The watch as an accessory in the Seventeenth Century

Most people don’t think of pocket watches as a seventeenth century accessory, but they have been around since c.1500. One early reference is to Peter Henlein (or Hele) of Nuremburg, in Johann Cochläus’s 1511 edition of Cosmographia. He states that Henlein “shapes many-wheeled clocks out of small bits of iron, which run and chime the hours without weights for forty hours, whether carried at the breast or in a bag.” There is an article on what is possibly the earliest such watch on the Quill & Pad website including photographs of both the 1505 watch and its component parts. 

Silver watch, c.1637

The earliest portrait of a man with a watch is attributed to Tommaso Manzuoli (1531–1571) and has been thought to be of Cosimo I de Medici, painted around 1560, though it is now listed simply as man holding a watch. The portrait is in the Science Museum. Watches could, even at this early date be combined with other similar items, the Ashmolean Museum has a gilt-brass cased watch with an alarm, sundials and a lunar volvelle in the form of a book, with a loop so that it could be hung from a chain or cord around the neck. It dates from around 1580 and was made in Munich. In the sixteenth century watches would have been owned only by the richest in society, but this changed as watches became more common in the seventeenth century.

An analysis of over 5,000 Stuart wills and inventories reveals 18 men with watches, seven of them pre 1650. Most of the owners describe themselves as gentlemen or esquires, though others are members of the professions. In 1640 the vicar of St Mary Redcliffe in Bristol owned a watch, as did another Bristolian, Richard Brace, Practitioner in the Art of Physic, in 1642.  In the second half of the century ownership had expanded to include a yeoman, an apothecary, and a plumber. 

The cheapest of these watches was valued at £1 5s, the most expensive at £6. None of them would have been anything like as spectacular as the hexagonal verge watch set in a single large Colombian emerald, that was part of the Cheapside Hoard, and is now in the Museum of London. 

Few of the owners say anything beyond the simple comment that they own a watch, though three specify that the watch is silver. Thomas Chaitor esquire in 1615 leaves his son his, “watch which was Sir Henrie Lindlies.” Roger Widdrington esquire in 1641 has three watches “in his pocket.” He is a problematical person as his administrators discover; while his goods are worth over £1,000, his debts are over £6,000, and his widow has removed a trunk from Durham to Yorkshire “to avoid the Dainger of the Scotts, as she pretended” (I don’t think the administrators believed her). 

One surviving example, completely unaltered, of a puritan verge watch dating to 1625-50, is in the Dover Museum. We may even know its owner, as it was given to the museum by a descendent of Nicholas Eaton, who was mayor of Dover in 1617, 1631 and 1633, and who left a watch in his will. 

The watch photographed above is c.1637 and is in the Metropolitan Museum. It is inscribed on the movement John Ramsay à Londre. David Ramsay (died 1653) was the first master of the Clockmaker’s Company, but we don't know the relationship if any.  The Worshipful Company of Clockmakers was granted its charter in 1631, and its collection is on permanent display at the Science Museum, London.

A considerably less preserved watch is that found on the wreck of the Swan, a ship which sunk in 1653. Analysis of the watch, details, video  and photographs are on the National Museum of Scotland website, and show it was made by “Niccholas Higginson, Westminster”

 

NMS. Movement of a pocket watch made by I. Moncrief of London, c.1700

 

The early verge escapments were very inaccurate; they could gain hours per day. It was only with the addition of the balance spring in the 1650s that accuracy improved, down to about 10 minutes a day, so that by the 1680s they were beginning to put on a minute hand. In 1690 Thomas Nedham’s inventory specifies “a watch which goes by springs, £1 6s 8d.” 

For those interested in the technicalities of seventeenth century and earlier watches, the vergefusee website has a lot of information.  Another good source is the Ashmolean Museum’s Timepieces Collection.

