THE BOROUGH OF DROITWICH
Wic, Saltwic (ix cent.); Wich, Wiche, Wy3,
Wichium (xi to xiii cent.); Drightwich, Drutwich
(middle of xiv cent.); Dertwich, Drightwich,
Droitwich (xv cent.).
Droitwich lies on the banks of the River Salwarpe
on undulating ground in the central Worcestershire
plain. The streets of the old town are narrow and
hilly; the town conforms to no regular plan, and
has no open market-place. The original main street,
High Street and Friar Street, lies to the west of the
ancient road to Bromsgrove and south of the Salwarpe,
the principal side streets branching south from the
High Street. The town lies on the main road from
Worcester to Birmingham, and was in Roman times
well placed for trade purposes (fn. 1) ; the Upper and
Lower Saltways of later times indicate the principal
road routes by which Droitwich salt was carried to the
neighbouring counties. The small river was the only
means of water communication until the Salwarpe and
Droitwich Canal was begun by Brindley in 1767 and
opened in 1771. From the 17th century there had
been schemes for better water communication, connected with the names of Endymion Porter, Yarranton
and Wall, Lord Windsor and Baker, (fn. 2) but all these were
unsuccessful.
In 1852 the position of Droitwich was further
improved by the creation of the Droitwich Junction
Canal (fn. 3) to join the existing canal with the Worcester
and Birmingham Canal at Hanbury Wharf. The railroad connexion is also good; the station on the West
Midland section of the Great Western is connected
with the Midland by a loop line.
The brine baths and salt manufacture lend to the
town all its characteristic features and give it two
very different aspects. The pleasant surroundings
necessary for a health resort are offered near the baths,
while in the lower part of the town the decay caused
by abandoned salt works and ruined buildings gives
it a desolate appearance. When the salt trade was
carried on by John Corbett there were several salt
manufactories at work, and Droitwich was a prosperous place. Now (1912) there is only one salt
manufactory, the Covercroft Works, in use. The
main pumping of brine is for the use of the baths,
and it seems likely that in a few years salt will cease
to be made at Droitwich, and it will become solely a
health resort. The spread of the town is to the
higher lands, to the south towards Witton, and west
to the railway station, where the risks of subsidence,
much felt in the old part of the town, are not incurred,
as they lie outside the salt area, which is very clearly
defined.
BOROUGH
Droitwich was the site of a Roman
villa or spa, (fn. 4) but how far its salt was
worked on a commercial scale there is
nothing to show. The Anglo-Saxon charters give
the first direct evidence proving that the salt springs
had given the place commercial importance, but most
of those which enter into detail are open to suspicion. (fn. 5) A
forged Evesham charter (fn. 6) of
date 716 refers to a grant of
Hampton juxta Wiccium emptorium, and in another (fn. 7) of
date 716–17 a part of a
'mansio in Wico emptorio salis
quem nos Saltwic vocamus';
in the same charter 'illa portio
quam nostratim Sele nuncupamus' is freed from tribute.
The salinae or 'seals' of a
later time will often come
under notice below, and this
early definition is important. (fn. 8)
In a list of Worcester charters (fn. 9)
a grant is calendared by which Ethelbald of Mercia
gave two camina or furances in Wich to Worcester
Priory and gustarium salis, perhaps a measure of the
salt water to be boiled in the furnaces. In a genuine
charter (fn. 10) of date 888 the signatures are stated to be
given 'in publico conventu ad Saltwic congregato,'
and the place of the Witan's assembly is identified by
Kemble as Droitwich.
Borough of Droitwich. Gules a sword point downwards argent with its hilt and pommel or surmounted by two lions passant or.
But the best evidence of the value set in early
English times upon the salt springs of Droitwich is to
be found in the Domesday Book. In 1086 Droitwich
was assessed at 10 hides, and of these 10 a quarter,
2½ hides, lay in Witton, (fn. 11) so that this hamlet had
already become associated, for fiscal purposes at all
events, with the more important though possibly
later settlement of Droitwich. Droitwich is not styled
'burgus' in Domesday Book, neither is it treated as
a royal manor. The king had rights in it but did
not 'lord' it. Of the 10 hides which rendered
geld, a half-hide was attached to the king's hall at
Gloucester; the remaining hides were distributed
among certain churches and tenants in chief of the
king. What William I held in demesne was the
whole of the salt springs, the 'pits.' To other
men had been given salinae, seals, portions of the salt
water; but in the wells or pits at that time sunk
the Norman king had undivided lordship. (fn. 12) King
Edward the Confessor had held a share only in the
springs; he had shared with the earl, whose right may
have been that of the original under-king. Both king
and earl had farmed their rights in the Confessor's
time for a total farm of £76. That the king's total
had once been £80 is indicated by the claim of the
Abbey of Westminster to a tenth, £8, (fn. 13) a sum which
was still being paid in the time of Edward III. (fn. 14)
There had been further decline since the Confessor's
day, for William's farm from the sheriff was 65 pounds
by weight. The king had eight pits or wells, five
unnamed, three named, Upwic, Midelwic and
Helperic. This last must be a personal name.
Later we shall find pits in three districts known as
Upwich, Middlewich and Nethermostwich, or
Netherwich, and we shall find that it is shares in
these pits that carry the burgess-ship. Upwich lay on
the north side of the Salwarpe, Middlewich probably
on the south. Netherwich is still a district, and
lies west of the old site of St. Nicholas's Church.
From each spring the king in the Confessor's time had
a certain number of salinae or 'seals,' shares of salt
water to be boiled in houses which later got the name
of 'seals.' The yield of 'seals' from the five unnamed
pits appears in Domesday as small compared with
that from the named pits. Besides his 'seals' the
king had also hocci, a word which occurs only in connexion with royal rights and is given once as hoch. (fn. 15)
The enjoyment of salinae had been originally due,
in all probability, to royal grant; and in 1086 many
persons had rights to salinae and also to renders of
salt in mitts, horse-loads, sextaries, or to renders of
money's worth from salinae, renders due in some
cases to estates in distant counties. The word
'wich' having by this time come to mean a salt
spring, (fn. 16) it cannot always be definitely determined
whether the salt springs of Droitwich or those of
Cheshire are indicated, unless it can be shown that
the manor which had 'seals' appurtenant belonged
to a lord who had land in Droitwich.
The tenants in chief who held lands in Droitwich
had 'burgesses' in Droitwich in varying numbers.
A hundred burgesses can be thus assigned, and
thirteen can be added as appurtenant to the neighbouring manor of Wychbold and answerable for
certain agricultural services there at fixed seasons.
The king's eleven houses probably also contained
burgesses, but it is not certain that all 'houses' in
Droitwich can be reckoned as 'burgesses' houses,
for in 1240 the Worcester Register states that the
ten houses in Droitwich attached to the manor of
Hallow were of 'servile condition' and paid merchet,
toll and 'thac' and 'sok.' (fn. 17)
Salinarii were held by some of the owners of
properties to which salt rights attached, and it may
be that to the burgesses we may add the salinarii as
members of the same class. The question of the
precise meaning of the word 'burgess' in Domesday
Book is wrapped in doubt, and can in all likelihood
only be explained, more or less speculatively, case by
case. In the case of Droitwich the evidence points
to the fact that burgherhood has always been closely
associated with certain franchises connected with the
salt trade; possibly the Domesday burgess of Droitwich was enfranchised with but one franchise, and
that a franchise which made him more free than other
men in respect of the salt trade. We have seen that
the king had in 1086 a farm of 65 pounds weight from
Droitwich; the men answerable for this payment
were presumably the payers of salt-gafol, persons who
in return for their gafol shared in the monopoly of
the Droitwich salt springs and salt trade. One
evidence for this theory is offered by a comparison of
the terms in which Domesday describes Droitwich
and Nantwich. In the description of the Cheshire
Wiches there is a very elaborate statement on the
subject of toll; here there were no burgesses, at least
none is named. Now in the description of Droitwich, on the other hand, there is not a word of toll,
but here there are burgesses. Having regard to the
usual burghal arrangement, it is natural to suppose
that, though some persons might incur toll when
carrying Droitwich salt through the gates of Droitwich, these persons would not be burgesses. The
case of the Gloucester monks goes further to suggest
that this was so. It is noticeable that the half-hide
attached to the king's hall at Gloucester and the
half-hide attached to the monastery at Gloucester,
unlike most of the Droitwich hides, had no burgesses
appurtenant. The two burgessless half-hides are
described as being in one consuetudo. (fn. 18) The Gloucester monks, having no Droitwich burgesses, and
having, perhaps for that reason, no means of escaping
toll on the salt they obtained from Droitwich, were
at the pains to get a charter exempting them from
Droitwich toll. In Stephen's reign Waleran Count
of Mellent, addressing his reeve and servants of
Droitwich, ordered all the Gloucester monks' demesne
—whatever their men could 'affy' to be theirs—to
be quit of toll and custom at Droitwich, as it had
been in the time of King Henry; and King Stephen,
visiting Droitwich, probably before 1139, gave the
men of the Abbot of Gloucester their lands in Droitwich to hold freely as under Henry I. (fn. 19) The mention of Henry I seems to point to the fact that then
first had the Gloucester monks found a means to
escape toll, probably by royal grant. Later on, when
the burgesses of Droitwich purchased the firma burgi,
the monks of Gloucester will be found contributing
to the farm, (fn. 20) and this, the price that others had to
pay, may have been the price they paid for an effective release from toll. In 1215 we shall find John
granting in fee farm to the burgesses the whole of
his rights in the salt of Droitwich, and he does it by
giving the vill cum salsis et salinis. By the salsae he
seems to indicate his salt dues, the gafol paid for a
share in the control of the springs, perhaps also the
toll paid by the carriers of salt. He gives also his
seals (salinae), these being the shares of brine drawn
into his own vats and boiled in his own houses.
This interpretation seems to be supported by the
salsa rolls which are preserved among the Droitwich
records. (fn. 21) These give the names of persons who
appear to be contributing their shares of salt-gabelle
to the farm of the borough. There are other lists
of payers of consuetudines who appear to be nonburgesses. For further evidence it may be pointed
out that the Worcester monks' payment of salsa,
recorded in their own and in the borough MSS., may
well have been in return for their right to use the
'common bucket,' to hire Droitwich men to draw
their salt water (salsa) and to boil their salt (sal) and
repair their boilers, rights which Henry III interfered
to defend by writ when the bailiffs of Droitwich
sought to hinder them. (fn. 22)
Droitwich is explicitly called a 'burgus' for the
first time, and as far as we know the only time before
the charter of 1215, in the Pipe Roll of 1155–6,
when an aid of 20s. was paid; in later Pipe Rolls
Droitwich, without the description 'burgus,' appears,
somewhat irregularly, as contributing to aids and
tallages. (fn. 23) The seemingly exceptional case in which
the term 'burgus' is applied to Droitwich, and the
terms of John's charter of 1215, may raise a doubt
whether the burgesses of Droitwich enjoyed before
1215 the jurisdictional privileges of a borough court.
The relation of the men of Droitwich to the king
may have been a peculiar one, and if they were
burgesses merely in respect of their salt franchise
this would be accounted for. Their enjoyment of
certain privileges in the working of the king's salt
springs laid them under contribution to his aids.
More cannot be said with safety until John in 1215 (fn. 24)
freed the burgesses from suits of shires and hundreds.
Thenceforward Droitwich appears as a hundred
co-ordinate with the hundred of Halfshire. (fn. 25)
The charter of John saved the pleas of the Crown,
but the burgesses were given sac and soc and toll and
team and infangthef, the last giving jurisdiction
over thieves caught with stolen goods upon them
within the area of the borough, but not over other
criminal cases in which life and limb were at stake;
'team' gave the borough court power to call vouchers
to warrant and in so far to deal with real actions;
'sac and soc' enforced the attendance of the burgesses
as suitors to the borough court at fixed terms—terms
at which the view of frankpledge would be held.
A borough court was thus established which was of
the humbler order of borough courts. 'Toll' made
the burgesses quit of toll throughout the king's realm,
and gave them liberty to sell all kinds of merchandise
in England, in cities and boroughs and elsewhere, in
markets and out of markets.
The trade which the burgesses desired to carry
on was mainly no doubt a trade in salt. The salt
could now not be taxed at the gates of other boroughs,
so far as it was in the king's power by his grant to
prevent this. (fn. 26) The vill, that is to say what was the
king's to give away in it, was made over to the burgesses in fee farm, cum salsis et salinis and all appurtenances and other liberties and free customs belonging
to the king's part of the town, for a payment of £100
a year, to be paid at Michaelmas and Easter. When
at the close of the 17th century the claim of one
Steynor to sink a salt-pit on his land was contested by
the corporation, the words of this charter were closely
canvassed by the parties to the action. As has been
explained above, the burghal monopoly could probably
find its best warrant in the phrase cum salsis, but we
cannot cross-examine the lawyers of John's time on
the precise meaning they attached to the phrase. In
return for the salsae and salinae and their appurtenances which the sheriff till now had farmed, the burgesses promised to pay a higher farm than the sheriff
had paid, that they might manage their own affairs.
The creation of new pits was not contemplated, but
there can be little doubt that a royal right to all salt
springs which had not been given away already could
have been maintained. (fn. 27)
This charter remained the governing charter of the
borough till the time of Mary. It was confirmed by
Edward III, (fn. 28) Richard II, (fn. 29) Henry IV, (fn. 30) Henry VI, (fn. 31)
Edward IV, (fn. 32) Henry VII (fn. 33) and Henry VIII. (fn. 34) For
the original charter the burgesses paid 50 marks. (fn. 35)
On the morrow of the grant John gave William
Longsword Earl of Salisbury the £100 of yearly fee
farm. (fn. 36)
About this date the reeve and burgesses of Droitwich agreed with the monks of Gloucester that they
would pay the monks' 20s. due to the earl's farm, if
the abbot and monks would help to get the receipt at
the king's Exchequer. The abbot and monks were
to be quit of toll and all exactions and be of the
Droitwich communa on the same footing as the burgesses ('habebunt communam inter nos sicut unus
nostrum'). (fn. 37) The monks of Gloucester had by that
time added to their half-hide the half-hide attached
to the king's hall at Gloucester, (fn. 38) so that their Droitwich interests were considerable.
After the purchase of the fee farm, the town's prosperity seems to have diminished. In 1227 the king
pardoned 28 marks of the 32 due as tallage. (fn. 39) In
1238 the town was in arrears over £23 for the farm,
and the Sheriff of Worcestershire was ordered to distrain the burgesses. The bailiff of the town, Thomas
Fitz Hugh, had 'affied' at the Exchequer for the
debt, and was sent back to Droitwich as a prisoner,
in order that he might attempt to recover the money. (fn. 40)
In 1257 Droitwich was let to the burgesses to farm
at the king's will, the sheriff being ordered not to
interfere as to the farm or amercements for the farm
till he was ordered to do so. (fn. 41) In 1262 two burgesses
named, probably the bailiffs, rendered account for
£80 blanche or £84 by tale, (fn. 42) which was probably
the farm required under Henry's grant of 1257.
Again in 1265 the farm failed, and the king complained to the sheriff that the seals were diminishing
in value, and ordered him to view the pits with some
knights and report. The sheriff reported that the
pits needed thorough renewal, as the wood was old
and they had never been repaired. The cost would
be £40, for it would be necessary to destroy and
afterwards rebuild some houses in the neighbourhood
which were not of the king's demesne, in order to dig
round and get to the bottom. The sheriff reported
that the repairs once done would last a lifetime, and that
they must be done before the boiling season began at
Midsummer, (fn. 43) or the king's rent from the town would
fall to 20s. (fn. 44) In 1271 the borough was let to Simon
Aleyn and Richard Fitz Joce, probably the two bailiffs
of the borough, and the town was committed to them
to farm for five years. (fn. 45) At the end of this time the
borough appears to have recovered the fee farm.
In 1274 complaint was made (fn. 46) that the community
of the town subtracted money due from a 'seal,' and
that men who ought to answer with the hundred of
Halfshire had been appropriated by William de
Valence at Goseford, for the men dwelling there did
not answer with the men of Droitwich as they always
used to do. The complaint presumably means that
the tallage and the 'murdrum' fines of the rest of
the hundred were affected by this 'subtraction.'
Goseford, represented by Gosford Street, now Queen's
Street, at the east end of Droitwich, going down to
Chapel Bridge, in the parish of St. Peter of Witton,
had paid with Droitwich as one unit; a loss on this
unit had to be distributed over the rest of the hundred
of Halfshire. The hundred of Halfshire also noted
that the burgesses of Droitwich and other boroughs
were distraining one neighbour for another, although
the man distrained was neither himself the debtor nor
the pledge of the debtor. The 'neighbour' was no
doubt a suitor to the same court as the debtor, and by
this rough-and-ready means of self-help remedies were
obtained for wrongs. The practice was maintained
in the boroughs after it had ceased in the county,
though burgesses were among the first to secure their
own chartered privilege from similar treatment.
The burgesses of Droitwich in their turn made
complaint that Sir William de Valence, after the
battle of Evesham, had appropriated part of the vill
of Goseford to the damage of the king's farm. The
men of Goseford were constrained to go to his court
outside the town, and he appointed his own bailiffs
and regulated his own measures. Goseford used
always to answer with Droitwich. The town ultimately recovered control of Goseford, for St. Peter's,
Goseford, was one of the parishes on which pavage
was levied in 1380. Besides this complaint, which
seems to hint that the jurisdictional and fiscal boundary of the borough was somewhat indeterminate,
two further complaints show the burgesses' anxiety to
prevent any reduction of the number of houses on
which the borough could levy tallage. One man
had alienated his house outside the community of
the town into another liberty, to the damage of the
king 4s. a year for tallage. The Hospitallers of
Grafton had appropriated a tenement in Droitwich
and damaged the king's tallage in the same way.
