Page 357

25. Timber Houses.

Medieval buildings were traditionally built of timber grown in the parish and thatched with local straw. The cost of building and repairing them came from cartage of new wood, diverting straw from the stock to the roof and employing carpenters and thatchers to carry out the work. The old thatch impregnated with soot would be used for manure. The owner of the land provided the timber which had usually been planted by previous occupiers as part of their tenancy agreement. Labourers having no close in which to plant trees must be provided with replacement timbers from the estate.

The manor courts fined any tenant who neglected their dwelling and could delay entry for the next copyhold life, if the house was not in good order. Having been entered on the copyhold the tenant would agree that "at their own cost and charges shall and will, well and sufficiently repire sustaine thatch and amend all the hereby" premises.

What set of circumstances had prevented some from being pulled down and rebuilt? Timber had been scarce in north Oxfordshire for a long time, but it could be obtained from the managed woods to the east. Cropredy itself had insufficient seasoned timber per year for the sixty households, though small wood from the hedges and closes were allocated to tenants in turn. Yet would building in stone take a great deal more to finance than constant repairs to the present housing stock? Cropredy parish lay very close to some of the best building stone in Britain. Would the landlords invest for the future and could their tenants afford their part of the bargain? During the sixteenth century the income from a yardland had risen until by the 1550's it was double that of 100 years before. Many had put aside a little surplus and gradually improved the families' wealth, although the early 1570's saw a great drop in income, it was not for long, and soon began to rise again and kept on rising, but by then the college rents had risen and so had the cost of farming. There were some wage earners in the population who could not benefit from this sale of surplus to the market and those in Church Street may well have been amongst them.

We do know that the residents of the timber row in this Street declined to rebuild, keeping their dwellings up in the old manner. They delayed alterations until a much later date and so kept the old timber structure which has survived in parts until to-day. Was there a reason?

Page 358

First their security of tenure was looked at. Did the tenants fear to spend in case they lost the cottage? A check was made on all those who occupied the row through the centuries and it was discovered they were held by the same families and their descendants, so that was not the explanation, unless by not spending they had not over reached themselves (It was however noticed that other tenants in the town whose families stayed for generations had built in stone). The timber building must have been in good repair and the difficulties of building a stone front when the upper floors overlapped their neighbour's hall presented at first too great a problem. Stone walls were still averaging a width of 22 inches and two such inner partitions in a cottage measuring only 22 feet in length was too much to sacrifice.

It was wondered if those entirely without land refrained from rebuilding. Before the vicar's accounts were repaired and the names of each cottager became known, it was not possible to establish who definitely had ancient common rights attached to their cottage. From the lists and tithe accounts of the early seventeenth century it can now be established that most in Church Street paid the tithe, and had at least one cow. In the college's later terriers the names of the occupiers appear having leyland alongside the college tenants, as they had to gather hay for the cow. What cannot be established is whether they had enough arable to grow sufficient barley, rye and peas to keep the family and cow throughout the year. The inventories do not mention any. None had rights to keep any other stock except the cow and poultry, and certainly not sheep. The only "crop" appeared in one inventory for Cox [49] who was growing hemp in his yard. As the price of food rose they could not gain by selling any surplus, and could only miss out in years of shortage. Other day labourers (often retired shepherds) who died in Cropredy had sheep which were kept as a way of investing spare money. There are dangers in classifying the tenants all as labourers, for many who died as day-labourers had sunk from other related agricultural occupations, due to old age, injury or failing health. Wages which were set by the Justices during severe fluctuations in the cost of food, were never high enough to cover extras other than tithes, rent and minor repairs, because being employers themselves it was in the Justices' interests to keep wages as low as possible. In spite of this they still managed to have reasonable furniture and comforts in their inventories, for each family had used all their various skills to remain alive. The fact that they hung on for several generations speaks highly of their ability to survive, though never allowing them enough to rebuild.

The survival of labourers' dwellings is rare. This row has retained evidence to show that although at the lower end of the parish's income groups, their late medieval cottages were not squalid hovels, health traps, or entirely without the basic necessities of life. They lived in good quality buildings. The cottages were part of the Bishop of Lincoln's estate and right next to their demesne farm [50], before it was surrendered to the Crown in 1547. The Bishop who had originally financed them would have received the rents as an estate asset. The oak roof timbers were put there by skilled craftsmen and sound enough to last for centuries. Possibly they were originally built to house the manorial married staff, or associated tradesmen (the threshers, thatchers, carpenters, victuallers and gardeners), and at the end of the sixteenth century were not considered in need of renewal. The positive outcome of enquiries so far, would point to long term tenants with basic rights of commonage to keep one cow, but living on a set wage, or craft, and supported by their family enterprises. They were housed in adequate cottages each with access to a well. When did they eventually decide to build outer stone walls? To try and answer this every opportunity was taken to study the cottages during recent renovations. Several owners kindly allowed notes to be made whenever alterations took place in this street (and throughout the parish. Without such help this chapter and indeed the book might never have been started). Whyte's [46] and Bryan's [47] were measured over a period of baby sittings. The findings from these visits are followed by a general glance at the sites. Almost every family left some traces of their occupancy in documents, such as their inventories, which reveal the contents of their rooms and show they were far more comfortable than many labourers in other parts of Britain. Gradually the families manage to apprentice their sons, or arrange suitable marriages for a daughter to a craftsman and their circumstances seem to improve.

Page 359

This is however rushing on too fast. The only way the fabric will unravel to reveal the past is to unpick it slowly from the top to the bottom. Starting with Red Lion Street (the present name for Church Street) and using the past to interpret the visible clues still there today.

(1-12) Red Lion Street . (Figure 25.2)

Red Lion Street still has the four oldest cottages (numbered to-day as 3, 6,7 and 8, but called [46-49] in this book) with some additional infilling (4, 5 and 9). At the east end is the early rebuilt manor house (10/11) and the infilled gap (12) leading to the millyard .

The tenant of the A manor demesne farm (10/11) leased the five cottages which went with the estate. Coldwell and then Cartwright had both risen to being gentlemen and needed a bailiff to manage the farm as well as other staff for the estate, who either lived in the farmhouse (10/11), or else had married quarters in the cottages. The bailiff's cottage [44] was behind Red Lion Street at the western approach to the farm. When the manorial rights were transferred to the Green [15], the bailiff's cottage became the farm house to the old manor yard.

The four other timber cottages now hidden behind stone facades were all in the street facing the church. Number 3 at the top would have had a fine two and a half medieval west gable. This may be why the manor court only allowed Rawlins [45] to build on the small plot at the top of the street as long as his stone dwelling (1) did not obliterate this view of Church Street from the top. Rawlins' cottage and a later one built in his garden were set at the back of the site behind Whyte's (3) splendid timber gable end. The Pitham's (2) arriving before 1669 lived in the second cottage.

Walking down the street Whyte's (3) has now changed beyond recognition into an equally fine Hornton stone dwelling, with the addition of (4). The coursed stone rows above the stone plinth on the south elevation are set off by the stone lintels seen in only four other Cropredy properties. Two were on the B. manor estate, first on Springfield's kitchen [6] and the second at the Brasenose Inn [13]. On the A manor a stone mason's cottage had encroached upon the Bridge Causeway verge in the late seventeenth century [Plantations]. The mason may have been the first to use this type of lintel and was then followed by Toms' farm [15] on the Green which was receiving the landlord's attention in the 1680's. If we place "The Whyte House's" [46] new lintels at the end of the seventeenth century with those of the Inn's [13], that might be an approximate date for the stoning of [46], though there are contrary opinions.

Page 360

Whyte's (3), or the next occupiers the Neal's, had extended into their 15' garden which fronted the street (4). The stone mason was required to build only the ground floor, matching the lintels and six rows above. When (4) was altered recently Mr S. Cherry thought the upper half of the gable end of (3) had been exposed to the elements at some time, before (4) had an upper floor to match (3). The gable between (3 & 4) had no mortar between the joints on the ground floor showing it had not been exposed to the elements, but was once intended as an inside wall to the new extension built on the garden at the same time as the house was treated to new stone walls. The upper floor to the extension was surely a mid-nineteenth century development. The east gable had a brick chimney next to the winder stairs leading up to the front chamber which still has a Victorian fireplace.