A 1623 tailor and seven other Marlborough tailors 1592-1691

Quirijn van Brekelenkam - Tailor's workshop c.1661

This post looks particularly at the 1623 probate inventory of the tailor Ambrose Pontin of  Marlborough, in the county of Wiltshire, and at the seven other Marlborough tailors with probate inventories made between 1592 and 1691.(1) Pontin’s inventory is perhaps unusual in that it gives an idea of his equipment, and also shows the wares of an early craftsman retailer. There hasn’t been a vast amount of research done on how ordinary people purchased clothing at this time, but he may well be typical as a supplier. In market towns such as Marlborough the population, of about a thousand people, would be swollen on weekly market days, and it has been suggested that by 1660 the market places were surrounded by retail and craft shops. (2)

 

Relative values

Looking at the other, non farming, men of Marlborough who had inventories taken in the period 1620-1642, Pontin, with a total worth given as £90-18s-2d is near, but by no means at the top, of the range. John Cole, a 1626 tanner, was worth considerably more, £143-10s-4d, and two men worth a lot more were William Brewtie, a 1640 innholder, £279-8s-0d and Walter Jeffrys, a 1641 baker, £225-13s-0d. Pontin’s worth is similar to that of Anthony Gunther, a 1624 glover, £89-2s-6d, and John Heath, a 1637 innholder, £95-0s-7d. Below these with values of more than £50 are a barber, shoemaker, haberdasher and baker. With values between £30 and £50 are a dyer, a parchment maker, a glover and a barber. Those with values between £10 and £30 are two weavers, a cooper, a tanner, a heelmaker, mercer, butcher, carpenter, glazier, and shoemaker. Right at the bottom end,with values under £10, are a buttonmaker, baker, tailor and carpenter. This shows that tailors could run from the poorest to the richest of tradesmen. 

In the century from 1591 to 1691 there are eight Marlborough tailors listed in the inventories. Thomas Cockye 1592, Ambrose Pontin 1623, William Dawnce 1632, Robert Millington 1678, William Cornish 1685, Thomas Have 1689, John Mundy 1691 and Francis Smith 1691. Their values range from the £4-2s of Dawnce to £94-14s-6d for Millington. The total worth given is not necessarily an indication of how rich or otherwise they were, or how successful as tailors. 

Robert Millington 1678 for example, is the richest at £94-14s-6d, however £80 of this is in “debts due to the deceased.” William Cornish 1685, is another high value tailor worth £87-7s-0d, however although described as a tailor he is obviously functioning as a farmer, as he has harrows and ploughs and £31 of his worth is “corne upon the ground,” that is a crop in the fields. Francis Smith in 1691 appears to be doubling as brewer, he has his own brewhouse and cellar and owns eleven keevors (mash tubs), a furnace, boiler, 9 vessels and 3 horses for beer (in this sense it is a  horse as a frame, as in a saw-horse or a clothes horse).

Cloth

Pontin is the only one who lists any cloth in stock, and he kept a considerable amount having, 104 yards of ordinary woollen cloth (£13), 357 yards of coarse woollen cloth (£26- 5s), 13 yards of fustian (13s), 40 yards of broad list (in this sense list is a strip of fabric, or a edge of cloth, or an edging fabric (OED)) (2s), and 5 yards of linen cloth (6s). The amount of coarse cloth he had would seem to indicate that he is making for the ordinary working man. He purchases his cloth in the city of Salisbury, just over 25 miles away, as he owes £6 4s for cloth bought there.

Tools of the trade and point of sale

Most tailors use chests for storage. Pontin appears to store his cloth in chests as he had “nine coffers 10s” Thomas Cockye 1592, also has, “In the shoppe 2 great chests £1 13s 4d”, even Dawnce the poorest tailor had “one chest, three coffers, one box.” Thomas Have, another poor tailor has “1 chest, 1 truncke, cofer and 4 boxes.”  From Cockye’s inventory we gather he has a shop, Francis Smith also has a shop, but we do not know what was in it, as the appraisers value only what is in the “chamber over the shop.”

