8. The Consumption Stage: Beyond the Basics

C H A P T E R 8

The Consumption Stage: Beyond The Basics

Household Furnishings (to continue with the consumption stage)

These two centuries saw a substantial growth in the quantity and range of household furnishings. At fi rst the quantities produced and imported suffi ced only for the upper and middle-income groups; then, from the late sixteenth century onwards, the quantities increased to the point where all income groups could obtain a very wide selection of soft furnishings. As mentioned above,

Kerridge covers a number of furnishing and household textiles in his discussion. These fabrics were variously woollen, linen, hemp, or a mixture of linen and hemp. In the late seventeenth century, linen-cotton mixtures were added.

These were textiles to be used in food preparation (sieves, strainers, butter— muslin, cheesecloth) and in cleaning (mops, fl oor cloths). A range of bedding and bed-linen were produced: mattress-covers, bolsters, pillows; sheets, blankets, bedcovers, bed-hangings. Other products included window-curtains

(including roller blinds), cupboard cloths, tapestries, cushions, upholstery, and

“carpets” (actually put on furniture)1. Indeed, as Joan Thirsk puts it,

“By the end of the seventeenth century people had a choice of so many diff erent qualities of linen for domestic use and personal wear, that it was impossible to count them... .2

Contemporaneous observers certainly noted an increase in soft furnishings. In Essex, William Harrison contrasted the late 1570’s (when he wrote)

with the earlier part of the century: People then had only rough straw pallets.

Sheet and bedcovers were made of various coarse, shaggy materials; a “good round log” served for a head-rest. Servants slept straight on the pallet with

403

no sheet; consequently, the straws stuck into and chafed their skin. A fl ock mattress, acquired after many years, with “a sack of chaff ” at the head signifi ed improved living; feather beds were only for the wealthy, and only women in childbirth had pillows. But now in the late sixteenth century it was not just noblemen, gentry and merchants who far exceeded their forebears in this respect — even ordinary farmers did so: The latter now had “three or four feather beds” with bolsters, pillows, fi ne bed-hangings, coverlets, tapestries, table-carpets and table-linen 3. Similarly, Richard Carew recalled that in Cornwall in the mid-sixteenth century, people slept on “straw and a blanket”, linen sheets were hardly known 4.

By the late sixteenth century, not only linen sheets but decorative furnishings had reached well down the social and material scale, as seen in some inventories from the Cambridgeshire fens. In 1589, a testator left just 13 shillings in cash, but he also distributed two pairs of sheets, a pillow and another sheet amongst his three sons. In 1591, a labourer disposed of fl axen sheets in his will. In 1594, in a husbandman’s will, each child received three or four pairs of sheets; his wife got the painted cloths 5.

Window-curtains began appearing in a very few inventories in the last sixteenth century, but they spread unevenly. Just under 1½ percent of a sample Suff olk inventories listed them between 1570 and 1599. A Warwickshire woolman left three tablecloths, eight napkins, painted cloths and window-curtains in 1592. In the late seventeenth century, they were still very rare in Cambridgeshire but the Suff olk proportion had risen to 13.4 percent 6.

In the Forest of Arden in the inventories of small-to-middling farmers and craftsmen, there was an average of three linen sheets, one tablecloth and one napkin in the period 1530-69. This implies that many inventories had no tablecloths or napkins. But in the years 1610-49, there were, on average, six linen sheets, two tablecloths and as many as ten napkins. This implies that practically all inventories had a tablecloth and that the number of napkins had jumped substantially 7.

Turning now to the inventories from both rural and urban areas in Oxfordshire in the late sixteenth century and in south Worcestershire a century later:

the total value of bed and table linen left, on average at current prices, went from £1-8-0 to £2-6-0. In absolute terms this meant an increase of just over 64 percent, but as a proportion of all consumer goods, it fell from just under 15 to just under 8 percent. In four East End parishes in London, the average value of household linen came to £2-2-0 (in the years 1661-64) or just under 9 percent of the value of consumer goods left. Again, price evidence clearly suggests that quantities of linen rose sharply; other evidence defi nitely points in the same Early Modern England | Sudha Shenoy 405

direction. The price quotations are from the same shopkeepers’ inventories as before; fi ve very diff erent types of linen are included. The prices of four types fell over this period, with the declines ranging from 15.1 to 55.6 percent.

The remaining linen fabric rose in price by some 38 percent. Two new types of linen were added, at the cheapest end of the scale, in the early seventeenth century. By the end of the century, their prices had fallen by 15.3 and 16.1 percent respectively. Again all these varieties represent only a fraction of the kinds available in the period. But given the geographical diversity of the price information, the same inference as before seems plausible: the prices of signifi cant types of linen fell. In conjunction with the increased value of all household linen at current prices, in the Oxfordshire and south Worcestershire inventories (above), the defi nite inference is that quantities rose substantially.

A further piece of evidence is that the value of household linen was correlated with household size, not with wealth. The inference is that such linen was cheap enough to be purchased as needed. This in turn implies that it was produced in the substantial quantities required to keep prices so low. We do not know, of course, exactly which types of linen were actually purchased by these testators; but all this information, taken together, points to a very large rise in quantities 8.

Other pieces of evidence also point to a large growth of output during the seventeenth century. Thus in rural Suff olk, between the 1580s and the

1680s, the average inventory at the upper end of the scale increased 107 percent (from £55 to £114), while the value of linen left went from £1 16s to £3

18s, an increase of 117 percent. Consequently, the proportion remained virtually steady, going from 3.3 to 3.4 percent. But at the lowest end of the wealth spectrum, the change was dramatic. Average wealth rose 86 percent (from £7 to £13) while the value of linen increased 271 percent (from 7s to £1 6 s); thus the proportion doubled, from 5 to 10 percent 9. And elsewhere in the same century: in 1611, a relatively well-off farm labourer in Yorkshire’s East Riding left domestic goods worth £18; they included painted cloths, six cushions, a carpet and bed linen. In 1612, a truly exceptional labourer from Hertfordshire

(who also kept bees and cows), left 8 pairs of sheets, 4 towels, 4 tablecloths, 1 dozen napkins, 2 cupboard cloths and 3 cushions. In 1617, in Warwickshire, a labourer left goods worth £11, including sheets, napkins and a hand-towel 10.

The chapmen’s inventories mentioned earlier, show an increase in quantities of linen left, between the late sixteenth century and the fi rst few years of the eighteenth. In 1588, in Buckinghamshire, the inventory included three pairs of sheets plus a carpet worth 2s.6d., while in 1596 in Norfolk the only linen left was a “payre of old course sheetes” worth 2s.8d. But in 1613, in Lincolnshire, the household goods included 9 pairs of sheets, 3 “pillowbeares”, 6 napkins, 406 Early Modern England | Sudha Shenoy

3 towels and “painted cloths”, the latter worth 2s. By 1703, in Canterbury, the linen was made up of 4 pairs of sheets, 6 pillow “coats”, 1 dozen napkins,

1 dozen towels, 1 dozen nappies and 6 shirts, all worth £2. An inventory of

1704 from Sittingbourne included 6 tablecloths, 3 dozen napkins and 12 pairs of pillowcases. Finally in 1707, in Canterbury, the linen consisted of 18 pairs of sheets (“good and bad”), 3 tablecloths, 2 dozen napkins “and other course

Linnen”, all valued at £4 14s 11.

Linen output appears to have accelerated in the later seventeenth century.

In the course of the century more and more inventories from four parishes in northeast Warwickshire contained bed and window curtains (the latter in three diff erent colours), cushions, and good quality sheets and tablecloths. But in the last two decades of the century, increasing quantities of better quality linen appeared in inventories near the bottom of the scale. In Cambridgeshire in the

1670s, linen formed a minimum of nine to ten percent of inventories across the board, from all wealth and social groups and practically all farming areas.

Even labourers owned at least two sheets per bed — one had four pairs and two pairs of pillowcases, all worth the vast sum of £7; another had bed curtains. In four Shropshire parishes, inventories from the 1660s and 1670s mentioned, on average, three sheets per bed; this fi gure rose to fi ve from the 1680s onwards 12.

At the retail level, shops began stocking fabrics produced specifi cally for household purposes. In 1614, a Lincolnshire chapman’s inventory included

30 pairs of coarse linen sheets, 24 pairs of better-quality sheets, 21 “pillowbears”, 6 tablecloths, 6 dozen napkins and a pair of linen curtains. By the end of the seventeenth century a wide range of linen and cotton fabrics were purchased routinely at the lowest income levels for a variety of furnishings — so much so, that guides were published to the types available and their uses.

Indian cottons were used for bed-hangings, valances and window curtains;

silk and cotton mixtures were also used for the latter. Sheets were made from a wide variety of linens (both imported and domestic); the toughest lasted up to 12 years, other types lasted half as long. “Ordinary sheets” (for servants and the poor) were made from hempcloth or from diff erent sorts of brown linen;

this last also provided the painted cloths that now decorated many walls. It was also used to pack goods and then re-used in the kitchen and household.

Towels were made from hempcloth. By now, the materials for making up tablecloths and napkins were sold in sets, from the same fabrics, which were produced in diff erent widths specifi cally for this purpose. Each set contained three lengths, to make up one tablecloth and two napkins; the prices and qualities ranged from 9d. a yard (for the cheapest napkin cloth) to 6s. a yard (for the best quality tablecloth material) 13.

