Page 619 PART V Details about furniture, furnishings and apparel which would have enriched descriptions of the houses and cottages in Part 4 have instead been gathered together into the following chapters for the Hall, Chambers, Service Rooms and Apparel. It was important to understand which articles were readily available or rare. In Part 4 the average number of adults was given for each property. The size going some way to determining the number of household items required in the preparation of food seen in the halls and service rooms. As the chapters have unfolded the following questions may have been asked. Was this family or that one collecting pewter, brass, stock or land to rise in status, or just to provide for the next generation? We have noticed the amount of land they have, their stock related to this land, whether they are young, achieving and increasing, or paying out family portions, decreasing and becoming poorer due to widowhood or just old age. This comes out in the last chapter when the older townsmen and women leave very little except for their clothes. Which house had the best apparel and can we tell who were the straight laced hardworking puritans from those who could have joined in with the maypole dancers? Their goods may help to strengthen the picture of a busy, reasonably prosperous town just before the civil war broke out on their doorstep. Page 620 |
Reconstruction of Three Halls [42,19 and 33]. |
|
Page 621 38. The Hall.
It is possible through inventories to count almost every sheet and table napkin, as well as their fire equipment which some Cropredy townspeople used and to discover that the majority of husbandmen had the above items and more, as well as many cottagers with little land, but to show this may prove a trifle tedious and long winded. In the late sixteenth century the smaller households store items all over the cottage, putting them in the bedchamber, over the stairs and when space ran out the tenant constructed a loft. Husbandmen and craftsmen alike had coffers made to protect their few clothes and napery, but many possessions ended up in odd corners due to the lack of cupboards. Outdoor clothes and horse gear were hung up on wooden pegs along with the last season's onions. The few shelves which were put up would hold a display of pewter. These were kept for best, rarely replacing the everyday wooden platters and spoons. Essential wooden vessels known as "cowpery ware," or treen were usually found "about the house." Wooden tools and objects met the eye at every turn. Boards were saved for three or four legged stools, forms, tables, beds and room partitions. Objects such as candle boxes, love spoons or lace bobbins made by the son or master and given as gifts were of such a low value they often went unmentioned in the inventories. Many Elizabethan women, but by no means all, expressed enthusiasm for all the bright primary colours competing for their attention especially in their apparel. A few added household comforts using materials suitable for their sewing and embroidery needles. Would Nicholas Woodrose [8], or his father bring cushions from London for Martha or Dyonice as Ralph Nuberry had done fifty years earlier for his little daughter Margery (p519)? Having local weavers available many townspeople would prefer to rely on them for cushions, curtains for the bed, blankets and "hillings" as well as sheets and other napery. The local carpenters may not have been asked to change their style from the plain household furniture to one of over carved chairs, tables and beds. The necessity of passing on all furniture to the next generation would keep the new ornate work to a minimum in husbandry circles. Their goods became family heirlooms and were not replaced by new pieces. Only younger sons might have to commission more articles, generally from the planks given to them by their father and made up locally before they left Cropredy. From the records and house survey the hearth was usually in the hall house, the cottager's main room. The families of Cropredy in from the fields sat at the table and remained there to entertain any guests. Everyone in the household was using this hall, but what was it really like? Page 622 The hall atmosphere must have altered once the hearth was taken from the middle of the room where it had been the centre of attention. The older generation believed the hearth had been demoted to a secondary position when it was now confined to a deep chimney recess on an outer wall, or backed onto the entry passage. This was much safer in small cottages and farms, but it had changed the whole appearance of the hall and the methods of working. Being too far inland from London, and none in the wealthier bracket, the fireplaces escaped the huge Elizabethan carved overmantels, so that a plain though chamfered timber bressumer formed the lintel which supported the chimneybreast. For the women this warm inglenook was soon to become a more convenient place to stack drying wood and furze. On the other side of the fire stood the pots and kettles needed to boil the water and cook the meal. When wood only was burnt the chimney proved the ideal place to smoke the sides of bacon. They built stone ovens within the chimney which cooked the weekly bread. Wall alcoves to hold the candle safely were usually positioned near doors and the hearth. Those alcoves which had a door were used to store salt. The miller Smyth [51] had a container instead and two salt barrels. The one which contained salt was worth 1s-8d. Over the fire was the place to hang weapons (above the spit rack), but not everyone could carry weapons. Militia men could, but servants were not allowed to before 1588. Until the local militia were desperately short of men it was thought inadvisable to allow anyone under a gentleman to hold firearms. Yeomen and husbandmen were expected to practice at the Butts with their bows and arrows. Nuberry [8] had in his sleeping chamber "a shotynge bowe and 8 arrowes 3s-4d" and Smyth [51] in 1595 had "a dagger, a bowe and six Arrowes" valued at 6s-8d in the hall and his holberde in the nether chamber off the entry were he may have slept. John Gardner had bows and arrowes worth 2s-6d in Bourton up to 1591 [39/2/13]. In 1599 Vaughan [23] had "a small gun," which could have been a recent addition. Thomas Cleredge of Great Bourton in 1639 left a sword and a "pistill" as well as his "Bibell" [MS.Will Pec.35/1/12]. Nuberry when he wasn't practicing at the Butts had "2 bolynge boles" 1s, but left no knowledge of where he played or with whom. In Smyths [51] hall was a great "whiche" worth 2s-6d, whose contents were interesting. It no longer sieved flour for he had turned it into a store for yarns and "certerne wool." Had he too begun to full cloth? He did have three other chests and Cross [51] later had seven. A miller would appear to have a lot to put away and chose to do so in his communal room. Woods [56] in their small cottage had no alternative but to make the best use of their only downstairs room. They had five chests in which to store necessary belongings. Occasionally an empty hen pen was stored in the hall, or did it hold the chicks? All kinds of articles were stored in the halls and overflowed, when they had them, into their other rooms. Relations and neighbours came into the hall so it was here they displayed the best pewter. This was one form of banking for as the children grew up they could be distributed as legacies, rather safer than sheep although stock naturally increased and pewter in famines decreased in value and had to be sold to provide food. At first the new stone walls went unplastered, though some would be limewashed. The stone, or good hard "clay" floor could be covered in winter with straw, or rushes and herbs in summer. No rugs or carpets, they were kept for the table, cupboard, bed or wall. Upstairs the recycled oak or new elm boards were also left exposed. Were the wooden, or plastered wattle and daub partitions left plain? The underneath of joists holding the upper floor over the hall might be painted, or left until "seelings" arrived. Wooden shutters were closed over the window holes, or glazed lights at dusk, and curtains drawn around the parents' standing bed in their chamber rather than across a window. The exception being at French's [4] where in 1617 they had "one curtin l--d rodd to the windoled." Page 623 A few houses may have painted pictures upon the wooden posts, partitions or painted walls, but none have survived except for fragments in the church. Moveable painted cloths which were hung up for decoration did get a mention in inventories (p642). The Reverend Harrison remarked that "The walls of our houses on the inner side...be either hanged with tapestries or Arras work or painted cloths." Hearth. The new stone chimneys brought the hearth into an inglenook. Some like Cattells [30] had two hearths. When Robins' [26] house was dismantled the hearth stones had been laid on a hard clay floor. The chimneys were wide and deep which at first allowed the weather to descend into the room. The fires often smoked until the chimney stones warmed up after which some members of the household would sit on the little "side benches," or on the "binch in the chimney." These were mostly wooden and moveable, but there had been stone ones let into the outer wall if the oven allowed. A fireback was used to reflect some of