By stoning the cottage (3) the old timber west gable had to be lost, but a good stone chimney was made with a fine newel staircase in the Neve tradition (p352) which included a small stairs window and a two light window high in the gable to light the cockloft and stairs. A pear tree has been added to set off the gable. Room for this work had fortunately been left by the new cottage at (2).

Page 361

Number 6 may have actually needed to extend into their 15' wide garden entrance at the side before the Neal's, but did they use timber or stone? If the latter it would have looked odd in a timber row prior to the rest having stone. The Bryan's (6) were an old Cropredian family and the widow had allowed their neighbours William and Ann Hudson to move into their cottage, while she moved into an extension in the 1650's. We do not know exactly when (4) and (5) were built, but to start with neither had a chimney. It is likely (5) was a timber built extra bay to sleep Mrs Elizabeth Bryan (died 1656). When the stone extension was built, now (4), it butted up to (5) whose earlier west gable must still have been in timber. To build their upper floors did (4 & 5) then replaced their boundary wall with bricks?

The Watts took over the copyhold after the next Elizabeth Bryan wife of Robert left Cropredy and her temporary tenants, "old Mole" and William Hudson, had gone. This was the only cottage of the four which changed hands outside the family. The Watts' remained for three generations. They ran a tailor's business and kept a grocer's shop. In 1776 two brothers kept the trade going for their widowed mother, who though still the tenant retired into (5). John a bachelor purchases the single storey plot in 1776 in which his widowed mother now lived and his married brother Thomas purchased (6). Thomas died I am sure without altering too much of the medieval inner arrangement, but what we need to know is did Watts or Bryan's stone the walls? The Bryan's may not have been able to re-enter their cottage copyhold if they had to help finance the addition of stone walls as part of the repairs clause. This rather leaves the outer facing to be taken on by the Watts' family later in the century. The thinner stone walls could place them well after our period to the late seventeenth century. When the stone walling was done it looks as though the opportunity was made to move the front door to a central position. The clue here came from the awkwardness of the door with the low-chamber wall, and the fact that this was made into a shop. Thomas, the tailor and grocer, was a man who had garnished his apparel with a silver buckle and silk handkerchief, and yet his wife had to apply to the overseers of the poor in 1789 to be allowed to carry on as a grocer, for Thomas had left the shop board to his younger brother William. Once again the cottage changed hands. John Watts had never married and Thomas had no children baptised in Cropredy.

The cottage (6) was next lived in by a Syresham couple John and Mary Biddle whose son John (1811-77) was definitely connected with several new brick walls in Cropredy. He or his father could well have started the trend of providing brick chimneys and brick partitions ( substantial but not as space consuming as a stone wall), between the cottages of 4/5, 5/6, 6/7, and 7/8. Could these have coincided with the new public fire brigades taking over from voluntary fire insurance engines? Red Lion Street was particularly vulnerable. By 1804 the Insurance policies for the thatched houses with timber party walls would be much higher than those with brick or stone walls.

It looks as though (7) (which was the home of the Norman's and Hudson's until in 1670 Mary nee Hudson's husband John Sabin entered upon the copyhold), was the first to stone their timber dwelling. In passing the front of their cottage it will be noticed that they had quoin stones and that (6) and (8) butt into these definite straight edges of stone (Fig.24.1). Looking back at (5) it was not tied into (4) and had more in common with (6). This we saw was born out by the records. It was understandable that (7) being the middle cottage with no room to expand into the garden as (6) and (8) were doing must make the most of that space over the hall and bring across another half loft using the stone walls and wall plates to hold the floor (p369). With no room to increase their front elevation (7) had less stone to purchase. Being gardeners who were used to being careful about details Sabins would have appreciated the quoin stones being on their front wall. This may prove theirs was the first to have a stone wall. Once again the registers were checked and they revealed that John Sabin died soon after William Hudson moved next door (6). The widow could hardly restore the cottage so was it left to Richard the son when he came to enter his wife or son onto the copyhold? This brings the addition of stone walls into the 1680's, or later, and makes it too late for Bryan's at (6), and after Cox's daughter had died at (8). Cox's grand daughter Elizabeth Arise married Robert Swetman of Wardington. By 1685 having become a widow her nineteen year old son, also Robert, was allowed to carry on the business. During this decade Richard Sabin (7) may have had time to stone his walls, once Norman's cottage [48] (Fig.24.1 p346).

Page 362

Number 8, now the Red Lion Inn, had definitely doubled the size of their dwelling by 1741 which was the end of the Swetman's era.When the widow Elizabeth Swetman's son wanted to take over in 1685, he had to satisfy an enquiry instigated by the landlord, because of an Act of Settlement. Sir William Boothby wrote to his bailiff "If Rob: Sweetman be my Tenant and that my Tenants & the Towne do agree to have them placed in the towne, so that I may not heere after be blamed by any: I do give my consent to what you desire upon conditions. Else not." [Letter book: p287 Add. MSS 71961]. Robert not only worked as a victualler, but was a shoemaker as well, and most likely the builder of the extra wing. Swetman was married by 1691 but unfortunately he had no son, only four surviving daughters. Did he train them to help brew? In the buttery were the brewing vessels and he also possessed a furnace grate. His need to use coal may have decided the matter of putting in a chimney. If he had permission to lodge travellers he needed more space for his shop and upper lodging rooms. The competition from the newly expanded Brasenose Inn [13] whose new tenant arrived in 1694, may have stimulated building at Swetman's, unless he had already developed his cottage. Both inns took turns to have the annual dinner before the church court. Swetman expanded eastwards into 22' of the garden. He built in stone and refaced the older timber dwelling to match. They moved the entrance to below the old eastern timber gable making room for a brick fireplace in the old hall, now called the new dwelling house, over which he could add an extra chamber. In the nineteenth century the Smith's extended eastwards to make another stone dwelling on the remaining 28' of the garden to house one of the family shoemakers. This was eventually sold to the Co-op (9).

In 1775 the Boothby family sold five cottages to Samuel Smith who resold them on to John Chamberlin, who allowed the various tenants to purchase their cottages. At this stage John Bourton had [44], William Neal [46], Widow Watts [47], William Cole [48] and William Smith [49]. The infills attached to (3) and (6) had not in 1775 acquired separate tenancies, but (5) and (6) were parted at the sale by Chamberlin in 1776. William Neal died in 1795 aged 91 and it was either his son George (d. 1801), or Richard then farming at Mixbury (d 1820), who sold (3 & 4) to the cordwainer Smiths who were in residence long before 1822. Number 8 was purchased by another William Smith who had taken out a licence for his house following the tradition of that site. William had moved in 1758 from being Neal's tenant (or life on the copyhold) at (3) to (8) when his sister and her husband died leaving a houseful of ophans at the inn. Smith's being cordwainers could have moved into (3) while the Neals were at Mixbury. They have connections with the house (3) right into this century.

That is one possible explanation for the varying applications of coursed stone rows. Although a great deal of the above suggestions fell into place only after owners kindly allowed measurements to be made (for which I cannot thank them enough for their unfailing good humour and for never once showing their frustration at the nuisance caused), it does underline the initial signals the row was making to reveal the important evidence so carefully hidden by later occupiers, that part of Red Lion Street had once been timber and thatched dwellings. It was hoped there might be more clues within the buildings themselves.

Page 363

Leaving Red Lion Street we now move back in time to when it was called Church Street to use the site numbers found in this book.

The Four Church Street Cottages [46-49].

