< Previous | Contents | Next >
PUBLIC HOUSE, DUNHAM. ENGLAND, 1923
Two charters were granted to Dunham. One probably by Henry I., making it a free borough, granting exemptions from certain tolls and fines, the right to establish a Gild Merchant, and the right to hold a market. Another in 1320, together with the town of Gainsborough, granting the exclusion of sheriffs and other royal bailiffs from the interference in the affairs of the borough.
That a weekly market was held in Dunham we gather from an entry in the Close Rolls, which is as follows:—"1330.
February 22nd, Westminster. To the Justices in eyre in co Nottingham. Order to permit Mary, late wife of Aymer de Valentia, earl of Pembroke, lady of Dunham, to have a market on Tuesday in every week at Dunham, whic is 20 luca distant from the town of Nottingham."
This entry follows a similar order to the lady of Wellow, Notts, but fuller in detail. The meaning of the two writs relating to Wellow and Dunham markets was that the King's Justices being on eyre at Nottingham, for their safety had issued a proclamation prohibiting all gatherings of the people, even at markets and fairs, within a certain radius of Nottingham during their sojourn. This proclamation stopped the two markets of Wellow and Dunham. The two ladies appealed to the King to remove the restraint, which he did. A market continued to be held here weekly until recent times. On market day Dunham would be quite a busy place when farmers came in from the neighbouring villages to transact business, and their wives to sell butter, eggs, etc. In White's Directory of Nottinghamshire, 1844, it is stated that '' a market is held on Friday, and butter, etc., are bought by the hucksters who pass through the village from Lincoln to Sheffield." It is owing probably to the introduction of railways, and consequently the increased facilities of reaching the more important markets at Lincoln, Retford, and Newark that the weekly market at Dunham ceased to be of any consequence; few attended, and so it was abandoned.
The market place was the plot of ground, now a garden, opposite the front of the house with a shop, occupied by Mr. Bell. It was probably during the time of the Lady Mary that the village cross was erected, a portion of which was recently discovered by the writer, in 1909, and placed in the Church. The portion that has been found is the top stone of the pedestal, the carving on it indicates what a fine and handsome piece of work the cross must have been when complete. It was placed there to remind buyers and sellers and all passers by that the cross must be borne daily by Christ's disciples, and that all they do should be done so as to be blest by Him Who died thereon. In "White's Directory, 1853, we read "that a fine old cross which stood in the village was taken down about 50 years ago by Mr. Robert Mills by order of William Crawley, lord of the Manor."
At this period and for long after Dunham was a flourishing place. During the close of the 15th century the Church was re-built, a large and beautiful structure with aisles and side chapels; the only portion of which remains is the tower, which gives us some idea of what a splendid edifice has been lost through neglect, and the reluctance to spend money to keep it in repair.
The passage of the Trent, i.e., the ferry, was in 1327 valued at £10, which is probably equal to from £150 to £200 now. The ferry was the only means by which the river could be crossed until the year 1832, when the present bridge was completed at the cost of £18,854. An Act of Parliament was passed to allow the shareholders to purchase the ferry at a fair valuation. The ferry belonged to the lord of the Manor.
The bridge erected for the Lincoln Waterworks was completed in 1911.
In the County Records there are references to the ferry, as follows:—
On January 14th, 1624-1625, a yeoman of Dunham was indicted for extortion, being ferryman of the ford of Dunham.
On January 14th, 1652-1653, Nicholas Johnson, of Dunham, ferryman, was indicted for not repairing the stavinge and landing there. On October 7th, 1653, William Daniel of Dunham, gentleman, was indicted "for want of a ferry boat." (In 1647 William Daniel purchased the Manor. See page 13).
In 1359, a grant was made for paving. The entry in the Patent Rolls is very brief, viz:—"33 Edward 3. Paviagium pro hominibus de Dunham super Trentam."
Mr. Brown in his history of Newark says, "Until 1328 there had been no footpaths, for it was the custom in all towns for the roads to be raised by a slope from the middle downwards into the two kennels (canals) into which the filth of the streets was supposed to run."
Mr. C. Brown, in his history of Newark, states "that schools were plentiful in the large towns in the 14th century, as well as in many of the principal villages, there is ample evidence to prove." There was, without doubt, a Grammar School in Dunham in the early part of the 14th century, for it is recorded that "In 1351 Hugh, son of Robert Pagan, of the upper town of Laneham quit claimed to John de Nagenby, of Dunham on Trent, all the right which he had in all lands and tenements which belonged to Robert le Taillour, formerly master of the Grammar School of Dunham, in the towns and fields of Dunham, Wystone (Wympton), Derletone (Darlton), Dray tone, and Ragenhille."
