Proc. Hampshire Field Club Archaeol. Soc. 53, 1998,121-136 (Hampshire Studies 1998)

MEDIEVAL WHITCHURCH: THE ORIGINS OF A NEW TOWN

by ALISON DEVESON

ABSTRACT ment of one of them, and eventually to consider its position in the English urban hierarchy. That Wkitchurck, in north Hampshire, was a new town Whitchurch ever claimed any such position may founded in the mid-13th century by St Swithun's Priory seem pretentious to the modern visitor, but many in Winchester. It was hid out as a planned settlement near larger towns had similarly modest origins, and a Late Saxon mother church, and a custumal gives the failure may be as illuminating as success. names of the first inhabitants and the rents they paid. It was only four miles distant from the Bishop qfWmchester's new town at Overton, with which its market had to compete.HUNDRED , MANOR AND TTTHINGS Whitchurch's origmcdjunction was as a roadside settlement on the route between Winchester and the Midlands. The town of Whitchurch is only ten miles from the Berkshire border, but lying as it does within the Hampshire basin, belongs to that part of INTRODUCTION Wessex which looks naturally to the south (Bettey 1986, 3). The surrounding medieval manor, from The foundation in England of a large number of which it took its name, lay in Evingar, a large new towns, and their inhabitants' contribution to hundred almost divided in two by a detached part the total urban population, were major factors in of the hundred of Hurstbourne, later called Pas- the commercialization of the country between trow (Fig. 1). Evingar had been divided between 1000 and 1300 (Britnell & Campbell 1995, 9-12). the Bishopric and the Priory of Winchester since Absolute numbers, in the case of small towns, will at least the time of the Domesday Survey, al­ probably always elude us, but it has been esti­ though the Priory's manors were not finally mated that the lowest tier of English towns, the confirmed to it until 1284 (DB Munby, fo.41a-b; five hundred or so 'local market centres', had CChR ii, 288). Whitchurch and its neighbouring populations of between five hundred and two manor of Hurstbourne constituted the Priory's thousand people in the late-14th century (Tiller holding in Evingar. Hurstbourne (now divided 1992, 81-2). This implies that their populations into the parishes of Hurstbourne Priors and St would have been considerably larger in the pe­ Mary Bourne) was the larger manor, with seven riod preceding the Black Death, and that their principal tithings and some smaller hamlets contribution to commercialization should not be within them. Whitchurch had six tithings, of dismissed lightly. Case-studies of individual small which one, Baughurst, lay at some distance, to towns are frequendy hampered by lack of docu­ the north-east of Kingsclere hundred. Of the mentary evidence, but Hampshire is fortunate in remaining Whitchurch tithings, one was that the ownership of much of the county by the Whitchurch manor itself, two were formed from bishop and the prior of Winchester ensured the a land unit called Freefolk adjoining the eastern survival of a rich documentary record, including boundary of the manor, and two others, Charlcot that for several small towns. It is hoped, in this and Henley, lay within the bounds of die manor and subsequent articles, to explore the develop­ (Fig. 2). Medieval Freefolk was divided into 122 HAMPSHIRE FIELD CLUB AND ARCHAEOLOGICAL SOCIETY

Fig. 1 The medieval hundreds of north Hampshire and the parishes of Evingar hundred

Freefolk Priors and Frcefolk Manor, the former as 'Whitchurch' is First recorded in a charter of Ed­ its name implies in the possession of the Priory, ward the Elder, a three-part document included in the latter in secular hands with the bishop as the Winchester Cathedral cartulary known as Co­ overlord, as also was Henley (Deveson 1997). dex Wintomensis (Birch no. 624; Finberg no. 42; There was a small area called Bradley on the Sawyer no. 378). The first part, in Latin and dated north-western edge of the manor which was held 909, records the restitution by the king to the by the prioress of Kingston in Wiltshire in the fcmdlia of St. Peter's, Winchester, of fifty manentes of 13th century (VCH iv, 301-2). Whitchurch and land at Hwitan cyrice, originally granted to the Freefolk Priors formed a single ecclesiastical parish monks by Hemele, comes, but later appropriated by with its external medieval boundaries relatively the bishops. The second, in Old English and unchanged until the 20th century, so that, apart undated, gives the boundaries of Whitchurch, of from the small pockets of foreign interest, there its pastures at Escesburnan and Felghyrste and of its was a large degree of coincidence between manor dependent setdement Ashmansworth. The third, and parish. also in Old English and dated (by implication) 909, provides for the reversion of the estate at Ashmansworth to the Winchester community af­ FROM SAXON SETTLEMENT TO PRIORY ter the death of King Edward. Doubts have been MANOR expressed about the authenticity of some Codex Wintoniensis charters, but detailed examination of Saxon setdement in the area is attested from docu­ the Whitchurch charter has confirmed that it is a mentary and place-name evidence. The name genuine copy of a 10th-century original (Rumble DEVESON: MEDIEVAL WHITCHURCH: THE ORIGINS OF A NEW TOWN 123

