The notion of movement serves as a link between the fringes of society and the outskirts of the urban landscape. Vicinities beyond the city confines were interwoven with pathways leading to the adjoining rural regions. Individuals and commodities could seamlessly traverse between areas officially delineated as London and those in neighboring regions. Testamentary evidence highlighted the mobile nature prevalent in communities beyond the city boundaries. Migration and mobility, while pivotal in urban activities, also instilled a sense of apprehension in a society valuing neighborly reputations as a measure of integrity. This composition delves into the profound impact of mobility on London inhabitants and the perception of community outside the city walls. This novel perspective on London’s mobility encompasses intra-city movement along with long-distance relocation, surpassing earlier scholarly focus on the city’s apprentices.
The connection between movement and marginalization in an urban setting that esteemed constancy yet thrived on motion for its prosperity was intricate. The affluent citizens upheld the notion of a settled household as the quintessential familial structure, enabling vigilant care of dependents and dedication to the community through frankpledge, a system where neighbors pledged to uphold the law. Historians exploring late medieval domestic life showcased an idealized concept of home life and stability, which possibly served as compensation for the rural origins left behind by socially mobile urban residents, or as a differentiation from the transient lifestyles of the impoverished. Migration, although a shared experience among the wealthy and destitute in late medieval towns, cast a shadow on the mobility of the underprivileged.
Post the Black Death era, attitudes towards wandering beggars hardened, and royal decrees endeavored to restrict movement and discourage alms-seeking. The late 15th and early 16th centuries witnessed a resurgence of interest in this issue, likely linked to the swelling population in London and its environs. Parliamentary statutes and royal edicts between the 1460s and 1530s reiterated a demand that the destitute should seek alms where they were born or where they were recognized the most. Consequently, around 1500, the persona of the vagrant, a prominent figure in early modern poverty concerns, was taking shape. London’s civic bodies were notably active in this period in defining the forms of movement that warranted reproach. In 1473, ward juries were tasked with investigating ‘nightwalkers, vagrants, rogues, and formidable beggars, as well as idle men and women who could earn a livelihood through labor but chose not to.’ Occasionally, mobility, particularly women’s mobility, was linked to prostitution and moral misconduct. On April 14, 1482, two proclamations issued by the city addressed vagrancy concerns; one lamented ‘prostitutes and wayward women loitering about the streets and alleys,’ enticing individuals towards lewd behaviors, while the other raised the matter of ‘rogues, idle individuals, and notable beggars persistently moving about within London, capable of sustaining themselves through legitimate work.’
In 1516, the city detained thirteen men labeled as vagabonds, affixing yellow patches shaped like the letter V onto their garments and relocating them ‘to their birthplace or other suitable locales where they could earn a living during harvest seasons or hay-making.’ The subsequent year, in response to a royal mandate, the city devised a badge scheme for a thousand settled paupers to distinguish them from ‘formidable beggars,’ appointing three citizens to monitor beggars and inform the aldermen of newcomers. As David Hitchcock noted for a later period, designating poor migrants as vagabonds was considerably arbitrary and subject to the discretion of local communities or even individual officers enforcing the law as per their interpretation. The movement of people and goods was indispensable for urban sustainability, yet during the early 16th century, endeavors burgeoned to vilify the mobility of destitute individuals as illegal and suspicious.
These grievances reflect apprehensions regarding movement as a routine, day-to-day affair (‘vagrant and walking about’) and as a permanent shift from other locales in the country to the city. Both aspects hold significance in comprehending the role of mobility in communities beyond the city confines. Urban migration scholars have predominantly focused on individuals who undertook a single substantial journey to London, particularly apprentices and non-English (‘alien’) migrants.
At a later stage in this article, the topic of apprentice migration will be discussed. The movement of apprentices is significant as it represents one of the most well-documented forms of English people relocating to the capital. A thorough examination of guild records has revealed that London attracted apprentices from a much broader geographic range compared to other cities in England.13 Apprentices, however, constituted a distinct group: they were young, predominantly male, and, due to their apprenticeship, had some level of social affiliation with the central establishments of the city. It has been demonstrated that residential areas outside the city walls had weaker links to the guilds and lower levels of civic involvement than areas within the fortified boundaries. Consequently, the migration of apprentices alone is insufficient to provide a comprehensive understanding of the migration patterns into those locales.