''The funds for the support of the numerous schools which existed prior to the Reformation came mainly from gifts and bequests. At Southwell part of the proceeds of the common lands held by the Church were applicable to the relieving of poor scholars either resorting to their erudition either in grammar or som.''
In some parishes the chantry priests were the schoolmasters, but Dunham had no endowment of that kind.
The present school was erected in 1844 at a cost of £600, which was raised by subscription. The National Society made a grant of £70. Previous to its erection there was a small school in in the village, which must indeed have been a poor substitute for the ancient Grammar School, for in 1832 it was kept by a Mr. Marshall, who held the combined occupations of parish clerk, shop-keeper and schoolmaster.
In the middle ages there was a curious method of securing good behaviour, namely, ten houses were made responsible for each other, so that if one committed an offence the other nine were bound to make reparation. The pledge of surety for good behaviour of freedmen was called "Frankpledge." It is recorded that '' Thos de St. Albano, preband of Dunham in the Church of Southwell, of all men etc. in his fee in Dunham, Darleton, Wymton, and Ragenhull, claim with other Canons and prebends of the Chapter of Southwell to have a view of frankpledge in common, and whatever pertain to that view and the fines of the assize of bread and ale from their tenants and certain other liberties contained in that petition, and that Wm. de Herle and his fellow justices in eyre in that county delayed to allow those liberties. The King caused this petition to be brought to him in chancery before justices Geoffrey Scrope, etc., to view and examine this claim. Result, the King orders the said chapter and prebends to be acquitted thereof at the exchequer." (From Waltham Cross, October 8, 1333). Twice a year the prebend came to Dunham to collect these fines.
When everyone wore a knife and was more or less trained in the use of such arms as he possessed, every public house brawl was liable to end in bloodshed. Dunham had its offenders in this respect as well as other places, and quarrels took place from time to time which had fatal results. "On October 30, 1339, Pardon was granted to Wm. Bate, Dunham-on-Trent, for death of Adam de Holland." "March 12, 1340, Pardon Wm. Bate, debts for death of Adam de Holland." "March 1, 1385, Pardon, at the supplication of the King's kinsman Henry, Earl of Derby, was granted to Robert White, of Colyngham, for the death of John Fisher, of Rag-nall, late servant of Wm. Parson, of Northcolyngham, killed at Colyngham, on Friday before St. Thomas the Apostle, 9, Rich ii." "On Oct. 25th, 1392, the pardon was renewed. "March 23, 1386. Pardon out of regard for Good Friday to Wm. Bakhouse alias Coupese for the death of Thos. Pyke, clerk, killed at Dunham on Sunday night before Purification, 10 Richard ii." Thos. Pyke being termed "Clerk" shows that he was in holy orders, but whether he was connected with Dunham Church, we do not know; he may have been one of the chantry priests.
Mr. Brown in his history of Newark gives "a curious account of an attack made on the house of Richard de Suthton of Averham, headed by three men from Dunham, Robert Att Well, Robert Cockerell, and J. Brown, in 1350. It is stated that these people, by force of arms, went to Mr. Suthton's residence where there was a certain body of a dead man being watched (waked), and they made an assault on John the Roser, junior, William son of John of South Clifton, and others, both men and women, and beat and wounded them, and were such wretches that they horribly mutilated the dead body aforesaid with swords and clubs."
On the complaint of John Bolynbrok that his property had been damaged, a commission was appointed and the offenders were fined. It is recorded as follows:—"1401 commission of eyre and terminer to Wm. Thirnyng, Nicholas Strilley, John Leak, Hugh Anseley, John Markham, Thos. Bekeryng, Thos. Newton, and Robert Tirwhit on complaint of John Bolynbrok that Roger Abbot, John Atte Welle, Robert Cust, John Blume, Jno. Hamond, Philip Stanwell, Thos. Robertesson Grateson, Thos. Porter, Roger de Isname, and others broke his close at Dunham, co. Notts, cut down his trees, fished in his stews and several fisheries, carried off fish, trees, and other goods, despastured his grass, and threatened his servants." Fined 20s.
The Atte Welles seem to have been a family given to deeds of violence; in 1350, Robert Atte Well is one of the ringleaders in the disgraceful disturbances at Averham, and in 1401 John Atte Welle is one of those fined for stealing fish, and wilfully damaging the property of John Bolynbrok.
