Property, Power and the Growth of Towns: Enterprise and Urban Development, 1100-1500 9781032000923, 9781032000947, 9781003172697

Citation preview

Property, Power and the Growth of Towns

Local enterprise, institutional quality and strategic location were of central importance in the growth of medieval towns. This book, comprising a study of 112 English towns, emphasises these key factors. Downstream locations on major rivers attracted international trade, and thereby stimulated the local processing of imports and exports, while the early establishment of richly endowed religious institutions funnelled agricultural rental income into a town, where it was spent on luxury goods produced by local craftsmen and artisans, and on expensive, long-running building schemes. Local entrepreneurs who recognised the economic potential of a town developed residential suburbs which attracted wealthy residents. Meanwhile town authorities invested in the building and maintenance of bridges, gates, walls and ditches, often with financial support from wealthy residents. Royal lordship was also an advantage to a town, as it gave the town authorities direct access to the king and bypassed local power-brokers such as bishops and earls. The legacy of medieval investment remains visible today in the streets of important towns. Drawing on rentals, deeds and surveys, this book also examines in detail the topography of seven key medieval towns: Bristol, Gloucester, Coventry, Cambridge, Birmingham, Shrewsbury and Hull. In each case, surviving records identify the location and value of urban properties, and their owners and tenants. Using statistical techniques, previously applied only to the early modern and modern periods, the book analyses the impact of location and type of property on property values. It shows that features of the modern property market, including spatial autocorrelation, were present in the middle ages. Property hot-spots of high rents are also identified; the most valuable properties were those situated between the market and other focal points such transport hubs and religious centres, convenient for both, but remote from noise and pollution. This book takes an interdisciplinary approach, drawing on expertise from the disciplines of economics and history. It will be of interest to historians and to social scientists looking for a long-run perspective on urban development. Catherine Casson is Senior Lecturer in Enterprise at Alliance Manchester Business School, University of Manchester. Her publications include articles in Urban History, Business History Review, Business History and the Economic History Review and the co-­authored book Compassionate Capitalism: Business and Community in Medieval England (2020). Mark Casson is Professor of Economics at the University of Reading and Director of the Centre for Institutions and Economic History. He has published in Economic History Review, Explorations in Economic History, Business History Review. He is the co-author (with Catherine Casson) of The Entrepreneur in History (2013).

Routledge Explorations in Economic History Edited by Lars Magnusson, Uppsala University, Sweden

Port-Cities and their Hinterlands Migration, Trade and Cultural Exchange from the Early Seventeenth-Century to 1939 Edited by Robert Lee and Paul McNamara The Economy of Renaissance Italy Paolo Malanima The Decline of British Industrial Hegemony Bengal Industries 1914–46 Indrajit Ray Industry and Development in Argentina An Intellectual History, 1914–1980 Marcelo Rougier and Juan Odisio Translated by James Brennan The Real Estate Market in the Roman World Edited by Marta García Morcillo and Cristina Rosillo-López An Economic History of the First German Unification State Formation and Economic Development in a European Perspective Edited by Ulrich Pfister and Nikolaus Wolf Inequality and Nutritional Transition in Economic History Spain in the 19th–21st Centuries Edited by Francisco J. Medina Albaladejo, José Miguel Martínez Carrión and Salvador Calatayud Giner Property, Power and the Growth of Towns Enterprise and Urban Development, 1100–1500 Catherine Casson and Mark Casson For more information about this series, please visit: www.routledge.com/ Routledge-Explorations-in-Economic-History/book-series/SE0347

Property, Power and the Growth of Towns Enterprise and Urban Development, 1100–1500 Catherine Casson and Mark Casson

First published 2023 by Routledge 4 Park Square, Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon OX14 4RN and by Routledge 605 Third Avenue, New York, NY 10158 Routledge is an imprint of the Taylor & Francis Group, an informa business © 2023 Catherine Casson and Mark Casson The right of Catherine Casson and Mark Casson to be identified as authors of this work has been asserted in accordance with sections 77 and 78 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988. All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reprinted or reproduced or utilised in any form or by any electronic, mechanical, or other means, now known or hereafter invented, including photocopying and recording, or in any information storage or retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publishers. Trademark notice: Product or corporate names may be trademarks or registered trademarks, and are used only for identification and explanation without intent to infringe. British Library Cataloguing-in-Publication Data A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library ISBN: 978-1-032-00092-3 (hbk) ISBN: 978-1-032-00094-7 (pbk) ISBN: 978-1-003-17269-7 (ebk) DOI: 10.4324/9781003172697 Typeset in Bembo by SPi Technologies India Pvt Ltd (Straive)

In memory of Professor W.M. Ormrod

Contents

List of figures List of tables Acknowledgements List of abbreviations 1 Introduction

viii ix xi xiii 1

2 Town comparisons: Southern England Part 1

24

3 Town comparisons: Southern England Part 2

74

4 Town comparisons: Midlands and North England

97

5 Explaining the growth of towns 1086–1524: A statistical analysis of 112 towns

139

6 Town growth and topography

163

7 Conclusion

280

Index

289

Figures

6.1 6.2 6.3 6.4 6.5 6.6 6.7

Coventry in the thirteenth century Bristol in the middle ages Shrewsbury in the middle ages Cambridge in c.1500 Birmingham in 1296 and 1344–5 The medieval plots of Hull c.1350 Gloucester in the middle ages

176 196 212 231 241 248 259

Tables

5.1 5.2 5.3 5.4 5.5 5.6 5.7 5.8 5.9 5.10 5.11 5.12.1 5.12.2 5.13 5.14.1 5.14.2 5.15 5.16.1 5.16.2 5.17 5.18 5.19 6.1 6.2 6.3 6.4

Correlations between institutional features of towns 141 Correlations between physical characteristics of towns 142 Correlations between institutional features and physical characteristics 142 Previous valuations as predictors of population (number of tax–payers) in 1524 146 Major outliers from Table 5.4 (full regression) 146 Previous valuations as predictors of value in 1377 147 Major outliers from Table 5.6 (full regression) 148 Previous valuations as predictors of value in 1334 148 Major outliers from Table 5.8 148 Previous valuation as predictor of value in 1086 149 Major outliers from Table 5.10 150 Determinants of population in 1524 152 Determinants of population 1524 continued 153 Major outliers from Table 5.12.1 (full regression) 154 Determination of poll tax valuation in 1377 154 Determination of poll tax valuation in 1377 continued 155 Major outliers from Table 5.14.1 (full regression) 156 Determinants of lay subsidy valuation in 1334 156 Determinants of lay subsidy valuation in 1334 continued 157 Major outliers from Table 5.16.1 (full regression) 158 Key factors explaining the variation in the size and valuation of towns 1334–1524 159 Summary regressions using only the key factors identified in Table 5.18 160 Sources of rental information for the seven towns 164 Determinants of rent in Coventry: regressions of the logarithm of rent 180 Determinants of consideration in Coventry: regressions of logarithm of consideration 183 Bristol: Fines 1209–1365. Regression analysis by location of property, type of property, relations between parties and time 198

x Tables 6.5 Bristol Landgable rents 1293, c.1350 and 1438. Regression analysis of rents, continuity of property and subdivision of property by parish Bristol 6.6 Bristol Community Rental and Rental of Arthur’s Fee, 1350–60: Regression analysis of rent by location and type of property 6.7 Bristol Community Rental 1463: Regression analysis of rent by location, type of property and status of holder 6.8 The areas of the town identified in the 1246 rental of Shrewsbury 6.9 Statistical analysis of the determination of rents in Shrewsbury 6.10 Time profile of recorded gifts of property in Shrewsbury to Shrewsbury and Haughmond abbeys 6.11 Surviving charters of Shrewsbury Abbey and Haughmond Abbey donating property in Shrewsbury to the Abbey, in chronological order 6.12 Regression analysis of the log of total property rents in Cambridge, 1279 6.13 Cambridge: Analysis of hawgable rents: whether hawgable was paid and if so how much was paid 6.14 Determinants of logarithmic rent in Birmingham in 1296 6.15 Determinants of logarithmic rent in Birmingham borough 1533 6.16 Distribution of properties by street with frontage Hull 6.17 Regression analysis of the logarithm of rent Hull 6.18 Regression analysis of impact of location, ownership and type of property on rent in Gloucester 6.19 Regression analysis of impact of location, ownership and type of property on landgable Gloucester 7.1 Provisional list of town developers identified from the present study

201 202 205 214 215 217 218 233 236 243 244 250 251 262 265 285

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank the anonymous referees for their comments. Thanks are due to Adrian Bell, Peter Coss, Ken Dark, George Demidowicz, Peter Fleming, Nigar Hashimzade, Richard Holt, Rosemary Horrox, Maryanne Kowaleski, John S. Lee, Roger Leech, Nick Mayhew, Geoff Meen, Steve Rigby, Elisabeth Salter, The Dugdale Society, Keir Waddington, Nigel Wadeson and Peter Watson for commenting on drafts of chapters and proposals. Access to manuscripts and local history publications was facilitated by staff at the Birmingham and Midlands Institute, the Bodleian Library, the archivists of Western Manuscripts at the British Library, Cambridge University Library, Gloucestershire Archives, Hull History Centre, Roger Lovatt archivist of Peterhouse, the librarian of Merton College Oxford, Richard Smith, The Cambridge Collection in the Public Library and The National Archives. Thanks are due to Janet Casson for proof reading. Lesley Gilchrist of the University of Manchester provided significant administrative support. Sarah Wroot produced the maps that are included in the volume. For Figure 6.1 permissions for the reuse of elements were provided by the British Academy, the British Archaeological Association and George Demidowicz. Efforts were made to contact all parties. We acknowledge the role of Mr. Gary Haley, who drew the original version on behalf of the British Academy, and the advice of George Demidowicz. For Figure 6.3 we are grateful for the permissions provided by Oxbow Books. For Figure 6.4 we are grateful for permission from the Historic Towns Atlas and from Bristol University Press. For Figure 6.5 George Demidowicz and the Dugdale Society kindly provided permission to adapt a map based on two maps created by George Demidowicz and published by Dugdale Society. Permission for the use of Figure 6.6 was provided by Rosemary Horrox and from Cambridge University Press. We are grateful to Bristol University Press for allowing the reproduction of extracts from Chapter 2 of C. Casson, M. Casson, J.S. Lee and K. Phillips (2020b) Compassionate Capitalism: Business and Community in Medieval England. Bristol, Bristol University Press. Extracts from C. Casson and M. Casson (2019a) Property rents in medieval English towns: Hull in the fourteenth century. Urban History, 46 (3), 374–97. Available from: doi:10.1017/S096392681800041X © Cambridge University Press were reproduced with the permission of Cambridge University Press.

xii Acknowledgements We are grateful to Routledge for allowing the reproduction of extracts from C. Casson and M. Casson (2020) Origins of capitalism II medieval urban property markets: thirteenth-century Coventry revisited. In: G. Christ and P.R. Rössner (eds.) History and Economic Life: A Student’s Guide to Approaching Economic and Social History Sources. Routledge, Abingdon, 141–67. We are grateful to Wiley for allowing the reproduction of extracts from C. Casson and M. Casson (2016) Location, location, location? analysing property rents in medieval Gloucester. Economic History Review, 69 (2), 575–99. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1111/ehr.12117.

Abbreviations

BAS BAS: TP BMI: AS CCR CChR CPR

Birmingham Archaeological Society Birmingham Archaeological Society: Transactions and Proceedings Birmingham and Midlands Institute (Archaeological Section) Calendar of Close Rolls Calendar of Charter Rolls Calendar of Patent Rolls

Leland I-V Toulmin Smith, L. (ed). The Itinerary of John Leland in or about the Years 1535–1543. (5 vols) London: Centaur, 1964.

1 Introduction

Scope of the book This book offers a systematic analysis of the factors governing the growth of English towns over the period 1066–1524. This is an ambitious task, but it builds on an extensive existing literature. The distinctive legal features of early town governance attracted the attention of Thomas Madox in Firma Burgi (1726). The municipal reform movement of the 1830s encouraged Merewether and Stephens (1972, first published 1835) to examine the evolution of town governance from the medieval to the Victorian period. Towards the end of the nineteenth century the legal historian Frederick Maitland (1898) examined the relationship between town and borough, using the university town of Cambridge as a case study. Shortly afterwards, ancient borough customs were catalogued in detail by Mary Bateson (1904–6), and Adolphus Ballard (1913), town clerk of Woodstock, near Oxford, analysed surviving borough charters. There was a major impetus to the study of medieval urban history in the 1960s, which came from two sources. The first was a growing interest in the application of Marxist theory to medieval history, rethinking the role of lord and peasant, and landlord and tenant. The second was the rapid expansion of towns in this period, and the need to build over some of the medieval core of modern towns, including to create ring roads, modern civic buildings and new housing estates. Rescue archaeology provided numerous finds which informed on medieval town topography and in some cases challenged received ideas upon the subject. Much of this modern literature is cited throughout this book. This book does not set out to rewrite this history, but rather to add a new dimension to it. Previous literature has tended to itemise the available evidence and then offer interpretations of it. The approach has been inductive; in other words the historian first obtains the evidence and then reflects on what it may mean. In practice, different scholars have often suggested different interpretations of the same evidence, and it may be difficult to determine which is closest to the truth. This book follows a more deductive approach. Starting from first principles, it considers what factors are most likely to be conducive to town growth. Some factors relate to the location: for example, is the town on a river or at a hub of DOI: 10.4324/9781003172697-1

2 Introduction former Roman roads? Other factors relate to institutions; for example, is it an advantage to have a mint or to become a county town? Instead of immersion in the evidence, this approach emphasises detachment. It considers the basic logic of a town — that is, why towns exist at all — and in the light of this examination it identifies a set of factors that are likely to make them thrive. It then investigates in a systematic way whether towns that possessed these characteristics prospered more than towns that did not. The reader may well ask, “Where do these principles come from?” The answer is from general economic principles. Towns are fundamental to economic life. When different people specialise in producing different products, they need to exchange the surplus of the product they produce for the products produced by other people. A market is an ideal forum as it allows buyers to compare the prices that are quoted by competing sellers. A town, in turn, provides an ideal location for a market because it has amenities such as inns and taverns, and social and religious institutions such as churches and hospitals. Using general principles of this kind, most of which are intuitively plausible, it is possible to derive hypotheses which predict what sort of pattern the historian will find when they examine sources of evidence in towns. This does not mean that the theory is always right. If the predictions of a theory do not fit the evidence, the theory needs to be either amended or rejected outright. In this context “prediction” does not mean predicting the future, but rather predicting the patterns that will emerge when the evidence is examined. The most effective way of examining evidence to see if it fits a theory is by the use of statistical techniques. Linear regression is a simple and robust technique and is employed extensively in the later chapters of this book. It has been used extensively in economic history and has proved its value there. The use of linear regression does not imply, as sometime suggested, that everything is measurable. There are many qualitative factors in medieval history that are difficult, if not impossible, to quantify. However, it is often possible to determine whether the factor is present at all. It can then be classified as either “present” or “not present”; if it is present it is recorded as a number “one,” and if it is not it is recorded as a “zero”. This method generates a set of “dummy variables” which capture all the qualitative dimensions to a problem. Qualitative dimensions to a town include whether it had a pre-Conquest castle, whether it had a post-Conquest castle, and whether the lord of a town was the king, an earl, an ecclesiastic, or a local aristocrat. To examine the development of towns in this way, it is necessary to include a large number of towns in the study. Pairwise comparisons of individual towns can only yield so much information, and it is dangerous to generalise from them. This study uses a sample of 112 towns, which is the largest sample ever used in a comparative study of medieval English towns. The towns concerned are listed and described in Chapters 2–4. It is impossible to summarise the histories of each town from original documents, and so secondary sources have been used. These secondary sources are sufficient, however, to provide reliable information on relevant qualitative variables as described previously. The integrity of the study depends heavily on the use of a suitable sample, and the sample selection criteria are therefore discussed fully in Chapter 2. The quantitative information on these towns

Introduction  3 comes from four well-known sources of statistical information, namely Domesday, the Lay Subsidy of 1334, the Poll taxes of 1377–9 and the Subsidies of 1524–5. Chapter 5 presents the main results on the comparative growth of English towns. Chapter 6 drills down in greater detail to analyse individual properties within specific towns. Such detailed analysis is only possible for a limited number of towns, but even so, not all of the towns that have such information can be included in this study for reasons of space. Seven towns have therefore been selected. They are all major towns of considerable intrinsic interest, and in most cases the medieval town remains largely undisturbed today. While the buildings may be different, the plots on which they are built are basically the same today as they were 900 years ago. This chapter shows how information derived from borough rentals, deeds, charters, and feets of fines can shed light on the internal topography of towns and the the way that this evolved in the medieval period and, in some cases, later on. The conclusions are summarised in Chapter 7, which also sets out an agenda for future research on the history of medieval towns. There are many surviving sources of information on medieval towns that still remain to be studied. With digital technologies, accessing and recoding information is now easier than ever before, and modern statistical computer packages make data analysis much quicker than before. The main challenge is the palaeography — translating from abbreviated medieval Latin handwriting on faded parchment rolls into modern English. If this logistical bottleneck can be overcome, then medieval urban history — informed by economic theory and assisted by statistical techniques — has a very promising future. The remainder of this chapter is structured as follows. It begins with a review of the legal and social framework in which medieval towns were embedded, and in which they played an increasingly important role. This includes an examination of the land market, with special emphasis on the way that people paid for the acquisition of land. The evolution of market towns from simple rural settlements to well-administered market centres is then discussed. There are separate discussions of the regulation of the market by the king and the evolution of self-governance by local people. Two distinct but related legal issues are then identified that bear directly on property ownership within towns, namely burgage tenure and the lordship of the town. Internal conflicts between different factions within a town are then discussed, and the internal topography of towns is examined. The chapter concludes by presenting a long view of the wider political environment within which towns developed.

Medieval context: law and society Kingship Throughout the medieval period it was a well-established custom that kings were appointed by birth rather than by factional warfare (“power struggles”), although wars of succession occasionally broke out (for example, the Norman Conquest, the Anarchy of Stephen and Matilda, and much later, the Wars of the Roses). Heirs to the throne were trained in leadership from an early age. Primogeniture

4 Introduction was the rule; the first-born male succeeded to the crown. The eldest surviving son succeeded, and if there were no sons it was the eldest daughter instead. If there was no daughter, then it was the nearest living relative, however that person was defined at the time. Queens who were married to kings could be influential too, and some became the lords of towns. Not everyone consented to primogeniture, however; some thought that competence and integrity were more important. King John was forced by his barons (leading knights) to sign Magna Carta, and his son Henry III faced a Baron’s War soon afterwards. A medieval king was not just a symbolic head of state but a warrior who defended the country against external threats and maintained law and order (that is, the “king’s peace”) at home (Bartlett, 2000: 263; Powicke, 1962). The king could also lead invasions of other countries. Norman kings sought to subdue dissent in Scotland, Wales and Ireland and also defend their family interests back in France. When summoned by the Pope, they also went on Crusade. Relations with the Irish (and their Viking settlers) were generally friendly; the Welsh were subdued by the end of the thirteenth century; but the Scots were more problematic. Under King David, relations with the Scots were good and several Scottish warriors held land in England; later, however, the Scots rebelled but were vanquished by Edward III at Bannockburn in 1315. To defend the country, the king needed an army, and medieval property law was devised to facilitate this. The king held all the land (apart from that which had been given to the church), Some of their land they kept in demesne (that is, for their own personal use), and the rest they gave to tenants-in-chief, most of whom were local warriors who could muster knights for battle. This created a standing army which call be called up quickly in times of threat (Prestwich, 1996). The tenants-in-chief, who held land directly from the king, owed the king service. Most were expected to provide the king with a certain number of armed knights. Tenants-in-chief would often subdivide their estates into smaller ones called “knight’s fees”, each sufficient to support one knight, together with his men and horses. A knight’s fee might in turn be split into smaller units, such as manors, held by yeomen or minor aristocracy. This arrangement allowed the knight to fund his service to the king through rental income from tenants on his estate. In this hierarchy of ownership each “tenant” would refer to the person who received their rent as their “lord”, while the land itself was often referred to as a “fief ” or “fee”. An influential aristocrat might hold several large estates in different parts of the country. To begin with, it was the custom for land to return to a lord on the death of their tenant. In practice, however, the tenant’s heirs were often allowed to renew the lease by the payment of a heriot. The heriot was often paid in kind; in the case of the knight it could be a suit of armour or a prestigious (and expensive) bird of prey. A typical tenant-in-chief was an earl who held a portfolio of agricultural properties. The king decided who was elevated to the status of an earl or a knight, and so, in effect, decided who owned the land. Thus knights who rebelled against the king would almost certainly lose their lands if their rebellion was unsuccessful. Norman kings were particularly clear on this point (Bartlett, 2000: 58).

Introduction  5 This process of successive subdivision of land was known as sub-infeudation. The person who let out the land was known as the “lord” of the person who received it, and that person was known as their “tenant”. At the national level, landownership comprised a pyramid of such relations, with the king at the top, the local farmer at the bottom and earls, knights, and manorial lords in between. Beneath the manorial lord and farmer was the peasant, or serf, who owned no land but had a share of local common fields. Inheritance of land Ownership was not all that secure, however. Tenancies were usually for life; a tenant could not bequeath their land to their family or other heirs without the consent of their lord, which would normally be withheld. Inheritance, however, provided a powerful incentive for a tenant to invest in improving their properties, and in the period 1100–1300 it gradually became the norm. At the beginning of this period there was a particular issue regarding land held by knights (Keeton, 1966: 146–58). If knights held land merely to support their military service, then when a knight had no male children of fighting age, how could someone next in line who was incapable of warfare reasonably inherit? The king could disinherit the family, but this would understandably be unpopular with serving knights and bad for morale. If there was a son who was underage, then they could be made a ward of the king, who would then appropriate their lands until they came of age. If it were a daughter who was of age, the king could appoint another person to fulfil their duties for them. This would require the daughter to render some alternative service to the king, in order to release resources for the payment of the substitute. It did not take long to discover a simple solution, by which land could be held from the king for either military service or for money rent (Bartlett, 2000: 262–3; Hudson, 2012). If the king received a money rent, then he could use the revenue either to hire a knight of his choice or to spend the money in some other way, as he desired. Once an heir could pay for land by money rent, then any family could, in principle, acquire and retain land provided that they could afford it. Aristocratic tenants, for example, no longer needed to pay by military service, making it easier for women to hold land, provided that they had the necessary wealth (Attenborough, 1922). The king could also exploit the desire to inherit for his own ends. He could charge for allowing members of the family to inherit the land. There was a precedent for this. Kings often supplied armour to their knights, and this had to be returned to the king on the death of the knight. If the son wished to inherit they could be charged for retaining the armour. This fee was often referred to as a heriot; it could be paid in kind or in money. This principle of charging for inheritance is an early example of “death duties” (Pollock and Maitland, 1911: 312– 14). As the money supply increased in the twelfth century, money payments became more common. The heriot morphed into an “entry fine”, which was a sum of money paid by a new tenant when they took possession of a property (see Chapter 6).

6 Introduction The land market Money rent broke the link between the ownership of land and the provision of a specific service to the king, whether military or otherwise. It thereby paved the way for the sale of land. When land was sold, the buyer would take over all the obligations of the seller, including their obligations to the king. Furthermore, if the seller had previously bought the property from someone else, then the buyer would also inherit any obligations that the seller had made to the previous holder (see the following discussion). In modern England the buyer of land (or, indeed, any property) normally pays the full purchase price, with the assistance of a mortgage from a bank or building society. In the medieval period, however, money only existed in the form of coins, and coinage was in short supply. Medieval bankers typically financed trade rather than property acquisition, although some Jewish money-lenders supplied loans for the purchase of property — until they were expelled in 1290. Cooperative building societies were not established until the nineteenth century. In view of these constraints, most medieval people who held property did so by payment of a perpetual money rent. By accepting a perpetual rent as payment, the seller was effectively providing a loan to the buyer. The main reason that the seller could afford to do this was that they themselves had acquired the property in the same way. With a stable currency and no inflation, a buyer could acquire a property by simply agreeing to take over the responsibility for the payment of the rent that was already being paid by the seller. But the period 1100–1300 was a period of major inflation in property values. This allowed sellers to appropriate capital gains. Given the shortage of coinage, the simplest way for them to do this was by imposing an additional rent that was payable to themselves (and their heirs). By 1300, therefore, many properties were burdened with multiple rents payable to different people. A notable feature of properties with multiple rents is that while some rents were paid in money, others were paid in kind. The earliest rents were normally paid in kind and the later ones in money. This occurred because the property was first put “on the market” at a time before money rents became the norm. These early rents in kind may have involved a personal service to the king (for example, baking bread or providing the use of a horse), or the giving of a present to a previous owner. Presents could be of substantive value (for example, a bird of prey) or token value (for example, a rose). This situation is fully recorded by the rentals reviewed in Chapter 6, where further details are given.

The evolution of market towns Nucleation and agglomeration Nucleation is a fundamental force that drives people to agglomerate at specific locations. If these forces are sufficiently strong, a location may evolve into a permanent settlement. In other words, people value social contact so much that they are prepared to tolerate the potential nuisances of living very near to each other.

Introduction  7 Herds of animal represent a simple form of agglomeration. Although herds may roam, there are often key locations to which they return (for example, to breed). In the same way nomadic tribes may consist of family groups, which roam independently but meet up annually at a ritual site to facilitate intermarriage. Permanent settlement is encouraged when a society moves from hunting and foraging to arable farming. It is reinforced when infrastructure investment can be made, for example, laying out plots, building family homes and providing communal amenities. Selection of a suitable site is key to the success of a settlement (see Chapter 5). There may be competition between extended family groups to occupy the most attractive sites. Fortifications such as ditches and walls may be required, and armour and weapons manufactured. A major advantage of agglomeration is that it facilitates specialisation, whereby different people can acquire different skills. Each person becomes an expert in their field. This can reduce the cost and improve the quality of existing products (see Chapter 6). It can also encourage innovation through experimentation. The origin of markets Agglomeration and specialisation in turn encourage exchange. Exchange is potentially beneficial because people can exchange what they produce in order acquire what they want to consume. In early societies exchange seems to have been effected though gift-giving. A disadvantage of gift-giving is that the giver normally determines the gift, rather than the recipient, so that the recipient may not actually want the gift, or would prefer to have been given something else. Another disadvantage is that gift-giving can be asymmetrical; for example. a low-status person is obliged to present a gift to a high-status person, but the high-status person does not necessarily have to reciprocate. Negotiated exchange is preferable to enforced exchange as it does not require the giver to part with something definite in return for an indefinite reward. If the exchange is voluntary, then no-one needs to part with anything unless they are offered something better in return. Thus voluntary negotiated exchange guarantees that both parties benefit. It does not, however, guarantee that they could not have done better through some other negotiated exchange. It would be useful if people could compare any given offer with alternative offers available from other people. People could then, at least in principle, pair up with the person who offered them the best available deal. Agglomeration is useful because it facilitates comparisons of this kind. All the potential participants in exchange are together in the same place. They can make contacts with different people and compare the outcomes of various negotiations with different people before they commit to a specific exchange. This arrangement also appeals to self-interest; each individual gains because they can identify the best deal. Each buyer can play off alternative sellers against each other, and the sellers can, in principle, play off the buyers in the same way. If everyone is fully briefed before they conclude an exchange, then no-one will regret the decision that they have made.

8 Introduction Economists refer to this arrangement as a market. They say that the outcome described previously is an equilibrium, because no-one wishes to change their plans, and that it is efficient because there is no feasible change of plan that would make anyone better off without making someone else worse off. Intermediation In a very simple market of the kind described in the previous section, each seller is typically a specialist producer, producing a single item or groups of items, and seeking to dispose of those items that are surplus to their consumption needs. Likewise each buyer is some other specialist who is purchasing one of the many products that they lack. In practice, however, specialists may not wish to be distracted from their work. They may rely on other people, such as wholesalers or retailers, to sell their products for them, and rely on other family members to procure the products they need. When products go to market, therefore, it is wholesalers and retailers that do the selling and other family members, such as spouses, who do the shopping. The go-betweens, who do the actual buyers and selling, may be described as intermediators. A typical seller will have bought a variety of goods of a certain type (for example, food or clothing) from different producers’ workshops, which they sell from a stall in the market place or a shop nearby. Conversely, a typical buyer will be a member of a producer’s family who buys on behalf of all family members by visiting all the stalls, comparing the prices, and selecting an appropriate basket of goods.

Market regulation In modern discourse a market is often equated with a “free market” in which anything goes; anyone can show up to buy or sell, and the maxims are “drive a hard bargain” and “buyer beware”. This was not the medieval concept of a market; it was far more sophisticated than that. Market transactions were recognised as risky; product quality was variable and so was the quality of the coinage (Davis, 2012). Where perishables were concerned, bread could be stale, fruit rotten, and meat putrid; with respect to clothing, the cloth could be coarse and the dye impermanent; and where household durables were concerned the workmanship could be poor. In addition, short measure could be given. Likewise with coinage; the value of medieval coinage lay not only in its utility in trade but in its intrinsic value as an artefact of precious metal; coins that were rubbed or clipped were worth less than those that were not. Accurate weights and measures were therefore essential in maintaining the reputation of a market. Use of false weights and measures was a serious offence that would be taken to court. Markets for fish and livestock operated at a wholesale as well as retail level. Fish was typically bought wholesale at the quayside and then taken into the town for retailing. Similarly, livestock could be purchased wholesale by local butchers, often outside the town gates, and the meat sold in the retail market in the centre of the

Introduction  9 town. Products could also be purchased by peddlers and hucksters for door-todoor sale in the neighbourhood. Medieval markets were not as democratic as modern ones. The market was often opened to the public only after certain privileged persons had made the “first pick”. Markets often spilled over from the market square into neighbouring streets, so that some stalls had much more central locations than others. Trades were often grouped together, with the bakers in one area, fish sellers in another, and clothiers in another, to facilitate customers making price and quality comparisons. Not every market had to be based in a town. A hiring market for agricultural labour, or a specialist livestock market, was often held only once a year. Annual fairs did not need to be held in a town either. It was often advantageous to hold them in a town, however, if only to prevent a competing site from developing a permanent trade. A compromise was to hold big events just outside the town, so that the town could benefit from providing hospitality and related services (Lee, 2012).

The organisation of towns Internal organisation of a medieval town The core activities of a typical town centred on the market place (Britnell, 2006). Merchants needed somewhere to store their goods. Artisans needed workshops in which to produce their goods and shops from which to sell them. All these activities could be conducted from a single house. A shop could be set up at the front of the house, with a door and window that opened onto the street. The workshop could be in a back room or in a separate building to the rear. Goods could be stored in a loft or a cellar. The family could dine in the kitchen around the fireplace and sleep upstairs. There might be a passage leading to the rear of the house where animals could be kept, a small garden maintained, or additional buildings erected. To ensure good “passing trade”, it was important to be near the market and on a busy street. This encouraged the development of a grid of streets around the market place. Individual properties abutted against each other, creating a terrace along each street, with gardens at the rear that abutted on the gardens of the houses on a parallel street behind. Corner properties were particularly advantageous for capturing passing trade and were usually large (because of the geometry of the grid). Customs of a town Kings were very keen to keep a close watch on towns. Any place where large numbers of people assembled was of potential royal concern. Negotiation over transactions could lead to arguments, and drunkenness could lead to brawls. The king’s peace had to be maintained. Kings turned this need for supervision to their advantage by monopolising the right to hold markets. They then sold these rights to local lords. The initial purchasers were usually important local landowners, both  private individuals and religious institutions. In the later medieval period,

10 Introduction however, these market rights were often acquired from the original owners by town corporations representing local people. Tolls were often levied at the town gates and on bridges, and rents were payable on local market stalls. These charges normally accrued to the king but could often be purchased for a lump sum, in the same way that a charter was normally obtained. To maximise revenue, everything that could be charged for was charged for; there was, however, a continual threat of competition from neighbouring market towns, which set limits on the amounts that could be charged. Each town had a set of customs and its own court. Customs related to the days and times of markets and fairs, the opening times of shops, the weighting and measuring of products, keeping the peace, and so on. Some customs were set out in the charters issued by the king, while others were created by local precedent, through decisions made in the town court (Massachaele, 1992). The customs developed in one town often provided a precedent for customs in other towns. Some customs gave the townspeople rights in other towns, such as freedom from tolls. Rights over other towns had to be obtained from the king; sometimes they were given as a reward for support in times of conflict, and sometimes they were purchased, often for a considerable price. The compactness of the town was an advantage in so far as people did not have to walk that far in order to visit a range of shops. It was a disadvantage, however, in terms of noise, nuisance and sanitation. Curfews were imposed so that residents could get a good night’s sleep. Perpetrators of assaults were pursued by raising the hue and cry. Suspected criminals frequently escaped from gaol due to the negligence or connivance of their gaolers. The collection of “night soil” and the general disposal of sewage was a recurrent problem, even though it could be sold as a fertiliser for agricultural land. Market-related activities such as butchery and tanning produced unpleasant by-products, which tended to pollute local rivers and streams. Ownership of the revenues of the town The revenues generated by a town consisted mainly of (1) charges levied on market traders, (2) the profits of fairs, (3) tolls for entry into the town and the use of bridges and other facilities, (4) fines levied in the courts, and (5) rents paid by property owners. It would have been convenient if all these revenues had been paid to the same people or institutions, but this was not in general the case. Since the king controlled the market, the simplest arrangement would have been for the king to appropriate all the other revenues too. Even then, however, there could be complications, because the king could decide to present some of these revenues to court favourites, such as the queen, their siblings or other close relatives. Furthermore, it was possible, in principle, for any recipient of revenue from the town to farm out the collection of this revenue, although in practice it was usually the king that did this. The holder of the farm, it seems, would normally be a wealthy person with local knowledge. The holder would pay a fixed annual sum for the right to collect the revenues and then keep them for themselves (Britnell, 2006: 154–6; Jewell, 1972; Tait, 1936). Since the sum to be paid was fixed and the sum to be collected was uncertain, the holder of the farm incurred

Introduction  11 significant risks, and therefore required significant wealth to underwrite them. Farming, however, was unpopular with the townspeople because holders of the farm often resorted to “strong arm” tactics to collect the payments they considered to be their due (Alsford, 2022d). The king often awarded the profits of fairs to religious institutions in the town. Fairs often began on the day in the church’s calendar dedicated to the institution’s patron saint and could last for up to a week, and in some cases for a month or more (Lee, 2012). The fair attracted people to the town, but local traders were not always enthusiastic. If the fair was held outside the town, then visitors might not go into the town to patronise the market and the shops, whereas if it was held in the town then the town would become very congested. In addition, some fair organisers attempted to close down some of the shops while the fair was in progress. The building of urban infrastructure such as bridges was often undertaken by local citizens through a sense of civic duty (Casson and Casson, 2013, 2019). There was doubtless an element of self-interest too; merchants and artisans would expect to benefit from an increase in trade. For whatever reason, however, the potential “free rider problem” — namely everyone waiting until other people paid instead — was successfully overcome. The king sometimes supported such initiatives too, for example with gifts of local building materials. In the light of this, the local citizens, through their representative body, would expect to receive the tolls. Revenue from fines was appropriated only from local town courts; fines from the shire court would accrue to the earl or the sheriff and fines from the royal courts to the king (Musson and Ormrod, 1999). Since the townspeople normally initiated prosecutions, provided the juries and maintained the local gaol, they would expect to appropriate these revenues too. The spatial structure of ownership: multiple fees It would have been a great convenience if all towns had been built on land held solely by the king, or by some local lord holding directly from the king (a so-called tenant-in-chief), so that all the rents accrued to a single person. This would have rationalised and concentrated property ownership and simplified the administration of the town. In practice, however, a group of lay lords, or a mix of lay lords and institutions, often owned different portions of land in the town. These portions were known as fees, as they were part of the “fiefdom” of the individual or institution concerned. The reasons for multiple fees are somewhat difficult to fathom, since their origin often goes back to Anglo-Saxon times, when documentation was relatively poor. A possible explanation is that towns developed in several different phases, with a different lord taking the initiative in each phase. It is also possible that some towns began as separate settlements near to each other, which then merged into each other as the town expanded — much like modern metropolitan areas have been generated by the merger of a city with its satellite towns. A final possibility is that certain parts of the town were rebuilt after devastating attacks, fires or other natural disasters, with new owners taking over wasted parts of the town.

12 Introduction It must be recognised, however, that in the later medieval period it would have been possible, in principle, for one of the owners to buy the others out, but for some reason this rarely happened. Several explanations are possible. Three are mainly social and three mainly financial. The social reasons are that (1) owners selling out would have lost local status and power, particularly if they were involved in the initial foundation of the town; (2) religious institutions, who often held a lot of urban property, may not have wished to offend their donors, or their heirs, by selling property that they had been expected to retain; and (3) it paid to minimise effort by simply letting the king and townspeople get on with running the town. The financial reasons are that (1) there were no ready buyers for large urban property portfolios because it was difficult for potential buyers to raise the finance; (2) it would be difficult for a seller to find an alternative local property portfolio in which to invest the funds obtained from the sale; and (3) urban landowners simply did not think in modern “strategic portfolio management” terms, and so did not consider changing their urban property portfolios at all. The social explanations seem to be the most plausible, especially the third. The financial explanations seem inconsistent with the enthusiasm of many lords — both lay and religious — for the schemes of new town plantation and suburban expansion that they successfully financed in the medieval period. Further research is required on the issue.

Burgage tenure The system of land tenure described at the beginning of this chapter was adapted specifically to the needs of a rural agricultural economy. It permitted the repeated subdivision of plots, allowing free men to hold farms from a manorial lord, who held from a knight, who held from a tenant-in-chief, who held from the king. This system was not conducive to the development of towns, however. Landholding in a town would become extremely complicated, and urban residents would be deterred from investing in buildings and equipment for their trades if their property rights were insecure (Oosthuizen, 2013: 72; Pirenne, 1936: 40–57; Stenton, 1924). To encourage merchants and artisans to settle in towns, a new system of tenure, known as burgage tenure, was therefore introduced, which offered a flexible and attractive way of holding land (Bateson, 1904–06: 278–90). The king, in association with a local earl or sheriff and/or a local landowner, would take a large plot of land and subdivide it into burgage plots. Burgage plots were typically of standard dimensions, although the standards varied between towns. They paid a standard rent, normally to the king, the payment of which guaranteed security of tenure; it was just a few pence per annum in the eleventh century but increased to about 12d by the mid-thirteenth century, for reasons discussed subsequently. The burgage plots would be laid out along the streets of a planned town in the form of a grid, usually close to the market place, in the manner described previously. A burgess occupying a new plot was expected to build a house that would conform, in height and width, to the plan drawn up by the developer. The houses

Introduction  13 would typically have long back yards accessed through a passage. An example of such a plan survives for New Winchelsea, which was a relatively late development c.1295 (Martin and Martin, 2004). The New Winchelsea plan sets out the locations of market places and churches, as well as burgage plots, and makes special provision for corner plots which, in most towns, had a larger frontage (but often a smaller back yard) than the regular plots between them. The plan also illustrates the calculation of rent. It suggests that the anticipated rental income from the proposed town would approximate to the “opportunity cost” of the land, in terms of its value in alternative agricultural use. Burgage plots could also be introduced into existing towns, sometimes creating a “new town” beside the old one. In many towns the “new town” is now the “old  town” and the old town has become a suburb or a park (for example, Stratford-upon-Avon). The word “burgage” derived from the Saxon word for town, namely “burh”; the owner of a burgage was known as a burgess, which is the root of the modern term “bourgeois”, meaning sophisticated, urban and middle-class. To acquire a burgage plot a person need to be a free man (or woman) and not tied to the land in the place in which they were born. If they came from a village where they had subordinate status, then they were supposed to have permission from their lord; in practice, however, some burgesses may have escaped from their villages without telling their lord where they had gone (Alsford, 2022e). During agricultural depressions there was often surplus labour in the villages, and some manorial lords may have been quite content for workers to emigrate to towns. Once they had arrived in the town they acquired their freedom by dwelling a year and a day in the town. They would also usually need to be practising a suitable trade and to be recommended by existing burgesses. If a burgess subsequently left their town to escape repayment of debts, or for some other reason, they would forfeit their property, which would then be offered to others on similar terms. The burgage plot had two key attractions for the owner: it was available at a modest annual rent and, crucially, it could be inherited by the owner’s family. A burgess had the right to bequeath their property to whomever they wished, or to it sell it to the highest bidder. There was no mortgage market at that time, and so the seller would often supply the buyer with a mortgage themselves. In lieu of a lump sum payment, the buyer would acquire the property for an annual rent paid to the seller, which was imposed on top of the rent that the seller was already obliged to pay to the lord of the town. As burgage properties appreciated in value throughout the thirteenth century, additional rents were often added to properties whenever they were sold, so that many properties became burdened with multiple rents (Holt, 2000: 79–85; Merewether and Stephens, 1972/1835: vi; Raban, 1974, 1982). Burgesses, like other property owners, were free to bequeath money to the church. Donations to a local parish church often specified the maintenance of a candle at the altar in the chapel of a favourite saint, while donations to abbeys were often larger and demanded more in return; some took the form of corrodies, whereby the donor received food and accommodation during their old age. In the mid-thirteenth century, during the reign of Henry III, there was a dramatic rise of

14 Introduction personal piety, which stimulated substantial bequests of property to the church. This provoked a reaction from Henry’s son, Edward I, who passed a Statute of Mortmain in 1291 which required donors of property to religious institutions to obtain a royal licence. Such licences could usually be obtained quite easily, but only at substantial cost (Raban, 1974, 1982). The earliest burgage plots seem to date back to the tenth century, and often paid a rent of 1d per annum. By the end of the thirteenth century, however, the standard rent was 12d. This increase was partly accounted for by general inflation, driven by an increase in minting and a consequent growth of the money supply. It may also reflect the economic optimism of the thirteenth century, and specifically the growing demand from merchants and artisans to set up businesses in new towns. Inflation provided substantial opportunities for capital gains. Because the nominal value of burgage rent was fixed in perpetuity, its real value declined as nominal prices and wages increased. At the same time the commercialisation and consequent growth of the economy increased the real value of burgage tenements (Bell, Brooks and Killick, 2019). Over time the market value of a tenement could increase to 12d or more. If a burgess sold such a property he would offer it for sale with the original rent (say 1d) attached as a perpetual obligation of the buyer. He could therefore attach to the property a perpetual rent due to himself and his heirs of 11d. If the burgess required to cash in his profit for a lump sum payment, he could do that using the emerging credit market. In the thirteenth century, for example, the market rate of interest on loans secured against property was approximately 15 percent, although it varied from place to place and time to time (Casson and Casson, 2020: 165). The burgess could either demand a lump sum for the seller, who would then take out a loan if required, or sell his perpetual rent for a lump sum to a third party, who would then receive the rents paid by the buyer. There were, however, two additional complications. The first was that a one-off payment was sometimes required from any new owner of a burgage. This payment was variously referred to a heriot (as previously), or an “entry fine” or “relief ” (see above). It seems to have been applied to children inheriting from their parents as well as to unrelated owners purchasing the property. The customs of the town might specify a fixed amount for the entry fine, but in other cases it appears to have negotiable. By setting a high value for the heriot, the owner of the relevant fee could appropriate much of the capital gain for themselves. This seems to have caused considerable grievance amongst the burgesses in some towns. Not all burgage plots were held by artisans, however. In some towns a significant number of burgage plots were held by the lords of various towns or villages elsewhere. These burgages, it seems, were often concentrated in certain fees. Quite why people living outside the town, and often some considerable distance away, would wish to own several separate burgages in the town is not immediately clear. Two main explanations have been offered, and the subject is still debated. The first explanation is overtly economic. A town is a centre of consumption in which many people reside. Agricultural estates in the surrounding countryside need to dispose of their surplus produce by selling it for a profit in the nearest large town. They need a permanent representative in that town, and that person needs a house. Furthermore, if the town is the head of a shire, then it will also be an

Introduction  15 administrative centre; in particular, the county court will be held there. Nobles residing in the country who need to attend to court regularly will need a town house to accommodate themselves and their servants on their visits. Both of these are potential motivations for major country landowners to hold houses in a town. The second explanation is more political and emphasises the importance of the garrison in a fortified town (Ballard, 1904: 24, 29, 33–40, 67). The castle is likely to be the rallying point for the knights of the shire in times of war (whether a foreign invasion or a civil war). The knights must lead their men up from the villages to the garrison town, where they may wish to occupy separate quarters from their troops. They will therefore find it convenient to hold houses in the town; indeed they may be expected to do so. There are other explanations too. One has already been hinted at; the building of a new town was essentially a property speculation, and it provided opportunities for other speculators to buy up individual properties that they could rent out or resell. Local lords, including the knights of the shire, had the social connections and the financial backing to take up these opportunities ahead of others. They could profit by acquiring the property for a burgage rent and then renting out the property to others at a higher rate. Although the economic arguments seem the most plausible, the political explanation seems to fit the evidence better. In those towns where nonresident owners as a whole held a large number of individual properties, the owners comprise mainly knights and bishops, rather than the owners of smaller manorial estates. Furthermore the knights are drawn from throughout the relevant shire no matter how near or far their estates lie from the town. Finally, the knights are not normally drawn from neighbouring shires even through their borders may be close to the town. The explanations are not mutually exclusive, however. The political arguments apply mainly to a small subset of towns that emerged at particular time. The economic arguments apply, in principle, to all towns at all times. There is good reason, therefore, to regard these arguments as complementary to each other.

Urban lordship and the governance of towns Four main types of lordship Governance relates to who has control of the town. Control of the town may be associated with ownership of land, but it may only be part of the land. Governance implies control of legal enforcement, which would generally extend across the town, irrespective of any different fees within the town (Merewether and Stephens, 1972; Young, 1961).

Royal lordship Royal lordship means that the king is directly in control of the “lands and tenants” (Spishak, 2003: 52). In England it was particularly common in older towns with pre-Conquest origins, some of which were created by kings for military purposes

16 Introduction (Spishak, 2003: 54). After the Norman Conquest, it became more common for kings to reward their followers with land and to grant them permission to develop a town on it. Additional privileges relating to governance, trade and access to communal resources might then also be conferred by king both as monarch and as lord (Ballard, 1913: xliv; Ballard and Tait, 1923; Weinbaum, 1943). Initially these privileges may have been “created by word of mouth”, but from the twelfth century onwards they were usually formalised in writing in a charter issued by the lord (Ballard, 1913: xciv). Royal lordship with a “third penny” In certain towns, especially large towns controlled by the king, it was common for the earl of the county to receive the third penny. In practice this meant that the revenues appropriated by the king were shared with the earl, with the king taking two-thirds of the proceeds and the earl a third. These proceeds typically referred to the profits of justice and not to ordinary rents. Thus the issue of multiple fees had little relevance to the third penny if the revenues concerned did not include property rents. Similarly, the third penny did not normally refer to the profits of a fair; these were held by the owners of the fair, who were often religious institutions based in the town. In practice, therefore, the third penny referred to the division of the overall proceeds of levies on market traders; tolls imposed at town gates, quays and bridges; and fines levied in the courts (Ballard, 1904: 41, Ballard, 1913: lxxix; Round, 1919: 62–4). There are two main interpretations, which are not mutually exclusive. The first is that they are a legacy of a time when kings were unable to travel easily about their kingdom and were therefore reliant on the local earl, or the sheriff of the shire, as their local representatives, to supervise markets, maintain roads and bridges and enforce justice on the king’s behalf. Since the earl or sheriff would be responsible for collecting the king’s dues, it simplified administration to allow them to deduct their own costs before remitting the funds, rather than reward them separately (for example, by granting additional land or making separate payments). The second interpretation focuses on the fact that the income of the earl is in fixed proportion to the funds collected, and not a flat fee. In other words, the more money the earl collects for the king, they more they earn for themselves. From this perspective, the third penny is an incentive mechanism to ensure that the earl makes a serious effort to collect the moneys due. There is, however, a risk of a perverse incentive; namely that the earl abuses the law to extract more money from the townspeople than is actually due. In the long run this could damage the economy of the town by demotivating local tradespeople and possibly encouraging the more enterprising ones to move elsewhere. By comparing the performance of towns with different patterns of lordship, it is possible to determine which of these interpretations provides the best explanation of the evidence. Ecclesiastical lordship Ecclesiastical lordship means that the town had been established on land that had been granted to a religious house (abbey or priory) or to a diocese. An ecclesiastical lord could also issue a charter.

Introduction  17 Lay lordship Lay lordship means that the land on which the town had been established has been granted by the king to another individual, for example a member of the nobility or a royal administrator. That person may in turn grant or sell the land to another individual (or religious institution, as per the following discussion). The lay lord could grant a town a charter themselves, but they would usually seek permission from the crown also (Alsford, 2022a). Mixed lordship Mixed lordship is characterised by the town being developed on land held by two or more parties. This could include two or more ecclesiastical lords (as in Durham where some of the town was held by the bishop and some by the prior), the king and an ecclesiastical lord (for example in York, where the king and the archbishop of York had separate jurisdictions), an ecclesiastical lord and a lay lord (as occurred in Coventry). In all the cases one of the lords would have control of the market area and this is taken, in later chapters, to define the nature of lordship in any particular town.

Internal conflicts in towns Because of the legal rights that burgesses possessed, they often maintained that they were directly accountable to the king. Burgesses had little reason to actively support lay or ecclesiastical lords, unless that lord interceded on their behalf to obtain privileges from the king. Relations become bad when the burgesses believed that the lay or ecclesiastical lord was blocking their access to the king in order to defend rights that the lord or the lord’s predecessors may have obtained, for example to markets or fairs. Burgesses also wanted to collect dues to the kings for themselves, by obtaining the farm of the town and delivering its proceeds directly to the king rather than through its sheriff or other intermediary. The burgesses also wanted the power to appoint their own officials for collecting revenues and administering justice, rather than having to accept a candidate nominated by the lord (which could include one of the lord’s own officials). There were three main ways in which burgesses could interact with their lord. • •

•

Authoritarian: In this situation a lord appointed a bailiff to run the town. This was disliked by the burgesses because the bailiff was often the lord’s official. Self governance without incorporation: This situation gave the burgesses greater autonomy, as it usually enabled them to appoint their own civic officials for collecting revenues and administering justice. However, it did not allow them to make legal agreements as a corporate entity, which precluded the town from holding property in its own name. This meant that, first, the town could not acquire derelict properties for redevelopment, or second, acquire a town hall where courts could be held and documents stored, or third, acquire property as an investment out of which to fund local initiatives. Self governance with incorporation: The most desirable level of governance for the burgesses was incorporation, which made a town “a fictitious personality in the eyes of the law” (Alsford, 2022b, 2022c). Incorporation was associated with five characteristics: “perpetual succession”, to continue in existence even

18 Introduction if a member died or departed; power of suing and being sued as a whole and by the specific name of the corporation, thereby removing personal liability from the office holders; power to hold lands, which was especially useful in building market halls, town halls and local court rooms (which were sometimes combined into a single building); a common seal, used for “signing” legal documents; and authority to issue by-laws and other local regulations (Alsford, 2022a; Weinbaum, 1937: 18, 1943). In addition, it usually included the creation of the office of mayor (replacing that of bailiff) (Alsford, 2022a). The mayor’s function was similar to that of bailiff, but a bailiff could be appointed by a king or seigneurial lord, and so the change in name did signpost the additional autonomy. Incorporation was granted by the crown; however, the five characteristics probably evolved gradually during the medieval period, and so a grant of incorporation may have had less practical impact on town affairs than might at first appear (Alsford, 2022c; Tait, 1936: 264; Weinbaum, 1937: 63).

Guilds Medieval guilds were associations of individuals formed for a common purpose (Hunt and Murray, 1999: 34–5). Many guild members were wealthy and influential, although poor members were not necessarily excluded. Guilds existed to promote the interests of their members, and there could be many guilds within a town. Guilds were important because they could hold property in their own name. Although many guilds were organised according to trade or occupational specialisation, they all had a religious dimension to them and a tacit social obligation to participate in festivals and other communal activities with the town. Most guilds were open to women, and wealthy women held precedence over poorer men (for example, in the seating arrangement at guild activities). Three main types of guild can be distinguished, although many guilds did not conform exclusively to one particular type. •

•

•

Merchant guild: In some towns, notably Leicester and Reading, the merchant guild emerged as a shadow town government. Leicester was a seigniorial town and Reading an ecclesiastical one. In many cases, the merchant guild was such a satisfactory alternative that there was no pressure for incorporation, which may account for the fairly common situation whereby some successful towns did not incorporate until relatively late. Member of merchant guilds were usually engaged in the import and export of finished goods and raw materials, notably cloth, wool and metals. Trade guild: It was also common for individuals from particular food production and manufacturing trades to organize themselves together by occupation (Casson, 2020; Greif, 1989; North and Thomas, 1973). These guilds produced and enforced their own regulations, sometimes in their own court and sometimes through the town court. Socio-religious guild: Socio-religious guilds might be founded to support a particular church or chantry and provide social and networking functions.

Introduction  19 Socio-religious guilds could also provide an “alternative forum for communal and civic identity” in seigniorial towns. A notable case was in Abingdon, where there were regular disputes between the townspeople and the abbey and where the guild of the Holy Cross organised the construction of a bridge across the river Thames (Rosser, 2015).

Internal topography Three key determinants of internal topography may be identified. •

•

•

The principal function of the town: The function of a town strongly influences the nature and the location of its focal point. For example, a function of defence normally means that a castle will be the focal point. A religious function means that an abbey, priory or cathedral will be the focal point. A commercial function means that the market and/or the port will be the focal point. The focal points for administration and residence are less easy to define. A castle may be the focal point if the town is a hub for secular administration, while an abbey, priory or cathedral may be the focal point for a town that is a centre of ecclesiastical administration. For residence, the market may be the focal point for purchasing necessities and socialising, and the church may be a focal point for spiritual sustenance (Masschaele, 2002; Slater, 2015). Occupational structure: There was significant horizontal specialisation in the economy of medieval towns. An individual could specialise in wholesale export trade or local retail trade. A retailer, in turn, could specialise in one particular commodity or service, such as copper goods or leather goods (Casson and Robinson Rössner, 2022). The layout of the town was influenced by the logistical requirements of its dominant occupations, particular those that involved furnaces (for example, iron-working), required access to fresh water (for example, brewing and fulling) or tended to pollute rivers (for example, leather-working). Large towns often had several markets, each with its own function, or for streets to have their own specialisations (Casson, 2022; Slater, 2015: 219–20). Likewise, a religious centre might have a market for pilgrims and visitors near the shrine and a second market supplying residents (Casson, 2022). Later, when towns began to receive greater autonomy over their own affairs, guildhalls, town halls and market halls where trade regulations were administered and enforced might become increasingly important focal points (Slater, 2015: 230). Regional geography: The topography of a town is influenced by its access routes, and the principal access routes to a town are determined by regional geography. In towns close to marshy areas, the main access route(s) are likely to be on raised ground (such as a gravel ridge). In towns positioned close to hills, the most convenient access route is usually through a valley, or, if the town is on the coast, it may be even more convenient to arrive by sea and avoid the hills entirely. For coastal ports in general, the major access route will be from the sea. In towns that are at the first bridging point of a river or at a river hub, a lower level river bank is more convenient for off-loading and loading goods

20 Introduction and accessing the market than a raised river bank. Residents of a town on high ground may face inconveniences accessing the market, unless it is placed on an area of lower ground, and may experience difficulties accessing fresh water. However, residents of a town on low ground may be vulnerable to flooding and therefore need to reclaim land and invest in drainage. The layout of a medieval town These determinants of internal topography influenced topography along three main dimensions. •

•

•

Grid versus non-grid: A grid typically comprised two sets of roads running at right angles to each other. In practice, however, the structure of a grid often had to be adjusted to local topography, as dictated by local rivers, hillsides, and so forth. A pure form of grid generally required a single fee held by the dominant lord and also reasonably flat terrain. A grid was easier to construct around a market place or in front of an abbey that it was around a quayside or port. In some towns there were originally different settlements which subsequently merged, each of which had a separate grid, so that the final structure of the town consisted of a number of grids either joined together or, in some cases, superimposed upon each other. Location of defensive structures: The building of defences constrained the layout of a town within them. When a town had a castle, its position within the town could vary, depending on the main access route and the elevation of the ground. If the principal access was by river or the sea, then the castle was likely to be on the edge of the town, in order to monitor and defend the access route. Some towns were encircled (wholly or partly) by a defensive wall or ditch (or both). When population expanded after the construction of such defences, expansion could be concentrated on suburbs outside the walls (see the following point). Suburbanisation: Suburbs typically emerged due to the growth of a town exceeding early expectations. Suburbs could be more spacious, cleaner and healthier than the area within the walls, though further from key amenities such as churches and the market, and less secure against external attack (Rexroth, 2007). Suburbs could emerge organically by people (or institutions) choosing to build on cheaper land outside a town. They could also be planned by a property developer who owned (or had deliberately acquired) land outside the town. Suburbs could also be formed from existing settlements (such as nearby villages) that became connected to the town through organic or intentional greenfield or ribbon development.

References Alsford, S. (2022a) Constitution. Available from: http://users.trytel.com/~tristan/towns/ florilegium/gvcons_i.html [Accessed 1 June 2022]. Alsford, S. (2022b) Glossary, incorporation. Available from: http://users.trytel.com/~tristan/ towns/glossary.html#incorporation [Accessed 1 June 2022].

Introduction  21 Alsford, S. (2022c) History of medieval Norwich: evolution of a self-governing community. Available from: http://users.trytel.com/~tristan/towns/norwich4.html#p04 [Accessed 1 June 2022]. Alsford, S. (2022d) The growth of self-government. Available from: http://users.trytel. com/~tristan/towns/townint6.html [Accessed 1 June 2022]. Alsford, S. (2022e) Were towns sanctuaries for serfs? Available from: http://users.trytel.com/ tristan/towns/florilegium/community/cmmemb01.html [Accessed 1 June 2022]. Attenborough, F.L. (ed. and trans.) (1922) The Laws of the Earliest English Kings. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press. Ballard, A. (1904) The Domesday Boroughs. Oxford, The Clarendon Press. Ballard, A. (ed.) (1913) British Borough Charters 1042–1216. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press. Ballard, A. and J. Tait (eds.) (1923) British Borough Charters 1216–1307. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press. Bartlett, R. (2000) England Under the Norman and Angevin Kings 1075–1225. Oxford, Clarendon Press. Bateson, M. (ed.) (1904–06) Borough Customs (2 vol.). London, B. Quaritch. Bell, A., C. Brooks and H. Killick (2019) Medieval property investors, ca. 1300–1500. Enterprise and Society. 20 (3), 575–612. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1017/eso.2018.92 Britnell, R. (2006). Town life. In: R. Horrox and W. Ormrod (eds.) A Social History of England, 1200–1500. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, pp. 134–78. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139167154.007 Casson, C. (2020) Guilds. In: T. da Silva Lopes, H. Tworek and C. Lubinski (eds.) The Routledge Companion to the Makers of Global Business. Abingdon, Routledge, pp. 159–70. Casson, C. and P. Robinson Rössner (2022) Introduction. In: C. Casson and P. Rössner (eds.) Evolutions of Capitalism: Historical Perspectives. Bristol, Bristol University Press, pp. 1–28. Casson, C. and M. Casson (2020) Medieval urban property markets: thirteenth–century Coventry revisited. In: G. Christ and P. Robinson Rössner (eds.) History and Economic Life: A Student’s Guide to Approaching Economic and Social History Sources. London, Routledge, pp. 141–67. Casson, C. and M. Casson (2019) ‘To dispose of wealth in works of charity’: entrepreneurship and philanthropy in medieval England. Business History Review. 93 (3), 473–502. Casson, M. (2022) The market as an institution: theory and history. In: C. Casson and P.  Robinson Rössner (eds.) Evolutions of Capitalism: Historical Perspectives, 1200–2000. Bristol, Bristol University Press, pp. 29–52. Casson, M. and C. Casson (2013) The Entrepreneur in History: From Medieval Merchant to Modern Business Leader. Basingstoke, Palgrave Macmillan. Davis, J. (2012) Medieval Market Morality: Life, Law and Ethics in the English Marketplace, 1200–1500. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press. Greif, A. (1989) Reputation and coalitions in medieval trade: evidence on the Maghribi traders. The Journal of Economic History. 49 (4), 857–82. Available from: https://doi. org/10.1017/S0022050700009475 Holt, R. (2000) Society and population 600–1300. In: D.M. Palliser (ed.) The Cambridge Urban History of Britain, Vol. I: 600–1540. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 79–104. Hudson, J. (ed.) (2012) The Oxford History of the Laws of England: Vol. 2, 871–1216. Oxford, Oxford University Press. Hunt, E. and J. Murray (1999) A History of Business in Medieval Europe: 1200–1550. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.

22 Introduction Jewell, H.M. (1972) English Local Administration in the Middle Ages. David and Charles, Newton Abbot. Keeton, G.W. (1966) The Norman Conquest and the Common Law. Ernest Benn Ltd and Barnes and Noble, London and New York. Lee, J.S. (2012) The role of fairs in late medieval England. In: S. Rigby and M. Bailey (eds.) Town and Countryside in the Age of the Black Death: Essays in Honour of John Hatcher. Turnhout, Belgium, Brepols, pp. 407–37. Madox, T. (1726) Firma Burgi, or An Historical Essay Concerning the Cities, Towns, and Buroughs of England. London, William Bowyer. Maitland, F.W. (1898) Township and Borough. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press. Martin, B. and D. Martin (2004) New Winchelsea, Sussex, A Medieval Port Town. Heritage Publications, King’s Lynn. Massachaele, J. (1992) Market rights in thirteenth-century England. English Historical Review. 107, 78–89. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1093/ehr/CVII.CCCCXXII.78 Masschaele, J. (2002) The public space of the market place in medieval England. Speculum. 77 (2), 383–421. Available from: https://www.jstor.org/stable/3301326 Merewether, H.A. and A.J. Stephens (1972) The History of the Boroughs and Municipal Corporations of the United Kingdom from the Earliest to the Present Day: Vol. 1. Brighton, The Harvester Press. Musson, A. and W.M. Ormrod (1999) The Evolution of English Justice: Law, Politics and Society in the Fourteenth Century. Basingstoke, Macmillan. North, D.C. and R.P. Thomas (1973) The Rise of the Western World: A New Economic History. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press. Oosthuizen, S. (2013) A ‘truth universally acknowledged’?: morphology as an indicator of medieval planned market towns. Landscape History. 34 (1), 51–80. Available from: https:// doi.org/10.1080/01433768.2013.797197 Pirenne, H. (1936) Extract from Economic and social history of medieval Europe. London, Routledge and Kegan Paul. In J.F. Benton (ed.) (1968) Town Origins: The Evidence from Medieval England. Boston, D.C. Heath and Company, pp. 1–7. Pollock, F. and F.W. Maitland (1911) The History of English Law Before the Time of Edward I. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 2nd ed. Powicke, M. (1962) Military Obligation in Medieval England: A Study in Liberty and Duty. Oxford, Clarendon Press. Prestwich, M. (1996) Armies and Warfare in the Middle Ages: The English Experience. New Haven, Yale University Press. Raban, S. (1974) Mortmain in medieval England. Past and Present. 62, pp. 3–26. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1093/past/62.1.3 Raban, S. (1982) Mortmain Legislation and the English Church 1279–1500. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press. Rexroth, F. (2007) Deviance and Power in Late Medieval London. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press. Rosser, G. (2015) The Art of Solidarity in the Middle Ages: Guilds in England 1250–1550. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Round, J.H. (1919) The ‘tertius denarius’ of the borough. The English Historical Review. 34 (133), pp. 62–4. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1093/ehr/XXXIV.CXXXIII.62 Slater, T.R. (2015) Lordship, economy and society in English medieval marketplaces. In: A. Simms and H.B. Clarke (eds.) Lords and Towns in Medieval Europe: The European Historic Towns Atlas Project. Farnham, Ashgate, pp. 213–31.

Introduction  23 Spishak, S. C. (2003) Lordship of Towns in Medieval England: Lay Seigneurs in the West Midlands and Welsh March, 1066–1348. Fordham University PhD thesis. Available from: Fordham University https://manchester.idm.oclc.org/login?url=https://www.proquest. com/dissertations–theses/lordship–towns–medieval–england–lay–seigneurs/docview/ 305327663/se–2?accountid=12253 [Accessed 10 June 2022]. Stenton, F.M. (1924) City of Worcester. In: J. Willis–Bund (ed.) A History of the County of Worcester Vol. 4. London, The St Catherine Press, pp. 376–420. Tait, J. (1936) The Medieval English Borough: Studies on its Origins and Constitutional History. Manchester, Manchester University Press. Weinbaum, M. (1937) The Incorporation of Boroughs. Manchester, Manchester University Press. Weinbaum, M. (ed.) (1943) British Borough Charters 1307–1660. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press. Young, C.R. (1961) The English Borough and Royal Administration 1130–1307. Durham, N.C, Duke University Press.

2 Town comparisons Southern England Part 1

The selection of the sample The statistical analysis of urban growth and decline 1066–1524 uses a sample of 112 English towns. The sample is not a random sample taken across all the towns listed in a particular source, but a stratified sample selected specifically to address the research questions set out in the previous chapter. It includes all the largest towns and a representative group of medium size towns. A few small towns are also included to provide regional balance; if all small towns had been excluded, then some peripheral regions would have been under-represented in the sample. The following procedure was used. In the first stage the top 50 towns by taxable wealth in the 1524 Lay subsidy returns were selected (Dyer, 2000: 765–7; Sheail, 1998). Any top 50 towns by population in 1524/5 not already covered by the first stage were then added (Dyer, 2000: 761–4). These are towns that, while reasonably successful, did not provide their residents with the same high standard of living as the towns of equal rank that were identified previously. Their wealth was spread more evenly across a larger population. To these were added the top 50 towns in 1377 and 1334 that were not included in the 1524 sample (Dyer, 2000: 755–57; Fenwick, 1998–2005; Glasscock, 1975). In the fourth stage top towns in 1154–1312 not already identified previously were added (Dyer, 2000: 754). Highly rated towns in the Burghal Hidage were then added, followed by county towns not previously included (Hill, 1969; Yorke, 1995: 117). A detailed analysis of the implications of the Hideage for defensive urban settlement in the tenth century is provided by Baker and Brookes (2013). Finally, to achieve regional balance, a range of other towns were added, including a few small towns from lightly populated peripheral areas and towns with a population of over 200,000 in 2017 that were present in medieval times but are not included previously were add (Office for National Statistics, 2017). Some towns were much better documented than others, but the standard of documentation was not a criterion used to determine inclusion in the sample. London was investigated along with the other 112 towns but was excluded from the analysis because it was so much larger than the other towns that its inclusion would skew the statistical results. For reasons of space, profiles of all the towns could not be included in Chapters 2, 3 and 4. Towns were selected for inclusion in Chapters 2–4 on the basis that DOI: 10.4324/9781003172697-2

Town comparisons: Southern England part 1  25 they were well-documented and possessed some distinctive characteristics that were not shared by many other towns. Excluded towns are listed at the start of each chapter. Profiles of all these towns are available from the authors.

Additional primary and secondary sources Each town selected was then cross-referenced with additional primary and secondary sources, outlined subsequently, covering the majority of categories of sources that are identified as informing on urban topography (Palliser, 1976). Detailed discussion of the primary sources for the case studies of Birmigham, Bristol, Cambridge, Gloucester, Hull and Shrewsbury are provided in subsequent chapters. Royal administrative sources The Burghal Hidage was consulted (Hill, 1969; Yorke, 1995: 117). There has been considerable debate over the interpretation of this document: which king was responsible for the building of which towns, whether they were built over previous settlements, and where some of the more obscure towns were located. For the purposes of the present exercise, it is not always necessary to engage with these issues. In particular, there is no attempt to date specific towns definitively to the period of either Alfred the Great, Edward the Elder or King Aethelstan. The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle (Whitelock, Douglas and Tucker, 1961) provides information on the foundation and early history of towns, particularly before 1000. A useful feature is that all the key events are precisely dated. The 900th anniversary of the Domesday Book in 1986 led to a wave of Domesday scholarship, which generated a reasonably definitive edition of the book (Williams and Martin, 2002, which we used in conjunction with Open Domesday, 2022) and a range of commentaries upon it. The format in which the Domesday Book was prepared is not ideal, however. It is organised by shire or county, and within the shire by the tenant-in-chief who held land directly from the king. It indicates what land each tenant-in-chief (or their subtenants) held in each hundred or manor within each shire, and also how much they owed the king for the privileges they enjoyed. Entries relating to towns are sometimes difficult to interpret. Not all the land within a town is necessarily identified as part of that town. Where property in the town is in the hands of a number of different lords, different parts of the town may be discussed under different entries in the book. Some towns were for some reason excluded from the survey. Some of them, such as Boston, may have been in their infancy. But others, such as Winchester, were well-established. Particular interest centres on the number of burgage properties reported in a town, but even where these are given it is difficult to convert the numbers into a population estimate for the town. Finally, the numbers given for burgage plots, or for fees owing to the king, do not always seem to “add up”. The 1334 lay subsidy records the assessments agreed between the crown and the towns and parishes to be assessed (Glasscock, 1975). The assessment was based on the value of chattels (such as stocks of moveable goods) held by permanent residents. This assessment was set a basis on which negotiations could take place. Chattels

26  Town comparisons: Southern England part 1 included stores of foodstuffs and other perishables, as well as furniture and other durable items, but only where these exceeded normal domestic requirements. One consequence of this approach is that artisans and merchants who held large stocks of goods for wholesale or retail purposes paid more than ordinary households who held chattels mainly for personal or family use. Chattels held by monks and priests which were not used in connection with their religious duties were also included in the assessments. The returns recorded the actual amount paid rather than the initial assessment of wealth. Boroughs and “ancient demesnes” were taxed at a tenth of the valuation and ordinary parishes at a fifteenth. Towns were therefore taxed at tenths or fifteenths depending on their status at the time. The taxation status of each town is recorded, and so the taxes paid as fifteenths can be adjusted for statistical purposes (for example, scaled up by 50 percent) to make them comparable with taxes paid as tenths. The coverage of the towns included in the 1334 lay subsidy is good; the main exceptions are the Cinque Ports. The 1334 assessment set the precedent for all subsequent subsidies until 1623. The main constraint on the subsidy agreed was that no town or parish should pay less in 1334 than it had in 1332. In the case of some large towns, an analysis of tax by ward or parish was recorded, but this is the exception rather than the rule. Because of the nature of a poll tax, the returns are mainly useful for the number of tax payers rather than the amounts actually paid. The poll tax of 1377, which is the main poll tax assessment used in this study, applied a flat rate of 4d to every permanent lay resident of 14 years or older who was not a genuine mendicant (Fenwick, 1998– 2005). In 1379, however, a graduated scale was introduced on the principle that each person taxed should pay according to their means. The scale was wide, ranging from 4d to 10 marks (1600s). At the same time the qualifying age was raised to 16. These changes, however, introduced an element of subjectivity into the assessment process and resulted in a much smaller number of people paying the tax. The outcome was generally deemed unsatisfactory at the time. It was unclear whether the lower receipts were due to deliberate evasion by citizens, corruption by the collectors, the higher age limit, or a combination of all three. In 1381 the age threshold was reduced to 15 and the tax was raised to one shilling, but general problems of compliance still remained. The names of individual taxpayers are available in some cases, but by no means all. Sheail (1998) is a valuable reference work tabulating all the surviving evidence on the number of tax payers and the amount of tax paid in the subsidies of 1524–5 and, in some cases, in later subsidies too (Sheail, 1998). It does not provide evidence on the names and occupations of individual tax payers, however. Such information must normally be obtained from borough and guild records.

Town administrative sources Rentals and deeds produced by local government or deposited in their archives inform on the location of properties within towns. Their use is discussed in detail in subsequent chapters. For the purpose of this and the subsequent chapter, printed copies of urban rentals and deeds and the analysis provided by their editors were consulted, and discussed where relevant.

Town comparisons: Southern England part 1  27 Ecclesiastial sources Religious institutions also produced rentals and registers of their property holdings, which were acquired through gift, purchase and exchange. In some cases the religious institution acted as a proactive developer of a greenfield site or existing small settlement. These sources are again discussed when they inform on the history of a town’s development. Databases Two databases were consulted. The Gazetteer of Markets and Fairs (Letters, 2013) summarises the dates that markets and fairs were granted. While invaluable, since 2013 it has been an archive site that is not being updated in the light of recent research. Gatehouse Gazetteer (2022a, 2022b) was developed by the late Philip Davis and provides useful information on castles, walls and other fortifications. Histories Bede’s Ecclesiastical History of the English People (Colgrave and Mynors, 1969) and Asser’s Life of King Alfred (Stevenson, 1959) were consulted for extra context on early medieval urbanisation. Itineraries For the fortunes of towns during the sixteenth century, John Leland’s itinerary of his journey around England and Wales in the period c.1535–43 was consulted (Toulmin Smith, 1964). Literary sources A poem on Salisbury was consulted (Binkley, 2004; Torrence, 1959). Archaeology Efforts were made to include relevant archaeological reports, which were identified from references in the secondary literature and through the Archaeology Data Service online catalogue. Maps: Medieval and early modern A study was made as to whether each town was included in Matthew Paris, the Gough map, Speed’s atlas and Braun and Hogenberg’s atlas, and if so, how it was depicted. Four versions survive of a map of Britain produced by Matthew Paris in c.1250 to accompany his chronicle (Paris and Trustees of the British Museum, 1928). An index to the places listed was produced by the Trustees of the British Museum in 1928.

28  Town comparisons: Southern England part 1 The Gough map of Great Britain cannot be precisely dated but is generally believed to date to c.1360 or c.1370 (The Gough Map of Great Britain, 2022; Lilley, Lloyd and Campbell, 2009: 2). The map portrays England, Wales and Scotland along with “some offshore islands such as the Orkneys and Channel Isles as well as parts of the coastlines of Ireland, France and Norway” (Lilley, Lloyd and Campbell, 2009: 2). John Speed was a cartographer and historian. In 1610 he published the atlas The Theatre of the Empire of Great Britain, which contained individual maps of England and Wales and the provinces of Ireland and a map of all of Scotland (Speed, 2000: 11). His atlas was the first to include bird’s eye views of towns as insets to the county maps (Speed, 2000: 9). The majority of the 72 town plans appear to have been his original work (Speed, 11–12). Descriptive text accompanied the maps. Braun and Hogenberg’s Civitatis Orbis Terrarum: Cities of the World was produced in different language editions from 1572 to 1617, and (Braun and Hogenberg, 2008: 2) by the partnership of Braun (a cleric who acted as editor) and Hogenberg (an engraver) (Elliot, 2017). The coverage of Italy and Spain was largely original, but the atlas drew on a range of additional sources. Maps: Modern Two modern maps were also consulted. Google Maps (2022) is useful for checking the positions of streets and the routes of rivers, subject to the qualification that many new roads have been built, and many rivers have changed their courses, since the medieval period. The Altitude Map of England (Topographic map, 2022) is a searchable online resource which uses colour-coded maps to identify heights above sea level and provides a very fine degree of detail. Information on mints Allen (2012) is the authoritative guide to numismatic evidence on the dates of operation of English mints, 973–1544, and was consulted. Information on guilds Westlake (1919) lists all the religious guilds reported to a royal investigation of 1389, classified by town. The stated objectives of each guild are briefly summarised, and a number of thematic case studies are presented. Further information on the charters of specific guilds, including a detailed study of King’s Lynn, is provided in Toulmin Smith, Toulmin Smith and Brentano (1870). Additionally, Gross (1890) provides useful tables that summarise the diffusion of guild customs from larger towns to smaller ones.

Allocation of towns In terms of allocation to regions, the following decisions have been made. Essex was allocated to the Southeast rather than East Anglia because, like the other Southeastern counties of Kent and Sussex, it retained considerable independence

Town comparisons: Southern England part 1  29 in the Anglo-Saxon period. Cheshire was allocated to the Welsh borders rather than the Northwest because before the Conquest it was part of Mercia and afterwards it had strong ties with other border counties of Shropshire and Herefordshire. Gloucester has been allocated to the West Midlands because of its strong economic ties with Worcestershire and its Mercian legacy. Lincolnshire has been allocated to the East Midlands because it borders the other counties in this group and, like them, was part of Mercia. Regarding allocation to counties, Bristol (on the border of Gloucestershire and Somerset) was allocated to Somerset as it has more in common with the two other counties in the Southwest group. Stamford on the Lincolnshire–Northamptonshire border has been allocated to Lincolnshire. Abingdon and Wallingford were in Berkshire and so have been allocated there, in accordance with Letters (2013). Tamworth on the Staffordshire–Lincolnshire border has been allocated to Staffordshire as that is where Letters (2013) puts it. For reasons of space the following towns are not discussed in detail: From the Southwest region: Bristol, Taunton Plymouth, Ottery St Mary, Crediton, Ilchester, Watchet and Launceston. From South central: Southampton, Marlborough, Dorchester, Banbury, Wilton and Bridport. From Southeast: Maidstone and Barking.

Southwest: Cornwall, Devon and Somerset Exeter, county town of Devon Roman civitas, first bridging point on the River Exe, regional road hub, cathedral, castle. Exeter is a city on the south coast and is the county town of Devon. It is located to the northeast of Dartmoor (Topographic map, 2022). Roads radiate to Teignmouth, Plymouth, Launceston, Barnstaple, Tiverton, Taunton, Salisbury and Dorchester. The town lies on the side of a hill beside the River Exe, near the confluence of the River Exe, which rises on Exmoor to the north, and the River Creedy, which flows down from Crediton (Henderson, 1981). Exeter is an old Roman town and an important religious and administrative centre (Allen, Henderson and Higham, 1984). The city was walled, first by the Romans, then the Saxons and then the Normans. The little church of St Pancras, still standing in the heart of the town, may date from the fourth century. Exeter was one of the four Devon burhs mentioned in the Burghal Hidage, where it was assessed at 734 hides (Hill, 1969). A minster church was established in the seventh century. After its brief occupation by the Vikings in the late ninth century, King Athelstan re-founded the minster church c.932, and endowed it with 26 manors and part of his collection of valuable religious relics. He ruled that there should two moneyers in the town (Conner, 1993). Like his other foundations, Exeter became an important centre of learning. The town seems to have prospered thereafter, although it was ravaged in 1003 by King Swegn’s revenge attack on the town. After King Cnut came to power in 1016 Exeter was rebuilt, along with various other towns, as he sought to win the support of the church and the people. In 1050 the local bishopric was transferred to Exeter from Crediton and the minster became a cathedral (Harvey, 1999).

30  Town comparisons: Southern England part 1 Exeter was a king’s town, although its revenues were often transferred to the queen as part of her dower. The town was besieged for 18 days before it surrendered to the Normans. Domesday places Exeter as the head town of Devon, although it notes that Barnstaple, Lydford and Totnes all gave the same amount of service to the king (Open Domesday, 2022; Williams and Martin, 2002). It implies that before the Conquest there were 333 houses rendering customary dues to the king, and that by 1086 48 had been destroyed, probably for the building of the castle. The town rendered £18, of which two-thirds accrued to the Colwin, administrator for the queen, and one third to Baldwin the sheriff. In common with the other Devon Hidage towns, Exeter provided the service of five hides of land when the king went on expedition. The burgesses also held land for 12 ploughs outside the city on which they paid no dues. The king gave some of the property inside the town to Battle Abbey, which he had founded after the Conquest. Other properties were held from the king by the bishop of Exeter (48 houses and a church) and a variety of lay lords, including Walter de Douai (ten houses), Drogo (six houses) and Baldwin the Sheriff (six houses); altogether there were seven different fees in the city. There was a mint c.973–c.1302 (Allen, 2012). Henry I (1100–35) issued three writs in favour of the town, addressed to justices, sheriffs and ministers throughout England, stating that his citizens of Exeter were free of toll, lastage and passage on land and water, with a £10 fine for any infringement of these rights. A later charter of Henry’s great-grandson, John, Earl of Mortain (later King John) in c.1185 records that in his grandfather’s reign Exeter enjoyed the privileges of London. A market is recorded in 1213, but there must have been a market from a much earlier date. A fair was recorded in 1130, held within the precincts of St Nicholas priory; initially the profits accrued to the king but by 1411 they accrued to the town instead (Letters, 2013). Edward I awarded the mayor, bailiffs and good men of Exeter pavage for three years levied on goods imported for sale in the market. Theis covered a very wide range of products, including corn and dairy products; honey, oil and vinegar; wine and beer; fish, horses and cattle; skins, hides and fleeces; hemp, wode, alum and dyes; gold, tin, copper, iron and other metals; nails, cart-clouts and horse-shoes (Oliver, 1861: 278–90). In 1334 the town was assessed for a tenth at 734s (Glasscock, 1975). In 1354 the town became one of ten English towns designated a staple for the export of wool. By this time there were 32 churches, three hospitals, two chapels and the cathedral (Orme, 2014). Twenty-six churches and two hospitals were inside the walls and six churches and one hospital without. It seems, however, that by the time of Leland’s visit, c.1540, only 15 parish churches remained. He also noted substantial suburbs outside each of the gates, especially to the east (I, 228–9). An analysis of occupational structure in 1377 shows that the degree of specialisation in specific crafts within the town was relatively low (Fenwick, 1998–2005). Many household members had by-employments, and a relatively large proportion of the working population was engaged in the food trades. Wool, textiles and leather were other important trades. The highest earnings accrued mainly to other trades, such as hospitality (inns, taverns, etc.), building and construction, metal work and lay professional services. This lack of specialisation may be explained by

Town comparisons: Southern England part 1  31 the relatively small size of the town compared to other regional centres that were also ports, such as Bristol and Norwich. Exeter was an important river port in the early fifteenth century, but subsequently local landowners built weirs to power their mills and obstructed trade (Kowaleski, 1995). Topsham, four miles downstream, was developed as an out-port, although in the sixteenth century a canal was built parallel to the river to serve the city as before. In 1524 it was assessed at 7,670s (Sheail, 1998). Exeter was depicted by Matthew Paris (Paris and Trustees of the British Museum, 1928). It featured on the Gough map as a “spired church with cross, castle, walls with one gate” (The Gough Map of Great Britain, 2022). It was featured in Speed (2000: 54–5) and Braun and Hogenberg (2008: 434). Totnes, South Devon. First bridging point and head of navigation on the River Dart, river hub and local road hub, castle. Totnes is located on a hill overlooking a bend in the River Dart, near its confluence with the River Hems and the Bidwell Brook (Topographic map, 2022). It lies at the intersection of the Exeter–Kingsbridge and Paignton–Plymouth roads, the first of which follows the general route of an ancient track. The town was fortified before the Norman Conquest, probably to make the Devon coastline more secure. It has been suggested that the town supplanted nearby Halwell, which was one of Alfred’s four Devon burhs (Russell, 1984). Totnes was a Domesday borough and had a mint for much of the period c.973–c.1135 (Allen, 2012; Ballard, 1904). In 1066 the town was held by the king and valued at £3 (Open Domesday, 2022; Williams and Martin, 2002). By 1086 the town was valued at £8 and had been given by King William to the Norman warrior Judichael, who held it as a feudal barony. Judichael was a major landowner, holding over one hundred manors in Devon. He built a Benedictine priory in the town c.1088 (Watkin, 1914– 17). In 1086 there were 95 burgesses working in the town and 15 outside working the land. Their service due to the king was similar to that due from Exeter, Barnstaple and Lydford. The town eventually came into the hands of another line of warrior–aristocrats, the de Broase family (Historical Manuscripts Commission, 1872). The town was (and still is) built around a single high street connecting the port at the bottom of the hill to the castle at the top; the port was in a suburb, Bridgetown Pomeroy, that had the status of separate borough (Russell, 1984). There was a town guild from c.1200; early members included smiths, shipbuilders, fishermen, tanners, shoemakers and weavers. The guild received a charter of freedoms from King John in 1206. Although the military role of the town diminished in the late thirteenth century, it continued to flourish as a local market centre. In 1334 it was assessed for a tenth at 168s (Glasscock, 1975). Totnes is one of many surviving small towns in the Torbay and South Hams area of Devon, and because of local topography it lies at the hub of the roads connecting them; this seems to have been a major factor in ensuring its prosperity through both medieval and modern times. In 1524 it was assessed (on a different basis to before) at 2,877s (Sheail, 1998). Totnes appeared on Matthew Paris’s map and was included on the Gough map as a single building (The Gough Map of Great Britain, 2022; Paris and Trustees of the British Museum, 1928).

32  Town comparisons: Southern England part 1 Bath, Somerset. Roman spa town on the Fosse Way, bridging point of the River (Somerset) Avon, ecclesiastical centre, and road hub. The town lies in a dramatic setting where a U-bend in the River (Somerset) Avon separates the western extremity of the Cotswolds to the north from the northern extremity of the Mendips to the south (Topographic maps, 2022). It is north of the confluence of the Avon with the River Frome, which is joined by the By Brook and St Catherine’s brook before it enters the town. As suggested by its name, the town has powerful mineral springs. In 2012 a Roman hoard of silver coins was found near the baths. The town was radically rebuilt in the late eighteenth century in the Georgian style, using colourful local stone, and as a result not much of the medieval town remains. The medieval town was built over the Roman town. In 675 the Abbess Bertana of the nunnery of the Holy Virgins at Bath received a gift of 100 hides from Osric, king of the Hwicce, and another gift is recorded in c.681 (Cunliffe, 1984). In 758 land was granted to the brothers of St Peter’s monastery. At some stage the nuns left the monastery, though when is not clear. The monastery belonged to the bishop of Worcester for a short period before King Offa of Mercia gained control of the town and its monastery in 781 (Kelly, 2007). In the Burghal Hidage the town is rated at 1,000 hides (Hill, 1969; Yorke, 1995: 117). A mint may have been established by 924, or later in c.975, operating to c.1150 (Allen, 2012; Letters, 2013). King Edgar of the Anglo-Saxons was crowned in Bath abbey in 973. St Peter’s fair was granted to the abbey in 1102, and it was certainly active in the twelfth century (Letters, 2013). By this time the walled town encompassed three baths — King’s bath, Cross bath and Hot bath — and four churches, arranged in a simple street grid. In 1086 the town paid geld for 20 hides. The king held the town, and different parts of the town were held from the king by different lords. In 1086 the king received £4 from 64 burgesses in his own demesne and £3 from 90 burgesses of the other lords. There were six waste houses. The king also held the suburb of Batheaston. The town and its suburb together yielded £60 by tale and one mark of gold. There were other suburbs too. The bishop of Coutances held Bathwick, while the abbey held 24 burgages in the town, paying a total of 20s; it also held Bathwick and Bathford (Open Domesday, 2022; Williams and Martin, 2002). In 1088, William Rufus granted the town and abbey to a royal physician, John de Villula of Tours, who became bishop of Wells and abbot of Bath. Bath was a “cash cow” given by the king to support the bishopric based in Wells. In 1075, however, Archbishop Lanfranc ordered that minsters had to be situated in towns (Slater, 2000: 593). The Wells see was therefore transferred to Bath in 1088 (Slater, 2000: 593). There de Villula initiated a building boom. He rebuilt the church and priory, and in 1180 his successor Bishop Fitz Jocelin built St John’s hospital for poor people visiting the baths (Hunt, 1907). A leper hospital was also founded outside the town about this time. There were four parish churches; three were late Saxon, and the fourth was built in 1279. The earliest bridge was probably built c.1100 outside the Southgate on the road to Wells. Planned suburbs developed outside the north and south gates from the twelfth century onwards; the northern suburb soon acquired its own church.

Town comparisons: Southern England part 1  33 A charter of 1189 gave the members of the merchant guild all the privileges of Winchester (Cunliffe, 1986; Shickle, 1921). In 1334 the town was assessed for a tenth at 267s (Glasscock, 1975). Little is known about the economy of early Bath, apart from the fact that it played a major role in the medieval wool trade. It was fortunate in being the bridging point of the Fosse Way over the River Avon, which was navigable up to the town. In the twelfth century it was major intellectual centre, with monastic scholars such as the natural philosopher Adelard of Bath. However, because later medieval bishops lived mostly in Wells, the abbey probably contributed less than might otherwise be expected to the town’s economy. In 1524 the town was assessed at 898s (Sheail, 1998). Bath was included in Matthew Paris (Paris and Trustees of the British Museum, 1928). It was depicted by Speed, who noted its pleasant climate in the summer in comparison with the dampness that could impinge travel in the winter (Speed, 2000: 22–3). Wells, Somerset. Cathedral town and local road hub. Wells is one of many small towns in the Somerset, but since 1589 it has had the status of a city. It is located south of the Mendip Hills and on the edge of the Somerset levels. This situation is beneficial as the town is protected from floods on the lower ground and from winds and exposure on the higher (Rodwell, 2001: 27). There was convenient access to the natural resources of the Mendips, notably “silver, lead, zinc ores, iron, fullers earth, lime and building stone” (Scrase, 2006: 12–13). Wells is also conveniently placed for connections with other locations, being 22 miles south of Bath and close to Glastonbury abbey. It is distinguished by its magnificent cathedral belonging to the bishop of Bath and Wells. It has good road connections, and because of the varied landscape in which it sits, it is an ideal location for marketing local agricultural produce. Wells became an important religious site in c.705 when a minster church was founded there (Colchester, 1987; Wells Cathedral, 2021). It is debated whether the founder was the king of Wessex or the bishop of Sherborne (Colchester, 1987; Wells Cathedral, 2021). In 909 Wells was elevated to the status of cathedral and seat of a bishop (Colchester, 1987: 7; Wells Cathedral, 2021). The bishop’s property and chapter’s property were separated in 1061–88 by Bishop Giso (Shaw, 1993: 20–1). Haslam (2017: 17) suggests that he have initiated some development on the High Street, possibly based on an organic “protourban development at the gates of the royal middle Saxon minster and later cathedral”. There are springs in the town in the grounds of the Bishop’s Palace, which in medieval times provided clean water for drinking, brewing and fulling cloth. Wells were dug from an early date (hence the name of the town). There are also traces of Roman settlement in the grounds (Rodwell, 2001: xxi, 50–3). Wells appears in the Domesday Book as four manors, all held from the king by the bishop, but with only some of the bishop’s land held in demesne (Open Domesday, 2022; Williams and Martin, 2002). Some land was held from the bishop by the canons of the cathedral, and some by local people such as Fastrad, Richard, Erneis and Ralph. In addition the wife of Maneses held a small amount of land from some other unspecified lord. It has been estimated that there were

34  Town comparisons: Southern England part 1 132 landholders of various kinds. In 1066 it possessed four mills and was assessed at 50 hides; in 1086 it was valued at £30. In 1088 the bishopric was transferred to Bath and Wells “demoted to the status of a college of secular canons” (Rodwell, 2001: 3; Slater, 2000: 593; Wells Cathedral, 2021). This was a result of the decisions of the 1075 and 1078 Councils of London, which decided that bishops should move their cathedrals from country villages to significant and populous places (Shaw, 1993: 25). The histories of the canons houses and of the properties of the manor known as Canon or Canons’ Barn (‘which provided the commons and wages of the Cathedral staff, both clerical and lay, as well as maintaining the building and running the services’ and included urban properties and agricultural land) were written by Bailey (1982, 1985). In 1206 the seat of the bishopric returned to Wells (Scrase, 2006: 25). Despite the demotion of the town during the twelfth century, two bishops of the period did a lot to help Wells. Bishop Robert (1135–66) improved the church buildings and its organisation. He moved the three existing fairs from the church and “its courtyard” and into wider parts of the town, increased their length and granted Wells its first charter that gave the townspeople burgess status (rather than unfree) (Scrase, 2006: 22–3; Letters, 2013; Whitelock, Douglas and Tucker, 1961). Shaw (1993: 26) suggests that Wells was “planted” in the twelfth century by Bishop Robert. The bishop may have been attracted by the potential to derive income from rents, tolls and the profits from the courts (Shaw, 1993: 29–30). Shaw also suggests that there were logistical and administrative benefits. In terms of an economic function, Wells filled a gap in urban provision in the area, as there were no other towns within 20 miles in 1130 (Shaw, 1993: 34). Wells was closer to the centre of Somerset than Bath (where the see was based) and could enable the bishop to administer Somerset without having to deal with “hostile” Canterbury (Shaw, 1993: 34). Bishop Reginald (1174–91) extended the town’s boundaries and made further improvements to the church (Scrase, 2006: 23). In addition, the hospital of St John the Baptist was founded by Hugh de Wells in the early thirteenth century. He was the archdeacon of Wells and subsequently became bishop of Lincoln. He was also the brother of the bishop of Bath, who in turn awarded additional privileges to the hospital (Scott Holmes, 1911: 158–60). The town achieved borough status and was granted a market sometime in the twelfth century. By 1202 five different fairs were being held, many outside the gates of the manor, and in the cathedral and its cemetery, but in 1334 they were allowed inside the gates of the manor too (Letters, 2013). By 1334 only two of the fairs remained active. At this time the town was assessed for a tenth at 380s (Glasscock, 1975). Although Wells is the source of various streams, it is not on any navigable river. The nearest inland port was about three miles away on the River Axe at Bleadney; seagoing vessels could only get as close as Axbridge. Although the springs made Wells an excellent centre for producing cloth, it was not such a good centre for distributing cloth, which may explain why the cloth industry remained on a relatively small scale. In the twelfth century the population of Wells were mainly engaged in leather processing, with the wool and cloth trades becoming dominant in the thirteenth

Town comparisons: Southern England part 1  35 century. Merchants from Wells sometimes partnered with those from Bristol to engage in overseas trade (Shaw, 1993: 90). Salisbury merchants came to Wells to purchase cloth (Shaw, 1993: 90). In the fourteenth century Wells’s population seems to have become quite involved in the property market. Some Salisbury merchants also invested in property in Wells (Shaw, 1993: 90). Peter le Monier was a Frenchman from Amiens who is “first recorded in England in 1314” (Scrase, 2006: 36). He was a merchant and began to invest in the property market in 1343, probably, Scrase suggests, “because the early stages of the Hundred Years War had disrupted the wool and cloth trades and new outlets were needed for capital” (Scrase, 2006: 36). Monier’s property activities resulted in the creation of Monier’s lane, which ran south from Chamberlain Street close to the site of the present St Joseph and St Teresa’s church (Scrase, 2006: 36). He gradually acquired properties in the area between Sadler Street and Grope Lane that enabled him to create a new lane (Shaw, 1993: 38). When he died in the early 1350s he left the property to his wife, and it was then sold to the cathedral in 1369 (Shaw, 1993: 54). There was further property speculation 1350–1400. There were five lay people with large estates during that period. The largest was probably owned by John Tanner, who appears to have been involved in the cloth trade (Scrase, 2006: 42). From 1400 onwards the property market appears to have been more volatile. The value of the town’s corporate property portfolio appears to have decreased, while the cathedral escheator and communar had problems collecting rents due to them (Scrase, 2006: 49; Shaw, 1993: 53). Shaw suggests that from the 1420s to the 1450s the town made a particular effort to retain existing tenants and obtain new ones in a bid to maintain income from its portfolio. This included offering reductions in rent to tenants who undertook repairs, even if they were a condition of the original lease, and providing materials for other repairs for free (Shaw, 1993: 52–3). The conditions in Moniers Lane also deteriorated during this period. In 1369, when the cathedral purchased Moniers Lane, “it was covered by houses, a bakery and its appurtenances and a cottage” (Shaw, 1993: 48). However by 1425 “part of the lane was let as a toft, an empty plot, to which there had been no earlier reference, and nearly 100 feet, or a third of the lane, were let to Thomas Frome in the same year as a garden, worth only a shilling” (Shaw, 1993: 48). The lane comprised only two houses, tofts and gardens by the 1460s and 1470s and eventually disappeared completely (Shaw, 1993: 48). However, a new stage of development also occurred. In 1451 the bishop constructed a terrace of houses on the north side of the market place and planned, although his death prevented it, a terrace on the south side (Bailey, 1985: 211–16). Three further houses were constructed on the east side of Sadler Street (Scrase, 2006: 55). The bishop had acquired building experience during appointments at Eton College and Lincoln College, Oxford (Scrase, 2006: 52–3). Income from renting out the housing “went to the dean and chapter’s finances” (Scrase, 2006: 52–3). As a result of this development the property hot-spot started to move from “the west end of the High Street and St Cuthbert” to “the junction of High Street and Sadler Street around the High Cross” (Scrase, 2006: 52–3). The houses were supplied with piped water, and there was a drain for their latrines (Rodwell, 2001: 402). The bishop also arranged for the town to be provided with piped water

36  Town comparisons: Southern England part 1 which came from St Andrew’s spring, via a well-house in the cathedral grounds and through a pipe to the market (Rodwell, 2001: 33, 387, 297; Scrase, 2006: 55) The gates into the cathedral were altered as part of the construction process, as changes were required to access the new housing, including new accommodation that had been created for the choristers. Towers were added to the Bishop’s Eye, while the Penniless Porch no longer took visitors to a door in the west cloister but instead brought them to the west front. New gates of Brown’s Gate and the Chain Gate were added. All these initiatives had a practical angle — and the gates potentially separated the cathedral staff “from the temptations of the wider world” (Scrase, 2006: 55). However, they may also have been intended to strengthen the relationship between and amongst the townspeople and cathedral community and associate pride in the town with worship in the cathedral (Scrase, 2006: 55). Meanwhile in 1486–1513 Thomas Cornish, suffragan of Wells, “began to build up a property holding with a particular emphasis on inns” (Scrase, 2006: 59). This was partly to help cathedral finances and partly because he and two other local men who also provided funds to create a new inn “were to receive obits [prayer for the soul to reduce the time spent in purgatory] for 99 years” (Scrase, 2006: 60). In 1524 the town was assessed at 1223s (Sheail, 1998). High Street and Chamberlayn Street (in that order) were the wealthiest wards. Wells had good road connections, but some of these connections were to nearby towns that had competing markets, for example Glastonbury, Shepton Mallet and Midsomer Norton; thus its local market area was quite small. It seems that the prosperity of Wells depended on the enterprise of the bishops in organising local fairs for their profit, and then spending their profits in the town. Wells was included by Matthew Paris on his map (Paris and Trustees of the British Museum, 1928). It may have featured on the Gough map with a “spired church and walls with gate” but the entry is faded and the identification is largely based on the position of the town (The Gough Map of Great Britain, 2022). Bodmin, Cornwall. “County town”, religious centre and road hub. The town lies at a point where two main roads to Penzance merge, one from Exeter and Okehampton and one from St Germans (near Plymouth) and Liskeard. They intersect a local road from Padstow and Wadebridge on the River Camel to the south coast ports of St Austell and Fowey. Records show, however, that these roads were not in very good condition until improved in the late eighteenth century. To the east of the town lies the desolate Bodmin Moor. The River Camel flows about a mile to the north of the town and enters the Bristol Channel at Padstow (Topographic maps, 2022). Bodmin only became the county town of Cornwall in 1835, replacing Launceston, but was subsequently deprived of this status when the county assizes moved to Truro. Bodmin is one of the oldest towns in Cornwall; Truro and Penzance, though much larger today, were mere rural settlements at the time of Domesday. The origins of the town are obscure. St Guron, a hermit, is said to have established a cell near a well c.500. A monastery soon developed nearby; it is said to have been founded by St Petroc, who had earlier established a monastery at Padstow, northwest of Bodmin. King Aethelstan supported the monastery with grants of land, and c.950 Bodmin became the see of a Cornish bishopric for a short time.

