The Draper's Tale

On an August day in 1683 a Hertford draper approaching the proverbial three score and ten made his will. For a seventeenth century will, it was quite brief and to the point. But while it suggests a not unhappy marriage, and hints at earlier family conflict, it is more remarkable for what it doesn’t tell us, as will become apparent. Omitting the preamble and the closing formalities, this is what it says:-

“ ….,William Gardiner of the Borough of Hertford in the County of Hertford being aged but in bodily health and memory praised be God …..doe ordaine and make this my last will in manner and forme following. In primis I give and bequeath unto Johanna Gardiner my deare and loving wife all and singular my Goods and Chattells and Household stuffe Wares in my Shop and House Bills Bonds Debts oweing unto me Leases and all other things whatsoever which are mine. All of which I give and bequeath unto her and her heires forever upon condicion that she pay my Debts and funeral charges and bury me decently. Item I give and bequeath unto my son Samuel Gardiner one shilling and I also forgive him what I paid for him. Item I give and bequeath unto my son John Gardiner one shilling and I also forgive him that which he oweth me. Item I give and bequeath unto my daughter Susan Vigors one shilling which three shillings above mentioned shall be paid by my said wife upon the demands of my said children ……” He names his wife sole executrix.

It was by no means unusual for offspring to be left only nominal sums of money in their fathers’s wills; the older the testator the more likely this is to be the case. Unsually it simply means that the children had had their portions earlier in their fathers’ lifetimes, perhaps to set them up in businesses of their own or, in the case of daughters, as_ marriage portions. This was probably the case with Gardiner’s children, but it is tempting to think that in Samuel’s case at least he may indeed have been cut off with the proverbial shilling, as we shall see. John, the younger son, remains a rather shadowy figure: never, seemingly, being made free of the borough, which suggests that he, like Samuel, left Hertford.

But who was William Gardiner, who in fact lived for another eight years after making his will?

He was probably born in 1614, but his baptism does not appear in either All Saints’ or St Andrew’s registers. It may be that his parents lived in the old St John’s parish, but no St John’s registers survive from before the amalgamation with All Saints’ mid-century. Possibly he may have been related to the Gardiners of Jenningsbury – again, a possible link with St John’s – or even to Sir Thomas Gardiner, Recorder of the City of London. Sir Thomas was related to the Jenningsbury Gardiners, and was instrumental in enabling the Corporation of Hertford to acquire the property known as The Chequer for charitable purposes. Such a connection may well go some way to explaining William’s quite rapid social progress, and it was by no means unusual for an incomer, even one of some social standing, to be apprenticed to a trade in a “foreign” town. One had to do something with one’s younger sons.

Whatever the facts, when William was fourteen he was apprenticed for seven years to the draper Thomas Bromhall of All Saints’ parish. The name Bromhall was quite common in Hertford, at least three Thomas Bromhalls living in the town at this time, at least one of whom was in trouble with the law. William’s master, however, was an Assistant on the Corporation until his resignation in 1639 through ill health. Given the composition of the contemporary Corporation, we may reasonably assume “puritan” credentials. Seventeenth century apprentices “lived in”, like any other house servants, which in effect is what they were. Bromhall would have been in loco parentis to young William, who, if not already of puritan stock, would in that house have been living according to puritan mores, and not Presbyterian but “Independent” ones.

Bromhall had a step-daughter, Mary. Mary’s surname was Stone, so she may have been related to Samuel Stone, the co-founder of Hartford, Connecticut. If so, it only goes to reinforce the impeccable puritan credentials. However, there were two Mary Stones in Hertford at the time, ours being the younger of the two, so we may only speculate as to kinship.

William was evidently a more than satisfactory apprentice. When his apprenticeship ended and he was made free, he continued to work for Bromhall as journeyman until the latter’s death in 1640. He did more: in 1636 he married Mary Stone. To marry the boss’s daughter, even his step-daughter, is even today regarded as no bad start in life.

