Goadby’s History of Loughborough Chapter 4

In this blogpost, we continue the story of Loughborough as presented by journalist Edwin Goadby back in 1864. In this chapter, chapter 4, Goadby discusses life – particularly trade and travel – in the fourteenth century.

As previously mentioned, for the most part, I've kept the text and the layout as it appeared in the original newspaper serialisation, although have split some of the text into separate paragraphs to aid reading. I've added a few explanatory notes at the end, if I think these might be useful. In the 160 years since the original publication appeared, there have been many more discoveries and revelations about Loughborough's history, and some terminology will have changed, so some of the information contained in this article will be wrong: I have not tried to amend these in any way, so reader, beware!

 

THE HISTORY OF LOUGHBOROUGH FROM THE TIME OF THE BRITONS TO THE MIDDLE OF THE NINETEENTH CENTURY.

Chapter 4 Trade and travelling in the fourteenth century.

In: Loughborough Monitor 13 October 1864, pg 5

Chapter IV The Feudal system oppressive to the Trading Class - No security for Person, Land, or Goods - Danger of being abroad after Curfew - Murder of William of Loughborough, in Leicester, etc. - A Specimen of a Trader's Grievance, in the case of Richard Calf, of Loughborough - Danger of Travelling on the King's Highway - A Merchant Robbed and Slain, returning from the Market - Bad state of the Roads in and about the Town - Dispute about the Repairing of Cotes' Bridges, and how settled.

____________________________________

The Feudal ages are stirring times to look at through some martial romance, read in a cosy nook by a bright fire on a frosty night, but they were miserable enough to live in, unless one were a mighty baron or a doughty retainer. The castles were bold, picturesque-looking objects, no doubt; the jousts and tourneys [1], excellent; adventures, daring and plentiful enough; and the women handsome, the men stalwart, the children hardy; but for all that it was not an agreeable period for an honest man to live in.

Provisions were cheap and pretty plentiful, and a man could build his own house, spin his own garments, grow his own corn, kill his own cattle, and brew his own beer if he pleased, subject to a few manorial imposts. And yet, being an honest man, he would find it a queerish age that he had been born into, and had to do a man's work in. "Honesty is the best policy," was a maxim as yet undiscovered. Many men tried hard to discover it, and failed. Indeed, how trade, excepting that concerned with eating and drinking, ever managed to struggle into a respectable existence at all in these days, is a puzzle to all our political economy. The trader did somehow vindicate his right to be, in this bickering Barondom [2], and we admire him for it, but he had to submit to robbery, spoliation, violence, and occasional incarceration for his imprudence. Now and then he thrived, and got patronised by the warriors, as a man who ought to have been a jolly baron but had missed his vocation. In the small towns this was painfully evident, but in larger ones it was not so bad. In fact, a burgess [3], who carried a short sword with him, as a final piece of constitutional law, was not a man to be spirited away at the sight of a suit of mail and a poleaxe [4].

Outside of a fortified town matters were different. A man wore side-arms just the same, but he rarely used them except to wound his neighbour in a drunken brawl. In the city, tradesmen were protected, but out of it they were treated as individuals expressly created for baronial experiments, in the spirit of that celebrated aphorism of Lord Orford's [5], which describes timber as "an excrescence on the face of the earth, placed there by Providence for the payment of (gentlemen's) debts". This may seem humour now, but was sternest fact then. Magna Charta [6] was a fine thing, but it did not cure the Barons of their injustice.

We have already hinted at one or two inconveniences resulting from this system, as to corn-grinding, market tolls, and the like. But matters did not end there, and we can never know the amount of petty tyranny our townsmen had to bear in their daily life and trade. A Loughborough tradesman of the thirteenth and fourteenth century was a happy man if he had no other grievances than those just named, and went to church in a thankful spirit, as became him, on the Sabbath Day, and sold his commodities, and reared his children honestly and well. But, unfortunately, there were others who had no honesty, and did no work, and they hung about him perpetually. After the curfew had sounded - and it is but a few years since it left off sounding - such villains stole from their hiding places and made their spoil of his property. If he ventured out of doors, they waylaid him, and if he stayed at home, they might burn him out of his house, and chuckle over his hard earnings and captured goods. If pursued, the thick forest sheltered them, and the game sustained them. It was a rare time for thieves and poachers.

No doubt the manorial Lord had some protective kind of an institution for the town in the shape of a watchman, who hung about the market cross, stamped along in thick-soled jackboots, and made weather notes, like an accomplished member of a meteorological society. But so long as the Lord himself claimed all the waifs, that is, the stolen goods, left or thrown away by the felon when pursued, his interest could not be said to be identical with that of his vassals [7] and tenants. Neither life nor property could be secure in this general lawlessness. It might be that your neighbour wanted a little more land, or a few heads of cattle, that the Lord's bailiff was short of money, or some noble baron found that his retainers were getting overfed and wanted exercise; all a man could do was to grin and bear it. We do not say there was no redress for these grievances, or that Loughborough was in any way worse off than other towns. One of the benefits derived from that local parliamentary representation which Simon de Montfort brought about, was a pretty direct communication of these evils to Parliament, and their amelioration, if possible; and as one of the Dispensers was his associate and confidant, there is good reason to suppose that, in his time at least, such evils would hardly exist. That they did, however, after his death, is easily shown by facts.

Such facts as have come down to us are not very extensive, but they suggest a great deal as to the actual conditions under which they could occur. Here is an adventure that happened to a townsman at Leicester. Now, Leicester was walled, well ruled, and garrisoned, and if such an affair could happen there, it plainly shows what a spirit of misrule would sway in a smaller town open to waste lands on every side, and with only a semblance of municipal government. The event happened in 1301, on the night of St. Stephen's. William of Loughborough was in Leicester, but whether occasionally or not, does not appear, and was proceeding, after the curfew had tolled, along the lane near to the Church of St. Martin, and had reached the Church of the Grey Friars, when he met one Adam, a groom in the service of Lady Pitchford, in company with Richard the Smith, of Leicester. No provocation or altercation ensued, yet Adam immediately drew his bow, shot William of Loughborough with a barbed arrow just above the belt, and then fled. His companion the Smith, then drew his sword, and struck the wounded man across the left hand, leaving his fingers hanging by the thumb. In a few hours the man received the last rites of the Church, and died. His wife, Hawys, who seems to have been in the town and opportunely informed of the disaster, raised the alarm at the town gates, but the murderer had already escaped, and the Smith alone was apprehended. He was taken to Warwick gaol, and there tried, but was strangely enough, acquitted. The very same year, Elias of Loughborough, with Richard of Quorndon, Alicia his wife, Walter of Langton, and William of Keythorpe, committed a robbery in Leicester, by night, upon the goods of Melicent of Quorndon, and were all tried, sentenced, and executed. Land, we have said, was also seized and appropriated, and the Parliamentary petitions enable us to record a case in which a Loughborough man was the thief. There was a bovate of land - that is, as much as an ox could plough in a year - situate in the township of Stanford, belonging to one Mabell, the sister of the grandfather of one "William, the son of William, the son of Adam, the clerk, of Stanford," which this last patriarchally designated person complained to the King, had been illegally seized upon by Robert Stier, of Loughborough, and sold to the elder Spencer, who was then Lord of the Manor of Loughborough. As the petition is on record, the complainant probably got redress, but it would be in a roundabout way.

A notable instance of how the poor merchants were experimented upon, is given us in another Parliamentary petition of one Richard Calf, a wool merchant of this place, in 1321-2. The original is in Norman-French, and so curious that we present a translation of it:

"To our Lord the King and his Council. Richard Calf, of Loughborough (Loughteburgh), merchant, showed, that on the Gules of August (August 1) last past, the Lord Ralph of Crophull came to Hemynton and Bonyngton; and the Wool of the same Richard -  which he had put in two chambers under a good lock, namely, four sacks of good Wool, of the value of XLiiii Li (£44) - he hath taken and carried away, and thereof hath done his will. And besides this, the goods and locks of the chambers aforesaid he hath broken in pieces, wrongfully, and against the peace of our Lord the King, and to the grievous damage of the afore-named Richard.

Wherefore, the same Richard prayeth to our Lord the King for his grace and a remedy, for the said Lord Ralph is 'of so great power in his country that no man can have recovery from him at the Common Law'".

We have purposely italicised the last clause of this petition; it speaks volumes. The petition was answered in the usual form - "Habeat Breve de gratia Regis" ("Let him have a brief by the King's grace"), and there can be little doubt that the issue of the trial would be in favour of the suffering merchant.

These are specimens of the indignities to which people, and especially harmless tradesmen, were liable in these remarkably "good old times," which seem so romantic in the chronicles of Froissart [8], or the novels of Scott [9], that sentimental young ladies and dreaming boys would sooner live in those days than be safe, successful, and matter-of-fact people in our own!

