Judging by the number of entries, much time of the Justices was taken up in the consideration of what are now known as "Bastardy cases."

Usually the cases were brought at the instance of the Parochial Authorities. They were naturally anxious to prevent a new-comer in the shape of an illegitimate child becoming a charge on the Parish.

They endeavoured, where possible, to get single women removed to their place of settlement before a child was born.

Where the mother of the child was settled in the parish where the child was born the Parish Authorities were anxious that there should be provision for its maintenance other than out of the rates, and that the parents should be punished.

Under 18 Eliz. c. 3, the reputed father and mother of a bastard child chargeable to the parish, might both be ordered to be whipped.

There are several instances in the Records where reputed fathers were ordered to receive corporal punishment:

On 11th April, 1621, both the father and mother were ordered to be whipped at Coddington.

On 21st April, 1623, the father of a "bastard born and dead" was ordered to be imprisoned in the Stocks for 2 hours.

There are also several instances of indictments against the reputed fathers of bastard children. Among these the following may be noted:

On 18th April, 1656, a husbandman was indicted for "begetting of three bastard children by two severall women late servants to him (but all ye children are dead)."

On 11th January, 1657-1658, a man was indicted "for begetting a bastard child on the body of his now wief before he marryed her."

On the 11th July, 1609, there is a record that Edmund Hynd was fined 10/- "because he did not whip the reputed father of a bastard child lately by the Order of the Court given to him. The Constable to perform the aforesaid Order on the Sunday next now to come upon the aforesaid reputed father."

There were many orders for the whipping of mothers of Bastard Children.

A bastardy order of the 7th January, 1627-1628, contained the following recital:

Whereas by a Statute made in the 18th yeare of the raigne of our late Soveraign ladie Queen Elizabeth of most famous memory It is ordayned that two Justices of the Peace of the County in or neere the Division to the parish where such bastard child shall happen to begotten and borne shall take Order for the punishing as well of the mother as the reputed father As also to take Order for saveing the said towne harmless where the said bastard child shall be borne and also for the relief and bringing up of the said Child.

On the 18th April, 1604, Mary Arnold of ffarnton was ordered "to keep her bastard son in her custody until he shall come to the age of six months, and afterwards the reputed father Thomas Richardson shall receive him and bring him up at his own expense, and the Constable of ffarnton is to whip the said Mary at ffarnton on three separate occasions."

The following is an Order made in January, 1623-1624:

To Henry Wheatley of Sutton Bonington, yeoman, and Martha Gad of the same, spinster, greeting.
     Whereas the said Martha Gad is lately delivered of a bastard child begotton by Henry Wheatley aforesaid as by the testimony of the midwife and divers other credible women being examined before us to that purpose it doth and may appeare And whereas the said Child is forsaken by the parents and is very likely to be chargeable to the said parish These are therefore according to the Statute in that case provided to order and command We do hereby order that you the said Henry Wheatley shall upon the eleaventh daie of January next ensuing take the said Child into your keeping or otherwise safely provide and mantayn the said Child so that it be not chargeable to the said parish And if the said Child be now at nurse that you pay unto the said nurse rateablie for every daie since the said nurse took the said child into her keeping twopence a day until the said xith day And further we order that upon the said xith daie you yield your body unto the Constable of the said town of Sutton Bonington to be imprisoned in the Stocks for the space of two houres in the afternoone of the said day as a penalty for your offence And we further order yt you the said Martha Gad shall after the time of your childbed make your personal appearance before us then to be ordered as in that case the law provideth Hereof faile you not at your perill Given at Radcliffe the fourth daie of January Anno 1623.

The "order as in that case the law provideth" was imprisonment in the House of Correction for a year. This was the punishment authorised by an Act passed in the seventh year of James I., and afterwards was almost invariably ordered. Apparently the child accompanied the mother to the House of Correction.

On the 10th January, 1652-1653, the mother of a bastard child was ordered to be removed to the House of Correction "there to be sett on work and receive condigne punishment for her offence and to remaine by the space of one whole year."

On the 9th July, 1655, it was ordered that Gertrude Stafford of Gamston, spinster, "being a very lewd woman and hath had divers bastard children and two lately at a birth and sithence dead shalbe sent to ye house of Correction."

