Elizabethan and Jacobean Deer Parks in Kent
ELIZABETHAN AND JACOBEAN DEER PARKS IN KENT By SUSAN PITTMAN Canterbury Christ Church University Thesis submitted to the University of Kent at Canterbury for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy January 2011 VOLUME ONE Abstract Elizabethan and Jacobean Deer Parks in Kent Although many researchers have contributed to the knowledge and understanding of the number, characteristics, landscape, management and ethos of medieval deer parks, there has been little coverage of deer parks in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, interest re-emerging with the upsurge of eighteenth century landscaped parks. This thesis aims to somewhat redress the imbalance by concentrating on the deer parks in one county, Kent, during the reigns of Elizabeth I and James I. The trigger for the choice of period was the earliest printed list of parks, which appeared in Lambarde's 'A Perambulation of Kent' published in 1576, with a second edition in 1596. After a discussion about the accuracy of the lists, topics such as the number, distribution, location, shape, size and longevity of Kentish deer parks are covered in Part I. How deer parks were managed forms two chapters in Part II, with the process of and reasons for disparkment and the management of disparked parks occupying another chapter. The ownership of parks in Part III addresses issues such as who held parks in 1558, how ownership was acquired, the reasons behind the successful retention of parks, which parks changed hands or were created and whether new owners there were differences between them and established owners. Lastly, one chapter in Part IV investigates the role Kentish parks played in enhancing the lifestyle of their owners, while another chapter concentrates on the negative perception of deer parks among those excluded from them and how this was expressed in a complexity of park violations. Lambarde left readers with the impression that deer parks in Kent were in decline, but this research shows that they retained their potent symbolism and indeed were generally flourishing throughout the period under review. ELIZABETHAN AND JACOBEAN DEER PARKS IN KENT By SUSAN PITTMAN Canterbury Christ Church University Thesis submitted to the University of Kent at Canterbury for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy January 2011 i Contents VOLUME ONE Contents List of Figures, Maps and Plates i – vi iv - vi Acknowledgements vii – viii Abbreviations ix Introduction 1 - 6 Part I – Kent Background 7 - 55 Chapter One – William Lambarde, early cartographers and the evidence for the number of parks in Elizabethan and Jacobean Kent 8 - 28 Introduction 8 - 11 (i) Loss of parks before Elizabeth I's accession 11 - 15 (ii) William Lambarde, the historian and topographer 15 - 19 (iii) William Lambarde's list of parks 19 - 23 (iv) William Lambarde and the cartographers 23 - 26 Conclusion 27 - 28 Chapter Two – Characteristics of Kentish Deer Parks 29 - 55 Introduction 29 - 30 (i) Distribution and location 30 - 42 (ii) Park density 42 - 46 (iii) Park shape and size 46 - 50 (iv) Longevity of parks 50 - 53 Conclusion 53 - 55 Part II - Park Management 56 - 168 Chapter Three – The Management of Parks owned by the Gentry 57 - 118 Introduction 57 - 59 (i) The upkeep of boundaries 59 - 71 (ii) Deer keeping and deer keepers 71 - 90 (iii) Other enterprises in parks 90 - 116 (a) Cony warrens 90 - 97 (b) Animals at pasture 97 - 102 (c) Water management, fish, waterfowl and herons 102 - 109 (d) Timber and wood resources 109 - 116 (iv) The viability of parks 116 - 118 Chapter Four – The management of Royal Parks in Kent 119 - 137 Introduction 119 (i) The keepers of royal parks in Kent 119 - 132 ii (ii) Aspects of management of royal parks of Greenwich and Eltham 132 - 137 Chapter Five – Disparkment and the Management of Disparked Parks 138 - 166 Introduction 138 (i) The definition of disparkment 138 - 140 (ii) The pattern and process of disparkment in Kent, 1558-1625 140 - 148 (iii) The management of disparked parks 150 - 162 (a) Crown parks leased out 150 - 153 (b) Parkland into farmland 153 - 159 (c) The exploitation of woodland 159 - 162 (iv) The longevity of disparked parks as distinct units in the countryside 162 - 166 Conclusion 166 Part III – Park Owners and Park Holders 167 - 182 Chapter Six – Park Owners and Park Holders 167 - 182 Introduction 167 (i) The owners of active parks in 1558 167 - 171 (ii) New owners of established parks from the crown, by private transfer and the owners of new parks 171 - 179 (iii) Factors influencing retention and loss of parks 179 - 182 Conclusion 182 Part IV – The Social Context of Deer Parks 183 - 301 Chapter Seven – The Perception of Crown, Nobles and Gentry towards parks 184 - 235 Introduction 184 (i) Attitudes to hunting in parks 184 - 193 (a) Hunting in royal parks in Kent 186 - 189 (b) Gentry hunting in Kentish parks 189 - 194 (ii) Venison on the menu and venison as gifts 194 - 200 (iii) The use of parks for recreation and hospitable entertainment, apart from hunting 200 - 221 (a) The royal park at Greenwich 200 - 203 (b) Royal visits to parks in Kent 203 - 209 (c) How nobility and gentry appreciated their parks 209 - 221 (iv) Canterbury and Otford Great Parks – transition from keepership to ownership 221 - 235 Conclusion 235 - 236 VOLUME TWO Chapter Eight – Unlawful Activity associated with Parks 237 - 301 (i) Introduction 238 - 240 (ii) The extent of disorder associated with parks in Kent 240 - 244 iii (iii) The legal context of unlawful activity in parks 244 - 250 (iv) The nature of park violations 250 - 299 (a) Low-key poaching 252 - 253 A: Case study – Sissinghurst park in the mid 1590s 253 - 259 (b) Covert hunting for sport, usually gentlemen-led 260 - 267 B: Case study – Sir Alexander Culpepper (1581-1629) 267 - 274 C: Case study – Penshurst Park in the early 1570s 274 - 280 (c) High profile, brazen parks violations 280 - 285 D: Case study – Penhurst Park, May 1600 285 - 290 (d) Poaching with a commercial or criminal element 290 - 291 E: Case study –Humfrey Latter, mid 1590s/early 1600s 291 - 298 Conclusion 298 - 301 Conclusion 302 - 304 Appendices 305 - 330 Appendix 1 Figure 1.2 Lambarde's list and 5 early maps compared 306 - 307 Appendix 2 Figure 1.3 Active parks in Kent, 1558-1625 308 - 309 Appendix 3 Figure 1.4 All known parks in Kent 310 - 315 Appendix 4 Map 1.1 Map of Kent showing all known parks 316 Appendix 5 Figure 5.1 Disparkment 317 - 318 Appendix 6 Figure 6.3 New owners of established and new parks 319 - 320 Appendix 7 Figure 6.4 Crown parks in Kent 321 - 323 Appendix 8 Figure 7.2 Rowland Whyte's schedule of letters 324 - 327 Appendix 9 Figure 8.1 Deer park Violations, 1558-1625 328 - 330 Bibliography 331 - 350 Park profiles 351 - 460 Contents by initial letter of park A B C D E F G H I K L M O P R S 351 - 355 355 - 370 370 - 380 380 - 381 381 - 389 389 - 392 392 - 396 397 - 403 403 404 - 409 409 - 416 416 - 419 419 - 426 426 - 436 436 437 - 447 T W 447 - 455 455 - 460 Number of words - 99908 iv List of Figures VOLUME ONE Part I – Kent Background Chapter One William Lambarde, early cartographers and the evidence for the number of parks in Elizabethan and Jacobean Kent Figure 1.1 Comparison between Lambarde's lists of parks, 1576 & 1596 9 Figure 1.2 Lambarde's list and 5 early maps compared (Appendix I) 306 - 307 Figure 1.3 Active Parks in Kent, 1558-1625 (Appendix 2) 308 - 309 Figure 1.4 All known parks in Kent (Appendix 3) 310 - 315 Map 1.1 Map of Kent showing all known parks (Appendix 4) 316 Chapter Two Characteristics of Kentish Deer Parks Figure 2.1 Density of parks in S.E. England, Saxton and Speed's maps 43 Figure 2.2 Park size arranged in order of first known date 47 Figure 2.3 Number of parks of similar size 49 Figure 2.4 Longevity of active Kentish parks, 1558-1625 51 Figure 2.5 Longevity of active parks in Kent and Suffolk, 1558-1625 52 Figure 2.6 Numbers of medieval parks compared for 17 counties 54 Map 2.1 Parkland areas of west Kent (1) 45 Plate 2.1 Parks sited near castles 35 (a) Leeds castle (b) Cooling castle Plate 2.2 Varied location of parks 37 (a) Halden (b) Brasted park Plate 2.3 Varied location of parks 38 (a) Lullingstone park (b) Lympne park Plate 2.4 Parish boundaries in relation to parks 40 (a) Lullingstone park (b) Birling park (c) Brasted park Plate 2.5 Early alteration of Surrey/Kent boundary 41 (a) Sketch map (b) West Wickham park Part II - Park Management Chapter Three The Management of Parks owned by the Gentry Plate 3.1 The park pale – Canterbury park mid.C16th map 60 Plate 3.2 Park boundary earthworks 64 (a) Leeds park (b) Broxham park Plate 3.3 Park boundary earthworks 66 (a) Henden park (b) Ightham park Plate 3.4 Access into parks 68 v (a) Lullingstone park (b) Deer leap Plate 3.5 Access to park boundaries and around parks 70 (a,b) Glassenbury park Plate 3.6 Access to park boundaries and around parks 72 (a) Lynsted park (b) West Wickham park Plate 3.7 The deer keeper (a,b) Scot's Hall park 75 Plate 3.8 (a,b) Park lodges at Shurland park 80 Plate 3.9 Deer in parks 85 (a) Knole park (b) Boughton Monchelsea park Plate 3.10 Cony warrens – Chevening map 96 Plate 3.11 Pasture in parks 99 (a) Scotney park (b) Otford Little park Plate 3.12 Water features in parks 104 (a) Hemsted park (b,c) Birling park Plate 3.13 Water features in parks 106 (a) Birling park (b) Halden park Plate 3.14 Water features in parks 108 (a) Canterbury park (b) Conduit house, Canterbury Plate 3.15 Timber and wood resources in parks 111 (a) Broxham park (b) West Wickham park Plate 3.16 Timber and wood resources in parks 113 (a) Cobham park (b) Knole park Plate 3.17 Timber and wood resources in parks 115 (a) Lullingstone park (b) Penshurst park Chapter Four The management of Royal Parks in Kent Figure 4.1 Keepers of the royal park at Greenwich 122 Figure 4.2 Keepers of Eltham parks 124 Plate 4.1 Greenwich park and James I 136 (a) Park wall (b) Queen's House and park, 1637 Chapter Five Disparkment and the Management of Disparked Parks Figure 5.1 Disparkment (Appendix 5) 317 - 318 Plate 5.1 After disparkment 149 (a) Glassenbury park (b) Panthurst park Plate 5.2 The longevity of disparked parks 165 (a,b,c) Ightham park Part III - Park Owners and Park Holders Chapter Six Park Owners and Park Holders Figure 6.1 Park ownership in 1558 170 Figure 6.2 Social status and park ownership 172 Figure 6.3 New owners (a) of established and (b) new parks 319 - 320 vi (Appendix 6) Figure 6.4 Crown parks in Kent (Appendix 7) 321 - 323 Plate 6.1 Jacobean mansion of Somerhill 176 (a,b) Somerhill Part IV - The Social Context of Deer Parks Chapter Seven The Perception of Crown, Nobles and Gentry towards parks Figure 7.1 Upgrades to houses and gardens 217 Figure 7.2 Schedule of letters from Rowland Whyte (Appendix 8) 324 -327 Plate 7.1 Standings 191 (a) Southfrith park/forest (b) Knole park Plate 7.2 Greenwich park and Elizabeth I 202 (a) Henry VIII's panorama (b) Queen's oak Plate 7.3 Panorama painting of Greenwich park c.1620 204 Plate 7.4 The mansion in parkland setting – Penshurst Place 212 Plate 7.5 Viewing park from garden 214 (a) Penshurst (b) Knole Plate 7.6 Viewing park from house 215 (a,b) Sissinghurst Plate 7.7 Garden terraces overlooking parks 218 (a,b) Chilham Plate 7.8 Harris's engraving of Knole, 1719 220 VOLUME TWO Part IV - The Social Context of Deer Parks - continued Chapter Eight Unlawful Activity associated with Parks Figure 8.1 Deer Park Violations, 1558-1625 (Appendix 9) 328 - 330 Figure 8.2 Illegal Activities in Penshurst Park, 1572-1573 276 Map 8.1 Locations featured in the Penshurst park violations, 1600 289 vii Acknowledgements There are so many people, friends and erstwhile strangers, named below and unnamed, yet also deserving, to whom I wish to express my gratitude and admiration. They have been unsparingly generous in their encouragement through permissions granted, in the sharing of their expertise and their company in the field. I have named as many as possible below and the Park profiles show their more specific areas of help. Dr. Stephen Hipkin has given vital guidance, instruction and encouragement in the development and execution of this thesis. The path has not always been easy, but insight, patience, humour and mutual exchange of ideas helped to find the best route. The friendly casual encounters with others in the Department of History and American Studies, and with its secretary, Nicky Marshall, have been most welcome. I have also benefited greatly from the award of a Research Studentship from Canterbury Christ Church University. I feel privileged to have been offered advice and support particularly from landscape historian, Dr Nicola Bannister, and also from Dr Michael Brennan, Dr C.W. Chalklin, Dr Heather Falvey, Dr Rosemary Hoppitt, Professor Noel Kinnamon, Dr Robert Liddiard and Professor Germaine Warkentin. Christopher Whittick and Dr David Wright have assisted me in transcribing and translating from Latin certain key documents. The genealogical expertise of Matthew Copus helped to track down possible wills of deer keepers. My valued network of local historians has been greatly extended as news of my research spread or as I sought contacts for information about individual parks. In this regard I would like to thank Denis Anstey, Dr Nicola Bannister, Anne Clinch, Lionel Cole, Geoffrey Copus, Dr Gerald Cramp, David Cufley, Jane Davidson, James M Gibson, Debbie Goacher, Harold Gough, Sylvia Hammond, Duncan Harrington, John Hatherly, Margot Hendrick, Ramon Higgs, Joyce Hoad, Geoffrey Kitchener, Patricia Knowlden, Margaret Lawrence, Terry and Mary Lawson, Samantha Lee-Brina, Peter Mayer, Kim McIntosh, John Owen, Chris Owlett, Ernie Pollard, Dr Maurice Raraty, Geoffrey Roberts, Colin Robbins, Ian Scott, Jayne Semple, Sally Simmons, Dr Jean Stirk, Kristina Taylor, Caroline Vulliamy, Cliff Ward, Andrew Wells, Rob Williams and Pat Winzar. Voluntary Organisations who have provided information are Cobham Ashenbank Management Scheme, Cranbrook Museum, Kent Archaeological Society Library and Otford Heritage Centre. Members of staff at the archive repositories cited in the Bibliography have generally been very eager to respond to requests, for which I am most grateful. My fieldwork trips have been aided by many companions, especially the late Christopher Waterman who understood how important the project was to me. Other companions have been Matthew Balfour, Dr Nicola Bannister, Edward Barham, Geoffrey Copus, Dr Paul Cornelius, Peter Dear, Jonathan Fryer, David Fuller, Dr Paul Lee, Martin Lovegrove, Adam Nicolson, Michael Peters, Ernie Pollard, Geoffrey Roberts, Jeremy Secker, Pat and Peter Stroud, Jan and John Talbot, Pat Waterman and the Canterbury Woodland Research Group. Access for visits has been granted by David and Guy Nevill for Birling park, Michael Cottrell for Bore Place park, Marice and Dominic Kendrick for Boughton viii Monchelsea park, Col. R.P.D. Brook for Chevening House, David Edgar of Park Farm for Brasted park, Malcolm and Sue Wells of Canterbury Camping and Caravanning Club for Old Park, Canterbury, Tessa and Stuart Wheeler for Chilham park, Marcus Sutcliffe for Glassenbury park, Edward Barham and Michael Ditton for Halden park, Martin Lovegrove and his farm manager, Bob Felton, for Henden park, David Fuller for Ightham park, Graham Bolden for Mersham Hatch park, Viscount De L'Isle for Penshurst and Ashour parks, John and Jan Talbot of Lodge House for Scot's Hall park, Robert Lewis for Sissinghurst park, The National Trust for Scotney and Sissinghurst parks, The Schools at Somerhill for Somerhill park, Alastair Malcolm for Throwley park, Alice Porritt, Maysel Dawson and the manager of Nepicar Rare Breeds Farm for Wrotham park,. In the final presentation of this thesis I have been very glad of the meticulous proof reading of Jennifer Ward and Daphne Ridler-Rowe. The computer skills in drawing up graphs and maps of John Hills, Geography Technician in the Department of Geographical & Life Sciences at Canterbury Christ Church University, have been greatly appreciated as have those of Keith Milne, who has rescued me from disaster on numerous occasions. Both have given me unstinting time, patience and expertise. ix Abbreviations Arch.Cant. = Archaeologia Cantiana BL = British Library BLS = Bromley Local Studies Library CCA = Canterbury Cathedral Archives CKS = Centre for Kentish Studies CMS = Centre for Medway Studies CPR = Calendar of Patent Rolls EKAC = East Kent Archive Centre ESRO = East Sussex Record Office LPL = Lambeth Palace Library StaffsRO = Staffordshire Record Office SuffRO = Suffolk Record Office TNA = The National Archives 1 INTRODUCTION ELIZABETHAN AND JACOBEAN DEER PARKS IN KENT, 1558 to 1625 This study has had a long gestation and represents a fusion of several interests – the ecology of the countryside, landscape studies, the history of Kent and genealogy among them. The personal focus on deer parks arose in the 1980s when assisting in the mapping and measurement of over one hundred ancient pollards in Lullingstone(55) park in Kent.1 Curiosity about the origin of these trees led to research into the park, which resulted in a slim publication on the subject.2 Years later a similar research project into a Duchy of Cornwall deer park, Kerrybullock, near a holiday haunt in the Tamar valley, widened the interest.3 It has long been an ambition to undertake detailed investigation into the deer parks of Kent, which this research has fulfilled, albeit for practical reasons concentrating on the relatively limited period spanning the reigns of Elizabeth I and James I from 1558 to 1625. The starting point of the research was inspired by the list of Kentish deer parks produced by the Elizabethan historian, William Lambarde, in the first edition of 'A Perambulation of Kent' published in 1576 – the earliest printed list of parks for any county.4 Originally it was intended to extend the research into the reign of Charles I in order to assess the effect of the Civil War on deer parks, but time and space constraints made this impractical. There is, however, a certain logic in concentrating on the reigns of Elizabeth I and James I because both enjoyed hunting, the latter almost obsessively, and the monarchs' enthusiasm in this regard affected noble and gentry attitudes towards deer parks, which, during years of relative stability, could be studied to evaluate how they fitted into everyday culture without the distortions of the turmoil of internal warfare. 1 Numbers in brackets by park names are used throughout the thesis to identify individual parks in alphabetical order, so that they can be found on Map 1.1 p.316 and in the Park profiles from p.351; Rackham(1976:200) pollard = tree which is cut 8 – 12 feet above ground level and allowed to grow again from the bolling (trunk) to produce successive crops of wood. 2 Pittman(1983). 3 Pittman(1991). 4 A Perambulation of Kent: Conteining the description, Historie, and Customes of that Shyre. Collected and written (for the most part) in the yeare 1570 by William Lambarde of Lincolnes Inne gent. and nowe increased by the addition of some things which the Autheur him selfe hath observed since that time, (printed in London 1576). 2 As the first substantive research related to deer parks for any county for the late sixteenth into the seventeenth century, this study is wide ranging. Almost every aspect adds to the corpus of knowledge about the subject, and the whole might be seen to establish a base from which further research might emanate, rather than adding nuances, reinforcing or challenging conclusions of previous research. A major aim at the outset was to determine at a county level the overall state of parks, whether, as William Lambarde intimated, they were in decline, or whether they were stagnating or flourishing. Where opportunities have arisen on a subsidiary level, the findings of other historians have been tested against the Kent model, forming minor themes interwoven through the text. In the absence of any research into Kentish deer parks, basic questions such as identifying the number of parks in existence, their distribution, characteristics, management and ownership had to be tackled in order to establish the groundwork. Following this process, the dynamic forces behind parks were investigated; the factors contributing to the successful functioning or creation of parks; the degree, pace and process of disparkment; how parks were appreciated and valued by their owners; and the extent to which threats to parks from those denied regular access to them might have undermined their viability. The choice of parks to study was fairly arbitrary in that any park referred to in contemporary documents, i.e. from 1558 to 1625, was included, giving an eventual total of exactly one hundred. The reason for this decision was that if the creators of documents were still referring to an area of land as a park, it should be included whether or not it was still operating as a viable deer park. In any case, in the early stages of research the status of each park had not always been confirmed, and even at the end, for some, it remained unknown. The definition of 'park' within the context of this study is therefore necessarily broad and incorporates any area specifically called a park, which had once been enclosed for deer or continued to contain deer. Thus parks with deer, parks without deer, and completely disparked parks have come under scrutiny. Where a specific selection of parks has been made for deeper consideration, for example, parks still with deer when reviewing management, or defunct parks in the discussion about disparkment, this has been made clear in the text. 3 In order to make any progress towards arriving at an overview, profiles for one hundred individual parks were compiled, despite the extraordinary difficulties in so doing.5 Evidence about deer parks was widely scattered both in state papers and family estate records, but even after scouring a wide variety of documents sometimes little more than a snippet of relevant information was unearthed. The diversity of these sources becomes apparent in the number of footnote references, which have been necessary. There were disappointingly few documents solely related to deer parks even among the most extensive family papers such as those of Lord De L'Isle and Dudley, but where such documents survived they provided significant insights into aspects of park management, use and ownership.6 Despite considerable endeavour some park profiles barely contain more than one or two references, while other park profiles are fuller, but contain references widely spaced in time and variable in usefulness. Nevertheless, the park profiles provide as comprehensive a list as possible of both documentary and secondary evidence extant for every park known in Kent from 1558 to 1625. Although medieval deer parks have long captured the imagination and interest of historians at parish, county and national levels, the same does not apply to the Tudor and Stuart period, which tends to be tacked on as a postscript to studies of medieval deer parks or as a prologue to studies of eighteenth century parks.7 This hiatus in the history of parks means that there is little direct comparative secondary material at hand, although where possible parallels have been found from the medieval period. For this reason no detailed review of published sources appears in this introduction, but rather such publications as have a bearing on particular topics are reviewed in each chapter, because each has required different historiographical literature. The thesis is structured in four parts. In Part I the general background to Kentish parks is discussed. Chapter One concentrates on an analysis of and commentary on William Lambarde's park lists of 1576 and 1596, which were found to be reasonably accurate.8 When the lists were compared with five contemporary maps, 5 See Park profiles p.351 onwards. 6 Held at CKS and accessed by special permission of Lord De L'Isle. 7 Mileson(2009) reassesses previous research into medieval parks, and so his book provides an overall historiographical review. 8 Lambarde(1576); Lambarde, A Perambulation of Kent (London, 1596, 2nd edition). 4 the number of parks containing deer appeared to remain relatively stable throughout the period, with the number of parks going out of use being roughly balanced by newly created parks. However, as the park profiles reveal, there are yawning gaps in the history of individual parks, so only tentative conclusions could be drawn. Chapter Two discusses the main characteristics of parks and, with many originating before 1485, comparison with medieval parks in other counties was possible. Although Kent's varied geology strongly influenced the distribution of parks, particularly along the Greensand ridge belt, more complex factors such as archiepiscopal land holding, the proximity of London and the partial clearance of the Wealden woodland were also significant. The impression that Kent was less imparked than other counties has been queried, with the discovery of many more parks than originally thought, but as the same may be true of other counties, no firm conclusion can be drawn. Part II covers the management of parks in three chapters. Chapter Three discusses the management parks owned by gentlemen and noblemen and Chapter Four the management of crown parks. As there appears to have been no previous detailed study of the management of Elizabethan and Jacobean parks for any county, this study for Kent forms a template against which any future county studies can be set. Although books by Gascoigne and Markham gave detailed advice on estate management, how Elizabethan and Jacobean owners actually managed their parks is not well documented.9 Evidence has to be pieced together from a few illustrative examples, which were found scattered in estate papers, but they form an impressionistic picture revealing these parks, like their medieval counterparts, to have incorporated a mixture of diverse uses compatible with the retention of deer. The roles of the deer keeper in gentry parks and, in Chapter Four, the park keeper in royal parks have been outlined in as much detail as the evidence allows, because it was felt that very little systematic examination of these roles had previously been carried out. Roger Manning in his pioneering book on hunters and poachers from 1485 to 1640 tackled the subject, but did not always distinguish between the deer keeper 9 Gascoigne, The Noble Arte of Venerie or Hunting (1575, London); Markham, Maison Rustique, or The countrey farme (London, 1616). 5 and the park keeper.10 His comments about the prevalence of poaching backgrounds among deer keepers were thought worthy of testing for the county of Kent, with the discovery that many deer keepers came from respectable yeoman families and performed their duties diligently, although examples of rogue deer keepers were not hard to find.11 Chapter Five examines the process of disparkment and the management of disparked parks, as they were converted to other uses. It ends with a discussion of the residuary survival of disparked parks long after their original function had ended. William Lambarde was found to be less reliable over the pace and timing of disparkment, which he implied was continuing to accelerate in Elizabeth I's reign. Such patchy evidence as survives indicates that the rate of disparkment slowed down in Kent between 1558 and 1625, and that, for Kent at least, the decline of the park was exaggerated. Even an apparently straightforward exercise to establish lines of park ownership has proved to be unexpectedly difficult. Chapter Six in Part Three covers this topic. There was overall stability in the ownership of parks, with many families holding parks for several generations before 1558, and continuing to do so until 1625 and after. Those who newly acquired parks during this period tended to be members of the Kentish gentry, not unlike the established owners, but some had newly acquired wealth. Where there was a disruption in park ownership loss or disparkment tended to coincide with particular family circumstances, rather than apparently being spurred on by the general economic climate of the time. There appears to have been a reluctance to give up parks, necessity rather than enthusiasm being the motivation to gain added income from disparkment. Lastly, Part IV reveals opposing perceptions of parks, Chapter Seven from the owners' viewpoint, and Chapter Eight from the viewpoint of those excluded from parks. The owners and their milieu placed great value on their parks in terms of prestige, status, largesse, and the enjoyment that they derived from them, both as venues of recreation and aesthetically, as settings for their mansions. The strength of this 10 Manning(1993:28-33,189-195). 11 Ibid. 6 attachment partly explains why owners were so keen to retain their parks. However, Chapter Eight assesses the counter force of those, including gentlemen and men from lower strata of society, who were denied access to the private hunting preserves of the elite. Depositions, mainly from the Kent Quarter Sessions and from the court of Star Chamber, but also from the Sutherland and De L'Isle and Dudley family papers, provided a depth of information about park breaks, and enabled a vivid reconstruction of their nature and complexity.12 An attempt has been made to estimate the threat park violations posed to the viability of parks, but it proved impossible to quantify this, neither is there comparative material from other counties to establish whether Kentish parks were more or less vulnerable to incursion. The drive to undertake this thesis has been strong enough to overcome the distinct disadvantage of the fragmentary, scattered, often sparse yet varied, nature of the documentation. Yet, in following up every lead, reading widely, and undertaking visits to numerous park sites, it has been possible to convey an evocative impression of the dynamics behind deer parks throughout the period 1558 to 1625. Because there is no wider framework within which to place an interpretation of Kent parks, it has been hard to judge how typical they were, but whatever was happening elsewhere the impression is that deer parks in Kent were both relatively stable in numbers and that indeed most were flourishing. 12 The Sutherland papers are held at Staffordshire Record Office. 7 PART I – KENT BACKGROUND Little is known about deer parks in Kent for any period, but even less is known about them in the late Tudor and early Stuart periods. It is therefore essential to establish which parks were operating as deer parks and which disparked parks survived in the landscape as separate entities. Lambarde's lists of parks, with and without deer, dating from 1576 and 1596, and five contemporary maps are useful primary sources to aid the identification of parks and will act as a starting point in establishing the number of parks in Chapter One. The distribution, location, density, shape, size and longevity of the parks will be discussed in Chapter Two. 8 PART I - CHAPTER ONE WILLIAM LAMBARDE, EARLY CARTOGRAPHERS AND THE EVIDENCE FOR THE NUMBER OF PARKS IN ELIZABETHAN AND JACOBEAN KENT The aim of this chapter is to review contemporary printed sources covering the whole county of Kent to estimate the number of parks containing herds of deer in Elizabeth I's and James I's reigns and to see whether these sources enable a preliminary assessment to be made about whether the number of active parks was stable, fluctuating, decreasing or increasing. Throughout this thesis a distinction between 'active' and 'disparked' parks is being made. The term 'active' refers to parks known to have held deer for at least some time in the period from 1558 to 1625, together with those parks that were shown on contemporary maps. The term 'disparkment' will be discussed fully in Chapter Five, but for the time being non-active parks were those either without deer, or those for which the existence of deer remains unproven. For nearly all parks there is insufficient evidence to prove whether there were deer in parks and, if not, to pinpoint exactly when they were removed. Attention will initially be focused on the only contemporary textual source to contain information about parks in Kent, namely William Lambarde's 'A Perambulation of Kent' first published in 1576 and revised in 1596, both editions of which included a list of deer parks in the county. In the first edition the list comprised 52 parks of which 34 contained deer and 18 did not, and in the second edition 54 of which 31 contained deer and 23 did not.1 The list of 1576 is the earliest printed list for any county, although a written list of 22 Suffolk parks and their owners survives from c.1560.2 Lists of parks from another six counties appear in state papers in the early 1580s, following enquiries into the number of parks with breeding mares.3 A comparison of Lambarde's two lists indicates both particular and long-term changes. In the former case, five parks were added to the number of disparked parks, which rose from 18 in 1576 to 23 in 1596. Secondly, by specifying disparked parks 1 Lambarde(1576:48-49) The Particular of Kent; Lambarde(1596:60-61) The Particular of Kent; see Figure 1.1, p.9 for comparison between Lambarde's lists of deer parks. 2 Suffolk Record Office B449/5/31/36 Hengrave manorial record, cited by Hoppitt(1992:1). 3 TNA SP12/162/38 Cornwall, SP12/163/20 Dorsetshire, SP12/163/14 Hertfordshire, SP12/148/63 Norfolk, SP12/162/44 Somerset, SP12/162/34 Wiltshire. See also Chapter Three pp.100-102. 9 Figure 1.1 – Comparison between Lambarde's Lists of Parks, 1576 and 1596 1st Edition, 1576 2nd Edition, 1596 (Disparked parks italicised, seven changes in 1596 list in bold) Aldington disparked (omitted in 1576) Allington disparked Allington disparked Ashour Ashour At Ashford (?Scot's Hall) At Ashford (?Scot's Hall) Bedgebury Bedgebury Birling Birling Brasted disparked Brasted disparked Broxham disparked Broxham disparked Calehill Calehill Cage disparked Cage disparked Cobham Cobham Cooling Cooling Eltham Eltham Eltham Eltham Eltham Eltham Folkestone disparked Folkestone disparked Glassenbury Glassenbury Greenwich Greenwich Groombridge Groombridge Halden Halden disparked Hamswell Hamswell Henden disparked Henden disparked Hever disparked Hever disparked Hungershall Hungershall Ightham disparked Ightham disparked Knole Knole Langley disparked Langley disparked Leigh disparked Leigh disparked Leeds Leeds Lullingstone Lullingstone Merewood disparked (misspelt) Mereworth disparked Northfrith Northfrith Northfrith Northfrith Northfrith Northfrith Otford Otford Otford Otford disparked Oxenhoath disparked Oxenhoath disparked Oxenhoath disparked Oxenhoath disparked Panthurst disparked Panthurst disparked Penshurst Penshurst Postern disparked Postern disparked Postling Postling St. Augustines St. Augustines Saltwood Saltwood disparked Shurland Shurland disparked Sissinghurst Sissinghurst Southfrith, forest Southfrith, forest Southpark Southpark Stonehurst disparked Stonehurst disparked Stowting Stowting Sutton disparked Sutton disparked Westenhanger Westenhanger Westenhanger (2nd park added) Wrotham disparked Wrotham disparked 10 Lambarde was distinguishing between active and defunct parks, in itself recognition of long-term change, which he stressed in the section entitled 'The Estate of Kent':- Parkes of fallow Deere, and games of grey Conyes, it maynteyneth many, the one for pleasure, and the other for profit, as it may wel appeare by this, that within memorie almost one half of the first sorte be disparked, and the number of warrens continueth, if it do not increase dayly.4 Here parks are equated with the enjoyment derived from their function of supporting herds of deer, compared with the emphasis on the profit emanating from breeding conies. By implication Lambarde attributes the loss of nearly half the deer parks to the expense of maintaining them for pleasure alone, although he did not elaborate on what he meant by disparkment. As will be discussed in Chapter Five, disparkment was a complex process, encompassing various stages, but for the purposes of this chapter Lambarde's simple definition of disparkment, namely that the parks no longer sustained deer, will suffice.5 Lambarde's estimation that nearly half of the county's many parks had been disparked within living memory, at the time of the first edition, was a drastic and noticeable change. This contention, along with Lambarde's identification of specific disparked parks, will be explored in the opening section (i) of the chapter to give a summary of sixteenth century developments prior to the reign of Elizabeth I. In the second section (ii) Lambarde's experience as a disciplined historian and his personal knowledge of the county of Kent will be examined to assess the reliability of his research, which will be shown to be of a generally high standard. In section (iii) Lambarde's invaluable lists with their overview of existing parks in 1576 and 1596 will come under scrutiny, with discussion about their inconsistencies and ambiguities. Although Lambarde made a few alterations to his previous list of parks in the second edition of 'A Perambulation of Kent' of 1596, he did not revise the main text, so his statement about the rate of disparkment remained. This study will argue that the rate of disparkment slowed down from the beginning of Elizabeth I's reign until the end of the reign of James I, a trend that can be discerned by studying the five contemporary county maps to which attention will be turned in section (iv). These maps will be compared with each other and with Lambarde's lists. Finally, parks which were missed by all 4 Cony = an adult rabbit (http://dictionary.oed.com); Lambarde(1576:9) this paragraph was unaltered in Lambarde(1596:11). 5 See also Chapter Five pp.138-148. 11 these sources or which were set up later will be mentioned, to reach a conclusion in section (v) about the number of parks which had deer in them for at least part of Elizabeth I's and James I's reigns. (i) Loss of parks before Elizabeth I's accession Lambarde's key phrase 'within memorie' (used in the first edition of 'A Perambulation of Kent' to which it must be assumed that it primarily applies) would take older inhabitants back to earlier turbulent times in the sixteenth century when there was disruption in the ownership of many parks.6 Lack of continuity of management seems to have led to the loss of deer herds in some parks and consolidated the disparked status of others, but evidence of the individual histories of each park is at best patchy, so in most cases circumstantial evidence is all that is available. However, it will be shown that the loss of nearly half the active parks in Kent occurred from the later years of Henry VIII's reign to the end of Mary I's reign.7 The church, owning two-fifths of the county from 1422 to 1535, was the largest landowner in Kent.8 This figure was well above the national average, and was largely attributable to the extensive land holdings of the archbishop of Canterbury. 9 Ecclesiastical bodies held about 30 parks in Kent before the English Reformation, with the archbishop of Canterbury alone owning at least 19 parks, many not on Lambarde's lists. The land exchanges and confiscations engineered by Henry VIII from 1537 to 1540 therefore had a great impact on Kent landownership.10 As a result of the transfers the archbishop lost a dramatic number of parks at Aldington(1), Bexley(5), Fryarne(36), Ightham(48), Knole(50), Langham(early park 16), Lyminge(56), Lympne(57), Maidstone(59), three at Otford(62-64), Panthurst(67), Saltwood(75) and Wrotham(100).11 Other ecclesiastical institutions with parks seized by the crown were Boxley Abbey (Boxley,14a), St. Augustine's Abbey (Canterbury Old park,19), the Priory of Christ Church (Canterbury Trenley 6 Lambarde(1576:9) The Estate of Kent. As a lawyer, Lambarde was probably thinking in terms of the phrase 'within living memory', which was normally taken to be a period of between 30 to 60 years. 7 In this section all ecclesiastical parks are included whether or not they appeared in Lambarde's lists. 8 Clark(1977:6) citing Du Boulay(1966:244-245). 9 Clark(1977:6) this estimate is derived from comparative data on monastic holdings in other parts of the country in P. Hughes, The Reformation in England I(New York, 1950-1954:375). 10 Du Boulay(1952:19-36). 11 Morice(1859:234-272); Du Boulay(1966:317-329). The 'earlier park' number is a park which does not appear in post 1558 documents, but which has been included on Map 1.1 'Map of Kent showing all known parks' (Appendix 4 p.316) and Figure 1.4 (Appendix 3 pp.310-315) as a bracketed number. 12 park(20) and Westwell,98), the Abbey of St. Mary Graces by the Tower of London (Elham, 30), and Folkestone Priory (Folkestone, 34).12 In addition, the bishopric of Rochester surrendered to the crown part of its land enclosed within Cooling(24) park.13 Effectively, the only parks, whether active or disparked, retained by the church were the archbishop of Canterbury's parks at Chislet(22), Curlswood(26), Ford(35) and Lympne(57) and the bishop of Rochester's park at Bromley(16).14 How many of the parks were maintained with deer under the ownership of the crown remains unclear, because little is known of their status prior to seizure, but had they been disparked for any length of time Lambarde's 'within memorie' would have been somewhat overstretched.15 However, it is clear that lack of continuity in management and the desire of the crown and its lessees to maximise profits had led many to cease as deer parks by the reign of Elizabeth I, as Lambarde's first list testifies.16 The exceptional parks still holding deer were Cooling(24), owned by the Brooke family of Cobham, and, under keepership or crown lessees, Knole(50), Otford Great park(62), and, perhaps, Otford Little park(63) and Saltwood(75).17 Political turmoil also affected private parks, several of which were transferred to the crown after attainders served on traitors. Some of these parks had already been disparked, but new owners disparked others. Sir Henry Sidney, for example, with the grant of Penshurst in 1552 obtained Ashour(69) park, Northlands or Penshurst(71) park (then including Leigh park,70) and Southpark(72), after they had lain in royal hands since the attainder imposed on Edward Stafford, duke of Buckingham, executed by Henry VIII in 1521.18 Penshurst(71) park, adjacent to 12 Boxley(14a), CPR c.66/1010 no.1047, p.213, 23/2/1563; Canterbury Old(19) Park, Morice (Camden Society IX, 1859); Canterbury Trenley(20), Hasted 9(1797:158); Westwell(98), Hasted 7 (1797:416); Elham(30), Hasted 8 (1797:99); Folkestone(32), TNA SC 6/HenVIII/1727 7 1758. 13 CMS DRc/T166A, 1533/4. 14 Chislet(22) park, LPL TA39/1, no deer since 1541; Curlswood(26) park, LPL TA633/1, 1586 'once used as a park for deer'; Ford(35) park, map fragment, 1624, shows deer (Arch.Cant. XLV (1933:168); no evidence for status of Lympne(57) park; Bromley(16) park divided into fields by 1646 (BLS 43/7a,b) but neither its dates of creation nor of disparkment are known. 15 Way(1997:17-18) discussion on effects of disparkment abandoned because 'so few disparkments or diminutions in areas imparked could be dated, and because those few that could were subject to a high degree of insecurity.' 16 See Figure 5.1 'Disparkment' (Appendix 5 pp.317-318). 17 See Park profiles p.351 onwards. 18 CKS U1475/M59; Kingsford & Shaw 1 (1925:xxiii-xxiv). 13 Penshurst Place was kept, but the others were eventually leased out and given over to agriculture or woodland.19 The disgrace of the Boleyn family following Anne Boleyn's execution in 1536 eventually lost surviving members their seat and park(46) at Hever Castle, and parks at Henden(45) and Kemsing(49).20 Henden(45), from at least 1540, and Kemsing(49), perhaps long before, had ceased to be deer parks, while Hever(46) retained its pale, but lost its deer, principally becoming a cony warren by 1560.21 In Edward VI's reign, extensive land acquisitions around Tonbridge by John Dudley, duke of Northumberland, including three parks in Northfrith(89-91), Southfrith park(93) or forest, Cage(88) and Postern(92) parks, proved to be shortlived following his disgrace and death in 1553. Cage(88) and Postern(92) parks had been disparked by the time Lambarde compiled his first list, but Northfrith(89-91) and Southfrith(93) survived longer into Elizabeth I's reign.22 Lastly, in Mary I's reign, after the major failed rising of 1554 in Kent led by Sir Thomas Wyatt, the crown gained other attainted land. Allington((2) and Boxley(14a) parks were seized from Sir Thomas Wyatt himself. Allington was on Lambarde's list of disparkments, but Boxley(14a) was omitted, having been disparked by the abbot at an unknown date.23 The status of Sir Thomas Wyatt's new Lea park(14b) at Boxley, which he attempted to create in 1549, is unknown, but it seems to have been short-lived judging by disputes over the identities of the two parks at Boxley later in Elizabeth I's reign.24 A defunct park at Broxham(17) was seized from William Cromer.25 Lastly, Sir Henry Isley's involvement and subsequent beheading lost the family Brasted(15) and Sundridge(83) parks, both of which had been divided into fields by 1553, a park at 19 The exact sequence of events unknown, see Park profiles p.351. 20 Astor(1979:10) 1538, Henry took over Hever(46) as widower succeeding to his wife's estate, but compensated Anne Boleyn's siblings; CKS U1450/T5/62, 1541, Henry VIII acquired Henden(45) after an enforced exchange of land between himself and William Stafford, husband of Mary Boleyn, Anne's sister; CKS U1450/T6/10, 1560 lease of park for cony warren, deer house to be kept in good repair, but no mention of actual deer. 21 Surrey Record Office (Hoskins papers) leases from 1540 contain no evidence that deer were in the park (excerpts from Lionel Cole); BL Harl.Cart. 86.G.54,H.16,H.53, grants of park land make no mention of pales or internal character of the park. 22 Thirsk in Zell(2000:87-88); Chalklin(2004:95-104). 23 CCA DCB-J/X.10.17. 24 Zell(2000:32) 1549, hedges of Wyatt's new park at Boxley(14b) were torn down. 25 Lambarde(1576:6-7). 14 Langley(52) near Maidstone, which was disparked by 1576, and Sutton Valence(86) park, which was disparked when John Leland passed by in Henry VIII's reign.26 Although in 1555 the four parks were restored to Sir Henry Isley's son on payment of a fine of £1000, he fell into arrears and all his lands were returned to the crown in 1575.27 By implication, Lambarde attributed the loss of active deer parks to economic pressure, and some parks might well have lost their deer and undergone further steps towards total disparkment prior to seizure by the crown, perhaps due to financial pressure, family decline, or the different priorities of their owners. However, in the case of disparkment 'within memorie', it can hardly be coincidence that the successful deer parks in Lambarde's lists had not been directly affected by political instability, while 15 of the 18 disparked parks on the 1576 list were those that had undergone enforced disruption of ownership during the religious and political crises of the period.28 Change of ownership would not automatically lead to disparkment, but abrupt interruption in park ownership and management accelerated conversion of parkland to farmland or woodland. Turbulent upheavals made park restoration more difficult and previous disparkment more entrenched, and for crown-leased parks the incentive to reintroduce deer was further diminished or restricted by existing subleases.29 Disparkment in the reigns of Elizabeth I and James I will be covered more fully in Chapter Five, but in the meantime Lambarde accurately identified an accelerating rate of disparkment prior to the first edition of 'A Perambulation of Kent', but did not note a deceleration in the early years of Elizabeth I's reign. 30 To compound this lack of refinement of period, by not revising his text in the second edition of 1596, he has left the reader with the impression that the rate of loss continued throughout Elizabeth I's reign. This was not the case, because when comparing his lists with the parks depicted 26 CKS U1450/E19, 1553, Brasted(15) and Sundridge(83) parks divided into fields; Chandler VIII (1993:88) prior to 1546, 'This elder Clifford hath yet a maner by Boxle caullid Sutton Valaunce where was a park.' 27 Steinman Steinman(1851:40) 8 March 1 & 2 Philip and Mary deed of restoration; CKS U1590/T14/17, 1575, his debts were about £10000 in several bonds, so his property was seized for a fair distribution of the proceeds. 28 The three exceptions are Mereworth(60) (misspelt at Merewood in 1576) and two parks at Oxenhoath(65,66) about which information is lacking. 29 See Chapter Five, pp.150-153, Chapter Six pp.173-174. 30 See Chapter Five (ii) p.140 onwards, and Figure 5.1 (Appendix 5 pp.317-318). 15 on contemporary maps, it will be seen that the rate of disparkment continued to slow down in the 20 years that followed the first edition of 'A Perambulation of Kent.'. The deer parks that remained at the beginning of Elizabeth I's reign were for the most part retained for several more decades, with a handful of new parks being created to balance the number that were lost. (ii) William Lambarde, the historian and topographer 'A Perambulation of Kent' was recognised as the pioneering county history even in its own time. In the opening pages Lambarde outlined the greater part of his interest in the section entitled 'The description and hystorie of the shyre of Kent.' Most of its contents lie outside the bounds of this study; but among 'such other things incident to the whole' Lambarde stated that he finally wanted to cover the hills and dales, parks and forests.31 In doing so he has provided the historian with the earliest printed list of parks, both extant and extinct, within any county. Before examining this and the later list of 1596 in detail it is necessary to establish their credibility, by judging the soundness of Lambarde's method and the degree of accuracy in his research. His contemporary William Camden, author of 'Britain' considered him 'a man right well endowed with excellent learning.' 32 When writing his history of Kent, Camden thought Lambarde 'has withal been so happy in his searches; that he has left very little for those that come after him.' 33 Lambarde's training as a lawyer gave him a disciplined approach to study, and indicative of his enquiring mind and scholarship was his mastery of Anglo-Saxon language and law displayed in 'Archaionomia' published in 1568. By that time he had also been working on the manuscript of the 'Alphabetical Description of the Chief Places of England and Wales', the bulk of which he and many of his friends had drawn from old chronicles and ancient histories.34 Lambarde's academic and scholarly approach has been considered meticulous for its time.35 According to Mendyk, 'He selected evidence intelligently 31 Lambarde(1576:6-7). 32 Camden(1610); Read(1962:7) citing Camden's dedicatory letter in the first edition of 'Eirenarcha'. 33 Mendyk(1986:476). 34 Lambarde(1596,foreword). 35 Read(1962:6); Warnicke(1973:2-27). 16 from the raw substance of his sources, and evaluated it in accordance with sound principles. Objective truth, not legend, was his goal.'36 Concerning methodology, Lambarde himself stated that to compile 'A Perambulation of Kent' he had studied credible records, and then added information partly from his own knowledge, and partly from that gleaned from other men. 37 However, details are hard to come by. He drew on his 'Alphabetical Description of the Chief Places of England and Wales' for what he referred to as his 'Topographicall Dictionarie' (later to become 'A Perambulation of Kent'), and for which he enlarged the history and topography of that county.38 His written sources have been analysed, but it is doubtful whether substantive documentary evidence on parks was available to him and, in any case, it would have been of limited use since it would scarcely have touched the contemporary position.39 When approaching the compilation of the section 'The Particular of Kent', in which the list of parks appeared, Lambarde would have had to rely largely, if not entirely, on his own and others’ knowledge of the Kentish countryside. Indeed, he admitted as much when he wrote an apology concerning information he or others had gathered:- If either by want of memorie I have not taken all, or by too much credulitie have mistaken any: I have pardon for it, and desire the Reader, either to correct or supplie it, by his own discretion and judgement.40 He might have written systematically to landowners about their parks, but surviving correspondence is scattered. Some letters written to Archbishop Matthew Parker relating to 'A Perambulation of Kent' showed that he was prepared to alter and amend in deference to those with specialist knowledge as part of his meticulous attention to detail. 41 That he kept notes, as he did for 'Ephemeris' related to his work as Justice 36 Mendyk(1986:471). 37 Lambarde(1576:59). 38 Warnicke(1973:26-27). 39 Flower(1935:47-48); Warnicke(1973:27-30) documents relating to ecclesiastical land might have been seen through the patronage of Dr. Matthew Parker, the Archbishop of Canterbury. 40 Lambarde(1576:9) reference to his methodology and the apology were added before the final publication and do not appear in the manuscript copy of 1570 which he had prepared for circulation beforehand (BL Add.Mss.20033). 41 Bruce & Perowne(1853:424-426) cited with references to other letters in Alsop, 'Lambarde, William 1536-1601 (http://www.oxforddnb.com/view/article/15921); StaffsRO D593/S/4/14/16-18, letters between Sir John Leveson and Lambarde; Dunkel(1965:46-48). 17 of the Peace, is shown by one surviving manuscript.42 Entitled 'Note of the names of the gentry in Kent, 1574', this was a working list which could be amended until the manuscript was despatched to the printers.43 It is apparent that the list of parks was compiled in a similar way. It was laid out in two columns in neither alphabetical, ownership nor locational order, rather the names were written at random as they became known to him, despite Lambarde’s emphasis on an ordered approach in the rest of the book.44 In these circumstances the degree of accuracy needs to be assessed. Warnicke considered that Lambarde often travelled throughout Kent and knew it well, because 'A Perambulation of Kent' contained many of his personal observations.45 But although he was soon to become embedded in the county, he hardly had time before the late 1560s to know it as intimately as many of the wellestablished Kentish gentry who would be his readers. His father, John Lambarde, a very successful London draper who had risen to be sheriff of London, purchased several properties, the last being that of the Kentish manor of Westcombe in Greenwich in 1553, shortly before his death the following year. William Lambarde was only eighteen at the time, but eventually inherited Westcombe, along with other properties in Herefordshire, Wiltshire and London, when he came of age in 1557. While John Lambarde had acquired properties haphazardly, his son concentrated his estate in London and Kent, adding to the Kent holding, but selling off the holdings in other counties. However, he remained resident at Lincoln's Inn until called to the Bar in 1567, and leased out Westcombe.46 The rest of his life demonstrated how fond he was of Kent, and Adrian believes that he was partly motivated to write 'A Perambulation of Kent' as a means to win acceptance into society 42 Read(1962:15-52). 43 Folger MS. X d.260, Folger Shakespeare Library. I am grateful to Georgianna Ziegler of the Folger Institute for this reference. This list differed slightly from that which was later published. 44 Adrian(2006:306-334) this article deals with the high degree of order in 'A Perambulation of Kent' and the importance it placed on political order and stability. However, "Here creating order is not about reducing everything to 'universal unanimities' or sameness. Instead Lambarde allows for differentiation and distinctiveness (even disagreement) so long as they do not erupt into any kind of disorderly threat," p.330. 45 Warnicke(1973:30) also for other biographical details. 46 Ibid. p.10. 18 there, 'by demonstrating his intimate knowledge of and mastery over the topography and history of the county.'47 If this was his intention, he was eminently successful because in his commendation of the book Thomas Wotton of Boughton Malherbe could not have endorsed William Lambarde more strongly:- We should unto the author William Lambard, yeeld our very harty and perpetuall thanks: as our Country man in our wordes and deedes lovingly use him: as a man learned, duly esteeme him .... which for my part, I thinke meete to do, and meane to do: and for your parts, I desire hartily you should do, and I hope assuredly you will do.48 Lambarde stated on the title page that 'A Perambulation of Kent' had been collected and written (for the most part) in 1570.49 From 1568 he had been given wider opportunity to gather material while undertaking his new duties as a Commissioner of Sewers from Lombarde's Wall to Gravesend Bridge.50 This exacting job, giving control over important waterways, would have involved travelling around the countryside with fellow commissioners such as William Herbert, earl of Pembroke, and William Brooke, lord Cobham. Moving about the county in such company enabled him not only to make his own observations about Kent, but also to meet influential men from whom he could extract and exchange information. In 1570, at the age of 34, he married Jane Multon, whose father, George Multon, owned the St. Clere estate in Kemsing, northeast of Sevenoaks, and his social network among the Kentish gentry grew even wider. He was reticent in widely publicising the manuscript until it had been thoroughly scrutinised and it was from St. Clere that he wrote his letter to Thomas Wotton, on the last day of January 1570, requesting him to read the draft of his book. He chose Thomas Wotton because of the 'good understanding and interest' he had in the county, and hoped that he 'for good will indifferently would, weigh and peruse it.'51 His reticence was further reflected in Archbishop Matthew Parker's letter of May 1573, which was sent with a copy of the manuscript to William Cecil, lord Burghley, prior to Elizabeth I's progress round Kent, 47 Adrian (2006:311). 48 Lambarde(1576:7-8) Wotton's foreward. 49 Ibid. title page. 50 Warnicke(1973:36). 51 Lambarde(1596:foreword). 19 'who would be inquisitive concerning the places where she journeyed.' 52 In it the archbishop requested Lord Burghley not to discuss the manuscript in public so that the author's friends might have time 'to peruse, to correct, and amend.'53 By the 1580s Lambarde had become well integrated into the county. He had become a Justice of the Peace in 1580. He lived in St. Clere until 1583, before moving to Halling for his second marriage, where he lived as close neighbour to Sir John Leveson and Lord Cobham until his third marriage in 1592. Finally, he ended his days in 1601, resident at Westcombe.54 Thus, when he came to prepare the second edition of 'A Perambulation of Kent' for publication in 1596, he should have been in an even better position to make any necessary alterations to the park list. Detailed examination of the lists indicates that Lambarde's 1576 park list is fairly accurate, especially when the difficulties of communication and travel during the late Tudor period are taken into consideration. The second edition of 'A Perambulation of Kent' in 1596 was largely a re-print, and that might go some way to explain the limited number of changes made in the 1596 list. However, Lambarde must have made some checks, although not as thorough as they might have been. He failed to add park omissions or to clarify ambiguities in the first list, or to take note of new park creations in the intervening 20 years, so to that extent the 1596 list is less reliable than its predecessor. (iii) William Lambarde's list of parks The park lists were given quite a high priority in the order of 'A Perambulation of Kent.' In the section of the book headed 'The Particular of Kent' the lists of parks appeared preceding lists of hills, rivers, bridges, cities, markets and fairs, castles, honourable houses, almshouses, former religious houses and schools. The significance of this position might have been because the subject was close to the interests of his readers, 'his Countriemen, the Gentlemen of the Countie of Kent', as Thomas Wotton 52 Nichols(reprint of 1823 edition:341). 53 Dunkel(1965:46-47). 54 Alsop, Lambarde, William 1536-1601 (http://www.oxforddnb.com/view/article/15921). 20 addressed them in his foreword, or perhaps because parks merited priority as a widespread and dominant feature in the rural landscape.'55 In the first edition of 'A Perambulation of Kent' the list comprised 52 parks with 54 in the second edition of 1596. Tracing the parks on the modern Ordnance Survey maps proved to be relatively straightforward. Some parks, such as Cobham(23), Greenwich(39), Groombridge(40), Knole(50), Leeds(54), Lullingstone(55) and Penshurst(71) are still in evidence today. Others were easily located on a variety of maps and in documentary records, but two proved very elusive and some raised ambiguities.56 Stonehurst(81) was just over the border into Surrey, in the southeast angle between the Sussex and Kent boundaries with that county, but its inclusion was probably because of its ownership by the Brooke family of Starborough Castle (a branch of the Brooke family of Cobham).57 Hamswell has not been tracked down. There was a ‘Hamwell’ in Kent, about one mile east of Eastry (now the hamlet of Hammill), but there is nothing to indicate there was ever a park there. It is possible that Lambarde meant Hamsell park(43), in Rotherfield, Sussex. This was owned by the Waller family of Groombridge, who also owned Groombridge park(40), straddling the boundary between Kent and Sussex. Rotherfield is hardly county border country, but it is possible that confusion arose once again because Hamsell(43) park was owned by a Kent based family. There is ambiguity over Langley and Southpark because two parks of each name have been found. Both Langley parks are poorly documented, but Langley(52) park near Maidstone, held from the crown, was more likely to have been disparked by this period, which is as Lambarde recorded, while Langley park(51) in Beckenham was probably established in late Elizabethan times and continued into the seventeenth century.58 Southpark followed Ashour park(69) at Penshurst in the list, both owned by the Sidney family. However, evidence points to this Southpark(72) being disparked by 1570, and the listed Southpark was not so denoted.59 It is certain, therefore, that South 55 Lambarde(1576) first page of Wotton's foreward. 56 See Park profiles p.351 onwards; tithe maps, c.1870 OS 6" mile series, were invaluable. 57 OS TQ425412. 58 Documentary evidence on both is sparse. See Hasted 5 (1797:346-349) for Langley, near Maidstone; Tookey(1975:9) land purchased in Hayes and West Wickham in 1571 became part of the later Langley Park; Arch.Cant. III (1860:191-193) 16/2/1633, letter mentioned the park. 59 CKS U1475/E55/1, 1559. 21 park(12) near Boughton Malherbe, which was repaled and restocked by Thomas Wotton in 1567, was meant.60 A mistake over this park would seem to have been highly unlikely given that Thomas Wotton had been sent Lambarde's manuscript to check. However, there is a discrepancy over Thomas Wotton's parks because he had three parks at Boughton Malherbe, South park(12), New or Lenham park(11), and Bocton or Old park(10), the last two being absent from Lambardes's lists.61 New or Lenham park(11) was impaled by Sir Edward Wotton (1489-1551), but was under arable cultivation by 1567. Many deer, but perhaps not the whole herd, were rounded up from the Old park(10) and removed to South park(12) in December 1567. The omission of two such recently functioning parks is inexplicable, unless for some reason it was with the acquiescence of Thomas Wotton himself. Lambarde made unusual selections in two names, St. Augustine's(18) and Calehill(98). Evidence points to St. Augustine's(18) being the park in Canterbury, usually called Canterbury, New or King's park(18), created by Henry VIII in the 1540s on former monastic land belonging to St. Augustine's monastery, Canterbury. Mary I granted the park 'commonly called Canterbury park' among other properties, to Cardinal Pole in 1556, and it would seem that it was only called St.Augustine's park for the short period of his ownership until his death in 1558, when his executors called it ‘St. Augustine's.'62 Thereafter, it is referred to under its other names, so why Lambarde picked out the monastic name is unclear. Apart from Lambarde's lists there are no other references to Calehill park(98) in the parish of Little Chart until 'The Olde Parke' and 'Parke woode' are shown on an estate map of the Darell family in 1639.63 It is possible that Lambarde was referring to this park, but if so he omitted the well documented medieval park of Westwell(98), three miles to the east of Calehill, which continued with deer in it under crown lessees at least into Elizabeth I's reign.64 The park 'at Ashford' is enigmatic. Edward Hasted linked the reference 'at Ashford' to Ripton(later park 104) park, but the earliest date for the park so far concerns 60 BL Add.Mss.42715. 61 Ibid. 62 CKS U1450/T6/28, copy of CPR 2 & 3 Philip and Mary, 13/3/1556; Dasent I (1893) Acts of Privy Council no.25, 9/12/1558. 63 CKS U386/P1. 64 Brigstocke Sheppard(1889:384) 1292 earliest date for Westwell(98); BL Add.Mss.42715, 1561, deer from Westwell mentioned. 22 its imparkment in about 1640.65 It is more likely that Lambarde was referring to the park at Scot's Hall(77), near Smeeth, to the east of Ashford, owned by Sir Thomas Scott, high sheriff of Kent, who had the wealth and status to sustain a park and lived in grand style, entertaining Elizabeth I at his home in 1573.66 A second park at Westenhanger(96,97) was the only active park added by Lambarde in 1596, otherwise he made a note of five additional disparkments, and corrected a misspelling.67 In the first edition there were 18 disparked parks, and in the second edition of 1596 there were 23. The additional five were the disparked Aldington park(1), omitted from the 1576 list, and four new disparkments, namely at Halden(41), one Otford park(?63), Saltwood(75) and Shurland(78). The total number of disparkments represented about one-third of William Lambarde's 1576 list, and a little over one-third of the later list, but his choice of parks to include in this category was not consistent. In the first edition some Elizabethan disparkments were not recorded by him, for example, one or two of Edward Wotton's parks at Boughton Malberbe(10,11).68 Other disparkments 'within memorie' William Lambarde might have listed were Sir Thomas Wyatt's parks at Maidstone(59) in which deer were last mentioned in 1556 and Boxley(14a) disparked by 1554.69 The archbishop of Canterbury's parks at Chislet(22) had not held deer since 1541 and Curlswood(26) had also been disparked.70 Brasted(15) and Sundridge(83) parks had both had been disparked by Mary I's reign, which Lambarde recorded in the case of Brasted(15), but not in the case of Sundridge(83).71 As most disparkments occurred before Elizabeth I came to the throne, the omissions are not critical in determining the number of deer parks which continued to function in her reign. The question next to be addressed is how complete a list of active parks did Lambarde compile and to do this the five contemporary maps will be discussed, 65 Hasted 7 (1797:534) 'There was formerly a park here, which was in being when Lambarde wrote his Perambulation, in 1570. The lands of it are still called the Old Park'; CKS U1095/P3, 24/12/1640, 'A plott of Ripton Parke... as it lay in severall closes before it was Imparked.' 66 Scott(1876:196,203-204); Cole(1999,186); Cockburn(1995) AC/35/40/3/2545,1597. 67 Lambarde made seven adjustments to the 1576 list in 1596, see Figure 1.1 p.9. 68 Boughton Malherbe(10,11) see p.24 following. 69 Boxley(14a) see p.13 above; CKS U1450 T6/28, 1556, Maidstone(59) park; TNA E134/31Elizabeth/ Hilary16, 1588, disparkment occurred by 1554. 70 Chislet(22) park, LPL TA39/1, 1587, no deer since 1541; Curlswood(26) park, LPL TA633/1, 1586 'once used as a park for deer'. 71 CKS U1450/E19, 1553, Sir Henry Isley's parks then divided into fields. 23 although only the first three were produced during the period spanning the first and second editions of 'A Perambulation of Kent.' (iv) William Lambarde and the cartographers The five county maps depicting parks are conveniently spaced to cover most of the period under review.72 Contemporary with the first edition of 'A Perambulation of Kent', with its list of 34 active and 18 disparked parks, were the maps of Saxton c.1575 and of an unknown cartographer c.1576. Saxton showed 27 parks, three more than the anonymous map, which depicted 24.73 Lambarde's second edition of 'A Perambulation of Kent', with its list of 31 active parks and 23 disparked parks, was contemporaneous with Symonson's 1596 map, with 31 parks. In James I's reign came Norden's map of 1605 with 27 parks and Speed's of 1611 with 29.74 One notable feature of the maps was that none of Lambarde's disparked parks in the first edition of 'A Perambulation of Kent' appeared on the maps, the inference being that the cartographers were attempting to record only existing deer parks. Corroborating evidence shows that to this extent the maps are accurate, with the exception of a park at Sarre, included by Norden, where no park has so far been detected, although it is possible that a short-lived park was set up there in the early seventeenth century. In the maps the park symbols are larger than would be the case in true scale, so the exact location of parks can be distorted. Some parks were clearly labelled, and others were easy to interpret because only one park was associated with the area, for example, Cooling(24) on the Hoo peninsula or Shurland(78) on the Isle of Sheppey. Others presented greater difficulty because they were not labelled, and the situation was especially confused to the south and east of Leeds castle around Boughton Malherbe, and in the Lyminge/Stowting area. 72 See Figure 1.2 (Appendix 1, pp.306-307) for Lambarde's lists of 1576 and 1596, alongside the 5 early county maps. A copy of the map of the unknown cartographer had been inserted at an unknown date into a copy of 'A Perambulation of Kent' of 1576, signed and dated by Peter Manwood of St. Stephen's, Canterbury, in January 1590. Although controversy has raged about whether this was the intended 'Carde of this Shyre'referred to by Lambarde, the watermark on the paper was found to be of the same period as that of the book and the map bore the arms of Elizabeth I, so barring forgery it has been included in this examination of parks. This book is at CKS with notes on the back page by G. P. Amos Pembroke on the authenticity of the watermark. Pembroke bought this copy in 1885 from the sale of the library of the Earl of Jersey at Osterley park. See Box(1926:89-95) and Livett(1937:247-277). 73 The additional three parks are Halden(21), Scot's Hall(7), Westenhanger(96). 74 Speed's additional parks are Glassenbury(37), Halden(41), Throwley(87), Well Hall, Eltham(95). 24 The two county maps from the 1570s showed two parks in the vicinity of Boughton Malherbe.75 A park near Ulcombe might have represented South park(12), while another at Boughton Malherbe was probably Bocton Old park(10). On the three later maps only one park was shown, which was more likely to have been Lambarde's South park(12).76 Compared with Lambarde, who listed Postling park(73) but not Lyminge(56), all the maps showed an unlabelled park at nearby Lyminge(56) rather than at Postling(73). This leaves a quandary, because there was or had been a park both at Postling(73) and at Lyminge(56). It is possible that Lambarde confused Postling(73) for neighbouring Lyminge(56). Henry VIII appointed deer keepers at Lyminge(56) in the 1540s and there was a case of unlawful hunting and stealing deer in Lyminge(56) park in 1606.77 According to Lambarde, Postling(73) was still an active park, although a tithe dispute in 1576 indicates that the park had been disparked.78 Given the positive evidence of deer in Lyminge(56) park, it is most likely that the maps represented Lyminge(56), so it appears that Lambarde should have included Lyminge(56), although he was correct about the presence of a park, albeit disparked, at Postling(73). The maps located six parks that were absent from Lambarde's lists. Four parks (at Bromley(16), Eastwell(28), Lynsted(58) and Throwley,87) were late creations, three of uncertain date, which appeared on the three later maps.79 A licence to impark 1000 acres at Eastwell had been given in 1589, so the park was overlooked by Lambarde, but evidence on the other three is less clear-cut.80 Two other inexplicable omissions from his list were parks at Ford(35) and Hemsted(44). All five maps depicted the archbishop of Canterbury's park at Ford(35).81 Although Lambarde might have been less familiar with east Kent, it is unclear why he was not told about it by Archbishop Matthew Parker, especially as Ford Palace with its park(35) was one of the few estates retained after the forced land exchanges of Henry VIII's reign.82 75 Saxton 1575, anonymous map c.1576. 76 Symonson 1596, Norden 1605, Speed 1611; BL Add.Mss.42715, for Boughton Malherbe. 77 Zell(2000:60) citing Letter Patent XVI, 1500, p.714; CKS QM/SB 710, 2/10/1606. 78 CCA DCB-J/X.10.16 f.209-210, 1576. 79 Firm evidence is lacking, but implication of late creation is in TNA SP12/136/33 for Bromley(16); Vallance(1932:147) Lynsted(58); apart from the early Kent county maps there is no clear evidence for the date of Throwley(87) park. 80 Physick(1973:128) licence to enclose 1000 acres of parkland granted in June 1589. 81 Arch.Cant. XLV (1933:168) c.1624, map of Ford park with deer. 82 Du Boulay(1952:19-36); Morice(1859:267); Du Boulay(1966:317-329). 25 Another omission by Lambarde was of Hemsted(44) park, which was shown on Saxton's and Norden's maps, at both ends of the time scale. The park was functioning when Sir John Guldeford wrote his will in 1560; Elizabeth I stayed at Hemsted during her progress in 1573, and a map of 1599 shows a park of 113 acres.83 It is unclear why Lambarde left this park out, except to add weight to the possibility that his contacts were not as extensive towards the south and east of the county. Lambarde and the cartographers faced the difficulty of ascertaining exactly which parks were functioning as deer parks at any given time because of the possibility of total or partial disparkment, re-imparkment and new imparkment. The fluctuating fortunes of Halden(41) and Shurland(78) parks bear this out. While Lambarde added Halden(41) to disparkments in the second edition of 'A Perambulation of Kent', the park appeared on Symonson's and Speed's maps, yet this might not be inconsistent with the evidence. Halden(41) was seized by the crown from John Dudley, duke of Northumberland, in 1553 and put into the hands of Sir John Baker of Sissinghurst, when no deer were in it, because in 1571, after Elizabeth I had recognised the Sidney claim to the Dudley estates, Halden(41) park was completely repaled.84 When deer were reintroduced is unknown, but a survey of 16 August 1609 confirmed that deer were in the park, although in the following year the deer had gone.85 . A similar difficulty with achieving complete accuracy is illustrated by the park at Shurland(78). Lambarde added Shurland(78) to disparkments in the second edition of 'A Perambulation of Kent', and the maps of 1596, 1605 and 1611 also disregarded Shurland(78), which might be seen as confirmation of the situation, but other evidence suggests that the status of Shurland(78) was not quite so clear cut. There were about 220 deer in a park in 1572, yet by October 1574, only 40 deer remained, and it would appear that the park was not restocked.86 Lack of deer would justify Lambarde's disparkment and the park's omission from the later maps, and no deer were mentioned in a survey of mid-January 1605. However, within a year Philip Herbert, earl of Montgomery, instigated a suit of deer stealing, claiming that the ancient park had 83 ESRO DAP Box 32, will of 4/5/1560; Cole(1999:179-201) Appendix 2; SuffRO HA43/T501/242. 84 Bowen(1939:23); Sir Henry Sidney married Mary Dudley, daughter of John Dudley, duke of Northumberland, and Jane Guldeford, whose family held Halden; CKS U1475 E23/2. 85 CKS U1475/M73; CKS U1475/T92. 86 TNA SP12/87/1-3, 15/5/1572; TNA SP12/908/29, 7/10/1574. 26 always held deer.87 While he might have exaggerated the continuity and extent of deer keeping, the defendants did not dispute his statement that deer had been there 'whereof memory of man is not to be contrary', even though it would have been in their interest to do so. The only active parks in Lambarde's list not appearing on the maps were Hamswell(43) and Stonehurst(81), which is not surprising if they lay outside the county.88 Ashour park(69) was not on the maps, neither was it added to Lambarde's disparkments, but it was being leased out by the Sidney family from the 1550s and gradually lost its status as a park, so Lambarde's inclusion of Ashour(69) might well have represented its last days as a park, and its omission from the maps the recognition that its original function had been lost.89 There was a significant degree of correlation between Lambarde and the early mapmakers, with 12 parks being in all sources and a further six being in five out of the six. However, none of the compilations was identical.90 Some discrepancies might be attributed to the four decades separating the earliest map from the latest – each illustrating changes over time, but when matched with the documentary evidence it is also clear that none was comprehensive. The most prominent parks in which deer were present some time between 1558 and 1611, but which do not appear in 'A Perambulation of Kent' or the five county maps, were Bore Place(9), Lee(53), Tyler Hill(94) in Canterbury and West Wickham(99).91 Boughton Monchelsea(13), Roydon(74), Scotney(76) and Well Hall(95) in Eltham were established as parks, but the presence of deer remains unproven.92 Licence to impark 500 acres at East Wickham(29) and Bexley was granted to Sir Oyliffe Leigh in 1610, but evidence of park creation is lacking for Chilham(21a), Mersham Hatch(61), and Surrenden(84) which were probably formed later in James I's reign.93 87 TNA E178/3925; TNA STAC8/183/34. 88 See p.20 above. 89 CKS U1475/T33, leases of 1553,1572,1574; Straker(1931:219). 90 See Figure 1.2 'Lambarde's list and 5 early maps compared' (Appendix 1 pp.306-307). 91 CKS QM/SB/122, 1596, Bore Place(9); Drake(1886:192-193) Lee(53) park; CKS U591 C261/5, 1599/1600, Tyler Hill(94); BL Add Mss.33899, 1558,1564, West Wickham(99). 92 CKS U807/M1, 1556, Boughton Monchelsea(13); CKS U48/P1, 1590, Roydon(74); ESRO DykeHamilton 606, 1579, CKS U1776/P1, 1619, Scotney(76); TNA E164/44, 1605, Well Hall(95). 93 TNA SP14/58/19, East Wickham(29); Heron(1791:68-69) 1623, Chilham(21a); CKS U274/E5, 1618, Mersham Hatch(61); CKS U350/E4, 1625, Surrenden(84). 27 Conclusion Lambarde's first list of 52 parks contained two parks wrongly located within Kent, three ambiguities over parks at Langley(51, 52), Southpark(12, 72) and at Ashford(77), and two enigmatic names: St. Augustine's(18) and Calehill(98). The other 45 entries have been found to be accurate, so that overall the list has a high degree of reliability. It is, however, not comprehensive with at least three omissions of active parks at Ford(35), Hemsted(44) and Lyminge(56). A number of disparkments might have been included for consistency, although dates of disparkment in some cases are unknown. Except for the addition of a second park at Westenhanger(96,97) and a disparked park at Aldington(1) in 1596, and altering 'Merewood' for 'Mereworth'(60) errors of commission or omission remained uncorrected in the second edition of 'A Perambulation of Kent', so the degree of overall error in the later list is greater. However, Lambarde's lists remain an invaluable resource to historians, enabling them not only to identify Elizabethan parks, but also to differentiate the parks containing deer from those that did not. The range from 24 parks shown on the anonymous map to 34 (excluding disparkments) listed in the first edition of 'A Perambulation of Kent' is probably not too far out at any given time. The aggregate number of active deer parks over the period 1576 to 1611 from Lambarde's first list and from the five cartographers is 46, including 'at Ashford'(77), Hamsell(43) (?Sussex), Stonehurst(81) (Surrey) and Starborough(80) (on the Kent/Surrey border). This total of active parks rises to 53 with the addition of deer parks mentioned in other sources. Deer are mentioned in documentary evidence for 33 parks.94 Whether the other 20 parks actually contained deer is debatable, because they could have functioned as open parkland, perhaps with stock grazing or rabbit warrens. However, nine parks named by Lambarde, but for which no supportive documentary evidence has been found, have been included because Lambarde distinguished active parks from the disparked by defining the former as those containing deer.95 Additionally, a further eight of the 38 parks shown on the five contemporary county 94 See Figure 1.3 (Appendix 2 pp.308-309) 'Active Elizabethan and Jacobean Deer Parks', and Park profiles p.351 onwards for the sources of evidence for individual parks. 95 Lambarde(1576:9); see Figure 1.3(Appendix 2 pp.308-308) - there is documentary evidence for deer in all but six of Lambarde's list – hence the addition of those six as active parks. 28 maps have been added on the basis that, because the maps omitted all the disparkments noted by Lambarde and by other sources, a very strong assumption can be made that they depicted active parks, especially as the maps were produced to attract influential, powerful purchasers – the owners of such parks.96 A further three new parks, Chilham(21a), Mersham Hatch(61) and Somerhill(93b) complete the total of 53.97 Additionally, there is a strong likelihood, but no substantive verification, that Boughton Monchelsea(13), Great Chart(38), Halstead(42), Roydon(74) and Scotney(76) were active parks in this period.98 The number of parks was never stable because some parks did not have deer in them for the whole period; some were disparked in the course of the period; while others were new creations.99 With evidence of the existence of 100 extant and extinct parks in documents from 1558 to 1625, including 53 known active parks, Lambarde's estimation that half the deer parks had been disparked was on target. However, in not fully updating his list or amending his text, the second edition of 'A Perambulation of Kent' failed to reflect the deceleration of disparkment in the later decades of the sixteenth century, although his lists and the five maps confirm this trend. 96 See Prince(2008:9-11) for a fuller argument about the nature of the parks that would be depicted on maps. 97 CKS U38/T1 part 2, 1622, manor house of Somerhill(93b) with park. 98 CKS U807/M1, 1556, Boughton Monchelsea(13); CKS QM/SR1/m.6d, 1605, Great Chart(38); TNA E178/6020, 1621, Halstead(42); CKS U48/P1, 1590, Roydon(74); ESRO Dyke-Hamilton 606, 1579, CKS U1776/P1, 1619, Scotney(76); TNA E164/44, 1605, Well Hall(95). 99 See Figure 1.4 'All known parks in Kent' (Appendix 3 pp.310-315), and Map 1.1 (Appendix 4 p.316) for the names and locations of these 100 parks. On the map the 100 parks of 1558 to 1625 are in red and numbered without brackets. Earlier parks, documented before 1558, are green and bracketed (1) to (48) and later ones documented from 1625-1660 are blue and bracketed (101) to (106). 29 PART I - CHAPTER TWO CHARACTERISTICS OF KENTISH DEER PARKS Having established which parks existed in Elizabethan and Jacobean Kent, attention will now turn to their distribution (i), density (ii), shape and size (iii), and longevity as active parks (iv). Gathering even basic information for these aspects has been not been easy because there is no corpus of park-related material. Evidence has emerged haphazardly from a wide range of sources and tends to be fragmentary in nature, but despite these inadequacies, the characteristics of Kentish parks can be portrayed, if somewhat sketchily at times. Another obstacle has been the lack of countywide research into the Kentish parks before the Elizabethan period, which would have given a useful basis of comparison. Conversely, although research from other counties, such as Hertfordshire, Derbyshire, Norfolk, Cambridgeshire with Huntingdonshire, and Suffolk has been done, it offers little comparative material for the period from 1558 to 1625.1 Lambarde's lists have provided a starting point for the names of parks, and the five contemporary maps give a vivid visual representation of their distribution as perceived by Elizabethan and early Jacobean cartographers. However, the survey here undertaken includes all Kentish parks, whether or not disparked, for which references have been found from the eleventh century to 1660. Research, both general and countybased, into medieval parks beyond Kent, has proved invaluable in providing comparative material for factors influencing distribution, density and longevity. It has also suggested guidelines to follow. Documentary evidence has provided data about the size of over 60 Kentish parks. In addition, about 20 pre-1660 estate maps, of variable usefulness, show park boundaries and occasionally depict internal structure. The sites of over 40 parks have been visited in an attempt to ascertain the route and survival of boundary earthworks and other features, and local historians have provided field-work 1 County studies of medieval parks include – Liddiard(2007), Rowe(2009), Hertfordshire; Wiltshire & Woore(2009), Derbyshire; Dye(unpublished 1986), Norfolk; Way(1997), Cambridgeshire & Huntingdonshire. Prince(2008) covers Hertfordshire parks since 1500, although only the first 26 pages cover the period 1500-1660; elsewhere the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries have been included at the end of more detailed medieval park studies e.g. Way(1997) and Hoppitt(1992). 30 details of a further 11 parks.2 Field visits have covered the geological zones of Kent, and give a spread from its westernmost park, West Wickham(99), to one of the most easterly, that of Canterbury park(18); from Cooling(24) on the fringes of the north coastal marshes to Lympne(57) overlooking Romney marsh, Kent's southernmost promontory. The choice of locations was arbitrary in that several were on private land, which was visited by the kind invitation of the owners; others were selected because they were readily accessible from public footpaths; and yet others because map-work gave a fairly accurate guide to where boundaries might lie within the landscape.3 (i) Distribution and location Elizabethan parks in Kent were largely the legacy of previous generations. With only a handful of parks being set up after 1558, the choice of park location had been established decades or even several centuries earlier, so a detailed analysis of the factors determining the original distribution of parks lies beyond the scope of this study. However, some general comments can be made to indicate factors that might have influenced the earlier park-making process. Map 1.1 showing the distribution of parks in Kent, identifies parks referred to in Elizabethan and Jacobean documents; parks for which no post-1558 references have been found; and parks for which references have been found in Charles I's reign, and for which an earlier existence is suspected, but remains unproven.4 Map 1.1 is as comprehensive as possible, bearing in mind that not all the parks have been located, not all were active at the same time and their longevity varied, some earlier parks might possibly occupy the same location as later ones under a different name, and some parks with the same name occasionally moved sites. Research into the distribution of medieval parks in other counties has shown that several factors, including geology and soil structure, the location of woodland, settlement patterns and strategic sites, were universally applicable. Also to be taken 2 I am grateful to Chris Owlett for Northfrith(89-91) and Cage(88) parks, pers. comm.; Sally Simmons for Eltham Great(31), Middle(32), Horn(33) and Well Hall(95) parks, pers.comm.; Harold Gough for Ford(35), pers.comm.; Tatton Brown(1983:115-119) delineated Canterbury New(18), Old(19) and Trenley(20) parks; Bowden(1996:329-332) Kemsing(49) park; Taylor(2003:155) Knole(50) park. 3 I am grateful to many individuals who allowed me to explore their grounds and who accompanied me. 4 See Map 1.1 'Map of Kent showing all known parks' (Appendix 4 p.316). 31 into account for influencing choices would be the constraints placed on the ambition of individual landowners by the extent, nature and location of their land holdings. Broadly speaking Kent can be divided into six geological zones - the Thames estuary and north coastal region, the North Downs, the Greensand Ridge with the vale of Holmesdale, the Low Weald, the High Weald, and Romney marsh. These have been succinctly and graphically outlined by Everitt:- There were, and still are, six Kents, covering a million acres and stretching 70 miles east and west, and of each area this theme (i.e. antiquity) was broadly true; of the Marshland from the Thames past the Swale to Thanet Minster; of the Downland with its southern scarp and winding northwards valleys; of the wooded ragstone hills and Holmesdale; of the Low Weald with its many 'dens'; of the high Weald with its ridge of 'hurst' villages; or again of the Marsh from Stone to New Romney.5 Two of these zones, the Thames estuary with its coastal hinterland and Romney marsh, were virtually devoid of parks. The rich grasslands for sheep grazing on Romney marsh and the north Kent coastal marshland, and the fertility of the loamy soil of the north coast hinterland for agricultural production at very early dates, probably meant that the opportunity for park creation was limited; enclosing land for parks resulting in unacceptable losses both in production and in rental income.6 The exception was the cluster of mainly royal parks to the west of the Darent valley, towards London, where the parks adjacent to the palaces of Greenwich and Eltham were situated.7 Here, having suitable hunting grounds close to the capital would have been of paramount importance to the monarchs and their court, but otherwise there were few parks because the area was well settled and the fertile soil so close to London could be cultivated to supply the capital's food markets. The North Downs also had few parks, even towards London, but more were located towards the eastern end in the upper reaches of the Little Stour valley. The variable nature of the chalk substrate might account for this pattern. To the west the chalk plateau is overlaid with sand and clay drift well suited to various types of agriculture, except where the Downs are capped with clay-with-flints, where woodland 5 Everitt(1966:20). 6 Thirsk in Lawson & Killingray(2004:72-73). 7 See Map 2.1 'Parkland areas of west Kent', p.45 – park areas have been deduced from personal field and map work, and from information kindly supplied by others (see fn. 2 of this chapter). See Park profiles (from p.351) for individual parks. 32 persisted and parks could be sited.8 More potent than geological factors, the distribution of parks in east Kent reflected the former ownership of land by the archbishop of Canterbury where, unlike to the west of the county, several parks were sited on chalk down land despite its suitability for agricultural use. Although the archbishopric owned vast woodlands in the Weald, which might be thought to be more suitable for parks, deer being woodland animals, priority there was given to timber extraction, as will be discussed shortly. The unproductive, shallow soiled, steeply sloping Greensand ridge with its 'chart' names supported a band of parks along its entire length.9 The greater density of parks in the west of the county might reflect the influence of London, but the string of parks continued to run southeast towards Folkestone, with further clusters of parks around Maidstone and southeast of Ashford. It is probable that here lay unexploited or under-exploited land where parks could more easily be carved out of woodland, which in any case was being cleared faster than that of the Weald, especially in the west of the county, because it lay nearer to settlements and to the London market.10 In the Low Weald, parks were more closely grouped to the west of the Medway, with markedly fewer to the east. Pioneering work by Cantor and Hatherly established a close correlation between woodland and parks. 'More significantly, a high woodland cover in the Domesday Book of 1086 was almost always the scene of much subsequent imparkment.'11 Rackham concurred with this observation in general, although he pointed to several anomalies including that of the Weald – the most extensive woodland area of all – which contained only a little above average number of parks and he posed the question 'Did it lack gentry to establish them?'12 The contrasting medieval development of the west and east Weald, as argued by Witney, offers an explanation for the higher number of parks in the west than in the east.13 The Wealden forest had been divided into a complicated system of dens, which 8 Tuson(2007:22). 9 Chart from the Anglo-Saxon 'ceart' meaning a rough common overrun with gorse, broom, bracken (http://dictionary.oed.com). 10 Witney(1976:154-186). 11 Cantor & Hatherly(1979:74-75). 12 Rackham(1986:123). 13 Witney(1976:154-186). 33 became detached parts of the surrounding parishes exploiting woodland resources of timber and autumn pannage for pigs.14 By the mid-thirteenth century the den system was petering out in the western Weald. Lack of water transport routes, coupled with the abundance of woodland on the Greensand hills to the north, made timber extraction from the western Weald unprofitable, so there was little resistance to woodland clearance for settlement. Dens were transformed into subordinate farm-based manors and it became possible for the gentry to take over smaller holdings in order to amass large estates on which to site parks. At the same time the crown established the Clare dynasty at Tonbridge, where the family built Tonbridge castle and extended its territory, the Lowy of Tonbridge, ever more widely to the west. The establishment of the Clares at Tonbridge was further strengthened by the effective withdrawal of the interests of the archbishop of Canterbury. Around Tonbridge, the Clares formed an immense chase by fencing off numerous dens. This chase of 40 square miles comprised two woodland areas separated by the Medway, namely Northfrith(89-91), served with deer from Cage(88) park, and Southfrith(93), supplied with deer from Postern(92) park. Gentry like the Pencestres of Penshurst followed suit with parks of their own. Meanwhile, in the eastern Weald the traditional den system remained robust under the dominating power of ecclesiastical and royal landowners, and park creation was inhibited. In the southeast Weald in particular, woodland lay close to the river Rother and timber could be easily shipped out to the continent. Prices, pushed higher by demand, led landowners like the archbishop of Canterbury to protect their Wealden woodland until a much later date, when it was more difficult for secular gentry to accumulate holdings and therefore to acquire sufficient land for a park.15 Across the High Weald parks were also more widely spread. Although much of the land remained woodland, and the heavy clay and Hastings beds only supported marginal farming dependent on grazing, park creation was limited and came late. For centuries settlement was scattered and isolated by waterlogged roads for several months of the year. It was not an area that attracted magnates, and wealth eluded it until the 14 Pannage = right or privilege to pasture pigs (or other animals) in a forest (http://dictionary.oed.com). 15 Clark(1977:7). 34 advent of cloth making which became well established by the mid-fifteenth century and expanded in the sixteenth century, peaking in about 1560.16 In response to Rackham's query, most parishes in the whole area of the Weald had resident members of the gentry, including newcomers rising from the ranks of successful yeomen, clothiers and merchants.17 The subsidy rolls of the 1520s showed that some clothiers were wealthier than the local landowning gentry, and many acquired 'nouveau' gentlemen status.18 They invested in their industry and in land, but most either did not aspire to parks or had scattered landholdings, which they preferred to lease out.19 Although the geology and soil structure of the six 'Kents' underlay the distribution of parks, it has been indicated that other more complex factors also played their part. This has been found to appertain to other counties as well, with variations reflecting the type of land available, whether woodland, common, waste or cultivated, and settlement and lordship patterns. Early parks in Oxfordshire were carved out of woodland and waste.20 In Derbyshire while early parks were associated with wood pasture, later parks were located on the margins of parishes, often with boundaries coterminous with that of the parish.21 In Northamptonshire parks were sited away from settlement on the edge of cultivated land, but in the north of the county were enclosed out of forest.22 In Berkshire parks were formed from the commons of the Kennet valley in the south, and from the woodland of Windsor forest in the east, both areas with the least productive sandy soils.23 In Suffolk the location of 63% of parks was biased towards the heavy clays of the wooded central area.24 However, the early clearance of woodland in Cambridgeshire and Huntingdonshire meant that 25% of parks were sited on cultivated land, with no emphasis of park creation on lower grade soil.25 In Hertfordshire neither the heavily wooded Chilterns nor the depleted woodland area in 16 Brandon(2003:148,177-181); Zell(1994:12,153). 17 Ibid. p.31. 18 Brandon(2003:151). 19 Zell(1994:32-37). 20 Woodward(1982:4). 21 Wiltshire & Woore(2009:9-12). 22 Steane(1975:212,216-219). 23 Hatherly & Cantor(1979:67). 24 Hoppitt(1992:34-35). 25 Way(1997:29-37). 35 Plate 2.1 Parks sited near Castles a) Leeds Castle encircled by water, and surrounded by parkland in secluded bowl of land in the valley of the Len on the Greensand belt. By kind permission of Leeds Castle Foundation – Guide Book, 1980, photo by Ronald Sloman. b) South side of Cooling Castle gatehouse. The castle itself overlooks the north Kent marshes. The flat farmland was once part of the park, the west boundary being the bank with fence on the left. 7 March 2007 36 the north were favoured for parks; instead more parks were to be found in the well populated east and centre of the county where knightly families created parks to secure the dwindling manorial woodland resources for themselves.26 In Sussex, parks were more likely to replace manorial waste containing patches of wildwood.27 In Cornwall parks were not normally placed on less valuable rough ground on the edges of estates as might be expected, but in the agricultural heartland surrounding or adjacent to the house or castle to which they belonged. The wooded east of the county held more parks, but they were also often established on previously cultivated land, although the overall pattern was concentrated on the sites of medieval castles.28 The juxtaposition of castles and parks noted in Cornwall is present to a lesser degree in Kent. The friths and parks created around Tonbridge castle were a spectacular example, and, of the major castles, Saltwood(75), Leeds(54) and Cooling(24) also had parks, although there are no signs that Dover or Rochester ever had such an amenity. New thinking about castles downplays their defensive role and emphasises the importance of their symbolic, ceremonial and status images.29 The need for an imposing residence sometimes meant that the castle was designed as much for visual effect as for militaristic function, and attention was also given to its landscape setting, with parks being one aspect of the display of wealth and power, as well as being 'landscapes of production and pleasure.'30 Rochester and Dover occupied key strategic positions and perhaps their defensive function took priority, but Leeds castle, surrounded by water, and lying in a sheltered valley overlooked by high ground, was not in the best defensive position. The landscaped park(54) and water features at Leeds castle seem to fit in better with the new thinking that aesthetic considerations might have been rated more highly.31 Cooling castle, on the edge of the plateau above the marshes overlooking the Thames to the north, has a bleak aspect that was probably enlivened and enhanced by the park(24) to its south.32 26 Liddiard(2007:142-143). 27 Harding & Rose(1986:11) citing P.F. Brandon, 'The Commons and Wastes of Sussex' (PhD thesis, University of London, 1963). 28 Herring(2003:36-37); Rotherham(2007:60). 29 Liddiard(2005:1-11). 30 Ibid. pp.97-121. 31 Ibid. pp.97-98. 32 See Plate 2.1 p.35 for photographs of Leeds and Cooling. 37 Plate 2.2 Varied location of parks (a) The undulating terrain of Halden Park on the High Weald. This area was once the interior of the park. 8 March 2010 (b) The gentle undulations of former Brasted park, on the Greensand belt, looking northeast from the southwest corner of the park. 9 December 2006 38 Plate 2.3 Varied location of parks (a) View from higher chalk Downland, once within Lullingstone park, looking east towards Lullingstone castle, near St. Botolph's Church, which is just visible against the backdrop of trees. The park was spread across the Darent valley side above Lullingstone mansion on the valley floor. 3 June 1999 (b) Lympne park spread out on the south slope of the Greensand ridge below Lympne castle, overlooking Romney marsh. 19 November 2005 39 Much more detailed research into the origins of medieval Kentish deer parks would be required before a distinct picture of their distribution emerges, but the lordship of Canterbury over the eastern Weald and the east of the county, was one important element that would seem to set Kent apart. In addition, underlying all land ownership was the custom of gavelkind, which made it difficult to accumulate large landholdings, and which may well have inhibited early imparkment.33 Apart from the overall distribution of parks in Kent, an owner had to make a choice of the exact park site within each locality. Again, because most park sites had already been established by the Elizabethan times, a detailed study has not been possible at this stage, but parks in Kent are to be found in a wide variety of landscape settings, unlike in Suffolk or Derbyshire where they tended to occupy higher ground on the periphery of settlements.34 Cooling(24) and Westenhanger(96) parks are unusually flat; other parks, like Penshurst(71), Brasted(15), Sissinghurst(79) and Halden(41), lie on gently undulating land; Leeds(54), Scotney(76) and Stowting(82) parks are within an amphitheatre of hills, secluded from public gaze; Greenwich(39) and Lullingstone(55) parks are spread across valley hillsides offering a panoramic view from the mansions below, while at Boughton Monchelsea(13) and Lympne(57) the mansions overlook their parks on the steep Greensand scarp below. Five of the six geological zones of Kent are represented by these examples, underlying the amazing variety of locations available to park creators.35 The close association between park and parish boundaries, as observed by several landscape historians, would merit closer scrutiny in Kent, and might well indicate a much earlier imparkment than documentary evidence reveals.36 At least 18 parks shared part of their boundaries with parish boundaries, while Lullingstone(55) park, covering about 600 acres of a 1000 acre parish, is neatly aligned between the parish boundary of Lullingstane in the north and of Shoreham in the south, the southern boundary also being the boundary of the hundred of Axstane with the hundred of 33 Zell(1994:14-19); Clark(1977:7). 34 Hoppitt(1992:114); Wiltshire & Woore(2009:9-12). 35 There were no parks on the flat and treeless Romney marsh. See Plates 2.2 p.37, 2.3 p.38 and 3.9 p.85. 36 Rackham(1976:143); Cantor & Hatherly(1979:72); Hoppitt(1992:279). 40 Plate 2.4 Parish boundaries in relation to parks (a) Map showing the close relationship between the parish boundaries of Lullingstaine to the north and Shoreham to the south of Lullingstone Park. The Shoreham parish boundary also marks the Hundred boundary between Axstane (N) and Codsheath (S). (b) Ryarsh/Meopham parish boundary bank with hornbeam coppice and stubs, formerly park of the north boundary of Birling Park. 4 February 2005 (c) Ditch and bank of shared Brasted/ Westerham parish boundary which also served as west boundary of former Brasted Park. 9 December 2006 41 Plate 2.5 The early alteration of the Surrey/Kent boundary (a) Sketch map by B.F. Davis in Archaeologia Cantiana XLVI (1934) p.153, illustrating the 1176 alteration of the Kent/Surrey boundary at West Wickham. This became the west boundary of West Wickham park, serving the mansion of Wickham Court. (b) Surrey/Kent boundary stone, bank and faint ditch, once west boundary of West Wickham Park at Spring Park. 16 October 2005 42 Codsheath.37 Whether or not a park predated the parish boundary is open to debate, but a substantial pre-existing bank would have been a convenient route for whichever was the later boundary. Experts date the fixing of parish boundaries to the late twelfth or possibly early thirteenth centuries.38 Usually the sequence of events is undocumented, but there is strong evidence that the Kent/Surrey county boundary was later used as a park boundary at West Wickham(99). There, the line of the county boundary demarcated the lathe of Wallington to the west from Sutton-at-Hone to the east in Jutish times. The boundary is still marked by a substantial banked ditch. However, before 1176 the county/lathe boundary northwest of Wickham Court deviated from the north/south direction to put a block of land to its east into Surrey. This anomaly was ended in 1176 when the block of land was transferred to Kent, leaving the new county boundary running continuously on a north/south alignment.39 Along this new boundary at New or Spring park another banked ditch was made to link with the older one. It was this county boundary that became the west boundary of West Wickham(99) park for which Sir Walter de Huntingfield, c.1313-1399, was given licence to impark.40 The subtle interaction of ambition, finance, landholding, lordship, rural economy, geology, topography and aesthetics to varying degrees lay behind individual park locations, but in the last resort whether or not certain places had parks ultimately depended on the choice of individual landholders. (ii) Park density The publication of Saxton's and Speed's county maps in atlas form enables a crude estimate to be made of the degree to which Kent was imparked in the late sixteenth century compared with 16 other counties in the south eastern sector of England, stretching from Norfolk through Oxfordshire to Hampshire.41 In Figure 2.1, the counties have been set out in descending order of area calculated in square miles, 37 See Plate 2.4 p.40; the 18 are Birling(6), Brasted(15), Broxham(17), Cooling(24), Glassenbury(37), Halden(41), Ightham(48), Knole(50), Leeds(54), Lullingstone(55), Lympne(57), Panthurst(67), Starborough(80), Sundridge(83), Throwley(87), Westenhanger(96), West Wickham(99), Wrotham(100). 38 Rackham(1986:19); Squires(2004:108) citing A. Jones, A Thousand Years of the English Parish (London, 2000:49) and A. Winchester, Discovering Parish Boundaries (Princes Risborough, 2000:31- 37). 39 Davis(1934:152-155); see Plate 2.5 p.41. 40 Lennard(1880:256). 41 Ravenhill(1992); Arlott(1953). 43 Figure 2.1 - Chart showing the number of parks per county and their density in southeast England from Christopher Saxton's maps of 1576 and John Speed's maps of 1611 (set out in descending order of county area) County sq. miles Saxton : 1 pk to sq.mls Speed : 1 pk to sq.mls Norfolk 2092 - - - - Hampshire 1682 23 (- I of W) 73 32 (+ I of W) 52 Kent 1537 27 57 29 53 Essex 1532 44 35 48 32 Suffolk 1512 25 60 27 56 Sussex 1463 32 46 58 25 Northamptonshire 1017 23 44 24 42 Cambridgeshire 858 5 172 5 172 Surrey 758 16 47 35 22 Oxfordshire 752 8 94 12 63 Buckinghamshire 740 11 67 11 67 Berkshire 726 11 66 11 66 Hertfordshire 528 26 20 24 22 Bedfordshire 463 12 39 12 39 Huntingdonshire 370 6 62 5 74 Middlesex 282 3 94 10 28 Rutland 142 4 36 6 24 I of W = Isle of Wight followed by the number of parks shown by Saxton and by Speed, with a crude estimate of one park to number of square miles alongside each.42 A margin of error must be read into the total numbers for each county because although parks are shown as fenced rounded enclosures, there are certain ambiguities, especially as not all the parks are named. In Kent all enclosures on Speed's map can be linked to parks, but in Rutland some enclosures are named as woods, leaving doubt as to whether this county was exceptional in this approach, or whether some unlabelled enclosures in other counties might have been woods rather than parks. In Hampshire, Speed leaves nearly half the parks uncoloured without indicating what distinguished them from the coloured enclosures. In forest areas, such as in Sussex, some park-like enclosures might have been subdivisions of the forests into walks rather than deer parks in their own right. Lastly, the lack of parks in Norfolk is an anomaly that cannot be explained since a document of 1581 lists 18 parks, of which one, Handworth park, had no deer.43 Overall, 42 County areas are from Smith & Gardner, Genealogical Research in England and Wales (Salt Lake City, USA, 1959). 43 Hindry Mason (1884:77) 'Parishes and Townships,' contains a transcription of SP12/148/63, listing the number of breeding mares in Norfolk parks. 44 if Kent is typical, the number of active parks shown both by Saxton and Speed is likely to be an underestimate, but these county maps are the only direct comparison available to the historian.44 Kent was the third largest county, after Norfolk and Hampshire, and had roughly one park to every 57 square miles according to Saxton's map and 53 according to Speed's. These figures put Kent midway in density of parks. The most imparked counties, by this rough estimate, were Surrey, half of Kent's size, and Hertfordshire, less than a quarter of Kent's size. Both these counties offered easy access from the overcrowded city of London to fine mansions set in parkland estates. 45 Even though Kent also bordered London, its lower density of parks might be explained by the earlier settlement and higher agricultural fertility of northwest Kent, which restricted the availability of land nearer to the capital. As has been noted, park sites tended to leapfrog over the Thames side and North Downs geological zones in west Kent to concentrate on the Greensand ridge and the western Low Weald, the latter in particular being more than a day's ride away from London. 46 Sir Robert Sidney of Penshurst was affected by the bad roads of the Low Weald, which presented obstacles to seeing his family when he was serving at court. To avoid 'a wearisome journey' he either rented a town house for his family, or, as in 1594, persuaded his wife to spend winter at Otford, where she would be within 16 miles of London and 'no foul way to speak of.' 47 Despite the poor roads in southwest Kent, the overall density of parks was higher here than elsewhere and the impact such enclosures had on the countryside would have been considerable. Map 2.1 of west Kent, from the Thames in the north to Tonbridge in the south, and from the Surrey border in the west to Wrotham in the east, 44 Prince(2001:9), Rowe(2009:71) confirm that contemporary maps underestimate the number of parks; Prince(1967:2) Christopher Saxton's map records 817 parks in England and Wales, but no parks are shown for Norfolk and parts of Wales. 45 Lasdun(1992:42). 46 See Map 1.1 'Map of Kent showing all known parks' (Appendix 4 p.316). 47 Hanney, Kinnamon & Brennan(2005:56,61); Clarke & Stoyel(1975:133) citing CKS U1475/C81/48, letter of 20/9/1594. 45 Park areas have been deduced from documentary evidence, personal field and map work, and from information kindly supplied by others (see fn. 2 of this chapter). See Park profiles (from p.351) for individual parks. 46 shows the distribution of parks with the areas they covered.48 Twenty active and 17 disparked parks have been included, with boundaries of a further eight parks unverified. Not all the parks were active at the same time, but there is evidence to suggest that, even after disparkment, park pales or boundaries were maintained – and some can still be traced on the ground.49 (iii) Park shape and size The characteristic park shape was broadly rounded, without kinks, to keep the outline as compact as possible. This shape enclosed the maximum amount of land while requiring the minimum length of fencing.50 Kent deer parks while reflecting the general ideal, took on a variety of shapes, as can be seen in Map 2.1 of the parks in west Kent.51 Broxham(17), Henden(45) Langley(51) and Panthurst(67) parks most closely conformed to the rounded shape, while others such as Eltham Great(31) park, Knole(50), Penshurst(71) and West Wickham(99) parks were more elongated. Greenwich(39) park was (and still is) rectangular. Park sizes were rarely mentioned in documents except in surveys, but areas have been found for 38 of the 53 active parks and 27 defunct parks in Elizabethan and Jacobean Kent, giving a total of 65 parks or two-thirds of the 100 known parks.52 Figure 2.2 plots these parks, from the earliest to the latest in date.53 Park areas range from 25 acres to 1600 acres at each extreme (omitting the most exceptional Southfrith(93) and Northfrith(89-91) estimated at 5000 acres and 2000 acres respectively, but divided into several enclosures).54 Because the dates when the areas were recorded span more than two centuries, for example, from 1432 for Greenwich(39) to 1657 for Sissinghurst(79) park, a park may well have covered varying areas during its 48 See Map 2.1 'Parkland areas of west Kent', p.45. 49 Examples of parks on Map 2.1 p.45 include the east boundary of Broxham(17) park, north and south boundaries of Ightham(48) park, north boundary of Lullingstone(55), north boundary of New(64) park, Otford, and west boundary of West Wickham(9). 50 Rackham(1976:144-145). 51 See Map 2.1 'Parkland areas of west Kent', p.45. 52 See Figure 1.4 'All known parks in Kent' (Appendix 3 pp.310-315) for park sizes at given dates. 31 park sizes came from surveys, 24 from rentals, leases, grants and sales of land, charters, patents and licences to impark, six from maps and fieldwork, eight from court cases, and two from Inquisitions Post Mortem. See Park profiles p.350 onwards for source of size for individual parks. 53 See Figure 2.2 'Park size arranged in order of date', p.47. 54 Kingsford & Shaw I (1925:237) 1541; TNA SP16/522/133, 1625. 47 0 800 600 400 200 1400 1200 1000 20 (1071) 14934626330962556985448 100 (1283) 100 (1620) 7112175297 23115997072 78892 66783104432596435693933 50 (1544) 50 (1610) 41 (1487) 41 (1504) 37 (1488) 37 (1628) 91178261845 455 14b132379407628539529 21b42 Acres Park Number Figure 2.2 - Park Size Arranged in Order of First Known Date of Park 1625 - Parks 16001599 - Parks 1500 1499 - Parks 1400 1399 - Parks 1300 1299 - Parks 1200to 1200 Parks up 48 history.55 Some parks were extended, while others were reduced especially prior to disparkment, according to the whims or fortunes of their owners. Parks like Knole(50), and the later parks at Chilham(21a) and Mersham Hatch(61), began very modestly. In Knole's case 74 acres had been enclosed by 1544, but by 1610 the park had been enlarged to cover 550 acres.56 Chilham's ancient park(21a), a mile or so distant from the castle, was superseded in 1616 by a modest 25 acre park(21b), subsequently enlarged, adjacent to the castle.57 Over decades during the reigns of Elizabeth I and James I, the Knatchbulls with the agreement of the archiepiscopate and the manorial court acquired pieces of Mersham Hatch common to enclose into their park(61).58 Glassenbury(37) was among the parks that contracted. Walter Roberts was given licence to impark 1,600 acres in 1488.59 If enclosed as licensed Glassenbury(37) park would have been the largest in Kent, with a deep ditch with bank to the north of Old Park wood seeming to indicate its northern boundary.60 However, by 1628 the area of the former parkland north of the Goudhurst road had reverted to woodland, and the park around Glassenbury house, to the south of the road, covered just 113 acres.61 Some parks contained compartments from which deer were permanently excluded, but which, nevertheless, lay within the park pale. One such example is that of Birling(6) park, which in a survey of 1521 covered 969 acres, over half of which was farmland. A herd of 300 deer was supported by 388 acres of pasture and woodland, and 74 acres of downland, but the remaining 507 acres comprised 430 acres of arable land and 77 acres farmed by three tenant farmers.62 Given the disparity of dates at which park areas were recorded, only tentative comments can be made about the sizes of late Tudor/early Stuart parks, but the wide range from 25 acres to 1000 acres is shown on Figure 2.3.63 The majority size is not as 55 Webster(1902:3) citing Petitions in Parliament 15 Henry VI; CKS U24 T207. 56 Phillips II (1930:395) Appendix II; CKS U269/E66/1& 2. 57 Heron(1791:69). 58 CCA/DCc/ChAnt/M/30, 1564; CCA/DCc/ChAnt/M/31, 1589; CCA/DCc/ChAnt/M/33, 1608; summarised CCA/DCc/ChAnt/M/32 c.1685-1696. 59 TNA Charter rolls 16 m13 (8). 60 A footpath runs east/west roughly along the probable north boundary of the large Glassenbury Park - TQ757386 near Colliers Green to TQ742397 near Combourne Farm. 61 Wyndham(1952); original maps owned by Marcus Sutcliffe. 62 TNA SC129/4. 63 See Figure 2.3 'Number of parks of similar size', p.49 - see fn.52 for sources of information. 49 50 clear-cut as Suffolk's 200 to 300 acres.64 In Kent 24 parks were that size but the greater number of 37 were between 100 and 300 acres, eight were below 100 acres, and 18 above 400 acres.65 Of the active parks, the two smallest covering less than 100 acres were Chilham(21b) and South Park(12), and the four largest parks, Eltham Great park(31), Sissinghurst(79), Birling(6) and Eastwell(28) each covered between 600 and 1000 acres. Excluding Southfrith(93) (often referred to as a forest) and Northfrith((89- 91), Kentish parks, with an average area of about 293 acres, but across a wide time span, were larger than Hertfordshire's parks, which averaged 275 acres.66 (iv) Longevity of parks The longevity chart (Figure 2.4) of the 53 active parks in Elizabethan and Jacobean Kent shows that 15 have documentation going back to before 1300, and a further nine to before 1400.67 Of the other 30, eight have earliest records dating to between 1400 and 1499, 15 between 1500 and1599, while six were new parks created after 1600.68 These groups have also been plotted alongside the figures for Suffolk (Figure 2.5) which, of 130 parks dating from the eleventh century onwards, had 63 surviving until at least 1600, with 18 dating back to before 1300.69 In both Kent and Suffolk, therefore, a substantial group of the earliest parks had been in existence for over 250 years. As only nine earliest records in Kent were licences to create parks, many parks were probably well established before their first chance mention.70 Kentish parks such as Bedgebury(4), Cobham(23), Groombridge(40), Hever(46), Lullingtone(55), Scot's Hall(77) and Sissinghurst(79) appear surprisingly late in documents after 1540, but are all likely to be much older given the prestige and wealth of the various estate owners, the Guldefords, the Brookes, the Wallers, the Boleyns, the Harts, the Scotts and the Bakers respectively. 64 Hoppitt(1992:278). 65 See Figure 2.3 'Number of parks of similar size', p.49 - for sources of information see fn.52. 66 Rowe(2009:27). 67 See Figure 2.4 'Longevity of Kentish active parks, 1558-1625' p.51 - see Park profiles from p.351 for sources of information for each park. 68 See Figure 1.4 (Appendix 3 p.310-315) for the earliest dates found for each park. 69 See Figure 2.5 'Longevity of active parks in Kent and Suffolk, 1558-1625', p.52; Hoppitt(1992:74). 70 CPR 10/5/1341, Birling(6) (or Comford, 7); Sparks(1980:57) 1538, Canterbury (18) park; Hasted I (1797:269) 1583, Eastwell(28); Tester(1991:38) 1610, East Wickham(29); Charter rolls 16, m13 (8), 1488, Glassenbury(37); CPR 28/1/1348, Panthurst(67) (or Sevenoaks); Page I (1908:473) 1262, Westenhanger(96) if Hanger site; Lennard(1880:256) 1313-1399, West Wickham(99). 51 52 Economic cycles and political instability affected the overall success of parks, but evidently, despite the peaks and troughs, some parks that survived into the late sixteenth century were more successful and long-lived than others. It has been suggested that the longest continuing parks tended to be the largest, although whether this was because they might have been more economically viable (their size allowing more flexibility in managing diversification), or whether the owners of smaller parks were less likely to have the income to support them, is a matter of speculation.71 Looking at Kent (Figure 2.4 p.51), the various park sizes, shown in sequence of the earliest documentary evidence, reveal some larger parks to be shorter lived than some smaller ones, but no strong pattern emerges. There is no obvious link between park size and the longevity of the park, at least as far as those parks that survived to 1625 were concerned. However, incomplete data makes it unwise to be categorical. 71 Rowe(2009:26-27). 53 Another explanation given for longevity is the link between a principal residence and its park, with parks lacking a residence falling into disfavour.72 This might well have caused some disparkment in Kent before the sixteenth century, but by Tudor times most owners had only one park, which in the majority of cases had a mansion within it. Apart from the archbishop and the crown, the few owners who retained more than one park in the county did eventually concentrate resources on the park linked to their residence. The Sidneys at Penshurst disparked their nearby parks at Southpark(72), Leigh(70) and Ashour(69) in favour of Northlands or Penhurst(71) park adjacent to Penshurst Place; while in Sevenoaks, the former archbishop's park of Panthurst(67), with no residence, was disparked after being taken over by the crown, while nearby Knole(50) park, surrounding the new residence, was extended.73 Evidence at Birling is circumstantial, but it appears that the park at the older residence of Comford(7) was allowed to lapse in favour of Birling(6) park near the Nevill's new mansion, a couple of miles away.74 A park which succumbed towards the end of James I's reign was Hungershall(47) at Tunbridge Wells, retained until then by another branch of the Nevill family along with their ancient seat and park in nearby Eridge, in Sussex.75 Discussion about longevity hinges on general factors such as political and economic stability, as well as continuity of dynasty. However, as will be seen as this study progresses the quirks of family fortune were also influential in ensuring the survival of an individual park.76 Conclusion Parks in Kent display many characteristics that would be familiar to medieval historians, which is to be expected with 59 of the 100 parks documented in the period 1558 to 1625 originating before 1485. Although there were common factors across counties that influenced the distribution of parks, Kent was not alone in having its own variations, which have challenged generalisations. The county's distinct geological zones, its proximity to London, its ancient settlement patterns and the large holdings of 72 Williamson(2000:19-21); Hoppitt(1992:280-281). 73 CKS U1475/E55/1, 1559, Southpark; CKS U1475/T33, leases of 1553, 1572, 1574, Ashour; CKS U1475 T61/2, 1553, Leigh; CKS U1450/T5/40, 1567, Panthurst(67) park then rented out in plots. Lambarde omits Panthurst(67) park; See p.48 for the expansion of Knole(50). 