( 78 )
FORDWICH MUNICIPAL RECORDS.
BY THE REV. C. EVELEIGH WOODRUFF, MA.
THE books and documents contained in the muniment chest at Fordwich have not received much attention from Kentish antiquaries. Possibly the complete insignificance of the town in the present day may have caused these records to have been overlooked. More probably inquiry has been limited by the personal discomfort entailed by a prolonged visit to the draughty little structure where these records are lodged.
Recent legislation having put an end to the interesting and harmless existence of the Corporation, and its property being now (under the scheme of the Charity Commissioners) in the hands of Trustees, one of whom is a member of the Kent Archaeological Society, there is every reason to believe that the Fordwich muniments will be removed to some library or institution in the county, where they may be cleaned, arranged, and carefully examined.
In the meantime, the following remarks on notes taken from the records in February 1888, by the kind permission of the late Colonel C. J. Cox of Fordwich House (the last Mayor of the town), may attract attention to these interesting papers, and indicate the kind of information they contain.
The little village of Fordwich consists merely of a cluster of houses on the right bank of the Stour, about two and a half miles below Canterbury, and retains to-day no vestige of commercial activity to account for the privilege of self-government enjoyed by the inhabitants for at least 600 years. The population at the last census was only 228, and the size of the church (a building of the thirteenth century, of very modest proportions) does not point to any extraordinary shrinkage in the number of the inhabitants since it was built. Nor is there any tradition of the former existence of other churches, as at Romney and elsewhere. But although not very populous, it was during the Middle Ages and later of some importance, as being practically the port of Canterbury.
In Saxon times, when both the “Genlade” and the Sandwich mouth of the Wantsum were open, the sea doubtless at every high tide covered most of the Stour Valley as far as Fordwich. The town being situated (as the name seems to imply)* on an arm of the sea, had probably not only a commercial but to some extent a military importance, for it was generally up these tidal estuaries that the Danes made their sudden and terrible incursions.
* Fiord-wych, “the bay on the arm of the sea.” Vide Arch. Cant., XII., p. 338 (note).
79
FORDWICH MUNICIPAL RECORDS.
This at a later date may have led to the enrolment of the town amongst the Cinque Ports as a member of Sandwich; Bekesbourne, which stood at the head of the tidal estuary of the lesser Stour, being similarly dignified by its connection with Hastings, although probably never of any importance as a trading port. At any rate the Saxon kings considered it worth while to station at Fordwich a collector of customs,* the right to which, together with the king’s lands within the town, Edward the Confessor gave to the Monastery of St. Augustine in Canterbury.†
The Confessor’s charter gave to the Abbot of St. Augustine’s the right to levy a toll upon all merchandize brought into the town by water, together with anchorage, lastage, and bulkage of vessels plying between the town and Stour mouth “nasse,” but important exceptions were made at a later date in favour of all freemen of the Cinque Ports, all the burgesses of Canterbury, and all men of the Archbishop, of the hundred of Middleton (Milton), of the Abbot of St. Albans, and of the Abbot of Battle.‡ To the monks of St. Augustine’s the quay at Fordwich was a great convenience, enabling them to unship their heavier imports, such as the Caen stone, wine, oil, salt, etc., required for the use of their house, within three miles of the Abbey gates; and fully sensible of the value of their privileges at Fordwich, they did their utmost to prevent their rivals at Christ Church from sharing these advantages.
Somner gives an account of a quarrel between the rival monasteries in 1285, which attained to such proportions that it was necessary to appoint a Special Commission to arrange their differences. The matter in dispute was the right of the Prior of Christ Church to put up a house on or near the quay at Fordwich. He had twice done so, but on each occasion it had been pulled down by the Abbot’s men, and all its contents were thrown into the Stour.§
The Commissioners succeeded in effecting a compromise. The Prior pledged himself not to attempt to place his crane house in the position which gave offence to the Abbot, but said it was necessary that he should have some place in the town at which to land his imports, “non potest bene esse sine domo super ripam de Fordwico pro suis vinis et aliis suis victualibus recipiendis.” He received from the Abbot a piece of land on the banks of the river in exchange for another piece farther away.||
* Hasted, History of Kent, vol. iii., fol. ed. And the Fordwich Custumal, when defining the duties of the bailiff of the Abbot of St. Austin’s, says, he ought to collect the customs, etc., “because he has the royafty by grant of kings, as those kings held the aforesaid town, and not otherwise.”
† Chartae Antiqtuae of Christ Church, Canterbury, F. 47, 1 and 2.
‡ Fordwich Custumal, chap. xxi.
§ Batteley’s Somner, Appendix, p. 62. From a “lieger” book at Canterbury Cathedral.
|| Somner, Appendix, p. 62. From a “lieger” book at Christ Church.
80
FORDWICH CHARTERS
Amongst the MSS. preserved in the Cathedral Library at Christ Church, Canterbury, are copies of eight charters relating to Fordwich, and St. Augustine’s Abbey:
1. The charter of Edward the Confessor previously alluded to.
2. A grant by the same King of soc and sac
3 and 4. Similar grants from William I.
5 and 6. Re-grant of the manor by Odo, Bishop of Bayeux, to St. Augustine’s, and its Confirmation by William I.
7. Writ of William I. re-granting the town to St. Augustine’s after it had fallen into the hands of the sheriff on the flight of Abbot Egelsin.
8. The sheriff’s surrender of the town in obedience to the King’s warrant.*
The last four have been translated by Dr. J. B. Sheppard, and are as follows:—
Chartae Antiquae, Canterbury Cathedral, “F.47.”
Odo Del gratia Bishop of Bayeux and Earl of Kent to Lanfranc the Archbishop and Hamo the Sheriff and all other faithful subjects of the King French and English greeting. Know ye all that I Odo Bishop and Earl of Kent grant for ever to the Church of St. Augustine all the houses which are mine in the town of Fordwich and all customs which are mine in the said town to be held for the safety of my soul and of that of my lord William King of the English. These being witnesses, William King of the English, Lanfranc Archbishop of Canterbury, Godefried Bishop of Constance, R. Count of Eu, and H. de Montfort, with other of the nobles.
William King of the English to Lanfranc Archbishop, and Hamo Sheriff, and R. son of Earl G., and H. Sheriff, and all the Thanes of Kent French and English greeting. Know ye that the Bishop of Bayeux my brother for the love God and for the salvation of my soul and of his own has given to St. Augustine’s whatever he possessed at Fordwich as well in lands meadows and houses as in other rights and that he has given what he has given with my leave.
