Two Faversham Documents

( 65 ) TWO FAVERSHAM DOCUMENTS. BY PRANK W. JESSUP, B.A., LL.B. I N July, 1942, Mr. Arthur Smith, SoHcitor, of Faversham, was good enough to aUow the Records Branch of the Society to inspect a quantity of old documents which he was about to dispose of as waste. It was found that a number of them were worthy of preservation, and with Mr. Smith's consent they were sent to the Kent County Council's muniments room at Maidstone. Two of the documents which were retained—Letters Patent of 1803 specifying the rights of a combaron of Faversham, and an exemplification of a Common Recovery suffered in the Faversham Court of Portmote in 1708—seem of sufficient interest to appear in Archmologia Cantiana. They are typical documents of series of records which reflect the long retained privfleges of the town -of Faversham. LETTERS PATENT. Faversham was a corporate member of the Cinque Ports confederation, and by virtue of that fact its townsmen—or combarons—enjoyed numerous privileges, not only in their own town, but throughout the country. A combaron who was likely to require to transact business in other parts of the country found it convenient to obtain a letter from his Mayor setting out the privileges to which he was entitled. The foUowing is a transcript of such a letter granted to Giles Hilton in 1803: Faversham to wit. To ALL OHBISTIAN People to whom these presents •shall come William Kemp Esqr. Mayor of the Town of Faversham and the •Jurats of the same Town Barons of the Cinque ports send Greeting in our Lord God everlasting your favour and descretion we require concerning Giles Hilton the Bearer hereof our Combaron of the Town aforesaid of whom we have laudable and faithfull Testimony when he shall come into your parts with his Goods either to buy or sell or shall pass by you or stay with you or apply himself with you THAT you do admit him amongst you as our Combaron free of all Customs That you do not by any Means trouble ^molest or restrain or suffer to be troubled molested or restrained any of bis Goods or Merchandizes contrary to the Liberties and Quittances to us •and our Successors by divers late Kings of England by their Letters patent Granted Cormrmed and Ratifyed AND that he have amongst us as well the Combarons of the Cinque ports have and time out of Mind have been accustomed to have all their Liberties and Quittances with Sock and Sack Theel and Them And that he be Cope-free Love-cope-free Them-free Witt-free and Lastage-free AND that he have Denne and Strand at Yarmouth and all his Findals in the Sea and land And that he be quit of all Tolls and all Customs, that is to say, of Lastage, Tallage, Passage, Kayage, Pontage, Murage, Spissage, Tonnage, Horngilt, and of all Wreck, and of all Chaffer 66 TWO PAVERSHAM DOCUMENTS. buying and selling And that none upon such his Chaffer Buying and Sellingdo take part with him without his License Assent and good Will AND that he be not put in any Assizes Juries or Recognizances by reason of his. Foreign Tenure against his Will CONSIDERING moreover that by the Charters of divers late Kings of England upon the Grants and Confirmations, of all and singular the Liberties and Quittances aforesaid it is granted and forbidden that no man unjustly disturb UB or him or any other our Combarons of the Cinque Ports upon the aforesaid Quittances and Liberties ortheir Market upon forfeiture of ten pounds to the King And that you do unto the said Giles Hilton upon the premises (if he so require, as you would, find us ready and favourable unto you and yours in the like or greater Case- I N WITNESS whereof we have made unto the said Giles Hilton these our- Letters patent Sealed with our Seal of Office of Mayoralty of the said Town of Faversham Dated at Faversham the seventh day of June in the Year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and three and in the fortythird year of the Reign of our Sovereign Lord George the third by the Grace of God of the united Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland king- Defender of the Faith. Pendant Seal (broken) I t is perhaps not generaUy reaHzed that as lat e as 1803 a combaron. of the Cinque Ports confederation was stfU to be found procuring formal evidence of his privUeges in this manner. Whether he fuUy understood the nature of aU the privUeges here recorded—and indeed whether the clerk who wrote the document understood them—is open to question. An at tempt is made below to explain the technical words, contained in the Mayor's Letters Patent. Sock and Sack. Rights of jurisdiction, with the right to retain theprofits arising therefrom. Theel. The right to take toll, or to be free of toll. The word was. sometimes used to mean the right to tallage, or tax, one's villeins. Them. Usually taken to mean the right to have one's villeins with their sequela and goods—" all the generations of your Villains, with their Suits, and Cat tel " as Rastell expresses it (Termes de la Ley). This interpretation was almost universally accepted from the thirteenth century onwards, but Maitland has pointed out that it was a mistaken interpretation, and thatthe original meaning was the right to enforce a " foreign voucher ".* Love-cope-free, alias locofry. Freedom of trade, unhindered by anjr monopoly, patent or company, or guild of merchants.2 Cope-free. Presumably introduced here because of its verbal similarity to love-cope-free. Cope was a customary payment due to the King, or to the lord of the soil, out of certain lead-mines in Derbyshire. It seems, improbable that the combarons of the Cinque Ports deliberately intended to claim quittance of this custom. Witt-free. Freedom from amercement or fine. How far this exemption would in fact extend is doubtful. Lastage-free. Probably freedom from the obligation imposed by 21 Ric. I I , cap. 18 to carry stones as lastage, i.e. ballast or lading, for "the repair of the Beacons, the place called Paradise, and other decayed places 1 Pollock and Maitland, History of English Law, I, p. 579. a Arch. Oant., IX (1874), p. briv. TWO PAVERSHAM DOCUMENTS. 