While half the oldest farm sites face east this row faces south across the ancient sunken street to the churchyard wall. The street itself is narrow and unable to expand with the cottages right against the footpath. Cox's at the bottom cottage [49] had their garden next to the Jitty, which was the southern entrance to the A manor's [50] farmyard. Norman's [48] being the middle one of the three cottages had a long strip of garden leading to a northern gate into the farm yard below Allen's the A manor bailiff's plot. Allen's [44] small garden was to block any rear exit for Bryans [47], the last of the group of three. The gap separating this row of three and the top cottage was divided between number [46] and [47] equally for a street entrance into their gardens. The occupier's of [46 & 47] used up all the garden entrances when they made their ground floor extensions. Whytes [46] had a close stretching right back to the western approach into the A manor farmyard, which was also Allen's entrance. There was a track to the north of Allen's cottage for the cows to reach the farmyard [50's] if they came straight from Newstreet Lane, past Tanner's [39] instead of going round by Creampot. It could be that Allen's cottage and two bay barn would not fit into the gap on Church Street and the Bishop's manor court allowed the occupier to build at the north end of the 30' strip allotted to that tenement. Later arrangements being made to allocate the Church Street end to neighbouring tenements [46] and [47] (Fig. 25.4).

It was noticed that Whyte's [46] and the gap were equal to almost two lands width. The three other cottages took up 66' or just over two lands. The whole street was made up of units taking up two lands equal to an acre. Had there been any Open Common Field farming undertaken in this former demesne close prior to building? Even the Manor house [50] was set out using these measurements.

Page 364

Bryan's [47] seventeenth century extension across their garden entrance left them with no alternative but to gain an entrance via Norman's [48] garden. In 1671 we saw Richard Bryan's widow Elizabeth had allowed William Hudson to use her cottage. At Hudson's (once grand father Norman's) cottage [48] lived John Sabin who had married William Hudson's sister Mary, so perhaps an arrangement was made convenient to them all. If for nothing else the cow had to be brought into the garden somehow and the human waste and manure taken out to the fields. Whytes had a well later shared with No.4, but did the new No.5 share with Bryan's? The three narrow cottages [47-49] each had their own well.

Cox's [49] garden ended at the wide Jitty entrance. Their close measured 70' by the street, but only 40' at the north end and was 90' from the street to Coldwell's [50] farm yard buildings. Cox's garden encroached round behind the back of Norman's [48] hall, but left room for access to their well. Norman's in turn encroached behind Bryan's hall. This often meant that rear elevations in cottages were rarely provided with window holes, just a door for access and ventilation (and some stone cottages had no rear door if they had a chimney ). When did they divide off the gardens? Each had started with their own private entrance, but the Norman's were the losers when it came to space for their cow. Could they house it at Coldwell's yard? Watts purchased [47] (5 & 6) in 1776, but like all the A manor cottages they lost their common rights for pasturing a cow. After this they had only to use their garden exit across Sabin's [48] garden to remove night soils. While still tenants Joseph Watts kept a cow which had to come and go through [48]. His son John paid the vicar tithes for three cottage commons, for somehow a new tithe had been attached to (5). He had also been paying for his mother's, or Thomas's at (6) and Sabin's at (7) which meant John had looked after three cows. It was very hard for these cottages to loose the right to pasture the cows after the Enclosure of the Open Common Fields [MSS. dd Par Cropredy c 26,27]. At Whytes [46] they still had a rear access through the orchard and had more room than any if they were tenants of the whole close behind Rawlins' cottage [45].

Page 365

Behind the stone walls the cottages show that basic plans were repeated through the centuries. The top cottage where the Whyte's lived was 30' wide. There could have been plans to make a second similar cottage next door because a further 30' of land was left undeveloped before the row of three began. Bryan's, Norman's and Cox's were smaller being only 22' wide. All had an internal depth of just over 15'. The plan of all four cottages was based on one low chamber with an upper chamber directly above. Because the hearths in the halls had no chimnies they were open to the roof. The bottom three had roof trusses at seven foot intervals and Whyte's up the street also had two inner roof trusses dividing the roof space into three, but with an extra eight feet of roof to support. Being two and a half stories high meant two bays could be used as a cockloft. The lower three cottages were only one and a half storeys high with the upper chamber ceiling rising above the collar in the roof.

From the documentary evidence and structural clues each cottage had an open hearth in the hall whose smoke went out through the roof. The hall fire left smoke traces on the roof timbers at [48]. The halls took up two thirds of the ground floor in the smaller cottages giving an almost square living area. A small lower chamber with a narrow buttery behind filled the third bay. These were partitioned off from the hall. Above, reached by a ladder from the lower chamber, was a bedroom running from front to back. These too were partitioned off from the open halls on either side. The three cottages [47-49] had the hall on the right and the lower chamber on the left. It was noticed that the upper floors jetty out over the halls, their own and the neighbours next door. Smoke was kept from these rooms by infilling the stud partitions as high as eighteen inches above the collar with wattle and daub. Lath and plaster ceilings must have prevented the smoke from blowing down into the upper chamber. Later when chimneys were added low doorways were broken through upstairs partitions for the new chambers over the halls. At that point winder stairs were built to reach the upper floor and the ladder hole through the ceiling filled in. All this was confirmed during alterations at [48] and [49]. [47] was a much more difficult property and at first severely delayed the solutions to many problems, so thorough had Biddle's improvements been. Biddle's alterations just have to be mentioned first to reach down beyond them.

Bryan's [47].

Moving to [47] (6), the top cottage in the row of three, the entrance is now in the centre of the building leading to the parlour chamber on the left and the hall on the right. Extensive nineteenth century alterations were made. The earlier ground floor extension (5) across the garden entrance was given an upper floor. The joint brick wall between the present (5) and (6) meant (6) [47] lost out on space in the parlour, but kept it in the buttery. The brick wall gave them the opportunity to have two new Victorian fireplaces in each of the old chambers. The older hall fireplace if built for the Watts may have been the second chimney in the row. It was built into the hall's rear stone wall, and included an oven. The hall chimney may have become a necessity when customers to the shop opened the front door when the back door was also open to clear smoke from the old open hearth. This in turn may have encouraged them to move the front door from the hall and to make the central entry or screen passage to solve the smoke problem, before building the chimney. The stairs which replaced the ladder took up the space previously used as the buttery. The upper chamber was in turn reduced by the stairs, protruding chimney and encroaching brick wall, so that it was now too narrow to be usable while the inner tiebeam remained. They cut it having transferred the weight of the roof to the stone outer walls. The hall spine beam which supported the floor above then rested on the new brick wall they shared with [48], and on a post in the old parlour/passage wall from the front door.

Page 366

The tie beam above the hall must also have been cut and cannot now be seen. In its place the upper hall chamber also has a spine beam. The upper floor was rearranged between the two chambers, the old one giving up space at the back for landing and stairs. It is interesting that the stairs area projects one foot more towards (5) than the chamber and this may be because both the buttery and the landing had one-light windows right by the neighbour's wall, which were kept, or because the two properties were under one lease, or ownership of one family (Fig.25.5).

The oldest remnants were in the buttery area of (6) [47] for here some flat joists can be seen. The old upper chamber once had an upper jetty on the western garden side (5) and the landing area wall would represent the original upper part of the western wall. This whole cottage replaced the three principals and tie beam trusses of the old timber cottage to new spine beams and the four walls. Much more was saved at Norman's, the middle cottage.

Norman's [48] (7).

Other indications that later tenants in Norman's cottage could have added the first stone wall were the wall plates and the retention of early features (p361). The records go back to Norman's marriage in 1585. Until 1634 old Richard Norman, still kept his right to the open cooking hearth, even though his single and married daughters lived under the same roof. Up to 1634 he had the general use of the hall, the buttery and the lower chamber, but not his son-in-laws upper chamber which is not mentioned until Thomas Hudson's inventory was made three years later. Thomas had by then a share in the hall, milk house (buttery) and kept on the upper chamber. His sister-in-law Anne Norman slept in her late father's lower chamber, which was not therefore mentioned in the second inventory. She had the cow, left for her keep by her father along with all his goods and chattels, thereby ensuring that her married sister and husband acknowledged her right, as one of the lives on the copyhold, to stay on under the family roof. This was not a new arrangement. It began in 1618 when Elizabeth, the youngest daughter, had married Thomas Hudson. In the 1624 Easter list Richard Norman, now a widower, his daughter Anne, the married couple with three new sons and another baby due, according to the registers, had been joined by Marie Hudson. Whether she was Thomas's mother or sister we do not know. This made five adults and three children. Altogether six of the seven children who survived live here, making three generations all under Grandpa Norman's thatched roof. The upper floor measured 8' x 15'2." The low chamber 7' 6" x 10' deep with the 4'8" wide buttery at the back. The hall measuring 15' x 14.'

