Page 589

36. Four Farms Down Creampot Lane [31-35].

Diagram of sites in Creampot Lane.

In Creampot there were five properties [31-35] all on the north side of the Lane. The sites were divided between the two manors, Kynd [31] and Hanwell/Watts [34] belonged to the A manor and were rebuilt in ashlar while the B manor built Rede's [32], Truss's [33] and Hentlowe's [35] in coursed rubble. Rede's site had been divided in half to form Truss's small-holding [33], a shepherd's cottage and barn, which took up the eastern part of Rede's plot and has been mentioned in Chapter 26. Kynd's and Redes had wider sites than the two narrower ones [34 & 35] at the bottom of the Lane, just above the meadow line. The creation of these farms could well have occurred when the A manor split off a portion of the estate in the twelfth century. By 1524 this had been left to the Brasenose College.

The B manor may have insisted upon well laid out farm yards during the rebuilding in stone. Redes [32] and Hentlowes [34] both have planned homestalls. On the A manor Kynd's [31] and Hanwell/Watt's [34] yards were at the front of the house and perhaps not so well designed leaving the stone barns to arrive later. The problems of getting the loaded corn carts off the sunken lane into the close, across the yard, or straight into the barn may have increased as the years went by. Were all the yards stoned? Many Cropredy inventories mention grass yards on smallholdings so could this mean others had begun to cobble their yard, or was it only courtyards which were cobbled? The only hazard these two A manor farm yards avoided, which could have caused an unknown danger, was water or effluent from the farm reaching the dwelling house. Rede's pond was apt, when not being constantly used for stock, to come down the yard and into the lower end of the house. The land sloped down to the Lane in a south easterly direction. Surface water went into an old stream used as the Lane's ditch. This in turn entered Hentlowe's pond and on to a backwater, the Flempan, to pour into the upper mill pound. The northern scullery at Hentlowe's was known to flood in this century. This would surely affect their stone lined well nearby. In the late nineteenth century a college undertenant, Major Slack, rented the house [35] but had to rely upon rainwater from the roof for drinking, leaving the well for washing. The college later provided a water supply for their tenants and a few others.

Page 590

Behind all the homestalls were the arable strips belonging to the North Field. It would appear the properties were originally built right against the arable headland leaving at that time a wider verge to Creampot Lane. When rebuilding in stone Rede [32] and Truss [33] came forward to the very edge of the lane in line with each other. All the yards and rebuilt stone houses were governed very much by the shape of their site. Kynd's, Rede's and Truss's being south facing, but the bottom two were turned east/west using the length not the breadth of their narrower closes.

Kynd's yard was set in front with the barn eventually forming the eastern range and the stables in front, unless this was added by Wyatt when his forge was placed next to the road. The barn may have had room for two large cart doors. The stock and rickyards being to the east of the barn and next to Rede's rickyard. There was a shallow well just eight feet deep by the south gable of Kynd's barn.

Rede's enclosed cattle yard with the pond was behind the stone house. They rebuilt right beside the road in the corner of the close. The rickyard and orchard were on the west side of the property and in there was a well for all their water. Just as elsewhere in the town they all needed to plant elms round the rickyards and ash, elm and a few oaks in the hedges down Creampot. Rede had a stable of two bays by the house and a cowhouse along the eastern side of the yard. A barn range took up the north side and consisted of a three bay corn barn and a two bay pease house. This northern range extended across into the next close where Truss had the last four bays of barn (p411). The northern range could once have been the former timber longhouse. Truss's stone house and barn were rebuilt next to the road in the southeast corner of his close.

Hanwell/Watts' house being set back must have had the yard to the south and a very narrow part to the west, but at the end of the seventeenth century a three bay barn was built by the lane next to Truss's farmhouse. Had they been content at first to keep on the old timber barn, cowhouse and stable? They mention a colt house in 1634 only because the tenant had provided a manger and rack.

On the Enclosure map Hentlowe's long house was joined to the barn. The barn was at the north end and the farm entrance came round the south gable past the front of the house to reach the inner yard.

Each of the five properties had only one hearth and probably, except for Rede's, they had an oven built in like Truss's [33], though in these other three properties no evidence has survived to confirm this. Thomas Wyatt at the top farm [31] had made extensive additions around 1620 when he took over Kynd's lease, and later again during his son John's time. By 1663 Mr John Wyatt had five chimneys and surely one of them had a built in oven.

Page 591

Kynd in Creampot Lane [31].

1613: Rychard Kynd ux --................. .........1624: Thomas Wiatt et uxor ......ijd

..........the wife of pole of bloxham .ijd ..................William Wiatt ...................ijd

..........her daughter......................... .ijd ..................Elizabeth Bostocke.......... ijd

The average in the household on the 2 listed years was 6.5.

