Trust and Borrowing

Up to the end of our period money was put out in bonds. They put money by for an entry fine on a new lease, a bond for a marriage jointure, or any number of commitments that would require saving up for. Loaning it to people they could trust outside the family and borrowing more either by word of mouth with witnesses, or by a sealed contract called a speciality. The appraisers wrote on John Sheeler's inventory: "that [which] was owing unto him upon two bonds" £5-4s and "that [which] was oweing him that he had no bond for but only witness" £8. John the shepherd's inventory shows his savings which he had lent out until he was ready to take up a lease (p90).

The whole process of borrowing and lending was extremely complex, but a man with debts had been trusted and if he had lived no doubt he would have repaid them and borrowed and lent again. The majority with a surplus might owe money and lend at the same time. The payment of a sum allowed other loans to be repaid. It could be that when a man or his wife lived in one or more parishes during their youth or training, they kept up with friends made at that time, extending that vital range of contacts they could trust.

Stephen Cross of Bourton died in 1611 owing £16-12s-6d to six people of which three lived in Chacombe and one in Woodend. There were eight people owing him a total of £21-8s-2d: two in Chacombe, two in Cropredy, three in Bourton and the last a Robert Hollway owed him £1-0s-5d and Stephen wrote "I owe him 5s for haye" [PCC 116 Wingfield 103]. His neighbour George Watts died in 1615 owing money to twelve people totalling more than £200 as he was buying land, yet he was at the same time owed well over this amount. The more he owed the more others seemed to borrow from him and he would need to know his credits and debits down to the fourth part of a penny [PCC 126 Rudd 69].

Not all debts mentioned were upon bonds, some were the day to day debts occurring in a household. John Sherman of Little Bourton made a will in 1559 detailing these worrying sums: "William Truss wyffe owith me iijs iiijd of wch I forgette her v grotes [a silver coin worth four pence] so that she do paye that willingly to my wife or ellys to paye the sole iijs iiijd. Ric Clarydge owithe me xxd or ells a shepe worthe xxd. John Molle owithe me vjd. Olde grenewodde of Cledon owithe me iiijd for rents." Was Grenewodde in a cottage and this was his quarterly rent? Richard Cleredge was a drover [183 251r].

Other debts turn out to be money due to craftsmen for work done. John Russell [13] blacksmith had done 10s worth of work for the church which the two towns of Cropredy and Bourton still owed even after his death. Three years later Bourton parish still had not paid their half of the bill. The debt was now due to Richard Terry [13], weaver, who had married the widow Elizabeth Russell. They had only been married a short time when in 1603 Richard made his will: "and where as I owe unto the towne of Bourton 3s-9d for the will of William Hall deceased in regard that the townsmen do remitt my executor that debt then I doe forgive them the 5s otherways myself to receive the one. And they to pay the other."

In Richard Terry's will are good examples of both specialty debts and "also in my house £10 debts by booke." Those who live in Cropredy and Bourton to whom he lent money by specialty were:

* This is evidence that Woodrose had connections in Cropredy four years before he leases the Manor Farm [8]. If some of these debts were for stock then perhaps others were for work done or purchases.

John French [4] who died in 1602 owed John Hall £5 [29] and Elizabeth Hentlowe £8 [35]. Elizabeth's brother John Hentlowe had also lent out money and had £30 of debts by specialties still owing when he died in 1617. Robert Robins in 1631 had "money due to the testator from severall p'sons: £58," which are unfortunately not named and neither were John Truss the shepherd's who had let out £12 by "specialties" to several people.

A few at the end of their long farming life had to help out with the grandchildren due to a protracted illness, or a sudden death of the heir. They might have to realise some of their assets by leasing out half the land to pay off debts, and to bring up the family as Grandfather French [4] did. Over the fifteen years he would have cleared his son's debts but had again to borrow as he grew older, nevertheless Thomas French left good legacies to each grandchild. He wished his grandson Thomas as his executor to clear a £20 debt by tilling or setting the leased yardland with the help of the overseers: the vicar, "my cosen William Hall" [6], George Gibbs of Chipping Warden and John Hall [29] who were to advise Thomas on how they "shall think meet for the speedy payment of these debts".

Thomas Densey [13] after being apprenticed out by his grandfather's widow Elizabeth Russell eventually took over the tenancy of his Gramp's forge [13]. Thomas in his turn helped his mother-in-law Ellen Bicke, bringing her to live with them and looking after her savings. "A debt" of £4-9s-6d "owed nyed unto ye deceased bye ye executor" Thomas.

