Subjects: Compurgation

Compurgation was a process whereby those accused of an offence punishable by the church (such as immorality) might, in some circumstances, be permitted to clear their name if several honest neighbours were prepared to swear that the accusation was unfounded. Those who took the oath were known as ‘hands’ and were usually of the same sex and social standing as the accused. The required number of hands would be specified at the time that compurgation was agreed. However, if any objections were upheld or insufficient compurgators could be found the accused was judged to have failed compurgation and his offence would then be judged by the ecclesiastical authorities.

Source:

M. Ingram, Church Courts, Sex and Marriage in England, 1570-1640 (Cambridge, 1990), pp. 51-2.

Claim for compurgation

EDC 5/1580/5 – The plaintiff claimed that he should have been given the opportunity to clear his name through compurgation without the matter coming to court

Subjects: Church seating

By the sixteenth century the majority of local churches had seats and the right to occupy a specific seat was often hotly contested and could lead to violence.

Disputes involving the right to sit in a seat understood to belong to a specific house.

EDC 5/1566/13 – Richard Clive, esquire, contra Joan Calkin, wife of Peter Calkin
EDC 5/1582/11 – Richard Massey contra John Brereton

Subjects: Child marriage

The formation of a marriage at this time could be legally complex.

It was possible for children over the age of seven to contact a lawful future marriage per verba de futuro (by words of future intent). This was conditional upon consummation once the couple reached puberty, deemed to be fourteen for boys and twelve for girls. Much younger children were also promised in marriage, sometimes before they could talk.

However, if either party did not later wish to continue with the marriage it could be annulled before consummation. Annulment could be arranged informally before witnesses, but formal confirmation by the court precluded any uncertainty. Non-consummation might have to be proved through physical examination by sworn witnesses.

As proof of age might be difficult to obtain, it was often additionally claimed that one party had been compelled to the marriage by parents or friends, so that it was invalid through ‘force or fear’.

At this time, the church courts had sole legal authority in matrimonial matters.

Sources:

R. H. Helmholz, Marriage Litigation in Medieval England (London, 1974).

R. B. Outhwaite, Clandestine Marriage in England 1500-1850 (London, 1995).

Dissolution of marriage of minors

A marriage of minors could be dissolved if either party did not later wish to continue with the marriage once they reached the age of discretion and the marriage had not been consummated.

EDC 5/1/1 – Ellen Knottisford contra Ralph Bury
EDC 5/1580/4 – Elizabeth Meycock contra Thomas Davie

Invalidity of marriage of minors

A purported marriage where at least one of the parties was under the age of seven was found to be invalid.

EDC 5/1/4 – Joan Dutton alias Sompnor contra Richard Sompnor

Subjects: Audit at Halton Castle

Subjects: Agricultural and other produce and its value

It may be that the value of produce as claimed in tithe causes is over-stated to increase the value of the claim, and often values were not precisely given.

Some definitions may also be useful:

Acre – the Cheshire acre was 10,240 square yards, as opposed to a statute acre of 4,840 square yards. The Cheshire acre was also used in parts of south Lancashire.
Thrave – twenty four sheaves.

Robert Holland, A Glossary of Words Used in the County of Chester, (1885).

Barley and oats

EDC 5/13/3 – Robert Assheton, rector of Middleton, contra Giles Johnson.

Barley, oats and rye

EDC 5/13/1 – Roger Lever contra Roger Walmysley, senior and Roger Walmysley, junior.

Barley, oats and wheat

EDC 5/10/2 – Roger and Ellen Fulbeke and Nicholas Jacson, farmers of the tithes of Irton, contra John and Nicholas Sherween and Roland Hartley.
EDC 5/12/1 – Robert Assheton, rector of Middleton, contra John Aspenhawlgh, John Alens and John Bradley.

Milk, calves, lambs, wool, piglets, geese, eggs, hemp, flax, apples, pears, onions, leeks, garlic

EDC 5/11/1 – Sir Thomas Langton, farmer of the tithes of the chapelry of Low, contra Lawrence Banastre.

Oats

EDC 5/12/2 – Thomas Cuverden contra Richard Sherley.

Pasture, gorse, oats, peas, hay

EDC 5/10/1 – William Aldersey contra Thomas Wright and Richard Broster.

Piglets

EDC 5/1580/6 – John Vawdrey and Richard Vawdrey contra Richard Webb, William Janeon the elder and William Janeon the younger; a piglet valued at between 6d and 12d.

Wheat

EDC 5/1575/3 – John Vawdrey and Richard Vawdrey contra Ralph Calveley; a thrave of wheat valued between somewhere between 2s and 9s.

Subjects: Adultery

Divorce as we know it today was not permitted in the sixteenth century, but if adultery without subsequent reconciliation could be proved a divorce a mensa et thoro (separation from bed and board) could be granted. Although often described as divorce, it did not give the parties the right to remarry, only the right to live apart.

Adultery as grounds for separation

Sometimes a sentence of divorce a mensa et thoro would specify that adultery had been proved and that there was no reconciliation.

EDC 5/1/2 – Elizabeth Levar contra Adam Levar
EDC 5/1580/1 – Elizabeth Cowley alias Johnson, wife of Richard Cowley alias Johnson, contra Richard Cowley alias Johnson
EDC 5/1580/2 – Thomas Darcie, gentleman, contra Cecily Darcie
EDC 5/1580/3 – Thomas Darcie, gentleman, contra Cecily Darcie

Second marriage considered bigamous

EDC 5/11/2 – Sir Robert Worsley – the papers in this matter indicate that Sir Robert Worsley understood that his first marriage was invalidated by his wife’s adultery but this was not accepted by the church authorities who considered that his second marriage was bigamous and he was therefore committing adultery.