Binley

Egbury Bradley

Stoke

Bourne Swampton

Wyke

Hurst bourne

2 miies

Fig. 2 Whitchurch and Hurstbourne: medieval manors and tichings

1985, 175; Deveson 1995, 25-6). The boundary Berkshire border (Grundy 1927, 90-4), both of clause is typical of the late-Saxon period in its which were ceded to the Bishopric by the 13th complexity and amount of topographical detail century (VCHiv, 274). The pastures of Felghyrste (Hooke 1989, 14). The Whitchurch estate corre­ were situated in distant Baughurst, as probably sponded very closely with that described in also were those of Fiscesbumem. The latter has yet to Domesday, except that it included Tufton, a be traced, but the name Felghyrste and its variants manor lost to Wherwell Abbey by the 11th cen­ occur frequendy in the Priory records in connec­ tury (Grundy 1927,295-9). The boundary clause tion with Baughurst property, and as a topographi­ for the dependent setdement of Ashmansworth cal surname there. Similar linkages between included its neighbour East Woodhay, on the detached woodlands and head manors have been 124 HAMPSHIRE FIELD CLUB AND ARCHAEOLOGICAL SOCIETY noted in Hampshire and elsewhere (Thorn 1988, advowson of the church with the prior deriving 32; Hooke 1989,10). income from some of its spiritualities. The hospital Whitchurch, then, was an extensive late-Saxon retained the great tithes until commutation (VCH estate. What can be surmised about the first 'white iv, 303-4; HRO W/H5/17). By the late-12th cen­ church'? Construction of stone, chalk, flint and tury there was also a chapel in Freefolk Manor, chalk, or a rendering of whitewash are all possibili­ dependent on the church of Whitchurch, and for a ties (Ekwall 1960, 513; Coates 1989, 174). The time another small chapel at Henley, but these earliest remaining features in the present parish were essentially private chapels, which never at­ church, the three western bays on the south side of tracted any substantial settlement (VCH iv, 284, the nave, are dated to the late-12th century, and 304; Deveson 1997). are considered to have been part of an aisle added By 1086 Whitchurch manor had land for thirty- to an earlier building, but whether this was Nor­ three ploughs, with relatively small amounts of man or Saxon cannot now be determined (VCH woodland and pasture, and Whitchurch and Free- iv, 302). It was probably one of the small mother folk were producing enough grain between them churches which served the relatively small hun­ to justify four mills. But as pasture and sheep are dreds of north Hampshire in the 10th to 12th largely unrecorded in Domesday Hampshire, it is centuries, after the original system of royal min­ probable that sheep were then, as later, the main­ sters and vills in Wessex had broken up (Hase stay of the manor (Darby 8c Campbell 1962, 340). 1975, 334; Hase 1988, 48; Blair 1985, 115-19). It There were nearly a hundred villein and bordar is possible, however, that the church predated its households in Whitchurch, and nineteen in Free- mother-church status. A Saxon tombstone found folk, with fifteen slaves between the two. The embedded in the church fabric has been ascribed population is likely to have been dispersed to the 9th century (Tweddle 1983, 20-1), and the throughout the area, but since the church pro­ small Saxon graveyard (twelve skeletons with no vided the place-name, it is probable that it also associated grave-goods) excavated near the pre­ provided die physical focus for the first small sent church fits a suggested 8th-9th century phase settlement at Whitchurch. Indeed, a map dated of burial patterns (Anon 1883-4, 230; Morris 1730 shows clearly that the later planned town, 1983, 54). Together they point to the existence of with its regular burgage plots, was an extension of a church here at least as early as the 9th century. an existing village with much larger but less Local lordship has been proposed as a major regularly-shaped plots, a pattern for which there factor in the foundation of 'estate churches, are many parallels (Fig. 3; Bond 1990, 96). those on ecclesiastical estates perhaps being the There is, however, no clear line of descent from oldest (Morris 1983, 75; Yorke 1995, 230). If the the Saxon estate centre (apart from the church 'white church' originated as the private founda­ itself) to the large Elizabethan house which now tion of Hemele or his predecessors, or was stands opposite the church, except that this and founded on his estate shortly after its acquisition the adjoining house were respectively rectory by the Priory, it may even date back to the 8th and vicarage until the 19th century, when they century. Given the known conservatism in the were exchanged by their ecclesiastical owners, choice of church sites, it is likely that the first and their functions reversed. The Priory's need church stood very close to, if not on, the site of the for a permanent presence in Whitchurch would present building. have been satisfied by the demesne farm curia, which was at some distance from the church and The church and its land (one hide in 1086) were its associated houses (see below). The more usual among the foundation endowments of Henry de medieval arrangement was close proximity be­ Blois to the Hospital of St Cross in Winchester in tween rectory and farm (Harvey 1965, 25-6), and the 1130s, and the St Cross lands remained as an the original curia may have been moved from a site administrative unit, though physically scattered, near the church when this was appropriated to St within the manor of Whitchurch until the present Cross. century. The master and brethren of the hospital were the lay rectors, but the the bishop held the In accordance with the usual practice of the DEVESON: MEDIEVAL WHITCHURCH: THE ORIGINS OF A NEW TOWN 125

