Small Histories

Being brief accounts of episodes, incidents and characters from here and hereabouts complete with facts and imaginings.

SMALL HISTORY Number 4 - March 2010

The Slow Train from Drimpton

With the opening of the Yeovil to Exeter section of the London south Western Railway in July 1860, the chance to catch a train came within four miles of Drimpton. Yet for some people this was not near enough.

In 1863, the Chard Road and Lyme Regis Harbour Railway Company announced a railway to link the two towns of Chard and Lyme. This line was to pass through and serve the following – though it is hard to say what the precise route was going to be. There were Chard and Crewkerne in Somerset, Axminster and Uplyme in Devon, and all of the following in Dorset (or, at least, in Dorset in 1863) – Wambrook, Chardstock, Thorncombe, Hawkchurch, Whitchurch Canonicorum, Charmouth, Monkton Wyld, Lyme Regis, Catherstone, Burstock, Broadwindsor, Pilsdon, Childhay, Drimpton, Dibberford and Littlewindsor. It comes as a surprise to read of Burstock, Broadwindsor, Childhay, Drimpton and Littlewindsor all appearing on the route of a railway – a list of place names as enchanting and evocative as any sung by Flanders & Swann. It is worth a moment to ask: “What if?” Certainly, such a line would have been closed by Dr Beeching in the 1960s. But for a moment let us imagine catching the 9.17am from Drimpton Halt heading for the coast via Burstock, Childhay, Hawkchurch and all the rest. Steaming along, sending cattle running. With the window down and our heads popped out. With a face getting smut-stained. But we don’t mind. In autumn, waving to a ploughman driving his horses across a field. In summer, watching the hay being cut. In winter, clutching a stone hot water bottle to keep the cold at bay. In spring, admiring the wild daffodils and catching the scent of the bluebells in Marshwood Vale. At all times trailing clouds of steam and smoke rivalling the clouds in the sky. Before, finally, reaching the sea!

But it was not to be.

Almost thirty years pass before another attempt is made – or, before another attempt that we know of is made. It is 1891. The project is aired in the schoolroom in Broadwindsor and reported in the Bridport News on December 4^th. Among those present were farmers, William Dommett of Broadwindsor, J Fowler of Burstock, J H Creed of Burstock Grange, and T Forsey of Hursey. Also there were Joseph Hurding, builder and publican at the Royal Oak, Drimpton, Randolph Meech, canvas manufacturer’s clerk at Yarn Barton Mill, and T Greening, leader of the Broadwindsor Band.

The route this time was to connect Bridport to the LSW via Netherbury, Beaminster and Broadwindsor. The Rev Farrer was in the chair and said how difficult it was to get to Crewkerne station – being a journey of some six miles. He also ‘noticed how the population of the agricultural districts had decreased of late years, and observed that a railway would doubtless bring many back again, for farmers and manufacturers around would have an opportunity of developing their resources, which meant more work and bigger wages.’ The meeting heard others say that farmers ‘would be better able to dispose of their produce’. Can we hear the farmers there crying, ‘Hear! Hear!’? And it was said shopkeepers would benefit as the carriage of goods would be cheaper than by road. The Rev Robertson said: ‘None could help being benefited by a railway through Broadwindsor’. What, nobody? Was that really the case? Did everyone greet the prospect of a railway running through the parish so positively? Didn’t anyone stand up to say that with such a railway so close at hand even more people would pack up, hop on a train, never to return? Let alone the noise, the disruption, the progress!

But again the venture did not get off the ground. And, with the arrival of the motor car, all thought of a railway was shelved forever.   

SMALL HISTORY Number 3 - February 2008

The Whetham Family

The original Whetham family took its name from the small hamlet of Whetham, not much more than a mile away from Drimpton, in the neighbouring parish of Burstock. This was sometime possibly in the 13^th or 14^th centuries. Centuries later during the 16^th century, one John Whetham returned to his ancestral neighbourhood. Clearly he was a man of substance in that he acquired a large amount of property in the parish of Broadwindsor and made his home in Drimpton. The house is still here, the major part of now called ‘Hillcrest’. It stands in The Square, facing anyone approaching the village

from Broadwindsor before the road swings downhill to Drimpton Bridge.

