DHCreated as a
Millennium Project
Millennium Project
Transcription of the Duchy Charter – by Christopher Day of Deddington & District Historical Society
Elizabeth Dei Gracia Anglie, Francie et Hibernie Regina, fidei defensor &c, omnibus ad quos presentes littere nostre perveniunt salute. Inspeximus tenorem cuiusdam decreti sive recordam in cameris ducati nostri Lancastre apud Westminstre inter recorda eiusdem ducati ibidem remanentia et existentia in hec verba termo Pasche anno regni regine Elizabeth decimo septimo [Elizabeth by the grace of God Queen of England, France and Ireland, Defender of the Faith etc., to all those to whom our present letters shall come, greeting. We have inspected the wording of a certain decree or record in the chambers of the Duchy of Lancaster at Westminster among the records of the said duchy there remaining and existing in these words in Easter term of the 17th year of Queen Elizabeth’s reign (i.e. 1574)], Whereas one John Cock, bailiff of Deddington, in the county of Oxford, being parcel of the Duchy of Lancaster, did heretofore exhibit his bill of complaint into this honourable court, showing by the same that whereby the grant of the said Queen’s Majesty’s most noble progenitors and predecessors, kings of this realm of England, all the tenants and residents within the said Duchy ought (amongst other things) to be free and discharged of all toll for any to be bought within any town or borough within the said realm of England or any of the dominion of the same and that notwithstanding the same grants made by the said noble progenitors of our said sovereign lady one John Knight, bailiff of Banbury, and Richard Cox, under-bailiff of Bicester in the said county of Oxford, had of late distrained the goods and chattels of Anthony Appletree and Anthony Yate, then dwelling in the town of Deddington, and Thomas Mester, then dwelling in Clifton within the said manor of Deddington, and William Hollyway, then dwelling in Hempton, also within the said lordship and within the said Duchy of Lancaster, for toll for wares by them bought in the said several towns of Banbury and Bicester, knowing the same Anthony Appletree, Thomas Mester, Anthony Yate and William Hollyway did then dwell within the said towns and within the said Duchy of Lancaster, and would in no wise suffer the said Anthony Appletree, Thomas Mester, Anthony Yate and William Hollyway to buy and sell within the said towns without paying of toll according to the said grants and as of right they ought to do in contempt of the laws of the said Queen’s Majesty and to the great damage, disturbance and vexation of all the tenants and inhabitants of the said Duchy. And further as by the same bill of complaint remaining of record in this honourable court more plainly appeareth, to which bill the said John Knight, one of the defendants, after his appearance made in this court by force of process directed unto him under the seal of this honourable court made answer and therein declared and alleged that our late sovereign lady Queen Mary by her most gracious letters patent dated the 26 day of June in the first year of her highness’s reign [i.e. 1554] did grant unto the inhabitants of the town of Banbury that the same from thenceforth should be a free borough and should be incorporated of one bailiff, twelve aldermen and twelve burgesses as by the name of bailiff, aldermen and burgesses of the said borough and parish of Banbury [interlineation: within the county of Oxford, and that the said bailiff, aldermen and burgesses of the said borough and parish aforesaid should be one body corporate and politic and one commonality forever by the name of bailiff, aldermen and burgesses of the said borough and parish of Banbury] aforesaid, and that by that name they should be capable to take lands, tenements, hereditaments or other things to them and to their heirs, and that the said late Queen by the said letters patent did grant for her and for her successors to the said bailiff, aldermen and burgesses of the said borough that they from thenceforth forever should and might have and hold one market every Thursday weekly in the said borough of Banbury and two fairs there yearly to be holden, viz. one fair at Lammas in the eve and day of the said feast and one other at the feast of St Luke the Evangelist in the eve and day of the said feast with the court of piepowders there during the time of the said fairs, together with stillage, picage, fines, amercements and all other profits, commodities and emoluments whatsoever of the said market, fairs and courts coming, chancing or happening with all liberties and free customs unto the said market and fairs pertaining as by the said letters patent of the said late Queen Mary more plainly and at large appeareth. And that by virtue thereof the said defendant being bailiff of the said borough of Banbury and other bailiffs of the borough for the time being had taken and of right ought to take the profits of the said market and also all such tolls for things sold there of such person or persons as did from time to time repair to the said market as well and lawful was for them to do and so traversed the residue of the material points in the said answer and thereupon the said plaintiff replied maintaining his said bill traversing the said answer, whereupon the matter being at a perfect issue and ready for the hearing a day was appointed for the hearing of the said matter in this present term of Easter in the 17th year of the reign of our said sovereign lady the Queen’s highness, at which day the said matter in the presence of the learned counsel of either of the said parties was heard and debated, wherefore for as much as there was not for and on the behalf of the said John Knight, one of the defendants, any other matter showed but only the letters patent granted by the said late