sign in sign up
<<
Home , Aike, Burnby, Driffield, East Riding of Yorkshire, Everingham, Hutton Cranswick

Rural Settlement Contraction in the East of between the mid- seventeenth and mid-eighteenth Centuries By SUSAN NEAVE Abstract Evidence of settlement contraction in the form of marking abandoned house sites is to be found throughout , yet the tinting and causes of village shrinkage have received only limited attention from historians. This article explores the extent of settlement contraction in the between the mid-seventeenth and mid-eighteenth centuries. Nationally this was a period when population stagnation coincided with urban expansion suggestingwidespread rural depopulation. Using detailed documentary material relating to individual setdements, the possible causes of contraction are explored, and a link between landownership patterns and contraction is established. N the Introduction to Deserted Medieval periods but stresses that 'a lack of detailed Villages, first published in 197 I, documentation from medieval times ... I Beresford and Hurst drew attention to usually prevents the accurate identifi- another type of settlement, the shrunken cation of many presumed examples of village. They wrote: shrinkage of that period'? This cannot be The 'shrunken' village is a phenomenon full of said of the seventeenth and eighteenth cen- historical and archaeologicalinterest. Its living por- turies, yet little research has focused on the tion resembles any nomaal English village, while its shrunken village during this later period. grass-covered houses and streets resemble the One of the few exceptions is the work deserted sites. Its mysteries are open to the archae- ologist without trespassinginto cottage gardens and of Stuart Wrathmell, an archaeologist, under cottage floors. For the historian the variety of on post-medieval depopulation in causes and periods which cmtld produce a shrunken village , which demonstrated that present a major challengc to the intelligent use of documen- the dating of certain deserted or shrunken tary evidence.' village earthworks should be reconsidered.4 Historians and archaeologists alike have Other studies, for example Mary Dobson's been slow to accept this challenge. Housing examination of south-east England, have developments are gradually eroding many drawn attention to general population shrunken village earthworks, yet the decline in the late seventeenth and eight- shrunken village continues to be one of eenth centuries, but not to its impact on the most common features of the English the physical size of individual settlements? landscape. Indeed, as Christopher Taylor In response to the challenge posed by has commented 'It is probably safe to say Beresford and Hurst some twenty years that there is hardly a village in England ago, a study was made of post-medieval which does not have at least one or two settlement contraction in the East Riding empty plots where houses once stood'? In Village and Farmstead, 3 Taylor, I/illage and Farmstead, p 166. Taylor provides S Wrathmell, 'Village Depopulation in the 17th and I8th Centuries: examples of shrinkage at many different Examples from Nordmmbedand', Post-Medieval Archaeolo~},, 14, 198o, pp i I3-Z6. ~M j Dobson, 'The last hiccup of the old regime: population ' M W Beresford andJ G Hurst, eds, Deserted Medieval Villages, 1971, stagnation and decline in late seventeenth and early eighteenth p xviii (emphasis added). century south-east England', Contimdty and Change, 4, 3, I989, 2C Taylor, Village and Farmstead, I983, paperback edn 1984, p 165. pp 395-428. Ag Hist Rev, 41, 2, pp I24-i36 24 RURAL SETTLEMENT CONTRACTION IN THE EAST RIDING Or YORKSHIRE 125 of Yorkshire. 6 This is an area where con- records survive except for these limited siderable work has been carried out by periods, s Beresford and others on medieval depopu- For the East Riding, the earliest surviv- lation, and where documentary and carto- ing assessment is for Michaelmas 167o, but graphic evidence suggested that the century the document is in poor condition. Of after the Kestoration was likely to be a key those East Priding assessments which are period in the history of the shrunken more or less complete, 1672 was chosen village. for this study as it appears to give the fullest and most legible lists of both tax payers and exempt householders. 9 Other hearth I tax assessments from the early I67OS were Two sources provided the basis for a study substituted where necessary. of settlement contraction in the raral East Although often used to estimate total Riding between the mid-seventeenth and population, the hearth tax is most reliable mid-eighteenth centuries, a set of hearth as a source for assessing the number of tax returns for I672, and returns made in households in a settlement, since no mul- response to an archiepiscopal visitation tiplier is required. If anything, it is likely questionnaire of 1743.7 that the hearth tax under-represents the The hearth tax, levied between 1662 number of households, since the lists of and 1689, was paid according to the those exempt from payment are sometimes number of hearths per household. Those incomplete. who were already exempt from paying The archiepiscopal visitation returns of church and poor rates, and others who 1743, available for the diocese of , could obtain a certificate confirming that provide information on, amongst other they lived in a house worth £I or less a things, the number of families in each year, did not occupy land worth more than . ~° P..eturns survive for most East £I a year, and did not possess goods, P,.iding . For a handful of larger chattels, lands or tenements in excess of parishes, the number of families is obvi- £1o in value, were also exempt. The tax ously an estimate, but in the majority of was levied at two shillings per hearth, cases a precise figure is given. There were payable in half-yearly instalments. Under sufficient single-township parishes within the original act, collection was to be made the East Riding to enable comparison with by the constables of each township, but in the hearth tax figures to be made for I664 this responsibility was transferred to individual setdements. In parishes which specifically appointed officials. From comprised two or more townships, changes I666-9, and again from 1674-84, the in the number of households/families in collection of the tax was farmed out, and the parish, rather than in each of the from 1684 until its termination in I689 it constituent townships had to be examined. was collected through a special com- In order to use the above sources to mission. Since assessments were only examine physical changes in settlement returned to the Exchequer during the per- size, it is necessary to consider whether iods when the tax was not farmed out or