In 1592 Kynd's [31] mention a hall and chamber, but the beds are dealt with separately, so we cannot establish whether the chamber did have their bed. We have to presume the chimney allowed the upper chambers to have been made and that some of the beds in unnamed chambers were in fact upstairs. If the widow Alyce's son had not returned then she must manage alone for five years (p115). Her educated son Richard was seventeen when his father John died and had presumably already been sent off to be apprenticed, or to gain experience on distant farms. Richard and his wife Joyce have the lease after the death of his mother Alyce. Why had he married so early and then why had his wife, son John and a daughter not been mentioned in his mother's will? Richard in his turn must have had apprentices on his farm. In 1608 William Rede, schoolmaster, was the scribe for a William Berry's will. This was witnessed by Ri. Kinde and James Ladden. Berry, who left the Kynd family forty shillings and James Ladd [40] 3s-4d, may have been serving his apprenticeship on the Kynd's farm for he was not a Cropredy man and his relatives proved his will in London.

Richard joined those who left the Sunday service early in 1608 and was presented at the church court (p30). Mysteries surround Richard, a former scholar at Williamscote, who may have been excommunicated for although he and his wife are written down in the 1613 list for Easter they do not pay their tuppence. At any rate something so annoyed someone that they scratched out his baptism record, but could not do this to the copy already sent to the bishop. Richard appears unable to gain a new lease on the farm and departs with their five or six children sometime after 1613, for the whole household is missed out in 1614. In their last year in Cropredy a Mrs Pole and her daughter, who must have been born by 1595, both pay their tuppence. What were they doing in Cropredy unless they were related to Richard's wife Joyce?

Richard's parents John and Alyce Kynd had arrived in 1574 and baptised him in 1575. Did they rebuild first? Their lease was for two yardlands, dropping a quarter after ten years.

Page 592

After 1592 widow Alyce Kynd struggled on through appalling harvests. Her inventory was made using her husband's list of 1592 as a guide and so only a little extra information about her house is revealed. They did have a cowhouse, barn and stable. When the inventory was taken on the 9th of March her sown winter corn was worth 40s. She still had enough peas to plant 1a 1r, oats for 2r, barley for 2a 2r coming in all to 4a 1r out of 21a 3r. Alyce could have set some of her land to others, or else Richard and Joyce had already arrived home and taken up the rest of the land, living in an upper chamber. How much land had been sown for winter wheat and rye? Her peas were not going to balance her wheat. Such late winter inventories are fraught with problems. Some barley had been malted for she had a strike in the garner. John's November sown corn had been worth 28s which was more realistic and the spring corn still to be planted was lying waiting to be threshed. Kynd's can be compared with Hanwell's [34].

Hanwell, Watts and Hall of Creampot Lane [34].

Down the Lane at the other ashlar property lived Rychard Hanwell until he died in 1592 the same year as Rechard Howse [28], John Kynd [31], Hanwell's forty year old son Arthur and unmarried daughter Margery. What fever had attacked the lane? The 1588 meadow list reveals Rychard Watts was already farming Hanwell's land. No burial was entered in the Cropredy register for Rychard Hanwell so he may have died away from home, but his possessions in Cropredy had to be appraised and an inventory was taken on the seventeenth of November. Hanwell's had a hall, but again no furniture was itemised chamber by chamber. He still owned four horses and six cattle which would need a cow house, stable and a barn. The corn came from at least a yardland and a half. He shared his house with Rychard Watts who was already married by 1588. Hanwell lived to see three young Watts born at the house, the eldest called after his son Arthur Hanwell, still living at home, but not farming. What the records seldom explain is the instances of children born with learning difficulties, or disabled from birth or accident, who must be kept at home. Only Anne Sutton is mentioned during our period, but there had to be others.

If Kynds had built in stone when they first came why hadn't Hanwells? Was this because they were here a generation before Kynds and living in their timber house and farm buildings, but not having the time, energy or any descendants to make rebuilding worthwhile. They had been farming since the 1540s. In 1552 Rychard Hanwell had one yardland containing 22 acres and 4 acres of meadowing, but without the leyland later attached to the holding. Had Rychard Watts agreed to undertake the task of rebuilding while he was living with them, before he married Anne? If he had managed to enjoy the house it was not for long. In 1602 the seven young Watts lost their father. Again no burial entry and the appraisers left out the rooms in Rychard's inventory. It could be that Hanwell and Watts had business which took them away from Cropredy from time to time?

