County Quarter Sessions involving people from Dorney (1678 to 1733)

DORNEY AT THE QUARTER SESSIONS: CRIME, CONFLICT, AND COMMUNITY LIFE 1678-1733

A Window into Village Life The Buckinghamshire Quarter Sessions records from 1678 to 1733 provide a fascinating glimpse into the social dynamics of Dorney during a turbulent period in English history.

These court records, preserved by the Buckinghamshire Record Society, reveal not just crimes and misdemeanours, but the complex web of relationships, religious tensions, and everyday disputes that shaped life in the village.

Through the testimonies, indictments, and administrative records, we encounter seventy-six different men and six women from Dorney—farmers and labourers, gentlemen and craftsmen, constables and troublemakers.

Their stories unfold against the backdrop of religious persecution, political upheaval, and the gradual establishment of Protestant ascendancy in post-Restoration England.

Over the fifty-five years covered by these records, thirty-four different men served as village constables, revealing a community that took seriously its responsibilities for self-governance and law enforcement.

 

Religious Tensions: The Age of Recusancy

The earliest records from Dorney reflect the religious tensions that gripped England in the aftermath of the Popish Plot of 1678 and the accession of the Protestant monarchs William and Mary in 1688.

Catholic recusants—those who refused to attend Anglican services—faced systematic persecution, and Dorney's records reveal how these national policies played out at the village level. In 1679, Henry Palmer and Marmaduke Dorrell, both described as gentlemen of Dorney, were presented for recusancy.

Their elevated social status highlights how religious divisions cut across class boundaries, affecting even the village elite. This was not an isolated incident but the beginning of a sustained pattern of religious conflict that would persist for decades. The systematic nature of religious surveillance becomes clear in the winter of 1680-81, when John Darrell, Henry Palmer, and Marmaduke Darrell were indicted as "popish recusants for three months."

The specificity of the time period suggests careful monitoring of church attendance, with local officials maintaining detailed records of who participated in Anglican worship and who remained conspicuously absent. Religious dissent, however, was not limited to Catholics. In 1682-83, John Dollynge, Andrew Brother, and William Batchellor were repeatedly presented "for being absent from church for three months."

Their cases suggest a broader spectrum of religious non-conformity that challenged the established order. Whether these men were Protestant dissenters, Catholics, or simply religious sceptics, their persistent absence from church services marked them as potential threats to social stability in an age when religious uniformity was seen as essential to political order.

The progression from presentment to indictment in these cases illustrates the escalating pressure placed on religious non-conformists. The Quarter Sessions served not merely as a court but as an instrument of social control, using legal mechanisms to enforce religious compliance and identify those whose loyalties might lie elsewhere.

 

The Constables: Guardians of Order

Central to maintaining law and order in Dorney was the office of petty constable, a position that rotated annually among the village's more substantial residents.

These men—selected from farmers, craftsmen, and minor gentry—bore the responsibility of keeping the peace, reporting offenders to the Quarter Sessions, and serving as the crucial link between village life and county authority.

The constables of Dorney form a fascinating cross-section of village society. Godfrey Bernard appears to have served as petty constable for Dorney until 1680 when William Smith took over the position. William Smith served in 1680, followed by John Warwick in 1681 and William Barr in 1683. Thomas Grove took the office in 1688, and Andrew Brothers—who had himself been accused of riotous assembly—served in 1690. This pattern continued through the decades, with men like Thomas Goodchild (1695), John Marsh (1691), and dozens of others taking their turn in this demanding role. The office came with both authority and vulnerability, as the case of William Barr demonstrates.

Barr served as constable in 1683 and again in 1689, suggesting he was a respected member of the community. Yet in 1686, he found himself accused of illegally "making a ditch and a hedge in the highway from Maydenhead to Windsor." This charge reveals the delicate balance constables had to maintain—they were expected to enforce the law while remaining subject to it themselves. The dangers of the position became starkly apparent in the case of John Deane in 1726. When the gardener was accused of assaulting Sarah Jarvis and threatening murder, the parish parson cried out in alarm, and the constable was called from his bed at midnight to deal with the situation. Deane's response was to threaten that he would "beat the constable's braines out," highlighting the physical risks these unpaid officials faced in maintaining order.

Despite such dangers, the office attracted men of substance and standing. The witnesses called when constables were sworn in typically included vicars, yeomen, and other respected villagers, suggesting that the position carried genuine prestige alongside its burdens.

