 | |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
 |
A manor's size and boundaries were determined by the land controlled by the lord. His concern was for the income the manor could produce for him from his demesne, from rents and from amounts levied through the manor court. The lord might, as in the manor of Conisbrough, hold the royal assize over bread and ale, determining whether those commodities sold in the manor met with the statutory standard, and profiting from the fines levied on those who were considered in breach. Often these fines could be seen to be, in effect, payments for a licence to bake or brew. Fishing rights, right to ferry, quarrying and mining rights would be held by the lord, as they were in Conisbrough manor, and these would be rented out. A requirement for the inhabitants of the manor to use the lord's mill was another way for the lord to gain additional revenue.
Land was held in free tenure or in villein, or copyhold, tenure. The status of the land was separate from the legal status, in the medieval period, of those who held it. Freemen or villeins could hold land of both sorts of tenure; both types could be sub-let. Freehold land was transferred by charter, or deed, and disputes were settled in the royal courts. A nominal rent was due to the lord of the manor as "lord of the soil". Copyhold
close land, on the other hand, belonged to the lord and could only be transferred by "surrendering" the land to the lord, whereupon it was granted to the new holder, who paid an "entry fine" to the lord and thereafter the rents and/or services due annually. Theoretically, the lord could take back the land at any time and grant it to whomever he chose, but land was customarily assumed to be held for life and passed on to heirs or to others named by the existing holder. After the Black Death in 1348-50, a dramatically lowered population strengthened the position of tenants for a time, and the royal law courts later made the holding of copyhold land more secure. Land could be seized into the lord's hands if a tenant failed to pay rents or services, or if no heirs appeared to claim the tenancy after the death of the holder. Service
closes, applicable in the medieval period, could involve working on the lord's demesne, carting, ditching, threshing, shearing the lord's sheep or any other services that were "customary". Service
closes were ultimately replaced entirely by rents; the timing of this varied from manor to manor. Rents too were regulated by "the custom of the manor".
The manor economy was based around the village, of which there might be many in a large manor. The village contained a number of houses or cottages, each within a messuage or toft, and often with a croft or enclosure. Individual landholdings were split into a variety of locations. Meadow land, containing individually held plots, was located near streams and rivers; arable land was held in open fields. Each village had usually three or more large open fields, each one lying within a perimeter fence or hedge. A three-course crop rotation was normally followed, with spring-sown crops in one field, winter-sown in another, and a third left to lie fallow for the year. Each year the course for the fields was rotated, so that each field would lie fallow every third year to recover its fertility. For this reason, an individual's holding was normally divided amongst the open fields. But individual holdings were also scattered within each field. There were no visible boundaries within the open fields; boundaries of individual plots were marked by the furrows and by stakes in the ground at the end of the strips of ploughed land. The fallow field was ploughed from time to time, and animals were allowed in to graze, keeping weeds down and manuring the field. Animals were also let into the sown fields after harvest to graze on the stubble. It was at these times that the fields became "common"; internal boundaries were ignored, and the common herd grazed upon the entire field. There were other areas of land that were permanent commons (also known as "waste" although they were a valuable resource for subsistence farmers), used for common grazing, fuel gathering, pannage for pigs, gathering of nuts and berries. At times the pressure for additional arable land could become acute, and land was taken in from the commons to enlarge existing fields or create additional fields. These areas were often termed "intakes" or "ings" (water meadows).
This was very much a local economy, with most items consumed being produced within the immediate locality. The many amercements of women for baking and especially for brewing and selling ale indicate the extent to which women as well as men were producing for the local market. Most people, whatever else they produced, were subsistence farmers and, after rents and tithes had been paid, had little surplus. What little there was would be more readily available at certain times: after harvest and threshing, or after an animal had been slaughtered. There were no banks for people to store their savings or borrow; instead, they lent to and borrowed from one another, often in the form of deferred payment. The economy ran on credit, and one's creditworthiness was important. People were dealing with people they knew and trusted, and although there were disagreements over debts, the system seems to have worked effectively. While this was a money economy in the sense that goods and services were valued in money terms and expressed as such, there was little coin about, even in the seventeenth century when tithes, rents usually, and often wages were still paid in kind, usually corn. Again, since most requirements were produced locally, payment in kind was likely to have been common in many transactions.
