STOKE TALMAGE
The parish is a small one of 869 acres and so far
as is known its boundaries have not changed since
at least the 8th century: (fn. 1) it is long and narrow in
shape and lies between Watlington and Thame to
the north of the Chilterns. It stretches from Haseley
Brook on the north to Weston Brook on the south
and is separated by these streams from Great Haseley
and Shirburn. Between the two lies Poppet's Hill,
probably deriving its name from the Old English
words for 'goblin's pit' and reaching to a height of
347 feet. There is also a low ridge rising from 234
feet by Wheatfield Park to 433 feet at Gilton Hill
or Gyldon as it was called in 1517 (fn. 2) and continuing
to above Clare where it reaches over 370 feet. (fn. 3)
There is comparatively little woodland: in 1881
there were 33 acres which included Cornwall Copse
in the north and part of Wheatfield Wood on the
eastern boundary, and the acreage has been considerably reduced since. (fn. 4) The countryside, however, has by no means a bare appearance, for
there are many fine elm and oak trees in the hedgerows which give it a park-like aspect. Eight of these
fine trees were planted by the rector on the glebe in
1840 on Queen Victoria's wedding day, the marriage
being solemnized by his cousin, the Archbishop of
Canterbury. (fn. 5) From the northern slopes of the ridge,
on which the hamlet of Stoke stands, the prospect
commands Wheatfield Park to the north-east and
the vale of Haseley to the north-west—a typical
south-Oxfordshire landscape.
Along the ridge runs a secondary road that links
the main roads from Stokenchurch and Watlington
to Oxford. This route must have been of some importance in the Middle Ages as it was the chief link
between Thame and Wallingford, and Wallingford
was on the water route to London and until it was
superseded in importance by Abingdon in the early
15th century was one of the main stages on the
London road to the west. (fn. 6) Wallingford Way is
conspicuous in contemporary documents, even a
Stoke footpath being described as the way to Wallingford. (fn. 7) It was this route which was probably the cause
of bringing violence to Stoke on at least two occasions.
In 1224 it was alleged by the widow of Ralph
Talemasch that during the barons' war her property
had been severely damaged by Richard Foliot and
Vivian fitz Ralph over a period of three weeks. They
had carried off 26 armed servants, a plough-team
of oxen and 2 young oxen, everything in her housechest, and the bedclothes. They had put locks on
her barns and handed the keys to Robert Druval so
that she could not have the keys and have her
chattels without paying 40s. (fn. 8) In the 16th century two
yeomen of London and a Gloucester man were
pardoned in 1528 for breaking into the houses of a
widow at Stoke and robbing her and her servant,
and for mortally wounding William Pangbourne. (fn. 9)
As one of the Londoners was said to be also of
Doncaster and Painswick (Glos.), both places in
wool-producing areas, he was probably a woolman
journeying from London to the west country.
Stoke itself lies in the centre of the parish at
a height of about 320 feet. (fn. 10) It is 5 miles southwest of the market town of Thame and 3½ miles
north of Watlington. Never a large village, it has
now dwindled to a small hamlet, and there is only
one farmhouse, Stoke Farm, left in it. In 1960,
besides this house there were the Rectory, the 'Red
Lion', the 19th-century school-house, and school of
chequer brick (then used as a private house), a few
old stone cottages bordering the churchyard, four
red-brick cottages built by Lord Macclesfield in
1902, and two new Council houses. In an account of
about 1700 of the manor estate, besides Stoke Farm
there were three other houses described as farms,
together with the Place House belonging to Mr.
Tipson, five dwellings with orchards and closes or
other land, a house and smith's shop, and three
cottages, of which two were on the waste. (fn. 11) In addition to the houses and cottages listed the Rectory
and Stoke Grange Farm, which lay outside the
village, certainly existed then. (fn. 12) In 1738 the rector
reported that there were 23 houses in Stoke and this
roughly corresponds with the details given on an
estate map of 1750. (fn. 13) The map shows that the village
was clustered round the church and lay entirely off
the main road and along the branch road to Stoke
Talmage and a parallel lane ending in the village,
whereas later houses have been built along the
Lewknor road. The 18th-century 'Red Lion' on the
Lewknor road, therefore, dates from the second half
of the century. The 1750 village consisted of Stoke
or Manor Farm, the Rectory, and next to it Place
House, the most important building in the village.
Besides fourteen small dwellings and cottages the
map depicts two farmhouses. Hedged closes lie to
the west of the houses, a vineyard at the north end
of the village, a common of 18½ acres lies on the
Wheatfield boundary, and the open fields lie to the
south with Stoke Grange Farm in an isolated position to the north-west of the village and on the
eastern boundary of the parish.
Stoke Farm is shown as an L-shaped house of
two stories, with a large yard surrounded with outbuildings, on the south corner of the village street.
John Taylor, the constable and farmer of the manor
farm, was living in this house in 1665 and returned
five hearths for it, but this was probably before the
rebuilding: a lease of 1697 to Ralph Taylor speaks
of it as having been 'newly erected'. (fn. 14) In 1796 it had
stabling for 13 horses and its outbuildings were
of brick, weather-boarding, and lath and plaster. (fn. 15)
Today the brick facade of the house conceals an
earlier, possibly 16th-century, building of chalk and
timber, which has been enlarged at later dates.
The Place House no longer exists. It may have
been built in 1588, for Rawlinson noted that it had
an inscription on the outside of the gateway which
ran: 'Get all thi goods justli Spend them moderateli
Relive them daili. Anno dni 1588 Optime mors veni
Pessima vita vale'. On the inside of the gateway,
facing the house, was another inscription: 'Serve
God ever duli'. (fn. 16) This house was probably the one
for which seven hearths were returned in 1665 by
Thomas Quatremain, or it may have been the one
with five hearths owned by William Baker, 'gent.
by my owne view', who can be identified with
William Barker of Sonning, the patron. (fn. 17) The 1750
estate map shows Stoke Place as the most imposing
house in the village: it is depicted with two stories
and attics and a central projecting bay. It is mentioned
in the inclosure award of 1811, but only Place House
close is shown on the map. (fn. 18) The house had presumably been recently pulled down.
The Rectory dates from 1752 and was built by
the rector, William Wilson. (fn. 19) It replaced a house of
six low rooms with chambers above and was
built some 40 yards away in the orchard of the
old Rectory, then ruinous. (fn. 20) The new house was
of two stories with garrets above. There were originally four rooms on each floor, but by 1820 the house
was considered too small and various offices were
added at a cost of £560. The architect was Daniel
Harris of Oxford. (fn. 21) The house has an elegant interior
and there have been no recent alterations to the
exterior.
Stoke Grange Farm is on the site of one of the
four Oxfordshire granges of the Cistercians of
Thame, and there is still a right of way leading
across the fields, formerly all Thame Abbey land, from
the farm to Thame Park. The land given for its
site in the 12th century was part of the waste land of
Stoke manor called the Marsh, (fn. 22) and the monks
must have expended considerable labour on draining.
Today the farmhouse standing above the brook is a
19th-century building. Traces of the medieval moat
surrounding the original grange survive, and in 1850
a medieval barn was still standing. (fn. 23) Although all
the ancient grange buildings have since been destroyed by fire a number of inlaid tiles once on the
floor of one of the buildings have been preserved at
the farm. One of these tiles bears a crowned head
between two hands raised—a design common in the
neighbourhood. (fn. 24) A few early hand-made drains
have also been found beside the causeway built across
the marsh to Stoke village. (fn. 25)
At the extreme southern end of the parish lies
Stokefield Farm. It, too, is in an isolated position,
but this was a consequence of the inclosure of the open
fields in 1813 and the creation of separate farms.