The continuity of service—with many men serving multiple terms over the years—indicates that the community took this responsibility seriously and that capable individuals were willing to serve repeatedly.

 

The Enigmatic Henry Lloyd: Gentleman and Alleged Traitor

Among all the characters who emerge from these records, none is more intriguing than Henry Lloyd, also known as Henry Floyd, whose story unfolds over nearly two decades and reveals the complex intersection of personal, political, and religious conflicts in post-Revolution England.

Lloyd first appears in the records in 1696, when he was fined two pounds for refusing to take the oaths of allegiance to William and Mary. This was a significant sum—enough to make a substantial contribution to poor relief when the fine was paid to Dorney's overseers. Lloyd's refusal to swear allegiance to the new Protestant monarchs marked him as potentially disloyal to the regime that had displaced the Catholic James II. The same year brought more serious charges. Lloyd was indicted for breach of peace and for assaulting Susan Atkinson, the wife of Rev. Henry Atkinson.

This incident initiated a series of legal troubles that would plague Lloyd for years, involving multiple recognisances, forfeited bonds, and orders for his arrest. The conflict with the Atkinsons suggests personal animosities that may have been exacerbated by religious and political differences.

By 1698, Lloyd's situation had deteriorated dramatically. Joseph Street, described as a victualler (innkeeper) of Dorney, accused Lloyd of having "uttered Treasonable words against the person of his most sacred Majestie King William the Third." Street further claimed that Lloyd "is a person disaffected to the Government as now established, and of wicked and dangerous principles."

The court took these accusations seriously enough to issue a general order for Lloyd's arrest, noting that he "privily lurks and hides himself in divers obscure places of this County not easily to be discovered."

The image that emerges is of a man driven underground by his political and religious convictions. Lloyd's story suggests someone caught between old loyalties and new realities—possibly a Catholic or Jacobite sympathiser in a village increasingly dominated by Protestant conformity.

His conflicts with Rev. Atkinson and the innkeeper Joseph Street hint at deeper community divisions that went far beyond mere personal animosity. The persistence of Lloyd's legal troubles—with recognisances extended, discharged, and renewed over many years—suggests a man who refused to submit quietly to the new order. His ability to find sureties and post bonds indicates he retained some support within the community, even as he faced accusations of treason.

The records trace a complex dance of arrest orders, forfeitures, and temporary accommodations that speaks to both the determination of authorities to control him and his own resourcefulness in evading complete suppression.

 

Everyday Crimes and Community Disputes

Beyond the dramatic cases of religious and political dissent, the Quarter Sessions records reveal the everyday conflicts and minor crimes that punctuated village life in Dorney. These cases, while less sensational than accusations of treason, provide crucial insights into the social dynamics and moral concerns of the community.

In July 1683, William Batchellor, John Dollyn, and Andrew Brothers were indicted for "riotously and unlawfully assemblynge themselves." The charge suggests organised resistance or protest, though the records provide no details about what motivated their gathering or what actions they took.

The fact that Andrew Brothers later served as constable in 1690 indicates that involvement in riotous assembly did not permanently disqualify someone from positions of trust within the community.

Disputes over property and boundaries appear frequently in the records. William Barr's case in 1686—accused of making unauthorised ditches and hedges on the Maidenhead to Windsor road—illustrates the ongoing tensions over land use and transportation rights. The highway between these two important towns was a vital commercial artery, and any obstruction would have affected travellers and trade. Barr's actions may have reflected a property dispute or an attempt to claim rights over adjacent land.

Theft, while not common in the records, occasionally surfaces in particularly colourful forms. In 1701, Bartholomew Langley of Dorney, along with William Newman of East Burnham, was accused of breaking into the house of John Aleyn, esquire, and stealing "4 quarts of black cherry wine." The specificity of the theft—not just wine, but black cherry wine, and precisely four quarts—suggests either a carefully planned crime targeting specific luxury goods or an opportunistic raid on a well-stocked cellar.

Even members of the gentry faced moral regulation. In 1704, Charles Palmer, esquire, was convicted "for one oath"—presumably profanity uttered in public. The fact that such a minor offense by such a prominent person warranted court attention demonstrates the comprehensive nature of moral oversight in early eighteenth-century village life.

Violence, when it occurred, often seemed to arise from personal disputes rather than random criminality. The case of John Deane in 1726 provides vivid detail about one such incident. Deane, described as a gardener, was accused of assaulting Sarah Jarvis, described as both a spinster and a servant of "Mr. Seddin." According to the recognisance, Deane not only tore her clothes but "swore he would kill her." The incident occurred at night and was serious enough that "the parson of the parish Cryed out Murder," requiring the constable to be roused from bed to deal with the situation.