dealt with by the special commission, few s For further information on the hearth tax see C D Chandaman, The En~.lish Public Revem~e 166o-1688, Oxford, I975, pp 77-1o9; ~See the author's unpublished PhD thesis 'lkm,'al Settlement J D Purdy, Yorkshire Hearth Tax Returns, Centre for Ikegional and Contraction in the East Priding of Yorkshire c x66o-t76o', Univ Local History, , I99I, pp i-I8. of Hull, 199o, on which this article is based. 9 P1LO, Ei79/2o5/5o4. 7PP-O, 179/2o5/5o4; S L Ollard and P C Walker, eds, Archbishop '°Ollard & W,'dker, Herring's Visit, i-v. The original returns are at Herrit~'s Visitation Raurns 1743, i-v, Yorks Archaeol Soc Record the Borthwick Institute of Historical Research, York (hereafter Series (hereafter YASP,.S), 71, 72, 75, 77, 79, I927-3~:. BIHIk), BpVd743/Iket. 126 THE AGRICULTURAL HISTORY REVIEW 'household' and 'family' represent what will be falsely inflated. The hearth tax Laslett has termed 'houseful', that is, 'all returns probably give an under-estimate of persons inhabiting the same set of number of households; thus where there is premises,.~ a decrease between 1672 and 1743 this A number of historians studying rural may be even greater than the figures indi- areas have assumed that each head of cate. It can therefore be argued that 'house- household mentioned in the hearth tax lists hold' as used in the hearth tax returns and occupied a separate dwelling, in other 'family' as used in the visitation returns are words, a tax-payer assessed for one hearth comparable units and provide an acceptable lived in a one-hearthed cottage. Spufford, basis on which to study settlement contrac- for example, in Contrasting Communities, tion. The validity of this argument can be maps the distribution of one-and two- tested by examining a settlement where hearthed houses in from cartographic evidence of shrinkage is also the hearth tax returns. I~ In the East Riding available. other sources, for example rentals taken by 'house row', indicate that it was uncom- mon for more than one household to II occupy a property. Where a property was The East Riding village of Watton lies in joint occupation, this was made clear in some eight miles north of , in the the hearth tax returns by bracketing the valley of the . The settlement is names of the householders. split into two sections by the Bevefley- The comments of the clergy in their road. To the west of this road is responses to the visitation questionnaire in the core of the modern village, comprising 1743 suggest that 'family' was generally a single street built up with houses on both interpreted to mean a person or group of sides. On the eastern side of the main road, people living under one roof. The incum- and some distance fi'om it, stand the rem- bent at Cottingham near Hull noted that nants of a Gilbertine priory (Watton 'There are about 277 families in this parish, Abbey, now a private house), the village reckoning in every house inhabited a church, and a handful of cottages. It is family; although in 20 of these houses there clear, especially when viewed fi'om the air, is but one inhabitant'. '3 Similarly at that Watton was once a much larger village, in deanery the for running north-south alongside the road incumbent reckoned a fmrfily to every to Driffield lie a series of house platforms house inhabited although again he was - a classic example of a shrunken medieval careful to point out that some of these village. Or is it? The documentary evi- 'families' comprised only one or two dence tells a different story. people, x* Three early maps of Watton survive: This suggests that in the rural East one dating from the lnid-seventeenth cen- Riding the visitation returns are a fairly tury; a second drawn in I7O7 but based on reliable indicator of the number of occu- an earlier survey; and another dated 1761 pied houses in a settlement. If, however, (see Figure I). is several families did share accommodation, The two earlier maps show cottages the estimated number of houses in 1743 where the empty platforms now stand. By 1761 only one building remained in this

"P Laslett and Ik Wall, eds, Household and Family in Past Time, Cambridge, I972, p 36. '~The nfid-seventeenth century map is in County '~M Spufford, Contrastittg Comnutnities, Cambridge, 1974, Pp 39-45. Archive O]fice (hereafter HCAO), DDX/128/3. Both eighteenth- '3Ollard & Walker, Haring's Visit, i, p I5o. century maps are in private bands. The Beverley-Driffield road '40llard & Walker, Her@e's Visit, i, p 1o6. has been straightened in the present century. RURAL SETTLEMENT CONTRACTION IN THE EAST RIDING OF YORKSHIRE I2 7 /

TO DRIFFIELD !..

