THE HUNDRED OF BRAUGHING
CONTAINING THE PARISHES OF
|
| BISHOP'S STORTFORD |
HUNSDON |
THUNDRIDGE |
| BRAUGHING |
SAWBRIDGEWORTH |
WARE |
| EASTWICK |
STANDON |
WESTMILL |
| GILSTON |
STANSTEAD ABBOTS |
WIDFORD |
|
THORLEY |
|

Index Map to the Hundred of Braughing
Braughing Hundred is large in area in proportion to the number of its
parishes. Its boundary has changed little since the earliest records of it.
Widford and Cockhamsted
were both in Edwinstree
Hundred in 1086, but assessments of the 14th century
show that Widford had been
transferred to Braughing
before that date, (fn. 1) whilst
Cockhamsted does not later
appear to have had any
separate entity either civil
or ecclesiastic, but to have
been included in the parish of
Braughing in this hundred.
Besides the vills of the
Domesday Survey which
correspond with the other
civil parishes in the list of
1831, (fn. 2) there were then also
Wickham (fn. 3) and Eia. (fn. 4) Wickham was a separate vill for
judicial (fn. 5) and fiscal purposes as late as the 14th century, but four persons
only were assessed under its name for a subsidy in 1307. (fn. 6) Later it was
included in Bishop's Stortford. Eia must have lain not far from Wickham,
for it seems to have been originally included in the same assessment (see
below), but no further mention of it has been found, and there seems to be
no survival of the name. Gilston is not mentioned in the Domesday Survey,
and seems to have been then included in Sawbridgeworth. Thundridge,
although assessed by itself in 1086, (fn. 7) does not seem to have had any
independent existence for civil purposes later, (fn. 8) and ecclesiastically was a
chapelry to Ware.
The assessment of this hundred was evidently based on a 6-hide unit.
This is shown clearly in the assessment of Bishop's Stortford (fn. 9) at 6 hides,
Stanstead, (fn. 10) Eastwick (fn. 11) and Hunsdon (fn. 12) together at 24½ hides, Westmill (fn. 13)
at 12 hides, Standon (fn. 14) and Thundridge (fn. 15) together at 12 hides, and Ware (fn. 16)
at 24 hides. The total as it stands (counting Stanstead, Hunsdon and
Eastwick at 24 hides, which must have been the original number) is
116 hides 3 virgates 21 acres. Evidently 3 hides and 9 acres had dropped
out of an original assessment of 120 hides. These 3 hides and 9 acres,
if distributed among Sawbridgeworth, Thorley, Braughing, Wickham and
Eia (the only places in 1086 not corresponding with the 6-hide unit),
bring up the assessment of Sawbridgeworth and Thorley together to 30 hides,
Braughing to 6 hides, and Wickham and Eia together to 6 hides, which
was probably the original apportionment. (fn. 17)
The conditions of tenure before the Conquest show comparatively few
estates held in demesne by tenants of any importance, but a great number
of holdings, some of very small extent, in the hands of 'men,' sokemen, or
thegns of the larger landholders. (fn. 18) Thus Asgar the Staller had, besides a
large estate formed of Sawbridgeworth and most of Thorley, men or
sokemen at five different places; Earl Harold, who had no demesne lands in
this hundred, had tenants also in five places, and six tenants of the king held
land in the hundred. King Edward himself had no lands in demesne, but
from the pre-Conquest tenants given in the Domesday Survey it seems
probable that Braughing, Westmill, Hunsdon, and Eastwick were once in
the king's hands, whilst the payment to the king's sheriff due from Stanstead
Abbots points to that also having been once royal demesne. The result of
the Conquest was a considerable simplification of tenure, most of the
divided estates of 1066 being held in 1086 by some great Norman baron
who had taken over, not only a pre-Conquest lord's own estate, but also
those of his sokemen (cf. the holding of Asgar the Staller and his men in
Stanstead, Sawbridgeworth, Thorley and Wickham acquired by Geoffrey de
Mandeville and the holding of Alwin of Godtone and his men in Stanstead
acquired by Ranulf). This may be compared with the tenurial conditions
in Odsey Hundred, where the small, divided estates of the pre-Conquest
period seem in many cases to have survived the changes in ownership
(cf. particularly Hinxworth). (fn. 19)
Very little information is to be found in regard to the hundred court.
The hundred was a royal one, (fn. 20) and remained in the king's hands until
granted by Elizabeth to Sir William Cecil in 1571. (fn. 21) The descent then
follows that of Hertford Hundred (q.v.). The court must have been originally
held at Braughing, which seems to have been a place of importance. It
was probably part of the ancient demesne of the Crown, (fn. 22) and was the head
of a deanery, (fn. 23) besides giving its name to the hundred. Whether the three
weekly court continued to be held at Braughing is not clear from the
evidence, but in the 14th century the sheriff's tourn was held at the
neighbouring village of Puckeridge. (fn. 24)
The jurisdiction of the sheriff was limited by the usual private
franchises. In 1287 no fewer than six lords claimed the right to hold
view of frankpledge at Sawbridgeworth, three claimed it in Gilston, three at
Thorley, and one at Ware. (fn. 25) Rather earlier the lord of Standon had been
presented for non-payment of 16s. for sheriff's aid, 1 mark for view of
frankpledge and for withdrawal of suit at the hundred and county court,
which ought to have been rendered for the whole vill by the tenant of
certain lands whose tenure made him responsible for rendering the suit. (fn. 26)
The lords of Braughing and Eastwick were presented at the same time for
similar encroachments, all of which were said to have been made within the
last twenty years. (fn. 27) Bishop's Stortford, as a borough, was independent of
the hundred in the appearance before the justices of assize, and sometimes
also for purposes of local assessment. (fn. 28)