The parish has been associated with two families
of interest—those of Talemasch and Petty. The first
was of knightly rank and gave Stoke its second name
in the 12th century, and the second is interesting as a
local example of a yeoman family that rose into the
ranks of the gentry in the 16th and 17th centuries. (fn. 26)
Mary, the daughter of John Petty of the Stoke branch
of the family who lived at Stoke Grange, rose even
higher. She married James Ley, Earl of Marlborough
(1550–1629). (fn. 27) A son of John Petty, George Petty or
Pettie (1548–89), acquired fame as a romance writer
and translator. (fn. 28) As his cousin Anthony Wood said,
he was 'excellent for his passionate penning of
amorous stories'. (fn. 29) His translation of Guazzo's
Civile Conversation has a further local interest in
that it was dedicated to Sir Henry Norris, who was
later to become lord of Rycote. Stoke Grange had
passed out of the Pettys' hands by the time of
Charles I. (fn. 30)
Rather earlier in the 16th century two boys,
William Gardner and his brother, were lodging with
a tutor at Stoke, very probably with the rector,
Master Edward Chamber (fl. 1505–26). (fn. 31) A letter
from William to his parents in London has been
preserved: he asks that he and his brother may be
sent 'shoes against Easter for we have none except
what we wear everyday', also a cap each and points
for their hosen, the last being 'naught and rotten'. (fn. 32)
One other local item may be recorded here, since
the scientist Lord Macclesfield advised the parson to
make a note of it in the parish register. It concerned
the remarkable weather of the years 1777–9, particularly the first month of 1779 when the season was
so mild that the blackthorn was in full flower before
the end of March and the whitethorn in full leaf: 'that
has not been experienced in the past 60 years.' (fn. 33)
Manor.
In 1086 STOKE (Stoches), rated at 10
hides, was held by Roger d'Ivry, the sworn brother
in arms of Robert d'Oilly. (fn. 34) In the early 12th century
the D'Ivry barony passed to John de St. John of
Stanton St. John and Reynold of St. Valery, either
jointly or in succession. (fn. 35) Reynold de St. Valery was
overlord when Henry II confirmed a grant of Stoke
land in 1165 and Bernard and Thomas de St. Valery
later granted charters of confirmation. (fn. 36) From the
Valerys the barony passed in 1219 to the counts of
Dreux; it was forfeited to Henry III, and granted by
him in 1227 with all the English lands of Robert de
Dreux to Richard of Cornwall. Thus, the St. Valery
lands, although they kept their separate identity,
henceforward formed a part of the honor of Wallingford. (fn. 37) Stoke was held for 2 fees, and paid a rent of
60s. to the honor. (fn. 38) In 1282 Earl Edmund gave this
rent to Rewley Abbey, (fn. 39) and the abbey later remitted half of it to Thame. (fn. 40) In 1302 Margaret, the
earl's widow, brought an action for her widow's
third against Thame with regard to this rent. (fn. 41) According to a confirmation by Edward II Rewley
remitted first 30s. and then the remaining 30s. which
was owing for the lordship of the vill, and also
suit of court and hundred, which the earl had granted
it, both from the Abbot of Thame and other free
tenants, along with view of frankpledge. The king
further confirmed that no bailiff of the earl might
take distraint or intermeddle in Stoke in any way. (fn. 42)
Thus it was that in 1535 no payments were being
made to Ewelme honor. (fn. 43)
The tenant in Stoke in 1086 was a certain Hugh (fn. 44)
from whom the Talemasch family probably descended. The first of the name to be recorded in Oxfordshire is Hugh Talemasch, perhaps a son of the
Domesday Hugh, who occurs c. 1130–1150. He was
evidently in the entourage of John de St. John: he
was fined in 1130–1 for liberating a sum of money to
him without the royal precept, (fn. 45) and is found as a
witness to the charters of his overlord, John de St.
John. (fn. 46) It was from him presumably that the village
took its second name. He was the father of at least three
sons, Peter his heir, Robert, and William, all of whom
are found witnessing charters with him. (fn. 47) He was
also the lord of (?) Hampnett (Glos.) which he
gave to the Benedictine Abbey of Gloucester when
he became a monk there in his old age. (fn. 48) His heir
Peter (I) married Maud, the daughter of Aucher
Chevaushesul of Tetsworth, (fn. 49) and so succeeded to
knight's fees in Tetsworth and Epwell, held of the
Bishop of Lincoln. (fn. 50) He continued the pious tradition
of the family and gave before 1155, with the consent of
his wife, mother, brothers, and sisters, over 2 hides
at Stoke in free alms to Thame Abbey; he also gave
10 acres to the parson of Stoke, (fn. 51) and one of his sons
became a lay brother of Thame. (fn. 52) Peter was dead
by 1181 and a son Richard was in possession. (fn. 53)
This Richard was one of four knights appointed
by the county in 1199 to choose twelve to make a
great assize in a dispute over land in Stoke; (fn. 54) he
married Avice, the daughter of Richard Taillard,
one of his adherents, and they had a daughter and at
least four sons, of whom one Ralph became a monk
of Thame. (fn. 55) Peter (II) Talemasch had succeeded
his father by 1205, (fn. 56) and a suit of 1207 reveals that
he held 4 knight's fees in Stoke and Chilworth. (fn. 57) In
1208–12 he was returned as one of the knights of
the honor of St. Valery presumably for his Stoke
fees, (fn. 58) but he was granting away more of his demesne
land in Stoke about this time (fn. 59) and may have alienated most of his rights there soon after. The Talemasch
grange at Stoke seems to have been disused by 1220
and replaced by the monastic grange. (fn. 60) Other
Oxfordshire land was certainly being alienated: a
½-fee in Finstock was granted to Eynsham in 1205; (fn. 61)
Fawler land was granted in 1220–2, (fn. 62) and before
1223 the Chilworth and Coombe estate was sold. (fn. 63)
Peter was followed by 1241 by his heir William, (fn. 64) who
figures in various suits over Stoke land in 1261, (fn. 65)
but the family's remaining rights were soon transferred. In the survey of 1279 there is no reference to
any Talemasch overlordship over Thame's holding
which had increased since about 1240 to 4½ hides. (fn. 66)
In 1296–7 the earl was said to receive 40s. from the
abbey for land formerly held by William Talemasch
and 20s. from that formerly held by Sewaly of
Stoke, (fn. 67) a tenant of whom nothing is known. In
1316 the abbot alone was returned as holding Stoke
Talmage; (fn. 68) the place was included among the abbey's
demesne lands in a grant of free warren in 1365, and
Thame retained possession until the Dissolution in
1539. (fn. 69)
In 1542 Stoke Talmage was granted with Tetsworth and other manors to the Bishop of Oxford,
Robert King, who had been the last Abbot of
Thame, (fn. 70) but in 1547 the new bishopric ceded it
with five other manors to the Crown. (fn. 71) In 1553
Edward VI sold the manor, advowson, Stoke grange,
and other land as 1/40th knight's fee to John Petty
(Pettie), gent. (d. 1578), for a cash payment of £564. (fn. 72)
John Petty had held the manor from Bishop King
(then Abbot of Thame) in 1538. (fn. 73) The Pettys were
a widespread Oxfordshire family of lesser gentry and
had long held land in Tetsworth. (fn. 74) John Petty of
Stoke Talmage, the son of John Petty of Tetsworth,
received a similar royal grant in 1611–12. (fn. 75) He and
his wife and other members of the Petty family
conveyed the manor to John Symeon, Esq., and
Edmund Symeon, gent., in 1612, and in 1612 and
1614 the two Symeons are described as lords of the
manor. (fn. 76) The grant, however, evidently did not include all the Petty property in Stoke for John Petty
still held Stoke grange and Stoke farm at his death
in 1621. (fn. 77)
The Symeon family were lessees of Pyrton, where
they lived. Edmund Symeon died in 1622 and his
brother Sir George of Brightwell Baldwin became
heir to the manor and advowson of Stoke. (fn. 78) He
received these in 1623, and immediately sold them
to Katherine Litcott, widow, and William Barker,
gent. (fn. 79) In court rolls of 1628 'Lady Litcot and
Mr. Barker' occur as lords, (fn. 80) but the Litcott interest ended with Lady Litcott's death. The Barkers
were a Sonning family. William Barker (d. 1676)
married twice; (fn. 81) his two daughters by his first
marriage, Frances and Ann, married respectively
Richard Howse of Whitley (Berks.) (fn. 82) and Sir Pope
Danvers; (fn. 83) his son William by his second marriage
succeeded to Stoke and died without heirs in 1694. (fn. 84)
The legatees of William Barker, junior, were Mary
Howse, daughter of Frances Woodward (formerly
Howse) and wife of Sir William Kenrick, and Ann,
the wife of Sir Pope Danvers. (fn. 85) Stoke manor in
consequence was divided at one time in sixths and
at another in quarters among their descendants. (fn. 86)
Sir William Kenrick's will, proved in 1699, left a life
interest in his part of the property to his wife, which
was thereafter to be divided between his three
daughters, Frances, Mary, and Grace. (fn. 87) By his wife's
will, proved 1705, the division was to be equal. (fn. 88) An
agreement of 1708 about the share of Sir William's
eldest daughter Frances Child related to 1/6 of
the manor, (fn. 89) and another agreement of 1716
made between Daniel Danvers, son of Sir Pope
Danvers, and Grace Kenrick, spinster, related to
one-quarter. (fn. 90) In 1720 Grace, by then married to
William Wykes of Hazlebeech (Northants.), and her
husband sold their quarter of the manor of Stoke
and Sonning to Thomas, Lord Parker, Baron of
Macclesfield. (fn. 91) The second quarter of the manor
was purchased in 1769 from the guardians of
Elizabeth Hill, a granddaughter of the eldest daughter
of Frances Child, and from John Gutteridge, whose
wife, the youngest daughter of Frances Child, had a
twenty-fourth part. (fn. 92) The Danvers half of the manors
had descended to Daniel Rich, who mortgaged his
estate to Robert Palmer, who ultimately acquired
them. (fn. 93) In 1772 Palmer exchanged his half of Stoke,
paying also £6,000, for the half of Sonning owned
by Lord Macclesfield. (fn. 94) Thus the whole Stoke
estate was united in the hands of Lord Macclesfield
of Shirburn castle with whose descendants it still
remained in 1960.
