Chapter XII: The Parish of Kirkham (1)

KIRKHAM. The township of Kirkham was probably the earliest inhabited locality in the Fylde district; and although it is impossible to assert that the very site of the present town was a spot fixed upon by the Romans for erecting their habitations, still as the road formed by those people passed over it, and many remnants of their domestic utensils, funereal urns, and other relics have been discovered in the surrounding soil, there is strong presumptive evidence that an ancient settlement was at least close at hand. Amongst the traces of the old warriors disinterred in this neighbourhood may be mentioned a large quantity of stones prepared for building purposes, and numerous fragments of urns, ploughed up about half a mile from Kirkham. The Mill Hill Field has also disclosed frequent witnesses to the former presence of the Romans, notably abundant specimens of their pottery and coinage, but perhaps the greatest curiosity found in the vicinity is the boss or umbo of a shield, wrought in brass, which was removed from a brook in the field specified during the year 1792. In form the shield is somewhat oval, having its central portion semi-globular, whilst the outer rim is flat. The entire diameter is about eight inches, of which the embossment supplies five. The horizontal and encircling part is perforated in four separate places, apparently for the passage of thongs or rivets. The highest surface of the boss holds the representation of a human figure seated, with an eagle to the left, the sides being adorned with an athlete respectively. Birds, swords, diminutive shields, etc., complete the decorations.

From the year 418, when the Romans vacated the island, up to the compilation of the Domesday Book by William the Conqueror in 1080-86, a period of over six and a half centuries, history preserves no record of any matter or event directly connected with the town, as distinct from the Hundred in which it is situated. Nevertheless it is obvious that Kirkham must have sprung into being some time during that protracted era, insomuch as it appears amongst the places existing in Amounderness in the Norman survey just indicated. The name is a compound derived from the Anglo-Saxons and Danes, and although the syllable “Kirk,” coming from the latter, and signifying a church, could not have been in use until those pirates first invaded the land in 787, and probably was not applied until the mistaken policy of Alfred the Great allowed them to colonise this and other parts of Northumbria, one hundred years later, still it would scarcely be justifiable to conclude that there was no dwelling or village here, as the Anglo-Saxon “ham” implies, anterior to that date. The location of the place on the margin of an open thoroughfare, and the former establishment of the Romans within or near to its boundaries, incline us rather to the opinion that from the earliest arrival of the Anglo-Saxons they had selected this site for the foundation of a small settlement, and that the “ham” or hamlet so created bore a purely Saxon title until the advent of the Danes, under whose influence the orthography became altered by the substitution from their vocabulary of the word “kirk” for the one originally bestowed upon it.

Some idea of the condition of Kirkham at the Norman Conquest may be gleaned from the report concerning the Fylde in the Domesday Book, in which it is stated that of the 840 statute acres comprised in the township, only 400 (four carucates) were under cultivation, the rest being waste, that is, untilled, but very possibly in service as forage ground for swine. At that period the town undoubtedly possessed a church, one of the three mentioned in the record above-named, as standing in Amounderness, but the era of its erection is conjectural merely. The name of Kirkham, however,—the church hamlet,—is manifestly of ecclesiastical origin, and the Danish derivation of “kirk” implies that some religious building existed there, very likely about the year 900, when that nation colonised the district, but that a sacred edifice of some description had been constructed long before may be deduced from the fact that Christianity had been pretty generally embraced by the Anglo-Saxons dwelling in this locality about the middle of the seventh century.

From the commencement of the Norman dominion the history of Kirkham rises out of the mist which has obscured its earlier ages, and we are enabled from the disclosures of ancient documents, to follow out its career in a more satisfactory manner. The church and tithes of Kirkham were presented amongst other possessions, as a portion of the Hundred of Amounderness, by William the Conqueror to the baron Roger de Poictou, and were conferred by that nobleman about the year 1100, on the priory of St. Mary’s, Lancaster,[134]—a monastic institution founded by him from the Abbey of Sees in Normandy. This priory retained possession of the church for only a few years, when it reverted to its former owner, and was bestowed by him on the convent of Shrewsbury, as shown by the charter of William, archbishop of York, as follows:—

“The monks of Salop in the day of my ancestors were often making
complaints that their church was unjustly robbed of the church
of Kirckaham, because it had been legally bestowed upon it by
Roger, count of Poictou, and confirmed by Thomas, archbishop, by
authority of grants under seal. At length they have come before
us to state their complaints; and we, thus constrained and by the
command of lord Henry, legate of the apostolical see, committed
their cause to be laid before the synod of York.”

The archbishop Thomas here mentioned died either in 1100 or 1113, whilst William, the writer of the charter, died in 1154. The York tribunal decided, after seeing the writings touching the confirmation of the grant of the church of Kirkham to the Shrewsbury convent, which the monks of Salop had sealed with the seal of Thomas, the archbishop, that “the aforesaid church should be restored to the church of Peter of Salop.”

In 1195 “a great controversy arose between Theobald Walter, on the one part, and the abbot of Shrewsbury, on the other, concerning the right of patronage of the church, which was thus settled: a certain fine was levied in the king’s court that the abbot and his successors should receive from the church of Kirkham a pension of twelve marks a year, and Theobald himself should for ever remain the true Patron of the said church.”[135]

After the death of Theobald Walter, king John, who had the guardianship of that nobleman’s heir, gave two parts of the church to Simon Blund,[136] and later, in 1213, he bestowed the church upon W. Gray, chancellor, for life.[137] Edward I. conferred the advowson of the church of Kirkham upon the abbey of Vale Royal, a monastic house founded by him in Cheshire; but the grant was not made without strenuous opposition on the part of Sir Theobald Walter or le Botiler,[138] a descendant of the Theobald specified above, who maintained that the king had no legal right to the advowson, which belonged to him as heir-at-law and descendant of Theobald Walter, the first. A council assembled to investigate the rival claims, and Edward, having asserted that his father, Henry III., had granted the advowson to his clerk by right of his crown, and not through any temporary power he had as guardian of Theobald Walter’s heir, a statement which Le Botiler’s attorney either could not or would not gainsay, the advowson was adjudged to him, and Sir Theobald lay under mercy.[139] This dispute probably occurred in the 8th year of Edward’s sovereignty, 1280, for we find from the Rot. Chart. that at that date the advowson was granted by the monarch to the abbey of Vale Royal.