L

. /* ,-',~ % \ i 'i! i,p. 7:..~ ~.:~..;..~ i i~. ~.~'.~,:. ¢

/'7, i-i i ill <.i i!1

..: ...... • ~. '2~ , ';::..,

(a)

,~ ,' ..... ] ,. t/,',, . i • ! i " i j /, i

• ,2,. ~:.: ' ,..~::~, . ii~.i~,:','Z,. • , ..., : "5 i'.'., .... ! (b) FIGURE i Settlement contraction at Watton (a) Map of I7o7, 'drawn from an old survey' (I,) The village in I76I 128 THE AGRICULTURAL HISTORY REVIEW TABLE I Change in number of households/families in the rural East Riding between 1672 and 1743" (by wapentake) Wapentake** 16 7 2 1743 Change % Decrease (Households) (Families) 16 7 2 /17 43

Howdenshire 729 528 -- 2oi 27.57 Buckrose 1313 96I - 352 26.8 I Holdemess - South IOO4 757 - 247 24.60 Holdemess - Middle I 238 95o -- 288 23.26 Harthil] - Bainton Beacon 838 655 - 183 21.84 Harthill - Hohne Beacon 1005 790 - 215 21.39 Dickering 2o58 1691 -- 367 17.83 Hullshire*** 275 226 - 49 17.82 - North 1099 920 -- 179 16.29 Ouse and Derwent lO66 9o5 - 161 I5.IO Harthill - Wilton Beacon 943 852 -- 91 9.65 Harthill - Hunsley Beacon 1360 1251 - 109 8.o I All wapentakes 12,928 lO,486 - 2442 18.89

* excluding the principal towns of Hull and Beverley. A haudful of rural settlements, where 1743 figures were not available, were also excluded. ** the wapentakes of Holdemess and Harthill are subdivided into several divisions. *** the townships surrounding Hull which (together with the town of Hull), fom~ed the county of Hull or 'Hullshire' have been treated as a wapeutake. Sources: see note 7.

area, and the number of houses lining the whether the 1743 figures were lower or main street had almost halved. Population higher than those for 1672. The total figures for the village support the map decrease in number of households/families evidence; in 1673 [sic] there were 71 between 1672 and 1743 for these 84 town- households at Watton, but by 1743 only ships was 19.26 per cent, comparing 34 families lived there. ~6 The empty house favourably with the figure of 18.89 per sites in this particular settlement clearly cent for the whole riding. From this list represent a post-medieval shrinkage. individual settlements where contraction Using the hearth tax returns and visi- was particularly marked could be identified tation returns, an analysis of settlement and more detailed case studies made. contraction for the whole of the rural East For the study to be valid it was, of course, Riding, subdivided by wapentake, was necessary to compare and contrast settle- made. The results are given in Table I. ments which shrank with those which A more specific list was drawn up of remained more or less stable in size. For those East Riding townships where the this purpose one particular area of the East 1672 and 1743 figures were unambiguous Riding, the Bainton Beacon division of - primarily where a parish comprised a Harthill wapentake, was examined. In the single township, or where the visitation seventeenth and eighteenth centuries the figures were subdivided into townships. division comprised fourteen ecclesiastical Eighty-four townships met these criteria. parishes, containing twenty-five townships: The selection was made irrespective of Bainton (including the townships of Bainton and Neswick), , '~PR.O, E179/2o5/523; Ollard & Walker, Herring's I/is#, iii, p 2t3. The I673 hearth tax figure was used since it gave a marginally Great Driffield (Great Drifiqeld, Little higher number of householders than the t672 list. In addition tu Driffield and Elmswell), Holme on the the contraction of the village centre, there had been a reduction in the number of outlying £arms in the township by tile mid- Wolds, (Hutton eighteenth century. Cranswick, and ), RURAL SETTLEMENT CONTRACTION IN THE EAST RIDING OF YORKSHIRE I29

