Page 70

Easter Oblations (2) 1618 [c25-8 f6].[34 - 39].(p. 168)

Page 71

5. A Town run by Husbandmen.

"I bequeath to RECHARD HOWSE my sonne two horse the Best after the Lorde be shared three score of shepe the one halffe of them to be delyvered unto hymn at the age of ten yeres and also the horse the three Kyne and the other halfe score of shepe to be delyvered to the aforesaid Rechard at the age of fourtene yeres and the best carte and two of the best brass potts and a lesse brasse potte and the best brass panne and one of the leaste pannes a possiet a table and a bedd and all that pertenith thereto that is mete for a husbandman." Made the "8 daye of Aprill" 1550 by his father Rychard Howse of Cropredy [MS. Oxon 180] (p295).

Gentlemen believed that a certain standard of wealth was necessary to belong to each section of society. Looked at from a lower position this involved not keeping staff, or employing only sufficient for their needs and standing in the town (p83). Rychard Howse [28] went further insisting his son should be provided with all "that is mete for a husbandman." His bed (mattress) with the furnishing, a table and cooking utensils. The best stock, after the landlord had taken his heriot, to work a yardland. No plough at first, for young Rechard's mother had to control the cultivations, but he could have the best cart. The widow meanwhile to keep the farm going for her two children. The the first of three widow Ayllys's on that homestall to successfully carry on running the business and bringing up their families as future husbandmen.

Cropredy had twentytwo farms in 1614. The average husbandman farmed two yardlands out of farms leasing from half a yardland up to four and a half. Having no resident landlord for the two manors the tenants took over the parish tasks. There was no freehold and all held either leasehold or copyhold properties. Not a place where you would expect to find many yeomen or gentlemen. The vicar Thomas Holloway [21] was perhaps the most educated member of the parish in the 1570's. This was before the school brought education within the reach of any boy chosen by lot from one of the households. Thomas would consider himself a gentleman, but his early parishioners were, except for the yeoman William Vaughan [23], all husbandmen or craftsmen trading from Cropredy. The names yeoman, husbandman and craftsman do not describe a person's permanent position in society. It was possible to move from being a husbandman to a yeoman or down to a labourer. Shepherds might die as day-labourers. A blacksmith took up a farm lease and became a husbandman. Carpenters leased land. It would help to know how they regarded themselves as distinct from what their neighbours thought of them. Was it by the number of leased yardlands or freehold elsewhere? It is now too far away from us to slot them neatly into a group with only the wills, inventories, a few terriers and college land records, but no diaries. Yet the documents must surely tell us something.

Neighbours' Views.

Page 72

In puritan towns the desire of the godly citizens was to get rid of bad language, excess drinking and to train up the unruly fun loving youth into reasonable townsmen. It was not unknown for the member of the vestry chosen to act as constable to be seen spying at windows and doors and reporting undesirable goings on to the magistrate who would issue a warrant for the backslider's arrest, or present their offences at the church court. By Archbishop Laud's time in the late 1630's the puritan influence was under threat by the high churchmen as the altar was once again returned from the nave to the chancel. Apart from their various religious views there were other differences in the small town.

To the outsider wealth might increase a man's power. The manner in which he spent his money often indicated his desire to claim a higher status. People were judged eventually by their personal estate, honest dealings and trustworthy relations. Some must judge them by their apparel, especially a display of embroidered cloth and jewellery. The more puritanical warned of the dangers of dressing extravagantly. In 1600 a certain William Vaughan (not from Cropredy) thought it could lead eventually to adultery [The Goldern Grove].

How did the people in Cropredy decide on a neighbour's status? If through material possessions then was it the size of the house and land? The number of leased yardlands in Cropredy or freehold land elsewhere was a good indicator of ability to pay. Would they consider the length of their education? Their food, drink, furniture or stock? The loans out on bonds? Or was it their London connections, relations who were educated as clergymen, or lawyers which raised their status? Or was it entirely based on the depth, or lack of, their Cropredy ancestors stretching back in time? How long were they regarded as strangers? There were certain necessary chores connected with the town which only men could attend to. Was it just a question of status or duty in relation to the quantity of land they were leasing?