74 Lambarde omits Comford(7), but its name appears in accounts (1586-1592 CKS U787/E9), without mentioning deer. 75 ESRO ABE/52.1, 1633, leases back to 1618 show new tenancies in the former park. 76 Hoppitt(1992:280-281) for Suffolk, and further explored for Kent in Chapters 5 p.138 and 6 p.167. 54 55 the archbishop of Canterbury all contributed to a distinctness in the distribution of its parks. The invaluable research undertaken by Cantor and Hatherly in compiling county lists of medieval parks might lead to the conclusion that Kent, the third largest county with 54 parks, had fewer parks for its size than other counties.77 As can be seen in Figure 2.6, compared with the figures for the 17 counties covering the southeast sector of England, this figure is the fifth highest, but well below Sussex with 114, Essex with 104, Hampshire with 66, Suffolk with 65, and Buckinghamshire equalling Kent's figure of 54.78 However, although no systematic search was undertaken, references to 103 medieval parks in Kent have been found, almost doubling the previous total, thereby increasing the overall density of its parks.79 This higher number of parks puts Kent more on a par with Sussex and Essex, but until figures for those and other counties are updated no realistic comparisons can be made, because all Cantor and Hatherly's park lists are likely to be underestimates, as Rowe, for example, has confirmed for Hertfordshire finding nearly 70 medieval parks compared with 46 listed by Cantor and Hatherly.80 Despite the scarcity of information a picture is emerging about some of characteristics of Kent 's parks, but without other county studies, it is impossible to judge whether or not Kent's parks were typical. 77 Cantor & Hatherly(1983:42-43 & Addendum). 78 See Figure 2.6 'Number of medieval parks compared with the number of parks on Speed's map of 1611 for 17 counties' p.54. The counties all lie in the S.E sector of England as selected for Figure 2.1 p.43. 79 See Figure 1.4 (Appendix 3 pp.310-315) and Park profiles (from p.351) for earliest references to each park. 80 Rowe(2009:4-5) 56 PART II – PARK MANAGEMENT Reconstructing park management has been a challenge because references relevant to Kent lie scattered among the accounts, correspondence, legal papers or property deeds of family estate papers and state documents. However, since this is the first detailed county study of park management in the late sixteenth/early seventeenth centuries, it is considered worthwhile to put such information as there is on record for future historians to build on, and to enable comparisons to be made with medieval practices. The three chapters comprising Part II consider the management of active parks containing deer, both under gentry and noble and under royal ownership, and the fate of disparked parks in the years after the removal of deer. Chapter Three concentrates on active parks owned by the gentry and noblemen. Aspects to be covered include the treatment and cost of upkeep of park boundaries; the complex role of the deer keeper and the care of the deer; other productive activities that could be accommodated within parks; together with the cost of the upkeep of deer parks. Chapter Four focuses on aspects of the management of active parks retained by the crown, including the role of the keeper of the park and the maintenance of the royal parks at Greenwich(39) and at Eltham(31-33). Lastly, Chapter Five explores the definition and process of disparkment, the management of disparked parks, and the longevity of disparked parks as distinct units in the countryside. 57 PART II - CHAPTER THREE THE MANAGEMENT OF PARKS OWNED BY THE GENTRY Despite the documentary limitation, it has been possible to build up an overall picture of this specialised aspect of Elizabethan and Jacobean estate management, which has hitherto received little attention. Even where there are substantial collections of family documents, such as for the Sidneys of Penshurst, the Brookes of Cobham, the Nevills of Birling and Hungershall or the Sackvilles of Knole, only random documents refer directly to the day-to-day management of their parks. Before the Elizabethan period, owners and their servants relied on centuries of practical experience in running deer parks. Birrell has found evidence in 'The Tutbury Cowcher' of 1415 and in various medieval sources about management techniques over fawning, rutting and feed, and the permitting of customary acts in parks or stock grazing which did not disturb the deer.1 She has argued that a body of practice and management developed as the Middle Ages advanced. There were, however, no printed manuals wholly devoted to the subject. Hunting skills were fully covered in books such as Gervase Gascoigne's 'The Noble Arte of Venerie or Hunting,' which appeared in 1575, but the author scarcely mentioned parks except by reference to the various habitats preferred by deer in general and during particular seasons.2 William Harrison included a section on parks in Holinshed's 'Chronicles of England, Scotland and Ireland' which, although digressive, covered important topics such as the history of parks (albeit unreliable), their great number and size, the park pales, and the depopulating effect of their enclosure.3 However, there was little on park management. Much the same can be said of Gervase Markham's 'Maison Rustique, or The countrey farme' printed in 1616 as a translation from French of Charles Estienne's book of the same name, although Markham added other works so that the husbandry of France, Italy and Spain were 'reconciled and made 1 Birrell(1992:112-118). 2 Gascoigne(1575); Shirley(1867:8,15) points out that this was based on earlier works - William Twici, huntsman to Edward II, Treatise on the arte of Hunting (Daventry, reprint, 1843), Dame Juliana Berners, The Book of St. Albans (St. Albans, 1496), G. Tillander (editor) Les Livres du roy Modus et de la royne Racio (Paris, 1932). 3 Holinshed(1587:204-208). 58 to agree with ours here in England.'4 'Maison Rustique, or The countrey farme' covered more practicalities than Harrison's work, but with the thrills of the hunt taking up disproportionate space. Both Harrison and Markham emphasised the need to enclose the parks securely with oak paling or walls of brick, stone or slate. In describing the interior of the park Markham considered the requirements of the deer for adequate shelter, food and water as well as extolling its varied landscape of hills, plains and valleys covered with woodland, timber trees and coppice, grassy launds and thickets.5 The role of the deer keeper in protecting the deer from poachers and the form of his lodge and associated outbuildings were also touched on.6 The management of parks thus far outlined centred on providing an environment conducive to a healthy herd of deer as well as maintaining a congenial landscape in which to hunt. But Elizabethan and Jacobean parks, like their medieval counterparts, could be multi-functional, encompassing within them other livestock enterprises described by Williamson as 'intermediate forms of exploitation' that were neither the hunting of wild species nor the husbandry of domestic breeds, but something in between.7 Evidence for the continuation of these activities into later Tudor times can be found in Kent, as elsewhere no doubt, with rabbit warrens, ponds for fish and wild fowl, and heronries; dovecotes were likely to be present although no documentation has been found for Kent. Timber and wood resources were also valued. Parks might be used for shared grazing alongside deer, or be divided into enclosed compartments that could be used for arable and fodder crops as well as for pasture or timber production. However, exactly what mixture of activities occurred in individual parks cannot be assessed from the information available. By managing elements compatible with the nurturing of deer, the park became less of a financial drain and provided fresh food for the larder, which was especially useful when catering for the large households concomitant with the status of parkowning families. Sir Richard Sackville's household of 1613 to1624 at Knole was 4 Markham(1616), citing frontispiece. 'Parks, warrens and hunting' are covered in The Seventh Book pp.644-713. 5 Laund = an open space among woods (http://dictionary.oed.com.) 6 The role of the deer keeper in combating poachers will be examined in Chapter Eight. 7 Harvey(2002:48) citing T. Williamson, 'Fish, fur and feather: Man and Nature in the post-medieval landscape' in K. Barker & T. Darvill (eds.) Making English Landscape, Bournemouth University Occasional Paper 3 (1997:92-117); Rowe(2009:23-24,30-33) elements of the medieval park covered for Hertfordshire include rabbit warrens, fishponds, dovecotes, agistment, pannage, faggots, bark, charcoal. 59 probably larger than most. At meal times food had to be supplied for the lord's table, the parlour table, the clerks' table in the hall, the nursery, the long table in the hall, the laundry maids' table and for the kitchen and scullery staff – in all about 120 diners.8 Twenty-one items of food provided 'of our own' were listed at Penshurst in 1624. Five were cereals and vegetables, two dairy products and 14 were meat, fish or game, of which rabbit, partridge, pheasant, pigeon, wild duckling, carp, pike and chub might well have been bred or found in the park.9 In Chapter Three the main role of the park for deer will first be considered, starting with the type of park paling used in Kent and the cost of erection (i). The role of the deer keeper (ii) will follow, including how he saw to the needs of the deer, officiated over the disposal of deer and venison, oversaw the hunting arrangements, but his important function in guarding the deer within the park will be covered more fully in Part IV Chapter Eight.10 The diverse uses of the park (iii) apart from deer keeping next will be outlined, concluding with a discussion about the costs of maintaining a deer park (iv). (i) The upkeep of park boundaries A basic requirement of any park was to have impenetrable barrier to enclose the deer and to keep intruders out. Harrison noted that parks were 'generallie inclosed with strong pale made of oke, of which kind of wood there is great store cherished in the woodland countries.'11 Overwhelming evidence for Kent is that parks were fenced, with occasional stretches of hedging. The only known brick walled park was that of royal Greenwich(39), built between 1619 and 1623.12 In 1610, Robert Sidney, viscount Lisle, contemplated having a stone wall round Penshurst(71) park, as a status symbol, but the local stone proved to be both unsuitable and expensive.13 Elizabethan maps, such as of Canterbury(18) park and Hemsted(44), depict substantial fences with upright, touching wooden pales.14 These fences were set over six feet to be higher than a deer's leap. Such enclosures crossing miles of countryside were visually formidable, especially in areas, such as around Eltham (32-34, 53, 95) and Otford where parks(49, 62-64) lay in close 8 Phillips I (1930:273-276). 9 CKS U1475/A27/7. 10 See Chapter Eight p.237 onwards. 11 Holinshed(1587:204). 12 Webster(1902:3-4). 13 Shaw(1942:240) 14/10/1610; ibid. p.266, 6/5/1611. 14 See Plate 3.1 p.60, CCA M29 midC16th; SuffRO HA43/T501/242, 1599. 60 Plate 3.1 The park pale (a) Map of Canterbury(18) park mid. C16th (CCA M29) showing both sides of the park pale erected in about 1538. St Martin's Church is lower right and a public footpath around the church outside the line of the pale remains. By kind permission of Canterbury Cathedral Archives 61 proximity.15 The fence was a practical necessity, but must also have reinforced symbolically the power, wealth and exclusivity of the park owners.16 Fences comprised pales, rails, posts and shores, all of which had to be hewn and shaped by hand, transported to site and then erected.17 According to Thomas Golding, the steward at Penshurst, the fence required good foundations and should stand six to seven feet 'high, strong and thick.'18 When calculating the cost of a fence in 1610 he found that a ton of timber, at 11 shillings a ton, would make about 200 pales or be enough to set three or 3¼ rods of fencing at the most.19 Once constructed, the pale needed constant upkeep, although it has been said that a well-constructed oak pale would last 100 years.20 Accounts for new fencing around Boughton Malherbe's South(12) park in 1567 and Halden(41) park in 1571 give more details about the work and the cost involved.21 At South(12) park five professional palers, not only made the pales, posts, rails and shores, but also constructed the fence from March to November 1567. Not knowing the width of each pale the circuit of the park cannot be exactly calculated, but a conservative figure would be over 5000 pales to make just under three miles of fencing round the park. Oak timber was felled in local woods and worked by the palers, before the readymade components were carted by the carter and his team, who were paid three shillings a day. A parliamentary statute of 1563 had set down various standard wages, which were proclaimed at Maidstone market on 23 September the same year.22 These rates included the piece rate payment for setting a fence with one rail and levelled top at five pence a rod, and four pence if the top was not trimmed or shaped.23 Park fences were more complicated than field fences because the extra height required more rails, posts 15 See Map 2.1 'Density of parks in west Kent', p.45. 16 See Part IV, Chapters Seven and Eight, pp.183-301, for positive and negative perceptions of parks. 17 Shore = a prop or strut (http://dictionary.oed.com). 18 Shaw (1942:266) 6/5/1611. 19 The width of the pales cannot be calculated from this because the ton of timber for one rod of fencing would include that used for the rails, posts and shores as well as for the pales. 20 Shirley(1867:238). 21 BL Add.Mss.42715; CKS U1475/E23/2. 22 Eveleigh Woodruff(1897:316-317). 23 Rod = 5½ yards. 62 and shores for support. Nevertheless, the palers' rates of pay at Boughton Malherbe appear to have been generous, perhaps because Thomas Wotton required speed, as shown by the number of men involved and the preparation of all the components before erection. On 9 August 1567 the paler, George Hudson, was paid four shillings for every 100 pales, although Robert Rennet, also a paler, received only one shilling (with no specific provision mentioned for food or drink). After that Robert Rennet continued to be employed at piece rates with a wider remit until the end of November. He made posts, pales and rails and set them up with shoring at ten pence a rod for 300 rods on 30 November 1567, but another payment on the same date, and thereafter, was reckoned at seven pence a rod, always providing his own refreshment. The Boughton Malherbe account presents ambiguities, which open up a number of interpretations. The task description for providing the parts for the paling and setting it up did not vary, but the rates of pay did. Perhaps apparently similar jobs posed more problems because of difficult terrain or weather conditions. The lower payments might have reflected the lower rates of pay in the winter months, or that food and drink were provided as part of the remuneration.24 The Boughton Malherbe document does not indicate whether George Hudson and Robert Rennet worked alone, but they might have been selfemployed, master craftsmen, who shared their earnings with their employees.25 If this was the case, George Hudson's team might have been larger than Robert Rennet's, hence the differing rates of pay.26 Some workmen were better at bargaining their rates of pay, as is illustrated at Halden(41) park. There 'The Booke of Paling the Parke with the repairing of the Pondes and Standyings' named four palers who, from May to August 1571, were each paid one shilling a day for making and setting the pale.27 During this period, the wage bill for 98 man-days totalled £10 18s 0d. However, the accountant then made a note that, on 20 October 1571, a bargain had been struck with two palers, Webb and Hawes, who were to be paid by output or piece rate rather than by the day, and they were engaged to complete the entire circuit of the park with a seven-foot high fence. Webb and Hawes agreed to a 24 Woodruff(1897:316-317) a labourer's daily rate of pay was set at four pence, with meat and drink provided, or nine pence, without meat and drink, from Easter to Michaelmas, and three pence and six pence, respectively, from Michaelmas to Easter. 25 Tawney & Power I (1924:334). 26 Woodward(1981:28-46). 27 CKS U1475/E23/2; Tawney & Power I (1924:334) which gives the rates for a carpenter in Buckinghamshire in 1561 as 9d a day or 6d, with meat and drink, for the period Easter to Michaelmas and 7d and 4d, with meat and drink, from Michaelmas to Easter. 63 rate of ten pence for every 100 pales made (a lower rate than any of the palers at Boughton Malherbe,12). Within that calculation, it was agreed that five-foot lengths of rail were to equate to the cost of three pales, and each post and shore to two pales. In addition, the palers were to be paid four pence for every rod of fence erected. Webb and Hawes then worked for the next 20 months, until late summer 1573, using the equivalent of 27,922 pales, a proportion of these being the agreed equivalent calculation of rails, posts and shores. The total amount paid to the two men for this contract was just under £43, but it is impossible to calculate from the account what it would have cost by the daily rate of pay adopted at the beginning of the enterprise. The timber for the fence came from 70 trees felled from within the grounds of Halden(41) park, thus reducing the cost of raw materials. How the pales were attached to the rails is not mentioned for either South(12) park or Halden(41) so perhaps they were pegged or mortised because the accounts did not itemise nails.28 In the Knole(50) accounts for 1629, the paler received 1s 2d for making 100 pales and the pale setter 2s 10d per rod for repairing the park fence, better remuneration that for the Elizabethan palers.29 If this was typical, rates of pay had risen since the 1570s, but this might not have kept pace with the rate of inflation.30 Palliser stresses the difficulty in assessing the standard of living because detailed studies suggest 'no simple pattern of gain and loss in terms either of status groups or of economic groups.' He concluded that standards of living enjoyed by the individual craftsmen might have varied according to the degree of their commercial success or their ability to supplement their income in other spheres of economic activity.31 Medieval park boundaries were delineated by a bank on which the fence was erected. The bank was often associated with a ditch running alongside, the ditch being created when earth was thrown up to form the bank.32 Accounts amounting to £7 9s 10½d for this type of earthwork exist for the first enclosure of Leeds(54) castle park in 28 CKS U269/A41, 1629, 300 nails cost 18d and thousands were used to repair Knole park paling. 29 Ibid. 30 Woodward(1981:29) citing Phelps, Brown and Hopkins who estimated that from a base of 100 in the third quarter of the fifteenth century real wages fell to an average of 44 during the 1590s, with a low point of 29 in 1597, and that real wages did not substantially improve until the second half of the seventeenth century. 31 Palliser(1992:176) gives broad reviews of the various interpretations of historians, Rogers, Marx, Tawney, Stone; Woodward(1981:39-42). 32 Rackham(1976:115-116); see Plate 3.2 p.64 and Plate 3.3 p.66. 64 Plate 3.2 Park boundary earthworks (a) Part of the original south boundary of Leeds(54) park constructed in 1364 -Patricia Stroud. 8 January 2005 (b) South boundary bank at Broxham(17) park, looking west to eart. The interior of the park would have been to the left. Earliest reference to park is 1294. 12 March 2005 65 1364.33 If left undisturbed, as is the original southern boundary at Leeds, these banks and ditches endure in the landscape and traces of them can be used to determine the area and boundaries of ancient parks.34 However, it would appear from fieldwork and documentary evidence that parks from the early Tudor period were enclosed without the extra labour of throwing up a bank.35 The only documentary evidence for creating a new ditch was at South(12) park, Boughton Malherbe, where, for reasons unexplained, 32 rods of ditch, set with hawthorn hedge, were dug to form part of the park boundary, instead of the oak fence which enclosed the rest.36 According to the 1563 statute a ditch four feet wide at the top, two feet wide at the base and four feet deep would have cost 12d a rod.37 As the Boughton Malherbe ditch of 32 rods cost £1 16s 8d or just under 14d a rod, it was probably close to these dimensions. Both at South(12) park, Boughton Malherbe, and at Halden(41) the entire perimeters of the parks were re-fenced. The old pale round Penshurst(71) park, in 'very great decaye' by 1610, was also completely repaled over a period of two years.38 More usually, fences were regularly checked and certain sections repaired as was necessary. Robert Nynne, bailiff at Birling(6), accounted for 202 rods of fence mended in 1586 at the cost of £5 10s 0d.39 Canterbury(18) park, newly paled in 1547, seems to have lasted over half a century until the need for substantial repairs in 1605, when nearly £8 was spent on it.40 As the pale was a major potential expense, the tenant might be given responsibility for its upkeep when park leases were drawn up. On 27 November 1607, the lease for Bedgebury(4) park, with an annual rent of £30, stipulated that the owners, the Culpeppers, would ensure the pale was in good order prior to the commencement of 33 Cleggett(1992:50) Chapter II Appendix I, has transcripts of the receipts and payments for the manor of Leeds, 1364. 34 Good examples remain along the north boundary of Birling(6), south boundary of Broxham(17) park, south boundary of Old(19) park, Canterbury, north boundary of the former greater Glassenbury(37) park, north and south boundaries of Ightham(48) park, south boundary of Leeds(54) park, beyond its present boundary. 35 None was found, after one visit, at Canterbury(18), Cobham(23), Knole(50), Penshurst(69) or Scot's Hall(77) parks. 36 BL Add.Mss.42715. 37 Eveleigh Woodruff(1897:317). 38 Shaw(1942:302,308) 13/11/1611, 21/11/1611; Shaw & Owen(1962:25) 2/3/1612. 39 ESRO ABE/18/R/1. 40 Salisbury papers, Accounts 6/35. 66 Plate 3.3 Park boundary earthworks (a) West/east profile across remains of park bank with external ditch of the east boundary of Henden(45) park, looking south/north. To the left Patricia Waterman stands inside the park and Susan Pittman (right) stands on the outside face of the park bank. 16 October 2005 (b) Looking west/east along the south boundary external ditch of Ightham park. The park interior would have been to the left. 14 August 2005 67 the lease, but thereafter the lessee would be required to keep up running repairs.41 However, the landlords would cooperate with the lessee over unforeseen damage to the fence, such as if 'some great part thereof be blown down by some extraordinary great wind or tempest.'42 Apart from being brought down during storms, park palings were vulnerable to deliberate damage by intruders. Several court of Star Chamber cases mentioned fences being pulled down to gain illegal entrance into parks.43 One such colourful episode occurred in Canterbury on 22 May 1609 when a large crowd pulled down 300 to 400 pales in ten to 12 places around Canterbury(18) park, and once inside rampaged about disturbing the deer before leaving.44 Entrances into parks were kept to the minimum for security purposes so great attention was paid to the gates. These were made of wood, but had strong iron fittings. At Halden the palers made an unspecified number of gates for five shillings, while the iron fittings for the three gates for South(12) park, Boughton Malherbe, were made by Thomas Porter who was paid 15 shillings for making hooks, thimbles, hasps and staples and 1s 8d more for 'three large fair padlocks for the same gates.'45 At Hever(46) in 1560 there were two padlocked 'great gates' into the park with duplicate keys, enabling John Lennard, the lessee, and his park sub-tenant independent access.46 At Knole(50) the steward reported that the town gate and all the other gates round the park were locked night and day.47 Despite all best efforts gates were still broken down by determined unlawful hunters, such as on the night of 18 May 1600 when Cullens gate at Penshurst(71) park was pulled or lifted off its hooks and the padlock broken to enable culprits abducting the deer keeper to escape on horseback.48 41 BL Cart.Harl.77.C.44. 42 Ibid. 43 TNA STAC5/S2/20, STAC5/S21/31, STAC5/S68/33, STAC5/S74/15, STAC5/S41/5. see also Chapter Eight, pp.236-330. 44 TNA STAC8/16/2; see also Chapter Eight p.281-282. 45 BL Add.Mss.42715; thimble = the ring or socket in the heel of a gate which turns on the hook or pin in the gate-post (http://dictionary.oed.com): see Plate 3.4 p.67. 46 CKS U1450/T6/10. 47 Barrett-Lennard(1908:141). 48 TNA STAC5/S68/33. 68 Plate 3.4 Access into parks (a) A substantial Victorian wooden park gate, which might have been based on earlier gates at the Park Gate entrance to Lullingstone(55) park. Mildred Reeves c.1930 was the daughter of the then deer keeper. The mild steel park pale dates to the 1890s as does the ladder stile giving public access along a feeder track to the Pilgrim's Way along the south foothills of the North Downs. (b) Deer leap, looking from outside into a park. Illustration from E. P. Shirley English Deer Parks (1867). 69 In some parks, especially near forests or chases where their installation required a crown licence, deer-leaps were installed along the boundaries to allow escaped or wild deer into the park. 49 At the point of the deer-leap the fence was lower on the non-park side, but steeply sloped down on the park side so that deer inside were unable to jump out, but those outside could jump in. No doubt there were such features in Kentish parks, but the only evidence so far come to light is for Halstead(42) park, created in the 1620s, with place-names Great and Little Dearleap first mentioned in 1792, where no other deer park had been in the vicinity.50 The occasional stile rendered the park more vulnerable to trespass, but might have existed to honour ancient rights of way even older than the park. One Victorian ladder stile still in situ at Lullingstone(55) park allowed walkers across the park along a feeder path to the Pilgrims' Way at Otford.51 It was unlikely that this route, which must have pre-dated the park, could have been eradicated or easily diverted. Elsewhere stiles might have allowed estate workers easier access when going about their daily activities, but also aided the movements of poachers. At Cobham(23) Humfrey Latter, a notorious poacher, when chased by deer keepers jumped over a stile to escape from the park.52 Conspirators wishing to enter Penshurst(71) park chose to meet corrupt under keepers at Terry's stile.53 Examples like this explain why park owners were often anxious to extinguish footpaths across parkland, but the extinction of user rights was likely to be contested and cause local resentment. Thomas Wotton seems to have made a deliberate decision to leave a footpath on its old line, but outside the new South(12) park, perhaps to minimise inconvenience to the users. He spent 4s 2d for five days labour repairing this footpath, 'which way afore lay or went through the west side ... ... of the lands lying within the said park.' 54 Where diversions impinged on established rights or involved other landowners more formal agreements had to be drawn up. In 1606 at Mersham Hatch(61), where the Knatchbull family gradually acquired land for a park, the dean and chapter of Canterbury and then the manorial court baron allowed Sir Norton Knatchbull to enclose a small area of 49 Higham(2003:59-65); see Plate 3.4 p.68. 50 Kitchener(2000:146). 51 Pittman(1983:72-73). 52 CKS QM/SB252, 1598. 53 CKS U1475/L17. 54 BL Add.Mss.42715. 70 Plate 3.5 Access to park boundaries and around parks (a) Freeboard strip outside north boundary of the earlier larger Glassenbury(37) park c.1488, looking east/west. The freeboard drops into a ditch on the park side, to the left. 23 May 2005 (b) The other side (or park sided) of the hedge on the left above. The track is a public footpath and runs alongside the north park boundary for most of its length. The hedgerow shrub featured nearest to the camera is the rare 'Wild Service Tree' (sorbus torminalis), an indicator species of ancient woodland. 23 May 2005 71 common and to divert the highway by the gate of his house, as long as he gave up another piece of land to become common land.55 A major highway diversion required the permission of the crown under an enquiry of Ad Quod Damnum, which took into account the interests of the crown and other road users. Just such a grant was given in 1639 to Sir John Finch, who enlarged Canterbury(18) park by taking in land crossed by public roads, providing other ways of the same width and length as alternative routes.56 The constant necessity to check and repair the park paling meant that it had to be easily accessible either from within or outside the park. The external strip was sometimes called the freeboard and tended to be one perch wide.57 Thus former park boundaries are sometimes still evident in the landscape, being defined by footpaths or roads, at least in part.58 However, it would need intensive fieldwork for each park to discover, if it were possible, whether the footpath and road network pre-dated and determined the park boundaries, or was altered to accommodate a park, or whether it evolved from people having to skirt round parks in order to carry out their routine business. In Kent there are numerous examples of park boundaries running alongside roads, tracks and footpaths, including Cobham(23), Henden(45), Hungershall(47), Kemsing(49), Lullingstone(55), Lympne(57), Lynsted(58), Otford Great(62) and Little(63) parks, Panthurst(67), Penshurst Northlands(71) and Southpark(72), Shurland(78), Sissinghurst(79), Stowting(82), Throwley(87), Westenhanger(98) and West Wickham(99). (ii) Deer keeping and deer keepers It might be expected that deer keeping would be well documented because of the high status of parks, centred on their role in producing deer either for sport or for venison. However, documentation is disappointingly sparse. The later period is not exceptional in this dearth, as Birrell found in her research into medieval deer farming. 59 She attributed poor and uneven documentation partly to the peculiar position of deer farming, which was taken seriously without being commercialised, and thought it easy to see why research into the subject had been neglected. Nevertheless, she persevered in 55 CCA-DCc-ChAnt/M/33. 56 TNA C202/21/1. 57 Rackham(2003:193); perch = 5½ yards; see Plate 3.5 p.70. 58 Hoskins(1977:94,237); Beresford(1957:19); see Plate 3.6 p.72, and Chapter Two, pp.39-42. 59 Birrell(1992:115). 72 Plate 3.6 Access to park boundaries and around parks (a) The road running round outside the southwest corner of Lynsted(58) park. 16 May 2005 (b) Footpath running outside part of the east boundary of West Wickham(99) park. 14 January 2005 73 her endeavour to shed some light onto deer farming by looking at a wide range of sources, while also recognising that the material was difficult to treat quantitatively. Her example is followed here, and because so little research has been done into the role of the deer keepers and deer keeping in the Elizabethan and Jacobean periods this focus on Kent will help to fill a gap.60 The role of the deer keeper was complex, and was likely to vary according to the size of the park and the status of the owner.61 Deer keepers were given wide responsibilities and had discretion over the management of the deer. They held a position of trust, yet their diligence in looking after the deer was monitored through periodic checks of herd numbers and make-up. They cared for the day-to-day physical needs of the deer and maintained the general health of the herd. In addition they organised gifts of venison and arranged hunting for the owner, which required skills such as stalking and tracking in the field and the ability to communicate and deal with men of all ranks.62 Deer keepers would also need to guard the deer against illegal hunting, for which it was essential to have physical and moral toughness in face of the bribes, threats and force exerted by determined intruders. Deer keeping was, therefore, a multi-faceted job, involving a great deal of variety. Yet deer keepers held an unenviable position in society being subservient to park owners and their stewards and bailiffs on the one hand, but on the other, being treated warily by any in the local community suspicious of authority. The sense of deer keepers' apartness would have been reinforced by the isolation of living in a lodge in the park, cut off from wider society.63 The value of the full remuneration of deer keepers remains elusive, and would have varied from park to park, so it is difficult to assess whether it was sufficient to encourage loyalty to the park owner, or if its insufficiency would reinforce a temptation to collude with poachers. Manning considered many deer keepers to be ex-poachers drawn in the main from the artisan class, but limited information about the backgrounds 60 Manning(1993:28-33,189-195) contains sections on keepers and is an exception. 61 Deer keepers rather than park keepers are being discussed in this Section. Park keepers were nobles or gentlemen appointed by the crown or, more rarely, by magnates with several parks, who fulfilled a supervisory and more honorary function, see Chapter Four pp.119-132. 62 For gifts of venison see Chapter Seven pp.193-200. 63 See Plate 3.7 p.75 and Plate 3.8 p.80. 74 of deer keepers in Kent does not endorse this view.64 While some deer keepers were undoubtedly tempted to aid poachers, others remained loyal and fulfilled their duties conscientiously, although where the balance of extremes lies remains a matter of speculation. It is to issues of the background of deer keepers and their income to which attention will first turn. This will be followed by the part the deer keeper played in carrying out the wishes of park owners concerning venison gifts and hunting, before dealing with practical aspects of deer management. The deer keeper's role in defending the deer will be fully covered in Chapter Eight.65 The names of about 37 Kentish deer keepers and lesser park workers crop up in various documents, most, it must be said, related to court cases.66 Ten parks are represented, with nine names from Penshurst(71) park, seven from Sissinghurst(79) park, five from Knole(50) park, three from Birling(6), Cobham(23), Lyminge(56) and Scot's Hall(77) parks, two from Canterbury(18) park and one each from Lullingstone(55) and Otford Great(62) parks.67 Evidence indicates that deer keeping skills passed down family generations, with the Jeggers and Wickes, fathers and sons, serving the Brookes in their parks at Cobham(23) and Canterbury(18) and the Terry family at Penshurst(71).68 The Smith brothers, John and Henry, worked at Penshurst(71) and three Smiths of unknown kinship served at Knole(50).69 Philip and Edward Eastland worked together at Lyminge(56) as did Christopher and John Crippes at Penshurst(71).70 In order to uncover the backgrounds of these deer keepers, possible wills were tracked down, although the only positively matching will was of Robert Terry, long serving deer keeper at Penshurst(71), whose death in 1621 elicited genuine sorrow from his employer, Robert Sidney, earl of Leicester.71 The will of Thomas Smalman was the 64 Manning(1993:190-191). 65 See Chapter Eight p.237 onwards. 66 For names appearing more than once, reference might be to the same person, or a similarly named person. 67 The job description given is as it appears in the documents. 68 StaffsRO D593/S/4/56/1; CKS U1475/L17, U1475/E47, Hanney, Kinnamon & Brennan(2005:232-233). 69 CKS U1475/L17; Cockburn(1995:299) AC35/32/4/1806, 13/8/1589. 70 CKS QM/SB/710; CKS U1475/L17. 71 I am very grateful for the genealogical assistance of Matthew Copus; Hanney, Kinnamon & Brennan(2005:232-233) letters 313, 314 of 9 & 12/5/1621, Viscount Lisle to wife. 75 Plate 3.7 The deer keeper (a) Detail from the map of Scot's Hall(77) park, c.1656 (CKS U274 P1) showing a deer keeper with stave, a dog running in front of him and deer and rabbit bounding in the park. The widely spaced pollard trees are typical of the wood pasture habitat of parkland. Although beyond the period of this study this is the earliest depiction of a Kent deer keeper found to date. By kind permission of the Centre for Kentish Studies, Kent Archives and Local Studies Service, Kent County Council (b) Lodge House, the oldest part of the house was formerly the lodge of the deer keeper of Scot's Hall(77) park. The lodge dominates a hill overlooking the park. 9 February 2005 76 only will found of a stated deer keeper.72 He was deer keeper at Otford Great(62) park, and his will of 25 June 1583 showed that he held several leases for property and land, including the lease of the mill at Otford. On this basis he can be classed above an artisan, and more likely to have been of yeoman stock. Certainly, his daughter was married into the solid yeoman family of Petley.73 A probate account and nine wills, but no inventories, were found of men with similar names as known deer keepers, in parishes local to the parks in which they served, but without their occupation as deer keeper being specifically stated.74 These wills probably belong to the deer keepers, because the surnames, except for Edward Smith, are generally uncommon and no other families with those surnames have been found in the various localities near to their employment. Even if the will does not match the actual man, there is a possibility that he held some degree of kinship with the will-maker and so might have shared a similar background. However, interpretation of this limited range of wills is cautious because the job status of the individual at death is unknown, and the full value of possessions at death cannot be ascertained without surviving inventories. All that given, some tentative observations can be made. Most deer keepers are not known by name, nor have all the wills survived; other deer keepers dying intestate perhaps came from humbler origins or had little to will, so this sample of testate deer keepers, if the correct wills have been identified, might be atypical. These will-making deer keepers preferred the appellation of 'yeoman', in some cases perhaps aspiration rather than reality. The definition of yeomen has been shown to be very fluid, with not all yeomen being either respected freeholders or involved in agriculture.75 However, Lambarde wrote of the happy state of Kentish yeomen who might be as wealthy as the gentry, yet not so entitled, and Harrison considered yeomen to possess 'a certain pre-eminence and more estimation' among the common people.76 72 PCCprob/11/65, 1583, Thomas Smalman. 73 PCCprob/11/127, 1611, Edward Petley. 74 PRC/16/218, 1638, Henry Cliffe; PCC prob/11/180, 1614, John Crippes; DRb/Pwr22/273 & DRa/PW1, 1638, Walter Double; PRC/17/53/227 & PRC/16/125/L1, 1604, Edward Leedes; PCC prob/11/133 & 134, 1618, Richard Polhill; PRC/12/13/f126 & PRC/0/3/f59, Robert Reames admon. and probate account; PRC/17/67/106, 1627, Philip Round(Rowne); PRS/W/14/209, 1616, Edward Smith; DRb/Pw25, 1622, Robert Terry. 75 Bowers(1994:150). 76 Ibid. p.153; ibid. p.149. 77 Among the group of ten will-makers five were described as 'yeoman', one as 'labourer', two as 'gentlemen' and two provided no status. 'Labourer' Henry Cliffe from Tenterden, perhaps under keeper at Sissinghurst(79), achieved a degree of financial security in his lifetime and for his family after his death, leaving a total of £7 6s 0d to four children, part of which was towards securing an apprenticeship. The 'yeomen' covered a range of wealth. Yeoman Robert Terry's will was of the simplest kind, leaving all his goods and chattels to his wife, so his wealth cannot be surmised, but the Terry family were longstanding tenants of the Sidney family, occupying Ensfield farm adjacent to Penshurst(71) park.77 The other yeomen were Walter Double of Speldhurst (Penshurst,71), Philip Eastland of Lyminge (Lyminge, 56), Edward Leedes of Benenden (Sissinghurst,79) and Edward Smith of Chevening (Knole, 50). Of the five, Philip Eastland appeared not to own property, but left all the household effects to his wife, made bequests of fifteen ewe sheep to the younger members of his family and monetary bequests of £27; Edward Leedes and Edward Smith owned their own houses and adjacent land and left monetary bequests to the value of £40 to £50; while Walter Double's three sons each inherited lands and tenements in Leigh, Tonbridge and Southborough in Kent and Framfield in Sussex, out of which they were to contribute £8 a year to support their mother. John Crippes might have come from yeoman stock if he was related to John Crippes, the elder, of Edenbridge (Penshurst, 71) who left just under £80 in monetary bequests and enough land in Edenbridge in Kent and Crowborough and Rotherfield in Sussex, to distribute between his three sons, one of whom was called John. The other deer keeper without attributed status was Philp Rowne (Round) of Cranbrook, whose will equates to that of 'labourer' Henry Cliffe or 'yeoman' Philip Eastland in that he left just under £30 in monetary bequests, and does not seem to have owned land at his death. Richard Polhill, described as 'gentleman' in his will of 1618, worked at Penshurst(71), and Robert Reames was deer keeper at Scot's Hall(77); both seem to have more modest means at their deaths than yeomen like Edward Leedes or Edward Smith. The Polhills were a prolific family in west Kent with several branches owning extensive land holdings.78 Richard Polhill is difficult to fit into this dynasty, but he married Sindonie, heiress of Philpotts, and after 1594 they lived in the lodge in Leigh(70) park, 77 Zell(1994:43). 78 Bennett(1958:19). 78 which he rented along with 500 acres of former parkland from the Sidney family.79 He bequeathed his son all his agricultural tackle, including carts and ploughs.80 His daughters were to divide the household goods between them after the death of their mother, who received the undefined residue of the estate, saving a £5 bequest to their granddaughter. Robert Reames, was in all probability a gentleman by birth, if he was the grandson of Johanne Reames, sister of Sir John Baker of Sissinghurst, but apparently left little after his death.81 Johanne Reames' son, Stephen Reames, was cousin to Elizabeth Baker, later wife of Sir Thomas Scott of Scot's Hall, and this distant family connection might explain Robert Reames' appointment as deer keeper at Scot's Hall. An indication that Robert Reames might have been Stephen Reames' son is he had a brother called Stephen, who administered his estate and returned a probate account after his death in 1613.82 Robert Reames possessed moveable goods valued at 34 shillings, while his debts amounted to nearly £40, including part payment of £20 to Sir John Scott for rent and other duties. From the tantalisingly limited evidence available, deer keepers could come from solid families within the local community, rather than from the artisan origins attributed to them by Manning.83 It would not be surprising to find, as with all walks of life, honest and dishonest deer keepers, but there is no firm evidence that they belonged to the poaching fraternity before appointment, an issue to be explored in Chapter Eight.84 The remuneration enjoyed by deer keepers included elements such as the provision of accommodation, wages and perquisites in kind and in fees. The total value of this mixed package cannot be calculated, and in any case would vary according to park size, herd size and the extent of the opportunities for earning extra fees. Deer keepers were provided with lodges inside the park so they lived in close proximity to the deer. Markham described the ideal location for a lodge as being in a 79 CKS U1475/61/4, 1594, & CKS U1475/T61/6, 1615. 80 PCC prob/11/133 & 134, 1618, Richard Polhill. 81 PCCprob/11/42, Sir John Baker; PCC prob/11/44, Johanne Reames. 82 Nicolson(1964:13); PRC/12/13/f126 & PRC/20/3/f59 admon. & probate account, Robert Reames. 83 Manning(1993:190-191). 84 See Chapter Eight pp.237-301. 79 prominent position 'where the deere take greatest delight to feed.'85 He anticipated that the lodge might become the target of unscrupulous 'stealers or other malitious persons' so it was to be built like a fort and to stand on open ground so no secret approach to it could be made. The necessity to go to such lengths underlines the danger of the deer keeper's job. Because the deer required 24 hours' surveillance, deer keepers managed a team of under keepers to cover absences and to summon in an emergency, and their accommodation was also conveniently located in or near the park. Both Penshurst(71) and Leigh(70) parks at Penshurst had great and little lodges, the former in decay but still occupied in 1601.86 The lodge at Shurland(78) was a timber construction with a tiled roof situated on top of a hill in the middle of the park, while the under keeper lodged in 'a pretty chamber' adjoining the mansion house with independent access to the park (see Plate 3.8).87 Other parks known to have lodges were Bedgebury(4), Birling(6), Canterbury(18), Chislet(22), Cobham(23), Halden(41), Henden(45), Hever(46), Hungershall(47), Knole(50), Lynsted(58), Panthurst(67), Ashour(69) at Penshurst, Scot's Hall(77), Southfrith(93) near Tonbridge and Surrenden(84). 88 In some cases, the lodges remained long after disparkment and were leased out, occasionally as rewards to loyal servants, as were Ashour(69) and Leigh(70) lodges on the Sidney estate at Penshurst.89 Many original lodges with their outbuildings were readily adapted into farmsteads and bear the name Park Farm to this day, such as at Birling(6), Brasted(15), Canterbury(18), Penshurst(71), Leigh(70), Southpark(72) near Penshurst, and at Throwley(87). Occasionally, the lodge was rebuilt or aggrandised to become the owner's residence, for example 'The Lodge', the Roper family mansion at Lynsted(58).90 Other perquisites, which reduced a deer keeper's overheads, might include wood for fuel gathered from the park, or liveried uniform.91 Thomas Smalman wore a doublet and hose provided by 'my lord', probably Sir Henry Sidney, the park keeper of Otford 85 Markham(1616:669-670). 86 CKS U1500/E1. 87 See Plate 3.8 p.79, TNA SP12/87, 1572. 88 BL Cart.Harl.77.C.44; TNA SC12/9/4; StaffsRO D593/S/4/56/1; LPL TA39/1; CKS U1475/M73; Surrey Record Office K87/17/30; CKS U1450/T6/10; ESRO ABE/52.1; CKS U269/A41/1/1; Cockburn(1994:169) AC35/21/8; CKS U269/T1/A:8:4:4; CKS U214/E19/23; CKS U1475/T33; CKS U350/E4, Yeandle, p.302, www.kentarchaeology.ac.uk; sse Plate 3.7 p.74. 89 LPL TA39/1, the lodge at Chislet(22) park was rented out for 80 years from 1539 at an annual rent of £10; CKS U1475/T33, U1475/T61/6. 90 Vallance(1932:147-148). 91 TNA E178/1163, 1597-1598, at Otford Great(62) park the annual fuel allowance was valued at ten shillings, to be taken from pollarded oak and ash trees in the park. 80 Plate 3.8 Park Lodges at Shurland (a) Just visible to the centre of the skyline is the lodge of Shurland(78) park. It was sited towards the centre of the park with good views of the surrounding parkland. Shurland House itself was under extensive renovation and is completely encased with weatherproof sheeting to the right of the skyline. 30 September 2006 (b) Shurland House and its outer courtyards from a survey of 1572 (TNA SP12/87/1-3). The under keeper's 'pretty chamber' was in this complex with direct access to the park. By kind permission of The National Archives. 81 Great(62) park.92 Essential equipment might also have been provided, but was also bought to become proud possessions. Thomas Smalman's will describes two crossbows, one for everyday use with a steel gaffle, or lever for bending the bow, and another with a carved wooden tiller, or beam drilled for the bolt. 93 He also had one everyday and one gilt wood-knife, which were short swords carried by huntsmen for cutting up game, although they also served as weapons.94 Lastly, he rode a four-year old black gelding and had a hunting horn 'garnished with silver', an essential tool for communication over long distances. Wages formed the fixed monetary element of remuneration, but because they are rarely mentioned, a few examples can only be indicative. For the year 1587/8 the two deer keepers at Birling(6) were each paid £4. At Canterbury(18) park in 1605 the deer keeper and his man were paid £7 10s for the year, while in 1611, Robert Terry's wages as deer keeper at Penshurst(71) were £5.95 If the Canterbury deer keeper received a similar amount from the £7 10s, his under keeper 's wages would have been £2 10s a year. Kent was an affluent county where wages tended to be higher than elsewhere in the country, but at Canterbury(18) an under keeper's pay was more than an agricultural labourer's maximum annual pay of 26s 8d in Buckinghamshire in 1561, and at £2 10s a year would have been the same as an agricultural bailiff in Kent in 1563.96 By these comparisons, the deer keeper's pay was at least adequate, even before taking his other sources of income into account. Wages were supplemented by value in kind, in that the deer keeper was allocated parts of the deer slain during hunting. Traditionally these were the skin, head, umbles, chine and shoulders, which Harrison regarded as unfair because those with a warrant to take a whole buck 'hath in the end little more than halfe, which in my judgement is scarselie equal dealing.'97 When Humfrey Barrett leased Bedgebury(4) park in 1607, he 92 Clarke & Stoyel(1975:122-123) citing Acts of the Privy Council 1552-1554, no.967. 93 PCCprob/11/65, 1583, Thomas Smalman; gaffle, tiller (http://dictionary.oed.com).. 94 Wood-knife (http://dictionary.oed.com). 95 Salisbury papers, Accounts 6/35, 29/9/1605; Shaw(1942:311) 25/3/1611. 96 Palliser(1992:117) points out that the bailiff's wage in Kent was 67% higher than the 30 shillings allowed in the Yorkshire area. 97 Holinshed(1587:204); Sykes(2003:171) late medieval deer bone assemblage at Donnington Park supports this statement; umbles = the edible inward parts of an animal, usually of a deer, chine = spine or backbone (http://dictionary.oed.com). 82 was given responsibility for the deer and 'for his labour and pains' was allowed to keep one shoulder, the skin and chine of every deer killed.98 An extra monetary benefit of variable amount would be the fees received when an owner issued warrants for his friends to hunt or for gifts of venison. The practice of paying fees to other park owners' deer keepers dated back to medieval times, as illustrated in the 'Howard Household Books'.99 The Elizabethan, Harrison, confirmed the continuation of the custom whereby park owners gave away venison and 'never taking penny for the same, except the ordinary fee ... given to the keeper by a custom,' the amount being 3s 4d or five shillings in money.100 A few examples confirm the continuation of the practice in Kent, with similar fees being paid by recipients of a deer keeper's services.101 At the Admiral's court held at Sheerness on the Isle of Sheppey in June 1580, the mayor of Rochester's expenses included 3s 4d 'payed to my Lorde Cobham his keeper when he broughte us halfe a bucke.'102 Towards the end of the reign of James I and into Charles I's reign Edward Dering of Surrenden's 'Booke of Expences' showed that on 12 September 1626 he gave Lady Maidstone's deer keeper at Eastwell ten shillings for bringing him venison.103 He was also allowed to hunt in parks at Eastwell(28) and Boughton Malherbe(10 or 12) and would give a fee of five or six shillings to the keeper when his dogs killed deer in those parks:- 10 September 1625 – given att Eastwell to ye keeper when I tooke say and my doggs killed a brace of buckes – 5s. 104 Lastly, the deer keeper might earn extra money from his discretion to allocate venison himself and to give licence to hunt in the park. This was also a continuation of medieval practice when local deer keepers and huntsmen were often allowed to decide the number of deer which could reasonably be hunted, although on other occasions the owner would specify in advance what deer were to be taken and how they were to be disposed of.105 An owner familiar with his herd or distrustful of his deer keepers might be less inclined to give discretion to his employees, but others might be more relaxed 98 BL Cart.Harl.77.C.44; 99 Crawford I (1992:221,225,227,278); Crawford II (1992:108,147,148 337). 100 Edelen (1994:255). 101 Holinshed(1587:204); for the significance of gifts of venison see Chapter Seven (ii) pp.193-200. 102 Blencoe(1859:84). 103 CKS U350/E4, Yeandle, p.357, www.kentarchaeology.ac.uk. 104 Ibid. p.296, www.kentarchaeology.ac.uk. 'Say' in this context is obscure, but could mean the 'breaking up of a deer' (http://dictionary.oed.com). 105 Birrell(1992:123). 83 about doing so. In either case, a regular stock taking of the herd would reveal any glaring malpractice by the deer keepers. Examples of the use of deer keeper's discretion over gifts of venison and giving licence to hunt occur in Kent. The deer keeper of Birling(6) successfully begged a teg from Edmund Wickes, keeper of Cobham(23), deer to celebrate his marriage at the turn of the seventeenth century.106 In the early 1600s, Thomas Petley of Halstead paid the deer keeper of Hamswell(43) park and his boy five or ten shillings for delivering venison to his door as a favour. 107 John Threale of London in 1601 claimed to have hunted in Penshurst(71) park 'in lawful manner by the licence of the then keeper of that park' and 'with his privilies', but was nevertheless accused of unlawful hunting on other occasions.108 The combination of a dwelling free of encumbrances, a regular annual income topped up with the value of deer parts and the receipt of fees meant that deer keepers could well have been amply rewarded for their labour. They held a position of trust, which was easily abused, so it would hardly have been in the owners' interest to under pay them. Owners were anxious to preserve deer for their own requirements, and to add to their esteem among their neighbours and peers by having a well-run park with a thriving herd of deer. On the one hand, job satisfaction is indicated by the passing down of deer keeping skills through family generations, on the other hand, dissatisfaction over remuneration might be a possible explanation for some deer keepers, especially under keepers, becoming disloyal to their masters and turning to corrupt practices. Close relationships between park owners and park keepers were possible, as illustrated in the concern shown on several occasions by Robert Sidney, earl of Leicester, for his deer keeper, Robert Terry.109 The earl also took great care over Robert Terry's replacement, trying to decide between his brother, John Terry, towards whom he was favourably inclined, and the acting keeper whom he thought equally deserving.110 106 StaffsRO D593/S/4/56/1. 107 TNA STAC8/290/17. 108 TNA STAC5/S68/33. 109 See p.89. 110 Hanney, Kinnamon &. Brennan(2005:232-233) letters 313, 314 of 9 & 12/5/1621, Viscount Lisle to wife. Davey(1996:140-141) will of Wiston Browne of Rookwood Hall, Essex, c.1580, indicates a highly prized deer keeper, Edward Humberstone. He was to retain his job for life, with fees and perquisites. He could keep two cows and two horses in the park, and was to be provided with six loads of hay to be stored 84 Pivotal to the deer keeper's role was the management of the deer, which required considerable understanding of the animals' habits and needs. Owners might expect the deer keeper to look after the deer 'diligently and carefully,' and the well being of the animals would take up a great deal of his attention.111 As far as is known, Kentish parks stocked fallow rather than red deer, so comments will be directed to this species.112 The Sidneys toyed with the idea of acquiring red deer at Penshurst(71), but a tame red deer became the target of illegal hunters in 1573, and Robert Sidney, viscount Lisle's later attempt in 1607 to secure red deer calves ended in failure with the death, within two days, of the only one captured after a four-day stalk in a nearby forest.113 Food, water and shelter were largely provided for the deer by having a range of habitats within the park, but the deer keeper would need to supplement any deficiency by cutting browse and spreading hay. Within most parks were launds of open grassland, , some of which were periodically enclosed and others permanently enclosed to exclude the deer so that hay could be grown to supplement food in winter.114 Parklands with lower grade land often produced the best herb-rich meadows, the quality of which improved the taste of the venison.115 Other areas were fenced off for fodder crops like oats, such as that in which the tame red deer was kept at Penshurst(71) park.116 With a stocking ratio of three adult deer to one acre, theoretically most parks would have provided sufficient fodder for the herd. 117 However, with overstocking, or with variable quality and quantity of grassland, or with overgrazing due to accommodating other animals within the park, problems over food could arise in summer drought or winter cold. When Cooling(24) park was broken into in February 1620 with thick snow on the ground, 'very unseasonable for the killing of any deer,' many deer in the debilitated herd died.118 However well prepared the deer keeper was to supplement in the hay-house for winter fodder for the deer, and was allowed to cut branches for the deer to browse on. He could continue to live in the room he occupied until the new lodge had been built for him in the park. 111 BL Cart.Harl.77.C.44, Sir Anthony Culpepper's stipulation in lease of Bedgebury(4) park in 1607. 112 Chalklin(2004:98-99) in 1521 Northfrith was stocked with red and fallow deer. 113 CKS U1475/L17; Shaw (1936:386-387). 114 StaffsRO D593/S/4/56/1; references to launds in Kent include: BL Cart. Harl.85.H13, Bedgebury(4) park, CKS U1475/E47, Penshurst park(71), Barker(1993:20-21) Greeenwich(39) park. 115 See Plate 3.9 p.85; Whitaker(1892:11). 116 CKS U1475/L17. 117 Rotherham (2007:31). 118 TNA STAC8/23/11. 85 Plate 3.9 Deer in parks (a) Part of the deer herd in Knole(50) park feeding on a laund area, during rutting. 15 October 2006 (b) Typical parkland with deer at Boughton Monchelsea, with isolated pollards amid rough pasture, woodland areas lie on the lower slopes. From Greensand ridge looking south over the Weald. Photograph by Mike Buttonshaw 86 fodder during inclement weather, winter cold and disease took its toll of the herd, so that the survivors required even more careful nurture to build up their strength during the summer months. Robert Sidney, viscount Lisle, in mid-June 1615, requested his wife to serve venison when he came home, 'but withall I must entreat you to be sparing of my deer this somer ... in respect of my greate loss the last winter.' 119 The provision of buildings such as barns, hay houses or deer houses within parks is indicative of the need to store food.120 A timber-framed barn with tiled roof is shown on the mid-sixteenth century map of Canterbury(18) park, while the barn at Leigh(70) park was underpinned with stone, timber boarded with a shingle roof.121 At Shurland(78) the under keeper's timber-built residence with tiled roof had become the hay house for 'the bestowing of hay' to the herd of 500 deer in the winter. Leigh(70) park's hay house was timber-boarded with reed-thatched roof.122 Herd balance, with a range of ages and an appropriate ratio between bucks and does, was important both for the welfare of deer and for the needs of the hunter, and to maintain this balance the deer keeper needed to know the ages of individual animals and the make-up of the herd.123 If there was imbalance the herd would need to be selectively culled and this would give the deer keeper the opportunity to use his discretion to issue licences to hunt deer designated for the cull or to dispose of the venison afterwards. Stocktaking or 'view of the deer' gave deer keepers precise details of the herd, but were primarily undertaken at the behest of the owner as an invaluable check on the deer keepers' activities, and perhaps that is why the one extant 'view of the deer' in Kent was signed or marked by 16 men independent of the deer keeper, whose name did not appear among the signatories.124 The only allusions to stock taking in Kent concerned Penshurst(71) park where there was no set time in the year for the count.125 In September in the early1570s unlawful hunting was suspended until after the view, which 119 Shaw & Owen (1962:298-299) letter of 15/6/1615. 120 CKS U1450/T6/10, 1560, a deer house is mentioned in a lease for Hever park. 121 CCA map 49; CKS U1500/E1. 122 TNA SP12/87, 1572; CKS U1500/E1. 123 Whitehead(1950:40-44). 124 CKS U1475/E47. 125 This accords with Fletcher in Rotherham(2007:32) that views were taken at different times of the hunting season, after or before, and may or may not include fawns. 87 suggests that it was about to take place in the autumn, after the new fawns had been weaned, but before the hardship of winter. However, it could also take place in the spring, perhaps to assess the survival rate after winter, because in 1605 the view in April, found that Penshurst(71) park contained 299 deer of which 65 were fully antlered. 126 At the same time as the inspection, the deer keeper would account for any deer taken under warrant for household consumption, for gifts or for recreation and add a note about natural deaths. This check underlined the accountability of the deer keeper for herd numbers and would make him wary of using his powers of discretion over hunting and gifts of venison too wantonly. Unique in its survival for Kent was the list of deer taken by Robert Terry for Penshurst(71), perhaps for the 'view of the deer' in April 1605.127 In the year beginning 18 November 1603 he listed 29 deer (but gave the total as 28) and added a footnote about another eight, four does and four fawns, which had died in the summer of 1604. Only two deer of the 29 deer had died during the winter months, one had been savaged by Robert Terry's own shag dog, eight had been killed for the house, seven had been distributed as gifts and 11 taken in hunting.128 In the following year 28 deer were taken, and a footnote added a further 11 that had died, and one that illegal hunters had killed on Easter day.129 Of the 28 deer slain under Robert Terry's supervision 8½ had been consumed by the household, 13½ had been gifts, four had been hunted and two 'taken upp by my Ladye', which might have been by hunting, but the meaning is unclear. Over the two-year period just under a quarter of the deer had been slain for domestic use, just under a quarter killed by hunting, just over a quarter had died of natural causes, and just over a quarter had been gifted. There were situations, such as during the view, when the deer keeper would be required to round up and move deer within the park or to new destinations beyond the park during restocking, imparking or disparking. When Robert Cecil, earl of Salisbury, replaced his disgraced brother-in-law, Henry Brooke, lord Cobham, as tenant of Canterbury(18) park in 1603 he was not impressed either by 'my poor lodge' or by the herd of deer, and wrote to Sir John Roper requesting him to send some deer, presumably 126 Shaw(1936:54-155) from Lord Lisle to Golding; Gascoigne(1575:52-53); fully antlered = mature bucks that had reached their seventh or above year. 127 CKS U1475/E47. 128 Shag dog = a mongrel, long-haired greyhound renowned for its ferocity, Markham(1616:674). 129 CKS Q/SR4/15 follows up this reference to illegal hunting. 88 from Sir John Roper's park at Lynsted(58), to boost the numbers, which Sir John Roper agreed 'cheerfully' to send.130 Sir Anthony Culpepper in downsizing his herd prior to leasing out Bedgebury(4) park in the early 1600s, sent some deer to Sir Thomas Waller's Hamswell(43) park in Rotherfield, Sussex.131 In 1561 John Tufton gave 30 deer from Westwell(98) to Thomas Wotton for Bocton Old(10) park at Boughton Malherbe. These were transferred to South(12) park six years later and the complexity of the capture and removal of the herd from one park to the other is apparent from Thomas Wotton's accounts. A large net or deer stall 24 fathoms (144 feet) long in which to trap the deer cost £1. He borrowed harnesses to control the deer from Edward Aucher, of Lyminge(56) park. These harnesses were sent from London at the cost of two shillings and repaired with cord costing 3s 7d. It took 19 men seven working days, ending on 12 December 1567, to round up the deer. The wage bill amounted to £1 8s 8d, at sixpence or four pence a day per man with food and drink. At the end of the round-up 120 deer of mixed ages, including ten originally from Westwell(98) park had been captured.132 Venison gift-giving and hunting has been touched on in the context of pay and they formed an important part of the deer keepers' duties. Among the deer keepers' responsibilities, in consultation with the owner, would be the selection of deer to target for hunting and for the owner to offer as gifts of venison or to commemorate special occasions.133 Bucks were the preferred sport in summer when they were 'in grease', carrying most meat before the rut, and does in the winter months after their fawns had been weaned and before the next fawning season. In the 'Charta de Foresta' the buck hunting season was set from the Nativity of St. John the Baptist (24 June) to Holyrood day (14 September), and the doe hunting season was from Holyrood day to Candlemas (2 February), after the does had dropped their fawns during the 'fence' month a fortnight either side of Midsummer's day (24 June).134 Although by Elizabethan times these seasons might have been less strictly adhered to, for the well being of the herd there were 130 Sparks(1980:59); TNA SP14/15/34. 131 TNA STAC8/294/6. 132 BL Add.Mss.42715. 133 CKS U1475/E47, see Chapter Seven (ii) pp.194-200. 134 The Charta de Foresta extended and codified from previous laws was devised by Cnut in the early C11th. It was subsequently revised and reissued by kings William I and John; Whitehead(1950:24, 44); Poole(1955:32). 89 certain closed periods. If illegal hunting occurred during these times, such as in May 1599 at Penshurst, when two young does with fawns 'in their bellies' were killed, it was regarded as all the more reprehensible.135 The exchange of gifts of venison was common and here the deer keepers' duties extended beyond the kill and involved the delivery of the venison, sometimes over fairly long distances. On two occasions when venison was sent from Penshurst to the absent Robert Sidney, viscount Lisle, at Shurland and at the royal court at Oaklands the deer keeper, Robert Terry, was put in charge of delivery, and there is no reason to think that this did not happen more often. 136 For his work the deer keeper would require several types of dog, for 'perfect smelling', for 'quick espying', for 'swiftness and quickness', 'in smelling and nimbleness', and 'in subtlety and deceitfulness.'137 Lyme hounds were used to pick up the scent of individual deer, swift greyhounds pursued deer for short distances and running dogs, similar to foxhounds, with more stamina took over the chase for longer distances.138 Kennels, either purpose-built or in outhouses, were provided for the deer keepers' dogs and for those of his master, family and guests, and would be located near the lodge, away from the mansion for fear of disturbing the residents.139 In Kent no reference to kennels has been found, but two court of Star Chamber cases of 1605 featured scent hounds.140 In one incident the skills of the lyme hound were put to the test following the theft of over 100 black conies from a warren near Penshurst on Christmas day in 1604. During the raid the warrener was beaten and his thumbs tied together with strips taken off one of the attacker's leather breeches. Early next morning Sir Robert Sidney's deer keeper brought along his bloodhound, which followed the trail to Francis Coulman's house where the breeches, with strips missing, were discovered and the culprits apprehended.141 Deer keepers were under tremendous pressure from those wishing to undertake illegal activities within parks. Sometimes they and their deputies were outnumbered and 135 CKS U1475/L18. 136 Hanney, Kinnamon & Brennan(2005:157) letter 201, 25/9/1610; ibid. p.199, letter 266, 21/9/1616. 137 Edelen(1994:340-341). 138 Lyme dog = bloodhound (http://dictionary.oed.com). 139 Markham(1616:670). 140 TNA STAC8/290/17; see Chapter Eight pp.261-262 for the other example. 141 TNA STAC8/295/10. 90 powerless to enforce order, but on other occasions fierce confrontations took place. The impression is that those deer keepers who had the backing of their masters were more likely to stand up to intruders and to protect the deer. On one occasion when Robert Terry and his brother were hurt in defending his game, Sir Robert Sidney wrote to his steward urging him to take action on his behalf, 'what law will allow mee to doe I assure you shall be dun to the full.' He asked his steward to thank the brothers and to 'tell them bee assured that I will not see so good affections unrewarded,' intending to give them the poachers' nets or their value and a share of any fines imposed by the court.142 This backing was more likely to evoke loyalty from deer keepers than indifference or a weak response. The undertaking of the various facets of the deer keeper's work, required dedicated men with a wide range of professional skills, and their ability to deal with animals and people can easily be overlooked when emphasis is placed on crime within parks. The range of activities centred on deer within parks required organisational expertise, and all the more so when other enterprises, to which attention will now be turned, were carried out alongside deer keeping. (iii) Other enterprises in parks The multi-functional role of parks in the wider economy of the medieval estate or manor has been widely recognised, but there appears to have been no substantive research into this aspect of parks in the late sixteenth and early seventeenth centuries. However, it is hoped that from the following pages there is enough evidence to indicate that these early modern parks in Kent were capable of accommodating a wide range of ancillary activities, which not only contributed to the household economy and to the estate as a whole, but also demonstrates the versatility and potential viability of the parks.143 (a) Cony warrens Lambarde noted the flourishing demand for profitable Kentish conies, and found warrens to be 'almost innumerable, and dailie like to increase.' Kent was not unusual in 142 CKS U1475/C36/3, 17/08/1601 143 Beresford(1957:211); Cantor & Hatherly(1979:71); Rackham(1976:145); Rotherham, in Liddiard(2007:84). 91 this respect; Harrison, who admitted difficulty in calculating the number of parks in England, did not even attempt to estimate the number of warrens in the country.144 In previous centuries warrens had been set up in or apart from parks to provide rabbit meat as a delicacy for the lord's table. Williamson has pointed out that warrens were a valued element in elite landscapes, important symbols of status to be proudly displayed on approaches to mansions or on skylines where they could be viewed with pleasure from the mansion windows.145 This might well have been true in the setting up of early warrens in Kent, but confirmation awaits detailed fieldwork to establish the exact sites of warrens and their relationship to any principal residence. At Cobham(23) the warren was on a high plateau out of sight of Cobham Hall, whereas at Lullingstone(55), if the Victorian warren occupied the same site as the Jacobean one, it was set on the rising ground in full view of Lullingstone castle.146 Wherever they were sited, by Elizabethan times the great number of warrens had probably robbed them of their exclusivity. The production of rabbit meat was fuelled by the growing demand from the middle classes 'pretentiously eating rabbit to ape the upper classes,' or merely being able to afford a better standard of living.147 However, it remained an expensive item for labourers paid on a daily rate of sixpence to nine pence, when a rabbit cost from three to sixpence.148 Kent's proximity to London enabled it to supply fresh young rabbits for the city's markets and many in Kent were eager to take commercial advantage of this. Markham devoted four chapters of 'Maison Rustique, or The countrey farme' to the setting up and running of a cony warren which he considered to be a profitable sideline, and not too burdensome a task because conies virtually looked after themselves.149 Records for one or two parks in Kent give an insight into how warrens could be profitably managed. Accounts for Birling(6), from 1586 to 1599, show that the warrens run by Edward Clark, the master of game, made an annual average profit of £30 144 Holinshed(1587:204); Lambarde(1576:5, 1826 reprint). 145 Williamson(2006:8). 146 Arch.Can. XI (1877:lxxxiv) 1612 Survey of Cobham; CKS QM/SI/1606/13/20, Pittman(1983:64-65). 147 Eveleigh Woodruff(1895:316). 148 Dr Mark Bailey's lecture 'Rabbiting and warrens', Madingley Hall, Cambridge, August 1996. 149 Markham(1616:644-648). 92 to £40, ranging from £20 in 1586/87 to £50 in 1598/99.150 At Knole(50) in 1629 conies eaten by the household were valued at £19, and those sold outside at £12. On a valuation of sixpence a cony, 1240 conies would have been produced, with 760 being consumed by the household and 480 being sent to market.151 The two warreners at Birling(7) were paid £4 a year, £2 less than the deer keepers, but they might also have received board wages for their victuals, as did the warreners on the Sackville estates.152 No other details of expenditure at Birling were given, neither were the number of conies sold or at what price, but in contrast to deer keeping, breeding conies within parks had commercial potential, and accrued profits that could be used to offset the outlay of the park. At Birling(6) and Knole(50), estate employees continued to care for the warrens, but the growing trend was for warrens to be leased out to professional warreners.153 Two leases for Kent, with terms, which may or may not be typical, are all that remain to give an impressionistic idea of how such warrens were run by warreners of yeomen stock. 154 The warren in Hever(46) park was rented out in 1560 by John Lennard, the park lessee, to yeoman Reynald Woodgate at £6 13s 4d per annum for 12 years.155 It was unusual in stocking black conies, which Lambarde stated were not 'nourished' in Kent; the preference being for fast reared young grey rabbits for London's meat markets in the summer, rather than black conies bred for their fur and killed at maturity in winter.156 At Hever(46), Reynald Woodgate had to deliver to John Lennard as many conies as could be spared each week without depleting the overall numbers. The warren in Bedgebury(4) park was leased to yeoman Humfrey Barrett for £30 per annum for 11 years, from 1607, by Sir Anthony and Sir Alexander Culpepper. This lease was more complex than that for the Hever(46) warren, and is illustrative of the 150 ESRO ABE/18/R/1, ESRO ABE/18/R/2. 151 CKS U269/A41/1/11; CKS U1475/A27/7, in 1624 a cony at Penshurst was worth sixpence. 152 CKS U269/A2/2, in 1612 the warrener at Bulbrooke, Sussex, received £6 for 20 weeks board wages. Board wages = wages allowed to servants to keep themselves in victuals (http://dictionary.oed.com). 153 Williamson(2006:9-10). 154 Manning(1993:131) cites the example of Peter Woodgate, gentleman of Hawkhurst, (perhaps of the same family as Reynald Woodgate sub-lessee of Hever park) who leased a very large warren in Brighton, Sussex, in 1622 at an annual rent of £146. 155 CKS U1450/T6/10. 156 Lambarde(1576:5); CKS QM/SB1598/252, refers to black conies which were ear-marked for identification in Birling park; TNA STAC8/295/10, warren of black conies at Penshurst; Edelen(1994:254). 93 mutual obligations of tenant and landlord.157 Humfrey Barrett was allowed to take as many conies as he liked by netting, ferreting or other means except by gun.158 During the summer months, from 1 May to 1 August, he was to deliver to the Culpeppers each week whatever number they required of the 'best fattest sweet and good rabbits to be well and clean killed,' and from 1 August to 1 February the 'best and fattest' – the meat not being so tender when the animals were older. For these rabbits the Culpeppers would pay sixpence a couple from 1 May to 1 August, ten pence from 1 August to 1 October, and 12 pence from 1 October to 1 February, or would deduct the equivalent from the rent. No rabbits were killed from February to May to allow for breeding.159 The price gradations might well have been linked to the breeding pattern, with cheaper prices in the summer following the breeding season, and with rising prices during the autumn and winter seasons to match increasingly dwindling stocks and the cost of extra fodder. Humfrey Barrett was to continue the Culpeppers' custom of giving one or two conies to adjoining farmers at Christmas, perhaps as compensation should any conies have escaped to do damage to their crops. Terms were included to ensure the viability of the warren towards the end of the lease, when the tenant might have been tempted to squeeze out the greatest profit by selling as many conies as possible and by neglecting repairs. As well as continuing to maintain the warren to a high standard, Humfrey Barret was not to kill more than 646 conies, or such number that would exceed the sale figure of £13 17s 5d, which Sir Anthony Culpepper had made from the conies the summer prior to the lease.160 If the sale of 646 conies equates to the total sale figure, the conies would have fetched an average price of about five pence each. Bedgebury(4) warren must have been an extensive one in order to produce the turnover required to make it profitable, after the outgoings of maintenance and rent had been covered. Just to find the rent of £30 each year, the warrener needed to sell 1440 conies at five pence each, although the cost of those reserved for the Culpeppers could be deducted from the rent. Yet presumably, unless the lease was thought to have been of mutual benefit, it would not have been agreed. 157 BL Cart.Harl.77.C.44. 158 A ferret house was mentioned in the lease; Williamson(2006:36-37,53) sending ferrets into cony burrows to flush them out into awaiting nets produced a 'clean kill,' with no damage to carcasses. 159 Manning(1993:129). 160 Williamson(2006:9) cites a lease for Nacton warren in Suffolk, which stipulated the number and condition of conies that were to remain at the expiry of the lease in 1646. 94 Although Lambarde thought the increased number of warrens was at the expense of parks, this was not necessarily the case.161 There was room for considerable variation, and the presence of warrens was perfectly compatible with the functioning of deer parks. If the park was large enough and the deer herd adequately catered for, conies could also be accommodated. Placing cony burrows or warrens within parks was advantageous in that cony theft was made more difficult, the warren being doubly protected by its own enclosure and by that of the park. Moreover parks would have a larger team of patrolling keepers drawn from deer keepers, warreners and estate workers than a solitary warren. The double enclosure would also reduce the risk of conies escaping to damage adjacent agricultural land and crops. Halden(41) and Knole(50) parks both had conies and deer without the cony burrows seeming to occupy separate enclosures, but such an arrangement would have compromised hunting on horseback because the burrows could cause horses to lose their footing.162 In some cases, as at Bedgebury(4), Hever(46) and Knole(50), there were periods when the parks were retained without deer, but with flourishing warrens.163 A newer park, like Mersham Hatch(61), was initially set up with a warren and subsequently deer were added, while at Tyler Hill(94), Canterbury, Sir Peter Manwood was prepared to alter the interior of his deer park to make room for a warren.164 Most warrens were enclosed to prevent the conies from escaping and as a barrier to vermin and thieves.165 The leases for Hever(46) and for Bedgebury(4) warrens stressed the need to keep hedging stock-proof 'with plashers,' which were hedges laid to create an impenetrable barrier round the enclosure.166 Banks were not mentioned in the leases, but a common method of boundary treatment was to form banks of one metre to one and a half metres high, which would be vertical on the inside to deter escape and sloping on the 161 Lambarde(1576:5). 162 CKS U1475/M73; CKS T1450/T6/30, 1566 and CKS U269/T1/A:8:4:4, 1614; Manning(1993:129) citing J. Sheail, Rabbits and their History (Newton Abbot, 1971) p.94. TNA SP14/180/4, c.1624, conies in royal parks and forests were to be destroyed because 'by making the ground hollow, have endangered the King in his progress, and much injured the deer.' 163 BL Cart.Harl.79.F.5, 1618; CKS U1450/T6/10, 1560; CKS U269/T1/A:8:4:4, 1614. 164 CKS U274/E5; CKS U591/C261/5, 1599/1600. 165 The Sites and Monuments Register for Kent has seven records of surviving remains of warrens or pillow mounds, only one of which, The Mount at Bore Place, is located in a known parkland area, OS TQ507493. 166 U1450/T6/10; BL Cart.Harl.77.C.44. Plasher = a bough or sapling with which a hedge is plashed or intertwined. The whole forms either a quick or dead laid hedge as an impenetrable obstacle to livestock (http://dictionary.oed.com). 95 outer face.167 The banks would be topped with gorse or blackthorn overhanging the vertical face to prevent the conies jumping over – the 'plashers' of the leases. Enclosures made management easier, not only in reducing loss by escape, predation or theft, but also for animal welfare and commercial reasons. Despite Markham's assurance that conies could look after themselves, he detailed many features of warren management, which were reflected in the leases for Hever and Bedgebury warrens.168 A map of Chevening(early6) warren in 1679, though outside the period, is perhaps the earliest depiction of a warren in Kent (see Plate 3.10).169 It shows an enclosure of about two hundred acres with a warrener's house, fields, crofts and woods. Conies are drawn in two areas, in one of which men with dogs are trying to lure them into a small fenced open-ended enclosure, or perhaps it is a net.170 A large warren, such as this, was subdivided to give areas for growing fodder crops and to manage rotational grazing for the conies throughout the year.171 All warreners needed to sustain the conies over the winter months. The burrows required constant attention repairing roof collapse and erosion, and laying down blackthorn and whitethorn over them to give the conies cover 'at seasonable times of the year.'172 In ideal conditions warrens would be sited on well-drained land, but at Bedgebury(4) on the Wealden clay band, ditches, which had been dug to draw water away from the burrows, were to be regularly scoured.173 Lastly, constant vigilance was needed to keep predators, such as stoats, weasels and rats, at bay, and the enclosure would be regularly inspected for breaches, and traps set to capture vermin prior to extermination.174 Apart from the benefits of enclosed warrens to animal welfare, conies would be easier to capture within a confined space. As indicated earlier, methods such as ferreting, netting or a combination of both, which resulted in the least damage to the meat or pelt, 167 Williamson(2006:45). 168 Markham(1616:644-648). 169 Photographed by kind permission of the Chevening estate from the original framed map displayed on a corridor wall in Chevening House, see Plate 3.10 p.96. 170 There is no evidence that Chevening was a park between 1558-1625, but there had been an earlier park in the fourteenth century (Way, 1997:174) CPR, 18/11/1359, grant of buck from Chevening park. 171 Williamson(2006:11). 172 Ibid. p.37; BL Cart. Harl.77.C.44. 173 BL Cart.Harl.77.C.44. 174 The Hever and Bedgebury leases required the extermination of vermin; Williamson(2006:57-59). 96 Plate 3.10 Cony warrens (a) Detail of the warreners with the rabbits in Chevening warren from the map of 1679 in Chevening House. By kind permission of the Chevening Estate. (b) The whole of Chevening warren with several enclosures within the 200 acres. 97 were the preferred options. Williamson outlines the exact procedures in his monograph, but no details have been found for Kent.175 Generally, conies might be chased with dogs into awaiting nets, as shown on the Chevening(early6) map, or ferrets sent down mound burrows to flush out conies into purse nets placed across exit holes. With welfare and commercial considerations to be borne in mind, setting up a warren required some thought as Sir Peter Manwood of Tyler Hill(94), Canterbury, realised when he wrote to Norton Knatchbull of Mersham Hatch asking him to send over his keeper, Wagg, to give him advice on the subject.176 Sir Peter Manwood expected to profit from his investment by minimising expenditure in order to maximise gain. Rather than waste money on an unsatisfactory site, he wanted Wagg to help him find the best location on dry ground for the warren, even if it meant rearranging the park by moving the deer away from the house. He wrote, 'and that I bestowe not my cost in vaine for I am willing to do it and to remove my deer farder from my howse.' He envisaged an enclosed warren of 12 to 20 acres, because he wanted to prevent conies escaping or 'ells they will spoil all my medowes and best groundes ... and so I shal receive more hurte than profitt.' Stocking was the last stage of setting up a warren and Sir Edward Dering's 'Book of Expenses' itemised the cost of his restocking programme in 1625, when he bought 78 live conies from Sir Thomas Culpepper's warrener, paying eight pence each for 24 conies and a further ten pence each for 54.177 The greater cost of live conies than of dead conies would reflect the selection of prime specimens for breeding and the potential for higher profits to be made from live animals. There is scope for further research into warrens in Kent, both within and outside parks, but Lambarde's observations about their increasing number and profitability in Elizabeth I's reign is likely to be correct; what is more uncertain is the extent to which deer were replaced by conies within Kentish parks. (b) Animals at pasture Traditionally, grazing in parks might be open to other animals, although deer took priority, and such diversification had to be compatible with deer keeping. Sharing 175 Williamson(2006:36-37). 176 CKS U591/C261/5, 18/2/1600. 177 CKS U350/E4, Yeandle, pp.270-271,282, www.kentarchaeology.ac.uk. 98 grazing, however, had its limitations. Cattle could be kept alongside deer, although removed during fawning and if there was insufficient grass for the deer; horses' hooves damaged the pasture by poaching the ground; sheep helped to keep the pasture in good condition, but their scent spoilt deer stalking; goats tainted the pasture, damaging shrubs, which otherwise provided winter browse for the deer.178 Nevertheless, with proper management, other animals could successfully share parks with deer at least for certain periods of the year.179 Evidence about shared grazing in Kent is vague. Only a few fleeting references give an idea of pastoral activities in parks and even then it is not clear whether the deer remained or, if they did, how large the herd was. Cattle, horses and other animals could graze alongside the deer, but there also might be separate enclosures for such creatures, for example, the sheep close within Cobham(23) park.180 There is one reference to pigs feeding in parks, when in 1562 £6 8s 4d was earned by allowing swine to feed off mast in Penshurst(71) park. Examples of park owners' or tenants' livestock grazing in parks appear in leases. During the winter of 1612, local farmer, Thomas Holmden, was probably leasing Knole(50) park because he was paid six months' rent of 50 shillings to keep cattle belonging to Richard Sackville, earl of Dorset, in part of Hook wood in Knole(50) park, and he was also paid 26s 8d for pasturing four of the earl's cattle in the park itself.181 These entries in the steward's account imply that the park had been rented out and it might well be that the deer had been removed, because during Lady Anne Sackville's residence at Knole in 1617 her diary is devoid of entries about her husband hunting deer in Knole(50) park, although he did hunt elsewhere.182 178 Owen(1977:585). 179 Steane(1975:227) King's Cliffe park, Northanptonshire, in 1595, had deer sharing the 1,600-acre park (of which one-third was woodland) with 359 head of cattle and 101 horses, BL Add.Mss.34214; Peterken(1981:14); see Plate 3.11 p.99 for present grazing on former parkland. 180 StaffRO D593 S/4/56/1, 1602. 181 CKS U269/A2/2. 182 Sackville-West(1923:66,74,75); Phillips I (1930:268-270) lands valued at £80,615 sold by Sir Richard Sackville from 1614-1623 to meet his debts; Sackville-West(1949:72) cites Chamberlain to Sir DudleyCarleton, 'His debts are £60,000, so that he does not leave much.' 99 Plate 3.11 Pasture in parks (a) An old pollard oak with sheep grazing in the background in former parkland at Scotney Castle(76). 17 June 2007 (b) Solitary pollard in rough pasture with distant cows on former parkland of Otford Little(63) park. 8 May 2007 100 When John Lennard, lessee of Hever(46) park, sublet part of the park in 1560 he expected the sub-tenant to look after any cattle he sent to feed in the 'residue' of the park, i.e. outside the cony warren.183 As the tenant was also required to keep the deer house and lodge in good repair deer might still have been in the park, but they are not specifically referred to.184 Sir Robert Sidney used Otford(62) park in 1594 for grazing his wife's grey gelding, and at Bedgebury(4) the tenant was allowed to pasture one cow and one horse or mare near the lodge. 185 Some parks were available for agistment if the herbage was surplus to the requirements of the deer.186 Agistment might be offered on a regular basis if the deer numbers were low, or intermittently when grass was abundant. At Birling(6) in 1596 the bailiff raised 5s on the pasturage of one colt and 6s 3d on three cows in the park.187 Two accounts for Knole(50), although just beyond the period of study, are useful indicators of the sums of money agistment could raise, but as mentioned above, whether there were deer in the park at this time is unproven. In the 1629 annual account 16 men paid agistment for over 50 cattle, and two men for an unspecified number.188 The agistment paid by each man varied, even if they pastured like animals, for example, Thomas Smale paid 13s 4d for two yearling-cattle, while John Stuberfield paid 11 shillings for his two yearling-cattle, and Nicholas Nease paid 8s 6d for one two-yearling and Richard Goodhew only 2s 6d for his, but the length of time animals spent in Knole(50) park might have varied. The total raised by agistment for 1629 was £20 7s 8d, but in the previous year it had been higher at £38 4s 3d, in addition to which 11 loads of hay were sold for 26s 8d a load, bringing in £14 13s 4d - such sums would have gone some way to offset the cost of the upkeep of the park.189 Royal policy since the 1530s had required parks to be used for the breeding of high quality horses for service in war. Landowners were urged to keep breeding mares of 13 hands high and stallions of 14 hands high to produce 'good and swift and strong 183 CKS U1450/T6/10, Sir Edward Waldegrave owned Hever. 184 Ibid. lease of 10/10/1560. 185 BL Cart. Harl.77.C.44, 27/11/1607; Hanney, Kinnamon & Brennan(2005:45-46) letter before 11/4/1594. 186 Agistment = taking in livestock to feed at rates of so much a head, or the rate levied or profit made upon such pasturing (http://dictionary.oed.com). 187 ESRO ABE/18R/1. 188 CKS U269/A41/1/2. 189 CKS U269/A41/1/11. 101 horses.'190 The policy continued into Edward VI's reign and was enforced by Elizabeth I who required those who owned a park, or who held one under lease or for life-term, to keep two mares in a park of one mile perimeter, three in parks of between two and four miles perimeter and four in the largest parks. 191 In 1565 the queen also stated her intention to hold a six-monthly muster of horses for service 'until the realm be replenished with horses.'192 Although this frequency did not materialise several musters were held into the 1580s, as evidenced by a few county returns, but unfortunately not for Kent, where the only surviving detail is that in 1583 the sub-commissioners for the Lathe of St. Augustine requested more time to certify what horses and mares were being bred in the parks there.193 Thirsk considered it no coincidence that gentlemen pensioners, who had responsibility for the provision of horses for ceremonial and military occasions, were favoured with leases of royal parks in Henry VIII's reign. These leases 'were not random and capricious grants to court favourites, as at first sight appear, but purposeful measures to improve the number and quality of English horses for service.' Three families, the Fanes at Hadlow, the Astleys at Maidstone and the Sidneys at Penshurst, dedicated much energy to breeding horses in their Kentish parks.194 Sir Thomas Cheney had a stud in Canterbury(18) park when he was warden of the Cinque ports and McKeen has argued that when William Brooke, lord Cobham, succeeded him to the post in 1558 he bought the stud or a substantial part of it from his predecessor. Lord Cobham was keenly interested in his horses and was kept informed of their whereabouts between his parks at Cobham(23), Cooling(24) and Canterbury(18), where 82 acres named 'the mares pasture' remained in 1604.195 In the last decades of the sixteenth century breeding horses for war led to a focus of attention on horse breeding in general, and from this the sport of horse racing developed.196 William Brooke, lord Cobham, imported mares from the Netherlands and 190 Thirsk(1977:15); ibid. p.12, citing Statutes of the Realm II, 27 Henry VIII c.6 & 33 Henry VIII c.5. 191 TNA SP12/136/42; Harvey(2002:149). 192 Thirsk(1977:15) citing Statutes of the Realm II nos.494 pp.194534. 193 SP12/162/38 Cornwall; SP12/163/20 Dorsetshire; SP12/163/14, Hertfordshire; SP12/147/63, Norfolk . TNA SP12/142/19, Oxfordshire; SP12/162/40, Somerset; SP12/162/34, Wiltshire. 194 Thirsk(1977:15). 195 McKeen(1986:99-100) cites lists of horses and gelding, 1593-1596, Salisbury papers 145/184,206- 07,209-13; Salisbury Accounts 6/35, 29/9/1604. 196 Thirsk(1977:22); Lasdun(1992:36). 102 employed a gentleman of the horse, George Smith, to keep studbooks to track the success of their foals. By the mid 1580s and until his death in 1592, Lord Cobham was in the forefront of horse racing for which he had his colts trained, while George Smith, also a skilled jockey, often organised horse racing in Canterbury(18) park.197 Lord Cobham's son, Henry Brooke, did not follow his father's passion, but his attainder in 1603, George Smith again oversaw the breeding of colts and in 1605 selected mares for Lord Salisbury to enter into a mares' race in Canterbury(18) park.198 Apart from the spectacle of horse racing itself, the sport appealed to the strong betting urges of the period, and horse racing became firmly established when James I became a passionate follower.199 Within the limitations of the evidence it is clear that, whether open or enclosed, parkland pasture was utilised in several ways that contributed either indirectly or directly to the estate's economy. However, it is impossible to assess the number of parks engaged in pastoral activities or what areas were set aside within them. In any case because of fluctuations in the quality and quantity of herbage, the likelihood is that the enterprises varied from year to year within any one park, and from park to park, and that there was no norm. (c) Water management, fish, waterfowl and herons In the Middle Ages freshwater fish, like venison and rabbit, was a high status food, enjoyed by the elite who established their own fishponds, but for others it was an expensive luxury dish.200 By the beginning of Elizabeth I's reign most parks had wellestablished natural, semi-natural or man-made water features, which required constant maintenance. Many parks, like that at Leeds(54) castle, had managed water from medieval times as part of designed landscapes, but all were capable of further enhancement.201 Often streams were damned to form a series of ponds through which fresh water would flow, such as at Leeds(54); a 1599 map of Hemsted(44) park shows interlinking ponds with dams in the park, and fine remains of other fishponds can be 197 McKeen(1986:99-100) the prizes included the golden bell 'valued at £50 and better' and golden snaffle awarded to winners during horse racing at Salisbury in 1585; Thirsk(1977:32). 198 McKeen(1986:99-100; Owen 17 (1883:226 no.473) The Salisbury papers may well hold more details about horse racing at Canterbury). 199 Vale(1977:20) citing Gervase Markham, Cavelrice, Or The English Horseman, (1607) III, p.56; Thirsk(1977:22). 200 Liddiard(2005:107). 201 Taylor(1996). 103 found in Birling(6) and Halden(41) parks (see Plates 3.12 and 3.13).202 Leonard Mascall, the Elizabethan improving landowner, whose book on fishing, 'A booke of fishing with hooke and line,' was published in 1590, recommended a minimum of four ponds; one for spawning carp, a second for spawning other species, a nursery pond for feeding fish up to maturity, and a final pond for mature fish ready for the table.203 Several ponds also enabled species of fish to be separated from each other, for example the carnivorous pike could be bred apart from other fish.204 Mascall reckoned that fishponds could make a profit which was 'much superior to parks, bowling greens and billiard tables,' but no records for Kent show this commercial aspect of fishponds in parks, although evidence of the cost of upkeep does survive. 205 Considerable expenditure occurred at Halden(41) park in 1571 on 'making newe' what were later regarded as being 'dyvers fayre fyshe pondes.'206 There were five of these with 'dyvers other pett stewes and pooles for the preservation of fyshe' in a survey of 1609. The main five ponds created by damming the stream above a watermill had been given names; my Lady's pond of three acres, my Lord's of four acres, Mr Phillip's of one acre, Mr Robert's and Mr Thomas's ponds both of half an acre.207 Naming ponds in this way carried 'connotations of lordship' directly linking them with the lord and his family, a practice dating back to the medieval period.208 Before repairs were undertaken at Halden(41) the carpenters made grates or sluice gates, guts or channels to take runs of water, and flights or steps to take water to different levels. All these components controlled the water flowing from pond to pond. The use of carpenters in this instance implies that these components were wooden, but the grates could be made of iron or brass, pierced with holes to allow fresh water to trickle through, but small enough to inhibit the movement of fish from pond to pond.209 202 SuffRO HA43/T501/242; Birling fish ponds OS TQ764614, Halden OS TQ857341; see Plate 3.12 p.104 amd Plate 3.13 p.106. 203 Markham(1616:505-506); Brandon(2003:113,120). 204 CKS U1475/A27/7, pike was served at Penshurst. 205 Brandon(2003:120) quoting from Leonard Mascall, A Booke of fishing with hooke and line. 206 CKS U1475/E23/2; CKS U1475/M73. 207 CKS U1475/M73, CKS U1475/E23/1, 1544 ponds named, but then 'My lady's pond' was 'Mistress Mary's. 208 Liddiard(2005:107). 209 Markham(1616:505). 104 Plate 3.12 Water features in parks (a) The mansion in Hemsted park (now Benenden School), with it series of five ponds fed by a stream to the right of the house. Detail from a map of 1599 (HA43/T501/242) by kind permission of Suffolk Record Office from the Earl of Cranbrook Family Archives. (b) Looking across one of the fishponds at Birling(6) park to the walled enclosure of the house in Birling park, newly built in 1520-1521. (c) Same pond which runs north/south in a narrow valley called The Cam. 12 June 2010 105 It might be that the carpenters at Halden made frames to hold metal grates. Channels with sluice gates were required above the dam at the head of the stream, to allow excess water to bypass the ponds, rather than break over the dam.210 Work on the ponds at Halden took 63 days and involved repairing some breaches in the sides, relining the ponds with clay and raising the heads of two ponds by two feet. Some tasks, like digging the channel to the floodgates, were paid by day-rate of ten pence, while teams were paid 2s 6d for carting clay to the site. In all the work cost £25 9s 2d, which included £2 spent damning up a breach through which water had burst, sweeping over six workmen and flooding the watermill.211 Even when parks were leased out, as at Hever(46) and Bedgebury(4), the lessees were expected to maintain the ponds with the fish. At Hever(46) the subtenant, Reynald Woodgate, his wife and son had to prevent damage to the banks 'from the rage of the water' by opening the sluices when necessary, and at Bedgebury(4) the lessee, Thomas Tharpe, was to confront anyone found fishing or shooting waterfowl in the ponds and provide the names of the culprits to the park owner, Sir Alexander Culpepper, within ten days.212 Occasionally new ponds were added to increase the capacity of the fish stock. The outlay for this was estimated by John Norden in 'The Surveyor's Dialogue' of 1607, to be £1 for every 30¼ square yards of surface.213 In 1567 a new great pond at Penshurst(71) cost £23, a considerable sum, when 12 arras hangings for the house cost £80 0s 10d.214 Using Norden's estimate this pond would have been over half an acre in extent in his time, but if costs had been lower four decades earlier it would have been larger. New ponds in Canterbury(18) park dug out for Sir Edward Wotton, lord Morley, caused controversy because a conduit, predating the park, which carried water to the precincts of Canterbury cathedral, was threatened by the new fishponds constructed above part of the watercourse.215 In the end an amicable agreement was drawn up in 210 Markham(1616:505). 211 CKS U1475/E23/1 & U1475/M73. 212 CKS U1450/T6/10, 1560; BL Cart.Harl.79.F.5, 1618. 213 Manning(1993:132) citing John Norden. 214 Kingsford & Shaw (1925:242-243). 215 Tatton Brown(1983:45-52). 106 Plate 3.13 Water features in parks (a) Party on Landscape Archaeology Day climbing down from top of main dam below the fishponds at Birling(6) park. 12 June 2010 (b) The front of the dam which once held back water for a series of five interlinking fishponds at Halden(41) park. This dam and the whole system were extensively repaired in 1571. 8 March 2010 107 1616 whereby the dean and chapter were allowed to install water pipes under the pond and to drain the pond to carry out necessary repairs, as long as they gave notice of the work and let the water run overnight to refill the ponds when the repairs had been completed.216 It was not unusual to drain ponds because regular maintenance involved re-lining them with clay every four or so years. At the same time the decayed matter and mud at the bottom of the pond was removed and spread on the fields as rich manure.217 Before drainage, fish were removed with a sizeable drag net such as one costing 14 shillings used at Knole(50) in 1622, where there were four stew ponds holding carp.218 These ponds were partly restocked with 29 extra fish from Hever the following year, the fourth stew pond receiving the 'great' carps.219 The sport of angling was in its infancy, but was gradually being taken up by the Kentish gentry such as Sir Henry Sidney, who might have wanted his new pond for angling because he enjoyed the sport, as evidenced when he caught 100 good bream at Killingworth castle in Shropshire in 1568.220 Markham was one of the advocates of angling, arguing that it promoted civility, patience and temperance, and thought it a good activity for servants during their holidays, but their equipment would have been more basic than that purchased by Sir Edward Dering of Surrenden, who, in 1623, paid 12s 10d for an angle and four fishing rods and lines. As well as providing habitats for fish, water features attracted waterfowl and in a few parks heronries were encouraged. The heronry in Chilham(21a) park reputed to be the oldest and largest heronry dated back to at least 1290, and other heronries were in Cobham(23), Halden(41) and Penshurst(71) parks.221 'The sweet morsels' of heron flesh were considered a delicacy, 'a princely dish and meat for a king', although this description applied mainly to the stomach and breast meat, other parts being 'excrementuous' and hard to digest.222 As with venison, gifts of heron meat were 216 See Plate 3.14 p.108; CCA-DCc-ChAnt/W/230. 217 Brandon(2003:120). 218 CKS U269/A3; CKS U269/E23, 1623. 219 CKS U269/E23/1. 220 Kingsford & Shaw(1934:8) 8/8/1568; CKS U350/E4, Yeandle, p.155, www.kentarchaeology.ac.uk. 221 Oswald(c.1972:7), citing IPM Kirby 1280; Bowdler(2002) citing 'The Heronry' on 1864 OS map; Halden, CKS U1475/M73, 1609, there is a yearly breed of herons in Homegrove wood; Kingsford & Shaw(1925:236) bailiff's accounts 1469-1471. 222 Markham(1616:671-672). 108 Plate 3.14 Water features in parks (a) The great pond in Canterbury(18) park, perhaps one of the new ponds dug out in the early 1610s, which interfered with the water flow to the precincts of Canterbury cathedral. 18 September 2009 (b) The remains of the conduit house, this structure dating from the seventeenth century, but perhaps on the site of a medieval conduit house. 18 September 2009 109 welcome additions to the gentleman's table.223 The heron also provided good sport in hawking, where 'pleasure and delight' was taken 'in the flight of the hauke for to take the herne.'224 The heronry at Penshurst(71) park must have failed at some stage because in 1605 Robert Sidney, viscount Lisle, attempted to reintroduce the birds. His motivation seems to have been to make an aesthetic and perhaps ostentatious display, 'for I would faine have some herns about my hous.'225 His detailed instructions indicate that he or his advisor had read Markham. Young herons in the nest were to be sent to Penshurst to be fed near Loampit Grove where the heronry was to be established, and ideal conditions were to be provided to encourage them to set up permanent residence. To discourage the young herons from flying away to find food, trenches were to be dug and filled with eels and fish fry so that 'at the first the herons may have theyr meate easily.' The venture might not have succeeded because no herons are mentioned as coming from the estate in the steward's accounts of the mid 1620s.226 (d) Timber and wood resources Parks had traditionally been a source of timber and wood, although careful management techniques were required to prevent deer damaging developing trees and stifling regeneration by eating young shoots and saplings. Deer were particularly attracted to coppice woodland because of the succulent, fast new growth at feeding level, so coppice woodland was confined within ditched, banked and even hedged or fenced compartments inside which marauding deer were not tolerated. Woodland for tall timber trees, or newly planted copses would also have been compartmented (see Plate 3.15). 227 A technique to retain individual timber trees within open areas of the park, but beyond the reach of deer, was to pollard them by cutting off all branches above eight to 12 feet, so that new branches and fresh growth developed above the browsing zone.228 This form 223 CKS U1475/A27/7, Household Expenses at Penshurst, 15/5/1624, record a gift of four herons and three from Mr Dickson a week later; Plumb(1977:83) in 1569 when Sir William Petre entertained Elizabeth I at Ingatestone Hall, Essex, the menu included herons from Kent. 224 Markham(1616:671-672). 225 Shaw(1936:155). 226 CKS U1475/A27/7. 227 Rackham(1976:195) coppice = underwood trees which are cut to near ground level every few years and which grow again from the stool (base); see Plate 3.15 p.111. 228 Rackham(1976:200) pollard = tree which is cut 8 – 12 feet above ground level and allowed to grow again from the bolling (trunk) to produce successive crops of wood; see Plate 3.16 p.113 and Plate 3.17 p.115 . 110 of management particularly to oak, ash, hornbeam or beech formed the characteristic wood-pasture parkland scene of isolated trees or groups of trees standing in the open grassland (see Plates 3.16 and 3.17).229 Pollarding prolonged a tree's life and some pollards, now termed veteran trees, dating back to the sixteenth century or even earlier are still to be found in the parks of Lullingstone(55), Cobham(23), Knole(50) and Penshurst(71).230 Areas of woodland varied from park to park. Some parks like Thomas Wotton's new South(12) park, which had enclosed former farmland, were less well endowed than others, and a rare record from this park shows that some parkland trees came from planned planting, rather than by random growth. On Tuesday 17 February 1567 Thomas Wotton paid sixpence for one day's work in digging up young beeches in Long Beech wood to be set in South(12) park.231 Fenced guards around these trees would have kept the deer at bay. A survey of Shurland(78) on windswept Sheppey in 1572 failed to mention trees in the park, while in the well wooded Weald in the early seventeenth century Halden(41) park had 'dyvers great woods well set with tymber', and Scotney(76) park was shown covered with trees on map of 1619.232 Knole(50) park, on the Greensand ridge, was 'well furnished with fair timber trees.' Much would depend on the natural vegetation and management of the park. Medieval parks were exploited for timber and wood and these products continued to be useful resources in the period under review, although specific evidence for Kent is difficult to find.233 Both coppicing and pollarding were sustainable forms of management as long as the interval between cuts was sufficient and grazing animals were kept away from the new growth. 234 That is probably why deer keeper, Robert Terry, specifically noted that two deer had been killed in Beechen wood and 'the coppice', between 1603 and 1605, without mentioning the site of other kills. 235 The deer in those woodlands may well have been targeted because their presence was detrimental to the growth of the trees. 229 Rackham(2003:195); Rackham(1986:123-126); Rackham(1976:147-148). 230 Observed on fieldwork visits; see Plate 3.16 p.113 and Plate 3.17 p.115. 231 BL Add.Mss.42715. 232 TNA SP12/87/1-3 pp.7-8; CKS U269/T1/A;8:4:4, 1614; CKS U1475/M73, 1609; CKS U1776/P1, 1619. 233 Rowe(2009:24-26). 234 Rackham(1976:72-73); Rackham(2003:187). 235 CKS U1475/E47. 111 Plate 3.15 Timber and wood resources in parks (a) Centuries old ash coppice stool with wood bank boundary on the right, once inside Broxham(17) park Christopher Waterman. 16 October 2004 (b) Ash coppice on south park boundary bank of West Wickham(99) park, Christopher Waterman on ditch side now a public footpath. Ash and oak were often grown along park boundaries to provide wood for fencing. 14 January 2005 112 Wood and timber from parks were valuable resources for use within the estate and owners were usually anxious to conserve them. When charging his executors to find 40 tons of timber from his lands in Kent to complete the construction of Cobham College, William Brooke, lord Cobham, expressly excluded his parks at Cobham(23) and Cooling(24).236 One reason Sir Robert Sidney gave for his wife to over-winter at Otford(62) in 1594 was to spare the woods round Penshurst - the demand to provide enough fuel for large households to keep warm and for baking, brewing and cooking being enormous.237 Small loppings and toppings were used as fuel for the main house or were converted into charcoal.238 In 1612 Richard Smale was paid 14 pence for each of 54 cords of pollard wood he had cut in Knole(50) park, which were then carted to Knole house as logs for fuel at the cost of 12 pence a cord.239 Larger branches and trunks provided timber for construction work such as for the paling at Halden(41) park.240 Timber was used in building works inside Penshurst Place, where the steward, Robert Kerwin, overseeing trees and woodland in Penshurst(71) park and the disparked Southpark(72) promised Sir Robert Sidney to 'looke carefullie to them according to the trust yow repose in me.'241 In January 1600 he reported that 'the tymber that is anie thing small, and the bords and plankes' had been brought from Penhurst(71) park to the house, where a floor was being laid in a small room at the chapel end of the house and a partition erected near the larder.242 Apart from consumption within the estate, wood and timber from parks, as from other woodland, had commercial value and might be profitably sold. In 1623 wood was sold from Penshurst(71) park to defray the estate costs of wood cutting and hedging.243 The Darrell family of Scotney leased 100 acres of woodland in Scotney(76) park, with another 360 acres of woodland, to ironmaster, Thomas Dyke, in 1597 as part of the lease of Chingley furnace.244 The juxtaposition of these two elements of the lease suggests that the woodland was to provide fuel for the furnace, and from the tree-covered map of 236 Scott Robertson(1877:214) 24/2/1596, William Brooke's will. 237 Hanney, Kinnamon. & Brennan(2005:56,61). 238 CKS U1475/E55/4, 1623. 239 CKS U269/A2/2; cord = measure of cut wood especially to use as fuel – a pile of cord wood measured about 8 feet across 4 feet deep and 4 feet high, but variable across the country (http://dictionary.oed.com). 240 See pp.61-62 for the paling of Halden(41) park. 241 Kingsford & Shaw(1934:437-438) 13/2/1600. 242 Ibid. pp.426-427, 5/1//1600. 243 CKS U1475/E55/4. 244 ESRO DYK/606 & DYK/607. 113 Plate 3.16 Timber and wood resources in parks (a) Hornbeam pollard in Cobham(23) park, now in woodland setting, but the outstretched branches indicate that it once stood in the open. Hornbeam was unpalatable to deer, so they tended not to browse it, but it was useful for fire fuel. 1 June 2004 (b) Fine oak in Knole(50) park, east of the walled garden. 2 October 2010 114 Scotney(76) park in 1619 it might be inferred that this was supplied by pollarding trees rather than by chopping them down.245 As sporting rights were reserved to the Darrells, woodcutting might well have taken place in the presence of deer. Not everyone was conservation minded. There could be tension between immediate profit and long-term sustainability, as occurred in the Tonbridge area where the Wealden iron industry rapidly expanded in the second half of the sixteenth century. Two furnaces and a forge were set up in or adjacent to Southfrith(93) and Postern(92) parks, and in the 1550s the lessees were granted a licence for an annual rent of £500 a year to cut wood for charcoal in the woodlands of Southfrith(93), and Postern(92) and Cage(88) parks which lay close at hand. By 1571 the timber of Southfrith(93) was largely exhausted and the leaseholder gave up the lease because the return from the sale of wood was too low to meet the high rent. The once richly wooded area by that stage mainly comprised 810 acres of 'rough ground covered with birch and thorn, and the rest heath and barren lands.'246 Other instances of poor management were on a smaller scale. At Knole(50), wood for the furnace to produce glass for the windows of the house came from the park, but with the glassmakers working flat-out in November 1587, the supply of wood in Hook wood was soon exhausted and other woodland was identified for felling.247 Cattle were put into Hook Wood in the early seventeenth century so perhaps it never recovered. 248 With straitened financial circumstances there was a tendency to try to gain a quick profit by selling wood and timber as Sir Henry Brooke was prepared to do in 1600. His agent tacitly admitted that the estate had been poorly controlled when he suggested that Sir Henry Brooke should make whatever money he could from the wood, which was being 'embezzled and wasted' by his tenants with the connivance of the bailiffs.249 245 Bannister(2001:section 3.6.1). 246 Chalklin(2004:98-99). 247 Phillips II (1930:333-334) thought the glass works were in Knole(50) park, but Ward(1931:17-19) cites documentary evidence from nearby Panthurst(67) park referring to the glass house in that vicinity, and this is confirmed in CKS U442/P102, 1630, where field no.10 is called 'Glasshouse feild'. The wood for the furnace came from Knole park; Barrett-Lennard(1908:140-141). 248 Barrett-Lennard(1908:99-100). 249 TNA SP12/276/43, ?1600. 115 Plate 3.17 Timber and wood resources in parks (a) 500 year-old oak pollard in Lullingstone(55) park with group on Veteran Tree course run by BTCV (British Trust for Conservation Volunteers). 12 March 2006 (b) Bear's oak, Penshurst(71) park, dates back to Tudor times. 22 January 2005 116 These few examples for Kent at least show the usefulness of trees as a parkland resource, but little can be gleaned about the extent to which timber and wood were exploited on a regular basis across a wider range of parks. (iv) The viability of parks Although there is insufficient evidence on which to build quantitative conclusions about the management of Elizabethan and Jacobean parks in Kent, there is sufficient illustrative material to show that they could be as versatile as medieval parks in exploiting resources within their bounds. The balance of conflicting interests over time within the park and between parks created dynamic elements within the landscape with park interiors as varied, complex and productive as the owners wished to make them. In contributing to the self-sufficient estate these parks followed the tradition of medieval parks, but, as Liddiard stresses, the landscape of production should neither detract from their role as symbols of power and prestige, nor from their role as landscapes of recreation.250 For 40 years after 1590 landed incomes rose faster than inflation so with controlled expenditure parks may not necessarily have been such a drain on income as has been thought, and this even helps to explain the longevity of many parks.251 Frustratingly, as others have found, estimating the viability of parks has not been possible.252 Estate officials were slow to adopt double-entry book keeping, so accounts do not show a true balance of income over expenditure.253 In Kent, expenditure on and income from parks were neither recorded selectively, nor dealt with separately, and to compound the problems book keeping methods varied from one estate to another. There are no balance sheets extant specifically for Elizabethan and Jacobean parks in the county. Occasional items of expenditure or income generated by parks have been highlighted in this chapter, but disappointingly none of these relate to the cost of keeping a herd of deer. Birling has the longest run of accounts, for the years 1586 to 1599, yet the park was omitted from these because it was 'in the hands of the Lord for the entire period.'254 250 Liddiard(2005:100,104); Birrell(1992:122). 251 Harvey(2002:59); Brandon(2003:111); Lasdun(1992:32); Stone(1965:188-189). 252 Prince(2008:15-16); Birrell(1992:115); Rowe(2005:26). 253 Palliser(1992:114); Birrell(1992:115) the same problem applies to the medieval period during which manorial accounts purport to record expenditure on and income from parks, but in practice rarely do so. 254 ESRO ABE/18R/1 & 2. 117 If deer keepers kept notes of their expenditure, they do not appear in any surviving bailiffs' or stewards' accounts. At Knole(50) in 1604, the steward accounted for repairs to the park paling and listed the cutting of brushwood for the conies under 'Extraordinary expenses.'255 At Penshurst(71) both the bailiff and the steward merged income over the whole estate, with costs appearing under separate headings. For example in the bailiff's accounts for Penshurst, from 1571 to 1572, repairs to the park paling were listed under 'Charges of house and household,' and the riding charges of the accountant who came to observe the stock taking of the deer under 'Foreign payments made.'256 The only comment about the cost of the upkeep of a park occurs in a letter of 1611 to Robert Sidney, viscount Lisle, when his steward was trying to dissuade him from enlarging Penhurst(71) park. In the letter the steward pointed out that the annual cost of upkeep of the park with 400 deer was £100:- You have already a very fair and sportelyke a park as any is in this parte of England; the making of yt soe hath abated £100 a yere of your livinge alreddy, yt is lardge enough to mayntaine 400 deere, which will afford hunting sufficient for your honorable friends: two years forbearaunce will full stock yt.257 The annual maintenance cost of the park represented a quarter of Robert Sidney's yearly income of £400 from the Penshurst estate, at a time when the overall income from his lands was £3390.258 The park was a luxury he could afford had his expenditure matched his income, but after paying household bills he was left with £500, and soon fell into debt with annual building costs and luxury items for Penshurst Place coming to nearly £3000, and his outfits for special occasions to the same amount.259 The cost of the park's annual upkeep pales into insignificance against these figures, and as his steward hints, it was worth bearing for the kudos it brought him among his neighbours and friends, but extending it would bring no tangible benefits. Over the years, Robert Sidney, viscount Lisle, was only able to keep apace with his debts by borrowing, selling land and endeavouring to advance at court. 255 CKS U269/A2/1. 256 CKS U1475/A6/6. 257 Shaw(1942:265-266) letter of 9/5/1611, Golding to Viscount Lisle. 258 Palliser(1992:112) citing Thomas Wilson, 'State of England Anno Dom.1600' , which assigned to peers an average yearly income of £3600. 259 BL Add.Mss.12066. 118 There were still deer in Canterbury(18) park in the early seventeenth century, but the pasture and herbage brought an income to the trustee, Robert Cecil, viscount Cranbourne, as Sir John Leveson's accounts of 1604 show.260 Of its 350 acres, 82 were used to pasture mares, raising a rent of £30 7s 6d. Elsewhere in the park the sale of herbage raised £90 5s 5d, with another £6 16s 9d sold, but not accounted for, the previous year. From the total of £127 9s 8d, deductions were made for the payment of £20 rent due to the Countess of Kildare, formerly wife of Henry Brooke, lord Cobham, the previous park keeper, half a year's rent of £35 7s 0d to James I, a year's wages of £7 10s 0d for the keeper and under-keeper, and payments of £17 13s 2d for repairs about the park – totalling £80 11 2d. Setting income against expenditure, the park made a profit of £46 18s 6d, but this is not the full picture because it does not include the upkeep of the deer, and to date no deer keeper's accounts for anywhere in Kent have come to light. From the accounting system of the day, it is hard to see whether Elizabethan and Jacobean owners would have been able to calculate the financial viability of their parks, but perhaps they did not require separate figures. The park might have been seen as a financial investment, which would carry with it the expectation of advancement through the enhanced social and cultural cache associated with its ownership. On the other hand, as will be seen in Chapter Seven, monetary value need not have been uppermost in owners' minds when it came to an asset like a park, which would have been equally appreciated for the enjoyment and pleasure that could be derived from it.261 260 Salisbury Accounts 6/35, 29/9/1604. 261 Chapter Seven p.183, 'The perception of crown, nobles and gentry towards parks.' 119 PART II – CHAPTER FOUR THE MANAGEMENT OF ROYAL PARKS IN KENT There were six parks under direct royal control at the beginning of Elizabeth I's reign: the park(39) next to Greenwich palace, three parks, Great(31), Middle or Little(32) and Horn(33) surrounding Eltham palace, Canterbury(18) park, and Otford Great(62) park adjacent to Otford palace. By the beginning of James I's reign Greenwich(39) park and the three Eltham(31-33) parks remained. The use the two monarchs made of their parks will be dealt with in Chapter Seven, here the focus is centred on the upkeep of the six active royal parks.1 The administrative structure of royal parks differed from all but the most illustrious parks of the nobility by being headed by the keeper of the park, instead of a bailiff or steward. 