Town comparisons: Southern England part 1  37 Domesday records that the town belonged to the church; it had 68 houses and a market, valued altogether at 25s (Open Domesday, 2022; Williams and Martin, 2002). By contrast Padstow was worth only 10s (Open Domesday, 2022; Williams and Martin, 2002). The church was endowed with 17 manors, of which five (excluding Bodmin) were held in demesne, and 12 held from the church by local lords. After the Conquest, however, the church was deprived of various small parcels of land. Augustinian canons were reputedly established at the church by c.1124. In 1177 the remains of St Petroc were stolen by a local monk and taken to France, from whence they were returned by armed men sent out by Henry II (MacLean, 1870). In 1274 a fair is recorded that took place on the king’s highway (Letters, 2013). In 1334 the town was assessed for a tenth at 400s (plus another 32s for a fifteenth outside the town) (Glasscock, 1975). Bodmin survived the Black Death and had become a commercial centre with a guild merchant by the late fourteenth century (Elliot Binns, 1955). In 1525 it was assessed at 724s, less than one tenth that of Exeter, the county town of Devon, but much more than Liskeard, Helston and other local market towns (Sheail, 1998). Despite its central location within the county, the economic development of the south coast of Cornwall marginalised the town. Truro successfully challenged Bodmin’s status, first by building a modern cathedral and then by taking over law and administration. Bodmin may have been included on the Gough map, but the image is very faded (The Gough Map of Great Britain, 2022). Bossiney/Tintagel. Probable early fortified coastal port. Bossiney lies on the north coast of Cornwall between Boscastle and Padstow. It has good access by sea to the Midlands (up the Bristol Channel), the South Wales coast (across the Bristol Channel). Ireland (across the Irish sea) and the west coast of France (around Lands End). Although not on a main road, it has good road access to Barnstaple, Launceston and Exeter. Settlement consists largely of a single street that leads to the headland at Tintagel. Domesday reports that Bossiney was held by Robert, Count of Mortain, from the canons of St Petroc in Bodmin (Open Domesday, 2022; Williams and Martin, 2002). It was previously held from the canons by Alwig and could not be separated from the saint. It comprised enough land for six ploughs. There is no mention of Tintagel, which was probably included under Bossiney. The first known appearance of Tintagel in royal sources is a charter of 1,227 in which Richard, count of Poitou and earl of Cornwall granted a market and a fair to the burgesses and men of Tintagel. There is no mention of a market or a church at Bossiney; the only church is St Materiana’s church at Tintagel, which is Norman with some Saxon features. All this suggests that the two settlements were in fact one from an administrative and commercial perspective. Bossiney became a borough c.1240; it was combined with nearby Trevenna and was suppressed in 1835 as a “rotten borough”. Tintagel is the mythical capital of King Arthur (English Heritage, 2022). Archaeological evidence suggests that it may have been a post-Roman emporium that traded as far as the Mediterranean. Very large deposits of elite consumption

38  Town comparisons: Southern England part 1 goods have been found, including glassware, tableware from Spain and North Africa and wine amphorae from the Eastern Mediterranean. It may have been an international shipping hub, as well as a point of transhipment for goods entering and leaving England. Another explanation is that it was simply a defensive centre, built on a rocky headland partly detached from the coast, or the palace of a tribal leader. It could, indeed, have been all three. The headland includes a defensive ditch on the landward side and an area that was occupied by many small rectangular buildings, some with hearths which could have been houses or workshops. These have recently been dated to the medieval period, but there may be other buildings of turf that they replaced. Coves on either side of the headland provided natural harbours, and wells supplied it with fresh water. There is no evidence of a mint at Tintagel, but it is possible that imports were purchased by local merchants using tin from the mines of Caradon, about 18 miles away across Bodmin Moor. The castle whose remains stand on the headland appears to have been a folly built by Richard, Earl of Cornwall, brother of Henry III c.1230 (Barrowman, Batey and Morris, 2007). It was inspired by the Arthurian romances of Geoffrey of Monmouth; Richard’s relatives also created Arthur’s “Round Table” at Winchester and his “tomb” at Glastonbury abbey. A related romance, also featuring Tintagel, developed on the continent as the legend of Tristan and Isolde. The market may have been established to attract local traders to supply the castle, and thereby attract elite visitors, such as the Welsh prince Dafydd ap Llywelyn. The hey-day of Tintagel as a trading centre was c.450–c.650. It may have perpetuated trade routes that developed during the Roman Empire and have declined on account of increasing domestic political instability in the seventh and eighth centuries (Cunliffe, 1982). In 1334 the borough of Tintagel was assessed for a tenth at 13s and the manor and ancient demesne (which probably included Bossiney) for a fifteenth at 27s (Glasscock, 1975). In 1524 it was assessed, on a different basis, at 203d (Sheail, 1998). Tintagel was included by Matthew Paris on his map (Paris and Trustees of the British Museum, 1928). It may have featured on the Gough map, but the image is very faded (The Gough Map of Great Britain, 2022). Barnstaple, Devon. Fortified market town and regional administrative hub; first bridging point on the River Taw; local road hub. The first appearance of Barnstaple in medieval records involves its suburb of Pilton, which was assessed at 360 hides in the Burghal Hidage (Hill, 1969; Yorke, 1995: 117). For many years the location of Pilton was debated, but authorities such as Brooks and Hill now accept this location as settled (Brooks, 1964; Hill, 1969). One decisive piece of evidence is that the sequencing of the towns listed in the Hidage involves a circuit that places Pilton between Lydford, Devon, and Watchet, Somerset. The other is that the original translation of the entry “Piltone with Beardastapol” has now been replaced with “Pilton that is Barnstaple”. Nevertheless, the exact location of the burh has never been determined. It could be in the suburb, or it could in the town itself. In 1066 Barnstaple was a royal borough, and it remained so after the Conquest. In 1086 there were 40 burgesses within the borough and nine outside. The bishop

Town comparisons: Southern England part 1  39 of Coutances had the third penny; the burgesses paid 40s by weight to the king and 20s by tale to the bishop. Twenty-three houses had been destroyed since the conquest. The bishop had ten burgesses of his own in the town, together with seven waste houses, some land, a garden and a mill rendering 20s. Baldwin the sheriff had seven burgesses and six waste houses rendering 90d. Robert d’Aumale held two waste houses rendering 4d. The suburb of Pilton was held by Dodda in 1066, and by 1086 it was, like Barnstaple, held by the bishop; it seems to have been entirely rural, suggesting that any burh was actually on the site of the main town (Open Domesday, 2022; Williams and Martin, 2002). It seems likely that a Norman castle was built soon after the Conquest. It was built on a commanding site at the confluence of the Taw and Yeo, which might have involved the partial destruction of the original burh (as indicated, perhaps, by the wasting of properties). Henry I gave the town to Judhel of Totnes c.1100, who was quite old at the time, and he built a Cluniac priory outside the walls into which he retired. A mint is recorded from 973–1135, with just two short breaks in between (Allen, 2012). A stone bridge across the Taw was built c.1240. The town archives contain a series of charters granting the burgesses the customs of London and other privileges, which were confirmed by Henry VI in 1455, but some scholars have dismissed them as forgeries. The conclusion must be that the burgesses were either extremely able, or extremely devious, or possibly both; in either case the town seems to have thrived during this period better than most other towns in the area (Lamplugh, 1983). The suburb of Newport, south of the town, was founded as an independent borough c.1291 by the bishop of Exeter. A market and fair were chartered in 1295, as rivals to Barnstaple’s market, and were located in the bishop’s manor of Bishops Tawton, south of the town. In 1334 the town was assessed for a tenth at 374s, while the suburb of Pilton was assessed at only 13s (Glasscock, 1975). A market and fair were chartered to Pilton in 1344 (Letters, 2013). The town became a staple port for the export of wool, with trade controlled by the merchant guild of St Nicholas, established c.1300. The town continued to prosper after the Black Death, and it later became one the privileged ports of the Spanish Company. In 1524 Barnstaple was assessed at 1,526s and Pilton at 613s (Sheail, 1998). Barnstaple was presented on the Gough map as a “single building” (The Gough Map of Great Britain, 2022).

South central: Dorset, Hampshire, Wiltshire, Oxfordshire Salisbury (New Sarum), Wiltshire. Cathedral, road and river hub. Salisbury was relocated in the 1220s from a hill-top location north of the present site to a low-lying location two miles away. It was at the foot of the valley near where the River Nadder entered the Hampshire Avon. Several other rivers, including the Wylye, enter the Avon near this point. The hill-top site comprised a cathedral and royal castle surrounded by iron-age ditches and defensive works. It was prestigious, with  its own mint, but congested: its approaches were steep, water supply was

40  Town comparisons: Southern England part 1 inadequate and there was little scope for suburban expansion (Alsford, 2022f). Conflicts between the castle garrison and church leaders were frequent. The new site, in contrast, was relatively flat and offered excellent water access for residential use and as a means of transport. It was positioned at the confluence of three rivers, the Avon, Nadder and Bourne (Alsford, 2022e; Newman and Howells, 2001). In addition, it possessed good road links north, south, east andwest (Alsford, 2022e), including to Devizes, Marlborough, Winchester and Southampton. Of particular significance was that traders coming from Southampton reached Salisbury before Wilton, making Salisbury the more attractive and convenient trading location. The entire area, it seems, was held in demesne by the bishop of Salisbury in 1086; there were five mills and 142 acres of meadow (Open Domesday, 2022; Williams and Martin, 2002). A further advantage of the new site was therefore that all market revenue would accrue to the church, whereas in Old Sarum the presence of the castle meant that the crown also had a claim to the revenue. There was already some settlement on the east side of the new town, in St Martin’s parish, which was on high ground, but the cathedral and adjoining town were built on the meadows; there may have been other settlements near the mills and at Harnham (Chandler, 1983). Wide channels and active river management prevented flooding. Bridges were built at Harnham and Fisherton to improve road connections; these proved vital in attracting business away from the well-­established neighbouring town of Wilton. Streets were laid out in rectangular grids, many of which are preserved today. The Royal Forest of Clarendon, south of the town, provided wood for the new buildings as well as recreation for the elite. Markets were chartered in 1219 and 1227, and a fair in 1221 (Letters, 2013). The town’s success in attracting settlers is indicated by the suburbs that are recorded to the north, south, east and west of the original grid pattern in a document produced in 1269 (Alsford, 2022e). Water management seems to have been integral to the new town plan. Water channels were incorporated into the grid plan and were supplied by the river via a mill stream that powered the mill (Alsford, 2022b). These channels had the added benefit of aiding drainage of a “flat, marshy” site and preventing flooding. A channel near the market may also have allowed meat and fish waste to be hygienically disposed of. The gradients of the channels meant that there was a continuous flow of water (Alsford, 2022b). Inspiration for the system may have come from Winchester, where channels and streets appear to have been laid out simultaneously in the late nineth century (Alsford, 2022b, 2022e). The foundation of the town was celebrated in a poem written by cleric Henry d’ Avranches who was active between 1215 and 1262 or 1263. It may have been intended to raise money for the new cathedral’s construction (Binkley, 2004; Torrence, 1959). The poem was translated by Torrence (1959) and has recently been freshly translated and set to music as part of celebration of the 800th anniversary of the cathedral’s foundation (The Salisbury Anthem, 2020). This poem included references to the lack of water “which provoked thirst” on the original site, the “howling winds” and the abundance of chalk which “dazzled the eyes” (Torrence, 1959: 242). It also notes that water serves another purpose as “boats and

Town comparisons: Southern England part 1  41 ships float upon water, carrying a wealth of merchandise” (Torrence, 1959: 243). In contrast, the new site was in a “well-watered valley” close to fertile soil and with access to game and fish (Torrence, 1959: 242–3). The bishop’s decision to create a new town did not immediately lead to the desertion of Old Sarum, however. The burgesses of Old Sarum held a charter of 1176 which gave them similar privileges as Wilton and Winchester. While some may have relocated to the new town, others remained. In 1246 a fair was chartered to be held next to the old castle, and in 1276, when the men of Wilton complained that the frequency of markets held in the new town (almost every day of the week) was damaging their trade, they alleged that it was damaging the trade of Old Sarum too (Letters, 2013). By 1331, however, the old borough was clearly decayed because houses held from the bishop in Old Sarum were demolished by permission of the king and the stone recycled to build the cathedral tower and a wall around the cathedral close (although the town was ditched it was never walled). The town sent representatives to Parliament from 1264. A list of guilds prepared in 1440 shows 19 different craft guilds, with the cloth trade and the building trade well-represented (Haskins, 1912). Despite the importance of the cloth trade, and the great wealth of several local cloth merchants, the town was never a member of the Staple. There were Franciscan and Dominican friaries, and hospitals dedicated to St Nicholas and the Holy Trinity. De Vaux college was founded c.1262 for poor scholars and soon afterwards attracted students from Oxford, after that city suffered from internal dissention and the plague (Newman and Howells, 2001). In 1334 the town was assessed for a tenth 1500s, which was much higher than other towns in the area (Glasscock, 1975). Unusually information is given on the taxpayers, which numbered 225 and included four tax collectors who between them contributed 28s. By the late fifteenth century Salisbury contained an elite group of very rich merchants who occupied very substantial properties in the town. Leland, visiting the town c.1540, was very impressed by High Street (leading from the North Gate of the close to St Thomas’s church) and Castle Street (leading to Old Sarum). The market, to the east of these streets, was “very fair and large and well-watered with running streamlets” and was overlooked by a stone–built town hall (I, 258–9). The physical geography of Wiltshire and neighbouring counties made Salisbury a natural road hub. It was connected to a range of important neighbouring towns, including Andover (for Newbury and Oxford), Stockbridge (for London), Winchester, Romsey (for Southampton), Fordingbridge (for Christchurch and Poole), Dorchester (for Weymouth), Shaftesbury (for Exeter), Warminster (for Bath and Bristol), Devizes (for Malmesbury and Chippenham) and Marlborough (for Cirencester and Gloucester). In contrast to ecclesiastical lords in many other towns, the bishop of Salisbury and his associates provided new and affordable premises for merchants and artisans and invested in infrastructure and local amenities designed to exploit the advantages of a major road hub. Although there were tensions between the bishop and

42  Town comparisons: Southern England part 1 the town, they were not so acute as in other comparable towns. Salisbury developed as a centre of elite consumption, a retail and wholesale market for the region, and a hospitality centre for travellers passing through. In 1524 it was assessed at 8,095s (Sheail, 1998). Salisbury was included on Matthew Paris’s map (Paris and Trustees of the British Museum, 1928). On the Gough map it was depicted as “two buildings and a spired church with cross” (The Gough Map of Great Britain, 2022). It was also featured in Speed (2000: 102–3). Oxford, county town. University town, road hub and river hub, castle. Oxford lies on a small, isolated ridge of high ground at the confluence of the River Thames and River Cherwell, and at the intersection of two main roads (Topographic map, 2022). The road from London to Gloucester and South Wales crosses the Cherwell to the east of the town centre, and the River Thames at Osney bridge to the west, while the road from Southampton and Newbury to Banbury and the Midlands crosses the Thames at Folly Bridge (or Grandpont) to the south and leaves the town to the north (which of these bridges was the original “oxen ford” remains unresolved). The two roads intersect at Carfax in the centre of the town. The town has water meadows to the west and marshland to the south, so that access from both these directions requires embankments and bridges; this may explain why the Roman roads of Oxfordshire avoided the site. A local saint, Frideswide (died 735), established a church in the town in the seventh century. It was destroyed but then rebuilt as a priory on the present site of Wolsey’s Christchurch College — inside (and abutting against) the walls of the town (Salter, 1926). The town was assessed at 1400 hides in the Burghal Hidage (Hill, 1969). By the tenth century there was a borough and also a mint (with four moneyers) c.973–c.1154 (Allen, 2012). Oxford became a county town by 1011 and appears at the head of the shire in Domesday. Before the Conquest the town rendered £20 and six sesters of honey to the king and £10 and the profits of a mill to Earl Aelfgar. The town also owed the services of 20 burgesses to accompany the king on “expeditions”. Each burgess held land outside the city as well as within the walls. There were approximately 721 houses, of which only 243 paid geld in 1086 (Open Domesday, 2022; Williams and Martin, 2002). Some houses (called wallhouses) were held for the service of repairing the town walls (and for military service) (Haslam, 2021). In 1086 many churchmen and nobles held property in the town; they included the archbishop of Canterbury, the abbot of Bury St Edmunds, the abbot of Abingdon and the canons of St Frideswides (in the town); the value of the town to the king had doubled to £60 and, it seems, the earl no longer received the third penny. The Normans built a castle on the edge of the town, some distance from the market, which played an important role in the Anarchy, the Baron’s War and the Civil War, but otherwise seems to have had little impact on the town. The market probably dates from c.900, but the first formal record is not until 1279; it was held twice weekly in Carfax and the surrounding streets (Letters, 2013). A horse and livestock market subsequently developed outside the north gate in St Giles. A seven-day fair in early July was granted to St Frideswides in

Town comparisons: Southern England part 1  43 1122; the fair was much older than this, however, because its profits were part of the farm of the county. In 1155 the town obtained a charter of privileges from Henry II, giving it freedom of toll throughout the country. These and other privileges encouraged the establishment of religious institutions, which proliferated in the twelfth and thirteen centuries. This was a major factor in the growth of the university (established sometime before 1167) and the building of halls, and soon afterwards colleges. In 1191 the town received a common seal and in 1199 the grant of a fee-farm of £63. In 1191 the townsmen described themselves as “the citizens of Oxford of the commune of the city and of the Guild Merchant” which, Davis (1968: 56–7) suggests, indicated mainly the burgesses who had the right to sell in the market, together with some noblemen such as the castellan of the castle. In 1334 the town was assessed for a tenth at 1828s (Glasscock, 1975). Fourteen parishes were identified in the town and its suburbs. The wealthiest parishes were in the town centre, namely (in rank order) St Martins (by Carfax, in the city centre), All Saints (on the High Street), St Peter le Bailey (adjacent to Bonn square), St Cross and St Peter’s in the East (north of the High Street), and St Mary the Virgin (the “university church” on the High Street). Salter (1926, 1960) provided a history of the properties in each of the parishes of the city of Oxford. By 1400 there were at least 11 trade guilds, including the barbers guild, which was controlled by the university. Examining Oxford during this period, Butcher suggested that rental income from property was sometimes used to supplement income from careers in commerce and administration (Butcher, 1979). The university established Oxford as a major centre of elite consumption, encouraging the subsequent growth of book production and instrument-making. Oxford artisans acquired a wide range of specialised skills, which proved important in the later industrialisation of the eastern suburbs of the town (Hammer, 1976). The substantial size of the university almost certainly mitigated the impact of the Reformation on the town. In 1524 it was assessed at 2,085s, including “privileged persons of the university” (Sheail, 1998). Oxford was included by Matthew Paris on his map (Paris and Trustees of the British Museum, 1928). It was depicted on the Gough map as “four buildings, a spired church and a castle” (The Gough Map of Great Britain, 2022). Oxford was featured in Speed (2000: 92–3) and Braun and Hogenberg (2008: 136–8). Winchester, county town of Hampshire. Roman civitas capital, historic “capital of Wessex”, bridging point on the River Itchen, and local road hub, cathedral and castle. Winchester is located at the foot of a hill in the Itchen valley 10 miles upstream from Southampton, where the river cuts between two chalk downlands. The chalk provides an excellent supply of fresh water with enough power to meet the needs of several mills. The town lies as a crossroads between a route from London to Southampton and Portsmouth, which squeezes through this “pinch point” in the hills, and a cross-country road from Guildford to Salisbury which runs along the northern edge of the downs and bridges the river to the east of the town. Other roads radiate to Andover, Newbury (via Whitchurch) and Poole (via Romsey).

44  Town comparisons: Southern England part 1 Venta Belgarum, as Winchester was known, was a leading town in Roman Britain. Biddle proposes that Winchester may have retained some importance as an administrative site (for example for the collection of taxation) after Roman withdrawal (Biddle, 2017a: 23). There are also suggestions of two new routes through the town, which indicate that people were accessing it and not just bypassing it (Biddle, 2017a: 23). A minster church (the Old Minster) was built there in the seventh century, initially with a dedication to St Peter and St Paul (Biddle, 2017a: 22). The Bishops of Winchester were some of the most important ecclesiastical and political figures in medieval England. The see was established by St Birinus, a Roman missionary, at Dorchester-on-Thames in 634 and transferred to Winchester on his death in 660 (Biddle, 2017a: 22). In the late ninth century the town was rebuilt on the Roman site by King Alfred the Great, who imposed a right-angled grid of streets (Biddle, 2017b: 27). It was assessed at 2,400 hides in the Burghal Hidage (Hill, 1969; Yorke, 1995: 117). In 859 a bridge was constructed over the river at the east end of the town, which would have facilitated the passage of travellers from London (Biddle, 2017b: 26). Around the same time significant improvements were undertaken on the Roman walls. The bridge, defences and town may have been a package of works that were completed simultaneously, or in stages. It is possible that a Viking raid in 860 may have accelerated the construction of new defences (possibly including the East and South Gates) and the repair of others (perhaps the West and North) (Biddle, 2017b: 28–9). In the tenth century two new religious institutions appeared: Winchester’s New Minster was established in 903 in very close proximity to the Old Minster. It became for a time a royal mausoleum before being transformed into a monastery (Miller, 2001). King Alfred’s widow founded a third minster for women on the south side of the present high street, called Nunnaminster (Biddle, 2017b: 32). In 971 the Old Minster and its accompanying monastery were rebuilt and received the additional dedication in honour of St. Swithun (Cox, 1903: 108–15). By the early tenth century Winchester had assumed a role as “capital” of England after the Anglo-Saxons (temporarily in some instances) assumed control of Viking territories in the south and north (Biddle, 2017b: 33). It seems likely that there was a royal palace in the town, possibly to the southwest of the Old Minster (Biddle, 2017b: 35). It definitely acquired a mint, which lasted until c.1278 (Allen, 2012). In c.928 King Athelstan ruled that there should be six moneyers in the town (by comparison there were eight in London and seven in Canterbury, but no more than two in most other towns). Winchester appears to have had several markets by this point, probably one near each of the gates and along the High Street, which ran downhill through the town centre to the south gate where a large market area was later developed. The Normans replaced the Old Minster with a new hall and Norman cathedral (Biddle, 2017b: 35). Shortly afterwards, the Bishop’s Palace, known as Wolvesey Castle, was established nearby. The Old Minster became the Priory of St Swithun. The New Minster relocated to a suburb in c.1110 and was renamed as Hyde abbey, ending two centuries of rivalry between the two sites (Biddle, 2017b: 31–2). Nunnaminster was reconstructed in 1108 and renamed St Mary’s abbey (Biddle,

Town comparisons: Southern England part 1  45 2017b: 35). A castle was constructed on the highest point in the town, near the top of the hill, in the southwest corner, overlooking the town and the Itchen valley. The castle site took up 4 percent of the town’s total area and required the removal of two streets (Thomas, Biddle and Morris: 380). There were three Benedictine monasteries in the town: The Old Minster (the Priory of St Swithun, founded by Cenwalh, King of Wessex, in 643); Nunnaminster (founded by King Alfred and his Queen Eahlsfrith, who on Alfred’s death became its first abbess); and New Minster (Hyde abbey, founded in 901 by Edward the Elder, according to the wishes of King Alfred, his late father). The Old Minster was so unpopular that the townspeople rioted against it in 1264. There were also four friaries: the Dominicans arrived in c.1233, the Franciscans and Carmelites in c.1278 and the Friar hermits of St Augustine in 1302. There were also three hospitals, one of which, St Cross, established c.1136, still stands in the meadows to the south of the town. The Normans constructed their own royal palace or hall. Again the relationship between this and any previous Anglo-Saxon palace or hall is a little unclear. It seems that the Norman palace may have been further north than the Anglo–Saxon one, but may have incorporated its site (Thomas, Biddle and Morris: 38). The Norman palace was certainly on a large scale and resulted in the destruction of some monastic buildings, further houses and business premises (Thomas, Biddle and Morris: 38). Anything that may have remained of the Anglo-Saxon appears to have been destroyed in the warfare of 1141 (Thomas, Biddle and Morris: 38). Thomas, Biddle and Morris (2017: 41) propose that during the twelfth century the size of the population increased, including nobles and “high ranking church men from other towns”, including the bishop of Durham, the bishop of Worcester and the abbot of Abingdon, who felt the need to be in close proximity to an important royal and ecclesiastical centre. There were poorer areas in the city, including the area around the High Street. Suburban development also occurred (Thomas, Biddle and Morris, 2017: 42). Winchester, like London, was excluded from the Domesday Book, but was surveyed separately by the king in c.1110 and by the Bishop Henry of Blois in 1148 (Barlow, 1976: 7). The earlier survey is the more comparable with Domesday, both in date and format. It lists 295 entries. Assuming that each entry, unless otherwise specified, refers to a single tenement, there were 253 tenements paying rent; also 25 messuages, 24 houses, 18 forges, 13 plots of unbuilt land, eight stalls, three curtileges, two wasted tenements, one cellar, one blocked up street, one plot of thegn-land, one market, and five pre-Conquest mints destroyed on the orders of the king. The 1148 survey was may have been a response to the destruction of property when Winchester castle was held by Matilda’s troops in September 1141 during the wars of Stephen and Matilda (1135–53) (Barlow, 1976: 18). As a younger brother of King Stephen, Blois was closely involved in the war. He initially supported his brother Stephen, but in c.1141 he transferred his allegiance briefly to Matilda. However, by September 1141 he transferred it again to his brother and besieged the castle in an attempt to defeat Matilda’s troops. Another explanation for the survey is that it may have been precipitated by a papal summons to Rome

46  Town comparisons: Southern England part 1 that the bishop received in March 1148 and the need to raise funds for a potentially expensive visit (Barlow, 1976: 18; Biddle and Keene, 1976a: 493). Biddle and Keene calculated that that most valuable property in the 1148 survey per foot frontage was in the High Street (1976b: 377). The 1148 Winchester survey also informs on the distribution by street of properties held by individuals with occupational surnames (Biddle and Keene, 1976b: 433). Victuallers who provided food and drink were primarily in the High Street, the northeast area within the walls and in the western and southeastern suburbs (Biddle and Keene, 1976b: 433). Service trades, who Biddle and Keene defined as providers of household items and transport, were mainly located in the High Street and western suburb (Biddle and Keene, 1976b: 433). Blacksmiths also tended to be located in the suburbs, usually close to the city gates; possibly this was most convenient for customers needing new horseshoes for the beginning and end of journeys (Biddle and Keene, 1976b: 434). In contrast, goldsmiths were primarily based close to the site of the Norman royal palace, the cathedral and close to the residences of wealthy royal officials and lords (Biddle and Keene, 1976b: 439). Building craftsmen were “scattered”, but some occupational clustering appears to have occurred around the cathedral and close to Hyde abbey, which were presumably sources of work (Biddle and Keene, 1976b: 433). Access to water was more important for dyers and fullers, who were generally located close to streams in the northeast area within the walls, which was also near to meadows where they could erect tenter frames for stretching cloth (Biddle and Keene, 1976b: 439). The survey was part of a broader pattern of initiatives in estate management undertaken by the bishop. Blois is credited with recovering, as abbot of Glastonbury, properties that had been alienated from the abbey and kept records of those recoveries (Barlow, 1976: 18). In Winchester it is proposed that he improved the management of many of the cathedral estates (Barlow, 1976: 18). As part of his ongoing relationship with Cluny it is proposed that during the 1150s he “rescued the abbey … from insolvency and made a survey of the abbey’s rents” (Barlow, 1976: 18). Blois also improved the running of the St Giles Fair. This was officially granted in 1096 to the bishop and the monks and became a leading international fair until the end of the fourteenth century (Letters, 2013). In practice the bishop bought out the monks’ share, paying initially 25 marks, which Henry of Blois increased to 30 marks (Biddle and Keene, 1976b: 287). The fair increased in duration from three to 16 days between c.1096 and 1155 (Thomas, Biddle and Morris, 2017: 41; Letters, 2013). Biddle and Keene propose that it was “the judicial and administrative framework provided by the bishop and the protection [Blois] was able to offer to merchants coming from a distance” that allowed St Giles’s fair to remain a viable concern during the civil war. His knowledge of how to administer fairs may have been learnt from his older brother Theobald II, Count of Champagne, a region famous for its trade fairs (Biddle and Keene, 1976b: 287). In turn, Blois’s nephew Hugh de Puiset, bishop of Durham, instigated the development of Gateshead and Sunderland (Britnell, 2008; Philanthropy North East, 2022). In 1155–8 the town obtained a charter of privileges from Henry II, giving it freedom of toll throughout the country. However, the relocation, in the late twelfth century, of treasury and exchequer to Westminster, was to have a negative

Town comparisons: Southern England part 1  47 impact on its economy. The king still visited the castle regularly and invested in improvements there, but the town was beginning to lose its function as a hub of royal administration (Thomas, Biddle and Morris, 2017: 45). Thomas, Biddle and Morris (2017: 47) suggest that the decline was accelerated by the expulsion of the Jews in 1290, which affected many of the town’s businesses, and by a fire that destroyed the royal quarters in the castle in 1302 and drew an end to royal visits. St Giles fair entered a period of decline from the late thirteenth century. The emerging cloth manufacturing sector helped to shore up the economy. Exporters of wool and wine used some of their profits to build large houses in the town, or to invest in rental property (Keene, 1985: 231, 815 and footnotes 123, 230 and 673–4). In 1354 the town became one of ten English towns designated a staple for the export of wool. It was probably chosen in preference to Southampton because the latter was deemed more vulnerable to attack by the French. In the long run, however, Southampton’s economic influence increased whilst Winchester’s declined. The decline of Winchester may be linked to the rise of other neighbouring towns such as Salisbury. There are also indications that it experienced depopulation as a result of the Black Death. The need for additional space for burials meant that the public burial ground of the cathedral was extended to cover the area around the Norman royal palace. The markets for cattle and wood, which had previously encroached on the cemetery from the High Street and side streets, were relocated to further north of the cemetery (Morris, Thomas and Clayre, 2017: 49). Morris, Thomas and Clayre (2017: 49) suggest that this was a significant alteration to Winchester’s topography “as previously there had been no substantial market area within the walls”. They compare the alteration to similar changes in Norwich and Lübeck. An additional impact of depopulation was end of settlement on two residential streets, one of which was transformed into gardens. In 1334 the town was assessed for a tenth at 1030s and the soke for 220s, making a total of 1350s (Glasscock, 1975). A custumal of c.1400 describes a city administered by an elected major and 24 jurats, with the assent of the commoners. Two bailiffs and four serjeants were to be elected. Two coroners were to be appointed, apparently with the assent of the king. Special customs applied to each of the major trades, which are itemised as weaving, dyeing, butchery, fishmongery, cattle-dealing, baking, hawking, brewing, corn-dealing, saddlery, shoe-making, smithing and masonry (Furley, 1923, 1927). In 1524 the town was assessed at 1,146s (Sheail, 1998). The town was included by Matthew Paris on his map (Paris and Trustees of the British Museum, 1928). It appeared on the Gough map in the form of “two buildings, spired church with cross, walls with one gate” suggesting further that it retained some importance (The Gough Map of Great Britain, 2022). It was featured in Speed (2000: 116–17). Malmesbury. Abbey town on the Fosse way; local road hub. The town has an exceptional intellectual pedigree, having been the home of St Aldhelm, King Athelstan (first king of England), the historian William of Malmesbury and the early-­modern political philosopher Thomas Hobbes. It occupies a dramatic position on a hill-top

48  Town comparisons: Southern England part 1 peninsular overlooking the confluence of two rivers; the Somerset Avon flows southwest of the town and the River Ingleburn (Newton Water, Tetbury Avon) northeast, so that between them the town is almost encircled by water. The Fosse way from Lichfield to Exeter passes nearby and is intersected by a minor road from Swindon to Tetbury. Malmsbury had been an Iron Age (c. 700–43 AD) hill fort but became an important religious site in the middle ages (Alsford, 2022d). It is believed that Maildulph, an Irish–Scottish monk from whom the town takes its name, founded a hermit’s cell in Malmesbury in c.600 and by tradition started a school to support himself. St Aldhelm, possibly his pupil, founded a Benedictine abbey c.676, probably on the same site (Alsford, 2022d). The site is unusual because the abbey lies at the top of a hill rather than in meadows near the river. It may have been built over the site of an Iron Age hillfort that was refortified by Saxons in the sixth century. Aldhelm had influential social contacts through which he acquired valuable relics for the abbey, which operated under papal jurisdiction. It accumulated a very large library. The present abbey church dates from 1180 and contains Athelstan’s tomb (Kelly, 2005). The abbey church is missing both its spire — once the tallest in the country — and its tower, both of which collapsed. The abbey claimed local jurisdiction, free of the shire and the hundred courts. From 1191 the abbot had the advowson of the local parish church. After it was attacked by the Vikings in 878, Alfred refortified the town and probably reorganised its plan to accommodate those from the surrounding countryside who might be seeking protection (Alsford, 2022d). In the Burghal Hidage the town was assessed at 1200 hides (Hill, 1969; Yorke, 1995: 117). It was granted a charter by King Edward the Elder in 924, possibly for its support in the wars against the Vikings. His successor, Aethelstan, awarded land on nearby King’s Heath to his favoured warriors; these commoners were free from burghmote, brugmote, wardwyte, horngeld and scot, and could pass on their properties to their descendants rather than have them revert to the king. Domesday records Malmesbury as the head town of Wiltshire, which seems an unusual choice given that neighbouring towns such as Old Sarum, Wilton and Chippenham were much wealthier (Open Domesday, 2022; Williams and Martin, 2002). In 1086 the king held 51 messuages in the town, half of which paid no more than waste land. The burgage rent was 10d. The abbot held 4.5 messuages in the town and nine “cotsets” outside, which may refer to properties on King’s Heath. Thirteen other people, including a widow, held land in the town, and two others held land from the king. The abbot held 14 villages in the neighbourhood. In addition, Walter Hosed held two parts of the town from the king, paying £8, the same amount as was paid before the Conquest; in this part of the town the pleas of two nearby hundreds used to be held. The mint, established c.973, rendered 100s and a mill 10s; the mint lasted until c.1150. When the king was on expedition he had either 20s or one man for every five hides. The town was valued at £18, with the king having the third penny. A castle was built near to the Abbey by c.1188, causing some friction with the monks as it interfered with their water supply (Luce, 1979; Moffat, 1805). The town was walled, with various leading residents being responsible for the upkeep

Town comparisons: Southern England part 1  49 of specific sections of the wall. There were three main gates, another smaller one, and four bridges, all of which appear to have been of an early date (Gatehouse Gazetteer, 2022a). There were two hospitals located just outside the walls: St John the Baptist, supported by the townspeople, and St Mary Magdalen, which may have been a leper hospital. A fair was chartered to the abbey c.1084 (Letters, 2013). By 1215 there was a guild merchant, independent of the abbey, that held the fee farm from the king. There was an alderman, two stewards, and more than 15 ordinary members. The guild quickly came to an agreement with the abbey, which reduced the friction between them. A market cross was erected as a joint venture between the abbey and the town burgesses in c.1490. Representatives of the town attended Parliament in 1275, and intermittently thereafter (Alsford, 2022d; Baggs, Freeman and Stevenson, 1991). The market was relocated in 1223 away from the cemetery. The cramped nature of the hill-top site meant that as the town grew it spilled over onto a neighbouring hill. There was already a settlement there, with a late-Saxon parish church. Part of this parish, Westport, became a suburb of the town with its own market, chartered in 1252 (Alsford, 2022d; Wiltshire County Archaeological Service, 2004). There was no competition between the markets, however, because the abbey controlled them both. There is also a reference to a third market held by the abbey at Whitchurch, but the location cannot be identified. There are references to trade in wool, cloth, leather and gloves at this time (Baggs, Freeman and Stevenson, 1991). In 1334 the town was assessed for a tenth at 230s (Glasscock, 1975). In c.1500 there were five mills in the town, including the king’s mill mentioned previously. In 1524 it was assessed, on different principles, for 370s, including West Park (Sheail, 1998). Malmesbury lies on the southeastern fringe of the Cotswolds and was in a good position to function as a wool town because of its strategic position on the Fosse way. There is evidence of fulling mills from an early date. In the sixteenth century the town became famous for clothiers such as William Stumpe. He used the profits of his trade to purchase land and buildings from both the abbey and the king; some of the buildings, it seems, were converted into workshops and warehouses. The town was not incorporated until 1635 — much later than many other comparable towns (Box, 2007). Despite its congested hill-top location, Malmesbury was a wealthy town (Haslam, 1984). But it remained essentially a small town in comparison to many others. Its market was dominated by those of neighbouring towns, such as Chippenham, Tetbury and Cirencester. Nevertheless, it survived the Dissolution remarkably well and only declined in the industrial and railway age. Shaftesbury, Dorset. Hill-top town on an escarpment near the sources of the River Nadder and River Stour; religious centre; road hub. The town lies at the intersection of an east–west road from London and Salisbury to Yeovil and Exeter and a north– south road from Chippenham to Dorchester and Poole. There is also a road to the local town of Gillingham. In 888 King Alfred of Wessex founded a Benedictine nunnery at Shaftesbury and appointed his daughter the abbess; it was the first religious house in England

50  Town comparisons: Southern England part 1 solely for women and was endowed with one-sixteenth of the king’s revenues (Chandler, 2003; Gatehouse Gazetteer, 2022b; Kelly, 1996; Stevenson, 1959). Prior to this a fortified burgh had been established c.880, and the nunnery was built near its east gate. Many members of the West Saxon royalty had connections with the nunnery, and in 981 the remains of the young king, St Edward the Martyr, were translated to the abbey church (demolished at the Dissolution). Norman buildings replaced the original ones, 1080–1120. The abbey received massive endowments of land, which made it one of the richest abbeys in England, though not quite so rich as Glastonbury. Charters surviving the abbey’s cartulary indicate that land was gifted by aristocratic lords whose daughters entered the nunnery, and also through endowments of chantries. They also suggest that there may have been a minster church on or near the abbey site from the eighth century. King Aethelstan established a borough in c.928 and authorised a mint with two moneyers, which survived until c.1150 (Letters, 2013). The present town marks a later development to the west of the nunnery and the earlier burh. The present high street may be the legacy of a medieval marketplace. In the king’s part of the old town in 1066 there were 104 houses and three moneyers who each paid 20s and one silver mark for dies (Open Domesday, 2022; Williams and Martin, 2002). By 1086 38 houses had been destroyed. In the abbess’s part of the town there were 153 houses, of which 42 were subsequently destroyed. There were 151 burgesses, 20 vacant messuages, and a garden. There were therefore more burgesses than there were surviving houses, which suggests that since the Conquest some of the burgesses may have left town. The king’s part was assessed at 20 hides, and the abbess’s part was valued at just over £3. A suburb developed at the foot of the hill near St James church; there was a steep descent down Gold Hill, as there is today. In 1125 the historian William of Malmesbury described Shaftesbury as a village that had once been a town. The Saxon town appears to have declined as the market area expanded, and relatively little remains today. The parish church of St Peter was built in the new town to the east of the abbey in the thirteenth century, and altogether there were four churches in the borough. In 1252 Henry II ordered itinerant justices in eyre to visit the town and empowered the burgesses to select two coroners, and from c.1295 the town sent two representatives to parliament. By 1352 the burgesses had the power to elect a mayor (Innes, 1992; Mayo, 1889). In 1334 the town was assessed for a tenth at 400s (Glasscock, 1975). In the fourteenth century the abbey operated very successfully as a business; it attracted numerous royal pensioners and attracted many nuns from wealthy families. In the long run, though, this exposed the town to considerable problems after the Dissolution. In 1525 the borough was assessed at 1192s (Sheail, 1998). In c.1540 Leland described Shaftesbury as “a great market town standing on a high hill” (V, 110). An inquisition in 1585 noted a new guildhall, a fish cross, a corn market, a butter cross, stalls and shambles, suggesting a reasonably prosperous market. Almost all the buildings in the newer part of the town are post-medieval. They were built mainly to extend the local market and to serve coaching traffic on the Exeter road.

Town comparisons: Southern England part 1  51 Shaftesbury appeared on the Gough map as a “spired church with cross and castle” (The Gough Map of Great Britain, 2022). Wareham, Dorset. Inland port, local road hub, castle. The town lies at the first bridging point of two rivers, the Frome and the Piddle, which flow in parallel into the Wareham Channel and Poole Harbour on the south coast. The town lies at the intersection of a road from Sherborne to Swanage and a road from Poole to Dorchester and Weymouth. Hills lie to the north and south, and marshes to the east. Wareham has always been vulnerable to invasion, particularly as the River Frome, when it was navigable for seagoing vessels, provided an easy route from the English Channel to Dorchester and beyond. In 876 King Alfred of Wessex besieged the town when it was under Viking occupation; the Vikings offered hostages, but their mounted troops escaped and occupied Exeter instead (Whitelock, Douglas and Tucker, 1961). The town was subsequently fortified with earthworks and timber on three sides and the River Frome as the southern boundary. The town was divided into four quadrants with the market and a church at the crossroads in the middle. In the tenth century a stone wall was added. In the Burghal Hidage it was rated at 1,600 hides (Hill, 1969; Yorke, 1995: 117). There was a mint on the present site of St John’s Hill from c.928 to c.1154; King Athelstan ruled that there should be two moneyers (Letters, 2013). It appears that an early monastery was destroyed under the Viking occupation. A Norman cell of the abbey of Lire was established in the twelfth century. The prior was rector of Lady St Mary’s church (a Saxon foundation) and held the advowson of three other churches in the town, one of these being another AngloSaxon church, St Martins-on-the-Walls, in the north of the town. The town was held by the king and assessed at 10 hides. Domesday records various fees within the town (Open Domesday, 2022; Williams and Martin, 2002). In 1066 there were 104 houses in the king’s demesne, of which 38 had been destroyed by 1086. In St Wandrille’s desmsene there were 45 houses, of which 17 were later wasted. Of the 80 houses in other fees (held by various barons), 60 were wasted. Some of these houses may have been destroyed to make way for the Norman castle which was built inside the town walls near the river. In the thirteenth century this was largely superseded by Corfe Castle, situated on a hill five miles to the south, and nothing remains of it today. Two moneyers were recorded in 1066. A fair was recorded in 1200, held by King John by right of his first wife, Isabel of Gloucester (Letters, 2013). In 1334 the town was assessed for a tenth at 127s (Glasscock, 1975). The town did not prosper, however, and much of the land — particularly that lying away from the main streets and to the north of the central crossroads — remained in use for gardens and orchards until recently. Wareham functioned as a sea port at this time, although it faced competition from Poole and Weymouth. Later, however, the River Frome silted up, and only smaller vessels could reach the quayside. Subsequently the town appears to have functioned as a market centre for the Isle of Purbeck peninsular. In 1524 it was assessed at 535s (Sheail, 1998). Following a fire in 1762 the town was rebuilt in the Georgian style.

52  Town comparisons: Southern England part 1 Cricklade, Wiltshire. Fortified burgh where the Ermin Way crosses the River Thames. Cricklade lies on a small promontory of high ground projecting into marshes around the River Thames, close to where it is joined by its tributaries the Ray, Key and Ampney Brook. It lies on the Ermin Way that connected Gloucester and Cirencester to Newbury and Silchester. The town was built, apparently on a greenfield site, c.879. and probably in haste, in order to resist Viking invaders encamped at Cirencester nearby (Bainbridge, 2011a, 2011b, 2011c). Nevertheless the Vikings passed through the town in 903 and, according to the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, “seized all they could carry off” (Whitelock, Douglas and Tucker, 1961). The town was built square with defensive ditches and a crossroads at the centre where two lanes joined the high street. The northeast portion of the defensive ditch was near the river bridge. It was rated at 1,500 hides, and by 980 it had a mint, with as many as nine or ten moneyers at the same time; the mint lasted until c.1100 (Letters, 2013). Domesday records that both the king and St Peter’s church, Westminster, held a third penny, valuing the town, it would seem, at £15 (Open Domesday, 2022; Williams and Martin, 2002). The church, however, also had many burgesses, which the king, it seems, did not. The town has two fine churches: St Sampson’s (eleventh century, and possibly a rebuild of an earlier church) and St Mary’s (twelfth century). The two parishes divided the town into equal halves. St John’s hospital was built c.1220 for infirm priests; it also provided hospitality to travellers. The origins of the market are obscure. In 1157 the town obtained a charter of privileges from Henry II, suggesting that a market was already well established by this time. In 1257 a market was chartered to Baldwin de Insula, son and heir of the Earl of Devon (Alsford, 2022a). It seems to have fallen into disuse at some stage, probably after the Black Death, and when it was revived it was held down the High Street. A range of occupations were recorded in the inquisition post mortem taken in 1263 as a result of Baldwin’s death in 1262 (Alsford, 2022a). However, toll evidence suggests that trade remained static during the middle ages (Alsford, 2022a). In 1334 the town was assessed for a tenth at 110s and in 1524 it was assessed, on different principles, at 279s (Glasscock, 1975; Sheail, 1998). The town was depicted on the map of Matthew Paris (Paris and Trustees of the British Museum, 1928). Today the town is an elite residential area near to Swindon new town, and is by–passed by the main road.

Southeast: Kent, Sussex, Essex London, capital city. Roman provincial capital, tidal limit and first bridging point over the River Thames, river hub and road hub, defensive tower, many churches. The Thames estuary is wide, and even today there is no bridge downstream from London; indeed, recent tunnel construction has proved problematic because of the moist clay on which much of the city is built. London is also a river hub; the River Lea flows south from Hertfordshire into the Thames, and the River Wandle flows north from near Croydon in Surrey. London has high ground north of the city

Town comparisons: Southern England part 1  53 centre where elite residential suburbs developed around Hampstead and Edgware. The south bank of the Thames is lower-lying; at the southern end of London Bridge Southwark developed as an entertainment and hospitality area from an early date. London Bridge itself was built with very narrow arches supporting a wide street with shops and houses on either side. The bridge formed a barrier to seagoing vessels proceeding upstream, forcing imported goods to be transhipped to river barges in the port of the London, positioned on the north and south banks due east of the bridge. The bridge carried the Roman road of Watling Street from Dover to Wroxeter near Shrewsbury. The road entered Southwark from the episcopal centre of Canterbury, crossed the Thames, and connected with Ermine Street running north from London to Lincoln and York (see the following discussion). Although important as avenues of commerce, these roads were also crucial for the administration and defence of the kingdom. London was a road hub, with other major roads heading westward along the Thames valley and southwest to Southampton and Exeter. Settlement on London bridge has also been assessed in detail. There appears to have been a bridge over the Thames at London under the Romans, but this seems to have fallen into disrepair after the Roman withdrawal (Sharp, 2010: 4). A wooden bridge was constructed on a slightly different alignment during the reign of Æthelred the Unready (978–1013 and 1014–16) (Sharp, 2010: 4). Labour for construction and repair seems to have been drawn from the Anglo-Saxon “bridge service”, which seems to have been an obligation placed on nobles and the church as well as possibly local communities (Sharp, 2010: 4; Featherstone Harrison, 2004: 27, 35, 39). Gerhold (2021) has examined the houses constructed on London Bridge. He considers the motivation for their construction, the construction process and their use, including by analysing surviving rentals and leases (Gerhold, 2021: 1–2). London Bridge was constructed for the first time in stone between 1176 and 1209 (there were earlier wooden versions) (Gerhold, 2021: 3; Sharp, 2010: 6). Fundraising for its construction was coordinated by the chaplain of St Mary Colechurch, Peter of Colechurch (Keene, 2004; Gerhold, 2021: 3). It is also possible that Peter of Colechurch was more actively involved in the bridge’s construction as a designer and engineer (Sharp, 2010: 16). St Mary Colechurch was next to where Thomas Becket was born and was considered to be where he was baptised (The Becket Story, 2022). Part of the fundraising initiative involved the construction of a chapel to the saint in the middle of the bridge (The Becket Story, 2022). Becket was murdered in 1170 and declared a saint in 1173, so the timing was very appropriate (The Becket Story, 2022). Indeed, Sharp suggests that the “huge volume” of pilgrimage traffic between London and Canterbury may have necessitated the replacement of the wooden bridge with a stone one (Sharp, 2010: 11). This opportunity, he proposes, was then “exploited by Peter of Colechurch for a wider benefit” (Sharp, 2010: 11). Becket had preached his last sermon at St Mary’s Priory (today Southwark cathedral) before travelling to Canterbury, and so the bridge between London and Southwark allowed people to retrace his route (Sharp, 2010: 11).

54  Town comparisons: Southern England part 1 The motivation for the house construction was to generate rental income that could fund the construction and upkeep of the bridge (Gerhold, 2021: 3–4). In 1202 King John commissioned bridge-builder Isembert of Saintes to finish the bridge and add the houses, based on Isembert’s previous works in France and his construction of houses on the La Rochelle Bridge, the rents from which were to fund its “0repair and illumination”, although there is some debate regarding whether Isembert ever made it to London (Boyer, 1976: 75; Gerhold, 2021: 3–4; Sharp, 2010: 16). In addition, London Bridge received rents from a number of properties throughout the city which, along with income from some land and properties in the surrounding hinterland, contributed to its upkeep (Harding and Wright, 1995: vii–xxix). Two additional streams of income came from “the rents of the Stocks market, and passage–tolls”. These would have included tolls paid by carts going across the bridge and tolls paid by ships who needed to pass through in order to dock at Queenhithe (Gerhold, 2021: 38). Between 1358 and c.1404 the income from rents appears to have fallen before rising again. The rise may be attributed to improved management of the estate, perhaps focusing on property in different locations or investing in repairs in order to let the property at a higher rent (Harding and Wright, 1995: vii–xxix). It appears, for example, that some tenants had been subletting their properties at much higher rent levels, and it is possible that banning that practice and ensuring that the bridge wardens received the higher income helped to improve the value of the portfolio (Harding and Wright, 1995: vii–xxix). In contrast, the income derived from the butchers and fishmongers at the Stocks and from the tolls declined over time (Harding and Wright, 1995: vii–xxix). Bans on iron-wheeled carts, introduced to prevent damage to the bridge, may have contributed to a reduction in the income from that source (Harding and Wright, 1995: vii–xxix). Houses on the bridge would have had shops on the ground floor. Initially they were probably only of two stories with living accommodation above (which may have been desirable to deter thefts of stock when the shops were closed) (Gerhold, 2021: 24). By the fourteenth century the number of stories increased, and most shops would have had a hall on the floor above and then kitchens and chambers on higher floors (Gerhold, 2021: 15, 24). Initially there were no houses constructed between the “stone gate and the drawbridge tower” as that was a key area for defence (Gerhold, 2021: 25–6). However, at some point between 1358 and 1450 additional houses were constructed in that area (Gerhold, 2021: 25–6). The first building plots seem to have been “10 or 11 feet wide”, although some were subsequently merged (Gerhold, 2021: 26–7). In the 1358 rental “rents per foot of frontage were highest on the northern half of the principal part”, which was most accessible from the city. Rents per foot of frontage were only “67 per cent of that level on the southern half of the principal part, 50 per cent on the middle part and 45 per cent on the southern part”, with the level of rent therefore decreasing for properties that were further from London and closer to Southwark (Gerhold, 2021: 27). It was common for Bridge House (who constructed and leased the properties) to request an entry fine of a year’s rent, which was later increased so that it reached five year’s worth of rent by the 1570s (Gerhold, 2021: 55). However, annual rents in that period remained fairly low (Gerhold, 2021: 55).

Town comparisons: Southern England part 1  55 The majority of shops on the bridge were run during the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries by “haberdashers, glovers, cutlers, bowyers and fletchers” (Gerhold, 2021: 81). Gerhold notes that these were “shopping goods” or “comparison goods” that were occasional purchases and benefitted from being on “major commercial thoroughfares” (Gerhold, 2021: 88). None of them required fire or ovens or heavy material for manufacturing (Gerhold, 2021: 88). The bridge itself was a shopping destination, it was not just a place for people to pick up provisions as they travelled over the bridge to enter or return from Kent. This is because rents were higher closer to London rather than being the same across the bridge (Gerhold, 2021: 88). North of the bridge lay the heart of the city, which partially overlapped with the Roman settlement (some of the walls still stand). There was a mint from the seventh century (Letters, 2013). The portion of the city within the walls became the focus of trade (Dyson and Schofield, 1984). The early commercial development of the city is obscure. In c.928 King Athelstan ruled that there should be eight moneyers in the city (by comparison there were seven in Canterbury and six in Winchester). He also laid down a detailed set of customs, which then became a precedent which was copied, as circumstances permitted, in other large towns. When the city surrendered to William the Conqueror, it was rewarded with a very brief charter, which confirmed the laws as they were in the time of King Edward and granted that “every child shall be his father’s heir, after his father’s days; and I will not suffer any person to do you wrong”. Similarly in 1215 Magna Carta confirmed that the city should enjoy its ancient liberties. In 1130 Henry I gave the London burgesses the right to choose their sheriff (who collected the taxes or fee-farm of the city for the king). It was not until 1189, however, that Richard I confirmed the rights of the burgesses to elect a mayor. Numerous charters were subsequently issued to London, which often formed the precedent for charters issued to other towns. No town in England had greater freedoms and privileges than those of London, however, and few had anything that equalled them (Barron, 2004). By 1376 the town had a Court of Aldermen and a Court of Common Council (Williams, 1963). London developed as a major international port (Cobb, 1990; Milne, 2003). Products were sent up to London from provincial towns for export to Northern Europe, and imports from Europe were distributed throughout the Thames valley and further afield. The port was also the hub of a major coastal trade. Because London was a point of transhipment from river to road, it developed as a processing centre. Value was added to raw materials by London merchants before being consigned onwards, for example to exports of wool and imports of foodstuffs and precious metals. This is turn sustained a wide variety of skilled crafts, whose members formed powerful guilds to protect and promote their shared commercial interests. This involved the enforcement of regulations (especially in regard of quality control); searches were organised of business premises, and control was also exercised over certain crafts in provincial towns. There was a complex network of streets, each with its own market served by one or more of these specialised trades. London became a major source of niche products for elite consumers. Cheapside was the hub of marketing activity (Unwin, 1925).

56  Town comparisons: Southern England part 1 London had a wide range of religious institutions, befitting its role as a capital city (Barron and Davies, 2007). The six major institutions comprised collegiate churches priories and abbeys. The minster church of St Paul, with its college of secular canons, was founded in 604 by King Ethelbert of Kent, a convert of St Augustine, and the collegiate church of St Martin le Grand by Ingelric, a priest in royal service, in 1068. The Augustinian priory of St Bartholomew at Smithfield was founded by King Henry II in 1123–8, the Priory of Holy Trinity, Aldgate, by Queen Maud in 1107–8; the Benedictine nunnery of St Helen, Bishopsgate before 1216; and the Cistercian abbey of St Mary de Crucis in 1350. There were seven friaries, representing all the major orders, and the Knights Templar (established c.1128). There were also seven hospitals and a Domus Conversorum for converted Jews established in 1232. Just outside the city wall was the Carthusian priory of Charterhouse, established in 1371, and in Southwark there were the Austin canons of St Mary Overy (founded c.1107) and two additional hospitals (St Thomas’s hospital and a leper hospital). The heart of government was two miles west of the city in Westminster, where a large abbey was established on the north bank of the river (Rosser, 1989). Lambeth Palace, the London residence of the archbishops of Canterbury, lay due south on the opposite bank of the river. The country was governed from Westminster, although the chief prison, namely the Tower of London, was located adjacent to the city. Although very near to London, and a settlement rather than a borough, Westminster had its own local economy, with a market, fairs held by the church and the abbot, and a local population of merchants and craftsmen. It was depicted by Speed (2000: 114–15). In 1334 London was assessed at 14,667s (1,100 marks) for a fifteenth (it had obtained the privilege of paying a fifteenth rather than a tenth in 1327) (Glasscock, 1975). This was almost six times as much as the second-ranked town at the time, namely Newcastle-on-Tyne. In 1354 the town became one of ten English towns designated a staple for the export of wool. London grew rapidly during late fourteenth and fifteenth centuries as European immigrants flooded into the country, seeking refuge from war or religious persecution, or simply in search of economic opportunity. Although some immigrants were discouraged, or even excluded, from practising their crafts in certain parts of the city, they were usually able to settle in the suburbs or in provincial towns. The skills they imported into the country both directly and indirectly promoted trade, and, because of their familiarity with the continent, their presence served to further strengthen commercial ties with Europe (Bolton, 1998). Suburban development was significant. In her examination of the London suburbs of Aldgate, Aldersgate and Bishopsgate (to the north and east) during the fifteenth century, Berry (2018, 2019) showed that both high-status and low-status people called the suburbs home. She suggests that in the period 1370–1540 “rents were on average lower outside the walls” in London (Berry, 2019: 121). Motivations for suburban living varied. The lower rents may have been the main attraction for poor people. In some instances, these low rents may have had a charitable aspect. Religious institutions built rental properties in suburban alleyways, which enabled them to generate income but also may have allowed lower income groups to access

Town comparisons: Southern England part 1  57 affordable accommodation (Berry, 2019: 122). The elite may have been attracted to the suburbs because bigger properties were available. Some occupations also found suburban properties increasingly more convenient than city centre ones. As brewing scaled up to a full-time occupation undertaken by men, rather than a part-time one done by women in their home, brewers began to look for larger premises in the suburbs (Berry, 2019: 125–6). However, Berry also observed differences in the characteristics of the suburbs (2019: 124–8). Aldersgate was popular with high-status individuals because it was convenient for royal institutions, although they remained the minority in what was still a poor neighbourhood (Berry, 2019: 128). Bishopsgate was primarily a poor neighbourhood but contained a “minority” of “middling craftsmen and merchants” (Berry, 2019: 129). Aldgate was the residence of “a considerable number of artisans and traders of some prosperity” with the nearby East Smithfield especially popular with butchers (Berry, 2019: 219). Residents of Aldgate and Bishopsgate also owned property outside the city, which can be observed in the bequests made in their wills. In some cases these appear to have been butchers holding grazing land for their animals in Essex (Berry, 2019: 134). In 1524–5 London was divided into 24 wards and was assessed at 165,250s 1d (Sheail, 1998). The three richest wards were Cordwainer Street, Cheap and Langbourne. London was named by Paris (Paris and Trustees of the British Museum, 1928). It was shown on the Gough map as “four spired churches with crosses, two castles and wall with one gate” (The Gough Map of Great Britain, 2022). It was featured in Speed (2000: 78–9) and Braun and Hogenberg (2008: 24, 25, 46, 47, 50). Canterbury, East Kent. Roman civitas capital, cathedral with priory, pilgrimage centre, on the main road from London to Dover, local road hub, castle. Following the departure of the Romans, St Augustine brought Christianity back to the kingdom of Kent by re-establishing a church in Canterbury in 597 (Tatton-Brown, 1984; Wacher, 1966). This was on the initiative of Pope Gregory I, who appointed Roman clerics as Augustine’s successors. The archbishopric remained in Canterbury after a plan to move it to London failed. Following the martyrdom of St Alphege by the Vikings in 1012 and the subsequent martyrdom of Thomas Beckett in 1170, Canterbury became a major centre of pilgrimage and remains a major tourist destination to this day. It has a large cathedral complex, including an ancient school; its archbishop is head of the Anglican church worldwide (Brooks, 1984; Collinson, Ramsey and Sparks, 1995). The town is low-lying and surrounded by hills, particularly to the north (Topographic map, 2022). In medieval times it had defensive walls. The main road from London to the Kent coast, known as Watling Street (see previous discussion), bridges the River Great Stour (Kent) here. The town lies beyond the river’s tidal limit, so although the river was useful for irrigating land and powering mills, it was of little use for shipping. In c.928 King Athelstan ruled that there should be seven moneyers in the town (one less than in London but one more than Winchester). By the time of Domesday the town was a well-established borough with a mint (Open Domesday, 2022; Williams and Martin, 2002). In 1066 there were 263 burgesses, although only 51

58  Town comparisons: Southern England part 1 paid rent to the king, as other landlords also held property in the town. However, the king held sake and soke (the right to the profits of justice) over all of them. The archbishop held 12 burgesses and also 32 messuages which the clerks of the town held for their guild. The burgesses also had 45 messuages outside the city for which they received rent, although the king had sake and soke; this is suggestive of the speculative development of suburbs. In 1086 11 of the king’s burgages were waste and 21 others had been exchanged for burgages taken from the archbishop and the abbot for the building of the castle, leaving only 19 paying rent to the king. There were special arrangements to keep the roads into the city free of obstacles; the king’s reeve was to pursue those who violated the rules. A merchant guild existed by 1100, when it exchanged houses in the town with Christ Church priory (Urry, 1967: 385). In 1155–61 the town obtained a charter of privileges from Henry II, giving it freedom of toll throughout the country. In 1292–3 the citizens successfully pleaded before royal justices that Henry III had granted them a fee farm in perpetuity for £60 annually, together with the return of writs, the assizes of bread and ale, the pillory, tumbril, gallows, market and fair (Hasted, 1778–99: 9–14). They further claimed that these privileges had originally been granted by his grandfather, Henry I. In 1155 the town obtained a charter of privileges from Henry II, giving it freedom of toll throughout the country. In 1334 it was assessed for a tenth 959s for 250 persons and 240s for 18 moneyers, making a total of 1199s (Glasscock, 1975). In 1354 it became one of ten English towns designated a staple for the export of wool. There were many religious establishments and hospitals both inside and outside the town (Tatton-Brown, 1998). St Augustine’s abbey was founded in 598 by St Augustine (Fowler, 1926: 126–32). Christ Church cathedral priory seems to have its origins in the late tenth century but only became a formal monastic community after the Norman Conquest (Fowler, 1926: 113–20). Both were Benedictine establishments. Urry (1967) examined the rentals of Christ Church cathedral priory covering the period 1153–c.1206 and charters spanning c.1093–c.1236. He found that the priory obtained the majority of its portfolio within Canterbury by purchase rather than gift (Urry, 1967: 28). The monks received income from properties in London (Urry, 1967: 35). Urry identified two important milestones in the history of the priory’s property portfolio. The first was in 1153–67 when Prior Wibert extended the priory’s control over property in the north and east of Canterbury in order to remove “secular elements” that were between the priory and the city wall and establish a clear “frontier” for the priory precincts (Urry, 1967: 28). Prior Wibert also sought to increase the priory’s endowment, apparently by both building new houses on greenfield sites and by purchase (1967: 28). The second occurred in 1177 when residential property owned by St Augustine’s abbey and yielding an income of 20s 11d (the Benedictine monastery in Canterbury) was exchanged for land of an equivalent value owned by Christ Church (Urry, 1967: 30). Perhaps surprisingly, the land was then cleared of housing and incorporated into the monastic cemetery; contemporary documents say that this was a response to frequent fires in that area (Urry, 1967: 30).

Town comparisons: Southern England part 1  59 Mate (1984) then examined property investment undertaken by Christ Church in the period 1250–1400. She assessed the impact of the Statute of Mortmain of 1279 and of the Black Death in 1348 (Mate, 1984: 1). However, she also found the expulsion of Jewish communities in 1290 was an event that Henry de Eastry, prior of Christ Church, Canterbury from 1285 to 1331, took advantage of (Mate, 1984: 4). There was competition for the tenements in Canterbury, but the priory were able to acquire 13 of them (Mate, 1984: 4–5). From 1290 to 1332 “the convent began to expand and consolidate its other holdings within the city and suburbs of Canterbury by a judicious policy of new building, purchase and exchange” (Mate, 1984: 5). While construction cost money, that investment could be recouped from rental income (Mate, 1984: 5). However, the monks struggled to make money from their London and Southwark properties (Mate, 1984: 7). They also owned land, houses and customs tolls in Sandwich, although in c.1290 they transferred the customs duties to Edward I in exchange for property in Kent valued at £60 a year (the monks retained their land and houses in Sandwich) (Mate, 1984: 7–8). The priory also invested in grain mills and fulling mills (Mate, 1984: 9–10). Mate suggests that the level of activity post 1279 indicates that the Statute of Mortmain did not have a significant impact on the priory’s activities (Mate, 1984: 11). This seems to be partly because they used third parties to acquire the property for them (Mate, 1984: 15–16). However, there are some indications that they may have used leasing to a greater extent than previously (Mate, 1984: 11). In the 1320s the priory received a general licence to acquire properties, which was easier than having to obtain individual ones (Mate, 1984: 12). The priory seems to have benefitted from the aftermath of the Black Death, acquiring large amounts of land from sellers who are likely to have struggled with lack of labour and poor harvests in the 1350s (Mate, 1984: 17). The priory also invested in an inn in Canterbury in 1394 (Mate, 1984: 19–20). Subsequently the Benedictines were joined by other religious orders. The Franciscan friars arrived in 1224, the Dominicans in 1237, and the Austin friars before 1320. There were no less than six hospitals: St John the Baptist, Northgate, founded by 1089; St Laurence, founded 1137; St James, founded in the suburbs before 1164; St Thomas the Martyr, Eastbridge, founded before 1170; St Nicholas and St Katherine, founded before 1203; and St Mary of the Poor Priests, founded before 1225 (Lyle, 2002). Canterbury was a road hub in Roman times, where Watling Street divided into three arms serving different defended coastal ports. Its role as a local market centre was prominent in the medieval period and remains significant today. It served towns on the Kent coast all the way from Faversham to the northwest through Sandwich and Deal to the east to Dover and Folkestone to the south. It was also an important centre of elite consumption and of hospitality for pilgrims. The rich agricultural area around the town ensured that the wool and leather trades were important for the town’s medieval economy. Leland in 1540 was not, however, very impressed with Canterbury. He noted that the town was “walled and has five gates, namely Westgate, Northgate, Burgate, now called Mihelsgate, St George’s gate and Rider’s gate, which John Broker,

60  Town comparisons: Southern England part 1 mayor of the town, did so diminish that carts cannot for lowness pass through it”. He also noted 13 parish churches, with another three outside the walls (IV, 59). In 1524 it was assessed at 5156s (Sheail, 1998). Canterbury was depicted by Paris, while it was shown on the Gough map as a “spired church with two crosses, castle and walls with one gate” (The Gough Map of Great Britain, 2022; Paris and Trustees of the British Museum, 1928). It was featured in Speed (2000: 34–5) and Braun and Hogenberg (2008: 270). Rye, East Sussex. Fortified hill-top town on the English Channel with nearby harbour; Cinque Port; first bridging point; river hub and local road hub. Rye borders on Romney Marsh, providing rich grassland suitable for sheep. It is a defensive stronghold, controlling access to the Rother valley. It is the first bridging point on the River Rother, near its confluence with the rivers Brede and Tillingham. Roads radiate from Rye to the coastal towns of Hastings, Romney and Hythe and the inland towns of Hawkhurst and Tenterden. Rye may be the new borough at the manor of Rameslie mentioned in Domesday Book; from c.1017 it was held by the abbey of Fecamp in Normandy as the gift of King Cnut at the request of his wife Emma of Normandy, the widow of Aethelred the Unready (Letters, 2013; Murray, 1935; Open Domesday, 2022; Williams and Martin, 2002). There were already 64 burgesses by 1086. It briefly acquired a mint c.1100–50 (Allen, 2012). The core of the town was acquired by Henry II from the abbey in 1247. By 1300 there was a long-established parish church and two small friaries of the Augustinian Hermits and (briefly) the Friars of the Sack. In 1194 Richard I issued a charter for the fortification of the town with walls, which allowed the mayor and commonalty to hold the town from him for an annual payment of £20, which he then granted to Nicholas Rote, citizen and vintner of London. This suggests that there was a market from an earlier date; in 1404 markets were held by the mayor and commonalty on a Wednesday and Saturday (previously a Friday). An annual fair was held by the Hospital of St Bartholomew from the early thirteenth century (Letters, 2013). Despite the proximity of the port of Winchelsea, two miles west along the coast, there seems to have been much co-operation between the towns; for example, Winchelsea held its market on a Thursday and therefore avoided any clash with Rye (Letters, 2013). Winchelsea was much the bigger port in the thirteenth century; in 1204 it paid the Exchequer about one-sixth the amount paid by Winchelsea, and in 1267 its fish catch was about one-sixth that at Winchelsea. The two towns joined the Cinque Ports as limbs of Hastings in c.1190, but Rye did not become a full member until 1336 (Murray, 1935). The privileges of the Cinque Ports extended to all the member towns in general rather than to any in particular, and so it was the policy of the Crown towards the Cinque Ports in general that determined the trading privileges held by the men of Rye (Dell, 1962). In anticipation of French aggression, a castle was built c.1300. The town was, indeed, attacked by the French, who burned parts of it down on two occasions. In response to this, town walls were rebuilt, financed by murage. The town was also threatened with coastal erosion, but this was not so severe as at neighbouring Old Winchelsea, which was swept away and rebuilt in 1295 on a more elevated site nearby (Letters, 2013).

Town comparisons: Southern England part 1  61 Prior to 1247 the Abbot of Fecamp allowed the townsmen to transfer property without charge in return for 400d yearly and the burgage rents. He also took a share of the proceeds of their fishing catches. After 1247 the town was let out at farm to private individuals by the king, and from 1275 the revenues went to the Queen Mother (Holloway, 1847; Martin and Martin, 2009). Rye was an important fishing port, with a local fish market that exported to surrounding towns, including London. It was an important source of local salt and also traded Wealden iron from the hills northwest of the town, which were accessible by the Rother valley. It had a shipbuilding industry and imported wine and other luxury goods. In the Hundred Years War it contributed a significant proportion of the total fleet of the Cinque Ports (Holloway, 1847; Martin and Martin, 2009). By the sixteenth century, however, the silt that created the marsh was beginning to obstruct the river, although ships could still put into port. The problem was much worse at Winchelsea, however, where ships could not even get near to the coast — a problem aggravated by the move to larger ships with a deeper draught. Rye began to boom as trade switched from Winchelsea. The imposition of tariffs on trade also provided new commercial opportunities for the town. The beaches nearby were convenient for smugglers, and so the town continued to prosper so long as customs charges remained high; indeed, rumours of hidden passages between the smugglers’ inns persist to this day. In a forced loan of 1543 Rye was assessed at £100 out of a total of £170 for all Cinque ports, and £1,225 for Sussex as a whole; the town was nearing the peak of its “Tudor boom” (Mayhew, 1987). Rye was portrayed by Paris and appeared on the Gough map as “a spired church with cross” (The Gough Map of Great Britain, 2022; (Paris and Trustees of the British Museum, 1928). Dover, East Kent. Channel port, head of the Cinque Ports, important castle. Dover is located on the estuary of a minor river, the Dour, which silted up. The town’s importance stems from a famous ridge of white cliffs overlooking the English Channel to the east of the town on which its castle stands. The Romans, Jutes, Anglo-Saxons and Vikings all seem to have recognised the strategic importance of the site. The Normans built the present castle and also rebuilt the town that they had burnt at the time of their invasion. By 1086 the town was a borough and the burgesses had a guildhall. A mint is recorded from c.973; it was doubtless used to pay troops and to procure local supplies (Allen, 2012). Dover is the first town mentioned in the Domesday Book, highlighting its strategic importance to the Norman kings (Open Domesday, 2022; Williams and Martin, 2002). It reports that before the conquest King Edward held the town; it was valued at £18, with Earl Godwine receiving the third penny. The canons of St Martins Priory, originally founded in the seventh century, held considerable property in and around in the town. During the Conquest the town was burned down, but by 1086 it had recovered; it generated £54, collected by the king’s reeve, of which the king received £30 and the earl £24. The canons of St Martins held the tolls of the town, valued at £22 in 1086, and also three churches in the town.

62  Town comparisons: Southern England part 1 The burgesses supplied 20 ships to the king, each with 21 men, for 15 days per year, and the king’s messengers paid 3d per horse (2d in summer) for passage to France (Knocker, 1879; Open Domesday, 2022; Williams and Martin, 2002). After the Conquest the constable of Dover Castle became the Lord Warden of the Cinque Ports (Murray, 1935). Dover had good road connections to London and was a key port of embarkation for pilgrims and religious leaders travelling to Rome; local hospitality was provided by both religious houses and the keepers of inns and taverns. It was, however, just one of many Channel ports that handled freight (Knocker, 1879). The growth of other ports in Kent and along the Channel coast seems to have damaged Dover’s trade. In 1540 Leland found it somewhat decayed: “it had been right strongly walled and embattled, but now it is partly fallen down … The town is divided into six parishes, whereof three be under one roof at St Martins in the heart of the town” (IV, 49–50). Only the castle appeared to be in good condition. In 1524 only aliens were assessed, owing to the privileges of a head Cinque Port; it was therefore assessed at only 398s (Sheail, 1998). Dover was named by Matthew Paris (Paris and Trustees of the British Museum, 1928). It was depicted on the Gough map as a “single building with two castles” (The Gough Map of Great Britain, 2022). Maldon, Essex. First bridging point on the River Chelmer, river hub and local road hub. Maldon is situated downstream from the confluence of the River Chelmer and the River Blackwater at a point where the Blackwater broadens out into a wide estuary (Lloyd, 1989: 137). The medieval town lay on a spur of high ground projecting out into the river valley (Alsford, 2022c). The river is tidal and navigable up to Maldon. The town has road connections to Colchester, Chelmsford and Burnham-on-Crouch. The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle states that the burh of Maldon was founded by King Edward the Elder (son of Alfred the Great) in 916, apparently for defensive purposes (Alsford, 2022c; Whitelock, Douglas and Tucker, 1961). It was captured by the Vikings in 991, but they took tribute rather than ransack the town (the battle is the subject of a famous Old English ballad). It was a borough by the tenth century, and already, it would seem, a significant port. In 1086 the king was lord of Maldon, which was rated at 50 hides (Open Domesday, 2022; Williams and Martin, 2002). The king held 180 houses, occupied by burgesses, and 18 derelict messuages. The town owed the service of a horse and the building of a ship, and paid £20 for a mint, which was active 924–39 and c.973–c.1100 (Letters, 2013). Property was divided between several lords: Swein held a half hundred and Ranulf Peverel six hides, and there were also two free men holding 10 acres. But by 1400 town property was largely held from the bishop of London. A market is recorded in 1287 but presumably existed from a much earlier date. There were three parish churches, All Saints, St Peter’s and St Mary’s, spread across the two parts of the town — Great Maldon to the east and Little Maldon to  the west (Alsford, 2022c). Beeleigh abbey was established nearby by the Premonstratensians in 1180 and held two churches in the town. The leper hospital

Town comparisons: Southern England part 1  63 of St Giles was founded outside the town in c.1164, and a Carmelite friary, which accommodated several notable scholars during its lifetime, was founded in 1292. In 1334 Great and Little Maldon were jointly assessed for a fifteenth at 187s (Glasscock, 1975). In 1403 the bishop of London delegated jurisdiction over the town to the burgesses and their bailiffs, introducing an unusual form of property taxation known as “landchepe”. By 1500 it was one of the three leading towns in Essex, together with Colchester and Thaxted, and one of only two to regularly return two members of Parliament. In 1524 the town was assessed at 1,430s (Sheail, 1998). In 1554 the town became incorporated (Petchey, 1991). Maldon prospered because of its cloth production and fishing industry, its easy access to London by sea and road, and its role as a local market centre for the coastal towns and villages nearby (Alsford, 2022c). Maldon was depicted on the Gough map as a “single building” (The Gough Map of Great Britain, 2022). Rochester, Kent. First bridging point on the River Medway where Watling Street, the main road from London to Canterbury and Dover, crosses the river, cathedral, castle. The town lies on an inlet from the south bank of the River Thames, sheltered from the main current by the Isle of Grain and the Isle of Sheppey. The town is built on high ground projecting into the Medway estuary two miles west of Chatham (Topographic map, 2022). The Romans built a fort and a bridge at Rochester, possibly a pontoon bridge to begin with and then a later structure with stone piers supporting a wooden superstructure. The bridge has been rebuilt several times since then (Becker, 1930). Shortly after St Augustine arrived in Canterbury (see previous discussion), he established a bishopric at Rochester, suggesting that the town was of strategic importance at this time. There were turbulent times in Kent before the Norman Conquest, but Rochester managed to survive. In 885 the town was besieged by Vikings but was relieved by King Alfred of Wessex. The town was a borough by c.928, when King Aethelstan ruled that there should be three moneyers, namely two for the king and one for the bishop (by comparison there were eight in London, and no more than two in most other towns) (Becker, 1930). The town is described as a city in Domesday, in parity with Canterbury; nevertheless, it was valued at a mere £5 in 1066 (Open Domesday, 2022; Williams and Martin, 2002). In 1086, however, it was valued at £20 and actually paid £40, which suggests growing prosperity, possibly derived from the rebuilding of the castle and increasing road traffic. The bishop held 14 manors, plus 80 messuages in the town itself, which were the properties of two of his manors; other properties in the town were held by the bishop of Bayeux and Albert the Chaplain. The rebuilt castle was granted to the archbishop of Canterbury by Henry I; it was the scene of civil war battles in 1215 and 1264. A cathedral was commenced c.1100, although its secular canons were not particularly wealthy. In 1334 it was assessed for a tenth at 232s (Glasscock, 1975). The town seems to have thrived mainly on account of its strategic position on Watling Street and the hospitality provided to the many travellers, messengers and pilgrims passing through. The bridge also funnelled local traffic through the town.

64  Town comparisons: Southern England part 1 In 1524 it was assessed at 1,191s (Sheail, 1998). Rochester was included by Paris (Paris and Trustees of the British Museum, 1928). The Gough map depicted Rochester as a “single building, spired church with cross, castle and walls with two gates” (The Gough Map of Great Britain, 2022). It is depicted by Speed (2000: 100–1). Chichester, Sussex. Roman town; first bridging point on the River Lavant and major road hub; cathedral, castle. Chichester lies near to the Channel Coast. North of Chichester are the South Downs, with a pass due north of the town used by a road to Midhurst. South of Chichester are areas of marshland around the coast. Traditionally, Chichester was the “capital” of Sussex, but Lewes, to the east, was the county town and centre of administration. The River Lavant flows through the town and into Fishbourne Creek, which in turn flows into the Channel. The river is small and non-navigable but suitable for mill power. Chichester Quay is about a mile southwest of the town at Dell Quay, where the river enters the creek. In the medieval period large ships could use the harbour, but since then the creek has silted up (Green, 2011a, 2011b; Morgan, 1992). The town was an important Roman road hub: Stane Street served London via Pulborough and Dorking, another road ran north to Silchester near Reading, and a coast road through the town connected Pevensey to the east with Bitterne (near Southampton) to the west. The Roman city wall survived for many years until it was replaced in Georgian times (Down, 1988). A cathedral was founded in 681 at nearby Selsey, and the bishopric translated to Chichester in 1087. In 894 the men of Chichester defended West Sussex against marauding Vikings: according to the Anglo–Saxon Chronicle, “the town-dwellers put them to flight, killed many hundreds of them, and seized some of their ships” (Whitelock, Douglas and Tucker, 1961). The town was rated in the Burghal Hidage at 1,500 hides, suggesting that it was regarded as a strategic defensive site (Hill, 1969). In c.928 King Athelstan ruled that there should be a moneyer in the town. The king and several Anglo-Saxon lords held various parts of the town. By the early tenth century there was a borough with a mint and one moneyer; the mint survived until c.1247 (Allen, 2012). A castle was built shortly after the Conquest. Domesday reports that in 1066 there were 97.5 closes in the town, and three crofts, which together rendered 48s 11d to the king, suggesting an annual rent of 6d (Open Domesday, 2022; Williams and Martin, 2002). By 1086 the city was in the hands of Earl Roger; there were 60 additional houses on the same messuages, together with a mill. This suggests that plots in the town had been laid out before the Conquest and were being built upon either by those who originally held them or by people who had acquired the messuages from them. In 1066 the town rendered £15, with the earl taking the third penny; by 1086 it was worth £25 but rendered £35. This suggests a successful Norman programme of property development. The town followed the Roman plan with walls and four gates. There was a gaol over the east gate. The principal streets met at a crossroads in the middle with a market place (later partly infilled) northeast of the cross; the cathedral occupied the

Town comparisons: Southern England part 1  65 southwest quarter behind the shop frontages (Munby, 1984). From c.1107 an October fair was held in the town by the bishop, lasting eight days. In 1155 the town, along with several others, obtained a charter of privileges from Henry II, giving it freedom of toll throughout the country. A market is recorded in 1227 but presumably existed from a much earlier date. In addition to a general market, a weekly cattle market was also held in the town (Green, 2011a, 2011b; Letters, 2013). By the mid-twelfth century much of the town was held by the Earl of Arundel. In 1316, however, the citizens obtained the fee farm of the town. Previously the town had been held at farm from the king by various members of the nobility, who had control of the town, but from then on the burgesses controlled the town even though the king occasionally granted the receipt of the farm to other people. Eventually the farm was purchased outright by the corporation (Green, 2011a; Morgan, 1992). In 1334 the town was assessed for a tenth at 440s (Glasscock, 1975). In 1354 it became one of ten English towns designated a staple for the export of wool. Medieval Chichester had six churches in addition to the cathedral, two friaries (Dominican and Franciscan), and five hospitals, including a leper hospital (Green, 2020). It appears to have had strong commercial links with London and was sometimes described as “Little London”. Its quayside had an extensive cross-Channel trade, exporting wool and importing luxury items. When the wool trade declined in the sixteenth century, it switched to a coastal trade in local malt. In 1524 it was assessed at 1,249s (Sheail, 1998). The wealthiest wards were North, West and East Streets, in that order. Chichester was named by Paris (Paris and Trustees of the British Museum, 1928). It appeared on the Gough map as “two buildings and spired church with cross” (The Gough Map of Great Britain, 2022). It was depicted by Speed, who noted that it was “beautiful and large” (Speed, 2000: 40–1). Lewes, Sussex. Fortified county town, religious centre, castle, bridging point on the River Ouse and road hub. This county town lies on the side of a hill that projects into the valley of the Ouse, which enters the sea at Newhaven. There is a castle on the hill top, with a suburb in the valley near the site of a priory. The main road from London to Newhaven once passed through the town, where it intersected a cross-country road serving neighbouring Channel ports. The river bridge is ancient, having been repaired as early as 1159; there was probably a wharf beside the bridge. Later the Grey Friars (arrived 1241) occupied a site nearby. Shortly after Sussex was annexed by Wessex, King Egbert gave the estate of East Malling, opposite Lewes, to the archbishop of Canterbury. Subsequently Lewes was fortified by Alfred the Great and was rated at 1300 hides in the Burghal Hidage. In c.928 King Athelstan ruled that there should two moneyers in the town. After the Conquest William rewarded his retainer William de Warenne, Earl of Surrey, one of the few Norman landowners to have fought alongside the king in 1066, with a substantial set of lands in and around the Rape of Pevensey, which included the town. The Warenne dynasty were responsible for augmenting the castle built by King William on the Anglo-Saxon site. The Rape had its own sheriff who collected money owing to the Earl, independently of any money collected by the county sheriff appointed by the king (Midgley, 1940).

66  Town comparisons: Southern England part 1 In 1066 there were 127 burgesses in the borough (Open Domesday, 2022; Williams and Martin, 2002). It was probably a river port of some importance, as schypfyrd was paid to the king. If a fleet of ships put to sea on the king’s orders, then 20s would be raised from each property owner and the money given to the armed men on the ships. There was a mint c.973–c.1180, and the moneyers paid 20s for new dies (Allen, 2012; Letters, 2013). The horse trade was taxed, with 1d each being paid by buyer and seller. In cases of adultery both the man and the woman were fined; the man’s payment went to the king and the woman’s to the archbishop of Canterbury (who held 28 houses in the town). The value of gable, or burgage rents, exceeded £6. By 1086 William de Warenne was lord, and the value of the town had increased from £6 to £8 annually. In c.1267 the earl taxed each of his knights £5 to fund the walling of the town; this was probably a response to the capture of the town in the barons’ revolt of 1265. The burgesses of the town do not appear to have been taxed for this purpose. Two early suburbs were Southover, outside the gate of St Pancras Priory (as mentioned previously), and Cliffe on the opposite side of the river and outside the Rape. There were four churches whose parishes included parts of the town (Sharp and Midgley, 1940). When the market was opened the earl had first choice, the prior of St Pancras second choice (over wood, flesh and fish) and ordinary townspeople third choice. The market was probably held outside the church of St Mary-in-Foro, although a new market house was built in 1564. There is evidence of a fair in the fifteenth century, although there is no surviving charter (Sharp and Midgley, 1940). In 1334 the town was assessed for a tenth at 81s, which is a modest sum compared to its rival Chichester (Glasscock, 1975). In 1524, however, it was assessed at 852s which, though still lower than for Chichester, was lower by a much smaller proportion than before (Sheail, 1998). Overall, Lewes seems to have successful as a local market town. The area around was not very populous, and so its role as an administrative centre was crucial. There was rivalry with Chichester over which should be the county town, as both held assizes from time to time; the matter was finally laid to rest when Sussex was partitioned in 1888, and this was confirmed in 1974. Lewes appeared on the Gough map as “two buildings, spired church with cross and castle” (The Gough Map of Great Britain, 2022). Hastings, Sussex. Fortified fishing port on the coast south of the iron-rich High Weald, located where two small streams ran into the sea on either side of the town. The town was captured by King Offa of Mercia in 771 and later absorbed into the kingdom of Wessex. The town was rated at 500 hides in the Burghal Hidage (Hill, 1969). This figure appears to represent its military significance as a defensible port rather than its economic value. The ports of Pevensey and the administrative centre of Eastbourne seem to have been larger at the time. In the laws of Athelstan c.928 it is recognised as a town with a single moneyer (Baines, 1955). When William the Conqueror landed in Britain, he built castles at Dover, Pevensey and Hastings to consolidate his control of the English Channel. In Domesday Hastings is referred to as a “new borough” in the manor of Rye, founded in 1069 (Open Domesday, 2022; Williams and Martin, 2002). It had four burgesses

Town comparisons: Southern England part 1  67 and 14 bordars paying 63s. Robert of Eu held 2.5 hides in Rye manor and became lord of the new borough. There was a mint c.978–c.1154 (Allen, 2012). Hastings castle was built on a sandstone cliff overlooking the present town, and in 1287 part of the cliff fell into the sea, taking some of the castle with it. Perhaps because its defences had been weakened, the town was attacked by the French in 1339 and again in 1377 (Baines, 1955). Hastings was one of the five head ports of the Cinque Ports and had a number of subsidiary ports under its control (Murray, 1935). In 1155 a charter required the head ports collectively to provide 57 ships for 15 days service annually, in return for tax exemptions and legal privileges. The town was entitled to send two representatives to Parliament. An account of England authorised by Roger II, Count of Sicily, in c.1153 described the town as “considerable, very populous, with many buildings road and industries, and a rich commerce next to the coast”. In 1267 the dynasty of Norman lords came to an end and the town escheated to the Crown (Baines, 1955). A prebendary college of St Mary was founded at the castle by Robert of Eu c.1090, and sometime later, in the reign of Richard I, an Augustinian priory was founded too. By 1294 there was a hospital of St Mary Magdalen, which seems to have been a civic enterprise controlled by the bailiffs (Baines, 1955). Hastings was a fishing port rather than a conventional trading port; it had no natural harbour but just a shingle beach. Its proximity to Brede High Woods and the High Weald provided opportunities for iron-working, while the port provided jobs in shipbuilding. It also became a lucrative centre of the smuggling trade — particularly in times of war. It seems to have declined from the fifteenth century onwards, however, until revived as a seaside resort in the nineteenth century. Hastings was portrayed by Matthew Paris (Paris and Trustees of the British Museum, 1928). It was depicted on the Gough map as a “spired church” (The Gough Map of Great Britain, 2022).

References Allen, J., C. Henderson and R. Higham (1984) Saxon exeter. In: J. Haslam (ed.) Anglo– Saxon Towns in Southern England. Chichester, Phillimore, pp. 385–414. Allen, M. (2012) Mints and Money in Medieval England. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press. Alsford, S. (2022a) ca. 930: Cricklade. Available from: http://users.trytel.com/~tristan/ towns/market/wiltshire/cricklade.html [Accessed 15 January 2022]. Alsford, S. (2022b) Maintaining the cleanliness of natural watercourses. Available from: http:// users.trytel.com/~tristan/towns/florilegium/community/cmfabr22.html#p23 [Accessed 15 January 2022]. Alsford, S. (2022c) ca. 930 Maldon. Available from: http://users.trytel.com/~tristan/towns/ market/essex/maldon.html [Accessed 15 January 2022]. Alsford, S. (2022d) Malmesbury. Available from: http://users.trytel.com/~tristan/towns/ market/wiltshire/malmesbury.html [Accessed 15 January 2022]. Alsford, S. (2022e) New Salisbury. Available from: http://users.trytel.com/~tristan/towns/ market/wiltshire/salisbury.html [Accessed 15 January 2022].

68  Town comparisons: Southern England part 1 Alsford, S. (2022f) Old Sarum. Available from: http://users.trytel.com/~tristan/towns/ market/wiltshire/sarum.html [Accessed 15 January 2022]. Baggs, A.P., J. Freeman and J.H. Stevenson (1991) Parishes: malmesbury. In: D.A. Crowley (ed.) A History of the County of Wiltshire, Vol. 14, Malmesbury Hundred. Victoria County History, London, pp. 127–68. Bailey, D.S. (1982) The Canonical Houses of Wells. Gloucester, A. Sutton. Bailey, D.S. (1985) Wells Manor of Canon Grange. Gloucester, A. Sutton. Bainbridge, V. (2011a) Introduction: cricklade and environs. In: V. Bainbridge (ed.) A History of the County of Wiltshire, Vol. 18. Boydell, Woodbridge, pp. 1–12. Bainbridge, V. (2011b) Cricklade — Cricklade Borough. In: V. Bainbridge (ed.) A History of the County of Wiltshire, Vol. 18. Boydell, Woodbridge, pp. 20–70. Bainbridge, V. (2011c) Cricklade — introduction. In: V. Bainbridge (ed.) A History of the County of Wiltshire, Vol. 18. Boydell, Woodbridge, pp. 13–20. Baines, J.M. (1955) Historic Hastings. Hastings, F.J, Parsons. Baker, J. and Brookes, S. (2013) Beyond the Burghal Hideage: Anglo–Saxon Civil Defence in the Viking Age. Leiden, Brill. Ballard, A. (1904) The Domesday Boroughs. Oxford, Clarendon Press. Barlow, F. (1976) The Winton Domesday. In: M. Biddle (ed.) Winchester in the Early Middle Ages. Oxford, Oxford University Press, pp. 1–142. Barron, C.M. (2004) London in the Later Middle Ages: Government and People 1200–1500. Oxford, Oxford University Press. Barron, C.M. and M. Davies (eds.) (2007) The Religious Houses of London and Middlesex. London, Centre for Metropolitan Studies and the Victoria County History. Barrowman, R.C., C.E. Batey and C.D. Morris (2007) Excavations at Tintagel Castle, Cornwall, 1990–1999. London, Society of Antiquaries of London. Becker, J. (1930) Rochester Bridge: 1387–1856. London, Constable. Berry, C. (2019) Locating marginality in the city: the extramural neighbourhoods of fifteenth century London. In: P. Clark and D. Menjot (eds.) Subaltern City?: Alternative and Peripheral Urban Spaces in the Pre-modern Period (Thirteenth–Eighteenth Centuries). Turnhout, Belgium, pp. 113–36. Berry, C. (2018) Margins and Marginalty in Fifteenth Century London. University of London PhD thesis. Biddle, M. (2017a) Collapse and survival: fifth to mid ninth centuries. In: M. Biddle and D.  Keene (eds.) British Historic Towns Atlas Winchester. Historic Towns Trust and The Winchester Excavations, pp. 20–5. Biddle, M. (2017b) Planned town and ‘early capital’: mid ninth century to 1066. In: M. Biddle and D. Keene (eds.) British Historic Towns Atlas Winchester. Oxford, Historic Towns Trust and The Winchester Excavations, pp. 26–37. Biddle, M. and D.J. Keene (1976a) General survey and conclusions. In: M. Biddle (ed.) Winchester in the Early Middle Ages. Oxford, Oxford University Press, pp. 449–508. Biddle, M. and D.J. Keene (1976b) Winchester in the eleventh and twelfth centuries. In: M.  Biddle (ed.) Winchester in the Early Middle Ages. Oxford, Oxford University Press, pp. 241–448. Binkley, P. (2004) Avranches, Henry d’ (d. 1262/3), poet. Available from: Oxford Dictionary of National Biography https://doi.org/10.1093/ref:odnb/37529 [Accessed 18 November 2021]. Bolton, J. (1998) The Alien Communities of London in the Fifteenth Century: The Subsidy Rolls of 1440 and 1483–4. Stamford, Richard III & Yorkist History Trust in association with Paul Watkins. Box, D. (2007). Malmesbury Borough. Malmesbury, Warden and Freemen of Malmesbury.

Town comparisons: Southern England part 1  69 Boyer, M.N. (1976) Medieval French Bridges: A History. Cambridge, MA, Medieval Academy of Amercia. Braun, G. and F. Hogenberg (ed. S. Füssel) (2008) Civitatis Orbis Terrarum: Cities of the World. Taschen, Cologne. Britnell, R. (ed.) (2008) Records of the Borough of Crossgate, Durham, 1313–1531. Durham, Surtees Society. Brooks, N. (1964) The unidentified forts of the Burghal Hidage. Medieval Archaeology. 8 (1), 74–90. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1080/00766097.1964.11735675 Brooks, N. (1984) The Early History of the Church of Canterbury. Leicester, Leicester University Press. Butcher, A.F. (1979) Rent and the urban economy: Oxford and Canterbury in the later middle Ages. Southern History. 1, pp. 11–43. Chandler, J. (1983) Endless Street: A History of Salisbury and Its People. Salisbury, Hobnob Press. Chandler, J. (2003) A Higher Reality: The History of Shaftesbury’s Royal Nunnery. East Knoyle, Hobnob Press. Cobb, H.S. (1990) The Overseas Trade of London: Exchequer Customs Accounts, 1480–1. London, London Record Society. Colchester, L.S. (1987) Wells Cathedral. London, Unwin Hyman. Colgrave, B. and R.A.B. Mynors (eds.) (1969) Bede’s Ecclesiastical History of the English People. Oxford, Clarendon Press. Collinson, P., N. Ramsey and M. Sparks (eds.) (1995) A History of Canterbury Cathedral. Oxford, Oxford University Press. Conner, P.W. (1993) Anglo–Saxon Exeter: A Tenth–Century Cultural History. Boydell, Woodbridge. Cox, J.C. (1903) Religious houses, In: H.A. Doubleday and W. Page (eds.) A History of the County of Hampshire, Vol. 2. London, Institute of Historical Research, pp. 108–15. Cunliffe, B. (1982) Britain, the Veneti and beyond. Oxford Journal of Archaeology. 1 (1), 39–68. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0092.1982.tb00298.x Cunliffe, B. (1984) Saxon Bath. In: J. Haslam (ed.) Anglo–Saxon Towns in Southern England. Chichester, Phillimore, pp. 345–58. Cunliffe, B. (1986) The City of Bath.Alan Sutton, Stroud. Davis, R.H.C. (1968) An Oxford charter of 1191 and the beginnings of municipal freedom. Oxoniensa. 33, 53–67. Available from: https://oxoniensia.org/volumes/1968/davis.pdf Dell, R.F. (ed.) (1962) The Records of Rye Corporation: A Catalogue. East Sussex County Council, Lewes. Down, A. (1988) Roman Chichester. Chichester, Phillimore. Dyer, A. (2000) Ranking lists of English medieval towns. In: D.M. Palliser (ed.) The Cambridge Urban History of Britain, Vol. I, 600–1540. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, pp. 747–70. Dyson, T. and J. Schofield (1984) Saxon London. In: J. Haslam (ed.) Anglo–Saxon Towns in Southern England. Chichester, Phillimore, pp. 315–30. Elliot, J. (2017) Braun and Hogenberg and after: the town plans of the seventeenth century. Available from: https://www.bl.uk/picturing–places/articles/braun–and–hogenberg–and–after–the– town–plans–of–the–17th–century [Accessed 1 March 2022]. Elliot Binns, E. (1955) Medieval Cornwall. London, Methuen. English Heritage (2022) Tintagel castle. Available from: https://www.english-heritage.org. uk/visit/places/tintagel-castle/ [Accessed 2 January 2022]. Featherstone Harrison, D. (2004) The Bridges of Medieval England: Transport and Society, 400–1800. Oxford, Clarendon Press.

