THE HUNDRED OF BRADFORD
Hundred of Bradford
IN 1084 the hundred of Bradford, which was assessed at 99 hides, probably
included, among other towns, Bradford, Barley (in Bradford), Broughton
Gifford, Broughton Monkton (in Broughton Gifford), Budbury (in Bradford), Pomeroy (in Wingfield). (fn. 1) It was stated in 1255 that the Abbess of
Shaftesbury's 'foreign men' of Bradford hundred formerly did suit twice a year
at the hundred of Melksham, but that in the time of King John the abbess had
withdrawn the suit and attached it to her hundred of Bradford. (fn. 2) There is a
strong presumption that these 'foreign men' belonged to Chalfield, which was
thenceforth reckoned a part of Bradford hundred. In 1227 the abbess released
the Prior of Farleigh's men of South Wraxall, Monkton Farleigh, and Broughton
Monkton from their suit to the hundred. (fn. 3) It was claimed in 1268 that the lords
of Wingfield, Wittenham (in Wingfield), and Westwood owed suit in respect
of those places. (fn. 4) When summoned in 1278–9 to show why his men of Westwood did not do suit to Selkley hundred, the Prior of St. Swithun's, Winchester, was able to profer a charter of Henry III exempting him from suits of
shire and hundred. (fn. 5) It is not clear why such suit was demanded nor is it known
whether the prior exercised the privilege with relation to Bradford hundred.
Westwood appeared at a tourn in 1439 (fn. 6) but not in 1501–2 (fn. 7) . Monkton Farleigh
did not appear at the tourn of 1439, possibly in virtue of its acquittance of two
centuries before. (fn. 6)
In 1316 the hundred consisted of Bradford, Atworth, Broughton Gifford,
Chalfield, Cumberwell, Monkton Farleigh, Holt, Westwood, Wingfield,
Wittenham, Winsley, and South Wraxall. (fn. 8) Except for Wingfield, Westwood,
and Wittenham these are constant constituents until at least the middle of the
17th century. Wingfield and Wittenham do not recur, but from 1333 to 1334 (fn. 9)
the latter is replaced by Rowley. In later times Westwood formed part of the
hundred of Elstub, which belonged to the Prior of St. Swithun's. The date of
transfer is uncertain. Westwood does not occur in the rolls of Elstub hundred
for the period 1333 to 1580. (fn. 10) As has been shown it appeared at a sheriff's tourn
for Bradford hundred in 1439, (fn. 11) but not in 1501–2. (fn. 12) It was reckoned as a part
of Bradford hundred for the purpose of assessing a subsidy in 1524 (fn. 13) and thereafter is not encountered in Bradford hundred. The tithing of Leigh appears
in 1524 (fn. 14) and frequently thereafter. Great Trowle appears regularly from
1327 to 1328, (fn. 15) and Great and Little Trowle together in 1524. (fn. 14) Little
Trowle, however, does not recur (see Trowbridge). In 1831 the hundred consisted of the parishes of Bradford, Broughton Gifford, Great Chalfield with
Little Chalfield and Cottles, Monkton Farleigh, and Wingfield with Rowley. (fn. 16)
It was alleged in 1255 with probable truth that the hundred of Bradford
was granted to the abbey of Shaftesbury by King Ethelred at the same time as
the manor of Bradford (q.v.). It was held by successive abbesses until the
Dissolution. In 1281 the Crown claimed it as a royal hundred which the abbess
held at a fee farm of £5. The jurors, however, found that the abbess held it in
fee. (fn. 17) After the Dissolution the hundred was apparently kept in the Crown's
hand until 1546, when, with its portmote, view of frankpledge, and court leet
it was leased to Edward Bellingham, the grantee of the capital manor of Bradford, for twenty-one years. In return for a rent of £1. 13s. Bellingham was
to receive the perquisites of the courts, out of which he was to pay the bailiffs
and stewards. (fn. 18) In 1576 the hundred, with view of frankpledge within it, was
granted to Sir Francis Walsingham. (fn. 19) Notwithstanding this grant the constables were elected at Quarter Sessions in the following Easter as though the
hundred had still been royal. (fn. 20) Walsingham died seised of the hundred in
1590. (fn. 21) The hundred then appears to have followed the descent of the capital
manor until 1737, (fn. 22) after which it is not known to have been the subject of any
conveyance.
In 1651 there seems to have been some doubt about the ownership of the
hundred. A survey of it was made in that year, as a late possession of Charles I,
but the commissioners found that Sir Thomas Jarvis was receiving the profits,
as the hundred had been settled upon him by Act of Parliament as part of the
estates of the Marquess of Winchester, sequestrated in 1645. (fn. 23) The commissioners confessed themselves ignorant of the real facts of the case, but Sir Thomas
Jarvis was probably in the right.
In 1255 the sheriff received at his tourns 5 marks to the king's use and
2½ marks as sheriff's aid (fn. 24) —£5 in all. This was still the declared value in 1281. (fn. 25)
The perquisites of the hundred court were valued at £4. 9s. 4d. in 1539–40. (fn. 26)
In 1651 the tithing silver, usually paid by the tithingmen at Easter and Michaelmas, amounted to £1. 11s. and £1. 12s. The money payable by the hundred
bailiff for Palm Sunday Eve silver was £1. 5s. 10d. The profits of the tourn,
courts, fines, and amercements were valued at 6s. 8d. (fn. 27) Thus the total receipts
were much the same as they had been at the Dissolution. In c. 1660 'law day
silver', payable at Michaelmas and Lady Day, amounted to £1. 19s. 4d. (fn. 28) This
was doubtless the same as tithing money. 'Palmse money', payable on 25
March, amounted to 8s. (fn. 28) In neither case was the 'borough' a contributor.
In 1364, (fn. 29) 1439, (fn. 30) and 1651 (fn. 27) the court met at Bradford Leigh. In the 13th
century there was evidently a three-weekly court (fn. 31) and there were two tourns a
year. (fn. 32) This was still the normal arrangement in 1651, the tourns being held at
about Lady Day and Michaelmas. (fn. 27) From 1720 to 1863 the hundred court was
held with the courts of the manor and borough (see Bradford).
From Richard I's reign the office of hundred bailiff or beadle was annexed
to one of the manors in South Wraxall (see Bradford manors). John Hollis of
Bradford, however, was bailiff in 1584, (fn. 33) which suggests that the Longs, who
were then lords of the manor, either did not exercise their prerogative or had
appointed a deputy.