6 April 1223
WIDOW TO REGAIN HER RIGHTFUL PROPERTY.
Today our
Sovereign King, Henry III, has sent to the Sheriff of Warwick to find and
apprehend a man who has disinherited a widow of her legal rights. The
perpetrator of this wicked deed was Hugh de Leyes. "He just threw me out. I
have nowhere to go, no home. My husband, William, has died and there is no-one
now to protect me," Mistress Alice de Farendun told our reporter yesterday.
Widow de
Farendun rightfully inherited her land in Grandborough from her brother, Gilbert
Croc. This is part of the 2 hides (240 acres) that were declared in the Great
Domesday Book to belong to King William and let out to Richard the Forester. In
turn it was sublet to one called Bondi.
Our reporter
read the Book and found that this land was important enough to support four
ploughs, but in 1086 only two ploughs were actually used. Thirteen households
lived there. The value of the whole land in 1066 was 20 shillings, but quickly
increased in value to 50 shillings twenty years later. It is therefore not
surprising that Hugh de Leyes, the current overlord, should seize the
opportunity to take advantage of a defenceless woman.
Mistress de
Farendun travelled to London last week to put her case before the King. She
told our reporter that she had to make a Statement that at least 25 years ago
her brother Gilbert had lawfully paid 20 shillings to his kinsman Walter Crok as
fee on this smaller piece of land. The King accepted her plea and has written
to the Sheriff of Warwick "to take those who are there in force".
1326
GRANDBOROUGH MANOR DISPUTE SETTLED BY THE KING
The owner of one of the two Grandborough
Manors, Edmund de Bereford, is in dispute with John de Bolingbroke, Escheator in
Warwick. Edmund’s father died earlier this year, apparently leaving no heirs.
"It's all a pack of lies," Edmund told our reporter. "I am the sole heir of the
property. I even held it jointly with my father and I can prove it!"
According to
documentation recently discovered, fourteen years ago in the sixth year of the
reign of our beloved Sovereign, Edward II, the de Brandeston family transferred
ownership of their property. This included one of the Manors of Grandborough
and the Manor of Derset. It was all given jointly to William de Bereford and
Edmund his son and held by them for a knight's service to the overlord, John de
Harecourt.
The dispute was
put before His Majesty the King. He found in favour of Edmund, once the proof
was shown to him that William and Edmund both held the property on the day of
William's death. A decree is therefore to go to the escheator at Warwick
ordering him "not to intermeddle further with the Manors".
Edmund is over
the moon. "I said that I could prove what is rightfully mine, and I have!" he
said.
1332
Grandborough Taxed Again !
Grandborough has not
escaped the great Taxation that has been levied on all barons, knights, freemen
and communities across the land. Parliament at Westminster has declared that
all these people must pay one fifteenth of the value of all their movable
goods.
Residents of the Parish
are very grateful that they do not live in one of the Cities or Boroughs of
England, because otherwise they would have had to pay one tenth of the value of
their possessions.
The reason for the Taxation was to raise funds for the many
foreign wars that our Sovereign King Edward III is waging in many countries. As
is well known, it is the wars in Ireland that are particularly causing the
King’s Treasury difficulties at this time.
This Taxation follows the one five years ago in 1327 when the
value of one twentieth of all movable goods was taken in Tax for the same
reasons. At that time the Knightlow Hundred gave a total of around £245 and the
whole County of Warwickshire gave £667. In this current year the Knightlow Tax
total was increased to £286 8s 4d and the County to £785. Grandborough Parish
contributed £7 0s 8d, a not inconsiderable sum for such a poor parish.
12 October 1346
GRANDBOROUGH MANOR DISPUTED AGAIN
Grandborough
Manor has changed feudal ownership in past years, most recently in 1329 when the
previous owner, Edmund de Bereford, donated it to the Priory of Chalcombe in
Northants. It was valued at the time at 10 marks annually.
