THE MUDDLE FAMILIES

THE LINEAGE & HISTORY OF THE MUDDLE FAMILIES OF THE WORLD

INCLUDING VARIANTS MUDDEL, MUDDELL, MUDLE & MODDLE

[Home] [Origins] [Early Records] [General Notes] [Master Index] [Contact me]

List of Stories

Three Elizabethan Horse Thieves

Rotherfield in the autumn of 1582 was a very different place from the tranquil village in the High Weald area of outstanding natural beauty that we know today. Then it was in the midst of the Wealden iron industry and would have reverberated to the roar of the furnaces and the clank of the forges. Its air would have hung thick with the smoke from the furnaces and the numerous charcoal kilns producing the fuel for the furnaces. The workers in this industry would have quenched their thirst in the alehouses of the village, and it was probably in one of these that three young men consumed more liquor than was good for them, and behaving as young men do when intoxicated, took and rode away three horses.

The above is speculation, but the facts, as far as it has been possible to deduce them from the surviving records, are that on 3 October 1582, in the twenty-fourth year of the reign of Elizabeth I, three horses belonging to George and Christopher Hill (or Hilles, records differ on this detail) were stolen at Rotherfield. For this felony John Muddle of Rotherfield, Richard Muddle of Mayfield and Edward Akent of Withyham seem to have been arrested and incarcerated in the gaol at Lewes Castle, because at a Session of the Peace (the date is not recorded on surviving documents) held at Lewes they were before the court requesting bail which was granted as follows:[1]

And at the same general session of the peace, before the aforenamed Justice, there came John Modell of Rotherfield in the county aforesaid, smith, Richard Modell junior of Mayfield in the county aforesaid, smith, and Richard Modell senior of Buxted in the county aforesaid, smith.

And the aforesaid John Modell and Richard Modell junior acknowledged themselves to owe to our said Lady the Queen, each of them, forty pounds, and the aforesaid Richard senior acknowledged himself to owe to our said Lady the Queen twenty pounds,

Under the condition that if the aforesaid John Modell and Richard Modell junior should appear at the next general gaol delivery to be held in the county aforesaid before the Justices of our said Lady the Queen assigned for gaol delivery etc, to answer to our said Lady the Queen concerning and upon the certain felonies whereof they stand adjudged, that then etc.

And at the same general session of the peace, before the aforenamed Justice, there came Edward Akent of Withyham in the county aforesaid, husbandman, and William Holman of Withyham in the county aforesaid, husbandman,

And the aforesaid Edward acknowledged himself to owe to our said Lady the Queen forty pounds, and the aforesaid William acknowledged himself to owe to our said Lady the Queen twenty pounds,

Under the condition that if the aforesaid Edward should appear at the next general gaol delivery to be held in the county aforesaid before the Justices of our said Lady the Queen assigned for gaol delivery etc, to answer to our said Lady the Queen concerning and upon the certain felonies whereof he stands indicted, that then etc.

John Muddle of Rotherfield and Richard Muddle of Mayfield were most probably brothers, but there is no definite proof of this, though John was an overseer of Richard’s 1608 will.[2] Richard Muddle senior of Buxted was probably the father or guardian of John and Richard, but again there is no definite proof of this, and neither John nor Richard junior were mentioned in Richard senior’s will.[3] One son who was mentioned in the will, Alexander Muddle, whitesmith of Buxted, was an overseer and witness to the will of Richard’s son Abraham in 1609,[4] and bondsman for the marriage licence of John’s son Thomas in October 1615,[5] after the respective deaths of Richard in 1608 and John in March 1615, indicating that Alexander may have then been acting as head of the family and was the eldest surviving brother of John and Richard.

The next gaol delivery for Sussex was the Assize Session held at East Grinstead on 8 March 1583. John, Richard and Edward presented themselves there as their bail conditions required, but it seems that the indictment against them had not been prepared. This resulted in John and Richard being discharged from their own bail, but they remained bound by the recognizance already given by Richard Muddle senior. Edward was released on his own bail, there being no mention of the recognizance that had given for him by William Holman that must, for some reason, have lapsed.[6]

To generate the required indictment an inquisition was held at the General Session of the Peace of the county of Sussex, held at Lewes on 11 April 1583, before Thomas Sackvyle, knight, his fellow justices, and sixteen jurors of a grand jury. The following was the indictment they produced:[7]

That Edward Akent, late of Withyham in the county aforesaid, yeoman, John Muddle, late of Rotherfield in the county aforesaid, yeoman, and Richard Mudle, late of Mayfield in the county aforesaid, yeoman,

On the third day of October in the twenty fourth year of the reign of our Lady Elizabeth, by the grace of God, of England, France and Ireland, Queen, defender of the faith etc, at Rotherfield aforesaid in the county aforesaid, feloniously took and made away with one mare, of colour grey, then and there found, to the value of 40s, of the goods and chattels of George Hilles of Rotherfield aforesaid in the county aforesaid, yeoman, against the peace, crown and dignity of our said Lady the Queen.

