NABOTH'S VINEYARD : HACKNEY RECTORY
IN THE 17TH CENTURY
In late May 1601, officers of the Court of Star Chamber
at Westminster arrived in Hackney with warrants for the arrest of the
tenant of the rectory. He was a country gentleman from Cheshire and
would-be courtier, in his fifties, called John Daniell. He had moved
to Hackney less than a year previously with his wife Jane, a Protestant
exile from the Low Countries, and their children. He was accused of
blackmailing £1,720 from the Countess of Essex, by threatening
to reveal to the authorities the contents of letters to her from her
husband the Earl. She had deposited these letters for safe keeping with
Jane Daniell, whom she had formerly employed as her gentlewoman. The
Earl of Essex, Elizabeth I's disgraced favourite, had been John's patron
but the relationship had not produced the material rewards he had expected.
This was the motive for the crime. John was found guilty, imprisoned,
and fined £3,000. In part payment of the fine, Hackney rectory
was seized by Commissioners of the Exchequer and eventually sold to
the Heybourne family of Tottenham.
Unusually, John and Jane Daniell left manuscript autobiographies
which told their side of the story, and described their attempts to
recover the rectory. These are John's 'Danyells
Dysasters', and Jane's 'The Misfortunes
of Jane Danyell' .They offer a marvellous insight into their
characters, as well as casting light on their way of life in Hackney.
There are two inventories of the Rectory - or Parsonage - house itself:
one of the house prepared for the Exchequer Commission, and a second
of the gatehouse prepared by Jane Daniell herself. A third inventory
lists agricultural produce and tools ('certayne
necessaries for husbandrie') in the outbuildings of the Parsonage.
These records give a unique picture of one of Hackney's 'lost' houses
of the Elizabethan period during which a number of aristocrats, courtiers
and office holders made residence in Hackney fashionable. This article
seeks to interpret this evidence of the way of life of such people,
and to give an impression of one of their houses.
Rectors, patrons and farmers
The rectory of Hackney - that property which pertained
to the rector - included the Parsonage house and the glebe land surrounding
it. In 1622 there were about five acres of glebe, lying to the west
of the house, and in 1650 this land was farmed as pasture. By
1650 two tenements, or houses, had been built on the glebe. All this
property lay on the west side of Church Street (as the northern part
of Mare Street was called until 1868) and north of the confluence of
Hackney and Pigwell Brooks.
As well as the glebe, the rectory also included the tithes of the arable
produce of the parish, and an estate, the manor of Grumbolds. This
was a compact property running along both sides of Church Street. Copyholds
of the manor included the Black and White House to the south of the
church, and its grounds in Church Field; house property in Church Street;
and at least part of Dame Sairey's Croft, a field at the top of the
street, on the north side of Dalston Lane and Lower Clapton Road.
In 1535 the rectory as a whole was worth the sizeable sum of £26
per annum. It was estimated in 1650 (after a long period of inflation)
that it could be let for £140 a year. It was therefore a worthwhile
piece of preferment, and had the added attraction of being a sinecure,
with no pastoral responsibilities other than the repair of the chancel
of the church. Cure of souls in Hackney parish was the responsibility
of the vicar, although his living was worth a third of the value of
the rectory in 1650.
As most rectors were absentees it became common practice
during the course of the century for the rector to lease out the rectory,
including the tithes, glebe, parsonage and Grumbolds manor to a layman
who 'farmed' it - paying the rector a fixed sum and enjoying the profits
himself. The extent of the farmers' authority is indicated by their
holding of the manorial courts for Grumbolds in lieu of the rector.
Williarn Sutton, rector 1588-1622, leased the rectory to George Smyth,
who assigned it to John Daniell in 1600. Daniell also acquired the right
to appoint the rector - the advowson - and after his disgrace both estate
and advowson were obtained by Ferdinando Heybourne.
