Factors in Market Establishment in medieval England: The Evidence from Kent 1086-1350

FACTORS IN MARKET ESTABLISHMENT IN MEDIEVAL ENGLAND: THE EVIDENCE FROM KENT 1086-1350 BRADLEY A. McLAIN Although the significant role that markets played in the medieval economy by the thirteenth century is largely unquestioned, scholars remain uncertain about which factors were most influential in the spread of those mercantile institutions. Researchers employing various methodologies in many English counties have proposed a number of different explanations in their attempts to account for the growth of market networks, ranging from demographic expansion and its effects on agricultural development, to patronage and politics. 1 Broader debates about the forces that brought long-term changes to England's economy have benefited from such county-specific studies of market distribution, even though sharp divisions persist among historians. Most agree, however, that by the thirteenth century population pressure had gradually deprived many peasants of land sufficient to their needs while at the same time near constant inflation encouraged landlords to expand demesne production in search of greater profit. Those changes forced many small-holders to tum to supplementary employment, such as brewing or casual labour, in order to make ends meet and to pay the rents their lords increasingly demanded in cash.2 Moreover, the growth of towns led to an increasing 1 See, for example, Bryan Coates, 'The origin and distribution of markets and fairs in medieval Derbyshire', Derbyshire Arch. Journ.,85 ( 1965), 92-111; J. O'Donnell, 'Market centres in Herefordshire 1200-1400', Transactions of the Woo/hope Naturalists Field Club 40 (1971), 190; R. H. Britnell, 'English markets and royal administration before 1200', Economic History Review, 2nd ser. 30 ( 1978), 183-96; idem, 'The proliferation of markets in England, 1200-1349', Economic History Review, 2nd ser. 39 (1987), 209-21; T. Unwin, 'Rural marketing in medieval Nottinghamshire', Journ. of Hist. Geo., 7 (1981), 231-51; P. Goodfellow, 'Medieval markets in Northamptonshire', Northamptonshire Past and Present 1 (1988), 312-15. 2 J.L. Bolton, The Medieval English Economy IIS0-/500 (London, 1980), 45-46, 87-88, 111-13; C. Dyer, Standards of Living in the Later Middle Ages: Social change in England c. 1200-1520 (Cambridge, 1989), 118-27. 83 BRADLEY A. McLAIN specialisation of labour, expanding the class of people who were not engaged in food production at all, and who thus needed to purchase food from someone else.3 At the same time, among the wealthier classes at least, there was a growing demand for luxury items and exotic goods obtainable only from distant sources.4 In such a climate of growth and expansion it seems obvious that more markets should come into existence since they were presumably the most efficient venues for exchanging goods. 5 Yet, it is not clear that economic forces alone can account for the rapid rise in the number of chartered markets in the thirteenth and early fourteenth centuries because much of the expansion came just as the economy began to falter. Examination of the spread of markets in Kent suggests that a mix of determinants - demographic trends, landholding customs and the expansion of trade - probably factored into the growth of the market network. Market creation in Kent generally corresponded to the patterns of growth in both production and consumption throughout the county and beyond, at least until the middle of the thirteenth century. Yet, by the end of the century the number of market licenses granted by the Crown could no longer be justified by strict economic necessity alone. The divergence between charters issued and the course of the economy is most easily seen in the development of dense clusters of markets in north-west Kent. Examination of those market groups shows that, at least by the end of the thirteenth century, political patronage had become the leading factor in the grant of charters in Kent, even though the will of Kent's landholders was unable to overcome the inexorable economic forces that determined whether their markets would survive and prosper.6 The principal evidence of markets and fairs in the period 1086-1350 includes references in Domesday Book, the Charter Rolls and the proceedings of the Quo Warranto inquisitions. While the Domesday survey of 1086 provides some direct evidence of markets, 3 E. Miller and J. Hatcher, Medieval England: Towns, commerce and crafts I 086-1348 (London, 1995), 142. 4 Miller and Hatcher, Medieval England: rural society and economic change, 79-83; Dyer, Standards of Living, 108; Miller and Hatcher, Medieval England: towns, commerce and crafts, 143; R. Hilton, 'Lords, burgesses and hucksters', Past & Present 97 (1982), 3-15; C. Dyer, 'The consumer and the market in the later middle ages', Economic History Review, 2nd ser., 42 (1989), 305-27. 5 Britnell, 'Proliferation of markets', 213-15; M. Kowaleski, Local Markets and Regional Trade in Medieval Exeter (Cambridge, 1995), 43. 