Once home to a small but significant manorial community, the disappearance of the vill of Carton in northeast Bayton serves as a potent reminder of the waves of demographic change experienced in the parish over the last millennium. Charting population changes provides an essential background to the parish’s medieval history, but is inevitably hampered by the lack of anything approaching modern census records; in the case of Bayton, we also lack the manorial court rolls which have proven so informative for demographic studies elsewhere in the West Midlands. In reconstructing Bayton’s medieval population we are therefore heavily reliant on the evidence of taxation records written up at a number of fixed and unevenly-distributed dates throughout the 11th-16th centuries, none of which were ever meant to say much about population in the first place. Problematic as these sources are, they do let us make some population estimates at a series of fixed points, illuminating at least the broad contours of demographic change in the medieval parish.
Point 1: Domesday Book
The earliest of these fixed points is the 1086 Domesday survey, whose usefulness as a demographic ‘benchmark’ is well-established albeit much debated in the details. In one of the more useful methodological surveys of English historical demography Goose and Hinde propose a series of multipliers to convert Domesday’s household listings into viable population estimates, using which the parish entries –divided in the survey between the manors of Bayton and Carton – can be transformed into estimates of 77-125 people at Bayton and 24-75 at Carton. These estimates clearly vary quite considerably in the details, but serve as eminently reasonable approximations of the highs and lows of where population is likely to have lain, suggesting a parish-wide total of some 101-200 people in the later 11th century.
Point 2: c.1280 lay subsidy
Our next ‘fixed point’ for demographic estimates in the parish comes almost 200 years later in the form of another tax document – the c.1280 Worcestershire lay subsidy. The subsidy, levied at an uncertain rate, lists the names of some 27 taxpayers in Bayton and 8 in Carton whose contributions varied between 1s – 10s apiece. It is not unreasonable to assume that the taxpayers represent heads of households, although given the financial scale of their payments it would be unreasonable to assume that they represent all households; more likely many were exempted by poverty, while a few more might have conveniently disappeared when the tax assessors came to visit. Following Dyer, the high estimate used here for the c.1280 lay subsidy assumes that those listed represent only 50% of households in their respective vills – the remaining 50% exempt from or evading the survey – and that each household on average contained 5 people, producing high estimates of 270 people in Bayton and 80 in Carton. These figures are clearly quite optimistic, and can be complemented by lower estimates which assume that only 40% of households went untaxed and on average contained 4 people, suggesting totals of 180 residents in Bayton and 53 in Carton. In both the individual vills and the whole parish we can therefore identify a steady rate of population growth during the 200 years since the Domesday survey, mirroring broader trends at the national level.
Point 3: 1332/3 lay subsidy
Using the same principles we can make some population estimates from the 1332/3 lay subsidy. Levied at a fifteenth in rural areas like Bayton, the subsidy records 17 taxed individuals at Bayton and 6 at Carton, which using the same assumptions about evasion and household sizes adopted for the previous subsidy gives estimates of 113-170 at Bayton and 40-60 at Carton. This suggests a significant decline in settlement size over some c.50 years in the early 14th century – hardly surprising given the massive famines and livestock murrains sweeping Europe at the time.
An interlude – what about the plague?
By this point we have some reasonable estimates for Bayton’s population on the eve of the massive demographic crises of the mid-late 14th century. Assessing the impact of these crises at the local level usually involves comparing pre-plague figures with post-plague figures, the latter of which are commonly calculated from the 1377-81 poll taxes. Here the record for Bayton hits a brick wall, as very few Worcestershire poll tax records have survived – none of which include the parish – and alternative sources like manorial court rolls are absent or inconclusive. What does this mean for demographic history in this critical period?
As in most places in England, it’s hard to imagine that Bayton’s inhabitants escaped the plague years unscathed. On 21 July 1349 the parish received a new vicar, William de Emynghope, on the death of his predecessor, Thomas Aleyn – a fate shared with almost half of Worcestershire’s parish clergy between July and December 1349, and one that whiffs quite strongly of the plague. This alone, however, is not sufficient to establish local mortality rates, much less their overall impact on the local demographic pattern. Analogy – problematic as it is – seems to be the only source for estimating parish population at the end of the 14th century. This presents new problems, as studies which have assessed pre- and post-plague demographic change underline some quite substantial differences at the national and local levels; the most commonly cited national figure suggests that the English population approximately halved in size between c.1340-1400, although varying between counties, parishes and manors. Worcestershire certainly seems to have been one of the worse-hit counties in England, its maximum percentage mortality reaching 45-50% in 1349 alone.
