Space, property, and propriety in urban England

Journal of Interdisciplinary History

Volumn 32, Issue 4, 2002, Pages 549-569

  Harding, Vanessa ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF LONDON   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 26644442100     PISSN: 00221953     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1162/002219502317345501     Document Type: Article

References (92)

1. Borough status, or burghality, is commonly understood as a complex of legal, juridical and fiscal privileges enjoyed by a community, usually an urban community. Among these privileges was a form of land tenure ("burgage tenure") that was relatively free and absolute, compared with more restrictive feudal land tenures. In particular, it implied tenure for a money rent, not physical service, and a considerable degree of liberty to buy, sell, and bequeath the property. Burgage plots were, typically, long, narrow properties laid out at right angles to urban streets, with a house at the street end and yards or gardens behind. If the inhabitants of a settlement are referred to as burgesses (burgenses), or the units of property are known as burgages or burgage plots, the settlement was most likely a borough (burh or burga) or had "borough status." However, neither the urbanity of boroughs, nor the "borough status" of all urban communities, can be taken for granted; all of these notions are open to re-examination. For the classic view, see James Tait, The Medieval English Borough (Manchester, 1936);
2. for a wider definition, see Maurice W. Beresford and H. P. R. Finberg, English Medieval Boroughs, a Handlist (Newton Abbot, 1973), 25-31, 34-37.
3. For caution about making hard-and-fast classifications, see Susan Reynolds, An Introduction to the History of English Medieval Towns (Oxford, 1977), 30-37, 91-94, 97-100.
4. For the reconstruction of property histories, see Derek Keene and Harding, A Historical Gazetteer of London before the Great Fire. I. Cheapside (Cambridge, 1987, microfiche) (hereinafter Gazetteer). The Gazetteer is a microfiche of a multiple-part typescript of dozens of individual property histories, with no single pagination sequence. Instead, each parish and each unit of property within it carry their own number. Hence, All Hallows Honey Lane 11/1 means property number 1 in All Hallows Honey Lane parish.
5. See also Derek Keene and Harding, idem, A Survey of Documentary Sources for Property Holding in London before the Great Fire (London, 1985).
6. Reynolds, English Medieval Towns;
7. Alan Dyer, Decline and Growth in English Towns, 1400-1640 (Basingstoke, 1991).
8. Keene and Harding, Gazetteer, xxiii-xxvii.
9. Tony Dyson, "Two Saxon Land Grants for Queenhithe," in Joanna Bird, Hugh Chapman, and John Clark (eds.), Collectanea Londiniensia: Studies in London Archaeology and History Presented to Ralph Merrifield (London, 1978), 200-215.
10. For an explanation of the term Freehold, see note 6. For the evolution of the urban property map, see Keene and Harding, Gazetteer, xxiii-xxiv, xxxi-xxxii; Plans, General, figs. I-III; All Hallows Honey Lane, figs. J-Q;
11. Harding, "Reconstructing Medieval London," London Topographical Record, XXV (1985), 1-12.
12. Christopher N. L. Brooke and Gillian Keir, London 800-1216, the Shaping of a City (London, 1975), 249-251;
13. Reginald R. Sharpe (ed.), Calendar of Wills Proved and Enrolled in the Court of Husting, London, AD 1258-1688 (London, 1889-1890), I, i-xlviii;
14. Henry T. Riley (ed.), Liber Albus, the White Book of the City of London (London, 1861), 162-169, 173-176, 189, 194-195;
15. Helena M. Chew (ed.), London Possessory Assizes: A Calendar (London, 1965);
16. Sharpe (ed.), Calendar of Letter-books . . . of the City of London: Letter-book C, c. AD 1291-1309 (London, 1901). The original MSS of all these record series are in the Corporation of London Records Office, Guildhall.
17. Freehold is an anachronistic term to use for the fourteenth century, but it connotes the effective autonomy of ownership and freedom of transfer that became the norm for property holding in England. Freehold is of indefinite duration, as opposed to leasehold or tenancy arrangements, which only confer temporary and limited rights. Burgage or socage rents relate to the primary method of allocating urban space. They were paid to the original lord of the town or quarter, or his descendants, in lieu of other forms of service. Quit-rents were so called because they acquitted the payer of all other obligations to the landlord or grantor. Thus, they were similar in practice (as fixed money rents, or, occasionally, material objects) to socage rents, but usually additional to them. New socage rents were not created, but quit-rents could be invented ad infinitum.