From the Nuremberg House Books (4)

Pontin, in another part of his building, and unfortunately with this inventory the appraisers do not specify rooms, has a chest, a shopboard, 2 irons and 3 pairs of shears, together worth 7s. The OED has two definitions for shopboard, either or both of which might be applicable here. Firstly “A counter or table upon which a tradesman's business is transacted or upon which his goods are exposed for sale,” and secondly “A table or raised platform upon which tailors sit when sewing.” Three other tailors, Cockye, Dawne and Have, also own shopboards, while irons and shears appear in the inventories of both Cockye and Dawnce, Dawnce’s being specified as a pressing iron. 

Then Pontin has the odds and ends, not worth enough for a full listing; “girdles, laces, gartering and pinnes” worth 5s-8d. There are “silke lase and remnants of taffety” worth another 5s, another “little box, a remnant of cotton, 1 paire of stokins (stockings) and 4 yards to measure cloth” totalling 1s.  He has 11 yards of loom work, which may well be what we would call braid, and “more in little remnants of woollen cloth, 4s.” 

To get around Pontin has a horse, and with it two pack saddles and one riding saddle. The only other tailor to own as horse is William Cornish, but I think his horses, he has five, are for his farming, not his tailoring.

Ready to wear

Pontin is the only one who has sale items of clothing in stock, “20 sale dubletts, £5,” “12 pair sale breeches £3” and “6 sale jerkins 17s,” but it was not just woollen items, which these would have been. He also had “10 dozen and 10 falling sale bands” worth £3 5s., that is 130 falling bands at 6d per band. These prices are very similar to those in the 1628 inventory of the chapman John Uttinge of Great Yarmouth.(3) Uttinge had laced falling bands at 8d each, plain bands at 7d each and 27 bands for men at 3d each.  Pontin also has “2 dozen and a half of small made wear, 8s,” we don’t know what these are.

The tailors’ own clothes

For most of the tailors a simple figure is given for their wearing apparel, and often this includes other items. Millington, the richest has wearing apparel worth £2 as does Cornish, Pontin’s clothes are worth £1, while poor Dawnce has clothes worth only 1s. Have’s wearing clothes are lumped in with the money in his pocket at £2 10s. Smith’s wearing apparel is lumped together with his books and is worth £5. Mundy has wearing apparel and linen listed as worth £7, often wearing apparel relates only to the woollen clothing, and wearing linens are either not listed or are listed separately. The earliest tailor,Thomas Cockye 1592, is the only one whose apparel is listed, he has; “2 dubletes, 2 pare of hose, a cloke, a felt hatt, a pare of shooes and a jirkin £1”

Bibliography

1. Williams, Lorelei and Thomson, Sally. Marlborough probate inventories 1591-1775. Chippenham : Wiltshire Record Society, 2007.

2. Cox, N. and Dannehl, K. Perceptions of retailing in early modern England. Farnham : Ashgate, 2007.

3. Spufford, M. The great reclothing of rural England: petty chapmen and their wares in the seventeenth century. London : Hambledon Press, 1984.

4.  Die Hausbücher der Nürnberger Zwölfbrüderstiftungen. The illustration of a tailor in his workshop is taken from the House books of the "Twelve Brothers" an almshouse in Nuremberg, each man entering the almshouse was painted starting with its foundation in the middle ages and ending in 1806. The complete set has been digitised and is available at http://www.nuernberger-hausbuecher.de/

“Ordinary” women’s wardrobes 1620-1646

Figure 1 - Hollar's Countrywoman

This is an examination of eighteen probate inventory accounts from the town of Marlborough in Wiltshire, covering the period 1620-1646. (Williams & Thomson, 2007) Of these thirteen only give a general amount for the value of the deceased’s clothing, but five have extensive descriptions, enough to try and reconstruct their wardrobes. The five women are four widows: Agnes Weeb (1620), Alice Wyatt (1623), Elizabeth Reynes (1633), Joane Furnell (1633), and a servant, Phillip Ingerom (1623). As we will see below Phillip and Elizabeth have the most comprehensive listings of their clothing.