Beds and Bedding

We now turn to the supplies of beds and bedding. The evidence for growth here is more diffused and indirect. In the Oxfordshire inventories already mentioned, beds and bedding (ie bedframe, mattress, pillows, curtains, blankets, coverlets) came to an average of £2 8s., or nearly 26 percent of the household total, in the years 1551-90. In south Worcestershire in 1669-70, the value of bed and bedding had risen nearly 2.9 times, to £6 18s.; the proportion fell slightly, to less than 24 percent. Similarly in the four parishes in east London referred to above: beds and bedding were worth, on average, £5 10s, or an increase of some 2.3 times; the proportion, however, declined to somewhat under 23 percent of the value of all household goods. (Once again, current prices were used in the absence of a satisfactory price index.) 14.

But as with household linen, the changes at the other end of the scale were striking. Between 1584 and 1675, in inventories from the lowest income groups in Norwich, the value of beds and bedding rose faster than other household goods. It was almost always the single most important item in these inventories: in 60 percent, the bedding came to between 30 and 60 percent of the value of all household goods. Up to 1600, in 86 percent of the inventories, it was worth less than £3. By 1675, this proportion had dropped to 55 percent, ie in nearly half the inventories, the bedding was worth £3 and upwards

15. Some part of this undoubtedly refl ects the general rise in prices, but since bedding also rose relative to other household items, the inference is that quantities were rising. Since ownership of better quality beds and bedding spread down the income scale, this inference seems justifi ed.

In 1584, a low-income Norwich inventory (worth £5 19s. 3d.) included feather, trundle and transom beds. In another such inventory of 1595, the bedding came to only 4s. 8d, or just 17 percent of the total (£1 7s. 3d). But in

1618, a “lame and almost blind” man left goods worth £2 6s. 8d.; 43 percent consisted of his bedding. In 1638, an inventory consisting solely of old furniture worth just £1 5s., included an old bedstead with feather bed. A widow left a bed worth £3 3sh 6d, her other furniture was worth only about 7 shillings. A pointmaker’s bedding came to £2 5s 4d, his servant’s trundle bed was valued at only 2 shillings. The two together came to just under 54 percent of the value of all his goods 16.

Elsewhere: a Cambridgeshire carpenter left £12 in cash, a feather bed and household linen in 1591. A Midlands tanner left a bed, a fl ock bed, a pillow, two bolsters, four blankets, a bedcover, a carpet and painted cloths, all worth

£1 in 1592. In the Cambridgeshire fens, a husbandman left his widow “the”

feather bed in 1594. He also owned another bed with at least two coverlets. A 408 Early Modern England | Sudha Shenoy

Worcestershire husbandman of 1613, not well-off , had domestic goods worth only £3 5s. 2d., but they included three bedsteads (and some painted cloths). A cutler and part-time spinner in the Forest of Arden had only a “chaff ebedde” in

1634, but it was furnished with feather pillow and bolster. An Essex farmer left furniture worth over £9 in 1638; £5 of that was the value of his “Joyned bedsted with all that belongeth to it”. And returning to the fens in 1675, a small farmer left a crop of grain and hay worth only £3 but he had a feather bed17.

Further down the scale: A Yorkshire farm labourer left a number of beds in 1611 (together with various household furnishings). In 1612, a Hertfordshire labourer left a bedstead worth £5, together with other beds. In 1617, a

Warwickshire labourer owned a feather bed and an expensive joined bedstead

(in an inventory worth £11). A labourer from a western county had a bedstead with pillow, feather bolsters, blankets and coverlet in 1634. And even a Cornish labourer in 1637, had a bedstead with an old coverlet in his very modest inventory (the domestic goods came to just 14s. 9d.). By the fi rst part of the century, even living-in farm servants and harvest labourers slept better, at least in Hertfordshire: various farmers had separate chambers for them, one with two bedsteads, fl ock beds, blankets and bolsters; another had four beds and bedding, all worth £6; a third farmer provided two beds and a coff er 18.

In the chapmen’s inventories already mentioned: in 1588 in Buckinghamshire, a chapman left a bedstead, a trundle bed, a feather bed, a blanket, bolster and pillow (his domestic inventory totalled £2 16s. 8d.). In 1613, a Lincolnshire chapman owned two “standbedds” and a trundle bed “with furniture”

(ie bedding etc). A Lancashire chapman in 1680 had “a pair of bedstockes”

worth 6sh. and a feather pillow worth 6d.; they came to 30 percent of the value of his household goods. In 1691, a Gloucestershire chapman had a “bedstead with appertenances” together with a tester bed, while a pair of blankets, a rug and two pillows all came to 18s. In Canterbury in 1703, a chapman left a fl ock bed worth £1 and a bedstead with curtains and blankets (in the “best chamber”). In 1704 a chapman in Sittingbourne, much better off , owned three bedsteads, three feather beds, two fl ock beds, four feather pillows, one fl ock pillow, a feather and a fl ock bolster, nine blankets (two old), one rug, two coverlets (one old), and a pair of bed curtains. And in 1707 in Canterbury, a chapman owned two bedsteads with curtains and valances, a feather bed, two fl ock beds, three bolsters, three blankets, two rugs, one coverlet, two old pillows and a “halfe headbedstead”, all worth £4 1s., or just over 22 percent of his household goods (by value) 19.

Furniture

The sixteenth and seventeenth centuries saw definite and distinct improvements in the quality of furniture, together with increases in the range and quantity. Up to about the middle of the sixteenth century, only a very few types are found, whatever the income level, but varieties increased markedly during the later seventeenth century. To appreciate the signifi cance of items mentioned in inventories, it is necessary fi rst to see what the quality improvement consisted in.

During the sixteenth century, at all social and material levels, furniture included mainly such things as benches, often fi xed to the wall, forms, settles, stools, chests (large and small), and “cupboards” — open shelves for display and storage, with or without enclosed portions. Trestle tables were used extensively, though other types were also made. Chairs (wooden with open arms) were relatively few, compared with other types of seating, as were larger enclosed “presses” compared with chests, at even the highest levels 20.

In the early sixteenth century, carpenters made many of these items. In addition, turners made stools and then chairs (the latter from at least the late fi fteenth century onward). As items made by turners required both more skill and appropriate tools, they were of better quality. Turned stools were lighter and so more portable, while turned chairs were found in lower income houses throughout the sixteenth century. From its beginning, joiners increasingly produced furniture, but not alone: turners and carvers also participated in the process. Joined furniture grew in quantity from the middle of the century onwards, particularly at middle and upper income levels. Joinery involved much more sophisticated techniques, so a given input not only produced more output, it was far better in quality, with less cracking and warping. Thus while furniture became lighter, it remained strong and stable. Joiners’ products are distinguished as such in inventories; the range increased gradually from mid-century onwards, going from bedsteads, tables, chairs and stools to forms, presses and

“cupboards” (open shelves) 21.

At the upper end of the scale, “framed” tables (with fixed tops) were fi rst produced; then “draw” tables (with leaves) were added in the mid-sixteenth century. Small tables with oval, round, polygonal or octagonal tops also appeared. Still at this end, the coff erer covered chairs with leather or other materials, later upholsterers began to insert studding between frame and outer covering, thus adding another item to their output of bed-hangings and mattresses. By the later sixteenth century, cushions were built into chair seats, while upholstered stools had reached the merchant classes. Up to 1550, forms were occasionally produced in pairs or sets to go with dining 410 Early Modern England | Sudha Shenoy

tables; after mid-century, this became more frequent. From the same time, light “court cupboards” were produced. They could be disassembled easily, into at least two sections, and had a standard three shelves from around 1575

— such standardisation is an indirect indication of the quantities produced. By the end of the century, they were common amongst larger farmers. During the later sixteenth century, the carpenter’s three-legged stool (whose construction was virtually foolproof ) was replaced increasingly by the joiner’s four-legged stool, which was produced in suffi cient quantities to reach very far down the social and material scale. Occasionally, stools were produced in sets. At all income levels, chests (of various sizes) were used to store linen and clothing;

they also held the valuables of the wealthy. Such coff ers had locks and doubled as seats. In the kitchen, chests served to store food and materials (bread, fl our, meal, etc). With joiners’ techniques, chests became much lighter, so they increased in number 22.

In the early part of the seventeenth century, joiners and carpenters diverged further and each became more specialised. Their respective product ranges were identifi ed in 1632, in a court case: joiners produced what might be termed

“quality” work, mostly (but not entirely) domestic: bedsteads, chairs, stools, tables, forms, chests, cupboards, presses, panelling, doors, desks, shipwin— dows, church pews, etc. Carpenters made heavier pieces for commercial use, such as tables for taverns, inns, chandlers’ shops, drapers’ shops, merchants’

offi ces and the like; carpenters also made “walking stools” and “boarded bedsteads, nailed together” 23.

Furniture continued to develop in style and grow in quantity and quality through the seventeenth century. To quote one specialist, there was “complexity and variety of production throughout the period”. In general (but particularly later in the century) plain joined furniture (“wainscot”) increased in quantity, fell in price, and so was purchased at all levels. Certainly by the early years,

“[j]oined chairs... evidently were owned by all but the poorest sections...”.

At middle and lower income levels, they were relatively few and kept for the household head and guests. Also at this time, the single chair (without arms)

with stuff ed seat and back, and then the plain wooden chair with recess for seat cushion, began to be produced. Chairs became lighter over the century, as more were produced, ie as production capacity increased, so that replacements

(and additions) could be supplied. Joined stools and benches were still used widely, especially for dining. They were now mostly made in sets; often they matched the dining table as well. Three-legged joined stools were also made.