6 See M. Mate, 'The rise and fall of markets in southeast England', Canadian Journ. of Hist., 31 (1996), 59-86, for a discussion of how many of the charters granted In Kent actually became functioning markets, and which of them earned profits for their lords and survived for any length of time. 84 FACTORS IN MARKET ESTABLISHMENT IN KENT 1086-1350 its primary value comes from its identification of boroughs. Arising in the mid- to late Anglo-Saxon period, boroughs originated as defensive points and meeting places, and became the nucleus for many early towns. Among the distinguishing marks that set boroughs apart from other towns was the right to hold markets. It is thus safe to assume that a town designated as a borough in Domesday Book was also a market town.7 More specific evidence is found in the many grants of market rights recorded on the Charter Rolls, which survive in an essentially complete series from the beginning of the thirteenth century.8 By that time the Crown had successfully asserted its exclusive right to license trading institutions,9 and the Charter Rolls are thus our most comprehensive and systematic source of information about markets. They must be employed with caution, however, for two reasons. Despite their appearance of completeness, the Charter Rolls are in fact interrupted by numerous lacunae. 1° Furthermore, it has become apparent that the grant of a charter did not guarantee the establishment of a market. Scholars have long suspected the ephemeral nature of many licenses, and in recent years have concentrated increasing effort in determining which licenses actually represented functioning institutions. 11 Perhaps the most reliable information about markets comes from the records of the Quo Warranto inquisition, begun in 1278 at Edward I's behest. Worried that his magnates were usurping his rights, the king instructed his justices to summon them to court to defend the authenticity of all royal franchises 7 See G.H. Martin, 'Domesday Book and the boroughs' in (Ed.) P. Sawyer, Domesday Book: a reassessment (London, 1983), 143-63; S. Reynolds, 'Towns in Domesday Book', in (Ed.) J.C. Holt, Domesday Studies (Woodbridge, I 987), 295-309; R. Eales, An Introduction to the Kent Domesday (London, 1992). 8 From 1199-1215 charters are recorded in Rotuli Chart arum in Turri Londinensi Asservati, (Ed.) T.D. Hardy (London, 1837) [hereafter RChartJ, and in Rotuli Litterarum Clausarum in Turri Londinensi Asservati (Ed.) T. D. Hardy, 2 vols. (London, 1838-44) [hereafter RLClJ. The latter cover the years 1204-27. From 12 I 6 to 15 I 6 charters appear in the Charter Rolls themselves. They are printed in Calendar of Charter Rolls, 6 vols. (London, 1903-27) [hereafter CChRJ. See also First Report of the Royal Commission on Market Rights and Tolls (London, 1889), 77-80, 108-31. 9Britnell, 'English markets and royal administration', 190-94; J. Masschaele, 'Market rights in thirteenth-century England', English Historical Review, 107 (1992), 79-80. 1° For example, there are numerous references to charters in the Quo Warranto proceedings that do not appear on the Charter Rolls, thereby demonstrating their incompleteness. See Coates, 'Markets and fairs in medieval Derbyshire', I 09. 11 See J. Masschaele, 'The multiplicity of medieval markets reconsidered', Journ. of Hist. Geo., 20, 3 (1994), 255-71, for a potent critique of the notion that'the issue of a market licence necessarily resulted in a functioning market. See also Unwin, 'Medieval Nottinghamshire', 233; Miller and Hatcher, Medieval England: Towns, commerce and crafts, 159; Kowaleski, Local Markets and Regional Trade, Appendix 2. 85 000\ --􀀂 --- lOmi. -- Roman Road (approximate) Pilgrims' Way (approximate) Map 1. Ea rl y markets m· Kent ...Hythe • Eastbridg􀀋 􀀂1 􀀆Romne FACTORS IN MARKET ESTABLISHMENT IN KENT 1086-1350 they claimed to hold, including their right to hold markets. Baronial opposition blunted the effect of the inquiries, and many deals were probably struck behind the scenes, but Quo Warranto represents a medieval attempt to ascertain the legitimacy of market charters, and it is thus more likely that the markets identified from this source actually functioned. 12 Thus, although the sources provide ample infonnation, its character can vary considerably and it must be weighed carefully to arrive at a balanced and defensible picture. Malling, the site of an early Kentish market, illustrates the process. The Charter Rolls record that in 134 7 Edward confirmed a charter of 1105 to the Abbess of Malling which granted the abbey and convent a market on Saturday. Since the original charter is not extant there would normally be no way to confirm its veracity independently but for an entry in the Quo Warranto register. The incumbent abbess appeared before the royal justices in 1290 to defend the charter. She claimed, and successfully defended, the right to hold markets on both Tuesday and Saturday, however, and fairs on the vigil and feast of St. Peter, St. Martin and St. Leonard. 13 Thus, for a single foundation we are aware of three sources, only two of which are extant, each separated from the others by many years and providing information which is similar but also slightly divergent. It is from such disparate sources that we must construct a coherent picture of existing markets, a task that becomes increasingly difficult the further we proceed into the past. Because of the nature of the sources, historians usually divide their discussion of markets into two distinct time periods. Markets identifiable before 1200 often held their rights by prescription or 'by ancient custom', although some charters have survived from that period. 14 The Domesday survey predominates in the identification of early Kentish markets in two ways: first, the commissioners noted three markets or their revenues specifically, and second, they named the towns that were considered boroughs in 1086. Domesday Book thus provides evidence of eleven markets in Kent at the end of the eleventh century. Four additional markets are known from other types of evidence, making a total of at least 15 markets spread around Kent before the year 1200 15 (see Map 1 ). Most of Kent's population resided in the eastern and northern districts of the county in the highly fertile 12 Placita de Quo Warranto (London, 1818) [hereafter QW]; Masschaele, 'Multiplicity of medieval markets', 262-64; see Table 2, below. 