Children followed rapidly, the first perhaps a little too rapidly. Puritan parentage did not prevent William junior arriving little more than seven months after the wedding – he was baptised on 21 December 1636. A daughter, Mary, was born fourteen months later. Neither survived infancy, a not uncommon circumstance in those days. But Susan, born in 1640, survived, as did two younger boys, Samuel and John.

Bramhall probably recommended Gardiner as his successor as Assistant, for he was appointed in 1639 – the same year which also saw the appointment of William Turner and John Clarke – later both Parliamentary supporters – and Joseph Browne and Andrew Palmer, both to suffer for opposing views. The Corporation Assistants had little voice in the government of the town but theirs was nevertheless the only possible avenue to higher things, for from their ranks were chosen the Chief Burgesses who made up the Common Council of the borough. It took Gardiner just five years to make the transition, and by then the world had truly been turned upside down. In the meantime, he performed his share of those unpaid and unpopular duties that were the freeman’s lot, serving as bread weigher, viewer of the streets and, above all, parish constable.

It may be simply coincidence, or the chance survival of documents, but anyone researching the Hertford Borough Quarter- and Petty-Sessions records for the late 1630s and early 1640s must be struck by the fact that the majority of surviving depositions on presentment are Gardiner’s. Only John Pennyfather, of similar religious persuasion, comes anywhere close. The pair seem to have been the very epitomes of the “godly constable”, a creature peculiar to the period. “Zeal” is the word that springs to mind, and perhaps “officiousness” too.

By 1641 Gardiner’s household comprised his wife Mary, his mother-in-law the Widow Bramhall, his daughter Susan and a servant, Susan Saxe. Clearly he had succeeded to Bromhall’s business. In the same year a poll tax was levied. It was graduated, a man being assessed on what he might spend in a year. There were five categories: those who might expend £100; £50; £20; £1O; and £5 per annum respectively. Gardiner was not yet in the big league, being assessed at £10 and taxed two shillings. Sir William Cowper, the then tenant of the Castle, was dunned for no less than £30, a considerable sum in those days.

In 1642 the Civil War erupted. The Royalist mayor of Hertford, Andrew Palmer, was deposed and even imprisoned for a while. Also sent packing was the borough’s Steward, John Kelyng junior. Kelyng, moreover, had enemies outside Hertford: the Parliamentarians locked him up in Windsor Castle and sequestered his estates. Unlike many of those who found ways of “compounding” as it was known, for their release, this uncompromising Royalist was to remain prisoner until the Restoration.

In 1645 Parliament required all persons holding office or place in any city or borough to subscribe to the Solemn League and Covenant agreed with the Scots to ensure their support in the War. In effect, this agreed to the presbyterianising of the Church of England. This might satisfy the majority of the Commons, but since the majority of the Hertford Chief Burgesses were of the Independent persuasion, one may legitimately wonder at the degree of cynicism involved in their acceding to it, but in fact only one of them refused to sign. He was Joseph Browne, who was accordingly “disburgessed”.

Gardiner maybe said to have had a good war. He served on the Herts Militia Committee, with the rank of Captain, and supplied clothing to the Parliamentary forces. It would be interesting to know more about his involvement in the affairs of the Eastern Association, and in particular with its leading local figures, Gabriel Barbour and Isaac Puller. At Michaelmas, 1648, he became mayor for the first time. It has to be said that the Months Court minutes reveal nothing outstanding during his mayoralty, and of the momentous events of 1648-49 not a whisper. It was, however, a time of heavy tax burdens in support of the Parliamentary cause, the burden of providing “free quarter” for troops being particularly onerous.

