Prior and Convent of Hertford c. John English and John Burton

The Prior and Convent of Hertford sued John Burton and John English in 1493 to force payment of tithes from their holdings in Amwell Bury Wood. This action ignited a sprawling case from which twenty-six depositions survive, with at least two more implied but evidently lost. The controversy only makes sense after considering the complexities of tithes in medieval England.

Tithes began as a voluntary offering to the Church, but by the tenth century had developed into an annual obligation, where all Christians were to pay one tenth (a tithe) of their earnings from the year to support their parish church. Fines for default were very high: this was serious business. By the fifteenth century, the right to collect tithes for a particular parish had become a piece of property in itself, as they were lucrative; they were often held by someone else besides the parish priest who ministered to the congregation. That person or corporate body who held the tithes, known as the rector or proprietor, paid a priest – known as a “vicar” or replacement – a salary to serve in the church and kept the surplus for their own purposes.[1] As in the parish of Amwell, many tithes were held by religious houses: in Amwell’s case, the priory of Hertford, a Benedictine house with six monks, was the holder.[2]

This case is one of the longest in this fifteenth-century deposition book: the question of whether tithes were owed by the two defendants was complex and disputed. The depositions themselves occurred in five phases. In the first phase, Burton and English said that they had bought Amwell Bury Wood from the Abbot of Westminster for an over-market price, because the monk-bailiff of Westminster Abbey who sold it to them had assured them that lumber taken from it had been exempt from tithes “from time immemorial.” The Priory of Hertford produced witnesses in the second phase – including the vicar of Amwell – who testified not only to the undisputed point that the priory held Amwell parish but also to the contention that Amwell Bury Wood fell within parochial bounds and thus tithes from it were to be paid to the priory. The plaintiff’s witnesses relied for their testimony largely on hearsay, that they had heard that the holders of the wood had paid the tithes or that tithes had been paid on wood cut from other parts of the parish. When questioned more closely, however, none could say that they had seen tithes paid for lumber cut from Amwell Bury Wood specifically, because the wood had not been cut for many years (one witness described it as “overgrown”). They also said that they had heard that the prior of Hertford had won previous lawsuits regarding the tithes from other woods in Amwell parish. In a third phase, the defendants also presented witnesses, including a previous holder of the lumber rights for Amwell Bury Wood, who testified that Westminster Abbey had held the right to collect tithes from the timber cut from there but had waived them, and that in effect the lumber had indeed been tithe-exempt for several generations. As sometimes happened in the more complex cases with many witnesses, the testimony in the last two phases moved away from the actual issues in the case (whether tithes were owed from the lumber in Amwell Bury Wood) to attacks, counterattacks, and defences of the credibility of the witnesses in the earlier phases, the plaintiffs and then the defendants producing deponents who argued that the other side’s witnesses were partial and corrupt. Interesting focuses of the discrediting testimony included how poverty made men susceptible to the easy lure of bribes as jurors; how public drunkenness damaged a man’s reputation; how being a tenant of a particular landholder – a person or a corporate body such as a religious house – entered one into a network of social and political as well as economic obligation. These latter phases of testimonies also suggests that the issue of tithe collection in Amwell was part of a larger rivalry over rights, perquisites, and jurisdiction between these two Benedictine religious houses, one a small priory and the other the most powerful monastery in the kingdom.

Altogether, the testimony in this long and complex case reveals a good deal about how intertwined the economic practices of rent-gathering, tithe collection, agriculture, and forestry were with the local politics of reputation, obligation, tradition, and memory, often playing out in proceedings in both ecclesiastical and secular courts. Those attuned to gender issues will also note how entirely male the interactions described here were: there are more than 15,000 words of testimony here and women are absent not only from the long witness list but from any of the interactions the witnesses described.

[Shannon McSheffrey and Collin Bonnell]

Table of Depositions

LMA, MS DL/C/A/001/MS09065, fols. 124v-125r, 129v-135v, 143r-147r, 148r, 153v-160r, 161r-166r

Response of John Burton, Defendant, 8 Jan. 1493

Responses personally made by John Burton before the lord Official, 8 January, A.D. etc. [14]92, in the cemetery called Pardon Churchyard.

John Burton, sworn and examined etc. on the positions etc. To the first, second, and third positions, he says that he doubts their contents. To the fourth and fifth positions, he does not believe them. To the sixth and seventh, he does not believe them. To the eighth and ninth positions, he says that this witness and John English bought a wood, called Amwell Bury, situated within the parish of Amwell,[3] [Hertfordshire,] from the prior of the monastery of St. Peter, Westminster, and they paid ten pounds for it. He says that they paid more for the wood because they would not have to pay tithes from it, because at the time of the sale the prior told this witness that from time immemorial tithes have not been paid from the wood. And he does not believe their other contents. To the tenth and eleventh positions, he says that he was asked by the said prior[4] on a certain day around the last feast of All Hallows [1 November] to pay to the prior and convent the tithes of the wood cut from Amwell Bury, and this witness answered him that he owed nothing to him and that he would not pay, and if he wanted tithes from the wood he should ask the abbot or prior of Westminster for them. And he does not believe its other contents. To the twelfth position, he says that its contents are true. To the thirteenth position, he believes it is disputed. To the fourteenth and fifteenth position, he says that what he said above is true, and he does not believe the fame.

Response of John English, Defendant, 9 Jan. 1493

Responses personally made by John English before the lord Official, 9 January, in his dwelling house in my, Richard Crome’s, presence

John English, sworn etc. on the positions. To the first, second, and third positions, he believes them. To the fourth and fifth positions, he says that the prior and convent of Hertford receive all the tithes, and also from lumber, from all lands and places within the said parish, except the field called Amwell Bury Wood. That field belonged to the abbot and convent of Westminster, and he believes that the abbot and convent were not held to pay tithes on the field because they were under the immediate jurisdiction of the apostolic see, and this he knows because the abbot and convent told him. To the sixth and seventh positions, he does not believe them. To the eighth and ninth positions, he says that this witness and John Burton bought the field of the wood called Amwell Bury Field situated within the parish of Amwell from the prior of the monastery of St. Peter at Westminster, for which they paid ten pounds sterling. He says that they paid more for it becuase they would not pay tithes on the lumber from the field, and moreover he says that the prior told this witness that from time immemorial there have never been tithes paid from that field. And to their other contents, he does not believe them. To the tenth and eleventh, he says that the said prior required this witness, on a certain day between the feasts of the nativity of St. John the Baptist [24 June] and St. Michael the Archangel [29 Sept.] last past, which day he cannot further specify, to pay to the prior of the convent the tithes of the lumber from the placed called Amwell Bury, and this witness answered that he did not owe him anything, and if he wanted to have tithes, “you should ask the prior of Westminster.” To the other contents, he does not believe them. To the twelfth position, he says that its contents are true. To the thirteenth position, he believes it is disputed. To the fourteenth and fifteenth positions, he says that what he said above is true, and he does not believe the fame.

Testimony of William Woodleff, Witness for the plaintiff, Jan.-Feb. 1493

On behalf of the prior and convent of Hertford c. English and Burton, on the libel.

William Woodleff of the parish of Amwell, [Hertfordshire,] London diocese, where he has lived from the time of his birth for the most part and where he was born, illiterate, of free condition, forty years old, as he says. Sworn as a witness, etc., he says that he has known the prior and convent of Hertford for twenty years, John English for twenty years, and John Burton for twelve years. To the first, second, and third articles, he says that their contents are true, and he knows this because the prior and convent ever since he can remember have acted and act as the proprietors or rectors and patrons of the said church, and the tithes from hay and other major tithes are received and had by them and are freely distributed by them, and they are commonly said, held, had, named, and reputed as rectors and proprietors of the church. And he has heard from his elders that in their time the prior and convent had thus received the tithes and were reputed as rectors, and he never heard the contrary to this day. To the fourth and fifth articles, he says that for the twenty years he has lived in this parish, he has known that the tithes coming from wood cut from the lands and places sited and situated within the parish have been and are paid as and when the wood is cut down, even from the woods of the lordship called Amwell Bury Wood, in the hands of whatever tenants hold it. This witness about two years ago cut down part of a wood in the lands that he holds within the parish, and he paid George Shussh, the servant of the prior, 12 d. as tithe of the cut wood. And Robert Denham similarly bought from this witness another bundle of wood, for which he paid 8d. as tithe. He says that from the time of this witness’s discretion the buyers of whatever bundles of wood or timber are cut down within the lands of the lordship called Amwell Bury, in the hands of the tenants holding it at that time, paid tithes for them to the said prior and convent or to their deputy. And this he knows because he has known Andrew Body, Thomas Bole, William Houghton, Richard Houghton, John English, a certain man named Burton, Thomas Wulmer, and Robert Denham to buy or to cut down timber or wood at different times and, after the bundles had been bought, in different places within the lordship of Amwell Bury belonging to the abbot and convent of Westminster, they paid tithes for the cut wood according to the quantities they had cut to the prior and convent of the said priory or their deputy, or otherwise settled with them, as this witness has learned and heard from what those buying and paying said, from the prior and convent or their deputies, and from public fame circulating about it. He has never seen, however, the tithes of the wood called Amwell Bury Wood paid, because he has never seen wood cut from there before now. In his conscience he believes that the tithes of wood or timber from the place called Amwell Bury and all the places in this lordship should be paid just as they are in other places within the parish. And he says that he heard that at the time of lord Lamplew, prior of the priory immediately before the present prior, Hoghton and Sporiour refused to pay tithes for timber they had bought in the said lordship, on account of which the prior of Hertford prosecuted them, and at length was awarded the tithes from them or he compelled them to settle, as he heard from the fame circulating about it. And otherwise he knows nothing to depose concerning its contents. To the sixth article, he says as he said above, and otherwise he knows nothing to depose concerning its contents. To the seventh article, he says that John English settled with the current prior for certain bundles of wood bought by him and cut down last year within the aforesaid lordship, as he heard, and otherwise he knows nothing to depose about its contents. To the eighth article, he says that about two years ago, John Burton and John English bought from the prior of Westminster two woods with timber in Amwell Bury Wood, of which one was called Amwell Wood, for which they paid as he heard 20 marks sterling and never paid tithes from that wood from that time as required, for which they were often asked as he heard from the prior and others, and this he also knows because now the withdrawal and non-payment of the tithes is here contested. And otherwise he knows nothing to depose regarding it. To the ninth article, he says that the value of the tithes by common estimation extends to three marks at least. To the tenth and eleventh articles, he says as he said above. And otherwise he has nothing to depose concerning its contents. To the twelfth and thirteenth articles, he says that their contents are true. To the fourteenth and fifteenth articles, he says that what he said above is true, and that public voice and fame circulated concerning it in the parish of Amwell and other neighbouring places. To the first interrogatory, he says as he said above. To the second interrogatory, he responds negatively to all its contents. To the third, fourth, and fifth interrogatories, he says as he said above. And otherwise he knows nothing to depose concerning their contents. To the sixth interrogatory, he says that he does not favour or have more affection for one party than the other. And to its other contents he responds negatively.