William King of the English by the grace of God to Lanfranc Archbishop of Canterbury, and Godefried Bishop of Constance, and R. Count of Eu, and H. de Montfort, and his other nobles of the kingdom of England greeting. I command and enjoin you that you cause St. Augnstine and Scotland the Abbot to repossess the borough of Fordwich which Hamo the Sheriff now holds and all the other lands which Abbot Alsinus my fugitive gave to any one through laxity or fear or cupidity and if any one have taken anything by any force to compel them to restore them be they willing or unwilling. Witness the Bishop of Bayeux on the dedication of Bayeux.
Hamo Sheriff and Dapifer of Henry King of the English to all the Barons of Kent and all God’s faithful in all Englang greeting. Know ye that I led by the fear of God restore to God and St. Peter chief of the Apostles and to St Augustine of the English and the Abbot Hugh and the brethren of the same place the town of Fordwich with all its appurtenances so entirety that no one of my lords or my heirs shall claim any kind of right from me or through as me or through my heirs for ever. This donation (I have sworn) by the Psalterium of St. Augustine and by my sword laid upon the chief altar of the aforesaid church with my own hands. These witnesses being present, For my part were Fulbert of Chilham and his soldier Hugh and many others. Of the followers of the Lord Abbot were William the chaplain and his man Eustace and many others. But if after my decease any of my heirs attempt to make this worthless or to infringe it may he be cursed by Almighty God and all his saints for ever. Amen. Done on Easter Monday Anno Domini MCXI.
*Hist, MSS, Comm, Fifth Report
81
FORDWICH MUNICIPAL RECORDS.
Fordwich was a corporation by prescription. No original charters are contained amongst the records, but several are quoted in the Custumal, and there is in the muniment chest a copy of a charter granted by Charles II. (an inspeximus of one by Queen Elizabeth). The earliest charter contained in the Custumal is one from Henry II., of which the following translation, made by the late C. Sandys of Canterbury in 1834, is preserved in the town chest:—
CHARTER OF KING HENRY II.
Henry by the grace of God King of England, Lord of Ireland, Duke of Normandy, Acquitaine, and Earl of Anjou. To Archbishops, Bishops, Abbots, Priors, Earls, Barons, Justices, Sheriffs, Provosts, and all his Bailiffs and faithful servants greeting. Know ye that we have granted and by this our charter have confirmed to our good men of the town of Fordwich, that none of them shall be impleaded without the town aforesaid of any land or tenement being within the limit of the same town, and that they have for ever a “Gylda Mercatoria,” with all things to such Guild appertaining. And that they and their heirs be quit of toll through all our realm and dominion. And that they have our writ of right so that no sheriff or bailiff of us hereafter intromit in any summonses distresses or attachments to be executed in the aforesaid town concerning any matter to the same town appertaining. Know ye also that we have granted and by this our charter have confirmed to our same good men of Fordwich that they and their heirs, through all our realm and dominion for ever have this liberty, to wit that they or their goods in whatsoever place in our realm and dominion found shall not be arrested for any debt for which they shall not be sureties or principal debtors. Wherefore we will and strictly command for us and our heirs that the aforesaid men and their heirs for ever have all the liberties before written as is aforesaid and all the laws and customs which they more fully had of the Kings Edward William the First and Second and King Henry our grandfather. And we prohibit upon forfeiture to us of ten pounds that no one against these liberties shall presume to trouble or disquiet them. Witness Roger (Earl) and Rodolph (Earl) son of Gerard at Westminster in the year, etc., etc.
The next charter quoted in the Custumal is of uncertain date, but is by one of the Edwards, probably Edward III. The King forbids his marshal and clerk of the market to “intermeddle” within the liberty. The preamble of the charter states that these
officers had entered the town before the King’s arrival, and interfered in town affairs, and not only previous to the King’s coming, but even “whilst he abided there waiting for a favourable wind and a quick passage to the parts of Britanny.” It is hardly probable that the King at this date actually embarked at Fordwich, or that he made it his residence until he got a fair wind, and then took ship at Sandwich. This charter was most likely originally addressed to Sandwich, and was merely sent on by the men of that port to their subordinate member, with the alteration of the first syllable of the name, which would be all that would be required.
The next charter is addressed to Sandwich; this is an inspeximus by Edward III. of a charter by Edward I., and relates to the way in which the municipal authorities were to keep the estate of orphans.
The only other charter quoted in the Custumal is the well known charter of Edward I. to the Cinque Ports in general.
VOL. XVIII. G
82
FORDWICH MUNICIPAL RECORDS.
The Mayor
The charter of Henry II. contains no mention of a mayor at Fordwich, but the town chest contains many scraps of parchment relating to the conveyancing of property in the Mayor’s Court as early as the reign of Henry III. The first mayor whom I have found mentioned is by naime is John Maynard, in the 20th of Edward I. (1292).
The mayor was elected in the parish church, on the Monday next following the feast of St. Andrew the Apostle, and heavy penalties were attached should he refuse to take office; in that case the whole commonalty were to proceed to his capital messuage, “if he shall have one of his own, and the same with hooks and by all other means in their power shall prostrate to the ground;” if he had not a house of his own, he was to be disfranchised.
On accepting office the mayor swore that he would be “Utilis et fidelis domino nostro Regi Angliae et heredibus suis et statum libertatis Villae de Fordwyco et officium Majoratus bene et fideliter per posse meum manutenere, et implere justitiam secundum usdem et consuetudinem ejusdem portus tam extraneo quam vicino tam pauperi quam diviti non praemium vel odium respiciens et consilium mihi traditum tegere et sic me Deus adjuvet,” etc.
On the day after the election the late mayor was to cause to be sent to the house of the new mayor the common chest, together with the standard weights and measures, and on the Sunday following the mayor was to appoint the town sergeants and cause two “good men” to be elected to keep the estate of orphans, and two to keep the keys of the common chest during the year.
The mayor enjoyed considerable powers; he was coroner for all cases within the liberty. Wills might be proved before the mayor and jurats, or before any three of them.
The goods of intestates were administered by the mayor and jurats, together with the rector of the parish church, “if he be willing.” No hundred court could be held without the presence of the mayor. All conveyances of land, etc., within the liberty were made in the mayor’s court.
