t - i LAY SUBSIDY ROLL FOR THE COUNTY OF WORCESTER, Circ. 1280. EDITED FOR THE WORCESTERSHIRE HISTORICAL SOCIETY BY J. W. WILLIS BUND AND JOHN AMPHLETT, M.A. $rinte0 for tfje SHorcestersfjtre Historical Society BY JAMES PARKER AND CO., OXFORD. 1893- INTRODUCTION. Subsidy Roll is, it is believed, the earliest extant record of THISa lay taxation of moveables for the County of Worcester. Its date, for the reasons given below, is somewhere between 1276 1282. As, unfortunately, the title of the Roll is lost, it is impossible to fix the date with absolute certainty. The Roll belongs to Sir Edmund M.P. it was found the of his Lechmere, ; among papers ancestor, Sir Nicholas, afterwards Mr. Baron Lechmere. He was born in 1613, the year of the murder of his maternal uncle, Sir Thomas Overbury. He was called to the Bar at the Middle Temple in 1641. He took an active part on the side of the Parliament against the King. He signed the summons to the Governor to surrender the City of Worcester to the Parliamentarians in 1646, and after its surrender, in July of that year, was one of the Committee for governing the City. In 1648 he was elected the Member of Par- liament for Bewdley, and kept his seat during the rest of the Long Parliament. He was one of the Members for Worcester in Crom- well's second and third Parliaments. He took an active part with regard to the Petition and Advice. For this he had his reward by being promoted to be Attorney- General for the Duchy of Lancaster. Before Charles II. left Breda for England, Lechmere obtained a pardon. For some time after the Restoration he devoted himself to his profession, and for a considerable period obtained neither office nor honours. At length, after the Revolution of 1688, he had his reward. In 1689, when he was 76 years old, he was made a Baron of the Exchequer and knighted. He was on the bench eleven years, until 1700, when, being 87, he resigned, and retired to Hanley, where he died in 1701. It is most likely that, when engaged either for Cromwell in some of his schemes to raise money, or while he was a Baron of the Exchequer, he obtained the Roll from the Ex- chequer for some purpose, and it was not returned. Although Nash is said to have had access to the papers of the Judge when writing his History of Worcestershire, he does not seem to have A 2 IV INTRODUCTION. made any use of this Roll, and it has never yet been published. Its chief value consists in the insight it gives into the state of the county at the end of the thirteenth century. It is also important as shewing the population of the different vills throughout the county, the origin of the names of persons and places, and the light it gives on the growth of surnames. Among other matters on which we get hitherto unknown details are : i. The size of the vills. Assuming all the householders to have been taxed towards the subsidy, and it is fairly certain all freemen would have been, those who would not be included being mostly servants or serfs of the landowners, and who had no property to be taxed, the Roll shews the number of householders in the county, and enables a comparison to be made of the size and importance of the different places, from the amount at which they were taxed. For instance, it will be found that the Boroughs of Worcester, Droit- witch, Dudley, Kidderminster, and Evesham had the following number of persons taxed, and at the following sums : Persons. Taxation. s. d. Worcester ... 314 ... 88 3 4 Droitwich ... 87 ... 26 13 2 Dudley .., 41 ... 674 Kidderminster 58 ... 954 Evesham ... 91 ... 45 3 I It will be thus seen, that while in numbers and value Worcester was far away the most important town in the county, yet that Evesham came next, and Droitwich, in point of numbers, was not far behind Evesham, a remarkable proof of the extent and value of the salt trade, while what is now the county borough of Dudley, the most populous town in the county, was then the least im- portant. If the number of persons are taken to represent house- holders, as may well be the case, the Roll gives the population, counting five to a house, as follows : Worcester ... ... 1,57 Droitwich ... ... 435 Dudley ... ... ... 205' Kidderminster ... ... 290 Evesham ... ... 