Status could change over the years. A husbandman's son did not necessarily remain the same, though they did on Howse's farm [28] during a 100 years as tenants. A husbandman's son was nothing more than a labourer until he took over a household. By the 1630's one husbandman was calling himself a yeoman during a rising level of inventory totals, but not all shared his opinion of himself. Nothing was very clear cut. If husbandmen felt they had status from the amount of land they leased, they still farmed working alongside their workforce which consisted of their family and living-in servants. Extra help came from day labourers from time to time. This status was also held by many craftsmen who as they prospered purchased land elsewhere, or leased parcels of Cropredy land. These enterprising men began to leave personal estates worth far more than some full time husbandmen.

Husbandmen had control of the manor court in the absence of resident landlords until the A manor [50] farm in the sixteenth century and the B manor farm [8] in the first decade of the seventeenth were let to gentlemen and not to husbandmen as previously. We might presume these tenants would be bound to have more time on their hands and be asked to accompany the vicar to witness wills, or other documents. This however did not at first happen, although Coldwell does witness leases for Calcott Chambres [Williamscote House] amongst a few wills, but Woodroses failed to be active in this way. Only William Hall [6] as he moved from husbandman to yeoman and finally gentleman helped with wills and inventories. By 1632 he was called Mr Hall. Husbandmen continued to operate as they had done for many generations. Artisans with a little working land probably contributed more to the running of the church, highways and the poor than any gentleman. The opportunity for education being available for all Cropredy families (p138), providing the parent's could support the family and allow one or two to be at school. The day to day running of their land was as absorbing a subject of conversation at the mercers, the tailors and weavers, as the blacksmiths and millers. Any who actually worked the land, or lent themselves out at harvest time had more in common with husbandmen than the newer wealthier tenants. Gentry had to employ men to work their land.

Page 73

In a sample taken during one of the list years of the sixty households there were about thirtynine men over the age of thirty amongst the husbandmen and craftsmen who should be able to help run the town, yet not all of these would be allowed to if they had less than half a yardland. The widows were also denied a chance, even those with land.

The situation in the household had to be right. As a widow played no part in parish affairs, Arthur's widow Ann Watts [34] (who still had Richard Hall farming the land as her late husband and mother-in-law had done) could not help with the manor court, the church or parish work. Richard Hall as a bachelor was also prevented from doing so until he finally marries the young widow Ann. From that time onward he is in charge as head of the household and would be called upon to help with town business. He dies a yeoman, whereupon the young Richard Watts takes up his rightful place with his mother farming the Watt's land.

The town was run not by an elite group of wealthy townsmen, but by a collection of tenants united by their leased land. They must between them organise the parish work. None could live or work in isolation, for whether they liked it or not the Open Common Field, the church, the poor, the sick, the roads and the whole environment was theirs to care for. Ales or rates must be organised or collected to help finance the work.

Artisans who contributed their harvest labour were not reduced by such undertakings. There was room for some independence in a town which was not destroyed by a wealthy gentleman's patrimony. Craftsmen such as Thomas Wyatt [13b & 31] could also move progressively upwards on leased land. He moved to Kynd's deserted farmstead and carried on shoeing horses with some veterinary work while farming. His son either inherited his books or as a farmer cum farrier had his own. This family was unusual. A few generations before the Howse family had spread to three farms remaining as husbandmen, but the Wyatts managed to move in three generations to becoming gentlemen and leased the two manor farms and at least three others all in Cropredy, while buying land, in Shotteswell. Why did all these owners of freehold land outside Cropredy choose to still live on a leased farm? Cropredy must have been a much sought after place being the central town north of Banbury to make it worth while holding onto their leases.

Could hard work and eventual achievement, as the Wyatts believed in, be available to all? It seems not. In every town there was always some family sliding downwards due to economical pressures. Watts the weavers prospered until the wool trade went into crisis and from owning their looms they may have been forced to sell them and then hire them back.

Page 74

Others were not able through home demands to take the best off the land they were leasing and use the mart to their advantage. The farming Watts [34] and other husbandmen fell upon hard times at the end of the seventeenth century and failed to renew their leases.

New arrivals in the craftsmen's cottages would not be churchwardens it was thought on their few acres. Yet there was Thomas Elderson [38], Richard Cross [51], Edmond Tanner [39] and Thomas Sutton [42] presenting at the church court as church wardens and not just as sidesmen. Each sent a son to the school. In Cropredy apparently such official work in the town was taken on because they had leased land and must thereby take on responsibilities like all other tenants, irrespective of their previous social standing. These four people had taken up spare half yardland parcels of land for a short time and advanced their status only to drop back later. Others like Rawlins the shoemaker [45] who did not take up a parcel of land still sent three children to school. The millers educated sons were able to go on from school to university (p142).