Lesser Estates.
Beside the main estate there
were a number of lesser freeholdings in 13th-century Stoke. The chief of these seems to have been
the ½-fee held of the Talemasches by the De Turs or
De Turri family. (fn. 95) The curia of Richard de Turs in
Stoke is mentioned in the first decade of the century
and so is his land in the open fields; (fn. 96) he was a man
of local importance and is often found as a witness
of the charters of Peter Talemasch, about the second
decade of the 13th century. (fn. 97) He was probably of
the same family as, if not identical with, Richard de
Turri, who held a Bledlow fee in Buckinghamshire,
and with the Richard le Thurs who was Sheriff of
Oxfordshire in 1202 to 1206. (fn. 98) In 1222 this ½-fee,
then held by Peter (II) Talemasch, was the subject
of a dispute between Roger de la Hyde, the husband
of Avice, a daughter of Richard and Agnes de Turs.
Roger was claiming the fee against the widowed
Agnes because of her pregnancy; it was decided
that if her child proved to be a boy he should surrender the whole property, if a girl the moiety of it. (fn. 99)
In a suit in 1261, when Agnes de Turs was 'lady
of the fee', a Thomas Talemasch, son and heir of a
Ralph Talemasch, who must have been some relation
of William Talemasch, the head of the family, seems
to have been overlord of the De Turs fee. Ralph
Talemasch had, it seems, recently bought all
or part of it (8½ virgates) from Richard de Turs (le
Thous). (fn. 100)
There is no record, however, of this Talemasch
holding in the hundred rolls and the only member
of the Talemasch family recorded there was holding
a virgate in Clare of Margery de Bruys. It is probable
that right of overlordship had been granted to
Thame Abbey with the other Talemasch land: a
Richard de Turs quitclaimed to the Abbot of Thame
for 100s. in a fine over a ½-virgate in 1247 and in
1279 7 virgates were said to be held of Richard de
Turre 'de Heye', for 5 marks and 11s. and for suit
to the abbot. (fn. 101)
It was probably before 1211 that Peter Talemasch
gave a ½-hide of his demesne and 4 acres of mead to
the Templars with his body for burial. (fn. 102) In 1210 the
Master of the Temple, Amaury, lost an assize of
novel disseism against Peter's mother Avice about
a virgate of land in Tetsworth, as Peter failed to
warrant his charter granting the land to the
Templars. (fn. 103) Peter, therefore, gave the Master 3 acres
in Stoke in exchange, during the lifetime of Avice.
On her death the virgate in Tetsworth was to revert
to the Templars and the 31 acres to Peter Talemasch
or his heirs. (fn. 104) At about the same time Peter gave
another 5 acres in Stoke, and Maud the daughter of
Ralph of Shirburn gave c. 1225 'all the land' in
Stoke which Peter Talemasch had given her father;
and this was confirmed by Robert de Burghfield, who
may have been Ralph of Shirburn's successor or
mesne lord. (fn. 105)
There is no record of the estate in 1279, but the
hundredal survey for Stoke is defective. (fn. 106)
This Templar property evidently passed to the
Hospitallers in the 14th century, although there is no
specific mention of Stoke Talmage in a survey of
their estates, dated 1338. (fn. 107) It is likely, however,
that the land was included in their Warpsgrove
and Easington property, which was held at farm by
Sir John Stonor. (fn. 108) In 1512 Stoke, worth 13s. 4d.,
was held at farm with Easington and Chalgrove. (fn. 109) In
1542 part or all of the Stoke property, described as
Temple Lake, passed by royal grant to Richard
Andrews and Leonard Chamberlain of Woodstock. (fn. 110)
There are frequent references to Temple Lake in
the Chamberlain deeds and it is marked on an
18th-century estate map as a large piece of inclosed
pasture. (fn. 111)
Agrarian and Social History.
As Stoke
was rated at 10 hides in 1086 and was thus one of
the many 5-hide units in the country, (fn. 112) the boundaries
of the township may be taken to be at least as ancient
as the 8th century, when this system of hidation was
probably imposed. The geology of the area certainly
favoured early settlement: there is a mixture of soils,
well adapted to mixed farming, and two brooks.
Near Haseley and Weston Brooks the soil is heavy
clay, but on the ridge it is composed of flint and
chalk with a sub-soil of clay. At the time of the
Domesday survey the estate appears to have been
fully cultivated. There was land for 6½ ploughs:
nearly half was demesne with 3 plough-teams and 3
serfs at work, while 10 villani and 9 bordars shared
another 3½ plough-teams. The record makes a comparatively rare reference to meadow (97 a.) and
pasture (13 furl. × 1 furl. 12 per.). There had been
a considerable rise in value from £7 to £10 since the
Conquest. (fn. 113)
Twelfth-century evidence reveals radical changes.
