John Locke's Somerset Property (supplementary material)

SANHS Digital Publications

JOHN LOCKE'S SOMERSET PROPERTY (supplementary material)

Roger Woolhouse

'The material here supplements "John Locke's Somerset Property" and is signalled in that article'.

John Locke and Somerset
John Locke's Somerset Property

POPHAM'S GRANT OF THE "ESTATE IN PUBLOW"

[A] From 1665 the rent for the house was £6 p.a., and £3.16s p.a. for Common Mead. Anne Hopkins was followed for a year by Benjamin Branch (who also rented Common Mead).¹

[B] Elinor Locke's joint rent was £9.16s p.a. (MS Locke f.12, pp. 18, 226-7).The sublease was sold to Gullock for £20 (with an annual rent of £5); it required him to pay one sixth of the "taxes and burthens" levied on the "estate in Publow".²

[C] In Locke's father's time the three acres in Common Mead (P6), was rented to someone named Jeffrys for £4 p.a.³ At any rate from 1665, to 1674, it was (as already described) rented, along with the Stag's Head, to Anne Hopkins, Benjamin Branch, and Elinor Locke consecutively, at, in effect £3.16s p.a.⁴ From 1680 the tenant was William Sledge. Sledge did not take over the Stag's Head too, for by then this had been subleased to William Gullock. He did, however, take over another house, (P1)/(P7) Buckhill or Lighthouse, and its grounds.⁵

[D] Locke rented it for 8s p.a., at least from 1665 - first from Arthur Pope, then (from at least 1687) from Robert Pope, and then from Goodman Pope.⁶ Why he stopped doing so, in 1697, is not recorded, but he seems to have had some difficulty in making this clear to those concerned.⁷

[E] Henley's Grove had been let, perhaps in Locke's father's time, to someone named Hannam, for £3 p.a.⁸ Extending a perhaps less formal agreement which had been in force for at least a year, Locke noted in a memo of 16 April 1666 that he had just let it to John Evans for £2.15s p.a., "I reserving all trees and hedgerows but only hedge bote and gate boot to be employed upon the same he to hold it during all my term upon performance of these conditions".⁹ Perhaps the reduced rent reflected the fact that Evans was also to pay a "1/12 part of the Lords rent and all other taxes and charges of the living in Publow".¹⁰ Two years later the lease was torn up, when Locke and Evans "mutually relinguished our bargain".¹¹
Locke then sold a fresh (sub)lease to Thomas Summers on the same terms.¹² Summers's tenancy lasted until Locke's death in 1704, when the land would have reverted into the hands of the Popham estate.¹³

[F] Locke first let Buckhill, together with some adjoining grounds, to its sitting tenant Francis Lyance (sometimes Liance, or Lions), presumably on a tenancy at will: "the same grounds he held of my brother at the same rate, viz. £17 p. annum to be paid half yearly". Lyance agreed "to fell or shroud noe trees nor cut any hedgerows but for Frith to be imployed on the same, and to pay £5 the said £10 p.a. for each acre ploud by him, to carry out the dung and imploy it on the same, and either of us that have a mind to part to give half a year warning…. He is to grub up the broome growing on the grounds within a year … and to have convenient ingresse and egresse at convenient seasons".¹⁴ Lyance's time there (which lasted into 1669) had its problems.¹⁵ He lost some horses, and, running the risk of being sued, he fell behind with the rent, and wanted someone else to pay his taxes.¹⁶ He fell down on other of his obligations too: a memo recorded in 1666 that he had to be warned that he was "to grub up all the Broome in the close by the house before Christmas".¹⁷ After he left, Buckhill was let from 1669 at the same rate to William Smith.¹⁸
Smith was certainly still there in 1674, and perhaps till 1680 when Buckhill house and four adjoining grounds (perhaps (P2), (P3), (P4) among them), described as the "estate at Buck hill", together with Common Mead (P6) was rented out to William Sledge, "for 7 years if he and I live so long", for £21 p.a.¹⁹
By 1683 Sledge had also taken on Buckfurlong (P4) (see [G] below), and the amount of property he was renting meant that when he died in 1692 Locke was left with something of a problem. His agent, William Stratton, was not optimistic about finding a replacement. "[S]ubstainciall tenants are very scars that will give a good rent" he gloomily wrote to Locke.²⁰ In any case, the outward boundaries of the property were (as Sledge had earlier complained) in poor order and needed attention.²¹ A family, the Coffins, wanted to buy a sublease from Locke; and Stratton himself was interested in paying to add his life to Locke's headlease (which since the deaths of his father and brother, had only one name on it) from the Pophams.²² Earlier Stratton had wanted to buy a reversion of the lease, but the Pophams were loathe to name a price without knowing what rent Locke was paid, a demand which Stratton thought was "unreasonable"^.23
By the end of the year, however, Stratton had managed to find a new tenant, John Taylor. Taylor, he reported, was taking the "estate at Buck hill" for two years; and this must have meant all that Sledge had had (not only Buckhill and adjoining lands, but also Common Mead and Buckfurlong), for the annual rent of £25 was said to be the same as Sledge's.²⁴ In the event he seems to have been there for less than a year, when Joseph Barnes took over the same estate at the same rate.²⁵ After some months he too was not keen to continue unless he could have a reduction of £1 p.a. and have "sumthing don to the outward bounds".²⁶ He was allowed this and was there in 1696, but still complaining about the hedges, and Locke's new agent Cornelius Lyde, finding him to be a very bad-tempered and unmanageable man, spoke of turning him out and finding a better tenant.²⁷
One Cornelius Abraham was interested at the time in buying from the Pophams the reversion of the Buckhill headlease, which would have meant that Locke was then barred from extending and buying further lives on the lease himself, if he had so wanted.²⁸ Despite what Barnes seemed to think, Locke had not consented to the lease being bought over his head; indeed, clearly much to his annoyance, he had not even been consulted.²⁹ As it happens, his reaction was rather rash and hasty: Abraham had not asked Locke because he had soon found that the reversion would cost more than he was prepared for.³⁰
Barnes himself was interested in buying a reversion and, to get Locke's consent, even offered to pay ten shillings more rack-rent during Locke's life. ³¹ In the event, however, the Pophams sold the reversion to Francis Carpenter.³² It was, again, to Locke's annoyance that he had not been consulted; for all they knew he might have had it in mind to buy it himself the following year.³³ But he was mollified by the fact that Carpenter was prepared to take over the tenancy from Barnes at an enhanced annual rent (£30), on a lease for years until, on Locke's death, the headlease became his.³⁴ As a rack-renting landlord the responsibility for the upkeep of the property would standardly have been Locke's, whereas when Carpenter became a life leaseholder it would have been his. In a shrewd assessment of this situation, Locke laid down the condition that from the outset Carpenter was to keep the house and bounds in repair (at an estimated cost of £4 p.a.).³⁵ Carpenter's possession was to begin on Lady Day 1697 and Locke discussed with Lyde how best to deal with Barnes who was still on the property.³⁶ But Carpenter dealt with it himself, and told Barnes he was to be thrown out, something about which Barnes complained to Locke, saying he would have left if Locke himself had forewarned him.³⁷ In accordance with his plan, Carpenter was still there at Buckhill at Locke's death, poised to begin his new lease from the Pophams.³⁸
The property Carpenter was to take over was said to be that part of the Buckhill tenement then occupied by Joseph Barnes and John Hanny.³⁹ In other places too Barnes and Hanny are spoken of together but it is not clear whether they were joint tenants or (as seems more likely) whether they occupied different but adjoining or somehow dependent properties.⁴⁰ On one occasion the two are recorded with a joint rent of £28.10s, but more usually it appears as though they had separate financial obligations -- with which Hanny seems always to have been behind, even when he left whatever property it was he occupied at Buckhill.⁴¹ There was talk of suing or perhaps having him arrested, and, despite promises and the odd payment of 10s or £1 he continued to be a concern even into the 1700's.⁴² Always sensitive to a slight (real or imagined) Locke rather felt that he was being laughed at, and that Hanny's promises were deceitful.⁴³