It was dangerous for anyone to give houseroom to a pregnant woman. This appears by an Order made on the 13th April, 1621, in the case of a bastard child born at the house of one ffrancis Sooby at Rampton. The mother was stated "to be unknown," and the reputed father was also said "to be a stranger and unknown." ffrancis Sooby was ordered to provide for the child and save harmless the town of Rampton. "And for that the said mother of the supposed bastard child is reported unto [the Justices] to be the wife of the aforesaid stranger and unknown putative father the which [the Justices] suspect to be given out onely for the avoyding of her corporall pubishment appointed and commanded by His Majesty's lawes for such offenders," ffrancis Sooby and the mother were required to prove the lawful marriage before the birth of the child, before the last day of September next.

There are many entries in regard to the absconding of the parents of bastard children:

On 9th July, 1627, a Warrant was issued against Henry Willoughby, gentleman, and his wife "for persuading his servant and the mother of a bastard to escape in order that the Justices may not send her to the House of Correction to be whipped."

On 9th April, 1630, a Warrant was issued against a man "for persuading and counselling his brother, the father of an illegitimate child, to go away, and so contempt of Court."

And on the 11th January, 1696-1697, the following notes of depositions are recorded:

"Dorothy White sworn and examined deposeth that Mr. Marris sent John Barker the reputed father of a bastard child from his service and gave him money to forward his journey and said if ever he came againe he should have his horse for twopence."

"Margaret Calliw sworn and examined deposeth as followeth that she heard Mr. Marris say yt he gave John Barker money and sent him away southwards."

"Luke White sworn and examined deposeth as followeth that he heard Mr. Marris say that he had sent John Barker his servant away and that he sent him London Road southwards because ye harvest was not begun northwards."

On the 9th July, 1688, Thos. Blatherwick was bound over to answer at the Assizes "for his begetting of Mary Hancock now in Gaol with child and for being present when shee was delivered of ye same and advising her to conceale ye same, though still borne."

On 18th April, 1631, an Order was made on Owen Meredith of Trowell, clerk, the reputed father of an illegitimate child.

In the case of a bastard child, of which George Shipman, of Clipstone was the reputed father, the Justices, on the 9th July, 1627, ordered as follows:

"Wee doe therefore hereby with the consent of Elizabeth Shipman, widow, mother of the said George Shipman order that the said Elizabeth Shipman (who hath undertaken in the behalf of her said sonne) shall from henceforth take the said bastard child and keepe and maintain the same at her own charges and shall not hereafter putt or place it with any beggar or vagrant person to be educated."

On the 5th October, 1638, a spinster of Eakring was indicted for being delivered of a bastard absque obstetrix anglice without a midwife.

Dr. Benson, the Rector of Carlton in Lindrick in 1632, appears to have got in to considerable trouble in connection with a Bastardy case:

On the 13th April, 1632, Richard Broadhead (servant to Thomas Benson doctor of sacred Theology and Rector of Carlton in Lindrick) as the reputed father of a bastard child of Katherine Shore was committed to gaol in default of sufficient security to appear at next Sessions. On 13th July, 1632, it was reported that Dr. Benson had procured and caused such insufficient security to be accepted that Broadhead had been liberated. Broadhead and the mother of the child had fled, and the town was now burdened with the bastard. Dr. Benson was ordered to bear three-fourths of the burden of education &c. of the child. On 5th October, 1633, the Court cancelled this Order because they were informed by Dr. Benson and by divers other trustworthy persons by him produced that the former information was untruly suggested and that Dr. Benson did not procure his servant Broadhead to be bayled by such insufficient pledges as is presented, which was the principal cause of the order of 13th July, 1632. The parish of Carleton were ordered henceforth to educate and maintain the child.


In the thirty-first year of the reign of Queen Elizabeth an Act was passed "for the avoiding of the great inconveniences which are found by experience to grow by the erecting and building of great numbers and multitude of cottages, which are daily more and more increased in many parts of this realm," and it was provided that no person shall make, buylde, or erect any manner of cottage unless he assign to the same cottage four acres of ground at the least to be continually occupied with it.

An objection to the erection of new cottages being built was probably because thereby the number of paupers chargeable to a parish might be increased.

A dispensing power was allowed to the Justices and the exercise of this power is frequently recorded.

There were many Indictments and presentments for erecting new cottages, and for "continuing new cottages."

It was also illegal to convert or transform existing buildings into cottages. There were many indictments for converting buildings such as stables, barns, kilnhouses, shops, mills, malthouses, &c. into cottages.

When cottages were illegally erected, not only was a fine inflicted, but the Court issued orders "to pull down a cottage"; "to destroy "cottage or give to the same four acres of land," &c, &c.

