Servants

Tawney found only one Gloucestershire husbandman in ten employing a servant. Anyone in receipt of wages had given up their right to be considered free. Were there many of the unfree in Cropredy's Easter lists? Cropredy supported only one gentleman, the vicar Thomas Holloway in 1575, but increased this to three by 1613. All of these would be expected to have farm and house servants. Craftsmen in other towns trained apprentices and some had living in servants while their own children went to other households for their training, but unless they were over eighteen years of age the vicar's lists did not reveal them in Cropredy. It was mainly the husbandmen whose servants paid their tuppences and so appear in the eight lists. Was it the size of the leased parcels of land, and the kind of work conducted by the head of household that required a surprisingly high proportion of young working adults to reside in Cropredy? Even though the parish records show a certain stability over two or three generations. When the main branch of a family still tenanted the land or cottage, it meant that a large proportion of each family had a secure place to return to, and their presence once again could oust the servant.

The vicar's family and staff were not included in his Easter lists. This meant they were the only Cropredy family without a yearly role call of all their adults. For the eight years the lists cover we can calculate the number of servants over eighteen living in. At the same time trying to find out how many households still offered a roof to siblings, parents and married couples who may remain to help with the daily work instead of employing servants.

On years without a list the servants are almost invisible for they are seldom mentioned in wills, including those recorded over the eight years. Masters may ask the executor to pay their wages, or include them in the household debts to be paid off. Just a few felt they owed them more, but what a low percentage, and yet here in the lists the number of single people living in Cropredy is quite astonishing. In 1624 Dr Brouncker gave everyone's christian name (except wives). This provides the additional information that few local adults, from eighteen years and upwards, were taking up a living-in servants position in their own town of Cropredy (p87). Except when returning to work in their own home servants usually came from other parishes and this meant Cropredy youngsters found residential work away from their own town, though we must bear in mind that it cannot tell us which of the young adults residing at home worked as day staff for others in Cropredy.

When the Easter oblation lists were drawn up Holloway does not write down even the names of his own daughter and son's servants for several years. He had not set out to name each individual servant, though sometimes a name was given. Only in 1624, when the new vicar lived in Ladbroke, was his scribe diligent enough to ask and record the majority of the servants and relations acting in that capacity by name, though he does not draw a convenient line between the households as Holloway had done. Thomas had been well aware of the names of the Watts adult children returning to help, but then these had recently been confirmed at Cropredy and personally known to him whereas most yearly servants would not be.

One interesting comment made in 1615 was that "Jhon" Mills of Little Bourton had "a stranger servant" who was presumably from outside the circle of information. The locals would have a good knowledge of the families in the various parishes around. For good or ill young boys and girls family reputations spread out in a widening circle. This was useful to the employer, but could work against some potential labourer, or servants seeking first time employment. Work was not always found by recommendations and those without a place would set off for the Banbury Michaelmas fair. Husbandmen seeking new servants would be there assessing them on their qualities rather in the manner of choosing stock. The chosen staff being taken on for a year.

Hired women live in with the family and sleep in the daughter's chamber and the hired men in the son's chamber. In the lists relations come before adult sons and daughters, but servants came after them, and this constant positioning gave the one definite clue as to whether they were from the wider family group or a stranger. The seating at the table probably followed the same order below the master. They were part of the household, but not part of the family. Theirs was a yearly contract, unlike apprentices who stayed for a term of years.

Neither wife, child nor staff were answerable in law for their crimes (p101), only the master. He had the ultimate control over the servants who could be vigorously chastised and dismissed even though the maids were the concern of the mistress. The unfortunate maid who was at the masters call could hardly be described as a child. Dismissal might follow with disastrous results.

All yearly servants had board and lodging as part of their year's payment. Just a few households may be beginning to separate themselves from the staff, but while servants slept in family chambers and ate with them they were regarded more as apprentices. All were under the guidance and authority of the head of the household, maintaining the homestall as a going concern through good and bad years. When the majority of boys and girls lived away from home they learnt that the Master was truly that. All sexual activities were discouraged by discipline and hard work at a time when the boys were entering maturity. Good behaviour was essential to retaining their post and getting a good reference for their next year.

The twentytwo farms had on average six people living in, whereas the cottages had only four so the staff were obviously going to be found mostly on the farms. Servants were not needed all the time. Adult members of the family came and went apparently taking it in turn, according to the lists, to help at home or work away where they could save for their eventual marriage. Older children acted as "servant" to their parents. Some bachelor brothers, elderly uncles, active parents and unmarried sisters all earned their livelihood on the family farm, small-holding or trade as long as it was at all profitable to do so. As each holding could only feed so many it was the limiting factor to all remaining at home until marriage, even if this was desirable.

