Page 503

Reconstruction of the Long Causeway showing Farms [4] and [6].

31. Farms on The Long Causeway [4,6,8,9 &12].

The French Family [4].

1614: Tho fench......... ijd .....1624: Thomas french et uxor ..ijd

.........Tho french ........ijd ...............Elizabeth french.............. ijd

.........eliz french ..........ijd

.........anne french....... ijd

........jone his mayd. ...ijd.

The average for that household on the 8 listed years was 3.3.

John French had decided to give up farming after forty years of married life "according unto the sale made over by the sayd John unto Thomas French his sonne the tenth of August...1579." A month later he made his will. He had tidied up his affairs. He and his wife had a chamber in the new stone house and £20 to see them through, with a further annuity of £5 due in four years time. He died the following March, but Jone lived on for a further seven years, by which time her grandson was eighteen. For over a hundred years four generations of French lived on this site, but only John and Jone were able to farm together for a long period. The last three generations lost first the mother and then the last two generations the fathers, all of whom married in their early twenties, but still left behind a young family.

Jone French departed this life in 1587. She had already given over the lease to Thomas so that her inventory has only her apparel (p704) her bedding and six pewter dishes "good and badd 2s-7d," yet she lived in reasonable comfort and certainly her four "petycots" and gowns worth £3 indicate that she was well dressed.

Thomas the eldest surviving son had married Elizabeth when he was twentythree, but may have lost his wife two years later, a few months after their surviving second son John was born, so that Grandma Jone would have helped to bring him up. John attended school in 1576 and could then have been of great service to his father who was very involved in town affairs, but had never been taught to write.

French's were related to John French at Springfield [6] and the Halls of Priors Marston. Young Elizabeth Hall must have come over to stay with uncle John at Springfield in the late autumn and been introduced to her cousin next door but one [4]. Twenty year old John French junior and Elizabeth become more than just acquainted. As yet he had no assets working perhaps as his father's shepherd. In the following May a marriage was hastily arranged and Elizabeth joins the French household [4]. Baby Annes arrives in August to be followed by two sisters and brother Thomas. The young couple are together for only twelve years. John's was a sudden illness which caught them unprepared and while he was dying they came to hear him speak his will by "word of mouth only." Unfortunately John owed two lots of money which came to £13. His twenty ewes with lambs, clothes, "shotinge bow & shaftes," plus £2 could not quite cover this. He had no alternative, but to leave Elizabeth "his poere wife and children" to his father's care. Once again a senior is left looking after relations. It was during the list years that it can be proved that even with the pressures of work Thomas employed no adult male servant, and a maid only twice.

Did Elizabeth when she arrived improve the furnishings of the household, or had John spent more on them than his savings? Having been widowed young and totally without assets she never remarried. She had no farm of her own, for the tenancy passed from her father-in-law to her son Thomas, so Elizabeth may have been dependent all her life on the French's. In her father-in-law Thomas's will the scribe wrote: "My will and desire is yt their mother my daughter in law Elizabeth ffrench may have hir portion of meat drink & apparell during hir naturall life at the cost & charge of my executor." He provided legacies for her children and left Thomas, then barely twenty, in charge. "Whereas I stande indebted unto several persons about the valewe of xxtie pounds my desire is that my executor doe till or sett that yardland wch I have by lease for years accordinge as my overseers shall thinke meete for the speedy payment of these debts." Attached to this farm were two and a half yardlands, one of which was "a lease of one yardland of the demeases " worth £15 upon which the older man had farmed? Leaving one and a half for the rest of the family which could still support the small household by farming only what they required and setting the rest. They were no strangers to subletting as they had let a yardland go to the Revd Thomas Holloway [21] over several years to help finance the French household. How often did husbandmen lease an extra yardland or sublet one belonging to the farm? How much could they make over and above the yearly rent of a yardland and entry fine?

Thomas not only cleared the debts and his sisters legacies, but after marrying he was able to further improve the furnishings. This house gained a considerable number of comforts over the years from "wainscote" to "joyned bedsteds" which are commented upon below (pp 642, 644). Thomas married Mary when he was not yet twentysix and they had two daughters, then when Mary was again carrying he fell ill and died in 1632. The household still provided for his mother, now in her early sixties. Mary had been married and running the house for only five years, but as a widow without other males in the house she was able to take over the organisation of the farm and dependants. In her late husband's will Thomas had asked Mary to afford her mother-in-law's "comfortable maytenance & in case shee shall dislike within the yeare then to have £10 payde hir by my executress my mother bitaking herself to some friends whome shee please." Not all had been easy during the five years and if she wished to remain Elizabeth must now please Mary. Thomas left over £87 for them. Mary not only managed, after giving birth to her third daughter six months later, but lived on to be still farming half a yardland in 1674. In the end Elizabeth stayed and was buried at Cropredy in January 1637. Some kind of amicable arrangement must have been made between the two women.

The Farmstead.

A possible Reconstruction of French's House and Barn [4].

There are problems with the position of the kitchen and "Dary." W= Window

French February 1617............. French April 1632

Hall ...............................................Hawle

Chamber below Hall (1)............. Parlor (1)

Buttery (2)................................... Buttery (2)

Chamber below Entry (3).......... Chamber belowe the entrie (3)

Kitchen (4) ..................................Kitchen (4)

Dary House................................ Dayrye

Well house

Chamber over hall (5).................Chamber over hawle (5)

Chamber over Lower Ch (6).... .Chamber over the butterye (6)

Chamber over kitchen (7)..........Chamber over kitchin (7)

Page 506

The house was approached from the Long Causeway reaching round behind Devotion's "coppus" which jutted into the French close at the south east corner (Fig.31.1). The farm close was long and narrow bordering Hunts the weavers [5] to the north and Sow furlong to the south. There is no mention of a cattle yard, but some provision must have been made to house eight or more cows and calves. They would have had a stable for three or more horses and the rare sheep house mentioned in 1617. The dungcart and long cart also needed a hovel.