Some money was put forth yearly for the best profit. Many testators expecting overseers or executors to carry out the increasing of assets for the children. John Cross in 1613 asked the "overseers to imploye their several legacies to their best preferments as they in wisedome shall think best." Fremund Denzie did the same. The two tailors Sutton [42] and Matcham [18] who were both in their late fifties, and the carpenter Lucas [2] about sixty, have no money owing to anyone. Matcham has managed to have "one bond of seaven pounds with the Consideration," and Lucas had owing to him bonded money worth £8-1s. In 1616 the weaver Watts [27] dying in his early fifties, had one bond of 40s which William Toms oweth. Toms then in his late forties had taken over his parent's farm on the Green [15] (as the eldest brother Richard had died). William Toms owed the late Watts a favour, and Watt's daughter and husband, Mr & Mrs Shotswell moved down to Toms cottage. This could be another way of sorting out obligations. The weaver Watts who had lived through the dreadful 1590's may like the Cox's [49] in Church Street have been forced to receive pewter in lieu of payment.

Robert Whettell who worked for the tenant of the A manor farm [50] left £20 which had been lent to his brother George who lived in London. The rest of his savings of around fifty pounds he distributes to various close relatives, but for some reason included £4 to his present master Mr Lakey. The Lakeys were related to Martha Woodrose of the B manor farm [8] and it was Martha who wrote Robert's Whettell's will. Perhaps for that service he left Elizabeth her daughter 10s (p151). Here was a labourer still a bachelor who had "banked" his savings, now using his bonds to help relations. Robert had no need to borrow.

Any craftsman who worked for others, even in their third stage in lifeas Thomas Browne [58] did, placed their money out on bonds. Widower Browne's family had been settled and he came to Cropredy to be near his daughter whose husband William Carter was also a collarmaker [57]. The Carters lived below the church in Pare's yard off Round Bottom and Thomas Browne moved into Pare's [58] servant's chamber in the late 1570's. He left 40s in the hands of his master John Pare and £11 and one noble with a Banbury mercer Edmond Wickham.

Having bonds and debts required a will if they were not to be lost or go unpaid. One of those whose relatives may have asked them to sort out their money by speaking their last wishes before witnesses, was the unfortunate John Gulliver of Bourton, a collarmaker, who made a nuncupative will in 1642. He "beleived as he sayd his life was but short for that he was pursuaded he had melted his grease within his body, did the Saturday night before Trinity Sunday last send for some of his neighbours and friends and to them declare that his will was that his tenement and freeland... at Leamington in Warwickshire his wife [Ann] should have duringe her life. And also his freeholt at Borton...until his child [William] come to the age of" twentyone. A trusted craftsman worth £109 of which £43 was out on a bond to George Gardner. He owed more than he had out on bond and his wife must repay £51. A bible was found with their household goods [MS. Will Pec.39/3/38].

It was a different kind of situation when your whole business ran on credit. Edmond Tanner who had the mercer's shop [39] only favoured short term credit. The vicar had to advance the money against his parish clerk's next quarterly wage and also his curate, Mr Man of Mollington, to satisfy the mercer's demands. The debts due by the Tanner's "Shopp booke" in 1630 were slight compared to others: "Due from severall persons for wares as appeth by the shoppbook" £1-8s-4d (p405).

The Palmers were small business people whose shop book had many unpaid debts. Although described as a labourer in his will he had received some education at Williamscote school and possibly had a milk and butter round supplemented by contract or day labouring. In 1631 he has £1-18s in ready money and £4 lent to "my brother Richard Smith of Shotteswell," but there were also £5 of desperate debts. This was the year of high grain prices due to the failure of the rye harvest, and a great many were struggling to survive on very little food. Then a fatal illness arrived at William Hill's the whitbakers house, one of the poorest men in Cropredy. There were however others who had money, who also died. The Palmers may have been allowing small debts to be run up by not collecting the money from his desperate neighbours. Their own family had food and money when the illness struck them, so were fitter than most, yet four in the family die (p447-9). His son manages to collect some of the money back while carrying on the business and supporting his siblings, helped by the remaining Aunt and his sister Ann. He too runs into illness in July 1634 and the "debts desperate" were there, but now down to £1-15s, or could these be fresh debts? This would have been enough to purchase a cow. Thomas had also managed to put away £4-2s in cash. Thomas's death could have been from a multitude of causes, but the fact that several die does seem to indicate another contagious disease.