[G] On taking possession of Buckfurlong in 1664 Locke rack-rented it on an annual basis to Barnaby Penson, who held it along with the Newtinings (P9) and some land called the Paddocks, for a total of £12.10s. Penson was obliged to "for beare to cut, fell, or shroud any trees growing on the grounds he rents of the said John Locke, commonly cald or knowne by the names of the Newtinings the Padocks and Buckfurlong, except only soe much as shall be necessary for Frith to be imployd on the same grounds, and also if the said Barnaby Penson shall plow or cause to be ploud any of the said grounds, he shall set apart to the use of the said John Locke the one half of the corn growing thereupon, and carry it to what place soever within the said Parish of Publow the said John Locke or his certaine atturny shall appoint and pay for each acre soe ploud ... the sum of twenty shillings at or upon the twenty fifth day of March ... 1665".⁴⁴ Penson held "the same grounds under the same conditions" for a further year.⁴⁵ He failed to keep up with the rent and for the next year Buckfurlong was let to Locke's aunt Elinor for £5.1s, "reserving all trees and shrouds".⁴⁶
In 1667 John Anthony took over Buckfurlong at £5 p.a.⁴⁷ He was behind with this rent when he died, perhaps in 1680,⁴⁸ and his widow had to sublet the land.⁴⁹ If Anthony had come to the same arrangement as Elinor Locke had earlier he had not always kept to it for there were complaints that he had cut the trees.⁵⁰ Stratton complained, too, that the ground "hath beane soe abused by mowing and Carriing of the hay" that in its "sumthing Impoverished" state it was now not worth more than £4 p.a. -- unless, he dryly said, "I let it to a tenant that may promise more and pay littell or none".⁵¹ By early 1683 Stratton had succeeded in renting it to William Sledge for £4 p.a.: "the most I Could get the ground being soe abused it was turned mutch to mos".⁵²
Since 1680 Sledge had also been at Buckhill, and Common Mead (see [C] above), and his total rent was now £25 p.a.⁵³ Perhaps in reaction to his agent's report that though "An honest tenant and payes mony when he hath it" Sledge was behind in his payments Locke laid down as a "Rule to be observed for the future" that "The first mony you receive of William Sledg or at least as much of it as amounts to the rent of Buckfurlong, receive it as the rent of Buckfurlong. Because there being security given for the rent of Buckhill and not of Buckfurlong that I know, the arears when any should be left upon the security".⁵⁴ Whatever this security was presumably it stemmed from the fact that Barnes had signed a lease for Buckhill despite its being let at a rackrent. Locke complained at having paid 2s for the drawing up of this lease: "It was always the custome for those who tooke the lease to pay for the writeings. I doe not hear it is changed in other places and I would [not] willingly [be] singular in the case or begin a new fashon".⁵⁵ Stratton stoutly assured him that "I never charged you one peny for all the leases that I have sold sinc I was concerned in your buisnes wheare you have granted lives or Chainged" but in this case where the property was "being let at a rack yearly Rent" he had thought it better to be generous rather than lose a good tenant.⁵⁶
By 1689 Sledge was finding it "soe hard a matter to raise rent that he can keep but one suite of Cloths to his backe". Stratton was, nevertheless, "very loath to let him goe, for I know not wheare to better him".⁵⁷ But not long after Sledge's death in 1692 Buckfurlong (and the other of Sledge's tenancies, Buckhill and Common Mead) were taken on by Joseph Barnes, until 1697.⁵⁸

[H] Around the same time he rented Newtinings and the Paddocks, together with Buckfurlong (see [G] above) to Barnaby Penson for a year for £12.10s. Penson failed to keep up with the rent and over the next two years Locke rented the Tinings and Paddock first to William Gullock and then to Gullock's mother, Elinor Locke, for £6 p.a.⁵⁹
From 1668 "the Grounds", as they were sometimes called, were let to Thomas Summers "for £5 5s p.an. excepting all trees shrouds and hedgrowes".⁶⁰ He was followed for a year in 1673 by John Evans, at a reduced rent of £5 p.a.;⁶¹ and then by Abraham Barnes.⁶²
By 1682 Barnes wanted an even lower rent, of £4.10s. Stratton felt he could not keep him without some concession and offered him ten or twenty shillings for carrying or "haleing" in soil onto the land.⁶³ He began to fall behind with his payments and was still in debt some years after he gave up the land, in 1685, when it was let to James Atkins' son, Robert, for £4.10s p.a.⁶⁴
There is no further record of the "tining and padocks" until 1695, when the tenant, again at £4.10 p.a., was Joseph Hanny.⁶⁵

[I] Locke first let the "the Furze", the "furzes", or the "underwood and furz" (apparently as a source of fuel) to John Flower for 30s p.a.⁶⁶ Flower was there till 1670 when it was let at a reduced annual rent of 15s to J. Sledge.⁶⁷ He must have died not long after, for the next year the rent was paid by "Widow Sledge".⁶⁸
In 1672 Robert Floury took on a seven year lease, for 25s p.a., "if he and I do live so long".⁶⁹ Perhaps he did not live very long at all, for the rent due six months later at Michaelmas was recorded as being due from J. Floury, and in 1674 Samson Silke was the tenant, at the same annual rate.⁷⁰
Silke occupied the furzes until Lady Day 1679, when he was replaced by Nathaniel Summers, again at 25s p.a.⁷¹ In 1687 Summers took on a new seven year lease, at a reduced rent of 15s p.a.,⁷² perhaps because the furze had by then "cum to a very small matter", killed off by "the extraordinary frost ... and the abuse of the Cottages and tenants".⁷³ Stratton felt that because of this the rent would have to be reduced further still when Summers' lease came to an end, but Summers was still there at 15s p.a. in 1697.⁷⁴
That rate was still in force in 1704 when the furzes were being rented by Summers' son-in-law, John Pearce.⁷⁵ Pearce himself was unhappy about it, for, so Locke's agent Cornelius Lyde reported, since the furzes had been rather wrecked by boys making bonfires, they were very dear at the present rent. Lyde was afraid that if Pearce did not continue renting no one else would, he being the only baker in Pensford, who wanted the fuel.⁷⁶

FEARE'S TENEMENT, "MY ESTATE IN BELTON"

[J] In the 1660s Locke mortgaged some of this property to his uncle Peter. The seven acres of (F4), the Great Ricfurlong and mead, the two of (F14) Friars mead, and some land called Amercombe¹ were mortaged in October 1661 for £100 to be redeemed in seven years; the mortgage was renewed in 1666, but redeemed two years later.² Locke also, between 1664 and 1668, took out mortgages of £50 on the 6.5 acres of (F3) Sawtry, which had been valued at £4.10s p.a.³