The house was surely built in Grandfather Thomas's time and it was drawn on the 1775 map as a long house set against the north boundary facing south so that the three bay barn would be at the west end. There still had to be enough room behind the barn to allow the cart horses to leave the threshing bay. They appear to have had at least three bays making up the house with a central entrance behind the main chimney. In 1632 the entry led into the passage so the wainscotted hall and their sleeping parlour should be off to the right with a buttery behind in which they had six barrels. Both bays had an upper chamber, but only the hall chamber was used for sleeping. To the left of the passage was the chamber-below-the-entry which had two bedsteads in 1617, but only one by 1632. There was also a kitchen chimney, but only mentioned because of the bacon hung in it to be smoked. They had a furnace for brewing in the same chimney (p670). The dairy was either behind the kitchen, or at the end of the passage, there being no need for a rear door onto the boundary. The whole house kept the main bulk of the stores neatly in the buttery chamber. The kitchen chamber having the overflow could also be used as the spinning room where Elizabeth might have been found with her three daughters. By 1632 the three spinning wheels were now downstairs in the chamber below the entry in which Elizabeth may have slept for thirtyfive years until she died in 1637. By then Mary had been a widow for five years and she and her young daughters could move into that end of the house and let off the rest. At that time the three children were aged ten, eight and five. The landlord may have insisted Mary either marry or divide the property. The hall and parlour end became the home of the Wrights, who by 1659 were farming all but half a yardland. Mary had one hearth and the Wrights two by 1663 for there was now a parlour fireplace. Mary never remarried, keeping herself on the reduced acreage. It was not her fault that she had no son to follow on who would take care of her. For fifty years (1567-1617) this farm had housed three generations. Between 1627 and 1637 there was once again a grandparent and grandchildren under the thatch living as one family after which it was not until the Wrights arrived that it changed to being a two household property with two separate families. This was an example of the number of households increasing in the town without increasing the number of sites upon which the properties stood.

Springfield Farm [6].

1614: wam hall ux.... ..........................1624: Mr William Hall et uxor .ijd

.........wd alyce taylor ....|xvjd...................... Robert Bull..................... ijd

.........3 servant men ......|payd rent ............Thomas Jenkins............. ijd

.........3 servant mayds ..|.xijd ......................Walter Kenwood ...........ijd

.......................................................................Joyce George?................ ijd

.......................................................................Judeth Moselye............. ijd

.......................................................................Alice Hamie ? .................ijd

The average for that household on the 8 listed years was 8.6.

The Farmstead.

This was the second largest College farm and had one of the earliest descriptions of land which survives, but this did not include any information about the property, that came fifty years later. The following terrier was made in 1669:

Dwelling House four bayes.

Ye new house two bayes.

Back kitchen two bayes.

Mault house two bayes.

One cottage with a kiln house one bay with a cow comons thereto belonging.

Corn barne and stable five bayes.

Hay barne five bayes.

Cowhouse four bayes. All built with stone walls and thatched.

One little close called Lambs Close [BNC:552] (Fig. 31.1).

Page 508

Reconstruction of Springfield Farm [6]

Page 509

Here was definite proof that Springfield was built in stone by 1669. In 1663 John Allen was taxed on 5 hearths so that any alterations had been well in hand by then. There had recently been two "new" bays added to the house which could only mean the "Dwelling House" of four bays had been built by Halls or their uncle John French.

Because it was tenanted by wealthier husbandmen their wills were proved in London and their inventories have perished. This makes it impossible to say without a very detailed analysis of the building's construction which tenant was responsible for the rebuilding in stone. At present the earliest tenant who left records was John French who signed a thirty year lease for two and a half yardlands in 1556. The rent was 35s per annum and 3s-4d for the cottage. For this he had to provide a £20 bond.

If John had taken an interest in building in stone then at that time the beams would have been transverse (which they are at the south end). His son John French and his wife Alice were married for twentyone years, but leave no trace of any surviving heirs. This John French died in his parlour bed in 1595 and although no inventory survives a small glimpse of his furnishings appears in his will. He had besides his bed and seeling a table with its frame, benches and forms and a "cubberd." Outside were his horse racks, mangers and gears as well as the sheep and beast racks and a "little carte with the tyre belonging to yt." His parsonage lease, which his nephew Anthony Hall later calls his "portions oute of my tenements and tythes in Cropredie," John French left to him and if he died to Anthony's brother William Hall, both of Priors Marston. These were sons of a husbandman, but after the death of Anthony in 1599, William who arrived as a husbandman was buried a gentleman.

William made a small contribution to life in the town while still a husbandman. His wife formerly Joyce Taylor came to Cropredy for their marriage on the 20th of December 1596, which was unusual. William must have been working for his brother or Joyce also had other connections with the French's. After their marriage they left Cropredy and moved off to farm elsewhere and if any children are born it had to be in the three years before Anthony died and they returned to take his place. In the lists a Richard Hall lived at the house in 1617 and 1618 and Eliza Hall in 1619, but as yet their place of birth and relationship to William and Joyce has not been found. In the Easter lists this household had one of the highest number of residents. Other relatives appear in the lists. Was widow Alice Taylor the mother of Joyce? She was there in 1613 and 1614 and then leaves.

With or without relations most years there were three maids and three or four servants attending to the farm. In 1624 there were eight staff making ten in the house. As far as we know this was not a three generation household, there being no baptism entries. Once a yeoman, Robert Cleaver, from Prior's Marston who worked in London had to overstay his visit for he was taken ill. Why he was there is not given, nor the nature of his work, except that William was employing him. In his hasty will he left his "master" William Hall half the lease of his house in the city of London. To Joyce Hall he left books and £5. Robert did not recover.

When William Hall was dying in 1653 he chose Ambrose Holbech, a lawyer, and his son Ambrose junior to be overseers of his estate. Four years later Joyce Hall wanted to create a charity and having already received help from the Holbechs over her late husband's affairs she asked them to be the trustees for the Joyce Hall charity created by her will of 1657. The Holbech's spent the £80 on two cottages, an orchard and six lands equal to about 2a 1r 3p at Northend. The rent was to be divided yearly between Middleton Cheney and Cropredy for the benefit of the poor. Widow Joyce Hall died the 20th of November 1662.

Page 510

The Halls were both buried in the north chapel of St.Mary's Cropredy. It is possible Joyce spent her last years at Mollington where the Holbechs had moved to from Cropredy. Joyce and the Taylors both had connections with Middleton Cheney. Some of the questions regarding her background may find their answers there.

Was the reason the French's had been allowed to pass on the property, once they had paid off the mortgage, because of the heavy investment they had made in the rebuilding? Having no children of their own they could pass on the lease to their nephews. If this was an early rebuilding they had recycled the transverse beams and built upon the stone plinth of the former timber house, to create a two and a half storey building.

The Farmhouse.

The roof, thatched until 1904, was supported on two stone gables and an interior chimney wall, with intermediate principal trusses. The hall chimney which backed onto the entrance passage had the largest and oldest fireplace in the building. The only exposed transverse beam on the ground floor had no stops, but was chamfered. This lies in the south bay to the left of the entrance and was either a lower chamber or kitchen area, later extended southwards to add a chimney? The Allens who followed the Halls had a back kitchen facing south across the courtyard. The Grisolds who arrive in 1706 may have agreed with the College to rebuild the kitchen adding a fine dairy in the basement. The lintels are similar to earlier alterations made by the Eagles family found in the new stables made out of Lyllee's old barn at [29], and over the granary door at Gybb's old farm [25]. A local mason may have been responsible for others at [13, 15 & 46].

