Inquisitions post mortem at Chipping Sodbury in Gloucestershire, 1419-1422

Inquisitions post mortem at

Chipping Sodbury in Gloucestershire, 1419-1422

Niall C.E.J. O’Brien

Introduction

This article about seven seemingly unconnected inquisitions post mortem made at Chipping Sodbury between 1419 and 1422 started life as a piece of secondary research where the primary research was to find who owned the three adjunct places of Chipping Sodbury, Old Sodbury and Little Sodbury. The last place was where William Tyndale spent two years teaching the children of Sir John Walsh. One of the places called Sodbury was once owned by the family of Weyland (which family held land in medieval Ireland) and it was to find which Sodbury that this article had its origin. As the article took shape, the seven separate inquisitions began to make connections to each other, and in such way showed some of the connections among the landed gentry of Gloucestershire that formed not just in that county but carried itself across western England and into south Wales.

Chipping Sodbury

The three places of Sodbury, i.e., Chipping Sodbury, Old Sodbury and Little Sodbury lie about the summit of a hill called Old Sodbury. Upon this hill is an old Roman fort from which the area takes its name. Sodbury lies some four miles east of Yate which latter place is ten miles north-east of Bristol.^[1]

Chipping Sodbury is only about two miles from Little Sodbury yet its history is distinct from the latter place. Together with Old Sodbury, the area of Chipping Sodbury formed the large estate of Britric, Earl of Gloucester in the time of Edward the Confessor.[2] Chipping Sodbury was a new town, built on a virgin site, in the time of Henry III; one of only two such new towns built in Gloucestershire.[3] The name of Chipping Sodbury translates as ‘market place of Sodbury’ and the market was here established in the time of Henry III. The founder of Chipping Sodbury was William Crassus who married a sister of William Marshal. William Crassus had five sons the eldest two of which were named William Craasus the elder and William Crassus the younger. It was William Crassus the elder who got the charter for the market at Sodbury in 1217 and in 1224 was seneschal of Leinster in Ireland for his uncle, William Marshal.[4]

John Devereux inquisition

The first inquisition post-mortem was held at Chipping Sodbury on 9^th November 1419 into the property held by the late John Deverose (Devereux) in Gloucestershire. It found he held the manor of Oldland of the king in chief and two other portions of land there of the Earl of Stafford and the Abbot of Keynesham. John Devereux died on 25^th September 1419 and was succeeded by his daughter Joan, wife of John Chesebrok.[5] John Devereux also held a manor in Dorset for life by an inquisition held at Sherborne on the same day.[6]

In 1385 Cecilia, daughter and heir (since the death of her brother John in 1349) of William de la More granted half the manor of Bitton called Oldland to Sir John Devereux of Staundon and Joan is wife. Cecilia de la More was married to Nicholas de Berkeley of Dursley who died without issue in 1382.[7]

The connections of business and friendship between the Gloucestershire gentry appear in the life of Sir John Devereux. In November 1407 Sir John Devereux appeared as a witness to a land deed concerning property in Bitton. Sir Gilbert Denys was also a witness to this same deed and his inquisition post mortem at Chipping Sodbury appears at the end of this article.[8]

William Gamage inquisition

On 30^th October 1419 an inquisition post mortem was held at Chipping Sodbury into the property of the late Sir William Gamage. Sir William Gamage died on 27^th September 1419 and was succeeded by his son Thomas Gamage who was about fifteen years old. The inquisition found that William Gamage held the whole, or part of, seven different properties in Wales in what are now Glamorganshire and Monmouthshire.[9] One of these places, West End in Caldicot, was acquired by William’s father, Gilbert Gamage in 1381 by grant of King Richard II. The then occupant, Sir John de Sapy, had a grant of the manor for life but was forced to surrender this to Gilbert Gamage.[10]

But the inquisition post mortem of 30^th October 1419 was not thorough enough. A second inquisition was held at Tewkesbury on 9^th October 1420 which found as in the previous inquisition but with the addition of land at Newcastle in the march which was held of the Earl of Worcester.[11]

But these two inquisitions did not tell the full story and so a third inquisition into the property of Sir William Gamage was held on 18^th September 1421 at Chipping Sodbury. This inquisition increased the value of Rogeat from 100s to 200s and stated that William died on 23^rd August 1419. The inquisition was found that since the death of Sir William that his two landlords, the Earls of Worcester and of March had both entered into their respective properties and were taking the profits while Gamage’s heir was still a minor.[12]

The proof of age of Thomas Gamage, son of William Gamage, taken on 10^th January 1430 stated that Thomas Gamage was born at Rogiet and was baptised at Rogiet church. It also said that Gilbert Gamage was the father of William Gamage and grandfather of Thomas Gamage.[13]

In 1397 William Gamage, esquire, was in the army of Roger Mortimer in Ireland and in July 1397 was given licence to remain in Ireland for one year.[14] Roger Mortimer was then Lieutenant of Ireland and had first sailed to Ireland in September 1394 in the company of King Richard II. It is possible that William Gamage also went at that time. Roger Mortimer remained in Ireland after Richard left. Roger Mortimer was in England at the start of 1397 and returned to Ireland after July 1397 with William Gamage. In a battle with the O’Byrnes at Kellistown near Carlow on 20^th July 1398 Roger Mortimer was killed and the vast Mortimer estate fell to the king as Mortimer’s heir was only seven years old.[15] It is not known when William Gamage returned to England.