Travelling was not even then "a fool's paradise," as it has been called, much less a wise man's delight. One needed to have a navvy [10], a woodsman, and a couple of soldiers with one continually. Adventures with robbers were so common that any diarist would have been extremely short of materials to have made the most of the sight of half-a-dozen fierce-looking men and an arrow-stricken horse. Every wood had got stocked with banditti [11], just as every park had with game. Even the King's retainers varied their employment by a little occasional free-booting excursion for pocket-money. Before the year 1285 matters were so bad, that in that year a statute was passed, commanding that the highways leading from one market town to another should be increased in width, and that no trees or bushes likely to shelter an assailant should remain within 200 feet of the roadway. Whatever townships failed to carry out these orders were made responsible for the robberies that might be committed within their several jurisdictions. This measure might disclose an assailant, but did not much diminish the chances of robbery. It was a common practice to waylay a man returning from market with his goods, or the proceeds of his commodities.

Here is an instance. Robert of London, a mercer, had been to Loughborough market, and was returning to Leicester on the Thursday following the feast of St. Nicholas (i.e. December 13), 1322, and had proceeded as far as a part of Wanlip, then called Langdale, when he was suddenly shot at by some persons concealed near the wood, and wounded by an arrow underneath the left shoulder blade. He immediately fell to the ground, when an assailant, leaping out upon him, smote him on the head with a sword, inflicting a mortal wound. He was plundered of all his goods, and left on the road. He survived until the Monday following, when he died at his own house at Leicester, whither he had been conveyed. Thomas Fraunceys, of Ratby, John, son of Richard of London, of Quorndon, Richard Hart and Robert Duval, of Cropston, were concerned in the affair, but all of them escaped the hands of justice.

The roads were not only dangerous by reason of robbers, but by reason of their rugged unpaved condition. A ploughed field was comparatively smooth beside them. The roads were in ruts, widened and deepened year after year until they were like brooks in wet weather and ran mud. The old notion of roadmaking was, that you had only to make the sides of the road higher than the middle, and the rain would keep it in repair by washing down the gravel from the sides into the centre. This was the pre-Macadamite, concave system, [12] and had its enthusiastic believers for years, but unfortunately water was an element that would not disappear immediately it was done with, and so the traveller slipped about like a drowning man in a quicksand, only that he did not drown. And then huge blocks of stone lay about the road in the most ugly positions, and there were holes you went into before you knew what you were doing, that threatened to engulf man, horse, and waggon, for ever. Sir Walter Raleigh's cloak would have been of little use even in a civilised town.

Loughborough was no better than its fellows. Its streets were narrow, unpaved, boggy. Yea, blocks of stone as big as wheelbarrows lay about them as late as the end of last century. There were only two good through roads, the Leicester and Nottingham and the Leicester and Derby highway. Carriers went along these when they could collect goods enough, taking a good long day to reach any of the three places from Loughborough. Letters went seldom. A man did not exactly write his letters and take them himself, but he did very much like it. He must either send them by his own messenger, or wait for a passing pilgrim, whose rags sheltered him from assault. Pilgrims and minstrels were the only news-bringers, and what people found to talk about is one of those mysteries that Lord Dundreary [13] might appropriately consider past understanding. The Ashby turnpike only extended as far as Snell's Nook Gate, then called Highway End, and beyond it was an open waste. The Forest Lane Gate was about where the Woodbrook Bridge is now, and beyond that all was waste. The Meadow-lane was probably in existence, but would be nothing like so long as it is now, and all open to the fields.

The road to Nottingham appears to have been most important, and the bridges between Loughborough and Cotes the wonder of travellers. They were erected in some degree of substantiality in the second half of the thirteenth century, if not before, and probably upon piles. Very early in the fourteenth century we find that the question of their repair was agitated. A good deal of dispute was indulged in as to who ought to repair them. It was alleged that William Bosard, of Loughborough, and Robert Oseveyne, of Cotes, the keepers of the bridges, with the surrounding villages benefitted by them, Stanford, Cotes, Rempstone, and, we know not why, the Abbey of Garendon, were responsible for the proper repair of the bridges in question. This they denied.

The two bridge keepers were the representatives of the Lord of the Manor, and collected tolls upon the corn passing over it to the water-mills, but as they alone are mentioned as responsible, and not the Lord of the Manor for the time being, it is pretty clear that they paid him an annual sum for the tolls, and squeezed their profits out of their unfortunate neighbours who were obliged to take their corn to the mills or submit to unpleasant consequences. Private tolls, as we have good reason still to know over some bridges a few miles away, are very heavy affairs, and when men farmed them out like this for a living they were extremely likely to be extortionate, and probably Loughborough people were only retaliating when they said, "The bridge-keepers get more out of the bridges than anybody else; let them pay for their repairs".

The matter was sufficient to attract general attention. Probably the King was petitioned about it, as in 1322, an inquisition was held at Nottingham to settle the question. The Chartulary of Garendon Abbey fortunately preserved an account of this inquisition, or we should hardly have known of it. The inquiry was held in the presence of Lord Radulph de Neville, Lord John Sturmyn, Peter de Crete, William of Walton, and others of the King's Counsel. The whole matter was investigated by them, and the following witnesses examined upon oath:

William, Lord of Stanford, John, Lord of Rempstone, John Poutrel of Cotes, Thomas of Thorp, William, the son of Stephen of Prestwold, Robert the Juryman, of Loughborough, Thomas Marshall, Robert Pegg, of Loughborough, Robert Ingaram, of Walton, Henry Jordan of Burton, Roger Barkoff of Cotes, and Peter Herbert of Shenton. The result was they affirmed upon oath, that the said keepers, townships, and abbey ought not of themselves to repair the bridges, but that the work ought of right to be done by the free-offerings of the whole country, "as the sheaves of wheat in autumn (the tithes), the money given at the Sacrament, the various gifts and legacies of infirm folk, and the tolls asked and collected of the passengers by the bridge keepers". This toll was called ponting, from the Latin word for a bridge, and was chiefly paid by agriculturists and merchants, the clergy and the poorer peasantry being sometimes exempt. This appears to have settled the matter for some considerable time, until these and other bridges about the town were repaired out of the proceeds of the lands and tenements left by the town's great benefactor, Thomas Burton. And there can be little doubt that this inquisition shaped the proceedings of a later one in Henry VIII's time, when the charities were diverted from their originally religious uses to relieve the neighbourhood of this somewhat heavy burden.

Flooding on the A60 at Cotes Bridge, February 2020

____________________________________

NOTES

[1] A tourney is a tournament

[2] on the physical territory of, or under the rule of the local baron

[3] an inhabitant, or fully-fledged citizen

[4] a poleaxe is simply a battleaxe

[5] Probably Horace Walpole, 4th Earl of Orford, 1717-1797

[6] The Magna Carta was issued in June 1215 and was the first document to put into writing the principle that the king and his government was not above the law. It sought to prevent the king from exploiting his power, and placed limits of royal authority by establishing law as a power in itself. See: https://www.parliament.uk/magnacarta/

[7] landowners in feudal times

[8] A French-speaking poet and historian from the Low Countries

[9] Sir Walter Scott, author of such novels as ‘Ivanhoe’ and ‘Waverley’

[10] a general labourer

[11] gangs of robbers or outlaws

[12] Thomas Telford was probably a supporter of the concave road surface, and John Loudon McAdam was the proponent of the layer of soil with a crust of stone atop

[13] Lord Dundreary, a good-natured, harmless aristocrat, is a character in the 1858 play ‘Our American Cousin’, which was written by Tom Taylor.

____________________________________

Transcribed and presented here with the kind permission of the British Newspaper Archive. https://www.britishnewspaperarchive.co.uk/

____________________________________

Posted by lynneaboutloughborough

With apologies for typos which are all mine!

_______________________________________________

Thank you for reading this blog.

Copyright:

The copyright © of all content on this blog rests with me, however, you are welcome to quote passages from any of my posts, with appropriate credit. The correct citation for this looks as follows:

Dyer, Lynne (2025). Goadby’s History of Loughborough, Chapter 4. Available from: https://lynneaboutloughborough.blogspot.com/2025/12/goadbys-history-of-loughborough-chapter.html  [Accessed 7 December 2025]

Take down policy:

I post no pictures that are not my own, unless I have express permission so to do. All text is my own, and not copied from any other information sources, printed or electronic, unless identified and credited as such. If you find I have posted something in contravention of these statements, or if there are photographs of you which you would prefer not to be here, please contact me at the address listed on the About Me page, and I will remove these.

External Links:

By including links to external sources I am not endorsing the websites, the authors, nor the information contained therein, and will not check back to update out-of-date links. Using these links to access external information is entirely the responsibility of the reader of the blog.