In a charter of c. 1150 the land of the 'francolensii'
is mentioned (fn. 114) and later evidence shows that apart
from the principal estate in Stoke held by the knightly family of Talemasch there were a number of
freeholds belonging to their adherents, among them
the Le Grant, Sandwych, De Stoke, and De Turs
families. (fn. 115)
An important development occurred in the middle
of the century when Peter Talemasch granted 2
hides, 8 acres of his land to the Cistercians of Thame
Abbey and land in the marsh (in merse) by the spring
for building their grange. (fn. 116) References to the furlong
next to Cripsehulla (i.e. Cripshill in Clare), to Peter's
demesne lying between this furlong and the water
(i.e. Haseley Brook), to the Marsh, and to Wallingford
Way and the lane from Wheatfield make it clear that
most, if not all, of the land granted lay at the northern
end of the parish. (fn. 117) Although the land lay in 11 or
12 furlongs in the open fields, much was already
consolidated. (fn. 118) For instance, the whole cultura of 25
acres and the whole of Mers furlong (except 35½
acres), la Breche, and most of another furlong were
among those given. The demesne meadow granted
was clearly inclosed and another piece of meadow
belonging to 1½ hide of arable land was said to lie
together. It is likely that an inclosed estate was contemplated from the beginning. This low-lying and
badly drained part of the parish, described as late as
1842 as 'indifferent pasture', was eminently suitable
land for improving farmers such as the Cistercians. A
grange was built, (fn. 119) and the property was added to
by other grants of land from free tenants. (fn. 120) The
location of the new pieces of land, all in the same
furlongs as the land of the original grant, or close to
the grange, or to the Wheatfield boundary, point to
the consolidation of the estate. About 1195 a further
step in this direction was taken when Lawrence de
Stoke made an exchange of land with the monks. (fn. 121)
Early in the 13th century the Talemasch family
added more than another virgate to their original
grant, and this land, too, was in the north of the parish,
some on the Clare boundary. (fn. 122) By the mid-13th century the abbey held 4½ hides out of the 10 hides in the
parish. (fn. 123) As the virgate was about 22 field acres, they
held about 396 field acres. (fn. 124) The rest of Stoke's land,
however, was still in the hands of small freeholders,
and apart from the De Turs fee no sizeable property
seems to have been built up. In a list of tenants,
drawn up about 1240, this fee comprised 7½ virgates.
The next largest holding belonged to the Templars,
who had acquired 3½ virgates of their one hide holding from Peter Talemasch; (fn. 125) four tenants held a ½hide each, and five others, including the parson, held
about a ½-virgate or a virgate. (fn. 126) One of these tenants
was indebted in the sum of 36s. 8d. to Abraham the
Jew. (fn. 127)
Athough much of the account of the parish in the
hundred rolls is defective there is no doubt that in
1279, apart from the abbey's manor, small freeholds
were the chief characteristic of the tenurial pattern.
There were now some 31 different holdings, though
not all were held by different persons. The abbey
itself had superseded the Talemasch family as lords
of the manor and had sixteen tenants, who were
clearly freemen: they paid rents of varying amounts,
though 8s. a virgate recurs several times, did suit at
the abbot's court and usually at the hundred of
Pyrton as well. Most of them owed scutage and none
owed labour services. (fn. 128) A few free tenants held of
other lords: two owed suit to the court of Lawrence
de Sandwich, two held of Robert de Stoke, and both
of these men seem to have held directly of the honor.
So also did Richard de la Hyde, the lord of the
neighbouring manor of Adwell and of many others.
In fact the last fifteen entries relating to Stoke
apparently concern his property and it seems that the
only two tenants recorded as owing boon-works were
his. (fn. 129)
The account in the hundred rolls is supplemented
by a contemporary record in the Thame Cartulary,
which states that the 8½ virgates once belonging
to Richard le Turs had been bought by Ralph
Talemasch and were divided into 4 half-virgate holdings, 4 virgate holdings, and one of 2½ virgates. (fn. 130)
As so many of the names of tenants are missing
in the 1279 survey it is impossible to calculate their
number, but it can be said with certainty that many
of those named, like Richard de la Hyde, did not
live in the parish. It may be hazarded that the growth
of the population in the 12th and 13th centuries,
which was a familiar phenomenon in other neighbouring villages, was checked at Stoke by the arrival
of the Cistercians. Only 11 persons were assessed for
the tax of 1316 and 9 in 1327, and only 38 adults
were listed for the poll tax of 1377. (fn. 131) The small size
of the population may be attributed to the Cistercian
interest in sheep-farming, for which the Stoke
meadows and rough pasture were well suited. The
small number of tenants taxed in the early 14th
century may be a consequence of the system, which
was almost certainly in use, of employing resident
famuli at the grange, who would escape taxation.
When the parish's tax assessment was revised in
1344, it was fixed at the relatively low sum, considering its acreage, of £1 19s. 10d. (fn. 132) and this, too, one
must suppose was owing to the influence of the
abbey which was able to bring pressure on the tax
assessors. (fn. 133)
Almost no evidence has survived about the administration of the grange. An indication of the type of
farming adopted by the Cistercians and a sign that
there had been complaints by other tenants may
perhaps be detected in a confirmatory charter of
Peter Talemasch's overlord, made some time between
1166 and 1190, where it is laid down that the monks
must not overstock the land. (fn. 134) On the other hand a
Talemasch charter of c. 1210 suggests that they may
have practised mixed farming: they were to cultivate
or use how they would a grant of pasture land. (fn. 135) The
income derived from the farm in 1291 was £16 6s. 3d.,
of which £14 10s. 3d. came from lands, reliefs, and
the dove-cote, 6s. from the herd of cattle, and the
rest from rents. (fn. 136) In 1477–8, when the abbey was
leasing the demesne for £10, it received £10 12s. 11d.
from rents of assize and customary tenants, and
in 1535, in addition to the £10 for the farm of the
demesne, it was getting £15 15s. 5d. from tenants. (fn. 137)
The post-Reformation history of the grange, which
alone of the Stoke farms was inclosed and tithed
separately, (fn. 138) in conjunction with the evidence of
medieval charters, makes it likely that the abbey here,
as in its other nearby properties, had succeeded in
building up a compact estate. (fn. 139) One of its tenants,
moreover, was accused in 1517 of inclosing 40 acres
of arable and of allowing the farmhouse to fall into
disrepair. (fn. 140) It appears also that the Templars, or
possibly the Hospitallers, had consolidated their
holding in Stoke. Temple Lake Close and Temple
Mead are mentioned in a terrier of 1685 (fn. 141) and can
be located on the map of 1750, Temple Mead then
being called Mr. Toovey's mead. (fn. 142)
In the rest of the parish open-field farming was
practised in the medieval period and after. Three
fields are recorded by 1211: they were the North,
South, and West (or Chelfield) Fields. When Peter
Talemasch granted a ½-hide to the Templars the
land was equally divided between these three fields,
though unequally as regards furlongs. In the North
Field they were distributed in 3 furlongs, in the
South Field in 5 furlongs, and in the West among 14
furlongs, many of them in ½-acre strips. (fn. 143) Fieldnames indicate that, besides the staple crops, flax,
beans, and pease were grown. (fn. 144) There is also mention
in c. 1211 of a reed bed of 4½ acres, measured by the
perch of 15½ feet. (fn. 145) Some furlongs were laid down
to grass: a cultura of pasture in the early 13th century contained 15½ acres. (fn. 146) Holdings in general were
probably in small parcels, at least in the early medieval period. Ten acres of the rector's glebe, for
example, were divided into nine parcels. (fn. 147)
Evidence for agrarian changes in the 16th century
is lacking except for what can be deduced from the
tax assessments and a survey of 1551. The list of
contributors to the subsidy of 1524 is not as informative as in most cases, for Stoke Talmage and
Wheatfield were taxed together. There were fourteen contributors in all. (fn. 148) In 1577 there were six
contributors at Stoke compared with one at Wheatfield: all six of the Stoke farmers were taxed on £4
or £3 worth of goods—a common sum for the small
yeoman farmer. (fn. 149) The fact that there is no outstanding contributor suggests that the manor estate, like
the grange, was at this time held by more than one
tenant and was divided into several small farms. The
family names of the taxpayers in 1577 recur on lists
of tenants drawn up in 1607 for supplying wheat to
the king and for making the common payments to
the hundred of Pyrton. In the latter case there were
eight names, including that of the parson and the
lord of the manor. All were rated on 1 or 2 yardlands
with the exception of Richard Chapman, perhaps
the tenant of Stoke manor, who was rated on 5 yardlands out of a total of sixteen. (fn. 150) In payments of wheat,
however, Ralph Quatremain contributed seven
quarters and Mr. Petty three to Chapman's two.