Testimony of Sir John Noteman, Witness for the Plaintiff, Jan.-Feb. 1493

Sir John Noteman, vicar of Amwell aforesaid, where he has been vicar for eleven years and more, of free condition, forty-seven years old as he says. Sworn as a witness etc., he says that he has known the prior and convent of Hertford for eleven years, John English for the same time, and John Burton for eight years or thereabouts. To the first, second, and third articles of the libel, he agrees with the first witness examined above, excepting this, that he testifies concerning the eleven years he has been vicar there. And he says that during that same time the prior and convent received and had the major tithes coming from the parish, and this witness received and had the minor tithes there. To the fourth and fifth articles, he says that their contents are true, and he knows this because for the last six years he has known and seen the tithes of cut wood from the lands and places within the parish as they were and are paid, also from places of the said manor as they were cut down, although he has not seen tithes paid from one wood because during his time he has not seen it cut before now. And he says that he heard Thomas Wulmer and Richard Spicer saying that they held by copyhold from the abbot of Westminster two parcels of wood, of which one, which Wulmer holds, is called Gibbis Hall, and the other that Richard Spicer held and then afterwards sold to Richard Houghton is called Sowley in the manor of Amwell. And Richard Houghton paid 2 s. for tithes to the prior and convent for timber from his wood which he had sold for twenty shillings, as he recalls. And also he says that Thomas Wulmer paid tithes for the wood called Gibbis Hall within the manor of Amwell to the aforesaid prior and convent, and this he knows from the prior and from William and Thomas who paid the money. He says that in the time of Sir Richard Lamlew, the immediate predecessor of the current prior of the priory, he recovered tithes of wood cut down on the lands of the manor of Amwell against Houghton, Sporier and Gamelyn. To the sixth article, he says as he said above, and otherwise he has nothing to depose concerning its contents. To the seventh article, he says that its contents are true, except that he does not know whether tithes were paid from the wood called Amwell Bury Wood specified in this article, because he has not known any timber from there being cut down and bought, and since the recovery of the tithes from wood, they are paid peacefully whenever it is cut down within the parish or in the lands of Amwell Bury or outside to his knowledge, without any contradiction, up until the time of this present suit. And he says that all his time there, up until the last year, the prior and convent have received tithes from the timber cut in the other lands and places within the parish without contradiction from anyone up until the present suit. To the eighth article, he says that two years ago John English and John Burton bought from the abbot of Westminster an overgrown wood in Amwell Bury Wood, for which they paid and owed to pay to him forty marks as he heard. They cut down, occupied, and carried away from that wood over the winter two years ago, over the winter last year, and over this current winter, and they have refused to pay tithes from it. And this he knows from their own confessions, as they frequently said to this witness that they would not pay any tithes from it, because the monk who sold them the wood told and assured them that no tithes were to be paid from it. Asked about the value of the aforesaid tithes, he says that they extend to at least four marks, and thus it is commonly said, held, and reputed. To the tenth and eleventh articles, he says that he heard the said prior saying to this witness that he had required John and John to pay the tithes of wood from the place called Amwell Bury, and they refused to pay. To the twelfth, thirteenth, fourteenth, and fifteenth articles, he agrees with the first witness. To the first interrogatory, he says as he said above. To the second interrogatory, he responds negatively. To the third, fourth, and fifth interrogatories, he says as he said above. To the sixth interrogatory, he says that he does not favour one more than the other. And he responds negatively to its other contents.

Testimony of William Goldyng, Witness for the plaintiff, Jan.-Feb. 1493

William Goldyng of Amwell, London diocese, where he has lived for seven years and where he was born, literate, of free condition, thirty-two years old as he says. Sworn as a witness, etc., he says that he has known the prior and convent of Hertford for seven years, John English for twenty years, and John Burton for twelve years. To the first, second, and third articles, he says and agrees with the first witness examined above, adding this, that he knows that the priors and convent, predecessors of the current prior, presented Sir William Drory, Sir William Kempson, and Sir John Noteman as vicars of the church of Amwell, and they have been the vicars for the last twenty-six years. To the fourth and fifth articles, he agrees with the first witness examined above, except that he deposes about the eight years during which the said prior and convent have received and had the tithe of wood from all the lands and places within the aforesaid parish. And he says that around eight years ago, this witness sold a wood in Bounvil Grove situated within the parish to Robert Shorry and Burton for £3 13s 4d, for tithes of which Robert and Burton owed from the lands handed over by this witness 6s 8d. To the sixth article, he says what he said above, and otherwise he knows nothing to depose concerning its contents. To the seventh article, he agrees with the previous witness examined above. To the eighth article, he says that John English and John Burton bought from the abbot of Westminster an overgrown wood in Amwell Bury Wood, for which, he heard, they paid twenty pounds. They cut, occupied, and carried away lumber from that wood for most of the winter two years ago, winter last year, and this present winter, and they have refused to pay tithes from it. And this witness knows this from their own confessions because they often said that they did not have to pay any tithes from that wood, because the monk who sold them the wood told them that no tithes had to be paid. Asked about the value of the tithes, he says that if it were paid it would extend to at least forty shillings. To the tenth and eleventh, he says as he said above, and otherwise he knows nothing to depose concerning its contents. To the twelfth, thirteenth, fourteenth, and fifteenth articles, he agrees with the first witness examined above. To the first interrogatory, he says as he said above. To the second interrogatory, he responds negatively. To the third and fourth, he says as he said above. To the fifth interrogatory, he says that the abbot and convent[5] are the lords of Amwell Bury Wood, and otherwise he has nothing to depose concerning its contents. To the sixth interrogatory, he agrees with the first witness.

Testimony of John Denham, Witness for the plaintiff, Jan.-Feb. 1493

John Denham of the parish of Amwell, where he has lived for a year, and before that time in the parish of Ware [Hertfordshire] for forty years, illiterate, of free condition, sixty years old as he says. Sworn as a witness, he says that he has known the prior and convent of Hertford for forty years, John English for six years, John Burton he does not know. To the first, second, and third articles, he agrees with the first witness examined above. To the fourth and fifth articles, he agrees with Sir John Noteman examined above, except that the predecessor of the current prior recovered the tithes from certain fields within the manor of Amwell from many people whose names and surnames he cannot state, as he heard from the prior. To the sixth and seventh, he agrees with Sir John Noteman. To the eighth and ninth articles, he says that he heard that John English and John Burton bought from the abbot of Westminster a wood in the lordship of Amwell Wood, how much they paid he cannot say, which they cut down and occupied, and from which they carried away wood, and whether they refused to pay tithes from that field he does not know to testify, and concerning the value of the tithes he cannot say. To the tenth and eleventh articles, he says as he said above, and otherwise he knows nothing to depose concerning its contents. To the twelfth, thirteenth, fourteenth, and fifteenth articles, he agrees with the first witness. To the first interrogatory, he says as he said above. To the second interrogatory, he responds negatively. To the third and fourth interrogatory, he says as he said above. To the fifth interrogatory, he agrees with William Goldyng. To the sixth interrogatory, he says that he does not favour one party more than the other, and to its other contents he responds negatively.

Testimony of John Gamlett, Witness for the plaintiff, Jan.-Feb. 1493

John Gamlett of the parish of Hertford, where he has lived for twenty years, illiterate, of free condition, forty years old as he says. Sworn as a witness etc., he says that he has known the prior and convent of Hertford for forty years, John English and John Burton for twenty years. To the first, second, and third articles, he agrees with the first witness. To the fourth and fifth articles, he agrees with the first witness examined above, except that he says that about twenty years ago, he knew the said wood of Amwell Bury Wood to be cut, for which he did not hear or know of tithes being sought or paid. To the sixth article, he says as he said above, and otherwise he has nothing to depose. To the seventh article, he agrees with the first witness. To the eighth and ninth articles, he says that John Burton and John English bought from the abbot of Westminster two woods, of which one was called Amwell Wood, the other called King’s Wood, although he does not know how much they paid for them. And in winter a year ago they cut the wood and carried away timber from it. Asked about the value of the tithes, he knows nothing to testify. To the tenth and eleventh articles, he says as he said above, and otherwise he has nothing to depose concerning its contents. To the twelfth, thirteenth, fourteenth, and fifteenth articles, he agrees with the first witness examined above. To the first interrogatory, he says as he said above. To the second interrogatory, he responds negatively. To the third, fourth, and fifth interrogatory, he says as he said above, and otherwise he has nothing to depose concerning its contents. To the sixth article, he says that he does not favour one party more than the other, and to its other contents, he responds negatively.