The ability to marry depended largely, in an agricultural economy, on acquiring a large enough landholding to sustain a household. This is in turn was governed by inheritance, either by the death of parents or next of kin, or by the transfer of land during their lifetime. Women were expected to bring a dowry to the marriage: this could be land, but more commonly would consist of goods, money, or even services to be performed by her kin. Her property became that of her husband upon marriage, although land could be held jointly, but he was expected to provide her with a dower: lands and goods to sustain her for life if she were widowed. The dower was frequently one-third of the lands held by the husband in his lifetime, but this could vary according to the custom of the manor. If the wife brought lands as her dowry, these could in turn form her dower. A case from the Conisbrough manor court roll of 1349/50 illustrates this nicely. Elizabeth Pacy and John Robertson are about to marry. She surrenders land to be granted to herself and John, to descend to their children. If there are no surviving children, she and her heirs (children of a later marriage or her next of kin) are to have the land. Likewise, John surrenders land to be granted to himself and Elizabeth under the same conditions, this time to descend to him and his heirs if there are no surviving children of the marriage. In this way, each holding was kept within the respective families, whether the marriage resulted in children or not. The custom of dowry and dower still operated in the seventeenth century. If land held jointly by a husband and wife was transferred to another party, the grant could be considered null and void if the woman's individual permission was not recorded in the manor court roll.
Primogeniture (inheritance of lands by the eldest son) was common, but in some manors partible inheritance (inheritance by more than one son) was the custom. Younger sons or daughters might, of course, inherit lands from childless relatives; a number of these cases are indicated in the same court roll of 1349/50. Lands were often transferred to a son (thereby enabling him to marry) during the father's lifetime, when he himself retired or when his own household no longer required the full holding. Lands could also be transferred to parents or other relatives for their lifetime, reverting to the original holder after. The 1605 manor court roll shows Thomas Lund junior providing for his parents in this way. There could also be maintenance conditions placed on a grant. In the 1349/50 roll, Cecilia Heed was granted lands forever on condition she maintain Alan, son of John, who was the grantor, in food and clothing for life. Lands were often sublet for a period of years. This might occur when a minor was the holder, or when the lands were not currently needed by the household. Minor landholders were appointed a guardian, who took into "custody" both the minor and his or her lands until coming of age.
It is clear that open-field agriculture necessitated co-operation and regulation. The timing of ploughing and sowing had to be agreed, to avoid plough animals trampling on freshly sown ground. It was necessary to set a date by which crops had to be harvested in order to determine when animals could be allowed into the harvested field to graze. Stray animals had to be rounded up and prevented from damaging growing crops, and the perimeter fences around the open fields maintained. With individual plots lying adjacent to those of others, slovenly husbandry could have a wide impact. Weeds allowed to flourish on one plot could spread easily, and clogged drainage ditches would affect a wide area. There was always the possibility that, during ploughing, someone would attempt to encroach slightly on his neighbour's land. Before the fallow field was brought back into cultivation, the boundary stakes had to be replaced and their positions determined. Dates for allowing animals onto and taking them off the permanent commons had to be determined. Unless commons were plentiful, the number of animals pastured there would need to be restricted. There might also be regulations on the type and amount of fuel gathered. Pigs had to be ringed to prevent them rooting in gardens. These regulations and by-laws, whether applying to a specific individual, a village or to the entire manor, were agreed through the manorial court.
People at times transgressed against these regulations and were presented to the manor court and amerced. Other unneighbourly offences were more personal. There were charges of "making an affray upon" someone, frequently drawing blood. Raising a hue and cry against another, if deemed unjust, would result in amercement. The township constable, responsible for keeping the peace and for presenting offenders to the court, was elected annually from amongst the inhabitants themselves. This could be a difficult position. In 1605, in both Dalton and Greasbrough, constables were attacked in the course of their duties. Generally, those officers of the manor who were resident in it were in an awkward position. They had loyalties and responsibilities to the lord of the manor, to the high steward and to the decisions of the courts, but they were also subject to pressure from neighbours, friends and relatives.
There were occasions when, as credit was an essential part of the manor economy, there were disputes over debts. Very often, however, even when a plea was lodged with the manor court, an agreement between the parties was made outside the court without an inquisition being necessary. Settling an estate could give rise to disagreements, and the Conisbrough court roll of 1349/50 contains a number of cases of debt or unjust detention involving executors of wills. As with any court records, however, it must be kept in mind that these reveal the occasions when order broke down or people disagreed, not the many more times when neighbours, family and friends were in agreement and mutually supportive.