[K] It was rack-rented to Robert Haroll initially at £22 p.a.⁴. In 1669 the rent recorded for "Belluton" increased to £24.10s p.a., for that sum was now implicitly including the £2.10s p.a. for Friar's Mead (F14) which Haroll had been renting since 1667 (see Friar's Mead in main article).⁵ Then, in 1671, it went down to £23.10s.⁶ By 1680 it had reduced even further, to £23 p.a.⁷
From about 1673 Haroll began to be a poor payer,⁸ - "Tenants that will pay theyr rent are very scarse", Stratton reported to Locke.⁹ Haroll tried asking for some abatement of his rent, and he tried claiming a backlog of expenses on the property, but eventually, in 1686, when he was nearly £60 in arrears, his goods were valued with a view to distraining them.¹⁰ Haroll evidently felt the weight of all of this, and Stratton feared he might kill himself if he were pressed further.¹¹
It was thought that Haroll's goods might fetch £40 to £50, and there was some hope that some of the rest of the debt might be got by having him surrender a lease he had on his own life on (F13) (see East field and West field in main article). Locke reckoned that since the lord's rent of 20s p.a. (which Haroll may in fact not have been paying) was effectively the yearly value of the land the lease could not be worth much. Haroll, however, argued that the land and the lease were worth three times that, claiming that since he had bought it he had spent more than £30 in enclosing, dressing and manuring it.¹² There is no record of what was agreed about this, but the lease was eventually surrendered.¹³
Locke had wondered about selling a lifelease on the whole of the property Haroll was renting, but by the beginning of 1687 the "estate" had been rack-rented out again, ("though not without difficulty" for the house was in a poor condition).¹⁴ This time it was to Haroll's brother, David, who let Robert continue to farm some of it.¹⁵ By the end of 1689, however, he was wanting to leave, but agreed to stay on condition of a reduction of £1 p.a. and some improvements to the house - sealing the cheese loft, paving part of the milk house, and laying a floor in the barn.¹⁶ A year later he wanted a further reduction, down to £18 p.a., and this to include the ground, (F13), which his brother had leased, ground which Stratton now reckoned at £2 p.a. Though Stratton was loath to have it all go for £18, he was sure it was not good simply to hold property in hand and unoccupied, and in the event a deal was reached for £20 p.a.: "more than this we could not possibly advance it to", Clarke told Locke.¹⁷
Even so, David Haroll did not last much longer and left towards the end of 1691, leaving arrears of rent behind him; and, rather surprisingly, Stratton was able immediately to lease it for ten years for £22 p.a. rack-rent to John Veale (presumably some relation of Thomas Veale who was leasing Old Down).¹⁸ Had Veale and Haroll had a chance to speak together it would, Stratton was well aware, certainly have had to have been less.¹⁹
The lease Stratton first drew up for Veale was, Locke thought, very badly done for it effectively allowed Veale to "shroud all my trees, and plough what he pleases of my land".²⁰ Whatever the lease eventually said, Veale did, on one occasion, cut down a good number of oak branches which were shading the ground.²¹
Though he gained some reputation as someone who paid "well" Veale was not always up to date with his rent; but he was still there when Locke died in 1704, three years after the expiry of the lease.²²

[L] In 1681 Smith wanted to add his second wife's name to the lease for £12, and when Locke died there were still two lives left on it.²³

[M] There is no record of the fine Haroll paid, but Locke reckoned that the associated lord's rent of 20s p.a. was effectively the yearly value of the land "soe that that lease is not to be recond much worth".²⁴ The lease obliged Haroll "to grub up the hedg between the little Ric Furlong and the ground I have exchanged with John Evans and the hedg between Bustors Pitts and the new tining some time the next winter".²⁵

"TENEMENTS AND GROUNDS IN ST. THOMAS"

[N] At one time Captain Burges had a lease for years on land referred to as "Old Down" and on which, up till 1664, he paid an annual rent of £1.5s.¹ Perhaps the payment of "£10 ... for Old Down" which Locke made Burges in 1664, was to buy back the remains of the lease, for from that year James Atkins is recorded as a tenant at what is presumably a rack rent, of £3 p.a.² Atkins' rent was reduced to £2.10s p.a. in 1669 and he occupied Old Down till 1683.³ The land was then let to Thomas Spence for two years for the same rent;⁴ and then, in 1686, to Atkins again, for a year.⁵
In 1686 the question arose of Locke's selling a lease on Old Down. Thomas Veale had offered to pay £28 for a lease on three lives, but Stratton was loath to accept less than £30 ("for the poore this two years are soe incresed that it is 10s per year to the poore besids all other taxes").⁶ Locke however seemed content with £28, though he wanted Stratton to try for twice the proposed Lord's rent of 2s.6d. In the event, Veale died before any agreement had been reached, and a lease was sold early in 1687 for £28 (and 2s.6d Lord's rent) to David Haroll, on the life of himself, his wife and that of "a girell", presumably a daughter".⁷ Haroll died in 1696, and his widow began to fall into arrears.⁸ At Locke's death the lease still had two lives on it.⁹

[O] By 1667 T. Jones was at Nineworthys where he was responsible for £2 rent p.a. and one ninth of "taxes and payments" (typically about 8s p.a.).¹⁰ Presumably he had been there since at least 1665 and the "two grounds and a grove of oaks (old rent £2 p.a., annual worth £5 p.a., worth to be sold £42)" which Jones was leasing, are in fact the "2 grounds cald the Nineworthys".¹¹ At any rate, Jones' lease on the "grounds and a grove" was due to expire in 1670, and in that year too he gave way to J. Sledge as the tenant (at £2.10s p.a.) of Nineworthys.¹² A year later Sledge died and was followed, at the same rate, by William Gullock, the son of Elinor Locke by a previous marriage.¹³
Whatever the position had been earlier, Gullock, in 1674, the same year as he bought the lease of Stags Head House (see [B]) bought a 21 year lease of "the ground called Nineworthys" for 50s p.a. It was a condition that from 1677 Locke was to have half of any corn that was grown on the land, and that Gullock was "to keepe the fences in repair but to fell or shroud no trees but by my leave and for that use to have liberty to shroud such trees as grow in the hedgerow. But is not to shroud any other trees growing in any part of the said ground. Nor to fell any trees at all"¹⁴ In later years he seems to have fallen on hard times, and was usually in arrears which he kept promising to make up;¹⁵ but he was still at Nineworthys with the same rent when Locke died.¹⁶