Testimony of William Killing, Witness for the plaintiff, Jan.-Feb. 1493

William Killing of Hertford, London diocese, where he has lived for sixteen years, illiterate, of free condition, sixty years old as he says. Sworn as a witness etc., he says that he has known the prior and convent of Hertford for sixteen years, John English for sixteen, and John Burton for twelve years. To the first, second, and third articles he agrees with the first witness examined above. To the fourth and fifth articles, he says that around seven or eight years ago, this witness in the name of Master Norys[6] sold a parcel of woodland to William Houghton and John Sporyer, for which parcel they paid twenty pounds, and at that time William and John refused to pay tithes on that parcel. And thus the lord Lamplew, prior before the current prior, prosecuted them in the spiritual court for the tithes on what they had bought, and at length he obtained from them the tithes on that parcel of woodland or at least he compelled them to settle. And moreover he says that since that time the said prior and convent have received whatever tithes come from the lands and places within the parish, whatever timber is cut down within the parish. But concerning the said wood, he never saw tithes paid from it because he never saw the wood being cut. To the sixth article, he says as he said above. And otherwise he knows nothing to depose about its contents. To the seventh, he agrees with the first witness. To the eight and ninth articles, he says that John Burton and John English bought from the abbot of Westminster twenty or thirty acres of wood in Amwell Bury as he heard, and for each acre they paid fourteen or fifteen shillings, and concerning the value of the tithes, he does not know. To the tenth and eleventh articles, he says as he said above and otherwise he knows nothing to depose concerning their contents. To the twelfth, thirteenth, fourteenth, and fifteenth articles, he agrees with the first witness examined above. To the first interrogatory, he says as he said above. To the second interrogatory, he responds negatively to all its contents. To the third, fourth, and fifth interrogatories, he says as he said above, and otherwise he has nothing to depose concerning its contents. To the sixth interrogatory, he says that he does not favour one party more than the other. To the other contents, he responds negatively.

Testimony of John Roper, Witness for the plaintiff, Jan.-Feb. 1493

John Roper of Hertford, Lincoln diocese,[7] where he has lived for twenty years, illiterate, of free condition, forty years old as he says. Sworn as a witness etc., he says that he has known the prior and convent of Hertford for twenty years, John English for twenty years, and John Burton for twelve years. To the first, second, and third articles, he agrees with the first witness examined above, except [he has known them] for those twenty years. To the fourth, fifth, and sixth articles, he says that Robert Shorry and Thomas Gamelyn around five years ago, at the time of Sir Richard Lamplew, then prior, cut down a parcel of a wood in their lands held in copyhold, situated within the manor of Amwell, for which they refused to pay tithes. And then the prior sued an action against them, and at length Robert and Thomas settled with him for the tithes of the wood, but for what sum he does not know. Since that settlement, tithes from wood are generally paid for whatever timber or wood is bought in the parish, wherever it had grown. And this he knows from Robert Denham and others paying it, and from public fame circulating about it. And otherwise he knows nothing to depose concerning their contents. But concerning the said wood called Amwell Bury Wood, he never saw tithes being paid. To the seventh article, he says as he said above, and otherwise he knows nothing to depose about its contents. To the eighth and ninth articles, he says he agrees with the previous witness examined above. To the tenth, eleventh, twelfth, thirteenth, fourteenth, and fifteenth articles, he agrees with him. To the first interrogatory, he says as above. To the second interrogatory, he responds negatively. To the third, fourth, and fifth interrogatories, he says as he said above. To the sixth interrogatory, he agrees with the previous witness.

Testimony of Thomas Bole, Witness for the plaintiff, Jan.-Feb. 1493

Thomas Bole of Hertford, where he has lived for twenty-two years and more, literate, of free condition, forty years old as he says. Sworn as witness etc., he says that he has known the prior and convent of Hertford for thirty years, John English for twelve years, and John Burton for seven or eight years. To the first, second, and third articles, he agrees with the first witness examined above. To the fourth, fifth, and sixth articles, he says that around eight years ago this witness bought a parcel of wood situated in the parish of Hertford from Master Norys, for which he paid as he believes twenty marks or fifteen pounds, and at that time this witness refused to pay tithes on that parcel, and then Sir Richard Lamplew, at that time the prior, sued an action against this witness in the spiritual court for the tithes, and at length the prior obtained the tithes from that parcel or at least compelled this witness to settle, and thus he settled, and paid to the prior 13s 4d. And moreover, he says that since that time as far as this witness knows or understands, the said prior and convent have received the tithes from whatever wood is cut within the parish, from whatever lands or places they grew, without any contradiction from anyone up until the present suit. But concerning the said wood, he has not seen tithes being paid because he did not see them cut down before. To the seventh article, he agrees with the first witness. To the eighth and ninth articles, he agrees with William Killing examined above. To the tenth and eleventh articles, he agrees with Ralph Boreham.[8] To the twelfth, thirteenth, fourteenth, and fifteenth articles, he agrees with the first witness. To the first interrogatory, he says as he said above. To the second interrogatory, he responds negatively. To the third, fourth, and fifth interrogatories, he says as he said above, and otherwise he has nothing to depose concerning its contents. To the sixth, he agrees with the first witness.

Testimony of William Fader, Witness for the defendants, 20 Apr. 1493

20 April A.D. etc. [14]93, by lord Master Hugh Peyntwyn, Official of the Consistory of the Bishop of London, in my, Richard Spencer’s, presence.

On behalf of John English and John Burton, on their submission of exceptions against the prior and convent of Hertford.

William Fader of Amwell, London diocese, where he has lived from the time of his birth, illiterate, of free condition, fifty-two years old, as he says. Sworn as a witness etc., he says that he has known John English and John Burton for twenty years, the prior and convent of Hertford, as rectors or proprietors of the parish church of Amwell commonly said, taken, and reputed, for forty years and more. To the first part of the said submission which begins, “which part the aforesaid prior and convent etc.” and finishes, “at present moved,” he says that from the time of this witness’s discretion the prior and convent of the said house or priory of Hertford were successively, during their times, lacking any possession of tithes of wood and lumber of whatever kind within the said treed woodland called Amwell Bury Wood, and over the last forty years and more have abstained and refrained from collecting such tithes, and the Abbot and Convent of Westminster and their rent-gatherers have been free and quit of paying such tithes [to the prior]. He knows this because for twenty-two years, for the twenty years immediately before the last three years at Michaelmas [29 September] when his term ended, this witness was the rent-gatherer of the said abbot and convent of St. Peter in their estate in Amwell Bury. And about the beginning of his term, that is about twenty-four years ago, he bought from the abbot and convent all of the wood and lumber growing in the place called Amwell Bury Wood for £20 13s 4d. And in the following three years after his purchase he cut and sold the said wood and lumber, and neither the aforesaid prior and convent nor anyone else sought to claim or had any tithes of that cut lumber. This witness abstained and refrained from paying the tithes, and the prior and convent abstained and refrained from collecting those tithes or making any claim for them, at that time or since, as he says on the strength of his oath. And he says that for thirty years continuously before this time, Thomas Hoddisdon, who was married to this witness’s mother, had stood as rent-gatherer of the aforesaid Abbot and Convent in Ambwell Bury, and within that time this witness knew that Thomas had also bought the right to take down lumber from the Wood, which he had repeatedly taken down and cut, and Thomas refrained from any payment of tithes to the prior and convent for the wood and was free and clear. And this he knows from Thomas’s telling and that of others, because he was at that time Thomas’s servant, and he never knew, saw, or heard that the prior and convent ever demanded, claimed, or had any tithes from or for the wood and lumber, but Thomas told this witness that he paid no tithes but had refrained and abstained from such payment and was free of it. And moreover he says that he heard from many of his elders, trustworthy men in whom he had faith, that the said Abbot and Convent [of Westminster] were not only free and immune from the payment of tithes of wood from the woodland called Amwell Bury and other lands and woods of which they were lords and proprietors within the said parish, but also from payment of hay tithes and grain tithes of whatever kind coming from whatever lands were belonging to them and in their hands. If, indeed, there were tithes to be paid from the lands of Amwell Bury or from any of the lands belonging to the Abbot and Convent [of Westminster], the tithes of wood would be paid to the rent-gatherer of the church of Amwell Bury, yet he has never known or heard of claims or payments of them for the whole time of his life, except around ten years ago when the then prior of Hertford claimed and had tithes of wood from Thomas Gamelyn and a certain man named Shorry from their lands within the said parish. And otherwise he knows nothing to depose concerning its contents. To the second part which begins, “And if the said prior etc.,” and ends, “abstained and abstains,” he says as he said above. And he says that the said Burton and English bought the woodland from the monk-bailey of the said monastery of Westminster. And the other contents in the part he says are true as he believes, and this from what he testified above and from the public fame circulating about it. And otherwise, he knows nothing to depose concerning its contents. To the third part which begins, “Which all etc.,” and finishes, “voice and fame,” he says that what he said above is true and that public voice and fame circulated and circulates about it in the parish of Amwell and in other neighbouring parishes. To the first interrogatory, the witness being warned about the dangers of perjury and the penalty for lying, he says as he said above. And he says that he was born in Great Parndon [Essex], in the diocese of London. To the second interrogatory, he responds negatively to all its contents, except that he says that before the last three years he was the rent-gatherer of the said Abbot and Convent in Amwell. To the third interrogatory, he responds negatively to all its contents. To the fourth interrogatory, he says that he does not care which party loses or wins in this case. To the fifth interrogatory, he says that he has known the parish church of Amwell from the time of his discretion. To the sixth interrogatory, he says that the prior and convent of Hertford were the proprietors and patrons of the said church and as such were said, taken, and reputed from the time of his discretion. To the seventh interrogatory, he says that he would confer victory on neither party in the case but wishes for justice to be done. To the eighth interrogatory, he says that John English and John Burton were not nor have ever been rent-gatherers of the Abbot and Convent of Westminster in Amwell as far as this witness ever knew or understood. To the ninth interrogatory, he says as he said above, and that he knows that this witness knows well that he never paid tithes for the said lumber when he bought it from the Abbot and Convent of Westminster and took it down, nor did Thomas Hoddisdon before him. And other than what he has already testified he knows nothing to depose about its contents. To the tenth interrogatory, he says that the said prior and convent within the last ten years prosecuted Thomas Gamelyn and other people for the tithes of cut wood and recovered and had those tithes from many places, some in copyhold and some in free tenure, held within the said lordship, but he did not hear or know that the prior and convent ever had tithes of wood from any lands belonging to the Abbot and Convent of Westminster as he deposed before. To the eleventh interrogatory, he says that he is indebted to the abbot and convent of Westminster by twenty quarters of malt. And to its other contents he responds negatively. To the twelfth interrogatory, he says that the abbot and convent for a period of time prosecuted this witness[9] at Westminster, as he heard, and afterwards for the last half a year and more left off from that prosecution. And otherwise he has nothing to depose concerning its contents. To the thirteenth interrogatory, he says that he was asked by Burton and English to come give testimony to the truth in this case and not otherwise, and at his own expenses. To the fourteenth interrogatory, he responds negatively to all its contents, except that he believes he will get his expenses.