In 1648 the Court agreed not to collect “quarterages” – freemen’s dues – “until taxes be a little more over”, after which they were gradually to be recouped. Gardiner himself agreed to take only £4. 12s. of the £6. 12s 4d owing to him for constable’s expenses – clearly a long outstanding debt – “because he would set things right between the town [i.e., the Corporation) and the inhabitants”. There is a nice glimpse of Mayor Gardiner bribing a Roundhead Captain with the positively embarrassing surname of “Stewart” two shillings to take his men elsewhere. He was not the only mayor so to act. It is not recorded where he suggested they should go, but it would come as no surprise to learn that he pointed down the road to Ware!

He was mayor again in 1656-57, a period when there was mounting concern over the navigation of the river, and was a leading contributor of loan capital to set up new “turnpikes” or flash locks. Turner in his “History of Hertford” made a curious mistake, stating that Gardiner died during this mayoralty. It was, in fact, his successor Edward Lawrence, and history was to repeat itself: by a curious coincidence his son, also Edward, was to die during his mayoralty.

In 1658 another, more portentous, death occurred, that of the Lord Protector, Oliver Cromwell. Chaos ensued, culminating eventually in the restoration of the monarchy in 1660. Nothwithstanding the Act of Indemnity and the woolly ambiguities of the Declaration of Breda, it was not long before revenge was in the air. In 166l a vindictive Cavalier Parliament passed the Corporation Act, with the aim of weeding out both religious nonconformity and the surviving adherents of the old order, who, not without some justification, were thought particularly numerous in borough towns. The Act required all members and officials of corporations to take the oaths of allegiance and supremacy and to declare that they believed it unlawful on any pretence to take up arms against the King. Furthermore, they were required to abjure the Solemn League and Covenant and declare it to be an illegal oath. Hertford Corporation had, no doubt with a wary eye on the future, already readmitted Joseph Browne to his Chief Burgess post.

In due course the appointed Commissioners arrived in Hertford to administer the required oaths. There were variations in the composition of such commissions nationally, but those arriving in Hertford can hardly have raised any false hopes. They were led by Arthur Capel, Earl of Essex, whose father had been executed after the Siege of Colchester and who was himself to die in the Tower in highly suspicious circumstances later in the reign. The other commissioners were the two Thomas Fanshawes of Ware Park, Sir Philip Boteler of Watton Woodhall, Sir Thomas Leventhorpe, Sir John Gore and Sir John Watts, country gentlemen all. One suspects they enjoyed their work, not least Sir John Watts, who had an old score to settle, having attempted to seize the town’s arms and read the Commission of Array in 1642, only to be seen off without a shot being fired.

Chief Burgesses Isaac Puller, William Turner, Joseph Bunker and Henry Marson, and Assistants John Rogers, Abraham Rutt, John King, John Strong, William Carter, Adlord Bowd (a former apprentice of Gardiner’s), John Goodman, Nicholas Tuffnell, Thomas Hills and Benjamin Bradley all refused to swear the oaths. Rutt and King, and possibly Bunker and Marson, were Quakers; Puller, Turner and Bowd certainly Independents. All fourteen were ejected.

Two men who had held high office did swear the oaths. One was John Clarke, who was to survive on the Corporation until his death in 1684. The other was William Gardiner. All the surviving evidence, such as it is, suggests that Clarke was not the sort of man to court controversy. But why did Gardiner subscribe to the oaths? It seems highly unlikely that such a radical character had had a sudden change of both heart and faith. Perhaps he hoped that by dissembling he might remain in office and exert influence from within. Perhaps it was simply that, having tasted power, he was reluctant to relinquish it. Henri of Navarre – King Henri IV of France – cynically abjured his Protestantism, saying that “Paris was worth a Mass”. Did Gardiner think Hertford was worth an Anglican Communion?

The scramble for rehabilitation with the new regime was not edifying, and in his own small way Gardiner may have been part of it. We are unlikely ever to know: he has left no written apologia and none of his contemporaries seems publicly to have commented on his actions, or, if they did, such comments have not survived. What they thought, what they said in private, what they knew remains equally veiled.