The hall had to be provided with a spine beam for the earlier timber hall would be open to the roof, whereas the northern parlour and south "kitchen" bays would already have had chambers supported on transverse beams and could be recycled from the previous timber house in the 1560's? The parlour bay has the beam covered by a hanging ceiling. The floor here is also lower than the rest of the house (similar to the timber row chamber bay). The older stone floors were replaced by wooden ones in this century and later on the College agreed to supply airbricks to ventilate them.

The rear elevation facing the courtyard has smaller stones and oak lintels. The east facing front elevation with its larger ashlar stone, appears to have been altered when the windows were enlarged. The ashlar stone has larger joints than most and to the right of the front entrance the stone is much darker than on the left side. Also the foundation rows are over two feet thick, compared to the twentytwo inch rear wall, or the twentythree inch front wall above the foundations. On the east elevation this wide foundation stops at the south side of the old southern bay front window. Was the whole elevation done in two phases and the building lengthened southwards in lighter stone? The eastern windows have stone lintels without a projecting central key stone. The Wyatts of Creampot [31] who enlarged Kynd's house in the 1620's, and the cottage put up in Rawlins' garden [45] before 1669, both have similar lintels. Wyatt's had used ashlar on the front elevation which was reused in the nineteenth century alterations (Could the style have originated in the 1620's, or was this a much later alteration on older stone properties and in this case altered ater theGrisold's arrival in 1706?).

The south bay and the parlour bay front windows each have a sixteenth century upright handle with which to close the open casement. This corresponds with the early transverse beams, but both could have been recycled. There are several catches outside to hold open the windows.

Page 511

The south gable shows the base of the front elevation to be thirtyone inches lower than the rear wall. Both gables had cockloft windows each of two lights, but only the south chamber had a gable window on the first floor, the north parlour chamber window being a modern addition. Altogether there were six chambers for sleeping and storage. The staff using the cocklofts and the family the parlour, hall, entry and kitchen chambers. Their newel stairs have been replaced and their position lost unless they were on the rear wall in the hall bay with the entry door into the hall between the stairs and the chimney? This is the evidence from the present house, but returning to the terrier it is obvious that the house was then much larger. Today there are four bays and a kitchen behind with no sign of " ye new house two bayes".

In 1669 the entry passage led to a rear door opening onto the courtyard which had a flat stone path through the cobbled area to reach the dairy. The two bay back kitchen was on the north side of the courtyard. The two bay malt house and one bay cottage with kiln once in this yard have both gone. In later years when a horse was needed to turn the churn they laid a circle of stones in the yard.

The farmyard had one long range running from the Causeway verge westwards, along the north edge of the close. The cattle yard was behind the house courtyard and the cowhouse may have been the building providing the dividing wall. Lamb's close to the north, behind the barn range was from a strip of land following the shape of former ploughed furrows. This is interesting for it could be that [4,5,6 & 7] were on newer sites taken from arable land. There was a vegetable garden next to the road and an orchard behind on the Enclosure map.

The house was built right on the edge of the Causeway verge and remained so until Grisolds encroached eleven by eightyeight yards in 1791 [BNC:552]. By then Hunt's property [5] had become part of their garden. The stone properties on the sites of Hunt's, Hall's, Clyfton's, Howse's, Handley's and Denzey's appear to have been in a reasonably straight line, once fronting the Long Causeway [5,6,7,9,12,13]. In front of Handley's were the two verge cottages [10 and 11] for Adkins and Page. The rest of the verge remained common to all tenants prior to the new encroachments allowed by the Lord of the manor in the late eighteenth century. Across the Long Causeway from Springfield Farm [6] lies the Brasenose Manor Farm [8] (Fig. 31.5).

Brasenose Manor Farm [8].

The Farmstead.

From 1540 a clause appears in the Brasenose Manor Farm leases, requiring them to "Twice a year find honest lodging, horsemeat and mans meat for the Principal or scholars who are on visitation for two nyghts and one daye, being not above six persons" [Hurst 103]. This was the biannual visit to check the farm, to attend the Manorial Court, to order repairs and to receive the rents and arrears. Before each Manorial Court Robert and Nicholas Woodrose, being the chief tenants would have to notify the others on that manor. In 1614 these were Devotion [3], Hall [6], Rede [32], Hentlowe [35] husbandmen and the cottagers Lucas [2], Denzey and Wyatt [13], Matcham, Bagley and Hill [18-20], Truss [33] and Bokingham [55]. It was one condition of being a tenant to attend these courts, the other was to make a terrier. In the College archives is a terrier for 1670 [BNC:552] and at last a description of the property:

Page 512

"Dwelling House 4 bayes, 2 bayes stone and thatched and 2 bayes part of them stone

and part of them wood, some part covered with slat and some part with tyle.

The Buttery 1 baye, stone and thatched.

The Kitchen and Dary House 3 bayes stone and thatched.

The stables 3 bayes stone and thatched.

The barn seven bayes stone and thatched.

The sowhouse 1 bay part wood and part stone and thatched.

A little dove house slat and tyle [In 1731 Malthouse & Dovecote 4 bays. BNC 552].

A cottage house 2 bays stone and thatched with a cowes common."

Reconstruction of Woodrose's Farm [8] in 1774.

Page 513

The B. manor farmstead was split off from the A manor before the twelfth century [The descent of the manor is given in the V.C.H. Volume X p 163]. This manor was conveyed to the Brasenose College in 1524. The homestall had been built above the flood level and at some point surrounded by a moat. The meadow lay on three sides and their boundaries were formed by the river Cherwell, the Sowburge, the ditched Long Causeway and the Bridge Causeway on the east, south, west and north. By the 1570's the farm yards would have had stone walls protected by thatch.

The house was approached over a bridge spanning the Long Causeway's eastern ditch and under the gatehouse into the southern yard. At an unknown date a raised stone slab path followed the north wall between the two main yards sloping down from the gatehouse towards the parlour end of the house and left into the cobbled court yard and western house entrance. This slope began steeply by the road and then dropped about eighteen inches towards the house. The south yard had the stables and gatehouse (GH ) range by the road and on the south side a seven bay range consisting of a stone barn with hovels attached. At some period a raised cobble causeway in front of the stables helped to keep their feet above the muddy yard. Behind the barn again on the southern side was a rickyard protected by a hedge and elm trees. This was reached by a passage in the southwest corner of the yard between the stable and the barn range. The carts would need a bridge to reach the western gate into the rickyard from the Long Causeway. The carts either supplying the ricks on their staddle stones and standing frame or entering the south door of the barn. Once empty they left by the north door turning up the yard to the farm gateway and so back to the stooks in the harvest field.

The stable was measured in June 1977 and it was discovered that the gatehouse entrance had been blocked and turned into an extra stable (Figs. 17.1/2 pp. 251 & 252), while the northern bay had gone and the space provided the new entrance.