Page 593

(i)= Sept.2.1687 "A certificate granted to Isiah Watts of Cropredy for his daughter Anne Watts to be touched of the evil." [2nd Baptism Register] (ii)b = born for the Register now added the date of birth. The charge was a 1s. Burials 4d.

1614: wyd wattes.......... ijd......... 1624: Richard Hall...... ijd

.........Rych hall.............. ijd ...................Anne Wattes ....ijd

........arth wattes............ ijd................... John Clifford .....ijd

........Rych wattes ..........ijd ..................George Wattes ..ijd

.......will wattes.............. ijd ..................Alice Page ..........ijd

.......george wattes ........ijd

.......eliz wattes ...............ijd

.......Joane wattes.......... ijd

The average in the household on 8 listed years was 6.5.

In 1634 the Richard Hall /Watt house had a

Hall, Parlour, Buttery, Kitchen,

Chamber over Parlour, Cheese Chamber and Men's Chamber.

Page 594

The townsmen's inventories at the end of the sixteenth century and early 1600's go back to only concentrating on the contents. Fortunately methods of taking inventories improve by 1609. There had been well conducted appraisals before, but the extra effort required vanished in the turmoil of the 1590's. Robins and French went to help with inventories on several occasions, but had no education and it was left to the third person who would be the scribe to include rooms. Later when the majority were able to write the situation improved. Just because the document does not measure up to our present needs does not mean the chambers did not exist. Their halls and chimneys did and they had every chance to go upstairs and check the first floor. When epidemics caused deaths would they understand the risks involved in going round the property when three heads of household had died down the Lane in 1592 and many more in the town in 1601 and 1602? There were too few to call upon and all of them very busy trying to build up their farms again in a period of rising costs. Then another epidemic arrived in 1622/3 and again in 1631 and 1634/5 and by now the appraisers were taking much more notice of the layout of the houses. Down Creampot in 1634 Richard Hall [34] died first, followed by his neighbour John Truss [33]. Thirteen months later William Cattell at [30] and two months after that Tom Wyatt [31] who still had a ten year old son and two teenage daughters, though he must have been at least sixty. Richard Hall cannot have been much younger, but still fully involved.

Wyatt left a well organised house with plenty of home comforts, but Hall, by then a yeoman married into the Watts family, had still only one hearth, but this did not influence the size of estate left by the testators (p76). Hanwell who was semi-retired with the Watts to help him left only £30. Rychard Watts dying ten years later was still in his prime and had three times as much personal estate. Rychard's son Arthur left only half Hanwell's having as yet no lease, while Richard Hall having improved the farm left £196. Hall had more stock and some property in Banbury. Hall may have loaned the Watts money so that he had a secure share in the lease for when the eldest Watt's son Arthur married at the age of twentyeight Arthur did not automatically get a share of the land. The Hanwell/Watts/Hall household had suffered during many of the fevers which attacked Creampot resident, but the worst was in the winter of 1622/3 (p86). The Watts [34] with Richard Hall had been managing with the help of other members of the family returning for a year. When first one then another took ill did other siblings rush home to help, only to fall ill themselves? Arthur Watts was buried with his mother Anne senior and three adult siblings in the winter of 1623 (pp55 & 684). Had the wool crisis something to do with their condition or were they getting polluted water from above entering their wells? Or had the shallow wells dried up? Others in the town die in 1634 so Creampot Lane drainage might not be the only cause.

Richard Hall was to marry Ann, Arthur's widow, in 1626 and continued to farm the property ready to release it to his stepson another Richard Watts. At no time following grandfather Richard Watts' death in 1602 could the family have rebuilt. It had to have been done while Hanwell was alive. After that they had lived in a good stone and thatched building which was not the cause of their early deaths and besides Rychard Hanwell and Rychard Watts both died and were buried away from Cropredy. If they had other work besides farming were they dealers and woolwinders which brought them into contact with epidemics elsewhere? These two men believed in education and lived in a Lane where many households possessed bibles and encouraged at least one son to go to school. Anne Watts may also have taught her daughters to read (p152). At the top of the Lane the educated Wyatts kept up their farriers' business as well as farming.

Page 595

Wyatt [31].

1624: Thomas wiatt et uxor ....ijd

..........William wiatt et uxor

..........Elizabeth Bostocke .......ijd

..........Ursula Carter .................ijd

Thomas Wyatt, farrier and blacksmith leased the other ashlar built house vacated by the Kynds [31]. They moved up from the smithy [13] on the Green where Thomas had been a subtenant to Densey. The increase in horses produced more work for the farriers and collarmakers than one establishment could cater for. Wyatt may have redeveloped the farm while still in his cottage on the Green and been able to organise a new blacksmith and farrier's shop for the A manor as well as organising the upper rooms and a cockloft in the house.