13 1st August, 4th July and 6th November. CChRS:51; QW312, 343. 14 Britnell, 'English markets and royal administration', 185-6. 15 See M. W. Beresford and H.P. R. Flnberg, English Medieval Boroughs: A handlist (Newton Abbot, 1973), 128-31. 87 BRADLEY A. McLAIN region known as the foothills, 16 and it is not surprising that most of the markets were located in those areas, usually on or near an old Roman road. Many of the early markets also lay along Kent's long coastline, from Lydd to Dover and from Sandwich to Faversham and Rochester, reflecting the ancient Kentish orientation toward the sea and its role as an important conduit of trade from the Continent. Inland markets appeared at Canterbury, the principal city of Kent and the hub of its trading and transport network, as well as at Lenham along the Pilgrims' Way and Malling, in the fertile and populous Medway valley. Only in the far west of the county, between Rochester and Lewisham, does the number of identifiable markets fail to correspond to population density, although residents of that area may have had access to nearby Sussex, Surrey or London markets. The relationship of Kentish settlement patterns and markets is perhaps best illustrated by reference to the ancient forest in the south of the county. By 1200, the market ofNewenden lay on the southern edge of the Weald, while Lenham and Malling lay just to the north. Between them lay the forest, the settlement of which is visible over the course of the thirteenth century as residents established new markets there. 17 Evidence of markets after 1200 is dominated by royal licenses, which, it must be noted, merely gave the grantee conditional permission to set up a market. 18 Since it has become clear that the existence of a charter did not necessarily mean a market was established, such evidence permits us only to gauge the intentions of the Crown and the lords who sought charters, while leaving it difficult to determine how far their intentions corresponded to reality. If, in fact, most or all of the charters granted in Kent in the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries became functioning markets, then their numbers swelled from under 20 in 1200 to somewhat more than 80 by 1350 (see Map 2 and Table I). Such an increase, if in fact real, indicates high optimism among the lords who sought charters, perhaps encouraged by the success of earlier markets and hoping to profit by charging tolls and rents in their own establishments. 19 In comparison to other southern counties, the number of charters granted in Kent appears quite remarkable. Of 16 (Eds.) H. C. Darby and E. M. J. Campbell, The Domesday Geography ofSouth•East England (Cambridge, 1962), 514; A. Everitt, Continuity and Colonization: the evolution of Kentish settlement (Leicester, 1986), 45. 17 Everitt, Continuity and Colonization, 54-5. 18 R. Britnell, 'King John's early grants of markets and fairs', English Historical Re• view, 94 (1979), 90-96. 19 The increase in charters was a common phenomenon. See D. Farmer, 'Marketing the produce of the countryside, 1200-1500' in (Ed.) E. Miller, The Agrarian History of England and Wales, v.3 (Cambridge, 1991), 331. 88 FACTORS IN MARKET ESTABLISHMENT IN KENT 1086-1350 TABLE I: MARKET CHARlERS GRANIED IN KENT AND SELECTED COUNTIES, 1200-1350 1200-24 1225-49 1250-74 1275-99 1300-24 Kentb 7 17 15 13 15 Devone 26 16 24 22 14 Essexd g 10 19 6 g Surref 2 6 3 3 6 Sussel 3 5 11 8 18 Source:• Beresford and Finberg, Medieval Boroughs, SO for county acreage. b Appendix. c Kowalesk􀂚 Local Markets and Regional Trade, Table A2.I. 1325-50 Total No. of Acresa oermarket 6 73 13,287 6 108 15,277 3 54 17,777 4 24 18,750 3 48 18 750 d R. Britnell, 'Essex markets before 1350', Essex Archaeology and History, 3rd ser. 13 (1981), 18, Table I. • Mate, 'Rise and fall', 84-85. f Mate, 'Rise and fall', 79-83. the counties surveyed in Table 1, only Devon received more licenses than Kent, while the counties contiguous with Kent generally received far fewer. Overall, however the market density of Kent was significantly greater than Devon, Essex, Surrey or Sussex.20 The high number of charters in Kent relative to its neighbouring counties may be explained in several ways. Because Kent contained many important international ports, we might expect the commercialisation of the Kentish economy to be more advanced than elsewhere. Furthermore, the relatively high population of Kent may have encouraged commercial exchanges between people who might not have done so had they lived farther apart. Neither of those explanations is completely satisfactory, however, because both Essex and Sussex possessed major ports, and Essex at least was probably as densely populated as Kent, if not more so.21 The best explanation, which became increasingly important as Kent's population flourished, comes from the unique landholding custom in Kent known as gavelkind tenure. In general, property in Kent did not pass intact from father to eldest son, but was divided equally among all sons.22 This practice accelerated the fragmentation of holdings that was a common feature of the thirteenth century throughout England, and it could have contributed to the spread of markets in Kent in two ways. Because their land was insufficient to their needs, there was additional pressure upon Kentish residents to 20 Table I; Mate, 'Rise and fall', 62, Table 2. 21 See, however, H.C. Darby, R.E. Glasscock, J. Sheail and G.R. Versey, 'The changing geographical distribution of wealth in England: I 086-1334-1525 •, Journ. of Hist. Geography, 5 ( 1979), 249-56, which shows that Kent was generally wealthier than Essex. 