 

Economic Life and Social Structure

The occupations and social descriptions that appear in the Quarter Sessions records provide valuable insights into Dorney's economic foundation and social hierarchy during this period. The village supported a diverse range of economic activities that went well beyond simple agriculture. At the foundation of the economy were the farmers and agricultural labourers who worked the fertile Thames-side land.

The Goodchild and Langley families appear repeatedly in various capacities—sometimes as constables, sometimes as defendants, always as significant figures in village life. Thomas Goodchild, for instance, served as constable in 1695 but was indicted for assault the following year, suggesting the complex social positions these substantial farmers occupied. The village supported a range of craftsmen and tradespeople essential to rural life. Joseph Street operated as a victualler, running what was presumably the local inn or alehouse—a crucial institution for both social life and commercial travellers. Daniel Winter worked as a hatter, providing essential headwear for the community and surrounding areas. The presence of a hatter suggests Dorney was connected to broader commercial networks, as hat-making required specialised materials and skills. More specialised still were the maltsters, represented by Humphrey Clarke and William Fellowe. Malting—the process of germinating grain to create the raw material for brewing—required significant capital investment and technical knowledge. The devastating fire that struck Clarke and Fellowe in March 1707 illustrates both the scale of their operations and their vulnerability to disaster. Damage assessments by local craftsmen and fellow maltsters established their losses at over £440—a substantial fortune for the time. The case reveals the sophistication of the local economy, with bricklayers John Luffe and Samuel Roberts, carpenters Robert Mewes and Thomas Ward, and maltsters Israel Hobbs, John Oliver, and Thomas Saunders all providing professional assessments of the losses. Other craftsmen mentioned include John Appleby, a blacksmith whose skills would have been essential for maintaining agricultural tools and shoeing horses, and Robert Westcott, described as a cordwainer or shoemaker.

The presence of these specialised trades indicates a community that had moved beyond subsistence agriculture to support a range of professional services.

At the apex of the social hierarchy stood the gentlemen, most prominently the Palmer family who maintained their position throughout the period despite their apparent Catholic sympathies. Other gentlemen like Henry Lloyd and John Bronch also held significant status, though this elevated position brought corresponding scrutiny from authorities. The social fluidity suggested by these records is remarkable. The same individuals who appeared as defendants in one session might serve as witnesses, sureties, or even constables in another. This suggests a community where past offenses did not necessarily disqualify someone from future civic responsibility, and where social rehabilitation was possible.

 

Family Dramas and Settlement Disputes

The Quarter Sessions records also illuminate the intimate family conflicts that became matters of public concern when they threatened community stability or created charges on parish resources. The saga of the Clarke family provides a particularly vivid example of how personal disputes could escalate into community problems. In 1710, Rebecca Clarke filed a complaint that would occupy the courts for months. She alleged that her husband Humphrey, the maltster who had suffered the devastating fire three years earlier, had fraudulently transferred assets worth £400 to his son Michael to avoid paying debts and supporting her. According to Rebecca's testimony, Humphrey had made over "all his stock, cattle, and personal estate" to Michael, who was his son by a former wife, and had then voluntarily retreated to the Fleet prison in London to avoid his obligations. The justices' investigation revealed a complex family drama involving multiple marriages, competing loyalties, and financial manipulation. Humphrey Clarke had rented a farm in both Dorney and Boveney with an annual value of £80 and had maintained stock worth more than £400. By transferring these assets to John Clarke (another son by his former wife) and then arranging for John's widow to assign them to Michael Clarke, Humphrey had effectively placed his wealth beyond Rebecca's reach. The court's response demonstrates the sophistication of early eighteenth-century social welfare administration. Rather than simply accepting Rebecca's destitution, the justices ordered that the overseers of Boveney should provide her with 6 shillings and 8 pence per week and that Michael Clarke should be rated an additional £1 6s 8d per month to reimburse the parish. If the rate fell into arrears, the justices were empowered to issue warrants for distraint—essentially, the seizure of property to satisfy the debt.