18. Gerald A. J. Hodgett (ed.), The Cartulary of Holy Trinity, Aldgate (London, 1971), xix, nos. 530-536, 562-563, 565-566, pp. 106-108, 112, 113;
19. Keene and Harding, Gazetteer, All Hallows Honey Lane 11/1, 2, 6, 7.
20. A. A. Dibben, Title deeds (London, 1990), 4, briefly explains the implication of Quia Emptores.
21. Hodgett (ed.), Cartulary of Holy Trinity, nos. 834, 752, 106-108, 112, 113.
22. For suits, see Chew (ed.), London Possessory Assizes, xiv-xxvii.
23. For examples, see Hodgett (ed.), Cartulary of Holy Trinity, nos. 34, 49, 54, 133, pp. 5-6, 8-10, 24.
24. For right of entry, see Cartulary of Holy Trinity, ibid., no. 309, pp. 59-60.
25. For litigation about it, see Husting Rolls (Common Pleas), Corporation of London Records Office; Chew (ed.), London Possessory Assizes.
26. All of these conditional grants are represented in the deeds and wills enrolled in the Court of Husting, and in the cases heard before the Hustings of Pleas of Land and Common Pleas (Corporation of London Records Office); cf. Sharpe (ed.), Calendar of wills.
27. For specific cases and the complications arising from such practices, see Keene and Harding, Gazetteer, All Hallows Honey Lane 11/6, 7, 8.
28. Sylvia L. Thrupp, The Merchant Class of Medieval London (Ann Arbor, 1948; repr. 1968), 118-130;
29. Sharpe (ed.), Calendar of wills, II, 171-172, 251, 275-276, 432;
30. Stephen J. O'Connor (ed.), A Calendar of the Cartularies of John Pyel and Adam Fraunceys (London, 1993);
31. Chew, "Mortmain in Medieval London," English Historical Review, LX (1945), 1-15;
32. Rosalind Hill, "A Chaunterie for Soules": London Chantries in the Reign of Richard II," in F. R. H. Du Boulay and Caroline M. Barron (eds.), The Reign of Richard II: Essays Presented to May McKisack (London, 1971), 242-255;
33. Jean Imray, The Charity of Richard Whittington: A History of the Trusts Administered by the Mercers' Company, 1424-1966 (London, 1968).
34. John Schofield (ed.), The London Surveys of Ralph Treswell (London, 1987), contains numerous early seventeenth-century plans of individual properties belonging to the Clothworkers' Company and Christ's Hospital.
35. Keene and Harding, Survey;
36. George Unwin, The Guilds and Companies of London (London, 1908), 93-109, 155-200;
37. Schofield, Medieval London Houses (New Haven, 1995), 44-49.
38. Keene and Harding, Gazetteer, xxvi.
39. Keene and Harding, Gazetteer, Ibid., lv;
40. Schofield, Medieval London Houses, 23 (Fig. 22), 139 (Fig. 159), 157-158 (no. 10), 208 (no. 148), 137-140;
41. Mark Samuel, "The Fifteenth-Century Garner at Leadenhall," Antiquaries Journal, LXIX (1989), 119-153;
42. Riley (ed.), Liber Albus, 276-288.
43. Keene and Harding, Gazetteer, esp. All Hallows Honey Lane, 11/11, 12; St. Mary le Bow, 104/20, 27-34; St. Mary Colechurch, 105/8-9, 11-14, 23, 25;
44. Schofield (ed.), London Surveys, 21, 28 (plates 3-11).
45. Chew and William Kellaway (eds.), London Assize of Nuisance, 1301-1431: A Calendar (London, 1973), xxvi, nos. 419-423, pp. 103-104.
46. The principles of the Assize of Building were implemented in the Assize of Nuisance during the fourteenth century and in the reports of the sworn witnesses to building-related disputes during the sixteenth century. See London Assize of Nuisance, 1301-1431: A Calendar (1973), xxvi, nos. 103-104. ibid.;
47. Janet S. Loengard (ed.), London Viewers and Their Certificates, 1508-1558 (London, 1989).
48. For problems related to territorial integrity, see Chew and Kellaway (eds.), London Assize of Nuisance, nos. 219, 349-350, 476, pp. 46, 83, 114-115;
49. Keene and Harding, Gazetteer, St. Mary le Bow, 104/32; St. Pancras Soper Lane, 145/ 33-5;
50. Loengard (ed.), London Viewers, nos. 114, 161, 219, 232, etc., pp. 47, 66, 90, 94.
51. Martin Weinbaum (ed.), The London Eyre of 1276 (London, 1976), nos. 342-467, pp. 89-98;
52. Riley (ed.) Munimenta Gildhallae Londoniensis. Liber Albus, Liber Custumarum et Liber Horn. II. Liber Custumarum (London, 1860), 444-453 ;
53. A. H. Thomas (ed.), Calendar of Plea and Memoranda Rolls Preserved among the Archives of the Corporation of the City of London at the Guildhall, a.d. 1413-37 (Cambridge, 1953), 115-141, 152-159. For cases of houses abusing public space,
54. see Thomas (ed.), Calendar of plea and memoranda rolls, 115-141.
55. Keene and Harding, Gazetteer, lxii-lxv; All Hallows Honey Lane 11/11, 12;
56. Ian Archer, Caroline M. Barron, and Harding, Hugh Alley's Caveat: The Markets of London in 1598 (London, 1988);