Black Monks, Whitchurch and Hurstbourne were used for customary payments or fed to stock, most at farm for some periods between the late-12th of the surplus grain was sent to the Priory and century and 1238, but by 1248 were under direct very little sold. Most of the Whitchurch tenants management by the Priory (CRR xvi, 149B; Grea- had rights of common for cows, horses and pigs, trex 1972, App.lA). The Priory's usual policy in but only one, along with the holder of the rectorial Hampshire was to run neighbouring manors in glebe, had specific common rights for sheep pairs, if possible. Hence Whitchurch and (Hanna 1954, 262-3; Chartulary no. 327). Sheep- Hurstbourne Priors generally shared a bailiff or walks probably occupied most of the rest of its sergeant, who rendered the annual accounts land, and peasant flocks were folded on demesne joindy with the separate manorial reeves (Drew stubble and fallow. 1947, 22). The majority of judicial and adminis­ Whitchurch in the 13th and 14th centuries was trative business of both manors was intermingled, thus a typical downland manor, under close con­ and was usually conducted in conjunction with trol by the Priory and no doubt also under the the twice-yearly tourns by the Priory's steward. But prior's own eye on his visits to his mansion and from the 1280s (when court records began to be deer park at Hurstbourne. It retained its ancient preserved) and for the first quarter of the 14th church, but with a parish much reduced from the century, the business of the hundred was con­ mother-church parochia, Baughurst being the only ducted almost entirely at Hurstbourne (Deveson survivor from the detached pastoral areas. Unlike 1995, 101-4). many other ancient estate centres, the small setde- There were manorial farms at both ment associated with the church and demesne Hurstbourne and Whitchurch and each had a farm had not grown spontaneously into any recog­ special room for the bailiff {WCL manor account nizable kind of town. This was to require a rolls, Hurstbourne 1280, Whitchurch 1361). The deliberate act of foundation. Hurstbourne curia, a possible successor to one of the three Saxon halls in that manor, was a more substantial establishment, even qualifying for the MARKET AND BOROUGH title of 'prior's mansion' (DB Munby, fo.41a-b; Roberts 1992, 107). Stray references in the Pri­ The town first appeared as a legal entity in the ory rolls indicate that travelling monks and mid-13th century. One of the constituent docu­ officials were usually accommodated at ments of the Winchester Cathedral Custumal is a Hurstbourne, and a deer park was established Whitchurch borough rental dated 1251, which there in 1332 (CPatR EdzvIHii, 263). The king lists the tenants and the rents of their burgage plots himself came to hunt on at least two occasions (Hanna 1954, 256-60). In 1241 the Priory had {WCL Whitchurch manor account rolls 1362, obtained a royal grant of a weekly Monday mar­ 1371). Altogether it is clear that by the late-13th ket at Whitchurch, and issued a charter for a century, if not before, Hurstbourne had taken borough there during the priorate of John de precedence over Whitchurch as the hundredal Cauz, 1247-9 (CChR i, 256; Chartutery no.472). In centre. doing so, it was joining in the movement for new The Whitchurch manorial demesne was cen­ town foundation, at its peak in the 12th and 13th tred in Whitchurch tithing, where most of the best centuries. In the past, much discussion about the agricultural land lay (Deveson 1995,32-3). It had early history of towns centred around 'borough three principal fields and several others, sur­ status' and its distinguishing features, including rounded by large areas of downland, especially on burgage tenure. The association between bor­ the west. A three-course crop rotation was prac­ oughs and markets hardly needs stressing, but it tised, with arable and fallow in the proportions of has been noted that burgage tenure could exist 2:1. Oats occupied the biggest sown acreage, fol­ in rural communities (Pollock & Maitland 1968, i, lowed by wheat and barley; the smallest acreage 640). This may have been the case at Whitchurch was for maslin or bere, with a small quantity of by the 1240s, since the 1248 manor account roll legumes. Apart from the amount retained for seed, contains the record of an entry fine paid in the L~L JuA..

Fig. 3 T Lawrence: Survey of the Burrough of Whitchurch, 1730 (redrawn by Mr R Smith) DEVESON: MEDIEVAL WHITCHURCH: THE ORIGINS OF A NEW TOWN 127 manorial court for a 'messuage held in free bur­ 1249, when he was elected abbot of Peterborough gage', as if it was neither a new nor an unusual (Le Neve ii, 89). Overton thus preceded occurrence, although the account itself gives no Whitchurch as a borough by about thirty years, indication of a borough's formal existence at that and Whitchurch, with its relatively recent market, time. was competing from its inception with a well- The Priory's new town at Whitchurch was in established foundation. The close proximity was close proximity to another, only four miles distant, evidently not seen as a disadvantage at the time, the Bishopric's foundation at Overton. A market and the change of market day may have been the had been granted there in 1218 and a borough stimulus to further action at Whitchurch. established not later than that year; there is no charter, but it is entered as a borough in the bishop's pipe roll for 1217-18 {RLCi, 363; Beres- THE CHOICE OF SITE ford 1959,195-6). Overton's first market day was Tuesday, which was either changed or added to In choosing to fcund a new town at Whitchurch, when a Monday market and fair were granted in the Priory was not beginning from nothing. 1246; it is not clear from the wording whether the Whitchurch already had some of the charac­ 1246 market was a new grant or an alteration teristics of a 'central place' (Bond 1990, 86-93). It and confirmation of an existing one (CCAR i, was an ancient estate centre, the ecclesiastical cen­ 312). Monday markets at Whitchurch and tre of a hundred and the possessor of a market, Overton would thus have been in competition albeit of recent recognition. However, the 'central for two years until that at Whitchurch was place' function was to some extent shared with changed to Thursday in 1248 (CChR i, 331). Hurstbourne, itself the centre of a large pre- and Apart from the coincidence of day, the Monday post-Conquest manorial estate and the possessor markets would, by reason of proximity, have fallen of a church which may also have been a small within the contemporary definition of 'harmful mar­ late-Saxon mother church (DB Munby, fo.41b; kets'. The fact that the local sheriff, who was Hase 1988, 63-4). Hurstbourne contained the instrumental in market regulation, ever permitted prior's main residence in the area and was more Overton to hold one on Mondays is proof that the centrally located between Overton and Andover. two markets were considered to have different Whitchurch might not therefore have been the trading areas and perhaps functions (Masschaele only candidate for development. 