Page 367

The knowledge gained from the inventories was more puzzling when the crowded conditions at [48] were thought about. Why did they not build in a chimney and add a spine beam and gain an extra bedroom? Was this the old question of lack of money, lack of response from the landlord, or just something to do with the upper chambers overlapping the hall. Not just their own but also the next door's [49] upper chamber?

In the 1970's repairs were going on at [48] and the builder kindly allowed me to check the lower chamber wall next to [47]. This room was again looked at with new owners in the 1980's. They added their interpretations and we did a tour into the roof with a knowledgeable visitor.

On the first visit to the downstairs chamber the neighbouring wall with [47] had the plaster off exposing a wall of under-fired bricks, laid without any half bricks and about 6" thick, including a thick plaster. This brick wall at the rear was 7" away from [48's] transverse beam, though only 3" by the front stone wall. The original shared stud partition wall would have been under [48's] transverse beam. A piece of wood only about a foot up from the floor ran from an old timber post at the front wall along the brick wall to the rear. Had this been moved from the base of the stud partition? Number (6)[47] had their later hall spine beam resting in the brick wall between [47 & 48].

The timber post was exciting evidence of the earlier timber wall. This three and a half inch wide post curved inwards with an arch-brace to support the narrow transverse beam (9"x 4") upon which lay the flat upper floor joists. The post had two wooden pegs at the top, part of the joint with the beam. Only the [47] side of this timber support was chamfered, for this was once visible in their hall, while Norman's [48] had no need of decoration in the low chamber. The upright posts or studs, were interfilled with a wattle and daub.

Evidence of the stud partition was found in the underside of the transverse beam for there were eight oval holes about 2" across and spaced on average at 14" apart from the center of the holes, which tapered to 3.5" deep. One hole had a broken off stave protruding from the beam, a remnant of an old upright post. 40" in from the front wall was an empty oblong (9"x 1.5").

Page 368

A second longer one (12.5" x 1.5") was 45" from the back wall. In this was the remains of a broken off piece of the arch brace which had supported the beam and the reason for the oblong holes. This was not a recycled piece of old cart, but evidence of an old timber cottage wall.

The upper floor's supporting joists varied, being 7" to 9" wide by 4.5." All were laid flat, a sign of an old medieval floor. By the 1570's the method of flooring was changed by turning the joists on their side or having square ones. [47] and [49] both had some remaining flat joists in the buttery area. In [48] a second chimney had been built on the rear wall of the buttery in the sleeping bay which meant the removal of the buttery/ chamber wall. Two of the old joists had gone and been replaced by new ones. The rest of the joists over the low chamber remained. The joists jetty out towards Bryan's [47] and each of the joist ends had been rounded and were obviously once meant to be seen in their hall. The fact that the upper chambers were also wider than the lower ones proves they jutted out beyond the transverse beams, even when other evidence has been lost. The removed hanging ceiling at [48] showed that once it had been insulated above with chaff. Although the jetty reduced the noise of a flat joisted floor, nothing was quiet in the low chamber with children over head, a hall on either side behind a stud wall and neighbouring children playing in the street. The transverse beam when all uncovered, revealed the remains of a plaster wall covering, put there for the benefit of No. 6 [47]. The studs were filled with wattle (usually hazel) and daub. If timbers move or shrink according to the weather, then chinks of light might gain access on the outer stud walls, or neighbouring partitions. This gave an unwanted natural ventilation in winter, or smoke from next door's hall, and would be hastily repaired.

To reach the upper chamber a ladder was made in front of the arch brace at the south end of the western stud partition at the junction with the street wall of the lower chamber. The second joist from the front wall stopped short and a "T" shaped piece fixed to allow access. Having the ladder in this room meant there was nowhere anyone could retreat to on the ground floor for some privacy. It was not until the stairs were built in the hall that any could be obtained.

There was very little room to build more substantial partitions between the three smaller cottages. The added problem of the upper story with the jetty meant the brick wall was going to lose space for [47]. The upper chamber stud walls were all built below the huge tie beams and the projecting joists. By projecting beyond the transverse beam all the joints in the joists were spaced out so that the timbers were not weakened. The upper wall being further along the joist than the lower supporting beam.

The upper chamber window at [48] had two lights (once wooden slats) and like all the main windows in the row, faced south onto the street. The east and west stud partition walls made use of the tie beams now partially exposed. Below the east tie-beam the plaster remained, covering the wattle and daub between the posts. The tie beam towards No.6 [47] was 15" to 18" thick and 57" from the floor. It had two supporting arch braces.

Page 369

The rear one came from a post, being pegged to that and into the tie beam at a joint 44" from the rear wall. The arch brace was 8" wide. The height of the chamber ceiling was 7' 1".

The east partition acted as a smoke barrier from the space above their own hall. This has a tie beam which had been partially cut into when a low doorway was made to reach the later chamber over the hall.

The large roof rafters still exposed at Norman's were all black from the old open fire. The first upper chamber was mostly protected by carrying on the stud partition right up to the thatch, but some soot still reached the western gable truss and a ceiling was still necessary and placed above the collar.

The roof principals crossed allowing a square ridge pole to support the rafters. The purlins were large and square and attention was drawn to the rear one which had a scarf joint half way between the two main inner roof trusses. The joint was fixed with long wooden pegs and incorporated a half joint. The purlins butted into the principal trusses.

The owner pointed out the two inner trusses which had huge collars. The second one over the hall which had an extra support had a hollow along the top of the old collar and stave holes below to take a partition. Had the hall been partially built over up to this truss (across the middle bay 2 on Fig.25.6 p366) before being completly built across? Was this the reason for the lateral wall plates, because it was an early addition? This was not mentioned in either of the inventories, though it would have helped to provide one more very narrow chamber. The last bay would then have been kept as a smoke bay. Some timber cottages had a small canopy over the fire preventing down draughts and encouraging the smoke to exit via the smoke bay. In later years a few stone cottages in Ceredigion even made wattle chimneys in the crog loft to carry the smoke to a wooden chimney on the same principal.

Once the chimney was built the last bay was used to increase the size of the hall chamber. It was noted that the ceiling joists in the eastern part of the hall chamber were quite different and widely spaced. The added brick chimney and brick wall with [49] went right up into the roof. This had for some reason been plastered possibly because once a chimney was made a ceiling to keep out smoke was no longer required. The plaster was not maintained once the last piece of ceiling was put up. The tie beam in the partition wall with [49] jutted out about 3" to 4" and so did the plastered brick wall in the position of the older stud one and so remained proud up to the late ceiling.

There was a 7" step up from the original upper chamber floor to the hall chamber whose floor was supported on two lateral wall plates and a champhered spine beam with stops. At the parlour end the spine beam had a supporting post. As the third tie beam crossed low over the new hall chamber (giving only 48" headroom), they cut it and put an extra collar at ceiling level.

Cox's [49] (8).

In 1617 Cox [49] had an over chamber, a nether buttery and a low chamber next to the hall. The structural evidence at Cox's was once similar in the chamber bay to Norman's. The low chamber now has a brick wall with [48], which replaced the original dividing stud wall. The brick wall was not keyed into the front stone one, so the alterations were undertaken at two separate times. As [48] had their brick chimney and winder stairs tied into this 4.5 inch brick wall, it looks as though [48] instigated that alteration.

Page 370

Cox's buttery/low chamber wall has recently been replaced. The low chamber had long since become the bar parlour. The bar parlour/hall wooden wall was taken out to extend the main bar room into the inner parlour. Only the front post and a remnant of beam remain. The hall, once it had a brick chimney built onto the east gable at the street end, had a spine beam from the chimney to a post by the parlour's 30" wide doorway, again similar to [48]. Scratchs from the old latch remain on the support post.

The buttery was turned into the cellar stairs when the cellar was built under an extension at the back. Fortunately the upper chamber floor joists which were laid flat still project from the buttery area. The ends are rounded like those at [48]. They vary in width from 6" to 7". The spaces between them are very unequal.

