The Little Coxwell property of the Hawkins family to 1736

Little Coxwell

HAWKINS FAMILY PROPERTY TO 1736

This article covers the Little Coxwell property of Thomas HAWKINS (1563), his son Thomas HAWKINS (1620), and their inheritors.

RELATED PAGES:

Thomas HAWKINS 1563-1621
Thomas HAWKINS 1620-1690
John HAWKINS 1679-1747

CONTENTS:

• Map of Little Coxwell in 1736
  
• Thomas HAWKINS (1563)
  
• Thomas HAWKINS (1620)
  
• Descendants of Thomas HAWKINS (1620)
  
• Map of 1736 — plot 34
  
• Map of 1736 — plot 33 "Hawkins Close"
  
• Map of 1736 — plot 52
  
• The Inheritance
  
• Notes
  

MAP OF LITTLE COXWELL IN 1736

(Notes on the origin of the map and the transcription are at the foot of the page.)


Key (selected plots):

2 - "close Wid. HOLLIDAY mother of Mich. fomerly Amb HOLWAY 1 virg."

3 - "FOYS, HOBBS, BOYCE, now Mich.Holliday close with 2 vir. whouse of John CHAMBERS hath one & James & John MATHEWS now by J. ?ALIN"

4 - "HICKS, SHIRWOOD inⁿ COOPER ten[nant] ANDS 1m 3v"

5 - "waste STEWART & FISHER"

6 - "Mic HOLIDAY lives here 2 vir"

12 - "KNIGHTONS close, Mic HOLIDAY, 1 vir & 3/4 KNIGHTON"

26 - "HORE"

30 - "Mr BARFOOT, BATTINS now LAWRENC"

31 - "ANDS on ye waste" and "ANDS Cottage Copyhold"

33 - "Mr PAYNS HAWKINS Close with 52"

34 - "...ks ... foot by 48"

35 - "STEED late HORE"

36 - "STAPLER to CHURCHILL Orchard"

37 - "Widow HOLIDAY"

38 - "NOYS now POVY"

39 - "Wid. LOCK"

40 - "Vicars Close Glebe HOOK"

45 - "Jn HAWKINS late WEBBE Copy House"

52 - "Mr PAYNE HAWKINS"

There are three main plots of interest: 33, 34, and 52.

THOMAS HAWKINS (1563)

Thomas HAWKINS (1563) was the son of William HAWKINES, miller of Stanford-in-the-Vale. In 1601 he inherited from his father £3 cash, half a quarter of barley (value 7s 6d), his father's half share (value 30s) in a black horse jointly owned with Thomas, and the use of a cart with his elder brother Michell HAWKINS (1561) for 5 years provided he was still living in the family home at Stanford. There is no mention of land or buildings in the will, and Michell would have inherited these seperately as next of kin.

It is clear from the mention of the horse and the use of the cart that Thomas, then aged about 38, was in business for himself.

We do not know what brought Thomas to Little Coxwell, but there were contacts between the Stanford-in-the-Vale HAWKINS and land-owning yeomen families of Little Coxwell. Thomas' father, William, and his brother, Michell, were appointed overseers in the will of Michaell HALLIDAYE of Little Coxwell dated 13 November 1600. Thomas himself together with William HALLIDAY (the son of Michaell HALLIDAYE above) were appraisers of the inventory of Thomas JAYE of Little Coxwell who died 27 September 1621.

It is likely that these family contacts had a business origin. As owners of two mills in Stanford-in-the-Vale, Thomas' father, William, and his brother, Michell, would have had contacts with landowners in neighbouring parishes. From what we know of Thomas he was certainly not merely a labourer, and his interests in Little Coxwell may have been initially funded by his father William. There are two references to him as a husbandman, which can mean a small farmer, but often is used interchangeably with Yeoman. Also the family were considered sufficiently important that events at Little Coxwell were also recorded in the home parish of Stanford-in-the-Vale.

In 1607 Thomas married Cecilie GREENWAYE of Stanford-in-the-Vale. They were both aged about 44. Cecilie died and was buried at Little Coxwell the same year. Her burial was also recorded at Stanford-in-the-Vale.

In 1619 Thomas married his second wife, Margaret FARM, again of Stanford-in-the-Vale. Margaret bore him a son, Thomas (1620). Thomas himself died in 1621 when his son was about 1 year old. He was buried at Little Coxwell, and again his burial was also recorded at Stanford-in-the-Vale.

In his will dated 23 February 1621 he describes himself as a husbandman. He bequeathed £3 to his brother Henry HAWKINS, 50s to his brother-in-law Henry BUTLER, 12d. each to his god-children, and 3s 4d to the poor of Little Coxwell. Michell HAWKINS (his brother) and William FARMER (his wife's brother?) were made overseers of his will and each received 3s 4d. His wife and son Thomas were made executors. Again no property is mentioned.