2 Manning, in 1993, commented on the lack of systematic study of this post for the early modern period, and this remains the case, so, as with the role of the deer keeper, it has been thought opportune to examine the role of the park keeper at Greenwich and Eltham in as much detail as the evidence allows.3 In section (i) the duties of the keeper will be outlined, with their patents, remuneration and perquisites of office (i). In section (ii) how the royal parks fared under Elizabeth I and James I will be considered, with the former carrying out belated upkeep, and the latter more willing to make improvements. (i) The keepers of royal parks in Kent At the beginning of Elizabeth I's reign, keepers were appointed for the royal park of Greenwich(39), the three royal parks at Eltham(31-33), Canterbury(18) park and Otford Great(62) park. These positions were held by highly ranked courtiers or, latterly at Eltham in James I's reign, by officers of the royal household, and were regarded as honours granted to the favoured.4 The selection of park keepers of very high social standing reflected the importance of the parks at Eltham(31-33) and Greenwich(39) as 1 See (i)(a) pp.186-189 and (iii)(a) pp.200-203. 2 TNA prob/11/112/114, 10/11/1608, Richard Dirkin, the park keeper of Bletchingley park, Surrey, owned by the Howard of Effingham family, left the patent of his keepership to his youngest daughter. 3 Manning(1993:28). 4 See Figure 4.1 p.122 for keepers at Greenwich and Figure 4.2 p.124 for keepers at Eltham which include the sources of information. 120 adjuncts to royal palaces within easy travel from London, because the keepers of remoter, less frequented parks were more likely to be local lords or gentry.5 Although the conference of the post of park keeper was considered an honour, it was not a sinecure as various instructions issued by the crown show. The position carried certain responsibilities with it, although for the royal parks in Kent there is very limited evidence about what the specific duties were. The general obligation placed on the holder of the patent, which included Greenwich(39) park, was that he was to perform the requisite duties himself or to arrange for a competent 'sufficient' deputy to carry them out for him.6 Given the other responsibilities of state most keepers of Greewich((39) and Eltham(31-33) parks shouldered, they required deputies to carry out closer supervision of the parks, and the appointment of deputies and other staff enabled the keeper himself to bestow minor patronage, either gratis as a reward for loyalty or in return for a fee.7 In 1613, Henry Howard, earl of Northampton, summarised this open-ended brief as seeing to the management of the park environment, the welfare of the deer, and the proper oversight of the park's timber.8 Some patentees adopted a hands-on approach, as did he, but others took on a supervisory role, relying on deputies, but still ultimately being held responsible for the park. Specific duties occasionally crop up in state domestic papers and include the issuing of warrants for deer, giving permission to cut browse wood for winter fodder, arranging for park maintenance and claiming payment from the crown later. The implementation of royal commands, such as to limit the number of deer killed, to permit certain named people to hunt, or to preserve wood and timber, would also be required.9 The extent to which such instructions were carried out is uncertain, although in extreme 5 Milesom(2009:147); Manning(1993:28). 6 Drake(1886:279). 7 Manning(1993:28); Drake(1886:279) no date given, 'Abstract of the provisions of the grant under the standing form of the letters patent for appointing the stewards, keepers and others.' 8 Barker(1993:22). 9 TNA SP12/171/66, 1584, TNA SP12/180/54, 1585, TNA SP12/181/24, 1583, TNA SP12/149/52, 1587 , TNA SP14/152/75, 1620, TNA SP14/185/19, 1625, royal warrant to provide hay for deer in Middle(32) park, Eltham; TNA SP14/35/49, 1608, privy seal request to pay keeper, Sir Olyffe Leigh, balance of his account for repairs at Eltham(31) park, TNA SP14/53/110, 1610, warrant to pay keeper, Sir Roger Aston, his account for constructing four bridges and repairing pale and lodge at Eltham Middle(32) park, TNA SP14/120/52, 1621, warrant to pay keeper, Patrick Maule for repairs at Eltham Great(31) park; TNA SP12/270/25, 1599, TNA SP14/164/71, 1624, TNA SP14/148/104, 1623, orders to permit Spanish ambassadors to hunt with keepers in attendance who may dispose of all that is killed, TNA SP14/36/42, 1604, TNA SP14/153/74 & 97, 1605, articles to be observed by the park keepers and others for preservation of the timber in the king's woods and forests. 121 cases of non-compliance the crown did take action, as when the earl of Pembroke had his patent of Hungerford park, Berkshire, withdrawn in 1577 because of the 'waste and spoil upon the vert and venison' there. 10 There is evidence of neglect at Eltham in the 1570s and of illegal felling in the 1590s, but the extent to which the park keeper was responsible is unknown.11 It would be thought that gross mismanagement was unlikely given the high profile of the parks, their park keepers and the visits, albeit sporadic, that they received from the monarchs. However, in 1608 James I rebuked Lord Stanhope for 'allowing spoil of game' near Eltham palace, requiring him to be more vigilant and to see the full force of the law was brought to bear on the offenders.12 A very important duty was to ensure that there was good hunting whenever the monarch required. Illustrative of how the keeper would be held answerable to the crown for any shortcomings in this responsibility is a letter sent by James I prior to a visit to Greenwich in 1605. In it he charged three key officers, Robert Cecil, lord Salisbury, to prepare his lodging, Thomas Howard, the earl of Suffolk, his lord chamberlain, 'to have the house made sweet and to build a cock-pit', and Henry Howard, earl of Northampton, as keeper of the park 'to have the park in good order and the does all with fawn.' 13 In these instructions the earl of Northampton is referred to as 'the fast-walking keeper of the park' and the 'tall black and cat-faced keeper' and is playfully, but not without underlying threat, warned that 'if I have not good fortune at the beginning of my hunting then the keeper shall have the shame and never be thought a good huntsman after.'14 Of the six parks under keepership at the beginning of Elizabeth I's reign Canterbury palace and park(18) were soon leased out to its keeper, Henry Brooke, lord Cobham, and by the end of the reign sold to his son.15 Sir Henry Sidney was keeper of Otford Great(62) park with a yearly fee of £6 3s 4d, with herbage and pannage; as keeper of the mansion house of Otford he received two pence daily and of the gardens four pence daily.16 His son was eventually purchased the property from the queen in 1600.17 10 Manning(1993:32). 11 TNA SC12/27/7; TNA E178/1163, more details on p.133. 12 TNA SP14/35/75, August 1608. 13 Platts(1973:157). 14 Willson(1956:187). 15 See Chapter Seven pp.221.235. 16 Kingsford & Shaw(1934:411-412) 10/11/1599; TNA SP12/281/57, 16/8/1601; herbage = the natural herbage or pasture of any land as a species of property distinct from the land itself; pannage = the right or 122 Figure 4.1 - Keepers of the royal park at Greenwich 1553 Sir Henry Jerningham d.1571 Mary I's Captain of the Guard and Vice Chamberlain (CPR 13 Nov.1553, pp.404-406) 1572 Sir George Howard d.1580 Master of Ordnance (CPR V, C66/1089 no.2943, 28 October 1572) 1580 Sir Christopher Hatton Lord Chancellor (CPR VIII, C66/1186 no.1332, 9 June 1580) 1594 Thomas Sackville, earl of Dorset Privy Councillor, K.G. (Cecil Mss. 321 deed 41/24) 1605 Robert Cecil, viscount Cranbourne Lord High Treasurer on surrender of Sackville + Greenwich Castle (TNA SP14/14/1, 2 May 1605, TNA E214/703 4 June 1611 surrendered) 1605 Henry Howard, earl of Northampton d.1614 Privy Councillor, K.G.,Warden of Cinque Ports on surrender of Cranbourne + Greenwich Castle (Cecil Mss. 15 deed 42/1, 1605, SP14/12/88, 11 October 1611) 1611 Thomas Howard, earl of Suffolk Lord Chamberlain (Drake (ed.) Hundred of Blackheath, p.280, Patent 9 James I p.24) Theophilus Howard, baron of Walden Captain of Gentlemen Pensioners (Drake (ed.) Hundred of Blackheath, p.280, Douquet 2 July 1611, for Greenwich castle only) 1614 Edward Somerset ,earl of Worcester Privy Councillor, Earl Marshal, Master of Horse (Drake (ed.) Hundred of Blackheath, p.280, 11 James I, p.31) privilege to pasture pigs (or other animals); payment made to the owner of a tract of woodland for this right or privilege; the right to collect such payment; the income accruing from this (http://dictionary.oed.com). 17 See Chapter Seven(iv) pp.221-235. 123 The most important park keepers in Kent, appointed throughout the period, were those connected with the royal palaces of Greenwich and Eltham.18 Although the patents were granted for life, several were in reversion and only became operable on the death or resignation of the incumbent. Both Elizabeth I and James I chose prominent courtiers as keepers of Greenwich(39) park.19 As with deer keepers, park keepers' full remuneration consisted of a fixed rate of pay, the receipt of fees and various perquisites. Just how much all these elements totalled for the Greenwich(39) and Eltham(31-33) parks is unknown, and in any case was likely to vary from year to year. Although the rate of pay was not itself attractive, the total package was more generous because the patents did not centre on the parks, but contained wider responsibilities in which the parks were included. For Greenwich this can be seen in the patent of 1572 granted to Sir George Howard. 20 He was to be paid four pence a day for the keepership of the manor of Pleasance in which Greenwich palace was situated, three pence a day as keeper of the orchard with the small garden and pond there, £4 a year for keeping the turkey cocks and game cocks and their young, and three pence a day as keeper of Greenwich(39) park. All these fees, amounting to about £19 a year, were to be paid out of the customs revenue of the port of London. In the 1590s (and probably as late as 1600 because Otford Great(62) park was not included) all the offices and perquisites of state were listed, with the fees for the keeper of Greenwich(39) park and the manor of Pleasaunce being £19 4s 0d a year, which would approximate to the more detailed package given above.21 Other annual wages mentioned in the patent to Sir George Howard came from the stewardships of several local manors amounting to £10 13 4d, and of Deptford town and Strond amounting to 50 shillings, and the patentee was to receive 60s 8d as bailiff of Sayes Court, Deptford, making a total of £16 4s 0d. The patent also contained a long list of grants of specific leases of tenements, plots of land situated in Greenwich, Beckenham, Eltham, Chislehurst and elsewhere, woodland, a dovecote, 80 acres of marshland to be enjoyed without rent, and the lordship of Old Court, which was otherwise known as Duke Humphrey's tower or Greenwich castle, within the park, now the site of the Royal Observatory.22 18 See Figure 4.1 'Keepers of Greenwich park' p.122 and Figure 4.2 'Keepers of the Eltham parks', p.124. 19 TNA SP14/14/1, 2/5/1605, TNA E214/703, 4/6/1611, surrendered; Salisbury papers 42/1, patent of keepership to Henry, earl of Northampton, with succession to Robert Cecil, viscount Cranbourne; Drake(1886:280) patent 11 James I. 20 CPR V, C66/1089 no.2943, 28/10/1572. 21 TNA SP12/235/9. 22 Drake(1886:279); see Plate 4.1 p.136, which shows Duke Humphrey's tower.. 124 125 The position with the Eltham parks(31-33) was even more complicated because towards the end of Elizabeth I's reign, and under James I, the keepership of the three parks might be held separately. Sir Christopher Hatton was alone in holding the keepership of the three parks at Eltham(31-33) and Greenwich(39) park until his death in 1591. He was granted keepership of the Eltham parks(31-33) in 1568, which took effect on the death Henry Jerningham in 1571, and became keeper of Greenwich(39) park in succession to Sir George Howard, who died in 1580.23 As with the keepership of Greenwich(39) park, the keeperships of the Eltham parks(31-33) were included within an extensive patent.24 At the turn of the seventeenth century the keeper of Eltham palace and 'the park there' earned the fee of £13 13s 4d.25 It is unclear whether this fee covered all the parks, although only the singular noun is used. The earlier patent of 1568 for Sir Christopher Hatton gave daily fees for each of the three parks. As keeper of the Great(31) and Middle or Little (32) parks at Eltham he received three pence a day for each, and as keeper of certain houses (meaning the Eltham palace complex) in the manor of Eltham sixpence a day and ten marks a year.26 The salary for these posts was to come from the revenue of the manor of Eltham. As keeper of Horn(33) park he was paid four pence a day from the customs revenue of the port of London. In addition he was given use of the keeper's lodge, adjoining the palace of Eltham. The patent went on to grant the former chantry and priest's house at Eltham, lease for life of the manor house of Eltham in reversion, several tenements and lands, grant for life in reversion of the garden at Eltham palace, grant of the office of purveyor of the manor of Eltham, of keeper of the woods with the buildings in the store yard, and of the office of steward of the courts of the manor of Eltham. This latter part of the package gave the patentee a yearly income of £62 16s 8d and a yearly wage of £2. Lord North's patent of 1597 was similar to that of Sir Christopher Hatton except that the daily fee for Horn(33) park had risen to 16d a day and ten marks a year, perhaps because he had to wait until the death or surrender of Hugh Miller before he could 23 CPR IV no.1377, 27/7/1568; CPR VIII, C66/1186/1332, 9/6/1580. 24 Calendars of Patent rolls do not extend beyond 1592/4, so details of later Patents are less accessible. 25 TNA SP12/235/9, c.1600. 26 CPR IV no.1377, 27/7/1568; mark = in England was a monetary unit equivalent in value to two-thirds of a troy pound of pure silver or two-thirds of a pound sterling (http://dictionary.oed.com). 126 become keeper of Middle(32) park.27 The fee for the Great(31) park was three pence a day (rising to four pence by 1600), and as keeper of the manor house sixpence a day. The successors of Roger North, lord North, after 1600 lacked the stature of previous keepers, which could indicate a devaluation of the post coinciding with the decline in the use of Eltham palace and its parks, a supposition further strengthened by the appointment of even less well-known figures during James I's reign.28 Because the patents encompassing the parks at Eltham(31-33) and Greenwich(39) were broad, and because other parks might also have been held under wide patents, it is not easy to make direct comparisons, but in the last decade of Elizabeth I's reign the yearly fees of the keepers of the royal London parks were £9 2s 6d for Marylebone park and £6 1s 8d for Hyde park, while the keeper of the park at Hampton Court was paid 4d a day, which was the same as the daily fee for Horn(33) park in Eltham, but one penny more than the other Eltham parks(31-32) and Greenwich(39) park.29 Such differences might well reflect, among other factors, the size of the park, the extent of its use, the degree of responsibility that went with the keepership, and the generosity of a wider package of grants within the patent. Little appears in the patents detailing the perquisites that went with the keeperships. Sir George Howard's patent for Greenwich(39) park of 1572 gave the assurance that the grant was to be 'enjoyed with all privileges of office in as ample a manner as any previous grantee', but these privileges were not specified. Common perquisites, as noted for Canterbury(18) and Otford Great(62) parks, were herbage, pannage and the wood of the park.30 The herbage and pannage of the park were included in the patent for the keepership of Greenwich(39) in 1613.31 When the keepership of Horn(33) park was given to John Leigh in 1600 a unique note was added about the perquisites, namely that 'the fees be these, the scarthe, 16d, the leffes, 4s, the hande, 2s; summa totalis 7s 4d.'32 Exactly what these obscure words mean is not fully covered in the Oxford English Dictionary; 'scarthe' is said to be a fragment, 'leffes' can mean permissions, which might be fees raised from giving permission to hunt or for grants of 27 TNA SP/12/264/7, 4/7/1597. 28 Brook(1960:44-45); Gregory(1909:186-187); figure 4.2 p.124. 29 TNA SP12/235/9. 30 Ibid; Salisbury papers 6/35, 29/9/1604. 31 TNA SP14/75/49 32 TNA SP12/34/25, 4/2/1600. 127 venison or some other favour, 'hande', among many definitions, can mean 'having a share in' or 'profit', which might come from the right to take pannage, herbage or fallen wood from the park.33 Like the deer keeper in gentry-owned parks, the park keeper was allowed a quota of deer to distribute among family or friends, or for a fee.34 At Greenwich and Eltham a major perquisite was the residence that went with the keepership, which might have been enjoyed free with food and board. 35 The lodges would have been convenient when the court was in residence nearby or in London, or, for keepers not wishing to take up residence, there would have been the rental income. At least two of the keepers made full use of the lodges, namely Sir Christopher Hatton and Henry Howard, earl of Northampton. The keeper's house at Eltham was enjoyed by Sir Christopher Hatton, keeper from 1571 to 1591, 'for his own occupation without molestation of any officers of the Queen, because the house was thus first used for the keeper of the said capital house.'36 He made the lodge his permanent home for several years, during which time Monsieur de Champenaye, ambassador from the Low Countries, was handsomely entertained with a concert of 'excellent and sweet music', coursing a buck 'with the best and most beautiful greyhounds that ever I did behold', and a display of equestrian prowess.37 Henry Howard, the earl of Northampton, aggrandised the lodge within Greenwich(39) park, and spent £2000 renovating Greenwich castle, which 'he much enlarged and beautified' and made his home.38 The keeper's daily pay for just one of the parks might be regarded as inadequate, but the various perquisites added extra income to the office, as well as providing the opportunity for the keeper himself to dispense patronage through minor park appointments and through special favours. No information has been found about the value of perquisites for the parks at Greenwich(39) and Eltham(31-33), but those for the keepership of the forest and park of Clarendon, for example, were valued at £812 per 33 Scarth(e), leffe (leave), hand(e) (http://dictionary.oed.com). 34 Adams(1995:177) Robert Dudley, earl of Leicester, commanded his servants to give to the keeper of Eltham park 10 shillings on 16 June and 6s 8d on 3 July, 1585, for unspecified favours; TNA SP12/171/66, 1584, SP12/180/54, 1585, examples of deer from Odiham and Mortlake parks being granted by the keepers. 35 Manning(1993:29). 36 CPR IV no.1377, p.228, 27/7/1568. 37 Brook(1960:44) quoted without source. 38 Drake(1886:61) citing Camden(1610); see Plate 7.3 p.204, one of the buildings in the park to the right might have been the lodge. Greenwich castle is on the highest ground to the left. 128 annum in 1606.39 Against the background of the total income of some of these magnates this was a substantial amount; for example, Sir Robert Sidney, keeper of Otford Great(62) park, in 1586 had an annual income of £1200 from estate rents as well as his captain's salary.40 Against higher incomes the value would be useful, but not critical. Robert Cecil, viscount Cranbourne, appointed keeper of Greenwich(39) park in 1604, had a net rental income in 1609 of about £5100, but his profits from political office far exceeded that sum; Theophilus Howard, keeper of Greenwich(39) park from 1611, had an annual gross landed income of about £11000 with £2000 from offices and perquisites.41 Such incomes, however, did not make these men, or their contemporaries, immune to the value of a keepership, not only to add to their prestige, but also because all spent so lavishly that they fell into deep debt, so, even for them, the office of park keeper, with its undoubted potential to add to their purse, was welcome. 42 Sometimes too lavish a lifestyle or too much influence exercised by a keeper could arouse the suspicion of a monarch, and this occurred with Henry Howard, earl of Northampton, who, by residing in Greenwich castle, was able to exert his influence throughout the palace. He unwittingly jeopardised the keepership by arousing Queen Anne's hostility with a very ill judged comment that she 'was only the best subject, yet no less a subject than I.'43 The exact sequence of events is obscure, but seems to focus around the earl of Northampton's entitlement to the keepership and other offices in Greenwich, which he purchased from Robert Cecil, then viscount Cranbourne, in 1605, paying compensation of £200 to the deputy keeper.44 At the same time he bought for £1500, the manor of Old Court, which included Greenwich castle and its grounds inside the park, although Platts, without citation, considered the transaction to have been a 66-year lease.45 Apart from desiring the status value of being keeper of Greenwich(39) park, the earl of Northampton had close ties with Greenwich, holding the Howard estate there and having spent his 39 Manning(1993:30) citing J. C. Cox, The Royal Forests of England, pp.321-322. 40 Hay(1945:55). 41 Stone(1973:20,287). 42 Stone(1973:xviii); Hay(1945:55). 43 Meikle & Payne, Anne of Denmark] (1574-1619)(http://oxforddnb.com/articles/ 559) citing Somerset 121). 44 Salisbury papers 42/1, c.1605; Drake(1886:61) citing BL Cott.Titus, C.IV. 45 Platts(1973:156). 129 formative years in the lodge in Greenwich(39) park as ward of his aunt, Mary Fitzroy, duchess of Richmond, regarding it as 'his original home.'46 Henry Howard, the earl of Northampton, did not regard the posts at Greenwich as honorary, but took a close interest in the palace, its grounds and the park. According to both Platts and Barker, James I was so displeased with the apparent loss of royal control that he planned to reduce Henry Howard's power, forcing the earl to relinquish Greenwich(39) park in 1613. However, evidence does not bear this out. The real difficulty over power at Greenwich came from the relationship between the earl of Northampton and Queen Anne. Domestic state papers show that as early as 1611 Henry Howard, the earl of Northampton, arranged for the reversions of the keepership of the park to his nephew, Thomas Howard, earl of Suffolk, and of the manor of Old Court to Thomas Howard's son, Theophilus Howard, baron of Walden, captain of the gentlemen pensioners.47 The motive for this arrangement might have been to secure succession for his family, since he himself was unmarried. Another more practical reason for the change might have been because he was spending more time furthering himself at court, this being the year in which Robert Cecil, now earl of Salisbury, secretary of state and lord high treasurer, was losing his grip through illness, and Henry Howard, earl of Northampton, was in political intrigue with the new royal favourite, Robert Carr.48 After the death of the earl of Salisbury, in 1612, the earl of Northampton took over the day-to-day control of government business.49 His promotion would have been unlikely had James I thought his power base at Greenwich was too threatening to the crown, neither would the reversions of the patents for the keepership of the park and of the manor of Old Court to the earl's relatives have received royal approval. The exact arrangement by which Henry Howard, earl of Northampton, had become keeper of Greenwich(39) park and had ensconced himself in Greenwich castle became crucial a few months after the death of Robert Cecil, earl of Salisbury, when all 46 Croft, Henry Howard (1540-1814) (http://oxforddnb.com/articles/13/13906). 47 Platts(1973:156); Barker(1993:22); Drake(1886:280) citing patent roll 9 James I, p.24; TNA SP14/65/5, 2/7/1611. 48 Croft, Henry Howard (1540-1614) (http://oxforddnb.com/articles/13/13906). 49 Ibid. 130 was thrown into confusion following James I's decision to transfer Greenwich(39) park to his wife, Queen Anne, as part of her jointure.50 This was no great wrench for him because he frequented Greenwich less in order to spend more time in the privacy of his more secluded country palaces, and although the royal couple remained on amicable terms, they were virtually living apart from each other – Queen Anne deciding to take up residence in Greenwich.51 Queen Anne was already prejudiced against Henry Howard, earl of Northampton, but according to Drake the conflict between them might well have deepened as a result of the earl of Northampton's attempts, in the exercise of his office as lord privy seal and lord high treasurer, to rein in the queen's extravagance in order to cut the cost of the royal household.52 Queen Anne, it seems, was not prepared to tolerate his close proximity in Greenwich and was determined to undermine his power base. The earl wrote in distress to a friend:- The Queen says she will have the park in despight of me, although I bought it with my own money and have the same right as any other subject in the kingdom to his freehold.53 To forestall the queen, on 9 December 1613, he wrote to under secretary, Sir Thomas Lake, requesting that provision be made for his remaining in the park when the document transferring it to Queen Anne was drawn up, 'otherwise he will be at the mercy of a wrathful mistress, and his expulsion will be inevitable,' the queen would 'thrust him out of Greenwich Park.'54 Shortly afterwards his keepership was confirmed.55 Two months later, on 19 February 1614, James I, 'in consideration of our conjugal love,' granted Queen Anne Greenwich Palace, with its grounds and Greenwich(39) park and the houses and lodges within the park 'to have and to hold for a 100 years should she live so long.'56 Despite feeling that no-one would 'keep with so much tenderness ... the ground and the deer and the little wood that is left there,' Henry Howard, earl of Northampton, considered it expedient to withdraw, so he appointed a bailiff to carry out 50 Nichols II (reprint of 1828:671); ibid. p.671, citing Birch's Mss.4173, p.704. 51 Willson(1956:184). 52 Drake(1886:61); Croft, Henry Howard (1540-1814) (http://oxforddnb.com/articles/13/13906). 53 Platts(1973:157). He is probably referring here to the manor of Old Court 'purchased' from Robert Cecil, earl of Salisbury, see p.128. 54 TNA SP14/75/40; TNA SP14/76/45. 55 TNA SP14/75/49. 56 Platts(1973:157-158) citing TNA SP14/76/29. 131 his duties and left Greenwich a broken man, dying at his London house four months later. 57 The benefits of the office of park keeper, and the mark of a monarch's favour that it bestowed, were highly prized, so there was fierce competition when a keepership became vacant. One such occasion was noted by Sir Robert Sidney's agent, Rowland Whyte, when the keepership of the Eltham parks(31-33) was thrown open by the death of William Brooke, lord Cobham, at midnight on 6 March 1597. Later that day Rowland Whyte wrote:- The Court is full of who shall have this and that office; most say Mr. Harry Brooke shall have Eltam and the Cinque Ports, by reason of the favour the Queen bears him. Lord Hunsdon is named for Lord Chamberlain and Lord Lieutenant of Kent.58 On 27 April the keeperships of Eltham parks were still undecided and he wrote that Lady Leighton hoped to be granted keepership and had threatened to leave the Court if she was not appointed.59 In the event, Henry Brooke, now lord Cobham, and Lady Leighton were both disappointed in the keepership, which Elizabeth I conferred on Roger North, lord North, treasurer of the queen's household, although the other more powerful posts were awarded as predicted. The grant of park keeperships was a small part of wider royal patronage covering forests, parks and hunting, but came towards the top of that particular hierarchy, which is why the posts were avidly sought after. When Sir Olyffe Leigh, perhaps at the behest of James I, surrendered his office as keeper of Eltham Great(31) park in 1609, he was granted £1200 as compensation, an indication of the value placed on the office.60 In Edward VI's reign the fees paid to keepers and officers of royal houses, castles, parks and forests amounted to a yearly total of £5268 1s 3½d, and those of officers and ministers of hunting to £603 14s 2½d. These figures of c.1556 are, however, modest, forming only seven per cent of the expenditure of approximately £73982 of the departments of public 57 Platts(1973:157). 58 Kingsford & Shaw(1934:245-246). 59 Ibid. p.27; Ogier, Sir Thomas Leighton (c.1530-1610)(http://oxforddnb.com/articles/68/68015) Lady Leighton was a gentlewoman of the privy chamber and Elizabeth I's first cousin once removed. 60 Drake(1886:181) footnote 1, reference Issue of the Exchequer, Devon, 92. 132 service, other than the officers of the court of revenue and the officers and ministers of justice.61 (ii) Aspects of the management of the royal parks of Greenwich(39) and Eltham(31-33) Few documents reveal the routine running of the royal parks at Greenwich(39) and Eltham(31-33), and more detailed research is required into their management, but the scattered references in the domestic state papers, and, more rarely, a survey or commission of enquiry, give an occasional glimpse into the condition of the parks. Elizabeth I merely saw that essential and often overdue repairs were carried out in the royal parks, in contrast to James I who took a greater personal interest to enlarge and enhance the parks both at Greenwich(39) and at Eltham(31-33). There is no information about the upkeep of Greenwich(39) park in Elizabeth I's reign, which might well imply that it was being well run, because it is in contrast to evidence for the parks at Eltham(31-33) which indicates periods of neglect both in maintenance and in the supervision of timber felling. Disrepair seems to have been caused by periodic under investment followed by a spate of repairs in the 1570s and in the 1590s. Perhaps this situation reflected Elizabeth I's preference for Greenwich palace rather than Eltham palace, and although she occasionally visited Eltham throughout her reign, little is known about her use of the parks there. 62 Poor maintenance might reflect the queen's reluctance to spend money on these parks, but lax supervision by the park keepers cannot be ruled out. Evidence of long-term neglect came to light in 1572 in a survey of the Great(31) park at Eltham carried out by John Fludd, the royal surveyor, soon after Sir Christopher Hatton became keeper, but untaken at the 'earnest request' of one of the deer keepers, John Cox.63 Extensive repairs, estimated at £89 17s 4d, were required because the two lodges had become dilapidated, the park paling had deteriorated, and the great pond no longer retained water. The floors of the upper lodge were 'loose, shaking and ready to fall', the walls, tiles and chimneys were 'decayed,' and the old lodge was 'so ruinously 61 TNA SP10/4/27, c.1552. 62 Cole(1999:57,179- 202) Appendix 2: 1, Elizabeth I visited in 1559, 1576,1581x2, 1597, 1598, 1601, 1602; Emery(1960:102); Brook(1960:45) she visited in 1568x2, 1569. 63 TNA SC12/27/7. 133 decayed ... that there doth nor can any keeper lie therein', even though it was 'a very necessary place' for a keeper to inhabit 'for the preservation of game.' John Cox was a conscientious deer keeper because, at his own expense, he had already patched up the pale in various places, and carried out repairs to the lodges. The park timber in the Eltham(31-33) parks, being close to the royal shipyard at Deptford, was regarded as a national resource, especially in the critical years leading up to the Spanish Armada of 1588, when Peter Pett, the royal shipwright, was given a warrant to fell trees for ship-building.64 Timber was also used for repairs to the park fabric, as in 1594 and 1595 when 17 oak and elm trees in Eltham Great(31) park were used for further repair to the lodges; 60 timber trees were felled in Horn(33) park to pale the perimeter; and the boughs of 87 timber trees from the three parks and three local woodlands were used to pale the Great(31) park. 65 Warrants were issued to control woodcutting and tree felling, but there was potential for the illegal removal of timber and wood under guise of an official warrant. A commission highlighted the felling of crown timber by Francis Flower, one of the officials in charge of the Great(31) park, who, between 1592 and 1595, had arranged for the trees to be felled to repair the lodges and the pale in the Great(31) park, under warrant, but without authorisation, had also grubbed up 26 oak trees valued at £10 and taken away several loads of wood valued at £10, all of which he had sold for profit, and another two oaks valued at 20 shillings which he had used himself.66 These activities occurred under the keeperships of Lord North and Lord Brooke, from 1592 to 1600, although there is nothing to show the extent of the park keepers' culpability. Both authorised and unauthorised felling largely denuded the Great(31) park of substantial timber trees.67 The repairs undertaken at the end of Elizabeth I's reign held good and when a survey of the manor of Eltham was carried out in 1605, only 50 rods of paling on the south side of Horn(33) park were in ruinous condition.68 The same survey conjures up 64 TNA SP12/186/46, 1586. 65 TNA E178/1163. 66 Ibid. 67 TNA E164/44/3-58. 68 Ibid. 134 images of the three Eltham(31-33) parks. The Great(31) park of 612 acres was just over four and a quarter miles round and held 510 deer, 150 of which were antlered. Middle(32) park of 308 acres was enclosed by just under three miles of fencing, and had 240 deer, of which 47 were antlered. Horn(33) park of 345 acres was just over three miles in perimeter, containing 240 deer, 40 of which were antlered. The most open landscape was to be found in the Great(31) park with only 50 oak timber trees; Middle(32) park, about half the size, had 250 oak trees; while Horn(33) park was much more wooded with 2740 oak trees. As the parks were contiguous, separated only by roads, the whole parkland area of 1265 acres with 990 deer afforded excellent hunting, and although James I was only known to have stayed once overnight, he did use the parks while staying at Greenwich.69 His entertainment of the king of Denmark in 1606 was one instance, and he returned for longer periods to hunt in 1612 and, finally, in 1619.70 Before James I's preference for the royal residences west of Kent was established he took steps to extend the royal parks at Eltham by taking 28 acres into Middle(32) park and he instigated the creation of Lee(53) park adjacent to Horn(33) park.71 On 22 October 1604 he instructed John Stanhope, baron Stanhope, to compound with neighbouring landowners to enlarge Middle(32) park, at the large capital expenditure of £2280.72 Further costs of £204 1s 4d were incurred for fencing materials in 1608, another £128 for paling the park and repairing the lodges in 1610, and a further £20 went towards building four bridges on James I's orders so that he could more easily move around the park.73 At the same time as ordering the extension of Middle(32) park, James I had plans for further expansion involving imparking land in Lee, to make a new park adjacent to Middle(32) and Horn(33) parks.74 For this venture he persuaded Sir Nicholas Stoddard, a landowner in nearby Mottingham, to act as his proxy, and the extent to which 69 Nichols II (reprint of 1828:445) only one record in 1612 has been found of James I staying at Eltham; TNA SP14/69/71, 17/6/1612. 70 Nichols I (reprint of 1828:445-446); TNA SP14/109/41, 22/5/1619; TNA SP14/109/92, June 1619. 71 TNA E317/8. 72 TNA SP14/31/24; TNA SP14/9/83; TNA SP14/53/110; TNA SP14/14/11; TNA SP14/32/10; TNA SP14/47/5. 73 TNA SP14/31/24. 74 TNA E317/8. 135 individuals were prepared to take financial risks in order to please the king is aptly illustrated as events unfolded.75 According to Sir Nicholas Stoddard the king asked him to displace sub-tenants on 60 acres of land he rented from the crown at Lee so it could be converted into parkland. In addition he purchased, for £303 13s 4d, the remainder of a lease, due to expire in 1622, of a further 42 acres of crown land. Encouraged by the king, who conferred a knighthood on him in 1603, and in the hope of further advancement, he imparked the 102 acres, calling it Lee(53) park.76 He laid out ridings and launds as James I directed, at the cost of £1500, which he raised by selling other land worth £37 a year. The king apparently approved of the new park, hunting there and killing at least 80 deer. All boded well for Sir Nicholas Stoddard when James I promised him the fee-farm of the park, making him the virtual owner, but the lord treasurer blocked the proposal and the delay meant that Sir Nicholas Stoddard found himself in grave financial straits.77 Unadvisedly, in anticipation of a successful outcome, he felled timber on the land, for which he was restrained on 22 January 1622, eventually being expelled from the land in Charles I's reign.78 James I's enhancement at Greenwich came after he had handed palace, ground and park over to his wife, when, in 1614, he proceeded to spend considerable sums of money on a new residence for his wife, and to extend and wall the park. It was Queen Anne who desired a more intimate house and the result was the 'House of Delight', now called 'The Queen's House', designed in Palladian style by Inigo Jones, surveyor-general to James I.79 It was an innovative building being the first domestic example in England of the revival of interest in classical architecture. The old gatehouse into the park, previously used as a viewing point, was demolished to make way for the new house, which had a loggia on the first floor giving panoramic views across the lower parkland to 75 CPR VIII, no.1468, 11/6/1580; Gregory(1909:281-283); Drake(1886:192-193,233). 76 Nichols I (reprint of 1828:220). 77 Gregory(1909:281-283) citing Exchequer bill 7 Charles I Trinity 94; TNA SP14/130/83, 15/5/1622, Sir Nicholas Stoddard was 'so opposed by debt as hardly to be able to maintain the family' when ordered to donate a free gift to the Palatinate. 78 Gregory(1909:282);TNA SP14/128/112, March 1622; Drake(1886:193) citing Exchequer Bills, 7 Charles I, Trinity, 94, and 8 Charles I, Hilary, 136. 79 Fletcher(1996:1023). 136 Plate 4.1 Greenwich park and James I (a) Greenwich(39) park wall. towards the south east corner, this stretch faces east overlooking Blackheath. It is unclear how much of the wall is original because of repairs and repointing since it was built c.1614 23 February 2009 (b) Looking from the hill slope overlooking Greenwich palace, with the Queen's House and its loggia with views over the park. Greenwich castle or Duke Humphrey's tower is on the highest ground. From an engraving by Wenceslaus Hollar, 1637. 137 the rising hills beyond.80 Work began in 1617 at an estimated cost of £4000, but James I lost interest in it after Queen Anne's death on 2 March 1619.81 James I did, however, proceed to extend the park over Blackheath common to the south, together with ten acres of land of Westcombe manor.82 The landowner, Multon Lambarde, remained uncompensated, but the vicar of Greenwich received 20 shillings a year for loss of tithe revenue over this land.83 A 12-foot high wall was then built around two miles of the park, taking until the end of reign to complete (see Plate 4.1).84 Sir Thomas Watson oversaw the construction and financed it personally, because at his death in 1622, Lady Watson successfully petitioned the crown for repayment of £2001 15s 11½d.85 The routine management of the royal parks at Greenwich(39) and Eltham(31-33), as in gentry-owned parks, would have revolved round the needs of the deer. Park keepers would or should have provided overall supervision, and deer keepers would have seen to the daily welfare, diet, habitat and security of the herd, although little of this has been recoverable. It might well be that more information about the running costs of the royal parks in Kent are scattered among state papers, such as accounts, but to seek this out would be time consuming and not necessarily productive, because, as with gentryowned parks, separate accounts might not have been kept or have survived. Chapters Three and Four have rehearsed the vital roles in the smooth and efficient running of the parks of the deer keeper in gentry-owned parks and of the park keeper in royal parks, and they have teased out disparate details about park maintenance and diversity to build up a picture of how Elizabethan and Jacobean parks operated in Kent. In Chapter Five attention will turn to the fate of failed parks in the county. 80 See Plates 4.1 p.136 for the Queen's House under construction and 7.2 p.202 for the earlier gatehouse in situ. 81 Barker(1993:25-26) in 1621 James I handed Greenwich over to his son, Prince Charles, who, after his accession in 1625 gave the unfinished house to his wife, Henrietta Maria, who completed the building in 1635. 82 TNA SP14/110/54; TNA SP14/115/68. 83 Warnicke(1973:11); TNA SP14/122/31, 30/9/1622. 84 See Plate 4.1 p.136; Webster(1902:3-4). 85 TNA SP14/117/62; TNA SP14/132/97. 138 PART II – CHAPTER FIVE DISPARKMENT AND THE MANAGEMENT OF DISPARKED PARKS Disparkment is a subject that has not attracted a great deal of detailed attention, apart from Robert Liddiard's ground breaking paper delivered in September 2007 at the Sheffield Conference on 'The History, Ecology and Archaeology of Medieval Parks and Parklands.'1 Without citing particular sources he points to the 'elastic' chronology of disparkment, 'with some commentators seeing decline setting in from 1500, others around 1600, but most observers pointing to the century between 1550-1660 as a key period in which disparkment took place.'2 This chapter aims partially to redress this lack of detailed knowledge by outlining the pattern and process of disparkment for the county of Kent, which can then be set against and compared with those observed elsewhere. In particular it will seek to discover whether there was any period of widespread disparkment from 1558 to 1625, and, if so, whether it confirms Liddiard's view of an 'elastic' chronology. The first section (i) will discuss the definition of disparkment. Section (ii) identifies which parks were disparked in Kent between 1558 and 1625, tentatively suggesting reasons behind the low incidence, and the factors leading to particular disparkments. There follows an examination of aspects of the management of disparked parks, including crown leases of disparked parks, in section (iii). Lastly, in section (iv) the survival of vestiges of former parks, centuries after the original function as deer parks had been abandoned, testifies to the residual significance of parks in the landscape. (i) The definition of disparkment The question posed by Liddiard, 'By what criteria can we judge when a park is disparked?' needs addressing, and he thinks the answer to be neither straightforward nor easy. The distinction Lambarde made between parks with deer and parks lacking deer is simplistic, and not universally endorsed even by some of his contemporaries.3 As has been seen, a series of statutes required park owners to hold breeding mares and stallions 1 Liddiard in Rotherham (2007:82). 2 Liddiard(unpublished, 2007) full text by courtesy of Dr Robert Liddiard. 3 Lambarde(1576:9) fully quoted on p.10. 139 within their parks.4 This requirement raised the issue of what counted as a park, and in interpreting the statute there were variations from county to county. The deputy commissioners in their returns for Dorsetshire and Somersetshire were more thorough than those for other counties and gave three categories of park - those with deer, those without deer, and those that had been disparked or, in the case of Somersetshire, were 'decayed'.5 A certain ambiguity arises at this point because as most owners holding parks without deer no longer bred horses, and yet were not considered to have broken the statute, they might be deemed to have been disparked according to Lambarde's definition and to the deputy commissioners' interpretation of the statute. However, the Dorsetshire deputy commissioners only actually recorded a park to be disparked when it had been converted to pasture and tillage, or had been divided into 'divers tenements.' Here, the degree of disparkment or its irreversibility was at issue. It would seem that the Dorsetshire deputy commissioners thought that if a park remained substantially open parkland, there would be few obstacles to the reintroduction of deer, in which case the statute would again apply. If, on the other hand, the park had been converted into farmland, subdivided into fields and leased out, then its reinstatement as a deer park would be impractical, complicated and costly. The degrees of disparkment adopted by Lambarde on the one hand and by the deputy commissioners on the other highlight the problems of any simple definition, which would still not cover either the varying stages or pace at which parks might be driven or might slide into disparkment. Liddiard differentiates between a clear-cut, rapidly enforced decision to dispark, which he terms 'event' and the more common disparkment, which followed a lengthier and disjointed course or 'process'.6 If there are examples in Kent of 'event' disparkment following a decision deliberately, systematically and immediately to dismantle a park, there is no surviving documentation for Elizabeth I's or James I's reigns. The sole example, from the early sixteenth century, reflecting a definite intention to dispark shows that, even then, the actual process took several years to complete. The 1587 lease for Chislet(22) park rehearsed an earlier lease of 1533 granted by the archbishop of Canterbury in which the 4 See Chapter Three pp.100-101. 5 TNA SP12/163/20ii; TNA SP12/162/44ii. 6 Liddiard(unpublished paper, 2007). 140 lessee had been given licence to kill all the deer and 'to stub and dig up by the roots as much wood underwoods and trees as they would be at cost to do it.'7 The lease of 1587 recalled that the park had been 'disparked above 46 years.' Within eight years of the 1533 lease, in the early 1540s, all the deer had been killed, most of the trees removed and the pale had been allowed to fall into disrepair, 'so neither deer pale nor sufficient covert meet for deer hath been remaining within the space of 36 years last past or thereabouts.' 8 Contemporary definitions of disparkment therefore varied between Lambarde's removal of deer, Chislet's emphasis point where the habitat was unsuitable to sustain deer, and the Dorsetshire deputy commissioners' interpretation of the land's conversion into agriculture. Important to disparkment was the alteration of the function and interior configuration of the park, which all these definitions encompass. (ii) The pattern and process of disparkment in Kent, 1558 - 1625 The contemporary evidence for the pattern of disparkment comes from a number of sources. Firstly, maps, leases and other documents which announce or imply the land to have been disparked, and secondly, negative evidence, such as the non-appearance of parks on maps or in documents, for example, the return of horses being bred in parks. Kent is unusual in also having the evidence of Lambarde's listing of parks disparked 'within memorie', as discussed in Chapter One (i).9 However, a major problem is that the evidence rarely indicates when disparkment actually occurred. Of 18 disparkments identified by Lambarde in 1570, the date by which he had compiled the list for the first edition of 'A Perambulation of Kent', there is corroborating evidence that 9 had been disparked by 1558, and the other nine are likely to have been, although the possibility remains that, for some, disparkment might have occurred early in Elizabeth I's reign (see Figure 5.1).10 The assumption that most, if not all, of the other nine parks were disparked by 1558 is admittedly based on flimsy evidence. The disparkment of Panthurst(67) park had occurred by the 1560s, when agricultural activity was already well established, which would push back the date of disparkment by several years. 7 LPL TA/39/1, lease of 20 /6/1587. 8 Ibid. 9 See pp.11-15 and Figure 1.1 'Comparison between Lambarde's lists of parks', p.9. 10 See Figure 5.1 'Disparkment in Kent' (Appendix 5 pp.317-318) which includes sources and possible dates of disparkment. 141 Henden(45) park was also in all probability disparked after 1541, following the land exchange forced by Henry VIII upon Ann Boleyn's sister, Mary, and her husband William Stafford.11 Apart from Lambarde's listing of two disparked parks at Oxenhoath(65, 66), nothing else has been found about them, which leads to the tentative conclusion that their disparkment had occurred long before 1558. Of the remaining five disparked parks, there is uncertainty about Langley(52) or Mereworth(60), while Sutton(85) park had been given over the farming by the 1570s, and Cage(88) and Postern(92) parks in Tonbridge, were so heavily exploited to supply in the local ironworks that deer were unlikely to have thrived in them after the first decade of Elizabeth I's reign, but earlier dates of disparkment are also possible.12 Another 18 parks have been identified from documentary sources, none of which appear on Lambarde's list or on the three Tudor maps of Kent. There is evidence that nine of these parks had been disparked by 1558, but very little or nothing is known about the remaining 9.13 The strong presumption is therefore these parks had been disparked before 1558. Four parks, Bockingfold(8), Boxley(14), Fryarne(36) and Lympne(57) suffered disrupted ownership from church to crown during the Reformation. Bockingfold(8), in particular, had three changes of ownership between 1554 and 1559, so had probably been disparked by then.14 A tithe dispute concerning Boxley(14) park in 1574 revealed an established farming regime, and by 1588 there was confusion as to where the park boundary lay, so disparkment must have occurred much earlier, perhaps shortly after Sir Thomas Wyatt's attainder in the 1550s.15 Nothing is known about Fryarne(36) and Lympne(57) parks, and the histories of Cudham(25) park and Pembury(68) are also obscure. Kemsing(49) park, under the ownership of William Boleyn in Henry VIII's reign, was being parcelled out, implying disparkment, although its status is not mentioned in the documents.16 Southpark(72) near Penshurst had been disparked by 1559 when an indenture for the extraction of wood, within the parkland, but not the woods, made no mention of the presence of deer.17 Lastly, Comford(7) park at Birling contained deer in 1521, but no document mentions it as an active Elizabethan 11 CKS U1450 T5/62 12 See discussion under Chapter Three (iii) p.114. 13 See Chapter One (i) pp.11-15. 14 Hasted 5 (1797:166-167). 15 CCA-DCB-J/X.10.17, 1574; TNA E134/30&31,1588, E134/31 Eliz/Hil16, Hil27. 16 BL Cart.Harl.86.G.54, 86.H.16, 1525-1526. 17 CKS U1475/E1. 142 park, although the adjacent Birling(6) park in the same Nevill estate was prone to deer and cony theft, and its deer keepers' wages appear in accounts of 1586 to 1594.18 With the caveat that dates of disparkment are impossible to pinpoint, that there is no continuity of evidence, and in some cases very flimsy negative evidence, the tentative total number of disparkments from 1558 to 1602 is seven or eight. The five failed parks in Elizabeth I's reign were Aldington(1), Bore Place(9), Postling(73) and Stowting(82), with contradictory evidence about the dates of the disparkment of Saltwood(75) and Ashour(69) at Penshurst, which might have occurred before 1558, and the possible inclusion of Sutton(85), Cage(88) and Postern(92) parks.19 In or by Jacobean times a further five parks were disparked, at Bedgebury(4), Glassenbury(37), Halden(41), Hungershall(47) and Otford Great(62) park.20 This makes a maximum loss rate of less than 25 per cent of the total of 53 active parks known to have existed for all or part of the period from 1558 to 1625, or 29 per cent if new parks are discounted. Not only is this rate of disparkment lower than the 50 per cent rate of loss estimated by Lambarde in 'A Perambulation of Kent' in 1576, but it also occurred over 67 years. Astute as Lambarde was, his observation about disparkment, therefore, should not be used as evidence for the decline of the Kentish parks in the Elizabethan and Jacobean periods, but rather as a reflection of the situation from 1509 to 1558. In fact, as far as the evidence allows, between 1558 and 1625, the overall number of parks in Kent appears to have been relatively stable, which accords with the evidence of Lambarde's lists of active parks and the five contemporary maps, which ranged from 24 to 34 parks at any given time. 18 ESRO ABE/18R/1; see Figure 8.1 'Deer park violations' (Appendix 9 p.328-330). 19 Aldington(1), Lambarde, between 1576 and 1596; Bore Place(9), CKS U1000/3 E5, 1597 Inquisition park not mentioned; Postling(73) CCA-DCB-J/X.16, on Lambarde's lists of active parks in 1576 and 1596, but 1576 tithe dispute mentions sheep keeping in park; Saltwood(75), Lambarde, between 1576 and 1596, but Hasted 8 (1797:223) writes that Thomas Broadnax of Hythe disparked Saltwood park in the reign of Mary I; Stowting(82) CCA-DCB-J/X.10.20, on Lambarde's lists of 1576 and 1596, but 1582 tithe dispute mentions various agricultural products from the late 1570s: Ashour park was leased out in 1552, but firm evidence of it as farmland came in 1572, CKS U1475/T33. 20 Bedgebury(4) BL Cart.Harl.77.C.44, 1607, lease mentions deer, but leases after 1612 do not, BL Cart.Harl.79.F.3; Glassenbury(37), 1628, map of 'Old Park' with fields; Halden(41), CKS U1475 M73, 1609 survey mentions deer, but indenture of 1610, CKS U1475 T92, park 'now disparked'; Hungershall(47), ESRO ABE/52.1, 1633, lease recites 8 leases back to 1618; Otford Great(62), Phillips I (1930:216) 1607, 'lately disparked'. The whole of Southfrith(94) was disparked by 1610, but a new, smaller park at Somerhill(94a) was created so Southfrith has been omitted from this debate (see Chapter Six pp.175-177). 143 The period during which disparkment took place in Kent can be compared with Sussex, Norfolk, Suffolk and Hertfordshire, all with different patterns, although Hertfordshire more closely reflects the pattern of Kentish disparkment. In Hertfordshire, Prince contends that the demand for food by the rising population of Elizabethan London led to 'an unrecorded number of parks' going over to agriculture, especially in southern Hertfordshire, and names five medieval parks missing from Saxton's and Norden's maps.21 However, when cross-checking the named parks with Rowe's research, three of the parks had ceased to function before 1500, the park at Little Berkhemsted survived until 1614 and Periers park at Cheshunt was incorporated into Cheshunt park by James I in 1607, being reimparked rather than disparked.22 From Rowe's gazetteer of medieval parks, there is evidence of the disparking of perhaps six medieval parks after 1558 - three were shown on Saxton's map of 1577, but not on Norden's of 1598, another two had been disparked at undetermined dates by 1600, and Hatfield Great park was disparked in 1611.23 Rather than confirming widespread disparkment in Hertfordshire in the reigns of Elizabeth I and James I, a study of the gazetteer shows, as in Kent, that more disparkment had occurred earlier in the sixteenth century. Doubt must therefore be cast on Prince's general assertion about the loss of Hertfordshire's parks in Elizabeth I's reign because once matched against the history of individual parks it does not stand up to scrutiny. In Norfolk, the loss of parks before Elizabeth I's reign has not been established, but during Elizabeth I's reign parks enjoyed 'exuberant popularity.'24 There were indications of coming decline, such as family indebtedness or specific family problems as has been found in Kent, but they did not reach a critical level necessitating disparkment until after James I's reign. Neither was there widespread disparkment in Sussex, where Manning estimated that only six of 121 Tudor parks were disparked in sixteenth century.25 He believed numbers of parks peaked at the beginning of the sixteenth century and that a pronounced decline followed in the seventeenth century. 21 Prince(2008:12-14); See Chapter 1 (iv) pp.23-26 for examples of possible unreliability in Kent. 22 Rowe(2009) pp.78-82, Periers in Cheshunt, pp.88-89, Boreham Wood, pp.90-93,160-161, Little Berkhamsted, pp.130-131, Hoddesdon, pp.172-174, two parks at Little Munden. 23 Rowe(2009) p.96, Furneaux Pelham Old and/or New park, p. 113, Hatfield Great park, p.118 Woodhall park, p.156 Knebworth Great park, p.194 Pisho park. 24 Dye(1986:11,20-32). 25 Manning(1993:125-127). 144 The estimate of only six parks lost during the whole of the sixteenth century is in stark contrast to the loss of parks in Kent and Suffolk before 1558. In Suffolk, Hoppitt's meticulous research has shown that of 32 parks in existence in 1500 only 19 or 41 per cent remained at the end of the century, but this is discounting the number of new park creations.26 The overall rate of loss of 59 per cent of Suffolk's park in the sixteenth century is not out of accord with Lambarde's figures for Kent, but loss was unevenly spread across the time period, and, unlike Kent, the greater loss was between 1550 and 1600 at 31 per cent, while the period from 1500 to 1550 only had a 12 per cent loss. This varied pattern of disparkment has not taken into account the new parks that were being created. With few comparative county studies it is difficult to judge whether Kent's parks were particularly resilient, but overall, when new parks are added, the actual number of parks in Kent remained stable, while in Suffolk the late sixteenth century was a dynamic period for parks, during which the creation of new parks more than balanced out the loss of ancient parks.27 There are no figures for new parks available for Sussex, Norfolk and Hertfordshire. It is clear that more comparative and detailed studies are required to reveal whether general statements by historians such as Lasdun, Liddiard and Palliser, about a renewed spate of disparking from the second half of the sixteenth century, are borne out for most of the country, and should not new parks be added to the equation? If Kent, Norfolk, Suffolk, Sussex and indeed even Hertfordshire, were experiencing a relatively slower overall rate of disparkment later in the sixteenth century, are these to be considered as the norm, or are they exceptions to the spate of disparking assumed to have occurred elsewhere and perhaps more distant from London?28 26 Hoppitt(1992:71,83,92,97). 27 Ibid. 28 Palliser(1992:225) 'In more densely settled areas extra land might be found by disparking. Lambarde (1576) of 53 parks in Kent 23 disparked within living memory.'; Lasdun, (1992:32) 'But despite a spate of park making in the first half of the sixteenth century, disparking began to offset new emparking in the second half.'; Liddiard in Rotherham (2007:82) 'Iincidents of disparkment can be found throughout the Middle Ages, but levels of disparkment rose in the late sixteenth century and during the Interregnum.' 145 Historians above recognise the difficulty in obtaining detailed evidence, and instead rely on anecdotal or contemporary observations, the former not quantitative and the latter impressionistic and sometimes contradictory. As has been demonstrated, evidence supports the view that the period of disparkment in Kent to which Lambarde referred occurred mainly before 1558. Other writers, such as Gascoigne and Markham, expound the benefits of parks and their roles within the landed estate, making no mention of any trend towards disparkment, but rather implying that parks were an important attribute of a landed estate.29 Harrison spoke of the 'great plentie of parkes' and noted the expansion of parks with some owners 'still desirous to inlarge those grounds.' 30 However, when discussing the development of farming he contradicts this by stating that owners had begun 'to smell out' parcels of land which could be made more profitable and 'therefore some of them do grow to be disparked.'31 Of course, both trends could be occurring at the same time involving different owners and different places, but the crucial judgement to make is whether one trend was more dominant than another, and only detailed area studies would unravel this. As Liddiard has commented there is no national picture, 'the jury is very much out' on the issue, so Kent might or might not be representative.32 Turning to the process of disparkment, it is possible to identify factors that appear to have encouraged the process of disparkment, and others that encouraged the retention of a park, as indeed Harrison's comments reflect. Although Lambarde did not offer a direct explanation for the loss of half of Kent's parks, his observation that parks were for pleasure and were in decline compared with the increasing number of lucrative cony warrens, implies that he thought that economic factors lay behind the loss of parks. The impression he gives his readers is that deer parks were being dismantled at an ever-quickening rate as a result of a commercial decision to make way for more profitable agricultural enterprises. However, when the admittedly sparse evidence for Kentish parks in the reigns of Elizabeth I and James I is closely examined, a different picture emerges, with the slower rate of disparkment after 1558 being triggered as much by family circumstances leading to financial 29 Gascoigne(1575); Markham(1616). 30 Holinshed(1587:204-205). 31 Edelen (1994:259). 32 pers.comm e-mail 5/8/2009. 146 embarrassment, as by hard-headed decisions to capitalise on otherwise under-productive land purely to make profit. In other words, owners who embarked on disparkment did not forego the benefits of their parks willingly, but were more likely to have had disparkment forced upon them. In Elizabethan Hertfordshire's parks, the 'powerful influence' of the London market, as described by Thirsk, led to an expansion of arable land at the expense of woodland, heath and pasture.33 However, the evidence indicates that neither Hertfordshire's parks, nor Kent's, both in a similar strategic position as regards London, succumbed to commercial pressure as readily as has been assumed. Indeed the proximity to London might have had a positive effect on park retention by encouraging the upkeep of parks within easy reach of the court and the city, between them the centre of power and wealth, especially when both Elizabeth I and James I increasingly confined their visits to the home counties. Thus, as far as Kent is concerned, although economic factors cannot be discounted, especially when long-term trends are borne in mind, the question is why so few park owners resisted the temptation to take advantage of rising prices and buoyant rents to convert parkland into productive agricultural land.34 As discussed earlier, most Kentish parks were probably affordable, within the overall scheme of owners' budgets and in one of the most prosperous counties outside London.35 Perhaps, as will be explored in Chapter Seven, owners valued parks more for other reasons, such as for the cultural capital they afforded.36 Owners of parks could gain favour at court by emulating the monarchic passion for hospitality and hunting; maintain their status in their communities and with their peers; and enhance the aesthetic setting and surrounding of their mansion by preserving one remaining park. It might be that because the London markets secured both high prices and steady demand, good profits could be made on other parts of estates, without the owners sacrificing their parks. The general prosperity of the Kentish gentry 'with revenues greater than anywhere else' was noted by Lambarde, who considered it due to Kent's location by 'the sea, the river, a populous citie, and a well traded highway, by the commodities whereof, the superfluous fruites of the grounde be 33 Prince(2008:13) citing Thirsk IV (1967:49-52). 34 Liddiard(unpublished paper, 2007). 35 See Chapter Three (iv) pp.116-118; Palliser(1992:116); Lambarde(1576:7). 36 See Chapter Seven p.184 onwards. 147 dearly sold, and consequently the land may yeeld a greater rent.'37 Kent was in the forefront of agricultural improvements, with innovations occurring in every geological region, so perhaps the ability to raise income from rents on other parts of the landed estate relieved the pressure from park owners to give up the pleasure of the park.38 In Kent those parks identified by Lambarde as having been disparked were mainly those where ownership had been transferred from church to crown during the Reformation of Henry VIII's reign, or from private ownership to crown as a result of various political crises faced by Henry VIII, Edward VI and Mary I.39 Factors behind disparkment and behind changes in ownership are similar, but in both cases, although evidence is circumstantial rather than direct, the loss of a park often appears to be linked with a particular set of circumstances, such as indebtedness through overspending, broken succession, the drain of fines for recusancy or the need to raise money for marriage portions. This observation is not peculiar to Kent, but has parallels in Suffolk where Hoppitt found that a fall of fortune of whatever sort 'could sound the death knell for a park,' and in Norfolk, too, the failure to maintain a park was frequently a precursor of a family's impending collapse, often due to financial mismanagement.40 An examination of disparked Kent parks provides a good deal of supporting evidence for disparkment linked to a decline in family fortunes. In the case of Aldington(1), Hungershall(47), Saltwood(75) or Stowting(82), little is known about the reasons for their disparkment, but there seems to be more than a coincidental connection between family crisis and disparkment in the cases of Bedgebury(4), Bore Place(9), Glassenbury(37), Postling(73), Halden(41) and Otford Great(62) parks. At Bedgebury(4) financial difficulties arose from the recusancy of Sir Alexander Culpepper, whose Catholicism forced him to flee home for long periods, to enter bonds for good behaviour, of £1000 in 1581 and of £2000 in 1587, and to pay fines for nonattendance at church.41 He was even imprisoned for his beliefs. After his death in 1600, it seems likely that 'the troubles' of Sir Alexander Culpepper had a cumulative effect on 37 Lambarde(1576:6). 38 Thirsk in Zell(2000:102-103). 39 Lambarde(1576); Chapter One (i) pp.11-15. 40 Hoppitt(1992:280-28); Dye(1986:4). 41 Buckingham(1979:20-24). 148 the financial resources of the family, and in James I's reign the park was leased to tenants and given over to a cony warren. 42 Unfortunately for Sir Perceval Willoughby of Bore Place(7), disparkment was probably a consequence of the profligate expenditure of his kinsman father-in-law, Sir Francis Willoughby, who built a grandiose home at Wollaton in Nottinghamshire, entertaining lavishly there, and accruing debts of £21000. In underwriting his father-inlaw's debts, Sir Perceval Willoughby sold his land in Kent, Bore Place(7) probably being disparked by 1597, and in 1605, after the death of Sir Francis Willoughby, Sir Perceval Willoughby moved to the prestigious new house at Wollaton, inherited by his wife, Bridget, Sir Francis Willoughby's daughter. 43 At Glassenbury(37) the need to maximise income because of debt and family dispute probably caused eventual disparkment. Thomas Roberts, aged 18 when his father died in 1580, clashed with his mother over his father's will and the repayment of debts, which led to a suit in the court of Chancery.44 Although when he took over the estate he showed himself to be 'a prudent and judicious Gentleman,' efforts to achieve effective retrenchment seem to have failed, and by 1628 the park had been divided into fields (see Plate 5.1).45 In the case of Postling(73) a combination of overspending and lack of a male heir were linked to the park's disparkment. Problems arose under the ownership of Sir Anthony Aucher, who was forced to sell land to repay money he had embezzled through 'his ruthless exploitation of crown offices for personal aggrandizement.' 46 Postling(73) park might have been disparked by his death in 1558, but was definitely by 1576 when sold by adventurer, Sir Humphrey Gilbert, husband of Anthony Aucher's granddaughter, who was in need of money to support various maritime projects. 47 42 Buckingham(1983/1984:187). 43 CKS U1000/3/E28, 1580-1589, a note of 440 acres of land sold for a total of £2568; CKS U1000/3/E6, 1595, debts totalled about £4710; newspaper article, Phillips, c.1909. 44 Wyndham(1952:126) Chancery Proceeding C2 Elizabeth I B25/62, 1639 Chancery R43/62 & R20/42.. 45 Anon.(c.1714:22-23); TNA STAC8/53/5, 1604; map owned by Marcus Sutcliffe, see Plate 5.1 p.151. 46 Alsop, Sir Anthony Aucher (d.1558) (http://oxforddnb.com/articles/68012). 47 CCA-DCB-J/X.16, 1576 tithe dispute; Rapple, Sir Humphrey Gilbert (1537-1583) (http://oxforddnb.com/articles/10690); Hasted 8 (1797:214). 149 Plate 5.1 After disparkment (a) Glassenbury(37) park shortly after disparkment with fields interspersed with blocks of woodland. By kind permission of Marcus Sutcliffe (b) Detail of Panthurst(67) park map of 1630 (CKS U442 P102) with hedgerow trees, but only strips of woodland. Animals can be seen in the fields. Field 27 called 'Coneyberrye Meade' was the former cony warren. By kind permission of the Centre for Kentish Studies, Kent Archives and Local Studies Service, Kent County Council 150 Robert Sidney, viscount Lisle, was in the unusual position compared with most Kentish park owners in having more than one park. He bought Otford Great(62) park from the crown in 1600 and acquired Halden(41), by inheritance, in James I's reign. Both became vulnerable to disparkment when the viscount required ready money to pay for his lavish lifestyle at court and to raise money for his daughters' dowries.48 Both parks were disparked prior to being sold to Sir Thomas Smythe in 1617 for £9000.49 These examples show that in the case of at least six of the ten Kent parks disparked in the period from 1558 to 1625, changes in ownership, changes in family fortune, and, in particular, financial crises played major roles prior to eventual disparkment. The overwhelming factors then appear to have been economic – but not, as Thirsk and Prince suggested, in order to take advantage of the London markets to maximise profits, and thereby income, by converting parkland into farmland, but rather to deal with the problem of offsetting and repaying family debts. (iii) The management of disparked parks Although disparked parks did not carry the status of active parks, they remained valuable assets, which could be exploited by their owners by renting out or managing the land productively themselves. In (a) the leasing policy of the crown's disparked parks will come under scrutiny, and will be shown to have been generous to the tenant, sometimes deliberately as a form of patronage, but also by inertia through habitually renewing leases on the same terms even over decades. Next the agricultural use made of disparked parks (b) will be sketched out from the patchy evidence to hand, with an attempt to indicate the benefits accruing to the landowners, tenants or sub-tenants. Lastly, the exploitation of the woodland areas of former parks will be covered in (c). (a) Crown parks leased out Of the ten crown parks leased out after 1558, six had been disparked before Elizabeth I ascended the throne and a further two were disparked during her reign.50 48 For the acquisition of Halden(41) park see Chapter Six p.171, 173, and Otford Great(62) parks, see Chapter Seven (v) p.221 onwards; BL Add.Mss.12066; Hanney, Kinnamon & Brennan (2005:173) letter 227, 13/8/1612. 49 CKS U1475/T92. 50 See Figure 6.4 'Crown parks in Kent' (Appendix 7 pp.321-323). The other two parks, Elham(30) and Westwell(99) continued as active parks. Aldington(1) and Southfrith(94) were disparked during Elizabeth I's reign, see Chapter Six pp.175-177.. 151 Five parks, Aldington(1), Bexley(5), Boxley(14), Maidstone(59) and Otford New(64) parks had leases of 21 years duration, while Allington(2) and Otford Little(83) parks were held under 30-year terms granted by Mary I.51 The 21-year lease gave the owner more flexibility while still offering continuity to the tenant, and in Kent was the preferred length of term for disparked parks. Some leases were made in reversion for a term of years, such as the grants for Allington(2), Boxley(14) and Maidstone(59). A reversionary lease was granted without a fine, often to court officials who had no connection with the land they had been granted. Reversionary leases were part of a wider policy whereby 'faced with a continual shortage of money, the crown attempted to satisfy the demands of its officials for higher incomes by granting to them a share in its own revenue.'52 The reversionary lease gave future interest in the land, but as Thomas's research showed from the little evidence available, the actual profits made by the grantees from the leases varied widely because deals had to be made with sitting tenants, who were not necessarily cooperative.53 Unlike other grants of land which went through formal procedures, reversionary grants required the monarch's personal warrant so that the normal method of using the commissioners appointed for leasing crown lands was bypassed. In general the result was that reversionary leases 'were generous to the grantee, but expensive for the Crown,' because the crown had not increased rents, making the rentable value of the land higher than rents paid by sitting tenants, and the new owner could levy a fine on the tenants which reflected this.54 The device of reversionary leases enabled the crown to resist increasing salaries at the expense of efficient management of crown land and was used in Kent in just the way Thomas indicated to reward Mary Finch and John Astley. In 1569 John Astley, master of the Jewels and distantly related to the Boleyns, was given a 30-year lease at a rent of £50 a year that included Allington(2), Boxley(14) and Maidstone(59) parks.55 51 CPR l, October 1554 m.33; CKS U1450/T6/28, 1553. 52 Thomas(1977:71). 53 Baker(2002:274). 54 For Otford Great(62) see Chapter Seven (iv) p.221 onwards; Thomas(1977:71). 55 John Astley's maternal aunt, Elizabeth, had married Sir James Boleyn and so was Elizabeth I's great aunt (http://www.oxforddnb.com/article/818). 152 The lease was in reversion to that of Mary Finch, who like John Astley had surrendered her crown annuity in exchange for the lease of 1553, which was due to expire in 1584. 56 Other parks were leased singly to members of the Kentish gentry who already lived near or who had interests in the location. The evidence of exactly who held each park over the whole period and under what terms is patchy, and the prevalence of subletting also confuses the picture. Sir Henry Sidney of Penshurst had leased Otford Little(63) park for 21 years with an annual rent of £20 and fine of £13 6s 8d from 1553, and the lease under the same terms was renewed at least three times until 1601.57 In 1568 Otford New(64) park was leased to George Multon of St. Clere, Ightham, Lambarde's father-in-law.58 It is likely that Bexley(5) park was included in Bexley demesne land leased to Justinian Champneis of Hall Place, Bexley.59 Despite the apparent care taken over drawing up leases, confusion could arise from those issued by the crown as well as from subsequent subleases. With grants from crown to main tenant, who sublet to others, who sublet yet again, it is no wonder that over the years exact legal titles became blurred and confused. One striking example was that of Mary Finch's letters patent granted in Mary I's reign. Unsure of the extent of the manor of Newnham Court in Boxley, Mary Finch had a schedule of land drawn up, which particularly named Boxley park(14).60 However Sir John Baker, who, as both chancellor of the exchequer (1540–58) and undertreasurer of England (1543–58), was responsible for drawing up the final lease, thought 'it would carry too great a show to be named by the name of a park', so included the park under the heading of 'general woodlands' reassuring Mrs Finch that 'you shall be sure to hold and enjoy all these lands as well as if they were particularly named.61 56 CPR, part XV, pp.319-320, 25/5/1555. 57 CPR 2 & 3 Philip and Mary I, 3 pp.69-72, 13/3/1556; BL Add.Mss.36804, 3/3/1567; CPR Part VI no.1408, p.235, 26/3/1568; Arch.Cant. V (1862-3:328) transcription of BL Cart.Lans.82.55; CPR no.1535, p.192, 23/1/1580; Phillips I (1930:232) 11/8/1607. 58 CKS U2007/T155, 16 /4/1568, 30/7/1577 & 10/7/1588. 59 Arch.Cant. V (1862-3:328) transcription of BL Cart.Lans.82.55. 1573, mentioned his lease of the Bexley demesne lands, and TNA E178/1163, 1597/98, reported his felling of Crown trees in Bexley(5) park 'by virtue of a lease as it is said.' 60 TNA E134/31Elizabeth/Hilary 27. 61 Ibid. deposition of William Goodall of Boxley, yeoman, aged 67. 153 His advice proved to be unsound, as Mary Finch's successor, John Astley, found to his cost. His lease of 1569 had included the lands of Newnham manor, which included Boxley(14) park, but in 1581 Elizabeth I granted a lease for three lives to William Baynham for lands in Worcestershire and in Kent including Park wood(14b), Boxley.62 Imprecision in the original lease meant that the ownership of Park wood became the subject of a legal battle in the court of the Exchequer.63 Depositions and hearings continued for several years, until 6 July 1590 John Astley wrote to one of the judges that Park wood, parcel of the manor of Boxley, was held by William Baynham, but that he held Newnhamwood or Park wood, parcel of Newnham Court. In other words there were two Park woods in Boxley, one centred on the old Boxley(14a) park predating 1536, and the other on Sir Thomas Wyatt's new park, known as Lea park(14b) at Boxley.64 This explanation was accepted because in a later letter patent of 1596 both parks were specifically named.65 Over the period the crown's hold over its parks under lease undoubtedly weakened, and although only Allington(2) park passed completely out of its hands, in effect, with most leases being automatically renewed, the crown was left with only residual control.66 (b) Parkland into farmland After disparkment the landowner had several options - to keep the park within his hands and manage it himself, to lease part or all of it out, or to sell. In Kent the favoured strategies were for the gentile owner to keep the former parkland under his control by farming it directly or by granting tenancies over all or part of the area, while reserving certain rights for himself. Either way, on the whole, the park owners retained ultimate control of their former parks. It should be remembered that the process of disparkment in general took place over a number of years during which time some deer and their habitat may have been 62 CPR, Part VII, no.355, p.61, 2/8/1581. 63 TNA E134/30 & 31Eliz/Mich.19 (1587-88); TNA E134/31Eliz/Hil.16 (1588); TNA E134/31Eliz/Hil. 27 (1588); TNA E133/6/815; TNA E133/6/863. 64 The old park is referred to in CCA-DCB-J/X.10.17, 1574; Sir Thomas Wyatt's new park in 1549 cited in Zell (2000:32). 65 CMS U480/T1/1, 24 February 38 Elizabeth, letter patent. 66 CKS U1515/T1, 1584; Worcester(2007:19). 154 retained. This is illustrated by the leases for Hever(46) and Bedgebury(4) parks, which were ambiguous about the continued presence of deer, and might reflect an early phase of disparkment.67 Even with deer remaining, perhaps prior to disparkment, the herd could be reduced in number and/or restricted in area, to allow other activities to take precedence. Eventually, deer having been removed, more deliberate steps might be taken to prepare the land for agricultural or other uses, such as cony warrens or woodland. Chislet(22) park might not be untypical in that to prepare it for agricultural production it was continually treated with manure after the removal of the deer so that it could then be 'occupied as a farm enclosed with ditch and hedges in the most part.'68 However, few records of such a transition survive. At Bedgebury(4) park the Culpeppers, and at Ashour(69) and Leigh(70) parks, Sir Henry and Sir Robert Sidney, in turn, granted one lease for each park, but reserved, among other rights, all rights over wood and timber trees, freedom of access, and the right to hawk, hunt, fish and fowl over the land.69 When the archbishop of Canterbury leased out Chislet(22) and Curlswood(26) parks, he reserved the wood and timber, and, in the latter park, forbade subletting or sale of the term of lease without his permission.70 Within Brasted(15), Lenham(11) and Glassenbury(37) parks, large areas were retained by the owners, with the residue leased out to smaller tenant farmers.71 Maps of Brasted(15) in 1613, of Ightham(48) and Wrotham(100) in 1620, of Panthurst(67) in 1630, and of West Wickham(99) parks in 1632 depict the boundaries of former parks with remnant woodland within, but otherwise divided into fields for tenant farmers (see Plates 5.1 and 5.2).72 When Hungershall(47) park was disparked in 1618, it was divided into seven holdings, which were each leased out for 21 years to local yeomen and husbandmen, for a total annual rent of £40 10s 0d and 22 firkins of an unspecified commodity.73 Within 15 years, perhaps to pay off debts, Henry Nevill, lord Abergavenny, granted a lease for the whole park to John Kempsall, merchant taylor of 67 CKS U1450/T6/10; BL Cart.Harl.77.C.44, for Hever see Chapter Three p.85 and for Bedgebury p.93. 68 LPL TA/39/1. 69 BL Cart.Harl.79.F.5, 1618; CKS U1475/T55/22A, 1612; CKS U1475/T61/4 & 6, 1594 & 1615. 70 LPL TA/39/1; LPL TA/633/2, 10/11/1595. 71 CKS U908/L1/1, c.1570; BL Add.Mss.42715, 1559; Wyndham(1952:207). 72 CKS TR1534/1; CKS U681/P31, see Plate 5.2 p.165; CKS U442/P102, see Plate 5.1 p.149; CKS U908/P78. 73 ESRO ABE/52.1, 1533; firkin = small cask for liquid, butter, fish (http://dictionary.oed.com). 155 London, for £100 per annum, with John Kempsall keeping the rents from the seven holdings for the remainder of the existing leases.74 Once given over to agriculture, farming practices most suited to the soil, gradient and climate in their locality were adopted, as illustrated by 13 disparked parks about which something of the internal structure is known.75 Animal rearing predominated in eight of the disparked parks scattered in the Weald, on the Greensand or the eastern chalk downs, although all parks had some arable land. In Sutton(85) park in 1575 and Hungershall(47) park in 1618 there were less than 30 acres of arable land compared with over 100 acres of pasture.76 Stonehurst(81) had cattle and corn, and Panthurst(67) park, with 56 parcels of land, included 117 acres of meadow and 205 acres of pasture, as against 67 acres of arable, and was shown with cattle and other livestock scattered across its fields on a map of 1630.77 Like other areas in the western Weald, Panthurst(67) park was ideally suited for cattle rearing. Hay from its meadows and fodder crops from the arable land were used to feed cattle during the autumn and into the winter months, to produce beasts to sell in the London market when prices were at a premium.78 Cardinal Pole himself kept 60 to 80 oxen in the park, some of which were driven to the London market to be sold after his death.79 The disparked parks on the North Downs at Postling(73) and Stowting(82) specialised in grazing breeding ewes, but Stowting(82) was more diversified, with cattle and pigs, a hemp field and an apple orchard within its bounds.80 On more fertile valley sites, mixed farming was adopted. Allington(2) park, on the banks of the Medway, contained 90 acres of arable land producing barley, oats, wheat, peas and beans, and 38 acres of pasture with grazing cattle, oxen, sheep and horses.81 Another riverside park was Little(63) park in Otford, on the flood plain of the 74 Stone(1965:779) in 1629 Lord Abergavenny had debts of over £15000. 75 CKS U1475/T55/22, 1612, Allington(2); Ashhour(69); CKS U908/L1/1, c.1570, Boxley(14); Brasted(15); Curlswood(26), Glassenbury(37), Hungershall(47), Otford Little(63), Panthurst(67), Postling(73), Stonehurst(81), Stowting(82), Sutton(83). References given for parks that do not subsequently appear in the text. 76 CKS U590/T14/14 Survey, 1575; ESRO ABE/52.1, 1633, citing 1618. 77 CKS U1450/T6/44, 1566; CKS U1450/T5/40, 1567; CKS U442 P102, see Plate 5.1 p.151. 78 Fox, Williams & Mountfield(2007:36-37) citing Zell(1994:101-102). 79 CKS U1450/E20/21. 80 CCA DCB-J/X/10.16 f.209-210, 1576; CCA DCB-J/X.10.20 f.8, 1582. 81 CCA DCB-J/X.10.16 f.172, 180, 190, 1575 & 1576 and DCB-J/X.10.17, f.33-35, 65-68, 1573. 156 river Darent. A survey of 1553, commissioned by Sir Henry Sidney soon after he took over the park, then in its early stage of disparkment, showed that it had 173 acres of meadow, valued at five shillings an acre, 84 acres of hay meadow, valued at three shillings an acre, 95 acres of pasture valued at 2s 8d an acre, and 108 acres of rough and 'broomy' ground, valued at 1s 4d an acre, and not then fully converted into fertile agricultural land.82 The value of the park as a whole was estimated at £40 a year. It did not take long to convert the rough land into cultivatable soil because within ten years the park was valued at £58 a year.83 Accordingly, leases of 1560 and 1565 expected the tenant of Little(63) park, Otford, to produce crops abundant enough to send to Sir Henry Sidney, in lieu of rent each year, 20 quarters of 'good, sweet and merchantable wheat', 20 quarters of 'good sweet merchantable malt' and 60 quarters of oats, as well as 20 cartloads of 'good sweet merchantable hay'.84 It has proved impossible to ascertain the profitability of former parkland compared with surrounding farmland. The profit raised from disparked parks was bound to vary according to the fertility of the soil or the success in improving its quality, and the mixture of uses to which the land was put. No accounts survive for disparked parks, and all there is to go on is a scattering of values of crops and livestock given in tithe disputes and a few records of rents in leases. Neither source can satisfactorily throw light on yield values or rents for parks as against other farmland, partly because of the fragmentary evidence, and partly because information about yields and rents on adjacent land would be required. The value of certain agricultural produce, although given for Allington(2), Postling(73), Stowting(82) and Sutton(85) parks, is often vague as to the quantity and quality valued, and offers little in the way of comparative material.85 At Allington(2) park in 1575/6 a cop of barley was valued at ten pence, a cop of peas at ten pence, a shock of beans at two shillings, a bushel of beans at 2s 7d, a shock of oats at 1s 2d, and a shock of wheat at 3s 4d.86 The value of a lamb varied from 1s 8d per lamb for 82 CKS U1475/E21/1 & 2, 1553. 83 CKS U1475/E21/1; Kingsford & Shaw(1925:300). 84 CKS U1475/T87, 1560 and 1565; quarter = 8 bushels of dry measure (Wightman's Arithmetical Tables). 85 CCA DCB-J/X.10.17 ff.33-35, 65-68, 70-72 & DCB-J/X.10.16 ff.172, 180, 190; CCA DCB-J/X.10.16 ff.209-210; CCA DCB-J/X.10.20 f.18; CCA DCB-J/X.10.18 ff.174-175, catalogued as Sutton Valence, but internal evidence points to this being Chart Sutton. 86 Cop = conical heap of unbound barley, oats or pease, or of straw or hay, used chiefly in Kent; shock = a group of unspecified number of sheaves of grain placed upright and supporting each other in order to permit the drying and ripening (http://dictionary.oed.com). A standard bushel measures 19½ inches across and is 8¼ inches deep (Wightman's Arithmetical Tables). 157 Postling(73) park in 1576, eight pence for Sutton(85) park in 1579, 2s 8d for Stowting(82) park in 1582, and six shillings for Panthurst(67) park in 1604.87 Other livestock in Stowting(82) park included calves worth 6s 8d each and pigs worth eight pence each, but the value of calves and pigs in Sutton(85) park was given as a total for an unspecified number of animals. Both Stowting(82) and Sutton(85) parks produced apples and hemp. The six to seven bushels of apples were worth sixpence a bushel and 400 sheaths of hemp were worth a farthing a sheath in Stowting(82) park, while in Sutton(85) park apples were valued at eight pence a bushel and hemp sheaths at 3s 4d, which would equate to 160 sheaths at the valuation of Stowting's(82) hemp sheath. As prices fluctuated regionally, seasonally and annually such values as exist cannot be put into any meaningful context, but these parks, at least, seem to have been productive enough for local clergymen to make an effort to claim tithes from land not previously subject to such payments.88 Revenue from disparked parks would accrue to landowners from tenants' rents, from woodland and other resources kept within the control of the owner, and savings would come from no longer having to maintain a deer park. However, offsetting potential profits would be the loss of benefits to the household from the variety of foodstuffs produced by a park. With no costs to defray on the disparked Hungershall(47) park, Henry Nevill, lord Abergavenny, gained not only the rent of £100, but also the savings of upkeep.89 Robert Dudley, earl of Leicester, greatly benefited from Elizabeth I's grant to him in 1561 of Panthurst(67) park, the manor of Knole, and the mansion and park(50) of Knole, with other lands at a very low annual rent of £40 13s 7d.90 By 1566, he had assigned a 99-year sub-lease over the whole to Thomas Rolfe for an annual rent of £200, which shows just how generous Elizabeth I had been to her favourite courtier. 91 In the following year Panthurst(67) park of 389 acres raised £127 2s 10d rent, which went a long way to meet the rent of £200 for the whole original grant of land, showing that despite the disparity between the rent paid to the crown and the rent paid to the earl, 87 CKS U269/A2/1. 88 Bowden in Thirsk IV (1967:593-633). 89 ESRO ABE/52.1. 90 CKS U1450/T5/68; Panthurst(67) is listed as disparked by Lambarde(1576); Adams, Robert Dudley, earl of Leicester, 1532/3-1588 (http://oxforddnb.com/articles/8160). 91 CKS U269/T1/A:8:15. 158 Thomas Rolfe seems to have struck a good bargain, and the earl still made a sizeable profit.92 Another park owner anxious to profit from a park, which he had recently disparked and which was not near his seat was Robert Sidney, viscount Lisle, who being short of ready money to provide dowries for his daughters, was anxious to lease Halden(41) park to the tenant who would offer to pay the highest rent in 1612.93 Profit was not necessarily the only motive behind the granting of tenancies to former parks. They might also be used as a form of patronage, by granting leases or subleases to servants on favourable terms. The archbishop of Canterbury seems to have used Curlswood(26) park in this way, but without knowing what, if any, fines were imposed one cannot be sure, because, as Chalkin has pointed out for the seventeenth century, on the ecclesiastical estates of Kent the annual rent was small and normally fixed, while the fine was the chief payment and subject to alteration.94 Nevertheless, assuming large entry fees, in granting three leases for Curlswood park, comprising 180 acres of woodland and 60 acres of arable land, at a nominal rent of 20 shillings a year for 21 years to Miles Sandes in 1586, to Richard Massinger in 1595 and to Sir Robert Hatton in 1617, the archbishop was seeming to offer a favourable deal. The first lessee was a Master of Arts and fellow of Queen's College, Cambridge, and the third was a resident of Lambeth, so both might have been in the archbishop's service, but Richard Massinger, as a servant of the archbishop's household, definitely was.95 Sir Henry Sidney, who was paying rent of £20 a year to Elizabeth I for Otford Little(63) park, sublet the 453 acres to John Walker, described as his 'servant', not for monetary rent, but for designated amounts of wheat, malt, oats and hay in 1560.96 He also leased out the lodge and 470 acres land in Leigh(70) park in 1553 to John Harrison, 'for true and faithful service', to hold for 20 years at a rent of £13 6s 8d a year.97 Sir Robert Sidney, followed the trend, but as Zell points out patronage had its limits in the 92 CKS U1450/T5/40; CKS U269/T1/A:8:15. 93 Hanney, Kinnamon & Brennan (2005:176) letter 230, 16 /8/1612; CKS U1475/T92, 1610, date of Halden's disparkment. See Chapter Seven pp.233-234 for profits made after the disparkment of Otford(62) Great park. 94 Chalklin(1965:61-62). 95 LPL TA/633/1-4. 96 Kingsford & Shaw I (1925:248); CKS U1475/T87, 1560 & 1565, for details look back to p.158; Stone(1965:301) sometimes the provision of foodstuff instead of rent was a device adopted by landowners to be supplied with food while offering some protection against inflation. 97 CKS U1475/M59, 1552/3; CKS U1475/T61/2. 159 late sixteenth century when prices and land values rose rapidly.98 In 1594 Sir Robert Sidney leased Leigh(70) park of 470 acres with two lodges, to his servant, Richard Polhill.99 The lease ran for 21 years, at one penny for the first 18 months, and £33 16s 8d and two capons each year for the remaining years. However, when the lease was renewed in 1615, Richard Polhill agreed to a more commercial rent of £100 a year, in addition to rent in kind of ten quarters of oats, or nine shillings pro rata if insufficient oats were available, and the delivery at Christmas of a well-fed boar with good brawn, or 30 shillings as Viscount Lisle chose, one large, good, fat calf, or 20 shillings as Viscount Lisle chose, as well as two capons as in the previous lease.100 One indication that Richard Polhill was probably well able to afford the rise in rent is that in the first lease of 1594 he was termed as yeoman, but subsequently in the lease of 1615 and at his death, he was regarded as a gentleman.101 Even though Richard Polhill received less patronage than before, Viscount Lisle continued to reward deserving servants. He gave a 21-year lease, at 55 shillings a year, of a house and land in Southpark(72) to Thomas Lewes and his wife, Joane, 'For the favour of baking and brewing in the past and in future and because his wife Joane has nursed Miss Veer Sydney youngest daughter of Robert and Barbara his wife.'102 Thus evidence from these parks demonstrates clearly that agricultural land brought into production in disparked park was of benefit to landowners through rents and entry fines, and to both landowners and tenants through direct exploitation of resources. However, the lack of detailed accounts in particular makes it impossible to quantify this benefit, or to judge the extent of its contribution to estate management. (c) The exploitation of woodland The element of woodland within former parks is not always revealed in documents, but evidence from surveys, leases and maps points to the retention of woodland areas in most disparked parks, and in some cases there were extensive woodlands, as in Curlswood(26) park in 1587 and Glassenbury(37) park in 1632, with 98 Zell(1994:43). 99 CKS U1475/T61/4. 100 CKS U1475/T61/6. 101 CKS U1475/T61/4, 1594; CKS U1475/T61/6, 1615; Richard Polhill TNA PCC prob/11/133 & 134, 1618.. 102 CKS U1475/T27, 1605; Hanney, Kinnamon & Brennan(2005:251) Vere Sidney lived from 1602-1606. 160 180 and 250 acres of woodland respectively.103 Trenley(20) park, disparked since Henry VI's reign, was still producing regular crops of wood into the 1580s.104 In other instances, woodlands were used for animal grazing, with consequent damage to the trees. Park wood in Boxley(14a) park was one example where there was widespread grazing by horses, colts, cattle, calves and hogs, which would have degraded the trees there.105 In other parks woodlands were grubbed up, as has been noted at Chislet(22) and Panthurst(67).106 At Stonehurst(81) permission was given in 1555 for the felling and removal of all timber trees, woods and underwoods in the park, and on and in the banks and ditches encompassing the park.107 The reservation placed on wood and timber for the benefit of landowners in some leases indicates their potential value. For example, woodland and wayside timber in Panthurst(67) park was to be felled and taken away under a ten-year lease with a high rent of £45 16s 8d, double that of renting 106 acres of pasture and meadowland there.108 Wood and timber prices increased almost three times in the sixteenth century, though it was not until the early seventeenth century that, for the first time, with demand outstripping supply, they rose more rapidly than agricultural prices.109 Disparked Kentish parks also provide evidence of the intensive commercial use of coppice woodland. The complexity of the iron industry around Tonbridge has been researched by Chalklin, and he details several forges and furnaces, including Postern forge, built by David Willard inside Postern(92) park itself in 1552, that drew wood from disparked Postern(92) and Cage(88) parks, as well as from Northfrith(89-91) and Southfrith(93) parks, 'to burn the same into cole or otherwise at their pleasure to be used for the maytenance of their iron workes.'110 As under-tenant at Tonbridge, paying £500 rent per annum, he denuded the woodlands to the extent that by 1570/1571 'the woods of 103 LPL TA/39/1, lease of 20/6/1587; Wyndham(1952:207) 1632 map. 104 Hasted 9 (1797:158); CCA DCB-J/X.11.1 ff.21-22. 105 TNA E134/31Eliz./Hil.16, 1588. 106 LPL TA/39/1; CKS U1450/T5/40. 107 CKS U1450/T6/90. 108 CKS U1450/T5/40, 26/10/1567. 109 Bowden in Thirsk IV (1967:607). 110 Chalklin(2004:98-104); TNA E178/1093, 1570/1571; BL Cart.Harl.85.H6, 1561; Kingsford & Shaw(1925:300) in 1575 the Sidney income from Southfrith forest was £100 and cordwood there was valued at £16 5s 5d. 161 all the said premises were well nigh spent' and the value of the area at the surrender of the lease was an estimated at £33 16s 8½d per annum.111 Not surprisingly, David Willard had started to look for woodlands beyond Tonbridge in order to keep the iron works in fuel and exploited the coppice woodlands in Leigh(70) and Ashour(69) parks on the Penshurst estate. In 1578 at Leigh(70) park, wholesale felling worth £1000 comprising 17150 cords or loads of wood, to the value of 14 pence a cord, was carried out.112 This wood was processed on site with permission given to dig pits, perhaps sawpits or charcoal pits, and to build cabins for the colliers, or charcoal burners, making the charcoal. David Willard also coppiced the whole of Sidney's Spring at Ashour(69) in the same year.113 Coppice re-grows after cutting to give a continuous supply of wood, and coppiced wood from Ashour(69), Southpark(72) and Leigh(70) parks continued to produce crops into the seventeenth century when a cord of wood fetched £4 8s 3d in 1623. 114 However, occasionally, dealings in former parkland wood did not always go smoothly on the Penshurst estate. In the early 1570s John Rivers of Chafford, grocer and alderman of the city of London, was taken to court by Sir Henry over the non-payment of a lease for the extraction of wood from Southpark(72), and in the early seventeenth century, the re-growth of coppiced woodland was so poor that the wood was unsaleable, even the ironmasters refusing to buy it because of 'the smalenes of the wood, the farr fetching of yt, and the fawle in the price of iron.'115 Coppice woodland in Bedgebury(4) park was also exploited to provide wood to be converted into charcoal for the iron industry there. In 1618, Sir Alexander Culpepper sold coppice woods 'sometimes parcel of Bedgebury park' with other woods lying near Bedgebury furnace to ironmaster, John Porter.116 As at Leigh(70) park the wood was processed into charcoal on site. John Porter agreed to pay £53 12s 0d to Sir Alexander Culpepper in November 1618, and in June, 1619, and 4s 6d for every cord he had cut beyond 238 cords, every cord of wood to be eight feet long and four feet high. 111 TNA E178/1093, 1570/1571. 112 CKS U1475/T61/3; Cleere & Crossley(1995:151-152); Chalklin(2004:108-109). 113 CKS U1475/T33, 6/6/1579; CKS U1475/E1. 114 Shaw(1942:32-33) letter 1/7/1605; Kingsford & Shaw(1934:482) letter 7/9/1600; CKS U1475 E55/4; cord = 120 cubic feet. 115 CKS U1475/E1, 1559/1560; CKS U1475/E55/1, 1570; CKS U1475/C50/15, letter of 14/11/1611. 116 BL Cart.Harl.77.D.10. 162 While wood and timber prices remained buoyant into the seventeenth century, the exploitation of woodland resources produced either a one-off sum, after wide scale felling and grubbing up to convert the land into farmland, or a continuing source of income, if trees were harvested in a sustainable manner by coppicing or pollarding.117 Although active parks were able to produce wood and timber, even on a commercial scale, disparked parks suffered none of the constraints regarding the needs of the deer and so their wood and timber resources could be exploited more systematically and intensively. (iv) The longevity of disparked parks as distinct units in the countryside Once a park had been converted to farmland, woodland or other uses, it was effectively disparked, but there were several factors, which led to the continuation of the land as a distinct unit. First, and most complex, was the tithable or tithe-free status of parkland, which meant that former parkland was treated differently from land lying outside the park. Second, in the early stages, if the pale was retained either by its sturdiness or by terms of lease, the park's physical distinctiveness in the countryside remained. Lastly, even when former park pales were removed, the park tended to keep its entity, both in area and in name, in leases and other legal documents, especially, in a densely settled country like Kent, because existing tenancies or landholdings beyond the park remained intact, with the former parkland surrounded by established holdings into which it had to fit. In Kent the normal tithe rules did not apply to deer parks because deer were often regarded as wild animals rather than farmed beasts, although there are instances in Suffolk, where once deer were enclosed in parks they become tithable.118 The legal position is complicated, but the exemption of some parks from the payment of tithes has been noted for counties such as Norfolk, Suffolk and Berkshire.119 Indeed, James Grigor, from one example in Norfolk, asserted that the 'real definition of a park' was that it was tithe-free, which Hoppitt has refuted by analysing the tithe status of early parks in 30 Suffolk parishes, where she found that parks 'per se' were not exempt. However, Hoppitt 117 Bowden in Thirsk IV (1967:607). 118 Brown (ed.) Eye Priory Cartulary and Charters, Part I (Woodbridge, 1992) pers. comm. Hoppitt. 119 Hoppitt(1992:80-97) Appendix IV, summarises the development of the legal and customary framework surrounding the payment of great and small tithes; ibid. p.80, citing James Grigor, 'The Eastern Arboretum, Or, Register of Remarkable Trees, Seats, Gardens etc. in the County of Norfolk' (London, 1841) for Melton park, and Shirley(1867) for Sunninghill park; ibid. p.84, Redgrave park, Suffolk, was tithe-free. 163 conceded that there were tithe exemptions for parks arising, not necessarily from their park status, but from several other factors, including agreements to pay modus decamandi, or a fixed payment in lieu of tithes.120 After disparkment parks continued to be tithe-free or covered by an annual compounded payment, thereby perpetuating their anomalous tithable status outside the main tithe system of the parish. 121 Further research would be needed to ascertain, if it were possible, the extent to which disparked parks were wholly or partly tithe-free or covered by the modus payment. Although the position was complicated and varied widely from park to park, the disputes and voluntary agreements illustrate the continued distinctiveness of parks long after disparkment. There are 11 disparked or new parks in Kent in which the tithable status was challenged by the clergy during the sixteenth and early seventeenth centuries, with controversy and confusion over tithes sometimes dogging those concerned centuries later.122 Tithe disputes demonstrate that the concept of the park was not nostalgic, but arose from practical financial concerns of the tithe payers, who used custom to their advantage by paying lower contributions to the church, and of the clergy, who attempted to gain as much income as possible. The arrangements regarding tithes showed that former parkland continued to be regarded as distinct from adjacent land until the abolition of tithes in the Tithe Act of 1936.123 More tangible remnants of former parks, visually striking and still traceable are substantial boundary banks and ditches, which survive as enduring features in the landscape.124 The physical removal of these redundant earthworks and the disposal of the spoil would probably have been an expensive and challenging task, and not worth the effort. However, in many cases the banks still provided foundations for park pales, which often continued to be retained and repaired. The importance of the maintenance of the pale to the owner of an erstwhile park, perhaps in the hope that the deer park might one day be restored, is demonstrated by several leases, which insisted on keeping the 120 Hoppitt(1992:97). 121 Simpson(1997:60-62). 122 CCA-DCB-J/X.10.16, 1576, Allington(2); CCA-DCB-J/X.10.17, 1574, Boxley(14); CCA- CcChAnt/C/965, 1547, Canterbury(18); CCA-DCc-ChAnt/C/965, 1547, Trenley(20); Ward(1931) pp.214- 215, Phillips (1930) II, p395, Knole(50) & Panthurst(67); CCA-DCB-J/X.16, 1576, Postling(73); CCADCB-J/X.10.20, 1582, Stowting(82); CCA-DCB-J/X.10.18, 1585, Chart Sutton(85); Phillips II (1930:395) 1544, Otford Great(62) & New(64); Knatchbull-Hugessen(1960:21-23), Mersham Hatch(61). 123 Richardson(1986:52-53). 124 See Chapter Two pp.39-42 and Chapter Three (i) p.63-65. 164 pale long after the park had apparently been disparked. Several decades after the first lease of Bedgebury(4) in 1604 a lease of 1646 insisted on the pale's maintenance.125 Leases of 1595 and 1611 for Curlswood(26) and Henden(45) parks continued to refer to the 'land and pasture enclosed within the pale', and to the park 'now divided inclosed and compassed with pales and hedges' even though they had been disparked by 1576.126 Even when the 'decayed and ruinous' pale was removed, as at Chislet(22) and Leigh(70) parks, the boundary was still demarcated by a hedge.127 The massive wooden paling might gradually become inappropriate and an unnecessary expense to maintain, but farmland and woodland still required enclosures; so it is 'ghost' park outlines with continuous, curved hedgerows or field boundaries, with or without a bank, can guide the landscape historian to former park boundaries, with the later field system contained within them.128 The persistence of park names in all the documents mentioned in this chapter is marked. The parks of Cudham(25), probably disparked by the sixteenth century, and Bexley(5) park, thought to have been disparked by 1469, were still being called parks in Elizabeth I's reign.129 Brasted(15), Ightham(48) and Wrotham(100) parks, disparked in Henry VIII's reign, retained their park identity in documents into the seventeenth century, the last two with their boundaries delineated on a map of 1620, some of which can be followed on the ground today (see Plate 5.2).130 Similarly, Otford Little(63) park and Panthurst(67) park, disparked by the time of the first edition of Lambarde's 'A Perambulation of Kent', continued to be known as parks in Charles I's reign.131 Even today, 'Park' farm and 'Park' wood names are commonly found on Ordnance Survey Explorer maps, along with specific names of long disparked parks such as Fryarne(36) Park, Glassenbury(37) Park, Hungershall(47) Park, Langley(51) Park in Beckenham, Leigh(70) Park, Lympne(57) Park, Postern(92) Park, Southpark(72) at Penshurst, South(12) Park at Boughton Malherbe and Trenley(20) Park, Canterbury.132 125 BL Cart.Harl.77.C.44; BL Cart.Harl.85.H.13; see Chapter Three pp.65,67. 126 LPL TA633/2; Surrey History Centre K87/17/30. 127 LPL TA39/1; CKS U1475/T61/4. 128 Crawford(1953:189-196), Taylor(1974:25-26) and Hoskins(1977:94). 129 CKS U1450/T6/23, 1600; CKS U1590/T25/3, 1699; Du Boulay(1993:32-33). 130 TNA IPM C142/468/85, 1630; CKS U681/P31, see Plate 5.2 p.165. 131 CKS U1000/1/T1, 1645; CKS U1000/2/T1, 1654. 132 OS Explorer maps, TR165469; TQ747365; TQ572386; TQ384670; TQ535476; TR123345; TQ615463; TQ520426; TQ869467; TR195593. 165 Plate 5.2 The longevity of disparked parks (a) Above – Ightham(48) (left) and Wrotham(100) parks divided on 1620 map (CKS U681 P31) By kind permission of the Centre for Kentish Studies, Kent Archives and Local Studies Service, Kent County Council (b) Boundary of park with internal division of fields largely retained as shown on OS Explorer 147 map, 1997. (c) Ightham park, view from west side of east boundary of park, and showing 2 parallel field boundaries on 1620 map beyond. The rest of east boundary runs westward on field side of woodland area on the left, with ditch and shared parish/park boundary 166 The longevity of parks in legal documents, boundaries and names has been demonstrated for Kent, as it could also be for other counties. That park 'entity' could continue in the ways discussed is testimony to the part it had played in shaping the countryside over previous centuries. In this sense disparkment, final as it may appear, can be seen from another perspective to mark a further phase in a park's history.133 Conclusion In drawing attention to disparkment in Kent, Lambarde recognised an important development in park history and the study of the subject has thrown up many problems – the definition of disparkment, the pattern and process by which it was carried out, the management of former parkland, and explanations for the continued residual existence of a failed park. The challenge has been to convert disparate evidence into as coherent an account of disparkment as possible. Disparkment in Kent was more widespread before 1558, but the Elizabethan period brought relative stability, with the number of disparkments being balanced by the number of new park creations. This balance was maintained, but with mounting difficulty during the reign of James I. Several families overstretched themselves financially during both reigns, and it became increasingly difficult for them to meet their debts. Disparkment was postponed for a generation or two, but in the tense period before the Civil War in Charles I's reign and with sequestration during the war, the rate of disparkment increased, with few parks surviving unscathed into the eighteenth century. 133 Liddiard(unpublished paper, 2007). 167 PART III - CHAPTER SIX PARK OWNERS AND PARK HOLDERS While William Lambarde named the parks of Kent, he did not identify their owners, an omission that Part III seeks to rectify, especially concentrating on active rather than disparked parks, although there is uncertainty about the period in which each park contained deer. Attention will first be paid to the royal, ecclesiastical, noble, titled and gentile owners of active deer parks at the beginning of Elizabeth I's reign (i). Next identifying the acquirers of established parks from the crown, from private transfers and the owners of new parks (ii) will show whether there was a change in the profile of park ownership from 1558 to 1625. Factors behind the successful retention of parks by some park owning families, and the failure of others to keep their parks (iii) will finally be examined to enable conclusions to be about the extent of continuity of park ownership. The survival of family papers in various archives helps to establish ownership of some parks, but for others finding owners has proved to be elusive and inconclusive. Moreover, even where families are known, detailed background information on which to base an analysis has been much more difficult to uncover.1 (i) Owners of active parks in 15582 In the Middle Ages park ownership in England was restricted to the highest levels of the social scale, with no one below the rank of manorial lord owning a park, but with the crown, church and greater earldoms each holding many parks. The 200 or more members of the greater baronage are presumed to have owned at least one park each in the thirteenth century, while by the fifteenth century most of the 100 or so parliamentary peers each had one park.3 Some historians have hypothesised that park ownership extended to lower landowning levels in the later Middle Ages, but others, including Mileson, have challenged this view, arguing that if, between 1350 and 1500, 1 The following sources have been used to build up profiles – Lambarde(1576:54-58) Visitation of 1574; Lambarde(1596:31-35,586-588) J.Ps., list of disgavelment; Hasted I (1797:197-206, 223-225.232) sheriffs, baronets, lord lieutenants; Harris(1719:434-435, 440-441, 444-457) sheriffs, baronets, M.Ps.; Zell(1999:31-38) J.Ps.; http://oxforddnb.com. was used for individuals. 2 See Figure 6.1 'Gentry and noble park ownership in 1558', p.170. 3 Mileson(2009:108-109). 168 the number of parks in England dropped by 20 to 30 per cent, then there would have been a concomitant reduction in the circle of park owners, thereby maintaining the exclusivity of park ownership.4 Without detailed research for Kent one can only speculate about park ownership prior to the Tudor period, but the backgrounds of Elizabethan park owners indicate that the more prominent gentry families had owned parks (or the land on which parks were created, but for which no date is known) back into the fifteenth century or before. When park ownership had filtered down to this level of society, or why, is beyond the scope of this study. Incomplete and fragmentary evidence makes it impossible to be exact about the number of active parks or their owners at Elizabeth I's accession, or at other given time during her reign and her successor's for that matter. In any case, the situation was never static. Of 46 known active parks in 1558, the church had perhaps three active parks, the archbishop of Canterbury's Ford(35) and Westwell(99) parks, and the bishop of Rochester's park by his palace at Bromley(16).5 The crown had varying degrees of interest in about 16 parks.6 In 1558 noblemen, Lords Abergavenny, Burgh and Cobham, owned only five active parks, Birling(7) and Hungershall(47), Cobham(23) and Cooling(24), and Starborough(80), which partly lay in Kent. Members of the gentry, for the most part from long-established Kentish families, owned 22 parks, many of which had been in the same family for several generations.7 This group formed a small wealthy elite, often combining landholding with office in the royal court or in the legal profession. In this respect the evidence about park owners corresponds with Zell's research into landholding and the land market in early modern Kent, namely that there was no clear distinction between land owning local gentry and office holders because the two categories more often than not overlapped.8 4 Mileson(2009:110) citing C. Dyer, 'The West Midlands' in E. Miller (ed.) The Agrarian History of England and Wales (Cambridge, 1991) and G.L. Harriss, Shaping the Nation: England 1360-1561 (Oxford, 2005) countered by Armitage-Smith (ed.), John of Gaunt's Register (London, 1911) and J. Birrell, 'The Forest and the Chase in Medieval Staffordshire' in Staffordshire Studies 3 (1990-1991). 5 Little is about the parks at Ford(35) and Bromley(16). See Figure 6.2 for Social Status and Park Ownership p.172. 6 See Figure 6.1 'Gentry and noble park ownership in 1558', p.170. 7 See Figure 6.2 'Social status and park ownership', p.172. 8 Zell(2000:60). 169 Under the heading of 'The Nobilitie and Gentrie' Lambarde named 225 members of these groups, many 'held together by blood as well as by class' through intermarriage. 9 As Laslett emphasised, 'The genealogical interrelationships between the members were extensive, complicated and meticulously observed by all of them: it is astonishing how distant a connexion qualified for the title 'cozen'.' On Lambarde's list, twelve of the 21 titled gentlemen and Lady Golding of Roydon, the widow of a knight, held parks.10 However, the figure might be higher should more evidence about dates of other parks and their owners come to light, for example, Chafford(later park,102) held by the Rivers, Fairlawne(later park,103) by the Fanes and Scadbury(later park,105) park held by the Walsinghams.11 Eight other members of the gentry on Lambarde's list owned parks so when sons and other family members are included, 45 or 20 per cent of the 225 noblemen, knights and gentry were from park owning families.12 As in earlier times, park owners invariably belonged to the upper group of magnate gentlemen.13 None of the 'middling' or lesser gentry owned parks, although occasionally members of the former group might sublease parks, as did the Hamon family, sub-lessees of the crown park of Elham(30), who were notable enough to be included in the herald's visitation of 1574.14 Parks might be acquired by new creation, inheritance, marriage, purchase, grant of gift, or exchange. Prior to Elizabeth I's accession, four acquisitions occurred by inheritance from blood relatives, 12 by marriage, six by royal grant of gift or freehold lease, and six by purchase (see Figure 6.2).15 The circumstances of the acquisition of Hungershall(47) park by the Nevill family is unknown. As family histories were studied, it became clear that those who owned parks in Elizabeth I's reign were often the 9 Lambarde(1576:54-58); Laslett(1948:150). 10 Sir Richard Baker of Sissinghurst(79), William Brooke, lord Cobham, of Cobham(23) and Cooling(24) and Sir Henry Brooke as his heir, Sir Alexander Culpepper of Bedgebury(4), Sir Percival Hart of Lullingstone(55), Sir Thomas Kempe of Stowting(82), Sir Philip Sidney of Penshurst(69,71), Sir Warham Sentleger of Leeds(54), Sir Thomas Scott of Scot's Hall(77), Sir Walter Waller of Groombridge(40), Sir Thomas Guldeford of Hemsted(44), Lady Elizabeth Golding (nee Roydon) of Roydon(74), Sir Humphrey Gilbert briefly held Postling(73) park. 11 Cockburn(1995:331) AC35/80/11/1580, 1638, Chafford park; Cockburn(1995:363) AC35/81/6/1722, 1638, Fairlawne park; BromleyLS 336/3a; c.1660+, Scadbury park. 12 Gentlemen - Roger Manwood, Walter Roberts, William Roper, Robert Rudston, Anthony Sondes, Thomas Willoughby, Thomas Wotton. 13 Clark(1997:125-126). 14 Hasted 8 (1797:98). 15 Figure 6.2 'Social status and park ownership', p.172. 170 Figure 6.1 – Gentry and Noble Park Ownership in 1558 No. Park Name Owner in 1558 Date land/park acquired By inheritance (total 2) 55 Lullingstone Sir Percival Hart 1360 (via Peche) 79 Sissinghurst Sir Richard Baker c.1490 By marriage (total 14) 77 Scot's Hall Sir Thomas Scott 1292s 6 Birling Henry Nevill, lord Abergavenny 1430s 7 Birling, Comford Henry Nevill, lord Abergavenny 1430s 9 Bore Place Sir Thomas Willoughby 1518 c/h 10 Boughton Malherbe Thomas Wotton 1413-1422 11 Boughton Malherbe, Lenham Thomas Wotton 1413-1422 23 Cobham William Brooke, lord Cobham c. 1400 c/h 24 Cooling William Brooke, lord Cobham c. 1400 37 Glassenbury Walter Roberts 1488 (new park) 58 Lynsted John Roper ?1430s-60s 78 Shurland Sir Thomas Cheyne c.1300 c/h 80 Starborough William Borough, lord Burgh 1471 c/h 87 Throwley ?Sir Thomas Sondes 1520 95 Well Hall William Roper 1488 By purchase (total 6) 4 Bedgebury Sir Alexander Culpepper 1544 13 Boughton Monchelsea Robert Rudston 1551 40 Groombridge Walter Waller 1413-1422 c/h 73 Postling John Aucher 1546 c/h 82 Stowting Sir Thomas Kempe 1434 c/h 99 West Wickham Sir Christopher Heydon 1469 c/h By grant (total 6) 21a Chilham Sir Thomas Cheyne 1509-1549 c/h 44 Hemsted Sir John Guldeford 1388 54 Leeds Sir Anthony Sentleger 1548-1553 c/h 56 Lyminge Edward Aucher 1546 69 Penshurst, Ashour Sir William Sidney 1552 71 Penshurst, Northlands Sir William Sidney 1552 Unknown (total 1) 47 Hungershall Henry Nevill, lord Abergavenny c/h = changed hands some time after 1558 and before 1625 See Park profiles p. 351 for source of information for each park 171 beneficiaries of their enterprising or acquisitive forebears, and that park ownership reflected not only the current, but also the past status of the family. By whatever means and however far back a park was acquired, owners were overwhelmingly from Kentish gentry ancestry and newcomers from previous centuries had become totally absorbed into Kentish society. The Tudor owners, like their medieval predecessors, having acquired a park, considered it a matter of family honour to retain it.16 The majority of owners did so, with 19 parks continuing in the ownership of the same family throughout the reigns of Elizabeth I and of James I (see Figure 6.1).17 (ii) New owners of established parks from the crown, by private transfer and the owners of new parks18 Changes in park ownership would not necessarily be reflected in the number of active parks, which did not vary greatly in Elizabethan and Jacobean times. However, relative political stability brought long-term security in landownership, which gave families a better chance of retaining their parks. Overall, there were more changes of ownership of crown parks than of private parks, so that at the end of Elizabeth I's reign, of a possible 50 active parks, tentative assessments are that the crown owned 11 parks (reduced from 16), the church had two active parks (a loss of one), while noblemen with nine parks and knights and gentlemen with 28 parks had increased the number of active parks they owned. The position in 1625 was that of 43 active parks, crown ownership had dropped to nine, the church still had two, noblemen had nine parks, while the number of parks held by knights and gentlemen had slipped to 23, although for each group the exact number of parks remaining active is uncertain.19 Although Elizabeth I acquired two Kentish parks, namely Westwell(99) in 1560, and Shurland(79) in 1564, she relinquished interest in several other parks (see Figure 6.4).20 She granted away five active parks at the beginning of her reign, re-granted 16 Mileson(2009:115). 17 See Figure 6.1 'Gentry and noble park ownership in 1558' p.170. 18 See Figure 6.3 (a) new owners of established parks, p.319, (b) owners of new parks, p.320 (Appendix 6). 19 See Figure 6.2 'Social status and park ownership', p.172 compiled from each park profile, see p.351on. 20 See Figure 6.4 'Crown parks in Kent' (Appendix 7 pp.321-323); CPR part XIII, 13/12/1559, pp. 440- 442; TNA SP12/98/29. 172 173 two of these and restored Halden(41) to the Sidneys in the 1560s. She granted away a further two parks in the 1580s, and reluctantly, towards the end of her reign, she sold Canterbury(18) and Otford Great(62) parks.21 Thus the crown lost ten active parks, leased out Elham(30), Shurland(78), Northfrith(89-91) and Westwell(98), and kept only the parks at Eltham(31-33,53) and Greenwich(39) under direct control. Further losses occurred in James I's reign when Shurland(78) park was granted away, and Cobham(23) and Cooling(24) parks, seized in 1603, soon passed from the crown by grant.22 Of the few royal parks left, Elham(30) alone was sold, despite James I's instructions of 1604 forbidding the sale of any forest, chase or park, whether an entity in its own right or part of a manor.23 Elizabeth I and James I granted parks mainly to kinsmen and favourites under favourable tenures, making virtual freeholds, either under fee tail to male heirs or, under a fee simple, socage or knight's service, to male or female heirs, only returning to the crown if the line of descent failed.24 The grant might involve a small fee or a reserved fee when the park was sold on, or alienated, at a later date. Only four months after coming to the throne Elizabeth I granted lands, including ten parks in Kent, the most valuable group of which were Cage(89), Postern(93) and Northfrith(90-92), in tail male to Henry Carey, lord Hunsdon, her cousin, to enable him to maintain the lifestyle of his new peerage.25 The queen made another very extensive grant in fee simple to her favourite courtier, Robert Dudley, earl of Leicester, in 1561, which included Knole(50) and Panthurst(67) parks.26 However, he later surrendered them to the crown in a land exchange, and in 1566 Elizabeth I, subject to existing subleases, granted them to her cousin, Thomas Sackville, lord Buckhurst.27 21 See Chapter Seven (iv) p.221 onwards 22 3 James I Act of Parliament. 