70  Town comparisons: Southern England part 1 Fenwick, C. C. (1998–2005) The Poll Taxes of 1377, 1379 and 1381, Part 1: Bedfordshire– Leicestershire; Part 2, Lincolnshire–Westmoreland, Part 3: Wiltshire–Yorkshire. Oxford, Oxford University Press for the British Academy. Fowler, R.C. (1926) Religious houses. In: W. Page (ed.) A History of the County of Kent, Vol. 2. London, Archibald Constable and Company Ltd., pp. 112–242. Furley, J.S. (1923) The City Government of Winchester. Oxford, Clarendon Press. Furley, J.S. (1927) The Ancient Usages of the City of Winchester. Oxford, Clarendon Press. Gatehouse gazetteer (2022a) Malmesbury town defences. Available from: http://www. gatehouse-gazetteer.info/English%20sites/3642.html. [Accessed 15 January 2022]. Gatehouse gazetteer (2022b) Shaftesbury abbey. Available from: http://www.gatehousegazetteer.info/English%20sites/4225.html [Accessed 15 January 2022]. Gerhold, D. (2021) London Bridge and Its Houses, c. 1209–1761. Oxford, Oxbow Books. Glasscock, R.E. (ed.) (1975) The Lay Subsidy of 1334. London, Oxford University Press for the British Academy. Google Maps (2022) Available from: https://www.google.com/maps/ [Accessed 10 January 2022]. Green, A.J.H. (2011a) Cattle, Corn and Crawfish: 900 Years of Chichester’s Markets. Andover, Phillimore. Green, K. (2011b) Chichester: An Illustrated History. Derby, Derby Books, 2nd ed. Green, A.J.H. (2020) The Five Little Churches of Chichester. Chichester, St Paul’s Church Heritage Festival. Gross, C. (1927) The Gild Merchant, 2 vols. London, Oxford University Press, 2nd ed. Hammer, C.I. (1976) The mobility of skilled labour in late medieval England: some Oxford evidence. Vierteljahrschaft für Sozial– und Wirtschaftgeschichte. 63, 194–201. Harding, V. and L. Wright (1995) London Bridge: Selected Accounts and Rentals, 1381–1538. London, London Record Society. Harvey, H.M. (1999) Exeter Past. Chichester, Phillimore. Haskins, C. (1912) The Ancient Trade Guilds and Companies of Salisbury. Bennett Brothers, Salisbury. Haslam, J. (1984) The towns of Wiltshire. In: J. Haslam (ed.) Anglo-Saxon Towns in Southern England. Chichester, Phillimore, pp. 87–148. Haslam, J. (2017) The articulation of burgages and streets in early medieval towns, part 2. Landscape History. 38 (2), 5–27. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1080/01433768.2017. 1394058 Haslam, J. (2021) The wall tenements of Oxford in Domesday Book, and the process of burghal formation. Oxoniensa. 86, 47–62. Available from: http://oxoniensia.org/oxo_ volume.php?vol=86. Hasted, E. (1778–99) The History and Topographical Survey of the County of Kent, Vol. 4. Canterbury, The author. Available from: http://www.british-history.ac.uk/survey-kent/ vol4/pp308-324. Henderson, C.G. (1981) Exeter. In G. Milne and B. Hobley (eds.) Waterfront Archaeology in Britain and Northern Europe. CBA Research Report Number 41, pp. 119–22. Available from: https://doi.org/10.5284/1000332. Hill, D. (1969) The Burghal Hidage: the establishment of a text. Journal of Medieval Archaeology. 13, pp. 84–92. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1080/00766097.1969.117 35316 Historical Manuscripts Commission (1872) Third Report. London, Eyre and Spottiswoode. Holloway, W. (1847) History and Antiquities of the Ancient Port and Town of Rye. London, John Russell Smith. Hunt, W. (ed.) (1907) Two Chartularies of the Priory of St Peter at Bath. London, Somerset Record Society.

Town comparisons: Southern England part 1  71 Innes, B. (1992) Shaftesbury: An Illustrated History. Stourbridge, Dovecote Press. Keene, D. (1985) Survey of Medieval Winchester, 2 vols. Oxford, Clarendon Press. Keene, D. (2004) Colechurch, Peter of (d. 1205), organizer of the rebuilding of London Bridge. Available from: Oxford Dictionary of National Biography. https://doi.org/10.1093/ ref:odnb/5868 [Accessed 21 Devcember 2021]. Kelly, S.E. (ed.) (1996) Charters of Shaftesbury Abbey. Oxford, Oxford University Press for the British Academy. Kelly, S.E. (ed.) (2005) Charters of Malmesbury Abbey. Oxford, Oxford University Press for the British Academy. Kelly, S.E. (ed.) (2007) Charters of Bath and Wells. Oxford, Oxford University Press for the British Academy. Knocker, E. (1879) A Lecture on the Archives of the Cinque Port and Borough of Dovor. Dover: The ‘Standard’ Office. Kowaleski, M. (1995) Local Markets and Regional Trade in Medieval Exeter. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Lamplugh, L. (1983) Barnstaple: Town on the Taw. Chichester, Phillimore. Letters, S. (2013) Gazetteer of Markets and Fairs in England and Wales to 1516. Available from: https://archives.history.ac.uk/gazetteer/gazweb2.html [Accessed 20 September 2021]. Lilley, K.D., C.D. Lloyd and B.M.S. Campbell (2009). Mapping the realm: a new look at the Gough Map of Britain (c.1360). Imago Mundi. 61 (1), 1–28. Available from: http:// www.jstor.org/stable/40234191. Lloyd, D.W. (1989) Historic Towns of East Anglia. London, Victor Gollancz Ltd and Peter Crawley. Luce, R.H. (1979) The History of the Abbey and Town of Malmesbury. Malmesbury, Friends of the Abbey. Lyle, M. (2002) Canterbury: 2000 Years of History. Stroud, Tempus. MacLean, J. (1870) Parochial and Family History of the Parish and Borough of Bodmin. London, Nichols and Son. Martin, D. and B. Martin (2009) Rye Rebuilt. Domtom for the Romney Marsh Research Trust, Romney Marsh. Mate, M. (1984) Property investment by Canterbury cathedral priory 1250–1400. Journal of British Studies. 23, pp. 1–21. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1086/385815 Mayhew, G. (1987) Tudor Rye. Falmer, University of Sussex. Mayo, C.H. (1889) The Municipal Records of the Borough of Shaftesbury. Sherborne, J.C. Sawtell. Midgley, M. (1940) The rape and honour of Lewes. In: L.F. Salzman (ed.) A History of the County of Sussex, Vol. 7 the Rape of Lewes. London, Archibald Constable, pp. 1–6. Milne, G. (2003) The Port of Medieval London. Stroud, Tempus. Miller, S. (ed.) (2001) Charters of the New Minster, Winchester. Oxford, Oxford University Press for the British Academy. Moffat, J.M. (1805) The History of the Town of Malmesbury and of Its Ancient Abbey. Tetbury, J.G. Goodwin. Morgan, R.R. (1992) Chichester: A Documentary History. Chichester, Phillimore. Morris, F.M., E. Thomas and B. Clayre (2017) Provincial city in decline: 1300 to 1642. In: M. Biddle and D. Keene (eds.), British Historic Towns Atlas Winchester. Oxford, Historic Towns Trust and The Winchester Excavations, pp. 48–54. Munby, J. (1984) Saxon Chichester and its predecessors. In: J. Haslam (ed.) Anglo-Saxon Towns in Southern England. Chichester, Phillimore, pp. 315–30. Murray, K.M.E. (1935) The Constitutional History of the Cinque Ports. Manchester, Manchester University Press.

72  Town comparisons: Southern England part 1 Newman, R. and J. Howells (2001) Salisbury Past. Chichester, Phillimore. Office for National Statistics (2017) Population statistics 2017. Available from: https:// www.ons.gov.uk/aboutus/transparencyandgovernance/freedomofinformationfoi/ populationstatistics2017 [Accessed 7 January 2022]. Oliver, G. (1861) The History of the City of Exeter. Exeter, William Roberts. Open Domesday (2022) Leeds. Available from: https://opendomesday.org/place/SE3033/ leeds/ [Accessed 7 January 2022]. Orme, N. (2014) The Churches of Medieval Exeter. Exeter, Impress. Palliser, D.M. (1976) Sources for urban topography: documents, buildings and archaeology. In: M.W. Barley (ed.) The Plans and Topography of Medieval Towns in England and Wales. Leamington, The Council for British Research Archaeology Research Report No. 14, pp. 1–6. Paris, M. and Trustees of the British Museum (1928) Four Maps of Great Britain Designed by Matthew Paris about AD 1250 Produced from Three Manuscripts in the British Museum and One at Corpus Christi College, Cambridge. London, Trustees of the British Museum. Petchey, W.J. (1991) A Prospect of Maldon: 1500–1689. Chelmsford, Essex Record Office. Philanthropy North East (2022) Bishop Hugh de Puiset. Available from: http://www. philanthropynortheast.com/the–philanthropists/puiset–bishop–hugh–du [Accessed 2 January 2022]. Rodwell, W. (2001) Wells Cathedral: Excavations and Structural Studies, 1978–93, 2 vols. London, English Heritage. Available from: https://doi.org/10.5284/1028203 Rosser, G. (1989) Medieval Westminster, 1200–1540. Oxford, Clarendon Press. Russell, P. (1984) The Good Town of Totnes. Exeter, Devonshire Association, 2nd ed. Salter, H.E. (ed. W.A. Pantin) (1960) Survey of Oxford, Vol. 1. Oxford, Clarendon Press for the Oxford Historical Society. Salter, H.E. (1926) Oxford City Properties. Oxford, Oxford University Press. Scott Holmes, T. (1911) Religious houses. In: W. Page (ed.) A History of the County of Somerset, Vol. 2. London, St Catherine’s Press, pp. 69–172. Scrase, T. (2006) Wells: A Small City. Tempus, Stroud. Sharp, M. and Midgley, M. (1940) The borough of Lewes. In: L.F. Salzman (ed.) A History of the County of Sussex, Vol. 7 The Rape of Lewes. London, Oxford Univeristy Press, pp. 7–43. Sharp, T. (2010) History of London Bridge: the origins of the Bridge House Yard and Bridge House estates, a review of their early history as civic and religious institutions. Available from: www. academia.edu [Accessed 3 December 2021]. Shaw, D.G. (1993) The Creation of a Community: The City of Wells in the Middle Ages. Oxford, Clarendon Press. Sheail, J. (ed. R.W. Hoyle) (1998) The Regional Distribution of Wealth in England as Indicated in the 1524/5 Lay Subsidy Returns. Kew, List and Index Society. Shickle, C.W. (ed.) (1921) Ancient Deeds of the City of Bath: XIII–XVI Century. Bath, Bath Records Society. Slater, T.R. (2000) The south–west of England. In: D.M. Pallister (ed.) The Cambridge Urban History of Britain Vol. 1 600–1540. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, pp. 583–607. Speed, J.J. (ed.) (2000) Tudor Townscapes: The Town Plans from John Speed’s Theatre of the Empire of Great Britaine 1610. Waddesdon, Map Collector Publications. Stevenson, W.H. (ed.) (1959) Asser’s Life of King Alfred. Oxford, Clarendon Press. Tatton-Brown, T. (1998) Medieval parishes and parish churches in Canterbury. In: T.R. Slater and G. Rosser (eds.) The Church in the Medieval Town. Aldershot, Ashgate, pp. 236–71. Tatton-Brown, T. (1984) The towns of Kent. In: J. Haslam (ed.) Anglo-Saxon Towns in Southern England. Chichester, Phillimore, pp. 1–36.

Town comparisons: Southern England part 1  73 The Becket Story (2022) St Mary Colechurch. Available from: https://thebecketstory.org.uk/ location/st–mary–colechurch [Acccessed 3 March 2022]. The Gough Map of Great Britain (2022) Available from: http://www.goughmap.org/ [Accessed 29 January 2022]. The Salisbury Anthem (2020) with a new translation by Francis Young of the Henry d’ Avranches poem De Translatione Veteris Ecclesie Saresberiensis et Constructione Nove. Available from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FZNihiTjm1E [Accessed 3 March 2022]. Thomas, E., M. Biddle and F.M. Morris (2017) Royal and mercantile centre: 1066–1300. In: M. Biddle and D. Keene (eds.), British Historic Towns Atlas Winchester. Oxford: Historic Towns Trust and The Winchester Excavations, pp. 38–47. Topographic map (2022) Altitude map of England. Available from: https://en-gb. topographic-map.com/maps/b9/England/ [Accessed 2 February 2022]. Torrence, W.J. (1959) A contemporary poem on the removal of Salisbury cathedral. Wiltshire Archaeological Magazine. 57 (206–208) pp. 242–6. Available from: https://www. biodiversitylibrary.org/item/138637. Toulmin Smith, L. (ed.) (1964) The Itinerary of John Leland in or about the Years 1535–1543, 5 vols. London, Centaur. Toulmin Smith, L., J. Toulmin Smith and L. Brentano (1870) English Gilds: The Original Ordinances of More than One Hundred Early English Gilds. London, Early English Text Society. Unwin, G. (1925) The Gilds and Companies of London. London, Allen & Unwin, 2nd ed. Urry, W. (1967) Canterbury Under the Angevin Kings. London, The Athlone Press. Wacher, J.S. (ed.) (1966) The Civitas Capitals of Roman Britain. Leicester, Leicester University Press. Watkin, H.R. (1914–17) The History of Totnes Priory and Medieval Town. Torquay, The author. Wells Cathedral (2021) Wells cathedral timeline. Available from: https://www.wellscathedral. org.uk/your–cathedral/history/wells–cathedral–timeline/ [Accessed 7 October 2021]. Westlake, H.F. (1919) The Parish Guilds of Medieval England. London, SPCK. Whitelock, D., D.C. Douglas and S.I. Tucker (eds.) (1961) The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle. London, Eyre and Spottiswode. Williams, A. and G.H. Martin (2002) Domesday Book: A Complete Translation. London, Penguin. Williams, G.A. (1963) Medieval London: From Commune to Capital. London, Athlone Press. Wiltshire County Archaeological Service (2004) Malmesbury: An Extensive Urban Survey. WCAS, Trowbridge. Yorke, B. (1995) Wessex in the Early Middle Ages. London, Leicester University Press.

3 Town comparisons Southern England Part 2

For reasons of space the following towns are not featured in detail: Home Counties: Reading, Newbury, Windsor, Waltham Abbey, Berkhamstead, Buckingham and Stony Stratford. East Anglia: Ipswich, Lavenham, Hadleigh, Cambridge, Huntingdon, Beccles, Saffron Walden, Swaffham, Sudbury and Orford. Profiles of all these towns are available from the authors.

Home counties: Middlesex, Surrey, Hertfordshire, Buckinghamshire and Berkshire St Albans, Hertfordshire Roman civitas capital, religious centre and local road hub at a bridging point on the River Ver, located 20 miles north of London on Watling Street. St Albans is one of the largest of the small market towns that developed north of London. It lies on a hill overlooking the Ver valley, in which there are water meadows. The Ver is not navigable; it is a tributary of the River Colne, which joins the Thames near Staines. Watling Street, heading northwest from London, intersects a cross-country route from Aylesbury to Hertford (the country town) near the market place (Google maps, 2022; Topographic map, 2022). The Roman town of Verulamium was built next to an earlier settlement of a local tribe, the Catuvellani, which was located on a plateau west of the present town, and which possessed a mint. The tribe’s people seem to have offered little resistance to Roman occupation and to have moved to the Roman town. A neighbouring tribe, the Iceni, offered resistance, however, and after sacking Colchester and London they and their allies moved on to Verulamium. Led by Queen Boudica, they sacked the town in 61 but were subsequently defeated, and the town was rebuilt with walls, forum, basilica, baths, market hall and theatre (Wacher, 1966). After the Romans left, the cult of St Alban, allegedly a fourth century AD Christian martyr reputedly put to death in the Roman town, led to the building of a church, mentioned by Bede and now identified as St Michael’s, located on another hill overlooking the valley, with a small grid of streets nearby (Colgrave and Mynors, 1969; Freeman, 2008). Tradition has assigned this initiative to King Offa of Mercia. What happened next is a matter of some debate. It seems that at some stage the abbot diverted Watling Street to run closer to the abbey and DOI: 10.4324/9781003172697-3

Town Comparisons: Southern England Part 2  75 established a marketplace on the new road, around which he encouraged local settlement. He built new churches — St Stephen’s and St Peter’s — at either end of the new road, so that by 950, it seems, the town possessed a wealthy Benedictine abbey, three churches, a market controlled by the abbey, and also an important school (Niblett and Thompson, 2005; Slater, 1998). Domesday Book records 46 burgesses and three mills, a park for wild beasts and a fishpond, all held by the abbot (Open Domesday, 2022; Williams and Martin, 2002). Four Frenchmen were also noted. It was an agricultural settlement, or “vill”, assessed at 10 hides and valued at £24 in 1086 and £20 in 1086. The abbot was the lord of the town. A fair was granted by Henry I as early as 1105. Richard I confirmed the market in 1198. From 1287 or earlier there were Wednesday and Saturday markets (the latter continuing today) (Letters, 2013). In 1308 the burgesses petitioned King Edward II and succeeding in obtaining a charter from the abbot, Hugh of Eversden, which defined the limits of the borough and allowed them to send two representatives to parliament, but some for reason these rights lapsed shortly afterwards (Crick, 2007). In 1334 the town was assessed for a fifteenth at 354s (Glasscock, 1975). In 1381 the town became a focal point in the peasant’s revolt. The abbot had persisted in asserting all his feudal privileges over the tenants of his extensive estates in and around the town, including the right to regulate the sale and inheritance of property, while his tenants preferred to organise such matters amongst themselves, possibly through the local guilds. The town’s proximity to London meant that revolutionary ideas, fuelled by a succession of poll taxes levied at this time, quickly spread there, inciting local rioters to sack the abbey, with one of the national leaders of the revolt being executed there (Levett, 1938). Notwithstanding this violent but short-lived disruption, the town continued to prosper. In c.1410 the market acquired a distinctive clock tower. There was also an Eleanor Cross (from much earlier) and a moot hall. Hay, fish, malt and leather were important commodities traded in the town. Another fair was granted on the incorporation of the town in 1554 and was still active in 1753 (Corbett, 1997; Dean, 2008; Freeman, 2008; Toms, 1962). In the medieval period the town’s hospitality sector thrived on the pilgrimage trade but declined after the Reformation; it recovered later with the growth of the eighteenth-century coaching trade (Corbett, 1997; Dean, 2008; Toms, 1962). In 1524 it was assessed at 1,415s; the middle ward was the wealthiest of the four wards (Sheail, 1998). St Albans was featured on the map produced by Matthew Paris and appeared on the Gough map as a church with a spire (The Gough Map of Great Britain, 2022; Paris and Trustees of the British Museum, 1928). Abingdon, Berkshire. Religious and administrative centre; bridging point on the River Thames south of Oxford, on the road from London to Witney and South Wales via Dorchester; road and river hub. Abingdon lies on the edge of a range of small hills to the southwest of Oxford at the confluence of the River Thames and its tributary the River Ock. The town is on a gravel ridge that provides a dry site (Cumber, 2010: 35). However, there are meadows to the south of the town, in the flood plain of the Thames, that are crossed by a causeway leading to the river bridge. The town benefitted from being

76  Town Comparisons: Southern England Part 2 on two important road routes — the road from London through Abingdon and across the Cotswolds to Bristol and Gloucester and “the north–south road between the Midlands (via Oxford) and the south coast (via Newbury)” (Cumber, 2010: 36). According to tradition the West Saxon king Cissa founded an abbey c.675 through a gift to his kinsman Haeha, whose sister Cilla became abbess of a small nunnery (Astill, 1984). It subsequently came under Mercian control but was destroyed in 871 by invading Danes (Curtis and Clapham, 1924: 430–51). Other traditions, however, tell a rather different story (Biddle, Lambrick and Myers, 1968). Later Abingdon became a royal residence. The abbey was reinstated by King Eadred in 954 and became a Benedictine foundation, probably for men only, following the example of Glastonbury (Kelly, 2000). There was a nearby monastery at Cholsey, but the appointment of Athelwold of Winchester as abbot established Abingdon abbey as a major centre of learning. The abbey was located on the north bank of the river and east of the town centre (Cumber, 2010: 40; Halliwell, 1844; Stenton, 1913). The abbey held the town (Curtis and Clapham, 1924: 430–51). A charter of Edward the Confessor granted the abbot various rights, including sac and soc, both inside and outside the town. In 1084 King William visited the town, and his son, Henry I, was educated at the abbey. In 1086 there were ten merchants dwelling in front of the door of the church; also four mills and five fisheries (Open Domesday, 2022; Williams and Martin, 2002). Shortly afterwards, when Henry became king, he authorised the abbot to take tolls of herring from merchant ships using the river. In the twelfth century a dispute arose between Abingdon abbey and the burgesses of Wallingford over the abbot’s market rights, which was resolved in the abbot’s favour (Curtis and Clapham, 1924: 430–51; Herbert 1971: 139–40). A fair was chartered in the thirteenth century (Letters, 2013). The present market place in front of the abbey gate was laid out before the Conquest. There was a market-house in the fourteenth century, which may have replaced an earlier building. It contained market stalls and probably a court room above. It was burnt down in the riots of 1327 (which occurred in other monastic towns such as Bury St Edmunds), but was soon replaced. It held the view of frankpledge and piepowder courts. The spine of the town led west (as it does today) from the market place to the Ock bridge (dated to 1101 or earlier), where milling and other trades were carried on (Biddle, Lambrick and Myers, 1968; Cox, 1986–9). The “town church” of St Helen, founded in 995 or earlier, and probably a minster church, was the meeting place of the Guild of the Holy Cross. The Guild established a hospital in the town, which still exists as a set of almshouses. A chapel of St John Baptist, with a hospital for six poor men, was built c.1120, and after the Reformation was used as a free grammar school. There was another hospital on the Ock Bridge dedicated to St Mary Magdalen. In 1334 the town was assessed for a fifteenth at 359s (Glasscock, 1975). In 1416 the abbey made strenuous efforts to improve access to the town by building the causeway over the flood plain and a stone bridge to replace an inadequate ferry. This was a significant investment, as it diverted traffic from London to Gloucester away from Oxford and into the town. In 1524 the town was assessed at 1,172s (Sheail, 1998). After the Dissolution the town went into decline. Road improvements at Oxford took away the traffic to South Wales, which was routed via High Wycombe and Thame instead. Abingdon

Town Comparisons: Southern England Part 2  77 remained the county town of Berkshire until the nineteenth century, when Reading took over. By then it had become an agricultural market centre and a transshipment point between the Thames and the Wilts and Berks canal. In 1554, in preparation for the incorporation of the town, Roger Amyce (surveyor in Berkshire of properties that had come to the crown as a result of the dissolution of the guilds and monasteries) made a survey of property in the town by taking a perambulation around it (Abingdon-on-Thames town council, 2022; Cumber, 2010: 163). He recorded two categories of transfer, “firstly the institutional properties that had already been granted to Christ’s Hospital in 1553 and were about to be granted to the new corporation; secondly the properties (including the abbey site) disposed of by the Court of Augmentations to a variety of private individuals, both townspeople and outside investors” (Cumber, 2010: 166). The lawyer and local official Thomas Denton appears to have acted as an agent for individual purchasers, who were often seeking to “buy a house or a piece of land, generally where they were already tenants” (Cumber, 2010: 171). Abingdon was depicted on the Gough map as two spired churches, accompanied by a possible castle (The Gough Map of Great Britain, 2022). Guildford, Surrey. County town, bridging point on the River Wey, river hub, road hub and castle. Guildford is built on the side of a hill overlooking the Wey Valley, giving its castle a wide and commanding view of both the valley and the town. The Wey cuts through a high chalk ridge at the edge of the South downs, funnelling traffic from London to the south coast through the town. The main road from London to Winchester and Southampton throws off a branch to Portsmouth just south of the town. A cross-country route from Reading to Horsham intersects the main road in the centre of the town. South of the town the river is joined by its tributaries the Ock, Tillingbourne and Cranleigh Waters. There are substantial meadows and marshes in this area. It has been suggested that a Saxon settlement developed near a ford where the Harrow Way (from Seaton, Devon, to Dover) crossed the River Wey (O’Connell and Poulton, 1984; Sprules, 1911; Williamson, 1904). The portion of the Harrow Way between Farnham and Canterbury later became part of the pilgrims’ way from Winchester to Canterbury. The route followed a terrace along the side of the North Downs, avoiding both the marshy valleys and the windblown hill tops. It is unclear exactly when the ford was replaced by a bridge. Guildford was an important town in late Anglo-Saxon Wessex and had a mint from c.978–c.1100 (Allen, 2012). St Mary’s church was built shortly afterwards. A Domesday jury reported that in 1086 the king held 75 closes which accommodated 175 men (Open Domesday, 2022; Williams and Martin, 2002). In three of these closes Ranulf the clerk held sake and soke (the profits of justice). In addition the bishop of Bayeux held three houses, two through his manor of Bramley. The town was valued at £18 in 1066, and at £30 in 1086, but actually paid £32. The castle was built at about this time. The town developed on an east–west axis around a steeply sloping high street passing below the castle, which remains the central shopping area to this day. The town had become a borough by 1130, and Jews were recorded in 1187 (Letters, 2013). It was tallaged twice by King John. St Mary’s church, and Henry the vicar, received a charter for a fair in 1227, and in 1251 the town itself obtained a fair

78  Town Comparisons: Southern England Part 2 (Letters, 2013). In 1257 it acquired the county court. There was also a guild merchant by this date. Further privileges were obtained in 1340–6, and in 1367 the burgesses were granted the town at farm (Sprules, 1911; Williamson, 1904). In 1334 the town was assessed for a tenth at 303s; it should be noted, however, that the town of Godalming, seven miles upstream on the River Wey, was assessed for a fifteenth at the same time for 330s (Glasscock, 1975). A grammar school was established in 1509 and, as the Royal Grammar School, survives today. In 1524 the town was assessed, using different principles, at 1043s; by comparison, Godalming had developed more slowly and was assessed at only 888s (Sheail, 1998). Guildford’s prosperity seems to have derived largely from its strategic position, whereby traffic bound for London from Chichester, Portsmouth, Winchester and Southampton was funnelled through the town. The traffic would include aristocrats as well as merchants. Following the murder of Thomas Becket in 1170, the pilgrimage trade to Canterbury would have increased too. The meadows and marshes around the town would have provided a good supply of meat and fish. The town is only 30 miles from London, and proximity to Windsor and its Royal Forest may have stimulated the growth of a local residential elite. Guildford was a single building on the Gough map (The Gough Map of Great Britain, 2022). Wallingford, Berkshire. Fortified town at a bridging point on the River Thames north of Newbury. The present town was built c.879 by Alfred the Great as part of his defensive measures against the Vikings. It defended the area southwest of the Thames at what was the most convenient fording or bridging point over the river (Hedges, 1881; Keats-Rohan, 2016: 52). The town is square and surrounded on two sides by ditches, on one side by a brook and on the other side by the river. The market square is at a central crossroads, with the old mint nearby. A road runs along the southwest bank of the Thames from Reading, turns right at the crossroads over a bridge to the suburb of Crowmarsh and then left to Dorchester, Abingdon and Oxford. The bridge is tentatively dated to the twelfth century, although rebuilt since. The bridge made Wallingford a convenient stopping point for traffic on the road from London to Gloucester via Abingdon, which cut across the Chilterns from Henley-on-Thames to Crowmarsh before following the road to Dorchester. The Thames forms the boundary between Berkshire and Oxfordshire at this point. The grounds of the castle (now preserved) occupy the northeast quadrant of the town, and a priory (now demolished) occupied much of the northwest quadrant. The commercial area was mainly to the south but may not have been fully built up. The castle provided refuge for Empress Matilda during the Anarchy. It seems to have had its own quay on the riverside. There may have been a Saxon settlement at Wallingford before it became a burgh. The presence of a cemetery on St John’s Road (just south of the Kinecroft and outside the defences) with fifth-century and sixth-century burials suggests that was settlement nearby (Dewey, 2016: 20; Hamerow and Westlake, 2019: 16). Nearby St Leonard’s church was just inside the defences, which appear to have been positioned to accommodate its precinct — suggesting that the church was there before the defences were constructed (Dewey, 2016: 20). Dewey (2016: 22)

Town Comparisons: Southern England Part 2  79 suggests that “the burgh fortifications may have been imposed on an earlier southern settlement”, whose trade was based on a wharf near St Leonard’s church (see also Christie, Creighton et al., 2013: 64–5). The boundary for that settlement was probably Bradford’s brook (now in Winterbrook) (Dewey, 2016: 26). It has been suggested that this was closely connected to (Dewey, 2016: 26) or part of (Roffe, 2016: 42) “the bishop of Winchester’s manor of Brightwell”. King Alfred initiated the construction of defences focused on the river crossing, the foundation of additional churches and the construction of a royal palace on the castle site (Dewey, 2016: 18, 26). The Saxon water defences involved the “a whole system of streams being artificially modified, ditched and diverted through a series of sluices and channels” (Edgeworth, 2016: 80). These provided a defensive moat but may also have served to power mills (Grayson 2004: 35). It is possible there was also a mill at Bradford’s brook in the middle ages (Grayson, 2004: 42). Wallingford had a mint from the early tenth century to the mid-thirteenth century (Christie, Creighton et al., 2013: 388). The Anglo-Saxon lord Wigod supported the Norman conquest. Stigand, archbishop of Canterbury, surrendered to William in the town. Domesday identifies Wallingford as the head town of Berkshire (Open Domesday, 2022; Williams and Martin, 2002). Before the Conquest there were 276 closes rendering £11. The king was lord, and the burgesses did service for the king “with horses or by water”. In 1066 the town was valued at £30, but by 1086 it was valued at £60 and actually rendered £80. After the Conquest this custom remained unchanged. However, eight closes were demolished to accommodate enlargement of the castle, and there were six closes from which the king had no dues, including one held by a moneyer who was quit of rent (Christie, Creighton et al., 2013: 218). The archbishop of Canterbury, three abbots (of Abingdon, Battle and St Albans) and four bishops all held additional properties in the town, together with many smaller local landowners. They account for 126 additional messuages and 65 additional closes; there were also 22 messuages held by Frenchmen. Twenty-six of these additional properties, it appears, were previously held by “the thegns of Oxfordshire” through the towns and villages which they held from the king, and several were still retained by the thegns in 1086. Since Wallingford is in Berkshire rather than Oxfordshire, this suggests that the involvement of the thegns may precede the formation of the shires c.1000 and could even date back to the formation of the town over a century earlier. The Benedictine priory of the Holy Trinity was established soon after the Conquest as a satellite of St Albans (Roffe, 2016: 36–7). It was based on a pre-Conquest English secular college and was essentially a joint enterprise of royal officials and the townspeople. In the late twelfth century Wallingford had ten churches, but only three survive; two, St Peter’s and St Leonard’s, are near the river, and St Mary’s is in the market place. A fourth church survives only as a ruin: All Hallows, near the castle. Together these were the four main parish churches. St Mary’s was held by St Albans abbey; St Peter’s and All Hallows were held by the castle, at least until the fifteenth century; while St Leonard’s was held by St Frideswide’s, Oxford. There were also five chapels in the town.

80  Town Comparisons: Southern England Part 2 By the time of the Conquest there was a Saturday market, a moneyer who lived rent free in a house near the castle, and a gild merchant. A bridge over the Thames is mentioned in 1141, during the Anarchy, when the town provided a refuge for Empress Matilda. Part of the present stone bridge dates from about the reign of Henry III; two wardens of the bridge collected pontage. The treaty of Wallingford ended the Civil War, and Henry II, Matilda’s son, expressed his gratitude by granting a charter of privileges in 1155–6, giving the town burgesses freedom of toll throughout the country. Henry II also prohibited a rival market at Crowmarsh. A reeve was to hold a regular borough court or portmote. The town was granted the privileges of Winchester, including freedom from toll throughout England, Normandy, Aquitaine and Anjou, freedom from geld, danegeld, hidage, blodewite and bredewite, and freedom from conscription for castle-building, bridge-building and road-making. Several other towns received similar privileges at this time, though not all of them on such generous terms. Despite these privileges, however, there is evidence of later competition from rival markets, including markets at Abingdon and East Ilsley, which were quite some distance away. A fair was chartered in 1205. In 1215 King John refortified the town, and the castle remained in active use throughout the medieval period. The castle was the administrative head of an honour encompassing various manors in seven southern and midland counties. The court met monthly to hear the view of frankpledge, return of writs, and cases involving murderers, fugitives and felons. The social elite were attracted to Wallingford by the residence of the Earl of Cornwall at the castle. By c.1320 the town had a guildhall equipped with selds that were let out to traders; there was also a corn market and a linen market (Historical Manuscripts Commission, 1877: 572–95). In 1334 it was assessed at 184s for a tenth in the lay subsidy, and in 1524, on a different basis, at 336s (Glasscock, 1975; Sheail, 1998). From the Tudor period the town’s economy began to stagnate, leaving the medieval street plan largely untouched. Neighbouring towns such as Reading, Henley and Newbury expanded, taking away all except local trade. The importance of the honour diminished, and the importance of shire towns like Abingdon and Oxford increased. The town was included on Matthew Paris’s map and appeared on the Gough map as a “single building and castle” (The Gough Map of Great Britain, 2022; Paris and Trustees of the British Museum, 1928).

East Anglia: Norfolk, Suffolk, Essex, Cambridgeshire and Huntingdonshire Norwich, county town. First bridging point on the River Yare, river hub and road hub, important castle, cathedral and many churches. Unlike the Thames, the Yare had an important estuary port, Yarmouth, which was important for fishing and naval defence. However, because of the low-lying wetlands of the Norfolk Broads which surrounded it, Yarmouth was not a natural centre for inland commerce. As a result, commercial activity was focused on Norwich, which was a major road hub. Roads radiated from Norwich in all directions, with the most important long-distance

Town Comparisons: Southern England Part 2  81 roads heading south and east towards London and the Midlands. In addition, “it is likely that its development as a centre of regional trade was aided by its position at the meeting point of areas whose various soils and resources led to economic specialisation” (Campbell, 1975: 2). Norwich is built on the first high-altitude land encountered by the River Yare as it wends its way inland (Ayers, 2004: 1; Campbell, 1975: 1). In medieval times the river was navigable by seagoing vessels up to Norwich. A tributary of the Yare, namely the River Wensum, flows through the heart of the city, wending its way around the high ground between the Yare and the Wensum where the market and castle were located. The Wensum is a much smaller river than the Yare and is more easily bridgeable (Williams, 1988). Norwich was an Anglo-Scandinavian town prior to the Conquest (Ayers, 2004: 8; Campbell, 1975: 5–6). The market place was probably at Tombland, south of Fye bridge (Ayers, 2004: 12; Lloyd, 1989). Across the bridge to the north lay lower land, where many crafts and industries were later based. There were also small suburbs to the east on both sides of the river. The Normans substantially altered the topography of Norwich by constructing the cathedral, castle and an extension to the town in the form of the French borough (Campbell, 1975: 8). The construction of the castle began in 1068, and the French borough was laid out to the west of it on a “greenfield site” in 1071–5 (Ayers, 2004: 13, 16). The motivation for the French borough’s construction is unknown, but it filled a gap in the existing topography of the town and encompassed the point where the road to London exited the town (Campbell, 1975: 8). Anglo-Saxon houses are likely to have been removed for the construction of the castle, and the French borough may have provided new accommodation for their occupants (Campbell, 1975: 8). The new borough included a new marketplace, which remains the site of Norwich market today (Ayers, 2004: 16; Lloyd, 1989: 43). The town was further expanded in 1121–45 by Bishop Eborard, who allocated an area for settlement and founded a parish church alongside his establishment of St Paul’s hospital (Campbell, 1975: 9). Approximately 100 years later, in the early or mid-thirteenth century, the cathedral priory and Carrow abbey developed land they owned in the southwest of Norwich (Campbell, 1975: 9). Norwich was rated in Domesday as a hundred (meaning that it was valued at 100 hides) but does not appear at the head of the county (Open Domesday, 2022; Williams and Martin, 2002). In 1066 it was a flourishing borough, with 1320 burgesses. Most of them held messuages from the king, but some held from the archbishop of Canterbury and others from Harold. The town paid £30 to the king, with Earl Ralph taking the third penny. In addition, it paid a small sum to certain prebendaries, six sesters of honey, a bear and six dogs (presumably to bait the bear). The number of English burgesses had been reduced to 665 by 1086. There were 480 bordars who, because of their poverty, paid no dues. However, additional bridges were built, and the impact of the new French borough can be seen. This borough was in Humbleyard hundred rather than Norwich hundred; the land was originally held by the earl but granted to the king, as Domesday says, “in common for the founding of the borough between himself and the king, as the sheriff

82  Town Comparisons: Southern England Part 2 testifies” (Open Domesday, 2022; Williams and Martin, 2002). In 1066 there were 36 burgesses and six Englishmen in the borough, each paying dues of 1d, with the earl taking the third penny; by 1086 there were 123 burgesses, 41 holding property directly from the king and the earl, and the remaining holding from nine other tenants of the king and the earl. In 1086 the old borough paid £70 to the king, £5 to the Queen, £20 and a goshawk to the earl and £1 to Godric the Steward, a major landowner. There was a mint c.973–1154 (Allen, 2012; Letters, 2013). The bishopric of Norwich was relocated from Thetford (and before that North Elmham) in 1094, and a monastic complex was created in the low-lying fields near the river, which became the site of the present cathedral (Ayers, 2004: 14; East Anglia Network, 1997). A charter of 1158 (the town’s oldest surviving charter) confirmed an earlier charter of Henry I (1100–35). In 1194 Henry II granted the burgesses a fee farm of the city, freedom from toll throughout the country, the right to elect their own reeves and the same trading privileges as London. It has been estimated that by c.1295 a quarter of property-owners in the city were in religious occupations of one kind or another. Norwich was a city of many churches, and many of these churches were endowed with chantries supported by bequests from wealthy citizens. These citizens derived much of their wealth from the trade of the city — in particular cloth-making and leather-working — and from estates in rural Norfolk. Due to the fertility of the soil, ready access to peat, and the use of sophisticated farming practices, for which Norfolk has long been noted, these estates generated a large amount of wealth, much of which seems to have been channelled into maintaining city residences and endowing the city’s churches, monasteries and hospitals. Altogether there were 54 churches and chapels c.1370, two Benedictine priories, four friaries — Dominican, Franciscan, Carmelite and Augustinian — six leper hospitals, and six hospitals for the poor and sick (St Paul’s, St Mary and St John, Brichtiu’s, Hildebrand’s, St Mary in the Field St Giles and St Giles “the Great Hospital” (Rawcliffe, 1995; Tanner, 1984). In 1280–1325 a fine set of city walls was built — two and a half miles long with 40 towers — whose successful completion was sponsored by the wealthy merchant citizen Robert Spink. The city was zoned into specialised areas of production, probably to minimise pollution caused by tanning and other noxious trades. Analysis of property deeds c.1270 to 1320 suggests the tanners were concentrated on tributaries of Wensun to the south and west of the cathedral precinct, with dyers close to the river in the middle of the town (Rutledge, 2004: 162). Masons were located conveniently for the cathedral and city walls. Leather workers were concentrated between the castle and the new market. Butchers were to the south, close to the city walls but also near to the market and the leather workers (Rutledge, 2004: 162). A fourteenth-century charter refers to wholesale trading in several streets in the centre of the town (Letters, 2013). By 1300 there were five bridges across the river in the town (Meeres, 1998). Records suggest that were many religious guilds and trade guilds (including barbers, tailors, pelterers, saddlers and spurriers), mostly established in the fourteenth century (Alsford, 2022c; Dunn, 2004; Hudson and Tingey, 1906–10). In

Town Comparisons: Southern England Part 2  83 1334 the town was assessed for a tenth at 1892s (Glasscock, 1975). In 1354 the town became one of ten English towns designated a staple for the export of wool. In 1404 Henry IV made the city a county in its own right. In 1524–5 the town was assessed at 14,989s, which was less than one tenth of London, but significantly more than other towns (Sheail, 1998). Norwich was included by Matthew Paris on his map (Paris and Trustees of the British Museum, 1928). The town was depicted on the Gough map as “two spired churches, one with cross, two castles and walls with three gates” (The Gough Map of Great Britain, 2022). Norwich featured in Speed (2000: 86–7) and Braun and Hogenberg (2008: 202–4). King’s Lynn, Norfolk. Estuary port on the east bank of the River Great Ouse. The river Great Ouse has numerous tributaries, including the Little Ouse, the Wissey and the Cam. It was a port where seagoing vessels transshipped goods onto river vessels (Alsford, 2022d). It served numerous towns along the river, such as Huntingdon and Bedford, and those on its tributaries, such as Cambridge, Thetford and Bury St Edmunds. It was known as Bishop’s Lynn before the English Reformation of 1534. The location of the town on the east bank rather than the west bank may reflect local topography; in particular the River Nar enters the river at this point. There was a local salt industry, which allowed fish and meat to be preserved for export (Alsford, 2022d). It should be noted that the Ouse probably flowed through Wisbech rather than Lynn until some time in the thirteenth century (Lloyd, 1989). The redirection of the Ouse, due partially to the silting up of the original estuary, and partly to planned improvements to Fenland water courses, boosted Lynn’s trade in a manner that could not have been anticipated at the time of the town’s foundation (Clarke, 1981). The area north of the Nar estuary contained two streams, the Millfleet (also known as the River Gaywood) and the Purfleet to the north of it, which together provided a good supply of fresh water. Domesday records that Lynn was held by the abbot of Ely; the abbot held a mere 13 acres with one free man and one salt pan, worth 4s (Open Domesday, 2022; Williams and Martin, 2002). The potential of this area was recognised c.1100 by Bishop Herbert de Losinga of Norwich, who also developed another port at Great Yarmouth at about the same time (see subsequent discussion) (Alsford, 2022d; Beresford, 1967: 467–8; Brodt, 2000: 653–4; Lloyd, 1989). He was clearly an opportunist, as he had previously been punished by the Pope for bribing William Rufus to present him to his bishopric. Furthermore, the bishop already owned property in the area. As part of his atonement he founded a church of St Margaret and an associated Benedictine priory in honour of St Mary Magdalen (Alsford, 2022d). He then built a town and granted the priory a Saturday market, a three-day fair and a new mill on the River Gaywood; however, as he made the priory a daughter house of his existing priory at Norwich, most of the profits probably accrued to Norwich rather than to Lynn. The town received a charter of privileges from King John in 1204. The potential for growth was such, however, that new land was later developed north of the estuary by Bishop William of Norwich, with planned burgage plots and a separate Tuesday market. It also had its own church, St Nicholas, dedicated

84  Town Comparisons: Southern England Part 2 to the patron saint of sailors. This development was also the property of Norwich cathedral priory. This area now forms the commercial centre of the present town, with the old town forming a cultural quarter to the south (Alsford, 2022d). A suburb of Millfleet, south of the stream, served by the church of All Saints, was also developed about this time. For a time all three parts of the town were under separate jurisdictions. To add to these complications, part of the land used for the town was held by William d’Albini and his successors the Earls of Arundel. Four friaries were established in the town in or about the period 1260–70: the Dominicans, Franciscans, Carmelites and Austin friars; the Friars of the Sack made a brief appearance too. The town had a mint for a short period in the thirteenth century (Owen, 2014; Parker, 1971; Richards, 1990). In 1334 the town was assessed for a tenth at 1000s; in addition, the suburb of South Lynn was assessed at 360s (Glasscock, 1975). In 1389 no less than 50 religious guilds were recorded in the town, most of them, it seems, founded in the fourteenth century (Hillen, 1907; Richards, 1812; Toulmin Smith, Toulmin Smith and Brentano, 1870; Westlake, 1919). King’s Lynn’s main exports included salt, wool and grain, while imports included furs, timber, pitch, iron and millstones, and a range of other luxury items including Norwegian hawks (Williams, 1988). It developed strong links with the Hanseatic League; a Hanseatic warehouse from the fifteenth century still survives in the town. The ascendancy of the cloth trade in the late middle ages reduced exports of wool, however, and the port fell into a decline from which it never fully recovered. In 1524 it was assessed (including Freebridge) at 7,833s (Sheail, 1998). King’s Lynn was named by Paris (Paris and Trustees of the British Museum, 1928). It appeared on the Gough map as two buildings and a church with a spire (The Gough Map of Great Britain, 2022). Colchester, Essex. Roman colonia, first bridging point of the River Colne, lying on the main road from London to Ipswich, Yarmouth and Norwich, castle. The town occupies a defensible site on high ground a short distance from the local port at Hythe. The Romans established a major garrison soon after their invasion in 43AD; it was a regional administrative centre and retirement home for legionary soldiers (Alsford, 2022b; Ashdown–Hill, 2009). The walled Roman town was subsequently colonised by Saxon invaders. In the tenth century it lay on the frontier between AngloSaxon England and the Danelaw. By this time it had become a borough with a mint from c.978 onwards (Allen, 2012). Domesday gives a detailed account of property holding in the town before the Conquest, identifying 364 houses and their owners (who all ultimately held from the king) (Open Domesday, 2022; Williams and Martin, 2002). In 1066 the town rendered over £15 to the king, of which the moneyers accounted for £4. By 1086 the town rendered £80 to the king, plus about £10 for the mint, plus £5 to the sheriff, and a small amount for feeding the prebendaries. Shortly after the Conquest the Normans built an imposing castle, with the largest keep in Europe, over the foundations of a Roman temple. Eudo, William’s steward, was given control of the castle and the lordship of the town, although the town reverted to the crown after his death. By 1086 the value of the town to the king had increased dramatically, from just over £15 in 1066 to over £87 in 1086.

Town Comparisons: Southern England Part 2  85 Eudo established the Benedictine abbey of St John and the leper hospital of St Mary Magdalen. Shortly afterwards the Anglo-Saxon church of St Botolph was transformed into an Augustinian abbey (Lloyd, 1989: 130). By c.1470 there were seven churches and a Franciscan friary within the town walls (Anon, 1789). A royal charter of 1189 gave the town at farm to the burgesses, who were represented by two elected bailiffs (Alsford, 2022b). The burgesses enjoyed the usual freedom from toll in other parts of the country, together with local fishing and hunting rights. However, the abbot, not the king, was the lord of the town, and this led to conflict (Alsford, 2022b). From the 1280s onwards there was continuing conflict over the abbot’s legal rights of jurisdiction within the town, in particular with regard to the pollution of the river and the obstruction of navigation by weirs. Some of these issues were eventually clarified, if not resolved, by a charter of 1447 (Alsford, 2022b). In 1334 the town was assessed for a tenth at 523s; this included the neighbouring hamlets of Lexham, Mile End, Greenstead and Berechurch (Glasscock, 1975). The town had good supplies of spring water. As the cloth trade developed in the towns and villages near the Suffolk–Essex border, Colchester developed as a major centre for fulling and finishing cloth. Its port grew in importance, exporting cloth, pottery and a variety of other goods. However, it never developed the buoyant trade achieved by other East Anglian towns such as Ipswich, Norwich and King’s Lynn. It was a centre of elite consumption, living off ecclesiastical rental income from agricultural estates, but never a major port (Britnell, 1986). The explanation of the weak trade performance may lie in the shallowness of the river Colne and the remoteness of the quayside from the town centre; it could also be ascribed, however, to attitude of the abbots, who were unsympathetic to the commercial interests of the townspeople and perhaps fearful of the social consequences of foreign sailors frequenting the town. The suppression of the monasteries, and the consequent decline of ecclesiastical power, did not, however, improve the fortunes of the town; it diminished local consumption and employment but failed to stimulate the growth of trade. As a result, the town declined towards the end of the sixteenth century and recovered only slowly thereafter. In 1524 it was assessed at 4,318s (Sheail, 1998). Colchester featured in Paris (Paris and Trustees of the British Museum, 1928). It appeared on the Gough map as “two buildings, a spired church and walls with one gate” (The Gough Map of Great Britain, 2022). Speed portrayed the town, mentioning the importance of the cloth trade in its economy (Speed, 2000: 42–3). Bury St Edmunds, Suffolk. Important abbey: the burial place of England’s only royal saint; good water supply. Edmund, king of East Anglia in the seventh century, was reputedly killed by duplicitous Vikings somewhere near Bury and buried there. In 945 King Edmund gave land at Bury to the monks who maintained his shrine. In 1022 the Danish King Canute decided to gain legitimacy by promoting Edmund’s cult; he gave the monks jurisdiction of the township of Bury and immunity from interference by bishops of the church. In c.1050 King Edward confirmed that the monks could choose their own elder and gave them jurisdiction over a liberty of eight and a half hundreds in the neighbourhood of the town as well as in the town itself.

86  Town Comparisons: Southern England Part 2 After the Conquest the cultural significance of Edmund’s shrine encouraged the Normans to rebuild the town with an abbey rather than a castle (Gransden, 1964). The town was developed as a pilgrimage centre by an entrepreneurial Norman abbot, Baldwin, who built a new magnificent abbey over part of the small town and doubled its size by creating a large grid of burgage plots on an adjacent greenfield site. The abbey was enormously wealthy and benefitted from royal patronage but was unpopular with town because it insisted on its right to govern the town and appropriate the rents from it (Lobel, 1935). Domesday extols the virtues of the town “where St Edmund, king and glorious martyr, lies buried” (Open Domesday, 2022; Williams and Martin, 2002). In 1066, it seems, all the inhabitants were, directly or indirectly, in the service of the abbey. There were 118 men, held for the supplies of the monks, who could give and sell their land, and under them 53 bordars, owing services to the abbey. There were 54 men who were poor but free, and 43 almsmen each supported by one bordar. By 1086 dramatic improvements had been underway; the old town had been enclosed by a large circuit of land, as indicated previously. There was a total of 342 houses in the town, the new ones being occupied by priests, nuns and devout poor people, together with bakers, brewers, tailors, washerwomen, shoemakers, robemakers, cooks and porters. The town was controlled by 13 reeves. The abbot also held a liberty of eight and a half hundreds in the northern part of Suffolk and could muster 34 knights for royal service, most of whom probably had a house in the town. There was also a mint at intervals between c.1042 and 1335 (Allen, 2012). The abbey established three hospitals in the town: Abbot Anselm founded St Peter’s outside the Risbygate for leprous priests and others c.1130; Abbot Samson founded St Saviour’s outside the Northgate — the largest and best endowed of the hospitals — for 12 poor men and 12 poor women in c.1184; and Prior Richard de Bosco founded St John’s (God’s House) outside the Southgate for hospitality and refreshments (possibly for pilgrims) c.1250. There was also St Nicholas’ hospital outside the Eastgate, probably founded by one of the early abbots and first recorded in 1224; and St Petronilla’s hospital for lepers outside the Southgate. The Franciscans were prevented by the abbey from establishing a priory in the town and finally settled for a site in Babwell outside the Northgate (Harper–Bill, 1994). In 1327 there was serious rioting and bloodshed in the town. The townspeople abducted the abbot and forced him to sign an ‘extorted charter’ (later repudiated) that rectified perceived injustices, in particular the abbot’s right to interfere in succession to burgage properties, and his refusal to allow the townspeople to govern themselves. It was not the only town to experience rioting at this time; several other towns with episcopal lordship witnessed conflict, but none so radical as that at Bury (Lobel, 1935; Meeres, 2002). Notwithstanding their opposition to the abbot, the townspeople supported no less than 18 religious guilds (recorded in 1389) within the town (Westlake, 1919). Bury had close trading links with London, as both were major centres of elite consumption, and consequently retailed similar types of product. In 1334 it was assessed for a fifteenth at 480s (Glasscock, 1975). Bury is not on any major road, although the prehistoric Icknield Way, connecting East Anglia to the Thames valley, passes nearby. It is, however, located at the

Town Comparisons: Southern England Part 2  87 confluence of the River Lark and River Linnet at a point where the plains of Cambridgeshire and south Norfolk meet the hills of north Suffolk. Local water courses provided opportunities for finishing linen and woolen cloth. The Lark gave access to the Great Ouse and the port of King’s Lynn, but only for light river traffic. This allowed the import of building stone and the export of linen and cloth. Because it lies on the boundary of different agricultural areas, it was ideally situated to be an agricultural market town. Thus when the pilgrimage trade declined after the Reformation it became a local market centre; the medieval town ossified, and so remains in a remarkable state of preservation to this day (Gottfried, 1982; Statham, 1996). In 1525 it was assessed at 3,388s; the wealthiest ward by far was Risbygate (Sheail, 1998). Bury St Edmunds featured on the map of Matthew Paris and appeared on the Gough map as two buildings and a church with a spire (The Gough Map of Great Britain, 2022; Paris and Trustees of the British Museum, 1928). Great Yarmouth, Norfolk. A coastal fishing port specialising in herring. Yarmouth is an East Anglian port lying on a peninsular between the River Yare to the west and the sea to the east. To the north of the town lies the confluence of the Yare and the Bure (Alsford, 2022e; Norfolk Heritage Explorer, 2022a; Norfolk Heritage Explorer 2022e). The Yare provides access to Norwich and the Bure to Aylsham and the Norfolk Broads. There is a great deal of marshland, and in medieval times road access was poor. In the post-Roman era Saxon immigration into the area was substantial, and by 800 Saxon religious houses, such as St Benet near Wroxham, had been established. One of the major resources of the area was the shoals of herring that appeared offshore in the autumn. Yarmouth developed as a port at which herring could be landed, cured (by salting), preserved (by drying or smoking) and then exported, mainly by sea (Alsford, 2022a; Alsford, 2022e). The sandbank on which it developed had probably emerged by c.900. Herring was a popular seafood throughout Europe, and Yarmouth became an “off-shore processing centre” in the international herring trade. It was highly specialised and had few other industries, apart from shipbuilding and ancillary trades (Adams, 1994). The town was well-established by the time of the Norman Conquest. By 1066 it was a borough with at least 70 burgesses (Open Domesday, 2022; Williams and Martin, 2002). It was valued at £27, with Earl Hugh taking the third penny. By 1086 the sheriff also had £4 and one hawk in exactions, which were apparently paid freely. There were 24 fishermen in the town belonging to the manor of Gorleston. It is uncertain whether the town ever had a mint (Allen, 2012). The town was further developed by Herbert de Losinga, bishop of Norwich, who also developed King’s Lynn along similar lines (see previous discussion). He seems to have first established a chapel dedicated to St Benet, constructed either in 1101 or earlier (Alsford, 2022d; Norfolk Heritage Explorer 2022h). It may have replaced a previous temporary place of worship, possibly established by the Cinque Ports (Alsford, 2022e). Losinga then founded the Benedictine priory of St Nicholas, which was a cell of Norwich Cathedral, either in 1101 or in 1123 depending on which account you read (Alsford, 2022e; Lloyd, 1989; Norfolk

88  Town Comparisons: Southern England Part 2 Heritage Explorer 2022g). The priory’s church of St Nicolas replaced St Benet’s and formed part of his penance for simony (Norfolk Heritage Explorer 2022h). Losinga also created a planned town with a grid structure that still survives. An annual herring fair was held in the market place between Michaelmas and Martinmas (29 September to 11 November) (Alsford, 2022e; Norfolk Heritage Explorer 2022j). The herring industry developed before the planned town was built, and various landowners in the area, including some from Hastings in Sussex, had already begun to develop the trade. They owned ships and had established salt houses on the shore for the preservation of their catches. The imposition of the town therefore involved a compromise with their existing rights. The king decided that the annual fair should be under the jurisdiction of the bailiffs of the Cinque Ports — towns located on or near the English Channel, a considerable distance away, but active in the herring fishery (Alsford, 2022e; Murray, 1935). This created resentment amongst the local merchants. The explanation for this arrangement may be that the king needed to reward the Cinque Ports for holding ships in readiness for war with France, and that part of their reward was the privilege of controlling the Yarmouth herring fair. The fair became so important to these towns that they suspended their own local courts for the duration of the fair. Thus although Yarmouth acquired its own fleet of ships, much of its export trade remained in the hands of vessels from other ports (Hedges, 2001). The town received a charter in 1208 which gave the burgesses the fee farm and quittance of tolls in other towns (saving the rights of London). It also established a gild merchant. In practice, however, the scope of the burgesses’ jurisdiction seems to have been limited; in 1215, for example, the men of Hastings held their own court in the town, probably in connection with the fair. A subsequent charter from Henry III in 1272 gave the burgesses greater powers, however (Alsford, 2022e). A number of other religious houses were founded in the thirteenth century. The Dominican friary was founded in 1267 close to the south gate and on the site of the present Great Yarmouth Fire Station (Cox, 1906: 435–8). There is some disagreement over the date of the arrival of the Franciscans, which may have been after 1226 or in 1271 (Cox, 1906: 435–8; Norfolk Heritage Explorer 2022e). They were based in the present Queen Street on a site that increased in size over time. The Carmelites were founded by Edward I in Great Yarmouth in 1276 on the North Quay (Cox, 1906: 435–8; Norfolk Heritage Explorer 2022e). In Gorleston an important Augustinian friary, known for its library, was founded in the 1250s (Norfolk Heritage Explorer, 2022e). In 1334 the town, together with four leets, was assessed for a tenth at 2000s, which was a huge sum and larger than that of the county town of Norwich (Glasscock, 1975). In 1389 11 religious guilds were recorded in the town (Westlake, 1919). As a highly specialised town, Yarmouth prospered immensely while the herring trade was booming. It faced temporary disruption as a result of warfare with France, but the longer-term challenge was silting of the river (Saul, 1979). In 1337 the mouth of the river was increasing blocked by silt, and it became unnavigable

Town Comparisons: Southern England Part 2  89 by 1347 (Norfolk Heritage Explorer 2022d). It became necessary to cut new havens, with a total of seven being cut between 1347 and 1567 (Norfolk Heritage Explorer, 2022i). As the northern channel began to silt up, the settlement pattern of the town shifted south, away from the church of St Nicholas (Alsford, 2022e). The construction of quays intensified, and there seems to have been land reclamation around Greyfriars Way (Norfolk Heritage Explorer, 2022b; Norfolk Heritage Explorer, 2022c). Great Yarmouth’s rows are a long range of tenements (still preserved), where adjacent properties were separated by narrow passages for the carriage of goods by special “troll carts”. They connected the beach with the River Yare and seem to have been in existence from the 1280s (Great Yarmouth Preservation Trust, 2022; Norfolk Heritage Explorer 2022f; Tooke, 2007). It is possible that the plots of the rows facing the river Yare (around the present South Quay) were lengthened by the construction of wharves into the river (Norfolk Heritage Explorer 2022f; Pallister, Slater and Dennison, 2000: 170–1). There have been suggestions that the rows were influenced by Scandinavian urban topography (Norfolk Heritage Explorer 2022f). In 1524 Great Yarmouth was assessed, by a different method, at 2,492s (Sheail, 1998). Great Yarmouth was depicted on Matthew Paris’s map (Paris and Trustees of the British Museum, 1928). It was shown on the Gough map as “a spired church and convent buildings” (The Gough Map of Great Britain, 2022). Ely, Cambridgeshire. Hill-top bordering on fenland, located on the west bank of the River Great Ouse, downstream from its confluence with the River Cam, cathedral, little-used castle. Ely is a small town located on the top of a hill overlooking the river and is dominated by its cathedral and priory. It is upstream from the port of King’s Lynn and downstream from the county town of Cambridge. Much of the wealth of the town accrued from the rents of lands held by the bishop and the abbot. Ely lies at the top of a steep hill, which is part of an island of Kimmeridge clay completely surrounded by freshwater fenland and salty marsh overlaying peat. The abbey was originally founded in 673 by St Etheldreda, daughter of King Anna of East Anglia, and refounded after Danish invasion in 970 (Lloyd, 1989: 179). The motivation for the original foundation may have been Ely’s strategic defensible position near the border between East Anglia and Mercia. From 1109 the abbey became a cathedral priory. Ely was held in demesne by the abbot. In 1086 there were 40 villans, 28 cottars and 20 slaves; also a vineyard and a fishery. It was assessed at 10 hides. It paid £33 in 1066 and £20 in 1086 (although valued at £33) (Open Domesday, 2022; Williams and Martin, 2002). Sometime in the eleventh century a cut was made in the River Great Ouse to bring the river closer to the east side of the town, and subsequently the river was diverted from its course north of the town towards Wisbech into a course towards King’s Lynn (Woodgate, 2002). After the defeat in 1070 of the English rebel Hereward the Wake, who occupied Ely, a castle was built on the hillside overlooking the river. It later became the site

90  Town Comparisons: Southern England Part 2 of a windmill. Building of the Norman cathedral commenced in 1083 and was completed about a hundred years later. Following the collapse of the central arches in 1322 a famous lantern was built which earned the cathedral the title “ship of the fens” (Hampson, 2002; Owen, 2003). In c.1125 a fair was granted to the bishop, and in 1189 this grant was confirmed together with other rights (Letters, 2013). A market held by the bishop was chartered in 1224, although its origins seem to have been much earlier (Letters, 2013). Despite its role as a market centre there is little evidence of access by bridge until the fens were drained in the seventeenth century. In 1251 local occupations included tanning, glazing, butchery, merchandising and dealing in spices. Merchants dealt in cloth from Bury St Edmunds, lead and wax from Boston, glass from Yarmouth, tin from King’s Lynn and canvas from St Ives. The main exports of local produce were eels, wild-fowl, osier (willow), sedge (rush) and pottery (from the clay on which the town was built). In addition there was a significant trade from pilgrims and from visitors to the fairs. The town was a parliamentary borough in 1295 (Letters, 2013). A second fair was chartered in 1327, and both fairs remained active throughout the medieval period (Owen, 2003). Pressure on space meant that the market was gradually filled in, and by the fifteenth century the town was probably larger than ever before. In 1389 11 religious guilds were recorded, associated with the three town churches (St Mary’s, St Peter’s and Holy Trinity). In 1334 the town with its suburbs was assessed at 477s for a fifteenth (Glasscock, 1975). In 1524 it was assessed, on a different basis, at 2,000s (Sheail, 1998). After the Reformation, however, the town stagnated and did not recover its importance until it developed as a railway hub in the nineteenth century. Ely was named by Matthew Paris (Paris and Trustees of the British Museum, 1928). It appeared as a “spired church with cross and convent buildings” on the Gough map (The Gough Map of Great Britain, 2022). It was depicted by Speed (2000: 52–3). Dunwich, Suffolk. Mercantile and fishing port on the East Anglian coast at the mouth of the River Blyth (according to its original course). Dunwich has been identified with “Domnoc”, where an Anglo-Saxon bishopric was established by Sigeberth, king of East Anglia in the seventh century, and was ended by Danish conquest in the ninth century. It is famous as the town that fell into the sea. Domesday records that before the Conquest half the land in the manor had already disappeared in that way (Open Domesday, 2022; Williams and Martin, 2002). Despite this the town grew dramatically after the Conquest. Robert Malet, lord of Eye, Suffolk, was the manorial lord, holding from the king. Before the Conquest, with Eadric of Laxfield as lord, there were 120 burgesses, but by 1086 their number had almost doubled to 236 (plus another 80 on land held by the Prior of Ely). There were 24 Frenchmen (probably merchants and artisans) holding 40 acres of land between them, and 178 poor men (possibly seafarers and labourers). Two new churches had recently been built. The manor was worth £50 and 60,000 herrings, in comparison to £10 before the Conquest. There was a mint 1042–66 and c.1135–54 (Allen, 2012).

Town Comparisons: Southern England Part 2  91 The Norman expansion of Dunwich was at the expense of Blythburgh, an inland port further upstream to the north. Blythburgh was also a royal town and a successful commercial centre. Blythburgh had access to the sea at Southwold, but this was blocked in 1250 on the king’s orders, forcing Blythburgh vessels to sail down river to Dunwich, where they had to pay tolls before reaching the sea. However, the Great Storm of 1286 restored river access at Southwold and threatened to undermine trade at Dunwich. Such was the influence of Dunwich, however, that the king ordered the re-opened cut to be filled in again. A sequence of further storms over the next three hundred years, however, gradually eroded the town of Dunwich itself. It began with the lower part of the town being inundated, and finished with the upper part of the town literally falling into the sea (Gardner, 1754; Parker, 1978). At the town’s peak in the thirteenth century there were six churches and several other religious establishments: the Hospital of the Holy Trinity (“God’s House”) and the leper hospital of St James, both founded before c.1200; a preceptory of the Knights Templar (later the Knights Hospitaller) founded c.1200; and three friaries (of the Dominican, Franciscan and Benedictine orders) (Gardner, 1754; Parker, 1978). There was a sea wall, an inland defensive dyke, a ferry and a quay on a sheltered harbour. But coastal erosion driven by storm surges progressively undermined the town’s economy until it was effectively abandoned as a commercial port. In particular the storm of 1328 did severe damage from which the town never fully recovered. In 1334 it was assessed for a tenth at 240s, which probably reflects the serious damage that had recently been done (Glasscock, 1975). In 1411–12 there were 153 tax payers in Dunwich, of whom about one third, namely 62, were burgesses (Bailey, 1992: 4). In 1524 the town was assessed at 799s, which suggests, in comparison with other towns at that time, that trade had been sustained at an adequate level (Sheail, 1998). Royal policy seems to have been the key to Dunwich’s early success. The herring fishery was undoubtedly important, but the key factor seems to have been the defence of the low-lying lands of East Anglia against foreign invasion. The enemy in the past had been the Vikings, but in the medieval period the enemies were in France and Holland, and with the south coast well fortified, East Anglia was vulnerable to attack (Gardner, 1754; Parker, 1978). Dunwich was a coastal port while Blythburgh was an inland port with better road communications. But Dunwich, being downriver, could handle larger vessels and therefore provide a more formidable naval fleet. Dunwich, it seems, was promoted by the king as a trading centre in order to cross-subsidise national defence. Dunwich was named by Matthew Paris (Paris and Trustees of the British Museum, 1928). It featured on the Gough map as “two buildings and a spired church with cross” (The Gough Map of Great Britain, 2022).

References Abingdon-on-Thames Town Council (2022) Roger Amyce. Available from: https://www. abingdon.gov.uk/abingdon_people/roger–amyce [Accessed 26 March 2022].

92  Town Comparisons: Southern England Part 2 Adams, T.R. (1994) Aliens, agriculturalists and entrepreneurs: identifying the market–­ makers in a Norfolk port from the water-bailiffs accounts. In: D.J. Clayton, R.G. Davies and P. McNiven (eds.), Trade, Devotion and Governance: Papers in Later Medieval History. Stroud, Alan Sutton, pp. 140–59. Allen, M. (2012) Mints and Money in Medieval England. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press. Alsford. S (2022a) Great Yarmouth and east coast ports. Available from: http://users.trytel. com/tristan/towns/florilegium/government/gvdef14.html#p83 [Accessed 15 January 2022]. Alsford, S. (2022b) History of medieval Colchester. Available from: http://users.trytel.com/ ~tristan/towns/colchstr.html [Accessed 15 January 2022]. Alsford, S. (2022c) History of medieval Norwich: evolution of a self–governing community. Available from: http://users.trytel.com/~tristan/towns/norwich4.html#p04 [Accessed 15 January 2022]. Alsford, S. (2022d) History of medieval Lynn. Available from: http://users.trytel.com/~tristan/ towns/lynn1.html [Accessed 15 January 2022]. Alsford. S (2022e) History of medieval Yarmouth. Available from: http://users.trytel.com/ tristan/towns/yarmouth.html [Accessed 15 January 2022]. Anon (1789) The History and Antiquities of Colchester. Colchester, J. Fenno. Ashdown–Hill, J. (2009) Medieval Colchester’s Lost Landmarks. Derby, Breedon Books. Astill, G. (1984) The towns of berkshire. In: J. Haslam (ed.) Anglo–Saxon Towns in Southern England. Chichester, Phillimore, pp. 53–86. Ayers, B. (2004) The urban landscape. In: C. Rawcliffe and R.G. Wilson (eds.) Medieval Norwich. Hambledon and London, pp. 1–28. Bailey, M. (1992) The Bailiffs’ Minute Book of Dunwich, 1404–1430. Woodbridge, Boydell for the Suffolk Records Society. Beresford, M.W. (1967) New Towns of the Middle Ages: Town Plantation in England, Wales and Gascony. London, Lutterworth Press. Biddle, M., H.T. Lambrick and J.N.L. Myers (1968). The early history of Abingdon, Berkshire, and its abbey. Medieval Archaeology. 12 (1), 26–69. Available from: https://doi. org/10.1080/00766097.1968.11735304 Braun, G. and F. Hogenberg (ed. S. Füssel) (2008) Civitatis Orbis Terrarum: Cities of the World. Taschen, Cologne. Britnell, R.H. (1986) Growth and Decline in Colchester, 1300–1525. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press. Brodt, B. (2000) East Anglia. In: D.M. Pallister (ed.) The Cambridge Urban History of Britain. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, pp. 639–56. Campbell, J. (1975) Norwich. In M. Lobel (ed.) The Atlas of Historic Towns, Vol. 2. London, The Scolar Press in conjunction with the Historic Towns Trust, pp. 1–26. Christie, N., O.H. Creighton, M. Edgeworth, H. Hamerow and M. Archibald (2013). Transforming Townscapes: From Burh to Borough: The Archaeology of Wallingford, AD 800– 1400. London, Society for Medieval Archaeology. Clarke, H. (1981) The medieval waterfront of King’s Lynn. In: G. Milne and B. Hobley (eds.) Waterfront Archaeology in Britain and Northern Europe. CBA Research Report Number 41, pp. 132–5. London, The Council for British Archaeology. Available from: https://doi.org/10.5284/1000332 Colgrave, B. and R.A.B. Mynors (eds.) (1969) Bede’s Ecclesiastical History of the English People. Oxford, Clarendon Press. Corbett, J. (1997) A History of St Albans. Chichester, Phillimore.

Town Comparisons: Southern England Part 2  93 Cox, J.C. (1906) Religious houses. In: W. Page (ed.) A History of the County of Norfolk, Vol. 2. London, Archibald Constable, pp. 315– 466. Cox, M. (1986–9) The Story of Abingdon, 2 vols. Abingdon, The author. Crick, J. (ed.) (2007). Charters of St Albans. Oxford, Oxford University Press for the British Academy. Cumber, J. (2010) Tudor Abingdon: The Experience of Change and Renewal in a Sixteenth Century Town. University of Oxford DPhil thesis. Curtis, M. and A.W. Clapham (1924) Hundred of Hormer. In: W. Page and P.H. Ditchfield (eds.) A History of the County of Berkshire, Vol. 4. London, The St Catherine Press, pp. 430–51. Dean, D. (2008) Alban to St Albans, AD 800 to 1820. In: T. Slater and N. Goose (eds.) A  County of Small Towns: The Development of Hertfordshire’s Urban Landscape to 1800. Hertford, University of Hertford Press, pp. 301–32. Dewey, J. (2016) The origins of Wallingford: topography, boundaries and parishes. In: K.S.B. Keats–Rohan and D. Roffe (eds.). The Origins of the Borough of Wallingford: Archaeological and Historical Perspectives. Oxford, Archaeopress, pp. 17–26. Dunn, P. (2004) Trade. In: C. Rawcliffe and R. Wilson (eds.) Medieval Norwich. London, Hambeldon and London, pp. 213–34. East Anglia Network (1997) Herbert Losinga. Available from: http://www.gtyarmouth.co.uk/ Bygones/Medieval_East_Anglia/html/body_herbert_losinga.htm [Accessed 1 March 2022]. Edgeworth, M. (2016) Comparing burhs: a Wallingford–Bedford case study. In: K.S.B. Keats-Rohan and D. Roffe (eds.) The Origins of the Borough of Wallingford: Archaeological and Historical Perspectives. Oxford, Archaeopress, pp. 77–85. Freeman, M. (2008) St Albans: A History. Carnegie Publishing, Lancaster. Gardner, T. (1754). An Historical Account of Dunwich. London, The author. Glasscock, R.E. (ed.) (1975) The Lay Subsidy of 1334. London, Oxford University Press for the British Academy. Google Maps (2022). Available from: https://www.google.com/maps/ [Accessed 10 January 2022]. Gottfried, R.S. (1982) Bury St Edmunds and the Urban Crisis. Princeton, NJ, Princeton University Press. Gransden, A. (ed.) (1964) The Chronicle of Bury St Edmunds, 1212–1301. London, Nelson. Grayson, A. (2004) Bradford’s brook, Wallingford. Oxoniensia. 69, 29–44. Available from: https://www.oxoniensia.org/volumes/2004/grayson.pdf Great Yarmouth Preservation Trust (2022) Rows and scores: the hidden passageways of Lowestoft and Great Yarmouth. Available from: https://www.greatyarmouthpreservationtrust.org/ the–rows [Accessed 29 March 2022]. Halliwell, J.O. (ed.) (1844) The Chronicle of the Monastery of Abingdon. Reading, R. Welch for the Berkshire Ashmolean Society. Hamerow, H. with S. Westlake (2019) The early Anglo–Saxon cemetary at Wallingford. In: K.S.B. Keats–Rohan and D. Roffe (eds.) The Origins of the Borough of Wallingford: Archaeological and Historical Perspectives. Oxford, Archaeopress, pp. 13–16. Hampson, E.M. (2002) City of Ely. In: R.H. Pugh (ed.) A History of the County of Cambridge and the Isle of Ely, Vol. 4 City of Ely; Ely, N. and S. Witchford and Wisbech Hundreds. London, Oxford University Press, pp. 28–89. Harper–Bill, C. (ed.) (1994) Charters of the Medieval Hospitals of Bury St Edmunds. Woodbridge, Boydell for the Sussex Record Society. Hedges, A.A.C. (M. Boon and F. Meeres (ed.) revised and expanded edition) (2001) Yarmouth Is an Antient Town. Great Yarmouth, Blackall Books.

94  Town Comparisons: Southern England Part 2 Hedges, J.K. (1881) History of Wallingford, 2 vols. London, William Clowes and Sons. Herbert, N. M. (1971) The Borough of Wallingford. University of Reading PhD thesis. Hillen, H.J. (1907) History of the Borough of King’s Lynn, 2 vols. Norwich, East of England Newspaper Company. Historical Manuscripts Commission (1877) Sixth Report. London, Eyre and Spottiswoode. Hudson, W.H. and Tingey, J.C. (1906–10) The Records of the City of Norwich, 2 vols. Norwich, Jarrold. Keats–Rohan, K. (2016) The genesis of the honour of Wallingford. In K.S.B. Keats-Rohan and D. Roffe (eds.) The Origins of the Borough of Wallingford: Archaeological and Historical Perspectives. Oxford, Archaeopress, pp. 52–67. Kelly, S.E. (2000) Charters of Abingdon Abbey, Part 1. Oxford, Oxford University Press for the British Academy. Letters, S. (2013) Gazetteer of Markets and Fairs in England and Wales to 1516. Available from: https://archives.history.ac.uk/gazetteer/gazweb2.html [Accessed 20 September 2021]. Levett, A.E. (1938) Studies in Manorial History. Oxford, Oxford University Press. Lloyd, D.W. (1989) Historic Towns of East Anglia. London, Victor Gollancz Ltd and Peter Crawley. Lobel, M.D. (1935) The Borough of Bury St Edmunds. Oxford, Oxford University Press. Meeres, F. (1998) A History of Norwich. Chichester, Phillimore. Meeres, F. (2002) A History of Bury St Edmunds. Chichester, Phillimore. Murray, K.M.E. (1935) The Constitutional History of the Cinque Ports. Manchester, Manchester University Press. Niblett, R. and I. Thompson (2005) Alban’s Buried Towns: An Assessment of St. Albans’ Archaeology Up to AD 1600. Oxford, Oxbow Books. Norfolk Heritage Explorer (2022a) Great Yarmouth: earliest settlement. Available from: https://www.heritage.norfolk.gov.uk/record?tnf433 [Accessed 7 January 2022]. Norfolk Heritage Explorer (2022b) Great Yarmouth: maps. Available from: https://www. heritage.norfolk.gov.uk/record?tnf440 [Accessed 7 January 2022]. Norfolk Heritage Explorer (2022c) Great Yarmouth: medieval topography. Available from: https://www.heritage.norfolk.gov.uk/record?tnf436 [Accessed 7 January 2022]. Norfolk Heritage Explorer (2022d) Great Yarmouth: plague and depression. Available from: https://www.heritage.norfolk.gov.uk/record?tnf397 [Accessed 7 January 2022]. Norfolk Heritage Explorer (2022e) Great Yarmouth: priories and friaries. Available from: https://www.heritage.norfolk.gov.uk/record?tnf435 [Accessed 7 January 2022]. Norfolk Heritage Explorer (2022f) Great Yarmouth: rows. Available from: https://www. heritage.norfolk.gov.uk/record?tnf380 [Accessed 7 January 2022]. Norfolk Heritage Explorer (2022g) Site of Benedictine priory and St Nicholas’ middle school. Available from: https://www.heritage.norfolk.gov.uk/record–details?MNF4295 [Accessed 7 January 2022]. Norfolk Heritage Explorer (2022h) Great Yarmouth: St Nicholas’ church. Available from: https://www.heritage.norfolk.gov.uk/record?tnf434 [Accessed 7 January 2022]. Norfolk Heritage Explorer (2022i) Great Yarmouth: the Havens. Available from: https:// www.heritage.norfolk.gov.uk/record?tnf439 [Accessed 7 January 2022]. Norfolk Heritage Explorer (2022j) Great Yarmouth: the medieval fishing industry. Available from: https://www.heritage.norfolk.gov.uk/record?tnf437 [Accessed 7 January 2022]. O’Connell, M. and R. Poulton (1984) The towns of Surrey. In: J. Haslam (ed.) Anglo-Saxon Towns in Southern England. Chichester, Phillimore, pp. 37–52. Open Domesday (2022) Leeds. Available from: https://opendomesday.org/place/SE3033/ leeds/ [Accessed 7 January 2022].

Town Comparisons: Southern England Part 2  95 Owen, D. (2003) Ely, 1109–1539: Priory, community and town. In: P. Meadows and N. Ramsey (eds.) A History of Ely Cathedral. Woodbridge, Boydell, pp. 59–75. Owen, D.M. (ed.) (2014) The Making of King’s Lynn: A Documantry Survery. Oxford, Oxford University Press for the British Academy. Pallister, D.M., T.R. Slater and E.P. Dennison (2000) Topography of the towns 600–1300. In: D.M. Pallister (ed.) The Cambridge Urban History of Britain Vol. 1 600–1540. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, pp. 153–86. Paris, M. and Trustees of the British Museum (1928) Four Maps of Great Britain Designed by Matthew Paris about AD 1250 Produced from Three Manuscripts in the British Museum and One at Corpus Christi College, Cambridge. London, Trustees of the British Museum. Parker, R. (1978) Men of Dunwich. London, Collins. Parker, V. (1971) The Making of King’s Lynn. Chichester, Phillimore. Rawcliffe, C. (1995) The Hospitals of Medieval Norwich. Norwich, Centre of East Anglian Studies. Richards, P. (1990) King’s Lynn. Chichester, Phillimore. Richards, W. (1812) The History of Lynn. 2 vols., Lynn, W.G. Whittingham. Roffe, D. (2016) Wallingford in the Domesday Book and beyond. In: K.S.B. Keats-Rohan and D. Roffe (eds.) The Origins of the Borough of Wallingford : Archaeological and Historical Perspectives. Oxford, Archaeopress, 2009, pp. 27–51. Rutledge, E. (2004) Economic life. In: C. Rawcliffe and R.G. Wilson (eds.) Medieval Norwich. London, Hambledon and London, pp. 157–88. Saul, A. (1979) Great Yarmouth and the Hundred Years War in the fourteenth century. Bulletin of the Institute of Historical Research. 52 (126), 105–15. Available from: https://doi. org/10.1111/j.1468-2281.1979.tb02216.x. Sheail, J. (ed. R.W. Hoyle) (1998) The Regional Distribution of Wealth in England as Indicated in the 1524/5 Lay Subsidy Returns. Kew, List and Index Society. Slater, T. (1998) Benedictine town planning in medieval England: evidence from St Albans. In: T.R. Slater and G. Rosser (eds.) The Church in the Medieval Town. Aldershot, Ashgate, pp. 155–76. Speed, J.J. (ed.) (2000) Tudor Townscapes: The Town Plans from John Speed’s Theatre of the Empire of Great Britaine 1610. Waddesdon, Map Collector Publications. Sprules, D.W. (1911) Guildford borough. In: H.E. Malden (ed.) A History of the County of Surrey, Vol. 3. London, Constable and Co., pp. 547–60. Statham, M. (1996) The Book of Bury St Edmunds. Whittlebury, Baron Birch. Stenton, F.M. (1913) The Early History of the Abbey of Abingdon. Oxford, Blackwell. Tanner, N.P. (1984) The Church in Late Medieval Norwich, 1370–1532. Toronto, Pontifical Institute of Medieval Studies. The Gough Map of Great Britain (2022) Available from: http://www.goughmap.org/ [Accessed 29 January 2022]. Toms, E. (1962) The Story of St Albans. St Albans, Abbey Mills Press. Tooke, C. (2007) The Rows and the Old Town of Yarmouth. Caistor-on-Sea, Tookes Books. Topographic map (2022) Altitude map of England. Available from: https://en-gb.topographicmap.com/maps/b9/England/ [Accessed 2 February 2022]. Toulmin Smith, L. (ed.) (1964) The Itinerary of John Leland in or about the Years 1535–1543, 5 vols. London, Centaur. Toulmin Smith, L., J. Toulmin Smith and L. Brentano (1870) English Gilds: The Original Ordinances of More than One Hundred Early English Gilds. London, Early English Text Society. Wacher, J.S. (ed.) (1966) The Civitas Capitals of Roman Britain. Leicester, Leicester University Press.

96  Town Comparisons: Southern England Part 2 Westlake, H.F. (1919) The Parish Guilds of Medieval England. London, SPCK. Williams, A. and G.H. Martin (2002) Domesday Book: A Complete Translation. London, Penguin. Williams, N.J. (1988) The Maritime Trade of the East Anglian Ports. Oxford, Clarendon Press. Williamson, G.C. (1904) Guildford in the Olden Time. London, George Bell. Woodgate, G.M.G. (2002) Wisbech. In: R.B. Pugh (ed.) A History of the County of Cambridge and the Isle of Ely, Vol. 4 City of Ely; Ely, N. and S. Witchford and Wisbech Hundreds. Oxford, Oxford University Press, pp. 238–71.

4 Town comparisons Midlands and North England

For reasons of space the following towns are not covered in detail: East Midlands: Stamford, Newark, Luton, Grantham, Grimsby and Bedford. West Midlands: Coventry, Worcester, Gloucester, Marshfield, Cirencester, Newcastle-underLyme, Stafford, Warwick, Birmingham and Stratford-upon-Avon. Welsh borders: Shrewsbury, Bridgnorth and Leominster. Northeast: Hull, Beverley, Doncaster, Scarborough, Pontefract, Hartlepool. Northwest: Manchester. Profiles of all these towns are available from the authors.

East Midlands: Derbyshire, Nottinghamshire, Leicestershire, Lincolnshire, Northamptonshire, Rutland and Bedfordshire Lincoln, county town Roman colonia, hill-side town, cathedral, castle, road hub, and a river and canal hub. Lincoln was one of only four colonia in Roman Britain (Jones, 2002). The River Witham flows in from Grantham through Brayford pool, an old Roman harbour, from which the ancient Foss Dyke, engineered by the Romans, connects it to the River Trent at Torksey, near Gainsborough, providing river access to Hull, Wakefield and York (Cliff, 1994: 222). From Brayford pool the river exits through a gap in a range of hills running north to south; in the medieval period Lincoln was the only bridging point for miles around. The Foss Dyke was expensive to maintain; it was refurbished by Henry I and transferred to the custody of the city of Lincoln by James I. The River Witham was not easily navigable through to Lincoln, and so Boston and Torksey functioned as outports for larger vessels. Ermine Street, the main road from London to York, runs through the centre of the town, bridging the River Witham at Brayford pool and proceeding up a steep hill to the old Roman town, later the site of the Norman castle and the cathedral, with its tall steeples which are a landmark for miles around. It intersects the Fosse Way from Exeter and Cirencester, which continues to the east coast near Cleethorpes. There is uncertainty over Lincoln’s position after Roman withdrawal. One proposal is that it was by the seventh century an elite consumption centre associated with the bishop of Lindsey. During the ninth century it seems to have become a Viking military base and trading centre (Cliff, 1994: 365–70). DOI: 10.4324/9781003172697-4

98  Town comparisons: Midlands and North England Lincoln was one of the Five Boroughs of the Danelaw annexed by the English in 942. The Westgate area was identified as a separate borough in the twelfth century. The Diocese of the Lincoln was very extensive, and its income depended heavily on rents and tithes from agricultural areas. The bishopric was relocated from Dorchester, Oxfordshire in 1072; as a result the bishop of Lincoln held extensive lands in the South Midlands, as far south as the Thames Valley. Domesday records 970 inhabited messuages in 1066, based on the “long hundred”, which equates to 1,150 by normal counting (Open Domesday, 2022; Williams and Martin, 2002). The town was controlled by 12 lawmen having sake and soke, and thereby held the profits of justice; of the five boroughs, only Lincoln and Stamford had this arrangement prior to the Conquest; the other three did not. Toki son of Auti held two and a half churches and a hall that was quit of every custom; he also held a right to landgafol, which he presumably farmed from the king. Overall the town rendered £30 to the king, with the earl taking the third penny. By 1086 there were 760 inhabited messuages, equivalent to 900 by normal counting, implying that 250 had been wasted (Domesday says 240). Some natural successors of the Danish sokemen remained in place, but others had been replaced by Normans or by people with Norman connections. Most of the property had been redistributed to Normans. Bishop Remigius, for example, held two churches, 81 messuages in the town (of which 20 were waste) and also a carucate of land nearby. Geoffrey Alselin held Toki’s hall. In the fields of Lincoln the king and the earl had eight carucates of land in demesne, and four and a half carucates were held locally; Ulf son of Svartbrandr held one carucate, Aelfnoth and Northmann son of Siward the priest another, Peter de Valognes another, the Abbot of Peterborough another and the church of St Mary (forerunner of the cathedral) the remaining half. All these lands, within the town and without, it seems, paid geld to the king, and some were in arrears. The value of the town had increased to £100, with the earl again taking the third penny. A good deal of land, comprising 166 messuages, was wasted to build the Norman castle, and even more land was taken when the new cathedral was built. Domesday records that the remaining wasted properties were destroyed, not because of the oppression of the sheriff and officers, but because of misfortune and poverty and the ravages of fire. As pressure on land at the top of the hill increased, the shift of population towards lower ground around Brayford pool and to the surrounding suburbs doubtless increased. Lincoln was an important financial centre. There was a mint c.973–c.1281; the mint alone rendered £75 in 1086 (Allen, 2012; Hill, 1948). The local Jewish community were important bankers prior to their expulsion in 1290. Aaron, active in the reign of Henry II, was banker to Jewish money-lenders in towns such as London and Cambridge, as well as lending to many religious institutions against the security of their estates. In 1157 it obtained a charter of privileges, giving it freedom of toll throughout the country (Birch, 2010). This charter refers back to the reigns of Edward the Confessor (1042–66) and his successors William the Conqueror and Henry I. A subsequent charter of Richard I takes London as a precedent and states that no townsman, other than a moneyer or a minster, should face trial outside the town, and a charter of 1272 confirms that trials will take place in the Guildhall (Birch, 2010).

Town comparisons: Midlands and North England  99 By the mid-thirteenth century there were about 20 churches, and at least half of them were outside the city walls. There were five friaries of the Dominicans (outside Pottergate), Franciscans (in the old Guildhall), Augustinian friars (by Newport Gate), Frairs of the Sack (in Thornbridgegate) and the Carmelites (Gurnham, 2009; Hill, 1948). Lincoln was a wealthy town that supported three weekly markets in the fourteenth century (Letters, 2013). In 1334 it was assessed for a tenth at 2000s (Glasscock, 1975). It generally enjoyed the support of monarchs and received many charters conferring important privileges on its merchants. Several trade guilds were recorded (including the tailors, fullers and tilers) (Gurnham, 2009; Kissane, 2017). There was an export wool trade based on the local long-wool Lindsey sheep (Jones and Jones, 1981). In 1354 the town became one of ten English towns designated a staple for the export of wool. Local occupations included smiths, goldsmiths, locksmiths, lead beaters, farriers, hatters, girdlers and glovers as well as many bakers and brewers. However, the Black Death and then the Dissolution of the monasteries diminished local elite consumption and led to a decline in the fortunes of the city. In 1524 it was assessed at 2,970s (Sheail, 1998). Lincoln was included on Matthew Paris’s map (Paris and Trustees of the British Museum, 1928). It appeared on the Gough map as a “single building, spired church with cross, possibly a castle and walls with five gates” (Gough map, 2022). Speed noted evidence of decline in the commentary to his map (Speed, 2000: 76–7). Boston, Lincolnshire. East-coast port located in a North Sea haven, first bridging point on the River Witham and important road hub. The town was built on high ground north of the port, mainly on the east bank of the river, with a very large market place and a tall church (the “stump”). It has good road connections to the south and west, via Spalding and Sleaford (Platts, 1985). The early history of Boston is cloaked in mystery. It may have developed initially as a convenient port for trade between Danish settlers and their homeland (Platts, 1985; Sawyer, 1998). It appears only indirectly in Domesday but is mentioned in a charter of 1088–93 granting property in Boston, including St Botolph’s church, to St Mary’s abbey, York (Badham and Cockerham, 2012). It is possible that even at this early period monasteries acquired properties in ports such as Boston to warehouse wool from their estates for export. Located near the mouth of the river Witham, Boston was an important outport for Lincoln by the twelfth century. It hosted a notable annual fair, which was crucial to the success of the settlement. There was a regular market by the thirteenth century, which may have been a spin-off from the fair. The town received a royal charter in 1204 — one of many issued to towns by King John. The main part of the town (excepting certain fees, such as that of St Mary’s abbey) was held by the king or his nominees, who for most of the twelfth century were the dukes of Brittany. In 1241, however, King Henry III granted the town to Peter de Savoy, the uncle of the queen, as part of the honour of Richmond; but on the Peter’s death in 1268 it was restored to the dukes of Brittany (Letters, 2013). St Botolph’s fair was one of the leading trade fairs in the country by the thirteenth century. It is first mentioned in a charter of 1132–5. In 1218 it lasted only a week, but by 1331 it was lasting several months, to the damage of other fairs in the

100  Town comparisons: Midlands and North England district, including the fair at King’s Lynn (Rigby, 2017). Many religious houses from Lincolnshire and Yorkshire purchased, rented or constructed property in Boston for storing wool and conducting business during the fair (Rigby, 2017: 46–7). In the reign of King John the wealth of the town’s merchants was assessed as second only to London. In the fourteenth century it became a staple port for the wool export trade; it also exported local salt and grain as well as lead from Derbyshire. There was also an important trade with Norway. In 1334 Boston, St Botolph was assessed for a fifteenth at 1467s, which was a very substantial amount (Glasscock, 1975). Place-name evidence from surnames of tax payers recorded some years later suggests that Boston attracted local residents from a 25-mile radius around the town — similar to Bristol, and higher than most other towns, but admittedly in an area of low population density. Long-distance immigration was also high, both from other parts of England and from Flanders and Scandinavia (Gurnham, 2014; Thomson, 1856). The town welcomed the friars, who set up four separate establishments (Franciscans in c.1260, Dominicans before 1288, Carmelites in 1293 and Augustinians in c.1317). There was also a hospital for poor men, dedicated to St John the Baptist, established before 1282, outside the town (Gurnham, 2014; Thomson, 1856). There was a powerful merchant guild affiliated with the Hanse. In 1389 there were five major guilds, incorporated by royal licence, and five smaller unincorporated guilds (Ormrod, 1993). However, as rival ports developed Boston’s leadership was eclipsed. The decline of the wool export trade in late fifteenth century (due to a growth in domestic cloth-making) and the silting of the Haven finally relegated it to the status of a minor coastal port and local market centre. Leland, c.1540, observed that all the building of this side of the town [to the east] is fair, and merchants dwell in it; and a staple of wool is used there. There is a bridge of wood to come over into this part of the town, and a pile of stones set in the middle of the river, the stream whereof is sometimes as swift as if it were an arrow. (V, 34) In 1524 it was assessed at 2,215s (Sheail, 1998). The town was finally incorporated in 1545. Boston was depicted by Matthew Paris and on the Gough map as “two buildings and spired church with cross” (Gough map, 2022; Paris and Trustees of the British Museum, 1928). Leicester, county town. Roman civitas, major road hub on the Fosse way and a bridging point on the River Soar (a tributary of the River Trent), castle. The town lies south of the confluence of the Soar with its tributary the Wreake, and north of its confluence with the River Sense at Wigston. It is built on a ridge of high ground that projects into the Soar valley. As a Roman town on the Fosse Way from Exeter to Lincoln, Leicester became the capital of the local Coritani (Wacher, 1966). For a time it was the seat of an Anglo-Saxon bishopric (Courtney, 1998: 101). Later it was captured from Mercia by the Danes and became one of the Five Boroughs of

Town comparisons: Midlands and North England  101 the Danelaw. It was recaptured by Æthelflæd, Lady of the Mercians, in 918 (Courtney, 1998: 121; Dyer and Slater, 2000). The town lies at the intersection of the Fosse way and the main road from London to Derby. It provides an early example of a planned town. The main roads crossed in the middle of the town, where the principal market was located. The town was walled squarely, giving four symmetric quadrants, with the exception of the southwest quadrant, which was enlarged to accommodate the castle and the Newark. The town acquired a mint c.924–c.1180 and may have had as many as four moneyers in 1042–66 (Allen, 2012). There is little obvious sign of Danish legacy in Domesday Book (Open Domesday, 2022; Williams and Martin, 2002). The town stands at the head of the county. King Edward held the city in 1066. It owed him military service of 12 burgesses, or four horses to carry weapons as far as London. It yielded £30 and 15 sesters of honey. By 1086 King William received £42 10s for the rents of the city and the shire; also £10 for a hawk, 20s for a sumpter horse, and £20 per annum from the moneyers. Hugh de Grandmesnil, Earl of Leicester, received the third penny. There were approximately 358 houses in the borough; four churches are mentioned in Domesday, although there were probably six altogether, and by c.1300 there were ten. The Earl was the greatest landholder in the shire, sheriff of the county, and castellan of the castle. Many lay and ecclesiastical lords held messuages in the city; the largest owners were Earl Hugh, holding about 245 properties, the Countess Judith, holding 28 houses, and the abbey of Coventry (10 houses). The king also held 39 houses in demesne. Many of these messuages were held from the rural estates that their owners held elsewhere in the county. Some lords held houses with sake and soke, which suggests that these properties may have been confiscated from Danish lawmen. After the Norman Conquest the town was held by the earls of Leicester, and the castle was built. The earls were sometimes a disruptive influence, twice rebelling against the monarch and at times regulating the town quite harshly. Earl Robert confirmed a merchant guild, first conferred in c.1110, and later allowed the burgesses to collect as much wood as they required for domestic use. By 1200 the guild had a very substantial membership, including many specialised trades: five parchment-makers, four goldsmiths, three wheelwrights, three saddler, a medical doctor and a hospital attendant. About this time King John confirmed that the burgesses could resolve property disputes in their portmanmoot (Bateson, 1899–1901). A fair is recorded in 1228 but may have begun much earlier (Green and Wilshere, 1973; Letters, 2013). By the fourteenth century the burgesses were paying the earl a fixed annual sum to avoid various charges that he had imposed, which constituted a step towards holding the town from the earl at farm (Bateson, 1899–1901). An inquest in 1253 inquired into the origin of the gafolpence and pontage paid to the earl (Bateson, 1899–1901 v. 1: 39–43). The jury found that gafolpence of 3d a year was due from every house with a gable looking onto the High Street (the modern Highcross and Southgate Streets). This may represent a legacy of an original Anglo-Saxon planned town (Courtney, 1998: 115).