It is not until the second half of the 17th century
that evidence becomes rather more plentiful. It is not
known whether the Grange was by this time farmed
as a unit or whether it was still divided, but Manor
farm or Stoke farm had certainly become a large
farm. It consisted of 214½ acres in the open fields. (fn. 151)
The rent in 1628 was £80, in 1647 and 1669 £92 and
6 bushels of wheat, and in 1693 it was raised to £102
and 6 bushels of wheat after a new malthouse had
been built. (fn. 152) John Taylor, the tenant, was clearly the
leading farmer in Stoke. (fn. 153) The Manor farmhouse was
used for the courts, held twice a year by the lord's
steward, and Taylor was bound by his lease to provide dinner for him and his company up to the
number of six. (fn. 154) The tenant of Stoke Grange farmhouse at this date is not known for certain, but it is
likely that he was John Fletcher, who returned three
hearths for the hearth tax of 1665. (fn. 155) The building
as it appears on an estate map some 100 years later
was certainly a comparatively modest one. (fn. 156)
Court rolls of the period show that copies were
usually for three lives, and that heriots were exacted
and occasional works. In 1671, for example, the son
of a deceased tenant was admitted to 55 acres of land
for a fine of £2, the best beast as heriot, and an
obligation to plant 4 oaks, elms, or ash. He was also
bound at the request of the lord to work yearly two
days with his plough in ploughing and sowing, to
plough yearly by the direction of the lord the land
of one cottager, taking not more than 12d. for each
acre, and to carry one load of wood for the lord for a
distance not exceeding 8 miles. (fn. 157) Another tenant had
to find a labourer and one woman to reap at harvest
time. (fn. 158) Another, occupying a house that returned one
hearth for the hearth tax, had to find one man to
work 2 days in autumn or forfeit 2s.; at a court baron
of 1686 the homage presented that the executors of a
copyholder ought to have an 'executor's year', viz.
if the tenant died before Lady Day they were to
enjoy the land until the following Michaelmas; if
after, they were to enjoy it for a whole year from the
Michaelmas following. The next tenant might enter
on the fallow arable and on the meadow and pasture
at Lady Day. It was also stated that customary tenants ought to have the timber growing on their tenements for necessary repairs.
A note about the manor land explained that the
greensward lying among the farm's arable, was what
is left unploughed. It lay chiefly in Westcut Field, at
Park Corner, and Temple Lake. (fn. 159)
Inventories attached to wills show as one might
expect in a parish with much good soil and within
easy access of both London and Oxford that the
emphasis, at least on the larger farms, was on cattle
and wheat-growing rather than on sheep rearing. On
Stoke farm in 1633 there were 13 sheep and lambs,
worth £4, compared with £40 worth of cattle and
£36 of horses. (fn. 160) This emphasis was more pronounced at the end of the century. When the tenant,
John Taylor, junior, died in 1696 his chattels, together with those of his son, were worth £546: they
included 10 horses and colts, 28 cattle, some hogs and
pigs, but no sheep. Their crops, consisting mainly of
wheat and barley, were worth £270, and their malt
and malt-mill £40. The total acreage sown with corn
amounted to 141 acres. (fn. 161) Other late-17th-century
wills make no mention of sheep, (fn. 162) though most
small farmers probably kept some. Commons for
sheep as well as cows were still allotted in the proportion of rather more than 1 sheep common for
every acre in the common fields. The total in about
1720 was 475 sheep commons as compared with
67 cow commons, (fn. 163) valued at 6s. 8d. or 7s. each. (fn. 164)
A few large farmers, moreover, such as Robert
May, who died in 1695 and was described as a grazier,
also kept sheep. May had a flock of 122 sheep, 11
milking cows and 7 horses, valued at £208 as against
crops worth £121. (fn. 165) Another, John Gibbs (d. 1713),
kept 102 sheep and lambs in the common fields of
Benson and had crops worth over £139, nearly twice
the value of his stock. (fn. 166) Daniel Tipson (d. 1699) had
a flock of 75 sheep and other animals worth £134 10s.
as against crops (wheat, beans, pease, barley, hay)
worth £337 15s. (fn. 167)
The chief crop grown was wheat, but barley,
pease, and beans were also commonly sown. Oats
appear to have been less popular in the first half of
the century, but they figure more commonly in later
inventories. (fn. 168) A yeoman who died in 1626, for example, had 20 acres of wheat, 12 of barley, and 12 of
pease and beans, and the prosperous tenant of Stoke
farm, Thomas Quartermain, with chattels worth
£322 had the same crops in 1633. (fn. 169) To take another
example from the end of the century, Joseph Tucker
had his crops evenly distributed in 1696 between
wheat, barley, and beans. (fn. 170)
The clause in a lease of Stoke farm in 1697 that the
tenant was to pay £10 for every acre of grass
ploughed up indicates that war and the high price of
corn had made arable farming profitable and that it
was necessary to safeguard the comparatively scarce
grassland. (fn. 171)
Various changes took place in the 18th century.
Copy-holding, for instance, gave way to renting and
leasing. In about 1720 of the sixteen tenants of the
manor five held by copy for 1, 2, or 3 lives and the
rest rented or leased their land for 1, 2, or 3 lives, (fn. 172)
but there were two major changes: farms became
larger and open-field farming was abandoned.
An estate map of 1750 shows that the southern
part of the parish was still largely given over to the
open fields. (fn. 173) There were three fields as there had
been in the 13th century, but inclosure had considerably altered their arrangement. Now called
Westcut (155 a.), Middle (87 a.), and Temple Lake
Fields (136 a.), they lay for the most part south of
the village. There were two large inclosures in the
south: Temple Lake Close (15½ a.) in the middle of
the open fields and 'Mr. Toovie's' mead (9 a.) on the
southern boundary, which was Lammas ground.
Westcut was divided into two, the main part (117½
a.) lying along the Weston boundary in the southeast of the parish, the smaller part (37½ a.) lying
along the Clare boundary, north-west of the village.
With the exception of this detached piece of Westcut
Field, and two large commons, Cow Leyes (36 a.) and
the Marsh (18½ a.), everything north of the village
was inclosed and mostly formed a part of the 'liberty'
of Stoke Grange. Ten hedged arable closes, varying
in size from 1¼ acre to 9¼ acres, lying next to Cow
Leyes were the only inclosed fields not belonging to
the Grange.
Since the total area of the manor estate, including
the waste, was 627½ acres, the inclosed land in the
parish belonging to the Grange must have amounted
to over 200 acres. Some of it lay to the south of
Grange farmhouse between the Marsh on the east
and the detached part of Westcut Field on the west,
but most of it lay to the north-east along the Wheatfield boundary and across the northern end of the
parish between the boundary of the manor estate and
the Haseley Brook. This boundary can in fact be
clearly seen on the Ordnance Survey map of 1883,
where it is indicated by a double track running
north from the Grange and then north-west just
north of Cornwell gorse. (fn. 174) At the end of the 18th
century the farm consisted of 220 acres, of which 18
were in Wheatfield, and was divided into fields mostly
of between 10 and 25 acres, but the two largest were
of about 45 acres. (fn. 175)
By the end of the 18th century the small farmer
had been eliminated and the open fields were mainly
divided between the tenant of Stoke farm and two
other tenant farmers of the earl of Macclesfield,
while the inclosed north of the parish was farmed by
the tenant of Stoke Grange. (fn. 176) In 1778 the incumbent,
in making a return of the houses in the parish, stated
that there were four farmhouses and about sixteen
cottages. (fn. 177) Stoke farm had increased in size to 350
acres by 1796 and its land was to a great extent consolidated. The whole of Westcut and Middle Fields
belonged to it and more than half, if not all, the common pasture had been divided up among the farmers
into separate holdings. (fn. 178) The creation of Stoke Fields
farm (210 a.) some time before 1811 carried the
process of amalgamation a stage further. (fn. 179) A map of
1811 shows the new farmhouse near the southern
boundary and the whole of the former open fields inclosed. (fn. 180) Since then the parish has never had more
than three farms, this one, Stoke Manor and Stoke
Grange farms. (fn. 181) Crops grown at this period were
wheat, oats, barley, pease, and beans. (fn. 182)
Parliamentary inclosure in 1813 was mainly a
confirmation of existing arrangements. (fn. 183) The award
covered about 500 acres: the rector received 15 acres,
Lord Charles Spencer of Wheatfield 1 acre, and the
rest, except for roads and footpaths, went to Lord
Macclesfield. The effect of inclosure on population
in these circumstances can hardly have been very
great. The amalgamation of farms during the 18th
century is likely to have resulted in some decline.