The mayor and jurats had the right of punishing all their freemen “if they offend against the commonalty without the intervention of the bailiff ;”* they also had the same right with regard to “foreigners” offending within the liberty, but if they withdrew themselves from the liberty complaint was to be made to the Lord Warden.
All pleas of the Crown of life or limb were determined before the mayor, bailiff,* and jurats. The following is Mr. Sandys translation of this part of the Custumal (chap. xxx.)
* The bailiff of the Abbot of St. Augustine’s is supposed to have occupied a house in Fordwich, near the quay, formerly called “Hemp Hall.” This house, which, after the dissolution of the monastery in 1538, was occupied successively by the Johnsons, Paramores, Crisps, Darrells, and Shorts, is now the rectory. An old piece of flint wall at the bottom of the rectory garden is probably a part of the original wall built when the monastery owned the property.
83
FORDWICH MUNICIPAL RECORDS.
OF PLEAS OF THE CROWN
All pleas of the Crown of life or limb are accustomed to be determined within the said liberty before the mayor bailiff and jurats.
The goods of the guilty party to be forfeited to the Lord Abbot of St. Augustine’s.
“And when the appellant and appellee shall come before the mayor and jurats and the steward of the Lord Abbot . . . . the sergeant of the bailiff who shall so have the custody of the appellee shall stand with an axe holding him bound only he is to be unbound when he ought to answer. . . . and if the appellee shall wish to acquit himself according to the customs of’ the liberties of the Cinque Porte it shall be adjudged him that he have at a certain day. . . thirty and six good and lawful men and true who shall swear with him that he is not guilty . . . . And it is to be known that when the aforesaid thirty and six are to acquit any man their names ought to be written and all called by name and if they shall answer twelve of them ought to be dismissed by the steward of the Lord Abbot and twelve others be dismissed by the mayor and jurats so that the mayor and steward and jurats may choose twelve of the thirty six aforesaid whom they shall wish to swear with the appellee that he is not guilty so help him all Holy Saints, kissing the book, etc. After shall be called the said twelve who are chosen to swear and they shall swear as they are called by name to wit every one by himself that the said oath made by the appellee is good and true and that he is not guilty of the things imputed to him so help them all Holy Saints, etc. Which if they shall do the appellee is acquitted and the appellant attachable and all his goods being within the liberty of the will of the Lord Abbot. But if any of the aforesaid twelve shall withdraw himself from the Book being unwilling to swear the appellee shall lose his life. And all who are condemned in that case or in any other case to death ought to be taken from the aforesaid court of the Lord Abbot by the Stour unto a certain place called ‘Thiefs’ Well’ and there their hands ought to be tied under their legs, to wit, ‘kneebent,’ and they shall be instantly thrust down alive and drowned there. And this shall be done by him who prosecutes. And that water is the property of the commonalty howsoever it may have been appropriated by others.”
The mode of inflicting capital punishment in most of the Cinque Ports. was peculiar. At Dover the felon was thrown over Sharpness Cliff. At Sandwich they were buried alive on Thiefs’ Down. Prof. Montagu Burrows, in his recently published sketch of the Cinque Ports, says that at Fordwich there was a special wharf reserved for the purpose of drowning criminals; but the word used in the Fordwich Custumal is “Thefeswelle,” the tradition amongst the inhabitants identifying it with the well at the bottom of the lane leading to Elbridge, a few yards beyond Colonel Cox’s house. This lane is called “Thews” Lane.*
The highly objectionable practice of making the prosecutor act as executioner was also in vogue at Dover and Romney, but at the latter port he was allowed to find a substitute if he could. In later times the corporation had a gallows near the quay, which Hasted says was only taken down shortly before his time; but the town books contain no evidence to prove that the extreme penalty of the law was ever actually inflicted within the liberty.
Persons drawing a knife (or any arms “having a point”) for the purpose of using it on any man or woman were fined 10s. If the knife was actually used, the offender had the choice of three penalties, either he must pay 60s. to the mayor and commonalty, or remain
* This seems to point to the well having been used in later times for the immersion of “scolds,” Thew being a name given to a “cucking-stool.”
84
FORDWICH MUNICIPAL RECORDS.
in prison for a year and a day, or his hand “shall be thrust through with that with which he did smite.” Dr. Sheppard remarks that nothing can bring out more clearly the great difference in the value of money than the fact that a fine of 60s. was considered an equivalent to remaining for a year and a day in so filthy a hole as the Fordwich Gaol (Hist. MSS. Comm. Fifth Report).
Women convicted of scolding, quarrelling, or slandering in the street or elsewhere, were compelled to carry a certain “mortar” (mortarium) through the town, a piper or other minstrel, going before her making a laughing-stock of her, and to the minstrel “for his trouble” she had to pay a penny.
This mode of punishment must have been exchanged in the sixteenth or seventeenth centuries for the “cucking-stool,” which still remains in the Town Hall.
One remarkable custom of judicial combat is not mentioned in the “Custumal” at Fordwich, but a description of it was discovered by Dr. Sheppard amongst the Chartae Antiquae in the library at Christ Church, Canterbury, as follows:—
They claim that if a stranger appear as a prosecutor accusing a man of the liberties of felony whether committed within or without the liberties the prosecutor shall come to the boundary fully equipped (cum toto apparatu) as is fit for a prosecutor to be. Then when he comes to the town he shall be led to a certain running water called “Stour,” and in that water he shall stand up to his navel with all his equipment prepared to prove his appeal. Then the accused shall come in a boat (batellus) with three poles to oppose the prosecutor clothed in a garment called “a storrie” with an instrument called “an ore” three yards long and the boat shall be made fast to the quay by a cord and he shall fight with the said prosecutor until the duel between them is decided.
The patronage of St. Augustine’s Abbey at Canterbury did not bring with it unmixed advantages, and throughout the whole period of its continuance the records give abundant evidence that the connection between the town and the monastery was not altogether to the advantage of the former, at least from a Fordwich point of view. The resident bailiff of the abbot was regarded with considerable jealousy by the mayor, as introducing a sort of dual control into the administration of town affairs, and the Custurnal is very careful to guard against encroachments on his part, by clearly defining the limits of his jurisdiction, and his position in the government of the town.*
Chap. xxiii. of the Custumal is entirely devoted to enumerating “those things which the lord abbot hath in Fordwich,” and proceeds to say that “first he hath his prison and pound holden in his own demesne within the town in all cases which shall happen to arise in the said liberty, and the bailiff for the time being there shall have the custody of the said prison and pound. . . . Although if any one imprisoned shall escape, it shall be the fault of no one except the lord abbot.”