As some were not renowned for prompt payment then those tradesmen who could not write must rely on a tally stick per customer. If employers hired a day labourer then a tally of days worked was understood by both. All could "keep tally." Some no doubt brought a strike or peck of corn to the collarmaker to settle a repaired collar, or to the blacksmith who sharpened the plough. The vicar to safeguard his tithes kept long and detailed lists so that he never charged twice, and although we will never know the hardship and resentment it must have caused the poor, Thomas Holloway over the fortyfive years he lived in Cropredy, may have managed to bring in his tithes in kind without too much trouble. He employed Thomas Palmer to collect in the cottagers common tithes for their cow, and discharged his own payment of 5d (p232). Book keeping was one of Thomas Holloway's main strengths. He knew to the quarter of a penny how much was owed him and by whom. Yet he did not consider it worthwhile to press for non payment of tithes at the church court (p29).

If a man had few pence in his purse it might mean he had reached old age, but not always. Coins at the beginning of our period were always hard to come by for there was never enough to go round. Elizabeth Howse [9] in 1578 had "her purse and girdle" valued at 2s-2d and yet she farmed a yardland. A year earlier Elizabeth Gybbs [?25] left no money at all. These two had inventories valued at £23-13s-10d and £47-12s-6d.

Another reason why those leaving wills in the late sixteenth century kept little money at hand was because it was subject to devaluation. In the second decade of the seventeenth century there was still nothing unusual when a man had under a pound in his purse as John Cross the miller did in 1614. Those who had been about to enter upon land, or with wages paid up in full as they lay dying were like Sheeler whose purse held £5-6s-4d in 1619. It was not until the end of the 1620's and into the 1630's that the amount of money found in their personal estates began to increase from a few pounds to ten and over, except for those like Edward Lumberd senior who had settled his affairs and had no need to save for a lease. All these lived on the A.Manor:

Some estates demanded a bond as security every time a new lease was entered into. On the B Manor, apart for one in 1556 made by French for Springfield [6], none were entered on the lease before 1657 when one was required for the B manor farm [8]. Three others were demanded in 1659 [3, 32 & 35] and a fifth was asked for in 1668 [6], which meant the College had begun this practice well after our period. We do not know how big the entry fine was at this stage, but the tenants must put money by every year to renew the lease. Then the whole process began again over the next generation.

Some grocers issued their own coins as Mrs King [47?] did at Cropredy just after our period. Others used bonds when "good English money" was scarce. Those lacking coins must always barter. We do not know if this was a careful frugalness or just that ready money was often unavailable, once they reached old age.

In spite of a serious cash flow very few died with several debts owing, for they could generally sort things out while ill, but sudden death left this to the wife or son. This happened to Richard Howse [24] in 1600 and he left his wife Grace "to take my goods and pay my debts," and his cousin also Rechard Howse [28] who died aged fortythree still owing "Freman Densy the sum of £14 " in 1592. Shortage of good English money to pay for materials was one reason why personal loans were made for rebuilding or setting up a farm. Had Rechard Howes [28] married late after rebuilding his house in stone, or because his widowed mother passed on the debts incurred from when his father Rychard moved into the new stone house? Alese's uncle Fremund Densy from whom they had borrowed £14 was an elderly bachelor who came down to Cropredy to live with his niece (p115) and so he had few overheads. This Bourton man ran his sheep with hers and continued to lend money and assist relations. Fremund, as a maternal uncle could not benefit from Alese's estate if she died first, and was able to help his nephews whom he called "my kinsmen." Fremund made his will in June dying in the September soon after Alese. He had obviously been training her eldest son Thomas Howse [28] and made him executor. For the widow Howse's four boys he left William 30s, John 30s, Richard 40s (as another godson) and Thomas as executor "the rest of my goods unbequeathed." "My desyer is that my overseers doe putt yt forthe for the best preferment of the sayd children" so Thomas must hand over the four legacies to the overseers, Thomas Holloway [21] and William Lyllee [29], according to the wish of old Fremund. The three sons of William Densy of Bourton also received £5: 30s to Thomas, 30s to John, and £2 for Fremund his godson. His other kinsman "Richard Lovell doth owe unto me iiij£ and odde money that I lent him. I doe will that at some convenient time wthin twoe yeares after my decease he payeth unto my executor three pounds... the rest I forgive yt him." The remainder was not in the inventory, so must have been paid. Parents were to put it out to profit with any other money a minor had, usually on a witnessed bond.

