Vol.1 Court of Chancery 1431-1755 - Hungerford Virtual Museum

LAW-SUITS 

connected with the Town and People of 

HUNGERFORD 

collected by 

Norman & Joyce Hidden 

Vol. I Court of Chancery

INTRODUCTION 

These Hungerford lawsuits have been typed from handwritten transcripts made at the Public 

Record Office in Chancery Lane (now the National Archive at Kew) over 30 years ago. Some 

accounts are abstracts of the case; some are complete transcripts, as examples of the actual 

procedures and wording of cases of the period. 

They will almost certainly contain errors of misinterpretation of the original documents and of 

the handwrittten copies in spite of the meticulous care and checking that Norman always 

insisted upon at the time. Since his death I have not been able to go back to Kew and check 

any queries that have arisen in the preparation of the volume. I apologise for this and suggest 

that anyone using it should quote it as their source (with all its inadequacies) or consult the 

original documents before making any definitive statements. There will also be omissions of 

cases we were unable to track down and that have since come to light. More research is always 

needed! 

Joyce Hidden, 2009 

I must thank Kay who has helped me with the word-processing and preparation 

of the index. Without her help I doubt if the project would have seen completion.

Chancery Proceedings (P.R.O. 1386 to mid 19th Century) 

1. Bill of Complaint is signed by the Counsel and sometimes by the Plaintiff 

(Complainant). It is filed or "exhibited", setting forth the fraud or injury done, and praying 

relief. If one of the parties dies before the Cause is heard or a Decree enrolled, a Bill of 

Revivor is brought. 

2. Following the above a Subpoena is issued to compel the Defendant to appear. 

3. Then an Answer is filed by the Defendant. 

4. This is followed by a Replication by the Plaintiff (unless he files Exceptions against the 

answer as insufficient). Then there may be a Rejoinder of the Defendant and a Surrejoinder 

or a second defence of the plaintiffs declaration (which may be followed by a Defendant's 

Rebuttor which in turn may be followed by the Plaintiffs Sur-rebuttor). After that there may 

be a Demurrer by the Defendant. Then the parties come to issue. 

5. Interrogatories are issued to witnesses which may be Town or Country, followed by: 

6. Depositions made by the witnesses. If taken in the country more than 10 miles from 

London, they were taken by Commission. Town depositions were always written on paper, 

Country depositions on parchment. 

Affidavits were sometimes taken. 

The cause is then set down for hearing after which follows the Court's: 

7. Decree or Order. A Bill of Review may follow any error in a Decree. 

N.B. Decree: judgement in Court of Equity either final or interlocutory (reserving the 

possibility of further consideration), distinct from Order which might be merely procedural 

(setting a date for the next hearing etc.) At the P.R.O. decrees can be found under: Chancery 

proceedings, Chester (Court of Palatinate of), Duchy of Lancaster, Durham (Court of 

Palatinate of), King's Remembrancer (K.R.) 

CHANCERY LAWSUITS at the PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE 

Key: Cl = Early Chancery Proceedings: Ric.II to Phil & Mary 

C2 = Chanc. Proc. Series I: Eliz.I to Chas.I 

C3 = Chanc. Proc. Series II: Eliz I to Commonwealth 

C4 = 'Answers' to Bills not catalogued but in boxes according to initial letter 

of complainant 

C5 = Chanc. Proc. 6 Clerks Series (Bridges) Jas I - 1714 

C8 = Chanc. Proc. 6 Clerks Series (Mitford) Jas I - 1714 

CIO = Chanc. Proc. 6 Clerks Series (Whittington) Jas I - 1714 

Cl 1 = Chanc. Proc. 6 Clerks Series 1714-58 (Topog.Index at Soc.Gen.,Bernau) 

C21 = Country Depositions Eliz I - Chas I 

C22 = Country Depositions 1649-1714 [N.B. After 1714 Depositions filed with suit] 

C24 = Town Depositions 26 Hen VIII - 1853

HUNGERFORD LAWSUITS IN THE COURT OF CHANCERY 

Cl/11/369 GLOVER v DYER 

To John. Bishop of Bath, Chancellor of England 1431 - 1442 

Thomas Glover and Denise [Dionise] v John Dyer als Passager 

Bill: Thomas Glover was seised in right of his wife, of a messuage and 40 acres of land in 

Hungerford, Berks. Of late, John Dyer als Passager of Hungerford, chapman, claims the 

messuage and land as heir to Simon Dyer, his father; whereas indeed he was a bastard and 

had no right to the land. John Dyer has put Thomas and Dionese out of the messuage and 

land with great force and multitude of ? in manner of war against the King's laws. 

Beseecher is greatly in age. 

Notes: John Dyer als Passager flor. 1417-45 and possibly deceased before 1458. 

John, Bishop of Bath, was Chancellor 10-21 Henry VI (1431-42) 

and also 7-12Ed.IV (1467-1473) 

Thomas Glover deceased by 1470, is probably the father of another Thomas Glover 

who was living and active c.1470. 

C1/28/421 TUKHILLetal v BOCHERetal 

To the right reverend father in god Bishop of Exeter Chancellor of England 1460 - 65 

Complainants John Tukhill, Constable of the town of Hungerford, Thomas Hosskin bailiff 

of the farm of the same town, John Dighton tithingman, John Hossekin, JohnWhiteley, and 

Nicholas Hayward and many others [complain] that William Bocher, William Drewe, John 

Ludlow, Robert Tuggill, Richard Jenyn, Thomas Barbour, did with many other of their 

affinity maliciously disposed and rebels to our liege lord the king to the number of 80 

persons and more in the month of September last past enter into the said town of 

Hungerford and there robbed and spoiled divers persons which that owed faith and goodwill 

to our liege lord and also brake open the common chest of the same town and spoiled and 

bare away such goods as they found therein and put the King's officers your complainants 

forcibly from their offices nor suffered them to occupie nor execute the King's laws in their 

offices as beforetime but put in such as were of their affinity and some against their wills 

which dare none other do for dread of the said rebels but occupie or else stand in jeopardy 

of their lives. And so yet the said rebels continue their riots so that neither justice nor law 

may be executed there nor good rule kept to the great hurt of the well disposed men of the 

same town and also of the countre thereabouts which would resort to their market there and 

dare not for the said rebels. In consideration whereof please it your gracious lordship to 

grant that there may be a commission directed under the King's great seal, viz Sir Robert 

Shotesbrook, Sir John Cheyney knights, Thomas Rogers, John Rogers, Thomas Wynslow 

esquires, Oliver of Langworth and es John(?) gentlemen to attach the said rebels and 

all other of their affinity such as keep open robbery and riot in the countre thereabouts so 

that they may be brought hither to answer to the King's lawes upon robbery they have done 

to the King's true liegemen there which shall be openly proved afore them and the 

showed. This at reverence (?) of almighty God and for the weal of all the countre 

thereabout so that the King's true liegemen may do their occupations and keep their markets 

as they have been accustomed in time past and your said complainants with their neighbours 

and all other well disposed persons there shall and more especially pray for your honourable 

estate in felicity long to endure. 

[For the significance of this case in the history of Hungerford during the Wars of the Roses, 

see Norman Hidden's Aspects of the Early History of Hungerford, chapter entitled "John 

Tukhill: First Constable of Hungerford".]

Cl/48/436 John de la POLE, Dk of Suffolk & Elizabeth his wife v William BAMPTON 

(between 1473 and 1475) 

re Manor de Denford, Berks the wardship of which was granted to the Complainants by 

Letters patent dated 7 July in the 12 year of his reign Part of the lands of John 

Lovell, late Lord Lovell. 

Cl/201/26 William FETIPLACE and Elizabet his wife v John HAKKER 


re And 2 yardlands and 10 acres of meadow in Shefford Berks. 

Cl/60/10 John TOGULL v. Robert TOGULL 


Refusal to pay debt to Nicholas Croke of Oxford for whom complainant became security. 

£60 debt due for woollen cloth. A cause was heard in Bristol and Robert as surety was 

lodged in prison there. John secured Croke's agreement to Robert's release for a period in 

which to collect the sum necessary to pay the debt but Robert did not pay within the time 

limit allowed. [Ms. In poor condition] 

[Is this the Toghill family of Hungerford? ] 

Cl/143/10 

Both of Hungerford. 

Joane JOHNSON v. John PEYNTOUR 

(1486-93 or 1504-1515) 

re detention of complainant's share of lands in Hungerford, late of Thomas Cotterell, 

father of the complainant and of Margaret, wife of the defendant. 

Thomas Cotterel was seised of certain lands and tenements in Hungerford in his demesne as 

in fee to the value of 6s.8d (?) John Peyntour and Margaret have taken all profits since 

Thomas Cotterell's death amounting to xvs iiiid (?) 

Pledges: John Elyse, Richard Marwode (Harwode?) 

Cl/215/45 MASON v BRENDY 


Thomas Mason of Hungerford Wilts v Thomas Brendy and Rauf (or Rawlyn) Wynchester 

concerning detention of deeds relating to land and messuage in Hungerford, Wilts. 

Pleg: William Mayewe de London gentleman 

? : William Mason de eadem yeoman

P.R.O.C 1/350/54 RONANGER v FELDE (between 1504 - 1515) 

To the most Reverend Father in God William Archbishop of Canterbury and Chancellor of 

England [This dates the case 1504-1515] 

Ernestlie complaineth unto your good and gracious Lordship your continual orator Richard 

' Ronanger of Basingstoke in the County of South [difficult to read: an abbreviation of two 

letters, beginning with m, almost certainly abbreviation for mercer] that where it was 

concluded promised and agreed between your said orator and John Ffeld of Hydden in the 

parish of Hungerford in the Co of Berks husband' [Presumably another occupational 

abbreviation = husbandman] that the same your orator should take to wife Agnes daughter 

of the said John Ffeld and in likewise the said Agnes to take to her husband your said orator 

for the which marriage to be had and executed, it was faithfully promised by the said John 

Ffeld that your said orator should have xx marks of lawful money of England and also to 

have the 'Rule and Gou'nanse' (governance) of one John Feld the son of the said John Feld 

to be "p'ntes" (=prentice) [the abbreviation symbol after the p indicates pre ; the context 

fortunately supplies an indubitable meaning] with your said orator by the space of xi year, 

and that your said orator should have for the keeping and finding of him during the said 

years of foresaid John the father x li [£10] of lawful money of England, which John Feld the 

son your said orator received and hath kept him as his "P'ntes" by the space of a year and 

more; and also upon the said communication and agreement the said John Feld the father 

promised and granted to your said orator all such state term and interest as he has in the 

farm of Hydden of the 'lese' [= lease] and "demyse" of the "pryor of St Frydeswyde" of 

Oxford and according to the said communication and promise your said orator took to uife 

the said Agnes; and howbeit, good and gracious lord, your said orator hath often times 

required the said John Feld the father to content and pay him as well the said xx marks of 

his marriagemoney as the said x li, and also to make him a sufficient grant in writing of the 

said farm of Hydden, which to do the said John Feld the father hath refused and yet doth, 

contrary to the promise aforesaid; for the reason whereof your said orator hath no remedy 

by the course of the common law. Pleaseth it therefore your good lordship the premisses 

tenderly considered to grant a writ of sub poena to be directed to the said John Feld 

commanding him by the same to appear before the king in his court of Chancery at a certain 

day and under a certain pain by your lordship to be limited, there to answer the premiss 

according to right and good conscience and this for the love of God and in the way of 

Charity. 

Radus Colt de London Wener (?) 

Pleg.de pros Ricus Bright de London 

The complaint has been photocopied. The marriage-sum [xx mrc = xx marks] needs 

checking and the word or abbreviation following the signatories. 

On the dorse of the bill is written: Coram Dne R. In Cane. Sua a die pasche 

Prox futur 

There is no Answer attached to the Bill 

Any further Chancery records relating to this case are unlikely to come to light: as 

documents of this period, where they exist are contained in 173 unsorted boxes, each 

containing about 100 sets of manuscripts. [Note in 2009: the boxes by this time may have 

been sorted!] 

DETAILS CONCERNING RICHARD RONANGER: 

1503 (14 Oct) Extract from Basingstoke Court Rolls: "Richard Ronanger allows his fish 

board to stand in the king's highway to the serious annoyance of his neighbours. He has a 

day allowed him, after which he is to remove it each night under penalty of 20d.

1516(15 Nov) View of Frank Pledge. This lists Richard Ronanger among the fishmongers 

and paying the necessary fee; it also lists Richard Ronager among the mercers and paying 

the fee required. It lists also John Ronager among the saddlers and John Ronanger among 

the shoemakers. I think it does not mean 4 people, but 2 people each of whom pursued two 

occupations. I understand that at this period of history mercer may mean 'general goods 

seller' and not necessarily its later meaning. 

1521 Royal Rentals: the rental for Basingstoke for the half-year ending with the 

Annunciation of the BVM (12 Henry VIII) was drawn up by Robert Stocker and Richard 

Ronager, bailiffs there. 

1523 (10 Nov) Subsidy Roll (the 1524 subsidy in fact) - Richard Ronager and Thomas Lane 

were appointed commissioners for the collection of the Subsidy in Basingstoke. In the 

actual subsidy Ronager taxed himself at £3. 6s.O and was among the four or five most 

highly taxed citizens there. 

P.R.O:Cl/735/51 BRA YE v PARROCK (between 1529 - 1538) 

Bill of complaint to the Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas Audley kt, Lord Chancellor: 

William Braye of Kintbury Eagle, Berks miller and born at Abingdon, Berks and "there and 

other divers places within the said county brought up and bred", now the miller of the mill 

at Kintbury Eagle, complains that Bartholomew Parrock has urged the folk of Kintbury not 

to grind their corn at his mill because of his alleged excessive charges. Bartholomew 

Parrock is "a great rich man, greatly friended and allied". 

Answer of Bartholomew Parrock (Cl/ 7357 52): He states that a short time after the 

complainant obtained the lease and farm of the mill of Kintbury Eagle and was miller 

thereof, one Ralph Foster, gent, servant to John Cheyney of Woodhay esq, came to the 

defendant (B.P.) then and yet being deputy to the bailiff of the manor and lordship of 

Kintbury Eagle. Foster informed Parrock (on behalf of his master John Cheyney) that 

Braye was taking excessive toll. Parrock investigated and found that Bray's toll dish held 3 

pints. Braye answered that he had to make a living and that he would make a living. 

Parrock also stated that Braye within these twelve years made his abode and was farmer of 

the mill of Shefford then departed and became farmer of the mill of Shalburn and after that 

of the mill of Pewsey in Wilts, and now within the last three years came to Kintbury. 

Cl/7357 53 = Replication of William Bray. 

Cl/7357 54 = Rejoinder of Bartholomew Parrock 

['Working' millers, employed by a landlord, often moved from one mill to another. Perhaps 

between a hard landlord and an antagonistic local populace they found the build up of 

stress too great. An example in the neighbouring parish of Kintbury is that of William 

Braye] 

Cl/1139/29 Thomas LANGSLOO v Ralphe HANLEY 1545 

[Langsloo, Holy Trinity Chantry priest, seeks payment from Hanley out of Hopgrass. See 

Norman Hidden's Aspects of the Early History ofHungerford chapter on the chantry.] 

Cl/1250nos.l-3 NALDER V NALDER (1548-51) 

To Sir Richard Riche, Lord Riche and Lord Chancelor (1548-51), Richard Nalder of 

Kintbury complains: 

Whereas John Nalder, grandfather, was seised of fee in a messuage and 40 acres of meadow 

and pasture in Kintbury, and gave the same to John N. his son, with the remainder to 

Thomas Nalder, another son, and so should descend to your orator, Richard s/o Thomas, 

but the deeds are in possession of Matthew (Martha) Nalder late wife of John the younger 

who died without issue. 

[Notes: Matthew as a feminine name: see my article in The Family Tree July 1988] 

N.B. Entire Vol. of 'Lists & Indexes' No.LIV has been checked for Wilts & Berks 

suits relating to Hungerford.

5- 

P.R.O: Cl/12977 52 DYTTON V WILSON 1552 or 53 (Abstract) 

To Thomas. Bishop of Ely and Lord Chancellor: 

Thomas Dytton and Margaret his wife (state that) whereas one Byrd, clerk deceased, 

was lawfully seised etc of and in one tenement and 100 acres of land, meadow and pasture in 

Chilton Foliat Wilts, called the Frith, about 18 years ago (i.e. 1534) by deed indented, 

demised the same to John Lovelake, father of the said Margaret, for a term of 61 years. John 

Lovelake entered into possession for the space of 7 years or more and then made his last will 

and testament in which he willed the same to his daughter Margaret then being under age, that 

is to say 7 years old. He made Margaret his sole executrix and one Edward Westbrook to be 

his overseer and delivered to the said Edward the said leases to be kept for the use of 

Margaret; and died. 

Edward Westbrook then took into his hands all the goods and cattalle of John Lovelake which 

were to the value of 20 marks to the use of the said Margaret and after, the said Westbrook 

died, leaving one Alice then his wife, custody of Margaret and of the lease and the said goods 

to be delivered to her at her marriage or at her full age whichever should happen first. And 

after, the said Alice took to husband John Wilson who became possessed of the goods and the 

lease. And then Thomas Dytton married Margaret [Thomas Dytton junior, was baptised 

1562] and has requested John Wilson to deliver the indenture of lease and the goods and to 

suffer them (Thomas and Margaret) to occupy the farm; which John Wilson has refused to 

do. But being confederate with John Edwardes, they cancelled the said lease and have taken 

to themselves a new lease of the said tenement called the Frith, of one Sir John Williams. Kt. 

then being lord of the same and so doth occupy the moiety of the premises. Thomas D\tton 

and Margaret ask for a subpoena. 

(signed: Hadley) 

Answer of John Edwards: 

(Usual denial). Nevertheless he answers that William Byrd, clerk was seised etc. and about 

January 27 Henry VIII [1536] committed treason and long after the same treason was done 

and committed i.e. about 29 Hen.VIII, demised the messuage and land to John Edwards alias 

John Cyston [or Byston?] and to John Lovelake. Lovelake died and Edwards held lien(?) in 

the premises. William Byrd being seised of the reversion, about 32 Hen.VIII [1540] was 

attainted for the said treason and was executed, and by reason of his attainder, Byrd forfeited 

all his lands etc to the Crown, thereby voiding the lease made to Edwards and Lovelake. 

About 36 Hen.VIII [1545] by Letters Patent, the tenement called the Frith was granted to one 

Sir Thomas Mayle, Kt. who by indenture 10 February 2 Edward VI [1548] that now is,* 

demised the letting to John Edwards and to the said John Wilson for a term of 21 years. 

(signed: J. Byrche) 

* Edward VI = 1547 to July 1553. This and the Lord Chancellorship, date the case as 1552 

or 53.

P.R.O: Cl/1322 WYLMOT v HIDDEN (1552) 

Complaint of John Wylmot against John Hydden [son of John of Great Hidden Farm, dec.]: 

To the most honourable and reverend father in God, Thomas byshop of Ely, Lord 

Chancellor of England. 

In most humble manner shewethe unto your honorable lordship your orator John Wylmot of 

Wolfreston in the Countie of Berks yoman. That whereas your orator at the specyall 

instance request and desyre of John Hydden otherwyse called John Glidesdale in the 

moneythe of Maye in the seconde year of the reigne of our soveriagn lord the king that 

nowe is, did lend unto the same John Hydden the sum of VIII li (£8) of good and lawful! 

money of Englande to be repayed unto your orator at the feast of mydsummer twelve 

months then nexte followinge, and for the sure payment thereof at the sayd daye, the sayd 

John Hydden was bounden unto your orator in the sum of twentie markes by one sufficient 

obligacion sealyed withe the seale of the sayd John Hydden. And after that in his lyfetyme 

by his last wyll made John Hydden the younger his sonne his executor and after that, and 

about five months next after the sayd obligation made, he the said John Hydden dyed, after 

whose decease the said John Hydden the younger, taking upon hym the administration of 

the goods and chattels of his said father as executor provyd the said laste wyll and 

testament. And did administer the goods and chattels of his said father as executor unto his 

said father [superimposed: "and other (8 words illegible) executor"]. 

So it is right honorable lorde, that one, unto your orator unknown dyd felonyously pyck the 

purse of your orator being at a market at Higheworthe in the county of Wilts and 

felonyously conveyed and toke, not only all the money of your orator being in the sayd 

purse, but also the said obligation being lykewise in the said purse. And albeit that goodes 

and chatteles that were to the sayd testator came to the handes and possession of the sayd 

John Hydden executor to his said father and yet styll remaine in his possession suffycyent 

to satisfye your orator over and above all legacys and other debtes whatsoever payed and 

discharged. And although your orator diverse and sondrye tymes hath required the said 

John Hydden the younger to content and paye unto the same your orator the sayd sum of 

eight pounds (superimposed: ). And although the said John Hydden the younger 

dyvers and sondry times before your orator did lose the said obligation as is aforesayd in 

consideration that he had goods of his said fathers in his hands over all debts and legacies 

paid, sufficient to satisfy your said orator as is aforesaid, did oftymes and at divers places 

promise unto your orator before the said obligation loste, payment of the said VIII li at 

dyvers dayes nowe paste yet sithence your orator loste the sayd obligation as is aforesaid 

the same John Hydden both often tymes refused and yet styll dothe refuse to content and 

paye unto your orator the sum of VIII li. (superscribed 5 words illegible)contrary to all 

right equyte and conscience contrary to his promise made unto his said father to whome 

lying on his deathe bedd he made assuryd promise to paye the said VIII li unto the same 

your orator at the day aforesayd. In consideration whereof and forasmuch as your orator 

hathe no remedy to recover the said VIII li [superscribed: (4 words illeg) thereof] by the 

course of the common lawe. It may therefore please your honorable lordship to direct the 

Kings majestie wryte of subpena agaynst the sayd John Hydden commanding hym therebye 

at a certayne day and upon a certayne payne to appeare before your lordship in the Kings 

highe courte of chancery then and there to answere to the premyses. And your orator shall 

dayly pray to God for your prosperouse estate longe to continewe.

(PRO C1/1332 com.) 

The answere of John Hidden otherwyse Clydesdale to the byll of complaint of John 

Wylmott: 

The said John Hydden otherwyse Clydesdale saving to hym th'avantage of the 

insuffuyencye of the saide byll of complent which yf for dyverse causes ys insufficyent in 

the lawe for answere sayeth that true it ys that John Hidden otherwyse Clydesdale namyed 

in the sayd byll father to the said defendent did constytute ordeyne and made the sayd 

defendent executor of his last wyll and testament and dyed. After whose deathe the said 

defendent proved the said testament before the ordynary and toke upon hym the 

execution of the same as ys mensconed in the sayd byll of complent and did theryn justlye 

and truely as he in ryght and conscyens was bounden to do. W(i)t(h)out that that the said 

complaynente att the request and desire of the said John Hidden the father did lende unto 

the said John Hidden the father the some of VIII pounds of lawfull money of Englande in 

maner and forme as ys spe(ci)fied in the said byll of complent to the knowledge of the said 

defendent. Or that the said John Hidden the father was bounden to the said complaynante 

in the somme of xx markes by obligation sealed with the seale of the said John Hidden for 

the sure payment of the same VIII li as ys also menceyoned in the said byll. Or that the said 

defendent hathe or ev(er) had any knowledge of any suche bond obligatory but by reporte of 

the said complaynant or that the said defendent did ev(er) see any suche obligation as ys 

spe(ci)fied in the said byll. Or that an p(er)son hathe felonosly pyked the pursse of the said 

complayent att Higheworthe mensionyd (in) the same byll or in any other place and taken 

away out of the same purse the surmysed obligation. Or that the said surmmyse 

conc(er)ning the takyng awaye of any suche obligacon ys true. For the said defendent 

sayeth that the same allegacon ys but matt(er) imagyned vayne and untrue. Or that the said 

defendent sythen the death of his said father did p(ro)mise to paye unto the said 

complaynent the said surmysed dett supposed to be conteyned in the said obligation 

otherwyse or in any other mann(er) than foloweth, that ys to saye the said defendent upon 

demaunde of the said some spe(ci)fied in the said obligacon made by the said compleynent 

of the same defendent, the said defendent saide unto the said complaynent that yf the said 

compleynent wold shewe unto hym any suche obligacon that then the said money must nede 

be paide, whiche obligacon the said defend as yet nev(er) sawe. Or that the said defendent 

in refusing and denyinge to paye to the said compleynent the some of VIII li spe(ci)fied in 

the said obligacon hathe done agaynst right, equite or conscyens or that the said defendent 

made any suche p(ro)myse to his said father conc(er)nynge the payment of the said money 

as ys spe(ci)fied in the said byll or did p(ro)mise to the said complaynant or to the father of 

the said defend(ant) to paye the said money unless he myght see the said obligacon whiche 

as yet he nev(er) sawe. And w(i)t(h)out that that any other thinge effectuall or materyall in 

the said byll of complent alledged and not here sufficyently confessid and avoyded denyed 

not trav(er)sid ys true all which matt(er)s the said defendent ys redy to av(er)e as this court 

wyll awarde and prayeth to be dismyssid w(i)t(h) his costes and charges by hym susteyned 

in this behalf 

The Replicacon of John Wylmot to the answer of John Hydden: 

The said complayn(a)nte for Replicacon sayethe that he the said complayn(a)nte at the 

especyall requeste of the sayd John Hydden the elder dyd lende unto hym the same John 

Hydden the sayd some of VIII li, for the repayment of whiche at the day lymitted in the sayd 

Byll he the said John Hydden the elder was bounden unto this pt, in the some of xx markes 

in manner and forme as in the sayd byll of complainte is alledged and that the same 

complayn(a)nte loste the sayd obligation in man(er) and forme as in the sayd byll of 

complaynte is alledged. And further saethe that every thinge menco(n)id in his sayd byll of

complainte is true and juste in maner and forme as in the same byll of complaint is alledged. 

Wythout that that any thinge materyall alledged in the sayd answer and not by this 

Replication suffycyently replyed unto is true. All which matters this complaynante is 

readye to averre as this honorable co(r)te shall awarde and prayeth that the defendant by the 

order of this honorable co(r)te be compelled to paye this compleynante the sayd some of xx 

markes accordinge to euqite and conscience. 

C24/30 Town Depositions in Wylmot v Hydden lawsuit: 

A. Interrogatories Whereupon the wytnesses on the part and behalf of John Wylmott are to 

be examined in a matter depending in varyance in the Highe Cote of Chancery between the 

said John Wylmott playntife and John Hydden deffendant. 

1. Whether you knowe that the sayd John Wylmott playntife dyd ever lende unto John 

Hydden the elder father to the defendant eyght pounds in the month of Maye in the 

second year of the kinges raigne that nowe is, or at any other tyme nere the same tyme, and 

when the same shoulde be repayde and who were thay by and in what place, he the said 

Wylmot dyd lend the same unto the sayde Hydden the elder. 

2. Whether the said Hydden the elder made any obligation of 20 marks or other some to the 

said Wylmot for the true payment of the same obligation to the said Wylmot as his dede, 

and where and what time the same was done. 

3. Whether you know that the said defendant sythens the death of his father did ever 

promyse the said playntife to pay him the sayd some of £8 or whether he ever came to the 

house of the sayd Wylmott to pay the same or whether he ever sayd in your herynge he 

would pay the same to the said Wylmott or confesse the same to be due to the said 

Wylmott. 

4. Whether you knewe or herde that the said obligation was pyked and stolen owte of the 

purse or packett of the said Wylmott at Highworthe market and what you herde 

concernynge the loss of the sayde obligation. 

5. Whether the sayde defendant ever gave to the playntife one huntynge brache for the 

forbearinge of the said money at any tyme. 

6. What other thing you know concernign the preymiss(es). 

B Depositions : Exparte John Wylmott cont. John Hydden 

Anthony? Skyner? Testes examinat 

Richard Frankleyne of parish of Hungerford, Berks husbandman of age of 50 years sworn 

and examined the 13 day Nov 6EdVI 

1. That he knew not whether John Wylmott did ever lend unto John Hydden the elder 

father of the said defendant eight pounds in the month of May in second yere of the 

present king's reigne nor at any other tyme, nor knoweth when the same should be repayd, 

nor knoweth who were there present, nor in what place the said Wylmott dyd lend the same 

to the said Hydden the elder, nor this deponent knoweth whether the said Hydden the elder, 

made any obligation of 20 marks or other some to the said Wylmott for the true payment of 

the VIII li. to the said Wylmott nor where nor which tyme the same was done. But this

°l 

deponent herd (?) the said Hydden the younger being defendant syns the deth of his father, 

report and save that he had been at the said Wylmott's house to offer payment of the said 

VIII li. which was due to the said Wylmott by reason of the said obligation. Also this 

deponent herd the said Wylmott report and say that the said obligation was pykkyd and 

stolyn out of the purse or pocket of the same Wylmott in Hyghworth Markett. Also this 

deponent herd as well the said defendant as the said Wylmott as this deponent sate at supper 

in the house of the said Hyddyn that the said defendant had payd to the said Wylmott one 

huntyng brache [bitch hound] called Collett for the forbearyng of the said VIII li for a yere. 