All these items became lighter, ie larger quantities were produced. The use of benches and forms gradually declined over the century. Trestle tables were still produced but in better-off households they were relegated to the side. Settles Early Modern England | Sudha Shenoy 411

continued in use at the lower end of the scale. From the start of the century presses or “close” cupboards were produced in suffi ciently large quantities to be found in most households, at all levels, but joined chests were still made, also in very large quantities. Small hanging cupboards were made in the fi rst half of the century, for storing food 24.

At the upper end of the scale, greater variety and new types of furniture appeared through the century, but again especially after 1660. In the early years, sets of single chairs and of upholstered chairs were produced (the latter included armchairs with open arms). Gate-leg tables with one or two hinged fl aps and tables with one or two side fl aps also appeared for the fi rst time. A huge range of gate-leg tables was made after 1660, as also more new and specialised items, such as chests of drawers, candlestands, dressing mirrors, pier glasses and “scrutoirs” (small desks with fall fronts and drawers);

bureaus came in at the very end. New materials were used and new methods developed: veneering, japanning, marquetry, lacquer work, gesso. These techniques required not joiners but cabinet makers, ie more specialised skills and tools. Thus these years saw “the rapid development of the cabinet maker’s craft... within a generation...” Partly because of the development of such “new and useful pieces”, there was “[a]n appreciable increase in domestic comfort”

— at all levels: plain joined chests of drawers were also produced, in addition to the veneered types 25.

We now turn to inventories. Specialist students point out that even in the wealthiest households, the range, variety and quantity of furniture were relatively restricted up to the later sixteenth century, when all three began increasing. Thus when mid sixteenth century inventories are compared with those made around the end of that century, the latter

“show a greater variety of pieces, particularly cupboards and the adoption of new ideas like the table with drawing leaves, and a much greater number of chairs and stools”.

But this range is still very narrow in comparison with what came later: “surprisingly few varieties of domestic furniture existed in England at the beginning of the [seventeenth] century, even in the richest houses” 26. But thereafter, in comparison with the fi rst part of the seventeenth century, there was a massive acceleration in the later part.

Reversing our previous procedure, we now begin at the top with the Lisle inventory of 1540. Even at this level, stools were widely used for seating; there are relatively few chairs, and this remained so until the later seventeenth century. Nine chairs are listed (included two covered in crimson velvet and one of joinery). There are 18 joined stools, 6 other stools (in the parlour), about 412 Early Modern England | Sudha Shenoy

a dozen upholstered or covered stools, some two dozen cushions, and a number of tapestries. All the fabrics involved are luxurious: velvet, satin, cloth of gold, embroidery work 27. In addition there are chests of various sizes (mostly holding clothes), coff ers (including small “trussing” — travelling — types), cupboards, trestles, forms, “fi eld” bedsteads, “ceiled” bedsteads (with cano— pies), a wicker screen and one press, together with feather beds, pillows, and other bedding. In 1552 and 1556, inventories were made respectively, of Lord

Paget’s town house in St Clement Danes and his seat in Drayton (Middlesex).

The furniture included trestles, forms, chests, cupboards, a joined cupboard, one press, framed tables, joined tables, 54 joined stools, nine other stools, four joined chairs, one turned chair, other chairs, and fi ve covered in velvet and/or embroidery. Joined bedsteads are distinguished from “plain” ones. In 1556, the furniture of Loseley House (home of Sir William More) included a large framed table, three small joined tables, nine joined stools, three joined chairs, joined cupboards, a joined bed, chests, coff ers and wall benches 28.

Lord Lumley, in 1590, owned extremely large numbers of valuable wall hangings; Turkey, silk and velvet carpets and coverings (to go on furniture);

more than one hundred cushions (silk, velvet, cloth of gold); and 76 upholstered chairs and 80 upholstered stools, using the same fabrics. But apart from this “[t]he essential wooden furniture by comparison showed small variety ...”

There were 17 joined chairs, 175 stools, 20 forms, 75 tables, 52 cupboards;

gilt, inlaid and wainscot bedsteads, plus pallet and “livery” beds. In 1649, a writer’s recommendations for a country gentleman’s residence contained much the same items, but now with signifi cant additions. Cane chairs, wall panelling, paintings, fl ower pots, decorative statues and mirrors and wine coolers were now included. Side tables were an alternative to court cupboards. Large tables now came in various shapes: square with draw-leaves; oval with falling leaves; long; round. Chairs and stools were all joined; they could be covered in leather, cloth or needlework 29.

Further down the scale, the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries continue to present a contrast. Thus in the Forest of Arden up to 1560 inventories contained only a

“few meagre items of household equipment and almost valueless forms, stools, trestles and table boards... but from the fi rst decade of the seventeenth century [....] joined tables and benches, turned chairs and bedsteads [begin] to appear in local inventories”.

Between 1530-69 and 1610-49, the average value of hard furniture (in these inventories) rose almost 4.3 times (from 15 to 64 shillings); as a proportion of all household goods it increased from just under 9 to slightly over

18 percent. The largest percentage increases in value were in the two lowestEarly Modern England | Sudha Shenoy 413

income groups; the smallest percentage expansion came at the highest income level. In other words the largest increases in production were of mass-consumption items 30.

Moving now to individual inventories: in 1592, a Midlands tanner owned a framed table, five stools and a wainscot bench along with some painted cloths, all worth 10s. A woolman in Warwickshire, the same year, had two of the rooms in his house furnished with tables, stools and benches. In 1603 in a wealthy household, while the inventory still distinguished plain forms (“not of joiner’s work”) from joined forms, the latter were now made for servants’ use as well. In 1613, a husbandman in Worcestershire owned a framed table, two chairs, a form, a fi xed bench, a coff er and a press, although his grain stock came to just £2. A Lancashire farmer in 1617 left a “joynt presse”, a cypress chest worth £5, three “great chests” worth £2, and a table and forms worth £1. In

1638 in Essex, a farmer left furniture worth £2 18s. in all, including a “great”

and a “little” joined table, a “great” joined chair, 10 stools, a form, a settle with three boxes inside and a cupboard. Another Essex farmer in the same year, left domestic goods totalling £9 2s. 8d.; they included a table, 3 “little” tables,

2 joined stools, 4 chairs, 4 cushions, 2 forms, a “bench bord”, and a cupboard

31.

In the 1660’s in Cambridgeshire: an extremely prosperous farmer owned a long table with 18 leather chairs (his inventory was worth £546 12s. 2d.).

Another well off farmer left an estate worth £412; he owned a number of leather chairs, framed chairs and joined stools (most were inherited). A blacksmith left six chairs, fi ve chests and a bedstead. A husbandman’s domestic goods, valued at £5 5s., included 4 chairs 32.

Among chapmen: in 1588, a chapman in Winslow (Bucks) owned a table, two forms, a bench, two stools, a cupboard and a chest. In 1596 in Linge (Norfolk) a chapman left three forms, a “little” chair and a “little woman’s” chair, valued in total at 6s. 7d. or 14 percent of his household goods. A Lincolnshire chapman in 1613 owned three chairs, a joined stool, a table and two forms, all worth 6s. 8d., he also had a cupboard and two chests. A Lancashire chapman left, in 1680, a trunk, a “little” box, a chest and a “large” chest, together worth

6s. 4d. In 1692, a chapman in Lincolnshire left two hampers, two old tables, six old chairs and one form. In Canterbury in 1703, a chapman’s inventory included a table, a dresser, a chest of drawers, a chest and various chairs around the house. The next year in Sittingbourne, a chapman had two chests of drawers, six cane chairs, six leather chairs, 12 other chairs, two tables, a joined stool, two mirrors and two kitchen tables. In 1707 a Canterbury chapman owned a chest of drawers worth £5, two small tables, a cupboard, a “drawing table”, 414 Early Modern England | Sudha Shenoy

another table, three joined stools, two mirrors, 4 chairs, a chest, a court cupboard, two old trunks and fi ve old pictures 33.

Amongst rural labourers too, we fi nd that furniture improved in quality over these two centuries:

“The furniture of early Tudor cottages was evidently rough carpentry work, of very small value, quite possibly constructed by the labourer himself: whereas by Charles I’s reign many a cottager possessed atleast one article of joined furniture, properly constructed by a trained craftsman ... lending a touch of modest luxury to his home”.

In 1611, in the East Riding of Yorkshire, a labourer left £18 worth of domestic goods, including a cupboard, two chairs, two forms, a “little” stool, a “livery” table, six cushions and some chests. The following year a Hertfordshire labourer, very prosperous, left a wicker chair, two “little” chairs, a joined stool, three cushions, a cupboard, a form, a bench, a clothes press and sundry boxes and chests. In 1632, again in the East Riding, a labourer left a “little”

table, a chair and a cupboard, amongst his domestic goods (worth in all £6

5s.). A Cumberland labourer left two chairs, three chests and two “stands and collers” in 1635. An in Cornwall in 1637, a labourer left a coff er, a form and a

“table board”.

Finally, at the lowest income levels: in Norwich in 1584, a poor man left a table and chairs and two chests, amongst goods worth £5 19s. 3d. (including a cow). In 1638, a very poor man left goods worth just 25 s.: an old table, three old chairs, a form and an old cupboard 34.