Queen Mary for the said town of Banbury which should not take away the benefits of such ancient grants and privileges as have been made and granted by divers of the Queen’s Majesty’s most noble progenitors, kings of this realm, to the Dukes of Lancaster and confirmed by Act of Parliament touching the discharge of toll for the tenants and residents of the said Duchy, wherefore the said Chancellor and Council of this honourable court minding to take such order between the said parties as heretofore in divers like causes hath been taken in this court and having good respect and consideration as well of sundry grants and Acts of Parliament touching and concerning the liberties and privileges of the said Duchy as also of divers and sundry decrees concerning the discharge of toll and such like for and upon the behalf of the tenants and residents of the said Duchy heretofore by good and deliberate advice made and taken by the Chancellor and Council of this court. It is therefore now this said term of Easter in the said 17th year of the said Queen’s Majesty’s reign ordered and decreed by the said Chancellor and Council that as well the said complainant as also all and singular other the tenants, inhabitants and residents of or within the said town and parish of Deddington, parcel of the said Duchy, or being within the fee or seigneury thereof shall from henceforth according to the usage, liberties and privileges of the said Duchy granted and confirmed by sundry Acts of Parliament pass, re-pass, carry and re-carry and go toll-free with all and singular their own goods, chattels and merchandises as well within the said town of Banbury as in all other places within the realm of England being out of the liberties of the said Duchy without let or interruption of any manner of person or persons for any manner of toll from henceforth to be asked or demanded of them or any of them for any of their own goods, chattels or merchandises. And it is further ordered and declared by the said Chancellor and Council that if any of the said tenants, residents or inhabitants within the said town or parish of Deddington parcel of the said Duchy or within the said fee or seigneury thereof shall at any time hereafter carry or convey the goods, chattels or merchandises of any stranger not being privileged within the said town or parish aforesaid [interlineation: and do cloak and conceal the same to the intent the same goods, chattels and merchandises might pass and go toll-free] and by reason thereof any person or persons of body corporate be or shall be defrauded of his or their toll or other custom for the same, that then if upon complaint thereof to be made to the Chancellor and Council of the said Duchy for the time being the same shall be there duly approved that then every such tenant or other resident or inhabitant that shall be found culpable or guilty of the cloaking or concealing of any such goods, chattels or merchandises as aforesaid shall forfeit and lose the double value of such goods, chattels or merchandises which they shall so carry or convey of any stranger not being privileged of duly answered in this court and that the person or persons which shall inform this court of any such cloaking and concealing and duly prove the same shall be well recompensed of his charges and travel in that behalf by the order of this court. And it is further ordered that if any of the Queen’s Majesty’s tenants within the said town or parish do demise or let their said lands or tenements holden of the said Duchy to any other person and after shall inhabit and dwell out of the precincts of the said town and parish and the fee or seigneury of the said Duchy, that then every such person to whom any such demise or lease be or shall be made during the time of his abiding, dwelling and residence within the said Duchy shall go and pass toll-free and enjoy the privileges of the said Duchy as other being tenants, residents and inhabitants within the said Duchy do or ought to enjoy. And that the said person during such time as he is abiding and dwelling out of the precinct and freedom of the said Duchy shall pay toll and other customs as any other stranger ought to pay. And it is also further ordered and decreed that the said John Knight shall upon sight of an exemplification of this order under the seal of this court deliver and restore to the said John Cox all such goods, chattels and beasts taken as a distress and gage for the said supposed toll as is aforesaid as he or the said Richard Cox have taken of the said complainant or of any of the tenants or residents of or within the said manor of Deddington or the fee or seigneury thereof for toll or other exaction as they or either of them will answer at their peril. And also that the said John Knight, Richard Cox and all other toll gatherers, bailiffs and other officers as well within the said town of Banbury as within all other cities, towns and boroughs within this realm from henceforth shall permit and suffer as well John Cox as all other the Queen’s Majesty’s tenants, residents and inhabitants within the said manor or lordship of Deddington parcel of the said Duchy or within the fee or seigneury thereof so long as they shall inhabit (within the said Duchy and the freedom thereof peaceably and quietly to pass and go toll-free with all manner their goods, chattels and merchandises according to the liberties and privileges of the said Duchy in manner and form as is above rehearsed) without taking, exacting or demanding of any toll of them or any of them for the premises for the paying of two hundred pounds. Nos autem tenor decreti sive recordi predicti ad intravit-[?] viz. Johannes Cocks et alii tenentes de Deddington exemplificandum per presents. [There follows a standard form Latin peroration]
This is a true copy of the original examined the 19th day of December anno domini 1734