* On his appointment the bailiff received his staff of office from the abbot’s steward, but if the steward was not present, he received it from the hands of the mayor.
85
FORDWICH MUNICIPAL RECORDS.
The Mayor, Jurats, and Commanalty had a prison of their own, and so refused all responsibility for the custody of offenders detained by the Lord Abbot. The Abbot was also entitled to the “amerciament of pleas, and the forfeiture of the chattels of felons and fugitives within the liberty, except only the lands and tenements and rents after the year and day, lying within the liberty belonging to the commonalty.” Also to customs, anchorage, lastage, and bulkage of vessels plying between the town and Stourmouth “Nasse,” but ‘he shall not have of any lands or tenements within the liberty any other yearly service besides his rent seck at certain times of the year
The position of the Abbot’s Bailiff in the hundred court is also clearly defined in the Custumal. Before summoning the court he must give three days’ notice to the Mayor “if he be at leisure, and when he shall consent, the Bailiff shall send his serjeant called ‘Catch Pole’* three days before the day of the hundred court to houses of the parties to be summoned; and when the Monday shall arrive in which the hundred court shall be held, the mayor shall cause the bell to be rung in the church of the Blessed Mary about one o’clock in the day, which being rung the whole commonalty with the mayor, jurats, and steward of the Lord Abbot assembled, the bailiff or his serjeant shall make proclamation of the peace, and the parties who ought to plead shall stand at the bar, and this in the court of the Lord Abbot or elsewhere, when the mayor, jurats, and the steward also shtall consent. . . . And be it known that the roll of the bailiff contains the process of the cause, and the mayor with his roll or without a roll has the record, and that record may abate or falsify when there shall be occasion the roll of the bailiff, because the record of the mayor, who is the judge and has the giving of judgment, is more worthy than the process of the bailiff’s roll, who ought to do nothing more in this matter than to receive the amerciaments of the said pleas according to the assessments of the mayor and jurats,” etc.
But although the rights of the Abbot in Fordwich were thus clearly set forth, there was continual friction between the Abbot or his representative and the Mayor, one of the most fertile sources of dispute between them being the exclusive right of the Stour fishery. The Mayor, Jurats, and Coinmonalty contended that the weir nets, set opposite to the town quay, were the property of the town, in which the Abbot had no claim whatever. The Abbot, on the other hand, fully sensible of the excellence of the Fordwich trout, was not disposed to give up his right, as lord of the manor, to participate in the advantages derived from the use of these weir nets. This particular matter of strife was to some extent set at rest by a compromise effected in the 3rd of Henry IV., 1401, whereby the Abbot was
*Behind him stalks
Another monster not unlike himself,
Sullen of aspect, by the vulgar called
A Catchpole.”
Philips’s Splendid Shilling, 1703.
86
FORDWICH MUNICIPAL RECORDS.
allotted the net next to the mill, presumably the best place. But differences were continually arising, which occasionally reached such a head that appeal was made to the Lord Warden. The following is a specimen of the way in which the Mayor and Jurats attempted to obtain the intervention of the Warden in some case where their liberties were endangered by the encroachments of the Abbot. It is a copy of a petition to the Duke of Gloucester, Lord Warden of the Ports, neatly written on a narrow strip of parchment, but we cannot learn from the petition exactly what the particular grievance complained of was:—
Unto the right high and mighty prince and our right gracious lord the Duke of Gloucester.
Besechen most mekely unto your gode grace Thomas Southland maier and the jurates of ffordwich one of the members of the v portes of the which ye ben speciall protectour and defendour that when divers variances were betwix the Abbot of Seynt Austyn’s of Canterbury and your said suppliantis ther whereupon compromytted to the reule of iiij of your counseill by your gode grace thereto assigned. And if the said iiij of yor counseill of the said variaunces myght not accord then thei to abyde the reule of your highnesse as of the seid variaunces so that ye shuld make a reule and award therein by the fest of the purificacon of our lady next commyng the which iiij men have seen the evidence of both the seid p’ties and none end therein have made and ther tyme is worn out and now it is fully your high reule and judgement. Wherefor your seid beseechers in the most lowly wise besechen you of your highness and gode grace seth your tyme approcheth and wereth out in hast that ye wold of your seid gode grace in confirmacon of the ryght of your seid members as ye that have it and all the remenaunt of portes in your high reule and gouvernannces to see that the seid Abbot overlede him not in wrong and them disherit of their fraunchise the which thei and their predecessoures at all tymes hav had, for it is the seid Abbotte’s entent (that the time?) to you prefixed shuld were out and he thanne to be at large and out of bond after the which he wold sp’ally labour to the utter undoing of your seid besechers but that ye of your seid grace wold make a reule the premisses or elles to order the seid Abbot to obey the reule of other by you to be assigned may by likelihede make end of the seid matter and this in reverence of God and in wey of cherites. And your seid besechers shall pray God for your very high estate.
It is difficult to decide the exact date of this petition, owing to the fact that two Dukes of Gloucester filled the office of Lord Warden of the Cinque Ports in the fifteenth century. Probably this petition was addressed to the popular Duke Humphrey, who was made Warden in 1416 by his brother Henry V., and who died in 1447. Richard, Duke of Gloucester, afterwards King Richard III., was Lord Warden for a short period only.
One Thomas Southlond was mentioned in the year 1457 in his brother William Southlond’s will, printed in Arch. Cant., Vol. XI., p. 372. In 1456, he was “presented,” in the Mayor’s Court, for keeping a savage dog. That Thomas Southland died in 1482, and his will is extant in the Archidiaconal Register at Canterbury, lib. iii., fol. 24, but the Mayor mentioned in the petition may have been his father.
The costs attendant upon litigation of this kind appear to have been shared by the other Ports, for in the Romney Town Accounts for the year 1451 we find the following
87
FORDWICH MUNICIPAL RECORDS.
entry: “Paid 18s. 2d. to the men of Fordwych for our share of a certain suit by them made against the Abbot of St. Augustine’s for their liberties.” This may possibly refer to the very suit mentioned in the above petition.