River Derwent

DICKERING

IIrldllngton BUCKROSE

North Sea

HARTIIIL L HARTHILL York O WILTON NORTH BAINTON

IIOLDERNESS OIISE &

DERWENT HARTIIII. L /--- BeverleyC)

HARTIIILL II 0 I. M 1/ MIDDLE + I{UNSLEY ItOLDERNESS IIOWDEN- HULLSIIIRE( S II I R E SOUTli

4 8 12 IIO[.DERNESS

FIGURE 2 East Riding wapentakes

Kilnwick (, Beswick and the pattern of the riding as a whole, thus Bracken), IGrkburn (, Eastburn, making it an ideal unit for detailed and ), Lockington exanfination. (Lockington and ), Lund, , , Skerne, III , and Watton. The Bainton Beacon The prelinfinary part of the study focused division was partly chosen because of its on analysis of population levels in the situation at the heart of the East Riding, Bainton Beacon division. Population esti- ensuring that influences upon its settlements mates for c i672 and I743 were obtained were largely confined to that identifiable from the hearth tax and visitation return region (see Figure 2). Topographically the figures, using a multiplier ( x 4.5), and from landscape is varied, ranging from low-lying an analysis of material from parish regis- settlements in the valley of the Hull river, ters. ~v The results obtained by both for example Watton (see above) to Wolds settlements such as Warter, where the land 'THearth tax returns for x67o, 1672 and 1673 (PRO, E179/2o5/5o4,514,523) were examined, and the highest figure rises above 6oo feet. The demographic for each township used. Parish registers for the Bainton Beacon experience of the division, and incidence division are all at HCAO, with the exception of the Wafter registers, which are at BIHR. Bishops' transcripts (BIHR.) were of settlement contraction there, mi:rrored used to fill gaps in the registers wherever possible. ii i' I3O THE AGRICULTURAL HISTORY REVIEW ii methods suggested a decrease in actual the number of transactions recorded in the population of around 2o per cent in the Registry of Deeds. Bainton Beacon division. A more detailed When the material on landownership analysis of burial and baptism figures structure was presented alongside the per- showed that, although the division experi- centage decline in size of individual settle- enced several periods of crisis mortality ments, a link between number of (notably I679-81 and I728-9, both per- landowners and vulnerability to contrac- iods of national crisis mortality), these did tion was apparent (see Table 2). The not have a long-term impact on population majority of the settlements under the con- levels. Overall, during the seven decades trol of only one or a small number of from z67z-z74o, 858z baptisms were landowners experienced substantial con- recorded, but only 7964 burials, indicating traction, and m some cases had been a natural growth in population. The decline reduced to one or two fames by the mid- in size of many settlements in the division eighteenth century. This suggested that was not a result of a natural population settlement contraction could be a direct decline. result of changes in land use or agricultural Having established that other causes of practice, such as emparking, , or settlement contraction must be sought, a an increase in size of farms, initiated by study of the landownership structure of the major landowners. A selection of East settlements within the Bainton Beacon div- Riding case studies which demonstrate this ision was then undertaken. The East point are given below. Riding is fortunate in that it is one of only four areas where a R.egistry of Deeds was established in the early eighteenth century IV (in the case of the East Riding, the R.egistry The creation of landscape parks is seen as commenced in z7o8). '8 The first two vol- one the principal causes of depopulation in umes of the township index of the P,.egistry the eighteenth century. In the East Riding (covering the period ZTO8-Z756) were emparking was a contributory factor in the searched and the number of land trans- shrinkage of several settlements and actions in each township in the Bainton occasionally led to the destruction of a Beacon divisioi, recorded, on the assump- village. This was the case at Easthorpe, a tion that townships where a high level of small settlement which lay in activity was recorded had a number of parish. freeholders, whereas those where few or The site of Easthorpe lies south-east of no land transactions took place would Londesborough village, its eastern town- probably be under the control of one or a ship boundary adjoining the Bainton small number of landowners. The material Beacon division. The settlement, which drawn from the P,.egistry of Deeds was comprised twelve households in I672, and used in conjunction with a list of freehold- ten cottages and four farms in the early- ers who voted in an election in z 742, and, eighteenth century, was depopulated when in the absence of an earlier reliable source, the park associated with Londesborough with the land tax returns of the z78os. '9 Hall was extended? ° The townships were ranked according to There may have been a small deer park at Londesborough in the Middle Ages, but ,8 The l~egistry of Deeds, located at Beverley and now incorporated in HCAO, was concerned primarily with freehold land, although it was not until the mid-seventeenth cen- mortgages, wills and leases exceeding a term of ~venty-one years could also be registered. Copyhold land was not dealt with by the iKegistry. :°PIKO, E179/2o5/5o4; D Neave, Londesborough: History of an East '~' Yor,ks Poll Book, 174a; HCAO QDE/I (land tax returns). Yorkshire Estate Village, Londesborough, 1977, p 6.