Most must save for their future and in a famine year too many under one roof would spell disaster. In spite of this many men and women were at home for odd years even in their twenties and thirties. Girls were expected to begin their apprenticeship for management of a household from an early age, perhaps first helping a grandparent, and on through graded tasks. Young children began their outdoor working life as scarecrows following the sowing of corn, or stone picking, minding stock or other seasonal work.

On seventeen of the twentytwo farms in 1614 there is evidence of eleven sons and five daughters over eighteen years of age with eight elderly widows doing their utmost to contribute to their board. On thirteen of these farms there were also nineteen young men and twenty young girls doing their apprenticeship for future marriage and farming. The majority would come from families just like their employers. Most male servants were just passing through a necessary stage in life that all heads of household would have experienced. The few who did not intend to farm themselves looked for those employers who had cottages. Once they were married they were more likely to remain year after year whereas very few of the yearly staff stayed on.

Between 1614 and 1624 the single men and married labourers fall by six from a total of twentynine to twentythree, but the women rise from thirtythree to thirtyfive.

One illegitimate daughter had been brought up by her grandfather, John Truss [33] (formerly a shepherd, but by now a labourer), who charged his son John in 1613/4 "with the education of Dorethey daughter of Annes Trusse my daughter nowe in Irelande until she may bee honestlie preveyded for and sett to service." That "sett to service" was a binding arrangement used to set land, or belongings, as a daughter was, to another. An apprenticeship between a master and child or young adult. Usually they went to another parish to help the child resist returning home too soon, teaching them to adapt. Young maids like this and backhouse boys escape the records except in Thomas Holloway's farm accounts for his were paid a small wage although generally none had wages until sixteen and instead received full board. The lists refer to "boy servants" just confirmed [c25/7], who had not been eighteen for a whole year. They only pay half the Easter Oblation. Ava Tomes at [28] in 1613 paid jd [f2]. Tom's [15] man paid his jd in 1615 [f11v]. In 1614 Edmond Tanner [39] his man paid jd and in 1617 a "mayd" jd [fols7 & 23v]. In 1616 George Gorstelow paid jd for his "boy servant" [f17].

Most servants referred to will be men, for women were usually called "mayds." Just occasionally Holloway wrote "Mayd servant" in his final writing up of the lists. Some could not pay their "Ester oblations" for they stood excommunicated, but we can be certain the poor were not allowed to escape, though once the vicar's maid Mary Robins paid for Anne More a servant at Gybbs [25]. Not all servants were young. On April 16th 1616 George Hopkins sent his wife Mary and servant with the calf tithe of 6s 8d down to the vicarage. Thomas wrote "his servant mayde/ an old woman anne tomkins/ where of I gyve to hopkins/ wife iijd and the mayd jd" [c25/4 f9]. In 1624 Anne still lived at Hopkins house, next to the Bourton "chapel." She was buried on the 30th of April 1626.

Which households could afford to employ servants? If the master of the farm had died then the widow must employ help, unless a son or relation could stand in to work the land. Staff were not a status symbol for husbandmen as they were for gentlemen, but to both they were a necessity.

The number of known employed men and women over eighteen we saw varied in some households as the family had their own relations to help out, but there were still four residences which always had more than six or seven: Halls at Springfield [6] and their neighbours opposite at the Brasenose Manor farm [8], though this was split between Robert Woodrose and his son Nicholas, the Holloways at the vicarage in Church Lane [21] and lastly Arthur Coldwell [50] at the A Manor farm in Church Street. Halls were moving up from husbandmen to gentry and like the other three would be expected to have servants.

In the High Street [26] the Robins had four or more servants on at least six years. Generally a shepherd was employed on all the above farms. On the Green the Lumberds [14], the Toms [15] with their couple living in the cottage and Hunts [16] next door, who also had a cottage [17], often had two or more extra servants. The Lumberds were during the list years beginning to rely on their growing family. Howses in Creampot [28] had two or more on at least five years depending on the number of brothers residing at home and the fact that Alyce was left a widow in 1617. The Gybbs [25] had employed five men and six maids over eight years when no brother or relative were available to take on the work. Widow Pratt [24] across the High Street in Church Lane had Thomas Webb as bailiff until the year after her marriage to William Howse who was one of Alyce's brothers-in-law [28].

Another four farms occasionally have one or more maids for a few years to tide them over a difficult pregnancy, in the absence of a grandma, or when the family were struck down with illness [34]. The Watts house down Creampot Lane [34] had a constant supply of adult sons and daughters taking turns to help their widowed mother, eldest brother Arthur and Richard Hall to run the farm. Then came the dreadful winter of 1623/4 when all those siblings taking their turn at home died (p594). By 1624 the reduced household had only Richard Hall, the young widow Ann Watts and George Watts surviving and they took on John Clifford and Alice Page as staff. Further up Creampot Lane Cattell [30] had his mother and then a sister to attend to the house. Broughton [9] on the Long Causeway, having married widow Howse farmed her land with the help of her two sons. They needed an extra man on only three of the eight listed years. Had they taken on extra land when two daughters returned home?