In 1286 Sir Otto de Grandison, who was ambassador at the apostolic see, obtained a bull from the pope, Honorius IV., by which the advowson of Kirkham was conferred upon the abbey of Vale Royal for ever,[140] and on the 27th of January in the ensuing year, Edward I. confirmed his former grant.[141]

In the fifty-fourth year of the reign of Henry III., 1269, power was granted by royal charter to the manorial lord of Kirkham to hold a market and fair,[142] and as such privileges were allowed at that time to only a few other towns in the whole county of Lancashire, we must conclude that even at such an early date Kirkham possessed some special advantages or interest to be able so successfully to press its claims to this signal favour. That such important powers as the holding of markets and fairs were not allowed to be exercised without due and proper authority is proved by a warrant which was issued twenty-three years later, in the reign of Edward I., against the abbot of Vale Royal, to which convent the manor of Kirkham belonged, to appear before a judicial court to show by what authority he held those periodical assemblies of the inhabitants. He pleaded that the right had been first conceded to his predecessors by Henry III., and that subsequently the grant had been confirmed by the present monarch, Edward I., in the fifteenth year of his dominion. These assertions having been verified, the abbot was exculpated from all blame, and orders were issued to the justices itinerant in this county to the effect that they were in no way to interfere with the exercise of those privileges, which were to be continued exactly as they had been heretofore.[143] From a copy of a document[144] framed four years later, in 1296, in which the whole of these rights are embodied amongst other interesting matters, we learn that the manor of Kirkham was granted to the abbot and convent of Vale Royal in _frank-al-moigne_, that is, a tenure by which a religious corporation holds lands for themselves and their successors for ever, on condition of praying for the soul of the donor; that power was given or confirmed to hold a fair of five days duration at the Nativity of St. John the Baptist; that the borough of Kirkham, which had been incorporated by the name of the burgesses of Kirkham in the year 1282, the tenth of the reign of Edward I., was to be a free borough; that the burgesses and their heirs were to have a free guild, with all the liberties which belonged to a free borough; that there was to be in the borough a pillory, a prison, and a ducking stool, and other instruments for the punishment of evil doers; and that there were to be assizes of bread and ale, and weights and measures. Continuing the perusal of this document we find that the abbot of Vale Royal consented that the burgesses should elect two bailiffs from amongst themselves annually, and that these should be presented and sworn; on the other hand, however, the convent reserved to itself the perquisites arising from the courts, stallage, assizes of bread and ale, etc., and annual rents due at the period of festival legally appointed as above. The names of the following gentlemen are appended to the deed as witnesses:—Radulphus de Mouroyd, William le Botyler, Robert de Holonde, Henry de Kytheleye, John Venyal, William de Clifton, Thomas Travers, and others.

In 1327 an edict was published by the dean of Amounderness in the church of Kirkham on behalf of the archbishop of York, which commanded that the abbot or some one connected with the convent of Vale Royal, should appear before that prelate at the cathedral of his see on “the third lawful day after the Sunday on which is sung _Quasi modo genite vira et munimenta_,”[145] to show by what right and authority the Cheshire convent held the church just mentioned. In answer to this summons a monk, named Walter Wallensis, from Vale Royal, appeared before the archbishop on the day named, in 1328, and produced in proof of the title of his monastery to the church, the charter of Edward I., the bull of the pope, and letters from several archdeacons, recognising the proprietorship of the convent. In addition he brought four witnesses, viz., William de Cotton, advocate in the court of York, who stated that for eighteen years the abbot and convent of Vale Royal had supplied the rectors to the church of Kirkham; John de Bradkirk, who said that he had known the church for forty years as a parishioner, and had on many occasions seen the charter confirming the grant of the advowson, etc., to Vale Royal, as for fifteen years he had been in the service of that monastery, and at the time when the present archbishop of York farmed the church of Kirkham, twelve years ago, from the convent of Vale Royal, had been the bearer of the money raised from this church to that dignitary at York; Robert de Staneford, of Kirkham, who gave similar evidence, and bore witness to the existence of the charter of Edward I., which he had seen; and Robert de Blundeston, of Vale Royal, who gave evidence as to the genuineness of the documents produced having been admitted by Roger de Nasynton, public notary, etc. The result of these attestations was that the case was dismissed against the abbot of Vale Royal, and his right to the church of Kirkham, with all its chapels, fruits, rents, etc, allowed to have been fully proved.[146]

In 1334 a mandamus was issued by Edward III., at York, to Robert Foucher, the sheriff of Lancashire, stating that, contrary to a charter of Edward I., which prohibited the sheriffs from making distraints on the rectors of churches or on estates with which the churches had been endowed, he had “under pretext of his office lately entered into the lands and tenements near Kirkham, which are of the endowment of that church, and had heavily distrained the abbot of Vale Royal, parson of that church”; and ordering the said sheriff to abandon the claim, and to make restitution of anything he might thus have illegally obtained, and “by no means to attempt to make any distraint in the lands and tenements which are of the endowment of the aforesaid church,” at any future time.[147]

