I have been transcribing a wonderful set of records detailing official appointments and minor offences in Bedford in the 1650s. These were created by the court leet, and are a product of the manorial system of government that operated to a greater or lesser extent in England and Wales from the middle ages to the 20th century. These records are a treasure trove of information for family, local and social historians, and reveal much about town life in the 17th century.

The manor and the court leet
The manorial system was a feudal style of government that allowed a major landowner, the lord of the manor(s), to manage the property and lives of his tenants. This led to the creation of a range of records dealing with rentals and accounts, as well as rules governing the behaviour of tenants. Tenants were not of equal status and leasing arrangements ranged from freehold and copyhold tenure to tenancy at will. ‘Tenants at will’ were the poorest and most vulnerable residents, usually relying on the goodwill of the lord to live on the land. Freeholders paid rent, but had the most freedoms. They were allowed to buy and sell their land to whoever they wished, and could sit as jurors in the manorial courts.

The manorial courts consisted of the court baron and court leet. Both courts were underpinned by the medieval ideal of the view of frankpledge, whereby all men over the age of 12 were viewed as mutually responsible for attending court and for good behaviour in their group of households, or tithing .

The court baron met frequently, dealing with tenancy issues. It was particularly concerned with copyhold tenants, who formed the majority of tenants, and the transfer of land to their heirs, or someone determined by the manor. (Copyholders received rights/privileges in return for rendering services to the manor, which retained the title to any land they occupied, the copyholder only being granted a copy of that title.) The court transacted the fees associated with transfer of land, fined those in breach of the ‘customs’ of the manor and dealt with boundary disputes. Last year marked the centenary of the abolition of copyhold tenure, the final vestige of manorial rule.

The court leet met less frequently, usually twice a year, although this varied in different parts of the country. Those accused of public disorder and petty offences affecting food and drink, public highways and waterways were expected to attend. From the Tudor period onwards its functions in maintaining law and order were gradually undermined by the justices of the peace and the quarter session courts. Yet, in Bedford at least, I have discovered it still had an important role to play in the 17th century.

What the records tell us
For the Borough of Bedford, the earliest court leet records date back to 1385, dealing mainly with fishmongers and vintners (wine merchants), who broke the Assizes of Weights & Measures rules governing the quality and quantity of drink and food. My focus has been on large volumes covering the period 1586 to 1687 and the English entries written in the 1650s. During this period, the court leet dealt with appointments to the town’s guild and meted out fines for various offenders against the town’s constitutions, including officials who did not attend court and the view of frankpledge .

The records are a fascinating insight into mid-17th century Bedford, listing mostly male residents and traders of the town but also some women identified as widows. As widows, these women gained a level of autonomy in a patriarchal society. They tell us about what offended and concerned our ancestors, and who held positions of power in the town as mayor, bailiffs (court officials), burgesses (freemen who were free to trade and vote), aldermen (senior members of the town guild), constables, steward (representative of the manor and scribe) and deputy recorder (legal official).

The court leet entries I have been working on have a set structure. Each entry begins with the name of the mayor, bailiffs and aldermen and any other officials presiding over the court. Twelve or more freemen acting as jury are then listed for two separate hearings: the first being the inquest of the burgesses and the common council, and the second being the constables’ inquest. These jurors did not operate in the same way as modern juries, since most cases and fines were pre-determined.

The burgesses’ inquest fined those officials who were absent from court or owed rent, and named those who were entitled to be promoted to the town guild and fellowship of burgesses. Admittance to the town guild and fellowship was a privilege granted by birthright, or on completion of a seven-year apprenticeship. Apprentices were required to take an oath and make a payment of 14 shillings. Apprentices, their masters and, occasionally, widowed mistresses are named in the records. It is clear that some apprentices had direct family ties, as sons or brothers of their master or mistress.

As well as being valuable to family historians, the burgesses’ inquest shows that power and influence tended to be vested in certain families at this time. Interestingly though, powerful officials were named and penalised for various offences. In 1651, the mayor of Bedford, Robert Bell, was fined 4 pence, along with a number of others, for ‘anoying the common streete with their sinckes running into it’. In 1653, the new mayor, William Faldo, was fined the considerable sum of 10 pounds for taking liberties financially and gifting money above a certain value without the consent of the council and aldermen.

However, these fines paled in comparison to those handed out to traders considered ‘foreynors’ or strangers to the town, i.e. men who were not members of the town guild, trading against (ironically) the town’s ‘liberties’, privileges and constitutions. The heftiest fines of up to 280 pounds were meted out to tanners, shoemakers, booksellers, glovers, tobacco sellers, barbers and collar makers, to name a few of the trades mentioned, a considerable sum equivalent to £40,000 today. The court prioritised protecting the town’s profits and vested interests, and thereby we are given a window into occupations and the local economy in the 1650s.

Following the burgesses’ inquest is a list of those appointed to quality control goods and property, with men given titles like ‘flesh searchers’ (meat inspectors), ‘fish searchers’, ‘ale tasters’ and ‘bucket keepers’. The latter were most likely responsible for storing leather buckets, used to put out fires. Fieldsmen are also appointed, whose role was probably to maintain land boundaries.

Each court leet entry finishes with the constables’ inquest, revealing some fascinating social detail. A man who drew blood in a fight was fined, but the majority of fines went to innkeepers and alehouse keepers for skimping on the correct amount of beer. Those who sullied the streets and waterway with rubbish and waste also preoccupied this court in the 1650s.

Many were fined for blocking streets, for having dirty ditches, for digging up public highways as well as ‘annoying’ the main waterway, the River Ouse – presumably with rubbish. In 1651, a medical doctor was fined for having a ‘muckhill’ on land leading to the river, along with many others. A muckhill was a pile of manure.

The same doctor was fined in 1653 for polluting the River Ouse with his privy or ‘jakes house’, an old term for a toilet. There seem to have been several ways of describing a toilet in the 17th century. The diarist Samuel Pepys famously wrote in 1660 that he had stepped into a ‘great heap of… turds’ in his cellar upon discovering that his next door neighbour’s ‘house of office’ was full and overflowing. We can see from the court leet records that Pepys’s desire to redress sanitary issues in his London home was a widespread concern affecting many aspects of life.

I have been struck by the sheer number of people named in Bedford’s court leet records. In one hearing alone, there are as many as 56 fined for letting their household waste run into the street, and 66 victuallers named and fined for selling under a quart of their best beer. It is therefore possible to establish a detailed picture of who was living in Bedford in the 1650s. Occasionally, a street is named too, which helps to get a sense of the topography of the town in this period, particularly if streets can be cross referenced with John Speed’s town maps of 1610–11.

Court leet records are a fascinating source for anyone interested in family history, social history, law and order and the evolution of local government. They demonstrate that byelaws, trading standards and concerns about public health are nothing new. If you can ‘get your eye in’, you may discover some fascinating – if unsavoury – details about your ancestors beyond the parish chest. {