Referring to the late sixteenth century, D.M. Palliser says, “The poorest households to fi gure in the inventories boasted only a few sticks of furniture such as benches, a trestle table and a bed”. Similarly, Joan Thirsk says,

“Before 1550… houses contained the basic furniture, benches, a table, stools and beds…” 35. We may compare these “few sticks” of “basic furniture” with the “furniture” owned by the poorest rural labourers in South India in the mid twentieth century. For both seating and sleeping, they had only plain reed mats which were rolled up and stood in the corner when not in use. Woven palm leaf squares were also available for sitting on. A rope across a corner of the room was all that was needed to hang clothing over; the latter was stored in tiny tin trunks (together with any valuables). A couple of hollowed out alcoves in the mud walls of the hut served as shelves. By contrast, the “basic” wooden furniture owned by the poorest households in early modern England, came from trees in managed forests, the timber converted by sawyers using metal saws, into materials for the carpenter who used other metal tools to turn out such solid items as tables, benches and bedsteads. Additionally, therefore, Early Modern England | Sudha Shenoy 415

blacksmith, ironworker and charcoal-burner were involved, as well as carters with well-built carts pulled by grain-fed horses. Thus much investment was needed, in longish production chains, to produce the “few sticks” owned by these very poor households.

Domestic Metalware

We come now to the growth in the output of domestic metalware of all types: tableware, kitchen utensils, and such household items as locks, hinges, lamps, etc. The widest increase here was in pewter: it was produced in such large quantities that from being “an expensive semi-luxury commodity”, 36 it came to be found in even the poorest inventories.

At the beginning of the period, dishes and utensils were mostly wooden.

Small wooden bowls (“mazers”) were used for drinking, slightly bigger ones for eating; wooden trenchers were also used. Food (such as milk, curds, cheese, bread) was stored in large bowls or wooden crocks. Washing bowls, pails, scoops, trays, etc., were all wooden. Spoons were mainly wood or horn but they could also be of tin or brass. Knives were mostly made in Sheffi eld, of steel; output had increased by the early seventeenth century to the point where knives cost 8d. a dozen. Cooking utensils (for the majority) were of iron or brass. As Carew summed up, for Cornish husbandmen of the mid sixteenth century: “… a mazer and a panne or two, comprised all their substance” 37.

But by the later sixteenth century, metal utensils had replaced, or were added to, wooden items. Pewter dishes, spoons and vessels increased vastly in number. Spoons of tin and brass were used more widely as the period progressed. Silver was also purchased further down the scale. Pewter dishes came in some nine styles, diff ering in size and/or weight. Specialised types were also made, eg custard, “spice” and pie plates; egg, pudding and “banquet” dishes, etc. William Harrison says pewter was “sold usually by the garnish, which doth contain twelve platters, twelve dishes, twelve saucers, …”; they were “bought by the pound”. He observed that pewter plates were made deeper during his time, so that meat was kept warm and liquid foods consumed more conveniently — ie, quality improved as well. Referring to Essex in the early part of the century, he noted (with Carew) the predominance of wooden dishes:

“For so common were all sorts of treen stuff in old time that a man should hardly fi nd four pieces of pewter (of which one was peradven—ture a salt) in a good farmer’s house …”.

But the later years of the century saw a dramatic change: “The exchange of vessel, as of treen platters into pewter and wooden spoons into silver or tin”. 416 Early Modern England | Sudha Shenoy

Such improvement included the precious metals and had travelled far down the scale:

“inferior artifi cers and many farmers, … have for the most part learned also to garnish their cupboards with plate …”.

The typical farmer now considered it normal to have bought

“a fair garnish of pewter on his cupboard, with so much more in odd vessel going about the house…, a silver salt, a bowl for wine (if not a whole nest), and a dozen of spoons to furnish up the suit” 38.

Inventories confi rm Harrison’s observations. Thus Palliser’s summary:

“Very many testators well down the social scale … owned chairs, feather beds, carpets, pewter ware and even silver. Among a large sample of 441 inventories, taken between 1532 and 1601, including many estates of £5 or less, 95 percent included pewter goods and twoOxfordshire estates worth under £1 included pewter. It is a striking case of a former luxury which had spread right down the social scale.”

And as Margaret Spuff ord observed of Cambridgeshire in the later seventeenth century: “Feather beds, pewter and napkins had percolated a long way down the social scale.” In 1669, a husbandman’s inventory worth £5 5s.

contained two pewter dishes. In 1675, a husbandman had only £3 worth of barley, wheat and hay from his smallholding, but his inventory totalled £24 and included

“a feather bed, and brass and pewter worth £1 12s. 0d., including three kettles, a skillet, a warming pan, fi ve pewter dishes, a basin andthree porringers. The ‘luxury goods’ of a century before had reached the poor” 39.

In the Forest of Arden, the average value of tableware and kitchenware in inventories rose by just under 83 percent, between 1530-69 and 1610-49. The highest and lowest percentage increases were in the two lowest income groups, with the two higher income groups in between 40.

In various Oxfordshire inventories, both rural and urban from the years

1551-90, the average value of pewter and brass came to 22 shillings or just under 12 percent of the total. In south Worcestershire, in 1669-70, this value rose to 48s. or just over 8 percent of the total. In East London for the period

1661-64, these fi gures were 50s and somewhat over 10 percent respectively.

Thus while the value of domestic metalware more than doubled, its relative importance declined somewhat. The addition of plate and jewellery produces a much more interesting picture. In Oxfordshire in the late sixteenth century, the average holding was worth just 8s or some 0.4 percent of the total. Thus pewter, brass, plate and jewellery together equalled 30s or still only just about Early Modern England | Sudha Shenoy 417

12 percent of the total. In south Worcestershire and East London in the later seventeenth century, however, things were very diff erent. In the fi rst region the four together came to 74s or nearly 13 percent of the total. In East London, plate and jewellery equalled the value of brass and pewter, so the total came to a substantial £5 or nearly 21 percent of the value of all household goods. In other words, as output increased, the proportion devoted to the precious metals rose dramatically: Harrison’s observation of a century earlier still held true 41.

Coming now to the specific items made in different metals, as listed in inventories from the period: certain of these items need a few clarifying comments.

1. Hearth furniture. As the quantity and quality of housing rose, individual rooms were separated off , with individual enclosed fi replaces (see further).

These hearths required complementary metalware — eg tongs, shovel, rake, etc., — to help support the fi re and so provide continuing heat. These complementary metal goods were now also produced in increasing quantities, pari passu with the growing number of enclosed hearths.

2. Cooking was done over the open fi re, initially in the “hall” or most central room, later in the kitchen, as it was gradually separated. Thus kitchenware included items to help suspend a pot (or a piece of meat) over an open fi re or to support a pot just above, — hence the pothooks, trivets, etc. in the following.

3. The metals used were iron, tin, pewter and brass; the last was the most expensive. Thus most items were of iron, tin or pewter. In addition to the last, output of another item which was a sixteenth century luxury, increased so much during the seventeenth century that it reached even ordinary folk. This was the warming pan. In the sixteenth century, it was found only in wealthy inventories; one was set down at 11sh. in 1590 42. But by the late seventeenth century, warming pans occurred in chapmen’s inventories; they were stocked in ordinary shops (see below).

Now to get some idea of the specifi c items made in diff erent metals. We begin with two somewhat detailed inventories, one from a farmer in County

Durham in 1586 and the other from Yorkshire in the early seventeenth century. In 1586 a well-off farmer left £4 19s. worth of tableware and kitchen utensils. Nearly 41 percent consisted of brass items, including four pans, three pots, three kettles, two chafi ng dishes, a mortar, three skimmers and two ladles.

Nearly 13 percent was ironware, including a broiling iron, a trivet, a pestle, pothooks, a frying pan, a “little” dripping pan, two mincing knives, two cleav— ers, racks and spits. Fireside items were also iron: tongs, shovel, “crooks” (for raking ashes). Tin items came to just over 21 percent and pewter, just over 25 percent. The tinware included table and household items: a breadgrate, two 418 Early Modern England | Sudha Shenoy

pottingers, a “livery” pot, two pint pots, a quart pot, six fl ower pots, a basin and ewer, three chamber pots. The tableware consisted of two salts, four trenchers and twelve spoons, all tin; and a pie plate, four platters and eight saucers, all pewter. He also had a pewter hand basin, and seven candlesticks, two tin and fi ve of good quality brass. A press contained more pewter 43.

The early seventeenth century inventory came to £16 17s. 10d. Nearly

25 percent consisted of pewter (unspecifi ed); brassware and a copper cal— dron made up just over 52 percent: including a chafi ng dish, mortars and pestles, pans, kettles, three pots, a “posnett” and a very large number of “old”

pots. Ironware came to just over 23 percent: spits, pothooks, “crooks”, gridiron, ladles, fi ve chopping knives, two forks, a frying pan, fi ve dripping pans, a skimmer 44.

In 1614, emigrants to Bermuda were advised to bring much the same list of metal goods: pots, kettles, dripping pans, trivets, spits, candlesticks, tankards, tongs, shovels; together with tinder boxes, lamps, locks, thimbles, shears and scissors. Wooden items were also recommended: pails, barrels, jars, bowls, trays 45.

In the chapmen’s inventories (met earlier): In 1588 a chapman of Winslow (Bucks) had a fi reshovel, tongs, and irons and bellows, together with pothooks, a kettle, a salt, six platters and three candlesticks, all worth 12sh. 2d. or just under 22 percent of the total inventory. (The type of metal was not given.)

A chapman of Linge (Norfolk) left domestic goods worth £2 6s. 7d. in 1596, most of which consisted of a 5oz silver cup and a stone pot ornamented with silver, together valued at £1 7s. 6d. In 1613, a Lincolnshire chapman left two candlesticks, two salts and “12 pieces of pewter” with a cupboard, all worth

16s. He also had cobirons, pothooks, spits, a dripping pan, a frying pan, a posnett, two pans, three kettles and two brass pots, all valued at £1 4s. The metalware came to a third of his inventory.