Two inventories which belong to Wyatt's house [31] mention the rooms. First Thomas who altered the house and then his son:

Page 596

Thomas Wyatt 1634 ................................John Wyatt1669 ...[5 hearths in 1663]

Parlour [no bed] ........................................Olde parlour

Hall .............................................................Hall

Kitchen [furnace] .....................................Brew house*

Shopp ....................................................... Shop

Buttrye ......................................................Both the butteryes

Darye house .............................................Dayry

Over Buttrye [loft] ...................................Room over Buttery

Parlour chamber [J.bed +T] ....................Chamber over parlour

Chamber over hall [2 bed +T] ................Chamber

Over the Parlour Ch. [loft 2 bed] ...........Chamber over Chamber

....................................................................Room over new parlour

J=Joyned. T=Truckle bed ......................New parlour

....................................................................Kill house & room over it [kiln]

* John's widow Sarah's inventory mentions the kitchen, but not the brew house in 1683.

Wyatt's "L" shaped house shown on the 1775 map was at an angle to the rectangular property which William Elkington made into three cottages in 1848. There may be only the inglenook, upper fireplace and the rear window next to the chimney left inside. Outside the northern rear wall appears to be older, but when had the ashlar stone been used at the front? The south elevation has a long stone lintel like Springfield Farm [6]. Why had Wyatt's fine building not been looked after? The above list of rooms show that there were at least three then four bays and at one end it was two and a half storeys high. We do not know if he entered straight into the hall or had an entry lobby or short passage. There was no need for a cross passage when the farm yard was on the front and side.

Thomas's appraisers began in the parlour not the hall, so this was the place they gathered in and wrote the valuations down, perhaps while refreshments were provided. Wyatt used the parlour as a day room and the hall for cooking and eating. There was a "skreen," either to divide the service rooms from the hall, or to shield them from the wind coming in to feed the chimney fire. After working in front of the hot smithy fire all day Wyatt's needed warmth elsewhere about the house, so the bed was one of the first to leave the main downstairs chamber with the earthern, or stone slab floor. Behind the parlour, in the same bay, was a buttery because upstairs in 1669 the buttery chamber was placed next to the one over the parlour. Thomas called it a "loft" not a chamber in 1634. Was the stairs using the chimney stack? The kitchen with the brewing furnace took up part of another bay, but then the appraisers switch to the shop across the yard on the front boundary with the Lane. They still had to return to the buttery which had twelve barrels as well as two half hogshears. The last two items could hold up to fifty gallons between them. No indication is given as to what the rest were for. The dairy was kept for the milk vessels. Being a "darye house" it could be a single storey extension.

Upstairs the parlour chamber had become the best chamber with a "joyned bedsted." A big surprise came with the high value of their bed furnishings as well as the room's actual furniture which included some wainscoting (p642). It came to the astonishingly high figure of £17-10s-4d. Either Thomas or his son John added a bedroom fireplace to keep at bay the winter damps. Did these hefty blacksmiths and farriers suffer from arthritis? Or had their education taught Thomas's sons the comfort of a fire, when at the Williamscote school as artisan's sons they may have been forced to sit at the back, while the paying scholars and Calcott's pupils sat nearest the fire?

Page 597

Hall's inventory was taken a year before Wyatts in January 1633/4. Wyatts had spent so much more than Hall's £3-4s-8d which covered everything in his ground floor chamber next to the hall. Although by then Richard Hall and Robins [26] were both thought of as yeomen with land elsewhere, Wyatt was known to be neither a yeoman nor a husbandman by his neighbours, even though his family were catching up on education (p150), land and possessions. Wyatt had also furnished other rooms well for example the hall chamber contents were valued at £5-10s and over the parlour chamber was a cockloft furnished with two beds and partitions valued at £4. Wood-Jones found these cocklofts in yeomen's houses yet here was one made around 1620 in a farrier's farm which now had only one yardland to cultivate, though they managed to lease extra parcels like other farmers, from time to time [Wood-Jones p114]. Wyatt began to collect pewter and brass. His came to £5-6s-8d which was just under Robins' [26] amount. Were they competitors or neighbours who appreciated each others skills? Few had curtains and rugs, but Thomas Wyatt liked both and also plenty of linen, blankets and "coverlidds." Only Robins and Tanner [39] indulged in more bed linen. Ursula Wyatt had only one coffer for instead she used three chests, two boxes and two cupboards to store their possessions. They were also amongst the better dressed in the town.