Today in
Westminster Edmund de Bereford, the King’s clerk, has been given Grandborough
Manor to care for on behalf of our beloved King Edward III. There are some
issues that need to be addressed and Edmund will run the Manor until matters are
resolved.
The Escheator of
Warwickshire is John de Wyndesore and his job is to take any property in the
absence of legal heirs and revert it to the feudal lord. The order has
therefore gone to him to hand over the Grandborough Manor to His Majesty and
Edmund acting as agent. However, there is also the order to the Subescheator,
William de Fililode, to attend in London to ask why he seized the property in
the first place. At that meeting the Prior of Chalcombe will prove how he came
by ownership.
The true feudal
lord will be named, or if there is none, His Majesty will own it. If there are
other issues regarding this property, your reporter is not yet aware of them.
27th November 1346
ALL BECOMES CLEAR ON THE MANOR OWNERSHIP ISSUE
At the meeting at the Tower, London, today
Warwickshire Subeascheator, William de Fililode, declared to His Majesty that he
had taken away ownership of the Grandborough Manor from the Prior of Chalcombe
on the basis of information from a most reliable source.
It seems that
His Majesty has been deceived as to the value of the Manor. It is actually
worth £14 and 7shillings more than the understood value of 10 marks per annum.
However, His
Majesty thought this an insufficient reason for such drastic action and ordered
the Warwickshire Escheator to hand the property to the Prior immediately.
Mr de Fililode
was not available for comment.
4 February 1538
THE KING BUYS PROPERTY IN GRANDBOROUGH
Today our blessed Sovereign Henry VIII hands over £2,000
to Francis, Prior of the House and Church of St Andrew in Northampton.
It is in these
days that His Majesty is organising the Dissolution of the Monasteries to seize
the lands and power from those who have abused it in the past.
The sum of
£2,000 is for a great deal of property in several Counties, but the Grandborough
portion is as follows: 4 cottages, 4 enclosed pieces of ground, 8 gardens, 160
acres of land comprising meadow, pasture and other land, and 20 shillings rent.
After the payment, Prior Francis can no longer have any claim upon the property.
26th May 1553
NEW LORD OF THE MANOR OF GRANDBOROUGH
The
Lordship of one of Grandborough’s manors, along with various lands and houses,
were all sold today at Greenwich by our Sovereign Lord, King Edward VI, through
his agent Edmund Peckham, knight. The new owners are Edward Aglionby esquire,
of Balsall in Warwickshire and Henry Higford, gentleman, of Solihull, also in
Warwickshire.
A great deal of other property across
England was sold to Mr Aglionby and Mr Higford at the same time for the princely
sum of £1,678 14s ½d in ready money.
Leofric, Earl of Mercia and his wife, the
Lady Godiva, originally gave this Grandborough Manor in 1042 to Coventry
Priory. It then stayed under the care of the monks until the great King Henry
VIII took it for himself at the Dissolution of the Monasteries in the thirtieth
year of his reign, 1538.
The Manor is not rich, but it does provide
a regular annual income from its land and tenants as listed. Unless stated
otherwise the property is in Grandborough:
12th June 1553
GRANDBOROUGH MANOR SOLD ON AGAIN
Today the Manor and all the other land and
property there at Grandborough were sold again. It had only been newly
purchased two weeks ago, and a licence for this sale was granted only two days
after its first sale, on 29th May.
Mr Aglionby and Mr Higford passed it on to
Valentine Knightley, esquire, of the Knightley family at Fawsley Hall,
Northamptonshire. The sum involved was 50 shillings and 5 pence.
Mr Knightley already owns a great deal of
property in the parish as well as elsewhere. He bought the Grandborough
property in 1532 from the Catesby family of Ashby St Ledgers, Northamptonshire,
who had held it for around one hundred years. Thus the one Manor is again
united under one owner with much of the property in the parish.
July 1627
GRANDBOROUGH HIGHWAYS IN DISREPAIR
Some of the roads in Grandborough parish are
in a disgusting state. A survey has revealed that the road between Grandborough
and Woolscott up to the church is in great decay. There are also several other
roadways in Woolscott that are almost impassable, even for foot passengers.