John lived here with his wife, Edith (nee Peare) and they had six children; Thomas, Hercules, James William, Grace and Joan. Any parents that can call a son Hercules are surely saying something about themselves and their aspirations.

John died on March 1^st(?) 1605. Before he did so, he made his full and detailed will in 1604 ‘being sicke and weake in bodye but of whole and perfect remembrance…’ His ‘whole and perfect remembrance’ did not stop him making one serious mistake when he drafted his will, a flaw that was to cause internal family strife for years to come.

In the will John appoints Edith to be his executrix and residuary legatee. Nothing wrong there. He then gives legacies of money to Grace, Hercules, Joan and James, and also to the five children of his eldest son, Thomas. The estate he leaves in his house and lands held upon a lease for the term of four thousand years, to his sons Thomas and William. Here is where the problem arises. Look at the existing house. It is long and narrow and runs alongside the road from southwest to northeast. It doesn’t appear to have changed much essentially in four hundred years. The will says that Thomas is to have ‘all that parte of my dwelling house from the entrie towards the northe easte’ and William ‘the parte Sowthe West from the entrie – the entrie and well without the back door shall be in common between them according to their several uses.’  The causes of future fallings-out are plain to see. John then goes on to divide his enclosed lands. Thomas is to have Brearth, Wheatclose, Horrie Mead, Common Close; William receives Broad Close, Field Close, Hippett Mead and Pathclose. Then there is another cause for potential disharmony; William is to have the right of digging and carrying away marl (clay & lime) from one of Thomas’s fields, to be used ‘on anne parte or parcell of grounde which I have before given him and not elsewhere.’

Problems at the house itself appear to have started as soon as John was buried. William was most put out. By 1606 he is not living in his part of the family home; he is living in Bridport, where his brother, James, also lives. In fact William never comes to live in his share of the house. And what of his share of the land? We can perhaps assume the fields were rented out to others and he benefited at a distance from his father’s thorny bequest.

Back to Thomas - even before his father’s signature was dry on his will, Thomas and his wife Dorothy (nee Hooper) celebrated the birth of another son, Nathaniel. After John’s death Thomas, Dorothy and their children move into their part of the family home. Maybe they move into all of the property at some time over the following years. Or perhaps William leaves it vacant, or rents it out to others to annoy his older brother.

Of Thomas and Dorothy’s children, John and Robert stayed in the parish as yeomen or tenant farmers - John at Broadwindsor and Robert at Drimpton. James and Joseph moved away. Nathaniel, the youngest son, embarks on a life that links Drimpton to major events of History with a capital ‘H’.

When he is 16, he is apprenticed to Edward Tirrell who was baker to the Inner Temple in London. He clearly completed his apprenticeship and stayed on, proving himself to be a competent baker and a close co-worker. So close in fact that when Edward died in 1632, Nathaniel married Edward’s widow within four months. This may have been to secure Mrs Tirrell’s possession of the bakery.

The 1630’s and 1640’s were a time of political dissent, especially in London. When in 1642 the simmering conflict between Parliament and King Charles I erupted into Civil War, Nathaniel’s sympathies were for Parliament and at some point he joined the ranks of the parliamentarian army, a.k.a. the Roundheads. He went on to prove himself to be very able, rising to the rank of colonel in Oliver Cromwell’s army. The War went on until 1652, but Nathaniel retired from the army in 1647 and settled in Chard, where he lived until his death in 1668 only months after marrying his second wife, Elizabeth Gale, a widow.

His story is a rare occasion when someone from our village played a noted role in the wider world.

Small History Number Two: January 2007

THE MIDDLE AGES – Misdeeds and Misdemeanours

First, a bit of background regarding the Bigger Picture, or, History with a capital H…..

 

In 1483 Richard III became king. He stands accused by history of murdering the two boy-princes in the Tower of London in order to secure his hold on the throne. Shakespeare paints him as a crooked hunchback. He was definitely at the dark heart of late 15^th century history, battling his way through the Wars of the Roses which were only to end with his death at the Battle of Bosworth in 1485. A new era then began with Henry Tudor, aka Henry VII.