Fifty-two adults were recorded in 1696 for the
Compton Census. Incumbents recorded 23 houses
in 1738 and 18 in 1774, (fn. 184) but the general increase in
the county in population at the end of the century
and in the early 19th century was also witnessed at
Stoke. About 115 persons were recorded in 1768
and 153 in 1801. The peak of 140 was recorded in
1821, but this figure fell to 127 in 1831 as paupers
had been removed to the workhouse at Thame. (fn. 185)
The decline continued and in 1951 the population
numbered sixty-nine. (fn. 186)
The effect of inclosure on the use of the land was
probably also slight, though it doubtless contributed
along with other factors to the decrease in arable
land in the 19th century. Arthur Young mentioned
'much good grass' in the plain early in the century
and 'good loam' arable on the high land. (fn. 187) In 1842
Lewis's Topographical Dictionary gave 252 acres of
arable as against 580 of pasture. (fn. 188) This trend had
been reversed by 1914 when, before the outbreak of
war, two-thirds of the parish was laid down to arable
and one-third to grass. (fn. 189)
Church.
The early history of the church is confused. The first clear reference to it is in 1219, but
the history of the advowson suggests an 11th-century
origin at the latest.
In 1219 the right of presentation was claimed in
the king's court by Walter son of Robert de Wooburn,
and Peter Talemasch, whose family had been lords of
the manor, was summoned to show why he had
hindered the presentation. (fn. 190) A claim was also made
by the Benedictine Abbey of Ivry in France:
Walter's right was recognized for one turn only and
the abbey retained any rights it might have had. (fn. 191)
Walter presented to the church in 1219 and again
in 1223. (fn. 192) He is probably the Walter de Wooburn,
Archdeacon of Richmond, who presented to Stoke
Talmage in 1237 or 1238. (fn. 193)
Walter's father, Robert de Wooburn, may be
identified with Robert 'le Glorius', sometimes
called 'of Stokes', a Buckinghamshire and Stoke
Talmage landowner. (fn. 194) He may have died soon after
1235, the year he was exempted from being put on
assizes and the like, (fn. 195) for in 1242 a John 'le Glorie'
or 'de la Gloria', presumably his heir, held a small
manor in Wooburn (Bucks.) known as Glory Manor
or Glory Mills, and at about the same time a half hide
in Stoke. (fn. 196)
The claim of Ivry Abbey may have derived from a
grant by Roger d'Ivry, who founded it in 1076, and
who was lord of Stoke at the time. (fn. 197) The abbey's
claim to the presentation and to a pension of 10s.
from the demesne tithes was admitted in 1218. (fn. 198)
Later Ivry Abbey appears to have recovered its right
to the advowson and the pension from the Wooburns
and to have granted them to the Benedictine nunnery of Little Marlow (Bucks.). Gunnora, the
prioress from 1265 to 1271, (fn. 199) at all events gave both,
together with the services of a villein, to Thame
Abbey, which made the first presentation in 1294
and usually presented throughout the rest of the
Middle Ages. (fn. 200) An exception occurred in 1317, when
the patron resigned its right to the papal nuncio,
who presented to the church; and in 1474, when
Thame sold the right of presentation to the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster. (fn. 201) Although in 1398
Thame had papal permission to appropriate the
church (fn. 202) it never did so.
The advowson was granted with the manor to the
bishopric of Oxford in 1542 and then followed the
descent of the manor, going with it to the Barkers in
1623. (fn. 203) This family presented throughout the 17th
century, except in 1666, when there was a collation
by the bishop. (fn. 204) Frances, the widow of William Barker,
presented in 1688, (fn. 205) but in the early 18th century the
advowson was divided and like the manor was the
subject of a confusing series of transactions. The
history of the presentation, however, was simple:
that of 1732 was sold for £270 to Francis Blandy,
gent., (fn. 206) and from after 1751 until 1928 the Earl of
Macclesfield was sole patron. (fn. 207) Since the union of
the rectories of Stoke Talmage and Wheatfield in
1928 (fn. 208) the Earl of Macclesfield and Lt.-Col. Vere
Spencer have presented in turn.
The rectory was a poor one in the early Middle
Ages: in 1254 it was valued at 5 marks (£3 6s. 8d.),
and in 1291 at £5 6s. 8d. (fn. 209) By 1535 its value had
increased to £12 17s. (fn. 210) No mention is made in 1535
of the pension to Thame: it was originally 10s., but
by 1291 it had been increased to 13s. 4d., a sum
which Thame was still receiving in 1428. (fn. 211)
The rector's right to tithe from the parish was
limited by the exemption from tithe of the lands of
the Cistercian Abbey of Thame. At least one Rector
of Stoke disputed the abbey's claim to be tithe-free:
John Belgrave, a late-14th-century rector, (fn. 212) instituted proceedings in the archbishop's court, but as
the abbey's Proctor claimed that Thame as a Cistercian house was not subject to the jurisdiction of the
Archbishop of Canterbury's court the result of the
case is not known. (fn. 213)
It is of interest that the rector was entitled to tithe
on 3 acres in Wheatfield next to Stoke. (fn. 214)
By the late 17th century the living was worth £100,
and a hundred years later about £140. (fn. 215) At the inclosure award of 1813, when the Earl of Macclesfield's property was inclosed, the rector was awarded
a corn rent charge of £194 3s. 5d. in place of the
tithes. (fn. 216) In 1843 the tithes on the rest of the parish
(mainly Stoke Grange farm) were commuted for
£57 15s. (fn. 217) In 1954 the united benefice was worth
£546. (fn. 218)
Until about 1900 part of the rector's income had
been derived from his glebe, and there is an unusual
amount of information about its early history. In the
13th century it consisted of 14 acres of which about
10 acres had been given to the church by Peter
Talemasch. (fn. 219) In 1220 the rector claimed warranty
from Peter for this land and said that he had Peter's
charter for it. (fn. 220) In 1222 Peter confirmed this land to
the church, including a messuage with a croft which
had belonged to Peter's mother. (fn. 221) In 1260 there
occurred another suit over 1½ acre which the rector
claimed from a free tenant, and William Talemasch
was also summoned by the rector to confirm his
father's grant. (fn. 222) The rector alleged that he had been
distrained by the bailiff of Wallingford to do suit at
Wallingford through William's neglect to do the suit,
but this was denied. By 1685 the size of the glebe
had increased to 29 acres in the common fields. (fn. 223) At
the inclosure award of 1813, the rector's open-field
portion of the glebe was exchanged for about 15
acres, consisting mostly of Church Furlong, a field
near the rectory, and a few small closes. (fn. 224) The rector
still owned his glebe in 1870 but it has since been
sold. (fn. 225)
The two earliest incumbents known, those presented by Walter de Wooburn, were priests, but
thereafter many medieval ones were clerks, chaplains,
or acolytes; only occasionally before the 15th century were they graduates. (fn. 226)
In the 13th century, when the rector's house is
mentioned (fn. 227) he may have been living in the parish,
but it seems unlikely that he was doing so in the later
Middle Ages. At any rate, in the second half of the
14th century the living was frequently exchanged,
always for churches in other counties, and by the 16th
century, when the living began to be held regularly
by graduates, the rectors were certainly non-resident. Master Thomas Harrop (1488–1522), for
instance, was rector of Great Haseley, where he
lived. He was presented in 1504 by the Pyrton
homage for cutting down trees in Queen Wood, (fn. 228)
and in his time Stoke church was badly neglected.