Also the said Hydden the elder in his lyff tyme declaryd (?) and showed to this deponent as 

they were in conversation together, that he ought to the plaintyfe Wylmott VIII li that he 

was very cruel in callynge for it of hym wherein(?) he thought moche ungentilnes. And 

otherwyse he cannot depose. 

George Hiddyn of Shefford in Berks and being househould servant with Mr Richard 

Bridges esquire of th age of XXI years sworn and examined the daye and year above written 

sayeth that John Hydden the elder late decessyd was this deponents father and further 

sayeth his is persuaded (?) that his said father dyd borowe of John Wylmott the some of 

VIII li but when or were he borowyd the same of the said Wylmott this deponent knoweth 

not but this deponent herd his said father about 1 year and a half next before his decysse say 

that he owyd to the said Wylmott the said some of VIII li. After whych tyme there dyd 

passe between his said father and Wylmott dyvers bargaynes but whether that this 

deponents said father made any obligation of 20 marks or other some wherein he bound 

himself to the said Wylmott for the true payment of the said VIII li and dyd delyver it as his 

dede to the same Wylmott this deponent know(eth not?) Nor this deponent knoweth 

whether that the same John Hydden the younger being brother unto this deponent did ever 

since the death of the said John Hydden theyr father promise payment of the said VIII li to 

the said Wilmot, nor this deponent ever herd nor knowe that the said obligation was pycked 

or stolen out of the purse or pocket of the said Wilmott at Highworth Market, but only by 

the report of the said Wilmott himself and sayeth that he is persuaded that the said John 

Hydden the yonger gave one hunting brache to the said Wilmott but he knoweth not that the 

said John Hydden the younger gave hereunto the said Wilmott in consideration that he 

should forbear the said VIII li one whole year. And otherwyse he cannot depose. 

Henry Benger of the parish of Beydon, Wilts husbandman aged 26 sayeth that he was 

present in the house of one (Alice - deleted) Mistress Doyley [elder J.H.'s sister and J.W.'s 

mother] widow dwelling in Iremonger Lane in London in May on the second year of the 

King's reign when that the said John Wilmot did lend unto John Hydden the elder eight 

pounds of lawful moneyof England that whilst the same money was in telling the 

same Wilmot sent this deponent unto Cheapside to a scrivener there dwelling about Bowe 

Lane and called Cockett to fetch unto him an obligation wherein the said John Hydden the 

elder stood bonded to the said Wilmot in the sum of 20 marks but when the said VIII li 

should be repaid he remembreth not but this deponent doth perfectly remember that the said 

scrivener's boy did bring the said obligation with this deponent to the said Wilmot and 

Hydden to a house besyde Powlys called the Powle Hedde (?) to which house they did 

appoynt this deponent to come which Hydden did then scale and deliver the said obligation 

as his deed in the presence of this deponent [and?] the said scriveners boy. Also he sayeth 

that he knoweth not whether the said defendant since the decease of the said John Hydden 

the father did ever promise to the said Wilmot the said sum of VIII li nor whether he ever 

came to the house of the said Wilmot to pay the same but the said Wilmot about a year now 

past, what day he remembreth not, desired this deponent at such time when that he rode by 

the said deponents house to call in there and will him to send him his money whereupon this 

deponent went to the said defendant's house and did axe for him and his wife answered that 

he was not at home and then this deponent showed her how that the said Wilmot had sent

him thither to receive VIII li of her husband wherefor he was bound by obligation to pay to 

him and then the said same defendant's wife made (answer?) to this deponent and said I 

pray you tell him that as yet we cannot spare it but as soon as Shrivetide (?) doth come he 

shall be the first [who?] shall be paid and so I pray you tell him but this deponent never 

herd the said defendant confess that he would pay the said VIII li to the said Wilmot nor yet 

did hear the said defendant say or confess that the said VIII li was due to the said Wilmot. 

But this deponent heard it reported that the said Wilmot's purse or pocket was picked at 

Highworth Market and that afterwards this deponent heard the said Wilmot say that the said 

obligation was picked out of his said purse or pocket. And to the residue of the articles he 

can say nothing. 

Signed Henry Benger 

[No further document yet found in this case] 

PRO: C1/1295 ff.76,77 CURR v HIDDEN (1553) 

Land in Charnham Street 

John Hidden, son and executor of his father, also John (JIOO), who died in 1549, was a 

defendant in a Chancery case of the same period (1552-1553),concerning the title to those 

3 acres of land in Charnham Field , Hungerford, which were mentioned in his father's will. 

[These 3 acres had been left to John,(J100, the father) in 1526 by William Hayward. 

William Curr the plaintiff states that he was in possession of the land, but that the deeds 

relating to it came into the possession of John who entered into the premises and took the 

profits of the same. 

In his answer John states that his father was seised of the lands by good and lawful 

conveyance, in fee simple, the same lands being held by socage. About four years 

previously John (JIOO) made his will (this dates the case as 1553), in which he bequeathed 

the lands to his daughter Ursula, "one of his daughters, an infant within the age of 21 years, 

that is to say not passing the age of 5 years, until such time as the said Ursula should 

accomplish the age of 21 years". (This is taken to mean that Ursula was an infant aged less 

than 5 years when John (Jl 00) made his will). John then goes on to say that as executor he 

is entitled to take the profits of the land for the use of Ursula until she reached the age of 21 

years, and to retain such deeds etc. as had come into his hands.

P.R.O: Cl/1411/97 CURR v CURR 

To the Reverend father in God, Nicholas Archbishop of York, lord Chancellor (1556 - 58) 

John CURR of Homedewe in county Wilts husbandman, complains that William Curr the 

elder and Johane his wife, natural father and mother to John aforesaid the complainant, were 

lawfully seised of 2 messuages, 2 gardens, 2 orchards, 90 acres of land, 10 acres of meadow, 

20 acres of pasture. 10 acres of marsh and 2d rent in Cherleton, Charne Street, Homedewe 

and Hungerford in the county of Wilts. 

About 14 years ago they enfeoffed their son and heir apparent, John, in the said messuages 

and all other the said premises, except one tenement, 6 acres of land, pasture for 4 kine and 

for 1 horse, during the lifetime of his parents and the longest lived of them. 

About 6 years ago, William and Johane not being able through old age to farm the premises 

themselves, lacking corn and grain to sow and cattle to pasture, entreated John to take over 

the premises, to sow the land and to suffer William and Johane to have one half thereof for 

themselves. Which John did, William and Johane delivering unto him 'divers evidences', 

deeds etc. 

John Curr claims he put these in a chest in his house and there they remained for about two 

years until J(ohane?) and others unknown to him, by the advice of his younger brother 

William entered into his house during his absence, his poor wife then lying sick, and took 

away the 'evidences' and delivered them to William (junior) who paid £3 to his father and 

mother, William senior being then 'a very old man' viz about the age of 75 years and Johane 

'being a very old woman viz about the age of 80 years' at Michaelmas in the 3rd and 4th years 

of the reign of Philip & Mary, the present sovereigns. 

A fine was levied before the King and Queen's Justices at Westminster of all the property, to 

Richard Hatt and Robert Hychman, Richard and Robert rendering the tenements to William 

and Johane for their lifetime, the remainder after their decease to William junior and his heirs 

and if William died without heirs to Thomas another son of the same William the father, to 

the utter undoing of John Curr and his wife and 6 poor children. But Johane the mother 

before her death repented of the 'evil and wrongdoing' done to your poor orator. 

Asks for subpoena of William Curr and William Curr senior. 

Notes: (1) 3/4 Philip and Mary = 1556/7. Therefore William Curr senior born about 1482. 

Johane his wife, born about 1477. 

(2) P.R.O. Calendar queries whether Homedewe may equal Helme. This is a 

misleading supposition. Research suggests it was the farm later known as Undy's. 

[Record Commission Catalogue: Proceedings in Chancery in the Reign of Queen Elizabeth 

(P.R.O call number)C2/Eliz.I/D10/28:William Darell v Thomas Williams & wife, Anne. 

Bill for performance of contract of sale. 2 messuages in Charnham Street sometime the estate of Ralph 

Baker deceased, father of defendant, Anne, and held of the manor of Hopgrass. [see fuller account 

ahead, 1586] 

C2/Eliz.I/G5/55: William Garrard, Edward Garrard, Robert Garrard and Thomas Monday. To establish 

articles made on marriage. A moiety of manor of Inkpen and divers lands covenanted to be settled by 

John Garrard, plaintiffs father upon plaintiffs marriage with Susan, daughter of Thomas Fysher. 

C2/Eliz. 1 /G6/43: John Garrarde and Edward his son v. William Garrarde and Roger Garrarde. 

Questions on a deed and fine. The Manor of Inkpen and Eastcourte in Inkpen, late estate of Robert 

Blunte which descended to his 2 daughters in coparcenary, one of whom was plaintiffs wife. 

C2/Eliz.I/Gl/41: Thomas Gough and Alice, wife and others poor relations of John Hunt dec., v. 

Erasmus Webb, Robert Poore et al. Claim under a will. The Rectory and Parsonage of Shalborne held 

under lease from Dean and Canons of Windsor and late estate of John Hunt (Wilts & Berks) 

C2/Eliz. 1/G13/59 William Gerrard, Francis Mylles and John Willard v. Dan White for discovery 

respecting rent. The manor house and farm of Chilton Foliot and divers lands, parcel of demesnes of 

manor, which were some time the inheritance of William Darel(?) who demised them to defendant 

reversion thereof afterwards became vested in plaintiffs.]

ANTHONY HIDDEN v HENRY CLIFFORD 

Dispute concerning the inheritance of the Manor of Hidden (1550-1562) 

The documents involved (stored in the Public Record Office - now 'The National Achive'): 

1558 Hidden v Clifford REQ2/24/113 

1561 Hidden v Clifford C3/82/14 

Depositions of (24) witnesses C24/51/2 

Court of Chancery Entry Books of Decrees and Orders C33/23 

1562 Final Decree C78/21part2 

The sequence of events is as follows: 

1. John Hidden (JlOO)'s Will proved 2 May 1550: lease of the manor of Hidden left to a 

younger son, Anthony Hidden, aged 16 at the time. 

2. John (elder son and executor of JlOO's will) borrows £100, on security of lease of the 

manor to be repaid within one year, from Anthony Forster of Cumnor. 

3. Either at the same date or subsequently John, the son, sells his entire interest in the estate 

to Anthony Forster for 500 marks (viz: £100 owed, as in 2 above plus £113. 6s. 8d. (cash?) 

plus £120 by bond to come): date - 12 December 1554. 

4. At some stage Anthony Forster sends Richard Walker to find the precise details of 

JlOO's will, involving a fruitless journey to Salisbury and a later discovery of the will in 

London at the Court of Arches. 

5. Sir Anthony Hungerford approached Anthony Forster to regrant the estate and interest 

to Anthony Hidden, his godson or "to some other person or persons to his use". Forster did 

not immediately agree, apparently stalling and even consulting Anthony Hidden with an 

alternative proposition. From the depositions it is clear thar Forster was approached on 

more than one occasion by Hungerford and/or Clifford; the negotiations may therefore 

have extended over a period of time, Forster (having the whip hand) being in no great hurry. 

6. "Upon the further suit and request of Sir Anthony Hungerford", Forster granted the 

estate and interest in the Manor to Sir Anthony and Henry Clifford (Anthony Hidden's 

uncle), in consideration of £296. 13s. 4d. paid by Clifford. Date probably 1555, there being 

3 year's profits to come before Anthony Hidden came of age. 

7. Clifford "took the clear issues and profit from thenceforth until such time as" Anthony 

Hidden reached the age of 23, "which was by the space of 3 years." These amounted to 3 x 

£60. 

8. After reaching the age of 23, Anthony Hidden requests his inheritance and offers to pay 

Henry Clifford "all such sums" paid by Henry Clifford to Anthony Forster. Clifford 

refuses. Date 1557 or 58. 

9. Anthony Hidden exhibits a Bill versus Clifford in the Court of Requests; the 

depositions of Anthony Forster and Richard Walker are dated 7 November 1558. 

10. Sir Anthony Hungerford (Anthony Hidden's godfather) died November 1558 leaving 

Henry Clifford in possession of the Manor and Anthony Hidden's welfare and inheritance.

11. Henry Clifford perceiving the matter "like to fall out to his reproach" suggested an out 

of court settlement, promising to agree to articles worked out" between the said Henry and 

some of the complainant's friends." 

12. Upon this promise Henry Clifford "caused an entry to be made in the books and orders 

of the Court" that Anthony Hidden had relinquished his suit. 

[N.B. 12 June 1559: Commission to report on rebuilding of the manor.] 

13. The articles of agreement referred to in 11 above were drawn up 8 March 1560 at 

Robert Brabant's house in Hungerford [the Bear Inn]. 

14. On the day appointed for the first payment, Henry Clifford refused to accept the money 

offered, it falling short by 100 marks. This was at Mr John Hungerford's house at Stock on 

Easter Friday 1560 (approx. mid April, since 8 March had been described in deposition as 

"at the beginning of Lent"). 

15. A further meeting occurred on the following Monday when Henry Clifford broke off 

from his original agreement. 

16. Following this breakdown, two events occur: (a) Anthony began a suit in Chancery 

(b) Henry Clifford is stated to have conveyed the premises to his son Anthony Clifford 

"about 6 months last past" (i.e. summer 1560). The Chancery suit may have begun early in 

1561. 

17. Witnesses were examined in May, June, October of 1561. 

18. The final decree was made Easter Term 27 April 1562. This made order that (a) 

the lease was to be delivered into Court and assigned to Anthony Hidden before the fifth 

Sunday in Trinity term 1562; (b) Anthony Hidden to be bound by Whitsun 1562; 

(c)Anthony Hidden to pay £96 by Michaelmas 1562; (d) £100 by Lady Day 1562/3; (e) 

Final payment of £100 by Michaelmas (29 Sept) 1563. Anthony to have undisturbed 

possession for 21 years from the time of his entry into the premises. 

The full account of this case will be found in Norman Hidden's "The Manor of Hidden" 

and Vol.1 of his "Hiddens of Hungerford". The full transcript of all the documents will 

found in 'Anthony Hidden (A69) File 1' stored in the Hungerford Archive. The following 

are extracts from the many pages of documentation, covering a period of 12 years. 

Court of Requests: PRO: REO2/24/113 Anthony Hidden (A691 v Henry Clifford 

Anthony Hidden als Clydesdale contra Henry Clifford and Sir Anthony Hungerford kt. re 

the manor of Hidden, Berks. 5 and 6 Philip and Mary [1558]. Documents relating to the 

case are: (a) the Bill of complaint of Anthony Hidden als Clydesdale. 

(b) & (c) The answers of Henry Clifford to the bill of complaint (2 versions) 

(d) The Replication of Anthony Hidden to the Answer of Henry Clifford 

(e) The rejoinder of Henry Clifford to the Replication of Anthony Hidden 

(f) The deposition of Anthony Forster, aged 42 (?) in answer to the 

interrogatories:-dated — day of November 5 & 6 [Philip & Mary] ex parte Anthony 

Hidden [contra?] Henry Clifford: 

(1) [to the first question he relates that he knows John Hidden, brother of the complainant 

etc]. 

(2) He had the lease of the said manor in mortgage for the sum of £100.

(3) Sir Anthony Hungerford and one Mr Clifford were earnest of suit to this deponent to 

out of the hands of this deponent for the use of Anthony Hidden and not to their 

own profit or behalf. 

(4) Because it was a matter of confidence between the two brothers and that the elder 

brother had craftily defrauded the younger brother [he] was better contented to let the said 

Mr Clifford have the said lease for a reasonable price which otherwise he would not have 

done for five times as much money as this deponent had gained thereby, but to the intent 

that the said Anthony Hidden might have enjoyed it according to his father's will. 

(5) This deponent sayeth that for the full bargain and sale for the said lease this deponent 

should have payed 500 marks which sum[?] the said John Hidden the younger had received 

except for six score pounds for which £120 this deponent was bound by obligation to the 

said John Hidden to be paid at a day following. And in consideration of the bargain 

between this deponent and the said Mr Clifford to the use of the said Anthony Hidden, the 

said John Hidden did deliver to this deponent his obligation of £120 and released the said 

debt. [Signed]: Anthony Forster 

(g) The deposition of Richard Walker, yeoman, servant to Anthony Forster: 

[He mentions that Sir Anthony Hungerford is the godfather of Anthony Hidden as part of 

the reason why his master sold the lease to Sir Anthony and Henry Clifford. He relates 

going to Salisbury to look up the will of John Hidden als Clydesdale the elder on behalf of 

his master and failing to find it there. He then tells of finding it in the Court of Arches in 

London and of having it read]. 

The interrogatories which the deponents were required to answer include: Whether 

Anthony Forster sold to Sir Anthony Hungerford and Henry Clifford the lease for the sum 

of £296.13s.4d where else he would not have parted with the same for 1000 marks. 

PRO. C3/82/14 Anthony Hidden v (Henry and) Anthony Clifford 

Documents relating to the case are: 

1. Anthony Hidden's Bill of Complaint (in poor condition) 

2. Anthony Clifford's Answer 

3. The Replication of Anthony Hidden 

4. The Rejoinder of Anthony Clifford 

Extract from the Answer of Anthony Clifford: 

The said defendant sayeth that the said bill of complaint is untrue, uncertain and insufficient 

in the law to be answered unto and the matters therein contained rather devised of a 

malicious minde of the complainant to put the said defendant to unlawful costes charges 

and expense of his goods than for any good or just cause of suit the said complainant 

hath 

[Nevertheless] the said defendant for answer saith that true it is that the Dean and canons 

of the Queen's College in Oxford late called Frideswide's ....were seised in their demesne 

as of fee of and in the manor and other the premises... And by deed indented demised and 

let to Richard Watkins And RW. assigned and granted over to John the father of the 

complainant all his estate interest and term of years then to come And John In the 

7 day August 1549 did make his last will and testament and did will and devise the 

premises (the Manor of Hidden) to John Hidden the brother of the complainant until such 

time as the complainant should accomplish his age of 23 years And John, by deed 

bearing date 12 December 1st year of Philip and Mary, sold unto Anthony Foster all that 

his estate right and title and term of years And Anthony Foster sold to Henry Clifford, 

father to the defendant, and Sir Anthony Hungerford. Anthony Hungerford died and 

Henry Clifford inherited the whole estate And Henry Clifford did grant all his right,

title and term of years to the defendant, his son and heir, by force whereof he was and yet is 

the lawful possessor for the rest of the years yet to come. Denies that his father ever 

intended that he, Anthony Clifford, should give his interest into the hands of the 

complainant "as in the Bill is slanderously alleged Or that the said defendant did ever 

take the same for any such interest or purpose All which matters this defendant will 

aver and prove And prayeth to be dismissed out of this honourable court with his 

measurable cost [incurred] in this behalf most wrongfully Signed: Walshe, 

Hippesley, Field(?) 

The Replication of Anthony Hidden als Cliddisdale to the Answer of Anthony Clifford: 

The said Anthony Hydden Replieth and saieth in all and every thing and things, matter 

and matters, as he before in his bill of complaint hath said and doth and will swear the same 

to be good just and true in suche and in the same manner and forme as in and by the 

said Bill the same are by him set forth and most truly alleged. 

True it is that although the wordes of the Indenture of bargain and sale [by his brother 

John to Anthony Forster] were of the whole interest therein, yet the said John Hydden 

meant to sell no more but his own estate and interest therein [i.e until his brother should 

come of age] This complainant is very sure that the defendant's father is much better 

and not the worse by so living and baylie of the said farm to the use of this Complainant for 

since the being thereof the said Henry hath had and received of the commodities and profit 

of the said farm besides the rent thereof about £300 and yet this complainant is ready to pay 

him all and every sum ... that he laid out 

The rejoinder of Anthony Clifford to the replication: 

Says that John Hydden did mean to sell the whole right title and interest to Anthony Foster 

and that he (J.H.) did not repent the making of the said bargain to the knowledge of the 

defendant or that there was any cause why he should do so. Denies that "the said Henry 

Clyfforde, hathe or meant or hath gone about diverse ways to deceive the said complainant 

as the said complainant in his replication hath most slanderously and unnaturally supposed" 

Or that Henry Clifford "is much the better for having of the said farm and 

Bargain" Or that "he hath received of the premisses besides the rent about £300" etc 

Signed Walshe, Dolleds (Pattels ?), Hippesley 

PRO C24/51part2: Chancery Depositions: 

The bundle of Chancery Depositions (C24/51 part 2) includes two sets of Interrogatories, 

both on the part of Anthony Hidden Complainant: one set is numbered 1-9 inclusive; the 

other set consists of items 1-14. Items 7, 8, 9 which overlap are not similar. The 

discrepancy seems to be due to alteration and subsequent misnumbering by the scribe. 

There are in effect: 17 interrogatories. The following depositions are abstracts only. 

Henry Danvell of Armetington. Berks, husbandman, aged 30 deposed; 4 May 3 Eliz. He 

was present at the meeting at which it was concluded between Henry Clifford and Anthony 

that Anthony should have the lease of the manor of Hydden for the sum of £366.13.4, to be 

paid in two several instalments, viz. the first payment on the Friday of Easter week (of the 

previous year to the date of this deposition) and the second payment on Michaelmas Eve 

following. Anthony being unable to make the first payment in full by the Friday in Easter 

week asked for a respite until Whitsuntide for the residue and, Danyell reports having 

heard, Henry Clifford was agreeable to this. On the Friday of Easter week Danyell 

accompanied Anthony to the house of Mr Hungerford at Stock, the place appointed for the 

payment. They had brought with them £200, whereas the full amount of the first instalment 

had been agreed at £266.13.4. Clifford refused to accept the lesser amount; and Danyell 

deposes that "Mr Hungerford who was very desirous to have them go through with the

matter, since that they were like to break off for wante of money then offered to lend 

Anthony 40 marks towards the making up of the rest": but Clifford refused to accept 

anything except the full amount due, which seemed to Danyell "a practise to break from his 

bargain". Anthony then requested his uncle Clifford to give him respite until the Monday 

when he would pay him the whole sum. Clifford agreed to this. Anthony left the money he 

had brought with him at Mr Hungerford's, and with Henry Danyell set off and came back 

again on the Monday with the remainder of the £266.13.4. Clifford not having arrived, Mr 

Hungerford received the moneys and began to have them counted. By the time Clifford 

arrived it was dinner time, so they all went in to dinner together. After dinner "upon 

purpose to break from the said bargain (Clifford) fell into a great rage with the said 

Anthony Hydden and such as had to do for him, devising and rehearsing unto them divers 

new articles that the said Anthony should be bound unto besides the payments of his 

moneys, which were never before spoken of, as that he the said Anthony should be bound to 

perform all such leases and copies as were then made or to be made by the said Henry of 

any parcel of the said farm, and further that the said Anthony should pay to three of his 

sisters 40 marks for certain legacies of their father's; and thereupon they fell at great issue, 

and specially the said Henry Clifford seemed to be in marvellous great rage, 

notwithstanding that there were those that did persuade with the said Clifford to take his 

money, and told him that it should be a very great hindrance to the said Anthony to have 

provided such a great sum of money to his great charge and then made and to service him to 

no purpose. But by such professions of divers of his friends then there he seemed to grow a 

greater rage and would no longer tarry there but went his way and left them there. And 

afterwards the said Anthony Hydden said he would not give to no other and took all his 

money and so he and one John Clarke and this deponent departed away together, and this 

deponent well remembereth that he carried all the said money away besides him on his 

horse". 

John Chevney: deposition commencing on ms. p.2 and concluding at end of ms. p.3. 

John Cheyney the elder of West Woodhay, Berks, esquire, aged 46: deposed that he was 

present at Stock on the Monday following Easter week, "there being then also there at the 

request of Mr Hungerford a great many others", when Anthony brought the full sum of 

money for his first payment "according to his bargain and this deponent doth well 

remember that Mr Hungerford did tell a great deal of it but in the end ere it were all told, 

the said Henry Clifford began to break from the matter and would in no wise receive his 

said money nor perform his said bargain" unless Anthony would agree to the two new 

articles (referred to in the deposition of Henry Danyell). 

John Clerke: deposition commencing on ms p.4 and concluding on ms p.7 (Note: no ms p.6) 

John Clerke of Ardington, Berks, yeoman, aged 65: deposed that he knows the manor of 

Hidden and knew well John, the older brother of Anthony. He confirms having heard 

Anthony Foster 'oftentimes' say that Clifford and Sir Anthony Hungerford when they 

approached him to redeem the lease sold by John always maintained they were acting for 

the use and on the behoof of Anthony when he should reach the age of 23 years; also 

confirming that John released £120 still owed to him by Foster in order "to let the said 

Henry Clifford release the lease to the use of the said Anthony Hydden his brother". John 

Clerke in general substantiates Anthony Foster's deposition. He reports that Henry Clifford 

told him that if Anthony would withdraw "such suits" as he had against Henry he would 

agree to Anthony's friends and he compounding the matter "and that he would so deal with 

the said Anthony as he should not need to go to the law again for the said matter". He 

testifies also tht he was present on the occasion when Henry Clifford agreed to the sale of 

the lease to take place at Stock on the Friday of Easter week then ensuing; this agreement 

having been come to "about the beginning of Lent" some 12 months previously at the house 

of one Brabant an Innholder in Hungerford, in the presence of John Cheyney esquire, Mr 

Chocke, Mr Goddard, George Hydden, John Blande, Henry Clifford and the deponent John

Clerke. When they had done, Mr Clifford and John Clerke "did pay all the charges for the 

said dinner". 

The agreement provided for Anthony to enter possession on Lady Day "Lent last past", but 

with provisions for Henry still to occupy certain parts temporarily e.g. that he should "have 

his beasts still kept at the said farm of Hydden winter, after his going out, to eat up his straw 

and fodder which he should then have therefor". Clerke then goes on to relate that as 

Anthony was unable to furnish himself with the whole sum of 400 marks for the first 

payment "and having some hope in his uncle's courtesy and friendship before the said day 

of payment came he unto his said uncle to entreat him to bear with the said Anthony some 

little time for some part of the money, and (as the said Anthony reported to this deponent) 

the said Henry Clifford told the said Anthony that he would not certainly promise him to 

forbear any part of his money but he bade him keep his day and he should then see what he 

would do for him. and the friends that should there meet should order him. And so 

thereupon the said Anthony Hydden and one Thomas Walrond, Henry Danyell, servants to 

this deponent and this deponent himself went on the Friday in Easter week ....and carried 

with him ij (sic) hundred (pounds) * marks". He then describes Clifford's refusal to accept 

anything less than the full sum in spite of "great persuasion by the friends of both 

parties" "alleging that it were a great hyndrance and loss to the said Anthony to make 

ready so much money and to make shift for it and then to lose their labour, and so at the last 

in great rage the said Henry Clifford went his way and for all that could be said or done he 

would neither receive his money nor go through with his bargain....as he had before 

promised and agreed". 

Clerke estimates that Clifford has gained or might have gained each year from the farm 

since he had it off Mr Anthony Foster (which he thought was 5 or 6 years previously) £60 a 

year "and so much was offered to be given or to take in lease of it for 6 years". He 

concludes with stating "the common report of all the county both of the gentlemen and 

yeomen that know the case "that Anthony has great wrong and that "it is much shame to the 

said Henry Clifford, being uncle to the said Anthony Hydden and beside put in trust by the 

said Anthony Hydden's said father's last will as an overseer thereof, to seek to take away 

that which his said father gave him, as the said Henry Clifford knoweth well enough". 

* 'pounds' deleted in ms. Not signed, but Mark X 

Thomas Gyllot: deposition commences on ms p.7 and concludes on ms p.8, but 

incorporates, in another hand, the list of articles (also numbered p.7) which he drew up, as 

described in his deposition. 

Thomas Gyllott, servant to John Cheyney of Woodhay, Berks, esquire, aged 26: knows the 

manor of Hydden and did also know John, the older brother. On 8th March "last past 12 

months" Gyllott was present and waited on his Master at Hungerford" at one Brabant's 

house at the sign of the Bear, at which time and place there met also one Mr Francis 

Chocke, Henry Clifford, Anthony Hydden, John Clerke, Robert Brabant and others". 