To comprehend the critical role of mobility in shaping the city, a more inclusive framework that considers the experiences of both the marginalized individuals and those on the verge of gaining citizenship is necessary. While not as consistently documented, the everyday movements and relocations within the city are evident in legal sources. This paper aims to illustrate that urban mobility was not characterized by a singular relocation process in youth, after which an individual settled in the city for the rest of their life. The reality was much more intricate. Scholars now acknowledge that completion rates for London apprenticeships were notably low, with fewer than 50 percent finishing their terms consistently from the fourteenth to the sixteenth centuries across various trades. Moreover, apprentices frequently left London before completing their training.14 Developing a nuanced understanding of mobility is crucial as it represented the driving force behind the sustenance and expansion of the city. The suburban districts serve as an ideal vantage point to gain a broader perspective.
The economic and social dynamics observed in the outskirts could only be upheld through regular mobility: of clientele, labor force, and individuals transporting goods. For instance, the servants residing as tenants beyond Bishopsgate would have had to commute to their workplaces, and commodities produced or stored outside the city walls needed to be transported to central markets for trading. The presence of taverns and other recreational venues outside the fortified perimeter would have enticed residents from the core to visit these areas. The demographic makeup of extramural neighborhoods likely facilitated mobility. Jeremy Boulton’s examination of neighborhood migration in early seventeenth-century Southwark indicated that impoverished inhabitants were less inclined to stay in the same neighborhood annually compared to those liable to pay poor rates.15 Foreigners tended to congregate near the entry points of the city and were typically temporary residents who intended to return to their places of origin.16 Both permanent and temporary mobility shaped life on the fringes of the city. Given that stability was highly valued as a societal ideal, this had implications for the overall social fabric of extramural neighborhoods and influenced how mobile individuals navigated their social status within London.
Insights from Church Court Depositions on Mobility
This article will explore mobility issues primarily through insights gleaned from the bishop of London’s consistory court. It would be beneficial to pause here and elucidate the court’s procedures since depositions from this court serve as the primary evidential support for the remaining sections of this book, and the strategic legal maneuvers of litigants and witnesses carry substantial weight in interpreting the court’s archives. The consistory court, the highest ecclesiastical court in London, adjudicated cases related to canon law such as disputes over tithes, marriages, marital separations, and libel, among others. Unlike lower clerical courts, most cases were initiated by a specific aggrieved party, although there were instances where cases were brought ex officio by the court’s decree.17 Each litigant presented a sequence of witnesses (deponents) who provided testimonies (depositions) concerning the contentious events surrounding a case. These depositions were in response to a series of formal allegations and inquiries.
These documents elucidated the facts of the case as perceived by the plaintiff and the defendant, respectively. They were carefully crafted by canon lawyers to elicit information that supported the narrative of each side.18 Typically, the articles and inquiries probed witnesses not only about the case at hand but also about their familiarity with the opposing party’s witnesses, their dwelling places, and their standing in the local community. In contrast to modern court proceedings, communal hearsay regarding an individual or a series of occurrences, often referred to as their ‘reputation,’ held significant sway in the ecclesiastical courts and other venues governed by canon and Roman law.19
The sole surviving remnants of the London consistory court during this era are its deposition registers, leaving us unaware of the case outcomes or the specific arguments presented by the litigators, except what can be inferred from the witness testimonies. Nevertheless, these depositions, replete with incidental details on daily life, personal backgrounds, and social interactions, offer a trove of material for social historians.
As conduits for individual perspectives, depositions present challenges as they are subject to the court’s requirements and the witnesses’ calculated portrayal of themselves.20 Additionally, as Shannon McSheffrey posited, they do not provide a direct portal to the events narrated but rather present crafted narratives aimed at appearing plausible in court.21 Nonetheless, ecclesiastical court depositions serve as valuable archives for studying mobility and migration within England due to the consistent inclusion of age and past/current place of residence details from witnesses, unlike secular court records.