Thomas's eldest son William Wyatt had married his first wife Jane and they had two children. His second wife was Mary Watts and they moved to Suffolk's farm [60]. Robert, the chandler, went to Round Bottom [52] and the fourth son John, who was already married, had been trained as a farrier and he inherited the homestead with his mother [31]. Thomas was only fifteen, but he eventually moved into Cattell's next door, before taking on the B manor farm [8]. In the next generation John junior the farrier's eldest son left Creampot and leased the A. manor [50] after Cartwrights. Another son Job took on the A manor when this brother John died. Did the town appreciate the forthcoming talents of the Wyatts? The landlord valued their knowledge about horses, but was angry when John's sons failed to collect in the rents. Thomas Wyatt the blacksmith's grandsons were becoming gentlemen.

Thomas Wyatt left "all the Smithie tooles, the better payre of Bellowes the anvill and all the tooles that are in the shoppe fitt for a smith to worke withall and one Bedsteede that he lyeth on and the bed cloathes that are on it" to his son John, who was living in one of the upper chambers. In the inventory the tools were worth £5- 6s and consisted of "one payre of Bellowes one Anvill two/ vises one Beckhorne three sledges three/ hand hammers three grindstones with Iron/ turnells & fire tonges & pinchers with other implements."

Wyatt left to his son Robert a bedstead in the cockloft. The joined bed and what clothes his mother could spare as well as "one hundred of elm boards by measure."

Down Creampot at the other A manor farm Richard Hall may have done little to the house [34], for he had no heir of his own. His step-son Richard Watts would soon take over the lease. The farm remained the Watts family home and Richard Hall's brother-in-law George Watts still continued to return home from time to time. Ann and Richard ate in the hall and slept in the parlour at the south end of the house, maybe only adding the press to hang their clothes in. The room's bed and furniture was above that of the average artisan, excluding Wyatts, but had not reached a very high yeoman standard and was below French's [4] who were still husbandmen (pp 644 & 645).

Page 598

Over Hall's parlour was another chamber with two beds. Unlike many they kept the stores to one room over the hall called the cheese chamber. The men's chamber having a bed and garners for the malt as well as the spinning wheel which was not for some reason in the women's room, unless the daughters were spinning in there during the winter days under a good window. They grew hemp in the close for spinning, and took as many fleeces to spin as was necessary to keep them all in clothes and blankets. The dairy took up part of the buttery which was behind the parlour. Their barrels having to make room for the milk vessels. A kitchen may have been in the northern most bay, but no entry is given, though if the parlour was at the south end then the entrance was on the west side and it could just be possible, though no proof is given, that the kitchen was to the north of the entrance situated behind the single chimney on an inner gable. The kitchen bay had no loft over.

Once the Boothbys became landlords it seems they helped with repairs, but major rebuilding was for the tenants convenience and had to be done by them? The Halls had a colt house and stabling for five horses. He also had a large flock of a hundred and twenty sheep, well above the land's quota. For the list years the Watt brothers were always coming and going and one was probably responsible for the sheep if not Hall himself with help from shepherd Truss next door? They had an average of 6.5 adults over these eight years and this was a large household. What extra qualifications did all these educated people get and how did it help them to survive and acquire work elsewhere? Had Rychard Watts (died 1602) used his small safe valued at 6s to hold the rents for the landlord? Or did they act as dealers in which case an education would be a great asset to them? This safe was worth more than several coffers and would have had a lock. It was not mentioned in the next three inventories. The next mention of a safe was in Charles Allen's [44] house in 1632. Charles was in a position to collect the A manor rents for Coldwell [50].

Redes of Creampot Lane [32].

Reconstruction of Rede's and Truss [32 and 33] in 1775

Redes [32]

1614: Rich read ux .....ijd....... 1624: Richard Read et uxor .......ijd

.........wam read ...........ijd

.........wydow Read..... ijd

The average in the household on the 8 listed years was 3.25.

Page 600

Many surnames are spelt one way by Cropredians and another by the vicar. Both Rede and Read appear correct, but only Read survived.

William Carter and Margery his wife farmed down Creampot on their B.Manor farm [32]. William did not manage to leave a fortune when he died in 1550, for as an old man he would have parted with most of his goods and been living off the remainder to leave just £6-19s. His son John already married with four children did not return to take over. Instead William left his son-in-law Richard Rede to be his executor. In 1540 Richard had married Margery junior and gone to live elsewhere, but they returned in the spring of 1545 with at least three daughters to help the Carters. Margery's mother died in December. It could be that Mr Carter also needed help for Richard was by now farming his land in Cropredy. The Rede's son William was born soon after their return and over the next decade four more children were baptised at the church, the last two being twins. Margery's name had been entered on the copyhold and eventually the farm lease was taken over by the Redes, but William Carter stayed on as an under tenant for his five years as a widower.