Did those who had their wills proved in London, ignoring the church court in Cropredy, have land elsewhere to merit this or was it just a status symbol? They included French and Hall of [6], three Woodrose's of [8], a blackmith and weaver of [13], one Howse [28], Robert Whettel a servant for [50] and his master Mr Coldwell, Thomas Holloway [21], but not his wife, and William Rose [60]. These had land elsewhere, sometimes for their children's legacies. Mrs Holloway's children had all been settled when she had her will made and so it could be proved at Cropredy. Some of these twelve people appear in a useful Tax List.

The tax list for 1627 shows who were increasing their possessions or had land elsewhere and while these purchases went on they changed their status and became eligible to pay taxes. The tax was collected from only 10% of the population. The list was written down according to the payer's status in the town of Cropredy. The owner of the A manor, Lady Judith Corbet from Clattercote paid £20 on her land and came at the end only because she was in the next parish. Those assessed on goods were William Hall for £5-13s-4d [6], Dyonice Woodrose £4-10s-8d [8] and Richard Cartwright £3-7s [50]. Those who were taxed on land which they had in other parishes all paid £1-4s. The group was made up of: Robert Robins [26] who had purchased 56 acres of land in Wardington in 1623, Richard Hall [34] whose will mentions property in Banbury, Solomon Howes [9] who had freehold property in Kineton purchased before 1558 as well as land in Bourton and John Hunt [16] who was the last of the Cropredy owners of land, but the whereabouts of his property has escaped the surviving records. The first three to be taxed were in the gentry group, the next two yeomen and the last two husbandmen and this was the order of wealth-cum-status the tax was written in. Ffoulke Green, husbandman, had once been in Coldwell's [50] household and now held land in Williamscote-in-Cropredy. Only wills, tax and land records together can produce some of the missing details of non moveable wealth [PRO 164/467].We can be certain that Gybbs [25] had no land as he escapes the tax though he had moveable assets (money out in bonds) rather than a high percentage of moveable possessions or land. Gybbs ended up with one of the largest inventory totals and his balance between the inside goods and the stock and corn was of much more importance to his success (p189). He had put out his savings upon bonds.

Page 75

In 1641 came another tax on possessions:

[PRO 164/493 17 CHARLES I].

Hearths and Wealth.

The number of taxed hearths in a parish has been used by some to discover the wealth of the parishioners. In Cropredy it really only divided the landholders from the cottagers who had less than half a yardland to till, because the later did not have to pay a church rate and so were not taxed on their cottage hearths (p623 & App.3) Lack of fuel was one reason not to have two hearths burning, especially when coal was an expensive input.

Chimneys of fine tall brick standing well above the inflammable thatch announced in some areas the presence of an enclosed hearth. Along the Cotswold belt stone chimneys protruded into the skyline, and Cropredy was no exception as one after another house and cottage were built with plain stone chimneys without the twists of the earlier brick ones. Not only the husbandmen now had smoke issuing forth, but so did the cottagers as and when they could afford to light the fire. One chimney might not add prestige to a building, for one was common place, but two or more were not.

Could they indicate inner hidden wealth? In group one we have nine cottagers who each had a hearth and their inventory totals range from under £4 up to £30 giving a median of £21:

Sixteen husbandmen also with one hearth had varied estates from just under £7 up to over £128 and with a median of £48 they had twice as much as the labourer:

The six husbandmen who had two hearths had a median total of £114, which was five times that of the labourer. Cattell [30], a husbandman, had as little as £45-15s:

Page 76

The husbandmen were bound to leave the world with more assets than most labourers if they still had stock and land, and although two hearth properties fitted in with the wealthier husbandman's lifestyle, only the inside possessions and farm's stock could give their true value. Even then it depended upon the economical state of the country, their previous health record, age and family commitments. One hearth on its own could not prove much when most, if not all, of the stone properties had had one built in.

Two yeomen [29,34] who had only one hearth died worth £26 and £196. However the first, John Hall, had retired from full farming retaining only a small flock of sheep. The second, Richard Hall [34], belonged to the Watt's household previously all husbandmen who left varying amounts of personal estate and employed family or staff:

• Hanwell in 1592 left £30.
• R.Watts in 1602 left £92. He took over Hanwells.
• A.Watts in 1624 left £16-11s. Eldest son, not yet on the lease.
• R.Hall in 1634 left £196-3s. He married A.Watt's widow and had property in Banbury. The first three were husbandmen the last a yeoman. Each died at a different age, but all had used the one hearth in that two and a half storey house built with ashlar stone. Their one chimney was no indicator of the household's wealth (p594).