Settlement disputes, while less dramatic than the Clarke family saga, were equally important for understanding community boundaries and obligations. The case of Thomas Godard in 1718 illustrates the careful legal attention paid to establishing where individuals belonged for purposes of poor relief. The decision that Godard, his wife, and children should be "removed" from Burnham to Dorney because he had lived there as a hired servant with Richard Sedding for the required twelve months demonstrates the precision with which communities tracked residency and responsibility. Interestingly, the records suggest that Thomas and his family may never have actually made the move to Dorney, as they continue to appear in Burnham parish registers but not in Dorney's. This disconnect between legal determinations and practical reality hints at the limitations of administrative authority and the ways in which ordinary people might resist or evade official decisions that disrupted their lives.

 

A Community in Transition

The Quarter Sessions records paint a vivid picture of Dorney during a crucial period of English history—a community grappling with the aftermath of religious and political revolution, where old loyalties clashed with new orthodoxies, and where personal disputes often reflected broader social tensions.

The village that emerges from these records is neither the idyllic rural community of nostalgic imagination nor the lawless frontier settlement of popular stereotypes.

Instead, we see a complex social organism where different groups—Catholics and Protestants, gentry and labourers, conformists and dissenters—negotiated their coexistence within established legal and social frameworks.

Religious persecution was real and systematic, yet it coexisted with remarkable social flexibility. The same Andrew Brothers who was accused of riotous assembly in 1683 later served as constable in 1690. Thomas Goodchild, indicted for assault in 1697, had previously served as constable and would later stand surety for others in legal difficulties.

This pattern suggests a community capable of redemption and reintegration—a place where past offenses did not necessarily disqualify one from future civic responsibility. The economic life revealed in these records shows a village that had evolved well beyond subsistence agriculture. The presence of maltsters, hatters, cordwainers, and other specialised craftsmen indicates participation in broader commercial networks.

The careful assessment of fire damage to Humphrey Clarke's malting operation, with multiple professional opinions and detailed inventories, demonstrates a sophisticated understanding of business valuation and commercial risk.

The legal mechanisms employed—recognisances, sureties, settlement determinations, and parish rating systems—reveal a community with complex administrative capabilities. The annual rotation of constables drawn from respectable villagers, the careful maintenance of court records, and the systematic follow-up on legal obligations all point to a society that took governance seriously and possessed the institutional knowledge to make it work. Perhaps most remarkably, these records demonstrate the resilience of community bonds even amid serious conflict.

Neighbours who faced each other across courtrooms continued to serve as witnesses and sureties for one another.

Men who had been accused of serious crimes were later entrusted with positions of authority.

Families torn apart by financial disputes remained embedded in networks of mutual obligation and support.

The story of Henry Lloyd illustrates both the possibilities and limitations of dissent in this period. While his alleged treasonous words and refusal to swear allegiance marked him as dangerous to the authorities, he continued to find people willing to stand surety for him and apparently maintained some level of community support. His ability to evade capture for extended periods suggests knowledge of local terrain that could only have come from friendly assistance.

Through the fragmentary but vivid testimonies preserved in the Quarter Sessions, we glimpse not just the crimes and conflicts of late seventeenth and early eighteenth-century Dorney, but the fundamental human experiences of a community navigating the challenges of faith, authority, and belonging in an age of profound change.

The village that emerges is one where tradition and innovation, conformity and resistance, individual ambition and collective responsibility existed in constant tension, creating the dynamic social environment that would shape Dorney's evolution for generations to come. These records remind us that even small communities participated fully in the great political and religious transformations of their time. The national struggle between Protestant and Catholic, between parliamentary authority and royal prerogative, between traditional hierarchy and emerging forms of social mobility, all played out in miniature in the fields, workshops, and meeting places of villages like Dorney.

The Quarter Sessions provide an invaluable window into how ordinary people experienced and shaped these larger historical forces, creating in the process the foundation for the modern English community.

Extracted from the Buckinghamshire Record Society transcript of the Quarter Sessions Calendars from 1678 to 1733

 

EASTER SESSION, 1679

Presentments of the petty constables

…Mr. Henry Palmer and Marmaduke Dorrell, gentleman, both of Dorney…for recusancy.

[Recusancy was the state of those who refused to attend Anglican services during the history of England and Wales and of Ireland; these individuals were known as recusants.]

 

EASTER SESSION, l680

Petty constables sworn.