In 1642, an Order was made "that the house built at Lambcote for Ashbie and his wief shalbe pulled down after the death of him and his wief unless the Lord of the soyle doe buy it."

In 1605, a man was ordered to "withdraw" from his cottage "within the space of a month."

In 1615, in the case of a labourer at Whatton who had erected a cottage "without licence" it was ordered that if he should not conduct "himself well and honestley then the said house in which he now dwells shall be pulled down."

The following are instances where the Justices exercised the dispensing power allowed them by the Act:

On 13th April, 1607, the defendant Francis Cooper informed the Court that the cottage in question was for a keeper's lodge, and the Indictment against him was discharged.

On 3rd October, 1610, an Order was made for erection of cottage "on the Common Waste at Barneby" for John Capps, "being common pound keeper."

On the same date an Order was made for continuing cottages occupied by four labourers at Balderton, "they being diggers of stone in the quarries at Balderton."

On 17th April, 1615, an Order was made to erect a cottage at Snenton for John Griffin "who the Court is informed is an expert in the arte of making Bricks and Tyle."

On 19th April, 1626, an Order was made to continue cottage at Farndon for John Merryweather "because he is the common herdsman (armentar) of the said town for keeping their cattle (averia) and very poor."

On 5th October, 1627, permission was given to Sir Hardolphus Wasteneys Bart, to erect (without four acres of land, &c.) a cottage in Greenspotts and a cottage in Headon pasture in Headon "and use and occupy such cottages by such Inhabitants as he shall assign and appoint to heard and look after his beasts and sheep in Headon aforesaid."

On 20th April, 1653, an Order was made to continue a cottage at ffarndon "without having four acres of land layd to the same" to be inhabited during his natural life by John Soresby a blacksmith "who is a common servant to the towne and verie usefull."

On 5th October, 1653, the Churchwardens and Overseers of Ferry Marnham were ordered to provide some convenient habitation for Wm. Upton, "he being a comon servant of their towne as heardsman of their swine and not able otherwise of himself to provide any dwelling for himself and his familie."

On 16th July, 1628, an Order was made to continue a new cottage at Misterton "as there would be no other habitation for the persons now living therein."

A frequent reason for the exercise of the dispensing power of the Justices and the continuance of a cottage was the poverty of the occupier of the cottage.

There were many Orders that old men and women and poor people be permitted to occupy cottages "for the term of their natural life," but that at their death the authority to continue the cottage should cease.

On 10th January, 1658-1659, John Toll was presented and fined 6d. for erecting a new cottage and ye cottage for which he was presented was ordered to continue for his life " in regard he is a very poore man and not "able otherwise to provide for himselfe of another habitation without "charge to ye said parish."

There were many Orders on the Inhabitants or Overseers of Parishes to erect cottages "on the waste" for the habitation of poor people "with permission of the lord of the wast" or "of the lords of the manour."

On 7th October, 1612, the Inhabitants of Bathley were ordered to erect a new cottage for the habitation of a poor man and his wife "on the waste of Bathley in a certain place there called Pilt Hill Yate."

On the 14th July, 1654, there was a complaynt of Churchwardens, Overseers and Inhabitants of Worksopp "that there are very many new erected cottages already built and more alsoe in building upon wast, possessed by poore people, who are not onely chargeable to ye parish butt alsoe committ much wast and spoyle in ye woodes and other Inheritances of their neighbours." To prevent the further increase of such buildings and inconveniences an Order was made by the Court that none shall henceforth attempt to make or build any new cottage upon ye said wast without the consent of ye lord of ye wast.

On the 14th July, 1656, the Court made an Order to pull down a new erected cottage "built upon ye Townes ground in the open Fields of Keyworth in regard to divers inconveniences occasioned to ye Inhabitants by ye said cottage."

The Act of Elizabeth, before referred to, did not extend to any cottage "to be made within a myle of the sea or upon the syde of suche part of any navigable River where the Admyrale ought to have jurisdiction so long as noe other person shall therein inhabit but a Saylor or Man of manual occupation for making furnyshinge or victualinge of any Shippe or Vessell used to serve on the sea."

On the 2nd October, 1616, an Order was made that Robert Bates "having been an apprentice to the art of building boats for navigating the river of Trent, and now being a common water carrier and useful for carrying grain and other commodities on the river aforesaid, and also now destitute of a habitation shall be tolerated suffered and allowed to dwell in a cottage at Gunthorpe on the shore of the Trent (in which town he affirms he was born and educated) to dwell there during such time . . . . . . . . . by demise from Lady Wharton from whom he holds the same."