23 Hasted 8 (1797:98); TNA SP14/36/13. 24 Baker(2002:273-274). 25 MacCaffrey, Henry Carey (1526-1596)(http://oxforddnb.com/articles/4/4649). Henry Carey, son of Thomas Boleyn, the brother of Elizabeth I's mother, Anne, was created Baron Hunsdon on 13 January 1559 within 2 months of Elizabeth's accession; CPR, Part IX, 20/3/1559, pp.115-118; these parks were Aldington(1), Knole((50), Maidstone(59), Otford Little(63) park, Panthurst(67), also Cage(88), Postern(92) and 3 in Northfrith(89-91) around Tonbridge. 26 CPR, Part XII no.974, 1/3/1561 pp.189-191; Haynes(2004:243). 27 CPR Part VII, no.2367, 29/6/1566, pp.457-462; Jack, Sir Richard Sackville (d.1566) (http:// oxforddnb. com/articles/25/25908). Sir Richard Sackville, the father of Sir Thomas Sackville, was a first cousin of Anne Boleyn. 174 These grandee noblemen were absentee landlords, although Lord Buckhurst would have liked to have resided at Knole, which Elizabeth I is thought to have granted to him to spare him the journey over the atrocious roads of the Weald because it was nearer to court than his seat at Buckhurst in Sussex.28 However, a royal grant, though well intentioned as a gesture of favour, was not necessarily of immediate benefit to the recipient and could result in detrimental legal disputes and costs, in this case because there was an existing 99-year lease, dating from 1565, for Knole and its park(50). It took an 18-year struggle for Lord Buckhurst to acquire the lease because of the complicated layers of interest that had accumulated on it, and it was not until 1603 that Lord Buckhurst purchased the remainder of the lease for £4000. 29 The last grant of parks Elizabeth I made was unusual in that the grantee was neither relative nor favourite, but the financier 'customer' Thomas Smythe, collector of the subsidy of imports at the port of London since 1558, an office which had netted him a profit of £50000 over 18 years.30 It might have been his underwriting of the cost of opposing the Spanish Armada that led to the royal grant of land, including Westenhanger(97) and Ostenhanger(98) parks, in 1585, by military service and an annual fine of £13 8s 6½d.31 By James I's reign there were not many active parks at the king's disposal in Kent, so to grant any away was a sign of special favour, and, like Elizabeth I, James I advanced a favourite and a relative. In 1605 the Shurland estate of 2245 acres with its 300-acre park went to Philip Herbert, earl of Montgomery, who 'by the comeliness of his person, his skill, and indefatigable industry in hunting' was 'the first who drew the King's eyes towards him with affection.'32 After the vacation of Cobham by the dowager Duchess of Kildare in 1612, the valuable Cobham estate with mansion and park(23) was granted by James I to his cousin, Ludovick Stuart, duke of Lennox, by 28 Sackville-West(1949:39); Phillips II (1930:398). 29 CKS U1450/T6/30, 1 February 8 Elizabeth I; TNA E122/130/12-13; TNA E351/764; TNA E351/3541; Ward(1931:24) TNA PCCprob/11/63/15, 25/3/1578; Adams(1995:468); Barrett-Lennard(1908:119); CKS U269/T1/A:8:2, 18 July 12 Elizabeth I; Barrett-Lennard(1908:120-123) letter of 21/10/1566, notes of John Lennard; CKS U269/T1/A:8:14, 23/1/1603. 30 Dietz, Thomas Smythe (Smith) (1522-1591) (http://oxforddnb.com/articles/37/37985). 31 Wadmore(1887:199) citing 26/5/1585 Originalia 27 Elizabeth I, 12/5/1564, p.4, m.44-46; ibid. pp.195- 197. 32 Cave-Browne(1898:92-93); Smith, Philip Herbert (1584-1650)(http://oxforddnb.com/ articles/ 13/13042) citing E. Hyde, The history of the rebellion and civil wars in England, I p.74 (1888). 175 fealty only in free and common socage of the manor of East Greenwich 'and not in chief, nor by knight's service', signifying special favour, because it carried the least obligations (most notably avoiding wardship).33 The crown owned all the active parks in Kent held under lease in the period 1558 to 1625, and although some were leased to eminent national figures, most were leased to members of the upper echelon of the Kentish gentry. The leases for which some details are known were markedly different. Annual rents cannot be compared because in most cases the park was only a small element of a more extensive lease, and the fines were not always included in the calendars. Of the active parks available for releasing during Elizabeth I's reign, she granted one 50-year lease, one at an annual fine of £136, and two 21-year leases. Aldington(1), active for part of the time, was held by the Sentleger family before 1591 and afterwards by the Scott family of Scot's Hall on 21-year leases – a term commonly adopted for disparked parks so perhaps it had been by this time.34 The lease of Shurland(79) park in the 1580s was also for 21 years, during which the tenants had to provide lodgings for ten men with weapons to defend the island.'35 Southfrith(94), Elham(30), and Westwell(99) parks were active throughout the period. The most prestigious lease was for Southfrith(94) near Tonbridge assigned in 1571 to Robert Dudley, earl of Leicester, for a 50-year term in reversion of an existing sublease, which was surrendered in 1573.36 Sir Henry Sidney inherited the lease in 1588, and transferred it to Lady Frances Sidney, as part of her widowhood settlement following the death of his son and her husband, Sir Philip Sidney.37 From 1609 to 1611, Richard Burke, earl of Clanricarde, third husband of Lady Frances, built a new mansion 33 TNA SP14/131/53; TNA SP14/70/48; Arch.Cant. XI (1887:lxxxiv-lxxxvi); Hurstfield, 'The Greenwich tenures of the reign of Edward VI' in Transactions of the Greenwich & Lewisham Antiquarian Society IV no.4 (1948-49:192-193). 34 Lambarde(1596); see Chapter Five pp.150-151 and Chapter Six Figure 6.4 'Crown parks in Kent' (Appendix 7 pp.321-323) ; SP12/240/103, 22/12/1591; TNA SP12/265/20, 25/11/1597; SP14/28/58, 26/9/1607, for Addington read Aldington; TNA SC12/20/22, 1624-1625; TNA LR2/196, 1649-1650; TNA SP12/98/29, 7 /10/1574. See Chapter Five (iii) (a) pp.150-153. 35 Cave-Browne(1898:92); CPR no.1457, 1/7/1580, p.180. 36 CPR no.2647, 28/11/1571; BL Cart.Harl. 77.A35, 75.E.31, 75.H.23; TNA E178/1093. 37 Harris(1719:322). 176 Plate 6.1 The Jacobean mansion of Somerhill near Tonbridge (a) Front elevation of the Jacobean Somerhill mansion, built for the Earl of Clanricarde. 9 September 2006 (b) Continuation of Somerhill to the left of (a) showing Victorian additions, but also an ancient oak pollard, which is likely to have been there from Southfrith forest when the house was built. 9 September 2006 177 called 'Somerhill' within the newly disparked Southfrith(94), and by 1622 had enclosed a park(94b) around it, the only new park in Kent created by an aristocrat (see Plate 6.1). 38 In 1623 the earl and countess of Clanricarde were given a 21-year lease or lease of three lives of Southfrith(94).39 Elham(30) and Westwell(99) had been leased to magnate Kentish gentlemen prior to Elizabeth I's accession, the former in 1551 for 80 years to Sir Edward Wotton of Boughton Malherbe and the latter, before the queen acquired the park, to John Tufton of Hothfield for 50 years from 1559, which was renewed in 1597 for a further 31 years at a rent of only £10 per annum.40 John Tufton did not own a park, but Westwell(99) park was conveniently near his mansion of Hothfield Place, where Elizabeth I stayed on her progress in 1573.41 Lastly, in 1593 Elizabeth reverted to the traditional custom of assigning parks to men of high status I by granting Shurland(79), at an annual fine of £136, to Sir Edward Hoby, a distant relative by marriage and constable of Queenborough castle on the island.42 Only ten private parks changed hands, although it is not always possible to unravel the precise sequence of events. Of these only four, Knole(50), Leeds(54), West Wickham(99) and perhaps Chilham(21a), contained deer or were in a position to be restocked with deer. An exceptional arrangement was made for Knole in 1625 to extricate Richard Sackville, earl of Dorset, from debt, whereby the manors of Knole and Panthurst in Sevenoaks, except for the use of Knole house and park(50) which were to remain under lease to the earl, were sold, but immediately put into trusteeship for charitable uses.43 It was left to a later generation to buy back Knole and its park(50), where the family still reside.44 John Lennard, protonotary of the court of common pleas, purchased West Wickham(99) for £2700 in 1580, Sir Richard Smythe, 'customer' Thomas Smythe's son gained Leeds(54) park in 1618 from his brother-in-law, Sir 38 See Plate 6.1 p.176, Somerhill; Shaw (1942:276); Phillips I (1930:182); Lennon, Richard Burke, 4th earl of Clanricarde and 1st earl of St. Albans (1572-1635)(http:// oxforddnb.com/articles/67/67043). 39 CKS U38/T1(part 2); Lennon, Richard Burke, 4th earl of Clanricarde and 1st earl of St. Albans (1572- 1635)(http:// oxforddnb.com/articles/67/67043). 40 TNA LR2/196; Hasted 8 (1797:98) at some time after the death of the sub-lessee in 1613, but before the lease expired in 1621, the reversion of fee was purchased and the park left crown ownership. 41 Chalklin(1965:51); Hasted 7 (1797:518); Cole(1999:186) 19-21 August, 1573; Hasted 7 (1797:518) . 42 Daly(1904:170). 43 CKS U269/T1; Phillips I (1930:274) Richard Sackville, earl of Dorset, is said to have died owing £60,000; Hasted(1797:71-73). 44 Phillips I (1930:268-270). 178 Warham Sentleger, to save him from his creditors, and Dudley Digges, a diplomat and politician, making his fortune from investment in overseas trading ventures, purchased Chilman(21a). These three had made fortunes in their own right and had dynastic ambitions that were partly fulfilled by the purchase of these parks. The creators of new parks had similar ambitions as those who purchased parks (see Figure 6.3).45 They were prepared to make an expensive investment in a park as an outward show of wealth and at the same time to mark out a superior position in society for themselves and their families. It is unclear from extant evidence exactly how many new parks were created between 1558 and 1625, because the actual date of imparkment is not always known, but there might have been about 12, including Somerhill(93b).46 Two Elizabethan owners of new parks were Sir Moyle Finch, who created Eastwell(28) in 1589, and Sir Roger Manwood, who had enclosed Tyler Hill(94) park by the 1590s. Both were lawyers and members of Parliament, descended from long established Kentish gentry families.47 New Jacobean parks can also be attributed to those with strong roots in Kent, eager to match their accrued wealth with an enhanced social standing within the county. The Knatchbull, Dering, Digges and Style families created Mersham Hatch(61), Surrenden(84), Chilham(21b) and Langley(51) in Beckenham, respectively.48 In northwest Kent new parks, such as East Wickham(29) enclosed by Sir Olyffe Leigh in 1610, Lee(53) by Sir Nicholas Stoddard in the 1600s, and Halstead(42) in about 1620 by Sir Thomas Watson, a newcomer to Kent, were created as speculative ventures to attract royal attention and were relatively short-lived because of the financial strain they imposed.49 45 See Figure 6.3 (b) (Appendix 6 p.320). 46 Chilham(21b), Eastwell(28), East Wickham(29), Great Chart(37), Halstead(42), Langley, Beckenham(51), Lee(53), Mersham Hatch(61), Roydon(74), Scotney(76), Surrenden(84), Somerhill(93b), Tyler Hill(94); see Figure 6.3 (Appendix 6) p.319; for new park at Southfrith see pp.178-180; CKS U48/P1, 1590, the earliest reference to Roydon park; ESRO DYK/607, 1597 is the earliest reference Scotney park 47 Dormer(1999:7-48); Physick(1973:128); Jack, Roger Manwood(1524/5-1592)ttp.//oxforddnb.com/ articles/18/18014. 48 Jones(1933:201); CKS U591/C261/5; Knatchbull-Hugessen(1960:20-23); CCA-DCc-ChAnt/M38; Yeandle(2005:323-325).TNA SP14/58/19; TNA STAC8/198/8; TNA E178/6020, 1621; Horsburgh(1929:235-236). 49 See Chapter Eight p.282; see Chapter Three pp.134-135; see Chapter Four p.137. 179 With the exception of those prestigious outsiders who received royal grants of park, the owners of newly acquired parks, by purchase or creation, in Elizabeth I's and James I's reign continued to be drawn mainly from the aristocracy and from wellestablished Kentish gentry families, who used their parks to enhance their life-style and with aspirations aimed as much at county level as to wider horizons. When Lambarde wrote of those who were 'continually translated, and do become new plants,' and that 'gentlemen be not heere of so auncient stocke as elsewhere especially in the partes neerer to London', he did not have parks in mind, but men like John Lennard, Sir Thomas Watson and Thomas Smythe among new park owners could fit this description. Such men had the means to buy up or create parks, but they were the minority among the new park owners. 50 (iii) Factors influencing retention and loss of parks Families who retained their parks were either lucky, or careful, or were able to overcome unfavourable factors, while those that lost their parks were overwhelmed by a problem, such as financial strain or minority or broken succession, or a combination of disadvantageous circumstances, which were not easily combated. Most owners benefited from the success of their predecessors, but continuity depended on each inheritor making a conscious decision to maintain the deer park, influenced perhaps by the enjoyment of the park with all its facets, or from a desire to maintain or enhance family status, or a combination of both. Along with the will to retain a park there had to be the income to support the ongoing costs. Various means were employed to this end, among the options being the pursuit of a career at court, in the legal profession, living off landed income, investing in business ventures or acquiring more land through marriage, grant or purchase. Only a handful of owners, who inherited parks later in Elizabeth I's reign and into the seventeenth century parted with their parks shortly after taking them over, and usually they had no option but to sell.51 In the absence of detailed financial assessments, only educated guesses can be 50 Lambarde(1576:10). 51 For example see Postling(73) Chapter Five p.148. 180 made about the amount and source of a family's income. The Wotton, Roberts, Scott, Guldeford and Culpepper families were among those who seem mainly to have depended on the income from landed estates. Other families such as the Bakers, Nevills and Sidneys had supplementary income from assets in the iron industry. Additionally, the Auchers, Brookes, Harts and Sidneys served at court, and the Ropers gained wealth through their legal careers. While not unaffected by external economic forces, a crucial factor in the survival of a park was the continued investment in its management. This did not necessarily depend on the overall income of the owner, but on his ability to manage his finances. The landowner who took an interest in his estates and expected accountability from his servants was more likely to be able to plan his finances and manage his resources effectively, an important factor in keeping an estate, and its park, intact. The bailiff's accounts for Birling manor covering 13 years from 1586 to 1599 point to careful administration and management of the Nevill estate there.52 Thomas Wotton lived within his means and the book of 571 pages he compiled in 1567 of his estate of over 80 Kentish manors, including his three parks at Boughton Malherbe(10-12), is testament to his close supervision and interest.53 Sir Robert Sidney of Penshurst was often absent overseas and at court, but was well served by his advisors.54 His bailiffs and stewards submitted regular accounts and the rapport between them was such that they gave advice or voiced their opinion on their own initiative, as illustrated by his steward's successful opposition to the extension of Penshurst(71) park.55 However, his accountant remonstrated in vain over his extravagance, linked to his high-risk strategy of pursuing personal advancement at court.56 'I must confess,' wrote Thomas Knevett, 'that much of your charges in apparel for yourself and children might have binne saved as I have many tymes made bold to informe your honour.'57 Sir Robert Sidney ran into debt, but managed to avoid disaster by judicial sales of land, through the backing of a very competent wife, through the credit of family and friends, and with the close oversight and loyal service of his staff. 58 52 ESRO ABE 18/R1 & 2. 53 Eland(1960:xix-xxi); BL Add.Mss.42715. 54 BL Add.Mss.12066; Hay(1984) p.191. 55 Shaw(1942:265-266) 9/5/1611 Golding to Viscount Lisle. 56 Shaw (1942:265-267). 57 BL Add.Mss.12066. 58 Ibid; Hesketh(1915:12-13). 181 Other families, such as the Roberts of Glassenbury(37) and the Scott family of Scot's Hall(77) also ran into financial difficulties, but managed to retain their parks, at least until the end of James I's reign.59 However six of the ten parks that changed hands between 1558 and 1625 fell victim to the indebtedness of their owners. Other owners such as Sir Percival Willoughby of Bore Place(9), Sir Henry Cheyne of Shurland(78), Sir Warham Sentleger of Leeds(54), and Sir Christopher Heydon of West Wickham(99) parks disposed of their land in Kent in order to consolidate their positions in other counties.60 A strong line of primogeniture inheritance was advantageous in retaining parks, while a weak minority or joint-female succession, although not insurmountable made a park more vulnerable to a change in ownership. The ownership of Hungershall(47) park by the Nevills, Sissinghurst(79) park by the Bakers and Hemsted(44) park by the Guldefords was weakened by minority successions, although the last two parks continued to function into Charles I's reign.61 Chilham(21a) survived joint inheritance by daughters, because one husband was rich enough to buy out other shareholders, however, the parks on the Starborough(80) and Stowting(82) estates succumbed to change of ownership because no such accommodation could be made.62 Lastly, families who managed to weather the religious and political storms of the period were in a much better position to maintain an active park. Recusants like the Ropers of Lynsted(58) and Well Hall(95), were cushioned against recusancy fines and penalties by the profits of office, but the Culpeppers of Bedgebury struggled to keep their estate, and perhaps their park, intact.63 The Brooke family was ruined by political intrigue and its fate demonstrates how quickly family fortunes could change. Cobham(23) and Cooling(24) parks were safe in the hands of William Brooke, lord Cobham, lord chamberlain of England, with an annual income of over £5000, until 1597, but were lost under his son and heir, Henry Brooke, lord Cobham, who not only 59 Documentation for these families is sparse. 60 Phillips, c.1909, newspaper article; Reed(1992:13); Rutton(1900:122-125); Geofrrey-Lloyd & Wilson(1980:232); Gregory(1963:18-20). 61 Burke I (1879:19-20); ESRO ABE/52.1; Zell(1994:36) in the early C17th the Baker estate was the greatest in the Weald, although land was being sold off after 1596; SuffRO HA43/T501/242. 62 Hasted 3 (1797:215); Hitchin-Kemp I (c.1902:39); BL Add.Ch.41796, 10 February 6 James I. 63 Trevor-Roper, William Roper (1495x8-1578)(http://oxforddnb.com/articles/24/24074); BL Cart.Harl.77 C44, 77.D10, 79.F3, 79F5; BL Add.Ch.41796, 10 February 6 James I; BL Cart.Harl.77.C.44, 77.D.10, 79. F.3, 79.F.5. 182 ran into debt of £10,000, but lost all his land through attainder in 1604 after being implicated in the Bye plot. 64 As has been demonstrated the continued possession of an active park partly depended upon the will, ability, good judgement, financial control and managerial competence of the park owner, but even a model owner might be faced with unpredictable circumstances, which could sway the balance and lead to the loss of a park. Although 19 parks saw no change of ownership, several faced uncertain futures after 1625. Conclusion Very few parks, and even fewer active parks, came onto the open market, which underlines the relative stability of park ownership and the reluctance to part with a park until it became unavoidable. Often the line between retention and loss was very fine. The majority of longstanding active parks were retained or acquired by wealthier gentry or titled Kentish families, who kept a tighter control on their budgets, and by those with a strong line of male succession. Conversely, the loss of a park can be seen to have followed a decline in fortune largely brought about by the drain on finances caused by overspending or by a decline in wealth, or by weakness in the family succession. Few new park owners, whether park creators or park purchasers, came from outside the county and still fewer of them were the nouveau riche. The difficulty encountered in isolating factors that distinguished park owning from non-park owning gentlemen of equal financial and social standing was found to be a daunting task requiring extensive genealogical research and presupposing a wealth of data about the financial standing of individual members of the gentry with which to make a comparison. However, those gentlemen with the necessary resources desirous of a park had the option either to create their own or to acquire one that came onto the market, so it is unlikely that there were many whose ambition to own a park was thwarted. 64 Lock, William Brooke (1527-1597) (http://oxforddnb.com/articles/61/61735); Nichols(1979), p.17; Hasted 7 (1797:416); Nichols(1979:17). 183 PART IV THE SOCIAL CONTEXT OF DEER PARKS There were positive and negative attitudes towards deer parks evoked partly by feelings of inclusion or exclusion, which crossed social barriers. Chapter Seven concentrates on how monarchs, noblemen and gentlemen perceived their parks, the use of the park in sporting and recreational activities, in the advance of patronage through hospitality and gifts of venison, and how it was valued aesthetically in the landscape. Chapter Eight deals with the negative attitudes towards deer parks, specifically focusing on park breaks, illegal hunting and other activities, which challenged the notion that the park was only there for the privileged few. 184 PART IV - CHAPTER SEVEN THE PERCEPTION OF CROWN, NOBLES AND GENTRY TOWARDS PARKS Whatever its size, topography and management, the presence of deer remained the raison d'être of Elizabethan and Jacobean parks. The enjoyment of hunting by monarchs, nobility and gentry alike ensured the continuance of parks and led to strong urges to display and defend one's own park, and to emulate and envy the parks of others. Surviving documents seldom make direct reference to appreciative responses towards parks, but can be used with a degree of empathy to illustrate the emotional capital expended upon them. Such reconstruction is in itself a challenge, but even greater is to find examples from Kent. This chapter will open with the eminence of the culture surrounding royal and elite hunting (i) and the use of the park for the production of venison for the household and for gifts (ii). The park was an adjunct to hospitable entertainment, apart from hunting, and (iii) will show how parks were inextricably linked to the life-style and mentality of Tudor and early Stuart genteel society, including in (iv) the aesthetic appreciation of the park in the landscape. Lastly, the case study (v), centred on Sir Robert Sidney's attempts to gain Otford Great(62) park from the crown, illustrates the significance put on park ownership at the highest state level and the importance to individuals of the concept of the park vis á vis their own social standing. (i) Attitudes to hunting in parks Evidence of hunting in Kentish parks is rare, as it is for the medieval period, which has provoked a great deal of debate about the role of parks in hunting. Historians such as Rackham and Birrell have underplayed the role of hunting by park owners, the latter arguing that areas of parkland were more suited to breeding than hunting deer, and that while servants hunted regularly, the owner and his guests enjoyed sporadic and occasional hunts.1 Mileson has recently strongly refuted these premises by placing the popularity of hunting at the pivotal core of the park's function.2 He contends that hunting was under-recorded, yet indirect evidence for it can be found in a wide range of 1 Rackham(1986:133); Birrell(1992:122); Mileson(2009:5-16); Birrell(2006:178); Liddiard(2007:4); Plusowski in Liddiard(2007:77). 2 Mileson(2009:180-181). 185 sources, and that there was a growing need for parks to provide deer for sport as numbers of deer in the wild diminished.3 The pervasiveness of the hunting culture in the sixteenth and early seventeenth centuries is better documented. Henry VIII's love of hunting has been researched by Williams; Manning's wider ranging research, covering 1485 to 1640, revealed hunting to be a 'consuming activity' which had a profound effect on popular culture; more recently, Beaver has also testified to the popularity of hunting, but in particular has drawn attention to the ritualised killing at the end of the hunt, symbolically conveying gentility and honour to differentiate the governing elite from the rest of society.4 Deer counts for two years, 1603 to1605, at Penshurst(71) showed that a quarter of the deer taken were hunted by the Sidney family, guests and friends, which, if replicated in other Kentish parks, implies that hunting occurred more frequently than records reveal.5 The publication of contemporary hunting manuals reflected continuing interest in the sport. Gascoigne in 'The Noble Arte of Venerie or Hunting,' of 1575, wrote of hunting as a sport 'for gentle blood, ordained first for men of noble kind.'6 Markham in the seventh book of 'Maison Rustique , or The country farme' also covered the subject of hunting, leaning heavily on Gascoigne's text.7 Literary references associated the culture of hunting with gentlemanly status, typical adages being similar to that of James Cleland in 1607 'he cannot be a gentleman which loveth not hawking and hunting' or, as put by 'A Jewell for Gentrie' of 1614, hunting, hawking, fowling and fishing were 'the absolute parts of Musicke which make the perfect harmony of a true Gentlemen.'8 Markham considered hunting to be beneficial 'for the better obtaining of a greater readinesse, nimblenesse, cheerfulnesse, and strength of bodie.' 9 Hunting skills were also associated with character formation during the transition from youth to manhood and were thought to help build a code of conduct worthy of a gentleman – courage, 3 Mileson(2009:15-16,27-29). 4 Williams(1998); Manning(1993:17,33); Beaver(2008:16-19). 5 CKS U1475/E47. 6 Gascoigne(1575:A41). 7 Markham(1616:66-69). 8 Vale(1983:145) citing J. Cleland, The Institution of Young Noble Man' (Oxford, 1607) p.134. 9 Markham(1616:673). 186 honour, loyalty – qualities useful in other spheres of life, such as being a magistrate or leadership on the battlefield.10 Whether or not enforced, restrictive laws were a reminder of the elitism of the hunt because only the affluent would qualify to hunt, own hounds or possess crossbows.11 Added to which, the expense of the upkeep of horses, dogs and hunting paraphernalia and, for even fewer, parks in which to indulge the sport, would have been prohibitive to most of the population.12 Kentish aristocrats and gentlemen lived in the midst of this culture, as testified by their parks and by the hunting enjoyed both by park owners and by illegal intruders, some of whom were members of the gentry. Deer parks were inevitably linked with hunting pursuits, especially as Kent contained no royal forests as alternative hunting grounds, but although illegal hunting activities can be elicited from court depositions, anecdotal rather than substantive evidence has to be used to give an insight into the hunting enjoyed by Kentish park owners, their families and friends. Before turning to this, the role Elizabeth I and James I played in promoting and influencing the hunting culture in Kent will be examined. (a) Hunting in royal parks in Kent Hunting had been one of many skills acquired in childhood by Elizabeth I and her enjoyment of it never deserted her. In 1560 William Cecil, lord Burghey, confided to de Quadra, the Spanish ambassador, that the queen was abandoning government for Robert Dudley, earl of Leicester, with whom she spent days hunting, at the risk of her health and life.13 Towards the end of her reign, in August 1602, his son, Sir Robert Cecil, reported that the queen, now aged 68, rode ten miles a day and also hunted, 'whether she was weary or not, I leave to your censure.'14 Deer parks provided her with venues in which to indulge in hunting at leisure, and in the chase and kill she could participate as an equal in a man's world. The urge to hunt felt by her successor James I, 10 Beaver(2008:19); Beaver(1999:191-192); Manning(1993:5). 11 Munsche(1981:169-186); see Chapter Eight (iii) p.243-249. 12 Munsche(1981:32). 13 Neale(1952:84-85). 14 Ibid. p.393. 187 bordered on obsession.15 In July 1604 after the king's cursory inspection of the fleet at Rochester, the Count de Beaumont, wrote:- He took so little notice of it that not only the seamen, but likewise persons of all ranks were much offended, and said that he loved stags more than ships, and the sound of hunting-horns more than that of cannon.16 Both Elizabeth I's and James I's enjoyment of hunting was in contrast to their predecessors, Edward VI and Mary I, whose preoccupations in their short reigns lay elsewhere and whose poor health limited their ability to indulge in vigorous physical activity. The long reigns of Elizabeth I and James I enabled their influence in many spheres to become more deep-rooted, including the impact on their court of their passion for hunting. The monarchs' love of hunting led to a more positive attitude towards parks in which the recreation could be enjoyed. Many courtiers felt encouraged to maintain and enhance not only their residences, but also their parks, in an attempt to vie for royal favour and to entice the monarch to visit them while on progress. The crown's preference for certain palaces was partly influenced by the proximity of good hunting grounds or parks.17 Grants and leases of crown parks, keeperships and related park offices could also be used to confer royal favour as well as being a means of raising revenue.18 The county of Kent was inexorably drawn into this theatre of court emulation, flattery and competition. Greenwich palace, Elizabeth I's birthplace and James I's early delight, and Eltham palace, surrounded by three parks, were located in northwest Kent close to London. The former was retained by both monarchs, although after 1607 less frequented by James I.19 Eltham palace became somewhat neglected, but the parklands of over 1000 acres continued to appeal because they were only about four miles from Greenwich palace.20 That no records have so far come to light about Elizabeth I hunting in Greenwich(39) park might be attributable to the time of year she was accustomed to 15 Starkey(2000:27); Nichols II (1823:49); Neale(1952:393); Willson(1956:179-180). 16 Rye(1864-5:55) 18/7/1604, cited from Dépêches, Royal Mss.126, fo.421. 17 Dunlop I (1962:31-32). 18 See Chapter Four (i) p.119 onwards. 19 Willson(1956:403). 20 Cole(1999:57) citing F.C. Dietz, English Public Finance, 1558-1641, p.104; Nichols II (1828:445) in 1612 James I stayed at Eltham. 188 take up residence in Greenwich palace - her stay usually coinciding with the close season, from February until late June.21 Although she occasionally visited Eltham palace throughout her reign, little is known about her use of the parks(31-33) there.22 James I, however, did hunt in Greenwich(39) park and in the parks at Eltham(31-33), where, as previously mentioned, he encouraged the creation of Lee(53) park as an adjunct to the existing hunting grounds.23 He was in his late thirties at his accession, and on his arrival in London he inspected his inheritance with delight and enthusiasm. He spent the summer and autumn travelling from one royal house to another, all within easy reach of the capital, 'and therein took high delight, especially to see such store of deer and game in his parks for hunting, which is the sport he preferreth above all worldly delight and pastime.'24 James I took foreign dignitaries out hunting with him when a suitable occasion arose, such as the visit of his brother-in-law, Christian IV of Denmark, to Greenwich in July 1606 – a visit recorded by Henry Roberts.25 Christian IV spent five days in Greenwich, during which the two kings spent one day hunting along with Prince Henry and 'many honorable persons moste richly mounted on steeds of great prise, and furniture fayre.' In the morning two bucks were taken in Greenwich(39) park, and in the afternoon the party rode to Eltham and on horseback killed a further three bucks with crowds following as best they could on foot, as they had whenever Elizabeth I went hunting, and 'never wearied in view of so Royall Company, thinking themselves most happy (of many other) to behold so rare and excellent sight, two Kings and a Prince.' At this stage James I was willing to put himself on public display, but he soon tired of being on show, avoiding crowds and becoming less accessible to the general public, although he did sound out local gentlemen's views during his hunting progresses.26 21 See Chapter Three p.88 for hunting seasons. 22 Brook(1960:45) 1568 x2, 1569; Cole(1999:179- 202) Appendix 2: 1559, 1576, 1581 x2, 1597, 1598, 1601, 1602. 23 See Chapter Four pp.134-135. 24 Willson(1956:164,185) source not given, but Thomas Wilson (Pollard, Sir Thomas Wilson (d.1629) (http:// oxforddnb.com/articles/29690) is next quoted. 25 Nichols II (1828:54-63); Moore, Henry Roberts[Robarts](1585-1617) (http://oxforddnb.com/ articles/23/23753), Henry Roberts 'England's Farewell to Christian the Fourth.' 26 Willson(1956:184-185); Pollard, Sir Thomas Wilson (d.1629) (http:// oxforddnb.com/articles/29690); Williams(1998:16) citing W. Quintrell, 'The royal hunt and the Puritans' in Journal of Ecclesiastical History 31 (1981:41-56). 189 James I paid two more visits to Greenwich, when he returned for longer periods to hunt in 1612 and 1619.27 On the final visit in May and June 1619, he was just beginning to recover from the ill health and depression that had overwhelmed him at the death of Queen Anne. However, he resumed hunting after mourning, even though racked with gout, and killed a buck. After it had been slit open, he immediately 'stood in the belly of it and bathed his bare feet and legs with the warm blood', after which he claimed that the gout had been cured because he had been 'so nimble' since.28 It was commonly believed that various parts of the deer had healing qualities so James I's behaviour was not as bizarre as it would appear to modern observers.29 The blood of the deer also held symbolic qualities, which the king exploited to display his social superiority. He personally cut the deer's throat, as on this occasion, and would daub blood onto the faces of the attending entourage, who were not permitted to wash it off.30 The power of the blood taken after the ritual killing of the deer has been likened to the ritual of sacrifice, with religious connotations. 'The circulation of blood ... reveals a purifying and transformative power, even a sacred quality, that cannot be explained in terms of noble entertainment'; not only did it mark out favoured courtiers and convey gentility, ritualised killing also had political implications in reinforcing the unique status of the monarch 'in a culture that represented social order as part of the natural order.'31 (b) Gentry hunting in Kentish parks Although Markham confined his discussion of parks to the last section of 'Maison Rustique', he acknowledged the need for a gentleman to enjoy the recreation of hunting within his park after more important affairs had been dealt with.32 There were several methods of hunting available to Elizabethan and Jacobean huntsmen, and 27 Nichols II (1828:445-446); TNA SP14/108/41, 22/5/1619; TNA SP14/209/92, 12/6/1619. 28 TNA SP14/209/92, 12/6/1619. Brook(1960:45-46) a ballad of the time based on this event ends:- But be it this, or be it that, or Eltham's healthy clime, Without a doubt the bout of gout did quit him for a time. So let us all sing, 'Long live the King!' right merrie may he be. When next, in luck, he kills a buck, may I be there to see. 29 Gascoigne(1575:39-40). 30 Thomas(1983:29). 31 Beaver(2008:16). 32 Markham(1616:672). 190 records, though few in number for Kent, give glimpses into hunting practices in the county, its variety and social function. Hunters could follow deer on foot, on horseback or take aim from a stationary position, perhaps from a standing or platform using various weapons, most notably the crossbow and the longbow – a weapon that was increasingly going out of fashion.33 The possession and occasional use of guns were mentioned in court cases, but it would seem that guns were not generally used to hunt deer as a sport.34 Occasionally hunting in the open countryside was an option, as occurred in July 1617 when a deer was released from Lullingstone(55) park for Lord and Lady Wotton to chase towards Otford, on their way to Knole(50).35 Coursing was very popular. This was either done by flushing out a deer and allowing the dogs free pursuit after it, or was more organised over a set course within the park where a deer was released over a base line with dogs being unleashed later to give chase. The latter coursing was viewed as a spectator sport with bets being placed on which dog would bring down the deer first.36 The popularity of coursing, with or without permission, is conveyed in the few records for hunting extant for Kent.37 The formal method of watching the sport often required standings or raised platforms used as vantage points from which deer could be watched being brought down, although they might also be used as stations from which to shoot passing deer. Standings are likely to have existed in most parks, but only five records exist for Kent - at Bedgebury(4), Halden(41), Hemsted(44), Knole(50), and Somerhill(93b) (see Plate 7.1).38 An illustration on a 1599 map of Hemsted(44) shows the standing as a scaffold-type structure round a tree.39 The standing at Knole(50) was more substantial because in the 1580s John Lennard spent £400 in repair works, including the standing 'with the covenante', which might have been located near a possible deer course along a dry 33 Gascoigne(1575) covers the methods in great detail, see also Markham(1616:673-682). 34 TNA STAC8/290/17. 35 Sackville-West(1923:74). 36 Dimbleby, How We Built Britain (BBC2 TV, July 2007) in James I reign an ornate stand was built in Lodge Park, Gloucestershire, from which heavily betted coursing could be viewed. 37 For examples of illegal coursing see Chapter Eight (iv) (b) Case Study C p.276 (d) Case Study D p.292. 38 See Plate 7.1 p.191; CKS U1475/E23/2, 1571 Halden. 39 SuffRO HA43/T501/242. 191 Plate 7.1 Standings (a) The property called King's Standing at Somerhill, once part of Southfrith park or forest. 9 September 2006 (b) The dry valley at Knole along which it is thought coursing occurred. A possible site for the standing has been identified as being on the left on a platform where the present tree line ends. 2 October 2010 192 valley.40 The Queen's standing in Bedgebury(55) park mentioned in 1607, perhaps refers to Elizabeth I's visit during her progress of 1573, while 'King's Standing' at Somerhill(93b), with a commanding view over the park, might well have been the site of a standing dating back to at least Henry VIII's reign, since Edward VI and James I are not known to have hunted in Southfrith(93a), which was disparked in 161041 The frequency with which hunting occurred is open to speculation. In the 'Note of deere taken' for Penshurst(71) park hunting accounted for 15 deer (or 17, if two 'taken upp by my ladye' were hunted) out of 57 deer killed over a two-year period from 18 November 1603.42 There is no way of judging whether these years were typical for Penshurst, let alone other parks in Kent, because this 'Note of deere taken' is the only one of its type yet found in the county. However, this period did coincide with the early years of James I's reign when Sir Robert Sidney was very much preoccupied at court making the most of his improved position under the new monarch, so was absent from Penshurst for long periods.43With only 11 days of hunting in two years, seven for 1603/4 and four for the following year, the park seems to have been under exploited for recreational hunting, but there might have been unsuccessful outings that would not have appeared in the figures. Five hunts were led by family members, including Lady Barbara Sidney and her daughter, Mary, who had her own dogs, which her mother also used, showing the active participation of women in the sport, not unlikely in view of the example set by Elizabeth I's life-long interest in hunting. The other six hunts were arranged for friends ranging from the teenaged Robert Devereux, earl of Essex, to 'one of the prince's wine seller with his dogg.'44 Generally at Penshurst the use of dogs predominated, five deer being brought down by dogs at the end of a hunt and seven as a result of coursing, one was shot by crossbow, and two killed without the method of hunting being noted. Owners of parks delighted to invite their friends to join them hunting or to allow guests to hunt in their absence, as a mark of gentlemanly hospitality. Special invitations might be sent on an ad hoc basis, or warrants issued to family and friends allowing them 40 Phillips II (1920:400-401); Taylor(2003:167-169); 'covenante' in this context might mean that it was roofed or covered. 41 BL Cart.Harl.77.C.44; OS TQ604447; Chalklin(2004:100-103). 42 CKS U1475/E47. 43 MacCaffrey, Henry Sidney (1529-1586)(http://oxforddnb.com/articles/25/25520); see p.208 following.. 44 Morill, Robert Devereux, third earl of Essex (1591-1646) (http://oxforddnb.com/articles/7566). 193 to hunt at their own convenience. Being given a warrant to take deer from other people's parks was a way in which the park owner would convey favour or show regard to the recipient. A warrant given to those without parks allowed them to enjoy the sport and to acquire extra venison for the household or to pass on as gifts. Warrants issued to park owners provided them with a change of hunting venue or one to use when they were distant from their own park. Edward Dering of Surrenden had warrants to hunt in Eastwell(28) and Boughton Malherbe(10,12) parks, as his park(84) at Surrenden did not seem to contain deer.45 Some warrants of long-standing were difficult to fulfil if stocks were low. Lady Wroth, Sir Robert and Lady Barbara Sidney's daughter, was asked by her parents to be 'sparing' of the deer in 1617 because the herd had been depleted in the winter.46 Less open-ended invitations to hunt also occurred, and friends passing by were allowed to hunt. In 1561 Dean Wotton was 'greatly entertained' at Westenhanger(96) by Lady Winifred Sackville, in her husband's absence, with hawking in the afternoon and 'a fair course at a buck' the next morning.47 Sometimes formal parties were difficult to fit into busy schedules, and weeks went by before the house party at Penshurst that Robert Sidney, earl of Leicester, was planning for his courtier friends finally took place on 4 August 1617.48 Richard Sackville, earl of Dorset, an avid hunter, travelled from Knole for this whole day's hunting, but following a disagreement with his wife over finances, refused to allow her to leave Knole.49 The hunting party had given accompanying wives the chance to meet together on an informal basis, and Lady Anne Sackville felt very aggrieved at her enforced exclusion, but managed to visit Penshurst a few days later during her husband's absence in Lewes and 'had much talk' with her hostess and her female guests.50 An invitation to a hunt might be used to further business negotiations or delicate family agreements. John Lennard invited Sir Thomas Walsingham of Scadbury to hunt with him at Knole(50) park in August 1579 at a critical point in the marriage negotiations between their children. Whether part of the tactics or unavoidably true Sir 45 Yeandle , Sir Edward Dering's 'Booke of Expences' (www.kentarchaeology.ac.uk) p.296. 46 Shaw & Owen(1962:298-299) 15/6/1615. 47 Phillips I (1930:135). 48 Hanney, Kinnamon & Brennan(2005:204-209) letters 272-280. 49 Sackville-West(1923:75). 50 Ibid. p.75; Hay(1984:188). 194 Thomas Walsingham could not 'accordinge to my good will, and your desire' accept the invitation because he was delayed at court, but he agreed to go hunting as soon as he had more leisure.51 The marriage went ahead in December 1579, so perhaps the hunt played a part in the successful outcome. Whatever the method of hunting, dogs invariably played their part in tracking, chasing and retrieving, and were seen as an important component of the hunting culture. Markham devoted most of Chapter XXII ''Of hunting or chasing of the Stag,' to descriptions of breeds of dog and their care.52 Hounds were perceived to be noble, sagacious, generous, intelligent, faithful and obedient, compared with other breeds, and their owners often regarded them with special affection, caring for them better than for their servants.53 The ownership of lyme hounds, deployed to pick up scent, and greyhounds, used in pursuit, must have been common among huntsmen, but evidence is scarce. Sir Edward Dering of Surrenden possessed a mastiff, usually regarded as a guard dog, and greyhounds, for which on three occasions he bought collars, slip or line. His greyhounds pursued and brought down deer in Eastwell(28) and Boughton Malherbe(10,12) parks.54 Gentlemen undertaking illicit excursions into parks frequently took their own dogs.55 Although random records for legal hunting in about a dozen parks have been found, evidence for illegal hunting exists for several more, making it likely that all parks with deer were venues for hunting. The royal taste for hunting struck a cord with Kentish park owners, their families and friends, and this was intensified by royal visits to the county. (ii) Venison on the menu and venison as gifts There are more references to gifts of venison than to hunting in Kent, but the two were not mutually exclusive. Deer killed in hunting might be gifted afterwards, other hunted deer would be consumed by the household, and yet other deer, destined 51 Barrett-Lennard(1908:106-107). 52 Markham(1616:273-682). 53 Thomas(1983:106) citing W. & F Baillie-Grohman (eds.), The Master of Game (1904), which was Edward, 2nd Duke of York's fourteenth century translation, with additional chapters of his own of 'Le Livre du Chasse' by Gaston Phébus; ibid. p.103, citing A. Willer, Hexapla in Leviticum (1631). 54 Yeandle, Sir Edward Dering's 'Booke of Expences' (www.kentarchaeology.ac.uk) pp.24,27,210,309. 55 See Chapter Eight (iv)(b) p.260 onwards with Case Studies B and C. 195 either for the household or to be gifted, were killed by deer keepers on the order of the park owners. Over the two-year period, 1603 to 1605, at Penshurst(71) park, just over a quarter of the deer killed were gifted.56 William Harrison, chaplain to Lord Cobham, noted that venison was not sold on the open market, but was consumed by the household or given and received as gifts, sometimes in return for or in expectation of favours, or to further business.57 There was a black market in venison, which persisted despite sporadic efforts by the authorities to stamp it out, but this did not detract from the special status of the meat as a gift 'not much contaminated by contact with commerce.'58 The significance of the context, language, and strategies surrounding gifting in conveying messages of social and political obligation has been the focus of much research in recent years.59 The 'gift register' can be cast widely but this discussion will concentrate on gifts of venison, which expressed a number of ideas between donor and recipient, and which was perceived in the culture of 1558 to 1625 as being the most prestigious item of consumption. There is no shortage of examples in Kent to illustrate the various facets of the giving of venison, but first will come the household use of venison, of which only one illustrative detailed example survives. A finely bound volume of Robert Sidney, earl of Leicester's household expenses for the period 7 April 1624 to 21 March 1625 details the amount and cost of provisions including food during his stay at Penhurst from 15 May 1624 until 5 February 1625.60 Other pages listed the dishes served at the high table, the low table, the children's table and tables in the hall. Venison was included infrequently among the many meat, fowl and fish dishes and was listed under the heading 'Provisions of your Lordship's owne' with a notional value by the side. On 26 June 1624, prior to a busy time at Penshurst when the book recorded visits by Sir John North, Lieutenant Percy and his men, Lord Wallingford, Sir Anthony Forrest and Mr Arundell, a fat buck worth £1 10s was delivered to the kitchen and various venison dishes appeared on the menu over the next 56 CKS U1475/E47. 57 Holinshed(1587:204). 58 See p.245 for Statutes 4 p.1055, 1 James I c.27; TNA SP12/179/12, 11/6/1585, Lord mayor of London's crackdown on cooks; Heal(2008:58). 59 Heal(2008:42-43) summary citation of research in this field. 60 CKS U1475/A27/7. 196 month.61 On Thursday 1 July two haunches were prepared for the high table with two pecks of flour, 19 eggs, six pounds of butter and half a pound of pepper.62 On Friday 2 July deer's foot featured among the supper dishes, and on Sunday 4 July venison pasty was made. In the following week venison stew was enjoyed for supper at the high table and afterwards formed part of the menu for the low table. At the end of July another buck worth £2 came from the park and in August half a buck valued at £1. These venison dishes were made from fresh meat, but it is likely that venison over and beyond what was immediately required was salted, as in medieval times, although no specific evidence for this practice has been found for Elizabethan and Jacobean Kent.63 Venison was also served to mark special occasions. At Penshurst a doe was freshly killed for Lady Mary Sidney's birthday on 18 October 1603, for Sir Walter Merry's funeral, and for Christmas in the same year. On 28 September 1605 venison from the park was enjoyed at the wedding feast of Lady Mary Sidney to Sir Robert Wroth, one of James I's hunting companions.64 Francis Leigh of East Wickham, killed a doe in his park to celebrate his wife's churching in January 1615, but found the deer too emaciated 'by reason of age and want of teeth' to be edible, so he had to beg a piece of venison from Nicholas Carew instead. 65 Not surprisingly, recipients of gifts of venison were often family members, including distant kin. Such gifts expressed and strengthened family and wider kinship ties. From 1603 to 1605 at Penshurst(71) of the 17½ deer used to provide gifts of venison eight went to family members, including Sir Robert Sidney's aunt, born Lady Katherine Dudley, countess of Huntingdon, and to the countess of Pembroke, widow of his nephew, Sir William Herbert, both being among his most influential supporters at court.66 The exchange of venison was also an affectionate way of keeping in touch with distant spouses. When Sir Robert Sidney was away from home, even when serving as governor of Flushing, his wife sent him venison and he reciprocated with special treats 61 CKS U1475/A27/7. 62 Peck = a measure of capacity for dry goods, equal to 2 gallons or 8 quarts. 63 Birrell(2006:180-182). 64 CKS U1475/E47. 65 Joyce Hoad, pers.comm. by e-mail 8/5/2005, no reference given; churching = first occasion when church attendance was resumed by the mother after childbirth. 66 CKS U1475/E47; see (iv) p.229 following. 197 for the larder when he could.67 In September 1610 he was sent a doe during his stay at Shurland, and in 1616 a doe and eight partridges were delivered to him at the royal court of Oatlands, Surrey.68 Gifts of venison from husband to wife occasionally acted as a peace offering.69 The three red deer pies Robert Sidney, earl of Leicester, sent to his wife from Nonsuch in 1617 came with an apologetic note about his continued absence, 'but yet I cannot say when the company will come to Penshurst.' 70 Richard Sackville, earl of Dorset, did not win favour from his wife after 'a great falling out' 'with an indifferent kind letter' accompanying half a buck sent on 20 April 161771 As part of local social networking and to cement relationships between acquaintances, neighbouring families would exchange venison, for example, the Sidneys sent a buck or a doe to the Willoughbys of Bore Place, the Lennards of Knole and the Bosvilles of Sevenoaks between 1603 and 1605.72 These gifts might have been reciprocated in kind, but even if the recipients did not immediately respond to the gift, each one invariably carried an obligation of some kind when called upon by the donor.73 Thomas Wotton sent venison to 'his verye assured frende Mr Best' in May 1580, both by way of gratitude for a favour received and to celebrate the forthcoming marriage of Mr Best's daughter. Thomas Wotton's covering letter was deliberately disparaging about the quality of the buck to underline 'the great disparity between the value of the gift and what it signified,' offering Mr Best the best deer in his park whenever and wherever he chose to receive it, 'for suche hathe your curtesye ben towarde mee, as at my handes yt deservethe greater matter than Buckes.'74 Gifts of venison could be sent as a mark of patronage in gratitude for favours or services rendered to the donor, such as the buck killed at Penhurst(71) in 1603 for three key figures serving under Sir Robert Sidney as governor of Flushing.75 To encourage a favourable outcome to business, gifts of venison might be sent to social inferiors to enhance image and to make business more palatable. In an effort to encourage William 67 Hanney, Kinnamon & Brennan(2005:176) letter 231. 68 Ibid. p.157, letter 201, p.199, letter 266. 69 Ibid. p.193 letter 258. 70 Hanney, Kinnamon & Brennan(2005:202) letter 270. 71 Sackville-West(1949:70-71). 72 CKS U1475/E27. 73 Heal(2008:62). 74 Eland(1960:39) letter XXXI. 75 CKS U1475/E27. 198 Cowdrey to pay rent due on land in Sundridge, John Lennard of Knole sent him some venison. The elderly William Cowdrey was pleased with the gift, 'Seldome cometh any venysone in these megre old daies; Wherefore I gyve unto your Worshipp the hartier thanks for your Venysone.' However, he still had excuses over his non-payment of rent!76 There was special public significance when venison was sent for community consumption. Such a gift underlined a sense of social hierarchy and was a chance for the donor to display conspicuous giving.77 At the Admiral's court held at Sheerness on the Isle of Sheppey in June 1580, the mayor of Rochester's hospitality feast included a buck from William Brooke, lord Cobham 'to be merie with.'78 The value of a yearly buck given by Sir Robert Sidney to the tenants of Otford as being 'to my great credit' was recognised in 1600 by his solicitor, Francis Woodward, when he held the manorial court on behalf of Sir Robert Sidney.'79 Lastly, venison might be sent to create favourable negotiating conditions. In a letter of 16 September 1601 his solicitor stressed how Sir Robert Sidney's gift of a buck to the townspeople of Wiche in Warwickshire for a communal feast had so increased his 'fame and honnour' that the whole town 'wold be at your commandment yf you should have any occasion to use them.'80 The distribution of some venison seems to have been arranged as a regular allocation under the system of warrants, and did not necessarily represent spontaneous giving. When John Lennard took over the lease of Knole(50) in 1570 he was expected to honour warrants for deer issued by his predecessors as a form of patronage, for example, Sir Henry Sidney of Penshurst, was permitted to take 15 deer from Knole(50) and Northfrith(89-91). Others who held warrants for deer at Knole(50) were Richard Sackville, lord Buckhurst, Richard Lewknor of Northfirth and William Lovelace. John Lennard even importuned Richard Lewknor 'when he dyd lye sick yn his deathe bedd' so urgently did he desire to discover the extent of his obligations. The implications of making a mistake over the venison seem to have been so dire that others by the bedside 76 Barrett-Lennard(1908:132-134). 77 Heal(2008:64,67). 78 Blencowe(1859:84). 79 CKS U1475/C75/4 4/8/1600. 80 Kingsford & Shaw(1934:534-535). 199 did not criticise John Lennard's insensitivity.81 As a result of the consultation John Lennard honoured Sir Henry Sidney's warrant for 15 deer, six of which came from Northfrith(89-91). In 1576 William Lovelace allocated one of his bucks from Knole(50) to a Mr Sellinger, another example of the filtering down of patronage. However, in this instance the recipient was so ungracious that John Lennard felt him to be 'evyll worthy to good venyson,' and was likely 'to spede worse another tyme' – a hint that an inferior beast would be selected if the request was repeated.' 82 It must have been galling to John Lennard, after the trouble the warrants had caused him, to find that, even as sitting tenant at Knole with responsibility for the park, he did not have complete freedom to take deer from there himself. His good friend, Sir William Cordell, master of the rolls, who was either allocated royal deer through his office or was in a better position to acquire warrants, in 1580 sent him a New Year's present of a warrant for two does from Knole(50) park 'nye unto yow' and some very good claret to accompany them 'bycause you shall not surfitt of the flesshe.' Sir William Cordell's gift of venison was in response to John Lennard's New Year gift in 1580 of two silver pots, which had put Sir William Cordell in an awkward position. It was difficult for him to reciprocate in like measure, yet a lesser gift might imply under valuation of the friendship. He rebuked John Lennard for sending such a valuable present, when 'thyngs of smaller valew myght serve to recognyse that love and frendshyppe that one of us bereth to another.' However, he hoped his gift of venison and claret would match John Lennard's generosity, although no price could be put on the 'mutual amyte' they shared.83 The whole incident underlines the delicate balance governing the donation and receipt of gifts. As has been shown gifts of venison were highly esteemed, but they involved donors and recipients in obligation and expectation. The motivation behind the gift might stem from genuine familial affection and friendship, from expectations of advancement or favour, from gratitude for favours received or from the need to develop and reinforce patronage networks. In all cases, like other food gifts, but with the added 81 Barrett-Lennard(1908:123-125). 82 Ibid. 83 Ibid. pp.42-44. 200 significance venison embodied, gifts of venison were an important currency in the cultural ethos of the period. (iii) The use of parks for recreation and hospitable entertainment, apart from hunting Parks were multi-functional in terms of land use and productivity, and they were equally versatile in the way they were used for enjoyment. Monarchs and their privileged subjects not only hunted in their parks, but also used them for ceremonial occasions, informal entertainment, riding, walking and contemplating. Lord North's sentiments, expressed in Charles II's reign, that the pleasure of a deer park was not just having deer around, 'but in having so much pasture ground at hand lying open for riding, walking and any other pastime,' would have been shared by earlier generations. 84 Both Elizabeth I and James I enjoyed their royal parks and appreciated the parks of their hosts on progresses and for short visits. This section highlights Elizabeth I's affection for Greenwich(39) park (a), royal visits to parks in Kent (b), and how the noblemen and gentry of Kent appreciated their parks (c). Evidence for all these aspects is patchy, so well documented events are covered in more detail to evoke contemporary reactions and attitudes to Kentish parks. (a) The royal park at Greenwich Elizabeth I visited Greenwich for the first time as queen a year after her accession. The palace with the backdrop of the park(39) had been upgraded into a principal residence for Henry VIII, and it became Elizabeth I's favourite early summer residence, prior to her progresses, which usually occupied the high summer from July to September.85 The park(39) was used as an adjunct to the palace both for formal, ceremonial occasions, for entertaining notable guests and for informal, recreational pursuits. A detailed description of set pieces held in Greenwich(39) park during Elizabeth I's first regnal visit conveys the flavour of state occasions, which lent colour and 84 Thomas(1983:201-202) c.1669. 85 Kirby(1954-56:22-50); Dunlop(1962:26) description of John Barclay in Icon Animorum, published 1614; Nichols I (1823:69). 201 pageantry to reinforce the power and prestige of the crown. On 2 July 1559 the city of London organised an elaborate military entertainment on the lawn of the park, with Elizabeth I, ambassadors and nobility observing the manoeuvres from a viewpoint in the gatehouse overlooking the park (see Plate 7.2).86 Robert Dudley, earl of Leicester, inspected a muster of 1400 men-at arms, with trumpets blowing, drums beating and flutes playing. Divided into two groups, the soldiers then skirmished before the queen, 'guns were discharged on one another, the morris pike encountered together with great alarm; each ran in their weapons again, and then they fell together as fast as they could in imitation of close fight.'87 This impressive military pageant was followed by a demonstration of public loyalty, when, after the queen had thanked the participants, 'immediately was given the greatest shout as ever was heard, with hurling up of caps.' 88 A few days later, from the same vantage point Elizabeth I, ambassadors and distinguished guests, watched another martial display of three challengers against 'defendants of equal valour with launces and swords.' Afterwards the queen rode into the park with her entourage for a masque followed by a banquet in a 'goodly banqueting house' made from fir poles, intertwined with birch branches and covered with flowers. Separate tents were provided for the kitchen and for provisions for the combatants. To end the day there were deafening volleys of gunfire until midnight.89 Regular events, such as the traditional May Day celebrations, also took place in Greenwich(39) park. In Henry VIII's reign, with great fanfare, a procession of hundreds climbed to Duke Humphrey's tower on May Day.90 Though with less panoply, Elizabeth I, and her court, marked the day by climbing the same hill 'into sweet meadows and great woods to rejoice their spirits with the beauty and savour of sweet flowers and with the harmony of birds, praising God after their kind.'91 This aesthetic appreciation of parkland surroundings is seldom mentioned, but nevertheless played a vital part in the informal use of any park. 86 Nichols I (1823:69-72); Barker(1993:20-21); see Plate 7.2 p.202 showing palace, gatehouse and park. 87 Dunlop(1962:50); morris-pike = a type of pike supposed to be of Moorish origin (http://dictionary. oed.com). 88 Nichols(1823:72). 89 Nichols(1823:73). 90 Dunlop(1962:49-50) eyewitness account in 1515 by Niccolo Sagadino, Venetian Secretary, 'Bringing home the May'. 91 Dunlop(1962:51) quoted without reference. 202 Plate 7.2 Greenwich park and Elizabeth I (b) Remaining hulk of Queen Elizabeth I's oak at Greenwich Park 23 February 2008 (a) Wyngaerde's panorama of Greenwich and the palace complex in Henry VIII's reign, looking south > north. The gatehouse entrance from which Elizabeth I and her guests viewed staged events in the park can been seen to the centre of the outer wall. 203 The queen was an enthusiastic walker, striding so fast through the bracken at Greenwich(39) and elsewhere that she tired her courtiers.92 Towards the end of her reign Rowland Whyte remarked that while at Greenwich the queen 'uses to walke much in the Parke and great walkes out of the Parke and about the Parke.' 93 One old oak tree, now dead and fallen, popularly known as the Queen Elizabeth oak, is said to be where she stopped for a refreshing drink, sitting within its hollow trunk (see Plate 7.2).94 She herself was 'sure the house, garden and walks may compare with the most delicat in Italy.'95 Even when relaxing in the palace garden the queen would gaze out onto the park through a window she had inserted into the garden wall in 1588.96 In 1598 the German traveller, Paul Henztner, who marvelled at the number of parks in England, noted the various 'wild animals' in Greenwich(39) park and the plain, 'where knights and other gentlemen use to meet at set times and holidays to exercise on horseback.'97 A painting of the park in about 1620 by an unknown artist graphically depicts the ways in which various people responded to the pleasing parkland landscape. 'A view of Greenwich palace from One Tree Hill' shows sheep grazing on the hill in the foreground, where one couple is strolling and another couple is seated admiring the view over the park to the palace and beyond, up the winding river, to London set against the skyline. Deer graze by Duke Humphrey's tower and among the scattered trees, while a lone horseman rides towards the palace, and, nearby, a man on foot with a dog puts a deer to flight (see Plate 7.3).98 (b) Royal visits to parks in Kent Both Elizabeth I and James I travelled extensively in their reigns, but while Elizabeth I preferred to visit local residences within a limited radius of London on a full progress, James I's interests centred on appropriate hunting venues where convenient royal residences or hunting lodges were located.99 However, despite the presence of 92 Plumb(1977:76). 93 Kingsford & Shaw(1934:468) 11/6/1600; see Plate 7.2 p.202. 94 Webster(1902:7); see Plate 7.2 p.202. 95 Barker(1993:19) no source given. 96 Drake(1886:61fn.6). 97 Naunton(1889:51-52). 98 See Plate 7.3 p.204 for the painting, NMM BHC1820. 99 Palliser(1992:12); Willson(1956:184). 204 Plate 7.3 Panoramic painting of Greenwich c.1620 NMM BHC1820, 'View of Greenwich Palace from One Tree Hill,' c.1620, by an unknown artist. By kind permission of © National Maritime Museum, Greenwich, London 205 Greenwich and Eltham palaces with their parks, neither monarch ventured regularly further into Kent. An analysis of 23 Elizabethan progresses found that Surrey figured in 13, Hertfordshire in 12, Buckinghamshire and Oxfordshire in nine, Essex and Berkshire in eight, Hampshire in seven, but Kent only in three.100 Elizabeth I made a two-month extended progress through Kent and into Sussex in 1573, and she undertook two shorter journeys in 1559 and in 1582. However with palaces at Greenwich and Eltham, the county was easily accessible and a number of shorter trips were made into it, such as a visit to William Isley at Sundridge near Sevenoaks in 1581 and to Thomas Walsingham, whom she knighted at his home, Scadbury, near Chislehurst, in 1597. Both had parks, but Sundridge(83) had been disparked, and there is only seventeenth century evidence for Scadbury(later park, 105) park, although there is a strong possibility that it existed earlier.101These 58 shorter visits were the second highest for any county.102 It is impossible to quantify the impact of the crown on the mindset of the Kentish owners of deer parks, but with the likelihood of even irregular visits there would be an incentive to maintain parks in the hope of encouraging royal favour through a visit.103 Additionally, if the monarch's status might be partly judged on the ownership of deer parks, so would be that of his or her subjects. Several reasons for Elizabeth I's institution of progresses have been put forward. Among these were her love of travel through England, her wish to display her person and court to a wide range of her subjects in order to promote her image and popularity, and her inclination to combine politics and governance through personal contact and strengthened social ties with the aristocracy and gentry.104 On a more practical level, she wished to avoid disease prevalent in the summer heat of London.105 Although her travels put her hosts to great expense, they did not reduce the royal household costs as 100 Cole(1999:24-25). 101 CKS U1590/T14/14; Archer(1985:4,7). 102 Cole(1999:180-202) Table 1: Chronology of Royal Visits and Progresses. 103 Nichols II (1823:49) Edmund Bohun wrote that during Elizabeth I's progresses 'she would amuse herself with considering and commending the pleasantness and goodness of her country' and 'admire the goodness of God, in diversifying the face of the earth, by the mixture of fields, meadows, pastures and woods, and, she would, as occasion offered, hunt too.' 104 Cole(1999:26,34); Wilson(1980:38-39). 105 Dunlop(1962:115-118). 206 Lord Burghley illustrated in his analysis of the itemised expenses of the progress of 1573 into Kent and Surrey, which showed additional costs of over £1000, including £229 to feed the 140 horses in the queen's train.106 Very full accounts were written of the entertainment the queen received from hosts such as Robert Dudley, earl of Leicester, at Kenilworth in 1575 or Anthony Browne, viscount Montagu, at Cowdray in 1591, but unfortunately no such detail survives for her visits to Kent.107 However, it is likely that her hosts there made sure that an asset like a park was maximised for a variety of amusements including pageantry, plays, music, banquets and hunting. The fullest extant description is of her stay from 18 July to 21 July 1559 at Cobham Hall, the residence of William Brooke, lord Cobham, lord warden of the Cinque ports, lord lieutenant of Kent, and one of the few members of the aristocracy living in Kent.108 The manor house at Cobham had not yet been improved and extended, so the park(23) was exploited to the utmost in entertaining the queen with 'sumptuous fare and many delights of rare invention', as Francis Thynne enthused years later.109 Other dignitaries present would be duly impressed and the standing of Lord Cobham further enhanced in his neighbourhood, county and further a-field. Particularly noteworthy were two temporary buildings constructed around trees, which aroused great admiration and wonder. One building was a banqueting house 'with a goodlie gallerie thereunto', erected between rows of hawthorn trees and 'composed all of greene, with severall devises of knotted flowers.' 110 To provide even more space a lime tree was trained into a pavilion, 'the goodliest spectacle mine eyes ever beheld for one tree to carry.'111 The bark was stripped off for about nine feet and the branches bent over and spread round to reach the ground to form one arbour, then another two arbours one above the other were formed in the same way, with a stairway 106 Cole(1999:58-59); Chambers I (1923:117) it cost Lord Burghley between £2000-£3000 for each of twelve royal visits to Theobalds. 107 Chambers I (1923:122-124); Wilson(1980:86-95). 108 Lock, William Brooke (1527-1597) (http://oxforddnb.com/articles/61/61735). 109 McKeen I (1986:133-134) Francis Thynne added this description to Holinshed's Chronicle of 1587 iii, p.1510; Knafla, Francis Thynne (c.1545-1608) (http://oxforddnb.com/articles/27420). 109 McKeen I (1986:134) citing John Parkinson, Paradisi in sole paradisus Terrestris, 1629. 110 Ibid. pp.133-134, Francis Thynne. 111 McKeen I (1986:134) p.134, John Parkinson. 207 linking one floor to another, and the boughs supporting floor boards. So huge was the tree that within each gallery 'might be placed halfe an hundred men at the least.' Crowds from miles around gathered and as Elizabeth I approached this green shelter specially commissioned verses of welcome were read out. Elizabeth I next journeyed to Otford where she stayed in her own mansion from July 23 to 28 July 1559.112 Supplementary space also had to be found here, and Robert Dudley, earl of Leicester, acting as host, had his tents sent from London at the cost of 77s 8d. In one of the tents he entertained the queen to a banquet costing £6 14 0d.113 It is likely that she went hunting while in Kent because the earl of Derby wrote to Robert Dudley on 15 July 1559 that he had been looking out for a lyme dog and suitable greyhounds which he would send 'when the Quenes highnes shalbe in progesse.' 114 Also Robert Dudley's account book shows that he sent two bucks from Otford to Mr Chelsham and Mr Gresham, the carriage cost of which was 6s 8d. The only description of Elizabeth I's long progress through Kent and Sussex from late July to late September 1573 comes from Gilbert Talbot, who concentrated on how she was received by the towns of Sandwich and Canterbury, rather than by the hosts of country houses.115 Elizabeth I stopped at 27 locations in Kent in 1573, of which 12 are known to have had parks, and three others had parks near their mansions; Sir Percival Hart at Orpington owned Lullingstone(55) park, Sir Thomas Kempe of Olantigh owned Stowting park(82), while Thomas Tufton of Hothfield leased Westwell(98) park.116 Although the majority of Elizabeth I's hosts had parks in which to extend their hospitality, others who did not were still honoured by the queen, so park ownership, though advantageous, was not necessarily decisive in determining where the royal progress went. Further opportunities to display parks and to gain admiration and respect were provided as a result of Kent's unique position as the nearest gateway to the continent. 112 MacCaffrey, Sir Henry Sidney (1529-1586) (http://oxforddnb.com/articles/25/25520). 113 Adams(1995:76-77) accounts 20/12/1558 to 20/12/1559. 114 Owen V (1980:142). 115 Nichols I (1823:331-354); Hicks, Gilbert Talbot(1552-1616)(http.//oxforddnb.com /articles/26930). 116 Otford(62), Knole(50), Comford at Birling(7), Oxenhoath(65,66), Bedgebury(4), Hemsted(44), Sissinghurst(79), Boughton Malherbe(10,12), Brabourne (Scot's Hall,77), Westenhanger(96), Canterbury(18) and Cobham(23). 208 Many travellers passed through the county to and from London and a park owner might therefore be called upon to entertain a passing visitor. In February 1582 Elizabeth I and the Duke of Alençon, en route for France, stayed with Sir Roger Manwood, the lord chief baron, in his newly remodelled house at Tyler Hill, Canterbury, and might have taken the opportunity to hunt in the surrounding park(94). Occasionally, the lord lieutenant would meet distinguished guests on behalf of the monarch, and arrange diversions for hawking and hunting at suitable parks on the way to London.117 In James I's reign, 'the solemn slow progresses' of Elizabeth I were replaced by the hurriedly arranged hunting parties of which James was inordinately fond, but which, 'no longer provided the measured opportunity to spread the influence of the Court into the wider gentile community.'118 However, in Kent there is more direct evidence in the early years of his reign for the enhancement of parks or creation of parks, such as Lee(53) and East Wickham(29) parks near Eltham in order to entice a royal visit.119 Robert Sidney was particularly susceptible to one-upmanship and was prepared to commit himself to expense he could ill afford in order to have the king visit Penshurst.120 He had first hunted with James I (then James VI) in Scotland during the Armada crisis of 1588 and had the stay been longer the king would have 'killed all his buckes in Fauckland' hunting with him.121 James I thought him 'so rare a gentleman' that he created him Viscount Lisle in 1605 and appointed him lord chamberlain of Queen Anne's household.122 However, Viscount Lisle to win even more favour proposed enlarging Penshurst(71) park to lure a visit from James I.123 In a letter of 6 May 1611 his steward, Thomas Golding, expressed dismay at the cost when his master was already burdened with 'consuming debts.' He alluded to the underlying motive for the scheme, namely a royal visit, 'Your Lordship knows well that this parte of the countrey is not pleasant nor sportely, and therefore not lykely to have it visited by suche for whose sake 117 Rye(1865:182) e.g. the duke of Saxe-Weimar in 1613. 118 Davies(1959:263). 119 See Chapter Four pp.134-135 for Lee, and see Chapter Eight p.282 for East Wickham. 120 Robert Sidney's title underwent various changes – he was knighted in 1588, in 1603 he became Lord Sidney, in 1605 Viscount Lisle and in 1618 Earl of Leicester. 121 Hay(1984:68-69) citing Asheby to Walsingham, 12/9/1588, Cal.Scot.Papers 9:614. 122 Ibid. pp.68-69, citing James VI to Elizabeth I, September 1588, Bruce, Letters of Elizabeth and James VI, pp.54-55. 123 Hanney, Kinnamon. & Brennan(2005:160). 209 you would inlardge yt.'124 He hinted that the craze for hunting might pass, writing that if 'the humor of hunting should last in another age, yett yt is not lykely to continewe for ever.' He did concede that an enlarged park would add status to the family, but that its reputation was high enough because 'You have alreadye a very fair and sportlyke a park as any is in this parte of England.' His advice was sound and Penshurst park was not extended.125 However, Thomas Golding was proved wrong about the unlikelihood of James I visiting Penshurst. Perhaps shortly after his letter, the king and Prince Henry, out late hunting, arrived unannounced finding the ideal household establishment because it was always ready to entertain, even in the absence of the host. The visit was celebrated in Ben Jonson's poem 'To Penshurst,' in which he devoted several lines to the park, encapsulating the essence of parkland, which helps to explain why so many of the greater landowners continued to enjoy parks on their estates. 126 The park allowed Robert Sidney to 'feast and exercise' his friends; it abounded with deer, conies and pheasants; it provided grassland for cattle and sheep; it held his stud; and its woodlands were productive. It was ironic that the royal visit that Viscount Lisle had longed for, and which Elizabeth I had denied him, was fulfilled under James I, but in his absence! While monarchs continued to be lured by the delights of the hunt, men like Robert Sidney, viscount Lisle, were prepared to maintain the honour of their house by keeping their parks, despite loss of annual rental income and the expense of park maintenance. Elizabeth I's and James I's predilection was partly responsible for the continuance of deer parks, but it was also in tune with the image of a gentleman's standing as displayed by his coat of arms, pedigree, clothing, mansion, garden and parkland.127 (c) How nobility and gentry appreciated their parks In an age of conspicuous consumption parks were perceived by many as an essential adjunct to a gentleman's estate, especially if that gentleman desired outward 124 Shaw(1942:265-267) 6/5/1611. 125 Ibid. p.302, 13/11/1611, pp.307-308, 21/11/1611. 126 Hanney, Kinnamon. & Brennan(2005:255-257) full text of the poem; ibid. p.165, 25/7/1611 letter and footnote 313; Donaldson, Benjamin Jonson [Ben] (1572-1637)(http://oxforddnb.com/articles/15116) it is thought that Ben Jonson had tutored William Sidney. Prince Henry died in 6 November 1612. 127 Beresford(1957:211); Palliser(1992:82-83); Thompson(1991:45-46). 210 display of his status or had aspirations for advance in his county community, or even nationally at court, in the law or to attract state progresses.128 Though Harrison acknowledged that parks gave pleasure to the owner and his friends, he thought that parks wasted valuable land and fulfilled no useful purpose except to produce deer - 'that vain commody, which bringeth no manner of gain or profit to the owner.'129 Harrison's emphasis on lost profit missed the point. This study has already demonstrated that parks were of value to their owners in other ways than the monetary sense. Deer as prey for hunters and in the form of gifts of venison were valuable currency in the pursuit of social recognition, obligation and expectation, but parks offered other advantages and pleasures to the owners. Norden pointed out that as well as yielding 'relief to the Table', parks also provided 'often recreation to the Mynde' and 'exercise to the Bodie.'130 As has been shown, hunting and other recreational activities were not just a means of exercise, but carried with them social, political, cultural and, in the sacrificial element of the kill, even religious connotations. More than that, Norden gave priority to the restorative effects of parks when he touched on their deeper emotional, aesthetic significance with his reference to them yielding 'recreation to the Mynde' - here using a now obscure meaning of 'recreation' as giving mental or spiritual comfort or consolation through the arousal of the senses.131 A distinction used to be made between the medieval 'practical' park and the 'aesthetic' post-medieval park, but reassessment in the last 20 years has led to the recognition that medieval parks had 'an ornamental function as well as a practical and prestige value.'132 Pluskowski has examined the relationship between the physical and conceptual reality of medieval parks, asking whether it was possible that parks were perceived as idyllic hunting grounds – an aristocratic paradise on earth.133 His answer was that although by the fifteenth century parks had become multi-functional economic, social and aesthetic enterprises, they remained overwhelmingly geared to the management of deer.134 However, that did not preclude the incorporation of conceptual 128 Clay I (1984:122-123,147). 129 Edelen(1994:255). 130 John Norden, Speculum Britanniae Pars Altera or a Delineation of Northamptonshire (London, 1728) p.31. 131 http://dictionary.oed.com. 132 Mileson(2009:82-83) citing C.J. Bond, 'Forests, Chases, Warrens and Parks in Medieval Wessex' in Aston and Lewis (eds) The Medieval Landscape of Wessex (Oxford, 1994:144). 133 Pluskowski in Liddiard(2007:64,68). 134 Pluskowski in Liddiard(2007:71). 211 aspects, so that landscape and the ecological environment could be manipulated to suit the owners' tastes and imagination. He concluded that 'the park was as much the product of the seigneurial imagination as it was of economic practicality, but it was not a fantasy world divorced of any sort of reality – it was a social structure fully integrated into the seigneurial landscape.'135 What constituted the basic elements within a park has been fully explored in research of medieval parks, in Rackham's pioneering works on the history of woodland and of the countryside, and evidence from the Elizabethan and Jacobean eras indicates a close similarity.136 The most detailed description of the attributes of an ideal Elizabethan or Jacobean deer park appeared in Markham's wide-ranging book, 'Maison Rustique'.137 Markham's choice of words clearly showed that elements within parks combined the practicalities of deer keeping with aesthetic qualities that were appreciated by the users and viewers of the park. He noted that the hills were called 'the viewes or discoveries' in parks, the terms giving a sense of the unexpected surprise when the scenery opened out on reaching higher ground. 'The beautie and gracefulnesse' of the park was enhanced by 'all goodly high woods of tall timber' and all came to life when the hills and woods rebounded with the echoes of the dogs, horns and huntsmen during a hunt, with 'the cries of the hounds, the winding of hornes, or the gibbeting of the huntsmen ... doubling the musick, and making it tenne times more delightfull.' The launds or grassy plains where deer fed were 'very champion and fruitfull' and suitable for the pleasure of coursing greyhounds who racing 'in the view of the beholders ... beget a delight past equall.' He summarised the scenic aspects of parks as consisting of 'view, laund, and covert, and hill, valley and plain.' All parks required water features, either natural streams, ditches, or ponds where the deer could refresh themselves and drink, and these too, reflecting light and giving movement by flow or in the wind, added another dimension to the scene. 135 Pluskowski in Liddiard(2007:77). 136 Beresford(1957:187-236); Cantor &. Hatherly(1979:71-85); Pluskowski in Liddiard(2007:63-78); Mileson(2009:45-81); Rackham(1976:141- 151); Rackham(1986:121-129); Rackham(2003:108-202); Edelen(1994:204). 137 Markham(1616:668-671). 212 Plate 7.4 The mansion in parkland setting (a) Penshurst Place from the park. Photographed by Newbery Smith Associates, 1989. By kind permission of Lord De L'Isle. 213 There is no reason to suppose that Elizabethan and Jacobean park owners were less responsive to the landscape than their predecessors or less keen to add features or make adaptations to suit their tastes. With wide variations of sites within Kent the idealised park was not always achievable, but park owners could make the most of advantageous characteristics, enhancing the park by adding new features or expending their energies at least in conserving their assets.138 Direct evidence of the attitudes of the gentry and noblemen towards parks in Kent is lacking, and it is rare to gain an insight into a woman's attitude to parks, but extensive parks provided them with a secure environment in which to walk and take leisure, which must have made their home life seem less claustrophobic. Rowland Whyte wrote that after Lady Barbara Sidney's return to Penshurst after illness, she 'takes great pleasure in this place, and surely I never saw sweeter ... All things finely prospering about yt,' (see plate 7.4)139 Lady Anne Sackville, locked into an unhappy marriage, gained solace by walking in Knole(50) park:- 16 March 1617 Spent day walking in the park with Judith carrying my Bible with me, thinking on my present fortunes and what troubles I have passed through.140 A few days later she, joined by her husband, walked in the park and the garden together talking business. When he returned to London, she spent the day walking and sitting in the park, having more peace of mind as a result of his visit.141 Both Lady Barbara and Lady Anne were probably not untypical in spending more time at home than their husbands, and without their parks to give them freedom to roam they would have felt more confined. The sensitivity of Kentish park owners to their surroundings is not so much to be found in documents, but in the legacy they have left in the landscape. By Elizabethan times parks had reached a maturity, which could be appreciated on many levels, but offered limited scope for creativity. Additions such as Sir Peter Manwood's new cony warren or Sir Robert Sidney's proposed heronry could not fundamentally reshape the park, so attention was turned onto the house and its immediate environs, 138 See Chapter Two p.39. 139 Kingsford & Shaw(1934:466-467) 6/6/1600 letter; see Plate 7.4 p.212, for Penhurst Place with park.. 140 Sackville-West(1923:58-59). 141 Ibid. pp.61-62. 214 Plate 7.5 Viewing park from garden (a) Penshurst walled garden with garden tower. Penhurst Place itself in the background with the brick staircase tower. Photographed by Newbery Smith Associates, 1989. By kind permission of Lord De L'Isle. (b) The northeast corner of the walled garden at Knole, looking from the park side to where the wall has been lowered. The ground in the garden behind he wall has been raised and railings installed so that those within the garden could look out over the park. See also Plate 7.8 p.220. 2 October 2010 215 Plate 7.6 Viewing park from house (a) The tower at Sissinghurst with viewing access to the roof from which the park, garden and countryside can be seen in every direction. (b) Below, the present garden, on the Tudor garden site, and former parkland looking northeast from the roof of the tower. 14 December 2005 216 within the wider setting of the park.142 Apart from a few prestigious families with substantial landholdings beyond Kent, most individuals owned one park in or near their main seat, at a time when it had become accepted that a park 'replete with deer and conies' was 'a necessary and pleasant thing to be annexed to a mansion'.143 It was on their mansion and the area immediately around it that Elizabethan and Jacobean park owners in Kent lavished attention during the decades of internal peace.144 Only a fraction of the improvements to house and garden have survived further change or destruction over the intervening centuries, but what remains today gives an idea of its scale and nature. In the late sixteenth and early seventeenth centuries when many houses were enlarged, modernised or remodelled, gardens were created to become more accentuated, intermediate, private spaces between dwelling and park (see Figure 7.1). 145 The unity of the landscape was paramount with the garden being a buffer between the house and the wilder, yet controlled and private, landscape of the park.146 Fynes Moryson, as a visitor from Scotland in 1617, was much struck by this combination, 'there is no Countrie wherein the Gentlemen and Lords have so many and large Parks onely reserved for the pleasure of hunting, or where all sorts of men alot so much ground about their houses for pleasure of Gardens and Orchards.'147 In the late Tudor and early Stuart period Italian renaissance elements were introduced into the garden, and nowhere else in England can the transition better be followed than in Kent, which has an unusual number of relatively unaltered gardens dating from that period.148 As in other spheres of life, the urge to display led to competition between garden creators led by the Brookes at Cobham, the Sackvilles at Knole and the Sidneys at Penshurst, who undertook gardening schemes on a grand scale.149 Typical features would be walled gardens, as at Penshurst(71), with delicate peaches, apricots, cherries and plums cordoned or espaliered along the walls, and orchards or knot gardens within.150 However, these enclosed gardens contained various 142 See Chapter Three p.97, 109. 143 The Nevills and Sackvilles had parks in Sussex; Lasdun(1992:32) citing A. Boorde, Advice on Building a House (London, 1547), pp.232-242; active parks without mansions included Canterbury(18), Elham(30), Hungershall(47), Lee(53), Stowting(82) and Westwell(98). 144 See Figure 7.1 'Upgrades to houses and gardens' p.217. No comprehensive study has been undertaken. 145 Jennings(2005:25); see Figure 7.1 'Upgrades to houses and gardens' p.217. 146 Henderson(2005:19,73). 147 Henderson(2005:137) citing F. Morrison, Itinerary IV p.95 (reprint Glasgow 1907). 148 Hall(1995:15). 149 McKeen(1986:445-457); Taylor(2003:153-184); Hall(1995:18-21); De L'Isle(1987:17). 150 Hay(1984:188); Jennings(2005:36-37). 217 Figure 7.1 - Upgrades to houses and gardens No. Name House Garden 10 Boughton Malherbe enlarged 13 Boughton Monchelsea rebuilt, extended walled garden 21b Chilham new, c.1616 terrace, park, 1620s Tradescant 23 Cobham new, c.1584-1602 wall garden, terrace 28 Eastwell extended mount 40 Groombridge mount walk, moat 41 Halden extended moat 44 Hemsted moat 50 Knole extended, 1604-08 walled garden, wilderness, mount 54 Leeds extended medieval ponds, dam, terrace 55 Lullingstone interior c.1600 walled garden, moat 58 Lynsted new 1599 walled garden 71 Penshurst, Northlands extended c1600 walled garden, gatehouse, terrace, pond,wilderness 74 Roydon mount walk, gazebos, terrace 76 Scotney rebuilt c.1580 77 Scot's Hall rebuilt c.1580 78 Shurland 79 Sissinghurst extended, tower c.1560/70 moat, walled garden 84 Surrenden sumac bought 1620 93b Somerhill new, c.1610 94 Tyler Hill enlarged 95 Well Hall enlarged c1568 walled garden 99 West Wickham remodelled c.1600 This has been compiled from secondary sources in Park profiles p.250 onwards 218 Plate 7.7 Garden terraces overlooking parks (a) The top terraces at Chilham castle looking eastwards. (b) Below, looking south and east. Digby Digges new park of 25 acres was probably to the right beyond the terrace. 13 January 2006 219 forms of elevation to give views of the park beyond. A garden gatehouse was constructed at Penshurst in 1585 to overlook the park (see Plate 7.5).151 The mansion at Sissinghurst was dominated by an Elizabethan three-storey tower, which gave panoramic views over the park from the roof (see Plate 7.6).152 In other mansions staterooms were sited on the first floor, as at Lullingstone or Knole.153 Gazebos, such as at Roydon(74), gave views over garden and park, while terraced walks, like those at Cobham(23) and Chilham(21b), also gave elevated views, and mounts, as at Knole(50) or Groombridge(40), provided viewpoints from which to survey the park (see Plate 7.8).154 Former moats, like the one at Sissinghurst(79), were transformed into water features, and ponds, canals and fountains were added to gardens.155 Wilderness areas, of which Knole(50) had one of the earliest, brought a touch of mystery to contrast with the formality of the rest of the garden.156 Kentish landowners were among the first to cultivate new, exotic species, which pioneering plant hunters introduced into England.157 Of the garden at Cobham Hall Francis Thynne wrote:- ... the rare garden there, in which no varietie of strange flowers and trees doo want, which praise or price maie obteine from the furthest part of Europe, or from strange countries, wherby it is not inferior to the garden of Semiramis.158 John Tradescant senior, with strong Kent connections, travelled to Russia with Sir Dudley Digges, bringing back new plants and later helping him to shape the terraced garden and park at his new house at Chilham(21b) (see Plate 7.7).159 At Knole the integration of all the elements of a stately home were expressed in a 'Particular' of 1614 which referred to the 're-edified' mansion together with its outbuildings, walled gardens, orchards and wilderness 'beautified with ponds and many other seasonable delights and devices' situated within the park which was 'well 151 See Plate 7.5 p.214; De L'Isle(1987:15). 152 Nicolson(2008:188-191); see Plate 7.6 p.215, for Sissinghurst. 153 Cooper(2006:36). 154 Hall(1995:16-17,20); see Plate 7.8 p.220, for Knole. 155 Jennings(2005:51-53). 156 Taylor(2003:173). 157 Yeandle, Sir Edward Dering's 'Booke of Expences' p.55, 7/3/1620, Sir Edward Dering paid one shilling for a sumac tree from Virginia; Jennings(2005:34). 158 McKeen(1986:456-457) citing William Harrison, Historicall Description (1587 edition) p.210; the garden of Semiramis = the hanging gardens of Babylon. 159 See Plate 7.7 p.218, for Chilham; Hall(1995:10,17). 220 Plate 7.8 John Harris's engraving of Knole House, garden and park in his 'A History of Kent', 1719 Knole House, lower left, is set in a large ornate walled garden. It is likely that some Elizabethan and Jacobean elements of this continued into the eighteenth century. The south (front) elevation of the house stands directly onto the park. This view depicts the garden to the rear of the house. There is a gate into the park in the back wall of the garden, and in the upper right corner can be seen the railings inset to allow those in the garden to look out into the park (see Plate 7.7 p.216 for photograph of this from the park side). Beyond the upper left corner of the walled garden can be seen a mount (labelled D) in the park itself. 221 furnished with fair timber trees,' (see Plate 7.8)160 The writer of the 'Particular' was conveying an aesthetic response which was likely to be shared by those in Kent who enjoyed their impressive mansions, flourishing gardens and delightful parks. (iv) Canterbury(18) and Otford Great(62) parks – transition from keepership to ownership During the early years of Elizabeth I's reign, Canterbury(18) and Otford Great(62) parks were administered under keepership in the expectation that the monarch would regularly use them, but as Elizabeth I's inclinations gravitated away from Kent, her grip was relaxed, with Canterbury(18) park eventually being leased out to the Brooke family, while Otford Great(62) remained for several decades under keepership of the Brooke family. The struggle to persuade Elizabeth I to transfer ownership of these two parks exemplifies the great attachment the crown had for its parks – it being a national emergency, towards the end of her reign that led Elizabeth I reluctantly to sell both parks.161 In the case of Canterbury(18) park the transition of ownership to the Brooke family was relatively smooth, but the transference of Otford Great(62) park to Sir Robert Sidney was far more fraught and protracted, because his attempts to acquire the park were blocked by the queen, influenced by her own inclinations and by the machinations of Sir Robert Sidney's rival courtiers. While William Brooke, lord Cobham, was unable to put any plans he might have had for Canterbury(19) park into motion because he was given ownership in reversion to his father's trustees and, in any case, was attainted three years after the grant of the park, Sir Henry's and Sir Robert Sidney's plans for Otford Great(62) park were more apparent, but shifted in emphasis to reflect changes in negotiating stances over time. Both he and his father initially offered to maintain Otford Great(62) park as a deer park, but it gradually emerged that Sir Robert Sidney would prefer to keep a reduced herd of deer in a smaller park in order to raise income from the other land. Finally, the prestige of owning a former royal deer park gave way to the need to acquire Otford Great(62) park in order to gain land by disparkment thereby gaining the full financial benefits that would accrue from more productive land. Otford Great(62) park as a deer park was important but became less of a priority, because Sir Robert Sidney already owned 160 CKS U269/T1/A:8:4:4; see Plate 7.8 p.220, for Knole. 161 CKS U1475/T86. 222 Penshurst(71) park to symbolise his wealth and status. He could dispense with Otford Great(39) park, while still adding to his prestige by adding profitable land to his estate, which would more than compensate for the loss of a luxury item such as a deer park. In 1558 Sir Thomas Finch had been put in charge as steward of the manor and keeper of Canterbury park(18), but after his death in 1563 Elizabeth I divested herself of direct control of Canterbury(18) park by granting William Brooke, lord Cobham, a 30- year lease in 1564.162 The lease included other lands in Canterbury and, for the whole, he was to pay a fine of £400 and rent of £20 a year. A condition of the lease was the maintenance of a herd of 200 deer, but Lord Cobham could have the herbage, pannage and the wood of the park, and he was given permission to remove building materials from the ruinous St. Augustine's abbey. This lease was extended for a further 21 years in 1593, and after the death of William Brooke, lord Cobham, in 1597, this lease with others were put into a trust, because he doubted that his eldest son and heir, Henry Brooke, would satisfactorily carry out his wishes if he were made executor.163 Resentful of the trust, Henry Brooke, lord Cobham, sought to strengthen his position by purchasing the reversion of the park for himself and his heirs directly from the queen. He might also have been motivated by the knowledge that Sir Robert Sidney had already submitted a suit to purchase Otford Great(62) park, and he would not have wanted the Sidney family to extend its influence in Kent without an addition to his own estate. Elizabeth I was fond of Henry Brooke, lord Cobham, there being 'none of her subjects whom she more delighted to honour,' but this alone would not have swayed her to sell the park, which she finally did when the government urgently needed money to meet the dual threat of Spanish aggression and Irish insurgency.164 Lord Cobham probably submitted his suit in 1599, and he was fortunate to have it promoted by leading men in the queen's government, namely the secretary of state, Sir Robert Cecil, his brother-in-law, and Thomas Sackville, progress and Thomas Sackville, lord Buckhurst, informed Lord Cobham that the 162 Acts of the Privy Council, New Series VII, 1558-1570, p.7, 26/11/1558, p.17, 9/12/1558; Croly, Sir Thomas Finch (http:// oxforddnb.com/articles/9/9443); CPR III no.784, 7/7/1564. 163 Salisbury papers 242/21, 9/11/1605; Scott Robertson(1877:209-216). 164 Wingfield-Stratford(1959:76-77); Black(1959:488-490). 223 queen had agreed to accept his bill for Canterbury(18) park.165 However, in August 1601, when Lord Cobham had failed to pay the deposit, Lord Buckhurst urged him to pay it immediately, 'Pray send it up with all speed, that we may presently receive it, for we have great cause to use it; do not fail, or I fear what may follow.'166 In the absence of payment, Elizabeth I had at first 'utterly rejected' the bill, but she was eventually persuaded to sign it. As Lord Buckhurst reported 'by my earnest dealing with Her Majesty, declaring how profitable a bargain it was for her, and with the help of Mr. Secretary, who in this point stood favourably for you', she had 'with much ado' granted the park in reversion to Henry Brooke, lord Cobham, although at the same time she had 'utterly refused' to grant Otford Great(62) park to Sir Robert Sidney.167 This was a moment of triumph for Henry Brooke, lord Cobham, but it was short lived, because following his attainder in 1604, Canterbury(18) park devolved to his brother-in-law, Robert Cecil, viscount Cranbourne, in 1605.168 The steward and keeper of the house or palace of Otford, and keeper of its 430- acre Great(62) park, since 1552 was Sir Henry Sidney of Penshurst Place, positions granted to his son, Robert Sidney, after his father's death in 1586. 169 The bid for Otford Great(62) park by the Sidney family was initiated by Sir Henry Sidney in 1573, but was taken up in earnest by his son, Sir Robert Sidney, in the 1590s. Sir Henry Sidney was the first of his family to reside in Kent, but both he and his son were keen to challenge the Brooke family, one of the leading county families since the twelfth century. The rivalry had its roots in the ambition of the Sidneys to rise further up the social scale, perhaps springing from Sir Henry Sidney's marriage in 1551 to Mary Dudley, sister of Robert Dudley, earl of Leicester.170 This marriage was to have a continuing impact on the family fortunes in the decades that followed because Mary's brother, Robert Dudley, created earl of Leicester, became highly favoured by Elizabeth I, as did his step-son, Robert Devereux, earl of Essex, and both were prepared 165 TNA SP12/274/30, January 1600. 166 TNA SP12/281/57, 16/8/1601. 167 TNA SP12/281/57, 16/8/1601. 168 Salisbury papers 115/17 & 1593-1605 Box S/9. 169 Clarke & Stoyel(1975:122-123) citing Acts of the Privy Council 1552-1554, 967; Hay(1945:57) citing Kingsford & Shaw(1934:107); BL Cart.Lans.82.55, duplicate of illegible TNA E178/1165 . 170 MacCaffrey, Henry Sidney (1529-1586)(http://oxforddnb.com/articles/25/25520). 224 to promote the wider family cause. The Brooke family had greater wealth, more influence in the county and better connections in the inner circle of the royal court, but neither Sir Henry nor Sir Robert Sidney were deterred because they felt justified in seeking recognition for their service to the queen, wanted to gain a greater share in the financial benefits of her patronage and were eager to receive tangible marks of her favour. Such reward as Elizabeth I might bestow was inextricably linked with family honour and status, and in this instance one of the prizes was the ownership of Otford Great(62) park. Although Elizabeth I had intended to use Otford mansion regularly, she is only recorded as having visited Otford in July of 1559 and of 1573.171 In 1561 through the influence of his brother-in-law Robert Dudley, earl of Leicester, Sir Henry Sidney was appointed president of the council in the marches of Wales, a position he held until his death in 1586. In 1564 he was made knight of the Garter, and twice was sent to Ireland as deputy from 1566 to 1571 and from 1575 to 1578. All these posts took him away from the court and from Kent, so his ability to keep a close watch on Otford was limited. However, between his terms of office in Ireland, in April 1573 he urged the crown to make a structural survey of Otford mansion and its outbuildings, perhaps triggered by plans for the royal progress through Kent that summer.172 It was clear that the mansion had deteriorated since Elizabeth I's previous five-day visit in 1559, because in July 1573 she spent only one day at Otford, before staying five days at Knole, a couple of miles south at Sevenoaks.173 With the cost of Otford mansion's restoration estimated to be £1629 9s 10d, Sir Henry Sidney offered to repair the mansion at his own expense, and 'the same by him so repayred to mayntaine for ever at his owne charges for hir Majesties access.'174 He would also provide the same number of bucks and does for the royal larder as had been done for the previous ten years, and keep the herd of deer 'for hir majesties disporte and pleasure at such tyme as she shall come thither.' 175 In return he desired to have the palace, park and manor of Otford 'at hir Majesties hands in fee-farme for ever,' at a yearly rent (not revealed) paid to the crown, plus he would pay £39 11s 8d annually to the crown, which was the equivalent to the yearly keepership 171 Cole(1999:180-202). 172 Hesketh(1915:9). 173 Cole(1999: 180-202). 174 Ellis in Arch.Cant. V (1862-63:328-330); Clarke & Stoyel(1975:132). 175 Ibid. for both. 225 fees he was currently receiving.176 In other words, he was offering to buy Otford and to make the palace and park available to Elizabeth I whenever she chose. Sir Henry Sidney might have hoped to win royal favour by offering to upgrade and maintain both Otford mansion and park(62), perhaps calculating that he would recoup the investment later by judiciously leasing out the lodges, woodland, pasture, or by other income generating activities. In any case, the outlay would be worthwhile if the purchase gave him a prestigious addition to his landed estate, which would consolidate his family holdings in Kent. He also needed more land to achieve the necessary income to support a peerage, which he coveted.177 In the event, Elizabeth I rejected the Otford proposal, so no major repairs were undertaken, and the mansion continued to deteriorate.178 Sir Henry Sidney's duties took him away from Kent for another term in Ireland, thereafter returning to Ludlow castle to fulfil his duties as president of council in the marches of Wales, and he took no further steps to acquire Otford. It was only in 1582 when approached to serve yet again in Ireland, that he unsuccessfully renewed his quest to gain recognition from the crown by requesting a peerage with lands to support the honour, as well as the title of lord lieutenant of Ireland. He was bitterly disappointed by the refusal - a disappointment which his son, Sir Robert Sidney, sought hard to rectify in the 1590s. 179 After his father's death in 1586, Robert Sidney, still in his twenties, succeeded him as keeper of the mansion house of Otford, its gardens and the Great(62) park.180 As a younger son this was a promising start for an aspiring courtier. Within two years, in 1588, at the battle of Zutphen his older brother, Sir Philip Sidney, was killed, leaving Robert Sidney, who was knighted on the battlefield, heir of the Sidney estates.181 His patron, Robert Dudley, earl of Leicester, secured him the post of governor of Flushing in 1589, but thereafter his career stalled, despite serving Elizabeth I conscientiously until the end of her reign.182 He became increasingly frustrated at being away from his family, from the centre of power at court and at the perceived lack of recognition for his 176 Ellis(1862-63:329). 177 MacCaffrey, Henry Sidney (1529-1586)(http://oxforddnb.com/articles/25/25520). 178 Hesketh(1915:9). 179 MacCaffrey, Henry Sidney (1529-1586)(http://oxforddnb.com/articles/25/25520). 180 Hay(1984:57) citing Kingsford & Shaw(1934:107). 181 Robert Sidney's title underwent various changes in James I's reign – in 1603 he became Lord Sidney, in 1605 Viscount Lisle and in 1618 Earl of Leicester. 182 Shephard, Robert Sidney, 1st earl of Leicester (1563-1626)(http://oxforddnb.com/articles/25/25524). 226 military and diplomatic endeavours in the Low Countries. It is against this background that in the 1590s he decided to embark on an offer to lease or purchase Otford mansion and park(62). Initially, he seems to have been driven by practical considerations. His lengthy tours of duty in the Low Countries inevitably strained a happy marriage, especially complicated by the difficulties of travel. When in England his freedom to visit Penshurst was constrained by business at court, and his wife's ability to travel to him was hampered by eleven pregnancies and a growing family of young children.183 Otford was conveniently situated en route between Penshurst and London, and in 1594 Sir Robert Sidney, on leave in England, but unable to leave the court then at Barn Elms, suggested that Barbara might like to spend winter at Otford because it was nearer to London, and she liked it so much that he decided to apply to buy Otford palace, little knowing how complicated and frustrating the process was to become.184 After commissioning a survey, he wrote to Lord Burghley on 21 June 1596, stressing the ruinous condition of the mansion and pointing out that patching it up would be wasteful because even if Elizabeth I spent £1000 on it 'it would be money lost; that sum would not make it fit for her to live in, and two or three years hence it would require mendinge again.'185 He recommended that as the queen no longer required the building it could be sold for its materials, in which case he and his friends would like to buy it, and the park, and he would build a new residence there should the queen wish to visit, 'I will build a pretty house at my own charge and keep it in repair so that she may dine there as she passes by.'186 This offer was not unlike his father's two decades before, except no mention was made of maintaining deer in the park, although he proposed to repair the pale at the cost of £200, set aside £100 on maintenance, and pay the crown the full value of any timber extracted from the park. Apart from having a halfway house between Penshurst and London, Sir Robert Sidney's application to purchase Otford also stemmed from his own 183 Brennan & Kinnamon(2003) for Sidney chronology; Hanney, Kinnamon & Brennan (2005:p.91) 28/9/ 1590, letter 15 (C81/14). 184 Clarke & Stoyel(1975:133) citing CKS U1475/C81/48, 20/9/1594. 185 Hesketh(1915:10-11) citing TNA SP12/259/54. 186 Ibid. 227 financial straits, caused by underwriting the costs of diplomatic missions undertaken for the crown and by supporting a living standard in keeping with his perceived status.187 His accountant later calculated that, at the beginning of James I's reign, Otford manor with extensive sub-manors, palace and park generated a gross income of £400 a year (a considerable portion of the total gross income of £1790 from Sir Robert Sidney's landed estates).188 Sir Robert Sidney admitted to being in debt and, rather than sell land to satisfy creditors, hoped to acquire more from which to generate income. He felt the acquisition of Otford would be a fitting reward for the queen to offer him, and a reasonable request that he expected to be favourably received:- I am in debt and must sell land if Her Majestie does not relieve me, although my greatest debts are merely growing from her service; yet I will not move anything unfit for her to give, for one to ask, or for your lordship to favour.189 His expectations for a speedy conclusion proved unrealistic. It was to take five fruitless years before his request was met, and then not through any recognition of his service, but because of the financial needs of the crown. Events, as they unfolded, are revealed in the letters of Rowland Whyte, a friend of Sir Robert Sidney since their student days at Oxford University, and his agent at the royal court.190 In prolific correspondence to Sir Robert Sidney, 67 of Rowland Whyte's letters, from 22 September 1596 to 26 September 1600, referred to his attempts to progress his master's suit for Otford mansion and park(62) (see Figure 7.2). 191 In these letters Rowland Whyte explained why various setbacks occurred as told to him by influential people at the royal court. Rowland Whyte's initial mild optimism was tinged with prescience after an interview with Sir John Fortescue, under treasurer and chancellor of the exchequer on 2 187 BL Add.Mss.12066, a retrospective overview of Sidney's finances compiled in Charles I's reign, lists as 'being very chargeable unto you' a mission to Scotland in 1588 and two to France. 188 Hay(1984:189); BL Add.Mss.12066. 189 Hesketh(1915:10-11) citing TNA SP12/259/54. 190 Hanney, Kinnamon & M. Brennan(2005:253). 191 See Figure 7.2 (Appendix 8 pp.324-327) for the schedule of letters. 228 October 1596. 'Sir John Fortescue puts me in great hope, but God knows what issue yt will take, for all things are subject here to crosses.'192 There was expectation that Elizabeth I might agree to the sale because she was opposed to spending money on repairing Otford mansion and maintaining the park, saying that she would rather 'the house fall and the deer perish than so much money be disbursed.' Rowland Whyte's comment that unexpected obstacles might well lie ahead proved correct. A crown survey of Otford palace and park(62), on 13 December 1596, estimated the cost of repairing the palace at over £2400, double that of Sir Robert Sidney's survey, but dismantlement might raise just over £1197 from sale of materials. 193 Although most of the park paling could be patched up, 780 perches required total replacement.194 Of the 430 acres of parkland, 60 acres were woodland, 80 acres chalk downland, 40 acres marshy or 'moorish ground', five acres meadowland with 60 acres of grounds around the house and lodge. The park contained 456 deer including 70 does, but extra enclosures were needed to keep a supply of fresh pasture. Although the young oaks might provide timber for fencing posts and rails, it was recommended that the timber be left to grow larger to provide fuel for the mansion and lodge, and browsing for the deer. It was reckoned that if the park(62) was leased out with the deer, and reparations laid on the lessee, the value would be £5 a year, but without the deer and with the upkeep of the pale and lodge becoming the responsibility of the lessee, then the rentable income would be £300 a year. These contrasting valuation highlight the difference between the cost of maintaining a deer park compared with the positive financial rewards to be obtained after disparkment. The noteworthy disparity between the rentable value of Otford Great(62) park as a functioning deer park compared with its rent if disparked was a great disincentive to the crown, and to Sir Robert Sidney, to continue to upkeep the deer park, especially when it was seldom used by the monarch. Indeed indications are that Sir Robert Sidney intended to dispark the park, because, through his intermediary, Rowland Whyte, he made clear that he did not wish to retain 100 deer, as assumed by Sir John Fortescue, the chancellor of the exchequer, and pay the high rent (unspecified in the text) that had 192 Kingsford & Shaw(1934:225) 2/10/1596. 193 BL Cart.Lans.82/55. 194 Perch/rod = 5½ yards. 229 been proposed.195 The exact terms of this deal are not laid out in the correspondence, but Rowland Whyte considered them to be 'very profitable to the Queen and no great benefit' to Sir Robert Sidney. With lower rent Sir Robert Sidney might agree to keep a reduced deer herd, but otherwise he would see quicker and higher returns on his investment without that obligation. Otford Great(62) park was a potent symbol of power and status as a deer park, but its retention as such was not unconditional. In straitened circumstances a deer park was dispensable when compared with the acquisition of land. It was no fault of Rowland Whyte that so little progress was made in the years that followed. He was hampered by the prolonged absences of his master abroad which caused not only delays in communication, but also meant that Sir Robert Sidney was not personally there to intervene at critical times when the influences at court ranged against him had grown stronger. William Cecil, lord Burghley, the lord treasurer, and his son, Sir Robert Cecil, now secretary of state, with their kinsman by marriage, Henry Brooke, lord Cobham, formed the core of a powerful central faction.196 On the other hand Sir Robert Sidney's position had been weakened by the deaths of his uncle, Robert Dudley, the earl of Leicester, in 1588, and of his brother-in-law, Sir Francis Walsingham, the queen's principal secretary, in 1590.197 In the late 1590s, the well meant involvement of Robert Devereux, the earl of Essex, who had married Frances Sidney, Sir Philip Sidney's widow, proved to be counter productive.198 However, Sir Robert Sidney did retain the backing of two redoubtable widows - Anne Dudley, countess of Warwick, sister-in-law of Robert Dudley, the earl of Leicester, who was 'more beloved and in greater favour with the queen than any other woman in the kingdom,' and Katherine Hastings, countess of Huntingdon, Sir Robert Sidney's aunt, who was eager to promote his career.199 Despite these friends, Sir Robert Sidney had one crippling disadvantage in that both Elizabeth I and William Cecil, lord Burghley, distrusted him and this blighted his whole career in her reign.200 Whereas William Brooke had the queen's 195 Kingsford & Shaw(1934:217-218) 22/9/1596. 196 Hay(1984:152-153). 197 Shephard, Robert Sidney, 1st earl of Leicester (1563-1626)(http://oxforddnb.com/articles/25/25524). 198 Neale(1952:348). 199 Adams, Anne Dudley (nee Russell) countess of Warwick (1548/9-1604)(http://oxforddnb.com/ articles/69744) quotation attributed to Lady Anne Clifford; C. Cross, Katherine Hastings (nee Dudley) countess of Huntingdon (c.1598-1620)(http.//oxforddnb.com/ articles/69739).. 200 Hay(1984:38-39) citing J. M. Osborn, Young Philip Sidney, (New Haven, 1972:496)that distrust stemmed from 1579 when abroad accompanying his brother, Sir Philip Sidney, and uncle, Robert Dudley, 230 complete confidence and his son, Henry, her affection, Sir Robert Sidney won neither. Elizabeth I's prejudice fuelled by mischance and factional elements, thwarted any of Sir Robert Sidney's hope of advancement, including obtaining Otford Great(62) park. The machinations faced by Sir Robert Sidney in his pursuit for a greater personal stake in just one park in Kent are illustrative of many others taking place around Elizabeth I.201 The Sidneys' struggle to acquire Otford confirms Neale's observation that quarrels between families within the same county were often reflected in court, while at the same time 'the Court created its own rivalries in the struggle for royal favour, office, place, and patronage.'202 As Elizabeth I aged, it became increasingly difficult for her to maintain control because within this 'perpetual clash of interests and ambitions' to satisfy one, several others might take offence. The later years of her reign have been called the 'bottleneck years' by Esher, when for psychological reasons, the ageing queen refused to advance men like Sir Robert Sidney.203 The perspicacious Rowland Whyte recognised this and in 1600 warned his master of the queen's reluctance to grant any favour unless forced by necessity to do so:- I doe observe the fashions of the Court and ... find the way to preferment very difficult; I mean for men of your sort. Besides there is in her Majesty no great inclination to bestow any place that falles, unles meere necessity occasion it for the good of her service.204 Even if Sir Robert Sidney had initially partly wanted to secure Otford for practical or financial considerations, over the years, when international, national, factional and county politics intervened to block or procrastinate a successful outcome, acquiring the park became a question of honour.205 In another letter, Rowland Whyte perceived, like his master, that it was not the intrinsic value of Otford that mattered any more, but that its acquisition symbolised the crown's recognition of Sir Robert Sidney's service to the nation as an able and loyal administrator, and locally, in Kent, would enhance his standing. Failure to gain earl of Leicester, Elizabeth I suspected the older men of meddling in foreign affairs and, by association, her suspicion was extended to Robert Sidney as well. 201 TNA SP12/259/82, July 1596; Manning(1993:136-142) a 192 year long law suit (the longest in legal history) between the Berkeley and Dudley families over land in Gloucestershire, caused a feud involving constant invasion and illegal hunting in the others' parks. 202 Neale(1952:70-71). 203 Hay(1984:160-161) citing Esher, The Aspiring Mind of the Elizabethan Younger Generation (Durham N.C., 1966). 204 Kingsford & Shaw(1934:455) 19/4/1600. 205 See Figure 7.2 'Schedule of letters containing references to Otford from Rowland Whyte to Sir Robert Sidney, 1596-1601' (Appendix 8 pp.324-327). 231 Otford would bring humiliation at both levels. Rowland Whyte reported his reply when asked why his master wanted Otford:- My answer was you esteemed Otford, not for the profit, but because it was her Majesty's gift, and of the reputation in your own country, which you would never sell.206 The reference to 'your own country' in this context means the county of Kent, where Sir Robert Sidney was trying, like his father before him, to take his family further up the social hierarchy, and the acquisition of Otford might make a difference to this. Beaver has observed a similar stance over potential parkland at Stowe, where possession became more potent than the material income of the land, because monetary value meant less than 'gradations of gentility and honour relative to other families of comparable status.'207 In 1597 international politics gave the Cecil faction the opportunity to block Sir Robert Sidney's personal attendance at court, while it remained free to pursue its domestic agenda. Sir Robert Sidney, whose role as governor of Flushing was exacting and unenviable, longed for leave, which through the influence of the Cecils was denied him.208 Tension increased when Robert Devereux, the earl of Essex, unsuccessfully championed Sir Robert Sidney against Henry Brooke, lord Cobham, for the wardenship of the Cinque ports, and thereafter the Cecils' attitude hardened further.209 Neither the grant of leave nor the Otford suit was likely to succeed in these circumstances, which were to become even more unfavourable as the year advanced. The impression of the court being a 'feverish community' was reflected in Rowland Whyte's letters, which informed Sir Robert Sidney of other contenders for Otford.210 Henry Brooke, lord Cobham, actively sought Otford for himself after the humiliating defeat of his younger brother behind Sir Robert Sidney in the 1597 elections to the House of Commons, because he was as eager as his rival to gain and retain as much property as possible.211 Ownership of land gave influence over freeholders as Sir 206 Kingsford & Shaw(1934:451) 22/3/1600. 207 Beaver in Braddick & Walter(2001:153). 208 Hay(1984:72-96,111-143). 209 Nicholls, Henry Brooke, eleventh Baron Cobham (156401619)(http://oxforddnb.com/articles/ 3/3543); Hay(1984:157) citing Stone(1965:621) the warden of the Cinque Ports had influence over 5 seats in the House of Commons so the office-holder gained political ascendancy in Kent. 210 Neale(1952:71). 211 Hay(1984:157). 