1992, 78-9). The success of a medieval new town depended The borough of Whitchurch can now be dated to a large degree on its relation to trade routes, slighdy more precisely than its charter's attribu­ both local and regional (Piatt 1976, 25-6; Hindle tion to the priorate ofJoh n de Cauz. The charter 1990, 18-19). In general, research into the routes made provision for a separate borough court, and and dates of roads has been hindered by lack of since the burgage entry fine referred to above evidence, and there are gaps in our knowledge would have normally have been paid there, the even of some major routes (Hindle 1982, 202-5). charter cannot be earlier than June 1248, when the It is therefore not surprising that the exact lines of latest court would have been held in that account­ minor routes present even more problems. Pub­ ing year. This is confirmed by the charter, dated lished national and county maps, none of which June 8, 1248, in which Whitchurch's market day are earlier than the 16th century, do not begin to was changed, which refers only to a manor there, show roads in any detail or with any degree of and not to a borough which would have been the reliability until the 18th (Smith 1988,113). At that natural place for such an enterprise. The 1248 time, the major routes through Hampshire lay in account, which would have been drawn up shordy an east-west direction, from London via Basing­ after September 29, shows no separate income stoke to Salisbury, and from London to the south from a borough, which must therefore have been coast at Portsmouth and Southampton (Margary established during the second half of John's prio­ 1976, nos. 6bl, 8-13). Road-books and itinerary rate, that is, between October 1248 and December maps, other sources of evidence from the 16th 128 HAMPSHIRE FIELD CLUB AND ARCHAEOLOGICAL SOCIETY century onwards, confirm the emphasis on the evidence for the northwards movement of people east-west routes and the late-16th-century post and goods through this area. The king's wine was stages were also on this orientation (Box 1931, frequendy carried from Southampton and Win­ 223-4, Brayshay 1992, 133). Winchester was in chester to Sandleford Priory on the southern edge decline as a manufacturing and trading centre of Newbury, and to his residences in and near from the 14th century onwards, and by the 17th Oxford (CLibR, passim!). A visit was made in 1282 century no major east-west route passed through from Winchester to Harwell via Whitchurch to it, although its existence was acknowledged by have the prior's palfrey's teeth attended to, and a many side-turnings from major routes (Ogilby road certainly existed from Winchester to New­ 1971). Neither did it feature on any north-south bury through Whitchurch in the mid-14th century route through the county even when modern (WCL Whitchurch manor account rolls 1282, evidence for such a route begins to appear. In the 1338; HRO 19 M61/560). Additional evidence for 18th century the main route from the Midlands to late-medieval routes is provided by the Gough the Hampshire coast was via Newbury, map of ca. 1360, the interpretation of which pre­ Kingsdere, Basingstoke and Alton to Portsmouth sents many problems, and on which many roads (Margary 1976, no. 6bl). Northbound roads are shown, but many, both major and minor, through Whitchurch, Hurstbourne Priors and omitted (Hindle 1980). The main east-west route Overton were all equally minor and at times through Hampshire runs from London to Salis­ indistinct, (Margary 1976, nos. 8-9) and it was bury via Winchester, with no north-south route only from the late-18th century onwards that through the county at all. However, the map maps began to show clearly a northwards route shows many places with no indication of their from Winchester through Whitchurch and be­ road links, among them Basingstoke and yond. This road was turnpiked in 1762, the first Whitchurch; the former was probably among the indication of its modern emergence as a major setdements 'chosen at random from amongst the route (Viner 1969, 161). The road from Winches­ more important places in Britain', the latter prob­ ter via Overton to Kingsclere was never ably among the minor places 'included solely turnpiked, although it was certainly an important because they were at significant points on the road local route (Cochrane 1969, 51-5). The case for network' (Hindle 1980, 48). Basingstoke and An- this road is confirmed by the development of the dover, though not among the few Domesday Winchester-Kingsclere, rather than the London- boroughs in Hampshire, were prominent Saxon Salisbury road, as the main axis for Overton, vills and show signs of their development into clearly shown on a map dated 1615 (CCCO Lang- towns by the 12th century {VCH iv, 129, 346). don Hans ii, 28). But its onward direction from They are therefore likely to have been linked by Kingsclere is less clear; the oldest part of the town road for many years before they began to feature lies along the two streets which were to be turn­ on the long-distance route from London to Salis­ piked in a north-easterly direction towards bury indicated by the post-medieval evidence. Aldermaston and away from Newbury, although Whitchurch and Andover were certainly con­ a post-medieval route from Kingsclere to New­ nected by road in the mid-13th century, indeed by bury certainly existed (Margary 1976, no. 6bl; two roads, the more southerly of which was to Defoe 1742, i, 243). The road along the Bourne become the turnpike road, along which Overton valley which connected Hurstbourne Priors with and Hurstbourne Priors also lay (Deveson 1995, its tithings and, ultimately, Hungerford, never 52-3). This road, however, was obviously of less developed into a major route into Berkshire and importance than that through Winchester as a beyond. long-distance route through the county, and only developed as Winchester declined (Cochrane Royal itineraries are sometimes used as evi­ 1969, 33-4). dence for medieval routes, but none reveal the existence of a major road from Winchester to As for the north-south route, the evidence of Newbury in the 13th and early-14th centuries maps and documents combines to reinforce Beres- (Hindle 1976, figs. 3-9). There is, however, other ford's assumption of a route from Oxford to DEVESON: MEDIEVAL WHITCHURCH: THE ORIGINS OF A NEW TOWN 129