"On July 27, 1406, Hugh Seme, of Ragnall, was charged amongst others by John de Darcy for breaking his closes, houses and park at Shirland, and three chests of his at Ekynton co. Derby, hunting, carrying off deer, £100 in money, charters, &c, threatening and assaulting his men, etc."
There are several interesting entries in the Patent Rolls of pardon for debt:
"1431, June 15, Westminster. Pardon to John Moreby, of Dunham-on-Trent, co. Notts, gentleman, for not appearing before the justices of the Bench to answer Thos. Baker of London, touching a plea of debt of 10 marks."
"1432, Jan. 29, Westminster. Pardon to Wm. Atheryn, of Lincoln, merchant, for not appearing before same to answer Maud, late wife of John Milneton, of Dunham-on-Trent, touching plea of debt, 25 marks."
Nov. 10, Westminster. Same again pardoned for not appearing for same debt.
"1436, April 9, Westminster. Pardon to John Shaw, Southleverton, hosbondman, for not appearing before Richard Norton and others, justices, to answer Maud, late wife of John Milneton, of Dunham, touching a plea of debt, 40s.
'' 1440, June 20, Westminster. Pardon to Wm. Boughton, late of Darlton, co. Notts, hosbondman, for not appearing before John Juyn and his fellow late justices of the bench to answer John Adam, of Southwell, chaplain, and Wm. Grave, of Southwell, chaplain, touching two pleas, one of debt, £6 7s., 9d., and the other that he render chattels worth £15 4s. l0d.
"1439, Nov. 11, Westminster. Pardon to John Porter, of Dunham-on-Trent, co. Notts, bocher (mender), for not appearing before same to answer Robert Grencoke touching plea of debt of 10 marks, 6s. 8d."
The Patent Rolls, July 17th, 1433, contain the following entry:—"commission de Wallies et foscates to John Archbishop of York; Richard, Duke of York; Richard, Earl of Salisbury; James Strangways; Richard Stanhope, Knight; Ralph Babthorp; William Waweton; Thomas Strangways; Norman Babynton; Robert Wylugby; Ralph Makerell; Nicholas Pitz William; John Portynton; Richard Went-worth; Robert Sheffield; Robert Fereby; Thomas Belwode, and William Neville; or two or more of them, including either Strangways, Portyngton, Wentworth, or Sheffield, in the parts between the Trent and the King's highway called Watlyngstrete, which leads from Ferebrigge to Worsop (Worksop), and thence along the common way from Worsop to Dunham, and from Dunham (by the Trent) to the Ouse, and the Aire (Aire river), on either side of the waters of the Idull, Donwyk and Went, in the counties of York, Nottingham, and Lincoln."
This commission of enquiry shows (says Mr. W. Stevenson) that the embanking and drainage of the lowlands about the Isle of Axeholm (a source of trouble and anxiety in the middle ages) embraced an area that did not extend south of Dunham, and that Dunham was on the extreme south bound of this watershed. This particular boundary recorded in 1433 as that along which this commission perambulated was no doubt an older or oft used one.
In 1592 the fishermen and boatmen that dwell on the bank of the Trent petition the Privy Council, as follows:— "Whereas most of the fishermen and boatmen that dwell on the bank of the Trent, from the mouth of the Humber to the town of Dunham, complain and petition to the Lord Willoughby, the Lord Chief Justice, and other chief gentlemen in those parts, that by reason of certain weirs being set up on the banks of the Trent, the trade of fishing had greatly decayed and reduced their families to great poverty. Lord Willoughby and the rest recommend the matter to be inquired into and the grievance removed.'' The petition was laid before the Privy Council at Greenwich, on July 3rd, 1593, but with what result we do not know.