In 1412 a business of war connection was made between William Gamage and Sir Gilbert Denys (his inquisition post mortem appears below). The two men assembled an armed force (described as “no moderate multitude of armed men”) and went to the castle of Coity (Glamorganshire) in Wales where they proceeded to besiege the castle. Their purpose was to expel Joan, wife of the late Richard Vernon. On 16^th September 1412 King Henry IV commissioned William Newport and five other men to assemble a force and “quietly” go to Coity and raise the siege. William Newport was to cause nobody to lay siege upon Coity and any claimant were to seek redress through the courts.[16]

It is not clear if William Newport was able to raise the siege but he was unsuccessful in the long run as William Gamage held the castle of Coity and two thirds of the manor at the time of his death in 1419.[17]

Margaret Blaket inquisition

On 24^th January 1421 an inquisition post mortem was held at Chipping Sodbury into the property of Margaret, wife of Sir John Blaket who survived her. Margaret Blaket had died on 8^th August 1420. The inquisition found she held the manor of Didmarten for life, worth 4 marks, and that it was held in reversion to John, son and heir of William Worston and the said John Worston was her son by her first husband. Margaret Blaket also held various properties in Somerset of different landlords by inquisitions held in that county. Margaret Blaket also had a son by John Blaket called Edmund Blaket.[18]

Sir John Blaket died on 24^th June 1430 leaving Edmund Blaket as his son and heir without any property in Gloucestershire. Edmund Blaket was then about eighteen years old.[19]

Chipping Sodbury

John Bowelers inquisition

On 12^th August 1420 John Bowelers, esquire, died and on 20^th May 1421 an inquisition post mortem was held at Chipping Sodbury into his property. It found he held land at Magor of the king but in right of his late wife, Joan. Two further properties were also held the Earl Marshal in right of the late Joan Bowelers. John Bowelers had three further properties in Wales from the Earl of March. John Bowelers was succeeded by his son Ralph Bowelers who was about fourteen years old.[20] 

Following the death of John Bowelers and during the minority of Ralph Bowelers, the King took the issues of Magor while the Earl Marshal took the issues of Penhow and Portskewett. Edmund, Earl of March took the issues of Whitson, Rogerstone and Redcastle and after his death, his wife, Countess Anne took the issues.[21]

The proof of age of Ralph Bowelers was taken on 13^th November 1429 at Gloucester. It said that Ralph was born at Penhow in the March of Wales and was baptised in Penhow church. One of the witnesses, John Sweyn, was married on the day of Ralph’s baptism in Rogiet church where Thomas Gamage was baptised.[22]

Isabel de la Mare inquisition

On 14^th February 1422 an inquisition post mortem at Chipping Sodbury found that the late widow, Isabel de la Mare (died 17^th September), held one third of the manor of Westbury on Severn for life. The manor was previously granted to Isabel and her then husband, Richard de la Mare, along with three other men by John Mellebourne, son of Peter Mellebourne. On the death of Isabel the three remaining leasers granted the manor to John Mellebourne and his wife, Elizabeth.[23]

One of these three other men was John Merbury of Herefordshire. The various connections of friendship and business surround the people associated with Isabel de la Mare. In August 1420 Richard de la Mare and John Mellebourne appear as witnesses to a deed whereby John Merbury granted the manor of Talgarth in Wales to three trustees.[24] In January 1413 John’s wife Agnes, Lady of Weobley, attended the baptism of John Barre (kinsman of Isabel de la Mare) as his godmother. Lady Agnes rode to Rotherwas church with two male servants, John de Eye and William de Huntyton. These two men were witnesses to the proof of age of John Barre in 1433.[25]

Lady Agnes Merbury died on 3^rd February 1436 leaving various lands in Lincolnshire, Herefordshire, Bedfordshire, Shropshire, Nottinghamshire and Leicestershire. We are old that Walter Devereux as her kin and heir. This Walter Devereux was the son of Walter Devereux, son of Agnes by her first marriage.[26] In August 1429 John Merbury and Lady Agnes along with four others, including John Devereux, granted Talgarth to James de Berkeley, lord of Berkeley.[27] It is presumed that this John Devereux was a relation of Lady Agnes by her first marriage. It is as yet too speculative to say if this John Devereux was any relation of the John Devereux who was the subject of the inquisition post mortem at Chipping Sodbury in November 1419 noted above.  

Isabel de le Mare was previously married to Sir John Eynesford of Tillington and John Barre, son of Sir Thomas Barre junior, was her kinsman and next heir. This John Bare was about eight years old in 1422.[28] The proof of age of John Barre, son of Sir Thomas Barre junior, son of Thomas Barre senior, was made on 1^st May 1435 at Hereford. The proof said that John Barre was born at Rotherwas on 31^st January 1413 and was baptised in the local church of St. Mary by the Bishop of Hereford (by the prior of Hereford said another witness).[29]

Isabel de la Mare also held various properties in Herefordshire where William Bourghull was her next heir. Many of these Herefordshire properties were from her first husband, Sir John Eynesford and reverted on her death to John Mellebourne and his wife, Elizabeth.[30] When John Milbourne, esquire, died on 12^th September 1436 he was seized of various lands in Lincolnshire, Herefordshire and Westbury on Severn in Gloucestershire (he also held Bollow manor by a separate land deed). John Milbourne was survived by his wife Elizabeth and their year old son, Simon Milbourne.[31]