Winchester, along which the bishop's new town of topography does not suggest that road diversions Newtown, on the Hampshire-Berkshire border, were necessary in order to create a central market­ was laid out in the early-13th century (Beresford place at Whitchurch (Deveson 1995, 55). 1959, 197; Deveson 1995, 53). This road would Several of the factors involved in the final choice have passed close to the bishop's residence and of site for the new town would either have been deer park at Highclere, which was also the admin­ neutral, or in favour of Hurstbourne Priors, and if istrative centre of his north-Hampshire group of the Priory had wished to take advantage of east- manors (Roberts 1988, 69). The road led south­ west traffic, Hurstbourne would have been ideally wards through Whitchurch and northwards to the situated. The principal differences were the posi­ bishop's Berkshire manors, and would also have tions of the two manors vis-a-vis the long-distance formed part of the long-distance route from the road system, and the presence or absence of a Midlands to Southampton associated with the rise market. The choice of Whitchurch, and the orien­ of Oxford and the decline of Dorchester-on- tation of Overton, show that the main direction of Thames in the 9th century (Hinton 1977, 197). trade and travel through mid-13th-century Hamp­ This is the most likely route for the transport of shire was still between the south coast, Winchester the king's wine to Sandleford. and the Midlands. In choosing to found a town so Apart from good communications, the basic close to Overton, the Priory must have had reason requirements of 13th-century new towns were a to think that the new town could succeed along­ reasonably flat site and a water supply. Water was side the established one. equally plentiful at Whitchurch and Hurstbourne, but whereas the potential site at Whitchurch in­ volved the use of awkward slopes, that at THE LAYOUT OF THE NEW TOWN Hurstbourne Priors was relatively flat. Hurstbourne was the larger manor, with more The long-distance road system provided the outlying setdements and a bigger population from framework for the main streets of die new town, which immigrants to a new town might be re­ presendy five in number but then four, listed in cruited. It consistendy yielded a larger income the custumal as magnus vicus, Wodestret, Bynstret and from rents, the profits of agriculture and court Mulestret (Fig. 4; Table 1; Deveson 1995, 56-8). perquisites. A town, even with the field strips with They contained fifty-eight plots, fifty-seven of which it might be endowed, occupied compara­ which were described as burgages and one as a tively little space, and Hurstbourne could easily messuage. All but five had two acres of land each, have absorbed the loss of income involved in the strips lying together in the burgage field. The giving up agricultural land, which, in any case, 1730 map clearly shows the boundaries of the should have been offset by urban income. By the town and field, with a regular pattern of burgages early-medieval period there was no difference in grafted on to the larger, older plots, and spread status between the churches at Whitchurch and along the five streets, meeting at the central mar­ Hurstbourne Priors, both being parish churches ket-place. As a Winchester writer was to observe each with one dependent chapel and a vicarage in the early-17th century, 'the howses of the bur- appropriated to the Hospital of St Cross. Although rough are but in a small circuite', the entire area both standing on a road of local, if not yet na­ occupied by the new town being about fourteen tional, importance, neither of the churches had acres [WCL T2A/3/1/154/1; Deveson 1995, 59). acted as a magnet for substantial settlement. The large-scale part of the 1730 map shows that Mother churches often attracted unofficial mar­ several typical burgage series were well preserved kets to their gates, and the decision to seek a in Whitchurch at that time, although a certain market grant for Whitchurch rather than for amount of subdivision had obviously taken place. Hurstbourne Priors in 1241 is perhaps an indica­ Modern Ordnance Survey maps indicate that tion that a market had begun to develop in the many of the plot boundaries survived not only region of this mother church. But the new town into the 19th century but to the present day, was not to be situated beside the church, and local especially in Church Street, the east side of New- Plot Boundary