Dorney . . . . William Smith vice Godfrey Bernard

[A parish constable, also known as a petty constable, was a law enforcement officer, usually unpaid and part-time, serving a parish]

 

CHRISTMAS SESSION, l680-81

Indictments

John Darrell, Henry Palmer, and Marmaduke Darrell, gentlemen, all of Dorney, for being popish recusants for three months

 

EASTER SESSION, 1681

Petty constables sworn

Dorney . . . . John Warwick vice William Smith

 

MICHAELMAS SESSION, 1682

Presentments of the petty constables

John Dollynge, Andrew Brother, and [blank] Batchellor, all of Dorney…for being absent from church

 

CHRISTMAS SESSION, 1682-83

Indictments

John Dollynge, Andrew Brother, and William Batchellor, all of Dorney…for being absent from church for three months

 

EASTER SESSION, 1683

Petty constables sworn

Dorney . . . . William Barr vice Edward Clisby

 

MIDSUMMER SESSION AT BUCKINGHAM

12 July, 1683

Indictments

William Batchellor, John Dollyn, and Andrew Brothers, all of Dorney… “for riotously and unlawfully assemblynge themselves.”

 

MICHAELMAS SESSION AT CHEPPING WYCOMBE

7 October, 1686

Indictments

William Barr of Dorney, for making a ditch and a hedge in the highway from Maydenhead to Windsor

 

EASTER SESSION, 1687

Petty constables and tithingmen sworn

Dorney . . . . Daniel Inwood vice John Manerd

[Tithingman - A parish officer elected annually to preserve good order in the church during divine service, to make complaint of any disorderly conduct, and to enforce the observance of the Sabbath.]

 

EASTER SESSION, 1688

Petty constables and tithingmen sworn

Dorney . . . . Thomas Grove vice Daniel Inwood

 

EASTER SESSION, 1689

Petty constables and tithingmen sworn

Dorney . . . . William Barre vice Thomas Grove

 

EASTER SESSION, 1690

Petty constables and tithingmen sworn

Dorney . . . . Andrew Brothers vice William Barre

 

MICHAELMAS SESSION, 169O

Recognizances extended.

Joseph Street of Dorney, victualler, in £20, with Daniel Winter, hatter, and Humphrey Clark, yeoman, both of Dorney, as sureties in £10 each, to keep the peace towards Thomas Godlyman.

[Recognizance - a bond by which a person undertakes before a court or magistrate to observe some condition, especially to appear when summoned]

 

EPIPHANY SESSION AT AYLESBURY

15th January, 1690-91 [2 William and Mary]

Recognizances extended.

Joseph Street of Dorney, victualler, in £20, with Daniel Winter, hatter, and Humphrey Clark, yeoman, both of Dorney, as sureties in £10 each, to keep the peace towards Thomas Godliman.

 

EASTER SESSION, 1691

Petty constables and tithingmen sworn.

Dorney . . . . John Marsh vice Andrew Brothers.

 

Recognizances extended.

Joseph Street of Dorney, victualler, in £20, with Daniel Winter, hatter, and Humphrey Clark, yeoman, both of Dorney, as sureties in £10 each, to keep the peace towards Thomas Godlyman.

 

MIDSUMMER SESSION, 1691

Recognizances discharged.

Joseph Street of Dorney, victualler

 

EASTER SESSION, 1692

Petty constables and tithingmen sworn

Dorney . . . . Thomas Costard vice John Nash

 

EASTER SESSION, 1693

Petty constables and tithingmen sworn

Dorney . . . . John Carter vice Thomas Coster

 

EASTER SESSION, 1694

Petty constables and tithingmen sworn

Dorney . . . . Richard Sudden vice John Carter

 

EASTER SESSION, 1695

Petty constables and tithingmen sworn

Dorney . . . . Eusebius Windsor vice Richard Suding

 

EASTER SESSION, 1696

Petty constables and tithingmen sworn

Dorney . . . . John Arden vice Thomas Goodchild

 

Henry Lloyd of Dorney, gentleman, was fined £2 for refusing to take the oaths contained in I William and Mary, c. 8.  The money was paid to the overseers of Dorney for the relief of the poor.

 

Recognizances discharged

Henry Lloyd and Richard Sudden, both of Dorney….Thomas Goodchild, farmer, John Appleby, blacksmith, and John Harding, farmer, all of Dorney

 

MICHAELMAS SESSION, 1696

Indictments

Henry Floyd, alias Lloyd, of Dorney, labourer, for a breach of the peace, and for assaulting Susan, wife of Henry Atkinson.  [Removed by certiorari.]

 

Order estreating [enforcing the forfeit of ] the recognizance of Henry Lloyd of Dorney, gentlemen, on account of his non-appearance to answer the indictments against him.