In 1520 the chancel needed repair, the glass in the
windows and the sedilia were broken, the walls of the
church were ruinous, and three people were in debt
to the church, including one who owed 6s. to supply
a light before the image of the Virgin, and another
who had not paid a legacy of 3s. left by his woman
servant. (fn. 229) Harrop's successor, Master Edward
Chamber (1522–35), was serving the church with a
curate in 1526, but he may have been contemplating
residence in 1530 when he began to repair the ruinous Rectory. (fn. 230)
The most striking of the 17th-century rectors was
Nathaniel Barker (rector c. 1629–c. 1664), a younger
son of Sir Anthony Barker of Sonning (Berks.), (fn. 231)
and therefore the brother of the patron and lord of
the manor. His was an unquiet ministry. Whether
for political or other reasons, his relations with his
parishioners were not always happy: one man complained in 1633 that he had brought his servants to
church and there was no one to catechize them;
another that his children refused to go to church to
be catechized; and the next year while going to
fetch hay the rector was assaulted by a parishioner
and nearly throttled. (fn. 232) Politically Barker was an
ardent supporter of the king and after the parliamentary victory suffered at the hands of the victors.
In 1647 he was brought before the County Committee
on the charge of enlisting in the royal army and living
as a soldier in Oxford. He was further accused of
ordering royalist soldiers to plunder some of his
parishioners who supported Parliament and of having
them removed to Boarstall House until he had extracted £200 from them. He was also said to have
vexed his parishioners with tithe prosecutions; to
have read out in church a 'book of curses against
Parliament'; to have read 'royal proclamations
clearly but Parliament's unintelligibly'; to have
'frequently entertayned lewd roguish fellows from
Wallingford Garrison'. It was alleged that he had
had 'private consultations with them in the twylight'
and had met them when in ale-houses with his wife
and daughter. As a result of these charges he was
sequestered in 1647 for scandal of life, superstition,
and delinquency. (fn. 233) Later he was obliged to borrow
£400 from his brother-in-law Bartholomew Price,
Rector of Holton, and in 1652 Price petitioned to be
given Barker's estate as security for the debt. In
1655, however, the County Committee denied ever
having had the management of the estate. (fn. 234) The
needs of Barker's parishioners in the meantime were
attended to by John Richardson. (fn. 235) At the Restoration
Andrew Pauling, formerly royalist Vicar of Benson,
was installed, but by 1664 Barker was again in
possession of the living. (fn. 236)
For the greater part of the 18th century the living,
though a small one, avoided the evils of plurality and
enjoyed resident rectors. Samuel Thornby (1732–51), however, though he took an interest in his
parish, catechized the children, and offered to pay
for a teacher if a qualified person could be found, preferred to live, for reasons that he would not put in
writing, in the neighbouring village of Tetsworth. (fn. 237)
His successor, William Wilson (1751–63), built a
new parsonage house, but it was not used by William
Wickham, rector from 1763 to 1770, as he lived at
Garsington where he was lord of the manor. (fn. 238) Stoke
church was served by a curate who rode out from
Oxford. (fn. 239) With the appointment of John Hyde
(1770–1805), the village once again had a resident
parson. (fn. 240) In 1771 it was reported that the children
were regularly catechized, but by 1790 it was said
that catechism had ceased on account of the ignorance of the children, (fn. 241) and this was in spite of the
bishop's complaint in 1787 that as the rector was
resident he should have made efforts to establish a
charity school. (fn. 242)
During the 19th century, as in the 18th century,
the rectors, who were men of private property,
largely took the place in the parish of the nonresident lords of the manor. Cranley Lancelot Kerby
(1820–57) who enlarged the Rectory was a cousin of
the Archbishop of Canterbury, William Howley. (fn. 243)
His long incumbency was disastrous. Francis Pigou,
later Dean of Bristol, who came to Stoke as a curate
in 1855 gives a graphic account of the state of the
parish. Bishop Wilberforce told him that the hamlet
had been for years 'sadly neglected', that the rector
had long been incapacitated by old age—he was in
fact 92 years old—that services had been conducted
by a non-resident 'hack', and that religion had been
kept alive by a local Methodist preacher. Pigou
found that except for one or two farmers all his
parishioners, about 100 in number, were poor and
that scarcely any of the older ones could read or
write. No one had visited them ministerially for
about 30 years. The church was shamefully neglected
and fowls roosted in the pulpit during the week. He
held two services and a Sunday school on Sunday.
He does not say how well these were attended, but
even under the 'hack' curate there had been an
attendance of about fifty. As for the choir, he was
forced to admit that although it was 'awful' to a
musical ear, it practised enthusiastically at the
village inn and even instructed other choirs. It consisted of a violin, a flageolet, and French horn. His
attempt to substitute a harmonium was a failure: the
choir agreed to perform in the morning only and
allow the harmonium to be used in the afternoon,
with the result that no one came to the second
service. The rector was chiefly noted for the excellence of his port wine, and was finally prevented
from taking part in the service after an occasion when
he read a prayer four times over.
The account given by Pigou of his own life as a
young curate is also of some interest. His stipend
was £100 a year, and he took two rooms in a farmhouse, but found the lack of intellectual society and
companionship of his own age in so isolated a parish
difficult. His social life consisted of occasional visits
to his neighbours, Vere Spencer and Charles Conybeare at Wheatfield and Pyrton, and the patron and
his wife, Lord and Lady Macclesfield, at Shirburn.
The two last, Pigou says, did what they could to help
the parish by building a school and by general kindliness. (fn. 244)
Kerby was followed by the Revd. the Hon.
William Byron (rector 1857–74), the restorer of the
church and a cousin of Lord Byron the poet. (fn. 245) At
the end of the century Charles Prescott de Coetlogon
was rector for nearly 30 years. He planted the yew
trees in the churchyard and beautified the church. (fn. 246)
After 1775 there was one churchwarden instead of
two and Robert Webb, the principal farmer in the
parish, served as warden for 30 years. (fn. 247)
According to an ancient custom, the parish clerk
claimed some rights of common in the common
pasture. Probably during the 18th century this right
was exchanged for a yearly sum of money, and in 1813
by the inclosure award the clerk was awarded £1 a
year. (fn. 248)
The church of ST. MARY MAGDALEN is a
small stone building comprising a chancel, nave,
north aisle, south porch, vestry, and low western
tower with a pyramidal roof. The medieval church
was largely rebuilt in the 18th and 19th centuries;
the tower is mainly 18th-century work, but the
belfry windows may be older.
A few records of the medieval church have survived. In 1520 the chancel needed repair, and the
walls of the church were dilapidated, (fn. 249) in 1637 the
chancel was again out of repair, (fn. 250) and finally in 1758
an appeal was made for help in rebuilding the whole
church. The brief of 1758 stated that this very
ancient structure was greatly decayed 'in the foundation walls and roof'; that despite repairs it was so
ruinous that it needed to be rebuilt; the estimated
cost was £1,069. (fn. 251) There is a view by Buckler of the
restored church in 1823: it shows the church as it
now is except for a three-light east window and no
south porch. The small dormer window in the roof
was probably a comparatively recent addition, evidently to light a gallery at the west end of the nave. (fn. 252)
Francis Pigou (later Dean of Bristol), curate from
1855 to 1856, describes the church at that date. He
says that it bore 'every trace of neglect', had 'square
pews for the farmers, more like loose-boxes', rough
benches for the poor, a west-end gallery for the
choir and Sunday school, and no vestry. The church
was unlighted and Pigou borrowed lamps from the
dissenting chapel for his winter services. Without
getting a faculty Pigou ordered the village carpenter
to cut down the high pews to a lower level. (fn. 253)
In 1860, on the initiative of the rector, the Hon.
