A HISTORY OF HERTFORDSHIRE 



Hertford firs 



representatives to the Parliament 

 of iiq8. m Its two members were present in subse- 

 quent Parliaments from 1301 to 131 i. el After this 

 time St. Albans or Bishop's Stortford frequently sent 

 members, and the representation of Hertford became 

 very uncertain. Its members sat in 1313," 131 S, M 

 and from I 3 1 9 to 132Z. 3 * In 1336, 1373 and 1376 

 they also appeared, but from this time the right to 

 separate representation fell into desuetude. 



The claim to return two members was made in 

 1 6i 1, and the right was proved to the satisfaction of 

 a select committee in i6z+. 35 The Speaker refused 

 to define the franchise, and the controversy over the 

 vote of non-res:dent burgesses raged in a series of 

 petitions from 1681. 36 In 1705 a select committee 

 resolved that the vote was in the inhabitants, 37 free- 

 men resident at the time of their admission, and the 

 three chartered out-burgesses. 38 On this followed a 

 second series of petitions accusing the fairness of the 

 mayor as returning officer, 39 a matter on which two 

 opinions were hardly possible. The borough vote 

 was a very saleable commodity, 40 and bribery, comi- 

 cally flagrant, was rife in Hertford in 1833. 41 It was 

 not, however, until 1S67 that Hertford lost one 

 member." The Redistribution Act of 188; merged 

 the borough representation in that of the county. 43 



The rights of common held by the burgess by 

 ancient custom arc first described in 1 295-6. ^ The 

 'community' used the pasture of Hartham (20 a.) 

 throughout the year, each burgess paying 4/ a head 

 for horses, $J. for oxen and cows, 1 ifd. for calves and 

 \d. for sheep. Kings Mead was subject to the same 

 rights, except when it was fenced for hay every third 

 year." A third meadow (included in Kings Mead in 

 1331) lay open once in three years." The custom 

 may well be more ancient than the burgesses believed, 

 and the rights a survival of Saxon arrangements. 



No change is noticed in 1331, but in 1384 

 'foreigners' are described as putting their cattle on 

 the pasture at a rate of \d. a head higher than that of 

 burgess- kine. 47 As this usage is referred to ancient 

 custom, it may well have existed, although unrecorded, 

 in 1 13 1. 



The rater remained unchanged throughout the 

 1 5th century, 4 " but burgesses and foreigners hardly 

 grazed a dozen cattle among them in the later 



After the grant of the charter in 1554. the question 

 arose whether the common of pasture belonged to the 

 tenants of the manor of Hertford or the inhabitants 

 of the town. 60 The custom alleged was that the 

 meadows should be inclosed from 2 February to 

 1 August, when they were thrown open to the 



inhabitant* residing in Hertford , the Prior of Hert- 

 ford also had common right* by agreement. " The 

 owners, not being inhabitants, had put their beasts on 

 the meadows, Kings Mead, Halles Holmes, Wreng. 

 don's Mead, Halle's Cowlees, Hall's Horseleei, 

 Thurland and Chawdell Mead." The case was 

 apparently won by the inhabitants. 



The difficulty was that many of the common lands 

 lay outside the borough. Three kinds of commons 

 were distinguished by the jury of 1611 : Hartham 

 and Kings Mead belonging to the borough ; ' foreign ' 

 meadows lying outside the borough — Thurland, 

 Hither Cowmead, Middle Cowlees, Heathe's Cow- 

 lees, Halles Hook, Horselees and Hoppitts "—which 

 were common from 31 July to Candlemas ; finally, 

 fields belonging to other manors, and common for all 

 manner of cattle at all times— Middle Field, Cock- 

 bush Field, High Field and others. 5 * The last two 

 classes of common rights appear here suddenly and 

 cannot be traced. They may be omitted from earlier 

 surveys as involving no payment to the Crown. 



In November 1627 the corporation bought Kings 

 Mead from the Crown for the use of the poor." 

 Disputes once more arose between the occupiers of 

 the ancient burgage tenements and of the newer 

 houses and cottages. The matter was finally relerred 

 to the Privy Council, who decided that the tenants 

 of the newly-erected cottages should enjoy a life 

 interest only, and that all right in the commons 

 should then revert to the ancient burgagers. Bfl 



The mayor and his successors paid small sums to the 

 poor and larger ones to the corporation, and kept no 

 account. 47 In consequence of an investigation in 1 709 

 the corporation were obliged to repay £15 11/. \od. 

 for every year since 164;, and the meadow was put into 

 trust. SK The corporation considered that they had no 

 further jurisdiction, and the common rights were so 

 little guarded that in 1737 fifty-three of the inhabit- 

 ants agreed to impound cattle and take proceedings in 

 defence of the poor. 69 In 1773 the same complaint 

 was raised. 60 Thecommoning in Hartham was then 

 still kept up, and was regulated by the mayor. 61 

 The agistments of this meadow, at the rate of \i. a 

 head of cattle, formed part of the borough income in 

 1834." 



Common rights over the meadow called Hoppitts 

 or Le Holmes were disputed between the burgesses 

 and the Prior of Hertford in December 1312." 

 The prior was evidently trying to free his lands alto- 

 gether from jurisdictional and economic ties to the 

 borough. The dispute was compromised. In the 

 1 6th century the commoning was still shared between 

 the inhabitants of the borough and the prior (but 



■noJMtml. e/ParLi, 8. 



57-64- 

 llanvil, Rtp. of C/rtai* Cast, 



!: Appan 



Cockburn and Rowe, 

 r»«, 184.-223; Perry : 



Stal. 30 & 31 Vict. cap. 

 Ibid. 48 & 49 Vict. cap. 

 Anct. E*t. E*ch. Q.R. n 



. Mann. Corp. 



'7!< 



The 



dary Rtp. {Pari. Paper,, 1832 

 ■f. AfSS. (.'«■>, Rtp. li, A FP . U 



*' Duchy of Un 

 53, nc 998. 



15 Ibid. no. 1010 



" Ibid. 



40 Duchy of Lar 



bdfrr. 42, 

 :. Dep. 1 



M Hertf. Corp. Paper., v, no. 6;. 



«* Aug. Off. Fee Faim Renn, file 42, 

 no. 261 ; Hertf. Corp. Papcit, *, 35. 



M Turner, H,,i. ,f Htrtf, 97. See .bo 

 Cal.S.P. Dam. 1 628-9, p. 5*°- For con- 

 tinuance of the controverty an Tumor, 

 op. cil. 1 16. The lictary remained »ilb 

 (he inhabitant! of the borough. 



" Hertf. Corp. Paper., *, no. 35. 



>. wMur. Corp. (iljO, A PP . . 

 * AfSS. Cam. Rtf. kjt, App. tn 



498 