Cecily Thorp inquisition

On 30^th April 1422 an inquisition into the property of Cecily, widow of Henry Thorp, esquire, was held at Chipping Sodbury. Her husband, Henry Thorp, had died on 11^th October 1416 leaving land in Devon, Wiltshire and Oldbury in Gloucestershire. Thomas Thorp was his son and heir and was aged about seventeen years.[32] Thomas Thorp failed to come into his inheritance as on 5^th October 1419 he died leaving Agnes his wife as a widow and his inheritance to his younger brother, Ralph Thorp. Agnes Thorp didn’t long survive her husband as she died on 27^th November 1419 leaving her brother William Bonham as heir.[33] Cecily Thorp was left to take the profits of the family estate during the minority of Thomas Thorp and after.[34]

On 20^th March 1422 Thomas’s mother, Cecily Thorp, died thus leaving a son, Ralph Thorp as her heir and that of her late son. Ralph Thorp was twenty years old on 11^th November 1421. Cecily Thorp held the manor of Oldbury on the Hill for life. On her death, her executors were to use the revenues of the manor to pay her debts and the debts of her late husband whose executor she was. If anything was left it should go to Ralph Thorp but the executors still held it at the time of the inquisition post mortem.[35] Cecily Thorp also held lands in Devon and Wiltshire which were formerly held by her husband, Henry Thorp.[36]

It was later found that the inquisitions taken in Wiltshire concerning Cecily’s estates were incomplete. On 10^th April 1423 another inquisition was made which exposed lands at Newton Toney and Allington.[37]

The proof of age of Ralph Thorp was taken on 15^th May 1423 in which we are told he was born and baptised at Oldbury on the Hill.[38] Ralph Thorp married a girl called Philippa and they had a son called John born about 1432. Philippa Thorp died before her husband and Ralph Thorp married again to a girl called Alice. On 3^rd October 1446 Ralph Thorp died.[39]

The inquisition post mortem taken at Gloucester on 4^th May 1447 said that Joan, the wife of John Burdon, was Ralph’s great-grandmother and that Joan was held the manor of Oldbury on the Hill. Joan Burdon granted the manor to trustees who in turn re-granted it to John Burdon and Joan. After John Burdon died, Joan granted Oldbury to Thomas de Berkeley, lord of Berkeley and eight other people to hold of their heirs. On 25^th March 1447 the heirs granted Oldbury to Edmund Hungerford.[40] Apart from the grant of Oldbury to Thomas de Berkeley, there seems to be no obvious connection between Cecily Thorp and the other six inquisitions post mortem taken at Chipping Sodbury between 1419 and 1422.

Gilbert Denys inquisition

The last inquisition post mortem of 1419-1422 was that taken for Sir Gilbert Denys. On 25^th June 1422 the inquisition post mortem was held at Chipping Sodbury. Sir Gilbert Denys had died on 24^th March 1422 leaving Maurice Denys as his son and heir. This Maurice Denys was fourteen years old. Sir Gilbert Denys held the manors of Alveston and Earthcott of the king. Sir Gilbert Denys also held the manor and advowson of Olveston with his wife, Margaret Denys, who survived him. Olveston was to revert to Sir Gilbert’s kinsman, Nicholas Denys for life and then to the right heirs of Sir Gilbert.[41]

Sir Gilbert Denys was an important figure in the estate economy of fifteenth century Gloucestershire and beyond. As noted above he went to Coity Castle in Wales with William Gamage in 1412 with an armed force to lay siege to the place and evict a widow. In December 1390 Sir Gilbert Denys was first witness to the grant by William FitzWarin to Thomas de Berkeley, lord of Berkeley of land at Wixstowe in the hundred of Berkeley. In June 1417 Sir Gilbert and six others became trustees to the estates of Thomas de Berkeley, lord of Berkeley, in Gloucestershire, London, Somerset and Wiltshire.[42]

Sir Gilbert Denys’ son, Maurice Denys, continued the family association with the Berkeley family of Berkeley Castle. In 1466 he was witness to the grant in trust of Berkeley Castle by Thomas Stanley to various members of the Stanley and Berkeley families. Maurice Denys was witness to a later Berkeley deed in 1474 and was party with Maurice Berkeley to receive in 1450 the manor of Little Marshfield in Gloucestershire.[43]

The apparent unconnected families who had inquisitions post mortem made at Chipping Sodbury appear connected in other documents. In October 1463 Maurice Denys, esquire, was witness along with Sir John Barre (kinsman of Isabel de la Mare as noted above) to a grant of land in Clopton by James Berkeley to his son Thomas Berkeley.[44]

Conclusion

This article began life as a piece of secondary research on who owned which of the three adjunct places of Chipping Sodbury, Old Sodbury and Little Sodbury. It was hoped that soe of the seven inquisitions post mortem made at Chipping Sodbury between 1419 and 1422 may provide some information on ownership. But the seven inquisitions provided no such help. Instead they have taken on a life of their own by showing connections of family and business between some of them and connections with pace such as Rogiet for Gamage and Bowelers. Thus this article ends with seven, seemingly unconnected, inquisitions post mortem, having a nice few links of family, friendship, business and place connections.

