Sixteenth Century London - Peacocks Were There

Researched and Compiled by Brenda Templeton

Of course Peacocks were in London and the general area well before the sixteenth century but I recently came across some information about Thomas Peacock who was appointed an official Viewer of London in 1553.

I was not familiar with this term and upon checking it out learned that it was an office similar to that of today’s City Inspector. Viewers consisted only of masons, carpenters, and tilers who were master craftsmen who belonged to a Company (or Guild)

As the city of London grew over a five hundred year period, it’s population became extremely crowded and it’s buildings were often in need of repair. The growth of population and the lines of property ownership changed so much during that long period that litigations among property owners became more and more frequent.

The City Customs (laws) were enforced by aldermen and the mayor’s office but eventually the need for qualified “Viewers” became apparent as old boundaries were becoming more and more indistinct. More buildings were being erected and large sections of what had once been church property were being put on the market. Old buildings and boundaries such as stone walls and roads/streets were crumbling, chimneys were leaning or falling, streets were being used as sewers, and businesses such as butchers, tanneries etc were in direct proximity to residences. Often a person would build a shed or other type building on his lot and use the shed for a butcher shop, tannery or whatever.

Many times the neighboring property owners would complain that the shed was on or too near their own property line. When this was determined to be the case, the shed had to be dismantled and moved. Other disputes arose over the erecting of a new building which had no entrance on the street, having been built behind whatever faced the street. Many times there was no garden or lawn space for the new building and a door at the back would be the entrance. This caused a problem with another property owner whose garden or lawn was between that door and the side street.

Imagine the idea of someone erecting a building with its entrance facing your front lawn or your back garden area and the only way in or out of that building was across your property.

There were also privacy litigations brought about by erecting a building in which a window overlooked the private garden area of the adjoining property, or perhaps just a window that was extremely close to the adjoining house or building, or even a building being erected which blocked out light and air from the windows and doors of the adjacent property. Maybe a new owner of a property installed gutters that directed the water onto the adjacent property, or the chimney on the adjacent house or building was crumbling and leaning, stones falling onto the neighbors building or garden. The city was old and as stated, many of it’s original property lines had become indistinct as stone walls and original roads and streets etc had disappeared over the years. A property owner leased a building to a tenant or tenants and they failed to keep the building in good repair. These were some of the problems that needed to be addressed by the city.

So more and more litigation was being brought before the city, declaring such things to be contrary to City Customs. at these problems and make some kind of decision or recommendation to the aldermen was addressed by appointing “Viewers”. Viewers were men at the top of their professions, Master and Wardens of their Company. These men had through the years gradually gathered to themselves privilege and status. They had successfully petitioned to be discharged from payment of taxes and subsidies due the king and from serving on juries. Viewer was an important office and was not held by unimportant men.

Thomas Peacock was both a Master and a Warden of the Company of Carpenters. As such he not only inspected properties and reported findings, but he also could examine and interpret documents such as old deed, leases, wills etc and interview “ancient men” who would have recollection of earlier boundaries, roads, buildings etc. He would not have had power to take the legal action for or against the parties involved in the litigation but he had to power to state his conclusion as to what should be done according to City Custom, and this would be enforced by the aldermen or Mayor.

His decision was often enough for litigants to settle their disputes according to his conclusion without going before the court. For someone to just “call in the Viewer” usually took care of the problem.

Viewers were appointed for life. The only way their office could be terminated was for reasons of physical incapacity or unexcused malfeasance. They were sworn to be available to the city whenever called upon without pay. The Chamber of London voted each Viewer a “stripped gown” annually. Apparently this was a high honor or status symbol which was bestowed as a condition of their attendance whenever called upon by the city. However, there was a fee payable to a Viewer for every view they made in which the city was not involved, such as from individuals, companies, and religious bodies who were involved in private views. Common payment was 5s per view and that amount multiplies by literally hundreds of views added up nicely for a Viewer. (There were only a few Viewers, perhaps one or two from each of the three companies (Carpenters, Masons and Tilers) and, as stated, these held their offices for life.

So it would appear that Thomas Peacock of London was a highly respected and probably quite wealthy man with lots of influence.

Another view of life in sixteenth century London shows another set of circumstances involving a William Peacock who was a butcher, or at least

As time passed the need for someone qualified to look belonged to the Butcher’s Company.

A charge of assault was brought against Mr. Peacock by a Mr. Thomas Bilson. The charge against Peacock was that he had caused “dangerous hurt to Bilson by a fall”. (Perhaps, Peacock knocked Bilson down in an altercation.) Surety for Peacock had been made by three friends, Robert Hunt and Thomas Brand of the Butchers Company and John Cox of the Barber/Surgeon Company.

The court “acknowledged and fined” and the fine was “respited”. I tried to research this terminology and I believe it meant that the court acknowledged that Peacock was responsible for Bilson’s “dangerous fall” and named the usual fine which was then waived. The most interesting thing about this case was that during the court process on this case, Mr. Cox was turned over to (bound) unto Mr. Peacock and Mr. Brand for “threatening Mr. Bilson in open court”. It sounds almost like an episode of TV’s “People’s Court”.

Reading between the lines here one can imagine the scenario. Although there is no likelihood that either of these Peacocks have any connection to our search for the ancestors of Samuel Peacock, it does at least give a glimpse into the everyday lives of Londoners in the sixteenth century, and Peacocks were there.

 

← Back to Peacock Paths / History