Mr. C. Brown in his history of Nottingham says—"In the chancel of Laneham Church a fine monument exists to Ellis and Gervas Markham, who once held estates at Laneham and Dunham. Gervas, a captain of horse in Ireland and ye Lowe Countries, had a romantic career. He was the confidant and champion of the Countess of Shrewsbury, to whom some indignity was offered by Sir John Holles. Markham challenged him to a duel in Worksop Park, but Sir John's rapier ran him through, so that the weapon came out at the small of his back. He recovered from the injury, but vowed he would not eat supper or take the Sacrament until he had been revenged. From a correspondence in the State Papers, it appears that his religious belief was called in question, probably in consequence of his abstention from the Sacrament, and his house was searched in 1629." Gervas Markham being bedridden, Walter Cary, Vicar of Dunham, co. Notts., certifies to Archbishop Harsnet, that, "ever since the writer has been at Dunham, which is eleven years and upwards, Gervas Markham has usually resorted to Church and is free from all imputation of popistry. Had Markham been able to ride, he would have attended the Archbishop, Aug. 8, 1629." (State Papers), and so with regard to that matter he escaped further trouble. But in 1635 he objected to the payment of the historic shipmoney, alleging that he was assessed too heavily. The Sheriff had assessed Markham at £50 because he was a single man with £800 a year, and the council, upholding the valuation, ordered his arrest. The warrant was not carried into effect, for the constable of Dunham and two others certify "that Matthew Francis, sergeant-at-arms, by warrant of Feb. 10 has put under arrest Gervase Markham, and has commanded them to be aiding in the execution thereof, but Markham is so infirm and useless in all his parts and members of his body, that he is not portable to London, nor able to leave his chamber for five years nor his bed for two years, and cannot turn in his bed without help." "Memorandum by Walter Cary, Vicar of Dunham, that the substance of the above is true. Markham has taken the Communion in his bed at Cary's hand these many years." The moral effect of it seems to have been sufficient, for Gervas Markham writes from his poor house at Dunham expressing his loyalty, duty, and obedience to the King, and as his age and infirmities prevent his appearing before the Board, he begs his Majesty's pardon and implores the Lords to intercede for him." He died Jan. 1636, and was buried at Laneham.
In 1628 Gervas Markham, of Dunham, was Treasurer of the County. Two Treasurers were appointed annually to administer the fund raised by the County out of which pensions or gratuities to "maymed soldiers" were paid. The Treasurers so appointed by direction of the Quarter Sessions, from time to time, made other payments out of the "County Stocke" in their hands. One Treasurer was for the North part of the County, and the other for the South part of the County, and it is probable that they were chosen from among the Justices. (Notts. County Records).
Ship-money. In 1626 each seaport town was required, with the assistance of the adjacent counties, to arm so many vessels as were appointed them, but in 1634 ship-money was levied on the whole kingdom, and each county was rated at a particular sum, which was afterwards assessed upon individuals. In 1637 Hampden, a cousin of Oliver Cromwell, who held an estate in Buckinghamshire, refused to pay the tax. The case was tried before all the judges of England, who decided in favour of the Crown as to the general right of levy, but three of them decided for Hampden on merely technical grounds relating to his particular case. Hampden's example in refusing to pay the tax was followed by many others, one being George Wood of Dunham, as is thus recorded in the State Papers:—"1637. Sheriff of County Notts to the Council. Concerning the ship money due from Newark, Retford, and George "Wood of Dunham; Newark offers to pay £50 if they may be discharged of all, i.e., £120. Conceives that Retford may very well pay £50 instead of £30, and so Newark be eased of £20. Robert Rayner, Constable of Dunham, complains that George Wood of Dunham, and his wife, whom he came to distrain for ship-money, received him and did strike him." It is evident therefore that the Constable had rather a rough time of it at the hands of Mr. and Mrs. Wood.
Thoroton states that the owners of Dunham in 1612 "are said to be Gilbert, earl of Shrewsbury; Gervas Markham; Hugh Dobson of Ragnall, gent.; Thos. Worsley; Robert Balding; George Owing; Robert Berridge; William Hawksmore; Robert Ellis; John Baldinge," but he does not say who is the lord of the Manor.
The land said to be owned by Gilbert, earl of Shrewsbury, was Church land, which he held by lease from the Prebend of Dunham in Southwell. He is said to have purchased the Manor of Fledborough from John Basset early in the reign of James I., so probably he purchased the lease of the Church lands in Dunham about the same time.
It is stated in the State Papers that "On March 18, 1647, Fras Pierrepoint, as executor of his father, the late Earl of Kingstone, claims Dunham Parsonage and other lands, co Notts, value £241 a year."
Ditto, "August 31, 1652, The Earl of Kingston was ordered to compound for North Willingham, etc., co Lincs, for an estate in Dunham and Ragnall etc, co Notts, to which he pretends his brother Francis Pierrepoint has a claim for lands and tenements, co York, and for goods and personal estate of his late father."
This land, now belonging to the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, continued to be held by leasehold by the Pierrepoint family. The second Earl Manvers wished to buy it outright, and deeds were drawn up to effect the purchase. He requested that the deeds might be signed and sent to him, but the Ecclesiastical Commissioners refused to send them until he had paid the purchase money; he said, therefore, if they could not trust him he would have nothing further to do with the transaction. Since then the Commissioners have let the land on a yearly tenancy.