 

Henry Lloyd of Dorney, gentleman, forfeits his recognizance of £20 for non-appearance, and his sureties William Fellow of Boveney and Richard Sedding of Dorney, yeoman, forfeit £10 each.

 

Recognizances discharged

John Harding of Dorney, farmer….Henry Atkinson of Dorney, clerk

 

EPIPHANY SESSION AT AYLESBURY

15th January, 1696-97

Thomas Goodchild, Bartholomew Langley, and Richard Langley, all of Dorney, labourers, for rioting and for assaulting the Rev. Henry Atkinson.  [Fined £5 each and com- mitted until payment.]

 

Henry Lloyd of Dorney, gentleman, in £100 to keep the peace towards Henry Atkinson, and in £20 to appear at the Court of Exchequer, and Richard Sudden (Sedwyn) as his surety in the same amounts.

 

John Harding of Dorney, farmer, in £20, and Robert Boveingdon of Burnham, farmer, as surety in £20, for his good behaviour.

 

Recognizances entered into

Thomas Goodchilde of Dorney, and Bartholomew Langley of Dorney, all labourers, in £40 each, to appear and answer.

 

Recognizances discharged

Thomas Goodchild, farmer, and John Arden, yeoman, both of Dorney….Bartholomew Langley and Thomas Goodchild, both of Dorney, yeomen…Henry Atkinson of Dorney, clerk

 

EASTER SESSION, 1697

Petty constables and tithingmen sworn

Dorney . . . . Eusebius Windsor vice John Ardin

 

Recognizances entered into

Bartholomew Langley of Dorney, yeoman, in £40, with John Ardin of Dorney, yeoman, and Jeremiah Goodchild of Great Marlow as sureties in £20 each, to keep the peace, and especially towards the Rev. Henry Atkinson.

 

Thomas Goodchild of Dorney, yeoman, in £50, with the same sureties as Langley in £25 each, for the same purpose.

 

Recognizances discharged

Bartholomew Langley of Dorney, yeoman, Jeremiah Goodchild of Great Marlow, Thomas Goodchild and John Ardin, both of Dorney, yeomen…Thomas Goodchild, husbandman, and Richard Sedding, yeoman, both of Dorney

 

MICHAELMAS SESSION, 1697

Fines and issues

Henry Lloyd of Dorney, yeoman, and his surety, Richard Sudden, similarly forfeit £100 each. [for non-appearance]

 

Recognizances discharged

Ann Gibbons of Dorney

 

EPIPHANY SESSION, 1697-98

Order estreating the recognizances of the following, on account of their non-appearance: John Harding and Robert Boveingdon, both of Dorney, husbandmen

 

Recognizances entered into

Henry Lloyd of Dorney, gentleman, in £40, with Thomas Goodchild and Bartholomew Langley, both of the same, yeomen, as sureties in £20 each, to appear and answer.

 

Fines and issues

John Harding of Dorney, husbandman, forfeits his recognizance of £20 for non-appearance, and his surety, Robert Boveingdon of Burnham, husbandman, also forfeits £20.

 

Recognizances discharged

Henry Lloyd, gentleman, Richard Sedwin, yeoman, and Charles Palmer, gentleman, all of Dorney

 

EASTER SESSION, 1698

Petty constables and tithingmen sworn

Dorney . . . . John Cordwell vice Eusebius Windsor

 

General order for the arrest of Henry Lloyd of Dorney, gentleman, who was accused, on the evidence of Joseph Street of Dorney, “of haveing uttered Treasonable words against the person of his most sacred Majestie King William the Third, and is a person disaffected to the Government as now established, and of wicked and dangerous principles.”  The order was issued because the Court had been informed that Lloyd "privily lurks and hides himself in divers obscure places of this County not easily to be discovered."

 

Fines and issues

William Pix of Newport Pagnell, wheelwright, and Henry Lloyd of Dorney, gentleman, forfeited their recognizances of £40 each for non-appearance, and the two sureties of the latter, Thomas Goodchild and Bartholomew Langley, both of Dorney, yeomen, forfeited £20 each.

 

MIDSUMMER SESSION, 1698

Recognizances discharged

Robert Harber, farmer, John Cordwell, and William Finch, all of Dorney

 

MIDSUMMER SESSION, 1699

Recognizances extended

Thomas Goodchild of Dorney in £20, with Richard Sedding and John Galimore, both of Dorney, as sureties in £10 each, for his good behaviour.