Somewhere about the year 1332 a monk, named Adam de Clebury, who held the temporalities of Shrewsbury Abbey, sued Peter, the abbot of Vale Royal, for five hundred marks, which he declared were the accumulated arrears of twelve marks, ordered to be paid annually by Theobald Walter, to the former monastery, out of the funds of the church of Kirkham, according to the issue of a trial in the king’s court, between Theobald and the convent of Shrewsbury, respecting the advowson, etc., of that church in 1195. Peter is said, in the Harleian manuscript, from which this account is taken, to have “redeemed that writ and many others from the sheriff of Lancashire,” from which it may be understood that he had paid the sum demanded, or in some conciliatory way settled the case during his lifetime, for we hear no more of the matter until shortly after his death in 1342, when an action to enforce a similar payment was brought against his successor, Robert de Cheyneston. This ecclesiastic, however, is said to “have manfully opposed the abbot of Shrewsbury,” and to have journied up to London to hold an interview with him on the subject, at which, after “many allegations on each side, he gave to the abbot of Shrewsbury £100 to pay his labours and expenses,” and in that manner the dispute was brought to a termination about the year 1343.

In 1337 Sir William de Clifton, of Westby, made an offer to the abbot of Vale Royal to purchase certain tithes from him for twenty marks, and on the ecclesiastic refusing to entertain this proposition, the indignant knight became most unruly and outrageous in his conduct, as shown by the following charge which was that year preferred against him by the abbot, who stated:—

“That he had thrust with a lance at a brother of the monastery
in the presence of the abbot and convent; that he had retained
twenty marks which he was pledged and bound to pay to the abbot,
in order to weary him with expenses and labours; that it was the
custom, from time immemorial, for the parishioners of Kirkham to
convey their tithe-corn to their barns, and there keep it until
the ministers of the rector came for it; but that he (Sir William
Clifton), in contempt of the church, had allowed his tithes and
those of his tenants to waste and rot in the fields, and very
often by force and arms had driven away the tithe-collectors;
he also had compelled a cart of the rector, laden with hay,
to remain on his land for upwards of a month, and in derision
had made the rector’s mare into a hunting palfrey; he also had
neglected to keep the tithes of his calves, pigeons, orchards,
huntings, and hawkings, and would not allow the procurator, under
threat of death, to enter his estate, but he and his satellites
had irreverently burst into the sanctuary of God, where they
had assailed the priests and clerks, and impeded them in the
discharge of their duties. Moreover the aforesaid knight would
not permit any of his tenants who were living in flagrant sin, to
be corrected or punished by the ordinaries.”[148]

In concluding the above list of misdemeanours, the abbot complained that Sir William had ordered a severe flagellation “even to the effusion of blood,” to be inflicted on Thomas, the clerk, in the town of Preston, and that this scourging had taken place as directed, in the presence of the under-mentioned gentlemen, who seemed to have been well pleased with the vigorous measures adopted by the knight, and to have rendered him willing assistance when called upon:—

Richard de Plumpton,
Nicholas Catford,
William the provost,
William Jordan, junr.,
John Dence,
Robert Carter,
John Garleigh,
Richard de Tresale,
Henry de Tresale,
William Sictore,
William Sictore, junr.,
Adam de Scales,
Richard Walker,
John Mydelar,
Henry Thillon,
William Randell,
John de Reste,
William de Morhouse,
Thomas Adekoe,
Adam del Wodes,
William de Mydelar,
Thomas de Wytacres,
And several others, including Adam, the harper.

This charge was laid before the lord abbot of Westminster by the abbot of Vale Royal, and the former, after hearing the statement of offences, commanded that Sir William de Clifton and others enumerated therein, should appear before him to answer for their misdeeds; but as neither Sir William nor any of his friends and abettors took the least notice of the summons, it was decided that an endeavour should be made to arrange the quarrel by arbitration. To this the knight seems to have been favourable, and nominated William Laurence, John de Crofton, and Robert Mareys to act as his arbitrators; whilst those of the abbot were William Baldreston, rector of St. Michael’s-on-Wyre; Robert Baldreston, his brother, and a rector also; and Richard de Ewyas, a monk of Deulacres. The decision of the court thus constituted was that Sir William de Clifton should acknowledge his guilt, and ask pardon and absolution for the same from the abbot, unto whose will and grace he should submit himself; in addition the knight was ordered to pay a fine of twenty marks, and make good to the abbot the tithes which he had destroyed or refused to pay. Sir William accepted the verdict, and bound himself to fulfil its conditions by oath; the rest were required to enter into a promise to abstain in future from making any attempt to injure the church of Kirkham, or anything connected with it, and to provide a large wax candle, which was paraded round that church on the feast of palms, and afterwards presented as a peace-offering to St. Michael.[149]

In 1357 Cardinal John Thoresby, archbishop of York, made a new ordination of the vicarage of Kirkham, by which it was decreed that, instead of the secular vicar appointed aforetime, the abbot and convent of Vale Royal should select some one from their own monastery to fill the office whenever a vacancy occurred. By this fresh regulation the abbot and convent of Vale Royal were bound to pay to the vicar forty marks per annum, and he on his part was pledged to keep the parsonage house in proper repair and perform all ecclesiastical duties. Three years afterwards a vicar of Kirkham was charged and convicted of having been guilty of maladministration in his position as dean of Amounderness, but subsequently he received a full pardon from King Edward III.