Richard Radborne and Robert Radborne had
already been presented to the Warwick Courts for not keeping in repair a certain
highway in Woolscott which leads to Rugby. In that case they were found not
guilty, but Richard has again been presented at the last Quarter Sessions for
the same offence. And not only that one, but also another road in disrepair
too.
The inhabitants of the parish that use the
roads concerned are very angry. They know that the Radbornes should be
responsible and are likely to threaten them with violence. The Minister of
Grandborough, George Beale, also attended Court and later told our reporter that
he had said to the Justices, “I desire to set peace and unity among my
parishioners.”
Surveyors have been appointed to look at the
roads and decide who should take over repairs and maintenance. If no agreement
can be reached, they are to report back to the next Quarter Session. The
gentlemen appointed are John Shuckborough, esquire, John Temple, esquire, and
Robert Clarke, gentleman. We await impatiently the results of their work.
The Court sat at the Warwick Quarter
Sessions in January, led by the Justice of Assizes, Sir Francis Harvey and other
Justices of the Peace, including Sir Stephen Harvey, Knight of the Bath.
Uncertainty continues on the matter of the Grandborough roads. What is certain
is their dreadful state. However, decisions as to who should be responsible for
the repairs have made no progress.
The Surveyors, who recently looked at the
roads in disrepair at Woolscott, Walcote and Grandborough, have reported back to
the Warwick Justices of the Peace. Mr. John Temple and Mr. Robert Clarke
firstly looked at Mill Ham, the Churchwaye which leads from Chayne Bridge by the
water mill to Fines Bridge, the bridge nearer to the church. Both these bridges
cross over River Leam.
The Justices decided that Lawrence Bolton,
esquire of Grandborough, the Lord of the Manor, is now to be responsible for
this piece of road. Since they do not have to repair it, the inhabitants of
Woolscott have given up their right to graze or cut for hay the verges of this
road and the small adjoining common land known as Mill Ham. There is also
repair needed from Fines Bridge towards the church up to the churchyard gate.
The inhabitants of Woolscott are to repair this and the inhabitants of
Grandborough to maintain it thereafter.
The Surveyors then looked at the road which
is called The High Meadow Gutter and which runs from Sawbridge to the market
town of Rugby. Richard Radborne was responsible for its upkeep, but it is now
in a shocking ruinous state. The Woolscott inhabitants are to take it on. They
are not too pleased at all the work to be done, but at least the ways will
become passable again.
August 1628
HAMLET FINES - RESULT
The inhabitants of Woolscott and Walcote
have been presented in the July Quarter Sessions for non-payment of a fine which
has been levied for the road repairs in Woolscott. The Court understood that the
two communities were separate hamlets. Woolscott paid the fine, as levied, but
no monies were forthcoming from Walcote. The Sheriff therefore called in the
debt from Walcote. The Court decision is that, since they are considered to be
the same hamlet, and that Woolscott has paid the fine, Walcote will have to pay
nothing. The inhabitants are much relieved and pleased with the result.
November 1631
ROAD REPAIRS SAGA CONTINUES
The inhabitants of Woolscott have presented
their case at the Warwick Quarter Sessions this month. They state that Lady
Katherine Dormer, who holds a huge amount of land in Woolscott, refuses to pay
her share of the cost of the road repairs that they say she is obliged to.
The Court is to hear her side of the story
at the next Sessions. If she fails to appear, she shall be held responsible for
the payments, whether or not it is right that she should do so.
At the Quarter Sessions held at Warwick
there has been an on-going fiasco involving the inhabitants of Grandborough,
Woolscott and Walcote against the large landowners.
Back in 1626 landowners Richard and Robert
Radbourne were taken to Court by the local inhabitants who were complaining
about the condition of the roads.
The Court had to establish ownership of the
duty of care and then decree who should repair and who should maintain the
sections of road between Chayne and Fines Bridges over River Leam to the
churchyard gate. Another road was also involved, from Sawbridge towards Rugby.