 

MICHAELMAS SESSION, 1699

Thomas Goodchild of Dorney forfeited his recognizance of £20 for non-appearance, and his sureties, Richard Sedding and John Gallemore, both of Dorney, forfeited £10 each.

 

EASTER SESSION, 1700

Petty constables and tithingmen sworn.

Dorney . . . . Nathaniel Hunt vice John Gallimore.

 

EPIPHANY SESSION, 1700-01

Recognizances discharged.

John Dolling, farmer, and Elizabeth Dorrell, both of Dorney…Robert Westcott of Dorney, cordwainer.

 

Writ of capias ad respondendum [a writ or process commanding an officer to place a person under civil arrest in order to answer a charge] addressed to the sheriff in respect of the following persons:

…Richard Langley of Dorney, labourer

 

EASTER SESSION, 1701

Petty constables and tithingmen sworn

Dorney . . . . William Griffin vice Nathaniel Hunt

 

MIDSUMMER SESSION, 1701

Recognizances discharged

Bartholomew Langley of Dorney, labourer

 

MIDSUMMER SESSION AT AMERSHAM

17th July, 1701

Indictments.

William Newman of East Burneham and Bartholomew Langley of Dorney, labourers, for breaking and entering the house of John Aleyn, esquire, and stealing 4 quarts of black cherry wine.  (Sess. R. 2/17)

 

EASTER SESSION, 1702

Petty constables and tithingmen sworn

Dorney . . . . John Seddin vice William Griffin

 

MIDSUMMER SESSION AT AYLESBURY, CHEPPING WYCOMBE, CHESHAM,

NEWPORT PAGNELL, AND BUCKINGHAM

16th, and 27th to 30th July, 1702

Jurors for the body of the county

The following were summoned but were not sworn:

…John Dollin of Dorney (“not warned”),

 

Isaac Beddall, bailiff of the hundreds of Chiltern, fined 6s. 8d. for omitting to warn John Dollyn of Dorney for service on a jury.

 

Indictments

John Bronch of Dorney, gentleman, for assaulting Elizabeth Carter [Not guilty].

 

EASTER SESSION, 1703

Petty constables and tithingmen sworn

Dorney . . . . Henry Stevens vice John Seddyn. Robert Grove and John Dolbin not sworn. 

 

EASTER SESSION, 1704

Petty constables and tithingmen sworn

Dorney John Dollyn vice Henry Stevens

 

MIDSUMMER SESSION AT AYLESBURY

13th July and 12th August, 1704

Convictions of swearers

Charles Palmer of Dorney, esquire, for one oath

 

EASTER SESSION, 1705

Chief constables sworn

Burneham

John Bellfeild of Lattimasse and Richard Sedwyn of Dorney, gentlemen, vice Richard Widmore and Christopher Williamson.

 

EASTER SESSION, 1706

Petty constables and tithingmen sworn

Dorney: Richard Grove vice William Turner; Thomas Costen and Thomas Goodchild not sworn. Witnesses: John Arding senior, John Dollin, John Sedding, and Eusebius Windsor. 

 

EASTER SESSION, 1707

Petty constables and tithingmen sworn

Dorney . . . . John Weston vice Richard Grove; William Maskall not sworn.  Witnesses: John Auding, John Dollin, Thomas Goodchild, Richard Seding, and Richard Webb.  (Sess. R. 24/53)

 

The Court allowed a certificate, addressed to William, Lord Cowper, Lord Keeper of the Great Seal, asking him to recommend the granting of Letters Patent “to collect the Charitable benevolence of well disposed people” in aid of Humphrey Clarke and William Fellowe, both of Dorney, maltsters, who had suffered serious losses from a fire on the 7th March.  John Luffe and Samuel Roberts, bricklayers, and Robert Mewes and Thomas Ward, carpenters, certified that the structural damage amounted to £214. 4s. 6d., and Israel Hobbs, John Oliver, and Thomas Saunders, maltsters, certified that the value of the malt, corn, etc., consumed was £226. 11s. Clarke had already paid duty on 218 quarters of malt, and this duty was to be refunded to him.

 

EPIPHANY SESSION, 1707-08

The Court allowed the certificate of the loss by Humphrey Clarke of Dorney, maltster, of 218 quarters of malt consumed by fire, and the reimbursement of £10 10s. duty paid thereon.

 

EASTER SESSION, 1708

Petty constables and tithingmen sworn

Dorney . . . . Jonas Humfrey vice John Weston

 

MICHAELMAS SESSION, 1709

Petty constables sworn.