In 1691, in Randwick (Glos.) a chapman left a considerable range of metal goods, in a domestic inventory worth £14 12s. He had silver tasters worth 10s., pewter worth £3 1s. (21 percent of the total); brassware valued at £4 2s.

(28 percent of the total); and other metal goods that came to £2 2s. (over 14 percent of the total value). His pewter included a pint pot, four tankards, 16 dishes, 18 plates, 18 porringers, eight candlesticks and two chamber pots. The brass goods consisted of a basin, a pan, three kettles, three large pots, four sconces and three candlesticks. The remaining metalware included frying pans, two skillets, a bell metal pot, andirons and a fi regrate. In 1692, in Lincolnshire, a female chapman left domestic goods worth £2 12sh. including “some little brass and pewter”, a frying pan and “other utensils”. A Canterbury chapman in 1703 left household goods worth £18 3s.; they included Early Modern England | Sudha Shenoy 419

pots, skillets, a jack, spits, a kneading trough, a pewter warming pan, creepers [used in the kitchen to hold pots over the fl ame], tongs, a fi re pan, unspecifi ed earthenware and (mysteriously) two guns. He also had a silver tankard and two silver spoons, all worth £7. A chapman in Sittingbourne, much better off , had a domestic inventory worth £30 13s. 6d. in 1704. It included two fi re shovels, tongs, creepers, a fender, coal racks, cobirons, spits, pothangers, pothooks, a chafi ng dish, a warming pan, a salamander [a closed pan put directly into the fi re], a skillet, a trivet, two iron pots and two frying pans. He had three brass candlesticks and his pewter included six porringers, four saucers, 14 dishes and 12 plates. Finally, in 1707, another Canterbury chapman left domestic goods worth £18 2s., including tongs, bellows, andirons, creepers, fi repans, a spit, a gridiron, a dripping pan, a warming pan and three iron pots. His brassware consisted of a saucepan, a skimmer, two skillets and a mortar and pestle. His pewter (worth just £1) consisted of three candlesticks, six porringers and “great and small dishes”. He also had eight earthen plates, six earthen dishes and a “vial in a case”.

The contents of a chapman’s shop in Chatham (inventoried in 1703) give an idea of the metal goods produced by the end of the seventeenth century. It contained pewter, brass, tin and iron items. The pewter consisted of spoons, dishes, pots, porringers and chamber pots, all of various sizes. There were brass warming pans and ladles; tin kettles, frying pans, pudding pans, pint and quart pots, funnels and lanterns; iron fi repans and tongs. Older style goods were distinguished from those in the newer fashion 46.

Lastly, at the lowest end of the scale: In Norwich, in 1584, a poor man left goods worth £5 19s. 3d., including pewter candlesticks. In 1618, a “poor lame man and almost blind”, left goods worth £2 6s. 8d. His clothing and bedding came to £1 6s. 8d. so all his other goods were worth just £1. These included three old kettles valued at 6s. 8d, leaving 13s. 4d. to cover everything else. But this included two little pewter dishes, three saucers and six trenchers (presumably tin); a “little gridiron”; six dishes and wooden platters and two earthen pots. By the early seventeenth century, metalware was produced in suffi cient quantities to turn up even in such inventories 47.

Other types of metal consumer goods were also produced in growing quantities during these two centuries. They included tinder boxes, locks of all kinds, bolts, hinges and candlesnuff ers. Better-off households had fi rebacks:

metal screens at the back of the fi replace to radiate heat back into the room. In the later sixteenth century, doorknockers were produced (before then, one beat on the door with a stick until someone came out to see what the awful noise was). In the seventeenth century, doorlock, hinges and other metalwork were all made to match, in wealthier households. Simple types of chandeliers were now made by the local blacksmith, ie this type of illumination now reached far 420 Early Modern England | Sudha Shenoy

down the scale. Candles improved in quality, so candlestick design changed accordingly. In the early part of the century, whale-oil lamps were introduced.

In the later part, wire fi rescreens began to be produced. Copper trenchers, wine coolers and new types of pewter tableware were also produced for the better-off 48.

Beyond the Basics

So far, we have examined the basic consumer goods — food, clothing, footwear, household linen, domestic metalware. We now come to non-basic goods and services, and housing. The early modern period saw a large increase in the mass availabilities of goods such as glassware and books that hitherto had fi rmly remained luxury goods. Leisure goods and services also rose substantially, while in housing this period is (still) known as the Great Rebuilding. In sum: not only had the range, qualities and quantities of ‘basic’ consumer goods all expanded signifi cantly, non-basic goods were increasing in importance. So the overall range of fi rst order goods was growing signifi cantly.

Pottery

During the sixteenth century, pottery improved in quality and there was a larger variety. New types of decoration appeared. Specifi c types were made for apothecaries and the like; this continued in the seventeenth century. Tableware remained a luxury good; the better quality stoneware, including wine bottles, was imported from Germany. Good quality glass was also a luxury good; the best was, of course, imported. The great households had large quantities and many varieties of glassware. William Harrison said the wealthy preferred it;

even the poorest, however, had some poor-quality glass. At the mass consumption level, green glass continued to be the norm; two or three kinds of drinking glasses were produced. Beer glasses were now common place. Small containers for conserves etc were also made. Small bottles were used for medicines and medical purposes. Larger bottles were covered with wickerwork or leather for protection; this practice continued in the next century.

The seventeenth century saw a substantial growth in types of pottery;

variety of patterns, fi nishes and decorations; and range of techniques used.

New shapes, colours and motifs were added. Some types of ornamenta— tion used mass production methods — an indirect indication of the quantities made. Elaborate mugs were produced for special occasions. Display pieces were produced. Porcelain was now imported from China. It was a luxury good, but quantities and variety increased. Bottles were now produced for both beer and the new drink, mineral water. The quantities of glassware Early Modern England | Sudha Shenoy 421

increased substantially. Thus, even by the end of the sixteenth century, a special display and storage cupboard for glasses was widely found in yeomen’s houses. Glassware turned up in inventories quite far down the social scale. In

1595, a chapman in Linge (Norfolk) owned four glasses worth 8d. A widow in Stratford left two Venetian glasses and fi ve small green glasses in 1631. And in 1642, a Newcastle chapman had “great glasses” in his stock, valued at 8d.

Glassmen and cratemen peddled glass and pottery round the villages, packing their wares in straw 49.

C.G.A. Clay summarises all these developments succinctly: “By 1700, labouring people” had such things as “coloured stockings, gloves, buckled shoes, linen neckerchieves…ribbon-trimmed hats…brass pots, iron frying pans, cutlery…glazed earthenware” which “their predecessors of the mid-sixteenth century” had never owned. And prosperous farmers now had:

“pots and pans of copper and brass; plates, drinking vessels and candlesticks of pewter; cutlery, glassware, table and bed linen, wall hangings and window curtains; cast iron fi rebacks; and, by the later seventeenth century, clocks and carpets…” 50.

Published Materials (Are Also Final Outputs)

As material resources increased, they were also used to provide literary sustenance on a mass scale, for the fi rst time. From the early sixteenth century onwards, and escalating through the seventeenth, ultra-cheap publications

— ballads, almanacs, chapbooks, pamphlets, broadsides, etc — became mass-consumption items. By at least the 1570’s, if not earlier, chapmen carried them to all regions; they were stocked in grocers’ and general shops and hawked by street-sellers. There was an “immense diversity of popular literature”. Subjects included: etiquette, letter-writing, arithmetic, gardening, cookery, astrol— ogy, palmistry, dream-interpretation, humour, riddles, satire, historical fi ction

[extremely popular], other fi ction, crime, courtship, religion, theology, rags— to-riches stories, DIY law, etc. The legal guides were for small craftsmen and husbandmen. The central characters of fi ction were likewise drawn from these levels. All segments of the readership were already being catered for: stories were published in a range of lengths and prices.

Sales were substantial: some 300,000 to 400,000 almanacs in the 1660’s.

A single publisher in 1664 had 90,000 books in stock. Of his 10,000 bound books, 94% were priced at 6d or less, and more than one-third at 2½d or less.

In the 1520’s, an Oxford bookseller sold about 190 ballads per day at ½d each.

A Lowestoft general shop had 79 books in stock, at an average price of just under 3½d each, in 1590. In the 1660’s, chapbook prices ranged from 2½d 422 Early Modern England | Sudha Shenoy

to 6d. Twenty years later, most cost between 2d and 3d — i.e quantities had increased and prices had fallen. Ballads were a penny each. For comparison:

in 1674, 59 out of 73 books in a “respectable” catalogue were priced at 1sh.6d or higher. Six books cost between 4d and 6d. Just two books were priced at

3d each.

Inventories generally listed items worth from one shilling upwards, so books, including chapbooks, would only appear when their total or individual value was at least that sum. But even at low income levels, the average value came to appreciably more. In Norwich, in the late sixteenth century, 20% of low-income inventories contained books, the average total being 7s.4d. A century later, this proportion fell to 16%, and the overall value also declined, to 4sh.

But, from the slight evidence above, chapbook prices were declining. Some testators left “libraries” worth between £1 and £1 10s. Religious books were often specifi ed. A musician left a Bible and a religious treatise, each valued at

10sh. A joiner had 13 “books” [non-religious] worth an average of 1sh.6d each. What appears to be a bookseller’s stock of 70 books came to an average of 4½d each. In the Forest of Arden in 1614, a labourer left “sertayne small bookes” worth 10s 51.