In the year 1401, during the reign of Henry IV., the right to hold a market and fair was again confirmed to the abbot and convent of Vale Royal; subjoined is a translated copy of the grant, which bore the date of the 2nd of July:—

“The king to all men greeting: We have inspected a charter made
by our progenitor, Lord Edward, formerly king of England, in
these words:—‘Edward, by the grace of God king of England, lord
of Ireland, and duke of Aquitaine, to the archbishops, bishops,
abbots, priors, earls, barons, justices, sheriffs, provosts,
ministers, and to all his bailiffs and subjects, health. Know
that we have granted and by this our present charter confirm
to our beloved in Christ the Abbot and Convent of Vale Royal,
that they and their successors for ever shall have a market in
each week on Thursday at their manor at Kirkham in the county
of Lancaster, and also in each year a fair at the same town of
five days duration, that is on the vigil, on the Day, and on the
morrow of the Nativity of St. John the Baptist, and on the two
days succeeding; unless the market and fair be found injurious to
neighbouring markets and fairs. Therefore we desire and firmly
enjoin, both for ourselves and our heirs, that the aforesaid
Abbot and Convent and their successors for ever shall have the
aforesaid market and fair at the aforesaid manor with all the
liberties and free customs appertaining to similar institutions,
unless such market and fair be detrimental to neighbouring
interests as aforesaid.

“‘These being witnesses:—The venerable fathers Robert Bath and
Wells, John Winchester, and Anthony Durham, bishops; William
de Valence, our uncle; Henry de Lacy, earl of Lincoln; master
Henry de Newark, archdeacon of Richmond; master William de
Luda, archdeacon of Durham; master William de Cornere, dean of
Wymburne; John de St. John; William de Latymer; and others.

“‘Given under our hand at Bourdeaux on the 21st of January, in
the 15th year of our reign.’

“Holding the aforesaid charter and all matters contained in it
as authentic and acceptable both for ourselves and our heirs,
as far as our power extends, we accept, approve, grant, and
confirm to our beloved in Christ, the present Abbot and Convent
of the aforesaid place and their successors that the aforesaid
charter be considered just, also we affirm that the same Abbot
and Convent and their predecessors legally had and held the said
market and fair before this date.

“In testimony thereof, etc. Witness the king at Westminster on
the 2nd of July.”[150]

At the dissolution of monasteries the manor of Kirkham, together with the advowson of the church, was transferred by Henry VIII. from the abbot and convent of Vale Royal to the dean and chapter of Christ Church, Oxford.

In 1560 Queen Elizabeth ratified and confirmed by letters patent all former charters concerning Kirkham by a deed bearing the date of July 2nd; and later, in 1619, the 17th year of the reign of James I., a record of the Duchy Court of Lancaster states that the bailiffs and burgesses of Kirkham presented a petition praying that they might elect into their government some men of account dwelling near the town, and that it might be declared that the bailiffs had lawful power and authority to correct all malefactors and offenders according to the laws and liberties of the town, and to do and perform all other duties appertaining to their office. They prefaced their prayer by asserting that “the town of Kirkham had been used as an ancient market town and that the inhabitants thereof had time out of mind been accounted a Corporation, incorporated by the name of Bailiffs and Burgesses, and that of late owing to some of the bailiffs being but simple and weak men, and the inhabitants but poor and numerous, it had been found impossible to govern in a proper and satisfactory manner the large confluences of people at fair and market seasons,” for which reason they were desirous of gaining an extension of their existing powers as set forth in the plea. The court decreed that “the then Bailiffs of Kirkham and the Burgesses of the same, and their successors, for ever, should and might from thenceforth have and enjoy their ancient usages and liberties by the name of the Bailiffs and Burgesses of the Town of Kirkham, and that the Bailiffs should yearly be chosen out of the Burgesses according to the said usages, or as they in their discretion should think meet, for the better government of the said Town and the people thereunto resorting, also that the Bailiffs, Burgesses, and Inhabitants should be guildable, and have in the said Town a prison, etc., as had been heretofore, and that the Dean and Chapter and their successors, farmers, and tenants, should and might from henceforth have all their fairs, markets, liberties, privileges, jurisdictions, Court Leets, Court Barons, Courts of Pleas, and the Fair Court, as heretofore had been.” The foregoing was ordered to be read in the parish church on the ensuing sabbath, and also in the market place.

From the following ancient and somewhat lengthy document or lease, much interesting matter may be gleaned, and for that reason it was deemed better to give it unabridged:—

