Volume I - Little Baddow History Centre

Essex historian, in the mid-eighteenth century said that “The Squire Oak is a noted
tree and still standing”, but in 1810 a document spoke of “the spot where the Squire
Oak formerly stood”. In 1593 there was “a great oake standing upon a bank which
devideth Woodham Walter Common from Tofts Common” and this oak is shown on
the map of 1677. Another well-known landmark was the High Birch (by 1811 “the
high birch stump”) where several Manors and divisions of Hundreds meet”. “Ground
marks” were usually posts, as an occasional reference indicates, such as in 1726 – “a
post is sett downe as the boundary”.
It seems that there had been doubt about the true bounds between Little Baddow and
Danbury at least from 1593 when Sir John Smythe instructed his tenant, Thomas
Heath, to learn the bounds between “Lyngwood crosse” and Woodham Walter
common. Two centuries later, in a Perambulation of 8th May 1777, “as gone by me
Richard Sorrell”, when he arrives at Lingwood common he says, “Now the Bounds
are disputeable. Little Baddow claims part of the Common and Danbury claims it all
but the best advice I could get was from Daniel Burchil an old man who had gone the
Bounds 3 or 4 times and had known the same for 50 or 60 years”. He then wrote
down what Daniel Burchil said. In 1811 the dispute came to a head when the
parishioners of Little Baddow resolved to walk and mark their bounds, especially
those adjoining Danbury, on Ascension Day. The Vicar of Little Baddow (Rev A
Johnson) gave notice of this intention to the Rector of Danbury and requested his
parishioners also to attend. He received the reply from the Rector that if the Little
Baddow parishioners “infringe upon the undoubted rights of the Parish of Danbury
with a Bodkin they will do it at their Peril”. Ten Little Baddow residents attended,
including the Vicar, General Strutt, the Church Clerk and the Constable, and a similar
number of Danbury men appeared. When they reached Patten Well on the edge of
Lingwood Common, General Strutt ordered the boundary claimed by Little Baddow
to be marked by driving a plough along it.
Sir Brooke Bridges promptly brought an action against the General for breaking up
his soil, as he contended that his manor of St. Clere was co-extensive with the parish
of Danbury. The Strutts considered that he had acted too precipitately and left them
no time to prepare their case. Letters passed between both parties and their solicitors,
each trying to avoid a court case but equally unwilling to give in. The Strutts
gathered evidence from old men of the village such as John Orton, who, the Vicar
wrote, “is a Complete Cicumambulator” and David Saward, aged 74, who had been
going the bounds for sixty years. The Rev. Johnson said that Danbury had altered the
boundary slightly because they complained that they had all the roads to keep up and
so they thought they “might throw, by way of compliment, some Rods of very bad
Road into the kind keeping of the people of Little Baddow”. Finally the case came to
court and General Strutt, on the advice of his solicitors, allowed judgment to go by
default. Damages were assessed at £5 instead of the one shilling usual in such cases,
annoying the Strutts who blamed Sir Brooke’s solicitor. Sir Brooke assured them he
was “not actuated by any vindictive motive” in bringing the action and hoped no
future case would upset “the cordiality and good fellowship that ought to subsist
between persons whose Properties are so much connected”. He voluntarily reduced
the £5 to 1s.
12