Robert Robins [26] (d. May 1631) who increased his hearths to three, became a yeoman. The B manor farmhouse [8] had perhaps four hearths in Nuberry's time and he left £166. By 1663 the Wyatts [8] had seven hearths. Thomas Wyatt of Creampot Lane's sons took up positions as husbandmen, adding hearths to Coldwell's [50] old manor farmhouse where at some period the hearths were increased to seven and one to Cattells [30] and Suffolks [60]. A hearth added comfort to the parlour as well as the hall, kitchen and upstairs chambers. These additional chimneys would certainly count for a great deal if they could be seen to all issue smoke out of their pots. The main advantage was the ability to afford fuel to keep down the "damps" and warm the bed chamber.Two and a half storey houses in themselves had more prestige than a one and a half storey dwelling, irrespective of the number of hearths.

The Husbandmen moving up to become Yeomen.

As the seventeenth century progressed many of the husbandmen moved into the yeomanry class. By the end of the century their names may have vanished from the registers. Not all left to better themselves for the A manor landlord refused to renew the lease on some households, giving them no option but to find land to lease elsewhere. Was this after nintynine years? In the 1570's husbandmen could manage the town quite adequately. It was this generation and their sons who rebuilt the houses. Now some of the third generation were moving up a class. Having been educated for at least two generations and having improved the property any surplus money was buying land and yet surely the household outgoings were rising to take in extra possessions (p189). A yeoman's wife or gentlewoman might dress more grandly than a husbandman's, and she would not go out into the fields to lead the plough horse, though she could like Mrs Holloway [21] order the malt to be made, attend to the brewing, work in the dairy, and be out in the garden or orchard. There she had to collect seed, exchange some, dig, plant, hoe and harvest to keep her household in good food and health throughout the year. Many knew how to grow herbs to heal. Robert and Nicholas Woodrose [8] both paid a tithe on their gardens, but the rest of the husbandmen's garden tithes are lost (p513). Gentlemen in Cropredy do not appear to have a spinning wheel in the house, though literature mentions ladies spinning. Did they buy in from the local tailor and weaver or travel to a larger town to purchase? The advantages of a self sufficient husbandman's household must have contributed to their savings in contrast to a gentleman's extra expenses.

Page 77

Husbandmen and craftsmen use their home close to grow vegetables and sow hemp in March, but their women also had to do all the spinning of the yarn for the sheets, towels, and smocks as well as wool for blankets and woollen cloth. Outside she had the cattle to tend, the hay to turn in June and the sheaves to make in August. In spring the cow shed was cleaned out and the yard muck heap loaded onto the cart by the women. They may have taken many loads to their strips prior to cultivation. When it was time the wife took herself off with laden baskets through the Bourtons up to the Broadway and so into Banbury market. The yeoman and gentleman's wife went by pillion if she attended market and the maid took the wares in her basket. Em Devotion [3] and the French's [4] rode pillion and so would any who were fortunate enough to have a horse and saddle. The gentlewoman might not have to actually do the work, rather she would supervise the maid, whereas the husbandman's wife would be at the oven, out in the dairy or in the buttery making butter or cheese, besides finding fuel to chop, water to fetch, rush lights to make, feathers to gather and prepare for the pillows and bolsters as well as the mattress. Leather if not cured at Pare's [58] could be done at home for the men's breeches. Training to be an adequate wife, with all the skills required to prosper, took up all their years as children at home, as well as those out at service.

Although the size of the herd is thought to indicate the status of a man, in Cropredy it indicated the amount of land he farmed and it was the number of yardlands which gave them seniority in the town. The herds in Cropredy seldom exceeded twelve, which could be kept on four yardlands. As all extra land was leased as required and then released leaving only the permanent parcel of land with the homestalls, no townsman could hang onto land and a higher status. To achieve that he must buy into land elsewhere.