 

Meanwhile in Drimpton or Drempton and its surroundings in the Parish of Broadwin(d)sor, a world away from any spotlight, rural life went on - not always smoothly as the Parish Court Rolls record.

 

The Hundred & Manor of Broadwindsor was composed of the tithings of Windsor, Childhay, Drimpton and Dibberford. The court met to decide upon disagreements, complaints and small acts of criminality. The court rolls contain details of cases of petty debt, trespass, cattle strayings, and other smallscale local matters. Many of the issues sound familiar to us today. Even some of the names are still with us, or at least variant spellings of them.

12^th Nov 1483: ‘William Mason and William… presented for not repairing a road at Uphaylane which is muddy and deep. Henry Stodelegh presented for not repairing his ditch between Hylleslond and Culmelake. Richard Lamberd … for not repairing his ditch between Pyllmarshe and Culmelake. Roberet Stokfysshe to repair his ruined house. Nicholas Mantell … for allowing his pigs to run at large unringed. Hugh Pawle to repair a way near Drempton Crosse.’

 Drimpton Cross in 1907

 

Did the court manage to solve these issues? By January 1484 Mr Stokfysshe had still not repaired his house and Mr Mantell’s pigs were still roaming about unringed; and unringed pigs could root around in destructive ways. In April 1484 these men had still not acted in accordance with the court’s wishes. Ways and ditches were a major cause for complaint after what might have been a wet winter and spring. Nothing new there.

 

In July 1484 Mr Mantell was once again presented. Once more for his pigs. But he added another misdemeanour - brewing and breaking the assize. The Mantells were clearly a local family of character. For Nicholas was not the only Mantell in local trouble. Ten years on, in October 1493, William Mantell and John Hethen were presented for brewing and breaking the assize, as was Agnes Miller. Was Agnes’ behaviour a demonstration of equality of opportunity?

 

In January 1494 there were more ditches ‘unscoured’ leaving laneways ‘muddy and deep’. Unsurprisingly one of these between Courtedown and Simonishill belonged to Nicholas Mantell.

 

The Court of April 1494 was a busy session. Ditches needed repairing. Of course one belonged to Nicholas Mantell. William Stodlegh’s pigs were running ‘at large’ in Childhay. William Mason had allowed ‘his ditch at Whetehamlane’ to be ‘muddy and deep’ whilst Hugh Norys had allowed ‘the highway at Ax to be muddy and deep’. Perhaps to drown his sorrows and those of others George a Botery had been brewing illicitly. Meanwhile John Mantell (naturally) had gone one better. He had not only brewed and broke the assize but was presented for ‘keeping a tavern and selling ale without the signum of the lord’. Was the next case fuelled by George a Botery’s ale or that of John Mantell or of John Hoper? ‘Richard Wyllys made an assault on Richard Mason with his fist and the reverse.’

 

Again in July 1494 unmaintained ditches and illicit brewing were among the cases with many of the same names cropping up. A new name is that of Simon Gaberet who assaulted John Forde with a stick. 

 

One year on, in October 1495, various repairs feature. The court demands that Nicholas Mantell repairs his bakehouse ‘which is in ruins’. When will he learn? John Leneham has to ‘repair his ruined tenement’ and Richard Rycheman is ‘to repair the ruined walls of his barn’. John Edward was presented for assaulting Thomas Lede (who had been accused of brewing ale illicitly at an earlier court) ‘with a stick end’. Thomas Lede had reacted. He was presented for ‘assaulting John Edward with his fist’. Tit for tat.

 

Picture of present day John Edwards in 2004

 

 

 

At the same court hedges were another area of neighbourly strife. Not over high leylandii, though. ‘The tenants of Stoke Abbot presented for allowing a hedge between Lewsdown and Stockdown to be broken down and the tenants of Lytell Wyndsore for allowing a hedge between Lesdown(?) and Stockdown to be broken down. The tenants of Lytell Wyndsore for allowing a hedge between Colcomb and Lytell Wyndsore to be broken down.’

 

Back in Drimpton tithing John Grenway was presented ‘for unjustly taking a lamb value 4d from John Huchyn.’