The closing of the north mouth of the Wantsum about the middle of the fifteenth century or a little later, and the silting up of Sandwich Haven, caused a rapid decline in the trade of Fordwich. The town accounts for the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries (as far as they are preserved) prove that the resources of the corporation were very limited at this period; and Leland, writing in the reign of Henry VIII., can only say of the place, “here ys a pore mayer.”
In the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries matters seem to have mended somewhat, for in 1635 the town books shew that there were ten freemen of the town who could describe themselves as “gentlemen.” In 1673, thirty-four householders paid the Hearth Tax, the principal contributors being Thomas Norton and Mrs Elizh Darrell, each of whom paid for thirteen hearths. Eight poor householders were excused from payment. The mayors were no longer the poverty-stricken officials of Leland’s time, but were generally men of substance, and sometimes members of well-known Kentish families. That Fordwich was of some importance to Canterbury, even at the beginning of the present century, is proved by the price of coals at Fordwich Quay being regularly quoted in the local papers of that date. The last blow to this survival of former activity was probably dealt by the opening of the Whitstable and Canterbury Railway about 1830. The Corporation was recruited frequently from gentlemen of the neighbourhood, who, although not actually resident within the Liberty, were anxious to preserve the continuity of its ancient traditions, until the ruthless Municipal Reform Act of 1883 cut its slender thread of life.
MAYORS OF FORDWICH.*
1292 John Maynard (1). 1510 Thomas Caswell.
1303 Richard Atchurch. 1511 John Darrell.
1311 Alexander Rays. 1513 John Cosyn.
1313 Alexander Curteys. 1514 Christopher Bentley.
1376 Adam Shoterick. 1515 George Roberd (5).
1377 John Calewe. 1520 Robert Hylde.
?date. Thomas Southland (2). 1522 John Cosyn.
1452 James Hope. 1530 Thomas Norton (6).
1461 John Fantyng. 1537 Stephen May.
1465 Christopher Bentley. 1539 Thomas Norton.
1466 John Gye. 1547 Richard Donut.
1467 John Fantyng. 1552 Valentine Norton (6).
1476 William Stokes. 1553 John Fisher.
1480 Christopher Beverley (3). 1561 John Johnson (7).
1496 Robert Cooke. 1562 Valentine Norton.
1499 William Maycott (4). 1563 John Lukyn (7½).
1501 William Martyn. 1567 John Williamson.
* Notes on the Mayors follow after the end of this List.
What follows is the raw OCR text – I’ll edit it when I get time… RG
88
MAYORS OF FORDWICH.
1572 Thomas Conntrey (8). 1607 Robert Darrell (15).
1575 Anthony May. 1668 Thomas Johnson (d. April 2, 1670).
1577 Thomas Conntrey. 1669 Thomas Bigg.
1578 Valentine Norton. 1670 Thomas Boycote.
1579 George Bigg (9). 1672 Thomas Boycote.
1581 Anthony May (10). 1673 James Baron.
1583 John Elmer. 1674 James Baron.
1585 Anthony May. 1675 Francis Jull.
1591 Thomas Long. 1676 Francis Jull.
1599 Valentine Norton. 1677 Thomas Boycote.
1603 Henry Johnson (7). 1678 Thomas Pilcher (16).
1604 Richard Lukine. 1679 Thomas Pilcher.
1606 Walter Bigge. 1680 Anthony Jennings (17).
1609 Richard Lukine. 1682 Thomas Norton (re-elected
1611 Henry Johnson. yearly until 1686).
1613 Walter Bigg. 1686 Thomas Pilcher.
1616 Henry Johnson. 1687 Thomas Pilcher.
1617 Thomas Norton (6). 1688 Thomas Jennings (re-elected
1620 Simon Harlestone (11). yearly until 1694).
1621 Walter Bigge. 1694 Thomas Alleyn.
1630 Thomas Harlestone (11). 1695 Thomas Alleyn.
1631 Thomas Harlestone.
1632 Simon Harlestone.
1633 Capt. Thomas Harlestone. 1631 ,, ,,
1696 Thomas Underdown (18).
1697 ,,
j63~ 1698 John Graydon (19).
163~ ~, ~, ,, 1699 ,, ,,
1636 Anthony May (d. July 2,1637). 1700 ,, ,,
1637 Simon Harlestone (11). 1701 Thomas Jennings.
1638 John Gosner. 1702
i63~ Edmund Young. 1703 ,,
1640 Thomas Bix (12). 1704 Thomas Underdown.
1641 Thomas Harlestone. 1705
1642 ,, 1706
164~ Stephen Thompson (13). 1707 John Bix.
l64~ ,, 1708 ,,
j645 John Lukin (d. Aug. 26, 1647). 1709 Thomas Underdown.
1646 Thomas Bix. 1710 John Bix.
16~~ 1711 stephen Taylor (20).
i6~~ Stephen Thompson. 1712 Henry Browne.
1713 Thomas Younge.
1650 Richard Hall. 1714 Thomas Jennings. $
1651 Richard Bates. 1715
1652 William Boycote (d. Jan. 25, 1716 Stephen Taylor.
1653). 1717 John Bix.
16~~ Stephen Thompson. 1718
j654 ,, 1719 Thomas Young.
1655 Richard Hall. 1720 John Adams.
1656 Thomas Harleston (d. Sept. 30, 1721 John Graydon.
1657). 1722
1657 Thomas Bix. 1723 ,,
1658 1724 Thomas Young.
1659 1725 John Graydon.
1660 Thomas Bigg (14). 1726 Robert Austin.
1661 1727 John Nicholls (21).
1662 Thomas Norton. 1728
1663 1729 William Spencer.
1664 ,, 1732 Earl Cowper.
1665 Thomas Lukin. 1736 Theodore Sydenham (re-elected
1666 ,~ ,, (d.Oct.13,1667). yearly until 1743).
MAYORS OF FORDWICH. 89
1743 Anthony Jennings (re-elected 1830 Friend Anthony Tomlin.
every year till 1764). 1831 ,,
1764 AnthonyJennings(theyonnger) 1832 Richard Hambrook.
1765 1833
1766 n 1834 Charles Mead (re-elected every
1767 John Blaxland (re-elected ear till 1848
yearly until 1775).
1775 John Woodruff. 1848 Thomas Cooper (re-elected every
1776 Upton Jennings (re-elected year till 1875).
every year till 1785). 1875 Denne Denne, Esq. (re-elected
1785 Anthony Jennings (re-elected every year till 1884).
every year till 1830). 1884 Col. Chas. Jag. Cox.