Conjectural Plot Boundary

Fig. 4 Medieval Whitchurch: primary plot boundaries DEVESON: MEDIEVAL WHITCHURCH: THE ORIGINS OF A NEW TOWN 131

Table 1 Whitchurch street names Custumal, 1252 Lawrence map, 1730 Modern

Magnus vicus Church Street Church Street Wodestret Wood Street Bell Street Bynstret Bearhill Street &. Duck Street Newbury Street & Winchester Street Mulestret Mill Street London Street

bury Street and on both sides of London Street with little regularity in the multiples, and the beyond the town centre. The accuracy of the 1730 widths more commonly include fractions. In both surveying is difficult to assess, but the basic shapes these streets, the plot patterns suggest that some of of the medieval plots are clear. In Church Street, the narrower plots resulted from subdivision of Winchester Street south of the market-place, and larger plots, and if the measurements from such on the south side of London Street they are long adjacent plots are combined, multiples of whole- and narrow, but there are also larger, squarer plots and half-perches emerge as the basis on which elsewhere, particularly in Newbury and Bell these streets were laid out. The most surprising Streets, and on the north side of London Street. result of measurement was in Church Street, an Fig. 4 is a reconstruction of the plot boundaries area where the 1730 map seems to show the indicated on the 1730 map, modified to suggest least alteration from an original pattern, and the original units laid out by the medieval sur­ where the property boundaries are known from veyor. deeds to have remained stable since the 17th The sizes of medieval burgage plots, and the century (M Smith, pers. comm.). Here, only half width of their street frontages in particular, have the plots appear to conform to units of whole and been the subject of investigation in many towns. half-perches, and in general, the plots have nar­ Considerable regularity has been found, albeit rower frontages than elsewhere in the town, with wide variation in different areas, ranging, for although it looks as if Winchester Street south of example, from around thirty feet at Alnwick to the market-place might have given similar results if seventy feet at Burton-upon-Trent (Conzen 1960; redevelopment had not precluded measurement 33; Piatt 1976, 54). This regularity can generally there. The Church Street plots have the pro­ be related to multiples and fractions of the linear nounced curve interpreted at Stratford as perch, whether the standard sixteen-and-a-half feet aratral, and these plots may reflect earlier field or a local version. Measurement from a large-scale strips rather than an entirely new layout (Slater OS map and a simple statistical analysis of the plot 1987, 195). Field patterns may also have influ­ widths at Whitchurch bear out the hypothesis that enced the shapes of the plots elsewhere, and the original unit of measurement was the standard particularly on the north side of London Street, perch, though perhaps the standard of surveying where the small-scale part of the 1730 map was somewhat rough-and ready (Deveson 1995, shows the burgage field strips backing on to the 60-1,166-8, 201-4). gardens of the cottages at the edge of the town. It The frontages most closely approximate to mul­ might be argued that in the land-hungry 13 th tiples of whole perches in Newbury Street, but century, arable land was unlikely to have been there is little evidence that the multiples them­ given up for housing. But this land was of rela­ selves were standard, ranging as they do from two tively poor quality, and amounted to relatively few to eight, with three sets of seven. Whole perches acres. There are good parallels for the estab­ are also discernible in London Street, but again lishment of burgage plots on arable fields, for 132 HAMPSHIRE FIELD CLUB AND ARCHAEOLOGICAL SOCIETY example at Sherborne and Thame (Fowler 1951, which was, or ought to be, the principal street, and 153-4; Bond 1990, 94). may have been trying to keep several options As for the plot tails, those in the triangle formed open. The designation of Church Street as mag- by Bell and Newbury Streets are cut off by straight nus vims and its initial position in the custumal lines. Elswhere in the town they are less regular, signify the intention that this should be the and were dictated either by a water-course or principal street, and as the route from the town pre-existing lanes, as were the boundaries of the centre to the church, it must always have had local town itself; hill contours may also have influenced importance, but there was to be less development the surveying in Newbury and London Streets. It along this street throughout the medieval and is very difficult to detect anything resembling a modern periods, both inside and outside the town standard plot area (Deveson 1995, 63). Given the boundary, than along any other except perhaps wide variation in frontages it is not surprising to Bell Street. find similar variation in areas, but even when Differing burgage patterns have been taken to the smallest plots are discounted and the largest reflect different phases of development (Hindle divided into their theoretical original constitu­ 1990, 55; Slater 1981, 59-62). The custumal list­ ents, the possible plot areas range from about ing, however, shows that burgage plots in all the twenty-five to forty square perches. These are main streets of Whitchurch were occupied, at the not unusual sizes for medieval burgage plots, latest, within three years of its charter. Even if the but it does seem to be unusual to find such a new setdement had begun by developing infor­ wide range in individual towns, especially towns mally, the relative regularity of the burgage plots as small as Whitchurch. If equality of plot area indicates a fresh start with a single plan. The wide was the ideal in medieval town planning, as, for variations in frontages and areas seem to have instance, at Lichfield and Ludlow, it was far from been dictated by local topography and established coinciding with reality here (Slater 1987, 198; features - fields, roads and watercourses - rather 1990, 76). than by pre-existing property boundaries. The The problem of laying out plots around the widest plots in Newbury Street may derive from market-place was not solved neady. The corner the several sets of multiple holdings listed in the plot formed at the junction of London and Win­ custumal for Bynstret Even so, many of the plots chester Streets encroaches awkwardly on to seem exceptionally wide in comparison with other Newbury Street, but seems to be part of the medieval towns, and may be an indication of the original plan. The five-way intersection did not relative lack of pressure on space when the town lend itself to neat realignments of the burgage was laid out. By 1730, most of the plots had still series in order to turn corners, as a grid system not been extensively built on, and neither had two would have done. None of the corner plots, except large riverside areas. The surviving early-modern that in the angle of Church Street and Bell Street, houses in the town are arranged parallel with the has a clear orientation and all could have had streets rather than at right-angles to them, the frontages on two streets. The plot on the corner of more usual situation when towns were crowded. It Bell Street and Newbury Street looks like the is, of course, possible that the undeveloped areas prime site, running as it does across the north side had originally contained burgage plots, and of the market-place and with a long frontage to should be taken as a sign of contraction rather Newbury Street. That on the corner of Church than, as at Stratford, of 'an over-ambitious initial Street and Bell Street had a similar advantage with design' (Slater 1987,196). However, any develop­ respect to the market-place, but was more clearly ment in the meadow on the south side of Church associated with the burgage series in Church Street, which also fronted on to Winchester Street, Street than with the market-place. Plot orientation would have had a very prominent position in the may have been used by the medieval surveyor 'to town, and is the least likely candidate for abandon­ enhance the intended status of particular streets' ment. This land was still a meadow in the (Slater 1987, 195), but the surveyors at Whit­ mid-19th century {Release 1839). The explanation church seem to have had no clear idea about cannot be that its proximity to the river made it DEVESON: MEDIEVAL WHITCHURCH: THE ORIGINS OF A NEW TOWN 133 unsuitable for building, since similar land on the land elsewhere in the manor, and one by Simon east side of Winchester Street was developed from Clericus, whose only other holding was wood­ the start. It must always have been more useful as land. meadow than as building-land, even after the 16th- The rents