102  Town comparisons: Midlands and North England The town remained for many years under the control of the earls, although the king retained some rights in the town. It was until 1375, however, that the mayor, bailiffs and burgesses received the fee farm of the town (Bateson, 1899–1901 v. 1: ix–x). An Augustinian abbey was founded in the 1143 on meadows beside the river north of the town, endowed with the possessions of an earlier college of secular canons (Thompson, 1949). A northern suburb also developed about this time. The Franciscans had arrived by 1230, the Dominicans by 1272, and the Augustinian hermits by 1304. The Hospital of St John the Baptist and St John the Evangelist was founded by 1200, the leper hospital of St Leonard by 1265, and the leper hospital of St Mary Magdalen and St Margaret by 1312. The hospital of the Annunciation of St Mary in the Newarke (also known as Trinity Hospital) was established in 1330 by the earl in a liberty near the castle and the river; in 1353 it was transformed into a college and a hospital, staffed by a dean, 12 canons, 13 vicars, three lay clerks, a verger, and ten female carers who looked after 100 poor folk (some temporary residents and some permanent). The college survived the Dissolution of the Monasteries, but not the Dissolution of the Chantries under Edward VI. The hospital continued in various forms, however, and is now part of a university campus and gives its name to nearby sheltered housing (Billson, 1920; Simmons, 1974; McKinley, 1954). In 1334 Leicester was assessed for a tenth at 533s (Glasscock, 1975). In the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries, like many other towns, Leicester became a centre of wool and leather production. The town may also have been involved in wholesaling, serving retailers in a range of satellite market towns, including Loughborough, Melton Mowbray, Uppingham, Market Harborough and Lutterworth (Green and Wilshere, 1973). The town’s influence declined after the Reformation, and its fortunes did not revive until the nineteenth century. In 1524 it was assessed at 2,080s (Sheail, 1998). The town was not incorporated until 1589. Leicester was portrayed by Matthew Paris (Paris and Trustees of the British Museum, 1928). It appeared on the Gough map as “two buildings and a spired church with cross” (Gough map, 2022). It was depicted by Speed (2000: 72–3). Northampton, county town. River hub and local road hub, religious centre and castle. The town lies on high ground overlooking the confluence of the River Nene and the Brampton Nene (Topographic map, 2022). The sources of both rivers are near to the town. The Nene flows northeast to Wellingborough, Peterborough and Wisbech before entering the North Sea at the Wash. Northampton was probably the head of navigation in medieval times, making the town an important inland port; however, the proliferation of watermills appears to have created problems by the sixteenth century. The Nene valley is wide and accommodates an east–west main road that divides at Northampton, one portion joining Watling Street, heading north to Chester, and the other turning south towards Oxford, Newbury and Southampton. In the late ninth century the town was the site of a Danish stronghold. When the Anglo-Saxons regained control, Edward the Elder created it a county town. A mint is recorded in the tenth century (Allen, 2012). Domesday lists the town at the

Town comparisons: Midlands and North England  103 head of the shire (Open Domesday, 2022; Williams and Martin, 2002). In 1066 it was held by the king and had 60 burgesses, each occupying a dwelling. By 1086 the town’s population had increased dramatically; it had a total of 243 houses of which 20 were waste. The explanation of this growth appears to be a new borough that had been established by the king (possibly on the initiative of the sheriff). Forty of the new houses were held in demesne by the king; 24 were held from the king by six different abbots (of St Edmunds, Peterborough, Ramsey, Coventry, Evesham and Selby); 95 were held by various aristocrats, and 83 by others. The burgesses who held these houses from the lords paid £30.10s to the sheriff, who held the town at farm from the king, with Countess Judith taking £7. After the Conquest a castle was built, possibly over the wasted properties. A market in All Saints churchyard was recorded c.1180 but was removed to a much larger vacant site to the north in 1235, where it remains to this day (Letters, 2013). A fair is recorded by 1153, and letters patent of Henry III in 1218 indicate that the king’s bailiffs were instructed to purchase wool, hide and cloth at the fair and to offer the merchants a good price. Northampton purchases were paid for at St Ives fair, and Winchester purchases were paid for at Northampton fair, but it was not long before complaints arose about delays in the settlements of royal debts. By 1334 the fair lasted throughout November (Cam, 1998; Markham and Cox, 1898). Northampton was a medieval road hub and an important stopping point for travellers, and as a result it developed a significant hospitality trade. But in addition it levied traverse tolls, and in 1329 was collecting these tolls, not just at the entrance to the town, but as far as 15 miles away, apparently to discourage travellers from taking a local detour around the town. In 1334 the town was assessed for a tenth at 540s (Glasscock, 1975). The town received generous charters from successive kings (Williams, 2014). In 1185 the burgesses paid Henry II 200 marks (32,000d) to farm the town themselves, and four years later Richard I’s charter granted them many of the privileges of London, including freedom from toll throughout the country. In 1215 a mayor is recorded. A charter of Edward I (1299) gave the burgesses the right to elect their own bailiffs. The town was incorporated in 1459, and in 1489 a council of 48 burgesses was established to elect the mayor and bailiffs (Cam, 1998; Markham and Cox, 1898). A rental of Edward I suggests that there were about 228 tenements (including houses, curtilages, staircases, gates and waste plots), 67 shops and 20 stalls; adjusting for probable omissions (based on comparisons with other rentals), the number of shops increases to 105 and the number of stalls to 47 (Cam, 1998; Markham and Cox, 1898). Northampton was a significant religious centre. The Cluniac priory of St Andrew was founded c.1100 by the Earl of Northampton and held the advowson of six churches in the town, including two notable surviving churches, St Sepulchre (a Norman round church) and St Peter (a Norman church built over a Saxon palace). This French order of monks was unpopular with the townspeople and the local bishop because its prior was often absent visiting its mother house. By contrast the Augustinian Priory of St James, founded in the early twelfth century, seems to have been highly regarded (Cox, 1906).

104  Town comparisons: Midlands and North England There were four friaries in the town: the Franciscans (established c.1225), the Dominicans (established c.1230), the Augustinians (established before 1275) and the Carmelites (established in 1271). Finally, there were four hospitals: The hospital of St John (est. c.1140), the hospital of St Thomas the Martyr (est. c.1180) and two leper hospitals (St Thomas the Martyr by the South Gate, est. c.1180, and hospital of Walbeck by the North Gate, est. before 1301). Some of these hospitals were aristocratic endowments, and some were financed by the townspeople (Cox, 1906). The town is centrally located on the border between the Midlands and the South, and this may explain why it was favoured by several English monarchs, especially William the Conqueror and King John, becoming the site for many parliaments, the last being in 1380 (Williams, 2014). Its burgesses enjoyed many privileges. Northamptonshire was an important source of ironstone which could be used both for building and for industrial purposes. The combination of the castle, churches, monasteries and hospitals meant that there was always plenty of construction work and repair work required in the town (Cam, 1998; Markham and Cox, 1898). The neighbouring forests of Rockingham, Salcey and Whittlebury provided opportunities for aristocratic hunting and also a good source of wood for construction and fuel. When Leland visited the town in c.1540 he was impressed by the four town gates, of which the East Gate was the “fairest”. The castle was beside the west gate, with a large earthen bulwark. He noted seven parish churches within the walls, of which All Hallows (later burnt down) was the most impressive, and two in the suburbs (I, 7–9). The town sustained considerable damage during the Wars of the Roses and later in the Great Fire of 1675. Nevertheless the town survived and prospered, and the legacy of the medieval town, including many medieval street names, remains to this day. In 1524 it was assessed at 1,824s (Sheail, 1998). Northampton was portrayed by Paris (Paris and Trustees of the British Museum, 1928). It appeared on the Gough map as “a spired church with cross and walls with three gates” (Gough map, 2022). It was depicted by Speed (2000: 84–5). Derby, county town. Roman town and road hub. The town lies between hills to the east and west, at the first bridging point of the River Derwent, which is a tributary of the River Trent (the bridge chapel still survives). The Derwent rises near Glossop and passes through the Peak District before reaching Derby but is not navigable for most of its length. The current is strong, however, and its upper reaches have powered many mills since medieval times. The Derwent valley carries Ryknild Street, which runs from Lichfield through Derby to Chesterfield and York. There are also roads to Ashbourne, Matlock, Nottingham, Ashby-de-laZouch and Uttoxeter. Derby was the site of a Roman settlement. The Danes wintered in Repton, near Derby, in 874 and established Derby as one of their Five Boroughs of the Danelaw. The town was won back by the Mercians, under Æthelflæd, Lady of the Mercians, in 917, although four of her thanes were killed in the struggle. A mint was established soon afterwards, which survived for about two hundred years (c.978–c.1154) (Allen, 2012; Glover, 1843).

Town comparisons: Midlands and North England  105 Domesday refers to the town as a borough; it does not place it at the head of the shire; indeed the shire itself is appended to the neighbouring shire of Nottingham (Open Domesday, 2022; Williams and Martin, 2002). In 1066 there were 243 burgesses, 41 of whom had substantial land holdings; there were 14 mills and two churches, both held by the king, and employing a total of 13 clerks. By 1086 there were 140 burgesses and 103 waste messuages, six churches, and ten mills, one of which was held by the Abbot of Burton-on-Trent. Several properties had been confiscated from Danes. Geoffrey Alselin held a church that had belonged to Toki; Ralph fitzHubert held another church that belonged to Leofric; and Norman of Lincoln held a church that had belonged to Brun. The only Dane to retain a church was Edric, who inherited it from his father. Eight messuages with sake and soke that had belonged to Aelfgar (probably a lawman) now belonged to the king. Fishing was evidently important, and some services were rendered in corn. In 1066 the town rendered £24 to the king, and in 1086, including the mills and a suburb, it rendered £30. The sheriff collected the payments, and the earl received the third penny. The privileges of the borough were extended by King John in 1204, including market rights. In 1330 the burgesses claimed that they had held markets on four days a week for time out of mind (Letters, 2013). There are no records of a castle at Derby, which is unusual for a county town. There may, however, have been a Danish camp within the present town near Cockpit Hill, and possibly a fortification there during the Anarchy. For a considerable time Derbyshire was administered from Nottingham rather than Derby, as suggested by Domesday Book (Open Domesday, 2022; Williams and Martin, 2002). Derby was an important religious centre. The collegiate church of All Saints was established 1100–7 as a royal gift to the minster church at Lincoln. The Augustinian hospital of St Helen was established in 1137, as an initiative of neighbouring Darley abbey; the Cluniac priory of St James in c.1140 as a cell of Bermondsey abbey, together with a hospital, and the leper hospital of St Leonard (sometimes known as God’s house) in c.1171. Dominican friars arrived during 1224–38 (Cox, 1906). There were five parish churches too, four of which survive (though much rebuilt): All Saints, St Michael’s, St Peter’s and St Werburgh’s; St Mary’s chapel on the bridge over the River Derwent survives as well (Glover, 1843). In 1334 Derby was assessed for a tenth at 600s (Glasscock, 1975). Derby seems to have prospered as a religious and administrative centre and as local market hub; it was well connected by road to other neighbouring towns, but these towns were far enough away not to encroach on its market. In 1524 it was assessed at 649s (Sheail, 1998). Derby was depicted on the Gough map as “two buildings and a spired church” (Gough map, 2022). Speed portrayed Derby and noted the natural resources of the surrounding area, with “woods and cattle, sheep and corn … the mill-stone, crystal and alabaster, the mines of pit-coal, and lead” (Speed, 2000: 46–7). Nottingham, county town. Bridging point on the river Trent, important castle, and road hub. Nottingham lies on a peninsular of high ground near the confluence of the River Trent, which enters the North Sea through the Humber estuary, and the

106  Town comparisons: Midlands and North England River Leen, whose source lies to the north near the site of Newstead abbey (Barley and Straw, 1969: 1–2; Roffe, 1997: 26). The River Leen is overlooked by steep sandstone cliffs containing caves, on top of which the Normans built a castle (Dixon, Knight and Firman, 1997: 10). Compared to its Midlands neighbours — Lincoln, Leicester and Derby — Nottingham was a “late developer” (Dixon, Knight and Firman, 1997: 20–1; Foulds, 1997a: 72; Lomax, 2013). The Danes wintered there in 868, but they were presumably paid off by the Mercians, because they left the town and returned to York. Danish re-occupation began in 877, and Nottingham subsequently became one of the five boroughs of the Danelaw. The occupation lasted until 918 when the Anglo-Saxons regained control. Nottingham was a “king’s town”. In c. 920, probably motivated by increasing Danish power in York, Edward King of Wessex constructed a borough on the opposite side of the river Trent to the Viking settlement and linked the two settlements with a bridge (Dixon, Knight and Firman, 1997: 28–9; Barley and Straw, 1969: 1–2). The bridge was accessed by a causeway. Its defensive role further enhanced Nottingham’s importance at a regional level (Dixon, Knight and Firman, 1997: 29). A mint operated across c.978–c.1154 (Allen, 2012). Nottingham became a county town in 1016. In 1066 there were two moneyers and 173 burgesses, and six carucates of arable land were divided between 38 of the burgesses. Earl Tosti also had one carucate of land, from which the king had two pennies and the earl the third. Hugh fitzBaldric, the sheriff, found 136 men dwelling in the town, but by 1086 there were only 120 (Open Domesday, 2022; Williams and Martin, 2002). After the Conquest the Normans built a large castle on an unoccupied ridge overlooking the River Leen, thereby avoiding the demolition of urban property that occurred in this connection in most other towns (Drage, 1989; Marshall and Foulds, 1997: 43–8). They established a large French borough between the English borough and the castle, on land previously held by Earl Tosti. The rents from this borough were consolidated with the rents from the old borough. By 1086 the sheriff had built 13 new houses there in order to supplement the rents from the old borough. There was a single church, worth £5 a year. There is also mention of 48 merchant’s houses and 25 horsemen’s houses, though whether they were in the new borough is uncertain; there is also reference to 17 houses in the borough ditch. The burgesses in the old borough complained that they were no longer allowed to fish in the river. Before the Conquest the town rendered £18; by 1086 it rendered £30 plus £10 from the mint. The French borough was probably intended to “provision the castle, attract Norman settlers and foster trade” (Roffe, 1997: 39). It is difficult to be sure of how burgage plots were laid out in the French borough, but Barley and Straw (1969: 3) identify two areas of planned burgages at the present Parliament Street and on the banks of the River Leen in the area of the present Canal Street, which was probably where tanning was conducted. The town overall appears to have lacked ribbon development or suburbs (Foulds, 1997a: 61). By 1504 the subsidy roll suggests that “there was a ‘central core’ of properties with few gardens; a ‘second zone’ comprising a mixture of tenements and gardens and a ‘periphery’ with few tenements but

Town comparisons: Midlands and North England  107 a high proportion of closes, barns and gardens. Property values declined close to the periphery” (Marcombe, 1997: 85). The French and English boroughs were initially administered separately, each having their own bailiff (Foulds, 1997a: 65). However, the introduction of a mayor in 1284 created a more common administration between them (Foulds, 1997a: 66–7). In c.1160 Henry II confirmed an earlier charter of his grandfather, Henry I, giving the burgesses free customs; he invited the men of Nottinghamshire and Derbyshire to come to the market with their wains and packhorses on Fridays and Saturdays, and prohibited anyone within ten leucae from working dyed cloth except in the borough. In c.1189 John, Earl of Mortain, granted the burgesses a merchant guild and the privilege of electing their own reeve to collect the fee farm, reserving his right to demand a more suitable person if necessary. The market place lay at the boundary of the two boroughs. The population in the old borough was much reduced, but the new borough was expanding. In the twelfth century new churches and taverns began to be built, and examples of both survive. Eventually there were three parish churches, a hospital, a leper hospital and two friaries. There was an important administrative aspect to Nottingham’s medieval economy, as much of its significance derived from its role as the administrative centre for the sheriff of Nottinghamshire and Derbyshire, for Sherwood Forest (Foulds, 1997a: 56). The river Trent was also a key part of Nottingham’s economy. The town was head of navigation for small boats (Foulds, 1997a: 72). The Trent connected with the River Humber, providing access to York, Hull and the North Sea. Access to the port of Boston was obtained by a connection between the Humber and the Fosse Dyke (a Roman canal) at Torksey in Lincolnshire (Foulds, 1997b: 72). Nottingham’s bridge over the Trent was a mile to the south of the town and connected to it by a wooden causeway, with horse and carts used to transport the items between the river and the town (Foulds, 1997b: 74). Nottingham’s Lenton fair, operated by Lenton priory from 1164, contributed to its economic prosperity by drawing merchants from a wide area. There are indications that Nottingham merchants owned or chartered ships for overseas trade, especially with Belgium, but there is little surviving evidence on what was traded (Foulds, 1997b: 75). The River Trent enabled raw materials such as lead and alabaster to be transported from Derbyshire to the town (Barley and Straw, 1969: 3; Foulds, 1997a: 69; Foulds, 1997b: 79). Weaving was also significant in the town’s economy (Foulds, 1997b: 77). In 1334 the town was assessed for a tenth at 741s, and in 1524 it was assessed, on different principles, at 1,122s (Glasscock, 1975; Sheail, 1998). Overall, medieval Nottingham was most significant as a defensive centre and administrative centre. Its economic function was probably initiated connected to the supply of the castle but became more independent over time. The castle provided royal hospitality, and its regular enhancement provided employment for skilled artisans. The administration of the county and the management of Sherwood Forest was also a source of employment in the town. However, despite its strategic location on the river network and investment in the new borough, the town never seems to have achieved the same degree of prosperity as its neighbours Derby and

108  Town comparisons: Midlands and North England Lincoln. It may be that its rural catchment area was not particularly prosperous, and that its neighbour, Derby, was a better-connected road hub. Nottingham was depicted by Paris (Paris and Trustees of the British Museum, 1928). It appeared on the Gough map as “a single building, spired church, two castles and walls with two gates” (Gough map, 2022). It featured in Speed (2000: 88–9). Peterborough, Northamptonshire. Cathedral city at the boundary of hills and fens, bridging point on the River Nene and major road hub. Peterborough lies on the border between the hills of Northamptonshire to the west and the fenlands of Huntingdonshire and Lincolnshire to the east. It is located just east of Ermine Street and the Great North Road, north of Huntingdon and south and Stamford. It is well-connected, with major roads to London, Northampton, Lincoln, York, Boston, Wisbech and King’s Lynn (Hart, 1981–2). In 656 a monastery was founded by Abbot Seaxwulf with the support of Peada, son of Penda, King of Mercia. Known as Medeshamstede, it controlled a far-flung group of satellite minsters (Kelly, 2009; Lloyd, 1989: 189). It was endowed with a large surrounding territory of meres and fens but was destroyed by Viking invaders c.870. In 963 St Aethelwold became bishop of Winchester and set about a programme of monastic reform, replacing secular clerics with monks. With the support of the king he established a Benedictine monastery on the site of the old monastery in c.970 (Cox, 1906). He also refounded St Mary’s nunnery, established 899–902 by Ealhswith, King Alfred’s widow, as a Benedictine nunnery. A settlement developed around the monastery, enclosed by a wall. Following the devastation wrought by Hereward the Wake in 1070, King William authorised a castle, whose remains are known as Tout Hill. Domesday notes that in 1086 the abbot of Peterborough held the vill, with land for 16 ploughs, and a mill, and that it was valued at £10 (Open Domesday, 2022; Williams and Martin, 2002). It also reveals that the abbot held a large amount of land in surrounding areas, much of which he had held from before the Conquest. Most of it was held in demesne, but some, mainly in Northamptonshire, was held from him by knights, sergeants and others, often holding jointly with one or two others. This suggests a lively, and possibly speculative, local market in land. After a disastrous fire in 1116 the building of the present cathedral was commenced (Cox, 1906). A survey of c.1125 reported 55 men who paid rent and owed suit of court, 18 burgages held by Alsward, and 24 hostels held by the abbot’s knights and their servants; altogether 172 people were mentioned (King, 1980–1). Following the grant of a charter in 1143, a market, with surrounding streets, was built to the west of the abbey, on the opposite side to the earlier burh. There was possibly a mint c.1135–54 (Allen, 2012). In 1268 Henry III granted a fair. In the early fourteenth century or thereabouts, the first town bridge was built and the gates and walls were improved. The monastery thrived under the patronage of Edward III and the Black Prince, and there were lavish improvements in the sixteenth century, shortly before the Dissolution. There was a leper hospital of St Leonard, first mentioned in 1125, and a hospital of St Thomas the Martyr, managed by the abbey, established c.1190 (Cox, 1906).

Town comparisons: Midlands and North England  109 In 1334 the town was assessed for a fifteenth at 510s, and in 1524, on a different basis, at 887s (Glasscock, 1975; Sheail, 1998). Overall, medieval Peterborough was a successful small town built around its abbey, and readily accessible by main roads from most directions. Although a bridging point on the river, the bridge seems to have been more significant for road traffic rather than river traffic; there was no special reason why river traffic from Northampton would stop at the town, as Wisbech was downstream and much nearer the coast. Peterborough was featured in Paris (Paris and Trustees of the British Museum, 1928). It appeared on the Gough map as “a spired church and convent buildings” (Gough map, 2022). It was featured in Speed (2000: 94–5).

West Midlands: Warwickshire, Worcestershire, Gloucestershire and Staffordshire Lichfield, Staffordshire. Religious centre, road hub. Lichfield is situated on low-lying water meadows between high ground to the north and south. The River Tame (a tributary of the River Trent) flows two miles east of the town. There are springs nearby, and there were three large ponds within the medieval town. It has been a road hub since Roman times. It is two miles from the Roman settlement now known as Wall, where Watling Street intersects the Ryknild Way from Gloucester to Derby and the north. Roads radiate to Stafford, Derby, Tamworth, Birmingham and Wolverhampton. St Chad became bishop of Lichfield in 669, and the town was already well established by 700 when the first cathedral was consecrated. It was near to the Mercian capital of Tamworth. The bishopric was subsequently moved to Chester but restored in the thirteenth century. In 1066–86 it was a rural manor valued at £15 (Open Domesday, 2022; Williams and Martin, 2002). The Normans built a new cathedral, but it was quickly superseded by the grander building that remains today; its building commenced in 1195 and took 150 years to complete. Bishop Roger de Clinton was responsible for fortifying the cathedral precinct in the twelfth century. He also constructed a grid of urban properties around a market place adjacent to the precinct and endowed Buildwas abbey nearby. The grid resembled the rungs of a ladder; on the top rung was the cathedral precinct, then the pool, then the market square, and then four rows of shopping streets connected by two long streets forming struts to either side (Greenslade, 1990). The burgage rent was 12d, which was fairly standard for “new towns” at this time. No borough charter has survived, but in 1222 the liberties of Lichfield were cited as a model for the nearby town of Burton-on-Trent (Slater, 1985, 1986). There was a mint c.1180–c.1247 (Allen, 2012). A Sunday market was charted in 1153 to the church of Lichfield and the bishop of Coventry. A Wednesday market was recorded in 1293 and continued until 1622. By the fourteenth century different parts of the market place were being used for different commodities. Cloth Cheaping, mentioned from 1312, lay on the south  side, while Women’s Cheaping, mentioned in 1388, was later known as

110  Town comparisons: Midlands and North England Breadmarket Street. The salt market was on the north side, and Butcher Row became part of Conduit Street on the east side (Upton, 2001). In addition to the market, a Whitsuntide week fair was recorded in 1293, held by the bishop of Lichfield; in 1307 the fair was extended to 15 days, in 1337 a four-day September fair was introduced and in 1409 there was an Ash Wednesday fair too (Letters, 2013). Justice was also administered in the town: the itinerant justices in eyre held court there, and the pleas of the forest were also heard in the town. The city was represented in parliament in the first half of the fourteenth century. In 1334 the town was assessed for a tenth at 267s, which was about the same amount as the neighbouring county town of Stafford (Glasscock, 1975). There were three parish churches: St Mary’s in the town centre beside the market, St Chad’s at Stowe at the east end of the town, and St Michael’s towards the south. St Mary’s had no churchyard; parishioners used the large cemetery at St Michaels’s, which may have been the earliest parish church in the town (Taylor, 1968–9). There were two religious guilds associated with St Mary’s and one with St Chad’s (Greenslade, 1990). The two guilds amalgamated in 1387; the new guild had many members from outside the town, including gentry, heads of religious houses and even royalty. The guild may have offered hospitality to visitors to the town and to those passing through, and fostered long-distance commercial links with other parts of the country; it was sufficiently prosperous to finance four chaplains in St Mary’s church. It also collaborated with the “forty-eight”, who seem to have been an elite group of burgesses and commoners who played an important role in the governance of the town. From the mid-1400s onwards a range of craft guilds are recorded, although some may have been quite ancient by that time; they include saddlers, vintners, mercers, masons, shoemakers, carpenters, barbers and surgeons, joiners, painters and stainers, bakers, farriers, glaziers, clothworkers, weavers, cappers and tailors. Inn-keeping and prostitution appear to have been major service industries: the inns included the Swan, Lion, Antelope, Unicorn, Cock, Star, Eagle and Cardinal’s Hat; brothels are recorded along the main throughfares and near the cathedral precinct; court records indicate that some prostitutes earned high incomes, and some seem to have migrated to the town from London (Upton, 2001). The economy of the medieval town appears to have been based on serving local religious institutions, supporting the pilgrimage trade to St Chad’s shrine, providing hospitality for long-distance road travellers, and operating the local market. The market may have served a restricted area, however, because of competition from other market towns nearby, including Tamworth, Stafford, Sutton Coldfield and Wolverhampton. In 1524 it was assessed at 727s (Sheail, 1998). Lichfield was included on Matthew Paris’s map (Paris and Trustees of the British Museum, 1928). It was portrayed on the Gough map as a “spired church with cross and convent buildings” (Gough map, 2022). It was depicted by Speed (2000: 74–5). Tamworth (Staffordshire and Warwickshire). Royal administrative centre that shrank into a small market town; local road hub about 2 miles north of Watling Street. The town lies off a spur of high ground projecting in marshland surrounding the confluence

Town comparisons: Midlands and North England  111 of the River Anker and the River Tame (a tributary of the Trent). In the seventh century Tamworth was an administrative centre for the kings of Mercia. Analysis of the Staffordshire Hoard, recently found near the town, suggest that by this time raiding and trading had brought a range of high-status objects into the hands of elite local warriors. King Offa appears to have built a wooden hall or palace in the late eighth century, surrounded by a ditch, and charters suggest that Mercian royalty celebrated Easter and Christmas in Tamworth c.750–c.860. About this time there were two mills used for grinding corn, probably located near to a royal palace. The town was destroyed by the Vikings, but rebuilt in 913 by Æthelflæd, daughter of King Alfred of Wessex, and the Lady of the Mercians. On her death in 918 Mercia and Wessex were united (Stone, 2003; Wood, 1958; Wood, 1972). A church is recorded in 926, and a mint too; the mint survived until c.1154 (Allen, 2012; Wood, 1958). It has been suggested that the much of the early mint output was used to pay off Viking raiders. The shire counties of Staffordshire and Warwickshire were created about this time, with the border running through the middle of the town; as a result, power shifted to the new county towns of Stafford and Warwick. The Normans fortified the town with a motte and bailey castle (although the town had been fortified by the Mercians c.913, this may have been with earthworks and a ditch). Between 1100 and 1291 the castle was held by the Marmion family, one of whom was Chief Justice to King John, and subsequently by the Freville and Ferres families. In the reign of Henry II the burgesses paid a fee farm of £5 for the Staffordshire part of the town and £4 16s for the Warwickshire part. In 1319 Edward II granted the Warwickshire portion of the town to the burgesses (Stone, 2003; Wood, 1958; Wood, 1972). It seems probable that Tamworth had two markets, one in Warwickshire controlled by the king and one in Staffordshire controlled by the local lord. There were two courts in each part of the town, each presided over by bailiffs: the portmanmoot, which met every third Monday, and the court leet, or view of frankpledge, which met twice yearly. The portmanmoot dealt with property issues, including inheritance and entry fines, law and order, and the assize of bread and ale. There was discriminatory treatment of strangers, and especially Welshmen. The records suggest that salt, iron, cattle and fish were widely traded, and that female brewers and hucksters were very active in the town (Gould, 1971–2). In c.1275 Sir Philip Marmion established the Hospital of St James on land near Wigginton; he had ambitious plans which seemed to have been vetoed by his lord the king; the hospital survived but always remained poor (Stone, 2003; Wood, 1958; Wood, 1972). In 1334 the northern part of the town in Staffordshire was assessed for a tenth at 73s, and the southern portion in Warwickshire for 136s, making a total of 209s (Glasscock, 1975). In 1524 the Staffordshire portion was assessed, on different principles, at 76s and the Warwickshire portion at 232s, making a total of 308s; comparing these figures suggests that the south of the town was developing faster than the north (Sheail, 1998). Tamworth is described by Leland in c.1540 as a celebrated market centre with three fairs, two held by the townspeople and one by St Edith’s college (II, 104–5).

112  Town comparisons: Midlands and North England The college was founded c.960 and attached to the parish church; it had a dean and six prebendaries at the time that Leland visited. The borough was finally incorporated in 1560, when the two parts of the town were merged.

Welsh borders: Cheshire, Shropshire, Herefordshire and Monmouthshire Hereford, county town. Defensive outpost near the Welsh border; bridging point on the River Wye; road hub, cathedral, castle. The town played an important role in the wars with the Welsh from the eighth to the sixteenth century and was a county town from an early date. The Earl of Hereford was one of the “marcher lords” who defended the Welsh borderlands for the king. Its cathedral was a major centre of learning. To the south and east the town is surrounded by marsh, especially at the confluence of the River Wye and the River Lugg. Its river bridge dates from the eleventh century, if not earlier. A wooden bridge existed before the Conquest, and by 1490 a new bridge had been built from stone. Thanks to this bridge Hereford became a major road hub, where the road from Shrewsbury and Ludlow to Abergavenny and Newport crossed the road from Worcester to Brecon (Alsford, 2022a; Baker, Hughes and Morriss, 2018). The town probably originated as one of King Offa’s defensive burghs, created in the second half of the eighth century, but may have had an earlier religious significance (Alsford, 2022a). The town had a mint c.924–c.1278 and was walled by 1066 (Allen, 2012; Letters, 2013). The Norman Conquest involved no destruction of property in the town; King William seems to have regarded the town as an important outpost near the Welsh border (Royal Commission on the Historical Monuments of England, 1931). Domesday reports that in 1066 there were 103 men dwelling both inside and outside the walls (Open Domesday, 2022; Williams and Martin, 2002). The customs reveal a strong feudal element. Each man paid 7.5d for his burgage plot and an additional 4d if he hired a horse. He owed service to the king of three days reaping and one day gathering, and when the king went hunting one man from each house would go into the wood to head off the game. If a man had a horse, he went three times a year with the sheriff to the hundred court at Wormelow. Men holding part-messuages guarded the hall when the king was in the city. If a man defaulted on rent, then he lost his property to the king’s reeve, who would let it out as soon as possible; if they left the town they could sell their house, but a third of the proceeds would go to the reeve. If a burgess died the king took his horse and his weapons, and if he had no horse then the king took 10s or his house and its land. If a person died intestate then the king took all his goods. There were another 27 men, all living within the town, who held from the Earl of Hereford on similar terms. The city was held at farm by the reeve; it paid £12 to the king and £6 to the earl. Everyone, whether holding from the king or the earl, paid fines for theft and breach of the peace to the king alone. Later records indicate that there were several other fees within the town as well, including the bishop’s fee surrounding the cathedral (Rosser, 1998).

Town comparisons: Midlands and North England  113 There were also seven moneyers, including one who served the bishop. These men owed the service of going with the sheriff into Wales when required. There were also six smiths, each making 120 shoes of the king’s iron; presumably the iron came from the Forest of Dean, to the southeast of the town, and was used to shoe the king’s horses. As a consequence of the Conquest there were only minor changes to property holdings; by 1086 the king held the whole town in demesne, and the English burgesses had the same customs as before. There were now French burgesses, however, who paid less if they quit their properties. The value of the city had more than trebled to £60; this increase could be partly accounted for by substantial immigration from France. Soon after the Conquest the market was moved from inside the walls to a much larger site outside the walls to the north of the town; the bridge was built (or improved), the pre-Norman castle was rebuilt and in c.1107 the building of the present cathedral was commenced (Alsford, 2022a). This construction boom may have been a response to the sacking of the town by a Welsh army in 1056, coupled with the ambition of the king and the earls to stimulate the economy of the town. In the thirteenth century Dominican and Franciscan friars arrived in the town. In 1189 Richard I gave a charter which removed many aspects of feudalism, as described previously. The burgesses now paid a fee farm valued at £40 and were quit of tolls throughout the country; furthermore, the sheriff could not interfere in legal matters within the town. In 1227 a three-day fair was granted, and in 1256 the citizens acquired additional legal privileges, in settlement of a dispute with the bishop over jurisdiction in the town. In 1298 the bailiffs were granted tolls on goods brought into the town for sale, the proceeds to be used to expedite the building of the walls. In 1383 the town was granted pontage on the Wye bridge, and a grant of timber and stone for its repair, and in 1392 the burgesses acquired an official courthouse (Jancy, 1973; Johnson, 1882). The town churches of St Peter and All Saints were built c.1200, and St Giles hospital was established at about the same time. The Knights of St John of Jerusalem and the Dominicans were both established in the town by the 1320s, and probably the Franciscans too. The city had six gates (five landward and one on the bridge), and there was suburban development outside all of them (Baker, Hughes and Morriss, 2018). In 1334 the town was assessed for a tenth at 1,209s (Glasscock, 1975). Herefordshire has long been noted for cattle breeding and apple orchards, and the cattle market and leather industry were almost certainly key factors in the town’s early development. The role of the town in defending the Welsh border provided both benefits and costs: the risk of attack, and the benefit of investment in defences and in road and river access. Leland c.1540 noted three churches within the walls and two in the suburbs (III, 47–8); he found the walls in a good state of repair, and the six gates still standing, but the castle much decayed. He also reported that the walls were surrounded by a water-filled ditch and noted a very pleasant suburb outside the north gate (II, 64–7).

114  Town comparisons: Midlands and North England In 1524 the town was assessed at 2,481s; it was not incorporated until 1597 (Sheail, 1998). Hereford was portrayed by Matthew Paris (Paris and Trustees of the British Museum, 1928). It was depicted on the Gough map as “two buildings, two spired churches, walls and two gates” (Gough map, 2022). Speed portrayed Hereford and commented on its “healthy and temperate” climate (Speed, 2000: 58–9). Chester, county town. Walled city near the coast on a steep mound by a bend in the River Dee near the Welsh border; large Roman fortress with a river port that silted up in the Tudor period; first bridging point on the River Dee, and gateway by road to the North Wales coast; cathedral, castle, regional road hub. Chester was an important Roman town, with a substantial garrison and the largest amphitheatre in England (Strickland, 2003: 9–15). Two minster churches were founded in the seventh century or thereabouts: St John the Baptist, just outside the Roman walls, and another in the centre of the town, probably refounded in c.907 by the Mercians, and dedicated to St Werbergh in the eleventh century. St John’s was briefly the seat of the bishop of Chester in the late eleventh century, while St Werburgh’s became an abbey church in 1092 and became the seat of the bishop after the Dissolution. The “Handbridge” over the river (which still survives today, outside the walls to the south of the town) was built about this time. The town overlooks water meadows to the west, including the Roodee racecourse, established in 1539 on the site of the old Roman port, and the oldest surviving racecourse in England. The town was described by the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle as an “empty town in the Wirral” that was attacked by Norse Vikings in 893, possibly to create a bridgehead for troops from Dublin to reach York (Whitelock, Douglas and Tucker, 1961). It was subsequently rebuilt by Æthelflæd, Lady of the Mercians (see previous discussion) who seems to have used some of the stone from the old Roman walls (Thacker, 2003:16–33). The town developed on the inside bend of the River Dee; it was square-walled with a crossroads at the centre. In 918, after the deaths of his sister and her husband, Edward the Elder seized control of Chester. West Saxon authority was unpopular, and in 924 Chester’s residents “revolted in alliance with the Welsh” (Thacker, 2003: 16–33). Relations with rulers improved after Edward the Elder’s death later that year. The city gained administrative importance, and creation of a minster in the first half of the tenth century endowed it with a religious significance (Thacker, 2003: 16–33). It had a mint c.918–c.1302, with up to 25 moneyers in its early years, and was a shire town by 980 (Allen, 2012). By the 930s, however, Chester was becoming increasingly independent of the crown. Chester came under the remit supervised by the ealdorman of West Mercia (Thacker, 2003: 16–33). One of the earls of Mercia was Earl Leofric (d. 1057) who, together with his wife Lady Godiva, was responsible for founding the Benedictine house in Coventry alongside St John’s in Chester (Baxter, 2007). The other lords were the king and the bishop of Lichfield (Thacker, 2003: 16–33). The Normans made two administrative changes in Chester. First, they relocated the see from Lichfield to Chester. Second, the position of ealdorman of West Mercia transitioned in the Earl of Chester (Barraclough, 1952: 27). Illustrative of these changes is the payment of landgable, which before 1066 was paid to the king,

Town comparisons: Midlands and North England  115 the Earl of Mercia and the bishop of Lichfield, whereas after the Conquest it was paid to the Earl of Chester and the bishop of Chester (Thacker, 2003: 16–33). Domesday places Chester at the head of the county and refers to it as a city (Open Domesday, 2022; Williams and Martin, 2002). In 1066 it paid geld for a half-hundred (50 hides), which was less than smaller towns such as Shrewsbury (rated at 100 hides). It rendered 10.5 marks of silver (£7), with the Earl of Chester taking the third penny. It had 487 houses, the majority of which were held by the king, and 56 by the bishop. The Earl of Chester held all the land of the shire outside the town, with many other lords holding from him. The shire and not the town was responsible for the repair of the walls. There were seven moneyers in the town. The town was held from the king by the earl, who had farmed it out to Mundret for just over £70. The king governed the town through a reeve, and the bishop through an officer. Twelve lawmen attended the shire court; they were chosen from the tenants of the bishop, the king and the earl. Ships required the king’s permission to enter or leave port, and the king took 4d from each load. The reeve had first choice of any marten pelts imported from Ireland — a highly prized fur. The king also took fines for other offences; the bishop took fines for offences committed on Sundays and holy days. By 1086 the town was a borough, but with 205 fewer houses. Chester was one of the cities involved in resistance against the Norman Conquest. In 1069 men from Chester joined rebellious Welsh and Anglo-Saxon nobles to invade Shrewsbury. In response William the Conqueror moved his army to Chester and constructed a castle there to the southwest of the Roman fort, apparently removing houses to do so (Brown, 1999; Thacker, 2003: 16–33). This event may have resulted in the creation of the role of Earl of Chester in 1071 (Barraclough, 1952: 27). The lands of the final Earl of Mercia, Edwin, were divided between Roger of Montgomery (Shrewsbury) and Gherbod the Fleming (Chester). However, Gherbod returned to the Continent almost immediately, and so William the Conqueror replaced him with Hugh of Avranches, whose loyalty was potentially more reliable as he was William’s nephew (Barraclough, 1952: 27; Crouch, 1991; Husein, 1973; Lewis, 1991: 38–40). The earls of Chester became extremely influential Marcher lords; Chester was one of the Palatine counties that enjoyed significant autonomy from the English crown. It performed important administrative functions and provided logistical support for military campaigns against the Welsh. It was also a centre of elite consumption. The market handled fish, grain, malt, tiles and tableware and a wide range of other commodities. Its long-term prosperity depended heavily on its port, and in particular its trade with Ireland (Wilson, 1969). Cheshire was not the only place where the earls held lands. They held land across 20 counties and indeed “two-thirds” of their wealth came from beyond Cheshire, notably from the Midlands (Lewis, 1991: 61; Thacker, 1991: 9). Hugh of Avranches, Earl of Chester in 1071–1101, has been noted for his “active shaping of the urban landscape” (Lilley, 2017: 45–6). He created a greenfield foundation at Rhuddlan (subsequently replaced by Edward I). In Chester he created a castle and an area of new land that “ran north from the castle, overlooking the Dee to the west and the port”. This was where the religious houses later established themselves there

116  Town comparisons: Midlands and North England (Lilley, 2017: 46). Hugh of Avranches is also credited with contributing to Coventry’s development (Lilley, 2017: 46). The earls were interested in attracting settlers, albeit often by offering legal protection to fugitives from other counties (Booth, 1981: 3). However, their actions may have sometimes hindered as well as helped. Kermode suggests that the seigneurial control exercised in Cheshire by the earls of Chester may have “limited urban growth” because the earls would not allow towns such as Manchester and Warrington to develop self-government (Kermode, 2000: 666–7). Hugh of Avranches used the city as a military base for campaigns in North Wales (Thacker, 2003: 16–33). However, this role became less significant by the 1120s (Barraclough: 1952: 32). From 1129, when Ranulf II succeeded to the earldom, the earls gradually increased their hold over the city at the expense of royal authority (Barraclough, 1952: 32). In the mid-thirteenth century the male line of the earls died out, and the title reverted to the crown in 1237 (Boston, 2020: 277; Kermode, 2000; Thacker, Laughton and Kermode, 2003). From 1254 the title of the earl of Chester was always granted to the king’s eldest son (Carrington, 1994: 64). In the twelfth century various charters were issued, some by the king and some by the earl, setting out the powers of the burgesses, including their privileges in ports such as Dublin (Barraclough, 1988). From c.1100 the town hosted two fairs, St Werburgh’s at Midsummer and a smaller one at Michaelmas. Leather, pottery and salmon-fishing were prominent local trades. The town subsequently acquired a Benedictine nunnery, established c.1160, and four friaries — the Dominicans and Franciscans (both arrived c.1237), the Carmelites (before 1277) and, briefly, the Friars of the Sack. There were two hospitals: the leper hospital of St Giles, established c.1180, and the hospital of St John the Baptist established outside the north gate by 1195. By 1400 there was a total of nine parish churches (Kettle, 1980; Morriss and Hoverd, 1993a; Williams, 1907). Chester’s town plan centres on four streets, which connect at a point called The Cross (Lilley, 2009, 2011). Each street was a route from the town gates to the centre, with Northgate and Eastgate leading to the countryside, Watergate to the port and Bridge Street towards the river and bridge (Brown, 1999: 6). Three of the  streets, Eastgate, Watergate and Bridge Street, follow the lines of ones that were present in the Roman fortress (Brown. 1999: 7–8; Laughton, 2008: 40). It appears that there was a hierarchy of revenues “from amercements and from licences to trade” across Chester’s four main streets (Laughton, 2008: 43). Eastgate produced the highest revenues (Laughton, 2008: 43). Bridge Street ran south of the market, towards the river and Bridge Gate (becoming Lower Bridge Street as it approached the river) (Laughton, 2008: 45). Bridge Street produced lower revenues than Eastgate but still seems to have been an attractive area for commerce and residence (Laughton, 2008: 45). A tax list of 1463 records that “properties close to the market place on the east side of Bridge Street were occupied by wealthy apothecaries and mercers” while leather-workers, millers, fishers, skinners and a parchment-maker resided closer to the river (Laughton, 2008: 45–6). Palatine administrators lived in or near Castle Lane, close to the castle and river (Laughton, 2008: 45).

Town comparisons: Midlands and North England  117 Watergate Street was third in the revenue hierarchy and closely associated with butchers and fishmongers (Laughton, 2008: 47–8). Finally, Northgate produced the lowest revenues for the city. This was partly because the abbey’s precinct took up the eastern side wall, meaning that houses were only on western side, and because many of the properties were owned by the abbot and his tenants and thus fell under the jurisdiction of his manor court rather than the city courts (Laughton, 2008: 50–1). However, “the south-western corner of Northgate Street” was a prime commercial area (Laughton, 2008: 51). Chester benefits from surviving domestic and commercial buildings in the form of the Rows, which are continuous on both sides of Northgate, Eastgate, Watergate and Bridge Street. These are raised and covered walkways that are at first-floor level above the street, which provide access to shops on one side and are open to the street on the other. These provided storage, retail and residential or office accommodation in undercrofts, shops and halls (Brown, 1999: 1, 20, 25). Historians initially believed that the Rows were constructed simultaneously after a fire in the mid-thirteenth century destroyed much of the city centre and represented a townplan initiative of Edward I (Brown, 1999: 56). However, it is now believed that the Rows were constructed gradually during c. 1200–1350 (Thacker, 2005). Occupational grouping appears to have existed within the Rows, with different trades grouping their activities. Flesher’s row, for example, was at the east end of Watergate on the north side (Laughton, 2008: 48). Suburbs developed in Chester at the east, south and north. The river posed a barrier to their development to the west (Laughton, 2008: 52). The main suburb was to the east, as that was the main approach to the city. It contained inns for travellers, trades associated with services for transport (wheelwrights, carters and blacksmiths) and many craftsmen, such as plumbers and potters (Laughton, 2008: 53). The southern suburb was called Bridge in 1086 and Hanbridge from c. 1150 (Laughton, 2008: 55). It was mainly agricultural in character, but there were also a number of quarries located there. It was a popular location for fulling mills and for the associated textile workers (Laughton, 2008: 56). The northern suburb was the smallest, being “ribbon development” along the “road leading from Northgate to the chapel dedicated to St Thomas Becket which stood at the fork of two roads, one leading north–west towards the Wirral anchorages and the other leading north into the Wirral and the ferry across the Mersey” (Laughton, 2008: 56–7). Stone quarries were present in the area, and it was a popular location of residence for maritime occupations (including “ropemakers, shipmen, mariners and carters”) (Laughton, 2008: 57). Water management was important in Chester. Chester’s corn mills were located at the Dee Bridge, to the south of the town (at the end of Lower Bridge Street). The flow of water to power the mills was improved in the 1190s by the creation of a weir above the bridge. This was “raised in 1355 to increase power” (Laughton, 2008: 65). Floods were a risk, with ones in the 1280s damaging mills leased by Richard the Engineer (Laughton, 2008: 66). Silting was also a problem, which may have been a by-product of the weir (Laughton, 2008: 171). By the sixteenth century the river had receded so much that New Tower, constructed in 1322 to protect the harbour which by then was mainly to the west of the town, was

118  Town comparisons: Midlands and North England actually on dry land (Laughton, 2008: 171; Strickland and Ward, 1981). To combat the situation, the citizens began to establish additional anchorages to the northwest which were reached from the northern suburbs and in the estuary of the river Dee (Laughton, 2008: 171). In 1350–1500 Chester’s fortunes declined (Brown, 1999: 63). The city received patronage from Richard II, but that did not stem the general tide of decay. The exact causes are unclear; a combination of the impact of the Black Death and political unrest may have been a factor. Political unrest occurred externally in nearby Wales (Owain Glyndŵr’s revolt) and internally, as in 1400 and 1403 some citizens of Chester were involved in uprisings against King Henry IV, who had deposed Richard II (Thacker, Laughton and Kermode, 2003). As discussed previously, the silting of the river, which seems to have intensified in the mid-fourteenth century, impeded Chester’s role as a port (Carrington, 1994: 64). Trade transferred to Liverpool on the River Mersey some 20 miles north of Chester. Chester, however, remained important as a county town and after the Dissolution became the seat of an important bishop. In 1500 it was still the dominant English market town along the North Wales border, with limited competition from Wrexham and Oswestry (Woodward, 1970). Together with Shrewsbury, it controlled main road access to North Wales. Roads converged on Chester from Warrington, Northwich, Nantwich and Whitchurch, funnelling traffic into the town and across the Dee to the Welsh border. Chester was named by Paris (Paris and Trustees of the British Museum, 1928). It appeared on the Gough map as three buildings, a church with a spire, walls and three gates (Gough map, 2022). Speed commented on the decay in the port in the commentary to his map (Speed, 2000: 38–9). Chester was also featured in Braun and Hogenberg (2008: 205, 206–7). Ludlow. Bridging point on the river Teme, a river hub and a local road hub; castle. The town is basically a Norman foundation created by the de Lacy Family, who were Marcher lords and lords of Weobley, Herefordshire (Beresford, 1967: 480–1). Ludlow is a hill-top town on the main north–south road from Shrewsbury to Hereford. Medieval roads fanned out to serve local communities; there was also a road down the Teme valley to Worcester (and thence to London). The construction of the castle was commenced c.1080 by the de Lacy family. The castle is built on a cliff that overlooks the River Teme, just downstream from its confluence with the River Corve and River Onwy. The Teme was not navigable but provided fish and also power for mills. A semi-rural settlement seems to have developed to the south of the castle, and the De Lacy’s may then have deliberately extended it to create a source of revenue (Alsford, 2022b) The town walls that encompass the castle, together with their five gates, were probably built in the thirteenth century (Gatehouse Gazetteer, 2022b). The market place is in front of the castle, with a very grand church on the opposite side; beyond the church is the main road. There is a grid of streets to the south of the market, whose topography has been examined in detail by a number of academics (Alsford, 2022b; Conzen, 1988; Haslam, 2017; Morriss and Hoverd, 1993b; Slater, 1990). A borough and a fair were recorded in 1292, held by members of the Genevill family (Letters, 2013). Another charter for a fair was issued in 1462, but

Town comparisons: Midlands and North England  119 this time to the burgesses of the town. Shortly afterwards the town became the headquarters of the Council of the Marches. In the thirteenth century the hospital of the Holy Trinity, Virgin Mary and St John the Baptist was established by Peter Undergod at the northern end of the Teme bridge, endowed with the profits of a fulling mill and other properties in and around the town. There was also a medieval chapel of St Leonard maintained by the Hospitallers of Dunmore. Austin friars arrived in the town c.1254 and Carmelites in 1350 (Lloyd and Klein, 2006). In 1334 the town was assessed for a fifteenth at 320s (Glasscock, 1975). Laurence of Ludlow was a famous and very rich thirteenth-century wool merchant, who built himself a fine mansion (which still stands) at Stokesay Castle north of the town. He had a reputation for hard bargaining with local farmers, and when he died at sea (accompanying a consignment of wool) there were local celebrations (Lloyd and Klein, 2006). On the whole, however, the burgesses of Ludlow seem to have been quite honourable people. In c.1284 some of the burgesses established the Palmer’s Guild, to which individual members could will their property; these properties would then be rented out to support priests at the parish church, to maintain a school, and to provide for the sick (Faraday, 2012). The provisions of this guild seem to have been at once enlightened and perverse; daughters were allowed, with the support of the guild, to choose for themselves whether to marry or join a religious order, but relatives were discouraged from entering the graveyard at night to waken the dead. When Leland visited the town c.1540 he noted there had been a college of priests attached to the parish church, and an almshouse supporting up to 30 people; he also noted inside the church the tomb of the “very rich merchant called Hosier” who had endowed both the college and the almshouse (II, 76–7). Elsewhere, he commented that the town was “very proper, well walled and gated, and stands in every way eminent” (III, 50). In 1524 169 people were assessed for the lay subsidy, which suggests a relatively populous town (Sheail, 1998). The prosperity of medieval Ludlow depended on a combination of export demand in the wool trade, elite consumption by the occupants of the castle and local demand from surrounding communities. Ludlow was depicted on the Gough map as “two buildings, spired church, two castles and walls with three gates” (Gough map, 2022). Nantwich, Cheshire. Salt town, bridging point on the River Weaver, and road hub. Nantwich lies in the south of the county, near the borders with Shropshire and Staffordshire, and 15 miles from the Welsh border to the west. It lies on the main road from Chester to Lichfield and London, which bridges the River Weaver to the west of the town. This road intersects a road from Wrexham to Newcastleunder-Lyme and a road from Oswestry and Whitchurch to Congleton and Manchester. The source of the River Weaver is near Audlem; it flows through Nantwich and Northwich to the River Mersey near Runcorn, and enters the Irish Sea at Liverpool. Nantwich is one of a number of “salt towns” in Cheshire; the two other main towns are Northwich and Middlewich, a short distance to the

120  Town comparisons: Midlands and North England north. All these towns extracted salt from brine rather than rock. Remains of Roman settlements and salt-working have been found locally. Domesday records that Nantwich was in the hundred of Warmundestrou, which stretched from Coppenhall (near Crewe), northeast of Nantwich, to Marbury, near Whitchurch to the southwest (Open Domesday, 2022; Williams and Martin, 2002). In 1066 the town was held by King Edward, with Earl Edwin having the third penny. The king held a brine pit and eight salt pans in the wich. All the salt pans were bounded on one side by a stream and on the other by a ditch. The earl had a salt pan at Acton, about a mile from Nantwich, for his own use; if he sold anything then the king had a toll of 2d. Many other “men of the country” also held salt pans in and around the town. From Ascension day (the 40th day after Easter) to Martinmas (11 November) only the king and the earl could boil salt on a Friday. Any man could carry salt freely to his own house, but if he sold it from his house or from anywhere else in Cheshire he paid toll to the king and earl. Similarly, if he purchased salt and resold it, he also paid toll. Offenders who avoided toll were liable for a fine of 2s, or 30 boilings, but theft and murder incurred the death penalty. On a Friday the salt pans of the king and earl gave 16 boilings, of which 15 were required to produce a summa of salt. The same customs applied to other wichs, but with some variation; in Middlewich, for example, overloading a cart with salt so that its axle broke, or overloading a horse, incurred a fine of 2s; offenders would be pursued by officers of the king and earl, and the fine was enforced if the officer could catch them within a league. Nantwich was the head of a hundred, and the farm of the local salt pans and the pleas of the hundred together rendered £21. However, when Earl Hugh received the town after the Conquest there was only a single salt pan left, and by 1086 the earl had farmed out the town, with its salt pans, to William Malbank for £10. William became the first Baron of Nantwich and held the town directly from the earl. William established St Nicholas’s hospital, at the east end of the town, together with two salt pans to support a priest, in order to cater for sick or destitute travellers. In 1133 Hugh Malbank, William’s son, granted a quarter of the town for the foundation of the Cistercian abbey of Combermere, southwest of the town. Commercial activity continued; in c.1200, for example, Warin de Vernon and Auda Malbanc his wife, Hugh’s grand-daughter, sold to Thomas de Sandford 20 messuages and three salt pans in the town (Cheshire County Council, 2003; Hall, 1883). By 1130 there was a church at nearby Acton and a chapel in the town itself. By 1260 St Lawrence’s leper hospital had been established at the opposite end of the town to St Nicholas’s hospital, although by 1354 it catered more generally for the poor and infirm (Cheshire County Council, 2003; Hall, 1883). In 1283 Edward I granted a fair (Letters, 2013). The town had become a borough by 1320. In the fifteenth century there was a guild, whose guild-hall subsequently became a grammar school. Archaeological evidence suggests that there were several market places distributed around the High Street area. The core of the medieval settlement was around the High Street, where burgage plots were laid out. There were also burgages in “Welsh Row”, which probably

Town comparisons: Midlands and North England  121 indicates trade and migration across the Welsh border to the west of the town. Salt-working appears to have been concentrated in the Snow Hill and Wood Street area of the present town. There was a castle east of the river, but little is known about it, and it may have had little strategic significance. In c.1540 Leland reported that troughs carried salt water over the river into troughs. They boiled the water in furnaces of lead, and then drained the salt using wicker baskets. The town survived, and prospered in a modest way, because it was head of a hundred, a centre of salt production and a stop-over point on the road from Chester to London. Nantwich was depicted on the Gough map as a single building (Gough map, 2022).

Northeast: Yorkshire, County Durham and Northumberland Newcastle-on-Tyne, Northumberland. First bridging point on the River Tyne, local road hub, castle. Newcastle stands on high ground on the north bank of the River Tyne (Graves and Heslop, 2013: 2, 13, 15, 23). It lies on the path of Hadrian’s Wall, of which little trace remains in the town. The Roman fort, dated to 213 AD or earlier, was on an escarpment overlooking the river, and other forts were built downstream at Wallsend (on the north bank) and at South Shields (on the south bank) (Graves and Heslop, 2013: 31, 47, 55; Heslop, 2009). It has been suggested that the first bridge over the Tyne was built by the Romans, but records suggest that a date c.1175 is more probable. The medieval bridge, which included a chapel dedicated to St Thomas Becket, was demolished in the eighteenth century; it was near to the modern swing bridge that links the town to its “twin” of Gateshead on the south bank of the river (Britnell, 2009; Harbottle, 2009). Newcastle is named after a new Norman castle built by Robert Curthose, eldest son of William the Conqueror, in 1080 to consolidate royal control after the Harrowing of the North (Graves and Heslop, 2013: 100). This motte and bailey construction was built over the site of the Roman fort and was itself replaced by Henry II (1168–78) and his successors with the stone keep that still stands today. About the same time the three important monastic institutions were established: the nunnery of St Bartholomew, the hospital of St Mary the Virgin and the leper hospital of St Mary Magdalen (Graves and Heslop, 2013: 123; 149, 163, 166–7). In the fifteenth century Roger Thornton established St Catherine’s hospital on Sandhill (Graves and Heslop, 2013: 168). There were also four town churches: St. Nicholas, lying between the castle and the market place, St Andrew’s, St John’s and All Saints. In the thirteenth century the friars arrived: the Franciscans and Dominicans, sometime before 1239, the Carmelites in 1262, Augustinian friars before 1291, and, for a time, the Friars of the Sack (1267–c.1307). The Dominican friary is very well preserved (Graves and Heslop, 2013: 152–61). Some were particularly experienced in water management. The Franciscans had a conduit that drew its water from Sevenwellheads. They had allowed the local population to use it to, but this seems to have been abused with residents diverting the

122  Town comparisons: Midlands and North England water and depleting the amount that reached the friary (Graves and Heslop, 2013: 152). As a result, the friars were permitted in 1342 by the king to enclose and lock the conduit so that only they could use it (Graves and Heslop, 2013: 152). The Dominican friars built an aqueduct in 1263 from a well which also supplied their local area (Archaeological Services Durham University, 2018: 6; Graves and Heslop, 2013: 156). The town became a royal borough and obtained a mint c.1135–c.1302 (Allen, 2012). It obtained a charter of privileges from Henry I, 1100–35, and another from Henry II, 1154–89. The first conferred the usual privileges: anyone could become a burgess who held land in the borough for a year and a day, a son could become a burgess, a burgess could sell their land freely, and go where they pleased; they could own a furnace and a mill and export corn. Foreigners, on the other hand, could not buy wool, skins, or cloth for dyeing and could not set filleted fish. All merchandise brought into the port had to be landed, apart from herring and salt, which was sold on the ship. The second charter broadly confirmed the first but also made the burgesses free to use their own hand-mills and ovens. In addition, the burgesses held a fee farm, raised from £50 to £60 by King John in 1201, in line with the increases applied to many other towns. The port underwent continuous expansion, with land reclamation used to extend the quayside (Graves and Heslop, 2013: 171). This deepened the river and so increased substantially the number of large seagoing vessels that could be accommodated at any time. It has been proposed that it was first initiated by individual property owners, who may have coordinated with each other to advance the process in stages along the waterfront. The establishment of the Merchant Guild in 1216 may also have spearheaded the pooling of capital from merchants with an interest in overseas trade to be used to continue reclamation (Graves and Heslop. 2013: 180). The building of the town walls commenced in 1265 with a grant of murage and took nearly two hundred years to complete. They seem to have been built as a statement of civic identity and pride rather than for defensive purposes, which may explain why they took so long to complete (Graves and Heslop. 2013: 181, 184). There was a famous conflict with the prior of Tynemouth in 1292, who developed his town downstream on the north bank in competition with Newcastle, offering foreign vessels cheaper provisions; he erected ovens and provided entertainment for the crews of ships (Brand, 1789; North Tyneside Council — Development Function, 2004: 8–9). There was also conflict within the town between rich burgesses and poor burgesses, because the former imposed minimum quantities on transactions at the port which the poorer bailiffs could not afford (Charleton, 1885; Fraser, 2009; Mackenzie, 1827). In 1334 the town was assessed for a tenth at 2,667s (100 marks), which was one of the largest sums charged against any provincial town (Glasscock, 1975). The wars against the Scots gave Newcastle strategic importance as a garrison, administrative centre and supply centre. The coal trade developed; coal was increasingly mined rather than collected from the beaches, and the steep sides of the Tyne valley encouraged the building of staithes for loading coal into river craft (Graves and Heslop, 2013: 121). Wool, fish, and salt were exported, much of it

Town comparisons: Midlands and North England  123 destined for the Baltic (Graves and Heslop, 2013: 121). Imports included timber, millstones, furs, pepper, almonds, figs, garlic, and other exotic commodities. By 1342 there were 12 trade guilds, for wool merchants, corn merchants, mercers, butchers, tanners, skinners, saddlers, shoemakers, fullers and dyers, tailors, smiths and bakers. In 1354 the town became one of ten English towns designated a staple for the export of wool (Charleton, 1885; Fraser, 2009; Mackenzie, 1827). The town received important privileges from Henry IV, who gave the burgesses independence from the county of Northumberland. It is possible, however that Newcastle experienced a brief economic downturn in the fifteenth century. Examination of the income received by University College Oxford from its Newcastle properties indicate that between 1451 and 1486 there were challenges in collecting the rent income due, with the College receiving less than what was due, or sometimes even nothing (Butcher, 1978: 71–2). Things improved slightly from 1487 to 1600, but this appears to have been due to a shift to shorter lease terms and the lowering of rents, both of which may have been necessary to encourage demand (Butcher, 1978: 72–3). Butcher suggests that Newcastle may therefore have been struggling economically in the mid–fifteenth century, although its position may have improved by the later fifteenth century (Butcher, 1978: 77). By 1500 the hostmen, who later played an important role in the politics of the town, were already gaining prominence in the coal trade; their function was to host visiting foreign merchants and thereby collect intelligence on foreign markets, and perhaps even foreign technologies. The Reformation liberalised the mining industry from control by ecclesiastical and monastic lords, and private business ownership of mines led to a boom in the coal trade. Compared to many other medieval towns, including other port towns, medieval Newcastle appears to have been quite successful, despite its isolated position, north of Durham and near to the Scottish border. Its market dominated a large area of Northumberland, which was rich in minerals, and provided good conditions for agriculture. It probably gained more than it lost from the Scottish wars of the fourteenth century, because it was near enough to the border to act as a centre for provisioning troops but too far from the border to be at risk of occupation. Newcastle-upon-Tyne was included by Matthew Paris (Paris and Trustees of the British Museum, 1928). It was depicted on the Gough map as “two buildings, spired church, two castles and walls with four gates” (Gough map, 2022). It was portrayed by Speed, who noted its importance as a port (Speed, 2000: 80–1). York, county town. Roman colonia and northern capital, regional administrative centre located at the tidal limit and bridging point of the River Ouse, river hub, road hub, large minster church and castle. York serves a large agricultural district comprising much of East Yorkshire and parts of North Yorkshire by means of an extensive radial network of roads. It lies just east of the Great North Road from London to Newcastle and the Scottish border. It has been an important administrative centre since Roman times, and was controlled by Danish Vikings for a considerable time before the Norman Conquest and the Harrowing of the North. After the Conquest it played a key role in English wars against the Scots. It acquired a range of wealthy religious institutions, notably St Mary’s abbey, and a very grand minster church on the site of earlier churches, which was enlarged almost continuously over the

124  Town comparisons: Midlands and North England period 1220–1472. The archbishop of York is second only to the archbishop of Canterbury in ecclesiastical status. The city is located at the confluence of the River Ouse and its tributary the River Foss. In medieval times York was the effective head of navigation on the River Ouse, which flows into the Humber estuary. The Ouse provided York with access, not only to the port of Hull and the North Sea, but also to the towns of the Aire and Calder valleys, such as Leeds, through its confluence with the Aire near Goole (Addyman, 1981; Caunce, 2000). York was a Roman garrison throughout much of the occupation of Britain, 43–c.410. Emperor Severus died there, and Constantine the Great was declared emperor there in 306. According to Bede, in 601 Pope Gregory resolved to establish an archbishopric in the city, and in 627 King Edwin of Northumbria was baptised in a new minster church of St Peter (Colgrave and Mynors, 1969). Subsequently St Cuthbert was consecrated bishop of Hexham there in 685. According to the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, York was burnt down in 741, but it seems to have been quickly rebuilt (Whitelock, Douglas and Tucker, 1961). The town seems to have flourished until Danish raids began; the Danes finally took the city from the Northumbrians in 867. Thereafter the area was contested by Norse Vikings from Ireland and Anglo-Saxons from the south, but remained largely under Danish occupation until the Norman Conquest. In 1066 the town comprised seven “shires”, the largest of which belonged to the archbishop, and the others to various local lords (although the archbishop also had a share in one of these) (Open Domesday, 2022; Williams and Martin, 2002). By 1086 the archbishop had retained his share but the king had taken control of the remainder; one of them had been laid waste “for the castles”. In the remaining five there were 1,418 inhabited messuages in 1066, which is a large number for any town. By 1086 there were 1,331 surviving messuages, of which only 391 were inhabited and rendering dues to the king; 400 were uninhabited and rendering 1d each or less, and 540 were uninhabited and rendering nothing at all; many of these must have been in the archbishop’s part of the town. Frenchmen held 145 messuages in the town. There are references to stalls in the Shambles, to various churches and their endowments of land and to moneyers and priests. Despite the depredations of the Harrowing of the North, the revenues extracted by the king from the city had nearly doubled, from £53 to £100. The medieval walled city was remarkably extensive, including not only the high ground on which the original Roman city had been built, lying between the Ouse and the Foss, but the Bishophill area across Micklegate Bridge to the south-east, and the low-lying Walmgate area (part of the Viking town) east of the Foss (Raine, 1955). In the centre of the town, near the old market place, the north–south road from Thirsk to Selby intersected the east–west road from Scarborough and Malton to Tadcaster and Leeds. Other roads radiated to Knaresborough and Skipton, Driffield and Bridlington, and Beverley and Hull (see subsequent discussion). There were many important religious institutions in the city (Palliser, 2014; Rees Jones, 2013). The Benedictine abbey of St Mary was established c.1170 on the site of the pre–Conquest church of St Olave. It owned the northern suburb of Bootham, with its market, fair and liberties, and large amounts of land elsewhere.

Town comparisons: Midlands and North England  125 The abbey’s control of access to the town from the north led to persistent conflict with the townspeople. There was also a Benedictine nunnery of St Clement, founded c.1130 by the archbishop, and a Gilbertine priory of St Andrew, founded c.1200. There were four friaries: the Dominicans (founded c.1226), The Franciscans (founded c.1230), the Carmelites (founded c. 1253 in Bootham) and the Augustinian hermits (founded in or before 1272); the Friars of the Sack were briefly present too. There were five large hospitals and many smaller hospitals, including four leper houses. Both the archbishop and the king had mints in York from an early date (Allen, 2012; Letters, 2013). In 1155 the town obtained a charter of privileges from Henry II, giving it freedom of toll throughout the country, a merchant guild, a hanse and freedom from export taxes, underlining its role as a port. Trade guilds developed from the twelfth century onwards, the first recorded guild being the weaver’s guild in 1163 (Palliser, 1997). By 1212 the citizens had the town at farm for £160, a mayor, and shipping rights upstream as far as Boroughbridge. In 1354 it became one of ten English towns designated a staple for the export of wool. Its other main export was leather (Palliser, 2014; Rees Jones, 2013). Medieval York was essentially a regional capital for the north-east, and many of its high–paid jobs appear to have been in religious or lay administration (Sheehan, 1998). There is evidence of property portfolios being created by families over the period 1086 to 1350 with the aim of obtaining a greater degree of social and political influence in the town (Rees Jones, 2013: 274–9). The city was also a centre of elite consumption. There were many wealthy merchants in the town, conducting substantial trade with northern Europe. This is again illustrated in its property market. York’s strategic position between its agricultural hinterland and the North Sea encouraged local York merchants and those from Beverley to purchase property there in the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries (Kermode, 1998: 276–304). A typical mercantile property portfolio comprised around three to eight properties, which may have been intended for business bases, sources for security for loans or as supplementary sources of income from rents. After the Dissolution the town stagnated, thereby preserving many of its ancient buildings. International trade was increasingly channelled through Hull. In the nineteenth century it became a railway centre and in the twentieth century a major tourist centre. In 1334 the town was assessed for a tenth at 3,240s (Glasscock, 1975). In 1524 it was assessed, using different principles, at 3,839s; the wealthiest ward was Bootham, to the north of the minster church (Sheail, 1998). York was included on Matthew Paris’s map (Paris and Trustees of the British Museum, 1928). It was depicted on the Gough map as “three spired churches, two with crosses, two castles, gold decoration and walls with five gates” (Gough map, 2022). It featured in Speed (2000: 120–1) and Braun and Hogenberg (2008: 442). Durham, county town. Religious centre on the old Great North road at a bridging point on the River Wear, cathedral, castle. The town lies in a dramatic setting on high ground within a U-bend on the River Wear. The source of the River Wear and its tributaries lies in the North Pennines near Killhope; it flows through Bishop Auckland, Durham and Chester-le-Street to the North Sea at Sunderland.

126  Town comparisons: Midlands and North England In the medieval town the congested site within the bend was occupied by the cathedral, the castle, the bishop’s palace and the market (Bonney, 1990). The university is a nineteenth-century foundation and not a medieval one; most of the university buildings round Palace Green were formerly part of the bishop’s complex. The only options for the growth of the medieval town were to expand to the north, or across the two sides of the river; all involved building on steep slopes, and all three options were used. This expansion required the construction of two bridges: the Framwellgate bridge and the Elvet bridge, which were probably completed sometime around the thirteenth century. The Framwellgate bridge funnelled traffic from the north and east into the town, which then passed the foot of the hill-side market place and exited to the south and east across Elvet bridge. To meet the needs of travellers, and to accommodate manual trades, suburbs developed across the river on either side of the town. Two distinct boroughs emerged, one held by the bishop and the other by the prior; the former enjoyed greater commercial success than the latter (Bonney, 1990). There is archaeological evidence of industry down near the river bank from an early date; this may be linked to corn-milling, fulling or tanning, which were a feature of the medieval town. The most significant historic event, however, was in 995 when the mortal remains of St Cuthbert of Lindisfarne (died 687) were translated to Durham, probably from Chester-le-Street (Letters, 2013; Woodman, 2012). This event, which is to some extent shrouded in legend, established Durham as a major religious centre and pilgrimage site. The secular powers of the Bishopric of Durham were established soon after the Norman Conquest. Following the Conquest revolts in Northumbria, to the north of Durham, made Durham a strategic military outpost for the Norman kings and prompted the building of a castle that overlooked the river. It also gave the bishops an important strategic role in defending England from attack by the Northumbrians and the Scots. The Norman cathedral was built 1093–1133 on the hill-top to house St Cuthbert’s shrine and c.1220 the remains of St Bede the Venerable of Jarrow were translated there too (Colgrave and Mynors, 1969; Proud, 2003; Roberts, 2003). The Bishops of Durham held massive estates from the king and were extremely wealthy. They dissociated themselves from the county of Northumberland, which lay to the north, and began to dispense justice in their own right rather than on behalf of the king. Their position was strengthened in 1293 when Bishop Anthony Bek obtained a judgement from a royal court confirming his autonomy. In 1536, at the Dissolution of the monasteries, these powers were qualified, however, and they were finally abolished in 1836. Bishop Bek removed his residence to Bishop Auckland, where there was a deer park. He subsequently fortified the residence, which now survives as Auckland Castle. A market is recorded in 1040 (Letters, 2013). A Benedictine priory was established in 1083. By 1130 the town had become a borough with a mint (c.1087–c.1544) (Allen, 2012). By 1200, three other boroughs were recorded at Crossgate, New Elvet and St Giles, all on the opposite sides of the river (Britnell,

Town comparisons: Midlands and North England  127 2008). Much of the land in the suburbs was held by the priory. This rapid expansion of the town probably represents the ambition and commercial acumen of the bishops and, more especially, the priors (Bonney, 1990; Dobson, 1973; ThrelfallHolmes, 2005.). Despite being close to lead mines and coal mines, Durham never became an industrial centre; the coastal towns of Sunderland and Hartlepool, and the river ports of Newcastle and Stockton, played that role. Durham remained predominantly a religious and administrative centre, and when other towns were industrialising in the nineteenth century, Durham developed as a university town instead; as a consequence, its medieval heritage was well-preserved. Durham was named by Matthew Paris (Paris and Trustees of the British Museum, 1928). Durham’s legend on the Gough map was a little faded, but there appear to be “walls with two gates, two buildings and a church with a spire” (Gough map, 2022). Durham was depicted by Speed (2000: 50–1). Sheffield, Yorkshire. Bridging point on the River Don, road hub. The town lies in a dramatic setting, overlooked by hills, at the confluence of the River Don and its tributary the River Sheaf. The River Don rises near Dunford Bridge in the Pennines and enters the North Sea through the Humber estuary. The River Sheaf rises near the Hope Valley and enters the town from the south. Roads radiate from the town to Manchester, Huddersfield, Wakefield, Doncaster, Worksop and Chesterfield. In Anglo-Saxon England Sheffield lay on the border between Mercia and Northumbria, but there is little written evidence relating to this period (Hey, 1998: 6). In 1086 Swein had five carucates of land in Attercliffe and Sheffield, which he held of the king’s tenant-in-chief Roger de Bully (Hey, 1998: 10). The same Roger also held the neighbouring manor of Hallam, where he held from Countess Judith of Lens, King William’s niece and wife of Earl Waltheof, an Anglo-Saxon lord (Hey, 1998: 10). In c.1100 the lord of the manor, William de Lovetot, built a motte and bailey castle at the confluence of the rivers (demolished in the seventeenth century), and also a church on the site of the present cathedral (Hey, 1998: 10; Wessex Archaeology Ltd, 2020: 6–7). The large market place was probably laid out about this time. The castle was probably burned down during the Baron’s Revolt and rebuilt by Thomas de Furnival (Wessex Archaeology Ltd, 2020: 169; Moreland and Hadley, 2020: 226). By 1297 the town had become a borough with a Tuesday market and an annual fair. The lord, Thomas Furnival, controlled the town through his bailiff and his manorial court, but he allowed the burgesses to hold and bequeath their properties in return for a fixed rent. The aristocratic lords of Sheffield remained resident in the town throughout the medieval period, investing in improvements to their estate, including the construction of watermills and the development of a deer park for recreational use; their elite consumption undoubtedly boosted the local economy (Moreland and Hadley, 2020: 253–4; Wessex Archaeology Ltd, 2020: 5). The growing reputation of the local steel industry is indicated by a royal inventory of c.1340 which mentions a Sheffield knife, and by a reference to a Sheffield

128  Town comparisons: Midlands and North England knife owned by the reeve in Chaucer’s Canterbury Tales. The power of the rivers was increasingly harnessed to drive mills for hammering steel and sharpening blades. Although other towns also produced knives, Sheffield gradually gained a reputation for quality and began to specialise in cutlery products (Hey, 1998: 17). It was a slow process, however, and in 1524 Sheffield was assessed at only 127s (Sheail, 1998). Furthermore, regulation of the trade was limited until the Company of Cutlers of Hallamshire was founded in the early seventeenth century. In 1334 the town was assessed for a tenth at 143s, and in 1524, on a different basis, at 127s (Glasscock, 1975; Sheail, 1998). Sheffield appeared on the Gough map as “two castles” (Gough map, 2022).

Northwest: Lancashire, Cumberland and Westmoreland Carlisle, Cumberland. Roman town on the Scottish border, garrison, administrative centre, first bridging point on the River Eden, river hub and road hub. Carlisle lies on low land north of the Lakeland mountains to the southwest and the Pennines to the east. It is located at the intersection of a main road from London to the Scottish border and an east–west road along the route of Hadrian’s Wall from Segontium, near Newcastle, to the Solway Firth. The River Eden flows through the north of the town before entering the Irish Sea. It has two tributaries: the River Caldew flows along the west side of the town and the River Petterill along the east side. Roads along these river valleys converge on Carlisle from the south, east and west. To the north is the main road to the Scottish border at Gretna. In 72 a large Roman fort was built on the site of the present castle to support the troops stationed on the wall and to act as a staging post for armies on the march. The town that developed around the fort was known as Luguvalium. After the Romans left, the town may have been the capital of Romano-British Rheged. St Cuthbert reputedly visited the town in 685. About two hundred years later the town was sacked by the Vikings. Following the Conquest William Rufus captured the town from the local Scottish warlord, Dolfin. He rebuilt the town with a castle, which became the principal border fortress in northwest England (Gatehouse Gazetteer, 2022a). The oldest surviving buildings date from c.1120. The town was walled at the same time with three gates, whose names survive today. The castle was under the control of its lord wardens and was continuously occupied throughout the medieval period. By 1130 the town had become a borough with a mint (Allen, 2012; Summerson, 1993: 25–7, 121–2). An Augustinian priory was founded about this time, becoming a cathedral in 1133 (Summerson, 1993: 32). In 1154 it obtained a charter of privileges from Henry II, giving it freedom of toll throughout the country (Ferguson, 1894: xx). The town became the county town of Cumberland in c.1157. In 1221 Henry II confirmed the privileges of the citizens, granting them the town for an annual payment £60, and the income from rents, fisheries, mills and tolls. This was reinforced by further royal charters of 1293 (Edward I) and 1312 (Edward II) (Ferguson, 1894). Dominican and Franciscan friars arrived in c.1230 (Summerson, 1993: 103).

Town comparisons: Midlands and North England  129 Throughout the medieval period the Border area was relatively lawless, due partly to cattle–rustling by the Border Reivers. Pele towers were used as defensible residences. The town, however, remained secure, and trade was sufficiently buoyant that a guildhall was built in the fifteenth century. Carlisle became a trading centre for wool and cloth, which was considered to be of good enough quality to attract customers from Italy and Flanders (Summerson, 1993: 127–8). Hides and skin from the hinterland were also brought into the town from the countyside, some were already processed into leather while others were processed in Carlise (Summerson, 1993: 129–30). In 1334 the town was assessed for a tenth as the liberty of the bishop of Carlisle at 267s (Glasscock, 1975). Provisioning of the castle and supplying English armies both contributed to the economy of the town. Although the Anglo-Scottish wars disturbed the countryside around, they also stimulated local demand and created prosperity for merchants and artisans (Summerson, 1993: 225–30; 401, 417). There was also a local mining industry based on lead and silver (Summerson, 1993: 25–7). Nevertheless, the town’s fortunes fluctuated in line with the state of AngloScottish relations. In the late medieval period its military significance declined but its isolation from the rest of the country remained. Cumberland and its county town did not prosper until the large-scale development of mining in the early modern period. Carlisle was named by Matthew Paris (Paris and Trustees of the British Museum, 1928). It appeared on the Gough map as “a building, spired church, castle, walls with four gates” (Gough map, 2022). It was depicted by Speed (2000: 36–7) who noted the rich natural resources of the surrounding countryside and coast. Lancaster, Lancashire. Fortified county town; first bridging point of the River Lune, and road hub. Lancaster lies near to Morecambe Bay and the Irish Sea at a point where the main road from London to Cumbria and Carlisle crosses the River Lune. It has an inland port and also an out-port at Glasson, on the Lune estuary. It lies on a small hill amidst marshland between the hills of the Forest of Bowland and the sea (White, 1993). Lancaster was a strategic defensive centre fortified by the Romans in c.60 AD on the site of the present castle, and rebuilt in stone c.1102 (Letters, 2013). In the fourth century there were Roman baths nearby. In the eighth century the town lay near the border between Northumbria and Mercia. By the ninth century there may have been a monastery near the subsequent site of Lancaster priory; this Benedictine priory was founded in 1094 by the local lord Roger de Poitou. The priory church subsequently became the church of St Mark, which remains the parish church today. Any analysis of road and river communications in Lancashire will identify Preston as the natural county commercial hub (Google maps, 2022; Topographic maps, 2022). It was so in Mercian times, and it is true today. The choice of Lancaster as Norman administrative centre seems to have been based on political and military considerations. Lancaster complemented York as a logistical centre to protect Norman interests in the northwest against the Scots and could also be used to protect Morecambe Bay against invasion from Ireland (Kenyon, 1991).

130  Town comparisons: Midlands and North England It is probable that a Norman castle was built shortly after the Conquest, and then rebuilt later lower down the hill. The town suffered at the hands of invading Scots in 1322 and 1389. Property in the town was divided between several lords, although the House of Lancaster, which defeated the House of York in the Wars of the Roses, held very little land in or around the town (White, 1993). The Cistercian abbey of Furness also held substantial land in the area. The town was chartered as a borough in 1193, with an implicit right to a market (Letters, 2013). The burgesses received the customs of Bristol, including freedom from a range of servile agricultural customs, and rights in the neighbouring forest. In 1199 the charter was confirmed, but with the liberties of Northampton substituted. In 1204–5 the burgesses paid a fee farm rent of 20 marks (3,200s). In c. 1260 a Dominican friary was established to the east of the town. These arrangements were later modified. By 1292 the bailiff and commonalty were free from toll in all other markets and possessed an assize of bread and beer, a pillory, cuckingstool, infangenthief and gallows, a weekly market and a yearly fair. A lost charter of 1337 provided for a mayor and two bailiffs, a guild merchant, an additional weekly market and an additional annual fair (White, 1993; Letters, 2013). Later the town administration was strengthened by the appointment of 12 capital burgesses. In 1362 the town acquired assizes, enhancing the town’s role as an administrative centre. International trade was important too, because by 1410 the men of Lancaster, like those of London, Bristol and Northampton, were free of toll in Ireland. Statute merchant was introduced in 1432 to facilitate the enforcements of debts, and thereby encourage foreign traders to visit the town. In 1524 the town was assessed at the modest figure of 85s (Sheail, 1998). Increasing competition from other ports on the Irish Sea may have been a cause of this apparent decline. The “golden triangle” of Manchester, Liverpool and Preston around the Ribble, Mersey and Irwell valleys attracted more industry and settlement than the more isolated north of the county. Lancaster was depicted on the Gough map as “two buildings, spired church and castle” (Gough map, 2022). It was featured in Speed (2000: 70–1) and Braun and Hogenberg (2008: 442). Liverpool, Lancashire. A greenfield foundation intended to be an alternative to Chester. Liverpool (the name means “muddy pool”) lies on the northeast bank of the River Mersey opposite Birkenhead on the Wirral peninsular. The name of the town refers to a natural inlet, or pool of water, to the southwest of the town centre. It was established on what appears to have been a “greenfield site” in 1207 by King John. There was no church, chapel or hamlet already on the site. Its foundation may have been a royal initiative to gain independence from the earls of Chester, who controlled the established port of Chester 20 miles to the south (Kermode, 2000: 667). It also provided a convenient site at which to assemble troops for the North Wales coast and Ireland. King John’s charter offered “liberties and free customs” equal to those of “any free borough on the sea”. The royal town was planned from the outset as seven streets set out in the form of an “H” with extended arms; these streets still survive today as the retail core (Muir, 1911a: 1–4). In 1227 the town was tallaged at 11

Town comparisons: Midlands and North England  131 marks (1760s), which compared well with established ports further up the coast at Preston and Lancaster. By 1229 the town had obtained a new and improved charter, giving a merchant guild, a hanse to organise international trade, and a fee farm for £10 paid by the burgesses (Muir, 1911a: 1–4). Trade seems to have been buoyant. By 1256 there were three mills in the town, and by 1327 there was an annual fair. This is reflected in the town’s expansion. By 1296 168 burgage plots had been created, and by 1346 there were 196 burgage holders; each plot included one acre in the town fields, for a rent of 12d, which was becoming standard about this time. The town’s infrastructure also improved. A castle was built c.1235 and a church was recorded in 1257, although the town remained in the parish of Walton for many years (Muir, 1911b). There was already a castle at the king’s manor of West Derby, upstream from the town, which was previously an important defensive centre near to a forest and a hawk’s eyrie. The new castle may have been provided not so much for defence as to expedite the movement of troops to Ireland. The new location was also convenient as a landing stage. However, from 1266 Liverpool was granted to lay lords, who invested significantly in the town but did not always respect the terms of the charter as perceived by the townsmen. The autonomy of the burgesses was reduced. They seem to have been allowed to administer the market and fair but other areas previously included under the farm were administered directly by the earls or, possibly, farmed to others (Muir, 1911b). The burgesses were eventually able in 1357 to lease the town from their lord. By 1400 an elected mayor was managing the day-to-day affairs of the town. Nevertheless, the town remained small to begin with (Aughton, 2003; Kermode, Hollinshead and Gratton, 2006). In 1334 it was assessed for a tenth at only 60s (Glasscock, 1975). By 1346, however, the number of burgesses had grown to 168. In 1377 the principal occupations were fish-selling, brewing, drapery and agricultural cultivation; income inequality was high, with the most successful drapers and fishmongers being assessed far higher than the cultivators (Fenwick, 1998–2005). The Birkenhead ferry linked South Lancashire to the Wirral in Cheshire from an early date. This ferry across the Mersey was first established by the Benedictine monks of Birkenhead priory in the twelfth century. The ferry encouraged the farmers of the North Wirral to market their produce in Liverpool rather than Chester, and indeed the monks had acquired a granary or warehouse in the town by 1300 (Stewart-Brown, 1925). The town also provided a convenient transshipment point for freight traffic proceeding up the Mersey to Warrington and Stockport, or along the coast to Morecambe Bay and Cumbria or to North Wales. A town hall is mentioned in 1515. The town really began to expand when the Dee estuary at Chester began to silt up in the sixteenth century. At the same time ships were becoming larger, and trans-Atlantic routes were opening up. In the eighteenth century the town prospered from the Atlantic trade, especially with the West Indies and the American colonies, including the trade in enslaved people. Its position was further reinforced when its rival port at Bristol also began to silt up. Liverpool featured on the Gough map as a “single building” (Gough map, 2022).

132  Town comparisons: Midlands and North England

References Addyman, P.V. (1981) York. In: G. Milne and B. Hobley (eds.) Waterfront Archaeology in Britain and Northern Europe. CBA Research Report Number 41, pp. 149–50. Available from: https://doi.org/10.5284/1000332 Allen, M. (2012) Mints and Money in Medieval England. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press Alsford, S. (2022a) ca. 760: Hereford. Available from: http://users.trytel.com/~tristan/ towns/market/herefordshire/hereford.html [Accessed 29 January 2022]. Alsford, S. (2022b) ca. 1135: Ludlow. Available from: http://users.trytel.com/~tristan/ towns/market/shropshire/ludlow.html [Accessed 29 January 2022]. Archaeological Services Durham University on behalf of SJBD Ltd (2018) Land at Heber Street Newcastle Tyne & Wear archaeological desk-based assessment. Available from: https:// portal.newcastle.gov.uk/planning/?fa=downloadDocument&id=58833&public_record_ id=120542 [Accessed 29 January 2022]. Aughton, P. (2003) Liverpool: A People’s History. Lancaster, Carnegie. Badham, S. and C. Cockerham (eds.) (2012) ‘The Best and Fayrest of al Lincolnshire’: The Church of St Botolph, Boston, Lincolnshire, and Its Medieval Monuments. Oxford, Archeopress. Baker, N., P. Hughes and R.K. Morriss (2018) The Houses of Hereford, 1200–1700. Oxford, Oxbow Books. Barley, M.W. and I.F. Straw (1969) Nottingham. In: M.D. Lobel (ed.) Historic Towns–Maps and Plans of Towns and Cities in the British Isles, Vol. 1. Baltimore, John Hopkins Press, pp. 1–8. Barraclough, G. (1952 for 1951) The earldom and county palatine of Chester. Transactions of the Historic Society of Lancashire and Cheshire. 103, 23–57. Barraclough, G. (ed.) (1988) The Charters of the Anglo-Norman Earls of Chester, c.1071–1237. Liverpool, Record Society of Lancashire and Cheshire. Bateson, M. (ed.) (1899–1901) Records of the Borough of Leicester, 1103–1509. 2 vols, London, C.J. Clay. Baxter, S.B. (2007). The Earls of Mercia: Lordship and Power in Late Anglo-Saxon England. Oxford, Oxford University Press. Beresford, M.W. (1967) New Towns of the Middle Ages: Town Plantation in England, Wales and Gascony. London, Lutterworth Press. Billson, C. (1920) Medieval Leicester. Leicester, Edgar Backus. Birch, W. de G. (2010) The Royal Charters of the City of Lincoln. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press. Bonney, M. (1990) Lordship and the Urban Community: Durham and Its Overlords, 1250–1540. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press. Booth, P.H.W. (1981) The Financial Administration of the Lordship and County of Chester 1272–1377. Manchester, Manchester University Press. Boston, H. (2020) A collection of Chester comital charters relating to twelfth and thirteenth century Leicestershire and Derbyshire. Midland History 45 (3), 277–91. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1080/0047729X.2020.1814630 Brand, J. (1789) The History and Antiquities of the Town of Newcastle–upon–Tyne Including the Borough of Gateshead. Newcastle, B. White and Son. Braun, G. and F. Hogenberg (ed. S. Füssel) (2008) Civitatis Orbis Terrarum: Cities of the World. Taschen, Cologne. Britnell, R. (ed.) (2008) Records of the Borough of Crossgate, Durham, 1313–1531. Durham, Surtees Society. Britnell, R. (2009) Medieval Gateshead. In: D. Newton and A.J. Pollard (eds.), Newcastle and Gateshead before 1700. Chichester, Phillimore, pp. 137–70.

Town comparisons: Midlands and North England  133 Brown, A. (ed.) (1999) The Rows of Chester: The Chester Rows Research Project. London, English Heritage. Butcher, A.F. (1978) Rent, population and economic change in late–medieval Newcastle. Northern History. 14, pp. 67–77. Cam, H. (1998) The Borough of Northampton. Northamptonshire Victoria County History Trust, Northampton. Carrington, P. (1994) Chester. London, B.T. Batsford and English Heritage Caunce, S. (2000) Urban systems, identity and development in Lancashire and Yorkshire: a complex question. In: N. Kirk (ed.) Northern Identities: Historical Interpretations of ‘the North’ and ‘Northerness’. Aldershot, Ashgate, pp. 47–70. Charleton, R.J. (1885, reprinted 1989) A History of Newcastle-on-Tyne. Newcastle, Davis Books. Cheshire County Council (2003) Cheshire Historic Towns Survey: Nantwich: Archaeological Strategy. Cheshire County Council and English Heritage, Chester. Cliff, D. (1994) Lincoln c. 850–1100: A Study in Economic and Urban Growth. University of Huddersfield, PhD thesis. Colgrave, B. and R.A.B. Mynors (eds.) (1969) Bede’s Ecclesiastical History of the English People. Oxford, Clarendon Press. Conzen, M.R.G. (1988) Morphogensis, morphological regions and secular human agency in the historic townscape, as exemplified by Ludlow. In: D. Denecke and G. Shaw (eds.) Urban Historical Geography: Recent Progress in Britain and Germany. Cambridge and New York, Cambridge University Press, pp. 235–72. Courtney, P. (1998) Saxon and medieval Leicester: The making of an urban landscape. Transaction of the Leicestershire Archaeological and History Society. 72, 110–45. Available from: https://www.le.ac.uk/lahs/downloads/Courtneyvolume72-2vsm.pdf Cox, J.C. (1906) Religious houses. In: R.M. Serjeantson and W.R.D. Adkins (eds.) A History of the County of Northampton, Vol. 2. London, Archibald Constable and Company Ltd., pp. 79–182. Crouch, D. (1991) The administration of the Norman earldom. In: A.T. Thacker (ed.) The Earldom of Chester and Its Charters, Journal of the Chester Archaeological Society. 71, 69–95. Available from: https://doi.org/10.5284/1070312 Dixon, P., D. Knight and R. Firman (1997) The origins of Nottingham. In: J. Beckett (ed.) A Centenary History of Nottingham. Manchester, Manchester University Press, pp. 9–23. Dobson, R.B. (1973) Durham Priory, 1400–1450. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press. Drage, C., Nottingham Castle: A Place Full Royal, Nottingham, Transactions of the Thoroton Society, Vol 93, 1989. Dyer, C. and T.R. Slater (2000) The Midlands. In: D.M. Palliser (ed). The Cambridge Urban History of Britain Vol. 1 600–1540. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 609–38. Faraday, M.A. (ed.) (2012) Deeds of the Palmers’ Guild of Ludlow. Not specified, published by the author. Ferguson, R.S. (1894) The Royal Charters of the City of Carlisle. Carlisle, C. Thurman and Sons. Fenwick, C. C. (1998–2005) The Poll Taxes of 1377, 1379 and 1381, Part 1: Bedfordshire– Leicestershire; Part 2, Lincolnshire–Westmoreland, Part 3: Wiltshire–Yorkshire. Oxford, Oxford University Press for the British Academy. Foulds. T. (1997a) The medieval town. In: J. Beckett (ed.) A Centenary History of Nottingham. Manchester, Manchester University Press, pp. 56–71. Foulds. T. (1997b) Trade and manufacture. In: J. Beckett (ed.) A Centenary History of Nottingham. Manchester, Manchester University Press, pp. 72–83. Fraser, C.M. (2009) The economic growth of Newcastle. In: D. Newton and A.J. Pollard (eds.) Newcastle and Gateshead before 1700. Chichester, Phillimore, pp. 41–64.

134  Town comparisons: Midlands and North England Gatehouse gazetteer (2022a) Carlisle castle. Available from: http://www.gatehouse-gazetteer. info/English%20sites/368.html [Accessed 20 January 2022]. Gatehouse gazetteer (2022b) Ludlow town wall. Available from: http://www.gatehousegazetteer.info/English%20sites/3140.html [Accessed 20 January 2022]. Glasscock, R.E. (ed.) (1975) The Lay Subsidy of 1334. London, Oxford University Press for the British Academy. Glover, S. (1843) A History and Directory of the Borough of Derby. Henry Mozley and Sons, Derby. Gould, J. (1971–2) The medieval burgesses of Tamworth, their liberties, courts and markets. Transactions of the South Staffordshire Archaeological and Historical Society. 13, pp. 17–42. Available from: http://www.staffordshirecountystudies.uk/SAHS%20Vol%20XIII,%20 1972%20Sample.pdf Graves, C.P. and D.H. Heslop (2013) Newcastle upon Tyne: The Eye of the North An Archaeological Assessment. Oxford, Oxbow Books. Green, S.E. and J. Wilshere (1973) A Short History of Leicester Markets and Fairs. Leicester Research Services, Leicester. Greenslade, M.W. (1990) The city of Lichfield. In: M.W. Greenslade (ed.) A History of the County of Stafford, Vol. 14, Lichfield. Oxford, Oxford University Press, pp. 1–36. Gurnham, R. (2014) The Story of Boston. Stroud, History Press. Gurnham, R. (2009) A History of Lincoln. Chichester, Phillimore. Hall, J.A. (1883) History of the Town and Parish of Nantwich, or Wich Malbank, in the County Palatine of Chester, Nantwich, The author. Harbottle, B. (2009) The medieval archaeology of Newcastle. In: D. Newton and A.J. Pollard (eds.) Newcastle and Gateshead before 1700. Chichester, Phillimore, pp. 23–40. Hart, C. (1981–2) The Peterborough region in the tenth century: a topographical survey. Northamptonshire Past and Present. 6 (5), 243–45. Available from: http://www.north amptonshirerecordsociety.org.uk/eNpp/NppNo34_a.pdf Haslam, J. (2017) The articulation of burgages and streets in early medieval towns — part 2. Landscape History. 38 (2), 5–27. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1080/01433768. 2017.1394058 Heslop, D.H. (2009) Newcastle and Gateshead before A.D. 1080. In: D. Newton and A.J. Pollard (eds.) Newcastle and Gateshead before 1700. Chichester, Phillimore, pp. 1–22. Hey, D. (1998) A History of Sheffield. Carnegie Publishing, Lancaster. Hill, J.W.F. (1948) Medieval Lincoln. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press. Husein, B.M.C. (1973) Cheshire Under the Norman Earls, 1066–1237. Chester, Chester Community Council. Jancy, E.M. (1973) The Royal Charters of the City of Hereford. Hereford, Hereford City Council. Johnson, R. (1882) The Ancient Customs of the City of Hereford. London, T. Richards, 2nd ed. Jones, M.J. and R.H. Jones (1981) Lincoln. In: G. Milne and B. Hobley (eds.) Waterfront Archaeology in Britain and Northern Europe. CBA Research Report Number 41, p. 138. Available from: https://doi.org/10.5284/1000332 Jones, M.K. (2002) Roman Lincoln: Conquest, Colony and Capital. Stroud, Tempus. Kelly, S.E. (ed.) (2009) Charters of Peterborough Abbey. Oxford, Oxford University Press for the British Academy. Kenyon, D. (1991) The Origins of Lancashire. Manchester, Manchester University Press. Kermode, J., J. Hollinshead and M. Gratton (2006) Small beginnings. In: J. Belcham (ed.) Liverpool 800: Culture, Character and History. Liverpool, Liverpool University Press, pp. 59–112. Kermode, J. (1998) Medieval Merchants: York, Beverley and Hull in the Later Middle Ages. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.