Was it perhaps the incomers who came with their new apparel and furniture that encouraged the husbandman's family to aspire to greater extravagance? Having the benefit of schooling made it easier to acquire land by being able to double check the documents themselves instead of relying on a third party as their ancestors had done. Or was it governed by the necessity to make marriage jointures for their wife and better legacies for their children's dowries as they moved up the ladder to become yeomen? John French, husbandman, at Springfield farm [6] had no heir so he left his lease to Hall's, nephews from Priors Marsden. First came Anthony Hall, but he died in 1599 and was followed by William who died in 1653. William came from husbandman stock, yet was soon called a yeoman and gradually changed to being called a gentleman with property elsewhere. To gain entrance into the gentleman's class he must be receiving £10 a year in rent or have £300 in moveable goods. The herald might overlook the lack of gentleman in the families ancestors providing they could live without doing manual labour, but no doubt took more than an adequate fee. By 1614 the town had three gentlemen, including the vicar. Up the hill in Williamscote Mr Walter Calcott, who founded the school, had persuaded the herald to visit in 1568, which enabled him to add a coat of arms to a window at home, and his son to add one to his memorial in the church (p136). By the 1630's some acquired the title of "Mr" without having purchased an estate. Land was becoming increasingly scarce and many trades and professions were run by gentlemen without land, though the aristocrats may not in fact regard them as real gentry.

There were at least eighteen husbandmen, occasionally more. As such we might expect them to farm less than the gentry and yeomen, but some went higher, up to five yardlands and still considered themselves husbandmen in their wills.

Page 78

There is no instance of a husbandman being labelled a yeoman by his neighbours, though they downgrade a yeoman to being a husbandman when making an inventory [14]. Family farms like Hentlowes and Howses in the last quarter of the sixteenth century, who leased more and more failed to pass on this ability to their sons, or perhaps the chances never came their way again. Did marriage too late or too early affect them? When the very successful Justinian Hunt [16] died suddenly in 1609 his young married son took over. By prolonging his wife's child bearing age they had a large family of nine children spread out over twentythree years, which saw the decline in the family fortunes. Thomas Devotion [3] hastily married Em Whiting from the Green [14] in 1591, and they too had a family of nine over twentyfour years, which on such a small farm left a very heavy burden on the next generation expected to pay the legacies. George, the eldest son, took on an extra yardland, but still did not marry. Of course there could be many reasons for this.

Gybbs [25] remained husbandmen and ran a family farm which always had three generations living together. Perhaps the strain fell to their wives especially when they had the largest number of child deaths. There was however a twin gene in the Gybbs' family and a difficulty in rearing them. Alyce Gybbs married to William had four sets of twins. Elizabeth wife of her grandson Thomas also had sickly children to nurse as well as in-laws and elderly members including her own mother. How much help would she get from his family? Thomas calls her "his loving wife Elizabeth" when he died aged fiftyfour leaving her to cope, the eldest only sixteen and three young ones, all that remained of the nine. These husbandmen never became yeomen, even though Thomas left the fourth highest amount of personal estate. The name disappeared for only three grand daughters were born and the lease passes to the husband of the eldest.

One husbandman who was climbing upwards was Robert Robins [26] and he played most of the cards to bring him into the yeomanary class, Robert helped his son Thomas through university to become a clergyman, who would then die a gentleman. Robert the father left £343 in 1631, a sum which does not include his land in Wardington and is a much larger personal estate than Robert Woodrose's [8], gentleman, who died a few years earlier still leasing four yardlands.

Cottagers.

The thirtytwo cottagers, many of whom were craftsmen or shepherds, lived in copyhold properties with ancient rights for the tenant to graze a cow and a breeder, until this was reduced to one cow in 1575. Some also had flocks of sheep. No evidence was found for the cottagers business deals in Cropredy but most cottagers did not necessarily survive on wages. A business had to send out bills for services rendered, for articles produced, or work done. Others combining their craft with helping husbandmen, either exchanging work for corn or the loan of a cart.

Cropredy supported two weavers, two tailors, two carpenters, two blacksmiths, at least two collarmakers, cordwainers (shoemakers), thatchers, innkeepers, millers, a fuller, a mercer and the schoolmaster. Who though was the stonemason and wheelwright? Their cottages and families appear in Part 4.