The north yard served as a cattle pen with eventually two buildings along the north side separated by a double field gate. The cowhouse must have been nearest the house leaving the three bay malthouse and another bay for the kiln at the western end. The one bay dove house (first mentioned in 1509) being the furthest bay from the house. One reason for thinking the kiln also was at the far end, safely away from the thatched house roof, was the existence of a small vent in the north wall which would draw air in to feed the fire. This was nineteen feet from the corner of the building. The malthouse with the kiln and dove house was sixtyfour feet long. A later open hovel calf house, or cart shed had replaced the north entrance using the gable ends of the malthouse and cowhouse. This remained open on the north side. The cowhouse for twelve or more cows would be conveniently near the house and the bay for pigs opening onto the pig enclosure to the north was near the dairy for their whey. Between this cattle yard and the long house, with the original timber barn at the north end, was the cobbled court yard. In fine weather the Manorial Court could be held here in front of the entrance, or in wet weather at the church?

The moat had a channel leading down to the river and was surely used to breed fish. Within the moated area were two gardens and two orchards. The gardens kept the house supplied with vegetables. Mr Robert Woodrose having the largest garden and his son the smaller area. (When the Enclosure Award map was made for the college only the southern garden was plotted onto the map). The several pigs and hogs which supplied their bacon and pork were housed inside an enclosure in Dovehouse/Pigeon close to the north of the cattleyard. The Woodroses had beef from their cattle and mutton or lamb from the sheep, as well as pigeon pie.

Page 514

Reconstruction of Meadows belonging to the Brasenose manor Farm [8].

Even the fact that the property was still partly moated and had been of some importance did not encourage the Nuberrys, who farmed before Woodroses, to risk major alterations. Towards the end of the sixteenth century the College was demanding that tenants keep up their repairs, though whether to the outbuildings, or the house is not clear.

If the moat once passed to the west of the house, it was later filled in and made into the cobbled court yard. The two yards, rickyard and dovehouse close were to the west of the longhouse and would be above the flood level. Upon reaching the cobbled yard the main house entrance was through a double door and down a step into the hall. The old door was just under four feet wide and made in two unequal parts. The whole was firmly closed inside by a wooden bar. A wool sack would have no difficulty passing through and the manorial tenants would enter the hall suitably impressed by the extra width. It was set in a thirtytwo inch thick stone wall. The second door facing the same cobbled yard could if it once belonged to the barn have been a winnow door. It was later the entrance into a kitchen and dairy so that the door was conveniently near the cowhouse.

Page 515

Two inventories survive and the rooms are given here in the order the appraisers went round. They left out Dyonice Woodrose's parlour bay, but included the shared "Garratt":

Nuberry May 1578 .................Woodrose May 1628

Chamber ....................................Hall

Parler ..........................................Butterrye

Hall .............................................Kitchen

Spence .......................................Dayry house

Kitchen ......................................Cheese chamber

Boltynge house .......................Boultinge house

Dary house ...............................Chamber over Boultinge House

.................................................... Chamber over butterrye

.................................................... Maide Chamber

.................................................... Garratt

.................................................... Clossetts

.....................................................Great Chamber

.................................................... Chamber over Stable

When the house was first lived in it would have been constructed in timber. The thick western stone wall of the hall was an early improvement possibly when the huge stone chimney was built. The east wall is a later construction. They did not add a stone wall to separate the house from the old barn which by Nuberry's time had been taken into the house. This formed the kitchen and the old timber outer walls were eventually rebuilt in stone. The kitchen and dairy House had a floor area of twentyone feet by twentyfive which required two spine beams to support the later upper floor and these had acquired two supporting posts. The western beam was chamfered at the north end. A massive central fireplace on the north gable was suitable for a kitchen though it had rather a low bessemer.This kitchen was mentioned in Nuberry's time, but not the chamber over, for he had bacon hanging in the roof. A late bedroom fireplace on the western side of the kitchen chimney breast was made when the upper chamber was added. It left a space for a three light window.

The dairy had an old six light wooden casement with a shutter that lifted up on the inside. Did this replace the cart door entrance to the timber barn? There are two levels to the floor. A lower "passage" runs north to south along the western wall.

This building was much wider than the newer stone buildings. The number of bays given in 1670 conflicts with the present evidence. In the seventeenth century they describe first a one bay buttery or spence and a three bay "Kitchen and Dary House" both stone walled and thatched. The buttery must have been between the hall and the dairy. The hall had two spine beams like the kitchen and dairy due to the depth of the building. Under the west beam the hall had a partition to close off the entry passage running alongside the western outer stone wall. This connected the kitchen with the dwelling house at the south end. In that same terrier of 1670 the dwelling house was of four bays. The two eastern bays of the dwelling house became the parlour which had a spine beam. It was built partly of stone and partly of wood "some part covered with slat and some part with tyle." This parlour shared the main chimney stack which had a flight of stone stairs right up to the garret long before the Wyatts made alterations a century later.

Page 516

Reconstruction of Brasenose Manor Farm [8].

Page 517

It was perhaps when the Woodroses arrived that the hall section of the house was given a new upper floor while the roof was being repaired? The two spine beams were necessary to support the twenty foot wide floor above. The eastern beam in the hall which was saved has a chamfered stop. The hall itself may have been only thirteen feet long with the narrow seven foot wide spence/buttery at the lower end. All inner partitions being made of wood. The eastern stone wall had a four light stone mullion window and the spence a three light window, both with drip moulds on the outer wall which are rare survivals in Cropredy for they were never replaced by oak mullions which happened at Howses [28]. The opening casements have been altered to take a later hinge for a side hung casement.

The huge main chimney was probably built outside the original south wall of the hall and the fire itself centrally positioned with the oven to the right and a brewing copper to the left (p352). The chimney made it possible to have a chamber fireplace above. To reach this upper room from the parlour bay an entrance had to be made through the earlier thick stone southern gable next to the stone staircase and chimney. The stairs would seem to have been constructed to make the parlour at the dwelling house end into a two and a half storey building. The upper part being still in timber made it rather tower like rising above the one and a half storey hall. It was apparently raised to house the staff in a garret. Later in Wyatt's time he altered this to stone to make a large airy garret and change some of the windows. To this he added his date stone of 1693. The evidence for other late seventeenth century improvements are shown in window alterations, following the trend set by Prescote manor in 1691. The parlour end used the first chimney stack and kept the early stone stairs until replaced around 1714 by an improved western part of the dwelling house containing a gate legged stairs. Only a very detailed examination of the stones will reveal how much Wyatt actually rebuilt and to see if he had to begin again from the foundations of the dwelling house.

The parlour had an inglenook at the back of the massive hall chimney and a three light casement above a window seat. The spine beam was chamfered with a stop at the south end and too good to be replaced by Wyatt. The joists were also all chamfered. There were two chambers over the parlour. The eastern one could once have had a fireplace as the floor is infilled with wood where once lay a hearth? Nuberry's family did not need any more than this, but the Woodroses being gentlemen and a two household family needed to repair and expand within the main house.