[signed]
Thos Dodd scrivener in Deddington
Zach: Stilgoe
Elizabeth Dei Gracia Anglie, Francie et Hibernie Regina, fidei defensor &c, omnibus ad quos presentes littere nostre perveniunt salute. Inspeximus tenorem cuiusdam decreti sive recordam in cameris ducati nostri Lancastre apud Westminstre inter recorda eiusdem ducati ibidem remanentia et existentia in hec verba termo Pasche anno regni regine Elizabeth decimo septimo [Elizabeth by the grace of God Queen of England, France and Ireland, Defender of the Faith etc., to all those to whom our present letters shall come, greeting. We have inspected the wording of a certain decree or record in the chambers of the Duchy of Lancaster at Westminster among the records of the said duchy there remaining and existing in these words in Easter term of the 17th year of Queen Elizabeth’s reign (i.e. 1574)], Whereas one John Cock, bailiff of Deddington, in the county of Oxford, being parcel of the Duchy of Lancaster, did heretofore exhibit his bill of complaint into this honourable court, showing by the same that whereby the grant of the said Queen’s Majesty’s most noble progenitors and predecessors, kings of this realm of England, all the tenants and residents within the said Duchy ought (amongst other things) to be free and discharged of all toll for any to be bought within any town or borough within the said realm of England or any of the dominion of the same and that notwithstanding the same grants made by the said noble progenitors of our said sovereign lady one John Knight, bailiff of Banbury, and Richard Cox, under-bailiff of Bicester in the said county of Oxford, had of late distrained the goods and chattels of Anthony Appletree and Anthony Yate, then dwelling in the town of Deddington, and Thomas Mester, then dwelling in Clifton within the said manor of Deddington, and William Hollyway, then dwelling in Hempton, also within the said lordship and within the said Duchy of Lancaster, for toll for wares by them bought in the said several towns of Banbury and Bicester, knowing the same Anthony Appletree, Thomas Mester, Anthony Yate and William Hollyway did then dwell within the said towns and within the said Duchy of Lancaster, and would in no wise suffer the said Anthony Appletree, Thomas Mester, Anthony Yate and William Hollyway to buy and sell within the said towns without paying of toll according to the said grants and as of right they ought to do in contempt of the laws of the said Queen’s Majesty and to the great damage, disturbance and vexation of all the tenants and inhabitants of the said Duchy. And further as by the same bill of complaint remaining of record in this honourable court more plainly appeareth, to which bill the said John Knight, one of the defendants, after his appearance made in this court by force of process directed unto him under the seal of this honourable court made answer and therein declared and alleged that our late sovereign lady Queen Mary by her most gracious letters patent dated the 26 day of June in the first year of her highness’s reign [i.e. 1554] did grant unto the inhabitants of the town of Banbury that the same from thenceforth should be a free borough and should be incorporated of one bailiff, twelve aldermen and twelve burgesses as by the name of bailiff, aldermen and burgesses of the said borough and parish of Banbury [interlineation: within the county of Oxford, and that the said bailiff, aldermen and burgesses of the said borough and parish aforesaid should be one body corporate and politic and one commonality forever by the name of bailiff, aldermen and burgesses of the said borough and parish of Banbury] aforesaid, and that by that name they should be capable to take lands, tenements, hereditaments or other things to them and to their heirs, and that the said late Queen by the said letters patent did grant for her and for her successors to the said bailiff, aldermen and burgesses of the said borough that they from thenceforth forever should and might have and hold one market every Thursday weekly in the said borough of Banbury and two fairs there yearly to be holden, viz. one fair at Lammas in the eve and day of the said feast and one other at the feast of St Luke the Evangelist in the eve and day of the said feast with the court of piepowders there during the time of the said fairs, together with stillage, picage, fines, amercements and all other profits, commodities and emoluments whatsoever of the said market, fairs and courts coming, chancing or happening with all liberties and free customs unto the said market and fairs pertaining as by the said letters patent of the said late Queen Mary more plainly and at large appeareth. And that by virtue thereof the said defendant being bailiff of the said borough of Banbury and other bailiffs of the borough for the time being had taken and of right ought to take the profits of the said market and also all such tolls for things sold there of such person or persons as did from time to time repair to the said market as well and lawful was for them to do and so traversed the residue of the material points in the said answer and thereupon the said plaintiff replied maintaining his said bill traversing the said answer, whereupon the matter being at a perfect issue and ready for the hearing a day was appointed for the hearing of the said matter in this present term of Easter in the 17th year of the reign of our said sovereign lady the Queen’s highness, at which day the said matter in the presence of the learned counsel of either of the said parties was heard and debated, wherefore for as much as there was not for and on the behalf of the said John Knight, one of the defendants, any other matter showed but only the letters patent granted by the said late Queen Mary for the said town of Banbury which should not take away the