Testimony of William Billok, Witness for the defendants, 20 Apr. 1493

William Billok of Amwell, where he was born and has lived for sixty-eight years, sixty-eight years old and more as he says. Sworn as a witness etc., he says that he has known John English for twenty years and John Burton for ten years and more, and the prior and convent of Hertford at the time and the priory there for forty years. To the first part of the submission, he says that the abbot and convent of Westminster are lords and proprietors of the manor of Amwell Bury, and their rent-gatherers and buyers of wood and timber growing in the manor, especially in the place called Amwell Bury Wood, were quit, free, and immune from paying tithes of wood cut and taken down there, and this liberty they have used and enjoyed from the time of this witness’s discretion. And the said prior and convent of Hertford refrained and abstained from taking those tithes, especially those coming from Amwell Bury Wood, for sixty years, and this he knows because this witness has known the said wood called Amwell Bury Wood to be sold and cut down three times over the last sixty-two years. The first time it was sold about sixty years ago to many men by the acre, the second time it was sold to Thomas Hoddisdon, and the third time to William Fader. Each of these buyers were wholly free and quit from paying any tithe of cut wood from that place, nor was any tithe demanded from them as far as this witness knew or understood. He says that he heard William Leffing, this witness’s godfather, who was eighty years old when he died and who died thirty years ago; John Coke who was also rent-gatherer of the said lordship while he lived, aged sixty at his death and who died about twenty years ago; and other trustworthy men in whom he had faith, saying that in their time the abbot and convent of Westminster and their rent-gatherers and the buyers of the said wood called Amwell Bury Wood and other treed and wooded places within the parish were wholly quit and free from payment of tithes of wood from those places and from any other place within the said parish. The prior and convent of Hertford at the time lacked any possession of those tithes and they refrained from collecting them, such that neither the said prior and convent nor anyone else ever sought, claimed, or had such tithes of wood as far as they ever knew, understood, or that their elders taught or asserted. Nor did this witness for his whole time ever know or understand tithes to be paid or claimed from those places, especially from the wood called Amwell Bury, for his whole lifetime up to the time the present suit was launched. He says however that within the last ten years or thereabouts a certain Lamplow, then prior of Hertford, prosecuted a number of buyers of wood growing in places within the said parish, but not in those places belonging to the abbot and convent of Westminster, and he demanded and got tithes from them. And otherwise this witness knows nothing to depose about its contents. To the second part, he says that its contents are true, and this he knows by what he said above. And he says that John English and John Burton bought the wood from the abbot and convent of Westminster, and otherwise he knows nothing to depose about its contents. To the third part, he says that what he said above [is true] and that public voice and fame circulated and circulates about it in the parish of Amwell and in other neighbouring places and parishes. To the first interrogatory, let it be as is claimed therein. To the second interrogatory, he responds negatively to all its contents, except that he holds five and a half acres from the abbot and convent of Westminster, holding in chief from the lord. To the third interrogatory, he responds negatively to all its contents. To the fourth interrogatory, he says that he wants justice to be done and he does not care which party loses in the case. To the fifth interrogatory, he admits that he knows the church of Amwell. To the sixth interrogatory, he says that the prior and convent of Hertford are patrons and proprietors there. To the seventh interrogatory, he says as he said above. To the eighth interrogatory, he says that John Burton and John English neither are, nor were rent-gatherers of the abbot and convent of Westminster, but they did buy the said wood from them. To the ninth and tenth interrogatories, he says as he said above and otherwise he knows nothing to depose about its contents. To the eleventh and twelfth interrogatories, he responds negatively to all its contents. To the thirteenth interrogatory, he says he was asked by William Fader to come give testimony to the truth and at John English’s expenses. To the fourteenth interrogatory, he responds negatively to all its contents, except that he had his expenses given to him.

Testimony of John Miles, Witness for the defendants, 20 Apr. 1493

John Miles of the parish of Amwell, where he was born and has lived from the time of his birth, illiterate, of free condition, sixty years old or thereabouts, as he says. Sworn as a witness, etc., he says that he has known John Burton for twelve years and John English for thirty, the prior and convent for the time being, and the prior of Hertford as proprietor and patron of Amwell, thus said, held, and reputed, for forty years and more. To the first part, he agrees with William Billok examined above, except that he does not recall the cutting of the timber in Amwell Bury Wood before the time that Thomas Hoddisdon and a certain Palmer and Cok Bedford cut it down, and made part of it into charcoal and the other part sold by the cart. At the time of that cutting down and selling this witness stood in service to a certain Thomas and he worked and applied himself hauling the wood with his cart, and he knew well that the said Thomas and the other buyers of the wood were free from paying tithes, because if any tithe had been paid this witness would have had to set it out to verify, or at least he would have seen someone else set it out or at some time would have heard about it. And he says on the strength of his oath that he has never from the time of his discretion known or heard of any tithes of wood being claimed by any prior or convent of Hertford, at least not from the said wood called Amwell Bury Wood up to the time of the launching of this present suit, or from any other lands, woods, or places within the said parish of any kind of growths coming from it, except that about ten years ago the then prior of Hertford, through prosecution of a certain Shorrey and others, recuperated from him the tithes of wood. And this added, that he heard a certain King, aged almost a hundred years or thereabouts, before his death which occurred about forty years ago, saying just as the said William Billok deposed that his elders said and deposed, and he agrees with him in that part, and otherwise he knows nothing to depose concerning the contents in that part. To the second and third parts, he agrees with William Billok examined above. To the first interrogatory, let it be as is claimed therein and he says as he said above. To the second and third interrogatories, he responds negatively to all its contents. To the fourth interrogatory, he says that he does not care which party loses or wins, as long as justice is done. To the fifth and sixth interrogatories, he admits their contents. To the seventh interrogatory, he says as he said above, nor would he confer victory except according to equity and justice. To the eighth interrogatory, he agrees with William Billok. To the ninth and tenth interrogatories, he says as he said above, and otherwise he has nothing to depose concerning its contents. To the eleventh and twelfth interrogatories, he responds negatively to all its contents. To the thirteenth interrogatory, he says that he has come to offer testimony to the truth at the request of Burton and English, and at their expense. And to its other contents he responds negatively. To the fourteenth interrogatory, he responds negatively to all its contents, except for his necessary expenses.

Testimony of John Cowper, Witness for the defendants, 20 Apr. 1493

John Cowper of Hoddesdon [Hertfordshire], where he has lived for sixty years, illiterate, of free condition, eighty years old or thereabouts, as he says. Sworn as a witness etc., he says that he has known John Burton and John English for thirty years, and the prior and convent of Hertford for the time being for sixty years. To the first part of the submission, this witness says that in his time he has known the wood called Amwell Bury Wood to be sold, cut, and taken down twice before this present sale to John English and John Burton, and he has never known, understood, or heard that the buyers of the timber paid any tithes for it to the aforesaid prior and convent of Hertford or that the said prior and convent or anyone else claimed the tithes from the abbot and convent of Westminster or the buyers of the timber. And he says that fame has circulated and circulates that from time immemorial tithes were not paid to the prior and convent of Hertford by the buyers of Amwell Wood or from any other buyers of woods situated within the parish of Amwell, especially from any of the lands belonging to the abbot and convent of Westminster. And otherwise this witness knows nothing to depose concerning the contents of the part, except what he has heard or been told by others. To the second and third parts of the submission, he agrees with William Billok examined above. To the first interrogatory, the witness being warned about the danger of perjury and the penalty for false witnesses, he says as he said above. To the second and third interrogatories, he responds negatively to all their contents. To the fourth interrogatory, he does not care which party loses or wins. To the fifth interrogatory, he says that he has known the church of Amwell from the time of his discretion. To the sixth interrogatory, he says that the prior and convent were and are the proprietors there. To the seventh interrogatory, he says that he does not care which party gains victory nor does he know to whom he would confer victory if it were in his power to confer it, and he would not confer victory except according to justice and clean conscience. To the eighth interrogatory, he says that John Burton and John English are not and were not rent-gatherers for the abbot and convent of Westminster as far as this witness knew or understood. To the ninth interrogatory, he says as he said above. And otherwise he knows nothing to depose concerning its contents. To the tenth interrogatory, he says that he heard that the prior and convent of Hertford recuperated the tithes of wood from Robert Shorrey and Gamelyn, but whether that wood was grown on the land belonging to the abbot and convent of Westminster this witness does not know. To the eleventh and twelfth interrogatories, he responds negatively to all its contents. To the thirteenth interrogatory, he says that he was asked and required by John English to come to offer testimony to the truth, and he cannot testify for certain if it is at the expense of the abbot and convent or of the aforesaid John and John. To the fourteenth interrogatory, he responds negatively to all its contents except what has been laid out.

