Website produced and maintained for the Hungerford Historical Association
by Hugh Pihlens

You are in [Themes] [Town & Manor] [Origins]

The Manor passes into the hands of John of Gaunt:
From the time of the Domesday Book, the lands of Hungerford, along with those of Kintbury, had passed through a succession of Norman lessees. One, Robert de Beaumont, was created First Earl of Leicester in 1102, and so began a long association between the manor and the House of Leicester. Much later, in 1232, the estate passed to Simon de Montfort, founder of our modern parliament. At this time some of the parish, about 500 acres in the south and west on the sandy down, was held by William de Breteignoll, as a knights fee for feudal service. The association of this area of 'Sanden Fee' has always been close, indeed the church itself stands on land 'in the Fee'.

During the early fourteenth century, the estate passed frequently between the Crown and the Duchy of Leicester, and by this time it was usual for the Earls of Leicester also to be Earls of Lancaster. Indeed, this was the situation when Henry, who had been made Earl of Leicester on his father's death in 1345, was created Duke of Lancaster in 1351. Henry married Isabel of Beaumont, but died in 1361, leaving no sons but two daughters, Maud and Blanche. Maud inherited the estates, but she died childless on 10th April, 1362, and the manor of Hungerford, along with many other estates, passed to her younger sister Blanche, wife of Edward III's fourth son, John of Gaunt. This date is therefore of some interest to Hungerfordians.

To support this tradition, there is in the town's possession an ancient (and battered!) brass horn, which is said to have been given to the town by John of Gaunt, as guarantee of those rights. The horn has the word 'Hungerford' on one side, and on the other is a partially defaced word 'Actel' or 'Astel', along with the badge of the Crescent and Star, now recognized as the Arms of Hungerford.

Disputes with the Duchy of Lancaster:
It is said that there was a written charter confirming those rights, but that the Duchy copy was lost in the fire at John of Gaunt's Savoy Palace in The Strand during the riots of 1381, and that the town's copy was allegedly stolen in the days of Queen Elizabeth I. A detailed account of the events surrounding the trial in 1573 of the two men charged with the theft is given in the Reverend Summers book Story of Hungerford. In summary, however, the court found that the burgesses of Hungerford were not a 'Corporation' sufficient to plead; that there was no proof of the removal of the documents from the town chest; and that even if documents had been taken, there was no proof that the town had suffered any loss as a result!

In the developing struggle between the Duchy and the burgesses of Hungerford, this 'Charters Case' encouraged the Duchy officials to attempt to regain control of the fishery, or at least to get some payment for it. If there was no charter proclaiming the right of free fishing, then the Duchy were going to try hard to prevent the apparent 'poaching' of its waters. For their part, the residents of Hungerford, having enjoyed free fishing for generations, were not going to give up the benefit lightly.

^ top ^

This strength of feeling may seem rather out of proportion to a generation who now in the 1980's fish the rivers largely as a recreation. But in the Middle Ages eating fish was an important part of the diet, a good source of protein throughout the year, and especially welcome during the late winter when the only meat available would have been salted during the autumn. Following the Reformation, the former fish-eating day of Friday became compulsory, with the addition of Saturday, and in 1563, Wednesday. The growing importance of fish made the right of free fishing especially valuable. A 'battle royal' commenced!

An appeal was made by the burgesses to Queen Elizabeth when she was staying at Salisbury with the Earl of Pembroke, who was High Steward of Hungerford. She replied, in the now famous letter, on 7 September 1574, confirming 'that the said inhabitants should hereafter have use and enjoy without interruption all such liberties and profits and benefits as heretofore time out of mind and remembrance of man they had used and enjoyed'. This royal reply might appear at first a true shot in the arm for the townsmen, but note that at no stage did it actually spell out any specific right. It was, in effect, a very diplomatic document; the Queen clearly did not wish to get too involved in the struggle between the Duchy and some of its tenants!

For the next 40 years or so, a succession of legal wrangles, inquiries, and surveys was carried out, and there are good accounts both in Summers' Story of Hungerford and Davis' The Story of an Ancient Fishery.

Eventually, in 1611, the Duchy set up yet another commission to inquire into the history of the 'Kynnett, commonly called the Hungerford Brook, famous above all rivers thereabouts for good trout, which fishery had been impaired by lewd and ill-disposed persons fishing unlawfully'. Of the many concluding statements, the following were perhaps the crux:

1. The fishing extended from Elder Stubb to Irish Stile;
2. The King (James I) was Lord Royal of all water except the mill pounds;
3. The townsmen of Hungerford had had the right of fishing in the waters, three days a week, time out of mind.

^ top ^

Hungerford becomes managed by Trustees:
The inquiry had to a large extent gone against the townsfolk, and it signalled an end to the 'John of Gaunt' era of heresay rights. In the future, Hungerford was going to have its rights secured on a legal and recognized basis. As they were not a corporation, the townspeople decided to proceed by means of feoffees, or trustees.

In March 1612, James I duly granted the Manor of Hungerford with all manorial rights to two London men, John Eldred and William Whitmore, and in May, 'in consideration of a certain sum of money', Eldred and Whitmore conveyed the Manor, complete with 'rents, pleas, perquisites of court of burgh, with fishery and fishing of all rivers and waters in the manor aforesaid' to four Hungerford men, John Lucas, Robert Field, Thomas Carpenter, and Ralph Mackerell. (See also Norman Hidden's paper of the Lucas family, which includes detailed information on these transactions.)

Several more transfers were made over the next few years, however, before the legal situation was considered entirely satisfactory. Finally, by an indenture dated 16th June, 1617, the Manor of Hungerford was conveyed to Ralph Mackerell (Constable), and 13 other local men 'in trust for the inhabitants'. These 14 men thus became the first feoffees or trustees of the Town and Manor of Hungerford.

The present commoners are those people owning and living in the properties established at the time of the 1612 James I grant. At the time of writing there are 109 properties with common rights in the Town and Manor, (of which three are merely sites of former houses), and a further 19 in the Manor and Liberty of Sanden Fee (of which two are undeveloped). The Town and Manor houses are mostly in the High Street, Bridge Street, and Church Street, and the occasional properties in the centre of the town which do not attract common rights are usually those which were owned by the Dean and Canons of Windsor at the relevant date of 1612.

^ top ^

Davis adds that even the 1617 feoffment did not finally establish the fishing rights. Shortly afterwards, the Crown seems to have repudiated its grant of fishery east of the point where the land boundaries of the manor meet the river; this was in spite of the evidence of the Inquiry of 1611. As a result, since a few years after the feoffment, the fishing has ended at the point just mentioned, known as Bottom Meadow, just east of Denford Bridge at the Manor boundary.

There is some evidence that even the 1617 Feoffment did not settle all disputes. A document dated 15th October 1633 exists which relates to the rights and privileges of the property owners. Follow this link to see the 1633 Sanden Fee Claim.

The loss of fishing rights eastward of Hungerford Common must have caused considerable resentment in the town, and in 1634 the Constable of the day, Jehoshaphat Lucas, arranged for a horn to be made (the "Lucas" Horn), bearing the inscription 'John of Gaunt did give and grant Riall Fishing to Hungerford Towne from Elder Stubbe to Irish Stile excepting some several mill pounds. Jehoshaphat Lucas was Constable in 1634.' The inscription was no doubt intended to reinforce the claim to fishing as in the original grant, but there is no evidence that it was ever so again. The horn, now known as the Lucas Horn, is still used every year at Hocktide to warn the inhabitants of the holding of the Hocktide Court.

See also:
- Sanden Fee Claim 1633
- Lucas Family

Updated: 20.8.2011

Back to Top