[P] (ST3) Summers/Kents' tenement was valued in 1665 at £1 p.a. with a worth to be sold of £9. ¹⁷ In 1664 it was occupied by Widow Summers at a rent of 4s p.a.¹⁸ The following year Richard and Mary Kent bought a lease on three lives, with the same rent.¹⁹ They were still there in 1690, at which time they had begun to fall behind and had become identified as bad tenants.²⁰ Stratton saw some chance of getting rid of them for one Cornelius Abraham was prepared to take over the lease, which was now on "three ... young likely lives", or even to buy a new one.²¹ Eventually the lives were changed, but the new tenant in 1694 (with a lease on three lives and at the same rent) was not Abraham but a widow, Mary Cooke.²²
Only two years later she too (or George Horwood, described as her son (in law?)) began to fail with the rent, and by 1703 Locke's patience had run out and he sent a warrant to distrain them.²³ He thought eight years were too many to be in arrears.²⁴ Threatened with seizure of his goods, Horwood promised to pay by the following Lady Day and at the last moment came up with 10s, with promises of more.²⁵ His lease still had three lives on it when Locke died.²⁶
(ST4) In late 1666 Locke sold a lease on the three lives of John Floury, Jonathan Floury, and the son of widow Floury, for £40, with a rent of 4s p.a. on a dwelling called or described as "the Potters house".²⁷ Perhaps this was the tenement with an old rent of 4s p.a. which had been occupied earlier by Nicholas Bayly, for by 1665 there was only one life on his lease, and after that date he disappeared from the records.²⁸ The rent in the first year was paid by "A. Flowry", perhaps widow Floury, and then from 1669 to 1674, it was given simply as being rent for "Flourys tenement", the name "Potters" being dropped.²⁹
In fact, at least from 1673 a "widow Shatter" was responsible for the rent.³⁰ She must have had some relationship to the Flourys for she evidently was in a position to ask, in 1681, for some change to their lease.³¹ Could it be that widow Floury had remarried and been widowed again?
It was completely unclear whether the lease still had any effect, for, so Locke's agent, William Stratton, had been told and despite what the widow Shatter claimed, John Floury and his brother Jonathan were both dead (in Bristol and London).³² Eventually, seeming to concede that John was dead, Shatter was prepared to pay £30 fine for a new lease if Jonathan too was dead, and, if he were not, to pay more than that to change his life and add a further two.³³ Over a year later the matter was not yet settled, with Shatter now prepared to pay no more than £15 simply to add two lives to Jonathan's.³⁴ Later still (1686) Stratton agreed that provided he could be satisfied that Jonathan Floury was still alive, he would, for £15.10s, "top up" the lease with two further lives.³⁵ One of Locke's friends thought it most likely that Jonathan was dead, and that the lease was defunct, but in the following months Stratton came to think that he was alive and at sea, the land being "too hot by rason of his debts".³⁶ Things remained undecided into late 1689 when widow Shatter had moved to Bristol and someone she had put into the house asked Stratton whether it were now "in hand" and expressed interest in buying a lease.³⁷ It was not till the following April that Stratton had definite news that Jonathan Floury was "ded in prison in france" and, taking it that the house was now "in hand" and hoping to get £30, offered a lease on three lives to the tenant, the son-in-law of a Mr Briddy.³⁸ But he became "a littell cold in the buisnes", and Stratton (who could not "well expres the Inconveniencyes of lettting a house in St Thomas Parish ly voyd or Indeade to keep it in hand and let it at a yearly Rent") had hopes of selling a lease (with an associated old rent of 4s. p.a.) to a widow, Anne Sanders.³⁹ She had talked of buying it for £20, whereas Stratton, though prepared for a fine of £30, had hoped for as much as £35; but he thought that the bargain might be struck at £26 or £27. Whatever the final figure, Stratton had difficulty in bringing the matter to it.⁴⁰
At first Sanders was named as paying the rent, but by 1700 it was being paid by someone described as a "new name", Robert Sanders, perhaps her son, and no doubt one of the lives on the lease.⁴¹ Rather than being "Floury's old house" the house became "Sanders' House".⁴² At Locke's death it was held by James Casse on a lease on two lives, at the same rent.⁴³
There is a record, perhaps earlier than 1660, of what is referred to as "Gardiner's tenement" (ST5) on a lease for one life with an annual rent of 2s.⁴⁴ Perhaps that one life died, for in April 1665 it was on a lease for three lives at the same rent.⁴⁵
Presumably "Jo. Floury" was one of those lives for, according to the rent rolls, he paid the rent for "Gardiners" in 1664 and 1665.⁴⁶ Perhaps this was the Floury who, in early 1666 had been described as likely to die, for "A. Floury", perhaps the widow Floury of the 1666 lease on the Potters House (see above), is recorded as paying the rent from 1667 to 1669.⁴⁷ After that, until 1672, and with an unchanged rent, "A[nne?] Hopkins" made the payments.⁴⁸ Gardiners was then, at the same rent, on a lease to Benjamin Branch, which ended with his wife's death less than two years later.⁴⁹ It was then leased, with the same rent, to Mrs Elizabeth Hopkins, who turned out to be a less than reliable tenant.⁵⁰ She was in the house, with one life on her lease, when Locke died.⁵¹
In 1667 "A. Floury" (see also Potters House and Gardiners just above) was the tenant of (ST6) Lockiers tenement at an annual rent of 1s.⁵² An early, pre-1665, survey had listed "Lockiers two tenements" (jointly held on a lease for one life, with an old rent of 4s p.a., an annual value of £2, and a value to be sold of £30), and presumably A. Floury's Lockiers was one of these.⁵³ Presumably too, judging by the rent, Lockiers was what was referred to in a 1665 survey as "Flowrys Tenement".⁵⁴ A. Floury was the tenant at Lockiers until 1670, when she was followed by Elinor Locke.⁵⁵
In 1674 Richard Kent (who already had the lease of Summers tenement) "had" Lockier's from Elinor Locke (though it seems possible that she still lived in the cottage).⁵⁶ This meant, it seems, at least that he was paying the 1s p.a. rent (though he found some difficulty in doing this).⁵⁷ But it seems also to have meant that Locke had, for some reason, given "him the lease for noething".⁵⁸
In fact the position with regard to the leaseholding of Lockier's is rather unclear, for in 1681 a man called Kemp⁵⁹ is said to have (at some earlier time) bought up Elinor Locke's lease for £5, and wanted to add one (or two) lives to it.⁶⁰ Stratton urged Locke to allow this at a reasonable rate since Kemp wanted the house for his wife's crippled son by a previous marriage.⁶¹ Exactly what then happened is not clear, but some eighteen months later Kemp was offering 30s, either for a new lease or to add lives to the one he had, an offer which Stratton "littell vallewed".⁶² Eventually, perhaps by 1693, Kemp's crippled step-son John Summers (Sumners?) was nevertheless in possession of the lease of the "little Cottage Called Lockiers tenement granted in charity", and at a reduced rent of 6d p.a.⁶³