Dorney . . . . Richard Sedding vice Jonas Humphreys. Thomas White not sworn. 

 

EASTER SESSION, 1710

Petty constables and tithinqmen sworn

Dorney: William Arden vice Jonas Humfry; Thomas White not sworn. Witnesses: Richard Seding, John Dollin, and William Dod. 

 

The complaint of Rebecca, wife of Humphrey Clarke of Dorney, maltster, that her husband had fraudulently made over to Michael Clarke, his son by a former wife, all his stock, cattle, and personal estate amounting to the value of £400, in order to avoid the payment of his debts and the maintenance of his wife, and that he was now a prisoner in the Fleet prison, whereby she was not able to support herself, was referred to the justices for the hundreds of Burnham and Stoke.

 

MIDSUMMER SESSION, 1710

Upon the report of the justices to whom the complaint of Rebeccah Clarke was referred, the overseers of Boveney were to allow her 6s. 8d. a week and to rate Michael Clarke £1. 6s. 8d. a month more than he was then rated in order to reimburse themselves.  If the rate was in arrear or not paid, the justices for the Hundred of Burnham were to issue their warrant for distraint.  The justices’ report found that Humphrey Clarke rented a farm in Dorney and Boveney of the annual value of £80 and had stock thereon worth more than £400; that he made over his farm and stock to John Clarke, a son by a former wife, and then voluntarily “removed himself to the prison of the Fleete there to reside” to avoid keeping his wife and paying “some few debts of hers”; and that the Fleet prison was not “a place whereunto by law, the said Rebeccah cann be sent to her husband.” John Clarke had lately died, and his widow had assigned the stock to Michael Clarke, another son of the said Humphrey, by his former wife. 

 

EASTER SESSION, 1711

Petty constables and tithingmen sworn

Dorney: James Dorrill vice William Ardin; Edward Lexton not sworn.  Witnesses: William Dod, Richard Webb, Michael Clarke, and Jonas Humfrey.

 

EPIPHANY SESSION, 1711-12

Recognizances extended

William Mascall of Dorney, with William Arden and John Atkins, both of the same, as sureties, to keep the peace towards Charles Palmer, esquire. 

 

EASTER SESSION, 1st May 1712

Recognizances discharged

John Mascall, William Arden and John Atkyns all of Dorney

 

EASTER SESSION, 28th April 1715

Petty constables and tithingmen sworn

Dorney: Joseph Francis vice Henry Puttenam

 

EASTER SESSION, 2nd May 1717

Petty constables and tithingmen sworn

Dorney: Nathan Hunt vice Nicholas Humphries. John Adkins not sworn. (Sess.R. 60/13)

 

EPIPHANY SESSION, 16th January 1717-18

The removal order of Thomas Godard, his wife and children from Burnham to Dorney was confirmed as he lived as a hired servant with Richard Sedding at Dorney for twelve months.  (Sess.R. 63/63)

 

EASTER SESSION, 28th April, 1720

Petty constables sworn

Dorney  John Bond vice William Griffin.  William Turner was not sworn.  Witnesses: William Dod, vicar, Richard Soding, John Weston, William Arding and Richard Webb.  (Sess. R. 71/135)

 

EASTER SESSION, 20th April, 1721

Petty Constables sworn

Dorney Henry Stevens vice John Bond

 

EASTER SESSION, 25th April, 1723

Petty constables sworn

Dorney  Robert Floyd vice William Turner

 

EASTER SESSION, 16th April, 1724

Petty constables sworn

Dorney  Richard Seddin vice Robert Floyd.  Witnesses: William Dod, vicar, Nathaniel Hunt, Henry Fellow, Richard Webb and William King. 

 

MIDSUMMER SESSION, 14th July, 1726

Indictments

John Deane of Dorney, gardener, for assault on Sarah Jarvis [Gervis], spinster. 

 

John Deane of Dorney; traversed

 

Recognizances entered into and respited

John Deane of Dorney for assault on Sarah Gervis [Jarvis], servant of Mr. Seddin of the same; sureties Richard Montague and Henry Dyment, both farmers of the same.  The said John Deane tore her clothes and “swore he would kill her, and threatened the Constable to beat his braines out when he was called up out of his Bead at 12 of Clock at night when the parson of the parish Cryed out Murder”.

 

Recognizances discharged

John Deane of Dorney

 

 

Provided by Virginia Silvester