Last Gasp of Feudalism

Thomas Boynton, gen., of Rawcliffe: Because on January 31, 1626 you failed to appear at the coronation of our king Charles I to receive the order of knighthood you are hereby fined l20. By order of the Commission of the King, 1630.

It was an ancient feudal tradition. It pre-dated Edward I, but Edward I was one of its most enthusiastic practitioners. If you held a knight's fee that generated an income of a certain amount or you otherwise held land that produced the same income you were required to become a knight. In the thirteenth century the amount of income required for knighthood varied, but it settled down at l40. Edward I was recruiting an army, of course. He needed knights to fight the Welsh and the Scots. And knighthood meant you were in the army. Two Boyntons were drafted in this manner: Ingram by the knight's fee rule and Robert by the l40 rule [A Boynton Story: Recalibrating Wealth]

More than 300 years later Charles I was not recruiting an army. What he wanted was money. Parliament refused him the taxes he believed he needed, and he had to find the money somewhere. Where better to find money than in invoking ancient feudal tradition and collecting from those who did not do what was required? He sent the big guns to collect.

Jan. 27 1630 Whitehall.
22. The King to Attorney General Heath, to prepare a commission to the Lord Keeper, Lord Treasurer, Lord President Conway, Henry Earl of Manchester, Lord Privy Seal, Robert Earl of Lindsey, Lord Great Chamberlain, the Earl Marshal, the Lord Steward and Lord Chamberlain of the Household, the Lord Warden of the Cinque Ports, Edward Earl of Dorset, Lord Chamberlain to the Queen, the Earls of Salisbury and Exeter, William Earl of Northampton, President of the Council of Wales, Sec. Dorchester, Edward Viscount Wimbledon, Thomas Viscount Wentworth, President of the Council of the North, Sir Humphrey May, Vice-chamberlain, Sec. Coke, and Sir Francis Cottington, Chancellor of the Exchequer, to treat with all the King's subjects who will compound for their fines in respect of their knighthood at the King's coronation, and to tax such fines, and appoint days of payment. (Calendar of State Papers, 1860)

And they were pretty successful; we are told they collected l173,537 9s. 6d. (Baildon, 1920).

There was a trick involved. Charles I announced the call to receive knighthood on January 30, and the eligible men of Yorkshire were to be at the coronation on January 31. Given the distance from Yorkshire to the coronation it was an impossible task. If Thomas had gotten to the coronation he would have had to pay to become a knight, but the king would not have received that money. The king only got the money if it was a fine for not appearing to be knighted. Hence, he made it impossible to be able to show up.

Since l40 was not, in 1626, what it had been in the thirteenth century there were many thousands of people eligible for the call to knighthood. Almost all ignored the call thinking it a bit of out of date ceremony. At least they ignored it until the bill collector showed up on their doorstep.

Thomas' doorstep was in Rawcliffe, which is in the south of Yorkshire. According to Foster (Foster, 1874), he was a descendent of the Sedbury Boyntons. His great, great grandfather was the second Christopher Boynton. His great grandfather, John, was the younger brother of Henry. Henry was heir to the Sedbury fortune so John left Sedbury and moved to Rawcliffe. Thomas and his father Stephen seem to have done well in the land market, and it paid off by increasing his fine for neglecting to be knighted. The fines were very roughly proportional to the wealth of the person. Most of the fines in Yorkshire were l10. Thomas owed l20 (Baildon, 1920).

Talk about getting off on the wrong foot; Charles I managed to anger a great many people with his trick. When the Long Parliament met [November, 1640] it was one of the first of Charles' sins to be addressed.

The Act effecting this (17 Car. I, cap. 20), recites that under "pretext of an ancient custom or usage," distress "was made against a very great number of persons, many of whom were altogether unfit, in regard either of estate or quality, to receive the said order or dignity, and very many were put to grievous fines and other vexations for the same, although in truth it were not sufficiently known how, or in what sort, or where they or any of them should or might have addressed themselves for the receiving the said order or dignity, and for saving themselves thereby from the said fines, process and vexations; and it is most apparent that all and every such proceeding in regard of the matter therein pretended is altogether useless and unreasonable." It is then shortly enacted that from thenceforth no person should be distrained or compelled to receive the dignity of knighthood, or suffer fine by reason of not having received that dignity. (Baildon, 1020).

No more of this, they said, and eventually reinforced the saying with a king's head.

One might say that feudalism was over and done with by the seventeenth century, and that would not be wrong -- exactly. But it also would not be exactly right. It was not the practice of the day, but it hung overhead. Not gone. It could be invoked when it was convenient and inconvenient. It would not finally disappear until the civil war was fought and won.

...

Baildon, W. Paley (1920) Compositions for not Taking Knighthood at the Coronation of Charles I, Miscellanea, vol. I, Yorkshire Archaeological Society Record Series, pp. 84-107.

Bruce, John, ed. (1860) Calendar of State Papers, Domestic Series, of the Reign of Charles I. 1629-1631.

Joseph Foster, (1874) Pedigrees of the county families of Yorkshire, comp. by Joseph Foster and authenticated by the members of each family, published by compiler, 3 volumes.