22 F. Pollock and F. W. Maitland, The History of English Law before the time ofE dward I, rev. ed., 2 vols. (Cambridge, 1968), I: 186; J. E. A. Jolliffe, Pre-feudal England: the Jutes (Oxford, 1933), 19-26. 89 BRADLEY A. McLAIN participate in the cash economy. Gavelkind tenure also stimulated the Kentish land market that may have accustomed people to commercial transactions more readily than elsewhere.23 When we turn from describing the location of markets ( or, by the thirteenth century, places authorised to hold markets), to an analysis of the factors determining market placement, we must begin by going more deeply into the clear differences visible between the eastern and western halves of the county. A quick perusal of the map of market places makes it clear that in the eastern half of Kent market licenses were sought and granted only in areas located some distance from the established market centres, with particular deference paid to Canterbury.24 As we move farther westward, market placement exhibits two characteristics which distinguish it from the east. First, an increasing proportion of the market evidence dates from the thirteenth century - often quite late in the century in the most western districts. This is consistent with the general fact that western Kent, particularly the Weald, experienced the latest settlement. Second, western markets were usually established far closer to each other than eastern markets. This might show that it was easier to secure licences in a region of fewer 'ancient' markets, and that there was a greater likelihood that new markets might survive since trading patterns in the west might not have been as deeply ingrained as in the east. Taken together, those two characteristics suggest that both the circumstances, and the criteria used to determine market placement, in west Kent in the latter part of our period were different from those prevailing earlier in east Kent. The changed criteria are most evident in Kent's most western districts, in areas where the high number of licenses, had they all resulted in functioning markets, would have established an intense concentration of trading venues in a part of the county not especially noted for its productivity, high population or wealth.25 That feature is 23 F.R.H. Du Boulay, The Lordship of Canterbury: An essay on medieval society (New York, 1966), 144-9. 24 Kowaleski, Local Markets and Regional Trade, 60, demonstrates how Exeter had a similar effect on its marketing hinterland. Canterbury is perhaps a special case withln Kent because markets dealing in specific commodities were held throughout the week, not on one day only. See W. Urry, Canterbury Under the Angevin Kings (London, 1967), 108. 25 A. Smith, 'Regional differences in crop production in medieval Kent', Arch. Cant. lxxviii (1963), 147-60, esp. map on 150; R. Smith, 'Human resources, in (Eds.) G. Astill and A. Grant, The Countryside of Medieval England (Oxford, 1988), 196-202, esp. 200; R. E. Glasscock, 'The distribution of lay wealth in Kent, Surrey and Sussex in the early fourteenth century', Arch. Cant., lxxx (1965), 61-8, shows that the wealth of Kent, as measured by tax assessments on lay people, generally corresponded with its most populous regions in the east. 90 FACTORS JN MARKET ESTABLISHMENT JN KENT 1086-1350 especially apparent in the development of two clusters of markets in north-west Kent that came into existence in the latter half of the thirteenth century. The first group included Lesnes (1256), Charlton (1268), Plumstead (1270) and Eltham (1284), all located quite close to the older market of Lewisham. The average distance between them in a direct line was a mere 2.5 miles, and the congestion only became worse in the early fourteenth century with the founding of Dartford market in 1305,26 and Erith and Bexley markets in 1315. Just south of them was another group of markets which began with the single market of Orpington (1206), but which suddenly became a dense cluster of markets at the end of the century with the addition of Eynsford (1278),27 Farningham (1270), St. Mary Cray (1281) and Farnborough and Chelsfield (1290). Two fourteenth-century markets, Ash (1302) and West Wickham (1318), completed a belt of markets in an area approximately twelve miles by four miles in size (see Map 2). Both of those groups of markets arose in a period when the long medieval expansion was beginning to falter. Not only was inflation creating pockets of distress among a population that had reached the limits of its ability to expand, but also the stresses of international conflict, war finance and domestic political intrigue exacerbated (and in part caused) the economic dislocation. By the latter part of the thirteenth century, and especially after 1290, many parts of England had entered a noticeable economic decline that was worsened in the early fourteenth century by political instability and environmental disaster.28 That was clearly not the ideal environment for expansion of the Kentish trading network, yet it was precisely at that time that most of the licenses for the two aforementioned groups were granted. In their defence it might be argued that markets close to London may have been involved in supplying corn to the city, thus justifying their existence despite the difficult economic climate. Kent indeed provided much grain to London, but royal purchases made in 1295 show that most of it came from markets which lay in the more productive east, 26 Dartford market probably operated for some time before 1305, as it is another market known from the confirmation of an earlier charter whose details are unclear. The original charter was probably granted by Edward I. 27 Sometime before the Quo Warranto proceedings, perhaps in the reign of Henry III, QW310. 