232 Robert Sidney's accountant observed 'for by it you shalbe ever able to have many freeholders at your command, which in a mans own cowntrey is specially to be regarded.'212 Thomas Sackville, lord Buckhurst, frustrated over his inability to occupy Knole, turned his attention to Otford as an alternative residence.213 He therefore decided to support Sir Robert Sidney only if he could be granted reversion of Otford after Robert Sidney's death; that failing he offered £1000 for Sir Robert Sidney's interest in Otford. Lastly, an unexpected threat emerged from John Whitgift, the archbishop of Canterbury, who wanted the keepership of Otford to be attached to the See despite the dilapidated state of Otford palace, because according to Thomas Sackville, lord Buckhurst, the lord treasurer, he had complained that 'he has never a house in Kent fit for him.'214 With rival bids on offer, Rowland Whyte frantically urged Lady Barbara Sidney to leave 'sweet Penshurst' to come to court in November 1599 or the park would be lost 'if she wold not take the paines in your Lordships absence to come.'215 As an extra incentive he intimated that her presence might persuade the queen to allow Sir Robert Sidney to come home on leave. At this stage Sir Robert Sidney seems to have dropped proposals to purchase Otford in favour of a lease, which led Rowland Whyte to study previous crown park leases to see what terms might be available.216 The resulting offer was that the Sidneys hold the park for three lives, with the herbage and pannage, at an unspecified annual rent, and in return Sir Robert Sidney would waive his keeper's fee, maintain a herd of deer, while also keeping the lodge and pale in good repair.217 Anne, countess of Warwick, in February 1600 presented the draft lease privately to Elizabeth I, and was reassured that Sir Robert Sidney was both respected and the preferred candidate for Otford.218 His loyal agent, Rowland Whyte, thought that this had quashed Lord 212 Ibid. p.189, BL Add.Mss.12066. 213 See Chapter Six pp.173-175. 214 Kingsford & Shaw(1934:447) 11/3/1600. 215 See Figure 7.2 'Schedule of letters containing references to Otford from Rowland Whyte to Sir Robert Sidney, 1596-1601' (Appendix 8 pp.324-327); Kingsford & Shaw(1934:409) 3/11/1599. 216 TNA SP12/166, A Book of Leases of 1583, granted by Queen Elizabeth, from the 1st to the 26th year of her reign, is probably the document to which Whyte refers. 217 Whyte's letters (see Figure 7.2 in Appendix 8 pp.324-327) show that different proposals were pursued, but rejected, with letters of 8/1/98 and 10/11/1599 giving more details of proposals. 218 Kingsford & Shaw(1934:440) 21/2/1600. 233 Cobham's manoeuvres, but Lord Cobham continued to undermine Sir Robert Sidney's position by circulating rumours that Sidney had sold his interest in the park to his deputy, Edward Jones. 219 The sign of hope was soon dashed by the rebellion of Robert Devereux, the earl of Essex, after which the Cecil faction triumphed. However, Sir Robert Sidney had managed to distance himself from his erstwhile patron, and had discreetly approached Sir Robert Cecil for support.220 In August 1601 Lord Burghley raised the matter of Otford with Elizabeth I, who 'utterly refused and denied to graunte him Otford,' although she had agreed to Lord Cobham's purchase of Canterbury park. 221 Sir Robert Sidney had lost out yet again, and must have felt as bitterly disappointed as his father, especially when contrasted to the favour shown to his rival. However, he was permitted to return home so Rowland Whyte's informative letters stop at this point. Lord Burghley had also promised to renew Sir Robert Sidney's offer for Otford with expectation of success 'your suite being so reasonable and for her benefitt and easinge of a great charge.'222 In 1600 Rowland Whyte had observed that Elizabeth I was disinclined to grant any favours unless forced by necessity.223 That 'meere necessity' arose only a few months after Elizabeth I's 'utter refusal' when funds were required for a military expedition to quell rebellion in Ireland. The royal mansions in Otford and Dartford were put up for sale and Sir Robert Sidney quickly bought the former for £2000.224 By patent of 5 November 1601 he gained possession of the mansion house and all the buildings and grounds around it; the Great(62) park with herbage, pannage, the deer and the three lodges in the park. The whole was to be held as tenant-in-chief of the crown for the fortieth part of a knight's fee and a yearly rent of £30.225 219 CKS U1475/T86, 30/7/1599. 220 Brennan & Kinnamon(2003:166-171). 221 Kingsford & Shaw(1934:531) 7/8/1601, Francis Woodward to Sir Robert Sidney; Hesketh(1915:11). 222 Kingsford & Shaw(1934:531) 7/8/1601, Woodward to Sir Robert Sidney. 223 Kingsford & Shaw(1934:455) 19/4/1600, Whyte to Sir Robert Sidney. 224 Phillips I (1930:210); Hesketh(1915:11-12). 225 Ibid. pp.11-12. 234 In many ways it was a hollow victory, because Sir Robert Sidney still had not received the recognition from the crown that he felt due to him. He had, however, upheld the honour of his family in the county, rather than face the humiliation of losing Otford palace and park(62) to another, especially, as noted by Rowland Whyte during the struggle to obtain Otford, the manor of Penshurst was subservient of the manor of Otford, making the honour of retaining Otford 'of more valew then any money; seeing your house of Penshurst holds of it.'226 Sir Robert Sidney had borrowed £1500 from the earl of Pembroke and three other family members, who were subsequently given use of the park, and another loan of £1000 to cover the cost of the purchase of Otford - £500 going as a bribe to 'a partie I will forbeare to nominate,' notes Thomas Knevett in his accounts.227 To repay and service the loans, Sir Robert Sidney had to raise money from his newly acquired assets, a task made easier without deer in the park. Otford Great(62) park was soon disparked and leased off in plots, as noted in John Manningham's diary of February 1602.228 The potential revenue generated is indicated by the annual rent of £80 18s 0d paid by Thomas Sackville, earl of Dorset, in 1607 for the Great Lodge and 138 acres in the Great Park(62).229 Sir Robert Sidney also used park assets to secure dowries or settlements for his four daughters, fast approaching marriageable ages, and needing suitable partners when 'economic matters had a considerable bearing on the winning of general consent and goodwill' towards a match.230 Under the loan agreement, £3500 was to be levied from the rents and incomes of the park 'for the advancement and betterment in marriage' of his daughters and 'for affection and fatherly love.'231 Mary Sidney was to receive £2000 and Katherine £1500 on marriage or at the age of 18, whichever came first, and in 1605 226 Kingsford & Shaw(1934:440) 21/2/1600; BL Lansdowne 82/55, Survey of Otford, 1596. 227 CKS U1475/T86, 22/11/1601 draft document, 20/12/1601 formal document signed; BL Add.Mss.12066; Kingsford & Shaw(1934:534) 16/9/1601, Francis Woodward, Sir Robert Sidney's solicitor, had suggested bribing 'Mr Attorney'. 228 Bruce (ed.)(Camden Society,1868:20). 229 Phillips I (1930:232). 230 Wrightson(2002:60); BL Add.Mss.12066; Wrightson(2002:61). 231 CKS U1475/T86; Hanney, Kinnamon & Brennan(2005:235-254) nephew, William Herbert, 3rd earl of Pembroke, cousin, John Harington, 1st Baron Harington of Exton, cousins-once-removed, Edward Montagu and Henry Montagu. Mary married Sir Robert Wroth in 1604, Katherine married Sir Lewis Maunsell. 235 Otford Great(62) park was again used as security to raise £4000 for Phillipp(sic) and Barbara Sidney on the same terms.232 Despite raising money by effectively mortgaging the park, Robert Sidney, now viscount Lisle, continued to have financial problems, so in October 1607 he decided to 'bestir myself to recover again my broken fortune' by asking Robert Cecil, lord Salisbury, to buy the park, though nothing came of it. 233 In 1622 he did eventually sell Halden(41) park and 1100 acres at Otford, including the 430- acre Otford Great(62) park, to the wealthy Sir Thomas Smythe of Sutton-at-Hone, who bequeathed it equally to his four nephews after his death on 4 September 1625.234 Rowland Whyte's letters give a unique Kentish example of the negotiations leading up to the sale of a particularly high-profile park. Even though only from one perspective, this glimpse shows the parlous state of royal finances, with the pressure of external events weakening the queen's position and leading to Sir Robert Sidney's success. The tenacity with which Sir Robert Sidney pursued his quest for Otford mansion and Great(62) park was symptomatic of his ambition to enhance the status of his family in Kent and in the wider realms of the royal court. His efforts went largely unrewarded in Elizabeth I's reign, but his desire for higher office and for a peerage were fulfilled under her successor. Conclusion The perception of individual park owners would have varied in nature and degree in ways that now elude the historian, but there is sufficient evidence to show the significant part parks played generally in the lives of Kentish park owners, their families and friends. Parks provided a venue for personal and shared enjoyment in hunting and other recreational activities. They could be very productive, not least in providing venison for the table and for gifts. They symbolised a prestigious social status from which sprung the basis of prodigious hospitality, including that extended to royalty. With house and garden at the core, parks embodied the ideal aesthetic experience, a 232 I Hanney, Kinnamon & Brennan(2005:235-254) Phillipp Sidney married Sir John Hobart, Barbara Sidney married Sir Thomas Smythe, viscount Strangford in 1619. 233 Shaw(1936:431) 10/11/1607; Hanney, Kinnamon & Brennan(2005:131). 234 Hay(1984:224,226-227); Wadmore(1887:101). 236 retreat from the world outside. With adequate financial wherewithal deer parks were a valued luxury. However, as in the case of Otford Great(62) park, priorities could alter, and land use as a deer park become less valued for its prestige and status than the prospect of better financial returns from converting the land to other uses. Thompson drew attention to the eighteenth century paradox of the high profile of the gentry in carrying out their functions, for example as magistrates, and their low visibility when they physically withdrew behind the pales of their parks to avoid face to face relations with the ordinary people beyond. The pale and gate accentuated their seclusion, while on public occasions their visibility in distinctive clothing, demeanour and expression was designed to exhibit authority and exact deference.235 This view of the gentry might well be applied to the late sixteenth and early seventeenth centuries. It might be rather harsh, in that it is understandable that those in stressful public life would feel the need to withdraw to recuperate their energy. However, those who were excluded from the parks were likely to perceive them differently, and it is to their attitudes that the next chapter will turn. 235 Thompson(1991:45-46). ELIZABETHAN AND JACOBEAN DEER PARKS IN KENT By SUSAN PITTMAN Canterbury Christ Church University Thesis submitted to the University of Kent at Canterbury for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy January 2011 VOLUME TWO 237 PART IV – CHAPTER EIGHT UNLAWFUL ACTIVITY ASSOCIATED WITH PARKS The enclosure of huge tracts of land, demarcated by high, substantial fences, often stretching for miles across the countryside, was bound to have a largely negative impact on local people. Such parks dominated the landscape, had to be skirted round and avoided, and restricted the development of neighbouring communities.1 Harrison complained of commons being encroached upon by parks and wrote of the 'curse of the Lord' to have the country converted into parks, which took land from mankind in order to make 'walks and shrouds of wild beasts.'2 In this period there is no overt evidence of protest against new imparkment in Kent, but whether new or long established, parks provided constant visual symbols of power, privilege and exclusivity. Resentment against parks was likely to have been further enflamed by the body of discriminatory law designed to limit the hunting and taking of game to the upper strata of society.3 Elizabeth I's proclamation that game 'belongeth to the men of the best sort and condition' not only reflected the royal and aristocratic attitude, it also added a new concept by implying that deer and other game, rather than being regarded as wild (as in the past) could come under the ownership of the few.4 James I's perception of unlawful hunting and deer stealing as an affront to royal power and aristocratic privilege led to the tightening of the game laws to enhance royal prerogative and to buttress aristocratic prestige.5 This elitist attitude and the restriction of hunting rights provoked underlying tension and defiance, which created social conflict, sometimes erupting into violence. Because the game laws were blatantly class based and arbitrary, they did not command universal acceptance, and where the ordinary man continued to exercise his ancient right to take game unimpeded, parks provided an arena in which the clash of ideologies was played out.6 The extent and nature of unlawful activity associated with parks in Kent will be examined in this chapter. After a general introduction to the subject (i), an attempt will 1 Way(1997). 2 Edelen(1994:256); shrouds = shelters in this context. 3 Walter(1985:110-112) Sir William Spencer's new park at Yarnton was targeted in the Oxfordshire rising against enclosures in 1596. 4 Hughes & Larkin(1969:319). 5 Manning(1993:77,81). 6 Manning(1993:62); Hay(1975, reprint 1998:52); Langbein(1983:108. 238 be made to indicate the extent of disorder associated with parks in Kent (ii). The legal context of unlawful activity in parks (iii) will precede an analysis of the nature of park violations (iv), interspersed with case studies centred on Penshurst(71) park, on Sissinghurst(79) park and the activities of Sir Alexander Culpepper, and on Cobham(23) park and the activities of Humfrey Latter. (i) Introduction As far as is known this is the first county-based study of park crime concentrating solely on parks in the reigns of Elizabeth I and James I, although Fletcher tackled similar issues for the reigns of James I and Charles I in a wider study of the county community of Sussex.7 Among other studies, which help to put Kentish activities into a wider context, are those into hunting and poaching from 1485 to 1640 by Manning, and research by Thompson, Munsche, Hay and Beaver, albeit predominantly investigating the conflicts in royal forests and chases and for later periods.8 Insights into the politics of popular disorder and crime by Wood, Manning, Sharpe, Clark, Hay, Langbein and Cockburn et alia also have a bearing on the subject.9 With no royal chases in Kent, and the crown largely abandoning the remnant forests of Northfrith(89-91) and Southfrith(93), near Tonbridge, the county did not experience the user right disorders so vividly portrayed by Manning and Beaver. These were concentrated on forests and chases in other parts of England, which covered wider areas and where bounds were more open, and where human settlement and custom had intermixed for centuries. To Manning disorders represented proto-war behaviour in times of peace, and to Beaver the symbolism of the hunt as the depiction of honour and power politics.10 Elizabeth I's and James I's concentration of visits to the west of the capital drew attention away from Kent, the centre of Henrician hunting, and so it was not exposed to the tensions created by royal interest in areas such as the forests of Windsor and Waltham.11 In the Midlands and the north of England parks became the focus of disorder led by 'restless gentry and yeomen trained and experienced in the use 7 Fletcher(1975). 8 Thompson(1975); Hay(1975, reprint 1988) pp.189-253; Munsche(1981); Manning(1993); Beaver(2008). 9 Wood(2002); Manning(1988); Sharpe(1984); Clark(1976:365-382); Hay(reprint 1998:17-63); Langbein(1983:96-120); Cockburn(1977). 10 Manning(1993:35-56); Beaver(2001:149-187). 11 Beaver(2008:53-88,89-124). 239 of arms who found fewer opportunities for employment in military enterprises or aristocratic retinues', and after an escalation of attacks on deer parks in Derbyshire, Sir Francis Bacon commented on the 'copy cat' element in other counties 'where the baser sort of people ... will not stick to presume to do the like.'12 In Sussex, but mostly in Charles I's reign, Fletcher considered deer stealing to be endemic, not least among the lesser gentry who thought hunting in their neighbour's parks 'the best sport an idle country life could offer, and who were bold and difficult to catch.'13 The very presence of parks might well have evoked underlying hostility in Kent, but when it surfaced evidence indicates that it was not sustained, but sporadic and concentrated on different parks at different times, with motivation as varied as the participants. The degree to which unlawful activity in Kent was endemic will be discussed in section (ii), but from the known incidents the level of violence was generally low. Even during the economic crises of the 1590s when parks were more likely to suffer incursions to vent grievances or to gain sustenance, incidents were mostly small-scale involving a limited number of participants and targeting individual parks, when other factors, to be outlined in due course, made them particularly vulnerable. Tentative suggestions to explain this pattern would include the social mix of the county, with early enclosure, moderate estates, no dominant landowner, and minimal multiple park ownership.14 There was also a relatively low level of gentry absenteeism in the county, whose resident owners acted more sensitively towards their local communities following earlier experiences of the Kentish rising in 1549 and Wyatt's rebellion in 1554.15 The gentry also had a tighter control over governance.16 William Lambarde in his 19 speeches to the grand juries of the Quarter Sessions in the period 1582 to 1601, did not highlight unlawful activity centred on parks as a problem, and his references in 1582 to 'untimely walking in the night,' and in 1593 to 'night walkers and 12 Manning(1993:210-211). 13 Fletcher(1975:28-29). 14 Clark(1997:7,120). 15 Ibid. p.119, p.248, in 1577 Sir Walter Waller of Groombridge was censured for being overbearing to poor men; Palliser(1992:362-363). 16 Ibid. pp.125,131,142,146. 240 night hunters' are open to interpretation, and might well apply to other activities apart from illegal hunting.17 As will be shown, some unlawful activity involving parks in Kent might have been a symptom of protest against parks per se, but other factors such as poverty, greed, envy, bravado or criminality are equally apparent. Historians, such as Sharpe and Manning, have pointed to the complexity of offences against and in deer parks, which ranged from the poor driven to take conies for the pot; through more organised intrusions by loose groups for gain; through to the gentry-led incursions for sport, or from envy, and including the more symbolic incidents to air grievances to which Beaver, in particular, has drawn attention.18 Where there is sufficient documentation, this complexity is confirmed for Kent, with episodes, which initially appear to be simple, revealed to involve a diversity of participants, motives, and actions, and which have been highlighted in case studies. (ii) The extent of disorder associated with parks in Kent Taking all the documentary evidence assembled so far, it is possible to indicate the extent of known illegal and suspicious activity against parks and how many parks were affected, but impossible to judge how complete a record this reveals. Figure 8.1 shows the known park violations in Elizabethan and Jacobean times.19 Minor misdemeanours, such as fishing in the river Darent in Otford Little(63) park, to major, multiple incursions with violence such as occurred at Penshurst(71) in 1600, are each treated as one incident in this.20 The table has been compiled mainly from Quarter Session and Assize Session calendars, from cases coming before the court of Star Chamber and from family papers including the De L'Isle and Dudley, Lambarde, Lennard, Stanhope and Sutherland collections.21 A total of 30 of the 53 active deer parks in the Elizabethan and Jacobean periods were affected by a degree of incursion. The 68 records, some more detailed than others, were unevenly spread through the period, being more numerous from the mid 1590s up 17 Read(1962:70,115). 18 Sharpe(1984:128-131); Manning(1998:316); Beaver(2008:ix). 19 See Figure 8.1 'Deer park violations, 1558-1625' (Appendix 9 p.328-330). 20 CKS QM/SRc/1612/59 & 110; TNA STAC5/S2/20. 21 CKS U1475, U1500; CKS U1450, U1590; StaffsRO D593; Barrett-Lennard(1908); Read(1962:15-54). 241 to 1610.22 However, this result is skewed by the chance survival of records, especially those of the Quarter Sessions, which effectively only cover the period from the 1590s to 1618, with no records before 1580 and very sparse coverage of the 1580s and of the later years of James I's reign.23 Moreover, suits in the court of Star Chamber are numerically biased for James I's reign because, unlike the catalogue for Elizabethan suits, the catalogue for James I's reign compiled by Barnes specifies the nature of the complaint, making it easier to search for relevant suits. Manorial courts are invaluable in revealing attitudes to poaching from a poor man's viewpoint, but because of the labour involved in going through the records for a whole county, innumerable minor park infringements, similar to those found for West Wickham in Kent, lie undiscovered.24 Apart from the quirks of archival survival and retrieval, documentation of the legal system at every level can also obscure the extent of park crime. Lambarde's random notes in 'Ephemeris' is a reminder that magistrates alone or in pairs outside the court, could deal with petty offenders, with their decisions endorsed by the next Quarter Sessions under offenders' names rather than under the type of offence.25 On the whole, official documents of the Kent Quarter Sessions and Assizes record the barest details of the culprits' names and nature of the offence, although some of the 1000 Quarter Session depositions for Kent, covering the years 1595 to 1609, relate to parks and give fuller backgrounds to the crime.26 In this context, they are enlightening because they open up a range of previously unsuspected park violations, both against the park named in the indictment, and against other parks; for example, offenders at Sissinghurst(79) 22 See Figure 1.3 'Active parks in Kent, 1558-1625' (Appendix 2 pp.308-309); 1559-1569 = 4, 1570-1579 = 7, 1580-1589 = 8, 1590-1599 = 11, 1600-1609 = 32, 1610-1619 = 6. 23 Extant Quarter Session documents relevant to this study include QM/SR1, engrossed Session rolls, 1600-1605; QM/SB, Session papers, 8 entries pre-1592, 1593-1618, and 5 to 1628; QM/SI, indictments, 2 pre-1592, 1593-1617; QM/SIq, inquisitions, 1593-1616; QM/SRc, recognizances, 3 pre-1592, 1592-1618; QM/SM, draft minutes, 1593-1617; Melling(1960:1-3). 24 BL Add.Mss.33899, West Wickham Court Leet 1 Elizabeth I, George Stephen broke into the Lord's park and took away deer: 7 Elizabeth I, John Johnson broke into the Lord's park; Wiltshire & Woore(2009:24) includes medieval examples; Sharpe(1984:26); Manning(1993:72), Palliser(1992:357- 358) discuss scope of manorial courts. 25 Read(1962:15-52); Gleeson(1969:103); Hay(reprint 1998:192). 26 Melling(1969:31-32); other depositions can be found in estate papers such as the De L'Isle and Dudley collection at CKS and the Sutherland collection at Staffordshire Record Office; Cockburn(1977:55) gives an indicative, but not direct comparison, of the number of persons indicted for poaching, 1559-1603, as 21 in Essex, 8 in Hertfordshire and 66 in Sussex. 242 had also hunted in Eridge park, a park in Rotherfield (probably Hamsell park, 43) and in the Ashdown Forest, all three venues being in Sussex.27 Another way in which the 'shadowy outlines' of indictments under record park crime is that they do not always indicate a park offence.28 Hindle points out that indictments were 'a product of several variables' and could be regarded 'as an index of judicial control rather than as plausible evidence of the scale of criminality.''29 They were a tool to aid law enforcement, but did not necessarily reflect the true nature or extent of crimes committed. This limitation is only apparent in cases where other evidence, such as the depositions, survives, and there are examples in Kent, which serve to illustrate that indictments alone are inadequate indicators of park violations.30 On occasions where there was insufficient evidence for the indictment of a more serious offence, an indictment for a lesser misdemeanour was substituted in order to secure a conviction; as when John Fosten was indicted for firing a gun because there was no corroborative evidence for the deer theft he admitted.31 On other occasions, a minor offence might be superseded by a more serious offence, as when felony took priority over park offences in the case of Humfrey Latter, apprehended during an illegal hunting spree, but eventually indicted for burglary.32 Manning noted the increased interest in park crime taken by higher courts, such as the court of Star Chamber, but was unable to determine whether this reflected an actual rise in such crime or better detection and reporting.33 Thirteen court of Star Chamber cases have been traced for Kent, and another four out-of-county suits were examined because men from Kent were involved.34 Suits varied in their complexity and in the completeness of their documentation, depending upon what stage they reached or whether the suit had been withdrawn at some stage because of its inadequacies or following an out-of-court settlement. However, the potential for underestimating the 27 CKS QM/SB/168, 21/3/1597. 28 Herrup(1984:811). 29 Hindle(2000:117-118). 30 See Case Study A p.252-258. 31 CKS QM/SI/1597/12; Langbein(1983:104-105) draws attention to the practice of down charging. 32 See Case Study E p.291-298. 33 Manning(1993:169). 34 On closer examination TNA STAC5/S2/20, STAC5/S21/31, STAC/S41/5, STAC5/S68/33, STAC5/S74/15 concern the same suit in Penshurst Park in 1599/1600. See Figure 8.1 in Appendix 9 p.328-330. 243 full extent of park violations became clear from the multiplicity of related offences both in the same park and in more than one park revealed in the plaintiff's bill of complaint or once suspects were subpoenaed and questioned.35 There were, of course, innumerable park infringements that were neither discovered, reported, prosecuted nor documented, and they form part of the 'dark figure' of general crime.36 The unknown dimension of this figure probably fluctuated, but Edward Hext, well acquainted with the legal system as a Somerset magistrate and as clerk to the court of Star Chamber, estimated in 1596 that 'the fyveth person that commytteth a felonye' evaded trial. This 20 per cent might be indicative of the 'dark figure', but its accuracy cannot be tested.37 Although the realistic figures of park infringements can never be known, it might well be that, nevertheless, park crime did increase in the 1590s and 1600s, in accordance with the trend of crime in general, about which there has been vigorous discussion among historians, notably by Cockburn as regards property crime.38 Hindle in sumamrising Cockburn's research concluded that 'the overwhelming balance of probability is that waves of increased prosecution did reflect peaks of theft, which were themselves affected by economic conditions.39 The social crises from1590 to 1610 exacerbated by bad harvests from 1594 to 1597, put society under acute pressure, driving the hungry poor to commit more theft, and fear of disorder, together with distress over loss of goods during times of hardship, might have contributed to more vigilant enforcement, which drove up prosecutions.40 The cumulative effect of incomplete records, the logistical difficulty of accessing all relevant documents, the under recording of park violations, together with an incalculable number of undiscovered and unreported offences, make it impossible to estimate the overall threat to parks in Kent from 1558 to 1625. Parks offered a 35 TNA STAC8/5/13, 1604, covers many park breaks at Sissinghurst; TNA STAC8/294/6, 1606, mentions park breaks at Hamsell and Groombridge. 36 Sharpe(1984:42). 37 Palliser(1992:365) points to Cockburn(1977:50-51) who inaccurately interpreted this ratio as 80 per cent rather than 20 per cent. 38 Cockburn(1977). 39 Hindle(2000:13,125-127). 40 Sharpe(1984:183); Cockburn(1977:67-68); Clark(1976:367); Hindle(2000:127) citing E.W. Ives, 'English Law and English Society' in History 66 (1981) p.52. 244 continuing temptation, and magnates and their servants had to exercise constant vigilance to protect deer and other game. However, it would seem that serious park infringements were not of worrying or epidemic proportions. Lambarde's speeches and the thorough search of county legal records, though thin before the 1590s, reveal few sustained assaults on parks of the severity that would have been deemed to be a threat to wider public order. Park owners, such as the Sidneys of Penshurst, the Bakers of Sissinghurst and the Brookes of Cobham, whose parks suffered peaks of illegal activity, took firm action to apprehend the culprits and to regain control over their parks. However, it is likely that low-key, minor infringements were widespread, and, although not officially tolerated, perceived to be an inevitable aspect of park ownership. (iii) The legal context of unlawful activity in parks Wrightson's observation that legislation in general emerged in a halting manner, yet reflected a common cast of mind and a certain consistency of purpose, holds true for legislation covering game in parks, which, by reserving certain rights to the privileged aimed to be and was discriminatory, and therefore was bound to be socially divisive.41 The legal position as regards incursions into parks and damage to the game within them had developed in a piecemeal fashion since the statutes of Westminster of 1275. Because game animals and birds were considered to be wild and therefore no one's property, values were not attached to them and so, under law, their taking was not considered to be theft. Instead various other laws were devised to restrict hunting in parks, including trespass and all unlicensed forms of hunting, wounding or killing deer by weapons, dogs or equipment, such as nets. Deliberate damage to palings, fences or any fixtures or buildings around and in parks were also offences under the law. When further deterrents were deemed necessary general laws such as those against riot, rout and unlawful assembly were used, especially where several trespassers were involved.42 41 Wrightson(2002:157). 42 Munsche(1981:169-186) guide to the game laws between 1661-1831, p.170, summary of pre-1660 position; Statutes of the realm(1810-1828) Acts specifically referring to parks – Vol. I:- p.26, 1275, 3 Edward I c.20: p.iii, 1293, 21 Edward I statute 2: Vol. II:- p.505, 1485, 1 Henry VII c.7 c.8: Vol. III:- p.655, 1503, 19 Henry VII c.11: p.457, 1533, 25 Henry VIII c.17: p.753, 1540, 32 Henry VIII c.8 c.11: p.830, 1541, 33 Henry VIII c.6: Vol. IV, part I:- p.211, 1553, 1 Mary I c.12. Acts regulating possession of weapons, and general protection of game - Vol. II:- p.581, 1495, 11 Henry VII c.7 c.17: Vol. III:- p.457, 1533, 25 Henry VIII c.17: p.718, 1539, 31 Henry VIII c.12: Vol. IV, part I:- p.58, 1548, 2 & 3 Edward VI c.14. 245 By the act of 33 Henry VIII, 1541, updated periodically thereafter, the possession of crossbows and handguns was restricted to those with incomes above £100 a year, with a penalty of £10 for those contravening the law. Part of the preamble to the act recited the 'great peril and continual fear and danger of the King's loving subjects' and to 'divers keepers of forests, chases and parks' posed by the use of such weapons. Under this law it also became an offence for those legally holding crossbows and guns to order their servants or any other persons to shoot at 'any deer, fowl or other thing except it be only at a butt or bank of earth or at time of war.'43 The Elizabethan parliament strengthened the law governing deer parks further to protect the interests of those who 'as of late and now do at great cost and charges make fish ponds with ... divers good fish for the provision of their household and emparked land for breeding and cherishing and increase of red and fallow deer for the same reason, and have bred in woods and grounds eyries of hawks ... to their great pleasure and commodity.'44 By the act of 5 Elizabeth I c.21, 1562, wilful persons convicted of damaging fishponds, breaking into deer parks, illegally fishing, killing deer or stealing hawks or their eggs could face three months in prison, pay treble damages to the aggrieved party and, after imprisonment, have to find sufficient sureties for seven years' good behaviour or remain in prison for that time. In other ways some aspects of the game laws were softened. The effectiveness of Henry VII's act of 1485, making it a felony to hunt in disguise at night, was reduced after successive legal judgements gave more weight to common law, which did not regard killing 'wild beasts' as a felony, and thus made the act virtually unenforceable. 45 Under Elizabeth I unlawful assembly of between three and eleven people was no longer classed as a felony punishable by death with confiscation of property, goods and chattels, but became a misdemeanour punishable by one year's imprisonment.46 However, in the troubled years of the 1590s the attorney general interpreted the law 43 Statutes III, p.830, 1541, 33 Henry VIII c.17. 44 Statutes IV part 1, p.449. 45 Thompson(1975:58); Statutes II, p.505, 1485, 1 Henry VII c.7 c.8. 46 Statutes II, 1411, p.169, 13 Henry IV c.17: p.184, 1414, 2 Henry V c.8: IV part II, p.378, 1558/9, 1 Elizabeth I, c.16. 246 more harshly, considering that if trouble spilled over into several parishes, then riotous assembly of over three people could become a treasonable offence.47 The earliest game act in James I's reign, passed in 1603, discouraged the unlawful disposal of venison by imposing a fine of 40 shillings for every deer sold, and lesser fines for other game.48 In 1605 those convicted of deer hunting without permission and taking conies from enclosed grounds at night faced the penalties imposed by the act of 5 Elizabeth I, 1562.49 At the same time the qualifications for keeping hunting dogs, using ferrets, nets or any other equipment for taking game, and using gun, bow or crossbow to take deer or conies were increased for the first time since 1541. The qualifications now became more restrictive and wholly dependent on the possession of freehold property valued at £40 or copyhold of £80 per annum, and goods and chattels worth £200.50 Manning points out that because Henry VIII's law had remained unchanged for so long, inflation in values had allowed the lesser gentry to hunt as time passed, but this pastime was now denied them.51 Until James I's reign the law had concentrated on the circumstances of the taking of deer in parks, rather than the theft of deer itself, but in 1609 deer stealing became a specific offence for the first time with the acceptance that an enclosed animal was not wild, but had an owner who could seek restitution for its loss and damage.52 The term 'deer stealer' had been introduced by the attorney general, Sir Edward Coke, in 1599, in recognition that the theft of deer from parks for profit, rather than as a product of unlicensed hunting for sport, might form the main motive behind some park incursions.53 A new word that further embodied this idea was 'poaching' which entered the English language in the early 1610s to describe the activities of organised criminal gangs set up to meet London's demand for game.54 47 Manning(1998:55-56). 48 Statutes IV part II, p.1055, 1603/04, 1 James I c.27. 49 Statutes IV part II, p.1088, 1065/06, 3 James I c.13. 50 Ibid; Statutes IV part II, p.1055, 1603/04, 1 James I c.27. 51 Manning(1993:60). 52 Ibid. p.77; Statutes IV part II, p.1169, 1609/10, 7 James I c. 13. 53 Manning(1988:295). 54 1611,R. Cotgrave, Dictionary in the French & English Tongues, Pocher le labeur d'autruy, to poche into, or incroach upon, another mans imployment, practise, or trade (http://www.oup.com). 247 The impact of this body of law might have been oppressive, had it not been for certain obviating factors. Firstly, there was the difficulty of apprehending wrongdoers in the pre-police state; and secondly, the judicial system adopted procedures to try to balance 'the relative merits of maximum severity with proportionality.' 55 In section (iv) of this chapter there are examples of the role deer keepers and borsholders, otherwise constables, played in seeking out evidence and apprehending suspects for park offences. Deer keepers carried out searches of premises, confiscated property and detained those caught within parks, and borsholders were required to round up suspects, ordered to make arrests or accompany prisoners to gaol. However, these efforts varied in their effectiveness as borsholders and, to a lesser extent, deer keepers found it difficult to carry out their duties impartially. In close-knit societies they could find themselves 'torn between loyalty to the community in which they lived and their obligations to implement the dictates of superior officials,' a dilemma not made any easier where the elitist notion of the legislation surrounding parks and game was widely unpopular.56 As Wrightson has observed, although the state and the local communities within it shared a concern for social harmony, certain legislation had local implications, which might create new problems of order and obedience 'at the point at which precise national legislation came into contact with less well defined local custom.'57 Thus, there were occasions when culprits were not arrested, poorly guarded prisoners escaped, witnesses were reluctant to give evidence, and borsholders and deer keepers failed to gain the cooperation of the populace at large. Once a suspect became caught up in court procedure, there were various ways in which the full impact of the offence might be reduced. Confessions were encouraged. The 1485 act reduced hunting by night from a felony to a misdemeanour for those who confessed.58 Under the act of 5 Elizabeth I c.21 VII, 1562, if, after arrest or even during the seven years a convicted person was bound over for good behaviour, he confessed the offence or offences against parks for which he had been convicted, and satisfied the magistrates of his penitence, he would be released from his recognizances – hence the 55 Langbein(1983:116). 56 Kent(1981:28) citing A. Hassell Smith, County and Court: Government and Politics in Norfolk, 1558- 1603,' pp.112-113; Wood(2002:17). 57 Wrightson in Brewer & Styles(1980:22). 58 Statutes Vol. II p.505, 1485, 1 Henry VII c.7 c.8. 248 admissions of park incursions made by prisoners.59 Convictions were hard to secure because confessions and witness accounts made in depositions were not admissible in court, where evidence had to be given in person, and Langbein found that in all cases dependent on only one witness the defendant was acquitted.60 Judges also preferred acquittal to issuing capital verdicts when those facing them were thought not to deserve death.61 As far as offences against parks were concerned, it became more difficult to secure a jury conviction so that, for example, between 1569 and 1624, of 105 men indicted for unlawful hunting in Sussex, only 12 were found guilty, of whom eight pled guilty, leaving only 4 to be found guilty by trial jury.62 With the diminution of the law's deterrent effect more owners took their grievances directly to the court of Star Chamber, which goes some way to explain increased litigation there in the late sixteenth and early seventeenth centuries.63 The gentry and aristocracy had mixed motives when using the court of Star Chamber in the prosecution of park and hunting offences, especially of those committed or organised by gentlemen. Some litigants might have wanted solely to seek justice, others to wear down opponents by involving them in time-consuming and costly procedures, but it is likely that most had both aims in mind.64 According to Barnes, illegal hunting suits comprised a highly specialised, but numerically insignificant, aspect of the court's work in which most suits emanated from the highly imparked and enchased areas of the south, west, Midlands and some of the home counties, with almost 25 per cent of an unspecified total number of suits, from 1596 to 1641, being brought to the court by peers.65 In Kent, with few resident peers, only Lord Abergavenny brought charges of illegal hunting and park breaking, the other plaintiffs being knights or gentlemen.66 In order for a suit to be heard by the court, charges often included the words 'riot' and 'rout' to imply that unlawful behaviour was more than a threat to the park, but might endanger the good order of the state.67 The seriousness of the accusations, 'for procedural advantage more often than a substantive charge', was 59 Statutes Vol. IV part 1, p.449-450; Manning(1988) p.300. 60 Melling(1969:30); Langbein(1983:105). 61 Milsom(1981:417,422). 62 Manning(1988:292,299). 63 Manning(1988:73,81); Hindle(2000:13). 64 Fletcher(1975:29); Barnes I (1962:240-247). 65 Barnes(1978:11). 66 TNA STAC8/221/23, undated. 67 Barnes(1978:13); Hindle(2000:76) 92 per cent of private suit charges in the court of Star included 'riot'. 249 designed to be intimidating and to add pressure for an out-of-court settlement.68 However, the inveterate defendant could also advantageously manipulate procedures, sometimes escaping punishment for several years, by using delaying tactics to wear down his accuser or by demurrer.69 The adroit use of the demurrer or special pleading during James I's reign swung the balance of the court of Star Chamber, from the plaintiff and towards the defendant.70 Hence few suits went the full course. Another factor undermining the enforcement of legislation was the issue of periodic general pardons by the crown, which included park infringements until 1610 when James I brought in restrictions specifically excluding deer stealers from the pardons.71 Pardons were conditional on future good behaviour and so, at their most effective, might have played a part in crime prevention.72 Apart from their judicial function, pardons were also a component of royal patronage, as when individual pardons were issued to aristocrats and gentlemen making them virtually immune from prosecution for illegal hunting or park breaks prior to the date of the pardon. The individual pardon could be very wide ranging, as is illustrated by letter patent of 27 June 2 James I, 1604, granted to Walter Roberts of Glassenbury, due to appear at the court of Star Chamber, accused of illegal hunting at Sissinghurst(79) park in the previous reign. The pardon encompassed 'all manner of forceable entries riots routs unlawful assemblies conventicles confederacies conspiracies trespasses unlawful speeches and all such other offences as are supposed in and by the said bill of complaint committed.'73 As a result of the pardon the case was dropped. The legislation on hunting, the protection of game and of parks might have been difficult to enforce, but was of symbolic significance in its attempt to regulate this privileged area of life which accentuated the gulf between the upper and lower extremes of society.74 The enjoyment of leisure distinguished gentlemen from the masses and, as Sir Francis Bacon expressed it, the laws existed 'to prevent persons of inferior rank, from squandering that time, which their station in life requireth to be more profitably 68 Hindle(2000:76). 69 Ibid. pp.16-17; Barnes I (1962:246-247); Manning(1993:184). 70 Baker(1978:17). 71 Hughes & Larkin(1969) II & III, proclamations of general pardons issued 1, 23, 31, 35, 43 Elizabeth I; Hughes & Larkin(1973) proclamations of general pardons issued 2, 7, 21 James I; Manning(1993) p.76. 72 Kesselring(2003:3). 73 TNA STAC8/53/5, 1604; see Case Study A p.253-259 and B p.267-274. 74 Hindle(2000:136). 250 employed.'75 The penalties for offences against parks were not as harsh as imposed by the Black Act of 1723, in which former misdemeanours were redefined as felonies, but as far as Kent park breakers and illegal hunters were concerned they were sufficiently punitive to make them wary of being caught, but not so desperate as habitually to use force to resist arrest.76 Overall, Herrup's assessment of responses to theft generally can be seen to apply to park crime. She perceived the judicial system not as inherently flawed, but as administering justice alongside mercy, with petty offenders being dealt with more leniently than persistent offenders, who were more likely to feel the full force of the law.77 The legislation against park breaks and illegal hunting was enforceable to a degree, but how many evaded it will never be known. (iv) The nature of park violations The wide variation in modus operandi, social status of participants, motivation and range of incidents of illegal hunting and the taking of game from parks in Kent combine to underline the complexity of the nature of park violations. To date there have been two approaches – to categorise incidents and to analyse stages within incidents. Neither system works satisfactorily for park crime in Kent in Elizabethan and Jacobean times. Way and Manning have used categories, but the criteria for choice of categories differ greatly from each other. Way's six categories of park violations are based on social class, numbers of offenders and specific types of offences.78 Her research spanned a vast period, from 1080 to 1760, so some of her categories were simplistic and more suited to the medieval scene, neither is it often possible to know the exact numbers and social class of the offenders involved. Manning, on the other hand, used motivation as the basis for his categorisation, identifying violations arising from the economic necessity of the poor, the commercial consideration of the criminal, and the social or political protest of the dispossessed or disgruntled.79 On re-examining what he 75 Hay(reprint 1988:191) citing from Richard Burn, The Justice of the Peace and Parish Officer (12th edition 1772) p.218. 76 Thompson(1975:270-277). 77 Herrup(1984:830); Kesselring(2003:7). 78 Way(1997:73) (i) poaching by individual or groups of under three non-gentry (ii) as (i) but by gentry and nobility (iii) peasant-led park breaks for tree felling, fishing, hunting and assault, typified by breaking park pale (iv) as (iii) but gentry/nobility led (v) park breaks by individual or small groups to gain or regain resources (vi) park breaks by various groups to recover impounded animals. 79 Manning(1988:316). 251 acknowledged to be 'a complex phenomenon' he recognised that most park breakers had mixed motives and so he developed a more nuanced approach, with six categories, still based on motivation, although, for unexplained reasons, omitting the basic motive of economic necessity.80 Not all his categories, for example, court factionalism and local feuds being played out by targeting rivals' parks, manifested themselves in Kent, so were not adopted for this study.81 Categories provide a useful overall insight, but do not readily encompass groups with mixed motives, both individually and across the group, so do not do readily convey the complexities of the subject. Birrell's analysis of peasant poachers in medieval forests separated phases within incidents by comparing hunting techniques, the time and place hunting occurred, the company kept, avoidance of and reactions to detection, and the disposal of the deer carcasses.82 This works well within the context of one social group and over a long period covering large areas, such as forests throughout England. The approach served to identify similarities across a range of incidents and isolated more variable features, but it proved to be difficult to adopt when other social groups were included, and within the confines of one county for a shorter period. Moreover, subdivision creates disjointure in the overall intensity and impact of individual incidents and, in some cases, the interplay between them. After considering the strengths and weaknesses of the three historians' approaches, elements have aided this analysis, but have not been wholly adopted. Having examined all known park incursions in Kent it is possible to pick out four distinctive strands, which is a word adopted to convey a more subtle, less rigid approach than that of 'category', because violations seldom fall neatly into slots, as will be illustrated from case studies interposed throughout. Sometimes the subtle interplay within an incident shifts emphasis from one strand to another, and sometimes, detailed documentary evidence incorporates multiple, often overlapping, incidents, or at the other extreme detail on which to make a judgement is lacking. Nevertheless, the adoption of strands gives a broad structure on which to build an analysis – the strands 80 Manning(1993:135-170). 81 Ibid. p.136 (i) court factionalism, p.143 (ii) local feuds, p.148 (iii) official corruption, p.152 (iv) local communities, p.160 (v) poaching fraternities, p.163 (vi) commercial poaching. 82 Birrell(1996:68-88). 252 being (a) low-key subsistence poaching, (b) covert hunting by groups, usually gentlemen-led for sport or consumption of deer, (c) high-profile park breaks planned as a conscious form of protest, and (d) deer theft with a commercial or criminal element. (a) Low-key poaching Common sense would lead one to suppose that undetected low-key forays into parks for subsistence would be the norm, even though evidence is sparse. Typically, parks were broken into to catch rabbits, or perhaps the occasional deer, with or without dogs. Park breakers' methods aimed to be 'effective and discreet' without sport-like intent, but carried out as unobtrusively as possible to avoid confrontation with deer keepers, and offering little or no resistance when caught.83 Most of those who came before the courts were husbandmen or artisans, such as carpenters, living near the parks, which they entered to take a few conies for their own consumption or to supplement their income. Deer would be more difficult to take, hide and dispose of, and an ordinary man was less accustomed to eat venison. Conies were netted or ferreted, but in most cases the methods employed were unspecified. Warrens seem to have been most vulnerable from April to September when the conies were at their fattest, but on one occasion they were taken as late as November. Poachers went out during the hours of darkness as well as during the daylight hours, although the indictments seldom mention the time of day. Usually two to four men worked together, but on 2 April 1602, the largest known group comprised five husbandmen and a weaver from Lenham, who broke into two warrens, one lying in Sir Edward Wotton's park at Boughton Malherbe(10 or 12) where they netted a dozen conies.84 There is no evidence that any of these cony thieves resisted arrest. Most chose to run away, as did a servant and three husbandman in Birling(6) park, although gamekeepers caught one, after discovering them packing away their nets, having caught four conies to eat in an alehouse 'to be merrie together.'85 Fines were reduced if misdemeanour was admitted, or perhaps to meet an individual's ability to pay. When four men broke into Tyler Hill(94) park in 1609 the two yeomen were fined three 83 Birrell(1996:82,83,87,88). 84 Knafla(1994:59,88,96,191,223); CKS QM/SB/1602/1217-1218,1220. 85 CKS QM/SB/1279, 29/7/1617. 253 shillings and 6s 8d respectively, while the husbandman was acquitted, perhaps either because he had confessed or his straitened circumstances led to him being treated more leniently.86 Two husbandmen from Mersham who pleaded guilty to stealing two rabbits together worth eight pence from Mersham Hatch(61) park in 1608 were each fined 3s 4d.87 While better-connected men were able to find sureties, not all poorer folk could. Two carpenters and a labourer who hunted conies in Birling(6) park in 1587 were bound over to appear at two days' warning with sureties, 'each two for the other, in ten pounds apiece', while another two carpenters caught ferreting rabbits in Knole(50) park in 1605 found sureties of £20 each from a husbandman and a musician.88 In contrast, miscreants, like husbandman John Snell, who stole five rabbits from Lynsted(58) park in 1579 were unable to avoid prison because they failed to find sureties.89 Husbandmen and other workmen were less likely to take the initiative to kill deer in parks for their own consumption, tending to play minor parts on the fringe of groups with a wider social mix when they did participate in deer hunting and deer stealing incidents.90 Among the exceptions were Peter Maye of Sissinghurst, featured in case study A below, and Humfrey Latter of Cobham, featured in case study E, who initially might have been driven into illegal hunting by poverty, but whose activities could be interpreted as a form of social protest, and who soon became enmeshed in criminal circles, or themselves were motivated partly by criminality.91 Most workmen stuck to taking rabbits for the pot, but an element of doubt even creeps into the obvious, if indeed, as Thompson observed for a later period, simple theft 'may turn out to be, in certain circumstances, evidence of protracted attempts by villagers to defend ancient common right usages, or by labourers to defend customary perquisites.' 92 A: Case Study – Sissinghurst(79) park in the mid 1590s This study illustrates the importance of the extant depositions in enabling historians to glimpse 'the mentalities, attitudes and aspirations' experienced by those suffering economic hardship, and the temptation a nearby park, like Sissinghurst(79), 86 CKS QM/SI/1615/2/5. 87 CKS QM/SI/1608/11/8. 88 Read (1962:48); CKS QM/SRc/1605/193. 89 Cockburn(1995:169) AC35/21/8/991, 1579. 90 Birrell(1996:77-78). 91 See Case Study E p.291-298. 92 Thompson(1991:72). 254 posed.93 The first incident takes up the strand of low-key park infringements, and the second was multi-layered growing out of necessity, but containing elements of disaffection and profiteering.94 The shortcomings of using indictments to indicate the level of park crime are evident in this case study. But for the depositions the first incident would not have appeared in the court records because no indictment followed, and the indictments in the second case were for the illegal use and possession of gun and crossbow, with no mention of misdemeanour against parks. Sissinghurst(79) was a particularly vulnerable park towards the end of the sixteenth century, because of the death John Baker in 1596 in his forties meant that the inheritance was left to his young ten year-old son, Henry. The estate was taken over by the court of Wards and Liveries to be administered by Sir Henry Guildford, Sir Thomas Walsingham and Sir Thomas Baker until eventually, in 1601, Sir Thomas Baker of Cranbrook was given full wardship, but in the vacuum it proved difficult to maintain order in the park.95 Historians have highlighted the particular economic problems faced by the depressed cloth industry centred at Cranbrook, the town near Sissinghurst in the Weald of Kent, which were intensified by the bad harvests of the 1590s.96 Tension between the clothiers and the Baker family dated back to the 1560s when Sir Richard Baker enclosed woodland to reserve for use by ironworks. This enclosure deprived cloth dyers of a vital source of fuel and by the 1590s when iron making was booming, encouraged locally by John Baker, Sir Richard's son and owner of one of the mills, it had also led to shortages of domestic fuel. While blast furnaces and gun foundries were working to full capacity during the war years, the cloth industry was adversely affected by a fall in demand during the depression.97 Unemployment and underemployment, exacerbated by an increase of 40 per cent in the population of Cranbrook from the 1560s to 1590s, combined with high grain and fuel prices, caused widespread hardship and unrest among the clothiers and their workforce.98 A conspiracy to sack Baker's ironworks was 93 Sharpe(1984:121). 94 CKS QM/SB/154; QM/SB/162,163,168; QM/SB/387, QM/SRc/1602/197. 95 CKS U24/T283; TNA STAC8/53/4, 1605. 96 Clark(1976:366,371-373); Manning(1988:274-275). 97 Manning(1988:274); Clark(1976:230). 98 Zell(1994:63). 255 uncovered in December 1594, and other direct action was also planned.99 There are grounds to think that one form of popular protest was to target Sissinghurst(79) park, and it would not be surprising that incursions into the park were seen as another means to express anger and frustration, although neither Clark nor Manning specifically made the link. Manning in his later work cited two of the Sissinghurst cases, one, involving Peter Maye, to be featured shortly, which he placed in the crime category, and the other as an example of the actions of a youthful gentry hunter, namely Sir Alexander Culpepper, whose exploits are explored in case study B.100 There is no date overlap between this gentleman hunter and the workingmen of modest status in case study A, although the background circumstances of the area are common to both case studies.101 Sir Alexander Culpepper's exploits were complex, but the fact that he so readily found local men to aid and abet him might well have been influenced by the hardship they were suffering and the strong local resentment against the Baker family. In all the instances involving Sissinghurst(79) park, despite the unpopularity of the Baker family and the distress in the area, it is significant that there were no allegations that the deer keepers colluded with the illegal hunting. The first low-key incident in this case study underlines how great a prize a deer carcass was to a workingman and is the only example in Kent, during the period under review, of an opportunistic discovery of a dead deer, which was more common in easily accessible forest areas.102 The accused displayed great reluctance to become an informer, but might well have been the victim of an informant because the incident only came to the attention of the authorities one month after the event, shortly after it had been discussed at a small household gathering comprising husbandman Anthony Banks, Thomas Lawrence and Agnes Greenhill. On 4 January 1596, Thomas Roberts of Glassenbury examined the three deponents present at the gathering, starting with Anthony Banks, whose more detailed description of the incident might indicate that he was the informer. The three deponents claimed that Thomas Carpenter had witnessed a deer being killed in Sissinghurst(79) park by a crossbowman, whom he recognised and who had fled on seeing him.103 As reported by Anthony Banks, Thomas Carpenter, 99 Manning(1988:274). 100 Manning(1993:164-165,174-175). 101 TNA STAC8/53/5, 1604; see Case Study C p.274-280. 102 Birrell(1996:77-79). 103 CKS QM/SB/154. 256 thrilled that 'he had happened on such a booty as he should never meet with the like again while he lived,' decided to retrieve the prize himself, but left the scene to find Anthony Banks to help him carry the deer away. However, having failed to make contact, Thomas Carpenter returned to the park to find that he had lost both the deer and the arrow, which he had hidden, although he spent over an hour searching for them. According to Anthony Banks, Thomas Carpenter defended his decision not to report the matter to the deer keeper by declaring that he felt there was no point, 'to what end should I hurt the fellow that had killed the said deer and not benefit myself thereby.' When Thomas Carpenter himself was examined, he flatly denied all knowledge of the incident, and as to mentioning an arrow he explained that he had been misheard and that he was complaining about poor ploughing, 'for that his ploughman at the first setting on did not draw the first furrow as straight as an arrow.' Whether or not credible, the case was unproven and no charges were brought against him. Thomas Carpenter's reluctance to name the deer killer might have come from altruism, from the desire to avoid revealing uncomfortable details about his own proximity to the killing, from fellow feeling for or fear of retaliation from the culprit, or from an unwillingness to cooperate with the Baker family, but his pleasure at the chance discovery of the deer carcass was real. As reported by Anthony Banks, Thomas Carpenter was disappointed to have lost the deer, from which he would 'have caused ii pasties to have byn made therof.' 104 Clearly, Thomas Carpenter wanted to benefit from the consumption of at least part of the deer, but his motives for concealing the identity of the deer's killer were far less straightforward, and his words indicated sympathy for the culprit, with a degree of acceptance by a kindred spirit that no great wrong had been committed, an example, perhaps, of how attitudes towards park offences differed between the lower orders and officialdom.105 The second case for which Thomas Roberts of Glassenbury started taking depositions in March 1596 covered park infringements in several parks, again perhaps drawn to the attention of the authorities by an informer. The common thread concerns the activities of Peter Maye, a Cranbrook weaver, who became caught up with others, such as John Fosten, who might well have been the criminals Manning considers them 104 As Carpenter needed help to move the deer it would have provided venison for more than two pasties, but the depositions do not mention what plans he might have had for the rest of the carcass. 105 Sharpe(1984:12,121-122). 257 to be.106 However, the background revealed by Peter Maye's apprentices implies that Peter Maye was driven into illegal activity by financial circumstances rather than starting out with criminal intent. Manning argued that Peter Maye was using a legitimate occupation as cover for criminal activity, but it seems more likely that the depression in the cloth industry drove a failing weaver to kill deer for survival, before being drawn into the desperation of criminality. Evidence from Peter Maye's former apprentices, William Welche and Pascal Barrington, who had served him four years, stated that for three years they had lived with Peter Maye at Masolden wood before moving with him to Goldford, much nearer Sissinghurst(79) park, in their fourth year of service.107 Significantly, it was only after the move that Peter Maye's unlawful killing of deer began. The apprentices deposed that at Goldford they had been given 'sundry times meat of the heads and necks of venison' and that the venison had been served with Peter Maye's retort 'they were better eat that than nothing.' In this context the move to Goldford can be seen as part of the downward spiral of an impoverished craftsman. Once at Goldford Peter Maye acquired a crossbow and arrows, which he concealed under a loom instructing the apprentices to hide outside if anyone came to search the premises. More damningly, two or three times a week, after the household had gone to bed, Peter Maye, on hearing a whistle outside, with his crossbow under his cloak left the house for two or three hours, 'but seldom sped for that he went most usually to shoot along by the pale side.' Once the two apprentices had to fetch deer from the weaving shop and help cut it up, and at other times they delivered deerskins to be dressed. One of the unique aspects of this case is the focus on deerskins. Further questioning about the skins showed that Peter Maye had become drawn into a wider network of procurers and receivers to such an extent that he became frightened of exposure and threatened that 'he would kill or procure to be killed whosoever should betray any of the former doings.' However, in his deposition he claimed to have acquired eight skins legitimately from John Hoben, the deceased deer keeper of Thomas 106 Manning(1993:161). 107 CKS QM/SB/162. 258 Pelham esquire whose park was in Sussex.108 This was a clever move since the dead man could not talk! These skins were dressed by Richard Cradock, a glover from Goudhurst, to whom he paid four shillings for four skins, but did not know what had happened to the rest. The four skins he could account for went to Henry Judd, a weaver from Cranbrook, by barter for assorted items including remnant sage coloured cloth, a chest, ruff bands and four shillings, with a total value of 16s 2d, a huge profit if the four shillings paid for dressing them was his only outlay.109 All this was plausible, but he concluded his deposition by gratuitously mentioning that John Fosten had visited his house at Goldford with a crossbow and had shot an arrow from it out of his window, an offence John Fosten later admitted and for which he was eventually indicted.110 Perhaps John Fosten was mentioned in order to divert attention away from Peter Maye's killing of Sissinghurst deer, and his possible involvement on the fringe of a more organised unlawful trade in venison and deerskins. If the deponent, John Fosten, was the will maker of 1624, he was a victualler, well able to dispose of venison through trade distribution outlets, and Peter Maye had been drawn into his circle, graduating from killing deer for his own consumption to killing them for profit. 111 In this context the deerskins would have been a saleable sideline. Such an interpretation would explain Peter Maye's frequent night excursions on cue with his crossbow, his possession of deerskins, and his use of threats to intimidate erstwhile informers. John Fosten's deposition, like Peter Maye's, was silent about any intrusion into Sissinghurst(79) park, so the depositions of Peter Maye's apprentices about their master's night time visits there were uncorroborated.112 John Fosten admitted handling three deer and their skins from Sussex venues, where, according to him, they had been acquired legitimately through contacts in the Ashdown Forest, Rotherfield and Eridge walks in the year prior to the deposition. The first deer had been quartered in Peter 108 Manning(1988:48) perhaps at Halland near Heathfield, which had been the focus of riots when 1200- acre park was enclosed from common land in the mid-sixteenth century. 109 Wrightson(2002:93) points out the economic interdependence between individuals in rural settlements. 110 CKS QM/SI/1597/12; CKS QM/SB/163. 111 CKS QM/SB/167; de Launay(1984:288) no.503; Manning(1993:167) links butchers and victuallers with the distribution of venison. 112 The Couchman surname was common in the district, but perhaps there were family links with Giles Couchman involved in the incident in Otford Great(62) park in 1584 (see pp.266-268) and Thomas Couchman co-hunter with Sir Alexander Culpepper in the early 1600s (see p.271). 259 Maye's house – half being sent to Thomas Raynes of Burham, on the Medway some miles away, and almost half going to John Fosten himself, leaving Peter Maye with the skin, neck, chine and one shoulder. That Peter Maye received the leftovers gave a plausible reason for serving them to his apprentices, although he did not include this in his deposition. The unexplained use of Peter Maye's house to cut up the deer is the only indication that he and John Fosten had any connection with each other as far as venison and deerskins were concerned. John Fosten had paid a Sussex deer keeper three shillings for the second deer and its skin and an unspecified fee for the third. Both these deer had been carried wrapped in their skins to Couchman's house in Goudhurst, and divided between the three huntsmen, with the skins being left for a glover living there. Because this glover was unnamed, doubt arises as to whether the skins purportedly legitimately obtained by Peter Maye and by John Fosten were the same deerskins, but the numbers differed and it was likely that both, or Peter Maye as the proxy of John Fosten, had been supplying deerskins to the glove workshops of Cranbrook, and that these deerskins had come from deer shot by Peter Maye in Sissinghurst(79) park. Having examined the evidence, Thomas Roberts ordered the borsholder to arrest Peter Maye under warrant for possession of a crossbow - again no specific offence against parks appeared. However, on his way to Maidstone gaol, he was rescued and released by John Weller, a clothier, and Thomas Philip, a painter, both from Cranbrook and whether he ever faced trial is unknown. The rescue makes one wonder about the role of the borsholder in his escape, and whether there was sympathy for Peter Maye's plight, with many in Cranbrook so disaffected and antagonistic towards the Baker family that they did not regard his behaviour as criminal.113 On the other hand, there was so much intermarriage between clothier families that his escape might have been organised by an elaborate family network, which, as Keith Wrightson expressed it, 'bound people together within particular localities in a manner which gave "a strong particularity" to the economic culture of the time.'114 Another less generous interpretation might be that the criminal network to which he was allied wanted to avoid further revelations about its activities. All these possibilities reflect the intertwining of various strands of the unlawful taking of deer and underline the complexity of unravelling them. 113 Sharpe(1984:12). 114 Wrightson(2002:84-85). 260 (b) Covert hunting for sport, usually gentlemen-led Whereas low-key poaching aimed at skilfully and quickly dispatching prey with minimum fuss, gentlemen who initiated covert hunting relished the excitement of the sport. Covert hunting was an offshoot of the general hunting culture, which might involve lesser gentlemen who were excluded from the sport by the high qualification criteria, and without their own parks or the social connections to gain access into the parks of others.115 On these unlawful hunting expeditions, dogs, especially coursing greyhounds, accompanied the hunters, who often rode on horseback. Although gentlemen were not averse to breaking into local parks, they also travelled to more distant venues. Covert hunting by day differed from covert hunting by night, and the contrasting approaches might, at first glance, be seen as separate strands, but the leading participants were often the same gentlemen, as with Sir Alexander Culpepper, Richard Waller and John Styler, who feature in case studies B and C.116 In covert hunting by day, the group might comprise up to four men, who, if challenged, concocted an apparently plausible excuse for their presence in the park, but under cover of dark, the groups tended to be larger and more intimidatory in order to scare off deer keepers or to meet them head on if necessary. There were some standard excuses used by gentlemen who entered parks in daylight hours. However, their versions of events seldom stand up to close scrutiny, even though accusations against them in the court of Star Chamber suits, which often included the words 'riot' and 'rout', tended to be exaggerated and highly dramatised.117 Manning identified popular excuses as entering the park in pursuit of a stray or wounded deer, or putting the blame on headstrong dogs pursuing a deer, which they had scented in a park.118 In 1584, Giles Couchman claimed that his master's dogs had broken loose from his master's home in Groombridge, and followed his master's party into Waterdown forest, where they brought down a doe with its fawn.119 115 Manning(1993:232). 116 See Case Study B p.267-274 and C p.274-280. 117 Barnes(1978:13) the charge of riot had become an allegation for procedural advantage more often than a substantive charge 118 Manning(1993:185). 119 TNA STAC5/A1/8, 1584. 261 Thomas Petley, a gentleman from Halstead, offered fabrication peppered with inconsistencies by way of explanation for his entering Hamsell(43) park, near Mayfield, in Sussex in October 1605.120 He blamed his companion, Nicholas Hilliard, for initiating the unlawful hunting by taking the park gate off its hinges and pursuing and injuring a deer with a crossbow arrow, after which he himself had entered the park to help track down the wounded deer. The discrepancies between events as narrated in Thomas Petley's depositions and in Sir Richard Waller's petition of complaint, as owner of Hamsell(43) park, make Thomas Petley's position as misguided innocent untenable. Thomas Petley claimed that he and Nicholas Hilliard had passed Hamsell(43) park on their way to Brenchley to meet Dr. Smarsett to discuss the suit of marriage between Nicholas Hilliard and the doctor's daughter. However, their journey from Halstead in northwest Kent to Brenchley near Tonbridge would not have required them to enter Sussex, or be near Mayfield. Nicholas Hilliard had carried a crossbow because the two men had agreed to kill any stray deer spotted on the way, yet he forcibly entered the park to hunt. There are contradictory accounts from Thomas Petley and the deer keeper about events following the wounding of the deer. Thomas Petley and Nicholas Hilliard claimed to have contacted the deer keeper immediately, as would have been within the code of gentlemanly behaviour, requesting him to put the deer out of its misery and to give them some venison from it, although the deer keeper said that contact was not made until the next day. In both accounts, the crossbow ended up in the deer keeper's custody, according to the deer keeper because he had found it hidden in the park and, according to Thomas Petley, because he had left it in the deer keeper's safe keeping it being too cumbersome to carry. Thomas Petley denied ever previously entering Hamsell(43) park, but the owner of Hamsell(43) park cited several occasions in the first ten days of October 1605 when Thomas Petley and Nicholas Hilliard had broken down the park paling and hunted deer for 'divers hours' at a time. Thomas Petley stated that on his outing with Nicholas Hilliard he carried only his rapier and dagger 'which he usually rideth withal, and no other weapons.' However, it transpired that the deer keeper already had in his custody two crossbows and a gun belonging to Thomas Petley, who said they were there by his 120 TNA STAC8/294/6, 1606, but the Petley case (STAC8/190/17) has wrongly been placed with this case. 262 'sufferance and assent', without explaining how so many of his weapons had ended up in the deer keeper's hands, especially when he had apparently never before been in the park or carried them with him on the outing with Nicholas Hilliard. Matters came to a head when Thomas Petley sent a party to break into Hamsell lodge because, according to his account, the deer keeper had not returned the crossbow or sent a 'piece of flesh' from the deer Nicholas Hilliard had wounded, as he had promised. All the weapons were retrieved and a bloodhound, whose ownership was disputed by Thomas Petley and the deer keeper, was taken. This deliberate act of bravado is an example of a practice adopted by gentlemen hunters in other parts of the country.121 Thomas Petley's story was clearly flawed, but there is insufficient documentation to be sure of his reason for targeting Hamsell(43) park so persistently in the opening fortnight of October 1605. However, there is a hint of grievance in his admission that he had asked the deer keeper for a deer on several occasions, 'but the said keeper never but once gave this defendant a deer.' His response to this perceived slight underlines the frustration of a gentleman reliant on others with parks to fulfil their urge to hunt and to acquire venison – the thrill of the chase here was tinged with the need to protest against exclusion from the privileged elite. There are instances of individuals or small groups of yeomen entering parks to take one deer, but without details it is impossible to know whether they were acting on their own initiative.122 One particularly enigmatic park break shows the limitation of official court records without the attendant depositions and illustrates the likely presence of gentlemen who remained in the background when lesser men were caught. Six separate entries in the Quarter Session records indicate that when two husbandmen were arrested in Lyminge(56) park while hunting with bloodhounds on 14 September 1602 with 'other wrongdoers', more influential men were drawn into court procedures, perhaps to avoid being implicated through confession.123 There are several unusual aspects in the brief Quarter Session records that followed the arrest. First, on 22 September 1602, the two husbandmen pleaded not guilty and had an attorney to defend them; second, at their next appearance at court on 11 January 1603, the jurors did not 121 Manning(1993:184). 122 Cockburn(197:121) AC35/15/6/878, 25/6/1573; CKS QM/SB/1598/252 (A p.28) 1/5/1598; CKS Q/SR2/13 m3d (C pp.71-72), 21/4/1601; CKS QM/SB/710 (A p.67) 2/10/1606.. 123 Knafla(1994:51) Q/SR3/287. 263 appear and a habeas corpus writ was issued to enforce their presence at the next Quarter Sessions of 19 July 1603. However, on 8 March 1603, by writ certiorari proceedings were stopped in the lower court and the whole case transferred to the Queen's bench.124 In the meantime, in early October 1602, a few weeks after the arrest of the two husbandmen, there were three court hearings in which they were bound over to keep the peace, with the surety of Thomas Holford esquire of London, towards George Hills, the probable owner of the bloodhounds, and towards Philip Eastland, the deer keeper at Lyming(56) park, who had helped arrest the men.125 The use of the binding over was typical of the period and enabled those in authority to control social behaviour in a way that was beneficial to the well being of the wider community.126 There is obviously a sub-text to all the court entries with influential backers providing legal help and sureties, and the implicit use of threats or bribery unduly to influence witnesses and jury. Gentlemen, such as Sir Alexander Culpepper, Richard Waller and John Styler, alongside others of differing social backgrounds, readily entered parks at night as well as by day.127 There are relatively few examples of violence, but it was usually at night that fights between trespassers and keepers occurred. No contemporary explanations for this violence have been found for Kent, but the tendency probably stemmed from the mindset of both sides. It is possible that deer keepers summoned up more determination to combat blatant park breaks, than to prevent low key poaching. There must be reason for Markham to have recommended that a deer keeper's lodge be built like a fort with windows at angles or with loopholes 'either to shoot, cast stones or scalding water' to prevent the deer keeper being cooped up by assaulting intruders, 'which is the practise of many subtile knaves', and, having kept them at bay, to 'despight their force' by issuing forth to 'defend himselfe and his charge against them.'128 This passage predicates the expectation of violence between unlawful hunters and deer keepers. Manning noted the mercilessness and lack of 124 Knafla(1994:51) Q/SR3/287-288. 125 Knafla(1994:111) QM/SM/21/804-805, p.253 QM/SRc/1592, p.127 QM/SI/1603/909, George Hills only two days before the Lyminge(56) park break, had entered Elham(30) park to course his bloodhounds. 126 Hindle(2000:103). 127 See Case Study B p.267-274 for Sir Alexander Culpepper, and C p.274-280 for the other gentlemen. 128 Markham(1616:669). 264 sympathy during confrontations between deer keepers and gentlemen park breakers, and attributed them to the brutalising influence of the hunting culture.129 In Kent most examples of violence stem from gentlemen-led groups reacting to possible arrest, and there are instances of excessive ferocity on both sides. Deer keepers were under tremendous pressure from intruders, and sometimes they and their deputies were outnumbered and powerless to enforce order, as Walter Double found at Penshurst(71) park in 1600.130 On other occasions the deer keepers were able to meet force with force, but occasionally, even though successfully quelling the opposition, they overreacted, as in Otford Great(62) park in 1586.131 Why groups containing gentlemen should be more prepared to use violence is unclear; perhaps they were less wary of or had less respect for deer keepers. Loss of reputation might have been at stake, although the consequences of arrest were no more severe than for lesser men, and in many ways less so because aristocrats and gentlemen were seldom brought before the Quarter Sessions or Assizes, but might instead face the protracted proceedings of the court of Star Chamber.132 Manning regarded poaching as 'the most violent of all forms of social protest other than armed rebellion,' and considered that gentlemen going into a magnate's park armed to the teeth 'apparently thought that knocking a gamekeeper over the head was half the fun.'133 Beaver, on the other hand, at least as regards conflict over Stowe park in the reign of Charles I, regarded scenes of violence to be 'carefully choreographed' with a controlled use of force.134 Avowed social protest of those who did not share the 'absolute and exclusive rights of private property' in the shape of parks and the 'wild' deer within them, or protest at a subliminal level, might well have played a part in violent behaviour, but one would have to know more about the individuals concerned 129 Manning(1993:191-192). 130 See Case Study D p.285-290. 131 TNA SP12/197/19 & 32, January 1586, see p.265 to follow. 132 CKS QM/SIq/4/29 & 30, one exception being the inquisitions into the activities of Sir Alexander Culpepper and his confederates, held on 7/12/1605, during the Quarter Sessions. 133 Manning(1988:298). 134 Beaver (2001:172). 265 before being certain of the degree of their disgruntlement, compared with the thrill of the hunt, the adrenalin of the risk, and the lure of the prize.135 Of four known fatalities in Kentish parks, three were the direct result of nighttime raids into parks led by gentlemen, and in each there was a conspicuous absence of controlled use of force.136 In two cases during confrontations with deer keepers, two unlawful hunters were killed, and in the third, two deer keepers coming to the aid of another, who had intercepted intruders in Knole(50) park in 1589, mistook each other as the intruders, attacking with such ferocity that one was cudgelled to death.137 At Otford Great(62) park, on 9 January 1586, a small group of unlawful hunters, armed only with staves, were overwhelmed by nine keepers, obviously expecting trouble and equipped to meet it, because they were wearing helmets and carried swords, bills and staves. In the uneven struggle, three intruders were beaten 'most cruelly and unmercifully', even when they were lying helpless on the ground, resulting in the death of one hunter and leaving another 'very sore hurt.'138 When faced with the armed keepers, it would seem unlikely that violent resistance as 'half the fun' of the hunt, as Manning put it, would have sprung into the victims' minds.139 The only evidence of the third fatality is an inquest, the verdict of which has been obliterated by damage to the document. Eight men, whose social status ranged from gentlemen, through yeoman to servant and husbandman, broke into Scot's Hall(77) park on 15 December 1597 and had killed two bucks and two does with greyhounds before being confronted by the deer keeper with two other men.140 In the ensuing fracas, the deer keeper, being wounded and hard pressed by the larger group, fatally pierced William Richards, gentleman from Baston, in the chest with a piked staff.141 Historians such as Manning and Beaver have noticed the practice of servants accompanying their masters on park breaks.142 According to Manning 'it was axiomatic 135 Manning(1988:4-5). 136 Cockburn(1995:116), AC35/15/1/647, the fourth fatality occurred on 15/9/1572 when Lord Abergavenny's servant hunting for food for hawks in Hungershall(47) park accidentally shot John Baker, a yeoman of Speldhurst, hiding in vegetation to escape detection. 137 Cockburn(1995:299) AC35/32/4/1806, 13/8/1589. 138 TNA SP12/197/19 & 32, January 1586. 139 Manning(1988:298). 140 Cockburn(1995:417-418) AC35/40/3/2545, 20/2/1598. 141 Manning(1988:298-299) mistakenly has the park breaker killing the deer keeper. 142 Manning(1993:178); Beaver(2008:47-51). 266 that servants who hunted unlawfully were spawned by disorderly aristocratic and gentry households,' and this does seem to be the case in the Waller household at Leigh and the Willoughby household at Bore Place.143 During the raid on Otford Great(62) park in 1586, three of Thomas Willoughby's servants, together with a servant of Mr Waldegrave of Hever, and another of Mr Waller of Leigh, were present. Thomas Willoughby's son and two of his servants obviously already knew Otford Great(62) park and positioned the smaller groups to take advantage of passing deer they flushed out with the greyhounds. As will be seen in the case study C for Penhurst(71) park, the Waller brothers of Leigh took their servants with them when they unlawfully entered Penshurst(71) park in the 1570s.144 Servants might also enter parks without their masters' consent or presence. They had the advantage of having access to their masters' dogs, horses and hunting equipment, which could be used with or without permission; they were able to learn hunting techniques from an elite household; and they could acquire inside information about various parks frequented by their masters. As the organisers of the Oxford rising found in 1596, servants gave 'ready points of entry into other communities.'145 Travelling on errands, taking messages and accompanying their masters' from household to household made it easier for servants to concoct excuses for moving about the countryside than would be the case for farm labourers or artisans. The name of servant Giles Couchman crops up in three disparate documents, and, if the same man, hints at the existence of servants employed because of their expertise in unlawful hunting. In 1584 Giles Couchman, then servant of gentleman, Charles Allen, was called to the court of Star Chamber to answer the charge of illegal hunting with greyhounds with his master and other Groombridge men in Waterdown forest.146 Shortly afterwards, Giles Couchman was briefly employed as an under keeper in Knole(50) park, where he failed to report a group of unlawful hunters he met carrying away a deer.147 Lastly, it was Giles Couchman, servant of Richard Waller of Leigh, himself heavily implicated in the 1570s incursions into Penshurst(71) park, who brought along one of his master's greyhounds for the Otford(62) park break in 1586.148 It 143 Manning(1993:178), with reference to 'The English Courtier and Countrey-gentleman' of 1586, in W.C. Hazlitt (ed.), Inedited Tracts (London, 1868) p.40. 144 See Case Study C p.274-280. 145 Walter(1985:105-106). 146 TNA STAC5/A1/8, 1584. 147 TNA SP12/197/19, 1597. 148 CKS U1475/L17. 267 appears highly probable that Giles Couchman moved from household to household to continue his dubious activities, sometimes in the knowledge of those who employed him. One wonders whether he came from the same Couchman family, mentioned in case study A helping in the distribution of venison and deerskins in the Cranbrook area, and in case study B involved in unlawful hunting with Sir Alexander Culpepper in Sissinghurst(79) park in the 1600s.149 Allegations against gentlemen who led covert hunting for their own pleasure and consumption often ended in court of Star Chamber suits, because the right to enjoy one's property without disruption and in privacy was important to park owners, and suits to uphold this are 'a powerful reminder that property was not merely a matter of material assets, but more fundamentally a matter of rights.'150 In this sense the idea of defending customary rights was not confined to the lower orders, but could be experienced by the upper strata of society. Park owners were determined to uphold their property rights against park violators from all spheres of life, who, in turn, felt they had the right to hunt without constraint. B: Case study – Sir Alexander Culpepper (1581-1629) Four court of Star Chamber suits were initiated against Sir Alexander Culpeppper of Bedgebury between 1604 and 1606 and, following each other so swiftly, appear to have been a concerted effort to prevent his undertaking further illegal hunting in Sissinghurst(79) park, the Ashdown forest and Hamsell(43) park.151 Sir Thomas Baker of Sissinghurst brought two suits, Sir Edward Coke, the attorney general, on behalf of the crown, brought another and Sir Thomas Waller of Groombridge yet another. Sir Alexander Culpepper's activities between about 1600 and 1604, when in his early twenties, will be dealt with broadly in chronological order of events. The motivation behind his reckless hunting is a matter of speculation, but possible indicators lie in his background. His father, Sir Anthony Culpepper, inherited the Bedgebury 149 See Case Study A pp.253-259 and Case Study B p.267-274. Chalklin(2010:5) Kent Records – New Series 5 part 1, Clothier William Couchman of Tonbridge d. 1568 had 7 sons, of which the sixth was Giles - Thomas, Richard, Gabriel, Edward, John, Giles and George. 150 Hindle(2000:80). 151 TNA STAC8/53/4, 1607; TNA STAC/53/5, 1604; TNA STAC8/5/13, c.1604; TNA STAC8/294/6, 1606. 268 estate in the Weald from his father, Sir Alexander Culpepper, at the turn of the seventeenth century. Both the father and grandfather of the younger Sir Alexander Culpepper were recusants, the older Sir Alexander Culpepper suffering imprisonment, very heavy fines, and years of banishment from Bedgebury for his beliefs.152 It would not therefore be surprising if his grandson had become disaffected with authority after the family experience. The family's capital had been eroded by recusancy fines and by the late 1590s part of Bedgebury(4) park had been rented out and the rest followed when Sir Anthony Culpepper inherited it. As a keen huntsman, Sir Alexander Culpepper resented the loss of the family park, as was implied in his justification for hunting in Hamsell(43) park because many of the Bedgebury deer had been transferred there.153 Deprived of the family park, Sir Alexander Culpepper availed himself of his neighbours' deer, particularly in Sissinghurst(79) park which was still well stocked and lay not far from Bedgebury, but even closer to Glassenbury, home of his father-in-law, Sir Walter Roberts. Sir Alexander Culpepper was certainly closely associated with members of the Roberts family in his hunting pursuits, and the social unrest in the Cranbrook area as evidenced in case study A meant that he was able to gather many willing accomplices around him over a number of years.154 As ringleader of the unlawful hunting, he gathered a large following of over 20, although he usually went out with smaller groups at any given time. This loose 'federation of convenience' encompassed a broad social spectrum of individuals with different agendas; gentlemen out for the thrill of the chase, clothiers resentful of the Baker family, apprentices and servants following their masters, labourers keen to find food for the table, butcher and inn keeper in a position to profit from the cutting up and distribution of the venison.155 While the composition of participants might vary for each incursion, there was strong overall group identity. The court cases revealed the close nature of this fraternity with its members remaining loyal to each other and not confessing when brought before the court of Star Chamber or the magistrates. Moreover, the potential weaker links, such as apprentices Alexander Weller junior and 152 Buckingham(1979:20-24); see Chapter Five p.147. 153 BL Cart.Harl.76.A.22, 1596; BL Cart.Harl.77.C.44, 1607. 154 See Case Study A p.253-259. 155 Hipkin(2000:23). 269 Richard Botten, disappeared from Cranbrook before being brought to trial at the Quarter Sessions.156 The records are silent about what happened to the numerous deer that Sir Alexander Culpepper and his fellow huntsmen killed, but the presence of Francis Hampton, a butcher, indicates that suitable premises were on hand to cut up deer professionally, while the alehouse of Anthony Lake would have provided a convenient venue for the distribution of venison, because little suspicion would be aroused by various comings and goings. How deeply involved Sir Alexander Culpepper was with this putative network for the disposal of deer is unknown, because no one was questioned on this aspect of activities. In the first suit, Sir Alexander Culpepper, sometimes accompanied by other gentlemen, was charged with leading at least seven hunting expeditions into Sissinghurst(79) park between October 1601 and March 1603 during which many deer were killed and wounded.157 These night raids were typical of covert hunting by gentlemen in which up to a dozen men at a time participated. On their first forcible entry into the park on 24 October 1601, they faced up to four deer keepers, whom they 'grievously beat and wounded.' Although the high-profile huntsmen were not at that stage apprehended, the deer keepers either knew or discovered some of the intruders and, in the early hours of the morning, burst into the room where two apprentices of the clothier, John Weller, perhaps the same John Weller who had secured Peter Maye's escape, were still in bed. Although both young men, Alexander Weller junior and Richard Botten, denied any wrongdoing, within two days they were questioned by the magistrate, and later appeared in court to be bound over with recognizances of £20 each to answer the charge of hunting at night in Sissinghurst(79) park.158 In this instance it has been possible to match up apparently unrelated Quarter Session depositions with the court of Star Chamber suit to show that, rather than the apprentices participating in lowkey crime, which might have been supposed from the Quarter Session indictment, they were in fact acting with a wider, more organised group of disaffected local people.159 Had they been acting on their own in Sissinghurst(79) park, it is unlikely that the 156 Manning(1993:160). 157 TNA STAC8/53/5, 1604. 158 CKS QM/SB 387. 159 TNA STAC8/53/5, 1604. 270 recognizances would have been set so high or that they would have been found. In addition, perhaps lest they implicate more important people, not surprisingly they failed to appear for their trial at Maidstone Quarter Sessions of 13 April 1602, when their recognizances were forfeited.160 Undeterred by the arrest of the apprentices, Sir Alexander Culpepper and the others continued to hunt unlawfully in the park over the next ten days, culminating in two does being killed and carried away on the night of 2 November 1601 after 12 men had broken into the park and hunted and chased deer with seven greyhounds. The incursions continued into James I's reign, until eventually in October 1604 Sir Thomas Baker took Sir Alexander Culpepper, Richard Roberts, Walter Roberts and 20 other named men, including three with the familiar surname of Couchman, to the court of Star Chamber. Unfortunately for Sir Thomas Baker, Sir Alexander Culpepper and Walter Roberts evoked the King's personal free pardon granted to them on 27 June 1604 to justify not answering any questions relating to wrongdoings in Elizabeth I's reign or up to the date of the pardon.161 The court of Star Chamber suit was therefore dropped. However, the Quarter Session records show that, although unable to pursue court proceedings against the leaders, belatedly in September 1604, nearly four years after the Sissinghurst(79) park breaks, four Cranbrook men named in the suit were indicted for taking part in the violent raid of 24 October 1601 and in the illegal hunting of 2 November 1601, but there are no subsequent records to show the outcome.162 The incident which provoked Sir Thomas Baker's first suit, occurred early in June 1604, when typically for daylight park breaks by gentlemen, Sir Alexander Culpepper was accompanied only by his kinsman, Walter Roberts, and two others, his father's servant and Thomas Couchman. Significantly, Sir Alexander Culpepper refused to answer any questions about the more serious earlier night time raids into Sissinghurst(79) park, which would endanger the fraternity if he divulged any information. He justified the June 1604 incursion with a barely plausible, but typical excuse given by gentlemen who entered parks by day. He claimed that the four, having failed to track one of his father-in-law's stray deer from Glassenbury(37) park, were 160 CKS QM/SRc/1602/197; Knafla(1994:89) no.580. 161 See p.249. 162 CKS QM/SR1[Q/SR5]16 m2 (C p.204). 271 returning home past Sissinghurst(79) park when his greyhounds scented a deer and 'without any instigation or knowledge of him' broke away and ran into the park killing a deer there, which he found and took away. Here he adopted a common ploy of blaming his dog, but failed to explain why he had appropriated the deer without seeking out the deer keeper to report its death. Thomas Couchman helped him remove the deer, because his father's servant, with some strength of character in view of his subservient position, had refused to do so.163 It might have been this incident that led Sir Alexander Culpepper and Walter Roberts to obtain free personal pardons from James I dated 27 June 1604, exempting them from punishment for this and all previous unlawful hunting, although why James I would have signed the pardons for illegal huntsmen is open to speculation. Sir Thomas Baker still opened court of Star Chamber proceedings, perhaps there being a time lapse in the completion of the legal documents conveying the pardon. After his first experience of the court of Star Chamber, Sir Alexander Culpepper diverted his attention from Sissinghurst(79) park to find a softer target, namely Ashdown Forest in Sussex, where both red and fallow deer roamed. This royal forest of nearly 14000 acres was difficult to control, especially as the pale was in a very poor state of repair.164 In November and December 1604 he illegally hunted in the forest accompanied by two Sussex gentlemen, Thomas Stillion of Mayfield and Lewes Monnoxe of Waldron, both likely to be familiar with the neighbourhood as residents of parishes adjoining the forest. On at least three occasions within a month eight to ten other men accompanied the three gentlemen on hunting sprees in the forest, killing a total of 14 red and fallow deer.165 This time the attorney general submitted a bill of complaint, but that is the only extant document for the suit. A year later Sir Alexander Culpepper concentrated on hunting in Hamsell(43) park, near Mayfield, entering 'divers and sundry times' in the company of Thomas Stillion who, according to Sir Thomas Waller, the owner of the park, 'hath long been a great and common hunter of deer.'166 Sir Thomas Waller also suspected that the men had hunted in his home park of Groombridge(40), and took them before the court of 163 Manning(1993:185). 164 Smith Ellis(1885:16) on 3/3/1605 Thomas Sackville, earl of Dorset, obtained permission to fell timber to repair the pales in order to preserve the game in which the King delighted. 165 TNA STAC8/5/13, c.1604. 166 TNA STAC8/294/6, 1606. 272 Star Chamber to urge punishment as a deterrent to 'other evil disposed persons' who would otherwise be encouraged and emboldened to follow their example. Once again the defendants remained silent about more serious charges, admitting only to a lesser one. Thomas Stillion said he had only once entered Hamsell(43) park with Sir Alexander Culpepper when one of their dogs had caught a fawn which subsequently escaped, and claimed that Sir Alexander Culpepper's justification for hunting without the deer keeper's permission had been because 'his father not very long since gave .... many deer for the storing of the said park.'167 This remark reflects Sir Alexander Culpepper's keen feeling over the loss of deer from Bedgebury(4) park and his underlying attitude that he almost had a right to hunt deer not only here, but wherever they were to be found. Sir Thomas Baker instigated the fourth court of Star Chamber suit after Sir Alexander Culpepper reverted his attention to Sissinghurst(79) park, with matters reaching a climax on the night of 16 November 1605168 This park break differed from previous ones in that no attempt was made at stealth, the maximum damage was inflicted, and buck stalls, or nets to entrap deer, were employed. Thus undertones of symbolic, brazen protest were coupled with possibly criminality, although the circumstances triggering this particular incursion are unknown. On the evening in question, Sir Alexander Culpepper met Richard Roberts, gentleman, and local men including eight clothiers, a hatter and a labourer in Thomas Lake's alehouse. From this assorted crowd, Sir Thomas Baker singled out a hardcore of five, headed by Sir Alexander Culpepper, as being 'common night walkers, deer stealers and hunters in parks and chases,' with the others aiding and abetting them. The presence among the unlawful hunters of a significant number of clothiers, including members of the prominent Courthop, Love and Couchman clothing families, might merely reflect the make-up of the local society or the desire to hunt for its own sake; on the other hand it is possible that the continuing undercurrent of grievances against the Baker family found expression in park breaks, which lesser men were emboldened to undertake with Sir Alexander Culpepper at their head.169 Individuals, normally divided 167 TNA STAC8/294/6, 1606. 168 TNA STAC8/53/4, 1607. 169 Zell(1994:205). 273 socially and culturally, were prepared to band together for convenience to achieve their own varied purposes, and conventional barriers were lowered as they drunk 'great and excessive quantities of beer' until eleven o'clock.170 Whether the fraternity became careless through drink, had become overconfident, or planned the raid as overt protest against Sir Thomas Baker or his deer keepers, they moved off noisily towards the park almost two miles away. Once there with greyhounds, buck stalls and crossbows they killed two does, and wounded and chased many deer out of the park. The wanton wounding and dispersal of the deer, if not exaggerated by Sir Thomas Baker as a strategy to embellish his case, can be construed as a gesture of protest in that it was untypical of the honourable conduct of a hunt.171 Lastly, the use of buck stalls, with the potential to entrap several deer at a time on a commercial scale, is indicative that some of the huntsmen were motivated by profit rather than sport, although there is no evidence to show whether Sir Alexander Culpepper had become embroiled in this side of activities. Those loyal to Sir Thomas Baker, not daring to tackle the hunting fraternity directly, reported events to him and, using his position as high sheriff of Kent, having summoned his servants, he led them to arrest the park breakers in the early hours of 17 November 1605. During the search, three of Sir Thomas Baker's servants came across Sir Alexander Culpepper, Richard Roberts and three others in a wood alongside the park and in the ensuing struggle the servants were wounded. Two inquisitions were held at the Quarter Sessions on 7 December 1605 concerning the unlawful hunting and the failure of the five men to 'yield their bodies,' before proceedings were initiated in the court of Star Chamber.172 The clash between the 'patriarchal' culture of Sissinghurst manor, headed by Sir Thomas Baker, and the culture of the unlawful hunters, meeting and plotting in the alehouse, was very apparent on the night of the 16/17 November 1605.173 There were those in the community who disapproved of disorder and were prepared to report back to Sir Thomas Baker, even though their attitude might be at odds with their fellow parishioners. 170 Reay(1998:218). 171 Hindle(2000:82). 172 QM/SIq/4/29 & 4/30. 173 Thompson(1991:22). 274 It is difficult to interpret Sir Alexander Culpepper's full role within this diverse group, but it seems unlikely that he was merely a youthful gentleman hunter indulging in unlawful hunting just for sport. James I's pardon of June 1604 was dependent on good behaviour, but Sir Alexander Culpepper continued his unlawful hunting in as headstrong a manner as before. He might have been driven by the passion to hunt, but his actions might equally have stemmed from disaffection and protest against authority, or from frustration following the loss of his family's park. His partnership with members of the local community was mutually beneficial in providing him with ready recruits, while enabling the harassment of the Baker family, so apparent in the later reign of Elizabeth I, to continue.174 Whether Sir Alexander Culpepper himself financially profited from the deer taken remains unproven, but the inclusion of the butcher, the alehouse keeper and the buck stall owners indicates that some, at least, were in a position to profit from his activities. Although the four suits were never completed in the court of Star Chamber, the three still pending together with the direct confrontation with Sir Thomas Baker's servants in the early hours of 17 November 1605 might have been enough to rein in Sir Alexander Culpepper, because no records about further disorderly behaviour by him have been found. C: Case study - Penshurst(71) park in the early 1570s Unique in Kent, because of their completeness, are the papers relating to an arbitration by mutual agreement following numerous incursions into Penshurst(71) park in the 20 months between January 1572 and September 1573, with violations against Otford(62) and North Frith(89-91) parks also admitted.175 The De L'Isle and Dudley papers include the agreement to go to arbitration, 26 examinations (of which two have been lost through damage to the document), and the arbiters' final judgement and penalties. The documents are similar in style to those that would have been prepared for a court of Star Chamber suit, but no corresponding suit has been found in that court's records, so the complaint was entirely settled out of court. From the depositions it is possible to re-create the dynamic of unlawful behaviour in Penshurst(71) park where 174 See Case Study A p.252-258. 175 CKS U1475/L17. 275 more than 30 men were involved, to a greater or lesser extent, and at least 27 deer were taken.176 The park breaks were condoned by four corrupt under keepers, and began with disparate incursions by lesser men, which escalated in scale when gentlemen hunters took over. At Sissinghurst(79) the deer keepers remained loyal, while unrest in the community intruded into the park, but at Penshurst(61) where there is no indication of popular unrest, the under keepers succumbed to pressure. Their initial reluctance to enforce order might have been brought about by the wish to remain on good terms with those outside the pale. Like constables they would lay themselves open to 'scorn, derision and assault' from below if they stood firm, but there was also pressure from above to perform their duties diligently.177 These under keepers were torn between loyalty towards the owner, care for their animals, and the bribes and threats of those wishing to take a share of the game. Temptation proved too strong for them. The vulnerability of Penshurst(61) park lay not in the unpopularity of its owner, Sir Henry Sidney, but in his long absences from 1566 to 1571 as deputy in Ireland, and from 1571 to 1575 as President of the Council in the Marches of Wales.178 Although his head deer keeper, John Smith, remained loyal, the collusion of four under keepers, his brother, Henry Smith, Edward Cole, John Crippes, and Raffe Terry(26) was patent. The depositions show that they waited until John Smith was off-duty or away, because otherwise they 'durst not enter in because Smith the head keeper was then abroad in the park.'179 However, when he was absent and they were on duty they let in and accompanied unlawful hunters on numerous occasions.180 Three of the under keepers gave no reason for their disloyalty, and no deposition survives for the fourth, Edward Cole. At first they appear to have been persuaded to let friends in as a favour; occasionally they received a share of the venison, but monetary inducements eventually proved most alluring. When the servant of the lord mayor of 176 See Figure 8.2 'Illegal activities in Penshurst park, 1572-1573' p.276; Herrup(1984:829). 177 Hindle(2000:183). 178 MacCaffrey, Sir Henry Sidney (1529-1586) (http://oxforddnb.com/articles/25/25520). 179 CKS U1475/L17, Peter Woodgate's deposition. 180 See Figure 8.2 'Illegal activities in Penshurst park, 1572-1573' p.276. 276 Figure 8.2 - Illegal Activities in Penshurst Park, 1572-1573 Compiled from CKS U1475/L17 A B C D E F G H I K L M O P Q R S T U V W P.Woodgate # T.Woodgate # Selyard # Baker # Boucher # # Beche # H.Smith > > > > > > > > > > Crippes > > > > > R.Waller # # # # # # # # J.Styler # # # # # # # # # # # N.Styler # # # # # # # # # Browne # # # # Gregory # # # # Bowman # # # # # # # Stace # # # # Bishop # # # # # Hastlin # # # A.Willard # # # E.Willard # # # # Willoughby # Nuteley # # Terry > > > > > > Cole > > > > > > John # Wyman # # Lily # > keepers # hunters 277 London, John Rivers of Chafford, a neighbour of the Sidneys, received ten shillings for riding to London to deliver his master a poached buck, he gave two shillings to Raffe Terry. Whether the lord mayor knew the deer's provenance remains unanswered. The hunters paid the under keepers 2s 6d or three shillings as a group for one course with greyhounds. John Styler, a gentleman from Leigh, involved in the later hunting, enticed Henry Smith and John Crippes with bribes totalling 26s 8d. However, Edward Cole aimed at higher rewards. On two occasions he killed deer himself, and his disposal of nine deer also leads to the suspicion that he was supplying venison for profit. In the later phase of unlawful hunting, when gentlemen dominated the activity, inducements turned to threats as the under keepers were drawn in deeper than they wished, although there were limits to their compliance. Three under keepers 'would not suffer' John Styler and his brother-in-law, Richard Waller, to use deer stalls or nets to catch prey in September 1573, so there was no hunting that day. However, under keeper, Edward Cole, allegedly would not have been so scrupulous, because John Styler said his group would return when he was in charge.181 Another refusal came when John Styler pressed Henry Smith over a tame red deer kept in the field of oats in the park, which Henry Smith 'would not for twenty nobles consent to the killing or spoiling of the same deer.'182 However, in the absence of under keepers, John Styler ordered his servant to kill the deer with a crossbow. Unlawful hunting began early in 1572 when a group of three clothiers from Chiddingstone and, later, a group of five labourers from Hadlow entered the park at night with dogs borrowed for coursing. Each group brought down a fawn, which was shared between members of the group and the under keepers present. After this modest beginning, unlawful hunting escalated when gentlemen, namely Richard Waller and his brother-in-law, John Styler, both of Leigh, the parish adjacent to Penshurst, became involved. With their inclusion the pressure, intensity and number of park breaks increased. John Styler listed 18 men who had occasionally joined their party, the group usually consisting of four to six at any given time. Three of the Hadlow men involved in the initial low-key coursing sometimes came, as did four of 181 CKS U1475/L17, Henry Smith's deposition. 182 Ibid; noble = coin first issued 1351, worth half a mark or 6s 8d. 278 John Styler's and Richard Waller's servants, and, occasionally, two of Sir Walter Waller's servants from Groombridge Place, maybe indicating kinship between the Wallers of Leigh and of Groombridge. Thus, the hunters, ranging from gentlemen and neighbours of Sir Henry Sidney, through yeomen, clothiers, carpenter, husbandmen and servants, represented a broad spectrum of society forming a remarkable network, even on an ad hoc basis. Suitable weather conditions, phases of the moon, the absence of the head deer keeper, and the availability of the corrupt under keepers were among the factors affecting the timing of park violations, but there were preordained meeting places where individuals assembled either to await the under keeper or, having gathered, to make their way to the park pale to be met there. As has been seen with the refusal of the use of deer nets, the under keepers exercised some restraint including the number and time of year the deer were killed. As John Styler(11) testified they 'never had above one deer at a time and sometimes went without any deer, but 'the several times certain he can not call to memory.'183 Additionally, no doe or buck was taken out of their particular season.184 Of the 27 deer killed, ten were taken at night, one in the morning, while no time was given for the rest. The crossbow was the weapon of choice, bringing down nine deer, either after stalking on foot or on horseback. Otherwise, hunting with greyhounds, even at night, was enjoyed on at least seven occasions. John Styler sometimes enjoyed hunting for sport, but he also seems to have been profit-orientated. His desire to use deer nets to catch a greater number of deer and his order to kill the tame red deer were not the acts of a gentleman covert hunter. The killing of the tame red deer was pre-planned, because its carcass was quickly disposed of, one half being taken to Sir Walter Waller's house at Groombridge, and the other to Mr. Peckham's house at Yaldham, both some distance away. John Styler admitted to entering the park about a dozen times, and he and Richard Waller took 14 deer back to their homes to cut up and distribute, far more venison than they could possibly have immediately consumed. They might have been supplying the black market, although it 183 CKS U1475/L17, John Styler's deposition. 184 See Chapter Three p.88 for seasons; 8 teg = female deer in 2nd year, 5 fawn, 5 buck, 2 pricket = male deer in 2nd year, 2 female pricket, 2 sore = buck in 4th year, 2 doe and 1 tame red deer. 279 is possible that they bestowed largesse venison upon family and friends at the expense of Sir Henry Sidney. It is unclear how the spate of unlawful hunts came to light, but Henry Smith confessed that his brother, John Smith, the head deer keeper, had become suspicious about his frequent hanging around the park in early September 1573, and after that he had tried to withhold further cooperation with the park breakers. The under keepers feared that, with hunting out of control, the depleted herd would be noticed, especially when the inspection of the deer was due later in the month. They were proved correct because during the view of the deer, a dead buck was found with crossbow arrow in its haunch. Perhaps members of staff were then questioned and Henry Smith in particular confessed. His deposition is the fullest and most contrite about his role in the unlawful entries and how it affected his relationship with his brother. The settlement process followed with impressive speed. Raffe Bosville and Thomas Lovelace, justices of the peace, examined 26 deponents on 28 February, 1 and 2 March 1574. On 6 March the unlawful huntsmen agreed to abide by independent arbitration, and the arbitration award itself was drawn up on 20 March - so within a month the whole affair was settled, in contrast to the long-drawn out and expensive process of taking it to the court of Star Chamber or prosecuting through the county courts.185 John Styler(11) was fined £50, as a procurer of others, and Richard Waller £40 to recompense Sir Henry Sidney for the loss of deer and damage to his park. They were also required to seal and deliver a bounden condition with £40 before 1 May 1574 that they would not:- hunt, course, hawk, fish or fowl or by any other means willingly destroy, kill any deer, conies or take any partridges, pheasants, fish or fowl in any park, grounds, waters or ponds of Sir Henry, forests, parks, chases, waters and grounds whatsoever or in same of Thomas Willoughby without licence or lawful authority. 186 The remaining culprits, except Thomas Woodgate, Kellame Willoughby and the corrupt under keeper Edward Cole, were fined lesser amounts balancing their ability to pay with the number and nature of the offences. The under keepers, Henry Smith, John Crippes 185 CKS U1475/E31; CKS U1475/E42/1. 186 Perhaps to prevent reprisals against Thomas Willoughby's deer park at Bore Place(9). 280 and Raffe Terry and ten others had to pay between £5 and £6 each. Five were given fines of between £3 and £4, while two of the initial hunters, who were labourers, paid 40 shillings each for trespass. A total of 20 marks from these individuals had to be paid by 1 May along with similar signed condition as required from the gentlemen.187 Raffe Terry had already left the employ of the Sidney family when the unlawful hunting was discovered and was working in Sussex, but in later years other members of the Terry family were trusted by the Sidney family to act as deer keepers, so Raffe Terry's lapses were not held against them. What happened to John Crippes and Henry Smith has not been recorded, but perhaps Henry Smith from Penshurst(71) park was later the deer keeper at Knole(50) park, who on 13 August 1589 was accidentally killed by fellow deer keeper and possible kinsman, Edmund Smith, when, in the dark, each mistook the other as unlawful hunters.188 No deposition survives for Edward Cole, who had handled more deer than any of the others, but it might have been one of the two missing. His omission from the award would lead to the conclusion that he had absconded and or was dead, but in view of his conduct the former seems more likely. The weakness of these under keepers had led to uncontrollable and unsustainable unlawful hunting and deer taking, but in the end, with the view of the deer, the loss of deer was discovered. (c) High profile, brazen park violations High profile park breaks display different characteristics from the other strands. Manning has termed them 'theatrical poaching' which might include ambush between feuding parties, blatant raids at night (though sometimes in disguise to prevent identification), parading in military style, and vaunting and boasting publicly about exploits afterwards.189 Some raids into parks were of a vindictive nature during which deer were killed not just for sport or venison, but in such numbers and with such disturbance as to wreak havoc on the herd, as the attorney general, Sir Francis Bacon, observed in 1615.190 As with covert hunting by gentlemen, but more common in this strand, sworn secrecy between members of the hunt meant that when participants were questioned during court proceedings, they either refused to answer, demurred or denied 187 Mark = weight of gold, usually eight ounces. 188 Cockburn(1995:299) AC35/32/4/1806, 13/8/1589; see p.263. 189 Manning(1993:47). 190 Ibid. p.210, referring to Calendar of State Papers Spanish, 1568-1579, pp.179-180. 281 whatever accusations were made against them.191 Manning sees this type of illegal hunting as a symbolic substitute for war, during relative peaceful times within the country.192 Beaver has also researched this type of park violation and takes an even broader cultural approach by asserting that the pervading lure of the hunt, legal and illegal, lay in the power of its ritualised killing to constitute gentility and honour.193 Thus headstrong well-to-do individuals would defy the restrictions on hunting in forests, chases and parks in order to demonstrate their gentility and as marked protest against exclusion from the restricted circle of park owners and those with the legal right to hunt. Sustained 'theatrical poaching' has not been found in Kent where there were no violent aristocratic feuds or vast areas of forest and chase in which user rights were disputed, both prerequisites for the very dramatic and sustained 'theatrical poaching' which Beaver and Manning have vividly portrayed.194 However, there were five park violations in Kent which illustrate some of the characteristics identified by Manning, and which were apparently triggered by a particular grievance within a local context, although sparse documentation means that the cause is not easily, if at all, identified.195 The language in the documents submitted to the court of Star Chamber for these suits differs from those related in the covert hunting by day or by night in that it contains words such as 'havoc', 'spite and malice' and 'spoil' to convey unnecessary wanton death and wounding of deer and deliberate damage to the park structures; and words such as 'vaunting', 'boasting' or 'scoffing' to show that the misdemeanours were openly discussed after the event. A mass daylight protest in Canterbury(18) park in May 1609 differed from the other four examples in this strand of park violation in that it was not gentlemen-led, which suggests a different dynamic. It might well be that in this case Canterbury(18) park became a convenient focus for the venting of other grievances, rather than rising from resentment specific to the park. This is indicated by the crowd gathering within 191 Manning(1993:184). 192 Ibid. p.39, citing W. Burkert, Homo Necans: The anthropology of Ancient Greek Sacrificial Ritual and Myth trans. P Bing (California, 1983) p.47. 193 Beaver(2008:10-11). 194 Beaver(2008) Stowe, Waltham forest, Windsor forest, Course Lawn chase; Manning(1993:136-142) Berkeley v. Dudley. 195 Manning(1988:310). 282 the city of Canterbury itself 'under color of playeing at footeball or other such unlawfull game or exercise', before being led en masse by a brewer to Canterbury(18) park.196 Once at the park the populace indulged in a destructive frenzy against pale and deer, which they did 'very much disquiet.'197 The bill of complaint submitted by the attorneygeneral on behalf of the crown, which no longer owned the park, suggests that there were wider implications to this disorder than have yet come to light.198 At East Wickham(29) and Cooling(24) parks, hunters openly boasting and glorifying park breaks of a vindictive nature point towards these incursions being highprofile. As sworn secrecy prevailed among the hunters the grievances being aired cannot be reconstructed. The incidents in both parks are poorly documented with only the bills of complaint and demurrers for court of Star Chamber suits being found, so it would appear that proceedings foundered. East Wickham(29), near the royal parks at Eltham(31-33) was newly imparked by the Leigh family in 1610, so anti-enclosure protest cannot be ruled out, but a personal dispute between park owner, Sir Francis Leigh, and the two gentlemen unlawful hunters seems more likely. Trouble occurred in the summer of 1615 when two gentlemen, Francis Goodyer of Newgate Street, Hertford, and Lambert Cook of North Cray, a settlement not far from East Wickham, with others unlawfully hunted and killed deer in the park, and afterwards 'vaunted and boasted of their own misdemeanours aforesaid and glorying in their unlawful and riotous courses in the presence of credible persons.'199 Then on 3 August 1615 the same two gentlemen hunted and killed an unusual 'fair large bald and crop eared buck of especial note', reserved for James I to hunt, and afterwards confronted Sir Francis Leigh and 'did many times in scorning manner scoff at your said subject for the loss of the said bald buck.'200 Bearing in mind the caveats about exaggeration in plaintiffs' petitions, Sir Francis Leigh had reason to believe the killing of the special buck to be a deliberate insult not only to himself, but also to the king, and it seems that targeting the buck might well have been a symbolic act of defiance. 196 TNA STAC8/16/2, 1609. 197 TNA STAC8/16/2, 1609; see also p.65. 198 Barnes(1978:9) between 1596-1641 only 52 out of 600 cases initiated by the attorney-general in the court of Star Chamber were definitely 'pro Rege', in furtherance of the greater interests of the crown. 199 TNA STAC8/198/18, 1617. 200 Ibid. 283 At Cooling(24) park, again no obvious reason for the protest can be surmised, but men, of unknown status, in February 1615 'out of spite and malice' brought in two greyhounds to hunt deer.201 This was the time of year when deer's stamina was low and the shock and general disturbance 'made havoc' of the herd, with deer 'spoiled destroyed and many killed and dead.' There was no attempt to avoid detection because tracks were obvious in the heavy snowfall, and, with the venison secured, it was not eaten in private, but in company with hearty enjoyment and relish at home or in alehouses, inns and other places, 'among their friends, associates and consorts braving and rejoicing thereat and greatly vaunting of their stolen venison.'202 The military style parade was the distinguishing feature of the violation of Shurland(78) park in 1605.203 This court of Star Chamber case is better documented than the previous three suits in this strand, and, reading between the lines, the unlawful entries into the park arose out of a change of ownership and land management, which did not suit the protesters. Prior to 1605, the royal park at Shurland(78) had been tenanted by Sir Edward Hoby, who put in sub-tenants, including Walter Tailor, gentleman, to farm the park which probably contained few or no deer at the time.204 Sir Edward Hoby's tenancy was terminated when James I came to the throne because he was £500 in arrears of rent, as one who, though 'blessed with wealth, had little acumen to preserve it.' 205 James I then, on 1 February 1605, transferred ownership from the crown to his early favourite, Philip Herbert, earl of Montgomery, who, although only 20, had caught his eye because his 'chiefe delight was in hunting and hawking, both of which he had the greatest perfection of any peer in the realm.'206 201 TNA STAC8/23/11, 1620. 