4 RURAL SETTLEMENT CONTRACTION IN THE EAST RIDING OF YORKSHIRE I~I

F. [.z.l v~ t~

o "~ ~ o

o u g

~ ~ o : o oo o o {'/) ~ ~ ~ i1# z .-d &) • ,_~ ,.~ ..a '-o ~ ~ '-

.. o ' + \o \o v ~ o o ~ o', v ~ o ~

o

•< .@

e~

e,

oo ~ r~ 0 "J" ['. 0 v'~ v'~',O 1~-00 ,° e~ u.1 ~0000000 ',,"~0 ~. '0'0 ",0 D',-oo o0 O'~O~ O~ Ox 0 ~0000000 :7. o

N ~

v~oo O. I ~o m* "a'o mm o 0 0 ~ o o ~ ~ o o I

~ u

• ~ 0 .~

'-' ~ ~"~ ~ ,"~ 0

k~L Y #K Y #

.° .~ ='~ .& g o " 0 N " (.~ o o .£ ~, ~ ,~ ~-~ ~ .. + T ~o 0 0 ~ I f'l 0 ,-. 0 ~ ~. o o ,~ I i.~ .~ I.~ t~

J I32 THE AGRICULTURAL HISTORY REVIEW tury, when the estate was in the hands of forced to seek work and accommodation Richard Boyle, ISt Earl of Burlington, that elsewhere. work on the present park commenced. In the medieval period enclosure of Extensions to this park were made open-field land, and the subsequent con- rf throughout the second half of the seven- version of the land to pasture, has been teenth century and by I7O4 it had shown to be one of the major causes of encroached upon agricultural land belong- village depopulation. ~4 The importance of e~ ing to Easthorpe township. Eventually the enclosure before c I76O has been high- a: settlement of Easthorpe was destroyed. lighted by Wordie who has estimated that fi Additions said to have been made to some 75 per cent of land in England had I Londesborough park in the year I738 been enclosed (in the legal sense) by this include Easthorpe Green and several houses date. Furthermore, he estimates that 28 per P and garths. A rental dated I739 mentions cent of land was enclosed between I6oo I two ruinous cottages and a further five and I76O. ~5 One therefore needs to con- Sl cottages 'all pulled down' at Easthorpe. ~I sider what effect enclosure had on settle- £ Earthworks of the former village can still ment size between these dates. Several y be seen within the park. studies have been made of enclosure in the i t In the north-west comer of the riding early-modem period, for example by 1" the settlement of was partially Buflin, who has written on England as a ; 11 destroyed in the early-eighteenth century whole, and Hodgson, whose work deals when the grounds of Scalnpston Hall were primarily with the county of Durham. ~-6 In t laid out. A map of c i73o suggests that these and similar studies the emphasis has, 2 some houses in the eastern half of the however, been on the chronology of i village had recently been cleared for this enclosure and its impact on the landscape, t purpose, and by W66 more cottages had rather than on the size of individual settle- t gone in order to create the kitchen gardens ments. In some instances this is due to the t of the hall. ~ Forty-nine households were lack of reliable source material. Reed, for recorded at Scampston in 1672, but by example, found it difficult to assess the I743 only around two dozen families impact of enclosure upon the demography lived there. ~3 of individual townships in North Similar examples of villages having been in the period 15oo- 175o swept away or reduced in size for empark- owing to the lack of satisfactory population ing are to be found throughout England. sources for the county before I8OI. 27 As Emparking was commonly associated with has been shown, this is not the case in the agrarian reorganization, and provided land- East Riding, where it can be demonstrated owners with an opportunity to reduce the that a number of settlements whose open number of cottages to the mininmm fields were enclosed between the mid- required to house key estate workers. seventeenth and mid-eighteenth centuries Whilst many tenants benefited from the improved quality of housing provided in :4 See, for example, M Beresford, 771e Lose l/illages of England, 1954, new estate villages, others for whom no especially chapter 6. such provision was made found themselves :sjlk Wordie 'The Chronology of English Enclosure z5oo- 1914', Econ Hist Rev, 2nd ser 36, 4, 1983, pp 488, 495. :61K A Butlin, 'The enclosure of open fields and extinction of common rights in England c.16oo-175o: a review', in H S A Fox and 1k A Butlin, eds, Change in the Countq,side: Essays on Rural :' Chatsworth House Archives, Bolton Abbey MSS 293, 32I and El(~land 15oo-19oo, 1979, pp 65-82; Ik I Hodgson, 'The progress bundle entitled 'Old Indentures, Distresses, Valuations and of enclosure in , 155o-187o', in Fox & Butlin, Agreements'. Change in the Countryside, pp 83-1o2. ~ Hull University Library (hereafter HUL), DDSQ(3)/3 I/2,5. :v M Reed, 'Enclosure in North Buckinghamshire, 15oo-175o', Ag • 3 PIkO, EI79/2o5/5o4; Ollard & Walker, Hetring's Visit, iii, p 122. Hist Rev, 32, 2, 1984, p 143. RURAL SETTLEMENT CONTRACTION IN THE EAST RIDING OF YORKSHIRE 133 experienced a decline in both population a dispute concerning tithes of hay; it is and size. from the evidence presented before the At Birdsall, an estate village some five church courts in 1682 in connection with miles south-east of Malton, the number of this dispute that the association between households recorded in 1672 was seventy. the depopulation of the township and the The open fields of the township were conversion of its lands to pasture is known. enclosed by agreement in I69I-2. There According to one witness, the town or are no population figures available for the village of Eastburn '... did anciently consist first half of the eighteenth century, but by of a great many messuages, cottages and 1764 only thirty-seven families lived in dwelling houses ... the said messuages and Birdsall# s At , near Pocldington, other dwelling houses were about twelve twenty-nine households were recorded in years ago totally demolished and the town 1672. A map and survey made in 1725 of Eastburn aforesaid quite depopulated by suggest the township comprised thirty-two John Heron late of Beverley'. In a perhaps farmhouses and cottages at this date. Six more realistic account, another witness years later, in 1731, the open fields of described Eastburn as having anciently con- Burnby were enclosed by private agree- sisted of 'several messuages and cottages'. ment. By 1743 only seventeen fan'filies He, along with other