28 I. Kershaw, 'The great famine and agrarian crisis In England 1315-22', Past and Present, 59 (1973), 3-50; M. Prestwich, The Three Edwards: War and state in England 1272-1377 (London, 1980), Chapters 1-3. 91 1-------i 10 mi. _________ Pilgrims' Way (approximate) Map 2. Kentish markets by 1350 Italicised names indicate charters granted after 1350 FACTORS IN MARKET ESTABLISHMENT IN KENT 1086-1350 most importantly Faversham. It is thereby unlikely that western markets were important in this regard.29 The rapid expansion in the number of charters also meant that before long the markets within those groups failed to meet medieval criteria regarding proximity and day held, prescriptions which apparently prevailed at the founding of earlier and more easterly Kentish markets. In the mid-thirteenth century Henry Bracton, drawing from court records in his possession, proposed general guidelines restricting both the temporal and spatial placement of new markets relative to older ones. He suggested that markets be located no nearer than 6 2/3 miles apart, and that nearby markets not be scheduled for the same day, or even within one day of each other.30 It had also been customary in earlier licence grants, as well as in the Quo Warranto proceedings, to create or confirm a market charter 'nisi sit ad nocumentum aliorum', unless it be harmful to others.31 When such harm was alleged, the plaintiff usually claimed that the new market was siphoning business from an older market. The royal officials who fielded requests for market licences clearly had at one time found it advisable to evaluate the economic need for new markets, and to consider the effect of new markets on old ones, yet the market licences in the two market clusters in north-west Kent conformed to none of those restrictions. As they were made up largely of later charters, both market groups indicate that by the time of their creation the earlier criteria were no longer strictly enforced. We must ask, however, whether those charters represented actual markets, or if their appearance as clusters is merely an illusion created by plotting charter locations on a map. There often is no way to determine from surviving sources whether a charter became an enduring market, but historians usually assume their actual existence 29 B.M.S. Campbell, J. A. Galloway, D. Keene and M. Murphy, A Medieval Capital and its Grain Supply: Agrarian production and distribution in the London region c. 1300 (London 1993), 52-68-9. M. Mate, 'The estates of Canterbury Cathedral Priory before the Black Death, 1315-1348', Studies in Medieval and Renaissance History, 8 (I 987), 3-30, gives details about the relative intensity of cultivation on priory estates around Kent, including the north-west. See especially p. I O, Table 3, which shows that the amount of cultivated demesne acreage on two north-west estates was declining after 1275. 30 Bracton on the Laws and Customs ofE ngland (Ed.) G. E. Woodbine, rev. and trans. S. E. Thorne, 4 vols. (Cambridge, MA, 1968), 3: 198-9. Few historians believe that Henry Bracton wrote this treatise. Nevertheless, his name has become permanently attached to it. See Pollock and Maitland, History of English Law, I :206-10 . • 31 Britnell, 'King John's early grants'; RChart, 163b, ' ... unum mercatum apud Orpington, scilicet, die Mercurita taro quam non sit ad nocumentum vicinorum mercatorum '; QW312, ' ... nisi mercatu illud & feria ilia sint ad nocumentu &c.' 93 BRADLEY A. McLAIN if they continued to function at the end of the Middle Ages. When we compare the charters just enumerated with the list of sixteenthcentury markets compiled by Everitt, 32 the suspicion immediately arises that either most of the markets in those groups did not survive the economic disruptions of the late Middle Ages, or that despite their charters they never in fact became functioning markets. In the northern group only Dartford survived into the sixteenth century, perhaps because of its strategic location on the London road at the crossing of the Darent river, and in the southern group, only St. Mary Cray and Orpington functioned at the end of the Middle Ages. The other markets disappeared without trace. Either they were poorly placed to take advantage of trade, their owners never acted upon their charters, or they were prevented from doing so by litigious nearby market-owners or the sheriff himself.33 Such apparent disparity between lordly aspiration and economic reality as is evident in the two market groups must force us to a further reconsideration of what was meant by the grant of a market licence. In fact, we would do well to subject all of the charters granted in Kent during the thirteenth century to the same test. Upon doing so, we find that the majority never resulted in functioning markets, or, if they did, then they had been extinguished by the end of the Middle Ages. Furthermore, when we compare the survival rate of markets in place before 1200 with those chartered after 1200, we also find that the later markets were far less likely to survive. Historians have long known that market durability is closely linked to date of foundation. The earlier the market, the more likely it was to endure successfully the economic difficulties of the late Middle Ages.34 The evidence from Kent certainly bears this out, for most of the markets that survived into the sixteenth century were already in place by the thirteenth century (see Map 2 and Table 2). Thus, as both Dyer and Masschaele have warned, we must beware of making too much out of the charters the Crown handed out in the thirteenth century.35 32 A. Everitt, 'The marketing ofagricultural produce', in (Ed.) J. Thirsk, The Agrarian History of England and Wales, v. 4 (Cambridge, 1967), 474. 