In summary, the work was divided between the inhabitants and Mr Laurence Bolton,
esquire. Messrs Radbourne did not have to make repairs at all in the end.
In the April 1628 Quarter Sessions the
inhabitants of Woolscott took Lady Katherine Dormer to Court. She is a large
landowner in Woolscott, but had not paid her share of the repair works. Since
she did not appear to answer the case, it was found against her and The Court
decided that Lady Katherine Dormer must pay her share of the costs of road
repairs to the inhabitants of Woolscott. The Court decision was given to her
son, Mr Umpton Crooke, who acts as her shepherd in that hamlet.
In July 1628 Lady Dormer had still not given
her answer to the Court, and therefore became liable to contribute her fair
share of all taxes and levies on the land she owns in Woolscott. This is
especially applies to the costs incurred in the current repairs of the Woolscott
road.
In November 1628 Woolscott and Walcote
inhabitants had to attend Court at the Quarter Sessions to answer why they had
not repaired the part of the Sawbridge to Rugby road to fulfil their obligation
from the Hearing in July 1627. Lady Dormer was also called to answer for the
non-payment of her share of the work.
The Court is now waiting for a definite
answer as to the ownership of the roadway. The true owner is to be held
responsible for the road maintenance. Furthermore, the Court declared that if
the Woolscott inhabitants want to sue Lady Dormer, they would get a fair
hearing.
However, Lady Dormer still did not
contribute at all to the repairs, despite the Court Order. In 1629 she was sued
by the Woolscott inhabitants and the Court found in their favour.
This month Lady Dormer has been brought
before the Courts again for non-repair of the main Coventry-Daventry Highway in
Woolscott.
Easter 1646
MR. CLARKE ELECTED HIGH
CONSTABLE
Mr. John Clarke, a gentleman of Grandborough, has been
elected to take on the post of High Constable of Knightlow Hundred, it was
revealed at the Easter Warwick Quarter Sessions. The vacancy came through the
death of Mr. Richard Walter, the late High Constable.
At the Quarter Sessions the Justices of the
Peace declared Mr. Clarke "a very fit and able man to undertake and execute this
office". He is to take his oath at the next monthly meeting of the Justices at
Warwick and will be added to the list of Warwickshire JP’s on July 4th.
"I am very pleased and privileged to do
this," he said. "I shall do everything in my power to be worthy of the
Justices' trust."
October 1646
DISABLED PERSONS ABANDONED
ON WALCOTE HIGHWAY
The inhabitants of Walcote are not doing
their bit for the disabled any more. As is the nationwide custom, they used to
carry any disabled person on the King's Highway along their portion of the road
as far as Dunchurch, in the westerly direction, or Willoughby in the easterly
direction.
The custom has fallen into disuse since the
recent enclosures of the fields along the roadside. No longer are teams of
horses kept there. "Sometimes we have to wait for days," said one of those
involved who passes regularly. "You wouldn't believe the state we get in on the
cold, wet winter days. Who do the Walcote people think they are?"
At the Michaelmas Quarter Sessions, the
Warwick Justices of the Peace made a ruling that the inhabitants of Walcote and
Woolscott must take their share of the work in proportion to the amount of land
that they hold there. "They can take the cripples by horseback or on a cart.
It is not too onerous when everybody takes their turn," said Mr. Clarke, the
recently elected High Constable of Knightlow Hundred who lives locally.
If the inhabitants do not comply with the
ruling, they have to forfeit to the local Constable of Woolscott certain sums of
money that would be used to offset the expenses of whoever takes on the job.
For carriage on a cart along the two miles of the road within the parish between
Willoughby and Dunchurch the cost would be two shillings and for horseback one
shilling. For carriage to Willoughby, one mile away, one shilling on a cart and
6 pence on horseback. This is a huge sum to charge the inhabitants.
"It's outrageous!" say the angry Walcote
and Woolscott inhabitants. "We can't pay that sort of money and nor can we keep
horses on the roadside just in case a cripple happens along."