varied widely. All were multiples of century increase in traffic should have enhanced shillings and sixpences or marks, except in New­ the status of Church Street as part of the long-dis­ bury/Winchester Street, where less regular figures tance east-west route. were paid. The highest was for a plot in Church The Whitchurch burgage field abutted the Street, which was unusually high at one mark, and south side of Lock Field, one of the three open may have been for a double plot, since the custu­ fields which survived until enclosure, and was mal lists seven burgages in this street, while Fig. 4 probably carved out of it (Deveson 1995, 67). The suggests eight or nine. Otherwise the rents ranged burgesses' strips amounted to 104 acres, and the from 3s. to 8J., with more than half between 4J. Priory also retained an interest in it (tVCL and 5s. 5d. Most of the plots within the latter range Whitchurch manor account roll, 1261). If this was were in Newbury/Winchester Street and London the same piece of burgage land as the Dean and Street - twenty-seven in all (twenty-eight if the Chapter held in 1730, it would have been a large messuage is included), constituting nearly half the strip immediately north of the town with a front­ total number in the town. The most expensive age on Newbury Street. This would have been a plots were in Church Street and London Street, prime site for development at the entrance to the the cheapest in Bell Street and Newbury/Winches­ town, if expansion had proved desirable or neces­ ter Street, but a broad spectrum of rents was sary. The land on which the town was built was spread over all the streets, and there is litde indica­ not so obviously taken out of the three principal tion of a strict segregation by price. It is possible fields and, lying close as it does to both river and that the variations in rents were caused by differ­ hillside, must have been pardy laid out on pasture ing values of acres in the burgage field, but since and woodland, as well as on arable land. Several four out of the five plots without land were at the manorial holdings had already been taken into the upper end of the range of rents, and given the demesne by 1248, but the Priory did not try to large measure of uniformity in Whitchurch mano­ compensate itself for the land (about 120 acres, not rial rents in general, it seems more likely that the including the earlier setdement or the extra fields) variations stemmed from real differences in the lost to the town and field by adding to the values of plots. This may be tested by looking at Whitchurch demesne thereafter. Instead it looked their later history. to borough rent and court income. Borough quit-rents continued to be paid to the Dean and Chapter after the Dissolution and are recorded both in a series of rent-books from the THE PRICE OF TENANCY 17th to the 19th centuries, and in 19th-century sale documents (Deveson 1995, 59, 70). Quit-rents In 1251 the fifty-seven burgage plots were in the were the equivalent of the burgage rents of assize, hands of thirty-seven burgesses, of whom two and were a legacy from the time when rents John Durdent and Simon Clericus) had fourteen contained two elements - a fixed token, and a between them, and paid nearly one third of the variable economic, rent (Hemmeon 1914, 61; total rents of the town. Seven others had two or Keene 1985, i, 185-7). Burgage rents of assize three each, and the remaining twenty-eight had were often, though not always, a small uniform one each. The 'messuage' was an anomaly in that amount such as Id. or 12<£, and if such an element it was not included in the total number of burgages had been incorporated into the Whitchurch bur­ in the custumal but its rent was included in the gage rents, one would expect it to have been total of burgage rents and it had the usual two fossilized, and detectable in the quit-rents. Far acres in the burgage field. Of the five plots with from this being the case, the quit-rents show wide no accompanying land, three were held by John variations, and even if they are combined in vari­ Durdent, who had a considerable amount of ous ways (to allow for subdivisions of plots and 134 HAMPSHIRE FIELD CLUB AND ARCHAEOLOGICAL SOCIETY therefore of rents), no uniformity appears. By the double and triple holdings were in Newbury/Win­ 17th century the quit-rents no longer bore a direct chester Street, a seventh occupied the first position relationship to the original custumal rents; the in Church Street. The eighth, in Bell Street, would individual rents must have been altered when a not have been in a particularly prominent position, farm of ten pounds (one-third lower than the but was held by John Durdent with another plot in custumal rent total) was granted. The farm would the same street, giving him a large part of its also have been reapportioned at some time to frontage. It looks as if site, rather than size, was the include the older plots in Church Street, and over-riding factor in determining the level of rents further adjusted to include later additions to the paid, though on what grounds the Priory set such town. But the wide variation among the quit-rents differing rents for single plots is an open question. must be a reflection of the wide variation of the The highest rent of all was paid by Adam Faber rents on which they were once based. for his double plot in London Street. Whether he The custumal rent total, of £\5 Is. 10d., agrees was primarily a smith, as his name suggests, or a almost exactly with the £15 2s. Qd. to which the brewer, as his amercements in 1248 and 1261 rents of assize amounted in 1261 (fVCL suggest, a prime site, perhaps in the market-place, Whitchurch borough account roll, 1261). The must have attracted him (Deveson 1995, 205). In latter amount, with an increment of only another laying out plots of such different shapes and sizes, 2d., appears on the rest of the borough account and with such varying rents, the Priory was per­ rolls, and was perpetuated in the Dean and Chap­ haps anticipating a demand for choice. Ale-selling ter's collective memory long after the borough had may not have been an entirely domestic business been farmed (WCZT2A/3/1/154/1). Since the indi­ in mid-13th-century Whitchurch, and the bur­ vidual custumal rents were neither small nor gesses may have chosen plots according to the uniform, it seems likely that they were the original commercial possibilities (Deveson 1995,116-7). It economic rents for individual plots, which then would not be surprising to find that Whitchurch's (with the alterations suggested above) became a earliest urban function was to cater for travellers fixed rent payable to the Priory and independent on the road between Winchester and the Mid­ of the local property market. lands, but it remains to be seen whether the The grounds for charging differing amounts of Priory's initiative was justifed. rent are not clear. There may have been a relation­ ship between burgage rents and plot frontages, but proving this, by tracing the descents of individual ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS plots through their burgage rents and quit-rents, is impossible because there was no direct relation­ This article is published with the generous sponsorship ship between custumal burgage rents and of RJ Smith 8c Co. Builders, of Manor Court, Bloswood individual quit-rents. The burgage rents (and Lane, Whitchurch, Hants RG28 7BN, an appropriate hence the burgesses) of 1251 cannot be associated address in this, the 750th anniversary year of the with specific plots on the basis of the later docu­ Whitchurch borough charter. I am indebted to Mr mentary evidence, and a suggested allocation of Martin Smith and Mr Roy Smith of that firm, to the burgesses to specific plots, using the evidence of former for sharing his local knowledge, documents the custumal, is very tentative (Deveson 1995, and enthusiasm for research, and to the latter for 205-6). It has already been shown that the range permission to use his redrawing of the Lawrence map. of rents for individual plots gives little indication Whitchurch Town Council has also supported this of social or economic segregation, and that the article from the Mayor's Fund, and its generosity is plots paying middling rents were scattered hereby acknowledged. throughout the town. However, a rather different The other maps were drawn by Joanne Jobson, to whom my grateful thanks are due. I am also indebted to pattern emerges when one looks at the amounts Mr Edward Roberts and to Professor Michael Hicks, which individual burgesses were willing to pay for for their helpful comments, and to Dr Brian Golding, groups of plots. One 8s. rent and all those above who supervised the thesis on which this article is 8s. were for multiple holdings. Six of the ten based. DEVESON: MEDIEVAL WHITCHURCH: THE ORIGINS OF A NEW TOWN 135