Other debts were sometimes for marriage gifts which were being paid in instalments. Vaughan owed £4 to his daughters husband Ralph Wells. Was this why they were housed in his cottage next door, or had his daughter moved in with his shepherd? William Vaughan, yeoman [23] may have neglected to pay his daughter's whole dowry, or he employed his son-in-law Ralph Wells [22], to help on his farm, and the £4 debt to Ralph was for back wages? He also owed the blacksmith 8s and had not yet paid the legacy "to his children by george Gardner's gyft" £1. However if he had attended the proving of Gardner's will at the Cropredy church court in 1591 he may have been mortified by the wording. "I give unto the children of William Vaughan which he had by this woman"(p555). Now his son George as executor must pay these debts.

Money was beginning to be thought of as a commodity to be used, but still some hung onto any silvercoins they had, rather as their fathers had collected pewter. Not all the "money" in circulation could be easily turned into hard cash when money was lent out and borrowed upon bonds. Across the High Street from Vaughans, Thomas Gybbs [25] in 1629 died a wealthy man by Cropredy standards. He was in his middle fifties and had made his money work for him by lending it out. Gybbs was not alone in charging interest, but did others forego to ask his help with a will because of his powerful status? The money owed to him was in the hands of the following:

These could have been from the sale of corn and stock except for the largest sum, which may be for Sabyn's land and buildings, or even an entry into his new lease.

Next door Robert Robins [26] was now a yeoman. He was caught by the 1631 fever when he was only fortythree. Robert was certainly not short of money, for he was owed £58. Because Robins had purchased land he considered himself a yeoman and Gybbs who had no freehold remained a husbandman.

No-one whose will was proved at Cropredy church court before or after Gybbs and Robins (whose moveable estates were assessed at £220 and £343) left such high amounts in the period 1570 to 1640. Nor had any others at the time of their death had so much money out on loan until twenty years later when the spinster Em Dyer alias Devotion [3] had £57-5s (p102). Not all were able to put their money out to advantage for although John Hall [29] was a yeoman he left little to show for his life work except £10 in bonds and the remainder of his flock when he died in 1640. He had not had the advantages that gentlemen like the vicar obviously had to increase their profits.

Gold and silver were in very short supply and Thomas Holloway increased the shortage for he had apparently a hundred pounds "in my house at the writinge hereof as my wieffe and my daughter knoweth. I doe give the said hundred pounds unto Thomas my sonne." He also had bonds "taken in my sonne Thomas his name." The older children had all been settled, presumably as generously as Thomas.

Traders like the millers rarely died owing money, but John Palmer did in 1605. Unfortunately we do not know who the three men were. Mr Dodding who was owed £10, Mr Shorte £2 and Mr Pemberton 14s. A William Palmer was also owed £6. Milling could be profitable as John Cross at the upper mill had a total of £31-6s-6d owed to him in 1613. This was just under half his estate. John must have cleared any debts before he died.

First a heriot was due to the landlord. Rychard Howse left to his son Rechard two horses "the Best after the Lords." Or the best cow or her value. Secondly the vicar was owed a mortuary in case the deceased had forgotten to pay tithes. In 1529 mortuaries were fixed by an Act, so that a personal estate less than £30 was exempt. "From £30 to £40 the rate was 3s-4d to 6s-8d, over£ 40 they owed 10s-6d" [Tate W.E. The Parish Chest p69. 1974 Cambridge Univ. Press]. Dr Brouncker wrote down some of the mortuaries owed to him from 1619 to 1626 amongst which were three people who left wills, but no surviving inventories:

In Cropredy one family leave an account which itemizes the costs following the death of the head of a household. William Cattell/ Cathell [30] may have been unable to make a will being still excommunicated from the church, so that the sister had to take out letters of administration and make an "accompt" in 1635. Dying was an expensive business. The cost of Cattell's has been summarized to show the fees and debts to be paid:

The inventory totalled £45-15s-2d and the Judge did allow Gillian Cattell's two sisters Anne and Mary £8 each and the rest to Gillian, after the bills were paid. Whether the estate would raise £45 was always a problem and Gillian must stay to sell the contents of the farm and house at her own expense. We do not know where Cattells came from or were they went to.

Inventories may give a total of the deceased's moveable estate, but left out freehold land and any transactions already completed with married children. It could cost the executors a considerable sum chasing up desperate debts and travelling to London to prove a will. When finally goods were divided up the widow might be left with barely a third and possibly minus her much needed stock.