================

End of post

================

---

[1] W. St. Clair Baddeley, Place-names of Gloucestershire (John Bellows, Gloucester, 1913), pp. 42, 143, 169;  John Taylor, ‘William Tyndale and Little Sodbury manor house’, in the Bristol Times and Mirror, 11^th August 1883

[2] W.J. Robinson, West Country Churches (4 vols. Bristol Times & Mirror, 1915), vol. 3, p. 1

[3] Nicholas Herbert, ‘Northleach: New Light on the Making of a Gloucestershire Town’, in Joseph Betty (ed.), Archives & Local History in Bristol & Gloucestershire: Essays in Honour of David Smith (Bristol & Gloucestershire Archaeological Society, 2007), p. 19

[4] Eric St. John Brooks, Knights’ Fees in Counties Wexford, Carlow and Kilkenny in 13^th to 15^th Century (Stationery Office, Dublin, 1950), pp. 72, 73

[5] J.L. Kirby & Janet H. Stevenson (eds.), Calendar of inquisitions post mortem preserved in the Public Record Office, Vol. XXI, 6 to 10 Henry V, 1418-1422 (Boydell Press & National Archives, 2002), no. 281

[6] J.L. Kirby & J. Stevenson (eds.), Calendar of inquisitions post mortem, Vol. XXI, Henry V, 1418-1422, no. 282

[7] Bridget Wells-Furby (ed.), A catalogue of the medieval muniments at Berkeley Castle (2 vols. Bristol & Gloucestershire Archaeological Society, 2004), Vol. 2, p. 846n

[8] Bridget Wells-Furby (ed.), A catalogue of the medieval muniments at Berkeley Castle, Vol. 2, p. 840

[9] J.L. Kirby & J. Stevenson (eds.), Calendar of inquisitions post mortem, Vol. XXI, Henry V, 1418-1422, no. 303

[10] Calendar of Patent Rolls, Richard II, 1381-1385, pp. 608, 609

[11] J.L. Kirby & J. Stevenson (eds.), Calendar of inquisitions post mortem, Vol. XXI, Henry V, 1418-1422, no. 304

[12] J.L. Kirby & J. Stevenson (eds.), Calendar of inquisitions post mortem, Vol. XXI, Henry V, 1418-1422, no. 305

[13] Claire Noble (ed.), Calendar of inquisitions post mortem preserved in the Public Record Office, Vol. XXIII, 6 to 10 Henry VI, 1427-1432 (Boydell Press & National Archives, 2004), no. 417

[14] Calendar of Patent Rolls, Richard II, 1396-1399, p. 161

[15] A.J. Otway-Ruthven, History of medieval Ireland (Ernest Benn, London, 1980), pp. 326, 334, 336

[16] Calendar of Patent Rolls, Henry IV, 1408-1413, p. 433

[17] J.L. Kirby & J. Stevenson (eds.), Calendar of inquisitions post mortem, Vol. XXI, Henry V, 1418-1422, no. 303

[18] J.L. Kirby & J. Stevenson (eds.), Calendar of inquisitions post mortem, Vol. XXI, Henry V, 1418-1422, nos. 436, 437, 438, 439

[19] Claire Noble (ed.), Calendar of inquisitions post mortem, Vol. XXIII, Henry VI, 1427-1432, no. 429

[20] J.L. Kirby & J. Stevenson (eds.), Calendar of inquisitions post mortem, Vol. XXI, Henry V, 1418-1422, no. 703

[21] Claire Noble (ed.), Calendar of inquisitions post mortem, Vol. XXIII, Henry VI, 1427-1432, no. 364

[22] Claire Noble (ed.), Calendar of inquisitions post mortem preserved in the Public Record Office, Vol. XXIII, 6 to 10 Henry VI, 1427-1432, no. 423

[23] J.L. Kirby & J. Stevenson (eds.), Calendar of inquisitions post mortem, Vol. XXI, Henry V, 1418-1422, no. 772

[24] Bridget Wells-Furby (ed.), A catalogue of the medieval muniments at Berkeley Castle, Vol. 2, p. 669

[25] M.L. Holford, S.A. Mileson, C. Noble & Kate Parkin (eds.), Calendar of inquisitions post mortem preserved in the Public Record Office, Vol. XXIV, 11 to 15 Henry VI, 1432-1437 (Boydell Press & National Archives, 2010), no. 125

[26] M.L. Holford, S.A. Mileson, C. Noble & Kate Parkin (eds.), Calendar of inquisitions post mortem, Vol. XXIV, Henry VI, 1432-1437, nos. 474, 475, 476, 477, 478, 479

[27] Bridget Wells-Furby (ed.), A catalogue of the medieval muniments at Berkeley Castle, Vol. 2, pp. 669, 670

[28] J.L. Kirby & J. Stevenson (eds.), Calendar of inquisitions post mortem, Vol. XXI, Henry V, 1418-1422, no. 772

[29] M.L. Holford, S.A. Mileson, C. Noble & Kate Parkin (eds.), Calendar of inquisitions post mortem, Vol. XXIV, Henry VI, 1432-1437, no. 125