The same Act 31 Elizabeth, cap. 7 forbade the receiving of Inmates or Lodgers who might thus become eventually chargeable to the parishes wherein they were received.

Presentments were frequently recorded "for permitting sub tenants to live in houses"; "for harbouring a sub tenant in a house"; "for taking in a tenant without consent of the neighbours"; "for "harbouring inmates"; "for entertaining inmates"; "for harbouring a foreigner," &c, &c.

On 13th July 1610, a husbandman of Leverton was presented "that he entertained in his house 5 cohabitors."

On the 8th April, 1616, Thomas Storer of Rodington, clerk, was fined 10/- "because he did place three families or households in one cottage."

On 15th July, 1674, an Order was made for the removal of Anne Richardson from the house of Edward Richardson of Staunton "being an inmate."

On the 21st April, 1623, complaint was made "that many poor people are taken as Inmates in cottages or cellars beneath an arch in the parish of Lenton who wander about and beg to the oppression of the adjacent town," for which taking as Inmates two men from Nottingham were presented. An Order was made upon them to "see the aforesaid poor people are provided for and relieved that they be not burdensome to the parish nor wander about begging."


By a provision of 5 Elizabeth 4, which remained in force till a recent period, it was in general required that every person exercising a trade in England should have previously served as an apprentice to it for seven years.

There were a large number of Indictments for carrying on a trade without having been apprenticed thereto for seven years, e.g.:

On the 15th January, 1605-1606, Edward Kitchen of Hockerington was presented for occupying the mystery of a blacksmith contrary to Statute.

On the 28th April, 1609, a taylor of Carleton was presented for using the arte of taylor without having been an apprentice, &c, &c.

The different trades (or artes and mysterys) referred to in the Indictments recorded are:

Blacksmith Pewterer Shoemaker
Taylor Miller Grocer
Wheelwright Mason and Slater Linnen Draper
Carpenter Plumber Currier
Baker Codder Woollen Draper
Fishmonger Cutler ffellmonger
Mercer Brewer Surgery (chirurgi)
Ironmonger Barber

There are other presentments:

Against fellmongers: "For making pelts (5 Eliz.)"; and "for making pelts or skins "; and

In 1635, against Robert Oldershaw of Lenton, clerk, "for occupying "a temporal farm contrary to Statute," i.e., presumably, for trading as a farmer.

The actual offence committed in the last-mentioned cases is evidently that of trading without having been apprenticed.

Justices of the Peace were empowered to settle disputes between apprentices and their masters, and to discharge apprentices from their indentures upon reasonable cause being shown:

On 4th October, 1611, a shoemaker's apprentice complained "that his master amongst other misusages did not instruct him in the trade of a shoemaker but employed him about other affairs." The apprentice was discharged from his Indentures.

On 30th September, 1633, a complaint was made by an apprentice to a freemason of Mansfield "that his master neglected to teach him his trade. The Indentures were discharged.

On 2nd May, 1655, a difference between William Cooke of Bingham, mercer, and his apprentice, David Nix, was referred by consent to Mr. Richard Wilson of Newarke, and Mr. Thomas Lovett of Nott, mercers, the hearing to be in the presence of Mr. Parker the present Mayor of Nottingham. On the following 9th July, 1655, David Nix was set at liberty from Wm. Cooke on the complaint that during the last two years the said Wm. Cooke "hath much beaten and misused him enforcing him to run away from him for a tyme and comeing again unto him to serve out the residue of his term the said Wm. Cooke doth still continue to misuse him and refuseth to teach him his trade but setteth him to keepe sheepe and other such like employment and alsoe refuseth to find him clothes."

On 7th October, 1614, an Order was made discharging an apprentice from his master, a mercer of Tuxford, "who has fallen into extream povertie and hath given over his said trade."

On 13th April, 1681, an apprentice was discharged, "his master not able to keepe him and has misused him."

The following are instances of ill-treatment of apprentice by master:

On 16th July, 1617, an apprentice to a wyredrawer at Cathorpe was ordered to be liberated by his master. "He was abused by unjust and unreasonable beating by his said master, and was allowed neither food, drink nor clothes. It appeared by view of the Justices that he was without clothes and also without undergarments, and his body was black and blue by the intolerable correction of the said master."

On 13th April, 1655, John Sayworth of Worksop was bound over to good behaviour "for the misusing of Mary Goodbeare his apprentice soe that she is runne away and cannot be found."

