Hook Norton (April 2020) • Social History
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
VCH Oxfordshire • Texts in Progress • Hook Norton (April 2020) • Social History. • p. 1 VCH Oxfordshire Texts in Progress HOOK NORTON Social History Social Character and Communal Life Until the 19th century Hook Norton parish supported a predominantly agricultural community living mainly in the village and the adjacent hamlet of Southrop. In the 17th and 18th centuries divided landownership, the lack of a resident major landowner, and weak Anglican leadership contributed to the development of Protestant Nonconformity and a largely independent body of farmers. By the early 19th century Hook Norton was a classic ‘open’ village with a lively craft sector and a high level of pauper immigration. The building of the railway in the late 19th century brought a temporary influx of navvies, but the 20th century saw the usual reduction of local employment, including in agriculture and crafts. After c.1950 (and the closure of the Brymbo ironworks) many local people worked outside the parish, and by the early 21st century the population was based around commuters and retirees. Hook Norton village, viewed from the church tower c.1900. VCH Oxfordshire • Texts in Progress • Hook Norton (April 2020) • Social History. • p. 2 The Middle Ages Hook Norton was one of the hundred’s largest rural settlements, although not one of its richest.1 From an early date Southrop was regarded as a separate settlement, and was taxed with Swerford rather than Hook Norton.2 Social stratification amongst inhabitants was reflected through holding size and also types of tenure.3 In 1086 there were numerous villani and a few lower-status bordars and slaves,4 and free tenants were present by the late 12th century (if not earlier).5 By that time Hook Norton attracted incomers from surrounding rural settlements,6 as well as from more distant places including Ireland, Wales and Scotland.7 In 1210 a Jew called Isaac was resident, and later in the century a Burford Jew owned property in the parish.8 In the 13th century leading free tenants, who held substantial holdings for low rents, included members of the Charlton and Heronville families,9 the Charltons being amongst the highest taxpayers in the early 14th century.10 On the two main manors some 37 villeins held full yardlands (for fairly heavy services).11 Of the 63 Hook Norton taxpayers in 1316, six paid over 4s., 15 paid 3s.−3s. 10d., 19 paid 2s.−2s. 10d., and the rest 8d.−1s. 10d.12 Twenty-odd cottagers were probably too poor to pay tax, although they were not burdened by labour services.13 A certain amount of social zoning within the settlement is suggested by the fact that at least one free tenant lived outside of the core part of the village (‘above the town’),14 and by the presence of a cottager’s quarter.15 The d’Oilly family were closely involved in local affairs, Hook Norton being the caput of their honor. By the 13th century their political influence had declined, but continuing grass roots power was demonstrated c.1230 when Henry d’Oilly persuaded Osney abbey to remit 1 Oxon. Atlas, 52−5. 2 e.g. Oxon. Eyre, 1241, 151, 167; TNA, E 179/161/8, rot. 3 m. 2; E 179/161/9, rot. 1; E 179/161/170, rot. 4d. 3 Above, econ. hist. 4 DB, f. 158. 5 Ibid. 6 e.g. Oseney Cart. IV, pp. 282 (Peter of Tackley), 283 (Peter de Sibford and Walter de Dunthrop), both dated c.1235; Rot. Hund. II, 726 (Ric. of Swalcliffe). 7 Oseney Cart. IV, pp. 257, 274−6. The surname ‘Scot’ may have given rise to the name Scotland End, for which: above, landscape. 8 Oseney Cart. IV, pp. 274, 286, 287−8. 9 Above, landownership; econ. hist.; Oseney Cart. IV, pp. 259−61, 264−6; Cur. Reg. XV, 40−1; Dickins, A History of Hook Norton, 39. 10 TNA, E 179/161/10, rot. 10d.; E 179/161/8, rot. 3 m. 2; E 179/161/9, rot. 1. 11 Rot. Hund. II, 726; TNA, C 133/101/7, m. 2. 12 Ibid. E 179/161/8, rot. 3 m. 2. 13 None of the cottagers on the Plescy manor in 1301 were taxpayers in 1306: TNA, C 133/101/7, m. 2; E 179/161/10, rot. 10d. 14 Rot. Hund. II, 726 (Thos. Bovetun). 