Following a discussion about the lease of the manor of Hydden "this deponent there after 

was chosen for the said Anthonye and Master Chocke was chosen for Mr Clifford, and this 

deponent by their command did mwrite the articles of their agreement; and upon their full 

completion and agreement this deponent by their appointment and consent did write with 

his own hand as their acte and full and plain bargain, those articles the true copy 

whereof ensueth verbatim". Gyllott also waited on his Master on the Monday after Easter 

at Mr Hungerford's house at Stock where this deponent with his Master was requested to 

attend by the earnest desire of the said Mr Clifford, for that he was privy to the first 

agreement". He confirms the outline of events already previously deposed which led to Mr 

Clifford departing from them "in a great rage and for all that could be said or done he would 

give no ear to it but went his way without doing any further in the matter". 

Signed

Enclosure referred to: (in full) 

viij die Marcii anno regni/ regine Elizabeth secundo/ 1560 between Henry Clifford Esquire 

on th'one part and Anthony Hydden yeoman of th'other part; as followeth: 

1. In p. the said Henry doth agree that the said Anthony Hydden; shall have his farm of 

Hydden lands and tenements; their appurtenances and profits and his interest therein upon 

such conditions as doth appear by two bills which the said Henry hath th'one and Anthony 

th'other saying (saving?) that it shall be lawful for the said Anthony to demise or grant the 

said bargain to John Clarke of Ardington or his assigns for the term of xii years next and 

immediately following after the entry of the said Anthony into the said farm in 

consideration of redemption and satisfaction of so much money as by the said John Clarke 

shall be disbursed for the redemption of the said farm that then after to remain to the said 

Anthony as above is expressed. 

2. Item, the said Anthony shall pay or cause to be paid unto the said Henry on the Friday in 

Easter week next following the date hereof in the house of Mr John Hungerford of Stocke 2 

hundred 3 score and 6 pounds 13 shillings and 4 pence of good and lawful English money 

and also one other hundred pounds more at the house and place aforesaid to be paid at 

Michaelmas Eve next ensuing the date hereof. 

3. Item, it is further agreed that the said Anthony shall enter at our Lady Day from 

twelvemonth next after the date hereof into the common medes, the mill mede, and mede 

Putkins and to have and enjoy the hay therein growing to his proper use. And also to enter 

into the stalles and to have pasture for viij beasts and vj kine amongst the beasts of the said 

Henry and at mid-summer next thereafter that to enter into the sheep lees upon the Lammas 

(?) and at Michaelmas next. After that the said Henry to avoid out of the said farm saving 

which he the said Henry shall have free egress and ingress into the said farm and to have 

sufficient room in the barns and stalles there to spend his fother (fodder?) until out Lady 

Day then next after and room for his cattle to stand in. 

4. Item, it is agreed that the said Anthony shall receive the rents of the tenants and pay 

th'ole half years rent at Michaelmas 

Thomas Gyllot writer of this same 

(Depositions continued:) 

Henry Clerke p.8 (commencing), ms p.9 and concluding end of p. 10 

Henry Clerke of West Hendred, Berks, yeoman, aged 33; knows the manor and knew John 

older brother to Anthony. Confirms the outline of events already deposed to which 

occurred at Stock on Friday of Easter week present at that meeting were 

"Mr Clifford, Mr Hungerford, Anthony Hydden, John Clerke father to this deponent, Henry 

Danyell, this deponent himself, and divers others". He deposes that Anthony states that if 

Mr Clifford would give Anthony respite for 100 marks by which his payment fell short until 

Whitsun he and his friends would give Clifford "good sureties". Clifford was unwilling to 

agree to this but "said he was contented if the said Anthony could either lay plate or old 

gold with him in gage that value....and he would take it and the said Anthony should 

receive it again between then and Whitsuntide". Finally, in response to Anthony's entreaty 

Clifford agreed to "give day but until the Monday next then following". On the Monday 

there met all the others beforementioned and also one Mr John Cheyney of Woodhay and 

one Mr Chock and one Mr Curtoys". Confirms details of the new articles added by Henry 

Clifford "to the which was agreed that those articles were not spoken of in their first 

agreement and this deponent is well assured that there was no such mention made in the bill 

of articles which was then there shewed and therefore it seemed strange that he should 

make any such new devices and therefore requested him that he would perform his former 

agreement and not to offer any more cavillations, and then Mr Chocke desired to see the 

articles, the which were delivered unto him and whilst he was reading and perusing of them 

the said Mr Clifford snatched them out of his hands and tore them all to pieces and said he

\

shall be to thee a better living than ever this will be. for whatsoever they say I fear if it come 

once in Mr Clifford's hand it will be hard for thee ever to get it out' whereunto he answered 

he would not do; but reqested this deponent to be good to him and to deliver his right to his 

uncle for he doubted not but when he should come to 23 years of age he should have the 

said farm and enjoy it according to his father's will, for so he said they had promised him 

• and he doubted not but they would perform the same". Following Anthony's refusal of 

Forster's proposal, Forster sold his interest in the farm to Clifford 'for conscience sake as 

also in consideration of a piece of money to him by the said Mr Clifford paid over and 

above the sum he had disbursed for the said lease', but he only did so "for that they alleged 

it to be for the use of the said Anthony Hydden, for in any other respect he would not have 

departed with the same farm for double the money he paid for it". 

Signed: Anthony Forster 

Anthony Forster: a second deposition beginning p. 16 and continuing to p. 17 

"Depositio capt. apud Westm. vij die Novembris anno ro'quinto and sexto ex pte Anthony 

Hydden versus Henricum Clifford". This is in a different hand from the majority of the 

depositions. It is noteworthy in that (1) the phrase 'of Sunningwell' has been struck out and 

the alteration made 'of Comner'; (2) the date given above relating to the reign of Philip and 

Mary; (3) Forster's age is given as 42. It seems clear that this deposition is the same as the 

one taken down and used for the case in the Court of Requests in 1558. Apart from the 

alteration of Sunningwell to Cumnor, the deposition is similar in all respects to that given in 

the Court of Requests. 

Richard Walker: continuing from the unsigned deposition of Anthony Forster on p. 17 

Richard Walker has also suffered the alteration of address from Sunningwell to Cumnor; 

otherwise the deposition, signed Richard Walker, is similar to that given in the Court of 

Requests. It concludes on p. 19. 

Anthony Forster p.20 

As with Griffith Curtoys the first few lines of a third deposition are given: Anthony Forster 

esquire of Comner, Berks, of the age of 45 years, and his answer to Interr 1, viz that he 

know Hydden manor and did also know John Hydden. 

Unsigned 

Thomas Knappe p.21 and concluded on p.22 

Thomas Knappe of Argaston, Berks husbandman aged 40 confirms having heard Anthony 

Foster "many times swear" that he would not, in normal circumstances, have parted for the 

lease for 1000 marks; and otherwise confirming the statements of Anthony Forster in his 

latest deposition. He further deposes that he was many times a suitor to Mr Clifford for the 

occupying of the whole farm and "whereas indeed this deponent occupied a great part 

thereof at a dear price and would have given him £60 a year for the whole on (sic) and 

besides the Queens rent paid". "The said Mr Clifford always acknowledging the said lease 

in right to be the said Anthony Hydden he would always answer this deponent that he 

should go to the said Anthony Hydden saying these words: "The farm is his, not mine", the 

which answer he did always make to divers others that were suitors to him in that behalf, so 

that this deponent thinketh and is well assured that the said Mr Clifford either hath or might 

have had £60 a year profit by the said farm every year since he redeemed the said farm from 

Mr Anthony Foster which as this deponent thinketh is about 6 years since". 

Leonard Carrente commencing p.22 

Leonard Carrente of Wynterbourne, Wilts, gent, aged 40, sworn and examined on the 8th 

June, describes how "in Easter term last passed was 12 months, this deponent having 

business and rides in the lane here to do, by chance met and fell in conversation with the 

said Henry Clifford (whose sister this deponent hath married and between whom there hath

een long family and friendship) about this matter and this in effect passed betwixt them 

'By my troth, brother Carrent' said Henry Clifford 'I am marvellously troubled with the suit 

my nephew Hydden troubleth me withal whose ungentilness doth much —er me for that he 

is one who being my near kinsman that I have always friended and wished well unto and yet 

it is his to trouble me more than anything else doth, for if he could or would be 

contented to confess his faults and to seek my goodwill I would not only forget all that is 

passed but I would be his assured friend to the utterest of my power'. Whereunto this 

deponent answered to this effect: 'Brother Clifford, you say well. I assure you it were very 

well done that some good end were taken betwixt you for believe me the world speaketh ill 

of it and thinketh much that you being his uncle and also put in trust by his father should go 

about to defraud him of that which of right doth belong unto him. And therefore I pray you 

for God's sake and for your own reputation find the means that some good end may be 

taken between you'. 'I tell you true, brother Carrent' said Mr Clifford 'that is the thing I 

seek and 1 take God to my witness I would be loath to do him any wrong. Marry, it is good 

reason I should be answered mine own. And I promise you if my nephew Anthony can find 

the means either by himself or by his friends that I may be paid my money that I have laid 

out I will be contented with all my heart that he shall have his farm and I will be his friend 

to the utterest of my power.' 'Well,' said this deponent 'you say well and offer like an 

honest gentleman and loving Christian and I always hear of both sides that you are 

conformable to reason but sure your tales are as far differing (?) as can be and therefore I 

cannot tell in which of you two the fault is, since you have worded (?) so largely in this 

matter with me will you that I shall talk with my cousin Anthony Hydden in this matter and 

see if I can do any good betwixt you?' 'Yea, marry, I pray you, good brother' said Mr 

, Clifford'and you shall then know my .' Whereupon and such further like talk they 

brake off and this deponent desirous to help(?) in the thinge(?) sought out Anthony Hydden 

and made him privy of all that had passed between Mr Clifford and this deponent, wishing 

him to have consideration of it and to conform himself to reason whereby he might the 

better attain his desire and to renew his uncle's goodwill, whereto the said Anthony 

answered that for his part he would be contented with all his heart that the matter were 

ordered between his uncle and him, but he said he must first use the advice of such of his 

friends by whose goodness he was enabled to follow his suit and stand much bond unto 

them and therefore without them he durst not deal, of which his answer this deponent did 

well allow and willed him forthwith to make some haste to know their minds and the said 

day or the next to make answer to this deponent what they were contented to do. And so 

after the said Anthony had talked with his friends and could by no means as he said bring to 

pass to have them contented to complete(?) the matter but that the of it he came 

and made this deponent privy unto it and said further that notwithstanding he could not 

bring his friends to condescend unto it yet much assured(ly?) affird and confessed to this 

deponent such desire, he said, to reconcile himself to his uncle's favour that rather he 

should, unknowing to his friends, he would withdraw his suit and commit himself to his 

said uncle's goodness and to this deponent's promise, wherewith this deponent did so well 

allow of the said Anthony's conformity that this deponent offered that he and one Anthony 

Clifford son of the said Henry Clifford would be bound in the sum of iij hundred pounds 

that the said Anthony Hydden should have and enjoy his said living." 

Anthony thereupon withdrew his suit in the Court of Requests. Carrent continues that, 

although he heard that both parties did afterwards meet about the matter, he did not know 

what became of it but "as far as this deponent hath either heard or known the said Mr 

Clifford hath not followed his promise but driveth the said Anthony Hydden to further 

trouble contrary to that he faithfully promised to this deponent in such sort as he would not 

have believed if he had not seen this promise to the contrary....And this deponent believe 

that the said Anthony Hydden hath great wrong to be kept out of his said living, being ready

to satisfy his said uncle of such sums of money as he laid out for the same". 

Mark 

John Hasell 

John Hasell of Shyfford, Berks, yeoman, aged 49; knew the farm and John Hydden. Was 

present when his Master Sir Anthony Hungerford was in suit with Anthony Foster for the 

redeeming of the lease of Hidden farm. 

William Stroud membrane 25 

William Stroud of Shyfford, husbandman, aged 40: "to his knowledge he remembreth well 

that the first year that the said Mr Clifford had redeemed the said lease of Hydden and kept 

the same unto himself, this deponent's grounds being next to the said farm it chanced this 

deponent's cattle to be impounded for being within the said ground and this deponent 

pleaded to the said Mr Clifford for this said cattle, he said to this deponent to this effect: 

'By my troth, Stroud, thou art much to blame that thou dost not keep thy cattle out of my 

ground and yet it is not so much wrong to me as to my cousin Anthony Hydden for the farm 

is his, and therefore sue to him for the delivering of them'. And then this deponent did 

speak to Anthony Hydden for his cattle and he was told that this deponent should have them 

so that this deponent should promise they should offend no more, and this is all that this 

deponent can say in this matter." 

John Goddard membrane 26 

John Goddard of the parish of Hungerford, in the County of Wilts, gent, aged 40; examined 

1 Oth day of June in the year aforesaid; knew the manor and John Hidden. 

Signed John Goddard 

Robert Brabant commencing membrane 26, concluded 27 

Robert Brabant, of Hungerford, gent, aged 44; knew the manor and John Hidden. 

Initialled R B 

John Wren 

John Wren of Hungerford, tanner, aged 44, new the manor and John Hydden. 

"This deponent sayeth that to his knowledge he well remembereth that about iij years since 

he was a suitor to Mr Clifford to hire (?) certain grounds of him belonging to the said farm 

of Hydden and he made this answer to this deponent: 'Go your way to my cousin Anthony 

Hydden, the farm is his and none of mine, look what bargayn he maketh with you, I will 

stand to it'. Confirms that "the common opinion of the Countie" is that Anthony has been 

done great wrong. Signed 

Thomas Walrond membrane 28 

Thomas Walrond of Estburye, Berks, yeoman, aged 28; knew manor and John Hydden. 

Signed 

Christopher Cotes membrane 29 

Christopher Cotes of the New Inn without Temple barrister gent aged 28 sworn and 

examined 13 October. Signed 

Robert Dale also on membrane 28 

Ex parte quer' xxvj die Octobris anno regni Elizabeth tercie 

Robert Dale gent aged 43 can depose only to article 8 of the Interrogatories: viz that "when 

the matter depended in the Queen's Majesty's Court of Requests the said Robert being 

attorney for the complainant in the same court at which time the said complainant agreed 

with the defendant to withdraw the suit out of the court, trusting to the goodness of the said

defendant at his carrying him into the country, whereupon a dismission was entered in such 

sort as doth appear in the Register, which dismission this deponent thinketh in his 

conscience came more by the suit of the said defendant than of the complainant, and more 

this deponent cannot depose. 

Signed 

John Hungerford of Down Ampney in the County of Gloucester esquire, of the age of 44 

years etc. 12th May, 3 Elizabeth. 

Christopher Dymer 

Says that he rode with the same money and did see it paid to the said Anthony Forster. 

John Bond of Alscott in the county of Oxon, gent of the age of 36 years or thereabouts 

sworn and examined the day and year abovesaid etc., deposeth to the first Interrogatory that 

he did know John Hydden elder brother to the said Anthony Hydden the complainant very 

well and also knoweth that the said John Hydden did bargain and sell to one Anthony 

Forster all his interest estate right and title for term of years then to come in the manor of 

Hydden and Edington. 

Signed 

Christopher Dysmars of Fyfield in the county of Wilts esquire of the age of Ixiii yrs 

Signed 

Anthony Hungerford of Stock in the county of Wilts gent of the age of 23 years etc. 

Signed Anthony Hungerford 

Christopher Cootes of the New Inn without Temple Bar, gent, aged 28 years etc.(examined 

14th day of October 3 Eliz.) 

Sayeth "that when suit and matter of variance depended in the Queen's Majesty's Court of 

Requests between Anthony Hidden then plaintiff and Henry Clifford defendant this 

deponent then being Attorney for the said defendant in the said court knoweth that both the 

said parties were agreed to withdraw their suit forth of the said court and thereupon an order 

was drawn in paper in such sort as it is entered of record in the court Book and then shortly 

after this deponent meeting with the said Anthony Hidden at the stairs head at the nether 

end of the Court of Requests said unto the said Hidden these words following or the like in 

effect, viz. 'Anthony, how chanceth it that you have bestowed so much money in suit 

against your uncle Mr Clifford and is now content to withdraw your suit and stand to his 

goodness and have such an order entered?' And then the said Anthony said to this deponent 

'Tush, I care not, for that I trust my uncle will use me well enough'. And more concerning 

all the articles to him ministered on the behalf of the said defendant he cannot depose. 

Signed Christopher Cotes 

John Snell of Boscombe in the county of Wilts serving man of the age of 30 years etc. (1 

November) To the first Interrogatory and to 2,3,4,5 and 6 he can say nothing of his own 

knowledge. 

To the 7 Interrogatory he sayth that he was servant and waited upon the said Henry Clifford 

and happened to be at Hydden with Mr Anthony Clifford son of the said Henry Clifford 

who broke his fast at the house of one George Hidden with the same George Hidden and 

Anthony Hidden and after they had broken their fast the said Anthony Clifford, George 

Hidden and Anthony Hidden walked forth into the leas or grounds and this deponent and 

one Robert Swayt followed them and by that occasion this deponent did hear them talk of 

the lease of the manor of Hidden and Edington in the county of Berks and amongst other 

their talk thereof he did hear the said Anthony Hidden say to the said Anthony Clifford 

these words or the like in effect 'I pray you cousin Clifford be so good unto me that I may

have some way into the lease or farm' Thereupon the said Anthony Clifford answered and 

said 'Well cousin you shall have whatever suitable way you will desire, saving me 

harmless, for if you will', said he, 'make me in as good case as I should have been in if my 

father had never bought the lease or else provide me", said he, 'such land as my father sold 

for the purchasing of the said lease or else the said land in as good case as it was when he 

sold it and you shall have the same lease again and I will', said he, 'give you a 100 marks'. 

And at the departing the said Anthony Hidden did call this deponent to him and desired him 

to entreat the said Mr Anthony Clifford to be good unto him. 

Signed John Snell 

Henry Clark of West Hendred in the county of Berks yeoman aged 33 years etc 

5 November (repeats much already said, and then:) 

' And this deponent hath seen the articles of Agreement between the said Anthony Hidden 

and Henry Clifford concerning the said bargain and payment of the said money And 

thereby remembereth very well that the said money should be paid to the said Henry 

Clifford at the house of Mr John Hungerford at Stock in form following that is to say at the 

first payment of £266.13.4. And at the last payment of £100. And this deponent sayth that 

the said Anthony Hidden brought to the said house of Mr Hungerford at the first day of 

payment according to the said Agreement but only 200 marks parcel of the said sum of 400 

marks which he should have paid according to the said Agreement. This he knoweth to be 

true for that one John Clarke father to this deponent did bring the same 200 marks thither to 

have been paid for the said Anthony Hidden and this deponent himself did bear part of the 

said money and was a traveller for the getting of it at the homestead of his said father who 

did provide the same money for the said Anthony Hidden. An then and there the said 

Anthony Hidden tendered payment of the said 200 marks to the said Henry Clifford, 

requiring the same Henry Clifford respite of payment of the rest until Whit Sunday then 

next following offering him sufficient promise for the payment thereof at that time and 

offered him choice whether he would have land mortgaged for the same or other bonds or 

obligations and this deponent's said father did then and there offer himself to be bonded in 

land or obligation for the payment of the said money so wanting, but the said Henry 

Clifford refused to take bond or other assurances for the said money saying 'This is my day 

of payment and if you will pay me now (in plate or old gold- deleted) I shall be content to 

receive the same according to our Agreement' 

And upon the said Monday then next following they came again to the said Mr 

Hungerford's house and brought with them other 200 marks in money whereof this 

deponent did bear part. And at their coming thither being in the morning the said Mr 

Clifford was not come thither. And then did the said complainant and this deponent's said 

father request the said Mr Hungerford to help to tell the said money and the said Mr 

Hungerford told after and from him to the sum of £120 or thereabouts and then came the 

said Mr Clifford in and being dinner time went to dinner and after dinner in the presence of 

Mr Cheyney, Mr Curtis and Mr Chock and this deponent and others showed first a bill in 

paper wherein was contained more matter than was in the articles of Agreement which was 

that the said Anthony Hidden should pay 40 marks to 3 of his sisters for their legacy to 

them bequeathed by the last will and testament of the said Anthony Hidden his father and 

also that the said Anthony Hidden should perform and allow such copies and grants that the 

said Henry Clifford had then made of the premises And then this deponent's said father and 

the said Anthony Hidden said that it was more than was agreed upon before And thereupon 

the said Mr Chock did request to see the articles of Agreement and perusing the same the 

said Mr Clifford in a great rage snatched the same bill of articles of payment out of the 

hands of the said Mr Chock and rent them to pieces saying 'Well (I) will deal no more with 

this matter' and therewith flung one of the doors And he remembereth that the said Mr 

Cheyney stooped and took up the pieces of the said bill so rent and said 'I will keep these 

whatsoever shall come of it hereafter'. Signed Henry Clark

John Clarke of Ardington in the county of Berks yeoman aged 65 etc. 6 November 

Mark of John Clarke 

William Benger of Pewsey in the county of Wilts gent aged XIX etc 10 November 

Signed William Benger 

Antony Foster of Cumnor in the county of Berks esquire aged 46 etc the day and year 

abovesaid 

Signed Anthony Forster 

Robert Dale gent of the age of xliii years etc 

Signed Robert Dale 

PRO: C78/21 DECREE in the Anthony Hidden v Henry Clifford Lawsuit 

It is this present term of Easter that is to say the 27th day of April in the fourth year of the 

reign of our sovereign Lady Elisabeth by the Grace of Good Queen of England, France and 

Ireland, defender of the Faith etc., by the right honorable Sir Nicholas Bacon, knight, Lord 

Keeper of the Great Seal of England and by the said Court of Chancery ordered adjudged 

and decreed that the said defendants shall before the 5th Sunday in Trinity term next deliver 

into the rolls heare in this court the said lease by the said Dean and Canons of St 

Frideswides in Oxford aforesaid made unto the said Richard Watkyns to the intent the same 

may be heare in this saide court enrolled. And nevertheless and withall, also remain in the 

same court till other order shall be therein taken. And it is further ordered, adjudged and 

decreed by the said Lord Keeper and Court of Chancery that the said Henry Clifford and 

Anthony his son the defendants shall before the said 5th Sunday in Trinity term next 

lawfully convey and assign unto the said complaynant all the estate, title interest and term 

of years yet to come in the same lease and premisses discharged of all charges and estates, 

leases and other encumbrances whatsoever had made or done by the said defendants or by 

either of them other than of copies by them or any of them made according to the ancient 

custom of the said manor of Hydden and Edington before the said Anthony Clyddesdale 

alias Hydden the said complainant did fully accomplishe his age of 23 yrs. And in 

consideration thereof it is likewise ordered, adjudged and decreed by the said Lord Keeper 

and Court of Chancery that the said complainant with sufficient surety with him shall before 

the feast of Pentecost next coming became bounden onto the said defendants for the 

payment unto them of the sum of 200, four score and 16 pounds of good and lawful money 

of England in manner and form following: that is to say at the feast of Saint Michael 

th'Archangel next coming in the manner house of Hydden aforesaid or where it of late was 

between the hours of one and 4 of the clock in the afternoon of the same day the sum of 4 

score 16 pounds. And, at the feast of the Nunciation of our Lady then next and immediately 

following in the same place and between the hours the sum of 100 pounds. And at the feast 

of St Michael the Archangel which shall be in the year our Lord God 1563 the sum of one 

other hundred pounds in the said place and between the like hours in full satisfaction and 

payment of the said sum of 200 four score and 16 pounds beforementioned, the same person 

or persons which shall so have or receive the said sums or any of them at the payment 

thereof delivering them a sufficient acquittance and full discharge for the payment of the 

same and also testifying the said receipt.

And it is also ordered adjudged and decreed b the said Lord Keeper and Court of Chancery 

as well that the said Anthony Hydden alias Clyddesdale the complainant shall discharge or 

save harmless the said defendants from himself and from his sisters that is to say Johan, 

Jane and Brigett of all suits and demands which the said defendants be bound to beare or 

pay by reason of occupying of the said lease as also 

that the said complaynant shall not aliene the said lease from his brethren and that 

furthermore the said defendants and their heirs in the right of the son of John Hidden the 

said elder brother to the said Anthony and of the heir males of his body lawfully begotten 

shall have and enjoy the said farm and premisses according to the mind and will of the said 

John Hidden the grandfather if that the said Anthony Hidden die without issue male of his 

body lawfully begotten. Nevertheless in consideration of the said sum of money to be paid 

by the said complaynant as is aforesaid it is by assent of Edward Hidden alias Clyddesdale 

and George Hidden alias Clyddesdale bretheren of the said complaynant ordered adjudged 

and decreed by the said Lord Keeper and Court of Chancery that the said complaynante 

shall have and enjoy to him his executors, administrators or assigns the said lease and other 

the premisses therein specified for the term of 21 years from the time of his entry into the 

same within which time if the said now complaynant shall die without issue male of his 

body lawfully begotten and his said executors or administrators be empeached or trobled by 

the said sonne of the said John Hidden brother to the said complaynant or by any person or 

persons in his behalf or title or by any of the said defendants or any other in any their 

behalfs or by the said brethren of the said complaynant in the occupation of the said lease 

before the said term of 21 years be expired and by the said complaynant his executors or 

assigns fully enjoyed, that then the said sonne of the said John Hidden or the defendants or 

one of them in his behalf if he shall be living or have issue male of his body lawfully 

begotten or if he be dead without issue male of his body lawfully begotten the other 

brethren of the said complaynant or one of them shall pay to the executors or administrators 

of the said complaynant the said sum of £296. And so doing after the said payment as [sic] 

made shall have and enjoy the residue of the term contained in the said lease within one 

year next after the said sum of £296 so truly contented and paid. Which sum if the said 

sone of the said John the complaynant's said brother and the said defendants in his behalf 

and the said brethren of the said Anthony shall refuse to pay it is ordered that the said 

executors or administrators of th said complaynant shall have and continue the said term of 

21 years in the said premisses quietly without disturbance of any of the said sonne and the 

said defendants in his behalf and of the said brethren or by their means or the means or 

assent of any of them. And after the said term of 21 years that then the said lease to go 

according to the will of the said John Hidden the father of the said complaynant. And for as 

much as it is determined, ordered and appointed by this decree that the first payment of the 

said money to be at the said feast of St Michael th'Archangel next coming it is therefore 

ordered, adjudged and decreed that at and upon the same day the said defendants and all 

other claiming in, by or from them or any of them shall depart of and from the same manor 

or farm and all lands tenements and heredetements to it belonging and suffer the said 

complainant and his assigns to have the quiet possession thereof at all times fully 

discharged or saved and kept harmless by the said defendants or by one of them of and from 

all arrerages of rents due before and at the said feast of St Michael the'Archangel next 

coming and all forfeitures, charges and other encumbrances whatsoever, except before 

excepted.

P.R.O: C3/20/56 BATT v PASSION (25 April SEliz. [1563]) 

Complaint: To the right honorable Sir Nicholas Bacon, Lord Keeper of the greate seale of 

England. 

Showeth and complaineth unto your honour your humble suppliant and daily orator Richard 

Batt of Devizes in Wilts, clothier, Johane Wheteacre widow the wife and relict of Jeffraye 

Wheteacre late of Westbury,clothier, deceased, and Rychard Whetecre son of Jeffray : that 

whereas Jeffray in his lifetime and the said Richard his son stood bounden joyntly and 

severally to one Nicholas Passion of Hungerford in the said county,clothier in certain sumes 

of money by obligation with condition for their payment of £100 by the day therein 

signified as by the obligation thereof more playnly appeareth. Sythens which tyme [faded] 

Jeffray Wheteacre at Westbury dyed intestate not having sufficient for the payment of his 

creditors as by the inventory [faded] after the decease of Jeffray it appeareth And 

afterwards the ordynarye there according to the lawe in that behalfe [faded] the 

administration of the goods and chattels of the said Jeffray to the said Johane Wheteacre 

And furthermore whereas the said Richard Batt for [hole in document] clear discharge of 

the debts in the said obligation in the behalfe of the said Johane, his daughter, and Richard 

Wheteacre his cosen, dyd compound and agree with the said Nicholas Passion to pay unto 

him £20 in manner and form following: £10 at Michaelmas twelve months ago; £10 at 

[faded] -mas then next following. And Nicholas Passion on his behalf lykewise faithfully 

promised at the same Michaelmas to [faded] said tenne pounds residue of the said £20. 