witnesses, confirmed lived in the township. -'9 Both settlements that Heron had pulled down most of the were dominated by one landowner, and in houses and converted the township to the absence of firm evidence, it must be pasture, s° Eastburn was not enclosed in the assumed that enclosure was part of a process physical sense; following depopulation the in which their estates were reorganized so township was initially used as a sheep walk that they could be worked on a more 'not divided by fences or ditches', and later profitable basis with larger farms and fewer a rabbit warren was planted there, s~ tenants. At Neswick, in Bainton parish, enclosure In the Bainton Beacon division of the of the open fields was a more gradual East Riding, nine of the twenty-five town- process which took place during the first ships were subject to non-Parliamentary half of the eighteenth century. The princi- enclosure before the mid-eighteenth cen- pal estate at Neswick was acquired by tury. In at least two cases this enclosure Thomas Eyres in 1714, and evidence from took place after the Restoration, and in the Registry of Deeds shows how he and both cases depopulation resulted. his successor, Robert Grimston, bought At Eastburn, a now-deserted settlement out the other freeholders in the township. within Kirkburn parish, the circumstances Associated with these purchases was the surrounding enclosure were perhaps more enclosure, in stages, of the open fields, and typical of the Middle Ages than of the progressive clearance of the settlement) ~ seventeenth centul3r, with a deliberate In 1672 twenty-five households were clearance of the village by a new landowner recorded at Neswick. By 1764 there were who considered it more profitable to graze only eight resident families; fifteen years sheep. The whole of Eastburn was acquired later the township comprised only Neswick by John Heron of Beverley between I664 Hall and two farms, s3 and 1666, and soon after he converted the township to pasture. This eventually led to 3°BIHIk, CPH 5705. 3'A Harris 'The Lost Village and the Landscape of the Yorkslfire Wolds', Ag Hist Rev, 6, 2, 1958, p 98. :s PRO, Et79/2o5/5o4; B English Yorkshire Endosure Au,ards, Hull, s:Ikegistry of Deeds, Q/3i2/792, Ik/38/88, Ik/I35/3"o, 1985, p t9; BIHIK, BpVA764/Iket. lk/142/335; HCAO, DDWIK/I/54. :gPIKO, E179/2o5/5o4; HCAO, DDAN/239; Ollard & Walker, ~ PI'ZO, E179/2o5/5o4; BIHIk, BpVA 764/Iket.; HUL, Herring's Visit, i, p 87. DDCV/, I6/I. 134 THE AGRICULTURAL HISTORY REVIEW Some eighteenth-century landowners either case any property associated with apparently chose to amalgamate farm hold- the freehold became surplus. This occurred ings into larger units irrespective of at Warter, in the Bainton Beacon division, whether or not enclosure had taken place. where the Penningtons of Warter Hall An estate with few tenants required less gradually bought out other freeholders in management than one with many small the township in the first half of the eight- tenants. Some initial outlay on improved eenth century. In 1725, for example, farm buildings might be necessary when Sir Joseph Pennington purchased a farm larger farms were created, but fewer tenants belonging to a freeholder named generally meant less expenditure on prop- Hurdsman. Instead of finding a tenant for erty repairs. The amalgamation of farms the farm, Pennington divided the land provided an opportunity to increase rents, amongst sixteen of his existing tenants and if the economic conditions were favour- increased their rents accordingly. 36 able, and a larger tenant was more likely Warter provides a classic example of a to be able to pay his rent during periods settlement where estate records give some of-agricultural depression. In 1749 an East indication of the timing of contraction and Riding farmer complained in a letter to the physical effect which this had on the the York Courant that: village. In 1673 there were eighty-five The gentlemen of estates, to prevent the trifling households at Warter, but by 1743 only expense of repairing their cottage-houses, have fifty-eight families lived in the township. 37 suffered them in all a manner to drop down over Kecords suggest that contraction was of a the heads of the poor cottagers, throwing the little piecemeal nature, with cottages demolished ground which belonged to them to the larger farms, when they fell into a poor state of repair, at the old or perhaps an advanced rent, tho' there is now no house to maintain ..)4 or when a tenant died or moved away. Kentals taken by 'house row' show how On the Dean and Chapter of York's the empty plots were usually rented by the estate at Cottam, near Driffield, the cost of tenant of the adjoining house. In 1715, for property repairs was clearly a factor in the example, Robert Turner's house and garth demolition of cottages. In 17o6, when adjoined that of Richard Parkins, which in there were nine houses and cottages at turn adjoined that of John Sheiavood. By Cottam, it was noted that the tenants were 1736 William Turner had succeeded poor, and that their houses were cosdy to Kobert Turner as tenant. Parkins and repair owing to the shortage of local Sherwood no longer appeared in the rental, timber. In 1719, when the lease of the and their cottages were no longer listed, estate came up for renewal, the Dean and but 'Sherwoods and Parkins garths' had Chapter authorized the lessee to demolish been acquired by Turner. 38 all but four of the houses. By 1743 only A similar policy of ~'adually reducing one fam_ily lived at Cottam) 5 the number of houses available to tenants Engrossment of farm holdings com- was pursued by Sir Marmaduke Constable monly followed the purchase of smaller on his estate at , twelve miles freeholds within a township by the princi- south-east of York, again in the first half pal owner. Instead of letting the farm to a of the eighteenth century. In 173o Sir new tenant, the landowner would add it Marmaduke instructed his steward 'I would to another holding, or split the land rather have my cottages diminished, than between a number of existing tenants. In increased, though I am now in Everingham