“To all Christian people to whom this present writing shall
come the Dean and Chapter of the Cathedral Church of Christ of
King Henry the eighth’s foundation do send greeting in our Lord
God everlasting: Whereas we the said Dean and Chapter by our
Indenture of Lease, sealed with our common Seal, bearing date
the sixteenth day of July, in the three and fortieth year of
the reign of our sovereign lady Elizabeth (1601), late Queen of
England, &c., did, as much as in us was, demise, grant, and to
farm, lett unto Thomas ffleetwood, of Caldwich, in the County of
Stafford, esquire, all our Court Leets and view of franchpledge
within our parsonage and manor of Kirkham, in the County of
Lancaster, or in either of them, or to, or with them, or either
of them used, occupied, incident, or belonging appertaining,
with all and every thing (singular) there appertaining,
also the keeping of the Court Barons there, and all waifs,
strays, treasure trove, deodands, felons’ and outlaws’ goods,
forfeitures, fines, amercements, serving and executing of writs
and processes, and all royalties, liberties, perquisites and
profits of Court Leets, all commodities and advantages whatsoever
to the same Court Leets incident, due, or in any wise belonging,
or which heretofore have been, or of right ought to have been,
had and enjoyed by us, the said Dean and Chapter, or any of our
predecessors, or any other person or persons by or by means of
our estate, right, or title to the same or any part thereof, in
as large and ample manner as we, the said Dean and Chapter, or
our successors, may or ought to have or enjoy, together also with
the Stewardship, office of Steward, or authority for appointing
the Steward for the keeping of the said Courts; And also the
profits of all and each of our fairs and markets to be kept at
or within the said manor and parsonage of Kirkham; The Courts of
Pipowder; And all manner of Toll and Stallage—That is to say,
Turne-toll, Traverse-Toll, and Through-Toll, and all manner of
payments, fines, forfeitures, fees, sums of money, with all
other kind of profits and commodities whatsoever, which do or
may lawfully accrue, arise, come, or be due, unto us, the said
Dean and Chapter, our successors, or assignees, by reason of
any fair or market, or fairs or markets, which hereafter shall
be kept within the manor or parish of Kirkham aforesaid; And
half an Oxgang of Land, called by the name of the old Eworth,
with so much of the late improved Common in Kirkham aforesaid as
was allotted, used, or occupied, or ought to be used, allotted,
or occupied to or with the said half Oxgang; One Burgage house
with the appurtenances in Kirkham aforesaid, now in the tenure,
holding, or occupation of one Thomas Singleton and William
Kitchen, or the one of them; One Croft called the hemp garden,
certain grounds, called the Vicar’s Carrs, set, lying, and being
in Kirkham aforesaid; One house built upon the waste in Kirkham
aforesaid, commonly called or known by the name of the moote
hall, with all shops underneath the said moote hall, and all the
tythes of the new improvements not formerly demised within the
said manor or parish of Kirkham, or within the liberties thereof;
And all encroachments within the same manor—That is to say, all
such arable lands, meadow, pasture, woodlands, furzeland, heath,
and marshland, and all other such vacant and waste land, as
is or hath been heretofore by any man encroached or taken to
his own use by the making of any hedge, pale, wall, ditch, or
other mound, out of the lands belonging to the manor of Kirkham
aforesaid, without the special license of the said Dean and
Chapter, with all and every ways, booth-places, stall-places,
liberties, easements, profits, commodities, and advantages to the
said messuages, lands, tenements, houses, grounds, encroachments,
tythes, hereditaments, and also the premises or any of them
belonging or in any wise appertaining (except as in our said
Indenture of Lease is excepted and reserved). To have and to
hold the said Court Leets and the keeping of the Court Barons,
profits of fairs and markets, messuages, lands, tythes, and all
and every other the before-recited premises by that our said
recited Indenture of Lease demised, or mentioned, or intended
to be demised, with their and every of their appurtenances
(except as is aforesaid) from the feast day of the Annunciation
of the Blessed Virgin Mary last past before the date thereof,
for and during the tenure and unto the end and term of one and
twenty years then next following, fully to be completed and
ended. In our said Indenture of Lease (amongst other things
therein contained) it is provided always that it shall not be
lawful to nor for the said Thomas ffleetwood, his executors,
administrators, or assignees, to lett, set, or assign over to
any person or persons the demised premises herein contained and
specified, or any part or parcel of them without the special
license of us, the said Dean and Chapter, or our Successors, in
writing under our common Seal thereunto first had and obtained.
The estate, right, tythe, interest, and term of years yet in
being of the said Thomas ffleetwood, are now lawfully come unto
the hands and possession of Sʳ Richard ffleetwood, of Caldwich,
knight baronet, and baron of Newton, within the said County of
Lancaster, son and heir, and also executor of the last will and
testament of the said Thomas ffleetwood, lately deceased. Know
ye now that we, the said Dean and Chapter, of our common assent
and consent have licensed and granted, and by these presents for
us and our Successors do license and grant that from henceforth
it shall and may be lawful to and for the said Sʳ Richard
ffleetwood, knight baronet, his executors, administrators, or
assignees, or any of them, to lett, set, or assign over the said
demised premises and every one of them and any or every part or
parcel of them with the appurtenances unto John Clayton, James
Parker, and John Wilding, of Kirkham, in the County of Lancaster,
yeomen, their executors, administrators, or assignees for and
during all the residue of the said term of years yet in being, to
come, and unexpired, the said proviso, or anything else, in our
recited Indenture of Lease contained to the contrary, Provided
always that all and every other covenant, clause, article,
exception, reservation of rent, payment, condition, and proviso,
in that our recited Indenture of Lease comprised shall stand,
remain, continue, and be in its, and their, full power, force,
and effect, as if this our present license or deed in writing had
never been, had, nor made. In Witness whereof we, the said Dean
and Chapter, have hereunto put our common Seal. Proven in our
Chapter house at Oxford the fourth day of December in the years
of the reign of our sovereign lord James, by the Grace of God
king of England, Scotland, ffrance, and Ireland, Defender of the
Faith, &c.—That is to say, of England, ffrance, and Ireland the
eleventh, and of Scotland the seven and fortieth.”[151]