33 Farmer, 'Marketing the produce', 337-39; Masschaele, 'Market rights', 85-88. 34 See M. Reed, 'Markets and fairs in medieval Buckinghamshire', Records of Buckinghamshire, 20 ( 1978), 576; D. Postles, 'Markets for rural produce in Oxfordshire, l086-1350', Midland History, 12 (1987), 21-22; Kowaleski, Local Markets and Regional Trade, 50 . 35 C. Dyer, 'The hidden trade of the middle ages: evidence from the West Midlands of England', Journ. of Hist. Geography, 18 (1992), 152-3; Masschaele, 'Multiplicity of medieval markets', 261-2. 94 FACTORS IN MARKET ESTABLISHMENT IN KENT 1086--1350 TABLE 2: SURVIVAL RATE OF MARKETS BY TYPE OF FOUNDATION, 1086-1350 Type of foundation Pre-1200 Survived % Post-1200 Survived % Total Total Prescription 11 7 64 Charter 4 3 75 73 14 19 Total 15 10 67 73 14 19 Source: Appendix Nonetheless, we are still presented with the fact that the Crown issued licences for the markets that failed to materialise, and that each charter represented a lord who hoped to gain by it. Presumably, the owners of the market licences had paid something for them,36 and consequently were loath to accept dead letters in return. Yet, if the grant of a market licence had by that time become part of an ordinary array of rewards given to faithful retainers, then we can imagine how the disappointment over a failed or unusable market licence might not . be that great. A royal supporter might recognise that a market privilege was only potentially valuable, to be exercised should the opportunity arise. Given the high profits that were known to accrue to the owners of successful markets,37 the receipt of such a privilege would be acceptable even if its value could not be guaranteed. This point is difficult to prove, but if we look at some of the men who obtained the charters in the north-west market groups, and the way they lost them, then the obvious political connection becomes apparent and such an hypothesis more believable.38 William de Wilton received a charter for a market in Lesnes in 1256. His prior association with the Crown was as a retainer and minor official in Henry III's government, serving primarily as an itinerant justice. Wilton seems to have been associated in many of his duties particularly with Lincoln, and in 1250 the king appointed him justice in that area. In 1257, he accompanied Edward, the crown prince, to Ireland, and in 1264 36 Kowaleski, Local Markets and Regional Trade, 51, suggests that five marks was commonly paid for charters. See also Masschaele, 'Multiplicity of medieval markets', 264-5. 37 Mate, 'Rise and fall', 66-68. 38 See Coates, 'Markets and fairs in medieval Derbyshire', 100; Masschaele, 'Multiplicity of medieval markets', 267-68. 95 BRADLEY A. McLAIN Henry III sent him to Otford, in Kent, to perform an inquest into a killing. 39 Another minor official was William Page, who received a market in Eynsford in the 1270s. He was a merchant in the wool trade who, over the years, sought and received a number of export licences, and by 1281 he had been appointed keeper ofNewgate Gaol. 40 Men at the top of the political hierarchy also obtained market licences in the north-west market groups. Otto Grandson, a Savoyard who served both Henry III and Edward I in important posts, was granted markets in both Chelsfield and Farnborough in 1290, towns that formed part of the second market group discussed above.41 Another of Edward's top advisers, a man who worked closely with Grandson, was John de Vesey. De Vesey was a northern knight who had joined numerous rebellions against Henry III, and who had sided with Simon de Montfort during the Barons' Revolt, but who subsequently became fast friends with Prince Edward.42 In 1284, Edward granted to John the market in Eltham, which formed a part of the first market group addressed above. From this brief summary it is evident that a high proportion of royal retainers, often men who had no other interest in Kent, received many of the new market licences in the north-west corner of the county. Du Boulay notes that by the later part of the medieval period this corner of the county had become a coveted location for the powerful and well-to-do to acquire holdings.43 The market charters granted to men such as Wilton, Page, Grandson and de Vesey may illustrate that trend. Perhaps the most convincing example of royal patronage to come from those market groups, one that clearly demonstrates the political and ephemeral nature of market charters in that period, is the case of Bartholomew de Badlesmere. Badlesmere was a Kentish knight who played the chaotic political events of the early part of Edward Il's reign adroitly, and as a result he ultimately achieved the office of steward of the king's household. After 1320, however, his luck began to turn. As the dispute between Edward and his chief antagonist, Thomas of Lancaster, degenerated into violence, Badlesmere tried once again to maintain links to each, but he only succeeded in alienating 39 CChR I :452; Calendar of Patent Rolls [hereafter CPR] 1247-58, 62; Ibid., 223; Calendar of Liberate Rolls 1251-60, 167; CPR 1247-58, 202; Ibid., 366; CPR 1247-58, 552; CPR 1258-66, 356. 4o QW31 O; CPR 1272-8 l, 24, 38, 65; Ibid., 458; Calendar ofC lose Rolls 1272-79, I 95. 41 M. Prestwich, Edward I (Berkeley, 1988), 54, 110, 151, 440; CChR 2:346. 42 Prestwich, Edward I, 51, 64. 43 Du Boulay, Lordship, 148-9. 