Once the Great chamber had been built over the hall it needed a fireplace into the main chimney and three windows on the eastern wall. Some of the windows had sixteenth century glass. The roof over the main hall and kitchen had three huge principals giving only four bays. The principals had through purlins and were crossed and cut to take the square ridge pole. Two wooden pegs held the joint. This high thatch roof needed two large square purlins on either side so that all windows had to be near the floor beneath the lower purlin. A low two light western window over the entrance enabled them to observe any arrivals. Whether the Great Chamber was of two or more bays we do not know. Martha Woodrose took over the Great Chamber from her mother-in-law when Dyonice and her husband Robert moved into the parlour wing. At the north end chambers were eventually made over the boulting house, buttery, dairy and kitchen. The whole house faced east towards the river.

Three of Wyatt's transomed windows acquired elegant window handles made no doubt by his family in the southern fashion. In a College lease of 1668 Thomas Wyatt was described as a farrier [Hurst 161]. His father, brother John and nephew John were all blacksmiths so he would have learnt to use iron for decoration at his father's forge [31].

Page 518

The Tenants.

Page 519

1614: mr woodrose ux................... ijd ......1624:Mr Robert Woodrose et uxor..... ijd

.........3 [co] myds 2 myd.............. iiijd............... Elizabeth ffilpott........................... ijd

.........a mayd ...................................ijd ...............Marye Huntt.................................. ijd

.........mr nycholas woodrose ux ..ijd ...............Martha Wilkes ...............................ijd

.........2 maydes .............................iiijd ...............Mr Nich. Woodrose et uxor ........ijd

.........a mayd ...................................ijd ...............Mary Rope..................................... ijd

.........a man .....................................ijd ...............Margaret Sheeler........................... ijd

..............................................................................Sara Robins ................................... ijd

The average for that household on the 8 listed years was 7.12.

The Nuberry's had farmed the four yardlands themselves being husbandmen. Ralph and his first wife Katheryn came in the early 1560s and when she died he married Margerete a widow with two children. Ralph left seven sons and two daughters, aged from two years up to sixteen. The only light touch to this seemingly stern husbandman is when he leaves his second daughter six cushions from London (p621). Had this five year old lost her heart to the pretty coloured cushions? Most of his legacies are in money. His second wife has over £100 to collect and pay out. She must see that all the children were "set up and away." Yet Ralph almost begrudged her the gifts he gave her at their wedding (p105). He considered everything he had was needed to set up his children in their future homes.

Being the second largest farm it should have more than catered for their needs, but instead of a working head of household, as Ralph had been, there was only a young lad and a struggling widow. Margerete already had her hands full with a large household of stepchildren. These her late husband had instructed her to bring up on the living until able and honestly provided for so that they might survive. This was the duty of all parents, but doubly hard when so many of them were not your own. Ralph had also paid attention to his clothes and may have instilled similar aspirations for fine clothes in his sons. They would jealously covet the superior possessions which their father had plainly left to them. At the latter end of his life Ralph had perhaps needed the chamberpot which appears for the first time in this Cropredy household. How long was he ill for? He did leave plenty of stock to be carrying on with, but by April there was not as much corn left over on the farm as expected from four yardlands produce, so a great deal must be sold yearly, perhaps as malt.

John Nuberry and his stepmother each had half the farmland, although in 1586 when John is twentyfour he cannot take out a new lease, but must be an under tenant to Oliver Withington M.D. of Oxford and when that gentleman dies, to his widow Susan and son William, until John leaves and the Woodroses arrived. In 1586 John Nuberry had to agree that if he was one month in arrears of rent he would forfeit five marks for every week. All B manor tenants had to do all the repairs, though the College found their timber. The fences must be kept and the hedges on mounds "pleshed" [laid] and trees planted. Although the lease was for twentyone years it fell through before that. John's parents were buried in the church at Cropredy, but the rest departed elsewhere when the youngest was around fifteen. In 1593 the College was alarmed at the general air of neglect. This was not surprising when the widow and son had struggled through several lean years and more to come. As Nuberrys leave the widow Susan Withington and her son William gain the leasehold. The place was described as being in some decay. Most likely the thatch had not been attended to and was causing major problems with the "damps" getting in [Hurst:11.33].

Page 520

The Woodroses were in the town much earlier than their first 1606 lease of the manor farm. They may have farmed for Withingtons. Robert left a camp bed with a green canopy curtain. A most unusual item. Could he have been travelling before he came very late in the day, with his family of educated children, to settle on the farm (p646)?

Nuberry had once had a well stocked farm with three iron bound carts and a position amongst his fellow husbandmen being the main B manor tenant. The arrival of the educated Woodroses brought a much higher standard of living into the house, previously seen only at the Cropredy vicarage.

Robert and Dyonice Woodrose had their large family of ten or more living there and several were married at Cropredy church. From 1613 up to 1632 this was a three generation farm. In 1613 the eldest son Nicholas arrived home and the following year he had three of the yardlands and his father one. Dyonice gave up the Great Chamber, but left some furniture in there and retired to her parlour. One of the two chambers over the parlour was apparently still called Robert's chamber by Dyonice years after he had died. Her daughter-in-law Martha went up to the Great Chamber where she had her sewing box and all her comfortable furnishings. As well as this chamber Nicholas and Martha had the use of the hall and the new chambers over the dairy and kitchen.

When the house was divided into two each had their own staff. In the parlour garret slept some of the maids and this is mentioned in 1627. Other staff were housed over the stables. In 1616 there were eleven servants sleeping in who worked inside and on the farm. Other years they employed and boarded only six between them. [Robert in 1614 and the following list years had 3,3,4,2,2,3,3 and Nicholas had 4,6,7,5,5,4,3] In addition the Woodroses had the two bay cottage [7] across the road where their shepherd lived (p495). The wife had been Dyonice's maid and after marriage may have returned to work for them bringing the adult staff up to anything between eight and thirteen. Other back house boys and maids could be employed who lived at home, and would not appear in the lists. As they were a three generation family it is not surprising that they had an average of over seven living in the house.

The parlour end would be used for the visitors in Nuberry's time as well as Woodroses. The tenants had to provide lodging for the College officials coming for their view of the manor. With two manors it would seem the running of the Open Common Fields must have been dealt with in the older A manor court for the few remaining College court records deal with renewals of copyholds, property repairs, allocating timber and collecting in back rents.

Dyonice could entertain the College people in some style. She had silver spoons, silver pearled bowls, plain ones and plenty of pewter both great and small to lay on her fine tablecloths, complete with napkins. The table and room being lit by candles. The visitors would not fear damp beds as the A manor landlord did sixty years later, for the chamber they slept in would have a fire. Draughts would not reach the sleeper behind the best bedstead curtains hung from the tester. There was also a valance and over the feather mattress a pair of expensive sheets, blankets and hillings. Out of her press would come Dyonice's wrought "silke grogran gowne" and if it was possible she would descend elegantly down the stone newel stairs into the parlour.