The later 17th century farmers seem to have been primarily
interested in the rectory as an investment. Most of them are described
in the deeds as citizens of London, and neither the hearth tax return
of 1664 or.that of 1671  list the then farmers as being resident
in Church Street. After passing through a number of hands, the farm
of the rectory, together with the manor of Lordshold. with which it
became associated, passed in 1697 to Francis Tyssen the elder.
A flurry of quitclaims extinguishing the rights of numerous
former patrons and farmers followed Tyssen's acquisition. It is some
consolation to the modern reader trying to master the legal complexities
of the transfers of the rectory leases that the residents of Hackney
at the time were equally perplexed. In October 1659 the churchwardens
gave notice to Richard Blackwell 'or whom it
does concern to take care for the repayres of the chancell'.
 Blackwell had been farmer of the rectory in the early 1650s, but
appears to have relinquished his interest as early as 1654. Who should
assume the responsibility of the rector seems to have been a contentious
issue in the parish.
Where was the Parsonage
Although the early 17th century is the period for which
we have most information about the Parsonage house, its location is
only identifiable from 18th century evidence. The records of the land
tax in 1727 note that Francis John Tyssen, as farmer of the rectory,
was assessed for the Parsonage at a rental value of £20. Presumably
the house was unoccupied. By 1735 William Wood is recorded as tenant,
again at a rent of £20. Wood was still tenant in 1760, but at
a rent of £10, and this fell to £8 in 1764. This may reflect
the fact that Wood was reducing the amount of land he rented, rather
than representing a fall in the value of the parsonage property.
1764 is the last year in which the land tax records show
William Wood as tenant of the Parsonage house. In 1768 the tenant is
Anthony Brunn. A lease of 12 March 1766 details the transaction between
E J. Tyssen and Brunn, landlord of the New Mermaid tavem, who leased
over 2 acres of property behind the Mermaid and its existing bowling
green. The property rented out includes houses and gardens formerly
leased to John Rawlinson and the capital 'messuage' [a dwelling house with outbuildings and land assigned to its use] with yard and gardens
'now in the possession of -------Wood'.
 This is clearly the Parsonage house, and a plan appended to the
lease enables us to identify the property exactly.
The Parsonage house is a good sized building, standing
detached 50 yards or so behind the west side of Church Street at the
end of an alley way marked as Sweet Bryer Walk. We know from the evidence
of Jane Daniell's inventory that at one time the Parsonage had a gatehouse.
Presumably this lay at one end or the other of this passage. The two
acres or so of land leased to Brunn were presumably the vestiges the
of the five acres of pasture which surrounded the house in 1650.
Brurm's motive for leasing the Parsonage and its grounds was to expand
the facilities of the Mermaid.
The Mermaid grounds in 1764, before Brunn's enlargements.
The 'capital house', D, is the Parsonage.
A plan attached to the renewal of the lease in 1777 
shows that a large block, the Assembly Rooms, had been erected on the
line of Sweet Bryer Walk, which had disappeared. The Assembly Rooms
were used for a wide variety of functions - 'subscription balls ...
public meetings ... in science, religion, or politics'. The land,
which already appears from the 1766 plan to have undergone some formal
planting, perhaps by John Rawlinson, tenant of the grounds of the Parsonage
in the early 18th century, was laid out as pleasure gardens and a trap
ball ground, according to a further plan of the Mermaid premises of
The 1810 plan also suggests that the Parsonage house survived until
that date. Certainly a building of much the same size and position as
in 1766 appears. It is described as 'cottages';
presumably it had been divided up, perhaps to accommodate staff of the
Mermaid. If this hypothesis is correct (and it must be admitted that
in 1790 a fire did 'considerable damage'
to the outbuildings of the Mermaid), a watercolour of Captain Sadler's
balloon ascent from the Mermaid gardens in 1811 may be the only surviving
illustration of the Parsonage house 
The building in the centre, gable end on, shows
what the parsonage house may have looked like in 1811.