While early modern historians have extensively utilized such sources, and to a lesser extent late medieval scholars, urban historians and those focusing on pre-late sixteenth-century London have yet to fully leverage these materials for analyzing mobility trends. Recently, deposition evidence has been effectively employed as an alternative to conventional time-use survey data for examining gendered labor practices in the early modern period, underscoring its value in studying day-to-day mobility patterns.23 Moreover, the varied social backgrounds of the witnesses summoned by the court imply that these depositions encapsulate personal residential relocations of individuals beyond the purview of the groups typically accessible in historical records.
According to canon law, the testimonies of destitute individuals were considered invalid.24 However, in London, as observed in analogous records from Marseille, the parties themselves appeared to determine the suitability of witnesses.25 The selection of witnesses and the criteria for determining their credibility shed light on local social hierarchies.26
Table 3.1 Ratio of deponents with noted birthplaces.
The data displayed in Table 3.1 reveals that the level of information documented regarding witnesses’ living histories varied significantly over time and from case to case. In the final years of the fifteenth century and the early years of the sixteenth century, details on residences mainly consisted of the current parish and occasionally one or two prior residences.27 There were instances where a witness’s birthplace was mentioned, with a higher occurrence observed among non-native witnesses compared to English witnesses. For example, in the dispute between Agnes Lyddon and Alice Harrys, all three witnesses were watermen of similar status. Interestingly, only Patrick Mandew from Ireland was asked about his birthplace.28 It appears that the alien status of witnesses was sometimes brought up by defendants as a means to challenge their credibility. In the case of Larke vs. Banester, witness birthplaces were disclosed by Banester’s party, potentially to undermine Warren Fanbooke, a goldsmith’s apprentice born in Gelderland.29
During the 1520s and 1530s, there was an increase in recording birthplaces (either specific settlements or counties) in deposition books, alongside details on current and past residencies. This change may have been influenced by Cardinal Wolsey’s anti-vagrancy measures targeting immorality in London and its surroundings.30 In disputes where knowledge of local practices was crucial, especially in conflicts between neighboring parish rectors over boundaries, depositions sometimes spanned a witness’s entire lifetime to establish residency history.31 The primary aim of documenting residency histories was typically to verify the individual’s identity and suitability to depose. As elaborated later in this article, transient residency was frequently exploited by parties to discredit their adversaries.32
The evidence examined here originates from deposition records of the court during the late fifteenth and early sixteenth centuries, with depositions primarily recorded in Latin, except for portions of direct speech in English. While Latin sections have been translated, preserved English spellings were maintained. Unfortunately, pre-1460 deposition records are unavailable, yet considering the upward population trend from the late fifteenth century, experiences of mobility likely have better representation in the surviving records. Seventy-eight cases with 401 deponents were selected for analysis, focusing on extramural parishes or cases shedding light on social marginalization aspects. The selection of neighborhoods considered extended to settlements and parishes near London, highlighting the city’s interconnectedness with its surroundings.
This article explores mobility from various perspectives, starting with an examination of London’s broad migration spectrum and the diverse paths that led people—be it young apprentices or elderly servants—to the city. Subsequently, it delves into intra-city and neighboring area migrations, exploring the motivations behind Londoners’ movements. In a society where personal reputation held significant value, mobility carried inherent risks, including reputational damage due to relocation—a theme further discussed in subsequent sections. Lastly, the article zooms in on London’s extramural regions, illustrating how constant movement within the city shaped these areas into spaces marked by mobility and an expansive sense of neighborhood.
Journey to London
Immigrants flocking to London during the late fifteenth and early sixteenth centuries originated from various regions. Figure 3.1 illustrates the birthplaces of 109 English and Welsh consistory witnesses who specified their birthplace, while Figure 3.2 showcases these witnesses alongside those who solely mentioned their county of origin. Thirteen witnesses were born within the city and Middlesex, the highest count among all counties. Nevertheless, individuals from regions outside the south-east predominantly hailed from the north of England—Yorkshire, Lancashire, Northumberland—and the west midlands. London attracted migrants extensively, reaching far beyond its immediate economic periphery.