benefits of such ancient grants and privileges as have been made and granted by divers of the Queen’s Majesty’s most noble progenitors, kings of this realm, to the Dukes of Lancaster and confirmed by Act of Parliament touching the discharge of toll for the tenants and residents of the said Duchy, wherefore the said Chancellor and Council of this honourable court minding to take such order between the said parties as heretofore in divers like causes hath been taken in this court and having good respect and consideration as well of sundry grants and Acts of Parliament touching and concerning the liberties and privileges of the said Duchy as also of divers and sundry decrees concerning the discharge of toll and such like for and upon the behalf of the tenants and residents of the said Duchy heretofore by good and deliberate advice made and taken by the Chancellor and Council of this court. It is therefore now this said term of Easter in the said 17th year of the said Queen’s Majesty’s reign ordered and decreed by the said Chancellor and Council that as well the said complainant as also all and singular other the tenants, inhabitants and residents of or within the said town and parish of Deddington, parcel of the said Duchy, or being within the fee or seigneury thereof shall from henceforth according to the usage, liberties and privileges of the said Duchy granted and confirmed by sundry Acts of Parliament pass, re-pass, carry and re-carry and go toll-free with all and singular their own goods, chattels and merchandises as well within the said town of Banbury as in all other places within the realm of England being out of the liberties of the said Duchy without let or interruption of any manner of person or persons for any manner of toll from henceforth to be asked or demanded of them or any of them for any of their own goods, chattels or merchandises. And it is further ordered and declared by the said Chancellor and Council that if any of the said tenants, residents or inhabitants within the said town or parish of Deddington parcel of the said Duchy or within the said fee or seigneury thereof shall at any time hereafter carry or convey the goods, chattels or merchandises of any stranger not being privileged within the said town or parish aforesaid [interlineation: and do cloak and conceal the same to the intent the same goods, chattels and merchandises might pass and go toll-free] and by reason thereof any person or persons of body corporate be or shall be defrauded of his or their toll or other custom for the same, that then if upon complaint thereof to be made to the Chancellor and Council of the said Duchy for the time being the same shall be there duly approved that then every such tenant or other resident or inhabitant that shall be found culpable or guilty of the cloaking or concealing of any such goods, chattels or merchandises as aforesaid shall forfeit and lose the double value of such goods, chattels or merchandises which they shall so carry or convey of any stranger not being privileged of duly answered in this court and that the person or persons which shall inform this court of any such cloaking and concealing and duly prove the same shall be well recompensed of his charges and travel in that behalf by the order of this court. And it is further ordered that if any of the Queen’s Majesty’s tenants within the said town or parish do demise or let their said lands or tenements holden of the said Duchy to any other person and after shall inhabit and dwell out of the precincts of the said town and parish and the fee or seigneury of the said Duchy, that then every such person to whom any such demise or lease be or shall be made during the time of his abiding, dwelling and residence within the said Duchy shall go and pass toll-free and enjoy the privileges of the said Duchy as other being tenants, residents and inhabitants within the said Duchy do or ought to enjoy. And that the said person during such time as he is abiding and dwelling out of the precinct and freedom of the said Duchy shall pay toll and other customs as any other stranger ought to pay. And it is also further ordered and decreed that the said John Knight shall upon sight of an exemplification of this order under the seal of this court deliver and restore to the said John Cox all such goods, chattels and beasts taken as a distress and gage for the said supposed toll as is aforesaid as he or the said Richard Cox have taken of the said complainant or of any of the tenants or residents of or within the said manor of Deddington or the fee or seigneury thereof for toll or other exaction as they or either of them will answer at their peril. And also that the said John Knight, Richard Cox and all other toll gatherers, bailiffs and other officers as well within the said town of Banbury as within all other cities, towns and boroughs within this realm from henceforth shall permit and suffer as well John Cox as all other the Queen’s Majesty’s tenants, residents and inhabitants within the said manor or lordship of Deddington parcel of the said Duchy or within the fee or seigneury thereof so long as they shall inhabit (within the said Duchy and the freedom thereof peaceably and quietly to pass and go toll-free with all manner their goods, chattels and merchandises according to the liberties and privileges of the said Duchy in manner and form as is above rehearsed) without taking, exacting or demanding of any toll of them or any of them for the premises for the paying of two hundred pounds. Nos autem tenor decreti sive recordi predicti ad intravit-[?] viz. Johannes Cocks et alii tenentes de Deddington exemplificandum per presents. [There follows a standard form Latin peroration]
This is a true copy of the original examined the 19th day of December anno domini 1734
[signed]
Thos Dodd scrivener in Deddington
Zach: Stilgoe