The view is over Buck Horse or House Lane, later Cold
Bath Lane (and now Kerimure Road) to the wall of the gardens. The high
roofed building above which the church tower emerges is the Assembly
Rooms. The former Parsonage house is the building to the right of the
Assembly Rooms, gable end on to the viewer. It is a substantial two
storey house and has the appearance of an older timber framed building
which has been adapted over the years. The two small chimneys emerging
from either end of the building below the edge of the roof may have
been added when the house was divided.
But we can learn rather more about the Parsonage house than its site
and (conjecturally) its early nineteenth century appearance. The events
of 1601, and their aftermath, produced records which give a unique picture
of agricultural and domestic activity in Hackney at the turn of the
The rectory estate in 1601
The actual seizure of Hackney rectory and its administration
until the lease was transferred to other hands was carried out by a
prosperous middle-aged yeoman from Church Street called Ralph Bell.
He was appointed under the Exchequer Commission of 29 June 1601 and
wasted no time in taking up his new responsibilities. The first payment
recorded in his accounts is brutal and to the point - 6d to a smith
to break open the lock of the Parsonage house.
As steward of the rectory for the Commissioners till
at least the end of August, Bell's first responsibility was to gather
the tithe on the agricultural produce of the parish. The detailed accounts
of his transactions show that at this point most of the tithe was gathered
in kind. Bell continued to employ Daniell's men, but because of the
scale of the harvest, 'strangers', presumably labourers from another
parish, had to be employed on a daily basis.
The hay, gathered in July, and the wheat harvested in
August were sold on to London merchants and tradesmen. On 28 July 1601
for instance one and a half loads of hay were sold to 'a carrinan or
a brick man' at Shoreditch. Total receipts for the hay harvest were
£20.15.3, and the receipts of the wheat harvest were £5.10.8.
Other tithes were paid in cash. Mrs Whitmore at Balmes paid over ten
shillings. It seems probable that tithes were gathered in kind from
the common lands, and in cash from the enclosed fields of the wealthier
Also subject to tithe were peas, which must have been
mainly a cash crop for the London markets. John Whally for example was
growing over three acres. In the last week of July Bell received 33s
8d for the tithe on peas. According to the Commissioners' inventory
of the Parsonage house, other tithes on peas were customarily paid about
Gathering tithe crops was not always a straightforward
undertaking. The week beginning the 3rd August was a difficult one for
Bell. On Monday one of the cart horses developed the staggers and fell
into the River Lea. It was rescued and treated with blood letting and
a butter and tar dressing at a cost of 4s 2d. On Wednesday it rained
all day. A number of Hackney townsmen spent the day out on the marshes
in Mr Heynes' wheat field with Bell, deciding where the boundary between
Hackney and Stepney parishes lay. Had his neighbours not been with him,
comments Bell, the tithe would have been lost, which perhaps suggests
that Stepney parish was actively trying to encroach into Hackney's territory.
5s 4d was paid to compensate Mr Lawrence, Mr Keyes and others for a
wet day in a bleak field.
Besides the tithes, the inventory of the Parsonage indicates
other agricultural activity, and as indicated by an autobiographical
fragment among the State Papers,  John Daniell had spent some time
on his Cheshire estates applying himself to 'husbandrie'
earlier in his career. 'In the groundes'
of the house the commissioners recorded four geldings (one perhaps was
the horse which fell into the Lea). The inventory of farming equipment
lists harness for seven horses. The five 'mylch
kyne' or dairy cows presumably grazed in the five acres of pasture
which surrounded the house. They were valued at 30s a head, although
John claimed that they worth £4 a head. This was presumably what
he had paid. The milk was processed in the milk house, one of the rooms
in the Parsonage, which was equipped with a churn, a cheese rack and
The 'sow and three pigges' kept at the Parsonage, would
also have been processed domestically. Listed in the inventory of the
gatehouse are 'syx flytches of Bacon and iii
Rooles [rolls] of grease', and 'a great
drye fatt [vat] to powder [salt] hogs in.'