William Byron, plans for building a new church were
made. The work done on the old one in the 1750's
was considered 'poor'; the windows had been restored in a 'debased' style; and there was insufficient
seating accommodation. The architect, E. Lamb,
was commissioned to make plans. His estimate was
for £1,000, and a faculty for replacing the 'dilapidated'
old church was obtained and application was made
to the Diocesan Building Society for help. (fn. 254) The
architect's plans were severely criticized by G. E.
Street, the diocesan architect, who considered them
'to be very objectionable . . . full of eccentricity, unlike any ancient building', and liable to be expensive. (fn. 255)
G. G. Scott was next consulted and submitted plans
for which the lowest estimate obtainable was £1,400,
As Byron was unable to raise more than £1,000 the
plan for a new church was abandoned. As many of
his subscribers were prepared to allow their money
to be used for a restoration he proposed to make 'our
present building look more church-like by as thorough
a restoration' as he had funds for. (fn. 256) An extensive
restoration was carried out by G. G. Scott and the
interior was redecorated; coloured tiles were laid on
the floor; the flat ceiling was removed, and a north
aisle, vestry, porch, and buttresses were added. (fn. 257)
Subsequently two stained-glass windows by Hardman were inserted in the east window by the Hon.
William Byron, and in 1906 the stained glass in a
window in the south wall of the nave, made by
Morris & Sons of London, was dedicated to the
memory of the rector, C. P. de Coetlogon. (fn. 258)
In 1907 a faculty was obtained to rebuild the east
window and move the two stained-glass figures from
the east window to a side window; to panel the east
end in oak, and erect a new altar. The architect was
to be J. E. Coleridge of London. (fn. 259) In fact, only one
figure was moved from the east window, and in 1909
four shields of arms were added to it by George
Byron as a memorial to his father, the Hon. William
Byron (d. 1909). The shields bore the arms of Byron,
Macclesfield, St. Mary Magdalen, and the Oxford
diocese.
There is a Victorian font, (fn. 260) and in the vestry a
finely carved royal arms. The carving appears to be
of 17th-century date, but the royal arms are Georgian.
There are brasses of John Adeane (d. 1504) and
his wife Joan, and of John Pettie, Esq. (great uncle to
Anthony Wood), and of his wife Elizabeth (Snappe),
with an inscription to their ten children. (fn. 261) Pettie
(d. 1589) is in armour and beneath the inscription are
four shields with the arms of Charnel, Williams,
Pettie, and Snappe. (fn. 262) The kneeling figures of the
children are now missing.
There are only two memorial tablets, one to R. T.
Winter (d. 1835) and his wife, and another commemorating the four men of the parish who died in
the First World War.
The church still has two medieval bells: one was
cast c. 1350 by John Rufford and is inscribed XTE:
Audi: Nos; the other was cast at the Wokingham
foundry c. 1360. (fn. 263)
In 1552 the church owned two, possibly three,
silver chalices and several vestments. A second
return made in the following year mentioned only
one chalice without a cover. (fn. 264) In 1960 the church
owned a silver chalice and paten cover (1612) and a
Victorian tankard flagon of silver, given in 1857 in
memory of the rector, Cranley Lancelot Kerby. (fn. 265)
The registers date from 1754 for marriages and
1764 for baptisms and burials. (fn. 266)
The yew tree and fir trees in the churchyard were
planted by the rector, C. P. de Coetlogon (1877–1904). (fn. 267)
Nonconformity.
In 1676 one Roman Catholic was recorded as resident in the parish. (fn. 268) No
Catholics were reported in 1738 and in 1767, (fn. 269) but
by 1787 there was a woman papist with four daughters and one son, and in 1802 four papists were
recorded. (fn. 270)
There is no evidence of any Protestant nonconformity until the mid-19th century, and according
to the incumbent's report no dissenting place of
worship existed in 1854. (fn. 271) In 1855 Bishop Wilberforce
told the young curate, Francis Pigou, that religion in
the parish had been 'kept alive by the local Methodist
preacher, a pork-butcher', and advised him to live
on good terms with this 'bitter Dissenter'. (fn. 272) Pigou
relates that he 'was not a little gratified to learn that
he (the Methodist preacher) retailed my sermons,
as he constantly attended the parish church'. The
Methodist lent the lamps out of his 'chapel' for the
afternoon service in winter time, and although he was
annoyed by an evening service, which interfered with
the attendance at his meeting, he was often seen
'listening outside a window close to the pulpit'. (fn. 273)
Schools.
There is no record of any elementary
school in Stoke until the second half of the 18th
century, but children were being at least catechized
in the 17th century, for in 1633 there were citations
for failure to bring servants and children to catechism. (fn. 274) A hundred years later, in 1738, catechizing
was said to be 'pretty regular', and in 1771 children
were being catechized during the greater part of the
year. (fn. 275) There was no school in 1738 and although
the in cumbent himself offered to pay for an instructor, no one sufficiently qualified could be found. (fn. 276)
A voluntary charity school for teaching children to
read was recorded in 1768, but it no longer existed in
1771. (fn. 277) The minister in 1774 gave the absence of a
school as one reason why no children were able to
say their catechism and why he had not yet expounded it. (fn. 278) No improvement had been made by
1778 and, although in 1781 there was said to be hopes
of improvement by next Lent, in 1787 there was
still no voluntary charity school. (fn. 279) The rector, who
then resided in the village, again complained of the
ignorance of the poor children and in 1790 said that
they were too ignorant to be catechized. (fn. 280)
This situation continued for many years. In 1818
the rector once more reported that there was no
endowment for education and no Sunday school;
that the poor would 'readily embrace the means of
education'; and that schools of industry for girls
would be highly beneficial. (fn. 281)
The first mention of a school in Stoke Talmage in
the 19th century was in 1833, when there was an
infant school with 10 to 20 children for whom the
parents paid, and a Sunday school with 6 boys and
12 girls supported by subscription. (fn. 282) The vicar reported in 1834 that infants of both sexes attended the
Dame's school for as long as their parents could
maintain them at 3d. or 4d. a week, and that 10 boys
and 16 girls attended the Sunday school until their
confirmation. (fn. 283) By 1854 only the Sunday school survived, (fn. 284) but Lord Macclesfield promised to build a
school. This was done in 1858 at his private cost and
in 1871 it had an attendance of 46 children. (fn. 285) No
school board was formed and the school continued
for some time through the support of Lady Macclesfield, with an average attendance of 30 to 34 children. (fn. 286)
Twenty-eight children were attending the school in
1938 and in 1946 it was reorganized as a junior
school, the seniors going to Thame secondary
school. (fn. 287) Stoke Talmage school was finally closed
in 1954, the children being transferred to Tetsworth
school. (fn. 288)
Charities.
Thomas Harroppe, by will dated
1521, left an annual rent charge of 2s. issuing out of
'church lands', otherwise 'concealed lands', owned
by him in Great Haseley for distribution among the
poor of Stoke Talmage at the discretion of the curate. (fn. 289)
The rent had remained unpaid during the 40 years
before 1625, by which time the land out of which it
issued belonged to William Beale. By a charity decree
of 1625 Beale was directed to settle the rent in trust
upon ten householders of the parish. These trustees
were thereafter to pay it each Christmas to such poor
persons of the parish as they with the incumbent and
parish officers might choose. The trustees were also
directed either to pay into the trust £3, being 30
years' accumulated arrears, or else to double the
rent. (fn. 289) Presumably, in either case, they were to recover the cost from Beale. It seems as though they
chose the second course. At any rate, in 1738, a rent
of 4s., charged upon an estate at Crawford, was being
paid to the poor. (fn. 290) It continued to be paid until 1754
when Robert Hall, the owner or occupier of the
Crawford estate, withheld it. (fn. 291)
Before 1738 an unknown donor had left £2 yielding interest at 2s. (fn. 292) This continued to be paid to the
poor until 1768, (fn. 293) but cannot afterwards be traced.