Leisure Activities (Are Also Final Outputs)

Leisure activity also expanded and diversifi ed — again, as resources rose, they were used to provide the material means needed for leisure pursuits. As religious ideas and practices changed, communal celebrations and festivities shifted to the alehouse, particularly on the traditional occasions. Traditional

Sunday games also moved. Thus, as material resources increased, they became more specialised: specifi c fi xed assets and circulating capital became available for leisure activities; clerical assets were used for religious purposes only.

Thus, increased resources underpinned changed religious ideas.

Alehouse-keepers built bowling alleys and supplied bowls, balls and cud— gels for games and contests. A whole new range of indoor games appeared:

especially as cards were produced in quantity and so became cheaper. Other games included backgammon; Peter Clark lists some thirteen in all. Each of these had their own material requirements, eg, boards, counters, etc. In toto, throughout the country, the material resources involved would have been appreciable. Many games were copied from the social levels above: the growth in resources allowed the leisure pursuits of the leisured classes to become mass-consumption goods. Various types of gambling also appeared, to the horror of puritans and some magistrates. The alehouse was also an entertainment centre; both amateur and professional. It was the venue for professional Early Modern England | Sudha Shenoy 423

travelling entertainers — fi ddlers, jugglers, dancers, singers, bear-keepers. All these lodged at the alehouse, where formerly they might have been put up by the local landowner. Again, with more resources came greater specialisation.

But this is also one small example of a necessary change in attitude, which permitted wider exchange relations. Formerly, exchange had been largely local and semi-autarkic. Hence, the large landowner, as head of a face-to-face community, dealt with outsiders, who came from outside this local semi-closed exchange network. But, for exchange relations to open up, this distinction had to be replaced by an attitude which treated all comers equally. As people thus formed intricate and extended exchange relationships with people they could never meet, “social” and “economic” — ie exchange — relationships separated.

Thus, the local “community” gradually dissolved into a far wider network and so this particular aspect of land-ownership also disappeared. Increased resources being the other side of this coin, people were now able to directly purchase the leisure services now being produced.

Thus, London already had a professional, permanent entertainment industry. Clowns, acrobats, fencers, puppeteers and the like found audiences continuously. Singers included both topical and traditional ballads in their performances. By the late sixteenth century, there were several “public” theatres, where the cheapest admission was just a penny. From the early seventeenth century, “private” theatres were built in and around Drury Lane; admission was 6d. All theatres were closed in the mid-seventeenth century. After 1660, plays moved to the streets and to taverns, where there were regular performances. The works included those of Shakespeare, of course, but also those by most of the well-known seventeenth century playwrights. Many had classical subjects. Thus, elements of “high” culture percolated into “popular” culture — ie once again as resources increased, the leisure activities of the “cultured” minority became those of the masses.

In Bristol, professional entertainment such as plays, tightrope-walking etc was mainly found during the two large fairs, in January and July. Otherwise, leisure pursuits included fi shing, walking and shooting: craftsmen and shopkeepers owned fowling-pieces and similar guns 52.

The vocal and instrumental music of this period is mostly for individual performance or for relatively small forces — several stringed instruments. This refl ects the types of capital goods available for musical purposes: the products of relatively short capital structures, as compared with what came later.

Housing (Is a Consumer Asset)

We come now to housing, the most signifi cant durable “consumer” asset.

Houses at this period were still both production and consumption assets.

What was new was the growing importance of the latter, relative to the former:

resources devoted to both were increasing and becoming more specialised.

As we shall see, with increasing output, the volume of agricultural processing also grew. This processing was partly for sale, partly for home consumption, depending on the commodity and on circumstances. The result was greater specialisation of function: other, complementary capital outputs also increased so that the larger volume of production activities could be conducted in separate rooms. Separate storage also became possible. This meant, for the fi rst time, rooms devoted principally or even solely to living and sleeping — ie consumption rather than production. All this now occurred in “permanent”, ie more capital-using, housing.

The spread of such housing began around the fifteenth century, but it accelerated in the late sixteenth and continued through into the early eighteenth century, in a series of waves. Within this overall development, rebuilding and modernisation proceeded at diff erent rates and periods in diff erent regions. There were overall peaks in the decades 1570-89 and 1620-39, while the fi nal period of 1660-1739 saw a substantial rise even above these peaks 53.

Contemporaneous observers, writing in the late sixteenth century, are emphatic about the striking improvements since the earlier part of the century; but it is now clear that, as yet, these improvements are found in particular areas only. Still, these reports come from widely separated regions: the south of England (William Harrison), Cheshire (William Smith), Cornwall (Richard Carew). All agree that in the early sixteenth century, people had their fi res on small open hearths in the centre of the room. Carew says there was only a hole to let the smoke out. He adds: houses had earthen walls and fl oors, low thatched roofs, and few internal partitions. Smith says people still lived like the

Saxons, with their cattle in the same building. But now in all regions, houses had chimneys — this means enclosed brick or stone hearths, against a wall.

Harrison and Carew both underline the new abundance of glass windows;

Harrison says houses are now warmer and draught-proof, with wall-hangings of suitable types at all levels. Carew points to wooden fl ooring 54.

Signifi cantly, a century later, an observer in Staff ordshire is dismayed to still fi nd conical turf-built cottages, which he compares to the housing in Tierra del Fuego. In Northumbria, a writer refers to “mean” cottages that have no windows and only one storey 55. These reactions from the late seventeenth century demonstrate that now even the most ordinary houses embodied more capital than before.

We begin with labourers. (Contemporaneously, they were not seen as a distinct group, occupationally or socially). Many put up their own houses.

Everitt says the description of “the majority of landless labourers” as living in

“a one-room hovel of dirt and sticks…is probably not far off the mark”. But contemporaneous observers saw a distinction between labourers’ housing and the sort of temporary hut that charcoal-burners and the very poorest built.

One such basket-maker, “upon want …of another house” lived in “a sorry cote…of sticks and turves” pitched in a rock cranny in Charnwood Forest in 1604. Labourers’ houses, on the other hand, were simply built, of local materials: mostly a wood frame infi lled with clay, and thatched with straw, bracken or reeds. Labourers with some skills could plaster the clay over; and in particular areas, fl int and clunch, cob, or stone and clay were used. Such houses needed renewal periodically; but craftsman-built houses were, of course, more permanent. Cottage-building, on the wastes and elsewhere, accelerated from the later sixteenth century onwards 56.

Up to 1550, most cottages had just one room. Then, in many cases, the room was divided horizontally or vertically, so by the early 17th century, single-storey cottages with one or two rooms were the most common type. By 1640, two rooms had become the norm, and by the later 17th century, there was usually a third “service” room for production purposes. Only the very poorest now lived in a single room. Rows of single-storey cottages with a room “chambered over” continued beyond this period; a detached version appeared after

1660. In some northern areas, one-room cottages were built into the early nineteenth century. Before 1640, they were open to the thatch roof, but had a fi replace. Cottages with two rooms plus fi replace were found in the West of

England.

Cob cottages were still built in the Midlands, and also in Cumberland and the West Country, but they now had stone or brick foundations and weather-proof plaster. Two houses of clay and timber cost about £12 each to build, in

Yorkshire in the 1660’s and on a Lincolnshire estate in 1684. The fi rst had a clay chimney; the second was of two storeys, with a thatched roof and glazed windows. Carpenters constructed the building and the chambers (plural) so it probably had four rooms. Thatcher and glazier were also employed. In the north, in the late seventeenth century, large numbers of cottages were built in stone, not clay. Elsewhere, clay turned to more durable and capital-using brick after 1700.

Turning now to inventories: between 1560 and 1640, amongst labourers’

inventories from all regions in England, some 27 per cent specifi ed the number of rooms. There is a pronounced shift in these inventories to 3 rooms or more (Table 8.1 — rooms were mentioned only to identify goods, so in other cases, we cannot assume fewer rooms).

Table 8.1

Percent Of Labourers’ Inventories Mentioning:

1560-16001630-40

2 rooms44%21%

3 rooms28%41%

4 + rooms28%38%

Source: Everitt, AHEW, Vol IV, p. 443.

Some inventories specifi cally mention a “service” room — buttery or milk— house — containing an impressive array of cheese-and butter-making equipment: vats, presses, racks, “steans”, churns, barrels, casks, fi rkins, skimmers, tubs, bowls, etc 57.

Above the labourer, there were farmers, small to large (husbandmen, yeomen, lesser gentry). We begin fi rst with inventories and wills from Lincolnshire, covering all wealth groups. There is a dramatic rise in the proportion of inventories specifying the number of rooms, together with a rise in house size

(Table 8.2).

Table 8.2

Lincolnshire Inventories and House Size

(Percent to total)

1540 — %1694 — %

Inventories mentioning rooms35.295.2

1-3 rooms21.635

4 + rooms13.660.2

Source: Barley, “Farmhouses” pp. 293-94

From the Forest of Arden, come the inventories of mainly small to middling farmers. Again, there is a pronounced increase in size (Table 8.3). Between

1550-74 and 1625-49, the average house went from 2½ to 6½ rooms in size.

Table 8.3

Forest of Arden Inventories, House Size

(Percent to total)

1530-69 — %1625-49 — %

1-3 rooms8624

4 + rooms1476

Source: Barley, “Farmhouses” pp. 293-94

Carole Shammas has analysed inventories, both rural and urban, from

Oxfordshire, South Worcestershire and East London, according to wealth.

In the low-wealth group, the proportion of inventories specifying house size increased by over one-third; it remained steady in the upper income group.