There is an old deed in the bailiffs’ chest, bearing the date 1725, and evidently a summary of charters, powers, etc., drawn up in order to be submitted to the inspection of some legal authority, whose opinions on different points are appended, from which it appears that from the earliest incorporation of the town it had been governed by two bailiffs and twelve burgesses in common council assembled, who were annually chosen within the borough, and that they “usually assessed such persons, not being free burgesses in the same borough, as had come into and exercised trades within the borough (whether they had served apprenticeships to such trades or not), in and with such reasonable annual payments to the Corporation as the bailiffs and burgesses thought fit”; persons born in the borough were treated in a similar manner. The bailiffs inflicted penalties on all breakers of the peace, the amount of fine imposed being regulated according to the condition of the offender, thus an esquire was mulcted in 40s., a gentleman 10s., and anyone of an inferior grade 5s. Profane cursing and swearing also came under their jurisdiction. The collection of freedom money from traders commencing business in Kirkham was a somewhat questionable act on the part of the local rulers, and indeed they themselves were evidently troubled with doubts as to their right to levy the tax, for the muniment chest contains several opinions of eminent counsel as to the validity of such a course. In 1738 a person named William Marsden started as a tanner in Kirkham, and obstinately refused to purchase his freedom or close his premises, but, at the end of twelve months, the assembled bailiffs and burgesses instructed and authorised the town or borough serjeant to collect and levy the sum of two shillings and sixpence upon the goods and chattels of William Marsden, by distress and sale. This impost was abolished during the latter half of the eighteenth century. The bailiffs formed part of the Court Leet held annually in the seventeenth century and were elected from amongst the jurors. Subjoined are a few extracts from the minute book of the “Court leet of frank pledge of yᵉ foundation of Henry VIII.,” as it is styled in one place:—

“Oct. 1681.

The court leet houlden at Kirkham yᵉ day above written by Tho.
Hodgkinson Stuart.

“Juriars

James Smith, junior.
John Hanson.
Geffery Wood.
James Lawson.
Tho. Tomlinson.
Alex. Lawder.
John Dickson.
Henry Smith.
Charles Fale.
Will. Butler.
James Hull.
Will. Hornby.
James Clayton.
George Whiteside.
Tho. Shardley.

“Bayliffes

Geffrey Wood.
Tho. Tomlinson.
John Colly, serjeant.
James Hull, constable.

(Here follow the ‘Gauldlayers,’ ‘Barleymen,’ ‘Prizards,’ ‘Leather
searchards,’ and ‘Flesh and Fish viewards’)

“Wᵐ Hunt fined 1s. for keeping his geese in the loanes”

“John Wilding for keeping a greyhound not being qualified”
(Punishment?)

1682.

“Presented that the earl of Derby, Mr. Westby, of Mowbrick, Mr.
Hesketh, of Mains, were constantly called at the court leet for
the borough of Kirkham and anciently did either appear or some
assign for them, but now of late they do not appear nor any
assign for them.”

“4 May. 1683.

“Recᵈ of Richard Riley for his fredom within the borow of Kirkham
16s.

“May the 4th day Recᵈ of Rodger Taylor for his freedom in Kirkham
£1.

“Oct. 19th. Recᵈ of Thomas Sherdley for his freedom 2s.

“Ordered that no person shall set or let any house or shop to
Richarde Blackburne or his wife that stands within the liberties
in Kirkham in pain of £2 0s. 0d.”

1685.

“Ralph Rishton paid to John Wilding and Thomas Hankinson, the
bailiffs, for his freedom to trade in Kirkham £4.”

12 Oct. 1686.

“Prudence Cardwell, presented for not making her bread sufficient
in goodness and weight, and fined in 12d.”

Nov. 17. “It is ordered that Nicholas Wilkinson shall pay unto
the bailiffs 13s. 4d. for one year’s trading in the town.”

30 April 1692.

“Ordered that if any hereafter suffer their swine to ly out in
the night time they shall forfeit for every night 3s. 4d.”

26 April 1699.

“Ordered that neither Wᵐ Boone nor Rowland Roberts maltmakers nor
any as they employ shall dry any malt or weete upon the Sabbath
day for the time to come in the pain of 20s.”

13 Oct. “We present these persons for want of their appearance at
court & so fine every one of them 12d.

“Will. George Ric. Earl of Derby.
Tho. Westby, esq.
Thos. Hesketh, esq.
John Walker, esq.
Jennet Thompson, widow,
and Thomas Dickson.”

22 Aprill 1707.

“Every person that shall carry away any fire thro’ the street to
cover the same close on penalty of 10s.

April 1713.

“No person to water any sort of cattle at the bucket belonging to
the town well nor wash any skins at the trough.”

10 May 1715.

“We find Charles Hardy for harbouring and lodging of vagrants and
beggars in this town in 13s. 4d.”

22 May 1726.

“Mem. That the town of Kirkham was summonsed from house to house
and the inhabitants unanimously agreed to the setting up of a
workhouse.”

30 Nov. 1728.

“Ordered that a lamp should be fixed up in the middle of the
borough of Kirkham in some convenient place, and that the charge
of it together with oyl necessary for it be paid out of the
town’s stock.”

“All persons refusing to clean or cow (rake) the streets opposite
their respective houses to be fined 6d. after notice from the
serjeant with his bell.”

The official notice concerning the last resolution is still preserved, and ran as under:—

“To the Inhabitants of the Burrough of Kirkham.

“You are hereby required forthwith to cleanse the Streets over
against your Dwelling Houses, Outhouses, and all other Buildings,
together with all Frontsteads whatsoever, on Penalty of Sixpence
for each default.

“You have also hereby notice to remove all the Dung-hills out of
the Streets in a month’s time or otherwise they will be removed
for the use of the Burrough.

“Likewise all the Rubbish out of the Streets on such Penalties as
the Bayliffs and Common Council shall think fit to inflict. Given
under our Common Seal of the Towne this first Day of December,
1728.”

At a later period the burgesses neglected to choose and appoint bailiffs for many years, or to use their privileges; and apprehensive at length that such remissions were tantamount to a forfeiture of their charter by their own act, they determined to take legal advice as to the most expeditious way to resume their powers. It was given as follows:—

“If any of those acting Burgesses are alive I would advise them
to assemble at their former Gild or usual Place of meeting, and
then and there choose other Burgesses, after which they may elect
from among them Two Bailiffs and make an entry of such choice
in one of the Old Books, and then proceed as formerly to act
in their corporate capacity; and let their first Punishment be
inflicted on some person unlikely to dispute their authority, for
instance a woman drunkard may be set in the stocks.