And that Edward Akent, late of Withyham in the county aforesaid, yeoman, John Mudle, late of Rotherfield in the county aforesaid, yeoman, and Richard Mudle late of Mayfield in the county aforesaid, yeoman,

On the third day of October in the twenty fourth year of the reign of our said Lady Elizabeth, by the grace of God, of England, France and Ireland, Queen, defender of the faith etc, at Rotherfield aforesaid in the county aforesaid, feloniously took and made away with two geldings then and there found, of which one was red sorrel in colour, to the value of five pounds, and the other was grey in colour, to the value of 53s 4d, of the goods and chattels of a certain Christopher Hilles of Rotherfield aforesaid in the county aforesaid, yeoman, against the peace, crown and dignity of our said Lady the Queen.

As a result John, Richard and Edward presented themselves at the next gaol delivery for Sussex, which was the Assize Session held at East Grinstead on 19 July 1583, to answer the serious charges against them, for at this time the theft of anything valued above 12d (equivalent to about £10 today) was a capital offence. They were tried before Thomas Gawdy, knight, and twelve jurors, who found them guilty, but to escape the hangman’s noose they claimed ‘benefit of clergy’. This was a right first decreed by William II in 1087 that was originally intended to let clergy escape their first capital offence before a civil court and instead be tried by the more lenient church court. The test used to prove that they were clergymen was that they could read a passage from the Bible. This right was later extended, by Edward III in about 1337, to anyone who was literate and could satisfactorily read a passage in Latin from the Bible. By tradition the passage they were normally asked to read was part of Psalm 51, which became known as the ‘neck-verse’, and many people who couldn’t read would learn to recite this so that if required they could pretend to read it. So, whether our three were literate, or had just memorised the Psalm, they passed the test as the assize record states:[8]

Muddell, Muddell & Akent are adjudged in the clerk's certificate and …

The capital crimes, particularly the more serious offences, for which ‘benefit of clergy’ could be claimed had been gradually reduced during the Tudor period and during the first year of the reign of Edward VI (1547-8) horse theft had been so revoked, so why had our three been able to claim it? Possibly the judge thought that the only sentence he could give, that of execution, was too harsh in this particular case and ‘bent to rules’ to give a fairer result, as judges of this era were known, at times, to do. At this time horse theft was the crime that most often resulted in a capital punishment actually being carried out. This was because it was normally seen as being a calculated criminal act carried out by what were seen as professional criminals for profit by quickly selling on the horse, frequently in a different county. As this seems unlikely to have been the motive in this case, and a moment of silly moral weakness more likely the reason, it would have been viewed by those administering the justice of the time as a situation where clemency was required rather than the strict application of the law. Also the fact that they were of yeoman status in their respective communities would have acted in their favour when being judged by their peers.

As benefit of clergy could only be claimed once, to identify, in the future, someone who had already claimed it, they were branded on the thumb with a T for theft or an M for manslaughter; a painful, but preferable, outcome to that of execution. They were also given a pardon so that they couldn’t in the future be tried for any aspect of the felony of which they were guilty. Their pardons were issued by Elizabeth I on 28 October 1583 and are worth quoting in full:[9]

Concerning pardons for Edward Akente and others

The Queen sends greetings to all to whom [these presents may come] etc.