The size of house likewise rose appreciably more amongst those with less wealth (Table 8.4).

Table 8.4

Wealth and House Size, South of England

(Percent to total)

E. London

Oxon,S. Worcs

A) Low Wealth1663-64

1550-90 — %1669-70 — %

— %

Inventories

38.452.754.4mentioning rooms

1-3 rooms24.020.630.0

4+ rooms14.432.124.4

B) Medium to High Wealth

Inventories

68.366.069.2mentioning rooms

1-3 rooms30.911.211.9

4+ rooms37.454.857.3

Source: Shammas, Pre-industrial Consumer, Table 6.1

In these two centuries, medieval houses were modernised at fi rst: the large single-storey hall was roofed over, with extra rooms above. Larger rooms were divided by solid partitions. Fireplace, chimney, staircase and glazed windows were added. Staircases, in particular, spread very rapidly. As more fi replaces were put in, a chimney stack was built. Then, more and more rooms were added: separate store rooms and more service rooms, for brewing, baking, and making cheese and butter. Multipurpose rooms were thus gradually replaced by separate work and living/ sleeping rooms; separate kitchens appeared only in the later 17th century. New houses were built on this pattern. Brick and stone began to be used from about 1650 onwards. Kilnhouses, malthouses and extra barns were added in areas where they were needed. Thus, in the northeast Midlands, a two-room house gradually became one with four rooms and two storeys, with lofts to store grain and extra chambers and parlours.

In northern England, the changes were less extensive and came much later, but there were improvements nevertheless. Housing remained mostly single-storey, but fi replaces and chimneys were put in and more rooms added on. 428 Early Modern England | Sudha Shenoy

Especially in the later seventeenth century, timber and clay were replaced by stone, further and further down the scale. In the north-west, the fi replace was enlarged to fi ll nearly one-third the room. An upper storey and stone staircase were added. Reconstruction was most extensive in the textile areas. And hundreds of houses in the Pennines can be dated to the period 1660-1700, from their use of stone.

Changes and improvements continued in both upland and lowland areas during the seventeenth century. To illustrate: farm house sizes and numbers of service rooms continued to grow in both Kent and Derbyshire. But Kent was building on an established base; in Derbyshire, the increases were more dramatic in relative terms. Derbyshire farmers also operated on a smaller scale

(Table 8.5).

Table 8.5

House Size and Service Rooms,

Kent and Derbyshire

(No. of inventories)

KentDerbyshire

A. House Size1640s1690s1640s1690s1-3 rooms36341231

4+ rooms1025114

B. Service Rooms

1-2 rooms2823725

3+ rooms163723

Source: Barley, AHEW, Vol I, pp. 664, 665

By now, all farms had at least one storeroom, which contained corn, malt or wool in Kent, cheese in Derbyshire 58.

Amongst the lesser gentry, modernisation began earlier and houses became even larger, with separate kitchens, a larger number of distinct service rooms, and separate storage for various products: eg, cheese, apples, wool, hemp, wheat, oats, etc. Living-in workers had separate chambers or lofts. There were several chambers for the family, fi replaces in all (or most) living rooms and glazed windows. Living and sleeping accommodation began to be separated.

The principal rooms had ornamental plasterwork on walls, ceilings and man— tle-pieces, and wooden panelling to keep out draughts and damp.

In the later seventeenth century, more rooms were added; there was a far greater variety of designs and arrangement. Brick and stone were used from Early Modern England | Sudha Shenoy 429

the mid-seventeenth century onwards. Earlier in the period, walled gardens were added to the house, while farm buildings were separated. The latter now included barns, byre, stables, carthouse, etc 59.

Thus, through these two centuries in England, we fi nd at all social levels:- more houses, with more rooms; the spread of modernisation and improvement

— more substantial in the case of gentry and farmers, but even northern cottagers got fi replaces and windows; and a gradual shift towards more permanent materials and construction. Among building materials, the quantity and quality of glass improved dramatically from the later sixteenth century onwards (see ch. 10).

Carole Shammas fi nds the criterion of the Great Rebuilding in a house with at least two storeys and four rooms, in timber, stone or brick. Such are the buildings “described in surveys of surviving houses”. She goes on: to build a house of this type in the later seventeenth century cost between £40 and £100.

So “how far down the economic ladder” could the rebuilding go? — since cottagers and labourers had annual incomes of somewhere around £6 to £17

(according to Gregory King). She feels that such improved houses were probably confi ned to perhaps one-third of the rural population — yeomen and substantial farmers 60.

The criterion used above is mechanistic and permits only a very narrow picture of housing developments in this period. As we have just seen, changes, improvements and additions spread very widely, both regionally and socially.

The existing housing stock was gradually modifi ed; new building was only a small part of the whole, and even here, various types of houses were constructed at all levels. In particular, this criterion cannot pick up the very signifi - cant changes occurring in the north.

In all these developments in housing, most historians see only a change in taste. Machin refers to “the medieval preference for impermanent buildings”. M.W. Barley says: Partly because of the larger volume of processing and “partly because of rise in standards,…families wished to have some rooms for family use not cluttered with churns, tubs and other utensils”. The north lagged behind other areas (he says) so long as it was “untouched by the new ideas of comfort and convenience which had fl ooded…the lowland zone…”

W.G. Hoskins puts it lucidly:

“…the cause of the Great Rebuilding [is] the fi ltering down to the mass of the population…of a sense of privacy [formerly] enjoyed only by the upper classes. Privacy demands more rooms…to achieve all this in a house of moderate size, we have two fl oors instead of one”.

Specialised rooms “[represent] a withdrawal from the common life”. Such a withdrawal is “refl ected even in farmhouses, in the increasing use of the chair instead of the bench”. Privacy gradually shifts down over time, from head of household to other members. Everyone eventually gets a chair. Then, on the upper fl oor, instead of the various rooms opening straight into one another, a corridor is built: each room is now separate 61.

Now, to achieve all these new ends, additional resources are needed. Permanent building materials, separate family rooms, comfort and convenience, privacy, two fl oors, many specialised rooms, individual chairs, a corridor — all require signifi cantly more resources than before. Moreover, all these changes are found not just in one house, but in tens of thousands across the realm

(eventually).

Thus: to make bricks requires brick-earth; labour and tools to dig it up;

moulds; a kiln with fi rewood; expert fi ring. Similarly, appropriate tools and expertise are needed to dress stone and construct a building. Partitioning a house into smaller rooms on two fl oors requires quantities of wood, carpenters, and tools. Individual chairs for everyone add up to far more wood than one or two benches; besides needing the joiner’s expertise and tools, rather than the carpenter’s. A corridor requires an extra partition and space to spare, so it can be used only for passing to and fro. Furthermore, it presupposes that upper rooms are not also used for storage and work: ie a complete specialisation of function. Fireplaces require bricks or prepared stone, and chimneys of clay or bricks. Glazed windows need glaziers, window glass and wood frames. Thus, even labourers’ houses in due course came to require some craft expertise; and enlargements, of course, meant more labour, materials, and use of tools. And behind most of the above developments, lie a greater use of wood and woodcutting labour and tools, plus more transport services: horses, carts, etc.

So, if we start from the direct supply of housing services and move back into the preceding stages of production, we fi nd that more skilled labour and complementary physical investments are being used in these stages. The additional and improved outputs produced here fl ow into housing, so the latter now provides a much-improved fl ow of consumption services as well as better production facilities. It is because such additional resources were produced that what seems so obvious to historians — a change in taste — could manifest itself. Returning to Machin’s suggestion that medieval people preferred clay houses: this is rather like saying that people in the LDCs, in the late twentieth century, live in windowless mud huts because they prefer to. In fact, resources are not available for all housing to be made of permanent materials. This was also the situation in medieval England.

F O O T N O T E S C H A P T E R 8

1. Kerridge, Textile Manufactures in Early Modern England (Manchester 1985) pp.1923, 35, 40-41, 45-56, 51-53, 80, 87-88, 120, 122, 125, etc.

2. Joan Thirsk, Economic Policy and Projects (Oxford: Clarendon Press 1978) p.106.3. William Harrison, The Description of England, ed. Georges Edelen (1587; repr.

Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press 1968).

4. Quoted in W.G. Hoskins, “The rebuilding of rural England, 1570-1640”, Past and

Present no.4 (November 1953) p.45.5. Margaret Spufford, Contrasting Communities: English Villagers in the Sixteenth and Seventeenth Centuries (Cambridge University Press 1974) p.143 (1589), p.142

(1591), pp.141-42 (1594).

6. Spuff ord, The Great Reclothing: Petty Chapmen and their Wares (London: Hambledon Press 1984), p.110; S.W. Wolsey and R.W.P. Luff , Furniture in England: The

Age of the Joiner (London: Arthur Barker Ltd. 1968) p.9.

7. Skipp, Crisis and Development: An Ecological Case Study of the Forest of Arden, 1570-

1674 (Cambridge University Press), p.71.8. Carole Shammas, The Pre-Industrial Consumer in England and America (Oxford:Clarendon Press 1990) Table 4.8 (linen prices); p.173 (linen in inventories); p.179

(household size not wealth).

9. Spuff ord, Great Reclothing, p.117.

10. Everitt, AHEW, Vol.IV, p.446 (1614); p.448 (1612); p.447 (1617).11. Spuff ord, Great Reclothing, p.175 (1588); p.178 (1613); p.214 (1703); pp.216-217

(1704); p.167 (1707).

12. Ibid, pp.115-116 (Warks), p.116 (Cambs), p.115 (Salop).13. Ibid, pp.114, 112-113 (based on 1696 guidebook).14. Shammas, Pre-Industrial Tables 4.5, 4.6.