202 Ibid. 203 TNA STAC8/183/34, 1605. 204 TNA E178/3925, January 1605, 300 acres of Shurland park were valued at 8 shillings an acre compared with valuations elsewhere on Sheppey of between 4s 6d to 8s 6d for arable and pasture land, and 8s 6d to 9s for marshland. Although the type of land use is not specified in the park, its high valuation indicates that it was being farmed. 205 Knafla, Edward Hoby(1560-1617)(http://www.oxforddnb.com/articles13/13410) who wrongly locates Shurland as being in Derbyshire; Cave-Browne (1898:92). 206 Smith, Philip Herbert (1584-1650)(http://www.oxforddnb.com/articles13/13042) citing John Aubrey, Brief Lives, p.304. 284 The new royal tenant was keen to create a hunting ground well stocked with deer and game extending over both the park and the demesne not only for himself, but also for the king and his guests to enjoy.207 The reversion of farmland to parkland upset local people and trouble flared up within a fortnight of James I's grant to the earl. In order to reinstate the deer park, the earl of Montgomery had terminated the subtenancies, no doubt resulting in their financial loss, and he inconvenienced others by restricting access across the park, which William Auger, for example, had used 'divers times alone and sometimes in the corporation of others' to reach his business.208 According to the bill of complaint, those most closely affected by the change of management orchestrated the protest under the leadership of Walter Tailor. Although the bill of complaint might well have exaggerated the outrages, it is significant that the wording was implicit of protest in contrast to the bills of complaint for Sir Alexander Culpepper, for example. It was alleged that several men had removed part of the paling around the park and in the demesne, and had hunted over the land. Finally, on 11 September 1605 about ten men armed and arrayed 'marched up and down the said park until they found the whole herd of deer.' They then let loose their dogs and killed several deer and 'having taken their full pleasure' marched from the park into the demesne land nearby where they killed a mature buck and other deer as well as taking pheasants and partridges.209 Sir Philip Herbert, earl of Montgomery, took the matter to the court of Star Chamber where the answers of the defendants displayed a wide discrepancy between allegation and counterclaim usual in such a suit. The accused claimed that, while Sir Edward Hoby was the crown tenant, they had been contracted to remove 20 rods of old paling lying in the middle of the park.210 They all denied hunting, and no further documents were submitted to the court of Star Chamber, so the suit might well have been dropped. It was easier to gain access to parks, however well paled or guarded, than any other asset belonging to an aristocrat, knight or gentleman, and so they were vulnerable to attacks which challenged park owners' power and prestige. Given the high status of 207 TNA STAC8/183/34, 1605, bill of complaint. 208 TNA STAC8/183/34, Auger's answers; CPR 1/7/1580, p.180 no.1457, perhaps the William Auger, who in 1580 had been granted a 21-year lease by Elizabeth I to convert part of Shurland house into rented lodgings for local armed men to defend the Isle of Sheppey. 209 TNA STAC8/183/34, 1605, bill of complaint. 210 TNA STAC8/183/34, 1605, answers of Smith, Old, Griffin and Auger. 285 parks, brazen park incursions were potent symbols of protest, which undermined the honour of park owners. Although these examples of high profile hunting, together with that which occurred in Penshurst(71) highlighted in case study D, were limited in scope and duration, they threatened the status of the park owners, who acted speedily against the perpetrators. D: Case study – Penshurst(71) park, May 1600 At Penshurst(71) park during the nights of 13/14 and 17/18 May 1600, in Whitsun week, two intimidatory park breaks exhibited malicious and symbolic characteristics which set them apart from other instances of park violations. The park breaks were planned publicly to humiliate the owner of the park, Sir Robert Sidney, and his deer keeper, Walter Double, apparently in retaliation for the dismissal of Richard Polhill from his post as deer keeper of the park, after which threats had been made 'that neither Double nor John Terry nor any other should keep the same park in quiet until Richard Polhill was placed there again.'211 Events were as follows. On the night of Tuesday 13 May a group of 16 or more men forced their way into Penshurst(71) park, where they hunted a doe. When this escaped from the park they pursued it down a lane and, having killed it, struck off its head and put it on a pole on Ensfield Bridge, south of Leigh, smearing its blood around as they went. This valuable beast was deliberately wasted as a mark of contempt to its owner. Manning and Beaver stress the potent symbolism attached to the slaughter of deer with the daubing of the hunters with its blood in the 'blooding' ceremony as ritualised conveying of honour, especially when performed by the monarch.212 The ritualised symbolic insults at Penshurst showed disdain and lack of respect at the conventions of the hunt, with blood being smeared on inanimate objects, and the doe's head placed on a prominent landmark for passers by to see. Thompson associated the 'growing' symbolism of blood with revolt in the nineteenth century, but this Penshurst example would give it a much longer history.213 211 TNA STAC5/S74/15, Wilkins deposition; CKS U1475/L18/17, Wilkins interrogatories. 212 See Chapter Seven p.189; Beaver(2008:12); Manning(1993:40-41) cites earlier examples from 1273 and 1531. 213 Thompson(1971:135). 286 On the night of Saturday 17 May the unlawful hunters entered the park again, this time to be waylaid by the park keeper, Walter Double, and requested to leave. His courageous approach, when he was alone and vastly outnumbered, illustrates the loyalty of some deer keepers in the face of heavy odds. The unlawful hunters' response was to grab him, bind him hand and foot, and muffle him with his own cloak. He was guarded 'until the rest had taken their pleasure,' boasting on their return that they had killed five deer - a buck, a pollard sore, a pricket and two does carrying fawns.214 The hunters were particularly vindictive because in May does were heavily pregnant and likely to abort their fawns in the general alarm and fright. To inflict maximum loss the intruders went on to drive deer out of the park through a gate, which they had forced open, and through gaps they had made in the paling. There was no element of sportsmanship in the trespassers' actions, rather they were attempting to threaten the viability of the park by wreaking maximum damage on the deer herd and the park boundary. At the departure of the unlawful hunters, Walter Double, was singled out for especially humiliating treatment, which was unusual and underlines the shaming element of the protest action.215 With hands bound and cloak over his head, he was placed behind one rider, who rode three miles to Southborough, west of Tunbridge Wells, where he was pinned into the stocks for the rest of the night until kindly people released him.216 The use of the stocks, an official instrument of punishment, adds to the symbolism of this park incursion, and might represent punishment for Walter Double himself, or a further gesture of calculated contempt and defiance at Sir Robert Sidney's authority. In the absence of evidence about whether Walter Double played any part in Richard Polhill's dismissal only conjecture remains. Although Sir Robert Sidney was abroad, those acting on his behalf moved swiftly against the unlawful hunters. On Monday 19 May 1600, as soon as Walter Double had recovered, he bravely rode to confront the suspects at their base at Bayhall, one mile south of Pembury, but discovered nothing. However, some of the culprits must have been identified and the following day four of them, including Richard Polhill, were examined. 214 Pollard soar = male fallow deer in its 4th year, with antlers removed, pricket = male fallow deer in its 2nd year. 215 Amussen(1995:9). 216 See Map 8.1 'Locations featured in the Penshurst park violations, 1600', p.289. 287 On 24 May Rowland Whyte wrote to Sir Robert Sidney about 'the barbarous courses of some in your park at Penshurst at a time so unfit to hunt and kill deer,' and just over a fortnight later he reported that 'some of the outragers in the Park began to be sorry, seeing it is made a Star Chamber matter.' 217 Here he is tacitly acknowledging that the prompt decision to take the matter to the court of Star Chamber would have raised the stakes of the conflict by propelling it from the local into the national arena.218 The owner of Bayhall was William Wybarne and his large house was the assembly point of the park incursions, ten of the 16 named 'disordered and evil disposed persons' being there during that Whitsun week.219 Mrs Thomas Chowne, the only independent witness, saw four or more of the suspects leave at 11 o'clock on Saturday night of 17 May with three greyhounds, and testified that they rode away for about three hours. Crucially, earlier in the day she had seen Thomas Myles, former servant of Richard Polhill, arrive to have quiet words with John Waller of Speldhurst, 'whom she supposeth then to set the match to hunt Sir Robert Sidney's ground.'220 Edward Gyles, a former servant of William Wybarne, disappeared shortly after Sunday 18 May and the interrogatories contain several questions about his whereabouts. 221 Either he played a key role in events or both sides saw him as a weak deponent, who might have broken down under questioning. Evidence of the disturbances at Penhurst(71) park occurs in the De L'Isle and Dudley papers as well as in the records of the court of Star Chamber.222 However, tantalisingly, there are significant gaps. There are no examinations of some key participants and there is no indication of judgement or whether the process was ever completed. The probability is that it was not, because delaying tactics were used in the 217 Kingsford & Shaw (1934:463-464) letter of 24/5/1600; ibid. p.467, letter of 7/6/1600. 218 Hindle(2000:95); Kingsford & Shaw(1934:467). 219 Kingsford & Shaw(1934:467). 220 CKS U1475/L18/11, information of Mrs Chowne. 221 CKS U1475/L18/3, Tichborne and Godfrey; CKS U1475/L18/14, Threale and Waller. 222 CKS U1475/L18/1-17: U1475 E42/2; STAC5/S2/20, 1600-1601; STAC5/S21/31, 1600-1601 (duplicates U1475/L18/2); STAC5/S41/5, 1600-1601(duplicates U1475/L18/13); STAC5/S68/33, 1600- 1601; STAC5/S74/15, 1600-1601 (duplicates U1475/L18/17). Nearly every procedure is represented in these documents. 288 form of the reluctance of the defendants to appear before the court, with an 18 month period from the date of the first examinations on 20 May 1600 to the last set of answers on 2 November 1601.223 Other obstacles to advancing the suit were the disappearance of a key potential deponent and the conspiracy of silence among the remaining defendants. At least five park violators were gentlemen, living locally or travelling to the area from London, Surrey, Sussex and north Kent.224 Two men named John Waller took part - John Waller, gentleman of Speldhurst, and John Waller, keeper of North park, Godstone, Surrey. Waller was a common surname, but it may be no coincidence that men of that surname were implicated in the Penshurst(71) park breaks of 1572 and 1573 featured in case study C. Another gentleman participant was George Wilkins, from Stoke in the Isle of Grain, suspected of carrying Walter Double behind him on horseback to the stocks.225 These gentlemen and other men questioned categorically denied ever being in Penshurst(71) park. The lone eyewitness, Walter Double, was thus pitted against several gentlemen, and although willing to identify whom he could, he was given leave of absence from Sir Robert Sidney's service to recuperate. Indeed during his ordeal the intruders had beaten him 'without any pity or remorse of mind' and threatened to kill him unless he swore not to report the outrages then committed or later 'offer to resist them or any of their complices and adherents at any other times they should happen to resort to the said enclosed ground and hunt.'226 The most plausible explanation for the violent and symbolic reaction to Richard Polhill's dismissal would be that he was a corrupt keeper at Penshurst(61) park, who had accommodated these men's desire for unlawful hunting, which was now being denied them. By choosing May for the protest, the unlawful hunters were deliberately flouting the rules of hunting, which desisted from disturbing fawn-bearing does, yet during both incursions does were killed. The two incursions occurred after dark, with no attempt at concealment, but beyond that each displayed different characteristics of high profile, brazen hunting. The decapitation of the deer, putting its head on public display and the careless daubing of its blood were, as Beaver put it, instances where 'the superficially 223 CKS U1475/L18/5 lists 14 men who had not cooperated with the processes of the court of Star Chamber. 224 Threale, Tichborne, Tyrrell, Waller, Wilkins, Wybarne; see Map 8.1 p.287. 225 CKS U1475/L18/17, TNA STAC5/S74/15, Wilkins interrogatories. 226 CKS U1475/L18/2, bill of complaint. 289 290 eccentric often conceals the deeper pattern of culture,' in this case pouring scorn on the established order of society, conveying contempt for the norms of gentility and disdain for the Sidney family.227 During the second park break deer were killed or wounded without dispatch, another way in which rules of the hunt were ignored. Other deer were driven out of the park in a concerted effort drastically to deplete the herd. Finally, the humiliating treatment meted out to the deer keeper can also be seen as a direct affront to his employer. The insults to the honour of Sir Robert Sidney were so numerous and severe that it is little wonder that such speedy action was taken to refer the matter to the court of Star Chamber. (d) Poaching with a commercial or criminal element As with low-key illegal poaching, individuals or gangs of poachers in Kent are not well represented in documentary evidence, but possible commercial activity has been mooted in the previous strands, especially centred round vulnerable parks, as with clothier Peter Maye's dealings with deerskins in case study A and under keeper Edward Cole's and gentleman John Styler's disposal of venison in case study C. Just as Kentish men, like Sir Alexander Culpepper, Thomas Petley and John Fosten, could easily enter Sussex for unlawful hunting and deer stealing, so outsiders could enter into Kent with the view to raid parks there. In October 1609 Bartholomew Pysley and Robert Walker, in their thirties and originally from Oxfordshire, were arrested on suspicion of horse theft in Westerham, and found to be carrying useful poaching equipment - a crossbow with four forked arrows, a bolt, a fowling piece, an iron gauntlet, and two masks, 'one barefaced, the other of cloth with a great beard.'228 Bartholomew Pysley had the means and the knowledge to be a poacher since he was a former deer keeper in parks such as the royal parks at Windsor and Hampton Court. However, the strongest evidence of commercial poaching in this section relates to the activities of two Kentish men targeting local parks - John Hayes, yeoman of Cobham, and Humfrey Latter, a husbandman in his employ. Their violations in Cobham(23), Birling(6) and Canterbury(18) parks were complex covering several years from the mid 1590s to 1602, but reconstruction is possible because Sir John Leveson's 227 Beaver(2008:ix). 228 Melling(1969:48-50). 291 initial examinations survive among the Sutherland family papers, and there is additional material related to the offenders to be found in formal court records.229 E: Case study – Humfrey Latter from the mid 1590s to early 1600s Humfrey Latter began poaching conies before he met John Hayes, but the key element to the crime wave was the association of Humfrey Latter with John Hayes at some stage during the mid 1590s, when they combined forces, killing both conies and deer. The criminality of the Cobham poachers lay in their motivation for financial gain, their mode of hunting for supplying others rather than for the personal thrill and enjoyment, and their organised, fairly sophisticated distribution network. It is also noteworthy that no gentlemen took part in this illegal hunting and that poaching represented a part rather than the whole of their general criminality.230 John Hayes and Humfrey Latter with others also carried out a spate of burglaries for which they were eventually indicted, although they had first been questioned about park violations before they mentioned the burglaries.231 John Hayes' comment to Humfrey Latter 'why should one lack money when another hath plenty' reflected a general dissatisfaction with inequalities of wealth and the feeling that any means to redress the balance in their favour were acceptable.232 The poaching forays went smoothly until a couple of close encounters with park keepers led them both to give up poaching for a time. In about 1596, after Humfrey Latter had entered John Hayes' service, John Hayes was badly shaken after being spotted with Humfrey Latter and a companion pitching a net for conies in Cobham(23) park. He and the unnamed companion fled, while Humfrey Latter had the presence of mind to grab the dead conies and net before outrunning his pursuers. Perhaps with more to lose, John Hayes 'declared that he would not have been caught for forty pounds', but the more hardened Humfrey Latter considered the other two to be 229 StaffsRO D593/S/4/56/1 - I am grateful to Dr. Stephen Hipkin for drawing my attention to this material; CKS QM/SI/1598/2/11; QM/SI/1598/2/9; Cockburn(1995:496) AC35/45/4/3019, February 1603. 230 Hipkin(2003:45-58). 231 Cockburn(1995:496) AC35/45/4/3019, February 1603. 232 Hipkin(2003:55). 292 'cowardly fellows'.233What seems to have made Humfrey Latter himself more cautious was a confrontation with five keepers in Birling(6) park in 1597 when his four unnamed companions had to abandon two deer when the keepers 'set upon them', one shooting a crossbow arrow at them.'234 At this Humfrey Latter seems to have stopped entering Birling(6) park. Late in 1599, John Hayes and Humfrey Latter must have decided that burglary might bring better returns. They executed or aborted several burglaries, some of which were planned by John Hayes following tip-offs from Humfrey Latter, but they stopped when a victim recognised one of the burglars.235 It was after this scare in the autumn of 1600 that John Hayes and Humfrey Latter reverted to poaching, during which time Humfrey Latter, as John Hayes' husbandman, was living with him at a house called Platt overlooking Cobham(23) park. Several factors made Cobham(23) park more vulnerable to intrusion by poachers at the turn of the seventeenth century. The presence of two inveterate miscreants with easy access to the park through a gate in the pale 'against the house' would have made the work of the deer keepers more difficult.236 John Hayes also used the excuse that deer had strayed onto his land where it was more acceptable to take action against them for damaging crops.237 In addition, poaching was more tempting and less risky because of the capitulation of Lord Cobham's keepers, Edmund Weekes at Cobham(23) park and William Jeggers at Canterbury(18) park, to both threats and bribes. During Humfrey Latter's earlier cony poaching in the late 1590s Edmund Weekes' son had reported his suspicion about him to Sir John Leveson, but no charge ensued perhaps because Humfrey Latter boasted that he knew how he could get even with Edmund Weekes.238 Within a couple of years in the summer of 1601 Edmund Weekes was definitely under the influence of Humfrey Latter, and after a bribe of two angels, allowed John Heath, an innkeeper from Maidstone, and John Ellis, his brother-in-law from 233 CKS QM/SB/1598/252, 1/5/1598, information of Alice and Margaret Bogas. 234 Ibid, information of Richard Bogas. 235 CKS QM/SB/1598/252; Hipkin(2003:51). 236 StaffsRO D593/S/4/56/1, 3/1/1603, Latter. 237 Ibid. 16/12/1602, Latter. 238 CKS QM/SB/1598/252, information of Richard Bogas.. 293 Canterbury, to course at ten o'clock at night in Cobham(23) park when they killed three deer. These two also took part in a coursing expedition into Canterbury(18) park with the Canterbury deer keeper's connivance.239 Lastly, the corruptibility of the keepers seems to have coincided with the succession of Sir Henry Brooke, lord Cobham, in 1597, for whom there was little respect locally. Even before the discovery of the Bye plot which led to the downfall of the new Lord Cobham, John Hayes was heard to say that he was 'horny headed and shallow brained ... and would not keep his word, his father being very constant therein.'240 It is possible that the new owner of Cobham was more lax in the management of his estates at Cobham, and deer keepers and poachers alike took full advantage of this. Certainly, the domestic state papers abound in letters written by R. Williams to Lord Cobham about the mismanagement of his more distant land holdings.241 The mode of hunting adopted by John Hayes and Humfrey Latter had no sportsmanship about it. Whereas the use of the deer net was usually frowned upon by gentlemen hunters, except those, like John Styler in case study C who were bent on profit, Humfrey Latter had no qualms about using one to catch deer.242 He and four others caught deer this way on at least six occasions in Birling(6) park, before the confrontation with the five keepers, yet despite being shot at they chose to abandon the deer in favour of recovering the net, which would have enabled them to go on poaching. In the second phase of poaching in Cobham(23) about six deer were shot with crossbow arrow or gunshot by Humfrey Latter using weapons provided by John Hayes. While gentlemen huntsmen regularly used crossbows, guns were not their choice of dispatch. The crossbow was a silent weapon suitable for stalking and stealth, but the explosive gunshot noise might have led to detection. Either John Hayes' house was very remote from habitation or the men had little to fear from the deer keepers. Often the excuse was made that the deer had wandered onto John Hayes' land eating oats, wheat or beans growing there, but more often than not Humfrey Latter would take aim over the pale at deer in the park. 239 StaffsRO D593/S/4/56/1, 1/9/1602, Latter; ibid. 1/9/1602, Weekes; angel = equivalent to a noble or 6s 8d. 240 StaffsRO D593/S/4/56/1, 3/1/1603, Latter. 241 Everett Green 5 (1967:511-515) CCLXXVI nos.36-51. 242 See Case Study C p.274-280. 294 Typically, John Hayes incited a willing Humfrey Latter to kill the deer by handing him a fowling piece and bullets because he did not want to be 'acquainted therewith.' However, once he took Humfrey Latter away from reaping to fetch a gun hidden in the cart house to use to shoot at the deer, which John Hayes drove his way. On most occasions both men carried deer away to John Hayes' barn to cut up. One doe killed by gunshot was carried across fields rather than along the lane where they might be seen and cut up on a Sunday while others were attending church. Of the deer John Hayes and Humfrey Latter confessed to have killed, the Hayes' household with Humfrey Latter partaking consumed one, one was killed as a gift for John Hayes' lawyer, but the others were unaccounted for so were likely to have been distributed on the black market. A coursing expedition to Canterbury park was an unusual venture for Humfrey Latter, who acted as a facilitator rather than a participant seemingly because he knew the keepers and the Maidstone men, who wished to course their dogs to enjoy the sport usually confined to gentlemen. Humfrey Latter might have made contacts in Maidstone from the 1590s when he sold stolen conies in the market.243 John Heath of 'The Star Inn' and Thomas Sadgin, who kept a fulling mill, both from Maidstone, led the party, staying at Canterbury with Ingram Ellis, John Heath's father-in-law, soon after Christmas 1601. 'Old' William Jeggers, the deer keeper, was invited to sup in the Ellis household where 'after a sort deny, but after a while he consented' to give them a course in the park.'244 The party joined by others went to the park with their dogs at about nine o'clock at night, meeting Humfrey Latter at 'The Three Kings' on the way.245 Both 'Old' and 'Young' William Jeggers supervised two courses, but after a couple of hours the dogs ran off and the deer keeper was so drunk that he lost his cloak. Humfrey Latter, who had stayed in the inn, was asked to retrieve the greyhounds and found that they had killed a fawn and a doe, which he reported to the deer keeper before returning the dogs to John Heath, receiving three shillings reward for his trouble.246 According to John Heath rather than pay money to William Jeggers, he sent him enough broadcloth to make a pair of hose.247 243 CKS QM/SB/1598/252. 244 StaffsRO D593/S/4/56/1, 3/9/1602, Heath. 245 Ibid. 16/8/1602, Latter; ibid. 22/12/1602, Keneston. 246 StaffsRO D593/S/4/56/1, 16/8/1602, Latter. 247 Ibid. 3/9/1602, Heath. 295 Although in the second phase of poaching John Hayes and Humfrey Latter acted together as a team without involving others, disposing of a deer carcass commercially posed problems when it was not customary to sell it before 1603 and positively illegal thereafter.248 A fair degree of organisation and pre-planning was necessary to avoid carcasses being discovered in the possession of poachers and the Cobham network had at least two butchers and possibly more than one innkeeper strategically placed from Maidstone to Gravesend. William Nash, a Maidstone butcher, took venison that had come from Cobham(23) park - one side of which was sent to the mayor of Tenterden, although the butcher claimed that this had come from a London supplier.249 Bartholomew Harding, a butcher from Cobham, was implicated with John Hayes in stealing a steer belonging to Robert Young, butchering it and carrying the meat off to market the next morning, and was indicted, although found not guilty, for stealing two cows in Charlton on 22 November 1601.250 With this record he might not have been averse to handling venison. Apart from John Heath's 'Star Inn' in Maidstone there is also a distinct possibility that there were outlets to be had in the inns of John Hayes' brother, Robert Hayes, who owned 'The Ship' and 'The Saracen's Head' at Milton-next-Gravesend and 'The Rose' in Gravesend itself.251 Humfrey Latter and John Hayes sometimes knew potential recipients in advance. On one occasion Humfrey Latter was sent to Maidstone to tell inn keeper John Heath that a deer was ready for him in Cobham(23) park. John Heath sent his servant with Humfrey Latter to fetch it, but the deer keeper had come across the dead animal first. 252 William Jeggers, keeper of Canterbury(18) park, regularly killed to order as testified by Humfrey Latter, who kept in touch and even ran errands for him in the months following the coursing expedition. Robert Austen of Littlebourne who had received ten bucks during the summer and three does between Christmas and Shrove tide, handed over ten shillings to Humfrey Latter for the keeper. The deer keeper had 248 1 James I, c.27, see page 246. 249 StaffsRO D593/S/4/56/1, 5/9/1602, Nash. 250 Ibid. 22/12/1602, Keneston; Cockburn(1995:481) AC35/55/5/2933 m.21, February, 1602. 251 TNA PCC prob/11/159, 1630, Robert Hayes' will listed these properties; Manning(1993:167) links butchers and victuallers with the distribution of illegal venison. 252 StaffsRO D593/S/4/56/1, 3/9/1602, Heath. 296 also killed and disposed of twelve more does to six other recipients, not only for money, but also in exchange for pigs, wheat or malt.253 The number of deer killed by William Jeggers and his use of Humfrey Latter to distribute them seems to indicate that they were in excess of the deer keeper's usual quota, but the wording of Humfrey Latter's deposition is ambivalent on this point. At other times John Heath and Humfrey Latter used their wide range of contacts to distribute venison not already specifically allocated to individuals. Although the London market with its anonymity was a strong lure for illegal game caught in Kent, John Hayes and Humfrey Latter found more local outlets. As Manning observed many recipients of venison, whether or not in London, neither enquired nor wanted to know of its origin.254 Evidence from Kent would support this, with examinees for park violations in Penshurst(71), Sissinghurst(79) and Cobham(23) listing several apparently respectable gentlemen as well as office holders to whom they had provided venison.255 The difficulty for law enforcement was that venison acquired legitimately was indistinguishable from that which was not. The deposition of Francis Keneston, a Cobham tailor, linked Gravesend with the disposal of venison. He had once refused to help Humfrey Latter take two deer there. After this refusal, Humfrey Latter borrowed Bartholomew Harding's horse to carry them to Gravesend by himself.256 Humfrey Latter also travelled to London at least once to visit 'The Greyhound' near Lord Cobham's house in Blackfriars perhaps for a preplanned meeting or to widen his network of contacts. The language of his deposition is obscure at this point and not helped by damage to the document, but it would appear that he was tackled about stealing deer and at the same time was asked to discover the identity of other deer stealers.257 His journeys as far afield as London, Gravesend, Maidstone and Canterbury are quite remarkable for a hired husbandman and tend to lead to the conclusion that his occupation merely provided a cover for his criminal activities. 253 StaffsRO D593/S/4/56/1, 16/8/1602, Latter. 254 Manning(1993:163-165). 255 See for example pp. 259, 277, 278. 256 StaffsRO D593/S/4/56/1, 16/12/1602Keneston. 257 StaffsRO D593/S/4/56/1, 16/8/1602, Latter. 297 The second phase of poaching ended after about two years, although it is unclear how it was detected. Humfrey Latter was first questioned about his activities on 16 August 1602.258 He opened up under examination, as did the others who were interrogated later. At the first examination he restricted information to hints about the corruptibility of the Cobham(23) park keeper, Old Weekes, and the under keeper, Young Jeggers, and at length described the deer coursing expedition to Canterbury. He did not mention John Hayes nor did he admit any wrongdoing himself, except that he had found a deer in Cobham(23) park on Monday 26 July at three in the morning, perhaps that was when he was caught. As the investigation intensified much more emerged and Humfrey Latter fully implicated John Hayes. However, both still stuck to their poaching partnership and did not mention the more serious burglaries and one incident of highway robbery. Their undoing seems to have been brought about by John Hayes, who must have lost his nerve when interviewed on 20 January 1603, admitting to several burglaries of houses selected by Humfrey Latter. The upshot was an appearance at the County Assize for both men, and John Juden, for the burglary of William Baker's house in Cobham on 29 December 1600. John Juden and John Hayes were found guilty and sentenced to be hanged, while Humfrey Latter confessed and was remanded without sentence because he pleaded for a pardon. 259 Hence none of the numerous park and poaching violations entered the formal court records. John Hayes, hanged as a felon, died a wealthy man. In the 1596 list of Cobham farmers possessing grain stocks, he had five quarters of wheat, 100 quarters of barley stocks and 90 quarters of oats (compared with the largest stocks of 150, 60, 120 quarters held by George Wraight).260 In 1602 he farmed 200 acres of arable land in Cobham, some of which he owned.261 By law his possessions escheated to the crown, but it would appear that his brother, Robert Hayes, did not declare all his brother's assets and he was taken to the court of Star Chamber in 1623 for perjury in this regard.262 According to the feodary escheator, John Hayes owned eight acres of land called Yorkes, eight acres of land called Bakers, a house and several parcels of land called Owletts, a messuage by Cobham church, a croft called Scarletts, all in Cobham, 258 StaffsRO D593/S/4/56/1, 16/8/1602, Latter. 259 Cockburn(1995:467) AC35/45/4/3019, February 1603, year of burglary given 1602, but the examinations of January 1603 refer to three years previously i.e. c.1600. 260 StaffsRO S/4/14/14. 261 StaffsRO S/4/61/1. 262 TNA STAC8/33/4, 1623. 298 unspecified lands in the Newington parish and a messuage in Gravesend. These properties were being held in the hands of third parties until they passed to his brother, Robert Hayes, who claimed that the lands were held by gavelkind and not in capite and therefore were not subject to confiscation. Robert Hayes won because he passed these lands to his sons in his will of 3 March 1630.263 Owletts remained in the Hayes family until modern times and is now a National Trust property.264 An inquisition held on 12 June 1604 valued John Hayes goods and chattels at £84 11s. Items included his furniture, domestic and agricultural tools, cart and horses, cows, sheep, pigs and chickens, all of which went to his wife, Margaret. Additionally, at his death about 20 men owed him the vast total of over £1000 from various obligations and agreements.265 Although small-scale dealings in credit are well documented in this period, John Hayes extension of credit seems to have been unusual.266 Humfrey Latter's financial gains were more modest. He pocketed money from the sale of stolen conies, horses and silver spoons and received tips for various errands and deliveries, but there is no evidence that he made substantial profits from his multifarious crimes. However, his life was spared. He remained in prison until he was pardoned and released in 1605. His strategy of confession and guilty plea before the magistrates resulted in a better personal outcome, but nothing is known of him after his release.267 Conclusion By concentrating on one county a kaleidoscopic image of park violations has been revealed, participants having contrasting backgrounds, sub cultures, expectations and methods of operation. Deer could be taken by stealth for the table, in exuberance for sport, in the bitterness of protest, and in significant numbers for private distribution. Normal social barriers between gentlemen, servants, labourers, artisans, yeomen and small businessmen were lowered where unlawful hunting occurred. Social norms were overthrown and social distinctions became fused in the joint enterprise. Kent has 263 TNA PPC prob/11/59. 264 Arnold(1949:91). 265 TNA E178/3924. 266 Wrightson(2002:93). 267 Langbein(1983:105). 299 produced ample examples of the complexity of park violations, but in the absence of other county studies no judgement can be made as to the county's typicality. The four strands of park violation had different characteristics, but, as has been shown in the case studies, where evidence allows a closer examination, incidents were seldom clear-cut. They were multi-layered and complex, with strands interwoven, and with varying shades coming to the fore as situations developed. To place park breaks into categories, therefore, imposes restrictions, which tend to impede a deeper and wider understanding of the scope of park crime and the social conflict it reveals. Lowly individuals undertook poaching of small game to satisfy immediate household needs, but they also took part in covert hunting initiated by gentlemen. It might be gentlemen operating in ones or twos by daylight, or with larger groups from a broad social spectrum at night, that dominated covert hunting, but some were not averse to profiting from the deer taken. Covert hunting for sport was not devoid of an element of protest, and protest incursion of parks, though designed to inflict as much damage as possible, was not without an element of sport, and even some who profited from poaching also indulged in the occasional course for pleasure. The three parks, Cobham(23), Penshurst(71) and Sissinghurst(79), for which information has survived more fully, show that there was a substantial sub-culture of park violation in which networks of perpetrators, receivers and contacts formed extensive albeit loose-knit organisations of mutual cooperation. If this was true for those three parks during the years of unlawful activity, it is possible that parks throughout Kent experienced similar disruption, glimpses of which can be snatched in court records and private papers. However, it might be argued that Cobham(23), Penshurst(71) and Sissinghurst(79) were exceptions rather than the norm. The assumption in that case being that had other parks experienced similar problems more documentary evidence would have come to light. The abundant records of the De L'Isle and Dudley family mean that the likelihood there is that there were two concentrated sets of disturbance, with the upsurge in the 1570s being triggered by lax park keeping. Manning implied that many deer keepers were former poachers, who came from poaching backgrounds, but the Kent examples do not entirely back this 300 up.268 Experienced deer keepers, like modern detectives, would need to be steeped in the ways of their opponents in order to combat them effectively, but as has been shown in an earlier chapter, evidence suggests that deer keepers tended to come from respectable yeomanry stock, to which they reverted in retirement.269 Many took great care of the deer in their charge and had good relationships with the park owner, and at least eight deer keepers, whose names are known, stood up to determined poachers, so to that extent their records are impeccable.270 Some deer keepers, who were regular poachers, such as Edward Cole of Penhurst(71) park or Giles Couchman of Knole(50), might well have infiltrated parks, but as in Cobham(23) and Penshurst(71) parks, another scenario is that weak deer keepers were tempted by bribes or terrorised by threats into aiding or ignoring unlawful hunting and the taking of deer. Corruptible deer keepers could exacerbate incursions into parks, but parks controlled by loyal deer keepers, such as Sissinghurst(79), were not immune from park crime either. The impression is that deer keepers who had the robust backing of park owners were more likely be loyal and have the incentive to stand up to intruders and to protect the deer, than those whose owners offered a weak or indifferent response. Culprits who could be identified by powerful owners were taken to the Quarter Sessions or Assizes locally or, in extreme cases, to the court of Star Chamber, where the suspects would incur inevitable cost and inconvenience in addition to any punishment that might be imposed. Perhaps, because by Elizabethan times most Kentish parks were well established, widespread disorder arising out of disputed user rights, dislocation of settlement or social disruption was not experienced in the county. Undoubtedly there had been earlier resistance to parks in Kent, as evidenced by the first recorded incident of 'blacking' or disguise at Redleaf park, near Penshurst, in 1450, and by the act of 1 Henry VII (1485) arising out of the prevalence of illegal hunters 'with painted faces, some with vizors and otherwise disguised to the intent that they should not be known, riotously and in malice of war arrayed' harassing forests, parks and warrens across the 268 Manning(1993:191,193). 269 See Chapter Three pp.73-78. 270 CKS QM/SIq40/30, Henry Cliffe; CKS U1475/L18/2, Walter Double; CKS QM/SB/710, Philip Eastland; TNA STAC8/53/5, Edward Leedes; Cockburn(1994:417) AC35/40/3/2545, Robert Reames; CKS QM/SB/162, Philip Round; CKS QM/SI/1599/24/2, Edward Smith; CKS U1475/C36/3, Terry. 301 Weald of Kent and neighbouring Surrey and Sussex.271 The dozen new parks enclosed in Kent in the period under review are not documented as causing unrest, but lurking in the background is the 'dark figure' of unrecorded crime so certainty is elusive. In Suffolk 25 new parks between 1551 and 1602, and in Cambridgeshire and Huntingdonshire 20 new parks were created, considerably more than in Kent, but how much resistance there was to these has yet to be studied.272 Manning's analysis of antienclosure riots in England from 1558 to 1625 supports the notion that Kent, as part of southeast England, was less disturbed by protests against new parks than elsewhere. He found that imparkment caused only 8 per cent (of 105 cases) of anti-enclosure riots in Elizabeth I's reign, and 2 per cent (of 119 cases) in James I's reign, and that the ten southern counties, including Kent, experienced only 17 per cent of all anti-enclosure riots in both reigns.273 However, such attempts at statistical analysis must be treated with caution because patchy evidence often fails to enlighten the researcher about whether the parks themselves were the focus of protest or whether park violations reflected wider transferred protest. Conversely, simmering anti-park protest might have contributed to protest not directly aimed at parks. It is impossible to quantify the extent to which the presence of parks evoked social conflict in Kent. The very fact that large tracts of enclosed land were given over exclusively to the elite was bound to have been resented by many, if not all, local inhabitants, and, in the broadest sense, it is possible to regard park breaks at every level as tangible signs of protest against the privacy and power of the park owner. However, in Kent park violations seem to have been neither widespread nor coordinated, and when they looked as if they were becoming more serious, concerted efforts were made by the owners to bring perpetrators under control. Honour and status were upheld, but as Hindle has observed at state level, the social fabric was fragile with potential for conflict never far away.274 271 Thompson(1975:58); Du Boulay(1964:245-255); Statutes II p.505, 1485, 1 Henry VII c.7 c.8 made illegal hunting at night or in disguise a felony. 272 Hoppitt(1992:71); Way(1997:17). 273 Manning(1988:324-327). 274 Hindle(2000:232-233). 302 CONCLUSION William Lambarde's lists of Elizabethan parks with and without deer inspired this perambulation, the route of which required diversions to avoid obstacles, and deviations when unexpected byways beckoned. There was no detailed map to follow, although stray travellers had partially defined some stretches of road. Mist often shrouded the view, but when it cleared glimpses of the overall landscape were revealed. With Lambarde's lists as a starting point, supplemented by the five earliest county maps and documentary evidence, it has been possible to reach a more accurate total of active parks between 1558 and 1625, and to indicate the number of medieval deer parks and disparked parks, with a better understanding of the distribution of all these parks.1 While accepting diversity and variation between parks, it is now known, perhaps unsurprisingly, that the general characteristics of Elizabethan and Jacobean Kentish deer parks in many ways followed the tradition of medieval parks. Also, as in previous centuries, the requirements of deer herds continued to dominate the management of parks, while other resources were nurtured alongside. Because detailed documentation about the medieval park is even harder to find than for this later period, it has been possible to record more specifically the inner workings of some aspects of park management. Uniquely for this period, the management of disparked parks for one county has come under scrutiny, with fewer newly failed parks between 1558 and 1625 than might be assumed from Lambarde's comments about the rate of disparkment.2 In Kent, at least, the resilience of parks in the face of economic and financial pressure and attacks on their exclusivity by the disaffected is remarkable. The strength of the hunting culture, the role of venison in the exchange of gifts and the continued status of park ownership remained undiminished throughout the reigns of Elizabeth I and James I, and even received encouragement from the monarchs who shared the experience and values of the upper strata of society. For the first time for the late sixteenth to early seventeenth century, crime against parks has been examined on a countywide basis, revealing, more intimately than 1 Lambarde(1576:48-49) The Particular of Kent; Lambarde(1596:60-61) The Particular of Kent. 2 Lambarde(1576:9) The Estate of Kent. 303 is possible for the medieval period, the intricacy and complexity of incursions into parks as well as the varying social standing and motivation of the participants. Although there was no concerted attack on parks on a countywide basis, individual parks periodically faced considerable pressure, which determined efforts by owners apparentlyeventually overcame. When Mileson discussed his choice of cut-off date for his research into the medieval parks of England, he concluded that the early sixteenth century would be an appropriate point because, 'social changes taking place in the second quarter of the sixteenth century significantly affected the purpose and function of parkland.' 3 Clearly, this study of parks in Kent conflicts with this view. Whatever the upheavals caused by the Reformation, social distress and political uncertainly prior to the accession of Elizabeth I, the purpose and function of parkland survived in Kent, and it is probable that a high status traveller-in-time from the Middle Ages would have found both the parks of 1558 to 1625 and the ethos behind them familiar enough to him. While parks were still considered to be one of the prerequisites of a noble or genteel estate, they remained viable among those with the necessary income willing to invest in their upkeep. However, strains were beginning to be felt. Inter-family rivalry and personal ambition meant that many members of the nobility and gentry were living beyond their means and becoming increasingly dependent on credit, which in the long term jeopardised the viability of their parks. A steward, like Thomas Golding at Penshurst, even though he thought the sport of hunting was 'not lykely to continewe for ever,' accepted that his master's penchant for his 'very fair and sportlyke' park would remain unshaken.4 However, John Norden, in his influential book, The Surveiors Dialogue', was more hard headed. He acknowledged the park as existing 'more for pleasure then profit of the Lord,' but rather than condoning the maintenance of parks for 'private pleasure', he commended 'more considerate' men who had disparked much parkland and 'converted it to better use.'5 How many Kentish park owners took his advice in the reign of Charles I remains to be researched, but the disruption of the Civil 3 Mileson(2009:10). 4 Shaw(1942:265-267) 6/5/1611. 5 Norden(1610:107) The third Booke. 304 War and consequent sequestration and dismantling of parks proved to be the death knell of many a park. It seems fitting to end with William Lambarde's metallurgical metaphor on the process of writing 'A Perambulation of Kent ', which it is hoped would also apply to this thesis - the ore was dug and gathered, the metal extracted by fire, then cast into 'certeine rude lumps', before creating something 'serviceable and meete for use.' 6 6 Lambarde(1576) To the Right Woorshipfull, and vertuous, M. THOMAS WOTTON, Esquier. 305 Appendices Appendix 1 Figure 1.2 Lambarde's list and 5 early maps compared Appendix 2 Figure 1.3 Active Parks in Kent, 1558-1625 Appendix 3 Figure 1.4 All known parks in Kent Appendix 4 Map 1.1 Map of Kent showing all known parks Appendix 5 Figure 5.1 Disparkment Appendix 6 Figure 6.3 New owners of established and new parks Appendix 7 Figure 6.4 Crown parks in Kent Appendix 8 Figure 7.2 Rowland Whyte's schedule of letters Appendix 9 Figure 8.1 Deer Park Violations, 1558-1625 306 1576 List of Parks 1596 List of Parks Saxton 1575 anon.c.1576 1596 Symonson Norden 1605 Speed 1611 Active parks (modern spelling) # unchanged + changes Ashour (69) # At Ashford (?77, Scot's Hall) # Bedgebury (4) # # # # # Birling (6)Birling , (7)Comforde) # # # # Comforde # Comforde # Comford Calehill (?98, Westwell) # # # Cobham (23) # # # # # # Cooling (29) # # # # # # Eltham x 3 parks (31-33) # # x2 # x2 # x 3 # x 2 # x2 Glassenbury (37) # # # Greenwich (39) # # # # Groombridge (40) # # # # # Halden (41) disparked # # # Hamswell (?Hamsell, Sussex ( 43) # # Hungershall (47) # # # # # # Knole (50) # # # # # # Leeds (54) # # # # # # Lullingstone (55) # # North Frith x3 parks (89-91) # # x2 # x2 # x1 # x1 # x1 Otford x2 parks (62-63) 1 park disparked # x2 # x2 # x1 # # Penshurst (71) # # # # Postling (73) # Saltwood (75) disparked S. Augustines (Canterbury) (18) # # # # #nr Fordwich # Shurland (78) disparked # # Sissinghurst (79) # # # # # # South Frith forest/park (93) # # # South park (12) # #nr Ulcombe #nr Ulcombe Stowting (marked near Lyminge)(82) # ? # ? # Westenhanger (96) (& 97) # x2 parks # x1 # x2 Ostenhanger # x2 # x 2 Ostenhanger TOTAL ACTIVE = 34 TOTAL ACTIVE = 31 APPENDIX 1: Figure 1.2 - Lambarde's Park Lists and Parks shown on early Kent County maps 307 1576 Lambarde's Disparked Parks Added in 1596 Saxton 1575 anon.c.1576 1596 Symonson Speed 1605 Norden 1611 Aldington disparked (1) Allington (2) Brasted (15) Broxham (17) Cage (88) Folkestone (34) Henden (45) Hever (46) Ightham (48) Langley (52) Leigh (70) Merewood (60) corrected to Mereworth Oxenhoath x2 parks (65-66) Panthurst (67) Postern (92) Stonehurst (in Surrey) (81) Sutton (85) Wrotham (100) Parks on maps, not Lambarde listed Boughton Malherbe (10) # # # # # Bromley (16) # # # Eastwell (28) # # # Ford (35) # # # # # Hemsted (44) # # N.W. of Lyminge ?Elahm (36) # ? # ? # Lynsted (58) # nr Sarre (not thought to be a park) # Scot's Hall (77) # # # # # Starborough (mainly Surrey) (80) # # # # Throwley (87) # # Well Hall (95) # Well Place TOTAL DISPARKED = 18 DISPARKED = 23 1576 TOTAL PARKS = 52 1596 PARKS = 54 TOTAL = 27 TOTAL = 24 TOTAL = 31 TOTAL = 27 TOTAL = 29 308 Pk.No. PARK (bold = direct evidence of deer ) Lambarde Saxton Anon Symonson Norden Speed Documentary evidence of deer (See Park profiles for details) 4 BEDGEBURY L S Sy N Sp Doc 6 BIRLING L S A Sy N Sp Doc 9 BORE PLACE 1596 one reference.deer 10 BOUGHTON MALHERBE – OLD S A Sy N Sp Doc 12 BOUGHTON MALHERBE - SOUTH L S A Doc 16 BROMLEY Sy N Sp 18 CANTERBURY - KING'S/NEW L S A Sy N Sp Doc 21b CHILHAM 1616 new park 23 COBHAM L S A Sy N Sp Doc 24 COOLING L S A Sy N Sp Doc 28 EASTWELL Sy N Sp 1589 licence 29 EAST WICKHAM 1610 licence, Doc 30 ELHAM/maps ?NW of LYMINGE Sy N Sp Doc 31 ELTHAM – GREAT L S x2 A x2 Sy N x2 Sp x2 Doc 32 ELTHAM - MIDDLE/LITTLE L Sy (?2nd park see Great) Doc 33 ELTHAM - HORN/NEW L Sy (?2nd park see Great) Doc 35 FORD S A Sy N Sp Doc 37 GLASSENBURY L Sy Sp Doc 39 GREENWICH L Sy N Sp Doc 40 GROOMBRIDGE L A Sy N Sp Doc 41 HALDEN L S Sy Sp Doc 43 HAMSELL, Sussex L S Doc 44 HEMSTED S A Sy N Sp 47 HUNGERSHALL L S A Sy N Sp Doc 50 KNOLE L S A Sy N Sp Doc 53 LEE Doc 54 LEEDS L S A Sy N Sp Doc 55 LULLINGSTONE L Sy 56 LYMINGE Doc APPENDIX 2: Figure 1.3 - Active Elizabethan and Jacobean Parks 309 Pk.No. PARK (bold = direct evidence of deer ) Lambarde Saxton Anon Symonson Norden Speed Documentary evidence of deer 58 LYNSTED Sy secondary.evidence 1603 deer 61 MERSHAM HATCH 1618 new park 62 OTFORD – GREAT L S A Sy N Sp Doc 69 PENSHURST - ASHOUR L 71 PENSHURST – NORTHLANDS L Sy N Sp Doc 73 POSTLING L 75 SALTWOOD L 77 SCOT'S HALL L Ashford S A Sy N Sp Doc 78 SHURLAND L S A Doc 79 SISSINGHURST L S A Sy N Sp Doc 80 STARBOROUGH (mainly Surrey) A Sy N Sp 82 STOWTING L S? A ? 87 THROWLEY Sy Sp 89-91 TONBRIDGE - NORTH FRITH x3 Lx3 S x2 A x2 Sy N Sp Doc 93a TONBRIDGE - SOUTHFRITH L S A 93b - SOMERHILL c1622 new park 94 TYLER HILL Doc 95 WELL HALL –ELTHAM Sp 96-97 WESTENHANGER x2 Lx2 S Sy x2 N x2 Sp x2 Doc 98 WESTWELL/ CALEHILL L S A Doc 99 WEST WICKHAM Doc total in each column = 34 27 24 31 27 29 STATUS IN DOUBT 3 AYLESFORD COMMON PARK 1597 one reference to horse 13 BOUGHTON MONCHELSEA 1556 one reference to park 27 DENSTROUDE 1603 one reference to horse 38 GREAT CHART 1604 conies in park 42 HALSTEAD 1621 one reference to park 63, 64 OTFORD Little and New (63, 64) L x2 L x 2, but disparked by 1558 74 ROYDON 1590 reference on edge of map SARRE N Perhaps enclosure not a park 76 SCOTNEY 1579 one reference to park 310 APPENDIX 3: Figure 1.4 – List of all Kentish Deer Parks No. Name Earliest date/reference (see Park profiles for details) Size date OS reference (generally centre of park) ** boundary known/* part known by fieldwork 1 Aldington 1165 PipeRoll 680 1624 TR080365 Middle Park farm 2 Allington 1304 TNA E326/1398 350approx 1573 TQ752577 castle, park being near 3 Aylesford (Common pk) 1597 Quarter Sessions ?TQ 730590 general for Aylesford 4 Bedgebury 1544 BL Harley 300 1618 TQ713345 Park wood - more than one park 5 Bexley 1273/74 Survey – KAS web TQ510757 Park wood on 1860s OS 6 Birling 1341 Patent – licence 100a 969 Great pk 1521 TQ685611* Park farm 7 Birling - Comford 1318 Patent 103 Little pk 152 1 TQ685605* middle of park 8 Bockingfold 1256 Carta Liberate TQ709446 Bockingfold 9 Bore Place 1488 will Alfeigh 307 1600 TQ505490* Bore Place 10 Boughton-Malherbe in mid C14th see Furley 98½ 1567 TQ880497 Park/Rough park shaws 11 B.Malherbe - Lenham 1490 BL Add mss.42715 124 1559 TQ889520 Park wood nr Chilston Pk Hotel 12 B. Malherbe - South 1292 Cal. IPM III 14 88 1559 TQ869467 Southpark wood 13 Boughton Monchelsea 1556 rental 6 0approx 1650 TQ774497** existing park 14 Boxley a. ex-Abbey b. Lea Park pre1536 CCA DCB –J/X10.17 1549 see Zell 90 1596 TQ767585 Park wood TQ778578 Park wood 15 Brasted 1310 Patent 180 1547 TQ463557** Park wood 16 Bromley 1596 Symonson map 61 minimum 1647 TQ407691 to east of Bromley Civic Centre 17 Broxham 1294/5 see Steinman 284 2005 TQ457484** Broxham manor 18 Canterbury -New/King 1538 see Sparks – new park 350 1547 TR170584* Old Park farm 19 Canterbury - Old 1274/5 Hundred rolls –KAS web TR168577** Hospital 20 C'bury - Trenley 1071 Book of Seals no.431 296 1086 TR195593 Trenley park wood 21 Chilham a. b. 1338 Patent 1616 new site, see Heron 25 1616 TR045527 Park wood, older park TR068535* Chilham castle 22 Chislet 1138-1151 Thorne Chronicle TR210629 Chislet park 23 Cobham 1559 see McKeen 200 1602 TQ690690* Cobham park 24 Cooling 1381 Hasted TQ745759* Cooling castle- park to S 311 No. Name Earliest date/reference Size date OS reference 25 Cudham 1272 Patent 100 1272 TQ439600 Park farm 26 Curlswood c.1537 see Morice in Nichols 240 1617 TR242525 station, Aylesham built up 27 Denstroude 1603 Quarter Sessions ?TR104617 general for Denstroude 28 Eastwell 1589 see Hasted – licence to 1000a 1000 1583 TR017475 Eastwell Park hotel 29 East Wickham 1610 see Tester – licence 500a 500 1610 ?TQ460770 open space, park area? 30 Elham 1225 Records in Merton College 400 1649 TR160458 Elhampark wood 31 Eltham Great 1309 CPR 612 1605 TQ430740** Golf course 32 Eltham Middl e 1388 TNA E40/4955 308 1605 TQ420740** most built up 33 Eltham Horn c.1465 Hasted - imparked 345 1605 TQ405740** most built up 34 Folkestone Walton 1241Carta Liberate 126 1668 TR217382 Round Hill 35 Ford nr Canterbury 1405 A of C accounts 160 1638 TR206657 Ford manor 36 Fryarne 1346 Hasted TR165469 Fryarne park 37 Glassenbury 1488 Charter licence 1600a 1600 1488 TQ747365* Glassenbury House 38 Great Chart – Wythen's 1605 Quarter Sessions TQ968524 Goldwell, park site unknown 39 Greenwich 1432 Proc. & Ord. PCIV, 138 200 1432 TQ390773** existing park 40 Groombridge 1576 Lambarde 225 1610 TQ534376 Groombridge Place 41 Halden 1487 BL Add.Ch.9424 429 1544 TQ851337* Halden Place 42 Halstead 1621 TNA E178/6020 300 164- TQ482605 Park farm 43 Hamswell (?Hamsell, Sx) 1086 VCH TQ552338 Hamsell Manor, Mayfield 44 Hemsted c.1360 - Hasted III 168 1599 TQ802338* Benenden School 45 Henden 1541 CKS U1450/15/62 300 1544 TQ483504* Henden manor 46 Hever 1538 U1450/T5/65 TQ480455 Hever castle 47 Hungershall 1531 lease Kent Records XVIII TQ572386* Hungershall Park 48 Ightham / West park 1283 Custumal 138 1620 TQ595576** Ightham Court 49 Kemsing 1236 Close rolls 160 1530 TQ550585** middle of park 50 Knole 1456 Sackville-West, 1922 74/550 1544/ 1610 TQ540543* many changes, existing park 51 Langley, Beckenham 1623 map LBB TQ384670 golf course 52 Langley, Maidstone 1297 Patent 200+ 1335 TQ797516 Langley Park farm 53 Lee 1605 Exchequer bills 336 160- ?TQ419730 adjacent to 31-33 - ? Eltham College 312 No. Name Earliest date/reference Size date OS reference 54 Leeds 1278 TNA C54/98 500 1608 TQ837534** Leeds castle 55 Lullingstone 1545 CKS U967 M2 690 fdwk1983 TQ520645** existing park 56 Lyminge 1274/5 Hundred rolls – KAS web 400 1649 TR145445 Park wood 57 Lympne 1281 Patent 51 Pk wood 1640 TR123345** Lympne park wood 58 Lynsted 1569 CKS U1450 E20 TQ947597** Lynsted Park 59 Maidstone/ Westre 1396 A of C accounts 27 1555 TQ759554 Archbishop's palace, built up 60 Mereworth 1356 Patent TQ668554 Mereworth Castle 61 Mersham Hatch 1608 (CKS QM/SI 1608/11/8) TR065408* existing deer park 62 Otford - Great 1241 Close rolls 430 1597 TQ528592* Otford palace – park to SE 63 Otford - Little 1241 Close rolls 240 1541 TQ527585* middle of park 64 Otford - New 1386-1486 TNA C1/4/177 202 1544 TQ527594* Park farm 65 Oxenhoath 1576 Lambarde TQ627515 Oxen Hoath Park 66 Oxenhoath 1576 Lambarde ? site of 2nd park at Oxenhoath unknown 67 Panthurst, Sevenoaks 1348 Patent for Sevenoaks park 390 1614 TQ533516** Panthurst 68 Pembury 1396.Charter rolls, licence to enlarge TQ625395 Great Bayhall 69 Penshurst - Ashour 1407 Cal.IPM 112approx 1612 TQ547442* Ashour farm 70 Penshurst - Leigh 1316 Patent 470 1552 TQ535476 Leigh park farm 71 Pensh'rst - Northlands 1290 Patent 354 1552 TQ528440* Penshurst Place, park to N 72 Penshurst - Southpark 1316 Patent 120 1552 TQ520426* South Park 73 Postling 1246 Patent ?TR150400 Postling wood, no park names 74 Roydon 1590 CKS U48 P1 TQ666518 Roydon hall 75 Saltwood 1273/74 Survey – KAS web TR161359 Saltwood castle 76 Scotney 1579 ESRO D-J607 100 1597 TQ689353* Scotney castle 77 Scot's hall a. b. earlier site 1575 Saxton TR080398** Scot's Hall plantation TR073388 Park wood 78 Shurland 1532 Henry VIII privy purse 300 1604 TQ994715** Shurland 79 Sissinghurst 1576 Lambarde 750 1657 TQ818384* Sissinghurst 80 Starborough (part Surrey) 1576 Anon. map of Kent TQ426441* Starborough Castle 81 Stonehurst (in Surrey) 1555 CKS U1590/T6/9 TQ425412 Upper Stonehurst farm 313 No. Name Earliest date/reference Size date OS reference 82 Stowting 1361 C135/156/9 Survey TR120430* Park farm 83 Sundridge 1356 CKS U1590 T318 60 1555 TQ487549* Sundridge Place, park to E 84 Surrenden 1621 CKS U350 E4 TQ938453 Surrenden 85 Sutton 1086 Domesday TQ803492 Park House farm 86 Sutton Valence 1348 Cal.IPM TQ815493? perhaps near castle 87 Throwley 1596 Symonson's map TQ989544* Park Lane farm 88 Tonbridge - Cage 1327 Patent 400 1570 TQ593479* Cage green, built up 89 "- Northfrith C12th chartulary (ArchCantXCVI) 2000(89-91) 1521 1685(89-91) 1625 TQ609502 North Frith farm 90 " - N frith - Little 1279 CLL Ch.Ant.T32 TQ634497? Little park, near Hadlow castle 91 " – N frith - Wood C12th chartulary (ArchCantXCVI) TQ603514 Dene park, park site unknown 92 Tonbridge - Postern 1327 Patent 800 1625 TQ615463 Postern Park 93 " – Southfrith a. b. Somerhill C12th chartulary (ArchCantXCVI) 1622 CKS U38 T1 new park 5000 1571 TQ584448* South Frith TQ603452* Somerhill park 94 Tyler Hill, Canterbury 1592 CKS U591/C261/5 TR150592 Hales Place 95 Well Hall 1604 TNA E164/44 128 1605 TQ423752* Well Hall, built up 96 Westenhanger 1262 VCHI – licence Hanger site? 400 1559 TR124372** Westenhanger 97 " - Ostenhanger 1303 Cal. IPM 300 1694 TR142368* Sandling Park 98 Westwell / Calehill 1274/5 Hundred roll (KAS web) 200 1624 TQ931470 Park wood 99 West Wickham 1313-99 Licence (ArchCantXIII) 304 1659 TQ390647** Wickham Court 100 Wrotham / East park 1283 Custumal 97/166 1283/1620 TQ618588* Park farm Later parks 1628-1660 - might be earlier, no evidence found (101) Biddenden 1655 Cal. Ass 35/96/6/1214 ?TQ855385 general for Biddenden (102) Chafford, Ashurst 1638 Cal. Ass. 35/80/11/1580 TQ515395* Chafford park (103) Fairlawne, Shipbourne 1638 Cal. Ass. 35/81/6/1722 TQ598535 Fairlawne (104) Ripton, Ashford 1640 CKS U1095 P3 TQ950425 Hoad's wood (105) Scadbury 1630 History of Chislehurst, Webb ;150 TQ458703* Scadbury park (106) Swingfield 1657 CKS U1475 T95/3 TR273450 Park wood + 2 park woods 314 No. Name Earliest date/reference Size date OS reference Early parks – to 1558 - no evidence found 1558-1625 (1) Ashenfield, ?Waltham 1246 Cal. Close 1242-7, 493 TR094470 Park wood (2) Badlesmere 1327 Cal. IPM VII, 90 TR017545 Badlesmere park wood (3) Bertre, Cudham 1272 Cal IPM I, 281 TQ420610 Biggin Hill airport area (4) Brabourne 1291 Cal. Pat., Way p.145 ?TR095406 Park farm (5) Beckenham 1268 Cal. Pat., Way p.145 ?TQ385707 Beckenham Place park (6) Boughton-under-Blean 1273/74 Survey – KAS web ?TR048585 Boughton Church (7) Chevening 1359 Cal. Pat., Way p.174 TQ477583 Park wood (8) Cliffe 1410 Cal. Pat., Way p.193 TQ738765 general for Cliffe (9) Cressy/West, Trottescliffe 1210-16 Hasted IV p.553 TQ635596 West Park farm (10) Dymchurch 1376 Cal. Pat., website p.282 TR103297 general Dymchurch church (11) Ewell medieval Hasted IX p.429 ?TR298436 Oldpark hill TR298439 Old park wood TR303441 Old park (12) Eythorne 1448 Cal. Charter 1427-1516, 102 TR283492 Eythorne village, no sign of park (13) Gravesend 1362 Cal. Pat., Way p.175 TQ647743 Palace/park near church, built up (14) Hall Place, Leigh 1525 PRO Ancient Deeds V, 540. land enclosed with pale – park not used TQ545466 Hall Place hosue (15) Halling 1274/5 100 roll (KAS web p.79) ?TQ675639 Great park wood (16) Harrietsham 1263 Cal. Pat., Way p.144 TQ878543 Harrietsham manor as ?park site (17) Hildenborough 1274/5 100 roll (KAS web p.80)) ?TQ558483 Hilden Park golf course (18) Hothfield 1327 Cal. IPM VI, 460 ?TQ968442 Park spinney (19) Hylth, Nettlestead 1346 Cal. Pat., Way p.149 ?TQ676509 Hale park wood (20) Iden, Staplehurst 1298 Cal. Pat.1292-1301, 341 TQ750384* Old Park wood (21) Kingsnorth 1448 Cal. Charter, Way p.203 TR009404 Park wood (22) Knockholt 1355-77,Brook, Story of Eltham Palace, p.17, prior of Canterbury's park TQ467587 general for Knockholt (23) Langham, Bishopsbourne 1397 Acc. roll 592, Lambeth PL 1273/74 Survey – KAS web TR176511 Langham park farm (24) Littlebourne 1197 Arch. Cant I p.248 ?TR210580 general for Littlebourne 315 No. Name Earliest date/reference Size date OS reference (25) Mere, Rainham 1310 Cal. IPM V, 123 ?TQ814645 Miers Court, no sign of park (26) Middleton/Milton 1335 Cal. Pat., Way p.165 TQ895645 – general for ?Milton Regis, but Warden/Shurland in this 100 (27) Mote 1500 Hasted IV p.292 ?TQ775545 Mote park – ?earlier park on same site (28) Newchurch Hundred 1274/5 100 roll (KAS web p.129) ?TR043353 the park TR044362 Park wood (29) Newington, Hythe 1387 Cal. IPM XVI, 239 ?TR180375 general for Newington (30) Northwood, Bobbing c.1200 Hasted II p.624 ?TR180660 general for Herne (31) Northwood, ?Herne 1325 VCH I p.474, Whitstable 100 Cal.Pat., 18 Edward II TQ875660 Great Norwood moated site, no park names (32) Perryfield, nr Boxley 1200 Pedes finium (Arch.Cant II p.248) ?TQ775590 general for Boxley (33) Preston 1368 Cal. Pat. 1367-70, 76 ?TR260650 – Lodge Farm & Park Road (Preston, Faversham, no park names yet ) (34) Redleaf, Penshurst 1451 KAS XVIII, 254 no.33 ?TQ525458 Redleaf wood (35) Ruxley, Bexley 1375 Cal. IPM XIV, 242 ?TQ484687 Pauls Cray Hill park (36) Seyne, Gillingham 1273/74 Survey – KAS web ?TQ796687, general for Grnage (37) Somerden Hundred 1274/5 100 roll (KAS web p.140) includes Penshurst, Leigh, Hever parishes so might refer to one of several parks (38) Sutton-at-Hone 1241 Cal. Close 1237-42, 266 ?TQ555700 general for Sutton-at-Hone (39) Swanscombe 1330 Cal. IPM VII, 223 ?TQ600740, general for Swanscombe (40) Terlingham, Folkestone 1295 Cal. IPM III, 168 TR215390 Terlingham Manor farm (41) Tonge 1448 Cal. Chart 1427-1516, 102 ?TQ939637 Tonge castle, no park names (42) Tunbridge (Wells) 1338 Cal. Pat. 1338-40, 182-3 ?Hungershall park was in TW (43) Upende, Crayford 1487 U1450 T555/48 TQ510767 Old park wood on C19th maps (44) Warden, Sheppey 1228 Hasted VI p.271 ?TR020715 general for Warden (45) West Peckham 1274/5 100 rolls NO VERIFIED ?????? ?Oxenhoath park was in WP, no other park names on map (46) Wingham 1273/74 Survey – KAS web ?TR245575 general for Wingham (47) Wixle, Blackheath 100 1274/5 100 rolls (KAS web p.162) ?even vague location unknown (48) Yaldham, Wrotham 1309 Cal. Pat. 1307-13, 238 ?TQ587587 Yaldham manor 316 APPENDIX 4 317 APPENDIX 5: Figure 5.1 - DISPARKMENT IN KENT No. Name Earliest evidence of disparkment pre - 1500 20 Canterbury -Trenley by 1425 - Hasted, History of Kent 9, p.163 5 Bexley by 1469 - Du Boulay, Medieval Bexley, 32-33 1520s-1540s 48 Ightham by 1524 - Kent Records XVIII (1964) p.290 64 Otford - New by 1525 - CCA Register T folio 254 86 Sutton Valence by 1530s - Leland's Itinerary (Part VIII p.88) 100 Wrotham by 1536 - Arch. Cant. CXXVIII pp.204-205 22 Chislet by 1541 - LPL TA39/1 14 Boxley by 1542 - TNA E133/6/815 34 Folkestone by 1542 - EKAC U270/m285/1 15 Brasted by 1547 - CKS U1450 T14/6 17 Broxham by 1548 - TNA IPM C/142/468/85 63 Otford - Little by 1548 - TNA E101/497/41 1550s 2 Allington by 1550 - CCA 1576 DCB-J/X.10.16 19 Canterbury - Old by 1550 - CCA M49 70 Penshurst - Leigh by 1553 - CKS U1475 T61/2 83 Sundridge by 1553 - CKS U1450 E19 81 Stonehurst by 1555 - CKS U1450/T6/9 59 Maidstone 1556 - C66/899 1556 last mention of deer 46 Hever by 1558 - Hasted, History of Kent 3, p.194 75 Saltwood by 1558 - Hasted, History of Kent 8, p.223 11 B.Malherbe - Lenham by 1559 - BL AddMss 42715 No or uncertain evidence – likely pre-1558 49 Kemsing Not in Lambarde or Elizabethan maps, ?by 1520s leases 45 Henden 1576 - Lambarde, but ?by 1550 after land exchange 72 Penshurst - Southpark Not on Elizabethan maps,?by 1552/3 CKS U1475M59 7 Birling - Comford Not in Lambarde or Elizabethan maps on site 8 Bockingfold Not in Lambarde or Elizabethan maps 25 Cudham Not in Lambarde or Elizabethan maps 36 Fryarne Not in Lambarde or Elizabethan maps 57 Lympne Not in Lambarde or Elizabethan maps 68 Pembury Not in Lambarde or Elizabethan maps pre-1576 - Lambarde 67 Panthurst by 1567 CKS U1450 T5/40 69 Penshurst - Ashour by 1574 CKS U1474/T33 52 Langley by 1576 - Lambarde, not on maps 65 Oxenhoath by 1576 Lambarde, not on maps 66 Oxenhoath by 1576 Lambarde, not on maps 318 No. Name Earliest evidence of disparkment 60 Mereworth by 1576 Lambarde, not on maps 85 Sutton by 1576 Lambarde, not on maps 88 Tonbridge - Cage by 1576 Lambarde, only evidence 92 Tonbridge - Postern by 1576 Lambarde, only evidence 73 Postling by 1576 - CCA DCB-J/X.16 82 Stowting by 1580 - CCA DCB-J/X.10.20. 26 Curlswood by 1586 - LPL TA633/1 1 Aldington by 1596 - Lambarde's Perambulation 9 Bore Place by 1597 - CKS U1000/3 E5 1603-1625 62 Otford - Great by 1603 - Camden Society(1868:20). 41 Halden by 1610 - CKS U1475 T92 93a Southfrith by 1610 - Chalklin, A Kentish Wealden Parish (Tonbridge) 1550-1750, Oxford 1960, p.5 4 Bedgebury by 1612 - BL Cart.Harl.79.F.3 47 Hungershall by 1618 - ESRO ABE/52,1 37 Glassenbury by 1628 - map in private collection 319 APPENDIX 6: Figure 6.3 - NEW OWNERS OF ESTABLISHED AND NEW PARKS No. Park Owners who lost parks New Owners Date of change Established parks 21a Chilham Sir Henry Cheyne Sir Thomas Kempe Sir Dudley Digges (son-i n-law) 1572 1603 78 Shurland Sir Henry Cheyne Crown grant to Sir Philip Herbert 1574 1605 73 Postling Sir Humphrey Gilbert Thomas Smythe of Westenhanger 1579 99 West Wickham Sir Christopher Heydon John Lennard c.1587 54 Leeds Sir Warham Sentleger Sir Richard Smythe 1590s 80 Starborough ?William Borough, lord Burgh park in divided ownership c.1597 23 Cobham Henry Brooke, lord Cobham Crown grant to the duke of Lennox 1602/3 1612 49 Groombridge Sir Thomas Waller Thomas Sackville, earl of Dorset 1606/8 9 Bore Place Sir Thomas Willoughby Bernard Hyde 1609 50 Knole* Richard Sackville, earl of Dorset various for earl of Dorset's debts 1615 82 Stowting Reginald Kempe's daughters Josias Clerke of Westerfield, Essex 1621 62 Otford Great** Sir Robert Sidney Sir Thomas Smythe 1622 41 Halden*** Robert Sidney, earl of Leicester Sir Thomas Smyhte 1622 New imparkments 76 Scotney ?Thomas Darell II by 1579 51 Langley, Beckenham ?William Style ?1580s+ 28 Eastwell Sir Moyle Finch 1589 74 Roydon ?William Twysden by 1590 94 Tyler Hill ?Sir Roger Manwood by 1592 38 Great Chart Sir William Wythens c.1605 53 Lee Sir Nicholas Stoddard c.1605 320 No. Park Owners in 1558 New Owners Date of change New imparkments 29 East Wickham Sir Olyffe Leigh 1610 42 Halstead Sir Thomas Watson c.1610s 21b Chilham Sir Dudley Digges 1616 61 Mersham Hatch Sir Norton Knatchbull c.1618 84 Surrenden Sir Edward Dering c.1621 93b Somerhill Richard Burke, earl of Clanricarde c.1623 See Park profiles for sources * Acquired by the family in 1566 ** Acquired by the family in 1601 *** Acquired by the family in 1566 321 APPENDIX 7: Figure 6.4 – Kentish Parks owned by the Crown Fate of park Active or not Status in 1625 (see Park profiles, p.351 onwards, for sources for each park) CROWN KEPT (4) dis = disparked 31 Eltham - Great d = with deer 32 Eltham - Middle d 33 Eltham - Horn d 39 Greenwich d KEEPERS/ SOLD (2) 18 Canterbury - New d sold 1601 62 Otford - Great d, dis by 1603 sold 1601 GRANTED AWAY (12) 41 Halden d, dis c.1610 1566 granted in fee Sidney tenure for life, 1622 Sidney sells to Sir Thomas Smythe 49 Kemsing dis ?1520s 1559 grant to Lord Hunsdon in male tail 50 Knole d 1559 grant Lord Hunsdon, 1561-66 to Robert Dudley, 1566 to Thomas Sackville 67 Panthurst d, dis by 1567 as Knole 89 Tonbridge - Cage dis by 1576 1559 grant to Lord Hunsdon in male tail 90 "- Northfrith d as above 91 " Little - Hadlow d as above 92 " Northfrith wood d as above 93 " Postern dis by 1576 as above 79 Shurland d to Crown c1564 Sir Henry Cheyne exchange, 1605 granted to Herbert by James I 97 Westenhanger d to Crown c.1540,1585 grant to Thomas Smythe military service and fine £3+ pa 98 " - Ostenhanger d as above LEASED/ SOLD (1) 2 Allington dis by 1550 30 year leases – Finch, Astley, 1583 sold to Sir John Astley male tail kt's fee, £100+pa LEASED (9) 1 Aldington d, dis by 1596 21 year leases – Sentleger, Scott 5 Bexley dis by 1469 21 year leases 322 Fate of park Active or not Status in 1625 14 Boxley dis by 1542 21 year leases, 1581 lease to Baynham for 3 lives 30 Elham d 1551 80 year lease to Sir Edward Wotton, via Hamon>Lewknor to Herbert by c.1625 59 Maidstone dis by 1556 21 year leases 63 Otford - Little dis by 1548 21 year leases 64 Otford - New dis by 1525 Leased out 94 Tonbridge - Southfrith d, dis by 1610 1571 Robert Dudley 50 year lease, to Sidney 99 Westwell / Calehill d to Crown c.1559, lease already with John Tufton, 1598 renewed for 31 years at £10 pa TEMPORARY (6) 15 Brasted dis by 1547 1575 sale to pay Isley's creditors, 52 Langley dis by 1576 1570 as above 84 Sundridge dis by 1553 1570 as above 87 Sutton Valence dis by 1530s 1570 as above 23 Cobham d 1603 from Brooke, 1612 grant to Lennox 24 Cooling d 1603 from Brooke, but returned to Brooke CROWN pre-1558 (22) 6 Birling d 1522 confiscated over implication with Buckingham, but later restored for a fine 7 Birling - Comford dis as above 8 Bockingfold dis 1554/55 grant to Susan Tonge 17 Broxham dis by 1548 1555 to Mary I from William Cromer, who later recovered the park 19 Canterbury - Old dis by 1550 1540 sold to William Coppyn 20 Canterbury - Trenley dis by 1425 Henry VIII to Sir Henry Browne 22 Chislet dis by 1541 1537 to Henry VIII, 1538 Archbishop gave up land in Surrey and bought it back 26 Curlswood dis by 1586 1537 to Henry VIII, but he returned to Archbishop because of very long leases 34 Folkestone dis by 1542 1541 to Henry VIII, 1554 granted to Lord Clinton & Say 36 Fryarne dis 1537 to Henry VIII, back to Archbishop, back to Henry VIII who granted to Heyman 45 Henden dis by 1550 1544 Henry VIII sold to Sir Thomas Gresham 323 Fate of park Active or not Status in 1625 46 Hever dis by 1558 1558 Mary I granted to Sir Edward Waldegrave 48 Ightham dis by 1524 1530s to Henry VIII, long leases, but seems to have left royal hands before 1558 54 Leeds d 1552 Edward VI sold to Sir Anthony Sentleger 20th kt's fee +£10 pa 56 Lyminge ?dis 1540s to Henry VIII, 1546 grant to Sir Anthony Aucher in capite, 20th kt's fee, £4 7s 2d pa 68 Pembury dis unclear, but out of Crown hands at latest in 1547 69 Penshurst - Ashour d 1521 to Henry VIII, 1552 grant to Sir Henry Sidney 70 Penshurst - Leigh dis by 1553 as above 71 Pensh'rst - Northlands d as above 72 Penshurst - Southpark dis as above 75 Saltwood dis by 1558 1537 to Henry VIII, several exchanges, 1556 to Cardinal Pole, uncertainty after 101 Wrotham dis by 1536 1537 to Henry VIII, Edward VI ?grant/sale to Sir John Mason 324 Appendix 8 Figure 7.2 - Schedule of letters containing references to Otford from Rowland Whyte to Sir Robert Sidney, 1596-1601 Compiled from - Kingsford C.L. & Shaw W.A. (editors), Historical Manuscripts Commission Report on the Manuscripts of Lord De L’Isle and Dudley preserved at Penshurst Place, II (London, 1934) 1596 1. 22 September ¼ hour with Fortescue1 , thought RS2 meant to have 100 deer, said you wouldn't keep such rent and the deer, but what offered benefit to Q3 more than RS. RW4 says RS wants speed from Q who never bestowed anything on you 2. 30 September Q has been told terms, what repairs would cost her, fees she would save, and rent offered. Q well inclined, RS to write to Cecils to continue favours. Backing of Fortescue should bring to speedy end 3. 2 October RW optimistic, but all things are subject to crosses 1596/1597 4. 18 February Lease delivered to Fortescue, but he and Burghley busy with privy seals 5. 25 February Fortescue promises to dispatch Otford as soon as Burgley at leisure 6. 28 February Burghley unwell. Lord Cobham weak, his son wants wardenship of Cinque Ports 7. 4 March Burghley still unwell, whose hands are bound up this cold weather 8. 12 March Fortescue raised Otford, but Burghley still too busy over Sir Thomas Shirley5 affair 9. 16 March RW would dispatch Otford if in his power, but Burghley not well 10. 19 March Essex has read letter to Q and Burghley and said it was good. Lady Warwick will deliver when she returns. He spoke to Stanhope6 who said Cobham had already got park. RW thought to press for leave rather than for park 11. 22 March RW delivered RS letter re wardenship of Cinque Ports to Q who said Cobham has it. Waited for Fortescue 2½ hours, spoke about Otford, but there was more disquiet about the accounts and Shirley. I grow weary of this fruitless attending upon so vain promises 12. 25 March RW asks to deal with Otford as he sees fit as letters cause delay 13. 26 March RS should write to Burghley as great time is lost in attending Fortescue 1597 14. 4 April Fortescue ill for 8 days. Otford asleep until he is well unless RS gives RW go ahead to approach Burghley 15. 5 April Such a hurlyburly over Shirley and the French, not opportune for private suits 1 Under Treasurer and Chancellor of the Exchequer 2 Sir Robert Sidney 3 The Queen 4 Rowland Whyte 5 Treasurer-at-war in the Low Countries accused of embezzlement of funds 6 Sir John Stanhope, treasurer of the chamber 325 16. 13 April Fortescue better, but RS ought to let RW have a private letter to Burghley about Otford 17. 16 April Will go on attending Fortescue, but Burghley is well and at Court, will try to bring both together 18. 23 April Fortescue ill but has corrected petition and directs RW to Burghley 19. 27 April Burghley has read the letter and looked at the inquisition. Q would have to agree at pulling down house. He thinks suit reasonable, leases are usually granted by him. RW asks RS to write to Fortescue and Burghley for their favour 20. 30 April Fortescue has seen inquisition. He agrees needs Q's consent, but thinks offer so profitable Q would agree unless Burghley opposed 21. 4 May Fortescue will approach Q, should be alright unless Burghley opposes 22. 12 May Fortescue not at Court, the matter depends wholly on him 23. 14 May Fortescue is back, by his advice the petition has been framed 24. 25 September Draft letter to Burghley, for 3 years he has asked money for repairs. The house will fall down and the deer escape. At his own expense RS has had survey done (copy enclosed), seeks lease for 3 lives and herbage and pannage of the park 25. 22 October Burghley absent so can't solicit about Otford 1597/1598 26. 8 January Fortescue not at Court for 10 days, not RW's fault if it does not end well. Petition for 3 lives with herbage and pannage; yearly fee of £6/3/4d to end; RS to repair pale, lodge, maintain deer and give yearly rent as Q imposes. Asks RS to be patient if he is denied 27. 19 January Burghley will approach Q when matters of that nature arise. Q has gracious opinion of RS though you have as few friends about her as may be. Will contact Essex about RS's leave 28. 11 February Will solicit Burghley about Otford and Essex about leave 29. 15 February Will solicit Burghley about Otford and Essex about leave 30. 18 February Essex says has not forgotten about leave. Burghley has not answered petition about Otford. I find him not to meddle with suits 31. 25 February Will jog Burghley's memory when he is well 1599 32. 12 September RW asks RS to write to Burghley to effect it, for you of yourself will never enjoy it 33. 27 October Lord Cobham with the help of Buckhurst, Fortescue and Robert Cecil to beg for Otford and has approached Johns7 to buy out his term 34. 31 October Goes to Fortescue who says whoever offers most will have Otford. Buckhurst wants reversion after your life 35. 3 November Has begged Barbara Sidney to come to Court or park will be lost and future leave 36. 10 November Cobham has sent for Johns to deal for his interest. RW does not know the answer, but Johns has written to RS about it. Q has denied any grant to him. Buckhurst opposed it. Lady Huntingdon will deliver offer 7 Johns/Jones deputy keeper of the park appointed by Sir Robert Sidney 30 July 1599 326 to Q, for RS and 2 sons lives with herbage and pannage; pale with be repaired at £300, your keeper's fee to be £6/3/1d and rent of £10 a year; convenient number of deer to be maintained. Figures to show Q will save money on this arrangement. P.S. My Lady Walsingham hath gott her husbands life, her own and her sonnes in Eltam Parke. It is under the Great Seale already 37. 13 November RW proceeding with good advice so no one will take exception to it. RS letter to Q not to be delivered but on good cause and good advice 38. 13 November Cobham minded to purchase all Otford manor, but Q won't part. No dealing for fee-farm, Lady Huntingdon will proceed for terms of 10 November letter 39. 15 November Lady Warwick has spoken to Cobham who said he never sought Otford. She will not progress Otford until RS's leave granted; in meantime she is not idle in visiting her great friends 40. 29 November Not the right moment to press for Otford, perhaps prepare fine present for Q 41. 1 December If Cobham is still trying to get Otford, RW cannot possibly hear of it; yt is donne so secret yf it be done, that I cannot by any meanes com to the knoledge of it. Fortescue denies Cobham is trying and thinks Q won't part with it 1599/1600 42. 11 January Q pressed but won't sell Otford house, but content for another survey. Fortescue can't see any reason why any should have it before RS, and knew of no other suit. RW thinks time to take alarm as suspects reason for survey is because Burghley and Cobham will make an offer. Johns offers £4000 towards purchase if you will let him join. If Q will sell house and park equal other offers or more 43. 14 January Fortescue says if Otford can't be repaired it will pulled down and stuff sent to Eltham and Greenwich. Thinks commissioners will think house should be pulled down, RS likely to be pleased because while there will he hard to procure further state in park 44. 16 January Officers of the works are at Otford 45. 19 January Officers of the works return from Otford. Kirwin, RS servant, was there, but not for Buckhurst or Cobham. No survey of park done 46. 24 January RW spoke with Stanhope to acquaint Q with RS offers and promised his wife 4 fair mares in return. Stanhope confided that Cobham was still trying to get Otford. The certificate of works values Otford house at £2000 47. 26 January RS has written to Buckhurst and Robert Cecil who has acquainted Cobham and they have been discouraged from pursuing Otford 48. 2 February Fortescue says those that were most earnest to get Otford are grown cold. Certificate of work shows repair of house at £1000, demoliton £800, value for sale £2000. RS has be much abused for it is rumoured he has sold life interest to Johns for £1000, which is the ground work for all this late alarm. Lady Warwick has seen Burghley and Fortescue to deny rumour and 'she very discreetly with some little vehemency, delivered her mynd to them' 49. 9 February No leave to be dealt with for RS till near Easter. Lady Warwick has present RS offer to Q. She will take time to consider. Lady Warwick and Lady Huntingdon say don't give present to Q until she accepts offer 50. 14 February No more secret moves for Otford. Q says if anybody to have further state in it it would be RS. 51. 16 February RW to go to Court about Otford 52. 21 February Q's reply to Lady Warwick about offer,'God forbyd but that you shuld be preferd before any other, and be more respected.' 53. 25 February Fortescue has agreed to RS offering 2 lives at Otford 327 54. 1 March Lady Warwick promises to move Q for 2 lives more 55. 11 March Burghley has received offer of 2 more lives. He said if RS thought he would get way by offers, he would be out offered. Q not likely to grant further state in it. Cobham was a nobleman, but as he has given his word to RS he will take Otford no further 56. 22 March Buckhurst said if Archbishop of Canterbury put in suit for Otford he might get it 1600 57. 2 April Buckhurst hopes if RS gets Otford he will sell it to him. RW says RS will never sell. He accused RW of divulging their previous conversations, which RW did not deny. Buckhurst said it was Cobham who had told him of Johns' buying RS interest in the park as Johns had told him. RW confronted Johns who denied it. He went to Burghley and both went to Cobham who denied circulating rumours 58. 12 April Some 'jar' between Buckhurst and Cobham over Otford 59. 26 April RW has told Buckhurst RS might do a deal if he can persuade Q over giving RS leave. Cobham still trying to get Otford park 60. 30 April Cobham still insists RS has sold his interest for £1000. This manner of proceeding is very unfriendly. RW is going to Buckhurst to deny it. Lady Warwick warned about event so she can take care Q may not be led to wrong RS in his absence 61. 3 May RW has reason to be circumspect. Has told Buckhurst, RS won't make deal until he get his leave. Buckhurst will never consent to Cobham getting Otford 62. 10 May Cobham continues to try for park 63. 12 May RS did right to write to Burleigh for Cobham stays at Court to get the park. Lady Warwick will see nothing done until RS return 64. 13 May Buckhurst says if RS gets fee-simple, he will desire only a life interest in it 65. 17 May RW thinks Buckhurst honourable and friendly 66. 31 May Lord Herbert has told RW that Buckhurst is earnest suitor to Q to get an estate in the park. I cannot believe it 67. 26 September Barbara Sidney has told RW that 2 of Buckhurst's men were viewing Otford. He protest much to love you 328 APPENDIX 9: Figure 8.1 – Deer Park Violations, 1558-1625 No. Park Offence date Nature of offence Court date Reference ELIZABETH I *depositions or other details remain 9 9 W.Wickham c.1559 killing deer 1559 BL Add Mss 33899 5 0 Knole c.1560 *suspicious weaponed hunters by park - CKS U1450/F41 9 9 W.Wickham c.1564 breaking into park 1564 BL Add Mss 33899 6 2 Otford - Great mid 1560s coursing with greyhounds, killing deer - U1475/L17 7 1 Penshurst early 1570s hunting many times by 1 - U1475/E42/1 89-91 North Frith early 1570s twice hunting, killing deer - U1475/L17 4 7 Hungershall 1572 killing deer - U1475/L17 4 7 Hungershall 15/09/1572 accidental shooting death, pardoned 19/2/1573 Assize 35/15/1/647 (p.116) 7 1 Penshurst 1572-1573 *multiple hunting, coursing - U1475/L17, U1475/E42/1, 4 7 Hungershall 13/06/1573 1 with crossbow killed buck, confessed 25/6/1573 Assize 35/15/6/676 (p.121) 5 8 Lynsted 3/06/1579 rabbits from warren (?in park), in goal 23/7/1579 Assize 35/21/8/991 (p.169) 6 0 Mereworth 1/12/1581 6 break into park, assault servant 4/3/1583 Assize 35/25/9/1211 (p.204). (Waterdown, Eridge park, Sx) Jan-June 1582 *multiple breaks, many men June 1583 STAC5/A56/32 (not in park) 31/08/1583 Lulingstone keeper killed man, murder 20/2/1584 Assize 35/26/4/1296 (p.217) (Waterdown, Sx) 10 & 17/6/1584 *Kent men kill deer 5/7/1584 STAC5/A1/8 2 4 Cooling Sept 1584 3 hunting 25/9/1584 Read(1962) p.35 2 3 Cobham Aug 1585 rabbit hunting by 4 3/8/1585 Read(1962) p.40 6 2 Otford Great 9/01/1587 *hunting, killing deer, hunter slain 12&18/1/1597 SP12/197/19 & 32, CKS U1450 E20 5 0 Knole Lent, 1587 hunting, killing deer 12&18/1/1597 SP12/197/19 & 32 6 Birling July 1587 rabbit hunting by 3 28/71587 Read(1962) p.48 5 0 Knole 2-5/11/ 1588 groups killed 1 deer, hurt 1 deer - Barrett- Lennard(1908) pp.126-7 5 0 Knole 13/08/1589 keepers mistake others, 1 killed, no verdict 23/2/1590 Assize 35/32/4/1806 (p.299) 3 1 Eltham Great c.1594 2 accused of hunting discharged 28/3/1594 QM/SB/30A (A p.7) 9 Bore Place 23/9/1594 park break, family and servants assaulted, fines, ignoramus, 1 to gaol not paid fine 11/10/1594 24/9/1596 QM/SIq/4/1-4 (A p.333) QM/SB/122 (A p.17) 7 9 Sissinghurst Dec 1595 *claim of 1 to have found dead deer 4/5 Jan 1596 QM/SB/154 (A p.20) 79 Sissinghurst 1595-1596 * 2 + suspected of killing several deer Feb-April 1596/97 QM/SB/162, 163 & 168 (A p.210 QM/S1/1597/8 nos. 11-13 (A p.144) 329 No. Park Offence date Nature of offence Court date Reference *depositions or other details remain 3 Aylesford 1597 horse stealing from common park 17/5/1597 QM/SI/1597/11 (A p.145) 7 7 Scott's Hall 13/12/1597 8 + dogs kill 4 deer, hunter killed 20/2/1598 Assize 35/40/3/ 2545 (pp.417-418). 6 Birling c.1597 *rabbit stealing by 1, by information 1/5/1598 1/10/1598 QM/SB/252 (A p.28) QM/SI/1598/2/11 (A p.157) 6 Birling c.1597/98 *group kill 2 deer, assault keepers 1/5/1598 QM/SB/252 (A p.28) 2 3 Cobham c.1597/98 *rabbit stealing 1/5/1598 QM/SB/252 (A p.28) 5 0 Knole 1599 6 enter park and assault keepers 29/7/1599 QM/SI/1597/24/2 (A p.177)) 7 1 Penshurst 6/5/1599 3 hunt deer with greyhounds 2/3/1601 Assize 35/43/9/2856 (p.468) 7 1 Penshurst 14 & 18/5/1600 *multiple hunting, killing deer, abduction >led to Star Chamber case May 1600 – Nov 1601 CKS U1475/L18/1-19 (June 1600-Nov 1601), U1475 E42/2; HMC II p.464,467 STAC5/S2/20; STAC5/S21/31; STAC5/S41/5; STAC5/S68/33; STAC5/S74/15 6 Birling c.1601 *multiple rabbit hunting, 2 deer - StaffsRO D593/S/4/56/1 7 9 Sissinghurst 5/1/1601 *hunting in park 20/10/1604 STAC8/53/5 6 Birling 12/1/1601 with greyhounds kill 1 deer 21/4/1601 Q/SR2/13 m3d (C p.71-72) 7 1 Penshurst ?October 1601 keepers attacked in lane by park - CKS U1475 C36/3 (17 October 1601) 7 9 Sissinghurst mid Oct 1601 *hunting in park 20/10/1601 26/10/1601 QM/SRc/1602/197 (B p.457) Knafla(1994)'p. 254/5 QM/SB/387 (A p.38); Knafla(1994) p. 89,94, 176 7 9 Sissinghurst 2 4-29/10/1601 2/11/1601 *multiple hunting , keepers beaten 2 deer at night > led to Star Chamber case 25/9/1604 25/9/1604 20/10/1604 QM/SR1[Q/SR5]16 m2 (C p.204) STAC8/53/5 2 3 Cobham 1601-1602 *multiple hunting, killing deer - StaffsRO D593/S/4/56/1 1 8 Canterbury 1602 *coursing with greyhounds - StaffsRO D593/S/4/56/1 10/11 Wotton's park Spring 1602 *2 stealing rabbits 2/4/1602 QM/SB/429 (A p.43) Knafla(1994) pp.59, 88, 96, 191, 235 9 3 South Frith late July 1602 illegal offer of venison 5/9/1602 Kanfla(1994) pp.58, 103, 197 3 0 Elham Summer 1602 deer coursing with bloodhounds 12/9/1602 QM/SI/1603/2 (A p.192) 5 6 Lyminge 17/9/1602 2+ hunt deer with 2 bloodhounds, case to Queen's Bench March 1603 12/9/1603 Q/SR3/287 m8 no.1 (C p.113) QM/SI/1603/2 (A p.192) Knafla(1994) p.51,111,253 96? John Smith's pk Winter 1602 illegal hunting.?Westenhanger 11/1/1603 Kent at Law pp. 70,105,231 7 9 Sissinghurst 19/3/1603 *many kill deer, in park many times 20/10/1604 STAC8/53/5 330 No. Park Offence date Nature of offence Court date Reference *depositions or other details remain JAMES I 2 7 Denstroude 3/4/1603 1 broke in to retrieve impounded horse 19/7/1603 QM/SR/4/8/8 m2d (C p.157)) (Ashdown, Sx) Nov, 23/12/1604 *Kent men kill deer c.1604 STAC8/5/13 6 Birling not dated *deer, conies taken, night, assault not dated STAC8/221/23 (ND) 7 9 Sissinghurst 9/4/1604 greyhound killed doe, 3 fined c.1604 QM/SR4/15 (C p.193) 7 1 Penshurst 9/4/1604 4 with dogs kill doe 17/4/1604 Q/SR4/15 m11d (C p.193) 7 9 Sissinghurst 3 &7/6/1604 *many kill deer, in park many times c.1604 STAC8/53/5 7 9 Sissinghurst June 1604 *2 with dogs take deer 20/10/1604 STAC8/53/5 7 9 Sissinghurst 22/7/1604 3 break into park 25/9/1604 QM/SR1[Q/SR/5]15 m1d (C p.204) 7 8 Shurland Feb-Sept 1605 *group, dogs kill deer, pale down Nov 1605 STAC8/183/34 5 0 Knole Autumn 1605 2 ferreting for conies 22/11/1605 QM/SRc/1605/193 (B p.489) 4 3 (Hamsell, Sx) 1 & 10/10/1605 *2 kill deer 4/12/1605 STAC8/290/17 4 3 (Hamsell, Sx) 1/11/1605 *2 coursing kill deer May 1606 STAC8/294/6 7 9 Sissinghurst 17/11/1605 *group deer hunting 7/12/1605 29/1/1607 QM/SIq/4/29 & 30 (A p.338) STAC8/53/4 3 8 Great Chart 18/11/1605 5, night, killed conies with dogs, nets 12/4/1605 23/7/1605 QM/SIq/4/28 (A p.338) QM/SRI[Q/SR5] m6d (C p.217) 4 0 Groombridge c.1605 question about deer killed 1606-1607 STAC8/294/6 5 5 Lullingstone Sept 1606 5 take rabbits 7/9/1606 QM/SI/1606/13/20 (B p.239) 5 6 Lyminge 9/9/1606 *group get rabbits, deer, attack keepers 2/10/1606 QM/SB/710 (A p.67) QM/SI/1607/1/17 (B p.243) 6 1 Mersham Hatch Summer 1608 2 stole 2 rabbits, fined 16/7/1608 QM/SI/1608/11/8 (B p.251) 1 8 Canterbury 22/05/1609 *many break pale, attack deer, keeper c.1609 STAC8/16/2 9 4 Tyler Hill Summer 1609 4 break into park 8/6/1609 QM/SI/1609/18/8 (B p.260) 9 3 South Frith 19/01/1610 *attack on working forge at night 07/02/1610 STAC8/196/18 (1610) 63 Otford – Little 1612 2 separate men fishing in river 1612 QM/SRc/1612/59 & 110 (B p.595 & 600) 5 0 Knole Winter 1614/15 warrener and others hunted no licence 12/1/1615 QM/SI/1615/2/5 (A p.314) 2 4 Cooling Feb 1615 *3 ringleaders, greyhounds, kill doe 29/05/1618 STAC8/23/11 29 East Wickham 3/8/1615 *2, night, kill buck and other deer 4/6/1617 STAC8/198/18 6 Birling Summer 1617 *4 stole rabbits 19/7/1617 QM/SB/1279 (A p.108) 331 BIBLIOGRAPHY PRIMARY SOURCES SYMONSON 6" OS Tithe 1741/5 Rocque's British Library (BL) Add Ch. 9424 Add.Ch. 41796 Add.Mss. 12066 Add.Mss. 33899 Add.Mss. 34214 Add.Mss. 36804 Add.Mss. 36805 Add.Mss. 42715 Cart.Harl. 75.E.31 Cart.Harl. 75.H.23 Cart.Harl. 76.A.22 Cart.Harl. 77.A.35 Cart.Harl. 77.C.44 Cart.Harl. 77.D.10 Cart.Harl. 79.F.3 Cart.Harl. 79.F.5 Cart.Harl. 79.F.27 Cart.Harl. 80.B.36 Cart.Harl. 83.H.35 Cart.Harl. 85.H.6 Cart.Harl. 85.H.13 Cart.Harl. 86.G.54 Cart.Harl. 86.H.16 Cart.Harl. 86.H.53 Cart.Lans.82.55 Map 188.k.3(4) The National Archives (TNA) C142/468/85 C202/21/1 E40/4955 E40/4967 E41/75 E41/524 E42/431 E44/3 E101/497/4 E112/88/319 E112/190/168 E122/130/12-13 E133/3/557 E133/6/815 E133/6/863 E134/30-31 E134/34 E134/31Eliz/Hil12 E134/31Eliz/Hil27 E134/31Eliz/Mich19 E134/25ChasII/Mich12 E138/3521 E164/40 E164/44 E178/1093 E178/1128 E178/1163-5 E178/1179 E178/3924-5 E178/3941 E178/5365 E178/6020 E214/703 E214/898 E214/1138 E251/3367 E314/61/8 E317/8 E326/1398 E326/2947 E328/51 E328/172 E351/764 E351/3367 E351/3393 E351/3541 E354/45 Ind1/16822/264 Ind1/16822/319 Ind1/16824/94 Ind1/16824/136 Ind1/16824/168 LR2/196 LR2/218 MPF1/240 MPF1/272 MPI 1/248 332 PCC prob/11/42 PCC prob/11/44 PCC prob11/63/15 PCC prob/11/65 PCC prob/11/87-88 PCC prob/11/112/72 PCC prob/11/112/114 PCC prob/11/124 PCC prob/11/127 PCC prob/11/133-134 PCC prob/11/142 PCC prob/11/148 PCC prob/11/159 PCC prob/11/180 PCC prob/11/259 PCC prob/11/951 PRC/0/3/59 PRC/12/13/126 PRC/16/208 PRC/16/218 PRC/16/37 PRC/16/125/L/1 PRC/17/67/106 PRC/17/53/227 PRC/32/30 PRC/32/45 PRC/16/218 SC6/HenVIII/1727 SC12/9/4 SC12/9/6 SC12/9/46 SC12/9/48 SC12/20/22 SC12/27/7 SP10/4/27 SP12/16/26 SP12/20/52 SP12/25/130 SP12/34/25 SP12/75/39-47 SP12/87/1-3 SP12/93/37 SP12/98/15 SP12/98/29 SP12/124/10 SP12/126/33 SP12/131/39-41 SP12/136/42 SP12/142/19 SP12/143/35 SP12/143/41 SP12/148/63 SP12/149/52 SP12/162/34 SP12/162/38 SP12/162/40 SP12/162/44 SP12/163/14 SP12/163/20 SP12/171/66 SP12/179/12 SP12/180/54 SP12/181/24 SP12/186/46 SP12/197/19 SP12/197/32 SP12/211/103 SP12/224/80 SP12/235/9 SP12/238/11/1 SP12/240/103 SP12/250/42 SP12/250/44 SP12/253/71 SP12/253/88 SP12/259/20 SP12/259/82 SP12/262/48 SP12/263/107 SP12/264/7 SP12/264/70 SP12/265/20 SP12/270/25 SP12/273/25 SP12/274/30 SP12/274/117 SP12/274/127 SP12/275/3 SP12/276/39 SP12/277/1 SP12/281/57 SP12/234/78 SP12/335/9 SP12/250/42 SP12/520/69 SP12/276/43 SP12/908/29 SP14/2/7 SP14/4/16 SP14/4/ 33A SP14/6/89 SP14/8/7 SP14/9/83 SP14/10/78 SP14/10/85 SP14/12/88 SP14/13/58 SP14/13/70 SP14/14/1 SP14/14/11 SP14/14/32 SP14/15/20 SP14/15/34. SP14/27/15 SP14/28/58 SP14/31/10 SP14/31/24 SP14/32/10 SP14/35/49 SP14/35/58 SP14/35/75 SP14/36/13 SP14/36/42 SP14/38/10 SP14/45/62 SP14/47/5 SP14/47/41 SP14/53/110 SP14/57/3 SP14/58/19 SP14/59/9 SP14/65/5 SP14/69/34 SP14/69/71 SP14/70/48 SP14/75/40 SP14/75/49 SP14/76/29 SP14/76/45 SP14/108/53 SP14/109/41 SP14/109/92 SP14/110/54 SP14/115/68 SP14/117/62 SP14/152/75 SP14/153/74 SP14/153/97 SP14/164/71 SP14/180/4 SP14/127/62 SP14/128/112 SP14/130/83 SP14/131/53 SP14/132/46 SP14/132/97 SP14133/31 SP14/133/43 SP14/148/104 SP14/185/19 SP14/209/92 SP16/522/133 SP18/17/38-41 STAC5/A1/8 STAC5/S2/20 STAC/S21/31 333 STAC5/S41/5 STAC5/S68/33 STAC5/S74/15 STAC8/5/13 STAC8/16/2 STAC8/23/11 STAC8/33/4 STAC8/53/4 STAC8 53/5 STAC8/183/34 STAC8/196/18 STAC8/198/8 STAC8/221/23 STAC8/ 290/17 STAC8/294/6 STAC8/295/10 Centre for Kentish Studies (CKS) DRa/Pwr/1 DRb/Pwr/4 DRb/Pwr/9/315 DRb/Pwr/11/157 Drb/Pwr/11/294 DRb/Pwr/15/53 DRb/Pwr/18/128 DRb/Pwr/19 DRb/Pwr/20 DRb/Pwr/22/273 DRb/Pwr/23 DRb/Pwr/25 DRb/Pwr/27 DRb/Pwr/32 DRb/Pwr/42 DRb/Pwr/44 PRS/W/14/209 QM/SB 1/252 QM/SB 2/9 QM/SB 25/30 QM/SB 122 QM/SB 154 QM/SB 162 QM/SB 163 QM/SB 167 QM/SB 168 QM/SB 387 QM/SB 706 QM/SB 710 QM/SB 1598/252 QM/SB 1602/429 QM/SB 1602/1217-1218 QM/SB 1602/1220 QM/SB 1606/696. QM/SB 1617/1279 QM/SI 1597-8/11-13 QM/SI 1598/2 QM/SI 1606/13/20 QM/SI 1608/11/8 QM/SI 1599/24/2 QM/SI 1609/18/8 QM/SI 1610/298 QM/SI 1615/165/2/5 QM/SIq 4/1-4 QM/SIq 4/29-30 QM/SM/21 no.743 QM/SR1/15-16 Q/SR2/13 Q/SR4/15 Q/SR48/8 QM/SRc 1602/196-197 QM/SRc 1605/193 QM/SRc 1606/ 230-232 QM/SRc 1612/59 QM/SRc 1612/110 QS/SB 398 TR 429/1 TR 431/9, Map 5 TR1534/1 U24 M23 U24 T207 U24 T279 U24 T283 U24 T308 U24 T428/1-4 U31 P3 U38/T1 parts1- 2 U47/1 T239: U47/3 T42-44 U47/11 M2-M3 U47/11 M17 U48 P1 U78 P31 U93 T11-20 U151 P1-2 U195 C146 U214 E19/14 U214 E19/21 U214 E19/23 U234 E21 U269 A2/1-2 U269 A3 U269 A5/1 U269 A41/1/1-2 U269 A41/1/7-8 U269 A41/1/11 U269 A41/1/13-16 U269 A41/2 U269 A182/3/1-3 U269 C1/1 U269 C1/9 U269 E23/1-2 U269 E25/2 U269 E28 U269 E30-31 U269 E45 U269 E48 U269 E66/1-3 U269 E341 U269 T1 U269 T3 U269 T15 U274 E5 U274 T8 U312 M U312 P2-P3 U350 E4 334 U386 P1 U409 M2 U410 T195 U442 P102 U480/T1/1 U565 P1 U565 T166 U590/T14/4 U591 C261/3 U591 C261/5 U681 P31 U708 T14 U787 E9/2-3 U787 E9 U787/T1 U787/T4 U787/T6 U807/M1 U825 P6 U830 T5 U830 T6/1-2 U830 T6/29 U908 L1/1-2 U908 P78 U908 T6 U951 A2 U951 C261/5 U951 C261/9 U967 M2 U1000/1/T1 U1000/3 E2 U1000/3 E5-E6 U1000/3 E9 U1000/3 E23-E24 U1000/3 E28 U1000/3 E34 U1000/7/M19 U1000/2 T1 bundle 2 U1095/P3 U1450 E19-E20 U1450 T1/3 U1450 T4/17 U1450 T5/22 U1450 T5/40 U1450 T5/62 U1450 T5/65-69 U1450 T6/9-10 U1450 T6/12 U1450 T6/23 U1450 T6/27-32 U1450 T6/44 U1450 T7/87A U1450 T14/6 U1450 T14/17 U1475 A6/6 U1475 A11 U1475 A24 U1475 A27/7 U1475 A28/4 U1475 A33/2 U1475 C12/203 U1475 C36/3 U1475 C50/15 U1475 C66/8 U1475 C75/4 U1475 C81/37 U1475 C81/48 U1475 C81/82 U1475 C250 U1475 E1 U1475 E21/1-2 U1475 E23/1-2 U1475 E24 U1475 E31 U1475 E42/1-2 U1475 E47 U1475 E55/1 U1475 E55/4 U1475 E60-E62 U1475 L17-L18 U1475 M58-60 U1475 M73 U1475 M79 U1475 T4/2 U1475 T4/7 U1475 T4/13 U1475 T4/17 U1475 T4/20 U1475 T9/7 U1475 T27 U1475 T33 U1475 T55/22-22A U1475 T58 U1475 T61/1-4 U1475 T61/6 –7 U1475 T84-T87 U1475 T90 U1475 T92 U1500 C2/3 U1500 E1 U1500 E8 U1500 P1 U1506 P1/44 U1515 P11 U1515 T1 U1515 T75 U1590 E54/6 U1590 T1/3 U1590 T1/5-8 U1590 T14/12 U1590 T14/14 U1590 T14/17 U1590 T22/9 U1590 T22/12 U1590 T22/14 U1590 T22/28 U1590 T23/6 U1590 T23/13-14 U1590 T23/27 U1590 T25/3 U1644 T1 U1644 T322 U1644 T11629 U1776 P1 U1867 P1 U2007 T155. U2035 T32 Bromley Local Studies Library (BLS) 43/6 43/7a-b 43/9 43/10a-b Canterbury Cathedral Archives (CCA) CC J/Q/288 QS CC J/Q/401/5 QS DCB-J/X.10.16 DCB-J/X.10.17 DCB-J/X.10.18 335 DCB-J/X.10.20 DCB-J/X.11.1 DCB-J/X.16 DCc ChAnt/C/965 DCcChAnt/C/1238 DCc ChAnt/M/29-38 DCc ChAnt/W/230 M49 M57 Register T folio 254 Register T folio 313 Centre for Medway Studies (CMS) DRc/Ac2/5/43 DRc/Elb/1A DRc/Ele/086/12 DRc/ES1/18 DRc/T166A U480/P1 U480/T1/1 U565/P1 U565/P3 U565/T166 U565/T251 U1823/P3 Chilham Castle Archives Hogben survey, 1778 Manorial and Estate Documents B, I Court Roll 1638-1644 Title Deeds A, bundle I and II, 1569-1720 East Kent Archive Centre (EKAC) EK- Ly/7 4/10-11 EK- Sa/ZP/3/242 EK- S/Rm P1/1 EK- TR270/4 EK- U88 T35 EK- U270/m285/1 EK- U270 T4 EK- U270 T11 EK- U270 T119 EK- U373 T41 EK- U404 T14 EK- U449 L9 EK- U1496 L1 East Sussex Record Office (ESRO) ABE/18/R/1 ABE/52 DAP box 32 Dyke-Hamilton 606-607 Lambeth Palace Library (LPL) ED1474 MS 952(5) TA633/1-4 TA39/1-9 TC1 TC3 TC656/1 TD172 TD253 TG56 Salisbury Papers at Hatfield House Accounts 6/35 Box S/9 Deeds 21/42 no.321 Deeds 42/1 no.15 Deeds 68/17 Deeds 115/17 Deeds 145/184 Deeds 145/206-7 Deeds 145/209-213 Deeds 190/21 Deeds 242/21 Staffordshire Record Office (StaffsRO) D593/S/4/56/1 S/4/10/30 S/4/14/14 S/4/42/1 S/4/61/1 Suffolk Record Office (SuffRO) HA43/T501/242 336 CALENDARS Acts of Privy Council New Series VII, 1558-1570, (ed. Dasent J.R., London, 1893) Calendar of Charter Rolls Calendar of Close Rolls Calendar of Inquisitions Miscellaneous VIII, 1422-1485 Calendar of Inquisitions Post Mortem Calendar of Patent Rolls Calendar of State Paper (Domestic) 1-12, 1547-1625 (ed. Lemon R., 1- 3, Everett Green M.A., 4-12 (London, 1856-1872, reprint 1967) Calendar of Assize Records, Kent Indictments under Elizabeth I (ed. Cockburn J.S., London, 1979) Calendar of Assize Records, Kent Indictments under James I, (ed. Cockburn J. S., London, 1980) Calendar of the Manuscripts of the Most Honourable the Marquess of Bath; Talbot, Dudley and Devereux papers 1533-1659, V (ed. Owen G.D., London, 1980) Calendar of the Manuscripts of the Most Hon. the Marquess of Salisbury (ed. Owen G.D., London, 1883) CATALOGUES Deputy Keeper of Records, Descriptive Catalogue of Ancient Deeds of the PRO (London, 1905) Hull F. (ed.), Catalogue of Estate Maps 1590-1840 in the Kent County Archives Office (Maidstone, 1973) Kent Quarter Session Catalogues A-E at CKS Kingsford C.L. & Shaw W.A. (editors), Historical Manuscripts Commission Report on the Manuscripts of Lord De L’Isle and Dudley preserved at Penshurst Place, I (London, 1925) Kingsford C.L. & Shaw W.A. (editors), Historical Manuscripts Commission Report on the Manuscripts of Lord De L’Isle and Dudley preserved at Penshurst Place, II (London, 1934) Shaw W.A. (editor), Report on the Manuscripts of Lord De L’Isle and Dudley preserved at Penshurst Place III (London, 1936) Shaw W.A. (editor), Report on the Manuscripts of Lord De L’Isle and Dudley preserved at Penshurst Place IV (London, 1942) Shaw W.A. & Owen G.D. (editors), Report on the Manuscripts of Lord De L’Isle and Dudley preserved at Penshurst Place V (London, 1962) Owen G.D (editor), Report on the Manuscripts of Lord De L’Isle and Dudley preserved at Penshurst Place VI (London, 1966) PRINTED PRIMARY SOURCES Adams S. (ed.), Household Accounts and Disbursements Books of Robert Dudley, Earl of Leicester, 1558-1561 & 1584-1586 (London 1995) Camden Society Fifth series 6 Arlott J. (ed.), John Speed's England (London, 1953) Bannerman W.B. (ed.), Visitation of Kent, 1574 and 1592 by Robert Cooke (London, 1924) Harleian Society Blencoe R.W., 'Rochester Records' in Archaeologia Cantiana II (1859) pp.73-84. Bruce J. (ed.), Diary of John Manningham (Camden Society XCIX, 1868) Bruce J. and Perowne T.T. (eds.), 'Correspondence of Matthew Parker,' (Parker Society 42, 1853) 337 Camden W., Britain or Chorographicall Description of the most flourishing Kingdomes, England, Scotland and Ireland, and the Ilands adoiyning, out of the depth of Antiquity (London 1610) Chalklin C.W. (ed.) 'Some title deeds relating to Tonbridge town and parish, 1476- 1869' in Kent Records – New Series 5 (2010) part 1. Chandler J. (ed.), John Leland’s Itinerary: Travels in Tudor England (Stroud, 1993) Crawford A. (ed.), The Howard Household Books of John Howard, Duke of Norfolk, 1462-1471, 1481-1483 (Stroud, 1992). Crossley D.W. (ed.), Sidney Ironworks Accounts 1541-1573 (London, 1975) Camden Fourth Series volume 15 Davis A.H., William Thorne's Chronicle of St Augustine's Abbey (Oxford, 1934) de Launay J. (ed.), Cranbrook, Kent, Wills 1396-1640 (Canterbury, 1984) du Boulay F.R.H., Documents illustrative of medieval Kentish Society (Ashford, 1964) Kent Records XVIII Edelen G. (ed.) The Description of England by William Harrison (New York, 1994) Eland G. (ed.), Thomas Wotton’s Letter-Book, 1574-1586 (London, 1960) Gascoigne G., The Noble Arte of Venerie or Hunting (1575, London). Groos G.W. (editor), The Diary of Baron Waldstein (London, 1981) Hanney, M.P. Kinnamon N. J. & Brennan M. G. (eds.), Domestic Politics and Family Absence- correspondence 1588-1621 of Robert Sidney, 1st Earl of Leicester and Barbara Gamage Sidney, Countess of Leicester (Aldershot, 2005) Hawkyard A. (ed.), The Counties of Britain; a Tudor Atlas by John Speed (London, 1988) Holinshed R., Holinshed's Chronicles of England, Scotland and Ireland (London, 1587) Hovenden R., Visitation of Kent by John Philipot, 1619 (London, 1898) Harleian Society Hughes P.L. & Larkin J. F. (eds.), Tudor Royal Proclamations, volumes II & III (London, 1969) Hughes P.L. & Larkin J. F. (eds.), Stuart Royal Proclamations (Oxford, 1973) Jenkins R.C. (ed.), The Chartulary of the Monastery of Lyminge (Folkestone, c.1880s to 1890s) Jones B. (ed.), 1273/74 Kilwardby Survey of the Archbihop's manors in S.E. England (http.//www.kentarchaeology.ac.uk) Jones B. (ed.), 1274/75 Kent Hundred Rolls (http.//www.kentarchaeology.ac.uk) Knafla L.A., Kent at Law 1602 (London, 1994) Lambarde W., A Perambulation of Kent conteining the Description, Hystorie, and Customes of that Shire (London, 1576, 2nd edition London, 1596) Lodge E.C. (ed.), The Account Book of a Kentish Estate, 1616-1704 (London, 1927) Luders A., Edlyn Tomlins Sir T., France J., Taunton W.E. & Raithby J. (eds), The Statutes of the Realm, volumes 1-12 (London, 1810-1828) Markham G., Maison Rustique, or The countrey farme (London, 1616) Melling E. (ed.), Kentish Sources III. Aspects of Agriculture and Industry (Maidstone, 1961) Melling E. (ed.), Kentish Sources VI, Crime and Punishment (Maidstone, 1969) Morice R, 'Anecdotes and Character of Archbishop Cranmer by Ralph Morice his secretary' pp.234-272 in Nichols J. G. (editor), Narratives of the Days of the Reformation (London, 1859) Camden Society IX Naunton R (ed.) Travels in England during the reign of Queen Elizabeth by Paul Hentzner (London, 1889) Norden J., The Surveiors Dialogue (London, 1610) 338 Pickering D. (ed.), The Statutes at Large (Cambridge, I & II (1762) III & IV (1763) Raines Rev. F. R. (editor), The Journal of Nicholas Assheton of Downham in the county of Lancashire esquire (Manchester, 1848) Chetham Society XIV Ravenhill W., Christopher Saxton's 16th Century maps: the counties of England and Wales (Shrewsbury, 1992) Read C. (ed.), William Lambarde and Local Government His ‘Ephemeris’ & TwentyNine Charges to Juries and Commissions (New York, 1962) Sackville-West V (ed.), The diary of Lady Anne Clifford (London, 1923) Sheppard J.B. (ed.), Literae Cantuariensis, The Letter Books of the Monastery of Christ Church Canterbury (London, 1887 (Vol.I), 1888 (Vol.II), 1889 (Vol.III) Tawney R.H. & Power E. (eds.), Tudor Economic Documents 1-3 (London, 1924) Thirsk J. & Cooper J.P. (editors), Seventeenth-Century Economic Documents (Oxford, 1972) Toulmin-Smith L. (ed.), The itinerary of John Leland in or about the years 1535- 1543(London, 1964) Wilson T., 'The State of England Anno Domini 1600' in Camden Miscellany XVI (ed. Fisher F. J.) (Camden Society 3rd Series lii, 1939) Yeandle L., Sir Edward Dering, 1st Bart, of Surrenden Dering and his 'Booke of Expences' 1617-1628 (www.kentarchaeology.ac.uk) PUBLISHED SECONDARY SOURCES Adrian J. M., 'Tudor Centralization and Gentry Visions of Local Order in Lambarde's Perambulation of Kent' in English Literary Renaissance (2006) 36:3, pp.306-334. Amussen S.D., Punishment, Discipline and Power: The Social Meanings of Violence in Early Modern England' in The Journal of British Studies 34 no.1 (January 1995) pp.1- 34 Anon., Boughton Monchelsea Place (Stratford, post 1954) Anon., Early History of the Roberts Family (c.1714, reprinted Bristol) Anon., Guide to Knole House, its rooms, pictures and antiquities, with an account of the possessors and park of Knole (Scarborough, 1883) Anon., Kent Gardens Compendium (1996, Maidstone) KCC 1st revision Archer S., Scadbury Manor (Orpington, 1985, revised 1994) Arnold R., A Yeoman of Kent: an account of Richard Hayes (1725-1790) and of the Village of Cobham in which he Lived and Farmed (London, 1949) Arnold R., Cobham Hall – Kent (Rochester, ND, ?1950s) Astor G., Hever Castle and Gardens History and Guide (Norwich, 1977) Aylmer G. E., 'Commissions of Crown Revenues and Land Sales in the Early Seventeenth Century', Bulletin of the Institute of Historical Research 46 (1973) pp.208- 209 Baker F.W., ‘Notes on the Life of Sir John Baker of Sissinghurst’, Archaeologia Cantiana XXXVIII (1926) pp.5-28 Baker J. H., An Introduction to English Legal History (London, 2002) Barker F., Greenwich and Blackheath Past (London, 1993) Barnes T.G., ‘Due Process and Slow Process in the Late Elizabethan-Early Stuart Star Court', American Journal of Legal History 6 (July, 1962) part I, pp.221-249 and (October 1962) part II pp. 315-346 Barnes T. G., 'Star Chamber Litigants and their Counsel, 1596-1641' pp.7-28, in Baker J. H. (ed.), Legal Records and the Historian (London, 1978) Barnett J. & Williamson T., Chatsworth, a landscape history (Macclesfield, 2005) Barrett-Lennard T., An Account of the Families of Lennard and Barrett (private printing, no location given, 1908) 339 Barnwell P. S. & Palmer M. (eds.), Post-Medieval Landscapes (Macclesfield, 2007) Batchelor G.W., Beresfords of Bedgebury (Goudhurst, 1996) Beaver D.C., 'The Great Deer Massacre: animals, honor, and communication in early modern England', The Journal of British Studies 38 (1999) pp.187-216 Beaver D.C., ''Bragging and daring words': honour, property and the symbolism of the hunt in Stowe, 1590-1642', pp.149-187 in Braddick M. J. & Walter J., Negotiating Power in Early Modern Society (Cambridge 2001) Beaver D. C., Hunting and the Politics of Violence before the English Civil War (Cambridge, 2008) Beresford M., History on the Ground (London, 1957) Beresford M.W., 'The Common Informer, the Penal Statutes and Economic Regulation' in The Economic History Review, Ne Series 10, no.2 (1957) pp.221-238. Birrell J., 'Deer and Deer Farming in Medieval England', The Agricultural History Review 40 (1992) Part II pp.112-136 Birrell J, 'Peasant poachers in the medieval forest' in Britnell R. & Hatcher J. (eds) Progress and Problems in medieval England (Cambridge, 1996) pp.68-88 Birrell J., 'Procuring, Preparing, and Serving Venison in Late Medieval England' pp.176-188 in Woolgar C.M., Serjeantson D.,m Wladron T. (Eds.) Food in Medieval England (Oxford, 2006) Black J.B., The Reign of Elizabeth, 1558-1603 (Oxford, 2nd edition 1959) Bolton, Chilham Castle, (private printing, 1912) Bond C.J., 'Woodstock Park under the Plantagenet Kings: the exploitation and use of wood and timber in a medieval deer park', Agricultural Journal 5 (1981) pp.201-213 Borrowman R., Beckenham Past and Present (Beckenham, 1910) Bowden M., ‘The Medieval Park at Kemsing’, Archaeologia Cantiana CXVI (1996), pp.329-332 Bowden V. E., The Story of Kemsing in Kent (Kemsing, 1994) Bowen H. T., Rolvenden Parish and Hundred (Rolvenden, 1939) Bowers J., 'The Kent Yeoman in the Seventeenth Century' in Archaeologia Cantiana CXVI (1994) pp.149-164 Box E.G., 'Lambarde's "Carde of this Shyre," third issue with roads added' in Archaeologia Cantiana XXXIX (1927) pp.141-148 Box E.G., 'Two sixteenth century maps of Kent with further notes on early road-books' in Archaeologia Cantiana XIV (1933) pp.48-59 Brandon P., The Kent and Sussex Weald (Chichester, 2003) Brandon P., The North Downs (Chichester, 2005) Brennan M. G. & Kinnamon N. J., A Sidney Chronology 1554-1654 (Basingstoke, 2003) Brewer J & Styles J., 'An Ungovernable People: The English and the Law in the Seventeenth and Eighteenth Centuries (London, 1980) Brook R., The Story of Eltham Palace (London, 1960) Buckingham C., 'The troubles of Sir Alexander Culpepper of Goudhurst', Kent Recusant History no.1, (Spring 1979) pp.20-26 Buckingham C., 'Inflation 1581', Kent Recusant History, nos 10-11 (Autumn 1983 & Spring 1984) pp.182-193. Burke B., Genealogical and Heraldic History of the Landed Gentry of Great Britain & Ireland, volumes I & II (London, 1879, 6th edition) Cantor L., The Medieval Parks of England - a Gazetteer (Loughborough, 1983) Cantor L.M. & Hatherly J., 'The Medieval Parks of England', Geography 64 (1979) no.283 pp.71-85 340 Cantor L.M. & Wilson J.D., 'The Medieval Parks of Dorset I-X', The Proceedings of the Dorset Natural History and Archaeological Society, 83 (1961) pp.109-116, 84 (1963) pp.145-153, 85 (1964) pp.141-152, 86 (1965) pp.164-178, 87 (1966) pp.223- 233, 88 (1967) pp.176-185, 89 (1968) pp.171-180, 90 (1969) pp.241-248, 91 (1970) pp.196-205 (see Wilson J. D. below for rest of series) Cave-Browne J., 'Shurland House' in Archaeologia Cantiana XXIII (1898) pp.86-93 CH (Charles Hardy), Chilham Castle BC55-AD1916 (Chilham, 1916) Chalklin C.W., Seventeenth Century Kent - a social and economic history (London, 1965) Chalklin C., 'Iron Manufacture in Tonbridge Parish with special reference to Barden Furnace 1552-1771' in Archaeologia Cantiana, CXXIV (2004) Chambers E.K., The Elizabethan Stage, volumes I & IV (Oxford, 1923, reprinted with correction 1945) Chambers M., Roydon Hall - a brief history (Exeter, 1974) Charlton T.F., The Family of Charlton of Wrotham (Brighton, 1951) Chauncey H., Hertfordshire (Dorking 1975 reproduction, 1st edition London 1700) Christian G., Ashdown Forest (Lewes, 1967, 3rd edition 1976) Churchill I. J., Canterbury Administration (London, 1933) Clark P., 'Popular Protest and Disturbance in Kent, 1558-1640', The Economic History Review, New Series, 29 no.3 (August, 1976) pp.365-382 Clark P., English Provincial Society from the Reformation to the Revolution: religion, politics and society in Kent 1500-1640 (Hassocks, 1977) Clarke D. & Stoyel A., Otford in Kent - A History (Otford, 1975) Clay C.G.A. (ed.), Economic Expansion and Change: England 1500-1700, volume I People, land and towns (Cambridge, 1984) Clay C. (ed.), Chapters from The Agrarian History of England 1500-1750 edited by Joan Thirsk, Volume 2 Rural Society; landowners, peasants and labourers (Cambridge, 1990) Cleere H. & Crossley D., The Iron Industry of the Weald, (2nd edition, Cardiff, 1995) Cleggett D.A.H., History of Leeds Castle and its Families (Maidstone, revised 1992) Clinch G., Antiquarian Jottings relating to Bromley, Hayes, Keston and West Wickham in Kent (Addiscombe, 1889) Cockburn J. S. (ed.), Crime in England 1550-1800 (London, 1977) Cokayne G.E., The Complete Peerage of England, Scotland, Ireland, Great Britain and the United Kingdom (1st published 1910, London; reprint 1982, Gloucester) Cole M.H., The Portable Queen - Elizabeth and the Politics of Ceremony (Massachusetts, 1999) Collins M., Birling - a backward glance (Birling, 1982) Collinson P., Ramsey N., Sparks M. (eds.), A History of Canterbury Cathedral (Canterbury, 2002) Conway M., 'Allington Castle' in Archaeologia Cantiana XXVIII (1909) Cook A.R., A Manor through Four Centuries (Oxford, 1938) Cooper N., The Jacobean Country House (London, 2006) Coward B., The Stuart Age - England 1603-1714 (New York, 2nd edition 1994) Crawford O.G.S., Archaeology in the Field (London, 1953) Cross M. C., 'An Exchange of lands with the Crown, 1587-1588', Bulletin of the Institute of Historical Research 34 (1961) pp.178-183 Cunningham J. (ed.), 400 Years of the Wells (Tunbridge Wells, 2005) Daly A. A., History of the Isle of Sheppey (Sheerness, reprint 1975 (1st published London, 1904) Davey Z., An Elizabethan Progress (Stroud, 1996) 341 Davies G., The Early Stuarts 1603-1660 (Oxford, 2nd edition 1959) Davis A.H. (ed.), William Thorne's Chronicle of St. Augustine's Abbey (Oxford, 1934) Davis B.F., 'An early alteration of the boundary between Kent and Surrey' in Archaeologia Cantiana XLVI (1934) pp.152-155. De L’Isle Viscount, Penshurst Place Home of the Sidney Family (Derby, 1987) Detsicas A & Yates N. (eds.), Studies in Modern Kentish History presented to Felix Hull and Elizabeth Melling (Maidstone, 1983) Dormer P.G., Eastwell Park Historiette (Eastwell, 1999) Drake H. H. (ed.), Hasted's History of Kent corrected, enlarged and continued to the present time, Part I The Hundred of Blackheath (London, 1886) Du Boulay F.R.H., 'Archbishop Cranmer and the Canterbury Temporalities', English Historical Review LXVII, no.262 (January 1952) pp.19-36 Du Boulay F.R.H., The Lordship of Canterbury, An essay of medieval society (London, 1966) Du Boulay F.R.H., Medieval Bexley (Bexley, 1993, 2nd edition) Dudley Ward C.H. (completed by), The Family of Twysden and Twisden, their History and Archives from an original by Sir John Ramskill Twisden (London, 1939) Dunkel W., William Lambarde, Elizabethan Jurist, 1536-1601 (New Brunswick, 1965) Dunlop I., Palaces and Progresses of Elizabeth I (London, 1962) Dyer C, 'Conflict in the landscape: the enclosure movement in England, 1220-1349', Landscape History 28, (2006) pp.21-33 Edwards P. , The Horse Trade of Tudor and Stuart England (Cambridge, 1988) Elder D.G., Otford Past and Present (Otford, c.1950) Ellingham C.J., A History of Groombridge (Groombridge, 1973) Elliston Erwood, F.C., The Story of Well Hall (Woolwich, 1936) Emery A., 'Eltham Palace' in Archaeologia Cantiana LXXIV (1960) pp.99-112 Emmison F.G., Tudor Food and Pastimes - life at Ingatestone Hall (London, 1964) Evans R., The Writer in the Garden (London, 2004) Evemy P. & Poulter M. (eds.), Ulcombe Story - a millennium history of our village (Ulcombe, 2004) Everitt A.M., The Community of Kent and the Great Rebellion 1640-1660 (Leicester, 1966) Field T. & Routledge C.F., The Cathedral Church of Christ and the Remains of its Monastic Buildings and the Ancient Church of St. Martin. A Short Guide and History (Canterbury, 1893) Fletcher A., A County Community in Peace and War: Sussex 1600-1660 (London, 1975) Fletcher B., History of Architecture (Oxford, 1996) Fletcher N., Charlemagne's Tablecloth (London, 2004) Flower R., 'Laurence Nowell and the Discovery of England in Tudor Times,' in Proceedings of the British Academy 21 (1935) pp.47-73 Fox J., Williams D., Mountfield P., Seal – history of a parish (Chichester, 2007) Frampton T.S., A Glance at the Hundred of Wrotham (London, 1881) Furley R., A History of the Weald of Kent, volume 1 (Ashford, 1871), volume 2 (Ashford, 1874) Geoffrey-Lloyd Lord & Wilson P, Leeds Castle - a brief history (1st published 1976, revised 1980) Gleeson J.H., The Justices of the Peace in England 1558-1640 (Oxford, 1969) Goodsall R.H., 'The Astleys of Maidstone', Archaeologia Cantiana LXXII, (1958) pp.1-17 342 Gregory M., ' Wickham Court and the Heydons' in Archaeologia Cantiana LXXVIII (1963) pp.1-21 Gregory R.R.C., The Story of Royal Eltham (Eltham, 1909) Grose F., The Antiquities of England and Wales, volume III Kent and Lancashire (London c.1797) Hall E., Garden of England, the evolution of Historic Gardens in Kent (Maidstone, 1995) Hammersley G. F., 'The Crown Woods and their Exploitation in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries', Bulletin of the Institute of Historical Research 30 (1957), pp.36- 161 Hannen H., 'An Account of a Map of Kent dated 1596' in Archaeologia Cantiana XXX (1914) pp.185-92 Harcourt Williams M & Stevenson J., Observations of Weather: the weather diary of Sir John Wittewronge (Hertfordshire Record Society, 1999) Harding P.T. & Rose F., Pasture-Woodlands in Lowland Britain (Abbots Ripton, 1986) Institute of Terrestrial Ecology Harcourt Williams R., 'Deer in Hatfield Park', Focus - The magazine of the Parish of Hatfield, 316 (July, 1982) pp.13-15 Harrington S., A Study in Woodlands Archaeology: Cudham, North Downs (Oxford, 2004) Harris E., Cobham Park and Estate (Rochester, 1910) Harris J., The History of Kent (London, 1719) Hart F. H., History of Lee and its Neighbourhood (Lee, 1882) Harting J. E., 'Hertfordshire deer parks', Transactions of the Hertfordshire Natural History Society and Field Club II, Oct 1881- Oct 1883 (London, 1884) pp97-111 Harvey G., Parkland (London, 2002) The National Trust Hasted E., The History and Topographical Survey of the County of Kent (Canterbury, 2 nd edition, 1797) Hastings P., Upon the quarry hills - a history of Boughton Monchelsea (Boughton Monchelsea, 2000) Hatherly J. & Cantor L. M., 'The Medieval Parks of Berkshire', Berkshire Archaeological Journal 70 (1979-1980) pp.67-79 Hay D., 'Property, Authority and the Criminal Law' in Albion's Fatal Tree (Reading, reprint 1988) pp.17-63 Hay D., 'Poaching and the Game Laws on Cannock Chase' in Albion's Fatal Tree (Reading, reprint 1988) pp.189-253 Hay M.V., The Life of Robert Sidney, Earl of Leicester 1563-1626 (Washington, 1984) Haynes A., Walsingham; Elizabethan Spymaster and Statesman (Stroud, 2004) Heal F., 'Food gifts, the household and the politics of exchange in early modern England' in Past and Present 199 no.1 (May, 2008) pp.41-70.. Helmholz R.H. (ed.), The Oxford History of the Laws of England (Oxford, 2004) Henderson P., The Tudor House and Garden (New Haven, 2005) Herring P., ‘Cornish Medieval Deer Parks’ pp.34-50 in Wilson-North R. (editor), The Lie of the Land, aspects of the archaeology and history of the designed landscape in the South West of England (Exeter, 2003) Herrup C., 'New Shoes and Mutton Pies: Investigative Responses to Theft in Seventeenth-Century East Sussex' in The Historical Journal, 27 no.4 (December, 1984) pp.811-830. Hesketh C., 'The Manor House and Great Park of the Archbishop of Canterbury at Otford,' in Archaeologia Cantiana, XXXI (1915) pp.1-24 Hevey L., Early History of Beckenham (1994, revised 1997) 343 Hewlett G., 'Reconstructing a Historical Landscape from field and documentary evidence: Otford in Kent', Agricultural History Review (1974), pp.94-110 Higham M.C., ‘Take it with a Pinch of Salt’, Landscape History 25 (2003) pp.59-65 Hindle S., The State and Social Change in Early Modern England (Basingstoke, 2000) Hindry Mason R., The History of Norfolk (London, 1884) Hipkin S., ‘Sitting on his Penny Rent’: Conflict and Right of Common in Faversham Blean, 1595-1610’, Rural History 11 (2000), pp.1-35 Hipkin S., '‘Why should one lack money when another hath plenty’: The tales of two criminals in late-Elizabethan Kent’, Southern History 23 (2003) pp.45-58 Hitchin-Kemp F., A General History of the Kemp and Kempe Families (London, preface 1902) Holmes M., Proud Northern Lady: lady Anne Clifford 1590-1676 (Chichester, corrected reprint 1984) Hook D., ‘Deer, Ditch and Pale: The Lost Landscapes of the Medieval Hunting Park’ pp.7-12 in The Association of Gardens Trusts Conference Proceedings ‘Peeling Back the Layers - the Legacy of Ancient Trees in the Historic Environment' (London 2003) Hook D. & Ambrose R., Boxley - story of an English parish (Maidstone, 1999) Horsburgh E.L.S., Bromley from the earliest times to the present century (Bromley 1929, reprinted 1980) Hoskins W.G., The Making of the English Landscape (London, 1977 edition) Hoyle R.W. (ed., The Estates of the English Crown, 1558-1640 (Cambridge, 1992) Hull F., 'Kentish Map-makers of the seventeenth century' in Archaeologia Cantiana CIX (1991) pp.63-83 Hussey C., A History of Scotney Castle (Tunbridge Wells, 1st edition 1955, revised 1970) Jennings A., Tudor and Stuart Gardens (London, 2005) Jessup R.F., The Little Guides - Kent (1st published 1903 by J.C. Cox, 7th revised edition by Jessup, London, 1950) Jones G., ‘New research on Forests and Chases c.1500-c.1850’, Society for Landscape Studies Newsletter, Spring/Summer (2005), pp.6-9 Jones K.H., Hales Place at Hackington and its predecessors' in Archaeologia Cantiana XLV (1933) p.201-204 Kent J., 'The English Village Constable, 1580-1642: The Nature and Dilemmas of the Office' in The Journal of British Studies 20 no.2 (Spring, 1981) pp.26-49. Kerridge E., Agrarian Problems in the sixteenth century and after (London, 1969) Kesselring, K. J., Mercy and Authority in the Tudor state (Cambridge, 2003) Kirby J. W., 'Building Work at Placentia 1532-1533', Transactions of the Greenwich and Lewisham Antiquarian Society V no.1 (1954-56), pp.22-50 Kitchener G., Millennial Halstead - A Kentish Village History (Halstead and Badgers Mount, 2000) Knatchbull-Hugessen H., Kentish Family (London, 1960) Knowlden P. & Walker J., West Wickham Past into Present (West Wickham, 1986) Lambarde F. Roberts of Kent (London, 1927) Langbein J.H., 'Albion's Fatal Flaws' in Past and Present 98 (February, 1983) pp.96- 120 Lasdun S, The English Park – Royal, Private and Public (New York, 1992) Laslett P., 'The Gentry of Kent in 1640', Cambridge Historical Journal 9. no.2 (1948) pp.148-164 Lawson T. & Killingray D., An Historical Atlas of Kent (Chichester, 2004) Lebon C., 'Guldeford Family History' in Kent Recusant History 3 (Spring 1980) pp.58- 62. 