Testimony of Thomas Baldewyn, Witness for the defendants, 20 Apr. 1493

Thomas Baldewyn of Amwell aforesaid, where and in Stanstead[10] he has lived for thirty years, illiterate, of free condition, seventy years old, and he was born in the parish of Clavering [Essex], London diocese. He says that he has known John English and John Burton for thirty years, the prior and convent of Hertford for thirty years, and as the rectors and patrons of the church of Amwell and as such commonly said, held, and reputed for thirty years. To the first part of the submission, he says that this witness about fourteen years ago bought an acre of wood from the representative of the lord duke of Clarence[11] within this parish, and other men bought other parcels of land belonging to the duke, about eight acres altogether, from which this witness and the other buyers did not pay tithes to the prior and convent of Hertford. And he says also that about twenty years ago William Fader bought the said wood of Amwell Bury Wood and had it cut down and did not pay tithes from that wood to the prior and convent of Hertford or to anyone else. And he says that from the time of this witness’s discretion the prior and convent of Hertford have not been in possession of any tithes of cut wood coming from the lordship of Amwell Bury Wood, nor from any other lands within this parish, except that they compelled a certain Shorrey and a certain Gamelyn to pay tithes for them within the parish, but not from wood coming from places belonging to the abbot and convent of Westminster. And this witness says that he heard from his elders that the said abbot and convent and their rent-gatherers were wholly free from the payment of tithes of wood and they exercised that liberty and he has never heard or known the contrary up to the time of the present suit. To the second and third parts of the submission, he agrees with William Fader the witness examined above. To the first interrogatory, the witness being warned about the danger of perjury and the penalty for false witness, he says as he said above. To the second and third interrogatory, he responds negatively to all its contents. To the fourth interrogatory, he says that he does not care which party loses or wins. To the fifth and sixth interrogatories, he admits their contents are true. To the seventh interrogatory, he says that he would not confer victory to either party except according to justice. To the eighth interrogatory, he responds negatively to its contents. To the ninth and tenth interrogatories, he says as he said above, and otherwise he knows nothing to depose concerning its contents. To the eleventh and twelfth interrogatories, he responds negatively to all its contents. To the thirteenth interrogatory, he says that he was asked by John English and partly at his own expense and partly at John’s expense has come to offer testimony to the truth. And to its other contents he responds negatively. To the fourteenth interrogatory, he responds negatively to all its contents except that he received part of his expenses as he deposed before.

Testimony of Richard Spycer, Witness for the defendants, 23 May 1493

23 May, by the lord Official in his dwelling house.

Richard Spycer of the parish of St. Ethelburga [within Bishopsgate], City of London, where he has lived for eight years, literate, of free condition, forty-six years old as he says. Sworn as a witness etc., he says that he has known John English for thirty years, John Burton for twelve years and more, the prior and convent of Hertford and the priory there for thirty years, as rectors and patrons of the church of Amwell, and as such commonly said, taken, and reputed. To the first part of the submission, he says that in his time he has known the said wood called Amwell Bury Wood only once cut and taken down before this sale now lately made to John English and John Burton, and he has never known, understood, or heard that the buyers of the said wood paid any tithes for it to the prior and convent of Hertford or that the prior and convent or anyone else claimed any tithes from the abbot and convent of Westminster or from the buyers of the said wood. And he says that from time immemorial as he has heard tithes were not paid to the prior and convent from the buyers of the aforesaid wood called Amwell Bury Wood within the parish of Amwell nor has this witness ever known, understood, or heard from the time of his discretion, as far as he has ever known or understood, that the prior and convent have ever claimed tithes from the buyers of the aforesaid wood before this present suit. And otherwise he knows nothing to depose concerning its contents. To the second part, he says that its contents are true and he knows this by what he said above, and that the said John English and John Burton bought the said wood from the monk bailey of the said monastery of Westminster. And otherwise he knows nothing to depose about its contents. To the third part, he says that what he said above is true, and that public voice and fame circulated and circulate concerning it in the parish of Amwell. And otherwise concerning the premisses he knows nothing to depose. To the first interrogatory, he says as he said above, and he was born in the parish of Amwell. To the second interrogatory, he says that he is a tenant and rent-gatherer both of the abbot and convent of Westminster and of the prior and convent of Hertford, and he does not favour one party more than the other. To the third interrogatory, he says that he communicated with his fellow witnesses concerning his deposition to the Official to say the truth that […] in it. To the fourth interrogatory, he says that he does not care who wins. To the fifth and sixth interrogatories, he admits their contents are true. To the seventh interrogatory, he says that he [does not] care about the victory as long as justice is done. To the eighth interrogatory, he responds negatively. To the ninth interrogatory, he says as he said above. To the tenth interrogatory, he agrees with John Cowper. To the eleventh interrogatory, he says that he is indebted both to the prior of Westminster and to the prior of Hertford in the last Trinity term.[12] To the twelfth interrogatory, he says that around the feast of All Hallows [1 November] last past the abbot and convent prosecuted this witness in the temporal court for the rents, because he fully paid part of this rent […] and the other part he withheld [….] his […] around the last feast of All Hallows. To the thirteenth interrogatory, he says that he was asked by John English and John Burton and at his own expense has come to give testimony to the truth. To the fourteenth interrogatory, he responds negatively to all its contents.

Testimony of John Ulmer, Witness for the plaintiff, 19 Jul. 1493

19 July in the year [14]93, by lord Master Hugh Peyntwyn, in his dwelling house, in my, Richard Spencer’s, presence.

On behalf of Hertford c. English and Burton

John Ulmer of Hoddesdon [Hertfordshire], for three quarters of a year, and before that time in the town of Hertford, where he was born, illiterate, of free condition, fifty years old as he says. Sworn as a witness, etc., he says that he has known the prior and convent of Hertford for the time being, commonly said to be proprietors of Amwell, from the time of his discretion, John Burton for seven years and John English for twenty years, William Fader for ten, William Billok and the other witnesses named in the said exceptions for twelve years. To the first, second, and third parts of the said exceptions, he says as he will say below, and otherwise he knows nothing to depose concerning their contents. To the fourth part, he says that William Fader for these last seven years and more has held the house in which he now lives with all its lands and appurtenances by copyhold of the lordship of Amwell. And he knows this because all those living within the said lordship and the town of Amwell are tenants of the said abbot and convent [of Westminster] or subtenants of their tenants, among whom William Fader has lived and still lives, and for and as a tenant of the abbot and convent he is commonly said, held, and reputed, and every year he paid to the abbot for his tenement eight shillings as he heard say. And moreover before those seven years William was bailiff and rent-gatherer for the said abbot and convent in the said manor of Amwell for a certain number of years, how many he does not know, during which years William fell so far into debt for the rent of the said manor that he became liable to them for some sums of money, how much he does not know, for the paying of which Thomas Carter was obligated to the abbot and convent on William’s behalf. These things he knows from Thomas Carter, who told this witness that he did not dare testify for the prior and convent of Hertford in his case because of fear of the prosecution of the debt.[13] And otherwise he knows nothing to depose concerning its contents. To the fifth part of the said exceptions, he says that he believes that William is more opposed to than supportive of the said prior and convent of Hertford, and otherwise he knows nothing to testify concerning its contents. To the sixth part, he says that the said William Billok, John Miles, and John Cowper for those seven years were men of ill fame, drunk, and labouring under and oppressed by such poverty that they were and are accustomed to perjure lightly or fairly easily, and in the juries at Hertford and elsewhere for three or four years before the last three years they were thus commonly held and reputed. And he says that he heard Ralph Borham saying that John Cowper was on a jury at Hertford that indicted William Roo on felony and then afterwards he was on another jury that freed the said William.[14] And he says that William Billok was expelled from the lord’s court at Amwell for drunkenness, as he heard from his neighbours. And he says that he has often seen William Billok drunk and like a wild animal lying in the public square. And otherwise he knows nothing to testify concerning its contents. To the seventh part, he refers to his response, and otherwise he knows nothing to testify concerning its contents. To the eighth part, he says as he said above. And he says that Richard Spicer was and is a tenant of the said abbot and convent [of Westminster] and, because of the debt for which he was liable to the abbot and convent, in the last year he was imprisoned in the Fleet[15] at the instance of the abbot and convent as he heard. And otherwise he knows nothing to depose concerning its contents. To the ninth part, he says as he said above. And he says that in the year preceding the battle at Barnet,[16] the said Cowper sat on two juries at Hertford, in the first of which the jury indicted the said William on felony, and on the second of which, on which John Cowper also sat, the said William was declared acquitted and free and innocent of the said felony, and he testifies to this from what Ralph Borham told him and by the public fame that circulated about it. To the tenth part, he says that William[17] Spicer is a man of ill fame and a perjurer, and this he knows because the immediate predecessor of the current prior prosecuted certain buyers of the growth of wood within the said lordship at the spiritual court at St. Albans [Hertfordshire] and the said prior produced William as a witness in order to prove his purpose, and at length he recuperated from those buyers the tithes of the wood grown on that manor, and because William was produced against the current prior and testified against the current prior he believes that William was a perjurer. And as he has heard, the said William is a common man in the juries at the Guildhall of London. Otherwise he knows nothing to depose concerning its contents. To the eleventh part, he says as he said above, and otherwise he knows nothing to depose concerning its contents. To the twelfth and thirteenth parts, he says that what he said above is true, and that public voice and fame concerning it circulated and circulate in the town of Hoddesdon and in Amwell. To the first interrogatory, he says as he said above. To the second and third interrogatories, he responds negatively to all its contents. To the fourth and fifth interrogatories, he responds negatively to all its contents. To the sixth interrogatory, he says as he said above, and otherwise he knows nothing to depose concerning its contents. To the seventh interrogatory, he says that he does not have more affection for one party than the other, nor does he care which party loses this case, and he says that he would spend his own money to make a good end to this case. To the ninth interrogatory, he says that he was asked by the prior and at his expenses has come to give testimony to the truth.