Blog archive and tags:

If you are viewing this blog in mobile format, you will not be able to easily access the blog archive, or the clickable links to various topics. These can be accessed if you scroll to the bottom of the page, and click 'View Web Version'. Alternatively, there is also a complete list of posts, which when clicked will take you to the page you are interested in.

Searching the blog:

You can search the blog using the dedicated search box that appears near the top of the blog when viewed in the web version. Alternatively, you can search using your usual search engine (e.g. Bing, Google, DuckDuckGo etc.) by following this example:

site: https://lynneaboutloughborough.blogspot.com/ “Radmoor House”

NOTE – the words you’re actually looking for must be in “” and the first of these must be preceded by a space

Thank you for reading this blog.

Lynne

Goadby's History of Loughborough Chapter 3 Part 3

In this, Chapter 3, Part 3, of Goadby's History of Loughborough, we hear about the changing fortunes of the Despencer family. It's a very interesting if rather gruesome read.

As I've said before, I've kept the text and the layout as it appeared in the original newspaper serialisation. I've added a few explanatory notes at the end, if I think these might be useful. In the 160 years since the original publication appeared, there have been many more discoveries and revelations about Loughborough's history, so some of the information contained in this article will be wrong: I have not tried to amend these in any way, so reader, beware!

THE HISTORY OF LOUGHBOROUGH, FROM THE TIME OF THE BRITONS TO THE MIDDLE OF THE NINETEENTH CENTURY

Chapter 3, Pt 3 The family of the Dispensers

In: Loughborough Monitor 22 September 1864, pg 5

Part 3 – The first Hugh Dispenser associated with Simon de Montfort in the Baron’s War, and its lasting political issues – Slain at Evesham – The elder and the younger De Spencer – The latter becomes the favourite of Edward III – His rapacity and unpopularity - An armed Confederacy formed against him – Spoilation of his and the Father’s Lands – Loughborough, Beaumanor, &c. wasted and despoiled by their Enemies – The Father’s immense losses – Execution of Father and Son.

It is time we should attempt something like a history of the Dispensers. We have already seen how the first Seigneur of that name came into possession of the manor, and how the surname of the family itself originated. It remains that we should lightly touch upon the public life of the notable individuals who successively owned the Manor, occasionally resided near it, and were in person and character pretty well known to the yeoman and tradesmen who constituted it principal inhabitants.

Won by the civilities and blandishments of King John from any participation in the movements that brought about the ever-memorable Magna Charta, the noble spirit of Hugh Dispenser could no longer remain inactive when Henry III, after the most solemn and binding oath to the contrary, repeatedly despised its sacred laws. He joined Simon de Montfort, heart and hand, in his chivalrous resistance, and was equally useful in the council and the field. There can be little doubt that he assisted the Barons in every way, and gave his counsel to De Montfort when he proposed that representation of Counties in Parliament which Englishmen justly hold to be as sacred as Magna Charter itself, and whatever odium may have been attached to his name by enthusiastic illogical monarchists, ought for ever to be dissipated in the clearer light which has been thrown upon the political and social revolution he helped the Earl of Leicester (i.e. De Montfort) to effect. When the spirits of the Barons were depressed, Dispenser boldly inspired them. Rishanger [1] records one of his notable speeches or prophecies. Northampton was taken and his associates were dispirited, when, said he, “Behold, the King’s party have been made joyful by this capture, but I tell you of a certainty that the month of May will not pass over but there shall be such a confusion and retribution as that all of their late joyfulness shall be swept into oblivion.” And the Battle of Lewes justified his prediction. He had been made Justiciary of England in 1260, was deposed 1262, and was restored July 1263, when all his previous acts were rendered valid. He was made Baron le Dispenser in 1284. He fought on De Montfort’s side at the battle of Evesham, August 4, 1265, and in the press of the fight when all was lost, was advised by his friend and leader to fly the field and wait for better times and things, but he and Ralph Basset “dying, refused to live,” says Rishanger, and perished in the fight. His body was buried with De Montfort’s in the Abbey of Evesham.

His lands and estates were shortly afterwards confiscated by the king, with the sole exception of the manor of Loughborough, which was graciously conferred upon Alivia, his widow, daughter of Philip Basset, “out of the love the king bare her father,” to quote the very expression of the grant. After liberating, without any ransom, a number of unfortunate person who had been taken prisoners at the battle of Lewes and confined in Wallingford Castle, this good lady returned to live with her father, and we hear no more of her afterwards.

The two other Hugh Dispensers known to history, or de Spencers, as they now began to be called, were son and grandson of John le Dispenser the only known male issue of the famous baron who fell at Evesham. Hugh le Dispenser, better known as the elderly Spenser, was born in 1235, and restored to the barony in 1295. He married Isabel, daughter of Beauchamp, Earl of Warwick, by whom he had a son commonly styled the younger Spenser. The younger Spenser married into distinction, wealth, and trouble. He was one of a number of notables who nuptials were celebrated at Whitsuntide in 1303, as recorded by Hearne, a rhyming chronicler in the following lines:

“In this zere, as I told, at the Whitsonen day,

The Kynge his fest suld hold at Westmynstre fulle gay,

His sonne Edward the Prince, and fiteene for his sake,

Thre hundred of the province, knighted wold he make,

It was the Kyng’s costage, for ilk a knight was gest,

Also thei mad marriage of som that wer the best,

The young Erle of Warenne with great nobly was there,

A wif they him bikenue (sought out) the erle’s douhter of Bare,

The Erle of Arundelle his londes laught (got) he then,

And toke a damyselle, William’s douhter of Warenne,

Young Sir Hugh was there, the Spenser stout and gay,

Gilbert’s douhter of Clare wedded he that day.”

By virtue of this marriage he was frequently styled Earl of Gloucester, “a title which,” says quaint, afterwise Polydore Vergil [2], “geven unto earles and dukes for honors sake has been fetall (fatal), and foreshowed the destruction of them who should enjoy it.” It certainly seemed so in Spenser’s case, and wisely does he class him as one of the unfortunates. Along with the titles, came lands in the Welsh marches, enough to satiate the greed of any earth-hungry mortal. But Spenser coveted his neighbours goods, and played the tyrant with the smaller land-owners about him. And his grand retribution, if we may venture so to style it, came out of these same lands and hungerings, as we shall presently discover. He soon became a favourite with Edward II, and his handsome person and courtier-like manners gave him more authority than his character demanded or his weak virtues could balance. He was a courtier but not a statesman, a petted associate but not a far-seeing friend. He could beguile a weary hour pleasantly enough but never read or battle with any of the difficulties that encompass a throne. Despised at first for his weakness, he soon became hated for his tyranny. Lancaster, and other fiery barons began to plot against him. Jealousy, scorn, and a sense of national justice stung them into action. They withdrew from Parliament and plotted. A woman, disguised as a minstrel, was sent to a feast at Westminster with a letter telling the King that he was “neglecting Knights who had served so faithfully both his father and himself, and was enriching others who had not borne the burden of the day.” But nothing came of it. An opportunity, however, soon offered itself, and the turbulent barons had their revenge. The Younger Spencer had a violent ungovernable fit of earth-hunger. One John de Mowbray, a Welsh nobleman, had entered upon an estate left him in the marches by William de Brause, Lord of Gower, without observing the usual formalities of taking livery and seizin of the king, Now was Spencer’s lucky or unlucky hour. He advised the King to avail himself of the authority given him by the feudal law and seize it, as escheated to the Crown, and then bestow it upon him. This lit the blaze of a civil war. The Earl of Hereford, the uncle and nephew of Roger de Mortimer, Roger Damory, John de Mowbray (the landless), Hugh d’Audele, father and son, Roger de Clifford, John Giffard de Brumesfield, Maurice de Berkely, Henry de Tyes, John Maltravers, and several others, at once formed a conspiracy, by oaths and writing, to pursue and destroy the favourite. A statement of their wishes was forwarded to the king, but without waiting for an answer, they proceeded to despoil and devastate the lands of the younger Spencer, murdering his vassals [3], burning his houses, plundering his property, and sweeping away his cattle. Upon the day of St Barnaby following in the same years, 1320-1, the like devastations were committed upon the lands of the father, who does not appear to have given them any provocation for so flagrant a violation of the rights of private property. He was, says Hume [4], “a nobleman venerable from his years, respected through all his past life for wisdom, valour and integrity, and well fitted, by his talent and experience, could affairs have admitted of any temperament, to have supplied the defects both of the king and of his minion.” But he was the father of their enemy, respected by the king, and therein was his crime and their provocation. A simultaneous rising took place where his different manors were situated, and those two hell-hounds, Murder and Rapine, slipped their leash, rending, tearing, and devouring like him whose progeny they are.