And that he would then also sende unto the said Richard Batt the said obligation [faded] 

and furthermore to release the said obligation. So it is that notwithstanding Richard Batt 

did truly pay on behalfe of Johane his daughter and Richard her [faded] the first ten pounds 

and was ready to pay the second yet Nicholas Passyon did not or would not for that £10 

[faded] Michaelmas nor yet since deliver the obligation [faded] hathe been at dyvers tymes 

gently requyred to do so but still seketh and intendeth to dis...[faded] said Johane and 

Richard Wheteacre having yet in his hands the £10 from Richard Batt contrary to [faded] 

right equity and conscience 

In consideration whereof and forasmuch as Johane and Richard Wheteacre are very poore 

folkes and dependen only upon Richard Batt being father to the said Johane and uncle to the 

said Richard and that the goods and chattels of the said Jeffray will not distend[?] To the 

payment of his debts as [faded] grief and utter undoing thereof, begs for Nicholas 

Passion to be subpoenaed etc

• P.R.O:C3/\6/56 BRYNKLOW v IREMONGER (c.\567) 

[See also Duchy of Lanes case: Iremonger v Hidden 1576] 

Complaint of Anthony Brynklow to Sir Nicholas Bacon Kt, Lord keeper of the Great Seal 

of England. (1558-79) 

Anthony Brinklow states that [father]Robert Brinklow in his lifetime was seised of 1 

messuage or tenement and diverse lands and tenements known by the name of the farm of 

Hanvilles or Goldingefeld within the parishes of Kintbury, Hungerford, Shalborne and 

Inkpen in Berks for term of years as yet unexpired. 

By his will Robert bequeathed the lease of the farm of Hanvilles to his son John Brinklow 

and made two other sons, Hugh and Anthony, his executors. John entered into the farm and 

had two sons and 1 daughter viz: Hugh, John and Jane. When John senior died he 

bequeathed to Hugh various goods and cattells at the age of 21 with reversion to John junior 

and further to Jane on her marriage, the farm to go to the longest lived of them. He made 

his wife, Gillian, his sole executrix and Gillian took the farm and married William 

Iremonger. Hugh died within the age of 21. Gillian died intestate leaving Anthony to 

administer the estate of John Brinklow the father, during the minority of John junior. But 

all the documents fell in possession of William Iremonger. 

Answer of William Iremonger : 

Says that Sir Edward Darrell late of Littlecote, kt, deceased was seised of Anvilles and 

took to wife Elizabeth Essex, daughter of Sir Thomas Essex, kt, deceased Sir Edward 

demised the lease of the farm to Robert Brinklow. The lease descended to John Brinklow 

and Edward Darell conveyed the premises to Marye Danyell for her life and after the death 

of Sir Edward his widow on 11th May 6 Edward VI purchased a writ of dower against Mary 

Danyell widow and Dame Elizabeth was successful in recovering one third of her husband's 

lands etc. She then purchased a writ directed to the sheriff of Berks wherein she shewed by 

the oaths of 12 men to have been assigned the farm of Hanvilles for her life. She (Dame E.) 

then demised the premises to Will Darell who leased the farm to Iremonger for 60 years. 

[Abstract of original document]] 

[There is a reference to a decree in a Brynklow v Iremonger case in the Court of Requests 

(REQ1/11 folio 522 onwards) The date is 4 November, 7 Eliz.] 

And see also: 

REQ1/35/22 Depositions in the Brinklow v Iremonger case (9June 29 Eliz) 

[presumably a later case than the ones above in the dispute between these two parties?] 

Deposition of John Garrard of Inkpen, Berks, gent, aged 55. Says that he holds a tenement 

in La Hulle as part of his manor of Inkpen and Roger Parke has paid to him as chief lord 

13s.4d rent per annum. 

Deposition of William White als Coop[er] aged 60 husbandman. Refers to a lease of a 

close called Harvest Close to one Edmund Beck, clerk. 

Notes: Robert Brinklow of Anvilles died (PCC will) 1543. Children: Anthony,Hugh, 

Henry, John, George, William, Joan, Agnes, Alice. 

William Iremonger died 1581. Wife, Alice.

C3/7/87 BLUNT v GARRETT c. 1568? (notes only) 

Complaint of William Blunt to the Rt. Hon. Nicholas Bacon kt, lord keeper of the Great 

Seal: 

Robert Blunt of Inkpen was seised of the manor of Inkpen and 2 messuages and 40 acres in 

H. and in Charnham Street. By his will Robert bequeathed the premises in Hungerford and 

in Charnham Street to William and the manor of Inkpen to Richard Blunt, his bastard son 

and willed that John Garrett his son-in-law should act as guardian of Richard Blunt alias 

Munday until latter should reach age of 21. Robert made John Garrett and Richard Blunt 

his executors. He died 17 September last past. 

John Garrett married Margery, daughter and one of the heirs of Robert Blunt and so through 

his wife John Garrett came into possession of all the deeds and evidences of Robert Blunt's 

possessions. Richard Blunt is at this time about 11 years of age. Sybbell Brynde is also a 

daughter of Robert Blunt.. 

Answer of John Garrett: 

Claims that Robert Blunt willed the lands in Hungerford etc. to him, John Garrett and the 

manor of Inkpen to Sibyll Brynde wife of Anthony Brynde and to Margery Garrett, John's 

wife. 

Refers to an inquisition post-mortem before Anthony ..(manuscript defaced).. 23 May, 

1 Mary. Claims that the manor is held by one-twentieth of a fee to the Queen. 

Replication of William Blunt: 

There was an Berkshire I.P.M. before Anthony Carleton, escheator, 23 May in 1 Mary. 

[See also Court of Requests, PRO: REQ2/60/57 Blunt v Garrett 1570] 

P.R.O: C2/Elizl/D 10/28 DARELL v WILLIAMS (1586) 

Bill, 21 Nov. 1586: William Darell of Littlecot complains that: 

One Thomas Williams late of Hungerford, glover, being now seised of two messuages and 

appurtenances in Charnham Street (being sometime the lands of one Raphe Baker), as in the 

right of Anne his wife, daughter and heir of the said Raphe, which messuages are holden of 

the manor of Hopgrass and so being seised, Thomas Williams and Anne about 20 August 

last past (for £35) sold the two messuages to your said orator and did promise to sell all 

evidences, etc., concerning the same, but now they not only refuse to make assurance of the 

premises but also detain all documents. 

Answer: 29 November 1586: Thomas and Anne Williams say that: William Darell is doing 

this out of malice and the case should be brought to a court of Common Law and not this 

court, but notwithstanding, answer as follows: about two years past they did sell the 

messuages to the complainant for £40 and thereupon, William Darell paid to Thomas 

Williams 40 shillings. Shortly after, William Darell required to have again the 40 shillings 

and to be discharged of the bargain. Thomas Williams gave it back to him as requested. 

Then about half a year ago a new bargain was made between them for £35, whereof 40 

shillings paid was repaid and the bargain discharged. And lastly about the time in the Bill 

mentioned they did again bargain and agree for the sum of £35, that William Darell should 

have the messuages and would buy of Thomas Williams all his goods and give the 

defendent ready money for the same upon the said bargain at the time of the making of the 

assurance. Some of the servants of William Darell priced the goods at £16 or £17 and 

William Darell did have of the goods to the value of £11 but for the rest he has made no 

payment. So because of this and because William Darell has so often broken his promises, 

he refuses to assure the lands to William Darell as is lawful for them to do. 

Replication: William Darell says: That the bargains previously made and referred to in the 

Answer, were dissolved at the request of Thomas Williams. And that it is untrue that he 

agreed to buy the goods of Thomas Williams. 

Rejoinder: Thomas Williams denies the replication 

[Notes: 1578 Ric. Whittington m Anne Baker; 1579 Thos. Lundon m Anne Whittington 

widow; Thos.Williams m. Anne Lundon widow.]

P.R.O: C2/Eliz.I/Yl/25 YONGE v GODDARD. CURR. BROUKER (30 Oct. 1589) 

Bill: 

Richard Yonge of Inkpen, husbandman son and heir of Nicholas Yong late of Hungerford, 

Berks, deceased, complains that the said Nicholas being seised in his demesne as of fee of one 

tenement and a parcel of meadow ground containing by estimation 3 acres and of 171/aacres of 

arable in Sandon Fee, did demise the same for term of his own life to Thomas Goddard gent. 

Nicholas died about 2 years now last past and the property should then have descended to 

Richard, the complainant but the deeds have fallen into the hands of Thomas Curr the 

younger and of one Thomas Brooker, clerk of H. who thereupon have entered into the 

tenement. 

Answer of Thomas Curr: 

Says that he paid Nicholas Yonge a certain sum of money and by deed executed 1 January 16 

Eliz., Nicholas granted Curr the premises for ever and this was when the deeds were handed 

over to Curr. 

Answer of Thomas Curr the younger son of the defendant: 

Admits that this defendant was seised in his demesne as of fee, of 5Yz acres of arable land in 

Sandon Fee sometime the inheritance of Nicholas Yonge the father, and Thomas Curr the 

defendant surrendered and yielded up to Nicholas Yonge these 5 I/a acres and by deed dated 

20 January 15 Eliz. Nicholas Yonge granted all the property in the Bill of the complainant 

mentioned for 51 years, paying yearly an annual rent of 10s. 

Notes: (1) See 1573 Survey T/S p.25; also 27,28 under Thomas Curre 

(2) See also 1591 Survey T/S p.3 under Thomas Goddard 

(3) See also 1609 Survey T/S p.9 

(4) Is this (S) Prays in 1676? Or Sannum House? 

P.R.O: C2/Eliz.I/ W21/ 11 WADE v DRINKWATER (1590??) 

Bill of Thomas Wade citizen and ironmonger of London, to Thomas Bromley Kt., Chancellor: 

Whereas one John Collyns late of Hungerford Berks --(torn)-- and Johan his wife, only 

daughter of Thomas Hedache deceased were in the lifetime of John seised in their demesne of 

fee in the right of -(torn)-- in two messuages and 30 acres of land, meadow and pasture with 

appurtenances in the towns and fields of Hungerford as also of other —(torn)- owners of 

land etc in the hamlet of Charnham Street, Wilts, being worth together y pounds by the 

year. And being thereof seised, for the sum of £124, by deed dated 1 January 5 Eliz., they 

sold the premises to Anthony Gamage late citizen and alderman of London and to Thomas 

Wade, present orator; yet notwithstanding, John Collyns in the quindecim of St Hilary 

next and Joan his wife acknowledged a fine of all the premises to Anthony and Thomas, yet 

notwithstanding John Collins long before the deed and fine, acknowledged a recognisance of 

a great sum of money upon the statute staple unto your orator. And afterwards one George 

Drynkwater of Steeple Ashton Wilts, clothier obtained the right, title and interest of the said 

recognisance and entered into the premises and held them so long as John Collins lived. John 

Collins died on 22 August 17Eliz.I, whereupon the premises came again to the use of the said 

Anthony and Thomas. 

Nevertheless the friends of Drinkwater held the premises worth £20 per annum until the death 

of Anthony, 11 June 21 Eilz.I. Drinkwater continued in the premises until 17 March 24Eliz.I. 

He made a lease of all the premises except 1 little cottage to George Hedache of Hungerford 

chapman, "a great rich man with many great friends". George possessed the best of the said 2 

messuages and caused a deterioration in value due to the spoil of the houses parcel of the 

chief messuage to the value of £200 whereby after 7 years your orator was forced to sell. 

[Notes: See 1573 Survey Ms. page 16 and page 22 (little cottage). 

See 1591 Survey Ms. 1:3]

PRO: C2/ELIZ1/W6/41 WALSINGHAM v CAWLEY 1591/2 

BILL: 24 January 1591/2 To the Queen's most excellent majesty. 

Dame Ursula Walsingham, widow late wife of Sir Francis Walsingham, states that one 

William Thorley, late of New Sarum gentleman, was lawfully seised of one messuage in 

Soley, sometime Edmund Meryvale's, with lands. Then William Thorley conveyed the 

same to one William Darrell, late of Lyttelcott, esquire deceased and to his heirs; he died 

about two years last past. After his death the premises went to Thomas Darrell, esquire, 

brother and next heir, who conveyed them to Sir Francis Walsingham and his heirs. The 

estate and interest of Sir Francis in the premises your said subject [torn] were [torn] 

lawfullie assured and conveyed unto her. But now, one Michael Cawley of Chilton Follyet 

and Thomas Smythe of Soley or one of them, having by synister practices [torn] into their 

hands, custodie and possession, divers deeds etc., of right belonging unto your said subject 

and have by colour and pretence thereof have entered into the premises and expelled your 

said subject. 

Answer: 1 May 1592: 

Michael Cawley sayeth that long before William Thorley had any interest in the 

messuage and lands, one Edmund Merivale, the elder, was leased of it with divers other 

lands and tenements in Wiltshire and Berkshire in his demeasne as of Fee; about the 19th 

year of Queen Elizabeth's reign, he conveyed the said messuage to William Darrell and one 

John Coocke of Chiserburye in Wiltshire, gentleman and to their heirs by deed indented 

tripartite by which it was appointed that the said feofees should stand seised of the same 

premises to the use of Edmonde Merivale, elder, for term of his life, and after his death, to 

the use of Edmonde Merivale son of Edmonde, elder, and his heirs male. And if Edmonde 

Merivale, son, should seek to convey the premises, then lease to be void an thenceforth the 

feoffees should lease it to the use of John Merivale, eldest son of Edmonde Merivale, 

father. By the force of which conveyance and by the statute of anno 27 Henry VIII made 

for the transferring to uses unto possession the aforesaid Edmonde Merivale elder was of 

the premises seised. And so seised he surrendered his interest to Edmonde Merivale son. 

When father died, the son contrary to the limitations did alien and convey the messuage to 

William Thorley and one John Barnes. Upon which alienation, the said John Merivale 

entered into premises. Then William Thorley sold them to William Darrell, who entered 

into the premises and was seised by disseysin. John Merivale made continuous claim. 

When William Darrell died, Thomas Darrell conveyed it to Sir Francis Walsingham. 

Michael Cawley further says that John Merivale being seised of the premises as aforesaid, 

about two years past demised the premises to him (Michael Cawley) for term of 21 years. 

So he entered into premises and did take the issues and profits thereof. 

C8/3/35 John PASSYON v. Anne PASSYON 17 Nov. 1599 

Bill of John Passion of Hungerford Berks, one of the sons of Nicholas Passion deceased. 

J.P. Has hitherto exhibited a Bill of Complaint in the court of Chancery versus Edward 

Passion late of Ebbersley, Hants, the younger brother of the Plaintiff, complaining that 

whereas Thomas Clisdale als Hedon (Hidden) was lawfully seised in his demesne as of fee 

of 1 messuage and 1 orchard with appurtenances and also of 1 acre of land and a plot of 

meadow ground called the Crooks set in Sanam Fee and he, being seised thereof, 

about 39 years last past sold the same to Nicholas Passyon and to John Passyon and to 

their heirs, and they held and enjoyed for 23 years the profits thereof. Nicholas died 

about 16 years before the exhibiting of the Bill and Edward entered, unlawfully upon the

premises some 16 years last past, Edward died and appointed his widow Anne Passyon 

executrix. 

Answer of Anne Passyon 

Edward entered in the premises about 20 years ago and about 2 years ago demised them by 

lease to Thomas Carpenter for a term of 21 years at a yearly rent of £4. 

Notes: 

[Westbury on Salisbury Plain - between Trowbridge and Warminster] 

[Ibsley, Hants between Fordingbridge and Ringwood] 

PROC24/289 (Nol3) Curr v Wynchcombe 

Deposition of witnesses: 

9 May 43 Eliz I 

John Riman servant to John St Leger of London esq., of the age of 23 years or thereabouts 

1. This deponent about harvest time that next cometh will be 4 or 5 years as he 

remembreth come to serve the now Complainant Gilbert Curre at Shaborne in county of 

Wiltshire and Berkshire and after that harvest ended the plaintiff went and dwelt upon the 

farm called Shefford plane and also occupied one other farm called Wike Fields farm, both 

the said farms being in the parish of Shefford, Berkshire. The deponent served Curre on 

these farms about one year in the trade of husbander understood by speech and report 

of the servants as well as of the Complainant as of the now defendant Francis Wyncombe 

esq., that the said Mr Wyncombe was to provide and fund at his own charge half the seed 

and grain that should be yearly sown upon the farms of Shefford and Wikefield. [and this he 

did for the first year during which the deponent was servant in the farm] 

13 June 43 Eliz I 

Gilbert Curre son of Complainant aged 18 or 19 

1. Well knows the Complainant did take to halfes of the defendants 2 farms in East 

Shefford and Wickfields, Berkshire. And that by bargayn the defendant should at his owne 

cost, fynde and payde half the seed wheat, barley, oates and pease that should be yearly 

sown upon the same farms. Didn't do it and his [defendant's] bailiff John Dibley in the 

first year when Complainant and servants had sown 20 quarters of wheat forbyd them to 

sew anymore saying my master careth not to have anymore sewn since corn is so dear. 

2. Plaintiff and defendant did provide 5? Bushels of wheat apiece dew by them for 

Her Majesty's pursian? And Complainant carried same with his own horses to Stretly? 

being about 12 miles from Complainant's then dwelling and wheat refused as being smutty? 

And course (and, I think, Complainant paid money but defendant wouldn't do his share??) 

3. Sundry times, Complainant carried cart loads of corn for defendant to defendant's 

house in Bucklebury (12 miles) 

4. Complainant carried from Shefford to Newbury at request of defendant, certain 

loads of corne for one Kember, tenant to defendant of said farms 

5. Plaintiff did leave as much fodder and straw when he left said farms as he 

found [goes on like this about the various crops and defendant not playing his 

part] sheep spoiling corn etc., etc. 

1601

P.R.O: C24/322 Thomas GODDARD esq v Anthony GOODARD gent 1605 

Depositions: 

Alexander Chokke of Avington, Berks esq aged 50 years (sworn 5 Nov.(?) 3 Jas.I): 

Has known both parties for 40 years. 

He was present at Littlecott with the Rt. Hon. Lord Chief Justice [Popham] that now is, when 

the said Lord Chief Justice questioned with the defendant about the supposed lease mentioned 

in the interrogatory, and demanded of the defendant these 3 questions viz: (1) whether the 

complainant's brother had made him a lease of his lands in Aldbourne or not, who answered 

he had. (2) Next his lordship demanded him whether he gave his brother any fine or income 

for the same, who answered that he gave him none. 

(3) His lordship demanded him whether he paid his brother the rents thereof and received and 

took the fines of the land, whereunto the defendant answered that he [torn] rent paid unto him 

yearly by him the defendant and that the rent for the farms , he said his brother did receive 

them but sometimes his brother did suffer him, the defendant, to take some part of them 

Says that he hath heard of such leases etc. [signed: Alexander Chokke] 

William Pottinger of Froxfield. Wilts, gent aged 50(?) years or thereabouts 

(sworn 7 November 1605): 

He doth very well know the parties for 20 years. 

Has heard it reported that Mr Thomas Goddard has heretofore demised and let to his brother 

Anthony, defendant, out of his own lands and tenements, the parsonage of Cleeve Pepper. 

Wilts and also the moitie or half part 

John Cannon of Shawborne Berks., servant to the complainant aged 50 years 

C8/13/47 HEDACHE v BRIDGES 1609 

George Hedache of Enborne, yeoman, preents his Bill to the Lord Chancellor Ellesmere: 

He states that 25 years ago Jane Bridges now deceased [widow of Sr Richard Bridges] held 2 

farms, Henley and Cole Henley in Great Shefford on lease from Queen's College, Oxford. 

Edmund Bridges, son of Jane Bridges, of Collingbourn, Wilts esq. then took the lease for the 

3 lives of himself and his sons William and Anthony. Recently Edmund Bridges granted 

them to George Hedache, but Edmund combined with John Gardiner of Lambourn 

Woodlands and Giles Hatt of Leckhampstead and John Byrche of Maidencot, Berks 

Bridges answered (7 July 1609) that there was an understanding between him (Bridges) and 

John Byrche that if Edmund might have and enjoy certain meads from Byrche in Hungerford 

[Mill Mead was one such. See Case in Duchy of Lancaster: DL1/85/B17], then Byrche 

should have the farms (Henley and Cole Henley) in recompense; but Byrche broke his 

promise. 

P.R.O: C2/Jas.I/M20/9 MASON v CURTEYS (1610) 

Bill: To the right honourable Francis Lord Verulam and Chancellor 

Plaintiffs:Francis Mason feltmaker and John Ball joiner and Anthony Goffe , all of 

Hungerford. 

Mason and Ball are tenants of Nicholas [Curteys] of Enborne and Ursula his wife, in respect 

of several messuages and lands in Hungerford and have been so for the term of 21 years by 

virtue of several demises, but have been given "notice". They claim to have spent large sums 

of money on the premises: Mason £160 Ball £40. 

They were encouraged so to do by Curteys to make them "fit and convenient for their 

habitations and useful and profitable for their trades". When they first entered into the 

premises they were "ruinous, rotten in great decay and uninhabitable" but now they were "in 

good repair and stronglie builte and withal very comely for habitation". But Curteys now 

intends to up the rent and "raise great fines upon demising" them, "to the utter undoing of 

your orators' wives and children, exposing them and theirs to be relieved by the parish where 

they dwell."

Anthony Goffe holds of Curteys only 1 tenement and backside. Curteys required of him a 

fine of £8 for a (renewed?) lease of 21 years. 

Answer: Curteys refers to the tenements being of the dissolved Trinity Chantry. He granted 

George Hedige yeoman a certain burgage in for 21 years at a yearly rent of 17s. on a 

'repairing'lease. He also let to John Ball 1 burgage or tenement and backside and a close 

adjoining + 5 acres land in fields of Inkpen and Hungerford at a rent of 16s. and 2 capons 

also on a 'repairing' lease. Hedich assigned the remainder of his lease to Mason. Mason 

agreed to repair the building if Curteys would provide the timber. Which Curteys did to the 

amount of 20 tons at least and to Ball to the amount of 10 tons. Mason made a frame or 

fabric of the timber and pulled down the greater part of [buildings?] which were at that time 

covered with tile together with one double chimney, intending to re-edify the house; but ever 

since Mason has kept the frame unsetup and has made havoc and spoil of the timber, allowing 

the frame to be withoutdoors and uncovered and so subject to rain and weather for these many 

years and converted the rest of the timber to his private benefit. The several rooms where the 

building did formerly stand do yet lie open and uncovered for 8 or 9 years and Mason has 

prepared and made fit only a little room for his trade and kept it thatched to the hazard and 

danger of all other the inhabitants and neighbours, their habitations being once heretofore (as 

this defendant hath crediblie heard) set on fire and in great danger of consuming by means 

thereof. 

The defendants say they are aged and wish to live in the messuage now occupied by Mason, it 

being the chief house among other their tenements in Hungerford and that the same (inter 

alia) was first granted to Nicholas Curteys and Ursula his wife by the late Queen in 

consideration of Nicholas's good and faithful service though not expressed in the Patent, both 

in the realms of Ireland and France as also in consideration of a sum of money paid to the 

Duchy of Lancaster. 

Curteys say that Goffe failed to pay his fine on the day assigned and his messuage and 

backside went to the "best chapman" viz. John Mayle. Curteys says that Ball has erected 

with some out of his ten tons of timber one little cottage in the backside of the tenement now 

in his occupation. He describes Mason as shifty and evasive. 

Commission held at Newbury 24 April 1610. John Wirrall is one of the 3 commissioners. 

[Notes: 1. Goffe later married Elizabeth daughter of Francis Mason. 

2. See 1610 town survey.] 

P.R.O: C2/JAS.I/C 17/21 CHALONER v GASTRELL (post 1612) 

Re manor of Eastgarston 

Bill: Sir Thomas Chaloner of Steeple Cleydon, Bucks, Kt. states he held a lease from the 

Crown under the Duchy seal 4 August, 11 JAS.I, of the manor of Eastgarston. 

Henry Gastrell of the Inner Temple, gent, pretended to have the lease. 

Answer includes a statement that John Birch (of Hungerford?) with some tenants, stirred up 

trouble against the defendant [Henry Gastrell]. 

[Notes: A John Burche son of William was baptised in Hungerford in 1586. 

A John Burch, beer brewer, died in 1639. There is a PCC will naming several 

children. 

It may have been another family living in Hungerford who wrote their name 

'Birch'. See the Hedache v Bridges case above and the case in the Duchy of 

Lancaster, Birch v Edes DL1/85/B17]

P.R.O: C2/142/6 BROWN v HIDDEN (1612) 

Bill of Complaint 7 Nov. 1612: To the right Honorable Thomas Lord Ellesmere, Lord 

Chancellor of England: 

Most humblie complayninge thereto unto your honorable lordshipp your poore and daylie 

Orator Thomas Browne of Portsmouth in the County of Southton. That whereas about three 

years last past he your said Orator did bargayne and contract unto one Roger Hydden of 

New Saram in the county of Wilts gent for a certen peece of lande called the Priory lyinge 

and beinge in Hungerford in the county of Berks at and for the just price and some of foure 

hundred poundes in money. And thereof he did then paye and satisfie unto the saide 

Hidden the sume of thirtye and foure pounds ten shillings as in parte of payment of and for 

the said bargayned premisses and did also further purpose and resolutely intend to pay and 

satisfie the residue of the said foure hundred pounds to the said Hidden as such daies and 

tymes as was by and betweene them agreed uppon. But so it happened by the ordinance of 

God that within space then after and before your saide Orator was to have payed the saide 

money by him to have been payed, he your saide Orator had suffered very great and 

intollerable losses by suretishippe and other ways so as his estate was utterlye decayed and 

distressed, and himselfe become insolvent, and unable to performe and proceed unto the 

said bargayne and payement. Wherefore he your said Orator privately knowinge and being 

guiltye of his owne inability, did nevertheless move and incite other of his friends of better 

abilitye to provide moneyes, and take from your saide Orator the saide bargayne, who did 

accordinglie offer themselves so to do, and to laye downe the residue of his moneys to bene 

payed by your Orator to the said Hidden for his said bargayne which the saide Hidden 

seemed willinge to accept of and was well content for as he might receive the said moneys 

to, to make assurance to whomsoever your Orator would appoynt. Howbeit nevertheless 

when the saide friends of your saide Orator had made ready their money, and did expect to 

have the same assurance made unto them, the saide Hidden making no care nor conscience 

at all to performe the saide bargayne on his parte to be performed, but altogether minding to 

circumvent and defraude your said Orator both of his said bargayne and the moneys then 

before payed, did then soone after bargayne agayne and sell away or otherwise did pretend 

to bargayne and so (torn sell?) to some other persons the same premisses for another 

some of money and thereuppon made and executed certen conveyances and assurances in 

the same to such other persons to your Orator unknowne and refused to make satisfaction or 

requital to your said Orator for his said bargayne wrongfully witholden from him or to 

repaye or satisfie the said thirty foure pounds in money unto your Orator disbursed and 

payed in hand as aforesaid or other wise in any sorte recompense your Orator or to yeald 

him that which is due and belonginge, and in such case is ineete and requisite tht he should 

do, albeit he hath been divers and sondry tymes in friendly manner by your Orator requested 

thereunto, but the said thirty four pounds nowe by these three years past hath wrongfully 

deteyned from your Orator contrary to all equity and good conscience and to your Orator's 

utter undoinge, unlesse your Lordshipps accustomed favour be to him in this behalf, 

extended. In consideration whereof and for that your orator is voyde of all ordinary remedy 

at and by the strict course of the common lawes of this realm (to the refusal touching the 

premises), it may therefore please your honorable Lordship to graunt the kings majesty's 

writ of Subpena to be directed unto the saide Roger Hidden commaundinge him thereby at a 

certen daie and under a certen payne therein to be limited, personally to be and appeare 

before your Lordshipp in his Majesty's court of Chauncery then and there to answeare the 

premisses and to stande to and abide such further order and direction therein as in your 

Lordshipp's grave wisdom shall be thought to stand with equity and justice. And your 

Orator shall daily pray for your Lordshipp in health and increase of much (....torn...) longe 

to continue. 

[Note: for the story of Roger Hidden see Norman Hidden's The Hiddens of Hungerford 

Vol.2 pages 90-94.]