the heat. The printed hearth tax returns of 1665 show only thirteen households in Cropredy paying a tax. Two others were discharged from paying due to poverty. They all lived in substantial houses. This small number of hearths conflicted with the house survey evidence and other hearth tax returns were looked at. The 1663 list [PRO: E 179/255/4] had thirtythree households paying the two shilling tax on each hearth which was collected half yearly. It has already been noted that those not paying a church or poor rate were not eligible for the hearth tax as their cottage paid a years rent of less than 20s and they farmed less than half a yardland. Those who had less than £10's worth of chattels also escaped. The fact that the adjoining parish of Bourton had a larger proportion of households paying a hearth tax was because many more had purchased strips of land and therefore paid church rates. This did not mean that Bourton had more chimneys than Cropredy, but that more came into the rate paying bracket. The constable for 1663 was Solomon Howse [9], a man with an impeccable script. He had written down the names placing the four most important townsmen at the head of the list. He made "a true copy of all those that have already paid for their fire hearths and stoves," including not only the new stone chimneys with their hearths, but also the brewing furnaces. We now know that well over three quarters of the town had hearths and that many cottages with chimneys were excused payment. The list was written out alongside the 1613-1619 lists of householders. Family reconstitutions were used to bridge as many of the gaps from our period to 1663. The vicar's tithe accounts for 1669 which give the number of yardlands the tenants of Cropredy leased were also added. From this it was plain to see that Solomon Howse had followed the various vicar's written routes round the town which must have been standard procedure for most lists and he had called at only those who leased land. Howse skipped past the farm cottages and the craftsmen's copyhold dwellings, unless they had taken on land like Langley at Sutton's [42]. We could now be certain which properties, even if they had a hearth, would not be eligible for the tax [Appendix 3, p700, has the full tax list for 1663]. [NOTE: It did not clear up why only thirteen appeared two years later. That whole list of 1665 was in fact all mixed up with Wardington and Williamscote names and it was fortunate that other years have survived. Weinstock Maureen ed. Hearth Tax Returns for Oxfordshire 1665 (O.R.S. xxi, 1940)]. Page 624 By looking at the households in 1613-19 against those who had a hearth in 1663 it was soon discovered that plenty of evidence appears in their ancestors' inventories from 1577 to 1630, after which hearth equipment is seldom mentioned. Comparing these valuations with those craftsmen's inventories who would not pay rates it became evident that they too had similar equipment in the hall or kitchen. For those houses and cottages with no inventories we had to rely on the house survey to verify the fact that stone dwellings had an early chimney built into the inner supporting gable. A chimney on a gable end could of course have been added later. Many of the craftsmen in their new stone cottages and the husbandmen in their stone farm houses appear to have had a new chimney. It was found that twentyeight halls had fire tools and six of the twenty kitchens had a hearth. Ovens built in with the chimney by the landlord were standards to the house and receive very few mentions in tenants' records. Narrow houses or one cell cottages like Suttons [42] had the oven projecting outside, while Huxeley's jutted into the entry passage. Others with a centrally placed hearth had room for an oven and brewing copper on either side [8 & 30]. Coal. There would be far more than twentyeight households with cooking and fire equipment, but unfortunately women never act as appraisers and often all such equipment was put together as "other implements" or in a special section with the brass or pewter. Coal, another indicator of a chimney began to appear in the back yards. In three of Bourton's summer inventories they have fetched loads of coal while the roads were drier. Others took advantage of frozen roads for moving heavy loads. The vicar had no surviving inventory, but left this memo:
Between getting the hay in and the corn harvest Woodrose [8] cancelled it and a second agreement was made on June the 28th 1615 [c25/3 f2v & 3]. A load of coal was reasonably cheap, though very little at that time was mined and mainly needed for brewing and glass making. The cost to Thomas Holloway and George Gorstelow lay in the time taken up fetching it and supplying the horses and cart for transport. George Gorstelow of Great Bourton had brought back "four lodes of seacoal" worth 53s-4d by July 1624. How much would he charge for a journey, if his carts collected for others? In areas where no carts were used, packhorses were kept to move the coal. No-one mentions a donkey for carrying goods. There are two other references to the vicar's coal. The lessees of the rectorial tithes had to provide the vicarage with three loads of coal a year. Thomas in 1612 had it brought in from "Bedworthe or some other convenient place wheare seacoles or pittcoales are to be solde." The vicar obviously did not find three loads sufficient in 1614 when he was intending to do all that malting and brewing which was why he had to negotiate with Woodrose for more. Hall [6] and latterly two of Holloway's sons were the "farmers" of the rectorial tithes so which had the responsibility for the coal carrying? Or could it be Hunt [5] the other rectorial tenant? The next reference in 1630 was when the Reverend Brouncker lived at Ladbrook and did not take any more than two loads (Would the third go to his curate?). In this year the coal came from Wednesbury in Staffordshire [MS. dd Par Cropredy c31 item a, 1612 & 1630]. The term seacole alongside pit coal must mean that the sea, a major means of getting the coal to London, had become attached to coal so that coal collected by cart also came to be called "seacole." Page 625 The coal required a grate and the first of thirteen appear in 1602 at R. Watts [34], 1603 at Robins [26], and in 1609 at Hunts [16], and Pratts [24]. Up to 1635 the following houses had them: Watts the weaver [27], Cross the miller [51], the mercer Tanner [39], Pare the collarmaker [58] and Wyatt [31] the farrier. Five husbandmen and two gentlemen left coal which needed a grate they had not recorded: French [4], Cattell [30], Suffolk [60], Lyllee [29], Lumberd [14], the vicar [21] and Woodrose [8]. Grates were valued at 2s each. The rest escape a mention of coal not because they did not use it, but had none remaining when the inventory was made. In 1628 Suffolks [60] had "one 3 qrtrus of coale" 10s. Tanner two years later had one and three quarter "lodes," £1, and again five years later Lumberds had coal worth £1. The only "colehouse" recorded was at Prescote Manor. In April 1621 Gorstelow's kept "coles" worth 30s and other items in that coal house. Wood
Throughout the centuries no-one used a light, or fire unnecessarily and all would save every twig, chip and pole of wood that came their way. The lops and tops from trees could be further supplemented with the trimmings from hedges, but there was still a shortage. Underwood could be purchased from more fortunate parishes with larger coppice woods than they required, but again the transport costs brought up the price. They kept their furze and fire wood in the yard, or upon a hovel roof. Furze was needed to heat the oven before baking. Cross [51] had kept wood over his oven, perhaps to dry it. Those who smoked their bacon in the chimney must do so with hedge wood. In 1592 John Kynd [31] had "three lodes of wood" worth 10s. Palmer [59] in 1606 had "hovills, wood and furze" £2. Justinian Hunt [16] had two woodpiles with other timber and "offell" wood valued at £8. The sheer size of those two woodpiles equal in value to a flock of twentyfour ewes! In the cowpen upon a second hovel there was more wood and the "flaggetts" stored on it were worth £1-10s-4d. The Hunt family did a lot of cooking and had three spits to choose from as they catered for their large household. Lucas [2] had old fire wood and so did Fenny [43]. Faggots came in parcels of "kiddes." In 1690 when Solomon Howse [9] died (the constable who wrote such an excellent script for the hearth tax of 1663) he had over reached and left more debts than assets and all had to be sold up. The purchaser would bargain for a price going by quality, bulk, scarcity or just by weight. One parcel of kiddes was valued at 2s-6d and one hundred and half of kiddes came to 12s. A hundred of kiddes 7s, "forty kiddes" 2s-3d and one parcel of thorns 5s. There were also parcels of bushes, and old hedge wood worth 8s. One household alone required more than four hundred of kiddes as well as other hedge wood, but there was only the labour of collecting it at the end of a long day's hedgelaying. Only! In all probability the entire household would be out filling the cart to bring home the toppings. Those without a cart or sledge brought bundles home on their backs. Elderson [38] on his half yardland parcel had collected furze kiddes and stored the bundles in his barn. Page 626 Firetools and Cooking Implements.
