had eight children, five of which were boys. Page 444 The step-mother Susanna lived on and died fourteen years after her step-son's wife Elizabeth. John (1668-1729) married Dorothy Smith in 1690 and they carried on the business. No children were baptised. A William and Ann Lucas had come from "Wrockston" in 1723 and their daughter Mary was baptised in Cropredy the same year. They do not appear to stay, but over the centuries the Lucas's had kept in touch with their relatives in Wroxton. Did his younger brother Charls take over, and who carried on into the 1760's? During those early years when the connections with Wroxton were so strong how did they manage to find time to go over and visit. Sunday was not free until after the afternoon church service, to which Holloway added a sermon, had finished. There were still the cows to be milked when they were returned from grazing. Would grandparents come and stay, or children go on long visits, taken across perhaps one summer evening? Once the station was built with an entrance opposite Lucas's close his former site was used to stable horses while the owners went off on the train. The building must have fallen into ruin and later on the close was returned to Browns meadow from which it had been taken. |
 |
The Four Groups of Cropredy Cottages. |