57. Riley (ed.), Liber Custumarum, 444-453;
58. Loengard (ed.), London Viewers, nos. 98, 173, 217, 242, pp. 42, 72, 89, 97-98.
59. Keene and Harding, Gazetteer, liv-lxv.
60. For market streets, see Archer, Barron, and Harding, Hugh Alley's Caveat.
61. For private viewing of public spectacles, see Felix Barker and Peter Jackson, London: 2000 Years of a City and Its People (London, 1974). 66-67, 70-77.
62. Schofield, Medieval London Houses, nos. 10, 12, 29, pp. 157-158, 164, (inns), and nos. 51, 63, 118, 124-125, 146, 181-182, 194 (taverns), pp. 173-174, 178-179, 196, 198-199, 208, 226, 229;
63. John Stow (ed. Charles L. Kingsford), A Survey of London (Oxford, 1908; orig. pub. 1603), I, 127, 164-165;
64. A Survey of London (II, 28, 34, 60, 62.
65. Michael .J. Power "The Social Topography of Restoration London," in A. L. Beier and Roger Finlay (eds.), London 1500-1700, the Making of the Metropolis (Harlow, 1986), 199-223;
66. Schofield (ed.), London Surveys, 11-17;
67. T. C. Dale (ed.), The Inhabitants of London in 1638 (London, 1931);
68. Dyer, Decline and Growth, 43-45.
69. Dyer, Decline and Growth, 45-49;
70. Keene and Harding, Gazetteer, xxii-xxiii, xxx-xxxi, lv-lvi; St. Mary le Bow, 104/1-5; St. Mary Colechurch, 105/4-7, 14-15; St. Pancras Soper Lane, 145/3-7;
71. Harding and Laura Wright (eds.), London Bridge: Selected Accounts and Rentals, 1381-1547 (London, 1995 [for 1994]), xviii.
72. The point about the single, physical house becoming the household unit comes from Keene. Harding, "Gardens and Open Space in Early Modern London," in Mireille Galinou (ed.), London's Pride: The Glorious History of the Capital's Gardens (London, 1990), 44-55.
73. Corporation of London Records Office; Keene and Harding, Gazetteer, xxiv-xxvi;
74. Husting Rolls (Deeds and Wills; Common Pleas), Corporation of London Records Office. Procedures such as enfeoffment to uses and fictitious recovery, which gained popularity at this time, concealed the "real" ownership of property by creating feoffees or trustees, holding on behalf of another party, or literally inventing fictitious parties to disputes: Dibben, Title Deeds, 9-12, 16-20;
75. W. J. Hardy and W. Page, A Calendar to the Feet of Fines for London and Middlesex, 1196-1569 (London, 1892-1893), 2v.
76. Keene and Harding, Gazetteer, lvi; All Hallows Honey Lane, 11/8, 9.
77. The tiering of landlord, head lessee, and sub-lessees, and the importance of mortgage interests, are clearly shown in Philip E. Jones (ed.), The Fire Court: Calendar to the Judgments and Decrees of the Court of Judicature Appointed to Determine Differences between Landlords and Tenants as to Rebuilding after the Great Fire (London, 1966, 1970), 2v.
78. Harding, "The Population of London, 1550-1700: A Review of the Published Evidence," London Journal, XV (1990), 111-128.
79. Michael J. Power, "East and West in Early Modern London," in E. W. Ives, R. J. Knecht, and J. J. Scarisbrick (eds.), Wealth and Power in Tudor England (London, 1978), 167-185;
80. Michael J. Power, "idem, "Shadwell, the Development of a London Suburban Community in the Seventeenth Century," London Journal, IV (1978), 29-48;
81. Peter Clark, The English Alehouse, 1200-1830 (Harlow, 1983), 5-15, 48-50;
82. Schofield (ed.), London Surveys, nos. 22, 28, 46, pp. 79-82, 92-93, 132-134.
83. Steve Rappaport, Worlds within Worlds: Structures of Life in Sixteenth-Century London (Cambridge, 1989), 123-161;
84. Keene, Cheapside before the Great Fire (London, 1985), 20;
85. Calendar of State Papers Domestic, 1637 (Her Majesty's Stationery Office), 180, SP16/359, Public Record Office (thanks to Keene for his notes from this source).
86. Beier, "Social Problems in Elizabethan London," Journal of Interdisciplinary History, IX (1978), 203-221.
87. For the points in this paragraph and the next three, see Keene and Harding, Gazetteer, as well as the examples cited.
88. W. O. Hassall (ed.), Cartulary of St Mary Clerkenwell (London, 1949), nos. 235, 297, 302-303, 306-307, 310, pp. 151-152, 195, 199, 201-202, 203-204.
89. Hassall (ed.), Cartulary of St Mary Clerkenwell, nos. 277-8, 311, 314, pp. 180-182, 204, 205-206;
90. Hodgett (ed.), Cartulary of Holy Trinity, nos. 437, 467, pp. 86, 93.
91. Keene and Harding Gazetteer, xviii, xxx-xxxi, lxiii. In the seventeenth century, a short stretch of Cheapside, near the church of St. Mary le Bow, contained five adjacent shops and houses known as the Black Raven, the Sun, the Falcon, the Golden Lion (formerly the Paul), and the Crane: 104/14-16.
92. Derek Gregory and John Urry, "Introduction," in idem (eds.), Social Relations and Spatial Structures (London, 1985), 3.