Rochester : Population Mid 17th Century

There is no documentation as comprehensive as the two early 17th century surveys until the parish records begin in 1672, but some evidence relating to the Howard tenure of the manor of Redesale, preserved amongst the Blackgate deeds now held at Northumberland Records Office, indicates that the picture did not change significantly in the intervening period (NRO - Blackgate and Delavel deeds). An account of the farm rents in the manor in 1651 (B25/VI/34) shows John, Michael and Antony Hall paid a total of £2 for 'Rotchester'.

A slightly later (11 Dec. 1660) schedule of the manor's farm tenants, which was attached to an arbitration award made in a dispute involving Charles Howard (B25/II/10), lists Roger Hall, Michael Hall and John Hall for Rochester. An Antony Hall appears again in 1687 (a son or relation of the earlier Antony?), named as the tenant for Rochester in a deed listing the principal manorial properties. The Roger Hall of the 1660 tenant schedule may be identical to the Roger Hall of Rutchester, who was said to be in arms with others against the Parliamentary forces on the 13th March 1654 when information was laid at Morpeth (Compounding Records, 376). Furthermore, a certain Michael Hall, of Dykehead, was similarly suspected of Royalist sympathies in 1655, as noted above.

It is possible that two of the tenancies listed in the 1651 and 1660 documents had been converted into freehold by 1687 to leave only a single tenement in Howard possession. Certainly two freeholders were listed for the area in 1698: John Hall of Rochester and William Hall of Dykehead, their superior status further emphasised by the fact that both were church wardens in the 1680's (EPR, 41).

William Hall might be the successor of the 1655 Michael Hall of Dykehead and the homonym of 1651 and 1660. Similarly John Hall of Rochester was perhaps a descendant of the mid 17th-century homonym and may have held land centred around the fort itself. At any rate the mid 17th-century documents suggest there may have been a reduction and consolidation of tenancies (Hillock was probably in Widdrington hands from at least 1632 and thereafter followed a separate course - see above).