1. John Maynard was probably the founder (in 1317) of Maynard’s Hospital in Canterbury. Somner says that he was surnamed “Dives,” and endowed his hospital with six acres of wood called Brotherhedds Wood, in the parish of Fordwith. (See also.Kent Fines, in Arek. Cant., Vol. XIII., p. 294.)
2. T. Southland. See page 86.
3. Christopher Beverley owned an estate between two bnnches of the Stour, called (from previous owners) Tancrey Island. The house on the right hand of the road coming from Sturrey, arid between two bridges, is still known by this name. By the marriage of Thomas, son of William Norton of Faversham, to Beatrix, daughter and heir of William Beverley, this estate passed to the Nortons.
4. William Maycott married Alice, daughter of John Pettit, b~whom he had a son John. By his will, proved in 1501 (Consist. Court, Jib. vii., 10), he left “to the reparacons of Fordwich church iij1’ vj’ vnjd. To every light in the churches of Sturrey and Fordwich of which there is a brodered xij°.” He also mentions Anthony Maycot of Reculver, who died in 1532.
5. George Roberd, died in 1553 (will at Cant. Archdeacon’s Reg., 30., 1) leaving property at Hawkhurst. Of his daughters, Margaret married Walter Bigg of Fordwich, and Johauna married Gervase Carkeredge. $
6~ Thomas Norton (nephew of John Norton of Northwood in Milton), by his wife Beatrix Beverley, was the father of Valentine Norton (Mayor in 1552 and 1562); and Valentine, by his wife Isabella Hodgson, had a son Thomas Norton, who was Mayor in 1617. Aphra, daughter of the last-named Thomas Norton, married Henry Hawkins of Nash Court, in Boughton Blean, and died in 1605-6, aged 21. There is in Fordwich Church a monumental brass to her memory. Her father (Mayor in 1617) died in 1625.
7. John Johnson, who in his will (proved 1568) describes himself as “Merchante,” purchased the manor of Fordwich from Sir Thomas Cheney in 1553, and took up his abode there, having formerly resided at Nethercourt, in St. Peter’s, Thanet. His son Paul Johnson married Margaret, daughter of Peter Heyman of Selling, by whom he had a numerous family. One of the sons, named Henry, was Mayor of Fordwich in 1603. Hasted says that Paul’s son Timothy alienated the manor of Fordwich to Elizabeth, widow of Sir Moyle Finch, and the manor house to Thomas Faramore, in the reign of James I. The house had been the residence of the Abbot’s bailiff previous to the dissolution of St. Augustine’s Abbey, and was known as Hemp Hall. From the Paramores it passed to the Crispes of Quex, in Birchington, and thence by marriage to Robert Darrell, Mayor of Fordwich in 1667; it is now the Rectory.
7j. John Lukyn, in 1562, made his will “intending to over the seas to New-haven in the Queens Majestys affairs ;“ the will was proved in the following year. By his wife Thomasine, he left two sons, John and Thomas.
8. Thomas Conntrey died in 1603, leaving by his wife Bennetta two sons, Jerome and John. He had land at Fordwich, Sturrey, and Throwley.
9. The Biggs were clothiers from Benenden. Walter Bigg, the first of the name at Fordwich, died in 1565, leaving by his wife Margaret, the daughter of George Roberd, two sons, John and George, and a daughter, Sarah. George was Mayor in 1579; he had two sons, Walter, who died in 1631, and Stephen, who die4 in 1646, both of them were benefactors to Fordwich and Sturrey. They
NOTES RESPECTING THE MAYORS.
were buried under an “altar tomb,” close to the chancel wall, on the south side of the churchyard, but the inscription is now almost obliterated.
10. The Mays have continued to reside at Fordwich from the beginning of the sixteenth century until the present time, their present representative being Mr. Thomas May, who was for mauy years Water Bailiff to the late Corporation.
ii. Simon Harlestoue was the son of the Rev. Samuel Harlestone, Rector of Ickham 1568_1616. Two of Simon’s sons were afterwards Mayors of Fordwich, Thomas ~ü 1630, and Simon in 1632. The pedigree of the Harlestones is given in
~ Cai~t., Vol. iv., from PhilipOt’s Visitation, .1619. The seat 0f the Harlestofles in Fordwich was called Hermesl~d, and stood upon the site now occupied by Fordwich Uonse.
12. The Bix family owned property at Linsted as early as the middle of the fifteenth cent~y. The Fordwich branch carried on the trade of coal merchant. In 1647 Thomas Bix was fined SOs. for allowing Nathaniel Denne, of the City of canterbury, to unload three score chaldron of coals at his private coalyard, and contrary to his oath as Freeman, etc., “It being a precedent the like whereof hath not been knowne or suffered here since the memory of man.” (Book of Decrees.)
13. Stephen Thompson, during his MayoraltY~ was committed to prison by the Guestling assembled at New Romney, for refusing to pay what was due from the Town th the purse of the Ports.
14. Thomas Biggs by his will, proved 1670, left a yearly sum of 50s. to the poor of Fordtch.
15. Robert Darrell, son of James Darrell, and grandson of John Darrell of Cale Hill (see Arch. Cctnt., Vol. XVII., p. 48). He married Elizabeth, daughter of Henry Crispe of Quex, through whom he became possessed of the house at Fordwich, which had formerly been the property of the JohnsOns and Faramores. He thed June 13th, 1668, and there is a flat stone to his memory in the Chancel of Fordwich Church. His daughter and heir was married to Col. Samuel Short, who succeeded him in the house at fordtch.
16. Thomas Filcher married Mary, daughter of Thomas HarlestOne. He died
1692, and was buried in the Church. Arms: tgent, a fesse dancetté between three torteauxes (Hasted’s Kent, vol. iii.).
~7. Anthony Jennings. The Jennings Family succeeded the I~ortons at Taucrey about the end of the seventeenth century, and continued to reside there until 1830, when ~nthouy Jennings (probably a grea~grand50n of the first Mayor of that name) died after a mayoralty of fortythree consecUtive years! a circumstance probably without any parallel.
18. The UnderdOwns were settled at ~irchington during the greater part of the seventeenth century. There is a memorial stone in the Church there to the memory of Thomas linderdown of Fordwich, 1709.