In 1626 Margaret remarried to Thomas RENOWLLS (REYNOLDS). The wedding took place at Little Coxwell, although she is describes as "widow of Faringdon".

THOMAS HAWKINS (1620)

Following the death of his father, Thomas (1620) is likely to have been brought up in the RENOWLLS family. He probably inherited Little Coxwell interests from his father, as he and his wife Isbell brought up a family in the village.

No record of Thomas' burial has been found, but he probably died in 1690. (See Manor Court entry of 7 November 1690, below.)

DESCENDANTS OF THOMAS HAWKINS (1620)

Thomas and Isbell had 6 known children:

1. Elizabeth (1648-) — probably died or married before 1708
2. Isabella (1649-1659) — died in infancy
3. Thomas (1653-) — probably died before 1690, although no record has been found
4. Martha (1655-1633) — survived her mother and married in 1709
5. Richard (1657-1659) — died in infancy
6. Richard (1650-1705) — died prior to his mother who died in 1708

MAP OF 1736 — PLOT 34

The entry of 7 November 1690 in the Manor Court Books for Little Coxwell reads:

We present that Thomas Hawkins a freehold tenant of this Manor dyed since the last court seized of 48 foot square [2304 sq. ft.] of customery land in Little Coxwell having the lands belonging to one Mr Noyes on the south and Francis Hoare on the north west sides thereof and that according to the custom of this Manor Isabella Hawkins his widow ought to hold the same during her widdow-hood who is by the Steward admitted tenant accordingly and that Richard Hawkins is the next taker and heir and that upon the death of the said Thomas due to the Lady of this Manor for a harriot the best good of him the said Thomas

Interpretation

My interpretation of this is that the entry only concerns the transfer of of the "48 foot square of customery land" and the lands belonging to NOYES and HOARE are mentioned only to define its position. As confirmation, these do not appear in the next entry (1708).

There is a probability that Thomas HAWKINS (1620) also held the freehold to at least one of the lands belonging to NOYES and HOARE, although in my view this does not affect the interpretation above.

If it had been intended that all the lands were to be included in the judgement, we would have to conclude it had been made under the courts responsibilty for dowerage administration. However it is extremely unlikely that the court would have transferred all of Thomas' assets to his wife while there was a living male heir. It would certainly not have been according to "custom". Typically widows received 1/3 or 1/2 of the estate for their lifetime before reverting to the male heir, and only received all of the estate when the heir was not of age.

(For more about NOYES and HOARE's lands see PLOT 33 below.)

Identification

The "48 foot square of customery land" will be plot number 34 on the map of 1736 annotated "...ks ... foot by 48".

This is partly confirmed by:

1. The name HORE (= HOARE) appears on the map as the former occupant of plot 35, although it is to the north and east of plot 34 rather than "north west" as stated in the Manor Court entry.
   
   
2. The name NOYS (= NOYES) also appears as the former occupant of plot 38, part of which lies south of plot 34 and may be a remnant of the 1690 holding.
   
   
3. Plot 34 is partly enclosed by plot 33 which is annotated "Mr PAYNS HAWKINS Close with 52". As will be shown below in PLOT 33 this was freehold land that was once held by Thomas HAWKINS (1620).
   
   

Next "taker and heir"

The mention of Richard as the next "taker and heir" is open to two possible interpretations:

1. Richard's elder brother Thomas (1653) had died before this date so Richard was the natural heir.
   
   
2. The Court is merely rubber-stamping a provision in Thomas' will with the Manorial land going to his wife during her lifetime (as was customary) and then passing to his younger son (according to Thomas' wishes).

No 2. is the least likely, however there is no known record of the death of Thomas' elder son Thomas (1653), so it is possible that he also inherited from his father's estate. This would fit with the normal practice at that time where the eldest son inherits the bulk of the estate, and seperate provision is made for the wife and other children.

Death of Isbell

The entry of 5 November 1708 in the Manor Court Books for Little Coxwell reads:

We present the death of Isabell Hawkins widow who dyed seized of one little plot of ground of customery land lying in Little Coxwell and Martha Coxwell [sic Hawkins] to be the next heir.

Martha's brother Richard (1657) is known to have had died in 1705, and we can infer that her older sister Elizabeth had either died or been married prior to Isbell's death in 1707. However it doesn't preclude the possibiity that Martha's other brother Thomas HAWKINS (1654) was still alive. If he was living outside the village he may not have entered a claim for the land.