The Parsonage was equipped with two long carts, a dung cart and a waggon,
together with a plough, harrow and assorted mattocks and pitchforks.
This is indicative of agricultural activity on some scale, apart from
the annual gathering of the tithes. It may well be that some of the
glebe was farmed as arable, and indeed if we presume that some form
of crop rotation was practised by the farmers of the rectory, the five
acres surrounding the house need not always have been laid down to grass
as they were in 1650. The inventory and accounts highlight the degree
to which Hackney was already a market gardening community in the early
The Parsonage in 1601
We now know where the Parsonage stood, and perhaps what
it looked like at the beginning of the 19th century. The records of
the Daniell case give us more details of the building at the beginning
of the 17th century.
According to the Commissioners' inventory, the rooms
of the house were as follows. There were a hall, parlour, buttery, kitchen
and milkhouse. These are likely to have been all on the ground floor.
Mr Daniell's chamber, a study, Mrs Daniell's chamber, a chamber at the
head of the stairs and another chamber were, presumably, on the first
floor. The number of rooms makes the Parsonage comparable in size with
contemporary small manor houses, yeomen's houses and parsonages of South
The evidence indicates that John had undertaken repairs
and new building at the Parsonage. The questions prepared by him for
witnesses to his case against Heybourne in the Court of Requests show
that the sizeable sum of 100 marks had been paid to a Robert Houlder
for building work. The inventory records that boards and timber remained
there, presumably from this work.
The work may have been more than just necessary repairs
to the existing building. The period 1575-1615 saw the beginning of
the 'Great Rebuilding' when gentry and
yeomen in the more prosperous south east of the country began to make
their existing timber framed hall houses more comfortable. Chimneys
were inserted for more convenient cooking and heating, often replacing
a fire in the middle of the hall with a smoke hole in the roof. At this
period such halls often had a ceiling inserted to provide space for
chambers above, and access to such chambers was provided by the building
of framed staircases to replace simple ladders. Cooking began to be
done in a purpose-built kitchen rather than in the hall. At the same
time the growing fashion for privacy, which spread down from the aristocracy,
led to gentry and yeoman families living in a parlour, leaving the hall
to accommodate servants.
I would suggest that John was undertaking similar work
in the Parsonage house. The existence of a kitchen, a parlour, chambers
and a staircase is explicit. The presence of fire irons in several of
the rooms (parlour, kitchen and buttery) indicates fireplaces and chimneys.
There are at least four chambers and a study (perhaps little more than
a closet) upstairs.
To accommodate these I think we can assume that the upper
part of the hall must have been floored over, and it may be that the
boards noted by the Commissioners were left over from this. It seems
likely that John and Jane would try and make their new house as up to
date as possible.
If John did adapt the Parsonage in accord with current
fashion, the question arises as to what was there before. The court
rolls of Grumbolds refer in 1487 to property 'opposite the Church, in
the Highway and next to the Rectory of Hackney'.  This suggests
that there was a Parsonage house on the same site, more or less, in
1502 when Christopher Urswick was appointed rector of Hackney. Urswick
held a number of high church offices as a result of an active diplomatic
career, but retired to Hackney soon after his appointment.
It has been thought that Urswick lived at the house which bore his name,
and which was subsequently acquired for the use of the parish. Alternatively
known as Church House, this stood on the site of the Old Town Hall to
the south of St Augustine's Tower until its demolition in 1802. According
to Robinson, an inscription in the front of the house recorded that
it had been built in 1520. This suggests that Urswick must have
lived elsewhere in Hackney until his new house was built, and he may
have resided at the Parsonage house. If so, this must have been, or
become during his residence, a suitable dwelling for a church dignitary.