Upstairs the 3" and 4" square studs which were recently exposed in the upper chamber east wall are about 13" apart. There is only one arch brace from the rear post left. A doorway was cut by the front wall into the added hall chamber. When alterations were made this was filled in and another one made centrally.

All the evidence showed that the old inner walls were made of square 3" and 4" studs spaced at around 13" or 14" intervals. Arch braces curved from supports to the upper beam into which the studs were securely fixed. At the base of these partitions the studs needed a second 4" wide beam over the joists. Was the same arrangement made on the exposed outer walls? The window holes came between two upright studs, but these do not fit into the pattern, except perhaps at Cox's upper chamber window which still has the older type of glazing. The three light casement window had 4" oak mullions separating the 13" lights. Large lintels and window hole surrounds often showed on the front elevation as part of the overall design.

The main entrance into the hall at [49] may always have been in the east gable (once conveniently opposite the A manor's side entrance), or at the front for better control of the open hearth smoke, and moved when the chimney was put in (On Fig. 25.1 it is presumed it was at the front to form part of a repeat pattern with the three cottages' south elevation facing the street). Once the open hearth was lost then the upper hall floor could be built over a spine beam. In this spine beam are the holes from a partition that divided the hall into a front dwelling house and a new rear hallway leading to the eastern passage door. Between 1685 and 1694 the Swetman's updated the property. In 1741 Robert Swetman's executors had to have an inventory made when his will was proved at the Ecclesiastical Court at Cropredy. It showed they now had the following rooms:

The best room [Upper chamber?]

The little room with bacon in it [at the top of the stairs?].

The room over the dwelling house [hall chamber]

Chamber over the shop [new wing to the east]

Six barrells in the ale buttery & the small drink buttery vessels [buttery]

The farther room [parlour/ low chamber]

The dwelling house [old hall]

The shop with tools [new wing to the east] [M.S.Will Pec. 52/2/6].

Swetman's new bay was similar in size to his original cottage and transverse beams were again in fashion. A tie beam truss was supported by the stone walls which took the weight of the roof. The new front entrance now opened into a cross passage. The west wall of this being the old timber gable wall of [49], traces of which can be seen behind the chimney. Winder stairs (since gone) were built in the new wing which led up to a landing, a little front chamber and a full size one over the shop. The "little" one, so called because it filled only half the bay (8` x 10`4") as the stairs took up the rest at the rear.

Page 371

It was also over the new entry and therefore one of the customary places to store bacon and malt. This room has a good panelled partition on the landing side and two tiebeams on the east and west.

At [49] after the sale of the property to Smiths in 1776 they built the rear stone wing, behind the buttery, which had a cellar underneath. Tiles were used on the roof rather than a thatch. Could the nineteenth century wing behind the shoeshop have used part of the cowshed? Two walls were of brick and the east one of stone all under a slate roof, for by then slate could come by canal. Below the shoeshop to the east another stone building was built with a slate roof for the cordwainer William Smith. This was worth £80 in 1814. Smith's and Swetman's shops seriously depleted the garden. The farm entrance was now entirely from the west past [44] as the A manor farmhouse [50] had been made into cottages. William Smith's cottage (9) was to become the Cropredy Co-op in 1873 when a William Lambert was the shoemaker. He sold it to the Banbury Co-op in 1895.

The three lower cottages [47-49] each arrived at a different solution when building a chimney and altering their gable walls with the neighbours. It was not possible to build chimneys onto the front wall as these were right against the pavement. At the back they were hidden almost from view, but two very tall stone and brick chimneys have been kept behind [47 and 48]. [48]'s being a second chimney in the chamber bay. Those chimneys built between the cottages would be visible emerging from the roof. Swetman needing to warm his customers, had an early brick chimney. The last to solve the problem was next door at [48] perhaps waiting for the brick wall, unless the buttery was sacrificed to make the parlour chimney into the stone wall at the back, which needed a very tall chimney to clear the thatch. Bricks became readily available from Anker's brick yard where he used the skills of the canal brickmakers who arrived sometime after 1775. A complete rebuilding was seen to be quite out of the question when the tenants were responsible for the upkeep of the fabric. If Swetman's obtained permission to stone the walls from the landlord then so could Neal's [46] and Watts [47]. How much of the stone walling came out of the tenant's pocket? Was it a condition to improve as part of the entrance onto the copyhold of a new life, or a new family? It was evident that no landlord updated the whole row at one operation for the fronts were all replaced at different times. No stone mason started at the top and worked down the row. Every mason would find it a problem to make a straight edge to the cottage he was fronting when the inner wall position varied between floors. The tenant in "Norman's cottage" [48] was the only one who managed this (p362).

When were the wooden windows glazed and were the window sizes altered with the renovations? Most early timber cottages had opening slats or shutters. We must presume each chamber and the hall had some form of lighting from the front. Whyte's [46] went some way to answering the problem.

In 1982 Mr E.J.Swingler, glazier, who carried out the repairs and replacements for (3) and (4), remarked that a little of the very early glass remained in the front windows and came from the late 15th, 16th and 18th centuries. The frames he thought were Elizabethan and had been resited with the rebuilding of the front walls in stone. Repeatedly over the years the frames had sunk unevenly and been repaired. Some of (4)'s had been made from a softer wood than oak, so needed new windows to match (3)'s. A pre 1640 handle remained at a rear upper window. Were the original windows as large as three light casements and surely the open hall did not have an upstairs window?

Page 372

Whyte's [46] (3).

Whyte's house [46] being 30' wide had room for a wider low chamber/parlour and hall. A transverse beam in the downstairs chamber and a tie beam in the upper chamber supported the floor and roof trusses. The upper chamber jettys out 30" into the hall over the later through passage. The roof space was divided into three bays. The first two formed the cockloft which had a stud partition to keep out the smoke from the hall fire, traces of which can be seen in the later floored third bay once open to the hall. The buttery was to the rear of the low chamber and both would have had doors onto the hall. Once the walls were stoned the role of the hall changed and the chamber became the dwelling house with a new gable chimney and remained so right up to the Smith's time. It was described by Mary Smith who was born in the house in 1822. "The dwelling house... with its carpetless stone floor and bedrooms and large attics, which last served in after years for additional bedrooms, or store rooms for apples" [Mary Smith School Mistress and Nonconformist. p3 The Wordsworth Press] In the 1960's the floor was taken up and the room height improved to 7' 1". The upper chamber remaining the old height of 6' 4" and the cockloft up into the roof.

Page 373

The outer walls were replaced with stone (Fig.8.1 p112). Not only the front and the back, like the rest of the row, but also the two gables. The western one included the inglenook fireplace and winder stairs up to the loft. In the eastern gable a doorway was made from the rear of the former hall to the new ground floor extension (4). The door was later filled in. The old hall became the cordwainer's shop, which remained so into the nineteenth century, with a room behind. A cross passage was built to the back door. The shop chamber was supported by a spine beam resting on a 4" square post, incorporated into the passage wall. The beam was mostly hidden by a hanging ceiling. The passage stud partition was replaced by a brick one at the end of the last century being cemented into the outer stone wall, perhaps not long after Cropredy first began to use cement. The rear room in that bay also had a brick wall. The inglenook in the dwelling house having no oven they built one into the brick extension behind the dwelling house with access through the old buttery. This left just a "cupboard" between the beam and the passage wall. The kitchen extension connected the house with the older stone cowshed.

A single extension (4) had been built across the side garden (pp 359,360). In the nineteenth century an upper storey was added to both (4 and 5). The wall between (4) and (5) was a brick one with a winder staircase and chimney breast attached. Upstairs (4) had a Victorian fireplace built into the front cottage room. The landing bedroom was divided off by a partition. The front room had five ceiling joists which were squared, but the landing ceiling had six round joists. The tie beam passed above the partition door. The old collar, which was pegged to the principals had bowed and a second had been nailed above it. Three of the purlins were laid flat on the backs of the principals. These principals crossed at the apex and were pegged to support a square ridge pole.The rafters below the bottom purlin were rough split posts. There were fewer between the purlins, while the top rafters were much straighter. No cockloft was made over (4). Downstairs the cross passage was a later addition being laid onto the brick floor. A small out-kitchen had been added with a flat roof, now raised and slated. The roof over (3 and 4) has always been thatched.