Town comparisons: Midlands and North England  135 Kermode, J. (2000) The Northern Towns. In: D.M. Palliser (ed.) The Cambridge Urban History of Britain Vol. 1 600–1540. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, pp. 657–79. Kettle, A.J. (1980) Religious houses. In: C.R. Elrington and B.E. Harris A History of the County of Chester, Vol. 3. Oxford, Oxford University Press, pp. 124–87. King, E. (1980–1) The town of Peterborough in the early middle ages. Northamptonshire Past and Present. 6 (4), pp. 187–95. Kissane, A. (2017) Civic Community in Late Medieval Lincoln. Boydell, Woodbridge. Laughton, J. (2008) Life in a Late Medieval City: Chester 1275–1520. Oxford, Oxbow Books. Letters, S. (2013) Gazetteer of Markets and Fairs in England and Wales to 1516. Available from: https://archives.history.ac.uk/gazetteer/gazweb2.html [Accessed 20 September 2021]. Lewis, C.P. (1991) The formation of the honor of Chester, 1066–1100. A. Thacker (ed.) The Earldom of Chester and Its Charters: A Tribute to Geoffrey Barraclough, Journal of the Chester Archaeological Society. 71, 37–68. Available from: https://archaeologydataservice. ac.uk/library/browse/issue.xhtml?recordId=1147407&recordType=Journal. Lilley, K.D. (2009) Imagining the city: Christian symbolism and Chester’s medieval urban form, Mapping Medieval Chester. Available from: https://www.medievalchester.ac.uk/ context/lilley.html [Accessed 1 June 2022]. Lilley, K.D. (2011) Urban mappings: visualizing late medieval Chester in cartographic and textual form. In: C. Clarke (ed.) Mapping the Medieval City: Space, Place and Identity in Chester c.1200–1600. Cardiff, University of Wales Press, pp. 19–41. Lilley, K.D. (2017) The Norman Conquest and its influences on urban landscapes. In: D.M. Hadley and C. Dyer (eds.) The Archaeology of the Eleventh Century: Continuities and Transformations. Abingdon, Routledge, pp. 30–56. Lloyd, D.W. (1989) Historic Towns of East Anglia. London, Victor Gollancz Ltd and Peter Crawley. Lloyd, D. and P. Klein (2006) Ludlow: An Historical Anthology. Chichester, Phillimore, 2nd ed. Lomax, S. (2013) Nottingham: The Buried Past of a Historic City Revealed. Barnsley, Pen and Sword. Mackenzie, E. (1827) A Descriptive and Historical Account of the Town and County of Newcastle upon Tyne, Vol. I. Mackenzie and Dent, Newcastle. Marcombe, D. (1997) The late medieval town, 1449–1560. In: J. Beckett (ed.) A Centenary History of Nottingham. Manchester, Manchester University Press, pp. 84–103. Markham, C.A. and J.C. Cox (eds.) (1898) The Records of the Borough of Northampton, 2 vols. Northampton, The Corporation. Marshall, P. and T. Foulds (1997) The royal castle. In: J. Beckett (ed.) A Centenary History of Nottingham. Manchester, Manchester University Press, pp. 43–55. McKinley, R.A. (1954) Religious houses. In: W.G. Hoskins and R.A. McKinley (eds.) A History of the County of Leicestershire, Vol. 2. London, Dawsons, pp. 1–54. Moreland, J., and D. Hadley (2020) Sheffield Castle: Archaeology, Archives, Regeneration, 1927– 2018. York, White Rose University Press. https://doi.org/10.22599/SheffieldCastle. Available from: https://universitypress.whiterose.ac.uk/site/books/m/10.22599/Sheffield Castle/ [Accessed 1 September 2021]. Morriss, R.K. and K. Hoverd (1993a) The Buildings of Chester. Alan Sutton, Stroud. Morriss, R. and K. Hoverd (1993b) The Buildings of Ludlow. Alan Sutton, Stroud. Muir, R. (1911a) Liverpool: The castle and development of the town. In: W. Farrer and J. Brownbill (eds.) A History of the County of Lancaster, Vol. 4. London, Constable and Company, pp. 4–36. Muir, R. (1911b) West Derby hundred: the city of Liverpool. In: W. Farrer and J. Brownbill (eds.) A History of the County of Lancaster, Vol. 4. London, Constable and Company, pp. 1–4.

136  Town comparisons: Midlands and North England North Tyneside Council Development Function, City of Newcastle Planning and Transportation Department, Northumberland County Council Archaeology and Conservation and English Heritage (2004) North Shields: An Archaeological Assessment and Strategy. Available from: https://www.newcastle.gov.uk/sites/default/files/2018–12/ NorthShields%20reduced.pdf [Accessed 7 January 2022]. Open Domesday (2022) Open Domesday. Available from: https://opendomesday.org [Accessed 7 January 2022]. Ormrod, W.M. (ed.) (1993) The Guilds in Boston. Boston, Pilgrim College, 1993. Palliser, D.M. (2014) Medieval York: 600–1540. Oxford, Oxford University Press. Palliser, D. (1997) The birth of York’s civic liberties. In S. Rees Jones (ed.) The Government of Medieval York: Essays in Commemoration of the 1396 Charter. York, Borthwick Institute, pp. 88–107. Paris, M. and Trustees of the British Museum (1928) Four Maps of Great Britain Designed by Matthew Paris about AD 1250 Produced from Three Manuscripts in the British Museum and One at Corpus Christi College. Cambridge, London, Trustees of the British Museum. Platts, G. (1985) Land and People in Medieval Lincolnshire. Lincoln, Society for Lincolnshire History and Archaeology. Proud, K. (2003) Durham City. Chichester, Phillimore. Raine, A. (1955) Medieval York; A Topographical Survey Based on Original Sources. London, John Murray. Rees Jones, S. (2013) York: The Making of a City, 1068–1350. Oxford, Oxford University Press. Rigby, S.H. (2017) Boston, 1086–1225: A Medieval Boom Town. Society for Lincolnshire History and Archaeology, Lincoln. Roberts, M. (2003) Durham: One Thousand Years of History. Tempus, Stroud. Roffe, D. (1997) The Anglo-Saxon town and the Norman Conquest. In: J. Beckett (ed.) A Centenary History of Nottingham. Manchester, Manchester University Press, pp. 24–42. Rosser, G. (1998) Conflict and political community in the medieval town: Disputes between clergy and laity in Hereford. In: T.R. Slater and G. Rosser (eds.) The Church in the Medieval Town. Aldershot, Ashgate, pp. 20–42. Royal Commission on the Historical Monuments of England (1931) Inventory of the Historical Monuments of Herefordshire, Vol. 1: South West. London, HMSO. Sawyer, P. (1998) Anglo-Saxon Lincolnshire. Lincoln, Society for Lincolnshire History and Archaeology. Sheehan, G. (1998) Medieval Yorkshire Towns: People, Buildings and Spaces. Edinburgh, Edinburgh University Press. Sheail, J. (ed. R.W. Hoyle) (1998) The Regional Distribution of Wealth in England as Indicated in the 1524/5 Lay Subsidy Returns. Kew, List and Index Society. Simmons, J. (1974) Leicester: Past and Present: Volume One: Ancient Borough to 1860. London, Eyre Methuen. Slater, T.R. (1985) The urban hierarchy in medieval Staffordshire. Journal of Historical Geography. 11, pp. 115–37. Slater, T.R. (1986 for 1984–85) The topography and planning of medieval Lichfield: a critique. Transactions, Staffordshire Archaeological and Historical Society. 26, pp. 11–35. Slater, T.R. (1990) English medieval new towns with composite plans: evidence from the midlands. In: T.R. Slater (ed.) The Built Form of Western Cities: Essays for M.R.G. Conzen on the Occasion of His 80th Birthday. Leicester, Leicester University Press, pp. 60–82. Speed, J.J. (ed.) (2000) Tudor Townscapes: The Town Plans from John Speed’s Theatre of the Empire of Great Britaine 1610. Waddesdon, Bucks, Map Collector Publications.

Town comparisons: Midlands and North England  137 Stewart-Brown, R. (1925) Birkenhead Priory and the Mersey Ferry. The State Assurance Company, Liverpool. Stone, R. (2003) Tamworth: A History. Chichester, Phillimore. Strickland, T.J. and S. Ward (1981) Chester. In: G. Milne and B. Hobley (eds.) Waterfront Archaeology in Britain and Northern Europe. CBA Research Report Number 41, pp. 105–7. London, The Council for British Archaeology. Available from: https://doi.org/10. 5284/1000332 Strickland, T. (2003) Roman Chester: In C.P. Lewis and A.T. Thacker (eds.) A History of the County of Chester, Vol. 5 Part 1, the City of Chester: General History and Topography. Woodbridge, Boydell and Brewer, pp. 9–15. Summerson, H. (1993) Medieval Carlisle: The City and the Borders from the Late Eleventh to the Mid–Sixteenth Century. Kendal, Cumberland and Westmorland Archaeological Society. Taylor, C.C. (1968–9) The Origins of Lichfield, Staffs. Transactions of the South Staffordshire Archaeological & Historical Society. 10, 43–52. Available from: https://archaeologydata service.ac.uk/library/browse/series.xhtml?recordId=780 Thacker, A.T. (1991) Introduction: the earls and their earldom. In: A. Thacker (ed.) In The Earldom of Chester and Its Charters: A Tribute to Geoffrey Barraclough, Journal of the Chester Archaeological Society, 71 (1991), 7–22. Available from: https://archaeologydataservice. ac.uk/library/browse/issue.xhtml?recordId=1147407&recordType=Journal Thacker, A.T. (2003) Early medieval Chester 400–1230. In: C.P. Lewis and A.T. Thacker (eds.) A History of the County of Chester, Vol. 5 Part 1, the City of Chester: General History and Topography. Boydell and Brewer, Woodbridge, pp. 16–33. Thacker, A.T. (2005) Major buildings: the Rows. In: A.T. Thacker and C.P. Lewis (ed.) A History of the County of Chester, Vol. 5 Part 2, the City of Chester: Culture, Buildings, Institutions. Boydell and Brewer, Woodbridge, pp. 225–39. Thacker, A.T., J.W. Laughton and J. L. Kermode (2003) Later medieval Chester 1230–1550: city and crown, 1237–1350. In: C.P. Lewis and A.T. Thacker (eds.) A History of the County of Chester, Vol. 5 Part 1, the City of Chester: General History and Topography. Boydell and Brewer, Woodbridge, pp. 34–89. The Gough Map of Great Britain (2022). Available from: http://www.goughmap.org/ [Accessed 3 January 2022]. Thompson, A.H. (1949) The Abbey of St Mary of the Meadows Leicester. Leicester, Edgar Backus for the Leicestershire Archaeological Society. Thomson, P. (1856) The History and Antiquities of Boston. Boston, John Noble. Threlfall-Holmes, M. (2005) Monks and Markets: Durham Cathedral Priory, 1460–1520. Oxford, Oxford University Press. Topographic map (2022) Altitude map of England. Available from: https://en-gb.topographicmap.com/maps/b9/England/ [Accessed 3 January 2022]. Toulmin Smith, L. (ed.) (1964) The Itinerary of John Leland in or about the Years 1535–1543. (5 vols) London, Centaur. Upton, C. (2001) A History of Lichfield. Chichester, Phillimore. Wacher, J.S. (ed.) (1966) The Civitas Capitals of Roman Britain, Leicester, Leicester University Press. Wessex Archaeology Ltd (2020) Sheffield Castle, Sheffield South Yorkshire Archaeological Evaluation Final Archive Report. Available from: https://www.wessexarch.co.uk/our– work/sheffield–castle [Accessed 6 January 2021]. White, A. (1993) Setting the scene 1193–1500. In: A. White (ed.) A History of Lancaster. Keele, Ryburn Press, pp. 9–48. Whitelock, D., D.C. Douglas and S.I. Tucker (eds.) 1961 The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle. London, Eyre and Spottiswode.

138  Town comparisons: Midlands and North England Williams, A., and G. H. Martin. Domesday Book: A Complete Translation. London, Penguin, 2002. Williams. J. (1907) The Story of Chester. Phillipson and Golder, Chester. Williams, J.H. (2014) Town and Crown: The Governance of Later Thirteenth–Century Northampton. Northampton, Northamptonshire Records Society. Wilson, K.P. (ed.) (1969) Chester Customs Accounts, 1301–1566. Liverpool, Record Society of Lancashire and Cheshire. Wood, H. (1958) Borough by Prescription: A History of the Municipality of Tamworth. Tamworth, Tamworth Corporation. Wood, H. (1972) Medieval Tamworth. Tamworth, Tamworth Corporation. Woodman, D.A. (2012) Charters of Northern Houses. Oxford, Oxford University Press for the British Academy. Woodward, D.M. (1970) The Trade of Elizabethan Chester. Hull, University of Hull Publications.

5 Explaining the growth of towns 1086–1524 A statistical analysis of 112 towns

Introduction This chapter compares and contrasts the fortunes of the English towns profiled in Chapters 2 and 3. It is in two parts. The first part systematically examines the key characteristics of these towns, looking for patterns of variation that characterise the group of towns as a whole. Relevant characteristics are summarised by a set of binary categorical variables, each of which indicates whether or not a given town had a given characteristic. There are 19 such characteristics, as described subsequently. Patterns of variation between them are derived from a correlation analysis which involves all 112 towns. As noted in Chapter 2, London is excluded because it was not included in the Domesday Book and because its size would distort the statistical analysis. The second part of the chapter examines the growth of these towns over time. This part of the chapter draws on well-known sources that were described in Chapter 2, namely the Domesday Book of 1086, the Lay subsidy of 1334, the Poll tax returns of 1377–9 and the Lay subsidy of 1524–5 (Fenwick, 1998–2005; Glasscock, 1975; Open Domesday, 2022; Sheail, 1998; Williams and Martin, 2002). Domesday provides information on towns not only for 1086, but for the time of the Norman Conquest, 1066, as well. The key statistical information provided by these sources is a valuation of the town. In the case of Domesday this valuation is based on all the incomes from rents, tolls and the administration of justice that accrue to the king. The other valuations are all based on an enumeration of tax payers and the amount that each is obliged to pay. The criteria that determine who is liable for taxes vary between these sources, and the coverage of some towns is incomplete. The valuations may indicate either wealth or population, or possibly some combination of the two. In 1524 wealth and population can be estimated separately, although population is possibly the more reliable figure. In previous assessments there is a single valuation, however, that is probably best interpreted as an indicator of wealth in 1334 and population in 1377. The information derived from these sources can be combined with the information on town characteristics analysed in the first part of the chapter. In the first stage of the analysis the valuation of a town in 1524 is compared with its valuations DOI: 10.4324/9781003172697-5

140  Explaining the growth of towns 1086–1524 in 1377, 1334, 1086 and 1066. Because there are gaps in the information on certain towns, the analysis is conducted in a number of separate stages, and not just for all the dates combined. Overall, the results show that there is considerable continuity in the growth of towns. This is certainly true between 1377 and 1524, between 1344 and 1086 and between 1086 and 1066; towns that were highly valued at an earlier date were also highly valued at a later date. However, the evidence also points to a significant discontinuity between 1334 and 1377, at around the time of the Black Death although part of the discrepancy may reflect differences in the methods of valuation. The general persistence of growth is an interesting result. What is really interesting, however, is to examine the influence on valuation of the 19 characteristics examined in the section on profiles of town characteristics. This is the focus of the second part of the analysis. The technique employed is multiple regression analysis. For each of the four key dates between 1086 and 1524, the valuations of the towns are regressed on their characteristics, as described previously, and the signs and significance of the relevant characteristics are noted. The results obtained for the different dates are then compared. The results are striking, because two characteristics emerge as crucial for the emergence of large towns, and several other characteristics emerge as important too. These characteristics appear to persist, with some variation, over time. The immediate implications of these findings are reviewed in the conclusion to the chapter, and their wider implications are considered in the closing chapter.

Profiles of town characteristics The profiles of English towns presented in earlier chapters are supported by a substantial amount of information gleaned from various sources which can be summarised by the values of a number of key variables. These variables are the focus of this section. The variables are qualitative; they are all binary categorical variables that indicate whether or not a given town possessed some specific characteristic. They are of six main types. The first four variables identify the lordship of the town. In many towns — especially the larger ones — the king was lord; sometimes exclusively and sometimes in partnership with a local earl or sheriff who received the “third penny”, which was a third of the revenues derived from the town. In other towns a bishop or abbot might be the lord — so-called ecclesiastical lordship. Finally the lord might be a local aristocrat. most commonly in the smaller towns. The four variables are labelled “king”, “third penny”, “ecclesiastical” and “lay”. The next three variables describe whether the town had Roman origins and whether it acquired a castle, either before the Conquest or afterwards. The first variable takes a value of one if the town had a pre-Conquest castle, the second if the town had only a post-Conquest castle, and the third if the town had Roman origins. The next three variables describe whether the town ever had a mint, whether it was chartered as a new town after the Conquest, and whether it ever became a “county town” (namely the head of an administrative area).

Explaining the growth of towns 1086–1524  141 The next four variables describe the location of the town and its basic topography. They describe whether the town was sited at the first bridging point of a river; whether it was a coastal port; whether it stood at high altitude, such as on a hill-side or hill-top, and whether it had an adjoining “twin” town, usually, but not invariably, on the other side of a river. The next variable describes whether the town possessed important religious institutions; all towns possessed some religious institutions, but some possessed more than others. The most prestigious institutions were cathedrals, abbeys and priories; most towns of any size also had also several parish churches, and usually friaries and hospitals too. These other institutions were typically smaller establishments, although some, such as collegiate and minster churches, could be quite large. The variable takes a value of one if a town possessed one or more prestigious institutions, together with various smaller institutions, and is zero otherwise. The last four variables describe the accessibility of the town. The first describes whether the town was a major road hub, for example whether it lay at the intersection of long-distance roads connecting it to other major towns; the second describes whether it lay on a main road, such as one of the old Roman roads or a road connecting a regional capital to London; the third variable describes whether it was local road hub, with roads fanning out in all directions to serve smaller settlements nearby; while the fourth describes whether it was a river hub, namely at the confluence of two or more rivers, at least one of which was navigable. The correlations are shown in Tables 5.1–5.3. Table 5.1 shows the correlations amongst the first three sets of variables (ten altogether), Table 5.2 the correlations between the remaining variables (nine altogether), and Table 5.3 the correlations between the first set and the second set of variables. Three tables are presented in this way so that the correlations are easier to read than they would be in a single large table. Table 5.1  Correlations between institutional features of towns Royal Third Lay lord penny lord Third penny Lay lord Ecclesiastical Pre–Norman Castle Post–Norman castle Roman Mint New town County town

EcclesPrePostRoman Mint iastical lord Norman Norman castle castle

New town

−0.34 −0.44 −0.21 −0.40 −0.24 −0.30 0.14 0.21 −0.04 −0.28 0.18 −0.19

0.04 −0.11

0.18 0.08 −0.13 0.24 0.35 −0.29 −0.09 −0.14 0.29 −0.01 0.39 −0.21

Source: Chapters 2–4.

−0.11 −0.23 −0.08 −0.08

−0.36 0.31 0.49 −0.20 0.39

−0.10 −0.14 0.23 −0.11

0.24 −0.05 −0.40 0.24 0.40 −0.14

142  Explaining the growth of towns 1086–1524 Table 5.2  Correlations between physical characteristics of towns First bridging Coastal High Twin point port altitude town Coastal port −0.08 High altitude 0.10 Twin town 0.13 Religious 0.19 centre Main road 0.13 Major hub −0.04 Local hub 0.28 River hub 0.04

0.05 −0.09 −0.25

0.09 0.11

0.02

−0.27 −0.21 −0.42 −0.01

−0.07 −0.02 0.09 0.03

0.09 −0.03 0.26 0.23

Religious Main Major centre road hub

0.25 0.12 0.26 0.14

0.46 0.11 0.11

Local hub

0.07 −0.03 0.19

Source: Chapters 2–4.

Table 5.3  Correlations between institutional features and physical characteristics First Coastal High Twin bridging port altitude town point Royal lord Third penny Lay lord Ecclesiastical lord Pre-Norman Castle Post-Norman castle Roman Mint New town County town

0.06 0.08 −0.03 −0.08

0.01 0.02 0.05 −0.10

−0.10 0.16 0.13 −0.12

0.49

−0.10

0.32

0.07

−0.15

0.22

0.09

0.30 0.27 −0.06 0.27

−0.09 −0.12 0.32 −0.25

0.03 0.15 0.11 0.11

Religious Main centre road

−0.01 −0.08 0.08 0.21 0.15 −0.31 −0.16 0.28 0.20

Major hub

Local hub

River hub

0.18 −0.01 0.05 0.13 0.19 0.21 0.07 −0.02 −0.26 −0.19 −0.13 −0.08 −0.07 0.00 0.02 −0.03 0.18

0.07

0.18

0.10

0.21 −0.31

−0.19 −0.03 −0.09

0.02

0.09 0.17 0.10 0.23 0.00 −0.34 0.14 0.27

0.37 0.27 0.07 −0.03 0.22 0.14 0.22 0.05 −0.18 −0.05 −0.21 −0.10 0.31 0.34 0.32 0.19

Source: Chapters 2–4.

Patterns in the distribution of characteristic amongst the towns The highlights of the tables may be summarised as follows. Roman towns The correlations suggest that the Roman towns that survived, and were eventually rebuilt, were typically located at the first bridging points of major rivers (correlation 0.30) and not at coastal locations (correlation −0.09). Many surviving Roman towns acquired a pre-Norman castle (0.31), lay on a post-Roman main road (0.37) and became major medieval road hubs (0.27). Many became county towns (0.24) and acquired mints (0.24). There are two possible explanations for why surviving Roman towns lay at first bridging points. The first is that the Romans built a large number of their towns

Explaining the growth of towns 1086–1524  143 at first bridging points, and the second is that towns located at first bridging survived better. Both explanations have some validity. The Romans were primarily an army of occupation, with only a secondary interest in developing the indigenous local economy. To maintain their living standards they relied heavily on imports of Roman goods. Roman ships delivered goods to local ports from which they could be easily moved across the country to garrisons controlling various areas. From this perspective the first bridging point was an ideal location for a distribution centre. Because ships required a return cargo, these bridging points could also attract export products from the hinterland, including grain, pottery and precious metals. The towns that were not built at local bridging points do not seem to have survived so well. In some cases they were simply the capitals of subordinate indigenous provinces which had accepted Roman governance. They had limited trade with other provinces and very little overseas trade. After the Romans left, trade with the Mediterranean declined, and when it later recovered the focus shifted to northern Europe, encouraged by waves of immigration across the North Sea. Although some trade in minerals from west-coast ports continued, this too declined as the surface mines became exhausted. When coastal ports were redeveloped later, they were developed at very different sites.

Castles Towns with pre-Norman castles were likely to be built at high altitude (0.32), presumably for defensive purposes and, as indicated previously, were likely to be Roman foundations (0.31). Their future prospects were very promising, as they were likely to acquire mints (0.49) and to become county towns (0.39). Towns with only post-Norman castles had much poorer prospects, however. They were unlikely to lie on a main road (−0.19) and most unlikely to become a religious centre (−0.31), which was a big disadvantage, as shown later. They were quite likely to be located at a coastal port (0.22) and to acquire a twin town (for example on the other side of an estuary) (0.21). These results suggests that the best locations for towns had already been identified by the end of the Anglo-Saxon period. Incidentally, the subsequent development of these towns, as analysed subsequently, suggests that the basic logic of town location did not change significantly until the onset of the Industrial Revolution c.1760.

Administrative features Towns with a mint tended to be Roman (0.24) and to have a pre-Norman castle (0.49); they also tended to be at the first bridging point on a river (0.27) and therefore attractive to the shipping trade. The mint allowed visiting foreign merchants to exchange their goods and coinage for local currency. These towns often had a joint lordship of the king and the local earl (who received the third penny) (0.35). Several became religious centres (0.22) and local road hubs (0.22).

144  Explaining the growth of towns 1086–1524 County towns were likely to have Roman origins (0.24) (see previous discussion). They were also likely to have a pre-Norman castle (0.39), to be on a main road (0.31) and to be both a major road hub (0.34) and a local road hub (0.32). They were unlikely to be coastal ports (−0.25). Topography A coastal port was likely to be a new town (0.32). As a consequence, it was likely to have a post-Norman castle (0.22) rather than a pre-Norman castle. Because of its coastal position — sometimes on a peninsular — it was unlikely to be on a main road (−0.27) or to become a local road hub (−0.42). Coastal ports were not attractive to religious institutions (−0.25), possibly because of concerns about the behaviour of seamen in port. Their relatively remote locations may also have been a deterrent for some religious orders. A coastal port was unlikely to become a county town (−0.25). Some coastal ports developed a fishing trade, but it seems that in most cases defence was the main consideration. Even a town specifically developed as a fishing port, such as Great Yarmouth, eventually acquired a defensive role through its association with the Cinque Ports, supplying seagoing vessels for military purposes. Twin towns were relatively uncommon but were most common at local road hubs (0.26) and river hubs (0.23) with post-Norman castles (0.21); the twin towns were often on the opposite bank of a river, as suggested previously. Location and accessibility Major road hubs typically developed at first bridging points (0.28) and at the sites of Roman towns (0.27), but not at coastal ports (−0.21). They were often associated with county towns (0.34) and towns that paid a third penny to the earl or sheriff (0.21). Lordship Exclusive royal lordship was characteristic of towns with a mint (0.24), having Roman origins (0.18) and lying on main roads (0.18). Royal lordship with the earl (or sheriff) taking the third penny was characteristic of county towns (0.39) and towns with pre-Norman castles (0.21). Mints were highly significant too (0.35). Such towns were likely to acquire major religious institutions (0.21) and develop into major road hubs (0.21). Lay lordship was in most respects the exact opposite of royal lordship. It was most common in new towns (often, it seems, established or developed by the earl of sheriff, or one of their associates) (0.29). The town was unlikely to possess a mint (−0.29), to be on a main road (−0.26) or to become a county town (−0.21). Religious institutions Major religious institutions were most common in towns with ecclesiastical lordship (0.28) and least common in towns with lay lordship (−0.31). They were likely

Explaining the growth of towns 1086–1524  145 to develop in towns with pre-Norman castles (0.20) and with a mint (0.23), and most unlikely to develop in towns with only post-Norman castles (−0.31) or new towns (−0.34). They were also likely to develop in county towns (0.27) but not in coastal ports (−0.25). They were likely to develop along main roads (0.25) and, by attracting travellers and pilgrims, may have helped towns to develop into local road hubs (0.26). Religious institutions, therefore, were linked to many key aspects of towns. This point is elaborated in the subsequent regression analysis.

The growth of towns: a comparative analysis, 1066–1524 Explaining the size and valuation of towns by their previous valuations Although each of the patterns described previously has an intrinsic interest, a mere catalogue of such findings is a poor substitute for a comprehensive interpretation of the evidence. The results can be given greater meaning by considering the different stages in the evolution of a town at which its key characteristics were determined. Once a town had been established, by whatever means, at a given location, certain characteristics of the town become fixed, such as the choice of a Roman site, a hill-top location, a place on the coast or up a river valley. These initial choices then govern the opportunities for future growth in the town. Those towns that exploit an opportunity to grow then acquire additional characteristics, which may pose new problems or offer further opportunities. These problems and opportunities then governed the next stage in the evolution of the town, and so on. This section explores the issue of continuity and discontinuity in the growth of towns over the period 1066–1524. It is conducted systematically using regression analysis. The first issue is whether a town’s valuation in 1524 can be predicted from its valuations at earlier dates. If so, then it suggests a degree of continuity in the growth of towns; towns that were large (in terms of tax assessment) in previous periods were also large in the later period. If not, however, then it suggests some disruptive events along the way. A series of five regressions is estimated; the first is the 1524 valuation on the 1377, 1334, 1086 and 1066 valuations; the second is the 1377 valuation on the 1334, 1086 and 1066 valuations; and so on until the final regression of the 1086 valuation on the 1066 valuation. Population in 1524 Table 5.4 examines the impact of previous town valuations on the town’s valuation in 1524. The two left-hand columns of figures relate to a full regression that includes all four previous valuations, and the two right-hand columns to the regression that includes all the valuations that remain once the insignificant valuations have been eliminated. The results are independent of the order in which insignificant valuations were eliminated.

146  Explaining the growth of towns 1086–1524 Table 5.4  Previous valuations as predictors of population (number of tax–payers) in 1524 Full regression

Constant Value 1377 Value 1334 Value 1086 Value 1066 R2 Adjusted R2 F Normality Heteroskedasticity No. of observations

Reduced regression

Coefficient

p-value

221.0 0.106 0.026 0.064 −0.045

0.001 0.638 0.234 0.238

0.577 0.520 10.22 1.53 1.44 35

0.000 0.464 0.243

Coefficient

p-value

163.7 0.147

0.000 0.000

0.563 0.555 69.66 13.00 7.81 56

0.000 0.002 0.007

Source: Fenwick, 1998–2005; Glasscock, 1975; Open Domesday, 2022; Williams and Martin, 2002.

Although the number of observations is relatively small when data for all five assessments are used, the results are quite consistent whichever set of previous assessments is included: population in 1524 is strongly correlated with valuation in 1377 but not with valuations in either 1334, 1086 or 1066. The right-hand regression indicates that the population of tax payers in 1524 increased on average by 0.147 for each additional shilling paid by the town in 1377; in other words, there was one additional tax payer in 1524 for approximately every 7s additional tax paid in 1377. The fact that the valuation of 1377 is a good predictor of tax payers in 1524, but that valuation in 1334 is not, is consistent with the view that the Black Death, and the subsequent decline of the wool trade and rise of the cloth trade, marked a watershed in the development of towns. It turns out, however, that the explanation is not quite so simple as this. Table 5.5 identifies the statistically significant outliers from the second fitted regression reported in Table 5.4. The left-hand side indicates the towns that were significantly larger (in terms of their tax-paying population) than would be expected, given their tax receipts in 1377, and the right-hand side the towns that were significantly lower. The geographical distribution of these towns, with the high-growth towns mainly in the south and/or west (with the exception of Table 5.5  Major outliers from Table 5.4 (full regression) Positive

Deviation from predicted value

Negative

Deviation from predicted value

Norwich Exeter Reading Crediton Canterbury Winchester

678 410 273 257 241 208

King’s Lynn York Beverley Newark

425 379 290 230

Explaining the growth of towns 1086–1524  147 Norwich) and the low-growth towns in the north and/or east (with the exception of King’s Lynn), is broadly consistent with the decline of the wool trade and the rise of the cloth trade, as discussed elsewhere in this book. Value of poll tax receipts in 1377 A useful way of assessing the impact of the Black Death is to examine the impact of the valuations of towns prior to the Black Death on their valuation afterwards. If the Black Death affected all towns equally then previous valuations would be a good predictor of the valuations afterwards. Table 5.6 reports the results of a regression of the 1377 valuation on the 1334 valuation and the two Domesday valuations. This suggests that the Black Death had broadly similar implications for different towns. It also indicates that any legacy from the Domesday valuations was insignificant. The left-hand columns in Table 5.6, like those in Table 5.4, report the results of a regression involving all the previous valuations, while the right-hand columns report the results for the significant valuations alone. The results clearly indicate that the 1334 valuation is a good predictor of the 1377 valuation, but that the Domesday valuations are not. On average, an additional one shilling increase in the 1334 valuation generates an increase of about 1.4 shillings in the valuation in 1377. The results also show that, while the Black Death impacted towns differentially to some degree, towns that suffered badly from the Black Death did not grow more slowly after the Black Death than towns that survived the Black Death relatively well. Table 5.7 identifies the major outliers using the same criteria as Table 5.5. The five positive outliers, which increased in value above the average, were all major religious centres with either an abbey or a priory; by contrast, only one of the five negative outliers possessed a significant religious institution (namely Waltham Holy Cross). This suggests that either towns with religious institutions increased in

Table 5.6  Previous valuations as predictors of value in 1377 Full regression

Constant Value 1334 Value 1086 Value 1066 R2 Adjusted R2 F Normality Heteroskedasticity No. of observations

Reduced regression

Coefficient

p-value

Coefficient

p-value

220.39 1.389 0.172 0.311

0.506 0.000 0.602 0.680

378.3 1.4418

0.014 0.000

0.585 0.544 15.33 5.540 2.296 37

0.002 0.063 0.077

0.676 0.671 123.31 12.408 11.921 61

Source: Glasscock, 1975; Open Domesday, 2022; Williams and Martin, 2002.

0.000 0.002 0.001

148  Explaining the growth of towns 1086–1524 Table 5.7  Major outliers from Table 5.6 (full regression) Positive

Deviation from predicted value

Negative

Deviation from predicted value

Coventry Beverley York Colchester Leicester

2444.5 2064.7 1988.1 1531.5 903.0

Boston Great Yarmouth Newbury Luton Waltham Holy Cross

1694.0 1235.8 1171.5 1170.1 1012.4

Table 5.8  Previous valuations as predictors of value in 1334 Full regression

Constant Value 1086 Value 1066 R2 Adjusted R2 F Normality Heteroskedasticity No. of observations

Reduced regression

Coefficient

p-value

Coefficient

p-value

520.0 0.123 0.191

0.001 0.517 0.610

412.3 0.412

0.001 0.002

0.045 0.010 1.27 47.21 1.865 57

0.288 0.000

0.129 0.117 10.70 170.42 12.013 74

0.002 0.000 0.001

Source: Open Domesday, 2022; Williams and Martin, 2002.

Table 5.9  Major outliers from Table 5.8 Positive

Deviation from predicted value

Negative

Deviation from predicted value

Taunton Colchester Lincoln Waltham Holy Cross Wallingford Dunwich Chester Hereford Stamford

1554.6 1204.6 1038.1 812.7 638.1 601.6 586.1 576.2 460.7

Newark Beverley Nantwich Ipswich Banbury

503.6 512.9 508.4 503.8 502.8

taxable population more rapidly than those without, or that the religious were taxed, relative to the groups, more heavily by the poll tax in 1377 than by the subsidy in 1334, shown in Tables 5.8 and 5.9. Both explanations are plausible. The subsidy of 1334 taxed wealthy merchants heavily, because of the large inventories of goods that they held, while the religious, because of the fewness of their possessions, were taxed much less. In 1377, therefore, the religious, together with the poorer citizens, would have contributed a higher proportion of the tax than in 1334. There are other reasons,

Explaining the growth of towns 1086–1524  149 however, for believing that religious institutions had a direct impact on the growth of towns, and these are spelled out in greater detail subsequently. Value of lay subsidies in 1334 The results are difficult to interpret because of the relatively small number of valuations (namely 54) available for 1066 (given that the sample is already confined to towns recorded in 1334). When both 1066 and 1086 valuations are used as predictors for value in 1334, they are both insignificant, but when 1086 alone is used as a predictor it has a significant positive effect. Part of the explanation may lie in the inclusion of 17 additional towns that were valued in 1086 and 1334 but not 1066. Some of these towns could be described as “new towns”, but not all of them fall into this category. Even with this enlarged sample, however, only 13 percent of variation in 1334 values is explained by the 1086 value. This suggests that the changes that happened between 1086 and 1334 were far more significant for urban growth than anything that happened prior to 1086. Although some significant impacts of the Norman Conquest appear in the 1086 data, the major impacts came later. Domesday valuations of 1086 The final step in this exercise is to focus simply on the towns that appear in Domesday, and to examine the relationship between pre-Norman and post-Norman valuations. It needs to be emphasised, however, that the valuations for 1066 are based on records and recollections recorded 20 years later, and that the valuations for 1086 are largely forward-looking estimates offered by recently enfeoffed Norman lords. Subject to these qualifications, Table 5.10 shows that 1066 valuations are quite reasonable predictors of 1086 valuation, provided that the 1066 values are inflated in the appropriate way. If the 1066 valuation is inflated by 40 percent and 116s is added to the result, then more than 50 percent of the variation between towns in the valuation of 1086 is explained by the variation in the values of the same towns in 1066.

Table 5.10  Previous valuation as predictor of value in 1086 p-value Constant Value 1066 R2 Adjusted R2 F Normality Heteroskedasticity No. of observations

116.721 1.409 0.514 0.506 61.372 30.220 6.528 60

0.000

0.000 0.000 0.013

Source: Open Domesday, 2022; Williams and Martin, 2002.

150  Explaining the growth of towns 1086–1524 Table 5.11  Major outliers from Table 5.10 Positive

Deviation from predicted value

Negative

Deviation from predicted value

Taunton Colchester Lincoln Waltham Holy Cross Wallingford Dunwich Chester Hereford Stamford

1554.6 1204.6 1038.1 812.7 638.1 601.6 586.1 576.2 460.7

Newark Beverley Nantwich Ipswich Banbury

503.6 512.9 508.4 503.8 502.8

The major winners and losers from the Norman Conquest, as revealed by these valuations, are recorded in Table 5.11. There are three big winners — Taunton, Colchester and Lincoln — and five small losers — Newark, Beverley, Nantwich, Ipswich and Banbury. The big winners are fairly well known, but the losers have received less attention, except from local historians — even though, in three cases, their 1086 valuations were dramatically lower than their previous ones. Overall assessment of continuity of growth In almost all cases there is considerable continuity between valuation at one time and valuation at the immediately previous time, but little continuity between valuation at one time and valuation at much earlier times. This suggests that different forces were influencing the growth of towns over different periods. In order to identify these forces it is useful to analyse valuation at each date by reference to the 19 town characteristics identified earlier, in order to determine which factors appear to have been important at which times, whether some factors have been important throughout, and whether some factors have been of no importance at all.

Analysing the determinants of the valuation of towns at given dates This section synthesises three different sets of evidence. It examines the variations in town population as described in the section “The growth of towns: a comparative analysis, 1066–1524” in terms of the town characteristics described in the section “Patterns in the distribution of characteristic amongst the towns”. It also introduces additional town characteristics relating to physical geography. These variables may be described as “controls”, as they control for variation in the size of the town that is accounted for purely by the part of the country in which the town is located and the natural resources available there. Ten English regions are identified, following the classification introduced in Chapter 2. The natural resources are identified from the major industries recorded in each medieval town. The industries concerned are fishing, salt-working, forestry, leather-working and iron-working. There is no attempt to distinguish “wool

Explaining the growth of towns 1086–1524  151 towns” or “cloth towns”; a high proportion of early towns were “wool towns”, of which a fraction survived as “cloth towns”, but it is difficult to draw a clear line between towns that fall into one or more of these categories and those that do not.

Town population in 1524 The first pair of columns in Table 5.12.1 present the results of the full regression for population in 1524. There are eight groups of explanatory variables, comprising the six groups introduced in the section “Patterns in the distribution of characteristic amongst the towns” and the two groups mentioned previously. The control group for location is “home counties”, and the control group for industry is “none of the five industries”. The results are clear cut: a high proportion of the variation in population is explained by three factors of paramount importance: possession of major religious institutions, location at a first bridging point, and location at a river hub. Two other significant factors are “new town” origins and the presence of large-scale leather-working. It is also disadvantageous to be located in the northwest (meaning north of the River Mersey). It is important to assess, however, whether other impacts are being suppressed through the inclusion of so many insignificant variables. It is therefore appropriate to eliminate the least significant variables and, where appropriate, to do this by blocks. The first step is to eliminate the block of regional variables, only one of which was significant, and at only 10 percent. The results are shown in the second pair of columns. The results show that all of five variables identified previously — r­ eligious institutions, new towns, first bridging points, river hubs and leather-working — all retain their significance. The most striking change is that lordship now becomes important. Towns in which the king is involved in lordship perform better than others. In the section on “Profiles of town characteristics” the lordship of towns was classified into four groups, but since they are mutually exclusive and collectively exhaustive, they cannot not all be included in the regression. The lay lords were chosen as the control group, and the reported coefficients, therefore, summarise the discrepancy between the first three types of lordship and the lay lords. Towns in which the earl has the third penny (and the king has the other two pennies) perform the best. The king alone performs next best, whilst ecclesiastical lords are not significantly better, or worse than lay lords. Several negative factors now emerge as significant. One is the possession of a post-Norman castle (though significant only at 10 percent). It might be thought that the possession of such a castle was a symbol of status, and that the garrisoning of the castle would have created employment in the town. Most Norman castles do not seem to have been regarded as assets by the local citizens, however. They often occupied valuable land inside the town that could have otherwise been put to commercial use. It also seems that wealthy people did not like to live directly under the shadow of the castle, but some distance away from it; residential development was therefore impaired as well. Finally, the building of a castle may have signified the king’s distrust of the citizens, perhaps arising from their opposition to

152  Explaining the growth of towns 1086–1524 Table 5.12.1  Determinants of population in 1524 Full regression

Constant King Earl has the third penny Ecclesiastical Pre-Norman castle Post-Norman castle Roman town Mint “New town” County/shire town Religious centre First bridging point Coastal port High altitude Adjacent “twin town” Main road Major road hub Local road hub River hub Fresh water Fishing Salt working Forestry Leather-working Iron-working Southwest South-central Southeast East Anglia West Midlands Welsh borders Northeast Northwest East Midlands R2 Adjusted R2 F Normality Heteroskedasticity No. of observations

Reduced regression

Coefficient

p-value

Coefficient

p-value

108.3 81.2 145.4 13.8 38.1 −96.1 55.2 −37.0 129.9 12.4 194.9 169.5 11.6 3.4 36.1 −60.0 75.5 −10.2 183.4 34.5 −116.4 −51.2 −98.1 107.8 −82.7 −34.9 −38.6 −15.0 128.8 67.3 −51.9 24.8 −272.8 3.0 0.722 0.556 4.354 2.350 1.340 92

0.237 0.242 0.166 0.842 0.572 0.184 0.408 0.588 0.053* 0.842 0.007*** 0.016** 0.883 0.948 0.557 0.312 0.261 0.852 0.007*** 0.547 0.109 0.527 0.135 0.067* 0.299 0.722 0.675 0.883 0.176 0.443 0.674 0.807 0.093* 0.971

120.3 149.0 225.4 50.2 23.3 −124.6 9.0 −47.8 125.9 10.5 201.5 183.6 −19.6 15.7 28.9 −92.2 69.5 −36.7 178.5 73.2 −122.5 −15.1 −135.8 99.85 −82.9

0.064* 0.023** 0.024** 0.441 0.719 0.063* 0.878 0.435 0.048** 0.861 0.003*** 0.002*** 0.788 0.761 0.619 0.092* 0.265 0.480 0.007*** 0.171 0.090* 0.843 0.022** 0.073* 0.250

0.000*** 0.309 0.162

0.669 0.544 5.344 3.289 1.306 92

0.000*** 0.193 0.194

Source: Sheail, 1998. Note: Significance levels are *** 1 percent, ** 5 percent and * 10 percent.

the Conquest, which meant that the town was not in the king’s good favour and suffered financially as a result. The other significant negative factors are lying on a main road and possession of a fishing industry or forest industries. Superficially, these results seem perverse.

Explaining the growth of towns 1086–1524  153 Table 5.12.2  Determinants of population 1524 continued

Constant King Earl has the third penny Ecclesiastical Pre-Norman castle Post-Norman castle Roman town Mint “New town” County/shire town Religious centre First bridging point Coastal port High altitude Adjacent “twin town” Lies on main road Hub of major roads Hub of local roads River hub Fresh water R2 Adjusted R2 F Normality Heteroskedasticity No. of observations

Second reduced regression

Third reduced regression

Coefficient

p-value

Coefficient

p-value

69.2 131.5 212.3 46.1 18.8 −99.0 22.7 −42.8 95.0 −26.6 208.6 184.0 −37.7 15.9 60.1 −48.6 84.7 −6.8 158.9 36.8 0.598 0.485 5.277 7.778 1.194 92

0.290 0.047** 0.030** 0.489 0.781 0.155 0.710 0.498 0.132 0.653 0.000*** 0.003*** 0.578 0.770 0.309 0.367 0.189 0.898 0.003*** 0.488

94.0 102.1 168.1 23.4 129.7 −26.3 23.9 −37.9 111.0 8.2 258.9

0.101 0.101 0.082* 0.736 0.046** 0.697 0.700 0.559 0.089* 0.891 0.000***

0.000*** 0.020** 0.285

0.460 0.385 6.185 48.755 1.229 92

0.000*** 0.000*** 0.282

Source: Sheail, 1998. Note: Significance levels are *** 1 percent, ** 5 percent and * 10 percent.

Note, however, that fishing and forestry often took place in relatively remote locations, and that forests were often controlled by the king in order to protect both valuable timber and the deer population. Location on a main road can be a mixed blessing too; it may benefit a large town, by feeding in traffic, but potentially damage a small town by encouraging people to travel to larger towns nearby. Further elimination of variables does not significantly modify the results, or alter the conclusions, as indicated in Table 5.12.2. The analysis of outliers in Table 5.13 shows that larger towns generally outperformed smaller towns, suggesting that inequalities in town size widened over the period 1377–1525. Poll tax valuation in 1377 Tables 5.14.1 and 5.14.2 repeat the exercise carried out in Tables 5.12.1, 5.12.2 and 5.13 for 1377 instead of 1524. The results are strikingly different in respect of new towns and post-Norman castles. Although these appear as disadvantages in 1525, they appear to be advantages in 1377. One explanation is that new towns

154  Explaining the growth of towns 1086–1524 Table 5.13  Major outliers from Table 5.12.1 (full regression) Positive

Deviation from predicted value

Negative

Deviation from predicted value

Norwich Bristol Hull Coventry Newbury Bury St Edmunds St Albans Nottingham Colchester

341.9 329.3 253.4 236.9 226.3 211.8 203.8 193.8 186.9

Rochester Sudbury Leicester Malmesbury Ottery St Mary Buckingham Ipswich Derby King’s Lynn

240.2 236.6 232.5 225.8 222.0 213.8 204.2 181.9 176.7

Table 5.14.1  Determination of poll tax valuation in 1377 Full regression

Constant King Earl has the third penny Ecclesiastical Pre-Norman castle Post-Norman castle Roman town Mint “New town” County/shire town Religious centre First bridging point Coastal port High altitude Adjacent “twin town” Lies on main road Hub of major roads Hub of local roads River hub Fresh water Fishing Salt working Forestry Leather-working Iron-working Southwest South-central Southeast East Anglia West Midlands Welsh borders Northeast

Reduced regression

Coefficient

p-value

Coefficient

p-value

40.5 1510.0 1202.5 1374.6 51.1 −1396.0 −334.1 620.8 879.7 −282.8 71.3 1128.2 689.3 −114.6 680.7 −1078.3 948.0 −53.9 816.3 891.6 −487.3 −616.0 −950.0 630.6 −755.6 −1184.4 −1076.0 −783.9 −472.2 1489.4 399.2 746.0

0.968 0.007*** 0.127 0.019** 0.928 0.021** 0.505 0.171 0.089* 0.532 0.859 0.013** 0.245 0.790 0.111 0.017** 0.045** 0.893 0.018** 0.036** 0.374 0.305 0.063* 0.133 0.232 0.219 0.280 0.443 0.659 0.107 0.727 0.454

−656.6 2038.8 1966.8 1253.8 797.3 −669.7 −454.9 23.9 1158.2 −377.7 483.7 486.9 −178.5 −301.7 1007.4 −751.8 185.1 214.0 182.0 514.0 −476.0 396.1 −274.3 232.8 −704.3

0.367 0.002*** 0.023** 0.046** 0.251 0.358 0.437 0.962 0.050** 0.504 0.326 0.343 0.805 0.590 0.065* 0.151 0.727 0.681 0.654 0.290 0.464 0.546 0.633 0.613 0.335

(Continued )

Explaining the growth of towns 1086–1524  155 Table 5.14.1  (Continued) Full regression

Northwest East Midlands R2 Adjusted R2 F Normality Heteroskedasticity No. of observations

Reduced regression

Coefficient

p-value

−2946.7 559.9 0.810 0.579 3.511 1.857 1.604 63

0.055* 0.546

Coefficient

p-value

0.542 0.232 1.751 5.012 1.147 63

0.059* 0.082* 0.346

0.001*** 0.395 0.102

Source: Fenwick, 1998–2005. Note: Significance levels are *** 1 percent, ** 5 percent and * 10 percent.

Table 5.14.2  Determination of poll tax valuation in 1377 continued

Constant King Earl has the third penny Ecclesiastical Pre-Norman castle Post-Norman castle Roman town Mint “New town” County/shire town Religious centre First bridging point Coastal port High altitude Adjacent “twin town” Lies on main road Hub of major roads Hub of local roads River hub Fresh water R2 Adjusted R2 F Normality Heteroskedasticity No. of observations

Second reduced regression

Third reduced regression

Coefficient

p-value

Coefficient

p-value

−669.7 1931.5 1940.9 1299.2 709.5 −782.6 −537.6 18.0 1139.3 −540.6 410.76 518.1 −265.9 −379.2 1210.0 −670.2 381.5 291.3 221.2 544.3 0.510 0.277 2.191 6.077 1.409 63

0.326 0.001*** 0.015** 0.0282 0.278 0.233 0.324 0.970 0.043** 0.309 0.360 0.297 0.674 0.476 0.017** 0.175 0.442 0.554 0.565 0.206

−565.8 1460.9 1331.3 1328.5 1024.6 −204.9 −304.0 8.650 1148.1 −217.7 783.8

0.296 0.007*** 0.053* 0.243 0.036** 0.713 0.534 0.986 0.032** 0.633 0.056*

0.016 0.048 0.172

Source: Fenwick, 1998–2005. Note: Significance levels are *** 1 percent, ** 5 percent and * 10 percent.

0.371 0.235 2.733 34.481 1.312 63

0.007 0.000 0.245

156  Explaining the growth of towns 1086–1524 Table 5.15  Major outliers from Table 5.14.1 (full regression) Positive

Deviation from predicted value

Negative

Deviation from predicted value

York Bristol Salisbury Colchester

1327.0 1047.7 1014.9 1006.2

Rochester Hull Lichfield

1963.3 1241.5 1092.8

founded after the Conquest attracted considerable initial investment, but in the long run, after 1377, the advantages of the sites that had been settled earlier began to dominate once again. Road and river hubs were also advantageous, as was access to fresh water, which was important in the development of the fulling industry. Broadly similar results were obtained for wealth in 1525, although the levels of significance obtained were not so high. There are very few outliers, as indicated in Table 5.15. As before, however, the positive outliers tend to be larger towns and the negative outliers smaller towns. Lay subsidy valuation in 1334 The results for 1334 (Table 5.16.1, Table 5.16.2 and Table 5.17) are to some extent more similar to the results for 1524 than they are to the results for 1377. This raises the possibility that the results for 1377 are to some extent an aberration from the Table 5.16.1  Determinants of lay subsidy valuation in 1334 Full regression

Constant King Earl has the third penny Ecclesiastical Pre-Norman castle Post-Norman castle Roman town Mint “New town” County/shire town Religious centre First bridging point Coastal port High altitude Adjacent “twin town” Lies on main road Hub of major roads Hub of local roads River hub Fresh water

Reduced regression

Coefficient

p-value

Coefficient

p-value

8.4 324.0 309.1 185.2 200.4 −243.8 2.3 −213.4 441.7 96.6 327.5 546.5 −54.9 −178.2 443.2 33.2 53.3 −112.8 160.4 −119.8

0.976 0.102 0.321 0.374 0.323 0.220 0.990 0.283 0.029** 0.590 0.046** 0.008*** 0.810 0.256 0.010*** 0.847 0.785 0.490 0.283 0.506

81.1 499.0 513.7 208.8 302.2 −193.5 −168.6 −295.9 556.0 153.4 380.4 361.4 −200.0 −178.4 409.0 91.3 91.3 −65.1 −17.2 −1.1

0.686 0.013** 0.096* 0.321 0.143 0.345 0.373 0.109 0.006*** 0.408 0.025** 0.056* 0.385 0.277 0.019** 0.588 0.588 0.740 0.917 0.994 (Continued )

Explaining the growth of towns 1086–1524  157 Table 5.16.1  (Continued) Full regression

Fishing Salt working Forestry Leather-working Iron-working Southwest South-central South-east East Anglia West Midlands Welsh borders North–east North–west East Midlands R2 Adjusted R2 F Normality Heteroskedasticity No. of observations

Reduced regression

Coefficient

p-value

Coefficient

p-value

−109.4 158.9 −160.5 −55.68 −391.8 −155.5 165.1 −183.7 343.8 486.3 353.3 523.7 −649.2 464.9 0.579 0.365 2.708 97.397 1.459 102

0.572 0.535 0.443 0.760 0.118 0.602 0.565 0.563 0.239 0.076* 0.318 0.088* 0.121 0.079*

−120.6 342.7 −297.1 −27.5 −295.2

0.546 0.182 0.124 0.881 0.228

0.000 0.000 0.094

0.453 0.273 2.520 154.7 1.789 102

0.001 0.000 0.028

Source: Glasscock, 1975. Note: Significance levels are *** 1 percent, ** 5 percent and * 10 percent.

Table 5.16.2  Determinants of lay subsidy valuation in 1334 continued

Constant King Earl has the third penny Ecclesiastical Pre-Norman castle Post-Norman castle Roman town Mint “New town” County/shire town Religious centre First bridging point Coastal port High altitude Adjacent “twin town” Lies on main road Hub of major roads Hub of local roads

Second reduced regression

Third reduced regression

Coefficient

p-value

Coefficient

p-value

62.8 375.6 456.1 188.8 304.3 −236.1 −130.1 −265.9 499.4 38.1 340.3 343.7 −97.9 −181.2 409.1 148.7 −8.7 26.8

0.751 0.049** 0.115 0.345 0.139 0.243 0.486 0.144 0.011** 0.832 0.039** 0.066* 0.634 0.269 0.019** 0.368 0.964 0.869

95.4 386.5 514.2 181.2 418.0 −169.6 34.1 −230.9 430.7 98.4 347.6

0.576 0.030** 0.066* 0.377 0.024* 0.385 0.851 0.211 0.024** 0.575 0.030**

(Continued )

158  Explaining the growth of towns 1086–1524 Table 5.16.2  (Continued)

River hub Fresh water R2 Adjusted R2 F Normality Heteroskedasticity No. of observations

Second reduced regression

Third reduced regression

Coefficient

p-value

Coefficient

14.1 −146.9

0.926 0.382

0.405 0.258 2.755 141.9 2.169 102

0.001 0.000 0.008

0.275 0.186 3.103 549.623 0.987 102

p-value

0.001 0.000 0.464

Source: Glasscock, 1975. Note: Significance levels are *** 1 percent, ** 5 percent and * 10 percent.

Table 5.17  Major outliers from Table 5.16.1 (full regression) Positive

Deviation from predicted value

Negative

Deviation from predicted value

Bristol Great Yarmouth Oxford York Boston

2196.3 902.5 785.2 770.4 692.4

Rochester Leominster Carlisle Beverley

1165.2 851.1 838.0 666.4

normal long-run pattern of town development, possibly due to the impact of the Black Death. The results highlight the positive impacts of royal lordship and religious centres. They agree with the results for 1377, however, in confirming the advantages of new towns, and twin towns too. An analysis of outliers indicates that once again, large towns appear to have positive unexplained valuations and smaller towns negative unexplained valuations.

Summary of results, 1334–1527 The results of the three sets of regressions are summarised in Table 5.18. The headline result is that the main drivers of urban growth over the period 1334–1527 were first bridging points and religious institutions. Since first bridging points are a fixed locational factor, while religious institutions are a function of human decision making, it is possible that the first influenced the second to some degree. The correlation between them, however, though positive at 0.19, is not particularly high. Table 5.18 is presented in an abbreviated form in Table 5.19, where only statistically significant variables appear. Many religious institutions were founded before the Norman Conquest, and so their impact on towns was clearly very long term. In later periods new towns with post-Norman castles seem to have flourished, but not so much as to overturn the long-run advantages possessed by towns that had attracted religious institutions because of their strategic location.

Explaining the growth of towns 1086–1524  159 Table 5.18  Key factors explaining the variation in the size and valuation of towns 1334–1524 Factor

Direction of impact 1524

1377

Lordship King is lord

Strongly positive Consistently positive Consistently at 1 percent or positive at 5 percent 1 percent Earl gets the Positive Positive at 5 or Positive at 5 or third penny 10 percent 10 percent Ecclesiastical Weakly positive Insignificant Positive at lordship 5 percent Fortifications Pre-Norman Weakly positive Positive once at Positive once at Castle 10 percent 5 percent Post-Norman Weakly negative Negative once at Negative once castle 10 percent at 5 percent Institutions New town Positive (but Positive once at Consistently foundation declining over 5 percent and positive at 5 time) twice at 10 percent or 10 percent Religious Strongly positive Consistently positive Positive once at institutions (except in at 1 percent 10 percent 1377) Location First bridging Positive Consistently Positive at point 1 percent or 5 percent 5 percent Adjacent “twin town” Located on main road Accessibility River hub Industries Fishing Forestry Leatherworking Regions Northwest Northeast

Positive Insignificant (declining over time) Marginally Insignificant negative

Consistently positive Positive at at 1 percent 5 percent

Weakly negative

Negative at 10 percent Negative at 5 percent

Negative Weakly positive (declining over time)

Positive at 5 percent Positive at 10 percent Insignificant Positive once at 10 percent Insignificant Consistently positive at 5 percent Consistently positive at 5 percent

Consistently positive at 1 percent or 10 percent Positive at 15 Consistently or 10 percent positive at 1 or 5 percent Significant at Insignificant 5 percent

Positive (increasing over time)

Weakly negative (increasing over time) Weakly positive (increasing over time

1344

Insignificant

Negative at 10 percent

Insignificant

Positive at 10 percent

Insignificant

Insignificant

Negative at 10 percent Insignificant

Negative at 10 percent Insignificant

Insignificant Positive at 10 percent (Continued )

160  Explaining the growth of towns 1086–1524 Table 5.18  (Continued) Factor

Direction of impact 1524

East Midlands Weakly positive Insignificant (declining over time) West Weakly positive Insignificant Midlands (declining over time)

1377

1344

Insignificant

Positive at 10 percent

Insignificant

Positive at 10 percent

Table 5.19  Summary regressions using only the key factors identified in Table 5.18

Constant

Population 1524

Value 1377

88.7

0.072*

−275.5

0.568

0.037** 0.028** 0.362

1635.8 1380.6 1237.9

0.002*** 0.020** 0.019**

0.519 0.129

300.7 −715.0

0.485 0.179

Lordship King 109.5 Earl gets third penny 159.0 Ecclesiastical 53.4 Fortifications Pre-Norman castle 32.4 Post-Norman castle −90.0 Institutions New town 144.7 Religious 221.0 institutions Location First bridging point 156.5 Twin town 26.2 Access Main road −57.4 River hub 168.5 Industry Fishing −119.8 Forestry −133.4 Leather 96.8 R2 0.629 Adjusted R2 0.562 F 9.331 Normality 2.749 Heteroskedasticity 1.988 No. of observations 92

Value 1334 −25.9 388.8 440.2 279.2 137.5 −283,8

0.868 0.022** 0.062* 0.151 0.399 0.127

0.011** 1077.4 0.000*** 614.5

0.017** 0.110

573.9 274.1

0.001*** 0.073*

0.003*** 0.632

0.185 0.054*

374.6 376.8

0.029** 0.023**

0.177 −624.5 0.000*** 275.8

0.101 0.416

106.1 73.3

0.438 0.600

0.040** −531.3 0.009*** −423.7 0.065* 211.5 0.489 0.341 0.000*** 3.287 0.253 8.328 0.030** 1.850 63

0.291 0.326 0.599

537.5 858.4

−72.7 −297.0 −5.6 0.394 0.296 0.001*** 4.034 0.016** 149.154 0.058* 2.481 102

0.665 0.078* 0.974 0.000 0.000 0.005

Note: Significance levels are *** 1 percent, ** 5 percent and * 10 percent.

A more detailed examination of the results indicates that, in the context of this big picture, 13 of the factors included in the regression appear to be insignificant. Five of these factors all have mostly negative impacts; they are coastal port, minor road hub, iron production, and locations in the southwest or southeast. They may well have effects, but if so they are too small to register as significant.

Explaining the growth of towns 1086–1524  161 The eight remaining factors included in the regression analysis have no discernible direction (positive or negative) in terms of impact: they are Roman town, mint, county or shire town, high altitude, salt production and three locations: south-central, East Anglia and the Welsh Borders. The first five factors are all quite plausible determinants of town growth; it is therefore useful to consider why they might be insignificant, as this could inform the interpretation of the significant results presented previously. One simple explanation is that several of these variables are highly correlated with factors, such as first bridging points and religious institutions, which already appear significant. They would become significant in their own right if first bridging points and religious institutions were omitted from the regressions. For example, both mints and county towns both have positive impacts when considered in isolation, but their biggest impact comes not, apparently, directly from their own advantages but from the potential of these advantages to attract religious institutions to a town. The explanation of the power of religious institutions is already well-known, although the statistical support for their role has hitherto been limited. Basically, religious institutions were endowed with large estates by royal or aristocratic benefactors. As a result, substantial rents were transferred from properties elsewhere into the institution, and the income was then spent in the town in which the institution was based. The religious institutions created a demand for the services of skilled artisans, and this demand could be reinforced by the attraction of wealthy pilgrims — including royalty — who would purchase luxury products, possibly as mementoes of their visits. Other notable factors promoting town development were royal lordship, either with or without a third penny to the earl; new town status and, by 1524, river hubs. The role of royal lordship is fairly obvious and already well known; the support of the king was important in the redevelopment of towns, where the king was often a major holder of burgage rents and was entitled to various tolls. Although the king usually farmed out the collection of his income, the value of his holdings doubtless influenced the charges that he could make for the right to farm. New town status had the great advantage that the new town (or new part of an existing town) could be laid out from the start in an efficient or “rational” way. It provided the developer with an opportunity to increase the size of the market and improve access to it; also to lay out property in a regular pattern that economised on space, and perhaps to “zone” the town so that environmental diseconomies were minimised; for example the cattle market and the butchery could be moved to the edge of the town, and developing smelting, tanning and other polluting industries located in specialised suburbs. The role of river hubs is intriguing and has received relatively little attention in the literature. River hubs only emerge as an important factor in urban growth in 1524, and this may be the product of advances in shipping. Larger ships and more extensive international trade provided greater demand for the transshipment of goods at international ports, and a river hub was ideal for this purpose. River hub locations may have developed originally simply because they provided good access

162  Explaining the growth of towns 1086–1524 to neighbouring valleys, and a good supply of water. Towns already positioned there may therefore have benefitted from additional, and probably unforeseen, benefits of their strategic location.

References Fenwick, C.C. (1998–2005) The Poll Taxes of 1377, 1379 and 1381, Part 1: Bedfordshire– Leicestershire; Part 2, Lincolnshire–Westmoreland, Part 3: Wiltshire–Yorkshire. Oxford, Oxford University Press for the British Academy. Glasscock, R.E. (ed.) (1975) The Lay Subsidy of 1334. London, Oxford University Press for the British Academy. Open Domesday (2022) Leeds. Available from: https://opendomesday.org/place/SE3033/ leeds/ [Accessed 7 January 2022]. Sheail, J. (ed. R.W. Hoyle) (1998) The Regional Distribution of Wealth in England as Indicated in the 1524/5 Lay Subsidy Returns. Kew, List and Index Society. Williams, A. and G.H. Martin (2002) Domesday Book: A Complete Translation. London, Penguin.

6 Town growth and topography

Introduction This chapter uses the relatively under-researched topic of the urban property market to explore how towns developed topographically and identify the key individuals and institutions involved. The focus is on the towns of Birmingham, Bristol, Cambridge, Coventry, Gloucester, Hull and Shrewsbury. These seven towns were all profiled in Chapters 2–4. This chapter examines in detail their urban property markets and the influence on each market of local topography. The towns are discussed in chronological order, as dictated by the dates of the most important local rentals on which each case study is based. Their sources are outlined in Table 6.1. A summary of key points on the medieval property market is provided as an introduction. The chapter also outlines the investment strategies of key individuals and institutions who created new towns or expanded existing ones. Some institutions, such as Llanthony Secunda Priory in Gloucester, focused on the construction of large volumes of low-value housing, while in other cases entrepreneurs such as Robert Fitzharding in Bristol initiated the development of high-status suburbs or twin towns.

Sources of information on property ownership in towns Burgage rents Burgage rents are often referred to as hawgable or landgable in surviving documents. Hawgable is an Anglo-Saxon name, indicating the pre-Norman origins of the system. The fact that the system was pre-Norman does not necessarily mean that it was Anglo-Saxon in origin, however, because the Anglo-Saxons may have copied aspects of the system from continental Europe; furthermore, Danish occupiers in the tenth century appear to have had a similar system. Hawgable typically referred to a house (or “haw”), whereas as landgable applied to other types of property too. For example, in some towns burgages had fields, or portions of fields, attached to them. These fields lay outside the boundaries of the DOI: 10.4324/9781003172697-6

COVENTRY Type of source

Type of information

Scope

Location information

Date

No. obs

Source

Deeds

Seigniorial rents, ordinary commercial rents and considerations

Properties in the prior’s half and the earl’s half of Coventry

Street

1200–1309

547

Documents 40–731 in Coss (1986)

Consideration (purchase price)

Sample of properties in Gloucestershire

City/suburb

1209–1365

192

Landgable rental

Landgable rent

Properties on land in the King’s fee

Parish/suburb

1295

252

Landgable rental

Landgable rent

Properties on land in the King’s fee

Parish/suburb

c.1350

306

Landgable rental

Landgable rent

Properties on land in the King’s fee

Parish/suburb

1438

153

Community rental

Ordinary rents

Streets

1350–1360

99

Community rental

Revised landgable

Properties owned by the city, including Arthur’s fee Properties owned or authorised by the city

Veale (1931: 171–247), Elrington, 2003–13 Veale (1931: 296–311, Column 1) Veale (1931: 296–311, Column 2); Veale (1933: 74–87) Bush (1828: 9–18); Veale (1931: 296–311, Column 3) Bickley (1900, Vol. I: 2–10)

Streets

1463

182

BRISTOL Feets of fines

Veale (1953: 21–9)

164  Town growth and topography

Table 6.1  Sources of rental information for the seven towns

COVENTRY Type of source SHREWSBURY Borough rental

Scope

Location information

Date

No. obs

Source

Royal rent, similar to landgable

Rents due to the king and held at farm by the borough. It does not refer to the full rent payable on each property Properties in Shrewsbury held by Shrewsbury Abbey Properties held in Shrewsbury by Haughmond Abbey.

Thirteen sections of Shrewsbury

1246

503

Bodleian Library MS Gough Shropshire 1

Shrewsbury

Pre 1200–1299

89 gifts and all surviving analysed

Rees (1975)

Shrewsbury

Pre 1200–1299

61 gifts and all surviving analysed

Rees (1985)

History of individual property holdings and the ordinary rents on them

Town of Cambridge (excluding Chesterton) and the suburb of Barnwell

Parishes

1279

1088

Casson, Casson, Lee and Phillips (2020a)

Perpetual borough rents

Properties in the borough (but not the foreign) Properties in the borough (but not the foreign)

Street

1296

336

Demidowicz (2008)

Street

1344–5

415

Demidowicz (2008)

Cartulary of Shrewsbury Abbey

Gifts and purchases

Cartulary of Haughmond Abbey

Gifts and purchases

CAMBRIDGE Hundred Rolls

BIRMINGHAM Rental Rental

Perpetual borough rents

(Continued )

Town growth and topography  165

Type of information

COVENTRY Type of source

Type of information

Scope

Location information

Date

No. obs

Source

Survey

Perpetual borough rents

Properties in the borough and foreign

Street

1553

132

Bickley and Hill (1891)

Variable burgage rents

Properties owned by king

Street and width of frontage of plots

1347

198

Horrox (1983a)

Landgable rent and ordinary rent

In the main streets properties owing landgable to the bailiffs and those paying ordinary rents. In side streets only those properties liable for landgable are recorded

Street

1455

481

Gloucestershire Archives GBR/J/5/1 (n.d.); Stevenson (1890)

HULL Fee-farm rental GLOUCESTER Rental

166  Town growth and topography

Table 6.1  (Continued)

Town growth and topography  167 town but were managed by the town authorities (Barlow, 1976: 4–16; Hemmeon, 1914; Hilton, 1967; Maitland, 1898; Tait, 1936). Much of the information on property ownership in towns is derived from the systematic study of urban rentals, which were produced by the lords of towns to record the rents that were due from their tenants in the town. One consequence of the system of burgage tenure is that when a modern scholar studies a rental, the rent they see reported is normally only one part of what an owner-occupier was normally paying for the property, because they may have been paying rents to other parties too. We cannot always tell exactly when landgable was set in a given town, but we know that in Gloucester it was paid from at least c.1100 (Langton, 1977: 267). There are similar records of landgable and hawgable at early dates in Cambridge, Canterbury, St Davids and Winchester (Barlow, 1976; Casson, Casson, Lee and Philips, 2020b; Urry, 1967; Willis-Bund, 1902). Published rentals have been produced or analysed for many towns; notably areas of Canterbury (Urry, 1967), London (Bateson, 1902: 483–4; Davis, 1925; Harding and Wright, 1995; Kerling, 1973; Webb, 1921), King’s Lynn (Alsford, 2022a) and Winchelsea (Alsford, 2022b). The rentals selected for analysis in this chapter reflects the holdings of major landowners, notably the civic authorities of large towns, and have a sufficient number of entries and sufficient detail for statistical analysis (Bateson, 1902: 483–4, for example, covers only ten properties). They also cover a period spanning nearly three hundred years, c.1250–c.1550. Town charters The interpretation of urban rentals is often aided by the consultation of surviving town charters. The king conferred various trading rights on towns, whatever their form of lordship, in return for payment. These rights were recorded in town charters. Selling town charters could, for example, help the king to finance a war and was particularly common in the reigns of King John (1199–1217) and his son Henry III (1217–1272) (Ballard, 1913: lxxxiv; Jamroziak, 2005). Town charters were so important to the burgesses that they often paid to have them confirmed whenever a new monarch ascended the throne. When the king was negotiating with the burgesses, the burgesses typically demanded that their charter should award them special privileges, for example a local monopoly on the trade in certain goods and exemption from tolls in other towns (Holt, 2000: 84-5). In addition, some town authorities disqualified ecclesiastics, minors, females and criminals from holding burgage property (Merewether and Stephens, 1972: vi). Explaining apparent anomalies in the evidence from rentals There are three apparently puzzling features of certain rentals that can be clarified by the preceding remarks.

168  Town growth and topography The first is that burgage rents were often recorded at different levels for different individual properties, even though they were almost certainly originally levied at a uniform rate. If burgage rents varied between different areas of the town, then the explanation is relatively simple. The burgage plots may have been laid out at different times in different areas, so that although the rents were uniform within each development, they differed between one development and another. Inflation may have been a contributing factor; typically the more expensive plots would have been developed later. Parts of a town could also be redeveloped. For example, the building of castles after the Norman Conquest often disturbed the pattern of urban settlement, leading to many people living in the shadow of a castle when they would have preferred to live elsewhere. Parts of the town may therefore have been redeveloped to accommodate the changing needs of the inhabitants. A more problematic case is variation in the burgage rents of neighbouring properties. If adjacent properties paid the same rent originally, and the rent never changed, then neighbouring properties should always pay the same rent. The probable explanation of such variation is that plots were combined or divided over time. Low burgage rents may reflect a legacy of poverty in the town, whereby plots were subdivided because the residents could not afford the rent. Conversely high burgage rents may reflect affluence, whereby wealthy merchants, lawyers, clerks and local gentry purchased adjacent properties and combined them into one. There may be commercial reasons too, notably the merger of adjacent plots to create large inns and taverns offering accommodation to travellers. Burgage rents could also be adjusted if a property were improved without extending its footprint, for example by adding a solar or a cellar. The civic authorities might increase the burgage rent as the price of giving their consent. Another apparent anomaly is where a civic rental contains some properties paying burgage rent only, some paying rent of assize only, and some paying both. The most probable explanation of this phenomenon is that the civic authorities were receiving two distinct types of rent: burgage rents from a fee farm, as described previously, and ordinary rents (“rents of assize”) from properties gifted or purchased. The purchase option, however, was only available to civic authorities that had acquired corporate status (typically the authorities of large and wealthy towns). In the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries several large towns, notably Bristol, acquired a large amount of property within their own town in this way. The property came from wealthy citizens, during their life or in their will, either as a pure gift or in return for commemoration or some other benefit. Some practical examples illustrate these general points. Improvements or extensions to properties: Examples can be found in the Bristol community rental of 1463. Of John Jay the elder for a easement behind the house late John Hookeis 6d. (Veale, 1953: 21–9) Here is a record of John Jay paying what is probably a separate payment, on top of that due for his property, for what seems to be a toilet that he has added.

Town growth and topography  169 Of William Roberds Fishmonger for an easement on the town wall 6d. (Veale, 1953: 21–9) Here William Roberds may be paying for extending his property onto the town wall, and pays 6d. Of John Shypward for a cellar he made under the common ground 6d. (Veale, 1953: 21–9) This refers to the construction of a cellar by John Shypward, for which he is making a separate payment of 6d. Perpetual borough rents: In Birmingham the lord of the manor applied to the king for a charter to create a borough and market. At that point burgage plots were presumably laid out and a rent of 8d per burgage was established across the town. This rent was collected on behalf of the king by the manorial lord and not by the earl, sheriff or townspeople, as in many other cases. As plots merged or divided over time, the original 8d burgage rent remained attached to the land when properties changed hands. This is illustrated in the following examples from the 1296 rental: William Pytecoke for one burgage on the hill 8d John de Clodeshale for one burgage and a half next to the new town 12d The same John de Clodeshale for a small burgage next to the cemetery 4d (Demidowicz, 2008: 41) These are related exclusively to the size of the burgage and not its location, clearly indicating that it is not a market rent. Rents of assize: Rents of assize were rents agreed between individual buyers and sellers. In Gloucester there is an example in the 1455 rental in which The prior of Llanthony holds a tenement with appurtenances, which William Higgins, bladesmith, inhabits, and he renders 10s a year. (Stevenson, 1890: 19) This rental records properties owned by the Corporation of Gloucester. This entry therefore suggests that the Corporation of Gloucester had been gifted or purchased a property from a wealthy individual. Either before or after the Corporation obtained the property, it was sold to Llanthony priory for a perpetual rent of assize of 10 shillings. The income of 10 shillings goes to the Corporation. The property would default to the Corporation only if the priory stopped paying rent. The priory is subletting the property to William Higgins who, it may be inferred, pays rent to the prior but does not own the property himself (otherwise he would be recorded as holding it, and not the prior).

170  Town growth and topography

Property transactions Three main sets of documents record property transactions: deeds, feets of fines and the Hundred Rolls. Deeds Deeds are records of property transactions, including sale, gift and exchange. Usually included amongst the records of the borough court, they are available from c.1100 onwards (Kay, 2009). They are particularly informative on receipts from the sale of property, recording if they are taken as lump sum payments (gersuma, considerations) or as an additional perpetual rent paid to the seller. In the case of donations or bequests, additional obligations from the donor may be mentioned (such as prayers for the soul). If property was being exchanged, then the property offered in exchange was detailed too. 28 October 1293. Charter in which Henry de Mulcote in Coventry (girdler) gives to Clement le Myrourer of Coventry “a messuage with appurtenances in Earl Street … to be held with the buildings sited there and all appurtenances to him, his heirs and assigns … of the lords of that fee by the service of 8s of silver to be paid annually at the four terms of the year usual and fixed in the vill of Coventry for all secular services [etc] … Clement gave 30s sterling beforehand”. (Coss, 1986: 144) In this example from Coventry the buyer (Myrourer) pays the seller (Mulcote) with a combination of a down-payment of 30s and a perpetual rent of 8s, paid in four instalments of 2s. Late 1230s to early 1240s. Charter in which Alice daughter of David de Flichamstude gives “to Luke, son of Stephen de Berkelewelle a messuage with appurtenances in Coventry in Spon Street … to be held to him, his heirs or assigns, of the grantor and her heirs freely [etc] … by rendering annually to William Som[er] or his heirs 3s of silver and to William de Paylington 2d of silver according to the usage of Coventry, and to the lords of the fee two parts of the service of two men during one day in autumn and two parts of the price of two hens at Christmas, and to the grantor or her heirs a pair of gloves worth ½d or ½d at Easter”. (Coss, 1986: 216) This deed involves the purchase of a property by Berkelewelle from the seller (Flinchamstude). The property carries perpetual rents payable to different parties. One is a perpetual rent of 3s to William Som[er] and his heirs. The second is to William de Paylington’ of 2d. On this property there are also obligations to the lords of the fee (who hold from the king) for service and two parts of the price of two hens at Christmas.

Town growth and topography  171 These multiple layers of property-holding, including archaic payments of labour service, are in marked contrast to the situation in nearby Birmingham, where in 1232 William de Birmingham, lord of the manor, agreed to remit 16 holders of messuages from annual haymaking duties and brewing payments, in return for an annual payment of 2s a year and a one-off payment of £10 (Holt, 1985: 7; Stokes, Wellstood and Houghton, 1932: 96). In return William was to receive an annual rent of a pair of gloves worth 1/2d or a cash payment of the equivalent amount. The agreement simplified property holding in the town by eliminating labour-service but still retained a feudal element, involving payment in gloves, though with an option of paying in money instead. Feets of fines Feets of fines served a similar function as deeds by recording property transactions. Feets of fines were more secure, however, because they were more difficult for the parties to falsify. They helped to avoid future disputes over ownership. They are available from 1195 to 1835 but were most commonly employed during the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries. Security was achieved by formulating a property transaction as the resolution of a legal dispute (Elrington, 2003). One of the parties initiated the dispute by obtaining a writ. For example, the buyer made a complaint against the seller. The dispute was settled by the buyer acknowledging the seller’s right to the property. In return for this acknowledgement the seller offered the buyer the property, and in return the buyer offered a lump-sum payment known as a “consideration”; alternatively the buyer agreed to pay an annual rent, or some combination of the two. The outcome was enrolled in the king’s court records. Both parties kept a copy, and the third copy (the foot) was retained by the court and formed part of the royal records for the county concerned. To avoid forgery, the three records were cut from the same parchment using a jagged edge. Copies produced in court were deemed valid only if they matched up with the royal copy. Between William Reynald and Simon Sandwych (querentes), and Ralph Newemaystre and Alicia, his wife (deforciantes), concerning a messuage and 28 shillings of rent with their appurtenances in Bristol. Ralph and Alicia acknowledged the tenements to be the right of William, as those which William and Simon had, etc. To have and to hold to William and Simon, and the heirs William, of the capital lords etc. Ralph and Alicia warranted for themselves and the heirs of Alicia, to William and Simon, and the heirs of William, William and Simon gave Ralph and Alicia 20 marks of silver. (Veale, 1931: 225) In this example from Bristol in 1343/4 Ralph Newemaystre and Alicia his wife sold a messuage and 28 shillings of rent to William Reynald and Simon Sandwych. William and Simon acquired the right to occupy the messuage or to rent it out at their discretion. They also acquired rents on various other properties held by other

172  Town growth and topography people. If those people sold those properties, rents on those properties would continue to be paid to William and Simon by the new owners. William and Simon paid Ralph and Alicia 20 marks of silver for the messuage and the rents together. The Hundred Rolls The Hundred Rolls, often known as the “Second Domesday”, were compiled c.1276–9 on the orders of Edward I, who was concerned, amongst other things, that his father, Henry III, had allowed too much property to fall into the hands of the church (Cam, 1930; Raban, 2004). The Rolls were compiled from evidence taken by royal officials from local juries. It is likely that the intention was to cover all of England, but rolls only survive for some counties, and others appear not to have been surveyed at all (Cam, 1930; Raban, 2004). Cambridgeshire and Huntingdonshire have the most comprehensive entries, and the following examples are therefore drawn from there. In the town of Cambridge, Geoffrey Andre holds one house in the parish of St Giles which same house descended to Geoffrey by inheritance through the death of John Andre, his father. And the said John bought that from Alicia, daughter of Radulph. And the said Alicia held that by hereditary right through the death of the said Radulph, her father. And the said Radulph acquired that by ancient purchase, for which he pays per annum to the heirs of Hugh le Bercher ½d. And to the said bailiffs of the Lord King who hold the town of Cambridge in fee farm as is stated, to their farm in hawgable ½d. (Casson, Casson, Lee and Phillips, 2020a: 33) In common with other entries in the Cambridge Rolls, this entry records the entire history of the ownership of the property, as far back as memory goes. It says that Geoffrey Andre had inherited a house in the parish of St Giles from his father John. John himself had purchased that house from a woman named Alicia, who had in turn inherited it from her father, Radulph. Radulph had himself purchased the property from Hugh le Bercher. It appears that some or all of the capital gains from Hugh’s sale to Radulph were taken as an additional perpetual rent paid by Radulph and his heirs to the seller Hugh and his heirs. The hawgable on the property is ½d. Hawgable would have been paid annually to the king from the date the property was established as a burgage, which was probably in the midtenth century. The small amount paid may be because the house was half of a larger property that had been subdivided, and that originally paid 1d. Each person who subsequently acquired the property continued to incur this obligation for hawgable. Bartholomew Gogging holds one messuage in fief in the parish of St Botolph’s, which same messuage he acquired by gift of Margaret, his mother, which same Margaret acquired that by inheritance through the death of John, her brother, which same John acquired that by hereditary right through the death

Town growth and topography  173 of Richard, his brother, which same Richard acquired that through the death of Richard, his father, and the said Richard acquired that by ancient acquisition, and in respect thereof he pays per annum to the heirs of the said Margaret 1 rose, and to the bailiffs of Cambridge who hold the said town in fee farm as is stated, to their farm for hawgable 1d. (Casson, Casson, Lee and Phillips, 2020a: 80) A messuage was the most common form of property recorded in Cambridge, consisting of a given amount of land with a property on it. Bartholomew Gogging was gifted the property from his mother. To acknowledge that gift, Bartholomew gives a token payment of a rose to his mother Margaret’s heirs (possibly her other children). Margaret herself had inherited the messuage from her brother John. John was presumably not the heir, as we learn that John had inherited it from his brother Richard. Richard had inherited it upon the death of his father, also named Richard. How Richard senior acquired the property is beyond living memory.

Coventry Historical context Coventry is one of a small number of major towns that is not on a river of note (McGrory, 2003). It lies on porous chalk and limestone, near the source of the River Sherborne, where there are several powerful springs. The Sherborne is a tributary of the River Sowe, which is itself a tributary of the Warwickshire Avon which enters the River Severn at Tewkesbury (Lancaster and Tomlinson, 1969: 1). North of Coventry lies the source of the River Tame, which is a tributary of the River Trent, which enters the North Sea via the River Humber. Coventry therefore had good river connections to both the southwest and northeast. The water supply was ideal for cleaning wool and fulling cloth, and for powering watermills (Berger, 1993; Fretton, 1877; Pelham, 1945). Coventry also had good road connections, which facilitated distribution of the cloth. It is near to the Fosse Way, which connects the important towns of Lincoln and Bath and has been in use since Roman times. It is also near to Watling Street, which in medieval times connected London to Shrewsbury. Before the Conquest the town was held from the king by Lady Godiva, a devout member of the Mercian aristocracy, who held five hides of land. In 1043 Godiva and her husband Leofric, Earl of Mercia founded a Benedictine priory in Coventry with 24 monks (Cox, 1908; Hunt, 1994: 100; Morris, 1994: 26). In 1066 the town was valued at £12 and in 1086 at £11 (Open Domesday, 2022; Williams and Martin, 2002). After Godiva’s death in 1067 her lands were redistributed; Domesday records that a certain Nicholas held her lands at farm from the king (Lancaster, 1967: 10; Williams and Martin, 1992: 655). Godiva’s lands subsequently came into the possession of the earls of Chester (Goddard, 2004: 22). The town received its first charter 1121–9 (Letters, 2013). In 1153 Ranulph, Earl of Chester, confirmed the right of free burgage as it existed from the time of his ancestors, according to the customs of Lincoln; in particular, they could plead

174  Town growth and topography in their own portmote rather than at the earl’s castle (Historical Manuscripts Commission, 1899: 109–27). In c.1043 a Benedictine monastery was founded by Earl Leofric and Lady Godiva. By 1100 the monastery had become a priory. The priory claimed lordship of one half the town rather than just its precinct within it. This claim was made on the basis of an endowment allegedly made by Earl Leofric and Lady Godiva, and supported by a series of charters in possession of the priory, which it is now believed were forged (Cox, 1908; Demidowicz, 1994; Goddard, 2004: 55; Lilley, 1994; Lilley, 1998). Whatever the validity of the priory’s claim, it seems that the monks wished to develop the existing settlement adjacent the priory (Goddard, 2004: 47–8). Similar developments occurred elsewhere, for example when Medehamstede was renamed Peterborough, after its abbey (see previous chapters). The remainder of the site upon which Coventry developed was held by the earls of Chester. In c.1161–75 the earl and priory agreed to a charter that divided the town into two halves — the prior’s half and the earl’s half (Calendar of Charter Rolls 1341– 1417, 1903–27: 101; Coss, 1986). The main dividing line ran east–west through the centre of the town. The prior controlled the Market Place and the north of the town, while the earl controlled the castle area and the land to the south, including the main east–west street (Coss, 1986: xv–xxi; Davis, 1976; Dormer Harris, 1898; Goddard, 2004; Lancaster and Tomlinson, 1969: 2; Trenholme, 1927: 25–7, 45). On his death in 1232, Earl Ranulf ’s lands in Coventry passed to his sister, the wife of the Earl of Arundel. Arundel’s heir, Roger Montalt and his wife Cecily agreed in 1250 to lease the earl’s half to the prior in return for £100 annually to Roger and Cecily and their heirs forever, 10 marks per year to the nuns at Polesworth and a consideration of £300 (Coss, 1986: xxii; Goddard, 2004: 99). Thus the prior gained control of the entire town, with the exception of Cheylesmore manor house and the park (Goddard, 2004: 99). Queen Isabella inherited the earl’s half in 1330 (Goddard, 2004: 282). The prior was still renting the earl’s half at that point, but Isabella was not satisfied with the long-standing arrangement (Goddard, 2004: 282). She exercised her influence to bring the prior’s half under the judicial control of the town mayor, who mainly represented her part of the town (Fox, 1962; Goddard, 2004). In 1345 the town became incorporated as a result of her involvement, and a tripartite indenture of 1355 effectively united the jurisdictions of the two halves, with the Queen and civic authorities gaining the upper hand over the prior (Fox, 1962: 13l; Goddard, 2004: 10; Smith, 1945).1 In 1308–9 it was claimed that a market had been held from time immemorial. It had been moved to a more central location in c.1203 (Letters, 2013). There are later references to cattle and timber markets (Coss, 1986: xxx). The Prior held a fair on six days around the feast of Holy Trinity from 1218, and probably much earlier. Queen Isabel granted a fair to the burgesses of the manor of Cheylesmore in 1346, and in 1445 Henry VI granted them an additional eight days, beginning on the Friday after the feast of Corpus Christi, which may have followed on from their earlier fair (Letters, 2013). A merchant guild for both men and women was confirmed by Edward III in 1340, and there were also several religious guilds (Historical Manuscripts Commission, 1899: 109–27).

Town growth and topography  175 Coventry’s motte and bailey castle is likely to have been in the area between Earl Street and Bayley Lane (Goddard, 2004: 77). It is first recorded in the 1140s but may have been constructed earlier (Demidowicz and Scott, 2015: 17). It appears to have been removed in c.1200 to allow further development in the earl’s half (Demidowicz, 2003: 146; Demidowicz and Scott, 2015: 21; Goddard, 2004: 77). Cheylesmore manor, first recorded after c.1225 and replaced the castle as the main Coventry residence of the earl, and later the earl’s steward (Goddard, 2004: 78). Franciscan friars arrived in the town during the thirteenth century and Carmelites and Carthusians (St Annes’ priory) somewhat later (Cox, 1908; Fretton, 1871: 74). There were seven churches in the medieval town, three of which were in the centre near the priory and the market (Demidowicz and Scott, 2015: 21). There are suggestions that the Earl of Chester Ranulf III was a “patron” of Coventry’s Jewish community, which appears to have developed in the twelfth century (Hillaby and Hillaby, 2013: 121). The Jews of his towns of Leicester and Coventry were under his direct personal protection, rather than under the crown’s. The size of Coventry’s Jewish community was small, and members probably worshipped at the synagogue in Leicester. It may have ceased to exist after Earl Ranulf III’s death in 1232 (Hillaby and Hillaby, 2013: 121). In 1344 the town, which claimed not to be a borough for the purposes of taxation, was assessed for a fifteenth at 1,000s (Glasscock, 1975). In 1524 the town was assessed, on different principles, at 8,979s (Sheail, 1998). Leland, writing c.1540, was particularly impressed by the collegiate church of St John the Baptist, near the Bablake gate, which was founded by a guild of the burgesses of the town and had a master and up to 12 ministers (II, 107). Coventry was depicted on the Gough map as “two buildings, spired church with a cross and walls with two gates” (The Gough Map of Great Britain, 2022). It was portrayed by Speed (2000: 44–5). A map of Coventry is shown in Figure 6.1. It is orientated with the north facing to the left. It shows that the main east–west road ran close to the northern boundary of the earl’s half of the town. Both the priory and the castle near the intersection of this road with a road to the north, which passed through the market in front of the priory. The priory held the most valuable land for commercial use, around the local streams, but the earl held an important mill near where these streams united to form the River Sherborne. The elite residential area of Cheylesmore lay to the south of the market in the earl’s half. Local deeds To examine the ownership and control of urban property further it is helpful to study the distribution of property rents across the town. Surviving deeds provide a useful source of information. Using these deeds it is possible to identify the most valuable properties, their locations, and their uses. The following analysis is based on a sample of 692 deeds, identified as documents 40–731 in Coss (1986). Missing information means that 145 deeds had to be rejected. Since some deeds provide information on multiple properties, the remaining 547 deeds generate 638 usable observations (Casson and Casson, 2020).

176  Town growth and topography

Figure 6.1  Coventry in the thirteenth century. Source: Adapted from Map 1 Coventry in the thirteenth century in Coss, 1986 with permission of the British Academy and in acknowledgement of the contribution of Mr Gary Haley, who drew the original version. The shape of the priory church and of the buildings around the cloister is derived from Figure 1 The priory precinct c.1540 in Demidowicz, 2011. The castle motte shape is derived from Demidowicz and. Scott, 2015: 21. The labelling of Butcher Row, Broadgate and Palmer Lane and the addition of Little Butchery is derived from Lilley, 1994: 86.