The two Spencers soon afterwards preferred petitions to the king and from the petition of the Elder now preserved in the Tower, we are enabled to state the losses he suffered by this feudal raid. Thirteen manors in Wiltshire, six in Gloucestershire, four in Dorset, five in Hants, two in Berkshire, six in Oxfordshire, three in Buckinghamshire, four in Surrey, one in Cambridgeshire, two in Huntingdonshire, one in Yorkshire, and in Lincolnshire, and five in the respective counties of Chester, Warwick, and Leicester, were pillaged and laid waste. The manors in Leicester were “Loughteburgh, Beaumaner, Ernesby, Fricheby, and Huttlescote.” We cannot, of course, state what were the particular damages done in the manor of Loughborough, since none but a general summary of the losses is given, but probably the flocks of oxen, sheep, hogs, and the droves of horses would be driven away, the farmsteads plundered of their corn, wool, and provisions, and the mills of their malt and flour, and then unceremoniously set fire to and left. The Bercary [sheep farm] was doubtless destroyed at this time, since we hear no more of It after this date. The petition also hints a personal violence when it says that they “used his debtors, tenants, friends, and people as those of his son, except that the loss of his goods, moveable and immoveable, was greater.” The consternation of the people at this exhibition of feudal revenge must have been considerable, and here and there some sturdy opposition may have been offered to the savage plunderers, although we cannot suppose that much could be done against a large armed force. The actual destruction done in the neighbourhood was severe and extensive. The Barons did not do their work lightly or ineffectually. Some nine years after the date of this aid, we find that the manor of Beaumanor was held by John de Insula, and was said to be “wasted by war,” and as we know nothing but this confederate attack to which it could be attributed, we presume that the woods had been fired and such ravages made that no cultivation seemed possible.

The general extent of the elder Spencer’s loss was as follows: Two crops of corn, one in the granges, the other upon the ground; 2,800 sheep; 1,000 oxen and heifers; 1,200 cows with their breed for two years; 40 mares with their breed for two years; 560 cart-horses; 2,000 hogs; 400 kids; 40 tuns of wine; 600 bacons; 800 carcases of beef; 600 muttons in the larder; 10 tuns of cyder; and armour for 200 men, with other warlike engines and provisions, with the destruction of his houses, to his damage of £30,000 in current coin, or more than twice that sum according to present rates of value. The abbey of Langley, in Wiltshire, was entered at the same time, the coffers broken open, and £1,000 taken away in silver, with his charters, evidence, and bonds, cups of gold and silver, and other silver vessels and jewels, of the total value of £10,000. They also entered the King’s castle at Marlborough, of which he was constable, and carried off his goods, 36 sacks of wool, 6 pair of rich vestments, a library, a golden chalice for the Sacrament, one cross of gold, another of ivory and ebony, with other ornaments belonging to the chapel, as clots of gold, carpets, coverings, &c., and his whole wardrobe, to his damage of £5,000. “The plain interference is,” says Hume, in considering these details as discovering the manners of the age, “that the greater part of Spencer’s vast estate was farmed by the landlord himself, managed by his stewards or bailiffs, and cultivated by his villains [5]. Little or none of it was let on lease to husbandmen; its produce was consumed in rustic hospitality by the baron or his officers, a great number of idles retainers, ready for any disorder of mischief, were maintained by him; all who lived upon his estate were absolutely at his disposal; instead of applying to courts of justice, he usually sought redress by open force and violence, the great nobility were a kind of independent potentates, who, if they submitted to any regulations at all, were less governed by a municipal law than by a rude species of the last of nations. The method in which we find they treated the king’s favourites and ministers is a proof of their usual way of dealing with each other. * * I cannot forbear making another remark drawn from the detail of the losses given by the elder Spencer; particularly the great quantity of salted meat which he had in his larder, six hundred bacons, eighty carcases of beef, six hundred muttons. We may observe that the outrage of which he complained began after 3rd of May, or the 11th new style [6], as we learn from the same paper. It is easy, therefore, to conjecture what a vast store of the same kind he must have laid up at the beginning of winter; and we may draw a new conclusion with regard to the wretched state of ancient husbandry, which could not provide subsistence for the cattle during winter, even in such a temperate climate as the south of England; for Spencer had but one manor so far north as Yorkshire. There being few or no enclosures, except for deer, no sown grass, little hay, and no other resource of feeding cattle, the barons as well as the people were obliged to kill and salt their oxen and sheep in the beginning of winter, before they became lean on the common pasture; a precaution still practised with regard to oxen in the least cultivated parts of this island. The salting of mutton is a miserable expedient, which has everywhere been long disused. From this circumstance, however trivial in appearance, may be drawn important inferences with regard to the domestic economy and manner of life in those ages.”

The furious barons were not content with this vast spoliation. They formed themselves into an association marched to the outskirts of London, and there demanded the banishment of the Spencers. Both were abroad on important errands, and the King replied that it was contrary to law that he should grant them their request since neither father nor son had been accused of any crime, or had any opportunity of defending themselves. The barons then entered London, presented to Parliament a charge against the Spencers without any facts to support it, and extorted from the lay barons a sentence of attainder and perpetual exile against them. As soon as they had secured from the King and indemnity for their riotous proceedings, they dispersed their men and returned home. A subsequent Parliament, however, revoked the banishment of the Spencers, and once more it was remarked that there were three kings on the throne of England instead of one. After the disgrace and the decapitation of the Earl of Lancaster and other of the barons, which the younger Spenser was mainly instrumental in effecting, the popular animosity against father and son swelled higher than ever. Having curtailed the revenues of Queen Isabella, and act justified by the King when he afterwards told her that he did not consider any of his territories safe in the hands of so treacherous a person, they were charged with denying her the necessaries of life and alienating from her the affections of her husband. And in the midst of these tumults and bickerings, we need not wonder that their arrogance, tyranny, and rapacity increased.

Such was the condition of affairs when the Queen proceeded to France, and was affectionately received by her brother King Charles. Thither she proceeded, not as Froissart [7] states, to obtain assistance against the Spencers, who really wished to ger her out of the kingdom, but to negotiate a treaty between her brother and her husband. In France she found many enemies of the Spencers, and was easily captivated by the good graces of Roger Mortimer. She determined to make war on her husband under cover of an attack on the Spencers, and with an army of Hainaulters [8] and others she landed in England. Insurrections broke out everywhere. The older Spencer was commander of Bristol, but was delivered up to her by the garrison, Oct. 26, 1326. He was tried before an assembly of barons, and sentenced to be drawn upon a hurdle to a place of execution, and then beheaded, and afterwards gibbeted, He was now nearly ninety years of age, and the sight of this venerable patriarch’s execution was witnessed by the King and his favourite from the walls of the Castle. In the following month the King, and the younger Spencer, who had made their escape from Bristol Castle, were captured in Glamorganshire. The latter was arraigned at Hereford, before Sir W. Trussel, the judge and murderer of his father. After accusing him as the cause of all the evils of the nation, he pronounced sentence of execution upon him, and concluded by furiously exclaiming, “Away, then traitor! Go and received the reward of your tyranny, wicked and attainted traitor!” Dressed in a black robe, with the arms of his family reversed thereon, and with a crown of nettles upon his head, in mock imitation of the suffering of Christ, he was conducted through the city of Hereford to the market place, amidst the hooting and gibes of an unbridled multitude. He was then bound to a scaffold, his body mutilated, his heart torn out and cast into the fire, his head cut off, and his body other maltreated. His head was borne to London Bridge in a chariot with his surcoat of arms, on which was written the first seven verses of the fifty-second Psalm. The following distich was made upon his execution:

“Funis cum lignis, a te miser ensis et ignis,

Hugo securia, equus abatalit omne decus.”

“which versys to them that understand no Laten,” saysy quaint Fabyon [9],

“maybe in this wyse be expownyed or Englysshed” –

“With ropes were though bound and on the gallows honge,

And from thy body thyne hed with swerde was kytte,

Thy bowellys in the fyre were throwe and burnyd longe,

Thy body in iiii pecys eke with an was slytte,

With horse before drawyn fewe men pyteynge it,

This with these tomentys for thy sinnys sake

From the wretchyd Hugh all worldly welthe was take.”

In the early part of Edward III’s reign, the sentence of banishment and attainder was annulled, and Hugh le Dispenser, the son of the younger Spenser was restored to the barony. This was again made void, and in 1397 his son Thomas le Dispenser petitioned to Parliament for restoration, and was restored, “First: Because they (his ancestors) were not appealed to or called to answer, nor due process made against them according to law. Secondly: Because the Prelates, who were Peers of the Realm, did not consent to the said exile and dispersion. Thirdly: Because it was against Magna Charta that any man should be exiled, or tried, without judgement of his peer,” The first Parliament of Henry IV reversed this and again attainted the Dispensers.

