MANEJO DE LOS RESIDUOS SÓLIDOS RECICLABLES

6. P5/1.11-12. See below pp. 177-9. 7. P5/1.19. 8. P5/1.18-29. 9. P5/1.4-5. b) default

After an Individual had been enrolled Into a tithing, he was obliged to attend the meetings of the view. Although this aspect of compulsory attendance was never stated in the records, Its existence is acknowledged by the lists of absentees who were classified as ’those making d e f a u l t ' and fined 2d for their absence. In a few cases,

fines were remitted on grounds of poverty, which was shown by the word pauper being written above the d e f aulter’s name. As Table 3 shows, there were wide fluctuations in the number of defaulters throughout the period and, with a few rare exceptions, such as being on royal service or illness, reasons for default were not generally given. During the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries, the absentees were classified separately as unsworn, withdrawn or defaulters, but in the first half of the sixteenth century almost all absentees were put

into one group and listed as defaulters.

There was a new procedure introduced in the middle of the sixteenth century when the absentees were divided into a) defaulters and b) those who were essoined, or excused from attendance. The procedure of essoining had been normal practice at the court baron in Carshalton since at least 1361, but it did not become accepted at the view of frankpledge until 1559 where it had the effect of excusing the absentees from payment of a fine of 2d. i While just a few residents were essoined in the late sixteenth century, the number increased in the seventeenth century. For the purpose of this study, residents who were essoined have been classified as defaulters in Table 3, but the unsworn or the withdrawn, whose numbers were relatively small, have been excluded.

Table 3. average number of defaulters in each 50 year period:

date defaulters residents % of defaulters average n o . average no to residents

1350-99 10 55 18 1400-49 12 58 21 1450-99 8 47 17 1500-49 6 43 14 1550-99 9 50 18 1600-49 31 54 57 1650-99 34 66 52

The high level of default is particularly noticeable in the seventeenth century when the total number of people mentioned in the records also increased. The increase in the number of absentees became a consistent feature of

the records of the view and, as a result, producing lists of defaulters became its main function in the seventeenth century until 1661, after which the procedure ceased entirely. 2

The increasingly large numbers of absentees from meetings may have resulted from illness and the spread of disease which clearly affected Carshalton, as we can see from the number of deaths recorded in the parish register, with as many as 36 people dying in one year from an outbreak of disease. 3 There is no evidence to suggest that lists of defaulters included out-of-date information such as the names of people who had already died; on the contrary, most of them featured in later transactions. However, residents may have been affected by general proclamations

issued between 1625 and 1630 which restricted movement as a way of containing the spread of disease. These orders stated that no-one should attend the royal court and they banned movement in London and especially in Surrey where there were six royal establishments, including those at Ewell and Nonsuch which lay 3-5km. from Carshalton. *

In addition, the quarter sessions records contain evidence for outbreaks of the plague in Surrey. For example, in 1660, Henry Byne of Carshalton, who was clerk of the peace for Surrey, ordered JPs to collect money throughout the county for distribution to the poor who

were affected by the plague. Furthermore, In 1665, the constable of Carshalton was taken before the sessions court for failing to implement a removal order against a woman and her children from London. However, he was acquitted on the grounds that he was acting according to the orders of the privy council which banned movement, as a way of preventing the spread of disease. ^

In addition to outbreaks of disease, the Civil War may have been a cause of absence. The county of Surrey mainly supported Parliament and meetings of the county committee were held at Kingston and Croydon, both of which lie within 9km. of Carshalton, while Fairfax and a large number of troops were based in Croydon in 1647. ^ The only direct evidence for the effect of the war in Carshalton comes from the record of the view in 1645, when two gentlemen were heavily fined for refusing to

take the oath of allegiance to the king. Since this was a normal part of court procedure, they incurred the anger of the steward, Edward T h urland, who was a keen royalist. 7 The vicar of Carshalton was also royalist in his sympathies, as shown by his epitaph written in 1657 which stated that 'he had burned incense for 30 years'. ® Although there was relatively little fighting in Surrey, there were clearly divisions and problems within the

local community which may have affected attendance at meetings of the view. Certainly, attendance or absence

became increasingly unimportant and, by 1671, there was no attempt even to list the names of absentees.

References : 1. P5/1.22-3. 2. P 5 / 8 .8.