Other reasons for employing maids or recalling daughters, would appear to be the loss of a grandma [30] or a maternal grandmother's arrival at the house in need of care and attention [25], though when Mrs Hunt's mother, widow Gibbons, arrived on the Green [16], she must have been able to help for no extra maid was employed. Not every household could afford to bring in a maid or servant. At Lumberd's [14] a daughter left to be married and the next sibling must take her place. At Rede's [32] in Creampot his brother leaves to be married, but he was not replaced. When a master or mistress looked for servants at the Michaelmas hiring fair in Banbury it may be after the death of a son [34], or a widow taking over [34 & 50]. On the death of a father, or his retirement, a married son might take on the lease, but he may have to manage without staff and rely on siblings, or if he was fortunate his mother was there to help the household.

As the young family increased then was the time, for those with more land and fewer legacies to pay off, to increase the number of maids, or relations as Dyonice Woodrose did [8].

Out of the thirtytwo craftsmen's households in 1614 at least ten of the adult daughters lived in five of the cottages and rendered extra help unnecessary. In the 1614 lists seven other families rely on a son apprenticed to the father and one had a brother and another a sister helping. Seven did take on staff, but by 1624 only two did so: Edward Marten at Carters the saddlers in Round Bottom [57] for business may have been as usual, and a couple at Cross's mill. The seven in 1614 were employed by Hunt the weaver [5], the two blacksmiths Densey [13a] and Wyatt [13b], who each had one, the mercer Tanner [39], Palmer [1] at the lower mill with grandma, brother and maid, Cross [51] at the upper mill and the collarmaker Carter [57]. The winter of 1623/4 was a bad one for small business's and employment. There was a crisis in the wool trade, in the rural economy and fevers catching those at a low ebb.

Eleven daughters remained at home although three were already married. This meant an extra man in three of the houses [27, 29, & 35]. Eight sons helped and three of these were already married. Mr Hill the whitbaker [20] allowed his son to take over. The Pratts and Bostockes share a house [41] combining ale and some leather trade. Mr Hill [58] the butcher in Round Bottom next to Carters looked after his mother and at Monkeytree [36] Mrs Huxeley senior, Valentyne's stepmother who brought him up, was in residence throughout the lists. Valentyne's first wife died leaving four young children, but he soon remarries and two more arrive. The whole taken care of by the two women. In this way smaller households remained self-sufficient and housed their own. Wyatt, one of the two blacksmiths on the Green, moved to Kynd's vacated farm [31] at the top of Creampot Lane in the 1620's and continued to practice as a farrier and vet. At the same time he began to farm and needed some help from sons and a maid.

The Wyatt family took their maid Elizabeth Bostocke who had been with them according to the lists since 1614 when she became eighteen. Was she the daughter of another Elizabeth Bostocke remembered in Widow Arnett's will of 1606 as one of the poor? The registers record the death of an Elizabeth Bostocke on the 13th of December 1610 and this must surely have been the mother. At that time her daughter would have been only fourteen and unable to keep herself unless the Wyatts kept her on. It may seem to be stretching the truth in all directions but fortunately another 1601 will was found which left to "Elizabeth [Bostocke] the elder and to the daughter betwixt them the sum of 3s-4d." This was made by Russell the blacksmith who had the property before Densey and Wyatt [13]. Like several others the Bostocke girls appear to form a good relationship with the master. They may also have learnt from other Bostockes [41] the art of good brewing. In the poultry tithe book [c25/6 f4v] Elizabeth Bostocke sent a pot of ale to the vicar in 1614.

In 1595 John French a husbandman [6] left "Mary Bostock my servant on[e] heifer of 1 yeare old to be delivered to her presently after my decease." Another Marie Bostocke had pleased the widow Johan Robins [26] for she left her "a peticotte with russed bodies and a smocke" as well as a shilling in 1579. We know from Thomas Holloway's wage records that he kept on two girls, or they chose to stay, for several years.

Ann Bostocke was over twenty one when she worked for two years at the vicarage then moved to Allen's [44] before her marriage to Nicolas Dunckley on the 17th of July 1615. Ann was then twentythree. Nicholas had lived either on his own or as a lodger at Suffolks [60] in Hello. In Wardington's Poultry book [f9] Nicholas gives the vicar a "coke" in 1617. They must have moved there, but soon departed for they left no entries in the registers.