Probably this last was a grant in mortmain (fn. 47) unlicensed by the borough court; other boroughs were
seeking to make grants in mortmain illegal unless they
had been licensed by the borough court. In 1290 a
fire began at St. Andrew's Church and destroyed the
greater part of the town. (fn. 48)
In 1316 the town received the first grant of
pavage, (fn. 49) a royal licence to take certain tolls on
vendible goods, the money collected to be spent on
paving. These grants were made for terms of years
and frequently renewed. In 1327 the bailiffs, John
Cassy the elder and the younger, were suspected of
diverting pavage from its purpose, and a royal order
for an inquiry was issued (fn. 50) ; so also in 1341 (fn. 51) and
1346. (fn. 52) A grant of pontage was made in 1331, and
an inquiry of a similar kind was made as to the
expenditure of the money in 1366.
The constitution of the borough in mediaeval and
Tudor times is well exhibited in a fine series of
borough records preserved at Droitwich; the earliest
borough court rolls and accounts date from the
beginning of the reign of Edward III. The importance of their monopoly and the comparative
smallness of the number of burgesses made the
borough one of the so-called 'democratic' type. No
powerful council was developed, and the burgesses
always retained a share in the government of the
borough. There were two bailiffs and twelve jurats,
but the bailiffs, at all events, were annually elected
by the burgesses, and the jurats appear to have been
persons of importance in the borough court, where
they made the presentments rather than in the borough
council.
For the government of the salt trade and for the
issue of by-laws affecting the borough the burgesses
met at the 'Chequer' or Exchequer building, built,
as the Droitwich accounts show, in 1327. The
Chequer was at Droitwich the equivalent of the
Guildhall of other places, the Guildhall generally
including a chequer chamber. The reckonings were
made, no doubt, upon a chequered cloth as at the Westminster Exchequer. The assembly of the community
meeting at the Chequers was called a 'burgess chamber,' a 'great house' or a 'common hall.' At the
'halls' it was determined when the salt boiling or
'walling' (A.-S. 'weallan') should begin and end,
the term being usually about 25 June to 25 December; the price of salt was fixed and rules for its sale
were drawn up, as also for the cleaning and mending
of the pits. These last were duties performed at the
expense of the borough, and annually accounted for
with the other borough expenses by the bailiffs. In
the 'halls' gifts of salt were agreed to, and on one
occasion it was ruled that there should be gifts only
to the four orders of mendicants (Franciscan, Dominican, Carmelite and Augustinian). One by-law
ordered that none might monger salt for pears and
apples, perhaps to prevent small retailing, and because
it was thought injurious to the borough to exchange
the precious salt for perishable goods. It was ordered
that the friar who preached on St. Richard's Day
should be paid, a reference, no doubt, to the feast of
St. Richard of Wich, Bishop of Chichester. Leland
has set on record (fn. 53) that games were annually played
at St. Richard's salt springs and certain vats called by
his name. (fn. 54) The belief that when the chief spring
failed St. Richard started it again does not appear to
have any basis recorded in the biography of the
saint. (fn. 55)
The early records do not appear to contain any
entries to show by what means the body of burgesses
was renewed and enlarged, other than an order from
the Earl of Warwick (as sheriff) in 1370, that a
certain man be made a commoner and admitted to
the burgesses' privilege. In the early 16th century
owners of boilers (plumbi) appear to have been
burgesses, and there were many country burgesses.
All were assessed to the king's 'lewne' or levy.
The burgesses' prerogative which gave them control
of the salt trade necessitated the creation of an
executive specially designed for the protection and
control of the springs. From the 14th century there
come lists of the presentments of the 'tractatores' or
'teyzemen,' 'tymen' or 'tiesmen,' the 'drawers' of
brine (A.-S. 'teon' = to draw). It was the business
of the 'tractatores' to control the drawing of the
brine and see to its distribution in due proportions,
as also to prevent fraud in the process of salt-making.
The rules to secure equality in the draughts of good,
middle and inferior qualities of brine to be supplied
to each of the seals were elaborate (fn. 56) ; and the 'dalls'
and 'priors' mentioned in the Worcester Register
and elsewhere in connexion with Droitwich salt may
have reference to this. (fn. 57)
The drawers of the three wiches, Up-, Middleand Netherwich, made the lists of presentments, (fn. 58)
and appear to have acted as constables of the wards
did in other towns, and the three 'wiches' seem
to have been treated as wards. The drawers'
presentments are not confined to offences in salt
manufacture or salt trading. The presentments make
known the existence of a school in the 14th century,
for the carrying off of doors and windows from the
'schools' is made a ground of accusation. The
borough's corporate ownership of property is similarly
noticed; the parson of St. Andrew's was charged
with building on the community's ground. (fn. 59)
The court of the borough was known as the law
hundred, hundredum legale, in the 14th century. Like
other borough courts, it had a certain amount of
control over burgesses' wills, and some early wills are
enrolled among the Droitwich records. The rolls of
the time of Henry VIII show that the hundredum
legale had by that time divided into two distinct
sessions, one a curia parva for the recovery of small
debts, the other a great court, or king's court, in
which the view of frankpledge was held and conveyances recorded and seisin delivered. Before the
charter of James I the bailiffs doubtless exercised some
of the powers of justices of the peace, but there was
no chartered grant.
The special nature of the burgesses' monopoly and
trade accounts for the absence of any mention of a
merchant gild or of craft gilds.
From the time of John's grant of the farm to the
Earl of Salisbury its descent can be traced with
little breach of continuity. (fn. 60) The grant to the
earl was confirmed by Henry III in 1217. (fn. 61) On
the earl's death in 1226 it probably reverted to
the Crown. In 1236 it was granted to Eleanor,
queen of Henry III. (fn. 62) The farm, which had fallen
to £80 blanche, rose to £85 blanche in 1280, (fn. 63) and
to £89 5s. in 1290, and at this figure Eleanor held
the 'manor' till her death in 1291. (fn. 64)
In 1299 Margaret, queen of Edward I, received
the farm. (fn. 65) She died in 1317 and Isabella, queen of
Edward II, seems to have held it for two years. (fn. 66) In
1319–27 the farm was held by the king's half-brother
Edmund of Woodstock, Earl of Kent, by knight
service. (fn. 67) On Edmund's execution in 1330 his
enemy Roger Earl of March obtained the farm and
held tili his execution in the same year. Margaret
Countess of Kent, Edmund's widow, then held till
her death in 1350. (fn. 68) The grant passed to her son
John till his death in 1352, when the farm had
risen to £100. John's sister Joan held till her death
in 1385, her husbands, Sir Thomas Holand and
Edward Prince of Wales, in turn acknowledging her
receipts. Her heir, Thomas Holand, half-brother of
Richard II, held till his death in 1397. His widow
Alice held in dower, and their daughters and their
descendants afterwards held in shares. By their
several marriages the following persons became
recipients: Roger Mortimer and Edmund Earl of
March, Sir John Grey and his descendants the Greys
of Powys, Edmund of Langley Duke of York, Sir
Henry Bromflete, George Duke of Clarence, the Dukes
of Somerset and their descendants. John Tiptoft,
Earl of Worcester, receiving a charge on the dower
of Edmund of Langley's widow, had £5 charged on
the fee farm. The mother of Edward IV had
£70 17s. 10d. charged on the farm, and Elizabeth,
queen of Henry VII, and Katherine of Aragon,
Jane Seymour, Anne of Cleves and the Duke of
Richmond succeeded to this share. (fn. 69)
The payment seems then to have been allowed to
fall into arrears, and in the 17th century £9,000 was
charged against the bailiffs. (fn. 70) The Stuarts revived
among the ancient claims one to a 'lewne' for
provisioning the royal household, and Charles I
granted Queen Henrietta for life £82 1s. 10d. from
the vill. (fn. 71) The trustees of the Commonwealth in
1650 sold this yearly sum to the chief baron of the
Exchequer, John Wilde, for £738 16s. 6d. A patent
of 1670–1 appointed trustees for the sale of the
same. (fn. 72) The fee farm continued to be a charge
upon the borough during the 18th century. In
1704 Sir John Pakington sued the burgesses for his
share of the fee farm, then divided among a number
of persons. (fn. 73) It was stated then that 5s. 10d. a year
per vat was the usual contribution to the farm (fn. 74) ;
complaint was made by the plaintiff that many newlysunk pits were not contributing. In 1708 a bill was
brought to the House of Commons to make the new
pits contributory, but it was thrown out. How the
payment of farm gradually lapsed does not appear,
but the fact that it had lapsed is made known in the
evidence on Sir John Pakington's petition, 1747, (fn. 75)
and in the report of the commissioners in 1835.
The long descent of the farm of the 'sheriff's seal,'
later called 'shrethales,' 'shrefvessel,' 'shervesputt,'
and perhaps identical with the 'sheriff's walling,'
which is often mentioned, can also be traced through
many centuries. The right of Urse D'Abitot, Sheriff
of Worcester, passed with Elmley Castle and the
hereditary shrievalty to his descendants the Beauchamps, afterwards Earls of Warwick. During the
reign of Stephen William de Beauchamp seems to
have lost the sheriffdom and the appurtenant seals,
but they were restored to him in 1141 by the
Empress Maud, (fn. 76) to hold as his father Walter had
held. The payment of £20 to Warwick Castle for a
seal and bullary of eight vats called 'shirrevesele'
appears on the early borough accounts. (fn. 77) It was in
the neighbourhood of the sheriff's seal, within the
borough, that Steynor at the close of the 17th
century sank a pit on his own land, which was the
means of breaking the burgesses' monopoly.
The king's farm was made up in part by levies of
land gafol (longavel), paid at the close of the 13th
century by thirty or forty persons, and of 'salsa,'
which we take to be a 'gabelle' on salt, each person
paying about 1s. The 'salsa' rolls appear to represent in early times the later 'salt rolls of farm
assessed,' rolls giving the shares which burgesses contributed to the farm. There was also a render of
'hocksilver,' 'hokeselver,' 'hooselver,' paid by the
Prior and convent of Worcester, (fn. 78) the Prioress of
Westwood and the Abbot of Bordesley. Possibly
this 'hocksilver' may be connected with the mysterious
'hocci,' 'hoch' of Domesday Book. The Abbot of
Bordesley's rights in Droitwich salt were derived from
Waleran of Mellent, who allowed the monks to keep
the new pit, made by their own work, on an island
at Droitwich 'near Cholevilla,' the salt to be for
their own use 'sine venditione quam inde faciant ibi.' (fn. 79)
Possibly by the payment of hocksilver the monks were
admitted to the right to sell salt by retail.
The rolls which record the payment of 'longavel,'
'salsa' and 'hocksilver' name also a 'ledsmyth' payment of 20s.—a payment perhaps for the monopoly
of making or mending the boilers. They name also
the 140 or more persons who paid consuetudo, which
we take to be a fee in the nature of toll from country
burgesses or non-burgesses who were admitted to the
salt trade. Toll eo nomine forms a distinct account
and probably refers to other wares; the toll was
farmed for £36 in the reign of Edward III. An
account of 1345–6 shows that with 'perquisites'
from foreigners, fines for evasion (asportatio) of toll,
stallage, pickage and amercements, the borough
receipts amounted to £132 10s. 7½d.
By the Letters Patent of 1553–4, (fn. 80) confirming the
charter of John, the burgesses were formally incorporated under the name of the bailiffs and burgesses
of the borough of Wich. The two bailiffs were to
be annually elected at the Exchequer, or some other
convenient place, on the Tuesday after Michaelmas,
and sworn in before the recorder and burgesses.
The burgesses were to choose a recorder learned in
the law from time to time, also a clerk of the borough
court. In the borough court meeting on Tuesdays
the bailiffs and burgesses were to have jurisdiction in
all actions under the value of £5, and were authorized
to make by-laws. Two serjeants-at-mace were to
act as executive officers, and the borough was to be
represented by two members elected by the bailiffs
and burgesses. The market was to be held on
Monday and to enjoy the same privileges as the
markets of Wenlock and Ludlow.
The charter of 1625 is of a fuller and more formal
character. (fn. 81) It recites the charter of John and
explicitly forbids the sinking of new pits. The bailiffs
and burgesses assembled in the Exchequer House
were given power to make trade regulations and to
sell and let lands. View of frankpledge was granted
and a court leet twice a year, and the town clerk was
ordered to act as steward in this court. Both this
court and the pie-powder court had fallen into disuse
in 1835. The two bailiffs were to be elected annually
and were to act as coroners. They were given power
to enroll bonds obligatory under a statute merchant
seal, and had the authority of clerks of the market.
The recorder, bailiffs and last two bailiffs, or any
two of them, had full power to act as justices of the
peace. The borough court was to be held weekly on
Thursday, and its competence was to extend over all
actions not exceeding £10 in the amount at issue.
The borough was to have a common prison for the
custody of persons fined before its courts.
The oaths of the borough officers, preserved in a
Droitwich minute book, of the time of Charles II,
add some further details of the municipal executive.
The bailiffs served all warrants and held the assizes of
bread, beer and victuals, punished brawlers and swore
to make just account and to see 'that the pit goes
straight,' and that none occupy 'walling' other than
his own inheritance. The burgess swore to be ready
to come at the common bell (fn. 82) to attend at the
Chequer and confer on any controversy, and to be
privy to no wrong or oppression upon the pit. The
oaths of the drawers at Upwich and Netherwich
(Middlewich then lying waste) required them to
watch the masters of 'le bechin,' 'beachin' or
'beargin,' (fn. 83) and the middlemen who bore the brine,
and to see to the fair filling of the vessels. There
were also sealers of leather, showing that a tanning
industry had begun. (fn. 84)
By a Private Act of 1689–90, of which only the
title appears to be known, new regulations were made
for the salt works (fn. 85) ; the bailiffs seem to have been
discharged from their responsibility for the government of the pits, and governors were appointed in
their stead. But in 1704 the governors ceased to
exist. Robert Steynor's suits in Chancery and the
King's Bench 1690–5, finally determined by the
Lord Keeper's decision 24 January 1695, completely
altered the character of the salt trade, which now
ceased to be a monopoly of the burgesses.
At the time of the Municipal Reform Act the
charter of James I was still the governing charter.
The bailiffs and recorder received no salary and the
serjeants-at-mace acted as constables without other
salary than the fees which they claimed from persons
who needed their services. The charter of James I
gave no power to levy a rate for police or general
purposes, and in 1835 the only source of municipal
income was the rent of some cottages, about £10 a
year. In 1835 it was reported that the bailiffs
applied these rents to their own use, but spent far
more at their own charges in keeping the court-house
and prison in repair. When Droitwich was brought
under the scheme of municipal reform the town clerk
of the old régime made strenuous resistance, conveyed
the site of the town hall to himself and refused to
give up the documents. (fn. 86)
The charter of James I laid down no rule for the
creation of burgesses or for the inheritance of the
burgess-ship, and numerous disputes arose as to the
law of the Droitwich burgess-ship and parliamentary
franchise. Habington, writing in the 17th century,
asserts that the first burgesses, who claimed other than
by inheritance or marriage, were created by election
in 1570, but an earlier case (1370) has been mentioned above. As soon as the burgess-ship ceased to
have a commercial value and became valuable as a
means to the parliamentary franchise the by-laws on
the subject of admission to burgess-ship began to
vary with the strength of political feeling or rival
family interests. In the 16th century or later it
seems to have been an accepted custom that every
burgess must own a quarter of a vat in the 'original
springs,' and when the borough monopoly had ended
and the original springs ceased to be worked, those
who were anxious to secure the parliamentary franchise
used various legal but highly artificial means to comply
with the condition. Any number of imaginary
quarter-vats could be charged on non-existent springs,
and passed from hand to hand for peppercorn rents
and the like. As early as 1632 by-laws were made
to prevent irregular creations of new burgesses, but
none remained permanently effective. (fn. 87) In 1692 and
1747 the House of Commons agreed that the right
to elect members of Parliament was in 'the burgesses
of the corporation of the saltsprings of Droitwich,'
but one of the issues in the Earl of Shrewsbury's case,
1686, (fn. 88) against the burgesses, as to whether 'proprietors,' persons inheriting shares in the springs,
needed no formal admission and were by inheritance
alone made burgesses, appears to have been still
doubtful when Sir John Pakington presented a petition
on this question in 1747. (fn. 89) In 1835 there were five
resident and about thirty non-resident burgesses. In
the 18th-century 'book of minutes of common halls'
will be found the signatures of the electors on each
occasion of a parliamentary election, and little further
record of municipal government. The borough had
been represented by two members in the Parliaments
of Edward I and II, but not again till Mary's reign,
when two members began to be sent regularly until
1832. Only one member was returned from 1832
to 1885, when the parliamentary representation of the
borough was merged in that of a county division.
The best mediaeval evidence as to the population
of Droitwich is provided by the Lay Subsidy Rolls
published by the Worcestershire Historical Society,
but the information they furnish is imperfect. The
earliest roll is of about 1276–82 and names eightyseven persons who paid a total of £26 13s. 2d. In
1327 a roll of ninety persons paid £5, Witton then
paying apart from the borough. In 1340 the
burgesses declared the ninth of their goods to be
worth 20 marks. (fn. 90) Nash quotes records which give
Droitwich 151 families in the four parishes in 1563
and 249 families in 1781. The parliamentary
returns of 1801 (fn. 91) give 439 houses and 1,845 inhabitants. The population at the census of 1901 was
4,201, and in 1911 was 4,146.
John's charter of 1215 had granted to the burgesses
a fair beginning at the feast of the Translation of
St. Andrew and St. Nicholas (9 May), to last for
eight days. Edward III in 1330 (fn. 92) gave instead a
fair on the vigil and day of St. Thomas the Martyr
(29 December) and on the vigil and day of St. Simon and
St. Jude (28 October) and three days after. Mary's
charter granted three fairs, on the vigil of St. Philip
and St. James (1 May) and two days after, the vigil
of St. Peter and St. Paul (29 June) and two days
after, and the vigil of St. Simon and St. Jude
(28 October) and two days after. The fairs were to be
as open as those of Wenlock and Ludlow and under
the same regulations. The charter of James I changed
the market day from Monday to Friday and formally
granted a pie-powder court for the same. In 1792
the fairs were held on Friday in Easter week,
22 September, 21 December and 23 September for
hiring. (fn. 93) The present-day fairs are the Monday
before 20 June, and for cattle only 12 December, (fn. 94)
superseded by the fortnightly stock sales.
The agricultural system of the early community
has left no such clear and definite traces as to
encourage the hope that the arable area of the
mediacval borough can be divided into its original
fields. It is even possible that Witton was the
original agricultural centre. There are some few
traces of the open-field system in the chartularies which
describe the lands of the neighbourhood, but nothing
of so definite and satisfactory a kind as to make it
certain that Droitwich was not a district of isolated
farmsteads, but a settlement equipped with arable
hides on the Germanic model.
The territorial area of the borough at present
covers 1,856 acres, or less than three square miles. An
enlargement followed the Reform Act, which, however,
affected the population rather than acreage, and the
mediaeval acreage appears to have been approximately
what it is now. It does not appear that the urban
inhabited area of the Middle Ages was inclosed by
any wall; a ditch and toll gates were probably its
sole defences. (fn. 95) No murage grant was made to the
borough.
In 1456 the boundaries of the borough were thus
described (fn. 96) : from the stone wall of the churchyard
of St. Augustine's, Dodderhill, on the south of the
church at the stile by the priest's house, down by the
common way to the church towards the east, by a
tenement lying behind that of the Prior and convent
of Worcester, up to the 'marestake' at the top of the
hill. And so by the old boundaries down to the
hall, lately rebuilt, of John Meredith's house, through
the middle of the hall to the road called the common
cart-way from Wich to Bromsgrove, to John Walker's
old house, now Alice Pershore's. And so across the
highway to a short lane leading to the wood there
called Purdesore, (fn. 97) to the east. And so by the lane
under the wood of the pasture called the Fordmill
meadow next the Floodgates pit, on the south. And
so down by the ditch of Purdesore wood to the ditch
between the meadow called the Millmeadow on the
west and the lord of Impney's meadow on the east.
And so down by the ditch of Purdesore Wood to the
River Salwarpe otherwise called the Mill Pond. And
so up by the footbridge at the end of the Millmeadow
by Wich highway on the south of the river and by
the river up between Impney's meadow on the north
and 'le Ruddecroft' on the south. And so up by
the river to the 'Clerkenbath' where sheep are
washed; and up the river to a little 'sechet' of water
called Bottybroke under Impney on the west, which
sechet descends by the Gerveysecroft into the Salwarpe,
down by a small parcel of land lately inclosed by
Thomas Corbett lord of Impney. And so up at the
end of the sechet of Bottybroke, where it enters the
Salwarpe by Thomas Corbett's parcel on the west,
and the custumary land of the lord of Impney on the
cast, by Gerveysecroft and Peter Cassey's pasture on
the south of the sechet and up by the sechet to the
upper end of a pasture by the side of the sechet called
Blackmoor by Hanbury Field called the Westfield, by
the Corbett place of Impney. And so up by the
Bottybrook to the upper end of the Blackmoor pasture
next the court place of Impney, to the king's highway on the south of Blackmoor pasture, and on the
west of a certain common pasture called Nomansland
to the east of Blackmoor pasture. And so up straight
from Nomansland turning back by the said highway
stretching between the demesne land of Hadsor to the
south and the Blackmoor to the north, to the sechet
called Grytenbrook, at the east end of Gerveysecroft.
And so up straight on the west side of the sechet to
the Cokescroft, leaving the croft to the east. And so
up by the said croft and sechet stretching between
the demesne land of Hadsor on the east and a field of
Wich called Le Byttomfeld on the west. And so up
between the Hadsor demesne land on the east and a
certain common pasture there and a piece of land
called Canonys land on the west to the field called
Willot's Field towards the south. And so down from
the upper end of the piece of Canonys land stretching
by Willot's Field up to a short lane between the said
field on the south and the field called Betemefield on
the north. And so beyond the highway there called
Prymmes Lane (fn. 98) to a field called Le Redefeld to a
parcel of land in the lower part of the said field called
Froxemere's Slough. And so up by Wynturesland
on the north and the land called Lenchesland on the
south, and straight to the short lane lying between
the field called Littlefield on the south and La Redefield to the north. And so down the said lane by the
upper end of a croft called Locarescroft and down
under the foot of Tagwall Hill to the spring called
Tagwall; and then down to the highway under
Brazecroft, and leaving that croft on the north side of
a lane called Le Thorny Lane stretching towards a
meadow called Banardesmore and the field there
called Loweshull Field on the south, to the sechet in
Banardesmore under Spitalcroft with the culver-house
to the north of the sechet. And so down by the sechet
between Banardesmore and Falshamfield to the west,
to the marl-pit called Falfordespit, within the franchise
of Wich. And so down by the said sechet to the pool
called Newpool by the Salwarpe demesne, and
through the middle of the pool as far as Le Bolteshede, and from this head, at the pool's head straight
down from Bolteshede by the gutter of the same to a
sechet there towards the north called Northbrook,
stretching straight to the Salwarpe under the park
pale of Salwarpe by the bridge there called Cowbridge.
And so up from the end of the sechet entering the
river of Salwarpe, to the end of the Haymeadow, and
straight by the river between the Brademeadow on
the south of the park pale on the north, to the upper
end of Overham meadow inclosed within the park
pale by Breryhill land on the north of the meadow.
And so down by the river to the sechet called Bileborne to the end of Micham meadow. And so up by
the sechet called Bilborne under the hill called
Appellerhill to Boycotebridge, by the old messuage
called Le Alfordsland in the Over Boycote. (fn. 99) And so
across the common way leading to Ombersley towards
the west and from Boycotebridge towards the tenement lying in Le Overboycote, and under it and a
piece of land called Bruggesland on the south. And
so by the old lane at the head of the marl-pit there
by the head, and by the lane to the 'meseplace,' late
John Selling's. And so by the old water-lane stretching towards the arable field called Le Hydefurlong.
And so up by a sechet descending from Honeybornebridge (fn. 100) and from that bridge to a selion called the
headland lying between two big pieces of arable called
Fekenaputreeland. And so up by the headland to
Cokeseysland to a footway called 'a mereway' (fn. 101)
between the land called Blackfurlong to the north and
Burfordsacre to the south by the Buryefield. And so
up by the Buryfield on the north up to a new ditch
between Cassy's land on the west and the demesne
land of the rectory of Dodderhill on the east. And
so under the rectory close to the west end of Dodderhill Church. And so round by the stone wall of the
churchyard on the south of the church up to the
priest's house.
From the perambulation above quoted, and from
the chartularies which refer to Droitwich lands, it
would be gathered that there was much pasture and
much inclosure at an early date. 'Le Wychfeld' is
named in a deed of 1346–7, (fn. 102) and through it passed
a road called 'Ermyngwey.' From the 15th century
come Wychefeld, Falshamfeld, (fn. 103) Astewodfeld. Loulleleye, Lulleleye, Lelyfield appears in records from the
14th to the 16th century, and may perhaps claim the
Lollaycross. Souggenhyde or Suggenhyde comes
from the 14th century. Masgundry or Masguntreefield, Sucknelfield, (fn. 104) and Falshamfield appear in the
18th-century parochial terriers of which Prattinton
preserved copies.
Rafunestreet is named in 1236 as running from
St. Mary's Witton to 'Luthbridge' and so to 'Letherenebruge.' (fn. 105) 'Le Ruinestreet' occurs continually
in the conveyances and chartularies, with Froglane
(running from Gosford Street to the Salwarpe);
Froxmere; Le Barrestreet, perhaps marking a tollbar; 'Wawenham' lane; and Vallance End, probably
the Queen Street end where the Valence property lay.
The corn-mills Frogmill alias the King's Mill (fn. 106) and
Briarmill are named in mediaeval records and still
exist. Besides the Chapelbridge and the Newbridge
at the end of Froglane there was a Bagbridge, and
Bagbridge Lane running from it where now is Asylum
Lane, and a Lychebridge and others over the numerous brooks and winding streams of the borough area.
The town of Droitwich, though not wholly lacking
in architectural interest, contains, apart from the
churches of St. Andrew and St. Peter, little that is
worthy of special remark. At the corner of High
Street and Queen Street are some half-timbered
houses of a comparatively early type. In the High
Street, immediately to the east of St. Andrew's
Church, is a good block of red brick Georgian houses.
The church and town hall face each other at the
foot of St. Andrew's Street where it joins the High
Street, and here the weekly market is held. The
town hall is an uninteresting structure of the early
19th century. Friar Street, as the western continuation of the High Street is named, contains some
work of the 16th and 17th centuries. Of the latter
date perhaps the best example is a three-storied
gabled house of brick, with a two-storied central
porch and arched outer doorway. The string-courses
and quoins are of stone. The original stone-mullioned
windows have been replaced on the front elevation by
large sash windows of the 18th century. The house
is now divided into two. The Priory House, in the
same street, is a half-timbered house of similar date.
The Hope Inn, a Georgian building of three stories
with a projecting hood to the doorway, is a good
example of the period. The Raven Hotel, at the
top of St. Andrew's Street, is a much modernized
half-timber building, the original part probably
dating from the early 16th century. St. Peter's
Church is situated about three-quarters of a mile
south-east of the main portion of the town, on the
west side of the lane known as the 'Holloway.' To
the east of the church stands the Manor House, the
former seat of the Nash family. It is of half-timber,
of three stories. The house, which appears to have
been erected in 1618, (fn. 107) was restored in 1867, when
the interior appears to have been wholly remodelled.
Some panelling still survives, and over the fireplace
of the room on the left-hand side of the entrance hall
is an original plaster panel with strap-work ornamentation. On the panel is painted the following inscription: 'When you sit by this fire | Yourself to
warm | Take care that yr tongue | Do your neighbour
no harm.'
The lettering appears to be modern, but there
seems to be little doubt that it is a more or less faithful copy of a preceding inscription. In a room on
the first floor is a fireplace with a very similar panel
above it. Adjoining the house is a fine brick barn,
lighted by small windows with plastered mullions.
At the north end of the Holloway, near its junction
with the Alcester and Stratford road, are the 17th-century almshouses known as the Coventry Hospital.
They form a range of eighteen two-storied houses,
built of brick with plain casement windows and tiled
roofs. A modern marble tablet on the front wall
states that they were founded by the 'Right Honourable Henry Coventry, son of the Right Honourable
Thomas Lord Coventry, Lord Keeper of the Great
Seal of England, in the reign of King Charles I.'
Below, and apparently of original date, is the Coventry
shield: Sable a fesse ermine between three crescents or.
The newer portion of the town, which is almost
entirely of a residential character, shows a tendency to
spread in a southerly direction along the Worcester
road and between it and the Holloway. A new
district has also grown up within the last thirty years
along the Ombersley Road and in the neighbourhood
of the Great Western railway station.
The old Chequer House built in 1581, no doubt
on the site of the Chequer of 1327, was swept away
about 1825, together with the market-house, part of
the same building put up in 1628. (fn. 108) A cross is
named in 1629.
The earliest allusion to the common seal of Droitwich comes from about 1220, (fn. 109) and it is probably the
seal bearing the legend Sigillum communitatis de Wycho
which has been figured. (fn. 110) It was a round seal bearing a shield of the ancient arms of the town with
the sword and two passant lions between two
wyverns. The matrix of a second seal, (fn. 111) of the early
15th century, is in the British Museum. It is 21/8 in.
in diameter; within a cusped circle a shield of the
town arms as on the first seal, impaling quarterly (1)
and (4) Checky argent and sable, (2) and (3) Gules
two salt-barrows (fn. 112) or. The legend is Sigillum commune ville Wychie. It has been suggested that the
checkers refer to the Droitwich Chequer where the
accounts were made up. Soon after the grant of
the charter of James I a third seal was made with
arms as above, with the legend Sigillum commune
ville Wytchie, (fn. 113) and a statute merchant seal exists of
the same date, with the checkers impaling two salt-barrows.
There are two silver maces bearing the date
1646, when they were made, and 1660, when the
royal arms superseded the 'state's arms.' There are
three trade tokens of the 17th century bearing the
town arms (fn. 114) and an ancient measure for salt.
Of the early history of the formation of the
numerous parishes included in the borough of Droitwich little is known beyond what the history of the
descent of the advowsons suggests. Inasmuch as the
sole element of unity was the unity of the royal
demesne in the salt-pits, and the lands over which
burghal jurisdiction extended formed part of the
demesne of many lords, no unity of parochial development is to be expected. There seem, however, to
have been distinct manors or so-called manors at
Witton St. Mary and Witton St. Peter.