Cases before the court in medieval manor
Part three of K.R. GREGORY’S history of old Halesowen
IN 1272 the town of Hales was created a borough by the abbot and convent of the abbey by virtue of Henry III’S grant to their predecessors, which is recited in the deed of Abbot Nicholas of Hales. Fresh disputes broke out with the tenants, and so acute did the quarrel become that the Sheriff of Shropshire ordered an enquiry into the matter by a jury composed partly of Staffordshire and partly of Shropshire men. This jury decided that the tenants of the Manor of Hales held their lands of King John, by payment of 40d yearly, for every yardland, and so in proportion, by suit of court at Hales from three weeks to three weeks and if in the court any made default, he was to forfeit sixpence and after judgement given 12d.
On the decease of every tenant, their best beast was due for a heriot (a gift to the lord), except a mare. Also, their lord the King had half their goats, hogs and bees and the heir was to pay a relief on coming into possession of his father’s lands, two year’s rent of the same, that is to say, half a mark for a virgate or yardland, and 40d for half a yardland, and so in proportion. The tenants were obliged to plough the demesne lands, the lands of their lord the King, six days yearly a whole yardland, and three days for a half yardland, and one day besides, ex gratia, for which they were to have repast at the manor house of Hales. They were also to mow the King’s grass, and to fence his garden at Hales when necessary. Further, they were to grind their own corn wheresoever they pleased, because at that time the King had no mill within the manor of Hales, Also, if any of them married their daughters out of the manor, they were to pay to the lord two shillings for merchet, and if within the manor, twelve shillings.
King John granted the manor to the abbey subject to the same services by which the lands were held of him. This was only a temporary settlement, for two years late the tenant brought an action against the abbot at Shrewsbury assizes, and accused him of demanding services above those to which he was entitled. Rightly or wrongly, judgement was given in favour of the abbot, but he was not to enjoy his victory for long. A writ was issued against him the following year, questioning his authority to hold the manor of Hales, which was asserted to be the demesne of the King. Abbot Nicholas pleaded the king’s grant to the Bishop of Winchester and also to the abbot, his predecessor. The king’s council replied that notwithstanding the said grants, King John seized of Hales and all its appurtenances. Nicholas then produced his last trump card, Henry III was under age when he made the grant. There the matter dropped, and the abbot and convent were left in possession of the manor.
Throughout the reigns of Edward I and Edward II, the tenants contested from time to time the abbot’s rights, but in the first year of Edward III’S reign, the abbot agreed to accept a yearly sum of money in lieu of services, and so the dispute was at last settled.
The tenants were apt to quarrel, not only with their abbot but also among themselves. Many and varied were the discussion which came to the manor courts for judgement. On one occasion, the abbot’s bailiffs set up the gallows ar Honeford in Romsley. Amice Green and Juliana, Roger Honeford’s daughter, came there. Christiana, another daughter of Roger, was also present and she wrongfully knocked down the gallows. When the lord’s bailiffs came, they raised the hue and cry. The matter came before the court, but evidently accounts of the outrage varied to a considerable degree, and the court decided that the women were to be arrested if they could be found.
Another troublesome townsman was John Baxter, who in 1378 obstructed the waterflow at Stanbowe, and made a pit there.
Quite heavy fines were imposed on anyone selling bad meat, as Richard
Hasbury found to his cost when he was tried for selling one ox “not in a good state” and had to pay 12d in consequence. The same penalty was inflicted on any man or youth who drew a knife, contrary to the peace within the town.