The Commissioners in juggling with the composition of corporations no doubt had to consider the availability of competent and experienced administrators. Gardiner was clearly both competent and experienced, but the Commissioners were obviously unimpressed. It seems likely that they had made up their minds about him from the outset. He was too identified with the recent past: a radical sectarian and a disloyal subject. Moreover, they had another weapon up their sleeves. Section Five of the Corporation Act stated “And nevertheless be it enacted ….. that the said Commissioners …. shall have full power by virtue of the Act by order and warrant ….. to displace or remove any of the persons aforesaid from the said respective offices ….. if the Commissioners shall deem it expedient for the public safety, although such persons shall have taken and subscribed to or to be willing to take and subscribe to the said oaths and declaration.” So on 3 September 1662, appropriately enough the anniversary of both Cromwell’s “Crowning Mercy” of the Battle of Worcester and of his death, Gardiner was expelled from the Corporation.

And there our Draper’s Tale might have ended, and it might have been better for Gardiner had it done so. He was, after all, quite a substantial man, with a good business, styling himself “gentleman” and clearly living in some style: his house is recorded in the 1663 Hearth Tax returns as having no fewer than twelve hearths – only five in the town had more, and one of those was the Castle and one the “Rose” inn. Many men would have called it a day, made the best of a bad job and concentrated on their businesses. Many did; many, too, persisted doggedly and bravely in their nonconformity. But not William Gardiner.

It is not clear at what point he began to challenge the Commissioners’ decision. No doubt he took legal advice before going to law, and any delay in resolving the case might simply have been due to the interminable processes of English law and the problem undoubtedly there in Stuart England – of greasing sufficient palms. But there was a more serious problem. Gardiner had to appeal to the Court of King’s Bench, and one of the judges thereon was none other than John Kelyng.  Released from prison at the Restoration and his estates restored to him, Kelyng became a Sergeant-at-Law – what nowadays would be called a Queen’s Counsel and appointed to the Court of King’s Bench. In 1662 he was knighted and in 1665 became Lord Chief Justice of the King’s Bench. After his years of imprisonment, and the memory of what had happened in Hertford, the likes of William Gardiner must have been anathema to him, and it must have appeared to Gardiner that his chances were nil while Kelyng was there. Kelyng has been described as “an able and learned judge but a stranger to judicious moderation”, well known for his conservative opinions and rough manners. As a King’s Sergeant he had taken part with relish in the prosecution of the regicides, and Pepys in his Diary frequently refers to his brusque conduct in court.

In 1668 Gardiner’s wife Mary died. Two years later his son Samuel, then about twenty-five, was giving trouble. Samuel followed the trade of upholsterer, obtaining the freedom in 1666 as the son of a former Chief Burgess. He married a young lady named Susan Roote, daughter of Thomas Roote of Wormley, yeoman, by whom he had two daughters. By 1670 the family was living in Middlesex in the parish of St Katherine’s-by-the-Tower, then on the outskirts of London, and in that same year Samuel deserted his wife and two little daughters, leaving them as a charge on the parish.

William Gardiner and Thomas Roofe, grandfathers of the children, were ordered to pay two shillings apiece a week towards their maintenance. It does not sound much to us, but has to be considered in seventeenth century terms – something like two days pay for a craftsman. Quite apart from the shame and embarrassment caused, this must have been a bombshell Gardiner could have well done without, for the next three years he was busy with his appeal, which must have cost him dear.

But things were beginning to look up in other directions. On 29 April 1672 he married again, to Joan Holes – the Johanna of the will – at All Saints’ church. In the register he is described as· “Captain”, presumably a relic of his Militia Committee days. A contemporary, the brazier Thomas Herrick, also clung to the label for the rest of his life.