Town growth and topography  177 In 452 cases a consideration, or gersuma, was paid, or it is known that no such consideration was paid. In these cases a direct comparison of rent and consideration can be made. The average values were 2s 10d and £1 15s 11d respectively, so that on average a consideration was 12.81 times average rent. Calculations show that if a typical seller loaned the gersuma back to their buyer to help them pay the rent, then the interest rate on the loan would be equivalent to 7.8 percent. The trade-off between rent and consideration reflects an implicit discount factor, r, which cannot be observed directly but can be inferred from the data. Suppose that an obligation to pay 1d perpetual annual rent is valued at an amount yd.; then yd represents the number of “years’ purchase” associated with a stream of annual unit payments. It can then be shown that the time discount factor is r = 100/y. For example, five year’s purchase is equivalent to a discount rate of 100/5 = 20 percent. Under certain conditions this discount factor can be interpreted as a rate of interest. This interest rate is quite low compared with other estimates of medieval interest rates, which are normally in the region of 12–15 percent. This suggests that in Coventry either the gersuma was relatively high or the rent was relatively low. One explanation is that sellers were happy to accept a low interest rate because they were confident that it would be paid, which suggests a relatively high degree of trust amongst propertyholders in the town. The sample distributions of rents and considerations are highly skewed, however, which makes comparisons of averages potentially misleading. The issue is examined further in the second regression reported subsequently. In 339 cases it was possible to identify the rent paid to the grantor, and in 202 cases the rent paid to the lord. In 68 cases, however, the deed simply states that there were unspecified obligations to the lord. Some of these obligations may have been token payments made in kind; many deeds refer to the provision of one or two men for one day in autumn, one or two hens at Christmas, a pair of gloves, or a clove gilly-flower at Easter. It is possible, though, that they may have been monetary payments of significant value, and evidence from the regressions suggests that this may indeed have been the case. The value of properties is analysed using hedonic regression, which is widely used in studies of modern property markets (Boyle and Kiel, 2009). The basic postulate, informed by urban economic theory, is that the rent of a property, or its purchase price, depends on its characteristics, such as size, location and use (Fujita, 1989). If the supply of property in a town is taken as given, then the hedonic regression captures factors influencing demand. Two sets of hedonic regressions are reported subsequently. The first explains the variation of gross rent across properties of different types at different locations; this rent includes rent paid by the property owner to the grantor, previous owners (where relevant) and the lord of the fee. The logarithm of gross rent is the dependent variable. Logarithms are used because they reduce skewness in the dependent variable and also lower heteroscedasticity (Wooldridge, 2013). The explanatory variables include the location of the property; the type of property, as described in  the deed; the occupation of the buyer of the property, and personal factors relating to grantors and grantees. These include whether the grantors are a

178  Town growth and topography married couple, whether the grantor or grantee is a single woman (spinster or widow), and whether the grantors and grantees are related to each other. Information on leases is also included; whether the property was leased, and if so for how long, and whether for a fixed term of years, or for the life of the grantor or grantee. Other factors include whether the property incurred unspecified obligations to the lord of the fee. Each deed was allocated to one of six time periods: five 20-year periods between 1200 and 1300 and a final period 1300–9. These periods were selected so that a minimum of 40 deeds was included in each period. The date of the deed was not entered directly into the regression because it is often known only approximately. In the second set of regressions the dependent variable is the logarithm of the consideration. The explanatory variables include all the variables used in the rent regression, together with the logarithm of the rent. The impact of rent on the consideration plays a crucial role in the analysis, as indicated previously. Theory suggests that for a given property a high consideration will be associated with a low rent and a low consideration with a high rent, meaning that there will be a negative relationship between the two. Defining and measuring the variables To implement the regression analysis, it was necessary to identify sets of explanatory variables spanning time, space, occupation and other relevant personal characteristics. Many of these explanatory variables are dummy variables, namely variables taking a value of one if some characteristic applied to a property and zero otherwise. A dummy variable needs to have a minimum of about six positive values in order to stand any chance of producing a statistically significant result. Some rare characteristics need to be merged into a single composite characteristic in order to comply with this requirement, as explained subsequently. As noted previously, six time periods were distinguished, each associated with a different dummy variable that takes the value one if a deed is dated to the period concerned and is zero otherwise. The smallest number of deeds (48) is dated to the first period, 1200–19, and the largest number (200) to the period 1280–99. To allocate a deed to a time period in doubtful cases, the earliest date was used. The classification by time is mutually exclusive and collectively exhaustive; the complete set of dummy variables is therefore multi-collinear, and so one dummy variable (the “control”) needs to be dropped. The control acts as a baseline with which the impact of the other dummies is compared. The middle period of 1260–79 was chosen as the time control. Sixteen different types of property were distinguished. Eleven are mainly urban, four mainly rural and one — namely land — generic. Properties were classified according to the way that they are described in the deeds. Unlike the time classification, the categories of property are not mutually exclusive; for example “tenements” that are said to include “buildings” are given a dual classification. Sometimes the same property is described in different ways, either in the same deed or in different deeds clearly relating to the same property, in which

Town growth and topography  179 case both descriptions were applied. The ambiguity of terms is reflected in the statistical results, which identify only a few types of property as having distinctive levels of rent. Locations were identified using a hierarchy of categories. Several lanes in Coventry appear very infrequently in the deeds, for example Dead Lane and Paulines Lane, and so they were merged into categories based on neighbouring main streets. Following Coss’s classification, the areas around the market and around St Nicholas church were also used as location categories (Coss, 1986). The area around Spon Lane (a suburb in the earl’s half that has many properties) was used as the control. At a higher level of aggregation, these basic categories were grouped into central, peripheral and suburban areas, and also by whether they were in the prior’s half or the earl’s half (Bayley Lane was on the boundary between the two). Both aggregated categorisations of streets are mutually exclusive and collectively exhaustive. A distinction was also made between main streets and side streets. Ten types of occupation were identified. The focus was on the occupation of the buyer or tenant (other known as the grantee). A buyer’s occupation may influence their choice of property and competition between buyers will influence property values; the occupation of a buyer may therefore reflect unrecorded characteristics of a property (namely suitability for a certain occupation) that influence its value in ways that are not fully captured by its location (for the agglomeration of certain trades in certain parts of the town see Coss, 1986: xxxv–xxxvii). There are only 195 cases where the buyer’s occupation can be identified. Properties with unidentified occupations are the largest group and they were used as the control group. The largest and most homogeneous occupational group is the merchants and drapers; the smallest groups tend to be the most heterogeneous, for example the food-workers and wood-workers. So far as personal characteristics are concerned, there are 74 cases of married grantors and 114 cases of married grantees. The higher number of married grantees appears to reflect the settlement of properties by parents on their newly married children. There are 101 cases of females acting independently of husbands as grantors, and 35 cases of females as grantees. The predominance of female grantors seems to reflect the role of widows in disposing of properties (which were often acquired as dowries). Grantors and grantees are related in 67 cases, although there may be other cases too because relationships are not always made explicit in the deeds. In 14 cases an outright gift of property is made. The sizes of properties are difficult to estimate. Terms such as “messuage” or “curtilage” may be approximate indicators of size, although direct evidence is weak; the descriptions of boundaries in the deeds are normally inconclusive. The condition of a property is rarely described in deeds — unlike rentals, where properties may be described as vacant or decayed. Analysis The results of the first hedonic regressions are presented in Table 6.2. It presents logarithmic regressions for gross rent, as defined previously. It illustrates the

180  Town growth and topography Table 6.2  Determinants of rent in Coventry: regressions of the logarithm of rent Variable

Time and location only

Add type of property Full equation

Constant 2.232*** (0.000) 2.092*** (0.000) Time (Control = 1260–79) 1200–19 0.106 (0.635) −0.065 (0.753) 1220–39 0.056 (0.779) 0.088 (0.661) 1240–59 0.035 (0.839) 0.037 (0.823) 1280–99 −0.267 (0.126) −0.402** (0.023) 1300–9 0.233 (0.330) 0.069 (0.775) Street location (Control = Spon Street) Central Market area 1.096*** (0.000) 1.062*** (0.000) Bayley Lane 0.837* (0.095) 0.603 (0.235) Broadgate 1.219*** (0.000) 1.108*** (0.000) Earl St. 0.472* (0.068) 0.346 (0.184) Smithford St. 0.692** (0.015) 0.582** (0.032) Peripheral Bishop Lane −0.427 (0.207) −0.359 (0.313) Cook St. −0.170 (0.682) −0.086 (0.838) Well Lane 0.037 (0.899) 0.015 (0.960) West Orchard -0.683 (0.176) −0.767* (0.078) Lower Park St. 0.119 (0.603) 0.129 (0.563) Much Park St. −0.060 (0.852) −0.347 (0.258) Cheylesmore Lane −0.212 (0.518) −0.227 (0.482) Gosford St. 0.524** (0.028) 0.232 (0.262) Suburban/rural etc. St. Nicholas area 0.132 (0.545) 0.247 (0.287) Whitemore −0.411 (0.292) −0.495 (0.282) Hill St. 0.438* (0.078) 0.344 (0.123) Side Lane −0.296 (0.497) −0.136 (0.729) Type of property: mainly urban Chief messuage, chamber 0.338 (0.936) solar hall Curtilage −0.016 (0.936) Croft, toft, cottage 0.093 (0.817) Forge, kiln, oven, bakehouse 0.406 (0.496) House 0.443* (0.095) Building(s) 0.170 (0.510) Messuage 0.310* (0.067) Mill 3.199*** (0.000) Seld or shop 0.597 (0.153) Tenement 0.582*** (0.005) White Cellar (in or adjoining) 1.497*** (0.004) Type of property: mainly rural Barn, garden, fishpond 0.915** (0.034) Field 0.248 (0.517) Meadow 0.189 (0.624) Moor, pasture, quarry 0. 090 (0.848)

2.278 (0.000) −0.077 (0.708) 0.007 (0.974) 0.019 (0.911) −0.187 (0.276) 0.305 (0.180) 0.961*** (0.000) 0.652 (0.150) 0.932*** (0.001) 0.387 (0.127) 0.527* (0.068) −0.424 (0.205) −0.054 (0.884) −0.024 (0.934) −0.731* (0.100) 0.116 (0.591) −0.176 (0.515) −0.147 (0.689) 0.245 (0.240) 0.247 (0.284) −0.520 (0.233) 0.184 (0.393) −0.139 (0.661) 0.305 (0.422) −0.061 (0.749) 0.023 (0.948) 0.071 (0.899) 0.356 (0.151) 0.186 (0.434) 0.302* (0.053) 3.422*** (0.000) 0.520 (0.139) 0.481** (0.014) 1.332*** (0.002) 0.695* (0.099) 0.330 (0.249) −0.045 (0.901) 0.046 (0.923) (Continued )

Town growth and topography  181 Table 6.2  (Continued) Variable

Time and location only

Add type of property Full equation

Number of properties of given type Multiple −0.012 (0.966) Part (moiety) −0.378** (0.036) Occupation of grantee (Control = no stated occupation) Merchant: mercer, draper Clerk, chaplain Baker, miller Vintner, brewer, cellarer Food-worker Cloth-worker Leather-worker Metal-worker Wood-worker Other artisan Personal status of the parties Grantors are husband and wife Grantor a female other than wife Grantees are husband and wife Grantee a female other than wife Grantor and grantee are related Gift to unrelated grantee Terms of contract Unspecified obligation to lord Lease (yes/no) Number of years of lease Lease for grantor’s life (yes/no) Lease for grantee’s life, (yes/no) R2 Adjusted R2 F-statistic Jarque–Bera normality test Breusch–Godfrey heteroskedasticity F-test Number of observations

0.054 (0.828) −0.252 (0.141) −0.007 (0.976) 0.032 (0.909) −0.064 (0.764) −0.809 (0.224) −0.122 (0.778) −0.025 (0.912) −0.013 (0.963) 0.092 (0.751) 0.463 (0.374) −0.360 (0.314) −0.066 (0.676) −0.340* (0.052) 0.117 (0.484) −0.255 (0.353) −0.297 (0.151) −0.355 (0.267) −1.706*** (0.000) 0.169 (0.639) 0.047*** (0.008) 0.361 (0.649) 0.130 (0.832)

0.089 0.206 0.056 0.154 2.731*** (0.000) 3.982*** (0.000) 4.610 (0.100) 18.310*** (0.000) 3.162*** (0.000) 3.116*** (0.000)

0.351 0.284 5.198*** (0.000) 7.933** (0.019) 1.503** (0.011)

638

638

638

Note: Probability values are derived from White heteroskedasticity robust standard errors. Significance levels are *** 1 percent, ** 5 percent and * 10 percent. Source: Coss, 1986. Reproduced from Casson and Casson, 2020 with permission from Routledge.

principles of hedonic multiple regression by demonstrating how the coefficients on the explanatory variables in a multiple regression change as additional explanatory variables are added. Column 1 includes only a constant term and dummies for time and location. In column 2 dummies for the type of property are added, so that the impact of time and location on rent is now analysed conditional on type

182  Town growth and topography of property (and conversely). In column 3 dummies for occupation, personal characteristics and terms of contract are included, giving the full regression in which every factor is analysed conditional on every other. The explanatory variables are listed in the left-hand column. The results in each column refer to a different estimation. In each cell an estimated regression coefficient is shown, together with its significance level, expressed as a probability value, in brackets beneath. Each coefficient measures the direction and magnitude of the impact of an explanatory variable on the dependent variable, controlling for variation in the other variables. Asterisks indicate whether the coefficient is significantly different from zero at some critical significance level, the highest level, indicated by three asterisks corresponding to 1 percent significance (equivalent to a probability value less than or equal to 0.01). Table 6.3 analyses consideration: column 1 examines exactly the same explanatory variables as the previous table, permitting a direct comparison between the two. Rent is likely to influence consideration, however, for the reasons indicated previously, and so column 2 conditions the consideration regression by adding gross rent as an additional explanatory variable. Column 3 disaggregates rent into rent to grantors and rent to lords. Column 4 analyses the implicit value of a property; this is a weighted average of the rent and consideration, as described subsequently. Location factors The spatial pattern of rents suggests that the economic centre of Coventry was at the interface between the prior’s half and the earl’s half, near the prior’s market at Cross Cheaping and the earl’s street of Broadgate. Table 6.2, column 3 shows that, relative to Spon Lane (the control), rents were significantly high in the Market area, Broadgate and Smithford Street and carried positive coefficients for Earl Street and Bayley Lane. Rents were low in the peripheral areas of West Orchard (in the prior’s half) and Cheylesmore Lane (in the earl’s half). Analysis of considerations refines this interpretation. According to Table 6.3, column 1, very high considerations were paid in Earl Street, but not in Bayley Lane. When consideration is analysed conditional on gross rent (column 2) the positive effect in Earl Street becomes even stronger. Consideration is also high in the market area and Smithford Street, where rents were already high to begin with. It is notable that considerations in Cheylesmore Lane were low, despite its proximity to the earl’s manor house; this confirms the view that it was the site of the priory and not the manor house that dictated property values in Coventry. The results suggest that relatively modest rents in Earl Street were being compensated for by high considerations. Conversely, the relatively low considerations in some peripheral areas suggest that rents in the periphery, though low, were set closer to long-run economic levels than in the centre. Both rents to lords and rents to grantors are importance influences on consideration (Table 6.3, column 3). They both have the predicted negative sign. However, the rent to the grantor carries about three times the weight of the rent to the lord. This may reflect the fact that the rent to the grantor was a negotiated rent that

Table 6.3  Determinants of consideration in Coventry: regressions of logarithm of consideration Variable

Column 2 conditional on rent

Column 3 ­conditional on type of rent

Column 4 Value

3.951*** (0.000)

5.039*** (0.000)

4.656*** (0.000)

4.849*** (0.000)

0.725* (0.090) 1.037*** (0.010) 0.504 (0.139) 0.089 (0.794) 0.386 (0.419)

0.684* (0.093) 1.018*** (0.010) 0.442 (0.186) −0.087 (0.780) 0.483 (0.255)

1.143*** (0.004) 1.133*** (0.001) 0.531* (0.096) 0.034 (0.912) 0.764* (0.070)

0.019 (0.926) 0.486** (0.016) −0.049 (0.792) −0.096 (0.517) 0.633*** (0.002)

0.237 (0.686) 0.070 (0.940) 0.122 (0.835) 1.055*** (0.008) 0.765 (0.194)

0.993* (0.088) 0.473 (0.577) 0.826 (0.207) 1.385*** (0.000) 1.155** (0.032)

1.368** (0.019) 0.486 (0.507) 0.680 (0.318) 1.544*** (0.000) 1.085* (0.056)

1.327*** (0.000) 1.024*** (0.010) 0.741** (0.016) 1.261*** (0.000) 0.911*** (0.001)

−0.547 (0.429) −1.036 (0.461) 0.800 (0.193) −1.021 (0.120) 0.366 (0.392) 0.057 (0.930) −1.101* (0.071) −0.414 (0.333)

−0.610 (0.327) −1.264 (0.299) 0.814 (0.161) −1.397** (0.017) 0.515 (0.220) −0.114 (0.839) −1.047** (0.050) −0.177 (0.669)

−0.542 (0.359) −0.949 (0.386) 0.699 (0.220) −1.102* (0.060) 0.414 (0.292) −0.079 (0.881) −0.797 (0.118) −0.064 (0.873)

0.358 (0.213) −0.027 (0.955) 0.752** (0.017) −0.391 (0.268) 0.372 (0.135) 0.937*** (0.002) −0.383 (0.328) 0.292 (0.186)

0.649 (0.261) 0.116 (0.912) −0.378 (0.496)

0.888 (0.108) 0.033 (0.975) −0.097 (0.858)

0.938* (0.081) −0.168 (0.861) 0.121 (0.830)

0.990*** (0.001) 0.380 (0.357) 0.290 (0.325) (Continued )

Town growth and topography  183

Constant Time (Control = 1260–79) 1200–19 1220–39 1240–59 1280–99 1300–9 Street location (Control = Spon Street) Central Market area Bayley Lane Broadgate Earl St. Smithford St. Peripheral Bishop Lane Cook St. Well Lane West Orchard Lower Park St. Much Park St. Cheylesmore Lane Gosford St. Suburban and rural St. Nicholas area Whitemore Hill St.

Column 1 unconditional

Variable Main street/side street Side lane Type of property: mainly urban Chief messuage, chamber solar hall Curtilage Croft, toft, cottage Forge, kiln, oven, bakehouse House Building(s) Messuage Mill Seld or shop Tenement White Cellar (in or adjoining) Type of property: mainly rural Barn, garden, fishpond Field Meadow Moor, pasture, quarry Number of properties Multiple Part (moiety) Occupation of grantee Merchant: mercer, draper Clerk, chaplain Baker, miller Vintner, brewer, cellarer Food-worker

Column 1 unconditional 0.153 (0.848)

Column 2 conditional on rent 0.125 (0.858)

Column 3 ­conditional on type of rent 0.223 (0.720)

Column 4 Value

−0.492 (0.168)

−0.586 (0.385) −0.797** (0.029) −0.799 (0.338) 0.665 (0.498) 0.316 (0.613) 0.602 (0.124) 0.487* (0.097) −1.747* (0.075) −0.566 (0.560) 0.099 (0.837) 1.197 (0.202)

−0.334 (0.540) −0.730** (0.026) −0.496 (0.519) 0.825 (0.453) 0.465 (0.421) 0.795** (0.031) 0.694** (0.011) 0.367 (0.011) −0.328 (0.687) 0.301 (0.506) 2.207*** (0.008)

0.286 (0.598) −0.776** (0.021) −0.186 (0.789) 0.555 (0.604) 0.240 (0.662) 0.590 (0.106) 0.586* (0.029) 0.645 (0.466) −0.267 (0.753) 0.389 (0.370) 1.892* (0.053)

0.745*** (0.008) −0.231 (0.159) 0.196 (0.445) 0.577 (0.226) 0.349 (0.163) 0.755*** (0.000) 0.498*** (0.002) 1.863*** (0.000) −0.039 (0.915) 0.327 (0.191) 1.148*** (0.001)

−1.194 (0.286) 0.111 (0.889) 1.992** (0.012) 0.075 (0.951)

−0.540 (0.632) 0.304 (0.687) 1.908*** (0.009) −0.026 (0.984)

−0.625 (0.619) 0.374 (0.610) 1.705** (0.014) 0.252 (0.852)

0.220 (0.648) 0.169 (0.647) 0.862*** (0.004) 0.582 (0.365)

−0.000 (0.100) −0.012 (0.966)

0.099 (0.840) −0.089 (0.737)

0.167 (0.714) 0.054 (0.840)

−0.206 (0.627) 0.359 (0.676) −0.999 (0.120) −0.719 (0.537) −0.169 (0.803)

−0.192 (0.633) 0.050 (0.949) −1.033* (0.096) −1.064 (0.208) −0.068 (0.924)

−0.112 (0.775) 0.086 (0.914) −1.159* (0.055) −0.825 (0.326) −0.018 (0.981)

0.281 (0.283) −0.413*** (0.007) 0.049 (0.811) −0.025 (0.959) −0.469 (0.131) −0.344 (0.236) −0.617 (0.123)

184  Town growth and topography

Table 6.3  (Continued)

Column 1 unconditional

Column 2 conditional on rent

Column 3 ­conditional on type of rent

Column 4 Value

Cloth-worker Leather-worker Metal-worker Wood-worker Other artisan Personal status of the parties Grantors are husband and wife Grantor a female other than wife Grantees are husband and wife Grantee a female other than wife Grantor and grantee are related Gift to unrelated grantee Terms of contract Unspecified obligation to lord Lease (yes/no) Number of years of lease Lease for grantor’s life (yes/no) Lease for grantee’s life, (yes/no) Log rent Log rent to lord Log rent to grantor R2 Adjusted R2 F-statistic Jarque–Bera normality test Breusch–Godfrey heteroskedasticity F-test Number of observations

0.134 (0.769) −1.638*** (0.010) −1.017 (0.108) 0.695 (0.218) 0.116 (0.871)

0.092 (0.829) −1.672*** (0.005) −1.086** (0.045) 0.991* (0.052) 0.000 (1.000)

0.183 (0.665) −1.476*** (0.007) −0.743 (0.114) 0.818 (0.084) −0.068 (0.927)

−0.063 (0.723) −0.376 (0.208) −0.429* (0.082) −0.085 (0.688) −0.337 (0.418)

0.512 (0.128) −0.441 (0.130) −0.345 (0.277) 0.417 (0.450) −2.668*** (0.000) −3.073*** (0.000)

0.390 (0.221) −0.720*** (0.009) −0.265 (0.369) 0.219 (0.668) −2.799*** (0.000) −3.362*** (0.000)

0.266 (0.374) −0.761*** (0.005) −0.334 (0.242) 0.055 (0.918) −3.030*** (0.000) −3.466*** (0.000)

−0.085 (0.570) −0.557*** (0.002) −0.001 (0.995) −0.303 (0.342) −1.407*** (0.000) −1.941*** (0.000)

1.459*** (0.000) −1.414* (0.069) 0.034 (0.470) −1.035 (0.304) −0.649 (0.545)

0.603* (0.054) −1.293* (0.052) 0.062 (0.168) −0.882 (0.334) −0.444 (0.636) −0.544*** (0.000)

0.892*** (0.005) −1.228** (0.050) 0.076 (0.056) −0.522 (0.548) 0.103 (0.906)

0.231 (0.221) −0.328 (0.184) 0.039*** (0.001) −0.069 (0.923) −0.070 (0.889)

−0.213** (0.039) −0.665*** (0.000) 0.473 0.389 5.641*** (0.000) 4.303 (0.116) 2.100*** (0.000)

0.506 0.430 6.664*** (0.000) 30.844*** (0.000) 1.537*** (0.009)

0.363 0.266 3.720*** (0.000) 15.963**** (0.000) 0.530*** (0.010) 452

0.436 0.348 4.943*** (0.000) 4.020 (0.134) 2.013*** (0.000) 452

452

Source: Coss, 1986. Reproduced from Casson and Casson, 2020 with permission from Routledge. Note: Value = Log(1 + Consideration + (5 × Rent)). Significance levels are *** 1 percent, ** 5 percent and * 10 percent.

452

Town growth and topography  185

Variable

186  Town growth and topography involved a direct trade-off against the consideration, whereas the rent to the lord was a fixed rent that impacted on the overall value of the property. It is also possible that the buyer considered that the rent to the lord was often so small that it was almost purely nominal and was therefore unlikely to be enforced. Combining rents and considerations into a weighted sum in Table 6.3 column 4 confirms the importance of centrality. It identifies the Market, Bayley Lane, Broadgate, Earl Street and Smithford Street as the core of the town. In the periphery Well Lane in the prior’s half and Much Park Street in the earl’s half carry high valuations. In the suburbs the area around St Nicholas, in the prior’s half, also carries a high valuation. The value of property did not, however, decline systematically with distance from the centre. While the centre contained the most valuable properties, some suburban areas had more valuable properties than peripheral areas nearer to the centre. As already noted, St. Nicholas, a suburb in the prior’s half, had particularly high considerations. Within the earl’s half, rents in the suburb of Spon Street (the control) were significantly higher than in the peripheral areas of West Orchard and around the earl’s manor in Cheylesmore Lane (Table 6.3, column 2). This suggests that rents declined significantly between the centre and periphery of the town but then increased again to some degree as the suburbs were reached. On the whole, there were few significant differences between property values in the two halves of the town. Gross rents in the prior’s half were somewhat less than in the earl’s half, but considerations show no significant differences. As noted above, both the Market area in the prior’s half and Earl Street, Broadgate and Smithford Street in the earl’s half had significantly higher rents than in the suburbs. On the whole, the earl had relatively high rents in the suburbs and low rents in the peripheral area, whilst the opposite applied to the prior. Types of property Some types of property paid higher rents than others, although overall differences were not so great as might be expected. Mills paid the highest rents. The White Cellar (possibly an inn and wine cellar) and neighbouring properties also paid high rents (1 percent). Properties described as tenements paid higher rents than properties described as ordinary land (the control), and messuages also paid moderately higher rents as well. In general, the presence of buildings raised rents. So far as pastoral uses properties are concerned, barns, gardens and fishponds command higher rents. Variations in considerations are more striking than variations in rents. Table 6.3, column 2, shows that, conditional on rent, messuages and buildings attracted high considerations (1 percent each), whilst curtilages attracted low considerations. Despite high rents, mills and the White Cellar also attracted high considerations. Table 6.3, column 4, shows that, overall, the most valuable properties were messuages, chief messuages, chambers and halls, and buildings in general, which all commanded substantial premia. Amongst pastoral uses, meadows attracted both high considerations (Table 6.3, column 1) and also high valuations (Table 6.3, ­column 4).

Town growth and topography  187 Occupations The evidence suggests that occupation is not an important influence on rents, except for metal-workers. Metal-workers occupy properties with significantly low values (10 percent). In the light of the previous results, it seems that the most robust result is that metal-workers probably occupied marginal properties with few alternative uses. Occupation has no significant effect on gross rent, except for leather-workers (Table 6.3, column 3). Rents to grantors are significantly high for merchants, whilst rents to lords are significantly low for clerks and chaplains, vintners, brewers and food-workers. High rents paid by merchants may reflect their desire to occupy prestigious properties, their need for large secure properties in which to store valuable goods, and their ability to afford them. The low rates set by lords for properties suited to clerical and food-related occupations may be a legacy of their desire to attract such workers to the town. Occupation has a somewhat greater impact on considerations. When considerations are analysed conditional on gross rent it can be seen that high values were paid by wood-workers and low values by bakers and millers, leather-workers and metal-workers (Table 6.3, column 2). The low values paid by leather-workers and metal-workers may reflect the nuisances they created which led to them being relegated to marginal sites unsuitable for alternative use. The high values paid by wood-workers may reflect the highly skilled nature of the occupation and their desire to locate close to their prestigious clients. The low considerations paid by bakers and millers are more difficult to explain. Personal characteristics The single most important determinant of the rent, consideration and value of a property is the personal relationship between the grantor and grantee. This is reflected in several ways. Gross rent reduces when the grantor is a woman. Examination of the original deeds suggests that this is partly explained by widows leaving property to their married children. The same result is obtained separately for rents to grantors and rents to lords. The large size and high significance of the impact on rents to lords is interesting. One possible explanation is that lords exercised discretion in reducing rents to spinsters and widows, although why they would have wanted to reduce such rents in perpetuity is unclear. The impact of personal characteristics is even greater where considerations are concerned. The reduction of payment when the grantor is female is both larger and more significant (Table 6.3, columns 2, 3). Two powerful additional effects come into play with respect to considerations: the relatedness of grantor and grantee, and the explicit making of a gift. Many deeds are self-described as “gifts” with payments attached, but, as explained previously, in the present context a gift refers to an arrangement where either no payment, or a purely token payment, is made. Relatedness substantially reduces consideration, both unconditionally and conditionally on the components of rent, and the same applies to gifts (Table 6.3, columns

188  Town growth and topography 1–4). The impact of relatedness and gifts are the two single most important factors affecting the value of a consideration, and it is difficult to analyse considerations fully without taking account of them. The role of a female grantor, the relatedness of the parties and the role of gifts are also major influences on the overall value of a property. Terms of contract Unspecified obligations to a lord significantly reduce the value of gross rent, but they significantly increase the value of the consideration. They have no significant impact on overall value. Their negative impact on gross rent is consistent with the view that unspecified obligations are a substitute for the tenant’s payment of monetary rent. The fact that the overall value of a property is broadly neutral with respect to unspecified obligations is also consistent with the view that the value of the unspecified obligations is on average fully offset by compensating adjustments in rents and considerations. Leases have no significant impact on the value of gross rent, but, as expected, they significantly reduce the consideration. The number of years of a lease has no significant influence on the consideration paid for a property, but it increases its overall value. Leasing for life has no effects on rents or considerations, save for the fact that leasing for the grantor’s life increases the rent to the grantor. This apparently perverse effect may perhaps be explained by the grantor’s desire to live well for the remainder of their lives. This interpretation is consistent with the fact that considerations tend to be lower when leases are for grantors’ lives, though not significantly so. Time variation Rents did not vary much over the period of this study, but considerations did. Gross rents were relatively stable; rents to lords were significantly high in 1200–19 at a time when rents to grantors were particularly low (5 percent). Rents to grantors were also low in 1240–59. In general rents to grantors were highest in the control period 1260–79 and after 1300, although not significantly so. Considerations declined over the thirteenth century. Taking the period 1260– 79 as the control, considerations were high throughout the period 1200–39. They were highest in the later period, 1220–39, than in the earlier one, 1200–19. This applied both to unconditional consideration and to consideration conditional on rent. The overall value of property peaked in 1220–39 and again in 1300–9. Although neither rent nor consideration were significantly high in 1300–9, they were both relatively high, and when combined produce a significant result. There is little indication of the impact of wars, panics and political instability on property transactions, but it is possible that such impacts are masked by averaging over 20-year periods.

Town growth and topography  189 Summary and conclusions The most valuable properties in Coventry were found not only in the prior’s half around the market but also in the streets of the earl’s half bordering on the prior’s half. This is consistent with the view that residents of medieval Coventry sought properties close to the market but under the jurisdiction of the earl. The results confirm Goddard’s view (2004) that deeds provide a valuable insight into urban property markets and that they are susceptible to statistical analysis. It also refines his analysis. It shows that considerations need to be interpreted conditional on rents and that property values need to be estimated using a weighted average of rent and consideration, using a weight equivalent to 6.5 years’ purchase (equivalent to an interest rate of approximately 15 percent). It demonstrates that family relationships exert an important influence on rents and considerations, and that gifts must also be taken into account; otherwise property values may be seriously understated. A centrality premium was present in Coventry, with the most valuable properties being at the heart of the town. However, the rents and considerations do not decline uniformly with distance from the centre, because peripheral areas bordering the centre may have lower rents than suburban areas further out. The types of properties described in deeds are not always good predictors of value. Mills and messuages typically attract premia, whilst curtilages have relatively low values. Meadows are more valuable than general agricultural land in areas bordering the town; this may be explained by the demand for fresh dairy products in the town. The occupation of the buyer is not a major influence on value, except, it seems, for metal-workers who occupy relatively low-value properties. These findings are consistent with the view that underlying economic forces operate in a similar way in different towns, but that their specific local implications depend on contextual factors that vary between towns.

Bristol Historical context There is some uncertainty surrounding Bristol’s origins. It is possible that there were two minster churches in the area, one at Westbury-on-Trym (now a northern suburb) and the other to the east, close to Barton (Barrett, 1789; Cronne, 1946). In 1086 Domesday described Bristol as part of the manor of Barton, held by the king, which lay about a mile east of the medieval town, and it mentions the burgesses of the town (Open Domesday, 2022; Williams and Martin, 2002). This manor was assessed at 1,440 marks (£943), most of which was probably accounted for by the value of the town. It is possible that Bristol developed as a commercial hub around the bridge which served the manor of Barton and neighbouring settlements — hence its name “the place of the bridge” (Barrett, 1789, Cronne, 1946; Manco, 2009a). Bristol became one of the king’s towns. It was a borough by 1086 and had a mint c.978–c.1302 (Allen, 2012; Sivier, 2002: 55; Walker, 1971: 5).

190  Town growth and topography We can identify with more confidence the role played by Robert, Earl of Gloucester, in the development of the town during the twelfth century. In 1093 Geoffrey de Montbray died and King William II awarded Bristol castle to Robert Fitzhamon, who had remained loyal to him during a noble rebellion and aided the conquest of south Wales (Bettey, 1997, 2014: 9; Fleming, 2004: 3). This proved to be beneficial to the city, as it ultimately brought renewed royal patronage and infrastructure investment. In c.1120 Fitzhamon’s daughter married Robert, Earl of Gloucester, illegitimate son of Henry I, who made the castle the administrative headquarters of his honour and built a new square stone keep (Crouch, 2006). He enhanced the local churches and buildings and began to develop the area south of the River Avon by granting land to the Knights Templar, founding St James’s priory and, it is suggested, constructing a church for the wider community on the site of St Philip and St Jacob. The civil war between King Stephen and Empress Matilda that commenced upon the death of Henry I in 1135 threatened to disrupt Bristol’s prosperity. Bristol took Matilda’s side in the ensuing Anarchy, as she was the Earl of Gloucester’s half-sister. Stephen was imprisoned in the castle for a time (Fleming, 2004: 6). Fortunately for Bristol its support for Empress Matilda was recognised by her son, Henry II, when he ascended the throne in 1154. Under Henry II Bristol’s influence increased rapidly. It gained its first recorded royal charter in 1155, and in 1171 Dublin, on the west coast of Ireland, was made a satellite port under Bristol’s control. During the mid-twelfth century Bristol began to expand rapidly outside its walls (Stubbs, 1868: 193). A suburb known as Broadmead emerged to the northwest around St James’s priory, probably shortly after its foundation in c.1137 (Walker, 1971: 19). This was probably initiated by Robert, Earl of Gloucester or his son and benefitted from being on the road to Gloucester (Leech, 2014: 17–18; Sivier, 2002: 79). Nearby Lewin’s Mead also appears to have been a planned suburb from this period, although the identity of its developer is unknown (Leech, 2014: 17–18; Walker, 1971: 19). To the east of the castle the Old Market was also developed by the earl or his son and benefitted from being on the road to Bath (Leech, 2014: 17–18; Walker, 1971: 19). To the west Frogmore Street was developed in the late 1100s, probably by the abbot of St Augustine’s (Leech, 2014: 17–18; Walker, 1998). To the south were the suburban developments of Robert Fitzharding and the Knights Templar, described in more detail subsequently (Walker, 1971: 20). About the same time the town acquired two priories, St James, founded 1137 by the Earl of Gloucester, and St Mary Magdalen for canonesses, founded by Robert Fitzharding’s widow, Eva, in 1173 (Bettey, 2014; Graham, 1907: 71–3). Shortly afterwards the friars arrived: the Dominicans in c.1227; the Franciscans in 1234; the Carmelites, who occupied a central location near the quay, in 1267; and the Austin friars, to the south of the river, in 1313 (Graham, 1907). The Friars of the Sack also made a brief appearance c.1266. Six hospitals provided care for the body (Bettey, 2009). Three were to the north. St Mark’s Hospital, also known as Gaunt’s chapel and hospital and the Lord Mayor’s chapel, was founded in 1220 by Maurice de Gaunt, descendant of Robert Fitzharding, opposite Robert’s foundation of St Augustine’s (Family Search, 2022;

Town growth and topography  191 Manco, 2009b). The hospital of St Lawrence was founded in c.1195 by King John before his accession to the throne (Graham, 1907: 118–9). Its exact location is uncertain, but it may have stood on the site of the present St Lawrence Hill roundabout (Woods, 2017). St Bartholomew’s hospital was in existence by 1275, founded by Sir John de la Warre from Gloucestershire (Graham, 1907: 118). To the east of the town was Holy Trinity hospital and chapel, founded in 1402 by John Barstaple, who was three times mayor of Bristol (Fleming, 2013: 98; Historic England, 1994). Two hospitals were in Redcliffe to the south. The Hospital of St John the Baptist was founded in the early thirteenth century, but its location remains unclear (Hirst, 1924: 35; Scott Holmes, 1911: 160–1).2 The leper hospital of St Mary Magdalen had been founded by c.1226 (Heritage Gateway, 2022). The burgesses were made quit of toll throughout England, Wales and Normandy in 1155; this was extended to residents of the southern suburb in c.1167 (described as the marsh near the bridge of Bristol, and later known as Temple Meads) (Harding, 1930). In 1177 the men of Bristol were given the right to reside in Dublin, presumably for commercial purposes. In 1188 the town became a hundred, embracing not only the southern suburb but other parts of what is now the modern “inner city” too. In 1255 Henry III, in the first of many charters on the subject, granted tolls to finance the building of new walls (Harding, 1930). Bristol had an extensive trade with Bordeaux and the Mediterranean (Carus– Wilson, 1937; Crawford, 1984: 9, 17; Francis, 1972; Sherborne, 1971: 3). In 1354 the town became one of ten English towns designated a staple for the export of wool. In the fifteenth century Matthew Cabot and others were involved in exploration across the Atlantic. Merchants built ships and financed voyages; one of the most successful, William Canynges, five times mayor and patron of St Mary Redcliffe church, retired from commerce and entered the church, becoming the dean of a college of priests at Westbury-on-Trym (Sherborne, 1985). On his visit to the town Leland recorded no less than 18 parish churches within the walls (III, 100–1). In 1334 the city was assessed for a tenth at 4,400s (Glasscock, 1975). In 1524–5 the city was assessed at 9,308s, which is a fairly modest sum for a regional capital; adding in the Somerset suburbs does not change the figures substantially (Sheail, 1998). Bristol featured in Matthew Paris (Paris and Trustees of the British Museum, 1928). It appeared on the Gough map as “two buildings, spired church with cross, castle and walls with two gates” (The Gough Map of Great Britain, 2022). It was featured in Speed (2000: 28–9), who called Bristol “a town of great merchandise” (Speed, 2000: 28). Despite the “innumerable” houses the town had a pleasant smell due to the sophisticated waste disposal system (Speed, 2000: 28). Braun and Hogenberg also depicted Bristol (2008: 204). Bristol: The suburbs of Bilswick and Redcliffe in the twelfth century Robert Fitzharding developed two of Bristol’s suburbs, Bilswick in the north and Redcliffe in the south, in the mid-twelfth century. He may be considered to have unusual origins as an urban developer, because his family was of Saxon rather than Norman origin (Fleming, 2013: 37; Patterson, 1989; Patterson, 2004). The founder of the dynasty has been identified as “Saxon thegn Eadnoth the Staller”

192  Town growth and topography (Patterson, 2004). Eadnoth had previously served in the retinue of Edward the Confessor but transferred his allegiance to the Normans after the Conquest and died defending Somerset against attacks by the sons of the Saxon king Harold Godwinson (Cottrell, 2000: 37). However, Danish royal origins were also attributed to his family. A document produced in 1489/90 by the abbot of St Augustine’s abbey for a Fitzharding descendant William, Marquess of Berkeley, identifies Harding as the first member of the dynasty and states that he was the second son of the king of Denmark (Fleming, 2013: 37). Harding, Abbot Newland’s Roll proposes, was sent to Bristol as part of a royal tradition that royal brothers should be separated in adulthood to avoid disagreements. The heir remained in Denmark while younger siblings were sent abroad to carve their own careers. Eadnoth’s son was named Harding and appears to have been a lawyer (Cottrell, 2000: 37). He died in c.1115, and it seems that his eldest son Nicholas inherited lands in Somerset, while his second son Robert inherited property in Bristol (Cottrell, 2000: 37–8). Robert Fitzharding went on to have a significant involvement in the Bristol property market. Robert was a financier with high-status clients, including St  Peter’s abbey, Gloucester, the Earl of Gloucester and the future Henry II (Patterson, 2004). A loan to St Peter’s abbey, for example, involved lending money on the security of land, with the abbey repaying the loan by allowing Fitzharding to collect rental income (Cottrell, 2000: 171). It has been suggested that Fitzharding developed financial connections with the Jewish community of Gloucester in these dealings. Moses of Gloucester, for example, also lent money to St Peter’s abbey, and it is likely that members of Gloucester’s Jewish community provided finance in support of the Angevin cause (Hillaby, 2001: 45–6, 52). Fitzharding may also have had business interests in the mercantile trade between Bristol and Dublin, notably in furs, and in trade with Wales (Cottrell, 2000: 173–4; Patterson, 2004). These activities generated profit that could be accumulated and invested in property. Robert bought from the Earl of Gloucester “the manors of Bilswick in Gloucestershire, adjoining Bristol to the north, and Bedminster in Somerset, on the south bank of the Avon” which included the area of Redcliffe (Fleming, 2013: 224).3 He owned a house on either Baldwin Street or High Street near Frome Bridge and also acquired property in “Wine Street, St Nicolas Street … by the River Frome, between St John’s and St Giles’ Gates and between Small and Broad Streets” as well as “far-flung lands and knights’ fees from royal tenants-in-chief such as the Earls of Gloucester, Chester, and Warwick” (Cottrell, 2000: 38; Patterson, 1989: 110–11; Patterson, 2004). During the 1150s and early 1160s the Fitzharding family’s status was enhanced through the patronage of Henry II. This was probably in recognition of loans made by Robert Fitzharding to Henry during the civil war of 1135 to 1154, as Henry’s mother Matilda sought to secure the English throne for him (Patterson, 2004). Henry granted lands at Berkeley (which lies between Bristol and Gloucester) to Robert, and by 1166 Robert was holder of the castle and lordship of Berkeley (Fleming, 2013: 224). Robert Fitzharding benefitted from the downfall of the previous lord Berkeley, Roger de Berkeley, whose property was confiscated because of his family’s support for King Stephen in the civil war (Fleming, 2013:

Town growth and topography  193 59; for a history of that family see Barkly, 1883–4). However, the two families were united in 1153 by the marriage of Robert Fitzharding’s son Maurice to Roger Berkeley’s daughter Alice (Patterson, 1989: 113; Patterson, 2004). The Fitzhardings then adopted the name Berkeley. In the summer of 1166 Robert Fitzharding hosted the exiled Diarmaid mac Murchadha, king of Leinster in Ireland, whose throne had been seized by the High King of Ireland (Cottrell, 2000: 32–3; Patterson, 2004). Cottrell suggests that Fitzharding acted as an “intermediary” in Murchadha’s attempts to gain support from Henry II to regain his throne. Henry II and Murchadha had had prior contact, as in 1165 Henry II had “hired” the “Dublin and Ostman” fleet that was controlled by Murchadha to provide naval support in his campaigns against the Welsh. Meanwhile Fitzharding’s trading connections with Ireland, “intimacy” with the king and experience in “financing military enterprises” may have been the source of the connection with Fitzharding and the reason that he was asked to intermediate (Cottrell, 2000: 34). Unfortunately for Murchadha, however, Henry II was unable or unwilling to help (Cottrell, 2000: 47). Instead, Murchadha recaptured his throne through the services of Welsh and English mercenaries, whom Fitzharding may have helped him to identify for recruitment and whose activities may have been partly financed by Fitzharding and the local Jewish community (Hillaby, 2001: 45–6). At Bilswick Robert established St Augustine’s abbey, thereby creating a northern suburb on the hills above the city, possibly in conjunction with his wife Eva (Thompson, 2004a, 2004b). Construction of the abbey began in 1142, and it was dedicated in 1148 (Graham, 1907: 75–8). In c.1168 Robert retired and entered the house as a canon, dying there in 1171 (Bettey, 1996: 5; Patterson, 2004). The promotion of Bilswick also resulted in secular settlement in the area, notably by the La Were family who were engaged in shipping (Patterson, 1989: 116).4 A substantial building programme subsequently occurred at the abbey, led by Edmund Knowle, who was first the sacrist from c.1298–1306 and then abbot until he died in 1332 (Bettey, 1996: 11). This involved the construction of a new and large east end for the abbey church and work on the wider precinct. The abbey is now Bristol cathedral. Throughout the fourteenth century the Berkeley family, descendants of the Fitzhardings, continued to support the abbey (Bettey, 1996: 18). However, there are indications that the abbey over-extended its resources on the project (Bettey, 1996: 16–18). While requesting to be granted additional income from tithes to support their activities, the canons were also accused of mismanaging their existing resources (Bettey, 1996: 16–17). In 1366 members of the local community, including Lord Berkeley, were appointed by Edward III to oversee the abbey’s conduct. Four reasons were given for why the abbey was taken under the king’s control: it was “selling” and “conferring” corrodies on “persons suspected and of ill-fame”, had “profitless leases”, successive abbots had incurred “excessive and fruitless expenses” and the house was therefore “burdened with debt” (CPR 1364–7: 225). Possibly as a result, the ambitious construction programme stopped and was not revived again until 1428 (Bettey, 1996: 20). Tensions also flared up on various occasions with the citizens of Bristol and the residents of manors controlled by the abbey. In 1325 and 1326 the abbot of St Augustine’s complained that his tenants in Abbots Leigh had attacked the abbot’s

194  Town growth and topography close, burning doors and windows and cutting down trees (CPR 1324–1327, 1905: 234). In 1326 tenants in Clifton were accused of ‘breaking [the abbey’s] underground leaden conduit and carrying away the lead thereof ” (CPR 1324–1327, 1905: 234). Three major incidents also occurred in the fifteenth century. In 1452 over 38 of the abbey’s rural tenants, including some given the status of “gentlemen”, attacked the abbot in Bristol (CPR 1446–52, 1909: 581–2; Bettey, 1996: 19). In 1468 there were disputes over the abbey mills and in 1491–6 with the townspeople of Bristol “over rights on College Green and the abbey precinct, and also the abbey’s right to provide sanctuary to fugitives” (Bettey, 1996: 19). At Redcliffe Robert developed a suburb on the south bank of the Avon, adjacent to the Templars’ fee (Fleming, 2013: 244; Letters, 2013). The suburb’s main streets were focused on the bridge over the river Avon that provided the connection to central Bristol (Leech, 2014: 19). Settlement is likely to have begun in the first half of the twelfth century (Urban Design and Conservation Team, 2008: 6). The site was downstream from the bridge and therefore provided direct access to area of the river Avon that was accessible to ocean-going ships (Leech, 2014: 19). Its proximity to the port provided opportunities for “the dyeing of cloth, metalworking, horn and leather working” (Urban Design and Conservation Team, 2008: 6). Land reclamation during the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries may have extended the size of the suburb further. It has been suggested that the course of Redcliffe Street may reflect the original path of the river prior to reclamation (Urban Design and Conservation Team, 2008: 6). Redcliffe began to be incorporated into the city of Bristol in the 1240s when, following port improvements, an outer wall was built that enclosed Redcliffe, Temple and the original city (Urban Design and Conservation Team, 2008: 6). In 1373 Redcliffe and Temple were formally included in the new city and county of Bristol, although it could be said that Bristol did not fully achieve city status until 1542 when, following the Dissolution of the Monasteries, the abbey church became its cathedral. The church of St Mary Redcliffe is one of the most prominent landmarks in the area. There was a church on the site from the twelfth century, but the current building was constructed during the fourteenth century (Bristol and Avon Family History Society, 2022a). The church was granted a well and spring at the top of Knowle hill in the late twelfth or early thirteenth century by Lord Robert de Berkeley (Hirst, 1924: 353; Lee, 2014: 379). A pipe was to take the water to a conduit opposite the church, from which the hospital of St John the Baptist was given permission to connect a branch pipe (Hirst, 1924: 353; Patterson, 1989: 120). The church subsequently received significant support from Bristol merchant William Canynges (1399–1474) (Burgess, 2004; Casson and Casson, 2019b). Meanwhile a medieval chapel originally stood on the site of the Church of St Thomas the Martyr (Urban Design and Conservation Team, 2008: 6). St John the Baptist Hermitage also had an association with the Berkeley’s, as they placed a hermit there in 1346 to pray on their behalf (Historic England, 2022c; Urban Design and Conservation Team, 2008: 6). The Fitzharding family benefitted from a continuous lineage through male heirs and consolidated their power in successive generations (Wells–Furby, 2012: 4). A

Town growth and topography  195 further boost to their landholdings came in the early fifteenth century when Lord Thomas married Margaret, sole heir to the estates of her father Lord Lisle in Wiltshire, the Midlands and throughout the southwest (Fleming, 2013; 224; Wells–Furby, 2012: 36). However, the family reputation was damaged when Lord Thomas died in 1417, leaving his daughter Elizabeth as heiress. The subsequent dispute between Elizabeth and Thomas’s nephew James, who was due to inherit those Berkeley estates that passed down the male line, damaged the family’s standing for several generations (Fleming, 2013: 229; Wells-Furby, 2014: 37). Bristol: the suburb of Temple in the twelfth century The Temple area of Bristol was developed by the Knights Templar on land granted by Robert, Earl of Gloucester (Walker, 1971: 20). This must have occurred fairly soon after the order’s foundation in c.1120, with the objective of protecting pilgrims travelling to Jerusalem (Lee, 2022). There appears to have been cooperation between the Templars and Fitzharding on planning their new suburbs (Leech, 2014: 18–19). Three streets linked the suburbs and the boundary between them, Law Ditch, which acted as a drain for both developments (Leech, 2014: 18–19). In 1185 an internal survey conducted by the order revealed that their fee contained 28 messuages generating a combined income of £2 9s 4d (Cronne, 1946: 31; Walker, 1971: 20). At the time of the survey the Bristol preceptory administered the Order’s lands across Gloucestershire, Dorset, Somerset, Devon and Cornwall, but that role subsequently passed to rural preceptories in the Cotswolds and Somerset (Lee, 2022: 8). When the Knights Templar was terminated in the early fourteenth century, their fee passed to the Knights of St John, also known as the Hospitallers (Fleming, 2013: 160). Because Temple lay across the river it was, like Redcliffe, part of Somerset. In 1325 the citizens of Bristol complained that this provided traders with the opportunity to evade tolls owed to the sheriff of Gloucester by merely moving their goods to the opposite bank (Lee, 2022: 11). Together with Redcliffe it was officially included in the new city and county of Bristol in 1373. The Temple of the Knights Templar would have been one of the key landmarks in this area from the mid twelfth to early fourteenth century. It was a round church (echoing the design of the Church of the Holy Sepulchre in Jerusalem) and was constructed in 1145 (Bristol and Avon Family History Society, 2022b; English Heritage, 2022; Good, 1992: 2–42). One of the chapels was used by the weavers’ company from 1299, whose trade was particularly associated with the area (Lee, 2022: 16; Walker, 1971: 20). The original church fell into disrepair, or was destroyed, after the order was suppressed in 1308–12. It was replaced by a church constructed in the later fourteenth and fifteenth centuries, which now survives only as a shell after being bombed during the Second World War (English Heritage, 2022). A map of Bristol appears in Figure 6.2. It can be seen that the town is squeezed between two rivers — the Avon (to the south) and the Frome (to the north) near where they meet (to the west). As the town prospered, the cramped nature of the site quickly led to congestion and the consequent expansion into the suburbs, as explained previously and in the following sections.

196  Town growth and topography

Bristol city gates key 1 = Temple gate 2 = Redcliff gate 3 = St Nicholas gate and church 4 = Marsh gate 5 = Marsh Street gate 6 = St Leonard’s gate and church 7 = St Giles gate 8 = St John’s gate and church 9 = Froome gate 10 = Needless gate 11 = Pithay gate 12 = Nero gate 13 = Castle gate 14 = Lawfords gate

Bristol churches key A = St Mary Redcliffe B = Temple Church C = St John the Baptist Hermitage D = St Thomas the Martyr E = St Philip and St Jacob F = St Peter’s G = St Mary le Port H = St Nicholas gate and church I = All Saints church J = The High Cross K = Christ church L = St Ewen’s church M = The Guild Hall O = St John’s Gate and Church P = St Werburgh’s church Q = St Leonard’s gate and church

R = St Stephen’s church S = St Augustine’s Abbey (the Cathedral) T = St Augustine’s the Less church U = the Hospital of St Mark (also known as Gaunt’s chapel and hospital) V = St Michael on the Mount W = St James’ Priory X = Blackfriars Priory Y = Holy Trinity Hospital and chapel Z = Augustinian Friary AA = Carmelite Friary BB = St Batholomew’s Hospital CC = Nunnery of St Mary Magdalen DD = Greyfriars Friary EE = Hospital of St Mary Magdalen FF = St Lawrence GG = St Giles

Figure 6.2  Bristol in the middle ages. Source: Based on Millerd’s map of Bristol (British Library, 2022) with labels added by the authors. Notes: The location of the Hospital of St Mary Magdalen was added using the grid reference provide at Historic England, 2022a. The church of St Lawrence, which was demolished in the 16th century was added from Beatty (2009: 20–21). The church of St Giles which closed in 1319 was added from Betty (2009: 20–21) and Family Search (2022). The location of the Hospital of St Lawrence is not shown, but it may have stood on the site of the present St Lawrence Hill roundabout (Woods, 2022). The location of the Hospital of St John the Baptist is not shown because the location remains unclear, although it appears to have been in Redcliffe (Scott Holmes, 1911: 160–1). The Friars of the Sack are not shown as the location of their house is unknown (Bettey, 2009: 16).

Town growth and topography  197 Sources: Bristol rentals Two main types of rental survive in Bristol: landgable rentals and community rentals. Three of the rentals used in this study record only landgable and the other two record only ordinary rents. Landgable rents for 1295 appear in the constable’s accounts (Veale, 1931: 296–311); the role of the constable of Bristol Castle is described by Sharp (1982). Landgable rents for c.1350 appear in the Great Red Book (Veale, 1933: 74–87), whilst Bush (1828: 9–18) provides a transcript of a landgable rental of 1438 which now seems to have been lost (Veale, 1931: 137). The landgable rentals distinguish only five areas: the four parishes within the old walls, namely St Ewen’s, All Saints, Holy Trinity and St Mary-le-Port, and “outside the walls”, which refers mainly to the area south of the Avon, but also includes areas to the north and east. The four parishes correspond roughly to the four quadrants of the city, centred on the Cross. There are two community rentals, which record the rents generated by properties held by the city community as a result of purchase or bequest. Many wealthy citizens gave property to chantries, hospitals and almonries, and others to the city, and some did both. The rents from community properties contributed to the fee farm paid to the king, as well as the funding of communal events and improvements to the town. Both community rentals encompass the area south of the Avon and also an area opposite the castle known as Arthur’s fee. Properties of this fee traditionally paid a “stakepenny” in addition to the normal rent, although the stakepenny is not included in the rentals. These rentals contain more detailed topographical information than the landgable rentals. To the south of the Avon it is possible to distinguish between three areas. Using the 1350–60 rental it is possible to identify properties along Redcliffe Street, those along the outer wall to the south and those in Tucker Street near the bank of the Avon (the street of the fullers). The 1463 rental distinguishes explicitly between Redcliffe Street, St. Thomas Street and Temple Street (including parts of Tucker Street). Sources: feets of fines In addition there are feets of fines from Gloucestershire, which include Bristol (Elrington, 2003). These fines were previously analysed by Veale (1931: 171–247), who identified 226 fines relevant to Bristol. A further four fines have been identified for the purposes of this study. There are 192 fines that contain sufficient information for statistical analysis. In 185 cases the fine consists of a lump-sum payment (“gersuma”), in seven cases it is a perpetual rent and in one case there are elements of both. The issues encountered in coding feets of fines for statistical analysis are discussed in Yates, Campbell and Casson (2013). As noted in the introduction to this chapter, fines are essentially deeds that have been recorded by a royal court. Unlike rents, fines are derived not from a census at a given date but from individual transactions distributed in time. The dates of transactions are therefore fundamental to the analysis of fines.

198  Town growth and topography Table 6.4  Bristol: Fines 1209−1365. Regression analysis by location of property, type of property, relations between parties and time Explanatory variable City location 1210–60 City location 1260–1300 City location 1300–20 City location 1320–40 City location 1340–50 City location 1350–60 City location 1360–65 Type of property Messuages (number) Shops (number) Other types (number) Acreage of land Type of transaction Rent income Money payment to lords Buyer and seller related Buyer married Buyer includes a single woman Multiple buyers Seller married Seller includes a single woman Multiple sellers Time period 1210–59 1300–19 1320–39 1340–49 1350–59 1360–69 R2 Adjusted R2 F-statistic Jarque-Bera normality test Breusch–Pagan–Godfrey Heteroskedasticity F-test Number of observations

Fine

p-value

Value

p-value

1415.8 2264.1* −68.2 285.0 −200.5 −981.5 −946.3

0.210 0.074 0.937 0.397 0.666 0.405 0.565

1283.7 2062.0* −73.3 399.7 −195.8 −1028.2 −1049.3

0.233 0.085 0.932 0.209 0.657 0.368 0.530

80.3* 497.7*** −313.5 1021.9**

0.051 0.006 0.477 0.043

95.5** 488.0*** −475.8 1044.1**

0.015 0.008 0.268 0.045

7.8*** 473.6 2509.0** −294.9 −467.6 1172.3 −382.5 −1195.5 1799.4

0.000 0.360 0.023 0.506 0.510 0.300 0.539 0.229 0.176

8.03*** 373.3 1592.5* −164.3 −976.4 710.8 −295.1 −1194.4 1719.0

0.000 0.456 0.059 0.685 0.228 0.433 0.615 0.210 0.197

492.8 239.6*** 1025.5 1170.5* 2800.7** 4250.0*** 0.598 0.535 5.870*** 926.6*** 0.768 185

0.587 0.007 0.124 0.092 0.041 0.008 0.000 0.000 0.782

622.7 2377.3*** 1001.8 1249.6* 2798.5** 4276.5*** 0.591 0.529 5.120*** 963.6*** 0.811

0.504 0.006 0.121 0.066 0.033 0.008 0.000 0.000 0.729

192

Note: Value is calculated as the sum of the consideration paid and the rent valued at eight years’ purchase. A constant term is omitted from the first two regressions. There are seven transactions which involve no fine. The control time period is 1260–99. Source: Elrington, 2003–13; Veale, 1931: 171–247.

Results of the analysis of fines The feets of fines are analysed in Table 6.4. When analysing fines the dependent variable is either the fine (column 1), or the value of the property (column 3). Value is estimated as the sum of the fine and any additional rental payment made to the seller, which is valued, in the present case, at eight year’s purchase, for example if the property is sold for one mark and a perpetual rent of two shillings, then

Town growth and topography  199 its value is 160 + 24×8 = 352d. (The reason for choosing eight years’ purchase is explained subsequently). The independent variables are the location of property (city or suburb), type of property, rental income, characteristics of buyers and sellers and whether there is a family relationship between them. The rental income is income accruing to the purchaser from the rights they acquire from the seller, as distinct from the rent paid by the purchaser to the seller as described previously. Time dummies are also included for city locations to capture variations in the property market over time. Fines may relate to portfolios of properties; in this case the numbers of properties of each type are recorded and entered into the regression. The nature of the distinction between city and suburb is not entirely clear. The meaning may have changed in the course of time. “Suburb” almost certainly includes the area south of the Avon within the outer city wall, but it might also include parts of Billeswick lying to the north of the city where several religious institutions were based, and also the areas outside the walls to the north and east of the castle. The analysis takes account of whether the buyers or sellers are married couples, whether a woman is involved in the transaction (other than a wife with a living husband) and whether there are multiple parties (counting a married couple as a single party). It also takes account of whether the whether the buyers and sellers are described as family relatives. Gifts are identified by the absence of any payment. A constant term is omitted from both regressions; this implies that the value of the fine reflects the total value of the constituent properties. In effect, the regression imputes absolute values to the individual components of each property in the portfolio. This imputation is, however, conditioned by other characteristics, such as location and time. Comparing the fine and value regressions shows that using value does not improve the fit. There is a high degree of variability in the values of properties in both the city and the suburbs, and the difference in their average values is too small in most periods to be statistically significant. The city location premium tends to decrease over time. It is positive until 1300 and then, with the exception of 1320– 40, negative thereafter. It is most negative after 1350. Although only one of the coefficients is significant, there is clear evidence of some sort of drop in the premium in the period 1300–40. Messuages have positive value, but the value is low and only marginally significant (10 percent in column 1 and 5 percent in column 3). Shops are much more valuable, and their value is highly significant (1 percent). Land, measured by acreage, is the most valuable type of property (10 percent in column 1 and 5 percent in column 3). An acre, however, represents a far greater area than the footprint of a typical messuage or shop. In terms of value per acre, a typical messuage may be roughly equivalent in value to good agricultural land. The coefficient on rental income (significant at 1 percent) shows that rent income received by the purchaser is valued at about eight years’ purchase, which is equivalent to an interest rate of 12.5 percent. This also explains why eight years’ purchase was used to value the rent paid by the purchaser previously. It is not possible to analyse changes in the interest rate over time because there are too few observations on rent income. The estimate of the interest rate is very close to the

200  Town growth and topography levels of 12–15 percent suggested by Brunt and Cannon (1999) and Bell, Brooks and Moore (2009). It is above the level of 10 percent suggested by Clark, but in this case, as he notes, “the omission of outliers reduced the calculated interest rate” (Clark, 1988: 271). If buyer and seller are related and the property is not transferred as a gift, then the fine is significantly higher than it would otherwise be (5 percent). It is possible that this is because the younger generation is setting out to provide the older generation with a generous pension secured on the property they expect to inherit. A more hypothetical possibility is that the transaction is purely virtual and that the fine was never actually paid; in this case the fine may simply have been a symbolic overstatement of the value of family property. Rents are significantly high in 1300–19, during the property boom towards the end of Edward I’s reign (5 percent in column 1 and 1 percent in column 3), and again in 1350–9, after the Black Death (10 percent in column 1 and 5 percent in column 3). They become very high indeed in the period 1360–9 (1 percent); but care is needed on this point, because the size and nature of the property portfolios transferred changes in this period, becoming large and relatively diverse. Analysis of heteroskedasticity shows that the variability of rents does not change significantly according to the location or type of property involved. Results of the analysis of landgable The three landgable sources show that the four city parishes were of roughly equal size, with the largest (the control parish) being St Ewen’s with 67 properties and the smallest Holy Trinity with 49. The largest sample is for c.1350 and contains 306 properties. This seems to reflect the subdivision of some of the 252 properties in 1295, together with the appearance of some new properties and the disappearance of a few others. A reduction to 153 properties in 1438 may reflect urban decline or increasing administrative laxity in the collection of landgable. There is a pattern in which entire blocks of properties disappear, suggesting some other systematic factor at work. It is possible that major property holders are buying back their landgable obligations from the civic authorities (who are collecting landgable to pay the farm). Columns 1–3 of Table 6.5 show that rents were significantly higher outside the walls in all periods. The most probable explanation is that development south of the Avon occurred later than in the old walled city. It may have been, at least in part, a speculative enterprise. Once the town had become congested inside the walls, settlement outside would have become an attractive proposition, particularly once the threat of invasion had become remote. Landgable no longer needed to be set at low levels in order to attract settlers but could be set at more commercial levels. Because the old walled city itself was not redeveloped, the average level of landgable rents inside the town would have remained unchanged. There are no significant differences between parishes inside the walls. This does not mean that landgable was the same everywhere. Each of the four parishes occupied one quadrant of the city, from near the Cross in the centre to the relevant portion of the old inner wall. Within each parish there was considerable variation in rents. Indeed, the table shows that in the period 1295–1350 there was

Town growth and topography  201 Table 6.5  Bristol landgable rents 1293, c.1350 and 1438. Regression analysis of rents, continuity of property and subdivision of property by parish Bristol Explanatory variable

Logarithm Logarithm of Logarithm Inclusion of rent 1295 rent c.1350 of rent 1438 1438

Subdivision 1438

Constant

1.621*** 1.440*** (0.000) (0.000) −0.167 −0.071 (0.255) (0.559) 0.098 0.115 (0.535) (0.383) 0.163 0.021 (0.223) (0.894) 0.661*** 0.611*** (0.000) (0.000)

−0.162*** (0.010) 0.022 (0.723) −0.040 (0.549) −0.111* (0.094) −0.101* (0.083) 0.182*** (0.000) 0.171 0.154 10.124*** (0.000) 188.478*** (0.000) 9.557 (0.000) 252

1.530*** (0.000) 0.108 (0.529) 0.253 (0.153) 0.169 (0.334) 0.650*** (0.000)

0.024 (0.814) All saints 0.137 (0.171) Holy Trinity 0.124 (0.247) 0.088 St. Mary-le-Port (0.408) Outside the walls −0.044 (0.637) Logarithm of rent 1295 0.205*** (0.000) R2 0.185 0.168 0.145 0.091 Adjusted R2 0.172 0.160 0.122 0.072 F-statistic 14.011*** 15.198*** 6.298*** 4.910** (0.000) (0.000) (0.000) (0.00) Jarque–Bera normality 7.846** 17.373*** 68.313*** 31.087*** (0.020) (0.000) (0.000) (0.000) Breusch–Pagan–Godfrey 1.958 4.175 0.404 1.132 heteroskedasticity (0.102) (0.003) (0.805) (0.344) No. of observations 252 306 153 252

Note: The control parish is St Ewen’s. Significance levels are *** 1 percent, ** 5 percent and * 10 percent.

significantly more variation in landgable rents within the city parishes than there was outside the walls. This is consistent with the view that as the old walled city was developed first, the properties there had been exposed for longer to merger, subdivision, vacancy and re-letting before a given rental was compiled. Furthermore, congestion would increase the incentive for subdivision within the old walled city, multiplying the discrepancies in rents between undivided and subdivided properties. Column 4 shows that the higher-value properties, defined as those paying relatively high landgable in 1295, were most likely to continue paying landgable from 1295 through to 1438. There are no significant differences between parishes, or between city and suburb, in this respect. A probable explanation is that high-value properties are less likely to fall vacant or to be redeveloped as uneconomic. It is also less likely that collection of their landgable (by the civic authorities on behalf of the king) will be allowed to lapse. Column 5 shows that where properties were subdivided before 1438, higher-value properties were most affected. Subdivision is a useful strategy for increasing the commercial value of certain types of property (for example those suitable for temporary lodgings, workshops or selds), though not for all types of property (for example, prestigious houses for wealthy merchants). Low-value properties may be unsuitable for subdivision either because they are badly located or simply too small.

202  Town growth and topography Results from the 1350–60 community rental The regression results for this rental are reported in Table 6.6. The sample is quite small (99 properties) and on average there are only ten properties in each location category. Two regressions were estimated; in the first, rent was the dependent variable and in the second the logarithm of rent. The logarithmic regression (column 1) affords by far the best fit (R2 = 0.74) and so this is used as the basis for the interpretation, Comparison with column 2 indicates that the signs of the Table 6.6  Bristol community rental and rental of Arthur’s Fee, 1350–60: Regression analysis of rent by location and type of property Explanatory variables Constant South Redclyf South wall Toukerstrete The Bridge Southwest Aven Bakke Northwest St Leonards, St. Giles, Fish Lane, The Quay Northeast Horse Strete, Lewenysmede East Wynchestrete, Worschupstrete, Tower Lane, Aylward Gate, St. Peters, Castle, Laffardes Yate Centre Braddestrete, Highstrete, St. Johns Gate, Holy Trinity, The Cross Feudal rent Type of property Tenement Shop Tower Gate Cellar Vacant plot R2 Adjusted R2 F–statistic Jarque–Bera normality test Breusch–Pagan–Godfrey heteroskedasticity F-test Number of observations

Logarithm of rent 1.899*** (0.000) −1.142*** (0.006) 0.049 (0.881) −1.627*** (0.000) 0.967*** (0.009)

Rent −4.893 (0.695) −23.214** (0.013) 4.811 (0.605) −36.157*** (0.001) 35.442** (0.017)

0.137 (0.669)

5.051 (0.570)

0.299 (0.409)

11.655 (0.306)

−0.118 (0.725)

−7.072 (0.359)

0.335 (0.309)

13.979 (0.181)

0.739 (0.163)

27.66 (0.228)

−1.465*** (0.000)

−21.624** (0.014)

1.010*** (0.000) 0.798*** (0.000) 0.754*** (0.002) 0.432 (0.129) 0.627 (0.429) 0.297* (0.068) 0.741 0.691 14.669*** (0.000) 0.021 (0.990) 3.638*** (0.000)

37.039*** (0.005) 28.381*** (0.008) 19.403** (0.016) 9.708 (0.297) 72.442** (0.050) 11.903** (0.028) 0.564 0.479 6.623*** (0.000) 118.505*** (0.000) 1.982 (0.024)

99

99

Note: The control location is the Frome area. Rent information is unavailable for one plot. Feudal rents are those of sixpence, or a fraction of sixpence indicating subdivision, or one penny, for example 6d, 3d, 1.5d and 1d. According to this criterion 44 properties pay feudal rents. Applying a more stringent criterion, where feudal rents are only those of 1d or 1.5d reduces the number of feudal rents to eight and reduces R2 to 0.70 but does not alter the main findings. Significance levels are *** 1 percent, ** 5 percent and * 10 percent. Source: Bickley, 1900, Vol. I: 2–10.

Town growth and topography  203 coefficients are relatively robust to a change of specification, but the significance levels are somewhat different. The location analysis identifies three main areas of the town. South of the Avon rents tend to be low, although they are significantly low only in Redcliffe and Tucker Street (1 percent). Rents are significantly high on the Bridge (1 percent) and are also high in the centre, although not significantly so. However, there are only nine properties in the centre compared to 20 properties on the bridge, which may partly account for the difference in significance levels. The rest of the city pays normal rents; this comprises the northern part of the original walled city, together with properties in the Frome Bridge area. Tenements are the most valuable types of property, but shops and towers are valuable too (all significant at 1 percent). Cellars also tend to have high values, but there are so few of them this result is not significant. An interesting feature of the rental is the use of towers and gates as residences or places of business More than 20 percent of all the properties in the rental are of this type. This may simply reflect the efficient use of space within the crowded city, but it could also reflect citizens’ concerns about security in a city with significant social inequalities, and special concerns relating to stocks of valuable commodities held by merchants. Occupation of towers and gates may also have been symbols of prestige. Walls, ditches, lanes and vacant plots also figure as community property. The most common types of property are tenements and shops. The largest number of properties (20) is on the Bridge, and the smallest number (four) in Horse Street and Lewin’s Mead to the north of the old walled city. Although many rents appear to be set at commercial levels of 12d or above, some were very low, suggesting that they may be landgable rents. To allow for this, a dummy variable for “feudal rent” was used to identify all rents of 6d or under. A more restrictive dummy was also constructed that identified rents of 1.5d or 1d only. The first variable generated the best fit and is shown in the table. It is highly significant (1 percent) and carries the expected negative sign. Results from the 1463 rental This rental is more extensive, comprising almost twice the number of properties. Comparison with the 1350–60 rental shows that average rents increased from 26.3d to 30.2d. While part of the increase could be due to general inflation, it suggests that Bristol’s recovery from the Black Death was probably sustained into the fifteenth century. The rental includes a significant number of charges for encroaching on community property. Although such encroachments are common in many towns at this period, the large number in Bristol may reflect the premium on space in its congested centre. Some typical entries are In Braddestrete: Of the Parson and the Procuratours of Seint Johnys for the approwying to thaym self of the Communes grounde that they have to the Churche and to distresse in the tenement that William Wareyn late held to the fore the yelde hall. IIId. (Veale, 1953: 29)

204  Town growth and topography Mersshe Strete: Of John Bagod for a dore in the Commune wall … IIId. (Veale, 1953: 24) Adhuc Wynchestrete: Of Thomas Allecsley Smyth for a litill house besydes his hows. Id. (Veale, 1953: 28) Uppon the Key: Of the Trynyte Taverne for an entrie in to the vawte of the said Taverne. IIIId (Veale, 1953: 25) Fyssherlane: Of William Pavy for a selar under the comyne grounds. IIId. (Veale, 1953: 24) The regression results are presented in Table 6.7. As before, a logarithmic regression affords the best fit (R2 = 0.71). Once again the area south of the Avon shows significantly low rents; indeed they are significantly lower than before. Temple Street and Redcliffe Street are significantly negative (at 1 percent and 10 percent, respectively) whilst St Thomas Street is also negative but not significantly so. Peripheral areas of the old walled city also reveal low rents in Marsh Street, in the northwest quadrant near the Quay, and in Lewin’s Mede and near Laffords Gate to the northeast (10 percent significance). Once again the Bridge commands high rents (1 percent), but so too does Corn Street and St. Nicholas Street (1 percent), Baldwin Street (5 percent) and the High Street (10 percent), while the remainder of the city commands only average rents. This closely resembles the classic centre–periphery distribution of rents, with the centre being around St Nicholas church, with the Bridge to the south and the Cross at the top of High Street to the north. The centre, in other words, is to the south rather than the north of the old walled city. In contrast to the previous rental, the type of property contributes relatively little to the explanation of rents. Special buildings, such as taverns, brew-houses and roperies, command high rents (1 percent), whilst cellars (1 percent), ditches and walls (5 percent) command low rents. These low rents need to be treated with caution, however, because in some cases the rents may only apply to improvements made to the properties rather than the properties themselves. Feudal rents are again significantly low (1 percent). The constant term in Table 6.7 is higher than in Table 6.6, showing that, even when controlling for location and type of property, rents were on average somewhat higher in 1463 than they were in 1350–60. Summary and conclusions The results may be summarised as follows. Ordinary commercial rents demonstrate a centrality premium. In 1350–60 only the Bridge demonstrates significantly high rents, but in 1463 high rents are also recorded for the area between the Bridge and the Cross where much of the market activity seems to have been focused.

Town growth and topography  205 Table 6.7  Bristol Community Rental 1463: Regression analysis of rent by location, type of property and status of holder Explanatory variables Constant south Redclyf Strete Seynt Thomas Strete Temple Strete (including Baste Havyn, Westbury Lane and Towkerstrete) The Brygge Southwest Uppon Aven Bakke Baldewyne and Baste Stretes Northwest Fyssherlane Mersshe Strete Uppon the Key Northeast Horse Strete, including Stypestrete Lewenysmede the Were and Laffardes Yate East Wynchestrete Adhuc Wynchestrete Worschupstrete Centre Highstrete Braddestrete Cornstrete and Seynt Nicholas Streete Feudal rent Type of property Tenement House Shop Cellar Special building (messuage, tavern, brewhouse, tenement on bridge, stable, ropery) Garden Land or pasture Easement Tower Gate Communal wall or ditch Door in communal wall Communal land or common way (including lanes) Vacant plot Unspecified Type of holder Religious institution Civic institution Knight

Logarithm of rent 2.315*** (0.000)

Rent −0.918 (0.955)

−0.752* (0.054) −35.669 (0.174) −0.251 (0.424) 5.541 (0.701) −1.253*** (0.000) −24.291 (0.134) 1.4215*** (0.000)

34.366* (0.050)

0.406 (0.396) 0.633** (0.025)

−1.136 (0.974) 13.953 (0.194)

0.190 (0.538) −0.646* (0.059) 0.545 (0.223)

20.499 (0.309) −5.214 (0.593) 10.120 (0.501)

−0.019 (0.965) −0.468* (0.091)

0.501 (0.972) 2.186 (0.865)

0.420 (0.222) 0.418 (0.331) 0.650 (0.144)

26.495 (0.168) −16.350 (0.487) 11.780 (0.378)

0.842* (0.083) 19.153 (0.249) 0.468 (0.392) −12.345 (0.597) 1.691*** (0.002) 123.423* (0.054) −2.252*** (0.000) −31. 312** (0.010) 0.089 (0.686) 17.218 (0.180) 0.344 (0.334) 27.625* (0.098) 0.172 (0.138) 12.330 (0.180) −1.439*** (0.002) −84.928** (0.029) 1.632*** (0.001) 136.318** (0.025) −0.303 (0.292) −0.210 (0.607) 0.073 (0.802) 0.357 (0.146) 0.074 (0.870) −0.628** (0.012) −0.073 (0.854) −0.020 (0.957)

−4.496 (0.682) −8.165 (0.759) 7.006 (0.647) 26.725 (0.135) −26.273 (0.146) −7.764 (0.571) 23.041 (0.182) 42.399* (0.060)

−0.118 (0.742) 1.072 (0.163)

10.344 (0.643) 96.373 (0.149)

−0.313 (0.171) −0.129 (0.818) −0.409 (0.206)

−1.407 (0.907) 85.438 (0.397) 1.582 (0.909) (Continued )

206  Town growth and topography Table 6.7  (Continued) Explanatory variables R2 Adjusted R2 F-statistic Jarque–Bera normality test Breusch–Pagan–Godfrey heteroskedasticity F-test Number of observations

Logarithm of rent

Rent

0.711 0.473 0.639 0.342 9.916*** (0.000) 3.609 (0.000) 0.367 (0.833) 284.2*** (0.000) 1.393* (0.089) 5.681*** (0.000) 182

182

Source: Veale, 1953: 21–9. Note: The control location is Frome Bridge. “Tenement on bridge” does not include tenements on The Brygge. A feudal rent is a rent of 1d or 1.5d; there are 25 rents of this type. If an alternative definition of feudal rent, based on a rent of 6d or less, is used then there are 66 feudal rents. The substitution of the alternative measure leaves the results largely unaffected. The lower measure is therefore preferred because it involves classifying fewer rents as feudal. Significance levels are *** 1 percent, ** 5 percent and * 10 percent.

This area appears to be the economic centre of the city. (There was another market area east of the castle, but properties in this area are not well represented in the data.). This result is consistent with results for Coventry and Gloucester, reported elsewhere in this chapter, where the economic centre was also concentrated around the market area. A centrality premium is also evident in Hull (see the following discussion), but it was not in the market area, but near the quayside instead. Bristol Bridge is near the original quayside on the Avon but some distance from the new post-1240 quay. It seems, therefore, that the spatial organisation of Bristol remained locked in to its pre-1240 structure. If this is correct, it suggests that the building of the cut and the partial relocation of the port had less impact on the internal economic structure of the city than might have been expected. The results suggest that fines, like ordinary rents, were basically set at commercial levels. If correct, this would suggest that in the period 1209–1365 Bristol’s suburbs were reasonably affluent. If the suburbs mentioned in the fines can be equated with the suburbs south of the Avon, then it would seem that this area was quite prosperous. The community rentals show, however, that by 1350–60 the area immediately south of the Bridge had relatively low rents, and by 1463 this was even more pronounced. This suggests that in the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries rents in the suburbs south of the Avon were in decline. A possible explanation is that in the thirteenth century the suburbs were attractive as a refuge from a crowded and unsanitary city, but that over time they became increasingly industrialised. Access to river water encouraged the development of the cloth industry in the area, and soap-making too, and this may have encouraged some of the wealthier residents to move out. It is interesting to note the St Mary Redcliffe developed outside the south wall, so that the south wall may not have been the boundary between a prosperous city suburb and a poor rural hinterland but rather between an industrial suburb and an affluent residential area beyond. The problems of living inside the old city walls should not be exaggerated, however. Fresh water was piped into the city, and the houses on the main streets,

Town growth and topography  207 together with the towers and gates, afforded high-status residences. A further refinement of this line of argument would suggest that some of the successful merchants based in Redcliffe may actually have moved back into to the centre of the city, pushing up the rents of centrally located prestige properties and contributing to wider disparities of wealth within the old walls. A similar pattern can be seen in thirteenth-century Coventry, where the value of suburban properties often exceeded those in the peripheral areas bordering directly on the centre of the town. However, the dynamics of suburbanisation in Coventry are less clear. Unlike Bristol, Coventry was an inland proto-industrial centre with plenty of opportunity to expand, and its centre was not so constrained by local topography as was the case in Bristol. The results for landgable are consistent with the view that, at the time of their development, the properties south of the Avon were regarded as attractive, and so could be let at higher rents than the legacy rents in the old walled city. The results also suggest that the most valuable properties in the old city became subdivided and, in either their original or subdivided form, retained their identities through to 1438. The variability of landgable is consistent with the results for Gloucester, although the pattern of spatial variation is different. In Gloucester landgable, like ordinary rents, carried a significant centrality premium, whereas the opposite is the case in Bristol. A possible explanation concerns the timing of development; the city centre may have been redeveloped in Gloucester after the suburbs were created, allowing landgable rents in the centre to be raised to more commercial values. Another possible explanation is that the centre of Gloucester, adjacent to the abbey, was a more congenial location than the congested centre of Bristol; as a result, there was no demand to escape to the suburbs, and hence no potential for high suburban rents.

Shrewsbury Historical context The origins of Shrewsbury, like those of Bristol, are difficult to establish. It is possible that it derived its importance from the Roman city of Wroxeter, 5½ miles to the southeast (Baker, 2010: 83; Bassett, 1991: 19). In a charter issued by the Mercian rulers Æthelred and Æthelflæd in 901, Shrewsbury is described as the “city” in which the charter is approved (Beresford and Finberg, 1973: 153; Birch, 1887: 229–30; Carver, 1983: 2; Letters, 2013). Although it has been suggested that the document is not authentic, it seems likely that Shrewsbury would have been integrated into the regional “administrative and military system” by that date (Baker, Holt and Thacker, 2014: 7; Sharp, 2022). Shrewsbury had a mint by c.925, and the churches of St Alkmund’s, St Chad’s and St Mary’s, it is believed, were all founded in the eighth to tenth centuries, suggesting intensification of settlement during that period (Baker, Holt and Thacker, 2014: 8, 10). According to the Anglo-Saxon chronicle, Shrewsbury was the capital of a shire in 1006 (Earle and Plummer, 1892: 137; Letters, 2013).

208  Town growth and topography The earliest settlement was focused on the area of high ground, which protected the settlement from flooding and may also have been beneficial for defence (Owen and Blair, 1825: 1). St Mary’s was in a particularly favourable position to act as the focal point of settlement as it was on higher ground and convenient for the eastern and western river crossings (Baker, 2010: 23–4, 211; Baker, Holt and Thacker, 2014: 13). Wyle Cop also appears to have been inhabited during the Saxon period (Owen and Blair, 1825: 30). Domesday places Shrewsbury at the head of the shire (Open Domesday, 2022; Williams and Martin, 2002). In 1066 it was rated as a hundred, paying geld for 100 hides; not all of the geld went to the king; a small proportion, for example, went to local churches. The rents and customs of the town rendered £30, with the earl taking the third penny. In 1086 there were 252 houses in the town, occupied by burgesses who paid an average rent of just over 6d, and three moneyers. By 1086 there had been no new building, but 51 messuages had been taken for the construction of the castle, and another 50 were waste. Forty-three messuages were held by French burgesses. In addition the earl had already granted 39 burgesses to the new abbey, so that altogether there were 193 messuages which did not pay geld to the king. Nevertheless, the geld due to the king from the burgesses remained unchanged; the difference had to be made up by the English burgesses, who complained that this was unfair. Earl Roger held the rents and customs of the entire town for £40. After the Norman Conquest the political and religious significance of Shrewsbury increased. Politically it derived its importance from its proximity to Wales, which the Normans were attempting to conquer, while the Benedictine abbey founded in 1083–7 by the Earl of Shrewsbury enhanced the town’s religious provision (Baker and Pannett, 2002: 9–21; Mason, 2004). The abbey was located to the east, outside of the town but accessible by English bridge. It had four potential benefits: first, it reused the site of an AngloSaxon church while, second, still providing a site that offered space for development. Third, the site provided convenient access to the Rea brook (also known as the Meole brook), an important milling stream. Finally, the site was strategically positioned to control the approach to the town, useful for pilgrims but also, if necessary, for defensive purposes (Baker, 2002a: 207–8; Baker, 2010: 112–13, 221). However, the abbey’s endowments were less valuable than those of equivalent houses (Baker and Pannett, 2002: 17; Chibnall, 1973; Owen and Blair, 1825: 8; Rees, 1975: xi). The abbey also suffered as a result of the actions of Montgomery’s heir Robert de Bellême. In 1088 he was a leading conspirator in the attempt “to replace William II (William Rufus) as king of England with his elder brother, the new duke of Normandy, Robert Curthose” (Thompson, 2004a). Bellême eventually seems to have transferred his support to William II. Yet his actions were not forgotten. When Henry I, Curthose’s other brother, ascended to the English throne in 1100 he refused to acknowledge Bellême’s stated loyalty and instead accused him of 45 charges in 1102 (Thompson, 2004a). Bellême ultimately had to sue for peace, after an attempt to resist the charges failed, and his lands were confiscated (Owen and Blair, 1825; Thompson, 2004a). Taking advantage of the

Town growth and topography  209 disruption, “encroachments on the property began and holders of life-leases tried to make them hereditary” — including the son of the Saxon founder of St Peter’s church (Chibnall, 1973; Rees, 1975: xii). In 1121 the abbey obtained confirmation of their rights and property from Henry I (Baker and Pannett, 2002: 17; Chibnall, 1973). The monks themselves also increased their resources. First, they sought to establish themselves as a pilgrimage centre. As the new foundation had no relics, those of St Winifred’s were translated from North Wales in 1138 (Baker, Holt and Thacker, 2014: 20–1; Baker and Pannett, 2002: 17). St Winifred’s shrine became an important pilgrimage site, although the scale of that pilgrimage and its impact on the town and abbey is hard to assess (Baker, 2002b: 225). Second, they took action to extend the abbey’s endowments, especially from the thirteenth century. Properties were purchased within the town, with further ones given by townspeople (Baker and Pannett, 2002: 18; Chibnall, 1973; Rees, 1975). The Norman castle overlooks the river (Morriss and Hoverd, 1993). The town walls encompassed only the higher strategic parts of the town; the riverside meadows to the west lay outside the walls. The repair of the bridges was a significant burden on the townspeople, and repeated royal grants of murage were made, usually involving tolls on goods brought into the town for sale. Many of these grants were in response to damage caused by flooding of the River Severn and included the repair of the town walls. The river had important industrial uses: in 1328 Edward III licensed the erection of corn and malt mills along the river. The earls of Shrewsbury were marcher lords, controlling a large territory but, as described previously, their title was forfeited in 1102 and not re-instigated until 1442. The burgesses therefore gained considerable autonomy and handled a large amount of “cross-border” trade (Baker, Holt and Thacker, 2014: 23; Champion, 2014: 105; Coulton, 2010: 22–3; Cromarty: 1991; Morriss and Hoverd, 1993: 8–10; Thacker and Cromarthy, 2014: 55–8). In 1334 the town was assessed for a tenth at 1,600s (Glasscock, 1975). In 1189 Richard I granted the town to the burgesses at an annual rent of 40 marks, of which ten were in lieu of providing two hunting horses. Shortly afterwards King John granted the burgesses the hundred, with the town, at a rent of 45 marks. He also confirmed that land and tenements were held according to the laws of Breteuil and asserted the townsmens’ rights to elect their own provosts (Historical Manuscripts Commission, 1899: 2–6). Henry III established a merchant-gild and awarded various other privileges to the burgesses; these included a monopoly of the sale of fresh hides and unworked cloth; security of their goods against seizure for debts of others; and limits on the execution of writs by sheriffs. In 1265, as a reward for the fidelity of the burgesses, he granted the town’s merchants exemption from murage throughout the kingdom and restricted wool merchants from purchasing wool in the county except in market towns. In 1402 Henry IV confirmed that Shrewsbury should have two bailiffs and two chamberlains elected by the burgesses and commonalty. Finally, in 1444. Henry VI granted that the bailiffs of the town could seize the goods and chattels of felons, enquire into escheats, and act as justices of the peace (Historical Manuscripts Commission, 1899: 2–6).

210  Town growth and topography A fair was held from c.1090, although when it was actually chartered is a matter of debate (Letters, 2013). In 1267 Henry III granted a fair for three days on the feast of St Clement. Subsequently Edward II granted a fair for three days at the feast of St. James, and in 1309 he granted an additional four-day fair at the feast of St Matthew (Historical Manuscripts Commission, 1899: 2–6). A market was recorded in 1204, held, it would seem, in the cemetery of St Alkmund and St Julian (Alsford, 2022c; Baker, 2010: 135, 211; Bassett, 1991: 12; Letters, 2013). In 1261 a charter confirmed the relocation of the marketplace to a new location “at the bottom of the hill” which was first called the Corn Market and subsequently Market Square (Baker, 2010: 135; CCR 1259–61, 1902–38: 351). The new site was more central but also required significant improvements before being viable for trading. At the bottom of the valley, the site was boggy, and archaeological excavation show that it was infilled and reclaimed (Baker, 2010: 138). In 1402 the king confirmed that Shrewsbury should have two bailiffs and two chamberlains elected by the burgesses and commonalty. There were four parish churches, all established before 1066 (Bassett, 1991: 21). St Chad’s may date from the eighth century and was a collegiate church of the bishop of Lichfield, with a hospital maintained by the mercers’ guild (Bassett, 1991: 6; Gaydon, 1973a: 114–23). St Mary’s was also a collegiate church under the patronage of the king, with a hospital endowed by a local merchant. It has been proposed that St Mary’s church was founded either by the rulers of Mercia or in the tenth century by King Edgar (957–75) (Bassett, 1991: 8; Gaydon, 1973a: 114–23). St Alkmund’s was held by Lilleshall priory. St Alkmund’s foundation is attributed to Æthelflæd, Lady of the Mercians, and the church may have received a further endowment from King Edgar in the late tenth century (Bassett, 1991: 1, 9). It is dedicated to a Northumbrian prince who was allegedly murdered in c.800 on the orders of the king of Northumbria (Bassett, 1991: 9). This cult was possibly promoted by the Mercians in order to emphasise the instability of a rival kingdom (Bassett, 1991: 10). St Julian’s (originally known as St Juliana’s) was held by St Mary Magdalen. Its origins are a little unclear, and various theories have been proposed (Baker, 2010: 91, 214; Bassett, 1991: 21). There were also three private chapels, although there is more debate over their circumstances: St Peter’s, from which the abbey developed, and St Michael’s and St Nicholas’s in the castle (Baker and Pannett, 2002: 15; Leighton, 1880: 100). These were joined by “Battefield chapel”, founded by Henry IV in 1403, north of the town, on the site of the Battle of Shrewsbury (UK Battlefields Resource Centre, 2022). In the thirteenth century Franciscan, Dominican and Augustinian friaries extended to the town’s religious provision (Baker, 2010: 146–7; Chibnall, 1973: 89–96; Palmer, 1886). Three hospitals were established during the twelfth and thirteenth centuries (Baker, 2010: 120–1; Gaydon, 1973b: 105–8). One of the challenges with the river Severn is that its course fluctuates, resulting in both erosion and deposits (Baker, 2010: 24). This meant that water management was integral to the development of the town. Land reclamation was required for a new market, as mentioned previously. Meanwhile the site settled by the Franciscans required infilling to the level of 6,000 cubic metres, supported by a riverside wall,

Town growth and topography  211 to raise the site about flood level (Baker, 2010: 146–7). Drainage was also necessary, as many of the streets were on low ground and vulnerable to flooding (Baker, 2010: 215–6). Other streets were on gradients where water drainage was easier and the town wall also contained openings for storm-water drains (Baker, 2010: 215–6; Carver, 1983: 2). Suburbs had developed outside the river loop by c.1200 (Baker, 2010: 122). Frankwell was the western suburb (Baker, 2010: 25). It has been suggested that its name indicates the presence of a French community or that it means “free town” and was intended to signpost the urban privileges on offer (Baker, Holt and Thacker, 2014: 29; Hobbs, 1954: 49). The suburb featured a “planned topography” based on a “rectilinear pattern of fields and closes” (Baker, 2015: 123; Baker, 2002a: 208; Hobbs, 1954: 49). It was favoured as a site for tanning (Cromarty and Cromarty, 1993). The Abbey Foregate developed as a suburb from the late Saxon period (Baker, 2010: 25). Occupations recorded in abbey charters suggest that during the thirteenth century the majority of residents were engaged in manufacturing, had ecclesiastical roles or worked as builders (Baker, 2002a: 213). It is possible that the abbey arranged for inhabitants of Abbey Foregate to exercise self-government separately from the rest of Shrewsbury (Leighton, 1880). This was then merged into the rest of Shrewsbury after the dissolution of the monasteries (Leighton, 1880). Coleham was the southern suburb (Baker, 2002a; Baker, 2010: 25). It was particularly associated with the manufacture of brassware (Cromarty and Cromarty, 1993: 41, 51). Coton Hill (also known as Coton Island) was a suburb to the northwest of Shrewsbury (Baker, 2010: 25; Hobbs, 1954: 35). The name “Coton” may indicate a pre-Conquest satellite settlement as there are other instances in the Domesday book of “coton” as a placename (Baker, 2010: 122; Dyer, 1985: 97–100; Hobbs, 1954: 30). It has been suggested that the name referred to smallholders (cottars), who lived outside the town, possibly as subtenants of burgesses (Baker, 2010: 122; Dyer, 1985: 94). They may have derived an income from cultivating and selling edible and industrial crops (such as flax) but supplemented that by working in low-wage jobs within the town (Dyer, 1985: 100–1). Castle Foregate was the northern suburb (Baker, 2010: 25; Hobbs, 1954: 20–1). In the middle ages the chantry of the Virgin in St Mary’s church seems to have owned quite a lot of plots there (Trinder: 2006: 144). Settlement became more intense after the Reformation when the plots were sold to developers by the crown (Trinder: 2006: 144). Shrewsbury is only 9 miles from the Welsh border. Grievances in the Welsh Marches that developed under Richard II exploded into the Battle of Shrewsbury in 1403 (Coulton, 2010). Proximity to the Welsh border had its advantages too, however. The town became a major centre for Welsh imports and exports, its main local competitor being Oswestry to the north (Alsford, 2022c). This cross-border trade expanded with the development of the Welsh woollen industry; the weaving and fulling was done in Wales, but the finishing and marketing was organised from Shrewsbury (Hibbert, 1891: 33; Leighton, 1881; Leighton, 1884; Leighton, 1885). In 1485, in response to the “poverty and decay of the town”, Henry VII reduced by 10 marks, for a term of 50 years, the £30 annual fee-farm payable to the crown,

212  Town growth and topography and exonerated the inhabitants from payment of fifteenths and other taxes. In 1495 he agreed to extend the boundaries of the town, not, it would seem, to accommodate growth but rather to extend the tax base on which the town could draw. The town subsequently revived; when Leland visited the town c.1540 he found it very prosperous and well maintained, with the exception of the castle, which was partly ruined (II: 81–2). In 1524 Shrewsbury was assessed at 2,071s (Sheail, 1998). Shrewsbury was included by Matthew Paris (Paris and Trustees of the British Museum, 1928). It was depicted on the Gough map as “a spired church, convent buildings, building and walls with two gates” (The Gough Map of Great Britain, 2022). It was featured in Speed (2000: 104–5) and Braun and Hogenberg, although their accompanying text is inaccurate as it relates to Salisbury (2008: 442). A map of Shrewsbury is presented in Figure 6.3. The town is squeezed within a bend in the River Severn. In a sense the town faced problems of congestion similar to those of Bristol. The main road from London to North Wales passed through the town from southeast to northwest, crossing two bridges on its way. Initially, however, the road was forced to detour close to St Mary’s church because

Figure 6.3  Shrewsbury in the middle ages. Source: Permission granted by Oxbow Books to base Figure 6.1 on Baker (2010) Figure 1.2 and Figure 1.4.

Town growth and topography  213 of marshes in what later became the centre of the town. To the northwest lay the suburb of Frankwell and to the southeast the suburbs of Abbey Foregate and Coleham.

Shrewsbury property The principal sources for a study of the property market in Shrewsbury are borough rentals and the cartularies of abbeys who held property in the town (Bodleian Library MS Gough Shropshire 1, n.d.; Rees, 1975; Rees, 1985). The thirteenth century was the most active period in the growth of the local property market in Shrewsbury, and the earliest surviving rental of Henry III in 1246 identifies no less than 503 separate properties. The cartularies of Shrewsbury abbey (on the east bank of the River Severn, opposite the town centre) and Haughmond abbey (about four miles east of the town) both reveal 1220–70 as the most active period of monastic urban property acquisition (Rees, 1975; Rees, 1985). The following analysis therefore focuses on this period.

The 1246 rental The 1246 rental survives as an eighteenth-century transcription in the Bodleian library (Bodleian Library MS Gough Shropshire 1, n.d.). There are some ambiguities that suggest that the transcription may not be entirely accurate. Some of the street names are also unfamiliar. “Meadowvale” equates to the modern street of Mardol; Rumaldisham refers to an area around and including the present Barker Street; Hound Street corresponds to Dog Lane, which is now a continuation of Claremont Street; Hokerstall signifies stalls at the foot of the present Pride Hill; Gomestall probably refers to Gumbelstool Lane (now part of the High Street) and the area around the Pillory; Soteplace is now Shoplatch; Candelan signifies the present Princess Street; while Merevale refers to an island in the River Severn by English bridge; and so on (see also Hobbs, 1954). The rental records the rents due to the king and held at farm by the borough. It does not refer to the full rent payable on each property. This is clear from the cartularies mentioned previously, which are examined in detail in subsequent sections. By 1246 properties may have been bought and sold many times and, in a rising property market, driven both by town expansion and monetary inflation, previous owners may have added additional rents (due to themselves and their heirs) when they sold their properties to the present owners. The exact location of each property is not normally given, but the rental is divided into 13 sections, with a subtotal for each. These divisions appear to refer to different areas of the town, as indicated in Table 6.8. They do not seem to correspond to parishes; they are of some administrative significance, however, as it appears that rents were collected at different times in different areas. They cannot be parishes, because there are too many of them, but they could have been wards, where local officers were responsible for keeping the peace.

214  Town growth and topography Table 6.8  The areas of the town identified in the 1246 rental of Shrewsbury Area

Entries in the rental

Streets/areas included (listed in order of importance within each area)

Meadowvale (North–northwest)

1–73

Rumaldesham (Northwest) Candelan (Southwest) Wyle (Southeast) Claremont (West) Dogpole (East) Castle (North) Frankville

74–110

Meadowvale, Rumaldisham, Houndstrete, Hokerstall, Butchers’ stalls, Rousehill. Note: There is occasional mention of other areas, but these invariably refer to the “second properties” of someone named as an owner in a primary area Rumaldisham, Houndstrete, Claremont

Various Market (Central)

317–38 339–404

Pillory (Central)

405–37

Rural (Fringes of the town)

438–503

111–36 137–94 195–238 239–58 259–97 298–316

Candelan, Butchers’ stalls, Rumaldisham; land adjoining St Werbergh (near the present Swan Hill) Sub Wyla, Gomestall, Bisperstan, Coleham Claremont, Rumaldisham, Soteplace, the Walls Dogpole, Bisperstan, the Walls Near St Michael’s church in the castle precinct Frankville (northeast of the Welsh Bridge), and near the castle Coleham, Soteplace, St Mary’s church No property locations are given, although Fish Street is suggested by personal names. The predominance of shops, and the gap remaining in the coverage of other areas, suggests that this is entirely within the market area Similar considerations apply. The area is dominated by selds. It is close to Gumbelstool Lane (the southeast end of the present High Street) This area appears to be mainly rural. It may lie north of the town towards Coton, or it may span several of the areas listed previously; from a statistical perspective, however, it is useful in either case as a control area with which the other areas can be compared, and so is included in the analysis.

Source: Bodleian Library MS Gough Shropshire 1, n.d. Note: Most of the place names have alternative spellings; the spellings in this table are based mainly on those used in the original documents consulted, as described in the text, and may vary from the spellings found in some modern sources.

Not all of the individual properties are described in the rental, but the majority can be classified as one of the types mentioned in the table. Parts of a larger property are counted as one-half, and several properties of the same type are counted as three. Using these conventions, there are 214 messuages, 142 plots of land, 31 shops, 26.5 curtilages, 10.5 selds, 8 stalls, 7 crofts, 2 tenements, one house and one forge. There are 29 instances in which the property cannot be classified. The rents paid on each property are analysed by the type of property involved and the area in which it was located. Most people owned only a single type of property, but some owned several types, and all these types are accounted for in the analysis, together with the number of properties of each type. Two properties were eliminated from the study as their rents were not specified (in one case because payment was in arrears).

Town growth and topography  215 Table 6.9  Statistical analysis of the determination of rents in Shrewsbury Explanatory variables

Coefficient

p-value

Constant Type of property Messuage Shop Seld Land Stall Curtilege Croft Location Meadowvale Rumaldesham Candelan Wyle Claremont Dogpole Castle Frankville Various Market Pillory R2 F No. of observations Heteroskedasticity

2.537

0.000

0.578 0.031 0.434 −0.545 0.089 −2.033 2.643

0.158 0.938 0.760 0.231 0.908 0.024** 0.054*

1.1561 0.347 0.805 1.464 0.620 2.337 0.824 5.932 3.920 9.619 9.080 0.560 35.19 501 3.53

0.012** 0.635 0.314 0.019** 0.375 0.016** 0.218 0.000*** 0.000*** 0.000*** 0.000*** 0.000*** 0.064*

Source: Bodleian Library MS Gough Shropshire 1, n.d. Significance levels are *** 1 percent, ** 5 percent and * 10 percent.

The variation of rent across properties was analysed both in terms of the type of property and its location. A linear regression was estimated using ordinary least squares, in which the dependent variable was the rent and the independent variables were property characteristics. Each of the independent variables was binary, and to avoid multicollinearity it was necessary to identify a control group for property type (namely houses, tenements, forges and properties with unspecified uses) and a control group for location (namely a block of properties listed at the end of the rental which have unspecified locations). The results are reported in Table 6.9. They show that there is no significant difference in the rents applied to messuages, shops, selds, land and stalls, but that crofts carried a significant premium; conversely, curtilages (assorted pieces of land, often of irregular shape) were very cheap. The most expensive locations were in the market and around the nearby pillory. Rents in Dogpole, Meadowvale and Wyle were also higher than in the control group; these properties were in the older parts of the town that originally connected the English Bridge to the Welsh Bridge. Rents in Frankville were also high; it has been suggested that Frankville was not part of the royal borough, but its inclusion in the rental suggests otherwise; its high rents suggest that it have been quite a desirable part of the city. Rents in

216  Town growth and topography Rumaldesham, Candelan, Claremont and the Castle were relatively low and were almost as cheap as those in the control group. It seems likely that Rumaldesham and Candelan were the more industrial parts of the city; Claremont was a little remote from the market area, while few people would probably wish to live directly under the shadow of the castle. Much of the variation in rents reported previously stems from the fact that the rental contains a large number of properties paying relatively small rent of 2d or 3d, and a significant block of rents paying 12d. This suggests that properties paying 12d constitute a distinctive group of properties, and as the majority of them appear lie in or close to the market, it suggests that they are the product of a recent redevelopment of the market area. A charter of 1261 shows that by that time the market had relocated from outside St Alkmund and St Julian to the bottom of the hill (CCR 1259–61, 1902–38: 351). However, some of the properties in the area are reported as having had previous owners, which suggests that that the market may have been created a generation ago, which would date such redevelopment to 1220–30. The Hundred Rolls and monastic ownership as revealed in cartularies The Hundred Rolls of c.1296 provide a profile of the city 50 years after the rental (Rotuli Hundredorum, 1818: 78–80). Many of the family names that appear are also found in the rental. This is exemplified by the list of the 12 jurors that carried out the inquisition, namely Richard Pride, Nicholas son of Ivo, Ranulph of Stafford, William Choc, Robert Pride, Roger son of Reini, Hugo le Vilein, Alan son of Gamel, Peter son of Clement, Radulph son of Ade, Luke son of Walter and Reinhard Porchet. The Hundred Rolls do not provide a full account of property ownership in Shrewsbury, but they demonstrate the importance of monastic ownership in the town. They list nine substantial properties held by Haughmond abbey, six each by Shrewsbury and Buildwas abbeys, two each by Lilleshall Abbey and Wombridge priory and one each by Wenlock priory, Aldebury priory, the Templars and the Hospital of St John. Surviving charters show that both Haughmond abbey and Shrewsbury abbey held many more properties in the town. Almost all of these properties were acquired in the thirteenth century, as indicated in Table 6.10. Gifts were only intermittent in the turbulent period of King Richard I and King John. But when the young Henry III came to the throne in 1216, a period of great religiosity developed, stimulating a wave of grants to abbeys. This movement became intense in Shrewsbury 1220–60 but diminished sharply thereafter and was practically extinct by 1300. It is not only the number of these charters, but their content, that informs the history of Shrewsbury at this time. Table 6.11 summarises all the surviving charters of the two most important local abbeys — Haughmond abbey and Shrewsbury abbey — that convey to them gifts of property in the town. The charters also record these abbeys’ exchanges of land, and their leasing of the lands that they had acquired to farmers, merchants and others.

Town growth and topography  217 Table 6.10  Time profile of recorded gifts of property in Shrewsbury to Shrewsbury and Haughmond abbeys Period

Shrewsbury

Haughmond

Total

Pre–1200 1200–09 1210–19 1220–9 1230–9 1240–9 1250–9 1260–9 1270–9 1280–9 1290–9 Total

1 3 0 35 14 16 10 1 9 0 0 89

2 5 5 23 3 6 8 1 2 2 4 61

3 8 5 58 17 22 18 2 1 2 4 150

Source: Rees, 1975 and Rees, 1985.