RATES, TAXES, AND OTHER PAYMENTS
The lifeleases Alexander Popham granted Locke's father were given for free, not sold for a "fine",¹ but they nevertheless involved the regular payment of lord's or old rent. 13s annually was due on (P5), (P6), and (P?), in 1660;² and 49s on (P7)-(P11) in 1664.³ In 1680 and onwards the rent due to the Pophams for "Buckhill" (presumably (P1)-(P6)) was £1.19s.0d p.a.⁴ Of course Locke as head leaseholder was ultimately responsible for this rent, and had his agents pay it to the Pophams' baliff.⁵ He recouped the payment, however, by passing it on in various proportions to his sublessees. William Gullock at (P?) Stag's Head had to pay one sixth of Locke's old rent for "my estate in Publoe";⁶ Evans and Summers at (P5) Henly's Grove were made responsible for one twelfth of the Publow estate.⁷
Leasehold tenancies usually imposed on the lessee at least the financial responsibility for repairs and maintenance; in the case of rack-rent tenancies, the landlord was typically responsible.⁸ Locke's general procedure in this latter case was to have his tenants see to any necessary work and payments and have them then submit bills as disbursements from their rents. Examples along these lines are the allowance to Francis Lyance of 1s for mending the floor at (P1) Buckhill house;⁹ and of 1s and 7s.2d to Robert Haroll for mending the street door and for attending to the thatch of Belluton House.¹⁰ There are other examples relating to stiles, gates, nails, staples, and so-on.¹¹
Besides such duties and obligations to each other, landlords and tenants had financial and other responsibilities to the parish and to the state. Disputes as to the relative liability of landlord and tenant were not uncommon at the time.¹² Locke seems to have followed the generally accepted principle that tax on rack-rent tenancies was his responsibility, or at any rate deductible from the rent, whereas that on leased, old rent properties was to be paid by the tenant.¹³ As with old rents this was in an agreed proportion: the tenants of Stag's Head and Henley's Grove paid one sixth and one twelfth respectively of the taxes and other such charges on the "estate in Publow"; while Haroll's lease of the New Tinings specified that he should pay one twentieth "of all the taxes charges tithingmanship and other burthens of the said living and grounds which the said JL has in the tithing of Beluton".¹⁴ Locke seems to have dealt with this by making the whole payment himself and then passing it on to the lessees as an addition to their rent.¹⁵
Unfortunately there exists no systematic account of the parochial taxes and rates Locke and his tenants were subject to, added to which the often informal nature of Locke's records leaves it far from easy to work out just what some payments are for.¹⁶ What exactly, for example, are the weekly "Contributions" (of around 6d, and allowed against rent) made in the mid-1660s by Francis Lyance and Robert Haroll?¹⁷
But some things are clearer, as in the case of the seventeenth-century custom that various parochial offices, churchwarden, overseer of the poor, tithingman (or constable), were filled "in rotation ... from the owners or occupiers of certain specified houses or lands".¹⁸ This practice is illustrated in the case of Buckhill (P1-P7) where Francis Carpenter's lease specified that he had to perform the personal offices which belonged to the tenement, including overseer of the poor, constable, and tithingman.¹⁹ Similarly, it was the custom of St. Thomas Parish that designated houses should provide an overseer for the poor. Perhaps Locke, as landlord, was ultimately responsible for this provision: a subtenant of the Potters house (ST4) certainly wanted compensation for being involved in this duty.²⁰ Similarly the house at Belluton was expected to provide a tithingman for two years in nine, and the payments (ranging from 11s to £1) which Robert Haroll made in the mid-1660s "for" or "to my [Locke's] tithing man" and which may have been for the parish fine which could be paid in lieu of service, were deducted from John Veale, however, a later tenant at Belluton, seems not to have been compensated for the 15s payment he made "in return for doing the office".²²
Besides such duties, or payments in lieu, some tenants were subject to a local "tithing" levy, also related to the property they occupied. Nineworthys (ST2) was liable to "five tithings pays", which, with a rate set in the 1680s at 4d per pay, resulted in a charge of nearly 2s, which William Gullock insisted should be set against his rent.²³ Probably, it has been suggested, these payments from Gullock were a tax paid paid by a tithing towards the cost of keeping courts.²⁴ There clearly was such a tax, for Haroll and Veale are recorded as making "tithing pays" (of 6d, and 1s) to "the court at Keynsham"; but it appears from the entries in Locke's papers that this was something further.²⁵
Robert Haroll is also recorded as making, in 1665, a payment of 6d per half year, for the "Sheriff's terme". Possibly this was towards the expenses of the shrieval system, or possibly a fine for not serving a term as under-sheriff.²⁶ Some years later, in 1691, it was incumbent on his brother David, also at Belluton, to attend the Michaelmas sessions, presumably as a juryman. His "Eyes were soe bad", Locke was told, "that he could not goe". He wanted Locke (whether as his landlord or simply as someone with influence, is not clear) to get him some redress of the 10s fine.²⁷
Following the Highway act of 1555, and other acts, passed during Locke's lifetime, the parish was responsible for road maintainance. It did this mainly by requiring from various of its inhabitants the requisite labour (unpaid, six days a year) and materials (a duty which could be commuted by payment of a fine), or by a monetary levy.²⁸ In a memorandum of 1664 Locke recorded an "Amerciament for the highway" of £6.12s.6d, a charge covering a number of people at Belluton.²⁹ That same year Robert Haroll had 16s.4d (2s the next year) deducted from his rent "for amorents for highway", and in 1673 William Smith at Buckhill (P1/P7) was allowed a 10s payment "for the highways".³⁰
In contrast with the highways and byways, bridges were usually the responsibility of the county rather than the parish, but the costs were borne locally.³¹ In 1664 Francis Lyance at (P1/P7) was allowed sums of 1s.2d and 10d against his rent for a couple of days work "for the country bridge".³²
There were further local payments to be made. The Poor Act of 1661 made each parish responsible for raising money for poor relief.³³ As in other parishes Publow Justices seem to have used land rental value as a basis for assessment in terms of a fixed number of "pays" and a variable rate, which seems to have usually been set at around 4d per pay. Thus in 1673 William Smith at Buckhill made a half-year 40 pay payment "to the poor" of 13s.4d;³⁴ in 1680 the final poor assessment for the "estate at Buckhill" was raised from £1 to £1.5s, and in 1696 it stood at £3.6s.8d.³⁵ Such payments were allowed against rack-rents.³⁶
An entry of 1680 in one of Locke's notebooks suggests that these payments for the poor included money for the maintainance of the church: "A pay for my living at Beluton to the church and poor is 41/2d which is paid to Stanton".³⁷ Whether this was straightforwardly so is not clear. Records for payments for "Church money" do often seem quite separate from those for payments for the poor, as in 1665 when Francis Lyance was allowed "Church money 2s" against his rent³⁸ and in 1677 when Robert Harroll was similarly allowed "for the church 4s.6d".³⁹ But perhaps no weight can be put on the difference of terminology: certainly, the 41/2d pay at Belluton which Locke recorded in 1680 for "the church and poor", seems to have resulted in the tenant, Robert Haroll, making an eight pay payment "to the Church" of 3s.⁴⁰
Besides any taxes Locke might have paid he also made voluntary contributions for the poor, making use of his tenants to do so. Thomas Summers, for example, was regularly asked to distribute "20s worth of bread to the poor of Pensford I mean such as haveing been honest labouring people are now past their worke, or else being honest labouring people have a greater Charge than they can well maintain. As for the lazy and idle St Paul has given a rule to be observed, viz that he who will not worke should not eat".⁴¹ Haroll similarly acted on Locke's behalf: "to the poor of St. Thomas by my order £1; to the poor of Stanton Drew 6d".⁴²
Systematic information about national taxes and rates to which Locke and his tenants may have been subject is far more available than any concerning parochial levies.⁴³ Even so, Locke's rent rolls and other papers often leave unclear just which taxes are in question. This is particularly so in the case of the assessments and subsidies of the 1660s and early 1670s. ⁴⁴ At various times during this period half-year "tax" payments were made of 2s by Atkins at Old Down, of amounts ranging from £3.10s to £1.6s.9d by Lyance at Buckhill, and of from £2.6s.11d to 8s.8d by Haroll at Belluton.⁴⁵ All these payments were set against rents.
Sometimes, however, the taxes are identifiable. A national tax "for laying an imposition upon chimney hearths", introduced in 1662, involved a twice-yearly levy of 1s on each fire or stove in dwelling houses worth 20s or more in annual rent.⁴⁶ A memo of 1665 was explicit that Anne Hopkins, rather than Locke, was "to pay chimny money" at the Stag's Head.⁴⁷ On the other hand William Smith had the 1s payment of "hearth money" or "chimney money" deducted from his Buckhill rent,⁴⁸ as did Haroll the 3s for Belluton House.⁴⁹
The rent deductible payments "for soldiers" and "militia" made by Haroll (6s, 4s.11d) and Penson (7s.11d) in 1665 presumably arose from the three-year "Militia money" tax "for ordering the forces in the several counties of this kingdom".⁵⁰ Some years later Haroll was more directly involved with expense for the military when in 1687 he claimed some abatement of his rent because of the "great Burden" of being forced to quarter soldiers who passed by the house at Belluton.⁵¹
A tax on land and goods, payable over three years, to "Aid" the king in building a navy was introduced in 1664.⁵² Locke made a note of the payments to be made by various Publow people⁵³ and his rent rolls record half-year "Royal Aid" payments of 14s.4d made by Haroll (Belluton) and of 9s.2d by Lyance (Buckhill).⁵⁴14s.4d seems to have been the local assessment for that part of the estate at Belluton rented by Haroll for in 1674 he made two such payments for what was described as "King's Pay".⁵⁵ Presumably the payments were towards Parliament's 1673 grant to the King "for the supply of extraordinary occasions".⁵⁶ Locke allowed those payments to be set against his tenants' rack-rent, as he did the "2 quarterly payments for his disbanding money 5s.11d" which Haroll made in 1680.⁵⁷
From the early 1690s taxes were granted at various times in "aid" to the crown, now in the persons of William and Mary.⁵⁸ The details of their imposition and assessment, which was largely on the annual value of land, varied from year to year.⁵⁹ At the outset there was disagreement in connection with "the King's tax" between Locke's agent Stratton and the local tax commissioners concerning Nineworthys. Did it belong with the rest of the estate at Belluton (as Locke had always counted it) and so was already included in the tax on it, or was it to be taxed separately, requiring Stratton to pay out yet more money on Locke's behalf? (As Stratton noted, the matter had consequences for the payment of local taxes too.) The argument partly turned on whether that piece of land fell in Stanton Drew parish (as was finally decided), along with the rest of Belluton property, or whether (as might appear from its being "on the othe[r] side of the high way" it belonged to St. Thomas parish.⁶⁰
As owners of the land they leased to Locke these taxes were due from the Pophams on the old rent he paid them. In the mid-1690s they were set at 4s in the pound, which meant 8s was due on the £1.19s rent Locke paid on his estate at Buckhill.⁶¹ Locke himself made the payment which was then allowed against his rent.
His own incoming rents at Publow and Belluton were taxable too. In the former case he had made his leaseholding tenants, Gullock (Stags Head) and Summers (Henlys Grove) liable for one sixth and one twelfth of the payments (upwards of £4) for "The Ks. tax";⁶² in the latter case Veale's 1697 quarter payment "to the King" of £3.3s.4d was set against his rack-rent.⁶³

NOTES
The following abbreviations are used: BL: British Library; dB: de Beer; L: Locke's correspondence as enumerated in dB; Moger: Webb and Jones; NA: National Archives, Kew.
Unless indicated otherwise (e.g. BL) all manuscripts are from the Bodleian Library, Oxford.
I am grateful to the Leverhulme Foundation for the financial support of an Emeritus Fellowship (2002-2004), which enabled library visits and the purchase of microfilms, and to Rowland Janes, Bill Shiels, David Stead and Anthony Bruce for various invaluable helps.