P.R.O: C2/Jas.I/R1/7 INHABITANTS OF HUNGERFORD v YEO 1613 

Francis Earl of Rutland (executor and brother of Roger late Earl of Rutland), Henry Sadler 

esq, Edward Hungerford esq, Ralph Harrold. John Bradford and John Burch, yeomen, versus 

Leonard Yeo, Richard Elston, Sir Thomas Parry, Sir Francis Knollys, John Wirrall, John 

Lucas, Robert Field, Thomas Carpenter, Ralph Mackerell, Thomas Sheffe and Erasmus 

Webbe. Concerning the Manor of Hungerford and lands in other counties held of the Castle 

of Belvoire. 

Bill. 17 May 1613 

Rutland, Sadler, and Edward Hungerford, freeholders of the manor and borough of H. and 

Ralph Harrold, John Bradford, John Burch freeholders and inhabitants of Hungerford for 

themselves as for all other the inhabitants, copyholders and freeholders of the said borough 

in January or February 9 Jas.I, say: 

The Crown, in March 9 Jas.I, granted the borough etc to John Eldred and William Whitmore 

of London esqs for ever, and they intending to sell the same to your suppliants and other the 

freeholders and inhabitants of the said borough had "divers meetings and conferences 

concerning the purchasing of the said borough" and a sum of money was agreed and the 

inhabitants of Hungerford made choice of John Lucas, Robert Field, Thomas Carpenter and 

Ralph Mackerell to undertake the purchasing and contracting for the said borough. 

Sale contract dated 7 May 10 Jas.I. 

"Divers courses were propounded for the raising " of the sum of money required but at length 

it was considered that there was a certain waste ground in or near the borough where your 

suppliants the Earl of Rutland, Henry Sadler and Edward Hungerford or some of them had 

interest of the soil and freehold, and the residue of the suppliants and other the freeholders 

and copyholders of the borough and manor of Hungerford had and have right of common, 

which said common or waste ground being demised for some small time would 

sufficient for the speedy payment of the purchase money; and the representatives of the town 

became suitors to your suppliants for the consent to leasing the waste or common ground for 

the purpose above, to which they assented. The representatives made choice of William Elgar 

of Kintbury and Anthony Field of Hungerford feltmaker to whom they meant to assign their 

interest etc upon agreement that Elgar and Field should resign their interest to the 

representatives and such purchaser as they should nominate; but the interest was sold to them 

not as trustees but so they became possessed of the estate in fee simple. They procured Field 

and Elgar to make an indenture of feoffment to Lucas, Robt. Field, Carpenter and Mackerell, 

plus John Wirrall vicar, Thomas Sheaffe clerk, Erasmus Webb clerk, the right Honorourable 

Sir Thomas Parry kt. Chancellor of the Duchy of Lanes, Privy Councellor, and Sir Francis 

Knollys of Reading, again without any mention of Trust'. 

Lucas is suspected to be the principal director of the representatives, "a man of not good note" 

and the survivors of them may make claim as they already begin to do (if they survive these 

suppliants), to the absolute inheritance of the just right and lawful title. 

Request that the trust may be set down in writing and that responsible trustees be appointed. 

Answer. 8 June 1613 

Lucas and Mackerell were the chief representatives, and Lucas went to London to deal with 

Eldred and Whitmore for the purchase of their patent for the sum of £285 which they raised 

by various loans at interest. This could not be repaid within 3 months so a further loan was 

raised in London of £300 for 4 months. Then came the leasing of the downs or waste for 

£240 for a certain term yet to run and they did likewise fell certain trees and woods for £60. 

The deeds were publicly delivered and executed in the town hall and in the presence of the 

inhabitants 

[Roger Manners, Earl of Rutland, d.1612 and was succeeded by his brother ]

C2/JasI/C14/8: CHOCKE v MILLINGTON 20 May 1622 

Concerning the sale of the Manor of Hungerford Engleford: 

To the right Reverend Father in God John Lord Bishop of Lincoln, Lord Keeper of the Great 

Seal. 

Sir Alexander Chocke of Shalborne states that whereas Sir Walter Hungerford and Sir Edward 

Hungerford now deceased [of Rawdon Wilts, brother of Sir Walter] were lawfully seised of the 

manor of Hungerford Ingleford, by indenture dated 1 December 38 Elizabeth, one Philip 

Seymour yeoman of Hungerford and William and Philip sons of the said Philip [Seymour], 

demised to the three Seymours a certain messuage called the Swan and divers other lands and 

tenements etc. for the term of their three lives. Seymour sold their lease to Thomas Holmes of 

Newbury, clothier, for 99 years, but failed to take a lease from the chief landlord for an 

alteration of the lives, and suffered the said Seymour to continue with the freehold. 

Seymour became bound to Holmes in the sum of £700, but Holmes was indebted to John 

Kendrick of London draper to whom he mortgaged his interest in the premises for £500 or £600 

pounds. Kendrick assigned to Chocke. Chocke agreed to sell to Thomas Millington of 

Newbury gent for £730 (21 Nov. 16 Jas I). Chocke agreed to secure from Edward Hungerford 

the landlord of the premises a lease for 99 years upon the lives of Thomas Millington and Anne 

his wife and Thomas his son; after which time and before the securing of the lease, Anne died 

and shortly after Thomas Millington remarried and shortly after on or about 12 September last 

past at Newbury Thomas Millington made a new agreement that Chocke should procure a lease 

which would incorporate the second wife. Plaintif claims that Edward Hungerford being a 

tenant in tail of the manor had power to grant a lease only for three lives in possession, and 

also that there was a freehold left in the 3 Seymours. 

[Note: For the history of the Manor of Hungerford Engleford see the chapter in Norman 

Hidden's Aspects of the Early History of Hungerford.] 

P.R.O:C2/Jas.I/G12/64 GODDARD v INHABITANTS of Hungerford 1623 

16 May 1623 Bill of Francis Goddard of Standen esq. 

The dispute concerns Crookes Acre of which Thomas Goddard (father of Francis) was seised. 

Pasture was allowed to the inhabitants of Sanham village from harvest to sowing and in every 

year fully, in which the land lay fallow. 

In 24 Eliz. (1582) it was agreed (because the land bounded various meads which belonged to 

Goddard) with the inhabitants for £20, £10 to Phillip Seymour and £10 to the poor of Sannam 

to Humphrey Batt. 

Now some inhabitants and commoners e.g. John Lucas, John Cur, Ralph Mackerell, Robert 

Field are pasturing their cattle there. 

Defendants claim that the £20 was freely given for the stock of the poor.

MAYLE FAMILY LAWSUITS 

There is a long-running dispute between various members of the Mayle family and the Church 

officials in their capacity of property owners. Scattered documents are to be found in the Court 

of Requests and in the Court of Star Chamber. The main documents however are to be found in 

the Chancery Case, (C2/J A S.I/MI 6/51 beginning in 1622) given below but even this is 

incomplete, There are references to the Case in the Church Vestry Book in 1618 and 1623. 

C33/39 HUNGERFORD v MAYLE 23 November 1620 

Sir Anthony Hungerford v Richard Mayle and others 

According to an order of the 4th of this month I have in presence of counsel on both sides 

considered of the matter thereby referred unto me and have found the evidence mentioned in 

the plaintiffs Bill whereby I perceive(?) as I formerly reported that the plaintiffs title is made 

good according to the Bill by a conveyance from Francis Goddard, grandchild to John Goddard 

to whom jointly with William Cannon the lands in question were assigned; and by the death of 

'the said Cannon accrued to the said John Goddard by survivorship, which deed beareth date 4 

years sithence viz 1616. All which I humbly leave to the grave resolution of this honourable 

Court. signed Charles Caesar 

C53/149 folio 148. 

Anthony Hungerford mil. and other inhabitants of Hungerford in County Berks v. Richard 

Maile & Henry Maile defendants. [1621] 

Forasmuch upon the hearing and debating of the matter as well this day as on Wednesday last 

in the presence of the Council! learned on both parts for and touching the tenements in question 

which the said inhabitants desire may be established with them by the decree of this court, they 

having verdict at lawe, the defendants who have also a cross bill and suing in form ....[which?] 

is perpetually disturbing their possession and the said tenements belonging to the parish 

of Hungerford in the nature of a charitable use for repairing of the church there, forasmuch as 

the defendants having been heretofore tenants of the premises by lease from the feoffees and 

their lease being expired about 8 years since were not now able to make it appeare to this Court 

that they had any manner of title to the premises. 

Nevertheless in regard they have been ancient tenants, this court moved that the plaintiffs 

.would give them twenty nobles in lieu of all demands and so quit all pretended claims to the 

tenements in question. Whereunto the plaintiffs Councell in regard of their future quietship(?) 

of the defendants'... have assented. 

It is therefore ordered and decreed by this court that the quiet possession of the said tenements 

and premises be settled and established with the plaintiffs, their lessees and assigns against the 

defendants Mailes and all claiming from, by, or under them and the said plaintiffs are to pay to 

the defendants 20 nobles at the Annunciation next according to their councell's assentes 

aforesaid. 

And the said Mailes cross bill is dismissed out of this court. And as touching the writinges 

remaining in court the same are forthwith to be delivered to the plaintiffs. And where the said 

Mailes have pawned certain writinges concerning the premises belonging to the plaintiffs a 

subpoena is awarded against such persons as have the said writinges in pawn to bring the same 

unto this Court to the end that the plaintiffs may have the same; and upon the payment of the 

said money the said Mailes are to scale and .... all release to the plaintiffs of all claims and 

demands touching the premises 

C2/JAS I/M16/51: MAYLE v WIRRAL etc dated 30 January 1622 

Henry Mayle of Hungerford yeoman states that one Richard Jennyngs late of Hungerford 

'yeoman had been seised of three tenements with appurtenances and certain lands and did in or 

about the fourth year of the reign of King Edward VI [1549-50] by divers deeds executed in his 

lifetime did give or grant one yearly annuity or rent charge of 40s p.a. unto the Churchwardens

of the parish church of Hungerford and their successors forever towards the reparations of the 

church or some such good and charitable use which was afterwards paid and continued for 

many years together by the heirs of Richard Jennings until 3 & 4 Philip and Mary [1557] at 

which time the inheritance of the premises descended to Thomas Gennings the lineal heir of the 

said Richard Gennings being then very young and of tender years, the said 3 tenements being 

decayed and out of reparations and the said lands worn barren and out of tillage so that hardly 

any tenant could be gotten to hold and keep the said annuity or rent the same in reparations and 

to pay charge of 40s to the use of the church and also pay a yearly quit rent of I3s 4d to the use 

of the Crown for whom the said premises were and are holden. 

Whereupon John Goddard gent and William Cannon yeoman, Churchwardens of the said 

parish church of Hungerford, presuming of themselves without any lawful right in the minority 

of Thomas Jennings entered into and upon the said messuages and land and in the 3 & 4th year 

of the said King Philip and Queen Mary [and] did make and seal a lease of the said messuages 

and lands unto one Nicholas Passion yeoman dated 8 February 3 & 4 Philip and Mary [1557] to 

hold the three tenements and lands to Nicholas Passion and his assigns from Michaelmas then 

last past for 61 years before the date of the said lease to the end of a term of 65 years, yielding 

'and paying therefor yearly unto the churchwardens the yearly rent of 40s at the usual four terms 

within the year [etc] and by the said lease Nicholas Passion, his executors and assigns were 

bound to uphold and repair the premises and also — sums of money and charges whatsoever 

during the term of the lease to be issuing out of the premises. And moreover the said John 

Goddard and William Cannon, churchwardens [etc], warranted [etc], acquitted [etc], Nicholas 

Passion during the said term. By force whereof.... Nicholas Passion entered into the said 

premises [etc] and was quietly possessed for divers years together and by deed dated the 2nd of 

March in the first year of Queen Elizabeth [1558] did grant and assign over the said lease and 

all his right and title in and to the premises unto your orator's father Richard Mayle to hold 

during the residue of the lease. 

And so Richard Mayle entered the premises and was quietly possessed of the same until in or 

about the 6th year of Queen Elizabeth [1564]when Thomas Jennings being indeed the true and 

lawful lineal decendant of Richard Jennings entered into the premises and disturbed Richard 

Mayle's possession thereof. Whereupon Richard Mayle resorted and repared to the churchwardens 

for the time being to be defended for and touching the lease but they refused to assist 

him therein insomuch that after a long suit continued in the Court of Requests between Thomas 

.Jennings and Richard Mayle at last in the 8th year of Queen Elizabeth [1566] Richard Mayle 

and Thomas Jennings submitted themselves to the arbitration of John Cheyney, Griffith 

Curteys and Francis Fowke. These arbitrators made their award on the 18th day of January 

8 Elizabeth as follows: that all suits and contentions then depending between them in any of the 

Queen's courts touching the messuages etc should cease. And that Thomas Jennings for 5 

marks to be paid to him by Richard Mayle should lease to Richard Mayle and his heirs all his 

right, title, interest [etc] in the property, which 5 marks Richard Mayle did pay to Thomas 

Jennings. Whereupon Richard Mayle continued in quiet possession for about all of [the years] 

during his lifetime and died [1595] 

After whose death, Richard Mayle, your orator's eldest brother, as son and heir entered into 

possession and continued to hold the same by the space of 12 years. And Richard Mayle the 

younger, about 10 years ago [c.1612/13] granted the premises to Henry Mayle and he (Henry) 

continued in quiet possession until about 4 years ago [c.1618] when the 61 year lease expired 

and with it the rent of 40s p.a. previously payed under this lease. 

Now it is that one John Lucas of Hungerford, petty chapman, having got a lease for a term of 

years of one messuage, with a backside, orchard and garden, lying on the west side of the High 

Street of Hungerford, part of the aforesaid premises originally demised by Richard Maile 

'senior, by indenture dated 1 December [in the year] 24 Elizabeth [1582] to William Pottenger

for 36(?) years [i.e. until 1618] at a yearly rent of 20s.8d., [and] Lucas finding that his term of 

years granted by Richard Mayle senior was due shortly to expire, entreated Henry Mayle to 

show him or some other learned man his writing and evidences concerning the three tenements 

and lands and Lucas having before that time combined himself with John Worrall vicar of 

Hungerford, Thomas Worrall son of the said John Worrall did by his persuasion draw Henry 

Mayle to the house of John Worrall as well as other places and made him bring with him to 

John Worrall and to Thomas Worrall all his evidences [etc.] Lucas persuading Henry Mayle 

that John Worrall and Thomas Worrall were two very deep and learned men and knew the law 

as well as any lawyers whatever and would tell him his right, title [etc.] and he persuaded 

Henry Mayle being a very simple and unlearned man to follow his persuasions. So Henry 

Mayle showed them his evidences and left with them in their hands all his writings [etc.] 

touching the property, who upon view of the same did say and affirm to Henry Mayle that he 

had no estate in the premises but only during the continuance of the lease with Passion ....and 

counselled Henry Mayle to go to the Churchwardens to desire of them another lease for the 

former rent but still underhand the said Lucas, John Worrall and Thomas Worrall did dissuade 

the Churchwardens and parishioners to make unto Henry Mayle any lease at all but contrived 

among themselves and having possession of the said releases to thrust Henry Mayle out of his 

inheritance and so gain some estate for themselves in the premises for some long number of 

•years for and under the annual rent of 40 shillings and to this end they framed and devised a 

title to Francis Goddard esq. the lineal heir of John Goddard who with William Cannon the said 

Churchwarden made the lease with P[assion?] about four years of it being... they resorted to 

Francis Goddard and persuaded him to be enfeoffed in trust of the premises to the use of the 

church and that the said John Goddard survived the said Cannon whereas in truth there was 

never any feoffment made to them of the premises and the better to colour their pretended title 

about four years ago and since the expiration of the [original] lease they resorted to Francis 

Goddard ... and the premises was invested in him as lineal descendant of John Goddard. 

Goddard gave them a feoffment on behalf of the church to Sir Anthony Hungerford knight, 

Thomas Hinton then esq.now knight, Thomas Hidden yeoman, John Birt yeoman, Thomas 

Carpenter yeoman, Thomas Smith yeoman, John Birch brewer, and Benjamin Holton dyer and 

their heirs as feoffees for the use of the said parish church, which said writing they persuaded 

Francis Goddard to seal and deliver as his deed and thereupon make livery to them of such 

feoffments they the said John Lucas, John Worrall and Thomas Worrall have got and so have 

entered into the premises. [Then follows the usual conclusion to this type of petition]. 

The Joint and Several Answers of John Wirrall, Thomas Smith and John Lucas: 

John Wirrall says that when the 61 year lease expired Henry Mayle being a most unruly and 

disorderly person in his life and conversation and by means thereof decayed in his estate that he 

was neither able to give any fine or to give any security for an improvement to be raised 

perpetually upon the premisses or for performance of the covenants of the lease. Wherefore by 

general consent he was thought to be an unfit tenant but claiming their inheritance he kept 

possession with much taunting and reviling speeches and also much wasted and decayed both 

the trees and the howslings thereupon hung. Whereupon there was a Bill brought about 4 years 

since in this honourable Court in the names of Sir Anthony Hungerford, Kt, Sir Thomas 

Hinton (then esq. now Kt), and other the inhabitants of the parish of Hungerford for their relief 

concerning the premisses against Richard Mayle and Henry Mayle. Richard Mayle confessed 

that he held the premises by virtue of the 61 year lease. Mayle had not paid rent and would not 

deliver up possession. This case was referred to Sir Charles Caeser Kt 13 June 17 Jas I who on 

22 October following made his certificate into this Court and an injunction was awarded for 

quiet possession. Henry Mayle for his disobedience and contempt of court was committed to 

the Fleet prison and an order dated Dec, 19 Jas I.

PRO C21 /114/15 MAYLE v GODDARD etc 1624 

Henry Mayle v Francis Goddard esq, Thomas Hidden, John Birch, Thomas Wirral, John Wirral 

clerk, Thomas Smith and John Birt: 

Depositions taken 25 May 1624 at Hungerford. 

John West of Hungerford, Berkshire broadweaver aged 70 states that 40s pa was payable to the 

Church, and 13s.4d pa quit rent to the King. 

John Sandes of Hungerford, Berkshire carpenter aged 60 

Robert Riman of Hungerford, Berkshire, husbandman aged 55 states that Thomas Wirrall pays 

a rent of £3 to the Church and 13s.4d quit rent to the King. 

John West of Hungerford, Berkshire mercer aged 36 states that the Complainant exhibited a 

Bill in the Court of Star Chamber against divers persons whereof this deponent was one. 

John Ball of Hungerford, Berkshire joiner aged 70 

John Havwood of Hungerford, Berkshire clothworker aged 50 states that 4 or 5 years since 

Ralfe Harrold being then Constable of Hungerford did on behalf of the township take quiet 

possession of the tenement now in question to which this deponent was called to be a witness. 

John Curre of Hungerford, Berkshire yeoman aged 77 states that about 40 years or more 

heretofore John Goddard and William Cannon by the consent and assent of 9 or 10 of the other 

inhabitants of the Parish, made a lease of 61 years of the tenements to Nicholas Passion, of 

which a rent of 40s pa is reserved to the Church. 

Thomas Garmy of Hungerford, butcher, aged 40 

Vincent Smith of Charnham St, parish of Hungerford, Wiltshire, gent aged 75 

William Hosier of Hidden, parish of Hungerford, Berkshire husbandman aged 40 states that a 

lease was granted to Thomas Wirrall of 21 years by this deponent then a Church Warden and 

by Thomas Carpenter the other Church Warden with the consent of the parishioners at a yearly 

rent of £3. 

Thomas Butt of the parish of Hungerford, Berkshire, husbandman aged 50+ states the lease to 

Thomas Wirrall was granted by Thomas Carpenter and William Lyster, half of which this 

deponent did receive and half was exempted for charges which had been laid out about this 

lawsuit by consent of the neighbours who took the Church Court when this deponent was 

Church Warden. 

Elias Tapp of Hidden, parish of Hungerford, Berkshire, yeoman aged 40 

William Waite of Hungerford, Berkshire, tanner aged 68 states that he was Church Warden 

some 28 years ago. Ralfe Harrold was Constable 5 or 6 years ago. 

Robert Field of Hungerford, Berkshire, yeoman aged 70 states that Richard Mayle brother of 

the plaintiff (Henry Mayle) and son of Richard Mayle held the premises after his father's death 

until the expiration of the 61 years lease 

Ralphe Mackerell of Hungerford, Berkshire, husbandman aged 70 

Ralfe Harrold of Hungerford, Berkshire, yeoman aged 48 states that the Bill of the 

Complainant was dismissed out of the Star Chamber. 

William Northcrafte of Hungerford, Berkshire, currier aged 50 (or 56?) was Church Warden 

some 8 years since. 

William Lay ley of Hungerford, Berkshire, fisher aged 66 

Benjamin Houlton of Hungerford, Berkshire, dyer aged 26 states that about 5 years since 

feoffment was made from Mr Francis Goddard to this deponent and others of the lands and 

tenements now in question and afterwards a lease of 21 years was made to Thomas Wirrall by 

the Church Wardens then in being. 

Thomas Carpenter of Hungerford, Berkshire, dyer aged 60 states that he saw the lease 

mentioned in the Rolls at London

Ex parte the defendants 25 May 1624: 

John Forty aged 67 (no further details given) states that the plaintiff told him that the same 

lands were "sometimes town lands, sometimes church lands but ever concluded that he cared 

not whether the same did belong to the town or church so that he might have a lease of the 

same". Says that the plaintiff "did much and wilfully waste and destroy the said tenements and 

did pull down one loft or upper floor of one of the said tenements and sold the boards and 

timber thereof to one Clowdes and that divers small trees about 20 in number were cut out of 

the premises by the plaintiff or his brother". 

Robert Ryman of Hungerford, Berkshire, husbandman aged 55 refers to the three tenements 

(when leased to Nicholas Passon) with 40s rent to the Church and 13s.4d to the Crown and 22 

or 23?? Quit rent out of two of the tenements which quit rents are gathered by the reeve of the 

town of Hungerford for the time being. He states that the defendant (complainant?) was of 

"lews and dishonest behaviour and he hath been these 16 years past and hath been in the house 

of correction and committed to prison for divers misdemeanours". The Complainant 

"committed great and wilful waste both upon the said tenements and hath pulled down some 

part of the howseing thereof and sold the same and also cut down divers small trees from off 

the same lands and [lacuna] the same away to the plough wright". 

Vincent Smith of Hungerford, Berkshire gent aged 75 states that when offered a new lease, 

Richard Mayle (jun) refused "unless he might have had all three of the tenements at 40 

shillings rent". 

Thomas Carpenter of Hungerford, Berkshire, yeoman aged 60 states that Richard Mayle held 

two of the tenements for one year after the expiration of the 61 year lease. The plaintiff kept 

possession of 2 tenements until he was removed by order of the Court of the Chancery. (Refers 

to the award of 8 Elizabeth I). The Plaintiffs father and brother did dwell upon the premises 

and did manure and husband the same but the plaintiff made great waste on the 'howsinge' 

belonging to the two tenements. The plaintiff informed this deponent that he had pawned some 

of his evidences concerning the premises to a tailor dwelling near the Palace Gate at 

Westminster whereupon this deponent resorted to the tailor's house at Westminster, it being 

then the Ship, whose wife then affirmed that the same deeds were pawned by her husband for 

about £4 and were writings of great worth concerning the lands in Hungerford but could not 

deliver the same because her husband was then from home. 

William Hobbes of N.Hidden, parish of Hungerford, Berkshire, yeoman aged 70. He had been 

Church Warden of Hungerford about 45 years since. 

Anthony Younge of Hungerford gent aged 65 

Raphe Harrold of Hungerford yeoman aged 48 

Robert Field of Hungerford yeoman aged 70 

Robert Hatt of Hungerford gent aged 68 

Thomas Langfield of Charnham Street yeoman aged 60 

Thomas Barrett of Hungerford scrivener aged 39 

Raph Mackerell aged 70 says that, in the deed of Philip and Mary, John Lovelake and George 

Clydesdale [i.e.Hidden] were Churchwardens.

P.R.O: C21/H34/4 HERTFORD v JENNINGES 1629 

Rt. Hon. Sir William Seymour, Earl of HERTFORD v James JENNINGES 

(An interesting case concerning the destruction of trees) 

Depositions of witnesses taken at Marlborough 2nd October 5 Chas.I: 

Laomedon(?) Fowler of Cadockston, Glamorgan, clerk aged 52 years: 

Wood made into table boards, chairs, stools, bedsteads, barrels, kivers and sent out by the 

cartload. 

Thomas Worram of Froxfield. blacksmith aged 50 years. 

Thomas Hayward of Hungerford Berks,carpenter aged 33 years: 

He does not know how many trees were felled on the farm but, being sent for about 6 years 

ago by James Jenninges the younger (who had been in occupation of Froxfield farm) to work 

on Froxfield farm, found five tonnes of timber ready squared and sawed etc and a thousand 

foot of boards at the least. 

Thomas Balle of Hungerford joyner aged 32 years: 

Knows the farm house at Froxfield. 4 years since he and his father made 3 table boards there 

etc 

Robert Early of Great Bedwyn, sawyer aged 50 years 

John Fabian of Froxfield, husbandman aged 35 years 

Solomon Cannon of Sannum Fee husbandman aged 30 years: 

Lived at Froxfield farm with James Jenninges the son about 4 years 

Richard Seyney of Froxfield husbandman aged 42 years 

William Curtis of Ramsbury carpenter aged 25 years 

Thomas Adams(?) of Oakhill, Wilts husbandman aged 40 years 

Robert Long of Froxfield gent aged 60 years 

Edmund Hungerford of Chisbury, Wilts esq aged 48 years 

P.R.O: C21/C42/13 Francis COUPER v Richard MUNDAY 

Re property in Shalborne (Crossfield Close) 

Depositions, 7 April 1651: 

Solomon Trash: of the parish of Shalborne, Berks, fellmonger, aged c.58 

Sarah Curr: w/o Thomas Curr, of Shalborne, Berks, labourer. Aged c.26 

Thomas Marshall: of Shalborne, Berks, labourer, aged 42. 

Gabriel Cox : of Newbury, Berks, gent, aged c.54 

Edward Mills: of Hungerford, Berks, gent, aged c.46 

Robert Barnett (Barrett?) of Shalborne, gent, aged c.70. Says that Richard Pasch and 

Agnes his wife, in this interrogatory named, have been dead for 3 years or thereabouts. 

Refers to deed of 4 July 24 JAS.I, between Thomas Hall and Richard Pasche and witnessed 

by Mills. 

John Martin of Newtown, Shalborne, tailor, aged c.34 

Thomas Sweete of Shalborne. Berks, butcher 

Richard Blackewell of Shalborne. husbandman, aged c.57 

William Chadsey of parish of Shalborne, husbandman, aged c.35 

Thomas Whitway of Shalborne, Berks, aged c.44 

John Marshall of Shalborne, Berks, husbandman, aged c.84 

John Beck of Bagshott, Berks, yeoman aged c.40 

[Details of the case have not been noted]

PRO:C22/15/34 THOMAS BARBER v REBECCA MILLS 1667/8 

Depositions taken at Newbury 17 January 19 Chas II (1667/8) 

Thomas Woolridge of Benham gent aged 38 deposes that John Curr's lands were conveyed to 

Edmond Stephens and afterwards re-conveyed to John Curr; and Edward Mills, late the 

defendant's husband, had oftentimes drawn the defendant's father into foolish and 

inconvenient bargains concerning his estate when he was drunk and that Edward Mills did 

convey John Curr to London and there draw him into a foolish bargain. 

Joseph Sare of Hungerford, tallowchandler, aged 50 deposed that John Curr was "a weake man 

mostly given to drinking". 

Edmund Stephens of Hungerford, gent, aged 50 deposed. 

Roger Richards of Hungerford, Berkshire, shoemaker, aged 60 deposed. 

William Palmer of Hungerford, Berkshire, Cordwainer, aged 40 deposed. 

Thomas Curre of Hungerford, Berkshire, husbandman, aged 70 refers to John Curr as his 

brother and that Mills lived "about 3 or 4 years (ago)." 

William Dyer of Hungerford, Berkshire, innholder, aged 50, deposed 

Obedience Lovelake of Hungerford, Berkshire, widow, aged 46 deposed 

Thomas Goddard of Hungerford, Berkshire, cordwainer, aged 60 states that the plaintiff 

married Sarah [Curr] about 6 years since; had heard John Curr say that his 3 daughters should 

be his co-heirs together to his estate. John Curr absconded and hid himself; later he went to 

live with the plaintiff [Barber] in Newbury. Mills was to allow John Curr board and also meat, 

drink and apparel for his daughter Anne until she was 16. 