Bess Hyrens who was also born in 1592 was one of the only Cropredy girls to stay on year after year at the vicarage. Her widowed mother lived alone (which was very unusual) in Hello and may have needed nursing. She died in 1616 and that left Bess without a home to return to. The Wood's who had been living in the Tom's cottage [15a] soon moved round to the late Hyrens cottage [56]. Elizabeth without even a brother, for he too died, may have had no other relations in Cropredy. Most daughters, judging by the numbers who come and go in the eight listed years, kept strong links with their parents and home, while they are out at service. Without a home Bess's plight was only relieved by the length of her stay with a caring family. Yet what happened to such a girl cast adrift on the death of widow Holloway? Would her daughter Joanne Holbech employ her?

Not many servants who came on a yearly hiring stayed on and took up residence unless they were one of the few from Cropredy. John Clyfton was an outsider who married Dyonice Woodrose's maid, Abishag Ryuxe, while he was the shepherd. Abishag may have come to Cropredy with the Woodroses. After the wedding in 1608 they left for six years to work elsewhere as the Woodrose's farm cottage [7] was occupied. Did the Woodrose's recall them? When Nicholas had most of the farm the Clyftons return and live in the cottage [7] across the Long Causeway. This was a two bay cottage and they shared it in 1615 with the Pettifer couple. Two Clyfton boys and two girls are baptised at Saint Mary's, but we do not know how many others were born away from Cropredy. The couple lived in the cottage for thirtyfive years and Abishag returned to being Dyonice's maid and was obviously appreciated for she was left 20s in her employer's will. Marion Palmer, who may have been brought up in Hello [59], was one of the other maids. Dyonice left her a generous 10s (p495).

Servants were seldom left something in wills. One surname that seems to encourage a mention were girls from the Denzey/Densey family. George Gardner a husbandman of Great Bourton who died in 1591 never married and had several living in staff, he mentions Jilian Hunt and Alice Denzey the daughter of John Denzey. First he wrote "I will that Pratt my man may have for his wages which I owe him. And John Silver my man his wages dulie to be paid...I give unto every of my servants now being over and above their wages Fyve shillings." Alice Denzey was to have "one heifer of 2 yeres olde and better.... My servant Cleydon did sell to Rowland a warden amonge my wooll, two todd of wooll price 20s a tod vitz 40s. I do will that warden paying the debt the said Cleydon shall have his money out of it because the Bond was made wholly to me." So he fairly settled his debts to the staff, having no wife to do this, and made sure they collected what was theirs. "To Jilian Hunt the feather bed she broughte with her wth the furniture thereunto belonging as also six paire of sheets two table clothes and three table napkins wth all her apparrell wholly and the best coffer she brought with her." Also £10 a year "during the terme of her natural life" [PCC 77 Folio 1-55, p392-393]. Jilian appears to have been given a chamber to furnish with her own inherited goods.

It will be noted that her master took over these articles, but "gave" them back to her in his will. He returns her best coffer, but what of her worst? How many women arrived to work for others taking their own bedding and what was Jilian's real relationship with her master? How many articles valued as the masters could have been a servants?

In 1634 Thomas Gill also of Great Bourton and a yeoman had a servant Ann Densey and he left her ten shillings and "the rest of the servants in the house 2s-6d a peece." These are generous by most standards. Mrs Elizabeth Holloway did not remember in her will any of the staff. She may have believed as she says that she was one of God's Elect, and once her staff were paid that seemed to be that. Maybe only her more thoughtful late husband, the ill and the richer employers remember servants. The Reverend Thomas Holloway obviously felt a need to protect some for in his will he had asked that "My wife shall stand encharged with Agnes ffentlowe myne servant to see her honestly provided for during her life....I do give to everyone of my servants serving at my decease, of household servants two shillings and sixe pence a peece." Agnes was not on the vicar's list of wages paid. Did she live with them for board and lodging, but no wages being old? Or at her old parish? Again what would happen after Mrs Holloway's death?

In 1627 Ellen Bicke came to Cropredy to be nursed at her son-in-law Densey's [13a]. She left some of her clothes, from a seemingly well stocked presse to servants (p707).

In the year of 1595, when there was a great shortage of corn, John Ellyett also of Bourton considered the needs of his servant John Leeke and left him instead of a sheep "a Butt to sew Barlie on this yeare and a strike of barlie to sow itt wth all." Although this was a thin sowing it may save his life (p314). Was he now dismissed or retained as part of the household?

A wealthier widow had two servants she wished to reward. In 1622. Joanne Townsend of Bourton made her will leaving "to my servant John Shirley ten shillings," and "to my servant Richard Blackborne ten shillings" [MS. Will Pec. 52/3/30]. From the lists of 1619 we know she employed Richard Blackborn and a maid. A year earlier Elizabeth Heritage, John Shurly, his wife and his mother made up the household. John had been with her probably since before 1613 which may explain her gratitude [c25/8 f7v & f2], or else these were wages due.

Robert Cleaver a yeoman of Cripplegate London, but born in the same parish of Priors Marston as William Hall, died after becoming ill at his master's house in Cropredy [6]. What affairs did the Hall's of Springfield have elsewhere? Robert left perhaps in appreciation for services rendered "to Mr Hall his servants 40s to be divided amongst them."