[30] J.L. Kirby & J. Stevenson (eds.), Calendar of inquisitions post mortem, Vol. XXI, Henry V, 1418-1422, no. 773

[31] M.L. Holford, S.A. Mileson, C. Noble & Kate Parkin (eds.), Calendar of inquisitions post mortem, Vol. XXIV, Henry VI, 1432-1437, nos. 624, 625, 626

[32] J.L. Kirby & J. Stevenson (eds.), Calendar of inquisitions post mortem, Vol. XXI, Henry V, 1418-1422, nos. 38-41

[33] Kate Parkin (ed.), Calendar of inquisitions post mortem preserved in the Public Record Office, Vol. XXII, 1 to 5 Henry VI, 1422-1427 (Boydell Press & National Archives, 2003), no. 161

[34] J.L. Kirby & J. Stevenson (eds.), Calendar of inquisitions post mortem, Vol. XXI, Henry V, 1418-1422, no. 42

[35] J.L. Kirby & J. Stevenson (eds.), Calendar of inquisitions post mortem, Vol. XXI, Henry V, 1418-1422, no. 928

[36] J.L. Kirby & J. Stevenson (eds.), Calendar of inquisitions post mortem, Vol. XXI, Henry V, 1418-1422, nos. 927, 929

[37] Kate Parkin (ed.), Calendar of inquisitions post mortem, Vol. XXII, Henry VI, 1422-1427, no. 160

[38] Kate Parkin (ed.), Calendar of inquisitions post mortem, Vol. XXII, Henry VI, 1422-1427, no. 226

[39] M.L. Holford (ed.), Calendar of inquisitions post mortem preserved in the Public Record Office, Vol. XXVI, 21 to 25 Henry VI, 1442-1447 (Boydell Press & National Archives, 2009), no. 519, 520, 521, 522, 523

[40] Kate Parkin (ed.), Calendar of inquisitions post mortem preserved in the Public Record Office, Vol. XXII, 1 to 5 Henry VI, 1422-1427 (Boydell Press & National Archives, 2003), no. 521

[41] J.L. Kirby & J. Stevenson (eds.), Calendar of inquisitions post mortem, Vol. XXI, Henry V, 1418-1422, no. 933

[42] Bridget Wells-Furby (ed.), A catalogue of the medieval muniments at Berkeley Castle, Vol. 1, pp. 258, 530

[43] Bridget Wells-Furby (ed.), A catalogue of the medieval muniments at Berkeley Castle, Vol. 1, pp. 6, 474, 492

[44] Bridget Wells-Furby (ed.), A catalogue of the medieval muniments at Berkeley Castle, Vol. 1, p. 232

Christmas greetings 2014

Christmas greetings 2014

Hello folks,

Just wishing all of you, the followers of this medieval history blog, and any other visitors, a happy, holy and peaceful Christmas 2014. Thanks for all your support and viewing throughout the year. I hope to post an article or two before the end of 2014, all going well.

Happy Christmas to one and all

from

Niall C.E.J. O'Brien

==============

End of post

==============

Gloucester pavage and murage in the time of Edward III

Gloucester pavage and murage in the time of Edward III

Niall C.E.J. O’Brien

On 28^th December 1328 King Edward III granted a reconfirmation of all previous grants of liberties to the burgesses of Gloucester, even those liberties rarely used or not used at all. The grant specially confirmed that no burgess shall plead outside the walls of Gloucester except when related to outside tenures. The burgesses were also granted to be quit of “murage, quayage, pavage, passage, gildage and Merchant’s Guild” and all other customs throughout the whole kingdom. This royal charter was especially to honour the body of the late King Edward II who was buried in Gloucester.[1] 

King Edward II died at Berkeley Castle on 27^th September 1327 after he was deposed by his wife and her lover (Queen Isabella and Roger Mortimer), possibly murdered, although some claimed he moved to France and lived as an ordinary person for many years. The government of King Edward III (operated by Queen Isabella and Roger Mortimer) spent about ten days in Gloucester in December 1328 before moving on to Christmas at Worcester.[2]

Aerial view of modern Gloucester 

Pavage

The first grant of pavage given to Gloucester that I have found was made on 29^th April 1321 chargeable on all goods brought into the town. This grant was for four years.[3] It is presumed that the town authorises collected the dues and improved the street paving. Another presumption is that the streets were cleansed of dung, dirt and putridity during the term of the grant but this is not stated in the letters patent. The pavage grant to Dublin in 1366 mentioned this requirement.[4] Presumingly Gloucester had a good reputation for clean streets and so it didn’t need to be told.

On 7^th March 1327 another grant of pavage was made for five years.[5] On 26^th July 1331 King Edward III granted pavage to Gloucester for a four year term.[6] The amount due on the various goods coming into Gloucester is not stated for the grants of 1321 and 1331. But we do have an extensive list of goods and their custom charge available when the 1331 grant was renewed in 1335.