There must have been great excitement in the town at this time because about 1390 the building of the church tower was commenced. Moreover, following the levy of the poll taxes, Wat Tyler’s rebellion was disturbing the country. Many manor rolls were destroyed in the frequent skirmishes. Religious disturbances, never far below the surface, cropped up again and again. Despite these frequent insurrections, the townsfolk still continued quietly with their work and made an effort to improve the very poor sanitary arrangements, frightened by occasional cases of the plague. The streets, common refuse heaps, fostering germs of all sorts, were the first to be cleaned and at the great court held on the feast of St John on May 6, 1427, it was ordained “that no man of the borough may have any dunghill in the High Street within the liberty of the borough, within the feast of Pentecost next to come, each under the pain of forfeiture 12d.” Not content with this attempt to cleanse the highway, the great court decided that it was time the townspeople adopted a more peaceful manner of living, and it was “ordered, agreed and provided, with the assent of the whole community of this town, that no more of the town or parish of Hales, neither by day to night, shall carry within the town any poleaxe, bylle, staff, sword or lance under penalties aforesaid, 1429. And that no-one after the ninth hour after dinner shall use any alehouse under a penalty aforesaid of 6d to the lord
Richard Hasbury was tried for selling one ox “not in a good state” and had to pay 12d in consequence
Abbot and 6d to the common treasury box of the same town, after the said ninth hour.”
The first offender against the “cleaner streets” order was John Botelel junior, who obstructed the common way with dung to the nuisance of the town. Fresh streets then came under observation and it was decreed “that no-one shall have dung between Gatthard Gate and Whytepole under penalty of 3s 4d.” Richard Shepley was also ordered to pay a like sum if, within three weeks, he had not recovered the hedges which he had set up along the common way in Dog Lane (Church Lane) to the nuisance of his neighbours. The three weeks went by, three months, six months, and still Richard had not removed the hedges, but his obstinacy cost him the large sum of 5s 4d. In spite of his misdemeanours, Richard was elected to the office of constable only a year
later. Again, in the case of John Dudmaster, who had a “certain ruinous house extending upon the common road,” he was ordered to pull it down, under a penalty of 6s 8d but he, like Richard, preferred to pay his fine.
The next year, the vicar of Hales himself was violently assaulted in his own house by Geoffrey of Cradley, who was accordingly tried for his offence. The vicar, William Eggbaston, does not appear to have been treated with much respect, for Richard Milward took and carried away from his a bow valued at 2s, for which offence he was brought to trial in 1438. The courts, of course, had other duties apart from conducting cases of robbery, assault and so on. It was the custom for every boy at the age of 12 to be sworn in to the king, and they and their masters had to come to the great court to do fealty. In 1439 it was ordered that no-one should keep hogs in future “unless they be rynged and enyoked”, and that butchers ought not in future “to throw or place within the town any panches of hooff a lees.” In 1440 the poor vicar was again the victim of house breaking, the culprit this time was John Turner.
In 1447 another attempt to purify the town and, above all, the streams which flowed through it. No butchers were allowed to throw garbage or blood upon the parcel of land called the Greysground, nor under the bridge called Latonbryge; no-one was to throw bark, or fetid rubbish in the brook leading from Latonston up to the Newmylnepoole, nor in the brook leading from Cornbow up to the said Newmylnepoole. Nor were the women allowed to wash woollen clothes in Laconstoon.
Heavy punishments were meted out to thieves, whether man or woman. Agnes Massynger had taken and carried away two ducks, that is to say one of William Frowne’s and the other of Margaret Mocklowe’s, and also one young pig from the Homgrange. And Elizabeth Tebette carried away certain goods of William Dudley’s and did other enormities. These two women were banished from the town and no-one was to feed or lodge either of them under penalty of 3s 4d.
An unusual thing happened when the vicar, William Eggebaston, was sued by his church wardens John Barker and Thomas Parkes on account of debts. A summons was issued in November 1456, and the case was tried in January 1457, with a find of 2d.
Troubled as he was by monetary matters, the vicar could ill afford to the lose the two sheep which Thomas Moclowe stole and kept hidden in his house. Nor yet the third sheep which John Boole discovered straying from the vicar’s close and branded as his own. The vicar himself was no respecter of property; he had oxen and swine pastured in the Hyefield contrary to the ordinance thereof made, and with his swine and young pigs pastured in the churchyard, he was fined again.