The Carters must have made some sort of marriage agreement to safeguard their daughter if she should become a widow, for after Richard died in 1577 Margery retained half the lease instead of the customary third as all their children were adults. William as the eldest son had the other half. Margery was instructed by the college to pay her half of the rent to her son for the next six years [Hurst 115].

It was perhaps due to the lie of the land that the southeast corner of the farmyard took the surplus water and the house must take up the higher western end of the roadside range. There were probably six bays of building with a stong inner gable thirtyfour inches thick. The chimney was placed at the front of the west gable and the whole layout and approach to the inside of the house was the opposite way to the majority in the town, unless the original entrance was on the north side? The house was improved and the use of the bays changed around which shows some dissatisfaction with the original layout. Did they start with just the hall and the chamber, waiting for floorboards and partitions to use the two upper chambers? Where was the entrance? When the house faced south onto the road the two bays acquired window seats under three light casements. Any major alterations had to be paid for by the tenant and repairs must be seen to before another life could be entered on the lease. The farm was a small one, but the family did continue there longer than most, though often as subtenants to a wealthier yeoman from another parish.

In 1577 Richard Rede's house had a:

Chamber [3 bedsteds]

Hall [fire tools]

Kychin

Backesyde [well]

Stable.

In a timber house they would have had a small low chamber and a larger upper chamber, but if they had already rebuilt in stone with the chimney in the hall, the second or third bay here was for the kitchen, besides an old low chamber could not have fitted in three bedsteads. In Rede's stone house there was at first only room for two upper chambers. It is important to notice that already they had the kitchen and stable with the main building which suggests the rebuilding had already taken place.

Page 601

If in 1577 the rest of the farm buildings were still being changed from timber to stone then Richard's son William could not afford at that point to marry and have a family, even if the College had supplied the stone. William was thirtytwo when his father died and he waited another three years before marrying. If they had already been rebuilt in stone then the profits must go to pay off their expenses, or to add upper floors, partitions and standings in the yard.

Richard had left five candlesticks as well as a rare lantern, worth seven shillings. What did they require such an expensive piece of equipment for? Unless they spent a considerable amount of time out in the stable, or helping others when stock arrived? Richard left no spinning wheels or any other sign of home industry. Their geese had not apparently yielded enough down for coverlets, or the hens feathers for mattresses. Or perhaps these were still sold. They had a sow and may supply others with piglets. The pigs were housed next to the pond, but kept out of it by having their own water trough. The rest of the stock would use the pond. The well for the house had a safety curb. The bulk of his assets were in his horses which took up a third of the £21-18s-6d.

Around the end of 1579 William married Elizabeth and for four years while widow Margery was alive there were three generations for Rychard was born in 1580 and William in 1581. Did young William's uncle Denys, who was a twin, remain in the family or return? He was buried at Cropredy in 1602. The family custom of having Richards and Williams continues for generations. As the younger boy would have no farm he was allowed to attend school. In 1594 as a widower of fifty the father married again and Susannah Toms' father made sure that if she too became a widow she would have half the farm. They had one daughter Joane (p118).

The farm by now was surely all rebuilt, for when they had a series of poor harvests in the 1590's they pulled through even with William still a scholar. He became the school master for the petty school receiving his licence in 1611 after his father had died (p133). William could not marry on such a small income even with the parish clerk's piece of land and a small retainer. He must still farm with his brother until the end of their lease, for their father left instructions in 1609: "I will and my mynd is that Wam Reade my sonne shall have his convenyent meate and drinke and chamber rome at the charges of Rychard my sonne, for and duringe the years of this my lease to come yf he will so accept though he keppinge himselfe sole and unmarried. Also whereas he hath a younge black horse and a brown heiferd now known as his owne goods. I do will that after my decease he follow or otherwise to provyde them so that they may not be chargeable to my executor."

Before looking at how they all fitted into the house there is a description in 1669 giving the number of bays all of which would surely have been provided in the early part of the Rede's tenancy. A reconstruction is made from this description and the two Enclosure maps.

"The dwelling House four bayes

the Corne/ Barne Three bayes

the pease barne two bayes/

the stable two bayes the cowhouse one bay/

one coweyard on the northside the house

one garden/ and rickyard on the west side ye house.

Three cowes commins formerly four, fower horse/

commins sixteen sheep commins in sommer and thirtytwo in winter" [BNC:552] 1669.