On 24^th February 1335 King Edward III granted to the burgesses of Gloucester that to aid in the paving of the town they could collect dues on a whole range of goods coming into the own for the following seven years.[7] About a hundred years later, on 28^th October 1434 King Henry VI made another grant pavage to Gloucester, this time for five years.[8] Other grants of pavage were made at other times but the type of goods charged and their rate of custom is unknown.[9] The goods and the rate of custom of the 1335 grant were as follows [the 1434 rate is in bold type if different]:[10]

Each load of corn, ½d (d = pence)

Each horse, mare, ox or cow, 1d [half pence]

Each hide of a horse, mare, ox or cow, fresh, salted or tanned, 1d [quarter pence]

Each cart carrying salted meat, 2d [one penny]

Five salted pigs, 1d [half pence]

Six hams, ½d

A fresh salmon, ½d

A dozen of shad, 1d

Each lamprey before Easter, 1d [half pence]

A hundred sheep-skins with the wool on, goat-skins, deer-skins, 1d [half pence]

Each hundred of lamb-skins, kid-skins, hare-skins, rabbit-skins, fox-skins, cat-skins and squirrel-skins, ½d

Each cartload of salt, 1d

Each load of salt by week, 1d

Each load of cloth, 1d [half pence]

Each whole cloth, 1d

Each hundred of linen cloth, canvas and Irish cloth, Galway cloth and Worstede cloth, 1d [half pence] [the hundred of canvas or cloth contained 120 ells and each ell was about 45 inches]

Each cloth of silk with gold of samite (a rich silken stuff), diaper and baudekly (a gold-emroided cloth named from Bagdad), 1d [half pence]

Each cloth of silk or gold or chief of sandal afforced (a fine stuff of silk or linen), ½d [quarter pence]

Each ship coming to the town by the Severn charged with goods for sale, 4d [one penny]

Each dole of wine and ashes (a crude tartar obtained from wine-lees), 2d [1½ pence]

Each load of ashes, ½d

Each load of honey, 1d

Each barrel of honey, 4d

Each sack of wool, 4d

Each trussel of cloth brought by cart, 4d [two pence] [a trussel was a package or bale of cloth from the Old French trusser to pack]

Each load of cloth and other small things, ½d

Each cartload of iron, 1d

Each load of iron, ½d

Each cartload of lead, 2d

Each load of bark by week, ¼d

Merchandize sold by weight, of the hundred, 1d, [usually small wares sold by weight]

Of a peis (Old French for weight) of tallow and fat, 1d,

Of a quarter of woad, 2d

Of each hundred of alum and copperas, ½d

Of two thousands of onions, ¼d

A load of garlic, ½d

A thousand of herrings, ½d

Of a hundred of bord, ½d [an Eastern fabric from Egypt]

Each quern, ½d

A thousand shingles, 1d

A thousand lathes, 1d

A new cart, ½d

A cartload of green timber, ½d

A hundred of faggots, ½d [one penny]

A ship loaded with hay coming to the town, 1d

Of each peis of cheese and butter, 1d [half pence]

A dozen loads of coal coming by water, ½d

Of two thousand nails of all sorts except cart-nails, ¼d

A thousand nails for the ridges of houses, ¼d

A hundred of iron for horses (horse shoes) and clouts for carts, ½d [clouts were pieces of iron bound round the ends of the axle=trees to protect them against wear]

Each trussel of merchandize exceeding the value of 2s (s = shillings), ¼d

A cauldron for brewing, 1d

A cartload of sea-fish, 2d [half pence]

A load of sea-fish, ½d

A bale of Cordovan leather and basan leather, 2d

A hundred of tin, brass, or copper, 2d

A boatload of brushwood or timber, 2d

A boatload of chalk, 1d

A boatload of sea-coal, 1d[11]

Comparison with other cities

The rates of custom payable on the various commodities levied at Gloucester were similar to other cities but also different. The grant of pavage to Dublin in 1346 included a quarter penny on a load of corn (half pence at Gloucester), a ship of sea-coal was two pence (one penny at Gloucester), two thousand onions were half penny in Dublin versus a quarter penny at Gloucester while herrings were a quarter pence at Dublin but a half pence at Gloucester. Items levied at the same rate included woad, nails and rabbit skins and others skins.[12]

The economy of every town was different. The availability of each commodity and the desire of the city authorities to encourage some trade over other commodities may account for the differences. Even within a town the rates could be different as we shall see with the murage grant given to Gloucester in 1345.

A map of the walls in red and the main streets and sites of Gloucester 

Murage

On 1^st October 1345 King Edward III granted to the Bailiffs and men of Gloucester the right to take custom from goods for sale coming to Gloucester by land, and by water, for the following seven years. This grant of murage was to aid in the repairing and sustentation of the town walls.[13] In 1298 and 1302 records relate to the bringing of stone by way of the River Severn from Elmore for use for the town walls.[14]

The rate of murage was sometime half that of pavage while on other commodities it was the same rate. The type of goods charges for murage sometimes differed from that of pavage. The following were the rates for murage on the goods coming into Gloucester for sale:

Each horse load of corn for sale, whatsoever kind it may be, or of malt, ¼d (d = pence)

Each horse, mare, ox or cow, ½d

Each dole of wine, 2d

Each pipe of wine, 1d

Each hide of a horse, mare, ox or cow, fresh, salted or tanned, ¼d

Five salted pigs, ½d

Ten hams, ½d

Ten sheep, goats and hogs, 1d

Ten fleeces, ½d

A hundred sheep-skins with the wool on, goat-skins, deer-skins, 1d

Each hundred of lamb-skins, kid-skins, hare-skins, rabbit-skins, fox-skins, cat-skins and squirrel-skins, ½d