One can perhaps imagine it to have been a timber framed hall house on
the wealden pattern; a hall of some size rising to the beams, between
a service block at one end and a parlour block at the other, all under
the same roof. By 1600 when John Daniell took over the property, such
a house was old fashioned, and it is likely that he undertook the work
outlined above to bring it up to date.
Top of page
The Daniells' lifestyle
The Commissioners' inventory not only names the rooms
in the Parsonage house and their contents, but also allows us to reach
some conclusions about how they were used. As mentioned above, at the
end of the sixteenth century gentry families no longer lived in the
hall of their houses, but usually dined and relaxed in the privacy of
their (often new) parlour. The inventory suggests that the Daniells
lived in this manner. The hall is furnished with two trestle tables
and five stools, together with an old straw bed and its linen. This
suggests that it was a room in which servants ate and slept. We know
from Bell's accounts it was normal practice for the farm labourers to
be fed by Daniell. Presumably it was also the entrance to the house.
The parlour appears to be rather more comfortable. A
pair of andirons 'garnished with brasse'
suggest a fireplace. There was a wickerwork chair with a trimmed cushion.
There were also a chess set, and a number of books: a French herbal,
a psalter and a 'little French booke called
the contentment of the Spirit' -an interesting reminder of Jane's
Flemish Protestant origins. A map of Ireland (bizarrely valued in the
same lot as an old brush, all at 10d) perhaps indicates John's association
with an earlier patron, the Anglo-Irish Earl of Ormonde, or later military
involvement in Ireland with Essex. The parlour seems to have been the
room in which the Daniells spent most of their leisure time.
While it was normal for the parlour to be used for informal
living by gentry families, more formal occasions typically took place
in the great chamber. While no great chamber is specifically mentioned,
'Mr Daniell's Chamber' appears to be
furnished as such. A table, three covered stools and a court cupboard
are listed. The last was a side table or cabinet used to display plate,
and we know that John spent £300 of his ill-gotten gains on gilt
and silverware. This is all furniture of some substance and suggestive
of formal entertaining. This chamber is also the only room in the Parsonage
in which any form of decoration is mentioned, in this case four pictures.
Pictures, usually portraits, were still a rarity even in wealthy households
at the end of the sixteenth century. Four suggests conspicuous consumption
on some scale. It is a great shame we do not know the subject of the
There was also a fifth picture; among the items left
in the gatehouse by Jane was 'the countesse
of Essex pycture'. This was in a chest, so may have been a miniature.
Perhaps this was a valued gift from the Countess, and a poignant one,
as it was Lady Essex's trust in Jane which gave John the opportunity
of blackmailing her. Perhaps some of the other pictures in John's chamber
portrayed his own patrons, the Earls of Essex and Ormonde.
Perhaps little more than a closet leading out of 'Mr
Daniell's Chamber', the study contained just two hats, two rapiers
and a pair of scales with weights. This is a reminder that a gentleman,
to appear as such, usually carried a sword, and indeed John possessed
a 'string of gould' from which to hang his weapon. The scales, together
with nearly £7 in coin in a box perhaps hint at John's money lending
activities which we know of from other sources.
At an earlier period, a great chamber served as a gentleman's
bedroom as well as his main reception room. By the 16th century the
two functions were served by two separate chambers. The room described
as 'Mrs Daniell's Chamber' is I think
the principal bedroom in which both of them slept. There is no bed in
John's chamber. Jane's chamber is furnished in some style with a 'standing
Bedsted of waysncote' - a substantial item of carpentry far removed
from the straw pallet in the hall - with the necessary curtains and
covers of green 'stuff' (a quality woollen material), a court cupboard,
stool and table; a window curtain; and two bibles. There was also a
'trundle bed', one which could be pushed
under the main bed during the day, in which a child or a servant may
In one other chamber there was a similar suite of furniture
- standing bed, chair, stools and cupboard. The furniture of both chambers
was valued at £8 4s, a sum which outraged John who claimed that
he had spent £32 on the furnishings of the chambers. Once again
it appears that John and Jane were keen to be seen to be spending money
on their living arrangements.