The Residents living in Church Street Timber Cottages.

Each copyhold cottage begins with the family reconstitution made from all available documents. Symbols used are as follows:

bp and bur = baptised or buried at Cropredy if not otherwise stated.

G = Gravestone in Cropredy churchyard from 1631 onwards.

Any names with a mark eg * will have been legatees to the person whose will has the same symbol. References for Cropredy wills and inventories (1547-1640) are on pages 695-8.

Cropredy wills after that date and all Bourtons wills are added to the text.

Following each family tree are two extracts from the vicar's Easter Oblations lists. These are to show who lived in that particular household over the age of eighteen on those two years. As eight list years have survived an average of all the people living in that particular household was taken. This includes the children using the registers and wills (p130). The information has been given for each of the sixty households.

Page 374/5

The Whytes first enter the records in 1578 when John married Elizabeth Gosset. They remain for three generations. In later years this was a cordwainer's cottage and although the Whytes have relations who were glovers and there is a family of Whytes who were shoemakers in Banbury the connections are slim. The house was large enough to be a craftsman's rather than a labourer's and yet many shoemakers through no fault of their own descended into old age like John (1622-93) who "received the weekly collection" and his wife Elizabeth who died a "poor" widow. By the fourth generation, when the rebuild fits in, John's youngest child Hannah had the copyhold and married John Neal who became the sexton. It was not until their son moved up in the world that they could afford to repair the house. This was too late for the structural evidence. Had John Neal been entered onto the copyhold only on condition they altered the cottage walls around the timber structure with the landlord contributing the stone? Misfortune which can come to anyone could be set in motion through borrowing sums of money to improve buildings which would not necessarily increase their income. Fresh evidence is badly needed for the Neal's ancestors.

John Whyte and Elizabeth who began the Cropredy branch of the Whyte family had five sons and four daughters over a period of eighteen years. The first two babies were fed for little more than a year before Elizabeth was again pregnant. The third baby Fabean died aged three months, and ten months later her fourth, Edward, was born. Elizabeth was still young at this time, but after Edward she could perhaps be more demanding in the need to care for the children by extending their nursing time. In 1584 when Fabean had died food was expensive and they appear to be lacking sufficient land for all their barley or rye bread, though they did have the cow. The fourth baby was born in another difficult season. Elizabeth somehow managed to regulate the spacing of the next four children, so that Edward, Alice, Thomas and Kateren were all given two years of mothering before she again became pregnant. Jane the youngest daughter was only fifteen months old when her system lapsed and the last baby Justinian was born. Over eighteen years of child rearing with several toddlers constantly around to care for, Elizabeth still managed to raise eight of them.

Not all the children could live at home all the time. The parents would have the downstairs chamber which took up the western bay with the buttery behind. It was possible to partition the upper chamber into two rooms. A ladder would take them on up into the apple store and extra sleeping space for older girls?

The tenants of [50] must have accepted them as having some kind of trade. John Whyte the head of the household was the same generation as John Bryan [47] next door. Both fell victim to the epidemic which spread round the town in 1609 and 1610, causing many families to lose the breadwinner. John could not have been much more than sixty. As a widow Elizabeth steps firmly into the position of mistress although William being married could have taken on the business. Justinian the youngest remained at home and appears on the lists from 1615 to 24. Had Elizabeth been unable to grant them any legacies? Were they apprenticed to their father and then carried on working in the hall, for this could have been the only place to make the shop. Thomas left early. Of the girls Ellen marries and departs, Kateren or Jane were there on one of the eight years and Alice is there over several years. By 1624 she is thirtysix and destined to help her mother with no more thoughts of marriage, or finding work elsewhere.

Page 376

It was the eldest son William's misfortune to lose his young wife Grace and have only daughters. When Grace died four months after their second daughter was born who did William get to nurse the baby? Next door Elizabeth Bryan was nursing a baby just a couple of weeks older, would she be able to help? William stayed on for two more years and then he and the children leave the Cropredy records. While the family had been giving house room to William in one chamber was Alice in with her mother? Edward in the men's chamber still could not think of marriage and remained at home working. After William's departure and possible arrangements over giving up any of his rights as eldest son to Edward, he was at last able to marry Anne in 1618 when he was thirtythree. They would sleep in the upstairs chamber. Eventually they take over the cottage, though his name does not head the family in the lists while his mother held onto her position as mistress. What would her daughter-in-law Anne feel? She manages to space the three children allowing them plenty of time before expecting the next. Was this Elizabeth's influence over Edward? Or the general lack of privacy in a three generation household?

By 1624 the family is down to five adults and two young boys, but still headed by Widow Whyte. Edward and Anne's third and last child, Anne, was born in 1625. They were difficult years anyway for a trade supporting several adults. If they were forced to work for a wage then life would be even harder.

In Widow Whytes time their greatest asset was the cottage, the cow and the vegetable garden besides a little arable and leyland. There was an orchard of apple and wardens to the north of the cottage (p284). They would have stored these in the cockloft carrying them up the two ladders. The garden was dug for essential vegetables and kept manured by their house cow.

What caused Widow Elizabeth to give up her home after nearly fifty years? Was it when Edward's wife Anne died, or when he married again? Whatever the reason she must have gone to live with another of her children as she was not buried in Cropredy. Edward's wife Anne was buried the day after Christmas 1629. He was left with three children aged ten, seven and four. Walter Rawlins [45] next door died in 1628 leaving his second wife Cicelie with four children three girls and a boy born between 1610 and 1619. The Whytes and Rawlins had lived next door to each other for nearly forty years. On the 18th of October 1634 Cicelie marries "Edmond" (Edward) Whyte (p480). Perhaps all the younger children then lived at Whytes.

By 1647 Edward's second son John had married Elizabeth and their seven children began to fill their grandfather's house. Edward died aged seventy seven before Hannah was born. A three generation household almost continuously since 1608. John Neal who was to marry Hannah was the sexton and now lived conveniently opposite a church gate. Hannah was paid for scrubbing the lectern and heating the irons when the leads on the church roof were done. They die poor. Their son William (1704-1795) was also a labourer, but on moving to Mixbury, became a farmer. In 1775 a George Neal purchased the property. He was the eighth child of William and brother to Richard, a Mixbury farmer. Both had lived in that village, but had connections with this property by their father and were buried at Cropredy (Graves 436 and 437).

Page 377

Page 378

The Bryan family had a copyhold cottage in the 1552 survey and surely lived then at [47], a cottage on the demense lands. "John Bryan 1 cott. rent iiijs" [Edward V1 1552. Royce 1880 p16]. There was little room for a cow shed with hay loft, but a hovel of some sort had to be built for the cow. As far as we know Eme left no fittings or standards that must be mentioned by her appraisers, so all must belong to her landlord. Their leys were in Honeypleck and Hawtin Piece part of the Oxhay.

John and Eme had four children baptised between 1539 and 1549, but then due to register gaps the family are "lost." Em left a long will which was unfortunately damaged. This could no doubt have told us a great deal, besides the missing children. It did mean that Thomas Holloway had enough patience to humour an old lady with her infinite attention to detail. Thinking it over as she perhaps lay in bed, tells us that indeed, though sick in body her mind was still very clear and active. When the Revd Holloway [21] and Mr Rose [60] called after her death to make an inventory, they were very careful to ignore all and everything outside her one tiny lower chamber. In any case her cow and hearth equipment had already been passed on to her son to keep her in board and lodgings. The married son John, his first wife Ellen and two daughters aged two and three, used the hall, buttery and upper chamber.