(P) Popham's Grant of the 'Estate in Publow'
1. MS Locke f.12, pp. 230-1, 228-9.
2. L293, L936, L1864, L2679; see 'Rates, taxes, and other payments' below.
3. MS Locke c.26, fol. 14.
4. MSS Locke f.12, pp. 6, 251, 249, 242-3, 240-1, 238-9, 236-7,
234-5, 232-3; f.12, pp. 230-1, 228-9; L293.
5. MS Locke c.26, fol. 69; see [F] below.
6. MSS Locke f.12, p. 250, c.26, fols. 63, 69, 74, f.4, p. 29, L936, L954, L2463.
7. L2372, L2390, L2456; see also L2463, L2530.
8. MS Locke c.26, fol. 14.
9. MS Locke f.12, pp. 7, 251; see also NA PRO 30/24/47/30, fol. 11.
10. MS Locke f.12, p. 7; see 'Rates, taxes, and other payments' below.
11. MS Locke f.12, p. 16.
12. MS Locke f.12, p. 16; Summers also rack-rented the Newtinings and the Paddocks from around 1667 to 1672 (see [H] below).
13. MSS Locke f.12, pp. 242-3, 240-1, 238-9, 236-7, 234-5, 232-3, 230-1, 228-9, 226-7, f.13, pp. 12-13, 28, c.19, fols. 3, 27v, c.26, fols. 13v, 69, 73, 94, L293, L936, L952, L954, L1864, L1871, L2372.
14. MS Locke f.12, pp. 2-3.
15. MS Locke f.12, pp. 257, 255, 251, 242-3, 240-1, NA PRO 30/24/47/30, fol. 11.
16. L206, L211, L213.
17. MS Locke f.12, p. 7.
18. MSS Locke f.12, pp. 17, 238-9, 236-7, 234-5, 232-3, 230-1, 228-9, 226-7, f.13, pp. 12, 13, 28, 29, c.19, fol. 2, L293.
19. MS Locke c.19, fol. 77, L1558; MSS Locke f.4, pp. 27-8,
c.26, fols. 69, 70, c.19, fols. 3, 26v, L848, L936, L954, L1537.
20. MS Locke c.19, fol. 76 (L1537).
21. L1537, L1822.
22. L1484, L1537.
23. MS Locke c.19, fol. 40 (L1129).
24. MS Locke c.19, fol. 7 (L1558).
25. L1871, L2062, L2152, L2735, L2755.
26. MS Locke c.19, fol. 91 (L1812); see also L1871, L2015.
27. L2008; MS Locke c.26, fol. 73, L2015, L2679; L2142.
28. L2153.
29. L2140, L2153.
30. L2157.
31. L2140.
32. L2155, L2157.
33. L216??
34. L2162.
35. L2162; also L2167, L2176, L2205, L2208, L2226, L2290, L2293, L2295, L2332, L2343.
36. L2176.
37. L2188.
38. L2530, L2560, MS Locke c.26, fol. 94.
39. L2226. Hanny is sometimes called "Joseph".
40. L2155, L2176.
41. L2155; L2108, L2142, L2153, L2155, L2157, L2162, L2205, L2208, L2230, L2295, L2302, L2307, L2313, L2332, L2382, L2390, L2463.
42. L2679, L2735, L2755, L3330, L3481, L3502, c.26, fol. 94.
43. L3310.
44. MS Locke c.26, fol. 28.
45. MSS Locke c.26, fol. 29, f.12, pp. 251, 255.
46. L206, L211; MS Locke f.12, p. 7.
47. L954, MS Locke c.26, fols. 67, 69, NA PRO 30/24/47/30 fol. 11rv.
48. MSS Locke f.12, pp. 9, 242-3, 240-1, 238-9, 236-7, 234-5, 232-3, 230-1, 228-9, 226-7, f.13, p. 41, c.26, fol. 69, c.19, fol. 26, L293.
49. L614, L630, L681, L755, L848.
50. L296.
51. MS Locke c.19, fol. 12 (L630), fol. 10 (L614).
52. MS Locke c.19, fols. 19-20 (L755), L848; also L936, L2062.
53. L2062.
54. MSS Locke c.19, fol. 24 (L848), fol. 38 (L936).
55. MS Locke c.26, fol. 72r (L1864).
56. MS Locke c.19, fol. 95 (L1871).
57. MS Locke c.19, fol. 41 (L1204).
58. See [F] above.
59. L206, L211; MSS Locke f.12, p. 6; f.12, pp. 9-10, NA PRO 30/24/47/30, fol. 11rv.
60. MSS Locke f.12, pp. 14, 242-3, 240-1, 238-9, 236-7, 234-5, 232-3, 230-1, 228-9.
61. MSS Locke f.12, p. 18, f.13, p. 12.
62. MSS Locke f.13, pp. 13, 28, c.19, fol. 3, cf. fol. 2, c.26,
fol. 69, c.19, fol. 28r, L293.
63. MS Locke c.19, fol. 17 (L681), L741.
64. L755; L1246, L1258, L1343; L848, MS Locke c.19, fol. 28r.
65. MS Locke c.26, fol. 73. See [F] for Hanny at Buckhill.
66. MS Locke f.12, pp. 4, 256, 251, 249, 242-3, 240-1, 238-9, 236-7, NA PRO 30/24/47/30, fol. 11; also L206.
67. MS Locke f.12, pp. 17, 234-5, 232-3.
68. MS Locke f.12, pp. 230-1, 228-9.
69. MSS Locke f.12, p. 17; see also f.13, p. 12.
70. MS Locke f.12, p. 227.
71. L293, MSS Locke f.13, pp. 28, 40; c.19, fol. 3r, see also fol. 2, L936, L937, MSS Locke c.26, fols. 69, 70, c.19, fol. 27v.
72. L952, L954.
73. MS Locke c.19, fol. 24 (L848); see also L1871.
74. L1871, MS Locke c.26, 73v-4r, L1871, L1890, L2390, L2382.
75. MS Locke c.26, fol. 94, L3502.
76. L3502.

Feare's Tenement, "My estate in Belton"
1. This is not listed, at any rate as such, in the 1660 survey,
but see MS Locke c.26, fol. 6r. According to MS Locke b.5/5 Great Ricfurlong was five acres and Amercombe two.
2. MSS Locke f.12, pp. 262; 247-6; 16; see also b.5/5.
3. MS Locke f.12, pp. 263, 262, 7, 16.
4. MSS Locke c.26, fol. 34; c.26, fol. 8, f.12, 1, 259, 257, 256, 255, 254, 242-3, NA PRO 30/24/47/30, fol. 11rv.
5. MS Locke f.12, fols. 240-1, 238-9, 236-7, 234-5, 232-3.
6. MSS Locke f.12, pp. 230-1, 228-9, 226-7.
7. MSS Locke c.19, fols. 2, 3r, 28v, c.26, fols. 69rv, L869; possibly the £23 was made up from £22 for Belluton, and £1 for "the new tyning" in (F13) the East Field (see just below).
8. L293, L296, MS Locke f.13, pp. 12-13, 28, L614, L681, L741,
L755, L848.
9. MS Locke c.19, fol. 18 (L741).
10. L869, also L848, L895, L1246.
11. MS Locke c.19, fol. 44 (L1246).
12. L936, L954.
13. L1055, L1258.
14. L296; Rand 1927, 304 (L1369); L869.
15. L895, L1174.
16. L1208, L1406.
17. L1343, Rand 1927, 304 (L1369).
18. L1419, L1864, L2372, L2382, L2390; MSS Locke c.26, fols. 73v-74r, L2203, L2208.
19. L1419.
20. L1419, Rand 1927, 317 (L1423), L1426.
21. L2343.
22. L2108, L2208, L2226, L2560.
23. L641, L936, L954, L2679, MS Locke 26, fol. 95r.
24. L848, MS Locke c.19, fol. 36 (L936), L954. In 1665 it was valued, with the three or so acres in the west field, at £3 (MS Locke f.12, p. 5).
25. MSS Locke c.26, fol. 60, f.12, p. 12.