Values

Of the 18 women the richest, Alice Wilkes(1646) a widow, was worth £114 19s 4d, and her clothing was worth £5. The poorest was Johane Titcombe(1637), also a widow, she was worth £5 3s 4d and her clothing was 10 shillings. By comparison the richest man, there were 70 men in the probate inventories, was worth £297 16s 9d and the poorest £2. I have placed a table listing all eighteen women, their status and total and clothing values at the end. In some cases the value of the clothing has a plus, this is because some clothing has been accounted with non clothing items and they cannot be separated.

The proportion of the women’s wealth that was tied up in their clothing varies considerably. Two women of similar wealth, respectively £12 10s and £12 12s 8d, have clothing worth 20.5% and 41.6% of their estate. The lowest percentage in the group 4.3% belongs to both a mid range woman, worth £33-1s-8d and the richest worth £114 19s 4d. The 41.5% mentioned above is the highest, however if you take away the £10 in debts owed to the servant Phillip Ingerom, her percentage rises to 51.6%, of her estate. None of the five women with lists was worth a lot of money, the richest these probates was for £34 3s 6d and the poorest £6 18s 2d.

Social status
As some have queried the "ordinariness" of these women I am adding this paragraph on their social standing as far as can be ascertained. Many who know me know that my favourite quote on the subject of probates is Margaret Spufford’s “it cannot be sufficiently stressed that their apparent tidiness and suitability for the historian ... in fact conceals quicksands of very considerable magnitude.” Regarding a comment about how few make a will may I point out that at least some of these probates are either nuncupative (verbal) or intestate. For those who want to know, and to put these women in more of a perspective. The probates, as I stated are from the market town of Marlborough, and the families, husbands, sons, etc., are for the most part tradespeople. Both Agnes Weeb’s and Alice Wilkes’s probates went to unmarried daughters. We know little about Elizabeth Lane though her appraisers were a brewer and a joiner. Phillip Ingerom was servant to Thomas Snowe of Derrington,  a very small village in Staffordshire. Alice Wyatt’s husband was a buttonmaker. Ann Biggs probate was undertaken by her father or uncle (it is a little unclear) he was a miller. Maud Patie again had a executrix, her niece Katherine Smart. Joane Furnell had two executrices and the husband of one, a wheeler (wheelwright) took the administration. Christian Hitchcocke, spinster, was the daughter Thomas Hitchcock a yeoman. Johane Titcombe was the widow of Gregory, whose intestacy inventory is worth less that his widow’s ten years later. The singlewoman Katherine Peirse is listed as the daughter of---and then a very unhelpful blank, but may be related to John Prater, alias Peirse, yeoman, who also acts as an administrator for Elizabeth Newman’s probate. Jone Jones’s husband was a glover. We know little about Alice Wyatt, Alice Pagett, Elizabeth Winsor, Elizabeth Reynes, Joane Powell, Elianor Browne.

Adam Martindale

One of the few, and best descriptions of women’s clothes below the gentry level, was given by Adam Martindale in his autobiography written around 1685. At the beginning of the book he is looking back to when is sister left home to go up to London, probably around 1626-7. She died of a “pestilence” shortly after her arrival. I quote it in full because it emphasises both the social mores involved in clothing, and the changes in outlook over time.