Bearing this in mind, it seems fair to propose some very tenuous population estimates for Bayton and Carton c.1400, using the 1332/3 lay subsidy estimates as a benchmark. A low population estimate c.1400 assumes that the lower population estimate for 1332/3 was hit particularly hard in the mid-14th century, halving in size over c.50 years to around 57 individuals in Bayton and 20 in Carton. A more optimistic estimate assumes that the higher population estimate for 1332/3 got off slightly lighter, contracting by 40% by c.1400 to approximately 102 people in Bayton and 36 in Carton. The conditionality of these estimates cannot be stressed enough – after all, they are assumptions of what may have happened based on analogies from elsewhere in the country – but serve to provide a useful indication of the likely practical impact of demographic crisis on a small parish community in the mid-late 14th centuries.
Point 4: 1524 lay subsidy
The exchequer lay subsidy of 1524 provides a welcome opportunity to move towards some firmer ground for population estimates, but presents a new set of problems. Unlike previous incarnations Bayton and Carton were not taxed separately in the 1524 subsidy, instead being assessed together as a parish. The change coincides with the declining importance of Carton, whose manor was valued at only 26s 8d per year by 1400 – an absurdly low sum little more than its residents had contributed in tax alone c.120 years earlier. The 1524 entry for Bayton parish lists 30 people contributing to the tax, although as ever it is unclear whether these are heads of households or taxable males aged 16 and over. The high and low estimates given here have been calculated using the method outlined by Goose and Hinde, and imply a parish-wide population of 137-204 people.
Looking at the long term
The results of this survey have given us four reasonable population estimates at fixed dates – 1086, c.1280, 1332-3 and 1524 – and an additional (albeit more problematic) estimate c.1400. The scope of the estimates are limited – having an obviously uneven chronological distribution and telling us very little about sex ratios, birth rates and death rates – but do illustrate some of the broad contours of Bayton’s population history, largely mirroring the national pattern of steady growth in the 11th-13th centuries, a rapid decline by the 15th century and a slow resumption in growth by the early 16th century. In absolute terms, the estimates for c.1280 reveal a parish population that had reached a peak never again experienced until the late 18th century.
Looking at the estimates in a general way it is interesting to note the differences in scale between the vills of Bayton and Carton, the latter consistently sustaining a far smaller population yet retaining enough significance to be taxed independently before the 16th century. This picture is consistent with a 1307 description of Carton as a hamlet, and raises questions about Habington’s description of it as ‘a place of great accompte in thys paryshe’ – which presumably alludes more to the prestige with which he held its noble landholders than its medieval size or value. In hindsight the declining population at Carton seems to foreshadow its eventual desertion as much as its declining tax payments do; the human impact of a sizeable fall in population in so small a vill would no doubt be felt more sorely than in its larger counterpart, perhaps therefore providing an interesting counter-example to Dyer’s suggestion that woodland communities were hit less critically than those in champion landscapes by a declining population.
 Razi 1980; Dyer 2012
 Goose and Hinde 2006
 Goose and Hinde 2007
 Lay Subs. R. Worcs. c. 1280, p v. Amphlett later suggested that the tax was levied at a tenth, although it is unclear where he derived this figure from; see Lay Subs. R. Worcs. 1332-3, p vi
 Were it not for fleeing the parish after burning down the grange some 5 years earlier, presumably Thomas le Ku of Shakenhurst would have been one of those exempted from the subsidy through personal poverty – possessing no chattels at the time of his blacklisting. Worc. Eyre 1275, mem. 49a no. 1249
 Dyer 2012, p 133
 Hatcher and Bailey 2001, p 29
 Goose and Hinde 2007, p 78
 Fenwick 2005, p 126
 Reg. Joh. Trill. At this period Mamble and Bayton shared clergy, despite retaining separate parish churches.
 Lloyd 1993, p 45
 Hinde 2003, p 43
 Cal. Inq PM. Vol. XVIII., no. 62; Lay Subs. R. Worcs. c. 1280, p 59.
 Faraday 2003
 Goose and Hinde 2007, p 79
 Hatcher and Bailey, p 29
 Cal. Inq. Vol. V Edw. II., no 57
 Lay Subs. R. Worcs. c. 1332-3, p 24; Lay Subs. R. Worcs. c. 1280, p 59
 Dyer 2012, p 134
Amphlett, J., ed. 1893. Lay subsidy roll for the county of Worcester, circ. 1280. Worcester: Worcestershire Historical Society
Amphlett, J., ed. 1899. Lay subsidy roll, AD 1332-3, and Nonarum Inquisitiones, 1340, for the county of Worcester. Worcester: Worcestershire Historical Society
Faraday, M., ed. 2003. Worcestershire taxes in the 1520s: The military survey and forced loans of 1522-3 and the lay subsidy of 1524-7. Worcester: Worcestershire Historical Society
Fenwick, C., ed. 2005. The poll taxes of 1377, 1379, and 1381, Part 3: Wiltshire-Yorkshire. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
HMSO. 1908. Calendar of inquisitions post mortem and other analogous documents preserved in the Public Record Office, Vol V Edward II. London: HMSO
Kirby, J., ed. 1987. Calendar of inquisitions post mortem, Vol XVIII 1 – 6 Henry IV (1399 – 1405). London: HMSO
Parry, J., ed. 1912. Registrum Johannis de Trillek, Episcopi Herefordensis, AD 1344-1361. 2 vols. Hereford: Wilson and Phillips
Röhrkasten, J., ed. 2008. The Worcester Eyre of 1275. Worcester: Worcestershire Historical Society.