"Tenements and Grounds in St Thomas"
1. MSS Locke c.26, fols. 8, 32, 39, f.12, p. 259.
2. MS Locke f.12, p. 3. There are some discrepancies here in that what seems to be "Old Down" as leased by Burges was said to be worth £2 p.a. with a worth to be sold of £30, rather than, as in1665, of £3 and £60 (MS Locke c.26, fol. 32). If, for these reasons, Burges' "Old Down' is not Atkins' then perhaps the three
acres of "the down close with a paddock adjoyning", listed in 1660 as tenanted by Alex. Binnett valued at £3 p.a., is (MS Locke c.26, fol. 9).
3. MS Locke f.12, pp. 17, 257, 255, 251, 249, 242-3, 240-1,
238-9, 236-7, 234-5, 232-3, 230-1, 228-9, 226-7, f.13, pp. 12-13, 28, c.19, fol. 3r, cf. fols. 2v, 28v, c.26, fol. 69, f.4, p. 44, NA PRO 30/24/47/30 fol. 11, L293, L848. Annual payments of 4s or so to the poor were allowed against the rent.
4. L848, MS Locke c.19, fol. 28r.
5. L848, MS Locke c.19, fol. 28r. At L954 this rent is mistakenly(?) described as Lord's rent.
6. MS Locke c.19, fol. 24 (L848).
7. MSS Locke c.19, fol. 25 (L895), c.26, fols. 28r, 73v-74r, 94r, 95r.
8. L2157, L2679.
9. MS Locke c.26, fol. 95r.
10. NA PRO 30/24/47/30, fol. 11, MSS Locke f.12, pp. 259, 257, 254, 251, 242-3, 240-1, 238-9, 236-7, c.26, fol. 8.
11. MS Locke f.12, p. 5. The half-year record in 1665 that "T. Jones paid me for Old Down £1 and as 1/9 of taxes ..." (MS Locke f.12, p. 249), was surely meant to refer to Nineworthys.
12. MS Locke f.12, pp. 234-5, 232-3.
13. MSS Locke f.12, pp. 230-1, 228-9, 226-7, f.13, pp. 12-13, c.26, fol. 95r.
14. MSS Locke c.26, fol. 65r; c.19, fols. 3r, cf. 2v, 27v; c.26,
fols. 69, 73v-74r, f.4, p. 44.
15. MS Locke f.4, p. 23, L2382, L2560, L2679, L2756, L3310, L3330, L3481, L3502.
16. MS Locke c.26, fols. 94, 95v.
17. Locke MS f.12, p. 5, c.26, fol. 34.
18. MS Locke f.12, p. 258.
19. MSS Locke f.12, pp. 5, 255, 251, 250, 242-3, 240-1, 238-9, 236-7, 234-5, 232-3, 230-1, 228-9, 226-7, f.13, p. 12, c.26, fols. 34r, 69r, NA PRO 30/24/47/30, fol. 11, c.19, fols. 2r, 3r, f.4, p. 20, c.19, fol. 3, L293, L936, L954, L1669, L1871.
20. L1561.
21. MS Locke c.19, fol. 81 (L1669), L1680.
22. L1812, L1963, L1957, MS Locke c.26, fols. 73v-74r; for some reason William Gullock paid the rent in 1695 (Locke MS c.26, fols. 73v-74r).
23. L2679, L3330, L3310.
24. L3310.
25. L3330, L3481, L3502.
26. MS Locke c.26, fols. 95, 94.
27. L211, MSS Locke c.26, fol. 52r, f.12, p. 8, NA PRO 30/24/47/30, fol. 11v. Perhaps Mrs Floury was only recently widowed (L206). The spelling of the name varies -- Floury, Flory, Flourre. There is mention in other contexts of a "John Flower", but a clearly different person from John Floury (L206, L211, L213).
28. MSS Locke c.26, fols. 8, 32, 34r, 39r, f.12, pp. 5, 255, 260. Though the rent remained the same, Bayly's house was valued prior to 1660 at £3 p.a. with a worth to be sold of £28 (MS Locke c.26, fols. 32, 39r) and then at £3.5s and £43 (MSS Locke c.26, fol. 34r, f.12, p. 5).
29. NA PRO 30/24/47/30, fol. 11, MSS Locke f.12, pp. 242-3, 240-1, 238-9, 236-7, 234-5, 232-3, 230-1, 228-9, 226-7, L293.
30. L936, L954, MSS Locke c.19, fol. 27v, f.4, p. 20.
31. L641.
32. L641.
33. L654.
34. L741. Stratton had suggested £18, but would have accepted £17.
35. L848; later, the widow Shatter ("very shatter witted now", Stratton commented), claimed that this fine also included changing Floury's life (MS Locke c.19, fol. 25 (L895).
36. L869, MS Locke c.19, fol. 25 (L895), L901.
37. L1204, L1208, L1275. When Shatter left she removed some doors and wanted payment for others. "What the lawe will alow in that case" Stratton was not clear (MS Locke c.19, fol. 48 (L1282).
38. MS Locke c.19, fol. 47 (L1275).
39. MS Locke c.19, fol. 48 (L1282).
40. L1282, L1296, L1297.
41. MS Locke c.26, fol. 73v; L1296, MS Locke c.26, fol. 84
(L2679), L2735.
42. L2735.
43. MS Locke c.26, fols. 94v, 95v.
44. £1 value p.a., £5 worth to be sold; MS Locke c.26, fol. 32.
45. £1 value p.a., but worth to be sold of £7, MSS Locke c.26,
fol. 34, f.12, p. 5.
46. MS Locke f.12, p. 259; the supposition that he paid in 1665 depends on his being the same as "John" and "J." Floury, and on its being partly for Gardiners (partly also for Lockiers tenement, see below) that his payments were made (MS Locke f.12, pp. 250, 251, 254).
47. L206, NA PRO 30/24/47/30, fol. 11rv, MS Locke f.12, pp. 242-3, 240-1, 238-9.
48. MS Locke f.12, pp. 238-9, 236-7, 234-5, 232-3, 230-1.
49. MS Locke f.12, pp. 228-9, 226-7, L293.
50. MS Locke f.4, p. 23, L293, L755, L936, L1680, L1871, L2372, L2382, L2390, L2679.
51. MS Locke c.26, fols. 69, 73v, 95v, 94r.
52. NA PRO 30/24/47/30, fol. 11rv.
53. MS Locke c.26, fol. 32r.
54. 3 lives, old rent 1s p.a., £1 p.a., worth to be sold £7; MSS Locke f.12, p. 5, c.26, fol. 34r; see also f.12, p. 259 which records that "J. Floury [paid] 6d for 1/2 year for his own tenement". By 1668, however, the reference of "Flowry's tenement" (now A. Floury's) is the Potters House (MS Locke f.12, p. 242-3, 240-1.
55. MSS Locke f.12, pp. 242-3, 240-1; 238-9, 236-7, 234-5, 232-3, 230-1, 228-9, 226-7, c.26, fol. 69, L293, L296.
56. MSS Locke c.26, fol. 69, c.19, fol. 3.
57. L1561, L1864, L1871.
58. MS Locke c.26, fol. 72 (L1864).
59. Apparently already somewhere a tenant of Locke's (L550, L568, L952).
60. L654; a further obscurity, or at least complexity, is that Jonathan Floury was one of the lives on her lease.
61. The son is named as Summers, so perhaps his mother, now Mrs Kemp, was widow Summers.
62. MS Locke c.19, fol. 19 (L755).
63. L1561, MS Locke c.26, fol. 87r.