“Freeholders’ daughters were then confined to their felts, pettiecoates and wastcoates, crosse handkerchiefs around their neckes, and white cross-clothes upon their heads, with coifes under them wrought with black silk or worsted. ‘Tis true the finest sort of them wore gold or silver lace upon their wastcoats, good silk laces (and store of them) about their pettiecoats, and bone laces or workes about their linnens. But the proudest of them (below the gentry) durst not have offered to wear an hood or a scarfe  (which now every beggar’s brat that can get them thinks not above her) noe, nor so much as a gowne till her wedding day. And if any of them had transgressed these bounds, she would have been accounted an ambitious foole. These limitations I suppose she did not very well approve, but having her father’s spirit and her mother’s beauty, no persuasion would serve but up she would to serve a ladie, as she hoped to doe, being ingenious with her needle.” (Martindale, 1845, pp. 6-7)

The clothes in the accounts

Most of the women have just – “her wearing apparel” – and a value. In some cases it specifies “both woollen and linen”, or accounts for woollen and linen separately, as in Anne Biggs who has both “her wearing aparell £15 10s”, and “her childbed linene and her wearing linen £5.” This is also the case with Joane Furnell for whom we have “Her wearing apparel £2 10s”, but later we a separate list of linen that is not all clothes; “8 table clothes, one dossen and a halffe of napkins, five smockes, halffe a dosson of bands, fower coynes and fower neckcloths and one old waistcoat and eight apperns and fower pillowberes £2 4s”, again separately she also has “one payer of silke garters and two old hats 5s.” This may be why shoes, and to a lesser extent hats, don’t appear as often in inventories as one would expect them to, they cannot be classified as either woollen or linen clothing. 

Here is a caveat. One of the problems with identifying items in the accounts with particular garments, is that we don’t have original garments with original labels saying this is a ..... Two different clothing terms may be used for the same garment, depending on who is writing about it, think sweater-jumper-pullover. Garments change their names over the years, smock – shift – chemise is a good example, and terms can change their meaning, for example scarlet starts off as a colour, but can end up meaning a type of cloth.

What did they own

Smocks

The linen smock was the main item of underwear and all of the women own between three (Agnes) and seven (Phillip) smocks. It is interesting that the servant has the greatest number of smocks.

Figure 2 - Hollar's Wife of a Citizen of London

Petticoats

Over the smock they would have worn one or two petticoats, or more, depending on the weather, and whether they were wearing a gown over the top. All of the women whose woollen clothing is listed own petticoats. Agnes has two worth together 14s and one old one. Phillip has four wearing petticoats worth 6s 8d, Alice two petticoats and four old petticoats. Elizabeth has one old red petticoat and two old petticoats. Red was the traditional colour for petticoats so it is unsurprising that the only case in which colour is mentioned is red.

Bodies and waistcoats

On the top half they might have worn a pair of bodies, these are boned and today might be referred to as a corset, though they are not the same. Only one woman, Elizabeth, owned what are referred to in her inventory as “a payre of bodice.” They may have been similar in style to the ones that were found in the Sittingbourne Cache and have been described on the Goodwyfe Blog. Probably more common for lower class women are waistcoats, as Randle Holme says “It is an habit or garment generally worn by the middle and lower sort of women, having goared skirts, and some wear them with stomachers.” (Holme, 1688) Elizabeth, the woman who owned the payre of bodice, is also the only woman to own “two stomager.” An example of a 1610-20 embroidered stomacher is described in detail in North & Tiramani (2012, pp. 128-135). Agnes does not own a waistcoat, Joane has one, Phillip has two, Alice has three, and Elizabeth has four. Joane’s waistcoat is listed with her linen and may therefore be made of linen, though not as elaborate as this surviving linen waistcoat in the V&A. It is most probably this waistcoat and petticoat combination that can be seen in Hollar’s Countrywoman (Figure 1), where the goared skirts of the waistcoat can easily be seen.