34 York Courant, 2x Feb 1749. 361kegistry of Deeds, M/I 11/169; HUL, DDWA/6/23. J~KJ Allison,ed, l/'ictoria Colmq, Histoq, Yor'ks E Riding, vol 2, 1974, 37PRO, E179/2o5/523; Ollard & Walker, Herring's 1/isit, iii, p 212. p 267; Ollard & Walker, Herring's Visit, i, p 16x. 3~ HUL, DDWA/14/4,9. 1 RURAL SETTLEMENT CONTRACTION IN THE EAST RIDING OF YORKSHIRE 135 at or about the number of houses I would were to be maintained, let alone increased, be at', and some ten years later he noted substantial migration into the towns from that 'Few houses and good is what I rural areas was essential. The extent to propose in Everinghanl'.39 Everingham which this migration was forced upon the comprised fifty-seven households in 1672, rural work force is difficult to assess, but but by 1743 there were only twenty-seven in the case of the rural East Riding evi- families in the parish. 4° dence suggests that movement was not At both Warter and Everingham, con- always through choice. traction took place over several decades; many of the farmhouses and cottages were demolished only after a tenant had left or V died. In other cases, for example following In the East Riding of Yorkshire, documen- the demolition of cottages at Eastburn tar,/ evidence demonstrates that many when the township was converted to pas- settlements decreased in size between the ture, tenants were clearly forced to leave. mid-seventeenth and mid-eighteenth cen- Where did these people, and the younger turies, and that a number of 'shrunken people for whom cottages were no longer village' earthworks date from this period available in many rural settlements, go? of contraction. Although the population of Limited evidence which exists suggests that many townships increased again in the late- some people moved into larger, more open eighteenth and early-nineteenth centuries, settlements, and that many others went to this was largely due to the establishment of work in the rapidly expanding towns.*' post-enclosure farmsteads away from the On this point, the population figures speak village centres, with their large households for themselves. Recent research suggests of farm servants living-in, rather than the that England experienced a prolonged physical growth of nucleated settlements. phase of population stagnation commenc- In some cases the timing and causes of ing around the middle of the seventeenth post-medieval settlement contraction are century and lasting well into the eighteenth well-documented; in others the reasons for century. 42 This period of stagnation depopulation remain less clear. Ironically, coincided with a time of significant urban at Watton, where good cartographic evi- growth. The population of alone dence is available, the causes of depopu- increased from around 400,000 in 165o to lation can only be surmised. But, as in the 675,ooo in 175o, an expansion which took case of so many other contracting settle- place in spite of high levels of urban ments, the core of the village was in the mortality.43 In the cramped and insanitary hands of a single landowner, emphasizing living conditions of the poor, which were the apparent link between settlement con- to be found in most of the larger towns, traction and the nature of landholding. epidemics had a more widespread and Comparative work on two east Midlands severe effect than in the countryside. The counties shows for this region a pattern consequence was that if population levels similar to that found in the East Riding, with many settlements supporting fewer ~'~P Ikoebuck, ed, G, nstable of Everingham Estate Correspomtenee households in the mid-eighteenth century J726-43, YASP.S, 136, 1976, pp 28, ~28. *°PB.O E179/2o5/5o4; Ollard & Walker, Herrille'S Visit, i, p 189. than in the mid-seventeenth century. 4, See Neave 'Settlement Contraction', chapter 11. Using hearth tax returns (1665) and visi- 4:E A Wrigley and lk S Schofield, The Population Histor), of England 1541-187 I: A Reconstruction, paperback edn with new introduc- tation returns (I723) for four south tion, Cambridge, 1989, esp. pp 2o8-9. wapentakes (62 parishes), an 41E A Wrigley 'A Simple Model of London's hnportance in Changing English Society and Economy 165o-175o', Past & Pres, overall drop of households/families of I6 t 37, 1967, p 44. per cent between these dates was found. It J il "