Whereas Edward Akente, late of Withyham in our county of Sussex, yeoman, John Muddle, late of Rotherfield in our said county of Sussex, yeoman, and Richard Muddle, late of Mayfield in our said county of Sussex, yeoman, are indicted, condemned and adjudged,

Because they, on the third day of October in the twenty fourth year of our reign, at Rotherfield aforesaid in the county aforesaid, feloniously took and made away with one mare then and there found, coloured grey, to the value of forty shillings, of the goods and chattels of George Hill of Rotherfield aforesaid in the county aforesaid, yeoman, against our peace, crown and dignity,

And also because they, on the said third day of October in the twenty fourth year of our abovesaid reign, at Rotherfield aforesaid in the county aforesaid, feloniously took and made away with two geldings then and there found, of which one was coloured red sorrelled, to the value of five pounds, and the other was coloured grey, to the value of fifty three shillings and four pence, of the goods and chattels of a certain Christopher Hill of Rotherfield aforesaid in the county aforesaid, yeoman, against our peace, crown and dignity,

Just as by the separate indictments aforesaid, remaining on the record, may fully be allowed and appear;

May you know that we, however, moved by piety, of our special grace, and from certain knowledge, and of our own free will, have pardoned, remitted and released, and by these presents, for ourselves, our heirs and successors, do pardon, remit and release, the aforenamed Edward Akente, late of Withyham in our county of Sussex, yeoman, John Muddle, late of Rotherfield in the county aforesaid, yeoman, and Richard Muddle, late of Mayfield in the county aforesaid, yeoman, and each of them, and by whatever other names, surnames, or additions to names or surnames, skills or occupations, place or places, the aforesaid Edward Akente, John Muddle and Richard Muddle, or any of them, may be known, called or spoken of, or was lately known, called or spoken of, of the aforesaid separate felonies done and perpetrated in manner and form aforesaid.

And [we pardon] the accessories of the same, and of each of the same, and all and singular other felonies, trespasses, abetments, malice, conspiracies, procurements, instigations, encouragements, assistances, encitements and consultations, and all other offences and wrongdoings whatsoever touching or concerning the aforesaid felonies, or any other premises whatsoever.

And [we pardon] the flight or flights thereupon made, whether the same Edward, John and Richard, or any of them, have or have not been indicted, appealed, tried, impeached, convicted, attainted, outlawed, condemned or adjudged, concerning the premises or any of the premises, or whether they, or any of them, should happen to be indicted, tried, impeached, appealed, convicted, attainted, outlawed, condemned or adjudged thereof in the future.

And [we pardon] all and all manner of outlawries pronounced, or at a later date to be pronounced, upon the same Edward, John and Richard, or any of them, on occasion of the premises or any of the premises.

And [we pardon] all and singular indictments, judgements, executions, pains of death, corporal penalties, condemnations, punishments and imprisonments, and all other pains and penalties whatsoever, had, done, rendered or adjudged, or to be had, done, rendered or adjudged, upon the same Edward, John and Richard, or any of them, for the premises or any of the premises.

And also [we pardon] all and all manner of suits, complaints, actions, impeachments and demands whatsoever which we have, have had, or might in the future be able to have against the same Edward, John and Richard, or any of them, by reason or occasion of the premises, or of any of them, or which our heirs or successors might in any way be able to have in the future.

And [we pardon] suit of our peace which pertains, or may in future be able to pertain, to us, against the same Edward, John and Richard, or any of them, for the premises.

And by these presents we give and grant our firm peace to them and each one of them,

Such that they, and each of them, should however stand to right in our Court if any person should wish to speak against them, or any of them, concerning the premises, or any of the premises.

And such that the same Edward, John and Richard, and each of them, shall find good and sufficient security, according to the form and effect of a certain Act enacted in the Parliament of our Lord Edward the Third, late King of England, our ancestor, held at Westminster in the tenth year of his reign, to conduct themselves well, from now on, towards us, our heirs and successors, and the whole of our people.

In witness whereof etc.

Witnessed by the Queen at Westminster on the twenty eighth day of October.

By writ under the privy seal.

At the same Assize Session as the trial Richard Muddle senior was discharged from the recognizance he had entered into to deliver John and Richard junior, but for some unknown reason Edward was not discharged from his bail until the Assize session held at East Grinstead on 5 July 1588, five years after the trial.[10]

There is unfortunately no indication of why John, Richard and Edward perpetrated the theft; the fact that they could stand bail of £40 each (equivalent to about £8000 today) would seem to indicate that it wouldn’t have been for monetary gain. Could it possibly have been high jinks by three young men going home from the alehouse that got seriously out of hand, or was it because of a grudge against the Hill family – we will probably never know.