67 in Calice ". The men of London enjoyed a similar freedom. For another explanation, see Archceologia Cantiana IX, p. lxiv. Denne and Strand. The right formerly exercised by the fishermen of the Cinque Ports to land at Yarmouth to mend their nets and sell their catch. Tallage. A subsidy granted to the King by Parliament. Faversham •could claim exemption on two grounds—as a member of the Cinque Ports, who were exempt from the payment of subsidies because of their duty to perform ship-service for the King, and as a manor held in ancient demesne, i.e. a manor in the possession of the Crown at the time of Edward the Confessor. The King however claimed the right to tallage lands held in ancient demesne without the intervention of Parliament. Passage. Payment for passing to or fro of persons or goods in common shores or landing places. Kayage. Toll at common quays. Pontage. Contributions collected for the repair of a bridge. Murage. A toll levied for the building or repair of public walls. Spissage, or sponsage. A payment for passing over a bridge. Tonnage. An imposition on goods carried out of or brought into the country in tuns. Horngilt. A tax payable within the King's Forest on horned beasts. Wreck. " Wreck . . . is, where a Ship is perished on the Sea, and no man escapes alive out of it, and the Ship, or part of it so perished, or the Goods of the Ship, come to the Land of any Lord, the Lord shall havo that as a Wreck of the Sea. But if a Man, or a Dog, or a Cat, escape alive, so that the party to whom the goods belong, come within a year and a day, and prove the Goods to be his, he shall have them again." (Rastell.) Many of these privUeges are referred to in Henry Ill's charter granted to Faversham in 1252, and in the General Charter granted by Edward I to the Cinque Ports in 1278, both of which wiU be found reprinted in Miss Murray's The Constitutional History of the Cinque Ports, at pages 236-8. COMMON RECOVERY IN THE COURT OP PORTMOTE. Unfortunately the record of the Common Recovery suffered in the Faversham Court of Portmote in 1708, during the Mayoralty of John Bateman, is too long to be set out in extenso. The property which is the subject of the Recovery is described as a messuage and garden lying on the west side of Preston Street, Faversham, and the parties are: WiUiam Peirce, demandant; John TasseU junior, gentleman, tenant to the praecipe ; Jacob Jarman and Mary his wife, tenants by warranty ; and Lawrence Whatman, the common vouchee. (Perhaps for the benefit of the " lay gents " it should be explained that the Common Recovery was a fictitious compromised action at law, the usual object of which was to enlarge an entailed estate into a fee simple.) Common Recoveries were usuaUy suffered in the Court of Common Pleas at Westminster, but Recoveries could be suffered and Fines 3ould be levied in various inferior courts, including courts of ancient 68 TWO PAVERSHAM DOCUMENTS. demesne, and certain customary courts. The proceedings in the Faversham Court of Portmote (except for the process to compel the appearance of the tenant to the praecipe) foUow fairly closely the corresponding proceedings at Common Law. Jacob's History of Faversham (1774) says that the Mayor " holds a court of portmote upon every Tuesday fortnight . . . in it fines and recoveries have always been acknowledged."1 In many cases the origin of the right to hold a court in which a Common Recovery could be suffered had been forgotten by the eighteenth century. Apart from any claim that might be based upon royal grant, Faversham could probably legitimately regard its Court of Portmote as the successor to the court of ancient demesne which the Abbey of Faversham, lords of the manor until the dissolution of the monasteries, had at a former period been legaUy obHged to hold for their tenants. Right up to the year 1833, when Common Recoveries were abohshed by statute, it remained the law that a completely effective Recovery of land of the tenure of ancient demesne could be suffered only in the court of the manor of which the land was held. A Common Recovery of land of this tenure suffered in the Court of Common Pleas at Westminster was voidable at any distance of time by the lord of the manor. This defect in the title could not be cured by a subsequent Recovery in the court of the manor. In fact there was no way of removing the defect, and land with such a title became practically unmarketable. The Real Property Commissioners in 1829 described the law on the subject as " harsh and inconvenient", especiaUy as by then it had often become difficult to discover with any certainty whether a particular parcel of land was or was not of the tenure of ancient demesne. Perhaps this difficulty partly accounts for the state of affairs that Jacob reported in 1774: " Of late years, it (sc. the court of portmote) hath not been so much attended to, although it seems to be a very useful and convenient one to this town in general." The foregoing Letters Patent and Common Recovery are merely two examples of the many documents of historical, topographical, genealogical, and legal interest that the Records Branch have been able to help to save from destruction. No doubt there are many other documents of at least equal interest lying in Solicitors' offices in the county, awaiting an uncertain end. It is hoped that this thought may prompt others who have old documents in their possession to go through them to ensure that those of value are preserved. In any case of doubt as to what is worth preservation, the Records Branch wfll be glad to offer advice, if desired. 1 For an account of the proceedings for raising a fine (another fictitious legal action for barring an entail), see " The Common-Place Book of Paversham," Arch. Cant., XLVIII, p. 100.