On the same day, a husbandman and his wief of Eaton, were bound over to good behaviour "for beating and abusing an apprentice insomuch as he dyed upon itt within halfe a yeare after as is affirmed by ye childs mother in Court."

In May, 1674, Robert Keighley was discharged from his apprenticeship to George Tinker "beeing lamed by him."

On 8th January, 1654, William Cooke was charged with "striking his apprentice with a fauchion."

There were several cases where bad behaviour by the apprentice was the cause of cancellation of the Indentures:

On 29th April, 1633, an apprentice in agriculture was discharged from his apprenticeship "because it appeared he was a bad boy and had stolen many things from his master for which he had received correction but nevertheless he continued his nefarious conduct to the great damage of his master."

From the following entry it would appear that apprentices were less than 16 years old when they were apprenticed:

On 16th April, 1675, it was ordered that Will Stokes be discharged of his apprentice boy "who was above 16 when hee was put to him."

Orders were made by the Justices for the maintenance and clothing of apprentices:

On 7th April, 1676, an order was made that Henry ffox and Ralph Claton doe "pay unto Widow Curtis of North Leverton for tabling of ffrancis Mathew their apprentice for 34 weeks after 8d. per week."

On 20th April, 1694, a master was ordered to give unto his apprentice "one new suite of apparrell and also another indifferent suit of cloathes with foure new shirts and a good new hat within a month."

The following order evidently has reference to premium on apprenticeship:

On 1st May, 1622, Wm. Harrison was ordered "to pay every year during the apprenticeship of Katherin Harrison to a certain Adam Harrison her brother two strike of Rye and two strike of pease besides the grain growing on half an acre of land in the fields of Markham sown annually by the said Wm. Harrison at the cost of the said William And that the same William shall convey the grain annually at a convenient time to the house of the said Adam Harrison."

Masters were punished for failing to teach apprentices:

On 1st May, 1622, a weaver of Grestrope was sent to gaol there to remain "unless he shall restore the cow which he took with his apprentice or the value of that cow," or shall find security that he will instruct his apprentice in the art of a weaver.

On 23rd April, 1623, a weaver of Grestrop was presented for not applying his apprentice to the art of a weaver "but to labour in transacting business."

Apprentices in general were bound by their friends. But there was a class called parish apprentices who were bound out by the parish authorities or the Justices. The children of parents unable to maintain them could be apprenticed till the age of 21, to such persons as were thought fitting, and these persons were obliged to take them.

On 9th July, 1677, it was ordered that John Ragsdale "doe take Thomas Machin as his apprentice for 7 years and that ye town of Bingham doe finde him two suites of apparell and yt in ye Indentures there bee a covenant yt if ye boy become blinde hee shall bee discharged of his apprentice," but on the 3rd October, 1677 following, John Ragsdale of East Bridgford was acquitted from keeping his apprentice "by reason of a Rume in his eyes and some other Infirmitys that he is incapable of doing of him service."

On 8th July, 1678, ordered that Judith Gardner "doe take and teach her apprentice ye art of a glass maker to ye best of her cuning before her bee out of her time."

On 11th July, 1632, a master was presented "for his contempt in refusing to receive an apprentice offered and appointed to him by the Churchwardens, &c."

There are several presentments for "expelling an apprentice without reasonable cause."

On 13th July, 1632, the following entry appears: "Divers complaints are made in Court that many masters of apprentices with whom poor children were lately placed out by the Churchwardens and Overseers of the poor with the assent of two or more Justices of the Peace, a little after such placing out and binding either dismissed the apprentices or allowed them to depart by which aforesaid liberty they also returned to their County and thereby the care and good intent of the Justices and Overseers of the Poor were frustrated Ordered that all such masters and apprentices from the time of the dismissal or departure of such their apprentices unless the cause thereof be allowed before any Justice of the Peace should pay to the Churchwardens and Overseers of the aforesaid separate parishes and places where they inhabit 12d. per week for each week from the time of their departure until they shall again receive and keep the aforesaid their apprentices again, which money shall be used towards the maintenance and relief of their impotent poor, and besides for raising a Stock for setting their poor to work and placing out apprentices."

On 8th July, 1639, a husbandman of Bingham was indicted "for permitting Joan Soresby his apprentice of the age of 12 years to escape from him, and he said that he does not know what has become of her." The case was transmitted to the Assizes.

On 19th July, 1654, a master was ordered to receive back an apprentice "whom he had unduly put away on pretence of some disobedience which the Court doth not allowe for a lawful cause of parting."