These patterns correlate partially with existing studies on London’s migration dynamics during this era, suggesting that London at the close of the fifteenth century cast a wide net across England.33 Stephanie Hovland highlighted the widening pool of apprentices migrating to London throughout the fifteenth century.34 While the most significant migration fields were noticed in prestigious London crafts, the presence of consistory witnesses with northern origins implies broader diversity among London residents. Among the Yorkshire witnesses were individuals engaged in artisan occupations like William Wylson, a grey tawyer; Richard Smyth, a brewer; John Frethe, a poulterer; and Joan Fytt, a carpenter’s spouse.35 Servant deponents hailed from locations as distant as Newcastle upon Tyne, Exeter, and Newport in Wales.36 The consistory deposition archives provide valuable insights distinct from previous studies dependent on apprenticeship records from specific guilds.
creating difficulties in distinguishing between trade-specific designs and evolution over time.37 The indications given here propose that the large sector identified in apprentice beginnings from more extensive trades towards the close of the fifteenth century could indeed mirror the overall population of London. Matthew Davies has shown the crucial importance of the labor force from the city’s non-citizen residents in various smaller trades and occupations without guilds, a community that was highly mobile.38 The city’s economic activity was powered by migrants and mobility across all strata, from the formal commerce of citizens to the informal or unstructured businesses of non-citizen residents and, as highlighted by Davies, the notable ambiguous zone in between where migrants and unsuccessful apprentices toiled on the fringes of regulated trades. Across all levels, individuals journeyed significant distances to capitalize on the city’s prosperity during a time when the fortunes of many other English towns were declining.
Certain suburban parishes exhibited distinctive patterns of migration and mobility. Deposition reports centered on the parish of St Sepulchre without Newgate, to the northwest of the city walls, reveal a similar trend highlighted in Figure 3.3. This map incorporates both individuals residing in the parish at the time of their deposition and those who came from other locations to witness incidents within the parish; for now, I will focus on the twenty-one resident deponents. These men and women typically hailed from the midlands; of the eleven deponents with a documented place of birth, eight were born in Staffordshire, Worcestershire, Leicestershire, and Derbyshire.
Similar to the correlation between Essex and St Botolph Aldgate, the butchery sector seemed to be the key driver of this trend. Six individuals from St Sepulchre were either butchers or assistants to butchers, all of them either operating or residing on St John’s Street near the West Smithfield livestock and meat marketplace. St John’s Street was actually under the jurisdiction of the priory of St John of Jerusalem, about which further details will be provided shortly. This trend mirrors what was observed in later sixteenth-century apprentice records for London’s butchers, where the routes for driving livestock to the midlands influenced the recruitment patterns.39 This appears to have been part of a broader extramural migration trend prompted by the economic ties of specific neighborhoods to a designated hinterland.
Figure 3.3 Residence history map for deponents in cases with events in St Sepulchre without Newgate.
As implied here, it is crucial not merely to examine migration in isolation. Mobility, instead of being a singular move from rural to urban settings, was a prolonged reality for many fifteenth-century Londoners and especially for those residing in suburban districts. Though not as systematically detailed as the information regarding birthplaces, some witnesses furnished more elaborate records of their residential trajectories, offering insights into their mobility over their lifetime. The deponents from All Hallows stood out as a particularly well-documented group due to a legal case built around a tithe dispute between the rectors of that parish and the neighboring St Mary Axe, where witnesses needed to validate their memory of the parish boundaries. None of the deponents reported being born in their current inhabited parish, with their origins scattered across different parts of England. Those who narrated a subsequent migration phase (meaning, a relocation post their birthplace and pre-settlement in their current abode) had shifted to the city or its environs. Most of these transitions saw them move to All Hallows itself or the neighboring parishes, except for Richard Williams, who resided in Bermondsey.
Most subsequent moves gravitated closer to the parish, although Thomas Norris transitioned from All Hallows to Stepney, Middlesex, before returning to the city, and William Wylson spent some time in Sussex. Four witnesses had served apprenticeships in All Hallows parish, two of whom relocated there for their training and stayed put. One of the ex-apprentices, William Wylson, recollected being apprenticed in the parish, moving elsewhere, and returning after about a decade to occupy his former master’s residence. The residency map from All Hallows suggests a familiar sense of community akin to that depicted in the testamentary accounts, with witnesses showcasing affiliations to a particular urban zone that could span a lifetime. Nonetheless, it also hints at commonplace inter-parish movements, albeit with witnesses leaning towards specific city neighborhoods. Urban dwellers from the late medieval era predominantly interacted with urban settings through relatively confined areas intertwined with social bonds and commercial engagements.
Image Source: Dmitry Naumov / Shutterstock