John Bryan was once mentioned in the vicar's farm accounts contracted to thresh the corn (p331). John must have had some strong attraction to be able to marry for the third time at fifty. He was to enjoy his first grandson Baptist as a small baby shortly before he died aged sixtyfive. In the winter of 1609/10 he caught the illness which had taken his neighbour John Whyte [46]. His widow Helen must have left for no burial is recorded and she was not in the lists. John's son Richard had not long been married to Elizabeth Shenton and their children came faster than Elizabeth Whyte's [46]. The first two, Baptist and William, had just over a year of nursing. The third had longer, but only because William died and no doubt it was hard for the mother to allow her baby Joyce to be weaned and any thought of a fourth pregnancy was put off for a while. Ursula the next baby fed longer, but the fifth and sixth had less attention at just over fourteen months. What a strain to be constantly pregnant or feeding from 1609 for over eleven years and producing seven children. These details are mentioned partly because their house conditions were good enough to raise large families. At the same time it was vital to keep up with their work while raising several older children, hauling all their water in pails from the well, coping with dung heaps for all waste, managing the cow, helping with their land, spinning and sewing and yet some still lived long enough to see their grandchildren occupy the same house as Whytes did, though not by John Bryan's first wife for she died before her mother-in-law Eme.

Richard and Elizabeth Bryan may have had connections with people who were to become known as Baptists to call a son by that name. They encouraged him as the eldest to attend the Williamscote grammar and this must have helped to set him up elsewhere. His background was no deterrent (p138). Perhaps to help contribute to the household budget and replace his wages, the family took in three Breedon adults and possibly their children in 1619. The next year they had gone. It could have been an emergency of course from fire or loss of a tenancy.

The third generation allowed Robert/Richard the youngest to continue the copyhold. He and Elizabeth have only one child registered and after Richard died Elizabeth was soon to go, perhaps marrying again?

Page 379

An extract from Richard Norman's inventory taken on the 28th of March 1634 revealed:

"His weareinge Apparrell 6s 8d/

one table & frame & one table/ board & one bench & board one skrine/

[crossing out] one paire of potthooks/ & lincks one Iron pott one paire/

of bellowes one spitt & all other/ implements in the hall 10s/

one cubbord fower old kettles/ one little brasse pott & pewter dishes/

one chafinge dysh & all other odd/ things in the butterry 15s/..."

Page 380

In this cottage Richard Norman and his wife Alyce lived together for thirtyfive years. They had only two daughters and Anne the eldest was entered onto the copyhold. In their two bay hall which measured 15' x 14' they had an open fire with "one paire of potthooks/ and links." There was a pair of bellows to draw up the fire and a spit to roast the meat in front of it. The links to hold the pot over the fire would come down from the roof. A stone edge to the central hearth would contain the fire on all sides. The iron pot could cook a complete meal and one of Alyce's kettles kept over the fire would be used for water. Richard had a table and frame and another table board and the bench on which they had four old cushions. Richard Norman had put up a "skreene," or inherited it, for it either kept the draughts from the front door blowing smoke round the hall, or might help to control the draught round the fire. There were two inner doors under the upper floor which jettied out. One to their bed chamber and the other to the narrow buttery. A screen in front of these two doors could help to hold back the smoke from the lower chamber when the door opened. In the buttery Alyce had a "cubbard" and kept her "fower kettles/, one little brasse pot and pewter dishes." They had a brass chafing dish, usually found in more affluent households which was used to keep food warm by putting hot ashes in it from the fire (p630). This passed to the youngest daughter for it appears in her husband's inventory. For carrying water Alyce had a "pale." She also had one old looune [an open vessel], one vat three old coffers and a tub. There was also a stone weight, perhaps used as a cheese "press."

The bed with adequate bedding squeezed into the 7'6" wide chamber, backing up to the buttery wall, leaving room for the upper chamber to be reached by the ladder at the foot of the bed, but little space for an old coffer in which they kept their clothes and a cupboard "and all other od implemts there" valued at £1. Once the youngest daughter is married the upper chamber belonged to the Hudsons.

The hall was lit by a candle, for like the Cox's next door [49] they had two candlesticks, and did not have to rely entirely on homemade rush lights which gave a poor quality glow. Hudsons kept the boulting hutch (used to sift flour and store a small amount) in the upper chamber away from vermin, or due to a lack of space elsewhere because the buttery was used to make butter, or soft summer cheeses. Also in the upper chamber was the most important item, the Hudson's bedstead, with the furniture belonging to it. Nothing was said in the inventories of the children's bed, so this may be one household where straw mattresses (of no value) were laid on the upper chamber floor. Four coffers held all their possessions. Sheets and blankets were there, but not as many as next door [49]. Hudsons also had a chair, stools and a form which had not belonged to Richard Norman. Like the Cox's they had two barrels in the buttery. Whether for ale or butter is not mentioned.

Richard Norman may have been a thatcher and had Tom Hudson working for him when Tom met and married their youngest daughter Elizabeth. Richard has connections of some sort with Richard Cartwright, gentleman [50] and Richard Gorstelow of Prescote manor. They came to help him write his will. This was an exceptional event for gentlemen to come into a cottage to write a will, other than the vicar, and even more strange that Ambrose Holbech came over from Mollington to join them and yet Richard Norman left only £5-19s-10d. Under what obligation were they to come? Was he a part time thatcher and gardener in Gorstelow's grounds, as others later in this cottage were? Could his special skills be known far and wide?

In 1727 the Sabin family still lived in the cottage [48]. The father Richard and son John renewed their lease for twentyfive years [Loose paper within Add. MS 71960].

Page 381

Sir William Boothby of Warwick leased to Richard and John Sabin of Cropredy, both gardeners ," a cottage and land in the occupation of Richard Sabin... all that ...dwelling house gardens ... cow comon and two cottages of bushes" in Oxhay. The rent was 15 shillings per annum. They must pay quarterly and add a couple of pullets. Tenants had at their own proper cost and charges to "sufficiently repire sustaine the cottage and amend" the premises. The landlord allowing such timber as "they shall think fitt for the doing thereof." The entry fine was £2-2s [1727]. Many leases had not changed since Richard Norman was the tenant. John Sabin was also farming a land in Landimore as well as having a ley in Hawtin's Piece.

The Sabin's lease mentioned the thatch was the tenant's responsibility, but with only one land to provide the straw for feeding and bedding the cow, little could be spared. The straw may have to be bought and carted at some cost to the household. Thatching could be expensive unless they were indeed in the trade. From Thomas Hudson's inventory his tools suggest he was one so surely he taught his children and they passed down some of the skills required, to allow them to do it themselves. Thomas had a ladder in the upper chamber, which was not the fixed one for getting into the upper room belonging to the landlord, but more likely to have been for thatching and pushed in through the upper window to be stored in the longest room, and so preserve it. He also had a thatching rake, tenon saw, spade and shovel besides three angares [augers]. Another thatcher was Kendall who died in 1596. He had an awl, a pair of "syssers" as well as a hammer and "thacking" rake [13].

Richard Norman may have had only £5-19s -10d, but with a home he'd lived in for so long and his family around him catering for his welfare, he was wealthier than many. Better than his spinster daughter Anne/Alyce who although she was able to live her life at home, may have had no dowry, though she did have a life on the copyhold, and later on helped her widowed sister Elizabeth to bring up her children, until they left home or were married. When Thomas Hudson married Elizabeth Norman he had moved into her family home and they never move on. For the Hudsons's first eighteen months her parents had the lower chamber and then following the death of her mother Alyce their father Richard retained the use of the small room for fourteen more years. If the Hudson's had the upper chamber where did Anne/Alyce sleep? After nineteen years of marriage and with six of their seven children still alive Thomas Hudson the thatcher died. Their eldest son William who was by then seventeen must already have been at work and was either able with his brother Thomas aged fifteen to take on some thatching, or leave to earn a living elsewhere. Most unusually three of their children live on in Cropredy. It is another good example of a three generation family in an older timber house following the custom of caring for your own whenever possible. Thomas Hudson's eldest son William, who married Anne Sabin, didn't inherit the cottage, but lived next door at Bryan's, leaving room for his sister Mary who had married John Sabin. John died in 1671 and Mary was left with two sons and three daughters to bring up. Her eldest Richard kept on the Sabin's copyhold and there they stay for three generations.

Would John Sabin, the gardener, work at Prescote Manor's walled garden? Sir John Danvers (born 1585) who inherited Prescote Manor was at Brasenose College and then at Lincoln's Inn. He was well read and scholarly, with a "fancy for gardens and architecture." He lived in Chelsea letting out Prescote, but had he encouraged a fine garden there? His tenant was Richard Gorstelow senior who had walked amongst the glades in the walled garden, according to his son Walter (p283).