Page 79

A shepherd may or may not be tilling the land or producing cheese like a husbandman and yet during the second stage in his working life he may possess more than a husbandman. However the longer they lived, especially if married, the more their fortunes would be dispersed to children, or ill health diminish them. Two of the three shepherds who died in Cropredy had fathers who came into the parish to a new stone long-house type with land attached. This allowed them to enter three lives on the copyhold which gave them a good base to increase their flocks. For the landlord it ensured good shepherds keen to hold onto their tenancy. The first of the three shepherds who died would be in his late twenties or early thirties. The second a bachelor of fortytwo and the third a widower of seventytwo. The first who died in 1619 was still out earning a wage to provide capital to obtain a lease. The unfortunate John Sheeler was still at the "servant" stage, working for Mr Coldwell [50]. Sheeler's possessions, mostly savings, were valued at £35. The second John Truss [33], who died in 1634, had leased commons from time to time from Coldwells and others. He lived on a small College copyhold in which his married sister kept house for him and her family. John left the considerable sum of £128. Almost as much as his friend Richard Hall [34]. They were both carried off unexpectedly within days of each other on their neighbouring properties. The third shepherd lived on the small holding at the top of Creampot [36]. Valentyne Huxeley's house was similar to Truss's, but had a cockloft. Both were good stone and thatch long houses built by the 1570's (Ch.26). Valentyne could no longer manage a large flock and although seventytwo and apparently weak, he had to do day work. He died while out labouring in the fields. Valentyne knowing he was far from well had already made a will which his daughter had to prove in London, because although he had no freehold land in another parish the Cropredy church court had been suspended during the interegnum. He left small amounts of money, a gold ring and a bible, which may have come to less than £20. The inventory has not survived. His widowed daughter Elizabeth who would have had a life in the copyhold property was able to remarry and her new husband was William Pinfold the shepherd (p396). On some manors the landlord could order her to marry if he needed the house for a shepherd. We do not know if pressure was put upon the couple.

All these shepherds had bibles which no doubt greatly influenced their lives. They left varying personal estates due to being in stage one or three, or remaining a bachelor. The poorly educated John Truss had gained more than most through his sheep. Valentyne may once have been comfortably situated, but lived too long. A man's status was not necessarily a durable.

A few fortunate husbandmen leased a labourer's cottage with his farmstead and the cottage's common was part of his yardlands. Just six or seven cottages held labourers, mostly married men working for the farms, but sometimes denied the cow common (ch. 30). Cottage copyrights were attached to the property owner not the head of the household, but in farm cottages the labourer was sometimes forced to lease a cow common from another when his master hung onto the one that should have been spared for him. Or else the master had paid his cow tithes for him so that the labourer does not appear in the vicar's accounts. When a husbandman had a good cowman or shepherd then he would surely provide a common and endeavour to keep him in Cropredy.

Page 80

It must be emphasised that several of the thirtytwo cottagers would die working as day-labourers, taking on contract work for a set amount. They were not tied to a yearly wage, but used their skills wherever they were needed to the benefit of both parties. The only problem was the steady decrease in the purchasing power of their money. If they could not grow sufficient corn they could through no fault of their own be reduced to, or leave their widow, living on the poverty line. It was these deserving poor who relied upon alms given in wills unless a poor rate in terrible years was collected for their relief. The labourers who had cows might work for a wage and have the family manage the day to day running of their stock as the Palmers [59] must have done. We do not know if James Ladd [40] or his father worked for Tanners by the year, or whether they were hedgers and ditchers and employed throughout the year by several farms? If the Arthur Evans [54] who was a herdsman had left a will would he have been called a labourer? Perhaps not for Edward Rocke of Great Bourton was called a "neateherd" in 1620. Arthur and Ellen Evans had five children and the fourth, Thomas was a scholar in 1610.

According to Gregory King (1648-1712) and the eyes of his contemporaries, anyone who sold his greatest possession, his own labour, to another was thereafter called a pauper. Labourers, cottagers without commons and the poor without means, contributed nothing it was thought to the wealth of the nation. Sir Thomas Smith in 1565 judged anyone who received a wage as being unfree [Palliser D.M. The Age of Elizabeth. 1992 Longman]. Apprentices were temporarily servants. Journeymen still working for a master craftsman were also unfree and even curates were nicknamed "hedge-priests" for they too received a wage. Women and children had no rights. They were subject to the head of the household, unless as widows they inherited the house.

To prevent the cottager becoming a burden on the husbandmen most owners of cottages anciently allowed the tenant to have a cow common and a little land, plus the right to gather furze which helped them to remain above the line of destitution, and so kept down the new poor rates by preventing the needy from becoming permanent paupers. The town could not survive without the labour they could provide, especially in such a mixed farming area with all the arable land to harvest. The more land a husbandman took on obviously the more help he required. At the same time the more rates he would pay whenever a parishioner appealed for help. Once a balance in the work force was made in relation to the number of households, then that number was kept until the late seventeenth century. In an Open Common Field parish there was no room for squatters as every piece of land belonged to the parishioners as tenants in common. There appears to be no evidence that the vicar left out any paupers cottage in his lists.