15. J.F. Pound, Tudor and Stuart Norwich (Chichester: Phillimore 1988) p.13816. ibid, pp.137, 138.

17. Spuff ord, Contrasting, p.142 (1591), p.141 (1594), p.75 (1675); Wolsey and Luff , p.6 (1592 tanner); M.W. Barley, AHEW, Vol.IV, pp.751-52 (1613); Skipp, “Economic and Social Change in the Forest of Arden, 1530-1649” in J. Thirsk (ed) Land,

Church and People (1970), p.109; Ralph Fastnedge, “Furniture” in Ralph Edwards et al, The Stuart Period 1603-1714 (London: The Connoisseur 1957), p.34 (1638).18. Everitt, AHEW, Vol.IV, p.456 (1611), p.447 (1617), pp.447-48 (1634), p.447 (1637),p.449 (living in servants).

19. Spufford, Great Reclothing, p.175 (1588), p.178 (1613), p. 153 (1680), p.190

(1691), pp. 213, 214 (1703), p.217 (1704), p.167 (1707).

20. John Hunt, “Furniture” in Ralph Edwards et al., The Tudor Period, 1500-1603 (London: The Connoisseur 1956) pp.40-41; Fastnedge in Edwards at al, Stuart Period, p.36. For chairs, chests and other furniture, see below.21. Wolsey and Luff , p.13, 66 (from carpenters to turners); pp.13, 15, 47-48 (joined furniture); Hunt in Edwards et al, Tudor Period, p.39 (turned chairs, stools).22. Wolsey and Luff, p.43 (framed tables), pp.15, 73-74 (covered chairs), pp.36-37

(court cupboards), pp.65-66 (carpentry stool), p.27 (kitchen chests), p.31 (joined chests); Hunt in Edwards et al, Tudor Period, p.43 (framed tables), p.42 (stool sets),p.34 (chests); Fastnedge in Edwards et al, Stuart Period, p.34 (chests), p.35 (largerfarmers).

23. Wolsey and Luff , pp.16-17 (1632 case); p.17 (quote).

24. Fastnedge in Edwards et al, Stuart Period, p.39 (quote, wainscot furniture), p.34

(quote, chairs), pp.35, 36, 37, 39; Wolsey and Luff , p.71 (single chair).

25. Fastnedge in Edwards et al, Stuart Period, pp.31, 35, 39-41, 43-45. Quotes from pp.45-56, 43-44; Wolsey and Luff , pp.70, 71, 34.

26. Wolsey and Luff, p.8 (quote); Fastnedge in Edwards et al, Stuart Period, p.32

(quote).

27. Byrne, Lisle Letters, Vol.6, App.E.

28. Wolsey and Luff , App.A; Hunt in Edwards et al, Tudor Period, pp.33-34.29. Fastnedge in Edwards et al, Stuart Period, p.33 (quote), p.32.30. Skipp, Crisis, p.63 (quote); Skipp, “Economic and social…,” Table X.31. Wolsey and Luff, pp. 6, 8-9, 32, 68; M.W. Barley in AHEW, Vol.IV, 1500-1640,pp.751-52; Fastnedge in Edwards et al, Stuart Period, p.34.32. Spuff ord, Contrasting, pp.40, 41, 74-75.33. Spuff ord, Great Reclothing, p.158 (1596), p.178 (1613), p.183 (1680), p.167 (1692),pp.213, 214 (1703), pp.216, 217 (1704), pp.167-68 (1707).

34. Previous para: Everitt, AHEW, Vol IV, 1500-1640, p.454 (quote), p.446 (1611), p.448 (1612), p.446 (1632, 1635), p.447 (1637); this para: Pound, Norwich, p.137.

35. Palliser, The Age of Elizabeth 1547-1603 (2nd ed, Longman 1992), p.134; Thirsk,

Economic Policy, p.106.

36. C.G.A. Clay, Economic Expansion and Social Change (C.U.P. 1984) Vol II, p.59.37. Hunt in Edwards et al, Tudor Period, pp.44, 36 (spoons); G. Bernard Hughes,“Domestic Metalwork:” in Edwards et al, Stuart Period, p.115; quote from Carew:Hoskins, “The rebuilding…”, p.45.

38. G. Bernard Hughes, “Domestic Metalwork” in Edwards et al, Tudor Period, p.98

(spoons), pp.95-96 (pewter sizes); Hughes in Edwards et al, Stuart Period, p.115.

Quotes from William Harrison, Description, p.367 (garnish), p.201 (treen, exchangeof vessel), p.200 (inferior), p.202 (fair garnish).

39. Palliser, Age, pp.134-35; Spuff ord, Contrasting, p.75.40. Skipp, “Economic and social…”, Table X.

41. Shammas, Pre-Industrial, Table 4.5.

42. Hughes in Edwards et al, Tudor Period, pp.92-93.43. Hughes in Edwards et al, Tudor Period, p.96.44. Hughes in Edwards et al, Stuart Period, pp.113-114.45. Thirsk, Economic Policy, pp.49-50

46. Spuff ord, Great Reclothing, pp.175-76 (1588), p.158 (1596), p.178 (1613), p.193

(1691), p.167 (1692), p.213 (1703), pp.216, 217 (1704), pp.167, 168 (1707); p.85

(Chatham, 1703).

47. Pound, Norwich, p.137.

48. Hughes in Edwards et al, Tudor Period, passim; also p.95 (doorknockers); Hughes in

Edwards et al, Stuart Period, pp.111, 113-115.49. The above material, on pottery and glassware, is based on: R.J. Charleston, “Pottery,Porcelain and Glass” in Ralph Edwards et al, The Tudor Period, 1500-1603 (TheConnoisseur, 1956) and in Ralph Edwards et al, The Stuart Period, 1603-1714 (TheConnoisseur, 1957). Special glass cupboard, Stratford widow: Wolsey and Luff , p.

42. Chapmen: Spuff ord, Great Reclothing, pp. 159, 189. Glassmen and cratemen:Thirsk, Economic Policy, p. 123; also see Willan, Inland, p. 77.

50. Clay, Economic Expansion II, pp. 31 and 24.51. The material on books: the main reference is, of course, Margaret Spuff ord, Small

Books and Pleasant Histories (Methuen 1981) 1570s: pp. xvii, xix. Various sellers:

Ch I, esp. pp. 125-26, also pp. 10-11. Subjects: pp. 136-37. Legal guides: pp.

60-61. Sales: pp. 100-101. 1520’s: p. 14. Lowestoft: p. 125. Chapbook prices:

p. 48. 1674 catalogue: p. 151. Inventories: p. 48. “Immense diversity…”: Bernard Capp, “Popular Literature: in Barry Reay (ed) Popular Culture in Seventeenth

Century England (Croom Helm 1985) p. 229. Central fi ctional characters: Capp, p. 204. All segments: Capp, p. 201. Norwich inventories: Pound, Norwich, p. 139.

Also see: Jonathan Barry, “Popular Culture in Seventeenth Century Bristol”, pp.

65-70 and Peter Burke, “Popular Culture in Seventeenth Century London”, pp.

49-50; both in Reay (ed). Forest of Arden: Victor Skipp, Crisis, pp. 83-84.52. Leisure activities: based on: Peter Clark, The English Alehouse: A Social History,

1200-1830 (Longman 1983) pp 152-157; Peter Burke, “London” in Reay (ed), pp.

39-41; interaction of two cultures: pp. 32-34; Jonathan Barry, “Bristol” in Reay (ed)

pp. 78-79 and p. 90, fn. 50.

53. R. Machin, “The Great Rebuilding: a reassessment”, Past and Present, no. 77,

1977.

54. Harrison, Description, pp. 197, 200-201. Smith: Palliser, Age of Elizabeth, p. 129.

Carew: W.G. Hoskins, “The rebuilding …”, p. 45.

55. Palliser, Age, p. 133.

56. Everitt quote: AHEW, Vol IV, p. 442. Basket-maker: quoted by Barley, AHEW, Vol

IV, p. 752. For other points see Everitt, p. 445..

57. Labourers’ housing: Alan Everitt, “Farm labourers”, Ch. 7 in AHEW, Vol IV, pp.

442-448; Barley, AHEW, Vol IV, pp. 761-66; M.W. Barley, “Rural housing in England”, Ch. 20 AHEW, Vol I, pp. 677-682; Hoskins, “Rebuilding”, P&P no. 4, Nov.

1953, pp. 48-49. Yorkshire house, 1660’s: Shammas, Pre-Industrial p. 160.58. Yeomen and husbandmen: M.W. Barley, “Farmhouses and Cottages, 1550-1725”,Econ. Hist. Rev., sec. ser. VII, 1954-55, pp. 291-306; idem, AHEW, Vol IV, pp. 734-60; idem, AHEW, Vol V, pp. 591-600, 619-32; Shammas, Pre-Industrial, pp. 157-65; pp 62-64; Hoskins, “Rebuilding”, P&P no. 4, Nov. 1953.59. Lesser gentry: Barley, AHEW, Vol IV, pp. 710-24; idem, AHEW, Vol V, pp. 619-32.60. Shammas, Pre-Industrial, pp. 159-60. Quote, p. 160. Also see p. 163 (criterion).61. Machin, “Great Rebuilding”, P&P 1977, p. 55; Barley, AHEW, Vol IV, p. 741 (clutter) p. 757 (new ideas); Hoskins, “Rebuilding”, P&P, 1953, p. 54.