Gowns

All of the women whose woollen clothing is listed own gowns. Agnes has four, one of which is described as old. Phillip has one gown, which at a value of 13. 4d is worth nearly as much as the 16s for three of Agnes’s gowns.  Alice has two best gowns and two old gowns, while Elizabeth only has one “old medley gown of the best 13s 4d.” A comment on who might and might not wear a gown was made by Adam Martindale who I quote above. Gowns were usually worn over a petticoat and sometimes over a waistcoat, though this is difficult to determine from the images we have. In this Hollar image of the wife of a citizen of London (Figure 2) this layering can clearly be seen. The skirt of the gown, which is open at the front, has been turned back and two petticoats can be seen underneath. Gowns add an extra layer of clothing and warmth at a time when houses did not have central heating, and coats for women were uncommon. The term medley, used to describe Elizabeth’s gown,  is used for a mixture of colours, as John Withals  A shorte dictionarie for yonge begynners, 1553 has it “Medley, color mixtus,” So you can get references to medley russet, and medley broadcloth.

Outerwear

There is little in the way of outerwear, though both Agnes and Alice own cloaks, and Agnes also has a safeguard. A safeguard is defined by the OED as “An outer skirt or petticoat worn by women to protect their clothing, esp. when riding.”

Neckwear

The women own a mixture of kerchiefs, bands, gorgets, partlets and pinners, requiring some definitions. These items can be worn in layers and it is often difficult to decide what is meant. Most of these are articles of clothing covering the neck and breast.

The kerchief is usually a square of material that can then be used folded as a neckerchief (Figure 2), or a headkerchief, or just square as a handkerchief. A plain square linen kerchief in the Victoria and Albert Museum is described in North & Tiramani (2011, pp. 142-143). Phillip has eight “kerchers” worth 4s. Agnes has “five singel kerchfes 1s 3d”, I’m not sure what the single means. Elizabeth has “one kerchieffe and one handkerchieffe 4s.” Joane has “half a dossen of kercheiffes, and fower neckcloths”, not to mention half a dozen of crosscloths and half a dozen of bands. Bands are again worn around the neck; the term is often used to refer to men’s collars, but is also used for women’s collars. The difference may be that bands are tied with band strings, rather than being pinned, and are also more likely to be shaped. Gorgets are another term which may indicate a shaped neckcloth, Agnes has two old gorgets worth 3s.  A pattern for a very elaborate lace trimmed band in the Victoria and Albert Museum is given in North & Tiramani (2011, pp. 128-135)

The term partlet was described in a 1658 dictionary (Phillips, 1658) as “a word used in some old Statutes, signifying the loose collar of a dublet to be set on or taken off by it self without the bodies, also a womans neckerchief”, which doesn’t really help. Costume historians have tended to take it as a fill in for the neckline. Agnes and Alice both have six partlets, while Phillip has seven. There is a pattern for a plain linen partlet of this period, now in the Gallery of Costume, Manchester. (Arnold, 2008, pp. 43, 100-101)

The more old-fashioned Elizabeth has 21 old pinners and ruffs, by 1633 ruffs were going out of fashion at all levels of society. Agnes has five pinners worth 1s. Pinners, are another term that is difficult, it can refer to anything that is pinned on, and by the late seventeenth century if had become identified with a type of cap with long lappets, but here it is also certainly neckwear. Arnold (2008, pp. 40, 96) has an example of what she describes as a pinner, now in the Gallery of Costume, Manchester.

Figure 3 - Detail of a Hollar woman from Ornatus

In this detail of a woman from Ornatus (Figure 3) you can see she is wearing something closed high at the neck, which maybe a partlet, she has what maybe pinners around the neckline of her gown, and over these she is wearing a kerchief.

Headwear

Surpringly only one of the women Joane has what might be coifs, she has among the list of linen “fower coines.” One would expect all the women to have some form of linen headwear.

All five of the women have hats. Only Phillip’s one wearing hat worth 1s has a value while the others are mixed with other items. Joane, Alice and Agnes all have two hats, while Elizabeth has a hat with a hat band. 