344 Lee S. (ed.), Dictionary of National Biography (London, 1893) Lennard J.F., 'West Wickham Court', in Archaeologia Cantiana XIII (1880) pp.256- 260 Liddiard R., Castles in Context (Macclesfield, 2005) Liddiard R (ed.), The Medieval Park – New perspectives (Macclesfield, 2007) Liddiard R., ' The Distribution of Parks in Hertfordshire: Landscape, Lordship and Woodland,' in R. Liddiard (ed.) The Medieval Park – New perspectives (Macclesfield, 2007) Livettt G.M., 'Early Kent Maps' in Archaeologia Cantiana XLIX (1938) pp.247-277. Livettt G.M., 'Supplementary Note of Early Kent Maps' in Archaeologia Cantiana L (1938) pp.140-146 Macdonald A., The History of Langley Park Golf Club 1910-1985 (London, c.1985) Mallinson A. & Rowe A. (eds.), The Parks and Gardens of West Hertfordshire (Letchworth, 2000) Hertfordshire Gardens Trust and Tom Williamson Manning C. J., Deer and Deer Parks of Lincolnshire (Horncastle, 2006) Manning R.B., Village Revolts - Social Protest and Popular Disturbances in England, 1509-1640 (Oxford, 1988) Manning R.B., Hunters and Poachers - A Cultural and Social History of Unlawful Hunting in England 1485-1640 (Oxford, 1993) Mason R.H., History of Norfolk (London, 1884) Matthew H.C.G. & Harrison B. (eds.), Oxford Dictionary of National Biography (Oxford, 2004) Matthews W. (compiler), British Diaries 1442-1942 (London, 1950) McGreal W., The History of the Friars, Aylesford (Norwich, 1998) McIntosh K.H. (ed.), Chislet and Westbere, Villages of the Stour Lathe (Sturry, 1979) McIntosh K.H. (editor), Fordwich the Lost Port (Ramsgate, 1975) McIntosh K.H. & Gough H.E. (eds.), Hoath and Herne, The Last of the Forest (Sturry, 1984) McKeen D., A memory of honour: the life of William Brooke, Lord Cobham (Salzburg, 1986, 2 volumes) McKilliam A. E., A Chronicle of the Archbishops of Canterbury (London, 1913) Mee A., Kent ((London, 1936) Mendyk S., 'Early British Chorography', in Sixteenth Century Journal 17 (1986) no.4 pp.459-481, Mileson S. A., Parks in Medieval England (Oxford, 2009) Milsom S. F. C., Historical Foundations of the Common Law (London, 1981) Moody J., The Life of an Elizabethan Lady, The diary of Lady Margaret Hoby 1599- 1605 (Stroud, 1998) Morgan P., Domesday Book, I Kent (Chichester, 1983) Munby L. M., The Hertfordshire Landscape (London, 1977) Munsche P.B., Gentlemen and Poachers - the English game laws 1671-1831 (Cambridge, 1981) Neale J.E., Queen Elizabeth I (London, 1952 edition) Nichols J., The Progresses and Pubic Processions of Queen Elizabeth (New York, c.1977, reprint of 1823 edition) Nichols J., The Progresses, Processions and magnificent Festivities of King James the First (New York, c.1977, reprint of 1828 edition) Nichols W.N., Cooling, Kent,and its Castle (Redhill, 1979) Nicolson A., Sissinghurst: an Unfinished History (London, 2008) Nicolson N., Sissinghurst Castle, an illustrated history (Ashford, 1964) National Trust Oswald C. A., Chilham Castle (Derby, c.1977) 345 Outhwaite R. B., 'Who Bought Crown Lands? The pattern of Purchases, 1589-1603', Bulletin of the Institute of Historical Research 44 (1971) pp.18-33 Owen C.E, 'The Exploitation of the wild biomass for food in the Medieval Period 199- 1216 A.D.', in Proceedings of the Archaeological Conference at Szczecin (Szczecin, 1977) pp.583-589. Page W. (ed.), Victoria County History of - Kent I (London, 1908, reprinted 1974) Palliser D.M., The Age of Elizabeth 1547-1603 (New York, 2nd edition 1992) Pearson L.E., Elizabethans at home (Stanford, California, 1957) Peterken G., Woodland Conservation and Management (London, 1981) Phillips C. J., The History of the Sackville Family, 2 volumes (London, 1930) Physick J., Five Monuments from Eastwell (London, 1973) Victoria &Albert Museum Pile C.C.R., Cranbrook Broadcloth and the Clothiers (Cranbrook, 1981, 3rd edition) Pittman S., Lullingstone Park: the evolution of a medieval deer park (Rainham, 1983) Pittman S., Kerrybullock Park: the evolution of the royal deer park in Stoke Climsland (Stoke Climsland, 1990) Platts B., A History of Greenwich (Newton Abbott, 1973) Plumb J.H., Royal Heritage (London, 1977) Poole A.L., From Domesday Book to Magna Carta (Oxford, 2nd edition 1955) Poste B., History of the College of All Saints Maidstone (?Maidstone, 1847) Priestley J., 'Palace Buildings and Mysteries - part one, The Eltham Society newsletter no.162 (November 2005), pp.24-27 Prince H.C., ‘Parkland in the English Landscape’, Amateur Historian 3. no.8 (1958) pp.332-338 Prince H, Parks in England (Isle of Wight, 1967) Prince H., Parks in Hertfordshire since 1500 (Hatfield, 2008) Rackham O., Trees and Woodland in the British Countryside (London, 1976) Rackham O., The History of the Countryside (London, 1986)\ Rackham O., Ancient Woodland (Dalbeattie, 2003, new edition) Raraty M., ‘Blackmansbury, Braems and Bridge Place’, Journal of Kent History no. 63 (September, 2006) pp.2-5 Rawcliffe M., ‘Tracing the changing fortunes of the Bishop’s Palace in Bromley', Bromleag (March 2006), pp.6-9 Reay, B, Popular Cultures in England 1550-1750 (Harlow, 1998) Reed T., Guide to Chilham (?, 1992) Richardson A., The Forest, Park and Palace of Clarendon, c.1200- c.1650 (Oxford, 2005) Richardson J., The Local Historian's Encyclopedia (New Barnet, 2nd edition, 1986) Rippon S., Historic Landscape Analysis - Deciphering the Countryside (York, 2004) Rivers E., Some Records of Eltham (Eltham, 1908) Roberts G., Woodlands of Kent (Ashford, 1999) Roberts H., Tenterden - the First Thousand Years (York, 1995) Robson-Scott W.D., German Travellers in England 1400-1800 (Oxford, 1953) Rotherham I. D. (ed.), 'The History, Ecology and Archaeology of Medieval Parks and Parklands', Landscape Archaeology and Ecology 6 (Sheffield 2007) Rowe A, A History of Knebworth's parks (Ware 2005) Rowe A., Medieval Parks of Hertfordshire (Hatfield, 2009) Russell-Smith J. (ed.), Bibliotheca Cantiana or Kentish Topography, Volume I (3rd ed. reprinted from 1836 original, Tunbridge Wells, 1980) Rutton W.L., 'Cheney of Shurland, Kent, and of Toddington, Beds.' in Archaeologia Cantiana XXIV (1900) pp.122-127 346 Ryan A.C.W., 'The St. Legers of Ulcombe, Leeds Castle and Deal', Kent Recusant History 2, no2 (Winter 1993). p.41-51 Ryan A.C.W., 'Some recusant/ church papist gentry in Kent', Kent Recusant History 2, nos 3 and 4 (Winter, 1995) pp.64-67 Ryan A.C.W., 'The Digges of Barham', Kent Recusant History 2, nos 3 and 4 (Winter, 1995) pp.68-87 Ryan A.C.W., 'The Crispes of Quex, Birchington', Kent Recusant History 2 no 5 (Winter, 2000) p.111-133 Rye W.B., 'Visits to Rochester and Chatham made by royal, noble and distinguished personages, English and foreign, from the year 1300 to 1783' in Archaeologia Cantiana VI (1864-5) pp.43-82. Rye W. B., England as seen by foreigners in the days of Elizabeth and James I (London, 1865) Sackville-West V., Knole (London, post 1968) Sackville-West V., Knole and the Sackvilles (London, 1922) Sackville-West, Knole (National Trust guide, c.1968) Salgado G. (ed.), Cony-catchers and Bawdy baskets, an anthology of Elizabethan low life (Harmondsworth, 1972) Salmon G., A History of Chart Sutton (Maidstone, 1982) Salter E.G., Tudor England through Venetian Eyes (London, 1930) Saul N., Death, Art, and Memory in Medieval England: the Cobham family and their memorials, 1300-1500 (Oxford, 2001) Schwerdt P. & Kreutzberger S., Sissinghurst Castle, an illustrated guide (London,1964, 3rd edition 1969) National Trust Scott J.R., Memorials of the Scott Family of Scot’s Hall (Walthamstoe, 1876) Scott Robertson W.A., 'Six Wills relating to Cobham Hall' in Archaeologia Cantiana IX (1877) pp.199-304 Selby E., Teynham Manor and Hundred (Ashford, 1936) Sharpe J.A., Crime in early modern England (London, 1984) Shirley E.P., Some Account of English Deer Parks with Notes on the Management of Deer (London, 1867) Short B., England's Landscape – The South East (London, 2006) Smith Ellis, W., The Parks and Forests of Sussex (Lewes 1885) Smith F. & Gardner D., Genealogical Research in England and Wales (Salt Lake City, USA, 1959). Somers-Cocks H. L. & Boyson V. F., Edenbridge (Edenbridge, 1912) Sparks M. (ed.), The Parish of St. Martin & St. Paul Canterbury, Historical Essays in Memory of James Hobbs (Canterbury, 1980) Sprange J., Tunbridge Wells Guide (London, 1808) Squires A., 'The Medieval Park of Ridlington', Journal of the Rutland Local History and Record Society, 23 (2004) pp.105-113 Starkey D., Elizabeth (London, 2001) Steane J.M., ‘The Medieval Parks of Northamptonshire’, Northamptonshire Past and Present V. no.3 (1975) pp. 211-233 Steinman Steinman G., Some Account of the Manor of Apuldrefield in the Parish of Cudham, Kent (London, 1851) Stone L., Crisis of the Aristocracy, 1558-1641 (Oxford, 1965) Stone L., Family and Fortune (Oxford, 1973) Stone L., 'Interpersonal Violence in English Society 1300-1980' in Past and Present 101 (November, 1983) pp.22-33. Straker E., Wealden Iron (London, 1931) 347 Strutt and Parker, Groombridge Place (London, 1991) Sykes N.J., 'The Impact of Norman Hunting Practices in Eng;and' pp.162-167 in Woolgar C.M., Serjeantson D.M., Waldron T. (eds.) Food in Medieval England (Oxford, 2006) Talbot J., Brabourne in History (Brabourne, 2003) Tait M. & Parker E., London's Royal Parks (London, 2006) Tatton Brown T., ’The Precincts Water Supply’, Canterbury Cathedral Chronicle 77 (1983) pp.45-52 Tatton Brown T., 'Recent Fieldwork around Canterbury' in Archaeologia Cantiana XCIX (1983) pp.115-119 Tawney R.H. & Power E., Tudor Economic Documents 3 volumes (London, 1924) Taylor C., Fieldwork in Medieval Archaeology (London, 1974) Taylor C., ‘Ravensdale Park, Derbyshire, and medieval deer coursing’, Landscape History vol. 26 (2004) pp. 37-58 Taylor K., ‘The development of the Park and gardens at Knole’, Archaeologia Cantiana CXXIII (2003) pp.153-184 Taylor M., Looking into Eltham’s Past (Eltham, 1980) Tester P., East Wickham and Welling (Bexley, 1991 2nd edition) Thirsk J. (ed), The Agrarian History of England and Wales (Volume IV, 1500-1640) (Cambridge, 1967) Thirsk J., The Agrarian History of England and Wales, volume IV, 1500-1640 (Cambridge, 1967) Thirsk J., ‘Horses in early modern England: for Service, for Pleasure, for Power’, The Stenton lecture 1977 (Reading, 1977) Thirsk J. (ed.), Hadlow - life, land and people in a Wealden parish 1460-1600 (Kent Archaeological Society website, 2006) Thirsk J. (ed.), The English Rural Landscape (Oxford, 2000) Thirsk J., 'Agriculture in Kent, 1540-1640', in M. Zell (ed.) Early Modern Kent (Kent County Council, printed at Woodbridge, 2000) Thomas D., 'Leases in Reversion of the Crown's Lands, 1558-1603', Economic History Review, New Series, 30:1 (1977) pp.67-72 Thomas K., Man and the Natural World (London, 1983) Thompson E.P., 'The Moral Economy of the English Crowd in the Eighteenth Century' in Past and Present 50, (February 1971) pp.76-136 Thompson E.P., Whigs and Hunters (Harmondsworth, 1975, reprinted 1985) Thompson E.P., Customs in Common (London, 1991) Thompson L., Newmarket From James I to the Present Day (London, 2000) Tillander G. (ed.), Les Livres du roy Modus et de la royne Racio (Paris, 1932) Tuson D., The Kent Downs (Chalford, 2007) Vale M., The Gentleman’s Recreations 1580-1630 (London, 1977) Vallance A., 'The Ropers and their monuments in Lynsted Church' in Archaeologia Cantiana XLIV (1932) pp.147-164 Vincent W.T. The Records of the Woolwich District (Woolwich, 1890) Wadmore J.F., 'Thomas Smythe of Westenhanger' in Archaeologia Cantiana XVII (1887) p.193-208. Wainwright A., ‘Revision and Forgery in the Historic Landscape’, Society for Landscape Studies Newsletter (Autumn/Winter 2005) pp.10-11 Walker J., The Parish Church of St. John the Baptist, West Wickham Walker Y.M., Lords of Croydon Palace (Purley, 1990) Walter J., 'A "Rising of the People"? The Oxfordshire Rising of 1596' in Past and Present 107 (May, 1985) pp.90-143 348 Ward G., Sevenoaks Essays (Sevenoaks, 1931, reprinted 1980) Warlow G.H., History of Halstead, Kent (Bromley, 1934) Warnicke R. M., William Lambarde Elizabethan Antiquary (Chichester, 1973) Watson I. (ed.), A History of the Parish of Chevening (Sevenoaks, 1999) Watson I.D., The History of West Wickham Kent (Sidcup 1959) Way T., A Study of the Impact of Imparkment on the Social Landscape of Cambridgeshire and Huntingdonshire from c1080 to 1760 (Oxford, 1997) Webb E.A., Miller G.W., Beckwith J., History of Chislehurst (London, 1899) Webster A.D., Greenwich Park - its history and associations(London, 1902) Whitaker J., Deer Parks and Paddocks (London, 1892) White J.T., The Parklands of Kent (Sheerness, 1975) Whitehead G.K., Deer and their management in the deer parks of Great Britain and Ireland (London, 1950) Whitehead G. K., Hunting and Stalking Deer (London, 1980) Wightman, Wightman's Arithmetical Tables (London, 1952) Williams R., Chislet Chronicles (Canterbury, 2001) Williams R.H.I., A Short history of Elham and its Parish Church (Kent Messenger,1959) Williamson T., Suffolk's Gardens and Parks (Macclesfield, 2000) Williamson, T. ‘Peeling Back the Layers: Trees in Parks’ pp. 13-17 in The Association of Gardens Trusts Conference Proceedings - Peeling Back the Layers - the Legacy of Ancient Trees in the Historic Environment (London 2003) Williamson T., The Archaeology of Rabbit Warrens (Princes Risborough, 2006) Willson D.H., James I & VI (London, 1956) Wilson J., Entertainments for Elizabeth I (Woodbridge, 1980) Wilson J.D., 'The Medieval Parks of Dorset XI-XVII', The Proceedings of the Dorset Natural History and Archaeological Society, 92 (1970) pp.208-211, 93 (1972) pp.169- 175, 94 (1973) pp.67-69, 95 (1974) pp.76-80, 96 (1975) pp.47-50, 98 (1978) pp.6-10, 99 (1980) pp.6-10, 100 (1980) pp.31-35 Wilson K., Story of Biggin Hill (Bromley, 1982) Wiltshire M. & Woore S., Medieval Parks of Derbyshire (Ashbourne, 2009) Wingfield-Stratford E., This was a man (London, 1949) Wingfield-Stratford E., The Lords of Cobham Hall (London, 1959) Witney K. P., The Jutish Forest (London, 1976) Wood A., Riot, Rebellion and Popular Politics in Early Modern England (Basingstoke, 2002) Woodruff C. E., A History of the Town and Port of Fordwich (Canterbury, 1895) Woodruff C.E. , 'Wages paid at Maidstone in Queen Elizabeth's reign' in Archaeologia Cantiana XXII (1897) pp.316-319 Woodward D., 'Wage Rates and Living Standards in Pre-Industrial England', Past and Present 91 (May, 1981) pp.28-46 Woodward F., Oxfordshire Parks (Abingdon, 1982) Woolley L., Medieval Life and Leisure in the Devonshire Hunting Tapestries (London, 2002) Victoria &Albert Museum Wrightson K., Earthly Necessities(London, 2002) Wyndham K.S.H., 'Crown Land and Royal Patronage in Mid-Sixteenth Century England', Journal of British Studies 19:2 (1980), pp.18-34 Yeandle L., 'Sir Edward Dering of Surrenden Dering and his 'Booke of Expences' (1617-1628)' in Archaeologia Cantiana CXXV (2005) pp.323-344 349 Zell M.L., 'Mid-Tudor Market in Crown Land', Archaeologia Cantiana XCVII (1981) pp. 53-70 Zell M.L., Industry in the Countryside - Wealden Society in the Sixteenth Century (Cambridge, 1994) Zell M.L., 'Kent's Elizabethan Justices of the Peace at Work', in Archaeologia Cantiana CXIX, 1999 pp.31-38 Zell M.L. (ed.), Early Modern Kent (Woodbridge, 2000) Kent County Council Zettersten A., ‘The Lambeth Manuscript of the Boke of Hunting’, Neuphilologische Mitteilungen (1969)pp.106-121 UNPUBLISHED SOURCES Bannister N.R., Historic Landscape Survey of Penshurst Estate, January 1994 Bannister N.R., Archaeological and Historical Assessment of the Mersham Hatch Estate for Lord Brabourne and the Countess of Mountbatten, June 1999 Bannister N. R., The Stour Valley Historic Landscape Survey, Kent Stour Countryside Project, November 1999 Bannister N.R., Scotney Castle Estate Historic and Archeological Survey, volume 1, May 2001 Bannister N.R., Sissinghurst Castle Estate Archaeological and Historic Landscape Survey, May 2002 Bannister N.R. & Pittman S., Birling Place Landscape Archaeology Day Report, 12 June 2010 Bennett R. G., The Kentish Polhills 1422-1758 (Unpublished, for private circulation, 1958) Bowdler R., Historical Account: Cobham Hall Estate, 2002 Chalklin C. W., A Kentish Wealden Parish (Tonbridge) 1550-1750, (Oxford 1960, thesis presented for degree of Bachelor of Letters) Colvin & Moggridge, Boughton Monchelsea Park: historic park restoration plan, Draft Interim Report, March 2004 Colvin, Moggridge & Filkins, Penshurst Place Park - History and Restoration Management Plan, volume 1, April 1994 Copeland, H.R., From Village to Borough, a brief outline history of Old Beckenham, 1962 Davis B. F., Bound books of transcripts for the Bromley and District area in Bromley Local Studies Debois Landscape Survey Group of Colchester, Chilham Castle, Kent, Historic Landscape Survey and Restoration Proposals, 2003 Dye J., Change in the Norfolk landscape – the decline of the deer parks (MA dissertation for University of East Anglia, 1986) Forge G.A., Westenhanger Castle and Barns Historical Notes, 2003 Gulley J.L.M., The Wealden Landscape in the early seventeenth century and its Antecedents PhD thesis for University of London, 1960) Heron T., Antiquities of Chilham Collected by Thomas Heron esq., 1791 Hoppitt R., A study of the development of deer parks in Suffolk from C11th to c17th (PhD thesis for University of East Anglia, 1992) Ibbett F. D. & Co Sale, Particulars map Otford & Dunton Green Agricultural Property, July 2 1922 LEDA Consultancy, Godinton Park Report Development for Recreation, April 1978 Liddiard R., 'The disparkment of medieval parks', unpublished paper delivered at the Conference on 'The History, Ecology and Archaeology of Medieval Parks and Parkland', Sheffield, 2007. 350 Mark J.L., The Wealden landscape in the early C17th and its antecedents (PhD thesis for University of London, 1960) Owlett E., Notes of Mrs Edith Owlett (collection at Cranbrook Museum) Semple J., The Medieval deer parks of Wrotham 1400-1600, incomplete draft article May 2006 Simpson P., Custom and Conflict in Disputes over Tithe in the Diocese of Canterbury 1501-1600 (PhD thesis for The University of Kent at Canterbury, January 1997) Taylor C.C., Leeds Castle Park Report of Archaeological Field Visit 19 July 1996 for Leeds Castle Ltd. Tookey G.W., The History of Langley Park, Beckenham (Beckenham, c.1975) Williams J. J., Hunting in early modern England: an examination with special reference to the reign of Henry VIII (PhD thesis for The University of Birmingham, October 1998) Wyndham D., Family History of Roberts, 1952 OTHER SOURCES Conference: Peeling back the layers; The Legacy of Ancient Trees in the Historic Environment – 6 November 2003 (Proceedings of) Conference: The History, Ecology and Archaeology of Medieval Parks and Parklands - Sheffield Hallam University, 17-19 September 2007 Conference: Medieval Parks: Recent Research – University of Cambridge Institute of Continuing Studies, 13 February 2010 Lecture: William Lambarde and his Perambulation of Kent, Dr Marion O'Connor, CKS 11 October 2007 BBC2 TV series: How we built Britain by David Dimbleby –– part on Middle England (C16th) CD: Fox J., The History of Sevenoaks up to 1650 with CD database of West Kent wills to 1650 (Seal, 2002) Websites: Kent Archaeological Society – http://www.kentarchaeology.ac.uk Oxford Dictionary of National Biography – http://www.oxforddnb.com Oxford English Dictionary – http://www.dictionary.oed.com 351 PARK PROFILES 1st letter of park Page numbers A 351 - 355 B 355 - 370 C 370 - 380 D 380 - 381 E 381 - 389 F 389 - 392 G 392 - 396 H 397 - 403 I 403 K 404 - 409 L 409 - 416 M 416 - 419 O 419 - 426 P 425 - 436 R 436 S 437 - 447 T 447 - 455 W 455 - 460 Abbreviations a = acre/s c = circa d = died m = married Arch.Cant. = Archaeologia Cantiana BL = British Library BLS = Bromley Local Studies Library CCA = Canterbury Cathedral Archives CKS = Centre for Kentish Studies CMS = Centre for Medway Studies CPR = Calendar of Patent Rolls dLD = De Lisle and Dudley EKAC = East Kent Archive Centre ESRO = East Sussex Record Office Hasted = The History and Topographical Survey of the County of Kent, 2nd edition HMC = His/Her Majesty's Commission IPM = Inquisition Post Mortem KAS = Kent Archaeological Society KCC = Kent County Council Lambarde = A Perambulation of Kent LC = Cantor L., The Medieval Parks of England - A Gazetteer(Loughborough, 1983) LPL = Lambeth Palace Library SMR = Sites and Monuments Records SPD = State Papers Domestic StaffsRO = Staffordshire Record Office TNA = The National Archives VCH = Victoria County History Sources for Ownership are from secondary sources listed for each park, unless primary source given 352 (1) ALDINGTON Parish: Aldington Earliest reference: 1165 (LC - PRS9,201) Ownership: C14th Archbishop of Canterbury > 1539/40 alienated from the church by Cranmer to Henry VIII > 1548 Edward VI indenture to John Dudley Earl of Warwick (TNA E328/172) > 1549/50 reconveyed back to Edward VI in exchange for other land and continued with Crown until Charles I Size: 1624 = 680a, land within the park and fishpond (TNA SC12/20/22) Documentary evidence: 1273/74 Kilwardby Survey of the Archbihop's manors in S.E. England (KAS wbesite) 1274-5 Kent Hundred rolls, Master Richard de Clifford escheater during vacant see sold wood in Archbishop of Canterbury's park valued at 66s and took 20 deer and more in the same park. He caused destruction and waste in parks (plural ?more than one park) and fishponds in Aldington at £10 or more. 1281 CPR 6 July.hunting and taking away deer from Archbishop of Canterbury 1390/1 LPL Archbishop's estates B Account rolls no.139 Aldington parker 1540 TNA E328/172 By letters patent Henry VIII made Sir Thomas Cheyne, treasurer of his household, constable of Saltwood and the office of keeping his chief messuage at Westenhanger, parks at Hostinhanger, Westenhanger, Aldington and Saltwood. 1546 E314/61/8 Woods in king's park of Aldington 1556 C66/899 mm24-25 To Cardinal Pole, lands called le Park at Maidstone in tenure of Henry Smyth, all kinds of deer and wild beasts in the said park. Also with numerous others lands, park of Saltwood; house and site of late monastery of St Augustine near walls of Canterbury, the park called Canterbury Park adjacent to the house; the parks of Aldington and Otford; the park of Knole late parcel of lands of John, Duke of Northumberland, attainted 1559 CPR Licence to alienate manor of Aldington from Warham Seyntleger to William Seyntleger 1561 CPR Licence to alienate lands in Aldington William Seyntleger to Blechynden 1561 CPR Lcence to alienate lands in Aldington William Seyntleger to Middleton 1568 CPR Licence to alienate Warham, William, Nicholas Seyntleger lands in Aldington to Barnam 1568 CPR 21-year lease lands in Aldington in Crown hands late of Archbishop of Canterbury, rents and fine given 1569 CPR Licence to alienate lands in Aldington Thwaytes to Jackman 1570 CPR Licence to alienate lands in Aldington Lord Burgh (Aldington Cobham al. Estcourt) 1577 CPR Blechynden alientated to Spicer 1579 CPR Licence to alienate lands in Aldington Nicholas Seyntleger to Fynche 1591 SP12/240/103, 22 December, lease to Sir Thomas Scott of the Great Park at Aldington, with lodge and cony warren, 21 years, rent £80 p.a. 1597 TNA SP12/265/20, 25 November, 21 year lease to Richard and Edward, sons of Sir Thomas Scott, 21 years Aldington Great park; £80 rent, £30 fine. 1607 TNA SP14/28/58 Lease to John Scott of the farm of the park of Addington(sic) (but county given as Kent so Aldington meant) 1624 TNA SC12/20/22 Rental and Seizures, land within the park and fishpond 680a, Scott 353 tenant 1624 TNA SC12/20/22 Tenant Thomas Scott 1649 TNA LR2/196 Aldington survey, still Scott family tenants Secondary evidence: Arch.Cant. L (1938:158) Arch.Cant. LXXXVI (1971:15) Arch.Cant. XCVII (1981:53) du Boulay (January 1952:26) English Historical Review 67, no.262 - ref. DPE A 14; LCM xii, 10, 11 du Boulay (1964:279-280) Kent Records XVIII Clark (1997:259) English Provincial Society Forge (2003:15) Westenhanger castle Grose (1797:86-87) Antiquities of England and Wales III Harris (1718:24) History of Kent Hasted 8 (1797:319) KCC SMR, TR 03 NE 29 KE3826 Lambarde (1576 – not included:1596 – disparked) Scott (1876:203-205) Memorials of the Scott Family of Scot's Hall Smith Ellis (1885:142) Parks and Forests of Sussex VCH I (reprint1974:473) Maps: TNA MPI 1/248 plan of manor of Aldington, Elizabeth I Fieldwork: OS Explorer (2½inch to mile) TR080365 Middle Park Farm Acknowledgements: (2) ALLINGTON Parish: Allington Earliest reference: 1304 tenement abutting the park of Allington (TNA E326/1398) Ownership: Moresby married Gainsford sold 1492 > Sir Henry Wyatt> Sir Thomas Wyatt beheaded 1554 > Crown (Finch, Astley see below) Size: 1573 = over 350a (CCA DCB-J/X.10.17) Documentary evidence: 1361 (Cal.IPM XI,199)LC wood called 'le park' 1554 CPRl, Oct m.33 Annuities from Crown surrendered by Mary Finch, widow, one of principal gentlewomen of Privy Chamber, for 30 year lease of Thomas Wyatt's lands including castle and park of Allington with lands called Thorne, Codlandes, Cutmyll now enclosed in said park, lands called le Parke in Maidstone. May 1555 Patent m.14, surrenders some of land, but not Allington park 1555 CKS U1644 T322 (Romney) (1629 recital) Patent rolls part 1, no.895 among exception of grant is lands within the park of Allington near Maidstone in the tenure of Mary Finch gentlewoman, 16s.8d yearly 354 1555 CKS U195 C146 Particular of Allington Castle estate (latin) includes Park field 9a, and field called Colland south of park held by Thomas Cleggett (also reference to Maidstone park) 1568 CKS U1644 T322 (Romney) (1629 recital) Elizabeth I gives John Astley lease in reversion for 30 years of castle and manor of Allington and Boxley (NB seems lands and castle of Allington in different hands) 1569 CPR C66/1055 To Mary Finch of Allington Castle, Allington park and lands in Boxley and Maidstone 1569 CPR To John Astley which mentions how this fits in with Finch grant, Astley's grant with terms, Allington park, site of Boxley Abbey, lots of details 1573 CCA DCB-J/X.10.17 Coldwell v Hawk tithe in park dispute – several tenant farmers = pasture & corn, cattle before disparking,, 8a wheat, 40a pasture, 9a wheat fields, grass & agistment 40a, 14a corn & pasture, 30a = 141a aprrox 1576 CCA DCB-J/X.10.16 Coldwell v Hawk tithe in park dispute. John Smith says disparked 25 years ago i.e. 1550 approx 1591 TNA12/238/11/1 Letter from Margaret Astley to cousin about Mr Floyd taking all documents from Allington Castle and sending them to Exchequer before her side could look at them to see if they could be used against wood felling. Fears it will shorten Mr Astley's life to see the son of a Welsh cobbler prevail against him. 1623 PRC 32/45 ff.319-320 Will of Robert Goulding assignment of lease of Allington castle via cousin John Best of Newington to Nicholas Cripps and John Harris ... certain wood for fuel from Longsole park (? might have once been part of Allington Park or was it another park?) 1629 CKS U1644 T322 (Romney) (1629 recital) Fields Armitage, Millwey and Park, tenement Colland within the chase of Allington Park 1629 CKS U1644 T11629 Son of Sir John Astley granted lands, The Park, Maidstone; Park of Allington - Parkfield, chase of the Park 1629 CKS U2035 T322 Description of lands of Sir John Astley, includes Allington Parkewood, woodland, 218a, Parkewoddfields, reputed parcels of Parkewood x3 = 8a 1638 CKS U2035 T32 Sold to Sir Jacob Astley Park in Allington or Aylesford, ?Boxley (later to the Romney family hence CKS U1644 and U1515) Secondary evidence: Arch.Cant. XXVIII (1909:354-359) Arch.Cant. LXXII (1958:1- 17) Chandler (ed.) (1993:62) 4 part VIII, John Leland’s Itinerary: Travels in Tudor England Goacher's unpublished research notes, includes transcription of 1584 Patent Hasted 4 (1797:452) – 1583 Crown sale to Sir John Astley Lambarde (1576, 1596 – disparked:86) Worcester (unpublished c.2007) History of Allington Castle Maps: Fieldwork: OS Explorer (2½inch to mile) TQ752577 Allington Castle, park being near Acknowledgements: Debbie Goacher, Samantha Lee-Brina 355 (3) AYLESFORD Parish: Aylesford, Ditton, Burham Earliest reference: 1597 (CKS QM/SI/1597/11) This is the only reference to the Common Park at Aylesford. It is possible that Sedley put in a park when refashioning house in 1570s, but more likely that was a later park, this might be common land and not a deer park at all. Ownership: 1242 Carmelites traditionally > 1538 Henry VIII royal at Dissolution > 1539 Passed to Sir Thomas Wyatt of Allington until revolt 1554 when back to Crown > 1570 Elizabeth I to John Sedley of Southfleet m Anne Colepepper > sold in 1633 to Sir Peter Rycaut, Dutch merchant. Size: 1805 map, fields 8-16, 19, 21-30 might be park and are at least 202a, fields 1-30 = 269a Documentary evidence: 1597 CKS QM/SI/1597/11 Assault and horse stealing at common park at Aylesford 1697 EKAC - Sa/ZP/3/242 Rioters entering park of Sir John Banks at Aylesford Secondary evidence: Arch.Cant. LXIII (1950:55) Arch.Cant. LXXX (1965:1) McGreal (1998:17-24) History of the Friars, Aylesford. White (1975:127) The Parklands of Kent Maps: CKS U234 E21 1805 Fieldwork: OS Explorer (2½inch to mile) ?TQ 730590 general for Aylesford 9 September 2006 – Traced likely boundaries of Sedley's later park, nothing known of Common Park. Acknowledgments: (4) BEDGEBURY Parish: Goudhurst Earliest reference: 1544 (BL Cart. Harl.80.B.36) Ownership: 1544 Thomas Culpepper > son and heir Sir Alexander Culpepper d.1600 > 1607 Sir Anthony with son and heir Sir Alexander Culpepper > 1618 Sir Alexander Culpepper Size: 1618 = 300a, Old Park (BL Cart. Harl.79.F.5) Documentary evidence: 1544 BL Cart. Harl.80.B.36 Robert of Glassenbury to Culpepper land late of Bedgebury park 1596 BL Cart.Harl.76.A.22 Refers to Aynesworth claim to wood in new ground in Bedgebury park let by Culpepper passed to Millson 356 1607 BL Cart. Harl.77.C.44 Culpepper to Barrett lease refers to lodge, ferret house, conies, deer very detailed conditions in 'old' park of Bedgebury adjoining Culpepper's 'new' park, 'Queen's standing', ponds 1612 BL Cart. Harl. 79.F.3 Culpepper to Waller lease refers to lodge, barn, ferret house in Bedgebury park, but no deer 1618 BL Cart. Harl.77.D.10 Culpepper to Porter refers to sale of woods lately parcel of Bedgebury park, reference to Bedgebury furnace 1618 BL Cart. Harl.79.F.5 Lease Culpepper to Tharp refers to lodge, warren, fishponds, in Bedgebury park 1646 BL Cart. Harl.85.H13 Lease Culpepper to Crispe lodge, conies but not fishponds etc old park of Bedgebury Secondary evidence: Arch.Cant. IV (1861:264-265) Arch.Cant. V (1862-3:83) Arch.Cant. LXXXIX (1974:186-187) Bannerman (ed.) (1924:91-93) Visitation of Kent, 1592 Batchelor (1996:1) Beresfords of Bedgebury Buckingham (Spring 1979:20-26) Kent Recusant History no.1 Buckingham (Autumn 1983/Spring 1984:187) Kent Recusant History no.10/11 Cole (1999:186-187) The Portable Queen Furley (1874:743) Weald of Kent II part 2 Hasted 5 (1797:466-467) Hasted 7 (1797:192-193) Hovenden (ed.) (1898:61-63) Visitation of Kent, 1619 Lambarde (1576, 1596 - deer park) Mee (1936:205-206) Kent Nichols (c.1977reprint:331) I Progresses of Queen Elizabeth Ryan (Winter 2000:119) Kent Recusant History 2 no.5 Maps: 1575 Saxton (Royal 18.D.III, 1575/77 British Library) 1596 Symonson - not named but unambiguous 1605 Speed 1611 Norden Fieldwork: OS Explorer (2½inch to mile) TQ713345 Park Wood - more than one park Acknowledgements: Dr Nicola Bannister, Jane Davidson (5) BEXLEY Parish: Bexley Earliest reference: 1274/5 in 100 rolls (KAS website) Ownership: Archbishop of Canterbury > 1537 Crown who put in tenants Size: 357 Documentary evidence: 1273/74 Kilwardby Survey of the Archbihop's manors in S.E. England (KAS wbesite) 1274/5 mentioned in 100 rolls 1402-9, 1427-1440, 1490 LPL Archbishop's estates B Account rolls nos. 241-243, 246-252, 255 parker, ms, E24, fo.91v 1561 CPR Lease for 21 year Westwood with conditions to Somer 1566 CPR Custody of faggots of 10 cartloads to Shelton for 21 years which Somer ought to render yearly from Westwood 1573 CPR Lease for 21 years Somer for Westwood with details 1575 CPR Lease for 21 years Somer to Henshawe 1562 CPR Licence to alienate Carell and Hutchinson late of Francis Lovell attainted to Olyffe (of East Wickham) c1597 TNA E178/1163 Wood called Bexley park, felling of crown timber Secondary evidence: Arch.Cant. LXXI (1957:153) Arch.Cant. XCIX (1983:259) Du Boulay (1966:137, 215, 276) Lordship of Canterbury Du Boulay (1993:32-33) Medieval Bexley, disparked by 1469 when lease does not mention park when previous leases did Nichols (ed.) (1859:234) Camden Society IX Narratives of the Days of the Reformation, Mileson (2009:169) Parks in Medieval England Maps: Fieldwork: OS Explorer (2½inch to mile) TQ510757 Park Wood on 1860s OS Acknowledgements: (6) BIRLING (see Comford (7) below) Parish: Birling Earliest reference (either to 6 or 7): 1318 CPR 20 Nov. complaint by Geoffrey de Say about breaking into his park at Birling 1341 May 10 CPR licence to impark 100a, Ownership: 1432 Elizabeth daughter of Richard Beauchamp, Earl of Worcester, 1435 married Sir Edward Nevill ... > 1535 Henry Nevill, Lord Bergavenny, d.1587 > 1587-1622 cousin Edward Nevill > 1622- 1641 son Henry Nevill, and it is still owned by the Nevill family Size: 1521 = 969a the Great park (TNA SC12/9/4) Documentary evidence: 1318 CPR 20 November, Geoffrey de Say complains about break into his park at Birling 1341 CPR 10 May, Licence to impark 100a, wood & path leading between these – new path to be made – seems addition 1433 CPR 26 February, Complaint John Archbishop of York re entering house and park at Birling and stealing goods and deer, assault to servants and threats to tenants, 2 entries 358 1521/22 TNA SC12/9/4 Survey of manor of Birling, little park and great park, lodges, 300 deer. Great park = 430a arable, 77a = 3 tenant farmers, 388 = pasture & woodland, 74a = downland = 969a 1521 CKS U787 E9/3, E9/11 Nevill sold Birling to Henry VIII as fine 1522 CKS U787/T1 Indenture King and Nevill sale to King, parks 1522 CKS U787/T1 Brown has gavelkind premises in great park at Birling 1528 CKS U787 E9/2 Nevill paid for use of Birling after King's surveyor valued it 1529 CKS U787/T4 Surveyor values it at 100 marks a year, estate effectively restored 1530 E328/51 Geroge Nevill sold to Henry VIII manor of Birling, parks, parsonage (a device connected with his will? see OED) 1586-1600 ESRO ABE/18R/1 Accounts for Birling, salaries of 2 deer and 2 coney keepers, Comforte park, site of manor – no profit occupied by eldest Neville son, profit from conies, agistment, 1588 length of pale repaired 1587 CKS U787 E9/4 List of lands outside Birling park – 6a part of little park, no other woods than in the park 1597 CKS QM/SB/1598/252 Humphrey Latter illegal hunting rabbits 1597 CKS QM/SI/1598/2.11 Humphrey Latter illegal hunting rabbits (?same case) 1600 CKS U787/T6 Godden to Nevill woodland adjacent to park 1601 CKS Q/SR2/13 Hunting teg with greyhound 1602 StaffsRO D593/S/4/56/1 Killing deer. Wickes of Cobham keeper gave teg to Birling keeper for his marriage 1602 StaffsRO D593/S/4/56/1 Humphrey Latter illegal rabbit hunting 1604 TNA STAC8/221/23 Edward Nevill's time (2 Edward Nevills d.1604 or d.1622) deer and conies hunted, keepers attacked, Godden poacher see 1600 1617 CKS QM/SB/1617/1279 Hunting rabbits Secondary evidence: Bannister & Pittman (12 June 2010), Birling Place Landscape Archaeology Day Report Cokayne (reprint 1982:29-44) I The Complete Peerage of England, Scotland and Ireland Cole (1999:186-187) The Portable Queen Collins, (1982:6-11) Birling - A backward glance Eland (1960:26) Thomas Wotton's Letter-Book, Hasted 4 (1797:474-493) Lambarde (1576, 1596 - a deer park) Read (ed.) (1962:48) William Lambarde and Local Government Ryan (Winter 1993:43-51) Kent Recusant History 2 no.2 Straker (1931:257-258, 450) Wealden Iron Way (1997) A Study of the Impact of Imparkment on the Social Landscape of Cambridgeshire and Huntingdonshire from c1080 to 1760 - Appendix of calendar roll entries for parks Willson (1956:345) James I & VI, p.345 Maps: 1575 Saxton 1576 Anonymous 1596 Symonson - named as Comford, but in location of Birling Park 1605 Norden – as above 1611 Speed – as above 1652 CKS U1515 P11 - woodland lying near Birling Park 359 Fieldwork: OS Explorer (2½inch to mile) TQ685611 Park Farm 4 February 2005, 31 May 2010, 12 June 2010 - Most of N border found, whole extent uncertain, possibly and lesser and greater W boundary. Acknowledgements: Matthew Balfour, Dr Nicola Bannister, David and Guy Nevill, Christopher Whittick, Dr David Wright (7) BIRLING – COMFORD / COMFORTParish: Birling This second park at Birling is not in Lambarde or on early maps, so likely to have been disparked by 1558 Earliest reference (either to 6 or 7): 1318 CPR 20 November, Complaint by Geoffrey de Say about breaking into his park at Birling 1341 CPR 10 May, Licence to impark 100a, wood & path leading between these – new path to be made (Way) (Either might be Comford or Birling?) Ownership: As (6) Size: 1521 = 103a (TNA SC12/9/4) Comfort park might be Little park Documentary evidence: 1341 May 10 CPR Licence to impark 100a, wood & path leading between these – new path to be made (Way) (Comford or Birling?) 1521/22 TNA SC12/9/4 Survey of manor of Birling, Little park = 103a 1587 CKS U787 E9/4 List of lands outside Birling park – 6a part of little park, no other woods than in the park 1586-1592 CKS U787 E9 Summary transcript re Comforte park (likely to mean (6) where new residence sited) – no profit as occupied by Edward eldest Nevill son Secondary evidence: Bannister & Pittman (12 June 2010), Birling Place Landscape Archaeology Day Report du Boulay (1964:237) Kent Records XVIII Hasted 4 (1797:474). Mileson (2009:177-178) Parks in Medieval England, cites CPR, 1429-36, 273 Way (1997) A Study of the Impact of Imparkment on the Social Landscape of Cambridgeshire and Huntingdonshire from c1080 to 1760 - Appendix of calendar roll entries for parks Wingfield-Stratford (1949) This was a man Maps: (See park (6) above) Fieldwork: OS Explorer (2½inch to mile) TQ685605 middle of park 31 May 2010, 12 June 2010 - From church looks like parkland with tree groups. Walked across to check possible east, south, north boundaries nothing definite. 360 Acknowledgements: Denis Anstey, Dr Nicola Bannister (8) BOCKINGFOLD Parish: Yalding, Goudhurst, Marden Not in Lambarde or on the early maps so probably disparked before 1558 Earliest reference: 1256 (Cal.Lib. 1251-60, 3000) LC Ownership: C14th de Badlesmere > Robert de Crevequer siding with rebels taken by Crown. Mary I to Tongue c.1554 > Culpepper until 1564 CPR > sold to Revell) > sold to Dyke > sold to Benedict Barnham > via daughter to Soames > sold to George Brown (no dates for transactions given, but see Zell below, these tenants) Size: Documentary evidence: 1554 CPR Royal College of Plessy had leased manor, herbage, mast of the park and all lands for 50 years in 25 Henry VIII. Grant for £300 paid Queen Mary's use to Susan Tonge (Clarensieux) widow, gentlewoman of Privy Chamber reversion of manor of Bokingfold 1556 CPR Tonge to Thomas Culpepper of Bedgebury manor of Bokingfold late college of Plessey, late lands of John Gate attainted, 1559 CPR Culpepper licence to alienate Bokingfold manor, park not mentioned 1564 CPR Licence for Alexander Colepepper to alienate manor and park of Bockingfold to Roger Revell Secondary evidence: Arch.Cant. II (1859:118) Harris (1719:54) History of Kent Hasted 5 (1797:162) Sprange (1810:243) Tunbridge Wells Zell (2000:61) Early Modern Kent Maps: Fieldwork: OS Explorer (2½inch to mile) TQ709446 Bockingfold Acknowledgements: (9) BORE PLACE Parish: Chiddingstone Earliest reference: 1488 John Alfeigh' will Ownership: pre-1488 John Alfeigh (will 1488) > 1489 Sir Robert Read, chief justice of common pleas, married daughter of previous owner > 1518 Sir Thomas Willoughby, Justice of Common Pleas, via wife Bridget Read daughter of above d. 1545 ... > 1556 Thomas Willoughby d.1596 > 1596 Sir Percival Willoughby, until 1609 sold to Bernard Hyde of London > 361 c.1750 Hyde's descendant sold to Henry Streatfield of Chiddingtone Size: c.1600 = 307a, house and park (U1000/3 E3) Documentary evidence: 1488 John Alfeigh (will 1488 no ref. from Cole) mentions capital messuage called the Bore with appurtenances and lands purchased from Sir James Crowmer and all the lands enveloped with the pale called the Park, land called Baylies and all other lands in my own occupation. Crowmer had Broxham park so could be that park or perhaps early reference to Bore Park, but in context not certain. 1574 1573 CKS U1475 L17 (dLD) Willoughby involved with helping Sidney over illegal hunting in Penshurst. Examinations of illegal deer hunting at Penshurst Park 1574 CKS U1475 E31 + E42/1 (2 documentss) (dLD) illegal deer hunting of 1573 judgement (detailed) c.1590 U1000/3 E28 Lands sold by Thomas Willoughby 1580-89 c.1590 U1000/3 E34 Surveyor's drawings of Willoughby estate 1595 U1000/3 E6 Debts I owe (Perceval Willoughby) 1596 U1000/3 E24 Draft lease of Bore Place – Willoughby to Riches 1596 CKS QM/SIq/4/1-4 Entering park and assault Perceval Willoughby's family and servants (wrongly catalogued as 1594) 1596 CKS QM/SB/122 Warrant to prison to receive those who entered park and made assault with intent for deer 1596/7 CKS U1000 E2,3 1597 CKS U1000/3 E5 Inquisition regarding Willoughby lands, capital messuage Bore Place, acreages of land, park not mentioned 1597 CKS U1000/3 E9 Draft settlement Seyliard v. Willoughby for latter's debt to former 1598 CKS U1000/3 E23 Writ against Thomas and Perceval Willoughby for debt c.1600 CKS U1000/3 E2 3 particulars of Bore estate, no mention of park, probably disparked 1601 QS/SB 398 29 Dec 1601 Sheep stealing in Bore Place Park 1605 TNA STAC8/295/10 Willoughby's warren at Penshurst invaded (background) 1609 8 November Letter Robert Sidney, viscount Lisle to wife. Bore Place will be sold. £8000 has been offered – he would like it but doesn't think he can afford it (Hanney, M.P. Kinnamon N. J. & Brennan M. G., (2005:150) Domestic Politics and family absence ) Secondary evidence: Arch.Cant. V (1862/3:28) Arch.Cant. XXII (1897:112) Arch.Cant. XLVIII (1936:109) Arch.Cant. XLIX (1937:26) Bannerman (1924:48-49) Visitation of Kent Chronicles of Sevenoaks and District – c.1909, newspaper article on Bore Place Cleese & Crossley (1995:172-173) The Iron Industry of the Weald Cole's research into Bore Place and Willoughby family – from Surrey Record Office Country Life article, 1958 June Davis transcripts C24/7 Chancery Depositions 36 HenryVIII (BLS) Hasted 3 (1797:218) Ward's research, deposited in KAS Library Watson (1999:102-103) A History of the Parish of Chevening 362 Maps: Fieldwork: OS Explorer (2½inch to mile) TQ505490 Bore Place 2 July 2006 - Nothing definite but strong possibilities of boundaries. Acknowledgements: Lionel Cole, M. Cottrell, Ramon Higgs, Pat and Christopher Waterman (10) BOUGHTON MALHERBE / BOCTON / OLD PARK Parish: Boughton Malherbe Earliest reference: from mid C14th Manorial Court rolls (Furley p.704) Ownership: Nicholas Wotton LLD PC reign Henry V acquired by marriage to daughter of Robert Corbye > Sir Edward Wotton 1489-1551 > Thomas Wotton 1521-1587 > Sir Edward Wotton, 1st Baron Wotton of Marley, 1602 Comptroller of Queen's household Size: 1567 = 98½ a, Old deer park (others South and New distinguished)(BL ADD MSS 42715) Documentary evidence: 1567 BL Add.Mss. 42715 Wotton record of setting up South Park, how land got, taking deer from Old park. Also New Park of 1559 in Lenham. Looking on map with details in survey there seem to have been 3 parks around Boughton Malberbe 1580 CKS U24 M23 (Mann/Cornwallis) Quitrents of manors - New Park, Bocton, 24a as fields: Old Park, 138a as fields 1580 KAS website transcript Rental of Boughton Malherbe Manor 1617-1628 CKS U350 E4 Sir Edward Dering of Surrenden Dering and his Booke of Expences 1617-1628 (pp.47,174,339) Full transcription www.kentarchaeology.ac on-line publishing 1652 CKS U24 T207/25 (Mann/ Cornwallis) House and park, free warren 1602 CKS QM/SB/1602/429 Rabbit poaching in Sir Edward Wotton's park (leased King's park, Canterbury 1612, othewrise know of no other parks of his and poachers were from East Lenham). Same incident in Kent at Law 1602, below 1629/30 TNA SC12/9/6 Valor of late Thomas Lord Wotton's lands, park and wood lying in Southpark, new park in Lenham pre 1652 CKS U24 T207/25 Son Henry Lord Stanhope married Katherine (son = Philip Stanhope, Earl of Chesterfield) CKS U24 T207/25 1652 John vanden Kirkheven married. Katherine (widow of Henry Lord Stanhope) 1652 CKS U24 T207 (Mann/Cornwallis) Court agreement by proclamation, Champion & Sandford v. Stanhope includes park 1652 CKS U24 T207 (Mann/Cornwallis) Linked with above. Indenture re Kirkhaven, Stanhope v. Champion and Sandford re mansion and lands includes Bocton park New park and South park 1652 CKS U24 T207/25 Wherein Rt Hon Thomas Lord Wotton lately inhabited 363 Secondary evidence: Arch.Cant. LXXXII (1967:124) cites BL Egerton 860 Cole (1999:186-187) Portable Queen Eland (1960) Thomas Wotton's Letter-Book Furley (1874:704) A History of the Weald of Kent II Knafla (1994:59,88,96,191,235) Kent at Law 1602 Mee (1936:57) Kent Nichols (c.1977reprint:331) Progresses of Queen Elizabeth I Willson (1956:54-57,126-127,284-285,452-453) James VI and I Maps: 1575 Saxton 1576 Anonymous 1596 Symonson - name on either side of park 1605 Norden 1611 Speed Fieldwork: OS Explorer (2½inch to mile) TQ880497 Park/Rough Park Shaws Acknowledgements: John Hatherly (11) BOUGHTON MALHERBE – LENHAM / NEW PARK Parish: Lenham Earliest reference: 1490s New Park in Lenham (BL Add Mss 42715) Ownership: Nicholas Wotton LLD PC reign Henry V acquired by marriage to daughter of Robert Corbye > Sir Edward Wotton 1489-1551 > Thomas Wotton 1521-1587 > Sir Edward Wotton, 1st Baron Wotton of Marley, 1602 Comptroller of Queen's household Size: 1559 = 124a (BL AddMss 42715): 1629 = about 90a when add the field sizes (TNA SC12/9/6) Documentary evidence: 1567 BL Add.Mss. 42715 Wotton record of setting up South Park, how land got, taking deer from Old park. Also New Park of 1559 in Lenham and how father acquired land in Henry VII's reign. Looking on map with details in survey there seem to have been 3 parks around Boughton Malberbe, but Lenham disparked by 1559 because this document describes arable land and size of fields in the park when measured in 1559 1580 CKS U24 M23 (Mann/Cornwallis) Quitrents of manors - New Park, Bocton, 24a as fields: Old Park, 138a as fields 1629/30 TNA SC12/9/6 Valor of late Thomas Lord Wotton's lands, park and wood lying in Southpark, divers parcels of land lying in new park in Lenham 1652 CKS U24 T207 (Mann/Cornwallis) Linked with above. Indenture re Kirkhaven, Stanhope v. Champion and Sandford re mansion and lands includes Bocton park New park and South park 364 Secondary evidence: Maps: Fieldwork: OS Explorer (2½inch to mile) TQ889520 Park Wood near Chilston Park Hotel Acknowledgements: (12) BOUGHTON MALHERBE - SOUTH PARK Parish: Boughton Malherbe Earliest reference: 1292 (Cal.IPM III, 14) LC lands called 'Southpark' Ownership: Nicholas Wotton LLD PC reign Henry V acquired by marriage to daughter of Robert Corbye > Sir Edward Wotton 1489-1551 > Thomas Wotton 1521-1587 > Sir Edward Wotton, 1st Baron Wotton of Marley, 1602 Comptroller of Queen's household Size: 1559 = 88a (BL AddMss 42715) Documentary evidence: 1567 BL Add.Mss. 42715 Wotton record of setting up South Park, how land got, taking deer from Old park. From 1292 reference this might have been reestablishing a medieval park 1652 CKS U24 T207 (Mann/Cornwallis) linked with above. Indenture re Kirkhaven, Stanhope v. Champion and Sandford re mansion and lands includes Bocton park New park and South park 1629/30 TNA SC12/9/6 Valor of late Thomas Lord Wotton's lands park of Boughton Malherbe, 80a wood lying in Southpark (seems disparked as only woodland mentioned Secondary evidence: Lambarde (1576, 1596 – a deer park, if not Southpark(72) Penshurst) Maps: 1575 Saxton 1576 Anonymous Fieldwork: OS Explorer (2½inch to mile) TQ869467 Southpark Wood Acknowledgements: (13) BOUGHTON MONCHELSEA Parish: Boughton Monchelsea Earliest reference: 1566 rental (formerly CKS U807/MI, now in private hands, last known owner Mrs Charlotte Gouch of Benenden) Ownership: 1551 purchased Sir Thomas Wyatt > 1551 sold to Robert Rudston d.1591 > 1591-1613 to younger son Belknap Rudston > 1613-1645 to nephew Sir Francis Barnham, married 365 Lennard. Stayed in Barham family for many years Size: 1650 = approx 60a (CKS TR2212/3): 2006 = 75a Documentary evidence: Secondary evidence: Boughton Monchelsea Place Guide Book (post 1954) Colvin and Moggridge (March 2004) Boughton Monchelsea Park: historic park restoration plan, Draft Interim Report Hastings (2000:22) Upon the Quarry Hills Maps: 1650 Estate map. Photo held by BL RP 1701/B1/72/79) CKS copy TR2212/3, very small Fieldwork: OS Explorer (2½inch to mile) TQ774497 existing park 15 June 2006 - Walked inside whole perimeter of present deer park. 1650 boundaries not greatly dissimilar, except E boundary. Acknowledgements: Mr and Mrs Dominic Kendrick (14 a & b) BOXLEY and LEA Parish: Boxley, Maidstone Earliest reference: a) pre 1536 reference in 1574 CCA DCB-J/X.10.17 b)1549 Sir Thomas Wyatt's new park = Lea park at Boxley (Zell) Ownership: Church > Henry VIII > Henry VIII to Sir Thomas Wyatt > (Hook & Ambrose) Mary I to Mrs Mary Finch (see Allington) > widow and son George Wyatt regained Abbey, 1584 Elizabeth I granted lands in Boxley and Allington to John Astley, rest to others (b) 1596 Lea Park of 90a together with Park Wood granted by Elizabeth I to William Llewyn and Robert Cranmer Size: (b) 1596 = 90a, Lea Park together with Park Wood 90a (CMS U480/T1/1) Documentary evidence: Unclear in some cases which refer to park (a) or (b), some overlap with Allington - 1543 CMS DRc Elb 1A Indenture Dean of Rochester and King parsonage of Boxley 1558 TNA E133/6/863 Claim herbage horses, calves in Boxley Park, from pre1542, i.e. in lifetime of Sir Thomas Wyatt senior 1563 CPR 10 July 21-year lease to Parker for woodland in Boxley with rents to cut and enclose and use to repair Maidstone palace. 1563 CPR Grant in tail to Tomyow site of monastery of Boxley Richard Tomyow late collector of the subsidy of kersey, broadcloth etc, in the Port of London) (1561 CPR 21- year lease to Edward Warner rent given) (1568 CPR 21- year lease to Edward Wyatt lands in Allington now in Crown hands with death of Lady Margaret Halles, rents and fine given) 366 (1569 CPR 21- year lease Harrison woods and lands ex-Wyatt in Boxley, lands and wood by Lyminge park) 1572 CPR 21- year lease to Nicholas Barham of le park of Boxley at end of Mary & Philip's reign lease to Bludder (1573 CPR 21 - year lease to Collier from 1582 having already leased to Edward Warner for 21 year from 1561) 1574 CCA DCB-J/X.10.17 Hilles v Collyar and Darrell tithe dispute in Boxley park 1579 CPR 21- year lease to George Wyatt son of late Thomas Wyatt attainted lands in Boxley and Aylesford 1581 CPR Lease for life in survivorship William Baynham and wife with remainder for son leased by CPR 1569 1582 CPR Robert Dudley fee simple of site of Monastery of Boxley granted to Thomyow and wife in tail 1584 CKS U1644 T322 (Romney) (1629 recital) fields Armitage, Millwey and Park, tenement Colland within the chase of Allington Park 1587 TNA Ind1/16820 bill book registerinng case Astley v. Baynham 1587 TNA E133/6/815 Astley v. Baynham whether Boxley Park wood or pasture ground – and E133/6/863 Astley v. Baynham. Disparkment by Abbot, therefore pre-1537 1588 TNA E134/30&31 Elizabeth I deposition by Commission dispute over Boxley Wood alias Boxley Park Wood, Astley v Baynham (lots about background to park), see also E134/31 Eliz/Hil16, Hil27 TNA E134/34 Boxley Abbey? 1590 CKS U951 C261/3 (Knatchbull) Astley dispute about which manor has Parkwood 1591 TNA SP12/211/103 Lease to Sir Thomas Fludd of lands in mnaor of Boxley, Stanford and Aldington and to 2 others, 21 years, rnet £21 19s 4d 1591 TNASP12/238/11/1 Letter from Margaret Astley to cousin about Mr Floyd taking all documents from Allington Castle and lodging them in Exchequer before her side could look at them to see if they could be used against wood-felling. Fears it will shorten Mr Astley's life to see the son of a Welsh cobbler prevail against him. 1591 TNA E134/31Eliz/Hil12 Tithe case dispute 1596 CMS U480/T1/1 CPR Park Wood alias Boxley park = 90a 1629 CKS U1644 T1 Son of Sir John Astley granted lands (The Park, Maidstone; Park of Allington - Parkfield, chase of the Park) 1629 CKS U1644 T322 Copy of letter patent recital of Crown grants Henry VIII-Elizabeth I CKS U1644 T322 (Romney) (1629 recital) Patent 26 Elizabeth I 1638 CKS U2035 T32 Sold to Sir Jacob Astley (Park in Allington or Aylesford, ?Boxley)(later to the Romney family hence CKS U1644 and U1515) 1649 TNA LR2/196 Boxley survey Secondary evidence: Arch.Cant. LXVI (1953:50) Hasted 4 (1797:326,334) Hook & Ambrose (1999:Chapter 10, 121) Boxley - story of an English parish, with parks Mee (1936:60), Kent Thirsk (1977:14-15) Horses in early modern England Watson (1999:49) A History of the Parish of Chevening Zell (2000:32), Early Modern Kent Maps: 1697CMS U480 P1 Park House with 88½ acres, with further 139a part of Kiln and Little 367 Farms Fieldwork: OS Explorer (2½inch to mile) TQ767585 Park wood: TQ778578 Park Wood Acknowledgements: (15) BRASTED Parish: Brasted Earliest reference: 1310 (Cal.Pat. 1307-13, 262) LC Ownership: 1310 Earl of Gloucester & Hertford ... > (CKS U1450 E19) Isley until 1553 Henry Isley (attainted) bought by John Lennard > 1575 (U1590 T14/17) Crown to cover William Isley's debts, leading to dispute over ownership v lease, but remained in Lennard family until at least 1630 (CKS U1590 T23/27) IPM for Richard, Lord Dacre Size: c.1547 = 180a (CKS U1450 T14/6): c.1570 = 256a (CKS U908 L1/1): 1613 = 193a (CKS TR1534/1) Documentary evidence: 1547 CKS U1450 T14/6 (Stanhope) Sir George Harper and William Isley to Sir Henry Isley recovery of manor of Brasted with Brasted park, land outlined, leased out to others with 100a in Brasted Park, so park disparked 1553 CKS U1450 E19 (Stanhope) Henry Isley to John Isley, lists land, includes parcel the Park 60a Brasted, all lands called Sundrish Park 30a c.1570 CKS U908 L1/1 (Seyliard) Seyliard v. Lennard over ownership of Brasted park rehearses history re Isley, dispute over area of park. Land in other tenants' hands lies in Brasted Park in which park lies 100a of Sir Henry Isley (c.1547), proofs measuring park, names of tenants and acreages of their leases. 1575 CKS U1450 T14/17 (Stanhope) Crown seized late park of Brasted to cover William Isley's debts, leading to dispute over ownership v lease 1577 CKS U1590 T22/9 (Stanhope) Manor of Brasted let to Seyliard and demesne lands and lands in the late park of Brasted let to 12 tenants (commissioners to sell lands of William Isley) 1579 CKS U1590 T22/12 (Stanhope) Notes land lately in Brasted park 1604 CKS U908 L1/2 (Streatfield) Suit about extent of Brasted park 1612 CKS U1590 T22/28 (Stanhope) Sampson Lennard to his son and son's wife cites tripartite indenture 1589 Sir Richard Baker of Cranbrook, John Lennard of Knole, Edward Nevill, lord Abergavenny conveying Court Lodge, Brasted with late park in several tenures to John and Samson Lennard 1616 CKS U1590 T23/6 (Stanhope) IPM Sampson Lennard 1616 CKS U1590 T23/13 (Stanhope) IPM Thomas Pritchard mentions Court Lodge, land called Brasted Park under 9 listed tenants 1616 CKS U1590 T23/14 (Stanhope) Samuel Lennard, court of wards, lets possessions of Henry Lord Dacre to Sir Samuel Lennard late in tenure of Henry's widow.includes lands called Brasted park occupied by 9 tenants 1630 TNA C142/468/85 IPM Lord Dacre includes park, Chevening warren, Cudham manor 368 Secondary evidence: Barrett-Lennard (1908:32) An Account of the Families of Lennard and Barrett Cole pers.comm. unpublished notes KCC SMR TQ 45 SE 12 - KE86 Lambarde (1576, 1596 – disparked) Steinman Steinman (1851:32-43) Some Account of the Manor of Apuldrefield in the Parish of Cudham, Kent Watson (1999:65,78) A History of the Parish of Chevening, Maps: TR1534/1 1613 Manor of Chevening includes Brasted Park, poor copy in CKS, original seen at Chevening House (19 June 2006) Fieldwork: OS Explorer (2½inch to mile) TQ463557 Park Wood 9 December 2006 - Having found probable boundaries by mapwork, went to Park Farm to confirm. Happy with N and W boundaries, fairly happy with S, E unresolved. Acknowledgements: Col R.P.D. Brook, Lionel Cole, David Edgar (16) BROMLEY Parish: Bromley Earliest reference: 1596 Symonson's map Ownership: Bishop of Rochester (from 955) by 1184 palace there Size: 1647 = 61a minimum - park by mansion 16+ a, Middle Park 30a, Bushy park 15a (Horsburgh) Documentary evidence: 1580 SP12/126/33 Bishop of Rochester has only felled trees to repair his house there, but great waste of timber before. (Other bishops also being asked about tree felling on their land) 1647 BLS 43/6 Augustine Skinner sequestration sale with description 1647 BLS 43/7a-b Conveyance Sir John Wollaston & others to Skinner, disparked by then 1658 BLS 43/10a-b Prospectus of manor (Clayton papers original might be in Surrey Record Office), survey calls park 'antique' 1841 BLS 43/9 Particulars of sale of Bromley demesne land Secondary evidence: Arch.Cant. XIII (1880:154) Arch.Cant. XXXIII (1918:145) Bromleag Journal (March 2006:6-9) Davis transcripts 1930s, 1597, 1602 title deeds of land adjacent to Bishop's land (BLS) Horsburgh (1929:94,309,367) Bromley from the earliest times Maps: 1596 Symonson - not named but unambiguous 369 1605 Norden 1611 Speed Fieldwork: OS Explorer (2½inch to mile) TQ407691 to east of Bromley Civic Centre Preparatory mapwork done, built over, street pattern might shadow borders Acknowledgements: (17) BROXHAM Parish: Edenbridge Earliest reference: 1294/5 court case (Steinman Steinman p.7 citing BL Lansdowne) Ownership: C13th Apuldrefield > C14 Brocas > C15 Clinton > C16 Cromer > C17 Beresford sold to Petley Size: 284a approx calculated from tithe map divisions backed up by fieldwork Documentary evidence: 1308 CPR 1307-1313, 2620 (LC) Pardon to Thomas son of Simon de Hevere for breaking into Brokesham park, the close of William Moraunt, and the park of Penecestre 1367 CPR May 1, Licence to enclose 90a and 20a wood adjoining park to enlarge it as long as not within bounds of king's forest 1548 TNA IPM C/142/468/85 Park now farmland 1570 CKS U908 L1/1 (Stanhope) Seyliard v. Lennard, witness states Bellmans Green lay open to Broxham Park on N 1604 CKS U908 L1/2 (Stanhope) Bellmans Green, Edenbridge - Seyliard made fence, but this stopped residents from getting to homes. Arbitration said might keep gate against park pale, but leave it open for right of way Secondary evidence: Arch.Cant. XXIX (1911:258) Cole pers.comm. notes, no references but include William Cromer's attainder in 1555... Broxham held by family until 1623 (Somers-Cocks:63-64) KCC SMR TQ 44 NE 1 - KE2 Lambarde (1576, 1596 - disparked) Somers-Cocks & Boyson (1912:57-62) Edenbridge, Steinman Steinman (1851:7) Some Account of the Manor of Apuldrefield in the Parish of Cudham, Kent Maps: Lionel Cole's map of Hever parish - shows how field names from documents lay outside park, so gives supportive evidence for fieldwork Fieldwork: OS Explorer (2½inch to mile) TQ457484 Broxham Manor 16 October 2004, 12 March 2005 - Fieldwork/photos complete - whole mapped out on modern OS. 370 Acknowledgements: Lionel Cole, Alan Dell, Christopher and Pat Waterman (18) CANTERBURY – NEW / KING'S / St. AUGUSTINE's - now Old Park Parish: St Martin's, Fordwich Earliest reference: 1538 Henry VIII set up new park (Sparks p.57) Ownership: Land pre 1538 owned by St Augustine's Abbey > 1538 Crown under keepership then lessees > 1601 (TNA SP12/281/57) sold to Lord Cobham Size: 1547 = 350a (CCA - DCc-ChAnt/C/965) Documentary evidence: 1547 CCA - DCc-ChAnt/C/965 Rector compensated for reduction of income due to loss of land for park 1556 CKS U1450 T6/28 (Stanhope) To Cardinal Pole, lands called le Park at Maidstone in tenure of Henry Smyth, all kinds of deer and wild beasts in the said park. Also with numerous other lands, park of Saltwood; house and site of late monastery of St Augustine near walls of Canterbury, the park called Canterbury Park adjacent to the house; the parks of Aldington and Otford; the park of Knoll late parcel of lands of John, Duke of Northumberland, attainted. 1558 TNA SPD I, no.10, p.115, List of horses in stables and pastures at Lambeth, Canterbury park and Ford of late Cardinal Pole; no.25, p.116, Permission to dispose of hay, oats, wood and deer in St Augustine's park Acts of the Privy Council, New Series VII, 1558-1570, p.7, 1558 Nov 26, letter to Sir Thomas Fynche to take charge of manor and park of Canterbury and to see that there was no spoil or waste; p.17, 1558 December 9 Letter to Finch to deliver to Senor Pryolye cattle, hay and wood felled belonging to Pole and 7 does and 100 couple of conies for funerals of Pole 1564 TNA CPR no.784 6 Elizabeth I Lease for 30 years to William Brooke, Lord Cobham > Salisbury son-in-law, must maintain 200 wild beasts and deer for use of Crown, previously in custody of Sir Antony Sentleger or Sir Thomas Fynche deceased 1564 CKS U1475 E62 (dLD) Grant of St Augustine's Abbey and park to Lord Cobham and CPR, late in custody of Sir Anthony Seyntleger or Sir Thomas Fynche deceased, fine and rent given c.1570 CKS U1475 E62 (dLD) Lord Cobham keeper 1589 CCA CC J/Q/288 QS, Witness went to Sturry found Mr Thornhurst at bowls in the park (park name not specified). 1594 TNA SP12/250/42, 44, Repair St. Augustine's house, Canterbury, £136/19/3d, and survey 1600 TNA SP12/274/30 Buckhurst tells Cobham Queen has agreed to his bill for Canterbury 1600 TNA SP12/274/127 Lord Cobham instructions to Richard Williams, house, grounds and park not well ordered, wants survey, specially enquire about keeper 's attitude towards the game, and how the resident of the almonry uses the ground as I have heard evil reports 1600 TNA SP12/276/39 Williams to Cobham, re fine to pay at Canterbury re lease (but no mention that is to do with park). 1601 TNA SP12/281/57 Buckhurst to Cobham signing of bill for Canterbury at first utterly 371 rejected, but on urging queen it was profitable for her she signed it. Main argument was deposit had been paid, but now finds that not so, send it quickly. Otford utterly refused. 1602 CCA CC J/Q/401/5 QS Incident re huntsmen and dogs in Canterbury, but not directly park, but Ingram Ellis comes into it so might be connected with StaffsRO below 1602 StaffsRO D593/S/4/56/1 Illegal deer coursing 1604 Salisbury deeds 242/21 (at Hatfield) By William Lord Cobham's will 3 trustees to look after interests in park for 9 years until lease expires. William Lord Cobham had had new lease granted by Elizabeth I in 1593 for 21 years and after his death Henry Lord Cobham purchased reversion for him and heirs, on attainder this escheated to Crown so back to James I 1604 Salisbury deeds 68/17 Lease to Leveson with conditions 1605 TNA SP14/15/20 Sir John Roper will cheerfully send deer to Salisbury for Canterbury park, hawks he promised will soon be ready 1605 Salisbury deeds 115/17 Trustees of William Lord Cobham's will assign over to Viscount Cranbourne (Cecil) all interest in leases etc 1605 Salisbury accounts 6/35 Leveson's account for rents of Canterbury Park etc – mentions mares pasture, park keeper, no specific mention of deer 1608 TNA SP14/38/10 Sir Walter Chute seeks employment from Salisbury, mentions Canterbury park 1609 TNA STAC8/16/2 Palings pulled down of Earl of Salisbury's park, keeper assaulted, hunting under pretence of football 1616 CCA - DCc - ChAnt/W/230 Indenture by Wotton confirming Christ Church rights for water supply, has made new fish stew which could damage supplies 1639 EKAC-U449/L/9 Royal Licence to Sir John Finch - Canterbury Park to enclose land to enlarge park. Road diversion included. Inquiry by inquisitions ad quod damnum. Mentioned land of Sir John called Canterbury field alias Town field, road crosses parishes of St Paul and Littlebourne. Park of Lord Wotton lately defunct in parish 1639 TNA C202/21/1 Ad Quod Damnum Inquiry allows grant to enclose land as above 1640 CCA-DCc-ChAnt/C/1238 Licence mentions the king's park to the east Secondary evidence: Arch.Can.t XI (1867:200,206) Arch.Cant. XXXI (1915:11) Arch.Cant. XCIX (1983:115) Arch.Cant. CVI (1988:137) Arch.Cant. CVII (1989:305) Cole (1999:88-89,186-187) Portable Queen, Field & Routledge (1893:10) The Cathedral Church of Christ and the Remains of its Monastic Buildings and the Ancient Church of St. Martin. A Short Guide and History, Hasted (1797:A623) History of Canterbury II KCC SMR TR 15 NE 138 - KE 4628 Lambarde (1576, 1596 – a deer park if 'St Augustune's') McIntosh (1975:135,140) Fordwich the lost port McKeen (1986:98-103,160,689) Memory of Honour Nichols (c.1977reprint:340-352) Progresses of Queen Elizabeth Owen (ed.) (1883) Calendar of the Manuscripts of the Most Hon. the Marquess of Salisbury, 16 no.908, 17 no.19, no.473, 18 no.13, no.292, no.662 Sparks (1980:57) Parish of St Martin and St Paul, Canterbury, Tatton Brown (1983:45) Canterbury Cathedral Chronicle 77, Woodruff (1895:135) History of Town and Port of Fordwich 372 Maps: 1575 Saxton 1576 Anonymous 1596 Symonson - park shown to E of Canterbury not named, but in the location 1605 Norden – puts park near Fordwich 1611 Speed CCA M49 Map mid-C16th park pale with deer CCA M57 c1600 park pale marked King's Park Fieldwork: OS Explorer (2½inch to mile) TR170584 Old Park Farm 24 November 2004, 13 March 2006, 2 June 2006, 18 September 2009 – Tried to confirm boundaries outlined by Tatton-Brown (Arch.Cant, 1983), S boundary fairly clear, rest not. Acknowledgements: Canterbury Woodland Research Group and David Shire, Dr David Wright (19) CANTERBURY – OLD PARK Parish: St.Martin's Earliest reference: 1274/5 Hundred rolls (KAS website) Ownership: pre-Reformation, St Augustine's Abbey > Crown sold in 1540 to William Coppyn, history unclear Size: Documentary evidence: 1274/5 Hundred rolls Secondary evidence: Arch.Cant. LI (1939:68) Arch.Cant. XCIX (1983:115) Arch.Cant. CCXVII (2007:69) KCC SMR TR 15 NE 139 - KE4629 Nichols (1859:234) Narratives of the Days of the Reformation Zell (2000:59) Early Modern Kent Maps: CCA M49, Map midC16th, former park enclosure built-up inside, disparked CCA M57 c1600 Enclosure marked Old Park, park pale marked King's Park Fieldwork: OS Explorer (2½inch to mile) TR168577 Hospital 16 October 2006, 9 November 2006 - Have traced borders on map and used Tatton-Brown (Arch.Cant. 1983). Part of W boundary found, good S boundary and followed E. Acknowledgements: Malcolm and Sue Wells of Canterbury Camping and Caravanning Club site 373 (20) CANTERBURY - TRENLEY / WICKHAMBREUX Parish: Wickhambreux, Fordwich Earliest reference: 1071 (Book of seal no.431)(Domesday Book only 1 of 2 in Kent) Ownership: 1086 Odo Bishop of Bayeux > C13 William de Braose and church to Henry VIII > Henry VIII to Sir Henry Browne, history unclear Size: 1086 = 296a (SMR) Documentary evidence: 1274/5 100 rolls, KAS website, For 5 years Lord William de Braose obstructs a certain royal way through the middle of the park 1446 LPL Archbishops estates B Account roll no.598 keeper (? says Canterbury Palace) 1585 CCA DCB-J/X.11.1 Smith v Campion tithe dispute over timber Secondary evidence: Brook (1960:18) Story of Eltham Palace Hasted 9 (1797:158,163) Mentions park disparked by 1425 KCC SMR TR 15 NE 145 - KE 4635 Maps: Fieldwork: OS Explorer (2½inch to mile) TR195593 Trenley park wood Tatton-Brown (Arch.Cant. 1983) has traced borders on map. Acknowledgements: (21) CHILHAM Parish: Chilham Earliest reference: 1338 (Cal.IPM VIII, 134) LC (old site): 1616 (Heron) Ownership: 1480s Crown held by Sir John Scott died 1485 > 1502 Crown to Thomas Manners, Earl of Rutland > 1539 Thomas Manners sold to Henry VIII > 1542 Crown to Sir Thomas Cheney > 1572 Sir Henry Cheney sold to Sir Thomas Kempe, who left 4 daughters > 1603 Sir Dudley Digges bought out 3 daughters, having married the 4th and remained with Digges into Charles I's reign. Size: 1616 = 25a (Heron) - He dates and describes each addition to the park and he came to 25a by elimination Documentary evidence: Have seen original documents in Castle and I have catalogue Title Deeds A, bundle I and II cover 1569-1720 Manorial and Estate Documents B, I Court Roll 1638-1644 has entry referring to park Secondary evidence: 374 Bolton (1912:26) Chilham Castle CH (1916:4-5) Chilham Castle BC55-AD1916 Debois (2003) Chilham Castle Historic Landscape Survey 2003 Hasted 1 (1797:269) Heron (1791) Antiquities of Chilham Collected by Thomas Heron esq KCC SMR TR 05 SE 46 – KE 9325 Oswald (c.1977) Chilham Castle Reed (c.1992) Guide to Chilham Ryan (Winter 1995:68-87) Kent Recusant History 2 nos. 3/4 Talbot (2003:13) Brabourne in History Maps: 1778 Hogben survey of Chilham with key (poor copy from m/film CKS, original at Chilham Castle) Fieldwork: OS Explorer (2½inch to mile) TR045527 Park wood, older park: TR068535 Chilham Castle. John Hatherly says Park Wood medieval Chilham park to NW of castle – new C16th nearer castle. 13 January 2006 - Not convinced original 25 acres found, and extensions are beyond the period of study. Acknowledgements: John Hatherly, Michael Peters, Mr and Mrs S Wheeler (22) CHISLET Parish: Chislet Earliest reference: 1138-1151 Thorne Chronicle of St Augustine's Abbey Ownership: 605 Charter Chislet manor to St Augustine > 1537 29 Henry VIII to Crown (Sparks) 1538 Archbishop bought it back Size: Documentary evidence: 1299 TNA Lists and Indexes XVII, 44 (LC) 1587 LPL TA39/1 Lease Archbishop of Canterbury to Roger Manwood, no deer in park for 46 years (c.1541 disparked) because Brook's lease licensed to kill all deer, for 36 years no pale or covert for deer 1597, 1602, 1613, 1627, 1630, 1647 LPL TA39/2-9 Series of other leases for Chislet park, Manwood past to Harfelte c1602 1600 TNA SP12/277/1 Leases of Archbihsop of Canterbury, 1539, £10 p.a., Thomas Brooke, 80 years; 1587 Sir Roger Manwood residue of lease, must keep and leave it in repair; renewed 3 lives to Peter Manwood in 1597. Secondary evidence: Arch.Cant. V (1862/3:28) Arch.Cant. XXXII (1917:93) Arch.Cant. LI (1939:70) 375 du Boulay (1952) Archbishop Cranmer and the Canterbury Temporalities, English Historical Review LXVII Harris (1719:77) History of Kent Hasted 9 (1797:102) McIntosh & Gough (1984:69-72) Hoath and Herne Nichols (1859:234,265) Narratives of the Days of the Reformation Sparks (1980:57) Parish of St Martin and St Paul, Canterbury Davis (1934:554) William Thorne's Chronicle of St Augustine's Abbey Maps: Fieldwork: OS Explorer (2½inch to mile) TR210629 Chislet park See Rob Williams letter re possible boundaries Acknowledgements: Harold Gough, Kim McIntosh, Rob Williams (23) COBHAM Parish: Cobham Earliest reference: 1559 description of visit by Elizabeth I (Rye p.256) Ownership: C12th de Cobham (Oldcastle) family ... Joane Braybrooke m. Thomas Brooke d.1434 > .., George Brooke, lord Cobham d.1558 > William Brooke, lord Cobham d.1597 > son Henry Brooke, Lord Cobham, attainted 1602 so to Crown > 1612-1713 (CMS U565 T166) patent to Dukes of Lennox & Richmond . Size: 1602 = 200a (StaffsRO S/4/61/1) Documentary evidence: 1576 CKS DRb/PWR15/53 Will of John Kenaston, son Francis 1583 TNA SP12/163/57 To Lord Cobham Boys and Pasteriche had mustered horsemen in Lathe of St. Augustine, needed more time for certificates of mares breeding in parks 1584 Assize 35/26/5-1343 Birling, early reference to name Humfrey Latter yeoman giving evidence against others 1589 Assize 35/31/3 no.1763 Inquest after robbery on highway, jury have names cropping up in other documents 1592 Assize 35/34/5 no.2040 2 from Cobham to hang for burlary 1592 Assize 35/34/5 no.2055 John Juden (part of Latter's assoicates) confessed to stealing 50 sheep 1595 TNA SP12/253/71 Lord Cobham granted a buck, which he gives to Standen, help required to deliever it. 1595 TNA SP12/253/88 From Lord Burghley to son Robert Cecil letter 20 Aug re both hunting stag 1596 TNA prob/11/87 Will of George Wright gentleman of Cobham 1596 StaffsRO S/4/10/30 Cobham farmers with corn in stock 1596 StaffsRO S/4/14/14 Cobham and other farmers with grain stock 1597 TNA SP12/262/48 24 February Will of William Brooke, lord Cobham 1598 CKS QM/SB/1/252 Humfrey Latter poaching 376 1598 CKS QM/SB/2/9 Humfrey Latter theft to make poaching equipment 1602 StaffsRO D593/S/4/56/1 Humfrey Latter and others deer poaching Cobham, Birling, Canterbury 1602 Assize 35/44/5 no.2933 Bartholomew Harding associate of Hayes/latter indicted for stealing cows, not guilty 1602 Assize 35/45/4 no.3019 Juden, Latter, Hayes indicted for burglary 1602 StaffsRO S/4/61/1 Purveyance returns 200a in the park 1603 CKS DRb/PW19 Will of Gilbert Yonge 1603 TNA SP14/4/16 Lord Cobham in prison, much in debt, some of lands and goods in Kent seized 1603 TNA SP14/35/58 Miles Rainsford, valet of Privy Chamber, keeping of Cobham Hall while Cobham under attainder, fees given, also park fee £6/13/4d, master of watrercourses for wild beasts, pannage, herbage, tops and lops, browsewood for deer, allowance of wood, stewardship of house 1603/4 TNA E178/3521 Possessions of Lord Cobham, inventory of house, no obvious park reference 1604 TNA SP14/10/85 Person who seized lands because of Cobham's debt defrauded king 1604 TNA E178/3924 Concerning possessions of executed John Hayes 1604 CKS DRb/PW19 Will of Richard Hayes, brother Thomas Hayes and son Robert Hayes 1604/5 TNA STAC8 33/4 John Hayes has been executed for felony, burglary, brother Robert accused of perjury over his property 1605 TNA SP14/13/70 Weekly support for Cobham in prison paid, and medicine and clothing. 1608 CKS DRb/PW20 Will of Gilbert Yonge 1609 CKS DRb/PW20 Will of John Clement TNA Ind1/16822/319 Exchequer bill book registering case Wright v Tunbridge TNA E112/88/319 Wright v Tunbridge messuage in Cobham 1612 TNA SP14/70/48 Grant of manor of Cobham and other land in Kent to duke of Lennox 1612 TNA SP14/131/53 King from Rochester to Cobham to persuade Lady Kildare to sell reasonably to Duke of Lennox. 1612 CKS U565 T166 Letters Patent - garden and park 200a, rabbit warren outside park 160a to Duke of Lennox 1622 TNA SP14/133/43 Grant to Merrill for finding 16a in Cobham of John Hayes attainted land 1636 TNA Ind1/16824/168 Exchequer bill book registering case attorney general v. Wright, Awbert, messuage in Cobham 1636 TNA E112/190/168 Attorney General v. Wright and Awbert 1640 TNA prob/11/159 Will of Robert Hayes 1641 CKS U565 P1 Map shows Oulde Park and perambulation of new park (doubling size) 1648 Assize - illegal deer killing of James Stuart Duke of Richmond 1651 TNA SP18/17/38-41 Search for naval timber in Cobham with what timber marked Secondary evidence: Arch.Cant. II (1859:83) Arch.Cant. XI (1877:lxxxiv-lxxxvii, 49-112,199-216) Arch.Cant. XII (1878:68-71,113-166) Arch.Cant. CXXII (2002:16-21) Arnold (1949:10-19,43,91-101,137-141) A Yeoman of Kent 377 Arnold (c.early 1950s) Cobham Hall - Kent Bowdler (2002) Historical Account: Cobham Hall Estate Chalklin (1965:86,105,142-143) Seventeenth-century Kent Cole (1999:186-187) Portable Queen, Eland (1960:18-20) Thomas Wotton's Letter-Book Everitt (1966:28,166-167) The Community of Kent and the Great Rebellion 1640-1660 Harris (1910:3) Cobham Park and Estate Hasted 1 (1797:269) Hasted 2 (1797:432) Hasted 3 (1797:8,411) Hasted 9 (1797:420) Henderson (2005:4,152,229) Tudor house and garden KCC SMR TQ 66 NE 11 - KE 1352 Lambarde (1576, 1596 – a deer park) McKeen (1986:98-103,132-135,362,452-455) A Memory of Honour Nichols (c.1977reprint:73,413) Progresses of Elizabeth I Nichols (c.1977reprint:769-770) Progresses of James I Nichols (1979:17) Cooling, Kent, and its Castle Read (1962:34,40) William Lambarde and Local Government Rye (1865:256) England as seen by foreigners in the days of Elizabeth and James I Saul (2001) Death, Art, and Memory in Medieval England: the Cobham family and their memorials, 1300-1500 Whitaker (1892) Deer Parks and Paddocks Willson (1956:156-157) James I & VI Wingfield Stratford (1959:66-81,92-97) The Lords of Cobham Hall Wingfield-Stratford (1949:13-24) This was a man Maps: 1575 Saxton 1576 Anonymous 1596 Symonson – park named 1605 Norden 1611 Speed 1641 CMS U565 P1 1641 Map shows Oulde Park and new park to double size 1718 CMS U565 P3 1718 Cobham deer park Fieldwork: OS Explorer (2½inch to mile) TQ690690 Cobham Park 1 June 2004, 29 October 2005, 14 April 2007 - Went along E and N boundaries. Can put 1641 map onto modern OS, athough N boundary obliterated by Channel tunnel rail-link and M2. Acknowledgements: Members of the Cobham Ashenbank Management Scheme, David Cufley, Sylvia Hammond, Dr David Wright (24) COOLING Parish: Cooling, Frindsbury Earliest reference: 1380/1 4 Richard II licence to embattle, there was then a large park adjoining (Hasted 3:518): 1533/4 lease (CMS DRc/T166A) 378 Ownership: As (23) until 1602 Henry Brooke, Lord Cobham, attainted so forfeit to Crown but King allowed Cooling to remain in Cobham family possession. After 1612 grant the Duke of Lennox allowed the Brooke family to remain at Cooling until 1668 Size: Documentary evidence: 1533/4 CMS DRc/T166A Lease Prior of Rochester to Sir George Brook re 40a in Cooling Park, by land of Henry enclosed within the park.and lands of the Prior enclosed within the park, conditions within 20 years for land to become Brooke's 1541 Deeds 190/21 (Salisbury) Sale by Sir Thomas Wyatt to George Lord Cobham of lands in Cooling Park 1603 TNA E138/3521 Inventory of bailey and castle 1603 TNA SP14/5/9 Sir Roger Aston to be keeper of Cooling park due to attainder of Lord Cobham ?1610 TNA SP14/59/9 Warrant to William Brooke to seize all setting dogs with 5 miles of Cooling park which have been destroying game 1612 CMS DRc Ele 086/12 Frindsbury leases Turk to Reade description includes Stickfast Lane leading to Cooling Park 1614/15 TNA STAC8 23/11 Breaking into park, hunting with greyhounds Secondary evidence: Arch Cant XI (1877:142-144) Arch Cant XXXIX (1927:1) Bowdler (2002) Historical Account: Cobham Hall Estate Fox (2002) The History of Sevenoaks up to 1650 with CD database of West Kent wills to 1650 Hasted 3 (1797:518) Lambarde (1576, 1596 – a deer park) Liddiard (2005:64,145,150) Castles in Context McKeen (1986:5,100,360) Nichols (1979:11-14,17) Cooling, Kent, and its Castle) Read (1962:35) William Lambarde and Local Government Saul (2001:52-55,110-111) Death, Art, and Memory in Medieval England: the Cobham family and their memorials, 1300-1500 Maps: 1575 Saxton 1576 Anonymous 1596 Symonson - named 1605 Norden 1611 Speed 1668 U1823 P3 Cooling Manor Fieldwork: OS Explorer (2½inch to mile) TQ745759 Cooling Castle- park to south 7 March 2007 – Looked at N boundary to S of Castle and church and part of W boundary, looking at distance at possible E boundary. 379 Acknowledgements: Christopher Waterman (25) CUDHAM Parish: Cudham Not in Lambarde or on early maps so probably disparked before 1558 Earliest reference: 1272 onwards (Cal.IPM I, 281)LC Ownership: 1272 William de Say ... > Geoffrey Fiennes died childless 36Elizabeth I > Sampson Lennard married Margaret, Geoffrey’s sister amd heir > son Henry Lennard = Baron Dacre by James I (Harris p.91) Size: 1272 = 100a (Cal.IPM I, 281) Documentary evidence: 1580 CKS U1450 T5/22 (Stanhope) Sisley to John Phillips recovery of manor 1600 CKS U1450 T6/23 (Stanhope) Lease of Cudham, certain place called Cudham Park, Mr Lennard to Puleston to demise to Edward Sisley for 3 years. Also relates to Sisley as Lennard's bailiff impounding 4 cows trespassing into park 1630 CKS U1590 T23/27 (Stanhope) IPM for Richard, Lord Dacre, includes Cudham manor 1630 TNA C142/468/85 IPM Lord Dacre includes Brasted park, Chevening warren, Cudham manor 1699 CKS U1590 25/3 (Stanhope) Though late has field names Great Park wood 80a Apfield park 30a occupied by Brasyer family Secondary evidence: Deputy Keeper of Records (1905:161,165,169,170) Descriptive Catalogue of Ancient Deeds of the PRO VI Harrington (2004:12-13,18-35,44-45,56-57) Study in Woodlands archaeology, Cudham Harris (1719:91) The History of Kent Steinman Steinman (1851:1-11,22-43,54-61) Some Account of the Manor of Apuldrefield in the Parish of Cudham, Kent Wilson (1982:2-4) Story of Biggin Hill Maps: Fieldwork: OS Explorer (2½inch to mile) TQ439600 Park Farm Acknowledgements: Joyce Hoad (26) CURLSWOOD / NONINGTON / CROWDSWOOD Parish: Nonington Earliest reference: c.1530s (Nichols p.265) Ownership: Church with leases 380 Size: 1617 = 240a survey (TNA E164/40) Documentary evidence: 1586, 1595, 1600, 1617 LPL TA633/1-4 Leases names and rent no descriptions/size, disparked by 1586 lease 1593 EKAC U373 T41 (Brook Bridges) Enclosed land beside the lodge of Crowdeswood alias Curlswood Park 1598 EKAC U373 T41 (Brook Bridges) Another lease of same 1599 EKAC U373 T41 (Brook Bridges) Lease of Curlswood park lodge 1600 TNA SP12/277/1 Leases of Archbihsop of Canterbury, 1585 £1 rent to Miles Sands 21 years, 1595 to Richard Massinger, renewed 1598. 1606 LPL TC1 Survey includes comment about previous leases in 1602 to Massinger, 1584 to Miles Sands TNA Ind1/16822/264 James I Exchequer bill book registering case Archbishop v. William ?Selby re Curlswood park 1617/18 TNA E164/40 Survey of Archbishop's lands includes Curlswood park - 60a arable, 180a wood, no part of any manor, under lease of Archbishop of Canterbury to William Selby, with Pownall as under farmer, 1a wood grubbed up 1631 EKAC U373 T41 (Brook Bridges) Deed poll for Curlswood park lodge 1639 EKAC U373 T41 (Brook Bridges) Another lease for above 1706 EKAC U373 T41 (Brook Bridges) 3a at or near Crowdswood Park adjoining messuage called Crowdwood Park Secondary evidence: Nichols (ed.) (1859:234,265) Narratives of the Days of the Reformation Maps: 1807 LPL TD253 plan of Curlswood park Fieldwork: OS Explorer (2½inch to mile) TR242525 station, Aylesham built up Acknowledgements: Dr Maurice Raraty (27) DENSTROUDE Parish: Blean Earliest reference: 1603 (CKS Q/SR 48/8) Ownership: Unknown, except seems to be Robert Lewes of Chilham in 1603 Size: Documentary evidence: 1603 CKS Q/SR 48/8 horse impounded by Robert Lewes of Chilham gentleman in a park at Denstroude Secondary evidence: Hipkin (2000:1-35) ‘Sitting on his Penny Rent’: Conflict and Right of Common in Faversham Blean, 1595-1610’, Rural History 11 381 Maps: Fieldwork: OS Explorer (2½inch to mile) ?TR104617 general for Denstroude Acknowledgements: (28) EASTWELL Parish: Eastwell, Challock Earliest reference: 1589 licence to enclose (Hasted 1, p.269) Ownership: Sir Christpher Hales attorney.general to Henry VIII, died 33Henry VIII > son Sir James Hales sold to Sir Thomas Moyle chancellor of the court of augmentations mid -16th, died 1560 > Katherine Moyle m. Sir Thomas Finch lived there until died 1597 > son, Sir Moyle Finch (knighted 1584, baronet 1611) d. 1623, and remained in family until 1895 Size: 1589 = not more than 1000a (Hasted 1, p.269): 1895 = 2120a, Eastwell park, mansion and grounds (CKS U1590 E54/6) Documentary evidence: 1617-1628 CKS U350 E4 Sir Edward Dering of Surrenden Dering and his Booke of Expences 1617-1628 (pp.167,294,296,307,423). Full transcription ww.kentarchaeology.ac on-line publishing 1895 CKS U1590 E54/6 (Stanhope) Estate Sale brochure (detailed description of park) Secondary evidence: Arch.Cant. CXXV (2005:337) Dormer (1999:8-9,36,47-48,52) Eastwell park historiette Harris (1719:111) The History of Kent Hasted 1 (1797:269) Hasted 7 (1797:332) Mee (1936:163) Physick (1973:126-128) Five Monuments from Eastwell Yeandle, www.kentarchaeology.ac on-line publishing Sir Edward Dering, 1st bart, of Surrenden Dering and his 'Booke of Expences' 1617-1628 Maps: 1596 Symonson - not named but unambiguous 1605 Norden 1611 Speed Fieldwork: OS Explorer (2½inch to mile) TR017475 Eastwell Park Hotel Acknowledgements: 382 (29) EAST WICKHAM / PLUMSTEAD Parish: Bexley, Plumstead Earliest reference: 1610 TNA SP14/58/19 licence to impark Ownership: Edward VI to Sir Martin Bowes > Thomas, duke of Norfolk (CPR 1561) > 1562 manorial rights purchased by Sir John Olyffe of Foxgrave, Kent, alderman of London > whose heir Joan m. John Leigh, son and heir of Nicholas Leigh of Addington > 1576, son Olyff Leigh much enlarged seat there > Christian the wife of his son Sir Francis Leigh there in Charles I' reign Size: 1610 = 500a licence (TNA SP14/58/19) Documentary evidence: 1561 CPR 8 December, Thomas, duke of Norfolk, fine for alienation 1562 CPR 12 February Attainted Lovell land including in E. Wickham to John Olyffe 1610 TNA SP14/58/19 Licence to Sir Olliphe Leigh to impark 500 acres in East Wickham and Bexley 1615 C5/13/2 1561/2 (Bexley Local Studies) The Manor of E. Wickham, leter of January Francis Leigh to Carew re doe killed for wife's churching 1617 TNA STAC8 198/8 Theft of buck reserved for king 1658 Assize Calendar 35/99/11/1578 Breaking into park, killing deer of Dame Christian Lee, widow 1658 Assize Calendar July 1658 no.1649 Breaking into park, killing 3 deer of David Copland owner of the park Secondary evidence: Harris (1719:332) History of Kent Hasted 2 (1797:196) Roberts (1999:115) Woodlands of Kent Tester (1991:5,18-19) East Wickham and Welling Vincent (1890:623) The Records of the Woolwich District Maps: Fieldwork: OS Explorer (2½inch to mile) ?TQ460770 open space might be former park area Acknowledgements: Joyce Hoad (30) ELHAM Parish: Elham Earliest reference: 1225 Will of Countess of Eu (Williams p.ix, Records in Merton College, Oxford) Ownership: 1271 Roger de Leybourne and with family until 1367 when escheated to Edward III > 1397 Richard II granted to dean and canons of St Stephens Chapel, Palace of Westminster > Back to Crown in Reformation > 1551 Edward VI to Lord Clinton and Saye, reconveyed back, leased for 80-year lease to Wotton > Wotton's sold interest to Alexander Hamon of Acrise d.1613 leaving 2 daughters, one married Lewknor who got it and purchased the 383 reversion of fee from the crown some few years before the expiration of the term which ended in 1625 > in Charles I's reign sold to Sir Charles Herbert, master of the revels Size: 1649 = 400a, survey (TNA LR2/196) Documentary evidence 1297 (CalPat. 1292-1301, 227)LC William de Leybourne's park hunted while he was in Gascony 2 entries 1332 Lit.Cant.I.491, p.524, 6 does given by prior of Christ Church Canterbury from Westwell park to Sir William Clinton warden of Cinque Ports for Elham Park 1358 CPR Widow of Earl of Huntingdon had deer and other beasts from warren taken and servant assaulted 1368 CPR Survey Preston and Elham parks and repair defects in enclosures 1403 CPR 26 July Confirmation of grant of manor and park to Abbey of St Mary Graces by Tower of London 1602 CKS QM/SI 1603/1 Coursing in park 1649 TNA LR2/196 Survey Secondary evidence: Hasted 8 (1797:98) Knafla (1994:127) Kent at Law 1602 Liddiard (2005:139-140) Castles in Context Roberts (1999:67) Woodlands of Kent Mileson (2009:106) Parks in Medieval England (citing Coulson 1979, Journal of British Archaeological Association 132, p.75) Williams (1959:ix) A Short history of Elham and its Parish Church Maps: 1596 Symonson - park shown to E of road not named 1605 Norden 1611 Speed Fieldwork: OS Explorer (2½inch to mile) TR160458 Elhampark Wood 5 February 2005 - Shown one bank, but haven't enough information to know whether this was a deer park or wood bank. Acknowledgements: Geoffrey Roberts (31) ELTHAM – GREAT Parish: Eltham Earliest reference: 1309 onwards (Cal.Pat. 1307-1313, 172) LC Ownership: Royal C13th, subsequently in hands of Anthony Bek, bishop of Durham, who d.1310, leaving the reversion of it to Queen Eleanor (VCH I p.472), remained with crown into Charles I's reign Size: 1605 = 612a, survey (TNA E164/44): 1649 = 596a, survey (TNA LR2/196) 384 Documentary evidence: 1309 CPR 8 May, Trespassing into park of Anthony bishop of Durham 1428 BL Cott.Ms.Vesp.F.xiii.art.54, Warrant for 6 fat bucks from park to lord mayor of London CPR 1 July, Grant to Queen Isabella of Eltham manor held by king of grant from bishop of Durham 1369 CPR 20 July, Prior of Rochester gives up tithes on park in return for other lands king grants 1376 CPR 26 November, Repair enclosure, racks, have hay, repair lodges for hay storage 1378 CPR 6 April, Steward and keeper appointed for 1 year to get hedgers to make hedge round park at king's expense and arrest the disobedient 1386 CPR Retrospective licence to acquire land in compensation for tithes lost on arable meadow and pasture when park enlargd under late king 1422 CPR 17 December, Parker of the parks at Eltham 1451 Inquisition Miscellaneous VIII p.138-139, 2 kept manor of Eltham with appurtenances in and without the park, save pasture for wild beasts worth £40 p.a. net 1552/3 TNA E41/524, Manor of Eltham granted by Henry VIII to Sir Henry Guldeford 1553 CPR 13 Nov, p.404, Jermingham keeper of Great and Horn parks, master of hunt ?1561 TNA SP12/20/52 Account of tempest damage, Richmond, Eltham, Greenwich, Hampton Court 1568 CPR 27 July, Hatton keeper of Great and Small park and Horn, master of game (wages given) held by Jermyngham or formerly by Gates or Speake. To have keepers lodgings adjoining capital mansion, in reversion all lands in parks, also keeper of garden and purveyor of manor, keeper and surveyor of woods, and more 1572/73 TNA SC12/27/7 Survey of lodges in Eltham parks, 2 lodges, pond, pale decayed 1574 CPR for life John Greene keeper of game (hare and game birds from Greenwich to Eltham, Woolwich, Lewisham, Deptfond) 1586 TNA SP12/186/46 Pett shipwright warrant to take timber from Eltham parks, priced by woodward, not yet paid for 1590 TNA SP12/234/78 Plan of Eltham palace 1590 TNA SP12/335/9 Keeper of house and park fee £13/13/4d, of the garden £4/13/11d, surveyor £6 20d 1594 TNA SP12/250/42,44 Repair to house and parks, £1143/14/0d, survey of house 1594 CKS QM/SB 25/30A Release John Hayt arrested for hunting in Eltham Park, on request of Lord Cobham 1596 TNA E178/1164 In latin 1597/8 TNA E178/1163 Timber felling near park pale; felling licenced and unlicenced in park, used for lodge and pale 1597 TNA SP12/263/107 Grant to Sir William Brooke of keeping Eltham Great park. 1597 TNA SP12/264/7, July 4, Lord North after reversion of Hugh Miller keeper Little park, 3d day, Great park after reversion of William Brooke, house, fee 6d day, custody of Horn 16d day, and 10 marks year; with keeper's lodging, the chantry and priest's house, Eltham , + other benefits 1599 TNA SP12/273/25 November 10, Reversion of keepership of Great Park granted to Sir Thomas Walsingham of Scadbury in succession to Lord North. 1600 TNA SP12/275/3 Rreference to horses being taken to run at grass in the park. 1605 TNA E164/44/ff3-58 Survey = 612a & 510 deer, 4+miles perimeter, 50 timber trees 1606 CKS QM/SB/706 Poaching partridges near King's house 1607 TNA E214/1138 Eltham park, land held in trust for parish now enclosed in park 1608 TNA E351/3367 J. Tavernor surveyor-general of woods S of Trent including Eltham 385 1608 TNA SP14/31/10 Grant John Livingstone in reversion after Sir Thomas Walsingham keeper of Great park Eltham 1608 TNA SP14/35/49 Sir Julius Caesar to Sir Thomas Lake for privy seal for payment of Sir Oliver Leigh of £81/1/4d balance of his account for repairs at Eltham park. 1608 TNA SP14/35/75 King reproves Lord Stanhope for negligence in allowing spoil of game at Eltham, require greater vigilance and pursuit of law against offenders 1609 TNA SP14/45/62 Warrant to pay Sir Oliver Leigh £1200 for surrender as keeper of Great park, and £27/10s expended for the railing of park. 1609 TNA SP14/47/5 To pay John Dacombe £600, the same as to Sir Henry Lee for redemption of his estate in Eltham park. 1609 TNA SP14/47/41 Sir Roger Aston's account for works in Eltham park 1612 TNA SP14/69/71 June 17, James I at Eltham 1619 TNA SP14/109/41 May 22, King hunted in Eltham park. 1619 TNA SP14/109/92 12 June, King killed buck and bathed legs in blood for gout cure. 1621 TNA SP14/120/52 28 March, Money, not more than £217/10/4d advanced to keeper Pat Maull for repairs in park. 1622 TNA SP14/130/ 11 May, king at Eltham or Greenwich 1625/6 TNA E178/3977 Presentment as to Crown woods 1633 TNA Assize Calendar 35/76/6/1045 Scouring ditch by the highway between 2 parks in Eltham (which 2?) 1638 TNA Assize Calendar 35/81/10/1678 Killing deer in park of Queen Henrietta Maria, ?which Eltham park 1649 TNA LR2/196 Eltham survey - deer destroyed, disparked by soldiery midsummer before Secondary evidence: Adams (1995:158) Household Accounts and Disbursement- Robert Dudley Arch.Cant. LXXIV (1960:99) Arch.Cant. LXXXIII (1968:205-209) Barrett-Lennard (1908:42) An Account of the Families of Lennard and Barrett. Brook (1960: 44-45,48) The Story of Eltham Palace Cole (1999:57,186-187) Portable Queen Drake (1886:179-182,186-187,279-280) Hasted's History of Kent – Hundred of Blackheath The Eltham Society newsletter no. 162 (November 2005:24-27) Gregory (1909:99,195,207) The Story of Royal Eltham Hasted 1 (1797:269,455,465,469) Henderson (2005:16) Tudor House and Garden Kingsford & Shaw (eds.) (1934:246) HMC Report on the Manuscripts of Lord De L’Isle and Dudley II Lambarde (1576, 1596 – a deer park) Nichols (c.1977reprint:74) Progresses of Queen Elizabeth Nichols (c.1977reprint:61,445-450) Progressesof James I Rivers (1908:25,34-37,49-52) Some Records of Eltham Rye (1865:61) England as seen by foreigners in the days of Elizabeth and James Simmons (Sally) 2005 letter, hunting lodge (?Golf clubhouse), under keepers lodge at Chapel Farm, Mottingham - no evidence Taylor (1980) Looking into Eltham's past Tester (1991:18) East Wickham and Welling VCH I (1974:472-473) Webb, Miller & Beckwith (1899:142-152) History of Chislehurst 386 Willson (1956:184,404) King James VI & I Maps: 1575 Saxton - 2 parks shown larger one to west of other 1576 Anonymous - 2 parks 1596 Symonson - 3 parks at Eltham 1605 Norden - 2 parks 1611 Speed - 2 parks 1741/5 Rocque Fieldwork: OS Explorer (2½inch to mile) TQ430740 Blackheath Royal Golf course Sally Simmons (pers. comm. 2005) has outlined park on modern map - E edge of Royal Blackheath Golf Course bank and ditch = ?remains of park pale Acknowledgement: Sally Simmons (32) ELTHAM – MIDDLE / LITTLE / OLD Parish: Eltham Earliest reference: 1290s Park of Bishop Bek of Durham (Simmons pers.comm.); 1388 release of lands to Richard II, enclosed into park by Edward III (1327-77) (TNA E40/4955) Ownership: Royal C13th, subsequently in hands of Anthony Bek, bishop of Durham, who d.1310, leaving the reversion of it to Queen Eleanor (VCH I p.472), remained with crown into Charles I's reign Size: 1605 = 308a, survey (TNA E164/44): 1649 = 333a, survey (TNA LR2/196) Documentary evidence: 1388 TNA E40/4955 Release of lands to Richard II which Edward III (1327-77) enclosed into the park 1568 CPR 27 July, Hatton keeper of Great and Small park and Horn, master of game (wages given) held by Jermyngham or formerly by Gates or Speake. To have keepers lodgings adjoining capiral mansion, in reversion all lands in parks, also keeper of garden and purveyor of manor, keeper and surveyor of woods, and more 1578 TNA SP12/124/10,18 May, Unlawful felling, Horn Park, Eltham, reference made to Little park 1586 TNA SP12/186/46 Pett shipwright warrant to take timber feom Eltham parks, priced by woodward, not yet paid for 1597 TNA SP12/264/7, July 4, Lord North after reversion of Hugh Miller keeper LIttle park, 3d day, Great park after reversion of William Brooke, house, fee 6d day, custody of Horn 16d day, and 10 marks year; with keeper's lodging, the chantry and priest's house, Eltham , + other benefits 1597/8 TNA E178/1163 Timber felling near park pale; felling licenced and unlicenced in park 1600/1 E178/1179 Salary of keeper 1604 TNA SP14/9/83 Letter to compound owners of land to be added to Middle park 387 1605 TNA E164/44 Survey - 308a, -3 miles perimeter, 240 deer, 250 timber trees 1608 TNA E251/3367 J. Tavernor surveyor-general of woods S of Trent including Eltham 1608 TNA SP14/31/24 Warrant to pay John Taverner £204/1/4d to provide stuff for impaling Middle park 1608 TNA SP14/32/10 Warrant to pay Sir Valentine Brown £1000 for ground taken into Middle park 1609 TNA SP14/47/5 To pay John Dacombe £600, the same as to Sir Henry Lee for redemption of his estate in Eltham park. 1610 TNA SP14/53/110 Warrant to pay Sir Roger Aston keeper £20/12 for constructing 4 bridges in park and repairing paling and lodge c.1612 TNA SP14/69/34 Hugh Miller spent £14 2s over annual budget for repairing lodge and fence asks for repayment. Is refused. 1620 TNA E351/3393 R Kidwell under-keeper of Middle Park 1625 TNA SP14/185/19, 5 March, £33 to keeper John Livingstone for hay for deer. 1633 Assize Calnedar 35/76/6/1045 Scouring ditch between 2 parks in Eltham (which 2?) 1638 Assize Calendar 35/81/10/1678 Killing deer in park of Queen Henrietta Maria ?which Eltham park 1649 TNA LR2/196 Eltham survey - deer destroyed, disparked by soldiery Secondary evidence: Brook (1960:44-45,48) The Story of Eltham Palace Drake (ed.) (1886:179-180,187) Hasted's History of Kent – Hundred of Blackheath Gregory (1909:99,207) Story of Royal Eltham Lambarde (1576, 1596 – a deer park) Rivers (1908:25,34-37,49-52) Some Records of Eltham Simmons (letter 2005) in 1970s Middle Farmhouse pulled down, antlers, deer bones found, ?hunting lodge Taylor (1980) Looking into Eltham's past VCH I (1974:472-473) Webb, Miller & Beckwith (1899:142) History of Chislehurst Maps: 1575 Saxton - 2 parks shown larger on to west of other 1576 Anonymous - 2 parks 1596 Symonson - 3 parks at Eltham 1605 Norden - 2 parks 1611 Speed - 2 parks 1741/5 Rocque Fieldwork: OS Explorer (2½inch to mile) TQ420740 most built up Sally Simmons has outlined park on modern map. Acknowledgement: Sally Simmons (33) ELTHAM – HORN Parish: Eltham, Lee Earliest reference: c.1465 royal park enclosed (Hasted 1 p.455,465,469) 388 Ownership: Royal Size: 1605 = 345a (TNA E164/44/3-58): 1649 = 336a, survey (TNA LR2/196) Documentary evidence: 1532 TNA E41/524 and E41/113 New Park part of Smiths lands and Newlands within the park bought from Richard Fermour 1553 CPR 13 November Jermingham keeper of Great and Horn parks, master of hunt 1578 TNA SP2/124/10,18 May, Unlawful felling, Horn Park, Eltham 1568 CPR 27 July Hatton keeper of Great and Small park and Horn, master of game (wages given) held by Jermyngham or formerly by Gates or Speake. To have keepers lodgings adjoining capiral mansion, in reversion all lands in parks, also keeper of garden and purveyor of manor, keeper and sruveyor of woods, and more 1586 TNA SP/186/46 Pett shipwright warrant to take timber feom Eltham parks, priced by woodward, not yet paid for 1597 TNA SP12/264/7, July 4, Lord North after reversion of Hugh Miller keeper Little park, 3d day, Great park after reversion of William Brooke, house, fee 6d day, custody of Horn 16d day, and 10 marks year; with keeper's lodging, the chantry and priest's house, Eltham , + other benefits 1597/8 TNA E178/1163 Timber felling near park pale; felling licenced and unlicenced in park 1600 TNA SP12/34/25 John Leigh in reversion to Lord North keeper of Horn park and master of wild beasts, 4d a day from customs of London (interlined in James I to say John Buchanan is granted it in reversion to John Leigh, both are clerks to the Buttery. 1600/1 TNA E178/1179 Concerning office of keeper of Horn Park, order for payments of salary to John Leigh as keeper 1604 TNA SP14/8/7 Grant to John Buchanan in reversion to John Leigh of keeper of Horn 1605 TNA E164/44 Survey - 345a, 3 miles perimeter. 240 deer, 2740 timber trees, some of S pale decayed 1605 TNA SP14/14/11, 14 May, Warrant to pay Sir Nicholas Stoddard £80 for ground taken into the king's park 1607 TNA SP14/27/15, 6 May ,Reversion to Oliver Leigh as keeper of Horn for life 1608 TNA E251/3367 J. Tavernor surveyor-general of woods S of Trent including Eltham 1622 TNA SP14/128/112 Petition of Sir Nicholas Stoddard to Cranfield for fee farm of certain land adjoining his park at Lee, which he has on lease, and has taken in to enlarge the park, a prohibition lately issued against felling wood on land is very injurious to hime, as having paid high price to the wood. The king delighting in his park granted him the fee farm of some adjoining lands, but the chancellor of the exchequer would not pass them in fee farm. 1622 TNA SP14/130/83 Sir Nicholas Stoddard ordered to attend about free gift to Palatinate but is so oppressed by debt can hardly maintain his family. 1623 TNA SP14/148/104 Warrant to underkeeper of Horn £30 for railing in the deer pond 1633 Assize Calendar 35/76/6/1045 Scouring ditch between 2 parks in Eltham (which 2?) 1638 Assize Calendar 35/81/10/1678 Killing deer in a park of Queen Henrietta Maria, but which Eltham park 1649 TNA LR2/196 Eltham survey - deer destroyed, disparked by soldiery, 1700 trees marked for navy, rest 2620 old and decayed. Secondary evidence: 389 Brook (1960:44-45,48) The Story of Eltham Palace Drake (ed.) (1886:179-180) Hasted's History of Kent – Blackheath Gregory (1909:99,195,207) Story of Royal Eltham, Hart (1882:29) History of Lee Hasted 1 (1797:455,465,469) Lambarde (1576, 1596 – a deer park) Rivers, Some Records of Eltham Simmons, letter 2005, Lodge presumed to be Horn Park farmhouse demolished 1930s Taylor (1980) Looking into Eltham's past VCH I (1974:472-473) Webb, Miller & Beckwith (1899:42) History of Chislehurst Maps: 1575 Saxton - 2 parks shown larger on to west of other (perhaps Horn omitted) 1576 Anonymous - 2 parks (perhaps Horn omitted) 1578 TNA SP12/25/130 Plots about Greenwich includes Horn Park 1596 Symonson - 3 parks at Eltham, Horn would be one 1605 Norden - 2 parks (perhaps Horn omitted) 1611 Speed - 2 parks (perhaps Horn omitted) 1741/5 Rocque Fieldwork: OS Explorer (2½inch to mile) TQ405740 most built up Sally Simmons has outlined park on modern map. Acknowledgement: Sally Simmons (34) FOLKESTONE / WALTON and/or TERLINGHAM Parish: Folkestone Earliest reference: 1241 onwards (Cal.Lib 1240-5, 22) LC Walton Park: 1271 IPM park called Herstling, Reynden and Newenden in Folkestone (Arch.Cant. VI (1864/5:240-243): 1295 (Cal.IPM III, 168)LC Terlingham Ownership: Henry de Crevequer ... > Priory of Folkestone > by 1542 royal (EKAC U270/m285/1) > Edward VI to Lord Clinton and Say (EKAC U270 T4) > 1554 Edward Lord Clinton and Say to Henry Herdson (EKAC U270 T4) > 1620 John Herdson to nephew Basil Dixon (EKAC U270 T4) and stayed in family until 1697 with Sir Basil Dixon to Jacob Des Bouverie (EKAC U270/2/T5) Size: 1263 = 82a (IPM in Arch.Cant, VI): 1668 = 126a (EKAC U270 T1) Documentary evidence: 1439 EKAC U270/T119 Tenants of Folkestone Park are Hashstede and Lake 1541 TNA SC 6/HenVIII/1727 7 1758 Kent Monastic possessions includes Folkestone Park 1542 EKAC U270/m285/1 Ministers Accounts of Thomas Cromwell, late earl of Essex, park held by Anthony Aucher 1554 EKAC U270 T4 Edward VI to Edward Lord Clinton and Say to Henry Herdson 390 1561 CPR 6 December, Pardon of alienation with fine to do with Herdson family and pregnancy of wife at husband's death and extra share of estate to go to posthumous son 1578 CPR no.3192, 10 April, Edward Hersdon fine for alienation 1580 CPR no.1642, 11 February, Pardon of alienation refers to fine of 1579 between Herdsons, mentions late of Fynes Lord Clinton and Saye and of Thomas Cromwell earl of Essex. 1620 EKAC U270 T4 John Herdson to Basil Dixon, by now disparked 1668 EKAC U270 T11 Lands named and area given, 126a and a warren Secondary evidence: Arch.Cant. III (1860:256) Arch.Cant. VI (1864/5:240-243) Arch.Cant. X (1876:cvi) Chandler (ed.) (1993:44) John Leland’s Itinerary: Travels in Tudor England, 4 part VIII Hasted 8 (1797:160) Lambarde (1576, 1596 – disparked) Maps: 1698 (EK TR270/4 copy, original BL) Park Farm and Great Ford Farm, Folkestone Fieldwork: OS Explorer (2½inch to mile) TR217382 Round Hill Acknowledgements: (35) FORD Parish: Hoath Earliest reference: 1405 (LPL Archbishops estates B Account roll no. 1999) Ownership: Archbishop of Canterbury from C14th Size: 1638 = 160a, lease (LPL TC656/1): 1647 = 166a, survey (McIntosh): 1653 =130a, lease (EKAC U88/T35) Documentary evidence: 1405 LPL Archbishops estates B Account roll no. 1999 keeper 1558 1558 SPD I, no.10, p.115, List of horses in stables and pastures at Lambeth, Canterbury park and Ford of late Cardinal Pole 1575 LPL ED1474 Terrier of Ford Park mentioned 1624 CKS TRP 429/1 Estate map shows deer in park 1632 LPL TG56 Account for repair of part of pale 1638 LPL TC656/1 Lease to Stephen Knowler Ford Park 160a 1653 EKAC U88 T35 Tenants Hales and Holnes gatehouse or lodge in Ford Park 130a 1661 LPL TC3 Survey of park 190a in ruin, good farm Secondary evidence: Arch.Cant. VI (1862/3:28) Arch.Cant. XXVI (1904:119) Arch.Cant. XXXII (1917:92) Arch.Cant. XLV (1933:168) 391 Arch.Cant. LIII (1940:4) Arch.Cant. CXI (2001:251-268) 'The Archbishop's Manor at Ford' by Gough Harris (1719:77,157) The History of Kent Hasted 9 (1797:98) Lambarde (1576:86) McIntosh & Gough (1984:36-40) Hoath and Herne Nichols (ed.) (1859:267) Narratives of the Days of the Reformation Maps: 1575 Saxton – park N of Ford and S of Reculver 1576 Anonymous 1596 Symonson 1605 Norden 1611 Speed 1624 CKS TRP 429/1 Estate map (fragment) shows deer in park, original stolen from Herne Bay Museum, probably 1650s (Gough) 1858 LPL TD172 shows Ford Park Fieldwork: OS Explorer (2½inch to mile) TR206657 Ford manor Harold Gough has outlined possible boundaries through OS and tithe maps. Acknowledgement: Harold Gough (36) FRYARNE Parish: Stelling Not in Lambarde or on the early maps so probably disparked before 1558 Earliest reference: 1346 (Hasted 8:94) Ownership: Very uncertain. 1537 Archbishop to Henry VIII > Henry VII back to Archbishop, who granted it to Heyman ..........1720 Sir WIlliam Hardres Size: Documentary evidence: 1631 TNA E134/7ChasI/Mich16 Clerke v Filmer - Stelling park and the marriage portions of Anne Kemp, late wife of plaintiff Secondary evidence: Hasted 8 (1797:94) Maps: 1720 Estate map in possession of Colin Robbins of Stelling Minnis Fieldwork: OS Explorer (2½inch to mile) TR165469 Fryarne park Acknowledgements: 392 Colin Robbins (37) GLASSENBURY Parish: Cranbrook, Goudhurst Earliest reference: 1488 licence to empark 1600a (Charter rolls 16, m13 (8)) Ownership: 1488 Roberts family > 1522 -1557 Thomas Roberts > 1557-1580 Walter Roberts > 1580- 1627 Thomas Roberts, knighted 1603 by James I, baronet 1620, remained in family into the C20th Size: 1488 = 1600a (Charter rolls 16 m13 (8)): 1656 = 40a old park, no measurements for new park (CKS U708/T14) Documentary evidence: 1488 TNA Charter rolls 16 m13 (8) 1600a (600a of land, 1000a of wood in Cranbrook, Goudhurst and Ticehurst to impark and enclose with pales and fence, if wanted 1628 CKS U410/T195 Will Sir Thomas Roberts mansion and park to wife in mother's life and minority of son 1656 CKS U708/T14 Marriage settlement mentions New Park with fields, old park 40a with tenant 1686 (privately owned by Sutcliffe) Glassenbury Wood Book lists woods in Goudhurst Old Park Lodge wood 113a + map CKS U410, Roberts of Glassenbury papers introduction has family tree Secondary evidence: Anon (c.1714) Early History of the Roberts Family Cranbrook museum, Owlett notes on Roberts Furley (1874:414) The Weald of Kent. Harris (1719:36) The History of Kent Hasted 7 (1797:92-95) KCC SMR TQ 73 NW 5 - KE 1788 Lambarde (1927:16-20) Roberts of Kent Lambarde (1576, 1596 – a deer park) Sprange (1808:257) Tunbridge Wells Wyndham (1952: 44,126,155-156,207-208,222-230) Family History of Roberts Maps: 1596 Symonson - not named but unambiguous 1611 Speed 1628 Map called Old Park shows and names fields, so disparked (Sutcliffe) 1642 Hop gardens in park S of house (this and 1628 show bowling alley) 1656 CKS U708 T14 mentions New Park, but names fields in it 1730s/50 Map of Old Park Wood 1748 Copy of Glassenbury part of the estate (Sutcliffe) 1810 CKS U78 P31 Cranbrook map for Glassenbury Fieldwork: OS Explorer (2½inch to mile) TQ747365 Glassenbury House 23 May 2005, 28 August 2005, 10 September 2005 - Various banks, ditches found but 393 possible park expanded and contracted over time, so nothing definitive found. Walked along most of N boundary of Old Park Wood near Iden Green, excellent remains of boundary for several long stretches – might be medieval Iden Park or extended Glassenbury Park later reduced. Acknowledgements: Marcus Sutcliffe (38) GREAT CHART Parish: Great Chart Earliest reference: 1605 CKS QM/SR 1/m.6d Ownership: 1605 Sir William Wythens Size: Documentary evidence: 1604 CKS QM/SI/1605/10.10 Illegal rabbit taking in Dutton's close, Great Chart (same men as below) 1605 CKS QM/SR 1/m.6d Illegal rabbit hunting in close and park of Sir William Wythe(n)s at Great Chart 1605 CKS QM/SIq 4/28 Illegal rabbit hunting in close and park of Sir William Wythe(n)s at Great Chart (Same case) Secondary evidence: Hasted 1 (1797:478) Hasted 7 (1797:504) Lodge (1927:end map) The Account Book of a Kentish Estate (1616-1701) Maps: Fieldwork: OS Explorer (2½inch to mile) TQ968524 Goldwell, park site unknown Acknowledgements: (39) GREENWICH Parish: Greenwich Earliest reference: 1432 (Proc. & Ord. PC IV, 172) LC Ownership: 1432 Duke of Gloucester > royal by Henry VIII Size: 1432 = 200a, licence (Proc. & Ord. PC IV, 172) Documentary evidence: 1432 Proc. & Ord. PC IV, 172 Duke of Gloucester licence to enclose and to build tower of stone in the park 1561 TNA SP12/16/26 Gardener at Greenwich to provide Cecil with plants, listed 394 ?1561 TNA SP12/20/52 Account of tempest damage, Richmond, Eltham, Greenwich, Hampton Court 1561 TNA SP12/520/69 Account for oats and hay for the deer and for reparations of the park 1572 CPR no.2943, p.422, 28 October, Life grant Howard keeper of park and other things with wages 1574 CPR no.1397, p.260, 12 March, For life John Greene keeper of game (hare and game birds from Greenwich to Eltham, Woolwich, Lewisham, Deptford) 1580 CPR no.1332, p.163, 9 June, Life grant Hatton keeper of park and other things with wages 1590 TNA SP12/335/9 Keeper of manor and park of Pleaisance £19/2/6d, of the garden £7/4/2d, of the wardrobe £21/ 5d 1594 Deeds 21/42 no.321 (Salisbury) Grant to Lord Buckhurst of manor of Pleasaunce and park of E. Greenwich 1597 TNA SP12/264/70 Grant of game in Greenwich manor, fee 8d a day, 26/8d year for livery 1603 TNA SP14/4/ 33A (addenda in vol. 11) Warrant by Sir Roger Aston, keeper of the game in Greenwich, appointing Robert Cooke, his deputy keeper 1604 TNA SP14/9/31 John Chapman in reversion to Thomas Sheffield, keepership of gardens for life 1605 Deeds 42/1 no.15 (Salisbury) Patent to Henry Earl of Northampton for keepership 1605 TNA SP14/12/88 In reversion to Viscount Cranbourne after Thomas Sheffield and John Chapman as bailiff of East Greenwich and keeper of orchard and gardens there. 1605 TNA SP14/12/88c Earl of Northampton grant of keeper of Greenwich park, with reversion to Viscount Cranbourne 1605 TNA SP14/60/2 Grant in reversion to Viscount Cranbourne of keeper of Greenwich park for life 1609 Deed 222 Salisbury (at Hatfield) Earl of Nottingham has given keepers (including Greenwich) to provide Salisbury with his fee deer 1610 TNA SP14/57/5 Sir Thomas Lake to Salisbury, retuirns privy seals signed. A clause is repeated in one fo them for money to Thomas Sheffield for the garden at Greenwich and the king is so attentive to business that he remembered signing it before 1611 TNA E214/703, 4 June, Cecil surrender of patent of 4 May 3James I granting reversion of office of keeper of the park 1613 TNA SP14/75/40 Northampton fears King will displace hims as keeper and with the lodge – has spent £2000 there and begs if King passes Greenwich to QUeen he will provide for him to remain there 1613 TNA SP14/75/45 Northampton thanks King for asking Queen for him to remina in Greenwich, but needs express provision in grant for him to feel secure 1613 TNA SP14/75/49 Northampton confirmed as keepr of Greenwich park with herbage and pannage 1619 TNA SP14/110/54, 11 September, a brick wall building round Greenwich park. King meanly entertained by Northampton – fool said now he had got what he wanted he wasn't going to make any effort 1620 TNA SP14/115/68, 11 June, James I building wall 9 miles long round Theobalds park and also one round Greenwich c.1620 National Maritime Museum BHC1820 'View of Greenwich Palace from One Tree Hill' 1622 TNA SP14/127/62, 1 February, Accounts of wall to be examined and debts to Sir Thomas Watson paid to widow 395 1622 TNA SP14/130/ 60, 11 May, King at Eltham or Greenwich 1622 TNA SP14/131/53, June, Lord Mayor knighted at Greenwich 1622 TNA SP14/132/97, 14 August, Widow Watson wants money, over £2000 husband spent to build wall 1622 TNA SP14/133/31, 30 September, Money to underkeeper for molecatcher, feeding bucks and paying tithes for enlarged park 1623 TNA SP14/121/131 Lennox requests buck from Greenwich for a friend 1656 TNA E214/898 John Parker quit claim right under contract of 1652 ot purchase park, castle, lodge and White House Secondary evidence: Anon (1974) Greenwich Park (pamphlet) Brennan & Kinnamon (2003:186) A Sidney Chronology 1554-1654 Brook (1960:29,45) Story of Eltham Palace Drake (1886:60-62,187,279-280) Hasted's History of Kent – The Hundred of Blackheath Dunlop (1962:Chapter II) Palaces and Progress of Elizabeth I Gregory (1909:178,196) Story of Royal Eltham Groos (ed.) (1981:72) The Diary of Baron Waldstein Hart (1882:82-87) History of Lee Hasted 1 (1797:269,372-375,397-399) Henderson (2005:71,77,169,174,177,230) Tudor House and Garden Kingsford & Shaw (eds.) (1934:375,468,481,483) HMC Report on the Manuscripts of Lord De L’Isle and Dudley II Lambarde (1576, 1596 – a deer park) Mileson (2009:133) Parks in Medieval England (CPR 1429-36, 250, 369; Emery, Greater Medeival Houses, p.175, 1996) Naunton (ed.) (1889:46-53) Travels in England during the reign of Queen Elizabeth by Paul Hentzner (cites Lyson's Environs i, p.519) Nichols (c.1977reprint:69-74,498) Progresses of Queen Elizabeth Nichols (c.1977reprint:54-62,344,565,510-511,671,704) Progresses of James I Rye (1865:106) England as seen by foreigners in the days of Elizabeth and James I Roberts (1999:115) Woodlands of Kent VCH I (1974:473) Warnicke (1973:11) Webster (1902:3-13,31-38,62-63) History of Greenwich park Willson (1965:179,184-187,408) King James VI & I Maps: 1596 Symonson - not named but unambiguous 1605 Norden 1611 Speed Fieldwork: OS Explorer (2½inch to mile) TQ390773 existing park 23 February 2008 - Bounds as now so can be put on map. C17th wall remains Acknowledgements: Christopher Waterman (40) GROOMBRIDGE Parish: Groombridge 396 Earliest reference: 1576 (Lambarde) Ownership: John Waller d.1517 > son William Waller d.1555 > grandson Walter Waller > Sir Thomas 2nd son and lieutenant of Dover castle in James I's reign > to Thomas Sackville earl of Dorset and lord treasurer who died possessed in 1608 > 1618 Richard Sackville sold to Philip Parker Size: 1610 = 225a, survey (CKS U269 E66/1&2) Documentary evidence: 1584 TNA 5STAC/A1/8 Waterdown Forest case involving Groombridge men, not Groombridge park 1605 STAC8/ 290/17 Petley from Halstead into Hamsell park, Sussex, owner Waller 1606 STAC8 294/6 Hamsell park of Sir Thomas Waller (see STAC8/5/13 same names for Ashdown forest poaching) 1610/11 CKS U269 E66/1&2 (Sackville) Survey of Earl of Dorset's lands, includes Park meadow in manor of Bayhall; Groombridge House and land called park 225a, £70 rent and 2 capons; Panthurst Park; Redmillridge (near Groombridge) parcel of land called New Park 5a 1615 CKS U269 T1 A:8:18 (Sackville) Richard Earl of Dorset to Howard, Rivers and others manors including Knole and Panthurst to recover debts, Groombridge also Red Milleredge+ counterpart Secondary evidence: Arch.Cant. XIII (1880:133) Ellingham (1973) A History of Groombridge Furley (1874:743) Weald of Kent II Hasted 3 (1797:290) Hovenden (1898:129) Visitation of Kent by John Philipot, 1619 Lambarde (1576, 1596 – a deer park) Sprange (1808:140) Tunbridge Wells Guide Strutt and Parker (1991:8) Groombridge Place, sale brochure Maps: 1576 Anon 1596 Symonson 1605 Norden 1611 Speed Fieldwork: OS Explorer (2½inch to mile) TQ534376 Groombridge Place Acknowledgements: 397 (41) HALDEN Parish: Rolveden, Benenden Earliest reference: 1487 licence to impark (BL Add.Ch. 9424) Ownership: 1448/9 Edward Guldeford held manor of Halden (ESRO DAP box 32) and family continued there into the 1500s > Jane Guldeforde m. John Dudley, duke of Northumberland and Halden to crown over Lady Jane Grey m. to his 4th son > 1566 Sir Henry and wife Mary granted tenure for life and stayed with Sidney family until 1622 sold to Sir Thomas Smythe (CKS U1475/T92) Size: 1497 = 1000 (Licence to impark, Roberts): 1544 = 429a (CKS U1475/E23/1): 1609 = 429a (U1475/M73): 1616 = 400a (CKS U1475/ T92) Documentary evidence: 1448/9 ESRO DAP box 32, 27Henry VI Edward Guldeford held manor of Halden 1487 BL Add. Ch. 9424 Licence to impark c.1537 TNA SC12/9/46 Lands of Sir John Dudley v. John Guldeford - such park at Halden which is in Rolveden, and part in Benenden 1540 CKS U24 T308 (unfit for production) Crown grant of office of High Steward of Keeper of the site of the manor of Halden alias Lambyns and of Halden Park 1544 CKS U1475 E23/1 (dLD) Park measured, 5 ponds, watermill 1553 CKS U1475 T92 (dLD) Duke and Duchess of Northumberland and Sir Thomas Culpepper demise to Sir Henry Sidney 1555 BL Harl 75E31 Inspection of indenture Dudley to Harper and Culpepper 1555 BL Harl75H23 Lease Pole to Harper and Culpepper includes Northfrith, Postern, Cage, Panthurst, but not Knole Park or Halden 1571 CKS U1475 E23/2 (dLD) Account for park 1566 CKS U1475 T92 (dLD) Sir Henry and wife Mary granted tenure 1573 CKS U1475 A11 (dLD) Charges for work on Halden Manor, barn 1609 U1475 M73 (dLD) Halden given as portion of Lady Mary Sidney by Dudley Duke of Northumberland. This survey with deer, conies in park, watermill and carp ponds, heronry 1610 CKS U1475 T92 (dLD) Marriage between Hobarte and Phillipe Sidney. Hobarte granted Halden and park now disparked 1616 CKS U1475 T92 (dLD) Hobarte back to Sydney 1622 CKS U1475 T92 (dLD) Sydney sells on to Sir Thomas Smythe and Sir Nicholas Crispe c. Charles I BL Add. Mss 12066 Sir Thomas Smythe had bought Otford Great park and Halden park for £9000. Secondary evidence: Arch.Cant. XIV (1882:4,55) Arch.Cant XXII (1897:317) Bowen (1939:Chapter IV) Rolvenden Parish and Hundred Crossley (ed.) (1975:182-187) Sidney Ironworks Accounts 1541-1573 Furley (1874:743) Weald of Kent II Hannay, Kinnamon & Brennan (2005:173,176,180) Domestic Politicsand Family Absence Harris (1719:263) History of Kent Hasted 7 (1797:186) Lambarde (1576 – a deer park: 1596 - disparked) 398 Roberts, (1995:61,73,76,106) Tenterden - the First Thousand Years Zell (2000:60) Early Modern Kent Maps: 1575 Saxton 1596 Symonson 1611 Speed 1828/29 map and book of Rolvenden (privately held at Halden) Fieldwork: OS Explorer (2½inch to mile) TQ851337 Halden Place 1 April 2006, 8 March 2010 - Explored the N boundary (road from Benenden to Tenterden. Then up to Halden Place and round that part of estate to investigate possible S, W and E boundaries. Field names gave clue for S boundary, but only low bank along that line. W and E more problematic still. Inside Millpond Wood was a magnificent dam for former fishponds Acknowledgements: Edward Barham, Michael Ditton, Dr Paul Lee, (42) HALSTEAD Parish: Halstead, Knockholt Earliest reference: 1621/22 TNA E178/6020 Inquisition Ownership: 1280s William de Chelsfield > by 1520s Petley family > by 1620s Sir Thomas Watson, Size: 164- = 300a (U1000/7/M19) Documentary evidence: by 1620s Sir Thomas Watson, built wall round Greenwich park, TNA SP14/110/54, p.75. SP14/115/68, p.151, SP14/117/62, p.341, SP14/132/97, p.440. One of 4 tellers of James I's Exchequer 1621 TNA E178/6020 Inquisition of Sir Thomas Watson in the park certain pieces of timber, bricks, tiles, pales and rails 164- CKS U1000/7/M19 3 rentals all about same time - manor house with the great and little park, keeper's house, 300a park, c.1645 CKS U214 E19/14 Great and Little Park let to Edward Ashe 1662 TNA E134/25ChasII/Mich12 Reference to park at Halstead Place, Knockholt, tithe for rabbits claim Secondary evidence: Kitchener (2000:21-26) Milennial Halstead Warlow (1934:17,20) History of Halstead Maps: 1921 Estate agent, Cronk's, remaining portions of Halstead Place estate (Park Farm, Deer Leap cottages) Fieldwork: 399 OS Explorer (2½inch to mile) TQ482605 Park Farm Acknowledgements: Geoffrey Kitchener (43) HAMSWELL Parish: probably Rotherfield, Sussex. Earliest reference: 1086 (Sussex VCH 2, 294) LC N.B. Have taken it to be Hamsell in Sussex although out of county it was owned by Wallter family of Groombridge Place on the border and STAC records have been catalogued under Kent not Sussex. There is Hamwell, near Eastry, between Knowlton and Woodnesborough parishes There is Hamsell area in Penshurst Ownership: C14th Despenser holds as Hamsell park ... > Waller family of Groombridge by C17th Size: Documentary evidence: 1605 TNA STAC8 294/6 Waller in text - from Groombridge Hall, same case as below. Sir Thomas Waller says park impaled 12 January 12 Elizabeth I = 1563 1605 TNA STAC8/ 290/17 Petley from Halstead into park Secondary evidence: Hasted 3 (1797;290) Hovenden (1828:129) Visitation of Kent by John Philipot, 1619 Lambarde (1576, 1596 – a deer park if 'Hamsell') Maps: 1575 Saxton Fieldwork: OS Explorer (2½inch to mile) TQ552338 Hamsell Manor, Mayfield Acknowledgement: Margaret Lawrence (44) HEMSTED / KNOLE Parish: Benenden, Cranbrook Earliest reference: c.1360 (Hasted 3, 821) LC Ownership: 1388 William Guldeford and stayed in family with younger brother remaining here while Halden lost to family > ...c.Edward VI = Sir John Guldeford d.1565 > son Thomas Guldeford d.1575 > son Henry Guldeford Size: 1599 = 113a park with 55a of wood (1599 SuffRO HA43/T501/242) Documentary evidence: 400 c.1537 TNA SC12/9/46 Lands of Sir John Dudley v. John Guldeford - such part of park at Benenden 1553 ESRO DAP box 32 Edward VI to Sir John Guldeford licence to keep retainers for his parks, warrens etc. with up to 30 persons 1560 ESRO DAP box 32 Will Sir John Guldeford - lands in my park in Benenden and Cranbrook 1657 ESRO DAP box 32, no.3, Guldeforde papers - Hemsted, but no park Secondary evidence: Arch.Cant. V (1862/63:83) Arch.Cant XIV (1882:4) Arch.Cant. LIX (1947:39) Bowen (1939:Chapter IV) Rolvenden Parish and Hundred Cole (1999:186-187) Portable Queen Lebon (Spring1980:58-69) Guldeford Family History, Kent Recusant History no.3 Nichols (reprint1977:334) Progresses of Queen Elizabeth Roberts (1995:60-61) Tenterden - The First Thousand Years Maps: 1575 Saxton 1605 Norden 1599 Estate map, Suffolk Record Office HA43/T501/242, divided into fields, but park with lodge and standing 1777 CKS P20/27 Survey of Parish of Benenden 1779 CKS U78 P27 Hempsted estate Fieldwork: OS Explorer (2½inch to mile) TQ802338 Benenden School 7 March 2005, 13 March 2005 - Fieldwork complete, all borders found to put on modern OS map. (Site now Benenden School) Acknowledgement: Ernie Pollard (45) HENDEN / HETHERDEN Parish: Sundridge, Brasted, Chiddingstone Earliest reference: 1541 park of Henden (CKS U1450 T5/62) Ownership: 1537 Henry VIII to Thomas Boleyn earl of Wiltshire and Ormond > 1541 Thomas Boleyn's' daughter Mary and William Stafford forced by Henry VIII to exchange for land in Yorkshire (CKS U1450 T5/62) 1542 Rental list of lands, except Henden Park reserved to Earl of Wiltshire (ie Anne Bolyen's family) > c1544 Henry VIII sold to Sir Thomas Gresham of Titsey > 1590 sold to Charles Hoskins in default on loan and remains with Hoskins family Size: 1544 = 300a grant (Cole) Documentary evidence: 1541 CKS U1450 T5/62 (Stanhope) Thomas Boleyn's daughter Mary and William Stafford 401 forced by Henry VIII to exchange for land in Yorkshire, annual rent to Sir Henry Isley Secondary evidence: Cole, unpublished research from Hoskins papers in Surrey Record Office Furley (1874:743) Weald of Kent II Hasted 3 (1797:138,164) Lambarde (1576, 1596 –disparked) but likely to have been disparked pre-1550 (L. Cole) Somers-Cocks & Boyson (1912:44) Edenbridge Maps: c.1768 Copy of Henden manor with field names (Cole) 1937 Sale of Henden estate (original held by Cramp) Fieldwork: OS Explorer (2½inch to mile) TQ483504 Henden manor 16 October 2005 - S, E boundaries fairly certain, but remained unconvinced about W and N - moated site on modern OS map Acknowledgements: Lionel Cole, Dr Gerald Cramp, Bob Felton, Martin Lovegrove, Christopher and Pat Waterman, (46) HEVER Parish: Hever Earliest reference: 1538 Indenture mentions Hever park pale (CKS U1450 T5/65) Ownership: 1500s Bullen (Boleyn) family > c.1540 by Henry VIII to Anne of Cleves for life > 1558 Mary and Philip to Sir Edward Waldegrave and continued in family Size: 1560 = 83a of ground parcel of the park (U1450 T6/10) Documentary evidence: 1484 CKS U1475 T4/20 (dLD) Richard Chamberlain inherits manor after death of brother William, grants to Dun and Culpepper 1538 CKS U1450 T5/65 (Stanhope) Indenture mentions Hever park pale 1561 CPR II p.370-.371, 28 November, Manor and park of Hever re dispute over will, widow Frances of Sir Edward Waldegrave took over some parts, Englefeld, Throngmerton, Browne and Cornwallis to oversee will 1560 CKS U1450 T6/10 (Stanhope) Sublease from John Lennard via Waldegrave to Woodgate, lodge and 83a park, full conditions re conies, ponds, repair fences, deer house and lodge repair, cattle in rest of park 1573 CPR no.2369, p.405, 1 October, licence to Charles Waldegrave to alienate Hever manor to Cornwallis and others 1591 CKS U908 T6 Land purchased by Henry Streatfeild from Lady Katherine Burgh, widow, stretched to Hever park boundary Secondary evidence: Astor (1977) Hever Castle and Gardens Barrett-Lennard (1908:13) An Account of the Families of Lennard and Barrett 402 Cole pers.comm. unpublished research English Heritage, TQ4745 G417 Historic Parks and Gardens register, with map Furley (1874:743) Weald of Kent II Hasted 3 (1797:194) Hasted has disparked by 1558 Lambarde (1576, 1596 – disparked) Maps: 1756 map of Hever (privately owned via Cole) Fieldwork: OS Explorer (2½inch to mile) TQ480455 Hever Castle Acknowledgements: Lionel Cole (47) HUNGERSHALL Parish: Speldhurst Earliest reference: 1531 lease (Kent Records XVIII, 1964) Ownership: Unknown but Nevill family late C16th, see Birling (6) Size: Documentary evidence: 1573 Assize Calendar 35/15/1 no.647 February, accidental death by shooting 1573 Assize Calendar 35/15/6 no.676, Killing deer 1573 CKS U1475 L17 (dLD) Examinations of illegal deer hunting at Penshurst Park, confession of deer killing in 1572 at Hungershall park, deposition of Boucher (1584 STAC5/A1/8 illegal hunting, STAC5/A56/32 illegal hunting in Waterdown and Eridge – links with Nevill, not directly Hungershall) 1633 ESRO ABE/52.1 Recites 8 leases back to 1618, which show new tenancies in the former park from 1618, now disparked Secondary evidence: du Boulay (1964:294-295) Kent Records XVIII Lambarde (1576, 1596 – a deer park) Maps: 1575 Saxton 1576 Anonymous 1596 Symonson - named 1605 Norden 1611 Speed 1850 Manor of Rusthall (via Geoffrey Copus) shows Nevill land in relation to neighbours. Hungershall farm on it. N and E boundaries are adjacent to common land which pretty well would seem to define those. Fieldwork: OS Explorer (2½inch to mile) TQ572386 Hungershall Park 403 3 August 2006 - Fairly satisfied about all the boundaries. Acknowledgements: Geoffrey Copus (48) IGHTHAM / WEST PARK of WROTHAM Parish: small portion Ightham, Wrotham Earliest reference: 1283 Archbishop of Canterbury custumal (Semple) Ownership: 1333 Archbishop of Canterbury > 1530s Crown, by forced exchange, lessees Willoughby of Bore Place > unknown when Crown withdrew but seems to have been acquired by the Willoughby > c.1600-1627 William James purchased manor of Ightham Size: 1283 = 132a (Semple): 1620 = 138a (Semple) Documentary evidence: 1333 CPR 444, 22 March, Deer hunted and carried away 1519 PCC Will Manor of Ightham under lease to Sir Robert Rede 1583 TNA Assize Calendar no.1368 Lamb stolen in park 1660 CKS U830 T6/1&2, 99 year lease of E park, Wrotham, James to Bate, 180a, exception Ightham park in tenure of James and John Martyn Secondary evidence: Arch.Cant. XLVIII (1936:169,179) Arch.Cant. XLIX (1937:1) Arch.Cant. LXXXIII (1968:111) Arch.Cant. CXXVIII (2008:179-209) 'The Medieval Deer Parks of Wrotham' by Semple Charlton (1951:24) The Family of Charlton of Wrotham du Boulay (1966:215,232-233) Lordship of Canterbury du Boulay (1964:284,290) Kent Records XVIII - lease of 1524, permission to dispark Girouai (26 June 1958), Country Life, article 'Ightham Court' Ightham Parish Council, loose notes in papers kept in Ightham Village Hall. Extracts transcribed from Ightham Manorial Records by Edward Harrison and others (p.141) Lambarde (1576, 1596 – disparked) Nichols (ed.) (1859:267) Narratives of the Days of the Reformation Semple talk notes of 14 March 2006 Maps: 1620 CKS U681 P31 Estate map shows park as fields Fieldwork: OS Explorer (2½inch to mile) TQ595576 Ightham Court 6,14 August 2005, 19 April 2007 – All boundaries looked can be traced and put on modern OS. Good banked ditch along part of N boundary, bank along S and ditch along most of E. Acknowledgements: Dr Paul Cornelius, David Fuller, Jayne Semple, Dr Jean Stirk 404 (49) KEMSING Parish: Kemsin Not in Lambarde or on the early maps, probably disparked in 1520s when leases to several people granted Earliest reference: 1236 (Cal.Close 1234-7, 257) LC Ownership: 1236 Eleanor Countess of Pembroke (Close Rolls) > to Crown under Henry III > 1525 Crown granted to Sir Thomas Boleyn > 1559 Crown to Baron Hunsdon, Henry Carey (CPR) > 1618 Hunsdon sold to Richard Earl of Dorset (CKS U269/T1) Size: 1530 = 160a (BL Harl 83H.35) Documentary evidence: 1366 CPR Earl marshal to get earlof Pembroke's park at Kemsing 1525 BL Harl 86G54 From Boleyn to Tebold to several men park of Sele and Kemsing 1526 BL Harl 86H16 Grant from Boleyn trustees for the several to gain possession 1530 BL Harl 83H35Sir Thomas Boleyn granted 160a land called Park of Seal and Kemsing to John Tebold 1551 BL Harl 86H53 Polley to Tebold 200 marks for land called Tomlyn’s park in Seal 1559 CPR I p.115, 20 March, Male tail grant to Baron Hunsdon, Henry Carey, of manor and lands of Seal and Kemsing granted to Anne of Cleves for life 1578 CPR no.3636, p.533, 21- year lease Manwood and 3 others for lands in Kemsing and Seal now imparked in parks of Otford and Knole for the enlargement thereof, by surrender of Tebod's lease of 1512 & 1537 1618 CKS U269 T1 (Sackville) Sold to Richard Earl of Dorset from Carey & Boteler manors of Sevenoaks, Seal, Kemsing and old park and other land in Seal and Kemsing granted to Anne of Cleves, for £2900 to Lord Hunsdon 1619 CKS U269 T1 (Sackville) Earl of Dorset requests Crown grant various lands to Sir Henry Carey which Boteler then pays for and assigns elsewhere - Cage, Postern, Northfrith (Tonbridge), manor of Sevenoaks, old park and Lovatt land in Kemsing and Seal 1625 CKS U269 T1 (Sackville) Edward earl of Dorset, Rivers and others buy back from Smith including Knole house and park, Panthurst park, land called Old Park in Seal and Kemsing 1629 CKS U269 T1 (Sackville) Edward Earl of Dorset and others repay Smith of 1625 to regain all lands c.1650 CKS U269 E48 (Sackville) Outlines mortgage to Henry Smith for £10000 by Richard c.1610, and present Earl negotiating new rent, house and park rent £130, but value £100 1663 CKS U269 E28 (Sackville) Gamekeepers appointment for birds, conditions, Knole, Kemsing, Seal Secondary evidence: Arch.Cant. CXVI (1996:329-332) Bowden, 'The Medieval Park at Kemsing' Bowden (1994:17-25) Story of Kemsing Fox, Williams & Mountfield (2007:14-14) Seal – history of a parish Harris (1719:166) History of Kent Hasted 3 (1797:54) Maps: 405 Fieldwork: OS Explorer (2½inch to mile) TQ550585 middle of park Bowden (Arch.Cant. 1996) has traced boundaries. Acknowledgements: (50) KNOLE Parish: Sevenoaks Earliest reference: 1468 bill for 1000 palings at 6s 8d. (Sackville-West, 1922 p.21) Ownership: 1456 land bought by Thomas Bourchier, Archbishop of Canterbury, from William Fenys, Lord Say of the Seal (CKS U1450 T4/17) > 1480 gift of Knole to see of Canterbury (Ch.Ch.Cant.Regs, f213a) > 1537 Cranmer to Henry VIII (CKS U1450 T1/3) > 1549 Edward VI to Lord Seymour (CKS U1590 T1/4) > 1550 grant by Edward VI to Earl of Warwick (CKS U1590 T1/8) > 1556 Mary I to Cardinal Pole (CPR C66/899 mm24-25) > 1559 Elizabeth I to Henry Lord Hunsdon (CKS U269/E30) > 1561 Elizabeth I to Robert Dudley (Phillips) > 1566 Elizabeth I grant to Sir Thomas Sackville, reversion of manor of Knole, subject to lease granted by earl of Leicester to whom Knole had been granted in 1561, so it was not until 1603 that he came into possession (Phillips II p.398) > grandson Richard Sackville, earl of Dorset, d.1624, and remains in family Size: 1544 = 74a (CPR): 1561 = 446a (Ward): 1611 = 550a (CKS U269 E66/1&2): 1614 = 550a (CKS U269/T1) Documentary evidence: 1456 CKS U1450 T4/17 Land bought by Thomas Bourchier, Archbishop of Canterbury, from William Fenys, Lord Say of the Seal, which had been bought by his father William, Lord Say, from Rauf Legh 1471 LPL Archbishops estates B Account roll no. 285 receiver's accounts 1480 LPL Ch.Ch.Cant.Regs, f213a Gift of Knole to see of Canterbury included profit that would come from the enclosed parklands – Knole and Panthurst most likely meant (Philips) 1508 CKS U1450 E20/95 (Stanhope) Undated referring to rental of 1508 includes rent due out of Knole for land taken park 1523 LPL MS 952(5) Parker of Knole's receipt £4+ for one year's fees 1537 CKS U1450 T1/3 (Stanhope) Cranmer to Henry VIII, wages of keepers of parks of Otford, Knole, Wrotham wherein deer now be 1541 Cal. Letters & Papers XVIII pt 1 p.691 King ordered repairs at Knole with park, with Otford bridge, standing pool, haymaking mentioned 1544 CPR 4 February, Tithe dispute with vicar of Sevenoaks settled, Knole = 74a 1547 CKS U1450 T6/27 (Stanhope) Edward VI manor of Knole and other lands in Kent to Lord Seymour, warrant for his execution 1548/9 1549 CKS U1475 E60 (dLD) Grant of keeping Knole house and herbage and pannage to Sir Robert Southwell 1549 CKS U1590 T1/6 (Stanhope) Letters Patent, Keeping of Knole house and of herbage and pannage to Robert Southwell 1549 CKS U1590 T1/4 (Stanhope) Patent grant by Edward VI to Lord Seymour of manor of Knole and other lands 1550 CKS U1590 T1/8 (Stanhope) Grant by Edward VI to Earl of Warwick castle, manors 406 of Knole, Sevenoaks, Hadlow, Britons, Panthurst, Northfield, South Frith 1552 CKS U1450 T5/67 (Stanhope) Lease Duke of Northumberland to Sir George Harper and Thomas Culpepper of Knole manor (not house and park), Northfrith, Cage, Postern, Panthurst for 40 years 1553 CKS U1450 T7/87A & B (Stanhope) Patent of office of keeping Knole Park, Edward VI to Sir Henry Sidney 1553/4 CPR m.14 p.8 John Duke of Northumberland exchanged Otford for Knole 1554 CPR, 19 June, Joan duchess of Northumberland surrenders manors and the parks Panthurst, Knole, Southfrith, Northfrith, Postern, and Cage and is then granted them for life 1555 BL Harl 75E31 Inspection of indenture Dudley to Harper and Culpepper 1555 BL Harl75H23 Lease Pole to Harper and Culpepper includes Northfrith, Postern, Cage, Panthurst, but not Knole Park or Halden 1556 CKS U1450 T5/69 (Stanhope) After Northumberland's attainder Edward VI granted to Harper and Culpepper the lands of the 1552 lease for 40 years. 