As a widower who had settled most of his affairs and who would not be entering upon a new lease, Lumberd [14] had no need to put money away on bonds. From his will Edward Lumberd had only 7s owed to him by his son-in-law Abel, but in his inventory he has £5-10s of ready money, to pay his way. Here was a man still farming over a yardland in his early 70's on part of the holding, with a crop worth £30 in the barn, five cows, two mares and seventythree sheep worth £30. We can hardly put him amongst the inactive, yet in spite of the value of his goods and stock he has not apparently reached the yeomanry status he purports to be. William Hall [6] classes him as a husbandman as his ancestors had been. Edward had kept a good balance of his assets in working stock and land while still able. He had dealt with all his children except his youngest son and unlike his ancestor William in 1549 did not have to leave the "resydue" to the children "that they may be hable to defende themselves."

In the middle stage of life when more land was leased this would increase the stock and naturally brought in more corn, so the house possessions would be proportionally less as the land leased increased. Nevertheless it is worth looking at a dozen sites to see how they balanced their estates in a mixed farming area. It was also a means of safe guarding portions for their children by making sure the stock, corn and working farm equipment always exceeded their household possessions. The search was at first confined to those, who unlike Lumberd, were still farming with a growing family when death suddenly overtook them. Would those who had kept the household goods to below a third have weathered the poor years better or not? French [4], a husbandman, had 36% in household goods the same as Woodrose [8] who as a gentleman was more likely to manage a poor year with assets in London and 11 acres in Hertfordshire. His predecessor Nuberry [8] as a husbandman had played it safer with just 20% in the house and 54% in stock to Woodrose's 36%, but although Woodrose's stock was worth £92 he lacked sheep. Nuberry had 19 couples as well as 81 other sheep and he was rearing beef. When Nuberry died in 1578 the corn was valued at £26 on his 4 yardlands. He died suddenly leaving a large family and an active farm producing a surplus of corn and stock which would continue to provide for them. Woodrose's children were left in a similar fashion, but although French's father died young he left a much smaller family. The two families of French and Woodrose do not last into the eighteenth century, but neither did poor Nuberry's family renew once the lease ran out. It might take a good wife, several yardlands and reasonable harvests to rise above the father's death, if the outgoings continued as before. Toms [15] were always frugal and lasted right into the nineteenth century. They kept down to 16% inside.

Was their long stay due to the fact Toms delayed rebuilding in stone for a hundred years, so that when their nintynine years were up they were able to transfer to Hill Farm after the Enclosure of the Open Common Fields?

All but four of the following inventories were made between 1628 and 1635 [8,15,16,28]*. They reveal the balance between possessions, stock, corn and farm equipment. The testators were not all in the middle stage in life, but died farming:

Site	Surname	Date	Total	% Stock	%Crop	%House	% money/Lease
							/Equipment
[3]	Devotion	1631	£27-1s-4d	44	24	24	8
[15*]	Toms	1607	£37-14s-2d	37	47	16
[3]	Devotion	1634	£44-2s-2d	36	34	26	4
[4]	French	1632	£87-16s-2d	38	19	36	7
[14]	Lumberd	1635	£97-6s-1d	32	31	32	5
[28*]	A.Howse	1609	£124-1s-8d	29	24	21	26
[33]	Truss	1634	£128	77	5	6	12
[8*]	Nuberry	1578	£166-14s-2d	54	16	20	10
[8]	Woodrose	1628	£181-6s-6d	36	23	36	6
[34]	Hall	1634	£196	48	28	11	11
[25]	Gybbs	1629	£220	29	19	13	39
[16*]	Hunt	1609	£272	23	24	11	33
[26]	Robins	1631	£344	34	17	23	26

Devotions aged sixtyfour and sixtysix [3] had a quarter of their estate inside, but the widow also increased the stock by 1634 and had more corn than her husband partly due to a better harvest. Yet her percentage of stock to the overall total is less than her husbands, 44% and 36%. Her corn at 34% was 10% more than his, but his equipment was double hers. Lumberds had 32% in the house, 32% stock and 31% corn so that his corn was higher than French and Woodroses. Gybbs [25] was a low 13% in the house, but having 27% in money and 12% in equipment his stock 29% and corn 19% were obviously lower than Lumberds. Having twice the personal estate Gybb's extra yardland gave him more stock, corn and assets and with these he could go on increasing at a faster rate than Lumberd. It would seem that it was not the percentages which were important, but the more obvious one of how much corn and stock they could now produce which was in excess of their necessities. Once surplus stock and corn could be translated into money, or bonds for legacies it changed the attitude towards purchasing moveable goods previously acquired for legacies.