CHILDREN STARVING AT GRANDBOROUGH
The Overseers of the Poor at Grandborough
have not taxed the parish inhabitants for some months so that some of the poor
are going hungry. Widow Heycock and Widow Tucker are especially in need. Widow
Tucker's four small children are nearly dying of hunger.
The Justices of the Peace have ordered the
Churchwardens and Overseers of the Poor to make a levy as soon as they possibly
can. Widow Heycock is to receive eight pence and Widow Tucker two shillings
until they have no more need.
The Editor thinks that this is the most
disgraceful act of neglect that he has heard of in recent times. It is
incredible that no one had taken action earlier. This must never happen again.
Widows usually have no other means of support and must be looked after properly
by their fellow inhabitants.
January 1648
UNFAIR TAXES AT CALDECOTT
Tenants and occupants of the land in Calcutt
hamlet informed the local Courts that they were paying more taxes than the other
inhabitants of the same parish, those in Grandborough, Woolscott and Walcote.
"The levies on Grandborough, Woolscott and
Walcote are significantly less than what I pay," grumbled an angry Calcutt
farmer, who wished to remain anonymous. "It's grossly unfair!"
The taxes had been already assessed and
should have been paid according to the order made on the 8th September 1646 by
the Committee of the Council.
The Justices at the Quarter Sessions have
decreed that all taxes are now to be made "according to the true value of every
man's land there." Perhaps justice will now be seen to have been done fairly.
Easter 1649
SHAW HAGGLES OVER POOR
RELIEF
Poor Relief is supporting the four children of Thomas
Longe of Woolscott since he absconded recently. The inhabitants of Woolscott
and Walcote keep their own poor and do not allow them to suffer. The main
village of the parish, Grandborough, pays nothing towards their upkeep.
Edward Shaw of Woolscott is complaining
that he has to pay too much in taxes. After all he has only two small houses
and half a yardland. "The whole acreage of Woolscott and Walcote amounts to a
120 yardlands. Now, if everyone had to pay at the rate that I do, it would come
to a total of £350 a year! That's far too much, of course! We have to pay
nearly 14 shillings for these children a month. Why should I pay far more than
everyone else?"
The Woolscott inhabitants told our reporter
anonymously that it is rumoured that the cottage of the absconder, Thomas Longe,
was illegally built.
Edward Shaw took this up with Thomas Longe
in the past. "He argued with me," said Shaw. "Longe managed to produce some
ancient documents proving that a house had been on that site for generations.
His parents had lived there and had had all their children there. He himself
had lived there for eight years and no-one had queried it before. I couldn't
disprove it, so we had to let the matter stand."
The Court declared that Shaw’s portion of
the tax is indeed too high. The Churchwardens and Overseers of the Poor will
arrange a new levy to ensure the maintenance of Longe’s family and Mr Shaw will
pay his fare share.
Now that the matter is sorted out all is
quiet again in the sleepy hamlet. The only questions remaining are: Where is
Longe and why did he leave?
October 1649
KYTES BRIDGE TO BE REPAIRED
The bridge at
Kytes Harwick over River Leam was demolished, our readers may recall, in the
dark days of the recent Civil Wars. At the time it was thought that the safety
of the County would be compromised if used by marching soldiers and their heavy
artillery.
Now, however,
in quieter, if unsettled and heavily taxed times, it is appropriate to set the
bridge up again. The landowners responsible for the maintenance of the bridge
are Mr Richard Over and Mr Henry Byddle who, in July of 1648, were required to
attend Court to answer why the bridge was still not replaced.
The bridge at
Kytes Hardwick is still conspicuous by its absence. Richard Over and Henry
Byddle of the hamlet have admitted that they are responsible for its repair.
They were aware of the obligation when they took on ownership of their land and
property, but they still have done nothing about it.
The Committee
of Safety for Warwickshire had already condemned the ancient bridge and it was
demolished as unsafe for use.