When her husband Robert, as a gentleman, took over from the Withingtons he did not farm it himself, but had the right staff to do the work. They had a little property elsewhere, but surely the farm being of four yardlands was their main source of income.

Page521

Robert had a small library and may have had definite views which the townsmen came to know about. When a large number of the congregation left the church early at morning and evening service it was Robert who answered for them all at the church court in 1609 (p31). Protestant services if they had long sermons went on for much longer than the catholic mass. In spite of his education he was not called upon to help write wills and neither was his son Nicholas, but then it was a town of husbandmen and cottagers who worked for their living and so formed allegiances amongst themselves (ch.5). Did the Woodroses keep aloof? The Palmers [1] were rising through sheer hard work and education back up the ladder, as well as the Halls [6] and these two families had apparently enough status to associate with the Woodroses.

Robert and Dyonice were a loving couple (pp105/167). Robert died in 1625 then in his eighties, but eight years before he had been called "old" by Thomas Holloway who was his near contemporary in age. He was using "old" instead of senior. Nicholas their eldest son must have been born about 1570. At first Nicholas's wife is referred to as Mary, but later known as Martha. On the lease of 1614 Martha who witnesses it was called "His now wife." Was she then a second wife? If so why in her will did she refer to all the children as my son or my daughter unless at that time they did not use the word "step" son. One thing is certain the vicar of Banbury the Reverend William Whately would not have approved of the joint household, the shared dairy house and the brewing equipment. Dyonice also kept her second best bedstead with curtains and valances, featherbed, bedding and furniture belonging to it standing in their great chamber, which she did not give to Nicholas. Her pair of "engraven andirons with a capp, panne, shovell and tongs" left to her son David, were also in the great chamber fireplace. Dyonice fails to mention Martha in her will and ignores all the grand children under the same roof referring only to a favoured few. Not one silver spoon is left to her beloved son Nicholas's children.There could be an explanation for this in lost agreements which had already given the younger couple possessions at their marriage.

Robert left books and linens to his grandson Robert Wilkes who was studying at Gloucester Hall Oxford for his M.A. Young Wilke's sister and cousin were at Cropredy living in one of their grandmother's chambers, perhaps being taught by her or earning their dowrys to be left to them by Dyonice.

When Dyonice made her will she must have been in her late eighties. She lived in her parlour cared for by two maids and with two grandchildren (not Martha's) dancing attendance. There was plenty of time to work out just what and to whom she would leave her "beloved" late husband's goods.

Martha wrote her will, but she does not give the impression that her marriage had been as loving as that of her parents-in-law. Martha's late husband was not mentioned attached to any piece of furniture as Dyonice had done with Roberts, although the will appears to have been written in Martha's own hand. This was very unusual and shows she enjoyed writing and conducting her own affairs and was well able to do so, perhaps encouraged by her cousin John Wilmer who had come to run the farm two years before she died. Hers was the least solemn of all the wills. There were gifts of appreciation and money to buy a ring as a token of her love for them. To her brother-in-law David who was the residual legatee of Dyonice's personal estate she gave 10s, for a ring "of my love in treating them all to accepte of a widow." Had he left the shared goods for her while she remained in Cropredy and allowed her to run the farm even though David was joint executor with her of Nicholas's will? Another sign that her late husband's trust in her had not been a total one, perhaps because she was a lot younger than him, or simply that David had rights in the property. David may also have acted as a buffer between Martha and the rest of the Woodroses which Martha had appreciated.

Page 522

Nicholas died aged about sixty when their last child was only five years old, making Martha in her mid forties at the latest. Nine years later she was unable to renew the lease being now in her fifties and no child had taken on the lease. Martha's cousin, John Wilmer, who had been educated and attended the Inner Court had lost his first wife and had already made settlements for that family and then married again. This couple, John and Mary Wilmer, arrived in 1637 and Martha may have moved into the parlour end. Soon the house was ringing with six young Wilmers and once again a loving and faithful wife whose husband was one of the industrious protestants and acknowledged that he had been blessed with "these goods." He was not a follower of Calvin as they called their youngest son Luther. By this time puritans were coming under the archbishop's and many Armenians disapproval, but in the Banbury area the return to former church practices were regarded with horror as being papist, one of the reasons people were soon forced to take sides.

Martha's will gives the impression that Wilmer's family and John Lackey's three girls, were comforts to her and the family. Elizabeth Lackey she calls "my loving neece" and gave her "my greene taffatie workebox." Martha was yet another widow who had been left with the family to educate and send out into the world. Her eldest was only fourteen. Nicholas had been a well dressed man and no doubt left a tradition that appearances mattered. Their possessions had risen from Nuberry's 20% of their whole personal estate to Nicholas Woodrose's 36%. They had less stock on the land, but more corn. How often did Martha manage to retire to the Great Chamber with the three girls to sit sewing together, teaching them to embroider and make fine tapestry cushions for their future homes? One daughter, Elizabeth, stayed on with the Wilmers perhaps as a help with the children for John Wilmer remembers her in his will.

For Martha the household napery alone must have required careful and loving attention so that it would not spoil before being passed onto the children (pp 634 &177). One benefit of being young ladies, they were spared the chore of constantly spinning. Spinning was not discouraged in all gentlemen's households, many did learn, but Woodroses have no linen or woollen wheel. Did they instead learn to read and write at their mother's knee? Would uncles take over the boys and see them properly educated? None were set to learn husbandry, but neither do they appear at the Williamscote school, so presumably they were either tutored at home or sent elsewhere to school.

The Woodroses let the lease pass to the Wilmers. Mary Wilmer's father John Sadler had been very careful to ensure she would be well catered for if her husband died first. This was just as well for in 1655 John died leaving yet another widow to farm the 4 yardlands. Being a gentlewoman she appoints her attorney William Bagley in 1657 to oversee the farm until her departure around 1668. Thomas Wyatt, a farrier and farmer, then took up the lease. Had he already been acting as bailiff?

Page 523

Reconstruction of the Long Causeway showing Farms [9] and [12]

Page 524

Howse's on the Long Causeway [9].

The farm entrance from the Long Causeway was onto a farm track to the north of the house, which may have been shared by their neighbours the Handleys [12]. To bring the cows into the cattle yard at the western end of the close meant they had to leave the Green by the Cross and with others on the Long Causeway follow a hollow between the butts of ridge and furrow which kept them away from the softer boggy area near the town boundary ditch and bank. First they passed Lumberd's close, then the smithy close and Handley's before turning east to reach a flat piece by their own close. If the cows had been in the South Field coming down the Smallway or Belser, then Howse and Handley's cattle would leave the herd at their western entrances. Some kind of bridge would have been very necessary to enter the close. Howse had a sunken track made by stock over several hundreds of years coming home to the cattle yard. The yard would have been surrounded by high banks and no doubt hedged on top. This had a large cow hovel for winter shelter (p243), and over it a standing for hay. The yard would be next to the hollow way leading to the west boundary and the ditch running north and south once part of an older town boundary. Traces of ridge and furrow lie to the west of this line inside the western hedge and steep bank [Thames Valley Arch. Services] which was a late town boundary but with the six species of an Early hedge [Hedge Survey].