15 Above, settlement. For ‘Cotmannesforlong’ (c.1260): Oseney Cart. IV, p. 281. VCH Oxfordshire • Texts in Progress • Hook Norton (April 2020) • Social History. • p. 3 services due from one of its widowed tenants.16 The lordship of their successors the Plescy family was diluted by the creation of substantial dower portions, although one of Sir Hugh de Plescy’s wives, Isabel (d. before 1279), was commemorated by a memorial in the church.17 In 1299 the abbot of Osney alleged that Hugh de Plescy and a ‘multitude’ of followers had plundered several of his Oxfordshire properties, taking his corn at Hook Norton.18 Lordly rivalry was again evident in 1353, when Richard de Stonelegh accused members of the Dimmock family, Henry Charlton, and others of assaulting his servants, firing his houses, and hunting in his warren, so that he and his household fled ‘for fear of death’, leaving his lands untilled ‘for a great time’.19 The late 14th and 15th century were characterised, as elsewhere, by a rapid turnover of tenants, although up to half a dozen families were present in both 1327 and 1524, including the Turbots, Newmans, Richards, and Charltons.20 The number of free tenants apparently increased before 1361,21 and by the 15th century more substantial tenants included Richard Fulwell, a husbandman who in 1435 had allegedly contracted an 8 mark debt,22 and John Bishop (d. 1497), formerly commemorated by a brass in the church.23 One or two leading villagers were notably well connected perhaps at least partly through the wool trade. Of the two inhabitants admitted to Stratford-upon-Avon’s holy cross guild the second (in 1493) was John Hall, apparently the man of that name who died in 1520 and who owned a house in Banbury and made a bequest to the Oxford friars.24 In 1524 John Croker was assessed on goods worth £43, and Thomas Parr and John Holloway on £20. Three others were assessed on goods worth £10−£14, and the rest on goods under £10 (mainly £2−3) or wages of £1−£2.25 c.1535−1800 Hook Norton flourished in the 16th and 17th centuries.26 Its substantial population, social mix and lack of resident lord made it a lively settlement probably (as later) with a strong sense of independent identity. These characteristics, and its rather isolated setting away from the 16 Ibid. p. 262. 17 Peerage, X, 548, 549 n.; Par. Colln, 180; H. Haines, A Manual of Monumental Brasses... (1861), 176; Brooks, Pevsner N&W, 360; VCH fieldwork, 2019. 18 Cal. Pat. 1292−1301, 475. 19 Cal. Pat. 1350−4, 517−18. 20 TNA, E 179/161/9, rot. 1; E 179/161/170, rot. 2d. 21 Above, econ. hist. 22 Cal. Pat. 1429−46, 435. 23 Haines, A Manual of Monumental Brasses... 248. 24 TNA, PROB 11/19/356; M. Macdonald, The Register of the Guild of the Holy Cross, St Mary and St John the Baptist, Stratford-upon-Avon, The Dugdale Society, 42 (2007), 359; above, econ. hist. 25 TNA, E 179/161/170, rot. 2d. E 179/161/177, rot. 4 gives Croker’s goods as being worth £64. 26 Above, econ. hist. VCH Oxfordshire • Texts in Progress • Hook Norton (April 2020) • Social History. • p. 4 main road network, may have contributed to its reputation amongst outsiders as a place of boorish rusticity,27 a reputation which played on local pronunciation of the settlement’s name as ‘Hogesnorton’.28 In reality, inhabitants maintained strong connections with local towns as well as with other rural settlements.29 Hook Norton itself had several drinking houses and inns, which acted as social centres alongside the church and (from c.1650) Nonconformist meetings.30 Southrop continued to be identified as a separate hamlet, at least partly because of manorial and agricultural arrangements, despite it being increasingly dwarfed by its neighbour.31 Until the 1660s the Croker family, long-term lessees of the Osney manor and rectory and lords of Dimmocks, supplied the parish’s resident gentry.32 John Croker (d. 1569) secured confirmation of his family arms and a memorial in the church, where he and other family members were buried.33 John’s son Gerard (d. 1578) was sufficiently successful to be knighted.34 Based usually in the rectory house (which was assessed on 13 hearths in 1662),35 the family owned property elsewhere in north Oxfordshire, Gloucestershire, and Warwickshire.36 However, they struggled with heavy debts,37 and their financial problems were exacerbated by disputes over their leasehold interests and finally by supporting the king in the Civil War.38 Other leading families of long standing included the Calcotts,39 one of whom, Walter, was a Staple merchant who established a local charity and bought Williamscot manor in 1559,40 and another, Richard, later married a daughter of the lord of Idbury;41 the Pittams, one of whom became a yeoman of the king’s chamber;42 and, from 27 T. Nash, The Apologie of Pierce Pennilesse (1593), K4; W. Camden, Britain… (1610); Tiller, ‘Hook Norton’, 280. 28 PN Oxon. II, 353−4; Dickins, A History of Hook Norton, 193−4. 29 Above, econ. hist. 30 Above, econ. hist.; below, relig. hist. 31 OHC, MS Oxf. Dioc.