"Chaos has
ensued as traffic is held up and we seem to spend all our time trying to sort it
out. Someone should do something about it," complained one of the inhabitants
of Kytes Hardwick. "We're not paying for it."
The Court ruled
that the repair should be at the expense of the whole County, much to the relief
of the local inhabitants.
Mr. John Hill,
gentleman of Grandborough, and Mr. William Bassett, one of the High Constables
of Knightlow Hundred have been asked by the Justices of the Peace to assess the
costs of repair.
They are to
take with them skilled masons and workmen and then to report back for the next
Quarter Sessions. This newspaper will follow the story and report as it
unfolds.
TAX WRANGLES IN WOVENCOTT
Yet another parish is arguing over its taxes. The
hamlets of Nethercott, Sawbridge and Flecknoe disagree with the inhabitants of
the deserted Medieval village of Wovencott (Wolfhamcote) over the portion of tax
that each of them should pay.
The Justices of
the Peace at Warwick have asked Edward Humfries and the local High Constable of
Knightlow Hundred, Mr. John Clarke, who both reside in Grandborough, to hear the
dispute and settle it. If they cannot do so, they are to refer the matter to
the Justices at the next Sessions.
January 1650
PROGRESS ON KYTES BRIDGE
Mr.
Hill and Mr. Bassett have reported back to the Justices after their survey of
the site of the decrepit bridge at Kytes Hardwick. The estimated costs of
replacing the bridge will be about £16. This will shortly be levied from the
whole County and given to the Surveyors. Should any money be left over after
the works, the Surveyors are to dispose of it as they see fit and then to report
to the Justices.
The inhabitants
are delighted with the news. "And about time too!" commented one. “And we
don’t have to pay for it!”
13th
February 1656
MR CLARKE SELECTED TO BE A
JUDGE
Congratulations are in order because
yesterday Mr John Clarke has been appointed a Judge in Warwickshire.
30
June 1836
FRACAS THWARTED IN SOUTHAM -
CURATE TO BLAME
Yesterday at
the polling at Southam for a Representative for South Warwickshire, several
persons had intended to intimidate the voters in a most violent manner, it was
revealed today. However, the affray was prevented in the nick of time. The
ringleader was Revd. Jeremiah Walker, Curate of Long Itchington for some four
years, aged 35.
The two
candidates were Sir Grey Skipnette and Mr Shirley. They each had a parson
pushing their cause. Walker supported Mr Shirley. Sir Grey was supported by
the Rev Knott, vicar of Wormleighton.
Walker gave his
side of the story to the High Sheriff, Mr. J.H.Chamberlayne, who happens to live
in the same parish. "Some weeks ago at a Meeting of my Parishioners they were
carrying Staves and walking in Procession to the Parish Church. I proposed that
the Electors of Long Itchington all carry these Staves on the Polling Day at
Southam, with a Ribbon affixed indicating their Party Colours.
"Someone at the
time remarked that the Staves were generally the Property of the Labouring men,
and that if there should be a Riot and the Staves should be broken, the loss
would fall upon them. I replied that I would direct my Parish Clerk, a
Carpenter, to make some Staves (like the Wand of the Under Sheriff in the Court
at Warwick). After he had made a few, I desired him to desist. At this point I
intended to relinquish my proposal to the Electors, having changed my mind about
the proceeding of the affair.
"A few days
before the Polling commenced the Under Sheriff called upon me, and also upon the
Parish Clerk and seized the Staves, and other wood at first intended for Staves,
and carried them away. I solemnly declare that I had no intention to give
offence, or do a Bodily Injury to anyone."
This is a most
serious matter, especially when men of the Cloth are involved. A local
Magistrate, Revd Thomas Ross Bromfield, Vicar of Napton and Grandborough, is
looking into the matter on behalf of Bishop Butler. The Bishop may wish to
pursue the matter further himself during his Visitation to Coventry on 29th
August.
Mr Bromfield
has stated to our reporter that Walker is a respectable, peaceful and benevolent
man and that Knott is similarly respected in his parish.
Neither Walker
nor Knott were not available for comment.