It’s uncertain what subsequently happened to Edward, mainly because most of the early parish records for Withyham were destroyed in a fire when Withyham church was struck by lightning in the mid-17th century. But Edward was probably the Edward Kent senior (Akent being a contraction of Atte Kent which later became just Kent) who was recorded in a number of the surviving early 17th-century Withyham records. If this identification is correct Edward continued to live at Withyham where he married and had children; the Elizabeth daughter of Edward Kent baptised in 1606 was probably his youngest child and the Edward Kent junior who married in 1613 was probably his eldest son. Edward senior’s wife died in 1617 and he then remarried in 1624. He died at the beginning of 1631, when he was probably in his early 70s, and was buried in Withyham Churchyard on 28 January 1631.[11]

Richard Muddle lived for the rest of his life in Mayfield Parish where he continued in his occupation of blacksmith. He had probably already married Elizabeth when the theft took place as they had four children born between early 1583 and 1592. Richard was again in trouble with the law twenty odd years after his first brush with it, when, at the East Grinstead Assizes of 8 March 1605, he stood indicted for erecting a cottage at Mayfield on 25 January 1603 without the statutory four acres of land.[12] The surviving records don’t record what the verdict was in this case. But Richard was to only survive for another five years, he died when he was probably about 50, and was buried in Mayfield Churchyard on 26 June 1608.[13] Richard’s will recorded that he lived at Hadlow Down, which in those days was partly in Mayfield Parish, and that he also owned land in Buxted and Rotherfield Parishes.[14]

John Muddle continued to live at Rotherfield where he had the status of yeoman, which indicated that he was reasonably prosperous and probably owned and farmed at least a few acres of land. He also practised his trade of whitesmith, this being one who worked in tin and other non-ferrous metals, and also finished metalwork by processes such as polishing and enamelling. Five years after the horse thefts he married Margary Farmer at St Deny’s Church in Rotherfield on 11 February 1588, five months before the Spanish Armada was to appear off the south coast of England. They had one child, a son, in early 1590, but Margary was only to survive the birth by seven months. John laid his young wife to rest in Rotherfield Churchyard on 8 August 1590. Two years later John married again, this time to Dorothy Knight at Rotherfield Church on 8 May 1592. They had seven children, two boys and five girls, but sadly three of the girls died in infancy. John was involved in several land transactions at Rotherfield, which were recorded in the court rolls of Dewlands Manor (the church owned lands at Rotherfield) and Rotherfield Manor.[15] All three of John’s sons became blacksmiths, continuing the family association with metalworking that was to last for several more generations. John died at Rotherfield when he was probably in his early 50s, and he was buried in Rotherfield Churchyard on 21 March 1615.[16]

There would be considerably fewer Muddles alive today if John had not survived his encounter with the law, because, via his eldest son, Thomas, he was the progenitor of by far the largest of the Muddle families, his many descendants today live upon at least three continents, one of which, Australia, he wouldn’t have known even existed. Among John’s descendents are his 5 x great-grandson Isaac Muddle who migrated to Australia in 1838 (see ‘Bounty Migrants – Australia Bound’), and his 9 x great-grandson the author of this article.

[1] TNA ASSI 35/25/8 m.2, Assize Indictment Files, translated from the Latin by Dr. B F Westcott.

[2] ESRO W/SM/C63, Will of Richard Muddle of Mayfield proved by Deanery of South Malling.

[3] ESRO W/SM/B28, Will of Richard Muddle of Buxted proved by Deanery of South Malling.

[4] ESRO W/SM/C79, Will of Abraham Muddle of Mayfield proved by Deanery of South Malling.

[5] SRS Vol.1 Sussex Marriage Licences 1586-1643 p.96.

[6]TNA ASSI 35/25/7 m.5v, Assize Indictment Files.

[7] TNA ASSI 35/25/8 m.3, Assize Indictment Files, translated from the Latin by Dr. B F Westcott.

[8] TNA ASSI 35/25/8 m.4, Assize Indictment Files, translated from the Latin by Dr. B F Westcott.

[9]TNA C 66/1228 m.24, Chancery and Supreme Court of Judicature Patent Rolls, translated from the Latin by Dr. B F Westcott.

[10]TNA ASSI 35/30/8 m.2v, Assize Indictment Files.

[11] ESRO Modern transcripts of Withyham Bishop’s Transcripts.

[12] TNA ASSI 35/47/6 m.22, Assize Indictment Files.

[13] ESRO PAR422/1/1/1, Mayfield Parish Registers.

[14] ESRO W/SM/C63, Will of Richard Muddle of Mayfield proved by Deanery of South Malling.

[15] C Pullein Rotherfield: The Story of Some Wealden Manors (Tunbridge Wells, 1928) pp.166, 285.

[16] ESRO PAR465/1/1/1-6, Rotherfield Parish Registers.

Top of page