A shepherd saving up for his own farm, was John Sheeler who fell ill at the same time as his master Arthur Coldwell, Thomas Holloway and others. He left "To my fellow servants 6d a peece" and his master's two kinswomen 6d. The bulk of his money went to his sister, £13-6s-8d, with £6-13s-4d to his mother. The inventory shows how a serving man could amass his own starting capital including his tools which it appears he had to take to Coldwells. There he lived in a chamber without the necessity of providing his own board and lodging:

The Robert who exhibited the inventory was his brother "dwelling in Grimsbury." John left a sheep to each of his nephews, sons of Robert. The brother must bestow 12s on the poor of Cropredy at the burial service. John was one of the many in Cropredy who could read his bible. Did he carry the psalm book about his work as well as his bible, hoping for a quiet read? Or to practice singing the Sunday psalms? The three who witnessed his will were Thomas Taylor, Edward Sheepherd (his mark) and John Adkins. The last two were Bourton shepherds. Thomas Taylor, a Wroxton man, had farmed Widow Smyth's farm at Great Bourton since 1612. Edward Sheepherd in 1627 left to John Atkins, servant to Thomas Taylor his "best black shepe".

Mr Coldwell [50] certainly had the largest number of employees living in after the vicar's. Farming three yardlands he also had other interests, but was considered a gentleman and as such had to employ staff to work the land and upper mill. His shepherd and bailiff could both read and write. Faulke Green was with him from at least 1613 until 1617. He went on to farm (p74). Robert Whettell came in 1616 and stayed on to help the widow for he was still there in 1624 and died working for Mr Cartwright [50] (p151). Coldwell's men had a tendancy to remain for several years. Mr Coldwell's will mentions Millycent Sherwood and Elizabeth Warren and leaves to "either of them a heifer." They were his maids from 1616 to 1619.

Avis Gardner who died in 1580 was a servant employed by the Howse family in Church Lane [24]. She lived in the servants' or family chamber and owned no furniture, except like John Sheeler a coffer to keep her clothes in. Avis's had hinges and a lock (unusual ) and was worth 1s-8d. Many inventories like Avis's appear to suggest the deceased lived without even a bedstead and bedding in a one roomed hovel, but this is very misleading. The Howse farmhouse was one of the larger properties, and in return for her services they had cared for Avis even to the extent of listening to her last requests, for she wanted to make sure her clothes went to the right child, though it would cost them more to prove it at the Peculiar Court at Cropredy than the goods were worth. It was important to note that Avis still had her dowry from her father, but kept it with her brother, presumably at the family home. While her brother was master of that household were Avis's goods considered technically as his for they were not investigated? She left them to her brother Gardner in her will. Her inventory is on page 703. We do not know anything about her background.

Avis may have lived in a room with other members of the family. Families seldom have a chamber set aside just for children, but next door at Vaughans [23] they called their only upper room the children's.

Although Vaughans had been considered as yeomen the children only shared their room with a servant on five of the eight years. This was possibly because Ralph Wells [22] lived and worked from Vaughan's cottage next door (p501).

Servant's cottages are given their own section (ch.30), the rest lived in the house or over the stable. John Pare the collarmaker [58] who died in 1610 had a servant's chamber in which was an old bedstead. Servants chambers in craftsmen's cottages were still fairly rare, but John Pare could spare a chamber when there were so few people in the household. A recent innovation, made possible with the new stone two and a half storey buildings, was to provide a cockloft and up there make a men's chamber when the household had need of an extra room. This was a far cry from the former rushes on the hall floor of an earlier dwelling, but it did not necessarily bring about a complete separation of servants from the family, though the possibility was there.

Most properties had provided a second floor for this was very economical on space. The Huxeleys, Eldersons and Tanners all had one and added a cockloft which made a convenient mens chamber. The Hall's [6], Lumberd's [14], Gybbs [25], Wyatt's (from 1620 onwards) [31], and Hentlowe's [35] all had cocklofts (p656). Another was Richard Hall's [34] who died in 1634. Richard had been with the Watts since at least 1602 when Mr Watts senior died. The house was ashlar built and up in the cockloft next to the cheese chamber was the men's chamber where sons and the occasional staff slept. In it was only "one old bedsteed with the beddinge." Maybe sons overflowed up there sleeping on straw palliasses, or else George Watts still owned part of the household furniture which had not passed to Richard? The other chambers had been used to house the three generations and the returning daughters (p594).