1556 CPR 66/899 mm24-25 To Cardinal Pole, lands called le Park at Maidstone in tenure of Henry Smyth, all kinds of deer and wild beasts in the said park. Also with numerous others lands, park of Saltwood; house and site of late monastery of St Augustine near walls of Canterbury, the park called Canterbury Park adjacent to the house; the parks of Aldington and Otford; the park of Knoll late parcel of lands of John, Duke of Northumberland, attainted. 1556 CKS U1450 T6/28 (Stanhope) List of land grants including mention of Pole getting Knole 1559 CKS U269 E30 (Sackville) Royal grant of Knole manor to Henry Lord Hunsdon by Elizabeth I 1560 CKS U1450 F41 (Stanhope) Suspicious hunters backside of Knole Park 1561 CKS U1450 T6/29 (Stanhope) Letter patent Knole fee simple grant to Robert Dudley includes parks at Knole and Panthurst park etc. 1566 CKS U1450 T6/30 (Stanhope) Sublet by Dudley to Rolfe and Lovelace + Panthurst Park, with conditions, enclosed ground with deer and conies and Panthurst enclosed park (no mention of deer, conies here) 1566 CPR C66/1025 no.2567, 29 June, Grant to Robert Dudley who will return Knole – exchange of lands. Dudley sells back to Crown for various reversions and other considerations 1568 CKS U269 T1 (Sackville) Lovelace conveys interest via Rolfe in manor and park of Knole, Panthurst to Morbell 1570 CKS U269 T1 (Sackville) Rolfe deceased has willed his share of lease to Lovelace and John Dudley, assigns Knole, Panthurst to Thomas Sackville, Lord Buckhurst, deer and conies mentioned for Knole, not Panthurst 1570 U1450 T6/12 (Stanhope) Knole mansion and park, enclosed park of Panthurst to John Lennard 1571 U269 T1 (Sackville) Lovelace via Rolfe to Trevor to take possession of Knole and Panthurst to convey to Sir Thomas Sackville under document of 18 July 1570 1587 TNA SP12/197/19 & SP12/197/197/32, Killing deer at Otford, one of hunters slain, also hunted in Knole – Williams examined; later entry Williams and Couchman examined for Otford 1589 TNA Assize 35/32/4 no.1806 When tracking poachers, keepers mistake each others' identity, one keeper killed by another keeper 1592 CKS U269 C1/1 Magdalen College obtaining venison on Sackville's request 1599 CKS QM/SI 1599/24/2 Assault on park keepers 1603 CKS U269 T1 (Sackville) Lennard sells lease of Knole and Panthurst to Sackville, 407 except for running subleases (this document clarifies the previous ones) 1603/4 CKS U269 A2/1 (Sackville) Account of steward of house mention of Knole park, Panthurst Park 1605 CKS QM/SRc 1605/193 hunting rabbits ' in grounds of Duke of Dorset' (might not be park) 1605 CKS U269 T1 (Sackville) Earl of Dorset to Heydon and others grants use of whole estate, + Panthurst 1605 CKS U269 T1 (Sackville) Sale enrolled by Rowland White and John Williams of Knole house and park to Thomas Earl of Dorset 1610 CKS U269 T1 (Sackville) Rivers & Smith v. Amherst & Lyndsey recovery of manors of Knole and Panthurst, Richard Earl of Dorset vouchee 1610/11 CKS U269 E66/1&2 (Sackville) Survey of Earl of Dorset's lands, Knole house and 550a park; and Park meadow in manor of Bayhall; Groombridge House and land called park 225a; Panthurst Park; Redmillridge (near Groombridge) parcel of land called New Park 5a 1612 CKS U269 A2/2 (Sackville) Account of steward of house includes park references 1614 CKS U269 E66/3 (Sackville) Lands in various counties held towards payment of debts 1614 CKS U269 T1 (Sackville) Particular of manor of Knole, describes house, park with conies (no deer mentioned), 550a, and Panthurst park 390a 1615 CKS QM/SI 165/2/5 Hunting without licence 1615 CKS U269 T1 (Sackville) Richard Earl of Dorset to Howard, Rivers and others manors including Knole and Panthurst to recover debts, + counterpart 1618 CKS U269 T1 (Sackville) To Richard Earl of Dorset from Carey & Boteler manors of Sevenoaks, Seal, Kemsing and old park and other land in Seal and Kemsing 1619 CKS U269 T1 (Sackville) Earl of Dorset requests Crown grant various lands to Sir Henry Carey which Boteler then pays for and assigns elsewhere - Cage, Postern, Northfrith (Tonbridge), manor of Sevenoaks, old park and Lovatt land in Kemsing and Seal 1623 CKS U269 E23/1 Carp brought from Hever into Knole stew ponds 1623 CKS U269 A3 Accounts for gardens and building new kennel at Knole 1624 CKS U269 T1 (Sackville) Earl of Dorset agrees to sell manor of Knole, Knole park and Panthurst to Sir George Rivers and others; same date King to judge use of recovery Dorset v. Rivers and others 1625 CKS U269 T1 (Sackville) Smith and Edward Earl of Dorset, Rivers and others sell Knole house and park, Panthurst park, land called Old Park in Seal and Kemsing 1625/9 CKS U269/1 E66 (Sackville) Letter re gift to Sackville in Essex of a doe, reference to Lord Willoughby, not obvious Kent 1629 CKS U269 A41/1/17 (Sackville) Charge for setting up hop garden in park 1629 CKS U269 A41/1/2 (Sackville) Agistments of Knole Park, over 50 beasts mentioned 1629 CKS A41/1/11 (Sackville) Monies raised in Knole Park for agistment and conies, hops, grass 1629 CKS A41/1/16 (Sackville) Repair to park pales at Knole 1629 CKS U269 T1 (Sackville) Edward Earl of Dorset and others repay Smith of 1625 to regain all lands 1629/30 CKS U269 A41/1/1 (Sackville) Blome's account for year, includes massive work on pales for park, pale round hopgarden, warrener's bill, timber cutting and carriage in park 1630 CKS U269 A41/1/7, A41/1/13 (Sackville) Warrener's account, bill 1630 CKS U269 A41/1/5 (Sackville) Valuation of conies 1630 CKS U269 A41/14 (Sackville) Receipt for tithes for Knole Park 1630 CKS U269 A41/15 (Sackville) Lady Day half year charges of Knole Park 408 1630 CKS U269 A41/1/8 (Sackville) Summer agistments for Park, 83 beasts mentioned 1630 CKS U269 A41/1 (Sackville) Winter agistments for Park, my lord and my lady's horses and others 1634 CKS U269 T1 (Sackville) Royal protection for one year from all actions sureties by bond for Richard late Earl of Dorset 1647 CKS U269 A41/2 (Sackville) Blome's Michaelmas quarter account, nothing obvious for park, price of oats influenced by near presence of soldiers; Midsummer quarter account, woodlooker's pay for Knole Park; Christmas quarter, fell timber in park; Blome's Midsummer disbursements, woodlooker's pay 1648 CKS U269 A41/2 (Sackville) Money spent on provisions - beef, pork, poultry, no deer bought 1648 CKS U269 A41/2 (Sackville) Blome's Christmas quarter account, key to park gate; woodlooker for park's pay, account for hopgarden 1649 CKS U269 A41/2 (Sackville) Blome's midsummer quarter account, nothing obvious for park; Lady day quarter, woodlooker for park pay c. 1650 CKS U269 E48 (Sackville) Outlines mortgage to Henry Smith for £10000 by Richard c.1610, and present Earl negotiating new rent, house and park rent £130, but value £100 Secondary evidence: Anon, Guide to Knole (1883:21) Chapter II - The park Arch.Cant. V (1862/3:28) Arch.Cant. IX (1874:xl) Arch.Cant. XXXVIII (1926:55) Arch.Cant XL. (1928:160) Arch.Cant. LXIII (1950:135) Arch.Cant. LXXXIX (1974:1) Arch.Cant CXXIII (2003:153-184) 'The development of the park and gardens at Knole' by Taylor Barrett-Lennard (1908:10-15,41-47,56-57,107,112-115,116-135,140-141,232-233) An Account of the Families of Lennard and Barrett Chalklin (1965:105) Seventeenth Century Kent Clarke and Stoyel (1975:111-123) Otford in Kent Cole (1999: 186-187) Portable Queen, du Boulay (1952:19-36) Archbishop Cranmer and the Canterbury Temporalities, English Historical Review LXVII Eland (1960:40) Thomas Wotton's Letter-Book Elder (C.1950:7) Otford Past and Present English Heritage G419 Historic Parks and gardens register Everitt (1966:166) The Community of Kent and the Great Rebellion 1640-1660 Fox (2002 on CD) The History of Sevenoaks up to 1650 Fox, Williams & Mountfield (2007:39) Seal – history of a parish Harris (1719:278) History of Kent Hasted 1 (1797:269) Hasted 3 (1797:64-79) Holmes (1984reprint) Proud Northern Lady: lady Anne Clifford, 1590-1676 KCC SMR TQ 55 SW 17 - KE430 (deer park) TQ 55 SW 2 - KE 416 (house) Kingsford & Shaw (eds.) (1925:30) Historical Manuscripts Commission Report on the Manuscripts of Lord De L’Isle and Dudley preserved at Penshurst Place, 1 Lambarde (1576, 1596 – a deer park) 409 McKilliam (1936:276-280) A Chronicle of the Archbishops of Canterbury Nichols (ed.) (1859:234,265) Narratives of the Days of the Reformation (CamdenIX) Owen (ed.) (1980:164) Calendar of the Manuscripts of the Most Honourable the Marquess of Bath, volume V, Talbot, Dudley and Devereux papers 1533-1659 Phillips, The History of the Sackville Family Vol. I (35, 216-221, 231-237, 262-272, 274- 276) Vol. II (333-334,Appendix II p.390-401, XXXV additions and alterations) Sackville-West (1923:58-61,65,74-75,78) The diary of Lady Anne Clifford Sackville-West (c.1968:37) National Trust guide of Knole Sackville-West (1922:7,20-21,39) Knole and the Sackvilles, Chapter II, Garden and Park Steinman Steinman (1851:61) Some Account of the Manor of Apuldrefield in the Parish of Cudham, Kent Stone (1965:515) Crisis of the Aristocracy, Ward (1931:17,24-25,153-155,215,246,277-281) Sevenoaks Essays Zell (2000:60) Early Modern Kent Maps: 1575 Saxton 1576 Anonymous 1596 Symonson - named 1605 Norden 1611 Speed c.1600 Gordon Ward map showing park in CKS also useful before fieldwork Fieldwork: OS Explorer (2½inch to mile) TQ540543 existing park, many changes, 15 October 2006, 2 October 2010 - Looked at present boundary on both sides of gatehouse and then tried to use footpaths to cross original boundaries - nothing significant came to light. Found proposed deer course and look at connection between garden and park. Acknowledgements: Geoffrey Copus, Joyce Hoad, Kristina Taylor, Pat and Christopher Waterman (51) LANGLEY, Beckenham Parish: Beckenham Earliest reference: midC13th Quit claim (Hevey, but copy in BLS not located): 1623 Estate map (BL Maps 188.k.3[4]) Ownership: 1501 John Style of Ipswich, London mercer, bought Langley Park and remained in family until 1679 > 1499-1552 Sir Humphrey Style > 1558-1616 Edmund Style (son) > Sir Oliver Style d. 1622 (of Wateringbury, Borrowman) and Nicholas d. 1615 (brothers of above) > 1565-1624 William Style son of Edmund d.1626 Size: Documentary evidence: 1768 Inquisition ad Quod Damnum gives boundaries, road diversion issue Secondary evidence: Arch.Cant. III (1860:191-193) 410 Borrowman (1910:205-215) Beckenham Past and Present Copeland (1967:9) The manors of old Beckenham Hasted 1 (1797:269) Hevey (1994:50-51) Early History of Beckenham Horsburgh (1929:235) Bromley Macdonald, (c.1985:20-21) The History of Langley Park Golf Club 1910-1985 Tookey (c.1975:10) The History of Langley Park, Beckenham Maps: c1485 W Wickham, Hayes, Keston, part Bromley compiled from manorial records by Davis 1623 BL Maps 188.k.3(4) Estate map - area in fields, but several 'park' names - lodge, lawn, 4x park fields Fieldwork: OS Explorer (2½inch to mile) TQ384670 Langley Golf course Very built up but still some of it open space including golf course. Glancing on map possible that road pattern formed round park. Acknowledgements: Patricia Knowlden (52) LANGLEY, Maidstone Parish: Maidstone, Langley Earliest reference: 1297 onwards (Cal.Pat. 1292-1301, 227) Ownership: Ownership unclear. 1297William de Leybourne > 1336 William de Clinton granted licence by Edward III to enlarge park with 200a... > 1421 Crown (CPR) ... > 1570 William Isley to Martin Culthorpe (U1590 T14/12) Size: 1297 = 200a + (Hasted): early C18th = 88a (Salmon) Documentary evidence: 1297 Cal.Pat. 1292-1301, 227 William de Leybourne's park hunted while he was in Gascony – 2 entries 1335 CPR, Exchange 200a so park could be enlarged by 200a 1368 CPR 20 October, Parker 4d day and robe year 1374/76 E101/544/23 1368/69 Account for works includes Langley park 1383 CPR 1 October, Grant for life of park after death of previous custodian of park 1389 CPR 20 May, Custody of park sublet with confirmation 1399 CPR 30 October, Parker appointed 1421 CPR 14 November, Parker appointed by king 1444 CPR 26 April, Park back in royal hands after death of Henry cardinal of England nd bishop of Winchester 1447 CPR 30 April, Grant to Thomas and Isabel Kent of manor and park of Langley in lieu of grant surrendered on 26 April 1444 1449 CPR 21 May, Confirmation of grant to Thomas and Isabel Kent who had at own expense fenced the park with gates and entries, with advowson of Langley church until £200 expenses covered 411 1451 CPR 1 December, Another grant to the Kents getting appurtenances of park until cost of repairs covered 1451 Inquisitions Miscellaneous p.139 (Calendar) Kents have house, manor, keeping of park worth no more than 26s 8d 1452 CPR 20 March, Inquiry into true costs incurred by the Kents in repairing park and lodge 1570 U1590 T14/12 (Stanhope) William Isley to Martin Culthorpe manor of Sundridge, manor and park of Sutton Valence, manor and park of Langley, manor of Kingsnorth, to make void debt of £4000 Secondary evidence: Lambarde (1576, 1596 – disparked: 199) Salmon (1982:18-19) A History of Chart Sutton Hasted 5 (1797:346-349) Harris (1719:174) History of Kent Kingsford & Shaw (eds.) (1925:237) HMC Report on the Manuscripts of Lord De L’Isle and Dudley Maps: Fieldwork: OS Explorer (2½inch to mile) TQ797516 Langley Park Farm Acknowledgements: Anne Clinch (53) LEE Parish: Lee Earliest reference: 1605 Exchequer bills 7 CI Trin.94 Ownership: Crown and Stoddard see below Size: 1648 = 336a (Hart p.29) Documentary evidence: 1565 CPR 11 March, Lease of 21 years to George Stoddard of lands acquired by crown by exchange with late marquess of Dorset 1580 CPR Lease for life to George Stoddard for same lands held under 21-year lease from 1565 1605 Exchequer bills 7 CI Trin.94, James I asking Nicholas Stoddard, son of George, to add 100a of Crown land - paying tenants to end leases 1605 TNA E164/44/ff3-58 Mottingham - Stoddard land in Eltham survey (photo) 1605 TNA SP14/9/11 Warrant to pay Nicholas Stoddard £80 for his land taken into King's park 1609 TNA SP14/47/5a £600 each to Dacombe and Lee for redemption of estate into Eltham park 1609-1617 E178/3941 Sir Nicholas Stoddard outlines what he has done re new park 1622 SP14/128/112 Stoddard wants fee farm on land next to park he has on lease to enlarge the park where King delights in hunting, injured by prohibition to fell trees 412 1622 SP14/130/83, 15 May Pleads in debt and can't pay free gift for Palatinate 1631/2 TNA E178/5365 No obvious park but refers to trees felled in king's ground c.1620/21 1631/2 Charles I TNA Ind1/16824/94 Exchequer bill book, Registering case Stoddard v. Lewine, Saunderson land in Lee Charles I TNA Ind1/16824/136 Exchequer bill book, Registering case Lewine, Saunderson v. Stoddard land in Lee 1649 TNA LR2/196 Lee survey, park names but as fields Secondary evidence: Drake (1886:192-194,232-233) Hasted's History of Kent - Hundred of Blackheath Gregory (1909:280-283) Story of Royal Eltham Gregory & Nunn (1923:181-183) The Story of Lee Hart (1882:29-37) History of Lee Hasted 1 (1797:269) Nichols (1977reprint:220) Progresses of James I Maps: Fieldwork: OS Explorer (2½inch to mile) ?TQ419730 adjacent to Eltham parks - ?near Eltham College Acknowledgements: (54) LEEDS Parish: Leeds Earliest reference: 1278 (Letter Close 22 June TNA C.54/98) Ownership: Crown > 6 Edward VI fee simple to Sir Anthony St Leger (TNA SP10/14/47) > 1590s St. Leger alienated to Sir Richard Smythe, 4th son of Customer Smythe, resided there until 1628 Size: 1608/9 = 500a (TNA LR2/218) Documentary evidence: 1421 CPR 7 June, Gate and park keeper appointed 4½d daily 1437 CPR 8 January, Appointment of constable of castle and parker 1439 CPR 19 May, Appointment of John Steward as constable and parker 1439 CPR 5 November, Convent of Leeds have agistment of park for 20 years for rent but John Steward had denied this and was taken to court, the convent had rights restored 1443 CPR 2 January, 2 others appointed constable and parker after death of John Steward 1449 CPR 3 December, Inquiry into defects in buildlings, woods and other places in lordship, castle and park of Leeds 1451 CPR 30 May, Life grant to Edward Neville, lord Bergavenny, of survey, rule and governance of castle and park of Leeds with free entry 1451 Inq. Misc. Leeds castle with park – in king's gift, office of parker wages and fees 3d daily, dwelling in lodge within the park with profits and advantages usual for the office. 1479 TNA E40/4967, E42/431 Land to king to enlarge Leeds park 1552 TNA SP10/14/47, p.42, Grant in fee farm to Sir Anthony Sentleger of castle, manor, 413 park of Leeds 1608/9 TNA LR2/218 Survey of Leeds 1603 CKS U1475 E61 (dLD) Lease of Leeds Castle to Lord Buckhurst Secondary evidence: Cleggett (1992:23-79) History of Leeds Castle and itsFamilies Geoffrey-Lloyd & Wilson (1980:5-33) Leeds Castle – a brief history Hasted 1 (1797:269) Hasted 5 (1797:485-487) – mentions Sentleger sale to Smythe KCC SMR TQ 85 SW 82 - KE9323 Kingsford & Shaw (eds.) (1925:237) HMC Report on the Manuscripts of Lord De L’Isle and Dudley I Lambarde (1576, 1596 – a deer park) Liddiard (2005:97-98,127) Castles in Context Ryan (Winter 1993:41-51) 'The St. Legers of Ulcombe, Leeds Castle and Deal' in Kent Recusant History 2, no.2 Taylor (19 June 1996) Leeds Castle Park Archaeological Field Visit Maps: 1575 Saxton 1576 Anonymous 1596 Symonson 1605 Norden 1611 Speed 1649 CKS U825 P6 estate map shows park into large fields Fieldwork: OS Explorer (2½inch to mile) TQ837534 Leeds Castle 8 January 2005 - Can trace boundaries on modern OS map, former S boundary and part of the E retain banks. Acknowledgements: Patricia and Peter Stroud, Andrew Wells (55) LULLINGSTONE Parish: Lullingstone Earliest reference: 1545 Manorial court roll (CKS U967 M2) Ownership: 1380-1524 Peche > 1524 Sir Percival Hart, nephew, d.1580 > Sir George Hart d.1586 < Sir Perceval Hart d.1542, and remains in family to present Size: 1930s = 690a (Pittman) Documentary evidence: 1545 CKS U967 M2 Survey and rental of Manors of Orpington, Mayfield, Farnborough, Eynsford Castle and Lullingstone - 1st documentary reference to property by park pale 1583 TNA Assize Cal 35/26/4/1296 Park keeper murdered a man at Stone 1606 CKS QM/SB 1606/696&698 Illegal rabbit hunting, by same as below but in nearby warren 414 1606 CKS QM/SRc 1606/ 230.231.232 Recognizances for above case 1606 CKS QM/SI 1606/13/20 Same men as above stealing fromwarren at Old Park, Lullingstone 1639 TNA SP16/429/66 Peter Pett's carriage of 280 loads of timber for rebuilding 'The Prince' from Lullingstone park purchased from Sir Percival Hart was charged to the county Secondary evidence: Arch.Cant. XVI (1886:238) English Heritage GD3566 Historic Parks and Gardens register Hasted 1 (1797:269) Henderson (2005:229) The Tudor House and Garden KCC SMR TQ 56 SW 111 - KE19931 Lambarde (1576, 1596 – a deer park) Pittman (1983) Lullingstone Park - the evolution of a medieval deer park Sackville-West (1923: 74) Diary of Lady Anne Clifford Maps: 1596 Symonson 1798 Ist OS 1" to mile Fieldwork: OS Explorer (2½inch to mile) TQ520645 existing park Park largely intact though refenced in C18th and now public open space. Acknowledgements: (56) LYMINGE Parish: Lyminge Not in Lambarde or on the early maps Earliest reference: 1274/5 Hundred rolls (KAS website) Ownership: 1540 Archbishop of Canterbury to Henry VIII > 1546 King to Sir Anthony Aucher, master of the king's jewels d.1558 > Edward Aucher, and remained in family into Charles I's reign Size: 1649 = 400a (TNA LR2/196) Documentary evidence: 1274/5 Hundred rolls, Archbishop has chase and warren in Lyminge. Master Richard de Clifford had 23 deer caught in vacancy of see (KAS website) 1281 CPR 6 July, Hunting and taking away deer 1397 LPL Archbishop's estates B Account roll no. 614, Parker c.154- Court of Augmentation Survey, portfolio I, p.13, Lyminge park was 3 miles round with 60 fallow deer 1546 CPR 24 September, Henry VIII to Sir Anthony Aucher - all the park and all those deer, male and female in the park. Manor and park clear value £43 11s 7 ¼ for sum of £4 7s 2d a year, to have and to hold for use and benefit of Anthony Aucher and his heirs in capite by the service of the 20th part of a knight's fee, but to render yearly to us and our heirs the sum of £4 7s 2d to Court of Augmentations yearly on feast of St Michael the 415 Archangel. Excepting the office of the keeper of the park and the fee of 3d a day, together with the herbage and pannage of the said park granted to Thomas Hardres kt for the term of his life, for the office of ths custody of the park and also all such exemptions as the farmers of the said premises for the time being enjoy by virtue of their indentures and releases. (transcribed by Jenkins below) 1559 TNA C54/569 Dame Affra Aucher, widow of Sir Anthony, grants Edward Aucher, son of Bourne Place, Bishopsbourne manor, park and advowson of Lyminge. 1569 CPR 21- year lease To Harrison woods and lands ex-Wyatt in Boxley, lands and wood by Lyminge park 1602 CKS Q/SR3 no.288 Hunting deer with 2 bloodhounds 1606 CKS QM/SB/710 Assault at park 1649 TNA LR2/196 Survey, Elham bounds describes bounds of Lyminge park Secondary evidence: Arch.Can. IV (1861:45) Furley (1874:524) Weald of Kent II part2 Harrington and Hendrick pers.comm, notes on Lyminge and the park Jenkins (ed.) (c.1880s/1890s:11-15) The Chartulary of the Monastery of Lyminge Knafla (1994:51,111,253) Kent at Law 1602 Zell (2000:60) Early Modern Kent Maps: Fieldwork: OS Explorer (2½inch to mile) TR145445 Park Wood Acknowledgements: Duncan Harrington, Margot Hendrick (57) LYMPNE Parish: Lympne Not in Lambarde or on the early maps so probably disparked before 1558 Earliest reference: 1281 (Cal.Pat. 1272-81, 473) LC Ownership: Archdeacon of Canterbury Size: 1640 = 51a Lymme park wood (EKAC S/Rm P1/1) Documentary evidence: Secondary evidence: Anon. (no date) Lympne Castle, Kent - mentions estate map, 1628 (I have yet to find) Harris (1719:183) History of Kent Maps: 1640 EKAC S/Rm P1/1 Lymme park wood Fieldwork: TR123345 Lympne Park Wood 19 November 2005 - Think I have found boundaries of larger park on the ground, but requires other supportive evidence 416 Acknowledgements: (58) LYNSTED Parish: Lynsted Earliest reference: 1569 (CKS U1450 E20) Ownership: 1354 Apulderfields > 1477 Sir John Fyneux m Elizabeth Apulderfield, heiress > 1525 Jane Fyneux his daughter, widow of John Roper, was left it by her father > mother left it to younger son Christopher Roper d.1559 > son Sir John Roper created Lord Teynham Size: Documentary evidence: 1523/24 15Henry VIII Will of John Roper (transcribed Arch.Cant. II) mentions lodge at Lynsted and Well Hawe, Eltham, but no parks 1579 TNA Assize Cal 35/21/8 – 991 Rabbit theft from a warren called The Lodge Secondary evidence: Arch.Cant. II (1859:153-174) Arch.Cant XLIV (1932:147-157) Elliston Erwood (1936:7) The Story of Well Hall Gregory (1909:228-229) Story of Royal Eltham Harris (1719:186) History of Kent Hasted 1 (1797:269) Hasted 6 (1797:300-301) Hovenden (1898:81-83) Visitation of Kent by John Philipot McIntosh & Gough (eds.) (1984:40-50) Hoath and Herne Mee (1936:297-300) Kent Selby (1936:67) Teynham Manor and Hundred,. Sparks (1980:59) Parish of St Martin and St Paul, Canterbury Stone (1965:444-445,496-497,592-593) Crisis of the Aristocracy Maps: 1596 Symonson - not named but unambiguous, Lodge named in centre Fieldwork: OS Explorer (2½inch to mile) TQ947597 Lynsted Park 16 May 2005 – Think that road pattern follows park borders, but requires supportive evidence. Acknowledgements: Christopher Waterman (59) MAIDSTONE Parish: Maidstone Earliest reference: 1396 (LPL, Archbishops estates B Account roll) Ownership: 1537 Archbishop Cranmer to Henry VIII > 1556 Mary I to Cardinal Pole (U1450 T6/28) 417 To Cardinal Pole > 1558 Crown > Elizabeth I to Mary Finch (CPR) > Elizabeth I to John Astley (CPR) > 1638 Crown sold to Sir Jacob Astley (U2035/ T32) Size: 1555 = 27a (U195 C146): 1566/9 = 27a (TNA C66/1055) Documentary evidence: 1396, 1397, 1414, 1419, 1442 (LPL) Archbishops estates B Account roll no. 666-7, 672-3, 676, 679 Parker 1550 CPR part VI m.33,34 Edward VI to Sir Thomas Wyatt, park of Maydeston called Maydston Parke 1555 TNA E318/39/2112 Particulars of grant 1555 CKS U195 C146 Particular of Allington Castle estate includes land and pasture of park 27a once Archbishop's, lately Wyatt, held by indenture by Henry Smith 1542 for 21 years 1556 TNA SC11/855 Mary I to Cardinal Pole value of lands in hands of Henry Smythe called the Park, Maidstone 1556 CPR C66/899 mm24-25 (U1450 T6/28 Stanhope) To Cardinal Pole, lands called le Park at Maidstone in tenure of Henry Smyth, all kinds of deer and wild beasts in the said park. This is last time deer are mentioned 1558 TNA SP11/13/67Value of lands of Archbishop - general 1563 CPR 10 July, Lease for 21 years to Alexader Parker of old Maidstone palace and lands in Maidstone, woods in Boxley, will repair palace. 1569 CPR C66/1055 Elizabeth I to Mary Fynche of Allington Castle, Allington park and lands in Boxley and Maidstone 1570 CPR C66/1070, 26 August, 21-year lease to Wm Baynham of old palace at Maidstone with lands and woods in Boxley, conditions given 1572 CPR 66/1081, 30 July, Lease for 31years to Oswald Wilstrop mansion the Old Palace, Maidstone, with lands 1574 CPR no.1463(i) p.270, Lease for 31years to Oswald Wilstrop mansion the Old Palace, Maidstone, with lands, details of rent, similar to above 1574 CPR Fee simple reversion to Robert Dudley old palace and lands, patent to Wilstrop, and in 1570 to Baynham lease for 21 years 1584 CPR (CKS U1644 T32 (Romney) (1629 recital) Grant to Astley 1629 CKS U1644 T1 Sir John Astley granted lands The Park, Maidstone; Park of Allington - Parkfield, chase of the Park 1649 TNA LR2/196 Maidstone survey, park not mentioned 1720 CKS U1644 T1 Astley to Shovel Maidstone palace and tenement called Park House with lands including park meadows. Secondary evidence: Arch.Cant. LXXII (1958:1-17) du Boulay (ed.) (1964:279,292) Kent Records XVIII du Boulay (1952:23,25) 'Archbishop Cranmer and the Canterbury Temporalies' in English Historical Review 67 no.262 Goacher pers.comm. notes and transcriptions Hasted 4 (1797:302-303) Poste (1847:119) History of the College of All Saints Maidstone, Sayers (ed.) (1965:17-18) Estate Documents at Lambeth Palace Library, includes keeper and park accounts to 1447 418 Maps: Fieldwork: OS Explorer (2½inch to mile) TQ759554 Archbishop's Palace, built up Debbie Goacher thinks park with the palace of Maidstone lay on the opposite side of the Medway. Acknowledgements: Debbie Goacher (60) MEREWORTH Parish: Wateringbury Earliest reference: 1356 (Cal. Pat. 1354-8, 379) LC Ownership: 1356 Royal > 1583 Henry Nevill, Lord Abergavenny, d. 29 Elizabeth I > Mary Fane, Nevill's only daughter m. Sir Thomas Fane > Sir Thomas Fane son made Earl of Westmoreland 22 James I Size: Documentary evidence: 1356 CPR 24 May, To have king's engines carried from Mereworth park to La Neweheth by land and water ... for the king's works in palace of Westminster 1583 TNA Assize Calendar, March 1583 no. 1211, Park broken into and assault Secondary evidence: Lambarde (1576 – disparked, spelt 'Merewood': 1596 – disparked) Maps: 1590 CKS U48 P1 Part of Wateringbury, some abutting Mereworth Park Fieldwork: OS Explorer (2½inch to mile) TQ668554 Mereworth Castle Acknowledgements: (61) MERSHAM-HATCH Parish: Merhsam, Smeeth Earliest reference: 1608 (CKS QM/SI 1608/11/8) Ownership: 1486 Knatchbull family bought Mersham Hatch which remained the family home > 1564- 1589 Richard Knatchbull > 1601-1685 Sir Norton Knatchbull (son) knighted (Bannister), 1641 baronet Size: Documentary evidence: 1348 CCA DCc ChAnt/M/29 Canterbury Cathedral Priory licence to acquire lands in Mersham 1547 CKS U1590 T1/7 (Stanhope) Edward VI letters patent manors of Mersham, Charlton 419 to Sir John Mason 1564 CCA DCc ChAnt/M/30 Cathedral licence to Richard Knatchbull to enclose land on highway or common 1589 CCA DCc ChAnt/M/31 Cathedral licence to Richard Knatchbull to enclose forestall, piece of Hatch common if tenants agree c.1600 CKS U951 C261/5 (Knatchbull) Manwood of Tyler Hill, Canterbury, to Knatchbull asking advice on setting up warren 1608 CCA DCc ChAnt/M/33 More common to be enclosed, but with exchange of land 1608 CKS QM/SI 1608/11/8 2 Men stole conies, fined c.1618, probably 1650s, CKS U951 C261/9 Knatchbull offering high rent to take over land to extend park. Catlogued 1618, but names of tenants same as in 1655 and 1661 documents 1618 CKS U274 E5 Grant of free warren in Mersham Park, right to enclose with pale = when set up 1654-60 CKS U951 A2 (Knatchbull) Very faint general accounts, a few park references 1655 CCA DCc ChAnt/M/34 survey of common re park and enclosures 1656 CCA DCc ChAnt/M/35 (CKS U274 T8) re licences to enclose 8a common near park 1658 CCA DCc ChAnt/M/36 (CKS U274 T8) and measured which Sir Norton Knatchbull had enclosed within his park Secondary evidence: Bannister (1999:25-26) Archaeological and Historical Assessment of Mersham Hatch Estate Hasted I (1797:269) Hasted 7 (1797:592-593) Knatchbull-Hugessen (1960:xv,98,129,133-134,143,164) Kentish Family Talbot (2003:6-7) Brabourne in History Maps: 1737 CKS TR 431/9, Map 5 Fieldwork: OS Explorer (2½inch to mile) TR065408 existing deer park 26 February 2006, 18 November 2006 - Went round present deer park, no banks seen E, N, S, stream with sttep bank up along W. Looked to S nearer house also. Think original park might have been nearer house, but no certain evidence Acknowledgements: Dr Nicola Bannister, Graham Bolden (62) OTFORD – GREAT Parish: Otford Earliest reference: 1241onwards (Cal.Close. 1237-42, 275) LC Ownership: 1241 Archbishop of Canterbury > 1538 to Henry VIII > 1602 Elizabeth I sold to Sir Robert Sidney Size: 1541 = 212a (Survey): 1553 = 438a (CKS U1475 E21/1&2): 1597 = 430a (Survey) Documentary evidence: 420 1273/74 Kilwardby Survey of the Archbihop's manors in S.E. England (KAS wbesite) 1404, 1410. 1414, 1424-6,1433, 1439,1443, 1446 LPL Archbishops estates B Account roll nos. 840, 848, 851, 855-6, 862, 867, 873, 876 Parker 1423 CPR 14 July, Archbishop of Canterbury's deer taken and his servants assaulted 1537 CKS U1450 T1/3 (Stanhope) Cranmer to Henry VIII re King's purchase of his land - wages of keepers of parks of Otford, Knole, Wrotham wherein deer now be 1541 Survey (quoted transcription, Elder, puts date at 1547, but 1541 seems correct compared with document below) ref deer at release and deer coursing with greyhounds, 140 deer, 2 lodges in park (Long lodge, ?Old Lodge), keeper in park lodge in tiling and timber building 1541 Calendar Letters & Papers XVII, p.691; XVIII p.124) King increased stock by getting twelve score deer to park. 1541 Sir Richard Long appointed keeper of Otford, Knole and Panthurst 1544 CPR 4 February, Tithe dispute with vicar of Sevenoaks settled, Great park = 264a 1548 TNA E101/497/4 Survey 1553 CKS U1475 E21/1&2 (dLD) 438a compass 3 miles 1551 CKS U1590 T1/11 (Stanhope) & U1475 E61/1 (dLD) Manor of Otford granted by Edward VI to John Dudley, Earl of Warwick 1553/4 CPR 4 March, John Dudley Duke of Nhumberland exchanged Otford for Knole 1555 TNA KB9/985 Men broke into park and hunted and took away deer 1556 C66/899 mm24-25 25 (U1450 T6/28 Stanhope) To Cardinal Pole, lands called le Park at Maidstone in tenure of Henry Smyth, all kinds of deer and wild beasts in the said park. Also with numerous others lands, park of Saltwood; house and site of late monastery of St Augustine near walls of Canterbury, the park called Canterbury Park adjacent to the house; the parks of Aldington and Otford; the park of Knoll late parcel of lands of John, Duke of Northumberland, attainted. 1569 CPR C66/1054 no.2118, 16 April, 21-year lease to Multon incoluding lands enclosed in Otford park 1573 CKS U1475 L17 (dLD) Examinations of illegal deer hunting at Penshurst Park, men admitted illegal hunting 8-10 years before in Otford park 1573 BL Lansd.82 no.65 Extent of the royal manor of Otford 1578 E133/3/556 Whitley wood dispute between John Lennard and Edward Cranewell and other queen's farmers of the wood alleging is parcel of Otford manor or honour and that timber there always used for repairs and maintenance of queen's house and park of Otford 1573 BL Lansd.82 no.55 Extent of royal manor of Otford includes Great and Little parks (this is at back of 1596 Survey) 1587 CKS U1450 E20 (Stanhope) Notes copied by John Lennard 1587 CKS U1475 E61/2 (dLD) 1604 copy of 1587 grant to Viscount Lisle for stewardship of Honour of Otford, and elsewhere, and keepership of Otford Park 1587 CKS U1475 T86 (dLD) In deed of 1599 below refers to Letter Patent by Elizabeth giving Sir Robert Sidney office of keeping mansion of Otford and park 1587 TNA SP12/197/19 & 32 Deer killed, one of hunters slain by keepers 1592 CKS U1475 C66/8 (dLD) Bailiff of Otford (Golding) summoned to give account of Otford to Queen 1594 CKS U1475 C81/37 (dLD) Sidney to wife approving of what she had done for Otford (no idea what) 1594 TNA SP12/250/42 Repair Otford house estimated £507/18/0d 1596 CKS U1475 C81/82 (dLD) Sidney to wife re lease herbage and pannage of the park of Otford 1596 BL Lansdowne 82/55 (Readable duplicate of TNA SP12/250/42 above) Survey of 421 house and park with conditions Sidney will make if he can take it over saying he had perused papers including Mr Secretary's letter touching hunting in Otford Park 1596 TNA SP12/259/20 Letter 21 June to Burghley with offer to buy Otford 1596/7 TNA E178/1164 Exchequer Commission headed Survey of House and Great Park 1596/7 TNA E178/1165 Survey of house and park (unreadable) 1597 CKS U1475 C12/203 (dLD) Whyte to Sidney re warrant by Queen to survey mansion and park 1597/8 TNA E178/1163 Felling licenced in park 1599 CKS U1475 T86 (dLD) Sidney appoints deputy to oversee mansion and park, keeping deer, conditions 1600 CKS U1475 C75/4 (dLD) Woodward to Sidney re custom of yearly buck to tenants 1600 TNA SP12/274/117 Lease on surrender by the Commissioners for 21 years to Lady Ursula Walsingham of Otford park, pastures and proftis belonging, rent £20, fine £20. 1601 TNA SP12/281/57 Buckhurst (Lord treasurer) to Cobham signing of bill for Canterbury at first utterly rejected, but on urging queen it was profitable for her she signed it. Otford to Sidney utterly refused 1601 CPR 5 November, Sidney buys the capital messuage and Great park of Otford 1601 CKS U1475 T86 (dLD) 20 & 29 December, Sir Robert Sidney grants mansion of Otford and Great Park for others to raise money for daughter's marriage 1604 CKS U1475 T90 (dLD) Lease to Cheesman by Sidney with others for 19a close in park 1605 CKS U1475 T86 (dLD) Sir Robert Sidney enters complicated arrangement to raise money for daughters's marriages via Otford manor and the Great Park. In 1601 he had already granted those involved house and park 1605 CKS U1475 T85 (dLD) Links with above giving 20 years lease to 2 involved 1615 CKS U1475 T85 (dLD) Links with 1605 adjustments made because of marriage of one of the daughters c.Charles I BL Add.Mss. 12066 Detailed account of Sir Robert Sidney's income and expenditure over several decaides, includes use of sale of Otford to offset borrowed money 1647 CKS U1515 T75 (Romney) Loan by 3 to Robert Smythe in exchange for grant of manor and Great Park, Otford 1647 CKS U1515 T75 (Romney) Lease Smythe to Gore of mansion, manor and enclosed Great Park 1648 CKS U1515 T75 (Romney) House and enclosed Great Park let to Sir John Gore by Robert Smyth in 1647 demised back 1649 TNA LR2/196 Otford survey Secondary evidence: Adams (ed) (1995:71-81) Household Accounts and Disbursement Books of Robert Dudley, Earl of Leicester Arch.Cant. V (1862/3:328-330) Arch.Cant. XX (1893:100-101) Arch.Cant. XXXI (1915:2-24) 'The Manor House and Great Park at Otford' by Hesketh Arch.Cant. XXXIX (1927:156) Arch.Cant. XLI (1929:1-11) 'The Making of the Great Park at Otford' by Ward Arch.Cant. LXXIII (1959:116-124) Brennan & Kinnamon (eds.) (2003:150,161,164,166-171,174,179,188,190) A Sidney Chronology 1554-1654 Bruce (ed.) (Camden1868:20) Diary of John Manningham XCIX - 1602 says park being disparked) 422 Clarke & Stoyel (1975:114-123,132-133) Otford in Kent Cole (1999:80-81,186-187) Portable Queen du Boulay (1952:19-36) 'Archbishop Cranmer and the Canterbury Temporalies' in English Historical Review 67 no.262 du Boulay (ed.) (1964:223) Kent Records XVIII du Boulay (1966:225,262) Lordship of Canterbury Edwards (1988:114-115) The Horse Trade of Tudor and Stuart England Elder (c.1950s:6-11) Otford Past and Present Hanney, Kinnamon & Brennan (eds.) (2005:45-46,48,50,59-60,87,91,129-131) Domestic Politics and Family Absence Harris (1719:229) History of Kent Hay (1984:50-57,152-155,189) The Life of Robert Sidney, Earl of Leicester 1563-1626 KCC SMR TQ 55 NW 18 - KE315 Archbishop's palace, park Kingsford & Shaw (eds.) (1925:xi,240,300) HMC on the Manuscripts of Lord De L’Isle and Dudley I Kingsford & Shaw (eds.) (1934:107& series of letters Whyte to Sidney 1596-1600) HMC Report on the Manuscripts of Lord De L’Isle and Dudley II Lambarde (1576, 1596 – a deer park: 460) Owen (ed.) (1980:137) Calendar of the Manunscripts of the Most Honourable the Marquess of Bath 5 Nichols (ed.) (1860Camden:265-266) Narratives of the Days of the Reformation Phillips (1930:vol.I, 210-211, vol.II,395) History of Sackville Family Shaw (ed.) (1936:88,417,421-422,431) HMC Report on the Manuscripts of Lord De L’Isle and Dudley III Shaw (ed.) (1942:265,310) HMC Report on the Manuscripts of Lord De L’Isle and Dudley IV VCH I (reprint1974:473) Ward (1980:80-81,86-87,128-129,157-161,204-205,215-217) Sevenoaks Essays Watson (ed.) (1999:28-29,38) A History of the Parish of Chevening Zell (2000:60) Early Modern Kent Maps: 1575 Saxton 1576 Anonymous 1596 Symonson - not named but unambiguous 1605 Norden 1611 Speed Fieldwork: OS Explorer (2½inch to mile) TQ528592 Otford Palace, park lies to southeast 18 May 2004 – Inconclusive preliminary visit. Acknowledgements: Peter Mayer, Cliff Ward (63) OTFORD – LITTLE Parish: Otford Earliest reference: 1241onwards (Cal.Close. 1237-42, 275) LC Ownership: 423 1241 Archbishop of Canterbury > 1575 leased for a series of 21 years to Sidney family Size: 1541 = 240a (Survey): 1645 = 83 acres (CKS U93 T11-20) Documentary evidence: 1525 CCA Register T folio 254 Archbishop to Sir George Marsham indenture demesne lands in manor of Otford includes fields called New Park, Little New Park 1526 CCA Register T folio 313 Archbishop to John Palmer indenture demesne lands in manor of Otford includes fields called New Park, Little New Park 1548 TNA E101/497/4 Survey, pale rotten, almost fallen down. Length 6 furlongs 8 perches. 7 watercourses clogged up 1553 CKS U1475 E21/1&2 (dLD) Edward VI, Survey - in 2 parts both with different aspects of information 1553 CPR 2&3 Philip and Mary, Little park ordered to be disparked 1556 CKS U1450 T6/28 (Stanhope) Mentions Patent of Edward VI in 1553 to Henry Sydney, then disparked 1556 C66/899 mm24-25 (U1450 T6/28 Stanhope) To Cardinal Pole, Little park of Otford, then disparked, lands called le Park at Maidstone ... Also with numerous others lands, park of Saltwood; house and site of late monastery of St Augustine near walls of Canterbury, the park called Canterbury Park adjacent to the house; the parks of Aldington and Otford; the park of Knoll late parcel of lands of John, Duke of Northumberland, attainted. 1560 CKS U1475 T87 (dDL) Sir Henry Sidney demises all grounds etc. (but not hunting rights) to servant John Walker for 20 years, to send wheat, malt, oats to Penshurst, repair houses and enclosures, Sidney free to come to hunt 1565 CKS U1475 T87 (dDL) All above, but for 17 years 1567 BL Add Mss 36804 Sydney fine of £13/6/8 for Little park 1568 CPR 21-lease to disparked park to Henry Sidney, considering surrender of 30 year lease from Edward VI in 1553 1569 BL Add.Mss. 36805 as 1567 above but for £20 1569 CPR 21-year lease to Multon for lands including lands enclosed in Otford park in consdieration of surrender of indenture of Henry VIII in 1531 1573 BL Lansd.82 no.55 (transcript Arch.Cant. V) Extent of royal manor of Otford includes Great and Little parks 1578 CPR 21-year lease to Pawlyn, Stone, Llewin demesne lands in Otford including lands enclosed in Otford park leases to Multon in CPR1569 1580 CPR 21-year lease to Henry Sidney 1600 SP12/273/117 Lease 21 years to Lady Ursula Walsingham widow, rent £20, fine £20 1601 CPR 3 May As above 1607 Will of 7 August, Thomas Sackville has taken over the lease 1611 CKS U269 E45 (Sackville) Cicelie Dowager Duchess of Dorset gives John Bloome power of attorney to receive rents and take action against defaulters 1612 CKS QM/SRc 1612/59 & QM/SRc 1612/110 Two cases of illegal fishing 1631 CKS U93 T11-20 Sale by Sir Thomas Brodewick, Alcocke and Shalcrosse to Langton and Spurstowe demesne lands in manor of Otford includes fields called New Park, Little New Park and all disparked Little Park 1645 CKS U93 T11-20 Farnaby holds lease, fields in Little Park listed 1645 CKS U1000/1 T1 (Farnaby) will of Thomas Farnaby proved 1647, mentions Little Park now disparked c. 1650 CKS U269 E48 (Sackville) outlines mortgage to Henry Smith for £10000 by Richard Sackville c.1610, and present Earl negotiating new rent, house and park rent £130, 424 but value £100 Secondary evidence: Arch.Cant. V (1862/3:328-330) Arch.Cant. XLI (1929:1) 'The Making of the Great Park at Otford' by Ward Clarke & Stoyel (1975:116-123) Otford in Kent du Boulay (ed.) (1964:276-277,285,291) Kent Records XVIII Harris (1719:229) History of Kent Hasted 3 (1797:24-29) Hewlett (1974:94-110) 'Reconstructing Historical Landscape: Otford in Kent' in Agricultural History Review Kingsford & Shaw (eds.) (1925:300) HMC on the Manuscripts of Lord De L’Isle and Dudley I Lambarde (1576 – a deer park: 1596 – disparked) (compare 1553 CPR 2&3 Philip and Mary) Phillips (1930:232,271) History of Sackville Family I VCH I (reprint1974:473) Ward 1980:215) Sevenoaks Essays Maps: 1575 Saxton 1575 Anonymous 1702 CKS U1867 P1 (original missing and only 1 part of 1 photocopy found in CKS) Fieldwork: OS Explorer (2½inch to mile) TQ527585 middle of park 18 May 2004, 8 May 2007, 17 & 19 June 2007 – Picked up parts of E, W and N boundaries, M26 hampered search for S. Acknowledgements: Peter Mayer, Cliff Ward (64) OTFORD – NEW Parish: Otford Earliest reference: 1386-1486 breaking into new park (TNA C1/4/177) Ownership: 1386 Archbishop of Canterbury > 1537 to Henry VIII > Leased out Size: 1515 = less than 90a, but originally larger (Clarke): 1544 = 202a (Phillips II, p.395) Documentary evidence: 1386-1486 TNA C1/4/177 Henry Archbishop of Canterbury v. others breaking the new park and kill deer, assaulting the parker 1525 CCA Register T folio 254 Archbishop to Sir George Marsham indenture demesne lands in manor of Otford includes fields called New Park, Little New Park 1526 CCA Register T folio 313 Archbishop to John Palmer indenture demesne lands in manor of Otford includes fields called New Park, Little New Park 1544 CPR 4 February, Tithe dispute with vicar of Sevenoaks settled, New park = 202a 425 1577-1611 CKS U2007 T155 Indentures via letters patent of Elizabeth I of Otford manor demesne land includes New Park, leases passed from Fludd, Multon, Lambarde etc. 1631 CKS U93 T11-20 Sale by Sir Thomas Brodewick, Alcocke and Shalcrosse to Langton and Spurstowe demesne lands in manor of Otford includes fields called New Park, Little New Park and all disparked Little Park Secondary evidence: Arch.Cant. XLI (1929:1) 'The Making of the Great Park at Otford' by Ward du Boulay (ed.) (1964:276-277,285,291) Kent Records XVIII Hewlett (1974:94-110) 'Reconstructing Historical Landscape: Otford in Kent' in Agricultural History Review Phillips (1930: vol.I -232,271, vol.II -395) History of Sackville Family Ward 1980:215) Sevenoaks Essays Maps: 1819 Sale plan of New Park (Copy in Otford Parish Archives, GW NG 03) Fieldwork: OS Explorer (2½inch to mile) TQ527594 Park Farm 18 May 2004, 21 August 2005 – Rough idea about most borders, needs refining. Acknowledgements: Peter Mayer, Cliff Ward (65, 66) OXENHOATH Parish: West Peckham Earliest reference: 1576 2 disparked parks (Lambarde) Ownership: pre 1370 Culpepper family > 1484 Sir Richard Culpepper d. > daughter Mrs William Cotton, their son Thomas sold to John Chown of Fairlawn, Wrotham > 1626 sold to Nicholas Miller Size: Documentary evidence: Secondary evidence: Arch.Cant CXI (1993:237) Cole (1999:186-187) Portable Queen Hasted 5 (1797:63) Lambarde (1576, 1596 – disparked x2) Maps: 1621 CKS U31 P3 copy and copy BL 188.j.2. (15) Manor of Oxenhoth, all fields including The Warren, Upper Park, Lower Park with some paling shown Fieldwork: OS Explorer (2½inch to mile) TQ627515 Oxen Hoath Park: site of 2nd park unknown 426 Acknowledgements: (67) PANTHURST / SEVENOAKS Parish: Sevenoaks (See also Knole(50) park profile – both held together C16th into C17th) Earliest reference: 1348 patent of 28 January licence to impark Sevenoaks Park (Way) Ownership: 1479 acquired by Archbishop Thomas Bourchier (TNA C143/145/21) > 1537 from Archbishop Cranmer to Henry VIII (CKS U1450/T1/3 > > 1550 grant by Edward VI to Earl of Warwick (CKS U1590 T1/8) > 1556 Mary I to Cardinal Pole (CPR C66/899 mm24- 25) > 1559 Elizabeth I to Henry Lord Hunsdon (CKS U269/E30) > 1561 Elizabeth I to Robert Dudley (Phillips) > 1566 Elizabeth I grant to Sir Thomas Sackville, after surrender by Dudley (Phillips II p.398) > 1625 Smith buys from Edward Earl of Dorset (CKS U269/ T1) > 1629 Edward Sackville Earl of Dorset and others repay Smith to regain lands (CKS U269/T1) Size: 1544 = 60a 2 roods (1544 CPR 4 February): 1555 = 120a (CKS U1000/2 T1): 1614 = 390a (CKS U269/T1): 1630 = 424a (CKS U442/P102) Documentary evidence: 1471 LPL Archbishops estates B Account roll no. 285 Receiver's accounts 1537 CKS U1450 T1/3 (Stanhope) From Archbishop Cranmer to King 1544 CPR 4 February, Tithe dispute with vicar of Sevenoaks settled, Panthurst park = 60a 2 roods 1547 CKS U1590 T1/5 (Stanhope) Edward VI grant of office of keeping Panthurst park + other things to Sir Thomas Seymour 1554 CPR Joan duchess of Northumberland surrenders manors and the parks Panthurst, Knole, Southfirth, Northfrith, Poster, and Cage and is then granted them for life 1555 BL Harl 75E31 Inspection of indenture John Dudley Duke of Northumberland to Harper and Culpepper 1555 BL Harl75H23 lease Pole to Harper and Culpepper includes Northfirth, Postern, Cage, Panthurst, but not Knole Park 1555 CKS U1000/2 T1 (Lambarde) Indenture, on back says Sevenoaks Park, 120a Wildgoose/Wilkinson to Potkyn 120a 1556 CKS U1450 T5/69 (Stanhope) Late Duke of Northumberland's lands granted to Harper and Culpepper now Panthurst to Christopher Roper 1556-59 CKS U1000/2 T1 (Lambarde) Receipts/invoices between Wildgoose and Potkyn re Sevenoaks Park 1559 CPR Manor of Sevenoaks to Baron Hunsdon, Henry Carey 1561 CPR 1 March, Fee simple to Robert Dudley includes parks at Knole and Panthurst park rent etc. given 1566 CKS U1450 T6/30 (Stanhope) Sublet by Dudley to Rolfe + Panthurst Park, with conditions, Knole enclosed ground with deer and conies and Panthurst enclosed park 1567 U1450 T5/40 (Stanhope) Executors of Rolfe re Panthurst Park, describes all the subdivisions within park and who rented them 1569 U1450 T5/66(Stanhope) Grant by Thomas Bacon to Davy Treavor and wife of park of Panthurst by executorship of will of Christopher Roper, late husband of Treavor's wife 1569 CKS U1450 E20 (Stanhope) Memorandum over title of park 1570 U1450 T6/12 (Stanhope) Knole mansion and park, enclosed park of Panthurst to John 427 Lennard 1571 U269 T1 (Sackville) Lovelace to Treavor to take possession of Knole and Panthurst to convey to Sir Thomas Sackville under document of 18 July 1570 1573 U1450 T6/31 (Stanhope) John, Sampson and Margaret Lennard assign Panthurst and park to Henry Lennard 1574 U1450 T6/32 (Stanhope) Davy at request of Thomas Sackville assigns Panthurst park to Henry Lennard, granted to Sackville by Thomas and Elizabeth Bacon 1578 TNA E133/557 Cranwell v. Lennard re park and wood demised by John, late Duke of Northumberland to Sir George Harper and Thomas Culpeper and by them leased to Christopher Roper in trust for late Cardinal Pole 1578 CKS U1450 E20/21 (Stanhope) Testimony back to Cardinal Pole's time from Richard Bulleyn who lived in Panthurst Lodge re oxen and cattle in park 1578 E133/3/557 Cranwell v Lennard. Duke of Nhumberland demised this and Whitley to Sir George Harper and Thomas Culpepper and by them leased to Chrstopher Roper in trust for late Lord Cardinal Pole, 1603 CKS U269 T1 (Sackville) Lennard sells lease of Knole and Panthurst to Sackville, except for running subleases (this document clarifies the previous ones) 1603/4 CKS U269 A2/1 (Sackville) Account of steward of house mention of Knole park, Panthurst Park 40 rent lambs paid for part of rent by Moses Oliver 1605 CKS U269 T1 (Sackville) Earl of Dorset to Heydon and others grants use of whole estate, + Panthurst 1605 SP14/13/58 Grant to Rowland White and others of lordship of Knole etc. (seems to include Panthurst) 1606 Will of Moses Olyver yeoman, farmhouse I dwell in, lands + appurtenances in Panthurst park leased from Sampson Lennard 1610 CKS U269 T1 (Sackville) Rivers & Smith v. Amherst & Lyndsey recovery of manors of Knole and Panthurst, Richard Earl of Dorset vouchee 1610 U269 E66/1 & 2 (Sackville) Survey of lands of Earl of Dorset includes land lying in Panthurst Park of 150a tenanted by Thomas Hounden for £100 pa 1614 CKS U269 T1 (Sackville) Particular of manor of Knole, describes house, park with conies (no deer mentioned), 550a, and Panthurst park 390a, lodge, with pale, besides 30a meadow occupied by Earl of Dorset, in tenure of William Lond by lease to Moses Oliver 1615 CKS U269 T1 (Sackville) Richard Earl of Dorset to Howard, Rivers and others manors including Knole and Panthurst to recover debts, + counterpart 1624 CKS U269 T1 (Sackville) Earl of Dorset agrees to sell manor of Knole, Knole park and Panthurst to Sir George Rivers and others; same date King to judge use of recovery Dorset v. Rivers and others 1625 CKS U269 T1 (Sackville) Smith buys from Edward Earl of Dorset, Rivers and others Knole house and park, Panthurst park, land called Old Park in Seal and Kemsing 1629 CKS U269 T1 (Sackville) Edward Earl of Dorset and others repay Smith of 1625 to regain all lands 1629/30 CKS U269 A41/1/1 (Sackville) Blome's account for year, includes cutting bushes in Panthurst Park) 1632 CKS IPM Samuel Lone, father of George, includes Sevenoaks Park and warren 1634 CKS U269 T1 (Sackville) Royal protection for one year from all actions sureties by bond for Richard late Earl of Dorset 1648 CKS U1000/2 T1 bundle 2 Lone and others to heirs of Tymperly 80a park, land outlined c. 1650 CKS U269 E48 (Sackville) Outlines mortgage to Henry Smith for £10000 by Richard Sackville c.1610, and present Earl negotiating new rent, house and park rent £130, 428 but value £100 1654 CKS U1000/2 T1 bundle 2 Lone and son to Lambarde impaled park of Sevenoaks Park Secondary evidence: Arch.Cant XXXVIII (1926:54-55) Barrett-Lennard (1908:113-125) An Account of the Families of Lennard and Barrett Clarke and Stoyel (1975:110-123) Otford in Kent Craig (undated, unpaginated) Weald in Days Gone By Fox (2002) The History of Sevenoaks up to 1650 with CD database of West Kent wills to 1650 Fox, Williams & Mountfield (2007:36) Seal –history of a parish Hasted 3 (1797:64-79) Lambarde (1576, 1596 – disparked) Phillips (1930:vol.I, 35, vol.II,394-401) History of Sackville Family Ward (1980:17-19,42-44,182-185.215-216) Sevenoaks Essays Way (1997:Appendix 7) A Study of the Impact of Imparkment on the Social Landscape of Cambridgeshire and Huntingdonshire from c1080 to 1760 - Appendix of calendar roll entries for parks Zell (2000:60) Early Modern Kent Maps: 1630 CKS U442 P102 Panters park map 1877 (from Ward, 1927) Homelands and Panthurst Famr of Multon Lambarde, shows field names Fieldwork: OS Explorer (2½inch to mile) TQ533516 Panthurst 14 May 2005 – All boundaries as on 1630 found on the ground and could be draws on modern OS Acknowledgements: Ramon Higgs (68) PEMBURY Parish: Pembury Not in Lambarde or on the early maps so probably disparked before 1558 Earliest reference: 1396 Licence to enlarge (Cal.Chart. 1341-1417, 368) LC Ownership: Uncertain which manor (Pembury or Bayhall) the park was attached to and ownership also very uncertain. Pembury came to Henry VIII via the Reformarion and Bayhall in 1521 after the attainder of the Duke of Buckingham. Henry VIII granted Pembury to the Wybarnes who retained it via two daughters. Bayhall was granted in 1547 by Edward VI to William Parr > 1551 Sir Anthony Browne > 1552 William Wybarne > ... 7 James I Wybarn sold to Robert Sackville (but see 1577 below) Size: Documentary evidence: 429 1577 CPR no.1646, 1 May, Licence to alienate manor of Pembury Thomas Sackville to Thomas Smyth 1610 U269 E66/1&2 Survey of Earl of Dorset lands, includes Manor of Bayhall, south of Pembury, capital messuage and land called Park meadow and other land and woodland Secondary evidence: Arch.Cant.XLII (1930:173-178) Buckingham (Autumn1983/Spring1984:189) 'Inflation 1581' in Kent Recusant History, nos. 10-11 Harris (1719:236) History of Kent Hasted 5 (1797:264-267) Maps: Fieldwork: OS Explorer (2½inch to mile) TQ625395 Great Bayhall Acknowledgements: (69) PENSHURST – ASHOUR / ASHOWER Parish: Penshurst, Bidborough, Leigh Earliest reference: 1407 (IPM vol.XIX 7-14 Henry IV) Ownership: 1460 Crown to Henry Stafford 1st Duke of Buckingham > 1521 Duke of Buckingham beheaded, back to Crown > 1552 Edward VI to Sir William Sidney d.1586 > son Sir Robert Sidney d.1626 and remains in family to present Size: 1552 = 342a (CKS U1475 M59): 1612 = 122a (CKS U1475 T55/22, below old warren 50a, lands called Ashore 72a Documentary evidence: 1407 IPM vol.XIX 7-14 Henry IV Philip Sentclere died possessed of Ashour the park so called of the earl of Stafford of his castle of Tonbridge by the service of a quarter of one knight's fee, valued at 8/4d 1552 CKS U1475 M59 Sir Henry Sidney's extent of grant included park and lodge in Ashore park, with acreage for park (not named after description, but in same document sizes for Leigh, Northlands and South parks are given – only leaving Ashour) 1553 CKS U1475 T33 (dLD) Sidney rented out park, bounds described, warren but no deer mentioned 1560 CKS U1475 E1 (dLD) Sidney to Rivers of London indenture South Park and woods from Ashore park 1570 CKS U1475 T33 (dLD) Sidney to Somer lodge in park, lands 1571/2 CKS U1475 A6/6 (dLD) Bailiff's account includes half year farm of Ashower park 1574 CKS U1475 T33 (dLD) Sidney to Cole, lodge in park, bounds with bank, part of farm of Ashower park, cony game 1612 CKS U1475 T55/22A (dLD) Sidney to Constable lease for old warren alias Brixhill 1623 CKS U1475 E55/4 (dLD) Timber felled in Ashower 430 1640 CKS U1475 T55/22 (dLD) Earl to Fuller cottage, old warren 50a, lands called Ashore 72a Secondary evidence: Arch.Cant. CXXIV (2004:104) Bannister (1994) Historic Landscape Survey of Penshurst Estate Colvin, Moggridge Filkins (1994) Penshurst Place Park - History and Restoration Management Plan Crossley (ed.) (1975:31) Sidney Ironworks Accounts 1541-1573 Furley (1874:429) Weald of Kent II part 2 Hasted 3 (1797:259-260) Kingsford & Shaw (eds.) (1925:235-236) HMC on the Manuscripts of Lord De L’Isle and Dudley I Lambarde (1576, 1596 – deer park) But leases above indicate disparkment perhaps in 1550s Shaw & Owen (eds.) (1962:43) Report on the Manuscripts of Lord De L’Isle and Dudley V Maps: 1740 CKS U1500 P1 Survey of Penshurst, new and old parks, deer in old park, fields in new. Fieldwork: OS Explorer (2½inch to mile) TQ547442 Ashour Farm Nicola Bannister in Survey of 1994 has identified boundaries Acknowledgements: Dr Nicola Bannister, Viscount De L'Isle, (70) PENSHURST – LEIGH / NORTH Parish: Leigh Earliest reference: 1316 (Cal.Pat. 1313-1317, 586) LC (North and South Parks – locations uncertain) Ownership: 1460 Crown to Henry Stafford 1st Duke of Buckingham > 1521 Duke of Buckingham beheaded, back to Crown > 1552 Edward VI to Sir William Sidney d.1586 > son Sir Robert Sidney d.1626 and remained in family into Charles I's reign Size: 1551 = 300a (CKS U1475 M58): 1552 = 470a (CKS U1475 M59): 1594 = 600a (CKS U1475 T61/4) Documentary evidence: 1414 CPR 27 October, King grants to Smetheley Dent and Spayne lands of Philip Sentclere at death in king's hands because of minority of heirs, park called Leigh North park and 100a adjoining 1485 CKS U1475 E1 (dLD) Chamberlain to Golding and Wande oaks in Leigh Park 1551/2 CKS U1475 M58 (dLD) Exchequer survey and gift of manors late of Sir Rauf Fane now Sidney. Northland park 250a with deer, Leigh park 300a in hands of John Weston 431 1552 CPR 26 June Grnat of land at Penshurst to Sidney includes North park of Leigh 1552/3 CKS U1475 M59 (dLD) Survey, extent of grant = Northland park 354a within pale, South park within bounds and closures 120a, Lighe park 470a within compass of pale 1553 CKS U1475 T61/2 (dLD) Sidney to servant John Harrison let park Northeighe park 500a with lodge for 20 years with conditions 1562 CPR 10 September Granted licence of alienation by Sidney to Dudley and others - covenented lands including N park of Leigh, involves Henry Sidney's wife being sister to Ambrose earl of Warwick and Robert Dudley 1576 CKS U1475 T61/3 (dLD) Sidney to Willoughby, Weston, Willard about wood taken and price, conditions of sale in Leigh or North Park in parishes of Leigh and Tonbridge 1579 CKS U1475 E1 (dLD) Sale of woods in Leigh park to Willoughby, Weston, Willard 1594 CKS U1475 T61/4 (dLD) Sidney to Polhill, his servant, Leigh Park 600a in Leigh parish now with Harrison for 21 years with 2 lodges, old pales to be replaced with hedge 1601 CKS U1500 E1 (dLD) Costs of repair lodges in Leigh Park, document on ' the decays of certain farmhouses' 1607 CKS U1475 T61 (dLD) James I grant of Leigh Park alias Northpark with lodge and 500a, sale of oaks in park to Viscount Lisle 1607 CKS U1475 T61/1 (dLD) Sale of 1000+ oaks in Leigh park, Chamberlain to others 1615 CKS U1475 T61/6 (dLD) Lisle to Polhill 21-year lease for 2 lodges, 500a Leigh park, rent money, oats, pig, calf 1623 CKS U1475 E55/4 (dLD) Timber felled 1629 Havard Law School library BHC2720 - Sale Earl of Leicester to Leeche and Whitfield of land except the park called Lee alias Leigh Park alias the North Park of Leigh 1639 CKS U1475 T61/7 (dLD) Earl of Leicester to Webb and Turner 2 lodges, 500a lease for 20 years., Lee alias Leigh park alias North park of Leigh. This lease has location points which indicate this park was N of road through Leigh and therefore not the area immediately N of Penshurst Place Secondary evidence: Arch. Cant CXXIV (2004:104) Crossley (ed.) (1975:31) Sidney Ironworks Accounts 1541-1573 Deputy Keeper of Records (1905:deed1525) Descriptive Catalogue of Ancient Deeds of the PRO VI Furley (1874:429) Weald of Kent II part 2 Hanney, Kinnamon & Brennan (eds.) (2005:55,59,133) Domestic Politics and Family Absence Harris (1719:189) History of Kent Hasted 3 (1797:258) Kingsford & Shaw (eds.) (1925:xxiii,11,13,14,235-236) HMC on the Manuscripts of Lord De L’Isle and Dudley I Lambarde (1576, 1596 – disparked) Maps: Fieldwork: OS Explorer (2½inch to mile) TQ535476 Leigh Park Farm Acknowledgements: 432 (71) PENSHURST / NORTHLANDS Parish: Penshurst, Leigh (North park and Northlands park can get confused – have put early references for North park here because it appears to have been the main park before the C16th, but by 1550s the two parks are more clearly differentiated) Earliest reference: 1290 onwards (Cal.Pat. 1281-92, 407) LC Ownership: 1460 Crown to Henry Stafford 1st Duke of Buckingham > 1521 Duke of Buckingham beheaded, back to Crown > 1552 Edward VI to Sir William Sidney d.1586 > son Sir Robert Sidney d.1626 and remains in family Size: 1551 = 250a (CKS U1475/M58): 1552 = 354a (CKS U1475/M59): 1740, Old Park = 626a, New Park = 431a (CKS U1500/P1) Documentary evidence: 1308 Cal.Pat. 1307-1313, 2620 (LC) Pardon to Thomas son of Simon de Hevere for breaking Brokesham park, the close of William Moraunt, and the park of Penecestre 1356 CKS U1475 T4/2 (dLD) Quitclaim William son of Sir John Pulteney to Loveyne Ospringe, Penshurst, Yenesfield, Northpark 1359 CKS U1475 E1 dLD) de Pultney gift to Madole and Smyworthe chaplains of Penshurst Yensfield and Northpark, Ashore, Emmotelands, lands in Leigh, Tonbridge and Bidborough 1371 CKS U1475 T4/13 (dLD) Bishop of Winchester grant to various people of all estates in Penshurst, Northpark 1356 CKS U1475 T4/2 Pulteney to Loveeyne touching manor of Northpark 1370 CKS U1475 T4/13 grant by Bishop of Winchester to variou of all estates in Penshurst, Northpark 1424 CKS U1475 T4/7 Chamberlain re manor of Northpark after death of mother Margaret 1424 CKS U1475 T4/17 (dLD) Richard Chamburleyn confirming 15 manors including Northpark inherited via mother 1484 U1475 T4/20 (dDL) Charter of Richard Chamberlain transferring manors of Penshurst, Northpark, Hever inherited through death of brother William 1551/2 CKS U1475 M58 (dLD) Exchequer survey and gift of manors late of Sir Rauf Fane now toSidney - Northland park 250a with deer, Leigh park 300a 1552/3 CKS U1475 M59 (dLD) Survey, extent of grant = Northland park 354a within pale, South park within bounds and closures 120a, Lighe park 470a within compass of pale 1553 CKS U1475 T61/2 (dLD) Sidney to servant John Harrison let park Northeighe park with lodge for 20 years with conditions 1562 CKS U1475 A24 (dLD) Account of clerk of works at Penshurst, work on levelling and paling garden, reference to swine mast in Northlands for a year 1571/2 CKS U1475 A6/6 (dLD) Bailiff's account includes taking of deer 19s 2d 1573 CKS U1475 L17 (dLD) Examinations of illegal deer hunting at Penshurst Park 1574 CKS U1475 E31 + E42/1 (2 docs) (dLD) illegal deer hunting of 1573 judgement (detailed) 1589 TNA SP12/224/80 Names of horses in keeping of Thomas Underwood, many from Penshurst with Sidney family named 1595 CKS U1475 T33 (dLD) Sidney to Whitfield lease land outside pale 1599 TNA Assize Calendar March 1601 no.2856 Hunted deer with greyhounds 1600 CKS U1475 L18 + U1475 E42/2 (dLD) Many trespass and unlawfully hunt, 433 depositions and examinations in preparation for Star Chamber (very detailed) 1599-1601 TNA 5STAC S2/20, S21/31, S68/33, S74/15, S41/5 all relate to CKS U1475 L18 etc 1601 CKS U1475 C36/3 (dLD) Sidney to Golding re poachers in lane outside park attacking parkers 1603 CKS U1475 E47 (dLD) Terry, deer keeper's note of deer, what killed, why and when 1604 CKS Q/SR4/15 Men hunted and took deer in park in Penshurst & Leigh 1605 TNA SP14/14/1 Robert Lord Sidney created Viscount Lisle 1619 CKS U1475 T33 (dLD) Sidney to Whitfield lease land outside pale 1620 TNA SP14/108/53 Earl of Leicester's debts being very great 1622 TNA SP14/132/46 Discharge to earl of Leicester for all liabilites of debt on goods or lands due to Crown from Sir Henry Sidney, his father, a similar pardon having been lately granted to the earl of Clanricarde and his countess (Sir Philip Sidney's widow) by whom these debts should have been paid 1624/5 CKS U1475 A27/7 (dLD) Deer eaten in the house, rabbits from the park 1628/9 CKS U1475 A28/4 (dLD) Servants wages, no park keeper there, but 34 named servants and role BL Add.Mss. 12066 c. Charles I Detailed account of Sir Robert Sidney's income and expenditure over several decaides Secondary evidence: Arch.Cant. XLII (1930:173-178) Arch.Cant. CXI (1993:43-56) 'Sidney of Penshurst - Robert 2nd earl of Leicester' by Hull Bannister (1994) Historic Landscape Survey of Penshurst Estate Brennan & Kinnamon (2003:163,168,200,218) A Sidney Chronology 1554-1654 Buckingham (Autumn 1983/Spring 1984:189) Kent Recusant History no.10/11 Chalklin (1965:12-13) Seventeenth Century Kent Colvin, Moggridge Filkins (1994) Penshurst Place Park - History and Restoration Management Plan Crossley (ed.) (1975:182185-186,197) Sidney Ironworks Accounts 1541-1573 de Launay (1984) Cranbrook Kent: Wills 1396-1640 - for Woodgate family Eland (1960:44-45) Thomas Wotton's Letter-Book English Heritage G421 Historic Parks and Gardens register Everitt (1966:166-167) The Community of Kent and the Great Rebellion 1640-1660 Hanney, Kinnamon & Brennan (eds.) (2005:135,148,157,160-164,199,202,207,255-257) Domestic Politics and Family Absence Domestic Politics Hasted 1 (1797:297) Hasted 3 (1797:228-241,558) Hay (1984:50,52,54-55,57-58,155,161,171,186-188,191,208) Life of Sir Robert Sidney KCC SMR TQ 54 SW 26 - KE 9315 medieval deer park, walled gardens. Penshurst Place listed Grade 1 building. Kingsford & Shaw (eds.) (1925:xi,236-237,242,257,300 ) HMC Report on the Manuscripts of Lord De L’Isle and Dudley I Kingsford & Shaw (eds.) (1934:427,463,467) HMC Report on the Manuscripts of Lord De L’Isle and Dudley II Lambarde (1576, 1596 – a deer park) Mileson (2009:40-41) Parks in Medieval England Nichols (1977reprint:xvi-xvii) Progresses of James I Owen (ed.) (1966:153) HMC Report on the Manuscripts of Lord De L’Isle and Dudley VI Sackville-West (1923: 75-78) Diary of Lady Anne Clifford 434 Shaw (ed.) (1936:155,190,386,431) HMC Report on the Manuscripts of Lord De L’Isle and Dudley III Shaw (ed.) (1942:265-266,302,308,310) HMC Report on the Manuscripts of Lord De L’Isle and Dudley IV Shaw & Owen (eds.) (1962:56,412-413) HMC Report on the Manuscripts of Lord De L’Isle and Dudley V Straker (1931:219) Wealden Iron Stone (1965:514-515) Crisis of the Aristocracy Thirsk (1977:6-7,14-15) 'Horses in early modern England Thirsk (ed.) (2008:51,115) Hadlow Zell (1994:22-23,42) Industry in the Countryside Maps: 1596 Symonson - not named but unambiguous 1605 Norden 1611 Speed 1740 CKS U1500 P1 Survey of Penshurst, new and old parks, deer in old park, fields in new Fieldwork: OS Explorer (2½inch to mile) TQ528440Penshurst Place, park to north August 2004, 22 January 2005, 14 March 2005, August 2006 – Walked through parkland. S, W borders more certain but need to check E and N. Extent of park in Tudor times unknown. Acknowledgements: Dr Nicola Bannister, Dr Michael Brennan, Lionel Cole, Viscount De L'Isle, Dr James Gibson, Dr Noel Kinnamon, Ian Scott, Professor Germaine Warkentin, Christopher Waterman (72) PENSHURST - SOUTH Parish: Penshurst Earliest reference: 1316 (Cal.Pat. 1313-1317, 586) LC (North and South Parks– locations uncertain) Ownership: 1460 Crown to Henry Stafford 1st Duke of Buckingham > 1521 Duke of Buckingham beheaded, back to Crown > 1552 Edward VI to Sir William Sidney d.1586 > son Sir Robert Sidney d.1626, and remained in family into Charles I's reign Size: 1552/3 = 120a (CKS U1475/M59) Documentary evidence: 1407 IPM Philip Sentclere IPM vol.XIX 7-14 Henry IV – 80a pasture value 20s called South Park of Robert Lovell and Walter Polle of their manor of Fawkham in gavelkind by fealty 8s rent and suit of court annual value 10s 1414 CPR 27 October King grants to Smetheley Dent and Spayne lands of Philip Sentclere at death in king's hands because of minority of heirs. 80a pasture called Southpark 1552 CKS U1475 M60 (dLD) Lands at Penshurst and house adjoining South Park; Lady Willoughby living near 435 1552/3 CKS U1475 M59 (dLD) Grant to Sidney; extent of grant = Northland park 354a within pale, South park within bounds and closures 120a, Lighe park 470a within compass of pale 1539 CKS U1475 E1 (dLD) King's officers to Willoughby, Courtland and Southpark lease for 21 years 1560 CKS U1475 E1 (dLD) Sidney to Rivers of London indenture Courtlands and South Park and woods from Ashore park 1570 CKS U1475 E55/1 (dLD) Rivers bought from Sidney timber in 1550 'to be taken and felled within 21 years', Sidney now recovers as Rivers did not pay in full 1605 CKS U1475 T27 (dLD) Viscount Lisle to his baker, tenement, land and pasture within park, seems no deer then Secondary evidence: Kingsford & Shaw (eds.) (1934:427,438,482) HMC Report on the Manuscripts of Lord De L’Isle and Dudley II Lambarde (1576, 1596 – a deer park, but likely to mean South Park(12), Boughton Malberbe) Thirsk (ed.) (2008:76) Hadlow Maps: 1743 U1500 P3 Survey of woodlands of South Park Fieldwork: OS Explorer (2½inch to mile) TQ520426 South Park 23 May 2005, 12 March 2007 – Can put all but SW section of modern OS map. Acknowledgements: (73) POSTLING Parish: Postling Earliest reference: 1246 CPR of March confirmation of lease (Way) Ownership: 1546/7 Henry earl of Arundel alienated to Sir Anthony Aucher of Ottenden d.1556/7 > son John with 1 daughter m. Sir Humphrey Gilbert > 1579 Sir Humphrey Gilbert to Thomas Smythe of Westenhanger and stayed with Smiths into Charles I's reign. Size: Documentary evidence: 1576 CCA DCB-J/X.16 Hawkins v Boughton and Sladen tithe dispute, mentions sheep keeping in park, but unclear whether that is over all the land, no direct reference to disparking 1579 CPR 29 May, Pardon of alienation Gilbert to Thomas Smythe manor and parks of Postling James I PROP E44/3 Lease from King to Court of Wards for 3 to administer for Thomas Smyth in minority, heir to Sir John Smythe Secondary evidence: Hasted 8 (1797:210,213-215) 436 Mileson (2009:152-153) Parks in Medieval England Lambarde (1576, 1596 – a deer park) Way (1997): A Study of the Impact of Imparkment on the Social Landscape of Cambridgeshire and Huntingdonshire from c1080 to 1760 - Appendix of calendar roll entries for parks Maps: Fieldwork: OS Explorer (2½inch to mile) ?TR150400 Postling Wood, no park names Acknowledgements: (74) ROYDON Parish: East Peckham Earliest reference: 1590 land called The Lady Goldings Parke (CKS U48 P1) Ownership: early C16 - 1557 acquired by Thomas Roydon > 1557 to wife, then 5 daughters. Elizabeth (3rd daughter) bought out others. She m. William Twysden(1), Cuthbert Vaughan(2), Sir Thomas Golding(3). She d.1595 > 1595-1603 Roger Twysden, son by (1) succeeded > 1603-1628 William Twysden, son, knighted 1603, baronet 1611, m Anne d. of Sir Moyle Finch of Eastwell > 1622-1672 son Sir Roger Twysden Size: Documentary evidence: Secondary evidence: Arch.Cant. IV (1861:196-197) Arch.Cant LVIII (1936:44) Arch.Cant CXXIV (2004:137-141) 'The Religion of Sir Roger Twysden' by Petrie Chambers (1974:2-9) Roydon Hall - a brief history Hasted 5 (1797:96-97) Harris (1719:234) History of Kent Ward (1939:109,123) The Family of Twysden and Twisden Zell (ed.) (2000:88-89) Early Modern Kent Maps: 1590 CKS U48 P1 has land called The Lady Goldings Parke Fieldwork: OS Explorer (2½inch to mile) TQ666518 Roydon Hall Acknowledgements: Sue Petrie, Margaret Lawrence 437 (75) SALTWOOD Parish: Saltwood Earliest reference:1273/74 Kilwardby Survey (KAS wbesite) Ownership: Archbishop of Canterbury > 1537 Archbishop Cranmer exchanged to Henry VIII > 1556 Mary I to Cardinal Pole > after that uncertain – unable to distinguish line of ownership of park from manor Size: c.1521 = 1½ mile circuit (TNA SC12/9/48) (by calculation this would be about 114a Documentary evidence: 1273/74 Kilwardby Survey of the Archbishop's manors in S.E. England has Saltwood park (KAS website) 1281 CPR 6 July, Hunting and taking away deer from Archbishop of Canterbury (LC) 1391 LPL Archbishops estates B Account roll no. 946. Parker c.1521 TNA SC12/9/48 Henry VIII survey of castle and manor - 1½ mile circuit, 100 deer 1548 TNA E328/172 By letters patent Henry VIII made Sir Thomas Cheyne, treasurer of his household, constable of Saltwood and the office of keeping his chief messuage at Westenhanger, parks at Hostinhanger, Westenhanger, Allington and Saltwood 1556 C66/899 mm24-25 (U1450 T6/28 Stanhope) To Cardinal Pole, lands called le Park at Maidstone in tenure of Henry Smyth, all kinds of deer and wild beasts in the said park. Also with numerous others lands, park of Saltwood; ... the park called Canterbury Park adjacent to the house; the parks of Aldington and Otford; the park of Knoll late parcel of lands of John, Duke of Northumberland, attainted. Secondary evidence: Grose (1797:108-111) Antiquities of England and Wales III Harris (1719:270,383) History of Kent Hasted 8 (1797:222-225) Hasted has disparked by 1558 Lambarde (1576 – a deer park: 1596 –disparked) Liddiard (2005:58,64,150) Castles in Context Maps: Fieldwork: OS Explorer (2½inch to mile) TR161359 Saltwood Castle 19 November 2005 - Went round Brockhill Country Park in case it was part of Saltwood Park some time. Acknowledgements: (76) SCOTNEY Parish: Lamberhurst, Goudhurst Earliest reference: 1579 lease (ESRO Dyke-Hamilton 607) Ownership: 1411-1600 Darell family > 1491-1559 Thomas Darell > c.1513- 1598 (son)Thomas Darell > 1578-1639 William Darell 438 Size: 1597 = 100a wood called Scotney park (ESRO Dyke-Hamilton 607) Documentary evidence: 1579 (ESRO Dyke-Hamilton 606) Thomas Dyke of Chingley furnace lease lands including Scotney Park 1597 )ESRO Dyke-Hamilton 607) Darrells lease Dyke Chingely furnace and 100a wood called Scotney park Secondary evidence: Arch.Cant. XVII (1887:46-48) Bannister (2001) Scotney Castle Estate Historic and Archaeological Landscape Survey Hussey (1970) A History of Scotney Castle Sprange (1808) The Tunbridge Wells Guide Straker (1931:451-453) Wealden Iron (London, 1931) Maps: 1619 CKS U1776 P1 (Romney) Scotney Park, dense wood. 1872 OS 6" to mile Fieldwork: OS Explorer (2½inch to mile) TQ689353 Scotney castle 17 & 23 June 2007- Bannister (2001) describes extant boundaries of 1619 park, but I was unable to verify all of these. Acknowledgements: Dr Nicola Bannister (77) SCOT'S HALL Parish: Smeeth Earliest reference: 1575 Saxton - park near Hastingleigh could be this Ownership: Scotts descended form William Baliol the Scot, established in Brabourne c.1290 by marriage ... > Sir John Scott d.1485 > Sir William Scott d.1524 > Sir Thomas Scott d.1594 and continued in Scott family Size: Documentary evidence: 1597 TNAAssize Cal 35/40/3 no.2545 Poaching deer, poacher killed by keepers Secondary evidence: Cole (1999:186-187) Portable Queen Hasted 8 (1797:6) Lambarde (1576, 1596 – a deer park if 'at Ashford') Scott (1876:99-102,194-197,203-204) Memorials of the Scott Family of Scot's Hall Talbot (2003:27-33) Brabourne in History Maps: 1575 Saxton - park near Hastingleigh could be this 439 1576 Anonymous 1596 Symonson 1605 Norden 1611 Speed 1656 CKS U274 P1, deer shown in park and further south woodland called Olde Parke 1819 BL PS1/3379 1851 Estate map original in Lodge House, estate belonging to Lady Fanny Catherine Knatchbull, based on Tithe map Fieldwork: OS Explorer (2½inch to mile) TR080398 Scot's Hall plantation: TR073388 Park wood, earlier site 9 February 2005 - Borders found, some doubt about N. Acknowledgements: John and Jan Talbot of Lodge House, Jeremy Secker (78) SHURLAND / SHORELAND Parish: Eastchurch Earliest reference: 1532 Privy Purse Expenses of October (Daly) Ownership: Sir Robert Shurland's daughter m. Sir William de Cheney > great grandson Sir John Cheney ... > Sir Thomas Cheney d.1558 > Sir Henry Lord Cheney of Tuddington exchanged manor of Shurland in 1560s with Elizabeth I > 2 James I granted to Sir Philip Herbert and contunued with his descendants Size: 1572 = just under 400a (TNA SP12/87/1-3): 1604 = 300a (TNA E178/3925) Documentary evidence: ?1570 TNA SP12/75/39-47 All concern Sheppey, decay of Shurland House, renewal of lease including park under Holstocke 1570 TNA MPF1/272 Goes with Survey below 1572 TNA SP12/87/1-3 Map of Sheppey (above), survey of manor (below), 1572 TNA SP12/87/1-3 Survey of Sheppey, 220 deer, able to have 500, lodge on hill, underkeeper chamber accessed in house, good building for hay 1574 TNA SP12/98/15 Defence of Sheppey 1574 TNA SP12/98/29 Shurland House and only 40 deer left in park. Queen to take over. 1579 TNA SP12/131/39-41 Offers for lease of Shurland House from Aucher, Sentleger and others 1580 TNA SP12/143/35 Holdstock's answer to charges of neglect at Shurland 1580 TNA SP12/143/41 Report on survey and neglect of Shurland 1580 CPR Gorges and Auger mansion, lands and park 21-year lease, interesting conditions include building 10 houses for men with guns to defend the island 1604/5 TNA E178/3925 Manor of Shurland survey, park of 300a, but no deer specifically mentioned 1604 TNA SP14/10/78 Lease in reversion to Sir Philip Herbert and wife Susan and heirs of manor of Shurland and other lands in Sheppey, parcels of possessions of Thomas lord Cheney. 1605 TNA SP14/14/1 Sir Philip Herbert made Baron Herbert of Sheppey and earl of Montgomery. 440 1605 TNA STAC8 183/34 Philip Herbert earl of Montgomery v. Walter Taillour etc. deer stealing, poaching, destroying fence Secondary evidence: Arch.Cant. VII (1868:lviii-lix) Arch.Cant. XXIII (1898:88-93) Arch.Cant. XXIV (1899:122-125) Daly (1975reprint:136-151,165-194) History of the Isle of Sheppey Hasted 6 (1797:250-251) Hasted 7 (1797:lix) Lambarde (1576 – a deer park: 1596 – disparked: 256) Mee (1936:318-319) Kent Zell (ed.) (2000:10,24-25) Early Modern Kent Maps: 1575 Saxton 1576 Anonymous 1572 TNA MPF1/240 Isle of Sheppey, with the park shown Fieldwork: OS Explorer (2½inch to mile) TQ994715 Shurland 30 September 2006 - All boundaries investigated to some degree, excellent E boundary bank/ditch found. Acknowledgements: Dr Paul Lee, Jonathan Fryer (79) SISSINGHURST Parish: Cranbrook Earliest reference: 1576 Lambarde Ownership: lay 1490 Thomas Baker > 1497 (son) Richard Baker > 1504 –1558 Sir John Baker > son Sir Richard Baker d.1594 > John Baker d.1596 aged 40 > 1596-1623 Sir Henry Baker (son, minor, Sheriff of Kent 1604-5, knighted 1606, bought Baronetcy 1611. > 1623-1653 Sir John Baker Bt, boy when father died in 1623 Size: 1657 = 750a (CKS U24/T279) Documentary evidence: 1501 CKS U24 T428/1 (doc outside dated 1524) (Mann/Cornwallis) Richard Baker's will - nothing obvious re park 1557 CKS U24 T428/2 (Mann/Cornwallis) John Baker's will (no mention of parks obvious) 1559 CKS U24 T283 (Mann/Cornwallis) Court of Wards and Liveries grant, no park mentioned 1573? TNA SP12/93/37 Account of consumption of woods for clothing industry, except those spent by Sir Ricahrd Baker for his iron works 1583 TNA Assize 35/9/4/1236 Affray and killing at Goudhurst - no park but surnames same as in illegal hunting 1591 CKS U24 T428/3 (Mann/Cornwallis) Richard Baker's will, includes Sissinghurst park 441 1596 CKS U24 T283 (Mann/Cornwallis) Court of Wards and Liveries grant, mentions park 1596 CKS QM/SB/154 Killing deer with crossbow 1596 CKS QM/SB/162 & 163 Depositions about killing deer 1597/8 CKS QM/SI/11-13 Peter Maye arrested for illegal deer shooting on way to Maidstone gaol 2 others rescued him, 12 = Fosten discharging gun, 13 = Maye with crossbow 1598 CKS QM/SB/168 Examination about illegal deer killing here and at Rotherfield, Eridge, Ashdown Forest 1601 CKS QM/SB/387 Examinations about illegal deer hunting, 1602 CKS QM/SRc 1602/197 Apprentices bound over for illegal hunting 1604 CKS QM/SR1/15 & 16 Park broken into and deer killed in 1601 1604 CKS QM/SR1[Q/SR5/5]/15 Three broke into park c.1604 TNA STAC 5/13 Culpepper hunting in Ashdown Forest 1605 TNA STAC8 53/5 Culpepper and other killing deer, rabbits, pulling up fence, assaulting Baker's servants, offences back to 1600 1605 CKS QM/SIq 4/29 & 30 Hunting with greyhounds, killing deer, later assaulted those arresting them 1607 TNA STAC8 53/4 Deer stealing, Baker v. Culpepper 1623 CKS U24 T428/4 (Mann/Cornwallis) Sir Henry Baker's will - no park mentioned 1631 CKS U24 T283 (Mann/Cornwallis) Court of Wards and Liveries grant, mentions park with parcels of land 1657 CKS U24 T279 (MannCornwallis) Baker surrenders manor of Sissinghurst and other land to others (Final agreement), document (Deed of settlement) refers to Sissinghurst Park within the pale called the new pale, lands within the new park pale and the divisions enclosed within the same of 750a Secondary evidence: Arch.Cant. IX (1874:xci-xciii) Arch.Cant. XXXVIII (1896:5-27) 'Notes on the life of Sir John Baker of Sissinghurst' by Baker Arch.Cant. LXXXIX (1974:186) Bannister (2002) Sissinghurst Castle Estate Archaeological and Historic Landscape Survey Cole (1999:186-187) Portable Queen de Launay (1984) Cranbrook Kent: wills 1396-1640 Furley (1874:743) Weald of Kent II part 2 Harris (1719:85) History of Kent Hasted 7 (1797:10-101) Knafla (1994:89,94,176, 254/5) Kent at Law, 1602 Lambarde (1576, 1596 – a deer park) Melling (1969:39) Kentish Sources VI, Crime and Punishment Melling (1961:104-113) Kentish Sources III, Aspects of Agriculture and Industry Nichols (1977reprint:331) Progresses of Queen Elizabeth Nicolson (1964:5-25) Sissinghurst Castle, an illustrated history Pile (1981) Cranbrook Broadcloth and clothier Schwerdt & Kreutzberger (1969:4-5,11-12) Sissinghurst Castle, an illustrated guide Sprange (1808:272) Tunbridge Wells Straker (1931:321-322) Wealden Iron Zell (1994:62-63,153-277) Industry in the Countryside Maps: 442 1575 Saxton 1576 Anonymous 1596 Symonson - named 1605 Norden 1611 Speed 1622 CKS U1506 P1/44 Sissinghurst Place, difficult to locate plots Fieldwork: OS Explorer (2½inch to mile) TQ818384 Sissinghurst 14 December 2005, 1 March 2006, 12 October 2006 - Most of W and N boundaries seen. S is probably along road, and lower part of W boundary uncertain, probable tE boundary was track on 1800 map. Aknowledgements: Dr Nicola Bannister, Geoffrey Copus, Cranbrook Museum, Peter Dear, Robert Lewis, National Trust, Adam Nicolson (80) STARBOROUGH Parish: mainly Lingfield, Surrey/ Edenbridge Earliest reference: 1576 Anon. map of Kent Ownership: Cobham family, no male 1471 went to daughter m. Lord Burgh of Lincolnshire ... > Thomas, lord Burgh, d.1550 > ..... younger son William Borough d.1597 and land to 4 daughters, Sir Thomas Richardson got 3 shares, fourth to Seymour Coppinger – land remained split Size: Documentary evidence: Secondary evidence: Cole pers.comm. notes Hasted 3 (1797:214-215) Saul (2001:123-192) Death, Art, and Memory in Medieval England: the Cobham family and their memorials, 1300-1500 Maps: 1576 Anonymous 1596 Symonson - named 1605 Norden 1611 Speed Fieldwork: OS Explorer (2½inch to mile) TQ426441 Starborough Castle 23 October 2007 - Not convinced much of any boundary found, some possibilities. Acknowledgements: Lionel Cole, Alan Dell, Christopher Waterman 443 (81) STONEHURST Parish: Chiddingford, Surrey, W of Cowden Earliest reference: 1555 lease (CKS U1450/T6/9) Ownership: Cobham family, no male 1471 went to daughter m. Lord Burgh of Lincolnshire (see Cobham) > last William Borough d.1597 and land to 4 daughters, Sir Thomas Richardson got 3 shares, fourth to Seymour Coppinger – land remained split Size: Documentary evidence: 1555 CKS U1450/T6/9 Trees in and around the park to be felled. Burgh to Rookwood, quarters of wood etc. divided Isley, Lennard, Weston – indicates disparkment 1566 CKS U1450/T6/44 Lennard to Weston rest of lease of Stonehurst park left from Burgh to Rookwood mentions corn and animals feeding in park Secondary evidence: Hasted 3 (1797:214-215) Lambarde (1576, 1596 – disparked) Saul (2001:123-192) Death, Art, and Memory in Medieval England: the Cobham family and their memorials, 1300-1500 (Oxford, 2001) Maps: Fieldwork: OS Explorer (2½inch to mile) TQ425412 Upper Stonehurst Farm Acknowledgements: (82) STOWTING Parish: Stowting Earliest reference: 1361 Manor of Stowting survey (TNA C135/156/9) Ownership: 1434 Edward Nevill, Lord Bergavenny, whose son Sir George Nevill sold to > Sir Thomas Kempe d.1488 > 1488 (nephew) Sir Thomas Kempe of Olantigh... > Sir Thomas Kempe of Olantigh d.1607 > brother Reginald Kempe d.1612 ... > 1621 his 3 daughters sold to Josias Clerke of Westerfield, Essex Size: 1361 = 69a (C135/156/9 f.6): estimated at unspecified date 200-300a (Roberts, p.67) Documentary evidence: 1361 TNA C135/156/9 f.6 Manor of Stowting survey ... also a park lx-x acres worth nothing after deductions sustaining wild animals 1582 CCA DCB-J/X.10.20 French v Hill tithe dispute, implies disparkment in late 1570s 1609 BL Add.Ch. 41796 10 February, Josias Clerke of Wetherfield Sx gent sells to Sir John Honywood of Elmsted kt manor of Stowting including park (but in very long list to 444 cover all) for £600 Secondary evidence: Hasted 8 (1797:46-49) Hitchin-Kemp (c.1902:38-39,59-61) A General History of the Kemp and Kempe Families Lambarde (1576, 1596 – a deer park) Roberts (1999:67) Woodlands of Kent Simpson (1997:62) Custom and Conflict in Disputes over Tithe in the Diocese of Canterbury 1501-1600 Maps: 1575 Saxton - one shown NE of Stowting 1576 Anonymous Fieldwork: OS Explorer (2½inch to mile) TR120430 Park Farm 5 February 2005 – Went round and borders can be put on modern OS. Acknowledgements: Colin Robbins, Geoffrey Roberts (83) SUNDRIDGE Parish: Sundridge Earliest reference: 1356 meadow abutting park (CKS U1590 T3/8) Ownership: 1553 Henry Isley to John Isley > 1555 lands restored to William Isley (son) > 1570 William Isley to Martin Culthorpe Size: 1555 = 60a parcel of park (CKS U1450/E19): 1813 = 246a Arch.Cant XLIV (1932:206 ) Documentary evidence: 1356 CKS U1590 T3/8 (Stanhope) Meadow abutting park 1553 CKS U1450 E19 (Stanhope) Henry Isley to John Isley, lists land, includes parcel the Park 60a Brasted, all lands called Sundrish Park 30a 1570 U1590 T14/12 (Stanhope) William Isley to Martin Culthorpe manor of Sundridge, manor and park of Sutton Valence, manor and park of Langley, manor of Kingsnorth, to make void debt of £4000 1575 CKS U1590 T14/14 (Stanhope) Survey of manor of Brasted, includes Sundridge Place with the Parke land and other fields, named; parcel of Sundridge park of 45a. park mead 5a. Sutton Place with enclosed park, fields named in Sutton and Chart Secondary evidence: Arch.Cant XLIV (1932:190,206-207) Cole (1999:192) Portable Queen Hasted 3 (1797:514-515) Watson (ed.) (1999:88) A History of the Parish of Chevening Zell (1994:32-33) Industry in the countryside 445 Maps: Map of Brasted parish with part of Sundridge with field names (Cole) ?from tithe map, shows Great and Little Park for Sundridge Fieldwork: OS Explorer (2½inch to mile) TQ487549 Sundridge Place, park to east 2 December 2006 - Went round but no boundary definitely found. Acknowledgements: Lionel Cole (84) SURRENDEN Parish: Pluckley Earliest reference: 1621 in Sir Edward Dering's book of expenses (KAS website) Ownership: Dering family in Pluckley from C15th at least Size: Documentary evidence: 1617-1628 CKS U350 E4 Sir Edward Dering of Surrenden Dering and his Booke of Expences 1617-1628 (pp.24,27,47,53,55,60,210,309). Full transcription www.kentarchaeology.ac on-line publishing. Secondary evidence: Arch.Cant. CXXV (2005:328-329,336-337) Chalklin (1965:204) Seventeenth Century Kent Hasted 1 (1797:269) Mee (1936:358-359) Kent Maps: Fieldwork: OS Explorer (2½inch to mile) TQ938453 Surrenden Acknowledgements: (85) SUTTON Parish: Chart Sutton, Boughton Monchelsea Earliest reference: 1086 Domesday Book (LC) Ownership: Unclear. In 1627 Sir Edward Hales bought 101 acres of land in Chart Sutton and Langley. He also acquired lands of the Spence family of Chart Sutton, and lands of the estates of Chart and Sutton Valence Size: Documentary evidence: 446 1390 CPR 15 October, Grant to king's servant Thomas Brenchesle keepership of king's park of Sutton 1575 CKS U1590 T14/14 (Stanhope) Survey of manor of Brasted, includes Sundridge Place with the Parke land ... Sutton Place with enclosed park, then called Sutton Park, fields named in parishes of Sutton and Chart 1585 CCA DCB-J/X.10.18 Hayman v Franklyn tithe dispute, headed Sutton Valence but reference to Chaney Court and parishes of Sutton and Chart make it more likely to be Sutton park and not Sutton Valence park Secondary evidence: Deputy Keeper of Records (1905:526,deed1564) Descriptive Catalogue of Ancient Deeds of the PRO VI Lambarde (1576, 1596 – disparked) Salmon (1982:18-19,59) A History of Chart Sutton Maps: F144 Estate map (can't trace this reference now or find copy of such a map) 1575 Saxton - park near Ulcombe could be this Fieldwork: OS Explorer (2½inch to mile) TQ803492 Park House Farm Acknowledgements: (86) SUTTON VALENCE Parish: Sutton Valence Earliest reference: 1348 (Cal.IPM IX, 116) LC Ownership: Unclear. 1348 Earl of Pembroke ... > Henry VIII > Clifford family > Sir Thomas Neville from the elder brother of the Cliffords ... > 1570 William Isley to Martin Culthorpe (U1590/T14/12) Size: Documentary evidence: 1376 CPR 29 January, Sutton Valence with the park of Demchurche grant of wardship of earl of Pembroke's now royal 1570 U1590 T14/12 (Stanhope) William Isley to Martin Culthorpe manor of Sundridge, manor and park of Sutton Valence, manor and park of Langley, manor of Kingsnorth, to make void debt of £4000 Secondary evidence: Chalklin (1965:10-11) Seventeenth Century Kent Chandler (ed.) (1993:88) John Leland’s Itinerary: Travels in Tudor England part VIII – disparked - 'where was a park' Deputy Keeper of Records (1905:526,deed1564) Descriptive Catalogue of Ancient Deeds of the PRO VI Maps: Sutton Valence map CKS U 151 P1,2, No obvious park area 447 Fieldwork: OS Explorer (2½inch to mile) TQ815493? perhaps near castle Acknowledgements: (87) THROWLEY Parish: Throwley Earliest reference: 1596 unnamed on Symonson's map: 1605 Speed's map Ownership: Sondes. 1584 Sir Thomas Sondes Size: Documentary evidence: Secondary evidence: Eland (ed.) (1960:53-54) Thomas Wotton’s Letter-Book, 1574-1586 McKeen (1986:424-429) A memory of honour: the life of William Brooke, Lord Cobham Mee, Kent (1936:444-445) Kent Maps: 1596 Symonson - not named but unambiguous 1611 Speed c.1870 OS 6" to mile Fieldwork: OS Explorer (2½inch to mile) TQ989544 Park Lane Farm 20 May 2006 - Drove past Park Lane cottages along possible E boundary. No obvious park banks along side of road. Drove round putative perimeter along N and W boundaries, but no earthworks immediately visible. Time prevented walk along possible S boundary. Highly probable that the other boundaries are defined by the present road patterns, except of modern road alteration near the church Acknowledgement: Alastair Malcolm, John Owen, Christopher Waterman (88) TONBRIDGE – CAGE Parish: Tonbridge Earliest reference: 1327 onwards (Hasted 2, 330 Cal.Pat. 1327-30, 207) LC Ownership: 1327 Gilbert de Clare > 1329 Elizabeth de Burgh... > 1533 Thomas Earl of Wiltshire ... > 1552 Duke of Northumberland, Edward VI's regent, purchased from the Crown > 1556 to Crown > 1559 to Henry Carey, lord Hunsdon Size: 1570 = 400a (CKS U1475/E24): 1625 = 340a (TNA SP16/522/133) Documentary evidence: 1552 CKS U1450 T5/67 (Stanhope) Lease Duke of Northumberland to Sir George Harper and Thomas Culpepper of Knole manor (not house and park), Northfrith, Cage, Postern, 448 Panthurst for 40 years 1554 CPR 19 June, Joan duchess of Northumberland surrenders manors and the parks Panthurst, Knole, Southfrith, Northfrith, Postern, and Cage and is then granted them for life 1555 BL Harl. 75E31 Inspection of indenture Dudley to Harper and Culpepper 1555 BL Harl. 75H23 Lease Pole to Harper and Culpepper includes Northfrith, Postern, Cage, Panthurst, but not Knole Park 1556 CKS U1450 T5/69 (Stanhope) After Northumberland attainted Edward VI granted to Harper and Culpepper the lands of the 1552 lease for 40 years. 1559 CPR 20 March, Grant in tail, reversions and rent to Hunsdon of Tonbridge castle, Lee, Cage, Northfrith parks, late duke of Northumberland's, formerly Buckingham's lands 1560 CKS U1450 T5/68 (Stanhope) Henry Carey, baron of Hunsdon's lease to revert to Queen when expires 1570 CKS U1475 E24 (dLD) Demesne lands in hands of Alexander Culpepper includes Cage park, Northfrith Little park, Northfrith and Northfrith wood rent includes 15 bucks and does a year 1571 TNA E178/1093 Commission to enquire into loss of timber 1619 CKS U269 T1 (Sackville) Earl of Dorset requests Crown grant various lands to Sir Henry Carey which Boteler then pays for and assigns elsewhere - Cage, Postern, Northfrith (Tonbridge), manor of Sevenoaks, old park and Lovatt land in Kemsing and Seal 1625 TNA SP16/522/133 Survey of Tonbridge Cage, all Northfrith and Postern 1651 1651 TNA SP18/17/38-41 Search for naval timber in Cage Secondary evidence: Arch.Cant. XVI (1886:48-53). Arch. Cant. CXXIV (2004:102-103,109,112) Chalklin (1960) A Kentish Wealden Parish (Tonbridge) 1550-1750 – thesis Chalklin (1965:12,132) Seventeenth Century Kent, Deputy Keeper of Records (1905:deed1533) Descriptive Catalogue of Ancient Deeds of the PRO V Furley (1874:428) The Weald of Kent II part 2 Hasted 5 (1797:216) Roberts (1999:67) Woodlands of Kent Witney (1976:166-167) Jutish Forest Zell (2000:86-89) Early Modern Kent Zell (1994:42) Industry in the countryside Maps: Fieldwork: OS Explorer (2½inch to mile) TQ593479 Cage Green, built up Chris Owlett has provided map of possible boundaries of Northfrith and Cage from her fieldwork. Acknowledgements: Chris Owlett 449 (89) TONBRIDGE - NORTHFRITH (3 parks in Lambarde see (90) Tonbridge – Northfrith, Hadlow/Little Park/Larkhole Greenand (91) Tonbridge – Northfrith, Northfrith Wood) Parish: Tonbridge, Hadlow, Shipbourne, West Peckham, Hildenborough Earliest reference: early C12th Chartulary (Arch.Cant.XCVI:124) Ownership: 1327 Gilbert de Clare > 1329 Elizabeth de Burgh (CPR) ... > 1533 Thomas Earl of Wiltshire ... > 1552 Duke of Northumberland, Edward VI's regent, purchased from the Crown > 1556 to Crown > 1559 to Henry Carey, lord Hunsdon Size: 1541 = 7 miles circuit of 3 parks in North Frith (Kingsford & Shaw I p.237): 1625 = 1685a - 1180a Outwood, Northfrith, Lark Hall, Little Park + 550a Trench (TNA SP16/522/133) Documentary evidence: 1550 CKS U1590 T1/8 (Stanhope) Grant by Edward VI to Earl of Warwick of Warwick castle, manors of Knole, Sevenoaks, Hadlow, Britons, Panthurst, Northfield, South Frith 1552 CKS U1450 T5/67 (Stanhope) Lease Duke of Northumberland to Sir George Harper and Thomas Culpepper of Knole manor (not house and park), Northfrith, Cage, Postern, Panthurst for 40 years 1554 CPR 19 June, Joan duchess of Northumberland surrenders manors and the parks Panthurst, Knole, Southfrith, Northfrith, Postern, and Cage and is then granted them for life 1555 BL Harl 75E31 Inspection of indenture Dudley to Harper and Culpepper 1555 BL Harl75H23 Lease Pole to Harper and Culpepper includes Northfrith, Postern, Cage, Panthurst, but not Knole Park 1556 CKS U1450 T5/69 (Stanhope) After Northumberland attainted Edward VI granted to Harper and Culpepper the lands of the 1552 lease for 40 years. 1559 CPR 20 March, Grant in tail, reversions and rent to Hunsdon of Tonbridge castle, Lee, Cage, Northfirth parks, late duke of Northumberland's, formerly Buckingham's lands 1560 CKS U1450 T5/68(Stanhope) Henry Carey, baron of Hunsdon's lease to revert to Queen when expires 1570 CKS U1475 E24 (dLD) Demesne lands in hands of Alexander Culpepper includes Cage Park, demesne land in farm parcel of Northfrith, little park of Northfrith, Northfrith wood 1571 TNA E178/1093 Commission to enquire into exploitation of timber 1573 U1475/L17 (dLD) Walter Beche admitted illegally hunting in Northfrith 1619 CKS U269 T1 (Sackville) Earl of Dorset requests Crown grant various lands to Sir Henry Carey which Boteler then pays for and assigns elsewhere - Cage, Postern, Northfrith (Tonbridge), manor of Sevenoaks, old park and Lovatt land in Kemsing and Seal 1625 TNA SP16/522/133 Survey of Tonbridge Outwood, Northfrith, Lark Hall and Little Park Secondary evidence: Secondary evidence: Arch.Cant. XVI (1886:48-53) Arch Cant XXII (1897:269) Arch.Cant. LXXII (1958:140-145) Arch.Cant. XCVI (1980:124) 450 Arch.Cant. CXXIV (2004:102-103,109,112) Barrett-Lennard (1908:113-125 An Account of the Families of Lennard and Barrett Chalklin (1960:1-8,60-66) A Kentish Wealden Parish (Tonbridge) 1550-1750 - thesis Chalklin (1965:12,132,134) Seventeenth Century Kent Furley (1874:428) The Weald of Kent II part 2 Harris (1719:321) History of Kent Hasted 5 (1797:180-181,216,230-231) Kent Downs Orchid (Autumn/Winter 2005/6:16) Dene Park Wood walk Kingsford & Shaw (eds.) (1925:237) HMC Report on the Manuscripts of Lord De L’Isle and Dudley I Lambarde (1576, 1596 – a deer park) Liddiard (2005:56) Castles in Context Salzmann (ed.) (1932:156) Chartulary of the Priory of St. Pancras of Lewes Sussex Record Society XXXVIII Straker (1931:219,222) Wealden Iron Thirsk (ed.) (2006:9,43,47,51-53,71-75,101-107,114-116) Hadlow Witney (1976:164-167) Jutish Forest Zell (2000:60-61,86-89,92) Early Modern Kent Maps: 1575 Saxton – 2 parks 1576 Anonymous – 2 parks 1596 Symonson 1605 Norden 1611 Speed 1575 Saxton - 3 unnamed near Shipbourne and N of Tonbridge, Sfrith wood named Fieldwork: OS Explorer (2½inch to mile) TQ609502 North Frith Farm Chris Owlett has sent OS map with projected boundaries of The Trench, Little Park, Old Park and the Cage – adjacent forming one big block. Acknowledgements: Chris Owlett (90) TONBRIDGE – NORTHFRITH – HADLOW / LITTLE PARK / LARKHOLE GREEN Parish: Hadlow Earliest reference: 1279 (CCL Ch.Ant.T32), but see (89) Ownership: See (89) Size: See (89) Documentary evidence: See (89) until after 1625 1560, 1636 CKS U1006 T48 (Hussey) Refers to land adjacent, lane from/to Little Park 1667 CKS U1048 T2 Seyliard and Petley 2 manors in Hadlow, Goodwyns and Craiber(?) , capital messuage Hadlow Place and all lands including all that disparked park sometimes enclosed with pale 25 acres 451 Secondary evidence: Lambarde (1576, 1596 – probably one of the 3 deer parks at Northfrith) Thirsk (1977:14-15) Horses in early modern England Maps: 1575 Saxton – perhaps 1 of 2 parks at Northfrith 1576 Anonymous – perhaps 1 of 2 parks at Northfrith Fieldwork: OS Explorer (2½inch to mile) TQ634497? Little Park, near Hadlow Castle Chris Owlett has sent OS map with projected boundaries of The Trench, Little Park, Old Park and the Cage – adjacent forming one big block Acknowledgements: Lionel Cole, Chris Owlett (91) TONBRIDGE - NORTHFRITH WOOD Parish: Tonbridge, Hadlow, Shipbourne, West Peckham, Hildenborough Earliest reference: See (89) Ownership: See (89) Size: See (89) Documentary evidence: See (89) Secondary evidence: Lambarde (1576, 1596 – probably one of the 3 deer parks at Northfrith) Maps: 1575 Saxton – perhaps 1 of 2 parks at Northfrith 1576 Anonymous – perhaps 1 of 2 parks at Northfrith Fieldwork: OS Explorer (2½inch to mile) TQ603514 Dene park, park site unknown Chris Owlett has sent OS map with projected boundaries of The Trench, Little Park, Old Park and the Cage – adjacent forming one big block. Acknowledgements: Chris Owlett (92) TONBRIDGE – POSTERN Parish: Tonbridge, Hadlow Earliest reference: 1327 onwards (Hasted 2, 330 Cal.Pat. 1327-30, 207) LC Ownership: 1327 Gilbert de Clare > 1329 Elizabeth de Burgh (CPR) ... > 1533 Thomas Earl of Wiltshire ... > 1552 Duke of Northumberland, Edward VI's regent, purchased from the Crown > 1556 to Crown > 1559 to Henry Carey, lord Hunsdon 452 Size: 1520 = 3 miles (Arch. Can.t XVI): 1625 = 464a Postern arable and 330a Postern Midden– around 800a (TNA SP16/522/133) Documentary evidence: 1552 CKS U1450 T5/67 (Stanhope) Lease Duke of Northumberland to Sir George Harper and Thomas Culpepper of Knole manor (not house and park), Northfrith, Cage, Postern, Panthurst for 40 years 1554 CPR 19 June, Joan duchess of Northumberland surrenders manors and the parks Panthurst, Knole, Southfrith, Northfrith, Postern, and Cage and is then granted them for life 1556 CKS U1450 T5/69 (Stanhope) After Northumberland attainted to Edward VI granted to Harper and Culpepper the lands of the 1552 lease for 40 years. 1555 BL Harl 75E31 Inspection of indenture Dudley to Harper and Culpepper 1555 BL Harl75H23 Lease Pole to Harper and Culpepper includes Northfrith, Postern, Cage, Panthurst, but not Knole Park 1559 CPR 20 March, Grant in tail, reversions and rent to Hunsdon of Tonbridge castle, Lee, Cage, Northfrith parks, late duke of Northumberland's, formerly Buckingham's lands 1561 BL Harl 85H6 Lease Culpepper to Willard park, forest, lands tenements, iron-mill called Postern and lands in Southfrith 1571 TNA E178/1093 Commission to enquire into exploitation of timber 1619 CKS U269 T1 (Sackville) Earl of Dorset requests Crown grant various lands to Sir Henry Carey which Boteler then pays for and assigns elsewhere - Cage, Postern, Northfrith (Tonbridge), manor of Sevenoaks, old park and Lovatt land in Kemsing and Seal 1625 TNA SP16/522/133 Survey of Tonbridge, Postern arable and Postern Midden Secondary evidence: Arch.Cant. XVI (1886:48-53). Arch.Cant. CXXIV (2004:102-103,109,112) Chalklin (1960:1-8,60-66) A Kentish Wealden Parish (Tonbridge) 1550-1750 - thesis Chalklin (1965:132,134) Seventeenth Century Kent, Cleere & Crossley (1995:350-351) The Iron Industry of the Weald Furley (1874:428-429), The Weald of Kent II part 2 Hasted 5 (1797:216) Lambarde (1576, 1596 – disparked) Witney (1976:166-167) Jutish Forest Zell (2000:86-89) Early Modern Kent Maps: Fieldwork: OS Explorer (2½inch to mile) TQ615463 Postern Park Acknowledgements: (93a,b)TONBRIDGE – SOUTHFRITH and SOMERFIELD / SOMERHILL (93 b) Parish: Tonbridge Earliest reference: (a) early C12th Chartulary (Arch.Cant. CVI:124) (b) by 1623 (CKS U38/T1) 453 Ownership: 1552 Duke of Northumberland, Edward VI's regent had bought this and Tonbridge parks from the Crown > 1553 reverted to Crown under lessees of Dudley > c.1571 Rober Dudley, earl of Leicester into Sidney families > 1575 Sir Henry Sidney > 1588 Sir Philip Sidney's estate went to widow Frances Walsingham who remarried Devereux, earl of Essex, then Burke, lord Clanricarde who continued to lease from Crown Size: 1571 = 5000a (Chalklin) Documentary evidence: 1550 CKS U1590 T1/8 (Stanhope) Grant by Edward VI to Earl of Warwick of Warwick castle, manors of Knole, Sevenoaks, Hadlow, Britons, Panthurst, Northfield, South Frith 1554 CPR 19 June, Joan duchess of Northumberland surrenders manors and the parks Panthurst, Knole, Southfrith, Northfrith, Postern, and Cage and is then granted them for life 1554 TNA E354/45 Grant of manor, chase or forest, park of Southfrith to monarchs by Edward Nevill 1555 BL Harl75H23 Lease Pole to Harper and Culpepper includes Northfrith, Postern, Cage, Panthurst, but not Knole Park 1555 BL Harl 75E31 Inspection of indenture Dudley to Harper and Culpepper 1561 BL Harl 85H6 Lease Culpepper to Willard park, forest, lands tenements, iron-mill and lands in Southfrith 1570 TNA E178/1098 Inquisiition and certificate as to forest or park of Southfrith 1571 TNA E178/1093 Commission to enquire about iron mills in Southfrith 1571 CPR no.2647. 28 November, 50-year lease to Robert Dudley forest and park including iron mills from end of Harper and Culpepper's lease, rents given 1573 BL Harl77A35 Culpepper surrender of lease to Queen 1609 TNA STAC8 196/18 Forcible entry and forge damage 1623 CKS U38/T1 part 2 Jointure of Lady Anne. Manor house of Somerhill with park, Southfrith park, mansion house, the great lodge, furnace + cottages 1635 U38/T1part 1 Manor house, Somerhill, with park. Southfrith park, mansion house the great lodge, furnace + cottages 1664 CKS U214 E19/23 Survey of Southfrith or Somerhill, fair park 414a with 2 lodges well paled and wooded Secondary evidence: Arch.Cant. XVI (1886:48-53) Arch Cant. XXII (1897:269) Arch.Cant. LXXII (1958:146) Arch.Cant. XCVI (1980:124) Arch.Cant. CXXIV (2004:98,102-103,109,112) Brandon (2003:132-133,136-137) The Kent and Sussex Weald Chalklin (1960:1-8,60-66) A Kentish Wealden Parish (Tonbridge) 1550-1750 – thesis. Disparked c.1610, p.5 cites Chancery Proceedings: Roynarsden division (C.9) 27/108 Chalklin (1965:12,132,134) Seventeenth Century Kent Cleere & Crossley (1995:347) The iron industry of the Weald Cunningham (ed.) (2005:12-14) Four Hundred Years of the Wells, Harris (1719:322) History of Kent Hasted 5 (1797:230-231) Knafla (1994:53,103,197) Kent in Law, 1602 Lambarde (1576, 1596 – a deer park) 454 Mee (1936:351) Kent Salzmann (ed.) (1932:156) Chartulary of the Priory of St. Pancras of Lewes Sussex Record Society XXXVIII Shaw (ed.) (1942:267,300,302) HMC Report on the Manuscripts of Lord De L’Isle and Dudley IV Straker (1931:219,222) Wealden Iron Witney (1976:166-167) Jutish Forest Zell (2000:86-91) Early Modern Kent Maps: 1575 Saxton - Southfrith wood enclosed and named 1576 Anonymous Fieldwork: OS Explorer (2½inch to mile) TQ584448 South Frith: TQ603452 Somerhill park 9 Sepember 2006 - Walked most boundaries of what I conjected was Somerhill park, some still parkland. E boundary problematic. Acknowledgements: Chris Owlett, Joyce Hoad (94) TYLER HILL / ST. STEPHEN'S / HACKINGTON Parish: Hackington Earliest reference: 1599 letter (CKS U951 C261/5) Ownership: Archdeacon of Canterbury had residence at Hackington until Reformation > c.1562 Elizabeht I to Sir Roger Manwood d.1592 > son Sir Peter Manwood d.1625 > son Sir John Manwood alienated to Sir Anthony Culpepper 1637 Size: Documentary evidence: 1568 BL Harl. 79F27 sale to Roger Manwood of manor of Halle/Hawle and tilehouse at Tylers Hill 1599/1600 CKS U951 C261/5 Peter Manwood to Norton Knatchbull re making a warren, refers to how to be done, deer in park 1609 CKS QM/SI 1609/18/8 Tyler Hill common and breaking into park of the same Secondary evidence: Arch. Cant. XLV (1933:200-204) Arch.Cant. XLVIII (1936:238-240) Bannerman (1924:135-136) Visitation of Kent, 1592 Cole (1999:193) Portable Queen Eland (ed.) (1960:52-53) Thomas Wotton’s Letter-Book, 1574-1586 Hasted 1 (1797:269) Hasted 9 (1797:44-49) Maps: 455 Fieldwork: OS Explorer (2½inch to mile) TR150592 Hales Place Acknowledgements: (95) WELL HALL Parish: Eltham Earliest reference: 1605 Survey of manor of Eltham (TNA E164/44) Ownership: lay 1439 John Tattershall, then via daughter Margery Tatteshall m. John Roper d. 1488 > John Roper son d. 1524 > William Roper son (1495-1577) m. Margaret More daughter. of Sir Thomas More > Thomas Roper d.1597 > William Roper and remained in family until 1733 Size: 1605 = 128a (TNA E164/44) Documentary evidence: 1597 TNA SP12/264/7, 4 July, Grant to Lord North of keepership of Eltham Little, Great, Horn park in reversion after current holders, manor and lordhsip of Eltham (Roper's) and more all in Eltham 1605 TNA E164/44 The park besides the several grounds within the pale 128a, the Park lodge and ground within the same 2a Secondary evidence: Arch.Cant. II (1859:153-174) Drake (1886:180,279) Hasted's History of Kent - Hundred of Blackheath Elliston Erwood (1936) The Story of Well Hall Gregory (1909:194-195,210-230) Story of Royal Eltham Hovenden (1898:83-84) Visitation of Kent, 1619 Sally Simmons pers.comm. notes Maps: 1611 Speed Fieldwork: OS Explorer (2½inch to mile) TQ423752 Well Hall, built up Acknowledgements: Sally Simmons (96) WESTENHANGER Parish: Stanford Earliest reference: 1262 (VCH I, 473) LC licence to empark Hanger site (possibly Westenhanger) Ownership: pre1540 Sir Thomas Poynings gave it up to Henry VIII > 1585 Elizabeth I to Thomas Smythe Size: 1559 = 400a (CKS U269/E341) 456 Documentary evidence: 1540 PRO E328/172 By letters patent park mentioned 1540 PRO E328/172 By letters patent Henry VIII made Sir Thomas Cheyne, Treasurer of his Household, constable of Saltwood and the office of keeping his chief messuage at Westenhanger, parks at Hostinhanger, Westenhanger, Allington and Saltwood. 1559 CKS U269 E341 Survey of Sackville lands includes Westenhanger with 400a park in Sir Richard Sackville's hands (only mentions one park) 1564 CPR Grant and release for Richard Sackville for fine of rent due under patent 1552 of Edward VI to Edward Fynes, lord Clinton and Saye and Herdson for park and manor house with wild beasts in park, 20th part knight's fee 1603 CKS QM/SM/21 no.743, Two hunt in park of Mr John Smith Secondary evidence: Arch Cant XVII (1887:193-205) 'Thomas Smythe of Westendhanger' by Wadmore Arch.Cant. XX (1893:76-81) Arch.Cant. LXXXVIII (1973:206) Arch.Cant. CXXI (2001:218,229-231) Arch.Cant. CXXIV (2004:104) Chalklin (1965:198-199) Seventeenth Century Kent Cole (1999:185-186) Portable Queen Forge (2003:15) Notes on Westenhanger Castle Grose (1797:86-87) Antiquities of England and Wales III Hasted 8 (1797:672-75) KCC SMR TR 13 NW 3 - KE 4272, Grade 1 listed building, scheduled ancient monument (22777) Knafla (1994:70,105,231) Kent at Law, 1602 Lambarde (1576, 1596 – a deer park, 1 park in 1576 version, 2 parks in 1596, see Ostenhanger(97) below) Mileson (2009:152-153) Parks in Medieval England pp.152-153, Nichols (1977reprint:335-336) Progresses of Queen Elizabeth Phillips I (1930:135) History of the Sackville Family I Talbot (2003:12,14) Brabourne in History Toulmin Smith 4 (1964:44) The Itinerary of John Leland part VIII VCH (I:473) Zell (2000:60) Early Modern Kent Maps: 1575 Saxton - one park shown near Sellinge 1596 Symonson - names park Ostenhanger, but in position of Westenhanger 1605 Norden – 2 parks 1611 Speed – 2 parks Fieldwork: OS Explorer (2½inch to mile) TR124372 Westenhanger Castle 23 September 2006 - Went to open day at Westenhanger Castle. Tried to look at all boundaries, but CTRLrail and M20 have affected N boundary, felt Stone Street to form E boundary and Ashford Road the S, W boundary dubious, looked at 2 options. Acknowledgements: 457 Geoffrey Roberts (97) WESTENHANGER / OSTENHANGER Parish: Saltwood, Stanford Earliest reference: 1303 (Cal.IPM IV, 102) LC Ownership: Sir Thomas Criol d. 1451, daughter sold to Thomas Fogg > sold to brother Sir John Fogg of Repton > c.1509 Sir John Fogg sold to Sir Edward Poynings ... > pre1540 Sir Thomas Poynings gave it up to Henry VIII > 1585 Elizabeth I to Thomas Smythe Size: 1694 = 300a (EKAC Ly/7/4/10) Documentary evidence: 1540 TNA E328/172 By letters patent Henry VIII made Sir Thomas Cheyne, Treasurer of his Household, constable of Saltwood and the office of keeping his chief messuage at Westenhanger, parks at Hostinhanger, Westenhanger, Allington and Saltwood. 1632 CKS U1475 M79 (dLD) Rentals of manor of Ostenhanger, quit rents by name and amount, no property names 1694 EKAC Ly/7 4/10 1694 Case of payment of tithes for Ostenhanger park - 300a 1705 EKAC Ly/7 4/11 1705 Case of payment of tithes witness knew Eastenhanger new park for 60 years, when stocked with deer, reputed to belong to Rt Hon Philip Lord Viscount Strangford Secondary evidence: Lambarde (1576 – 1 park at Westenhander: 1596 – 2 parks, so one Ostenhanger) Hasted 8 (1797:215) Maps: 1596 Symonson – has park at Ostenhamger, calls Westenhamger Ostenhanger. 1605 Norden – 2 parks 1611 Speed – 2 parks Fieldwork: OS Explorer (2½inch to mile) TR142368 Sandling Park 23 September 2006, Ostenhanger – Fleeting visit, W boundary perhaps Ashford Road, S boundary Hythe Road, E boundary uncertain, N boundary probably obliterated by CTRL. Acknowledgements: Geoffrey Roberts (98) WESTWELL / CALEHILL Parish: Little Chart Earliest reference: 1274/5 Hundred rolls (KAS website) Ownership: Prior of Christchurch Canterbury > 1559 Elizabeth I took it into her hands held by Tufton family under lease Size: 1624 = 200a (TNA SC12/20/22): 1649 = 203a (TNA LR2/196) 458 Documentary evidence: 1274/5 Hundred Rolls (KAS) When archbishopric vacant royal escheator broke into Westwell park and took 16 wild beasts 1292 Lit.Cant.III. 43.Valoynes trepass into park and warren, £10 surety for good behaviour 1303 CPR 1301-7, 178, January 5, Carrying away deer from park 1332 Lit.Cant.I.491. 6 does given by prior of Christ Church Canterbury from Westwell park to Sir William Clinton warden of Cinque Ports 1474 CCA Ch Ch I/90 Letter - visit to Westwell to count deer and control hunting, remove pigs. 101 deer, pigs ruining woods 1557 CKS U24 T428/2 (Mann/Cornwallis) John Baker's will, my whole interest and term of years in the park of Westwell. (Sir John Baker's daughter m. John Tufton) 1559 CPR Elizabeth I ordered survey of lands of void bishopric of Hereford, which she has taken over, includes Westwell with bailiwick to queen from archbishop of Canterbury by exchange 1567 BL Add.Mss. 42715 Tufton gave 30 deer from Westwell Park to Wotton for new South Park 1624 TNA SC12/20/22 Survey – 200a land, arable, meadow and pasture - in tenure of Richard Baker @£10 pa. No parkland mentioned – appears to have been disparked 1649 TNA LR2/196 Manor survey, Tufton lease from 36 Henry VIII and 40 Elizabeth I, for 31 years at £10 pa. Secondary evidence: Arch.Cant CXXVII (2007:175-195) Hasted 7 (1797:414-417) Lambarde (1576, 1596 – a deer park if by 'Calehill' he means Westwell) Mee (1936:284) Kent Sheppard (1877Camden:26-27,309,384,524) Literae Cantuariensis Maps: 1575 Saxton - one shown near, but can't read name 1576 Anonymous 1639 CKS U386 P1 Estate map shows Darell estate with Old Park and park names in Calehill Fieldwork: OS Explorer (2½inch to mile) TQ931470 Park Wood Acknowledgements: Pat Winzar (99) WEST WICKHAM Parish: West Wickham Earliest reference: c.1313-1399 licence to impark (Arch.Cant.XIII p.256) Ownership: 1469 Sir Henry Heydon purchased > 1555 Sir John Heydon (son) > Sir Christopher Heydon (son) > 1580 Sir William Heydon sold at latter end of Elizabeth's reign to John Lennard of Chevening, d.1618, gave to 2nd son Sir Samuel Lennard 1618 Size: 1659 = 304a (CKS U312/P2) 459 Documentary evidence: 1503 Court Leet U312/M Add.Mss. 33899 Animals twice impounded for damage to park 1558 Court Leet U312/M Add.Mss. 33899 (as above) Broke into park and took away deer 1564 Court Leet U312/M Add.Mss. 33899 (as above) Broke into park 1587 CKS U1590 T22/14 (Stanhope) Seems to be mortgage by Lennards with Stanford and James for manors of Chevening, West Wickham and others, no park mentioned Secondary evidence: Arch.Cant. XIII (1880:256-257) Arch.Cant XLVI (1934:152) Arch.Cant LXXVIII (1963:1-21) 'Wickham Court and the Heydons' by Gregory Chalklin (1965:58-59) Seventeenth Century Kent Clinch (1889:174-178) Antiquarian Jottings related to Bromley, Hayes, Keston and West Wickham Davis transcripts (1930s) Book 1, West Wickham, in BLS: 1485 Terrier, 1555 Compotus, 1567 Account, 1599 Manorial Court Rolls Knowlden (1980:24) West Wickham Land Holdings and Population Change, 1310-1484, Knowlden (1986:31-41,53-62) West Wickham, past into present Tookey ( c.1976:15-16) The History of Langley Park, Beckenham Walker (1994:5-6) The Parish Church of St John the Baptist, West Wickham Watson (1959:4-9) History of West Wickham, Maps: c1485 West Wickham, Hayes, Keston, part Bromley compiled from manorial records by Davis 1632 CKS U908 P78 West Wickham with demesne land, deer park (84a), old park (110a) and spring park (132a), none adjoining, fields between - disparked 1659 CKS U312 P2 West Wickham, old park coppice, middle old park, east old park, warren, west old park (park divided) Fieldwork: OS Explorer (2½inch to mile) TQ390647 Wickham Court 18 December 2004, 14 January 2005 - E, W, S borders clear, N uncertain. Acknowledgements: Patricia Knowlden, Christopher and Pat Waterman (100) WROTHAM / EAST PARK OF WROTHAM Parish: Wrotham Earliest reference: 1283 Custumal (Semple): 1333 (Cal.Pat. 1330-4, 444)LC Ownership: 1537 Cranmer to Henry VIII (CKS U1450/T1/3) > Edward VI to Sir John Mason > c.1556 he alienated it to Robert Byng and remained in family until 1649 Size: 1283 = 97a (Custumal, see Semple): 1620 = 166a (Semple, 2008 p.185): 1660 = 180a (CKS U830/T6) 460 Documentary evidence: 1333 CPR 22 March, Deer hunted and carried away 1419-21, 1426 (LPL) Account rolls B, nos. 1152, 1154, 1155, Parker 1423 CPR 14 July, Taking of Archbishop of Canterbury's deer and assaulting servants 1537 CKS U1590 T1/3 (Stanhope) King's purchase of Knole and other lands, including Wrotham wages of keepers of parks of Otford, Knole, Wrotham wherein deer now be 1658 CKS U830 T5 for £1000 manor of Wrotham with parcels of land called Wrotham or East park. Binge to James Secondary evidence: Arch.Cant. XLVIII (1936:179) Arch.Cant. CXXVII (2007:298,304,306-307,317) Arch.Cant. CXXVIII (2008:179-209) 'The Medieval Deer Parks of Wrotham' by Semple. Up to 1536 East Park continued as a park, but then accounts ceased. Clarke and Stoyal (1975:110-111) Otford in Kent du Boulay (1964: 284,290) Kent Records XVIII (1964) du Boulay (1966:215,232-233) Lordship of Canterbury Hasted 5 (1797:8-13) Lambarde (1576, 1596 – disparked) Nichols (ed.) (1859:234,265) Narratives of the Days of the Reformation (CamdenIX) Semple talk notes of 14 March 2006 Today article (Dec/Jan 2005:5-11) Wrotham Palace Maps: 1620 CKS U681 P31 Part of manor of Wrotham 1841 Tithe, several park names 1867 OS 6" to mile Fieldwork: OS Explorer (2½inch to mile) TQ618588 Park Farm 24 September 2005, 31 August 2006, 14 September 2006 - looked at part of E boundary at Nepicar farm and found bank in wood. Looked at W boundary S of M26, but access to other boundaries poor. Acknowledgements: Alice Porritt, Maysel Dawson, Jayne Semple, Nepicar Farm owner APPENDIX 4