Joseph Goddard, cordwainter of Hungerford, Berkshire aged 24, heard John Curr threaten he 

would make over his estate to Edmund Stephens, gent, of Hungerford on purpose to deprive the 

complainant of his portion; also that his daughters should be his co-heirs together. Mills had 

promised Curr a hundred pounds "but afterwards Curr could not get one penny of him either to 

buy him clothes or tobacco and was forced to thrash and kill wants [moles] to supply him with 

money." 

Edmund Stephens of Hungerford, gent, aged 50 (deposed again) 

Roger Richards, shoemaker, aged 60 or thereabouts, deposed that Mills had agreed in 1661 to 

give Curr £8 per annum for life and Mills to provide diet, lodging and maintenance while he 

lived with him. 

Will Dyer of Hungerford, brewer, aged 50 or over, deposed 

Kecwhiche of Hungerford, aged 46 or over deposed: Rebecca Mills administered goods 

of the estate of John Curr when he died.

P.R.O: C5/476/84 EL WES v HUSSEY (1669) 

Bill of Complaint: 

Sir John Elwes of Barton Court, Kintbury, Thomas Hawles of the Close of the Canons, 

Saram esq, Francis Mundy of Wickham, Berks, Doctor in Divinity, surviving executors of 

the last will, etc., of Thomas Husey, elder late of Hungerford Park, esq., also surviving 

executors of will of Thomas Husey younger, late of Moulsford, Berks, esq., son and heir of 

Thomas Husey elder, that whereas, he the said Thomas Husey elder being in his lifetime 

seised of several lands, tenements, etc., and several manors, etc., and having divers children 

and contracted a great debt to the end that his said estate might be settled for the payment of 

his debts and raising of provision(?) for his said children, by his indenture, dated 13 June 

1654 in consideration of 10 shillings did demise to Sir Robert Mason Kt, since deceased, 

your said orators, Sir John Elwes and Thomas Hawles and to Giles Hungerford, esqs., all 

the Rectory and Parsonage of Vorda (?) als Highworth etc., and rent charge of £200 p.a. 

payable out of Manor of Wootten Bassett during life of Sir Thomas Englefield, the rectory 

for 99 years, if Katherine Husey, his then wife, Thomas Husey and William Husey, his sons 

should so long live; and the annuity for 60 years if Thomas Englefield should so long live, 

on trust for Thomas Husey elder, during his life, and uses he (would stipulate) and after his 

death, the determination of such uses to be employed for payment of his own proper 

debts mentioned in his will and for payment of legacies, and after that in trust for William 

Husey, his second son. And by his other indenture dated 1 July 1654, he demised to Sir 

Robert Mason and Sir John Elwes and Thomas Hawles and Sir Giles Hungerford, all 

manor, rectory, etc., in Husborne Tarrant (Hants) And the site of the Rectory of Alton 

(Hants) and his farm called Barton Farm and all his manors and farms of Chilton Foliat. 

Haywood and Leverton. And all his manor etc called Anvilles and Sadlers in Wiltshire and 

Berkshire or 1 of them. And all the Rectory and Parsonage of Hungerford and all the 

messuage etc called Westcombe (Wilts) and all other messuages, lands, etc to hold to Sir 

Robert Mason etc for 21 years in trust for use as he should direct and after death etc (as 

previously) 

And about 3 July 1654 Sir Thomas Husey elder made his will and made Sir Robert Mason, 

Sir John Elwes, Thomas Hawles and Francis Mundy and Sir Giles Hungerford (who hath 

since in due forme renounced ) executors. And amongst other things therein, he devised 

yearly rent of £400 p.a. to Katherine his wife, for her life, out of Chilton, Heywood and 

Leverton, and £100 p.a. during her widowhood out of same lands. And further devised 

Highwood Blunsdon, Marston Bushton, Longford Ecclesia and the £200 rent out of manor 

of Wootton Bassett to son William, after his debts and legacies paid. And made mention of 

the aforesaid leases to Sir Robert Mason etc and left certain yearly sums for maintenance of 

his 2 sons and 4 daughters, Anne, Katherine, Mary and Cicely (£3,000 each for resp. 

marriage portions to be raised out of estate 

And for the more speedy payment of his debts he did further devise his farm etc in 

Freefolke and Freefolke Prior (Hants), his house etc in St Martins in the Fields to his 

executors to be sold. 

After all debts and legacies paid, then estate to be settled on his sons Thomas and William. 

And he appointed Jethro Tull gent to be servant to his executors as bailiff and receiver of 

his estate, to keep accounts etc, in recompense he left Jethro a yearly rent of £50 for life 

(See Will PCC). 

After making the will, about December 1657 Thomas Hussey elder died, and executors with 

full approbation of Thomas younger began administration. Thomas, younger, made his will 

24 April 1661 and among other things, gave to Sir Robert Mason and your orator £100 each 

and made them executors of his own will. He gave to Lady Katherine Mason, his mother an 

annuity of £200 and his sisters to have their marriage portions of £3,000 each out of his 

estate. And to Jethro Tull, an annuity of £30. Executors to hold lands (left by father to 

them for 21 years) for 51 years after the 21 years. Shortly after making the will he died and

executors for several years managed the trust with consent of William Hussey, now heir. 

They raised the £3,000 money for the girls when they married. And for better support of 

. the estate the executors have from time to time borrowed money on their own credit paid 

same for the renewing of several leases (eg) parsonage of Hungerford held of D.C. Win, 

and for Westcombe Farm held of Duke of Somerset. There was still a debt remaining on 

estate and upon executors themselves and William Hussey began complaining that he 

wasn't as much master of his estate as he ought to be, and that if it was in his own hands he 

could raise more money by letting the lands at a higher rate, etc. Thereupon executors 

about 5 years ago did let William receive the rents of the estate and take over management 

and didn't disturb him until they found he didn't manage the estate to best advantage, debts 

not dimished, etc, so executors wanted to take management back but William persuaded 

them to leave it to him a bit longer. An agreement made by Articles dated May 1668 

between William Hussey (named as of Anvills) one 1 part, and Sir Robert Mason of Bruton 

(Hants) with executors on the other part: Whereas executors were in debted to the sum of 

£11,500 above money due out of estate, it was agreed that within 1 year several lands, 

(listed below) should be sold by William Hussey, to pay off the debt. (Lands are: Chantry 

lands of Hungerford, Freefolk lands, Anvills farm and the meadow in Inkpen in occupation 

of Thomas Brigandine esq.) And if William didn't sell within 1 year, then the executors to 

have authority to sell. Meantime until the sale, all issues from Wootton Bassett, 

Hungerford Parsonage, and Westcombe Farm and of Husborne Parsonage in Co. South and 

city rents of Winton should be received by Jethro Tull and paid to Sir Robert Mason in right 

of his wife and annuity to himself (Jethro) and Annuity likewise due to Elizabeth Young 

widow. (Long details of provisos etc in Articles). William Hussey to receive issues of 

Highworth Blunsden and Marson. Then William Hussey pretended to have found 

purchasers and couldn't proceed for want of the deeds so executors handed them over and 

so William came into possession of the deeds of Husborne parsonage, Westcombe Farm, 

Hungerford parsonage, Highworth Blunsden and Marsdon and Wootton Basset and lands in 

Freefolk and Inkpen and Hungerford Chantry lands and since then William has taken all the 

rents etc from the estate. Also, there being some money due to the estate out of the lands of 

Edward Charles Stafford of Bradfield (Berks) esq deceased, securities thereof taken in 

name of executors on a bond (Money has been passed into estate but William won't give up 

the bond). Now William trying to place all debts on executors and take all receipts for 

himself. 

So beg for William Hussey to be compelled to join with executors in sale of estate to 

discharge debts, etc 

P.R.O: C8/222/22 Husev v Freke 15 May 1669 

Bill: William Husey of Anvills esq, heir of Thomas Husey late of Hungerford Park, Sir 

John Elwes of Barton, Thomas Hawles, Francis Munday, for and on behalf of Cicely Freke 

one of the daughters of Sir Thomas Husey, now wife of Thomas Freke of Shroton, Dorset 

esq. State that Thomas Husey on 3 July 1654, made his will, left Cicely £3000. Death about 

12 years since. William etc. to secure Cicely's marriage portion, entered into an obligation 

for £6000 to Cicely while unmarried (12 May, 17 Chas.II ?) Which now is conditioned for 

payment of the £3000 and interest as of yesterday. As part of marriage arrangement 

Thomas Freke agreed that £1000 should be left in William's hands for Cicely's own use. 

After marriage, he has refused to honour this and has caused the obligation of £6000 

penalty to be put in suit against your orators. (George Hewettt) 

Answer of Thos. Freke: Agrees about the £3000 and £6000. Says that in Sept. 1667 he 

made agreement of marriage between him and Cicely, that he should settle for the jointure 

of Cicely, the farm and demesne lands and parsonage of Cerne Abbas (£900 p.a.). But 

denies any other agreement. He has begun an action but will withdraw it if William pays 

up. Taken at Rauston, Dorset 2 June 21 Chas.II 

[N.B. There is a fragment of a document (C5/476/84) which refers to the Trustees of 

Hussey in 1668, but no further details.]

l+l 

P.R.O:C8/328/151 HAMLYN v BAKER 15 July 1671 

Mary Hamlyn of Shefford widow and executrix of Robert Hamlyn late of Shefford yeoman, 

deceased, states that R.H. was possessed of goods and "considerable personal estate". He 

had children by a former wife who were all of adult age. For the better preferment of one of 

his daughters, Rose Hamlyn, promised her a marriage portion equal to that of his other 

children's, if she married to his liking. But she married Robert Baker of the parish of 

Hungerford yeoman, contrary to R.H's liking. 

Robert Baker learnt that R.H. had given to one of his sons, John Hamlyn, £40 as a marriage 

portion, whereupon John made address to R.H. For £40 on behalf of Robert Baker. R.H. 

agreed, to avoid contention, to give Robert Baker and Rose a year's keeping at bed and 

board to the value of £20 at least, and also agreed to give or to lend to Baker certain goods 

and household implements or stuff viz: 1 stock or mow of barley, then valued at and well 

worth £20, 1 holland sheet, 15 yards of stuff, 1 bed, 2 feather bolsters, 1 feather pillow, 1 

rug or coverlid, 2 blankets, 1 pair of sheets, 1 milch beast or cow, 20 bushels of barley, 3 

stocks of bees, 2 ewes and lambs, 1 wether sheep, 3'/2 ells of lokram, and £5 in money. And 

40 days work done and performed by Robert H. with his team of horses and wagon and 

plough and servants for the said Baker. All of which was accepted in full satisfaction of 

Robert H.'s gift or portion etc but if the value amounted to more than £40 Baker was to pay 

the excess to Robert H. And the excess amounted to £40. Robert Baker has commenced a 

suit against Mary Hamlyn in the Court of Common Pleas at Westminster for the promised 

£40. 

C24/986Part2 Edward KEATE v Charles FOSTER 1673 

Interr 2: Were you present at the meeting at Hungerford of Sir John Elwes, Dr 

Munday and Mr Gunter with Charles Foster and this on 4 Oct 1672 and what was 

done in order to the sale of the prebend and parsonage of Husborne and lands there 

lately belonging to Thomas Hussey esq deceased 

Depositions Mich. 1673 from: 

John Loder of Welford, Berks gent aged 50 

Jethro Tull of Shawborne, Berks, gent aged 59 (sworn dep. 25 Nov 1673) 

Thomas Hawles, jun of Salisbury gent aged 33 

Sir John Arthers (or Archer) chambers in Sergeants Inn 

John Wilman (or Wildman) of Buscot Berks esq aged 46 offered to put the matter to 

the arbitration of Sir B Whitlocke 

Sir Jn A had lent £2000 to the trustees (of Thomas Hussey) upon the mortgage of the 

parsonage of Husborne payable by Mr George Petty(?) who had been formerly 

employed by the trustees and Mr Tull their agent. 

Sir J A sold interest to Charles Foster

C8/256/88 HOBBS v KEMBER Disputed will 15Novl675 

Bill: John Hobbs of Hidden, gent, son and heir of John Hobbs deceased late of Little 

Shefford, Berks yeoman, plaintiff versus Man Kember and Robert Hobbs 

John Hobbs I st had issue by his first wife, your Orator (his eldest son) and 3 other children, 

and by his second wife Mary Kember widow of Little Shefford had issue John Hobbs the 

younger and 2 other children. 

About 1 Nov 1653 "fell into so violent a disease it impaired his mind and he failed in his 

intellectuals when his then wife Mary Kember did procure and employ John Stroude of Great 

Shefford gent a great enemy to your Orator and Thomas Smith of Little Shefford yeoman who 

are both since deceased and Robert Hobbs of the parish of Kintbury yeoman to charge 

them to aid and assist her to work upon the weakness of her husband and to persuade, 

incite and induce him to make a will and thereby to disinherit your Orator his eldest 

son the said Mary Kember and her confederates well knowing the said John Hobbs to be 

naturally timorous and easy to be overawed and guided by fear did call him rogue, knave, and 

cheat, and threatened him she would go away from him and leave him alone in that helpless 

condition and that she would not give him any of the remedies his physician prescribed him if 

he did not seal a will she and her confederates had made " 

On his death bed they refused to let your Orator see his father but urged a contract upon your 

Orator, telling him he should enter a bond to make a lease to his father or his father's 

executors of the estate your Orator then had in a house and land called Barrow Hill from the 

assignment of his said father in his lifetime. Your Orator entered into the bond, fearing to 

displease his father. And soon after John Hobbs I st died and Mary Kember produced a will 

in which she was made the sole executrix and only 12d was given to your Orator who had no 

provision made for him in his father's lifetime, for although his father had settled some land 

on him in his lifetime by deed, it was charged with great sums of money to be paid out of it. 

He claims his mother, ie John Hobbs' first wife, had brought John Hobbs the most part of 

his estate when she married him. Thomas Hobbs senior of Hidden, yeoman the only person 

now alive (confederates John Strode and Thomas Smith being dead), whose name Mary 

Kember made use of as witness to the will doth utterly deny that he knew he ever was witness 

to it. (Thomas Hobbs sen. was brother to John Hobbs senior) Robert Hobbs has declared 

that it might safely be proved that the said will was a fraud, but will make no further 

discovery of his knowedge herein Will was dated 10 Nov 1653. 

Did Mary Kember give £40 to Mary Williams your Orator's sister or to her husband Adwyn 

Williams of Hungerford, dyer, not to oppose the will? Was it John Hobbs I's will that the 

legacy given to his 3rd daughter Sarah should not be paid for 8 years and so to leave her 

destitute? Was the demise of a house and lands called Smiths after Mary Kember's death 

intended for your Orator or to his brother John Hobbs III, Mary Kember's son, as John Hobbs 

I had often said it ought to go only to his first wife's child in respect of a trust reposed in 

him to that purpose by one Greenfield his first wife's aunt who purchased the said house and 

lands? 

Answer of Mary Kember: John Hobbs I had issue by her of John Hobbs III and ( blank ) and 

Jane and Mary Hobbs. John Hobbs II had offended his father shortly before his death 

because John Hobbs I had asked him to obtain a lease from Sir Robert Mason. 

John Hobbs I had bought an estate in Hidden for years determinable on lives of the yearly 

value of £20 and had entrusted John Hobbs II to draw up a lease thereof from Sir Robert 

Mason to John Hobbs I, but John Hobbs II had it drawn up made to himself and doth enjoy 

the same accordingly to this time. John Hobbs I desired John Hobbs II to give a bond that he 

would assign Barrow Hill worth £3 p.a. to his sister which he did, and since hath assigned the 

same accordingly. John Hobbs II had an estate worth £20 p.a. for 3 lives, charged only with 

the payment of £100. 4 children (out of 7) were left wholly unprovided for On 1 Feb 

1653/4 she proved will - about 21 years since. John Hobbs I owed £64 to Onesipherus Tapp; 

£10 to Thomas Shepherd; £20 to Thomas Holliday; £80 to Mr Young, his landlord for rent 

arrears; £20 to Joseph Blackman; £40 to Adwin Williams for the marriage of Mary his wife. 

[last few lines unfinished - also Inventory attached unfinished.] 

See also C8/564/14, and C5/120/79. Both Hobbs family Cases in 1696.

• P.R.O: C5/454/92 BUTLER v MUNDY 1677/8 

(re 12 Bridge Street) 

Bill: 

Thomas Butler of Hungerford Berks, ironmonger, and Joseph Butler of H. mercer, 

executors in trust of last will etc. of Samuel Waters, late of H. tanner: 

About 1648 one Mundy of Shalborne gent having several children and among them, 

Rowland Mundy, eldest son, and Margaret, dau., made his last will; made Rowland his 

executor, left him wholly in trust for younger brothers and sisters. 

Jeremy Purton of H. husbandman, about Feb. 1649/50, borrowed £50 + interest of Rowland. 

Samuel Waters stood surety of Jeremy Purton and became bound to Margaret Mundy for 

£100. Later Rowland demanded other sureties. Jeremy Purton paid up £10 and secured rest 

with a mortgage on a dwelling house in H. worth £8 per annum wherein Jeremy had estate 

for a great term of years on 2 lives. Rowland accepted this and said he would cancel the 

original bond of Samuel Waters. About 12 years since Rowland and Margaret entered the 

dwelling and since have always taken rents etc from Isaac Jinkins and other tenants, 

sufficient to satisfy the debt of £40. Now Margaret having married Henry Cooper of 

Hampton Court, Mddx gent, and Samuel Waters believing his bond cancelled, died about 1 

year since, left his estate £60, for use of poor relations in trust to the plaintiffs as executors. 

Margaret and Henry Cooper and Rowland M undy then tried to recover the bond and have 

made suit in Common Pleas at Westminster. Yet they are still taking rents of the messuage 

and Jeremy Purton is still living and able to satisfy the remainder of the debt. 

Bill signed by Wm Whitelocke 

Answer: (of Rowland Mundy dated 1678): 

Confirms the Bond was made. 

Further: in May 1652 Margaret intermarried with Henry Cooper; afterwards by indenture 

(14 Aug. 1652) between Henry Cooper on one part and Edward Mills, then of the Middle 

Temple London, gent, since deceased, and this defendant on the other part. This indenture 

included among other things the Bond and Henry Cooper promised not to intermeddle with 

it and that it should be a separate benefit to Margaret. Henry Cooper appointed Rowland 

and Edward Mills as attorneys to recover debts. Indenture 7 May 1658, Jeremy Purton 

demised to Isaac Jenkins, I messuage and appurts. on the West side of High St. with 

backside and garden, containing TA luggs in length and 1 lugg in breadth to hold from John 

the Baptist day next for 21 years, if the said Jeremy Purton or Jeremy Purton younger (son), 

so long live under yearly rent of £6, payable twice yearly. 

17 May 1660: Indenture between Jeremy Purton and Rowland Mundy recited the above 

indenture, recited also the marriage of Margaret and the indenture of 1652, that Edward 

Mills was then dead. In consideration that the debt was still owing and for securing the 

same, Jeremy granted Rowland the residue of the said term of 21 years to come with the 

proviso that Jeremy the elder should pay the moneys due, then the bond should become 

void. But this has not been done. Nor did he receive £10. What he has received is for the 

interest due not the principal. Interest was paid up to 19 Feb. 1665. He has received of the 

debt and interest £70.16s. from Jeremy Purton and Isaac Jenkins, minus £8.6s for charge of 

suit etc between Jeremy and others and Isaac Jenkins. 

Also he has had to lay out expenses on a suit brought against him (Rowland) by 

Bartholomew Tipping gent upon mortgage made to him by Jeremy (£28 ? 3s.) 

Answer signed: Sam Eyre (?)

P.R.O: C22/840/1 WITHERS v ELWES (1677) 

Depositions taken by commission at the dwelling house of Mr. Bell, commonly known by the 

name or sign of the Three Swans in Hungerford. 10 April 1677 

Robert Withers as the surviving executor of Sir Robert Mason, et al., complainants v. Sir John 

Elwes, John Wildman esq and other, defendants. 

Thomas GUNTER of [illegible] Berks aged about 43 years: 

Was present at several treaties concerning the sale of Husborne Parsonage and concerning the 

sale of the Anvills, the Chantry Lands and Hungerford Parsonage which lands were sold by the 

defendants for John Elwes, Francis Munday, John Wildman and Jethro Tull to several persons. 

The purchase price for and for Anvills £3600 but the deponent believes some abatement 

was made by the purchaser Sir William Jones in respect of exchanged lands. For the Chantry 

Lands £600 to one Mr. Hawkins or Mr. Draper. And Hungerford Parsonage, £2100 to Mr. 

Hawkins or his friend. And as for Sir Bulstrode Whitlock's debt this deponent understood the 

same to be £1000 principal money due to the estate of Mr. Hussey which money was long time 

detained (?) by Sir Bulstrode Whitlock on pretence of an incumberance on Chilton and other 

lands bought of them. 

Robert BEALE of Winchester innholder aged 37 years: 

Was formerly a servant to Mr. Hussey and to Sir Robert Mason in their respective lifetimes. In 

1668 Mason seised Barton Farm from Farmer (?) Webb upon the latter's defaulting. For about 

6 years the farm was managed for Mason by Anthony Osborne [ of Longparish, Hants aged 40, 

deponent]. 

P.R.O: C8/293/144 Hamlvn v Westall 3 Nov. 1680 

Answer of John Westall to Bill of Complaint of John Hamlyn 

Westall states that he does not know what William Reynolds the elder had contracted with 

William Hamlyn, the plaintiffs late father deceased. 

[References to property (messuage) in Inkpen and dates. Also involving William Benjamin 

who failed to pay the sum due on WestalPs mortgage so that the mortgage became absolute.] 

PRO: C22/920/23 Jethro TULL (of Mawberry) v Richard WEBB, Matthew BLACK esq 

And Katherine HAWKINS, widow 

[From internal references this concerns the Rectory and Parsonage and the Priory of St John 

as yet no other documents concerning the case have been found. But see Norman Hidden's 

article, Jethro Tull I, II, and III in 'The Agricultural History Review' Vol.37, 1989] 

1682-6 Deposition of Edward Brown : was tenant of Complainant for 4 years. 

In 1682 he re-roofed the chancel for Complainant (which was set off 

against his rent). In 1683 was disturbed and sued. 

1686-90 Deposition of Thomas Maslinge: was tenant until about 1690 and sent 

rent to Mr Hackett in London. He paid 8s 4d quit rent for the premises 

to the town of Hungerford.

1690-93 Deposition of Seymour Price : was tenant for 3 years ending Michaelmas 

1693. Says Robert and Thomas Holloway intruded on his tenancy, in 

that they plowed, dug and water-chanelled a meadow near Hungerford 

Church. Value of glebe lands = £25 p.a. 

John Ball, carpenter : confirms 3s 4d quit rent from priory due to 

Complainant under his lease from Mr Hackett; says Thomas Woodruffe 

was the possessor of the Priory. 

1695 William Watridge of Uphaven, Wiltshire, yeoman aged 70 - has known 

Complainant for about 20 years. Knew Richard Hackett for 18 years, 

knows rectory and parsonage of Hungerford and was tenant to the same 

for 23 years and sent large sums of money as rent to Mr Hackett and 

Mr Hawkins in London. 

It was the general report in Hungerford that the complainant paid 1 years 

rent for the rectory and parsonage of Hungerford beforehand to Richard 

Hackett, the rent being 1 peppercorn due the last year only of the term of 

lease of this deponent. Hackett claimed a quit rent of £3 4d p.a. to be 

paid to the Complainant from the Priory of St John the Baptist in 

Hungerford. 

The Complainant early in deponent's lease laid out £150 in ordering a 

new building, a farmhouse, barn and stable and also a room in the 

parsonage house. The premises in question are worth £30 p.a. more as a 

result, and during this time the deponent was tenant the Chancel 

belonging thereto was kept and maintained by the Complainant or on his 

order in good and sufficient order. Mr Simpkins did alter the seats in 

the Chancel for his own conveniency which was about 12s a yr damage 

to the complainant (for which Simpkins never paid compensation). 

Simpkins told this deponent he made this alteration at the request privily 

of Richard Hacket and Mr Hawkins. 

About 1683 Mr Wells then and now vicar of Hungerford disturbed Edward 

Brown the Complainant's tenant of the premises and prosecuted one or more 

suits at law in Equity for the Priory tithes belonging to the rectory and 

parsonage of Hungerford and that it had cost the complainant a considerable 

sum of money to defend same. 

Edward Brown of North Newington, Wiltshire, yeoman aged 50 years 

sworn on 17 October 1695, was a tenant of the rectory/parsonage under 

the complainant for about 4 years. In 1682 this deponent by order of 

the complainant did rip and new slate or tile all the chancel belonging to 

the said rectory and complainant did pay him for the same. In 1683 this 

deponent as tenant of the premises was very much disturbed in the 

possession thereof and sued both at law and in Equity for the Priory 

(other Answers same as W. Watridge) 

Thomas Maslinge of Oakshanger, Berkshire, yeoman aged 65 years 

sworn 18 October 1695, was tenant to the parsonage under the 

complainant until about 1690. While he was tenant he paid by the 

complainant's order £40 p.a. to Mr Frances Buckeridge in London for

the use of Mr Hackett for part of the rent of the premises; these were 

left in good order until midsummer 1691. He paid 8s 4d quit rent for 

the premises to the town of Hungerford. 

Seymor Price of Kintbury yeoman aged 40 has known rectory for 4 3 /4 yrs 

and was tenant of the premises under the complainant for 3 years, 

ending in Michaelmas 1693. Says that Robert Holloway and Thomas 

Holloway sometime before St Thomas' Day entered by order of the 

defendant and plowed the ground and digged up a meadow near 

Hungerford church to water the same, thereby this deponent was 

deprived of his bargain and forced to carry away his cows before his 

time expired. Says value of glebe land rents was near £25 p.a. 

John Stacy of Hungerford, Berkshire, bricklayer, aged 50 - repaired 

slating on chancel during the end of the lease term of Seymor Price. 

Robert Waters of Sannam Green, parish of Hungerford in Berkshire 

Aged 30. (occupation not given) 

John Ball of Hungerford, Berkshire, carpenter, aged 60 plus has known 

Tull for 20 years or more. Complainant demanded a quit rent of 3s 4d of 

the late Priory due to him under his lease from Mr Hackett. Saith that 

Thomas Woodroffe the possessor of the Priory [document illegible here] 

/barn and stable erected at Horse Close part of the premises. Ball was 

employed to erect same. 

made several alterations in the seats of the chancel belonging 

to the parsonage house for his own conveniency and broke up the 

ground and buried his wife and child there. 

gent of in the parish of Hungerford, Berkshire aged 

about 75 years 

Thomas Robinson of Hungerford, Berkshire, brazier, aged 50. 

[Notes on Deponents: 

William Wolridge in October 1695 aged 70 of Upavon, Wiltshire, yeoman 26 Nov 1671 at 

Hungerford married Alice Payne, his first wife Sara having died 6 April 1671. 

John Ball of Hungerford, carpenter. Baptised 1632, John,son of John Ball jun. 

Thomas Robinson aged 50 brazier. 1665/6 married Ann Underwood. 1686 married Jone Burch. 

Mr Simpkins: 1682 buried Jeffery son of Mr Jeffery Simkins. 1692 buried Ann wife of Mr 

Jeffery Simkins. Marble stone memorials in pavement of chancel and in chancel (according to 

Thomas Hayward's account of Memorials, p.25). 

Joseph Wells vicar November 1681 - 1725] 

There is also a further document, C22/920/24 in 1698, TULL v WEEDON which contains the 

deposition of John Tull of Bradfield (nephew of Jethro Tull I): 

His brother Jethro Tull II had had possession of the parsonage of Hungerford and its tithe and 

worth about £200 p.a. for 8 or 9 years (from Jethro Tull I) and the tenants paid their rent during 

this time to Jethro I. 

— 

^ 

—._

P.R.O: CIO 284/39 JACKSON v MANCHESTER 1692 

Bill of Complaint 10 June 1692: 

Henry JACKSON of Shalborne Berks, yeoman and Ann his wife, relict and executrix of the 

will of John TALMAGE late of Shalborne Berks, made 10 November in the 22nd year of 

King Charles II: 

He gave to John Talmage his eldest son, £20 if his executrix and Thomas MANCHESTER, 

his overseer should find he would prove a good and provident husband. If not, only 1 shilling 

and the money to be divided between his other 2 brothers and sister. 

He gave to Benjamin Talmage his second son, £100. To Thomas Talmage, his youngest son, 

£80. To Elizabeth Talmage, his daughter, £50. Shortly afterwards John Talmage died. 