It has been suggested that only gentlemen and yeomen had habitable cocklofts in the sixteenth century [Wood-Jones R.B.]. However Nuberry [8], husbandman, at the B manor farm may have had a garret in the south bay at the beginning of our period. The Woodroses, admittedly gentlemen, who took over the farm employed from five up to eleven servants. They gave them proper feather mattresses on a bedstead, rather than a straw pallet and sheet on the floor. Those who slept in the "garrett" had "two bedsteeds" amongst other items. In the maid chamber they had "one bedsteed one feather bedd one blankett one rugg one boulster" amongst other implements worth a pound. The rest of the men had "the Chamber over the Stable" in which there were "two bedsteeds wth the beddinge upon them," worth a pound. The stable was next to the gatehouse leading onto the Long Causeway (p252). They no doubt protected the valuable horses, but must have suffered from ammonia fumes. When the staffing increased presumably they slept two to a bed.

At the Robins' household [26] the first mention of servants came from widow Johan in 1579 who leaves her servant Johan Westburie 6d and Marie Bostocke 1s. By 1603 when they had three upstairs chambers, the third next to the stairs doubled as a corridor for all to pass through to reach the Second and Innermost chambers. The servants had "the 3 chamber" next to the stairs in which were "2 small bedsteds & bedding for servants." The innermost or southern chamber was taken over by the widow Joanne when she gave up the rest of the house for her married son. The male servants must then go on up to one of the two cocklofts formerly used for storage. Half the cockloft by 1631 is called "the men's chamber" the rest being used as the apple chamber.

There were "Two bedsteeds two woolebeds two coverletts fower blankets two garners" for malt amongst other things in their chamber.

Great Bourton by 1611 had some good new stone dwellings. In Thomas Smyth's they had a men's chamber with "One beede furnished wth other smalle things" worth 20s. The furnishing refers to sheets, wool mattress and coverlets, and the other small things being called "trumpery." Mr Smyth left to "my two men and my two maydes wch nowe are dwelling wth me every one of them a shepe presently after the next sheeringe by my wyffe and Henry Taylors appoyment." Henry was Thomas Taylor's father from Wroxton (p90). The men must have shared the bed and the maids slept in another chamber [MS.Will Pec. 51/1/2].

Richard Gorstelow of Prescote Manor had Peter in the men's chamber, three maids in the maids' chamber all with their own bedsteads, wool mattresses, blanket, coverlet and bolster, though Peter lacked a bolster. Thomas the miller was likewise accommodated in the miller's chamber. Had a miller or a shepherd to be given accommodation after the parish was enclosed, so that they must have a miller's chamber? A law to prevent sixteenth century enclosures could be overcome by keeping accomodation in the remaining house for a shepherd or a milkmaid. In this case it was a miller. All these staff were over eighteen, there could very well have been other young maids sleeping in. The Breedons who would help run the farm lived in the upper Prescote farmhouse. The rest of the miller's family lived at the nearby mill with Thomas Arledge.

The only real information about servants came from the Holloways who were farming two and three quarter yardlands in 1614, on his fortythird year in the parish. Of their children perhaps only Thomas aged thirteen and Joane aged fifteen were at home, but they still had the largest known staff in the town.

Thomas Holloway having about a hundred and forty sheep and followers needed a shepherd and mentions one in the accounts. The farm required two farm workers. There was always a dairymaid and two others, but once again we have no idea how much outside farm work they would be asked to do.

They appear not to have a cottage for their shepherd, unless Fenny's [43] had been built for this purpose partly tucked into the vicar's plot. The Holloway's had to sleep the men in the cockloft and the maids in another chamber. His man Thomas Stephens stayed for a few years at the vicarage while still a bachelor. On being able to obtain a lease then the young men could leave, marry and settle down. Most would be under twentynine when working for others. The vicar's boy servant William Toms was learning the house and farm trades as we follow him to the kiln (p668). The Holloways had two maids who stayed on year after year and a third who came and went at the Michaelmas Fairs.

The vicar sublet some of the commons from his leased land keeping the rest for his wife's stock. According to his will Elizabeth had several cows, which one of his three maids would milk (p176). There is no book mentioning tithe milk. Unless money was paid in lieu of this, the vicars were due a milk tithe, which would be made into butter or cheese and the skimmed milk going to feed the pigs, another of the maids responsibilities along with the poultry. Cooking and cleaning, vegetable and fruit growing left little or no spare time, but any left must be spent carding and spinning, brewing and preserving under the constant eye of their mistress. Those who had pewter to clean used fine sand, woodash and part of a plant called mare's tail.

The wooden platters and spoons were daily scoured very energetically and if sunny put outside to bleach in a safe place.

They do not record the days their man ploughs and it must be presumed he was hired by the year and ploughing was part of the daily work. Neither was it necessary to state the hours taken to harrow, sow and roll the winter wheat and rye, or the oats, peas and barley later in the spring. The vicar's folios record only those processes he shared with his children to make sure they received the correct amount of grain. They did once employ John Bryan [47] by contract to thresh the corn, which must have exceeded the amount Holloways yearly staff could cope with. Extra help was taken on in the garden for the carpenter Thomas Elderson senior was paid for work there, though he could have been repairing something. Other people may have come and gone daily doing specific tasks, or contracted for a short term in the house, or on the farm. Washing may have required some outside help in the bigger houses, but no record remains.