Death of Martha

Martha married John HICKS in 1709, the year after she inherited, aged about 54. An extract of 1733 from the Manor Court Books for Little Coxwell reads:

Martha Hicks, died seized of a Garden Plot of Customary Land etc best good due.

From this it would appear plot 34 reverted to the manor.

However it may be possible that the letters "ks" in the transcription "...ks ... foot by 48" are the last two letters of HICKS which would infer it continued in the HICKS family. An examination of the original map would be required to confirm this.

As the wife of John HICKS, Martha may have once lived in plot 4 of the 1736 map. I interpret this plot as a pair of semidetached cottages of which at some time HICKS had one and SHIRWOOD had the other.

MAP OF 1736 — PLOT 33 "HAWKINS CLOSE"

The words "Hawkins Close" appear on the 1736 map in entry 33. This implies a HAWKINS held the land freehold. If it was Manor land that a HAWKINS had held as a tenant it is unlikely to have been described on the 1736 map as "Hawkins Close"

Definition of Hawkins Close

The Berkshire Record Office transcription associates the words "Hawkins Close" with plots 36 and 37. However they are more likely to be tied to plot 33 in which the words appear, which is the mapmaker's normal practice. (See NOTES)

The words could perhaps be interpreted as a general title referring to plots 33 to 37, or possibly even 33 to 39. None of the dwellings are stated to be copy houses. The fact that the Manor Court entry of 7 November 1690 (see PLOT 34) describes parts of this area as "belonging" to NOYES and HOARE is not an obstacle. The word is not a legal term and does not necessarily imply ownership of the freehold. It could also mean "possession", i.e., occupation as a tenant.

Furthermore an entry in the Manor Court Books dated 7 March 1663 records that Thomas HAWKINS (1620) held land in Little Coxwell with a tenant Thomas BARFOOT, and this land was transferred to a new tenant John NOYES. This may be the land mentioned as belonging to Mr NOYES in the 1690 entry.

However it is safer to assume that in 1736 the words applied only to plot 33. The copyhold cottage which is part of plot 31 is not part of the close and was probably there before the close was created. There is a dotted line around it on the original map, presumably to distinguish Manorial land from the close.

Origins of Hawkins Close

There are many closes (enclosures) shown on the map of 1736, so the enclosing of common land must have started well before that date. It seem probable that the whole of the area included in plots 33 to 39 was at one time the village green. Most of the other enclosures appear to have been made by extending the land at the rear of the dwellings surrounding the green, i.e., taking over the cottagers field strips that lay between the village and the land owned by the major landowners in the area.

These small enclosures appear to have been created by yeomen, i.e., farmers who owned their own land. They should be considered as distinct from the large fields which were enclosed by the major landowners of which there were several in the area.

The original close would have been created by Thomas HAWKINS (1563). The Stanford-in-the-Vale HAWKINS were no strangers to enclosures; in his will Michell HAWKINS (1561), Thomas' brother, left a close in Stanford-in-the-Vale to his son John HAWKINS (1604).

It seems likely that Thomas first obtained tenancy of the small plot of customary land, plot 34, and then enclosed the area to its south and west, plot 33, which may originally have been "waste". It may at one time also have extended further west and to the north, although there is no evidence for this.

Sale of Hawkins Close

An extract from the Manor Court Books dated 1739 reads:

Richard Payne, Clerk, tenant, died since last court, property late Hawkins to pass to Ann, his wife, thence to male heirs.

This is clearly not recording the transfer of tenancy of customary or Manorial land, but the transfer to his heirs of property that PAYNE had purchased freehold from HAWKINS.

The court would not normally have been concerned with the transfer of freehold property, so the judgement was probably made under the courts dowerage responsibilities, i.e., to ensure the provision of widows. The children had probably not yet come of age.

The ownership of plot 33 "Hawkins Close" therefore passed out of the HAWKINS family some time before 1739.

MAP OF 1736 — PLOT 52

Plot 52 is in a seperate block of holdings to the east, and although it is not labelled as a close, is clearly another enclosure eating into the center of the village. It is annotated "Mr PAYNE HAWKINS".

Plot 52 is clearly tied to plot 33 which is annotated "Mr PAYNS HAWKINS Close with 52". In the light of the Manor Court Books entry for 1739 discussed above, it would probably have been part of the land sold by Thomas HAWKINS to PAYNE, and therefore also passed out of the HAWKINS family before 1739.

THE INHERITANCE

The "48 foot square of customery land"

This was Manor land which probably reverted to the Manor on the death of Martha HAWKINS (wife of John HICKS), and did not form part of any HAWKINS inheritance.