19. John Graydon was Vice~Ad~ral of the ~ite. In 1702 he was with Sir George Rooke at the taking of Vigo. He purchased Hermesland of the OsbOrnes, and pulled down the old house which bad long been the seat of the Harlestone family, and rebuilt it in the Queen Anne style; it is now known as Fordwich House. In 1709 the Admiral was disfranchised for not attending Sessions of Gaol delivery (Book of Dec~ees),but he was soon afterwards entreated to return to the Corporation~ and in proof of his good will towards the ton, he presented the Corporation with a handsome silver_gilt mace (Hasted’s Kent). He died in 1725, and was buried at Westbere. Aims: Azure, three otters, each holding in its month a fish argent.
20. Stephen Taylor. In the transcripts of the Pordtch Registers at Canterbury, the following entry appears: “1739. Stephen Taylor, a ragged jurate of Fordwich, was buried July 9th.”
21. John Nicholls, Rector of Fordwich 17141741. He had pretously been Curate of Eastchurch, Minister of Harty, and Vicar of Sheldwich. Soon after the accession of the House of Hanover, h~ preached a sermon at Fordwiot so full of Jacobitish sympathies~ that he was for a time suspended from bi~ benefice. By his wife Martha, daughter of Robert Cumberland, Vicar of CEll ham, he had two daaghters~ Catherine married to Thomas Mantell of Chilham and Mary the wife of John Woo&uff of Fordwich. He died 1741, and we buried in the chancel of his Church.
91
1357.
by the Abbot of St. Au-
it
FORDWIOU MT3NICIPAI~ RECORDS.
TUE MACES AND THE SEAL.
Fordwich possessed two maces, the earlier one is about 12 inches in length, and bears marks of very bad usage. On the inside of the bowl the Royal Arms are engraved, between the letters C. B., and the Cinque Port Arms are on the foot of the stem. There are no hall~mark5, but the date 1065 and the letters T. N. (Thomas Norton) are engraved round the upper part of the stem.
The large mace is of the usual eighteenth entury type, the bowl is ornamented with the letters B. 0-. B. between a crowned rose, a tMstle, a female bust, and surmounted by au arched crown, with the Royal Arms inside.. The marks are: Lion’s head erased, Britannia, the letter B (1720), and the maker’s mark N.C.
Hasted says this mace was presented to the Corporatio1i by Admiral Graydon, but there is no inscription upon it to this effect, and the Book of Decrees states that in 1720 the Corporation voted a sum of “£58 to buy a new mace.”
The seal appears to be a modern reproduction of the ancient matrix. It is engraved with a ship having one mast and a yard, and this inscription, in Lombardic characters:. Si~qill141i! Baronwim Dc Forwiz+. The maces and seal are now preserved in the Museum at Canterbury.
A LIST OF THE BUNDLES AND BooKs c0flATNED IN TUE
MnnIENT OHEsT AT IFOB.DWICTh
•~ proceedlng~ before the Mayor.
These are “finales concordic~” and date from 1216—1350 they reqwCre
cleanfr’9.
~ } Records of the Mayor’s Court in the pirteenth Century.
t%iefiy recognizam~8 for small debts.
4 conveyances of the sixteenth Century.
5 conveyances of the Fifteenth, sixteenth, and seventeenth Centuries.
a Actions in the Court for all manner of Small Debts and Petty Trespasses.
7 Papers in Law Suits. The most important being “The Corporation v.
Norton,” and relate to the exclusive right of the Corporation to the
Fishery in the Stour.
S Accounts of the Fifteenth, Sixteenth, seventeenth, and Eighteenth Centuries.
On Loose sheets of paper, reqniring to be arranged.
O Inquisitiones post mortem.
The Mayor acted as Coroner “ex.offiC~~0.”
io Copy of a Charter granted to Fordwich by Charles II., being the “~nsperitn-us” of a Charter granted by Queen Elizabeth.
it Parchment Certilftcates which the Test and Corporation Acts exacted.
12 Letters from London, and Notices from the Lord Warden.
13 Papers relating to comparatively Modern Criminal Matters.
14 Bonds for Money and Eecognizances of Offenders (chiefly i1leg~l Fishers).
15 Records of Court of the sixteenth and seventeenth Centuries.
~& Precepts calling on the Mayor to summon the Court of Quarter Session.
17 A valuable bundle, ~0ntaining the following parchments
(1) Composition between the Mayor and ~omniona1ty and Robert Rathbrafld, Prior of Christ Church.
(2) Appointment of Bailiff (John Maycot)
gustine, temp. Edward IV.
(3) Gravamina, Abbot of st. Augustine t,. Mayor of Fordwich.
(4) Appointment of Attorney temp. Henry VII.
(5) ,, ,, 1571.
92 FORDWICU MUNICIPAL RECORDS.
(6) A Table of Fees to be levied by the Cranesman, 1564.
(7) Appointment of Bailiff by Paul Johnson, 1570.
(8) Three “Inquisitions” as to eating flesh in Lent, dated 1563, 1603, 1604.
(9) Assessmentt0 Highway Rate, 1663.
(10) Two copies of a Petition from the Mayor to the Duke of Gloucester re the Abbot of St. Augustine (with modern pencilled note
as circa 1430).
(11) A Letter from Edward IV. to the Mayor and Barons of rordwich.
BoUND BooKs.
18 RecordS of Mayors’ Elections 1631—1729 (lacking 1712—15 and 1711).
19 “The Ancient Booke of the Decrees of the town of Fordwich” (of sixteenth and seventeenth centuries).
zo Minutes of the Borough Court, 1550—1621.
21 Treasurers’ AccountS, 1718—1828.
22 Minutes of the Court, 1726—1883.
23 Mayors’ Oaths; being printed forms of an oath directed against Roman I i Catholics, filled in, and sworn to by the Mayors at the time of their
accession to office.
24 A Bible (in older binding than the text ?).
25 ChurchWardens’ Accounts, 1509~1538, containing an inventory of the church goods of Pordwich taken in 1501.
26 The Custumal, inscribed “ Custumale AntipiUm Villae de Fordwico pretiosissimum.”
Tin~ OUSTUMAL.