The local Justice of Peace set the wages of servants from time to time. This was the maximum not the minimum, after all they too employed people. Fortunately Thomas kept details of his own servants' wages which included the juniors. Those employed under eighteen would either still live at home, or receive board and lodging but no pay until they were sixteen. After that they were entitled to a wage. Holloway's head man had £3-6s-8d a year, but the shepherd at the vicarage only £2 or £1-10s with some provision for sheep (pp 97/8). They were at various ages and experience and employed accordingly. Shepherds were often able to read and write in Cropredy and were there to gain experience and save for their own farm. The man servant who served at Coldwells went on to lease fields of his own. He too had received some schooling. We do not know if the vicar's men, who must have been responsible for the farm, could write or not. Michael Sabean and William Gardner for some reason, possibly age and experience, had larger wages than most. Both these were local Oxfordshire names, but difficult to trace to a particular family. Women's wages were half that of the men, but they still had to save for marriage, which was earlier for women than men in Cropredy. Not all were able to get a farm cottage as Clyftons [7] did (p495).

The amount of clothing provided by their master at the vicarage was I fear very small, unless hand-me-downs took the place of new, or as the Holloways do not add the cost of food onto the wages record they may have left out apparel as well. They had board and lodging, but were also supposed to have a small livery allowance. Elisabeth Stacy had "a skyrte smocke" and Wam Toms, Anne Taperto and Joane had shoes at 1s-8d a pair (pp97/8).

Harvests were hopefully in by the Michaelmas Quarter rent day. This terminated the farming year. Servants then departed to Banbury to seek new Masters. For parishes in wetter areas the hiring was put off until Martinmas, so that staff could finish gathering the produce before the change over. Few servants who worked in Cropredy can have been held back from leaving their employment to attend the hiring fair, even though the employer had the right to refuse them permission to leave. The yearly turnover of the named servants in the eight years appears to favour new staff, except in a few households. Some husbandmen and craftsmen's children must surely choose to take their allotted turn with their own family, supplementing the household purse with day work. On the other hand no yearly servant once taken on could leave before his year was out unless dismissed.

There was still going to be a shortage of people to bring in the hay and corn harvests and it was here that a town with so many craftsmen's cottages managed to iron out this deficiency. The wise decision to encourage more craftsmen into Cropredy therefore helped to solve the desperate need for extra hands. Many craftsmen and older shepherds sometimes with their wives took up day labouring such as harvesting, threshing, weeding or stone picking. Their labour was as essential to the running of the farms and their own few acres as the welfare of the cottage cow.

The importance of the lists in the absence of other documents is enormous. They show the number of single adults and widows who fill up the households rendering servants unnecessary. This explains why servants were employed on some years and not on others, but most of all we can now say that Cropredy still had more servants employed by husbandmen than Gloucestershire [ Agri. Regions and Agrarian History in England and Wales ].

Being a servant in the first stage in life was acceptable, it was not so in the second, having already moved on from that service, unless marriage was not possible. During difficult years when old age was advancing a shepherd could be found taking on day work, and a collarmaker becoming again a servant when his wife died (p475).

From the vicar's Easter Oblation lists we can get the average numbers of staff and adult members for each household. These have been averaged for the eight list years.

					Master
Farm	Name	Staff	Family	+	&Wife	Yardlands	Rising
site			over	children	Married	Approx.	Status
			18	1 - 17	children
[3]	Devotion		0.4	2.3	2	1 - 2	Husb
[4]	French	0.2	1.8		1	2	Husb
[6]	Halls	6.0			2	2+	H/Yeo
[8]	Woodrose	7.7		1.12	4	4	Gent
[9]	Broughton	0.4	3.2		2	1+	Husb
[12]	Handley	left 1614					Husb
[14]	Lumberd	1.5	1.5	2.0	2	3	H/Yeo
[15]	Toms	3.7	0.3	2.0	2	2	Husb
[16]	Hunt	3.0		0.6	2	3+	Husb
[21]	Holloway	7.0		2.0	2	2+	Gent
[23]	Vaughan	1.7	1.0	1.25	2	?2	Yeo
[24]	Pratt	1.0		2.5	1	?	Husb
[25]	Gybbs	1.3	2.0	0.5	4/3	2	Husb
[26]	Robins	4.7	1.0	0.87	2	2+	H/Yeo
[28]	Howse	3.0	0.4	2.25	2/1	2	Husb
[29]	Hall	0.1		1.75	4	?	H/Yeo
[30]	Cattell		0.6		1	?	Husb
[31]	Kynd	Left					Husb
[32]	Rede	0.2	0.4	0.5	2	2	Husb
[34]	Watts	1.6	4.0	0.1c	1	1+	H/Yeo
[50]	Coldwell	6.2			2	3+	Gent
[60]	Suffolk			1.87	2	?	Husb

Cropredy had thirteen husbandmen who employed staff as well as relations, and four others relied entirely upon their family. This was a great deal more than in Gloucestershire [Thirsk J]. Out of the thirteen who had staff: four had only occasional staff, three employed one or more, four had two or more and two farms had five or more each year. This meant that six out of the seventeen, or one in three husbandmen employed more than two servants during the eight list years. Two other farms were not active during most of the eight years [31 & 35].