Page 602

The house in 1609 had to acommodate the widow and her ten year old daughter in one chamber, William in another and soon Rychard and his young wife Anne Bartlett in a third. The two extra bays at the east end beyond the thick inner wall were used for the kitchen and dairy leaving the old hall as the lower chamber although the cooking fire was in there, and the middle bay with no fireplace for eating. Later the best chamber may have been built over the kitchen and the western bay with the hearth turned into the parlour. Up above by 1717 they had a parlour chamber, the middle chamber and the best chamber, though it is not known whether they ever had any access through that thick inner wall, or whether they must go outside to reach the old hall and parlour from the kitchen.

By 1616 Susannah's daughter Joane was old enough to make her way in another house and her mother leaves. William also appears to go being absent from the Easter lists (unless he was writing them, or as clerk was excused payment?). He surfaces in the vicar's accounts for he owed money to Tanner the mercer [39] and it was paid out of his next quarter's money. Once William had married Alice Bokingham, who must have had a life on her parent's copyhold [55], William and Alice could have been living in the Bokingham's house (p436).

The Redes continue to farm down Creampot and all the boys receive an education and some become parish clerks. The last Richard born in 1668 was trained as a barber chirugion. Was he apprenticed to someone in Oxford? He became a sub-tenant, but stayed in Cropredy until he died in 1717.

Elkington remodelled the farm house to make two cottages divided by a brick wall and a one room dwelling out of the old kitchen. This later became a wash house for the middle cottage, but there was still no way through the thick wall. The stone dividing wall was 40 feet from the end gable at the eastern corner of the close which allowed room for four narrow bays. The first two had been for the old kitchen and dairy and the last for a two bay stable. The dairy and stable lost their roof and became a walled grass plot with pigsties under the old eastern gable. These sties were for the two larger cottages. All the farmyard buildings once unused began to fall down, or were perhaps recycled to another site, possibly Oathill farm built on an area of enclosed leyland (p219).

How much did this family, keen on education, see of their next door neighbours? All of them respected education from Wyatts down to Hentlowes in Creampot Lane. Thomas Wyatt [31] called in William Rede, after Rede had moved to Round Bottom, to write his will. The Wyatts' and Redes' knowledge of horses must also have drawn them together.

Plan of Rede's in 1669

Page 603

Three bays of Rede's House [32] as Two Cottages and a Wash house in 1920's

King's and Pettifer's Cottages with Wash house in 1920's, once Read's Farmhouse.

Page 604

Hentlowes of Creampot Lane [35].

1614: Jhon hentlow ux.... ijd .......1624: John Stacie et uxor......ijd

.........wam corbett ux....... ijd.................. Elizabeth Stacie ..........ijd

.........mary hollway.......... ijd ..................Thomas Stacie.............ijd

.........a mayd..................... ijd .................. George macocke ........ijd

The average in the household on the 8 listed years was 4.27.

Page 605

The bottom farm belonging to the B manor was farmed by widow Gillian Walser until 1558 when it passed to her son-in-law Richard Hentlowe who had married Elizabeth Walser. He too was a sub-tenant, but by 1583 had, like the Rede's, entered a lease for twentyone years. Richard leased two yardlands belonging to the homestall [Hurst 116] and took on three more from the A manor to have the largest farm in the town.

Richard Hentlowe had married twice. His first wife Elizabeth had two children baptised and two others are mentioned as scholars in 1576. Richard again married and Annes gave birth to three sons and two daughters. The youngest daughter Dorete married William Corbett and they lived in one of the chambers. Did she have to care for her brother John Hentlowe? Although John has the house the land is let separately, first to Richard Prescott in 1596, then to Richard Gorstelow of Prescote Manor in 1607. The College gave Richard Prescott permission to demise some part of his house and other commodities to John Hentlowe as specified in an agreement between the two parties. Richard Gorstelow allowed John to keep all the profits which Richard Prescott had previously conferred upon him [Hurst 127 :1607]. This must surely have been because Richard Hentlowe had helped to built the house, or taken out a long lease, and John was unable to work the land. How much revenue was his? John Hentlowe died in 1617 and two years later the staff had gone. John had always had a couple staying, for what reason? When he died he was living in only one chamber. Was he disabled and found extra employment in his ability to read and write? He leaves £45 which was a large amount and out of that he had £30 "debts by specialytes owinge" to him, so he was a small lender of money. He had a bible and two other books worth 8s. John's wife (Anne?) stayed on, but then she too died in 1621. The Stacies had managed to rent the house as Richard Gorstelow junior of Prescote manor needed the land but not the house.