Page 382/3

Who were licenced to run the inn.

Next door to Norman's lived the Cox family. We know that the occupants over several generations would set off up the Oxhay Road to cut and gather their hay from a ley in Bretch, and one in Honeypleck. These were on the south side of the road. In Hawtin's piece on the north part of the Oxhay they had rights to gather furze and also another ley land. Thomas Cox had "wood and ffurs" in his yard in 1617 (both Normans and Cox have furze. Did they all take their furze bundle to Hills[20] the baker to heat the oven, along with their bread dough?). Where did they get their peas, barley and maslin to feed themselves and the cow? By 1614 to 1617 Cox's may have had to sublet the cow common for a few years, but the rent would hardly replace the value of the cows milk. The cottagers' whole way of life and survival was dependent on that cow. Cox did have enough space in his garden to put up a stone hovel for the cow. Behind his small plot was the L shaped farmyard belonging to Coldwells [50]. Cox's well was not far from the north east corner of the original cottage.

An extract from the inventory of Thomas Coxe was taken by Edmond Tanner [39], Robert Robins [26] and William Reade [32] senior, on the 11th of June 1617 and exibited on the 14th.

"All his wearing Apparell------------------------------------ 13s -4d/

In the over Chamber One Beddstedd 2 Coffers/ "(etc) 26s/

"Eight payre of sheetes ffive napkins 2 payre of/

pillowbeares And 2 towells & 2 Table Cloathes ----£3- 8s/

Three Blankettes a Twilie Cloath & a coverlid -------- 15s/

Twelve skenes of Linnen yearne -------------------------- 4s/

In the Chamber one bed wth ffurniture/

to the same 2 Coffers" (etc) --------------------------------26s/

"In a nether Buttreye 2 Barrells 2 wheeles" (etc) ---- 13s- 4d..." Total £11- 9s.

Page 384

Thomas's father William Cox was a labourer who died in 1563, so the Cox's were not new to the town. After Thomas died in 1617, when he was seventyone, his wife kept going for six more years with the help of her grown up daughters. Mary was home for two years out of five and Joane aged twentytwo also arrives home for two of the eight years covered by the vicar's Easter lists. The Cox family had two wheels for the women to spin their linen yarn. Twelve "skenes" of which were worth 4 shillings when the father died. The yarn was stored in the upper chamber along with the bed and two coffers which held eight pairs of sheets, two napkins, two pairs of pillowbeares, two towels and two tablecloths. In the buttery below were the ten pewter platters and two barrels. Their brass was worth thirty shillings. The lower parlour with the door next to the buttery entrance held, like the other two cottages in the row, a double bed and somehow two coffers as well as the ladder to the upper room. This house had a larger number of sheets and pewter platters than cottagers would normally possess and the third highest total for brass and pewter in the second decade of the sixteenth century. Was Cox a victualler as far back as 1617 taking in travellers?

The widow Margaret kept house until 1623 when with several others in the town she too died. The daughter Mary who had been entered upon the copyhold had married Peter Arisse in 1620 and they must have been helping with the business. After nearly forty years of running the place old age overtook them and they were to die in poverty. Peter in 1658 and Mary in 1660. This does not mean they did not prosper at first, only that old age meant an inability to earn for Mary was at least seventyeight if she had been the eldest Cox daughter. Mary and Peter baptised only Elizabeth Arisse, on the 5th of October 1628, and no other children. Elizabeth married the shoemaker Robert Swetman. Their son Robert and his wife Margaret were able to help Robert's widowed mother to extend and alter the cottage (p370).

The Swetman's were originally from Wardington and their eldest grand daughter married Joseph Garret of that parish. One of the Garret boys must have been apprenticed to his grandfather Swetman, or taken into his care for Robert made his will in August 1741before his grandson was married. Margaret Swetman had died in 1739 and the four daughters must already have left Cropredy. Robert left to John "all my implements belonging to my trade of shoemaking." John was to become his sole executor at twentyone. He had only been married a few weeks when he became the tenant.

John Garret had married Ann Smith, sister to William Smith, cordwainer (who had taken over the Whyte/Neal cottage) [46]. John and Ann have six children, but then the family luck ran out. John died aged thirtyfour and his wife five years later. The parish apprenticed the two surviving boys. One moved to Robert Goldbys to become a stone mason in 1763. Ann's brother William Smith became the tenant and took out the licence "at the house wherein he now dwells." It became known as The Red Lion in 1786 [Victuallers Recognisances 1753-1821 Vol Qs D/V 1-4 in O.A]. They had noticed that William had moved down to the Garrets house, "wherein he now dwells." In due course William became too old to attend the licensing court and sends his youngest daughter's husband, John Lambert. A note to the Cropredy vicar states "In consideration of Smith's great age and ill state of health his house was continued for his life, but not to be licensed for his son in law, John Lambert." They wanted to suppress at least one public house. In the end William Hemming's [39] "House was put down" and he had to close it while the Red Lion remained [MS. dd par Cropredy c40 folio (a)]. So the property came down from father to son, daughter, grand daughter or brother and on continuously "in the family" until the first decade of this century.

Page 385

The street began to move steadily into trade. A cordwainers row almost, but also the home later of tailors, masons, blacksmiths and coal-merchants, not to mention Lambert the wheelwright who was a parish clerk for sixty years. Thomas Lambert ran the Red Lion after his brother died, until he too was buried in 1901. The last of a long line to live there who still had family connections with William Cox by blood, or marriage.

The size of the families might fluctuate, but the majority had parents to care for, once they could no longer work. There was no tradition of elderly couples or single men or women living alone, except for Widow Hyrens [56] in the early 1600's and Miss Carter [57] in 1681. Neither was there an alms house, so the cottagers must make room for three generations, older siblings and sometimes even lodgers. Cox's had one of the smallest households in the record. On the other hand it behoved the one who had a life on the copyhold to come home frequently to help, or was it their entitlement? While reconstituting many of the families for Church Street it was noticed that the eldest son was not necessarily the one to inherit as daughters were often chosen. The fortunate one continued to live under the ancestral roof. Into the cottage the families squeezed many who had a right to be there. Did this policy of struggling against all odds to hang onto the lease, make them just a little conservative about change? What was good for grandma was surely good enough for them. It took an outsider marrying into the family to boost the purse and progress to stone walls and soot free rooms.

Householders were as secure in their timber cottages as husbandmen in their new stone houses. They were just as keen to improve their material image and allow one of the younger sons an opportunity to advance through education. After all only one could inherit the farm or cottage. In Holloway's time Baptist Bryan had the chance to reach college providing enough money could be raised. These open hall cottages still had some advantages over a one cell stone building like Suttons [42] on the High Street for although they all had one reasonable upper chamber, the timber cottages also had a small lower chamber and eventually a possible half chamber over the hall. Norman's hall was used for sitting, eating, preparing and cooking as well as all the numerous daily tasks the women had to undertake. Sutton's had to conduct the tailoring trade (except when working at the customer's house) in the same room as well as accommondate a bed. Watts the tailors [47] had the shop in the low chamber, but they did have the advantage of their extension. The long-house-types in the next chapter had a stairs from the hall, which prevented the lower chamber becoming a passage to the upper floor. Once a chimney was made there was then no smoke to worry about getting into the chambers, which was the obvious reason why they could not have the ladder to the upper chamber in the hall. In larger houses the preparing was done in another room, but they still kept the newel stairs next to the main hall fire. The Church Street cottages had no option but to leave the addition of a stairs to a later century.

We have seen how family reconstitution can often explain how a tenant acquired the right to be in a property. That registers are not the only source of information to use with local wills, sometimes an educated vicar like Thomas Holloway made lists in a methodical manner. He also encouraged bright young boys from all types of households to attend the free grammar school at Williamscote.

In the next chapter we will look at the adaptation of the traditional long-house which included a barn under the same roof. These new buildings were an improvement on the old dwelling. They must have surely influenced the lives of the occupiers, giving them a confidence to continue with an old and established form of peasant life while living on an ideal smallholding.