Testimony of Thomas Bogges, Witness for the plaintiff, 19 Jul. 1493

Thomas Bogges of Harlow [Essex], London diocese, where he has lived for seven years, and before that time in the town of Hertford for eight years, literate, of free condition, forty-six years old as he says. Sworn as a witness etc., he says that he has known the prior and convent of Hertford for the time being for ten years, John Burton for seven years, John English for ten years, William Fader, William Billok, John Miles, and Richard Spicer for ten years, John Cowper for five and Thomas Baldwyn for two years. To the first, second, and third parts of the said exceptions, he says as he will say below. To the fourth part, he says that around eight years ago, when he lived in Amwell, the said William Fader held a certain house by copyhold in the manor of Amwell, with all the lands pertaining to it, in which William lived at that time, and this witness knows that all those living within the lordship and town of Amwell are tenants of the abbot and convent, if not subtenants of their tenants, among whom the said William lived and resided and was thus commonly said, taken, and reputed. And before those last eight years, William was bailiff and rent-collector of the said abbot and convent in Amwell manor, for how many years he does not know, during which years William fell so far into debt for the rent of the manor that he became liable to them for some sums of money, how much he does not know, for the paying of which as he heard many men, whose names he does not know, became obligated to the abbot and convent. And otherwise he knows nothing to testify concerning its contents. To the fifth part, he says that he believes that the said William would rather hold against the prior and convent than with them. And otherwise he knows nothing to depose concerning its contents. To the sixth part, he says that the said William Billok, John Miles, and John Cowper for those three years were men of ill fame, drunk, and labouring under and oppressed by such poverty that they were and are accustomed to perjure lightly or fairly easily, and they were thus commonly held and reputed in the juries at Hertford and other neighbouring parishes. And he says that he heard that John Cowper sat on a jury and indicted a certain man, and then later sat on another jury and freed the same man. And he says that William Billok was expelled from the lord’s court there for his drunkenness. And otherwise he knows nothing to depose concerning its contents. To the seventh part, he refers to his response, and otherwise he knows nothing to depose. To the eighth part, he agrees with the first witness examined above. To the ninth part, he says as he said above in the sixth, and otherwise he knows nothing to depose concerning its contents. To the tenth part, he says that he heard that some time ago William Spicer, in a case moved by the prior of Hertford against some others for the right to tithes of cut wood, was brought forth as a witness and deposed for the right and possession of the said prior and convent, and now, he was brought forth as a witness against the prior of Hertford and deposed against the possession of the prior and convent. And moreover he says that for the last ten years the said William was a man of ill fame and of light condition and a common juror in assizes and juries at Westminster and the London Guildhall, and as such he was and is commonly said, held, and reputed. And otherwise he knows nothing to depose concerning its contents. To the eleventh part, he says as he said above, and otherwise he knows nothing to depose concerning its contents. To the twelfth and thirteenth parts, he says that what he said above is true, and that public voice and fame circulated and circulates about it in the diocese of London. To the first interrogatory, he says as he said above. To the second, third, fourth, and fifth interrogatories, he responds negatively to all their contents. To the sixth interrogatory, he says as he said above and otherwise he knows nothing to depose concerning its contents. To the seventh interrogatory, he says that he does not have more affection for one party than the other, and that he is joined in friendship to the said prior just as he is to others, and that he does not care about the victory as long as justice is done. And he responds negatively to the other contents. To the eighth interrogatory, he says that he does not favour one party more than the other and he does not care which party wins. To the ninth interrogatory, he says that he was asked by the prior and at his own expense has come to give testimony to the truth.

Testimony of John Redington, Witness for the plaintiff, 19 Jul. 1493

John Redington of the parish of Stanstead Abbotts [Hertfordshire], London diocese, where he has lived for twenty years, illiterate, of free condition, fifty years old and more, as he says. Sworn as a witness etc., he says that he has known the prior and convent for the time being for twenty years, John Burton for forty years, John English for thirty years, William Fader and the others named in the exceptions for twenty years. To the first, second, and third parts, he says as he will say below. To the fourth part, he agrees with the first witness examined above, except that he did not hear Carter, who was William Fader’s guarantor as he heard, saying what John deposed he heard. To the fifth part, he says as he said above, and otherwise he knows nothing to depose concerning its contents. To the sixth part, he says that for the last twenty years, William Billok was and still is a very drunk man, whom he has often seen inebriated, and he was customarily devoted to such drunkenness that, as it is commonly said, he would get drunk with one cup of ale. And he says that John Miles, John Cowper, and Thomas Baldwyn are oppressed by such poverty that they were and are accustomed to perjure lightly or fairly easily, and public voice and fame circulated and circulate about this, and as such they were said, taken, and reputed. And he says that he heard by public fame circulating about it[18] that John Cowper sat on a jury that indicted William on felony at Hertford, and afterwards sat on another jury that freed the said William Roo. And he says that he heard that William Billok was expelled from the lord’s court because of his drunkenness. And otherwise he knows nothing to depose concerning its contents. To the seventh part, he refers to his response. And otherwise he knows nothing to depose concerning its contents. To the eighth part, he agrees with the first witness examined above, except that he does not know in which prison William was imprisoned. To the ninth part, he agrees with the first witness examined above, except that he testifies from the public fame circulating about it. To the tenth part, he says that he heard it said that William Spicer is a man of ill fame and of light condition, and a common juror in the assizes and juries at Westminster and the London Guildhall, and as such was commonly said, held, and reputed, as he heard from the public fame circulating about it. To the eleventh part, he says as he said above. To the twelfth and thirteenth parts, he says that what he said above is true and that public voice and fame circulated and circulate about it in the town of Amwell and other neighbouring parishes and places. To the first interrogatory, he says as he said above. To the second, third, fourth, and fifth interrogatories, he responds negatively to all their contents. To the sixth interrogatory, he says as he said above, and otherwise he knows nothing to depose concerning its contents. To the seventh interrogatory, he agrees with Thomas Bogges examined above. To the eighth interrogatory, he says that he does not favour one party more than the other, and that he does not care who loses this case. To the ninth interrogatory, he says that he was asked by the said prior, partly at his own expenses and partly the prior’s, to come and give testimony to the truth.

Testimony of John Ive, Witness for the plaintiff, 19 Jul. 1493

John Ive of the parish of Stanstead aforesaid [Hertfordshire], where he has lived for thirty years, illiterate, of free condition, fifty-four years old as he says. Sworn as a witness etc., he says that he has known the prior and convent for the time being for twelve years, John Burton and John English for twenty years, William Fader and others named in the exceptions for twenty years. To the first, second, and third parts, he says as he will say below. To the fourth part, he agrees with the first witness examined above, except that he did not hear Carter, who was William Fader’s guarantor as he heard, saying what John deposed he heard. To the fifth part, he says as he said above, and otherwise he knows nothing to depose concerning its contents. To the sixth part, he agrees with John Redington, the previous witness examined above. To the seventh part, he refers to his response, and otherwise he knows nothing to depose concerning its contents. To the eighth part, he agrees with the first witness examined above. To the ninth and tenth parts, he agrees with John Redington, the previous witness examined above. To the eleventh part, he says as he said above. To the twelfth and thirteenth parts, he says that what he said above is true and that public voice and fame circulated and circulate about it in the town of Amwell and other neighbouring parishes and places. To the first interrogatory, he says as he said above. To the second, third, fourth, and fifth interrogatories, he responds negatively to all their contents. To the sixth interrogatory, he says as he said above, and otherwise he knows nothing to depose concerning its contents. To the seventh interrogatory, he agrees with Thomas Bogges examined above. To the eighth interrogatory, he agrees with the first witness examined above. To the ninth interrogatory, he says that he was asked by the said prior, partly at his own expenses and partly the prior’s, to come and give testimony to the truth.

Testimony of Robert Atthoo, Witness for the plaintiff, 19 Jul. 1493

Robert Atthoo of the parish of Hoddesdon [Hertfordshire], London diocese, where he has lived for twenty years, illiterate, of free condition, fifty years old and more as he says. Sworn as a witness etc., he says that he has known the prior and convent of Hertford for twenty years, John Burton and John English for twenty years, William Fader and the others named in the exceptions for twenty years. To the first, second, and third parts, he says as he will say below. To the fourth part, he agrees with the first witness examined above, except that he heard that Thomas Carter owed the abbot and convent of Westminster on William Fader’s behalf certain sums of money, how much, however, he does not know. To the fifth part, he says as he said above, and otherwise he knows nothing to depose concerning its contents. To the sixth part, he agrees with Thomas Boggys examined above. To the seventh part, he refers to his response, and otherwise he knows nothing to depose concerning its contents. To the eighth and ninth parts, he agrees with the first witness examined above, except that he does not testify to this from what William Roo told him but from the public fame circulating about it. To the tenth part, he says that he knows nothing to depose concerning its contents. To the eleventh part, he says as he said above, and otherwise he knows nothing to depose concerning its contents. To the twelfth and thirteenth parts, he says that what he said above is true and that public voice and fame circulated and circulate about it in the town of Amwell and other neighbouring parishes and places. To the first interrogatory, he says as he said above. To the second, third, and fourth interrogatories, he responds negatively to all their contents. To the fifth interrogatory, he says that about four or five years ago, this witness bought a parcel of cut wood growing within the lordship of Amwell from the prior and convent of Hertford, from which parcel he paid tithes to the prior and convent. To the sixth interrogatory, he says as he said above, and otherwise he knows nothing to depose concerning its contents. To the seventh and eighth interrogatories, he agrees with the first witness examined above. To the ninth interrogatory, he agrees with the previous witness examined above.