The above chart shows the strength of the staff, family and couples who run a farm sometimes with parents active, sometimes as a widow alone. The yeomen only appear in the 1630's apart from Vaughan and Hall, but even William Hall was more a yeoman than a gentleman, especially when he first arrived, though the leases soon begin to describe him as one. Widows took their status from their deceased husbands. Although the yardlands fluctuate these are approximately the right amount for 1614-1624.

Site	Surname	1613	1614	1615	1616	1617	1618	1619	1624	Totals
		m....f	m....f	m....f	m....f	m....f	m....f	m....f	m....f
	Husbandmen
[4]	French		......1							1
[6]	Hall	4....3	3....3	3....3	3....3	3....3	2....3	3....3	3....4	49
[9]	Howse					1		1	1	3
[14]	Lumberd	2	1	2	2	2....1	1....1	1....1		14
[15]	Toms		1	1	1					3
[16]	Hunt	2....1	2....1	2....1	1....1	2....1	2....2	3	2....1	24
[24]	Pratt	1	1	1....1	1	1....1				7
[25]	Gybbs	1	......1	1	1....1	......1	1	1....1	......2	11
[26]	Robins	3....2	3....2	3....2	3....2	3....2	3....2	2....1	3....2	38
[28]	Howse	1....2		1....1		1....1	2....2	2....1	1....1	16
[32]	Rede			......1		......1				2
[34]	Watts					1	1	1	1....1	5
[60]	Suffolk		1	1		1				3
	Totals - male	14	12	15	12	15	12	14	11	105
	Totals - female	.....8.	......8	......9	......7	....11	....10	......7	....11	.....71
	Sub - totals	22	20	24	19	26	22	21	22	176

	Gentlemen
[8]	Woodrose N.		1....3	3....3	4....3	3....2	2....3	1....3	......3	34
[8]	Woodrose	3....2	......3	......3	......4	......2	......2	......3	......3	25
[21]	Holloway	4....3	3....3	3....3	4....3	4....3	,,(6).	..(6).		(450
[50]	Coldwell	4....3	3....2	4....3	5....2	4....3	4....2	3....5	4....2	53
	Totals - male	11	7	10	13	11	9	7	4	72
	Totals - female	......8	....11	....12	....12	....10	....10	....14	.....8	85
	Sub totals	19	18	22	25	21	19	21	12	157

Site	Surname	1613	1614	1615	1616	1617	1618	1619	1624	Total
		m....f	m....f	m....f	m....f	m....f	m....f	m....f	m....f
	Yeoman
[23]	Vaughan		......1	......1	......1			......1	......1	5
	Tradesmen
[1]	Palmer	......1						1....2		4
[5]	Hunt	1....1	1....1	1....1	......1	......1	1	1		10
[13]	Densey		1	1	1	1	1	......1		6
[13]	Wyatt	1	1....2	......2	......2	......1	......1	......2	......2	14
[39]	Tanner	......1	1....1	1....1	1	......1	......1	......1		9
[51]	Cross	......1	1....1	1....1	1....1	1....1	1	......1	1....1	13
[57]	Carter/Hill	1	......1	......1	......1				1	5
	Totals- male	3	5	4	3	2	3	2	2	24
	Totals- female	......4	......6	......6	......5	......4	......2	......7	......3	....37
	Sub totals	...7...	..11..	..10..	...8..	...6..	...5..	...9..	...5..	..61..
	Yearly totals-m	28	24	29	28	28	24	23	17	201
	Yearly totals-f	....20	....26	....28	....25	....25	....22	....29	....23	.198.
	Grand totals
	for all groups	..48..	..50..	..57..	..53..	..53..	..46..	..52..	..40..	.399.

The numbers employed by the year in Cropredy's households (a third of the town) fluctuated so that in 1624 they were down to forty, but at their highest in 1615 when fiftyseven were recorded. All these were over the age of eighteen. These numbers do not include family acting as staff, or those under sixteen. The backhouse boys and young maids are invisible as are the daily adult staff coming to the house and farm and employed as day labourers.

A few of the remaining years of the Reverend Holloway's records give the wages for his staff. A rare survival. These begin in 1613: