A HISTORY OF ESSEX 



the gross total for these parishes is decreased. Fluctuations in prosperity appear also to account for the 

 return of paupers by Bobbingworth, Beauchamp Roding, and Stapleford Tawney in 1674; the entries 

 are significantly similar to their certified exempt of 1670. Similarly the decreased number of those 

 chargeable in 1 674 is roughly balanced by increases in the certified exempt. In general, however, there 

 is a total loss of some 1 00 entries due to the omission of paupers. 



These differences in totals do not alone justify the inclusion here of extracts from the 1674 roll. 

 The value of the 1674 Assessment lies in the indications it contains that the 1670 Assessment is less 

 comprehensive than would at first appear. In the 1 674 roll there are 23 entries in 1 8 parishes declaring 

 that a particular person is charged on a stated number of hearths in 2 or 4 houses. Thus in Theydon 

 Bois Thomas Bradley is charged on ii hearths in 2 houses; in Lambourne Robert Masters has 9 

 hearths in 4 houses. When such entries are compared with those relating to the same taxpayer in the 

 earlier Assessments, it is found that the taxpayer is charged on usually the same number of hearths, but 

 in one house only, or that his name occurs more than once in the list of entries. Thus in 1662 and 

 1670 the same Thomas Bradley is charged on 1 1 hearths in one house but Robert Masters appears 

 three times in the 1670 document with i, 3, and 3 hearths respectively.' If the Bradley type of entry 

 was a commoner practice in 1670 than the evidence has so far revealed it means that many families 

 may be masked behind the Assessment entry. 



One further omission from the Assessments earlier than 1 670 may be noted, that of Morrell Roding. 

 A search of the 1662 roll and the books for Lady Day 1666 (E179/246/19 and E179/246/20) shows 

 that neither the hamlet of Morrell Roding as such nor its 4 taxpayers appear in Assessments made 

 before the Michaelmas 1670 Assessment. 



The information contained in these Assessments, despite possible omissions, enables the areas of 

 settlement to be plotted with reasonable accuracy. There emerges from the data a somewhat complex 

 pattern of settlement. The densest concentration is in the parish of Chipping Ongar with most of the 

 population crowded into the small market-town. Then come the 3 contiguous parishes of Fyfield, 

 Moreton, and Shelley north of Chipping Ongar. To the south-east there is a fairly high level of density, 

 and a marked density in the case of Navestock. In the south-west, except for Chigwell, density is lower. 

 The lowest densities are found in the sparsely inhabited parishes of Abbess Roding and Beauchamp 

 Roding. 



To some degree the stratification of society also is reflected in the Assessments. The larger houses, 

 with 10 or more hearths, are found in all but 5 parishes but are most numerous in the south-west, a 

 more fashionable area near London. Smaller houses on the other hand, except in the detached hamlets, 

 are evenly scattered and the proportion of houses with i hearth and 2 hearths is remarkably uniform 

 throughout. 



One of the most striking features is the relatively low level of pauperism in this hundred when 

 compared with some of the other Essex hundreds, particularly Hinckford. Expressed as a percentage 

 of the total of taxpayers and paupers in parishes returning paupers in 1670 we find that paupers in 

 Ongar hundred amount to 13 per cent, of the total. In the same Assessment, paupers in Hinckford 

 hundred exceed 50 per cent, and outnumber by 1 1 entries those on whom the Poor Rate was levied. 



304 