END OF CHAPTER 3 PART 3

____________________________________

NOTES

[1] William Rishanger (1250-?) was a Benedictine monk and recorder of Roman history who wrote several books including ‘Opus Chronicorum’, a life of Simon De Montfort, and on the topic of the second Baron’s War.

[2] This refers to Polydore Vergil (1470-1555), born in Urbino, Italy, and originally named Polidoro Vergilio, who wrote an extensive English history, ‘Anglicae historia libri XXVI’.

[3] A vassal is a person under the protection of a feudal lord to whom he has vowed homage and fealty, or might be simply a feudal tenant, but also someone in a subservient or subordinate position.

[4] This reference is probably to a ‘History of England’, a series of works written by philosopher, economist, and historian David Hume (1711-1776)

[5] Usually spelled villeins, these were tenants of the lord of the manor, who paid dues and gave service to the lord, in exchange for the use of land in Mediaeval times.

[6] The calendar change from the Julian calendar to the Gregorian calendar was made by an Act of Parliament in 1750, with subsequent amendments and further acts following.

[7] Jean Froissart (1337-1405) was a French author and historian, known for particularly for his three works – ‘Chronicles’, ‘Meliador’, and ‘L’Horiofe Amoureux’.

[8] Hainaut is today an area of Belgium and northern France: Hainaulters are therefore people from this area.

[9] Robert Fabyon (1450-1511/12 (will proved 1513)) was the author of Fabyan’s Chronicle, which tells of the history of England and France. He was a draper, Alderman, and Sheriff of London.

____________________________________

Posted by lynneaboutloughborough

With apologies for typos which are all mine!

_______________________________________________

Thank you for reading this blog.

Copyright:

The copyright © of all content on this blog rests with me, however, you are welcome to quote passages from any of my posts, with appropriate credit. The correct citation for this looks as follows:

Dyer, Lynne (2024). Goadby’s History of Loughborough, Chapter 3, Pt 3. Available from: https://lynneaboutloughborough.blogspot.com/2024/07/goadbys-history-of-loughborough-chapter_01454134461.html [Accessed 7 July 2024]

Take down policy:

I post no pictures that are not my own, unless I have express permission so to do. All text is my own, and not copied from any other information sources, printed or electronic, unless identified and credited as such. If you find I have posted something in contravention of these statements, or if there are photographs of you which you would prefer not to be here, please contact me at the address listed on the About Me page, and I will remove these.

External Links:

By including links to external sources I am not endorsing the websites, the authors, nor the information contained therein, and will not check back to update out-of-date links. Using these links to access external information is entirely the responsibility of the reader of the blog.

Blog archive and tags:

If you are viewing this blog in mobile format, you will not be able to easily access the blog archive, or the clickable links to various topics. These can be accessed if you scroll to the bottom of the page, and click 'View Web Version'. Alternatively, there is also a complete list of posts, which when clicked will take you to the page you are interested in.

Searching the blog:

You can search the blog using the dedicated search box that appears near the top of the blog when viewed in the web version. Alternatively, you can search using your usual search engine (e.g. Bing, Google, DuckDuckGo etc.) by following this example:

site: https://lynneaboutloughborough.blogspot.com/ “Radmoor House”

NOTE – the words you’re actually looking for must be in “” and the first of these must be preceded by a space

Thank you for reading this blog.

Lynne

Goadby's history of Loughborough Chapter 3, Pt 2

Goadby continues his history of Loughborough, and in Chapter 3, Pt 2 he talks about markets, the dedication of the church, and Loughborough Park. I’ve kept both the text and the layout as it appeared in the newspaper, but have added one or two notes, where I have found useful information. As mentioned before, in the 160 years since the original publication, there have been many more discoveries and revelations about Loughborough’s history, hence some of the information contained in these serials will be wrong. I have not tried to amend these in any way.

THE HISTORY OF LOUGHBOROUGH, FROM THE TIME OF THE BRITONS TO THE MIDDLE OF THE NINETEENTH CENTURY

Chapter 3, Pt 2 The family of the Dispensers

In: Loughborough Monitor 1 September 1864, pg 5

Part 2 – Importance of early Markets – The Church and its early rectors – Value of the Living, and how got at – St Peter the original Patron Saint, as shewn by an old Obligation – The Chantry founded by Hugh Dispenser – Its value and probably situation in Shelthorpe “Chapel-piece” – Loughborough Park.

Under the seigneuralty of the Dispensers, Lucteburg gradually emerged from its obscurity as a village to some considerable importance as a market town. This fact we have already seen, but we are unable to comprehend the full significance of this because we cannot now enumerate the new trades that sprung up or were transplanted here immediately after the unconditional grant of 1227, and do not know what an impulse it many have communicated to existing branches of industry. The trade in corn and wooll-fells, however, undoubtedly succeeded this change, and Loughborough market was noted for both these commodities all through the middle ages. A market was of much more importance in those days than it is now, and as the greater part of all business was actually transacted in the open air, the town streets must have presented many a busy scene; wool buyers, tanners, farmers, maltsters, chandlers, butchers, glovers, hardwaremen, leadbeaters, pedlars, quacks, and jongleurs, commixed and contending with even more spirit and less order than some of them occasionally do now. The manorial officers would frequently have hard work to preserve the peace, and many a broken head and bruised body would but ill compensate for a bad bargain or an empty pocket. Noise was the greatest feature in all early markets: the louder the brawler the better the ware, people thought, in those infantile stages of advertising. Indeed, this open-mouthed puffery was all that was possible in that way for a go-ahead and perhaps not over-scrupulous tradesman. And so each man mounted his stall, shouted until his vocal cords were relaxed, his face turgid, and his wits all flewn, and then descended to distribute his precious cargoes to the bystanders; it might be a gaudy ornament for wife or sweetheart, a pennyworth of nails, a bundle of rushlights, or some Egyptian mummy-powder for the cure of love-melancholy.

Whilst commerce flourished, religion was not forgotten. Sometime during the seigneuralty of the Earls of Chester, a substantial church had been erected to replace the wooden structure or structures which we have shown to be in existence in Saxon times. The precise time when this took place no one can ascertain, but the first mention of the fact is in 1193, when the living of the church was held by Bertram, Dean of Lichfield. It is very likely that he would be the first recognised rector of the parish, as all our endeavours to discover an earlier one have failed. In 1220 Hugh Dispenser was the principal patron of the Church, four parts of the living belonging to him, and a fifth part to one Philip de Cortlingstoke. [1] Ralph de Verdon was rector of the four parts, but the Vicar, Alfred de Cortlingstoke, as he probably undertook the whole of the duties, received the whole of the profits, paying to the Rector a pension of eight marks annually [2]. This Alfred de Cortlingstoke had been instituted, says Nichols [3], by Hugh, formerly Bishop of Lincoln. Various changes appear to have been made in the living in a very short period of time. In 1224 Ralph de Turville (i.e. de) an acolite [a person assisting the priest], was admitted to a pension of three marks in this church. In 1228 Thos. De Turville, was presented to the four parts held by Hugh Dispenser. In 1238 the Vicarage appears to have been vacant, and Henry the Chaplain, who probably filled that office in the family of Hugh Dispenser, was presented to it. In 1241 Thomas de Turville, the rector, resigned and Thomas de Torp succeeded him, a pension of fifteen marks being reserved to his predecessor. Some idea as to what was the value of the living may be formed from a taxation made in the reign of Edward I, and some forty years later than the date last given. Upon the flimsy pretence of defraying the expenses of a crusade to the Holy Land, for which his previous ardour gave reasonable grounds of belief, he obtained the authority from Pope Nicholas IV for a tenth from all the livings of the clergy for six successive years. Having prospered so far with His Highness, he did not scruple to make the most of his villany. A new assessment, attested by oaths, was made throughout the whole kingdom, considerably increasing the returns of the tax. The amount paid by the Church or living of Lutheburg, as it is styled in the Taxatio Ecclesiastica, [4] was £29 6s. 8d. and if this be the whole sum paid in the six years, and we presume it is, the living would be worth some £50 a year, or something like £140 of our present [1864] money, which, for a town of the size of Lucteburg was, would be a very good living indeed.

There is a little dispute as to what Saint or Saints the church was originally dedicated. Nichols says that it was dedicated to St Peter and St Paul, quoting as his authority a document which cannot now be discovered, so that the traditional dedication to All Saints’ would appear to be left undisturbed. We are, therefore, happy to be able to throw some definite light upon the matter by a somewhat curious document, which clearly proves that it was originally called the Church of St Peter’s alone. The document singularly enough, appears to have entirely escaped the attention of Nichols and other, and may be seen in the original Latin in Madox’s Formulare Anglicanum. [5] It is entitled, “An Obligation by Thomas Spornecurteis to pay the Abbot and Convent at Garundon [Garendon] a sum of money in the Church of Saint Peter’s Loughborough,” and continues as follows:

“To all the Faithful in Christ, who may see or hear this Writing, Thomas de Spornecurteis of Leicester, sends Greeting.