Testimony of Robert Wete, Witness for the plaintiff, 19 Jul. 1493

Robert Wete of Hoddesdon aforesaid, where he has lived for sixteen years and more, illiterate, of free condition, forty years old, as he says. Sworn as a witness etc., he says that he has known the prior and convent of Hertford for the time being for twenty years, John Burton and John English for twenty years, William Fader and the others named in the exceptions for twelve years. To the first, second, and third parts, he says as he will say below. To the fourth part, he agrees with the first witness examined above. To the fifth part, he says that the said William is more against the said prior and convent than with them. To the sixth part, he says that for those seven years William Billoke and John Miles were and still are men of ill fame and light condition, and greatly drunk and by custom devoted to such drunkenness that they would get drunk with one cup of ale. And he says that John Cowper is oppressed by such poverty that he is accustomed to perjure lightly or fairly easily, and he says this by the public fame circulating about it. To the seventh part, he refers to his reponse, and otherwise he knows nothing to depose concerning its contents. To the eighth part, he agrees with the first witness examined above. To the ninth part, he agrees with the first witness, except that he heard from Ralph Borham, who was one of the first jury together with the said John which indicted William Roo on felony, and Ralph told this witness that afterwards John was on another jury that freed the said William as he says. To the tenth part, he agrees with John Redington. To the eleventh part, he says as he said above. To the twelfth and thirteenth parts, he says that what he said above is true and that public voice and fame circulated and circulate about it in the parish of Amwell and other neighbouring places. To the first interrogatory, he says as he said above. To the second, third, fourth, and fifth interrogatories, he responds negatively. To the sixth interrogatory, he says as he said above. To the seventh, eighth, and ninth interrogatories, he agrees with the first witness examined above.

Testimony of Robert Kyrkeby, Witness for the defendants, 26 Jul. 1493

26 July, A.D. 1493, by the lord Official, in the cemetery called Pardon Churchyard, in my, Richard Grome’s, presence.

On behalf of John English and John Burton c. the prior and convent of Hertford and their witnesses on the exceptions, ministered on behalf of Burton and English.

Robert Kyrkeby of the parish of Hoddesdon [Hertfordshire], London diocese, where he has lived for almost thirty years, illiterate, of free condition, forty years old or thereabouts as he says. Sworn as a witness etc., he says that he has known John English and John Burton for twenty-six years, the prior and convent of Hertford for the time being and the priory there for the same time, William Woodleff for twenty, Sir John Noteman for nine or ten years, John Gamelyn for twelve, and the other witnesses named in the exceptions for sixteen years. To the first part of the exceptions, he says as he will say below. To the second and third parts of the exceptions, he says that Sir John Noteman was for those ten or twelve years the vicar of Amwell, the proprietors of which church were the prior and convent, and he has in augmentation of his vicarage 26 s. 8 d. from the prior and convent, and three times a week he has meat and drink if and when it pleases him to go to the priory. And William Killing was and is the tenant of the prior and convent, and he holds a certain piece of land or tenement situated opposite the gate of the said priory, by reason of which tenement he is obliged to appear in its temporal courts held in Hertford. And Thomas Bole and John Roper were for the last two years and still are of the prior’s livery, and Roper was and is his servant and a member of his household, and overseer of his meadows, woods, and underwoods. Asked about the source of his knowledge of the foregoing, he says that as regards the vicar, through the public fame circulating about it, and as regards the others, from his own knowledge because he has seen the said Killing appearing in the court at Hertford and there sworn among the other tenants of the prior, and he has also seen Bole and Roper wearing the prior’s livery as his other servants wear, and as such they were and are commonly said, taken, and reputed. And otherwise he knows nothing to depose concerning their contents. To the fourth part of the exceptions, he says that for these last six or seven years and more, William Golding was and still [is] very familiar with the vicar, such that whenever the vicar travels somewhere, William was and is accustomed to attend to him as a servant and to ride with him. And he believes in his conscience that both the vicar and William have great affection for the prior and convent and are too partial towards them in this case. And otherwise he knows nothing to depose about its contents. To the fifth part of the exceptions, he says that John Denham holds from them land by copyhold in the lordship of Ware for which he pays to the prior and convent 20 d. a year, and he is an old and senile man, and as such he is commonly said, held, and reputed. And otherwise he knows nothing to depose concerning its contents. To the sixth part of the exceptions, he says as he said above, and otherwise he knows nothing to depose concerning its contents. To the seventh part, he refers to the attestations of their witnesses, and otherwise he knows nothing to depose concerning its contents. To the eighth part, he says as he said above, and otherwise he knows nothing to depose concerning its contents. To the ninth and tenth parts, he says that what he said above is true, and that public voice and fame circulated and circulate concerning it in the parishes of Hoddisdon, Hertford, Amwell, and other neighbouring places. To the first interrogatory, let it be as is claimed therein, and he says as he said above. To the second, he says that he does not care which of the parties loses. To the third and fourth interrogatories, he responds negatively to all their contents. To the fifth interrogatory, he says that he would confer victory according to justice and good conscience and not otherwise. To the sixth interrogatory, he says as he said above, and otherwise he knows nothing to depose concerning its contents. To the seventh interrogatory, he says that he heard that William Cowper more than twenty years ago sat on a jury at Ware and that jury freed and acquitted a certain William Roo on a homicide that the jury investigated, and he did not hear that he alleged it when he sat on a jury before, and he adjudicated the matter with his colleagues. To the eighth interrogatory, he says that he heard that William Fader is indebted to the abbot and convent of Westminster for a certain sum of money, how much he does not know. To its other contents he responds negatively. To the ninth interrogatory, he says that he does not know whether William Spicer sat on juries in the places specified in the interrogatory. To the tenth interrogatory, he responds negatively. To the eleventh interrogatory, he says that he has come to offer testimony to the truth at the expense of John English and John Burton, and at their request. To the twelfth interrogatory, he responds negatively to all its contents. To the thirteenth, he says as he said above to the eleventh interrogatory, and to its other contents he responds negatively. To the fourteenth interrogatory, he responds negatively to all its contents.

Testimony of William Roo, Witness for the defendants, 26 Jul. 1493

William Roo of the parish of Hoddesdon [Hertfordshire], London diocese, where he has lived for twenty-five years, illiterate, of free condition, fifty years old and more as he says. Sworn as a witness etc., he says that he has known John English for twenty-five years and John Burton for sixteen years, the prior and convent of Hertford for the time being and the priory there for twenty years, William Wodlef for twenty years, Sir John Noteman for seven years, John Gamelyn for twelve years, William Goldyng, Ralph Boreham, John Denham, Thomas Bole for twelve years, William Kelling and John Roper for seven years. To the first part of the exceptions, he says as he will say below. To the second part, he says that Sir John Noteman for the whole time that he was vicar of the parish church of Amwell, the proprietors of which church were the prior and convent, had and has in augmentation of his vicarage from the prior and convent 26 s. 8 d., and three times a week he has meat and drink if and when it pleases him to go to the priory. And he says that William Killing was and still is a tenant of the prior and convent and he holds from them a certain piece of land or tenement situated opposite the gate of the said priory, by reason of which tenement he is obliged to appear in its temporal courts held in Hertford. And Thomas Bole and John Roper were and are of the prior’s livery,[19] and John Roper was and still is his servant and a member of his household, and overseer of his meadows, woods, and underwoods. And this he knows as regards the vicar by the public fame circulating about it, and as regards the others, by his knowledge, because he heard from other tenants of the prior that the said William appeared in the prior’s court among the other tenants and that he sat on the jury with the other tenants. And he says that he saw Thomas Bole and John Roper wearing the prior’s livery as his other servants wear, and as such they were commonly said, taken, and reputed. And otherwise he knows nothing to depose concerning its contents. To the third part, he says that Ralph Boreham is a tenant of the prior and convent, and this he knows by public fame circulating about it, and Ralph paid every year to the prior and convent 2 d. for the tenement that he holds. And he says that John Denham is tenant of lands from them by copyhold, and he pays for those lands every year 20 d. And otherwise he knows nothing to depose concerning its contents. To the fourth part, he says that for those four or five years, William Goldyng was and still is very familiar with the said vicar. And he believes in his conscience that both the vicar and William have great affection for the prior and convent and are too partial towards them in this case. And otherwise he knows nothing to depose concerning its contents. To the fifth part, he says as he said above to the third, and otherwise he knows nothing to depose concerning its contents. To the sixth part, he says as he said above, and otherwise he knows nothing to depose concerning its contents. To the seventh part, he refers to their attestations, and otherwise he knows nothing to depose concerning its contents. To the eighth part, he says as he said above, and otherwise he knows nothing to depose concerning its contents. To the ninth and tenth parts, he says that what he said above is true and that public voice and fame circulated and circulate concerning it in the parishes of Hoddesdon, Hertford, Amwell, and other neighbouring places. To the first interrogatory, he says as he said above. To the second interrogatory, he says that he does not care which party loses the case. To the third and fourth interrogatory, he responds negatively to all their contents. To the fifth interrogatory, he says that if it were in his power to confer victory, he would confer it on the one having right and not otherwise. To the sixth interrogatory, he says as he said above, and otherwise he knows nothing to depose concerning its contents. To the seventh interrogatory, he says that more than twenty years ago, William Cowper sat on a jury in Ware and there this witness was freed and acquitted by the said jury on a homicide that the jury investigated, and he did not hear that he alleged it when he sat on the jury before, and he adjudicated the matter with his colleagues. To the eighth interrogatory, he says that he heard that William Fader was indebted to the abbot and convent of Westminster for certain sums of money, how much he does not know to depose. And to its other contents he responds negatively. To the ninth interrogatory, he does not know to depose whether William Spicer sat on the juries in the places specified in the interrogatory. To the tenth interrogatory, he responds negatively. To the eleventh interrogatory, he says that he came to give testimony to the truth at the expense of John English and John Burton, and at their request. To the twelfth interrogatory, he responds negatively to all its contents. To the thirteenth, he says as he said above to the eleventh interrogatory, and to its contents he responds negatively. To the fourteenth interrogatory, he responds negatively to all its contents.

