Barwick pays its taxes 1524 Back to the Main Historical Society page
Back to the Barwicker Contents page

Barwick pays its taxes. 1524


from The Barwicker No. 16
December 1989



A list of Barwick inhabitants for the year 1524 is a rare and therefore an important document and we should strive to make the maximum use of it in order to find out what life was like in Barwick at that time. The list in question is a lay subsidy roll for the payment of taxes on wealth and wages. It is taken from a collection for the 42 townships of the Wapentake of Skyrack, printed in the Yorkshire Archaeological Journal, Volume 11 (1873). The list was communicated to the YAS by James Cartwright of London. It refers to a Statute of Henry VIII, (dated 13 April 1524), which is in the Public Record Office but is not available locally, as it was a private statute.

In 1524, Henry VIII was 33 years of age and had been King for 15 years. He was still married to his first wife, Catherine of Aragon, and the English reformation had not yet occurred. The future Queen Mary was only six and it would be another nine years before Queen Elizabeth I was born.

Mr Cartwright outlined the uses to which the money raised was to be put. 'We read first of Henry's recent "viage" to France, his victorious war there, and his triumphant return thence after the conclusion of an honorable peace. It was then hoped that all Christian nations, being in "unity, rest and concord" among themselves, might combine their strength against the infidels and enemies of the Christian faith. "But the French King, nothing regarding his promise, oath and covenant," had made war upon the Emperor, the King's dear friend, had withheld the dowry due to Mary, the French Queen Dowager, the King's sister, and had encouraged the Scots in their attacks upon England - "by reason of which ungodly dealing, as well as for the conservation of his honour, and for the revenging of the wrongs to his highness and subjects, he hath declared himself enemy unto the said French King." To carry out this declaration effectively, "great and important changes" must be borne, to meet which the levying of this present subsidy has been found necessary.'

The tax was levied on land, movable goods or wages. Movable goods included all coin, plate, stocks of merchandise, corn or grain severed from the ground, household 'stuff' and all sums of money owing. Each person was charged under the place where he usually lived. No-one paid on both lands and goods but whichever brought most revenue to the Exchequer. For the tax collected in 1524, land was taxed at one twentieth of its 'value', which was probably its annual rental. Goods were taxed at one fortieth of their value and wages at one fortieth of the annual wage.

It is likely that the Barwick list was of the Parish, which then included Roundhay. It is printed under the name 'Morwicke', but when the mistake was made is not clear. The list is:

For lands valued at:
£20 (tax paid 20s)William E11is, gent., John Grenefeld, gent.
£7 (tax paid 7s) Ranff Anger.
For goods valued at:
£18 (tax paid 9s.) Thomas Symkyn.
£5 (tax paid 2/6d.) Robert Blackburne, Jamys Hardcase11, John Hunt, John Sotty11, John Shan.
£3 (tax paid 1/6d.) Robert Danye11, Robert Sottyll.
£2 (tax paid 1/0d.) Henry Ransom, Thos.Potter, William Croft, Henry Brigs, Rauff Pecover, Robert Cute, William Henryson, Thos.Talor, Richard (7), John Smetheys.
For wages (labour) of annual value 13/4d (tax paid 4d.): Richard Cayt, Edward Ro, JohnPryston,
Wi11iam Wro, Miles Pecard, Wi11iam Bardon, Myghe11 Sykes, Wi11iam Massey, John Batman, Richard Norton, John Bale, Lyone11 Danye11, Stephan Marsha11, John Byshop, John Jaxsan, Robert Rawson, Robert Tamson,
Wi11iam Myton , Wi11iam Rylay.

Total number taxed - 40.
Total money raised - £4.7.10d.



The 40 people listed do not represent the total number of households in Barwick parish at that time. The Poll Tax returns of 1379 (see the Poll Tax returns article) suggest that there may have been about 100 families or households at that time, when the population was the lowest for years because of the Black Death. Archbishop Herring's Visitation Returns of 1743 state that there were 240 families in the Parish at that time. The expected number of families in 1524 should therefore be somewhere between the 1379 and 1743 figures and so the 40 households listed above might only represent a quarter or so of the total in the Parish'. There are no women in the list but in the rest of the wapentake there are several - shown as widow, uxor (wife of) or by the full name.