Each hundred of gray-work, 6d [furriery made of the skins of the animal known in Old French as gris]

Each quarter of salt, ¼d

Each horse-load of cloth, ½d

Each whole cloth of the value of 40s (s = shillings), 1d

Each trussel of cloth brought by cart, 3d

Each hundred of cloth worsted, 2d

Each cloth of worsted called “couerlyt” of the value of 40s, 1d

Each hundred of linen cloth of Dilesham (near Worstead, Norfolk), 1d

Each chief of cendalle afforced, 1d

Of other cendalle, ½d

Each hundred of salted cod [green fish] or stock-fish, 2d

Each cartload of fish, ½d

Each horse-load of sea-fish, ½d

Each salmon, ¼d

Each dozen of lampreys, 1d

Each barrel of sturgeon, ½d

Each last of herrings, 6d

Each horse-load of ashes, ½d

Each horse-load of honey, 1d

Each sack of wool, 2d

Each cart-load of tan by week, 1d

Merchandize sold by weight, of the hundred, 1d,

Of each peis of tallow and grease, 1d,

Of a quarter of woad, 2d

Of two thousands of onions, ½d

Each bale of cordwain, 3d

Of a hundred of bord, ½d

Each quern, ½d

Each hundred of faggots, ¼d

Each thousand of turves, ¼d

A cart-load of brushwood or timber, by the week, ½d

Each hundred [weight] of tin, brass or copper, 2d

Each boat laden with ale, brushwood, turbes, or any other things whatsoever for sale exceeding the value of 20s, 1d

Each trussel of merchandize of any kind exceeding the value of 10s, ½d

Each ware not named here of the value of 5s and over, ¼d

The walls of Gloucester

The earliest mention of the walls of Gloucester that I have found was in a royal charter of King John of gifts and liberties to the town of Gloucester in return for a fee farm payment of £55. In that charter the burgesses of Gloucester Merchant Guild should not “plead without the walls of the borough … except pleas relating to outside tenures”.[15] Yet Gloucester is noted for its older walls. Originally Gloucester was founded as a town by the Romans with the usual forum buildings and military and religious buildings. After the Roman Empire left the town fell into decline and was abandoned for a number of centuries. Sometime round 900 AD the Anglo-Saxons built a new town on a regular grid of streets within the Roman walls. But this new town didn’t following the grid street system of the Roman town except that the principal East-West street was near each other.[16]

The walls of Gloucester, or any town, were not just for defence from attacking armies. In times of war the walls did serve that purpose but on a daily basis the walls serve more practical needs. It a time without an established police force the walls and gates of a town helped control the free flow of criminals. When the gates closed at night the town folk were safe from criminals from outside. Equally criminals inside he own could not make a quick escape.

The walls also controlled trade. Merchants had to use the town gates for access and couldn’t avoid tolls and customs by jumping the fence with their goods for sale. The walls also provided civil pride as only a town or city with money could afford to pay for the erection of walls.    

Benefits of pavage and murage

What benefits did the grants of pavage and murage bring to Gloucester and to others? On a positive view the grants helped pave the streets and repair the town walls. But the tolls fell heavily upon rural dwellers as the tolls only applied to goods coming into town for sale. Goods within the town did not pay. Yet there were few goods coming into Gloucester that were free of the tolls. One would think therefore that the town acquired a large sum of money from pavage and murage but evidence for other places would not support this.

Exeter received grants of pavage and murage from 1224 to 1374 on a vast amount of goods coming into the city for sale. In 1306/7 the income on these tolls was £40 per year. But after the Black Death and the start of the Hundred Years War trade declined. The returns in the 1360s and 1370s rarely exceeded £6 per year. In 1377 a new system of murage was introduced at Exeter which was levied on resident property holders rather than on traders. This new murage levy brought in £28 per year.[17]

Another factor which limited the income from pavage and murage was the system of borough freedom granted to individuals in various towns and cities. Not only were these people free of most custom tolls within their own town but they were also exempt in other recognised towns across England. The nationwide exemption granted to Gloucester in 1328 was cited as reason for other cities to have such freedom for its burgesses. In 1474 the burgesses of Waterford claimed exemption “just as the burgesses of Gloucester are” exempted. These exemption extended to that of pavage and murage. Most town halls kept a list of the other recognised towns so as to properly collect tolls and not accidently collect from a person with borough freedom, less they have to give the money back.[18]

In other cases unfranchised inhabitants, and those from outside the town, paid an annual payments to cover all market tolls and charges. These payments varied between 6 pence and 1 mark but were usually in the range of 1–2 shillings range.[19] The payment was reassessed each year but if it is possible that a trader could save on taxes such as pavage and murage with the one big payment if he did substantial trading in the town.

The amount of money raised by pavage and murage was also limited by the size of the Gloucester economic area. The borough rolls show that the villages from which men came regularly to trade in Gloucester's market lay within a relatively small surrounding area of the Vale and Severnside, most of them within or close to the well-known limit of 6½ miles which was the usual distance for those attending a day's market. Beyond this distance other market towns like Tewkesbury, Cirencester, Painswick and Minchinhampton drew their own catchment area.[20]

To these exemptions, and limitations to the revenue generated for pavage and murage, must go the tax avoidance activities of various people. Some of the earliest records to survive from ancient history are government tax documents and following on close behind are other documents showing people’s opposition to taxation or activities to avoid paying tax. It is little different in our time. In medieval times tax avoidance and evasion were ongoing issues. In 1273 a man living in Barton Street was said to intercept and buy leather from those coming through the suburb on their way to the market.[21] It is possible that some of this trading outside the town boundary happened in the period of pavage and murage.  