By indenture of 25 September 23 Charles II, 1671, between Ann Talmage (1st part), and 

John STROUD of Kingsbury Berks, tanner and Thomas Manchester of Shalborne Wilts, 

mercer (2nd part), reciting that there was owing to your oratrix from Daniel DOVE of Ham 

gent, 1 annuity of £10 for five years. Also payable to her from Robert WALROND of 

Baydon gent an annuity of £12 for 5 years. And from John PICKERNELL of Buttermere 

yeoman, £35 per annum (all deeds of mortgage). Your oratrix, by this indenture secured 

these for payment to her children. 

Then John Stroud, but more especially, Thomas Manchester, took the money for themselves 

and other money owing to the late John Talmage from one KNOWLES. 

Benjamin and Thomas have brought a suit against their mother for the legacies. 

Answer of Thomas Manchester: 

At the time of the sealing of the indenture, John Stroud and Thomas Manchester agreed that 

Mr Edmund STEPHENS of Hungerford who drew up the said indenture of Trust and was a 

person then much imployed in letting out money, should be their manager of the said Trust 

and should from time to time account to Anne Jackson and should have custody of all deeds 

etc and receive moneys from the annuities and put them to interest. 

Among other sums put to interest by Edmund Stephens there was lent to one Simon 

BENNETT and his brother Lemuel, who became bound on a penalty of £34 (18 March 

1673) 

In 1674 Anne assigned to the defendant and impowered him to sue to recover to his own use a 

certain debt on bond owing to the testator by one Henry Knoles. After a long suit, the 

defendant recovered £33 of Knowles and applied the money as expressed in the Indenture of 

Trust. And he has discharged the total sum of Trust (£203 3s. ) as follows: 

To John Talmage: £20 

To Benjamin Talmage: £91 

To John WOODROFFE (in his right of Elizabeth his wife, late called Elizabeth Talmage): 

£45 

To Thomas Talmage in money: £25 13s. 6d; and for £20 more this defendant assigned to 

him a bond entered into, unto the said defendant and John Stroud by Sir Bulstrode 

WHITELOCKE and Thomas BUTLER, of the penalty of £60 for payment of £30 and interest 

of which £20 was then due and unpaid. 

And the defendant lent to Anne to pay Edmund Stephens for drawing up the writing, 20s and 

other loans (itemised) 

Therefore there is no case against him. 

(Answer taken 19 October anno William and Mary quart(?) coram Daniel Stockwell and J. 

Simpkins. 

signed Thomas Manchester)

P.R.O: C8/564/14 Disputed Will of JOHN HOBBES April 1696 

[N.B. See previously the Case in 1675: Hobbs v Kember] 

Attorney general by relation of Richard SARE and Stephen PEARCE, churchwardens and 

Thomas ROBINSON and William BELL overseers of the poor: 

That on 10 February 1675 John HOBBES of Newtown in the parish of Hungerford yeoman 

being then sick of the sickness whereof he died at his own dwelling house in Newton etc 

made and delclared his last will nuncupative as follows: "I give all that I have unto my wife 

and after her decease I give it to the poor", meaning the poor of the parish of Hungerford 

where he lived and died, but named no executor. 

At the time of his will and of his death Hobbes was possessed of a personal estate consisting 

of divers sums of ready money and of money lent upon bond and of his household goods, 

utensils of husbandry, cattle, corn, grain, wool etc of the value of £600 and upwards. Also of 

a messuage or dwelling house and of 40 acres of land in the same parish, Berks, value £18 per 

annum which he held by lease for 99 years and for some other term determinable upon the 

respective deceases of Mary WILLIAMS and Jane SPARROW 

Antonia (Untonia?) Hobbs widow immediately on his death caused the nuncupative will to be 

put to writing and within 3 months of his decease proved this will in the court of the Dean of 

Sarum who hath episcopal jurisdiction in the parish of Hungerford. 

Untonia died about 2 years since intestate, and from thenceforth the rents etc ought to have 

applied to charity, but John Hobbs of Wickfield in the parish of Little Shefford, Berks 

yeoman, in combination during her lifetime with Untonia and after her death with divers 

others endeavoured to frustrate the charitable intentions of the donor and alleged that John 

Hobbs the donor had assigned in writing the property to him (i.e. to John Hobbs of 

Wickfield). 

C5/120/79 SARE etc v John HOBBS 28 October 1696 

By relation of Richard Sare and Stephen Pearce church wardens of Hungerford and of 

Thomas Robinson and William Bell overseers of the poor in the parish of Hungerford 

10 January 1675 (Note: in document above, the month is given as February) John Hobbs of 

Newton, yeoman being sick of the sickness whereof he died at his dwelling house in Newton 

and being then of sound and mind and perfect memory did in the presence of divers 

credible witnesses make and declare his last will nuncupative in these words viz 'I give all 

that I have to my wife and after her decease I give it to the poor of the said parish of 

Hungerford' where he lived and died but named no executor in the said will and why the 

same and every part should not be employed and applied accordingly. May it please your 

Lordships to grant unto Her Majesty's Attorney General process of s(ub)p(en)a also directed 

to the said John Hobbs and other the confederates when discovered, thereby commanding him 

and them. Signed: Thomas Atrenor. 

Answer of John Hobbs. brother of the deceased 

John Hobbs died of a violent fever. Admons 29 Feb 1675 (19 days after the death) granted to 

Untonia Hobbs widow.

She obtained a second admon or probate 2 May 1676 

At his death John Hobbs was possessed of several leasehold tenements, viz 1 indenture of 

lease dated 14 Oct 1649 made by Robert Mason of the sum of £50 to be paid by John Hobbs 

the elder, father of the deceased, by name of John Hobbs the younger of Wickfield Farm near 

Little Shefford. Berks, yeoman for sum of £50 and of this defendant to the said Robert Mason 

all that parcel of arable land called Oatfield containing 40 acres in Hidden then in occupation 

of John Hobbs the elder and John Hobbs for 99 years on lives of John Hobbs deceased Mary 

Hobbs now Mary Williams and Jane Hobbs now Jane Sparrow, daughters of John Hobbs the 

elder at a yearly rent of 20s witnessed by John Blagrave farmer of Little Shefford since dead, 

and Hugh Banes. Both Mary and Jane are still living. 

One other indenture of lease dated 10 May 1661 made by Sr Robert Mason to John Hobbs the 

son (deceased) in consideration of the surrender of a former lease made by Thomas Husey esq 

to John Hobbs the elder and for consideration of all that arable ground called Wyldes Clos 

now called Wedge's Close containing 8 acres in Hidden for 99 years on life of John Hobbs 

himself and Unton his wife, which term expired on death of Unton Hobbs. 

Also one other indenture of lease dated 1 Mar 1661 made by Sir Robert Mason to John Hobbs 

the son, of a messuage in Great Hidden and all that piece of ground lying on the east side of 

the barn and garden belonging to the messuage cont. la. And also a piece of ground lying on 

the west side of the messuage cont. la. For 99 years on the lives of John Hobbs (the son) 

deceased and Thomas Hobbs of Newtown yeoman now living and of Unton Hobbs deceased. 

Thomas Hobbs is now very aged. 

Unton Hobbs by indenture 3 Mar 1692 in consideration of the true and faithful service of this 

defendant sold to him the parcel of land called Oatfield and also the messuage above 

mentioned and also various household items [a complete inventory of her house I should 

think!]. Sealed, Mr Edward Serle of Newbury and Mr John Butler of Hungerford witnesses. 

The aforesaid Oatfield and the messuage are now in the possession of Bartholomew Curtis at 

a yearly rent of £16.10s pa. 

Unton Hobbs died on or about 11 June 1693, having made her will which this defendant is 

ready to produce. 

[For further details of the Hobbs family, see 'Norman Hidden Collection' (H.H.A): File 

entitled 'Individuals H-M'] 

PRO: C5/120/14 CHILVESTER v (WASTRELL? WESTALL?) 18 May 1696 

Bill of Joseph Chilvester, of Hungerford, yeoman: 

For several years together in the lifetime of Sir William Jones, [Chilvester] did rent of 

him a certain farm and lands in Avington, commonly called Radley Farm. He [Sir Wm.] was 

succeeded on his death by Richard Jones his nephew then and still an infant under age 

[guardians: Sir Richard Harte of Hannam, Glos; Richard Normansett[??] Of London, gent; 

and Mary Jones, mother]. Tenants and ancestors had rented farm for 100 years upwards. He 

[Chilvester] agreed to continue his tenancy with another piece of land thrown in, on an annual 

basis and a rent of £80 p.a. until Feb. 1689 when he had paid all arrears except about £50. He 

went to London and in his absence the farm was taken possession of by others and his goods 

and commodities taken and disposed of, to one Wastrel etc

C5/321/50 Disputed estate POCOCK 24 May 1704: 

Anne Pocock daughter of John Pocock of North Standen parish of Hungerford Wilts, yeoman, 

an infant under the age of 1 and 20 years represented by Richard Pocock her brother. On 11 

November 1696 John Pocock's father made his will and bequeathed to Anne £350. His 

executor disposed of the freehold. 

[Call number???] ABBOTT v JAMES 1711(?) 

The dispute between Rev Robert Abbott of Kintbury and Francis James concerns the boundary 

between Kintbury and Hungerford in the Lott Acre, Lott Meadow and Woodmarsh area. 

Depositions on behalf of the Plaintiff: 

Richard Sharpus of Hungerford Berkshire, shoemaker, aged 59 years (or thereabouts) deposed 

that the Complainant has been vicar for 27 years, this deponent being witness to his induction 

because he was clerk of the parish. 

Between 30 and 40 years since when Mr Robert Abbot was vicar, this deponent then also clerk 

of the parish, went with Mr Abbott and about 20 or 30 of parishioners in a procession to view 

etc the bondaries of the parish. When they were going round the common meadows called 

Woodmarsh whereof the acre in question is parcel, in regard that the water was then in 

Woodmarsh, Mr Abbott declared that they could not safely go round the Woodmarsh to take it 

into their perambulation, the water being then almost knee high in Woodmarsh Meadow. 

Edmond Pearson, before examined on behalf of Frances James deposed that he has known the 

meadow and the acre in question for 50 years. The acre has been adjoinging the common 

meadow and only divided from it by 2 or 3 stakes to distinguish it as a landmarke from other 

parts of the meadow. He knoweth not whether the River which runs between Lott Acre and 

Lott Meadow doth divide the two parishes of Kintbury and Hungerford, but saith that the said 

river as well above as below the acre does divide the two parishes. Kintbury is 2 miles East of 

Hungerford. No part of Kintbury on the South of the river is nearer to Hungerford than the 

East part of Hungerford Down except a meadow called Lock Mead, which he believes to be in 

Kintbury. Does not know but believes Lock Acre lies in Kintbury. 

Depositions of Defence Witnesses - taken at the house of John Platt, victualler, in Kintbury 16 

October 9 Anne 

Margery Parrocke of Charnham Street widow aged 68, lived many years in Denford Mills. Her 

mother rented the tithes of 1 acre of meadow with the lands for about 20 years, her first 

entrance being about 40 years ago, from the vicar of Kintbury (except the meadow of 

Coulshams) 

Robert Patv of How Beenham, yeoman, aged near 60 years says he lived for about 20 years 

near the Dun mills and used to float and water the meadow acre. James has owned the mills 

and 1 acre for about 14 years. The tenant of the Mills acre of meadow with other lands thereto 

belonging served the office of tithing man every 3rd year. 

Edward Lovelake of Kintbury, yeoman, aged 59 or over also deposed. 

Further depositions for the defence were taken at the house of Sarah Bell, widow, called the 3 

Swans. 16 October 9 Anne: 

Thomas Simons of Shalborne, miller, aged 80 or over, lived as servant to Elizabeth Pearson 

widow for about 21 years and managed them as servant of Mrs Pearson, who rented them from 

Alexander Chocke, esq at £30 per annum. 

In respect of Coulshams 6d per annum in lieu of tithe was paid to the Dean of Sarum, which 

this deponent hath seen paid.

Cll/1331/5 MUNDY v MUNDY 1718 

Depositions in the case of Seymour Munday gent, versus Richard Mundy gent. Taken at 

the house of John Colver known by the sign of the Harrow at Shalborne, Wilts 10 June 

1718, before John Beale, Henry Latham, result of a Commission to them and to Francis 

Sadler and Walter Harvey, gents. 

Deponents:= Henry Morris yeo. of Collingborne, aged 79 years 

Daniel New yeo. of Little Bedwyn aged 88 y. 

Daniel Dove gent of Shalborne aged 60y 

John Flewell chyrurgeon of Shalborne aged 52 y. 

John Norris wheeler of Shalborne aged 40 y. 

William Kember yeo. of Harwell yeo. aged 53 y. 

Mathew Imber of Winchester gent aged 67 y. 

William Cheyney of Hungerford, mercer aged 38 years (defendant) 

Thomas Brunsden of Marl borough, mercer aged 40 y. 

Scory (Story?) Hall of Overton wheelwright aged 66 y. 

Thomas Lawrence of Chipping Lamborne, yeo. aged 50 y. 

John Payne of Great Bedwyn, labourer aged 40 y. 

Ann Marshall of Hungerford, singlewoman aged 40 y. Servant to Richard 

Munday. (Testifies to his possessing beds, sheets, napkins etc.) 

Francis Manchester of Little Bedwyn, tailor aged 63 y. 

Nicholas Haye of Shalborne yeo, aged 70 y. 

John Purton of Shalborne laborer, aged 50 y. 

John Bunce of Shalborne tailor, 47 y. 

Dan. Stockwell of Shalborne clerk, aged 61 y. (see below. Age or dates 

mistranscribed?) 

John Chapman of Combe, Hants, yeo, aged 75 years 

Stephen Norris of Shalborne wheeler, aged 38 y. (lives in mansion house 

called Rivers) 

Others, then: 

Thomas Munday of Hungerford, Berks gent son of Richard Munday aged 36 

years. 

P.R.O: Cll/19167 26 Sir Jennett RAYMOND kt. v Francis GODDARD esa (1719) 

Depositions taken at the house of Robert Ellett (?) commonly known by the sign of the 

Three Swans Inn in Hungerford, the 2nd, 3rd, 4th days of February 1719. 

Robert SMITH of Clapton, Kintbury yeoman aged 69 years, on behalf of the complainant: 

Knows a way called the Causeway and bridges made over certain water meadows belonging 

to Barton Place in order to prevent persons passing over the same with horses. The estate of 

the complainant crosses 3 rivers or streams of water by bridges and was a private way. 

Walter WASE of Chilton Foliat yeoman aged 80 plus 

William ANDREWS of Boxford, Berks, yeoman: 

(Earl of Craven mentioned) 

William BURTON of Kintbury, the elder, bricklayer aged 72 years 

*Joseph MITCHELL of Hungerford, Berks, innholder aged 67 years 

Edward TANNER of Kintbury, yeoman, 73 years 

George ELLY of Kintbury, tailor, 67 years 

William HAZLE of Avington, yeoman, 90 years

Richard COLE of Kintbury, yeoman, 70 years 

William BLUNDY of Kintbury, yeoman, 79 years 

Thomas PATY of Eddington, Hungerford, yeoman aged 60 and upwards. 

Thomas ELGAR of Kintbury yeoman, 59 years 

Roger GRATER(?) of Kintbury yeoman, 44 years 

Robert FIELD of Elcost(?) parish of Kintbury, yeoman, 60 years plus 

William BELCHER of Elcost yeoman, 59 years 

John ELGAR of Elcost yeoman, 45 years 

Cll/437/17 STURMER v BLAGRAVE & others 1720 

18 October 1720 (7 Geo.I): Depositions taken at the Bear Inn, house of Edward Glass in 

Charnham Street, Wilts. (Nothing more transcribed) 

Cll/2760/4 Wm.SHERMER v Jn.SPANSWICK et al. 1721 

Thurs.8 June 1721: Depositions of witnesses on the part of the defendant, taken at the 

house of Elizabeth Tarrant situate in Lambourn [in front of] Edmund Medlicott esq, 

Seymour Richmond, William Boote and one John Gilbert, gents. 

Mary Chalke of Leverton widow, 55 years: [says] William Shermer was brought in custody 

of John Page, bailiff of Newberry to the deponents house being the sign of the Swan in 

Leverton. She understood he was under arrest for £50 at the suit of the defendant, 

Blagrave. Blagrave asked her to get Spanswick to come to him (and to lend him £50). She 

sent neighbour for him. Spanswick would not lend the money unless Henry Parkes would 

join with him. But Parkes went out pretending to advise with one Mr Bigg whether he 

should do it and while he was away Shermer persuaded Spanswick to accept a bargain and 

sale of his goods. 

Henry Parkes of Soley in Chilton Foliat yeoman aged 30 years: on advice of Mr Bigg 

decided not to lend £50. He was present when some sheep comprehended in the bargain 

were delivered to Spanswick by Shermer. 

Richard Jeneway of Chilton Foliat, tailor aged about 40 years: saw sheep and one silver 

spoon delivered. 

Elizabeth Spanswick of Lambourn Woodlands spinster aged 20 years, daughter of 

defendant Spanswick: Spanswick refused to reap Shermer 's wheat as payment. 

Robert Blagrave of Chipping Lambourn, scrivener aged 50 years: is well acquainted with — I 

the handwriting of Joseph Blagrave, his son and one of the defendants. 

i__j 

"J

C11/1902/7 SWAN v. JORDAN 1722 

Depositions taken at the Red Lion, Lambourn. Monday 2 April 1722 

Fettiplace of Rook's Nest, Chipping Lambourn 

Charles Anderton of Chilton Ffoleat upholsterer aged 60+ 

Thomas Liddiard of Hungerford Berks, maltster aged c.40 

Edward Glass of Hungerford Berks innholder, 44 years 

William Coffer of Hungerford, maltster aged 30 

Edward Lucas the younger of Hungerford, Berks mercer, aged 27 years 

[Very long list of debtors and debts owed by Fettiplace gent to local tradesmen. Useful 

material from social point of view] 

Cl 1/1349/1 ALLEN and BANKS v. RICHMOND, etc 

(John Allen, John Banks v. Ann Richmond, Jane Seymour, Thomas Walford and Toby 

Richmond) 

17 May 1722 

At the Bear Inn, house of Edward Glass, Hungerford, Wilts 

[No Hungerford witnesses. Case about payment for bark by tanners] 

Cl 1/1893/10 Thomas AMBROSE v Samuel WATLINGTQN 1722 

17 November 1722: Depositions taken at the Red Lion, Lambourn, concerning tenancy and 

farm in Up Lambourn. 

Jane Taylor wife of Stephen Taylor, of East Garston, maltster, aged 33 

Stephen Taylor husbandman of East Garston aged 60+ 

William Palmer of Up Lambourn, yeoman aged 42+, tenant of the farm 

John Ambrose of Haywood Farm, Chilton Foliat, Berks, yeoman aged 28y 

P.R.O: C11/1345/6 (8?) EARLY v PLOTT 1724 

[The dispute seems to be about a copyhold tenancy in possession of the complainant, 

William Early] 

Declarations of witnesses were taken at the house of Robert Eliot, known by the name or 

sign of the Three Swans in Hungerford, Berks on Monday 7 December 1724. 

Francis POPHAM of Wellington, Somerset gent aged about 40: 

Says that he hath heard that Edward Plott is dead [but] "he does not know of what age he 

was at the time he departed this life". 

Jane SMITH of Froxfield widow aged 60 or thereabouts: 

Edward Plott died about four and a half years ago 

William TARRANT of Froxfield yeoman aged 40 years and upwards 

Thomas WOODROFFE the elder, of Hungerford Berks, plumber aged about 55 years: 

States that Edward Plott the grandfather, deceased, declared that the life of the defendant

Millicent Burton (his daughter) was in the cops hold provided the defendant Henry Burton, 

her husband, would give a bond to pay Edward and Alexander Plott, sons of Amy Plott. 

Edward KIMMER of Chisbury, parish of Little Bedwyn, yeoman aged 27 

Nicholas KIMMER of Froxfield, yeoman aged 35 

Thomas YOUNG of Hungerford Berks, schoolmaster aged 40 or upwards 

Joseph WALTER of Marlborough gent, steward of the manor of Froxfield, aged about 34: 

Refers to the will of Sarah, Duchess of Somerset who settled the manor on a trust to provide 

an almshouse for 30 poor widows. Edward Plott the grandfather died about the end of April 

1720, aged about 80 years. 

Edward GOLDING of Littlecot gent aged 40 years or thereabouts 

*Henry BURTON the younger of Charnham Street, blacksmith aged 32 or thereabouts 

Joseph BASTAR of Bagshot in the parish of Shalborne aged 48 plus 

*John BUTLER of Hungerford gent aged 60 or thereabouts 

Edward SAVAGE of Froxfield, gent aged about 50 years 

[Many other names mentioned en passant.] 

Portion of will of Edward Plott: [mentions] Henry Burton senior, husband of Millicent, 

blacksmith of Charnham Street. 

Bequests to Edward Dismore of Froxfield yeoman, Stephen Smith of Froxfield yeoman, 

Andrew Curr(?) of Froxfield blacksmith; to grandchildren, Edward and Alexander Plott, 

all the profits and interest in one dwelling called the "tann-house". 

The property in question involved Gunter's Ground, a dwelling house, a shop in the 

possession of Elizabeth Keate widow. 

P.R.O: Cll/2316/22 Depositions in MUNDY v SMITH Case 1729 

Seymour MUNDY gent, John Norris and John Bunce, plaintiffs versus Edward SMITH, 

Joanna MUNDY and Henry ABBOTT. Refers to events of 1727. 

Depositions taken 5 January 1729 at the house of Edward GLASS, called The Three Swans. 

John KING of H. Berks bodice maker aged 60+. He, together with John FORTY late of 

H. yeoman deceased, appraised the value of the Complainant Mundy's goods on his estate at 

Rivers, Shalborne (listed) including plate which was brought from Complainant's house by 

the defendant Abbott to the house of Edward Glass in H. and was there weighed and by 

weight valued at 5s. per oz. 

John JENNINGS of Bagshot, Shalborne, labourer aged 65+ 

Elizabeth wife of William IVY of Great Bedwyn, yeoman; aged 25+ 

John ADAMS of Buttermere, wheelwright aged 40 or thereabouts. 

Thomas KING of Shalborne aged about 60 

Thomas SELBY of Butteremere victualler, 69 

William COLLY of Shalborne shepherd, 35 

(and many other Shalborne witnesses) 

William COFFER of H. Berks, maltster, 35 

Daniel STOCKWELL of Shalborne, clerk, 40+ 

James FIELD of H. Berks, wheelwright, 53+ 

John WHINEATT of H. Berks, saddler, 30+ 

Edward GLASS of H. Berks, innholder, 50+ 

Thomas MUNDY the younger of H. Berks, gent, 23+, nephew of Seymour and of Joanne 

Mundy, grandson of Richard Mundy deceased. 

William CLIFFORD of H. Berks, cordwainer, about 50

John KING of H. (again) 

Thomas EASTMOND of H. Berks, brewer, 60+ 

Thomas ROBINSON of H. Berks, yeoman, 43. 

Cll/1910/22 MASLING v MUMBY 1730 

6 April 1730 (3Geo.II): Case heard at the George Inn, Lambourn. 

P.R.O: Cl 1/1364/15 HARRIS et al v GODDARD etal 1733 

John Harris and his wife Mary, George William Goddard, Frances, Mary, Edward, and 

Sarah Goddard by the said John Harris their next best friend versus Catherine Goddard, 

widow, Edward Hanson, William Gylion, and Thomas Weekly(?). 

Depositions taken 7 January 1733 at the house of Thomas Liddyatt: The sign of the Three 

Swans in Hungerford. 

For the Defendant: 

William DANCE of Marlborough, Wilts, tyler aged 60+, says he knows the 4 messuages in 

Cliffe Pypard belonging to Francis Goddard deceased.... 

John POTTER of Cliffe Pypard, yeoman, 50 years.... 

Thomas PONTIN of Cliffe Pypard, yeoman, 40 years.... 

Edward LUCAS of Hungerford, mercer, about 40 years, says he has known the 

complainant Harris for 5 or 6 years and his wife for 20 years and her children George 

William Goddard, Frances, Mary, Edward and Sarah for several years. He has known the 

Defendant, Catherine Goddard for 20 years. He knew Francis Goddard, formerly husband 

of Mary Harris, he being this deponent's godfather who died January 1724. Before 1719 

Francis Goddard was not looked on as a moneyed man, rather in debt, but in 1720 he sold 

his estate in Standen Hussey to Francis Stonehouse for £20,000. Edward Goddard 

deceased, was late husband of Catherine and brother of Francis Goddard. After the death of 

her husband, Francis Goddard, Mary Harris re-married John Baker (servant to Francis 

Goddard - (manager) 

Thomas BAKER of Lamborne gardener aged 40 years 

John WHYNEAT of Hungerford, sadler, 40+ (death of Francis Goddard = 20 Sept. 

1725) 

Robert HILLMAN of Priors Court, Chieveley esq, 47 years, (married to Francis Goddard's 

sister) 

Anne RAWLINES of Collingbourne Kingston Wilts, widow of John Rawlins deceased 

Thomas MUNDY of Hungerford Berks gent, 50 years, son-in-law of late Jefferey 

SIMPKINS of H. gent: Knew Henry Latham heretofore of H. gent, Penelope Mundy, late 

wife of Thomas, Alexander Thistlethwaite late of H. gent with whom T.M served more 

than four years of his clerkship 

John BUTLER of H. Berks gent, 69 years: Francis Goddard died at Chiswick about 9 

years ago, buried at Cliffe Pypard aged 60+. Mary Goddard 20 February 1724 sent for this 

deponent, (M.G. was then wife of Edward Goddard deceased) to come to her dwelling 

house in H. Berks 

Edward HANSON the elder of H. Berks yeoman aged 60+

Edward HANSON the younger of H. Berks maltster aged 38 years says that this deponent 

living with his father who rented Francis Goddard's estate in the next house to the said 

Edward Goddard and also married with a relation of the said Edward's first wife 

Anne MORGAN spinster, later E.H.'s wife but spinster 27 September 1714 His father, 

who rented the estate lived in the next house to Edward and Francis Goddard and married a 

relation of Edward G.'s wife. Mary Goddard widow, married John Harris about 6 weeks 

after her husband's death. 

Note: Francis Goddard baptised April 1657 son of Edward Goddard and Bridget his wife. 

P.R.O: Cl I/27827 21 LOVELOCK als Livelock v GILMORE et al 1738 

Dors: 20 April, 13 Geo.II by the hands of William Beles, one of the commissioners. 

Depositions of witnesses procured etc, at the house of John PIKE innholder of the 

sign of the Three Swans in Hungerford on Friday 14 April 1738 in a cause wherein William 

Lovelock otherwise Livelock complainant and Elizabeth Gilmore widow and others 

(including Walter Curl) defendants. 

Deponents for the complainant: 

Thomas WILKINS of Buttermeer Wilts, tailor, aged 82 years plus: 

[about a messuage in Buttermere called Ballards, part of the manor of Buttermere] 

After the death of Walter Curll senior, the messuage was held of Walter Curll the defendant 

by Margery Ballard widow, daughter of Walter Curll 18 years ago when Walter Curll sold 

to Terrell(?) esq, then to Gavin(?) Vaughan and then to Mr Grey of Wantage, receiver of 

rents. 

The deponent knew Gabriel Whistler of Comb, Hants, Richard Traffics of Winchester, 

Joan Ayscough of Combe widow, all signatories of a deed with Alexander Thistlethwaite, 

late of Hungerford gent deceased and Jonathan Knackstone of Hungerford gent deceased. 

Other names: John Heather, Sarah Goddard, John Barratt, Rowland Mundy, Mary Church, 

Richard Westmacott of Combe, Stephen Barton, John Livelock late of Buttermere, 

Elizabeth Blake, Henry Woolford(?). 

Henry TUCK of Hungerford, Berks, victualler aged 50 years plus: 

Knew Alexander Thistlethwaite and John Garlick late of Hungerford, tallow chandler 

Edward HANSON the elder of Hungerford Berks, gent aged 68 years plus: 

He knew Sarah Goddard deceased, late wife of Robert Wilman (?) of Priors Court Berks 

esq, and John Barrat late of Hungerford, servant to Alexander Thistlethwaite, and Francis 

Hoare. 

Thomas WINTER of Hungerford Berks, glover aged 75 years plus : 

He knew Jeffery Simpkins late of Hungerford gent, and James Simpkins late of Hungerford 

gent, witnesses to the sealing of the deed by Lovelace Bigg esq, one of the parties. He also 

knew Robert Jacob of H., gent. 