Aprons

All the women own aprons. Joane has eight aprons, Phillip seven worth in total 4s, Elizabeth five followed by one old woollen cloth, which may also have been used as an apron. Alice has 3 holland aprons, holland is a type of linen, while Agnes has one black apron.

Stockings and hose

Only two of the women list these; Phillip has “hosen” listed with her shoes and Elizabeth has “a payre of stockings” Although Joane has no stockings listed, she does own “one payer of silke garters”

Shoes

The same two women Phillip and Elizabeth have shoes. In both cases the shoes are worth 1s, and additional Phillip has “one peece of shooe leather”, and Elizabeth owns “one shooing horn.” Information on early shoehorns is in this blog post. I think the other women must have had shoes and stockings, but they are not listed.

Girdles and purses

Both Phillip and Elizabeth own girdles. Phillip has three girdles and one purse, and Elizabeth has one girdle and a pouch. 

Jewellery

Only Phillip owns jewellery, she has “one ring silver and guilt” worth 1s 6d.

References

Arnold, J., 2008. Patterns of Fashion 4 : the cut and construction of linen shirts, smocks, neckwear, headwear and accessories for men and women. London: Macmillan.

Holme, R., 1688. Academie of Armourie. s.l.:s.n.

Martindale, A., 1845. The life of Adam Martindale written by himself. edited by Richard Parkinson.. s.l.:Chetham Society.

North, S. & Tiramani, J., 2011. Seventeenth century women's dress patterns, book 1. London: Victoria and Albert Museum.

North, S. & Tiramani, J., 2012. Seventeenth century women's dress patterns, book 2. London: Victoria and Albert Museum.

Phillips, E., 1658. The new world of English words: or A general dictionary. London: Brooks.

Williams, L. & Thomson, S., 2007. Marlborough probate inventories 1591-1775. Chippenham: Wiltshire Record Society.

The women

No	Name	Status	Year	Total value	Clothing value	Clothing as a % of total worth
1	Agnes Weeb	widow	1620	£6-18s-2d	£2-10s-3d	36.4%
2	Elizabeth Lane	widow	1622	£20-11s-4d	£2-0s-0d	9.7%
3	Phillip Ingerom	servant	1623	£12-10s-0d (£14-19s-2d)‡	£2-11s-2d	20.5% (17.1%)
4	Alice Wyatt	widow	1623	£12-12s-8d	£5-5s-0d	41.6%
5	Alice Pagett	widow	1624	£64-8s-4d	£6-0s-0d	9.3%
6	Anne Bigges	widow	1626	£89-11s-7d	£20-10s-0d *	22.9%
7	Maud Patie	widow	1632	£55-4s-8d	£9-0s-0d	16.3%
8	Elisebeth Winsor	widow	1632	£14-9s-0d	£1-0s-0d	6.9%
9	Elizabeth Reynes	widow	1633	£7-18s-2d	£1-8s-9d plus	15%
10	Joane Furnell	widow	1633	£34-3s-6d	£2-15s-0d plus	8%
11	Joane Powell	widow	1634	£7-15s-8d	£1-3s-4d	15%
12	Christian Hitchcocke	spinster	1636	£25-11s-0d	£8-0s-0d	31.3%
13	Johane Titcombe	widow	1637	£5-3s-4d	£0-10s-0d	9.7%
14	Katherine Peirse	singlewoman	1638	£56-11s-0d	£3-0s-0d	5.3%
15	Elianor Browne	widow	1639	£13-18s-2d	£1-10s-0d	10.8%
16	Elizabeth Newman		1640	£33-1s-8d	£1-10s-0d	4.3%
17	Jone Jones	widow	1641	£23-17s-8d	£3-0s-0d	12.6%
18	Alice Wilkes	widow	1646	£114 19s 4d	£5-0s-0d	4.3%

‡ The value is added incorrectly, this is the true amount

* Her wearing aparell £15 10s, her childbed linene and her wearing linen £5