Gybbs [25] had increased the stock to six dairy cows and two heifers worth £18 and a flock of eighty sheep at £24 as well as his team with three colts at £20. His corn was valued at £41 in April, whereas Robins [26] on slightly more land had £61 worth of corn and £120 in stock (thirteen cattle, a hundred sheep and seven horses in the stable in May), but still managed 23% in the house in addition to money and bonds, 22%, worth £78. Richard Hall [34] who was at least fiftyfour when he officially took over the Watts farm by marrying the young widow, continued to dwell in a household where goods never rose above essentials. They had just 11% inside which was almost as low as the shepherd Truss [33] next door who left only 6% of his goods inside, though Truss's sister had all the cooking equipment. Hall's stock were worth £94 (48%) and Truss's £80 (77%), but whereas Richard Hall had land and £55 (28%)worth of crop, Truss had only £7 (5%) on his small holding. Hall had to safeguard the farm to give back the lease to his stepson Richard Watts, whose descendants carry on for some time.

Dying before the children had been settled may affect successive generations. One who died in 1609 was Justinian Hunt [16] who appeared to have stocked his house with everything that he could procure. He died aged sixtyone still farming and it was with some surprise that the contents of the household represented just an eighth of his high total of £272. His stock was worth £62 in April and his corn £66. He died a widower who had not married until he was thirtyfive. The other to die that year was widow Alese Howse [28] who left £124 and of this 21% was inside, £36 in stock and £30 in crops. Justinian had the advantage over Alese of having at least another yardland, and Alese was sharing her sheep commons with uncle Fremund so that when she had increased the farm estate Alese and her sons had done exceedingly well.

In marked contrast to the majority of the husbandmen was Wyatt now in his sixties. He carried on a combination of farming and trade and had half his goods in the house, about £27 of stock and £20 of corn. In spite of this poor balance his family business more than made up for his possessions. The family did not disappear, but reached out into several Cropredy farms. The sons were educated and thought highly of by the Boothby landlord for their horse knowledge, though they fell out in the 1680's as most of the tenants did including Alese Howse's grandson Richard [28] and the Watts [34].

The traders who died in the 1630's were we saw the old whitbaker who had given up his cow and was left with only inside goods. His familiy continued to live in Cropredy in their copyhold cottage. Matcham and his son were the first and the last generations to live in Church Lane and yet he had managed to leave a little money, £2 of stock about £1-10s of crop and £3-5s in the house out of over £14. The problem was the small allocation of land which meant he could not increase his stock, nor plough more than "Matcham's piece." James Ladd [40] a labourer who died in 1631 had goods and tools totalling £4. Tanner [39] had £40 of inside goods, £12 of crop and £14 of stock and his shop held £9 in goods for sale. This meant his household stuff was more than half, but once again his business offset the rise in living standards, though through the death of both parents the Tanners disappear, the widows second husband taking over the lease.

The amount of household goods cannot decide whether a family overspent and jeopardized the next generation, for goods were useful articles and all worthy of being part of children's dowries. If a head of household died before settling these carefully gathered belongings, then their percentage of possessions would rise and so lower the stock and corn percentages. Hall, Toms, Gybbs, Truss and Hunt, had not over reached themselves. Their savings now went into bonds and they kept some ready money in the house against the next lease renewal, or better still let it out on bonds. In the second and third decade of the seventeenth century the tendency was to have a higher value on their equipment which cost more to purchase.

When the personal estate had already been shared amongst the children, except those items necessary for day to day living for themselves and the cow on a small amount of land, then these parents inventories are obviously going to show a different balance to one they could have had if they had died several years earlier still in full control. What they did have were vital copyhold rights, or a share in the lease and a roof over their head and access to a hearth. Once they gave up the last strips of land and their stock then the few articles left were their garments and chamber furniture having disposed of the rest. These had reached a stage which could be termed as poverty stricken as they were almost drained of all assets, but they still might live in a three bay, two and a half storey house. The final blow was when sickness meant they could no longer use their rights to pasture a cow or grow their corn. Now was a time to ponder over their bedding and clothes. To prevent any awkwardness developing they took time to stipulate for whom each particular piece of clothing was to go to. This is dealt with more fully in the chapter on apparel in Part 5. Many such gifts would be in return for loving favours shown them through their difficult last days. If they leave any out it does not mean a lack of regard, for their full share may already have been bestowed. Now was the time for remembering godchildren and grandchildren who they may have agreed to sponsor. The children would have the godparent's christian name to carry on into the future.