By March 1641 Solomon Howse's farmhouse had been extended to give a new firehouse for brother Thomas and their widowed mother revealed in an inventory of 1690:

Howse March 1641................... Howse January 1690 ............ Chamber over Dary House

Hall ...............................................Chamber over Firehouse........ Chamber over Hall

Dayry & Buttry.......................... Chamber over the kill [kiln]..... Dary house

Upper Lodging Chamber.......... Further room over kill.............. Hall house

Chamber over Hall .....................Hithermost roome......................Fire house

The farmhouse and barn were built under one roof, but without a common entrance passage. The property faced east and west. When the land was reallocated the property was made into six stone cottages out of the three bay house and three bay barn. The property was in line with the other Long Causeway dwellings. In 1690 Howse farm had chambers over the firehouse, hall and dairy house. There was a chimney in the hall and another in the firehouse. A kiln for malting barley had the necessary chamber over, but it had become a store for wood and hemp. A "Further" room on the ground floor was used to keep wood and coal while in a "Hithermost" room there was space for a malt mill, bolting hutch [tub] and salting trough.The back yard provided the entrance to the barn's cart doors, the stable and cart hovel. The three bay barn was at the southern end of the longhouse. The thatched roof over the barn was lower than the house. The cart doors were in the middle bay on the west side of the barn, with a winnow door opposite, while the main entrance to the house was on the east side. There was no evidence when the cottages were looked at after a fire and just before they were demolished of a central passage. The stone middle gable did not appear to have a chimney and the hall must have originally been at the north end like Robins' [26], before the bachelor Thomas Howse [9] built the third bay with the firehouse at the north end. The chamber and buttery may have been in the inner bay. Solomon and Catherin's chimney and fire equipment were in the hall and they stored the cheese, apples, bacon and butter in the chamber over the hall. The barrels went into the buttery.

Page 525

Howse's on the Long Causeway [9]

1614: henry broughton ux ...ijd...... 1624:Henrye Broughton et uxor ...ijd

.........solomon howse ...........ijd ................Solomon Howse ....................ijd

........Thos howse.................. ijd ...............Thomas Howse ......................ijd

.....................................................................William Cooke........................ ijd

.....................................................................Joyce Howse ..........................ijd

.....................................................................Joan Howse............................ ijd

The average in the household for the 8 listed years was 5.5.

Page 526

The Howse family held three farms in Cropredy [9, 24 & 28]. Solomon's (1588-1641) father William (born 1547) only married when he was forty, even though his parents Thomas and Elizabeth were both dead. His widowed mother having passed away ten years earlier. During the intervening years we can only presume he rebuilt the house. Solomon's grandfather Thomas was farming at [9] in 1552 as one of the demesne tenants. He was listed between John French [4], and Will Page [12]. Thomas was leasing one yardland containing 27 acres of arable and 4.5 acres of meadow, but only half an acre of pasture. Thomas employed a relative William Denze[y], who had then fallen ill and died in March 1558/9. Denzey was a Bourton man, brother to Fremund, who came down to live with his niece Alese Howse [28]. William Denzey left two shillings to Dame Elizabeth and a shilling to their sons William and Richard, and daughter Aylls, but only tuppence to young Elizabeth. The following August only twelve years after he married Elizabeth Pery of Middleton Cheney, Thomas too was making his will, in which he confirmed they had four surviving children, though only three are in the baptism register. For nineteen years widow Elizabeth carried on farming a yardland retaining a pair of horses to do so (p114).

If it was the eldest son William who rebuilt in stone he had needed a barn and cowshed as well as a stable for the produce of three yardlands. His stock included eight beast, a horse and three calves as well as four other horses, a colt and thirty sheep. They had the usual crops for when William died in 1600 he had already planted fourteen "rydges" of maslen. The peas and barley being left for widow Margery to plant in the spring.

William had eventually married Margery in 1587. They had two sons and three daughters all of whom survived. Both their sons, Solomon and Thomas, may have lived all their lives at home. When William died aged fiftythree the youngest daughter was only two. One of the problems of a late marriage. Solomon and Thomas at thirteen and eleven were too young for all the responsibilities, but their mother managed for a while. She was left a lease on the "Mose Mylne" which was worth £10, and probably still being run by Henry Broughton. It was not long before he married the widow and moved into the farmhouse [9]. Henry ran the farm with Solomon as shepherd and Thomas eventually taking over the ploughing. The three girls appear in some of the Easter lists when it was their turn to be at home.

The upper lodging chamber was used first by William and then by his son Solomon. It had two beds and a cradle. The household became a three generation family soon after Solomon had married his cousin Catherin Pratt [24]. Their child was born four months later in 1632, but no penance was recorded at the church court. Solomon was by then fortyfive and his mother once again a widow, but now living in her own chamber.

The widow Margery had still been alive when her eldest son Solomon took ill and died in 1641. It must have been a great shock for her as a widow in her eighties. Solomon had been married for only eight years. He left a very young widow of twentysix with three small children. Many of his goods are mentioned in Part 5. They had like Alese Howse [28] a dish bench for displaying his sixteen pieces of pewter worth 10s, but his wealth was tied up in his a hundred and sixty sheep worth £70. He also had his share of four beasts and a calf in the cattle yard. Two hogs were on the farm and hens to help feed his own family. This household was not a poor one for they were one of the top ten per cent who were required to pay the King's tax in 1627 (p74). They apparently owned land at Kineton. Solomon left for his only surviving son "my deeds and my chest now standing at my beds feete and my best brass pott and £10" when he reached eighteen.

Page 527

The deeds being for the land in Kineton? His young wife Catherin must allow her brother-in-law Thomas (who now considered himself a yeoman) to continue farming the land and as he never married he kept the lease going for his nephew Solomon. Even if Catherin was able to do this herself she could not, for here was a family where a brother was available to take over the task. She could hardly remarry either, for Thomas tilled the land.

Widow Margery died in November 1643 and two weeks later Thomas called in William Hall [6], and Richard Cartwright [50]. Her status being shown by the ability to ask these two gentlemen even though her total estate only came to £13 -16s -6d. This highlights the need to study the family as a whole. Margery still lived in the parlour chamber and kept a small portion of land to provide for her necessities, the rest having been passed to her children.