“Having done as above directed they may for the better Government
of the town make some Byelaws, and enter them ffair into a Book
to be kept for that purpose, but let none of these new Laws be
put in Execution till they are confirmed by the Chancelour, and
that will be some foundation ffor a petition to that Court.

“But if all the Burgesses are dead I can see no Remedy whatsoever
but by obtaining a new Charter, which will be very Difficult if
not Impracticable.”

A statement as to manorial extent of Kirkham at the latter part of the seventeenth century is preserved amongst the records of a court, further reference to which will be made anon, and reads as here given:—“The lands lying within the manor of Kirkham, belonging to the Dean and Chapter of Christ Church, in Oxford, and to the burgesses inhabitants of the borough of Kirkham, are bounded east by the lands of Edward Robinson and George Brown, lying within Newton and Scales; westward by the lands of Sir Thomas Clifton, within Westby, and the lands of Christopher Parker, esq., lying in Ribby with Wrea; northwards by the lands of Mrs. Dorʸ. Westby, of Mowbreck, and the lands of Mr. Edward Fleetwood, of Wesham; and southwards by the lands of Mr. George Sharples, of Freckleton.”

It has already been shown that the manor was conveyed by the authorities at Oxford to Thomas Fleetwood as fee-farmer in 1601, and that the lease was subsequently renewed or confirmed to his son and heir Sir Richard Fleetwood. Before 1700, however, probably about 1650, from the contents of a petition presented by the inhabitants to the dean and chapter in 1705, the Cliftons, of Lytham, had the manor in a tenure similar to that of their predecessors, and held each year, in the month of June, a court leet, at which the two bailiffs were elected. The late Thomas Langton Birley, esq., of Carr Hill, Kirkham, acquired the lordship by purchase a short time previous to his death in 1874, when it descended to his son and heir, Henry Langton Birley, esq. Bailiffs still continue to be annually appointed, and have in their hands several charitable bequests, the interest arising therefrom being devoted to the service of the poor of the township, either in the form of alms, or in maintaining some useful convenience, as the parish pump, for their benefit. The property at present belonging to the bailiffs consists of one meadow, situated behind the Roman Catholic church; a garden in front of the same edifice; a plot in the field called the “Iron Latch”; and a pew in the parish church of Kirkham. In 1676 the bishop of Chester acceded to a petition from the minister and churchwardens that a wainscot might be placed so as to enclose the bailiffs’ pew, “which seat, for want thereof, was pressed into and thronged by others to the disturbance of the said officers.”[152]

The Moot Hall, in which all business relating to the town was transacted, stood in the Market-place until about the year 1790, when it was accidentally burnt down. This building was erected in two stories, the upper of which was divided into a small room, used for flax dressing at the time the Hall was destroyed, and a larger one, devoted to court meetings and other public matters, which was separated from the remainder of the edifice insomuch as it could only be entered from the outside by means of a flight of stone steps. The ground floor or lower story was converted into shops in the occupation of tradesmen of the town. The original borough seal, which still exists, although somewhat defective, represents a dove bearing an olive branch in its beak. Notwithstanding that Kirkham was made a borough, during the last years of the thirteenth century, it never appears upon any occasion to have returned a Member of Parliament, and it may safely be conjectured that no writ for that purpose was ever issued to the burgesses, as the sheriffs exercised a discretionary power in such matters, and consequently only those boroughs, whose inhabitants seemed affluent enough to support the expenses of an election, were selected for the honour, amongst which it is scarcely likely Kirkham would be classed.

A market cross stood in the centre of the town, near to the ancient Moot Hall, about the beginning of this century, but has now, like the stocks, which originally had their place in the churchyard and afterwards were removed to a more public site, been long numbered amongst the memories of a past and less refined age. There is no allusion to a whipping post in any of the old documents, but we have the authority of a gentleman who witnessed the spectacle, that a man was publicly whipped in the Market-place fifty years ago.

The “Thirty Sworn men of Kirkham” was the name given to a council which took cognizance of parochial affairs, and of certain matters connected with the church, amongst other things appointing the churchwardens. This assembly was composed of representatives from the different sections of the parish, two persons being elected from each of the fifteen townships as under:—

“Thirty Sworn Men in 1570.

Kirkham:
James Baine.
James Clayton.

Clifton:
William Porter.
Tho. Cardwell.

Freckleton:
Henʳʸ Colbron.
Rich. Browne.

Singletons:
James Davy.
Wᵐ Smith

Larbrick:
Robt. Johnson.
Will. Fletcher.

Thistleton:
Joh. Smith.
Robt. Cornay.

Warton:
Wm. Platon.
Robt. Fletcher.

Bryning:
Robt. Croke.
John Croke.

Ribby:
⸺ Benson.
Henry Shaw.

Wesham:
Robt. Hornby.
Henry Johnson.

Treales:
Wᵐ Swarbrick.
Tho. Porter.

Hambleton:
Robt. Bradshaw.
Wᵐ Bamber.”

The oath taken by the “Sworn men” was administered by the civil authorities, and their tenure of office was for life, or until they thought proper to resign. The origin of “Sworn men,” or at least of the name, dates from the fourteenth century, and the institution itself seems to have been common in this part of Lancashire; Preston, Lancaster, Garstang, and Goosnargh, having had assemblies bearing similar titles and performing similar duties, but consisting only of twenty-four men each.

In 1636 a serious dispute arose between the Thirty-men and the vicar, the Rev. Edward Fleetwood, owing to the latter requiring the council to subscribe to the following conditions:—

“1st. They shall lay no gauld themselves without the consent of
the vicar.