REFERENCES

Manuscript sources Birch: Cartularium Saxonicum (Birch, W de G ed.), 1885-93. CCCO: Corpus Christi College, Oxford Blair, J 1985 Secular minster churches in Domesday Langdon Plans. Book, in Sawyer, P H (ed.) Domesday Book: HRO: Hampshire Record Office a Reassessment, London. 19 M61/560 Kingsmill Papers: demise of property in Bond, CJ 1990 Central place and medieval new town: Whitchurch, 1355-6. the origins of Thame, Oxfordshire, in W/H5/17 Hospital of St. Cross and Almshouse of Noble Poverty, Schedule of Properties, Slater, T R (ed.) The Built Form of Western 1904. Cities: Essays for MR G Coram, Leicester. WCL: Winchester Cathedral Library Box, E G 1931 Hampshire in early maps and early Whitchurch and Hurstboume account and court rolls road-books Proc Hampshire Field Club Ar- 1248-1400. chaeol Soc 12. T2A/3/1/154/1: The CaseBetwene theDeane and Chapter ofBrayshay , M 1992 The royal post-horse routes of Winton and the Mayor and Burgesses of Hampshire Proc Hampshire Field Club Arch- Whitchurch: memorandum on the status of aeol Soc 48. Whitchurch borough 1608x1609. Britnell, R H, & Campbell, B M S (ed.) 1995 A Commer­ cialising Economy: England 1086 to c. 1300, Manchester. Private collection CChR: Calendar of Charter Rolls 1903-27. Lawrence, T Survey of the Burrough of Whitchurch in theCLibR: Calendar of Liberate Rolls 1916-64. County of Southampton 1730. CPatR Edui Iff. Calendar of Patent Rolls: Edward III Release: Release from Sir Samuel Scott to Robert Rawlins July 1891-1916. 1839. CRR: Curia Regis Rolls 1922- Chartulary: The Chartulaty of Winchester Cathedral (Good­ man, A W ed.), 1927. Unpublished secondary works Coates, R1989 The Place-names of Hampshire, London. Cochrane, C 1969 The Lost Roads of Wessex, Newton Deveson, A M 1995 Small Medieval Towns, with Special Abbot. Reference to Whitchurch, Hampshire, ca. 1250-1400 PhD thesis, Southampton Uni­ Conzen, M R G 1960 Alnwick, Northumberland: A Study in versity. Town Plan Analysis (Trans Publ Inst Brit Geog 27). Greatrex, J G 1972 The Administration of Winchester Cathe­ dral Priory in the Time of Cardinal BeaufortDB: Domesday Book: Hampshire (MunbyJ ed.), 1982. PhD thesis, Ottawa University. Darby, H C, 8c Campbell, E MJ (ed.) 1962 The Domesday Hanna, K A 1954 Winchester Cathedral Custumal MA Geography of South-east England, Cambridge. thesis, London University. Defoe, D 1742 A Tour Through the Whole Island of Great Hase, P H 1975 The Development of the Parish in Hampshire Britain, 3rd ed., London. PhD thesis, Cambridge University. Deveson, A M 1997 The two Freefolks and the 'lost' Rumble, A R1980 The Structure and Reliability of the Codex manor of Chalgrave Hampshire Field Club Wintoniensis PhD thesis, London Univer­ Archaeol Soc Newsletter 27. sity. Drew, J S 1947 Manorial accounts of St. Swithun's Priory, Winchester Eng Hist Rev 62. Ekwall, E 1960 Concise Oxford Dictionary if English Place- Published primary and secondary works names, 4th ed., Oxford. Finberg: The Early Charters of Wessex (Finberg, H P R Anon 1883-4 Discovery of Anglo-Saxon remains in ed.), 1964. Hampshire The Reliquary 24. Fowler, J 1951 Medieval Sherborne, Dorchester. Beresford, M W1959 The six new towns of the Bishops Grundy, G B 1927 The Saxon land charters of Hamp­ of Winchester, 1200-55 Medieval Arckaeol shire, 4th ser. Archaeol JM. 3. Harvey, PDA 1965 A Medieval Oxfordshire Village; BetteyJ H 1986 WessexfromAD 1000, London. Cuxham, 1240 to 1400, Oxford. 136 HAMPSHIRE FIELD CLUB AND ARCHAEOLOGICAL SOCIETY

Hase, P H 1988 The mother churches of Hampshire, in Roberts, E 1988 The Bishop of Winchester's deer parks Blair, J (ed.) Minsters and Parish Churches: the in Hampshire Proc Hampshire Field Club Ar­ Local Church in Transition, 950-1200, Ox­ chaeol Soc 44. ford. — 1992 A Prior's mansion at Michelmersh Proc Hamp­ Hemmeon, M de W 1914 Burgage Tenure in Medieval shire Field Club Archaeol Soc 48. England, Cambridge, Massachusetts. Rumble, A R 1985 The personal name material, in Hindle, B P 1976 The road network of medieval Eng­ Keene, D, Survey of Medieval Winchester, Ox­ land and Wales J Hist Geogl. ford. — 1980 The towns and roads of the Gough map Man­ Sawyer: Anglo-Saxon Charters: an Annotated List and Bibliog­ chester Geog 6. raphy (Sawyer, P H ed.), 1968. —1982 Roads and tracks, in Cantor, L (ed.) The English Slater, T R 1987 Ideal and reality in English episcopal Medieval Landscape, London. medieval town planning Trans Inst Brit Geog — 1990 Medieval Town Plans, Princes Risborough. new ser., 12. Hinton, D 1977 Alfred's Kingdom: Wessex and the South,— 1981 The analysis of burgages in medieval towns: 800 -1500, London. three case studies from the West Midlands Hooke, D 1989 Early medieval estate and settlement West Midlands Archaeol 25. patterns: the documentary evidence, in As­ — 1990 English medieval new towns with composite ton, M, Austin, D, & Dyer, C (eds.) The plans: evidence from the Midlands, in Rural Settlements of Medieval England, Ox­ Slater, T R (ed.) The Built Form of Western ford. Cities: essays fir MR G Comen, Leicester. Keene, D 1985 Survey of Medieval Winchester, Oxford. Smith, D 1988 Maps and Plans for the Local Historian, Le Neve: Fasti Ecclesiae Anglicanae, 1066-1300 (Le Neve, London. J ed.), rev. ed., 1968-91. Thorn, F R 1988 Hundreds and wapentakes, in Wil­ Margary, H 1976 Two Hundred and Fifty Tears of Map- liams, A, 8c Erskine, R W H (ed.^ Domesday making in the County of Hampshire, Lympne. Book: Hampshire Domesday, London. Masschaele, J 1992 Market rights in thirteenth-century Tiller, K 1992 English Local History, an Introduction, Stroud. England Eng Hist Rev 107. Tweddle, D 1983 Anglo-Saxon sculpture in south-east Morris, R K 1983 The Church in British Archaeology (CBA England before c. 950, in Thompson, F H Res Rep 47), London. (ed.) Studies in Medieval Sculpture, London. Ogilby.J 1971 Ogilby's Road Maps of England and Wales, VCH: Victoria County History of Hampshire, London from Ogilby's Britannia, 1675, Reading. 1903-14. Piatt, C 1976 The English Medieval Town, London. Viner D J 1969 The industrial archaeology of Hamp­ Pollock, F, 8c Maidand, F W 1968 The History of English shire roads: a survey Proc Hampshire Field Law before the Time of Edward I, 2nd ed. Club Archaeol Soc 26. reissued, Cambridge. Yorke, B 1995 Wessex in the Early Middle Ages, London. RLC: Rotuli Litterarum Clausarum in Turn Londiniensi Asser- vati 1833-44.

Author: Alison M Deveson, 8 Lynch Hill Park, Whitchurch, Hants RG28 7NF.

© Hampshire Field Club and Archaeological Society