Those who contracted out their labour while farming part time filled the great divide. Married shepherds we saw might be housed in a cottage with or without commons attached. These were not necessarily "the real poor," except at certain stages in their life when the death of a partner, or ill health made them more vulnerable, through the inability to earn wages. Perhaps struggling on part of a yardland was "easier" than a twelve hour day as a labourer, even in old age. None would wish to descend the ladder to be classed a labourer, a pauper.

In 1607 one widow mentions in a will some of the few deserving poor. Mrs Arnett may have understood only too well the deprivations and problems of rearing a family on her own, or being alone and ill, and yet still have to present an independent front, though as a widow with some assets, would Mrs Arnett regard the poor as her neighbours, or her duty?

Of the six poor which widow Arnett remembered the first was Widow Wilson who lived down Creampot Lane at [33], a stone and thatched dwelling (p410). As Constance Smith she was first married in 1547 to William Truss. They had two girls and a son John by 1553. After twenty years of marriage she is left a widow, but Henry Wilson proposed and they marry baptising Hugh in 1569. Henry farmed the smallholding until it becomes his step-son's by right, when in 1582 John Truss was married. Constance again became a poor widow and by 1607 being at least eighty lived in a household where her youngest grandson, the shepherd John, was already sixteen. She died in February 1609/10. The old lady may not have been able to contribute her share towards the household. Was she bedridden and living without any income? Or was the "poor" an indication of illness and suffering from the cold as many would at that age?

Page 81

Another on Arnett's list was widow Alyce Mallins [53] who had married John in 1593 and been left a widow in 1606 with four daughters. Apart from having a lodger, Richard Andrews, who married her daughter Elizabeth, we do not know what work she managed to find up to her death in 1621. The Andrews had by then moved to Bayley's empty cottage in Church Lane [19]. The Andrews stayed in Cropredy and eventually moved down Creampot [35] to leave their name attached to a house.

The fourth Mrs Arnett mentions was a widow, Elizabeth Bostock, who had been working for Wyatts. The Bostocks are mentioned on page 87.

The fifth was Widow Hyrens [56] from the cottage at the bottom of Hello (p449). She had a chimney and upper chamber. Her 4d would no doubt have gone towards flour to make bread. William Hyrens died in the starvation year of 1596 and Ursula remained a widow for nineteen years. Her only son John died in 1612 aged fifteen. Her daughter worked at the vicarage. There was no question of the poor being excused their 2d for their Easter oblations and Widow Hyrens does not forget. Widowhood must have severely aggrevated the problems of trying to find ready money.

The sixth was Ralph Wells [22] living in Church Lane. He had been a widower since 1603 and his three girls were then five, four and two. He managed to "breed them up" hopefully gaining help from the children's maternal relations next door [23].

To the rest of the poor in Cropredy the widow Arnett gave "twoe dozen of breads." Many who managed to live into their seventies and eighties were almost bound to become poor, unless like the Lyllees [29] they could hang onto a portion of land.

For a hundred years after 1540 at least twentytwo wayfaring poor were buried at Cropredy having been "goying a godding [begging] from dore to dore." Twelve were children, six men and three women. One was a "stranger." Were they not all? Over the next forty years only one travelling poor child is buried. In nearby Tysoe, Warwickshire, two poor women apparently gave birth in the church porch. The first in January 1609. The time of year and the fact that the child was not given a name suggests both must have left for no burials were registered. Again in September 1613 the register records "Elizabeth a bastard borne in the church porch." No-one dared to name the mothers, but this was not unusual because before the 1654 Register (not Registrar) was sworn in, no mother's name appeared in Tysoe's baptism register. In Cropredy at least the women were called by name from 1538, except a few with illegitimate children which might be for their protection. The Tysoe people would not be allowed to have a pregnant stranger in their cottage without serious consequences to themselves, for by so doing the baby would gain a settlement in Tysoe and possibly become a charge on the parish. Had the two babies deliberately been recorded without enough details to be identified in years to come when they might be a drain on the parish [Tysoe Registers ed. by Woodfield D.B. A family History Publication 1976]?

Contents          Homepage                              (back to top)