The Hentlowes and other subtenants left no clues in inventories, so that it was not until 1689 that a glimpse can be seen of some of the rooms Hentlowe's might have had. The Mansell's soon began to add improvements to the property. Nehemiah Mansell's 1689 inventory now in the P.R.O. [Prob 4/10691] and Moses Mansell's 1746 inventory at Oxfordshire Archives [MS Wills Pec. 46/4/21] reveal their various additions to this house:

Nehemiah Mansell in 1689 ......................Moses Mansell in 1746

Great chamber .............................................First room

Two little Chambers ...................................Second room

Two Garritts ................................................Third room

Buttery .........................................................ye new rooms

Hall house ...................................................ye dwelling house

.......................................................................Butry

...................................................................... Brewhouse

.......................................................................Barn

In 1821 the whole property was greatly altered at Thomas Andrew's expense [Valuation Book (3) B.N.C. p84]. He turned the house to face south putting brick outside and lining the front wall with stone. The north wall has many features of an older Mansell building, but Andrews could have recycled the windows. It was left in stone with two, three and four light casements. In 1823 Thomas Andrews started on the yard and tiled the three bay stone barn. Bricks were used in preference to stone only in the new or repaired yard buildings. A closer inspection of the stonework might reveal remains from the earlier periods.

Page 606

The house had originally faced east across the meadows. They approached the site below the south gable end. The Mansells extended southwards for two extra bays towards the pond. Hentlows may have had only three bays with the usual hall, chamber and perhaps a nether room, but because the barn was to the right of the eastern entrance the design did not follow the general rule followed in Cropredy. Mansells, like Woodroses [8], had added a Great Chamber. In the Mansell terrier for 1674 there is a good description of the site:

"The dwelling House five Bayes Stone walls and thatched.

The barne four bayes Stone Walles and thatched.

The carthouse Stable & Cowhouse & Piggsties seaven Bayes.

The orchard garden & Backside contayneinge about half an acre

Bounded on the Eastward wth great Bullmore on the west wth

Richard Watts his homestall" [BNC:552 in 1674].

Hentlowe's Farm site [35] in 1775.

Page 607

The meadows which were also described in the terriers have already been given in chapter 15 page 215. The entrance to the meadows between the Hentlows and the High Furlong Brook went to the south of their property at the bottom of Creampot lane. After the Enclosure of the Open Fields and the building of the Oxford Canal, which came between them and the meadows, an alternative approach had to be made. This went up through the Hentlow's former vegetable plot to the west of the farmhouse and yard [35] and so north to meet a new drift road coming east from the road to Claydon to reach a swing bridge over the canal which gave access to the meadows and Prescote manor beyond High Furlong Brook.

In the sixteenth century the Hentlowe's, at the insistence of the College, would have put up an adequate stone house and made sure the well was by the eastern doorway. They had one inglenook fireplace in the hall. The steep thatch roof of Hentlowe's barn was lowered to take tiles by the Andrews about two hundred and fifty years after Hentlowes. The east and west walls had slits and the north gable had four triangular vents as well as a hay door. The rickyard was probably to the north sheltered by elm trees and hedges. The small shepherd's "cottage" (if that is what it was built for) had the rarer, but later ashlar walls on this manor, a tiny window to the right of the central door and a square 18 inch window on the north wall. This was to become the cowshed or stable with a hay loft door and vents on the west wall. The north east corner of the yard had a stone cattle hovel open to the yard. Originally this was built on the edge of their close backing onto the meadows. In the 1770's the canal was built so close to this hovel that it suffered from the water washing the banks. This was partly the result of everyone needing to build right up to their boundary, using every foot of their land. To the south of the yard was a small orchard and garden whose southern boundary was the small water course which once took Creampot water to the mill pound.

Andrews used the new western approach to the meadows (through the old vegetable garden) to approach the altered barn. Beyond the barn there would be a way across the rickyard to turn back into the yard, now entered from the north instead of the south. The barn was reduced by a bay for now the farm was a pasture not a mixed farm and the barn did not require four bays. With the approach now from the west two double barn doors were made for the middle bay opposite a smaller eastern door which was used for the departing empty cart as it entered the yard. Stock was now of greater importance since all their College land was down to grass. The land allocated to them was in one parcel extending as far as the road to Appletree, to the north of the farm. Andrews therefore needed to improve their cattleyard and update their stone cowhovel as well as creating a better yard cesspit [BNC Letters].

The new western approach allowed the front garden and orchard to be enclosed in a new fashionable brick and partly stone wall on the western side giving privacy to the tenants who sometimes sublet the house as a gentlemen's residence.

Page 608

The altered Barn and small building in Hentlowe's [35] old farmyard.