This is a large octavo volume, written in a fifteenth-century hand, and is probably a copy of more ancient MSS. The Oustulnal itself occupies eighty-two pages,. the remaining forty-one being filled by miscellaneo~ matters, of which the following is a list
1. An illuminated Calendar in English.*
2. Forms of Oaths, of which the most modern specimen is addressed to the “Lord Protector.”
3. An Agreement respecting the right of the Stour Fishery between the Mayor and CommonaltY and the Lord Abbot.
4. A Description of the Boundaries of the Liberty of Fordwich, settled by au inquest of the four 5~~rounding hundreds, presided over by Sir Gilbert Preston, Justice in Eyre, the Constable of Dover Castle, and Sir Henry Malmaynes, Sheriff of Kent (1272) .t
5. Four Chapters of Holy Scripture, in neat black letter, with illuminated capitals, one from each of the four Gospels.t
* Dr. Sheppard notices that opposite the 29th day of December, where once stood the words, “Sancti Thome Martyris,” nothing but a red smear appears, some zealous Protestant having executed the obliteration at a time when the Saint had fallen into disrepute.
t The liberty extended from lFordwich to stourmouth “Nasse,” on both sides of the river, “as far as a man being in a boat at Mph water can throw an axe of
seven pounds weight, called a taper-axe, on to the land.” The word translated “throw,” is “retier “ draw, though probably (as the weight of the axe is carefully specified) it was throwl&. A similar method was employed at Sandwich.
2 This (says Dr. Sheppard) was the “Book of the Gospels” upon which oaths were taken. It was not considered necessary that the whole Testament should be present, a specimen from each Gospel being considered sufficient to swear by. The version followed ~5 Tyndal’s second (Hat. 3122. Co~m. ~JA R~ort).
FOEDWICH CHURCH GOODS, LD. 1501.
Government of the Town and Port,
6. Regulations about the chiefly of an ultra-protectionist character.
CIIURCHwARDn5’ ACCOUNTS (No. 25).
This is a small paper book, bound in the parchment leaves of an old service book. The accounts extend from the year 1509 to the year 1538. For the first few .years the entries are remarkably clear and well written, being probably the work of a paid scribe, but afterwards his services appear to have been dispensed with, and the writing becomes almost illegible. We gather from these accounts that there were two altars; the high altar dedicated to our Lady; and St. Katharine’s altar, which stood at th~ east end of the north aisle.
In 1532 the following entry occurs among the receipts: “Item ~ for ij galons and a pynte of honey, made by the chyrche bees ij yeres, iijs vjd ob.”
In 1539 a “bybyll” was purchased for Os. (This was probably Coverdale’s translation, which appeared in 1538, with a dedication to the King.)
At the beginning of the volume is the following inventory of plate and vestments belonging to the church in 1501
Hereafter evedently appeareth the Jewelles, and gudes appertenyng to the chyrch delyvered the xijt~1 day of DecW the yere of our lord God &cccccs
by William Marty-n then being Mayer John Calway and Richard Seril wardens of the said church, John Cosyn, John Crenlyn, William hallywell, Stephen Brown, John Badcokk, Richard Itoch, Edward Barn, and William
helds parochians of the same church.
Imprimis in the Rood loft j huch strongly bound w~ yryn & a Key th’to
Item a Crosse copper gilt the foyt appertenyng thereto.
Item iiij challyces ij gilt and ij ungilt.
[ten j good massbooke, every second capitall l’re gilt.
Item j olde masboke notyd.
Item j preciouse antiphonary grete and well notyd.
Item ij porteusses 1 olde and a nother newe.
Item ij mannelles 1 olde a nother newe.
Item ij good processyonalls & 1 olde ordinall.
Item j Dirige book notyd.
Item j principall westement of Blew velvett.
Item j Cope of blewe velvet appertynyng to ye same.
Item j other vestment for doble ifestys.
Item iij vestments for other days feriali.
Itemj Coppe of grene silk.
Item ij awtre cloths w~ ij frontleys for the hye awtre.
Item ij other awtre cloths for the same awter.
Item a playne white lynnen cloth for the fonte.
T+c sj awter cloth of diaper for Seynt Kath’yn’s aivter.
Ltem ij awtre clothes of playn cloth for knyte awter.
T.tem a Bassyn and a layer of latten.
.tem a towell of diaper for howselying (contenyng in length vi yerds).
‘‘i jj Towells one of diaper & one of pleyn cloth for the lettron.
a ~•sina1l towels of Diaper for the lavatory.
ii iij stay-ned cloths for iij Awters feble.
n j cotton for the Sacrament.
1 aj oldo pyllows covered with silke for the hye awtre.
.
93
94 FORDWICH CHURCH GOODS, A.D. 1501.
Item ij Candlestyks of latton for ye same awtre.
Item a hole water stope of latton.
Item ij olde shettes.
Item iij corporax w~ the easements thereto.
Item a bagge of Canvasse to put in the best vestments.
Item a Senser of olde latton wt a shippe thereto.
Item (sic) Cruetts.
Item ij Bannr cloths one of Seynt George a nother of Seynt X’tofer. Item iiij olde Bannr cloths.
Item Leche (9) bell.
Item ij sacryng Bells.
Item a Lent cloth feble. Item ij slevyd surples.
Item ij Rotchetts.
Item a nolde chysable.
Item ij olde paxes.
Item a canape stayned for the Sacrament.
Item a pynne of silver a chapitre for the massebuke at hye awtre.
The londis apparteneyng unto the Cross light.
Imprimis in Bushingbury vj acr lying between the lands of
Thos. Bentley and John Penny, p’cm (precium) v d.
Item in Crofte of Philip Cosyng j aer p’cm xviij d.
Item in p’ych (parish) of Westbere j acre of medowe p’c~’ .. xx d.
Here ffolwith the weight of the iiij chalisse~ in ye Church of
ffordwich.
Jmprirnis a chalis wt the paten doble gilt wt this scriptour in
the uppmost parte “Calicem Salutaris accipiam et nomen
Domini invocabo” and wt this scriptour in the foyte “Orate
H pro anima Joh’is ffreningham~ et pro bono statu Johann~
nuper uxoris dicti Johannis” and w~ this scriptour about the
paten “Benedicamus patrem et ffliuni cum saucto Spiritu.”
In ye foyt of ye chalis an ymage of the c’ciflx ynameld, and
wtin the Paten ane ymage of ye Trinite ynameld. The weight
of the said chalis wt ye paten is xvj unc. iiij dt
Item a nother chalis giltyd wt yn the brym and wt oute w~ a
paten thereto being gilt, and yn the foyte of ye chalis is
graven this scriptour “Orate pro anima Johannis Swerder.”f
H: The weight of this chalis with paten is &n