All the urban property acquired by the abbeys owed, in principle, rent to the king, which would be paid to the borough who held the town at farm, as explained previously. The value to the abbey lay in the fact that the property was worth much more than the rent that it owed to the king. Many properties also owed rents to previous owners who had attached to the property an additional rent due to themselves (and normally their heirs) when they sold their property to the present owner. Indeed there could be a legacy of such rents spanning several generations of owners, going back as far as the original lord of the fee who held the land directly from the king. Once again, the value of the property to the abbey was the excess of its current value over the cost of these legacy commitments. From this perspective, as Rees (1975) notes, some of the charters, while being framed as gifts, look more like conventional purchases. It is possible that some property owners dignified their commercial sales of property as religious benefactions. Conversely, it is possible that the abbey authorities themselves sought out certain types of property for commercial ends, perhaps as part of a wider business strategy, and then dressed up their own purchase as gifts. Donors almost invariably disinherited their heirs, and some therefore made explicit provision for their heirs, for example allowing their wife or their children to continue to occupy the property after their death. Some donors were purchasing corrodies for themselves, possibly because their relatives and descendants were in no position to care for them. Such charters are often quite explicit in terms of the quality of food, clothing and accommodation that is to be provided by the abbey. Many donors restricted their gift to the support of specific activities at the abbey. While maintaining candles at altars and priests at chantries are, as usual, quite common, there is also considerable concern for the feeding of the poor at the abbey gate and the provision of care for the elderly and infirm monks. It is therefore misleading to regard these gifts as either disguised commercial transactions or

Grantor and their objective S177, c.1184. Robert son of William H986, c.1190. Reiner son of William, in return for a lump sum of 18s and entry into the community for himself, his wife and his heirs, and, if he enters the abbey, a lay brother’s food and clothing H1053, c.1199. Richard son of Durand Lestrange, in return for a lump sum of 1 mark (160d) S197, c.1200. Robert Shitte in return for a rent of 14d. which is owed to Peter son of Peter son of Roger, to be used for the maintenance of the monks so that they can celebrate the donor’s anniversary S198, c.1200. Peter son of Peter son of Roger, in return for a lump sum of 45d H982, c.1200. Peter the Mason in return for a lump sum of 584d and a rent of 12d H983, c.1200. Peter son of William son of Simeon in return for a lump sum of 492d and an annual rent of 1d H1020, c.1200. Robert son of Robert Anger’ S185, c.1205. Robert, Bishop of Bangor, in return for a rent of 1lb. of cumin and for holding some of his property for as long as he wishes before he dies H989, c.1205. Robert Talpin, for the infirmary, in return for a lump sum of 3 marks (480d) and an annual rent of 1d H1025, c.1205 The son of Roger Clerk, for the infirmary, in return for a lump sum of 44s (528d) in silver H972, c.1210. John son of William Turner H979, c.1210. Geoffrey the Goldsmith H993, c.1210. Richard Cochet, for his soul’s health and that of his wife, to support the sick brethren of the community

Rents, properties, locations and third parties Gift of half a mill, with land, in Cantlop Gift of 30 acres of land in Coleham Rent of 17d on a messuage in Roushill held by William the Goldsmith, paying 4d to Peter son of Peter, lord of the fee Gift of two shops in the Market Place The abbey is released from a 1d rent due to him on shops in the Market Place that he was given by Robert Shitte Land along the river bank in Coleham Gift of a tenement in Coleham previously held from him Peter the Mason Gift, in pure and perpetual alms, of a messuage with four shops and their solars in Highstrete Gift of all his messuages in Coleham, together with his grange and its courtyard Rents from three tenements in Coleham, held by Peter Clerk, Alan Talpin and Walter Feirwin respectively Gift of a garden beyond St George’s bridge (Welsh bridge) in Frankvill Gift of two acres in Wowersforlonge and 12d rent paid by Roger Bungi on a nearby messuage in North Foregate Confirmation of Walter the Goldsmith’s grant of a messuage in Claremont Rent of 12d due from Osmund the Miller on a messuage in Coleham

218  Town growth and topography

Table 6.11  Surviving charters of Shrewsbury Abbey and Haughmond Abbey donating property in Shrewsbury to the Abbey, in chronological order

H1040, c.1210. Margaret, daughter of William Blund, for the infirmary H1059, c.1210. William Gosuit and his wife Sybil, to support the poor at the abbey gate S167, c.1220. Richard son of Robert Schitte S176, c.1220. Reyner son of Godwin, in return for a garden beside the town wall S180, c.1220. William son of Robert S181, c.1220. Robert son of William son of Robert, to support the kitchen in return for 6d annually, of which 4d will be paid by him to Lilleshall Abbey S182, c.1220. Walter son of Walter de Stretton, to support the kitchen

S268, c.1220. Hugh son of Alan son of Hevetbrond

Gift of lands on the banks of the R. Meole, including the meadow Le Helde and a pathway to his mills Gift of land near the abbey and the Pyntesbrok [mill stream?] Gift of a shop to be held from the abbey by his heirs for 3s (36d) rent Rents totalling 164d and ten hens from six messuages in North Foregate, and 20d from another messuage on the opposite side of the road Gift of a messuage paying a pair of gloves or 0.5d rent to Reginald Pinzun and 5d rent to the Abbot of Buildwas Land at Holtha on the banks of the R. Meole which is to be added to the abbey’s mill pond Gift of a messuage in Foregate (which owes rent to Amilia daughter of Gilbert Hopper – presumably as lord of the fee) Gift of rents of 6d on six acres of land. Gift of rent of 3d on a house in Doggepol (the king’s highway) Gift of and with buildings near Coleham bridge Rents of 12d on various lands Rent of 2s (24d) on a messuage in Foregate Rent of 2s (24d) from land in Coleham Gift of land between Monks Foregate and the weir Gift of 3d rent from a garden beneath the walls, plus another 0.5d after the hermit’s cell has been removed from Meole. Gift of 4d rent from a garden beside the R. Severn held by Robert Grosuit from the donor (Continued )

Town growth and topography  219

S190, c.1220. William son of William Medicus, in return for grinding a load of corn at the abbey mill at Easter and at Christmas free of toll. S214, c.1220. Alice, daughter of Avelina, for the altar of St Mary, in return for a lump sum of 23s (276d) S219, c.1220. Robert son of Walter le Bossur, for the altar of St Mary S225, c.1220. Reiner son of Godwin, paying 2d to the infirmary and 1d to the altar of St Mary S228, c.1220. Theodusa, widow of Baldin the coiner, to the altar of St Mary, saving 2s due to the heirs of Robert Seoremon S242, c.1220. Hugh son of Richard son of Siward to the altar of St Mary S260, c.1220. William son of Marton in return for a lump sum of 25s (300d) S263, c.1220. Alan son of Jordan, for the maintenance of infirm monks S266, c.1220. Leoric son of Eylmund Pistor in return for a rent of 2s S267, c.1220. William son of Reginald

Gift of land with a kiln in Candelan (Kilnlane), burdened with a rent of 8d to Richard Winnepani, lord of the fee Rent of 12d on an oven in Rumaldesham

H976, c.1220. Peter le Vilein, for the support of the brethren H980, c.1220. Agnes, widow of Adam le Pynche, sells to Alan son of Gamel a property from which he is to pay an annuity to the infirmary H999, c.1220. Peter son of Roger Bonde H1000, c.1220. Hugh Pantulf, with the consent of his son William, for a lump sum of 60 marks (9600d) and an annual rent of two besants to him and his heirs (24d) H1045, c.1220, Reiner, Bishop of St Asaph, to maintain a lamp before the altar of the Holy Cross H1050, c.1220. Reiner, Bishop of St Asaph, on behalf of Gilbert Meverel, to maintain two lamps in the abbey church H1057, c.1220. William son of Robert Dogeman, to provide alms at the abbey gate, in return for a lump sum of 24s (288d) H1063, c.1220. Thomas son of William Brito in return for an annual rent of 3d H1064, c.1220. Robert son of William Infans in return for a lump sum of 68d H1065, c.1220. Agnes de Hibernia (Ireland) S249, c.1221. Walter the Merchant to the altar of St Mary, in return for a rent of 0.5d to be paid for life to Sibil his wife S256, c.1221. Richard the Villain, for the infirmary H1086, c.1221. Peter Turner and Aldit his wife, for the provision of alma at the abbey gate, in return for a lump sum of 25s (300d) H1090, c1221. Richard Norton, to provide 6d to the abbey gate, 6d to the fraternity, 6d to the infirmary and 6d to the kitchen

Gift of all the land below the castle that the donor bought from Jordan Sakeli Rent of 2s (24d) and a rose from a curtilage on Claremont Gift of 6d. rent from a house in Coleham Gift of all his land in Shrewsbury market, namely the buildings in the market from the house of William Taylor, parchmenter, down to the next street and along that street to the house of Robert Lupus Rent of 8s. (96d.) from properties purchased by the bishop from Hamon son of Hamon the Smith in the latter’s urgent necessity Rent of 5s (60d) from a messuage purchased for 5 marks (960d) from Gilbert Meverel in his urgent necessity [a later charter suggests that this property comprised three shops on the corner of Roushill Lane and Highstrete] Gift of a messuage in Rumaldesham held [from the donor] by Alex son of Geoffrey Half a rent of 6d from a messuage which Thomas sold to Philip son of Walter son of Feirwin; the other half of the rent was sold to Robert son of William Rent of 3d. on a messuage in Rumaldesham which Thomas son of William Brito once held [see previous] Gift of two houses with a garden in Schotplace held by Alan Gamel and paying a rent of 3s (36d) Rent of 1.5d on two acres Gift of land with a storehouse in Foregate that belonged to his mother Gift of messuage and two curtilages near Sub Wyla. Aldit is to hold these “tenements” for her life for a rent of 2s to the abbey and 2.5d to the king as lord of the fee Rent of 2s (24d) on land in Sub Wyla that Robert Yoie held from him

220  Town growth and topography

Table 6.11  (Continued)

H997, c.1222. Nicholas the priest, son of Geoffrey of Coleham, with his father’s consent, in return for a lump sum of 160d H1028, c.1222. Peter son of Peter son of Roger, for the infirmary, in return from previous financial help from the canons, and a lump sum of 440d H1076, c.1222. Thingar, son of Thomas H1077, c.1222. Turgar son of Thomas, with the consent of Lucy his wife, to provide food for the brethren in the infirmary H1084, c.1222. Geoffrey Goldsmith, in return for a lump sum of 10 marks (1600d), and a silver farthing to him and his heirs H1002, c.1223. Matilda, widow of Gilbert son of Barnard, with William son of Gilbert in return for a lump sum of 368d and an annual rent of 2d H1058, c.1223. Adam Baker S229, c.1224. Hugh son of Richard son of Siward, in exchange for 12s rent S238, c.1224. Hugh son of Richard son of Siward to the altar of St Mary S199, c.1225. John son of Roger Sitte, for the soul of his father and the support of the kitchen

H1033, c.1225. Robert of Scolten, for the support of the infirm who are received at the abbey gate by the hospitaller

Gift of land near St Werbergh’s chapel, which he bought from Warin son of Aldred the saddler, burdened with 6d rent to the lord of the fee [probably in Chapmonstrete near Swan Hill] Gift of a house near St Werbergh’s chapel, which he bought from Warin son of Aldred the Saddler Gift of land near Belmont (formerly Stury Close Lane), outside the walls on a road towards the river Gift of Matilda’s dower rights and William’s rights in two shops in the market, with their solars, and a third shop near the entrance to an inn that belonged to Matilda’s husband. Gift of a messuage in Rumaldesham, paying 0.5d to the king as lord of the fee Rents totalling 16d from a messuage, lands and a croft Rents of 24d from various properties in the Foregate area Rent of one mark (160d) on part of a stall given to him by his brother Richard (the other part having been given to him by his father, and excluded from the gift) Gift of 2s rent from the tenement held by Hugh son of Richard son of Siward Gift of 3s rent Rents totalling 56d on various properties in Coleham Rent of 18d Rent of 12d (with service due to the king) from a messuage in the suburbs Rent of 20d from land in Frankwell (Continued )

Town growth and topography  221

S208, c.1225. Abbot Henry, to purchase two candles annually to be lit at the tomb of Earl Roger on his anniversary S209, c.1225. Abbot Henry. For the altar of St Mary, in exchange for land that he previously purchased S257, c.1225. Henry son of Hugh de Norton, for the infirmary H969, c.1225. Walter son of Hugh, in return for a lump sum of 18s and 1s for his son H970, c.1225. Roger Ruffus

Rent of 12d from land in Coleham held from the donor and his father by William Cox Rents of 3s from 3 messuages in Frankwell

H1083, c.1225. William of Cleremont, canon of St Chad’s S252, c.1226. William son of Martin, for the infirmary S259, c.1226. Adam of Wothnesdon, for the infirmary S231, c.1226. William son of Robert Sitte, for the altar of St Mary (34.5d) and the kitchen (6d) S173, c.1228. Richard Pouncer, son of Agnes S240, c.1228 Hugh son of Richard son of Siward to the altar of St Mary S241, c.1228. Hugh son of Richard son of Siward to the altar of St Mary S243, c.1228. The same Hugh to the altar of St Mary S246, c.1228. The same Hugh to the altar of St Mary S247, c.1228. The same Hugh to the altar of St Mary in return for 10s in his great need S171, c.1229. John son of Agnes, to support the abbey and the kitchen S172, c.1229. William Marscot, son of Hamon, in return for 3.5 marks (560d.) S196, c.1230. Robert son of Thurstan in return for a lump sum of 3 marks (480d), a rent of 6d per annum and support from the abbey for as long as he lives S202, c.1230. Amilia, daughter of Gilbert le Hoppere in return for 2d rent owned by her to John fitzAlan on the two messuages that form part of her gift S203, c.1230. Joseph son of Alan in return for a rent of 3.5d due to the king and 0.5d due to himself S217, c.1230. Amelia, daughter of Gilbert le Hoppere, for the altar of St Mary S227, c.1230. Dionisia, daughter of Richard son of Siward, to be paid by the custodian of the altar of St Mary to the kitchen

Gift of a croft outside the borough wall, burdened with several rents: 4d to St Chad’s church as lord of the fee, 8d to John Cnotte son of William son of John, and 12d. to the heirs of Geoffrey Goldsmith Rents totalling 6d on various lands Rent of 2d on a messuage Rents totalling 40.5d and four hens from messuages and lands Gift of rent of 13.5d from three shops held from the Abbot of Strata Marcella Rents of 3d from various lands Rents of 4.5d on 4.5 acres of land in Foregate Rents of 70d on various lands Rent of 14d on lands and one messuage Rents of 12d on lands and three messuages Gift of three shops in the Market Place Sale of land in the Castle bailey Lands in Coleham and elsewhere (18 acres) and two houses in Gumbestolestrete Gift of two messuages in the castle bailey and of land in the Foregate and the Foregate fields Gift of land sub Wyla Gift of rents totalling 28d from a messuage, a grange and six acres of land in the neighbourhood of Foregate Gift of rent of 13d from land in Foregate

222  Town growth and topography

Table 6.11  (Continued)

S251, c.1230. Richard son of Alain son of Avelina in return for a lump sum of 10s S265, c.1230. Richard son of Alan S245, c.1232. Hugh son of Richard son of Siward to the altar of St Mary S165, c.1235. John son of William Turner, in return for 2 marks, and one loaf of bread and one gallon of ale from the abbey daily for the rest of his life, and a messuage in North Foregate which he will hold for 26d rent. S201, c.1235. Nicholas de Coleham, priest, in return for a rent of 0.5d that he owes to the king S212, c.1235. Jacob son of Martin, half for the altar of St Mary and the greater altar and half for the infirmary S234, c.1235. Robert Blundus, messenger of the king, for the altar of St Mary, in return for a lump sum of 12s H1046, c.1235. Bernard of Hereford, for the health of his soul, and that of his late wife Alice, to maintain a lamp before St Mary’s altar at Haughmond H1081, c.1235. Turgar son of Thomas H1082, c.1235.William of Heston, in return for a lump sum of 14s

Renounces all rights over land that he previously sold to the abbey Rent of 8d on various lands Gift of land in the field of North Foregate, from which the donor and his heirs will continue to receive 0.5d rent Gift of land in Coleham Gift of 2s rent on a messuage Rent of 12d from land in the castle bailey Rent of 4d on land that he bought from Hamon the Smith Gift of 12d rent from a kiln held [from the donor] by Adam son of Martin Gift of rents totalling 16d on four messuages in St Werbergh’s street, including two held by Thurgar Bodi, and two by daughters of Aldred Rent of 12d on two messuages held from him by his relatives Rent of 12d on a messuage in Foregate Gift of a messuage between the bridges Gift of half a messuage, paying 6d rent Gift of rent of 12d on land (probably) held from the donor by Robert son of Thurstan Rent of 53d on two messuages in Coleham (Continued )

Town growth and topography  223

S235, c.1236. Ernald son of Roger Niger, for the altar of St Mary, in return for rent of 1d to be paid to Hugh son of Adam [presumably the lord of the fee] S258, c.1236. Jacob son of Martin, for feeding and restoring the health of infirm monks S179, c.1240. Arnald son of Roger Niger, to support the sacristy, in return for a lump sum of 444d S186, c.1240. Ulger the mercer, for the kitchen S194, c.1240. Gamel son of Gamel of Rumaldesham in return for a rent of 6d paid by the abbey to Robert de Acton S195, c.1240. William son of Nicholas, paying 47d to the kitchen and 6d for a light at the altar of St Mary

Gift of land in Coleham

S221, c.1240. Philip son of Gilbert Brusebon, for the altar of St Mary H1068, c.1240, Nicholas Umfrey S200, c.1242. Edith, widow of Alan Bonel S213, c.1242. Hugh son of William for the altar of St Mary S215, c.1242. Walter son of William Sadoc, for the altar of St Mary S216, c.1242. Agnes daughter of Siward, for the altar of St Mary S220, c.1242. Emma, widow of John Walhauech, for the altar of St Mary S230, c.1242. Clement son of Peter, for the altar of St Mary (21d), the kitchen (21d), the convent (3d) and the Abbot (3d) S233, c.1242. William son of Robert Scheremon, for the altar of St Mary S163, c.1245. Reginald son of Nicholas Pinzun in return for 100 marks (16000d), to support the abbey kitchen, infirmary, guest-house, refectory, almonry, chantry and general fabric, and to maintain a light before to the altar of the Blessed Virgin S166, c.1245. Alan Skitte [Schitte, Shitte] son of Gilbert Skitte S168, c.1245. William son of Richard son of Martin son of Becke, in return for freedom from service from his smithy next to the bridge S169, c.1245. William de Farnhale and Isota his wife H966, c.1245. Guy of Hauston and Matilda his wife for a lamp before St Mary’s altar at Haughmond, with 4d annually to St Michael’s chapel in the castle H971, c.1245. Henry Midewinter

Gift of a shop in the town market place, paying rent to the overlord Robert de Woodcote Rent of 12d on a messuage near St Julian’s church held by Adam Baker Gift of all her land, including half a meadow amongst the crofts between the R. Severn and the Abbot’s moor Gift of 12d rent from a messuage and remission of a 1d rent which the custodian of the altar paid to Hugh for the land of Stephen Cook Gift of two messuages in Foregate, one held by Walter le Bosur and paying 12d rent Gift of all her rights in 18 acres in the fields of Foregate which her uncle used to hold for 18d Gift of rents of 8d on four acres of land held by William son of Walter Sutor Rents totalling 4s (48d) from a messuage and 4.5 acres of land in Foregate and its fields Rents from various lands totalling 34d, comprising 24d from the donor and 10d from his tenants (the heirs of Adam le Coliar and the widow of Peter the Baker) Rents from (1) eight messuages in Merevale, Frankwell, and possibly elsewhere; (2) a tenement; (3) land in the market place; (4) 14 acres in Cross-furlong “under the Cross of Cadugan” Gift of 8d. rent from 4 acres of land in the fields of Coleham Gift of a croft and meadow previously held by his uncle [possibly in Coleham] Gift of all their land (with half going to their heirs on their death) Gift of a messuage with buildings in North Foregate Rent of 12d from a messuage beside his barn in North Foregate.

224  Town growth and topography

Table 6.11  (Continued)

H974, c.1245. Roger son of Roger Rufus in return for a pittance H975, c.1245. Mabel widow of John Pouncer, to provide a pittance for the convent H1048, c.1245. Philip Daubel, canon of St Mary’s, Shrewsbury S170, c.1250. Jacob Bonel S207, c.1250. Richard son of John de Heyford S409, c.1250 Martin the chaplain, son of Symeon of the Foregate, for the kitchen S410, c.1250. John son of Clement son of Peter H978, c.1250. Agnes of Hibernia S409, c.1250 Martin the chaplain, son of Symeon of the Foregate, for the kitchen S410, c.1250. John son of Clement son of Peter

H1080, c.1250. Thongar, son of Thomas Bodi, for his soul’s health and that of his wife Lucy, to provide food for the brethren in the infirmary

Rent of 4s 5d (53d) from the lands of Martin Kemp and Michael Lutecot All his land in Shrewsbury is pledged as security for 16s rent that he owes to the abbey for a messuage in the market Gift of a messuage in Coleham Gift of 2s (24d) rent from a messuage, one acre of land and a croft Gift of two shops in the Market Place, burdened with rents of 12d payable to the king Gift of six selions of land, namely four in in Woweresfurlong and two beside the castle ditch near Chepyngstrete and Cornmarket Gift of 2s (24d) rent from a messuage, 1 acre of land and a croft Gift of two shops in the Market Place, burdened with rents of 12d payable to the king Rent of 3d from ten acres in the field of Cotes

Rent of 20d, being one-third of a 5s rent that is part of her dower Rent of 12d on a house in Rumaldesham held [from him] by his mother Gift of 12d from the rents on two messuages previously sold to Roger son of Reiner for 6.5 marks (1040d), and paying a rent of 0.5d to the donor and his heirs [presumably as lords of the fee] Rents totalling 27d from three messuages in a street near St Werbergh’s chapel, previously held by Ythel the Welshman, Ithefir, and Robert son of Reginald Palli respectively (Continued )

Town growth and topography  225

H1009, c.1250. Peter Talpeny receives from his son William various lands in return for 100s. that William received in his urgent need. In return, Peter and his heirs agree to pay a rent to the abbey, and a rose to William and his heirs H1051, c.1250. Isabel, wife of Gilbert Meverel, in return for 1 mark (160d) H1060, c.1250. Alan Tohc son of Thodric Tohc, to provide alms at the abbey gate H1061, c.1250. Alan son of Gamel of Rumaldesham

Rent of 6d. on land held from the donor by Peter Watermon Rent of 6d on a messuage in North Foregate

S204, c.1254. Richard de Preston, for the kitchen, in return for the celebration of his anniversary as if he had been a monk S192, c.1255. John son of Thomas Borrey S2312b, c.1255. Margey, widow of Philip Brusebon, in return for a lump sum of 4s H1010, c.1255. William of Cotes, canon of St Mary’s, grants property to provide a pittance, and an allowance of 0.5d to Henry Wildegos S224, c.1265. Gilbert son of Richard, for the altar of St Mary H1070, c.1265. Agnes of Ireland, widow of Hugh of London, for the soul of her first husband, John of Ireland S174, c.1270. William de Caus S183, c.1270. Bertram Hornblower, in return for 12d lump sum S184, c.1270. Avota, daughter of Nicholas the cook, and widow of Thomas Pate, in return for a lump sum of 80d S187, c.1270. Diota, daughter of William le Turner, widow, to support the chapel of St Mary in the abbey, in return for one rose annually to the donor S191, c.1270. William Nithtegale S211, c.1270. Dionisia Serghaunt, for the altar of St Mary S232, c.1270. John son of Robert Ingrit, to the altar of St Mary, in return for a lump sum of 1 mark (160d) S416, c.1270. Roger le Grey for the altar of St Mary. with 9.5d to the almoner and 2.5d to the treasurer S381, c.1275. Abbot Luke, for the kitchen, in return for the celebration of his anniversary H1008, c.1275. Richard Bernard, for a pittance for his mother’s soul

Gift of a messuage in the Foregate Gift of a messuage in the Foregate Gift of dower rights in a shop in the Market Place Gift of six acres of land in North Foregate field adjacent to Hencotesty Gift of rent of 5d from land with a grange Gift of all her lands in Shrewsbury, including a stone house opposite St Mary’s cemetery near Doggepol [a confirmation of earlier charters] Gift of a messuage in Monk’s Foregate Gift of 0.5d rent received on a house in the Foregate held from Engelard, medicus, the donor’s uncle Gift of a messuage in the Foregate Gift of a building paying 2s (24d) rent in the Foregate near Hullewichene Lane Gift of half an acre of land in the fields of Foregate Gift of 1d rent from two messuages Land Rent of 12s on a messuage by the weir Gift of the mill that the donor built elsewhere, and four houses Rent of 6d, paid by Reiner the Verderer on a tenement in Cotes

226  Town growth and topography

Table 6.11  (Continued)

H1015, c.1275. Richard, son of Simon Carpenter, receives an annual rent of 17d on two properties from Henry de Castro of Burgh in return for 16s (192d) that Henry received in his necessity. Richard agrees to pay 10d annually to the abbey and a rose to Henry [the printed text says 10s annually, but this seems highly improbable]. H1044, c.1280. Richard the Locksmith of Shrewsbury, son of Richard the Cutler of Haughmond and Isabel his wife, to maintain the lamp of the Virgin at Haughmond H1016, c.1285. Roger son of Richard son of Simon Carpenter H968, c.1290. Agnes, daughter of Peter son of Ordwin, for a pittance in the refectory and a light in St Mary’s church and a light before the high altar H973, c.1294. Hugh le Crompe and Petronilla his wife, in return for lump sum of 3 marks (480d.) from Thomas Astley, chaplain H1062, c.1294. Ralph son of Roger Reyner in return for a rent of 12d to be paid by Alice, widow of Thomas Reyner H1088, c.1294. Juliana daughter of Richard le Bulger of Shrewsbury, in return for a lump sum of 21s (252d)

Rent of 16d on a corner messuage in Mardol Gift of two shops in Highstrete, each paying one rose annually to the heirs of Henry de Castro of Bridgnorth Rent of 42d from Nicholas Carter’s land in North Foregate near Bagley Bridge, which she purchased from William son of Gervase Rent of 9d to be paid by Thomas Astley (plus service due to the lord of the fee) from a messuage with half an adjacent garden in Castle Foregate Rent of 12d to the abbey on land yielding 24d which was granted by Ralph to Alice A messuage in Bispestanes

Town growth and topography  227

Source: Rees, 1975 and Rees, 1985.

Rent of 10d on two shops with appurtenances and superstructure on Corvisor’s Row, near Highstrete

228  Town growth and topography outright gifts of property; they are rather complex and sophisticated contracts designed to address a number of possible contingencies, covering both the needs of family dependents, the care of the sick and elderly, and the residual claims of previous owners on specific properties. Summary and conclusions Despite being restricted by the geographical feature of the river loop, Shrewsbury’s topography did not remain static. In line with other English towns, the market place was relocated during the thirteenth century to a larger site in order to capture more of the potential trade passing through the town. Shrewsbury’s suburbs lay across the river bridge. The Abbey Foregate and Coleham area were developed by the abbey, rather than a private developer, as occurred in Bristol. The town’s expansion to the east on the English side seems to have deterred any similar development on the western Welsh side, where the suburb of Frankwell seems to have functioned mainly as a residential area.

Cambridge Historical context Cambridge lies at the junction of two main roads: the Via Devana from Chester via Huntingdon towards Colchester and one from Cambridge towards London. The Huntingdon road enters the town past the Norman castle, drops down to cross the River Cam at Magdalen Bridge and divides near the Hospital of St John (now St John’s College). The London road runs to the west of the market square, passing colleges built on the site of the old port to the west, and out past the site of the Trumpington gate, while the Colchester road passes to east of the market and out past the site of the Barnwell gate. Both roads are also crossed by a road connecting Norwich and Thetford to St Neots and Bedford, which passes through the northern part of the town. Cambridge had Roman origins but was revived by the Anglo-Saxons. The Roman town was established on elevated ground on the north side of the river. This was possibly for defensive purposes — indeed the site was later used for a Norman castle (Taylor, 1999: 11). However, the higher elevation was inconvenient for the loading and unloading of vessels. The focus of settlement shifted to the south bank, which had lower ground and was suitable for use as a quay (Gray, 1910). The situation in Cambridge between Roman withdrawal and the eighth century is uncertain. However during the reign of the Mercian king Offa (757–96) and under the Danes (c.886–c.921) the town was operating as a port and market centre, with settlement on both sides of the river (Colgrave and Mynors, 1969; Lobel, 1975; Skeat, 1901; Skeat, 1909). After the Anglo-Saxons reconquered the Danish territory of East Anglia in c.921 Cambridge became the administrative centre for Grantabrieshire (the precursor of Cambridgeshire), with a market and a mint (Lobel, 1975). The Anglo-Saxons may

Town growth and topography  229 have substantially altered Cambridge’s topography by constructing, either for defence or for the collection of tolls, the earthworks that became known as the King’s Ditch (Lobel, 1975). There was a mint c.973–c.1154 (Allen, 2012). Cambridge is recorded in Domesday at the head of the county and was assessed as a hundred (Open Domesday, 2022; Williams and Martin, 2002). It had ten administrative wards, some of which had been recently wasted; in the nine wards for which records exist there were 373 messuages in 1066, of which 49 had been wasted by 1086. The town was held by the king, and much of the property was held from the king by a small number of Norman tenants-in-chief. It appears that prior to the Conquest the town was held at farm by the sheriff of the county, and the burgesses not only paid money rents but supplied their ploughteams three times per year. By 1086 the farm was in the hands of Picot the sheriff. There were five water-mills on the River Cam; they ground corn from the surrounding area, and the grain was transported downstream to King’s Lynn by Cambridge merchants, who later held monopoly privileges from the king. Three of the mills had been built by Picot himself, who, the burgesses alleged, had destroyed houses and pasture in the process, and damaged the existing mills. Picot also extorted additional ploughing services from the townsmen. Other property had probably been destroyed for the building of the castle, which overlooked the town from the north bank of the Cam. However, the area around the castle never subsequently developed as the Normans may have intended; commercial activity shifted to flatter ground south of the river and focused on the market place by Great St Mary’s church. This area was closer to the port, the mills and the emergent university. Cambridge received royal privileges from an early date. Henry I gave the town a monopoly of river trade in the shire in c.1125. Henry II gave the farm of the borough to the burgesses in c.1175. King John awarded a merchant guild in 1201 and freedom from toll throughout the country (although many other towns received favours from this monarch too). In 1207 the townsmen were authorised to appoint their own reeve (Cooper, 1892; Maitland, 1898; Maitland and Bateson, 1901). The university was established in 1209, supported by student hostels, and later by the colleges. There were three major charitable and religious institutions in the town. The Benedictine nunnery of St Radegund, on the present site of Jesus College, was founded some time before 1138. It held two churches in the town and in c.1153 received a charter exempting its burgages from hawgable. The Augustinian priory of Barnwell began with the foundation of St Giles church, north of the river at the foot of Castle Hill, in 1092, and was completed in 1192 by much grander new buildings south of the river near to the nunnery. The Hospital of St John the Evangelist (the forerunner of St John’s College), was established as a civic initiative on a swamp in the centre of the present town in c.1200 to cater for the poor and sick (Casson, Casson, Lee and Phillips, 2020a; Rubin, 1987). In the thirteenth century five orders of friars and a group of Gilbertine monks arrived in the town. They were committed to teaching, preaching and scholarship, and made a significant contribution to early university life. Four of friaries were

230  Town growth and topography based in the centre of the town — notably the Dominicans on the present site of Emmanuel College — and one to the south. Cambridge was favourably positioned to become a regional centre of the grain trade. Its location at a fording and bridging point of the river Cam provided access to the coast (via King’s Lynn) and to the interior of East Anglia, with its extensive agricultural and natural resources. Road transport was also good, as the Romans had established Cambridge as a crossroads for routes to the north, south, east and west (Casson, Casson, Lee and Phillips, 2020b: 16–18). There was also a significant service component to the economy. Cambridge served as the centre of administration for the county and for the bishop of Ely and emerged as an educational centre from the early thirteenth century (Leedham–Green, 1996: 3–15). Its commercial and service functions made the town an attractive location for investment (Casson, Casson, Lee and Phillips, 2020a, 2020b). In 1334 the town was assessed for a tenth at 932s; Market ward, Trumpington ward and Bridge ward (in that order) had the highest assessments, indicating that prosperity lay on a north–south axis through the heart of the town to the south of the river; the ward north of the river had a comparatively low assessment (Glasscock, 1975). Prosperity north of the river was concentrated in the suburb of Chesterton, to the northeast, which was a royal demesne. After the Black Death agricultural trade declined but the university continued to expand, training young men for a career in the church, the law or royal administration (Casson, Casson, Lee and Phillips, 2020a). By the fifteenth century there were more than 30 religious guilds in the town, with some churches, such as Great St Mary’s, having several different guilds (Casson, Casson, Lee and Phillips, 2020a). Cambridge continued to thrive, and in 1524 it was assessed at 1,930s (Sheail, 1998). Cambridge was depicted by Matthew Paris (Paris and Trustees of the British Museum, 1928). It appeared on the Gough map as “two buildings and a spired church” (The Gough Map of Great Britain, 2022). It was depicted by Speed (2000: 32–3) and is featured in Braun and Hogenberg (2008: 150). A map of Cambridge is presented in Figure 6.4. It can be seen that the town straddles two main roads from the south, which meet by the Church of the Holy Sepulchre, and then cross the River Cam on a bridge, and then continue to Huntingdon and the north, past the castle. The River Cam forms a natural western boundary to the town. The town is not walled but is bounded to the east by a ditch. The market place is in the centre of the town between the two main roads, which was a common configuration in small towns but rather unusual in large ones. A suggested explanation is that the town grew up initially around the castle north of the river bridge but moved to the south for commercial convenience later on. The Cambridge Hundred Rolls Eleven main types of property are identified in the Rolls, namely messuages, houses, shops, selds, stalls, granges, granaries, curtilages, crofts, vacant urban land and agricultural land.

Town growth and topography  231

Figure 6.4  Cambridge in c.1500. Source: Adapted from a map first published in Historic Towns Atlas, Cambridge, © The Historic Towns Trust, 1975. This adapted map reproduced with permission from Bristol University Press from Casson, Casson, Lee and Phillips, 2020b: 25.

232  Town growth and topography For statistical analysis it is necessary to have a certain number of properties of each type; a threshold level of six was therefore set. This meant that some categories had to be merged, for example selds and stalls were merged into a composite category, as were granges and granaries. Overall, therefore, seven types of urban property and two types of agricultural land were identified. Some properties could not be classified because of missing information; they were given their own category. Messuages were by far the most numerous urban category while land in the Cambridge fields was the predominant form of agricultural land. The basic unit of urban location used in the Rolls was the parish. The only non-parish locations given are the communities of Barnwell, Newnham and Howes, together with the market place. Unfortunately street names were rarely reported. All the parishes had a viable number of entries for statistical analysis. The largest was St Mary’s with 76 entries and the smallest was St Peter at the Castle with 19. St Radegund’s was a separate parish in 1279 but was so small that it is merged into All Saints in the Jewry, from which it had earlier been separated, for statistical analysis. Some locations are defined by settlement rather than parish. Howes has only four entries and is merged into All Saints at the Castle, which it adjoins. Newnham and Barnwell have sufficient entries to be viable. Type of owner: Although men dominated property ownership, women were well-represented too: 74.7 percent of entries relate to properties held only by men, but 13.6 per cent of properties were held only by women, and 10.5 percent by men and women jointly, mainly as husbands and wives. Only 1.2 percent of properties were held by institutions. Most properties that appear in the individual entries were held from institutions rather than by institutions. In other words, institutions appear mainly not as holders of property paying perpetual rents, but as recipients of rent. Only 14 entries relate to properties held by institutions; these comprise ten properties held by the Hospital of St John, two held by Sir Alan of Little Bradley, Chaplain and Warden of the Hospital of Balsham, and one each by the abbot of Warden, Bedfordshire and the abbot of Tilty, Essex. Impact of location and property characteristics on rent To analyse the variation of rent two sets of regressions were run, one involving the level of rent and the other the logarithm of rent. The overall results of the regressions were broadly similar but with one striking difference: the proportion of sample variation explained was doubled by using logarithms, from 37.6 percent to 74.6 percent. The results of the logarithmic regression are reported in the first two columns of Table 6.12. Explaining three-quarters of sample variation is an impressive result. The logarithmic regression is particularly useful in accommodating the differences between low-value rents, which were often paid on hawgable only, and larger rents that aggregated several components of rents of assize that were paid to different people. For purposes of discussion, however, it is most convenient to focus on the results for rent itself, because these give estimates of the actual premia commanded by different types of property. Compared to a control property, namely an unoccupied

Town growth and topography  233 Table 6.12  Regression analysis of the log of total property rents in Cambridge, 1279 Variable

Log rent (total paid) Coefficient

Constant Type of property Messuage House Shop Stall Croft Curtilage Grange Land (piece) Land (acres) Vacant land Parish location All Saints at the Castle and Howes All Saints in the Jewry St Andrew St Benet St Botolph St Clement St Edward St Giles St John St Mary St Michael St Peter at the Castle St Peter outside Trumpington Gate St Sepulchre Other locations Newnham Barnwell Market place Cambridge fields Barnwell fields Location not specified Contractual arrangements Lease Purchase Family transaction Feudal rent of 6d or less R-squared Adjusted R-squared F-statistic No of observations Heteroskedasticity test: Breusch–Pagan–Godfrey Jarques–Bera normality

3.004***

p-value 0.000

Unexplained variation Coefficient 0.714***

p-value 0.000

0.350*** −0.022 0.184*** −0.052 −0.245 −0.171 −0.365 −0.018 0.040 −0.029

0.000 0.873 0.008 0.860 0.134 0.391 0.148 0.931 0.060* 0.831

0.125 −0.037 0.124** 0.163 −0.231** 0.061 0.092 0.184 0.018 0.010

0.170 0.794 0.050 0.354 0.031 0.531 0.724 0.373 0.569 0.498

−0.231* 0.224 0.119 −0.019 0.024 0.444*** 0.204 0.032 0.106 0.305** −0.192 0.430** −0.234 0.609

0.084 0.236 0.361 0.896 0.852 0.004 0.178 0.808 0.450 0.018 0.229 0.026 0.100 0.037**

−0.195* −0.051 −0.250** 0.120 −0.216* 0.072 −0.032 −0.209* −0.145 −0.021 −0.198 −0.156 −0.307*** 0.209

0.077 0.803 0.041 0.447 0.056 0.604 0.823 0.081 0.309 0.850 0.109 0.346 0.007 0.563

−0.335** −0.490*** 0.194 −0.007 0.048* 0.009

0.027 0.000 0.456 0.426 0.096 0.942

−0.205 −0.325** 0.110 −0.008 −0.010 −0.240

0.136 0.001 0.520 0.324 0.676 0.026

0.244 0.044 −0.002 −2.279*** 0.746 0.738 90.896*** 1088 3.880***

0.137 0.509 0.977 0.000

0.045 −0.080 −0.073 −0.312***

0.000 0.000

3.881*** 1088 1.504**

0.784 0.202 0.222 0.000 0.111 0.083 0.000

8.5**

0.014

193656.6***

0.033 0.000

Source: TNA SC5/CAMBS/TOWER/2 Barnwell Hundred Roll; TNA SC5/CAMBS/TOWER/1/ Parts1-3 Cambridge Borough Hundred Rolls; Casson, Casson, Lee and Phillips, 2020a. Reproduced from Casson, Casson, Lee and Phillips, 2020b with permission from Bristol University Press. Note: White heteroskedasticity robust standard errors. Significance levels are *** 1 percent, ** 5 percent and * 10 percent. The location control is Holy Trinity. White robust standard errors. Average log rent = 2.234; standard deviation of log rent = 1.430.

234  Town growth and topography messuage in Holy Trinity parish, certain property characteristics had statistically significant impacts on rents levels. A messuage, for example, carried on average a 9.8d. premium, giving a total imputed value of 32.2+9.8 = 42d. for a messuage in Holy Trinity. Shops were worth less than a messuage, at 6.5d. premium, while stalls did not carry a premium and were worth less than shops or messuages. The most striking variations in rent, however, were driven by location rather than type of property. St Sepulchre and St Clement carry large premia of 35.7d and 24.6d, respectively. St Sepulchre is a small parish, and its coefficient is significant only at the 5 percent level, but St Clement’s, being a larger parish, is significant at the 1 percent level. St Mary’s also has a significant premium of 12.4d (5 percent significance). The market place did not carry a significant premium, but this is partly because the shops that dominate the market carry premia in their own right. The only other parish with a significant positive premium was St Peter at the Castle, which had a premium of 17.1d (10 percent significance). The cheapest parishes were St Peter outside the Trumpington Gate (11d discount at 5 percent significance), All Saints at the Castle (9.9d discount at 5 percent significance) and St Michael’s (8.6d discount at 10 percent). The suburban locations of Barnwell and Newnham are particularly cheap; the former has a discount of 20.5d (1 percent significance), and the latter 13.5d discount (5 percent significance). This supports the view that peripheral locations were cheaper than central locations. All Saints at the Castle was the most northerly parish, St Michael’s was a westerly parish and St Peter’s, Barnwell and Newnham all lay on the southern or eastern edges of the town. So far as the “centre” is concerned, the area of highest rent was around St Sepulchre and St Clements; it may be identified with the southern part of Bridge Street near the Hospital, close to the round church of St Sepulchre and by the junction of High Street [St John’s Street] and Conduit Street [Sidney Street]. But this was not the only “centre”; there were also high rents in St Mary’s where property carried higher rent than in the market itself. The premium in St Mary’s seems to be accounted for by the rents for residential properties which were close to the church but far enough from the market to avoid noise, smell and nuisance. A third, much smaller, centre was the parish of St Peter at the Castle; this may once have been a major centre of trade, but by 1279 had become largely (but not exclusively) a residential area (Butler, 2007). In contrast, no significant results were obtained for land in the Cambridge and Barnwell fields. Rents seem to have had little relationship to the amount of land involved. Tenurial factors had little impact on levels of rent. Lessees paid on average higher rents than ordinary holders of property, but not significantly so. Purchasers paid slightly higher rents than those who acquired their properties in other ways, but not significantly so. Properties acquired from family members paid slightly lower rents than others, but again, not significantly so. The only significant tenurial variable is the dummy variable for very low rents, which is highly significant. This takes the expected negative sign. The two final columns of in Table 6.12 indicate whether property rents varied more for certain types of property than others and in certain locations more than in others. The table shows that unexplained variance was significantly low in

Town growth and topography  235 St  Peter outside the Trumpington Gate, St Andrew, St Botolph and, to some extent, St Giles. In the logarithmic regression it was significantly high in St Clement’s and significantly low in All Saints at the Castle, St Michael’s, St Peter outside the Trumpington Gate, Barnwell and Newnham. These results are broadly aligned because they both suggest that unexplained variance was highest in the wealthier and more central parishes. One possible explanation is that high-rent parishes were a mix of valuable properties and poorer properties, whilst low-rent parishes were more uniform, with a predominance of low-value properties. This could have been due to newcomers to high-rent areas acquiring properties for high rents whilst those who had remained in these areas for several generations continued to pay low rents. The newcomers may have sought to combine adjacent properties into larger and more prestigious ones, as in Gloucester (see previous discussion). Another possibility is that some properties in high-rent parishes had been bought outright by their wealthy owners and therefore, unlike other high-rent properties, no longer paid rent to the sellers. Both explanations may have some validity. Hawgable Having examined the dynamics of ordinary rent, the determinants of hawgable are now considered. As noted previously, it has often been suggested that burgage rents such as hawgable were set at uniform rates and were determined by custom rather than by economic value. In Cambridge, however, there was considerable variation in hawgable rents. In St Giles parish, for example, there were messuages, listed in sequence in the Hundred Rolls, and therefore probably closely located, that paid hawgable of 0.5d, 1d, 1.5d and 3d while two paid no hawgable at all (Casson, Casson, Lee and Phillips, 2020a: HR 38, 41; HR 35, 37, 39; HR 40; HR 33; HR 34, 36). Some shops in the market place paid 8d, as did a shop in St  Edward’s (Casson, Casson, Lee and Phillips, 2020a: HR 360, 537, 657; HR 417). By contrast three shops in St Michael’s paid in total only 0.25d (Casson, Casson, Lee and Phillips, 2020a: HR 608). Substantial variation is apparent between properties and between locations. Houses (37 percent) and shops (27 percent) were more likely to pay hawgable than messuages (23 percent). Curtilages were likely to pay hawgable (on the basis of a very small sample), whilst stalls and crofts paid no hawgable at all. Parishes divide naturally into two groups. Four parishes (St Peter outside the Trumpington Gate, All Saints in the Jewry, St Sepulchre and Holy Trinity), had very few properties paying hawgable (under 10 percent), while the remainder had a much high proportion (over 20 percent). These four parishes held a lot of properties paying rent to St Radegund’s, and the nunnery’s exemption from hawgable may explain the situation. The situation appears rather different, however, when the average amount of hawgable is considered. Column 4 shows that shops (2.7d) paid marginally more than messuages (2.2d) which paid about the same amount as a piece of land. With respect to average rents, the parishes now fall into three main categories. St  Sepulchre, St John’s and the Marketplace all paid on average more than 5d;

236  Town growth and topography Table 6.13  Cambridge: Analysis of hawgable rents: whether hawgable was paid and if so how much was paid Hawgable Variable Type of property Messuage House Shop Stall Croft Curtilage Grange Land (piece) Land (acres) Vacant land Parish location All saints at the Castle and Howes All Saints in the Jewry St Andrew St Benet St Botolph St Clement St Edward St Giles Holy Trinity St John St Mary St Michael St Peter at the Castle St Peter outside the Trumpington Gate St Sepulchre Other locations Newnham Barnwell Market place Cambridge fields Barnwell fields Location not specified TOTAL

Hawgable rent paid

Number

Percentage

Total

Average

138 10 25 0 0 5 1 3 8 8

23.1 37.0 27.3 0 0 71.4 9.1 20.0 21.6 17.4

297.38 11 68 0 0 7 6 6.5 87.25 10

1.4 6 2.17 10.91 1.25

11 2 17 16 19 18 13 15 10 18 16 9 4 1 1

32.4 6.3 32.7 28.6 41.3 37.5 28.3 33.3 7.9 39.1 21.1 31.0 21.1 3.7 7.7

25.75 3 29.75 16 31.75 23 41 16.25 15.25 101.5 28.5 18.75 4.5 4.5 7

2.34 1.50 1.75 1.00 1.67 1.28 3.15 1.08 1.53 5.64 1.78 2.08 1.13 4.5 7

0 2 3 23 3 6 202

0 2.2 21.4 2.1 2.1 18.2 18.6

0 5 16.75 47 2.25 9.25 421.5

2.5 5.58 2.04 0.75 1.54 2.09

2.16 1.1 2.72

Source: TNA SC5/CAMBS/TOWER/2 Barnwell Hundred Roll; TNA SC5/CAMBS/TOWER/1/ Parts1-3 Cambridge Borough Hundred Rolls; Casson, Casson, Lee and Phillips, 2020a. Reproduced from Casson, Casson, Lee and Phillips, 2020b with permission from Bristol University Press. Note: This table analyses data from 202 entries in the Rolls where hawgable was paid. Units are in pence.

St Peter outside the Trumpington Gate, St Edward’s, All Saints at the Castle and St Michael’s all paid between 2d and 5d, and the other parishes paid less than 2d. The seven parishes paying the highest hawgable rents do not correspond to the parishes paying the highest ordinary rents. It is possible, however, that they may be the areas of the town which had most recently been developed or redeveloped.

Town growth and topography  237 This would certainly explain the high level of hawgable in St Peter outside the Trumpington Gate, and possibly in St Mary’s and St John’s as well. The other possibility is that they reflect the area of the plots involved. This could explain the high levels of hawgable in the two peripheral parishes of All Saints at the Castle to the north and St Peter outside the Trumpington Gate to the south, where plots appear to have been large; it could also explain the high rents in St Sepulchre, which bordered on St Radegunds where settlement was light. Summary and conclusions The results suggest that Cambridge is best viewed as a “multicentred” town, with its three centres lying along a north–south axis across the river, and with the major centre in the middle near to the bridge and at a junction of two main roads. To some extent, this situation has parallels with that of Coventry. However, Coventry had two centres, rather than three, and the alternative centres developed as a consequence of control of the town being shared by two lords, a situation that did not occur in Cambridge. Bristol is another possible potential parallel to Cambridge as it had two locations of high rents. However, in Bristol, these locations changed over time. In the period 1209–1365 evidence from feets of fines suggest that Bristol’s suburbs were reasonably affluent. However, evidence from civic rentals from the mid-fourteenth and the fifteenth century suggests that rents in the suburbs south of the Avon were in decline and that the property hot-spot had returned to the city centre, especially near Bristol Bridge. The cheapness of the suburbs and rental premium for the centre which appears in Cambridge have been noted in other towns. In Gloucester premium levels of ordinary rent occurred in the main streets around the High Cross in c.1455, while properties inside the walls attracted higher landgable than those outside. In Hull properties on the main north–south streets in the town centre attracted higher rents compared to others. The hawgable results, however, contrast with those from Gloucester. Both towns reveal significant variation in hawgable, but (as described previously) the identity of the properties that had a premium varied, and in Gloucester hawgable had a significant centrality premium, whereas in Cambridge it did not.

Birmingham Historical context Birmingham is centrally located within the Midlands, near the boundary of three counties: Warwickshire, Staffordshire and Worcestershire. It lies on a sandstone ridge at the northeast edge of the Clent Hills, which projects into the valley of the River Rea. There is marshland to the northeast, where the Rea joins the River Tame, which in turn joins the River Trent and reaches the North Sea via the Humber estuary (Elrington and Tillott, 1964: 1–4; Elrington, 1964: 26; Newton Friend, 1964: 1; Walker, 1940). The Rea is non-navigable in the Birmingham

238  Town growth and topography area, however. The Clent Hills are a source of wood; south of Birmingham is ironstone (“Rowley Rag”) and west of the town are coal deposits (Holt, 1985: 18). Antiquaries commented on the favourable climate and clean running water enjoyed by this hillside settlement (Elrington and Tillott, 1964: 5; Gill, 1930; Gill, 1952; Pearson, 1902). The town lies just off Ryknield Street which connects the Fosse Way near Stow-on-the-Wold to Lichfield, Derby and the northeast (Dent, 1894; Pearson, 1891). It is by-passed, however, by main roads such as the Fosse Way (which passes near Coventry) and Watling Street (which passes near Lichfield). Road access is easy from the east (McKenna, 2005). From Shrewsbury and the northwest it can be accessed using the Tame valley and from Worcester and the south by the Rea valley (Walker, 1927). The economic imperatives of the iron-working industry sustained roads over the hills to Stourbridge, which, like Worcester on the River Severn, provided the town with river access to Gloucester and the Bristol Channel. The origins of the town are somewhat obscure. In 1086 the manor of Birmingham was held by Richard, who held it from Willian fitzAnsculf of nearby Dudley, who inherited it from his father, who held it from the king; it contained woodland and was valued at 20s (Boland, n.d.: 9; Open Domesday, 2022; Salzman and Reynolds, 1964: 58; Williams and Martin, 2002). The exact identity of Richard is unknown (Hutton, 1783). In c.1160 a market was granted by Gervase Paganel, in the presence of King Henry II, to Peter fitz William, steward of Dudley (Carter, 1942: 48; Crompton Rhodes, 1934; Holt, 1985: 4; Letters, 2013; Lloyd Renshaw, 1932: 28–35; Salzman and Reynolds, 1964: 58; Upton, 1993: 6). The transformation of Birmingham from agricultural settlement to town is first recorded in 1166 as an initiative of Peter de Birmingham, who held an administrative role for the Paynel family and was lord of the manor (Carter, 1942: 48; Lloyd Renshaw, 1932: 28–35; Salzman and Reynolds, 1964: 58). In 1166 he obtained from Gervase Paynel and the king a charter allowing him to hold a weekly market at his castle (Holt, 1985: 4; Letters, 2013; Upton, 1993: 6). This seems to have been followed by the foundation of a town (Holt, 1985: 4). Timing and location have been credited as significant factors in Birmingham’s success. Timing was important as Birmingham’s market was established earlier than other local towns. Stratford-upon-Avon’s charter was granted in 1196, Halesowen’s in 1220, Solihull’s in 1242, Sutton Coldfield’s in 1300 (Holt, 1985: 5–6; Letters, 2013). Coventry’s market may have been established slightly earlier, as is first recorded in c.1161 and was possibly active even earlier (Goddard, 2004: 46; Letters, 2013). Birmingham’s foundation also corresponded with the clearance of the forests of north Warwickshire during the twelfth and thirteenth centuries. This expanded the amount of land under cultivation, with a corresponding increase in production and population (Holt, 1985: 6). Three pieces of evidence suggest that the town flourished rapidly. First, the confirmation of the market charter by King Richard I in c.1189 refers to the market as being in the town of Birmingham, rather than at the castle (Holt, 1985: 4). Second, in 1232 an agreement was made between William de Birmingham and 16 men who held messuages in Birmingham to remit the men of annual haymaking duties and of the payment of 1/2 d each time they brewed ale (Holt, 1985: 7;

Town growth and topography  239 Stokes, Wellstood and Houghton, 1932: 96). In return, the 16 men agreed to pay William de Birmingham 2s a year and a single payment of £10 (Holt, 1985: 7; Stokes, Wellstood and Houghton, 1932: 96). Finally, an indication that the market drew customers and traders from the surrounding area is recorded in 1309, when the de Birminghams fined the inhabitants of Bromsgrove and Kings Norton for refusing to pay the customary toll in the market (Hutton, 1781: 33). However, the inhabitants launched a legal action and recovered damages on the grounds that they resided on part of the ancient demesne of the crown and had the right to sell their produce anywhere in the king’s domain. In 1250 William de Birmingham, then lord of the manor, established a fair, and in 1285 his claim that his Thursday market had been held since time ­immemorial was accepted (Holt, 1985: 4, 11; Letters, 2013; Upton, 1993: 6). Representatives of the town’s burgesses were summoned to Parliament in 1275. Neighbouring manors like Aston and Edgbaston, which in some ways were more favourably located, never received charters; they were initially eclipsed by the growth of Birmingham and later merged into the city as its suburbs (Newton Friend, 1965: 3). The de Birmingham family also sought to develop their manors of Hoggeston in Buckinghamshire and Enville in Staffordshire as commercial centres. In 1254 both locations were granted a fair by the crown in 1254, but there is no evidence that a fair was ever held in Enville (CPR 1247–58, 1908: 338; Holt, 1985: 11; Letters, 2013). In 1334 Hoggeston was also granted a market to be held at the manor (Letters, 2013). However, neither location was to take off in the way that Birmingham did. There may have been a Norman timber castle at Weoley, southwest of the town centre, and in 1264 a licence to crenellate a fortified manor there was given to Roger de Somery; its main use was residential and recreational (Lloyd Renshaw, 1932; Upton, 1993). St Martin’s church was probably constructed when the town was founded and was accompanied by the moated parsonage (Bassett, 2000; Bassett, 2001: 16; Demidowicz, 2008: 12; Thackray, 1875). The Hospital of St Thomas the Martyr was a house of Augustinian canons (Cox, 1908: 108–9; Hill and Dent, 1897: 4). It is first recorded in 1284–5 but may have been founded in the late twelfth century (Bassett, 2001: 18). The de Birmingham family are credited with its foundation, and it has been suggested that they provided its initial endowment of land from their demesne (Bassett, 2001: 19). Additional gifts were also received from members of the local community (Toulmin Smith, 1964: 28–29; CPR 1307–13, 1894–1904: 305). There was also a park, although its origins are unknown (Demidowicz, 2003: 145–6). It was possibly used for deer hunting (Gelling, 1956: 17). Le Hersondych, also known as Hersum ditch, created a boundary between the town and the park. This ditch carried water and is likely to have its origins in one of the springs (Demidowicz, 2003: 144; Demidowicz, 2008: 8). Its exact purpose is unknown and is difficult to establish from the surviving evidence. It may have been a defensive barrier for the town, but it is more likely that it was intended to keep poachers out of the lord’s park and to stop the deer escaping (Demidowicz, 2003: 146). Birmingham was conveniently located close to natural mineral resources and sources of power and fuel. Birmingham’s location between Staffordshire to the

240  Town growth and topography north (a source of ironstone and coal) and Warwickshire to the south (a source of ironstone) provided an opportunity to serve as manufacturing centre for ironwork (Holt, 1985: 18; Pelham, 1950). Unfortunately, there is little surviving evidence of how that opportunity was exploited. One possibility is that, while Staffordshire had the natural resources, it lacked the convenience of access. A lot of iron work needed to be customised and made “on demand”, for example for harnesses or carts (Geddes, 1991). It was more convenient for customers to be served face to face at a one-stop-shop market centre that they may wish to visit anyway on a regular basis for other purposes, than to have to travel to isolated rural areas to obtain items. While the exact process by which Birmingham emerged as that onestop-shop is not recorded, it seems likely that the ironstone was smelted in the countryside using either coal or wood from the forests (and avoiding urban pollution) and then transported in ingots to the Birmingham smiths who fashioned the final product. This would have involved transporting wood or coal to Birmingham to reheat the ingots and beat them into shape. That cost may have been met by the ability to charge customers a premium for a quick and convenient service that ultimately saved them the time and costs of travel into rural Staffordshire. Water from the springs may have been used, where appropriate, to power some processes, for example slitting mills, which may be part of the iron-making process. Residents included not only smiths but, from time to time, tanners and goldsmiths. The presence of tanners suggests that the town was an agricultural processing centre as well an emerging centre of the iron trade (Crompton, 1991). Cloth manufacturing appears to have become a significant part of Birmingham’s economy by the fourteenth century. Records of taxes on cloth sales suggest that in the late fourteenth century Birmingham was second only to Coventry in the volume of cloth sold in Warwickshire (Holt, 1985: 9). This was aided by the springs, which provided power and clean water for cloth fulling, and the ability to source wool from the Welsh borders, Lincolnshire and the Cotswolds (Fretton, 1877: 35; Pelham, 1939; Pelham, 1943: 34). In the fifteenth century Birmingham became regionally important as a cattle market, as the surrounding land was more suited to grazing animals than growing crops and the reduction in population after the Black Death of 1348–9 reduced the pressure to cultivate poorer quality land (Holt, 1985: 10–11). In 1439 Birmingham’s lord paid ‘to free the market, during his lifetime, from the activities of royal purveyors, thus rendering it more attractive to those who wished to sell goods’ (Holt, 1985: 1; CPR 1436–41, 1894–1904: 299). In 1334 the town was assessed for a fifteenth at 188s, and in 1524, on a different basis, at 469s, both of which were modest sums compared with neighbouring Coventry, which in 1524 was assessed at more than 16 times that amount (Glasscock, 1975; Sheail, 1998). Birmingham was depicted on the Gough map as a “single building” (The Gough Map of Great Britain, 2022). It was visited by Leland, who noted the smiths and cutlers that dwelt there (Leland, II: 96). A map of Birmingham is presented in Figure 6.5. It is significantly smaller than the other towns described in this chapter. It lies on a hill where several roads intersect. To the west of the town lies the valley of the River Rea. The town seems to

Source: Adapted from a map of Birmingham 1296 and a map of Birmingham 1344–5 originally drawn by George Demidowicz (2008) and reproduced with kind permission of George Demidowicz and the Dugdale Society.

Town growth and topography  241

Figure 6.5  Birmingham in 1296 and 1344–5.

242  Town growth and topography have expanded by ribbon development along the main roads, and through peripheral intrusions into park land nearby. A market area was developed immediately outside the manor house, somewhat reminiscent of the development of the prior’s market at Coventry. Town rentals Rentals for Birmingham are available for 1296, 1344–5 and 1553 (Bickley and Hill, 1891; Demidowicz, 2008). John Dudley, Duke of Northumberland was executed in 1553 for trying to place Lady Jane Grey on the throne. The 1553 survey commenced two days after his conviction and was occurring as he was executed. It appears to have been designed to provide Queen Mary with information on the property that was being confiscated. The 1296 and 1344–5 rentals were found in the papers of John Dudley’s son Robert Dudley. The rentals all record rents paid to the lord of the manor. As local property appreciated in value, as a result of general price inflation and the growing prosperity of the town, the value of individual properties increased. This did not automatically result in higher manorial rents, however. Early rents were almost certainly set in perpetuity, which explains why some rents of one shilling or less were still being paid in 1553. By the end of the period, however, rents on newer properties were set using a variety of contractual arrangements. In 1296 32 percent of the properties were described as burgages and 28 percent as tenements. Thirty-one properties had been extended, with a separate rent payable of the extension. There were 26 selds, three market stalls, and a range of other properties, including a bakery and a workshop. The standard rent for a plot of land was 8d. Subdividing plots would result in payments of 4d while combining adjacent plots would result in rents of 16d (two adjacent plots) or 24d (three adjacent plots). A plot could also be split so that each could be combined with a plot on either side, generating two plots paying a rent of 12d each. Small plots could be further subdivided, generating plots paying 2d or even 1d. It was not always possible to subdivide land into plots of equal size, and so this could generate smaller plots paying rents such as 3d, 5d or 7d. Table 6.14 analyses the variations of rent across in 1296 across 329 (out of 336) properties that are fully described in the rental. The regression follows the standard format in which the impacts of different types of property and different locations are examined using sets of dummy variables. The results indicate that, compared to burgages, granges (1 percent), tenements (5 percent), named properties (5 percent) and houses (10 percent) paid significantly high rents, whilst, not surprisingly, ditches and other types of property (for example, curtileges) (1 percent) paid significantly lower rents. The rents paid in 1344–5 were broadly similar to those paid in 1293, as might be expected, but substantial changes occurred between 1344–5 and 1533. The 1553 rental refers to several new locations, which are indicative of the expansion of the town, and also different forms of tenure, indicative of the declining importance of traditional manorial rents of the type that were dominant in 1296. The regression results for rents are reported in Table 6.15.

Town growth and topography  243 Table 6.14  Determinants of logarithmic rent in Birmingham in 1296 Explanatory variable Constant Type of property Solar Seld Messuage, including capital messuage Tenement Croft or curtilage Land Ditch Place “Augmento” “Incremento” Grange House (domo) Named property Other type Location La Dale Super montem Sub cimiterio Egebastonstrete Parkstrete Overpark, Overend Novo vico Dodewall Het & Hetmule Via Capellam By the water (aqua) or the bridge (pontem) R2 Adjusted R2 F-statistic Number of observations Breusch–Pagan Godfrey heteroskedasticity F-statistic Jarques–Bera normality statistic

Coefficient

p-value

1.797

0.000

−0.435 0.209 0.042 0.216** 0.123 0.157 −1.371*** −0.250 −0.919*** −0.986*** 0.412*** 0.541* 0.830** −1.217***

0.493 0.177 0.905 0.029 0.533 0.699 0.000 0.227 0.000 0.003 0.000 0.078 0.047 0.000

−0.107 0.373*** 0.020 −0.169 0.198 −0.080 0.766*** 0.135 0.400 −0.177 0.076 0.313 0.256 5.523 329 1.668** 4.511

0.703 0.000 0.572 0.394 0.140 0.825 0.000 0.626 0.533 0.245 0.768 0.000 0.026 0.105

Source: Demidowicz, 2008. Note: White robust standard errors. Rent information is available for 329 of the 336 properties listed. “Burgage” is the control for type of property. Other locations not included in the list of explanatory variables are the control for locations. Significance levels are *** 1 percent, ** 5 percent and * 10 percent.

The results show that named properties paid the highest rents, after controlling for location and mode of tenure. Burgages, tenements, messuages, curtilages, crofts, closes, ditches and pools also paid high rents, but shops and selds did not. The high value of ditches and pools suggests that they may have been water features associated with high-status residences. Properties in the shambles and the market paid the highest rents, together with properties in Highstrete and Egebastonstrete. This suggests that properties on main roads and near the major road junction had the highest value. Properties held by indenture paid a higher

244  Town growth and topography Table 6.15  Determinants of logarithmic rent in Birmingham borough 1533 Explanatory variable Constant Type of property Shop or seld Burgage Tenement or messuage Cottage Curtilage, croft or close Named property Land, etc. Garden Meadow or pasture Ditch or pool (stagnum) Barn or grange Location Egebastonstrete Newstrete (Novo vico) Mulstrete Highstrete Dalland Spicestrete Market Shambles Other location Tenure Deed Charter Indenture Will of the lord Annual payment R2 Adjusted R2 F-statistic Number of observations Breusch–Pagan–Godfrey heteroskedasticity F-statistic Jarques–Bera normality statistic

Coefficient

p-value

1.744***

0.000

−0.007 0.585*** 0.482*** 0.261* 0.593*** 1.136*** 0.296* 0.113* 0.614* 0.419*** 0.426

0.985 0.003 0.000 0.054 0.005 0.006 0.071 0.429 0.059 0.003 0.375

0.438** 0.357 0.223 0.667** 0.116 −0.005 0.704** 1.050*** −0.297

0.034 0.327 0.615 0.013 0.621 0.995 0.027 0.003 0.555

−0.570** −0.506* 1.396*** −0.127 −0.346 0.543 0.434 5.030 132 1.814 0.267

0.012 0.079 0.000 0.719 0.273 0.000 0.020 0.875

Source: Bickley and Hill, 1891. Note: White robust standard errors. The logarithm of rent is defined as log(1 + rent) because one of the rents is zero. “Other uses” are the control on the type of the property. Many properties had second uses. Parkstrete is the control for location. Significance levels are *** 1 percent, ** 5 percent and * 10 percent.

rent than those held by charter or deed. This suggests that the highest rents were paid, not by owner-occupiers, but by people holding properties on short-term leases. More than have the variation in logarithmic rent is explained by these three sets of factors — namely location, type of property and type of tenure. In Birmingham foreign in 1533 were only 19 property owners, which is too small a number to carry out regression analysis. Many of the property owners held a substantial portfolio, including a variety of different types of property.

Town growth and topography  245 A comparison of the results from the rentals of 1296, 1344–5 and 1553 suggests that the town’s property market was far more responsive to commercial factors in 1553 than in earlier periods. The proportion of the variation of logarithmic rent that is explained by commercial factors increases substantially, and the premium on central locations is higher. This suggests that, however successful the town may have become by 1296, the full impact of competitive pressures on the property market was not felt until much later. Summary and conclusions In contrast to all the other towns discussed in this chapter, Birmingham was the product of enterprising lay lordship. Although the market charter is dated to 1166, the lord at that time, Peter de Birmingham, may well have been consolidating the position of an existing market as there is indirect evidence that traders from nearby towns had sold goods there from some time before. Unlike many of the other towns, its location appears to have been influenced by natural resources, namely ironstone from nearby hills and timber for fuel from nearby forests. Despite their initiative in obtaining a charter, there is little evidence that successive lords invested in local amenities to grow the settlement, and no religious order of any importance established a base within the town. In the late medieval period Birmingham was just one of several small towns in the West Midlands, and it was not until the Industrial Revolution of 1760 that its full potential was realised.

Kingston-upon-Hull Historical context The River Humber has many tributaries, making Hull an ideal location for breakbulk activities in which seagoing vessels unload freight onto river vessels (Calvert, 1978; De Boer, 1946). The river gave access to much of West Yorkshire via the rivers Calder and Aire, and to the Midlands via the Trent. The port’s economy depended heavily on provisioning ships and warehousing goods. It was also an important logistical centre in the English wars against the Scots. Hull’s development owed much to the Cistercian monks of Meaux abbey (founded c.1150 about 5 miles north of Hull) who were the local lords in the thirteenth century (Ayers, 1981; Beresford, 1967; Frost, 1827; Gent, 1869; Gillett and MacMahon, 1980; Hadley, 1788; Sheahan, 1864; Tickell, 1798). They recognized Hull’s potential as a port and began to invest in the town. The medieval town was situated at the confluence of the River Humber and the River Hull, about 20 miles west of Spurn Head (where the Humber enters the North Sea). It was a convenient point at which to transship goods from large seagoing vessels to smaller river craft, which could reach York (via the Ouse), Gainsborough, Newark and Nottingham (via the Trent), Wakefield (via the Aire) and Beverley (via the Hull). Land transport was less convenient, however, owing to marshland around the town, and there was a perennial risk of flooding. Wool and cloth were important exports, much of the export trade being handled by merchants from the Low

246  Town growth and topography Countries (Childs, 1990; Lister, 1924; Poulson, 1840; Sheppard, 1958; Topping, 1822; Thompson, 1821; Waites, 1977). By 1293, the monks were drawing substantial rents from their urban properties (Horrox, 1983a: 135–9). Their superior water-management techniques reduced (but did not eliminate) the risk of flooding, a fate suffered by the competing location of Ravenserod. Another potential competitor, Hedon, lying between Hull and Ravenserod, silted up as the course of the Humber shifted to the south. Biographical analysis suggests that many of the merchant families owning property in Hull in 1347 originated from these declining ports and had moved to Hull over the previous 30 years (Salter, 2017). Edward I recognized the commercial potential of Hull (Allison, 1969a; Earle, 1906: 30; Lambert, 2011). Edward is well known for promoting urban development through town plantations, but in this case he decided to buy the town as a going concern, with long-term plans to encourage its growth and to profit from rising rents. Hull’s value to the king lay in the military logistics of the Scottish wars, and in his frequent visits to York, to which supplies could be forwarded both by river and (somewhat later) by road. The monks accepted his valuation of the town and exchanged it for agricultural estates, although some of them subsequently regretted their decision (Bond, 1868; Beresford, 1967: 511). Royal interest helped Hull to stay ahead of its competitors. Once the king was seen to favour Hull, merchants began to migrate from Ravenserod to Hull, including the brothers William and Richard de la Pole (Brooks, 1939; Fryde, 1988). Two weekly markets and an annual six-week fair were immediately chartered (although a market almost certainly existed well before this date) (Letters, 2013). A charter of 1299 created a free borough under a warden appointed by the king (Boyle, 1905). When the town received its charter in 1299, it changed its name from Wyke to Kingston-upon-Hull. The king owned almost all the land, apart from insignificant amounts in the knights’ fees of Aton and Gaunt. Self-government was limited in comparison to other leading towns, however, as the burgesses were accountable to a warden appointed by the king. It seems likely that many, though not all, of the early rents appearing in the 1347 rental were set at the time of the charter. Inflation of property values is unlikely to have been an issue as between 1299 and 1347 the economy was on a silver standard and, while commodity prices rose 1299–1317, they then fell back to about their original level (Mayhew, 2013). The king had ambitious plans to expand the town, and its boundaries were set outside the walls, probably with this in mind. In 1304, the warden, Richard Oysel, was advised by the king that there were “certain empty plots and waste lands” in and around Hull “which could be leased and built on to our profit and benefit”. The king authorized Oysel to lease the plots “as you think fit in our name to persons willing to build on them and live there, or otherwise improve them, for a certain rent to be paid annually to us at our exchequer” (Horrox, 1983a: 141; The National Archives SC11/743, n.d.). It is evident that these rents were to be set on the basis of current market conditions. Records for the following year identify ten vacant properties that were being re-let and 20 plots that were now let for the first time (Horrox, 1983a: 142–3). There were markets on Tuesdays and Fridays, and a fair of 30 days duration once a year. In 1315, a ferry across the Humber was

Town growth and topography  247 chartered, and in 1321, a town wall and moat (known later as the ditch) was constructed. In 1327, the crenellation of individual properties within the town was permitted (Horrox, 1983a: 142–3). A castle was constructed on the east bank of the Hull, opposite the town, in 1378, and later enlarged by Henry VIII. In 1331, the king’s appointed warden was replaced by an elected mayor and four bailiffs, and the town was put at farm for £70 per annum (Allison, 1969a). The town commonalty was given all the vacant land, on which they could build for their own profit. As a further boost to local economic development, a charter of 1334 gave the borough the right of statute merchant (for the better enforcement of debts) and exemption from mortmain (thereby placing borough finances on a more secure footing). This continuing support for the town was represented as a reward for the town’s key role in provisioning the army in the Scottish wars, but in reality the town made a payment for the charter. In 1345, Hull was one of a select list of 12 English ports authorized for wool export (Calendar of the Patent Rolls 1317– 54: 30; Carus–Wilson and Coleman, 1963). It still faced competition, mainly from Boston which, like Hull, was a potential outlet for produce from the East Midlands. Despite the investment in the town and its rapid growth, Hull is notable for its relative lack of religious provision. There were only two churches (Ingram, 1969). A chapel may have been present on the site that became Holy Trinity church in 1197 to 1210, but this was destroyed (Ingram, 1969). Holy Trinity church was founded in 1285 (Ingram, 1969). It was preceded by a chapel in the period 1197 to 1210, but this was destroyed (Ingram, 1969). The church of St Mary the Virgin, Lowgate was established in 1327 (Ingram, 1969). Hull did not have a medieval Jewish community (Allison, 1969b: 332–33). A map of Hull is presented in Figure 6.6. The southern boundary is the north bank of the River Humber, and the eastern boundary the western bank of the River Hull. The king’s town was overlaid on the monastic town, which was smaller by comparison. The principal thoroughfares run parallel to the river banks, with provision for merchant’s dwellings backing on to the River Hull. The main road running north–south through the centre is Marketgate, but unlike main roads in other towns it leads simply to the river shore. The market lies on the southern portion of this street around Holy Trinity church. Sources and their interpretation The rents appearing in the 1347 fee–farm rental were set at the time of the 1299 charter, when the property-holders became the burgesses of the town (Boyle, 1905). The rental was produced as a record of the properties that owed rent to the king. The rents recorded are not uniform burgage rents but are variable. The rental was published by Horrox, who also produced a map of the properties recorded in it to recreate the topography of Hull in 1347 and provided an index linking the owners to their properties (Horrox, 1978; Horrox, 1983a). Information is provided on 198 properties, and for each property the rental records the rent paid to the king, the person holding the property, the name of the street at the front of the property and the width of the frontage. A further 18 properties are recorded, but the information on them is insufficient for the purposes of this chapter.

248  Town growth and topography

r ve Ri

er mb Hu

Figure 6.6  The medieval plots of Hull c.1350. Source: Reproduced from Horrox (1978) with the permission of Rosemary Horrox. Previously published in Casson and Casson, 2019a with the permission of Cambridge University Press.

Unusually for a rental, the width of each property is reported, together with the street onto which it fronts. The length of each street was then calculated from the frontages of their properties as given in the rental. Property depth must be estimated, however. Estimates of depth have been derived by analysing the

Town growth and topography  249 configurations of blocks of abutting properties. The “grid” layout of the town means that a typical block of properties is approximately rectangular, and is bounded by four streets, usually two main streets and two side streets that intersect them. This facilitates an algebraic method of depth estimation. If a block is truly rectangular, then the sum of the depths of a pair of rear-abutting properties along the main streets will equal the lengths of the side streets to either side. Furthermore, if there is a common boundary line for all rear-abutting properties in a block, then the rear-abutting properties along each main street will be of equal depth. If the properties along each of two parallel streets are of equal depth, then this depth will be equal to half the length of an intersecting side street. Corner properties need to be treated somewhat differently. Side streets often included the blank side walls of corner properties. Since the length of side walls is not recorded, it must be inferred from archaeological evidence and maps. The process used is described in detail in Casson and Casson (2019a). Hull’s property owners were predominately merchants in the wool, wine or corn trades, ship-owners or royal officials, according to the rental. The majority of individual owners in 1347, namely 53, owned one property or plot of land. Some evidence of property portfolios is indicated as 36 individuals owned more than one tenement. For most individuals, a portfolio comprised two to eight tenements, although members of the de la Pole family owned substantially more (Fryde, 1988; Horrox. 1983b). For three individuals, the number of holdings is unknown. Members of five family dynasties can be identified in the rental, and together these families held one-third of all properties paying rent to the king. Influence of location and property depth on rent Despite being a new foundation, rents were not set at uniform levels in Hull. Considerable variation in rent is recorded for properties listed in the 1347 rental, with rents ranging from under 10d to 440d (£1 16s 8d) for Sir William de la Pole’s manor within the walls. More than three-quarters of the rents were set at rounded numbers, with the most common levels being 12 (1s), 20, 24 (2s), 30, 36 (3s), 60 (5s) and 120 pence (10s). The distribution of properties by their street frontage is shown in Table 6.16. The number of properties backing onto each street was relatively small because many properties backed onto another property rather than another street. For the purposes of analysis the longer streets were subdivided into sections. The four most important streets were Hullstrete and Marketgate, running north–south, and Munkegate and Aldegate running east–west (see Figure 6.6). Property frontages suggest a hierarchy amongst the streets. Hullstrete appears to have been more important than Marketgate as several properties in Hullstrete backed onto Marketgate, but no properties in Marketgate backed onto Hullstrete. Aldegate had few frontages to the east, where it crossed Hullstrete and Marketgate, but many frontages further west. This suggests that Aldegate was less important than Hullstrete or Marketgate. At the places where Munkegate crossed Hullstrete and Marketgate, the properties fronted onto the other streets, suggesting that Munkegate was less important too. Using the corner frontage criterion, Kyrkelane

250  Town growth and topography Table 6.16  Distribution of properties by street with frontage Hull Street

Number

Street

Number

Hullstrete (North): North Gate–Chapel Lane Hullstrete (North Central): Chapel Lane–Aldegate Hullstrete (South Central): Aldegate–Kyrklane Hullstrete (Spouth): Kyrkelane–Munkegate Marketgate (North): Chapel Lane–Holy Trinity Marketgate (South): Holy Trinity–Munkegate Aldegate (East): Hullstrete– Marketgate Aldegate (Central): Marketgate–Beverleygate Aldegate (West): Beverleygate–Wall Lylestrete

15

Munkegate (East): Marketgate–Hullstrete

16

11

11

18

Munkegate (West): Marketgate–Wall Beverleygate

24

Kyrkelane

14

13

Bedfordstrete

13

Halestrete

5

4 11

6

Chaimpaynstrete

2

8

Humberstrete

1

13 11

Outside the walls (including Mylkestrete, 20 and parts of Munkegate and Lylestrete) 216 TOTAL

Less no information on rent: the property is a gift from the king or not in the king’s fee Less the location is unknown or unspecified Less the property is a complex portfolio of smaller properties Less the property is a portion of roadway only Rents available for analysis Less no frontage measurement Properties analysed by regression analysis Less no depth measurement Properties analysed for which depth estimates are also available

6 2 1 3 204 23 181 3 178

Source: Horrox, 1983a. Reproduced from Casson and Casson (2019a) with permission from Cambridge University Press.

and Halestrete were side streets, but nevertheless both had a significant number of property frontages; those frontages were smaller than those on the main streets, however. Influence of location, property frontage and depth and ownership on rent levels: hedonic regression Table 6.17 presents the results of a regression analysis. The dependent variable is the logarithm of the rent, and the independent variables are property characteristics and location. Some characteristics, such as size of plot, reflect economic factors determining rents, whilst others, such as the personal characteristics of the property-holder, represent social factors (for example, social status). In regression 1, both frontage and depth are used as explanatory variables relating to property characteristics. The location of the property is measured by using the street onto which the property fronted. Corner plots, proximity to rivers and

Town growth and topography  251 Table 6.17  Regression analysis of the logarithm of rent Hull Variable

Regression 1 Coefficient

Constant Log frontage Log depth Corner plot Feudal rent River Hull River Humber Outside wall or ditch On wall or ditch Hullstrete North Hullstrete North Central Hullstrete South Central Hullstrete South Marketgate North Aldegate East Aldegate Central Aldegate West Beverleygate and Bedfordstrete Kyrkelane Lylestrete and Chaimpaynstrete Munkegate East Munkegate West Halestrete Held by Pole family Held be Barton family Held by Upsale family Held by Lychefeld family Held by Taverner family Log distance from Hullstrete crossroads Log distance from church R2 Adjusted R2 F-statistic Jarque–Bera normality Heteroskedasticity F-test Number of observations

1.493** 0.365*** 0.162 0.180* −3.746*** −0.075 −0.434 −0.291 −0.035 −0.016 0.574** 0.937*** 1.074*** 0.425 0.704*** −0.166 0.058 0.100 0.014 −0.400** 1.101*** −0.468*** −0.920*** 0.156 0.047 0.062 −0.350** −0.157 0.783 0.743 19.992*** 16.170*** 1.757** 178

Regression 2 p-value 0.020 0.000 0.222 0.072 0.000 0.701 0.124 0.433 0.879 0.946 0.017 0.003 0.000 0.136 0.000 0.476 0.668 0.695 0.932 0.049 0.000 0.005 0.000 0.427 0.862 0.675 0.034 0.472

0.000 0.000 0.018

Coefficient

p-value

3.000** 0.353*** 0.255** 0.252** −3.615*** −0.198 −0.494**

0.015 0.000 0.031 0.012 0.000 0.266 0.042

−0.169 0.480 0.899*** 1.016*** 0.607** 0.630** 0.965*** 0.048 0.450*** 0.287 0.258* −0.044 0.837*** −0.237 −0.688*** 0.282 0.086 0.146 −0.351** −0.104 −0.426*** −0.068 0.813 0.777 22.949*** 18.183*** 1.886*** 177

0.506 0.245 0.008 0.001 0.028 0.011 0.000 0.838 0.010 0.301 0.094 0.826 0.001 0.275 0.001 0.304 0.747 0.304 0.041 0.642 0.000 0.787 0.000 0.000 0.008

Note: Probability values are in brackets under the correlation coefficients. *** denotes 1 percent significance, ** 5 percent significance and * 10 percent significance. Missing measurements of distance lead to a multicollinearity problem that requires the omission of the “outside the wall” dummy variable in regression 2; they also reduce the number of useable observations to 177. Source: Horrox, 1983a. Reproduced from Casson and Casson (2019a) with permission from Cambridge University Press.

relation to the town walls are other locational factors taken into account. An adjustment is applied for ten nominal rents (labelled “feudal”). The identity of the owners is represented by dummy variables indicating whether a property-holder was a member of one of the five major family dynasties (Casson and Casson, 2019a).

252  Town growth and topography The results demonstrate the importance of economic factors as a determinant of rent. Frontage has a positive and significant impact on rent: doubling the frontage increases rent by about 36 percent. Frontage was more important than depth; depth carries a positive coefficient, but it is not significant. This suggests that the social significance of frontage as an expression of social status may have been important too. A corner plot increased in value by about 18 percent. River frontage and relation to the walls were not important, but fronting on the right street was crucial. A centrality premium existed in Hull. Hullstrete demonstrates very high rents, with the effect being strongest in the south. Munkegate also had high rents to the east where it intersected Hullstrete. Aldegate East had high rents too, but only average rents in the centre or to the west. Lylestrete, Chaimpaynstrete and, in particular, Halestrete, had very low rents; they also were in the west of the town. This evidence points to the highest rents being around the intersection of two of the principal streets, Hullstrete and Munkegate in the southeast corner of the town just north of the confluence of the two rivers. In contrast, the identity of the owner had little impact on the level of rent. The only significant finding is that the Lychefeld family paid somewhat lower rents than the average; Robert Lychefeld was mayor at the time of the survey, but this does not seem to be the relevant factor. Lychefeld held one of a small group of properties in Hullstrete that paid nominal rents and, in addition, held several larger properties to the west of the town where rents were in any case low. It is possible, therefore, that this result was due simply to the unusual nature of Lychefeld’s property portfolio. Perhaps the most impressive feature of this regression, however, is that over 75 percent of the variation is explained by the factors mentioned previously, as indicated by the R2 statistic. Most of the explanation is attributable to frontage and street location, demonstrating that these factors had an important impact on levels of rent in medieval Hull. Further analysis of central places The regression results given previously suggest the presence of a rental premium on central locations in medieval Hull. Because of its emphasis on markets, economic theory suggests that the central place in Hull would be the marketplace adjacent to Holy Trinity church. However, the preceding regression results showed that the properties with the highest rents were at a crossroads between the market and the quay. To investigate this further, an additional regression was estimated that included, in addition, two distance measures (see regression 2). One measures the distance of a property from the crossroads identified by the first regression, and the other measures the distance from the marketplace (specifically the west door of Holy Trinity church). Lack of information on precise location means that properties outside the ditch have to be omitted from this analysis. The results show clearly that rents declined with distance from the crossroads but did not decline significantly with distance from the market. This suggests that it was indeed the crossroads and not the marketplace that was the economic centre of the town.

Town growth and topography  253 The results also show that certain streets carried significant rental premia even when a distance measurement was introduced. The rental premium is reflected in the value of the estimated coefficient shown in the table opposite the name of the street in Table 6.17. This suggests that those streets had distinctive characteristics other than distance from the centre that influenced their rent levels. Even more striking is the fact that different sections of the same street carried different rental premia, for example, different portions of each of the three major streets of Hullstete, Aldgate and Munkgate. The most obvious explanation is that each street had its own reputation that influenced local property rents and that this reputation reflected factors other than distance from the centre. The results do not indicate what these additional factors are, but they provide some clues. Closer examination of the coefficients on the individual streets in this regression indicates that the impact of distance from the central place was asymmetric. Contrary to the assumptions of standard urban economic theory, rents decreased faster in some directions than in others. Specifically, rents declined more steeply to the west than to the north. To the northwest, the rents initially declined a little and then stabilized as the walls of de la Pole’s manor were approached. This suggests that an additional factor influencing rents was the desirability of living either near the river or near to the manor house, and away from the area to the west of the market. Finally, it appears that immediate neighbours mattered too. The residuals from the first regression can be used to measure spatial autocorrelation, a characteristic of property markets in modern towns (Basu and Thibodeau, 1998). Spatial autocorrelation measures the degree to which expensive properties are located next to other expensive properties, and cheap properties next to other cheap properties, after all other measurable factors (for example, distance and street) are taken into account. Neighbouring properties can be adjacent to each other in three main ways: at the front; at the rear (for example one backyard to another) or on a corner (where a property fronting one street adjoined a property fronting an intersecting street). The results (not shown) indicate that in Hull adjacency at the front was of greater economic significance than adjacency at the rear, although adjacency at the rear still affected rents. The final line of the table shows a positive but insignificant correlation for adjacency at a corner. These results suggest that the property market in Hull resembled a modern property market in its pattern of spatial autocorrelation. They also underline the importance of property frontage; it was not only the length of a frontage that influenced rents but the values of the properties to either side of it. Summary and conclusions The overall results suggest that most rents in Hull were set at commercial rates from the outset, most likely in the period 1299–1347. By the time of the 1347 rental, the distribution of rents reflected the spatial economy of the town. These factors, in turn, reflected the topography of a town that was a leading international port. The evidence points to a central place of high rents at the corner of Hullstrete and Munkegate. The fact that the market outside Holy Trinity church is not the central place suggests that an explanation of urban rents in terms of distance from

254  Town growth and topography the shops is not appropriate. In Hull, distance from place of business (on the staithes) appears to be at least as important, if not more so. Both Hull’s geographical location and the royal investment appear to have contributed to making it a desirable location to live during the fourteenth century. Hull did not suffer the flooding that destroyed its nearest competitor Ravenserod, nor the silting that led to the decline of Hedon and many other ports (Saul, 1975). Its topography was less constrained by natural barriers than, for example, that of medieval Shrewsbury, which was bounded on three sides by a river (Baker, 2010: 23, 129). The presence of a single dominant fee, that of the crown, enabled Hull to be developed systematically. This distinguished the topography of Hull from Coventry, for example, where dual lordship resulted in two urban focal points (Goddard, 2004: 290). The absence of an urban religious institution following the withdrawal of the monks of Meaux abbey distinguished Hull from many other medieval towns where monastic houses were local lords or property-owners. It is also notable that, despite religious houses investing in property in the eastern ports of Boston, there is little evidence of such investment in Hull (Rigby, 2017: 46–7). This may have been due to the withdrawal of Meaux. Although a new town, Hull’s rents were not set at uniform levels. The variation of rents in its property market is instead a characteristic that it shares with the river port of Gloucester in c.1100 and c.1455, as described subsequently. Hull also shared with Gloucester the characteristic of spatial autocorrelation of rents in adjacent properties.

Gloucester Historical context Gloucester was the first bridging point of the River Severn, a regional road hub and a regional market centre serving rural areas to the east and the industries of the Forest of Dean to the west. The revival of Gloucester after the withdrawal of the Roman army has been attributed to both the church and local rulers. Gloucester has its origins in the Roman period, but continuity of settlement seems to have been closely connected to a religious function. Two of the Anglo-Saxon foundations, the church of St Mary de Lode (possibly the see of a Celtic bishop) and St Oswald’s, were located close to Roman cemeteries (Baker and Holt, 2004: 34). In c.700 the Old Minster of St Peter’s was founded, possibly by Osric, sub-king of the Hwicce, and received royal support from both the Hwicce and their overlords, the rulers of Mercia (Baker and Holt, 2004: 15–18, 294). The decision to formally develop Gloucester as a borough seems to have resulted from the impact of an attack by the Vikings in 877–8 (Baker and Holt, 2004: 19). Aethelflaed, Lady of the Mercians and daughter of King Alfred, is credited with playing a key role in Gloucester’s second revival. In c.909 she founded a New Minster at St Oswald’s (Baker and Holt, 2004: 20; Heighway, 1988; Morgan, Sargent, Insley and Capper, 2017). The exact reason for its foundation is unclear, but it has been proposed that there may have been a Hwiccian or Mercian royal

Town growth and topography  255 cemetery on the site (Baker and Holt, 2004: 21). Oswald had been king of Northumbria from 634 to 642, when he was killed by the Mercians. In 1153 it became a house of Augustinian canons (Baker and Holt, 2004: 21). The royal palace at Kingsholm was also established during this period. Aethelflaed is also credited with restoring Gloucester’s defences, and it has been suggested that she had an influence on the street pattern, due to its similarities with the defensive burghs created by her father King Alfred (Heighway, 1988). In 1066 the king held the town, receiving £36, 12 sesters of honey, a large amount of iron and various services in the king’s hall and chamber (Open Domesday, 2022; Williams and Martin, 2002). Gloucester is listed as the head of the shire and is referred to as a city. The king also held a large manor at Barton, just north of the city. By 1086 the town rendered £60 plus £20 from the mint, while Barton rendered £20, 20 cows, 20 pigs and 16s for loaves fed to the hounds. Various aristocrats and ecclesiastics held properties from the king, for example Roger of Berkeley held a fishery and Bishop Osbern of Exeter held land and messuages. King William imposed a castle that overlooked both the town centre and the riverside; 30 houses were destroyed to build the castle and to re-fortify the city. There was a resident Jewish community between c.1168 and 1275, probably based on or near Eastgate Street (Hillaby, 2001: 82–3). It has been proposed that their presence in the town might have been connected to the activities of Bristolbased financier and urban developer Robert Fitzharding. Fitzharding and members of Gloucester’s Jewish community may have co-funded Angevin campaigns to place Matilda (daughter of Henry I) and her son on the English throne (Hillaby, 2001: 45–6). In 1275, as part of the expulsion of Jewish communities from the Queen Mother’s dower towns of Cambridge, Gloucester, Marlborough and Worcester, the Jewish community of Gloucester was ordered to relocate to Bristol (Hillaby and Hillaby, 2013: 151; Hillaby, 2001: 107–8). However, aware of an attack experienced by Bristol’s Jewish community that year, many chose to relocate to Hereford instead (Hillaby and Hillaby, 2013: 151; Hillaby, 2001: 107–8). In the reign of Henry I the town was administered by a royal reeve whose duties included collecting landgavel from the burgesses. Henry II gave the burgesses the customs and liberties of London and Winchester. In 1165 the burgesses were allowed to farm the royal revenues from the town; Gloucester was only the fourth town to enjoy that privilege (Herbert, 1988: 28). Gloucester received a succession of royal charters 1194–1256. In 1483 the town was incorporated, with the power to appoint its own mayor, aldermen, bailiffs and coroner (Herbert, Griffiths, Reynolds and Clark, 1983). It held markets on Wednesdays and Saturdays from an early date. A causeway and stone bridge over the River Severn was built in the reign of Henry II, complete with a house, initially intended for a hermit; this house was subsequently extended to become St Bartholmew’s hospital for the poor and sick. The hospital enjoyed royal patronage at the outset, but later decayed (Baker and Holt, 2004). Two leper hospitals were also established in the twelfth century, one of which still survives, though no longer for lepers. Gloucester lies at the intersection of a north–south road from Worcester to Bridgewater and an ancient east–west road from London to Carmarthen via

256  Town growth and topography Abergavenny and Brecon. These roads met in the middle of the town where the market was situated. Churches clustered round this congested area; perhaps because of this congestion, the town developed suburbs at an early date (Baker and Holt, 2004). In 1334 the town was assessed for a tenth at 1,081s (Glasscock, 1975). The late medieval town is well-documented: it had many smiths (using iron from the Forest of Dean) and was a significant source of nails for the construction industry (Finberg, 1955). It also possessed many inns to meet the needs of travellers; a notable example of a sixteenth-century inn survives today (Stevenson, 1893). Its port gradually became eclipsed by Bristol, however. By the fifteenth century, the river had become too shallow for the larger ocean–going craft being built at Bristol, or arriving at Bristol from foreign ports. Goods were transhipped onto wherries at Bristol which could then sail up the Severn direct to Worcester and beyond without calling at Gloucester (Heighway and Garrod, 1981). The town was still an important road hub, but had lost its role as a river port. By the mid–fifteenth century the town it was in a poor state, and in its charter of 1483 the fee farm was reduced to reflect this (Herbert, Griffiths, Reynolds and Clark, 1983). Leland c.1540 considered the streets around the market cross to be very fine, with a good supply of fresh water, but the low-lying parts of the town and some of the suburbs to be rather decayed (II, 57–63). The ecclesiastical establishment, based mainly in the centre of the town, was surviving much better, it seems, than the mercantile and artisan sectors based on the outskirts of the town. In c.1524 Gloucester was assessed at 2,677s which is a modest sum for such an important town (Sheail, 1998). Gloucester was included by Matthew Paris (Paris and Trustees of the British Museum, 1928). It was depicted on the Gough map as a “spired church, castle and walls with three gates” (The Gough Map of Great Britain, 2022). Speed also portrayed the town, mentioning the royal burials there (Speed, 2000: 56–7). Gloucester: the north of the town from c.909 onwards St Oswald’s appears to have developed its landed endowment to the north of the town from its foundation in c.909 until 1066. The parish of St Oswald’s is absent from the 1455 rental, as no properties there paid landgable to the king (Baker and Holt, 2004: 284). Baker and Holt attribute to St Oswald’s the development of the “western side of Hare Lane, St Brigid’s Lane (generally known in the later medieval period as Bride Lane) and Wateringstead Street, as well as the tenements along the southern side of the street between the inner and outer north gates” (Baker and Holt, 2004: 284). They suggest that the Crown may have encouraged development, since landgable was due to the crown from tenements on the east side of Hare Lane (Baker and Holt, 2004: 88). It is possible that Hare Lane was intended as a permanent or seasonal cattle market (Baker and Holt, 2004: 88). There is little evidence of St Oswald’s activities in the property market during the twelfth and thirteenth centuries (Baker and Holt, 2004: 284). However, in the period 1290–1355 the house was gifted or purchased 45 messuages and shops, the majority of them in the suburbs but some within the walls (Baker and Holt, 2004: 284).