Meanwhile, Sir John Kelyng died, of a “lethargy”, whatever that might be. A contemporary news sheet wondered that a man of so bilious a complexion should have so phlegmatic a conveyance to the other world”. And in 1674 Gardiner won his King’s Bench action. The Months Court minute for 7 Moy 1674 reads thus:-

“At this Court come Mr William Gardiner late one of the Chiefe Burgesses of this Borough who was disburgessed and removed from his place as Chiefe Burgess brought into Court a writ of restitution to the Mayor and Burgesses directed out of his Majesties Court of King’s Bench commanding them to restore the said William Gardiner to his said place and office of Chiefe Burgess which they the said Mayor and Burgesses did take into consideration and allow the said writt and agreed to accede the said writt as thereby they are commanded”.

As a form of words the last bit takes a lot of beating as making the best of a bad job! It does not require much imagination to picture just how unwelcome that writ must have been to the Corporation of 1674

There was also a procedural problem. The 1605 Charter provided for only ten Chief Burgesses. Someone would have to go. The Corporation must have been forewarned, for they had a suitable scapegoat handy. His name was Samuel Goodman. Goodman was a tanner, originally of St Andrew’s parish, like most Hertford leatherworkers. He had been a member of the Corporation for thirty years, since 1663 as a Chief Burgess. But he had been made on Assistant during the Civil War, although one of the sitting Assistants who had taken the Corporation Act oaths. He was also a Goodman, and unravelling the religious allegiances of the tanning Goodmans is not easy. So the Corporation may have had their own reasons for wanting to be rid of him, and Gardiner’s return provided a suitable opportunity. Goodman had, in any case, provided them with an excuse. He had already been required, at the Court held on 29 April, in his absence, to give reason why he should not be disburgessed. To continue with the 7 May minutes:-

“At this Court came Mr Goodman ….. for cause why he should not be disburgessed in regard he is removed out of the said Borough and the two parishes whereof the same consisteth …. [He]did show that he had taken a roome within the said Borough and therefore presumed that he was an Inhabitant ….. which being taken into consideration and put to the vote and the major part of the said Mayor and Burgesses did vote that by taking the said roome and holding the same they find Mr Goodman could not be an Inhabitant of the said Borough and that he be disburgessed.”

The Corporation had, for once in a while, decided to stick by the letter of its Charter. It now perforce had to go through all the other legal motions. A man might not be made a Chief Burgess directly, he had to be an Assistant first, although he could be both in the same day. So the newest Assistant, William Staines, had to stand down, Gardiner be appointed in his place and then chosen to succeed Goodman. That left a vacancy for an Assistant, so back came William Staines. Wonderful are the ways of protocol.

There is one aspect of all this that the record does not touch upon. Following Charles II’s Declaration of Indulgence, Parliament in 16 73 passed the first of the Test Ads. Office holders had to receive Anglican communion and be certified as having done so, swear allegiance to the King and affirm his supremacy as head of the Church. Gardiner must have had to conform to these requirements, which raises the question, what had happened to his earlier religious convictions? There was, it is true, the device of “Occasional Conformity”, but that could only work where there was a climate sympathetic to it and to the occasional conformer – conditions which may be considered conspicuously absent in this case.

One of the local Nonconformist groups which had taken advantage of the Declaration of Indulgence was the Congregationalists – the erstwhile Independents. Given Gardiner’s past record one might not unreasonably expect his involvement. The earliest Hertford Congregational records begin in 1673, and list the membership. Gardiner’s name nowhere appears. It does look as if his religious beliefs, too, had been sacrificed to what had become the one great obsession. Perhaps they had always played· second fiddle to ambition.

What Months Court meetings were like over the ensuing eighteen months can only be surmised. It must have been a bizarre and uncomfortable situation, not least, one might think, for Gardiner himself. The minutes record no contribution of his to discussion, but they do record regular attendance.