455 INTRODUCTION. v The Roll also gives some interesting particulars as to Worcester. The city was then divided into seven wards. Six of these cor- in name to six of the but the respond existing city parishes ; seventh, "Alta Warda," is difficult to identify. It was the most populous, and the richest of all the city Wards. The figures for Worcester, taking the number of persons mentioned as being each householders, and counting five to a house, are No* of Popu- ' Households. lation. Amount of Tax. S. d. St. Clement's Ward 12 60 17 4 All Saints 64 320 10 14 6 St. Nicholas 25 125 468 St. Martin 44 220 13 II 2 St. Peter 39 195 234 High Ward (Alta Warda) 78 390 41 11 o St. Andrew 52 260 14 19 4 3H 1570 88 3 4 The total given m the Roll as the amount of the subsidy is 8s. id. 89 ; whether this was a tenth or fifteenth, or what other figure, is not known. It is impossible, therefore, to get at the amount of the wealth of Worcester, as we do not know what fraction the .88 represents of the whole sum. 2. The next matter the Roll brings out is the number of the Hundreds, and the places contained in each. In Domesday, it is said that there are twelve hundreds in the county, and the names of seven are given Came, Clent, Cresslau, Dodintret, Esch, Fisberge, and Oswaldeslaw. The Roll divides the county into five hundreds, namely Halfshire (Dimidium Comitatus), Oswaldeslaw, Dodingtree, Blakenhurst, Pershore. It would be a very interesting and instruc- tive piece of county history to take the places in the Domesday hun- dreds, those named in the Roll, and those in the modern hundreds, to compare them, and to note the change in the boundaries of the hundreds, only it would be too long for this Introduction. 3. It would seem from the Roll that at the close of the thirteenth century the parochial division of the county had not become com- pletely recognised. Domesday had proceeded on a manorial division. The Roll proceeds on the division into vills, which may or not be parishes. As it often happens, several of them are included in one DA INTRODUCTION. modern parish. This seems to point to the fact that the boundaries of the parishes, as we know them, are much later than is usually believed to be the case. 4. As to place-names, many are taken from the landowners. At Newynton we find a Beauchamp, at the Shelsleys a Walsh and a at Brocton a Hacch' at Beauchamp respectively, (Hacket) ; Sapye a Pichard, and at two of the Redmarleys an Olwar (Olistard) and a At Lovett there was a Lovet Beauchamp. Elmley ; Bentley Paunce- foot was then called Bentley, the great landowner being Grymbald taxed at two marks at there was also a Pauncefot, ; Hampton Lovet. d'Abbitot dwelt at At Croome Osbert de Abbetot ; Croome Simon, Simon de Cromb, and curiously enough, at Imenyes (Impney) there was William Corbet. The list might be indefinitely extended. 5. The Roll gives some clue to the value of the moveable property of the different landowners. Domesday gives the places where they held land, with the extent of taxable land, and its estimated rent. But the Roll gives some clue to the worth of the chattels of the dif- ferent landowners on their various estates to give three instances : (i) Bishop of Worcester : Place. Sum paid. Place. Sum paid Ripple . ... 4Os. Bredon 72S. Alvechurch . 2 marks Tredington 4OS. Hartlebury . 33^. ^d. Blockley . I2OJ. Hanbury . 36^. Northwick . JIS. Throckmorton . 12s. Kempsey . 30-f. Fladbury .... 56^. Eston 22J. Wich Episcopi . 3cw. (2) Abbott of Pershore : Mathon . los. Walecote Leigh . 5OJ. Broadway 5 marks Aldremoneston . 40^. (3) Abbot of Evesham : Hampton . 4 marks Morton . 2OS. Offenham . Bos. Homburne 4 marks Littleton ... 2 marks Lenchwick 4 marks I Of. Aldington . 6*^ marks Wickhamford marks Hamberleye . ?os. J4 Lench 22s. Evesham . 10 marks INTRODUCTION. Vll lists not to be exhaustive but some These do pretend ; they give idea of the respective values of the personal chattels of the Bishop of Worcester and the Abbots of "two of the religious Houses. It would be a very important item of county history to give in the same way the names of all the landowners, both ecclesiastical and lay, who in vill it would shew to a extent were taxed more than one ; great the landowners of the county at the beginning of the fourteenth century, and the value of their different estates. 6. On looking over the list of names it is striking to see the large number of females, either widows or women, holding in their domina de domina own right, e.g. Cradley, Cradeley ; Hagley, de relicta de Tatlinton Isolda Hagley ; Frankley, Augeri ; Elmly Lovet, relicta de Akton Christina domina and Elye ; Morton, ; amongst the list of those who paid are constantly such entries as Rosina 2s. Christina la Hawisia la \2d. atte Stocks, 4^., Rotes, 18^., Hopere, t filia d. the list be extended to Roesia Margeria, 17 ; might almost the number of women of seems to any length ; possessed property point to the fact that something like law, order and respect for pro- perty prevailed in the county.