Cistercian monk in a mediaeval abbey ruin

The wealthy people of today and big corporations have a name of using off shore tax havens to avoid tax. Some of the large corporations of medieval times also used tax havens. The Cistercians usually had their abbey far out in the countryside but also possessed a few town properties. C.H. Berman noted that “The French archives show that Cistercian abbeys sought numerous commercial rights and properties in those centres most conveniently located for their trade. Commercial rights or preferences were gained through exemptions from tolls and taxes allowing the order to move animals and goods toll-free to urban centres and once there to buy and sell without paying market taxes” [such as pavage and murage]. Berman says that this practice of pretending to bring goods into a town for the order’s own use and once inside the town, selling the goods was common practice for the Cistercians in France and England.[22]

In 1455 it was estimated that about 8 per cent of properties within Gloucester were owned by non-residents, mainly abbots and priors of the surrounding region. Yet an institution like Llanthony priory, just outside the own walls, held about 10 per cent of town properties.[23] In 1392 the town bailiffs complained against Llanthony Priory concerned a doorway that the priory maintained near St. Kyneburgh's chapel; by means of it, many traders entered without paying toll.[24]

Conclusion

Medieval towns were as complex and dramatic as any modern town. The many grants of pavage given to Gloucester shows a determined effort by the town authorises to have functioning streets to serve the many needs of its residents. The construction and repair of the town wall shows civic pride and the clear determination of boundaries and authority. The grants of pavage and murage also show how medieval towns had, in ways, more local revenue generating capacity than modern towns which rely on central government for much of their revenue and we are supposed to be the progressive, modern age – the medieval world was not all medieval.   

====================

End of post

====================

---

[1] W.H. Stevenson (ed.), Calendar of the Records of the Corporation of Gloucester (Gloucester, 1893), pp. 11, 12

[2] Calendar Patent Rolls, Edward III, 1327-1330, pp. 194, 195, 196

[3] Calendar Patent Rolls, Edward II, 1317-1321, p. 578

[4] John T. Gilbert (ed.), Calendar of Ancient Records of Dublin (Joseph Dollard, Dublin, 1889), vol. 1, p. 24

[5] Calendar Patent Rolls, Edward III, 1327-1330, p. 57

[6] Calendar Patent Rolls, Edward III, 1330-1334, p. 163

[7] W.H. Stevenson (ed.), Calendar of the Records of the Corporation of Gloucester, p. 50

[8] W.H. Stevenson (ed.), Calendar of the Records of the Corporation of Gloucester, pp. 57, 58, 59

[9] Calendar Patent Rolls, Richard II, 1381-1385, p. 328 = 16^th November 1383; Ibid, Henry IV, 1402, p. 172 = 17^th November 1401-1405; Ibid, Henry IV, 1405-1408, p. 91 = 12^th November 1405

[10] W.H. Stevenson (ed.), Calendar of the Records of the Corporation of Gloucester, pp. 50-2

[11] W.H. Stevenson (ed.), Calendar of the Records of the Corporation of Gloucester, pp. 50-2

[12] John T. Gilbert (ed.), Calendar of Ancient Records of Dublin, vol. 1, p. 16

[13] W.H. Stevenson (ed.), Calendar of the Records of the Corporation of Gloucester, p. 54

[14] https://www.british-history.ac.uk/report.aspx?compid=42271 accessed on 5 December 2014

[15] W.H. Stevenson (ed.), Calendar of the Records of the Corporation of Gloucester, p. 6

[16] C.M. Heighway & J.F. Rhodes, ‘St. Michael’s Church, Gloucester: A Reconsideration of the Excavations of 1956’, in Joseph Bettey (ed.), Archives & Local History in Bristol & Gloucester: Essays in Honour of David Smith (Bristol & Gloucestershire Archaeological Society, 2007), p. 161, 165, 166

[17] Maryanne Kowaleski, Local Markets and Regional Trade in Medieval Exeter (Cambridge University Press, 1996), p. 195

[18] Maryanne Kowaleski, Local Markets and Regional Trade in Medieval Exeter, p. 201; Niall J. Byrne (ed.), The Great Parchment Book of Waterford: Liber Antiquissimus Civitatis Waterfordiae (Irish Manuscripts Commission, Dublin, 2007), p. 33

[19] https://www.british-history.ac.uk/vch/glos/vol4/pp57-59 accessed on 16 December 2014

[20] https://www.british-history.ac.uk/report.aspx?compid=42274 accessed on 5 December 2014

[21] https://www.british-history.ac.uk/vch/glos/vol4/pp57-59 accessed on 16 December 2014

[22] Jason Bolton, ‘The Cistercians at Rothe House’, in the Old Kilkenny Review, Volume 66 (2014), p. 37

[23] John Langton, ‘Late medieval Gloucester: some data from a rental of 1455’, in Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers, 1977, p. 269

[24] https://www.british-history.ac.uk/vch/glos/vol4/pp57-59 accessed on 16 December 2014