If a household had a hearth they soon acquired something to hang the pot from. The open hearth had a chain and hook hanging from a roof beam. The pothanger was a piece of iron attached to the chimney from which to hang the pothooks. Thirtyfive pothooks and thirtynine pothangers are recorded, but appraisers at nine of the households ignore the pothook. Seven of the hangers were called ironhangers. Also mentioned were three links or chains suspended from their hangers. The wrought iron pothooks were adjustable and often elaborate in design. The rachet type arrived first and allowed the hook to be moved nearer or away from the heat. Later a hook and eye method was used where the hook slotted into various holes on a bar.
Thirtyfive pairs of andirons and cobirons were found up to 1632. Andirons were large fire dogs supporting spits for roasting meat in front of the fire. Cobirons (cobberds) were long bars leaning back at an angle so that spits could be fitted over their hooks. Someone had to turn the spit. The women placed a dripping pan underneath to catch the clear fat which was then used to spread on the bread. The spit was a long thin bar kept for roasting the meat which was held in position by spikes, or cords. When not in use they placed the bars on a spit rack fastened to the chimney breast. They used goose grease to keep spits from rusting. As andirons stood higher than the grate they allowed the fire to be banked up to give a stronger roasting heat. They also held the grate and supported a fire back which helped to throw the heat forward.
The first surviving inventory for the 1570's belonged to the late widow Elizabeth Gybbs [25?] who was buried on the first of January 1576/7. The Gybbs had a hearth in a room they called the kitchen:
In May of that year "Elyzabeth Howse, wedowe which was the wyffe of Thomas Howse of Cropredy" [9] made a hasty will being buried two days later. Her household used to roast their meat on the "ij Iron spitts and a peare of cobirons iijs iiijd." The third Cropredy widow still managing her farm in the 1570's was the Widow Johan Robins [26] who made her will six months before she died in February 1578/9. Her equipment for cooking was in the hall where she had "a spit a paire of cobbards a payre of pothuckes a paire of pothangers...iijs iiijd." Page 627 In 1603 her son Robert Robins [26] had in the south chamber below the entry ".. iij spitts ij payre of cobbards..." In the hall were "potthangels potthooks a grediron/ fyre shule, tongs, a fyrefoke and/ a payre of Bellowes iiijs/ an yron grate ijs." Fireforks for toasting bread were seldom mentioned. Robins had a kitchen, but the chimney arrived after his death. When their son was married in 1611 Robert's widow Joanne moved into the south bay of the house leaving the rest to her son Robert and his wife Anne, except her customary third of the lease. In this entry chamber where she sat Joanne had on her hearth "...one fier shovell and tongs and Cobirons..." In 1631 it was revealed that Anne had used the hearth in the hall and Robert had turned his late mother's room into the best chamber keeping a pair of andirons in the hearth. They had added a new chimney in the rear kitchen where Anne and her maid used "...two paire of pott hangles/ one payre of Cobirons one/ fyer shovell & tongs/." A peel was used for taking the bread out of the oven (p665). Here was a household which could choose to use either an old iron pot, or a new brass pot to cook in, a roasting spit for joints or an oven for baking. Two years earlier their neighbour Thomas Gybbs [25] still had "two spitts one paire of Cobirons" in the rear kitchen. On the hall hearth were "...two paire/ of pott hooks one paire of Cobirons/ one paire of pott linkes one fire shovell one/ paire of tonges..." Another neighbour was Thomas Vaughan [23], whom Gybbs had requested to be one of his three overseers. Vaughan's had a spit and a pair of andirons in the kitchen chimney as early as 1599, but they also had "one payre of potthooks an Iron hangell a greediron and a frying pan iiijs viijd" in the hall. The iron "hangell" coming from a beam in the roof over their open hearth. In 1617 the French household definitely had two hearths [4]. Thomas had a grate in the hall with bellows, firetongs and a shovel. In the kitchen "2 spitts one brandiron 2 pairs of/ potthucks one paire of Andirons one greed Iron..." definitely denotes a cooking hearth which was confirmed by the mention of bacon in the kitchen chimney. The appraisers found they also had "7 brass potts 4 kettles one/ Brass pan one Chussin dishe one skimer one brass ladle..." with other brass and pewter in the chamber below the entry. Was this a third hearth, or an alternative store to the kitchen, in spite of it being a sleeping chamber? Of the tradesmen Edmund Tanner's [39] second wife Constance had hung onto his older ironwork pot for one of the appraisers Ambrose Holbech wrote under a heading of Ironware: "One iron pott two paire of pott/ hangles, one grate, two paire of/ Andirons spitts and all other im/ plements of iron ..." £1-15s. Just one more of the many hearths we could visit was at the Upper Mill. Cross [51] had in his hall "a payre of Andyrons a fyre grate a payre/ of tongs a payre of potthangers and an olde/ payre of fetters & a payre of pothokes" 4s. Gillian kept their spits, cobirons, kettles, pots and other cooking utensils tidily in the buttery when not in use. Kettles, Pots and Pans. The most important pieces of fire equipment were the brass kettles, pots and pans, all now beginning to replace the iron cooking pots, though Tanners, miller Smyth [51] and Woodrose [8], still had iron pots in their possession. They found that the greater heat from coal used on the chimney grates burnt through the iron pots. Normans, with their open wood fire, could keep the traditional iron pot and equipment: "..one paire of potthooks/ & lincks one Iron pott one paire/ of bellowes one spitt..." up to the time Richard died in March 1634. Thomas Wyatt of Creampot [31] who died a year later would, being a blacksmith, repair his ironware consisting of "one Iron pott/ three spitts and Iron hangings/ one Irongrate...", but his wife Ursula was also using five brass kettles and three brass pots. Page 629 As early as 1577 Elizabeth Gybbs managed without a kettle having "iij bras pots and ij braspans and a little possonit xls," but amongst the Cropredy inventories of our period there were sixtythree brass kettles. These were prize possessions and left frequently in wills, long before the 1550's, especially to daughters or grand daughters. Their kettles and pots vary in size and quality. Great ones and little ones, the best, the second best and the worst. After writing down the main brass at Allens [44] they considered one was special. "One kettle more xs." Others like Suffolks [60] which were separately valued are helpful. "one brasse pot 0-7-0/ one little kettle 0-6-0/ one brasse pann 0-3-0." When brass was given in a lump sum for a household [1,9,20,27,33, 42,49,52,56] then only a mention in their will can reveal the size or value of some items. One of these was William Howse [9] who left Solomon "my greatest brass pot." His total brass was worth £3 in 1601. Six years later at Toms [15] on the Green the appraisers found "the biggest kettle wth handles vs/ iij kettles more..." A year later the collarmaker John Pare [58] left "2 brass potts & four kettells xvjs." Cropredy kettles:
Some like old Fremund Denzie [28] held onto a family pot although he would not have been cooking. It was worth ten shillings in 1609. Several items would go into the pot. First some meat covered in a flour paste and wrapped in a cloth. Over this an earthenware pot balanced on a board well drilled with holes to allow heat to pass through. Into the earth pot went meat to make a soup and to prevent it drying out they sealed the lid with a strip of pastry. If there was more space in went an earthen jar to hold vegetables and meat, with a lid held in place by a weight. A stone made a good one. Above this towards meal time went a cloth of peas hung from a strip of wood. In the open fire days this stood on a trivet, or from a hook attached to a long chain fixed to a roof beam. In the new chimneys it hung from the pot hook. Posnets were another kind of small metal cooking pot. They had a handle attached to the rim and stood on three short legs resembling a miniature cauldron. Widow Howse had one in 1578 [9] but five more are mentioned up to 1628. The majority came after 1630 [3,4, 9,14,15,16,24,25,34,39,45,51]. Some would have been used to make light food for the sick or else for boiling sauces, caudles and possets. As time went by the rim widened and the base flattened. Skillets were rarer, but were possibly just another name for a posnet. Wallsell [13], Hunt [16] in 1609 and Cross [51] had one each, Woodroses [8] kept two. John Hunt had eight little "skellets" in 1587 as well as a cooking pot of unknown size and type called a dabnet. Nuberry [8], Toms [15] and Howse [28] all had a dabnet and then they vanish. Page 629 |
Number of Cooking Pots in Cropredy. |
 |
Page 630 Grid-irons were iron grates, square or round with short legs and a handle for boiling food over an open fire: [1,8,15,16,23, 26,28,31-33,44,51,55]. Only one brandiron was found away from the fire [55]. A brandiron was an iron tripod to stand in front of a fire like a grid iron (or else it was a tool used to brand sheep). Watts [27], Rawlins [45] and the two Howse's [28] kept the brandiron by the fire. The frying pans, often used like grid irons, appear at Redes [32], Robins [26] twice, Hurst, Palmer [1], Pare [58], Cross [51], Bokingham [55], Rawlins [45], and Cattell [30]. A frying pan could also double as a dripping pan. In 1628 Gybbs' frying pan was worth two shillings [25]. Seventeen households used chafing dishes. These were all connected with farms and mills except Normans [48], which may have passed down to his daughters. This was a dish placed on a small container, a chafer. Into the chafer went charcoal or hot ashes to keep a late comer's food warm. Very understandable during lambing, harvest time, or when the mill could not be stopped [1,4,8,14,15,16,23,24,25,26,28,48]. Spire mortars were at Palmers [1], French [4], Lumberd [14] Cross [51] and Hunt's [16], and who else but Justinian Hunt must also have a pestle to go with his round mortar, though there had been one other at Nuberry's [8] way back in 1578. All would need ladles of some sort, but only four had brass ones: Fabian Smyth [51], French [4], Woodrose [8] and Lumberds [14]. Fabian also had a "broode pece of iron to bake on." Did he cook his oat cakes on it? These were passed down from the days when there were few town ovens. The women would put the dough on the heated iron and invert a pan on top over which hot ashes were placed to make an oven. The other item of fire equipment usually left out for being of little monetary value was Fabian's tinderbox. Fires could not be kept in permanently, though keeping ashes warm by covering them meant they would soon catch. In the event of a dead hearth a tinderbox was very useful to start a flame, closely followed by use of the bellows. In thirty minutes a small kettleful of water might be boiling. Elsewhere it has been stressed that if their inventories mention fire equipment, kettles and pots then the deceased had retained their hold over the fire and had remained master or mistress of their household, except for the pot belonging to old Fremund Denzie [28], or the few saved for legacies outside that household [14]. The rest of the equipment would probably be wooden or earthen, but generally too low to receive a mention, though a few such as Johan Robins [26] had in 1579 "certayne earthern pottes and a pan js/ certayne disshes and trenchers iijd." Richard Howse [24] left dishes and trenches worth iiijd. The following year of 1602 Rychard Watts [34] had "the dishes boles suters cheesevatts spoones and trenchers" valued at iijs and followed them with "the cowpery ware" worth ixs so he must have had a great deal down there in his ashlar stone house. In contrast the miller Palmer in 1606 left "spoones dishes trenchers ladle xijd." Suffolk [60] in 1628 left "one earthen milk pan and/ three potts of earth 0-1-3" and Toms [15] had five "earthern potes" amongst his effects. Many households had a pen like a coffer, but woven in willow by the local basket maker. In 1597 the Hursts [52] had "a pen with all the treene vessels iijs iiijd." By storing their wooden utensils in an early hamper the Hursts allowed the air to circulate freely amongst the dry wooden plates and kitchenware. Tables, Chairs, Benches, Forms and Stools. Page 631
A household was made up of all those for whom the head provided board and lodging as well as apparel. In over half the houses the master sat in the chair at the head of the table board. His lodging chamber was beyond the hall and in the new stone buildings the rest of the household, apart from his wife, generally slept upstairs, unless a senior generation were still under the roof needing downstairs accommodation. The family ate in the hall on a long table board. At first most of these were supported upon trestles, but this word disappears after 1601. In 1592 Hanwell's [34] inventory particularly mentions that his table in the hall was "unjoyned." Joined tables were on frames, called like Toms' "my standing table." They had long been around and gradually replaced the collapsible ones. Most table frames had mortise and tenon joints, each with willow pegs left proud underneath. There were stretchers near the floor and under the board. The lower stretchers helped to keep the floor rushes from being rucked into piles by the feet. Generally oak was used for the board, but other woods are mentioned in Banbury inventories, and the boards came in many sizes. The table would be a little away from the fire so as not to hinder preparations. The position of the table in the room was important and in grand households it was placed at the top of the hall away from the entrance. In other households the standing table was kept by the window. The family sat along the sides on forms, or benches. Children often had a stool or sat on the window seat. When the older trestle tables were collapsed, they turned towards the fire. When Rechard Howse [28] died in 1592 they already had a table with a frame: "In the haule on[e] table withe the frame iij forms and the binche vjs viijd." William Watts' [27] will of 1616 mentions an extra table and frame in the chamber and two joined frames. As the last two are not in the inventory, does this mean that occasionally goods were removed before the inventory was taken? Thomas Toms'[15] inventory records his second table in the hall to be "a back table and a bench," which Thomas had left to their daughter Isabell saying "the table and two benchbords in the hall" in 1607. Could the table tip up and become a back bench? Fashionable tables in the countryside during Elizabeth's reign had straight legs if jointed. Local carpenters like Lucas [2] and Elderson [38] may not have begun to carve huge bulbous legs, or make vast over carved four posters, preferring to keep to an older style. Harrison who frowned upon excess in apparel nevertheless considered this beautifully plain wood as "base kinds of furniture." The first round table appeared in 1578 at Nuberry's which had a frame and so did Hunt's and Woodrose's [8, 16, 8]. Robins [26] had a little one in 1603 and in Nuberry's hall he had a small "fallyne table" valued with "a Joyned cheyre" and "a small Joyned stole" at 1s-8d. Three falling or folding tables found first at Nuberry's [8,26,16] were usually gate-legged with their two sides able to fall down. The three turning or turning-up tables from 1624 onwards [56,60,14] were all of very little value. Could Suffolk's [60] have been brought from widow Woods [56] and put in the kitchen by his moulding table? Only two square tables are recorded. Pares [58] left one in 1610 without a frame or trestles, and Cross's had one in 1614. There was no indication of size. Three side tables at [31,43,9] and the two dish benches [28,9] were used for side boards for pewter or wooden tableware. The earliest was being used before 1592. Page 632 Lastly there were four long tables on permanent legs [16,51,58,51]. Smyth's long table in his hall may have stayed at the mill and moved by Cross into the parlour during his tenancy:
Fortyeight inventories mention chairs on thirtytwo sites so that they were found in the following households [1,3,4,8,13-16,20,24-28,30,31,34,38-40,42,44,45,47-49,51,55-57,59,60]. They had a solid back, a wooden seat and open arms. A carpenter could add a coffer under the seat. We now understand why people made cushions and the spread of these useful additions to the household appeared in due course. Eight houses had two chairs and Woodrose [8] had five as well as those his wife Martha and family had been upholstering to produce three needlework chairs and three needlework stools. Hall had no chair at the bottom of Creampot [34], relying on the bench, yet there had been a chair when Rychard Watts died under that thatched roof in 1602. The old widower Richard Norman [48] in Church Street did not have a chair either, but when his son-in-law Thomas Hudson died three years later in the same cottage they recorded one. Suffolk's "joyne cheare" was worth 3s. Ambrose Holbech is a trifle patronising about Suffolk's goods and stock calling them broken, old or blind, but as he rarely adds "Joyned" to an article, this chair must have been different and known to have been made by a joiner. The age and quality is difficult to assess. Furniture was classed as either joined, or one of little value, which could be purchased from a local carpenter, or homemade. The only other mention of a joined chair was Nuberry's in 1578 and this may have been because it was a manor house and people were interested in every detail that issued from that inventory, or else the widow stressed the joined to the appraisers. There were households with old chairs such as Widow Bryans who was buried in 1578 from her timber cottage on the north side of Church Street [47], Wallsall the blacksmith [13] on the Green and Smyth the miller in 1595 [51]. By 1627 Widow Robins [26] had been confined to home for some time and after twentyfour years as a widow the chair was "old." Did she have a banker (rug) thrown over the chair? Besides the wooden chair in the parlour Edmund Tanner had an unusual wicker chair in 1630, but by then it was kept in the store chamber above the parlour and dairy house (p408) [Banbury had four and the earliest was mentioned in 1616. B.H.Soc. Vol.13]. In the early inventories when forms had acquired a back they were called backbenches [25,26,32]. Later there were 21 just called benches, except for Vaughan [23] and Kynd's [31] who had side benches. When Wyatt took over Kynd's in the 1620's they place benches in the hall, parlour and parlour chamber beside the fireplaces. Devotions [3] had two little benches. Did they fit inside their inglenook as Rychard Howses did [28] when they had "the chayre the stooles and the binche in the chimney" worth a shilling. Benches were recorded at: [1,3,4,14-16,25,26,28,31,33,34,42-45,48,49,51,55,60]. Page 633 The forms set by the tables and the benches covered in mats or cushions near the fire could be very comfortable. In an old village inn in Ceredigion all the Elizabethan benches were still in use up to 1990. One by the inglenook fire had a coffer under the seat kept locked by the owner. In here her ancestors had stored precious household commodities, such as tea and sugar. The seats all had coloured cushions, or mats, except her ancient stools which fitted under the long table. Would Cox [49], Densey [13], Bostocke [41], or Bokingham [55] have presented an equally cosy room to welcome customers? Forms were found on thirtysix sites. According to Vaughan's will he left one in the buttery, but the inventory of 1599 has only one in the hall. At the upper mill Smyth had a form under the window as well as five "unto" the long table. The next miller had four. Forms found in the town:
Stools were mostly three legged rough affairs, but a few had professionally made stools. At Nuberry's [8] they had two joined stools and a standing one. Allen [44] also had two joined stools, and Smyth [51] the miller had "one Joyned stoole and another stoole a frame for a stoole... and two little smale stooles in the haule..." Nine others had three or more, and eight had at least two. In 1641 Solomon Howse [9] the shepherd had "3 joyned stooles" valued with other hall furniture and "two matted stooles three/ other stooles 3s," but no chair or bench. Pare's [58] appraiser found five "serry" stools worth a shilling in his kitchen. Were these for his collarmakers to sit on? At the B manor Woodrose [8] had twelve stools and altogether there were seventythree stools mentioned between 1577 and 1640 at eighteen houses:[1,4,8, 14,16,18,23,25,26,29,31,33,34,42,44,47,51,58]. Tablecloths and Napkins. Tablecloths and napkins are believed to be rare in households below a yeomans. This turned out to be not true in Cropredy for cottagers as well as husbandmen had purchased them, or spun yarn to have one woven. Many still refer to them as "Bordclothes." Their value is usually lost with the sheets and other linen, but Wallsall [13] had two tablecloths and a towel worth 6s in 1582. Palmer [1] had one valued at 3s in 1602. A tablecloth was often just a narrow draw cloth which would be removed once the messier part of the meal had been finished. The main dish, bread and saucers containing spices and sauces were placed upon it. A larger tablecloth provided another means of display when it was kept out between meals, especially if they could not replace it with a table "carpet." Page 634 We know nothing of the size of the tablecloths given in the inventories and little about their quality. Only Martha's the wife of Nicholas Woodrose [8], gentleman, are given in any detail. The diaper cloth had a twill pattern made from unbleached linen thread:
Thirtytwo sites had tablecloths and twentyseven families had napkins. Three of those who had cloths, but no napkins to match or even one in the coffer, lived at [15,27 and 38]. Widow Gybbs [25?] as early as 1577 had four tablecloths and one table napkin. Robins [26] in 1631 had eleven and his father six. Cross [51] kept seven, Tanner [39] six, while Lumberd Senior [14], Pratt and Alese Howse[24 & 28] had four each. Eight households had three, fourteen owned two and eleven kept just one precious tablecloth. The highest number of napkins were at Woodrose's who had seventyone, next came Robins with fiftysix. Five had twentyfour, three about eighteen, four owned twelve leaving twenty others with from one up to eleven in their coffers. In 1602 half a dozen at Palmers came to 3s, but the value at the Kynds differed between 1592 and 1598. John Kynd left eight napkins and a tablecloth valued at 10s, yet Alyce had three napkins worth a shilling and two extra tablecloths. An expensive towel, new to the house, was valued at 4s. If napkins reserved for entertaining were not to be spoilt by grease, then a bowl and towel were brought round for washing the fingers. Most would have a wooden