2nd. That the vicar shall have a negative voice in all their
proceedings, and that they shall determine nothing without the
consent of the said vicar.

3rd. They shall not put or elect any new 30-men without the
vicar’s consent.

4th. They shall not meet in the church upon any business
whatever, unless they acquaint the vicar before.

5th. If there be any turbulent or factious person, that the rest
of the company shall join with the vicar and turn him out.”[153]

On the Thirty-men refusing to comply with his request, the vicar excluded them “by violence” from their usual meeting-place in the church, and on the 5th of November, 1638, when they were called upon by the churchwardens to attend there in order to lay the necessary taxes for the repair of the sacred edifice, then much decayed, Mr. Fleetwood “locked himself in the church, as before he had many times done,” and compelled them to conduct their business without the building.

Incensed at the persistent hostility of the vicar an appeal against his conduct was made by the “men” to the archbishop of York, and by him referred to the bishop of Chester, who replied:—“That the corporation or company of 30-men, not having any warranty from the king, was nothing in law; but if the parish or township did delegate the power to the 30-men as to church matters, then their acts relating thereunto were as effectual and binding as if they had the king’s sanction; and wishing to know the affection of the parishioners on this head, he issued an order on 22 Nov. 1638, that public notice shᵈ be given in the church for all the parishioners to meet and give their voices whether they chose that the custom of the 30-men representing the whole parish two for every township, should continue, or they should be dissolved.”[154]

Mr. Fleetwood having ignored this order, the churchwardens took upon themselves the duty of calling a general conference of the parishioners; a great multitude assembled in the churchyard, where the meeting was held, the vicar having locked the church door, and declared in favour of their ancient custom being continued and preserved to their posterity as it had come down to them, freely giving “their power and strength to the said 30-men, to confer and determine all church matters.”

To this resolution were appended the signatures of four hundred and ninety-four persons, amongst whom were Thomas Clifton of Westby and Clifton, John Westby of Mowbreck, Thomas Hesketh of Mains, Edward Veale of Whinney Heys, John Parker of Bradkirk, and Edward Bradley of Bryning.

The bishop of Chester, having received an official report of the result of the meeting, communicated with the archbishop of York, as below stated:—

“Chester palace, 14 Dec. 1638.

“Seeing the vicar (whom I have used with all gentleness and
lenity), continues still in his contempt, and addeth daily more
forwardness thereunto, I must return the petitioners to my lord’s
grace of York, to be ordered by the high commissioner according
to his grace’s intimation signified in his.... I wish well to the
sillie wilful man, but he makes himself incapable thereof.

“John Cestriensis.”[155]

This effort to obtain redress for their grievances does not appear to have been attended with a success equal to the expectations of the “thirty,” for a little later they instituted a suit in the consistory court at Chester against the vicar, “and, having proved their practice good, had sentence against him and £20 7s. 6d. allowed towards their expenses.”[156] The “Thirty-men” were admitted into the church on Easter Tuesday, 1639.

During the period that Edward Fleetwood was vicar of Kirkham an event occurred in the parish which furnishes a forcible example of the superstitious feeling in religious matters existing amongst all ranks of the people at that time. The whole of the details of the circumstance are embodied in a pamphlet entitled “Strange Signs from Heaven,” and by way of an introduction, the tract contains this certificate, “under the hand of Mr. Edward Fleetwood, minister of Kirkham parish in Lancashire, concerning the monster brought forth by Mrs. Haughton, a papist, living in that parish:—

“As we must tell no lie, so we should conceal no truth;
especially when it tends to God’s glory: There was a great
papist, and of great parentage, within the parish of Kirkham,
and his wife’s mother, being of the same religion, did usually
scoff and mock the Roundheads, and, in derision of Mr. Prinne
and others, cut off the cat’s ears, and called it by his name:
But behold an example of the justice and equity of God in his
judgements; as Adonibezec was repaid in his own kind; Haman
hanged upon the same gallows that he had prepared for Mordecai;
and Pharoah and all his host drowned in the sea, into which he
had thought to have driven the Israelites. And likewise one of
the popish prelates, who said he would not dine till Ridley and
Latimer were burnt, was burnt in his own entrails. So it fell out
with this man’s wife, a popish creature, who being great with
child, when the time of her delivery came, she brought forth
a monstrous child without a head, ugly and deformed, myself
eyewitness thereof.

Edward Fleetwood, pastor.
W. Greenacres, midwife.”

The tract itself informs us that in the course of a conversation with some gentlemen, Mrs. Haughton observed with great warmth that “the Puritans and Independents deserved all to be hanged,” and concluded her uncharitable remarks by uttering a fervent wish that neither she nor any one belonging to her might ever become Roundheads; upon which “answer was made to her, that her children, if she had any, might (if God so pleased) have their eyes opened, and see that good which she was ignorant of. Mrs. Haughton retorted in these words: _I pray God that rather than I shall be a Roundhead, or bear a Roundhead, I may bring forth a child without a head._” In course of time, as we learn from the pamphlet, she was delivered of a monster child, being attended in her confinement by “widow Greenacres, the midwife, formerly wife to Mr. Greenacres, some time vicar of this parish,” who, “being a godly woman, could not be eased in her mind until she had discharged her conscience in making it known to Mr. Fleetwood.” “For better satisfaction Mr. Fleetwood caused the grave to be opened, and the child to be taken out and laid to view, and found there a body without a head, as the midwife had said, only the child had a face on the breast of it, two eyes near unto the place where the paps usually are, and a nose upon the chest, and a mouth a little above the navel, and two ears, upon each shoulder one.”