1639-40 ship money: errors in Blything & other hundreds; plus Bromeswell (new!)

[gobbitt]

After locating Blything Hundred's 1642 grant assessments last year, I felt the need to evaluate the accuracy of the printed records of a slightly earlier tax, The Ship-Money Returns for the County of Suffolk, 1639-40, produced in 1904 by Vincent Burrough Redstone (VBR).

The sub-title of his book (Harl. MSS. 7,540—7,542) gives the catalogue numbers of the original manuscripts in the Harley collection (formerly held by the British Museum; now at the British Library) but VBR refers to all three volumes as Harleian manuscript 7540 in his chapter headings, where volume II (page 73) should be numbered 7541 and volume III should be 7542 (page 165).

Blything Hundred

The attached document itemizes errors found in the returns from Aldringham cum Thorpe, Blyford or Blythford, Blythburgh, Bramfield, Bulcamp (in Blythburgh), Chediston, Cratfield, Darsham, Halesworth, Henham, Heveningham, Huntingfield, Knodishall & Buxlow, Linstead Magna, Linstead Parva, Mells Hamlet (in Wenhaston), Middleton cum Fordley, Peasenhall, Sibton, Thorington, Ubbeston, Walpole, Wenhaston, Westleton and Yoxford.

Among the forenames wrongly transcribed by VBR are those of Husting(e)s WILLKERSON or WILKINSON at Bramfield and Walpole, Nicholas [not Rich.] BEDDINGFEILDE at Darsham, Jeremy [Je not Jn] BOLLDERY at Huntingfield, Oliver [not Thos.] CHATBURNE at Westleton, and Rafe [not Rose] CANHAM at Yoxford.

The surnames in Blything Hundred suffering the most from mistranscription or omission are indexed at the end of that document.

Bosmere & Claydon Hundred

Probate records indicate that Henley (not indexed by VBR) is probably listed on pages 94 and 95 (folio 47 in volume II, MS 7541) under "Name not given".

Similarly, although not indexed, Mickfield is more than likely to be the place on page 98 (folio 54) called "No name (?Mickfield)".

Thingoe Hundred

Horningsheath (now Horringer) seems to be the only absent parish of Thingoe Hundred, apart from four of Westley's outsetters at "Horningserth" (not indexed) on page 173. I had wondered whether Horningsheath was on MS 7542 folio 12 or 14, as these are missed out by VBR (pages 169 & 170), but I learned recently that "Reede" (Rede or Reed) is in fact on folio 12 (not 11, on which Whepste(a)d is continued from folio 10) and that Chevington's return is not written on folio 13 recto but on the folded double-page spread of folios 13 verso and 14 recto.

Wilford Hundred

In his preface (page iii) VBR states that the returns sent in from eighty of Suffolk's parishes are missing. I have not checked whether that number includes villages like Alderton, which is not indexed but is one of four "towns" mentioned on page 157 (folio 175) that had set no rates. Two of them, Melton and Ramsholt, evidently submitted their returns in due course, while Pettistree or Petistre is indexed for just one resident on page 5, under [Campsea] Ashe, where outsetters living in several nearby parishes are identified.

Bromeswell is completely omitted by VBR. The attached transcript (made from an image of the original return: MS 7541 folio 186) contains the surnames AMINSON, BACKLERE, BRAME, BRANCH, BRITTWELL, CAMPLEN, COCKE, COPER~?, CORBULL, CUT(T)ING(E), FELLERES, GREENE, GROOSE, KEDE, LEWES, ?MAN, MEARRELL, MENTERE, NORMAS, STUD(D?), STYLES, WAYLAND and WHITINGE.

Sutton is another parish whose original return I have seen in images supplied by the British Library (MS 7541 folio 185 recto & verso), allowing me to compare this with VBR's transcript (pages 160 & 161). It may not be worth highlighting his standard spellings and abbreviations of forenames ("Rose" for Roose, "Jas." for Jeames etc.) but there are some important mistakes, such as John "Maw" [actually MAST, who was rated at 10d, not 11d] and Edmunde "Dove" [DOOE, who may have been buried at Hollesley in 1664]. John TURNUR was rated at 1s 10d [not 1s 1d] and Robert OSBORNE as much as £1 0s 9d [not merely 9d]. I believe the unfinished name of Robert "Lee" [LE...?] was deleted at the foot of folio 185 to be written overleaf as Robert KEEDE, who is the sole occupant of folio 185 verso but is printed at the top of VBR's list (page 160). He was to pay 1s 6d "for red graves", which is rendered by VBR as Redgraves (not indexed on page 225).

In conclusion, this exercise has underlined the notorious unreliability of transcripts — even those compiled by a very experienced historian — although they can provide many useful details from obscure sources.

David Gobbitt