bowl (using beeswax to waterproof it) and a leather jug, but they were being replaced by pewter bowls, or the gentlemen's silver bowls. In the absence of forks frequent cleansing of the fingers was very necessary as food was still served in a communal dish for everyone to help themselves with their fingers. Most guests brought their own personal knife. Every place would be set with a wooden or horn spoon except in the households which had enough pewter, or silver (p675). Spoons and knives for the table were first used in the sixteenth century. Only the cook had a fork. Soup was served on the table in a central bowl unless a deep trencher, or bowl was available at each place. The wooden square trenchers were hollow on both sides so they could be turned over for a second course, and had mostly replaced the flat, square, but coarse piece of barley bread which could be eaten at the finish, left for the servants, or taken to the poor at the back door. John Hunt [16] in 1587 had progressed to wooden trenchers. Horns were used for drinking cups and many would have made their own horn spoons, but these too escape a mention. The few who had glasses, such as the Woodroses [8] would pass the glass from one to the other. In their "clossetts" they had shelves, glasses, trenchers and other implements worth 3s-4d. Towels described in Martha's [8] napery record were listed as diaper, holland, flaxon or hempen: "one longe diap towell, one short/ diap towell, two short hollan towells ... two longe flaxen towells, one/ long hempen towell..." Towels were found in thirtytwo other inventories covering twentyfour houses. Page 635
On some sites the hall remained the centre of the house through several generations. Others, such as Hunt and Truss who had longhouse type dwellings, had begun by 1609 to call it the "hall house" perhaps continuing to distinguish the essential house part of their building from the barn. In the last quarter of the sixteenth century the hall began to loose its important status if the head of the household moved his chair to the parlour. A century later in these dwellings the "hall" was dropped and called simply the "house" [15,16,25,31,53]. Towards the end of the seventeenth century another much older word was coming back, the "firehouse" [9, 12, 51]. Different words were used to describe the main rooms, so that in the northern pasture regions they wrote about "house, parlours and dairies" [family records], while in the southeast the inventories refer to the "hall, chamber and milk house." In northern Oxfordshire with its mixed arable and dairy farming the terms are assorted, some calling the dairy the deyhouse, deahouse, or using the buttery instead (p660), which opened off the hall. Only Gorstelows of Prescote Manor are known to have had a larder [1621] which was a place to store pig meat. The pantry for storing bread was also absent, until the second half of the seventeenth century when Wyatt had one in Hello [60], but a few made do with "Lindy cubbords" in the hall (p654), or a shelf in the buttery. Halls in the Town. Types of furnishing which once only brightened up the gentlemen's halls arrived late in Cropredy to go straight into the parlour chamber as some members of the husbandman's family began to withdraw from the hall. This was shown in several inventories which prove the head of the household had moved the chair from the hall to the parlour. At the other extreme were a few inventories which did not explain the whereabouts of the goods they described for every now and again the appraisers had to admit defeat as they did at the John Kendall's cottage in the busy month of June 1596. Within three days four were to die and after burying John they went to make a "note" of his possessions, but failed to value them or even sign it, the writer concluding with the words "other things wch I could not count or sight of." The thatching tools lay amongst a fairly adequate amount of belongings. It was not work to be undertaken while faint from hunger. The town was in the middle of a very bad period and their harvest looked like being another poor one. Would this have contributed to Kendall's sudden departure due to poor health, or actual starvation so that there was no time for a will, and been the reason why the appraiser had not had the energy or the time to draw up a proper inventory room by room? Fortunately the rest of the inventories were able to tell us more about the halls between 1570 and 1640. Cross the miller, weaver Watts and William Wood all had halls yet their usage differed. Cross [51] retreated to his parlour in the new fashion, but the Watts [27] still sat in their hall, partly because a married daughter needed a chamber and the shop took up one whole bay. The Woods [56] in their one cell cottage had no choice. By the time the Woodroses [8] had divided up their large house the hall was not a sitting place for parents or the son's family. Lumberds [14] had to divide the house when Edward junior became ill. Father had the parlour and the son slept with Alice in the hall, where they could keep him warm. Page 636 The presence or absence of cushions may be a clue as to where they sat after a meal. Retiring to a chamber or remaining in the hall by the dying fire, according to the time of year. Cushions were becoming fashionable in rural areas by the 1570's. They were not confined over the following seventy years just to manor houses which were collecting cushions and carpets in the ladies' chambers. Up to 1577 in widow Gybbs' chamber were four painted cloths which she would hang on the walls, as they already had old "hangells" for the bedstead. In her hall Elizabeth had several items including her three "cusseons" which helped to brighten up her room. The widow's bench had a mat which may have been long and narrow to fit the seat. These rare bench mats were seldom mentioned in Cropredy and with the two chest mats were valued at 10d. Here was a house displaying coloured pictures and brightly woven mats. No puritan this Elizabeth Gybbs with her carpet and picture cloths on the wall, one of which was described as a "grene cloath":
Ralph Nuberry [8] died in 1578. He had a large hall and kept all manner of things in it:
Page 637 Like everyone else the Nuberry's cooked on the hall fire, were fed at the table and displayed their pewter upon open shelves. The soap (seldom mentioned) was kept in here, for the mother or her maid washed the youngest of the nine children in front of the fire and their clothes went into a tub using the hot water from the kettle hung over the fire. The rinsing was probably taken outside to rinse in a tub by the well. Nuberry's as early as the 1570's had moved some comforts from the hall to brighten up the Great Chamber. There they hung a carpet of red and black work valued at 8s on the wall and added six "cusseons" worth a pound. In the south bay parlour were two more "cusseons" worth 1s. Moving on in time and round to the corner of the High Street with Newstreet Lane we call again upon the Robins in their hall [26]. Joanne nee Cox asked the vicar, John Gybbs and Edmund Tanner to act as appraisers after her husband Robert died in September 1603. The three men arrived on the sixth of December. Apart from their hearth tools they had in the hall:
This house still lacks the comforts of the manor houses. The older generation of Robins had apparently not purchased, or embroidered any bright materials, though they were not entirely devoid of colour for one bed had a pair of yellow blankets with a white one. Not all Elizabethans loved colour for some puritans did not tempt fate preferring sombre greys and simplicity. Not for them the brilliant reds, bright blues and yellows. Another type of household may be reflected not in their wealth, but in the succumbing to minor comforts as simple as a coloured blanket thrown over the hard bench, or an embroidered cushion on a chair. The Robins did not lack equipment around the fire and the bedsteads had feather or wool beds, bolsters, pillows and hillings, but until Joanne's son married the vicar's daughter, no cushions. Does this mean that the Holloways [21] went in for cushions and carpets (p640)? Returning to the Green [15] the next family to visit did not aspire to being anything but husbandmen until a William Toms died a yeoman in 1750. In 1685 their landlord wrote in a letter to his bailiff "Be favourable to Will Tomms if he do not pay all his Rent at this instant for I look on him as a good honest tenant yt is careful [Boothby Letters: Add. MS. 71961]. The Toms continue into the nineteenth century, by which time all the others families had departed. A steady hard working husbandman's family. Thomas Toms, the grandfather of honest Will Tomms, made a will in 1607 in which he left careful instructions for his daughter to have his hall "cubbord," table and two benchboards as well as his new kettle. A grandson was to have "my standing table in the hall," a form and a chair, after his wife's decease. Thomas left a press, but this had gone when his wife Johan's inventory was taken, for she was already beginning to pass on goods to the next generation. Of the two coffers, only one remains, but an extra chest lay in her chamber not mentioned in her husband's inventory. The chair and standing table, the one with a joined frame, and a form had also gone. Johan was still farming part of the land, still cooking at the fire whose equipment had increased, or had it just been missed out earlier in her husband Thomas's inventory? Page 638 In her own will of 1609 Johan Toms continues to distribute her personal estate, including her cow and sheep, though her final total of just over twentyone pounds was fifteen lower than her late husband's. Thomas Toms inventory showed they had:
All essentials yet nothing elaborate and cushions still not appearing in this frugal household. His widow Johan split up the small farmhouse allowing her son the use of the hall. The upper and lower chambers were still assessed for her belongings and the fire equipment had remained in her possession:
A few extra items, but no cushions, and yet even here some colour had crept in with her painted cloth. Was it new in contrast to the furniture which was all old? Could Johan have allowed herself this one luxury? What a contrast with the Hunts [16] next door. They are gatherers of equipment, but even they are still without mats, rugs, and cloths. Justinian must have been energetic to achieve what he did. Two generations later their fortunes tumbled into arrears under the same landlord who had heard in 1683 that the tenant Hunt was a "good husband and hath a good trade... I leave it to your discretion to secure his rent and arrers and not ruine him nor dyscourage his industry" [Boothby letters:Add. MS. 71961]. Back in 1609 Justinian Hunt had taken ill from the fever and died within days. Although sixty he was still in the second stage and farming to the full. He had equipment worth £4 -17s in his Hall House, which was considerably more than the Toms:
Page 639 Justinian's wife Elizabeth had died in 1599. Had they purchased the second chair for her when she became ill? Whatever the reason the Hunts had two chairs, but where were the six cushions his father John had left in 1587? Still no mention of "cubbord cloths" or woven bench mats, perhaps his late wife had not had time to make any. Who did have early cushions? In Creampot the Kynds [31] had "3 quishins" when John died in 1592 and which widow Alyce could place on the master's old chair now she was mistress of the household. Down the Lane Rychard Watts [34] left "certaine quisheons xijd" and "a painted cloth ijs" in 1602. The next to leave some was Alese [28] at the top of Creampot. Alese Howse [28] like Justinian Hunt and many others died suddenly in 1609. One reason for the large personal estate was the fact that she still had not had to portion it up for her children (p115) and the family had naturally remained the same size after the death of her husband Rechard. If Alese had died in the third stage with just a cow and a few belongings in her son's best chamber, then a great deal would be missing. Her hall did not have many objects of value for the money was tied up heavily in stock and corn where it mattered most. Notice they still do not mention table knives or forks only spoons. Alese's chopping knives and the cleaver would be needed to dispatch the bacon pigs. She kept these knives in the hall probably hung up on the wall. They would sharpen them on the outside wall. After the porch was built it looks as though they used the wall near the front door to sharpen blades. Where did she keep the clean cooking pots? Not beside the fire, but in the "Dea House and Butterie" as Johan Toms and the Cross's do. In there she had three brass pots and six kettles, a chaffinge dish and a dabnet worth £2. The goods seem to be stored in a methodical manner in Alese's house leaving space in the hall for cooking and eating:
It was in the Lodging Chamber that "a peece of newe Cloath a peece of sackon and 6 chushings" worth xs were found with her bedstead, six coffers and a press. Could the cushions be doubling up as pillows? In spite of being only in her forties this mistress who was busy from dawn to dusk could retire to the comfort of those cushions. Of course the cushions may have been partly to display the needlework and brighten up the room. They were not out in the hall where old uncle Fremund now in his seventies would sit after his day with the sheep. Page 640 Down Round Bottom the collarmaker John Pare [58] left three cushions in his chamber, though he had already three bolsters which was more than Alese had, though she had two bolster ticks waiting for feathers or wool. At the upper mill [51] just up the road from Pare's the miller John Cross's Joane or Ellen had furnished the parlour rather than the hall and on the bench rested four "chussyons." Did they match the bed curtains hanging from the tester? They already had a bolster and a pillow, so their cushions were for sitting on. The French's [4] had hung curtains to the window in their hall and added three "Cushings" by 1617. There are several husbandmen whose inventories have not survived, but fortunately eight other households do record cushions. As cushions were fast becoming fashionable in rural areas it was hoped some would be found at weaver William Watts [27] when an inventory had to be taken there in 1616. William had "One cubberd one fforme two chayres/ & a skreene half a dozen chussions xiiijs" in his hall. Weavers must leave the warp ends on the people's cloth to prove he had held nothing back, but with his own cloth he would use them up for less important articles than blankets and hillings. Here was a man and wife both able to weave material for cushions, stool covers, board and cupboard cloths for sale. Had they followed the fashion or set it off around the town? They were not poor by any means at this stage, still owning their looms, but being indoor workers they add a "skreene" by the hall door, as Norman [48] and Fenny[43] did to interrupt the cold south easterlies cutting across the corner, over the churchyard or up the street. Further comforts were the Watts' two cushioned chairs by the fire. When had he woven the material for his wife Anes to make cushions for their chairs? Six years later unlike widow Kynd, Anes left no cushions at all. They had been dispersed, perhaps one to each of the children. William Wood married Judith Robins in 1611 and they worked for Toms' [15], while he saved to obtain a lease on a small farm, or else he was their shepherd. In the Easter lists they were first at Toms' farm cottage in the yard at the front of the house, then when the cottage in Hello became vacant [56] they moved there and were able to keep a cow. They had managed to collect together a surprising amount of furniture. Eight years after the weaver Watts' inventory was read out at the church court it was William Wood's turn for he was "kiled by mischance" in the middle of August 1624. A harvest accident? The Wood's cottage which was one of the smallest in the town had a chair and four cushions, also in that one cell cottage they had downstairs:
In the 1620's three gentlemen's households had cushions which was to be expected. Widow Elizabeth Holloway [21] had divided the household goods and left her "half part of the cushions carpetts spitts cobirons & racks" to their youngest daughter Joane, who had married Ambrose Holbech. The vicarage had not then been devoid of colour and possessions. Page 641 A manor house would always set the fashion in some things and Martha Woodrose [8] used the great chamber as her sitting room where by 1628 they had curtains, cushions and a woven turkey carpet hung on the wall. Down below the hall was furnished with "two tables wth frames one lidye cubbord/ three formes, five Cheares, two stooles, one iron grate .." and the rest of the fire equipment, but no upholstery comforts. The brass and pewter are given separately so their position in the house is not known. They were not in "the clossetts" already mentioned which stored tableware for entertaining neighbours, as well as the twice annual College visit. Their comforts were all upstairs in the great chamber which had a hearth:
Did Martha's taffitye material for her cushions match the window cloth in colour? There were also all the cloths mentioned in their napery list. How had Woodroses' collected such rich furnishings unless the women were constantly busy with the needle? In the great chamber Martha must have sat with her embroidery box before the fireplace. In Martha's will she leaves her niece Elizabeth Wilmer, whose father had come to take over the lease, her red velvet box with a lock to it. There was also a "greene taffatie workebox." Altogether the Woodroses had more than sixteen cushions, but young Lumberd in his hall [14] had managed to have a carpet on the wall and one "dossen and halfe of Cushins" worth a pound by 1631, besides a "paire of Curtines" around the bed. By that year Robins' [26] hall had been downgraded for only "one table frame one Cubbord one/ Cheare, benches" were in there and also worth just a pound. Once again the valuation of pewter and brass was becoming a separate item with the resultant lowering of the value of the hall furniture. The second cause was the setting up of a sitting parlour, possibly since Robert Robins had married Anne Holloway in 1611, their appraisers found "...six Cushions/ one Carpett one Cubbord cloath one Cubbord/ Cushion, Curtains..." These "cubbord cloaths" were usually long runners and, whatever their material, they were brightening up a surface with their texture and colour. French [4] had one of these "cubbord clothes," but it was valued with the linen, while their near neighbours Solomon Howse [9] had one in his lodging chamber which he used with his young family. His widowed mother Margery had her own chamber and bachelor brother Thomas had built an extra bay leaving the hall as a more impersonal communal cooking and eating area for the whole household. Three more with cushions were Tanner the mercer [39] who had four cushions in 1630 giving colour to the parlour, William Cattell's [30] who left in his low chamber "two quosens," and Richard Norman [48] in one of the Church Street timber cottages had "4 old cushions" in 1634. Richard had to keep them in his hall which was still open to the roof for his chamber was too small to sit in. Page 642 None had expensive tapestries in the hall, but a few did have painted cloths used as curtains hung from the main bed tester, or hung on a wall. Apart from Gybbs, Watts and Toms mentioned already they were also found at Wallsall's [13] in 1582 who had two valued at xxd and vjd. The last was at Hentlowes [35] who may also have hung his cloth from the tester for it was valued with the bedstead in 1617. These were a cheaper, but gay substitute for the real tapestries of the gentry. Done in oils they displayed pictures, verses or mottos. By the time the French's [4] had decided upon further improvements in 1632 wainscoting, panelling, painting of walls, or covering them with luxurious hangings had filtered down from the gentry via yeomen to certain husbandmen's houses. French's chose "certain wainscots" rather than carpet hanging, though they added a rug to the parlour bed as Wyatts [31] did to a bed in his hall chamber. Thomas Wyatt had wainscoting in his parlour chamber. Did either of the carpenters Lucas or Elderson have the necessary skills to make a wainscot, and where did they buy the wood to make them? Oliver Rackham believes that oak wainscots were being imported from Europe where they could grow taller oaks able to be sawn straight and precise by the experts [Rackham O. Trees and Woodland 1993, p76]. Harrison commented that wainscots made rooms "warm and much more close than otherwise they would be." Some were outlining the panels with red paint. Panelling was not new, it appeared elsewhere as early as the fourteenth century, but at least the advantages from wainscoting were now within the husbandman's purse, providing he had a good harvest. Curtains were just arriving in a few houses, but all would have had folding back shutters which arrived long before glass. Folding back doors which did not intrude into the inner space are still used on some small Welsh farms. Apart from the long supporting hinges all the other fittings were made by the carpenter. Some shutters could be placed on the outside. Would these lift up to act as a sun shade during the day, or if they were hinged at the bottom of the frame, would they act as a shop board? In Bourton Thomas Wallis a blacksmith who died in 1614 had a portal in the hall, which was a wooden frame attached to the door to keep out draughts [MS.Will Pec. 54/1/48]. Perhaps those who worked over a hot fire felt the cold more. Wyatt [31] added a "skreene" in his hall. Was this next to the door, or once part of an old hall divider to separate the service area from the hall? Palmer [1] at the lower mill had one and at least three cottagers. As early as 1594 Thomas Plant of Great Bourton had not only a "seeling" in the parlour, but one in his hall, and "all the seeling the glass windoes and a portall" [MS.Will Pec. 48/1/10]. In the next chapter the furniture in the chambers is looked at, yet curtains belong partly to this for they were once in the halls of the gentlemen, but when they arrive in this husbandmen's town they came at a time when the townsmen had begun to improve their chambers turning them into parlours. Curtains and cushions woven by Watts [27], or the Hunts [5] were luxury items to produce when blankets and coverlets were more important. Bed curtains were in the following houses in 1577 [25], 1614 [51], 1628 [8], 1630 [39], 1631 [26 & 14], 1632 [4] and 1635 [31]. Curtains unless specifically called window curtains were draped around the master's joined bedstead. Their valances could be either a bottom one, or like Woodrose's [8] attached to the tester. Visitors from the Brasenose College were allowed a bedstead with curtains in the buttery chamber. Adequate bedsteads with bed furnishing suitable for representatives of the College were required to fulfil a clause in their lease and must be the explanation for the high quality in this second chamber. |