Rates, Taxes, and Other Payments
1. Though Cranston, 79, n. 4 implies otherwise.
2. MS Locke c.25, fol. 6; see also Moger, 554.
3. MS Locke b.5/2.
4. MSS Locke f.12, p. 250, f.13, p. 13, c.26, fol. 69r, c.19, fol. 3, L2247, L2265, L2283, L2372, L2679.
5. A Mr. Curtis in the early years (L213, MS Locke f.12, p. 250), a Mr. Palmer later (L2167, L2247, L2265, L2283).
6. L936, L1864, L2679, L2755, MS Locke c.19, fol. 3.
7. MSS Locke f.4, pp. 33, 49, f.12, pp. 248, 242-3, 240-1, 238-9, 236-7, 234-5, 232-3, 230-1, 228-9, 226-7, c.26, fols. 69r, 73v-4r, L293, L936, L954, L1864, L2372, NA PRO 30/24/47/30, fol. 11.
8. Clay, 87.
9. MS Locke f.12, p. 251.
10. MSS Locke f.12, p. 254, f.13, p. 30.
11. MSS Locke f.4, p. 44, f.12, p. 254, f.13, pp. 49, 50.
12. Braddick 1994, 151-2.
13. Clay, 87.
14. MSS Locke c.26, fol. 60, f.12, pp. 248, 12.
15. L2226, L2230. Gullock's lease of Nineworthys, however, explicitly laid down that he was not to pay a proportion of taxes but was "absolutely discharged from all payments except tithes" (Rand 1927, 223 (L954), also L936).
16. But Cannan, Tate, Webb 1963 (a), Webb 1963 (b) are of great help.
17. MS Locke, f.12, pp. 257, 254.
18. Tate, 33; also Webb 1963 (a), 15-17.
19. L2226, also L2293.
20. MS Locke c.19, fol. 41 (L1204).
21. L952; MSS Locke f.12, pp. 250, 257, 259, f.13, p. 48; Webb 1963 (a), 19, 212n. Alternatively, just as the house was expected sometimes to provide a tithingman or constable, it may have been expected also to make payments towards the expenses of that office (Webb 1963 (a), 28-9, 129).
22. MS Locke c.26, fol. 94.
23. L936, L954; similarly Haroll at Belluton was subject to one or two?) tithing pays (MSS Locke f.12, p. 255, c.19, fol. 3).
24. dB, vol. 3, 206.
25. MSS Locke f.13, p. 48, c.19, fol. 3; c.26, fol. 94; c.19, fol. 3, f.4, p. 44.
26. MS Locke f.12, p. 254; see Webb 1963 (a), index for under/sheriff.
27. MSS Locke c.19, fol. 78r (L1561).
28. Tate, 27, 241, Webb 1963 (b), chaps. 2-3.
29. MS Locke f.12, p. 4.
30. MSS Locke f.12, pp. 259, 250; f.13, p. 49.
31. Webb 1963 (b), chap. 5.
32. MS Locke f.12, p. 257. His "mending the dike" earned him 4s credit.
33. Oxley, 47-8.
34. MS Locke f.13, p. 50; see also Lyance at Buckhill in 1665 (MS Locke f.12, p. 251).
35. L294, L543, L550, L2372. See MSS Locke f.4, p. 44, f.12, p. 250, f.13, p. 48, c.19, fol. 3, c.26, fol. 94, L2390 for Robert Haroll and John Veale at Belluton; and MSS Locke f.4, pp. 23, 44, f.12, pp. 249, 257, 255, f.13, pp. 50, 30-1, L614, for James Atkins at (ST1) Old Down.
36. MSS Locke f.4, p. 44, f.13, p. 48.
37. MS Locke f.4, p. 2.
38. MS Locke f.12, p. 251.
39. MS Locke f.13, p. 48; see also William Smith's 1673 payment of 10s "to the church" (MS Locke f.13, pp. 49-50).
40. MS Locke c.19, fol. 3, f.4, p. 44.
41. MS Locke c.26, fol. 84v (L2679), also L2153.
42. MS Locke f.13, p. 30.
43. For example, Chandaman, Jurkowski.
44. See also Braddick 1994, 158-67, Kennedy, 43.
45. Atkins: MS Locke f.12, pp. 238-9, 234-5; Lyance: MS Locke f.12, pp. 242-3, 240-1; Haroll: MS Locke f.12, fols. 242-3, 240-1, 238-9, 236-7, 234-5. See also William Smith at Buckhill, £3.8s.9d down to 11s (MS Locke f.12, pp. 238-9, 236-7, 234-5.), and Hopkins, 18s to 9s (MS Locke f.12, pp. 242-3, 240-1, 238-9, 236-7, 234-5).
46. 14 Car II c.10; Braddick 1996, 102, Dowell, vol. 2, 26-7, Jurkowski, 261-5.
47. MS Locke f.12, p. 6.
48. MS Locke f.13, p. 29.
49. MSS Locke f.12, pp. 254, 255, 259, f.13, pp. 30, 49, f.4, p. 44.
50. MS Locke f.12, 255, 250; 14 Car. II c.3 (1662), Jurkowski, 261, Chandaman, 157, 327.
51. MS Locke c.19, f.39 (L952), L1208, dB vol. 3, 242.
52. 16&17 Car. II c.1 (Jurkowski, 266-7, Chandaman, 157, 162-3).
53. MS Locke f.12, p. 4.
54. Haroll: MS Locke f.12, pp. 254, 250; Lyance: MS Locke f.12, p. 254.
55. MS Locke f.13, pp. 29, 30; the six month "King's present"
assessment for Buckhill (now William Smith) seems to have gone down to 8s.9d (MS Locke f.13, p. 49).
56. 25 Car. II c.1 (Jurkowski, 271, Chandaman, 157, 185-6).
57. Locke MS c.19, fol. 3; Car. II c.1 (Jurkowski, 274-5,
Chandaman: 157, 189: a grant of supply to pay and disband the armed forces.
58. 1 W&M, s.2, c.1, 3 W&M, c.5, 4 W&M, c.1 (Braddick 1996, 98, Dowell, vol. 2, 47-51, Kennedy, 44-6, Ward, 3-4, 7).
59. L936, L1871, L3502.
60. L1448, L1537, MS Locke c.19, fol. 77 (L1558), L1603, L1612.
61. L2208, L2247, MS Locke c.26, fol. 73v.
62. L2372, L2679.
63. L2390.

REFERENCES
Braddick, Michael J., 1994. Parliamentary Taxation in Seventeenth-Century England. Woodbridge.
--- 1996. The Nerves of State: Taxation and the Financing of the English State, 1588-1714. Manchester.
Cannan, Edwin, 1912. The History of Local Rates in England. London.
Chandaman, C.D., 1975. English Public Revenue, 1660-1688. Oxford.
Clay, Christopher, 1981. 'Lifeleasehold in the western counties of England 1650-1750', The Agricultural History Review, 29, 83-96.
Cranston, Maurice, 1957. John Locke: A Biography. London.
de Beer, E.S., (ed), 1976-89. The Correspondence of John Locke. 8 vols. Oxford.
Dowell, Stephen, 1965. A History of Taxation and Taxes from the Earliest Times to the Present Day, 3rd edn. London.
Jurkowski, M., Smith, C.L. and Crook, D., 1998. Lay Taxes in England and Wales 1188-1688. Kew.
Kennedy, William, 1913. English Taxation, 1640-1799. London.
Oxley, Geoffrey W., 1874. Poor Relief in England and Wales, 1601-1834. Newton Abbot.
Rand, Benjamin, 1927. The Correspondence of John Locke and Edward Clarke. Cambridge Mass.
Tate, W.E., 1946. The Parish Chest: A Study of the Records of Parochial
Administration in England. Cambridge.
Ward, W.R., 1953. The English Land Tax in the Eighteenth Century. London.
Webb, Adrian, and Jones, Dorothy. Somerset wills from the Moger Collection, (Somerset Archive and Record Service, DD/X/WBB/242), 2001.
Webb, Sidney and Beatrice, 1963 (a). The Parish and the County (English Local Government, vol. 1). London.
---, 1963 (b). The Story of the King's Highway (English Local Government, vol. 5). London.