Elizabeth COXHEAD (wife of John Coxhead of Charnham Street, Wilts yeoman), aged 56 

years: 

Knew Thomas Hawes the younger of Ramsbury and John Watts of Ramsbury 

Mary PIKE wife of Thomas Pike of Hungerford Berks, lately called Mary Church aged 56 

years 

George GARRARD of Hungerford Berks gent aged 46 years: 

Elizabeth Curll is the deponent (defendant?) Elizabeth Gilmore 

John BEACH late of Buttermere, now of Kintbury yeoman aged 84 years plus

Deponents for the Defendant: 

Thomas SILBY of Buttermere, yeoman aged 73 years 

Joseph GILMORE of Marlborough grocer, aged 30 years (son of Elizabeth Gilmore) 

John BEACH (already sworn for the complainant) 

Cl 1/1935/16 MORGAN v MORGAN 1741 

Inheritance dispute. 

Depositions were taken at the house of George Church innholder,known as the Bear situate 

in Charnham Street, Hungerford, Wilts. On Monday 5 October 1741. 

C24/1602 BOYCE v WITHERS 1747 

Depositions on behalf of Withers esq one of the defendants at the suit of Dame Sarah 

Boyce. 

Sworn 2nd June 1747 (Burgis): 

Thomas Hayward of Hungerford Berks gent and now residing at the house of Mr Lechmere 

(?) in Cursitor's Street, Chancery Lane, Middlesex, being produced: 

To lst,2nd,3rd interrogs: says that he doth know the parties, complainant and defendants in 

the title of the interrogs named and hath known them for the space of 8 years and upwards, 

and saith that he hath looked upon a parchment writing, being an Indenture tripartite now 

produced (A) and upon deed pool indorsed thereon (B) and on paper writing (C) and that he 

was presented and witness along with Mrs Eleanor Baily, widow of Rev Mr Baily, rector of 

Cadbury near Sherborne in Dorset and did see the said indenture, signed, sealed, delivered 

by def. Sir John Boyce, the complainant, Dame Sarah Boyce, the Rev Mr John Boyce and 

William Porter, gent (4 of parties thereto) and saw Sir John Boyce sign receipt for £2000 

and the said Mr John Boyce and Dame Sarah Boyce and William Porter sign the receipt for 

5s apiece; and endorsed it as a witness with his signature. 

He did see £2000 paid by defendant Andrew Miller esq to him the said defendant Sir John 

Boyce and believes he also saw the sum of 5s apiece paid by Mr Miller to the complainant. 

And further sayeth he was likewise witness with Walter Pencutt, servant to defendant Sir 

John Boyce and saw B & C 

Signed Thomas Hayward 

Michael Brodribbe(?), aged 18 and clerk to Mr Thomas Warde of Bartlett buildings 

Holborn, attorney at law, testifies to documents produced (?Inner Temple?) 

PRO C12/276/34 HIDDEN v HIDDEN (Abstract) 4 November 1754 

Bill of Complaint presented by John Hidden 4 November 1754 otherwise Clidsdale eldest 

son and administrator of the estate of his deceased father Jonathan Hidden, late of 

Hungerford, button maker. 

Jonathan Hidden and his brother Thomas were "entitled in moiety to and possessed of a 

messuage or tenement (with the outhouses, buildings, barns, stables, gardens, orchard and 

ground thereof) known as The White Bear Inn "situate lying and being in Charnham 

Street", for the remainder of a term of 1,000 years. They "divided the same between them

and sometime in the year 1738 let the Inn. etc to John Pike for and during the term of six 

years and for the rent of £10 a year". 

It would seem that "the said Inn and the premises belonging thereto being then much out of 

repair" the brothers agreed to undertake repairs, upon which John Pike should have his 

lease reviewed "at a considerable larger rent" - "for some further short term". 

Jonathan entrusted his brother Thomas "to do and look after the repairs", "at their equal 

expense". The expense came to £139.13s.9d, a sum of which Jonathan "always 

disapproved and complained of. 

Nevertheless, John complains, the value of the rental was now worth at least £30 a year. 

But it was Thomas who received all the rents from the beginning of that year 1738 to the 

time of Jonathan's death in June 1750. It was Thomas' claim that he was applying the rent 

received to payment of Jonathan's share of the expenses of £139.13s.9d. At this time 

Jonathan was described by his son as being "in necessitous circumstances", and Thomas 

"got into his custody all the deeds and writings relating to the Inn and premises". No 

monies were ever paid by Thomas to Jonathan. On being granted by the P.C.C. 

Administration of his father's estate, (1750) John applied to his Uncle Thomas for an 

account of his father's share in the Inn. Thomas claimed "about ten years ago" as part of a 

general settlement involving 'divers transactions' between them, "they came to some 

account of the same" and there being some balance due from Jonathan to Thomas, Jonathan 

assigned to Thomas his share of the Inn "for securing the same". John denies this and asks 

for the written evidence (if any) to be produced. Thomas Hidden and John Pike claim there 

is in existence an agreement whereby Pike should hold the premises from Lady Day 1745 or 

1746 at a rent of £12 per annum, renewable for a further six years if Pike gives one year's 

notice in writing, then for 8 years more at the same rent and at one year's notice. John 

claims this as collusion, and that his father refused to accept any share of such "under rent" 

as £12 per annum. John claims that Thomas Hidden "being afraid of having disputes with 

John Pike" set his mark to some paper drawn up by Pike's attorney, and Thomas Hidden not 

being able to read or write" (states John). 

Jonathan Hidden, John claims "would never join in any act whatsoever to confirm or to 

show that he had agreed to the letting of the Inn at "any such under-rent as £12 a year", and 

requests that Thomas Hidden and John Pike may set forth whether Jonathan Hidden "did 

ever by one act or by signing any instrument in writing or otherwise consent" to it. 

Pike had claimed to have "laid out considerable sums in the repairs of the Inn and premises" 

and threatened to "take away, pull down and remove" a brewhouse, a woodhouse, "an 

outhouse built for holding peat ashes, the door at the front of the kitchen, the shed over the 

door, and the materials of a large stable heretofore a coach house, and the fruit and other 

trees in the garden" and also other buildings. 

John submits that his witnesses "who could prove the truth of the premises are either dead 

or in parts beyond the seas". 

The Bill of Complaint is signed Jno. Browning 

PRO C12/276/34 Answer of Thomas Hidden defendant: 

May 1721 - Thomas Nobes deputy postmaster of Hungerford purchased from Stephen Biss 

an old Ale House, Barn Court and Garden in Charnham Street ("parish of Hungerford and 

County of Wiltshire") then late in the tenure of Elizabeth Vick widow "who in the said old

Alehouse and premises used to entertain poor travellers". On this site now stands the White 

Bear Inn. 

At the time of Thomas Nobes' purchase the rent had been £4 per annum. Nobes made some 

minor improvements to the house and converted the barn to a stable. Nobes applied to and 

borrowed £100 from John Hidden "now deceased who was the father of his, this defendant 

(Thomas Hidden). 

By Indenture dated 11 April 1721 Nobes sold to John Hidden for 1000 years, but remained 

in possession until 1724. The premises were then let to Sarah Street at £5 per annum who 

occupied the same as the "Three Swans Inn" until January 1738. John Hidden died 1736, 

having made his will dated 28 June 1736, appointing his sons Jonathan and Thomas Hidden 

executors and thereby gave them the residue of his personal estate. Probate granted 5 July 

1737 P.C.C. By Indenture 16 March 1738 made between Jonathan Hidden cordwainer and 

Thomas Hidden button maker (sons of John Hidden, button maker) and John Pike of 

Hungerford, butcher the Inn was let to Pike for a rent of £6 per annum for a lease of six 

years. Thomas Hidden states the renewal of lease was not signed by Jonathan. On 13 

January 1745 an account was drawn up by Thomas Young, vestry clerk of the parish of 

Hungerford as a result of which it appeared that £87.10s.4d was owing by Jonathan to 

Thomas and Jonathan signed a memorandum that this balance should be taken out of 

Jonathan's share of rents of the White Bear and that he would join with Thomas in granting 

the new lease to John Pike. 

Agreement 6 February 1745. Thomas Hidden now admits that the sum of £87.1 Os.4d was 

wrongly calculated by his attorney (Jonathan being charged with total cost of repairs instead 

of half) and should be reduced to £47.13s.5d (which include personal loans of £5.8s.0d 

from Thomas and £5.10s.7d from John Pike, a loan discharged by Thomas). Thomas pleads 

the earlier and false statement of the debt owing was due to his inability to read and write 

(and therefore having to rely on his attorney). He claims John Pike gave verbal notice four 

months ahead of time "in William Pike's garden in Hungerford" of his intention to renew 

the lease for another six years, but Thomas "forgot that it was necessary the said John Pike 

should give such notice aforesaid in writing". This omission Thomas attempted to rectify 

by accepting a signed notice of renewal dated 25 March 1752 (to commence 5 April 1753) 

witnessed by Joseph Smith and Mary Pike (wife). A valuation by "an experienced builder" 

gives the value of John Pike's repairs and additions as £212.9s.5d as they stand, or 

£88.4s.2d were they removed. The Answer was taken and sworn by Thomas Hidden on 

oath at the White Bear Inn 9 August 1755 

Commission George Trease 

Joseph Early Thomas Hidden 

Thomas Hayward Mark 

Signed Edmnd Hoskin 

A Schedule is appended of the Amounts due etc by Jonathan Hidden to Thomas Hidden 

In July 1745 the sum of £47.13s.5'/2d 

In April 1755 it has been reduced to £42.0s.9'/4d 

In addition to Interest on the original loan @ 2% 

Jonathan also pays !/2 of Window Tax, Poor Rates, Quit Rent, Land Tax; various legal 

expenses, and repairs or improvements. He also received a loan of £4.1 Os.Od in 1745. 

Taxes amounted to about £1 a year, interest in the first year to £1 .Os.9!4d. The greatest 

expense was the series of odd jobs undertaken e.g. in 1749 'moiety Thomas Willmer the 

Carpenter's Bill for work' - £2.18s.8'/2d.

In 1754 Thomas debited Jonathan with £12.9s.0'/2d as a moiety of a Bill of Repair paid to 

John Pike over the years 1745-1751, setting poor Jonathan or his son John back almost as 

far as ever. 

Answer of John Pike defendant 

1. Almost a carbon copy of Thomas Hidden's answer (except item 4 below) 

2. William Pike, son 

3. Thomas Young "now deceased". 

4. Pike claims he was not present or involved in the mistake to the account of debt 

supposed to be owed by Jonathan Hidden to Thomas Hidden and disassociates himself from 

this matter. Signed John Pike 

Commissioners as before Signed Thomas Hopkins 

wi 

3

Abingdon: 4 

Aldbourne: 33 

Alscott, Oxon: 23 

Alton (Hants): 45 

Anvilles (Hanvilles): 28,45-46,50 

Ardington: 16-18,25 

Argaston: 20 

Armetington: 15 

Avington: 33,55,57 

Bagshott: 43,60 

Barrow Hill: 48 

Barton: 45,46,50,57 

Basingstoke: 3-4 

Bear Inn, The: 13-17,58,59,63 

Bedwyn: 43,57,60 

Belvoire, Castle of: 36 

Benham: 44 

Bently Wood, Wilts: 19 

Beydon: 9,53 

Boscombe: 23 

Boxford: 57 

Bradfield: 46,52 

Bridge Street: 49 

Bristol: 2 

Bruton (Hants): 46 

Bucklebury: 32 

Buscot: 47 

Buttermere: 53,60,62-63 

Cadockston (Glamorgan): 43 

Causeway, The:57 

Cerne Abbas: 46 

Chantry Lands: 34,50 (and see also 

Hungerford, Chantries) 

Charnham Street: 10,11,29,30,41-42,56,58,60 

62,63-66 

Chieveley: 61 

Ghilton Foliat: 5,11,31,45,50,57,58,59 

Chiserburye: 31,43,60 

Chiswick: 61 

Clapton (Kintbury): 57 

Cliffe Pippard (Cleeve Pepper?): 33,61 

Cole Henley Farm: 33 

Collingbourn: 33,57,61 

Combe: 57,62 

Coulshams: 56 

Crookes (Acre): 31,37 

Crossfield Close (Shalborne): 43 

Cumnor: 12,20,25 

Denford: 2,56 

Index of Places 

Devizes: 27 

Down Ampney, Glos: 23 

Dun Mills: 56 

Eastgarston: 34,59 

Ebbersley (Ibsley), Hants: 31,32 

Eddington: 58 

Elcot: 58 

Enborne: 33 

Estburye: 22 

Freefolke: 45-46 

Frith, The: 5 

Froxfield: 33,43,59-60 

Fyfield: 23 

Godingefield: 28 

Greenham: 19 

Gunter's Ground: 60 

Ham (Wilts): 53 

Hampton Court: 49 

Hannam (Glos.): 55 

Harvest Close: 28 

Harwell: 57 

Haywood Farm: 45,59 

Henley Farm: 33 

Hidden: 3,6-10,12-26,41,42,48,55 

Highwood Blunsdon: 45-6 

Higheworthe: 6-10,45 

Holborn (London): 63 

Homedewe: 11 

Hopgrass: 4,11,29 

Horse Close: 52 

How Beenham: 56 

Hulle, La: 28 

Hungerford: 

Manor of: 36 

Engleford, Manor of H.: 37 

High St (messuages) 

The Breach 

Chantries: 4,34,46,50 

Church: 38-42,51-2 

Hungerford Down: 56 

Park: 45-6 

Priory, The: 35,45-6,50-52 

Property: 1,2,10,11,29,30,31,33,34,36, 

38-42,44(?),45,48,49,50-52, 

55,59(?),61,63-66 

Rectory & Parsonage: 45-6,50-52 

The Swan: 37 

The3Swanns: 50,56,57,59,60,61,62

The Town Hall: 36 

The White Bear Inn: 63-66 

Husborne (Parsonage): 45-6,47,50 

Inkpen: 11,28,29,30,34,45-6,50 

Inner Temple, London: 34 

Kintbury: 28,36,48,52,53,56,57-58,62 

Barton Court: 45 

(Kintbury) Eagle: 4 

Holt 

Inglewood 

LaHulle: 28 

Lambourn: 33,57,58,59,61 

Leckhampstead: 33 

Leverton: 45,58 

Littlecote: 28,29,31,33,60 

Longford Ecclesia: 45 

Longparish: 50 

London:9,12,14,22,30,32,34,36,37,40,41, 

42(Westminster),44,45,47(Sergeants 

Inn),49,50,51,55,63(ChanceryLane) 

Lott Acre & Meadow: 56 

Maidencot: 33 

Marlborough: 43,57,60,61-62,63 

Marston Bushton (Marsdon): 45-6 

Mawberry): 50 

Mill Mead: 33 

Moulsford: 45 

Newbury: 19,32,34,37,43,44,55,58 

New Inn Without Temple, London: 22,23 

Newtown (Hungerford): 54-55 

North Newington (Wilts): 51 

Oakhill: 43 

Oakshanger: 51 

Oatfield: 55 

Overton: 57 

Oxford: 2,3,14,33 

Pewsey: 4,25 

Portsmouth: 35 

Priors Court: 61,62 

Putkins: 18 

Queen's College: 14,33 

Radley Farm: 55 

Ramsbury: 43,62 

Index of Places 

Rauston (Dorset): 46 

Rawdon, Wilts: 37 

Sadlers: 45 

St Frideswide, Priory of: 3,14,25 

St Martins in the Fields, London: 45 

Salisbury (New Sarum): 12,14,31,35,45,47 

SandonFee: 30,31,43 

Sanham: 37,52 

Shalborne: 4,11,28,32,33,37,43,47,49,53,56,57, 

60 

Shefford: 2,4,9,22,32,33,47,48,54-55 

Sherborne (Dorset): 63 

Shroton (Dorset): 46 

Smiths: 48 

Soley: 31,58 

Standen: 37,56 

Standen Hussey: 61 

Steeple Ashton: 30 

Steeple Cleydon, Bucks: 34 

Stock: 13-19,23-24 

Streatley: 32 

Undy's: 11 

Uphaven: 51,52 

Wedges Close: 55 

Welford: 47 

Wellington (Somerst): 59 

Westbury: 27,32 

Westcombe: 45-46 

Westcott 

WestHendred: 18,24 

Wickfields Farm (Wike Fields): 32,54-55 

Wickham: 45 

Winchester: 50,57,62 

Winterbourne: 20 

Winton: 46 

Wolfreston: 6 

Woodhay: 4,16-18 

Woodmarsh: 56 

Wootten Bassett: 45-6 

Wyldes Close: 55

INDEX OF PERSONS 

[There may be more than one entry on a page] 

Abbott: 56,60 

Adams: 43,60 

Allen: 59 

Ambrose: 59 

Anderton: 59 

Andrews: 57 

Arth«rs(Archer): 47 

Atrenor: 54-55 

Audley: 4 

Ayscough: 62 

Bacon: 25,27,28,29 

Baily: 63 

Baker: 11,29,47,61 

Ball: 33-34,41-42,51-52 

Ballard: 62 

Balle: 43 

Bampton: 2 

Banes: 55 

Banks: 59 

Barber (Barbour etc): 1,44 

Barnes: 31 

Barnett (Barrett?): 43 

Barrett: 42,62 

Barton: 62 

Bastar: 60 

Batt: 27,37 

Beach: 62-3 

Beale (Beles?): 50,57,62 

Beck: 19-26,28,43 

Belcher: 58 

Bell: 50,54-55,56 

Benger: 9,10,25 

Benjamin: 50 

Bennett: 53 

Bigg: 58,62 

Birch (and see Byrche etc): 40-42 

Birt: 40,41-42 

Biss: 64 

Black: 50-52 

Blackewell: 43 

Blackman: 48 

Blagrave: 55,58 

Blake:62 

Blande: 16-26 

Blundy: 58 

Blunt: 11,29 

Bocher: 1 

Bond: 23-26 

Boote: 58 

Boyce: 63 

Brabant: 13-26 

Bradford: 36 

Braye: 4 

Brendy: 2 

Bridges: 9,33,34 

Brigandine: 46 

Bright: 3 

Brodribbe(?): 63 

Bromley: 30 

Brouker (Brooker): 30 

Brown: 35,50-52 

Browning: 64 

Brunsden: 57 

Brynde: 29 

Brynklow: 28 

Buckeridge: 51-52 

Bunce: 57,60 

Burch: 52 

Burgis: 63 

Burton: 57,60 

Butler: 49,53,55,60,61 

Butt: 41-42 

Byrche: (Burche etc) 5,33,34,36 

Byrd: 5 

Caesar: 38,40 

Cannon: 33,38-40,41-42,43 

Carleton: 29 

Carpenter: 32,36,40,41-42 

Carrente: 20-26 

Cawley: 31 

Chadsey: 43 

Chalke: 58 

Chaloner: 34 

Chapman: 57 

Cheyney: 1,4,16-26,39,57 

Chilvester: 55 

Chocke: 16-26,33,37,56 

Church: 62,63 

Clarke(Clerke): 16-26 

Clifford: 12-26,60 

Clowdes: 42 

Clydesdale (etc) see Hidden 

Cockett: 9 

Coffer: 59,60 

Cole: 58 

Collins: 30 

Colly: 60 

Colt: 3 

Colver: 57 

Coocke: 31 

Cooper (Couper): 28,43,49

Cotes (Cootes): 22-26 

Cotterell: 2 

Cox: 43 

Coxhead: 62 

Craven, Earl of: 57 

Croke: 2 

Curl: 62 

Curr (Curre): 10,11,30,32,37,41-42,43,44,60 

Curtoys (Curtis etc): 18-26,33-34,39,43,55 

Cyston (Byston): 5 

Dale: 22-26 

Dance: 61 

Danyell: 15-26,28 

Darrell: 11,28,29,31 

Dibley: 32 

Dighton: 1 

Dismore: 60 

Dolleds: 15 

Dove: 53,57 

Doyley: 9 

Draper: 50 

Drewe: 1 

Drinkwater: 30 

Dyer: 1,44 

Dymer: 23-26 

Dysmars (Dismore?): 23-26 

Dytton: 5 

Early: 43,59,65 

Eastmond: 60 

Edes: 34 

Edward(e)s: 5 

Eldred: 36 

Elgar: 36,58 

Eliot: 59 

Ellesmere: 33,35 

Ellett: 57 

Elly: 57 

Elston: 36 

Elwes: 45-46,47,50 

Elyse: 2 

Englefield: 45-46 

Essex:: 28 

Eyre: 49 

Fabian: 43 

Felde: 3 

Fetiplace: 2,59 

Field: 15,36,37,41-42,58,60 

Fisher: 11 

Flewell: 57 

Fo(r)ster: 12-26 

Forty: 42,60 

Foster: 4,47 

Fowke: 39 

Fowler: 43 

Frankleyne: 8 

Freke: 46 

Gamage: 30 

Gardiner: 33 

Garlick: 62 

Garmy: 41-42 

Garrard (Gerrard): 11,28,62 

Garrett: 29 

Gastrell: 34 

Gilbert: 58 

Gilmore: 62-3 

Glass: 58,59,60 

Glover: 1 

Goddard: 16-26,30,33,37,38-40,41-42,44,57, 

61-2 

Golding: 60 

Gough (Goffe etc): 11,33-34 

Grater: 58 

Greenfield: 48 

Grey: 62 

Gunter: 47,50,60 

Gylion: 61 

Gyllot: 17-26 

Hacker (Hakker): 2 

Hackett: 50-52 

Hadley: 5 

Hall: 43,57 

Hamlyn: 47,50 

Han ley: 4 

Hanson: 61-2 

Harris: 61-2 

Harrold: 36,41-42 

Harte: 55 

Harvey: 57 

Harwode (or Marwode?): 2 

Hasell: 22-26 

Hart: 11,33,42 

Hawkins: 50-52 

Hawes: 62 

Hawles: 45-46,47 

Haye: 57 

Hayward: 1,10,11,52,43,63,65 

Hay wood: 41-42 

Hazle: 57 

Heather: 62 

Hedache (Hedige): 30,33-4 

Hertford: 43

Hewett: 46 

Hidden (& variations) :6-10,12-26,28,31,35, 

40,41-42,63-66 

Hillman: 61 

Hinton: 40 

Hippesley: 15 

Hoare: 62 

Hobbes(Hobbs): 42,48,54-55 

Holliday: 48 

Holloway: 51-52 

Holmes: 37 

Holton: 40 

Hopkins: 66 

Hosier: 41-42 

Hosskin: 1,65 

Houlton: 41-42 

Hungerford: 12-26,36,37,38,40,43,45-46 

Hunt: 11 

Hussey (Husey): 45-46,47,50,55 

Hychman: 11 

Imber: 57 

Iremonger: 28 

Ivy: 60 

Jackson: 53 

Jacob: 62 

James: 56 

Jeneway: 58 

Jenkins: 49 

Jenning (Jenyn etc): 1,38-40,43,60 

John(?): 1 

Johnson: 2 

Jones: 50,55 

Jordan: 59 

Keate: 47,60 

Kecwhiche: 44 

Kember: 32,48,54,57 

Kendrick: 37 

Kimmer: 60 

King: 60-61 

Knackstone: 62 

Knapp: 20-26 

Knollys: 36 

Knowles: 53 

Lane: 4 

Langfield: 42 

Langworth: 1 

Langsloo: 4 

Latham: 57,61 

Lawrence: 57 

Layley: 41-42 

Lechmere: 63 

Liddiard: 59 

Liddyatt: 61 

Loder: 47 

Long: 43 

Level 1: 2 

Lovelake (Lovelock etc): 5,42,44,56,62 

Lucas: 36,37,39-40,59,61 

Ludlow: 1 

Lundon: 29 

Lyster: 41-42 

Mackerell: 36,37,41-42 

Maile (Mayle): 5,34,38-42 

Manchester: 53,57 

Manners: 36 

Marshall: 43,57 

Martin: 43 

Maslinge: 50-52,61 

Mason: 2,33-34,45-46,48,50,55 

Marwode(?): 2 

Mayhew (Mayewe): 2 

Medlicott: 58 

Meryvale: 31 

Miller: 63 

Millington: 37 

Mills: 43,44,49 

Mitchell: 57 

Monday (Mundy): 11,29,43,45-46, 47,49,50, 

57,60-62 

Morgan: 62,63 

Mumby: 61 

Mylles: 11 

Nalder: 4 

New: 57 

Nobes: 64-5 

Normansette: 55 

Norris: 57,60 

Northcrafte: 41-42 

Osborne: 50 

Page: 58 

Palmer: 44,59 

Parke(s): 28,58 

Parrock: 4,56 

Parry: 36 

Pasche: 43 

Passager see Dyer 

Passion: 27,31-32,39-40,41-42 

Pattels: 15

Paty: 56,58 

Payne: 52,57 

Pearce: 54-55 

Pearson: 56 

Pencutt: 63 

Petty: 47 

Peyntour: 2 

Pickernell: 53 

Pike: 62,63-6 

Platt: 56 

Pledge: 4 

Plott: 59-60 

Pocock: 56 

Pole, de la: 2 

Pontin: 61 

Poore: 11 

Popham: 33,59 

Porter: 63 

Potter: 61 

Pottinger: 33,39 

Price: 51-52 

Purton: 49,57 

Rawlines: 61 

Raymond: 57 

Reynolds: 50 

Richards: 44 

Riche: 4 

Richmond: 58,59 

Riman (Ryman): 32,41-42 

Robinson: 52,54-55,61 

Rogers: 1 

Ronanger: 3-4 

Rutland, Earl of: 36 

Sadler: 36,57 

StLeger: 32 

Sandes: 41-42 

Sare: 44,54-55 

Savage: 60 

Searle: 55 

Selby: 60 

Seymour: 37,43,59 

Seyney: 43 

Shafpus: 56 

Sheffe (Sheaffe): 36 

Shepherd: 48 

Shermer (Sturmer?): 58 

Shotesbrook: 1 

Silby: 63 

Simons: 56 

Simpkins: 51-52,53,61,62 

Skyner: 8 

Smith (Smyth): 31,40,41-42,48,57,59,60,65 

Snell: 23-26 

Somerset: 46 

Spanswick: 58 

Sparrow: 54-55 

Stacy: 52 

Stafford: 46 

Stephens: 44,53 

Stocker: 4 

Stockwell: 53,57,60 

Stonehouse: 61 

Street: 65 

Stroud(e): 22-26,48,53 

Sturmer (Shermer?): 58 

Swan: 59 

Swayte: 23-26 

Sweete: 43 

Talmage: 53 

Tanner: 57 

Tapp: 41-42,48 

Tarrant: 58,59 

Taylor: 59 

Terrell: 62 

Thistlethwaite: 61,62 

Thorley: 31 

Tipping: 49 

Traffics: 62 

Trash: 43 

Trease: 65 

Tuck: 62 

Tukhill (Togull,Tuggill etc): 1,2 

Tull: 45-46,47,50-52 

Underwood: 52 

Vaughan: 62 

Verulam: 33 

Vick:64 

Wade: 30 

Waite: 41-42 

Walford: 59 

Walker: 12-26 

Walrond: 17-26,53 

Walshe: 15 

Walsingham: 31 

Walter: 60 

Ward: 63 

Wase: 57 

Wastrell: 55 

Waters: 49,52 

Watkins: 14,25

Watlington: 59 

Watridge: 51-52 

Watts: 62 

Webb: 11,36,50-52 

Weedon: 52 

Weekly: 61 

Wells: 51-52 

West: 41-42 

WestaIl(Wastrell?): 50,55 

Westbrook: 5 

Westmacott: 62 

Wheteacre: 27 

Whineatt (Whyneat etc): 60,61 

Whistler: 62 

White: 11,28 

Whitely: 1 

Whitlocke: 47,49,50,53 

Whitmore: 36 

Whittington: 29 

Whitway: 43 

Wilkins: 62 

Willard: 11 

Williams: 5,11,29,48,54-55 

Wilman(Wildman): 47,50,62 

Willmer: 65 

Wilmot: 6-10 

Wilson: 5 

Winter: 62 

Win-all (Worrall): 34,36,38,40,41-42 

Withers: 50,63 

Woodruffe: 51-52,53,59 

Woolford: 62 

Woolridge: 44,52 

Worram: 43 

Wren: 22-26 

Wynchcombe: 32 

Wynchester: 2 

Wynslow: 1 

Yeo: 36 

Yonge: 30 

Younge: 42,46,48,60,65-66

Vol.1 Court of Chancery 1431-1755 - Hungerford Virtual Museum

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?