Know ye, that I am bound to the Abbots and Monks of Gerondon in the payment of four marks of silver, which I will pay to the same at four terms in the Church of the Blessed Peter of Loughborough (Luctebur’); in the year of Grace one thousand two hundred and fifty, namely on St Michael’s day, one mark, and in the year of Grace one thousand two hundred and fifty one, on St Michael’s day, one mark; and in one thousand two hundred and fifty two, on St Michael’s day, one mark; and in one thousand two hundred and fifty three, on St Michael’s day, one mark; in the presence of Geoffrey, son of Ralph, and Richard, son of Geoffrey of Loughborough; and of others whom the Abbot and Convent may be willing to summon. If, however, I Thomas shall in anywise fail in the payment of the said money at the said terms, then I consent, wish, and positively command, for me and my heirs, that the said Abbots and Monks shall put themselves into full and bodily possession and seizin of that house of mine in the town of Leycester, which lies near the lane between the house of William Rande-Ride, and the other road which extends from the Cross, which stands in the common market-place towards the eastern gate; and that they may dispossess me of that house, or whomsoever of my successors that they may then find in that house; so that they may hold that house freely, quietly, and peacefully of me and my heirs, according to the tenure of my Charter of Enfeoffment, which I have delivered, confirmed by my seal, to the said Abbot and Monks. And I, Thomas, in the meantime, will give to no man, nor sell, nor pledge, nor in anywise alienate, nor shall any of my heirs or successors, the house aforesaid or any part thereof. And if I, Thomas, shall in any manner contravene this Obligation, or any of my heirs or successors, I do subject myself and them to the authority of the Lord Earl’s Bailiffs in the borough of Leycester, for the time being, that they may compel us to keep this Obligation positively and without delay, all contradiction, dispute, defence, impediment, grievance, or injury laid aside, and all recourse to law, Canon as well as Civil. If, however, I shall pay the said debt at the said terms, or even any of my heirs, then all the stipulations of the said Obligation shall be quashed; and my Charter of Enfeoffment, which the said Abbots and Monks hold, as well as this Writing, shall be delivered back to me of my Heirs, without any delay, contradiction, or trouble. And for the greater security of the said Obligation, I have made affidavit and to this present Writing have set my Seal.

These being witnesses: William de Saint Land, Alderman of Leycester; Robert de Stockton, Mayor; Robert Kepegest, Peter Palmer, Henry Leffe, Thomas de Hatuton, Henry Hocwell, Thomas le Clerk, and others.”

Probably the addition of St Paul was made to the name of the church at a later date, but we are unable to give any authority, save that of tradition and modern usage, for the title of All Saints’ by which our old Church is commonly known.

Some time in the thirteenth century High Dispenser founded a Chantry within the Manor of Loughborough, wherein some priest of his choosing daily sang the mass for the founder’s soul. There was a yearly endowment for that purpose of five marks out of the revenue of the manor, an allowance of eighteen-pence per annum for wine and wax, and eight cart-loads of wood from the neighbouring forest for fuel. From a mandate issued by Edward III, under his Privy Seal, dated September 24, 1329, it appears that Richard de Whiteside was then Chaplain of the Chantry. It is curious, too, that there is no mention of a Rector or Vicar of Loughboro’ after 1243 until 1366, so that it is very likely this Chaplain held some portion of the living, if he were not Rector, during that period, for it is pretty certain that Thomas de Torp could not have been rector one hundred and twenty-three years without the fact being recorded as a remarkable instance of longevity by curiosity-hunting chroniclers.

Where this chantry, was situated is somewhat doubtful. In Charyte’s Rentals of Leicester Abbey, the ground upon which this chantry was built was called fundus. Now as a fundus usually meant a manor for supplying corn for the Lord’s household, Nichols supposed that it was some small manor subordinate to Loughborough, and that therefore the site may have been Beaumanor or Woodthorpe, and the latter especially, as a Beaumanor Court Roll of the sixteenth century speaks of a decayed “chappell” at Woodthorpe. This could hardly have been the case, we think, without some more explicit statement upon the matter, and the discovery made some years ago of the foundation of an old chapel, at the bottom of Shelthorpe Lane, to the left of the Leicester toll-bar, appears to point to that as the more likely site. Shelthorpe, Searlesthorpe, or the Earl’s Thorpe, as it no doubt originally was called, is the name given to a small tract of land lying between the Leicester and Harborough turnpike, the Soar, Mr Robinson’s nursery grounds and Mr Langham’s, and was at one time part of Beaumanor, and was very likely to have been the fundus in question. A small enclosure at the bottom of Shelthorpe Lane was until lately known as the chapel-piece, and here were discovered the foundations of a chapel, the stones of which are reported as being of immense size, and also part of a pavement or causeway. Tradition says there were formerly many houses there, and a veteran history-monger, now deceased, who well remembered the fact of the discovery, and said he had sat upon the large stones, assured us that there were mounds adjacent to the chapel-site which had all the appearance of having been graves. The ground is still considerably elevated thereabouts, as may be seen by any one who is at the trouble to examine it.

There is, then, perhaps, little doubt that this was the locality whereon the chantry was built, and that it formed the nucleus of a hamlet which would very properly be called the Earl’s Thorpe, and gradually become deserted with the destruction of the Chantry itself, and the absorption of its endowment into the living of St Peter’s of Loughborough some hundreds of years afterwards.

Besides his other possessions in Leicestershire, some of which have already been named, the Earl of Winchester held a portion of Charnwood Forest, paying yearly to the King as his tenure a pair of gilt spurs. Out of this waste, with lands perhaps already a part of the manor, he formed Loughborough Park. The Earls of Chester appear to have had their hunting park in the line of Barrow and Quorndon, coming round Woodthorpe, where Mr Potter thinks it highly probably they had their hunting-seat, so that the direction in which Hugh Dispenser could impark land was easily determined. The cause of these early imparkments is soon told. They were the result of the peculiarly stringent forest laws of the period. In earlier times little or no restrictions existed as to the right of hunting, but some of the Saxon kings made the forest laws very severe. Canute, who liberally allowed the Bishops, Abbots, and Thanes to hunt in his woods – a privilege Edgar had forbidden – nevertheless ordained that if a freeman should kill one of his deer, or strike a forester, he should forfeit his freedom and become a common serf. After the conquest, the nobility were not allowed to hunt in the Royal Chase. Hence arose numerous petitions from them for permission to enclose private parks, and they soon became so numerous, it is said, as to be at once a ridicule and a grievance. Whether the Earl of Winchester preferred a petition to the King for permission to enclose a park near his manor of Loughborough, or whether such a favour was freely granted him, we do not know, but the absence of such documentary data as would have existed had the patter been the case, inclines us to believe that he must have petitioned for the right.

The position chosen for the park was an eminently favourable one. Except here and there where portions had been cleared by the energy of the early Saxon settlers, or for ordinary purposes of fuel, the forest had remained almost unbroken from the time of the Coritavi. Its caves and thickets were full of nimble and antlered game, and no doubt wolves tenanted its deeper recesses, making occasional incursions upon the neighbouring hamlets. The extent of the park is not so easy to make out, although it is highly probable that it covered the whole of the ground which appears to have been subsequently divided into two or three smaller ones. It must, however, have extended towards Beacon [Hill], as we find that the sub-Prior of Ulverscroft stated to the King and Queen’s Commissioners in 1557-8, that the “said Priors, during all his time there, have kept hounds, greyhounds, and hawks of their own, and did hunt course, and hawk throughout the waste of Charnwood unto the saulte if the Parks of Bradgate, Groby, and Loughborough.” In 1483 there were two Parks at Loughborough, as appears by the King granting to Robert Harrington, Knight, “th’ offices of Bailly, Stuard, and the Kepings of II parkes of Loughborough, and xxli of annuite of th’ issues and proufites of the same lordship for the terme of his lyf.” One of these Parks was also called Norton’s Park, but whether it was the one known as Far Park, or the Middle Park, or whether it was distinct from either, we cannot determine. There is mention of the park again in a year or two later “as oure park here,” which seems to imply that the boundaries were not very distinct. In that year Libeas Digby was named Bailiff and Park-Keeper by a grant from Henry VIII. For actual hunting purposes the parks appear to have soon fallen in desuetude, and supplied a rich grazing land for the cattle of neighbouring farmers. We see the extent of this out-pasturing in 1582, when Mr Adrian Stocks granted by his will “to William Stocks and Robert Aprice, to the proper use of the said William for his life, and after his decease to the use of Robert Aprice, his executors and administrators, all and singular, the kine, oxen, sheep, lambs, and cattle, of the said Adrian Stocks, now being, going, or depasturing, or which hereafter shall be going or depasturing, at, or in Beaumanor aforesaid, and at or in the said parishes, towns, fields, or hamlets of Barrow, Woodhouse, Quorndon, Woodthorpe, and MtSorrell aforesaid, and in Loughborough Park, &c.” Loughborough Park was disparked in 1630, and many a time must it have been the scene of gay and winsome pleasures and exciting sport, as the Lords and Ladies rode to hound and hawk, and the lichened crags of Charnwood rang with the clangour of the horn, the deep bay of the hound, the neighing of the steed, and the exultant shouts of youth, beauty, and adventurous age.