136 THE AGRICULTURAL HISTORY REVIEW is possible the decrease would have been Demographic material from elsewhere higher had figures closer to the mid- suggests that settlement contraction eighteenth century been available. 4* A between the mid-seventeenth and mid- similar exercise was carried out using eighteenth centuries was not confined to figures available for ninety-five the eastern . Figures parishes. Here the available for , for example, decrease between households in 1664 show that 45 per cent ofviUages supported (hearth tax) and families in 1743 (visitation fewer households in 1712 than in 165o. 47 returns) was 18.6 per cent, a result remark- Of twenty-seven rural par- ably close to that obtained for the East ishes studied by Tranter seventeen (63 per Riding. *s This is particularly surprising in cent) experienced a fall in population the light of the contradictory figures pre- between 1671 and 1720. 48 And in a study sented by Chambers in The Vale of Trent of eight rural parishes in , 1670--1800. 46 the total number of households decreased by 14 per cent between I664 and 1743 .49 Similar studies to the one outlined above, 44 PR.O, E/179/I40/79I (typescript copy in Lincolnshire Archives especially in areas which contrast with the Office), i% E G Cole, ed, Speadum Dioeeeseos Lhlcolniemis pt I, Lincs Record Soc, 4, t913. East Riding, would help evaluate the *~W F Webster, ed, Nottinghamshire Hearth "Fax J664:1674, importance of the post-Restoration period Thoroton Soc 1%ecord Ser, 37, x988, pp xvi-xvii; Ollard & Walker Herring's Visit, iv. in the history of the shrunken settlement. 4~ Using 1674 hearth tax returns and 1743 visitation returns for sixty- two Nottinghamshire 'agrictfltural' villages Chambers recorded a impossible to determine precisely which villages Chambers studied, I2.7 per cent increase in population, and for forty 'industrialized but it would appear that his to-, settlements included most of the villages' a 47.8 per cent increase in population. The discrepancy ninew-five used here. between Chambers's figures and those given here can partly be 47A Percival, 'Gloucestershire Village Populations', Local Population explained by the inadequacy of the 1674 Nottinghamshire hearth Studies, 8, 1972, Appendix. tax which is not consistent in recording exempt households. If the 48N L Tranter, 'Denmgraphic Change in Bedfordshire from incomplete t674 returns are substituted for the 1664 returns for 167o-18oo', unpublished PhD thesis, Univ of , the ninety-five parishes studied here, a modest rise of 1.5 per cent 1966, pp m5-6. in population by 1743 is recorded, but this goes little way towards 49M F Pickles, 'Agrarian Society and Wealth in Mid-Wharfcdale accounting for Chambers's substantial rises. Unfortunately it is 1664-I743', Yorks Areh.]nl, 53, I981, PP 72-3.