"Her weareing apparell/ & money in her purse £6 -5s/

fower pewter dishes one/ pewter Chamberpott one salte/ and six spoones 10s/

a Brasse possintt & a bottle 3s -4d/

one feather bedd twoe/ bolsters twoe blanketts & / a Coverlidd £2/

Ninetenne thredd sheets/ three tablenapkins & one towell £1 -10s/

Barley maulte & Maslin £3 -5s/

a linnen wheele & other odd implements 2s -6d/

twoe hens 8d/" [MS. Will Pec. 33/2/20].

Her son Thomas had a new room for he wrote in his will "one coffer now standing in the new chamber under the Hellwall windows." Thomas had built the extra bay at the north end right against his shared boundary track with Gorstelows [12], who had taken over Handley's farm (The cottage attached to Elderson's [38] south gable and Palmer's [59] all mention Hellwalls. Had they enlarged their plots by building on the wrong side of their boundary, on the "Hellside" of the wall? In Hello did the name originate from this fault of hellwalling out upon a boundary, referred to in a deed of 1814, and so leave the name of the passag? Or had their water came from a holy well (p172)? Now in the passage where Palmer's [59] once lived you can get an echo by calling Hello).

Thomas also remembered his nieces and nephews in his will. One sister Joyce married Usubie Burnham, who in 1624 was working at the vicarage. All their eight children were christened in Cropredy, but from which property? Thomas Howse died in 1657 when his nephew Solomon was twentyone. It was eight years before Solomon brought his wife Joane to the farm. They were to have nine children.

By 1690 this Solomon was to fall heavily in debt. He did have to farm through a difficult period, not helped by cattle problems and the various government solutions. Many other tenants fell into debt, but not as desperately as Howse. An educated man who had a beautifully clear script shown in the 1663 hearth tax. Solomon may have been rather fond of his clothes and over extended his borrowings which exceeded his revenues, so that after his death his poor wife refused to handle his debts. He owed a cousin Ephriam Pratt money and Solomon's goods were sold by Ephriam who never recovered his total loan. This tailor had no education, but organised the sale of Solomon's goods by getting someone to write down every exchange. He lived in Edgcott and yet had to come and oversee the piecemeal sale of items over a long period, stretching from January the 7th until at least April the 11th.

In 1690 they had grown peas, barley, wheat and oats and had £15 of hay. Ephriam Pratt bundled the straw into flayles and made faggots from hedging wood which he sold as kiddes.

Page 528

"One hundred and half of kiddes 12s" to heat ovens. Chaff and cut straw were sold at four quarters for 3s-2d. Here was mention of a cart and a four wheel waggon, not just the long two wheeled cart as most had had before that. Kettles and feather bolsters are all mixed in with the sale of black sheep or heifers. Five cheeses went for around 2s. Fairly early on the eight pigs and the sow were sold off. Ephriam had to employ several people to help run the farm and see to the unsold stock. After all his efforts the money owing to him which came to £105 was only reduced to £43 15s. A fortune to a tailor. The third son William Howse born in 1670 had been taken on as an apprentice tailor and like the rest of the family had to leave Cropredy.

The property was turned into six cottages after 1775 with brick walls between the bays. The barn doorway receiving an infill of brick. The cottage gardens all had some of the verge formerly part of the Long Causeway.

Handleys and Gorstelows of The Long Causeway [12].

1613: Rychard Handly .........ijd ......1624:Thomas Gorstelowe et uxor... ijd

..........Rychard Handly ux.... ijd

The number in the household for the 1 listed year was 5 (including the two children).

A Randall Handley witnessed the Cropredy schoolmaster's apprenticeship document in 1524 so they were an old Cropredy family. Randall signs first and then a Rychard. In the next generation Rychard senior, husband of Kateren, had a yard land in the 1578 list, when William Page was still alive, but not apparently farming. Was this about the time Pages built in front and Handleys farmed the land? Without more manorial records we cannot prove anything. More puzzling was why a family here for over three generations should have joined the Thompsons [44] and Kynds [31] to leave the town between Easter 1613 and the following April. Was it to do with their presentment at the Ecclesiastical Court? Religion and politics were so intertwined that to protest at the decrees issued by the bishops for the King could bring tough sentences upon the head of the family either through the church court or a secular one.

Page 529

What is now a matter for an individual's conscience could then become a disciplinary matter with dire consequences as the church discipline was increased. Had the three who left been excommunicated and so could not renew their lease? Few dared to indulge in outspokenness. Those who could read and understand the bible would use old and new testament stories to hide their true meaning. Double talk was common and expected, when all education came via a clergy who must obey the bishops, or lose their licence to preach, or even worse their living. Whatever the cause the Handleys departed. Another possibility was the Handley's had used up their three lives on their lease and they were refused another three.

As the Handleys were obviously here before 1524 it was hard to find where they lived when they do not appear in the survey of 1552. Instead William Page son of the late Huw page had one messuage, one and a half yardlands, half a toft and a piece of land called "le fourge." On the Demesne land William Page had another yardland containing 22 acres of arable and 4 acres of meadow. As he was a minor he has three guardians, one of whom was Thomas Howse next door [9] and another was John French [4]. Hew Page (d1547) was living next to a forge possibly in the building which William his son had to turn into a small dwelling cottage and let the smithy trade pass to the B manor property next door [13]. Why though was it only half a toft or close? Had some gone to Howse [9]? The Page's family tree on page 499.

The farm house and barn would follow the building line of Springfield to the Brasenose Inn. The entrance on the B manor map [29a] shows two cottages on the verge and an entrance to [12] between Pages cottage and the Brasenose smithy [13] in 1774. A third cottage was put up on the verge before 1775 in front of Howse's [9] entrance.

Thomas Gorstelow came down from Bourton and had taken over the lease by 1615. He had relatives in Mollington, Bourton and Prescote and they had risen to being yeomen by 1685. Thomas or his son witnessed some of the college terriers of 1653 and 1669. They had land at Paulerspury, and were taxed on two hearths here in 1663 which meant they must have had an upper floor. We know he married and had a son John, but little else. They may have shared the house for only the hall and kitchen were mentioned, meaning John had married and the young couple had their own quarters. Gorstelow also had an orchard producing enough to warrant a tithe in 1617 [c25/6 f8v]. If the orchard was at the west end of the close it lay over the ridge and furrows. The farmyard would be behind the house and sharing the western cattle entrance with Howse [9]. Their Early town boundary hedge on the west bank had an average of six species three hundred years later. Was this pushing out of the town boundary made in the fourteenth century to accomodate new farms? Halfway across the close runs an old hollow or ditch parallel with the western hedge which may be the limit of their old close for there are remains of some ridge and furrows in the pasture beyond, between the west hedge and the hollow. This early encroachment onto the arable extended southwards over Howse's farm [9]as far as the Belser track coming down the South Field.

By 1775 the house and farm buildings had vanished and the parcel of land added to another farm [26].