Many rules were made but few were kept. Lewis Taylor twice shot at Thomas Melley with a bow and arrows. John Androus and Walter Kenelmstowe kept ducks in the Whytepool, Curteys Wells and Laconstoon; the vicar had a fetid dung heap in the High Street outside his house; and Ralph Hylle had a dung heap in the High Street. William Pepwale also had rubbish in the High Street and John Andrews kept a great pile of timber there. With such iniquity rife, the court found it a pleasant change when they were able to settle more deserving matters, such as their grant to Thomas Froste and his heirs of “one small piece of land lying in Hales vis in a certain street called Birmygham Street there.”
Gambling was another sin. William Styre and John Goldsmyth were caught playing at dice, contrary to the ordinance of the town. William was doubtless a hardened sinner, because only a few months later he was caught again, with Henry Cok, playing at a certain prohibited and dishonest game. “Clochyng” and “kewteryng” were two more unlawful pastimes in which the acknowledged rakes of then town indulged, but to put a stop to the practice the court imposed a heavy fine on all those who received such players into their houses. The unscrupulous vicar, William Eggebaston was succeeded in 1468 by Richard Hylle, but up to the bitter end he tried to better himself at the expense of other people. His final achievement was to turn the watercourse from its ancient course into a croft lying between the churchyard and the High Field.
October the following year brought new restrictions regarding the brewing of ale, when it was ordained that no-one should brew within the borough except in this manner: “one brew in the street between the church and the townsend leading towards Cradley, and the High Street one brew, and from Laconstoon by the High Cross up to Cornbowe one brew, and from the said Cornbowe by the High Street and up to Laconstoon one brew, and in the street called Birmingham Strete one brew, under penalty of each one 6s 8d, whereof 40d thereof shall be levied to the use of the lord, and the other 40d to the use of the parish church of Hales. And so in this manner that all brewers shall brew alternately from week to week, so that there may be fine new and five old.”
No idlers were allowed in the town, and beggars were strongly discouraged, so when James Amore and Petronilla Walshwoman came wandering around, they were told that they must either work or go outside the liberties of the borough of Hales (1482).
In 1485 the bridge at Laconstoon (just in front of what is now Wilkinsons) had to be repaired and those assigned to do this work were Richard More, Richard Deye and Richard Compayn. Richard More was subbailiff at the time, but the following year he was brought before the court, in company with Richard Compayn and several others, for having received coats of livery of the Earl of Shrewsbury contrary to the statute and ordinance of the king. At this time an unruly character was John Aynesworth, who first assaulted William Dene and then attacked John Taylor, chaplain. He was imprisoned in the Bathale, but managed to escape.
Next, three hooligans, John Colley, William Colley and William Erdynton, stood by night under the windows and walls of tenants within the borough of Hales to hear the words and discourse of the aforesaid tenants, and threw stones at their windows. They were imprisoned for two days and nights as a punishment, and fined 3s 4d each. Then the chaplain himself got into trouble for fishing in the abbot’s streams. It was stated at one time he had even sold fish which he had taken from the streams for 6d (1489).
The vicar was not so unscrupulous as the chaplain, and he was careful to keep his church in good repair. His expenses for the year 1487 amounted to 46s 1d. Before the days of bazaars and parish teas, the most popular way of raising money to meet the church expenses was to hold a church ale. The wardens collected provisions from the parishioners; these they employed in brewing and baking for a certain feast day, upon which holiday the neighbours met at an appointed house and there merely fed on their own victuals, contributing some petty portion to the stock. He that spent the most was accounted the Godliest.
As well as church ales, there were bride ales, called bride-bushes or bride-stakes. On these occasions the bride would sell ale on her wedding day, for which she received by way of contribution whatever handsome price the assembled friends chose to pay for it. The expenses of a bride ale would probably be defrayed by relations and friends of the happy pair, should they be unable to bear the charges of a wedding dinner.
Lewis Taylor twice shot at Thomas Melley with bow and arrows