   

END OF CHAPTER 3 PART 2

____________________________________ 

NOTES

[1] Cortlingstoke is thought to be known today as Costock

[2] A mark was equal to two-thirds of an old pound, so 13 shillings and 4 pennies, although there was never a coin to that value, but rather the term was used in accounting.

[3] Nicols, John (1802). History and Antiquities of the County of Leicester.

[4] The Taxatio Ecclesiastica contained a valuation for ecclesiastical taxation of parish churches and prebends in England, Wales, and Ireland, and was compiled in 1291-2.  

[5] Madox, Thomas (1702). Formulare Anglicanum, or, A collection of ancient charters and instruments of divers kinds. Thomas Madox (1666-1727) was a legal antiquary and an historian.

____________________________________

Transcribed and presented here with the kind permission of the British Newspaper Archive. https://www.britishnewspaperarchive.co.uk/ 

____________________________________

Posted by lynneaboutloughborough

With apologies for typos which are all mine!

_______________________________________________

Thank you for reading this blog.

Copyright:

The copyright © of all content on this blog rests with me, however, you are welcome to quote passages from any of my posts, with appropriate credit. The correct citation for this looks as follows:

Dyer, Lynne (2024). Goadby’s History of Loughborough, Chapter 3, Pt 2. Available from: https://lynneaboutloughborough.blogspot.com/2024/07/goadbys-history-of-loughborough-chapter.html [Accessed 1 July 2024]

Take down policy:

I post no pictures that are not my own, unless I have express permission so to do. All text is my own, and not copied from any other information sources, printed or electronic, unless identified and credited as such. If you find I have posted something in contravention of these statements, or if there are photographs of you which you would prefer not to be here, please contact me at the address listed on the About Me page, and I will remove these.

External Links:

By including links to external sources I am not endorsing the websites, the authors, nor the information contained therein, and will not check back to update out-of-date links. Using these links to access external information is entirely the responsibility of the reader of the blog.

Blog archive and tags:

If you are viewing this blog in mobile format, you will not be able to easily access the blog archive, or the clickable links to various topics. These can be accessed if you scroll to the bottom of the page, and click 'View Web Version'. Alternatively, there is also a complete list of posts, which when clicked will take you to the page you are interested in.

Searching the blog:

You can search the blog using the dedicated search box that appears near the top of the blog when viewed in the web version. Alternatively, you can search using your usual search engine (e.g. Bing, Google, DuckDuckGo etc.) by following this example:

site: https://lynneaboutloughborough.blogspot.com/ “Radmoor House”

NOTE – the words you’re actually looking for must be in “” and the first of these must be preceded by a space

Thank you for reading this blog.

Lynne

Goadby's History Of Loughborough Chapter 3, Part 1

We continue with the transcription of Goadby's History of Loughborough which was serialised in 1864. In his Chapter 3, Part 1, Goadby now reaches the time of the Despenser family. 

As with previous chapters, I’ve kept both the text and the layout as it appeared in the newspaper, but have added one or two notes, where I have found useful information. As mentioned last week, in the 160 years since the original publication, there have been many more discoveries and revelations about Loughborough’s history, hence some of the information contained in these serials will be wrong. I have not tried to amend these in any way.

For previous chapters relayed in this blog, please see the 'Links to all blogposts' page. 

THE HISTORY OF LOUGHBOROUGH, FROM THE TIME OF THE BRITONS TO THE MIDDLE OF THE NINETEENTH CENTURY 

Chapter 3, Pt 1 The family of the Dispensers

In: 'Loughborough Monitor' 11 August 1864, pg 5

Part 1 – How the town came into the hands of the Dispensers – Obscurity of their origin – Residence in the neighbourhood – Its likely effects – Rise of the burgh – Trading and military class – Grants of market and fair – erection of market cross – Old traditions.

Hugh Lupus, the first Norman Earl of Chester, was succeeded in his earldom and, as it would appear, in the possession of his other numerous and wide-lying territories by his son Richard, who was about nine years old at the time of his father’s death. For a little more than a hundred years, the manor of Loughboro’, with its several varying members, continued to be held by the successive earls of Chester, until it passed into the family of the Dispensers.

How it came into the hands of the Dispensers has generally been regarded as a mystery, which did not admit of being satisfactorily cleared up, but we are able, we think, to explain it in the easiest possible manner. A passage we have discovered in the Close Rolls of King John (so called from their being folded up, in contradistinction to the Patent Rolls, which were written upon open skins) and which has never been pointed out before, shows that this Hugh Dispenser, afterwards Earl of Winchester, came to certain lands by marriage with the widow of one of the Earls of Chester, and as we know that the manor belonged to them and was more likely to be apportioned to a widow than any integral part of the earldom itself, we may fairly conclude, in the absence of other evidence, that he came to it in this way, especially as no other hypothesis has anything like a historical basis, and those who image he came to the manor when he received a grant of a market and fair are very much mistaken, as will be presently seen. It may be true, as Dugdale [1] says, that he married Aliva, the daughter of Philip Bassett of Wycombe, without that fact at least affecting the authenticity of this an earlier or later marriage. The passage, besides disposing of a knotty question, is curious as showing in what unkingly affairs the feudal monarchs thought fit to intermeddle. A man could not trade as he chose, scarce marry whom he pleased, and not even pickle a few herrings without asking the king’s licence and protection, and paying him handsomely for them (See Hume, vol.ii, App.ii) [2] – The passage is as follows:

“Know ye that we give to Hugh Dispenser, the wife of Geoffrey of Chester, recently deceased, with the land and hereditament pertaining to her; and for that land and hereditament we receive his homage, or fealty. Whence we command you that you give full possession to him, without delay, as well as of the aforesaid wife, as of her lands. As witness me at Cliszon, the third day of August, in the eighth year of our reign.”

The date of this possession would therefore be 1206-7; and the homage required is further explained, as far as the manor of Loughborough is concerned, by an entry in the Testa de Neville, [3] compiled in the reign of Henry the 3rd and Edward the 1st, a record of the taxation whereby aid was granted the former king towards appropriately marrying his sister to Frederick the 2nd, Emperor of the Romans. From that entry we learn that Loughborough was a Knight’s Fee, [4] was held by Hugh Dispenser, and was taxed to the extent of two marks.

The origin of the family of the Dispensers is involved in much obscurity. Barke [5] conjectures that it was descended from Robert Dispensator, the steward of William the Conqueror, and it is plainly evident from the surname itself that some ancestor really filled that post in a royal household. According to evidence collected by Potter [6] in his ‘Charnwood Forest’, several persons bearing the name are mentioned in documents connected with different places in Leicestershire; the earliest mentioned one, Thomas le Dispenser, probably the great grandfather of Hugh Dispenser, granting lands at Barton to the monks of Garendon between 1168 and 1189, so that the connection of the family with the county was not determined solely by the marriage of Hugh Dispenser, although the fact of their connection may have had something to do in determining the marriage. It is also conjectured by Mr. Potter that the family had residences in the immediate neighbourhood of the town of Loughborough, and probably their intimate connection with it had a good effect upon it, since we find it now gradually passing from the ‘burne’ and ‘burh’ into the ‘burgh’, as evidenced by curious etymological changes, as Luteburg, Lughteburg, Loutherburgh. The new terminal implies an amalgamation of freemen for civil and political purposes of a more local and imposing character than the mere tithing. The tithings or gyldes [guilds] were, indeed, the foundation of the citizenal constitution of almost every important town. They contained, rudimentarily, the burgher’s club and the more modern corporation. They were a sort of Association for the Prosecution of Felons, combined with a Benefit Sick Club. Promoting peace, justice, and cordiality between man and man, they secured liberty for commercial, enterprise, and substantially for social life. At a periodical meeting of the manorial court, these Frank pledges, or guarantees of the freemen for each other, were examined and affirmed, and such a meeting was usually styled the View of Frankpledge. One of these pledges, either the oldest, most respectable, or elected one, was known as the Headborough or Chief Pledge, and had authority equivalent to our constable.  