 

A general ruling was also delivered. ‘The tenants are to make butts by Easter (1496). Penalty 10s.’ Was this to practice their archery? Most likely. All men were required to practice in case they were needed to fight. The tenants were also ‘to construct gallows with the cockyngstoll(?). Penalty 10s.’ One wonders what and who that was for. We know that a gallows is for hanging and a cucking-stool is usually for trial of women by water emersion; but is this some gruesome combination of the two? Surely not.

 

In January 1496 the tenants were reminded to construct the gallows and cucking-stool. Perhaps we should feel some sense of pride in our ancestors that they were reticent to build them. At the same time John Hopkyns was presented as he had unjustly taken ‘joystes and plankes’ value 1s from John Crockehorne. Let’s hope this was not the timber destined for the gallows. In April 1496 the gallows and cuckingstoll were still missing. Was this really some kind of rebellious act?

 

Among other court business the problem with pigs surfaced in a major way. The following pig owners were presented for letting their ‘pigs run at large unringed against the custom of the manor’. Again the Mantells were well represented. Nicholas Mantell (1 pig), William Mantell (6), Robert Smyth (3), Thomas Lede (6), John Hopkins (2), Agnes Miller (2), John Dowelton (1), William Stodeley (2), John Comb (2), Richard Mason (1), Robert Pawle (1), John Mason (2) and John Edwards (1)[any relation of the current John Edwards?] The area must have been well dug by all those rooting snouts. The owners were duly fined. The rate was 3d for 1 pig, 4d for 2, up to 6d for 6. Why was it that the more pigs that were let to root, the rate dropped?

 

Now just as we may have thought that the Mantell family were united in their actions against authority, Nicholas Mantell called for action against John Mantell who had made a common way at Symonshill. Ah, the problems of rights of way sound familiar, don’t they?  But the Mantells were not the only family in conflict one with another. Read on.

 

Picture: Netherhay Farm dates from 1683

Although the cases reported above may bring a smile to the modern face, a case involving the threat of serious violence was brought to this court in April 1496. It was reported that, ‘John Grenway late of Nethirhay, husbandman,’ and we assume him to be the lamb thief noted earlier, ‘and Alice Grenway, housewife, on Tuesday before the Feast of St Matthew, with swords and daggers broke and entered the house of Walter Grenway at Nethirhay within the inquisition of this court, taking away four yards of woollen cloth in mixed blue value 6s 8d and a half yard of linen cloth worth 2d.’ The mention of swords and daggers leads one to expect something more than the taking of cloth. Why couldn’t John and Alice simply ask their kinsman for it? Clearly that was out of the case. Nor was the taking of the cloth the end of the matter. At the same court it was reported that, ‘John Grenway on Sunday before the Feast of St Matthew…’ just a few days later, ‘with swords and daggers broke and entered the house of Walter Grenway etc, broke open a sealed chest and took two pieces of gold worth 10s, one charter worth 40s and seven pieces of pewter worth 14d.’ This sounds altogether of a different scale - gold and documents. But what was behind these crimes? How the case was was resolved is not known. It seems at variance with our sometimes romantic notions of rustic medieval life to imagine a married couple armed with deadly weapons staging a break-in and robbery - and in Netherhay of all places.

Throughout the reign of Henry VIII, 1509-1547, the court continues to hear complaints about fouled ditches and rights of way. The session of April 1530 was a busy one. It was reported that ‘the walls and roofs of John Hochyn’s senior, John Andrews’ and John Whetham’s tenements are in ruins.’ Goodness only knows what it was like for the poor tenants who lived there. Also that ‘the hedges of John Mantyll at Ewly Cross are in need of repair,’ and that ‘William Hyll, Robert Brown and Robert Gelley are common “lusores carpinas pro pecunia”, which sounds worrying. It means they had been caught playing games of chance. Quite shocking!

 

There appears to be something about the Hochyns/Hutchings family and their walls for generations later, in 1612, another John of that family is fined 13s 4d for ‘allowing his wall to remain a nuisance of the lord.’ John was not about to take this lying down and clearly expressed himself forcefully. As a result it was reported that he ‘gave scandalous words in open court, saying “that they are false foreswearers which did present him’ for his wall. One wonders if the fine was waived or increased, or if the wall was repaired (if indeed it needed to be).

[If you can add to this brief history, please contact villagevoices@njm32.plus.com]