Conspicuous consumption on furniture and fittings was
matched by lavish outlay on clothes. There are detailed descriptions
of John's clothes, contained in chests in 'Mr
Danyell's Chamber'. Jane's are recorded as being in chests in
the gatehouse, where they had been presumably moved when she was thrown
out of the Parsonage house in June 1601. Such items as a 'Flannell
wascote wrought with red Cruell', 'twoe
dubletts of blacke stuffe', a lace ruff and 'one
dammaske Cloake with sleeves garded with vellet' suggest the
clothes for attendance at court which John records he bought after receiving
Lady Essex's money.
Jane's clothes and accessories were similarly splendid.
The inventory of the gatehouse records stomachers (a sort of externally
worn decorative bodice), one wrought with gold, another decorated with
'sylke twyst', a gold and silk fan, and
a fine holland apron. Even some of the childrens' clothes are magnificent;
a child's mantle of crimson taffeta with a gold and silk fringe was
perhaps a christening robe. The childrens' linens in a chest in the
gatehouse must have been their every day wear.
Most of the clothes mentioned were for formal occasions
such as visits to court. The inventories also suggest some of Jane's
daily activities. Fourteen yards of 'houswyves
flaxen' suggests that Jane spun her own yarn, perhaps on the
little old spinning wheel in the buttery. In her 'Misfortunes',
Jane quotes Proverbs to emphasise her matronly virtues: 'She
seeketh wooll and flax and laboreth with her hands'. We also
see Jane undertaking the amateur health care which Elizabethan housewives
commonly performed. The French herbal in the parlour would have been
a source of information on herbal remedies for common complaints. Two
other items carry hints of superstition, if not witchcraft, 'a
stone for the spleen' and an 'e[a]gle stone'. The former is a
charm worn against internal disorders, the latter was a hollow pebble
with grit inside which rattled, and which was worn about the arm by
pregnant women to prevent miscarriage. Once labour had begun, the stone
was placed upon the abdomen to aid delivery of the child. Jane records
that she was in childbed in January 1600, about the time John put into
effect his blackmail plot.
We can also presume that Jane supervised the domestic
affairs of the Parsonage. We know the names of two of the servants,
Mary Harper and Hugh Bramfield. There were three service rooms, kitchen,
buttery and milkhouse. Kitchens as part of houses, as opposed to separate
buildings, were a relatively new development in 1600. Used for preparing
food, not all of them had fireplaces at this date, cooking being done
in the old fashioned manner in the hall. We can probably assume from
the presence of bellows, coal baskets and fire forks in the Parsonage
kitchen that there was a fire for cooking here. Many different varieties
of cooking utensils are listed, including brass kettles, spits, a frying
pan and a gridiron. No food is mentioned, although this is perhaps not
surprising, as the house appears to have been unoccupied for three months
by the time when the inventory was made.
The buttery was a principally a room for storing drink.
It contained beer firkins and various other tubs and containers, as
well as the spinning wheel already mentioned. The milk house has already
been discussed in the context of the agricultural activity of the Parsonage.
It was also used for the storage of cutlery and plate. Most of the latter
was of pewter, including trencher plates, fruit dishes, pottingers and
saucers. The ten trenchers - wooden plates - were presumably used by
the servants. A Venice glass and two narrow mouthed glasses kept in
the milk house were probably for family use. Notable by its absence
from either the Parsonage house itself or the gatehouse is the gilt
and silver plate on which the Daniells had spent £300 of Lady
Essex's money. This may have been concealed from the Commissioners,
or more likely liquidated to meet the expenses of John's trial and imprisonment
and the family's move from Hackney. Nonetheless as with the furniture
and clothes, the impression of the domestic arrangements given by the
inventories is one of comfort if not luxury.