96 FACTORS IN MARKET ESTABLISHMENT IN KENT 1086-1350 himself from both parties. After the battle of Boroughbridge, in which the king's forces prevailed and Lancaster himself was executed, Edward had Badlesmere hunted down and hanged in Canterbury at the end of 1322. Badlesmere held many manors around Kent, including his ancestral home a few miles south-west of Canterbury. In 1315, on the eve of the disastrous harvests and while he was steward, Badlesmere acquired charters for markets in Erith, Ringswould and Chilham. At the same time, Edward granted him market licences in more than a dozen places outside of Kent. 44 It would be difficult to surmise whether he ever earned substantial profits in any of those places, although it is quite possible that he, like some other lords, may have profited from the initial price fluctuation brought on by the crop failures.45 He did not have more than a few years in which to earn profit, however, because by the end of 1321 Bartholomew de Badlesmere had become one of the most wanted men in England, and he spent his last year a fugitive. In November 1321, the king instructed the sheriff of Kent to seize all ofBadlesmere's 'lands, goods, and chattels .. .in the counties of Kent and Sussex' and to deliver them into the keeping of one Gilbert Rishton until further notice.46 Edward confiscated all of Badlesmere's lands all over the realm, and over the course of the following years granted them to new tenants. The three market charters Badlesmere received in 1315 are never mentioned in any of the subsequent grants and charters.47 Erith does not appear in official records again until 1360 when Edward III granted free warren there to the current tenant, James de Burford.48 It appears that the fate of Badlesmere's market licences mirrored his own, for they appeared during his political rise and they vanished with him when he fell. 44 CChR 3:282. 45 Kershaw, 'The agrarian crisis', 29-35, asserts that the difficulties of 1315-21 affected landlords in widely varying ways, some earning profits and others incurring losses. 46 Calendar of Fine Rolls I 3/9-27, 79, 80, 84, 88. 47 See, for example, CPR 1321-24, 206. 'Grant to David de Strabolgi, earl of Athol, of all the goods late of Bartholomew de Badelsmere, a rebel, in the castle and manor of Chilham and its members at the time of the caption thereof into the king's hands, and which have been forfeited.' The Chilham market is not mentioned. There are other i(ndirect examples of the king's grants of Badlesmere's properties to new tenants without mention of markets) in Calendar of Inquisitions Post Mortem, v. 6, nos 620, 635 and 644. 48 CChR 5: 168. 97 BRADLEY A. McLAIN The examples of Bartholomew de Badlesmere and the other retainers who acquired royal market charters provide clear evidence that by the late thirteenth century the grant of a licence in Kent probably had more to do with royal favour than economic necessity. This is so because the same examples also show that the licences granted at that time were unlikely to result in functioning and enduring markets. The spread of markets in Kent, and the factors influencing market establishment and survival, were in this way quite similar to many other English counties. Despite some of the differences in Kent􀁑 such as the high number of charters relative to nearby counties or the influence of gavelkind tenure - there were nonetheless important similarities. Markets established before the Crown asserted its right to issue licences, that is before the thirteenth century, were more likely to survive the Middle Ages. Their existence and durability are more believable than their later counterparts, because they were not created by administrative fiat alone but arose to fulfil a real economic need. As such they represent the true backbone of Kent's medieval marketing network. Markets established by charter in the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries, however, were more likely to have been largely the wishful thinking of optimistic lords who sought to profit from patterns that had already become well established. For its part, the Crown employed market charters as tools of patronage, handing them out liberally by the late thirteenth century, with little reference to need. Thus, the evidence from Kent confirms the conclusions of researchers in other counties who have found that the expansion of the market network in the thirteenth century was not as substantial as the raw number of charters indicates. The growth of Kent's market network undoubtedly received a boost from demographic expansion and increased monetisation, but our estimate of its magnitude must be tempered by the realisation that such growth was more apparent than real. Market charters were only potentially valuable and carried no guarantee, and royal supporters only intended to invoke them should the opportunity arise. Unfortunately, for some of the landlords of north-west Kent, such as Bartholomew de Badlesmere, the opportunity may never have come. 98 APPENDIX MARKET CHARTERS GRANTED OR CONFIRMED IN KENT Market Day Fair Grantee Date of Grant Source/Ref or Confirmation Canterbury Wed/Sat 25-6May ?the. DB Bor", QW 318 Rochester 9 -10 Jan Ch. of St. Andrews 7th c. CChR 2: 19 5, DB Bor8, QW 320 Faversham 1-9 Aug Abbot ofFaversham 1086 DB 2d", QW 315 Dover 1086 DBBor8 Eastbridge Hubert de Burgh 1086 CChR 1 :82, QW 360 Fordwich 1086 DBBor" Hythe 1086 DB• Lenham Tue Abbot of St. August. 1086 QW318 Lewisham 1086 DB 12d Newenden Thu Godfrey le Walys 1086 DB 4 a,QW324 Romney 1086 DBBor" Sandwich 1086 DBBor" Seasalter 1086 DBBor3 Malling" Tue/Sat lONov Abbess ofM alling ll05 CChR 5:57,Q W3 12,343 Lydd 1154 Charter of Henry n3 Stonar Abbot of St August 1203 RChart 106a Bromley Tue 1205 RLCI l:4 2b Orpington Wed Christ Church 1206 RChart 163b Folkestone0 Wed l Sep William de Abrinches 1214 RChart 20la Stowting Wed 15-17 Aug Stephen Haringod 1214 RChart20lb Kemsing Mon Fulk de Breaute 1219 RLCI l:393a Ashurst Wed Nicholas de Gerunde 1220 RLCl l:4 4 4 b Clecumbe Fri 31 Oct Barth. of St Leonards 1225d QW 313,316 Edenbridge Sat Robert de Camutt 1225d QW350 Elham Mon 31 Oct William de Leybum 1225d QW 329, 34 2, 366 Minster/Thanet Fri 13July Abbot of St. August. 