The conduct known as "forestalling" and "regrating" was an offence against the law of Rome, and afterwards became an offence against the laws of this country.

Forestalling, ingrossing and regrating was the offence of buying up quantities of any article of commerce for the purpose of raising the price. The forestaller intercepted goods on their way to market, and bought them up so as to be able to command what price he chose when he got to market.

The ingrosser or regrator was a person who, having bought goods wholesale, sold them again as wholesale. This was regarded as an offence for (as stated in a resolution passed at a Conference of Judges in 1602), "by this means the prices of victual and other merchandises shall be enhanced to the grievance of the subject, for the more hands they pass through the dearer they grow, for everyone thirsteth for gain."

The offence was elaborately defined in an Act passed in the reign of Edward VI. (1552). The principal points of the definition are buying goods on their way to market, contracting to buy goods before they come to market, dissuading people from bringing their goods to market, buying up dead victuals of any kind in one market in order to sell them at a higher price in a later market at the same place, or at any other market within four miles.

The offences of engrossing, forestalling and regrating were not abolished till 1844.

There were presentments on 5th October, 1621, and on 13th January, 1622-1623, for "forestalling" and on 12th January, 1641-1642, and 5th October, 1685, for "forestalling the market."

There were many presentments for "ingrossing grain" and "ingrossing growing grain," and on 12th January, 1619-1620, a man was presented for being an "Ingrossator."

On 9th July, 1610, a laborer of Bramwell was presented "for regrating pigs," and on 30th September, 1611, a husbandman of Gotham was fined 6d. "for regrating."


Under Acts of Parliament passed in 1551-2, and in 1570, the Justices could grant licences to a "Drover of Cattell, Badger, Lader, Kidder, Carrier, Buyer or transporter of Corne or Grayne, Butter or Cheese."

The licence enabled the person licenced to buy in one place and take his goods to another place to sell, and he was exempted from the punishment of an ingrosser.

Many licences were issued to what are termed "Badgers," "Kidders" and "Drovers," and the licences stated the quantities that they could buy or sell, for instance:

"One cwt. of Butter and Cheese," "200 weigh of Cheese and Butter," "200 quarters of all sorts of Corne," "50 weigh Butter and Cheese," "500 beasts and 3500 sheepe," "500 beasts, 500 sheepe," "500 "weigh of Butter and Cheese," "500 quarters of Corne and graine," &c, &c.

The licensees were required to enter into a recognizance to do nothing contrary to the Statutes prohibiting forestalling, regrating and ingrossing.

There were many Indictments or presentments for being "badgers without licence," and for "badgering" without licence.

A Badger, &c. was required to be a married man, a householder, and 30 years of age at least. On 15th July, 1631, a man was charged with buying and selling grain "and not being a householder."


The Act passed in 1551-2 required persons buying oxen, sheep, goats, &c. alive, to keep them for five weeks before selling.

There were many presentments

"For "buying and selling cattle (averia). "For buying and selling cattle and not keeping for 5 weeks." "For buying cattle and reselling alive," &c, &c.

Also "for buying and selling fat beasts," "for buying cattle outside market," and "for illegally buying and selling sheep and lambs and beasts."

There were also Indictments or presentments

For buying wool (10th January, 1626-1627).

For buying rough hides and reselling them (10th July, 1637).

For buying goods from a suspicious person (14th January, 1641-1642).

There were many presentments for "selling" and "buying" grain without licence."

On 12th April, 1605, George ffolche of Raggenhill, taylor, was presented "that he bought peas and hempseed without a licence."

On 13th January, 1608-1609, a laborer was fined 2/- "for that he illegally bought barley."


On 12th July, 1633, there are entries of informations against certain persons "for unlawfully using certain trades and not inhabiting in a market town, contrary to 1 and 2 P. and M."*


On 5th April, 1630, a cordyner of Selston was indicted "for putting hors leather into boots."

* By 1 and 2, P. & M., Cap. VII., Sec. II., it is enacted: Any person inhabiting or dwelling in the county, outside cities boroughs, towns corporate or market towns are not to sell . . . . . . . by retail any woollen cloth, linen cloth, haberdashery wares, grocery wares, mercery wares, at or within any of the said cities . . . . . . . Penalty forfeiture of 6/3 and the wares so sold, &c. Sec. III. permitted selling by wholesale, in gross, and not by retail. Sec. V. enabled any person to sell cloth of his own making by retail or otherwise.