Plots 33 and 52

The 1736 map was intended for practical use and the mapmaker would have been unlikely to include names that were merely of historical interest. Previous occupants or owners are mentioned, but this would relate to recent transactions. Also notable is that the word "late", which is used on other plots to show previous occupants or owners, is not present on either plot. It is therefore legitimate to assume that the sale of plots 33 and 52 to Mr PAYNE had either not yet occurred and he was leasing from HAWKINS, or it had occurred not long before.

It is unlikely that the property would have been inherited by Thomas HAWKINS' wife Isbell. Although she inherited the tenancy of plot 34 which was Manorial land, the inheritance of freehold property would almost certainly have been via the male line, and at least one of the sons of Thomas HAWKINS (1620) was alive and an adult at the time of Thomas' death.

The latest male of the family that we know of is Richard HAWKINS (1657), Thomas HAWKINS' son, who died in 1705. But if the land had left the HAWKINS family on or before his death it is unlikely that the title "Hawkins Close" would have been recorded 31 years later on the map of 1736, or the origins of Mr PAYNE's lands specifically mentioned 34 years later in the Manor Court record of 1739.

A possible scenario is that the property reverted to Isbell on Richard's death in 1705. She may have sold it, or it could have been passed to her daughter Martha when Isbell died in 1708. However for it still to be recorded as HAWKINS land, it would have to had been sold prior to Martha's marriage in 1709 when she became a HICKS. Even the latest date is still 27 years before the date of the 1736 map.

A much more likely scenario is that an unknown male descendant inherited the property and sold it to Mr PAYNE. Unfortunately we can only speculate on who this could be.

1. If Thomas (1653) was still alive at the time of his father's death in 1690 the holdings would have passed to him and then his heirs. No trace of Thomas' death or heirs have been found, but there is no need for him to have lived in Little Coxwell in order to inherit.
   
   
2. If however Thomas (1653) had died prior to his father, the holdings would have passed to the younger son, Richard (1660). Richard died in 1705 and he left no heirs that we know of. However an heir could have been born outside of Little Coxwell. (The first confinement often took place in the mother's home parish.)
   
   
3. If neither Thomas (1653) or Richard (1660) left no heirs the inheritance may have passed to a cousin from Stanford-in-the-Vale.
   
   

No connection has been found between the later HAWKINS families of Little Coxwell and Thomas HAWKINS (1653) or Thomas HAWKINS (1620). However the John HAWKINS who married Ann WEB was present in the village from at least 1699. From 1716 he also held the property marked 45 on the 1736 map "Jn HAWKINS late WEBBE Copy House" which was originally occupied by his wife's parents.

There is always a possibility that John HAWKINS did inherit. He might even be an unrecorded son of Thomas (1653) or Richard (1660), or an unknown cousin from Stanford-in-the-Vale. There are other candidates for his parents, but none of the identifications are without problems.

The above can only be hypothetical, so comments are welcome.

NOTES

Manor Court Records and Wills

1. Entries from Manor Court records and wills have been taken from Tom A Hawkins A History of the Hawkins Family.

Map of Little Coxwell in 1736

1. The diagram is based on the the map Little Coxwell Houses 15 Dec 1736 and transcript held in the Berkshire Records Office. The diagram has been simplified and is not to scale.
   
   
2. The transcription of plot 45 has "Jn^o Hawkins Ew... Copy House". I make it "Jn Hawkins late Webbe Copy House". My reading has been arrived at by comparing the word "late" and the letters "W" and final "e" of "Webbe" with other occurrences in the document. (It also helps to know what you are looking for!)
   
   
3. The transcription also associates the words "Hawkins Close" with plots 36 and 37, but it is more likely to be tied to plot 33 in which the words appear, which is the mapmaker's normal practice. There is a flourish at the start of the letter "C" which can be interpreted as tying the word "Close" with plot 36, however it is more likely to be there to seperate the phrases "Mr PAYNS" and "HAWKINS Close", i.e., to ensure it wasn't read as "Mr PAYNS Close". This is conformed by the entry in the Manor Court Books for 1739.
   
   
4. The representations of dwellings used on the map are of two types. My interpretation is that those with one door and one chimney stack will be a simple cottage. Those with one door and two chimney stacks will be a larger dwelling with at least four rooms, or possibly a pair of semidetached coattages. The door in the latter would be the entrance to a passage through to the rear garden, with doors leading off to each seperate dwelling. This type of building was still in evidence in Little Coxwell in the 1950s, although most have now been gentrified and combined as one cottage.
   
   
5. The capitalization of names does not appear on the original map.
   
   
6. "v" or "vir" = virgate, which is a land measure between 15 to 60 acres, typically 30 acres.
   
   
7. "m" probably = markland, which is between 1 and 3 acres.