1225d QW 318,367 Mentlvne: Sun/Tue Abbess ofMentlyng 1225d QW343 ...... 0 0 Market Stonilden Wye Yvingham Brasted/Eldyng Thanet,S tanores Westerham Whitfield/Beausbergh Combwell Brenchley Seal Aylesford Tonbridge Headcom Mongeham8 Lesnes Hunton Street Teynham Maidstone Mote Orlestone Charlton Paddock Farningham Plurnstead Hoo Day Fair Thu 17-19 Oct Thu 11-13 Mar Thu 17-19 Oct Wed 1-3 May Frie 22-23 July Sat 31 Oct-2Nov Wed 15-17Sep Tue 28June Thu 28-30 June Thu 17-19 Oct Thu 27 -31 Oct Tue v/fAss. +3h Fri 9-11 Nov Tue v/f/m Ass.h Thu Tue 31 Oct-2Nov Thu 2-4 May Mon v/f/m H. Trin.i Sat 28-30Apr Mon 28 Jun-1 Jui Tue 8-l0May Tue 30Oct-lN ov Grantee Date of Grant Source/Ref or Confirmation Bertram de Kyriell 1225 4 QW343 Battle Abbey 1225d QW333,364 Bertram de Kyriell 1225d QW343 Gilbert de Clare 1227 QW 332, Bor by 1227 " Abbot ofS t August. 1227 CChR 1:12, RLCI 2:172 b Thomas de Camvill 1227 CChR 1:52, RLCI 2:194 a HospS. t Mary, Dover 1228 CChR 1:78 Christ Church 1232 CChR 1:148, QW 314,366 Hamo de Crevequer 1233 CChR 1:182, QW 332 Eleanor, C. of Pemb.r 1233 CChR 1:186 Richard de Gray 1239 CChR 1:241, QW 365 1241 PRO" K's Hosp. ofOspringe 1251 CChR 1:362 Bertram de Crioll 1251 CChR I :356, QW 343 William de Wilton 1256 CChR 1:452 Nicholas de Lenham 1257 CChR 1:463, QW 313,323 Nicholas de Hadlou 1257 CChR 1:464, QW 347 AB of Canterbury 1259 CChR2:25 AB of Canterbury 1261 CChR2:37 Roger de Leybum 1266 CChR.2:61 William de Orlcstone 1267 CChR 2:67, QW 329 Prior ofBermundsey 1268 CChR2:115 Robert de Paddock 1268 CChR2:89 Ralph de Famingham 1270 CChR.2:155 Abbot ofS t. August. 1270 CChR 2: 138, QW 3 I8 Abbot of Reading 1271 CChR 2:175, OW 361 Market Day Fair Shome Thu 28-30Jun Cray Wed Eynsford Fri Westwell Wed 25Mar Allington Tue 9-11 Aug Warehome Tue 20-22 Sep StM ary Cray'< Wed 14-16Aug Eltham Tue v/f/m H. Trin.i Shipboume Mon 31 Aug-2 Sep Groombridge Thu 5-7May - 0 - Chelsficld Mon 24-26July Cranbrook Sat Farnborough Tue 31A ug-2 Sep Chilham1 Tue v/fA ss. +6 h Ash Thu 28-30 Jun Newnham Thu 28-30Jun Eastling Fri 13-14 Sep Oartfordm Preston Mon 2-4-May Wateringbury Tue 23-25 Jun Hawkhurst Tue 9-11 Aug Reculver Thu Wrotharn Thu 22-24Apr Bexley Tue 13-14 Sep Erith Thu 2-4 May" Je:tham Mon 28-30 Jun Grantee John of Northwood Christ Church William Page Christ Church Stephen de Penecestre Richard de Bedford Gregory de Ruxley John de Vesey Adam de Bavent Henry de Cobham Otto de Grandson AB of Canterbury Otto de Grandson Alexander de Balliol William le Latimer, eld. John de Campinia Fulk Peyforer Edmund, earl of Kent William de Leybum Henry de Leybum BattleA bbey AB of Canterbury AB of Canterbury AB of Canterbury Bartholarnew de Badles. William lne:e Date of Grant orConfinnation 1271 127&i 127&i 127&i 1280 1280 1281 1284 1285 1286 1290 1290 1290 1291 1302 1303 1304 1305 1307 1311 1312 1314 1314 1315 1315 1315 Source/Ref CChR 2:169, QW 327,365 QW348 QW310,363 QW 325, 348, 367 CChR2:233 C-ChR2:233 CChR 2:253, QW 317• CChR2:279 CChR 2:319, QW 312• CChR2:329 CChR2:346 CChR2:343 CChR2:346 CChR 2:404, QW 321 CChR3:26 CChR 3:37, QW 313* CChR3:40 CChR4:3 CChR3:83 CChR 3:160, QW 312* CChR 3:189, QW 333* CChR3:235 CChR3:271 CChR3:289 CChR3:282 CChR3:289 0 v> V, 0 Market Day Fair Grantee Date of Grant Source/Ref or Confinnation Ringswould Tue 8-10 May Bartholomew de Badles. 1315 CChR3:282 West Wickham Mon 21-22 July Walter de Huntingfield 1318 CChR3:376 Yalding Wed 28-30 Jun Hugh de Audele, young. 1318 CChR3:395 lfield Mon 9-I0Aug Thomas de Hevre 1331 CChR4:l99 Smarden Mon 28-29Sep AB of Canterbury 1332 CChR4:260 - s Gillingham Thu 3-IOMay AB of Canterbury 1336 CChR 4:360, 373 St Nich.ffhanet Mon 9-10 Sep AB of Canterbury 1336 CChR 4:360, 373 Smeeth Tue AB of Canterbury 1337 CChR4:423 Ashford Sun 28-29 Aug0 Juliana de Leyburn 1348 CChR 5:86, QW 329, 342* Appledore Sat l AugP Christ Church 1358 CChR 5:157, QW 325* Gravesend Thu 20Jun Men and Town ofG . 1366 CChR5:194 Queenborough Montrhu 25-31 Julq Men and Town ofQ. 1368 CChRS:211 Tenterden Fri 1449 Incorporated8 Sevenoaks Sat AB ofCantcrburv See note r FACTORS IN MAR.KET ESTABLISHMENT IN KENT 1086-1350 NOTES TO APPENDIX a See Beresford and Finberg, Medieval Boroughs, 128-31. b Confirmation of Monas/icon 3:383; Registrum Roffensorum, 486. c Charter issued to John de Segrave in 1348, markets on Tue/Thurs (CChR 5:86). d Charter granted by HenrfIII. e Grant of Tue market in 1233 (CChR I: 175)- presumed changed. f Sister of the king. Regranted to Otto Grandson in 1285. Market Mon, Fair 29-30 Jun (CChR 2:284). 8 Charter also grants market and fair in Sholden. 􀂡 Approximately six weeks after Easter. '. Approximately eight weeks after Easter. J First year of Quo Warranto inquisition, thus presumed to date from this year or earlier. 1k Market also served Sandlings and surrounding villages. Market granted to Bartholomew de Badlesmere in 1315. Fair 14-16 Aug (CChR 3 :282) "'Confirmation of charter of Edward I. 0 Second fair in Mon-Wed of Whitsuntide, approximately seven weeks after Easter. 0 Grant dates at least from time of Quo Warranto inquisition. Fair granted in 1348, 25-27 July. P Fair on I Aug dates from Quo Warranto inquisition. New fair granted in 1358, 11 June. q Town founded in 1368. Second fair held 4-11 March. 'Sevenoaks and Otford were both possessions of the Archbishop, and it seems likely that a single market served both villages. See Du Boulay, Lordship, 138, 191. * These markets were mentioned in the Quo Warranto inquisition and thus must have existed sooner than the charter dates. 103