The returns show that there was a considerable spread of wealth and income in the Parish. It was not a case of one rich landlord and everyone else in state of poverty. A quarter or so of all households had sufficient income and/or wealth to be taxed. There were three substantial landowners in the Parish. In the wapentake as a whole, the tax paid on land varied from 1/0d. to £3.6.8d. However, the Harewood record states that 'Syr Wylliam Gascoynge the elder knight wold not put in his substans according to the kyngs Commyssion butt sayd he wold be sessyd (assessed) by the Kyngs Counsell in the Excheker'. He was a very wealthy man indeed. In 1545, he was assessed for land valued at £533.6 .8d. The local Gascoignes were descended from Sir William's brother.

There were 18 householders in Barwick with sufficient goods. to be taxed. These would include tenant farmers, merchants and tradesmen. In the wapentake as a whole, the tax paid on goods varied from 1/0d. to t.1.10.0d. There were 19 people in Barwick with. wages taxed at 4d., the lowest level. This was the usual situation for the rest of the wapentake although there were a few taxed at 8d. and one or two at 10d. or 12d. What kind of skills did they have, one wonders, to be able to claim wages two or three times as high as the lowest level taxed? And what sort of posi tion was held by 'Edward Parkar of Temple Newsam', whose salary was taxed at no less than 3/0d. Perhaps our friends in the Halton Historical Society will be able to tell us.

The untaxed three quarters of Barwick households would be made up of low wage earners, cottagers who eked out a precarious existence by cultivating the small area of land round their homes and, of course, the paupers, who relied on the Parish for their relief.

Barwick-in-Elmet' gives some detail of the landowning families. John Grenefeld had succeeded his b~other Henry to the Barnbow estates. He died in 1540 'of a great age as his father had been dead for 76 years and his grandson was 24'. An inventory taken at his death showed he had a capital messuage at Barnbow, also three messuages, two cottages, 40 acres of land and 18 closes of meadow and pasture, held of the Honour of Pontefract. Also at Barnbow, he had five messuages, 40 acres of land, 80 acres of meadow, 70 acres of pasture with' appurtenances held of Sir Will1am Gascoigne. He was the last of the Grenefeld line and his estate was divided at his death between the two sons of his two daughters.

Colman also states that on the death of William Ellis in 1535, he had at Kiddal 140 acres of land, 20 acres of meadow, 100 acres of pasture and 100 acres of moor. In Barwick, he had two messuages, 80 acres of land, 20 acres of meadow and 100 acres of pasture in the tenure of Robert Norden and John Iden. He also had land and property at Pontefract.

In the Thoresby Society publications Vol XI, there Ls printed the will of Ralph Awnger (Ranff Anger) of Barwick-in-Elmet proved 6 Oct. 1531. He held lands in 'Redenes, Skelton, Howeden, Laxton, Keylpyng, Addygfleit and Swynfleit'. He left 1.40 each to his two daughters and one child yet unborn.

The returns for Leeds are under three heads, 'Villa of Leds, Kyrkgayt and Manreddyng of Ledes' and they together contained more taxpayers and they paid more in tax than any other township in the list. Local townships and some other significant townships paid tax as follows, including Barwick for comparison.

Name of Township Number
of
Taxpayers 		Total Tax Paid
£.s.d.
Barwick 40 4. 7.10d
Garfurth (Garforth) 17 0.19. 6d
Abarfurth (Aberford) 12 0.11. 4d
POllyngton (Parlington) 21 2. 6. 4d
Austrope (Austhorp) 13 2. 3. 4d
Thorner 17 1. 5. 6d
Secroft (Seacroft) 18 0.18. 4d
Ottlay (Otley) 22 2. 7. 8d
Ylkley (Ilkley) 6 0. 4. 8d
Horsforthe (Horsforth) 12 2. 0.10d
Byngley (Bingley) 19 2. 3. 0d
Templll Newsom (Temple Newsam) 39 2.7.0d


The figures reveal a startling and unexpected situation. Barwick parish in 1524 contained more taxpayers and it paid more in tax than any other township in the wapentake, except for the three parts of Leeds. This suggests that Barwick was more populous and wealthy than many townships that are now giants by comparison. One has only to walk the seemingly endless streets of Ilkley or Horsforth to marvel at the fact that they were once smaller than Barwick, always bearing in mind that the Parish then included the western parts taken into Leeds earlier this century. Barwickers can be forgiven for thinking that Barwick was and Ls important. King Henry'S tax collectors must have thought it was important too.



ARTHUR BANTOFT


Back to the top
Back to the Main Historical Society page
Back to the Barwicker Contents page