Co-extensive with this gradual rise of a semi-corporate character in the constitution of the town, the details of which have not come down to us further than as they are enveloped in the terminal burgh, there was a general elevation of the trading, and a depression of the strictly agricultural classes. This was in a great measure due to the oppression of the feudal customs upon the latter, and a change of life created by the new wants of a military age. The labourer left team and furrow to toil in the deadlier fields, and the arm of the smith no longer beat the coulter [7] or bent the sickle, but welded the shining mail, pointed the spear, or shod the proud tramping war-horse. The glover worked at his habergeons [8] and gauntlets, and the doughty yeoman stored his salted meats for service. Besides furnishing one knight well armed and accoutred to serve the king at home or abroad for the space of forty days – Loughborough being a Knight’s fee – doubtless many of the inhabitants were compelled to attend upon their Lord. Even the home-keeping population had its homely wits disturbed by the agitations of war and sanguinary raids. In 1215 Saer de Quincy was Governor of Mountsorrel Castle, and he and his men made so many marauding excursions in the neighbourhood that the castle was called a ‘nest of the Devil’. The peasantry incessantly complained of these plundering raids, and Henry III at last commanded the Sheriff of Nottinghamshire to collect forces and demolish it. It underwent a siege of several days, and was relieved by forces sent from London by Lewis the Dauphin, to whom it then belonged. In a few years afterwards it came into the hands of the English King, and was razed to the ground, the neighbours no doubt gladly assisting in its demolition.

The elevation of the trading class and the needs of the rising place soon rendered a market necessary, and no doubt the inhabitants addressed Hugh Dispenser for that purpose, who communicated their wishes to the King. The market and fair were granted some six years earlier than is ordinarily supposed, as appears from two passages in the Close Rolls of Henry III. Both were really granted in 1221-2, but only temporarily. It is stated that Hugh Dispenser shall have during his lifetime (usque ad aetatem suam) one market every seven days, on the Thursday at his manor of Luteburg, and that he shall have ‘during the life of our Lord the King (quod habeat usque ad aetatem Domin Regis) one fair every year at his manor on the eve of the Feast of St Peter’s Chains (i.e. Nov. 13 and 14). These conditions are curious, and have never been pointed out before. Probably the benefits arising from the market and fair were considerable, as we find a special grant made upon the subject in 1227, with additional privileges, liberating the inhabitants from local taxations of a somewhat troublesome character. The translation of the grant is as follows:

“The King to the Sheriff of Leicester sends greeting. Know thou that we have granted by our Charter to our trusty and beloved Hugh Dispenser, that he and his heirs may have for ever one market in every week, on Thursday, at his manor in Lucteburgh; and that they may have at the same place one fair every year, to last for three days, namely on the eve and day and morrow (in Vigilia et in die et in crostino) of St Peter’s Chains.

We have also granted to the same Hugh that he and his people (or vassals) of Lucteburgh, Burton, Huklescote, Fritheby, and Ernesby, be for ever free from all suits of county and Hundred and Sheriff’s aids, and view of Frankpledge, as is more fully contained in the aforesaid charter to him thereon made. And therefore we command that you cause the aforesaid charter to be read in your full Court, and the aforesaid market and the aforesaid fair to be proclaimed and strictly observed in the whole of your Bailiwiek. Witness the King at Westminster, 28 of April 1227.”

On the sixth of February in the succeeding year another charter was granted to his beloved and trusty subject, whereby he received permission to hold another Fair upon the second day of November, and it was also expressly declared that neither he nor his heirs should be put upon the Assizes, Juries, and Recognizances.

The setting up of the market-cross, no small event in the history of any community, was usually attended by some special religious ceremonies.

Where some great deed had been achieved, or upon any spot sanctified by religion or custom, this sacred symbol was erected. It was particularly the case when a market or a fair had been instituted by Royal Charter, and upon the open surrounding space, the people usually met for both trade and pleasure. Thus amidst the clamour of the market, and the tumultuous din of the holyday, this elevated symbol might serve to remind them of their religious duties and privileges. It also served to fix in their memories, and grateful, the fleeting images of a former faith. Reverential old men. Gathering their children around them on that eventful day, would recount the familiar village story received from their fathers; how the inhabitants were once Pagans, and were one day surprised by seeing a dusky-vestured, wild-eyed pilgrim enter their streets, pause at the crossway, strike a few notes on a rude harp, and then pour forth to the hastily assembled people the good tidings of the great joy of a new salvation by Jesus Christ; and how following him to the river side they were buried beneath its waters as a sign of their newness of life. Such was the old story often told over the erection of the market-cross, and so the symbol had its significance for our forefathers. It was meant to be at once the centre of their religious and secular life. Here all public notices were proclaimed by the town crier, the banns of marriage were published, and royal proclamations declared. Shakespeare alluded to this when he makes Henry IV say to Worcester:

“These things, indeed, you have articulated,

Proclaimed at market-crosses, read in churches.”

It is right we should mention a tradition here that was once very much believed in the neighbourhood. It was to the effect that prior to the above grants, Barrow-upon-Soar was the market village for Loughborough, the one being called High Borough, the other Low-Borough!

An ancient road, it is also believed, connected the two places, passing through what was called the Catsick meadow [9], the stones in the river that constituted the ford being said to be observable at low water less than 20 years ago. On a site between the two places, now scarcely identified, the tradition goes on, and called gaol-bank in the memory of living persons, there was once a gaol for their mutual convenience. The legend is evidently based upon a rude etymological guess, and needs no serious consideration, although it may strengthen the indications of an early relationship between them such as may have survived the destruction of the Saxon Mark.

END OF CHAPTER 3 PART 1

____________________________________

NOTES

[1] This is probably a reference to William Dugdale (1605-1868), an English historian who specialised in the study of Mediaeval history.

[2] This reference is probably to a ‘History of England’, a series of works written by philosopher, economist, and historian David Hume (1711-1776)

[3] The ‘Testa da Nevill’, originally called the ‘Book of Fiefs’ (Latin title ‘Liber Feodorum‘  was a listing of feudal landholdings. The edition likely to have been known to Goadby is from 1807, but a new edition was published in three volumes, between 1920 and 1931

[4] A knight’s fee was a unit of land measurement that was enough land to sustain a knight and his entourage. These varied across the country as soil variations had an effect on what and how much crop could be grown.  

[5] I cannot say for certain who Barke was, but perhaps he might be Edmund Barke who was Paymaster General of the Forces in 1782.  

[6] A reference to Thomas Rossell Potter (1799-1873), who wrote ‘History and Antiquities of Charnwood Forest’, published in 1842.

[7] A coulter is a knife-like vertical blade on a plough

[8] A habergeon was a sleeveless jacket made from chain mail, that was worn under a hauberk (breast plate) in Mediaeval times.

[9] There is certainly evidence of an area called Catsick between Loughborough and Barrow, particularly in the name Catsick Hill which is located on the River Soar, adjacent to the Grand Union Canal, about midway between Top Bridge and Pillings Lock.

____________________________________

Transcribed and presented here with the kind permission of the British Newspaper Archive. https://www.britishnewspaperarchive.co.uk/ 

____________________________________

Posted by lynneaboutloughborough

With apologies for typos which are all mine!

_______________________________________________

Thank you for reading this blog.

Copyright:

The copyright © of all content on this blog rests with me, however, you are welcome to quote passages from any of my posts, with appropriate credit. The correct citation for this looks as follows:

Dyer, Lynne (2024). Goadby’s History of Loughborough, Chapter 3, Part 1. Available from: [https://lynneaboutloughborough.blogspot.com/2024/06/goadbys-history-of-loughborough-chatper-3-Pt-1.html] [Accessed 23 June 2024]

Take down policy:

I post no pictures that are not my own, unless I have express permission so to do. All text is my own, and not copied from any other information sources, printed or electronic, unless identified and credited as such. If you find I have posted something in contravention of these statements, or if there are photographs of you which you would prefer not to be here, please contact me at the address listed on the About Me page, and I will remove these.

External Links:

By including links to external sources I am not endorsing the websites, the authors, nor the information contained therein, and will not check back to update out-of-date links. Using these links to access external information is entirely the responsibility of the reader of the blog.

Blog archive and tags:

If you are viewing this blog in mobile format, you will not be able to easily access the blog archive, or the clickable links to various topics. These can be accessed if you scroll to the bottom of the page, and click 'View Web Version'. Alternatively, there is also a complete list of posts, which when clicked will take you to the page you are interested in.

Searching the blog:

You can search the blog using the dedicated search box that appears near the top of the blog when viewed in the web version. Alternatively, you can search using your usual search engine (e.g. Bing, Google, DuckDuckGo etc.) by following this example:

site: https://lynneaboutloughborough.blogspot.com/ “Radmoor House”

NOTE – the words you’re actually looking for must be in “” and the first of these must be preceded by a space

Thank you for reading this blog.

Lynne