But Gardiner’s was a Pyrrhic victory. His problems were catching up with him. He stops attending meetings. On 5 January 1676 we discover why:-

“At this Court the Mayor and Chiefe Burgesses taking into consideration the poor state and low condition of William Gardiner Gent one of the Chiefe Burgesses of this Borough now detained a prisoner for debt in his Majesties Gaol for the County of Hertford having not sufficient substance to pay the same and other debts and by reason thereof is not only disabled from performing the office of a Chiefe Burgesse but also his poverty renders the Magistracy of this Corporation scandalous and the government thereof contemptible to the dishonour of his Majestie and the obstruction of Justice, for redress whereof the said William Gardiner was summoned to appear before the Mayor and Chiefe Burgesses to show cause why he should not be discharged from the said office of Chiefe Burgesse

And thereupon …. came the said William Gardiner under the custody of John Perry Keeper of his Majesties said Gaol and upon a full hearing …. in all things he could say for himself in open court It appeared that ….. [he] was detained ….. by virtue of a latitat¹ issuing out of his Majesties Court of Kings Bench ….. for answer William Penrice in a plea of trespasse and also to his Bill of one hundred pounds on promises. And that the said William Gardiner was much indebted to other persons and become so poor that he has resigned up his trade for want of work and parted with his house and goods for an abject subsistence ….. and therefore …..they the said Mayor and Chiefe Burgesses do order that [he] be forthwith discharged from his office of Chiefe Burgesse of this Borough ……”

It is a sad picture: the once proud, stubborn Gardiner humbled. His mortification must have been all the harder to bear by the knowledge that it was all being recorded for posterity, and that to a considerable extent he had been the architect of his own misfortune.

Just how long Gardiner remained in gaol we do not know. We have, however, turned full circle and are back at the will. The Months Court minute alleges that he had “….. resigned up his trade and parted with his house and goods for an abject subsistence”. But the will does not suggest penury, he was back in business and over the ensuing seven years had plainly made at least a modest recovery. Just how much of a recovery we cannot tell; if we had his probate inventory we might be in a position to judge, but we haven’t, and even that would not tell us the whole story, nor the real extent of his losses. To know that we would need to have access to a much earlier inventory such as might have been compiled in the event of distraint proceedings, and there is no evidence of such a document. The will is in the National Archives (late PRO) at Kew, since it was proved in the Prerogative Court of Canterbury, not in the court of the Archdeaconry of Huntingdon; Gardiner must have had property in more than one diocese. Not difficult, of course: Hertford was in the Diocese of Lincoln, Ware, barely three miles away, in that of London, but it does seem rather at odds with the Months Court statements. So who helped him pay off his debts? His second wife’s family? Was she the beneficiary of a family legacy that would, of course, have automatically become her husband’s property? It would be interesting to know more, much more, about Joan Hales and her background.

The question also arises as to how far Gardiner was unique in challenging and reversing his Corporation Act expulsion. He is certainly unique in so far as Hertfordshire is concerned, and no parallel case appears to exist in Essex. It is hard to believe that others elsewhere in like circumstances did not at least try, even if unsuccessfully, but enquiry some years ago through the medium of The Local Historian yielded no further examples.

Note:-

¹ Latitat is the third person singular present tense of latitare, to lie concealed; the sense here presumably being a writ issued to “wherever he may be found”.

Sources:-

ln the National Archives

Gardiner’s will is PROBl 1/406/189

In Hertfordshire Archives and Local Studies

Hertford Corporation Records Vols 9, 17, 20, 26 & 46:933-4

Alan Thomson, PhD Thesis, “Hertfordshire Communities and Central – Local Relations, c.1625-1665” (1987)

All Saints’ & St Andrew’s Parish Registers

Hearth Tax Returns for 1663

Congregational Church Book, 1673-1847.

Published Works

The Diary of Samuel Pepys (Latham edn.) Vol X, Companion Seventeenth Century England: A Changing Culture, Vol l,

Primary Sources (Ward Lock Educational/OU, 1980)

Lewis Turnor, History of the Ancient Town and Borough of Hertford (1830).

County Sessions Books, Vol VI, p.205.