Top of page
In Hackney, at the beginning of the 17th century, to
quote the antiquarian John Strype, 'divers Nobles
... had their country seats.".  Of these seats only
Sutton House remains to exemplify such houses and the way of life of
their inhabitants. The appearance, plan and some details are known of
the grandest of them all, Brooke House; knowledge of others, such as
the Black and White House, is confined to illustration; and some, such
as Lord Zouche's house in Homerton with its famous garden, are known
only from documentary sources. John and Jane Daniell were only briefly
resident in Hackney, and their attempt to establish themselves among
the higher gentry there was a spectacular failure. However there is
every reason to believe that their domestic arrangements, agricultural
activities, and even their social aspirations were typical of their
gentry neighbours such as the Suttons and the Machells. We know that
such grandees lived in Hackney; thanks to John and Jane Daniell we now
have a better idea of how they lived here, and one reference suggests
that the Daniells liked living here.
In her 'Misfortunes',
Jane refers to Ferdinando Heybourne's ambition to acquire the rectory
with reference to the Book of Kings: Heybourne 'thirsting
after the parsonage of Hackney, as Ahab did for Naboth's vineyard, because
it lay near him ... prevaile[d] . Not only does this reference
suggest that Heyboume's territorial expansion was particularly ruthless,
it also implies that the Rectory was something precious to its occupiers.
Certainly the next decade was spent by the Daniells in fruitless attempts
to obtain its restoration. It would be nice to think that although the
move to Hackney was one of social betterment, appropriate to aspiring
courtiers who had come into money (however dishonestly), John and Jane
had acquired an affection for the place.
Top of page
1. Hackney Archives Department (HAD), D/FrFYS 71/9,'Danyells
Dysasters'; DIFITYS 7119, 'Misfortunes of jane Danyell'. Both appear
to have been written in 1606, and were addressed to King James 1. The
manuscript is at PRO SP4615011.
2. For the transcripts of material in the case of Daniell v. Richardson
(Ferdinando Heyboume was known as Richardson in the earlier stages of
his career) see HAD D/FITYS 15, 233-428. This includes the gate house
inventory, and the accounts of Ralph Bell, the Commission's agent in
Hackney. The Commissioners' inventory of the Parsonage house is at PRO
SP12/282, as is the inventory of the farming equipment, SP461561236.
A copy of the Parsonage house inventory is at HAD Z45.
3. HAD D/FITYS 2, 53-54.
4. HAD D/FMS 15, 53-55. For the rectory see VCH, 116. 5. VCR 79-80.
6. LMA MR/TH4 (1664); MWH 13 (167 1).
7. HAD D/FITYS 2, 275.
8. HAD M523.
9. HAD M529.
10. Benjamin Clarke, Glimpses of Ancient Hackney
and Stoke Newington, (1894, 1986) 116.
11. HAD M550.
12. HAD WP4428.
13. The will of Ralph Bell, proved in the London Commissary Court in
160617, is transcribed at HAD D/FITYS 3013, 509. He states that he holds
sums for tithe paid by named parishioners, indicating that he continued
to be steward of the rectory until 1606.
14. Bell's stewardship accounts are transcribed at HAD D/F/ TYS 15,
15. State Papers Domestic, CC1-XXXI, 7711.
16. See M. W. Barley, The English Farmhouse and
Cottage (1961) part 2.
17. HAD D/FMS 40, 49.
18. DNB, vol. 58.
19. W. Robinson, History and Antiquities of the
Parish of Hackney (1842) 1, 91.
20. Mark Girouard, Life in the English CountryHouse
(1978) ch. 4.
21. 'Misfortunes', 76; Proverbs 31, v13.
22. Alison Sim, The Tudor Housewife (1996)
23. Stow, Survey of London (1720) 11,
24. 'Misfortunes', 124.
Top of page