Dyer, C. 2012. A country merchant, 1495-1520: trading and farming at the end of the Middle Ages. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Goose, N., and Hinde, A. 2006. Estimating local population sizes at fixed points in time: Part I – general principles. Local Population Studies. 77. pp 66-74.
Goose, N., and Hinde, A. 2007. Estimating local population sizes at fixed points in time: Part II – specific sources. Local Population Studies. 78. pp 74-88.
Hatcher, J., and Bailey, M. 2001. Modelling the Middle Ages. Oxford: Oxford University Press
Hinde, A. 2003. England’s population: a history since the Domesday Survey. London: Hodder.
Lloyd, D. 1993. A history of Worcestershire. Chichester: Phillimore.
Razi, Z. 1980. Life, marriage and death in a medieval parish : economy, society and demography in Halesowen, 1270-1400. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press
It is a later date but might help back-tracking – have you found the Hearth tax and Protestation Returns ? This would give you a mid to late 17th C to match back.
Very good idea, and one I’ve not really thought much about (I chalk it up to medieval navel-gazing) – will have to update this in the near future!
A most interesting summary of the evidence. You are fortunate to have a source for Bayton like the late C13 lay subsidy – my own patch of Surrey doesn’t have an equivalent to call upon. It had slipped my mind that the population of England may have reached an apogee in the very early 1300s as your stats suggest rather than on the eve of the Black Death.
What we do have for Puttenham is the return for the last of the three Poll Tax levies of a century later. What’s interesting about this is it lists a similar number of contributors as there were to the 1332 Lay Subsidy. The neighbouring manor of Farnham has detailed land records which have been used to postulate the death of at least one-third of its population as a consequence of the Black Death, so it’s highly unlikely Puttenham got away scot-free. However, assuming equivalent levels of exemption and avoidance (and it might be worth digging a bit deeper to gauge whether they were more or less comparable), the fiscal records do not obviously indicate a decline in population. What I take from this is the replacement of would-be taxpayers who succumbed to the Black Death or effects of famine by people formerly resident outside of the parish, an idea I’ve seen in print before though for the life of me I can’t recall where! There is a mix of old and new surnames in the Poll Tax return which might support this interpretation – or it may just mean that some families two or three generations down the line could not repeat the trick of avoiding paying up.
Obviously, I can’t pretend what that seems to have occurred in a small parish in south-west Surrey is immediately applicable to somewhere on the other side of England, but dynamism on the part of the surviving population of Bayton, and likewise among those who could relocate and take advantage of the fluid situation of the later 1300s, may be worth looking at in closer detail, perhaps using what little Poll Tax data there is as a comparative basis?
Very interesting points re: mobility, and definitely something to think about in some detail. The new/old surname mix is evident in the 1524 subsidy and 1564-75 parish register entries, although I wonder the extent to which this just relates to previously untaxed groups now being taxed; a little more than 25% of the new additions to the 1524 subsidy are described as labourers, and of these a few have locational surnames which can be tied to the parish anyway (eg Richard Tymborlake). Whether these labourers were more mobile folk from outside the parish taking advantage of the breakup of former bonds – or indeed those from within the parish whose former manorial ties were breaking up, as in the declining manor of Carton – isn’t really clear right now, and I suppose there’s a bit of scope for comparison with neighbouring parishes in Shropshire whose records are more useful in this context! Interestingly, however, I get the impression at the moment that the evidence for population mobility in the parish is stronger for the late 13th/early 14th centuries than it is c.1350 onwards; the surname evidence for the earlier period implies movements stretching more than 25+ miles into the parish from Warwickshire, Shropshire and the Welsh Marches. This might just be that there are more (and more meaningful) locational surnames for this period than afterwards, though.
In any case I get the impression that the small population decline visible in the stats – a c.10% fall between 1332-3 and 1524 – is hiding something a little more significant in the intervening c.200 years. In terms of population decline the most obvious physical traces are a set of probable abandoned tofts just east of Bayton village and the total disappearance of the settlement at Carton, but the fact that the nave of the parish church seems to have never been extended beyond its 12th century capacity is probably important too. In terms of documentary evidence manorial records from the nearby parishes of Earnwood and Cleobury Foreign show that holdings in both were either tenantless, turned over to woodland or given at reduced rents in the early 1370s, so in demographic terms *something* significant happened during the period. I get the feeling that some serious fieldwalking might turn up evidence to tell us what this is.