Town growth and topography  257 The area around the church of St Mary de Lode c.1100 onwards St Peter’s, either as minster or as Benedictine abbey, was probably responsible for the development of the area around the church of St Mary de Lode (Baker and Holt, 2004: 277–8). A survey of Gloucester of c.1100 records the abbot of St Peter’s held 52 burgages, although exactly where is not specified (Baker and Holt, 2004: 277–8). The triangular shape of the site of St Mary de Lode suggests that St Peter’s intended to create a market place there, outside the Roman walls and near to the waterfront (Baker and Holt, 2004: 98). In doing so, they reused what was probably the site of a Roman square and building (possibly a mausoleum). Housing was possibly part of that development and the properties would have paid landgable to the abbey and not the king (Baker and Holt, 2004: 278–9). St Peter’s abbey also developed further areas during the twelfth and thirteenth centuries, notably Newland outside the north gate and on Barton Street outside the east gate (Baker and Holt, 2004: 281). It also acquired additional properties by gift or purchase, including some on its Barton manor that included some of Gloucester’s suburbs (Baker and Holt, 2004; 281). Acquisitions and greenfield development declined in c.1350 and in 1374 a licence that allowed St Peter’s to acquire “lands with an annual value of £10” expired (Baker and Holt, 2004: 281). Instead, St Peter’s focused on redeveloping previous acquisitions with a view to increasing rental income. This included in c.1440 replacing groups of tenements and shops with two large inns, which appear in the 1455 rental (Baker and Holt, 2004: 282). St Peter’s continued such activities after 1455. In c.1498–1534 the abbey developed a third inn, the Fleece, by purchasing what appear to have been “dilapidated” buildings in Westgate Street with rear access to Gore Lane. In 1455 they were owned by the Countess of Shrewsbury (Baker and Holt, 2014: 282). In 1498 the abbey rebuilt a block of selds it owned in the middle of Westgate Street (Baker and Holt, 2014). Baker and Holt (2004: 283) suggest that these new schemes indicate that the state of Gloucester’s economy was improving by the 1490s, since there was money available for the projects and they were presumably considered financially viable to commit to. The south of the town from 1136 onwards Llanthony Secunda priory was founded in 1136, on the west bank of the River Severn southwest of town, initially as a refuge for monks from the original Llanthony priory in South Wales who were fleeing Welsh rebels (Baker and Holt, 2004: 285; Langston, 1942; Rhodes, 2002: xiv). Some monks then remained in Gloucester, while others returned to Wales. Its endowment by Miles of Gloucester (sheriff of Gloucestershire) included all of Miles’s manor of Hide, outside the south gate and close to the priory (Baker and Holt, 2004: 286, 333; Rhodes, 2002: xiv). The tithes of this manor had previously been granted to the newly founded St Owen’s church in 1095 by Walter, constable of Gloucester castle and Miles’s father (Herbert, 1988: 18–22). St Owen’s may have part of the private estate of the constables, intended for the use of them and the

258  Town growth and topography castle servants rather than the wider suburban population. In 1136 Miles gave control of the church and all its property to Llanthony Secunda. It is likely that the land outside the south gate was already the site of a suburb by the time it was granted to Llanthony Secunda in 1136 (Baker and Holt, 2004: 289, 334). Potential developers were the priests of St Owen’s church, possibly with the support of Walter and Miles, who may have instigated development (Baker and Holt, 2004: 289, 333–4). In 1205 the Gloucester house was officially separated from its Welsh parent and the property of the two houses was divided. The parent house originally retained some properties in Gloucester, but in 1215 it transferred these properties to Llanthony Secunda in return for an annual payment of £5 6s 8d (Baker and Holt, 2004: 286). This was supplemented by additional grants of land made to the Gloucester house in the period 1200–50 (Baker and Holt, 2004: 287). New acquisitions later declined, however, for reasons that are not entirely clear. The Statute of Mortmain of 1279 may have deterred further grants, or Llanthony may have fallen out of favour with the local population (Baker and Holt, 2004: 287). Llanthony’s holdings in the southern suburb comprised low-quality housing. However, like St Peter’s, there is some evidence of a change in strategy in the late fifteenth or early sixteenth century. A series of small properties at the corner of Westgate Street and Abbey Lane, which Llanthony had owned since c.1210 were replaced with a single high-value mansion (Baker and Holt, 2004: 291). The priory’s interactions with the townspeople are recorded in the priory registers (Rhodes, 2002). In 1265–6 the Priory accused the bailiffs of destroying their tenements in Schipster’s Lane and replacing them with a town ditch, even though the work had been done at the king’s request (Herbert, 1988: 242–5; Rhodes, 2002: 9). The town defences were a regular source of conflict. In 1377, concerned about French attacks on the Isle of Wight, the townspeople flooded and widened part of the town ditch, which the priory believed adversely affected some of its properties. The matter was resolved, but in 1391 the prior issued legal action against the bailiffs who held office in 1377–8, claiming that the event was an armed assault (Rhodes, 2002: 15). In 1391 there was a dispute connected with the town walls. This time the priory was accused of creating a door through the town wall into the church of St Kyneburgh’s, which enabled people to bypass the town gate, thereby allowing thieves and fugitives to enter and exit the town, and enabling traders to evade toll payments collected at the gate (Rhodes, 2002: 23–5). There was also conflict over the bailiffs’ failure to acknowledge the prior’s liberties in St Owen’s parish and in King’s Barton, a former royal manor that had been granted to St Peter’s by Edward III in 1345 in return for an annual rent (Graham, 1907: 53–61; Herbert, 1988); that dispute was resolved on 20 June 1378 (Rhodes, 2002: 7). The competence of the monks was indirectly criticised by the bailiffs. When 11 monks died during the Black Death of 1349 the bailiffs reportedly offered their condolences by saying that “those who died were the abler and wiser members of the convent, while the survivors had no knowledge of its muniments or liberties” (Rhodes, 2002: 15). However, cooperation is revealed in the rental compiled in 1455 by Robert Cole, canon and the rent collector of Llanthony priory (Gloucestershire Archives GBR/J/5/1, n.d.). It was commissioned by the bailiffs and was intended to

Town growth and topography  259 provide information that could help the city meet its financial obligations to the king during a long–term trade depression (Baker and Holt, 2004: 3–5; Hatcher, 1996). Yet the cooperation was short–lived. In the register of 1457–66 there are indications that Llanthony priory let Welsh drovers trade at their house before they entered Gloucester. They justified this on the grounds that English, Welsh and Irish merchants faced “unjust charges” in Gloucester market and were “afraid” to use it, whereas Llanthony monks would allow them to “sell their merchandise … without challenge or fee” (Rhodes, 2002: 12). The priory also accused the bailiffs and townspeople of failing to pay the damages that the priory was awarded in respect of the 1391 legal action, and of occupying a number of stalls, tenements and plots of vacant land that were part of the priory’s property portfolio, removing a source of rent from the priory (Rhodes, 2002: 23–5). A map of Gloucester is presented in Figure 6.7. The town lies south of the River Severn, with a bridge leading from the crossroads in the centre to the Forest of

Figure 6.7  Gloucester in the middle ages. Source: Reproduced from Map 3.4 in Baker and Holt, 2004: 6 with the permission of Ashgate Publishing.

260  Town growth and topography Dean and Wales. The market is at the crossroads in the centre of the town, as in Bristol. Different parts of the town were held by different lords and served different purposes. To the north lies St Oswald’s priory, and slightly south of that is the abbey. The castle is a Norman implant to the southwest, near to an industrial area, while further south there is a concentration of religious institutions within the city wall. Gloucester rental of 1455 The rental of 1455, mentioned previously, was commissioned by the bailiffs of Gloucester. It lists over 800 properties, with useable information provided for 481. It records both landgable and ordinary rent. For 340 properties only landgable is provided, for 69 others only rent is provided, while for 34 properties information on both is provided. For each property Cole noted the street it was on, the names of the owner and occupier and details of any other buildings that went with it. Sometimes information is provided about the nature of the property, for example whether it was a booth or a stable. For properties that owed landgable, Cole also provided the names of all the previous tenants, going back at least to the 1230s, in order to establish a liability to pay (Casson and Casson, 2016; Gloucestershire Archives GBR/J/5/1, n.d.; Langton, 1977; Stevenson, 1890). To analyse ordinary rent, streets were classified in four ways, namely Southgate, Mercery and Butchery, Central side lanes, and the Northeast (mainly outside the inner wall). For landgable analysis 12 areas were identified. Southgate has by far the largest number of observations and was therefore used as the control location in both cases. Owners were resolved into seven categories. The most numerous category, private male owner, was used as the control for the landgable analysis. The prior of Llanthony and the abbot of St. Peter’s were identified individually because their institutions both owned a large number of properties. “Local religious institutions” is a category that includes many corporate bodies associated with Gloucester churches; “external religious institutions” includes the abbots of Winchcombe and Hailes; “civic institutions” includes the Stewards of Gloucester and the Community of Gloucester; finally there are several private woman owners, some owning several properties. However, there were too few relevant observations to include women and external religious organisations in the analysis of ordinary rent; only four categories of owner are distinguished — the prior, the abbot, local religious institutions and local civic institutions — with a control group comprising private owners (both male and female) and external religious institutions. Fifteen characteristics of a property are identified; they are selected so that a reasonable number of properties appear in each category in the landgable analysis: ordinary tenement (the most common group, and also the control group), principal tenement, or tenement with additional buildings (for example a bake-house), a toft (which appears to refer to a building with attached garden or vacant land), an inn, a shop (either a shop based in domestic accommodation, a shed or a booth), a cottage, a stable (sometimes converted from a cottage), a corner property (mainly at the junction of a principal street and a side street), a new building, an empty building or vacant lot, a multiplicity of dwellings (for example, through

Town growth and topography  261 subdivision of a large tenement), a “parcel” (part of a tenement or plot of land), a building where the occupier is noted as practising a trade, or where the surname suggests a particular trade, a building where the occupier is associated with a profession, such as cleric or lawyer, and a building where one of the occupiers (usually the only one) is a woman. Because of data limitations, only eight categories appear in the analysis of ordinary rent: principal tenements, inns, shops, cottages, corner properties, new buildings, empty buildings, and plots where the occupier practises a trade are each compared with a control group of all other properties. The results of the ordinary rent regressions are presented in Table 6.18. The explanatory variables are listed on the left-hand side. In each cell the impact coefficient for the relevant dummy variable is reported, with its significance level shown in brackets. Summary statistics are reported in the last three rows. Column 1 analyses location factors only, column 2 property characteristics only and column 3 ownership only. Location and property characteristics are combined in column 4, location and ownership in column 5, and property characteristics and ownership in column 6; all the factors are entered into column 7. This step-wise approach is used purely for expository purposes. It shows how the impacts imputed to one set of factors change when another set of factors is introduced into the regression. The regression explains about two-thirds of all the variation of rents across properties in Gloucester and is highly significant overall. The final column is the key to interpretation because it contains all the variables. It shows that, compared to Southgate, the Mercery and Butchery area has significantly higher rents, whilst the central side lanes have significantly lower rents. In the north east area of the town the rents are not significantly different from those in Southgate. Since Mercery and Butchery are at the heart of the central shopping area, the results are consistent with the view that rents are higher in the centre. However, the northeast, which is somewhat more peripheral, does not have lower rents than Southgate, which suggests that centrality may work more strongly over short distances within the city walls than it does over longer distances either side of the walls. The proposition that frontages on major streets generate higher rents is fully supported by the negative coefficient for the central side lanes. The results for types of property are mixed. The control group comprises ordinary tenements. As expected, large properties that include adjoining buildings (for example, bake-houses and workshops) pay higher rents, while cottages pay significantly lower rents. Neither new properties nor corner properties attract higher rents, however. It seems unlikely that the quality of new building was lower, given the surviving evidence from the period, but it is possible that rents were declining and that new buildings therefore had to be rented for less than existing tenancies. Most of the corner properties lay at the corner of a main street and a side street, or at the corner of two side streets, and may have incurred some nuisances as a result; unlike prestigious properties at the corner of two major streets, therefore, they may not have attracted a premium. Empty properties do not attract lower rents. For empty properties the rent recorded is the rent paid by the last tenant, and so there is no particular reason why it should be low. In fact it is higher than average, although not significantly so. One possibility is that the property is empty because the rent is high; this may be why

Explanatory factor

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

Constant Location Mercery and Butchery Central side lanes Northeast Type of property Large tenement Inn Shop Cottage Corner property Newly built Empty Trade connection Ownership Prior of Llanthony Abbot of St. Peters Local religious institutions Civic institutions R2 Adjusted R2 F-statistic

4.589 (0.000)

4.462 (0.000)

4.687 (0.000)

4.493 (0.000)

4.887 (0.000)

4.608 (0.000)

4.606 (0.000)

0.640 (0.027) −0.988 (0.000) −0.042 (0.843)

0.437 (0.084) −1.328 (0.000) −0.091 (0.745)

0.589 (0.024) −1.324 (0.000) −0.076 (0.624) 0.996 (0.008) 1.345 (0.000) 0.121 (0.701) −0.890 (0.000) −0.332 (0.203) −0.100 (0.453) 0.029 (0.942) 0.351 (0.027)

0.362 0.343 18.764 (0.000)

0.370 0.316 6.893 (0.000)

0.786 (0.058) 1.203 (0.000) −0.140 (0.622) −0.472 (0.006) −0.225 (0.300) −0.194 (0.169) 0.046 (0.891) 0.407 (0.006) −0.739 (0.005) −0.353 (0.140) 0.111 (0.606) −0.439 (0.014) 0.138 0.102 3.921 (0.005)

0.550 0.495 36.530 (0.000)

−0.555 (0.007) −0.590 (0.005) −0.024 (0.905) −0.537 (0.014) 0.457 0.417 11.434 (0.000)

0.546 (0.019) −0.707 (0.001) 0.098 (0.805) 1.192 (0.001) 0.799 (0.000) 0.126 (0.729) −0.977 (0.000) −0.012 (0.964) 0.066 (0.728) 0.296 (0.374) 0.591 (0.000)

0.991 (0.013) 0.763 (0.000) −0.120 (0.742) −0.572 (0.006) 0.061 (0.786) −0.059 (0.802) 0.269 (0.328) 0.592 (0.000)

−0.939 (0.000) 0.304 (0.121) 0.062 (0.787) −0.388 (0.033) 0.583 0.527 10.488 (0.000)

−0.792 (0.000) 0.013 (0.943) 0.056 (0.782) −0.294 (0.191) 0.665 0.607 11.501 (0.000)

Source: Gloucestershire Archives GBR/J/5/1, n.d. and Stevenson, 1890. Reproduced from Casson and Casson (2016) with permission from Wiley. Note: 103 observations. The significance level is indicated by a probability value where, by convention, 0.1 indicates weak significance, 0.05 significance and 0.01 or below high significance. To simplify the presentation of the table, levels of significance are indicated only by the p-values shown beneath each coefficient and not by the asterisks used in previous tables in this chapter.

262  Town growth and topography

Table 6.18  Regression analysis of impact of location, ownership and type of property on rent in Gloucester

Town growth and topography  263 the previous tenant quit, and why the property cannot be re-let until the rent is reduced. This is consistent with the scenario of declining rents set out previously. Shops do not carry a rent premium. This may reflect the fact that some of properties classified as shops were probably little more than sheds or booths attached to the sides of other buildings, such as city-centre churches. It could also reflect the fact that the conversion of central properties to shop use was at an equilibrium, in which no further premium was available for creating yet another shop. On average the rent of a shop is slightly below the rent of a standard tenement (though not significantly so); this suggests that if anything there were too many shops, and that economic advantage lay in converting marginal shops to residential use; this is also consistent with a scenario of urban decline. Inns appear to be the main factor in high rents. Indeed, it is known that new inns were being built at this time or shortly afterwards (Historic England 2022b; Historic England, 2022d). This could have been the result of a growth in long-­ distance trade through Gloucester, or possibly an increase in the pilgrimage trade associated with St. Peter’s abbey. If so, it may indicate a re-orientation of the town’s economy away from local trade and towards long-distance trade. The practice of a trade also increases rents. The practice of a trade is mainly inferred from the description of the premises, the occupation of the tenant, and in some cases simply from the tenant’s name. There is clearly a strong effect of some kind, and the most plausible explanation is that tradesmen required specific types of premises that were in limited supply. It is possible that controls on “nuisance” trades restricted the supply of suitable premises and provided a premium for their owners. Unfortunately, there are too few premises in the study to allow a more detailed statistical examination of this issue. The only significant result for ownership is that the prior of Llanthony tends to receive lower rents for his property than the control group of private owners. This could reflect the charity of the priory, or it could indicate that the priory demanded large fines, or considerations, for its leases, or that it made tenants pay a range of other charges. It might also reflect an inefficient estate management policy, contrary to Baker and Holt’s assessment (2004: 287–91). Neither the abbot of St Peter’s, nor the local religious organisations associated with churches, guilds, chantries and hospitals, differ significantly from private owners. Civic bodies, such as the Stewards of Gloucester, received on average lower rent than private owners, but not significantly so. Landgable As a fossilised rent from the eleventh century, it might be expected that the situation regarding landgable would be very different. It was noted earlier, however, that variations in landgable could result from a variety of factors, including the incremental expansion of the city through new developments at different times in different parts, each of which set a different levels of landgable; from the division of properties into smaller properties to provide for a larger but poorer population, such as the population at the time of the rental, which was a time of prolonged recession in many towns including Gloucester; and from the combination of adjacent

264  Town growth and topography properties into larger properties, and in particular the expansion of inns and taverns providing hospitality to travellers, which was an important trade in Gloucester. The results are reported in Table 6.19. They are certainly different in some respects from those of rent, but there are striking similarities too. The proportion of variation in landgable explained by the regression is only 27 percent, which is less than half that of the rent regression. On the other hand, because of the larger number of observations, the overall significance of the regression is high. Landgable clearly conforms to the centrality principle. Taking Southgate as a central area, the other central areas of Mercery and Butchery, Westgate, Northgate and Eastgate all have positive though insignificant coefficients, suggesting that they are basically similar to Southgate, but slightly more prosperous. By contrast, peripheral areas such as Outside Eastgate, Between the Bridges (to the west), and Her Lane (to the northeast) are associated with significant negative coefficients that are indicative of lower rents. Side lanes do not carry the same penalty as before: neither central side lanes nor Bareland have landgable significantly different from Southgate. Landgable therefore demonstrates centrality even more strikingly than rent. Since the central properties were likely to have been developed earliest, it might be expected that, because of subsequent inflation, they would carry the lowest rents. The fact that they carry high rents could be accounted for, either by later redevelopment of the centre of the town, overseen by the king or the civic authorities, or by the concentration of large elite residences, together with inns and taverns, in the centre of the town. Once again, inns carry a highly significant positive coefficient, as does the practice of a trade. However, shops, corner plots and new buildings do not significantly differ in value from the control group of ordinary tenements. On the whole, therefore, the pattern of variation in landgable payments is consistent with the concentration of large properties in the centre and the dispersal of smaller properties toward the edges of the city. The identity of the owner has no significant effect. This is consistent with the view that it is the size of the property, and not the characteristics of the owner, that are of prime importance. Although wealthy people may be attracted to the centre, it is the size of their property and not their personal characteristics that matters. Properties owned by the prior of Llanthony paid on average less landgable than others, but the discrepancy is not significant. The results also indicate that men and women did not differ significantly in their access to the larger properties. Spatial correlation of rents Spatial correlation implies a positive association between rents paid by adjacent properties. It is a well-known feature of contemporary property markets, and so it is interesting to inquire whether it is characteristic of medieval Gloucester too. The existence of spatial correlation does not affect the reliability of the estimated regression coefficients reported previously, although it does mean that the significance tests need to be treated with care. Spatial autocorrelation applies to properties on a like-for-like basis. This means that correlation is predicted to occur in the residuals of the estimated regressions rather than in the rents themselves.

Table 6.19  Regression analysis of impact of location, ownership and type of property on landgable Gloucester Explanatory factor

2 1.639 (0.000)

3 1.586 (0.000)

0.184 (0.220) 0.302 (0.163) 0.227 (0.193) −0.535 (0.020) 0.067 (0.703) 0.313 (0.081) 0,123 (0.425) −0.288 (0.088) 0.556 (0.007) −0.522 (0.003) −0.128 (0.519) 0.136 (0.360) −0.139 (0.484) 0.874 (0.000) 0.052 (0.629) 0.013 (0.942) −0.417 (0.000) −0.204 (0.447) 0.199 (0.215) −0.491 (0.062) 0.463 (0.002) 0.077 (0.631) −0.035 (0.866) −0.089 (0.577)

1.783 (0.000)

4

5

6

1.565 (0.000)

1.739 (0.000)

0.200 (0.151) 0.256 (0.200) 0.176 (0.310) −0.568 (0.009) 0.010 (0.954) 0.278 (0.077) 0.132 (0.383) −0.203 (0.208) 0.447 (0.031) −0.388 (0.026) 0.239 (0.196)

0.041 (0.784) 0.308 (0.145) 0.128 (0.455) −0.604 (0.010) −0.049 (0.787) 0.213 (0.235) −0.010 (0.945) −0.435 (0.018) 0.423 (0.039) −0.673 (0.000) −0.222 (0.280)

0.023 (0.880) −0.073 (0.637) 0.856 (0.000) −0.119 (0.339) 0.108 (0.398) −0.395 (0.002) −0.127 (0.668) 0.128 (0.432) −0.487 (0.070) 0.411 (0.012) −0.029 (0.855) −0.081 (0.659) −0.182 (0.327)

7 1.642 (0.000)

1.642 (0.000) 0.114 (0.442) 0.278 (0.155) 0.107 (0.545) −0.616 (0.007) −0.080 (0.674) 0.221 (0.182) 0.034 (0.829) −0.314 (0.093) 0.375 (0.074) −0.517 (0.005) 0.142 (0.490)

0.132 (0.388) −0.101 (0.610) 0.860 (0.000) 0.018 (0.868) 0.046 (0.740) −0.387 (0.002) −0.144 (0.566) 0.199 (0.229) −0.438 (0.090) 0.434 (0.003) 0.051 (0.748) −0.012 (0.955) −0.164 (0.351)

0.025 (0.875) −0.010 (0.952) 0.874 (0.000) −0.155 (0.215) 0.051 (0.685) −0.366 (0.006) −0.030 (0.913) 0.106 (0.526) −0.407 (0.121) 0.392 (0.018) −0.039 (0.811) −0.078 (0.656) −0.189 (0.340) (Continued )

Town growth and topography  265

Constant Location Mercery& Butchery Westgate Ebridge Between the bridges Central side lanes Northgate Between the gates Her Lane area Eastgate Outside East Gate Bareland Type of property Large tenement Toft Inn Shop Cottage Land Stable Corner property Newly built Multiple residences Parcel of land or tenement Empty Ruined or decayed

1

Explanatory factor

1

Trade connection Professional connection Woman occupier Ownership Prior of Llanthony Abbot of St Peters Local religious institutions External religious institutions Civic institutions Woman owner R2 0.151 Adjusted R2 0.126 F statistic 5.927 (0.000)

2

3

0.367 (0.000) 0.541 (0.391) 0.142 (0.391)

0.152 0.114 4.031 (0.000)

4

5

0.296 (0.007) 0.362 (0.259) 0.012 (0.945) −0.249 (0.066) −0.008 (0.939) −0.145 (0.230) 0.351 (0.071) −0.382 (0.154) 0.035 (0.043) 0.036 0.020 2.32 (0.033)

0.253 0.195 4.38 (0.000)

−0.240 (0.084) 0.147 (0.138) −0.066 (0.565) −0.073 (0.694) −0.356 (0.188) 0.335 (0.032) 0.184 0.146 4.791 (0.000)

6

7 0.356 (0.000) 0.494 (0.065) 0.108 (0.534)

0.262 (0.003) 0.281 (0.397) −0.032 (0.856)

−0.210 (0.106) −0.003 (0.978) −0.110 (0.364) −0.250 (0.180) −0.168 (0.369) 0.207 (0.154) 0.167 0.115 3.226 (0.000)

−0.212 (0.109) 0.121 (0.224) −0.040 (0.732) −0.070 (0.709) -0.234 (0.238) 0.185 (0.190) 0.270 0.200 3.849 (0.000)

Source: Gloucestershire Archives GBR/J/5/1, n.d. and Stevenson, 1890. Reproduced from Casson and Casson (2016) with permission from Wiley. Note: 378 observations. To simplify the presentation of the table, levels of significance are indicated only by the p-values shown beneath each coefficient and not by the asterisks used in previous tables in this chapter.

266  Town growth and topography

Table 6.19  (Continued)

Town growth and topography  267 To investigate spatial autocorrelation it is necessary to identify all pairs of properties which are adjacent to each other and for which either ordinary rent or landgable information is available for both. It is possible to identify 23 pairs of neighbouring properties for which ordinary rent information is available and 193 pairs for landgable. The results show that there is significant spatial autocorrelation in either rent or landgable. The correlation is lower for landgable than for rent but is statistically more significant because of the greater number of observations involved. This result underlines the basic similarity between rent and landgable; namely the presence of economic patterns in the data for both, and the way that effects observed in rent data are almost invariably reproduced in weaker form in the landgable data. Summary and conclusions In Gloucester rents and landgable were both influenced by the location and type of property. Central locations attracted higher rents and higher landgable. In the case of rents the centrality premium applied mainly to the area around the High Cross. For landgable the distinction was more between the areas inside and outside the city walls, or to the areas east or west of Foreign Bridge. Locations on main streets attracted higher rents than on side streets, although not higher landgable. The centrality premium for ordinary rents has parallels with the situation in Coventry, Bristol and Hull. In Gloucester, Coventry and Bristol the premium was at the market, while in Hull it was between the market and the quay. In contrast, the centrality premium for landgable is unique to Gloucester. Landgable did not carry a centrality premium in Bristol and Cambridge. Inns carried high premia for both rent and landgable, and trade and professional use also carried a premium in both cases. Shops, corner properties and new builds did not command premia. Most shops were in the centre, where rents were already high, but some may have been merely sheds or booths which were less substantial than conventional residential buildings. Corner properties may not have carried a premium because their location was associated with greater noise and nuisance, and therefore did not carry higher status. New builds may not have commanded a premium because at the time of the survey the property market was depressed, and so, while rents on existing properties had not been reduced (possibly due to the terms of the rental agreement), rents for new properties had to be set at lower levels. On the other hand, major tenements commanded a premium for rent and multiple residency commanded a premium for landgable, as expected. Cottages incurred a discount for rent, which may have reflected the reduced floor area. The depressed state of the market may be reflected in the fact that several cottages were in use as stables.

Notes 1 It is generally agreed that the area of Much Park Street, Little Park Street and Dead Lane in Coventry was laid out as a planned development. However, its instigator and the date of its creation are debated. One case is made for the development being

268  Town growth and topography initiated by priory in the mid-thirteenth century, while a second case is made for it being initiated by Queen Isabella in the mid-fourteenth century (Coss, 1986: xxxiv; Lilley, 1998). This debate is explored in detail by them, more recently by Alcock, 2008 and Demidowicz, 2012 and evidence referenced in Goddard, 2004: 116; Lilley, 1998: 2; Rylatt, Gooder and Gooder, 1977; Pythian-Adams, 1977: 30–9. 2 Hirst (1924: 35) believed it was opposite the church of St Mary Redcliffe. 3 Although Cottrell describes Bilswick and Bedminster as granted by Henry II in his capacity as duke of Normandy (Cottrell, 2000: 40). 4 They were said to be related to the Fitzhardings (Lobel and Carus-Wilson, 1975: 8; Sivier, 2002: 149).

References Alcock, N.W. (2008) Queen Isabella’s new suburb in Coventry in 1348. Midland History. 33 (2), pp. 240–8. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1179/004772908X346857. Allen, M. (2012) Mints and Money in Medieval England. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press Allison, K.J. (1969a) Medieval Hull. In: K.J. Allison (ed.) The City of Kingston upon Hull: Victoria History of the County of York, East Riding, Vol. I. London, Oxford University Press for the Institute of Historical Research, pp. 11–85. Allison, K.J. (1969b) Other religious bodies. In: K.J. Allison (ed.) The City of Kingston upon Hull: Victoria History of the County of York, East Riding, Vol. I. London, Oxford University Press for the Institute of Historical Research, pp. 332–33. Alsford, S. (2022a) Appendix 3: rental of community property, 1391. Available from: http:// users.trytel.com/~tristan/towns/lynn4.html [Accessed 12 January 2022]. Alsford, S. (2022b) Planning a new town: personnel, process, and product. Available from: http://users.trytel.com/~tristan/towns/florilegium/community/cmfabr28.html [Accessed 12 January 2022]. Alsford, S. (2022c) ca. 900: Shrewsbury. Available from: http://users.trytel.com/~tristan/ towns/market/shropshire/shrewsbury.html [Accessed 29 January 2022]. Ayers, B.S. (1981) Hull. In: G. Milne and B. Hobley (eds.) Waterfront archaeology in Britain and Northern Europe. CBA Research Report No 41, pp. 126–29. Available from: https:// archaeologydataservice.ac.uk/archives/view/cba_rr/rr41.cfm [Accessed 12 January 2022]. Baker, N. and R. Holt (2004) Urban Growth and the Medieval Church: Gloucester and Worcester. Aldershot, Ashgate. Ballard, A. (ed.) (1913) British Borough Charters 1042–1216. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press. Baker, N., R. Holt and A.T. Thacker (2014) Shrewsbury 700–1200. In: W.A. Champion and A.T. Thacker (eds.) A History of Shropshire, Vol. VI Part 1 Shrewsbury General History and Topography. Institute of Historical Research and Boydell and Brewer, Woodbridge, pp. 6–30. Baker, N. and D. Pannett (2002) Shrewsbury Abbey in context. In: N. Baker (ed.) Shrewsbury Abbey: A Medieval Monastery. Shrewsbury, Shropshire Archaeological and History Society, 9–21. Baker, N. (2010) Shrewsbury: An Archaeological Assessment of an English Border Town. Oxford, Oxbow Books. Baker, N. (2002a) The abbey and its suburb. In: N. Baker (ed.) Shrewsbury Abbey: A Medieval Monastery. Shrewsbury, Shropshire Archaeological and History Society, pp. 206–18. Baker, N. (2002b) The abbey and the town. In: N. Baker (ed.) Shrewsbury Abbey: A Medieval Monastery. Shrewsbury, Shropshire Archaeological and History Society, pp. 219–26.

Town growth and topography  269 Barkly, H. (1883–4) The earlier house of Berkeley. Transactions of the Bristol and Gloucestershire Archaeological Society. 8, pp. 193–223. Barlow, F. (1976) The Winton Domesday. In: M. Biddle (ed.) Winchester in the Early Middle Ages. Oxford, Oxford University Press, pp. 1–142. Barrett, W. (reprint of 1789 ed., 1982) The History and Antiquities of the City of Bristol. Gloucester, Alan Sutton. Bassett, S.R. (1991) Anglo-Saxon Shrewsbury and its churches. Midland History. 16 (1), 1–23. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1179/mdh.1991.16.1.1. Bassett, S. (2000) Anglo-Saxon Birmingham. Midland History. 25 (1), 1–27. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1179/mdh.2000.25.1.1. Bassett, S. (2001) Birmingham before the Bull Ring. Midland History. 26 (1), 1–33. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1179/mdh.2001.26.1.1 Bateson, M. (1902). A London municipal collection of the reign of John. The English Historical Review. 17 (67), 480–511. https://doi.org/10.1093/ehr/XVII.LXVII.480 Bell, A.R., C. Brooks and T.K. Moore (2009) Interest in medieval accounts: examples from England, 1272–1340. History. 94 (316), 411–33. Available from: https://doi. org/10.1111/j.1468-229X.2009.00464.x Berger, R.M. (1993) The Most Necessary Luxuries: The Mercer’s Company of Coventry, 1550– 1680. University Park, Pennsylvania, University of Pennsylvania Press. Beresford, M.W. (1967) New Towns of the Middle Ages: Town Plantation in England, Wales and Gascony. London, Lutterworth Press. Beresford, M. and H.R.P. Finberg (1973) English Medieval Boroughs: A Handlist.David and Charles, Newton Abbot. Bettey, J. (1996) St Augustine’s Abbey, Bristol. Bristol, Bristol Branch of the Historical Association. Bettey, J. (1997) The Royal Fort and Tyndall’s Park: The Development of a Bristol Landscape. Bristol, Bristol Branch of the Historical Association. Bettey, J. (2009) The Medieval Friaries, Hospitals and Chapelries of Bristol. Bristol, Avon Local History and Archaeology. Bettey, J. (2014) St James’s Fair, Bristol, 1137–1837. Bristol, Avon Local History and Archaeology. Bickley, W.B. and J. Hill (1891) Survey of the Borough and Manor in Demesne Foreign of Birmingham Made in the First Year of the Reign of Queen Mary 1553. Birmingham, C. Cooper and Co. Bickley, F.B. (1900) The Little Red Book of Bristol, Vol. 1 and 2. Bristol and London, W. Crofton Hemmons and Henry Sotheran & Co. Birch, W. de G. (1887) A Collection of Charters Relating to Anglo-Saxon History Vol. 2. London, Whiting and Company. Bodleian Library MS Gough Shropshire 1 Rental of the Town of Salop Taken from an Original Roll Dated Anno 30 Hen. 3 (n.d.). Boland, P. (n.d.) Putting the excavation into context. In Dudley Castle Archaeological Project; An  Introduction and Summary of the Excavations 1983–5. Available from: https://www. dudleyzoo.org.uk/wp–content/uploads/00926_DudleyCastleArchProj_IntroAndSummary 83to85.pdf [Accessed 1 March 2022]. Bond, E.A. (ed.) (1868) Chronica Monasterii de Melsa, 3 vols. London, Longmans, Green, Reader, and Dyer. Boyle, J.R. (ed.) (1905) Charters and Letters Patent granted to Kingston upon Hull. Hull, Hull Corporation. Boyle, M.A. and Kiel, K.A. (2009) A survey of house price hedonic studies of the impact of environmental externalities. Journal of Real Estate Literature. 9 (2), 117–44. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1080/10835547.2001.12090098

270  Town growth and topography Braun, G. and F. Hogenberg (ed. S. Füssel) (2008) Civitatis Orbis Terrarum: Cities of the World. Cologne, Taschen. British Library (2022) An exact delineation of the famous citty of Bristoll. Available from: https://www.bl.uk/collection-items/an-exact-delineation-of-the-famous-citty-ofbristoll. [Accessed 1 February 2022]. Bristol & Avon Family History Society (2022a) St Mary Redcliffe. Available from: https:// bafhs.org.uk/st–mary–redcliffe/?v=79cba1185463 [Accessed 12 May 2022]. Bristol & Avon Family History Society (2022b) Temple (Holy Cross. Available from: https://bafhs.org.uk/temple–holy–cross/?v=79cba1185463 [Accessed 12 May 2022]. Brooks, F.W. (1939) A medieval brick–yard at Hull. Journal of British Archaeological Association, 4, 151–74. Brunt, L. and E. Cannon (1999) A grain of truth in medieval interest rates? Re-examining the McCloskey–Nash hypothesis. University of Bristol, Department of Economics Working Paper, 98/462. Available from: https://research-information.bris.ac.uk/en/ publications/a-grain-of-truth-in-medieval-interest-rates-re-examining-the-mccl. Burgess, C. (2004) Canynges, William (1402–1474) Available from: Oxford Dictionary of National Biography https://doi.org/10.1093/ref:odnb/4581 [Accessed 18 November 2021]. Bush, H. (1828) Bristol Town Duties: A Collection of Original and Interesting Documents. John Mathew Gutch, Bristol. Butler, L. (2007) Church of St Peter off Castle Street Cambridge. London, Churches Conservation Trust. Calendar of Charter Rolls 1341–1417 (1903–27), London, HMSO. Calendar of Close Rolls 1259–61 (1902–38), London, HMSO. Calendar of the Patent Rolls 1247–58 (1908), London, HMSO. Calendar of the Patent Rolls 1307–13 (1894–1904), London, HMSO. Calendar of the Patent Rolls 1324–1327 (1905), London, HMSO. Calendar of the Patent Rolls 1436–41 (1894–1904), London, HMSO. Calendar of the Patent Rolls 1446–1452 (1909), London, HMSO. Calvert, H. (1978) A History of Kingston-upon-Hull. Chichester, Phillimore. Cam, H.M. (1930) The Hundred and the Hundred Rolls: An Outline of Local Government in Medieval England. London, Methuen. Carter, W.F. (1942) Additions to Grazebrook’s ‘The barons of Dudley’ with an appendix by G.P. Mander. Staffordshire Record Society. pp. 23–80. Available from: http://www.nltaylor. net/things/Grazebrook_1941.pdf [Accessed 2 February 2022]. Carus–Wilson, E.M. (1937) The Overseas Trade of Bristol in the Later Middle Ages. Bristol, Bristol Records Society. Carus–Wilson, E.M. and O. Coleman (1963) England’s Export Trade, 1275–1547. Oxford, Clarendon Press. Carver, M.O.H. (ed) (1983) Two Town Houses in Medieval Shrewsbury: The Excavation and Analysis of Two Medieval and Later Houses Built on the Town Wall at Shrewsbury. Transactions of the Shropshire Archaeological. Gloucester, Alan Sutton. Casson, C., M. Casson, J.S. Lee and K. Phillips (2020a) Business and Community in Medieval England: The Cambridge Hundred Rolls Sources Volume. Bristol, Bristol University Press. Casson, C., M. Casson, J.S. Lee and K. Phillips (2020b) Compassionate Capitalism: Business and Community in Medieval England. Bristol, Bristol University Press. Casson, C. and M. Casson (2020) Origins of capitalism II medieval urban property markets: thirteenth-century Coventry revisited. In: G. Christ and P.R. Rössner (eds.) History and Economic Life : A Student’s Guide to Approaching Economic and Social History Sources. Abingdon, Routledge, 141–67.

Town growth and topography  271 Casson, C. and M. Casson (2019a) Property rents in medieval English towns: Hull in the fourteenth century. Urban History. 46 (3), 374–97. Available from: https://doi. org/10.1017/S096392681800041X Casson, C. and M. Casson (2019b) “To dispose of wealth in works of charity”: entrepreneurship and philanthropy in medieval England. Business History Review. 93 (3), 473–502. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1017/S0007680519000874 Casson, C. and M. Casson (2016) Location, location, location? analysing property rents in medieval Gloucester. Economic History Review. 69 (2), 575–99. Available from: https:// doi.org/10.1111/ehr.12117 Champion, W.A. (2014) Shrewsbury 1340–1540. In: W.A. Champion and A.T. Thacker (eds.) A History of Shropshire, Vol. VI Part 1 Shrewsbury General History and Topography. Woodbridge, Institute of Historical Research and Boydell and Brewer, pp. 90–135. Chibnall, M. (1973) Houses of Benedictine monks. In A.T. Gaydon and R.B. Pugh (eds.) A History of the County of Shropshire, Vol. 2. London, Oxford University Press for the Institute of Historical Research, 27–37. Childs, W.R. (1990) The Trade and Shipping of Hull, 1300–1500. Hull, East Yorkshire Local History Society. Clark, G. (1988) The cost of capital and medieval agricultural technique. Explorations in  Economic History. 25 (3), 265–94. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1016/00144983(88)90002-2 Colgrave, B. and R.A.B. Mynors (eds.) (1969) Bede’s Ecclesiastical History of the English People. Oxford, Clarendon Press. Cooper, C.H. (1892) Annals of Cambridge, Vol. I. Cambridge, Warwick and Co. Coss, P.R. (ed.) (1986) The Early Records of Medieval Coventry. London, British Academy. Cottrell, J. (2000) Leinster, South Wales, Bristol and Angevin politics: 1135–1172; Some Influences on the Earliest English in Ireland. University of Bristol PhD thesis. Available from: https://research-information.bris.ac.uk/ws/portalfiles/portal/34492394/322625.pdf. Coulton, B. (2010) Regime and Religion: Shrewsbury, 1400–1700. Woonton Almely, Logaston Press. Cox, J.C. (1908) Religious houses. In: W. Page (ed.) A History of the County of Warwick, Vol. 2. London, Dawsons for the Institute of Historical Research, pp. 1–136. Crawford, A. (1984) Bristol and the Wine Trade. Bristol, Bristol Branch of the Historical Association. Cromarty, D. and R. Cromarty (1993) The Wealth of Shrewsbury in the Early Fourteenth Century: Six Local Subsidy Rolls 1297 to 1322: Text and Commentary. Shrewsbury, Shrewsbury Archaeological and History Society. Crompton, J. (ed.) (1991) A Guide to the Industrial Archaeology of the West Midlands Iron District.Association for Industrial Archaeology, Telford. Crompton Rhodes, R. (1934) Ancient Charters of Birmingham. City of Birmingham School of Printing, Birmingham. Cronne, H.A. (ed.) (1946) Bristol Charters, 1378–1499, Bristol, Bristol Record Society. Crouch, D. (2006) Robert, first earl of Gloucester (b. before 1100, d. 1147), magnate. Available from: Oxford Dictionary of National Biography https://doi.org/10.1093/ref:odnb/23716. [Accessed 27 October 2021]. Davis, R.W.C. (1925) London lands and liberties of St. Paul’s, 1066–1135. In: A.G. Little and F.M. Powicke (eds.) Essays in Medieval History in Honour of T.F. Tout. Manchester, Manchester University Press, pp. 45–59. Davis, R.H.C. (1976) The Early History of Coventry. Oxford, Vivian Ridler. De Boer, G. (1946) The evolution of Kingston-upon-Hull, Geography. 31(4), 139–46.

272  Town growth and topography Demidowicz, G. (1994) Introduction–Coventry: a new beginning? In: G. Demidowicz (ed.) Coventry’s First Cathedral: The Cathedral and Priory of St Mary. Paul Watkins, Stamford, pp. 1–16. Demidowicz, G. (2003) The Hersum ditch, Birmingham and Coventry: a local topographical term?. Birmingham and Warwickshire Archaeological Society. 106, pp. 143–50. Demidowicz, G. (2008) Medieval Birmingham: The Borough Rentals of 1296 and 1344–5. Stratford-upon-Avon, The Dugdale Society in association with the Shakespeare Birthplace Trust. Demidowicz, G. (2011) The redevelopment of the cathedral priory site from the Dissolution to the present day. In: L. Monckton and R.K. Morris (eds) Coventry: Medieval Art, Architecture and Archaeology in the City and Its Vicinity.Leeds, The British Archaeological Association, 104–34. Demidowicz, G. (2012) From Queen Street to Little Park: the failure of the medieval suburb in Cheylesmore Park and its transformation into the Little Park. Midland History. 37 (1), 106–15. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1179/0047729X12Z.0000000006 Demidowicz, G. and H.G. Scott (2015) St Michael’s Coventry: The Rise and Fall of the Old Cathedral. Coventry, Coventry Cathedral in association with Scala Arts & Heritage Publishers Ltd. Dent, R.K. (1894) The Making of Birmingham Being A History of the Rise and Growth of the Midland Metropolis. Birmingham and London, J.L. Allday and Marshall and Co. Dormer Harris, M. (1898) Life in an Old English Town. London, Lond and Co. Dyer, C. (1985) Towns and cottages in eleventh century England. In: H. Mayr-Harting and R.I. Moore (eds.) Studies in Medieval History Presented to R.H.C Davis. London and Ronceverte, The Hambledon Press, pp. 91–106. Earle, J. and C. Plummer (1892) Two of the Saxon Chronicles Parallel: Text, Appendices and Glossary Vol 1. Oxford, Clarendon Press. Earle, A. (1906) Essays Upon the History of Meaux Abbey and Some Principles of Medieval Land Tenure Based Upon a Consideration of the Latin Chronicles of Meaux. London, A. Brown and Sons Ltd. Elrington, C.R. (1964) Communications. In: W. Stephens (ed.) A History of the County of Warwick, Vol. 7 The City of Birmingham. The Institute of Historical Research and Oxford University Press, London, pp. 26–42. Elrington, C.R. (2003) Abstracts of Feet of Fines Relating to Gloucestershire 1199–1299. Bristol, Bristol and Gloucestershire Archaeological Society. Elrington, C.R. and P.M. Tillott (1964) The city of Birmingham: the growth of the city. In W. Stephens (ed.) A History of the County of Warwick, Vol. 7 The City of Birmingham. The Institute of Historical Research and Oxford University Press, London, pp. 1–4. English Heritage (2022) History of Temple Church. Available from: https://www.englishheritage.org.uk/visit/places/temple-church/history/. [Accessed 1 May 2022]. Family Search (2022) Comprehensive List of Bristol City Parishes and Episcopal Chapels. Available from: https://www.familysearch.org/wiki/en/Comprehensive_List_of_Bristol_ City_Parishes_and_Episcopal_Chapels. [Accessed 1 May 2022]. Finberg, H.P.R. (1955) Gloucestershire. London, Hodder and Stoughton. Fleming, P. (2004) Bristol Castle: A Political History. Bristol, Bristol Branch of the Historical Association. Fleming, P. (2013) Time, space and power in later medieval Bristol. Available from: http:// eprints.uwe.ac.uk/22171. Accessed [16 January 2022]. Fox, L. (1962) The Coventry guilds and trading companies with special relevance to the position of women. BMI: AS (78): 13–26. Francis, A.D. (1972) The Wine Trade. London, Adam and Charles Black. Fretton, W.G. (1871) Memorials of the Whitefriars, Coventry. BAS: TP. 63–78.

Town growth and topography  273 Fretton, W.G. (1877) Memorials of the fullers’ guild, Coventry. BAS: TP. 23–50. Frost, C. (1827) Notices of the Early History of the Town and Port of Hull. London, J.B. Nichols. Fryde, E.B. (1988) William de la Pole: Merchant and King’s Banker. London, Hambleton Press. Fujita, M. (1989) Urban Economic Theory: Land Use and City Size (Cambridge, Cambridge University Press. Gaydon, A.T. (1973a) Colleges. In: A.T. Gaydon and R.B. Pugh (eds.) A History of the County of Shropshire, Vol. 2. Oxford, Oxford University Press, pp. 114–33. Gaydon, A.T. (1973b) Hospitals. In: A.T. Gaydon and R.B. Pugh (eds.) A History of the County of Shropshire, Vol. 2. Oxford, Oxford University Press, pp. 98–108. Geddes, J. (1991) Iron. In: J. Blair and N. Ramsay (eds.) English Medieval Industries: Craftsmen, Techniques, Products. London and Rio Grande, The Hambledon Press, pp. 167–88. Gelling, M. (1956) Some notes on the place-names of Birmingham and the surrounding district. BMI: AS. (72), 14–17. Gent, T. (1869) Gent’s History of Hull 1735. Hull, M.C, Peck and Son. Gill, C. (1952) A History of Birmingham Vol. I The Manor and Borough to 1865. Birmingham City Council, Oxford. Gill, C. (1930) Studies in Midland History. Oxford, The Clarendon Press. Gillett, E. and K. A. MacMahon (1980) A History of Hull. Oxford, University of Hull and Oxford University Press. Glasscock, R.E. (ed.) (1975) The Lay Subsidy of 1334. London, Oxford University Press for the British Academy. Goddard, R. (2004) Lordship and Medieval Urbanisation: Coventry, 1043–1355. Boydell, Woodbridge. Good, G.L. (1992) Excavation at water lane, by Temple Church, Bristol 1971. Bristol and Avon Archaeology. 10, pp. 2–41. Gloucestershire Archives GBR/J/5/1 Rental of the houses in Gloucester AD 1455. Graham. R. (1907) Ecclesiastical history. In W. Page (ed.) A History of the County of Gloucester, Vol. 2. (London, Dawsons for the University of London Institute of Historical Research, pp. 1–126. Gray, A. (1910) The ford and bridge of Cambridge. Proceedings of the Cambridge Antiquarian Society. 14 (2), pp. 126–39. Hadley, G. (1788) New and Complete History of the Town and County of Kingston-upon-Hull. Hull, T. Briggs. Harding, D. (1930) Bristol Charters, 1155–1373. Bristol, Bristol Record Society. Harding, V. and L. Wright (eds.) (1995) London Bridge: Selected Accounts and Rentals, 1381– 1538. London, London Record Society. Hatcher, J. (1996) The great slump of the mid-fifteenth century. In: R. Britnell and J.  Hatcher (eds.) Progress and Problems in Medieval England: Essays in Honour of Edward Miller. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press. Heighway, C. (1988) Anglo-Saxon Gloucester, c.680–1066. In: N.M. Herbert (ed.) The Victoria History of the County of Gloucester, Vol. 4 The City of Gloucester. Oxford, Oxford University Press and Institute of Historical Research, pp. 5–12. Heighway, C.M. and A.P. Garrod (1981) Gloucester. In: G. Milne and B. Hobley (eds.) Waterfront Archaeology in Britain and Northern Europe. CBA Research Report Number 41, pp. 123–4. Available from: https://doi.org/10.5284/1000332 Hemmeon, M. de Wolf (1914) Burgage Tenure in Medieval England. Cambridge, MA, Harvard University Press. Herbert, N.M. (1988) Medieval Gloucester 1066–1547. In: N.M. Herbert (ed.) A History of the County of Gloucester, Vol. IV The City of Gloucester. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp. 13–73.

274  Town growth and topography Herbert, N.M., R.A. Griffiths, S. Reynolds and P. Clark (1983) The 1483 Gloucester Charter in History. Alan Sutton, Gloucester. Heritage gateway (2022) Leper hospital of St Mary Magdalen. Available from: https://www. heritagegateway.org.uk/Gateway/Results_Single.aspx?uid=ab654e44–e21a–4068– bbb3–f6342bf3570a&resourceID=19191 [Accessed 23 January 2022]. Hibbert, F.A. (1891) The Influence and Development of English Gilds: As Illustrated by the History of the Craft Gilds of Shrewsbury. New York, Augustus M. Kelley. Hill, J. and R. K. Dent (1897) Memorials of the Old Square: Being Some Notices of the Priory of St. Thomas in Birmingham, and the Lands Appertaining Thereto; Also of the Square Built upon the Priory Close, Known in Later Times as the Old Square; with Notes Concerning the Dwellers in the Sixteen Houses Thereof, and of Some Notable Persons Associated Therewith. Birmingham, Achilles Taylor. Hillaby, J. (2001) Testimony from the margin: the Gloucester Jewry and its neighbours, c.1159–1290. Jewish Historical Studies. 37, pp. 41–112. Available from: https://www.jstor. org/stable/29780029. Hillaby, J. and C. Hillaby (2013) The Palgrave Dictionary of Medieval Anglo-Jewish History. Basingstoke, Palgrave Macmillan. Hilton, R.H. (1967) Some problems of urban real property in the middle ages. In: C.H. Feinstein (ed.) Socialism, Capitalism and Economic Growth: Essays Presented to Maurice Dobb. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, pp 326–37. Hirst, H.C.M. (1924) Redcliffe conduit, Bristol, and Robert de Berkeley. Transactions of the Bristol and Gloucestershire Archaeological Society. 46, pp. 353–62. Historic England (1994) Holy Trinity almshouses and attached walls and railings to Jacob Street. Available from: https://historicengland.org.uk/listing/the-list/list-entry/1202399 [Accessed 2 March 2022]. Historic England (2022a) Leper Hospital of St Mary Magdalen. Available from: https:// www.heritagegateway.org.uk/Gateway/Results_Single.aspx?uid=ab654e44-e21a-4068bbb3-f6342bf3570a&resourceID=19191. [Accessed 2 February 2022]. Historic England (2022b) New Inn. Available from: https://historicengland.org.uk/listing/ the-list/list-entry/1245714?section=official-list-entry. [Accessed 22 August 2022]. Historic England (2022c) St John the Baptist Hermitage. Available from: https:// historicengland.org.uk/listing/the-list/list-entry/1282161. [Accessed 2 February 2022]. Historic England (2022d) The Fleece Hotel (Part). Available from: https://historicengland. org.uk/listing/the-list/list-entry/1245448?section=official-list-entry. [Accessed 22 August 2022]. Historical Manuscripts Commission (1899) The Manuscripts of the Shrewsbury and Coventry Corporations, 4th Report. London, Eyre and Spottiswoode. Hobbs, J.L. (1954) Shrewsbury Street Names. Shrewsbury, Wilding and Son. Holt, R. (1985) The Early History of the Town of Birmingham. Oxford, Dugdale Society Occasional Paper Number 30, Dugdale Society, Oxford. Holt, R. (2000) Society and population 600–1300. In: D.M. Palliser (eds.) The Cambridge Urban History of Britain, Vol. I: 600–1540. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, pp. 79–104. Horrox, R. (1978) The Changing Plan of Hull, 1290–1650. Kingston-upon-Hull, Kingstonupon-Hull City Council. Horrox, R. (1983a) Selected Rentals and Accounts of Medieval Hull, 1293–1528. York, Yorkshire Archaeological Society. Horrox, R. (1983b) The De La Poles of Hull. Beverley, East Yorkshire Local History Society. Hunt, J. (1994) Piety, prestige and politics? The house of Leofric and the Foundation and Patronage of Coventry Priory. In: G. Demidowicz (ed.) Coventry’s First Cathedral: The Cathedral and Priory of St Mary. Paul Watkins, Stamford, pp. 97–117.

Town growth and topography  275 Hutton, W. (1781) A History of Birmingham to the End of the Year 1780. Birmingham, Pearson and Rollason. Ingram, M.E. (1969) The parish churches. In: K.J. Allison (ed.) A History of the County of York East Riding, Vol. 1, the City of Kingston Upon Hull. Oxford University Press for the Institute of Historical Research, Oxford, pp. 287–311. Jamroziak, E.M. (2005) The networks of markets and networks of patronage in the 13th century England. In: M. Prestwich, R. Britnell and R. Frame (eds.) Thirteenth Century England. Woodbridge, Boydell and Brewer, pp. 41–9. Kay, J.M. (2009) Medieval English Conveyances, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press. Kerling, N.J.M. (ed.) (1973) Cartulary of St. Bartholomew’s Hospital. London, St. Bartholomew’s Hospital and Lund Humphries. Lambert, C. L. (2011) Shipping the Medieval Military: English Maritime Logistics in the Fourteenth Century. Woodbridge, Boydell and Brewer. Lancaster, J.C. (1967) Godiva of Coventry. Coventry, Corporation of Coventry. Lancaster, J.C. and M. Tomlinson (1969) Introduction. In: W. B. Stephens (ed.) The Victoria History of the County of Warwick, Vol. VIII, The City of Coventry and Borough of Warwick. Oxford University Press and Institute of Historical of Research, London, pp. 1–2. Langston, J.N. (1942) Priors of Llanthony by Gloucester. Transactions of the Bristol and Gloucestershire Archaeological Society. 63, pp. 1–144. Langton, J. (1977) Late medieval Gloucester: some data from a rental of 1455. Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers. 2, pp. 259–77. Lee, J. (2014) Piped water supplies managed by civic bodies in medieval English towns. Urban History. 41 (3), 369–93. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1017/S096392681 3000990 Lee, J. (2022). The Knights Templar in English towns. Urban History. First View 1–21. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1017/S0963926821000870 Leech, R.H. (2014). The Town House in Medieval and Early Modern Bristol. Swindon, English Heritage. Leedham–Green, E. (1996) A Concise History of the University of Cambridge. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press. Leighton, W.A. (1880) The Shrewsbury of past ages. Transactions of the Shropshire Archaeological and Historical Society. 4 (1), 99–120. Leighton, W.A. (1881) The guilds of Shrewsbury. Transactions of the Shropshire Archaeological and Historical Society. 4 (2), 193–291. Leighton, W.A. (1884) The combrethren of saddlers, painters, glaziers, plumbers, curriers and others. Transactions of the Shropshire Archaeological and Historical Society. 7 (3), 403–36. Leighton, W.A. (1885) The guilds of Shrewsbury: Mercers, Ironmongers and Gold-smiths. Transactions of the Shropshire Archaeological and Historical Society. 8 (2), 269–332 and continued across Transactions of the Shropshire Archaeological and Historical Society Volume 8 (3), 333–41. Letters, S. (2013) Gazetteer of Markets and Fairs in England and Wales to 1516. Available from: https://archives.history.ac.uk/gazetteer/gazweb2.html [Accessed 20 September 2021]. Lilley, K.D. (1994) Coventry’s topographical development: the impact of the priory. In G. Demidowicz (ed.) Coventry’s First Cathedral: The Cathedral and Priory of St Mary. Paul Watkins, Stamford, pp. 72–96. Lilley, K.D. (1998) Trading places: monastic initiative and the development of high–medieval Coventry. In: T.R. Slater and G. Rosser (eds.) The Church in the Medieval Town. Aldershot, Ashgate, pp. 177–208. Lister, J. (ed.) (1924, reprinted 2013) The Early Yorkshire Woollen Industry: Extracts from the Hull Customs Rolls. Leeds, Yorkshire Archaeological Society. Lobel, M.D. and E.M. Carus-Wilson (1975) Bristol. In: M.D. Lobel (ed.) The Atlas of Historic Towns, Vol. 2. London, Scolar Press, pp. 1–27.

276  Town growth and topography Lobel, M.D. (1975) Historic Towns Atlas: Vol. 2: Bristol, Cambridge, Coventry, Norwich. London, Historic Towns Trust. Lloyd Renshaw, T. (1932) Birmingham: A Short History. Cornish Brothers, Birmingham. Maitland, F.W. (1898) Township and Borough. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press. Maitland, F.W. and M. Bateson (1901) The Charters of the Borough of Cambridge. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press. Manco, J. (2009a) Bristol bridge. Available from: https://www.buildinghistory.org/bristol/ bridge.shtml [Accessed 20 March 2022]. Manco, J. (2009b) Struggles of a civic chapel. Available from: www.buildinghistory.org/bristol/ origins.shtml [Accessed 24 March 2015]. Mason, J. F. A. (2004) Montgomery, Roger de, first earl of Shrewsbury (d. 1094). Available from: Oxford Dictionary of National Biography. https://doi.org/10.1093/ref:odnb/23953 [Accessed 20 May 2021]. Mayhew, N.J. (2013) Prices in England, 1170–1750. Past and Present 219 (1), 3–39. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1093/pastj/gts031 McGrory, D. (2003) A History of Coventry. Chichester, Phillimore. McKenna, J. (2005) Birmingham: The Building of a City. Stroud, Tempus. Merewether, H.A. and A.J. Stephens (1972) The History of the Boroughs and Municipal Corporations of the United Kingdom From the Earliest to the Present Day: Vol. 1. Brighton, The Harvester Press. Morgan, P., A. Sargent, C. Insley, and M. Capper (2017) Æthelflæd: The Anglo-Saxon Iron Lady. Available from: https://brewminate.com/aethelflaed-the-anglo-saxon-iron-lady/ [Accessed 16 June 2022]. Morris, R.K. (1994) The lost cathedral priory church of St Mary, Coventry. In: G. Demidowicz (ed.) (1994), Coventry’s First Cathedral: The Cathedral and Priory of St Mary. Stamford, Paul Watkins, pp. 17–66. Morriss, R. and K. Hoverd (1993) The Buildings of Shrewsbury. Stroud, Alan Sutton. Newton Friend, J. (1964) Forgotten Birmingham: A Brief Record of Early Sites, Buildings and Activities in Central Birmingham. Birmingham, The author. Newton Friend, J. (1965) Forgotten Aston Manor in Birmingham: A Brief Record of Early Sites, Buildings and Their History. Birmingham, The author. Open Domesday (2022) Open Domesday. Available from: https://opendomesday.org [Accessed 7 January 2022] Owen, H. and J.B. Blair (1825) A History of Shrewsbury Vols. 1 and 2. London, Harding, Leopard and Co. Palmer, C.F.R. (1886) The friars-preachers or blackfriars of Shrewsbury. Transactions of the Shropshire Archaeological and Historical Society, 9 (2), 251–66. Paris, M. and Trustees of the British Museum (1928) Four Maps of Great Britain Designed by Matthew Paris about AD 1250 Produced from Three Manuscripts in the British Museum and One at Corpus Christi College. Cambridge, London, Trustees of the British Museum. Patterson, R.B. (1989) Robert Fitz Harding of Bristol: profile of an early Angevin burgess–baron patrician and his family’s urban involvement. Haskins Society Journal. 1, 109–22 Patterson, R.B. (2004) Robert fitz Harding (d. 1171). Available from: Oxford Dictionary of National Biography http://www.oxforddnb.com/view/article/9597 [Accessed 19 August 2012]. Pearson, H.S. (1891) The old roads to Birmingham. BMI: AS. (16), 30–40. Pearson, H.S. (1902) Birmingham springs and wells. BMI: AS. (27), 55–62. Pelham, R.A. (1939) The early wool trade in Warwickshire and the rise of the merchant middle class. BMI: AS. (63), 41–62

Town growth and topography  277 Pelham, R.A. (1943) Trade relations of Birmingham during the middle ages. BMI: AS: TP. (62), 32–40. Pelham, R.A. (1945) The cloth markets of Warwickshire during the later middle ages. Transactions and Proceedings of the Birmingham Archaeological Society. (66), 131–41. Pelham, R.A. (1950) The migration of the iron industry towards Birmingham during the sixteenth century. BMI: AS. (66), 142–9. Pythian-Adams, C. (1977) Jolly cities, godly towns: the current search for England’s urban roots. Urban History Yearbook 1977. 30–9 Poulson, G. (1840) History and Antiquities of the Seigniory of Holderness. Hull, R. Brown and W. Pickering. Raban, S. (2004) A Second Domesday? The Hundred Rolls of 1279–80. Oxford, Oxford University Press Rees, U. (1975) The Cartulary of Shrewsbury Abbey. National Library of Wales, Aberystwyth. Rees, U. (1985) The Cartulary of Haughmond Abbey. Cardiff, Shropshire Archaeological Society and University of Wales Press. Rhodes, J. (2002) A Calendar of the Registers of the Priory of Llanthony by Gloucester 1457– 1466, 1501–1525. Bristol, Bristol and Gloucester Archaeological Society. Rigby, S. H., Boston, 1086–1225 A Medieval Boom Town (Lincoln, 2017). Rotuli Hundredorum Temp. Henry III and Edward I., in Turr’ Lond’ et in Curia Receptæ Scaccarij Westm. Asservati Vol. 2 Part 1 (1818). London, His Majesty King George III. Rubin, M. (1987) Charity and Community in Medieval Cambridge. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press. Rylatt, M, A. Gooder and E. Gooder (1977) Coventry Archaeology & Redevelopment. Coventry Museums, Coventry. Salter, E. (2017) Hull’s medieval lives. In D.J. Starkey, D. Atkinson, B. McDonagh, S. McKeon, and E. Salter (eds.) Hull: Culture, City, Place. Liverpool, University of Liverpool Press, pp. 41–59. Salzman, L.F. and S. Reynolds (1964) Manors. In W. Stephens (ed.) A History of the County of Warwick, Vol.7 The City of Birmingham.The Institute of Historical Research and Oxford University Press, London, pp. 58–72. Saul, A. (1975) Great Yarmouth in the Fourteenth Century: A Study in Trade, Politics and Society. University of Oxford, PhD thesis. Scott Holmes, T. (1911) Religious houses. In: W. Page (ed.) A History of the County of Somerset, Vol.2. London, St Catherine’s Press, pp. 69–172. Sharp, M. (ed.) (1982) Accounts of the Constables of Bristol Castle in the Thirteenth and Early Fourteenth Centuries. Bristol, Bristol Record Society. Sharp, T. (2022) The foundation of Shrewsbury as a burh during the Anglo-Saxon period. Available from: https://www.academia.edu/16419586/The_Foundation_of_Shrewsbury_ as_a_burh_during_the_Anglo_Saxon_period. [Accessed 7 October 2021]. Sheahan, J.J. (1864) General and Concise History and Description of the Town and Port of Kingston-upon-Hull. Marshall and Company, Simpkin. Sheail, J. (ed. R.W. Hoyle) (1998) The Regional Distribution of Wealth in England as indicated in the 1524/5 Lay Subsidy Returns. Kew, List and Index Society. Sheppard, J. A., The Draining of the Hull Valley (Hull, 1958). Sherborne, J.W. (1971) The Port of Bristol in the Middle Ages. Bristol, The Bristol Branch of the Historical Association. Sherborne, J. (1985) William Canynges 1401–1474. Bristol, Bristol Branch of the Historical Association. Skeat, W.W. (1901) The Place-Names of Cambridgeshire. Cambridge, Cambridge Antiquarian Society.

278  Town growth and topography Skeat, W.W. (1909) Grantchester and Cambridge. Proceedings of the Cambridge Antiquarian Society 14 (1), 111–22. Sivier, D. (2002) Anglo-Saxon and Norman Bristol. Tempus, Stroud. Smith, F. (1945) Coventry: Six Hundred Years of Municipal Life. Coventry, The Corporation of the City of Coventry in association with the Coventry Evening Telegraph). Speed, J.J. (ed.) (2000) Tudor Townscapes: The Town Plans from John Speed’s Theatre of the Empire of Great Britaine 1610. Waddesdon, Bucks, Map Collector Publications. Stevenson, W.H. (ed.) (1890) Rental of All the Houses in Gloucester AD 1455 from a Roll in the Possession of the Corporation of Gloucester Compiled by Robert Cole Canon of Llanthony. Gloucester, John Bellows. Stevenson, W.H. (1893) Calendar of the Records of the Corporation of Gloucester. Gloucester, J.Bellows. Stokes, E., F.C. Wellstood and F.T.S. Houghton (eds.) (1932) Warwickshire Feet of Fines Vol. 1 1195–1294. London, The Dugdale Society. Stubbs, W. (ed.) (1868) Chronica Magistri Rogeri de Hovedene, Vol. 1. London, Longmans and Co. Tait, J. (1936) The Medieval English Borough: Studies on its Origins and Constitutional History. Manchester, Manchester University Press. Taylor, A. (1999) Cambridge: The Hidden History. Tempus, Stroud. Thacker, A.T. and D. Cromarthy (2014) Shrewsbury 1200–1340. In: W.A. Champion and A.T. Thacker (eds.) A History of Shropshire, Vol. VI Part 1 Shrewsbury General History and Topography. Institute of Historical Research and Boydell and Brewer, Woodbridge, Woodbridge, pp. 31–88. Thackray, B. (1875) History of Old St Martin’s.Cornish Brothers Ltd, Birmingham. The Gough Map of Great Britain (2022). Available from: http://www.goughmap.org/ [Accessed 3 January 2022]. Thompson, K. (2004a) Bellême, Robert de, earl of Shrewsbury and count of Ponthieu (bap. c.1057, d. in or after 1130), magnate. Available from: Oxford Dictionary of National Biography https:// doi.org/10.1093/ref:odnb/2042 [Accessed 12 June 2022]. Thompson, S.P. (2004b) Eva fitz Harding (d. c.1173). Available from: Oxford Dictionary of National Biography https://doi.org/10.1093/ref:odnb/54454 [Accessed 12 June 2022]. Thompson, T. (1821) Occellum Promontorium. Hull, Not specified. Tickell, J. (1798) History of the Town and County of Kingston upon Hull. Hull, Thomas Lee and Co. Topping, T. (1822) Historic Facts Relative to the Sea Port and Market Town of Ravenspurne in Holderness. Hull, The author. Toulmin Smith, L. (ed) (1964) The Itinerary of John Leland in or about the Years 1535–1543. (5 vols) London, Centaur. The National Archives SC11/743. Trenholme, N.M. (1927) The English Monastic Boroughs: A Study in Medieval History Columbia, University of Missouri. UK Battlefields Resource Centre (2022). Available from: https://www.battlefieldstrust. com/resource-centre/medieval/battleview.asp?BattleFieldId=39 [Accessed 3 January 2022]. Upton, C. (1993) A History of Birmingham. Chichester, Phillimore and Co. Ltd. Urban Design and Conservation Team, Planning Services Division, Bristol City Council (2008) Conservation Area 19 Redcliffe Character Appraisal. Available from: https://www. bristol.gov.uk/documents/20182/33832/redcliffe-character-appraisal.pdf/3cf50d2ef95a-44c8-8cf1-9cfad9c0e532#:~:text=5.1%20Redcliffe%20was%20originally%20 part,in%20the%20early%2012th%20century [Accessed 27 January 2022].

Town growth and topography  279 Urry, W. (1967) Canterbury Under the Angevin Kings. London, The Athlone Press. Veale, E.W.W. (1931) The Great Red Book of Bristol: Introduction (Part I) Burgage Tenure in Medieval Bristol. Bristol, Bristol Record Society. Veale, E.W.W. (ed.) (1933) The Great Red Book of Bristol: Text (Part I). Bristol, Bristol Record Society. Veale, E.W.W. (ed.) (1953) The Great Red Book of Bristol: Text (Part IV). Bristol, Bristol Record Society. Waites, B. (1977) The medieval ports and trade of north-east Yorkshire. Mariners Mirror. 63, 137–49. Walker, B. (1927) Notes on the Rea Valley. Transactions of the Birmingham Archaeological Society. 52, 231–9. Walker, B. (1940) The Rycknield street in the neighbourhood of Birmingham. BMI: AS. (60), 42–55. Walker, D. (ed.) (1998) The Cartulary of St. Augustine’s Abbey, Bristol. Bristol, Bristol and Gloucestershire Archaeological Society. Walker, D. (1971) Bristol in the Early Middle Ages. Bristol, Bristol Branch of the Historical Association. Webb, E.A. (ed.) (1921) Records of St. Bartholomew’s Priory, Smithfield. Oxford, Oxford University Press. Wells–Furby, B. (2012) The Berkeley Estate, 1281–1417: Its Economy and Development. Bristol, Bristol and Gloucestershire Archaeological Society. Williams, A., and G.H. Martin (2002) Domesday Book: A Complete Translation. Harmondsworth, Penguin. Willis-Bund, J.W. (1902) The Black Book of St David’s. London, The Honourable Society of Cymmrodorion. Woods, S. (2017) A Rare Sight. Available from https://www.slwoods.co.uk/?p=8238/. [Accessed 17 February 2022]. Wooldridge, J.M. (2013) Introductory Econometrics: A Modern Approach. Mason, Ohio, SouthWestern Cengage Learning, 5th ed. Yates, M., A. Campbell and M. Casson (2013) Local property values in fourteenth- and fifteenth-century England. In: M. Casson and N. Hashimzade (eds.) Large Databases in Economic History: Research Methods and Case Studies. Abingdon, Routledge, pp. 124–45.

7 Conclusion

Review of the findings This systematic study of the comparative growth of medieval English towns has synthesised information from a wide range of sources. It has reviewed secondary literature on 112 towns and provided summary accounts of their growth, using additional sources to facilitate comparisons between towns, such as Leland’s itinerary and the Gough map. Each town was profiled to identify its key characteristics, with special reference to institutions, location and physical characteristics (Chapters 2–4). It has examined royal records, including Domesday Book, poll tax assessments and lay subsidy assessments, to inform a cross-section comparison of the population and wealth of English towns at given dates, 1066–1524. It has combined this information with information from the town profiles mentioned previously to identify key determinants of town growth over this period. The findings highlight the importance of strategic locations and high-status institutions in the development of towns (Chapter 5). The previous chapter (Chapter 6) presented detailed case studies of seven English towns. These towns were selected because they were large towns for which a wide range of local records have survived. Each case study synthesised information from various primary sources, including, where available, rentals, deeds, feets of fines, charters, royal records, borough records and monastic records. The Calendar of Patent Rolls and the Calendar of Close Rolls were also consulted. By combining these records the property market of each town was examined. The results identified the most valuable locations in each town and the most valuable types of property. In some towns it was possible to identify different components of rent on a given property; comparing these components shed light on the origins of the property concerned and its subsequent enlargement or subdivision. In one case (Cambridge) the records supplied a history of the ownership of each property, for as far back as memory allowed. This made it possible to assess the relative importance of inheritance, marriage, purchase and gift in the transmission of property between generations. This chapter attempts to place these findings in an even wider perspective. It investigates the processes of growth within individual towns that that may have led to the changes described previously. This investigation encompasses the changes in DOI: 10.4324/9781003172697-7

Conclusion  281 the overall size and wealth of towns, examined in Chapter 5, and changes in the urban property market, analysed in Chapter 6. In particular, it examines the issue of individual agency. Were there particular individuals whose initiative instigated significant developments in the town? If so, who were they, what were their objectives and by what means did they achieve them? Did they perceive specific opportunities for innovation that others had missed? Did they have access to resources that other lacked, or were they just good at mobilising other people to contribute resources to their schemes? The chapter begins by reviewing relevant insights from economics. According to economic theory, the growth of towns is closely linked to the development of markets. The development of markets is in turn related to specialisation in production. Local factors, such as the availability of natural resources and the specific needs of the local population, influence the kind of specialisation that takes place in any given town. Some forms of specialisation are more conducive to growth than others; for example, specialisation in the use of exhaustible resources leads to eventual decline, whilst specialisation in knowledge-intensive activities is more likely to sustain continuous innovation and growth.

The economics of town formation In his classic work, The Wealth of Nations, Adam Smith (1776) noted the role of local markets in the development of specialised trades. According to Smith, an individual’s productivity was increased by specialisation of a single simple task. The more frequently the task was repeated, the more productive the individual became. But an individual who specialises in producing a single product cannot sustain themselves solely by consuming what they produce. They need to be able to exchange the surplus of the product in which they specializa for a range of other products that they require. The logic of specialization requires that these other products are produced by other specialists, who have similar needs. Each specialist therefore needs to exchange their surplus for small amounts of various surpluses generated by the others. Exchange can, however, be a difficult process. It is necessary to make contact with other people; each buyer needs to find a seller, and each seller needs to find a buyer. They could rely on chance encounters, but if they wandered about at random then the chances of a suitable encounter would be low. If they wish to “meet up” efficiently it is advantageous for everyone to go to a designated “central place” where people are likely to congregate. In pre-Roman Britain they might attend a seasonal social gathering of a ritual nature; even today, wherever crowds gather (for example fairs and festivals), traders are likely to be present too. In Christian England, from the seventh century onwards, they would congregate to worship at a church — and in particular a minster church. A church was therefore a natural site for a market. To satisfy basic subsistence needs with no refrigeration, weekly exchanges of perishable foodstuffs were essential. Furthermore, most people need to be within travelling distance of a suitable centre. A local church, providing a weekly cycle of public worship, was therefore an ideal location. The market could be held before, or preferably after, the church

282 Conclusion service, perhaps in the graveyard, though from the early thirteenth century markets were usually relocated from churchyards to an alternative site. A specialist producer might not wish, however, to carry their weekly output to church or to spend their Sundays selling their product in a market. They may prefer to have a local trader collect their goods and take them to market. The trader could act as an agent for the producer, receiving a fee, but the more usual arrangement was for the trader to bear the risk by purchasing the product from the producer, so that the producer received a guaranteed income without any risk. A specialist trader could, in principle, serve several producers by selling their products on a single stall. As a specialist, they would acquire experience in haggling with customers and were therefore likely to get a better price than the producer could. It was advantageous for local markets of this kind to be regulated. Buyers had legitimate concerns over product quality, while sellers had concerns about the quality of the coinage with which the buyers paid. If a product was sold by weight, as determined by the seller’s balance, the buyer might be concerned about the accuracy of the weights employed; likewise a seller might be concerned about the clipping of coinage or outright forgery (Casson and Lee, 2011). In principle the local priest was well placed to act as regulator, but in practice it was the clerk of the market, representing the king, who played this role. The king was concerned about the reputation of their kingdom as a whole, and the reputation of its markets was key to this, and so they wished to be directly involved. Furthermore, by controlling a market the king could charge tolls for access to it. Other things being equal, customers today prefer to shop in a large market rather than a small one, and there is no reason to believe otherwise in respect of the medieval period. The larger the market, the wider the range of products normally on offer and the wider the choice between alternative suppliers of a given product. Buyers, however, face a trade-off between variety and competition. If all the sellers of a given commodity sell identical varieties, then price competition is likely to be intense, because each supplier’s product is a perfect substitute for any other. On the other hand, if each seller sells a different variety of a given product, then each customer has a wider choice of options, but with less price competition between them. The regulator has some influence in this. They can stipulate rigorous standards for certain commodities which require all producers to supply identical products, thereby suppressing variety and stimulating competition, or specify only minimal standards, allowing sellers a significant degree of improvisation, thereby increasing variety but suppressing competition. In practice medieval regulators seem to have recognised this trade-off. They adopted a pragmatic approach by stipulating rigorous standards for homogeneous products, including necessities such as bread and ale, but allowing plenty of scope for improvisation in the supply of non-essential luxury items. Sellers of luxury items could therefore choose between competing on price, quality or uniqueness; which they choose probably depended on their level of skill; the greater their skill, the higher the rewards to improvisation. This discussion may be summarised by saying that a local market functions as a “one-stop shop” for residents within its catchment area. Rural farmers are likely to

Conclusion  283 sell through traders who buy at the farm gate and sell at a market stall, while artisans may prefer to reside in the town, selling either from a shop or stall. Encouraging artisans to settle locally boosts market trade, because local residents are more likely to shop locally and less likely to shop elsewhere instead. So far the discussion has focused on the role of a market as a one-stop shop. It is quite possible, however, for a town itself to evolve into a one-stop shop, encompassing an even wider variety of goods and services. It has already been noted that a town supplies religious services through its local church (or churches). The provision of religious services can be extended by the establishment of local abbeys, priories, hospitals or a cathedral. These religious institutions may in turn attract scholars and pilgrims to the town and thereby boost the market. An important advantage of religious establishments, noted earlier, was that they were often funded by agricultural rents from other part of the country, outside the catchment area of the market town. These rents transferred purchasing power from other parts on the kingdom into the town and boosted local demand for expensive religious vestments, sacramental vessels, carpentry and so on. A town can also provide administrative and legal services, for example by collecting taxes, administering justice and detaining criminals. The provision of these services attracts people to the town on business and encourages professional specialists to settle there in order to provide these services. The role of the town as an administrative centre is best illustrated by a medieval county town, where the sheriff and the county court were based. A town near a frontier may be fortified and garrisoned. A garrison could be a mixed blessing, however. On the positive side, the soldiers were paid out of taxes raised elsewhere and funnelled into the town by the king, rather like the rents that were funnelled in by the religious institutions described previously. In the same way the garrison would stimulate local trade through its demand for provisions for the troops and the supply of weapons. On the downside, the imposition of a castle and the behaviour of its troops could be seen as a liability by ordinary residents of the town. Entrepreneurship is a timeless personal quality that explains why, in a given situation, one or two individuals step forward to innovate when the others do not. In the context of a medieval town, some people may appreciate the advantages of establishing a local market and others may not. There may be other ways to realise this potential too, for example through improvements in infrastructure, from affordable housing for artisans, to building to enhance connectivity, either within the town or with neighbouring towns or both.

The role of entrepreneurship in the growth of towns The economic forces described previously are somewhat impersonal. They concern the gains from trade, the benefits of central places and the role of market competition in attracting trade. They explain why towns are needed, but not when and where specific towns will be created. To understand the specifics of town development it is important to examine the people who were involved in this process.

284 Conclusion The creation of a town required someone to take the initiative. Someone needed to recognise the advantages of the location and the opportunities for growth. No-one can be certain about the future, but some people may be better judges of it than others. Most towns did not just evolve; they were actively promoted by individuals — or sometimes groups of individuals. Good judgement by these individuals led, on average, to survival and prosperity; bad judgement had the opposite effect. As towns proliferated in the twelfth and thirteenth centuries, they became, on average, closer to each other, and spatial competition between them intensified. Some towns survived and prospered, but many failed. Some failures became extinct, while others survived as villages. People who are good at recognising opportunities and exploiting them are often described as entrepreneurs. Entrepreneurs can be identified by the fact that they are pioneers; they are the first to recognise a potential opportunity for improvement that others have overlooked and to exploit it. Entrepreneurs appropriate profit from opportunities by being the first to act. They pre-empt potential rivals; for example they buy up scarce resources before others recognise their value and make a capital gain when those resources appreciate in value later. Entrepreneurs do not have to be selfish, however. They may also be motivated by concern for the common good. In medieval towns there were many acts of philanthropy initiated by entrepreneurs who had accumulated wealth through business dealings but did not wish to spend it on themselves or their family, and so gave it to the poor and infirm instead, such as by funding hospitals. In the context of medieval towns, three main types of entrepreneur may be distinguished. The first and most common is the merchant entrepreneur, who identifies new opportunities for trade. In twelfth-century Cambridge, for example, new opportunities arose to develop a corn export trade down the River Cam. The corn trade created new opportunities for milling, warehousing and brewing, as well as the provision of shipping. A list of tax payers identified some of the people involved in this trade, and also those who paid the most tax. The second type of entrepreneur is the property developer, who buys up existing properties, or unoccupied plots of land, and puts them to alternative, and more valuable, uses. The importance of this type of entrepreneur depends on the scale of their development. The most important developer is one who buys a up a whole set of adjacent properties (for example to create an inn offering hospitality to wealthy pilgrims), or perhaps an entire area of the town (such as a greenfield site, or the site of an earlier and now decayed development). The third type of entrepreneur, and the one of greatest interest in the context of this book, is the town developer themselves, who has the vision to recognise a particular location as suitable for the creation of a town. This person requires an intuitive understanding of the factors that influence the success of a town. Today, economic theory identifies these factors in general terms, but in medieval times the entrepreneur had to think through the issues for themselves. The third type of entrepreneur, who creates a town from scratch, is relatively rare. On the other hand, the first type of entrepreneur — the successful m ­ erchant — was very common, especially in large cosmopolitan towns like London and Bristol. It is therefore useful to focus on the second and third types of entrepreneur — those

Conclusion  285 who either founded new towns or developed (or redeveloped) significant parts of them. Such entrepreneurs have been noted from time to time throughout this study, and a list of those mentioned is presented in Table 7.1. The list also indicates the town they helped to develop, the dates when they were most active and the nature of the development that they undertook. Table 7.1  Provisional list of town developers identified from the present study Name

Dates

Town

Robert Fitzharding Lady Godiva

c.1095–1170 d.1066-86

Bristol Coventry

Richard Poore, bishop of Salisbury Herbert de Losinga, bishop of Norwich

d.1237

Abbot Baldwin

d.1097

Werfrith, bishop of Worcester John de Coutances, bishop of Worcester Judichael Aethelfleda, Lady of the Mercians

d.907–15

Ernulf de Hesdin King Edward I

d.1097 1239–1307

King Edward the Elder

d.924

d.1119

d.1198 d.1123–30 c.870–918

Development of suburbs Gift of land in the town to the priory Salisbury Removed town from Old Sarum Kings Lynn Development of new town Yarmouth, Kings Development of new town Lynn Bury St Development of new town as Edmunds pilgrimage centre Worcester Development of new town Stratford-onAvon Totnes Gloucester Chester, Stafford, Warwick Tamworth Newbury Kingston-onHull Stamford Baron Northampton Bedford Nottingham

Aelfric Puttoc, archbishop of York Ulsinus (Wulsin), abbot of St Albans King Henry I

d.1051

Beverley

d.c.968

St Albans

1069–1135

[New] Windsor

King Alfred the Great 848/9–899/ / King Edward the d.924 Elder

Role

Winchester Lewes

Development of new town Development of town Development of shrine Redevelopment of town for defence Development of town for defence and royal centre Development of town Purchase and enlargement of town Development of suburb as separate town Development of town as administrative centre Extension of the town across the river Development of town spanning the river Development of new town as pilgrimage centre Rerouting of roads and development of market Development of town around a castle and hunting grounds Development of the town as capital of Wessex Development of the town for defensive purposes (Continued )

286 Conclusion Table 7.1  (Continued) Name

Dates

John de Grandisson, 1292–1369 bishop of Exeter John de Villula, bishop d.1122 of Bath and Wells Alexander, bishop of d.1148 Lincoln Walter de Lacy Ilbert de Lacy John, abbot of Keynsham Scandinavian traders Hugh de Kevelioc, earl of Chester Robert Malet King Aethelstan

d.1085 d.1141 alive 1234 c.870 alive 1173 d.1105 894–939

Town

Role

Ottery St Mary

Establishment of collegiate church De-development of town centre Development of new town

Bath Newark-onTrent Banbury Ludlow Pontefract Marshfield Grimsby Newcastleunder-Lyme Orford Malmesbury Bodmin Shaftesbury Dover

William the Conqueror

c.1028–87

William de Birmingham King John

alive c.1250

Birmingham

1166–1216

Liverpool

William de Lovetot

d.1175–80

Sheffield

William Malbank

c.1050–c.1108 Nantwich

Hastings

Development of new town Castle and town Castle and town Development of town Development of early town Development of town and iron industry Development of town as port Development of the town for administrative and defensive purposes Development of the town for religious purposes Foundation of a nunnery Development of new town for defensive purposes Development of new town for defensive purposes New town for commercial purposes New town for strategic purposes New town for industrial purposes Development of town for industrial purposes

Sources: References given in Chapters 2, 3 and 6. Most of these founders or developers worked in collaboration with others. Their work often built on earlier initiatives and was completed by other people. Individuals are listed in the order in which their town appears in the main text. Where an individual was involved in the development of several towns, these towns are grouped together in the position occupied by the town that is mentioned first.

It is interesting to note that monarchs, aristocrats, bishops, abbots and ordinary lay people all appear in the list. Town development, it seems was not the prerogative of some specific social class. This fits well with the idea that entrepreneurship is a personal psychological characteristic rather than a characteristic of some specific social class. Social class is important, however, in gaining access to funding. Urban development requires substantial capital investment in land and building, and without access to capital it difficult to carry out. Entrepreneurs with limited capital therefore need to join forces with others or find a wealthy patron, or marry into a wealthy family, in order to raise the funds they require.

Conclusion  287 The table also suggests that urban entrepreneurship is a feature of the early and high medieval period, as well as the late medieval period. The late medieval period is notable for the proliferation of merchant entrepreneurship, especially in major port cities, due to the growth of international trade. But entrepreneurship in town development is more characteristic of earlier periods. This is a subject that requires further investigation. Bishops and abbots were very active in town promotion. One reason may be that it needed entrepreneurial skill to navigate ecclesiastical organisations in order to get to the top. Another is that royal and ecclesiastical patronage made these institutions very wealthy, and so capital for urban development was readily available. Third, urban development was useful for the processing and marketing of crops and livestock from the institution’s estates and for creating a pool of artisans able to supply luxury items for consumption or for ritual use. There have been many biographies of religious leaders, but they tend to focus on the religious and administrative roles rather than their entrepreneurial roles. There is an opportunity for further research into ecclesiastical organisations. There have been several studies, along these lines, of the Cistercian order, but coverage of other orders has so far been relatively sparse.

Conclusion This study has identified a number of significant patterns in the growth of medieval English towns. This line of inquiry can be developed in a number of ways. The first is through biographical studies of medieval entrepreneurs, as suggested previously. The second is through greater use of statistical methods. Medieval institutions generated large amounts of statistical data; government generated the Pipe Rolls and the Fine Rolls, for example, abbeys generated accounts, the property market generated deed and fines and towns generated rentals, as explained previously. The data generated by these sources is amenable to statistical analysis. A wide range of statistical techniques are available and are readily implemented using modern software. Medieval historians have, however, made limited use so far of relevant techniques. Finally, medieval urban history would benefit from greater use of economic theory. Classical economists such as Adam Smith (1776) and David Ricardo (1817) addressed big issues, such as the emergence of towns and the growth of trade. They advanced general theories relating to the accumulation of wealth. Many of their insights are embedded in modern economic theory. The great advantage of theory, for the medieval historian, is that it suggests certain patterns that are likely to be found in the data, so that research does not have to rely exclusively on the researcher discovering these patterns for themselves. Some patterns, such as those described in earlier chapters, have already been discovered, but the surface of the subject has only just been scratched, and many more patterns almost certainly remain to be discovered. Historians would benefit greatly if they knew what patterns to look for, rather than just relying on imagination or intuition to

288 Conclusion discover them. They would benefit further if they investigated these patterns using statistical tools to interpret the data that medieval record-keepers have kindly bequeathed to them.

References Casson, M. and Lee, J.S. (2011) The origin and development of markets: a business history perspective. Business History Review. 85 (1), 9–37. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1017/ S0007680511000018. Ricardo, D. (1817) On the Principles of Political Economy and Taxation. London, John Murray. Smith, A. (1776) An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations. N.S.

Index

Abingdon, Berkshire 75–7 accessibility, variable 144 adjacent “twin town” 152–59 administrative features, variable 143–44 Æthelred the Unready 53 agglomeration 6–7 Allen, J. 28 allocation 28–9 ancient demesnes 26 Anglo-Saxon Chronicle 25, 62 anomalies, explaining 167–69 archaeology 27 Athelstan, king 55 authoritarian governance 17 Ballard, Adolphus 1 Barnstaple, Devon 38–9 Bateson, Mary 1 Bede 27 Berkshire: Abingdon 75–7; Wallingford 78–80 Biddle, M. 46 Bilswick, Bristol 191–96 Birmingham: historical context 237–42; town rentals 242–45 Blois 46 Bodmin, Conwall 36–7 Bossiney 37–8 Boston, Lincolnshire 99–100 Braun, G. 28 Bristol: conclusions 204–7; historical context 189–91; results from 1350–60 community rental 202–3; results from 1463 rental 203–4; results of analysis of fines 198–200; results of analysis of landgable 200–1; sources 197; suburbs of 191–96 Brunt, L. 200 burgage rents 163–67 burgage tenure 12–5 burgage, word 13

Burghal Hidage 25 Bury St Edmunds, Suffolk 85–7 Cambridge: hawgable 235–37; historical context 228–30; Hundred Rolls 230–32; impact of location and property characteristics on rent 232–35 Cambridgeshire: Ely 89–90 Cannon, E. 200 Canterbury, East Kent 57–60 Carlisle, Cumberland 128–29 castles, variable 143 Cheshire: Chester 114–18; Nantwich 119–21 Chester, Cheshire 114–18 Chichester, Sussex 64–5 Civitatis Orbis Terrarum: Cities of the World (Braun) 28 coastal port 37, 59, 91, 100, 141–45, 152–60 Colchester, Essex 84–5 conflict, internal 17–8 Cornwall: Bodmin 36–7 County Durham 125–27 county town 2, 24, 29, 36, 42–3, 65, 77, 80, 97, 100, 102, 105–6, 110, 112, 123, 129, 140–45, 161, 283 Coventry: analysis 179–82; defining/ measuring variables 178–79; historical context 173–75; local deeds 175–78; location factors 182–86; occupations 187; personal characteristics 187–88; summary and conclusions 189; terms of contract 188; time variation 188; types of property 186 Cricklade, Wiltshire 52 customs 9–10 databases 27 death duties 5 deeds 170–71 Derby, Derbyshire 104–5

290 Index Derbyshire: Derby 104–5 Devon: Barnstaple 38–9; Exeter 29–31; Totnes 31 Domesday Book 25, 61 Domesday valuations 149–50 Dorset: Shaftesbury 49–51; Wareham 51 Dover, East Kent 61–2 Dunwich, Suffolk 90–1 Durham 125–27 East Anglia. see Cambridgeshire, Essex, Huntingdonshire, Norfolk, Suffolk East Kent: Canterbury 57–60; Dover 61–2 East Sussex: Rye 60–1 ecclesiastical sources 27 ecclesiastical lord 16–7, 41, 101, 140–44, 151, 159 Ely, Cambridgeshire 89–90 entrepreneurship, role of 283–88 entry fine 5 Essex: Colchester 84–5; Maldon 62–3 Ethelbert of Kent, king 56 Exeter Country, Devon 29–31 fee 4 feets of fine 171–72, 197 Firma Burgi (Madox) 1 first bridging point 19, 29, 31, 38, 51–2, 60, 62–4, 80, 84, 99, 104, 114, 121, 128–29, 141–44, 151–61 Fitzharding, Robert 191–96 Gatehouse Gazetteer 27 Gazetteer of Markets and Fairs 27 Gerhold, D. 53 Gloucester: area around the church of St Mary de Lode c.1100 onwards 257; historical context 254–56; landgable 263–64; north of town from /c909 onwards 256; rental of 1455 260–63; south of town from 1136 onwards 257–60; spatial correlation of rents 264–67 Gough Map of Great Britain 27–8 Great Yarmouth, Norfolk 87–9 grid versus non-grid 20 growth, explaining 139–40; analysing determinants of valuation of towns 150–51; comparative analysis (10661524) 145–50; overall assessment of continuity of growth 150; summary of results (1334-1527) 158–62; town characteristics 140–45; town population in 1524 151–58 Guildford, Surrey 77–8 guilds 18–9, 28

Hastings, Sussex 66–7 hawgable 235–37 Hereford, Herefordshire 112–14 Hertfordshire: St Albans 74–5 high altitude 81, 141–43, 152–57, 161 histories 27 Hogenberg, F. 28 Hundred Rolls 172–73; Cambridge 230–32; Shrewsbury 216–28 hub on local roads 153–57 hub on major roads 153–57 improvements or extensions to properties 168–69 intermediation 8 internal organisation, medieval town 9 itineraries 27 Keene, D. 46 Kent: Rochester 63–4 King’s Lynn, Norfolk 83–4 kingship 3–5 Kingston-upon-Hull: analysis of central places 252–54; hedonic regression 250–52; historical context 245–47; influence of location and property depth on rent 249–50; sources/ interpretation 247–49 knight’s fees 4 Lancashire: Lancaster 129–30; Liverpool 130–31 Lancaster, Lancashire 129–30 land: inheritance of 5; market for 6; land market 6 law and society, medieval context: inheritance of land 5; kingship 3–5; land market 6; market town evolution 6–8 lay lord 11, 17, 30, 131, 141–44, 151, 245 lay subsidies, value of 149 lay subsidy valuation, 1334 156–58 Leicestershire: Leicester 100–2 Lewes, Sussex 65–6 lies on main road 153–57 Lichfield, Staffordshire 109–10 Lincoln, Lincolnshire 97–9 Lincolnshire: Boston 99–100; Lincoln 97–9 literary sources 27 Liverpool, Lancashire 130–31 location of defensive structures 20 location, variable 144 London, England 52–7 lordship: ecclesiastical 16; lay 17; mixed 17; royal 15–6; variable 144 Ludlow, Shropshire 118–19

Index  291 Madox, Thomas 1 Maitland, Frederick 1 Maldon, Essex 62–3 Malmesbury, Wiltshire 47–9 maps: medieval/early modern 27–8; modern 27 market: evolution of 7–8; regulation of 8–9 market town, evolution of: agglomeration 6–7; intermediation 8; nucleation 6–7; origins of markets 7–8 medieval town, layout of 20 merchant guild 18 Merewether, H.A. 1 Midlands: East 97–109; West 109–12 mints 28, 31–2, 38–9, 42–52, 55, 57, 60–2, 64, 67, 74, 77–9, 82, 84, 86, 90, 98, 101–2, 104, 106, 108–9, 110–14, 122, 125–26, 128, 140–45, 152–57, 161, 189, 207, 228–29 mixed lordship 17 Monier, Peter le 35 Nantwich, Cheshire 119–21 Newcastle-on-Tyne, Northumberland 121–23 new town 12–5, 40–1, 52, 109, 141–45, 149, 151–61, 285–86 Norfolk: Great Yarmouth 87–9; King’s Lynn 83–4; Norwich 80–3 Northampton, Northamptonshire 102–4 Northamptonshire: Northampton 102–4; Peterborough 108–9 Norwich, Norfolk 80–3 North England: Northeast 121–28; Northwest 128–31; Welsh borders 112–21 Nottingham, Nottinghamshire 105–8 nucelation 6–7 occupational structure 19 opportunity cost 13 organisation, towns 9–12 ownership, spatial structure of 11–2 Oxford, Oxfordshire 42–3 Paris, Matthew 43 perpetual borough rents 169 Peter of Colechurch 53 Peterborough, Northamptonshire 108–9 poll tax receipts, value of 147–49 poll tax valuation 1377 153–56 population 1524 145–47 post-Norman castle 141–45, 151–60 pre-Norman castle 113, 141–45, 152–60 primogeniture 3–4

property transactions: deeds 170–71; feets of fines 171–72; Hundred Rolls 172–73; rentals 167, 179, 197 queenship 3–5 Redcliffe, Britsol 191–96 regional geography 19–20 regulation, markets 8–9 religious centre 19, 36, 49, 65, 74, 102–3, 105, 109, 125–26, 142–43, 147, 152–58 religious institution, variable 144–5 rentals 197 rents of assize 169 revenues, ownership of 10–1 river hub 19, 31, 39, 42, 52, 60, 62, 75, 77, 80, 102, 118, 123, 128, 141–44, 151–61 Robert, bishop of Well 34 Rochester, Kent 63–4 Roman origins 140, 144, 228 Roman towns, variable 142–43 royal administrative sources 25–6 royal lordship 15–6, 141–42, 144, 158, 161 Rufus, William 32 Rye, East Sussex 60–1 Salisbury (New Sarum), Wiltshire 39–42 sample, selection of 24 self-governance with incorporation 17–8 self-governance without incorporation 17 Shaftesbury, Dorset 49–51 Sheail, J. 26 Sheffield, Yorkshire 127–28 Shrewsbury: 1246 rental 213–16; historical context 207–13; and Hundred Rolls 216–28; surviving charters 217–27 socio-religious guild 18–9 Somerset: Bath 32–3; Wells 33–6 sources: archaeology 27; databases 27; ecclesiastical sources 27; histories 27; information on guilds 28; information on mints 28; itineraries 27; literary sources 27; maps 27–8; royal administrative sources 25–6; town administrative sources 26–7 Southern England: East Anglia 80–91; home counties 74–80; South central 39–52; Southeast 52–67; Southwest 29–39 Speed, John 28 St Albans, Hertfordshire 74–5 Staffordshire: Lichfield 109–10; Tamworth 110–12

292 Index Stephens, W. 1 suburban development 56–7 Suffolk: Bury St Edmunds 85–7; Dunwich 91 Surrey: Guildford 77–8 Sussex: Chichester 64–5; Hastings 66–7; Lewes 65–6 Tamworth, Staffordshire 110–12 Temple, Bristol 195–96 Theatre of the Empire of Great Britain, The (Speed) 28 third penny 16–7, 39, 42, 48, 52, 61, 64, 82–2, 84, 98, 101, 105, 115, 120, 141–44, 151–61, 208 Tintagel 37–8 topography 163; property transactions 170–73; sources of information on property ownership 163–69 topography, internal 19–20 topography, variable 144 Totnes County, Devon 31 town administrative sources 26–7 town charters 167 towns: allocation of 28–9; burgage tenure 12–5; economics of town formation

281–83; evolution of market towns in 6–8; examining growth of 1–3; explaining growth of (1086-1524) 139–62; governance of 15–7; guilds 18–9; internal conflicts in 17–8; internal topography 19–20; layout of 20; lordship 15–7; market regulation in 8–9; medieval context 3–6; Midlands 97–138; North England 97–138; organisations 9–12; principal function of 19; review of findings 280–81; Southern England comparisons (part 1) 24–73; Southern England comparisons (part 2) 74–96; topography 163–279 Urry, W. 58 Wallingford, Berkshire 78–80 Wareham, Dorset 51 Wells, Somerset 33–6 Westlake, H.F. 28 Wiltshire: Cricklade 52; Malmesbury 47–9; Salisbury (New Sarum) 39–42 Winchester (Venta Belgarum) 44–7 York, Yorkshire 123–25