Testimony of William Bolles, Witness for the defendants, 26 Jul. 1493

William Bolles of Hoddesdon aforesaid, where he has lived for twenty years, illiterate, of free condition, sixty years old as he says. Sworn as a witness etc., he says that he has known John Burton for sixteen years, John English for twenty years, the prior and convent of Hertford for the time being for twenty years, William Woodlef and others named in the examinations for twelve years. To the first part, he says as he will say below. To the second and third parts, he agrees with William Roo examined above, with this excepted, that this witness deposes concerning the ten or twelve years during which Sir John Noteman has been vicar of the parish church of Amwell, and in the other things he agrees with him. To the fourth part, he says that for the last two years, William Golding was and still is very familiar with the said vicar. And he believes in his conscience that both the vicar and William have great affection for the prior and convent and are too partial towards them in this case. And otherwise he knows nothing to depose about its contents. To the fifth part, he agrees with the first witness examined above, with this added, that William Woodleff is a tenant of the prior and convent of Hertford, and he knows this because William holds a tenement from the prior and convent and he pays for it every year 5 d. And otherwise he knows nothing to depose concerning its contents. To the sixth part, he says as he said above and otherwise he has nothing to depose concerning its contents. To the seventh part, he says as he said above. And otherwise he knows nothing to depose concerning its contents. To the eighth part, he says as he said above. And otherwise he knows nothing to depose concerning its contents. To the ninth and tenth parts, he says that what he said above is true, and that public voice and fame circulated and circulate concerning it in the parishes of Hoddesdon and Amwell and other neighbouring places. To the first interrogatory, he says as he said above. To the second interrogatory, he says that he does not care which party loses in this case. To the third and fourth interrogatory, he responds negatively to all its contents. To the fifth interrogatory, he says that if it were in his power to confer victory, he would confer it on the one having right and not otherwise. To the sixth interrogatory, he says as he said above. And otherwise he knows nothing to depose concerning its contents. To the seventh interrogatory, he agrees with the first witness examined above. To the eighth interrogatory, he says that he heard that William Fader and William Spicer were indebted to the abbot and convent of Westminster for certain sums of money, how much he does not know. And otherwise he knows nothing to depose concerning its contents. To the ninth interrogatory, he says that he heard that he was accustomed to sit on juries in many places. And he knows nothing to depose concerning the other contents. To the tenth interrogatory, he responds negatively to all its contents. To the eleventh interrogatory, he says that he has come to offer testimony to the truth at the expenses of the said John English and John Burton, and at their request. To the twelfth interrogatory, he responds negatively to all its contents. To the thirteenth interrogatory, he says as he said above to the eleventh interrogatory. To the fourteenth interrogatory, he responds negatively to all its contents except for the expenses.

Testimony of William Symson, Witness for the defendants, 26 Jul. 1493

William Symson of Amwell, London diocese, where he has lived for thirteen years and more, illiterate, of free condition, forty years old as he says. Sworn as a witness etc., he says that he has known John Burton and John English for thirteen years, the prior and convent of Hertford for the time being and the priory there for six years, Sir John Noteman for twelve, and William Killing for four years, John Gamelett for two years, and the others named in the exceptions for ten years. To the first part of the exceptions, he says as he will say below. To the second part, he says that for those last ten or eleven years, Sir William Noteman was and still is the vicar of the parish church of Amwell, and he has each year from the prior and convent of Hertford in augmentation of his vicarage 26 s. 8 d., [and] three times a week food and drink when it pleases him to go the said priory. And he says that William Killing is a tenant of the prior and convent, because he holds from them certain lands by copyhold. And he says that Thomas Bole and John Roper are and were of the livery of the said prior, and John Roper is his servant and a member of his household, and the overseer of his meadows, woods, and underwoods. Questioned about his knowledge of these things, he says that as regards the vicar, he frequently saw him going to the priory at meal times, and also both from what the vicar told him and from public fame circulating about the matter. And he also saw Thomas Bole and John Roper wearing the gowns of the said prior and they were of the cloth and colour the prior’s other servants wear. He says also that they were the said prior’s attendants and served him when from time to time he traveled away from his priory, and as such as above they were reputed and commonly said, taken, and reputed. And otherwise he knows nothing to depose concerning its contents. To the third, fourth, fifth, and sixth parts of the exceptions, he says as he said above to the second. And otherwise he knows nothing to depose concerning their contents. To the seventh part, he refers to the depositions of their witnesses. To the eighth part, he says as he said above. And otherwise he knows nothing to depose concerning its contents. To the ninth and tenth parts, he says that what he said above is true, and public voice and fame circulated and circulate about it in the parish of Amwell and in other neighbouring places. To the first interrogatory, he says as he said above. To the second interrogatory, he says that he does not care which party loses in this case. To the third and fourth interrogatories, he responds negatively to all its contents. To the fifth interrogatory, he says that he does not care about victory as long as justice is done. To the sixth interrogatory, he says as he said above. To the seventh interrogatory, he agrees with the first witness examined above. To the eighth interrogatory, he says that he heard that William Fader was indebted to the abbot and convent of Westminster for a certain sum of money, how much this witness does not know. And otherwise he knows nothing to depose concerning its contents. To the ninth interrogatory, he says that he has heard that William Spicer was accustomed to sit on juries in the Guildhall of London and many other places specified in the said interrogatory, as he has heard. To the tenth interrogatory, he responds negatively to all its contents. To the eleventh interrogatory, he says that he has come to offer testimony to the truth at the expense of John English and Burton and at their request. To the twelfth interrogatory, he responds negatively. To the thirteenth interrogatory, he says as he said above to the eleventh. To the fourteenth interrogatory, he responds negatively to all its contents except the expenses.

[1] Nicholas Orme, Going to Church in Medieval England (Yale University Press, 2021), 33, 49-50.

[2] History of the County of Hertford, 4: 419-21, https://www.british-history.ac.uk/vch/herts/vol4/pp419-421.

[3] Amwell, Hertfordshire. Westminster Abbey held the Amwell Bury manor, while Hertford Priory held the advowson of the parish of Amwell (i.e. had the right to name the parish priest and received the tithes). William Page, ed., A History of the County of Hertford, 3 vols., Victoria history of the counties of England (London: Published for the Institute of Historical Research by Oxford University Press, 1908), 3:414-19, https://www.british-history.ac.uk/vch/herts/vol3/pp414-419.

[4] The prior of Hertford priory, the plaintiff in the case.

[5] i.e. of Westminster.

[6] It’s unclear who this is: the “Master” title suggests he was an official from Hertford priory (someone with an MA degree)?

[7] Hertford was situated right on the border between the dioceses of London and Lincoln.

[8] Ralph Boreham presumably also gave a deposition during this second phase, cited here and by later witnesses, but it does not survive.

[9] It is unclear to whom Fader referred here.

[10] Either Stanstead Abbotts, Hertfordshire (near Amwell), or Stansted, Essex (near Clavering). Several other deponents below explicitly come from the former.

[11] George, duke of Clarence, brother to Edward IV. He was executed for treason in 1478, about fifteen years before this deposition. Presumably this purchase was made shortly before the duke’s execution.

[12] Trinity term was one of the terms during which the law courts sat, from late May to early July.

[13] That is, that Thomas Carter was one of William Fader’s guarantors and thus liable for the debt if William did not pay.

[14] This comment interestingly misunderstands the different roles of presentment juries (which indicted or formally accused felons, forcing them to stand trial) and trial juries (which rendered verdicts of guilty or not guilty when the charge was tried). The standard of proof for the trial juries – beyond a reasonable doubt – reflected the serious outcome for a guilty verdict, which was execution by hanging. Presentment juries, however, did not need to be certain about the charges that they made. In other words, there was nothing inherently corrupt about indicting someone for a felony and then finding that the level of evidence did not reach a reasonable doubt standard.

[15] The Fleet prison, on the Fleet River (now covered by Faringdon Road) near Fleet Street; it was commonly used for debtors. See Margery Bassett, “The Fleet Prison in the Middle Ages,” University of Toronto Law Journal 5 (1943-44): 383-402.

[16] The Battle of Barnet occurred on 14 Apr. 1471.

[17] This may be an error for Richard Spicer, previous deponent in the case, or there is another deposition from William Spicer missing.

[18] from what William Roo told him deleted; by public … about it: inserted interlineally.

[19] Livery – usually particular clothes or badges worn by retinues of aristocrats – was a very touchy subject in the 1490s. It is interesting to see a head of a religious house using that form of display of authority and power. See Matthew Ward, “The Livery Collar: Politics and Identity during the Fifteenth Century,” in Exploring the Evidence: Commemoration, Administration and the Economy, ed. Linda Clark (Woodbridge: Boydell & Brewer, 2014), 41–61.